2011 Aquilina

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 todays 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 Dzallier dArgenville, 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 Rathgebers Aufbau der
Niederlndischen 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 museologys true object of study while another more philosophical view,
initially advocated by a number of Eastern Europeans (i.e. Anna Gregorova, Zbynk
1 Janick Daniel Aquilina (MA Musologie - Universit de Montral) works in the areas of exhibition and
collection management and has a particular interest in the history of museology. janicko_ca@yahoo.com
- International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011

Department of Cultural Technology and Communication, University of the Aegean
Janick Daniel Aquilina

Strnsk), 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
Andr Desvalles, 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 (Desvalles, 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.
Zbynk Strnsk (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 Menschs 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 Franois
Mairesse who has published a number of articles on the subject, including Brve
histoire de la musologie, des Inscriptions au Muse Virtuel (A Brief History of
Museology, from the Inscriptions to the Virtual Museum, 2005), which he co-authored
with Andr Desvalles 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 authors 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.

A BABELIAN TALE OF MUSEOLOGY AND MUSEOGRAPHY:

A HISTORY OF WORDS
th
th
th
Musographie (Paris World Fair, 1937)
Musographie (International Conference of

Madrid, 1934)
Musologie (Gilson, 1914)
Museology (Science, 1885)
20th c.
Museologie (Martin, 1870)
Museologie (Rathgeber, 1839)
Museographists (Mendes da Costa, 1776)
Museographie (dArgenville, 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?

Germanys 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

well-read 18th-century work by Caspar Neickel, Museographia oder Anleitung zum
rechten Begriff und ntzlicher Anlegung der Museorum oder Raritten 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 Neickels
aforementioned book, which was published in Breslau and Leipzig. As for museology,
van Mensch traces it back to Philip Leopold Martins 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 dAngiviller 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 Quicchebergs (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 worlds
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 physicians 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
Quicchebergs work lies in the setting out of rules for the organisation of a collection
forming the structure of his theatre. The object in Quicchebergs 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).


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 (Strnsk, 1987: 288). Valentinis work,
published in Frankfurt, is a book-museum of sorts. Within its three volumes, Valentini
reprints in its entirety Majors 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 Franois 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 (Desvalles and Mairesse,
2005a: 10) or, as Strnsk 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. (Strnsk, 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 ones 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).

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 fathers business. It is perhaps because of the authors
occupation that the books 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 merchants 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 Neickels 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 Neickels 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 words 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 Majors 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 Barings
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 Murrays 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 Neickels 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.

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)
The earliest use of the word museography in French would seem to be that
found in Antoine-Joseph Dzallier dArgenvilles 491-page book Lhistoire naturelle
claircie dans deux de ses parties principales, la lithologie et la conchyliologie dont lune
traite des pierres et lautre 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, dArgenville 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
lEurope touchant lHistoire 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 words 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, dArgenville is also a collector of art. Fifteen years prior to the publication
of Lhistoire naturelle a letter from dArgenville, 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 musographie mentioned.
The first appearance of the word museography in the English language appears
to be in Emanuel Mendes da Costas 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 Costas 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 Costas 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 books 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

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 Costas understanding of
museography was influenced by that of dArgenvilles in Lhistoire claircie he
certainly knew well the Frenchmans 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
Boistes Dictionnaire universel de la langue franaise (1828), the latter which defines the
musaeographe as the author of a museum description (Desvalles 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. mile Littrs
Dictionnaire de la langue franaise (1863-1877), for instance, defines the
musographe as someone who describes museums. Similarly, French archaeologist
Solomon Reinachs work of inventorying and describing collections from the Antiquity,
discussed in the article La musographie en 1895, is archaeological museology
(Desvalles 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

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 Reinachs 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 Franois Mairesse has uncovered an
until recently unknown occurrence of the word21 in Georg Rathgebers Aufbau der
Niederlndischen Kunstgeschichte und Museologie (Structure of Dutch Art History and
Museology, 1839) printed in Weissensee (Desvalles and Mairesse, 2005a: 10). This is
some thirty years before the occurrence noted by van Mensch in Philip Leopold Martins
aforementioned book. Rathgebers text deals mainly with the analytical description of
sculptures or architectural works (Desvalles 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 Mairesses
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 Rathgebers 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, Rathgebers
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 fr allgemeine
Museologie und verwandte Wissenschaften (Journal of General Museology and Related
Sciences) first published in 1878 and which will become Zeitschrift fr Museologie und
Antiquitten 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 Martins 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 Martins book, but it is obvious, according to van Mensch, that Martin
uses the term in a similar way that the word musographie 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
10

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 muses 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 cole 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 Montreals 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
11

the most cited is that found in David Murrays 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 authors
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 lEurope. Rdig par
ordre alphabtique (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 Bachs 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
(Desvalles and Mairesse, 2005a: 12); as well as that of Kenneth de Burgh Codringtons
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 musologie. Franois Mairesse hypothesizes that the first
references to musologie are tied to natural history museums (Desvalles 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
Gilsons Le Muse dHistoire 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 Loirs and H. Legangneux Prcis de la
Musologie Pratique (Handbook of Practical Museology) published in Le Havre in the
12

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 Gilsons and Martins works in the bibliography (Desvalles
and Mairesse, 2005a: 12). The exclusive relationship between musologie and the
natural sciences is short-lived however. As Mairesse observes, a technical book
published by the Borrel Laboratories entitled La musologie franaise (1932) deals
solely with the conservation of works of art (Desvalles 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.
Musographie, 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 muses (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 OIMs
decision to print this periodical (Boucher et al., 1937: 1). Published in French but meant
for an international audience, Mouseion uses musographie when describing the
organisation, the social role and the history of the museum (Desvalles and Mairesse,
2005a: 16). Musographie is, however, also used specifically in relation to methods of
presentation, conservation and dissemination within museums (Desvalles and
Mairesse, 2005a: 16). Depending on the authors 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 Andr 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
Musographie Architecture et amnagement des muses dart (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
13

museums. Its organizing committee, which includes some important museum figures of
the time such as art historian Henri Focillon, Louvre curator Ren Huyghe and George
Henri Rivire, a man who would become one of Frances 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 Congrs national de musographie gathered at the cole du Louvre
under the auspices of lAssociation des conservateurs de collections publiques de
France. A report on the Congress mentions, amongst other things, the details of its
delegates visit to the Musographie 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 musologie
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 Rivire, 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 (Rivire, 1960: 12). It is interesting to note that the
French version of the report on the seminar will use the word science instead of
14

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 Strnsk will
be early advocates of a museology guided by theory and whose object of study, in the
case of Strnsk, 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.
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 Strnsk, 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 Desvalles
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 Andr Desvalles, who has contributed information towards the text, is
listed as co-author but it is Mairesse who is its real author. Mairesse explains that Desvalles 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 Desvalles to endorse all of the points of view and additions he has
made to the article (Desvalles and Mairesse, 2005a:1).
8
A shorter and somewhat different version of this article was published in French: Aquilina, J.,
2009, Musologie et musographie: la tour de Babel ou les origines de la confusion,
Musologies Les cahiers dtudes suprieures, 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.

15
10
Contrary to what is stated in Eva Schulzs 1990 article Notes on the history of Collecting and of
Museum, an important reference on early museological literature, Quicchebergs work is in fact
mentioned in Neickels 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 Majors 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 authors 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 curiosits, Wunderkammer, studio, etc.) need to be accounted for.
14
This observation is taken from van Menschs 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 Neickels 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 Neickels work.
19
Although incorrectly identified as Elementary Chronology.
20
Mendes da Costas 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 ICOFOMs Dictionnaire encyclopdique de musologie to be published in 2011.
22
This new occurrence, according to Franois Mairesse, will be reported upon in ICOFOMs
Dictionnaire encyclopdique de musologie 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 cole du Louvres 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 musologue in the 1950s and 1960s,
George Henri Rivire had until then been a musographe (see Gorgus, 2003).

16

A HISTORY OF WORDS
REFERENCES
American Historical Review, 1895, Notes and News, October, 1/1, p.192-193.
Aquilina, J., 2009, Musologie et musographie : la tour de Babel ou les origines de la
confusion, Musologies Les cahiers dtudes suprieures, 4/1, p. 43-59.
Bazin, G., 1967, Le temps des muses, Desoer, Lige.
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 Congrs National de Musographie, Bulletin des muses de
France, July, 7, p.110-112.
Borrel, J. and Borrel F., 1932. La musologie franaise Tome 1er, ditions des
laboratoires Borrel frres, Paris.
Boucher, F., et al., 1937, Exposition internationale de 1937, Groupe I, Classe III, Muses
et expositions. Section 1 : Musographie, LAmour de lArt, Paris.
Brout, N., 2004, Le trait musologique de Quiccheberg in Bruwier, M.-C. et al. (eds.),
Lextraordinaire jardin de la mmoire, Muse 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.
DArgenville, A.J.D., 1727, Le choix et larrangement dun cabinet curieux en 1727,
June 1727, reprinted in Revue Universelle des Arts, 18 (1863), p. 163-178
DArgenville, A.J.D., 1742, Lhistoire naturelle claircie dans deux de ses parties
principales, la lithologie et la conchyliologie, De Bur lAn, Paris.
Desvalles, A., 1998, Cent quarante termes musologiques ou petit glossaire de
lexposition in De Bary, O. and Tobelem, J.-M. (eds.), Manuel de musographie.
Petit guide lusage des responsables des muses, Sguier, Biarritz, p. 205-251.
Desvalles, A. and Mairesse, F., 2005a, Brve histoire de la musologie, des
Inscriptions au Muse virtuel in Mariaux, P.A. (ed.), Lobjet de la musologie,
IHAM, Neuchtel, p.1-53.
Desvalles, A. and Mairesse, F., 2005b, Sur la musologie, Culture et Muses, 6, p.
131-155.
Dictionnaire de la langue franaise. XM Littr 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 pistm, Universit de Bordeaux, last visited 3 April 2009:
http://www.episteme.u-bordeaux.fr/publications_duris/Linnaeus.pdf
cole du Louvre, The Ecole du Louvre - History, Resource : The cole du Louvre, last
visited 02 November 2011 http://www.ecoledulouvre.fr/en/friseen/histoire
Giovannonni, G., 1934, Les difices anciens et les exigences de la musographie
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 musologue Georges Henri Rivire,
ditions de la Maison des sciences de lhomme, Paris.
Heller, J., 1970, Linnaeuss Bibliotheca Botanica, Taxon, June 1970/9, p. 363-411.

17

Hooper-Greenhill, E., 1992, Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge, Routledge,
London.
Jensen, V.T., 1980, Points de vue musologiques Europe 1975, in Sofka, V. (ed.), La
musologie science ou seulement travail pratique du muse?, DoTraM, 1, ICOM,
p. 6-10.
Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1936, Lethnologie et la musographie, Revue de synthse,
February, XI/1, p. 27-30.
Lewis, G., 1980, in Sofka, V. (ed.), La musologie science ou seulement travail
pratique du muse?, DoTraM, 1, ICOM, p. 26-27.
Linnaei, C., 1736, Bibliotheca Botanica, Apud Solomonen Schouten, Amsterdam.
Mairesse, F., 2002, Le muse, temple spectaculaire, Presses Universitaires de Lyon,
Lyon.
Mairesse, F., 2004, La musalisation du monde in Bruwier, M.-C. et al. (eds.),
Lextraordinaire jardin de la mmoire, Muse 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: authors
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 ntzlicher
Anlegung der Museorum oder Raritten Kammern, translated from German by E.
Giovannini, 2005, CLUEB, Bologna, p.62- 422.
Organisation internationale des muses, undated, Musographie Architecture et
amnagement des muses dart, 2 vol., Socit des nations.
Oxford English Dictionnary, last visited 4 April 2009: http://dictionary.oed.com
Pinault-Sorensen, M., 1998, Dzallier dArgenville, lEncyclopdie et la Conchyliologie,
Recherches sur Diderot et lEncyclopdie, 24/24, p.101-148.
Poncelet, F., 2008, Regards actuels sur la musographie dentre-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.
Rivire G.H., 1960, Report by the Director of the Seminar, in UNESCO Regional
Seminar on the Educational Rle (sic) of Museums (Rio de Janeiro - 7-30
September, 1958) Educational Studies and Documents no 38, UNESCO, Paris.

18

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.
Strnsk, Z.Z. (ed.), 1966, Sbornik materialu prveho muzeologickeho sympozia. Brno,
1965, Brno.
Strnsk, Z.Z., 1980, in Sofka, V. (ed.), Museology science or just practical museum
work?, MuWoP, 1, ICOM, p. 42-44.
Strnsk, 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.

19
Le rcit bablien de la musologie et de la musographie:

Une histoire en mots
RSUM
Lon croit tort quaujourdhui le sens du mot musologie est entendu de la mme manire par
tout le monde. Mais il suffit de consulter diverses publications consacres aux muses et la
musologie pour se rendre compte que le terme est loin de faire lunanimit. Lhistoire de
lvolution smantique du mot musologie et de limbroglio qui lentoure peut tre vue comme
celle de son mancipation graduelle, quoique pas tout fait complte, dun terme auquel elle a
longtemps t confondue: la musographie. Cet article cherche faire la lumire sur les
premiers usages des termes musologie et musographie en faisant le point sur les
recherches dj ralises sur le sujet ainsi quen prsentant le rsultat des propres travaux de
lauteur qui ont expos quelques occurrences peu connues des deux expressions. Lauteur
commence par souligner limportance du travail effectu en Allemagne ds le XVIe sicle et de
limportance de la langue allemande elle-mme dans lorigine des deux mots. Il se penche
ensuite sur la littrature du dbut du XVIIIe sicle jusqu la fin des annes 1930 afin de
dmontrer que la confusion qui existe de nos jours sur le sens de la musologie et la
musographie est dj prsente dans la littrature musologigue et musale du pass.
MOTS-CLS:histoire de la musologie, musographie, dfinition de musologie, dfinition

de musographie, littrature musologique, Museographia, Neickel, Daniel Eberhard Baring,
Antoine-Joseph Dzallier dArgenville, Georg Rathgeber
O
:

.
.

( )
, .
,

.

. ,

1930
, .
-: , , o ,
o , , Museographia, Neickel, Daniel
Eberhard Baring, Antoine-Joseph Dzallier dArgenville, Georg Rathgeber

20

2011 Aquilina

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2011 Aquilina

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Babelian Tale of Museology and Museography:

KEYWORDS: history of museology, museography, definition of museology, definition of

- International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011

Janick Daniel Aquilina

- International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011

A BABELIAN TALE OF MUSEOLOGY AND MUSEOGRAPHY:

Musographie (Paris World Fair, 1937)

Musographie (International Conference of

Musologie (Gilson, 1914)

Museology (Science, 1885)

Museologie (Martin, 1870)

Museologie (Rathgeber, 1839)

Museographists (Mendes da Costa, 1776)

Museographie (dArgenville, 1742)

Museographi (Linnaeus, 1736)

Museographia (Neickel, 1727)

Inscriptiones... (Quiccheberg. 1565)

Trial and error

Figure 1. An schematic overview of the words and their context

2. GERMANY THE BIRTHPLACE OF MUSEOLOGY?

Janick Daniel Aquilina

- International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011

A BABELIAN TALE OF MUSEOLOGY AND MUSEOGRAPHY:

3. THE 18th CENTURY FIRST SIGHTINGS

Janick Daniel Aquilina

A BABELIAN TALE OF MUSEOLOGY AND MUSEOGRAPHY:

Figure 2. A page from Linnaeus Bibliotheca Botanica (1736)

Janick Daniel Aquilina

A BABELIAN TALE OF MUSEOLOGY AND MUSEOGRAPHY:

4. THE 19th CENTURY: CONFUSION SETTLES IN

Janick Daniel Aquilina

A BABELIAN TALE OF MUSEOLOGY AND MUSEOGRAPHY:

5. 1900-1939: PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT

Janick Daniel Aquilina

A BABELIAN TALE OF MUSEOLOGY AND MUSEOGRAPHY:

Janick Daniel Aquilina

6. CONCLUSION: TOWARDS NEW BEGINNINGS

A BABELIAN TALE OF MUSEOLOGY AND MUSEOGRAPHY:

- International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011

Janick Daniel Aquilina

- International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011

A BABELIAN TALE OF MUSEOLOGY AND MUSEOGRAPHY:

- International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011

Janick Daniel Aquilina

- International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011

A BABELIAN TALE OF MUSEOLOGY AND MUSEOGRAPHY:

- International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011

Janick Daniel Aquilina

Le rcit bablien de la musologie et de la musographie:

MOTS-CLS:histoire de la musologie, musographie, dfinition de musologie, dfinition

- International Scientific Electronic Journal, Issue 6, 2011

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi