• Contenu principal
  • Menu
OpenEdition Books
  • Accueil
  • Catalogue de 16049 livres
  • Éditeurs
  • Auteurs
  • Facebook
  • X
  • Partager
    • Facebook

    • X

    • Accueil
    • Catalogue de 16049 livres
    • Éditeurs
    • Auteurs
  • Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales

    • OpenEdition
  • Nos plateformes

    • OpenEdition Books
    • OpenEdition Journals
    • Hypothèses
    • Calenda
  • Bibliothèques

    • OpenEdition Freemium
  • Suivez-nous

  • Lettre d’information
OpenEdition Search

Redirection vers OpenEdition Search.

À quel endroit ?
  • Presses universitaires de Strasbourg
  • ›
  • Études anglophones
  • ›
  • Ordering Knowledge
  • ›
  • Part 2. Shaping Disciplinarity: Emergent...
  • ›
  • The Constitution and Evolution of the Fi...
  • Presses universitaires de Strasbourg
  • Presses universitaires de Strasbourg
    Presses universitaires de Strasbourg
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Liens vers le livre
    Informations sur la couverture
    Table des matières
    Formats de lecture

    Plan

    Plan détaillé Texte intégral The origin of the first mineralogical collection in Russia Cataloguing fever A collection as a lexicon and a collection as a map The conquest of the Mundus subterraneous Notes de bas de page Auteur

    Ordering Knowledge

    Ce livre est recensé par

    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    The Constitution and Evolution of the First Russian Mineralogical Collection: The Mineral Cabinet of St. Petersburg’s Kunstkamera

    Daria Novgorodova

    p. 253-276

    Texte intégral The origin of the first mineralogical collection in Russia Cataloguing fever A collection as a lexicon and a collection as a map The conquest of the Mundus subterraneous Notes de bas de page Auteur

    Texte intégral

    1In Russia the first public collection of minerals was the Mineral cabinet of the St. Petersburg Kunstkamera. This institution was founded in 1714, when the private collections of Peter the Great were transported from Moscow to St. Petersburg. The Kunstkamera was opened to the public at the end of 1718 or the beginning of 1719. In 1725 after the creation of the Saint Petersburg Academy of Sciences1 the Kunstkamera passed under the Academy’s control and in 1836 the Mineral Cabinet as well as some other Kunstkamera cabinets became a separate academic institution beyond the Kunstkamera, the Mineralogical Museum. Now it is called the Fersman mineralogical museum of the Russian Academy of Sciences and located in Moscow2 (fig. 1). The history of this first collection of minerals closely relates to the history of mineralogy as a science discipline.

    Fig. 1. The current appearance of the Fersman Mineralogical Museum of the Russian academy of sciences

    Image

    2A quite clear chronology of an institutional academic pre-history of mineralogy in Russia can be traced in a series of official documents, concerning the Saint Petersburg Academy of sciences. The first mention of mineralogy as a separate academic discipline appeared in the Regulations of the Academy of Sciences of 1803.3 Before that, in the Project of regulations on the foundation of the Academy of Sciences and Arts of 1724, created before the Academy,4 as well as the Regulations of 1747,5 mineralogy was not mentioned separately, as it was considered a part of natural history, along with botany and zoology. So, thematic differentiation in the Kunstkamera collection with its separate cabinets of minerals, plants and animals was much earlier than in the Academy.6

    3Interestingly, the first use of the term museum instead of cabinet, in connection with the Kunstkamera collection of minerals, was also in 1803.7 This means that by the beginning of the nineteenth century the collection of minerals of the Kunstkamera had passed through a double transformation, with the disciplinary category of ‘mineralogy’ emerging at the same time as cabinets were renamed museums.

    4What was happening to the collection during these transformations? And how was the same growing set of minerals, a particular variety of natural objects, being used to codify new meanings and practices?

    5Over the long history of the collection, information regarding the initial origin of most of the eighteenth-century items has been lost. Old items were dispersed or mixed with later arrivals, and in the beginning of the twentieth century they were all registered in new inventory books, without any reference to their history. Actually, it is only in the texts of the catalogues or inventories that the collection of the Mineral Cabinet of the eighteenth century has survived as an entity. We can hardly use the catalogues as a source of reliable identification of the items. From the eighteenth century the collection was reinvented many times and in inventories the same items were re-described and given new names.8 Any object in a museum might have inherent scarcity value, but their former meanings as preserved in old catalogues and labels are an integral part of any collection.9

    6My intention here is to show catalogues as valuable sources for cultural historians, in this case enabling us to understand the development of the logic of eighteenth-century mineral collecting and display in its mutual relations with theoretical mineralogical knowledge.10

    The origin of the first mineralogical collection in Russia

    7In Russian historiography the ‘first beginning of the Mineral Cabinet’11 has always been associated with the collection of minerals from the Museum Gottwaldianum,12 which was bought for the Kunstkamera in 1714–1716.13 In the very first years of the Kunstkamera, it was probably used as the ‘initial matrix’ for the Mineral cabinet, which would evolve into a collection of the Saint Petersburg Kunstkamera. The collection’s form and content were however above all determined by special efforts of scientists of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, more than by the initial composition of the Museum Gottwaldianum or of any other ‘ready-made’ collections which had been bought for the Kunstkamera in those years. The Mineral Cabinet collection was composed of minerals scattered among different collections kept in the Kunstkamera by the 1730s. The work of assembly was done by Johann Georg Gmelin, one of the compilers of the first catalogue of the Mineral cabinet (1745). He wrote at the beginning of his work on cataloguing in the early 1730s:

    Three years ago, when I wanted to write the mineral catalogue of the imperial museum [ie the Mineral catalogue of the Kunstkamera, printed in 174514], it seemed to me that it would be reasonable to merge various available collections [of minerals which were kept in the Kunstkamera at the time]. The collection of the Danzig physician Gottwald was the main although not the most remarkable part. There was another collection from one metallurgist from Saxony – the worst. Then there were various boxes filled with minerals, which had come in part from Sweden, and in part from Russia. This was joined by the mineralogical collection from the Duchy of Württemberg, brought here by Johann-Georg Gmelin. Finally, let us not be silent about the minerals, although not numerous, delivered by Mr Messerschmidt from Siberia.15

    8So, all the newly acquired collections that entered the Kuntskamera did not remain intact, but were broken up according to the museum’s perceived needs. Later the Mineral Cabinet’s collection continued to grow thanks to additions from the same sorts of sources: private collections, purchases or gifts, donations from state institutions, scientists, specimens gathered in academic expeditions, etc.16 The quantitative growth of the collection during the eighteenth century can be traced in its catalogues which grew from around 1,195 inventory numbers for Gottwalds’ collection of minerals to c. 3,000 in 1745, c. 4,000 in 1760, and c. 11,000 in 1786–1789.17 But the Mineral Cabinet catalogues also contain evidence of more significant qualitative changes in the collection over the course of the eighteenth century.

    Cataloguing fever

    9New versions the Mineral Cabinet catalogues were produced on three different occasions in the years between 1745 and 1789, all of them in Latin and written by scientists of the Russian Academy of Sciences. This is quite a lot for one collection in such a short period of time. The first one was compiled by Johann Georg Gmelin and Mikhail Lomonosov, and was printed in 174518 as a part of the large consolidated catalogue of all the Kunstkamera collections (zoological, botanical, anatomical, etc.). The two other catalogues, which were kept in manuscript form, were the Johann Gotlob Lehmann catalogue (1760)19 and that of Johann Georgi, Hans Michael Renovanz and Vasily Zuev (1786–1789).20

    10The catalogues of the Mineral cabinet (like that of the Museum Gottwaldianum) were constructed as numbered lists of mineral specimens: they are just inventories, not guidebooks with detailed descriptions and histories of the items (fig. 2a-c). The creation of each new catalogue was determined by specific circumstances. The first catalogue of 1745 was made due to the need to describe the collections of the new Kunstkamera; the second was produced because of a fire in 1747, which destroyed many of the collections (the renovated Kunstkamera was opened to the public again only in 1766); then the third one was made when the Mineral Cabinet was moved to new halls.

    Fig. 2a. The first page of a catalogue of the Mineral cabinet, 1745

    Image

    Fig. 2b. The first page of a catalogue of the Mineral cabinet, 1760

    Image

    Fig. 2c. The first page of a catalogue of the Mineral cabinet, 1786–89

    Image

    11The main interest of these catalogues is that they are all different; none of the descriptions were repeated, even already-made records for existing items were not used. Each subsequent catalogue was created as if from nothing, the very same growing collection was described anew on three occasions in the course of fifty years. This, among other things, is the reason why it is so hard to use these catalogues for subject identification, but it also offers interesting evidence of the constantly changing logic of mineralogical collection and display in the eighteenth century.

    12The ‘fever’ of rewriting the catalogues starts at the very beginning of the Kunstkamera’s history. The Museum Gottwaldianum had not been described by the original collectors, the Gottwalds, and was catalogued only after their deaths.21 It was prepared by Johann Philippe Breyne for the auction sale of the collection,22 and it is not clear whether he compiled records left by the Gottwalds or wrote it himself. The authors of the Kunstkamera’s first Mineral Cabinet catalogue, Johann Georg Gmelin and Mikhail Lomonosov, certainly had a copy of the auction catalogue23 – an eighteenth-century handwritten version is kept in the Fersman Mineralogical Museum archive – but they preferred not to use ready-made descriptions of items and wrote them anew instead. Thus, they were describing minerals from scratch, not from any lack of an existing model, but because they deliberately intended to give new meanings to the collection.

    13Blank pages were included in the Mineral Cabinet catalogues; new acquisitions might be noted on them, but only in rare cases were they were used for that.24 Transformations of the mineral Kunstkamera collection minerals throughout the eighteenth century happened so often that they did not leave a trace in the catalogues. Unlike modern museum inventory books, the catalogues of the eighteenth century did not record the current state of the collection, but rather new meanings were prescribed for individual items and for the collection as a whole.25 Every catalogue of the Mineral Cabinet was a document pointing to a new phase in the life of the collection: a ‘liminal moment’,26 from which its existence ruled by a new order was supposed to start.27

    14It is significant that every time the catalogue was rewritten, the work was done not by the person who created the collection but by experts, and it would seem that this rule applies not only to eighteenth-century collections, but also to current ones. Collectors rarely make catalogues of their own collections – maybe because during the collector’s lifetime, the collection isn’t complete and never freezes into a definite shape. Catalogues act as documents which fix the order and meanings of a collection according to principles determined by sociocultural conventions distinct from the will of a collector. The catalogues are not about personal passions and peculiarity, but social and scientific rules and norms, which is why they are so useful for the analysis of the history of the structures of meaning. This raises a question about who was making all those changes and why. In each case, the differences between these catalogues of the same collection were of such magnitude that they can only be accounted for by fundamental shifts in mineralogical interpretation. Academic norms and state policy influenced the construction of catalogues of the scientific mineral collection to a greater extent than the will and the power of any person could.

    15The one element which did not change in the Kunstkamera’s three successive eighteenth-century catalogues is the principle which determines the structure of their texts. Unlike museum inventory books in which records are added chronologically, eighteenth-century mineral catalogues followed an order of a system of mineralogy, and the text was constructed according to this or that system until the end of the century. This was the rule for the catalogue of any mineral cabinet wherever it was – be it in Russia or any other European academy. It is known that in the middle of the eighteenth century, about thirty mineralogy systems coexisted in the European scientific world.28 The three catalogues of the Mineral Cabinet were compiled according to three different systems: in the first, Gmelin used his own system of mineralogy, which seems not to have been applied anywhere else; the second applied the system of the German mineralogist Johann Gotlob Lehmann, who worked in the Saint Petersburg Academy and presented his Mineralogy there in 1763; the third used the widespread system of Johan Gottschalk Wallerius, the well-known Swedish mineralogist.29

    16Any system of mineralogy was a ready-made table with columns in which were placed descriptions of the collection's mineral specimens – and exactly the same structure was used in the catalogues of the Mineral cabinet of the Kunstkamera, where the collection was described in the order of the taxa of the chosen mineralogical systematics, regardless of whether the collection contained minerals belonging to these taxa. A catalogue immediately represented a ready matrix, an empty table of the System of Mineralogy, which was ordered to be filled in with descriptions of specific mineral samples (see fig. 2a-c). Thus the system of mineralogy dictated not only the form of the mineralogical collection’s description, but also the subject content. A catalogue was a kind of list of desiderata. Thus, catalogues in the eighteenth century regulated the composition of a collection and dictated absolute completeness according to the logic of the system of mineralogy used. It was not the catalogue that followed the collection, but, on the contrary, the collection that followed the catalogue, with the curator/describer filling in the readymade sections of a table according to the catalogue’s prescriptions. A collection was literally the materialization of a given scheme of mineralogical systematics.

    17Toward the turn of the nineteenth century, collections were becoming more and more complex. From the second half of the eighteenth century, the territory of Russia was being actively explored by academic expeditions, and new minerals and mineral deposits were discovered. The Kunstkamera collection received more and more samples, not typical specimens purchased at auctions or from other collectors,30 but unique ones, collected by experts working on the Russian territory of Russia. Under these new circumstances, the nature of the collection started to change.

    A collection as a lexicon and a collection as a map

    18Systems of mineralogy dictated not only the collection’s descriptive order in catalogues, but also defined its spatial form, organizing items as physical bodies within the mineral cabinet. In the collection’s first two catalogues (the 1714 Museum Gottwaldianum version and the 1745 Mineral Cabinet version), there are two elements which refer to the organization of the collection in space – the scrinium and the capsula, which is a drawer within a scrinium. A scrinium was a specific cabinet, like a chest of drawers. Its use for collections of minerals can be traced back at least as far as the second half of the sixteenth century in mineral collection of Johann Kentmann (1565),31 the first man in Europe to establish a mineral collection and set the fundamental pattern for future collections.32 The main point here is that there was a strong direct link between the construction of a scrinium for displaying minerals and the structure of textual descriptions in the collection’s catalogue. Thus, a scrinium was the visible expression of a system of mineralogy, and its drawers corresponded to the columns of a table of the system of mineralogy (fig. 3a-b). Until the first half of the eighteenth century, whatever system of mineralogy was being used, a scrinium was a system of mineralogy, and a capsula was a class of this system.

    Fig. 3a. The classes of Kentman’s system of mineralogy

    Image

    Fig. 3b. A special type of a cabinet (scrinium) for a collection of minerals from the catalogues of Kentmann’s collection, with drawers (capsulae) correlating to classes of the system of mineralogy

    Image

    19The imperative of completeness was also important; it operated in mineral cabinets until the middle of the eighteenth century. Kentmann’s collection was named not a cabinet but an Ark of minerals (‘ARCA RERUM FOSSILIUM Ioan. Kentmani’), like the ark of Noah or the ark of the covenant. An epigraph at the beginning of his catalogue makes the ambitious claim that ‘This small ark keeps all that hides in the bosom of the Earth, and the underground veins, and all treasures of the world.’33

    20In 1745 the whole Mineral cabinet was contained in three rooms with sixteen scrinia, which followed one after another in the order required by the system of mineralogy then in use (that of Gmelin). From the second half of the eighteenth century, the mechanics of the collection started to change. In 1766 the Kunstkamera was opened again after the fire of 1747. The display furniture of the Mineral cabinet had been replaced, and the Kunstkamera guide of 1779 pointed out that the solid closed cabinet had been replaced by transparent ones.34 The closed scrinium had turned into a glass case, like the ‘pyramid’ which is still used in the Fersman Mineralogical Museum today. Glazed individual drawers appeared, that might be taken out of a cabinet and exhibited independently. The whole cosmos of the collection, previously unseen, or hidden, was revealed, and the structure of the collection, which could previously be guessed only by the construction of a cabinet or by descriptions of a catalogue, became visible.35

    21By 1814, a description by Vasiliy Severgin tells us that the collection as a whole, previously enclosed ‘inside a cabinet’, had now been completely turned inside out with the appearance of a new piece of exposition furniture – a flat display case similar to a table. The space of the collection became open, and the collection became in principle incomplete, always unfinished and infinitely growing, being constantly replenished by new studies and expeditions. In the place of presentation based on depth, flat surfaces appeared – the sort of space that is generally still used in mineralogical museums today (fig. 4).

    Fig. 4. Flat display cases for minerals in the Fersman Mineralogical museum

    Image

    22The two different spatial models of a mineral cabinet correspond to two different conceptions of a collection. Until the middle of the eighteenth century, a model of a mineral cabinet which can be called a ‘collection as a lexicon’ was in operation. In those times, references to museum objects were not given with an indication of the cabinet or shelf, or the room in which the object was placed, but with an indication of the page on which its description is located in the catalogue of the collection.36 A museum (or a cabinet) counted not as a collection of minerals, but a collection of materialized descriptions contained in a catalogue: a collection was a lexicon. In the late eighteenth to early nineteenth century, the mineralogical collection stopped being a lexicon and became a map,37 and this last prescription is expressed quite definitely too. The Academician Severgin, often called the father of Russian mineralogy, wrote at the beginning of the nineteenth century, ‘Mineral collections in Natural History are almost the same as Geographic maps in geography…In a correctly ordered collection of natural bodies, we review as if at a single glance the works of almost the entire Earth.’38 Osip Belyaev, the author of the Kunstkamera guides, wrote in 1800 that the Mineral cabinet was built according to ‘mineralogical geography’.39

    23It is interesting to note that the collection became a map on which state borders are pictured. In the middle of the eighteenth century, Mikhail Lomonosov ridiculed the habit of some collectors of forming mineral cabinets taking into account only the mineralogical resources of their own country, because a choice of this sort would not support the development of a complete system of mineralogy. He was indignant:

    When a Saxon writes mineralogy, it’s mainly about silver and lead ores, a Hungarian about gold, an Englishman about tin, a Swede about copper and iron. In addition, everyone has collected minerals according to their own system, and finally thinks that underground Nature has chosen his own mineral cabinet as her capital.40

    24Only fifty years later, however, Severgin described the exposition of the Mineral cabinet, in which tables with minerals were sorted not by the classes of the system of mineralogy but by the places they had come from: Swedish, Russian, and Hungarian minerals were exhibited separately from one another. And even systems of mineralogy were different – the Russian system, for example, referring exclusively to domestic minerals, and foreign.41

    25One single mineral cabinet was gradually replaced by several, each of which was arranged in a special way. Instead of being the only rule for the collection, the mineralogical system used became only one part of the new order. Separate thematic sections appeared, differentiating Russian and foreign minerals, Russian and foreign fossils;42 a decorative grotto with ‘old collections’ was added.43 By the end of the eighteenth century distinct geographical halls were added,44 and the nineteenth century brought further differentiation, such as an educational hall.45

    26Categorization was now primarily determined not with the help of geological and mineralogical concepts, but solely within the framework of political geography. From the end of the eighteenth century the Mundus subterraneous was ‘nationalized’, its œuvres in mineralogical collections became primarily marked as belonging not to one or another ‘class’ of a system of mineralogy, but rather as national and state-owned resources. Mineralogical systematic order was preserved as just a small part of a more general assemblage representing the national mineral treasury.

    27The powerful increasingly appealed to minerals and mineral collections as part of their diplomatic efforts. At the time of Russo-Turkish war, Catherine the Great wrote to Voltaire that after each new victory of the Russian army she erected an obelisk in her residence at Tsarskoye Selo, and if the war continued, her garden would look like a field for a skittling game. It is remarkable that the empress pointed out that all obelisks were made only of Russian marbles, not inferior in beauty to Italian.46 Russian natural stone in all its diversity and beauty was being used for the first time in political rhetoric as a visual representation of the power of Russia. As a result of this ‘politicized’ approach, new types of items appeared in the Mineral cabinet. In the last third of the eighteenth century some more decorative artworks were specially constructed for demonstrating sets of different stones, including recently-discovered Russian ones. Some of them were made into pyramid-like structures with polished slices of Uralian stones or an obelisk made from different colour marbles, and these were preserved in the museum.47

    28The tendency towards a ‘patriotic’ reorientation of mineralogical collections at the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was not only a Russian phenomenon, but also a European one,48 as testified by the well-known works of the German stone-setter, Johann Christian Neuber (1737–1808). His works were not so much pieces of art as sets of decorative stones: for example, a snuffbox decorated with polished slices of various minerals and rocks from Saxony, accompanied by a small book listing the scientific names of the stones and an indication of their place of origin.49 Such productions were widespread in the 1780–90s. Elsewhere in Europe, the political use of local decorative stone had begun earlier than in Russia. We can cite as an example the nuggets of silver from the Norwegian silver mines of Kongsberg, which for decades were used by the Danish court as diplomatic gifts. The Fersman Mineralogical Museum conserves the silver nugget given to Peter the Great when he visited the Royal Cabinet of Curiosities in Copenhagen in 1716,50 and a similar silver nugget from Kongsberg – a gift from Christian VII of Denmark to Louis XV in 1770 – is kept in France’s National Museum of Natural History.51

    29Russian marbles were first actively developed not for mineralogical research, but for art production and for the needs of the Imperial Peterhof lapidary factory (founded in 1721) and Yekaterinburg lapidary factory (opened in 1738).52 It was marble that became the first Russian stone used to show the wealth, beauty, and power of the Russian empire. Given the long history of the use of marble in European civilization, this choice clearly demonstrates Catherine’s efforts to identify Russia as a European power.

    30These stages of transformation of the academic collection of minerals lead to some thoughts about the way mineralogy constructed itself as a scientific discipline, and at the same time how states have constructed policies of knowledge by offering different regimes of public accessibility.

    The conquest of the Mundus subterraneous

    31At the end of the eighteenth century, the Kunstkamera’s librarian and historian Osip Belyaev pointed out that the catalogues of 1741–45 (including the mineral catalogue) were printed ‘both for usage at the Academy, and for other curious individuals and strangers’, who wanted to see the collections of the Kunstkamera and the Academic Library.53 But it is noteworthy that all these catalogues were published in Latin, which set a high standard of education for these ‘curious individuals’. This fact contrasts with the widespread interpretation of Peter the Great’s often quoted speech about the accessibility of the Kunstkamera, ‘I want people coming and learning’54 – as if he meant the common people (obviously, he did not).

    32The collection of the Kunstkamera’s Mineral Cabinet with its accompanying catalogues was never fully popularized. The 1779 guidebook to the Kunstkamera remarked: ‘These objects [the collection of the Mineral cabinet] attract more the connoisseur’s attention than the eyes of ordinary viewers.’55 To remedy the situation a special grotto with fountains decorated with flowers, shells, and stones was made for the pleasure of a non-expert audience. This separation of ‘connoisseurs’ from ‘ordinary viewers’, the latter needing beautiful objects in order to be entertained, contrasts with earlier politics of knowledge in Russia. For example, articles in a popular science magazine first appearing in the 1720s56 had always included a detailed analysis of the opinions of ‘ordinary people’ who not only sent reports to the Academy about all kinds of rarities, but also expressed their thoughts about them (sometimes in quite extravagant terms but still de facto included in the corpus of the scientific publication).

    33Besides that, the two different conceptions of a mineral cabinet gave two different methods of perception of the collection. In the space of a collection as a lexicon, the items were perceived rather like a person reads a book, page by page: pulling out one drawer after another. Separate items or entire boxes were seen and examined on a table, which was an indispensable item in any cabinet of rarities or curiosities in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (fig. 5a-b). The collection-as-lexicon could never be seen entirely and could attain a degree of completeness only in the imagination of the visitor. By the end of the eighteenth century, though the collection had become a map open for viewing: people could walk into it and around it. The wholeness of a collection, previously produced by the visitor, was henceforth pre-built by specialists. It is this didactic order that continues to operate in museums to this day.

    Fig. 5a. The table as a working tool in the mineral collection

    Image

    Engraving by Maria de Wilde, c. 1700

    Fig. 5b. Christoph Gottwald, Museum Gottwaldianum, 1714, tab. A

    Image

    34Analysis of the gradual transformation of the content in the descriptions of minerals in the catalogues from 1745 to 1789 can make visible one more dimension of the history of the Saint Petersburg collection. It is striking that all elements referring to human beings gradually disappeared during the nineteenth century: human geography, names, footnotes, details about scientific books, stories, evidence, opinions on stones, were replaced by ‘objective’ mineralogical knowledge from which all traces of human intervention were suppressed.57 For example, a valuable item in the Museum of Gottwaldianum, stones from the kidney and gall bladder of the Polish King Jan III Sobieski,58 was described in great detail in the 1745 Mineral catalogue of the Kunstkamera,59 but later in the catalogue of 1788, a variety of kidney stones, of which there were many in the collection (including royal ones), were united under one common record, and catalogued merely as ‘stones of human beings’.60

    35The order of modern mineralogical museums, invented in the nineteenth century, now looks like a natural one and therefore tends to be taken for granted. But there is nothing natural or inevitable about it. In the inventories on old labels, or in unusual or ‘wrong’ names of minerals, a very different culture of collecting and doing science are revealed. In the beginning of its history, the material structure of the collection was literally equivalent to the abstract or logical structure of mineralogy, which itself did not then exist as a separate academic science, being only a part of Natural History. During the eighteenth century, mineralogy was becoming more and more specialized; it was building its borders primarily through the exclusion of everything alien. Then the shared identity of the catalogue, the collection, and the mineralogical order of things disappeared, and very strange contradictions appeared between academic mineralogical discourse and academic collections of minerals, in which items seemed to be misclassified. As soon as the Kunstkamera’s Mineral Cabinet had officially become a mineralogical museum (1803), it was relieved from the total regulatory order of mineralogy. The discipline became more specialized than when it was a part of Natural History, but the mineralogical collection escaped from such narrow disciplinary borders and became a social, political, and cultural institution, keeping and developing the history of science to a greater extent than the academic science itself, which had been cleansed of all ‘too human’ elements of past knowledge.

    36Now, in new or renovated mineralogical museums one can notice how the presentation of the mineral kingdom is changing again. After the light which filled the space of the collection invented in the nineteenth century and which openly, clearly, and proudly demonstrated the structure of the exposition (that is, the scientific thought of humans), the twilight is returning. The most popular exhibition trend now is simulating the darkness of the underworld, in which neither the technical elements of the exposition nor the presence of scientific expertise is noticed. Minerals simply float in this black abyss as if by themselves, illuminated by point light sources. What this trend implies is an open question for museum researchers.

    Notes de bas de page

    1 The Russian academy of sciences has changed its name several times during its history. The title Saint Petersburg Academy of sciences is given here and throughout as the general name of the Russian academy for the Imperial Russian period (ie before 1917), but in cited official documents the exact name is used.

    2 For a detailed history of the Kunstkamera, see Johann Bakmeister, Opyt o biblioteke i kabinete redkostei i Istorii Natural’noi Sanktpeterburgskoi Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia morskogo shliakhetskogo kadetskogo Korpusa, 1779); O. P. Beliaev, Kabinet Petra Velikogo, Otdelenie tret’e (St. Petersburg: Imp. Tipografiia, 1800), or in French Johann Bakmeister, Essai sur la Bibliothèque et le Cabinet de curiosités et d’histoire naturelle de l’Académie des Sciences de Saint Petersbourg (St. Petersburg, 1776); I. Shumakher, Palaty Sanktpeterburgskoi imperatorskoi Akademii nauk Biblioteki i Kunstkamery (St. Petersburg: Pech. Pri Imp. Akad. Nauk, 1744). See also T.V. Stanjukovich, Kunstkamera Peterburgskoj AN (Moskva-Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR, 1953); M.F. Hartanovich, M.V. Hartanovich, Letopis’ Kunstkamery. 1714–1836, ed. N.P. Kopaneva, Ju.K. Chistov (St. Petersburg: MAJe RAN, 2014). Works on the history of the Mineral cabinet of the Kunstkamera include V. M. Severgin, ‘Obozrenie Mineral'nogo kabineta Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk,’ in Tehnologicheskij zhurnal (St. Petersburg: pri Imp. Akad. Nauk, 1814), t. 11., ch. 1., 3–115; Kratkaja opis’ Mineral’nomu kabinetu Imperatorskoj akademii Nauk, po novomu onago raspolozheniju v 1820 godu. (St. Petersburg: pri Imp. Akad. Nauk, 1821); D. I. Sol’skiy, ‘Ocherk istorii Mineralogicheskogo muzeia Akademii nauk SSSR (dorevoliutsionnyi period),’ Trudy Mineralogicheskogo muzeia, vyp 11 (1961): 220–230; G. P. Barsanov and V. A. Kornetova, ’Istoriia razvitiia Mineralogicheskogo muzeia im. A. E. Fersmana AN SSSR za 270 let (1716–1986),’ in Stareishie mineralogicheskie muzei SSSR. Ocherki po istorii geologicheskikh znanii, vyp 25 (Moscow: Nauka, 1989): 9–52; A. A. Godovikov, ‘Osnovnye khronologicheskie daty v istorii Mineralogicheskogo muzeia im. A. E. Fermana AN SSSR,’ in Stareishie mineralogicheskie muzei SSSR, vyp 25, 53–71.

    3 ‘Reglament Akademii nauk 1803 g.,’ in Rossiya. Ministerstvo narodnogo prosveshcheniya. Sbornik postanovlenij po ministerstvu narodnogo prosveshcheniya, t. 1: Carstvovanie imperatora Aleksandra I. 1802–1825 (St. Petersburg.: Tip. V. S. Balasheva, 1875), 90–115.

    4 ‘Proekt polozheniya ob uchrezhdenii Akademii nauk i hudozhestv, 1724 g.,’ in Ustavy Akademii nauk / otv., ed. G. K. Skryabin (Moscow, 1975), 31–39.

    5 ‘Reglament Akademii nauk i hudozhestv v Sankt-Peterburge, 1747 g,’ in Ustavy Akademii nauk / otv, ed. G. K. Skryabin (Moscow, 1975), 40–61.

    6 This separation of collections within the Kunstkamera can be quite well seen in architectural and exposition plans of the Kunstkamera in Palaty Sanktpeterburgskoj ImperatorskojAkademii nauk Biblioteki i Kunstkamery: Kotoryh predstavleny plany, fasady i profili, pripisannyya eya imperatorskomu vysochestvu gosudaryne velikoj knyagine i pravitel’nice vseya Rossii (St Petersburg: Pech. pri Imp. Akad. Nauk, 1741), tab V.

    7 ‘Reglament Akademii nauk 1803 g.,’ columns 111–113. In this document all three cabinets of the Kunstkamera with collections of the Natural history items – mineralogical, botanical, zoological – were renamed as the Academy museum (unlike other collections, for example, the numismatic one, which remained a cabinet).

    8 These difficulties, concerned with the Early modern collections catalogues, are known, see J. Keating and L. Markey, ‘Introduction: Captured objects. Inventories of early modern collections,’ Journal of the History of Collections 23, no2 (2011): 209–213. This volume includes research on catalogues and inventories of art collections of the Early modern period as sources of the history of collections and collecting.

    9 On items of collections as semiophores (meaning-bearing objects) see К. Pomian, Collectors and Curiosities: Paris and Venice, 1500–1800, trans. Elizabeth Wiles-Porter (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990); on collections and collecting studies see S.M. Pearce, Museums, Objects, and Collections: a Cultural Study (Leicester: Leicester Univ. Press, 1992); S.M. Pearce, On Collecting: An Investigation into Collecting in the European Tradition (London: Routledge, 1995); S.M. Pearce, Collecting in Contemporary Practice (London, New Delhi: SAGE Publications, 1998); S.M. Pearce, ed., Interpreting Objects and Collections (London and New York: Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2003).

    10 My thesis of 2017 includes a more detailed analysis of the cultural history of the Mineral cabinet of the Kunstkamera by its catalogues (D. D. Novgorodova, ‘Katalogi Mineral’nogo kabineta Kunstkamery XVIII v.: kul’turnaja istorija kollekcii’ (PhD dissertation, Rossijskij gosudarstvennyj gumanitarnyj universitet, Moscow, 2017), but in this current work there are some new developments that are not in the thesis.

    11 V. M. Severgin, ‘Obozrenie Mineral'nogo kabineta Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk,’ 8 and the same in all sources on the history of the Fersman mineralogical museum cited above.

    12 Musaeum Gottwaldianum, sive catalogus rerum rariorum, tam naturalium, quam artificialium, longa annorum serie. Curaque et sumtibus haud exiguis collectarum, à viris d.v. excellentissimis experientissimisque, D. Christophoro Gottwaldio, Med. D. & Phisico Gedanensi, Patre & D. Joh. Christoph Gottwaldio, Med. D. filio, quas publica auctione in aedibus Gottwaldianis Anno 1714. d. […] Divendet Georgius Mattern ([Gedani]: Typis Joh. Zachariae Stolli, [1714]). The Gottwald museum included not only minerals, but also botanical, zoological and anatomical collections, as well as an extensive art collection. Today only a few traces of those art works are found in Russian sources, but it is certain that the art collection was bought to the Kunstkamera as well as minerals, see D.D. Novgorodova, ‘Musaeum Gottwaldianum I jego losy w Rosji,’ Klio – Czasopismo Poświęcone Dziejom Polski i Powszechnym 46, no 3 (2018), 109–137.

    13 D. D. Novgorodova, ‘Ot Muzeia Gottwal’da k Mineral’nomu katalogu Kunstkamery,’ in Indoevropeiskoe iazykoznanie i klassicheskaia filologiia – XVII, ed. N. N. Kazanskii (St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2013), 636–653.

    14 ‘Catalogus minerarum,’ Musei Imperialis Petropolitani, vol. I:III (St. Petersburg: Typis Academiae scientiarum Petropolitanae, 1745), later M. V. Lomonosov, ’Mineral’nyi katalog,’ 7–70 (in Latin), 71–241 (in Russian), recent edition: ’Musei Imperialis Petropolitani,’ vol. I, in Slovar’ iazyka M. V. Lomonosova, ed. N. N. Kazanskii, vyp. 5, 359–467.

    15 I. G. Gmelin, ‘Zamechanie, neobhodimoe dlja ponimanija mineral'nyh katalogov. 1733 g.,’ per. A. I. Dovatura, in Polnoe sobranie sochinenij, t. 5: Trudy po mineralogii, metallurgii i gornomu delu 1741–1763 gg., ed. M. V. Lomonosov (Moskva-Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1954), 658. (Trans. D. Novgorodova)

    16 Among the most remarkable collections thus acquired were those of Freiberg scientist Johann Henkel, Swedish king Gustav III, and the Russian chemist Toviy Lowitz.

    17 The quantity of minerals was far greater than their inventory numbers suggested, since several items were frequently grouped under one record.

    18 ‘Catalogus minerarum’.

    19 The Fersman mineralogical museum has two copies: Lehmann’s Catalog älteres Exemplar. Bd. I, Bd. II, the Arkhiv of the Fersman mineralogical museum, d. No 15 (Bd. I), 78 l., Д. No 16 (Bd. II), 82 l.; Lehmann’s Catalog. Neueres Exemplar. Bd. I. II, the Arkhiv of the Fersman mineralogical museum, d. No 17, 166 l.

    20 The catalogue of the Mineral cabinet of 1786–1789 was in four parts: Russian minerals, foreign minerals and two parts for Russian and foreign fossils. The descriptions of minerals were made by Johann Georgi and Hans Michael Renovanz and the descriptions of fossils by Vasily Zuev. The catalogue for foreign minerals is Index Lithophylacei exotici Musei Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae. MDCCLXXXIX, the Archive of the Fersman mineralogical museum, d. no 60, 98 l. (copies see I. G. Georgi, Catalogus Mineralium Musaei Academiae Scientarum Imperialis, methodo Wallerii digestus. Anno MDCCLXXXVIII, PFA RAN, r-d I, op. 122, no 8, 96 l.; I. G. Georgi, Index Lithophylacei exotici Musei Academiae Scientiarum Petropolitanae. Anno MDCCLXXXIX, PFA RAN, r-d I, op. 122, no 8a, 2 l.). The catalogue for Russian minerals is Index Lithophylacei Rossici Musei Academiae scientarum Petropolitanae. Georgi’s Katalog der russichen Mineralien und Gesteine (1786–1789), Copie des Georgischen Originale), the Archive of the Fersman mineralogical museum, d. b/n, 50 l. The catalogue for Russian fossils is Enumeratio fossilium Rossiae indigenorum, classem quartam Systematij mineralogici Walleriani constituentium. Presenté à la Conference le 27 Nov: 1788, the Archive of the Fersman mineralogical museum, d. no 1, l. 82-94. It is not currently known where the catalogue for foreign fossils is, and whether it has survived, but we have its brief contents at the end of the Russian fossils catalogue (Enumeratio fossilium Rossiae, 94.)

    21 Musaeum Gottwaldianum.

    22 It is known that Hans Sloane wanted to buy some items from Museum Gottwaldianum but was unable to do so, because he was late and missed the auction, so the whole Museum was bought for Peter the Great’s Kunstkamera (H. Sloane, Brief an Breyne. London. 15 Mar. 1714/15, Briefe an Breyne, Forschungsbibliothek Gotha. Chart. B 788. Bl. 613r.), further see D. D. Novgorodova, ‘Ot Muzeia Gottwal’da.’ About the sale see also К. Pękacka-Falkowska, ‘Wokół sprzedaży gdańskiego muzeum doktorów Gottwaldów: Johann Philipp Breyne i jego korespondenc,’ in Zapiski Historyczne LXXXII, no 3 (2017): 33–50; in English К. Pękacka-Falkowska, ‘About the Sale of the Museum of the Gottwalds: Johann Philipp Breyne and His Correspondents,’ in Zapiski Historyczne LXXXII, no 3 (2017):31–52.

    23 I. Amman, ‘Pis'mo akademika Ammana k Shumaheru, ot 10 nojabrja 1741 g.,’ in Sbornik materialov, A. Kunik, 352.

    24 For example, one of the copies of the Lehmann catalogues contains eight records for amber specimens (Lehmann’s Catalog. Neueres Exemplar) and the other one – ten (Lehmann’s Catalog älteres Exemplar).

    25 As for example it may be traced for some plates of Florentine mosaics. See D. D. Novgorodova, ‘Proizvedenija iskusstva i igry Prirody v katalogah Mineral'nogo kabineta Kunstkamery XVIII v., in The Natural Turn in Modern Russian History, ВИВЛIОѲИКА: E-Journal of Eighteenth-Century Russian Studies 6 (2018), ed. C. Griffin, R. Koroloff and A. Yoder: 77–106. https://vivliofika.library.duke.edu/article/view/15965.

    26 See ‘liminal moment’ in J. Keating and L. Markey, ‘Introduction,’ Captured objects, 209.

    27 Another completely different approach to dealing with old inventories and catalogues can seen in the British museum, where in 1763 Swedish naturalist Daniel Solander reclassified Hans Sloane’s herbarium (265 bound volumes with the late seventeenth-century system of John Ray) according to the new Linnaean binomial nomenclature without destroying the integrity of Sloane’s work. The initial copy of Sloane’s A Voyage to Jamaica had become some sort of palimpsest where new records were successively added to the collection, a sort of endless catalogue, and a valuable source on the history of the collection. See E. D. Rose, ‘Specimens, Slips and Systems: Daniel Solander and the classification of nature at the world’s first public museum, 1753–1768,’ The British Journal for the History of Science 51, no 2 (2018): 205–237; E. D. Rose, ‘From the South Seas to Soho Square: Joseph Banks’s Library, Collection and Kingdom of Natural History,’ Notes Rec R Soc Lond. 73, no 4 (2019): 499–526; E. D. Rose, ‘Natural history collections and the book: Hans Sloane’s A Voyage to Jamaica (1707–1725) and his Jamaican plants,’ Journal of the History of Collections 30, no 1 (March 2018): 15–33, https://doi.org/10.1093/jhc/fhx011.

    28 F. D. Adams, The Birth and Development of the Geological Sciences (New York: Dover Publications, 1990), 200.

    29 It is worth noting here that the Linnean system was not among them, despite the fact that his Systema Naturae of 1735 included a mineralogical systematic, Regnum Lapideum. This system turned out to be completely unsuitable for the systematization of minerals, because for them, unlike plants, it is not the external forms that are important, but the chemical composition. This explains why the search for the appropriate mineralogical systematics continued throughout the 18th century.

    30 Such typical collectible items, which were be bought at the European market and which could be seen in almost every kunstkamera or cabinet of rarities, have been described for example in J. Hübner, Curieusen Natur-Kunst-Gewerck- und Handlungs-Lexicon (Leipzig: J. Fr. Gleditsch & Sohn, 1712).

    31 J. Kentmann, ‘Nomenclaturae rerum fossilium,’ in С. Gessner, De omni rerum fossilium genere, gemmis, lapidibus, metallis, et huiusmodi, libri aliquot, plerique nunc primum editi (Tiguri: excudebat Iacobus Gesnerus, 1565).

    32 Adams, The Birth and Development of the Geological Sciences, 195.

    33 Quicquid terra sinu venisque recondidit imis,
    Thesauros orbis haec brevis arca tegit.
    Laus magna est tacitas naturae inquirere vires,
    Maior in hoc ipsum munere nosse Deum
    Georg. Fabricius. C. (Kentmann, ‘Nomenclaturae rerum fossilium’).

    34 Bakmeister, Opyt o biblioteke i kabinete redkostei, 166–167.

    35 Such new types of furniture appeared not only in the Mineral cabinet of the Kunstkamera, but in other Russian museums too, like the Hermitage of Catherine the Great (I. G. Georgi, Opisanie rossijsko-imperatorskogo stolichnogo goroda Sankt-Peterburga i dostopamjatnostej v okrestnostjah onogo, s planom ([B. m.]: Adamant Media Corporation, 2001), 370.

    36 ‘Tripolitanskoe izvestie o prevrashhenii goroda v kamen,’ Istoricheskie, Geneologicheskie i Geograficheskie Primechanija v Vedomostjah […], 1729 goda. Chast’ VII (St. Petersburg: pri Imp. akad. nauk, 1729), 25.

    37 Obviously, the content of this and any other 'map' is never 'natural' or neutral, it is always specially constructed – but detailed studies of these contents go beyond the chronological and thematic limits of this piece. On meanings of maps see Denis Wood, The Power of Maps (New York & London: The Guilford Press, 1992).

    38 Severgin, ‘Obozrenie Mineral’nogo kabineta Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk,’ 3–5. (Trans. D. Novgorodova)

    39 Beliaev, Kabinet Petra Velikogo, Otdelenie tret’e, 149.

    40 M.V. Lomonosov, ‘Pervye osnovanija metallurgii ili rudnyh del,’ M.V. Lomonosov, Trudy po mineralogii, metallurgii i gornomu delu 1741–1763 gg. in Polnoe sobranie sochinenij t. 5 (Moscow-Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR, 1954), 394.

    41 Severgin, ‘Obozrenie Mineral’nogo kabineta Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk,’ 148–9.

    42 This is clear in the four-part composition of the Georgi-Renovanz-Zuev’s catalogue of 1786–1789 with different parts for different cabinets for Russian and foreign minerals as well as for Russian and foreign fossils.

    43 O. P. Beliaev, Kabinet Petra Velikago, Otdelenie tret’e, ch. 1 (St. Petersburg: Pri Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk, 1793), 78.

    44 Beliaev, Kabinet Petra Velikogo, Otdelenie tret’e, 149.

    45 For a detailed account, see Severgin, ‘Obozrenie Mineral'nogo kabineta,’ Kratkaja opis’ Mineral'nomu kabinetu Imperatorskoj akademii Nauk.

    46 Œuvres complètes de Voltaire. Nouvelle édition avec notices, préfaces, variantes, table analytique, Les notes de tous les commentateurs et des notes nouvelles Conforme pour le texte à l'édition de Beuchot, enrichie de découvertes les plus récentes et mise au courant des travaux qui ont paru jusqu’à ce jour, précédée de la Vie de Voltaire par Condorcet et d’autres études biographiques. Correspondance. XV. (Année 1770–1771. № 7805–8451), (Paris: Garnier Frères, Libraires-Éditeurs. 1882), 498–499. № 8354. I sincerely thank Dr. Alexei Lyubzhin for drawing my attention to this passage.

    47 Fersman Mineralogical Museum, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Inv. Nos. FMM PDK-846 and FMM PDK-1917.

    48 J. Vogel, ‘Stony realms: mineral collections as markers of social, cultural and political spaces in the 18th and early 19th century,’ Historical Social Research 40, no 1 (2015): 301–20, http://dx.doi.org/10.12759/hsr.40.2015.1.301-320.

    49 The Hermitage, Saint Petersburg, Inv. Nо. E-4184.

    50 Fersman Mineralogical Museum, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Inv. No. FMM 592.

    51 Musée national d’histoire naturelle, Paris, Inv. No. 0.153.

    52 On the Russian imperial lapidary factories and first works of art from Russian decorative stones see N. M. Mavrodina, Iskusstvo russkih kamnerezov XVIII–XIX vekov (SPb.: Izd. Gosudlarstvennogo Ermitazha, 2007).

    53 Beliaev, Kabinet Petra Velikogo, Otdelenie tret’e, 2.

    54 For example, see Stanjukovich, Kunstkamera Peterburgskoj AN, 24.

    55 Bakmeister, Opyt o biblioteke i kabinete redkostei, 165.

    56 The Primechanija k Sanktpeterburgskim vedomostjam has been republished since the 1720s. The original articles were written by academicians mostly in Latin or German and then translated into Russian. See details in A. Kunik, ‘Vvedenie ob uchenyh sbornikah i periodicheskih izdanijah Imperatorskoj akademii nauk s 1726 po1852 god, i ob ‘Uchenyh zapiskah,’ Uchenye zapiski Imperatorskoj akademii nauk po Pervomu i Tret'emu otdeleniju. Tom I vyp. 1 (St. Petersburg: v Tipografii Imp. Akademii Nauk, 1852), i-clx.

    57 D. D. Novgorodova, ‘Spiski, opisi, katalogi: ot perechnya veshchej k formirovaniyu kollekcii i stanovleniyu nauki,’ in, Sovremennye tendencii v razvitii muzeev i muzeevedeniya: Materialy II Vserossijskoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii (Novosibirsk 29 sentyabrya – 3 oktyabrya 2014 g., ed. V.A. Lamin, O.N. Shelegina (Novosibirsk: Avtograf, 2014), 154–160.

    58 ‘Inter Calculos humanos eminent Renalis et Bilarii ex corpore Serenissimi Regis Poloniae Joannis III exempti’ (Musaeum Gottwaldianum, scrin. III / caps. XXVI).

    59 ‘No131. Calculus e rene dextro [Tormenta regia sive calculus repertus in rene dextro – in manuscript edition, ARAN, f. 20. Op.3, No63, ll.1-4] serenissimi regis Poloniae Johannis III post mortem exemptus (Lomonosov, ‘Mineral’nyi katalog,’ 59).

    60 Enumeratio fossilium Rossiae, 93. It may seem that we could hope to see the description of the Polish king’s stones in the lost foreign part of catalogue of fossils, but it is known there was no section for ‘calculi’ (kidney stones) (Enumeratio fossilium Rossiae, 94).

    Auteur

    • Daria Novgorodova
    Précédent Suivant
    Table des matières

    Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

    Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Creative Commons - Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International - CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

    Voir plus de livres
    Parcours de Faulkner

    Parcours de Faulkner

    André Bleikasten

    1982

    Le mouvement ouvrier écossais, 1900-1931

    Le mouvement ouvrier écossais, 1900-1931

    Travail, culture, politique

    Christian Civardi

    1997

    Tongue’s imperial fiat

    Tongue’s imperial fiat

    Les polyphonies dans l’œuvre poétique de Robert Browning

    Yann Tholoniat

    2009

    Real and Imaginary Travels 16th-18th centuries

    Real and Imaginary Travels 16th-18th centuries

    Anne Bandry-Scubbi et Rémi Vuillemin (dir.)

    2015

    Vladimir Nabokov et la France

    Vladimir Nabokov et la France

    Yannicke Chupin, Agnès Edel-Roy, Monica Manolescu et al. (dir.)

    2017

    Scotland and the Scots, 1707-2007

    Scotland and the Scots, 1707-2007

    A Reader

    Christian Auer

    2013

    Une armée de diplomates

    Une armée de diplomates

    Les militaires américains et la France, 1944-1967

    François Doppler-Speranza

    2021

    Borders in the English-Speaking World

    Borders in the English-Speaking World

    Negotiations, Subversions, Reconfigurations

    Sandrine Baudry, Hélène Ibata et Monica Manolescu (dir.)

    2022

    Ordering Knowledge

    Ordering Knowledge

    Disciplinarity and the Shaping of European Modernity

    Jean-Jacques Chardin, Sorana Corneanu et Richard Somerset (dir.)

    2023

    La Réforme anglaise au féminin

    La Réforme anglaise au féminin

    Katherine Parr, Elizabeth Tyrwhit et Anne Askew

    Julie Vanparys-Rotondi

    2023

    Les élancements du verbe

    Les élancements du verbe

    La figure de la sphère et ses analogues dans la poésie anglaise de Richard Crashaw

    Fabrice Schultz

    2025

    Voir plus de livres
    1 / 11
    Parcours de Faulkner

    Parcours de Faulkner

    André Bleikasten

    1982

    Le mouvement ouvrier écossais, 1900-1931

    Le mouvement ouvrier écossais, 1900-1931

    Travail, culture, politique

    Christian Civardi

    1997

    Tongue’s imperial fiat

    Tongue’s imperial fiat

    Les polyphonies dans l’œuvre poétique de Robert Browning

    Yann Tholoniat

    2009

    Real and Imaginary Travels 16th-18th centuries

    Real and Imaginary Travels 16th-18th centuries

    Anne Bandry-Scubbi et Rémi Vuillemin (dir.)

    2015

    Vladimir Nabokov et la France

    Vladimir Nabokov et la France

    Yannicke Chupin, Agnès Edel-Roy, Monica Manolescu et al. (dir.)

    2017

    Scotland and the Scots, 1707-2007

    Scotland and the Scots, 1707-2007

    A Reader

    Christian Auer

    2013

    Une armée de diplomates

    Une armée de diplomates

    Les militaires américains et la France, 1944-1967

    François Doppler-Speranza

    2021

    Borders in the English-Speaking World

    Borders in the English-Speaking World

    Negotiations, Subversions, Reconfigurations

    Sandrine Baudry, Hélène Ibata et Monica Manolescu (dir.)

    2022

    Ordering Knowledge

    Ordering Knowledge

    Disciplinarity and the Shaping of European Modernity

    Jean-Jacques Chardin, Sorana Corneanu et Richard Somerset (dir.)

    2023

    La Réforme anglaise au féminin

    La Réforme anglaise au féminin

    Katherine Parr, Elizabeth Tyrwhit et Anne Askew

    Julie Vanparys-Rotondi

    2023

    Les élancements du verbe

    Les élancements du verbe

    La figure de la sphère et ses analogues dans la poésie anglaise de Richard Crashaw

    Fabrice Schultz

    2025

    Accès ouvert

    Accès ouvert freemium

    ePub

    PDF

    PDF du chapitre

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque

    Acheter

    Édition imprimée

    Presses universitaires de Strasbourg
    • amazon.fr
    • decitre.fr
    • mollat.com
    • leslibraires.fr
    • placedeslibraires.fr
    ePub / PDF

    1 The Russian academy of sciences has changed its name several times during its history. The title Saint Petersburg Academy of sciences is given here and throughout as the general name of the Russian academy for the Imperial Russian period (ie before 1917), but in cited official documents the exact name is used.

    2 For a detailed history of the Kunstkamera, see Johann Bakmeister, Opyt o biblioteke i kabinete redkostei i Istorii Natural’noi Sanktpeterburgskoi Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia morskogo shliakhetskogo kadetskogo Korpusa, 1779); O. P. Beliaev, Kabinet Petra Velikogo, Otdelenie tret’e (St. Petersburg: Imp. Tipografiia, 1800), or in French Johann Bakmeister, Essai sur la Bibliothèque et le Cabinet de curiosités et d’histoire naturelle de l’Académie des Sciences de Saint Petersbourg (St. Petersburg, 1776); I. Shumakher, Palaty Sanktpeterburgskoi imperatorskoi Akademii nauk Biblioteki i Kunstkamery (St. Petersburg: Pech. Pri Imp. Akad. Nauk, 1744). See also T.V. Stanjukovich, Kunstkamera Peterburgskoj AN (Moskva-Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR, 1953); M.F. Hartanovich, M.V. Hartanovich, Letopis’ Kunstkamery. 1714–1836, ed. N.P. Kopaneva, Ju.K. Chistov (St. Petersburg: MAJe RAN, 2014). Works on the history of the Mineral cabinet of the Kunstkamera include V. M. Severgin, ‘Obozrenie Mineral'nogo kabineta Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk,’ in Tehnologicheskij zhurnal (St. Petersburg: pri Imp. Akad. Nauk, 1814), t. 11., ch. 1., 3–115; Kratkaja opis’ Mineral’nomu kabinetu Imperatorskoj akademii Nauk, po novomu onago raspolozheniju v 1820 godu. (St. Petersburg: pri Imp. Akad. Nauk, 1821); D. I. Sol’skiy, ‘Ocherk istorii Mineralogicheskogo muzeia Akademii nauk SSSR (dorevoliutsionnyi period),’ Trudy Mineralogicheskogo muzeia, vyp 11 (1961): 220–230; G. P. Barsanov and V. A. Kornetova, ’Istoriia razvitiia Mineralogicheskogo muzeia im. A. E. Fersmana AN SSSR za 270 let (1716–1986),’ in Stareishie mineralogicheskie muzei SSSR. Ocherki po istorii geologicheskikh znanii, vyp 25 (Moscow: Nauka, 1989): 9–52; A. A. Godovikov, ‘Osnovnye khronologicheskie daty v istorii Mineralogicheskogo muzeia im. A. E. Fermana AN SSSR,’ in Stareishie mineralogicheskie muzei SSSR, vyp 25, 53–71.

    3 ‘Reglament Akademii nauk 1803 g.,’ in Rossiya. Ministerstvo narodnogo prosveshcheniya. Sbornik postanovlenij po ministerstvu narodnogo prosveshcheniya, t. 1: Carstvovanie imperatora Aleksandra I. 1802–1825 (St. Petersburg.: Tip. V. S. Balasheva, 1875), 90–115.

    4 ‘Proekt polozheniya ob uchrezhdenii Akademii nauk i hudozhestv, 1724 g.,’ in Ustavy Akademii nauk / otv., ed. G. K. Skryabin (Moscow, 1975), 31–39.

    5 ‘Reglament Akademii nauk i hudozhestv v Sankt-Peterburge, 1747 g,’ in Ustavy Akademii nauk / otv, ed. G. K. Skryabin (Moscow, 1975), 40–61.

    6 This separation of collections within the Kunstkamera can be quite well seen in architectural and exposition plans of the Kunstkamera in Palaty Sanktpeterburgskoj ImperatorskojAkademii nauk Biblioteki i Kunstkamery: Kotoryh predstavleny plany, fasady i profili, pripisannyya eya imperatorskomu vysochestvu gosudaryne velikoj knyagine i pravitel’nice vseya Rossii (St Petersburg: Pech. pri Imp. Akad. Nauk, 1741), tab V.

    7 ‘Reglament Akademii nauk 1803 g.,’ columns 111–113. In this document all three cabinets of the Kunstkamera with collections of the Natural history items – mineralogical, botanical, zoological – were renamed as the Academy museum (unlike other collections, for example, the numismatic one, which remained a cabinet).

    8 These difficulties, concerned with the Early modern collections catalogues, are known, see J. Keating and L. Markey, ‘Introduction: Captured objects. Inventories of early modern collections,’ Journal of the History of Collections 23, no2 (2011): 209–213. This volume includes research on catalogues and inventories of art collections of the Early modern period as sources of the history of collections and collecting.

    9 On items of collections as semiophores (meaning-bearing objects) see К. Pomian, Collectors and Curiosities: Paris and Venice, 1500–1800, trans. Elizabeth Wiles-Porter (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990); on collections and collecting studies see S.M. Pearce, Museums, Objects, and Collections: a Cultural Study (Leicester: Leicester Univ. Press, 1992); S.M. Pearce, On Collecting: An Investigation into Collecting in the European Tradition (London: Routledge, 1995); S.M. Pearce, Collecting in Contemporary Practice (London, New Delhi: SAGE Publications, 1998); S.M. Pearce, ed., Interpreting Objects and Collections (London and New York: Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2003).

    10 My thesis of 2017 includes a more detailed analysis of the cultural history of the Mineral cabinet of the Kunstkamera by its catalogues (D. D. Novgorodova, ‘Katalogi Mineral’nogo kabineta Kunstkamery XVIII v.: kul’turnaja istorija kollekcii’ (PhD dissertation, Rossijskij gosudarstvennyj gumanitarnyj universitet, Moscow, 2017), but in this current work there are some new developments that are not in the thesis.

    11 V. M. Severgin, ‘Obozrenie Mineral'nogo kabineta Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk,’ 8 and the same in all sources on the history of the Fersman mineralogical museum cited above.

    12 Musaeum Gottwaldianum, sive catalogus rerum rariorum, tam naturalium, quam artificialium, longa annorum serie. Curaque et sumtibus haud exiguis collectarum, à viris d.v. excellentissimis experientissimisque, D. Christophoro Gottwaldio, Med. D. & Phisico Gedanensi, Patre & D. Joh. Christoph Gottwaldio, Med. D. filio, quas publica auctione in aedibus Gottwaldianis Anno 1714. d. […] Divendet Georgius Mattern ([Gedani]: Typis Joh. Zachariae Stolli, [1714]). The Gottwald museum included not only minerals, but also botanical, zoological and anatomical collections, as well as an extensive art collection. Today only a few traces of those art works are found in Russian sources, but it is certain that the art collection was bought to the Kunstkamera as well as minerals, see D.D. Novgorodova, ‘Musaeum Gottwaldianum I jego losy w Rosji,’ Klio – Czasopismo Poświęcone Dziejom Polski i Powszechnym 46, no 3 (2018), 109–137.

    13 D. D. Novgorodova, ‘Ot Muzeia Gottwal’da k Mineral’nomu katalogu Kunstkamery,’ in Indoevropeiskoe iazykoznanie i klassicheskaia filologiia – XVII, ed. N. N. Kazanskii (St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2013), 636–653.

    14 ‘Catalogus minerarum,’ Musei Imperialis Petropolitani, vol. I:III (St. Petersburg: Typis Academiae scientiarum Petropolitanae, 1745), later M. V. Lomonosov, ’Mineral’nyi katalog,’ 7–70 (in Latin), 71–241 (in Russian), recent edition: ’Musei Imperialis Petropolitani,’ vol. I, in Slovar’ iazyka M. V. Lomonosova, ed. N. N. Kazanskii, vyp. 5, 359–467.

    15 I. G. Gmelin, ‘Zamechanie, neobhodimoe dlja ponimanija mineral'nyh katalogov. 1733 g.,’ per. A. I. Dovatura, in Polnoe sobranie sochinenij, t. 5: Trudy po mineralogii, metallurgii i gornomu delu 1741–1763 gg., ed. M. V. Lomonosov (Moskva-Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1954), 658. (Trans. D. Novgorodova)

    16 Among the most remarkable collections thus acquired were those of Freiberg scientist Johann Henkel, Swedish king Gustav III, and the Russian chemist Toviy Lowitz.

    17 The quantity of minerals was far greater than their inventory numbers suggested, since several items were frequently grouped under one record.

    18 ‘Catalogus minerarum’.

    19 The Fersman mineralogical museum has two copies: Lehmann’s Catalog älteres Exemplar. Bd. I, Bd. II, the Arkhiv of the Fersman mineralogical museum, d. No 15 (Bd. I), 78 l., Д. No 16 (Bd. II), 82 l.; Lehmann’s Catalog. Neueres Exemplar. Bd. I. II, the Arkhiv of the Fersman mineralogical museum, d. No 17, 166 l.

    20 The catalogue of the Mineral cabinet of 1786–1789 was in four parts: Russian minerals, foreign minerals and two parts for Russian and foreign fossils. The descriptions of minerals were made by Johann Georgi and Hans Michael Renovanz and the descriptions of fossils by Vasily Zuev. The catalogue for foreign minerals is Index Lithophylacei exotici Musei Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae. MDCCLXXXIX, the Archive of the Fersman mineralogical museum, d. no 60, 98 l. (copies see I. G. Georgi, Catalogus Mineralium Musaei Academiae Scientarum Imperialis, methodo Wallerii digestus. Anno MDCCLXXXVIII, PFA RAN, r-d I, op. 122, no 8, 96 l.; I. G. Georgi, Index Lithophylacei exotici Musei Academiae Scientiarum Petropolitanae. Anno MDCCLXXXIX, PFA RAN, r-d I, op. 122, no 8a, 2 l.). The catalogue for Russian minerals is Index Lithophylacei Rossici Musei Academiae scientarum Petropolitanae. Georgi’s Katalog der russichen Mineralien und Gesteine (1786–1789), Copie des Georgischen Originale), the Archive of the Fersman mineralogical museum, d. b/n, 50 l. The catalogue for Russian fossils is Enumeratio fossilium Rossiae indigenorum, classem quartam Systematij mineralogici Walleriani constituentium. Presenté à la Conference le 27 Nov: 1788, the Archive of the Fersman mineralogical museum, d. no 1, l. 82-94. It is not currently known where the catalogue for foreign fossils is, and whether it has survived, but we have its brief contents at the end of the Russian fossils catalogue (Enumeratio fossilium Rossiae, 94.)

    21 Musaeum Gottwaldianum.

    22 It is known that Hans Sloane wanted to buy some items from Museum Gottwaldianum but was unable to do so, because he was late and missed the auction, so the whole Museum was bought for Peter the Great’s Kunstkamera (H. Sloane, Brief an Breyne. London. 15 Mar. 1714/15, Briefe an Breyne, Forschungsbibliothek Gotha. Chart. B 788. Bl. 613r.), further see D. D. Novgorodova, ‘Ot Muzeia Gottwal’da.’ About the sale see also К. Pękacka-Falkowska, ‘Wokół sprzedaży gdańskiego muzeum doktorów Gottwaldów: Johann Philipp Breyne i jego korespondenc,’ in Zapiski Historyczne LXXXII, no 3 (2017): 33–50; in English К. Pękacka-Falkowska, ‘About the Sale of the Museum of the Gottwalds: Johann Philipp Breyne and His Correspondents,’ in Zapiski Historyczne LXXXII, no 3 (2017):31–52.

    23 I. Amman, ‘Pis'mo akademika Ammana k Shumaheru, ot 10 nojabrja 1741 g.,’ in Sbornik materialov, A. Kunik, 352.

    24 For example, one of the copies of the Lehmann catalogues contains eight records for amber specimens (Lehmann’s Catalog. Neueres Exemplar) and the other one – ten (Lehmann’s Catalog älteres Exemplar).

    25 As for example it may be traced for some plates of Florentine mosaics. See D. D. Novgorodova, ‘Proizvedenija iskusstva i igry Prirody v katalogah Mineral'nogo kabineta Kunstkamery XVIII v., in The Natural Turn in Modern Russian History, ВИВЛIОѲИКА: E-Journal of Eighteenth-Century Russian Studies 6 (2018), ed. C. Griffin, R. Koroloff and A. Yoder: 77–106. https://vivliofika.library.duke.edu/article/view/15965.

    26 See ‘liminal moment’ in J. Keating and L. Markey, ‘Introduction,’ Captured objects, 209.

    27 Another completely different approach to dealing with old inventories and catalogues can seen in the British museum, where in 1763 Swedish naturalist Daniel Solander reclassified Hans Sloane’s herbarium (265 bound volumes with the late seventeenth-century system of John Ray) according to the new Linnaean binomial nomenclature without destroying the integrity of Sloane’s work. The initial copy of Sloane’s A Voyage to Jamaica had become some sort of palimpsest where new records were successively added to the collection, a sort of endless catalogue, and a valuable source on the history of the collection. See E. D. Rose, ‘Specimens, Slips and Systems: Daniel Solander and the classification of nature at the world’s first public museum, 1753–1768,’ The British Journal for the History of Science 51, no 2 (2018): 205–237; E. D. Rose, ‘From the South Seas to Soho Square: Joseph Banks’s Library, Collection and Kingdom of Natural History,’ Notes Rec R Soc Lond. 73, no 4 (2019): 499–526; E. D. Rose, ‘Natural history collections and the book: Hans Sloane’s A Voyage to Jamaica (1707–1725) and his Jamaican plants,’ Journal of the History of Collections 30, no 1 (March 2018): 15–33, https://doi.org/10.1093/jhc/fhx011.

    28 F. D. Adams, The Birth and Development of the Geological Sciences (New York: Dover Publications, 1990), 200.

    29 It is worth noting here that the Linnean system was not among them, despite the fact that his Systema Naturae of 1735 included a mineralogical systematic, Regnum Lapideum. This system turned out to be completely unsuitable for the systematization of minerals, because for them, unlike plants, it is not the external forms that are important, but the chemical composition. This explains why the search for the appropriate mineralogical systematics continued throughout the 18th century.

    30 Such typical collectible items, which were be bought at the European market and which could be seen in almost every kunstkamera or cabinet of rarities, have been described for example in J. Hübner, Curieusen Natur-Kunst-Gewerck- und Handlungs-Lexicon (Leipzig: J. Fr. Gleditsch & Sohn, 1712).

    31 J. Kentmann, ‘Nomenclaturae rerum fossilium,’ in С. Gessner, De omni rerum fossilium genere, gemmis, lapidibus, metallis, et huiusmodi, libri aliquot, plerique nunc primum editi (Tiguri: excudebat Iacobus Gesnerus, 1565).

    32 Adams, The Birth and Development of the Geological Sciences, 195.

    33 Quicquid terra sinu venisque recondidit imis,
    Thesauros orbis haec brevis arca tegit.
    Laus magna est tacitas naturae inquirere vires,
    Maior in hoc ipsum munere nosse Deum
    Georg. Fabricius. C. (Kentmann, ‘Nomenclaturae rerum fossilium’).

    34 Bakmeister, Opyt o biblioteke i kabinete redkostei, 166–167.

    35 Such new types of furniture appeared not only in the Mineral cabinet of the Kunstkamera, but in other Russian museums too, like the Hermitage of Catherine the Great (I. G. Georgi, Opisanie rossijsko-imperatorskogo stolichnogo goroda Sankt-Peterburga i dostopamjatnostej v okrestnostjah onogo, s planom ([B. m.]: Adamant Media Corporation, 2001), 370.

    36 ‘Tripolitanskoe izvestie o prevrashhenii goroda v kamen,’ Istoricheskie, Geneologicheskie i Geograficheskie Primechanija v Vedomostjah […], 1729 goda. Chast’ VII (St. Petersburg: pri Imp. akad. nauk, 1729), 25.

    37 Obviously, the content of this and any other 'map' is never 'natural' or neutral, it is always specially constructed – but detailed studies of these contents go beyond the chronological and thematic limits of this piece. On meanings of maps see Denis Wood, The Power of Maps (New York & London: The Guilford Press, 1992).

    38 Severgin, ‘Obozrenie Mineral’nogo kabineta Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk,’ 3–5. (Trans. D. Novgorodova)

    39 Beliaev, Kabinet Petra Velikogo, Otdelenie tret’e, 149.

    40 M.V. Lomonosov, ‘Pervye osnovanija metallurgii ili rudnyh del,’ M.V. Lomonosov, Trudy po mineralogii, metallurgii i gornomu delu 1741–1763 gg. in Polnoe sobranie sochinenij t. 5 (Moscow-Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR, 1954), 394.

    41 Severgin, ‘Obozrenie Mineral’nogo kabineta Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk,’ 148–9.

    42 This is clear in the four-part composition of the Georgi-Renovanz-Zuev’s catalogue of 1786–1789 with different parts for different cabinets for Russian and foreign minerals as well as for Russian and foreign fossils.

    43 O. P. Beliaev, Kabinet Petra Velikago, Otdelenie tret’e, ch. 1 (St. Petersburg: Pri Imperatorskoj Akademii nauk, 1793), 78.

    44 Beliaev, Kabinet Petra Velikogo, Otdelenie tret’e, 149.

    45 For a detailed account, see Severgin, ‘Obozrenie Mineral'nogo kabineta,’ Kratkaja opis’ Mineral'nomu kabinetu Imperatorskoj akademii Nauk.

    46 Œuvres complètes de Voltaire. Nouvelle édition avec notices, préfaces, variantes, table analytique, Les notes de tous les commentateurs et des notes nouvelles Conforme pour le texte à l'édition de Beuchot, enrichie de découvertes les plus récentes et mise au courant des travaux qui ont paru jusqu’à ce jour, précédée de la Vie de Voltaire par Condorcet et d’autres études biographiques. Correspondance. XV. (Année 1770–1771. № 7805–8451), (Paris: Garnier Frères, Libraires-Éditeurs. 1882), 498–499. № 8354. I sincerely thank Dr. Alexei Lyubzhin for drawing my attention to this passage.

    47 Fersman Mineralogical Museum, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Inv. Nos. FMM PDK-846 and FMM PDK-1917.

    48 J. Vogel, ‘Stony realms: mineral collections as markers of social, cultural and political spaces in the 18th and early 19th century,’ Historical Social Research 40, no 1 (2015): 301–20, http://dx.doi.org/10.12759/hsr.40.2015.1.301-320.

    49 The Hermitage, Saint Petersburg, Inv. Nо. E-4184.

    50 Fersman Mineralogical Museum, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Inv. No. FMM 592.

    51 Musée national d’histoire naturelle, Paris, Inv. No. 0.153.

    52 On the Russian imperial lapidary factories and first works of art from Russian decorative stones see N. M. Mavrodina, Iskusstvo russkih kamnerezov XVIII–XIX vekov (SPb.: Izd. Gosudlarstvennogo Ermitazha, 2007).

    53 Beliaev, Kabinet Petra Velikogo, Otdelenie tret’e, 2.

    54 For example, see Stanjukovich, Kunstkamera Peterburgskoj AN, 24.

    55 Bakmeister, Opyt o biblioteke i kabinete redkostei, 165.

    56 The Primechanija k Sanktpeterburgskim vedomostjam has been republished since the 1720s. The original articles were written by academicians mostly in Latin or German and then translated into Russian. See details in A. Kunik, ‘Vvedenie ob uchenyh sbornikah i periodicheskih izdanijah Imperatorskoj akademii nauk s 1726 po1852 god, i ob ‘Uchenyh zapiskah,’ Uchenye zapiski Imperatorskoj akademii nauk po Pervomu i Tret'emu otdeleniju. Tom I vyp. 1 (St. Petersburg: v Tipografii Imp. Akademii Nauk, 1852), i-clx.

    57 D. D. Novgorodova, ‘Spiski, opisi, katalogi: ot perechnya veshchej k formirovaniyu kollekcii i stanovleniyu nauki,’ in, Sovremennye tendencii v razvitii muzeev i muzeevedeniya: Materialy II Vserossijskoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii (Novosibirsk 29 sentyabrya – 3 oktyabrya 2014 g., ed. V.A. Lamin, O.N. Shelegina (Novosibirsk: Avtograf, 2014), 154–160.

    58 ‘Inter Calculos humanos eminent Renalis et Bilarii ex corpore Serenissimi Regis Poloniae Joannis III exempti’ (Musaeum Gottwaldianum, scrin. III / caps. XXVI).

    59 ‘No131. Calculus e rene dextro [Tormenta regia sive calculus repertus in rene dextro – in manuscript edition, ARAN, f. 20. Op.3, No63, ll.1-4] serenissimi regis Poloniae Johannis III post mortem exemptus (Lomonosov, ‘Mineral’nyi katalog,’ 59).

    60 Enumeratio fossilium Rossiae, 93. It may seem that we could hope to see the description of the Polish king’s stones in the lost foreign part of catalogue of fossils, but it is known there was no section for ‘calculi’ (kidney stones) (Enumeratio fossilium Rossiae, 94).

    Ordering Knowledge

    X Facebook Email

    Ordering Knowledge

    Ce livre est diffusé en accès ouvert freemium. L’accès à la lecture en ligne est disponible. L’accès aux versions PDF et ePub est réservé aux bibliothèques l’ayant acquis. Vous pouvez vous connecter à votre bibliothèque à l’adresse suivante : https://freemium.openedition.org/oebooks

    Suggérer l’acquisition à votre bibliothèque Acheter ce livre aux formats PDF et ePub

    Si vous avez des questions, vous pouvez nous écrire à access[at]openedition.org

    Ordering Knowledge

    Vérifiez si votre bibliothèque a déjà acquis ce livre : authentifiez-vous à OpenEdition Freemium for Books.

    Vous pouvez suggérer à votre bibliothèque d’acquérir un ou plusieurs livres publiés sur OpenEdition Books. N’hésitez pas à lui indiquer nos coordonnées : access[at]openedition.org

    Vous pouvez également nous indiquer, à l’aide du formulaire suivant, les coordonnées de votre bibliothèque afin que nous la contactions pour lui suggérer l’achat de ce livre. Les champs suivis de (*) sont obligatoires.

    Veuillez, s’il vous plaît, remplir tous les champs.

    La syntaxe de l’email est incorrecte.

    Référence numérique du chapitre

    Format

    Novgorodova, D. (2023). The Constitution and Evolution of the First Russian Mineralogical Collection: The Mineral Cabinet of St. Petersburg’s Kunstkamera. In J.-J. Chardin, S. Corneanu, & R. Somerset (éds.), Ordering Knowledge. Strasbourg: Presses universitaires de Strasbourg. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pus.32805
    Novgorodova, Daria. « The Constitution and Evolution of the First Russian Mineralogical Collection: The Mineral Cabinet of St. Petersburg’s Kunstkamera ». In Ordering Knowledge, édité par Jean-Jacques Chardin, Sorana Corneanu, et Richard Somerset. Strasbourg: Presses universitaires de Strasbourg, 2023. doi:10.4000/books.pus.32805.
    Novgorodova, Daria. « The Constitution and Evolution of the First Russian Mineralogical Collection: The Mineral Cabinet of St. Petersburg’s Kunstkamera ». Ordering Knowledge, édité par Jean-Jacques Chardin et al., Presses universitaires de Strasbourg, 2023, https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pus.32805.

    Référence numérique du livre

    Format

    Chardin, J.-J., Corneanu, S., & Somerset, R. (éds.). (2023). Ordering Knowledge. Strasbourg: Presses universitaires de Strasbourg. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pus.32660
    Chardin, Jean-Jacques, Sorana Corneanu, et Richard Somerset, éd. Ordering Knowledge. Strasbourg: Presses universitaires de Strasbourg, 2023. doi:10.4000/books.pus.32660.
    Chardin, Jean-Jacques, et al., éditeurs. Ordering Knowledge. Presses universitaires de Strasbourg, 2023, https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pus.32660.
    Compatible avec Zotero Zotero

    1 / 3

    Presses universitaires de Strasbourg

    Presses universitaires de Strasbourg

    • Mentions légales
    • Plan du site
    • Se connecter

    Suivez-nous

    • Facebook
    • LinkedIn
    • Instagram
    • Flux RSS

    URL : http://pus.unistra.fr

    Email : info.pus@unistra.fr

    Adresse :

    4, rue Blaise Pascal CS 90032 FR-67081

    67081

    Strasbourg

    France

    OpenEdition
    • Candidater à OpenEdition Books
    • Connaître le programme OpenEdition Freemium
    • Commander des livres
    • S’abonner à la lettre d’OpenEdition
    • CGU d’OpenEdition Books
    • Accessibilité : partiellement conforme
    • Données personnelles
    • Gestion des cookies
    • Système de signalement