Copenhagen workshop on collection and natural history in the 18th century
Excuse English
Thank for invitation
Briefing –open ended
I thought I start with a brief presentation of the two projects I am working, because both of them
will relate to what I will be talking about here.
My first project is as part of a bigger research team, working on the history of Eurasian trade in the
17th and 18th century. The project is called “Trading Eurasia – Europe´s Asian Centuries” and is
located at Univeristy of Warwick. Maxine in Berg is in charge of it. I am particularly interested in the
market for Chinese tea and Chinese silk in Europe, and how Europea fashion influenced the colour
schemes of the silk. This has also got me thinking aobut the public sales of east india goods, how
goods were assembled into lots, in the case of the silk offering a variety of colours to the buyers.
My second project, and the main reason for being here, is entitled "Social Mobility and the Mobility
of Science – Swedish naturalists in London 1760-1810", it is locate at the Center for the History of
Science, at the Royal Academy of Science, in Stockholm. In this work I study Swedish naturalists
working in London, as a way to understand how Linnaean taxonomy knowledge moved. This include
studying the role of the naturalists emigrant Daniel Solander, who lived in London between 1760 and
1782, and made a living as a form of naturalist oracle, one who could identify species the new
Linnaean way instantly.
But the movement of persons, and embodied knowledge between Sweden and Britain, also had a
material dimension maybe best illustrate by arrival of the natural history collection of Carolus
Linnaeus in London in 1784. The collection constituted the material foundation on which basis
Linnaeus had developed his taxonomic innovation, most importantly the binominal nomenclature
for naming species. With its great number of holotypes the collection (today hosted by the Linnaean
Society of London) has continued to be a central reference point to scientists.
One of the richest of its time, the accumulation of the specimen that made up the collection marks
the role Linnaeus and Uppsala played for a few decades in the middle of the 18th century, as a
natural history hub in the Republic of Letter, made up of a multinational European community of
scholars and travellers who had visited every part of the known globe.
One of the arguments in the project is that the journey of the collection across the North Sea in
illustrates the growing gravity of (British) imperialism on the subject of natural history. London was
on the road of becoming the natural history capital of the world; the final destination of not only
vast amounts of dried plants, stones and bottled animals gathered globally, but also the new host of
old collections, many of them from North West Europe.
And this is a strand I am planning to explore further, looking at the role of Linnaean naturalists doing
inventories of continental collections on behalf of British patrons.
There is for example the collection of George Clifford, Linnaeus patron and employer during the
Linnaeus’ stay in Holland, which was bought on behalf of Joseph Banks, and where Banks was
assisted by his Swedish naturalists friends and employee in evaluating the collection. Reading the
correspondence relating to this purchase, what I find very interesting is the significance attached to
this collection by Banks and his assistances, due to its connection to Linnaeus. Some of Linnaeus
descriptions of species were based on material from this collection and this is also why Banks
wanted to buy it. To me it suggests a very clear understanding of how natural history was
developing, about the role of holotypes, about preserving the history of natural history by collecting
collections.
In general we can think about it from the point of view of Alix Cooper’s argument that Linnaeus
changed European natural history from a patch work of regional specialist, a sort of horizontal
structure, to a hierarchical way of doing natural history, with an increasing role attached to centres.
We can understand the concentration in London a response to this, although it is ironic that
Linnaeus collection became displaced and moved as a consequence of his own teaching and
scholarship.
Linnaeus collection and how it was handled in London, was probably quite unique, it became the
object of the Linnaean society, kept by the owner John Edward Smith, some objects left the
collection but otherwise it was kept intact. This in contrast to other collections which was more
forcefully integrated into the existing collections of London.
The work of Daniel Solander is an illustrative example here, he spent much of his time re-organising
the collections of the British Museum, the foundation which had been laid by Hans Sloane, who
belonged to an pre-Linnaean generation of British naturalists.
Solander’s restructuring of the collections was aided by an the creation of an index card catalogue
for the collection. According to the annuals of the British Museum this catalogue was only bounded
into volume once Solander finished his work, although I am not sure if it meant once Solander had
passed away. The use of flexible open-ended systems for organising collections is something
characteristic of Linnaean natural history. Linnaeus himself for example stored his herbarium sheets
in specially designed cabinet, the shelves of which could be moved to accommodate expanding
genera. The tradition was otherwise to bind herbarium sheets into volumes, and storing them like
books.
Another example of how the work of Swedish naturalists organising collections in London were
coloured by their Linnaean background is Jonas Dryander. Joseph Banks secretary and librarian, who
took over many of Solander’s assignments, once he passed away in 1782. Dryander was instrumental
in writing a catalogue of the natural history books of Joseph Banks. This four volume Catalogue draw
on Linnaean taxonomy in how it was structured, in the section on botany for example the
publications are organised in a way the mirrors the sexual system, Linnaeus system of 24 classes of
plants, distinguished by features of the sexual reproduction of the plants.
In other words, the work of the Linnaean students involved creating a history of Linnaean natural
history by collecting and re-structuring old collections, creating more open-ended systems for
storing and cataloguing but also fixing Linnaean taxonomic structures to the order of other things,
such as libraries and books.
This might not come as a surprise, in a sense, it is how we probably imagine scientific shifts taking
place, that they are expressed in storing and displaying techniques.
Not everything was about integrating and building up. Among the collection the Linnaean students
in London worked on, one had a different trajectory. This was the Portland collection.
The Portland Collecting was a collection owned by Margaret Cavendish Duchess of Portland. It was a
gigantic collection, containing not only natural history objects but art and historical artefacts. When
it was sold it took 9 days only to auction the natural history section of it, almost a month for the
whole collection.
Why I have taken an interest in this collection is because Portland hired Solander to categorise and
identify her natural history specimens. I don’t know yet very much about how this work was carried
out. We know that Solander was experienced doing this type of work, next to the collections of the
British Museum he had also assisted Linnaeus in describing collections belonging to members of the
royal house in Sweden, and others belonging to high ranking aristocrats. There might be scope in my
research for exploring the role of Solander as a sort of exclusive curator of natural history, the
natural history curator of celebrities, rich and famous people’s collctions, as well as prominent state
collections such as that of the British Museum.
Solander’s name is also mentioned in the preface to the Sales Catalogue as the naturalists, who had
been employed to describe and order the collection, although his premature death as well as the
death of the Duchess had left the work incomplete.
The preface is very interesting from several points of view. It illustrate the importance of
provenance, saying that all objects for sale were connected to the Duchess.
It also tries to indicate the vastness of the collection. And particularly its collection of shells, saying
that “no Collection in Europe can equal that of her Grace’s in Number and Variety. To give some Idea
of its great Extent, it may be remarked, that the celebrated Linnaeus, who had studied the subject,
and methodized the materials of it, has not describe One Fourth Part of the Objects contained in the
Museum now offered to the Public.”
What is maybe most interesting is the tension between the commercial and scientific dimension of
the collection and how it is sold off in lots containing a variety of things.
I think I best quote a longer section of the preface to illustrate this, I think it is a very good example, I
am reading out what I have put on the slide.
Now the preface is written by John Lightfoot, who was a British naturalist, and he says the following:
“Some Persons, perhaps, may object to the Promiscuous Assemblage (Åsämbläsch) of the various
Subjects here exhibited, and be ready to wish that they had been allotted in Order and Method,
according to Genus and Species, and it must be confessed, that such a Proceeding would have
proved extremely satisfactory to every true lover of Science. Such would have been highly pleased to
have seen each article named, and stand in its proper Place. But however desirable such an
Attainment might have been to a few Cognoscenti, (well informed people) it is very certain that the
Majority of the World are not Methodists. They love Variety more than Order, and would rather
purchase Twenty different Species of Cones [my note sea snail genus] or Turbos [my note shell] in
One Lot, than the same Number of High Admirals [shell] or Wentletraps [type of sea snail].
Yet to gratify every Palate, Care has been take, as much as possible, to keep the Grand Classes, and
often Genera together; at least as far as Respect to Seize, Rarity, or Beauty, would allow. And in this
Disposition, there are very few Subjects but will occur again, and again; so that almost every Person
desirous of becoming a Purchaser, maybe have an Opportunity of supplying his Wants. Whereas, in a
methodical Arrangement, it must of Necessity have frequently happened, either that a Multitude of
the same Species must be sold together in One Lot, (which very few would chose to purchase) or
each Individual of that Species, must be disposed of singly, or in Pairs; which would have multiplied
the Number of Lots to such Degree as would extend the Sale to as many Weeks, as it consists at
present Days.
It is hoped however, that the Man of Science will not be altogether disappointed in the present
Arrangement of the Catalogue; for as much Pains and Care have been taken to affix the proper
classical, or generally received Names, to as many Articles as the Time and Abilities of the Compiler
would allow; it will be no great Trouble for him to cast his Eye over each Day's Sale, as it occurs, and
he will hardly fail to meet in one or more of them, with the Subjects he desires.
There are several aspect we can unpick here, one general one is that collections are assembled and
built and extended, but they are also sold off, disintegrated, and atomised, and we might want to be
careful about using existing present collections exclusively to say things about 18th century
collections. There are a lot of lost collections too, the history of which we need to take into account.
Secondly, the quote indicate the tensions between the commercial and scientific expressed in how
lots were assembled. A more scientific way of selling off a collection would be to keep genera or
species intact, or to sell each object singularly, but the majority of the public did not want to buy
such lots, instead they wanted “variety” in each lot Lightfoot argues.
Now, I think there is scope to expand on this, and think about differences and similarities between
the British market for natural history objects and natural history collections compared with the
Scandinavian market. As I already said, there is a sense in which the British purchase continental
collections, to archive, as building blocks in an integrated global natural history, something that
indicate their growing awareness of natural history as a subject with a history. But, the auctionining
away of the Portland collection also indicate the role of the consumption of natural history, of a
middle class market for natural history objects, at least objects with a provenance and I think it is
worth pondering over what the absence of a Scandinavian middle class meant to the buying and
selling of natural history collection in the Nordic countries in the 18th century.