Tesis Coleccionismo

!"# $%&'( )* +%,#- ./&0%10*2 .
%''#3*045 04 *"# 60&1* 75# %8

9'%:)'01)*0%4; 3< =>>?@=A>?<
B#'011) !)4
Submitted in part ulilment or the
Degree o MA in Global listory at the
Uniersity o \arwick September 2010
1his dissertation may be photocopied.
.CD!ED!F
Acknowledgements i
Abstract ii
List o igures iii
I. Introduction 1
1heories on collecting 3
Larly modern Lnglish collecting 8
Collecting and the world 1
Research possibilities 22
II. Monoceros lorns and Kidney Stones`: 1he Contents o Cabinets 26
Methodology 28
Larly modern organisational schemes and cosmology 33
Larly modern interests and inquiry 38
Larly modern Lngland and the world at large 4
III. Many leads are Better than One`: Networks o Knowledge and Lxchange 51
Methodology 54
\ays o seeing: 1heory and practice 56
Networks o the learned 64
Plebeians in cabinets 0
IV. Loe-Children o Lions and Panthers`: 1he Cabinet in Society 5
Methodology 6
Cabinets in the spotlight 9
lome` and Away`: 1ruths, hal-truths, and untruths 86
V. Conclusion: New \orlds and luture Directions 93
Bibliography 99
i
73G4%H'#(5#,#4*1
1he germ o the idea or this dissertation would not hae taken root and blossomed as it
did, without the rich enironment o the \arwick history department to nurture and
nourish its growth. 1he department`s generous proision o the MA bursary has been
greatly appreciated, as without it I could not hae embarked on this course o study. My
sincerest thanks also goes out to the department`s sta and my ellow postgraduates or
their inaluable assistance and encouragement, and or making this year a most
rewarding, enjoyable, and memorable experience. My loe and appreciation in particular
to lannah Johnson, Meike lellinger and Stephen Bates or their counsel and support
which has kept me sane through the year, and especially also to Nancy Silester and John
Ldwards or taking me under their wing, eeding me and caring or me. I owe many
thanks besides to Anne Gerritsen or her help and reassurance on all my work, and or
her inaluable adice and understanding throughout the year. linally, it has been an
immense priilege to work with my superisor Stee lindle, to whom I am greatly
indebted or all his tireless suggestions and guidance, but also or his inspiration and
riendship.
ii
7:1*&)3*
Curiosity collections hae been studied rom many disciplinary perspecties by scholars,
with the aim o reconstructing the psychology and identity o the collector and his milieu.
Museological studies in particular hae seen the cabinet as an early precursor or the
modern museum. 1he biographies o major collectors, such as Sloane, Ashmole and
1radescant, hae eatured prominently as the lionised ounding athers o museums. A
new wae o research on less prominent collectors such as Bann`s study o Bargrae has
taken this trend urther, adopting a postmodern and ragment-based approach to
reconstructing the indiidual collector`s identity through the subjectie material and
documentary traces he let behind. Benedict has recently gien the concept o curiosity
itsel a more thorough examination, based on literary sources. Swann`s study o
collecting, authorship and identity has also added greatly to our understanding o how
curiosity cabinets unctioned on an indiidual as well as societal leel.
1his study attempts to build upon these perspecties by re-examining some well-known
sources in a new light. It is based, irstly, on a statistical analysis o the catalogues o the
major collections in order to characterise more accurately the contents o early modern
Lnglish collections. It then expands upon and contextualises these statistical indings by
discussing a range o isual, literary, and material cultural sources including: collectors`
and irtuosi publications and personal papers, contemporary literature, broadsides,
woodcuts and paintings, and the extant items rom early collections still held in museums
today. It has adopted a multi-disciplinary approach in order to analyse the signiicance o
early modern Lnglish curiosity collections and to reconstruct the social and cultural
practices that surrounded them.
1he principal indings o this dissertation are that the collections were not irrational and
disorderly aairs, and that they relected the changing intellectual and cultural interests o
the time. Lnglish cabinets were important spaces in which indiiduals rom all social
classes could encounter arteacts rom around the world, discuss them with their peers,
and orm judgments about themseles, each other, and the world beyond. Collections
were a major cultural orce in the contemporary mind and came to represent a range o
alues rom the powerul to the absurd, and still retain some o this resonance today.
1he experience o collecting and iewing in a cabinet was a aried and controersial one,
but neertheless acilitated both identity ormation and inormation exchange between
social classes and across geographical boundaries.
iii
I01* %8 605/&#1
lig. Page 4
1.1. Musei \ormani listoria` 6
2.1. Sloane`s shell drawer, in the British Museum 2
2.2. lrans lrancken, .rt Roov 31
2.3. Rhinoceros horn cup, rom the Kvv.t/avverv o Rudolph II 35
2.4. 1he typology o items in the catalogues o our curiosity collections 3
2.5. Diagrams o items rom the Royal Society`s collection catalogue 39
2.6. 1he geographical distribution o items in the catalogues o our
curiosity collections 41
2.. 1he geographical distribution o items rom the \est Indies in the
catalogues o our curiosity collections 42
2.8. 1he geographical distribution o items rom the Last Indies in the
catalogues o our curiosity collections 43
2.9. Naigation` 46
2.10. Virginian naties ishing 49
3.1. 1he 1rue lorme and Shape o a Monsterous Chyld` 52
3.2. Introductory matter to the 1radescants` collection catalogue 63
3.3. Inscription on the jawbone o a mastodon in the British Museum 65
4.1. Nicholas lilliard, 1be araric/ att Portrait of tiabetb of vgtava 80
1
J
J4*&%(/3*0%4
2
Collecting can be loosely deined as the acquisition and organisation o a range o objects
as a singular, coherent body, and the preseration o this body as a meaningul whole.
1his is a phenomenon that is still amiliar to us today, whether maniested as a personal
hobby or institutionalised in museums. Arguably a human impulse that has persisted
since the dawn o mankind, it proides an insight into each collector`s milieu, since
collections were ormulated according to particular cultural assumptions, and had a
commemoratie unction.
1
1he curiosity collections o the early modern era were no
exception, and proide the historian with a rich source with which to analyse the
maniestations o knowledge, personal identity, social and commercial networks and
etiquette, as well as the material culture o the period. Surprisingly, this has been a
relatiely under-explored area o research, in which not a great deal o historical analysis
has been done. Much o the research is concentrated on biographical accounts o
indiidual collectors, in which the collections and their preseration take centre stage at
the expense o historical inquiry.
2
1he museological perspectie oten looms large in
other accounts, in which the curiosity collections are recounted as incidences in a larger
teleological narratie with its end point as the modern museum.
3
Perhaps the most
rigorous analysis comes rom theorists and new museologists seeking to analyse the
modes o collecting as well as the psychological and social implications o its practice,
where speciic historical analyses do not eature in great detail, but many insights can still
be ound.
4
More recently, scholars such as lindlen, Swann and Bann hae plundered the
1
Susan M. Pearce, Ov Cottectivg: .v vre.tigatiov ivto Cottectivg iv tbe vroeav 1raaitiov ,London,
1995, pp. 59-60.
2
Jennier Potter, travge toov.: 1be Cvriov. ire. ava .arevtvre. of tbe ]obv 1raae.cavt. ,London,
200,, Arthur MacGregor, ed. 1raae.cavt`. Raritie.: ..a,. ov tbe ovvaatiov of tbe ..bvoteav Mv.evv
1 ritb a Catatogve of tbe vrririvg art, Cottectiov. ,Oxord, 1983,.
3
Daid Murray, Mv.evv.: 1beir i.tor, ava tbeir |.e, ritb a ibtiograb, ava a i.t of Mv.evv. iv tbe
|vitea Kivgaov, Vol. I ,Glasgow, 1904,, and Pearce, Ov Cottectivg, are just two o many who
exhibit this tendency.
4
Krzyszto Pomian, Cottector. ava Cvrio.itie.: Pari. ava 1evice, 1:00100, 1rans. Llizabeth \iles-
Porter ,Cambridge, 1990,, Stephen Greenblatt, Marrettov. Po..e..iov.: 1be !ovaer of tbe êr !orta
3
theorists in order to perorm more rigorous analyses o early modern cultures o
collecting, each taking dierent methodological approaches and drawing dierent
conclusions o the material.
5
A global history o collections as maniested in early
modern Lngland has yet to be written, howeer. Lnglish collections hae mostly been
eclipsed in the studies by continental examples, or generalised about based on the
eidence o a slim group o case studies. lurthermore, the global origin o the collections
has also been mostly taken or granted or briely alluded to, and as such there is a great
deal o potential or urther inquiry on the impact o these cabinets in bringing an
increasingly connected world into the physical, political and cultural context o early
modern Lngland.
!"#%&0#1 %4 3%''#3*045
Sociological and anthropological studies hae ocused on the motiations that lead
people to collect, and the principles inorming the shape that collections take. 1he
comprehensieness o collections, and their tendency towards classiication hae been
seen as their deining characteristic, and are read as a desire to possess, and thereby to
control, a speciic schema o things and their signiicances. Shelton has described this as
a panoptical impulse`, related to the control o inormation, which inests the collector
with power.
6
As with any system obsessed with completeness, howeer, it is raught with
insecurity, as Baudrillard suggests, the hallmark o any collection is its incompletion.
1he
thrill o the chase, rather than the inal act o ownership, is thus the main aim and
,Oxord, 1991,, Jean Baudrillard, 1he System o Collecting`, in John Llsner and Roger Cardinal,
eds. 1be Cvttvre. of Cottectivg ,London, 1994, pp. -24.
5
Paula lindlen, Po..e..ivg âtvre: Mv.evv., Cottectivg, ava cievtific Cvttvre iv art, Moaerv tat,
,London, 1994,, Marjorie Swann, Cvrio.itie. ava 1et.: 1be Cvttvre of Cottectivg iv art, Moaerv
vgtava ,Philadelphia, 2001,, Stephen Bann, |vaer tbe igv: ]obv argrare a. Cottector, 1raretter, ava
!itve.. ,Ann Arbor, 1994,.
6
Anthony Alan Shelton, 1he Collector`s Zeal: 1owards and Anthropology o Intentionality,
Instrumentality, and Desire`, in Pieter ter Keurs, ed. Cotoviat Cottectiov. Reri.itea ,Leiden, 200, p.
16.
Baudrillard, 1he System o Collecting`, pp. 23, 9.

4
,slightly neurotic, guilty pleasure o the collector, assuming his aim is the completion o
his series.
8
Larly modern comparisons o curio collections to Noah`s Ark resonate with
this interpretation: collection is equated with salation, and the completed collection a
ull representation o God`s creation, assembled and contained by human agency.
9
Llsner
and Cardinal see this as an eloquent material maniestation o human attempts to grapple
with knowledge, in which the collector assumes a shade o diine agency, or, by
collecting, he preseres or eternity.
10
loweer, the God in this equation is a destructie,
egocentric one, willing to destroy all o creation sae its purest specimens in order to
maintain its dependence on lim, likewise, the collector collects in his own image and his
collection seres as a mirror, and is in many ways a discourse o the embodied sel.
11
In the study o collections, then, a highly indiidualised context can be discerned, or
each is eloquent o the collector`s subjectie engagement with his society and its cultural
assumptions. \hile perhaps not all collectors were as narcissistic and obsessed as
Baudrillard`s analysis paints them out to be, or consciously or unconsciously held
Godlike aspirations, the shape o their practices was no doubt inormed by their
historical milieu. Shelton makes this point explicit in arguing that museums ,as
institutionalised collections, begin with the mind and look outwards to the world`, rather
than assemble a mental imaginary` out o objects, implying that the oundation o any
collection is in its context.
12
looper-Greenhill adopts the loucauldian concept o the
ei.teve as a means to understand this, which she describes as the unconscious, but
positie and productie set o relations within which knowledge is produced and
8
Baudrillard, 1he System o Collecting`, p. 9.
9
John Llsner and Roger Cardinal, Introduction`, in John Llsner and Roger Cardinal, eds. 1be
Cvttvre. of Cottectivg ,London, 1994, p. 1.
10
Llsner and Cardinal, Introduction`, pp. 2, 5.
11
Llsner and Cardinal, Introduction`, p. 3, Baudrillard, 1he System o Collecting`, pp. 12, 22.
12
Shelton, 1he Collector`s Zeal`, p. 18.
5
rationality deined` and thus the ramework or all knowing.
13
Collections are a aluable
resource in the attempt to approximate the ei.teve. 1aking a material cultural approach
to its concrete maniestations, we can surrogate an understanding o lied experience that
cannot be approached with textual sources. Pearce has pointed out the alse distinction
between actie human and passie object that has prejudiced earlier study, and argued or
the eloquence o objects and in particular collected objects, which orm a material
language that must be engaged with or a better understanding o the past.
14
Most extant studies, howeer, hae ailed to engage with collections in their own right
and are more oten concerned with narraties o accumulation, generalisations about
their orm, or their curatorial preseration. A notable exception is Bann, who in his study
o John Bargrae, has painted an intimate portrait o the man and the society he lied in
by directly analysing the arious items o his collection and their personal or emblematic
resonances.
15
Based on the theories o Pomian, the collected object is withdrawn rom
utilitarian purposes and enters the world o signs, recast as a semiophore`.
16
1his is a
class o object that mediates between the lied human world and the inisible world, and
seres its purpose as pure meaning, a signiier in a collection constituting a language unto
itsel.
1
As such the collector- such as Bann`s Bargrae- is the ultimate signiied
being`, expressing his sel thoroughly through his choice and arrangement o objects, and
also reealing the eitgei.t that ormed him.
18
13
Lilean looper-Greenhill, Mv.evv. ava tbe baivg of Kvorteage ,London, 1992, p. 12.
14
Pearce, Ov Cottectivg, p. 18.
15
Bann, |vaer tbe igv.
16
Pomian, Cottector. ava Cvrio.itie., p. 5.
1
18
Baudrillard, 1he System o Collecting`, p. 24, Russell \. Belk, Cottectivg iv a Cov.vver ociet,, p.
32.
6
Collections had resonances beyond the personal. Institutions, such as the Royal Society,
also maintained holdings, likewise many priate collections were enshrined in museums
such as the Ashmolean or the British Museum, ater which collection continued although
the principles o collection perhaps subsequently dierged rom the original owners`
intentions. Indeed, een personal collections were oten public aairs, whether shown to
riends, patrons, or paying publics, they had a signiying role that extended beyond the
personal, een i ,and this was by no means always the case, they were created on
indiidualistic principles. Appadurai and Kopyto hae both explored the idea o object
biographies, which would be ery releant here.
19
In these analyses, the objects are
inested with agency and reinstated to their central role in lied experience, and can thus
yield interesting insights onto the contexts through which they hae suried. Classic
Marxist analysis o collecting would ocus on the objects` socio-cultural resonance, and
their unctioning as a alse consciousness through a material phantasmagoria` which
could lead to alienation-an idea which is perhaps simplistic and outdated, but could
hae interesting implications when applied to the appropriation o colonial objects and
knowledge that occurred during the early modern period.
20
Bhabba`s theory o intersital
spaces is perhaps a more nuanced deelopment o this idea. 1he theory posits that
objects are continually re-signiied when transplanted rom arious cultural contexts,
oten retaining some o their original meaning albeit in a orm that is mediated by the
cultural lens o its host context.
21
Such analyses challenge the static and simplistic ocus
on the collector and collection alone, and oer interesting alternatie perspecties on the
examination o objects and their contexts through time and space.
19
Arjun Appadurai, Introduction: Commodities and the Politics o Value`, in Arjun Appadurai,
ed. 1be ociat ife of 1bivg.: Covvoaitie. iv Cvttvrat Per.ectire ,Cambridge, 1986, pp. 3-63, and Igor
Kopyto, 1he Cultural Biography o 1hings: Commoditisation as Process`, in Arjun
Appadurai, ed. 1be ociat ife of 1bivg.: Covvoaitie. iv Cvttvrat Per.ectire ,Cambridge, 1986, pp. 64-
94.
20
21
8
1his has resonated with the study o museums and their maintenance, which is related
ery closely to curiosity collecting not just because museums were oten ormed o
curiosity cabinets, but also because the ormer are in many cases seen as teleological heirs
to the latter.
22
Assumptions about collecting regimens- or example promoting
rationality oer caprice, education oer spectacle, or system oer etish-changed oer
time, in accordance with contemporary cultural alues.
23
Scholars examining the genesis
o the modern museum hae only begun to realise that their subject is not aboe cultural
bias, and are beginning to recognise that the changing museological paradigms were by
no means ineitable, rational, or uniorm.
24
\einer`s example o late colonial treasure
rooms in museums challenges the assumption that these had transormed rom the ugly-
duckling curiosity cabinets into scientiic exhibitions o knowledge, likewise Bal and
labian hae suggested that museums operate on a subjectie, theatrical leel, since all
knowledge is narratie and all narratie is perormed.
25
1he curiosity cabinet is beginning
to cast o the shadow o the modern museum and studied in its own right, the
teleological and ideological certainty o the latter is thus being eclipsed.
E)&'2 ,%(#&4 E45'01" 3%''#3*045
Curiosity was ostensibly the guiding principle o early modern collecting. It represented
the contemporary attempt to distil the essence o the known world into an ultimate
cabinet o knowledge: an idealistic endeaour, led by continental polymaths and inspired
by the spirit o the Renaissance. Unlike commodity displays, cabinets were hallowed
22
One such example is Pearce, who sees this as quite a natural` process. Ov Cottectivg, p. 249.
23
24
Bann, |vaer tbe igv, p. 9, looper-Greenhill, Mv.evv. ava tbe baivg of Kvorteage, p. 3.
25
Margaret J. \einer, 1he Magical Lie o 1hings`, in Pieter ter Keurs, ed. Cotoviat Cottectiov.
Reri.itea ,Leiden, 200, p. 59-61, Bann, |vaer tbe igv, p. 9, Shelton, 1he Collector`s Zeal`, p. 34.
9
spaces o study where the wider world could be studied sae rom the taint o commerce
and or the sheer gratiication o knowledge without agenda. \et curiosity was a
chameleon concept, changing shade to suit each indiidual employer, and while it
retained a connotation o disinterested inquiry, could be used or arious ends.
Collections remained allied to naigational adances and expanding trade networks, and
were in many instances competitie arenas where both knowledge and status were
brokered ia the means o cultural capital. Continental princely collections bear this out:
Medici .tvaioto or lapsburg !vvaer/avverv contained many sumptuous and aluable
items rom their expanding territories, some o them gits rom oreign enoys and allies,
representing quite blatantly the richness o the macrocosm that the prince was in contact
with and ruled oer and thus, by extension his own personal power and glory.
26
Collections thus aried greatly, ostering a myriad o models o iewing and etiquette
around the larger Luropean collections, which were altered to suit the dispositions o
indiidual collectors and iewers.
Lnglish collecting diered rom Luropean collecting though it was based on and shared
certain principles with the latter. No concerted attempt has been made to outline its
unique contours, though some general obserations hae been made. lindlen has
dismissed Lnglish cabinets, quoting contemporary Italian traellers who describe a
supericial accumulation and display o objects without relection or regard or its
audience.
2
Open to the public and without any dedicated custodian, the 1radescant
museum in particular had prostituted itsel, and thereore only contained objects, but did
not contain knowledge`.
28
Citing this as a oil to the sophisticated scholarly society o
26
1homas DaCosta Kaumann, lrom 1reasury to Museum: 1he Collections o the Austrian
labsburgs` in John Llsner and Roger Cardinal, eds. 1be Cvttvre. of Cottectivg ,London, 1994, p.
142.
2
lindlen, Po..e..ivg âtvre, pp. 14-9.
28
lindlen, Po..e..ivg âtvre, p. 150.
10
Renaissance Italy, this perhaps makes too stark a contrast and glosses oer the ery
dierent collecting regime as it operated in Lngland. By MacGregor`s account, curiosity
collecting was a late arrial to Lngland, gaining ogue around the turn o the seenteenth
century, where its supericial maniestations were seized on with more enthusiasm than
the elaborate philosophical inrastructure that determined its outward appearance`.
29
Lnglish cabinets were also a more democratic aair than on the continent, with the
majority o collections accrued by priate indiiduals such as gentlemen and
proessionals. 1hey ostensibly drew their inspiration rom princely and academic
cabinets, especially o the collector had social or academic aspirations, but also quite
happily adopted conentions rom the apothecary`s shop, such as the practice o
suspending specimens rom the ceiling.
30
loweer, as MacGregor argues, the majority
were used primarily and supericially as a status showcase, which would hae caused the
Italian outrage o the kind noted by lindlen.
31
1hese generalisations hae been based on a airly limited study o a small number o
Lnglish collectors, and as such it is probably misleading to take them as representatie o
national collecting. Curiosity collecting was certainly not a primary concern o the court,
een i monarchs did amass extensie numbers o paintings or porcelain, and receied
curios as diplomatic gits or as treasure rom returned seamen. Most collecting took place
on a priate leel, though it is uncertain as to how widespread or watered-down the
phenomenon became. In any case, Lngland certainly possessed a dierent scholarly
culture to Italy, where an Italian-style humanist scholar was apparently belieed by the
ladies to be enamoured o the moon, or Venus, or some silly thing like that`.
32
loweer
29
Arthur MacGregor, Cvrio.it, ava vtigbtevvevt: Cottector. ava Cottectiov. frov tbe iteevtb to tbe
îveteevtb Cevtvr, ,New laen, 200, p. 11.
30
MacGregor, Cvrio.it, ava vtigbtevvevt, pp. 11-12.
31
MacGregor, Cvrio.it, ava vtigbtevvevt, p. 33.
32
11
this did not mean that a scholarly culture did not exist or that collecting was necessarily
indulgent and supericial, and it is necessary to engage more with the Lnglish material in
order to better elucidate its nature. Studies o early modern Lnglish collecting hae been
mainly biographical, and hae ocused on a ew key names o well-documented
indiiduals and their collections, in particular those whose collections still surie or were
the ounders o present-day museums. Seeral names loom large in the historiography.
1he John 1radescants hae been studied the most extensiely.
33
Gardeners to the social
elite, and eentually to Charles I, their collection o curiosities as well as their botanical
garden was amassed ia the traels o John 1radescant the Llder, gits rom their
patrons, or sourced rom their patrons` contacts-most notably the Duke o
Buckingham. 1heir collection was housed at South Lambeth, near London, and was
accessible to the public in exchange or a small entrance ee. 1his was a amous
attraction, drawing not just locals but also isitors rom the continent, including lindlen`s
disappointed Italian, and as MacGregor has argued, took a ital step in the democratising
process by sering as the irst public museum.
34
lollowing John 1radescant the
\ounger`s death the collection was the subject o a legal dispute with Llias Ashmole,
who eentually took possession o the collection to the consternation o the younger
John`s widow, lester, who had been selling items o on the sly in order to maintain
hersel.
35
Lentually this was enshrined as the Ashmolean Museum in Oxord, which
remained open to the public, though had undergone an institutional metamorphosis
33
Arthur MacGregor, ed., 1raae.cavt`. Raritie.: ..a,. ov tbe ovvaatiov of tbe ..bvoteav Mv.evv 1
ritb a Catatogve of tbe vrririvg art, Cottectiov. ,Oxord, 1983,, Potter, travge toov., Marjorie
Swann, Cvrio.itie. ava 1et.: 1be Cvttvre of Cottectivg iv art, Moaerv vgtava ,Philadelphia, 2001,.
34
Arthur MacGregor, Collectors and Collections o Rarities in the Sixteenth and Seenteenth
Centuries` in Arthur MacGregor, ed. 1raae.cavt`. Raritie.: ..a,. ov tbe ovvaatiov of tbe ..bvoteav
Mv.evv 1 ritb a Catatogve of tbe vrririvg art, Cottectiov. ,Oxord, 1983, pp. 96-.
35
Lisa Jardine, vgeviov. Pvr.vit.: vitaivg tbe cievtific Rerotvtiov ,London, 2002, p. 258
12
rom rarity show to academic resource`.
36
Any analysis o Lnglish collecting must not
neglect these monumental igures, or they maintained the best-known Lnglish
collection, which underwent many changes in signiicance. Potter`s argument that the
1radescants collected or the sheer joy o it perhaps belies the richer analyses that can be
drawn rom the account.
3
1he complex web o knowledge, identity, economics and
politics bound up in the collection`s biography is also apparent in the 1radescants` social
rise, sel-presentation, and eentual all`, and likewise also Ashmole`s own schemes or
social climbing and commemoration. Swann has ocused on the idea o authorship and
sel-presentation as practiced by the two, in order to analyse the orms o selhood and
identity current in their context.
38
Bann`s study o John Bargrae has similarly taken a penetrating look into the historical
subjectiity o the indiidual as expressed through his collection.
39
1he result is a
reelatory and delightully written book, almost an alternatie biography, in which
Bargrae`s personal lie and his amily`s political ortunes orm the backdrop or his
collecting experience, in the light o which he detly unpacks Bargrae`s collecting
regimen. Bann also makes the ital point that the early modern collecting paradigm and
its concept o history were unique, and cannot be studied in the shadow o the modern
museum or modern ideas o the same.
40
More importantly, Bann argues that early
modern Lngland was a context in which social ascendancy conerred signiying power,
and as such the semiophoric alue o a collection and its components bolstered the
indiidual`s attempts at sel-ashioning.
41
36
3
Potter, travge toov., pp. 233-4.
38
Swann, Cvrio.itie. ava 1et., p. 12.
39
Bann, |vaer tbe igv.
40
Bann, |vaer tbe igv, p. 103.
41
13
1he Royal Society`s Repository is also particularly interesting, because it began lie as a
paid museum owned by Robert lubert. Acquired in 1666, this was meant to adance the
Society`s resources and to enhance its status as a reolutionary research institution,
ounded on the principles outlined by lrancis Bacon in 1be êr .ttavti.. It promoted
sociability amongst its members and sought to oster a culture o experimentation,
promoting a new model o knowledge that was based on irsthand experience rather than
classical study.
42
lortey has rightly described this as a genuine loe o scholarship happily
mixed with a certain showmanship`.
43
1he Repository accordingly grew with donations
rom members who sought to bolster their image, though it remained an underutilised
and poorly maintained academic resource despite being catalogued by Nehemiah Grew
in 16.
44
1he Repository, as compared to the later collections by Linnaeus and Darwin,
seems to be something the Society would rather orget. lortey`s article in the book that
celebrates the Society`s 350
th
anniersary highlights speciically scientiic collections, and
saliently omits reerence to the Repository een though it mentions the Ashmolean and
British Museum. 1he Repository`s trajectory is thus interesting to dwell upon, since it
relects the sel-ashioning o the institution and its indiidual members, as well as the
changing intellectual priorities throughout the period.
Sir lans Sloane is perhaps the most celebrated o the early modern collectors, and
possibly the most interesting or his public lie. lis interest in collecting sprang rom
isiting other Lnglish cabinets in his youth, and the collection itsel was ery much
shaped by his oyage to Jamaica in 168 as well as his medical training and his
42
Jardine, vgeviov. Pvr.vit., p. 132.
43
Richard lortey, Archies o Lie: Science and Collections`, in Bill Bryson, ed. eeivg vrtber:
1be tor, of cievce ava tbe Ro,at ociet, ,London, 2010, pp. 189.
44
MacGregor, Cvrio.it, ava vtigbtevvevt, p. 40, the Uenbach brothers also complain about the
state o decay that the collection was in when they isited in 110. Zacharias Conrad on
Uenbach, ovaov iv 110: rov tbe 1raret. of Zacbaria. Covraa rov |ffevbacb, 1rans. \. l. Quarrell
and Margaret Mare ,London, 1934, pp. 9-98.
14
correspondence with other scientists such as John Ray and Robert Boyle.
45
1his was
supplemented by the purchase o other collections throughout his career, which were
meticulously and catalogued in a way that presaged modern curatorial paradigms.
46
Understood as an old-style collector to begin with, Sloane`s stature changed dramatically
upon his death, when his collection became the ounding basis o the British Museum.
4
In this way he was a piotal igure, arguably the last o the early modern collectors,
spanning the gap between early modern collecting paradigms and the more deterministic
and nationalistic modes o Lnlightenment thinking and collecting.
Despite the dearth o scholarly attention, curiosity collecting in Lngland was certainly a
ery isible and widely understood phenomenon. Peacham`s Covteat Cevttevav ,1622,, a
code o conduct or the upper crust, included sections on how to acquire and model a
collection, as well as a guide to isiting other peoples` collections.
48
Collecting was
probably not a minority sport, and i the aerage gentleman or aspirant to gentility did
not own one, he probably was amiliar with someone else`s. Cabinets were demonstratie
deices, demanding an audience whateer the country they resided in.
49
In a social milieu
in which status was consensual, the display o material culture and ciilised manners was
ast becoming a requisite or the successul negotiation o social standing.
50
1he
ownership and display o cabinets was an eectie means o doing this, allowing
45
Arthur MacGregor, 1he Lie, Character and Career o Sir lans Sloane`, in Arthur
MacGregor, ed. ir av. toave: Cottector, cievti.t, .vtiqvar,, ovvaivg atber of tbe riti.b Mv.evv
,London, 1994, pp. 11, 14, 16.
46
MacGregor, 1he Lie, Character and Career o Sir lans Sloane`, pp. 26.
4
Marjorie Caygill, Sloane`s \ill and the Lstablishment o the British Museum`, in Arthur
,London, 1994, pp. 46.
48
49
Linda Ley Peck, Cov.vvivg tevaovr: ociet, ava Cvttvre iv erevteevtb Cevtvr, vgtava
,Cambridge, 2005, p. 156, Ken Arnold, 1rade, 1rael and 1reasure: Seenteenth Century
Artiicial Curiosities` in Chloe Chard and lelen Langdon, eds. 1rav.ort.: 1raret, Ptea.vre ava
vagivatire Ceograb,, 10010 ,New laen, 1996, pp. 266-.
50
15
Ashmole to cultiate his image and the Royal Society to consolidate its respectability.
1he arrangement o a collection could coner power, create an identity, or make pointed
statements about rials: the 1radescants, or instance, adopted a cameo rom their
collection as their amily seal-literally drawing their status rom their public identity as
collectors.
51
Later, in the nineteenth century, Linnaeus would spite his rial Buon by
naming a toad vfovia in his great classiication scheme.
52
lurthermore, as Ashmole`s
example demonstrates well, the collection sered a commemoratie unction, lauding and
immortalising the collector as reered patron when let in bequests, or een simply
recording donors and eminent isitors in their records.
53
Collections were usually exclusie aairs: een when open to the public, the entrance ee
would hae meant that their isitors had to aord the spare cash and the leisure time in
order isit. Priate collections would require introductory letters rom learned or high-
ranking riends to enter, and in the case o the Royal Society a strict and exclusie
etiquette was obsered by the group`s membership.
54
\ithin these elite circles, howeer,
collections could oster expanding and inclusie networks o knowledge, social and
political contact, and een bolster commercial interests. 1he giting and counter-giting
o curiosities could oster sociability, cement personal allegiances and political contracts,
sering as well to demonstrate the well-connectedness o the giter and complimenting
the sophistication o the gitee, peroming a brokering unction that acilitated all kinds
o relationships in early modern society.
55
Lxtending urther down the social scale, the
acquisition o objects put collectors in contact with artisans, merchants and oreigners
51
Potter, travge toov., p. 238, Pearce, Ov Cottectivg, p. 124.
52
53
Shelton, 1he Collector`s Zeal`, p. 18, Bann, |vaer tbe igv, pp. 91-3.
54
55
Pearce, Ov Cottectivg, pp. 229-30, lindlen, Po..e..ivg âtvre, p. 292.
16
allowing the transaction o goods, knowledge and sometimes also power.
56
Lntrance ees
were not always orbidding either- plebeians could and did isit museums, and outside
that, could gratiy their curiosity in other exhibition arenas. \hile perhaps unequally
weighted, this opened up new opportunities or interaction and ormed a part o the
structures o exchange, which as lindlen argues, was the primary social mechanism that
deined elite society and perhaps early modern society as a whole.`
5
1he pan-Luropean network o irtuosi is a case in point. A motley crew made up o
intellectuals and intellectual aspirants o arious backgrounds, they ormed an inormal
community dedicated to the pursuit o learning, pursuing a curiously aried collection o
inestigatie goals, and motiated by a olatile mixture o sel-interest, opportunism,
curiosity, and pure research.`
58
Many o them traelled extensiely, carrying with them
letters o introduction to arious cities, which were the passports to the city`s intellectual
society and allowed them the reception o an insider, and the priilege o access to other
irtuosi`s collections, whether o books, art, or curios.
59
Indiiduals such as John Lelyn
and 1homas Platter isited many curiosity collections and wrote extensiely about their
traels, launting their personal contacts and experience as well as proiding practical
tourist itineraries to each city in what was to become a genre o trael literature.
60
1hese
are useul historical documents and gie some idea as to the social practices surrounding
the collections, as well as highlighting the cosmopolitan quality o the cabinets and their
connoisseurs.
56
lor more on the git unction, see Natalie Zemon Dais, 1be Cift iv iteevtbCevtvr, ravce
,Madison, 2000,.
5
MacGregor, Cvrio.it, ava vtigbtevvevt, p. 66, lindlen, Po..e..ivg âtvre, p. 291.
58
59
60
1
Not all o this was positie, howeer. Bacon`s contempt o irtuosi who adored rarity or
its own sake was only one o a rising tide o criticism against collectors or sel-indulgent
material etishism and lack o ocus and understanding.
61
Changing scientiic paradigms
rom the late seenteenth century onwards were especially harsh on these groups, seeing
them as anachronistic igures and amateurs o the worst sort.
62
More comprehensie
schemes o collection and classiication sprung up to take the place o them whimsical
curio cabinet, whilst literary and isual satire o curio collectors abounded, painting them
as misguided, slightly neurotic and sel-obsessed igures who learnt nothing despite their
immense inestments.
63
.%''#3*045 )4( *"# H%&'(
Curiosity collections were not entirely pointless, howeer. 1hey connected people and
places, and perhaps most importantly sered as the entry point or items and ideas rom
all around the world into the early modern consciousness, broadening its horizons both
literally and metaphorically. Despite their apparent irrationality, they were to
contemporaries a ery tangible connection to the rest o the world, and oten were
regarded as a more reliable type o eidence to literary accounts and other orms o
reporting which oten exaggerated claims or pursued particular agendas.
64
1rael,
exploration and collecting became allied, mutually encouraging interests, and curiosity
collections represented the richest and most engaging opportunity or those who could
61
62
Richard lamblyn, Priate Cabinets and Popular Geology: 1he British Audiences or
Volcanoes in the Lighteenth Century` in Chloe Chard and lelen Langdon, eds. 1rav.ort.: 1raret,
Ptea.vre ava vagivatire Ceograb,, 10010 ,New laen, 1996, p. 185, Barbara M. Benedict,
Cvrio.it,: . Cvttvrat i.tor, of art, Moaerv vqvir, ,Chicago, 2001, pp. 4-0.
63
Craig Ashley lanson, 1be vgti.b 1irtvo.o: .rt, Meaicive, ava .vtiqvariavi.v iv tbe .ge of
virici.v ,Chicago, 2009, p. 140.
64
Arnold, 1rade, 1rael and 1reasure`, p. 264, larold J. Cook, Matter. of cbavge: Covverce,
Meaicive, ava cievce iv tbe Dvtcb Cotaev .ge ,London, 200, p. 1.
18
not aord to trael to make contact with the world at large.
65
1he 1radescants` epitaph,
stating that they had li`d till they had traelled art and nature thro`` is a good instance o
this, especially because the elder 1radescant neer let Lurope and the younger only
reached Virginia, and so acquired this accolade on the sole basis o their collection.
66
Peter Mundy`s comment that this same collection contained within a room more
curiosities than he had seen in a lietime o trael suggests urther that the cabinet was
possibly een superior to actual trael, oering the iewer a panoply o inormation
which exceeded what he could hae accumulated by enturing orth himsel, and
allowing him to better construct his own imagined geography with the best stimuli rom
around the world concentrated into a single room.
6
Material objects allowed or a ery real contact point between domestic and oreign
cultures. 1he contents o curio cabinets and their iniltration into popular culture thus
were important elements mediating the relationship between home and abroad, breaking
down the boundaries o strange` and amiliar` and helping to bring the world at large
into the consciousness and the knowledge o early modern Lngland.
68
Cook has argued
that this acilitated real empathy with oreign cultures, as they were transported back
alongside the ery real knowledge accrued by merchants and adenturers on their
traels.
69
loweer, this was necessarily limited, since most practical knowledge stayed
with the practitioners, and the exotic appeal o the curios could oershadow any attempts
at understanding. Lxotic items could be ,though were not necessarily always,
pigeonholed or lost signiicance when put in a room with a conounding array o other
65
Arnold, 1rade, 1rael and 1reasure`, p. 265, lindlen, Po..e..ivg âtvre, p. 163.
66
Arnold, 1rade, 1rael and 1reasure`, p. 265.
6
Arnold, 1rade, 1rael and 1reasure`, p. 265, L. S. Shaer, 1o Remind Us on China`-
\illiam Beckord, Mental 1raeller on the Grand 1our: 1he Construction o Signiicance in
Landscape` in Chloe Chard and lelen Langdon, eds. 1rav.ort.: 1raret, Ptea.vre ava vagivatire
Ceograb,, 10010 ,New laen, 1996, p. 220.
68
69
Cook, Matter. of cbavge, p. 102.
19
curious objects, leaing little space or contemplation`, een though their presence
suggested a degree o incorporation.
0
1er Keurs` obseration that cultural brokers-the
mercantile middlemen, riendly naties, and translators o the world-were oten written
out o imperial accounts, inds a resonance with early modern trael writing, where their
contributions were oten unrecorded, or they were labelled with the rest o their tribe as
saages`.
1
In addition, items such as botanical specimens or vateria veaica which
contributed greatly to the stock o Luropean knowledge and were the sites on which
genuine cultural exchange occurred, were oten shorn o their cultural signiicances on
the oyage home, making these encounters essentially incomplete.
2
Curiosity, then,
rarely |took| on the colours o sympathy`, though it did remain an important contact
point and was the means by which Luropeans sought to integrate with the world they
were discoering.
3
Commerce was the obious beneiciary. Collecting required a large stock o capital to
acquire and maintain, since it comprised numerous rare and aluable items. Money thus
conerred the power to purchase, order, and thus dominate.
4
It could also buy riends
and orge networks, but perhaps een more importantly, it could beget more money.
Commerce and politics were inseparable rom collecting, and the three operated in a
mutually reinorcing cycle that saw the generation o wealth, collections, and also the
gradual extension o power oer the territories rom which curios originated.
5
Mercantile
0
Isabella \aya, \onders o America: 1he Curiosity Cabinet as a Site o Representation and
Knowledge`, ]ovrvat of tbe i.tor, of Cottectiov. 20:2 ,2008, pp. 180-1.
1
Pieter ter Keurs, Introduction: 1heory and Practice o Colonial Collecting`, in Pieter ter
Keurs, ed. Cotoviat Cottectiov. Reri.itea ,Leiden, 200, p. 5, lenry R. \agner, ir ravci. Dra/e`.
1o,age .rovva tbe !orta: t. .iv. ava .cbierevevt. ,San lrancisco, 1926,.
2
Daniela Bleichmar, Books, Bodies, and lields: Sixteenth Century 1ransatlantic Lncounters
with New \orld Materia Meaica` in Londa Schiebinger and Claudia Swan eds. Cotoviat otav,:
cievce, Covverce, ava Potitic. iv tbe art, Moaerv !orta ,Philadelphia, 2005, p. 98.
3
4
5
1er Keurs, Introduction`, p. 3.
20
contact thried both at home and abroad. Apart rom the lourishing naal and scientiic
adances that were occurring in the period, the import o exotic commodities also
stimulated a luxury market and early consumption practices on the domestic ront.
6
Many collectors were aware o this potential and exploited it to their ull adantage. 1he
1radescants` exhibition o their collection to a ee-paying public is the obious example,
less noted were collectors` attempts to introduce new products into the market, whether
apothecaries` promoting new simples or Sir lans Sloane`s milk chocolate.
Returning to the speciic construct o the cabinet, howeer, it is diicult to ealuate just
at what leel they tied Lngland or its indiidual collectors to the rest o the world. lirstly
it is important to point out that the phenomenon was primarily an elite one, and
although it sered as the introductory point or such subsequently popular and
ubiquitous commodities as porcelain and tea, the majority o objects that comprised
collections neer entered the popular consciousness at all. lurthermore, the mimetic
actiity o entering a cabinet as tbeatrvv vvvai could proe misleading, especially since the
atypical were selected as representations o their original contexts.
8
In addition, as
lindlen has argued, objects were oten not authoritatie in themseles but rather sered
as touchstones or arying claims to produce truth,` utilised as passie signiiers and
depried o cultural agency.
9
1he example o Chinese ceramic patterns, which quickly
permeated Lnglish conention, illustrates this. Pierson explains that while the decoratie
motis were adopted easily enough and could also retain the stories behind their orm,
these discourses could also be appropriated by the Lnglish in order to argue or and
6
Jardine, vgeviov. Pvr.vit., p. 1, Stacey Pierson, Cottector., Cottectiov. ava Mv.evv.: 1be ieta of
Cbive.e Ceravic. iv ritaiv, 1:010 ,Oxord, 200, p. 36.
Jardine, vgeviov. Pvr.vit., p. 268, lindlen, Po..e..ivg âtvre, pp. 8, 245-6.

8
Arnold, 1rade, 1rael and 1reasure`, p. 2.
9
21
caricature Chinese barbarism!
80
1he early modern museum experience could also hae
been ery much less than educational. MacGregor points out that many objects were
designed to intrigue and to ex`, a playul dimension to tease and tickle the spectator,
rather than seriously stimulate philosophical or anthropological contemplation.
81
Ultimately, the experience was ery dependent on the indiidual, and the general eect o
the cabinets may be impossible to pinpoint. On the other hand, though, certain concrete
adances are discernible through collection catalogues and trael accounts. Lntries in
catalogues using oreign names or an object-such as canoo` and 1amahuke`
indicate a nascent engagement with the items and their host cultures on their own terms.
Looking orward to imperial collection and classiication schemes, it is interesting to note
how similar and how dierent the two are. Durrans` account o Indian collecting
explains how collected items were similarly utilised to sere many purposes. le gies
examples o their use to conirm existing paradigms about India, their deployment o
India as a source or broader narratie arguments, or their presentation o particular
items in order to control the public perception o and knowledge about India.
82
1he
Crystal Palace exhibition and similar commodity displays o the nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries were likewise multialent phenomena, and could promote sympathy
with and understanding o the empire and increase interest in conquered territories.
loweer, they could also urther imperialist causes whether by stimulating knowledge-
seeking through conquest or simply by the ugliest o caricaturing.
83
Lighteenth- and
nineteenth-century collectors and museums ostensibly rejected the earlier concept o
curiosity as a guiding principle, associating it with irrationality and licentiousness and
80
Donald l. Lach, ..ia iv tbe Ma/ivg of vroe, Vol. II: A Century o \onder, Book 1: 1he Visual
Arts ,Chicago, 190, p. 43, Pierson, Cottector., Cottectiov. ava Mv.evv., p. 53.
81
MacGregor, Cvrio.it, ava vtigbtevvevt, pp. 46-.
82
Brian Durrans, Collecting in British India: A Sceptical View`, in Pieter ter Keurs ed. Cotoviat
Cottectiov. Reri.itea ,Leiden, 200, p. 248.
83
Durrans, Collecting in British India` p. 264.
22
sought to replace it with an objectie pursuit o truth, presenting each item obsered or
collected in neutral surroundings to acilitate unbiased analysis.
84
1his was a completely
dierent animal rom the curiosity collection or rom irtuoso inquiry altogether, and
cannot be seen as its logical heir. \et, once again, these concepts did not spring rom a
acuum, and retained some o earlier collections` intellectual or organisational
rameworks. 1he enthusiasm or science and thirst or knowledge was one o these, with
another being the signiying power o classiication.
85
New museums still endeaoured to
present comprehensie narraties o the world and all its constituent elements, although
the way they did so and the stories they told were quite dierent and in no way ineitable
outgrowths o earlier collecting practices.
86
K#1#)&3" L%110:0'0*0#1
Curiosity collections, then, can throw a great deal o light on paradigms past and present,
and early modern curio collecting is a relatiely unexplored area that promises great
potential to the early modern social and cultural historian. 1his study will ocus on
Lnglish collecting rom 1550-150, a unique period beginning with the growth o
rational` collecting and ending with Sloane`s death, whereupon the early modern
paradigms gie way to imperial modes o collecting and iewing. A wide range o source
material will be used, whereby old sources will be looked at in a new light, and used in
conjunction with quantitatie, material cultural, isual, spatial and global analyses in order
to elucidate hitherto unexplored aspects o collecting as a phenomenon. 1his study is
necessarily limited, though, and as such will ocus on the large and well-documented
84
Nicholas 1homas, Licensed Curiosity: Cook`s Paciic Voyages`, in John Llsner and Roger
Cardinal, eds. 1be Cvttvre. of Cottectivg ,London, 1994, p. 118.
85
86
Pearce, Ov Cottectivg, p. 139, Pierson, Cottector., Cottectiov. ava Mv.evv., p. 181.
23
collections belonging to the 1radescants, the Royal Society, Ralph 1horesby and Sloane,
while making reerences to other smaller collections in order to supplement the analysis.
By deinition such large collections hae receied the most attention, since they are the
most documented. 1o reconstruct the underworld o participation, though, one would
need to broaden the rame o reerence to include less ormal collections and curiosities
more generally. It is only then that one can extend the study o curiosity collections
beyond narrow psychoanalytical, biographical or museological accounts and ully
apprehend their signiicance in the early modern cultural milieu.
Ogborn`s approach to global history, by which wider generalisations are approached
through the study o ragments and subjectie experience, is particularly releant here.
8
As cabinets contained similarly discordant and dierentiated sets o items and ideas, this
method would seem most ideal to oercome source limitations and to cobble together an
insightul analysis out o seemingly incompatible and ragmentary pieces o eidence. As
such, this study seeks also to widen the deinition o a collection` to include smaller-scale
personal holdings and inormal public displays, and thereby to attempt a reconstruction
o collecting and iewing on a scale that extends beyond elite and institutional
experience. As such, the potency o collections as a cultural orce, as well as their global
signiicance, may be approached. It is important to note, howeer, that due to the gap
between the scope o the study and the ambition o its ision that any conclusions can
only remain tentatie, though they would indeed indicate aenues or uture inquiry that
could proe productie indeed. 1he cabinets, ater all, displayed not just items but also
the essence o early modernity, containing within them all the contradictions and
coherences o an age that was both backward- and orward-, outward- and inward-
8
Miles Ogborn, Ctobat ire.: ritaiv ava tbe !orta, 1::0100 ,Cambridge, 2008, p. 8.
24
looking, and was an essential space in which contemporaries negotiated their indiidual
as well as global identities.
1his dissertation is diided into three sections. Chapter 2 will perorm a statistical
analysis o the collection catalogues o our major curiosity cabinets. It will lay bare the
contents o the collections and pinpoint their geographical and intellectual oci. It will
also dwell on the organisational schemes and cosmology o early modern Lngland, and
trace its changing attitude towards the exotic. Chapter 3 will build upon this analysis and
attempt to reconstruct contemporary ways o seeing in the cabinet`s space. It highlights
theoretical and elite, as well as plebeian experiences, and proposes ways in which
collections sered as a cultural mediator between the domestic and the international as
well as between the dierent social classes. It analyses the cabinet as an important space
where indiidual and collectie identity could be ormed, but also recognises other spaces
in which curious iewing could be practiced. Chapter 4 situates the cabinet within its
cultural milieu, and examines its use and abuse in contemporary literary, intellectual and
artistic representations. It examines the controersies surrounding collections in the
public eye, and traces their trajectory into the late eighteenth century. It will also ealuate
the collections` role in bringing the global to the local as this role changed through the
career o early modern collections, and hint at how some o the cabinets` unctions still
endure today. linally, the conclusion, while acknowledging the limitations o this study,
proposes possible sources and approaches or uture research.
In undertaking such an enterprise, the historian- as hersel a collector and arranger o
ideas and eidence-must be conscious o her own ideological premises and seek as
consciously as possible to aoid the potential to narrate or descend into teleology. She
must, like the collector, careully negotiate the aried scholarship on the topic and choose
25
the most insightul and interesting ragments rom which to construct a coherent and
conincing study. She must undertake this in the hope that she will produce, like the ery
best cabinets did, an experience that is at once entertaining, engaging, exciting, and, o
course, reelatory.
26
JJ
MB%4%3#&%1 +%&41 )4( N0(4#2 F*%4#1O- !"# .%4*#4*1 %8 .):04#*1
2
lig. 2.1. Sloane`s shell drawer ,c. 100, British Museum. Photograph: Personal collection
A terracotta bust o Sir lans Sloane looks oer the Lnlightenment Room in the British
Museum, across which are distributed a ast array o disparate items, many rom the original
Sloane collection. Beautiul old books line the walls, and weaing through the display cabinets
the twenty-irst-century museumgoer can see the bill o a rhinoceros bird, ossils, numerous
plant and mineral samples. Larly modern scientiic equipment and ethnographic arteacts occupy
other cases, some with no obious purpose other than to dazzle and delight the tourists,
students, and casual onlookers. lrom antiquities to zoology, the room purports to embody
eighteenth-century enquiry and stand as a testament to the museum`s ounder, and is perhaps the
closest approximation we hae to the experience o being in an early modern curiosity cabinet.
28
\et one cannot help but sense how eeble an echo this must be: the hall is decidedly uncluttered
and thematically coherent, the objects kept neatly behind glass cases, though there is a table
where one may handle some o them-superised by a curator, o course.
In the bottom o Case 2, howeer, the clear light o the modern museum reaches the exhibit
only with some diiculty: this is a drawer o Sloane`s shell specimens, crowded together in a
narrowly partitioned box ,lig. 2.1,. 1he claustrophobia o the specimens, squeezed together with
laconic labels and random empty spaces, hints at a slightly dierent past. Much like the
Lnlightenment Room itsel, early modern curiosity cabinets contained a otovrri o items-
rom monoceros ,narwhal, horns to kidney stones-albeit they were displayed and understood
in a decidedly dierent ashion. Pinpointing what exactly these collections contained would
enable us to understand better their general paradigms as well as their indiidual quirks, just as
understanding the selection o objects in the Lnlightenment Room would gie us a clue into the
museum`s curatorial perspectie on the period. Larly modern collections comprised o a wide
and seemingly indiscriminate selection o items, but on closer inspection one may also discern
indiidual interests and connections at play. Beyond that, they also displayed some general traits,
most notably showing a ascination or natural history specimens, and a concentration o items
rom the New \orld. 1his suggests a particular locus o inquiry that belies the cramped and
conused impression that they present on irst sight, and which sheds light on early modern
cosmology.
B#*"%(%'%52
I hae attempted to understand the nature and purpose o early modern collections ia a
quantitatie analysis o our published collection catalogues-namely Robert lubert`s ,c.1664,,
29
the 1radescants` ,1656,, the Royal Society`s ,1685, and Ralph 1horesby`s ,115,.
88
Indiidual
items ,2265 in total, as recorded and presented in the catalogues were entered into a data table,
along with a brie description o each taken rom the documents, including their place o origin
,where recorded,, their gien classiications, their donors, and their collectors. As each document
is distinct, though, these hae not always been straightorward classiications. As ar as possible,
thereore, category names hae been simpliied in order to be applicable across all our
catalogues. Complex categories- or instance, classiying plant or animal specimens under
speciic subdiisions, hae been collapsed into wider labels: in this case specimens`-in order
that the general tendencies o the data become clearly discernible, although one must also
acknowledge the detail that is lost through this process o aggregation.
Certain sets o data were also excluded or the sake o simplicity and clarity, once again,
howeer, this process o selection was not uniorm because o the catalogues` indiidualities. lor
the scope o this study, ethnographic items as well as plant and animal specimens hae been
noted, and items o more uncertain proidence, such as rocks and minerals, hae been omitted.
Numismatics, art, and antiquities hae also been let out, since they were more local in nature
and usually seen as a distinct section rom natural and artiicial curiosities. 1hese seem more
appropriate or separate study, apart rom indicating the wider collecting practices o which
88
Robert lubert, . catatogve of art of tbo.e raritie. cottectea iv tbirt, ,ear. tive ritb a great aeat of aiv. ava ivav.tr,
b, ove of i. Ma;e.tie. .rorv .erravt. R. . atia. orge. ,London, 1669,, John 1radescant, Mv.aevv
1raae.cavtivvv: or, . cottectiov of raritie.. Pre.errea at ovtb avbetb veer ovaov b, ]obv 1raae.cavt ,London,
1656,, Nehemiah Grew, Mv.aevv Regati. ocietati., or, . catatogve ava ae.critiov of tbe vatvrat ava artificiat
raritie. betovgivg to tbe Ro,at ociet, ava re.errea at Cre.bav Cotteage vaae b, êbeviab Crer ; rberevvto i.
.vb;o,vea 1be covaratire avatov, of .tovacb. ava gvt. b, tbe .ave avtbor. ,London, 1685,, Ralph 1horesby,
Dvcatv. eoaiev.i.: or, tbe toograb, of tbe avcievt ava ovtov. torv ava ari.b of eeae., ava art. aa;acevt iv tbe
!e.tRiaivg of tbe covvt, of Yor/. !itb 1be Peaegree. of vav, of tbe ôbitit, ava Cevtr,, ava otber Matter. retativg to
tbo.e Part.; tractea frov Recora., Origivat riaevce., ava Mavv.crit.. , Ratb 1bore.b,, . R. . 1o rbicb i.
aaaea, at tbe Reqve.t of .ererat earvea Per.ov., . Catatogve of bi. Mv.aevv, ritb tbe Cvrio.itie. âtvrat ava
.rtificiat, ava tbe .vtiqvitie.; articvtart, tbe Rovav, riti.b, aov, Davi.b, ôrvav, ava cotcb Coiv., ritb Moaerv
Meaat.. .t.o . Catatogve of Mavv.crit.; tbe rariov. aitiov. of tbe ibte, ava of oo/. Pvbti.bea iv tbe vfavc, of tbe
.rt of Privtivg. !itb .v .ccovvt of .ove vvv.vat .cciaevt. tbat bare attevaea .ove Per.ov., attevtea after tbe Metboa
of Dr. Ptot. ,London, 115,.
30
exotic curios are only one part. Gien the agaries o each collection, more speciic classiicatory
sections hae not been considered here i they did not proide any useul inormation.
Uenbach`s complaint about the 1radescant catalogue, that many specimens within it were only
designated by one word`, and thereore rustratingly unhelpul, is one I would echo.
89
1hus, the
1radescant erbarivv has been let out, as were the sea plants rom lubert`s collection, corals,
shells and insects rom 1horesby`s collection, and the shells, insects, mosses, ungi and sea plants
rom the Royal Society`s Repository. In my general analyses, all o lubert`s items were also
omitted, since his collection was acquired and re-catalogued by the Royal Society, although a
comparison o the two catalogues reeals a great deal about the changing attitudes towards
collections.
O the 2265 items in my sample, 600 were rom the 1radescants` collection, 34 rom the Royal
Society, 194 rom lubert and 3 rom 1horesby. \hen it is considered that lubert`s list was
not exhaustie, this sample gies an impression o the general size o each collection`s store o
exotic items. Lach collection was ormed on a highly indiidual basis, and while exhibiting
general tendencies, also showcased their owners` interest areas as well as their commercial and
social contacts.
90
Although eery attempt has been made here to be systematic, it should be
obious that the ensuing data might not proide an entirely representatie picture o early
modern collections, especially since this sample would exclude both smaller holdings that did not
leae catalogues, as well as catalogues that were printed in Latin. As such, this analysis can only
be tentatie, although it would still represent well the curious` items in a cabinet, and can proe
illuminating on the issue o cabinets` composition and the ocus o early modern inquiry.
89
Zacharias Conrad on Uenbach, Ofora iv 110: rov tbe 1raret. of Zacbaria. Covraa rov |ffevbacb, trans.
\. l. Quarrell and \. J. C Quarrell, ,Oxord, 1928, pp. 30-1.
90
Marjorie Swann, Cvrio.itie. ava 1et.: 1be Cvttvre of Cottectivg iv art, Moaerv vgtava ,Philadelphia, 2001,
p. 8.
31
lig. 2.2. lrans lrancken, Art Room` ,oil on wood, 1636, Kunsthistoriches Museum, Vienna
Collection catalogues were a means o rationalising a seemingly discordant set o items, and
perormed a unctional role in the administration o a collection. loweer, they were not ree
rom ested interests. Robert lubert`s listing, or instance, was only a partial one and meant to
attract ee-paying isitors. 1he 1radescants` had a similar slant, though also adertised to
potential buyers: the irst edition was dedicated to the College o Physicians, who were in
negotiation to take oer the collection, and the second to Charles II, whose goodwill the
32
collector hoped to tap.
91
1horesby`s collection was a showcase o its owner`s well-connectedness,
displaying his extensie holdings and the list o eminent personages who contributed items. It
was also an initation or ellow learned gentlemen to partake in the exchange o cultural capital
that occurred in its conines.
92
1he Royal Society, most interestingly, recatalogued lubert`s items
when they acquired his collection, and re-iewed them in the light o their mode o scientiic
inquiry. As such items that had been played up or their rarity and amusement alue in lubert`s
possession were gien more sceptical and academic treatment in the latter. A merman`s rib, or
example, is described with reerence to arious other catalogues as well as natural history
treatises in the ormer, whereas in the latter it was not described, but rather noted or being
taken by a certain Captain linney and gien by a Doctor Lsg|ae| to lubert.
93
Likewise,
dierent collections presented dierent perspecties on similar objects.
Catalogues were also used ariously in each cabinet`s context, and depended on the isitor and
curator`s personal preerences. 1hey were read with arious degrees o credulity and scepticism,
both in and outside collections, and can in no way stand in or the actual experience o seeing in
a museum. Lelyn, or instance, takes the catalogue o Leyden Uniersity`s Garden o Simples
on aith, whereas the Uenbach brothers express immense disappointment both in the
Ashmolean and at the Royal Society`s Repository that the items they had come to see had been
poorly described, wrongly catalogued, or quite simply had gone missing.
94
lrans lrancken`s .rt
Roov ,lig. 2.2, illustrates this well: although not an illustration o an Lnglish cabinet, it is
91
92
lor more on Ralph 1horesby as a collector and isitor o museums see P. C. D. Brears, Ralph
1horesby, a Museum Visitor in Stuart Lngland`, ]ovrvat of tbe i.tor, of Cottectiov. 1:2 ,1989, pp. 213-224.
93
Grew, Mv.aevv Regati. ocietati., p. 81, lubert, . Catatogve, p. .
94
John Lelyn 1be Diar, of ]obv ret,v, Vol II: Kalendarium 1620-1649, ed. L. S. de Beer ,Oxord, 1955,
pp. 52-4, on Uenbach Ofora iv 110, pp. 24, 30-31, Zacharias Conrad on Uenbach, ovaov iv 110:
rov tbe 1raret. of Zacbaria. Covraa rov |ffevbacb, trans. \. l. Quarrell and Margaret Mare, ,London, 1934,
pp. 9-8.
33
reasonable to assume that most collections would hae unctioned on a similar leel. \hilst it
illustrates well the sheer ariety o items one could ind in a cabinet, it shows, too, how they were
not presented in the compartmentalised and ormal way that the catalogues imply. 1he items
here seem to be arranged or aesthetic eect and are unlabelled, with the exotic mixing with the
ancient and the contemporary, a conusing jumble that belies the neat presentation o the
catalogues. In the background, two men discourse in an inner chamber that contains items not
immediately on display. 1his detail suggests that learned company, or a guide, could oer not
only a greater insight into a collection, but also access to items which may appear on the
catalogue, but were not open to all. Items could also hae been rearranged to send certain
messages. Portraits o learned persons or insignia o patrons could be displayed to inluence the
tone o the room. Similarly, as in the Lnlightenment Room, a simple rearrangement o objects
could sere a powerul didactic purpose.
E)&'2 ,%(#&4 %&5)401)*0%4)' 13"#,#1 )4( 3%1,%'%52
listoriographically, early modern classiication schemes hae been simpliied into a vatvratia
artificiatia dichotomy, the ormer containing all o God, Nature`s creations ,including malormed
ones,, and the latter containing testaments to human ingenuity.
95
Other scholars hae een
asserted that curiosity collections had no organising principles at all.
96
A glance at the catalogues,
howeer, clariies this immediately ,lig. 2.4,. 1he catalogues do maintain the basic natural,
artiicial diision, but are more complex entities: they contain a great many sub-categories which
95
Renate Pieper, 1he Upper German 1rade in Art and Curiosities Beore the 1hirty \ears \ar`, in
Michael North and Daid Ormond, eds. .rt Mar/et. iv vroe, 1100100 ,lampshire, 1998, p. 95, Joy
Kenseth, 1he Age o the Marellous: An Introduction`, in Joy Kenseth, ed. 1be .ge of tbe Marrettov.
,Chicago, 1991, p. 38.
96
Margaret 1. lodgen, art, .vtbrootog, iv tbe iteevtb ava erevteevtb Cevtvrie. ,Philadelphia, 1964, p.
162.
34
help accommodate the nuances o their contents, each arying in signiicance and diering in
ariance depending on the cataloguer. A ull discussion o this has been recently proided by
MacGregor, who unpacks each category and its meaning in relation to early modern
cosmology.
9
loweer, it is essential at this point to highlight that many items elude een the
taxonomic system that was imposed on them by contemporaries, let alone that created by
historians. Categories such as heathen deity` or rarity` sought to coney degrees o
complexity, with their respectie connotations o religion or wonder alue, but ail to capture the
entire essence o the item in itsel.
Lach item transcended in many ways the category it was put into, haing unctional, academic,
aesthetic, or een emotional signiicances that blurred the boundaries between categories. As
such, one may see these classiicatory exercises as an attempt to render the expanding early
modern world as intelligible as possible, but contemporaries were almost certainly aware o the
artiiciality o such an exercise, and probably did not intend each category to be absolute.
Rhinoceros horn ,lig. 2.3,, or instance, was a common item ound in cabinets. 1he 1radescants
and 1horesby had two each, and the Royal Society had our, some o which were mounted as
the picture shows. Such an item would hae been appreciated on a multiplicity o leels. At the
most basic, rhinoceros horn was a natural history specimen, oering an eloquent testimony to
the animal rom which it came. It was also prized or its rarity, since rhinoceroses did not reside
in Lurope. In another way, its exquisite caring and setting was a showcase or excellent
cratsmanship. 1his was especially intriguing i it had been produced in a oreign country, telling
also o that country`s industry. 1he cup also recorded an ethnographic and natural historical
9
Arthur MacGregor, Cvrio.it, ava vtigbtevvevt: Cottector. ava Cottectiov. frov tbe iteevtb to tbe îveteevtb
Cevtvr, ,New laen, 200, pp. 44-50.
35
lig. 2.3. Rhinoceros horn cup, rom the Kvv.t/avverv o Rudolph II, ,c. 1590, Reproduced rom
98
98
\hile this is o continental origin, similar mounted cups would hae existed in the Lnglish collections.
36
impression, with the cared rhinoceros and its handlers on the top, although one can see that
this has been made second-hand, since the rhinoceros has an extra horn on its back, a
misconception that was perpetuated by Drer`s engraing o 1515.
99
1he item is thus a
document o preailing ethnographic and natural knowledge, and, inaccuracies aside, also shows
an attempt to understand and coney understandings o both the natural and human world
outside o Lurope. Additionally, muses hae been cared on the base o the cup and classical
igures on its body. 1his was in keeping with the Renaissance ogue or Greco-Roman antiquity,
and demonstrated its commissioner`s taste, knowledge and wealth. On yet another leel, this
item signalled knowledge, luxury and status, not least in respect o the medical alue that
rhinoceros horn was understood to hae as an antidote to poison. \hilst this was probably not
meant or unctional use, its ownership and display were a testament to the many ways in which
contemporaries handled and appreciated items rom outside Lurope, many o which shed light
on their owners and obserers as much as they do on the item itsel.
Caeats aside, the data reeal quite clearly the categories o emphasis that were prealent in the
collections ,lig. 2.4,. Len despite the exclusion o 1radescant`s herbarium, the ast majority o
items in the sample were o natural historical specimens. Lthnographic arteacts make up the
second largest proportion: weapons, garments and utensils rom around the world were held or
comparatie obseration, likewise bespeaking an attempt to understand the world ri.ari. its
material productions and to discoer and admire human lie and endeaour on an international
leel. Surprisingly, only 42 items ,2 percent, were reaks o nature`-Siamese twins, double-
eggs and the like- and only 14 ,1 percent, were mythical-such as claws o gryphons-which
99
Glynis Ridley, Ctara`. Crava 1ovr: 1raret. ritb a Rbivocero. iv igbteevtb Cevtvr, vroe ,New \ork, 2005,
a..iv.
3
38
oerturns the common conception o cabinets as containing abricated monsters and misleading
marels. Moreoer, as MacGregor argues, the study o reaks o nature` were central to the
early modern appreciation o nature, since they helped delineate the outer boundaries o
Creation and the boundlessness o being. 1his adds a scientiic layer to the wonder-alue o such
items and incorporates them into the scope o rational inquiry.
100
Countereits o nature`, as
MacGregor terms them, were also not necessarily taken on ace alue.
101
1hey could tease and
intrigue, but were not meant to deceie. Mermaids and dragons were meant to be transparent`
rauds that underscored the exotic reality o the other items, rather than be taken seriously as
specimens. \hile once again noting that not all iewers would hae shared the same experiences
and perspecties, and that spatial arrangements could alter the import o an item, it is still
signiicant to consider how these categorical trends span all our o the collections. 1his adds
colour to the playul and positie aspect o the cabinet, since it was a space in which similitudes
and sympathies, as well as concrete knowledge, could be ormed.
E)&'2 ,%(#&4 04*#&#1*1 )4( 04P/0&2
Cabinets exhibited material culture in order to eed a growing contemporary curiosity, whose
appetite, as Benedict argues, was primarily empirical`.
102
1rael reports and similar accounts o
the weird and wonderul were no longer reliable as testaments to the world beyond Lurope, and
there was nothing more authoritatie, short o actual trael, than concrete arteacts rom distant
shores. Accurate reportage and obseration was prized, and as such the cabinets were especially
alued since they contained real creatures and real items. Kenseth`s assertion that New \orld
100
101
MacGregor, Cvrio.it, ava vtigbtevvevt, pp. 46-.
102
Barbara M. Benedict, Cvrio.it,: . Cvttvrat i.tor, of art, Moaerv vqvir, ,Chicago, 2001, p.14.
39
40
wonders had to be gien the antastic appearance o creatures o able` is perhaps misplaced:
while the element o wonder was not lost rom the cabinet, it seems rather that the items
commanded this in their own right, and did not hae to borrow a mythical patina in order to be
interesting.
103
In the early modern period, then, the concept o the exotic shited rom the realm
o the imagination to the appreciation o reality. Accurately obsered creatures were just as
magniicent and aesthetically impressie as their mythical cousins, and could command the same
leel o thrall ,lig. 2.4,. At the same time, though, it must be noted that the collections
necessarily retained an element o the antastic, esoteric, and useless. Since they sought to
represent a totality o knowledge, collections necessarily also contained a large number o
seemingly superluous and absurd articles, een i accurately obsered and wonderully
presered. 1hey thus also occupied the same paradigm o inquiry that encouraged attempts to
estimate the total rate o eaporation o the surace o the sea-a quest that would seem
ruitless to many contemporary and modern minds.
104
1he cast o early modern inquiry is urther shown by an analysis o the geographical origins o
items in collection catalogues. As can be seen in lig. 2.6, the contents o cabinets were clearly o
global distribution, though a large proportion are o unspeciied proenance. A great many items
besides are noted down as exotic, but a speciic place o origin has not been speciied. 1his could
be due to laziness or a lack o interest in such details, though it could also be due to a
cataloguer`s atigue, it did not necessarily mean that such knowledge about the items was not
known or not aailable, since catalogues were not the only source o inormation about a
collection`s contents. More interestingly, where origins are speciied, one can see that interest in
the newly discoered \est Indies outweighs interest in any other part in the world ,lig. 2.6,.
103
Kenseth, 1he Age o the Marellous`, p. 34.
104
L. lalley, in Royal Society, Mi.cettavea cvrio.a : beivg a cottectiov of .ove of tbe rivciat bevoveva iv vatvre,
accovvtea for b, tbe greate.t bito.ober. of tbi. age, Volume I ,London, 105, pp. 1-12.
41
42
43
44
1his can be partly explained by the act that these collectors had more commercial and personal
contacts in that part o the world: both 1radescants, or instance, as well as many members o
the Royal Society, made trips to the New \orld in which they collected items or their
collections. 1he noelty alue o the \est Indies may also hae played a role. As it was a newly-
colonised territory, it naturally commanded more immediate interest than other exotic locations
such as the Last Indies or Near Last, whose natural and artiicial productions had been relatiely
more amiliar due to the centuries o prior trade and contact.
1his point is urther elaborated when one looks at a more speciic breakdown. Comparing the
\est and Last Indies ,ligs. 2. and 2.8,, which were arguably the areas that were considered
most exotic` and with which Lurope had the greatest commercial and imperial interest, there is a
signiicant dierence in the detail with which items are recorded. New world items were more
oten gien a speciic attribution, whereas the ast majority rom the Last were only designated
as Last Indian`, or lumped into ast, undierentiated geographical blocs such as China or India.
In the \est Indies, one can also see that most items came rom British-inluenced areas such as
Virginia and Jamaica, a pattern that also discloses the colonial interests and networks that the
curiosity cabinets tapped. Perhaps this was uelled by nothing else but the lure o lucre. 1he New
\orld, and in particular, its plants and animals, promised great potential to collectors and
iewers, many o whom had medical or commercial interests. 1he cabinet contents would thus
hae proided cutting edge practical knowledge to its iewers and owners, rather than knowledge
or its own sake or simple dumb wonder.
Lthnographic items also eature ery strongly in these areas, which likewise were part o the
colonial encounter. Powhatan`s mantle, which one may still see in the Ashmolean today, is a
particularly striking example o the type o items that were brought back and exhibited in large
45
numbers rom the \est Indies. 1he cabinet unctioned as a space o negotiation in which
collectors and iewers could engage with the oreign through its material traces. Regarded
initially as Ldenic, lie in the New \orld ascinated contemporaries, who had not yet deeloped
the idea o a hierarchy o races.
105
1he space o cabinets thus became one o the initial contact
zones` in which exotic cultures iniltrated natie ones, assimilating into Luropean cultural and
linguistic paradigms. One may obsere many a tamahuke` or canoo` in the collections, terms as
well as items which had been imported rom oer the seas. As items could be repurposed or re-
signiied in cabinets, this could not be a pure act o transculturation`.
106
Still, it constituted a
contemporary attempt to engage the Other on its own terms, as ar as was possible, in a
domestic context. Greenblatt has argued that this amounted to a trampling on and kidnapping`
o oreign languages and cultures, but this would be to oersimpliy the situation.
10
Rather, as
Morgan has suggested, the process has allowed or the traces o the |marginalised to be|
inscribed in the margins o the coloniser`s discourse,` such that the Lnglish language itsel could
become a collection o sorts, housing and presering oreign terminology.
108
105
Kenseth, 1he Age o the Marellous`, p. 36.
106
Mary Louise Pratt, veriat ,e.: 1raret !ritivg ava 1rav.cvttvratiov ,London, 1992,, Lliean looper-
Greenhill, Mv.evv. ava tbe baivg of Kvorteage ,London, 1992, p. 82.
10
Stephen Greenblatt, Marrettov. Po..e..iov.: 1be !ovaer of tbe êr !orta ,Oxord, 1991, p. 88.
108
Phillip D. Morgan, Lncounters between British and Indigenous` Peoples, c. 1500-1800`, in Martin
Daunton and Rick lalpern, eds. vire ava Otber.: riti.b vcovvter. ritb vaigevov. Peote., 1001:0
,Philadelphia, 1999, p. 62, C. A. Bayly, 1he British and Indigenous Peoples, 160-1860: Power,
Perception and Identity`, in Martin Daunton and Rick lalpern, eds. vire ava Otber.: riti.b vcovvter.
ritb vaigevov. Peote., 1001:0 ,Philadelphia, 1999, pp. 19-41.
46
lig. 2.9. Naigation` ,print book illustration, 1686, 1he British Museum, London
4
E)&'2 ,%(#&4 E45')4( )4( *"# H%&'( )* ')&5#
Larly modern curiosity was thus intense and ocused, rather than diuse and catholic. It
operated according to particular guidelines, and was interested in particular areas, which are
relected in the cabinets` contents. One may read a more direct articulation o purpose in the
arious guides to traellers that were printed oer the period. Dr. \oodward`s pamphlet ,1696,
is a good example o this, setting out the conentions or obseration and sampling, sering to
direct both the traeller`s mind and his luggage contents, and thus also the contents o
cabinets.
109
It is a practical document, giing adice on such topics as presering specimens and
keeping journals, which, alongside the cabinets, sered to standardise contemporary modes o
inquiry and orms o engagement with the exotic. As lig. 2.9 shows, this ed directly back into
the basics o trael: not only was naigation concerned with the structure o a ship, it was also
surrounded by a eritable cabinet-ull o scientiic equipment, cartographical and geographical
knowledge. Cabinets were thus an important trope in building up the early modern cast o mind,
where the indiidual pushed at the boundaries o an expanding world, seas were charted and
Others met.
1his was by no means a straightorward process. \hile collection catalogues present an ordered
picture similar to the mind map o lig. 2.9, in the actual cabinet spaces themseles items were
not necessarily compartmentalised, and exotic things were interspersed with antiques, relics,
coins, and other domestic or Luropean items in a conusing array that the isitor would hae to
negotiate, caring out a unique equation or himsel that would resole these contradictions in
line with his personal inclinations. Cabinets contained many dierent kinds o oreignness and
109
John \oodward, rief iv.trvctiov. for va/ivg ob.erratiov. iv att art. of tbe rorta a. at.o, for cottectivg, re.errivg,
ava .evaivg orer vatvrat tbivg. : beivg av attevt to .ettte av vvirer.at corre.ovaevce for tbe aaravcevevt of /vorteag botb
vatvrat ava cirit , ararv v at tbe reqve.t of a er.ov of bovovr ava re.evtea to tbe Ro,at ociet, ,London, 1696,.
48
amiliarity, which would hae rustrated attempts to pigeonhole into categories such as Sel`,
Other`, lome` and Abroad`. 1he Past and the leaenly, as represented in the cabinets, were
possibly just as much another country as Barbados or the Moluccas. Similarly, the oreign could
be co-opted into the matrix o early modern culture ia the conerment o a religious, scientiic,
or classical pedigree.
110
Visiting cabinets was ultimately a subjectie experience, and while it could
proe ormatie to an indiidual there were no set conclusions that could be drawn.
1he paradigms represented in the cabinets were not restricted to their conines, but rather
iltered out into common parlance and inluenced the early modern cast o mind. 1his is most
discernible in the changing conception o the exotic, which transormed rom an open-jawed
gaping at magical monsters into the pursuit o empirical and practical knowledge. 1rael writing
displays this tendency most clearly: as lig. 2.10 shows, the representation o Virginia had by the
sixteenth century taken on the orm o a printed catalogue in which eery category that makes up
a good collection is speciied. Botanically accurate plants dot the landscape, and the sea is
populated with horseshoe crabs, sting rays and hammerhead sharks. 1he naties and their
actiities ,in this case, ishing with jaelins, are accurately obsered, and their equipment, rom
ish trap to canoe, are also rendered to the slightest detail. Len the light patterns o the birds
oerhead hae been recorded aithully. It is hard to imagine anything urther rom the monsters
and monopods o Sir John Mandeille.
111
\et this image still possessed the same ascination and
equialent commercial potential. As \elu has noted in his study o maps, the rationalising o
110
Anthony Alan Shelton, Cabinets o 1ransgression: Renaissance Collections and the Incorporation o
the New \orld`, in John Llsner and Roger Cardinal, eds. 1be Cvttvre. of Cottectivg ,London, 1994, p. 201.
111
Sir John Mandeille, 1be 1raret. of ir ]obv Mavaeritte, trans. Charles Moseley ,London, 2005,.
49
representation was one o the hallmarks o early modernity, bespeaking a new concern with
scientiic truth, though without remoing the element o wonder altogether.
112
112
James A. \elu, Strange New \orlds: Mapping the leaens and Larth`s Great Lxtent`, in Joy
Kenseth, ed. 1be .ge of tbe Marrettov. ,Chicago, 1991, p. 105.
50
lig. 2.10. Virginian naties ishing. ,\oodcut illustration, 1590, Reproduced rom lariot, .
riefe ava 1rve Reort of tbe êr ovva ava of 1irgivia, p. 50.
51
As such, curiosity cabinets proed to be a positie site in which truth could be approached, and
relationships with the Other could be culturally brokered. 1his was only one side o the coin, o
course. \hilst many collectors and iewers belieed in knowledge or its own sake, one cannot
deny that early modern empiricism was also acquisitie in nature. lrancis Bacon, whose treatise
on empiricism in êr .ttavti. ,1624, sered as the ounding spirit o the Royal Society, also
wrote to the Larl o Rutland on his traels that he should obsere according to a gien set o
practices, speciically or your own use thereater, and or your riends. in whatsoeer
concerneth either pleasure or proit`.
113
Modes o enquiry into the curious were thereore neer
ar rom personal, political and economic agendas, and cabinets correspondingly could neer
present a perect or een a balanced picture o the world, relecting rather the interests o the
collector, his donors, and also his intended audience. lurthermore, they were not inariably
regarded with entire seriousness. \hilst collections certainly exhibited tendencies towards a
more rational and scientiic appreciation o the world and all its constituents, the element o
absurdity and wonder remained as a crucial characteristic o the items. One need look no urther
than the Royal Society`s catalogue or eidence o this: Nehemiah Grew, charged with the
thankless task o compiling this document, expressed his rustration and scepticism at some
particularly strange items. le catalogued the horns o a hare, as well as o a dog-goat, noting that
only so |he ound| them inscribed`, beore suggesting more plausible alternaties in his
description, but not discarding or dismissing them altogether.
114
Curiosity cabinets were similarly
odd creatures, exhibiting generally obserable tendencies, but or which a ariety o explanations
might be proided, all seemingly as ridiculous or reasonable as the next.
113
lrancis Bacon, ravci. acov: . Criticat aitiov of tbe Ma;or !or/., ed. Brian Vickers ,Oxord, 1996, p.
.
114
Grew, Mv.aevv Regati. ocieati., p. 25.
52
JJJ
MB)42 +#)(1 )&# Q#**#& *")4 C4#O- D#*H%&G1 %8 N4%H'#(5# )4( ER3")45#
53
lig. 3.1. 1he 1rue lorme and Shape o a Monsterous Chyld` ,Broadside ballad, 1565, Bodleian
Library, Oxord
54
On 20 April 1644, John Lelyn woke up to ind a deormed kitten in his bed. Not knowing its
signiicance immediately, he chose to record it, noting how it |had| 6 Lares, eight legges, two
bodys rom the nail downewards, & two tailes: which strange Monster, I ound dead, but
warme by me in the Morning when I awaked`.
115
In the Oxord Anatomy 1heatre, the Uenbach
brothers likewise chose to record, o all the specimens, the example o A monstrosity o a lamb
with two bodies, eight eet, our ears but only one head.`
116
Such Siamese twins hae been
ariously understood as portents ,lig. 3.1,, whether personal or uniersal, as monsters, or as
curios. 1hey hae exed and ascinated throughout the ages, and people hae been putting their
heads together to puzzle them out.
Curiosity cabinets, too, were puzzling entities. Containing many double-headed, multi-limbed
creatures, they also boasted a myriad o other items that were not necessarily malormed, but
which remained mysterious and intriguing in themseles. 1here were many theoretical as well as
practical approaches to iewing cabinets, and their meanings extended way beyond those
presented in their catalogues. Cabinets were social spaces, where identity, knowledge and status
could be ormed in both collusie and competitie ways. Llite social networks were the
immediate locus o discussion and sociability, as learned and well-connected gentlemen were the
quintessential collectors, patrons, donors and iewers, and also let the most records o their
experiences. Lnglish collections were atypical in the sense that many o them opened to a ee-
paying public and were thus not as exclusie aairs as their continental counterparts, and
allowed access to a much wider social spectrum whose experiences hae not as yet been
examined. 1hese can be reconstructed in negatie rom elite accounts, and shed additional light
115
John Lelyn, 1be Diar, of ]obv ret,v, Vol II: Kalendarium 1620-1649, ed. L. S. de Beer, ,Oxord, 1955,
p. 136.
116
Zacharias Conrad on Uenbach, Ofora iv 110: rov tbe 1raret. of Zacbaria. Covraa rov |ffevbacb,
trans. \.l. Quarrell and \. J. C. Quarrell ,Oxord, 1928, p. 21.
55
on the ways in which dierent modes o seeing were negotiated, relecting both contextual and
indiidual dilemmas. Comprehending the agaries o early modern sight is important when
considering the wider and long-lasting impact o curiosity collections, especially when
considering their relationships to museums and modern modes o identity and knowledge
ormation.
B#*"%(%'%52
1his chapter will attempt to reconstruct the patterns o iewing museums by engaging with the
theoretical discussions o early modern modes o seeing. It will urther compare these to
contemporary trael accounts and published writings that concern themseles with the ways o
approaching collections. 1hese span the late sixteenth to the early eighteenth centuries, and thus
perhaps relect the cabinets in their more mature stages, though they still proide a gold mine o
insights into contemporary practices. 1heir highly indiidualised nature can be regarded an
adantage, as it shows most clearly the subjectiity o the cabinets and the multiple ways o
iewing them. 1he diaries o Zacharias Conrad on Uenbach and John Lelyn are particularly
useul or their candour and the detail with which they recorded their experiences, and I will thus
be relying heaily on their accounts in this chapter.
11
1he ormer was a German bibliophile who
toured Lngland with his brother in 110, taking especial care to isit amous collections and to
sneer at them, the latter an Lnglish gentleman and ounding member o the Royal Society who
traelled extensiely through both Lngland and Lurope, isiting cabinets and making a small
11
on Uenbach, Ofora iv 110; Zacharias Conrad on Uenbach, ovaov iv 110: rov tbe 1raret. of
Zacbaria. Covraa rov |ffevbacb, trans. \. l. Quarrell and Margaret Mare ,London, 1934,, Lelyn, 1be Diar,
of ]obv ret,v, Vols I-IV, ed. L. S. de Beer ,Oxord, 1955,.
56
collection o his own along the way.
118
1he German traeller 1homas Platter also let an
inaluable account o his Lnglish journey.
119
lis isits to the royal houses where he was shown
curios, as well as the homes o priate indiiduals who owned exotic animals, suggests that there
were alternatie spaces in which one`s appetite or curious iewing could be gratiied. 1his hints
suggestiely at wider collecting practices that hae been oerlooked in the historiography, which
has tended to ocus on collections that subsequently turned into museums. Broadening the
deinition o collections` and curiosities` could proe constructie in an endeaour to access
the wider experience o seeing. In this chapter some preliminary attempts hae been made at
this, though due to the limited scope o the study they can only remain proisional. In addition
to these sources, contemporary trael accounts and natural history narraties written by those
who were amiliar with connections show also how the eye trained in the cabinet saw outside o
it, in both domestic and exotic settings. Sloane`s âtvrat i.tor, of ]avaica ,10-25,, Plot`s
âtvrat i.tor, of Ofora.bire ,16, and Kaemper`s i.tor, of ]aav ,translated 12, are prime
examples, showing the inluence o the cabinets in their inspiration, citation, and style. In each o
these cases what becomes most apparent is the ariance o experience: while one may be able to
discern the theoretical ramework behind each encounter, the indiidual moes luidly between
modes o iewing depending on the situation.
118
Gillian Darley, ]obv ret,v: irivg for vgevvit, ,New laen, 2006,, lrances larris and Michael lunter,
eds. ]obv ret,v ava bi. Mitiev ,London, 2003,, Douglas D. C. Chambers, Lelyn, John ,1620-106,`,
Ofora Dictiovar, of âtiovat iograb,, ,Oxord Uniersity Press, Sept 2004, online edn, Jan 2008,, 16 Aug
2010 http:,,www.oxorddnb.com,iew,article,8996.
119
Viienne Larminie, Platter, 1homas ,154-1628,`, Ofora Dictiovar, of âtiovat iograb,, ,Oxord, May
2005,, 16 Aug 2010 http:,,www.oxorddnb.com,iew,article,53269, 1homas Platter, 1bova. Ptatter`.
1raret. iv vgtava, 1:, trans. Clare \illiams ,London, 193,.
5
$)21 %8 1##045- !"#%&2 )4( L&)3*03#
1he curiosity cabinet did not spring rom nowhere, een i it contained specimens o such
wondrous wildlie as could supposedly spontaneously generate. It had its roots in the medieal
aesthetic and medieal practices, and continued to be inormed by them whether consciously or
unconsciously through its subsequent history. It had an obious precursor in the collections o
relics housed in churches, items that possessed sacred power and perormed as the perect
semiophores, mediating between the mortal world and the diine. Collections oten occupied the
same emotional space, and arguably still do. One can experience this other-worldliness in the
reerenced hush o museum spaces and the pilgrimages made to these temples o knowledge.
120
Indeed, the term museum` means the temple o the muses`, a shrine in which the act o
stealing or moing would be tantamount to sacrilege.
121
In act, many medieal churches also
possessed collections o curiosities and natural history specimens, recording, as later cabinets did
and museums still do, the identities o their donors.
122
1he medieal notions o the miraculous` and marellous` sered to underpin one o the main
characteristics o curiosity collecting. 1hese were categories under which the baling was
subsumed and incorporated into the Christian cosmology, unctioning ariously as examples o
the ariety o God`s creation, portents o diine mood swings, or as material and metaphysical
120
Susan M. Pearce, Ov Cottectivg: .v vre.tigatiov ivto Cottectivg iv tbe vroeav 1raaitiov ,London, 1995,, p.
116, Arthur MacGregor, 1he 1radescants as Collectors o Rarities`, in Arthur MacGregor, ed.
1raae.cavt`. Raritie.: ..a,. ov tbe ovvaatiov of tbe ..bvoteav Mv.evv 1 ritb a Catatogve of tbe vrririvg art,
Cottectiov. ,Oxord, 1983, p. 1.
121
Krzyszto Pomian, Cottector. ava Cvrio.itie.: Pari. ava 1evice, 1:00100, trans. Llizabeth \iles-Porter
,Cambridge, 1990, p. 13.
122
Pomian, Cottector. ava Cvrio.itie., p. 1, Stephen Bann, |vaer tbe igv: ]obv argrare a. Cottector, 1raretter,
ava !itve.. ,Ann Arbor, 1994, p. 94.
58
stimuli to prooke higher contemplation and perhaps een communication with God.
123
In the
early modern period, in which science was in the midst o an extended and painul diorce rom
religion, and religion itsel suering rom the raages o theological rits and war, the secular
quest or the curious was in a way a surrogate or the earlier tradition, absorbing some o its
orce but aoiding the theological and eidentiary problems inherent in directly asserting a
miracle.`
124
As lig. 3.1 shows, objects o curiosity could hae a portentous import, their allure closely
associated with religious or personal signiicances.
125
Contemporaries had a mixed response to
this. Lelyn exempliies this well, noting, as aboe, the monstrous kitten, but in another instance
expressing his scorn at the superstitions attached to the 1652 eclipse, where the whole Nation.
|were| abused by knaish and ignorant star-gazers`.
126
Churches continued to exhibit curiosities
ater the Reormation, though they no longer contained old-style relics. John Bargrae`s
collection in Canterbury ,c.1650, would hae been a direct descendant o medieal religious
collections.
12
1he lrenchman`s inger in this collection can be seen as a new relic o sorts,
though it would attest more to an inestigatie than a religious spirit. Most other collections
contained mementoes o amous people, such as lenry VIII`s stirrups ,which one may still see
in the Ashmolean today, or slices o Queen Llizabeth`s narwhal horn, which one could argue
123
Anthony Alan Shelton, 1he Collector`s Zeal: 1owards and Anthropology o Intentionality,
Instrumentality, and Desire`, in Pieter ter Keurs, ed. Cotoviat Cottectiov. Reri.itea ,Leiden, 200, p. 1, 184-
5, Russell \. Belk, Cottectivg iv a Cov.vver ociet, ,London, 1995,, p. 33.
124
Stephen Greenblatt, Marrettov. Po..e..iov.: 1be !ovaer of tbe êr !orta ,Oxord, 1991, p. 0.
125
lor more on proidence and portents, see Alexandra \alsham, Proriaevce iv art, Moaerv vgtava
,Oxord, 1999,, Alexandra \alsham, Vox Piscis: or the Book-lish: Proidence and the Uses o the
Reormation Past in Caroline Cambridge`, 1be vgti.b i.toricat Rerier 114:45 ,1999, pp. 54-606.
126
Lelyn, 1be Diar, of ]obv ret,v, Vol. III, p. 63.
12
Daid Sturdy and Martin lenig, 1be Cevtte 1raretter: ]obv argrare, Cavov of Cavterbvr,, ava bi. Cottectiov
,Canterbury, 1983, p. 14, Stephen Bann, Bargrae, John ,ba. 1610, a. 1680,`, Ofora Dictiovar, of âtiovat
iograb,, ,Oxord Uniersity Press, Sept 2004,, 10 Aug 2010
http:,,www.oxorddnb.com,iew,article,131.
59
were new, secular relics, whose exhibition relected the longeity o the idea that an item could
retain the spirit o its ormer owner.
128
1he Renaissance cult o the curious tapped into this ein in a somewhat unconscious way. 1his
was an all-embracing scheme o knowledge, characterised by a neer-ending thirst or its
accumulation, and relatiely open access to its hallowed ranks.
129
In an age o increasing global
contacts, with the discoery o the Americas and burgeoning mercantile links with the Last
Indies, Lurope ound itsel inundated with new specimens, items, and inormation rom around
the world. Material culture was imbued with a great deal o authority both as the basis o science
and commerce, and became, in a sense, relics o the New \orld. Visiting cabinets was seen as a
substitute or trael the way in which proximity to a relic was a surrogate or a saint`s presence.
Gien that the New \orld was thought o initially as a new Lden, and gien also the cabinets`
bias or American items, a isit to a collection could easily be painted in neo-religious terms, with
the old Gods replaced by the new ones o empiricism and economics.
As such, Greenblatt has argued that wonder was the primary response to the lood o
inormation, drawing on the medieal aesthetic in order to domesticate the oreign and preent
chaos.
130
1his was a more complex process than mere pigeonholing, howeer. 1he marellous as
128
John 1radescant, Mv.aevv 1raae.cavtivvv: or, . cottectiov of raritie.. Pre.errea at ovtb avbetb veer ovaov
b, ]obv 1raae.cavt ,London, 1656, p. 4, Ralph 1horesby, Dvcatv. eoaiev.i.: or, tbe toograb, of tbe avcievt ava
ovtov. torv ava ari.b of eeae., ava art. aa;acevt iv tbe !e.tRiaivg of tbe covvt, of Yor/. !itb 1be Peaegree. of
vav, of tbe ôbitit, ava Cevtr,, ava otber Matter. retativg to tbo.e Part.; tractea frov Recora., Origivat riaevce.,
ava Mavv.crit.. , Ratb 1bore.b,, . R. . 1o rbicb i. aaaea, at tbe Reqve.t of .ererat earvea Per.ov., .
Catatogve of bi. Mv.aevv, ritb tbe Cvrio.itie. âtvrat ava .rtificiat, ava tbe .vtiqvitie.; articvtart, tbe Rovav,
riti.b, aov, Davi.b, ôrvav, ava cotcb Coiv., ritb Moaerv Meaat.. .t.o . Catatogve of Mavv.crit.; tbe rariov.
aitiov. of tbe ibte, ava of oo/. Pvbti.bea iv tbe vfavc, of tbe .rt of Privtivg. !itb .v .ccovvt of .ove vvv.vat
.cciaevt. tbat bare attevaea .ove Per.ov., attevtea after tbe Metboa of Dr. Ptot. ,London, 115, p. 43.
129
Paula lindlen, Po..e..ivg âtvre: Mv.evv., Cottectivg, ava cievtific Cvttvre iv art, Moaerv tat, ,London,
1994, p. 9.
130
Greenblatt, Marrettov. Po..e..iov., p. 14, Belk, Cottectivg iv a Cov.vver ociet, ,London, 1995, p. 32.
60
a category was a means by which contemporaries sought to grapple with the new, allowing more
complex understandings to deelop ater its irst introduction.
131
As Shelton points out,
categories such as the pagan` domesticated erstwhile oreign things and allowed or
unthreatening cultural diersity.
132
1his enabled the exotic to be studied on its own terms, to a
certain degree. Material culture was gien new weight as testimony to knowledge. Sloane, or
instance, writes about a phenomenon in Port Royal where ants had eaten out buried body parts
and perorated the bones to consume the marrow, and jubilantly declared the truth o this on the
basis that I hae proo, haing brought with me rom thence the Bone o the Arm o an vaiav
so perorated, and its Marrow eaten by them`.
133
1his was, naturally, exhibited in his cabinet or
all to see and to be coninced.
Such material-culture based obseration was the cornerstone o the new science`. 1his was
ounded in principle on the basis o lrancis Bacon`s 1be êr .ttavti., and purported to pursue
knowledge or its own sake, quite in the spirit o his ictional Merchants o Light, who traelled
around the world in search o specimens, instruments, and knowledge without partaking in
commerce or een demanding salaries.
134
Industrious rational obseration was the new order o
131
132
Anthony Alan Shelton, Cabinets o 1ransgression: Renaissance Collections and the Incorporation o
the New \orld`, in John Llsner and Roger Cardinal, eds. 1be Cvttvre. of Cottectivg ,London, 1994, p. 201.
133
Sir lans Sloane, . ro,age to tbe i.tava. Maaera, arbaao., îere., . Cbri.tober. ava ]avaica, ritb tbe vatvrat
bi.tor, of tbe erb. ava 1ree., ovrootea ea.t., i.be., ira., v.ect., Retite., cc. of tbe ta.t of tbo.e i.tava.; to
rbicb i. refia av ivtroavctiov, rbereiv i. av accovvt of tbe ivbabitavt., air, rater., ai.ea.e., traae, cc. of tbat Ptace,
ritb .ove Retatiov. covcervivg tbe êigbbovrivg Covtivevt, ava .tava. of .verica. ttv.tratea ritb tbe figvre. of tbe
tbivg. ae.criba, rbicb bare vot beev beretofore evgrarea; v targe CoerPtate. a. big a. tbe ife. , av. toave, M. D.
ettor of tbe Cottege of Pb,.iciav. ava ecretar, of tbe Ro,atociet,. v tro rotvve.. 1ot. . ,London, 10, p. xlii.
134
lrancis Bacon, ravci. acov: . Criticat aitiov of tbe Ma;or !or/., ed. Brian Vickers ,Oxord, 1996, pp.
41-2, Similar ideal inestigatie principles were staunchly deended by their proponents as being selless
and productie, see lenry More`s letter in response to an attack by Stubbe on the Royal Society, in lenry
Stubbe, . cev.vre vov certaiv a..age. covtaivea iv tbe i.tor, of tbe Ro,att ociet,, a. beivg ae.trvctire to tbe
e.tabti.bea retigiov ava Cbvrcb of vgtava rberevvto i. aaaea tbe tetter of a rirtvo.o iv oo.itiov to tbe cev.vre, . ret,
vvto tbe tetter afore.aia, ava . ret, vvto tbe raefator, av.rer of cebotiv. Ctavritt, cbataiv to Mr. Rov.e of atov
;tate vevber of tbe Rvv Partavevt) rectovr of atb, c fettor of tbe Ro,att ociet, : at.o ava av.rer to tbe tetter of Dr.
61
the day, and cabinets played an important supporting role as a surrogate or trael, where those
who had not the money or opportunity could encounter irsthand some elements o the world
beyond.
135
It could also unction as a training room or seeing abroad, as Sloane`s experience in
Jamaica shows.
136
1his unction came into increasing importance with the prolieration o ciic
education and educational change, as the Renaissance opened up its mind to embrace both the
classical past and the New \orld. Collections represented an endeaour to distil the essence o
the known world into an ultimate cabinet o knowledge. It sought to do this by replicating in
microcosm the entirety o creation or contemplation, wherein the iewer could metonymically
extrapolate his own truths. Apart rom the metaphor o the Ark, cabinets o curiosity were oten
also described as tbeatrvv vvvai, in which the whole act o existence, rom the playul to the
mystical and the horrible, were comprehensiely perormed.
13
1he cabinet thus played an
important pedagogical role. 1he 1radescants` collection was thus seen as the best place or the
ull improement o children in their education`, likewise Sloane and \oodward in their wills
stated that their collections` preseration would aid in the noble task o instructing the nation.
138
\hilst most cabinets might hae attempted a leel o comprehensieness, each indiidual`s
motiations and practices no doubt diered. Priate collectors such as the 1radescants, who
were gardeners, could hardly hae entertained isions o power and domination as would a
labsburg prince. Likewise the scale, content, and organising principles o many cabinets would
hae aried considerably. Pearce`s suggestion that the arrangement o knowledge was a step
evr, Moore, retativg vvto evr, tvbbe b,.iciav at !arric/, 1be .ecova eaitiov correctea c evtargea ,Oxord,
161, pp. 41-2.
135
Barbara M. Benedict, Cvrio.it,: . Cvttvrat i.tor, of art, Moaerv vqvir, ,Chicago, 2001,.
136
Sloane, 1o,age to ]avaica, Vol. I, p. A.
13
138
Joy Kenseth, A \orld o \onders in One Closet Shut`, in Joy Kenseth, ed. 1be .ge of tbe Marrettov.
,Chicago, 1991, p. 88, John \oodward, Part of tbe tate Dr. !ooarara. ritt. Datea Oct. 1.t, 12 ,Cambridge,
18,, Sir lans Sloane, 1be !itt of ir av. toave, art. Decea.ea ,London, 153,.
62
towards deeloping a modern cast o mind is thus questionable.
139
lirstly, the equation o
organisation with modernity and progress is a teleological allacy. lurthermore, the scholarly
collector had precursors, drawing on the idea o the scholar-saint and his cell, an image that was
particularly popular with humanist collectors, who increasingly urnished representations o his
cell with scientiic instruments, curiosities, and natural history specimens- arguably looking bac/
on him as the ideal collector.
140
Alternatie models o collecting also existed. Priate cabinets
could hae sered as memory palaces or personal use. On another leel, the anatomy theatre in
Leiden`s dancing skeletons bespoke a more macabre vevevto vori message.
141
Other collections
were simply capricious and had no central organising principle, such as the Ashmolean, which
Jardine has described as relecting gentlemen`s taste` rather than anything else.
142
Cabinets contained a great many objects selected or their outlandishness or exception, and as
such they were not the ideal resources or research.
143
Serious study o their contents could lead
to misunderstanding and misappropriation, and was increasingly demonised. 1his reached a
crescendo in the eighteenth century, where claims to rational enlightenment cast earlier collecting
actiity as suspicious.
144
Uenbach expressed such scepticism in the Ashmolean or the
prolieration o horns being exhibited, sarcastically writing how |Lngland| is eerywhere proliic
in horn, and moreoer all horned creatures are extraordinarily well urnished with them`.
145
lurther, he questioned the authenticity o other items, lamenting that some one o the same
139
140
Arthur MacGregor, Cvrio.it, ava vtigbtevvevt: Cottector. ava Cottectiov. frov tbe iteevtb to tbe îveteevtb
Cevtvr, ,New laen, 200, p. 12.
141
MacGregor, Cvrio.it, ava vtigbtevvevt, p. 39, Pearce, Ov Cottectivg, p. 113.
142
Lisa Jardine, vgeviov. Pvr.vit.: vitaivg tbe cievtific Rerotvtiov ,London, 2002, p. 262.
143
Ken Arnold, 1rade, 1rael and 1reasure: Seenteenth Century Artiicial Curiosities` in Chloe Chard
and lelen Langdon, eds. 1rav.ort.: 1raret, Ptea.vre ava vagivatire Ceograb,, 10010 ,New laen,
1996, pp. 263-286.
144
Nicholas 1homas, Licensed Curiosity: Cook`s Paciic Voyages`, in John Llsner and Roger Cardinal,
eds. 1be Cvttvre. of Cottectivg ,London, 1994, p. 123.
145
on Uenbach, Ofora iv 110, pp. 26-.
63
epoch |as the items were rom| ought really to be there too to take a solemn oath that they really
are genuine, and not just announced as such and presented here in order to receie honour and
admiration`.
146
As such, cabinets could be extremely anti-intellectual: mere priate indulgence
masquerading as legitimate science.
lurthermore, collections could present complex layered messages through their choice and
arrangement o arteacts. 1his was part o the Renaissance trope o playulness in which nods to
patrons, classical allusions, vevevto vori and other subtle messages were coded into spatial
arrangements and isual cues.
14
As with the conceit expressed in the 1radescants` catalogue ,lig.
3.2,, where an anagram o the amily name reeals their noble ocation, isitors were expected to
delight in seeing similitudes in disparate items, an |Lxcellent Contemplation o| unsearchable
and stupendous worke`.
148
Criticisms o the cabinet as irrational were oten based on this
playulness as much as on the quality o its contents, since such iewing practices ostered wide-
eyed ignorance rather than objectie, scientiic knowledge. Uenbach, or instance, expressed his
rustration at a supposedly exquisite silk picture at the Bodelian, but which was so inerior that
he een |had| better ones worked by |his| own grandmother`.
149
It is possible that scepticism
about collecting undermined the upkeep o the Royal Society`s Repository, which Uenbach
146
on Uenbach, Ofora iv 110, p. 22.
14
looper-Greenhill, Mv.evv. ava tbe baivg of Kvorteage, p. 3, A good example o this would be the
decoding o lolbein`s 1he Ambassadors`, where each object in the painted collection on the sheles
sends a speciic message. 1he cruciix in the background and distorted skull on the loor also subtly hint
at the transience o lie and the illusory nature o worldly authority. See also, Stuart Clark, 1avitie. of tbe
,e ,Oxord, 200,
148
lenry Peacham, 1be Covteat Cevttevav, a.biovivg biv ab.otvt, iv tbe vo.t vece..ar, ava covvevaabte
qvatitie. covcervivg vivae or boa,, tbat va, be reqvirea iv a vobte gevttevav. !berevvto i. avveea a ae.critiov of tbe
oraer of a vaive battaite or itcbea fieta, eigbt .ereratt ra,e.: ritb tbe art of tivvivg ava otber aaaitiov. vert, evtargea. ,
evr, Peacbav Ma.ter of .rt.: .ovetive of 1rivitie Cotteage iv Cavbriage, ,London, 1634, p. 69.
149
Uenbach is also annoyed at being shown a talked-up golden quadrant which he inds badly worked
and, or all practical purposes, worthless. on Uenbach, Ofora iv 110, pp. 11-12.
64
ound in great disorder on his isit.
150
Grew`s as inscribed` items certainly exhibit this
discomort.
150
Uenbach, ovaov iv 110, pp. 9-8.
65
lig. 3.2. Introductory matter to the 1radescants` collection catalogue. ,1656, Reproduced rom
1radescant, Mv.aevv 1raae.cavtivvv
66
Lach collection, its curatorial regimes, and each indiidual iewer was thus deeply subjectie. 1o
understand the nature o each experience, one has to be sensitie to the layers o nuance and
acknowledge the uniqueness o eery encounter.
D#*H%&G1 %8 *"# '#)&4#(
1heoretical approaches to the cabinets and the best records o actual iewing practices were let
by particular isiting elites. 1hese were the pan-Luropean networks o ingenious and learned
gentlemen` who operated in both local cliques and international associations.
151
1hey met to
broker both knowledge and status, and as such the cabinets were one o the prime loci or their
conergence. Cataloguing and contesting the nature o items was one o the ways in which
authority was asserted and power was contested within these spaces, and could orm part o a
totalizing project. Control was extended through the discussion, classiication, and ordering o
otherwise ragmented inormation. 1his could be an imperial project, the domestic and
intellectual cousin to the expansion o Luropean military and commercial hegemony on the high
seas.
152
Proiding inormation or items could coner prestige on a isitor as one was cited as an
authority or a patron in catalogues or irtuosi publications. 1he ormation o the 1radescant
collection relects well these dynamics: many items were donated to the collection by indiiduals
who wanted to get close to 1radescant`s patron, the Duke o Buckingham.
153
As the collection
increased both in its holdings and by association, the 1radescants were able to claim a pedigree,
151
lrench`s and lanson`s studies explore these networks in greater depth: l. R. lrench, Ingenious and
Learned Gentlemen`: Social Perceptions and Sel-lashioning among Parish Llites in Lssex, 1680-140`,
ociat i.tor, 25:1 ,2000,, pp. 44-66, Craig Ashley lanson, 1be vgti.b 1irtvo.o: .rt, Meaicive, ava
.vtiqvariavi.v iv tbe .ge of virici.v ,Chicago, 2009,.
152
looper-Greenhill, Mv.evv. ava tbe baivg of Kvorteage, p. 90, Pearce, Ov Cottectivg, p. 114, lindlen,
Po..e..ivg âtvre, p. 50.
153
Marjorie Swann, Cvrio.itie. ava 1et.: 1be Cvttvre of Cottectivg iv art, Moaerv vgtava ,Philadelphia, 2001,
pp. 29-31.
6
68
ashioning or themseles a amily emblem on this basis o their accumulated curiosities.
154
Clearly the publicity and showmanship` o the cabinets made them an ideal place in which to
ashion and parade one`s identity.
155
Membership o institutions such as the Royal Society could also put one ahead in the status-race
that was run as much on cultural as landed capital.
156
In such scenarios, contributing to or
discoursing on cabinets could open the doors to exclusie social circles, and enable the
ormation o elite collectie identity. Such eects led, in some perspecties, to the corruption o
the institution, which became proud and great` and lost sight o its earlier ision o objectie
academia.
15
1his is not implausible considering the perasieness o material culture as a marker
o status in early modernity, since an empirically-minded institution could not hae unctioned
without the assistance o wealthy patrons and members.
158
Institutional cabinets could thus be
extremely exclusie aairs, permitting priileged access to only a select ew, and conirming their
control oer sociability, knowledge, the ruits o commerce, and, by extension, the entire socio-
political ediice o empire. lig. 3.3 shows this clearly: the jawbone o a mastodon in the British
Museum is not marked with a conentional catalogue number, rather, it is inscribed with the
issue o the Pbito.obicat 1rav.actiov. in which it was discussed. 1he jawbone was thus the
exclusie intellectual property o the members o the Royal Society, which by implication had
great enough clout to oerwrite the authority o the museum itsel! An elaborate etiquette was
154
155
Richard lortey, Archies o Lie: Science and Collections`, in Bill Bryson, ed. eeivg vrtber: 1be tor,
of cievce ava tbe Ro,at ociet, ,London, 2010, p. 189.
156
Deborah L. larkness, Strange` Ideas and Lnglish` Knowledge: Natural Science Lxchange in
Llizabethan London` in Pamela l. Smith and Paula lindlen, eds. Mercbavt. ava Marret.: Covverce, cievce
ava .rt iv art, Moaerv vroe ,London, 2002, p. 14.
15
Uenbach, Ofora iv 110, p. 38.
158
lor the role o material culture in the status race, see Maxine Berg, vvr, ava Ptea.vre iv igbteevtb
Cevtvr, ritaiv ,Oxord, 2005,, Linda Ley Peck, Cov.vvivg tevaovr: ociet, ava Cvttvre iv erevteevtb Cevtvr,
vgtava ,Cambridge, 2005, p. 156, lindlen, Po..e..ivg âtvre, p. 99.
69
deeloped around isiting elite collections, where the inducted indiidual would display an
introductory letter and receie an exclusie guided tour as well as intimate discussions. 1his was
not dissimilar to the hospitality Lelyn receied on the continent, which he reciprocated to
continental isitors as a committee member in the Royal Society.
159
Conersely, the Uenbach
brothers` disappointing reception in London can possibly be put down to their not haing
preiously made the appropriate acquaintances.
160
Practices such as these acilitated the sel-
ashioning o the indiidual and the ormation o learned societies. 1hese, at their best, were
generous and productie aairs, acilitating international exchanges o inormation, items, and
goodwill, though at their worst could be small-minded, ainglorious, and sel-indulgent.
Curios, unlike lineages, were not the exclusie property o the elite. 1hey were obtained through
trael and trade, and emitted the unmistakable odour o commerce. As merchants and
proessionals sought social eleation by donating or collecting, so also did the inancial and social
elite look to cabinets as showcases or potential new commodities.
161
Specimens were thus both
scientiic sample and sample product, and the cabinets became the place to ind examples o
,and knowledge about, the most lucratie cultiar, the newest simple, or the most decadent
luxury. Lxotic items were neer completely ree rom commercial interest: een regular
correspondence with itinerant riends mentions opinions on the best Marchandise that is in all
159
In just a ew instances, he was granted admittance to the exclusie 1re.oro av Marco in Italy in June
1645 by the good graces o the lrench Ambassador and the Larl o Arundel took him as his protg as
he guided him through the gardens o Mantua. Later, he took the Portuguese Ambassador and Count de
Castel Mellor round the Royal Society`s Repository. Lelyn, 1be Diar, of ]obv ret,v, Vol. II, pp. 330-2,
455-8, Vol. IV, p. 133
160
on Uenbach, ovaov iv 110, pp. 126-.
161
Claudia Swan, Collecting âtvratia in the Shadow o Larly Modern Dutch 1rade`, in Londa
Schiebinger and Claudia Swan, eds. Cotoviat otav,: cievce, Covverce, ava Potitic. iv tbe art, Moaerv !orta
,Philadelphia, 2005, pp. 229-30.
0
the Indies`.
162
Sloane and \oodward likewise stocked their cabinets ull o vateria veaica,
relecting their interest as physicians into the medicinal application o exotic products. Sloane`s
1o,age to ]avaica thus reads hal like a catalogue and hal like a receipt-book, as each new
specimen, where encountered, is dissected not just or scientiic gratiication but also mined or
its practical potential. Nor were the crudest o monetary ealuations absent rom the cabinets:
Peacham adised that an appraisal o an item`s worth was an essential part o its appreciation,
likewise, Lelyn consistently notes in his diary the stupendous alue o the things he has seen,
sometimes giing detailed justiications or the relatie worth o each.
163
In all these respects, the cabinets unctioned as a cultural interace in which elites could dabble in
trade and acknowledge alternatie orms o knowledge without being stained by the taint o
commerce. In such spaces, traders` and traellers` oices were accorded due respect as
authorities oer the objects and phenomena with which they had come into contact, and an
international intelligentsia could ind common ground.
164
Llite collectors, or instance, adopted
the humble apothecary`s conention o suspending specimens rom the ceiling. Arguably,
cabinets may be regarded sae` space or a quarantine zone` where items and knowledge, but also
potentially transgressie messages, could be contained under the aegis o wonder. 1hus, the
162
lakluyt, Richard, 1be Origivat !ritivg. ava Corre.ovaevce of tbe 1ro Ricbara a/tv,t., ed. L. G. R. 1aylor
,London, 1935, p. 101.
163
Peacham, 1be Covteat Cevttevav, pp. 104-5. Also see Lelyn`s iewing o three 1urkish horses in St
James Park in Dec 1684. 1his was a spectacle in itsel and obsered in minute detail, but it is interesting
to note how he ends his account with precise aluations o the horses and notes about their production
and trade. Lelyn, 1be Diar, of ]obv ret,v, Vol. IV, pp. 398-9.
164
L. S. Shaer, 1o Remind Us on China`-\illiam Beckord, Mental 1raeller on the Grand 1our:
1he Construction o Signiicance in Landscape` in Chloe Chard and lelen Langdon, eds. 1rav.ort.:
1raret, Ptea.vre ava vagivatire Ceograb,, 10010 ,New laen, 1996, p. 220, see also, Antonio Barrera,
Local lerbs, Global Medicines: Commerce, Knowledge, and Commodities in Spanish America` in
Pamela l. Smith and Paula lindlen, eds. Mercbavt. ava Marret.: Covverce, cievce ava .rt iv art, Moaerv
vroe ,London, 2002, pp. 163-181, J. \orth Lstes, 1he Reception o American Drugs in Lurope, 1500-
1650` in Simon Varey, Raael Chabran and Dora B. \einer, eds. earcbivg for tbe ecret. of âtvre: 1be ife
ava !or/. of Dr. ravci.co ervavae ,Stanord, 2000, pp. 111-121.
1
curious was a space that could harbour hidden transcripts`.
165
lenry lawks recounts, as one o
many great mereils`, a tale where poor mens` plight under the hand o imperial authorities was
aenged by an act o nature. 1hese men had discoered a siler mine in Noa lispania, but their
ind was requisitioned by the local oicer who had gotten wind o the aair. Upon return with
equipment and manpower, howeer, the oicer ound the site had disappeared. 1he King, on
hearing the news, decreed that henceorth no one would be depried o their inds by petty
oicers, representing a ictory ,een i Pyrrhic, or the erstwhile underdog.
166
In Sloane`s
account een the oice o the slae is respected or the knowledge he can oer on botanical
specimens.
16
1his suggests a degree o transculturation`, where the cabinet was one o the
liminal spaces in which global relations were negotiated.
168
Although parlance o this kind was
necessarily asymmetrical, it is still heartening to read that een the considerate Sloane was
criticised by his peers or speaking disrespectully` o the Jamaican settlers!
169
Llite networks o sociability could be both constructie and destructie. 1hey could oster
riendship and understanding with both peers and subordinates, and were the witness to acts o
great generosity and the most exalted exchange o ideas. loweer, they could also be parochial,
jealous, and competitie, and were in certain ways thoroughly inadequate orums or the
ormation o true knowledge. Sloane`s experience bears this out. Charitable to a ault, he wrote
to other irtuosi oering help with their cataloguing enterprises and giting them with items
165
James C. Scott, Dovivatiov ava tbe .rt. of Re.i.tavce: iaaev 1rav.crit. ,New laen, 1990,.
166
lakluyt, 1be Origivat !ritivg. ava Corre.ovaevce, p. 103.
16
ettor of tbe Cottege of Pb,.iciav. ava ecretar, of tbe Ro,atociet,. v tro rotvve.. 1ot. . ,London, 125, p. 89.
168
Mary Louise Pratt, veriat ,e.: 1raret !ritivg ava 1rav.cvttvratiov ,London, 1992,.
169
Sloane, . 1o,age to ]avaica, Vol. II, pp. x-xi.
2
rom his own collection.
10
\et he also ound the cabinets and conersation not so satisactory`,
and while he internalised its intellectual underpinnings, desired to trael and see or himsel.
11
lurthermore, he ound to his great dismay that some o his purported riends some were so
ery curious, as to desire to carry part |o his collection| home with them priately, and injure
that they let`.
12
S'#:#0)41 04 .):04#*1
A horriied Zacharias on Uenbach attempted to isit the Ashmolean on 23 August 110, but
ound it inested with all sorts o country-olk, men and women, . or the tege. that hang up on
the door arvv bove.te tiberatiter allow eeryone to go in`.
13
le and his brother had to return again
when it was not market-day and thus less crowded. Larlier, they had similarly complained in the
Bodleian about casual browsers who had not paid or entry, including peasants and womenolk,
who gaze at the library as a cow might gaze a new gate with such a noise and tramping o eet
that others are much disturbed.`
14
Quite unlike the continental collections he was used to, these
Lnglish cabinets were rowdy and undiscerning in their admissions, thus allowing or a whole
motley crew o disordered plebeians to oerrun the space.
10
See, or instance, Sloane`s letter to Ray, No 1684, in John Ray and lrancis \illughby, Pbito.obicat
tetter. betreev tbe tate tearvea Mr. Ra, ava .ererat of bi. ivgeviov. corre.ovaevt., âtire. ava oreigver.. 1o rbicb are
aaaea tbo.e of ravci. !ittvgbb, .q; 1be !bote cov.i.tivg of vav, cvriov. Di.corerie. ava vrorevevt. iv tbe i.tor,
of Qvaarvea., ira., i.be., v.ect., Ptavt., o..ite., ovvtaiv., cc. Pvbti.bea b, !. Derbav, Cbataiv to bi. Ro,at
igbve.. Ceorge Privce of !ate., ava . R. . ,London, 118, pp. 10.
11
Sloane, . 1o,age to ]avaica, Vol. I, p. A.
12
Sloane ]avaica V2 xi-xii
13
14
3
Many Lnglish collections, including priate collections such as those o Robert lubert and Mr
Charleton, were open to the public or money.
15
1he 1radescants` and later the Ashmolean
charged sixpence or entry and the Bodleian eight shillings or priileged access. 1hese prices
were airly within reach or the eeryman, when an agricultural labourer could expect to earn
about eight pence or a day`s work in summer, and seen in winter. 1here seems thereore to
hae been a certain democracy about Lnglish collecting. 1his is illustrated most dramatically by
Sloane leaing his collection to the state and ounding a national museum tending to the glory o
God. and the beneit o mankind.`
16
Len \oodward in his will endowed a lectureship at
Cambridge to shew |his| o..it. gratis, to all such curious and intelligent Persons as shall desire a
iew o them`.
1
Len the royal houses, as Platter notes, were open to ee-paying isitors.
18
\hile some collections, such as the Royal Society`s Repository, remained restricted rom public
iew, there was certainly no lack o opportunity or the casual gawker to sate his curiosity.
Beyond institutionalised collections, there were also many other sites in which curiosities and
mini-collections were displayed, ranging rom commodity displays in coee houses, priate
residences and public parks to curiosity shops, markets, itinerant perormances and apothecaries`
shops.
19
As such, the experience o the lower classes in cabinets cannot be ignored, or een i
they did not leae documentary traces, their presence must hae been signiicant.
15
Lelyn is a rather big an o Charleton`s collection, and isits it or the irst time in 1686. Lelyn, 1be
Diar, of ]obv ret,v, Vol. IV, pp. 531-2, Vol. V pp. 13-14.
16
Sloane, 1be !itt, pp. 2-3.
1
\oodward, Part of tbe ate Dr. !ooarara`. !itt, pp. 9-10. 1he act that both mens` wills were published
in numerous editions suggests a general interest in their collections and also indicates how much
collections were public aairs.
18
Platter, 1raret. iv vgtava, pp. 160-1.
19
At the risk o seeing collections eerywhere, one may regard commodity displays, smaller scale
holdings, or market-day shows as other instances o curious seeing. I one does so, though, a multiplicity
o new examples arises. Lelyn`s experience bears this out: amongst others, he isited Pepys` priate
collection in 100, saw a lion play with a lamb in London in 1654, met a Jesuit who had a small collection
in Deptord in 1664, saw a set o Japanese items in the Duchess o Portsmouth`s collection in 1683, and
isited the curiosity shop called Noah`s Ark in Paris. Lelyn, 1be Diar, of ]obv ret,v, Vol. V, pp. 42-8,
Vol. III, p. 93, Vol. III, pp. 33-5, Vol. IV, p. 343, Vol. II, p. 100. Other sites o seeing would also hae
existed, with arying degrees o public accessibility.
4
Any attempt to reconstruct the popular experience o cabinet iewing must be deried rom
elite` sources read against the grain. 1his can at best only be a tentatie exercise, but one that
could proe constructie. O the sources I hae examined, the Uenbach account gies the
greatest insight into this phenomenon, although it is written in poison pen-that is to say, with a
great degree o disdain or which allowance has to be made. 1his would necessitate an exercise in
historical imagination, which o course must be carried out with due caution, though in so doing
one might be able to resurrect lower-class ways o seeing that were just as, i not more,
important than elite ones.
Uenbach`s image o the peasant wandering into a cabinet dull as a cow may well hae been
alid. Lspecially when isited on market-day, the cabinet could hae operated like a wonder-
show or circus, as cheap and mindless entertainment or the masses. \ithout a guide and
without priileged access to special items, the lower classes would hae to walk through the halls
unmediated, subject to the ull sensory assault and a seemingly disarrayed assemblage o items.
\et perhaps awe and incredulity are underrated responses to the cabinets. Len the critical
Uenbach does not oerly question the hand o a siren he sees in the Ashmolean, and records
the Siamese twin lamb without a hint o irony. I een the learned John Lelyn ound it
impossible to remember all, or take particular notice` o much in the clutter o a cabinet,
perhaps it may not be too condescending or unreasonable to consider that the egetable-seller`s
response to the Ashmolean would hae been sheer dumbounded wonderment.
180
On the other
hand, one may also consider the well-documented spread o education and print in early modern
180
Lelyn, 1be Diar, of ]obv ret,v, Vol. II, pp. 52-4.
5
Lngland.
181
Coupled with the consideration that trael writing and natural history publications
ound a wide reception, it is reasonable to assert that not all non-elite cabinet iewers were o the
wide-eyed, open-mouthed sorts. 1hey would hae had arying educational attainments and
exposure to knowledge, and could at least hae approximated some o the modes o seeing that
elites aected.
On another leel, accounts o plebeian iewing may also throw some light on elite practices
themseles. Uenbach obsered quite cannily in the Ashmolean that its catalogue was sorely
inadequate whilst its collection in airly good repair, whiles the Royal Society`s impressie
catalogue only paed the way or disappointment in a dusty hall ull o damaged and
decomposing items.
182
Social inclusiity was possibly thus an enabling actor or the collections,
collectors, their housing institutions as well as the general public. Comparing the Ashmolean,
which charged entrance ees, and the Repository, which was exclusie, one may conclude that
opening to the public could proide the crucial incentie and unds or the upkeep o
collections. 1he public would also hae beneited, gaining exposure and possibly also an
education. Additionally, Uenbach`s complaint that the people impetuously handle eerything`
is a useul reminder o how ar early modern collections are remoed rom the modern see,
don`t touch` museological paradigm.
183
It is crucial to understand, howeer, that Uenbach`s
problem was not with the touching o the items er .e, but rather that this was done as a
disorderly, uninormed and unsuperised grabbing`.
184
Curiosity collections were, ater all,
181
lor more on the topic, see: Adam lox, Orat ava iterate Cvttvre iv vgtava, 1:00100 ,Oxord, 2000,,
Daid Cressy, iterac, ava tbe ociat Oraer: Reaaivg ava !ritivg iv 1vaor ava tvart vgtava ,Cambridge, 1980,,
Margaret Spuord, vatt oo/. ava Ptea.avt i.torie.: Povtar ictiov ava it. Reaaer.bi iv art, Moaerv
vgtava ,Athens, Ga., 1981,, 1essa \att, Cbea Privt ava Povtar Piet,, 1::0110 ,Cambridge, 1991,.
182
on Uenbach, Ofora iv 110, p. 31, on Uenbach, ovaov iv 110, pp. 9-8.
183
184
6
dynamic, multisensory aairs, and where the irtuosi would hae been encouraged to handle and
sni at the items they were iewing.
I a creature was born with two heads, did this mean that it had twice the brainpower, that it had
hal the mobility, that it was a sign rom God, or that it was a monstrosity \hen two irtuosi or
two plebeians came to discuss the said creature, did they hae twice the knowledge, twice the
ignorance, or ested interests in Siamese twin traicking In Lnglish curiosity collections, any or
all o the aboe conclusions might indeed be true, or at least plausible. 1he iewing o curiosity
cabinets could take many orms, whether theoretical, sociable, ignorant, or class-based. 1here
was a great plurality in the ways o seeing, as well as a ast array o interactions and intimations
that curiosity collections could acilitate, operating on both local and global leels, sometimes to
the beneit o the cabinets and their iewers, and sometimes to their detriment. Ultimately,
isiting a collection was an indiidual experience, and negotiated according to one`s personality,
prior knowledge, and social milieu. Beyond indiidual experience, howeer, it will be useul to
consider a wider deinition o the curious` and a collection` to include personal collections such
as Lelyn`s or Pepys`, or een public commodity displays. 1his will yield a more genuinely
representatie impression o participation, and assist in our understanding o the concept o
curiosity as maniested in the early modern Lngland.
JT
MI%U#@3"0'(&#4 %8 I0%41 )4( S)4*"#&1O- !"# .):04#* 04 F%30#*2
8
1he Royal Society`s collection boasted a creature that as he goes, always keeps the Ctar. o his
ore-eet turned up rom the ground,` and which is bred captie in 1artary or the hunting o
Deer, and other Beasts.`
185
One might with some surprise discoer that this creature, supposedly
begotten by a iov upon a Pavtber,` and allegedly numerous in Arica and Syria, is no stranger
than the magniicent leopard.
186
Golden as a lion but marked with spots, he was unortunate to
hae escaped the studious eye o Nehemiah Grew, who corrected the alse attributions o
horned hares, dog-goats and other improbably hybrid creatures.
18
In the halls o Gresham
College, where the Society met, one could hae obsered another strange creature, this time a
lie specimen. It was beady-eyed and constantly hunched oer, showed sophisticated use o tools
and had a penchant or examining leas, bread mould, and other unpleasant things. 1his was the
celebrated and misunderstood Robert looke, who was similarly seen as both social pariah and
scientiic genius. As ways o seeing items aried enormously, so did society`s appreciation o
curiosity collections and their surrounding practices. As ery isible public aairs, they were
subject to the same societal scrutiny as the polymath would deote to a specimen.
B#*"%(%'%52
1his chapter seeks to situate the curiosity collection in the early modern cultural milieu, and to
examine a range o literary and isual sources oicing a range o perspecties in order to pinpoint
the arying ways in which they catalogued the changing concepts o the world, as well as o
Lnglish domestic society. As this is only a brie chapter and thus also selectie in sources, it
would be itting to deer to Benedict`s exhaustie study o the cabinet in popular literature, as
185
Nehemiah Grew, Mv.aevv Regati. ocietati., or, . catatogve ava ae.critiov of tbe vatvrat ava artificiat raritie.
betovgivg to tbe Ro,at ociet, ava re.errea at Cre.bav Cotteage vaae b, êbeviab Crer ; rberevvto i. .vb;o,vea 1be
covaratire avatov, of .tovacb. ava gvt. b, tbe .ave avtbor. ,London, 1685, p. 12.
186
Grew, Mv.aevv Regati. ocietati., p. 12.
18
Grew, Mv.aevv Regati. ocietati., p. 25.
9
well as Swan`s masterul meditation on collecting and the ormation o personal identity, as
greater authorities on the sources and popular culture itsel.
188
Benedict has explored the curious
as an inquisitie, empowering, but also transgressie and controersial concept in early modern
culture, and Swann`s analysis has highlighted how the authorship o a collection, its catalogue, or
literature about collections, could proe empowering to the early modern indiidual. I intend to
build on these insights by introducing a global element to the analysis, and to study the material
or its implications on early modern globalization.
Collections were a major cultural orce in early modern Lngland, and were lauded and lambasted
by arious groups up and down the social spectrum. Public attention to the collections grew in
intensity ater the Reormation, or reasons that were shaped by personal, social and economic
actors, but which also hinged on the cabinets` elitism and the exclusiity and useulness ,or lack
thereo, o the knowledge they produced. Once again, these iews were oten contradictory and
subject to change, and an indiidual could show supreme disdain or one particular aspect o
collecting, yet embrace wholeheartedly or een utilise another o its acets. On a more unspoken
leel, cabinets were adopted into the real tbeatrvv vvvai, and iniltrated contemporary culture in
many subconscious ways. As metaphor or icon they could proe particularly potent, and they
were airly ubiquitous as shorthand or a ariety o cultural institutions and alues. 1hey could
represent the supreme, ruitul and wonderul power o the royal and the religious, show the all-
encompassing industry o the new science, or quite simply sere as an eectie distillation o the
wanton buoonery o the idle rich. I one broadens the deinition o a collection to include not
just large institutional holdings but also personal assemblages, transient displays at coee-houses
and seasonal commodity displays, it is easy to understand the currency and eectieness o these
188
Barbara M. Benedict, Cvrio.it,: . Cvttvrat i.tor, of art, Moaerv vqvir, ,Chicago, 2001,, Marjorie
Swann, Cvrio.itie. ava 1et.: 1be Cvttvre of Cottectivg iv art, Moaerv vgtava ,Philadelphia, 2001,.
80
iews.
189
As Lnglish collections were widely accessible aairs, the cabinet passed into common
cultural parlance on a ery broad scale.
Gien this wide exposure, it is also possible to consider the cabinets` role as a cultural interace,
mediating between the world` and home`. 1his could be both positie and negatie. \hilst
the collections could be places in which true understanding and respect could be granted to the
outside world, they could also, especially in their later incarnations, be imperial spaces and oster
the worst orms o Othering`. 1his was by no means a static or ineitable process, nor did it
ollow a ixed deelopmental pattern. Rather, they were spaces o negotiation in which each
iewer`s-and indeed also each object`s- experience was dierent. Len i their geographical
situation meant that they were biased towards Luropean interpretie power, they nonetheless
retained the potential to broker a more inquisitie and humble appreciation o the world, rather
than produce an army o hard-line imperialists. As such, this study`s timeline is signiicant.
Sloane`s death in 150 and the ounding o the British Museum seems to hae marked a turning
point, heralding a semiotic and practical shit in which the collection changed rom curiosity-
house into nationalistic temple. It is also rom the mid eighteenth-century that empire building
starts to take on its most aggressie orms, and the playul cabinet is metamorphosed into the
sober, absolutist museum which categorically Othered not only the oreign, but also its lower-
class isitors.
190
1he early modern period, perhaps inspired by the Renaissance tendency to notice
189
It is possible that many more people owned smaller-scale collections in Lngland, een looking at the
gentry, one sees many unexamined cabinets that are ripe or the picking. John Lelyn`s little cabinet is
one such example. le also describes seeing many exotic items on open display in London as well as
exotic animals being sported or a small ee. lor coee house exhibitions, which endure through the
eighteenth century and are closely related to early Crystal Palace- type commodity displays, see Daid
Murray, Mv.evv.: 1beir i.tor, ava tbeir |.e, ritb a ibtiograb, ava a i.t of Mv.evv. iv tbe |vitea Kivgaov,
Vol. I ,Glasgow, 1904, pp. 10-2.
190
Durrans discusses how the British Museum in the late eighteenth century was simultaneously a
democratic adance and a re-emphasis o the social diision o knowledge`. Brian Durrans, Collecting in
British India: A Sceptical View`, in Pieter ter Keurs, ed. Cotoviat Cottectiov. Reri.itea ,Leiden, 200, p. 264.
81
sympathies rather than discrepancies, was a somewhat more tolerant time. Moreoer, due to the
relatiely restricted low o goods and inormation, the cabinets, as one o the ew sites in which
one could encounter the Other at home, were more eectie sites o negotiation. As trade and
empire expanded, inormation and items looded Lnglish shores, and the cabinet`s authority as
well as their presented picture o the world became increasingly challenged.
.):04#*1 04 *"# 1L%*'05"*
Larlier representations o collections in popular culture connected closely with the idea o
power, luxury, and the marels o creation.
191
No image demonstrates this more abulously than
the portrait o Queen Llizabeth that hangs in lardwick lall ,lig. 4.1,. 1he Queen, who was well
known to take pleasure in such strange and loely curios,` is decked out with exquisite and
exotic items, rom pearls and precious metals to a loely eather an ,possibly o \est Indian
origin,.
192
Strikingly, her bodice and underskirt are embroidered with a eritable curiosity cabinet,
with exotic birds and crabs and horticulturally accurate plants, though a ew medieal monsters
also eature. As a git rom the accomplished Countess o Shrewsbury, this piece o needlework
was not just an example o stunning handiwork, but also demonstrated the donor`s learning by
representing her engagement with new scientiic paradigms, een though errant sea monsters still
managed to slip the net. \orn in an oicial portrait, the garment was a powerul iconographical
symbol, representing Llizabeth`s political dominion oer the world and all its creation, and also
reinorcing her mandate as God`s representatie on earth and soereign oer all.
191
Swann, Cvrio.itie. ava 1et., pp. 18, 20.
192
1homas Platter 1bova. Ptatter`. 1raret. iv vgtava, 1:, trans. Clare \illiams ,London, 193, p. 226.
82
lig. 4.1. Nicholas lilliard, 1he lardwick lall Portrait o Llizabeth I o Lngland` ,oil on
canas, 1599, lardwick lall, Derbyshire
83
Llizabeth was in many ways a curiosity in hersel, prized and powerul, and in her displays o
power, collections were a recurring theme.
193
Subsequent monarchs and public igures also
continued in this ein. Busino records, or instance, a pageant in London in 161 where exotic
animals were paraded through the streets alongside loats decorated to represent the arious
continents. One o them was made like a ine castle, and another like a beautiul ship, supposed
to be just returned rom the Indies with its crew and cargo`.
194
Children dressed as Indians threw
out nutmegs and dates at the audience, in a ceremony where the connection between trade,
power, and material culture was celebrated. 1he Queen hersel, seen on another occasion, was as
prized and precious treasure as any other rarity, and Busino could only see her rom a distant
iew`, like an unpriileged isitor in a museum or botanic garden, or his share in these
audiences resembled that o those who go to see enclosed gardens through the railings, not being
allowed to draw near to hae a good iew, or to touch the plants.`
195
1he collection as a
demonstration o power and possession was thus extremely compelling, and one can still eel its
reerberations today when one considers the British Museum not only as a source o national
pride, but also as a controersial storehouse o stolen` treasures.
1he cabinet`s unction as a bridge between home` and the world` seems to hae had a airly
positie impact in the early modern period. Beyond the obious appreciation or the ruits o
trade and empire, collections were lauded or being inspirations to trael, and their role in
ostering trade and oerseas deelopment was acknowledged in trael writing and scientiic
193
Curiosities eature as a common theme in continental pageants as well. lor more on the topic, see
Mark S. \eil, Loe, Monsters, Moement, and Machines: 1he Marellous in 1heatres, lestials, and
Gardens`, in Joy Kenseth, ed. 1be .ge of tbe Marrettov. ,Chicago, 1991,, pp. 159-18.
194
loratio Busino and 1homas Platter, 1be ]ovrvat. of 1ro 1raretter. iv tiabetbav ava eart, tvart vgtava,
ed. Peter Razzell ,London, 1995, pp. 118-9.
195
Busino, 1be ]ovrvat., p. 129.
84
treatises, many o which relied on the cabinet as a training ground or laboratory.
196
1he cabinets
and their paradigms heaily inluenced the literary genres concerned with the exotic. Sloane`s
account o Jamaica, Ray`s treatise on plants and Plot`s âtvrat i.tor, of Ofora.bire all exhibit a
particular cataloguing impulse as well as a penchant or accurate obseration and detailed
reportage which the cabinets encouraged. As such the collections propagated new stylistic tropes
as much as new modes o inquiry.
Not all was rosy, howeer. lrom the mid seenteenth century onwards, the cabinet and its
adherents were regarded with more scepticism. 1he ciil war was a decisie phase in this process.
Owners o large collectors were more likely to be members o the upper classes, or, as in
1radescant`s case, hae close ailiations with them.
19
As such the cabinets were stained with the
tint o the decadent royalist, an indelible mark that set them apart as the sel-indulgent pursuit o
the idle rich and as spaces o illicit inestigation, an accusation that remained een when the
monarchy was restored. 1he ignorant, posturing upper class collector became a stock character
in literary productions such as Shadwell`s play 1be 1irtvo.o ,166,. Narrow-minded and sel-
obsessed, the irtuoso uses bottles o air rom eery part o the country as a substitute or trael,
and reads by the phosphorescence o a rotting leg o pork.
198
Absurdly comic in itsel, the satire
stung deeper or being a transparent parody o actual irtuoso endeaours, such as \oodward`s
196
ettor of tbe Cottege of Pb,.iciav. ava ecretar, of tbe Ro,atociet,. v tro rotvve.. 1ot. . ,London, 125,, John
Ray, Catatogv. tavtarvv .vgtiae, et iv.vtarvv aa;acevtivv tvv ivaigeva., tvv iv agri. a..iv cvtta. covtectev. iv qvo
raeter .,vov,va vece..aria facvttate. qvoqve .vvvativ traavvtvr, vva cvv ob.erratiovibv. c eerivevti. vori. veaici.
c b,.ici. , oera ]oavvi. Raii ,London, 160,.
19
Richard lamblyn, Priate Cabinets and Popular Geology: 1he British Audiences or Volcanoes in
the Lighteenth Century` in Chloe Chard and lelen Langdon, eds. 1rav.ort.: 1raret, Ptea.vre ava vagivatire
Ceograb,, 10010 ,New laen, 1996, p. 185.
198
1homas Shadwell, 1be 1irtvo.o a Covea,, .ctea iv tbe Dv/e`. 1beatre, ,London, 166, pp. 52, 2-3, 8,
Benedict, Cvrio.it,, p. 4-50.
85
request or samples o seawater rom around the world.
199
Len ellow gentlemen joined in the
ray, and Sir Phillip Skippon wrote rustratedly to Ray about coee-house societies sabotaging
Royal Society experiments, in this instance debauching` the man inoled in a sheep-to-human
blood transusion, with the consequence o discredit|ing| the Royal Society, and |making| the
Lxperiment ridiculous.`
200
1he irtuosi were seen as intellectual magpies, picking up items and
inormation without discrimination and wasting their wealth and leisure in ruitless pursuits.
201
Ironically, only the threat o sending his loer`s letters to Gresham College prompts Shadwell`s
irtuoso to relent, suggesting how social standing, rather than the noble pursuit o knowledge,
was his ultimate motiation.
202
\hether this was the case or not would hae aried according to
the indiidual, though the stage representation was humiliation enough or Boyle, who wrote in
his diary that in a perormance o the play he was so clearly spooed that people almost pointed`
as they laughed.
203
1here was an element o truth in these perormances, since the cabinets and their owners did
indeed encourage the antastic, the esoteric, and the useless. 1he 1radescants` arious cared
cherry stones, or instance, would not hae sered any scientiic inquiry or any public good, and
many o the Royal Society`s inestigations would hae been laughable in any perspectie.
204
199
John \oodward, rief iv.trvctiov. for va/ivg ob.erratiov. iv att art. of tbe rorta a. at.o, for cottectivg, re.errivg,
ava .evaivg orer vatvrat tbivg. : beivg av attevt to .ettte av vvirer.at corre.ovaevce for tbe aaravcevevt of /vorteag botb
vatvrat ava cirit , ararv v at tbe reqve.t of a er.ov of bovovr ava re.evtea to tbe Ro,at ociet, ,London, 1696, pp.
2-3.
200
John Ray and lrancis \illughby, Pbito.obicat tetter. betreev tbe tate tearvea Mr. Ra, ava .ererat of bi. ivgeviov.
corre.ovaevt., âtire. ava oreigver.. 1o rbicb are aaaea tbo.e of ravci. !ittvgbb, .q; 1be !bote cov.i.tivg of vav,
cvriov. Di.corerie. ava vrorevevt. iv tbe i.tor, of Qvaarvea., ira., i.be., v.ect., Ptavt., o..ite., ovvtaiv.,
cc. Pvbti.bea b, !. Derbav, Cbataiv to bi. Ro,at igbve.. Ceorge Privce of !ate., ava . R. . ,London, 118,
pp. 2-8.
201
Margaret 1. lodgen, art, .vtbrootog, iv tbe iteevtb ava erevteevtb Cevtvrie. ,Philadelphia, 1964,. p.
115.
202
Shadwell, 1be 1irtvo.o, p. 96.
203
Quoted in Gillian Darley, ]obv ret,v: irivg for vgevvit, ,New laen, 2006, p. 250.
204
John 1radescant, Mv.aevv 1raae.cavtivvv: or, . cottectiov of raritie.. Pre.errea at ovtb avbetb veer ovaov
b, ]obv 1raae.cavt ,London, 1656, pp. 3, 38, 39.
86
\ithout sel-knowledge and a clear practical purpose, een collecting`s laudable aspects, such as
its promotion o trade, could be cast as decadent and aaricious, and social aspirants who sought
to ingratiate themseles through collecting were the ery worst sorts o pretentious arriiste.
Arguably, it was this aspect o collecting that was most disapproed o, since it departed rom
the empirical principles that were meant to grant them authority in the irst place. Superluous
and sel-indulgent pursuits were meant to be eradicated with rationalism, and Bacon chided in
1be .aravcevevt of earvivg that i any man shall think by iew and inquiry into these sensible and
material things to attain that light whereby he may reeal unto himsel the nature or will o God,
then indeed he is spoiled by ain philosophy: or the contemplation o God`s creatures and
works produceth. knowledge, but haing regard to God, no perect knowledge, but wonder,
which is broken knowledge.`
205
1hese pretensions, to Bacon, were een worse i the ends o
knowledge were status and sel-gloriication. By the middle o the seenteenth century, the
scepticism was rising to a chorus, and in the early eighteenth the Larl o Shatesbury, the
Scriberlians and other wits were openly denouncing the irtuosi as outdated, blinkered, and
supremely ignorant ools.
206
Curiosity as a sight likewise came under heay ire, and the metaphor o telescopes and
microscopes was commonly employed to display its aults.
20
In a cabinet surrounded by such
equipment, a man could purport to see the smallest o insects and the heaenly bodies, but
would ail to see what was directly beore him. Len as early as 1622, Peacham cautioned his
would-be gentlemen that the study o ar-o places and things was a dangerous pursuit. A
205
lrancis Bacon, ravci. acov: . Criticat aitiov of tbe Ma;or !or/., ed. Brian Vickers ,Oxord, 1996, p.
125.
206
lor Shatesbury, see Stephen Bann, |vaer tbe igv: ]obv argrare a. Cottector, 1raretter, ava !itve.. ,Ann
Arbor, 1994, p. 2, Alexander Pope, 1be Poev. of .teavaer Poe: 1ot. : 1be Dvvciaa, 12, ava tbe Dvvciaa
1ariorvv, 12, ed. Rumbold, Valerie ,London, 200,, a..iv.
20
James V. Mirollo, 1he Aesthetics o the Marellous: 1he \ondrous \ork o Art in a \ondrous
\orld`, in Joy Kenseth, ed. 1be .ge of tbe Marrettov. ,Chicago, 1991, p. 62.
8
ascination with exotica preented the Lnglishman rom understanding more about himsel and
his natie country, and thereore made him the subject o ridicule o continental intellectuals.
208
Lighteenth-century wits exploited the notion o the marellous to suit their own crat, delighting
in their imaginatie turns o mind rather than the exotic creatures o a cabinet, and appropriating
the mantle o Creator through creatie endeaour. 1he irtuosi, in their reckoning, were dull,
plodding creatures o the past, with no imagination or perspectie. 1he unmarried, bent, and
bespectacled igure o looke became a specimen o social monstrosity to the wits, or his
seeming detachment rom the Lnglish reality as well as his study o leas, lies and the like
characterised him as a curiosity better suited to unlearned past as well as to deranged irtuoso
circles.
209
It is perhaps ironic that one o his most enomous opponents was Alexander Pope,
who was himsel a social pariah or his Catholicism and physical disability. Perhaps Pope`s
ehemence deried rom the act that he saw his own work as constructie and aesthetically
positie, and thus eleating him aboe his unortunate status. looke`s, on the contrary was
perceied to be anachronistic and deormed, turning its worker into eer more o a beast.
Cabinets continued to ascinate nonetheless, and widespread interest or collecting and collectors
remained throughout the period. Catalogues, reams o correspondence, wills, treatises and
personal papers o collectors and their riends were printed and disseminated, with some
reaching multiple editions, such was the public appetite. Len the critics had internalised some
o the cabinets` indings: \oung, who regarded Sloane as the oremost to,vav o his time` and
the Ashmolean a baby house`, in a later section o the same satire employed Boyle`s experiment
208
lenry Peacham, 1be Covteat Cevttevav, a.biovivg biv ab.otvt, iv tbe vo.t vece..ar, ava covvevaabte
qvatitie. covcervivg vivae or boa,, tbat va, be reqvirea iv a vobte gevttevav. !berevvto i. avveea a ae.critiov of tbe
oraer of a vaive battaite or itcbea fieta, eigbt .ereratt ra,e.: ritb tbe art of tivvivg ava otber aaaitiov. vert, evtargea. ,
evr, Peacbav Ma.ter of .rt.: .ovetive of 1rivitie Cotteage iv Cavbriage, ,London, 1634, p. 51, see also Craig
Ashley lanson, 1be vgti.b 1irtvo.o: .rt, Meaicive, ava .vtiqvariavi.v iv tbe .ge of virici.v ,Chicago,
2009,.
209
Benedict, Cvrio.it,, pp. 6-8.
88
o cats in air pumps as a metaphor or the lack o cultural sustenance that materialistic people
lied on.
210
Collections and their cultural milieu were thus accepted and rejected on arious leels
in a nuanced and indiidual ashion, and we may still see this at play in the ield o museology, as
theories and practices o display and iew grapple with the cabinet`s paradigms, at times
embracing and at times rejecting its adoptie predecessor.
1he changing public perception o Sloane perhaps illustrates this dynamic most iidly. In his
lietime, Sloane was satirised to no end or being an old-style collector with a passion or
absurdity`, who quested or such orgeries as 1hat painted coat, which JOSLPl verer wore`, and
een gae as his daughter`s portion a rich .bett`.
211
loweer, this reputation changed rapidly
upon his death and the oundation o the British Museum, where he was transormed rom
selish, superannuated scholar to national hero.
212
lis collection likewise metamorphosed rom a
collection o rubbish to a celebrated icon o national heritage and a noble repository o
knowledge or the public, a iew that remains with us today.
M+%,#O )4( M7H)2O- !&/*"1; ")'8@*&/*"1; )4( /4*&/*"1
Curiosity collections were undeniably international aairs, and, as preiously discussed, could be
a place or the productie contemplation o the world just as much as an arena in which
parochial status contests could be ought out. 1he merits o globality were highly contested,
howeer, as the dizzying speed o early modern exploration and the explosie growth o a
210
Ldward \oung, 1be ore of ave tbe |virer.at Pa..iov. v erev Cbaracteri.ticat atire.. 1ogetber ritb Oceav, av
oae, ava . .eaiece, Covtaivivg . 1be riti.b aitor. vttatiov. . i. Pra,er before vgagevevt. , Dr. arara
Yovvg, ,London, 18, pp. 42-3, 53.
211
\oung, 1be ore of ave, pp. 42-3.
212
See also Benedict, Cvrio.it,, p. 181, Swann, Cvrio.itie. ava 1et., pp. 14-15.
89
consumer society set contemporaries` teeth on edge.
213
In many ways, the cabinets`
internationalism was unsettling and suspect, leading the gentry to ignore or underalue the study
o Lnglish phenomena. As such, Peacham`s caution, which was echoed by other polemicists, can
be seen as a proto-nationalistic ,perhaps een little Lnglander`, riposte to the depth o
contemporary interest in the world. Stubbe, a dedicated critic o the Royal Society, took this a
step urther to suggest in 160 that the collection and study o exotic arteacts was a new orm o
idolatry, and an attempt to bring back popery through the philosophy o seeing the spiritual in
the material.
214
As such, the surge in interest in Lnglish antiquarianism and natural history can be
seen as an eort to remedy this imbalance, where intensely localised ields o study employed the
same methods and were written about in the same style, but undamentally rejected the exotic in
aour o the local.
215
In a sense, then, collections could be too international, ostering a sealing
o borders rather than syncretism and exchange. loweer, this is surely too narrow a judgment.
Antiquarianism, natural history, and curiosity cabinets were neer discrete ields, and many
curiosity collections also displayed their owners` interest in ossils, numismatics, and local
history. Indiiduals engaged in such enquiry also corresponded reely with each other,
exchanging items and ideas. Robert Plot is a prime example o how an indiidual could
undertake both domestic and international study: while best known or his thoroughly
researched olume on the natural histories o Oxordshire and Staordshire, he also sered as
the irst keeper o the Ashmolean, and lectured in chemistry at Oxord.
213
Mirollo, 1he Aesthetics o the Marellous`, p. 62.
214
lenry Stubbe, . cev.vre vov certaiv a..age. covtaivea iv tbe i.tor, of tbe Ro,att ociet,, a. beivg ae.trvctire to
tbe e.tabti.bea retigiov ava Cbvrcb of vgtava rberevvto i. aaaea tbe tetter of a rirtvo.o iv oo.itiov to tbe cev.vre, .
ret, vvto tbe tetter afore.aia, ava . ret, vvto tbe raefator, av.rer of cebotiv. Ctavritt, cbataiv to Mr. Rov.e of
atov ;tate vevber of tbe Rvv Partavevt) rectovr of atb, c fettor of tbe Ro,att ociet, : at.o ava av.rer to tbe tetter
of Dr. evr, Moore, retativg vvto evr, tvbbe b,.iciav at !arric/, 1be .ecova eaitiov correctea c evtargea
,Oxord, 161, pp. 2-8.
215
Daid Beck, Robert Plot`s Inestigation o Nature` ,unpublished paper, July 2010,, or more on
antiquarianism and Lnglish local history, see also Jan Broadway, ô bi.torie .o veete`: Cevtr, Cvttvre ava tbe
Deretovevt of ocat i.tor, iv tiabetbav ava art, tvart vgtava ,Manchester, 2006,, Graham Parry, 1be
1robie. of 1ive: vgti.b .vtiqvariav. of tbe erevteevtb Cevtvr, ,Oxord, 1995,.
90
Collections could also be a ector o misunderstanding on a dierent leel, spreading untruths
and hal-truths about the exotic to the general public. 1he Royal Society`s leopard can be seen as
an example o this, where alse scientiic theories were taken as acts in an oicial collection
catalogue. It is perhaps unair to judge the Royal Society, or indeed any other collection, on this
basis, though. Considering that all knowledge is proisional and that erities can only be at best
approximated, cabinet-contained concepts are possibly better read as attempts to push the
boundaries o knowing, rather than obnoxious or misguided declarations o truth. 1he
reclassiication o unicorn horn as that o the narwhal, ater all, took place in the cabinet o the
Dutch collector Old \orm.
216
It is probably too harsh to judge the Royal Society or
misunderstanding the leopard, especially considering the ery recent discoery that panthers are
melanistic ariations o other big cats.
Rather, collections could be positie sites rom which inormation could be disseminated widely
and a orum in which opinions rom across the social spectrum could be heard. lindlen has
argued that they made a preiously exclusie realm o textual study accessible to the public, and
also accorded respect to the oices o people who had been preiously excluded rom the
transactions o knowledge.
21
1his was, particularly the case in Lngland, where the tradition o
public access` building up to the later endowment o ree public museums, ensured that the
collections` pedagogical alue was een less restricted by social class.
218
1he high iewership o
the collections, as well as o other exotic items in the public arena, suggests that there was a great
216
\illiam B. Ashworth, Jr., Remarkable lumans and Singular Beasts`, in Joy Kenseth, ed. 1be .ge of tbe
Marrettov. ,Chicago, 1991, p. 128.
21
Paula lindlen, Po..e..ivg âtvre: Mv.evv., Cottectivg, ava cievtific Cvttvre iv art, Moaerv tat, ,London,
1994, p. 9.
218
Richard lortey, Archies o Lie: Science and Collections`, in Bill Bryson, ed. eeivg vrtber: 1be tor,
of cievce ava tbe Ro,at ociet, ,London, 2010, p. 198.
91
thirst or knowledge about the world in early modern Lngland, and that the cabinets were able to
some degree to satisy those desires.
1he language o the image and the material would hae eatured prominently in these
experiences, sering as a ector or encoded messages that could qualiy Lurocentric
interpretations and oicial narraties attributed to certain items. Gien that isiting a collection
was a highly tactile experience, a contemporary isitor would hae been able to learn through the
employment o all his senses, rather than just rely on the sense o sight and snippets o textual
inormation, the way we would see in a modern museum.
219
1his was important, as items rom
the wider world were not inert and carried with them a degree o indigenous meaning, which
could belie their linguistic representation in catalogues or museum labels. Scholars hae
preiously oerlooked or dismissed this unction, but the recent emphasis on material culture has
led to an increased scrutiny o such items and a new recognition o their potency.
220
Sobreilla
has, or instance, examined the hummingbird as a cultural ector by which pre-Columbian
iconography and cultural orms were translated into and adopted into \estern culture,
challenging the idea that \estern interpretations ran roughshod oer the whole matrix o natie
American belies.
221
leather pictures rom the \est Indies, a common eature in collections, also
show this tendency. Used in natie religious rituals, these relected indigenous associations o
219
220
Bleichmar, or instance, argued that objects let their networks o belie behind when they were
transerred into a new cultural context. Material culture theorists such as larey, Douglas, Isherwood,
and Appadurai hae subsequently argued or a reinstatement o material objects to the heart o lie`.
Daniela Bleichmar, Books, Bodies, and lields: Sixteenth Century 1ransatlantic Lncounters with New
\orld Materia Meaica` in Londa Schiebinger and Claudia Swan, eds. Cotoviat otav,: cievce, Covverce, ava
Potitic. iv tbe art, Moaerv !orta ,Philadelphia, 2005, pp. 83-99, Karen larey, Introduction: listory and
Material Culture`, in Karen larey, ed. i.tor, ava Materiat Cvttvre ,London, 2009, pp. 24-4, Mary
Douglas and Baron Isherwood, 1be !orta of Cooa.: 1orara. av .vtbrootog, of Cov.vvtiov ,London, 2002,,
Arjun Appadurai, ed. 1be ociat ife of 1bivg.: Covvoaitie. iv Cvttvrat Per.ectire ,Cambridge, 1986,.
221
Iris Montero Sobreilla, Knowledge Production and Authority oer New \orld Nature in the
lernandian Corpus, 151-1651` ,unpublished paper, July 2010,.
92
particular birds with diinity and exaltation. Interestingly, as Luropean contact with the Americas
grew, as did the Christianising mission, production o eather pictures did not cease. Rather, they
came to depict more conentional Christian scenes, eectiely translating a oreign ideas and
cultural alues into an Luropean context.
222
Such items thereore presered and coneyed
elements o exotic culture in a way that resisted oicial obliteration. 1he destruction o Meso-
American codices and arteacts was no less a traesty, but it was tempered somewhat by the
adoption o iconography and material culture through the syncretic space o the cabinet. As
such, thereore, the collection could sere as a cultural interace in which goods and knowledge
were transacted as well as cultural knowledge itsel, albeit on a less conscious leel. \hile in the
later eighteenth and nineteenth centuries cabinets may hae sered the imperial mission and
encouraged caricaturing and Othering`, it seems that in the early modern period they were
brokers o transculturation, een i they could not eect ull mutual understanding.
223
It is important to remember, though, that cabinets were not the only place in which negotiations
oer the concepts o sel`, other`, home` and away` could take place.
224
In particular, rom
the late seenteenth century onwards, curiosity collections` authority as comprehensie stores o
inormation and material culture rom oreign lands was beginning to erode. Lmpire building,
the expansion o trael, the prolieration o trael literature and widespread aailability o
imported commodities made the exotic into an increasingly eeryday experience. 1he world
outside Lnglish shores was less and less one that was ,or could be, contained in a cabinet, but
222
1radescant, Mv.aevv 1raae.cavtivvv, p. 40.
223
Ldward Said, Orievtati.v ,London, 2003,, Pratt, veriat ,e., Londa Schiebinger, Prospecting or
Drugs: Luropean Naturalists in the \est Indies` in Londa Schiebinger and Claudia Swan, eds. Cotoviat
otav,: cievce, Covverce ava Potitic. iv tbe art, Moaerv !orta ,Philadelphia, 2005, p. 125, Pieter ter Keurs,
Introduction: 1heory and Practice o Colonial Collecting`, in Pieter ter Keurs, ed. Cotoviat Cottectiov.
Reri.itea ,Leiden, 200, p. 5.
224
Donald l. Lach, ..ia iv tbe Ma/ivg of vroe, Vol. II: A Century o \onder, Book 1: 1he Visual Arts
,Chicago, 190, p. 44.
93
had entered common parlance and practice and was naigated on more mundane leels.
lurthermore, the plurality o ways o seeing meant that the cabinets would hae unctioned both
as syncretic deice, propagator i ignorance, and a tool o empire, and it is crucial to note the
immense ariability o the iewing experience. loweer, it seems plausible that beore the
institutionalisation o the British Museum, collections were more sympathetic aairs than
aggressie imperial exercises, and could and did indeed broker a breaking down o borders
between home and abroad.
Curiosity collections hae lost none o their releance as a cultural orce today. 1he original
modes o seeing and o thinking about them may hae been replaced, but these old tbeatrvv
vvvai seem to hae retained their ascination to the twenty-irst century indiidual. As wholes`
composed o multiple, seemingly incoherent constituent parts, they speak particularly eloquently
as a symbol o postmodern ragmentation, encapsulating in material orm the assemblages o
random things that make up identities and lies.
225
Neither hae the desire or documentary
ision or the appetite or the weird and wonderul let us completely, nor hae we managed to
break ree rom status-races or the subjectie nature o reality.
226
1he barnacle-goose, or
instance, has retained its name to the present though we no longer think that they hatch rom
barnacle-trees, a linguistic relic rom the early modern period which echoes the way in which
collections and their contents retained traces o the past and the unamiliar, and slipped them
seamlessly into the popular consciousness.
22
Curiosity collections, then, were ambiguous
225
Bann, |vaer tbe igv, p. 21, John Llsner, A Collector`s Model o Desire: 1he louse and Museum o
Sir John Soane`, in John Llsner, and Roger Cardinal, eds. 1be Cvttvre. of Cottectivg ,London, 1994, 155,
Benedict, Cvrio.it,, p. 252.
226
Peter Mason, efore Di.evcbavtvevt: vage. of otic .vivat. ava Ptavt. iv tbe art, Moaerv !orta ,London,
2009, pp. 22, 222.
22
Pankhurst describes oyster trees to lakluyt in 158, in 164 Ray and Johnson discuss possible
scientiic explanations or barnacles, theorising that they are shrimp spawn rather than goose spawn.
Richard lakluyt, 1be Origivat !ritivg. ava Corre.ovaevce of tbe 1ro Ricbara a/tv,t., ed. L. G. R. 1aylor
94
creatures, encapsulating well the arious contradictions o early modern Lngland. 1hey were a
showcase o the period`s cosmopolitanism and o the inclusie nature o knowledge ormation,
but also could bring out the most ignorant and parochially competitie in the indiidual. As such,
collections were as simultaneously amiliar and oreign as their contents to the eitgei.t o the time
as to our own. 1he early modern cabinet was constructed and reconstructed in a myriad o ways
in the contemporary Lnglish context. Like the Royal Society`s leopard, it could be pariah and
misunderstood, but was still a magniicent and powerul creature in itsel.
,London, 1935,, p. 131, John Ray and lrancis \illughby, Pbito.obicat etter., p. 121. lor more on barnacle
geese and oyster trees, see Mason, efore Di.evcbavtvevt, pp. 65-86.
95
T
.%43'/10%4- D#H $%&'(1 )4( 6/*/&# V0&#3*0%41
96
At irst glance, early modern Lnglish curiosity collections present a conusing image o an
undiscriminating and irrational set o items, presented to tease the senses and eoke wonderment
in the isitor ,lig. 1.1,. 1his study has attempted to demystiy such impressions, and to proide,
like a guide, an inormed discussion o the exhibit and an indication o the layers o order and
meaning apparent in such a display. 1his has been done through an analysis o collection
catalogues, trael writing, personal papers, images, and the material traces that collectors and
collections hae let. It builds upon existing research that encompasses the psychology o
collecting, museology, history, and biography. 1he sources, as incomplete and ragmentary
attributes o the past, were approached in a multi-disciplinary ashion to elucidate their
sympathies and coherences, as well as their inconsistencies and contradictions, in order to
approach a uller understanding o the phenomenon. 1his study has meditated in particular upon
the composition o collections, the arious experiences o collecting and seeing in the cabinets,
and the public perception o curiosity collecting. As global phenomena situated in highly
localised contexts, such an approach to collections has also yielded interesting insights into the
early modern Lnglish cosmology, its attitude towards the world and the ocus o its intellectual,
social and commercial interests and inquiry. More importantly, the cabinet is also examined as a
crucial space in which indiiduals, institutions, and een Lnglish society as a whole, negotiated
their identity in the irst age o globalisation.
Curiosity cabinets were spaces o directed study, and contained items that bespoke both their
collectors` concerns as well as the general interests o early modern Lnglish society. A
quantitatie analysis o the collection catalogues shows that a great majority o items were natural
history specimens and that especial interest was shown in the \est Indies. 1his relects the
noelty and commercial alue o the newly discoered parts o the globe, and also a particularly
scientiic and medical interest in the ruits o the earth. Collections also contained ery ew
9
chimeras and medieal monsters, suggesting that the concept o the exotic` had changed rom
one o misty-eyed religious wonder to a more discerning, rational appreciation or the ingenuity,
ariety and delight o natural as well human creations. 1his new empiricism iltered out into the
early modern Lnglish paradigms, inluencing tropes o trael writing, experimentation, and,
ultimately, the contemporary mode o seeing.
Collection catalogues were only one angle into the cabinets, howeer. 1hey presented an
artiicially ordered iew into the collections` contents, and could not replicate the actual
experience o collecting and isiting. 1he choice o items to exhibit or store, the spatial
arrangement o these objects, the prior knowledge and exposure o a iewer and his company as
well as his social status all modiied the practice o seeing in a cabinet. Lnglish cabinets were
unique because many o them were open to the public or a small ee. As such, preious
scholarship, which has ocused on elite iewing, has omitted consideration o the wide
penumbra o plebeian isiting. Lntering a cabinet space ,lig. 1.1, was a highly indiidual
experience, and the isitor`s assessment o the exhibits depended on his subscription to dierent
models o thinking, the nature o ,or een lack o, the discussions he held about the exhibit, and
his personality. Cabinets could hae been a quarantine space in which knowledge passed easily
rom lower classes or oreign countries into Lnglish culture and knowledge, though they could
also hae been one in which class markers were reinorced and ignorance perpetuated. Visiting
an early modern curiosity cabinet was a ull sensory experience and thus extremely dierent rom
a modern museum. In order to more ully understand the unctions o a cabinet and their
contemporary appropriation, a wider range deinition o a collection` or curiosity` needs to be
considered and the ull range o participation gien due attention.
98
Curiosity cabinets were controersial entities themseles, and were a prominent eature o early
modern Lnglish culture. 1heir metonymic unction as microcosms o the world promoted their
use as symbols o authority and wealth by monarchs and gentleman-aspirants alike. 1heir alue
as research resource also gained them recognition as ountains o wealth and important points o
contact with the wider geographical and commercial world. lrom the mid-seenteenth-century,
howeer, scepticism was being oiced about the elitism o collecting and the sel-indulgent
uselessness o the knowledge` ormed within the cabinets` conines. Collections could thus be
seen as unproductie and addish, leading to social pretension and distracting rom more
immediate concerns. 1he guileless irtuoso became the stock igure in popular satire, who
eschewed sel-knowledge and more domestic inestigations in aour o myopic or oerly
anciul pursuits. A degree o nationalism tinged such accounts, or the cabinet could be too
threateningly international and detract rom local study. loweer, this also worked in conerse:
the oundation o the British Museum was seen as a patriotic act by Sloane, and turned an
erstwhile personal assemblage o items into a ocal point o national pride.
Curiosity collections could thus be important areas in which contemporaries rom a wide range
o social backgrounds could come into contact with items and ideas rom the ar corners o the
globe, but without haing to set oot outside Lnglish soil. 1he cabinets were thereore an
important resource that enabled the ormation o identity on an indiidual or collectie leel, but
also directed the nature o knowledge and lines o inquiry that Lnglishmen then took along to
the rest o the world.
\hile all attempts hae been made to be comprehensie and thorough in this study, it must be
pointed out that its breity has meant that it can only remain unambitious in scope and cautious
in its conclusions. 1he range o sources considered is thereore limited, and ocuses on re-
99
ealuating known sources rom a dierent perspectie. 1hese are elite accounts let o major
collections, and thus the analysis is necessarily biased towards elite experiences, attitudes, and
impressions rom large and ormalised collections. An attempt has been made to reconstruct a
more democratic range o experiences rom these sources, and also by tentatiely expanding the
scope o curious iewing to extrapolate the wider range o participation. loweer, because this
was done in negatie rom elite sources, one must still consider the source bias inherent in the
analysis. Likewise, the reconstruction o personal experience in the cabinets and o their global as
well as local signiicance must also be duly qualiied. Collections could indeed unction along
particular theoretical lines and produce powerul repercussions. It is essential, howeer, to be
cautious in the generalisation. Lach encounter was unique, and the collection must be placed in
its wider cultural milieu or its signiicance or insigniicance to be ully apprehended.
1hese considerations must not be seen as disqualiications and debilitations. Rather, they are
indicators o new worlds o inquiry, which the historian may subsequently pursue, in order to
better understand the early modern Lnglish cultures o collecting. 1his study has attempted a
limited endeaour at indicating the wider modes o participation in curious iewing, as well as
signalling the cabinets` signiicance in both national and international dynamics. Broadening the
deinition o a collection` to include more inormal holdings such as Pepys` or Lelyn`s personal
cabinets could proide the historian with a wider range o source material to work with. Manor
house records, the correspondence o antiquarians, probate inentories and wills o moneyed or
well-connected indiiduals could thus proe interesting and yield an insight into collecting as
practiced on a smaller scale. \idening the deinition o the curious` to include items in
commodity displays, the showing o lie animals, and other public exhibitions o imported or
interesting items is also another research possibility. Such exhibitions were the more common
corollary o elite cabinets, and analysing pamphlets, personal accounts and merchants` record
100
books could thus gie an insight into the cabinets` wider cultural reerberations and more
eeryday maniestations. 1he historian must cast her net slightly wider to capture these
preiously marginal sources and perspecties and presere them in her analysis. As a collector o
traces traelling through the archie, she must select, catalogue and display each ragment
eectiely and discerningly. It is only then that these new worlds o insight may be charted, and
the entire richness and reelation o the subject matter reealed.
101
Q0:'0%5&)L"2
W4L/:'01"#( S&0,)&2 F%/&3#1
Inscription on the jawbone o a mastodon` ,168,, Photograph: personal collection.
Sloane`s shell drawer` ,c. 100,, Photograph: personal collection.
S&04*#( S&0,)&2 F%/&3#1
Bacon, lrancis, ravci. acov: . Criticat aitiov of tbe Ma;or !or/., ed. Brian Vickers ,Oxord,
1996,.
Lelyn, John, 1be Diar, of ]obv ret,v, Vol II: Kalendarium 1620-1649, ed. L. S. de Beer ,Oxord,
1955,.
Lelyn, John, 1be Diar, of ]obv ret,v, Vol III: Kalendarium 1650-162, ed. L. S. de Beer
,Oxord, 1955,.
Lelyn, John, 1be Diar, of ]obv ret,v, Vol. IV: Kalendarium 163-1689, ed. L. S. de Beer
,Oxord, 1955,.
Lelyn, John, 1be Diar, of ]obv ret,v, Vol. V: Kalendarium 1690-106, ed. L. S. de Beer ,Oxord,
1955,.
Grew, Nehemiah, Mv.aevv Regati. ocietati., or, . catatogve ava ae.critiov of tbe vatvrat ava artificiat
raritie. betovgivg to tbe Ro,at ociet, ava re.errea at Cre.bav Cotteage vaae b, êbeviab Crer ; rberevvto
i. .vb;o,vea 1be covaratire avatov, of .tovacb. ava gvt. b, tbe .ave avtbor. ,London, 1685,.
lakluyt, Richard, 1be Origivat !ritivg. ava Corre.ovaevce of tbe 1ro Ricbara a/tv,t., ed. L. G. R.
1aylor ,London, 1935,.
lariot, 1homas, . briefe ava trve reort of tbe ver fovva tava of 1irgivia of tbe covvoaitie. ava of tbe
vatvre ava vavver. of tbe vatvratt ivbabitavt.. Di.coverea b, tbe vgti.b cotov tbere .eatea b, ir Ricbara
Creivvite Kvigbt iv tbe eere 1::. !bicb revaivea rvaer tbe govervevevt of tretve vovetbe., at tbe .eciatt
cbarge ava airectiov of tbe ovovrabte ir !atter Rateigb Kvigbt tora !araev of tbe .tavverie. rbo tbereiv
batb beeve favovrea ava avtbori.ea b ber Maie.tie :ava ber tetter. atevt.: 1bi. fore boo/e i. vaae iv vgti.b b,
1bova. ariot .ervavt to tbe abovevavea ir !atter, a vevber of tbe Cotov, ava tbere ivtoea iv ai.coverivg
Cvv gratia et rivitegio Cae.. Mati. eciati ,London, 1590,.
lubert, Robert, . catatogve of art of tbo.e raritie. cottectea iv tbirt, ,ear. tive ritb a great aeat of aiv. ava
ivav.tr, b, ove of i. Ma;e.tie. .rorv .erravt. R. . atia. orge. ,London, 1669,.
Kaemper, Lngelbert, 1be bi.tor, of ]aav, girivg av accovvt of tbe avcievt ava re.evt .tate ava gorervvevt
of tbat evire; of it. tevte., atace., ca.tte. ava otber bvitaivg.; of it. vetat., viverat., tree., tavt., avivat.,
102
bira. ava fi.be.; of tbe cbrovotog, ava .vcce..iov of tbe everor., eccte.ia.ticat ava .ecvtar; of tbe origivat ae.cevt,
retigiov., cv.tov., ava vavvfactvre. of tbe vatire., ava of tbeir traae ava covverce ritb tbe Dvtcb ava Cbive.e.
1ogetber ritb a ae.critiov of tbe Kivgaov of iav. !rittev iv igbDvtcb b, vgetbertv. Kavfer, M.D.
Pb,.iciav to tbe Dvtcb vba.., to tbe veror. Covrt; ava trav.tatea frov bi. origivat vavv.crit, verer
before rivtea, b, ].C. cbevcber, .R.. ava a vevber of tbe Cottege of Pb,.iciav., ovaov. !itb tbe tife of
tbe avtbor, ava av ivtroavctiov. ttv.tratea ritb vav, coer tate. ,London, 12,.
Mandeille, John, 1be 1raret. of ir ]obv Mavaeritte, trans. Charles Moseley ,London, 2005,.
Platter, 1homas, 1bova. Ptatter`. 1raret. iv vgtava, 1:, trans. Clare \illiams ,London, 193,.
Platter, 1homas, and Busino, loratio, 1be ]ovrvat. of 1ro 1raretter. iv tiabetbav ava eart, tvart
vgtava, ed. Peter Razzell ,London, 1995,.
Peacham, lenry, 1be Covteat Cevttevav, a.biovivg biv ab.otvt, iv tbe vo.t vece..ar, ava covvevaabte
qvatitie. covcervivg vivae or boa,, tbat va, be reqvirea iv a vobte gevttevav. !berevvto i. avveea a
ae.critiov of tbe oraer of a vaive battaite or itcbea fieta, eigbt .ereratt ra,e.: ritb tbe art of tivvivg ava otber
aaaitiov. vert, evtargea. , evr, Peacbav Ma.ter of .rt.: .ovetive of 1rivitie Cotteage iv Cavbriage,
,London, 1634,.
Plot, Robert, 1be vatvrat bi.tor, of Ofora.bire, beivg av e..a, torara tbe vatvrat bi.tor, of vgtava
,Oxord, 16,.
Pope, Alexander, 1be Poev. of .teavaer Poe: 1ot. : 1be Dvvciaa, 12, ava tbe Dvvciaa 1ariorvv,
12, ed. Valerie Rumbold ,London, 200,.
Ray, John, Catatogv. tavtarvv .vgtiae, et iv.vtarvv aa;acevtivv tvv ivaigeva., tvv iv agri. a..iv cvtta.
covtectev. iv qvo raeter .,vov,va vece..aria facvttate. qvoqve .vvvativ traavvtvr, vva cvv ob.erratiovibv.
c eerivevti. vori. veaici. c b,.ici. , oera ]oavvi. Raii ,London, 160,.
Ray, John, and \illughby, lrancis, Pbito.obicat tetter. betreev tbe tate tearvea Mr. Ra, ava .ererat of bi.
ivgeviov. corre.ovaevt., âtire. ava oreigver.. 1o rbicb are aaaea tbo.e of ravci. !ittvgbb, .q; 1be
!bote cov.i.tivg of vav, cvriov. Di.corerie. ava vrorevevt. iv tbe i.tor, of Qvaarvea., ira., i.be.,
v.ect., Ptavt., o..ite., ovvtaiv., cc. Pvbti.bea b, !. Derbav, Cbataiv to bi. Ro,at igbve.. Ceorge
Privce of !ate., ava . R. . ,London, 118,.
Royal Society, Mi.cettavea cvrio.a : beivg a cottectiov of .ove of tbe rivciat bevoveva iv vatvre, accovvtea
for b, tbe greate.t bito.ober. of tbi. age, Volume I ,London, 105,.
Shadwell, 1homas, 1be 1irtvo.o a Covea,, .ctea iv tbe Dv/e`. 1beatre, !rittev b, 1bova. baarett
,London, 166,.
Sloane, lans, Sir, . ro,age to tbe i.tava. Maaera, arbaao., îere., . Cbri.tober. ava ]avaica, ritb tbe
vatvrat bi.tor, of tbe erb. ava 1ree., ovrootea ea.t., i.be., ira., v.ect., Retite., cc. of tbe ta.t of
tbo.e i.tava.; to rbicb i. refia av ivtroavctiov, rbereiv i. av accovvt of tbe ivbabitavt., air, rater., ai.ea.e.,
traae, cc. of tbat Ptace, ritb .ove Retatiov. covcervivg tbe êigbbovrivg Covtivevt, ava .tava. of .verica.
ttv.tratea ritb tbe figvre. of tbe tbivg. ae.criba, rbicb bare vot beev beretofore evgrarea; v targe CoerPtate.
a. big a. tbe ife. , av. toave, M. D. ettor of tbe Cottege of Pb,.iciav. ava ecretar, of tbe Ro,atociet,.
v tro rotvve.. 1ot. . ,London, 10,.
103
Sloane, lans, Sir, . ro,age to tbe i.tava. Maaera, arbaao., îere., . Cbri.tober. ava ]avaica, ritb tbe
vatvrat bi.tor, of tbe erb. ava 1ree., ovrootea ea.t., i.be., ira., v.ect., Retite., cc. of tbe ta.t of
tbo.e i.tava.; to rbicb i. refia av ivtroavctiov, rbereiv i. av accovvt of tbe ivbabitavt., air, rater., ai.ea.e.,
traae, cc. of tbat Ptace, ritb .ove Retatiov. covcervivg tbe êigbbovrivg Covtivevt, ava .tava. of .verica.
ttv.tratea ritb tbe figvre. of tbe tbivg. ae.criba, rbicb bare vot beev beretofore evgrarea; v targe CoerPtate.
a. big a. tbe ife. , av. toave, M. D. ettor of tbe Cottege of Pb,.iciav. ava ecretar, of tbe Ro,atociet,.
v tro rotvve.. 1ot. . ,London, 125,.
Sloane, lans, Sir, 1be !itt of ir av. toave, art. Decea.ea ,London, 153,.
Stubbe, lenry, . cev.vre vov certaiv a..age. covtaivea iv tbe i.tor, of tbe Ro,att ociet,, a. beivg
ae.trvctire to tbe e.tabti.bea retigiov ava Cbvrcb of vgtava rberevvto i. aaaea tbe tetter of a rirtvo.o iv
oo.itiov to tbe cev.vre, . ret, vvto tbe tetter afore.aia, ava . ret, vvto tbe raefator, av.rer of cebotiv.
Ctavritt, cbataiv to Mr. Rov.e of atov ;tate vevber of tbe Rvv Partavevt) rectovr of atb, c fettor of tbe
Ro,att ociet, : at.o ava av.rer to tbe tetter of Dr. evr, Moore, retativg vvto evr, tvbbe b,.iciav at
!arric/, 1be .ecova eaitiov correctea c evtargea ,Oxord, 161,.
1horesby, Ralph, Dvcatv. eoaiev.i.: or, tbe toograb, of tbe avcievt ava ovtov. torv ava ari.b of
eeae., ava art. aa;acevt iv tbe !e.tRiaivg of tbe covvt, of Yor/. !itb 1be Peaegree. of vav, of tbe ôbitit,
ava Cevtr,, ava otber Matter. retativg to tbo.e Part.; tractea frov Recora., Origivat riaevce., ava
Mavv.crit.. , Ratb 1bore.b,, . R. . 1o rbicb i. aaaea, at tbe Reqve.t of .ererat earvea Per.ov., .
Catatogve of bi. Mv.aevv, ritb tbe Cvrio.itie. âtvrat ava .rtificiat, ava tbe .vtiqvitie.; articvtart, tbe
Rovav, riti.b, aov, Davi.b, ôrvav, ava cotcb Coiv., ritb Moaerv Meaat.. .t.o . Catatogve of
Mavv.crit.; tbe rariov. aitiov. of tbe ibte, ava of oo/. Pvbti.bea iv tbe vfavc, of tbe .rt of Privtivg.
!itb .v .ccovvt of .ove vvv.vat .cciaevt. tbat bare attevaea .ove Per.ov., attevtea after tbe Metboa of
Dr. Ptot. ,London, 115,.
1radescant, John, Mv.aevv 1raae.cavtivvv: or, . cottectiov of raritie.. Pre.errea at ovtb avbetb veer
ovaov b, ]obv 1raae.cavt ,London, 1656,.
on Uenbach, Zacharias Conrad, ovaov iv 110: rov tbe 1raret. of Zacbaria. Covraa rov
|ffevbacb, trans. \. l. Quarrell and Margaret Mare ,London, 1934,.
on Uenbach, Zacharias Conrad, Ofora iv 110: rov tbe 1raret. of Zacbaria. Covraa rov
|ffevbacb, trans. \. l. Quarrell and \. J. C. Quarrell ,Oxord, 1928,.
\oodward, John, rief iv.trvctiov. for va/ivg ob.erratiov. iv att art. of tbe rorta a. at.o, for cottectivg,
re.errivg, ava .evaivg orer vatvrat tbivg. : beivg av attevt to .ettte av vvirer.at corre.ovaevce for tbe
aaravcevevt of /vorteag botb vatvrat ava cirit , ararv v at tbe reqve.t of a er.ov of bovovr ava re.evtea to
tbe Ro,at ociet, ,London, 1696,.
\oodward, John, Part of tbe tate Dr. !ooarara. ritt. Datea Oct. 1.t, 12 ,Cambridge, 18,.
\oung, Ldward, 1be ore of ave tbe |virer.at Pa..iov. v erev Cbaracteri.ticat atire.. 1ogetber ritb
Oceav, av oae, ava . .eaiece, Covtaivivg . 1be riti.b aitor. vttatiov. . i. Pra,er before
vgagevevt. , Dr. arara Yovvg, ,London, 18,.
104
S/:'01"#( F#3%4()&2 F%/&3#1
Appadurai, Arjun, Introduction: Commodities and the Politics o Value`, in Arjun Appadurai,
ed. 1be ociat ife of 1bivg.: Covvoaitie. iv Cvttvrat Per.ectire ,Cambridge, 1986, pp. 3-63.
Arnold, Ken, 1rade, 1rael and 1reasure: Seenteenth Century Artiicial Curiosities` in Chloe
Chard and lelen Langdon, eds. 1rav.ort.: 1raret, Ptea.vre ava vagivatire Ceograb,, 10010
,New laen, 1996, pp. 263-286.
Clark, Stuart, 1avitie. of tbe ,e: 1i.iov iv art, Moaerv vroeav Cvttvre ,Oxord, 200,.
Ashworth, \illiam B., Jr., Remarkable lumans and Singular Beasts`, in Joy Kenseth, ed. 1be
.ge of tbe Marrettov. ,Chicago, 1991,, pp. 113-144.
Bann, Stephen, |vaer tbe igv: ]obv argrare a. Cottector, 1raretter, ava !itve.. ,Ann Arbor, 1994,.
Barrera, Antonio, Local lerbs, Global Medicines: Commerce, Knowledge, and Commodities in
Spanish America` in Pamela l Smith and Paula lindlen, eds. Mercbavt. ava Marret.: Covverce,
cievce ava .rt iv art, Moaerv vroe ,London, 2002, pp. 163-181.
Baudrillard, Jean, 1he System o Collecting`, in John Llsner and Roger Cardinal, eds. 1be
Cvttvre. of Cottectivg ,London, 1994, pp. -24.
Bayly, C. A., 1he British and Indigenous Peoples, 160-1860: Power, Perception and Identity`,
in Martin Daunton and Rick lalpern, eds. vire ava Otber.: riti.b vcovvter. ritb vaigevov.
Peote., 1001:0 ,Philadelphia, 1999, pp. 19-41.
Belk, Russell \., Cottectivg iv a Cov.vver ociet, ,London, 1995,.
Benedict, Barbara M., Cvrio.it,: . Cvttvrat i.tor, of art, Moaerv vqvir, ,Chicago, 2001,.
Berg, Maxine, vvr, ava Ptea.vre iv igbteevtbCevtvr, ritaiv ,Oxord, 2005,.
Bleichmar, Daniela, Books, Bodies, and lields: Sixteenth Century 1ransatlantic Lncounters
with New \orld Materia Meaica` in Londa Schiebinger and Claudia Swan, eds. Cotoviat otav,:
cievce, Covverce, ava Potitic. iv tbe art, Moaerv !orta ,Philadelphia, 2005, pp. 83-99.
Brears, P.C.D., Ralph 1horesby, a Museum Visitor in Stuart Lngland`, ]ovrvat of tbe i.tor, of
Cottectiov. 1:2 ,1989, pp. 213-224.
Broadway, Jan, ô bi.torie .o veete`: Cevtr, Cvttvre ava tbe Deretovevt of ocat i.tor, iv tiabetbav
ava art, tvart vgtava ,Manchester, 2006,.
Caygill, Marjorie, Sloane`s \ill and the Lstablishment o the British Museum`, in Arthur
,London, 1994, pp. 45-68.
105
Cook, larold J, Matter. of cbavge: Covverce, Meaicive, ava cievce iv tbe Dvtcb Cotaev .ge ,London,
200,.
Cressy, Daid, iterac, ava tbe ociat Oraer: Reaaivg ava !ritivg iv 1vaor ava tvart vgtava
,Cambridge, 1980,.
Darley, Gillian, ]obv ret,v: irivg for vgevvit, ,New laen, 2006,.
Dais, Natalie Zemon, 1be Cift iv iteevtbCevtvr, ravce ,Madison, 2000,.
Douglas, Mary, and Isherwood, Baron, 1be !orta of Cooa.: 1orara. av .vtbrootog, of Cov.vvtiov
,London, 2002,.
Durrans, Brian, Collecting in British India: A Sceptical View`, in Pieter ter Keurs, ed. Cotoviat
Cottectiov. Reri.itea ,Leiden, 200, pp. 246-269.
Llsner, John, and Cardinal, Roger, Introduction`, in John Llsner and Roger Cardinal, eds. 1be
Cvttvre. of Cottectivg ,London, 1994, pp. 1-6.
Llsner, John, A Collector`s Model o Desire: 1he louse and Museum o Sir John Soane`, in
John Llsner and Roger Cardinal, eds. 1be Cvttvre. of Cottectivg ,London, 1994, pp. 155-16.
Lstes, J. \orth, 1he Reception o American Drugs in Lurope, 1500-1650` in Simon Varey,
Raael Chabran and Dora B. \einer, eds. earcbivg for tbe ecret. of âtvre: 1be ife ava !or/. of Dr.
ravci.co ervavae ,Stanord, 2000, pp. 111-121.
lindlen, Paula, Po..e..ivg âtvre: Mv.evv., Cottectivg, ava cievtific Cvttvre iv art, Moaerv tat,
,London, 1994,.
lortey, Richard, Archies o Lie: Science and Collections`, in Bill Bryson, ed. eeivg vrtber: 1be
tor, of cievce ava tbe Ro,at ociet, ,London, 2010, pp. 183-2002.
lrench, l. R., Ingenious and Learned Gentlemen`: Social Perceptions and Sel-lashioning
among Parish Llites in Lssex, 1680-140`, ociat i.tor, 25:1 ,2000,, pp. 44-66.
lox, Adam, Orat ava iterate Cvttvre iv vgtava, 1:00100 ,Oxord, 2000,.
Greenblatt, Stephen, Marrettov. Po..e..iov.: 1be !ovaer of tbe êr !orta ,Oxord, 1991,.
lamblyn, Richard, Priate Cabinets and Popular Geology: 1he British Audiences or
Volcanoes in the Lighteenth Century` in Chloe Chard and lelen Langdon, eds. 1rav.ort.:
1raret, Ptea.vre ava vagivatire Ceograb,, 10010 ,New laen, 1996, pp. 19-206.
lanson, Craig Ashley, 1be vgti.b 1irtvo.o: .rt, Meaicive, ava .vtiqvariavi.v iv tbe .ge of
virici.v ,Chicago, 2009,.
larkness, Deborah L., Strange` Ideas and Lnglish` Knowledge: Natural Science Lxchange in
Llizabethan London` in Pamela l. Smith and Paula lindlen, eds. Mercbavt. ava Marret.:
Covverce, cievce ava .rt iv art, Moaerv vroe ,London, 2002, pp. 13-161.
106
larris, lrances, and lunter, Michael, eds. ]obv ret,v ava bi. Mitiev ,London, 2003,.
larey, Karen, Introduction: listory and Material Culture`, in Karen larey, ed. i.tor, ava
Materiat Cvttvre ,London, 2009, pp. 24-4.
lodgen, Margaret 1., art, .vtbrootog, iv tbe iteevtb ava erevteevtb Cevtvrie. ,Philadelphia,
1964,.
looper-Greenhill, Lilean, Mv.evv. ava tbe baivg of Kvorteage ,London, 1992,.
Jardine, Lisa, vgeviov. Pvr.vit.: vitaivg tbe cievtific Rerotvtiov ,London, 2002,.
Kauman, 1homas DaCosta, lrom 1reasury to Museum: 1he Collections o the Austrian
labsburgs` in John Llsner and Roger Cardinal, eds. 1be Cvttvre. of Cottectivg ,London, 1994, pp.
13-154.
Kenseth, Joy, 1he Age o the Marellous: An Introduction`, in Joy Kenseth, ed. 1be .ge of tbe
Marrettov. ,Chicago, 1991,, pp. 25-60.
Kenseth, Joy, A \orld o \onders in One Closet Shut`, in Joy Kenseth, ed. 1be .ge of tbe
Marrettov. ,Chicago, 1991,, pp. 81-102.
Kopyto, Igor. 1he Cultural Biography o 1hings: Commoditisation as Process`, in Arjun
Appadurai, ed. 1be ociat ife of 1bivg.: Covvoaitie. iv Cvttvrat Per.ectire ,Cambridge, 1986, pp. 64-
94.
Lach, Donald l., ..ia iv tbe Ma/ivg of vroe, Vol. II: A Century o \onder, Book 1: 1he Visual
Arts ,Chicago, 190,.
MacGregor, Arthur, Cvrio.it, ava vtigbtevvevt: Cottector. ava Cottectiov. frov tbe iteevtb to tbe
îveteevtb Cevtvr, ,New laen, 200,.
MacGregor, Arthur, 1he 1radescants as Collectors o Rarities`, in Arthur MacGregor, ed.
1raae.cavt`. Raritie.: ..a,. ov tbe ovvaatiov of tbe ..bvoteav Mv.evv 1 ritb a Catatogve of tbe
vrririvg art, Cottectiov. ,Oxord, 1983, pp. 1-23.
MacGregor, Arthur, Collectors and Collections o Rarities in the Sixteenth and Seenteenth
Centuries` in Arthur MacGregor, ed. 1raae.cavt`. Raritie.: ..a,. ov tbe ovvaatiov of tbe ..bvoteav
Mv.evv 1 ritb a Catatogve of tbe vrririvg art, Cottectiov. ,Oxord, 1983, pp. 0-9.
MacGregor, Arthur, 1he Lie, Character and Career o Sir lans Sloane`, in Arthur MacGregor,
ed. ir av. toave: Cottector, cievti.t, .vtiqvar,, ovvaivg atber of tbe riti.b Mv.evv ,London,
1994, pp. 11-44.
Mason, Peter, efore Di.evcbavtvevt: vage. of otic .vivat. ava Ptavt. iv tbe art, Moaerv !orta
,London, 2009,.
10
Mirollo, James V., 1he Aesthetics o the Marellous: 1he \ondrous \ork o Art in a
\ondrous \orld`, in Joy Kenseth, ed. 1be .ge of tbe Marrettov. ,Chicago, 1991, pp. 61-80.
Morgan, Phillip D., Lncounters between British and Indigenous` Peoples, c. 1500-1800`, in
Martin Daunton and Rick lalpern, eds. vire ava Otber.: riti.b vcovvter. ritb vaigevov. Peote.,
1001:0 ,Philadelphia, 1999, pp. 42-8.
Murray, Daid, Mv.evv.: 1beir i.tor, ava tbeir |.e, ritb a ibtiograb, ava a i.t of Mv.evv. iv tbe
|vitea Kivgaov, Vol. I ,Glasgow, 1904,.
Ogborn, Miles, Ctobat ire.: ritaiv ava tbe !orta, 1::0100 ,Cambridge, 2008,.
Parry, Graham, 1be 1robie. of 1ive: vgti.b .vtiqvariav. of tbe erevteevtb Cevtvr, ,Oxord, 1995,.
Pearce, Susan M., Ov Cottectivg: .v vre.tigatiov ivto Cottectivg iv tbe vroeav 1raaitiov ,London,
1995,.
Peck, Linda Ley, Cov.vvivg tevaovr: ociet, ava Cvttvre iv erevteevtb Cevtvr, vgtava ,Cambridge,
2005,.
Pieper, Renate, 1he Upper German 1rade in Art and Curiosities Beore the 1hirty \ears \ar`,
in Michael North and Daid Ormond, eds. .rt Mar/et. iv vroe, 1100100 ,lampshire, 1998,
pp. 93-102.
Pierson, Stacey, Cottector., Cottectiov. ava Mv.evv.: 1be ieta of Cbive.e Ceravic. iv ritaiv, 1:010
,Oxord, 200,.
Pomian, Krzyszto, Cottector. ava Cvrio.itie.: Pari. ava 1evice, 1:00100, 1rans. \iles-Porter,
Llizabeth ,Cambridge, 1990,.
Potter, Jennier, travge toov.: 1be Cvriov. ire. ava .arevtvre. of tbe ]obv 1raae.cavt. ,London,
200,.
Pratt, Mary Louise, veriat ,e.: 1raret !ritivg ava 1rav.cvttvratiov ,London, 1992,.
Ridley, Glynis, Ctara`. Crava 1ovr: 1raret. ritb a Rbivocero. iv igbteevtb Cevtvr, vroe ,New \ork,
2005,.
Schiebinger, Londa, Prospecting or Drugs: Luropean Naturalists in the \est Indies` in Londa
Schiebinger and Claudia Swan, eds. Cotoviat otav,: cievce, Covverce ava Potitic. iv tbe art, Moaerv
!orta ,Philadelphia, 2005, pp. 119-133.
Said, Ldward \., Orievtati.v ,London, 2003,.
Scott, James C., Dovivatiov ava tbe .rt. of Re.i.tavce: iaaev 1rav.crit. ,New laen, 1990,.
Shaer, L.S., 1o Remind Us on China`-\illiam Beckord, Mental 1raeller on the Grand
1our: 1he Construction o Signiicance in Landscape` in Chloe Chard and lelen Langdon, eds.
1rav.ort.: 1raret, Ptea.vre ava vagivatire Ceograb,, 10010 ,New laen, 1996, pp. 20-242.
108
Shelton, Anthony Alan, 1he Collector`s Zeal: 1owards and Anthropology o Intentionality,
Instrumentality, and Desire`, in Pieter ter Keurs, ed. Cotoviat Cottectiov. Reri.itea ,Leiden, 200,
pp. 16-44.
Shelton, Anthony Alan, Cabinets o 1ransgression: Renaissance Collections and the
Incorporation o the New \orld`, in John Llsner and Roger Cardinal, eds. 1be Cvttvre. of
Cottectivg ,London, 1994, pp. 1-203.
Spuord, Margaret, vatt oo/. ava Ptea.avt i.torie.: Povtar ictiov ava it. Reaaer.bi iv art,
Moaerv vgtava ,Athens, Ga., 1981,.
Sturdy, Daid, and lenig, Martin, 1be Cevtte 1raretter: ]obv argrare, Cavov of Cavterbvr,, ava bi.
Cottectiov ,Canterbury, 1983,.
Swan, Claudia, Collecting âtvratia in the Shadow o Larly Modern Dutch 1rade`, in Londa
Schiebinger and Claudia Swan, eds. Cotoviat otav,: cievce, Covverce, ava Potitic. iv tbe art, Moaerv
!orta ,Philadelphia, 2005, pp. 223-236.
Swann, Marjorie, Cvrio.itie. ava 1et.: 1be Cvttvre of Cottectivg iv art, Moaerv vgtava ,Philadelphia,
2001,.
ter Keurs, Pieter, Introduction: 1heory and Practice o Colonial Collecting`, in Pieter ter Keurs,
ed. Cotoviat Cottectiov. Reri.itea ,Leiden, 200, pp. 1-16.
1homas, Nicholas, Licensed Curiosity: Cook`s Paciic Voyages`, in John Llsner and Roger
Cardinal, eds. 1be Cvttvre. of Cottectivg ,London, 1994, pp. 116-136.
\agner, lenry R., ir ravci. Dra/e`. 1o,age .rovva tbe !orta: t. .iv. ava .cbierevevt. ,San
lrancisco, 1926,.
\alsham, Alexandra, Proriaevce iv art, Moaerv vgtava ,Oxord, 1999,.
\alsham, Alexandra, Vox Piscis: or the Book-lish: Proidence and the Uses o the
Reormation Past in Caroline Cambridge`, 1be vgti.b i.toricat Rerier 114:45 ,1999, pp. 54-
606.
\att, 1essa, Cbea Privt ava Povtar Piet,, 1::0110 ,Cambridge, 1991,.
\eil, Mark S., Loe, Monsters, Moement, and Machines: 1he Marellous in 1heatres,
lestials, and Gardens`, in Joy Kenseth, ed. 1be .ge of tbe Marrettov. ,Chicago, 1991,, pp. 159-
18.
\einer, Margaret J., 1he Magical Lie o 1hings`, in Pieter ter Keurs, ed. Cotoviat Cottectiov.
Reri.itea ,Leiden, 200, pp. 45-0.
\elu, James A., Strange New \orlds: Mapping the leaens and Larth`s Great Lxtent`, in Joy
Kenseth, ed. 1be .ge of tbe Marrettov. ,Chicago, 1991,, pp. 103-112.
109
\aya, Isabella, \onders o America: 1he Curiosity Cabinet as a Site o Representation and
Knowledge`, ]ovrvat of tbe i.tor, of Cottectiov. 20:2 ,2008, pp. 13-188.
W4L/:'01"#( F#3%4()&2 F%/&3#1
Beck, Daid, Robert Plot`s Inestigation o Nature` ,unpublished paper, July 2010,.
Sobreilla, Iris Montero, Knowledge Production and Authority oer New \orld Nature in the
lernandian Corpus, 151-1651` ,unpublished paper, July 2010,.
$%&'( $0(# $#: F%/&3#1
S&0,)&2-
lrancken, lrans, Art Room` ,1636, Kunsthistoriches Museum, Vienna, Reproduced rom:
\eb Gallery o Art`, 22 April 2010, http:,,www.wga.hu.
lilliard, Nicholas, 1he lardwick lall Portrait o Llizabeth I o Lngland` ,1599, lardwick
lall, Derbyshire, Reproduced rom: \ikipedia Commons`, 12 July 2010.
http:,,commons.wikimedia.org,wiki,lile:Llizabeth_I_o_Lngland_lardwick_1592.jpg.
Musei \ormiani listoria` ,1655, Smithsonian Institution, Reproduced rom \onder Bound
|| Collecting \onders`, 20 July 2010.
http:,,www.sil.si.edu,exhibitions,wonderbound,images,ull-size,SIL21-0-001.jpg.
Naigation` ,1686, 1he British Museum, Reproduced rom: British Museum`, 12 July 2010.
http:,,www.britishmuseum.org,research,search_the_collection_database,search_object_details
.aspxobjectid~30286&partid~1&search1ext~naigation&romDate~1684&romADBC~ad
&toDate~1686&toADBC~ad&numpages~10&orig~2research2search_the_collection_dat
abase.aspx&currentPage~1.
1he 1rue lorme and Shape o a Monsterous Chyld` ,1565, Bodleian Library, Reproduced
rom: Bodleian Library Broadside Ballads`, 14 July 2010.
http:,,bodley24.bodley.ox.ac.uk,cgi-
bin,acwwweng,ballads,image.plre~Gough-Maps-25,34,&id~2489.gi&seq~1&size~1.
F#3%4()&2-
Chambers, Douglas D. C., Lelyn, John ,1620-106,`, Ofora Dictiovar, of âtiovat iograb,,
,Oxord Uniersity Press, Sept 2004, online edn, Jan 2008,, 16 Aug 2010
Larminie, Viienne, Platter, 1homas ,154-1628,`, Ofora Dictiovar, of âtiovat iograb,,
,Oxord Uniersity Press, May 2005,, 16 Aug 2010
110
Bann, Stephen, Bargrae, John ,ba. 1610, a. 1680,`, Ofora Dictiovar, of âtiovat iograb,,
,Oxord Uniersity Press, Sept 2004,, 10 Aug 2010

Tesis Coleccionismo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tesis Coleccionismo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

!"# $%&'( )* +%,#- ./&0%10*2 .

%''#3045 04 "# 60&1* 75# %8

Baudrillard, 1he System o Collecting`, pp. 23, 9.

Jardine, vgeviov. Pvr.vit., p. 268, lindlen, Po..e..ivg ^atvre, pp. 8, 245-6.

You might also like