WERE

COLLECTIONS
AND
M U S E U M S T O O L S O F N AT U RA L
P H I LO S O P H I C A L P RAC T I C E I N T H E
SEVENTEENTH
C E N T U RY
OR
S I M P LY
SITES
OF
LO C A L
CURIOSITY AND ENTHUSIASM?

SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY COLLECTING: KAMMERN, CABINETS,

MUSEUMS
The pursuit of collecting took on many different forms over the course of its
history in Europe. The fifteenth century saw the earliest stirrings of collecting as
a princely or at least noble endeavour. 1 Over the course of the sixteenth century
the notion of the collection diversified and expanded in both scope of interest
and social mobility, with development centred at first on Italy. 2 By the
seventeenth century, the situation had changed drastically from its initial,
aristocratic roots. Collections in the seventeenth century took on a wide variety
of formats. Princely Kunstkammern and Wunderkammern (art-chamber and
wonder-chamber respectively) still remained, though increasingly focussed on art
than on naturalia.3 Other collections existed however outside the aristocracy, in
the form of privately owned cabinets, specialised collections and public (or semi-

1 E. Hooper-Greenhill, Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge, (London, 1992)

[henceforth Hooper-Greenhill, (1992)].
2 Ibid, pp. 23; and also, G. Olmi, Science-Honour-Metaphor: Italian cabinets of
the Sixteenth and Seventeenth centuries, O. Impey and A. MacGregor (eds.),
The Origins of Museums: The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth and Seventeenth
Century Europe, (Oxford, 1985)[henceforth Olmi, (1985)]; and also P. Findlen,
Possessing Nature: Museums, Collecting and Scientific Culture in Early Modern
Italy, (Berkely, 1994)[henceforth Findlen. (1994)]; and also K. Arnold, Cabinets
for the Curious: Looking back at Early English Museums, (Aldershot, 2006)
[henceforth Arnold, (2006)].
3 L. Daston and K. Park, Wonders and the Order of Nature, 1150-1750, (New
York, 1998) [henceforth Daston & Park, (1998)]; and also Olmi, (1985); and also
Findlen, (1994).

public) or even institutional museums. 4 These new kinds of collections were part
of a diversification in the practice of collecting which had begun in the sixteenth
century as collecting was practiced by people from an increasing spectrum of
social strata and interests.5
These new kinds of collections were curated by different kinds of people with
different interests, and crucially with different goals. The aims of the traditional
aristocratic collections, Kunst

and Wunder- kammern, galleries and cabinets,

were primarily and principally twofold, to awe and impress upon visitors the
wealth and influence of the owner, and to provide a way of expressing and
exploring ones dominion over the known world, potentially serving as a physical
manifestation of an occult cognitive space.6 Privately owned cabinets were
mostly tools of social advancement, used predominantly by wealthy or wellconnected individuals seeking to increase their social standing through the
quality and uniqueness of their collections, with collecting in the seventeenth
century becoming a very well-respected occupation. 7 Specialised collections,
having risen to prominence in the sixteenth century, had become fairly
commonplace in the seventeenth, and were predominantly owned by academics,
physicians, botanists et. al., they tended to focus on collecting objects from a
specific area of study, and their use was primarily for research and developing
understanding of that discipline or philosophy. 8 Developing throughout the
seventeenth century is the public collection, beginning with the opening of
aristocratic collections to the public and developing into the first institutional
museums and collections in Italy, France and Britain principally. 9 These normally
had a level of support and influence that most collections did not, as well as
4 Hooper-Greenhill, (1992); and also Olmi, (1985); and also Findlen, (1994); and
also Arnold, (2006); and also M. Hunter, "The Cabinet Institutionalised: the Royal
Society's 'Repository' and its Background", O. Impey and A. MacGregor (eds.),
Origins of Museums: The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth and Seventeenth
Century Europe, (Oxford, 1985)[henceforth Hunter, (1985)]; and also M. Rudwick,
The Meaning of Fossils: Episodes in the History of Palaontology, (London, 1972)
[ henceforth Rudwick, (1972)].
5 Findlen, (1994); and also Olmi (1985); and also Hooper-Greenhill, (1992).
6 Daston and Park, (1998); and also Hooper-Greenhill, (1992); and also Olmi,
(1985).
7 Olmi, (1985); and also Findlen, (1994).
8 Daston and Park, (1998); and also Hooper-Greenhill, (1992); and also Olmi,
(1985).
9 Hooper-Greenhill, (1992); and also Findlen, (1994); and also Arnold, (2006);
and also Hunter, (1985); and also W. Ashworth, Emblematic Natural History of
the Renaissance, N. Jardine, J. Secord and E. Spary (eds.), Cultures of Natural
History, (Cambridge, 1996)[henceforth Ashworth, (1996)].

greater potential longevity. They predominantly existed with the intent to

educate, providing a resource for study and contemplation to help inform
understanding of the world.10
The seventeenth century was the site of many changes and developments in the
notion of collecting, caused by rapid social, political and economic change in
Europe at the time,11 and developments during that century would lead to many
of the changes which would give rise to the modern museum in the eighteenth
century and beyond.

ELITE COLLECTIONS: WONDER, DOMINATION, AND THE MEMORY

THEATRE
Forming the earliest types of collections are those of the elites. Collecting as a
past time for nobles and the aristocracy established itself first in Italy in the late
fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. 12 Elite individuals had the influence and
wealth required to establish impressive collections of objects, and it rapidly
became vogue for them to do so, with the tradition of elite collections spreading
throughout much of Europe over the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

13

The

contents of elite collections varied over the course of the seventeenth century,
though in general they predominantly consisted of a wide mixture of artistic and
natural objects, their only apparent link being their unusual, marvellous or
wondrous nature.14 Items were acquired for elite collections because they were
remarkable in some way, however the intended function of such collections,
Wunderkammern and Kunstkammern is debated.
The function of elite collections of this sort appears to have primarily been both
to impress upon any who see it the incredible wealth and power of the owner. By
showing the incredible range and splendour of objects from both the natural and
artificial world, elite collections served as a form of propaganda for their

10
11
12
13

Please see note 9.

Daston and Park, (1998).
Findlen, (1994).

Daston and Park, (1998); and also Patrick Mauris, Cabinets of Curiosities (London,
2002)[henceforth Mauris, (2002)].

14 Daston and Park, (1998); and also Olmi, (1985).

owners.15 The contents of elite collections, such as that of Francisco I de Medici

in Florence are often hugely varied, with items from around the world, and of
very different natures. Study of the catalogues made of many of these
collections shows that different kinds of objects were juxtaposed, highlighting the
difference and scope of the items held there. 16 With more and more elite
collections being opened to the public in the seventeenth century, the
aristocracy could increasingly showcase their wealth and power to the
populace.17
The broad range of objects in many elite collections also suggests that another
function was to form a microcosm of both the natural world and the human
world.18 Collections could come to represent the known world through the range
of objects they contained, indeed several collection catalogues heavily implied
that this was a goal.19 The traditional epistemic structures of associations and
magical knowledge persisted in the seventeenth century, even though new ideas
of discrimination and empiricism were becoming more popular across Europe. 20
As such the elite collection could form a world through which the owner could
walk and marvel, or stand in the centre of to possess and dominate. 21 Elite
collections could, through their variety and scope of wonders, represent the
extremes and exigencies of the natural world, allowing people the ability to
project their power over the world through possession of its material symbols. 22
It may also be the case, especially with the development of more learning
focussed specialised collections in the 17 th century, that elite collections served
also to encourage enthusiasm and study in natural philosophy and the natural
15 Daston and Park, (1998); and also Hooper-Greenhill, (1992); and also Olmi,
(1985); and also Arnold, (2006); and also Mauris, (2002).
16 Daston and Park, (1998); and also Hooper-Greenhill, (1992); and also Olmi,
(1985); and also Findlen, (1994).
17 Olmi, (1985); and also Findlen, (1994).
18 Daston and Park, (1998); and also Hooper-Greenhill, (1992); and also Olmi,
(1985); and also Mauris, (2002); and also A. MacGregor, The Cabinet of
Curiosities in 17th Century Britain, O. Impey and A. MacGregor (eds.) The Origin
of Museums: The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century
Europe, (Oxford, 1985)[henceforth MacGregor, (1985)]
19 Daston and Park, (1998); and also Hooper-Greenhill, (1992); and also Olmi,
(1985); and also Findlen, (1994); and also Arnold, (2006); and also Rudwick,
(1972); and also Ashworth, (1996); and also MacGregor, (1985).
20 Daston and Park, (1998); and also Hooper-Greenhill, (1992).
21 Hooper-Greenhill, (1992); and also Olmi, (1985); and also Findlen, (1994); and
also Arnold, (2006).
22 Findlen, (1994).

world. The wondrous and marvellous objects of elite collections fostering a desire
to enquire about the natural world, to learn how those objects came to be. 23 A
function of elite collections may therefore have been to patronise the
interrogation of the natural world, producing knowledge which (as Bacon had
reminded the world at the end of the sixteenth century) was power.
A fourth (and potentially more difficult to observe) function of the elite collection
is related to the art of memory. From classical antiquity up to certainly the
fifteenth century and probably beyond, many people, especially those of
learning, developed a mnemonic process whereby specific memories were
associated with objects, sights or other sensations, typically arranged in an
imagined house or garden.24 With the growing popularity and circulation of
books, the need to store knowledge in the mind diminished, and the art of
memory began to slip into disuse. It could be the case that with this change in
information storage, the art of memory became an occult storage method,
whereby knowledge could be kept safely in the mind of a single individual, safe
from the prying eyes of other people, potentates, or institutions, such as the
Roman Catholic Church.25 The precedent had already been set for creating a
physical representation of this mental space in Giulio Camillos Memory
Theatre.26 It is therefore conceivable that, through the association of memories
with objects, an elite collection may be able to represent a vast storehouse of
knowledge. The juxtaposition of differing objects becomes, rather than a way to
highlight variation and keep the displays fresh, a way of maximising the
partitioning of memories and the amount of knowledge that can be stored. The
wonder of the elite collection, in this way, becomes a smokescreen, to distract
others who see it from the unique function it serves to its owner. A function of
elite collections, therefore, may have been as a very personal library.
Elite collections then, it can be argued, were neither tools of natural philosophical
practice nor sites of local curiosity and enthusiasm. They may have fostered both
to one extent or another, but their purpose, as a significant part of the broader
group of collections and museums in the seventeenth century, is rather different.
They primarily existed as tools of propaganda, expressing wealth, power and
23
24
25
26

Daston and Park, (1998).

Hooper-Greenhill, (1992).
Ibid, pp. 91.
Ibid, pp. 97-8.

influence through the scope and rarity of the wonders they contained. Alongside
this however they helped represent, through the association of objects with facts
and natural knowledge, the known world. Elite collections provided a model of
the world, which their owners could project themselves onto, expressing
personally and publicly their dominion over and possession of nature and man
alike. Through the increased opening of such collections to the public over the
course of the seventeenth century that projection of power and dominion was
increased, and may also have served to foster curiosity and enquiry among the
greater population, a move supported by much of the European aristocracy. This
was because of an increasing awareness that improved knowledge of the natural
world was beneficial to any potentate, and this appreciation was shown by the
marked growth in elite patronage of natural philosophical enquiry and the
interrogation of nature during this century. 27 The variety and scope of elite
collections, more than merely to impress their variety upon the viewer, may have
been related to the use of the ancient art of memory to store and conceal
information in the arrangement of objects within the collection, though the
nature of this practice means that this use can only be inferred.
Throughout seventeenth century however, elite collections focussed more and
more on works of art, rather than on the wonders of nature, and more closely
resembled art galleries than what would be considered a collection at the turn of
the seventeenth century.

The constant shifts in usage and vogue in elite

collections allowed the wax and wane of several other kinds of collections which
existed concurrently, and had quite different intentions to those of the
aristocracy.

SPECIALISED COLLECTIONS: INTERROGATION, EDUCATION,

PRODUCTION
First developing around the turn of the seventeenth century was a new kind of
collection. These collections were not maintained by the wealthy and influential
aristocracy, and did not comprise incredible wonders picked from the variety of
the world. These collections instead focussed on amassing contents related to a
27 Olmi, (1985).

certain subject, for instance botany, or Italian ceramics, or coins. 28 These

collections were specialised, and their intended uses were markedly different
from the elite cabinets and collections discussed above.
The seventeenth century saw a substantial change in the nature of natural
philosophy, and of the perception and creation of knowledge in general.

29

There

was increasing focus on the production of facts through the interrogation of

nature. Instrumentation was increasingly being used and the wisdom of ancient
texts was being cast into doubt. Interrogation of the products of nature for the
pursuit of empirical knowledge formed the theoretical basis for a type of
collection that did not focus on the wondrous or the astounding, but instead on
furthering study.30
A specialised collection would, by its nature, comprise items all related to a
specific subject, with the intention of allowing greater study and understanding
of that subject.31 A botanist, for instance, may collect plants from around the
world, with the intention of furthering their understanding of the natural world
through studying them. Similarly in this way, the owners of specialised
collections could collaborate to improve their holdings and assist other scholars
in furthering their knowledge and understanding of an academic subject or
aspect of the natural world.32
Just as the contents of specialised collections differed, so did the people that
owned them. Specialised collections were never owned by the elites, but instead
by professionals, mainly scholars and learned individuals. 33 As a result, the
owners of specialised collections didnt have the wealth or influence of their elite
counterparts, and this encouraged the formation of links and associations
between collectors and traders. 34 In addition, as many of the objects these
collections sought were not the wonders that most were interested in, some
28 Daston and Park, (1998); and also Hooper-Greenhill, (1992); and also Olmi,
(1985); and also Arnold, (2006); and also Mauris, (2002).
29 M. Foucault, The Order of Things, (1966)[henceforth Foucault, (1966)]; and
also Daston and Park, (1998); and also Hooper-Greenhill, (1992); and also
Rudwick, (1972); and also Findlen, (1994).
30 Olmi, (1985); and also Daston and Park, (1998).
31 Olmi, (1985); and also Daston and Park, (1998); and also Arnold, (2006).
32 Olmi, (1985).
33 Olmi, (1985).
34 MacGregor, (1985); and also Arnold, (2006); and also Findlen, (1994).

items were easier to procure, or could be procured through other means. Several
collectors went on tours of Europe, Africa or the Near East to secure items for
their collection personally.35
Specialised collections were, predominantly then, tools of natural philosophical
practice, at least anachronistically, as notions of what natural philosophy was
changed drastically over the course of the seventeenth century. Thussly at the
turn of the century they were tools of the new knowledge, a kind of empirical
learning championed by Bacon and others and later embodied in organisations
such as the Royal Society in England and LAcademie des Sciences in France as
the new natural philosophy and what would eventually be known as science. 36
These collections were the first to bear an emphasis on education and producing
knowledge, and whilst other new kinds of collection would overshadow
specialised collections as the seventeenth century went on, specialised
collections remained in one form or another to the present day.

37

PRIVATE COLLECTIONS: CURIOSITY, ELEVATION, OCCUPATION

Developing alongside the specialised collection was a kind of collection which
followed, broadly, the model of elite cabinets and galleries, but differed in
several places. These collections retained the elite focus on the unusual and the
curious, and as elite collections moved more and more into an art focus, they
remained the principle medium for encyclopaedic collections encapsulating the
known world as the seventeenth century played itself out. 38 These collections
were often owned by wealthy individuals, but not members of the nobility, and
they normally lacked the scale of elite collections (though there are a few
notable exceptions, such as Tradescants Ark, Settalas collection in Milan and
Cospis in Bologna, among others). 39

35 Olmi, (1985); and also MacGregor, (1985); and also Findlen, (1994).
36 Daston and Park, (1998); and also Hooper-Greenhill, (1992); and also Olmi,
(1985).
37 Daston and Park, (1998); and also Hooper-Greenhill, (1992); and also Olmi,
(1985); and also Arnold, (2006).
38 Olmi, (1985); and also Hunter, (1985).
39 Olmi, (1985); and also MacGregor, (1985); and also Arnold, (2006); and also
Findlen, (1994).

These were private collections, with items being selected for many of the same
(apparent) objectives as elite collections. Items of wonder and curious nature
were collected and stored. Some of the aims were similar too. Private collections
(perhaps oxymoronically) became increasingly public over the course of the
seventeenth century and exhibiting scope and wonder of ones collection was a
way of both increasing ones social standing and earning income, demonstrating
your influence, wealth and connoisseurship. 40 In addition, the practice of
collecting became a well-regarded occupation during the seventeenth century,
more so than natural philosophy or enquiry. This in part led to the movement of
some of the owners of specialised collections to diversify, and others to be
pushed into historical obscurity. In either way however, the possession of a
private collection can be seen as a tool of social elevation. A good collection
could connect its owner to new networks of people and higher social echelons
(for instance Moscardos private collection helped elevate him to the aristocracy
himself as Count, Mercati gained noble patronage, as did Tradescant). 41
Private collections can therefore be seen primarily as social tools, used by
individuals hoping to gain influence and recognition through the strength of their
collections. Some private collections did not have the same drive and
competition that the larger ones did, and in those cases, they can truly be
understood in terms of enthusiasm and curiosity. 42 For many however collections
were rather more than a simple hobby, and a bastion for the once epitomical
encyclopaedic collection which was passing out of vogue until it was taken up in
the latter half of the seventeenth century under a new banner.

INSTITUTIONAL COLLECTIONS: ACADEMY, LONGEVITY, AND THE

MUSEUM
Whilst embryonic during the sixteenth century, an entirely new form of collection
was beginning to take shape across Europe, especially during the second half of
the seventeenth century.43 These collections often had vast scope, but were
confined predominantly to the natural world, eschewing artistry to the galleries

40
41
42
43

See note 39.

Olmi, (1985); and also MacGregor, (1985).
MacGregor, (1985); and also Rudwick, (1972).
Hunter, (1985).

of elites and the halls of private collectors. 44 These collections werent tied to any
individual owner or patron, but were instead owned and run by institutions.
Institutional collections were predominantly (at least in the seventeenth century)
created with scholarship in mind (a notable exception being the collection of the
East India Company).45 They were intended as places where people could come
to increase their knowledge, though the audience was normally limited to
members of the institution in question during the seventeenth century.
Institutional collections, not being tied to a single individual, also promised
greater security and longevity than private collections, and were often organised
differently to princely and private collections, and similarly to specialised
collections,

mathematically.46

Most

institutional

collections

were

easy

to

comprehend and navigate, and often aimed to maximise the amount of objects
that they could hold and (therefore) the amount of knowledge someone might be
able to generate from them. Institutional collections could even be considered an
instrument of natural enquiry themselves, like a telescope or air pump. 47
Whilst in practice many institutional collections were short lived, as they lacked
the stable patronage and wealth of elite and private collections, whilst
maintaining the vast scope that specialised collections lacked, some persisted
and expanded.48 Some of them opened to the public, whilst others were formed
from purchased or bequested private collections with the express intent of being
for public consumption (almost all institutional collections were based on private
ones, but some made the jump directly to public access when they became
institutionalised, such as when Tradescants collection was taken custody of by
Ashmole.)49 These collections, managed by an institution, open to the public,
intended to educate, formed the basis of what would today be considered a
museum. Tradescants Ark became the Ashmolean Museum. Sloanes collection
became the basis of the British Museum in the eighteenth century. 50
44 Arnold, (2006); Hunter (1985); and also Hooper-Greenhill, (1992), Olmi,
(1985); and also Rudwick, (1972).
45 Hunter, (1985).
46 Findlen, (1994); and also Hunter, (1985); and also Arnold, (2006); and also
Rudwick, (1972).
47 Arnold, (2006).
48 Hunter, (1985); and also MacGregor, (1985).
49 Arnold, (2006); and also Hunter, (1985); and also Hooper-Greenhill, (1992);
and also Ashworth, (1996).
50 MacGregor, (1985).

Institutional collections therefore were always, in one way or another, tools of

Baconian Natural Philosophy, but were also tools of education and understanding
which gave birth to the modern museum. 51 Their broader focus and relatively
selfless ambitions allowing a new kind of public collection in the eighteenth
century and beyond.

CONCLUSIONS: POWER, WONDER, KNOWLEDGE

Throughout the seventeenth century, the practice of collecting diversified, in its
audience, its intentions and its patrons. Traditional elite collections continued
their fascination with the wondrous, but the contents of the collections changed
from a juxtaposition of marvels of humanity and nature towards a purely artistic
collection. Simultaneously the aims of elite collections seem potentially variable,
and more varied that it at first appears, serving as projections of power,
metaphors for the known world, objects of dominion, and possibly even tools of
memory storage.
The seventeenth century also saw the rise of specialised, private and
institutional collections. Each with their own remit, intent, and patronage.
Specialised collections sought to foster knowledge production on an area of
interest, as well as being sites for enthusiasm. Private collections similarly held
an enthusiast element, but also increasingly became tools of social elevation and
posturing.

Institutional collections were

tools of natural philosophy and

understanding, which paved the way towards what today would be considered
museums.
Seventeenth century collections therefore were, much like almost everything at
the time, in turmoil.52 Their purposes were multifarious as the changing
philosophies, epistemes and politics of Europe at the time, some were tools of
natural philosophical practice, some were sites of curiosity and local enthusiasm,
and countless others were many other things. The rise of the institutional
collection, and later the museum, however, would cast a shadow over personal
51 Ashworth, (1996); and also Hunter, (1985); and also MacGregor, (1985); and
also Rudwick, (1972).
52 Daston and Park, (1998); and also Arnold, (2006); and also Hunter (1985); and
also Rudwick, (1972).

collections, consuming some and driving others out of vogue through the 18 th
and 19th centuries, leading to the 20th and contemporary mise en scene we
understand today.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arnold, K., Cabinets for the Curious: Looking Back at Early English
Museums, (Aldershot, 2006).
Ashworth, W. B., Emblematic Natural History of the Renaissance, in
Jardine, N., Secord, J. A., and Spary, E. C., (eds.), Cultures of Natural
History, (Cambridge, 1996).
Daston, L., and Park, K., Wonders and the Order of Nature, 1150-1750,
(New York, 1998).
Findlen, P., Possessing Nature: Museums, Collecting, and Scientific Culture
in Early Modern Italy, (Berkely, 1994).
Foucault, M., The Order of Things, (London, 2002).
Hooper-Greenhill, E., Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge, (London,
1992).
Hunter, M., The Cabinet Institutionalised: The Royal Societys Repository
and its Background, In Impey, O., and MacGregor, A., (eds.), The Origins
of Museums: The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth-and-SeventeenthCentury Europe, (Oxford, 1985).

MacGregor, A., The Cabinet of Curiosities in 17 th Century Britain, In

Impey, O., and MacGregor, A., (eds.), The Origins of Museums: The Cabinet
of Curiosities in Sixteenth-and-Seventeenth-Century Europe, (Oxford,
1985).
Mauris, P., Cabinets of Curiosities, (London, 2002).
Olmi, G., Science Honour Metaphor: Italian cabinets of the Sixteenth
and Seventeenth Centuries, In Impey, O., and MacGregor, A., (eds.), The
Origins of Museums: The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth-andSeventeenth-Century Europe, (Oxford, 1985).
Rudwick, M., The Meaning of Fossils: Episodes in the History of
Palaeontology, (London, 1972).