Peale and Bullock, by Kaitlyn Willy

After reading these texts, I have noticed many similarities between the contents of Peale’s museum and the contents of Bullocks, but also many differences in the way that they view and engage the animals in their writing.

First, I noticed that both texts show fascination with animals that we might think of as common or base, such as bats and armadillos. It is interesting to think that common people might not have been as familiar with these specimens as we are now. I was also struck by the sheer amount of effort and organization required to keep track of all of these specimens with analog tools. I can barely keep track of my book collection with my computer! Since our theme for the semester is collecting, I think that it would be interesting to talk about the way that collections in the Romantic period were so much more detailed than what we might have now, but all of the work is done with analog tools. I believe that this is before there were readily available fountain pens, so much of this may have been written with dip pens! What an endeavor!

My thoughts on individual texts:

Peale, Catalogue:

 Of course, the first thing I noticed about Peale’s catalogue, and the most horrifying part of the whole affair, is that there are not only animal, but human remains included. The idea that a person, even an eighteenth century person, would dig up the body of an American Indian, particularly one who had been helpful and had served alongside them, and put their remains on display is just sickening to me. I know that I am looking at this through the eyes of a modern reader, but surely there were some of their contemporaries who were equally horrified to find human remains in a museum? And not only did they do this, they listed them as quadrupeds and not bipeds. (I do note that there is a popular traveling collection in museums that features human cadavers that were donated, but also some that were stolen. I believe there is a lot of talk around this. I see a vast difference between a body donated by its owner to science and stealing a body from burial grounds.)

Also, I guess this is the first time I’ve paid close attention to the way that Linneus grouped animals, because some of these groupings surprised me. I never would have thought to put some of these animals together, but you have to classify them somehow. I also giggled on page 25 when he says “though we pretend not to criticize the ingenious system…” then goes on to criticize it. Good to know that they were willing to question the system as it was being developed.

I know that the page selection we read was not meant to include the cats, but I found his description of them very entertaining. I recommend it if you have time. 

Peale, Guide:

There were three things that I noted about the guide. First, the guide mentions that there were pieces from Pompeii and Herculaneum. I find that strange and amazing, as they had only been rediscovered in the 1740s. That there were already pieces from the most important archaeological find in history making their way around the world is just phenomenal.

Another thing I noticed about the guide was the common presences of railings throughout the museum. I usually think of children in this period (at least those who would be able to afford admission to the museum) as well behaved and quiet, but there are still railings around everything. Apparently the human desire to touch things we aren’t supposed to is innate?

Lastly, why did the PA legislature give Peale part of the statehouse for his museum? This might be something to talk about. 

Bullock, Address:

I find it interesting that unlike the paintings we have seen of specimens in cases lined up, Bullock’s museum did include a few animals presented in scenes meant to mimic their natural habitat. I wonder how the audience experienced this. It would have been a wholly new experience. I had thought this was a later development in natural museums, but apparently not.

I also found it interesting that Bullock had an option of buying an annual or life membership to his museum. I wonder if the lifetime subscribers got their money’s worth before the museum closed.

Bullock, Catalogue:

I feel that Bullock is different from Peale in that he very much anthropomorphized the animals. He places a great deal of emphasis on their gentleness (or lack thereof). He classifies them in tribes and describes them with diminutive, almost fond language, as if all these dead specimens were really his pets. Yet, although he sometimes describes intelligent behavior, he doesn’t applaud it. Gentleness, apparently, makes up the personality of the perfect animals for Bullock.

My Thoughts/In Conclusion: 

I find it both interesting and frustrating the difference in how Peale and Bullock view animals and the way that we would view them today. They have made wild animals into something to be tamed, a commodity to be used up. In the past, I have thought about and studied how colonialism uses up the environment, natural resources, land, and even people (through slavery and genocide), but have given little thought to the wild (or tame) animals and the way colonialism uses and changes them.

That the creators of these museums would hunt animals for the museum is one thing, but they also sometimes kept them alive for a while to ensure a more pleasing specimen. Peale mentions that they kept live animals, but did not have the sense to keep African animals warm and so they died. Bullock even writes about healing wounds of a baboon who had been abused. What does the desire to fatten an animal or heal its wounds, particularly aesthetic wounds, before killing it and using it as a museum piece say about the value of animal life at the time? 

I think that this relates really closely to what we’ve talked about in terms of Nature and “wildness” being a commodity to be consumed. We saw a couple weeks ago that human cultures were turned into a commodity for consumption. Now animals are a commodity, too. I suppose that the belief of the time is that everything in existence was solely for the entertainment of Europeans?