28H. Zaunstock
MUSEUM AUDIENCES IN THE EARLY MODERN PERIOD— VISITING THE HALLE ORPHANAGE AND ITS COLLECTIONS*
ABSTRACT. The social dimension of early modern collecting has recently gained growing research interest. A core issue in the history of museums concerns the problem of accessibility. Thus far, it has been assumed that entrance to museum collections was a privilege for only a few select people. Kunstkammern founded at courts and natural history collections located inside private houses were often strictly limited by the social and learned status of visitors as well as by restricted opening hours. Certain collections were only shown to guests with high social and political positions. However, parallel to these well-known limited visiting practices, recent research focusing on cases from all over Europe between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries has shown that certain collections did open to a socially broad public. This conclusion leads to a pivotal question: why would owners of distinguished and valuable collections open them to a socially wide-ranging audience, even to members of the lower classes and women? The present paper will address this issue by discussing the practice of showing visitors around the Halle Orphanage and its collections during the first half of the eighteenth century. These observations are based on archival material and will be discussed within the context of a broader research horizon.
KEYWORDS: Kunstkamera, Orphanage, museum audience, early modern collections ygK 069-052
DOI 10.31250/2618-8619-2020-4(10)-32-48
HOLGER ZAUNSTOCK-Doctor, Professor, Head of the Research Centre (Stabsstelle Forschung) of the Francke Foundations (Halle, Germany) E -mail: zaunstoeck@francke-halle.de
* This article is a revised version of a lecture presented at the founding digital workshop of the European Network "Alliance of Early Universal Museums" in Halle (Saale), Germany, on 12 October 2020. References pertaining to quotations and research literature cited have been added. Only a selection from the large variety of systematic, local and regional studies could be mentioned. I am grateful to Eva Dolezel (Berlin), Thomas Grunewald (Halle) and Berit Wagner (Frankfurt am Main) for comments and suggestions and to Han Vermeulen (Halle) for translating my text into English.
COVERED BY DUST—OBSERVATIONS ON THE RELATIONS BETWEEN COLLECTIONS AND THE PUBLIC DURING THE EARLY MODERN PERIOD
In 1798, Martinus van Marum (1750-1837), director of the Teyler's Museum in Haarlem, the Netherlands, travelled through Central Germany. His stays in Gotha, Weimar, Jena and Erfurt were characterised by extensive visits to new special collections, gardens, observatories and laboratories, which were of great interest to him (Sliggers 2020). By contrast, van Marum viewed the older, encyclopaedic Art and Natural History Cabinets with disdain, criticising them in bitter terms. As to the Princely Cabinet in Gotha, for instance, he noted that it was "very disorderly arranged and thickly covered by dust." Likewise, the Leopoldina collection in Erfurt "contains nothing but well-known items, largely poorly preserved and housed in an old, dirty, damp, and lugubrious room" (Forbes, Lefebvre and Bruijn 1970: 311). With these comments, van Marum conveyed, also in contrast to the museum in Haarlem he himself was directing, that the prominent collections he visited—the first, a courtly collection; the second, a scholarly one—were neither looked after nor cared for. The images he invoked comprised of uncomfortable rooms that were all but inviting. According to his report, these collections could not be recommended as they were no longer relevant, neither to science nor to a public interested in astonishing presentations. The simultaneity of scientific and museum irrelevance (in van Marum's view) was encapsulated in the trope of unsystematically arranged objects covered by dust. Time had passed for these collections (compare Friedrich 2018: 98). Having lost their appeal, it was suggested, they were about to fade from the public's interest.
The question of the public response, however, was central to a collection's impact: only if visited and talked about was it relevant. This not only rang true for the years around 1800, but also for the entire early modern period. As early as 1994 Paula Findlen wrote: "Since the quantity of visitors defined the success of a museum, naturalists could not afford to exclude anyone whose conduct was civil, thereby defining the museum as an intrinsically more open space than the court or the academy" (Findlen 1994: 129; for a similar observation regarding castle tours, see Volkel 2007: 68-69). With this production of relevance, the collector or the collecting institution could convey political messages, religious worldviews or scientific concepts of order (Olmi 1994). To a considerable degree collections unfolded their impact through the presence of visitors. The effect of a collection and the perception of visitors were directly correlated. Both formed an inseparable conditional relation when it came to the public intent of a collection. Therefore, the question becomes: what about collections open to the public prior to 1800?
Despite the dynamic interaction between the collection and the public, one gets the impression that, when looking into the research on collections, which is so voluminous it can hardly be overseen, the topic has tended to be neglected. Reviewing this research in 2007, Arthur MacGregor opined that one has to assume a great heterogeneity of the public visiting collections during the early modern period, depending on concrete space-time constellations and the "milieu in which a cabinet might be located." He emphasised that "in general terms perceptions have changed in recent years towards the view that many early collections enjoyed a greater degree of accessibility than hitherto had been assumed" (MacGregor 2007: 64; see also Spary 2018: 312). MacGregor relates this to the fact that for a long time access to collections was mainly viewed as socially elitist and therefore limited: a relatively small class of scholars, noblemen, diplomats and (wealthy) art lovers active in Europe was seen as the visitors of collections in Northern and Southern Europe as well as in England and Great Britain. In the context of the increasing travel culture of the early modern period, a Europe-wide interacting system of travel preparation, visits to collections and their processing had established itself through the publishing of travel experiences in reports as well as travel accounts (Siemer 2004: 34-48; Savoy 2006; Wagner 2020). Within this culture of travelling, a system of mutual recommendation functioned as a central mechanism for both inclusion and exclusion, as international research repeatedly pointed out. Guides for proper travelling, so-called apodemics, included passages preparing travellers for correct behaviour when visiting a collection (Whitmer 2017), as the theoretical literature on museums of this era also underlines.
For example, Leonhard Christoph Sturm's Raritätenkammer (1704) primarily addressed educated visitors, whom he preferred—as the ignorant were a horror to him: they would look at the rarities "like a cow at a new gate" (Dolezel 2018: 42). Finally, in many travelogues, the accessible collections and their modes of access were characterised.
Undoubtedly, this culture of travelling formed a central part of the communication in and about early modern collections. Recently, however, another practice of accessibility is gradually becoming visible, especially in the urban context (Historisches Museum Basel 2011; Beßler 2015), which reveals that broader groups of visitors were granted access to many collections. In a fundamental study of the Aldrovandi Collection in Bologna and its visitor books from the second half of the sixteenth and the first half of the seventeenth century, Paula Findlen noted that, on the one hand, a large number of visitors (with one exception only male) from high-ranking social and political positions had visited the collection. This prestigious practice had served the collector, in addition to practicing the humanistic learned ideal, to build up his own cultural capital. Therefore, these visitors had been documented in writing and were subsequently archived. At the same time, work on the collection's memory and its historicisation had been set in motion. On the other hand, Findlen emphasised that a large number of visitors who did not have sufficient status to be registered in this memory construction had also visited the collection, including women of high social standing. This, however, had found no echo in the records. The number and identity of these visitors had remained hidden in the collection's history (Findlen 1994: 136-146). A more recent analysis of eighteenth-century visitor books reveals a change in perspective. Based on visitor books of the Fridericianum in Kassel, Andrea Linnebach (2014) has discovered that all incoming visitors had been recorded in writing. Thus, these books form a basic documentation of the public outreach and consequently the success of the museum's intentions (Linnebach 2014: 20).
For this more or less unlimited practice of accessing collections on a European level, especially museums newly created in the pre-1800 decades and characterised by Enlightenment principles such as education, participation and sociability, are considered locations where this process (of divergent local restrictions and peculiarities steering inclusion and exclusion) was initiated: they were designed and opened for a socially wide audience—and increasingly for both genders. In this connection, reference is usually made to the British Museum in London (1759), but the Museum Fridericianum in Kassel (1769) should also be mentioned in this regard (Linnebach 2012). The changing character of picture galleries across Europe drove this process of greater accessibility forward: the renowned galleries of the Belvedere in Vienna (1776) and in Munich (1783), or the newly designed royal collections in Stockholm (1794) and in North America Peale's Museum in Philadelphia (1776) are good examples, even if the 1793 opening of the Louvre in Paris as a museum for the people is repeatedly named as the most striking focal point in museum history (Brigham 1995; Savoy 2006; Paul 2012 ).
The divergent patterns become visible by carrying out research on the public accessibility of early modern museums and collections suggest that in order to establish a link between the Enlightenment and collection practice (understood as modernisation or rather as motivated from the perspective of modernity) as the sole driver of expanding social and public accessibility, and thus the broader reception of collections and museums would fall short. Accordingly, this escalation is being increasingly questioned. Moreover, an increased need for research on relations between early modern collections and the public is called for. To put it bluntly, distinguishing between inaccessible elitist collections dating from the early modern period and socially open museums of the modern period, linked by a transition threshold around 1800, seems too categorical. Thus, the impression is growing that, in addition to the system of regulating accessibility by selecting people with a high social, academic or political rank, and the increased broad impact around 1800, practices in early modern Europe can be discerned with which owners opened their collections (with and without charges) to a wide range of visitors for a variety of reasons (see, for example, Impey and MacGregor 2001). This wider accessibility could be permanent and for an entrance fee to all interested parties, such as at the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford around 1700. During the early eighteenth century, the Ashmolean experienced a phase in which "the public at large continued to enjoy the
museum"—rural folk, farmers, servants, river barge guides, scholars and nobility visited the museum, with a high number of visitors especially on town market days. The Ashmolean is also an example of the fact that women were expressly granted access at an early stage (MacGregor 2007: 64-65; MacGregor 2013-2015: 149-150, quotation from p. 149).
Another outstanding example of a collection open to broad, socially unlimited visitor groups— without an entrance fee—is the Kunstkamera of Peter I in St. Petersburg. After its collection had been moved to the Kikin Palais in 1718, this Kunstkamera was open to all visitors free of charge. This policy continued after Peter's demise and the inauguration of new premises housing the Kunstkamera in 1728. Natalya Kopaneva has recently pointed out that the museum could be visited daily and at any time if accompanied by the librarian. The popular-entertaining, politically-representative and Enlightenment educational goals strived for in st. Petersburg resulted in opening the museum to visitors from all classes during the early eighteenth century (Kopaneva 2018: 284; see also Kistemaker et al. 2005: 3; Collis 2012, 443; Keenan 2013: 29-30). Parallel to St. Petersburg, in the same period, interested parties could visit the Pietist Orphanage and its collections located nearby the Prussian city of Halle. Let us take a closer look at this case in order to find out how it fits into the larger picture sketched above.
THE ORPHANAGE'S PUBLIC PREMISES—"IN THE AFTERNOON, A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE"
Founded in 1695 in Glaucha, just south of Halle's city limits, the Francke Foundations comprised, in addition to orphanages for boys and girls, a system of schools for all social classes of the estate-based early modern society—from the orphans and the poor to the nobility, for both boys and girls. At the time, this institution as a whole was referred to as the "institutions" (Anstalten). Its main building was the Orphanage itself, constructed in the western part of the premises in 1698-1701.
Fig. 1. Front view of the Orphanage and its mansard roof, c.1724 (AFSt/B Sa 0017)
Fig. 2. View into the Cabinet of Artefacts and Natural Curiosities with the globe according to Tycho Brahe's system, created by Christoph Semler (AFSt/B C 0437)
The Foundations also included a Natural History Cabinet, founded in 1698, which was housed in a small room in the Orphanage's attic. A printed catalogue of the collection was soon published, c.1700-1701 (Müller-Bahlke 2012: 16-17; for the wider context, see Schock 2011). Starting from this nucleus, a diverse set of collections was built up in the following decades, including a botanical garden, an anatomical cabinet, collections of mathematical, optical and physical instruments, a "mechanical cabinet" (comprising an extensive collection of models intended for teaching with realia—object related tuition), an astronomical observatory, a laboratory, a camera obscura and several libraries. From 1720 on, four large-scale biblical models (depicting the Holy Land, the city of Jerusalem, Solomon's Temple and the tabernacle) were added. Moreover, two impressive world system globes (one geocentric, after Tycho Brahe; the other heliocentric)1 were commissioned to and created by the theologian, educator and model maker from Halle, Christoph Semler (Müller 1997; Hornemann and Veltmann 2013).
1 August Hermann Francke's diary includes the following entry dated 13 December 1725 (AFSt/H A 179: 1): "Mr. Semler's model looked at [...] [I] again inspected the heavenly spheres at Mr. M. Semler's [place]."
The Orphanage and its collections were opened to the public. This public viewing was organised by a system of "guiding" visitors (Herumführen), according to the source used (Müller-Bahlke 2012: 56-62; Stelter 2014: passim; Dolezel 2019: 191-193). In doing so, the Pietists followed the example of other collections (for a contemporary example, see the Zürcher Kunstkammer in der Wasserkirche, Rütsche 1997: 76) as well as the early modern tradition of opening castles to the public by castellans and overseers, where treasure chambers and collections attracted visitors (Volkel 2007: 52-56; for armouries, see Hermann 2007: 76-78).
This opening to the general public seems to have been practiced in Halle from the beginning and was apparently successful, perhaps even more so than anyone had imagined2. In 1704, the conference book of the institution's management reports that numerous complaints had been received, because visitors had to pay an entrance fee if they wished to see the natural history collection. Thus, not only was a large number of visitors observed very early on, but an entrance fee was also charged. The direction of the orphanage therefore considered to close the chamber to the public in phases, which should "not be shown to anyone for a while in the future" in order to calm down the situation. This process can also be interpreted in relation to the collection: visitors may have been disappointed with what was on offer and thus had a reason to complain. Temporary closures therefore may have served to improve the presentation of the objects, as this problem of arranging the objects had accompanied the collection from the start. The first catalog dating from the founding years, published in c.1700-1701, already points out that "no certain order could yet be observed" (Müller-Bahlke 2012: 17). Accordingly, in 1702 it was deemed necessary to "put the natural history chamber [Naturalien-Kammer] in order." In any case, in 1706, it was suggested to open the collection only at certain hours in order to regulate the demand from visitors. The guide responsible, Georg Christian Fabricius, had informed the Orphanage's management that leading the "strangers" around, as he phrased it, would cost him too much time. other entries going back to his statements clarify that the Orphanage could be visited daily and that the Natural History cabinet was particularly appealing to visitors, some of whom were only drawn to the latter attraction. Obviously, both the Orphanage and the Natural History cabinet were opened whenever visitors requested—at all times of the day and every day of the week. Sundays especially enjoyed great popularity (Stelter 2014: 52-53). A further indication of the interest in visiting both the Orphanage and the Natural History Cabinet is the following. As documented for early 1708, a supervisor of the cabinet was remunerated from the financial income generated by the cabinet. Its phrasing—he "should be salaried from the collecting box of the Naturalien-Cammer"—indicates that by now donations were invited rather than an entrance fee. Directly financing employees from the income generated was common in many European collections of the early modern period (MacGregor 2007: 65).
At any rate, by this time precautions were taken in order to regulate the access of guests. In the summer of 1710, the guide Adam Viebing (see Stelter 2014: 53) requested the Orphanage's management to "explain" how he "should take people around, whether he should only act in accordance to the 2 hours [noted] on the blackboard"—or not3. Hence, a plaque had been placed presumably near the Orphanage's entrance, on which the regular time slots were indicated for guided tours (either two hours at a time or twice a day at specific hours). Viebing's request and the uncertainty it conveyed suggests that visitors continued to turn up at other times and demanded to be shown around.
Showing people around the Foundations continued to be an issue for organising the internal process. Obviously, it was difficult to arrange guiding in such a way that it was regulated for those involved. In the spring of 1712, Viebing and the "Praeceptores" (tutors) even complained "about leading people around and wishing it could be set up in a good order which pleased God." That is, the discontent with guided tours increased among the staff of the Foundations—the irregularity irritated the guide and, apparently, the tutors felt disturbed while at work. Thus, it is not surprising that Viebing followed up on this later
2 The reference for the following is Konferenzbuch der Anstaltsleitung, vol. 1, entries dated 23 March 1702, 21 May 1704, 4 June 1706,
3 May 1707, 17 May 1707 and 11 January 1708 (AFSt/W V /-/ 13).
3 Konferenzbuch der Waisenhausleitung, vol. 2, entry dated 16 July 1710 (AFSt/W V /-/ 13).
Fig. 3. View of the entire premises of the Francke Foundations; the Orphanage, its main building,
to the left, c.1723 (AFSt/B Sd 0076)
in the summer of the same year when he requested if "it [would] not be better to show people around from 10 to 12 in the future, as otherwise one cannot finish [in time]4."
The apparently generous visiting opportunities as negotiated reveal how important the public presentation was to the Orphanage's management. The collection's popularity in the Orphanage was also used strategically in order to draw attention to the Lutheran mission in South India, established in 1706 with the Danish-Hallesche Mission in Tranquebar. For example, in 1712, Francke expressed concern about Indian natural specimens to be delivered via Copenhagen, which never arrived in Halle—not so much because of their natural history value but because of the symbolic loss. One could, Francke wrote to the Danish court, recommend the Royal Danish Missionary Work to "the foreign [visitors] who come daily to see" the natural history collection, "for no small support5." Furthermore, daily visitors to the Orphanage were all potential addressees for the propagation of the mission in order to acquire social, denominational and financial support. The impression rises that the associated advertising effect as to the mission was of more significance to Francke than the natural history value of the objects.
4 Konferenzbuch der Waisenhausleitung, vol. 2, entries dated 18 May 1712 and 27 July 1712 (AFSt/W V /-/ 13).
5 Letter from August Hermann Francke to [Johann Georg von Holstein], 16 December 1712 (AFSt/M 1 C 4: 59).
Fig. 4. Model of the Francke Foundations Orphanage, constructed in the winter of 1719-1720; detail of the mansard roof, with the room for the Natural History Cabinet in the foreground (AFSt/B M 0542)
Nevertheless, the "showing around" task was obviously exhausting. In 1721, the guide and supervisor of the collection Johann Albert Saft was threatened with dismissal if he did not, as was literally reported, lead visitors around "properly" and, as the corresponding entry in August Hermann Francke's diary expressly states, regardless of their social status. In addition, he should not let the visitors ring more than two, at most three times, before they were admitted to the Orphanage6. Evidently, a professional and visitor-friendly attitude already existed under August Hermann Francke's directorate in the early eighteenth century, obviously because the Orphanage's management realised the importance of guided tours for its public reputation.
Accordingly, the visitors' social diversity is noticeable at an early stage. The Natural History Cabinet and the Mechanical Chamber were presented to the Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm I in 1713 and 1721 as important evidence of divine providence, institutional prosperity and Pietist pedagogy. Francke embedded this diversity into the aristocratic horizon of experience, emphasizing the Cabinet's usefulness. As pointed out by Eva Dolezel (2018: 42), Francke presented Sturm's metaphor of the uneducated cow to the king when the latter visited the Natural History Cabinet under the Orphanage's roof in 1713: "The young noblemen would be introduced in such a way that if they would arrive elsewhere they would not look at things like a cow would look at a new gate" (Pietist und Preußenkönig 2012: 12). One may perhaps understand these words in a multidimensional way: not only noble students of the Royal Pädagogium were referred to here, but also other (young) noblemen, arriving at Halle in the course of intense communications within the Pietist network, who were shown around the Foundations (Grunewald 2020: 68-69).
The following year, however, the guide Saft reported that students, young noblemen, students of the Royal Pädagogium, innkeepers, soldiers, court gardeners, merchants, Jews and entire families had visited the collection. In summary, he wrote: "In the afternoon, a large number of people" visited the Orphanage7. Accordingly, Heinrich Zopf (another collection supervisor) noted in his 1724 diary: often more than 60 visitors arrived daily, overcrowding the rooms. This phenomenon was particularly the case during annual fairs, when people had time (Franckesche Stiftungen 1863: 222; Rosseaux 2007: 35-48). Here, too, supra-regional, European parallels can be identified. Key days in the rhythm of life of the
6 August Hermann Francke's diary, entry dated 31 March 1721 (AFSt/H A 175: 1).
7 Johann Albrecht Saft's report on visitors to the Foundations dated 23 December 1714 (AFSt/H C 841: 280); Johann Albrecht Saft's report on visitors to the Foundations dated 29 December 1714 (AFSt/A 167: 2u1).
Fig. 5. Profile of the temple model, north side (Semler 1718)
population at large, such as market days like in Oxford (MacGregor 2007: 65), were heydays to visit collections. On such occasions a demand for popular, commercial entertainment grew a competitive situation. In eighteenth-century Dresden, for example, portable wax figure cabinets, which entertained and provided historical information, were regularly shown against an admission fee (Rosseaux 2007: 191-197). As a special attraction, collections were popular.
The Pietists utilised these visitor highlights for their own goals, conveying biblical content, institutional history and providential messages to a wide audience by showing them around; presumably to compete with commercial entertainment offerings, too8. In the immediate vicinity of the Orphanage, two eight-day annual markets were held from 1710 on (previously, only one market took place each year) (Dreyhaupt 1750: 780). In any case, collection overseer Zopf noted in his (not surviving) diary that during
8 In 1700, university theologians and city chaplains managed to obtain a ban on comedians at the fairs. See (Spener 2006: 604). I thank Veronika Albrecht-Birkner for this reference.
Fig. 6. Model of the Francke Foundations Orphanage, constructed in the winter of 1719-1720; view into the dormitory of the orphan boys on the lower level of the mansard roof (AFSt/B M 0541)
this fair especially the Orphanage's four large-format biblical models attracted visitors9. These models functioned to didactically convey biblical-historical contents and God's honour in interaction with the public. Zopf used them for spiritual speeches and catechisations; often spiritual songs were intoned (Franckesche Stiftungen 1863: 222-223; Whitmer 2015: 60-85; Clausen 2018; Heiser 2018). To what extent visitors of these fairs felt drawn to the messages of God's providence and missionary work or to the care and education-related activities in the Pietist institution is another question. It remains open to what extent the demonstration and explanation of the contemporary impressive and fascinating models, aimed at edification and knowledge of the Bible, triggered the fear of God and piety. At least this form of presentation seems to have been promising in the long run. As to Dresden, such—commercial—demonstrations of biblical models in the Easter season have been proven for the end of the century (Rosseaux 2007: 197-198). Based on the Orphanage's model of Solomon's Temple, it should be emphasised that the large-format models placed in the Cabinet of Artefacts and Natural Curiosities enabled "the establishment of a cognitive topography of the Holy Land" as Christina Clausen (2018: 388) mentions. Ideally, attraction and instruction, i.e. education and edification coincided—as the large number of visitors indicates.
The Cabinet of Artefacts and Natural Curiosities (Kunst- und Naturalienkammer) that can now be viewed at the original location—the former dormitory of the orphan boys located on the lower level of the mansard roof—was installed and arranged between 1736 and 1741 by the natural scientist and artist Gottfried August Grundler under the direction of Francke's son, Gotthilf August Francke (Muller-Bahlke 2012). This new Cabinet was the first natural history collection in the Altes Reich (Old Regime) to be set up according to the system of Linnaeus and thus based on the cutting edge of scientific debates (Ruhland 2018; see also Uhlig 2016)10. Organised in order to reflect the macrocosm within the microcosm, this Cabinet was combined with specific collection goals arousing from the Orphanage's transatlantic activities, as especially visible in the Indian cabinet and the cabinet of Scripts (Link 2003; Rieke-Muller 2006; Leipold 2007; Dolezel 2007; Stelter 2018). The collection was designed as a place for knowledge and science as well as to serve as a dedicated showroom for Halle Pietism (Muller-Bahlke 1999: 231-235; Laube 2011: 348-349). The Cabinet of Artefacts and Natural Curiosities in Halle was designed as a Pietist museum to be visited by a large audience.
9 For an overview, see (Semler [1723]).
10 On the Herrnhuter movement's interweaving of mission and natural history, see (Ruhland 2018: 305-326).
Fig. 7. Front view of the Orphanage; men of various social strata, children and a woman look at the building; to the left, August Hermann Francke is presumably depicted ascending the two-flight staircase to the Orphanage; to the right, orphans are presumably portrayed in the background, c. 1730 (AFSt/B E 0037)
In daily guided tours the new Cabinet could be visited at 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. These tours, along with the motives for and intentions of the Cabinet, were regulated by the so-called "instruction" for guides of August 174111. The main purpose of the guided tours through the Foundations, the Orphanage and the Cabinet of Artefacts and Natural Curiosities were specified in Paragraph 1. Its key aim was not to satisfy the "curiosity of the people" but to honour God and provide visitors with insights into God's
11 See AFSt/W VII/ I / 20. The Francke Foundations are currently preparing a critical edition of the "Instruction".
providence: "To honour and confess to God by [looking at] his works, ways and truth12." In addition, visitors, or "the people" as this instruction states, should be given a proper understanding of the entire Foundations and its schools within a historical perspective—also to eliminate "some bitter praejudicia," that is, prejudices and critical attacks pertaining to the Foundations. This illustrates that the new Cabinet served as a museum in order to convey God's honour and the associated history of the Foundations, as well as to actively pursue strategies in order to act against hostile attacks and rumours among the public at large.
In addition, the "Instruction" formulated rules concerning situations with a view to status and gender. It remains to be seen if these were based on the experience of the guides, or if stereotypes were simply seized upon proactively: "With Standes Personen [i.e., noble persons] and women attention must be paid especially to their comfort, taste, tenderness, etc., so that they do not [...] hear too many things completely unknown to them, or unpleasant things, such as the skeleton, the embryos and the like, should not be made obligatory, etc.; instead, one should arrange everything as much as possible according to their taste and composure13." Therefore, objects on the basis of which guides were to convey messages should by no means be regarded as a fixed repertoire. Rather, they could and should be used in a flexible manner depending on the situation—the focus was on the message, not on the individual object.
This complex strategy of demonstrating, which also refers to the natural specimens, that can only be cursorily presented here, was developed in the "Instruction" and was sufficiently substantial to be able to work. One example hereof is instructive. In 1744, a Catholic prelate from Siena (Italy), while attending the University of Halle, also visited the Foundations and its Cabinet of Artefacts and Natural Curiosities. The Indian rarities were shown to him, i.e. objects of culture and nature originating from South India sent by missionaries, which in this case also served as objects of mission history and policy. In this instance, it was not only a matter of promoting the mission in India, but also to delimit it from the Jesuit mission. After inspecting the objects, the prelate emphasised that he was familiar with the Lutheran mission and added that the Halle missionaries' reports should be believed more than those produced by Jesuits. In general, the Catholic prelate hugely valued the Lutheran-Pietist Foundations14. Beyond reflecting anti-Jesuit stereotypes, a not surprising phenomenon in Halle at the time, this example also reveals how material culture and intentional display practice intertwined in order to create successful propaganda.
When viewed together, the varied collections acquired by the Foundations fulfilled several functions. Serving educational and didactic purposes, they enhanced knowledge as well as science. They aimed at promoting the reform ideas of Pietism and the early Enlightenment, generating financial support, conveying the history of the institution and defending its reputation in public. Moreover, they were explicitly used to propagate the Danish-Hallesche Mission in South India and gain support for this project. Through collections, divine providence was to be illustrated, and therefore visitors should be encouraged to participate in the building of the Kingdom of God on Earth (see Schunka 2019). In order to communicate these multiple aims, the Foundations and its collections were opened to a broad, socially unlimited public, both male and female.
"SO THAT PEOPLE DO NOT THINK WE SPEND SO MUCH MONEY ON SUCH THINGS, TO SHOW OFF"—A BRIEF LOOK BACK AHEAD
A European view from St. Petersburg to London, between the sixteenth and the eighteenth centuries, shows that the socially broad opening of collections in diverging circumstances was apparently common
12 Instruction August 1741, § 1: "Gott über seinen Werken, Wegen und Wahrheit zu ehren und zu bekennen" (AFSt/W VII/ I / 20).
13 Instruction August 1741, § 12: "Bey Standes Personen [d.h. Adligen] und Frauen Zimmer[n] ist besonders auf ihre Bequemlichkeit, Belieben, Zärtlichkeit etc. gehörig zu sehen, damit sie nicht [...] zu vielerley ihnen gantz unbekannte, etwa auch nicht angenehme Dinge hören, daß scelet, die embryones und dergleichen Dinge anzusehen, nicht gleichsam obligiret werden etc., sondern daß man sich hierin so viel möglich nach ihren goût und faßung einrichte" (AFSt/W VII/ I / 20).
14 Supplenda bey der Relation 1744, between pp. 22 and 23 (AFSt/M 3 M 2:2).
practice before being raised to a desirable standard during the last third of the eighteenth century. This openness varied from case to case in terms of temporal regularity and of social scope, as international research increasingly emphasizes. The case of the Francke Foundations in Halle underlines this assessment in an impressive manner. Here a variety of collections was established on the basis of which a universal Cabinet of Artefacts and Natural Curiosities within the macrocosm-microcosm model was founded. The motives and purposes pursued in the sense of a Pietist worldview were heterogeneous: God's honour, a Pietist pedagogy, calling attention to the Foundations and defense against prejudices circulating amidst the wider public, promoting science in an interdisciplinary understanding and the establishment of an object-based and image-based historical narrative (Zaunstock 2020). The directors of the Orphanage were keen to include the Cabinet in their providential worldview, with which they justified and legitimised the Foundations. The Cabinet functioned as a prominent and, in the literal sense of the word, impressive tool to set in motion and popularise the constant transmission of their Foundations' history by utilising a carefully-crafted arrangement of objects. At the same time, an object-based offer for the identification with and thus inclusion in the world of Halle Pietism was submitted (Lichtenstein 2013: 379). Hence, in 1741, Gotthilf August Francke noted in the instructions to guides: "The small beginning and the purpose [...] must not be forgotten here, so that people do not think [we] spend so much money on such things, in order to show off15."
The collections of the Francke Foundations in Halle and their associated intentions illustrate the motive of reaching a socially wide and numerous audience in the service of divine providence and the global work pertaining to the Kingdom of God as well as paedagogical and scientific purposes— even if this could quickly become a burden in the everyday life of guides. It will have to be discussed to what extent the Cabinet of the Halle Orphanage was an exception among early modern collections (Rieke-Mtiller 2006: 55). This exchange of views also aims at the question of the degree to which such collector intentions (across denominations) reveal a link between pious or missionary practices and the expansion of public audiences elsewhere. The functional connection between the culture of material collections, the staging of a narrative (or several narratives), and the impact on an audience becomes visible as a basic mechanism that could be loaded with content depending on the intention. The medium of collections attracted people of the pre-modern world in a way that can hardly be overestimated. This appeal encouraged attempts to open collections to a large audience (compare MacGregor 2007: 66-69). Their aristocratic and bourgeois owners used this appeal to pursue a wide variety of goals when opening their collections. The intentions of collectors were staged by means of arrangements, concretely directed through the materiality of the objects and conveyed by guides—or, of course, the collector himself. Collections were media in which object-based narratives could transmit messages to broad audiences.
However, this mechanism did not establish a linear history of growth of the museum public (see also Dietz 2011: 192-193). Rather, it was dealt with in a flexible and contextual manner. For example: Teyler's Museum in Haarlem was in principle opened to the public in 1785, but this accessibility was used in a select manner: local visitors could visit the museum for two hours on Tuesdays and travellers or visitors to the city were allowed access for one hour each day, except on Sundays (Weiss 2013; van Druten 2020). The Herrnhuter collection in Barby, on the other hand, was "open to the public under certain conditions" between 1770 and 1790 (Ruhland 2018: 317). Although the Kunstkammer in Bern, connected to the library, had regular opening hours since the end of the seventeenth century, accessing it was complicated due to various hurdles: (high) entrance fees, donations, a minimum age of 25, no women. At the end of the eighteenth century, "honest" strangers were allowed to enter free of charge whereas local visitors continued to pay entrance fees. In her research, Susanne Ritter-Lutz emphasised that sources on the Bern Art Chamber deliver contradicting statements with regard to its public accessibility (Ritter-Lutz 2007: 51-56).
15 Instruction August 1741, § 18 (AFSt/W VII/ I / 20).
Current research has increasingly made clear that histories oriented on modern museums are unable to adequately capture the public character of early modern collections. Instead, it is again advisable to emphasize the temporal, spatial and intentional diversity within the collection culture of the early modern period. Early modern collections including their multi-layered messages were an essential part of the eminently public character of early modern times. It is highly desirable to found a European project, based on the methods of the Digital Humanities, with networks and ramifications in the non-European world, to study the diversity of motifs, forms and practices of accessibility and didactic communication strategies as well as social differentiations according to class, education, gender and nationality.
REFERENCES
Archiv der Franckeschen Stiftungen zu Halle (AFSt).
Beßler G. Vormoderne städtische Sammlungen: Erinnerung und Identifikation // Joachim J. Halbekann, Ellen Widder and Sabine von Heusinger (eds.), Stadt zwischen Erinnerungsbewahrung und Gedächtnisverlust. Ostfildern, 2015 (Stadt in der Geschichte 39). P. 301-332.
Brigham D. R. Public Culture in the Early Republic: Peale's Museum and Its Audience. Washington/London, 1995.
Clausen C. Eine 'lebhafte Idee' vom Glauben. Die Verwendung von Architekturmodellen für die religiöse Erziehung im frühen 18. Jahrhundert // Eva Dolezel, Rainer Godel, Andreas Pecar and Holger Zaunstöck (eds.), Ordnen—Vernetzen—Vermitteln. Kunst- und Naturalienkammern der Frühen Neuzeit als Lehr- und Lernorte. Halle, 2018 (Acta Historica Leopoldina 70). P. 381-413.
Collis R. The Petrine Restauration: Religion, Esotericism and Science at the Court of Peter the Great, 16891725. Leiden/Boston, 2012 (Aries Book Series. Texts and Studies in Western Esotericism 14).
DietzB. Die Ästhetik der Naturgeschichte. Das Sammeln von Muscheln im Paris des 18. Jahrhunderts // Robert Felfe and Kirsten Wagner (eds.). Museum, Bibliothek, Stadtraum. Kontingenz und Kontrolle in räumlichen Wissensordnungen 1600-1800. Berlin, 2011. P. 191-205.
Dolezel E. Inszenierte Objekte. Der Indienschrank in der Kunst- und Naturalienkammer der Franckeschen Stiftungen zu Halle // Fremde Dinge. Zeitschrift für Kulturwissenschaften 1. 2007. P. 31-40.
Dolezel E. Das 'vollständige Raritätenhaus' des Leonhard Christoph Sturm. Ein Modell für die Museologie des 18. Jahrhunderts // In: Eva Dolezel, Rainer Godel, Andreas Pecar and Holger Zaunstöck (eds.) Ordnen—Vernetzen— Vermitteln. Kunst- und Naturalienkammern der Frühen Neuzeit als Lehr- und Lernorte. Halle, 2018 (Acta Historica Leopoldina 70). P. 21-47.
Dolezel E. Der Traum vom Museum. Die Kunstkammer im Berliner Schloss um 1800—eine museumsgeschichtliche Verortung. Berlin, 2019.
Dreyhaupt J. C. von. Pagvs Neletici Et Nvdzici, Oder Ausführliche diplomatisch-historische Beschreibung des zum ehemaligen Primat und Ertz-Stifft, nunmehr aber durch den westphälischen [...] : / Aus Actis publicis ... zusammen getragen, Mit vielen ungedruckten Documenten ... mit Kupferstichen und Abrißen ... und mit ... Registern
versehen von Johann Christoph von Dreyhaupt, Königl. Preuß. Geheimen- ... und Domainen-Rath.....Halle, 1750,
Zweyter Theil.
Druten T. van. Collecting and displaying art in Teyler's Museum, 1778-1885: The usefulness of drawings, prints and contemporary paintings, and the development of public access // Ellinoor S. Bergvelt and Debora J. Meijers (eds.). Teyler's Foundation in Haarlem and its 'Book and Art Room' of 1779: A Key Moment in the History of a Learned Institution. Leiden/Boston, 2020 (Scientific and Learned Cultures and Their Institutions 29), forthcoming.
FindlenP. Possesing Nature: Museums, Collecting, and Scientific Culture in Early Modern Italy. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London, 1994 (Studies on the History of Society and Culture 20).
Forbes R. J., Lefebvre E. and Bruijn G. J. de (eds.). Martinus van Marum: Life and Work. 6 vols. Haarlem, 1969-1976. Vol. 2, 1970.
Friedrich M. The Birth of the Archive: A History of Knowledge. Translated by John Noël Dillon. Ann Arbor, 2018 (Cultures of knowledge in the early modern world).
Grunewald T. Politik für das Reich Gottes? Der Reichsgraf Christian Ernst zu Stolberg-Wernigerode zwischen Pietismus, adligem Selbstverständnis und europäischer Politik. Halle, 2020 (Hallesche Forschungen 58).
Heiser S. Arbeit am Modell. Architekturmodelle in Kunstkammern der Frühen Neuzeit. Gebrauch, Erfreuung und Belehrung // Thomas Eißing, Meinrad von Engelberg, Sabine Heiser, Johannes Süßmann and Holger Zaunstöck (eds.). "Modell" Waisenhaus? Perspektiven auf die Architektur von Franckes Schulstadt. Halle, 2018 (Kleine Schriftenreihe der Franckeschen Stiftungen 17). P. 135-167.
Hermann C. Die 'Antiquarischen Seltenheiten' im Luzerner Zeughaus—eine museale Präsentation des 18. Jahrhunderts // Benno Schubiger (ed.). Sammeln und Sammlungen im 18. Jahrhundert in der Schweiz/Collections et pratiques de la collection en Suisse au XViiie siècle. Genf, 2007 (Travaux sur la Suisse des Lumières 10). P. 67-90.
Historisches Museum Basel. Bürgerliche Sammler und Sammlungen in Basel. Buchkonzept: Sabine Söll-Tauchert. Basel, 2011.
Hornemann D. and Claus V. 'Zur Erziehung der Jugend'. Die Naturalienkammer August Hermann Franckes in der Tradition der frühneuzeitlichen Sammlungs- und Bildungskultur // Holger Zaunstöck, Thomas Müller-Bahlke and Claus Veltmann (eds.). Die Welt verändern. August Hermann Francke—ein Lebenswerk um 1700. Ausstellungskatalog. Halle, 2013 (Kataloge der Franckeschen Stiftungen 29). P. 129-143.
Impey O. R. andMacGregor A. (eds.). The Origins of Museums: The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Europe. London, 2001.
Keenan P. St. Petersburg and the Russian Court, 1703-1761. Basingstoke/New York, 2013.
Kistemaker R. E., Kopaneva N. P., Meijers D. J. and Vilinbakhov G. V. (eds.). The Paper Museum of the Academy of Sciences in St. Petersburg c. 1725-1760. introduction and interpretation. Amsterdam, 2005.
Kopaneva N. Die Kunstkammer Peters des Großen und die Akademie der Wissenschaften St. Petersburg. Das Museum und die Entstehung der modernen Wissenschaften (1714-1747) // Eva Dolezel, Rainer Godel, Andreas Pecar and Holger Zaunstöck (eds.). Ordnen—Vernetzen—Vermitteln. Kunst- und Naturalienkammern der Frühen Neuzeit als Lehr- und Lernorte. Halle, 2018 (Acta Historica Leopoldina 70). P. 283-296.
Laube S. Von der Reliquie zum Ding. Heiliger Ort—Wunderkammer—Museum. Berlin, 2011.
Leipold A. (ed.). Vishnus Weltentraum. Geheimnisse des indienschrankes in der Kunst- und Naturalienkammer der Franckeschen Stiftungen. Halle, 2007 (Kleine Schriftenreihe der Franckeschen Stiftungen 7).
Lichtenstein E. K. identities through Things: A Comment // Paula Findlen (ed.). Early Modern Things: Objects and their Histories, 1500-1800. London/New York, 2013. P. 375-380.
Linnebach A. Das Museum der Aufklärung und sein Publikum—'Raritätenkram für jeden Narren'? Zum Besucherbuch von Kunsthaus und Museum Fridericianum in Kassel // Frauke Berndt and Daniel Fulda (eds.). Die Sachen der Aufklärung. Hamburg, 2012 (Studien zum 18. Jahrhundert 34). P. 479-489.
Linnebach A. Das Museum der Aufklärung und sein Publikum. Kunsthaus und Museum Fridericianum in Kassel im Kontext des historischen Besucherbuches (1769-1796). Kassel, 2014 (Kasseler Beiträge zur Geschichte und Landeskunde 3).
Link H. Der Schriftenschrank als Hort wundersamer Schriften und Endstation langer Überlieferungswege— Schlaglichter auf die Geschichte eines pietistischen Waisenhauses // Heike Link and Thomas Müller-Bahlke (eds.). Zeichen und Wunder. Geheimnisse des Schriftenschranks in der Kunst- und Naturalienkammer der Franckeschen Stiftungen. Kulturhistorische und philologische Untersuchungen. Halle, 2003 (Kleine Schriftenreihe der Franckeschen Stiftungen 4). P. 15-37.
MacGregor A. Curiosity and Enlightenment: Collectors and Collections from the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Century. New Haven/London, 2007.
MacGregor A. A University Museum, Past and Present: inventing (and Re-inventing) the Ashmolean Museum at the University of Oxford // Jahrbuch für Europäische Wissenschaftskultur —Yearbook for European Culture of Science 8 (2013-2015). Gastherausgeber / Guest Editors Dominik Collet, Marian Füssel and Roy MacLeod. Special issue "Fokus/Focus: The University of Things. Theory—History—Practice." P. 145-159.
Müller T. J. Der Realienunterricht in den Schulen August Hermann Franckes // Schulen machen Geschichte. 300 Jahre Erziehung in den Franckeschen Stiftungen zu Halle (Saale). Halle, 1997 (Kataloge der Franckeschen Stiftungen 4). P. 43-65.
Müller-Bahlke T. Die Einzigartigkeit der Kunst- und Naturalienkammer in den Franckeschen Stiftungen // Ulrich Troitzsch (ed.). "Nützliche Künste." Kultur- und Sozialgesichte der Technik im 18. Jahrhundert. Münster/New York/ München. Berlin, 1999 (Cottbuser Studien zur Geschichte von Technik, Arbeit und Umwelt 13). P. 219-238.
Müller-Bahlke T. Die Wunderkammer der Franckeschen Stiftungen. 2nd revised and extended ed. Halle,
2012.
Olmi G. Die Sammlung—Nutzbarmachung und Funktion // Andreas Grote (ed.). Macrocosmos in Microcosmos. Die Welt in der Stube. Zur Geschichte des Sammelns 1450 bis 1800. Opladen, 1994. P. 169-189.
Paul C. (ed.). The First Modern Museums of Art: The Birth of an institution in 18th- and Early-19th-Century Europe. Los Angeles, 2012.
Pietist und Preußenkönig—Ein Dialog aus dem Jahr 1713. 2nd ed. Halle, 2012 (Kleine Texte der Franckeschen Stiftungen 10).
Ritter-Lutz S. Die Bernische Kunstkammer im 18. Jahrhundert // Benno Schubiger (ed.). Sammeln und Sammlungen im 18. Jahrhundert in der Schweiz / Collections et pratiques de la collection en Suisse au XVIIIe siècle. Genf, 2007 (Travaux sur la Suisse des Lumières 10). P. 47-66.
Rosseaux U. Freiräume. Unterhaltung, Vergnügen und Erholung in Dresden (1694-1830). Köln/Weimar/Wien, 2007 (Norm und Struktur 27).
Rütsche C. Kunstkammer in der Zürcher Wasserkirche. Öffentliche Sammeltätigkeit einer gelehrten Bürgerschaft im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert aus museumsgeschichtlicher Sicht. Bern, 1997.
Ruhland T. Objekt, Parergon, Paratext. Das Linné'sche System in der ,Naturalia'-Abteilung der Kunst- und Naturalienkammer der Franckeschen Stiftungen // Kristin Knebel, Cornelia Ortlieb and Gudrun Püschel (eds.). Steine rahmen, Tiere taxieren, Dinge inszenieren. Sammlung und Beiwerk. Dresden, 2018 (Parerga und Paratexte 1). P. 72-105.
Ruhland T. Pietistische Konkurrenz und Naturgeschichte. Die Südasienmission der Herrnhuter Brüdergemeine und die Dänisch-Englisch-Hallesche Mission (1755-1802). Herrnhut, 2018 (Beiheft von Unitas Fratrum 31).
Rieke-Müller A. Die außereuropäische Welt und die Ordnung der Dinge in Kunst- und Naturalienkammern des 18. Jahrhunderts—Das Beispiel der Naturalienkammer der Franckeschen Stiftungen in Halle // Hans-Jürgen Lüsebrink (ed.), Das Europa der Aufklärung und die außereuropäische koloniale Welt. Göttingen, 2006 (Das achtzehnte Jahrhundert Supplementa 11). P. 51-73.
Savoy B. (ed.), Tempel der Kunst. Die Geburt des öffentlichen Museums in Deutschland 1701-1815. Mainz,
2006.
Savoy B. Zum Öffentlichkeitscharakter deutscher Museen im 18. Jahrhundert // Bénédicte Savoy (ed.). Tempel der Kunst. Die Geburt des öffentlichen Museums in Deutschland 1701-1815. Mainz, 2006. P. 9-23.
Schock F. Die Text-Kunstkammer. Populäre Wissenssammlungen des Barock am Beispiel der "Relationes Curiosae" von E. W. Happel. Köln, 2001 (Archiv für Kulturgeschichte. Beihefte zum Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 68).
SchunkaA. Ein neuer Blick nach Westen. Deutsche Protestanten und Großbritannien, 1688—1740. Wiesbaden, 2019 (Jabloniana 10).
[Semler C. ]. Der Tempel Salomonis. Nach allen seinen Vorhöfen, Mauren, Thoren, Hallen, Heiligen Gefässen, ... nebst allen und jeden in folgender Beschreibung und beygefügten Kupferstücken enthaltenen Theilen desselben, in einem eigentlichen Modell und materiellen Fürstellung, in dem Wäysen-Hause zu Glaucha an Halle, zu Erläuterung sehr vieler Oerter der Heiligen Schrift Anno MDCCXVII. aufgerichtet. Halle, 1718.
Semler C. Eigentliches Modell und materielle Figur I. Der Stifts-Hütte Mosis, II. Des Tempels Salomonis, III. Der Stadt Jerusalem, und IV. Des gelobten Landes. In dem Wäysen-Hause zu Glaucha an Halle Zu Erläuterung sehr vieler Oerter Heiliger Schrift aufgerichtet. Halle, [1723].
Siemer S. Geselligkeit und Methode. Naturgeschichtliches Sammeln im 18. Jahrhundert. Mainz, 2004 (Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Mainz. Abteilung für Universalgeschichte 192).
Sliggers B. How to Collect Minerals, Rocks and Fossils for a Museum: The International Networks of Martinus van Marum (1750-1837) // Ellinoor S. Bergvelt and Debora J. Meijers (eds.). Teyler's Foundation in Haarlem and its 'Book and Art Room' of 1779: A Key Moment in the History of a Learned Institution. Leiden/Boston, 2020 (Scientific and Learned Cultures and Their Institutions 29), forthcoming.
Spary E. C. The Naturalist Collecting Community in Paris, 1760-1789: A Preliminary Survey // Eva Dolezel, Rainer Godel, Andreas Pecar and Holger Zaunstöck (eds.). Ordnen—Vernetzen—Vermitteln. Kunst- und Naturalienkammern der Frühen Neuzeit als Lehr- und Lernorte. Halle, 2018 (Acta Historica Leopoldina 70). P. 297-322.
Spener P. J. Briefwechsel mit August Hermann Francke 1689-1704. Herausgegeben von Johannes Wallmann und Udo Sträter in Zusammenarbeit mit Veronika Albrecht-Birkner. Tübingen, 2006.
Stelter M. Zusammentragen von Wissen—Naturgeschichtliches Sammeln als geteilte Handlung am Beispiel der Kunst- und Naturalienkammer der Glauchaschen Anstalten. Master thesis. Potsdam, 2014.
StelterM. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen des Erwerbs und der Vermittlung von Wissen durch Schenkungen // Eva Dolezel, Rainer Godel, Andreas Pecar and Holger Zaunstöck (eds.). Ordnen—Vernetzen—Vermitteln. Kunst-und Naturalienkammern der Frühen Neuzeit als Lehr- und Lernorte. Halle, 2018 (Acta Historica Leopoldina 70). P. 179-204.
Die Stiftungen August Hermann Francke's in Halle. Festschrift zur zweiten Säcularfeier seines Geburtstages. Halle, 1863.
Uhlig I. Ordnung des Lebendigen. Naturgeschichtliche Malereien im Kabinett der Franckeschen Stiftungen zu Halle // John McCarthy, Stephani M. Hilger, Heather I. Sullivan and Nicholas Saul (eds.). The Early History of Embodied Cognition 1740-1920: The Lebenskraft-Debate and Radical Reality in German Science, Music and Literature. Leiden/Boston, 2016. P. 75-97.
VölkelM. Schloßbesichtigungen in der Frühen Neuzeit. Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach der Öffentlichkeit höfischer Repräsentation. München/Berlin, 2007.
Wagner B. Zwischen Weltaneignung, Neugier und Kommerz. Stadtbürgerliche (Kunst-)Sammlungen im 16. Jahrhundert // Jochen Sander (ed.). Die Welt im BILDnis. Porträts, Sammler und Sammlungen in Frankfurt von der Renaissance bis zur Aufklärung. Petersberg, 2020. P. 23-31.
Whitmer K. J. The Halle Orphanage as Scientific Community: Observation, Eclecticism, and Pietism in the Early Enlightenment. Chicago, 2015.
Whitmer K. J. Imagining Uses for Things: Teaching 'Useful Knowledge' in the Early Eighteenth Century // History of Science 57. 2017. P. 37-60.
WeissM. P. M. The Masses and the Muses: A History of Teylers Museum in the Nineteenth Century. PhD thesis University of Leiden, 2013.
ZaunstöckH. 'Seit Jahrzehnten tot und der Vergessenheit anheimgefallen'? Überlieferungsbedingungen für die Kunst- und Naturalienkammer in der Schulstadt Franckesche Stiftungen // Jan Brademann, Gerrit Deutschländer and Matthias Meinhardt (eds.), Sammeln und Zerstreuen. Bedingungen historischer Überlieferung in SachsenAnhalt. Halle, 2020 (Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte Sachsen-Anhalts 21). P. 171-206.
МУЗЕЙНЫЕ АУДИТОРИИ В РАННЕЕ НОВОЕ ВРЕМЯ — ПОСЕТИТЕЛИ ПРИЮТА ДЛЯ СИРОТ В ГАЛЛЕ И ЕГО КОЛЛЕКЦИЙ
АННОТАЦИЯ. В последнее время наблюдается рост интереса исследователей к социальному аспекту коллекционирования в раннее Новое время. Одним из ключевых вопросов истории музеев является проблема их доступности. До сих пор предполагалось, что вход в музеи был привилегией, доступной лишь небольшому числу избранных. Основанные при дворах кунсткамеры и хранившиеся в частных домах коллекции по естественной истории часто имели строгие ограничения, связанные как с социальным статусом и образованием посетителей, так и с часами работы. Некоторые коллекции демонстрировались только гостям с высоким социальным или политическим положением. Тем не менее, как показали недавние исследования частных случаев, имевших место по всей Европе между XVI и XVIII вв., одновременно с этими хорошо известными практиками ограничения посещений некоторые коллекции были открыты для разнообразной публики. Этот вывод влечет за собой важнейший вопрос: открывали ли владельцы ценных коллекций доступ к ним широкому социальному кругу аудиторий, в том числе низшим классам и женщинам? Настоящая работа рассматривает этот вопрос через анализ практики проведения экскурсий для посетителей Приюта для сирот в Галле и его коллекций в первой половине XVIII в. Наблюдения автора основаны на архивных материалах и рассматриваются в более широком исследовательском контексте.
КЛЮЧЕВЫЕ СЛОВА: кунсткамера, приют для сирот, музейные коллекции раннего Нового времени, посетители музеев
ЦАУНШТЕК ХОЛЬГЕР—доктор, профессор, руководитель научных исследований, Социальные учреждения франке (Franckesche Stiftungen) (Галле, Германия) E-mail: zaunstoeck@francke-halle.de
