A defining feature of any collection, whether it be of curiosities, natural specimens, art works, or other objects, is the presence of an underlying system of thought — an episteme — that shapes the way in which a collection grows and evolves. Differences in these epistemes can vary widely across the centuries, and the present paper will discuss the differences between two genres of cabinets: the Wunderkammern, or “cabinet of wonders”, of the 16th century during the Renaissance; and the “cabinets of natural history” from the 17th and 18th century, as described by the great Enlightenment thinker Denis Diderot. Both of these cabinets aim to present a version of the world, a microcosm. However, the differences in object selection, organization,
…show more content…
The ideal cabinet of natural history was described by Denis Diderot in a section of his Encyclopédie of 1751, in which he states that, “a cabinet of natural history is thus an abridged version of nature as a whole.” As such, these cabinets would need to have specimens from across all kingdoms of nature in order to be considered complete, including those from the animal, plant, and mineral kingdoms. These are the taxonomic classifications used by Diderot to describe the specimens that could be found in the cabinet of natural history in the King’s Garden, which Diderot claims, “is one of the richest in Europe.” It contained large amounts of animal specimens, including quadrupeds, birds, fish, reptiles, insects, and sea creatures; a collection of plants, fruits, gums, resins, and tree-barks; as well as an array of earthy materials such as stones, petrifications, salts, minerals, and metals.The emphasis placed on nature and the need for a thorough collection of natural specimens reveals the educational and scientific value placed on these cabinets by Enlightenment thinkers and …show more content…
In the ideal cabinet of natural history, the manner in which the objects are displayed directly correlates with how they are scientifically catalogued. He argues that, “…the order in a cabinet cannot be that found in nature; nature everywhere manifests a sublime disorder.” By saying this, Diderot directly contradicts the practices of the Renaissance Wunderkammer owners, who placed great value on balanced and aesthetically pleasing presentations of objects. Diderot’s stance is supported by Mr. d’Aubenton, the caretaker of the King’s Cabinet whom Diderot quotes in his text, who says, “The methodical order that, in this kind of study, is so strongly pleasing to the mind, is almost never the one that is the most advantageous to the eyes.” Here he stresses a divide between an arrangement that is aesthetically pleasing to the eye and that which is pleasing to the mind, i.e. creates the best educational tool. Also in support of this, Diderot asserts that the ideal cabinet would also have each specimen labelled and displayed in a way appropriate to the object (e.g. under glass). The system of labels added another dimension to the didactic function of these collections. These different positions regarding object arrangement also highlight a crucial difference in the functions that the collected objects posses once in a collection. An object like the
The ideal cabinet of natural history was described by Denis Diderot in a section of his Encyclopédie of 1751, in which he states that, “a cabinet of natural history is thus an abridged version of nature as a whole.” As such, these cabinets would need to have specimens from across all kingdoms of nature in order to be considered complete, including those from the animal, plant, and mineral kingdoms. These are the taxonomic classifications used by Diderot to describe the specimens that could be found in the cabinet of natural history in the King’s Garden, which Diderot claims, “is one of the richest in Europe.” It contained large amounts of animal specimens, including quadrupeds, birds, fish, reptiles, insects, and sea creatures; a collection of plants, fruits, gums, resins, and tree-barks; as well as an array of earthy materials such as stones, petrifications, salts, minerals, and metals.The emphasis placed on nature and the need for a thorough collection of natural specimens reveals the educational and scientific value placed on these cabinets by Enlightenment thinkers and …show more content…
In the ideal cabinet of natural history, the manner in which the objects are displayed directly correlates with how they are scientifically catalogued. He argues that, “…the order in a cabinet cannot be that found in nature; nature everywhere manifests a sublime disorder.” By saying this, Diderot directly contradicts the practices of the Renaissance Wunderkammer owners, who placed great value on balanced and aesthetically pleasing presentations of objects. Diderot’s stance is supported by Mr. d’Aubenton, the caretaker of the King’s Cabinet whom Diderot quotes in his text, who says, “The methodical order that, in this kind of study, is so strongly pleasing to the mind, is almost never the one that is the most advantageous to the eyes.” Here he stresses a divide between an arrangement that is aesthetically pleasing to the eye and that which is pleasing to the mind, i.e. creates the best educational tool. Also in support of this, Diderot asserts that the ideal cabinet would also have each specimen labelled and displayed in a way appropriate to the object (e.g. under glass). The system of labels added another dimension to the didactic function of these collections. These different positions regarding object arrangement also highlight a crucial difference in the functions that the collected objects posses once in a collection. An object like the