the union of arts and sciences in the eighteenth century: lorenz spengler (1720–1807), artistic...

This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 17 November 2014, At: 14:52Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Annals of SciencePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tasc20

The union of arts and sciences in theeighteenth century: Lorenz Spengler(1720–1807), artistic turner and naturalscientistPenelope M. Gouk aa Wellcome Unit for the History of Medicine , University of Oxford ,47 Banbury Road, Oxford, OX2 6PE, UKPublished online: 23 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Penelope M. Gouk (1983) The union of arts and sciences in the eighteenthcentury: Lorenz Spengler (1720–1807), artistic turner and natural scientist, Annals of Science, 40:5,411-436

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00033798300200311

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tasc20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00033798300200311

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

ANNALS OF SCW~CE, 40 (1983), 41i-436

The Union of Arts and Sciences in the Eighteenth Century: Lorenz Spengler (1720-1807), Artistic Turner and Natural Scientist

PENELOPE M. GOUK

Wellcome Unit for the History of Medicine, University of Oxford, 47 Banbury Road, Oxford OX2 6PE, U K

Received 15 March 1983

Summary The life and career of Lorenz Spengler (1720-1807) provides evidence to support the view that the eighteenth century was a period when there was a fruitful interrelationship between the arts, crafts, and sciences in the courts and capitals of Europe. Spengler was trained as a turner, and was appointed teacher of ornamental turning to the Danish royal family and turner of the court in 1745. Even in the early years of his artistic career Spengler was interested in electricity and its role in heating, and he became an avid collector of shells and naturalia. Over the years, Spengler's interests turned more to the natural sciences, and in 1771 he was appointed director of the King's K u n s t k a m m e r . Only by considering both aspects of Spengler's career can his scientific activities be placed in their proper historical context.

Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411 2. Spengler's travels and early career . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414 3. Spengler as Court Turner 1745-71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419 4. Spengler the natural scientist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427

1. Introduction Lorenz Spengler was a man who epitomizes the close relationship between art, craft

and science found in eighteenth-century Europe. A native of Schaffhausen, Switzerland, Spengler spent virtually the whole of his career at the Danish court in Copenhagen. At first he was artistic turner and teacher of turning to the royal family (1745-71), but subsequently became director of the King's K u n s t k a m m e r (1771-1807), and a well- known conehologist and natural scientist (Figure 1). It may at first sight appear unlikely that Spengler, trained as a turner, should have been actively involved in natural science and a member often scientific societies. Yet Spengler, like so many of his contemporaries, saw no division between his artistic and scientific activities, and indeed they complemented each other.

Spengler's career illustrates two important but neglected trends in artistic and intellectual life in eighteenth-century Europe, which was extremely cosmopolitan in nature. The first trend was the emigration of artists and craftsmen from Switzerland to every part of Europe during the eighteenth century. Usually younger sons who could not take over their fathers' businesses, these men travelled to places as far distant as London, Moscow, and even America. If successful, they established themselves as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

52 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

412 Penelope M. Gouk

Figure t. Portrait of Lorenz Spengler (c.1756-8) by Vigilius Erichsen (1722-1782). Reproduced by

permission of the Dansk Statens Museum.for Kunst, Copenhagen.

painters, sculptors, goldsmiths, and turners or in similar professions.1 In England there has been scarcely any research conducted on Swiss immigrants and their contribution to art and industry. Spengler's early career began in London, where he lived with the Swiss community already established there. His letters home provide valuable information on this small group of artists and craftsmen. While he was in Denmark, Spengler was an active member of the Reformed Church in Copenhagen, where members of the Swiss community met and worshipped. It is clear that Swiss emigrants who were members of the Protestant Reformed Church, such as those in England and Denmark known to Spengler, played a role in European culture which might usefully be compared with that of the Huguenots- -another , though somewhat larger, minority religious group.

1 W. Oechsli, History of Switzerland 1499-t9t4, translated by E. and C. Paul (Cambridge, 1922), pp. 237- 47. Unless stated otherwise, biographical material in this paper is taken from the tbllowing standard sources: Oansk Bio.qrafisk Leksikon... udgivet af C. F. Brickd, 3rd edn (Copenhagen, 1979-); Weilbach's Kunstnerlex- ikon, 3rd edn, 3 vols (Copenhagen, 1947-1952); C. Brun~ editor, Schweizerisches Kiinstler-Lexikon, 4 vols (Fraunfeld, 1905-1917); M. Godet, H. Turler, V. Attinger, editors, Histoirseh-Biographisches Lexikon der Sehweiz, 8 vols (Neuenburg, I92t-1934); G. K. Nagler, editor, Neues Allgemeines Kiinstler-Lexikon, 3rd edn, 25 vols (Leipzig, n.d.); U. Thieme and F, Becker, editors, Altgemeines Lexikon der Bildenden Kiinstler, 37 vols (Leipzig, 1907-1950).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

52 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Union of Arts and Sciences in the Eighteenth Century 413

The second trend which Spengler's career illustrates is the enormous growth of popular interest in the natural sciences during the eighteenth century, shown in the collection of naturatia and the increased demand for philosophical instruments among the leisured classes. The subject has been well-documented for England, and for London in particular, but there has been less attention paid to comparable developments in countries such as Denmark. z In any case, Danish history has been the subject of almost total neglect by English historians of every field. Thus while Spengler'S own activities and concerns are of central interest here, they must be seen in the wider context of cultural life in the court and capital of eighteenth-century Denmark. This was in many ways broadly similar to that found in London during the same period.

Most information on Spengler's personal life is derived from the biographical essay of 1808 written by one of his sons-in-law, F. L. Mourier, a pastor from Geneva. 3 The chief supplementary source is by C. H. Vogler, who made it the subject of a monograph published in Schaffhausen in 1899. 4 The broad outline of Spengler's life is drawn fairly quickly: born in Schaffhausen in September 1720, Lorenz was the youngest son of Johann Konrad Spengler (1676-1748) and his wife Maria (n6e Peter). Johann Konrad was a successful civil architect who became Stadtbaumeister (municipal architect) and a member of Schaflhausen city council.

At the age of fourteen, Spengler left Schaffhausen and trained as a turner with Johannes Martin Teuber (ft. 1726-40) at Regensburg, during the years from 1734 to 1739. Between 1739 and 1742 Spengler lived at Schaffhausen and Berne, and then journeyed to England with a friend, arriving in London in early 1743. In October of the same year he left London and travelled to Copenhagen with his German artist friends Marcus Tuscher (1705-51) and Johann Lorenz Natter (1705-63). He worked as a turner for several masters, but in 1745, thanks to the influence of his friends at court, Spengler was appointed as teacher of turning to the Danish royal family, a post which he held until 1771. In 1756 Spengler married Gertrude Sabina Trott (1739-89), daughter of Johann Kaspar Trott of Saxony, secretary of the Customs building in Copenhagen. The couple had an extremely happy marriage, and the union produced eight children.

Spengler became effective keeper of the Royal Kunstkammer in 1769, and in 1771 was appointed its director, a post which he held to the end of his long life. The apointment merely gave recognition to the fact that Spengler was becoming increasingly renowned as a shell collector and natural scientist. As early as 1758, Spengler had one of the best shell collections in Denmark, and he went on to write many articles on shells in the 1770s and 1780s. In 1754 he published an account of the electrical machine he had built himself and used for healing various ailments such as rheumatism and deafness. Between the years 1761 and 1797, Spengler became a member of ten scientific societies and corresponded with a wide network of natural

2 See, for example, D. E. Allen, The Naturalist in Britain: A Social History (Harmondsworth: Pelican Books, 1978), pp. 29-51; W. P. Jones, 'The Vogue of Natural History in England 1750-70', Annals of Science, 2 (1937), 345-52; D. M. Knight, Natural Science Books in English 1600-1900 (London, 1972), pp. 80-106; G. L'E. Turner, 'The London Trade in Scientific Instrument-Making in the Eighteenth Century', Vistas in Astronomy, 20 (1976), 173-82.

3 F. L. Mourier, 'Historisk Lovtale over Lorenz Spengler', Iris og Hebe (Februar 1808), 147. 4 C. H. Vogler, 'Der Ktinstter und Naturforscher Lorenz Spengler aus Schaffhaasen', SchafJhause r

Neujahrsbliitter, 8 u. 9 (Schatthausen, 1899).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

52 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


scientists and collectors of the time.5 From his writings it is clear that Spengler saw the hand of God at work in the whole of nature, and that his love of the natural sciences was but a further manifestation of his faith. For Spengler was a devout member of the Danish Reformed Church, and avoided pastimes such as drinking and gambling, instead working hard and enjoying little leisure. One of his few pleasures was music; he played the flute in his early years. This abstemious life was somehow combined with a career at court, a centre of luxury and idleness as much as one of learning and industry.

During his years as court turner, Spengler at first spent most of his time teaching members of the royal family the art of ornamental turning, and producing many turned objects, chiefly in ivory, in his workshop. It is for these works, of which the greatest number are in the Rosenborg Castle, Copenhagen, that Spengler is now mainly remembered. They establish his reputation as one of the leading ornamental ivory turners of the eighteenth century, and ensure Spengler's appearance in modern literature on the arts. Yet virtually all secondary sources which mention Spengler at all treat him either exclusively as an artistic turner, or briefly mention his other activities only to dismiss them as amateur pursuits of a dilettante. 6 Such a view, which gives the greatest weight to Spengler's achievements as a court turner, underestimates the importance of his scientific interests within his own career and misunderstands the nature of most scientific activity in the eighteenth century.

In the following pages, it will be shown that Spengler was no more an 'amateur' of science than most of his contemporaries, since there was as yet no clearly defined profession of science, nor was there a real division between the arts and the sciences. The prevailing attitude of the time is revealed in the collections made by royal and aristocratic 'amateurs' and 'real' scientists alike. This type of collection, known as the kuns t kammer or art cabinet, included both natural and artificial objects of rarity and beauty and collections of philosophical instruments. All of Spengler's pursuits--as court turner, as a collector of shells, fossils, medallions, paintings and engravings, and as a natural scientist--relate ultimately to the K u n s t k a m m e r and its contents. It is in this contemporary context rather than in the light of modern notions of the nature of science that Spengler's career must be seen. At the forefront of all the major fashions in .science at the time, particularly in the realms of electrical experimentation and shell collecting, Spengler provides a fascinating example of an individual for whom the boundaries between 'amateur' and 'professional' and 'artist' and 'scientist' did not exist.

Spengler's career can be divided into the following main sections: his early training as a turner and travels up to his arrival in Denmark; his artistic work as court turner; and fmalty his activities as a natural scientist.

2. Spengler's travels and early career Little is known of Spengler's earliest years a t Schaffhausen. The first indication of

his artistic talents is found in three manuscripts, now in the city archives of Sehaffhausen, which are examples of his calligraphic skills at the ages of eleven and

5 Spengler belonged to the~following scientific societies: Kaiserlich-Leopoldinische Akademie; GesellschaJt fiir den Fortschritt der Naturqeschichte in Berlin; Physikalische Gesellschaft in Zfirich; Naturforschende Gesellschaft in Danzig: Det Kongeliqe Videnskabernes Selskab; Physio,qraphische Gesellschafi in Lund; Kurfiirstliche Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft in Erfurt; K6nioliche Drontheimische Wissenschaftliche/ GeselIschaft: Stokholmsche GeseUschaft; Det kongelige Danske Naturvidenskabelige Selskab.

6 For example, most attention is devoted to Spengler's artistic output in E. von Philippovich, 'Lorenz Spenger', in Schq~auser Bioyraphien, Histgrische Verein des Kantons Schaffhausen (Thayngen, 1981), Iv. 307-12.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

52 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Union o f Arts and Sciences in the Eighteenth Century 415

twelve. The manuscripts are covered in sentences in German and Latin written with ornate lettering and highly elaborate capitalization throughout. 7

Like most younger sons of flourishing craftsmen and artisans in the cities of Switzerland and south Germany, Spengler became apprenticed to a master in a different town from his birthplace. The fourteen-year-old Spengler left Schaffhausen and went to Regensburg, a town in south Germany about two hundred miles north- east of his native city. He was apprentice to Johannes Martin Teuber, a master turner of the third generation of a family of turners. At this time, Regensburg was one of the most important centres of turning in Germany, others being Augsburg, Nuremberg, and Munich.

Teuber was a mechanic and an art and silver turner who produced goblets, medallions, and other artistic objects as well as scientific instruments and anatomical models for demonstration purposes. His work is known mainly from the Kurtzer Unterricht yon der Dreh-Kunst (1730), which went through several editions. The book reflects the growing popularity of ornamental turning as a fashionable pursuit for leisured aristocrats and the gentry. It includes engravings of some of Teuber's work, and it can be inferred from these that during his apprenticeship, Spengler acquired the skills of plain and ornamental turning, medallion- and instrument-making, and engraving, s

After five years of apprenticeship at Regensburg, Spengler left his master in 1739 to embark on his Wanderzeit or 'wandering years'. This was a period when a German apprentice would travel from place to place, learning from different masters and consolidating his skills, before becoming a master in his own right. Spengler first returned to Schaffhausen and then went on to Berne. It was in this city that Spengler made his first recorded work, a medallion of his father. However, Spengler did not find Berne a place to his liking, and resolved to travel to London at the first opportunity.

lit was natural that Spengler should think of London as a likely place for exercising his talents. Many Swiss writers, artists, and craftsmen were at this time turning to English culture in an attempt to compensate for the dominating influence of France in their lives. They were often favourably impressed with what they found in England. Albrecht yon Haller (1708-77) from Berne, one of the most distinguished scientists and literary men of Europe, was delighted with the immense respect paid to science in England. 9 There was also a considerable amount of influence from German culture to be found in England. The royal family was from Hanover, and still had not become thoroughly English in its customs. German-speaking artists and composers often found employment at court, and this German element had an important influence on cultural developments in English society.

The capital itself would also have appealed to an aspiring craftsman. In the early eighteenth century, London was becoming established as a centre for the manufacture of luxury goods of gold, silver, and other precious materials, as well as scientific instruments. Most important of all, however, as far as Spengler was concerned, there was already a small community of Swiss artists and craftsmen who worked in and a round London. A number of these came from the canton of Schaffhausen and were

v Vogler (footnote 4), 2. The archivist of Schaffhausen, Dr H. U. Wipf, kindly drew my attention to these manuscripts on loan from a private collection.

SVogler (footnote 4), 42-3; C. Holtzapffel, Turning and Mechanical Manipulation, 5 vols (London, 1843-1884), volume v by J. J. Hottzapffel, The Principles and Practice of Ornamental or Complex Turning (1884), p.4.

9 W. D. Robson-Scott, German Travellers in England 1400-1800 (Oxford, 1953), pp. 120-26, 140-1.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

52 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


known to Spengler and his family. When Spengler arrived in London in June 1743 with his travelling companion, a sculptor, he did not come unprepared. The two men soon made contact with some of their compatriots from Schatlhausen who already had employment. The sculptor found work almost immediately with a Herr Weber, who was known by the Spengler family in Schaffhausen. According to Spengler, sculptors were in great demand in London at the time. Spengler was not so fortunate in his attempts to find work as a turner? ~

One of the most useful contacts that Spengler had in London was Georg Michael Moser (1706-83). Moser was a coppersmith and enamellist from Schauffhausen who had lived in London since 1726, and was now working principally as a goldsmith, although he originally worked for a cabinet-maker named Trotter. Moser was beginning to establish himself in London and the court, being under the patronage o f the Earl of Bute. He later became teacher of drawing to the future King George III, and a founder member of the Royal Academy of Arts in 1768.11

At the time of Spengler's arrival in England, Moser belonged to an informal group of artists and writers who met at a coffee house in St Martin's Lane in the late 1730s and early 1740s. The group included William Hogarth, Hubert Francois Gravelot, Henry Fielding, David Garrick, and Martin Folkes, President of the Royal Society and member of the Society of Antiquaries. A number of artists in the group later joined the St Martin's Lane Academy rounded by Hogar th in 1745. Members of the Academy were mainly under the patronage of the circle of the Prince of Wales, and were anti- Palladian and anti-classical in their artistic ideas since these were traditions associated with the establishment. It was this group that was primarily responsible for the introduction of the French rococo style in England, along with silversmiths and cabinet-makers such as Paul de Lamerie and John Linnel, who studied at the Academy. lz Thus Spengler was in England among friends who were actively involved in developing the new rococo style, which was to have some influence on his own work. Moser helped Spengler by trying to find him work in the goldsmith community, which, as will be seen below, proved difficult to obtain.

Two other Schaffhausen people who helped Spengler in his early days in England were brothers: Johann Schnetzler (1710 85), the organ builder who lived at Greenwich, and Leonhard Schnetzler (1714-72), painter and stucco worker, who lived and worked in Oxford. A less helpful individual was Andreas Schalch (1692-1776) from Untergreiss in Schauffhausen. Schalch was in royal employment at Woolwieh, but unfortunately for Spengler, he would have nothing to do with his fellow-Swiss in London. 13 The lack of co-operation by Sehalch meant that Spengler would have found it difficult to make any contacts at court.

Spengler obviously encountered some difficulty in finding work among the gold- and silversmiths of London. According to his own account, the silverturners would rarely employ skilled craftsmen who had already completed their apprenticeship, and

lo Vogter (footnote 4) 5-9. (Transcript of a letter from Spengler in London to his parents, dated "Haymonth ~ 1743, containing information on his arrival in England,)

11 Dictionary of National Biography; B. Schnetzler, 'Georg Michael Moser', in Schaj]hauser Biographien, (footnote 6), 173-8.

12 M. Girouard, "'Coffee at Slaughters": English Art and the Rococo', in Country LiJe (13, 27 January, 3 February, 1966, 58 60, 158-90, 224-7). My thanks to Michael Snodin for the reference to this article.

~a,A. Aerni, "Andreas Schalch'; B. Schnetzler, 'Johann Schnetzler' and 'Leonhard Schnetzler' in SchafJhauser Biographien (tbotnote 6), 260-5, 279-85, 286-8.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

52 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


those who did would not employ Germans. This was because it was feared that they would settle down and set up their own business in competition. Spengler's experience clearly illustrates the problems that foreign craftsmen encountered when trying to establish themselves in a trade in which there was already greater supply than demand. Foreigners were only grudgingly welcomed in London when craftsmen did not see them as a threat to their own jobs.

There were other factors which contributed to Spengler's difficulties. The year 1743 was an unfortunate time to come to England, when the country was involved in the War of the Austrian Succession. Anti-French feeling was running extremely high, and all foreigners were treated with suspicion. They were assumed to be French unless they proved otherwise. While Spengler was in London he witnessed the celebration of an English victory over the French. As he wrote home to his family, 'they hate foreigners like the plague'. London obviously did not come up to his expectations, a~

Some valuable information about current craft practices in London is found in a later letter written by Spengler to his family. At last Spengler found work with a goldsmith, a Hungarian who had trained at Regensburg with Teuber and was now settled in London. A lathe and tools were prepared for Spengler, who was to turn metal boxes for the goldsmith, which were subsequently to be goldplated. Spengler's letter provides almost unique evidence of the fact that metal boxes were being turned at this time in London. It is generally assumed that these were not produced until a much later date. as

Unfortunately, Spengler found it impossible to build up his trade as he had planned, because all the work that he was to have received from the other goldsmiths in the same area was given instead to a goldsmith whose belongings had been destroyed in a fire. While he accepted the justice of the decision by the community, Spengler found that it ruined his own prospects. Not one of the several hundred goldsmiths in London would give work to anyone outside his own area unless absolutely necessary.

For a few months Spengler remained in London, earning a little from the Hungarian who continued to give him work turning boxes. What was of value to Spengler was that he began to acquaint himself with French styles of design and the French ornamental work produced by the types of lathe described, perhaps for the first time, in Charles Plumier's L'Art de Tourner (Lyon, 1701). Spengler believed that the French work was 'a hundred times better' than that of his German masters. As proof of his new skills, and as an advertisement for his work, Spengler constructed a Trinity ring. This was an elaborate ring of three interlocking parts made from a single piece of ivory or similar material. The Trinity ring earned him much admiration, and he was by now convinced that he was sufficiently trained to offer his talents in some place where they would be more appreciated. It is clear that Spengler did not like London very much; he never learned English, and always remained within the Swiss and German-speaking community.

During his sojourn in London, Spengler became friendly with two artists who had already travelled and worked extensively in Italy and other parts of Europe. They were Johann Lorenz Natter of Biberach, a precious stone-cutter and medallion-maker, and Marcus Tuscher of Nuremberg, a painter, engraver, and architect. These two men were

14Vogler (footnote 4), 8. 5 Ibid., 9-11. (Transcript of Spengler's first letter from Copenhagen 31 October 1743.) On boxes and their

production in England, I am grateful for information from Mr Charles Truman, Victoria and Albert Museum.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

52 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


to play an important role in Spengler's future. Tuscher and Natter planned to go to Copenhagen, where they had been invited by the royal court and knew they would find lucrative employmentJ 6 Spengler decided to leave London, where he was extremely unhappy, and to travel to Copenhagen with these men to see if he could fare any better. He left London in October 1743, only a few months after his arrival, and reached Copenhagen in early November.

What was the attraction of Denmark which led these artists to choose Copenhagen as their destination, rather than Paris, for example? There were some very good reasons why this Scandinavian country would have appealed to them.

The kingdom of Denmark and Norway had been torn by endless wars during the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. In a period of relative peace, King Christian VI (r. 1730-1746) was now attempting to rebuild cultural life in Copenhagen, and to encourage foreign artists and architects to come and work for the crown. During Christian's reign, two magnificent palaces were built: Hirschholm (1729-32) and Christiansborg (t 730-42).These and other grand buildings intended to replace sections of the city that had been devastated by fire in 1728, were designed and built by Germans. There was an increasing number of German-born nobility in the court, and German officials in government posts, because the king had married a German princess. Christian's wife, Sophie Magdalene of Brandenburg-Kulmbach, had strong connections with south German artistic circles, and encouraged German-speaking artists to come to Copenhagen? ~ It was to this court, German in outlook, that Tuscher and Natter came in 1743.

The position of his friends at court greatly favoured Spengler's chances in Copenhagen. Spengler also knew that the Crown Prince, the future King Frederik V, and his English wife, Princess Louise, were themselves keen amateur turners. Princess Louise (d.175I) was a daughter of George lI and aunt of George III of England, and was, therefore, herself effectively German in background and upbringing. It was only a matter of time before Spengler became recognized. Meanwhile, he found himself a job almost immediately as a turner, making parts for warships. He left the job after only two weeks because he disliked it, but found employment again immediately. On this occasion he was a turner in wood, and because his skill was recognized, he was allowed to undertake precision work and make tools, t8 The ease with which Spengler found employment in Copenhagen suggests that there were far fewer qualified craftsmen in that city than in London, which was a much larger capital than Copenhagel~

It seems that Spengler was still not entirely happy in his work. He began to plan his return to Schaffhausen. Tuscher, however, had seen the young man's potential, and began to use his influence at court to get Spengler noticed, so that he would not return to Switzerland. One influential patron who became interested in Spengler and his work was Count August v o n d e r Liihe, senior chamberlain and an aristocrat of the German circle at court. As a result of such patronage, by August 1744 Spengler was already visiting the Crown Prince and Princess at Hirschholm, to demonstrate his skills both as a master and teacher of ornamental turning. He made a good impression on the royal family and at the court wffh his work. He taught the Princess how to turn in

16Vogler (footnote 4) 11-12. 17 p, Lauring, A History of the Kingdom of Denmark, translated by D. Hohnen (Copenhagen, 1960),

pp. 177 8; M. Bodelsen, 'Foreign Artists in Denmark', in Festschrift Hans Vollmer (Leipzig, 1957), pp. 45-86 (52-55); Danish Art Treasures through the Ages: Catalogue of an Exhibition arranged by the Danish Government and the Victoria and Albert Museum 28.10i1948 2.1.1949 (London, 1948), pp. 86-90.

1, Vogler (footnote 4), 10-12.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

52 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


amber and ebony, and examples of her work are found in Rosenborg Castle. In February 1745, Spengler was officially appointed as teacher of turning to the royal family and court turner, and was awarded the privileges of a citizen of Copenhagen. The post commanded a salary of 400 rix-dollars a year, and he was also to be paid for each item he producedJ 9

The appointment meant at last Spengler had achieved a position of some standing, one which gave full recognition to his talents. It was a well-respected and well-paid position at court, one which later enabled him to acquire a minor administrative post as a state official. For the next twenty-five years Spengler worked as turner to the royal family, and lived comfortably, first in a suite of rooms at the Christiansborg Palace, and subsequently in his own house. He had a public workshop where he employed a number of apprentices, and where prospective customers came to talk to him and admire his work. For the rest of his life he lived in Copenhagen, and never set foot outside of Denmark again. In 1745 Spengler's 'wandering years' were truly over.

3. Spengler as Court Turner 1745-71 Spengler's chief responsibility in the post which he held between 1745 and 1771 was

to tutor members of the royal family in the art of ornamental turning. His illustrious pupils included the King and Queen, the Crown Prince and Princess (who were crowned in 1746), the Margrave of Bayreuth and three princesses from Hesse. As early as the seventeenth century, royal families and aristocrats had learned turning as a suitable pastime. For example, Peter Zick (d.1632), the father of a family of turners in Nuremberg, taught Emperor Rudolf II at Prague, while his son Lorenz Zick (1594 1666) taught a later successor to the Empire, Ferdinand lit. Tobias Trettter (ft. 1650) of Augsburg taught Count August Wilhelm and Count Ulrich of Brunswick. Prince Ferdinand of Tuscany (1663-1713) made a turned ivory cup under the tutelage of Philip Senger, a German active in Florence as court turner between 1675 and 1704.20 Thus Spengler was working in a historically well-established position, one which gave him ample opportunity to increase his own wealth and status. His other main official task was to make beautiful decorative objects for the King, to celebrate important occasions, and to reflect the glory of the crown. Many of Spengler's works are signed and dated 3t March of a particular year because this was the birthday of Frederik v (r.1745-66), for whom Spengler made most of his pieces.

Apart from these duties, Spengler was free to work on commission as he pleased. While the public workshop at Christiansborg was where he taught, his private workshop was a place which soon developed into a thriving business concern. Spengler trained a number of apprentices in order to cope with the demand for his work, and they went on to continue his style of work both in Denmark and abroad. The apprentices included Holm, Grinmann, Opitz, Korper, Koppin, and Schwartz. Of these, the last two achieved some lasting recognition. Ludwig Koppin (1737-90) later lived in Berlin and became renowned for his ivory and embossed wax medallions. Johann Adam Schwartz (1751-1835) founded a firm of ivory turners in Copenhagen which survived until the 1980s. Schwartz made two models of the human eye for anatomical lecturers which are now in the Medical History Museum at Copenhagen

19 Ibid:, 13-15. (Transcript of Spengler's letters from Copenhagen 15 August 1744 and 5 February 1745.) 2o Ibid., 15-16; E. yon Philippovich, Elfenbein, 2nd edn (Brunswick, 196t), pp. 303-5. The Victoria and

Albert Museum has an ivory cup turned by Prince Ferdinand of Tuscany and one by Philip Senger.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

52 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


(Figure_@ Another artist who worked with Spengler was Johann Ephriam Bauert (1726-99), an ivory carver and medallion maker. Bauert came to Copenhagen in t752 and produced many carvings in ivory which are now in the Rosenborg collection. 21

Before Spengler became court turner, he had worked mainly in wood and other inexpensive materials. In a short time after his appointment, however, he began to produce objects in a whole range of precious substances such as amber, tortoise-shell, and hartshorn, but principally ivory. The King was generous in his provision of these materials~ and Copenhagen was fortunate to be on a main trading route which could provide ample supplies of ivory and amber.

Tranquebar, on the south-east coast of India, was still a Danish colony in the eighteenth century, with a flourishing trade in Indian ivory. Via Tranquebar and the African ivory coast, tusks of both Indian and African elephants were transported to Copenhagen. In a paper which he wrote in 1782, Spengler remarked that in the previous two years several thousand tusks had been brought to Copenhagen, some weighing between 100 and 125 pounds, which gives some idea of the magnitude of the ivory trade in Denmark alone at this time. 22 In Spengler's opinion the most beautiful ivory came from Ceylon. He also became familiar with related materials as walrus tusk, Siberian tusk, and horn of the narwhal. Thus Spengler gradually gained a knowledge of ivory both in its natural state and as a raw material for turning and carving that could hardly be surpassed by any other artist or natural scientist of the time. His article on ivory and its preservation of 1782 was republished in both German and French because of its level of expertise and relevance to all users of ivory. 23 As will be seen in the following section, Spengler's love of ivory and his contact with seafarers led him towards a much wider interest in natural materials and the collection of shells, insects, and minerals.

Another expensive and luxurious material that Spengler was able to use in large quantities was amber. One of the best and largest surviving example of his amber work is an enormous chandelier, which hangs in a window of the Rosenborg Castle. There are records which reveal that the amber for this and other chandeliers was bought from Danzig, the most important centre for amber in Europe, and transported by ship across the Baltic. The purchaser of this precious cargo was vonder L/ihe, Spengler's first patron. 2~* It was also from Danzig and the Baltic trade that some of Spengler's collection of shells and minerals came.

Of all Spengler's many works in different materials, only the larger pieces have survived. Most of Spengler's known works are in the Rosenborg Castle because they were originally made for the Royal Kunstkammer and kept in the artificial cabinet, the section of the Kunstkammer which included turned objects and medallions. When this

~1 Mourier (footnote 3), 15; Vogler (footnote 4), 15. I would like to thank Dr J. Koch for drawing my attention to Schwartz's work in the museum. On Bauert, see E. von Philippovich, ' Johann Ephriam Bauert als Elfenbeinkfinstler'j, Konsthistorisk Tidskrift, 27 (1958), 108-21.

22 Vogler (footnote 4), 33. Spengler's writings about ivory are as follows: 'Noch einige Erl~iuterungen fiber die alten Kunstwerke aus Elfenbein' (1776) in C. G. Heyne, editor, Antiquarische AuJsdtze, n, 149-71; 'Ore Elfenbeenets Egenskaber, og den Kunst at holde de daraf udarbeidede Vaerker hvide, og naar de allerede ere blevne gute eller brune, at gi6re dem sneehvide igien' (1782), in Nye Samling ofdet Danske Videnskabers Selskabs Skrifter (Copenhagen, 1783). (Of the properties of ivory and the art of maintaining the whiteness of works made from it; and if they have become yellow or brown, how to make them white again.)

23 Vogler (footnote 4), 32; C. Magis, Sehaffhauser Schriftsteller yon der Reformation bis zur Gegenwart (Schaffhausen, 1869), pp. 82-3.

z4 F. R. Friis, 'Den store Ray Lysekrone paa Rosenborg', in Kulturhist. Studier (Copenhagen 1904 9), pp. 58-61. (The large amber chandelier at Rosenborg.) Mourier (footnote 3), 12.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

52 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


Kuntskammer was broken up in the nineteenth century, objects in the artificial cabinet were transferred to the Rosenborg. 25 Other works by Spengler which are now lost are mentioned in a catalogue of Johann Konrad Spengler's collection sold in 1839. 26 The collection consisted mainly of items from his father's own kunstkammer, and included four large ivory pyramids and a pagoda-like temple. Other lost works by Spengler included interlocking balls and eggs (contrefait work), locket portraits, pagodas and bell towers, ships with sails and ropes, Trinity rings and other perfectly jointed pieces. Spengter also made artificial eyes and ears, and even artificial ivory teeth that were used for dental purposes. 27 It is clear that Spengler was following in the tradition of his own master, Teuber, who made both decorative and functional objects on his lathe.

Various works known to be made by Spengler are found outside Rosenborg. These include the relief of a pelican on the wall of the Danish Reformed Church made in 1766, two amber medallions in Hesse-Kassel, and other medallions and casts in Copenhagen, Zurich, and Schaffhausen. 28 The Museum Allerheiligen in Schaffhausen has recently acquired forty-eight watercolours of different varieties of shells, and these have been attributed to Spengler. If they are by him, and it seems likely that it is so, they demonstrate his skill as an artist as well as a turner. The most interesting and unusual example of Spengler's work which has recently come to light is a turned ivory and tortoise-shell microscope of Culpeper design, dated around 1760 (Figure 2). The microscope will be discussed further in the context of instrument manufacture and collecting in Denmark in the following section, but it must also be placed in the context of Spengler's other artistic output as court turner.

In Rosenborg Castle there is a whole range of objects turned by Spengler, some with additional carvings by Bauert. The works fall into the following major categories: allegorical figures and groups, goblets, vases, medallions, and large showpieces. There are also some chessmen, draughts, and a chessboard made from amber, the amber chandelier, and several ostrich eggs mounted in ivory. Apparently the eggs were laid in the Royal Menagerie. Frederik V's motto was 'prudent and steadfast', and many of Spengler's works include allegorical figures representing the motto.

To a considerable extent, Spengler's work was a continuation of the tradition of ivory turning that was developed in Germany during the seventeenth century, notably in Nuremberg. The most important makers in Nuremberg were members of the Zick family, and their role in teaching turning to royalty has already been mentioned. The Zick workshop produced mainly contrefait work, miniature objects, and portrait medallions in ivory. Contrefait work was a form of turning which incorporated a series of interlocking globes or 'Chinese balls' cut from a single piece of ivory, in the lid of a goblet or vase, for example. In the portrait of Spengler shown here, he is seen holding a piece of contrefait work. The work of the Nuremberg turners acquired an international reputation, and by the end of the seventeenth century a large collection of Nuremberg ornamental ivory was already in the Danish Royal Kunstkammer. Works by Caspar Zick the elder (1623-82) still remain in Rosenborg Castle. 29

22 Thorvaldsen Museum, Copenhagen, Danish Museums 1648-I 848: Catalogue (Copenhagen, 1974), p. 3. z6Cited in Nagter (footnote l), article on Spengler. 2v Ibid.; Vogler (footnote 4), 16. 28 Details of many of Spengler's known works are found in Weilbach (footnote 1). See also B. Janssen, De

Reformerte i Danmark (Copenhagen, 1922), pp. 106-7, 120-1; Det Danske Kunstindustrimuseums Virksomhed i Aaret MDCCCCXVII (Copenhagen, 1917), pp. 41-4; G. R. von Bock, Bernstein: Das Gold der Ostee (Munich, 1981), p. 126.

29 Philippovich, ElJenbein (footnote 20), 304-7.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

52 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


Figure 2. Ivory and tortoise-shell Culpeper-type microscope c. 1760. Turned on an ornamental rose-

engine lathe by Lorenz Spengler. Private collection.

The most common form of decoration that Spengler used on his goblets, on the bases of his showpieces and on the microscope, for example, was a raised chequered or zigzag pattern. This was a development of the rose engine turning which had originated in the previous century. The pattern was produced mechanically by the action of a fixed tool on the lathe cutting into the ivory object made to rotate on the mandrel which could be moved both backwards and forwards and from side to side. The movement of the mandrel was controlled by the use of a rosette already cut into a particular pattern which determined the shape of the cuts made by the fixed tool. Although this type of ornamental rose engine turning appears to have been developed as early as the end of the seventeenth century, one of the first books dealing with it was the Kurtzer Unterricht of Teuber. Spengler probably learned the technique from his own master in Regensburg. Yet it was not until Spengler was in London and came into contact with the French styles of work that he became fully aware of the artistic possibilities of this form of turning? ~

A description of two items by Spengler will reveal the balance between the technical and artistic elements in his work and the various styles which influenced him.

3o Vogler (footnote 4), 44; M. Daumas, Scientific Instruments of the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries and their Makers, translated by Mary Holbrook (London, 1972), pp. 112-16. I am grateful to Michael Wright for his explanation of ornamental turning.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

52 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


Figure 3. Mounted medallion to commemorate the birthday of Frederik v, 31 March 1759, by Lorenz

Spengler. Reproduced by permission of Rosenbor9 Slot, Copenhagen.

The medallion made to celebrate Frederik V's birthday, 31 March 1759, is mounted on a turned and pierced base and flanked by the figures representing prudence and steadfastness (Figure 3). The former is a cherub looking into a hand-held mirror on which a serpent is resting. The latter is a one-legged cherub who is supporting himself by means of a pillar. Cherubs, or putti, were standard iconograph~cal figures in seventeenth-century ivory work. The medallion itself has a large eartouche above with overlapping scales on the wings, and a closed crown representing the absolute monarch. The cartouche is in the French R6gence style of the 1720s although the pattern books showing such designs only date from the 1740s. The raised chequered design on the base of the figure is turned on the rose engine lathe as already described. The piercing in two sections of the base is assymmetrical and uses the S-shaped curve which was an essential element of the rococo style of the 1730s and 1740s. It is virtually impossible, therefore, to place the medallion as belonging to any single style except Spengler's own.

Spengler's microscope also reveals a diversity in its design (Figure 2). The particular shape which Spengler chose for the body tube was one which lent itself to turning, a reason why the Culpeper microscope, originating in the 1720s and refined over

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

52 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


Figure 4. Turned ivory goblet with lid by Lorenz Spengler. Reproduced by permission of Rosenbor9 Slot,

Copenhagen.

subsequent decades, was a perennially popular design. It seems likely that Spengter copied an English miscroscope of c.1745, since it resembles those made by Matthew Loft (flA697-1747)--orThomas Wright (fl.t 686-1748). 32 The zigzag decoration on the main body of the microscope is virtually identical to that found on other goblets and medallion pieces by Spengler, being rose engine turned (Figure 4). The cherub holding fruit which adorns the cover for the eyepiece is a typical figure used by Spengter, as his other works show. Only the three legs supporting the main body of the optical tube can really be described as pure rococo design, with their gentle S-shaped curves. Changes in design and style obviously did influence the shape of scientific instruments, since they were made by craftsmen who were responding tO changing fashions.

The microscope was made some time around 1760, and, like most of Spengler's work, was intended for the Kunstkammer ofFrederik v. It was common practice among instrument makers to produce for royal cabinets instruments made of luxurious and expensive materials that were aesthetically pleasing as well as being of practical use.

32 E. G. R. Taylor, Mathematical Practitioners of Hanoverian Enoland (Cambridge, 1966), pp. 133,. 151; G. UE. Turner, Collectin 9 Microscopes (London, 1981), p. 41.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

52 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


Figure 5. English c;,L:~;)ound and simple microscope, c.1770, made in silver, for King George III. Signed: Made by GEORGE ADAMS in Fleet Street London. Museum of the History of Science, Oxford

(27 12).

Other examples of royal microscopes, which place artistic considerations above the scientific, include the silver microscope of c.1770 made for the collection of George m of England by George Adams junior (1750-95) (Figure 5), and a Cuff-type microscope with a rococco bronze stand by Alexis Magni of c. 1751 made for Louis XV of France.3a Yet Spengter was ostensibly no instrument maker; the microscope is the only instrument known to be made by him. His field of expertise lay in the ornamental turning of goblets, medallions, and artistic showpieces. The microscope provides rare evidence that Spengler, although an 'artistic' turner, was trained to make instruments as an apprentice. While in England the production of microscopes was largely specialized, on the Continent there were still turners who made them as only one part of their output.

As his work in the Rosenborg shows, Spengler eventually concentrated on the most luxurious end of the market for turning. Yet it is likely that he would have been able to

33 j. A. Chaldecott, Handbook of the King George III Collection of Instruments (London, 1951); Daumas (footnote 30), 142-3. Two other microscopes made from turned ivory and tortoise-shell are in the Istituto e Museo de Storia della Scienza, Florence. One was made c. 1710 in ivory (simple turning), tortoise-shell, gilded brass and blued steel, attributed to Petrus Patroni, Milan. The other, signed: Petrus Patronus, Milan 1726, is made in wood, brass and ivory with a chinoiserie box foot, and is a copy of a John Marshall. My thanks to Gerard L'E. Turner for drawing my attention to these microscopes.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

52 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


Figure 6. Model of human eye turned in ivory by Johann Adam Schwartz (1751-1835). Reproduced by

permission of the Dansk Medicinsk Historiske Museum, Copenhagen.

concentrate on any type of turning, such as the production of optical and physical instruments, if circumstances had demanded. In the event, Spengler produced the bulk of his work in the late 1740s and throughout the 1750s. After that time, he gradually withdrew his personal attention from his workshop which continued without him. There were other demands being made on his time and energy which required greater attention.

Spengler was becoming increasingly involved with his growing collection of shells and minerals, which in 1758 was already one of the best in the country. From 1761, when Spengler joined the Kaiserlich-Leopoldinische Akademie, his time was spent more and more in the study of the natural sciences, and his reputation in the field steadily grew. By 1769, Spengler was promised the post of director of the King's Kunstkammer, and when Gerard Morel, the director, died in 1771, Spengler naturally replaced him. This marked the official recognition of Spengler as a natural scientist, and the effective end of his turning career. For the rest of his life Spengler devoted his time to the study of shells and the writing of a number of scholarly articles as well as his official duties.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

52 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


4. Spengler the natural scientist As already suggested in the introduction, the key to Spengler's artistic andscientific

activities lies in the notion of the Kunstkammer, a room or series of rooms in which both natural and artificial ob)ects were kept. Spengler's post as director of the King's Kunstkammer, his own collection of naturatia and art objects, and his use of natural materials in turning, all reflect this tradition which had begun over two hundred years before. The practice of keeping an art cabinet originated in Renaissance Italy among wealthy noblemen, and had gradually spread throughout Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The cabinet usually contained paintings, medallions, carvings, and turned work among its artificial objects, and minerals, fossils, shells, and insects among its natural ones. The cabinet was frequently only part of an even wider collection which included books and manuscripts, live animals, and a botanical garden and herbarium. In the seventeenth century at least, the assembling of such items reflected the essential variety in the world. Diverse objects could be brought together in a single place and their relationship to one another could be found. The underlying idea of the kunstkammer was to present an encyclopaedia of the visible world and to make a deliberate parallel between nature and art. The Kunstkammer was thus the forerunner of the art gallery, museum, and science museum. In the eighteenth century the division of collections into art and science had scarcely begun. 34

In recent years, there has been a considerable amount of scholarly attention devoted to the growth of interest in the natural sciences in eighteenth-century England, which developed in part from the notion of the Kunstkammer. One particular aspect of this growth was the enormous increase in the production of philosophical and optical instruments, particularly in London. By the eighteenth century these were being collected by the aristocracy and gentlemen for whom the natural sciences had become a fashionable pursuit. Most philosophical instrument were, in fact, made to satisfy the demands of wealthy customers who wanted to inctude instruments in their cabinets. These instruments were, therefore, often beautifully decorated, being artistic objects as much as scientific apparatus.

One of the largest collections of instruments in eighteenth-century England was that of George III (r.t760-1820). The collection, virtually completed by 1768, was begun by Stephen Demainbray (1710-82), son of a Huguenot refugee, and a travelling lecturer in experimental philosophy. In 1754 he was invited to tutor the Prince of Wales in science and mathematics. When Demainbray returned from the Continent in order to take up his post, he brought with him his collection of instruments used for lecture demonstrations. Thus the nucleus of the George III collection was a number of instruments collected by Demainbray in the 1740s. 35

Another English patron who began collecting instruments in the 1740s ~vas the Earl of Bute, John Stuart (t713-92). The collection of the earl rivalled that of the king. 36 Apart from scientific instruments, his collection included minerals, a herbarium, and a

34 R. J. W. Evans, Rudolf l I and His World: A Study in Intellectual History 1576-1612 (Oxford, 1973), pp. 176-83. The literature on the kunstkammer is immense and cannot be fully listed here. But see, for example, R. Cauditl, 'Some Literary Evidence of the Development of English Virtuoso Interests in the Seventeenth Century, with Particular Reference to the Literature of Travel' (Oxford University D.Phil. Thesis, 1975); S. A. Bedhli, 'The Evolution of Science Museums', Technology and Culture, 6 (1965), 1-29; B.T. Moran, ~German Prince-Practitioners: Aspects in the Development of Courtly Science, Technology and Procedures during the Renaissance', idem., 22 (1981), 253-74.

35 Chaldecott, (footnote 33), 5; Taylor (footnote 32), 174. 36 G. L'E. Tufner, 'The Auction Sales of the Earl of Bute's Instruments, 1793', Annals of Science, 23 (1967),

213~42.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

52 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


library filled with books on botany and natural history. The king's mother, Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha, was also a botanist and collector of naturatia. Another aristocratic naturalist was Lady Margaret Cavendish Bentinck (b.1714), wife of the second Duke of Portland. The duchess had an immense natural history collection, and an extensive collection of porcelain and paintings. 3v Even in the eighteenth century, the collections of English royalty and aristocracy still reflected the tradition of the Kunstkammer, including natural and artificial objects.

The interest in collecting and the natural sciences found in the court and capital of England was paralleled in Copenhagen. Although Copenhagen was much smaller than London, the court was no less cosmopolitan in outlook. During the eighteenth century in a period of peace and-prospefity both the arts and sciences flourished, which is reflected in the establishment of an Academy of the Arts in 1754 and an Academy of Sciences in 1742. Before considering Spengler's specific contributions to the natural sciences in the fields of conchology and electrical experimentation, it is interesting to place him in the wider context of Danish cultural and intellectual life in the eighteenth century. In Copenhagen as in London, though to a lesser degree, collectors thrived and even, it appears, encouraged the production and distribution of philosophical instruments.

4.1. Collectors and collections in eighteenth-century Denmark The first known collection in Copenhagen was begun by the Danish physician,

Olaf Worm (1588-1654), and this was followed soon after by the royal collection of Frederik III (r. t648-70) in 1648. In t665 a building was erected next to the first Christiansborg castle to house the Royal Library and Royal Kunstkammer, where the collection remained for welt over a hundred years. 38

The Danish Royal Kunstkammer was systematically ordered by rooms; one for coins and medals, a picture gallery, a perspective cabinet, the Heroic cabinet, the Indian cabinet, the artificial cabinet, the model cabinet, the natural cabinet, and the antiquities cabinet. This arrangement was only finally broken up in the 1820s under the direction of Johann Konrad Spengler (1767-1835), who followed his father as director of the Kunstkammer. The astronomical instruments and coins and medals were separated from the collection some time in the eighteenth century.

It was in the artificial cabinet that the elaborately worked objects of wood, amber, glass, ivory, precious stones, silver, and gold were kept. They included many carved and turned portrait medallions of the royal family dating back to the sixteenth century. Here also were the turned ivory objects, the goblets and decorated pieces by the workshops of Nuremberg and Dresden. It was to this already magnificent collection that Spengler added his own ivory pieces and other objects in tortoise-shell, amber, wax, and hartshorn.

The natural cabinet included many Shells, fossils, and minerals, which eventually became part of the Zoological Museum in the nineteenth century. Spengler's own collection of shel!s actually outdid that of the king; in t804 his shells were sold to the crown. The antiquities cabinet contained weapons, mathematical and mechanical instruments, while the model cabinet included models of buildings and machines, wax and wire anatomical models.

37 Allen (footnote 2), 29-31, 43. 3s Bedini (footnote-34), 20, 25-26; Thorvaldsens Museum (footnote 25), 7-18. See also the following

footnote.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

52 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


Gerard Morel (1710-71) of Hamburg was the director of the Royal Kunstkammer in the six years before Spengler was appointed to the post. In 1745, Morel had beenthe 'cabinet inspector' with the Margrave of Bayreuth, and in 1757 was appointed arts commissioner by Frederk v in Copenhagen. He succeeded Johann Salomon Wahl (t68%1765) as Director of the Kunstkammer in 1765. Between 1757 and 1763, Morel bought about two hundred paintings in Holland and Germany for the royal collection. In 1765 a larger picture gallery was built in a wing of the Christiansborg Palace which connected to the Kunstkammer. When Spengler took over his position in 1771, he was as much a keeper of an art gallery and museum as curator of a natural science collection. One of his tasks was to maintain an accurate inventory of the entire contents of the collection. Thus Spengler was clearly competent in many fields of art and science which today would be considered too disparate for one person to be able to deal with adequately in a single post.

The King was by no means the only collector in Denmark. Two travel books of the late eighteenth century describe in some detail the collections of aristocrats, courtiers, and medical men who either specialized in various fields or else attempted to amass collections rivalling that of the crown. Spengler's own cabinet figures prominently in these works, particularly because of his outstanding shell collection of international renown. 39 This part of his collection will be discussed in more detail in the following sub-section.

It is from a travel book published in I775 by an Englishman that we learn something of Spengler's reputation and the diversity of his Kunstkammer, which reinforces the view that Spengler was not regarded simply as a dilettante:

I went yesterday to see .the private collection of rarities, paintings, etc. I mentioned to you before. It is made by a Monsieur Spengler, who, I apprehend, is well known in the literary world. He is by birth a Swiss, but his urbanity and learning have made him a citizen of the world. I have always found the great and the good to be of no country. His pieces of painting are, for a private individual, numerous, and yet very select. Many of them have been presented by the masters themselves, as tributes of friendship or admiration, made to his genius or his heart. They are, indeed, mostly the production of German, Dutch and Flemish artists. He is a fine mechanist and anatomist, and has some pieces of workmanship in both these branches of science, cut by himself in ivory, which are chefs d'oeuvres. I was not surprised to hear him call Dr. Fothergill his intimate friend, or to find that he kept up the closest correspondence with the celebrated Linnaeus in Sweden. 4~

As Spengler's collection of objects steadily grew, he was eventually forced to move into a larger house in which everything could be accommodated. He ensured that the decor of the house matched its precious contents. Each room of the collection had different wall coverings: wallpaper, tapestry, linen, Chinese paintings, gold hangings, and Turkish decorations were used. That Spengler was able to afford such a luxurious setting for his collection is an indication of his wealth and status at court.

39 E. C. Hauber, Beschreibung der Kdniglich Danischen Rezidenz-Stadt Kopenhagen und der KSniglichen LandschliJsser, 3rd edn (Copenhagen~ I782); J. F. L ange, Beschreibung der K6niglichen Rezidenz-Stadt Coppenhagen und der K6niglichen Landschlg~sser (Berlin, 1786).

,0 N. Wraxhall, A Tour through some of the Northern parts of Europe particularly Copenhagen, 2nd edn (London, I775), pp. 30-32. Dr John FothergiI1 (t712-1780) possessed the best cabinet of shells in England after that of the Duchess of Portland, see Dictionary of National Biography.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

52 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


Spengler's rooms contained a large number of paintings and engravings. They can ~ be identified because a catalogue of these works was drawn up after Spengler's death by his son Johann Konrad. There was a Van Dyck given to Spengler by the Swiss mystic Lavater, and two well-known Rembrandt drawings which are now in the State Art Museum in Copenhagen. Over four hundred of the i~aintings went to Holland when the collection was broken up, while the engravings were sold in London in 1809. The collection included many medallions, coins, antiquities, and turned ivory pieces, both Spengler's and those of other makers. His extensive library ran to over 1,400 items. 41

On the natural side, the collection included insects, crabs, parts of animals such as tusks of the walrus and hippopotamus, minerals from East India, Greenland, and Switzerland, and fossils from Norway, Switzerland, and Turin. The minerals alone amounted to 1,556 pieces. It was the shells, however, which formed the most extensive part of the collection. Spengler had shells gathered from all parts of the world, including some ~om the voyages of Captain Cook to the South Seas. The shells were obtained either from Spengler's own dealings with seafarers, or indirectly through the network of correspondence and exchange of shells and minerals that he maintained with natural scientists and collectors throughout Europe.

Another individual who was wealthy enough to maintain an enormous and diverse collection was Count Adam Gottlob Moltke (1710-92), a central figure at the Danish court, who was originally from Germany. Moltke's interests in many ways resemble those of the Earl of Bute in England. Moltke became president of the Danish Art Academy in 1754, and was also a member of the Danish Academy of Sciences. He had

enormous library and an equally large collection of paintings. The Moltke art collection was the richest private Collection in Denmark in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Moltke combined his artisNc and scientific interests in much the same way as the Earl of Bute; it was Moltke who was responsible for arranging for Franz Regenfuss (1713-80) to come to Copenhagen in the early 1750s to publish his book of engravings of shells. Moltke had one of the finest collections of shells in Denmark, and it figures prominently in Regenfuss's book of 1758 along with the collections of Spengler and Johannes Hieronymus Chemnitz (1730-1800), a German preacher and a close friend ofSpengler. 42

Moltke's collection of naturalia was kept in the pavilion of his palace at Amalienborg, a richly ornamented building corresponding to the value of his collection. On the ground floor were kept the minerals and fossils, while on the floor above, the shells were displayed in cabinets. The centre of the floor between the levels was cut away, r e v e ~ g a painting on the ceiling of the pavilion to the viewer below. As well as his interests in the arts and sciences, Moltke was also concerned with encouraging the development of the porcelain industry in Copenhagen, investing money in its establishment.

A number of other collectors of naturalia were also involved in this project for supporting the porcelain industry, which reveals the close links between art, industry, and the sciences at the time. These collectors included: Councillor Holmskiold; Councillor Peter Friederich Suhm (1728-91), who also had an enormous library of

41j~ C~ Spemgle~, K ort U dsigt o~er den Speng lerske M alerie Samling (Copenhagen, 1809); Philippovich (footnote 6), 311, I am grateful to Professor E. Snorrason for additional information communicated to me in correspondence.

42 F. M, Regenfuss, Choix de Coquillage et de Crustac~s (Copenhagen, 1758); S. P. Dance, Shell Collecting: An Illustrated History (London, 1966), pp. 59 60, 94.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

52 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

The Union o f Ar ts and Sciences in the Eighteenth Century 431

philology, and history and a coin collection of several thousand pieces; and States Councillor von Hemmert, who had a large collection of new coins. Other collectors of naturalia considered worthy of note at the time were: Councillor Ryberg, who also had a collection of new coins; Joachim Diedrich Cappel (1717-84), apothecary to the Royal Frederik Hospital; Professor Brfinnich (1737 1827), a zoologist; and the merchants Lorenzen and Colsmann. 43

Collectors who specialized in physical instruments alone appear to have been relatively few in number, according to available information, although this may not have been the case. Certainly the King and Moltke owned instruments, although details of these are not known. One person who did collect instruments was Christian Gottlieb Kratzenstein (1723-95), Professor of Experimental Physics at the University of Copenhagen. From 1753, Kratzenstein, originally from Halle, lectured in chemistry, medicine, and experimental physics both at the university and in a private capacity for distinguished pupils such as Moltke's two sons and members of the court. Like Demainbray, Kratzenstein collected his own instruments for demonstration purposes, but unfortunately almost all of these were destroyed in the fire of 1795 in Copenhagen. A few are still Preserved in the Technical Museum at Elsinore, which include a lightning house, electrostatic chimes, electrical pistols, and a Leyden jar. These particular instruments reflect Kratzenstein's interest in electricity, one which he shared with Spengler in the 1750s. In Zealand there are some microscope lenses once owned by Kratzenstein, which suggests that microscopes were included in his collection. Regenfuss refers to a room in Kratzenstein's Kunstkammer used for optical experiments using microscopes. 44 Another person mentioned in the travel books as one who collected specifically optical instruments, was the broker Bunsden, although he has yet to be identified.

More is known about the instrument collection of Count Adam Wilhelm H a u e h (1755-I 838), which still exists in Zealand. Hauch's interest in science was awakened by attending the private lectures of Kratzenstein in the 1780s. In t788 89 Hauch made a grand tour, visiting natural scientists in England, Germany, Holland, and France. The tour included a visit to Dollond's workshop, which was recognized as one of the leading manufacturers of microscopes. Hauch began his own collection of instruments, and gave lectures and demonstrations in physics to members of the royal court. Other demands made on him, however, meant that Hauch eventually gave up his study of physics, and sold his collection to Frederik VI (r.1808-39). Hauch became Chief of the Royal Household, Chief of the Royal Theatre and Library, the Rosenborg collection, and the historical portrait gallery. These appointments suggest that Hauch, like Moltke, was a nobleman involved in both the arts and the sciences. In 1827, the king donated Hauch's collection to the newly rebuilt Soro Academy (Zealand), and Hauch himself began to edit a catalogue of the collection. One of Hauch's microscopes is now in the Medical History Museum in Copenhagen. 45

Only a small number of instrument collections, then, are known to have existed in eighteenth-century Denmark, and these date mainly from the second half of the century. It is difficult to ascertain how many individuals owned or used microscopes

*3 Hauber (footnote 39), 147, 163; Lange (footnote 39), 105-8; Thorvaldsens Museum (footnote 25), 23-4. 4,, E. G. Snorrason, C. G. Kratzenstein and his Studies on Electricity during the Eighteenth Century

(Odense, I974), p. t35; Regenfuss (footnote 42), xii. 45 Snorrason (footnote 44), 99, 107. Information on Hauch is also provided by Professor Harald Moe in

his description of the Culpeper-type microscope in the Medical History Museum, Copenhagen, which is to be incorporated in a forthcoming catalogue.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

52 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


which no longer exist. Most of the instruments which survive from this period found in the Medical History Museum are English. It seems that what demand there was for microscopes was met by instruments imported from Holland, Germany, and England in particular, and that these were sold by dealers under their own name, a practice which continued well into the nineteenth century.

There is, however, some evidence to suggest that there was an instrument and optical trade developing in Copenhagen around the middle of the century, from about the time Spengler was there.in the Medical History Museum at Copenhagen there are

�9 ' N two similar CuIpeper-type microscopes, of which one is signed . Bastholm', and the other is thought to be by the same maker. Both were made around 1750. Nicholas Bastholm (1706-51) was an optician and lens grinder who was working in Copenhagen as earlyasthe1740s. The two microscopes, based on the English Culpeper design of the 1720s, are somewhat ungainly, and indicate that microscope making was still in its early stages in Copenhagen at this time. 46

' " e In this context, Spengler s mlcroscop takes on a further significance. There were relatively few microscopes in Copenhagen in the early eighteenth century (certainly none survive today), and these were all imported. Early examples of Danish-made microscopes of the mid-century were fairly crude and inelegant. Spengler obviously thought that a beautiful microscope of elegant design and in precious materials would beararc gift fitting for the King, and one which would reflect the King's own interest in the natural sciences. It is likely that Spengler modelled his microscope on an English one which may have been either in his own or in the King's collection, because he appears to have 'cannibalised' such a microscope for various parts. He thereby produced the third microscope known to have been made in Copenhagen.

There is noindication thatSpengler made any other microscopes, and it is clear that he devoted more time to the collecting of shells than to microscopy or any other aspect of the natural sciences. It was as a conchologist that Spengler established his reputation in the world of eighteenth-century natural science.

42. Spengler and conchology Spengler began to collect shells systematically at a very early stage in his career. By

1758,Jf not earlier, he had one of the best collections in Denmark. Others who shared his passion were the King, Count Moltke, and Chemnitz, and descriptions of their collections appear in the Choix des Coquitlages et de Crustacks (Copenhagen, 1758) by Franz Michael Regenfuss. Regenfuss, a German painter and engraver, had planned to compile an illustrated guide to all known shells, but his early efforts proved abortive. He was subsequently invited to Copenhagen by the King through the intercession of Mottke, and was appointed engraver to the King. Regenfuss's book appeared in 1758 with twelve engraved plates, coloured by his wife, of shells found in Danish collections. Originally Kratzenstein was asked to provide the written descriptions for the engravings, but these did not please the court, and instead the text was assigned to Spengler and Johann Andreas Cramer (1723-88), a clergyman of the royal court. The

46 H. Moev'Mikroscop fra caA750 af danske oprindelsC, inMedicqnsk Forum, 35 (1982), 627; ibid., descripti~ of Basthotm microscopes in theMedical History Musetma. Professor Moe has also informed me,

~ persorml communication, of two other early Danish microscopes. In 1761, the instrument maker Ferdinand Muth produced amicroscope after the design of the Englishman Watkins, which was for the use of Otto Friedrich Mfiller, Denmark's first microscopist. The medical doctor and instrument maker Jeppe Hansen Smith (1759-1821) produced, in the earIy nineteenth century, a lucernal microscope resembling the advanced type made by George Adams Jr; see his Essays on the Microscope (London, 1787), plate III.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

52 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


introduction to the work provides the first published record of Spengler's shell collection, although it was to be described again on a number of occasions. 47

Spengler's collection provided a substantial amount of information for a second major work on shells after the Regenfuss. In 1769, Friedrich Wilhelm Martini (1729-78), a physician and naturalist of Hamburg, began an iconographical study of every known shell. Martini produced three volumes of the Neues systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet before his death in 1778. As the most likely candidate, being a leading conchologist of the time, Spengler was asked to continue the work. He declined, and suggested that his friend Chemnitz, another prominent collector of shells, should undertake the task instead. Chemnitz did so, and produced eight more volumes of the work between 1779 and 1798. In these, lavish references and fulsome praise are given throughout to Spengler and his shells. It is from Chemnitz that we learn that Spengler received from London in 1795 a boxload of fresh new shells from Botany Bay and Norfolk Island, which had never been seen before in Europe. 48

In order to expand his collection, Spengler was assiduous in maintaining contacts with other natural scientists throughout Europe. At present it is only through Mourier that his correspondence with Martini, Hailer, Ren6 Antoine Ferchault de Rramur (1683-1757), Carl Linnaeus (1707-78), and other leading naturalists of the time is known. Some of his correspondence with Dr Johann Conrad Ammann (1724-1811) of Schaffhausen, however, does survive, which provided a fascinating insight into the network of European scientific correspondence and exchange of the time. 49

Ammann was a physician and collector of shells and minerals. His collection achieved contemporary recognition; a catalogue of its contents was published in 1815, although its final fate is not known. 5~ Spengler's letters to Ammann reveal that Spengler was anxious to obtain certain minerals from south Germany and Switzerland. In return for these he sent Amman fossils and recently-discovered shells including the Hercules. He was amazed to find how difficult it was for Ammann, living in a land- locked country, to obtain even the most common examples of shells for his collection. Ammann had apparently sent him a list of some shells he required. One boxload of shells Spengler sent to Ammann was carried by a certain MrEntlibucher, a traveller on foot from Schaffhausen who was returning there from Copenhagen. From Spengler's letters to Ammann it is also known that he sent samples of shells and minerals to the Count and Bishop of Constance, Franz Conrad Casimir von Rodt (1706-75). 51 Perhaps these gifts also included the forty-eight watercolours of shells that have been in a private collection in Constance and are now at the Museum Allerheiliyen in Schaffhausen.

Spengler's articles on shells were published in German and Danish periodicals from the 1760s onwards. In his writings Spengler concentrated on certain types of mollusc in which he was particularly interested, for example the Teredo batalius which badly damaged the wooden posts of dykes in Holland. Spengler was the first to recognize the

47 Dance (footnote 42), 60; Snorrasori, (footnote 44), 118-19. 48 Vogler (footnote 4), 52; Dance (footnote 42), 74. 49 Mourier (footnote 3), 20; Vogler (footnote 4), 17, 53. 50 j. Seitz, Systematisches Verzeichnis fiber die verkiiufliche Naturaliensammlun9 des verstorbenen Herrn

J. C. Ammann (Nuremberg, 1815); E. Rfiedi, 'Johann Conrad Ammann, Dr Med.', Schaffhauser Biographien (Thayngen, 1956) I, pp. 6l-6; G. Mayer, 'Fossilienund ~vfineraliensammler in sfidlichen Baden und in der Schweiz als Lieferanten und Tauschpartner der Markgr/ifin Caroline Louise yon Baden', Der Aufschluss, 9 (1972), 342-7.

sl Vogler (footnote 4), 53.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

52 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


character of the Hercules shell which came from Tranquebar, the Danish trading outpost. His studies were based on samples of the animals themselves preserved in alcohol, and led him to the discovery of a new species called Gastrochaena . This work indicates that Spengler was not only interested in the beautiful outward appearance of the shells that he collected~ bu t also ~n the animals contained within.

Among his numerous articles, the most important ones are those on certain species of mollusc, such as Cardium, Tellina, Maebra, and Criton. In one article Spengler describes more than fifty kinds of the Cardium species, all from his own collection, which include a few new ones amongthem:He also wrote on shells from the South Seas and on corM. It was no wonder that Spengler was considered a leading conchologist of his day, nor that many species were called after him. 5e

The articles on shells do not constitute the whole of S~engler's publications. He seems to have enjoyed writing on a number of disparate topics, and even considered himself something of a poet. Heis reputed to have written some verses for the Reformed Church in Copenhagen, although these have not been found. Spengler's other writings include a short treatise on the use of electricity in healing, two papers on ivory, its use throughout history and methods for its restoration, a work on stoves and their improvement, and a poem written in praise of his dead father.S3 Only the first of these works will be discussed here, although the others must serve as a reminder of the wide range of Spengler's interests and talents, like those of so many other people of his time.

4.3. Spengler ' s e lec tr ica l e x p e r i m e n t s

It was on the strength of his publication on electricity in 1754 that Spengler was invited to join the K a i s e r l i c h - L e o p o l d i n i s c h e A k a d e m i e and the Gesel l schaf t f i i r den

F o r t s c h r i t t der N a t u r g e s c h i c h t e in Berlin. Electrical experimentation, like shell collecting, was an enormously popular pursuit in eighteenth-century Europe, and the interest was by no means confined to 'real' scientists or medical men. Electrical instruments appeared in all the major collections of scientific instruments, for example that of George m of England already mentioned. Electrical experiments began in the eighteenth ceatury largely as a result of the discoveries of Stephen Grey (1667-1736) in 1729, and Charles du Fay(1695-t795). After the Leyden experiments of 1745, when the Leyden jar was used to store electricity, electrical machines became more common and sessions of experimentation with electrical phenomena became fashionable. 54

One of the early writers on electricity was Kratzenstein, whose collection of scientific instruments has already been mentioned. Kratzenstein studied at Halle from 1742, where many experiments on electricity took place, and wrote his first book on the subject in 1744. However, Kratzenstein did not publish anything further on electricity until 1753, shortly after he arrived in Copenhagen. It seems that his interest in electricity was revived because of the activities of Spengler, who was giving healing

52 Ibid., 51-3. Spengler's articles on shells were published in Beschdfiigungen der Gesellschaft narurf~ F~'eunde in Berlin (1775, 1776, 1777, 1779); Schriften der Gesellschaft naturf Freunde in Berlin (1780, 1783, 1784, 1785); Naturforscher in Berlin (1808); Det Danske Vidensk, Selskabs Skr!fter and Det N aturhistoriske SeIskabs Skrifter.

s 3 Bri@, welche einige Etfahrungen der Electrischen Wirkungen in Krankenheiten enthalten (Copenhagen, 1754); Practische Anzeige wie die bishero insgemein gebrafichliche eisernen Stubenrfen mit wenigen Kosten zu einem welt nfitzlicheren Gebrauch einzarichten wiiren (Copenhagen, 1759); Kindliches Denkmahl, welches seinem, zwar schon vor einigen Jahren Verstorben~n . . . rnit dem kindtichsten und dankbarsten Herzen erriehtet ein Nachgelassener Sohn (Copenhagen, 1755). See also footnote 22 on writings on ivory.

24 Snorrason (footnote 44), 16-17; W. Hackmann, Electricity from Glass: The History of Frictional Electrical Machines 1600-1850 (Alphen aan den Rijn, 1978).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

52 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014


sessions with the use of an electrical machine he had built himself. Kratzenstein published his Historiam restitutae loquelae per electrificationem recenset.., invitat on l0 October 1753, in which he informed the public about his own success with the use of electricity for healing, and suggested that he should be paid to continue his research. Five days later, a Danish physician, Carl Jensenius (1720-95) of the Royal Frederik Hospital, submitted a petition to the King to ask for financial support for experiments and healing using Spengler's machine. This was direct retaliation against Kratzenstein.

Spengler himself first described his own results with his machine in the October issue of the Mercure Danoise. In this, Spengler claims to have cured a patient with sciatica by two electrifications, and also to have cured deafness, tinnitis, he/tdaches, and rheumatism. Spengler's cures were so popular at this time that he could scarcely keep up with the demand. A cousin of Spengler's (on his mother's side), the barber-surgeon Johann Martin Peter, asked permission from the University Faculty of Medicine to treat some of the patients that Spengler and the faculty could not cope with. Despite Spengler's influence through his position at court, the petition was rejected on the grounds of Peter's ignorance. Nothing daunted, Peter continued his electrical treatments in Norway. Meanwhile, after a continuing struggle between Jensenius and Kratzenstein, it was finally resolved in January 1754 that Kratzenstein should be the one to continue experiments as Professor of Experimental Physics of the University.55

In order to regain some of his own lost ground, Spengler published his Briefe in 1754. In this work he refers to the cure of eighty patients with rheumatism, deafness, and lameness, claims which may well have been exaggerated. His first healing success was curing the lame arm of one of the apprentices in his own workshop. Spengler reveals in the Briefe that he had been led towards the study of electricity and the building of a machine by the influence of the writings of Jean Jallabert (1712-68). Jallabert was a physician, physicist, and librarian in Geneva who wrote the Expdriences sur l'Electricit~ in 1748. Spengler had also read the work of Johann Heinrich Winkler (1703-70) and of Abb6 Jean Antoine Nollet (1700-70).

The craze for electrotherapy in Copenhagen appears to have died down as suddenly as it began. Once Spengler's machine was sold to the university, it seems that Kratzenstein continued his experiments only for a very short time. After 1754 nothing more is heard of the subject, either from Kratzenstein or Spengler. Yet the incident is not a trifling one; it throws valuable light on Spengler and his interests. While continuing to produce turned ivory work for the court, Spengler was also reading the latest publications on electricity. His knowledge of lathes must have provided him with the necessary skills for building his own electrical machine.

The whole of Spengler's career, then, provides a fascinating example of the blending of art, craft, and natural science that was taking place in Europe at this time. Spengler is also an example of a particular social phenomenon of the period. The youngest son of a successful architect in a provincial town, a member of the middle classes, Spengler left home to become trained in a craft that would provide him with secure employment. By a combination of determination and luck, after a false start in England, Spengler was appointed to a secure and desirable post in the court of Denmark, and eventually became extremely wealthy. Likewise, Spengler soon acquired the tastes and interests of a gentleman, although he always declined any offer of a title.

Spengler's position at court opened up a whole range of opportunities. He could afford to buy the most luxurious materials with which to work, and at the same time he

55 Snorrason (footnote 44), 104-7.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

14:

52 1

7 N

ovem

ber

2014

436 The Union of Arts and Sciences in the Eighteenth Century

was able to build up a choice collection of natural objec[s for his cabinet. It is clear that he had a wide circle of contacts both inside and outside the court. The popularity of his work meant that he never lacked patrons, such as yon der Lfihe and Moltke. Spengler also knew the physicians and apothecaries at the King Frederik Hospital and academics at the university. His medical interest was not confined to electrotherapy; he also made anatomical models for demonstration purposes and artificial teeth from ivory. This ensured his contact with medical men 6f the time such as Kratzenstein and Jensenius in Denmark, while his correspondence reveals wider contacts with natural scientists, physicians, and collectors throughout Europe. Spengler was also friendly with members of the church such as Chemnitz, a lifelong friend, and Cramer, both of whom collected shells.

This detailed enquiry into Spengler's career has revealed that Spengler did not confine himself to the teaching of turning, but in the congenial atmosphere of the Danish court became involved in the leading fashions in the arts and science of the day. For it must not be forgotten that Spengler was only one of a number of artists from Switzerland, Germany, and France who were transforming the court into a new centre of baroque and rococo fashion, while medical men such as Kratzenstein were injecting new life into the university syllabus. It may be suggested that studies of other individuals of the period, such as Kratzenstein or Haller, for example, would only reinforce the impression that the arts and sciences were more closely linked in the eighteenth century than is generally believed.

Acknowledgments I should like to thank the following people and institutions for all their generous

assistance in the preparation of this article. Copenhagen: Dr Mogens Bencard, Curator of Rosenborg Slot; Dr J. Koch, Director of the Medicinsk Historiske Museum; Professor E. Snorrason; Professor H. Moe; the staff at Det kongelige Bibliotek; Ms Elisabeth Harne-Frey. Schaffhausen: Dr Barbara Schnetzler, Stadtbibliothek Schaff- hausen; Dr Schlatter, Museum Allerheligen; Stadtarchiv der Stadt Schafjhausen. London: Mr Michael Snodin, Mr Malcolm Baker, Ms Marjorie Trusted of the Victoria and Albert Museum; Mr Michael Wright, Science Museum. Oxford: Dr Gerard L'E. Turner and staffat the Museum of the History of Science. My thanks also to Erika Melle:r and Margaret Pelting.

Photographs are produced with permission from the following institutions: Dansk Statens Museum for Kunst, Copenhagen; Medicinsk Historiske Museum, Copenhagen; Rosenbor# Slgt, Copenhagen; Museum of the History of Science, Oxford. D

ownl

oade

d by

[N

orth

east

ern

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

4:52

17

Nov

embe

r 20

14

the union of arts and sciences in the eighteenth century: lorenz spengler (1720–1807), artistic...

Documents