The city of Halle conveniently situated in the middle of Germany is the largest and most densely populated city in the state Saxony-Anhalt, with approximately 240,000 inhabitants. In 2006, the city celebrated its 1,200th anniversary, which makes it one of the oldest cities in central Germany. It rose to fame through its salt production in the Middle Ages, as the birthplace and early place of work of the composer Georg Friedrich Händel and, of course, as the seat of one of the oldest German Universities, Martin Luther University. The rich history of Halle is reflected in its many significant places of interest and in large variety of architectural monuments and cultural opportunities. Martin Luther University, founded in 1502, is the largest and oldest educational institution in the state Saxony-Anhalt. Currently, more than 18,000 students are enrolled in about 200 different  programs. Education of undergraduate, graduate and postgraduate students ranges from Medical, Natural, and Agricultural Sciences to Social Sciences and Humanities, Theology and Law. Martin Luther University reaches international cooperation and exchange programs. Interdisciplinary research plays a key role. As a result of extensive research and development, innovative and future-oriented technologies lead to an establishment of new companies connected to the University. 

Though commemoration is a regular process within scientific communities, those that emerged in the 1980s were different1. Not only were they self commemoration but they were also made public; using strong communication tools, gathering media. It was not one institution or one scientific discipline in particular; it was the whole scientific community that was involved in this collective celebration of science. Historians of science have now identified a strong change of regime, a “deep crisis” as Levy-Leblond put it, in regard to science legitimacy within society2. Consequently, it appears important for scientists to strengthen their identity and establish a “dialogue” with society. Commemorative actions were thus linked to strong communication actions in order to legitimate their scientific choices and build their future3. It is also in this particular context that the concept of scientific and technical culture emerged in France. Very often heritage preservation plans were started in order to exhibit this heritage and demonstrate to the layman to whom it was important to talk to. In my paper I will illustrate how commemoration, communication and scientific and technical culture sustained heritage process within scientific institutions since the 1980s. I will discuss the particular example of the University Louis Pasteur in Strasbourg.

“Greenwich on the river Tagus”: Reflections on the scientific, cultural and historical significance of Ajuda, the Astronomical Observatory of Lisbon

The University of Lisbon is currently reflecting on how the Observatório Astronómico de Lisboa [the Astronomical Observatory of Lisbon], located at the Tapada da Ajuda and which we will here simply designate by Ajuda Observatory, can be preserved for the future. The reflection encompasses pondering if a museological function can contribute to the preservation goal and, consequently, which museological approach delivers the best and most sustainable contribution1. Gradually, as almost all nineteenth century observatories in Europe ceased to be used for precise astronomical observations due to a variety of reasons, many were turned into offices for research and teaching activities no longer directly connected with instruments on site, thus loosing their original structure, character and function. Some were altogether abandoned or turned into a museum (e.g. the Observatories of Greenwich and Marseille). Ajuda, one of the two nineteenth century observatories owned by the University of Lisbon, stands out as a unique outstanding example of an observatory that has remained almost entirely unaltered: it has maintained the original setting up of a nineteenth-century research laboratory, with the instrumentation in situ and in working condition almost ready to resume its activity. Moreover, the site of the Observatory – including the library – remains in use by astronomers. This exceptional situation offers the context to move one step beyond the evident choice of converting Ajuda into a traditional museum of astronomy. This choice would not only disturb its authenticity and thus quality, but would also be a missed opportunity. In this paper, we argue that the principal element in musealization should be to bring the authentic spaces to life and to regard the ensemble as starting point. This implies a step further in scale from object to space, allowing a story-telling approach to astronomy, as well as to science as part of society and to the ways the ensemble reflects the intellectual, sociological, political and cultural environment, both nationally and internationally. This amounts to an ambitious and challenging concept, requiring a new museological perspective, as well as an interdisciplinary team. It is also a delicate process as it by definition demands that the space remains as it is: undisturbed, in situ.

“The importance and value of your collections has been convincingly demonstrated; time has now come to formulate ambitions and draw up a strategy for the next 30 years”. Such were the encouraging, challenging and thought provoking words of António Nóvoa, Rector of the University of Lisbon, during the closing session of the UNIVERSEUM Meeting in Lisbon (July 2007). University museums and collections function on the triple point between the academic world, the museum world and society at large. These three elements – universities, the way they position themselves in society and how they perform and organise research and teaching (and the role therein of collections); the world of museums, to which university museums and collections belong ever since the Ashmolean Museum was established as the first official museum at the University of Oxford in 1683 with its triple mission: teaching, research and public display; and the society to which we belong – make out the three mayor elements determining and affecting the life and functioning of university museums. These worlds are in a process of transition, if not in a state of crisis. These transitions have a severe impact on what is expected from university museums and by consequence on their traditional roles: collections, research and teaching and public. Finally, the scope and range of what is generally understood as ‘academic heritage’ is broadening whilst university museums themselves are in a process of transition and re-orientation. 

Over the past decade, university museums and collections have witnessed an unprecedented attention. This is illustrated by the establishment of a growing number of advocacy groups, each with their own activities, conferences, workshops and publications, both at the national and the international level; at the latter level, UMAC and UNIVERSEUM are of particular significance. The Council of Europe adopted two important documents concerning university collections. The first document (1998–1375, Document 8111) focuses on the vulnerable position of ‘incidental collections’and recommends member countries to establish legislation and a general scheme to give assistance ‘[...]. when there is a demonstrated need for this’. The second document was a Recommendation, unanimously adopted by member-states (REC13–2005), addressing governments and university administrations on their responsibility regarding the governance and management of university heritage5; ‘heritage of universities’ is understood to encompass all tangible and intangible heritage related to higher education institutions.

These activities definitely contributed to a wider awareness and recognition of the scope and importance of the academic heritage. Simultaneously, those that are responsible for u-museums and collections become increasingly aware that they need to find answers on a range of questions related to the future of the basic missions of u-museums: care for collections, collection-based research and teaching and public display. These questions need to be dealt with taking into account the transitions within the professional world in which university museums perform their activities.

The aim of this paper is to identify these elements and to discuss the processes of change and adaptation to new requirements they are facing, leading to often purposely bleak, provocative and simplified, but essentially realistic assessments of their effects, as well as the possible consequences thereof for university museums and collections. I finally accept the challenge put forward by António Nóvoa, to point out some challenges and ambitions both universities and their museums may wish to develop.

Wykraczając poza muzea uniwersyteckie: zakres akademickiego dziedzictwa a zapis historii nauki

Od połowy lat dziewięćdziesiątych w Holandii zyskała popularność nowa koncepcja dziedzictwa akademickiego10. Wydaje się, że w tym znaczeniu jest ona używana głównie w Holandii i czasem eksportowana z niej. W tym przyczynku pragniemy naświetlić, jakie jest znaczenie pojęcia „dziedzictwo akademickie”. Zrobimy to, przedstawiając materialne, wirtualne i niematerialne, o ile to możliwe, pozostałości, mogące należeć do tego dziedzictwa.

W jakim zakresie to pojęcie jest synonimem „historii nauki”? Używamy słowa „nauka” w znaczeniu szerokim, obejmującym wszelkie badania, nie tylko nauki przyrodnicze. Czy pojęcie „dziedzictwa akademickiego” jest twórczym konceptem? Postaramy się objąć całe spektrum znaczenia, przy całej skromności, jesteśmy specjalistami wywodzącymi się z bibliotek i archiwów i nie mamy pełnej kompetencji w dziedzinie muzeów uniwersyteckich. Faktycznie, można czytać ten artykuł jako poszukiwanie zrozumienia przez dwóch ludzi spoza branży. Proponujemy schematyczny przegląd tej dziedziny.

Stanisław Wyspiański’s drawing presenting six phases of division of a European fire salamander’s epidermis cell, made with a pencil, charcoal and pastels, which has been in the Jagiellonian University Museum’s collection since 1989, is dated 1894. According to the reminiscences of Professor Michał Siedlecki, it was drawn in the Institute of Zoology at the Jagiellonian University as an expression of gratitude for the possibility of examining stuffed birds, necessary to an artist for a certain painting. However, in 1894 Wyspiański stayed in Paris till September, and after his return to Cracow he did not receive any orders. The frieze of birds was to decorate the baroque church of the Franciscans in Cracow. The work in the church began on the 13th of June, 1895, while on the 23rd of October a distraught Wyspiański wrote to his friend that „birds are not allowed in the church of the Franciscans”9. Therefore, his examination in the Zoological Museum should be placed between these dates, and thus the original date of the drawing should be moved to 1895.

In 2007, the priceless collection of historic scientific instruments stored in Jagiellonian University Collegium Maius was enriched with a unique scholar compass, a sensational archaeological discovery made in the Cracow university quarter. The above-mentioned brass compasses, with a signature in the form of the Greek letter Ω, was found in 2005 in Cracow, in the northern courtyard of Jagiellonian University Collegium Novum. In the context of the discovery, the compasses can be related to the building, the remains of which were uncovered in the western part of the Collegium Novum courtyard. From 1589 to 1643, this building housed the oldest academic gymnasium, which is the so-called Classes, renamed as Nowodworski School after 1625. After the location of the secondary school was changed in 1643, the building was still called Old Classes until 1813, although it had not belonged to the university since 1783. The afore-mentioned secondary school, established near the Cracow Academy from 1586 to 1588, following the example of the then progressive solutions known from the University of Heidelberg, served as a so-called academic pedagogium; that is, a school preparing young people for more serious university studies. The described geometric instrument was dug up from a depth of 450 cm, within the area of a black stratum of ashes, interpreted as a usable level of the basement floor of the late Renaissance building of the academic gymnasium. It is worth mentioning that in the same usable stratum, apart from the compasses, some fragments of ceramic vessels and tiles, the technological features of which are typical for early modern ceramics, dated to the end of the 16th century, were discovered too. The determination of the origin date of the compasses is partly enabled by a numismatic item coming from the stratum that was lower, and thereby older, than the stratum of ashes. It is an old ‘rechen pfenning’, minted during the last twenty years of the 15th century. On this basis, taking into consideration not only the moment of minting, but also a certain period of using the pfennig in trade before it had been lost, it could be assumed that the stratum in which the compasses were found had been formed not later that in the mid-16th century.

The compasses discovered in Jagiellonian University Collegium Novum are made of brass and consists of two not very long legs with not very sharp ends. The hinge joining the two main parts of the compass was made as a multi-spherical handle. This part of the compasses is polygonally shaped in the cross section, and additionally, it is separated from the narrowed handle by another part in the form of a convex, horizontal slat. At two-thirds of their height, both legs of the instrument are ornamented with two horizontal grooves cut along the whole perimeter. On the side of one of the compasses’ legs, just below this ornamentation, there is a signature in the form a concave Greek letter omega, very carefully struck with a die. Typologically, these compasses can be classified as so-called bow compasses, used to measure distances. They cannot be regarded as a precise scientific instrument because of both the too short legs and their blunt ends, with no distinct spikes – thus they could not be used to make precise measurements. They were used rather as a school instrument. In the Cracovian academic gymnasium, the compasses could serve the future students as a device for learning geometry.

With regard to the above, it is worth mentioning that at the turn of the 16th century, geometry and astronomy were taught in this school by two outstanding university professors, who later became Cracow Academy vice-chancellors – Walenty Fontana and Jan Brożek. Jan Brożek’s direct indulgence was founding an individual scholarship for a student specialising in geometry, and the creation of a permanent fund for the purchase of the newest works on mathematics and astronomy, as well as new astronomic and geometric instruments. In an antique book originally belonging to this scientist, there is still a handwritten note concerning the purchase of a whole set of measuring instruments, including compasses, from the Padua house belonging to the famous Galileo. There is no sufficient evidence to establish for certain that the Cracovian compass comes from Galileo’s workshop, but it is certain that it is of Galileo’s period. Apart from the previously mentioned written sources, the fact that it was most probably imported from this area of contemporary Italy is proved by the quality of the material it is made of and the excellent precision of finishing the details of the brass instrument. On the basis of archaeological evidence, it can be proved that the compass found in Collegium Novum was used and finally lost at the turn of the 16th century. Such a proposition of dating the mentioned find is additionally confirmed by the analysis of the iconography of the Portrait of Johannes Kepler, from 1610, from Prague; a work by an anonymous painter, on which compasses with the same stylistic features as the Cracovian instrument, including an almost identical shape of the handle knob, was presented as the attribute of the famous German astronomer. The compasses can be dated to the end of the 16th century at the earliest, first of all because it has been signed with a workshop mark, as the custom of placing the maker’s signature on the European scientific instruments became widespread during the late Renaissance period, a good example of which can be a set of compasses signed with the initials of Humfrey Col and made in 1575 in his London workshop. The discovery made on the premises of the oldest in Europe gymnasium pedagogium in Rostock (so called Porta Coeli), where compasses from the second half of the 16th century had been submerges in a latrine, was of the importance analogous to the find made in Cracow university quarter. Both measuring instruments – from Cracow and from Rostock – are meaningful evidence of the high level of the teaching of geometry and astronomy in secondary schools, established at that time as institutions of outstanding academic centres. A fragment of a scene with so-called Athenian School, which is a part of the famous frescos painted by Rafael Santi from 1509 to 1513 in Vatican Stanza della Segnatura, is more crucial evidence that such a type of compasses was used during Renaissance as teaching devices. The mentioned frescos show Euclid, who explains the rules of his geometry to a group of scientists using bow compasses, held in his hand, to engrave geometric figures and constructions on a wax tablet.

Abraham Izrael Staffel, a Varsovian maker, and his inventions

Abraham Izrael Staffel (1814–1885) was one of the few Polish nineteenth century precision mechanics and inventors.

Although he did not implement any of his inventions into production, he was noticed on the European market and appreciated by the circle of contemporary scientists and authorities in the manufacture of precision instruments.

When he was granted a clockmaker concession, A.I. Staffel opened his own clock shop in Warsaw, first at ul. Marszałkowska 1379; after several years, he moved his shop to ul. Grzybowska 982.

The earliest information concerning the devices made by Staffel comes from 1845, when he presented a calculating machine for the first time at an industry exhibition in Warsaw47. It was the result of ten years of work. The machine served to perform four basic operations – addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, as well as exponentiation and extraction of square roots. The mechanic presented his arithmometer in at least three exhibitions. For the first time at the already mentioned exhibition in Warsaw in 184548. The machine was also positively assessed by the exhibition jury, which among others consisted of Professor Adryan Krzyżanowski, August Bernhard, and Julian Bayer, who were outstanding authorities in the Polish scientific circle. Staffel was awarded with a silver medal for it. Later, in 1846, he exhibited the machine in the Russian Empire Academy of Science. The device was submitted to assessment by W.J. Bunyakowski49 and B.S. Jacobi.50 He was then awarded with a prize of 1,500 roubles. At the end of his life Staffel decided to give his arithmometer to St. Petersburg, to the Empire Academy of Science. The device was forwarded to the Physics Laboratory at the Academy in 1876. Unfortunately, it has not survived.

Probably the only specimen of Staffel’s calculating machine which has survived in Poland is in the Warsaw Technical Museum’s collection. Its mechanism is encased in a box of walnut wood, with dimensions: length – 26 cm, depth – 14 cm, height after closing – 16 cm, diameter of wheels – about 8 cm. The inside of the cover is lined with plush, at the centre of which there is an oval metal plate with an engraved inscription: Calculating Machine, Invented and Manufactured by the Clockmaker Izrael Abraham Staffel in Warsaw in 1842. Additionally, the machine was able to convert roubles into zlotys.

More information on another calculating machine model comes from 1858. Staffel named it a ‘mechanical calculator’51; it was also a seven-digit machine and served for addition and subtraction; it did not have the function of converting zlotys into roubles. The machine was rewarded at the exhibition in Warsaw in 1858. The only prototype of it was stored in the Calculating Machine Museum of Grimme Natalis and Company; presently, it is in the State Museum in Braunschweig.

Staffel also constructed other instruments and technical devices. Some of them have survived, e.g., an anemometer – a device which served to quantify the ratio of metals in gold and silver alloys, and a fan – one of many made by Staffel apart from providing everyday clock services.

It seems that the 1840s and 1850s were the period of the most intense intellectual activity of Staffel. Most of his inventions were designed after 1842 and not later than in the 1860s.

Despite a great talent and perseverance, Staffel did not expand his activity. Certainly, the then political situation was unfavourable. It is also known that the inventor was ill for a long time and his financial situation was poor, which also limited his professional activity.

In 1885 Abraham Izrael Staffel died in poverty after a lengthy illness.

The traditional theory of a museum-exhibition resembles to a certain degree the history of art.

1. – when it is a science concerning facts, e.g. when individual museums, their construction, style, history (e.g. development, rebuilding, decline, etc.), function or their subject matters are described; it also can be 2. – a science concerning types of facts, e.g. when architectural types of museum buildings, types of exhibitions, and especially the types of their functions, subject matter, etc. are described. In the case of the description of various types they are usually classified – that is the type groups, their variants, etc., are defined.

Whereas the theory of museum-exhibition proposed here by the author is related to the theory of the work of art and the theory of the scientific work. Its methodology and cognitive approach derive from both these fields; the only difference is that the theory of museum-exhibition applies the method to the materials which the traditional theory of the work of art or the theory of the scientific work do not deal with – it is the museum-exhibition and the museum exhibit that are these materials. Methodologically, as well as with regard to the scope of cognitive activities, this theory constitutes a new chapter of ontology and aesthetics.

The starting point for the research is the definition of the exhibition work, and more exactly, the answer to the question of what (in the sense of the subject matter) such a work is, and thus when we deal with it, and when the material objects presented as exhibits at a museum-exhibition do not constitute a work yet, being at most, a certain collection of material objects. The settlement of this issue depends on the determination of whether a set of objects being a part of an exhibition is characterised by an individual structure, which makes us perceive the set as a whole, or whether it does not have such a structure. Therefore, this issue resembles a case when we ponder whether a set of some words, e.g. written, constitutes e.g. a clause, a set of clauses, a work, or whether it is merely a set of words without any structural factor binding them.

With regard to such a type of deliberation, a specific classification of museum-exhibition works can be distinguished, because the structures we find in these works are various.

The methodological basis for such a type of deliberation and the tool for analyses are ontology and aesthetics developed within the philosophy of phenomenologists; first of all in the works of one of the key representatives of this philosophy movement, Roman Ingarden.

For two years (2005–2006) a team of employees of the Jagiellonian University Museum and the Cracow Academy of Fine Arts conducted research work on a collection of 35 modern portraits of the Cracow Academy’s professors. The research was conducted by:

Jagiellonian University historian – Professor Zdzisław Petrzyk,

Jagiellonian University Museum historian of art – Anna Jasińska, MA,

Jagiellonian University Museum restorers of works of art – Jolanta Pollesch, MA, Beata Skalmierska-Jurczys, MA,

Academy of Fine Arts chemist – Paweł Karaszkiewicz, PhD,

Consultants – prof. dr hab. Jadwiga Wyszyńska (Academy of Fine Arts), prof. dr hab. Marcin Fabiański (History of Art Institute, Jagiellonian University).

The work undertaken was to gather historical materials concerning individual portraits, an attempt at attribution and precise dating, as well as conduct a technological investigation of the paintings, thanks to which it was possible to determine the technique of the Cracovian painters’ guild.

The research conducted by the art historian made it possible to identify portraits.

It turned out that 7 of the 35 portraits covered by the research present images of persons who were not professors at the Cracow Academy, but were related to it by their activity. The authenticity of the portraits with regard to the time of their origin was confirmed, dates of  origin were more precisely defined, and in most of the cases attribution was determined. An attempt was made to define the phenomenon of an academic portrait.

The research of the historian allowed preparing individual biographical notes of each professor. Details from their life histories enabled placing the professors in a historical context and many times facilitated dating the paintings, sometimes they were also helpful at finding attributions. Historical research enabled a wider look at the cross section of society represented by the Cracow Academy’s professors.

The collection of the analysed images was divided into 11 groups. This division was made on the basis of the following: chronology, stylistics, composition and clothing type. The classification of portraits enabled looking for common features with regard to technology easier. In most cases the technological investigation confirmed the correctness of this classification.

One of the largest and most interesting discoveries made during the work was the discovery of the signature of Jan Trycjusz (? –1692), a famous Cracovian painter, on the portrait of Wojciech Dąbrowski. On the basis of this signature and after recognition of similar features in the previously isolated group, it could be said that the remaining three paintings are also by Trycjusz.

The technological investigation of the portraits attributed to this painter confirmed their attribution and at the same time the probability of the rightness of the classification.

The collection of the examined images constitutes a tight and representative group. Thanks to its homogeneity with regard to the presented persons (academicians), it was possible to track stylistic changes to which the portraits of the professors were subject over time, determine – on the basis of university functions performed by the portraitees – whose portraits were ordered, as well as track the types of academic clothing.

The portrayed persons, whose common features included: the type of job – academic teacher, the place of work – Cracow Academy, and probably one orderer – the University, the place of storing their portraits with which they have been connected from the beginning – university buildings (especially Collegium Maius), as well as their physiognomies, life style, attributes, clothing and the way of viewing the model – all of which enabled drawing the conclusion that there was a separate portrait type – an academic portrait3.

The research on the paintings allowed stating that almost all were painted in Cracow, by the painters of the Cracovian guild. Restoration and chemical examinations also prove this thesis. On this basis we can talk about a technological homogeneity of the Cracovian painters’ guild.

The collection of modern portraits of the Cracow Academy’s professors stored in the Jagiellonian University Museum is the only collection of such a type in Poland. The academies and universities which were founded later have single portraits of their professors. The preserved images of the Cracow university’s scholars and scientists prove that creating a gallery of portraits is a long-lasting tradition, which is still cultivated.