--------------------------------------------------------------------------

from the cabinet of curiosities of the Renaissance to the museum of the Enlightenment
THE ROLE OF COLLECTIONS IN THE CONSTITUTION & DISTRIBUTION OF KNOWLEDGE

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Maria PAPAVASILEIOU _Architect Engineer NTUA,Athens, GR _Master in Urban and Territorial Strategies, SciencesPO Paris, FR

2 | P APAVASILEIOU Maria

from the cabinet of curiosities of the Renaissance to the museum of the Enlightenment
THE ROLE OF COLLECTIONS IN THE CONSTITUTION & DISTRIBUTION OF KNOWLEDGE

INTRODUCTION / DEFINITION A cabinet of curiosities or cabinet of wonder (Kunstkammer or Wunderkammer in German), is an apparatus (dispositive) of display, interpretation and categorisation of a collection, that became popular among aristocrats, merchants, scientific researchers in the Renaissance Europe of 16th century. In the Europe of rising cities, such cabinets were to be found in Verona, Venice, Munich, Florence, London, Genoa, Torino, Amsterdam, Vienna and many other cities. The collections featured both artificialia and naturalia : in the cabinets one could find bones, staffed animals, paintings, shells, feathers, antiquities. The objects gathered were yet to be categorised and defined. The cabinet represents the furniture within which the collection is preserved, but it can also refer to the room or rooms if the collection grew bigger. The art of collection offered a place for place for meditation and scientific study on geology, natural history or ethnography and at the same time a mirror of the personal reflexion of the collectors view on the cosmic structure, and yet a means of symbolic power. The owners of the cabinets were either members of the aristocracy, whose main interest was to build up impressive collections, or doctors and pharmacists who were the ones interested in the understanding and scientific value of their collections (MacGregor and Impley, 1985). In this short essay we will focus on the scientific aspect of the cabinets of curiosities. OUR MAIN ARGUMENT is to show that the notion of the collection and the intention to give an order to chaos, to create a normal distribution and a taxonomy, is a tool for a rational understanding of the nature that pushed the development of the natural sciences. This visual and material organisation of collections would evolve from the cabinets of curiosities of the Renaissance, to the museums of the Enlightenment of the 18th century. Modern sciences were born during the 16th century, during the period that we call scientific revolution : they become experimental, mathematical and quantitative. The cabinets served as laboratories and cradles for these first steps of the science when it rejected the medieval theological structures of the catholic church and head to an epistemological consistency (Evans, Marr, 2006).

from the cabinet of curiosities of the Renaissance to the museum of the Enlightenment |3

A . THE CABINET AS A SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT

Il sagit dy exposer les thrsors de la nature selon quelque distribution relative, soit au plus ou moins dimportance des tres, soit lintrt que nous y devons prendre, soit dautres considrations moins savantes & plus raisonnables peut-tre, entre lesquelles il faut prfrer celles qui donnent un arrangement qui plait aux gens de got, qui intresse les curieux, qui instruit les amateurs, & qui inspire des ves aux savans.
cabinet de lhistoire naturelle, L'Encyclopdie ou Dictionnaire raisonn des sciences, des arts et des mtiers, dirige par Diderot & d'Alembert, 1751-1772

The cabinets of curiosities functioned as the first scientific instruments during the 16th and 17th century. The predominant idea in that period, that we qualify as scientific revolution, is that through science, nature can be controlled and not only observed. In order to understand the reason we consider them as instruments, we should examine the historical context around the constitution of the collection of the cabinets and the role of the cabinets in the taxonomy and circulation of scientific knowledge. During Renaissance, we assisted in a constitution of knowledge through a Cartesian rationalization and separation of humanities from science. The direct confrontation with the nature, fuelled by the discovery of instruments, enhanced the conviction that the experience is more important than the tradition. Whats more, the research of anatomy and human bodies helped to reveal not only the common elements among organisms, but also celebrate their differences. During these years scientists, artists and doctors took an interest into the unusual, the curious, the exception1 to the formal rule, instead of focusing on generalities as people did in the Middle Ages. During this era of rationality, the cabinets of curiosities build up the first effort of putting together similar things, understanding the links and recreating their unique history. Moreover, this period is characterised by the big travels and exploration expeditions. Asia, America, India, China and all the newly discovered places provided with several curiosities of natural or human origin the collectors. The cabinets of curiosities of researchers, doctors and pharmacists were thus developed after the second half of the 16th century and the most revealing are the ones of Francesco Calceolari in Verona (pharmacist) and Ulisse Aldrovandi in Bologna. None of those collectors belonged to the aristocracy or had relations with them: they were all people who have studied at universities and were interested in developing their scientific knowledge. Their cabinets were the material acquisition of diverse information2, before they would transform it into knowledge.

1 PAR Ambroise (1573), Des monstres et prodiges : he illustrated freaks of nature, disformations and anomalies that were becoming more fascinating. 2 Should the collections of a cabinet seem absurd, it reveals an aspiration to a universal understanding of the cosmos : five main categories were observed (MacGregor and Impley, 1985). The first one includes the cabinets of natural history, in Italy these were extremely developed. The second main preoccupation was to understand the position that hold human in the order and the temporal evolution of the world, thus the cabinets collectors searched for ancient objects (coins, statues, Egyptian mummies, tools). The third source of objects were the expedition travels that established a contact with African, Asian and American populations and their civilisation : the preoccupation for the European collectors was also to understand the position of human not only in a temporal scale, but also in a geographical scale that kept growing. The fourth category framed the limits of the human spirit and technique and lead collectors to seek after objects of wood, ivory or horn, that were astonishingly complex and perfect. The last category is the one of the cabinets of historically significant personalities that were also on the centre of interest and the objects associated to them , such as portraits, prizes.

4 | P APAVASILEIOU Maria

These apparatuses are classified by MacGregor and Impey (1985) among the other forms of collection that group natural observation and knowledge, such as zoological or botanical gardens and libraries. The main objective of the collectors and scientists was to understand the nature in its most exquisite and rare forms, to decode its secrets. Only later the Enlightenment encyclopaedists will be preoccupied by an holistic approach of the animal, vegetal and mineral kingdom, including the most banal species. The scientific contribution of the cabinets can be appreciated in several levels: we should distinguish the level of demystification, of contact with the scientific community and of the opening to the public. Firstly, the cabinets were the places where the demystification of the wonders of nature occurred (Findlen, 1994). Ulisse Aldrovandi (1522-1605), an Italian naturalist and the moving force behind Bologna's botanical garden, was part of the tendency that dominated the 16th and 17th century of normalising the marvellous and he was given the name Bolognese Aristotle. He held conferences around his spectacular cabinet comprising some 7000 specimens of the diversit di cose naturali, and showed his erudition as well as medical examination on animals, having as guests representatives of the pope, such as the archbishop, senators and his colleagues : he considered his scientific experiments as a civic spectacle that would bring the natural truth to the great public. Aldrovandi situated himself as collector in medias res : a man who maintained the balance between the nature and its human interpretation through the stage of his cabinet. In addition, the cabinets were open to the scientific community, through visits and several publications. The professor of medicine Olaus Worm (1588-1654) developed his collection of natural objects from 1620-1654, which he used as studying material for his students in natural philosophy, as did Aldrovandi. Worm published the four volumes of his opus Museum Wormanium. This is not a simple catalogue presenting his cabinet : far beyond a simple description, Worm put forward an analysis of the history of the objects of his collection, which were precisely illustrated by painters under Worms instructions. He recreated an hierarchical order of the nature, by analysing the different scales of mineral elements (stones), incects, animals and the human. Lastly, the great public was also invited to testify on the microcosm of nature. The cabinets of curiosities of Luigi Ferdinando Marsili consisted of specialised natural objects only, since he disapproved of the mixture of natural and artificial objects. His cabinet was an instrument of knowledge. For Marsili, the academic and didactic role of the collection was to reconstitute the order of the nature and to include even the most humble and common elements, that could lead to this path. This organisation and taxonomy classifies him among the first to predict the organisation of the museums of the 18th century.

from the cabinet of curiosities of the Renaissance to the museum of the Enlightenment |5

B. THE CABINET AS INSTITUTIONALISED KNOWLEDGE : THE MUSEUM from Renaissance to Enlightenment

On entreprend tous les jours des voyages dans les diffrens pays pour en admirer les rarets; croit - on qu'un pareil difice n'attireroit pas les hommes curieux de toutes les parties du monde, & qu'un tranger un peu lettr pt se rsoudre mourir, sans avoir v une fois la nature dans son palais? _,
L'Encyclopdie ou Dictionnaire raisonn des sciences, des arts et des mtiers, dirige par Diderot & d'Alembert (1751-1772)]

The turning point from Renaissance to Enlightenment constitutes a paradigm shift3 concerning the institutionalisation of knowledge and the relation between public and private sphere, that will lead the cabinets of curiosities to be absorbed by and rearranged into museums. During the 18th century, the universities and academies gained power, the research is praised and the clerisy were involved in the social, political and economical reform of the state (Burke, 2000). The rise of the museums is not only a response to the research and the curiosity, but also an attempt to control the crisis of knowledge following the massive import of objects from America, China and other expedition destinations. During the Enlightenment, the scientists re-edited the historiography of their discipline (Findlen, 1994) : natural history began with the 18th century transition from cabinets of curiosities to museums, since the latter formed an institutionalised and appropriate to common standards of taxonomy collection. The relation between collections, cabinets and the development of natural history is one that leads to the extreme rationalisation of the Enlightenment and the re-examination of the history of disciplines, that has to be represented in a greater and full scale : the one of a museum institution. Moreover, the cosmological significance that Renaissance cabinets aspired to give to the collection, fades in favour of a scientific approach where the objects speak for themselves, not through the eye of the collector, and new classification systems were proposed. What is more, since the 17th century, we have assisted a transition of knowledge and science from the private to public sphere4 and a politicization of methods. MacGregor and Impley (1985) use the example of the Medici collection which became accessible at the Uffizi Gallery in Florence. There, the octagonal room of Tribuna is designed in 1580s under Francesco I, in order to host antiquities and Renaissance paintings of his collection. Thus, the collection serves as a means of political patronage and propaganda. The state becomes the manager and the Uffizi Gallery becomes one of the first art museums that celebrate both political and cultural glory. Parallel to that, the appearance of museums on the 18th century is related to the appearance of the nation-states (Findlen, 1994). Museums functioned as a preservation of unique scientific achievements, cultural conquers and historical data, and underpinned the idea of the nation-state that began to develop the late 18th century.

3 4

KUHN Thomas (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions HABERMAS Jrgen (1962), The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere

6 | P APAVASILEIOU Maria

Thus, these achievements become institutionalised as the collective representation of a nation, rather than an individual portrait. (Louvre, Brera Museum in Milan). The revolutionary climate of the end of the 18th century, confirmed that all collections were no longer possession of the church, the King or of few scientists: they were the possession of the state. Museums, became with schools and other scientific and academic institutions, a matter of the state. Louis Jean Marie DAubenton (1716-1799) was a naturalist and doctor that developed the cabinet of curiosities of the King of France, which was transformed into the Natural History Museum after the French revolution. DAubenton held his place becoming its first director. DAlembert mentioned him in the Encyclopaedia when referring to the arrangement of the collection of natural history : Tel est larrangement quindiquent les principes quon a imagins pour faciliter ltude de lHistoire naturelle ; tel est lordre qui seul peut les raliser. The order is one and only and it should be followed so as the collection fulfils its purpose of educating.

INSTEAD OF EPILOGUE Since the Renaissance, the notion of collecting, categorising, observing and learning is a major tool of scientific advancement and research. The subjects change their point of view, from the personal perception of the Renaissance we arrive to the universal truths of the Enlightenment. The 20th century has been dominated by the archaeology of knowledge and the archival obsession of Foucault. Foucault stated in The Order of Things that all historical periods formed, accepted and projected as truth what was possible within certain specific socio-political conditions. And, if we dare a parallel projection to our immaterial era, can we consider blogs, or other personal websites, as the personal cabinets of curiosities of our century where people search and deposit their personal meaning of cosmos?

BIBLIOGRAPHY BURKE Peter, 2001, Social History of Knowledge: From Gutenberg to Diderot, Polity Press, Cambridge EVANS Robert John Weston and MARR Alexander, 2006, Curiosity and wonder from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment, Ashgate Publishing, FINDLEN Paula, 1994, Possessing nature: museums, collecting, and scientific culture in early modern Italy, University of California Press, London IMPEY Oliver and MacGREGOR Arthur, 1985, The Origins Of Museums : The Cabinet Of Curiosities In Sixteenth And Seventeenth Century Europe, Clarendon Press, Oxford MacGREGOR Arthur, 2007, Curiosity and Enlightenment : Collectors and Collections from the Sixteenth to Nineteenth Century, Yale University Press