The Babelian Tale of Museology and Museography: A History in Words Janick Daniel Aquilina1
ABSTRACT While many articles and books use “museology” as an acquired term, a perusal of various museological and museum-related publications reveals that there is still much disagreement on its meaning. The semantic evolution of “museology” can perhaps be best explained through its gradual, though not yet complete, emancipation from a term to which it has long been associated: museography. This article sheds further light on the early uses of the words “museology” and “museography” by bringing together the findings of existing research as well as presenting the results of new research that has uncovered a few little-known occurrences of the terms. It begins by underlining the importance of the work conducted in Germany as early as the 16th century, as well as discussing the importance of the German language itself in the origins of both words. The article then focuses on literature from the early 18th century to the late 1930s and demonstrates how today’s confusion of what is “museology” and “museography” has its roots in early museological and museum-related writings.
KEYWORDS: history of museology, museography, definition of museology, definition of museography, museological literature, Museographia, Neickel, Daniel Eberhard Baring, AntoineJoseph Dézallier d’Argenville, Georg Rathgeber
1. INTRODUCTION It is often taken for granted that the meaning of the word “museology” is generally understood in the same way by everyone. However, one needs only to peruse various museological and museum-related publications to conclude that more than a century and a half after one of its earliest uses in Georg Rathgeber’s Aufbau der Niederländischen Kunstgeschichte und Museologie (Structure of Dutch History and Museology, 1839), there is still much disagreement on what is etymologically speaking “the study of museums”.1 A number of surveys conducted during the course of the last five decades confirm the various and varied understandings that museologists and museum professionals have of “museology”.2 Thus, over the years, museology has been defined as an art, a practice, a science, an applied science, a science in the making, etc.3 Its object of study has also been at the heart of many discussions.4 For some authors, museology deals with everything that touches upon the museum (its history, its organisation, its functions, its role, etc.) or some of its key areas of activity (collections, conservation, exhibitions, etc.). Others have suggested that it is in fact the “musealised” object (musealia) that should be museology’s true object of study while another more philosophical view, initially advocated by a number of Eastern Europeans (i.e. Anna Gregorova, Zbyněk
1 Janick Daniel Aquilina (MA Muséologie - Université de Montréal) works in the areas of exhibition and collection management and has a particular interest in the history of museology.
[email protected]
- International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011 © Department of Cultural Technology and Communication, University of the Aegean
1
Janick Daniel Aquilina Stránský), is that museology deals with the specific relation between man and reality, in which the museum is but only one form of its expression.5 The lack of a common understanding on what constitutes museology is further compounded by the fact that various languages use the word differently. French author André Desvallées, for instance, observes that in countries where there exists no specifically recognized profession, such as curators in France, the term is often simply linked to those exercising a museum profession (Desvallées, 1998: 234-235). Moreover, some languages have introduced into their vocabulary words that, although not exact synonyms of museology, are nonetheless interpreted that way by some authors and translators. Thus, expressions such as “museum studies” and “museumwissenschaft” (museum science) have surfaced, allowing for certain nuances to be made but also, somewhat paradoxically, adding to the confusion. The semantic evolution of “museology” and of the ensuing imbroglio surrounding its meaning can perhaps be best explained through its gradual, though not yet complete, emancipation from a term to which it has long been associated: museography. Indeed, the word “museography”, which appears in writings more than a century before “museology”, has long been considered by many to be a synonym. The close association of the two words has deep historical roots; both have often, over the course of nearly two centuries of co-existence, been used indistinctively to designate the same thing. However, much like museology, the definition of museography has evolved over time. Zbyněk Stránský (1980: 43) and a few others have observed that museologists have a lack of interest in the history of their discipline. This is confirmed by the dearth of information which still exists on the history of museology. Dutch author, Peter van Mensch, wrote in his doctoral dissertation of 1992 that “[t]he introduction of the term museology and its related term museography is not very well documented” (van Mensch, 1992: chap. 2). It is indeed true that few authors have delved into the matter. The doctoral thesis of Canadian Lynne Teather (1984) and van Mensch’s own dissertation are, in fact, two of the first studies to cast some light on the early uses of museology and museography.6 More recently, we must acknowledge the work of Belgian François Mairesse who has published a number of articles on the subject, including “Brève histoire de la muséologie, des Inscriptions au Musée Virtuel” (A Brief History of Museology, from the Inscriptions to the Virtual Museum, 2005), which he co-authored with André Desvallées and which must be considered one of the foremost texts dealing with the history of the two terms.7 This article intends to shed further light on the early uses of the words “museology” and “museography” by compiling the findings of existing research as well as presenting the results of the present author’s investigations that have uncovered a few little-known 8 occurrences of the terms. It will begin by underlining the importance of the work conducted in Germany as early as the 16th century, as well as discussing the importance of the German language itself in the origins of both words. The article will then focus on literature from the early 18th century to the late 1930s, with particular emphasis on French and English writings, and will demonstrate how contemporary confusion of what is “museology” and “museography” finds its origins in early museum and museological writings. The following diagram, while not exhaustive, may be used as a reference tool to help the reader follow the text and understand the context in which the words are used.
- International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011 © Department of Cultural Technology and Communication, University of the Aegean
2
A BABELIAN TALE OF MUSEOLOGY AND MUSEOGRAPHY: A HISTORY OF WORDS
th
th
th
Muséographie (Paris World Fair, 1937)
Muséographie (International Conference of Madrid, 1934)
Muséologie (Gilson, 1914)
Museology (Science, 1885)
20th c.
Museologie (Martin, 1870)
Museologie (Rathgeber, 1839)
Museographists (Mendes da Costa, 1776)
Museographie (d’Argenville, 1742)
19th c.
Museographi (Linnaeus, 1736)
Museographia (Neickel, 1727)
18th c.
Inscriptiones... (Quiccheberg. 1565)
16th c.
th
Period
16 c. to end 18 c.
Begin. to end of 19 c.
End of 19 c. – 1939*
Main characteristic
Dissemination of information on collections (private)
Description of museums (public), their contents, and of their history
Development of museum methods and techniques
System of museological thought
Pre-scientific
Academic
Empirical-descriptive
Noteworthy traits
• Collections are amassed by rich amateurs and men of learning • Order of things according to hermetic tradition and medieval symbolism • Towards a greater rationalisation in the th 18 century
Method of acquisition of museum knowledge
Trial and error
• Private collections are transformed into public museums • Methods of academic disciplines applied to museum work • Haphazard acquisition of museum knowledge and skills
Personal experience (from one museum worker to another)
• Increased attention is given to the general public • Towards greater professionalisation & greater emancipation of museum work from existing academic disciplines (birth of museum associations; development of courses; publication of manuals) • Development of a body of “museographical” knowledge Shared experiences (between museum professionals)
*The empirical-descriptive system of thought extends beyond 1939; this date corresponds to the end of the period covered by this article.
Figure 1. An schematic overview of the words and their context
2. GERMANY – THE BIRTHPLACE OF MUSEOLOGY? Germany’s contribution to the development of museums and their history is a welldocumented fact.9 The part played, for instance, by German collectors in the creation of the Wunderkammer and of the Kunstkammer during the Renaissance is widely recognized by museum and art historians (such as von Schlosser, Schnapper, and Impey and MacGregor to name but a few). The same, however, cannot be said when it comes to its influence in the founding of museology itself. Indeed, it is fair to say that the role of German tradition in the development of the discipline per se has thus far only been timidly recognized by historians and museologists. This can perhaps, in part, be explained by the language barrier – too few key texts written in German have been translated. It is only recently, for instance, that the often-cited but undoubtedly not as - International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011 © Department of Cultural Technology and Communication, University of the Aegean
3
Janick Daniel Aquilina well-read 18th-century work by Caspar Neickel, Museographia oder Anleitung zum rechten Begriff und nützlicher Anlegung der Museorum oder Raritäten Kammern (Museography or Instructions for the Better Understanding and Useful Organisation of Museums and Chambers of Rarities, 1727), has been translated into another language (Italian). Whatever the reasons may be for this lack of recognition, the fact remains that many of the texts frequently cited as important early museological writings have been written in German. It is also noteworthy to observe that the earliest recorded uses of museology and museography are also both found in German literature. Van Mensch is the first to point out the German origins of the words “museography” and “museology” in his thesis, Towards a Methodology of Museology (van Mensch, 1992: chap. 2). He traces the first reference to “museography” to Neickel’s aforementioned book, which was published in Breslau and Leipzig. As for “museology”, van Mensch traces it back to Philip Leopold Martin’s Praxis der Naturgeschichte (The Practice of Natural History, 1869), published in Weimar, and the second part of the book entitled Dermoplastik und Museologie (1870). Recent research, as we will later see, has since brought to light an even earlier occurrence of the term “museology” but, again, in a German text. Art historian Germain Bazin is amongst the first authors to have recognized the important part played by Germany in the founding of museology. His position is somewhat ambiguous however. While he states that most of the work surrounding the problems around the organisation of the museum and its situation within society is conducted in 19th-century Germany (Bazin, 1975: 447-450), he also writes that the endeavours of Comte d’Angiviller to transform at the end of the 18th century the Grande Galerie du Louvre into a museum must be regarded as the first expression of modern theoretical and technical museology (Bazin, 1967: 154). But Bazin also states that museology is born in the 18th century and that Museographia… by Neickel is the oldest writing of its kind, though he mistakenly indicates that the work is written in Latin (Bazin, 1967: 115 and Bazin 1975: 447-450). It is today generally accepted that Samuel Quiccheberg’s (also Quicchelberg and Quickelberg) in-quarto entitled Inscriptiones Vel Tituli Theatri Amplissimi… (Inscriptions or Titles of the Immense Theatre…, 1565), published in Munich, is actually the earliest known museological writing in the western world (even Neickel recognised it as one of the oldest texts on cabinets almost three hundred years ago10). Quiccheberg, though Flemish, spent a good part of his short life (he died at the age of 38) in Germany and wrote Inscriptiones… while in the employ of Albert V, Duke of Bavaria. An important part of his short treatise informs the reader on how to organise a collection of the world’s objects into five classes and 53 sub-classes or inscriptions (for a complete description of these, see Brout, 2004). The booklet, Quiccheberg hoped, would encourage collecting, primarily by princes, and lead to a greater work that unfortunately never materialized due to his death in 1567 (Brout, 2004: 70). What distinguishes the Flemish physician’s text from other writings are not the principles of selection, of classification, or of exhibition that are already present in the collections of the period. Rather, the originality of Quiccheberg’s work lies in the setting out of rules for the organisation of a collection forming the structure of his “theatre”. The object in Quiccheberg’s system is truly an object of study, of knowledge, of wonder and of discussion; it plays a leading rather than a supporting role, and thus significantly differs from past collections where the object was merely a source of inspiration (as for example in the Mouseion of Alexandria)11 (Mairesse, 2004: 17-20).
- International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011 © Department of Cultural Technology and Communication, University of the Aegean
4
A BABELIAN TALE OF MUSEOLOGY AND MUSEOGRAPHY: A HISTORY OF WORDS The works of doctors Johann Daniel Major, Unvorgreiffliches Bedencken von Kunst – und NaturalienKammern insgemein (An Unprejudiced Consideration of Chambers of Art and Nature, 1674) and of Michael Bernhard Valentini, Museum Museorum… (Museum of Museums, 1704-1714) are other early texts, often cited together, as important museological titles. The former, published in Kiel, discusses, amongst other things, why man collects and provides advice on how to organise and conserve a collection. The book also compiles and defines some 40 different words used in various languages to describe collections and enumerates important collections known to the author (Schulz, 1990: 210). The twenty-page leaflet12 in-folio even gives a name to the new theory: tactica conclavium (Stránský, 1987: 288). Valentini’s work, published in Frankfurt, is a book-museum of sorts. Within its three volumes, Valentini reprints in its entirety Major’s above-cited work (perhaps already difficult to find) along with other titles by Major. Valentini furthermore ambitiously draws a list of things that make up the universe and explains their usefulness as well as describes a number of natural history collections including his own. His work also lists 159 museums that are known to exist at the time (Wilson, 2006: 19-20). According to François Mairesse, all of these texts are examples of the vitality of the scientific work taking place in Germany and are part of a new body of work in which appears the outline of what will soon become museology (Desvallées and Mairesse, 2005a: 10) or, as Stránský points out: From the contemporary scientific point of view, the thoughts of Mayor (sic) or Nickellius (sic) for instance could certainly not be considered as museological in the proper meaning of the word, but within the context of science and scientific thinking of the period, we must admit that they have the same level. (Stránský, 1987: 291)
3. THE 18th CENTURY – FIRST SIGHTINGS In his brief yet insightful analysis on the rise and development of museology, Soichiro Tsuruta defines the period extending from the Renaissance to the Industrial Revolution as the Museolore Stage (Tsuruta, 1980: 47). Its main feature is the dissemination of information on collections.13 Throughout this stage, the rich and learned assemble like never before collections of statues from the Antiquity, medals, shells, natural curiosities, paintings… or whatever else befits the taste of the day. The publishing of descriptive catalogues, inventories and guidebooks for travelers and amateurs becomes the means of choice to make one’s cabinet known and attract important visitors which, in turn, will bring even greater fame to its owner. Trial and error and intuitive methods perhaps best characterise how solutions to practical issues pertaining to the display and preservation of objects are found throughout the Museolore Stage14 while collections are often organised and presented according to aesthetic principles or mystical or symbolic forces in which the capacity to impress the visitor is given precedence (see Witlin, 1949, p.85-88). While it is true that the Age of Enlightement is witness to a greater rationalisation in the presentation of collections as paintings are regrouped according to their school or their creator, or follow a chronological succession (see Bazin, 1967) and natural specimens are organised and presented according to taxonomic schemes, it must be said that “[t]hroughout the greater part of the eighteenth century, principles of scientific classification testified to a mixture of theocratic, rationalist, and proto-evolutionist systems of thought” (Bennett, 1995: 77). - International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011 © Department of Cultural Technology and Communication, University of the Aegean
5
Janick Daniel Aquilina It is within this context that “museography” or more precisely “museographia” appears for the first time in print. Its author is Caspar Frid. Neickelio (also Neickel and Neickelius) whose real name is either Einckel, Enickel or Jenckel, a merchant from Hamburg working in his father’s business. It is perhaps because of the author’s occupation that the book’s publisher decides to call upon Doctor Johann Kanold to revise the text and to remedy to any eventual shortcomings. Kanold, who likens his task to an obstetrication, will however look favourably upon the merchant’s work, stating in the foreword that he knows of no other text in the German language (including those of Major and Valentini) that are as detailed on the subject matter of cabinets of art (understood here to mean man-made creations) and naturalia.15 He furthermore informs the reader of other men of commerce who have published noteworthy books and speaks of Neickel’s passion for the subject matter covered in Museographia… writing that Neickel has told him that he consulted 128 works to write his book, the majority of which he purchased. “Museographia” is not defined in Neickel’s in-quarto. In fact, the word is only used a handful of times within its pages. One must therefore focus on the contents of the book to get some sense of the word’s meaning. Museographia… is both a prescriptive and descriptive document. Inside its pages, Neickel provides advice on how one should arrange and present objects within a cabinet as well as suggestions on how to organise a library, which, according to the author, is indispensable in order for a museum to be complete. Neickel also discusses the origins of collections and the different words used to describe them (referring here to Major’s work); the differences between cabinets of naturalia and artificiosa; etc. He also lists 25 rules that the visitor of a museum should follow. The bulk of the 464-page book, however, is made up of enumerations and descriptions of cabinets and libraries throughout Europe (primarily) and elsewhere in the world, organised alphabetically by city or country. In most instances, Neickel has not visited the places he describes but relies on reports from other travellers and authors. The descriptions are therefore quite varied, ranging from succinct passages to detailed and sometimes itemized accounts of certain collections. For instance, of Nancy (France), Neickel only says that the visitor should see its palace in which can be found beautiful paintings and other rarities, in particular a wooden statue which has been crafted with such skill that one can see the movement of all the muscles of the body. His hometown of Hamburg, however, fills up several pages as he discusses its five main churches, the duomo and the treasures found therein. Though one cannot discount the importance of the prescriptive element of the book, it is the description of collections which is preponderant in Museographia… The descriptive notion is also at the heart of Daniel Eberhard Baring’s Museographia Brunsvico-Lunenburgia… published in Lemgo in 1744. The booklet, written in German, has eluded previous historical surveys of the word. It is, however, mentioned in the bibliography of David Murray’s Museums – Their History and their Use, which states that it “contains accounts of a considerable number of collections” (Murray, 2002 (1904), vol. 2: 99). In 51 pages, the author lists and/or describes the treasure chambers as well as the art, rarities, and natural history chambers, and libraries of the various collectors of the duchy of Brunswick Lunenburg. Baring, much like Neickel, has organised the collections by city or town (though it does not follow an alphabetical order) and cites Neickel’s work on at least four occasions. It is of interest to note that both the works of Neickel and Baring deal with various types of collections. On this matter, the authors seem to distinguish themselves from their contemporaries from other countries since, as we will see, in other cases where “museography” is used in 18th-century literature, it is more closely associated with natural history. - International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011 © Department of Cultural Technology and Communication, University of the Aegean
6
A BABELIAN TALE OF MUSEOLOGY AND MUSEOGRAPHY: A HISTORY OF WORDS Such is the case of Carl Linnaeus’ Bibliotheca Botanica… (1736) published in Amsterdam. This reference is cited in the Oxford English Dictionary but is seldom, if ever, mentioned in museological literature. The book, written in Latin and destined for students, purports to be the catalogue of the ideal botany library. Within its pages, the famous Swedish botanist and zoologist organises the works he deems important in the same way he organises animals and plants, that is to say by class, order, genus and specie. Thus, under the Collectores, Linnaeus has created the Curiosi class that includes the order of the Museographi (also spelled Musaeographi) (see figure 2). The author writes that the Museographi are those who collect, conserve and describe what belongs to the natural realm. Under this order, he cites the works of some fifteen authors including Valentini and his Museum Museorum…, Grew, Seba, the Tradescants (father and son), Worm, Petiver and Calzolari, whose posthumously published work of 1622 describing his collection is the oldest book of the group.16 Shortly after the publication of Bibliotheca Botanica, Linnaeus uses the same nomenclature in Hortus Cliffortianus (1737) to describe the library of George Clifford, a wealthy plant collector.
Figure 2. A page from Linnaeus’ Bibliotheca Botanica (1736) listing Museographi under the Curiosi class (1751 edition depicted) - International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011 © Department of Cultural Technology and Communication, University of the Aegean
7
Janick Daniel Aquilina
The earliest use of the word “museography” in French would seem to be that found in Antoine-Joseph Dézallier d’Argenville’s 491-page book L’histoire naturelle éclaircie dans deux de ses parties principales, la lithologie et la conchyliologie dont l’une traite des pierres et l’autre des coquillages (Natural History Clarified Through Two of its Most Important Parts, Lithology and Conchology, the One Dealing with Rocks and the Other with Shells, 1742) published in Paris.17 The work, which is one of the most famous titles on shells in all of 18th-century Europe (Pinault-Sorensen, 1998: 127), appears to have eluded previous historical references of “museography”. It should nonetheless be considered on the same level as Museographia… Indeed, beyond the discussion on shells and advice on how these should be cared for and classified, the in-quarto contains information on how to organise a natural history cabinet and display the collection it houses. Thus, d’Argenville recommends that the space be divided into three rooms successively representing objects from the mineral, plant and animal realms. At the end of the third room, he suggests a small study equipped with the best titles in physics and natural history that can be used as a laboratory to conduct experiments in physics and chemistry. The book also contains a chapter entitled Des plus fameux Cabinets de l’Europe touchant l’Histoire Naturelle that describes the most important collections of natural history of Europe. At the beginning of the chapter, the author writes that its title could have just as simply been “Museographie”. The meaning he gives to the word is unequivocal and thus respects the word’s etymology, which is “to describe museums”. It is interesting to note that, though he states in his book that natural history is “infinitely superior to art”, d’Argenville is also a collector of art. Fifteen years prior to the publication of L’histoire naturelle… a letter from d’Argenville, published in the Mercure de France (June 1727), provides advice on the selection and arrangement of paintings, prints, drawings, books, medals, carved and precious stones, minerals and metals, armour, animal and plant forms, shells, etc. within a curiosity cabinet. Nowhere in the text is the word “muséographie” mentioned. The first appearance of the word “museography” in the English language appears to be in Emanuel Mendes da Costa’s Elements of Conchology or an Introduction to the Knowledge of Shells (1776) published in London. Geoffrey D. Lewis, citing the Oxford Dictionary, is the first author to bring this reference to the attention of his fellow museologists, though he erroneously writes that it is the earliest use of a term from this family of words18 (Lewis, 1980: 27). Mendes da Costa’s reference is later mentioned by Lynne Teather19 as well as Peter van Mensch in what appears to be an earlier version of his thesis.20 Mendes da Costa’s book mainly presents his observations and criticisms on existing taxonomic systems for shells and introduces his own system of classification. The book by the English philosopher and naturalist also contains a chapter with advice on collecting, cleaning and conserving specimens for research purposes as well as for their presentation within cabinets. Another chapter compiles and reviews the various treatises written on conchology and it is within its pages that we find the book’s only reference to museography: Besides which, most of the naturalists and museographists have included Shells in their works, as Aristotle, Pliny, Bellonius, Rondeletius, Gesner, Aldrovand, Imperatus, Wormius, Calceolarius, Moscardo, Grew, Vincent, Sloane, Petiver, and a number of others. (Mendes da Costa, 1776 : 57) Even though Mendes da Costa cites a number of authors also listed by Linnaeus, the English philosopher and naturalist does not envisage the “museographist” as one who - International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011 © Department of Cultural Technology and Communication, University of the Aegean
8
A BABELIAN TALE OF MUSEOLOGY AND MUSEOGRAPHY: A HISTORY OF WORDS collects and conserves but simply as one who describes museums. There is little doubt of this because later in the book, he says of Grew who recounts the contents of the collection of the Royal Society of London in Musaeum Regalis Societatis… (1681), that he is a “describer of a museum”. It is possible that Mendes da Costa’s understanding of museography was influenced by that of d’Argenville’s in L’histoire éclaircie… – he certainly knew well the Frenchman’s work for having commented on it in his book. Whatever the case may be, this descriptive definition of museography is also the one which prevails as of the 1820s in some French and Spanish encyclopaedias and dictionaries such as the Enciclopedia universal illustrada and Pierre Claude Victor Boiste’s Dictionnaire universel de la langue française (1828), the latter which defines the “musaeographe” as the author of a museum description (Desvallées and Mairesse, 2005a: 11).
4. THE 19th CENTURY: CONFUSION SETTLES IN With a growing interest throughout Europe and North America to turn museums into public institutions, the 19th century is not only witness to the multiplication of museums but also to their specialisation in various fields of interest. Priority is given to the relevant academic disciplines and some of their methods are transposed to museum work, namely in the presentation of artefacts. The space of representation constituted by the “exhibitionary complex” was shaped by the relations between an array of new disciplines: history, art history, archaeology, geology, biology and anthropology […]. Each discipline, in its museological deployment, aimed at the representation of a type and its insertion in a developmental sequence for display to a public. (Bennett, 1995: 75) For the greater part of the century, formal museum training is non-existent. Acquiring competence in a relevant academic discipline is all that is considered necessary to work in a museum whilst actual museum skills and knowledge are simply acquired on-the-job in a haphazard fashion, often transmitted by a senior museum employee who has neither the aptitude nor the desire to transfer his experience (Singleton, 1987: 222). According to Soichiro Tsuruta, the description of museums is the main trait of the century (Tsuruta, 1980: 47) while Ivo Maroevic writes: “In place of instructions about museum work, the focus was on the history of museums” (Maroevic, 1998: 77). Throughout the period, usage of the word “museography” remains rare. In French, it largely retains its descriptive meaning of the previous century. Émile Littré’s Dictionnaire de la langue française (1863-1877), for instance, defines the “muséographe” as someone who describes museums. Similarly, French archaeologist Solomon Reinach’s work of inventorying and describing collections from the Antiquity, discussed in the article La muséographie en 1895, is “archaeological museology” (Desvallées and Mairesse, 2005a: 10-11). There will be the occasional reference to a more practical view of museography. For instance, a 19th-century French critic will speak of “museographical Darwinism” when discussing the presentation of artefacts according to “genera” in fixed classes and subdivisions (Wittlin, 1949: 142). In English, the term is even more seldom. The Oxford English Dictionary traces a reference to “museographer” in an 1880 article published in the British literary magazine Athenaeum and to “museography” in the first issue of the American Historical Review printed in 1895: “The - International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011 © Department of Cultural Technology and Communication, University of the Aegean
9
Janick Daniel Aquilina Revue proposes to review or state the contents of all books and periodicals dealing with archivistics, library economy and the science of bibliography, and museography” (American Historical Review, 1895: 92). In this last case, it is a direct reference to Solomon Reinach’s previously mentioned article and it is difficult to see anything else but a borrowed usage from the French. More interestingly, as far as this article is concerned, the 19th century marks the appearance of the word “museology”. Research by François Mairesse has uncovered an until recently unknown occurrence of the word21 in Georg Rathgeber’s Aufbau der Niederländischen Kunstgeschichte und Museologie (Structure of Dutch Art History and Museology, 1839) printed in Weissensee (Desvallées and Mairesse, 2005a: 10). This is some thirty years before the occurrence noted by van Mensch in Philip Leopold Martin’s aforementioned book. Rathgeber’s text deals mainly with the analytical description of sculptures or architectural works (Desvallées and Mairesse, 2005a: 10). Rathgeber also refers to museology as a science (wissenschaft museologisch) (Aquilina, 2009: 52), the first to do so. Van Mensch, whose curiosity seems to have been peaked by Mairesse’s discovery, writes on his blog that the German author defines museology as “the presentation of the order according to which works of art should be kept, and should be described in catalogues” (van Mensch, 2006). In a more recent article, van Mensch emphasises less the descriptive aspect and summarises thus Rathgeber’s conception of museology: “the study of the proper arrangement of works of art in collections” (van Mensch and Meijer-van Mensch, 2010: 42). Five years after its publication, Rathgeber’s text is translated in Dutch and the term “museologie” becomes “Kabinetbeschrijving” (van Mensch, 2006) which, if translated literally, means the “description of cabinets”. The descriptive dimension is also at the heart of Zeitschrift für allgemeine Museologie und verwandte Wissenschaften (Journal of General Museology and Related Sciences) first published in 1878 and which will become Zeitschrift für Museologie und Antiquitäten sowie verwandte Wissenschaften (Journal of Museology and of Antiquities and Related Sciences) until its publication ceases in 1885. The monthly journal contains descriptions of art and antique collections, related public sales and auctions, etc. Its editor, Johann Georg Theodore Graesse, also speaks of museology as a science (van Mensch, 1992: chap. 2). Art, however, is not the prerogative of 19th-century museology. The term is also used in relation to natural history as is the case in Martin’s Praxis der Naturgeschichte (1869-1870). The second part of the book, Dermoplastik und museologie, “describes how to mount animals for display (taxidermy) in realistic poses and settings (Dermoplastik)” (van Mensch and Meijer-van Mensch, 2010: 43). “Museologie” is not actually defined in Martin’s book, but it is obvious, according to van Mensch, “that Martin uses the term in a similar way that the word “muséographie” is used in France, referring to the practice and theory of making exhibitions” (van Mensch and Meijer-van Mensch, 2010, 43). This more practical understanding of museography, as we have demonstrated, is still not yet generalised at the time in France. With the exception of an 1841 usage borrowed from the German language,22 current research has yet to identify occurrences of “museology” in French writings of the 19th century. A number of appearances are, however, found in English. The July 1885 issue of the prestigious American magazine Science, for instance, mentions “museology” in a half-page article on a report from the U.K. entitled Museums of America and Canada. The report, prepared by Valentine Ball, Director of the Museum of Science and Art of Dublin, is deemed unsatisfactory by the editorial desk of the magazine because it mostly describes museums and their contents rather than present techniques used by - International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011 10 © Department of Cultural Technology and Communication, University of the Aegean
A BABELIAN TALE OF MUSEOLOGY AND MUSEOGRAPHY: A HISTORY OF WORDS American museums “and in which museology has been notably advanced by us” (Science, 1885: 82). The techniques in question pertain to the presentation and to the registration of objects.23 The Oxford English Dictionary indicates a few other occurrences of the word including one in an annual report presented in 1887 by Alpheus Hyatt, curator of the Boston Society of Natural History; similarly the word “museologist” appears in the magazine Natural Science in 1899. In sum, it can be said that there are essentially two points of view regarding museology and museography in the 19th century. It is understood either as the description of museums and their collections or as the techniques associated with the management and presentation of collections.
5. 1900-1939: PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT The last twenty years of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th century mark a period of newfound interest in professionalising museum work and in exchanging good museum practices. The birth of national and international museum or professional associations such as The Museums Association of the U.K. (1889), the Deutsches Museums Bunde (1917) or the Office international des musées in Paris (1926); the publication of museum manuals based on observation and practice and now considered to be “classics” of the genre such as The Principles of Museum Administration (1895) by George Brown Goode, Museum Ideals of Purpose and Method (1918) by Benjamin Ives Gilman or Manual for Small Museums (1927) by Laurence Vail Coleman; and the founding of museum study programs or courses including those taught at the École du Louvre as early as 1882,24 the 17 or so programs available in American universities and colleges as of the 1920s (Coleman, 1939: vol. 2, 419), and the classes offered by Lionel E. Judah at Montreal’s McGill University beginning in 1930 are all examples of the growing need to better frame, guide and share the work conducted in museums. It is also during the last years of the 19th century that appears, first in England and then in the United States, the “Museum Modernization Movement”. The Movement aspires to redefine the role of the museum and to give greater priority to the general public rather than to the cultured elite of society (Carle and Metzener, 1991: 71). In some museums, methods of “scientific” collections and classification (e.g. large numbers of specimens arranged by order, species, class, etc.) are replaced by more synthetic methods to facilitate access to the non-initiated (Carle and Metzener, 1991: 71). In wanting to attract the general public and to make the museum visit more enjoyable, attention is increasingly given to issues of lighting, visitor circulation and the arrangement of exhibits as well as to advertising, museum guides and catalogues (Carle and Metzener, 1991, 71). In this context, it is not surprising to observe that the practical conception of museology and museography will become progressively more prevalent as the 20th century settles in. Despite the already noted occurrences at the end of the 19th century, “museology” and “museography” continue to be rarely employed in the English language. The terms are not used for instance by the Americans Goode, Gilman or Coleman in their works (though this will not prevent them from being called “museologists” by some authors in later years25) and appear rarely in museum journals. “Museum practice”, “museum administration”, “museum work” or “museum organization” are the typically preferred expressions. Research conducted by Teather, van Mensch and Mairesse confirm this. There are of course a few exceptions to the rule and one of - International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011 11 © Department of Cultural Technology and Communication, University of the Aegean
Janick Daniel Aquilina the most cited is that found in David Murray’s three-volume work entitled Museums – Their History and Their Use (1904) published in Glasgow. The work of the Scottish archaeologist is one of the first to use both “museology” and “museography” under one cover (Teather, 1984: chap. 4). Since Murray does not define either word, one must rely on interpretation in order to grasp the author’s understanding of them. In the first volume of the work, it is clear that Murray holds “museography” to its etymological sense, that is to say “the description of museums”. Indeed, under a few pages titled Museography found within a chapter dealing with natural history collections, Murray cites texts that describe various museums and their collections including Pierre Borel of Castres’ Roolle des principaux cabinets curieux, et autres choses remarquables qui se voyent ez principales Villes de l’Europe. Rédigé par ordre alphabétique (1649) that lists, alphabetically by city, some two hundred cabinets with the names of their owners and, in some cases, provides short descriptions of their contents. However, in the imposing two-volume bibliography that Murray has assembled, the author gives a much wider meaning to the word. “Museography” appears as the title of one of the five overarching sections under which he organises his bibliography. Thus, under Museography, Murray lists authors and titles pertaining to various museum activities and issues including museum descriptions, museum typology, acquisition, education, organisation, administration, etc. As for “museology”, it appears as one of the many subject matter subsections of both Museography and of another overarching section entitled The Collection, Preparation and Preservation and Exhibition of Specimens. Under the latter are found references to a number of periodicals as well as the writings of Quiccheberg, Neickel, Major, Valentini, Baring, Martin, Reinach, etc. All of the periodicals and authors, save Martin, the only one of them to specifically mention “museology” in his work, also have a separate entry under the Museography section. Murray may have done this for cross-referencing purposes. If there is a distinction between the two terms, it certainly is not obvious to the reader. Perhaps this is why Peter van Mensch, citing Swedish author Per Uno Agren, speaks of an accidental use of the term “museology” (van Mensch, 1992: chap. 2). A few other occurrences in English writings are worth underlining. That noted by Mairesse and found in Richard Bach’s 1924 article, Museum Terminology, in which the author differentiates “museography”, which is the systematic description of museums and their contents, from “museology”, which is the science of museum organisation (Desvallées and Mairesse, 2005a: 12); as well as that of Kenneth de Burgh Codrington’s noted by Lynne Teather. Codrington, a British expert in Indian art, defines museology in a 1936 article entitled The Making of Museums as “the science and art of making museums” (Teather, 1984: chap.4). These are exceptions, however, as the English language, as a rule, remains suspicious of the term. The French language throughout the first half of the 20th century continues to show very little appetite for “muséologie”. François Mairesse hypothesizes that the first references to “muséologie” are tied to natural history museums (Desvallées and Mairesse, 2005a: 12-13). This is a plausible theory; we have already seen how museography and natural history museums are closely linked in the 18th century. The new word is simply being used in lieu of the older expression (perhaps in an attempt to dissociate it from its descriptive connotation?). Mairesse cites as examples Gustave Gilson’s Le Musée d’Histoire Naturelle Moderne. Sa Mission, son organisation, ses droits (The Modern Natural History Museum. Its Mission, its Organisation, its Rights, 1914) published in Brussels as well as Adrien Loir’s and H. Legangneux Précis de la Muséologie Pratique (Handbook of Practical Museology) published in Le Havre in the - International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011 12 © Department of Cultural Technology and Communication, University of the Aegean
A BABELIAN TALE OF MUSEOLOGY AND MUSEOGRAPHY: A HISTORY OF WORDS early 1920s. The latter covers such topics as museum administration, museum audiences, presentation and arrangement of collections as well as conservation techniques and includes both Gilson’s and Martin’s works in the bibliography (Desvallées and Mairesse, 2005a: 12). The exclusive relationship between “muséologie” and the natural sciences is short-lived however. As Mairesse observes, a technical book published by the Borrel Laboratories entitled La muséologie française (1932) deals solely with the conservation of works of art (Desvallées and Mairesse, 2005a: 13) and an advertisement found within its pages for a second volume from this series (unpublished?) deals with the preservation of artworks and old documents. “Muséographie”, on the other hand, will increasingly become the expression of choice in the French language of the interwar period. Its meaning is no longer confined to the strict description of museums. Observers of the time speak of a “new technique” or of a “new science”. A number of events of international scope will help consolidate its place in the vocabulary of the French museum professional. The first of these is the publication, beginning in 1927, of Mouseion, the bulletin of the Organisation internationale des musées (OIM). According to Albert S. Henraux, a French museum notable of the time, the birth of museography as a science can be traced to the OIM’s decision to print this periodical (Boucher et al., 1937: 1). Published in French but meant for an international audience, Mouseion uses “muséographie” when describing the organisation, the social role and the history of the museum (Desvallées and Mairesse, 2005a: 16). “Muséographie” is, however, also used specifically in relation to methods of presentation, conservation and dissemination within museums (Desvallées and Mairesse, 2005a: 16). Depending on the author’s viewpoint, the word may encompass all of these things or any combination of these activities. Thus, in an article written by Italian architect, Gustavo Giovannoni, museography revolves around issues of lighting, space, security, as well as the presentation and arrangement of collections. For ethnologist André Leroi-Gourhan, however, museography has more to do with the systematic presentation and technical description of objects within a museum (LeroiGourhan, 1936: 27-30).26 A second notable event is the 1934 International Conference of Madrid organised by the OIM. The Conference assembles, for the first time in history, experts from around the world to discuss museography. It features an exhibition on the subject and will materialise in the publication of proceedings in two volumes under the title of Muséographie – Architecture et aménagement des musées d’art (Museography – Architecture and Organisation of Art Museums). In the foreword to the collective work, the reader is informed that the volumes are the result of important experiments conducted in museums in the areas of conservation and display of works of art in the last twenty years. The intent behind their publication is “not to impose rigid rules but to simply provide noteworthy examples that may guide and encourage future research and studies”. The “new technique”, to use the expression in the foreword, is not explicitly defined within the pages of the proceedings but these touch upon lighting, heating and ventilation issues, temporary and permanent exhibitions, museum architecture, inherent challenges of particular types of collections, labelling of artefacts, etc., each amply illustrated with photographs and diagrams and written by museum directors, curators, architects and an engineer. A third event which confirms the progression towards a more practical view of museography is the Paris World Fair of 1937. Dedicated to the theme of “Art and Technology in Modern Life”, the great international rendezvous features an exhibition on museography showcasing the work and latest techniques and advancements made in - International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011 13 © Department of Cultural Technology and Communication, University of the Aegean
Janick Daniel Aquilina museums. Its organizing committee, which includes some important museum figures of the time such as art historian Henri Focillon, Louvre curator René Huyghe and George Henri Rivière, a man who would become one of France’s most respected museographers,27 proposes to present the “new science” methodically: first, the presentation of museum principles, then, the application of said principles through actual examples of exhibitions in art and history as well as through a scientific exhibition (ethnology) (Boucher et. al., 1937:1). The visitor is thus met with statistics on the types, the numbers and the attendance figures in museums of the world; information on the historical evolution of museums and the challenges they face; scale models depicting various types of museums; specifications on technical equipment used in museums; descriptions of museum activities; presentation of lighting issues; discussion of marketing techniques, etc. The ensuing exhibitions dedicated to Van Gogh, the theatre in medieval times and rural houses in France all help demonstrate the results of applied museography. It is interesting to note that the 1937 World Fair will also play host to some 150 members of the first Congrès national de muséographie gathered at the École du Louvre under the auspices of l’Association des conservateurs de collections publiques de France. A report on the Congress mentions, amongst other things, the details of its delegates’ visit to the Muséographie exhibition and reminds its members that the Congress’ objective is not to elaborate a theoretical doctrine but rather to present the fruits of research and provide examples and offer solutions which may be applied by most museums (Billiet, 1937: 110-111). In this sense, it seems very much in keeping with the notion of “technique” as conceived during the 1934 Madrid Conference.
6. CONCLUSION: TOWARDS NEW BEGINNINGS World War II will unfortunately bring to an almost grinding halt the sudden momentum of museology and museography which begun in the late 19th century and will more or less signify the end of a slow and irregular evolution of both co-existing concepts. As a result of the war, museum courses and programs will be suspended or terminated (some already hurt by the economic situation), national and international association meetings will be cancelled, and the publication of periodicals such as Mouseion will be shelved. In the aftermath of the 1939-1945 hostilities, the descriptive and practical dimensions of museography and museology will continue to co-exist and will do so for the decades to come. However, beginning in the 1950s, the discipline or practice known as “museology” will commence a long introspective process aimed at finally defining it and legitimizing it before those who neither understand nor see the usefulness of a “museum science”. The pioneer work of Czech Jiri Neustupny, Questions de muséologie moderne (Questions of Modern Museology, 1950), which can be considered the first real theoretical work on museology, will mark an important first step in this direction. The regional seminar on the educational role of museums held in Rio de Janeiro in 1958 and jointly organised by UNESCO and the successor of the OIM, the International Council on Museums (ICOM), will be a first opportunity for an international discussion on the meaning of the two words. Georges Henri Rivière, now Director of ICOM, and also Director of the seminar will guide the discussions which will lead to the distinction between museology, “the branch of knowledge concerned with the study of the purposes and organization of the museums” and museography, “the body of techniques related to museology” (Rivière, 1960: 12). It is interesting to note that the French version of the report on the seminar will use the word “science” instead of - International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011 14 © Department of Cultural Technology and Communication, University of the Aegean
A BABELIAN TALE OF MUSEOLOGY AND MUSEOGRAPHY: A HISTORY OF WORDS “branch of knowledge” when referring to museology, thus again highlighting a conceptual difference between the English and French languages. This notion of “science” already mentioned by some authors as early as the 19th century will gain further ground and will be at the heart of numerous debates in the decades to come, some authors refuting such notion, others embracing it without always being clear on what actually is understood by “science”. East European authors such as Neustupny and Stránský will be early advocates of a museology guided by theory and whose object of study, in the case of Stránský, may actually go beyond the museum. Meanwhile, Canada, the United States and Western Europe will remain more focussed on the practical applications of museology, which may explain why the anglo-saxon countries will prefer to keep using “museum work” and “museum studies”. Questions linked to the methodology, the status and definition of museology, its object of study and its autonomy from other university disciplines will be central issues in the discussions that will take place in later years and that will see museology defined and redefined again.
1
For anyone following the debate, this is hardly a revelation. The theme has namely been central to the work of ICOFOM (International Committee for Museology) ever since it came into existence in 1977 and its members continue to this day their efforts to circumscribe what has often been referred to as “museum science”. The debate, however, remains mostly confined to Europe and seems to garner only lukewarm interest outside of its borders and outside of ICOFOM itself. 2 Some of the earliest surveys being those of Stránský, Z.Z. (ed.), 1966, Sbornik materialu prveho muzeologickeho sympozia, Brno 1965, Brno, and Jensen, V. T., 1980, “Museological points of view – Europe 1975”, in Sofka, V. (ed.), Museology – science or just practical work? , MuWoP, no 1, ICOM, p. 6-10. 3 Proponents for each of these perspectives are featured in Sofka, V. (ed.), 1980, Museology – science or just practical work?, MuWoP, no 1, ICOM. 4 For more on the object of museology, see van Mensch, 1992, Maroevic, 1998 and Desvallées and Mairesse, 2005a and 2005b. 5 This is now the view adopted by most of the active members of ICOFOM (Mairesse, 2004: 11). 6 The electronic versions of these documents were consulted and cited for the purposes of this article. Teather, L., 1984, Museology and its Traditions – The British Experience, (Ph.D. dissertation), University of Leicester, last visited 10 June 2010: http://www.utoronto.ca/mouseia/course2/LTThesisJan.html and Mensch, P. van, 1992, Towards a Methodology of Museology (Ph.D. dissertation), University of Zagreb, last visited 7 August 2010: http://www.muuseum.ee/et/erialane_areng/museoloogiaalane_ki/ingliskeelne_kirjand/p_van_men sch_towar. 7 It should be noted that André Desvallées, who has contributed information towards the text, is listed as co-author but it is Mairesse who is its real author. Mairesse explains that Desvallées has provided a number of sources and information namely on the history of museology within ICOM and ICOFOM. As such, he feels that he cannot assume full authorship of the article but indicates that he does not expect Desvallées to endorse all of the points of view and additions he has made to the article (Desvallées and Mairesse, 2005a:1). 8 A shorter and somewhat different version of this article was published in French: Aquilina, J., 2009, “Muséologie et muséographie: la tour de Babel ou les origines de la confusion”, Muséologies – Les cahiers d’études supérieures, 4/1, p. 43-59. 9 Quite the same can be said, of course, of the Italians and the formidable physical evidence they have left behind (see, for instance, Hooper-Greenhill, E., 1992, Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge, Routledge, London). To our knowledge, however, current research has not identified occurrences of the words “museology” or “museography” in early Italian writings.
- International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011 15 © Department of Cultural Technology and Communication, University of the Aegean
Janick Daniel Aquilina
10
Contrary to what is stated in Eva Schulz’s 1990 article “Notes on the history of Collecting and of Museum”, an important reference on early museological literature, Quiccheberg’s work is in fact mentioned in Neickel’s work but under a truncated title. 11 It is still not at all certain whether the Mouseion actually housed a collection of objects but some ancient texts imply that it did. For more on the Mouseion, see Bruwier, 2004. 12 Both Neickel and Schulz indicate that Major’s book is made up of 28 leaflets but the number is actually 20. Schulz also indicates that the work is not illustrated but, in fact, there are five illustrations (see Aquilina, 2009: 48). 13 Tsuruta uses the term “museums” rather than “collections” but in the present author’s view the latter is more accurate since it is the collection, through the diversity, richness, singularity and rarity of its objects, that is the real focal point during the greater part of this stage. Furthermore, the term “museum” is not yet widespread in the early part of the stage and other ‘museum’ forms (cabinet de curiosités, Wunderkammer, studio, etc.) need to be accounted for. 14 This observation is taken from van Mensch’s “Museology as a Science” (n.d.: 42), which seems to be a preliminary and unpublished version of chapter two, “The Museology Discourse”, of his thesis. 15 Kanold will nonetheless make some modifications to the text including adding information on cabinets and libraries and correcting Neickel’s irregular prose. He will not be able to complete the latter due to time constraints. 16 The 1751 edition of the book includes two additional Museographi, Vater as well as Battista Oliva, whose 1584 account of the Calzolari collection is the earliest work. 17 The first edition of the work was published anonymously. A second expanded edition was published in 1757 as well as a third posthumous edition in 1780. 18 Lewis will eventually rectify this in subsequent publications and recognise Neickel’s work. 19 Although incorrectly identified as “Elementary Chronology”. 20 Mendes da Costa’s title is briefly mentioned in a text by van Mensch entitled “Museology as a Science”, which appears to be an early version of chapter 2, “The Museology Discourse”, from his thesis. 21 It would seem that Mairesse has found an even earlier reference to “museology”. This is to appear in ICOFOM’s Dictionnaire encyclopédique de muséologie to be published in 2011. 22 This new occurrence, according to François Mairesse, will be reported upon in ICOFOM’s Dictionnaire encyclopédique de muséologie to be published in 2011. 23 In particular, the article mentions methods used in the arrangement of material for educational purposes, advancements made in display case technology and shelf-supports as well as the unit system of the National museum and the systematic registry of the Smithsonian institution. 24 Initially dedicated to the archaeological disciplines, the École du Louvre’s original mission was “to extract from the collections, for the education of the public, the knowledge they contain, and to train curators, missionaries and excavators” (see http://www.ecoledulouvre.fr/en/ecolelouvre/history, section 1882, last visited 1 June 2011). Courses in art history were added in 1902 with Solomon Reinach as instructor and, in 1927, the institution set up its first course on museography. 25 For instance, Alma S. Wittlin refers to G.B. Goode as “one of the great museologist-pioneers” (Wittlin, 1949: 143). 26 Leroi-Gourhan believes that since museographers need to be concerned with proper identification and terminology, it is preferable that they specialise in technical branches of knowledge such as basketry, clothes-making or aesthetics rather than in cultural branches of knowledge, which should be left to the ethnologists. 27 It is interesting to note that before suddenly becoming a “muséologue” in the 1950s and 1960s, George Henri Rivière had until then been a “muséographe” (see Gorgus, 2003).
- International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011 16 © Department of Cultural Technology and Communication, University of the Aegean
A BABELIAN TALE OF MUSEOLOGY AND MUSEOGRAPHY: A HISTORY OF WORDS
REFERENCES American Historical Review, 1895, “Notes and News”, October, 1/1, p.192-193. Aquilina, J., 2009, “Muséologie et muséographie : la tour de Babel ou les origines de la confusion”, Muséologies – Les cahiers d’études supérieures, 4/1, p. 43-59. Bazin, G., 1967, Le temps des musées, Desoer, Liège. Bazin, G. 1975, Museology, Resource: Encyclopaedia Universalis, last visited 10 March 2009: http://www.universalis-edu.com Bennett, T., 1995, The Birth of the Museum, History, Theory, Politics, Routledge, London and New York. Billiet, Joseph, 1937, “Le Congrès National de Muséographie”, Bulletin des musées de France, July, 7, p.110-112. Borrel, J. and Borrel F., 1932. La muséologie française – Tome 1er, Éditions des laboratoires Borrel frères, Paris. Boucher, F., et al., 1937, Exposition internationale de 1937, Groupe I, Classe III, Musées et expositions. Section 1 : Muséographie, L’Amour de l’Art, Paris. Brout, N., 2004, “Le traité muséologique de Quiccheberg” in Bruwier, M.-C. et al. (eds.), L’extraordinaire jardin de la mémoire, Musée Royal de Mariemont, Morlanwelz, p. 68-135. Carle, P. and Metzener, M., 1991, “Lionel E. Judah and Museum Studies in Canada”, Muse, VIII/4, p. 71-74. Coleman, L.V., 1939, The Museum in America – A Critical Study, vol. II, AAM, Washington D.C. D’Argenville, A.J.D., 1727, “Le choix et l’arrangement d’un cabinet curieux en 1727”, June 1727, reprinted in Revue Universelle des Arts, 18 (1863), p. 163-178 D’Argenville, A.J.D., 1742, L’histoire naturelle éclaircie dans deux de ses parties principales, la lithologie et la conchyliologie, De Buré l’Aîné, Paris. Desvallées, A., 1998, “Cent quarante termes muséologiques ou petit glossaire de l’exposition” in De Bary, O. and Tobelem, J.-M. (eds.), Manuel de muséographie. Petit guide à l’usage des responsables des musées, Séguier, Biarritz, p. 205-251. Desvallées, A. and Mairesse, F., 2005a, “Brève histoire de la muséologie, des Inscriptions au Musée virtuel” in Mariaux, P.A. (ed.), L’objet de la muséologie, IHAM, Neuchâtel, p.1-53. Desvallées, A. and Mairesse, F., 2005b, “Sur la muséologie“, Culture et Musées, 6, p. 131-155. Dictionnaire de la langue française. XM Littré v.1.3, last visited 2 April 2009: http://francois.gannaz.free.fr/Littre/accueil.php. Duris, P., 2001, Classer les botanistes. La Bibliotheca Botanica (1736) de Carl Linnaeus, Resource : Laboratoire Épistémé, Université de Bordeaux, last visited 3 April 2009: http://www.episteme.u-bordeaux.fr/publications_duris/Linnaeus.pdf École du Louvre, The Ecole du Louvre - History, Resource : The École du Louvre, last visited 02 November 2011 http://www.ecoledulouvre.fr/en/friseen/histoire Giovannonni, G., 1934, “Les édifices anciens et les exigences de la muséographie moderne”, Mouseion, 25-26/1-2, p.17-23. Goode, G. B., 2008 (original version 1895), The Principles of Museum Administration, Elibron Classics. Gorgus, N., 2003, Le magicien des vitrines – Le muséologue Georges Henri Rivière, Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme, Paris. Heller, J., 1970, “Linnaeus’s Bibliotheca Botanica”, Taxon, June 1970/9, p. 363-411.
- International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011 17 © Department of Cultural Technology and Communication, University of the Aegean
Janick Daniel Aquilina Hooper-Greenhill, E., 1992, Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge, Routledge, London. Jensen, V.T., 1980, “Points de vue muséologiques – Europe 1975”, in Sofka, V. (ed.), La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée?, DoTraM, 1, ICOM, p. 6-10. Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1936, “L’ethnologie et la muséographie”, Revue de synthèse, February, XI/1, p. 27-30. Lewis, G., 1980, in Sofka, V. (ed.), La muséologie – science ou seulement travail pratique du musée?, DoTraM, 1, ICOM, p. 26-27. Linnaei, C., 1736, Bibliotheca Botanica, Apud Solomonen Schouten, Amsterdam. Mairesse, F., 2002, Le musée, temple spectaculaire, Presses Universitaires de Lyon, Lyon. Mairesse, F., 2004, “La muséalisation du monde“ in Bruwier, M.-C. et al. (eds.), L’extraordinaire jardin de la mémoire, Musée Royal de Mariemont, Morlanwelz, p. 11-34. Major, J.D., 1674, Unvorgreiffliches Bedencken von Kunst – und NaturalienKammern insgemein, Joachim Reuman/Acad. Burchdr., Kiel. Maroevic, I., 1998, Introduction to Museology – The European Approach, Verlarg Dr. Christian Muller-Straten, Munich. Mendes da Costa, E., 1776, Elements of Conchology or an Introduction to the Knowledge of Shells, Benjamin White, London. Mensch, P. van, n.d., “Museology as a Science”, unpublished (?). Mensch, P. van, 1992, Towards a Methodology of Museology (Ph.D. thesis), University of Zagreb, last visited 7 August 2011: http://www.muuseum.ee/et/erialane_areng/museoloogiaalane_ki/ingliskeelne_kirjand/p_van_men sch_towar.
Mensch, P. van, 2006 (January 23), The First Use of Museology, Resource: author’s personal blog, last visited 10 December 2010: http://petervanmensch.blogspot.com Mensch, P. van and Meijer-van Mensch, L., 2010, “From Disciplinary Control to CoCreation – Collecting and the Development of Museums as Praxis in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Century”, in Petterson, S., et al. (eds.), Encouraging Collections Mobility – A Way Forward for Museums in Europe, Finnish National Gallery, Helsinki, p. 33-53. Murray, D., 2000 (original version 1904), Museums – Their History and their Use, Pober Publishing, Staten Island. Neickelio, C. F., 1727, Museographia oder Anleitung zum rechten Begriff und nützlicher Anlegung der Museorum oder Raritäten Kammern, translated from German by E. Giovannini, 2005, CLUEB, Bologna, p.62- 422. Organisation internationale des musées, undated, Muséographie – Architecture et aménagement des musées d’art, 2 vol., Société des nations. Oxford English Dictionnary, last visited 4 April 2009: http://dictionary.oed.com Pinault-Sorensen, M., 1998, “Dézallier d’Argenville, l’Encyclopédie et la Conchyliologie”, Recherches sur Diderot et l’Encyclopédie, 24/24, p.101-148. Poncelet, F., 2008, Regards actuels sur la muséographie d’entre-deux-guerres, Resource: CeROArt, no 2, last visited 10 July 2011: http://ceroart.revues.org/565 Rathgeber, G., 1839, Aufbau der Niederlandischen Kunstgeschichte und Museologie, Verlag von G.F. Grossman, Weissensee. Rivière G.H., 1960, “Report by the Director of the Seminar”, in UNESCO Regional Seminar on the Educational Rôle (sic) of Museums (Rio de Janeiro - 7-30 September, 1958) Educational Studies and Documents no 38, UNESCO, Paris.
- International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011 18 © Department of Cultural Technology and Communication, University of the Aegean
A BABELIAN TALE OF MUSEOLOGY AND MUSEOGRAPHY: A HISTORY OF WORDS Schulz, E., 1990, “Notes on the History of Collecting and of Museums”, Journal of the History of Collections, 2/2, p. 205-218. Singleton, H.R., 1987, “Museum training: status and development”, Museum, 156, p. 221-224. Science, 1885, “Comment and Criticism”, July, VI/130. Stránský, Z.Z. (ed.), 1966, Sbornik materialu prveho muzeologickeho sympozia. Brno, 1965, Brno. Stránský, Z.Z., 1980, in Sofka, V. (ed.), Museology – science or just practical museum work?, MuWoP, 1, ICOM, p. 42-44. Stránský, Z.Z., 1987, “Is museology a sequel of the existence of museums or did it proceed their arrival and must museology thus programme their future?”, in Museology and Museums, Basic Papers, ICOFOM Symposium (HelsinkiEspoo,September 1987), ICOFOM Study Series, 12, p. 287-292. Teather, L., 1984, Museology and its Traditions – The British Experience (Ph.D. dissertation), University of Leicester, last visited 10 July 2010: http://www.utoronto.ca/mouseia/course2/LTThesisJan.html. Tsuruta, S. 1980, in Sofka, V. (ed.), Museology – science or just practical museum work?, MuWoP, 1, ICOM, p. 47-49. Wilson, W., 2006, “Fifty-four Early Mineral Collection Catalogs”, Axis, 2/1, p. 1-20. Wittlin, A.S., 1949, The Museum – Its History and its Tasks in Education, Routledge & Kegan Paul Limited, London.
- International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011 19 © Department of Cultural Technology and Communication, University of the Aegean
Janick Daniel Aquilina
Le récit babélien de la muséologie et de la muséographie: Une histoire en mots Janick Daniel Aquilina
RÉSUMÉ L’on croit à tort qu’aujourd’hui le sens du mot «muséologie» est entendu de la même manière par tout le monde. Mais il suffit de consulter diverses publications consacrées aux musées et à la muséologie pour se rendre compte que le terme est loin de faire l’unanimité. L’histoire de l’évolution sémantique du mot «muséologie» et de l’imbroglio qui l’entoure peut être vue comme celle de son émancipation graduelle, quoique pas tout à fait complète, d’un terme auquel elle a longtemps été confondue: la «muséographie». Cet article cherche à faire la lumière sur les premiers usages des termes «muséologie» et «muséographie» en faisant le point sur les recherches déjà réalisées sur le sujet ainsi qu’en présentant le résultat des propres travaux de l’auteur qui ont exposé quelques occurrences peu connues des deux expressions. L’auteur commence par souligner l’importance du travail effectué en Allemagne dès le XVIe siècle et de l’importance de la langue allemande elle-même dans l’origine des deux mots. Il se penche ensuite sur la littérature du début du XVIIIe siècle jusqu’à la fin des années 1930 afin de démontrer que la confusion qui existe de nos jours sur le sens de la «muséologie» et la «muséographie» est déjà présente dans la littérature muséologigue et muséale du passé.
MOTS-CLÉS: histoire de la muséologie, muséographie, définition de muséologie, définition de muséographie, littérature muséologique, Museographia, Neickel, Daniel Eberhard Baring, Antoine-Joseph Dézallier d’Argenville, Georg Rathgeber
O βαβυλωνιακός μύθος της μουσειολογίας και της μουσειογραφίας: Μία ιστορία των λέξεων Janick Daniel Aquilina
ΠΕΡΙΛΗΨΗ Στις μέρες μας θεωρείται δεδομένο ότι η λέξη «μουσειολογία» είναι κατανοητή με τον ίδιο τρόπο από όλους. Όμως αρκεί να συμβουλευτεί κανείς διάφορες εκδόσεις αφιερωμένες στα μουσεία και τη μουσειολογία για να αντιληφθεί ότι δεν υπάρχει ομοφωνία για την ερμηνεία του όρου. Η ιστορία της σημασιολογικής εξέλιξης της λέξης «μουσειολογία» και της σύγχυσης που την περιβάλλει μπορεί να θεωρηθεί ως αντίστοιχη της σταδιακής (αν και όχι ολοκληρωτικής) χειραφέτησής της από έναν όρο με τον οποίο συχνά συγχέεται, τη «μουσειογραφία». Το άρθρο αυτό επιδιώκει να φωτίσει τις πρώτες χρήσεις των όρων «μουσειολογία» και «μουσειογραφία», κάνοντας χρήση της μέχρι τώρα έρευνας σχετικά με το θέμα αλλά και πρωτότυπης έρευνας του συγγραφέα που έφερε στο φως μερικές ελάχιστα γνωστές περιπτώσεις εμφάνισης των δύο όρων. Ξεκινάει υπογραμμίζοντας τη σημασία των εξελίξεων στη Γερμανία από τον δέκατο έκτο αιώνα και τη σημασία της ίδιας της γερμανικής γλώσσας για την προέλευση των δύο όρων. Στη συνέχεια, εξετάζει τη βιβλιογραφία από τις αρχές του δέκατου όγδοου αιώνα μέχρι το τέλος της δεκαετίας του 1930 για να δείξει ότι η σύγχυση που εξακολουθεί να υφίσταται σήμερα για την έννοια των δύο όρων, ήταν ήδη παρούσα στα μουσειακά και μουσειολογικά κείμενα του παρελθόντος.
ΛΕΞΕΙΣ-ΚΛΕΙΔΙΑ: ιστορία της μουσειολογίας, μουσειογραφία, oρισμός της μουσειολογίας, oρισμός της μουσειογραφίας, μουσειολογική βιβλιογραφία, Museographia, Neickel, Daniel Eberhard Baring, Antoine-Joseph Dézallier d’Argenville, Georg Rathgeber
- International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011 20 © Department of Cultural Technology and Communication, University of the Aegean
