National Identity and Historical Space in the Rise of State Museums in19th

Century the Altes Museum in Berlin, a case study

Fabiano Lemos (PUC-Rio/ Brazil)

At about two hundred years ago, the concrete and conceptual figure of the Museum
began to emerge in the horizon of European societies. What one can observe in the turno of the
19th century is a progressive, but also deep transformation towards the understanding of social
meaning of art works and historical monuments. Up till then scattered around the royalty
chambers, private conaisseurs cabinets and restrict access university collections, kept away
from the lay public, gradually these objects seem to claim for themselves an unexpected and
unconditional visibility. Its true that long before the transformation of the Louvre into a
Museum, and its public opening in 1793, France just as Italy, England and Holland had
already made the Salons into a indispensable factor of artistic activity (HAUSER, 2000, p.
657). But it is exactly there where we can search the social difference established by the
Museum: the Salon was still a ideologically closed place, whose organization was intended,
mainly, to introduce the new outcomes of new artists to collectors and art traders. Exceeding
public, though not small in number, however, saw before their eyes, in a passive way and as an
exquisite divertissement, a parade of paintings and sculptures in which, not even minimally, they
could recognize their personal history. Those art works were not there for them and the logics of
their visibility could only accept this public within its spectacle as an accessory counterweight.
A new political figure had to assume a density up till then unknown among available
ideological strategies in order to History to set down in these works: the people or the folk. A
close analysis of political theories and documents of this period seem to confirm what Peter
Burke said in his book Popular Culture in Early Modern Europe: It was in the late eighteenth
and early nineteenth centuries, when traditional popular culture was just beginning to disappear,
that the people or the folk became a subject of interest to European intellectuals (BURKE,

1
1978, p. 3) The dynamic processes that could accelerate this transformation are described
precisely by Hobsbawn:
Merely by dint of becoming a 'people', the citizens of a country
became a sort of community, though an imagined one, and its members
therefore found themselves seeking for, and consequently finding, things in
common, places, practices, personages, memories, signs and symbols.
Alternatively, the heritage of sections, regions and localities of what had
become 'the nation' could be combined into an all-national heritage, so that
even ancient conflicts came to symbolize their reconciliation on a higher, more
comprehensive plane (HOBSBAWN, 1990, p. 90).

The fact that both Burke and Hobsbawn place the word people inside quotation marks let
us know how much the idea it transmitted was, at last, a new representational model of the
relation between the origins and the territories of a country that could finally rescue its heritage,
as most of the nationalist texts tried to describe it. Since French Revolution, European political
and institutional discourse had to open place to this new element that synthesized the differences
between traditions whose codes had been organized by economic and bureaucratic elites and
those whose codification was established within the limits of illiterate and lay social classes.
When summoned as a convergence point of humanism and the late 18 th century rising
nationalism, the idea of people, through the very same conceptual and institutional dynamics,
fostered two important transformations. First, politicized time under the form of history and
memory, changing the meaning of art works and antiques into culture estate, whose ownership
should be held by this people. Beyond that, imposed a new logics of universal visibility,
according to which this estate should occupy the physical, spatial center of society. The lights of
French Lumires, of German Aufklrung and English Enlightenment had to flow out from a
single point, inevitably present at the horizon of those who get near of the heart of big cities the
choice of the geographical position of Louvre, the British Museum and, specially, the Altes
Museum, in Berlin, is issued from this understanding.
So, only as much as Drers engravings, Egyptian sculptures or Roman Numismatics
could be seen as the spiritual treasure of a Nation, as symbolic heritage of what it is and was, to
itself and to other Nations only as much as it happens, a new geography of objects is organized.
Historical time, that each one of the items of those collections starts to represent, constitutes an
important index within the context of Nationalization of Modern States at this period. To the
societies that tried to organize and understand themselves politically as a univocal and

2
traditionally founded culture, historical heritage inside art works and antiques could not merely
be the sign of a social class.
Of course, we need to relativise the limits of this supposed democratization of Arts. Its
undeniable that the emergence of modern Museums between 18th and 19th centuries was part of a
wider set of institutional reforms that had as aim to allow a easier access to culture, in which we
can find the restructuring of educational establishments mainly in Germany. But it would not
be false to say that it was not the idea of modern Democracy that originated the idea of Nation,
since from the discourses point of view, the latter precedes the former. It was absolutely not by
chance that school and university reformations in European countries, though reaching its
heights quantitatively, found qualitatively a major obstacle all along the 19th century what
Benedict Anderson called official Nationalism (ANDERSON, 1983, pp. 83-111). The idea of
culture could only be developed inside the narrow rows and the well-divided frames of
governmental protocols. In the case of Museums, this meant that the way of organizing past or
manage cultural memory was linked to a certain amount of comprehensions of the relation
between time and space, or, better, between Geography and History of culture what was, many
times, distant from the concrete reality of art works and spectators. The set of Museum objects
dont draw the outlines of a random memorabilia anymore, but traces the ideologically rigid
lines of an Art System. Its just this way that the Museum, following immediately the outcomes
of the French Revolution, was constituted as the place of time.
The apparent banality of this definition should not hide its difficulties and tensions. From
the point of view of representations that supported it since its beginning, the association time-
space as constituting dimension of Museum was not immediately evident or homogenous.
Maybe one could state emphatically, in relation to museums, what French philosopher Paul
Virilio said about buildings in general: so, if, as he intends, the history of our architecture is not
but the history of the monuments to the memory of ideology (VIRILIO, 1997, p. 338), the
problem of spatial managing of historical signs that constitutes the central issue of Museum
architecture depends on the role some new concepts as memory, origin, culture, and even art
work, played in the ideological debate of an age. This role is, with no doubt, enormously instable
and constantly changing.
It is true that, deep in the appropriations of the figure of the Museum in early 19 th century
in Europe we could find the association between the history of works of art and a national

3
pedagogy. The general trace of this movement is the fragile link between the monumentality of
memory and the lightened promise of the future of the culture. And, in the intersection of these
dimensions we can look at the present time, that can only disposes of physical concreteness of
space, of the building, of visual impact of images collected in the same place.
An official statement, dated back to 1st October, 1792, issued by the Commission in
charge of the organization of the Louvre Museum, to be opened in some months, exemplifies
precisely this general political task of the new place of artistic memory. Written in the name of
the nation, as witness the words with which the text begins, the statement intends to decide on
the transformation of a section of the Palais du Louvre into a Museum, vindicated, once again,
the reorganization of a space whose functions changed completely along History. The building,
that once had been the seat of Louis XIVs government, should from now on, dimension its space
accordingly to

the demanding dispositions for the location of all art objects, in order
to compose a National Museum; () that each and every object be seen in its
most advantageous exposition and keeping its best repair, all of that in order to
begin and follow a plan of organization for this Museum, devoted to become
public, to offer artists to their instruction and arts to its progress the
fruition of national treasures that would be there collected; finally, to become
the center of attraction to enlightened amateurs and men with pure hearts that,
having savored the delicacies of nature will still find charming its beautiful
imitations (Brevet du Commissaire du Musum pour le Sr. Jollain In:
TUETEY, 1910, pp. 25-26).

But if, on the one hand, and in a very general way, the Museum figure could put side by
side expressions like art, public, national treasures and progress, linking them in a deep
epistemological level, on the other side, its undeniable that the inscription in the name the
nation had different meanings if applied, for example, to the British Museum or the Louvre. My
hypothesis is that the debate that had place around the opening of the Altes Museum in Berlin,
from 1822 to 1830, in disposition with the specificity of German politics of that age, allows us to
understand better the logics of political construction of space and time as it raised in other
seemingly institutions through all Europe then.

II

4
 Its odd to notice that in less than twenty years of its public opening, the Royal Museum
in Berlin was known as the old, the altes Museum. The fact is that this urging ancestrality was
already inscribed at the very center of the debates that occurs for his construction. The idea of
collect the scattered art works and antiques in a single place had been formerly proposed by Art
Historian Aloys Hirt in 1797 (cf. CRIMP, 1987, p. 261; MOYANO, 1990, p. 586). But retaking
the project in 1822, right after Napoleons defeat and the retreat of its army from the German
territory, was deeply modified by symbolic exigencies of a gradually stringer nationalism. The
spectacle that the new place should offer was that of a glorious past, finally rescued from the
hands of the enemy and not merely that of a cabinet of curiosities. Hirts project, still deeply
connected to that antiquarianist conception of History was, so, left alone, and a new commission
to the edification of the building was established under the direction of the architect Karl
Friedrich Schinkel and Hirt was integrated only as counseler. The struggle between Hirts and
Schinkels conceptions soon came out clearly and the long debate it made appear illustrate, in
full detail, the process of institutional and conceptual transformation around the idea of Museum
it fostered.
From the beginning, one of the most important divergences between the two projects, the
one that decided the place to be occupied by the Museum in Berlins perimeter, indicates a
fundamental transfer in the social task of Art. That because Hirt, as archeologist and historian,
intended to put the objects of art in a existing building that was part of The Academy of Arts.
Schinkel, on the contrary, advocated in favor of a new building that should be raised in the very
geographical center of the city (cf. MOYANO, 1990, pp. 586-587; SCHNE, 1880, p. 40).
Schinkels project won this battled because it could substitute e recent past for an ideal past: the
Lustgarten, that was chosen in his project, had been used as training place by Napoleonic army in
1806 (Cf. JAGER, 2002, p. 128). It was Friedrich Wilhelm III, the Prussian King himself, that
formulated the justification of this choice, saying that the State should compensate through
spiritual forces what was physically lost (see SCHNE, 1880, p. 33).
But there is another important pedagogical dimension within the debate between Hirt and
Schinkel that must be carefully distinguished. That Hirt wanted the Museum to be part of the
Academy of Arts is meaningful, according to his vision of Art and the teaching of Art, of
specialized educational horizon of artistic memory. This way of thinking the role of art inside

5
social fabric is, however, still typical of the Salon age, of the old fashioned 18 th century
antiquarianism. Being rejected, it opened place to Schinkels architectonic proposal and its new
comprehension of the relation between historical time and cultural space. His proposal is even a
inversion. Outside the axes of the Academy of Arts, the new Museum should be built as a
renewal of the links between culture and educational institutions. Not to be weakened or broken
on the contrary, to be closer to German society, unbound from the chains of a hermetic model
of education. From geographical and political point of view, the modern Museum, the Schinkel
project, forced the structures of education to cross its walls and reach for the public that never
was their own. Many intellectuals throughout Europe, but specially in Germanophone regions
such as Switzerland, Austria and, obviously, Germany, started to choose spaces inside Museums
to lecture public conferences. Jakob Burkhardt, Friedrich Nietzsche and Friedrich Pestalozzi are
only a few examples (cf. KRETSCHMER, 2006, p. 249). Museum makes the contents of culture,
formerly kept in the dark alleys of University, tangible at the day light, and to everyone.
Changing education to the place where culture promoted the identification with public
spectator, humanists understood that, transitively, this very public spectator could start to identify
itself with the educational system as a whole and constitute a active national opinion on artistic
and cultural matters (Cf. RIEDL, 1997, pp. 215-216; PENNY, 2002, p. 228). By building the
Museum outside the limits of the Academy, then, Schinkel did not forced the public towards the
lectures and classes that had place there before, but, completely in accordance with humanist
politics, made the transfer of science to the Museum easier. Such political inversion is
underneath Schinkels entire project: with the Altes Museum occupying the most privileged
location on Lustgarten, it is not historical time that needs to submit to the sterile rhythm of
classic school, it is this sterility that will have to change itself, making culture into something
meta-institutional, vivid along with a time that shows itself as the embodied spectacle of
memory. The task of culture is to converge towards people, not the contrary. Schinkels Museum
s architecture can be read, in this way, as the permanent effort of spatially demonstrating such
pedagogical thesis.
An interesting index in order to us to understand how strongly was the Alters Museum
attached to a reconfiguration of culture space can be seen on the disagreement of German
intelligentsia regarding the inscription Hirt managed to engrave in its upper faade and that still
today we can read: : FREDERICVS GVILELMVS III STUDIO ANTIQUITATIS OMNIGENAE

6
ET ARTIVM LIBERALIVM MVSEVM CONSTITVIT MDCCCXXVIII ( Frederick William III
founded this Museum to the study of ancient objects and all kinds of arts in 1823).
This sentence, by connecting the words Museum and Study, characterized the kind of
subordination Hirt tried to impose when proposing the Altes Museum to be built as an
outbuilding of the Academy of Arts. It was a small and ironic, but meaningful victory of his. As
if announcing, from above, the scholarly task of that building, the sentence was soon attacked by
humanists. Many reports and memos were written against it, accusing it of perverting the sense
of Schinkels project and even a board of philologists was called to lay an opinion on the
matter. Even being kept up till now, the inscription was always faced scornfully by the German
Learned men.
All of these disputes, however, seem to point to a transformation in the way of relating
time, space and art accomplished by Schinkels architecture and of making such complex
relation converging into the idea of culture and education. The time concept within the Altes
Museum in Lustgarten is not simply chronological, a mere succession of facts organized as a
static image that is lost in the infinite and in which we could only dwell as visitors or as
specialized professors or students. Such was Hirts intention, not Schinkels. The latters concept
of time and, by extension, of past, memory and history tries to identify itself to the idea of
aesthetic and spiritual experience. Hence, it defines a synthesis between past and present in a at
the same time intimate and universal experience shared by the public, making a connection of
subjects and the people. That is why, for Schinkel, paintings and sculptures should not be
distributed inside the building according to merely chronological criteria, scattered through
schools and ages, but grouped according to its degree of aesthetic quality. It was not about
cartesianly organizingthe path that led from Egyptians to Moderns, as in Hirts proposal (cf.
HIRT, 1863, p. 243), but about making the public to be embraced in a aesthetic whole, where it
was not the age that decided on the different parts of the History of Art, but themes, visual
resemblances, conceptual affinities. History is an effect of such cohabitation, of such dialetics of
different times inside a single space and Steven Moyano seems to be right by saying that
Schinkel inverts Hirts conception of history (cf. MOYANO, 1990, pp. 598-599).
By presenting the principle of Architecture as the gesture of uniting different materials
() in a whole (SCHINKEL, 1862 B, p. 208), Schinkel testifies how much he shared of the
philosophy elaborated by the learned men with whom he lived at that time not only through

7
books, but in person (cf. ZIOLLOWSKI, 1992, pp. 373-374). In his writings, the concern of
setting up the art of architecture as an aesthetic science that reunites multiplicity is amazingly
recurring. His romantic idealism is presented in a illustrative quote from a short text called
Stellung der Baukunst zu den brigen Knsten [Place of Architecture in Relation to other Arts],
where the idea assumes an unquestionable concreteness as principle of all his own Architecture:

The ideal is what carries in his species [Gattung], the noblest

character and, therefore, the greater intelligibility, tangibility and completeness
of this species () There lays the adequacyof the ground principles of all
building, there is determined the possible presentation of the adequacy ideal,
there is the character or the physiognomy of an architectural work, its artistic
value (SCHINKEL, 1862 C p. 209).

III

The path of the development of our modern concept of Museum, of the discourses and
practices he made rise, is far from being precise and homogenous. It depends deeply on the way
it was modified when translated into a wide range of political, pedagogical and artistic
ideologies. We cannot forget this multiplicity of values: if the emergence of Museum, such as we
began to think of it some two hundred years ago, is contemporary of French Revolution (see.
HOFFMANN, 2003, p. 3) and deeply connected to historical ideals this Revolutions carries
within itself we shall remember it is also contemporary or the first great department stores (see
BENETT, 1995, p. 19). What I tried to discuss here were some recurring lines inside this
intricate archive we call Modernity. Aloys Hirt and Karl Friedrich Schinkel are just characters
that, in higher or lower degree, symbolize strategically a debate that overcomes them
enormously. The do not incarnate any definitive or unequivocal historical mark. On the contrary.
We could easily widen the horizon that defines Museums path as modern concept, and Id like
to do try it briefly by placing these two characters within two great happenings that could be held
as minors in German History, but that illustrate very well such path of transformation.
The first one is obviously trivial. IN April 23rd 1713, king Fredrick William enters, with
all pomp and circumstance needed into the Kunstkammer [art chamber] of Berlin, established
then for more than one hundred years. Pushed by the growing debits of the State, he does not

8
hesitate in choosing at about 300 historical gold coins and request them to be melt down. This
numismatic treasure, from the 15th and 16th century in no time was converted into currency in
order to release the king from its debt dues (see. FRIEDLNDER, 1880, p. 8). Unattached from
a transcendent origin, a national identity, a public space, historical time is reduced, hence, to a
decorative piece whose past is private.
The second fact is more violent, at least ideologically. More than 200 year later, the Haus
der Deutschen Kunst [House of German Art], in the center of the turmoil of the Second World
War, had engraved in its upper portico two tablets. In the first one we could read: Kunst ist eine
erhabene und zum Fanatismus Verpflichtende Mission [Art is a noble mission that demands
fanaticism]. In the second one, destroyed during war bombardments, the public found the
sentence that could be used both as instruction on the way to read history of art and as menace:
Kein Volk lebt lnger als die Dokumente seiner Kultur {no people lives longer than the
documents of their culture]. The author of these sentences, the German Fhrer, had pronounced
them in 1933 and 1935 in speeches to the Nazi Party.
The conceptual space that reunites the weight of those bronze words points to a double
transformation. On one hand, a violent reification of the Ideal, that allows Third Reichs
totalitarian politics to build new ideological walls inside Museums, redistributing its space, in
what now is said to be legitimate or illegitimate art. On the other hand, an appropriation of
historical origin also falsified in the terms of a biology of purity, that made the time of art in a
testament of a sterile past. In the crossing of those two dimensions, the architecture of the
Museum reveals, finally, the most unsuspected forms that his power of managing history can
assume. Maybe between romantic religiosity of Schinkel and Hitlers fanaticism the line is
straighter than we could think. What we must ask ourselves we, to whom Nazism has become,
ironically, past and memory is if this line constituted, in fact, a deviation or a logic extension of
a path a long time taken. In other words: if this line was already sketched in Schinkels drawings.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

ARNDT, K. Die Mnchner Architekturszene 1933/34 In: Herrschaft und Gesellschaft im

Konflikt Teil 2, Wien: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag, 1981.
BENETT, T., The birth of the Museum: History, Theory, Politics, London: Routledge, 1995.

9
BREUILLY, J., Nation and Nationalism in Modern German History In: The Historical Journal,
vol. 33, n.3, 1990.
BURKE, P., Cultura popular na Idade Moderna, So Paulo: Companhia das Letras, 2010.
CHARTIER, R., Textos, impresso, leituras In: HUNT, L. (ed.), A nova histria cultural, So
Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2006.
CRIMP, D., The End of Art and the Origin of the Museum In: Art Journal, vol. 46, n. 4, 1987.
DAUM, A. W., Science, Politics, and Religion: Humboldtian Thinking and the Transformations
of Civil Society in Germany, 1830-1870 In: Osiris, 2nd Series, Vol. 17, 2002.
DUNCAN, C., Civilizing rituals: inside public art museums, London: Routldege, 1995.
FRIEDLNDER, J., Die Kniglichen Kunst- und Altethums-Sammlungen bis zum Jahre 1830
In: Zur Geschichte der Kniglichen Museen in Berlin Festschrift zur feier ihres
funfzigjhrigen Bestehens, Berlin: s/e, 1880.
GIEBELHAUSEN, M., Museum Architecture: A Brief History In: MACDONALD, S., A
companion to museum studies, Malden: Blackwell, 2006.
GRAHAM, I., Schillers drama, London: Methuen & Co., 1974.
GRAY, M., Prussia in transition: Society and Politics under the Stein Reform Ministry of 1808,
Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1986.
HAUSER, A., Histria social da arte e da literatura, So Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2000.
HIRT, A., Hirts Bericht an den Knig vom 15. Mai 1824 In: Aus Schinkels Nachlass, 3. Bd.,
Berlin: Kniglichen Geheimen Hofbuchbruderei, 1863 A.
________, Die Baukunst nach den Grunstzen der Alten, Berlin: Realschulbuchhandlung, 1809.
________,Gutachten des Hofraths Hirt, vom 4. Januar 1823, ber den neuen Entwurf des
Kniglichen Museum in den Lustgarten; als Beilage zu dem Protokoll der heutigen
Verhaltung der Comission In: WOLZOGEN, A. von (hrsg.), Aus Schinkels Nachlass, 3.
Bd., Berlin: Kniglichen Geheimen Hofbuchbruderei, 1863 B.
HOFFMANN, D., The German Art Museum and the History of the Nation In: SHERMAN, D.
J. e ROGOFF, I., Museum culture, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2003.
HOBSBAWM, E., A era das revolues 1789- 1848, So Paulo: Paz e Terra, 2010.
_______________, Naes e nacionalismo desde 1780, Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 1990.
HOBSBAWM, E. e RANGER, T., A inveno das tradies, Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra, 1997.
HUMBOLDT, W. von, Bericht des Ministers Wilhelm Freiherrn von Humboldt an den Knig
von 21. August 1830 In: WOLZOGEN, A. von (hrsg.), Aus Schinkels Nachlass, 3. Bd.,
Berlin: Kniglichen Geheimen Hofbuchbruderei, 1863.
___________________, Zur Einrichtung eines Museum in Berlin In: Gesammelte Schriften,
Bd. X, Berlin: B. Behrs, 1903.
HUYSSEN, A., Seduzidos pela memria, Rio de Janeiro: Aeroplano, 2000.
JAEGER, M., Der Berliner Lustgarten: Gartenkunst und Stadtgestalt in Preussens Mitte, Berlin:
Deutscher Kunstverlag, 2002.
KAUFMANN, T., Antiquarianism, the History of Objects and the History of Art before
Winckelmann In: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 62, No. 3, Jul., 2001.
KRETSCHMER, C., Rume ffnen sich: naturhistorische Museen im Deutschland des 19.
Jahrhunderts, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2006.
LULLIES, R. e SCHIERING, W., Archologenbildnisse: Portrts und Kurzbiografien von
klassischen Archologen Sprache, Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1988.
MELLINGHOFF, T. e WATKIN, D., German architecture and the classical ideal, Michigan:
MIT Press, 1987.

10
MICHAUD, E., National Socialist Architecture as an Acceleration of Time In: Critical Inquiry,
vol. 19, n. 2, 1993.
MOYANO, S., Quality vs. History: Schinkels Altes Museum and Prussian Arts Policy In: The
Art Bulletin, vol. 72, n. 4, 1990.
PAULSEN, F., Die deutschen Universitten und das Universittsstudium, Berlin: Asher & Co.,
1902.
PENNY, G. H., The Civic Uses of Science: Ethnology and Civil Society in Imperial Germany
In: Osiris, 2nd Series, Vol. 17, 2002.
PUNDT, H., K. F. Schinkels Environmental Planning of Central Berlin In: Journal of the
Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 26, n. 2, 1967.
RIEDL, P. Ph., ffentliche Rede in der Zeitenwende, Tbingen: Max Niemeyer, 1997.
SCHINKEL, K. F., Bestimmung der Kunst In: In: WOLZOGEN, A. von (hrsg.), Aus
Schinkels Nachlass, 2 Bd., Berlin: Kniglichen Geheimen Hofbuchbruderei, 1862 A.
_______________, Das Prinzip der Kunst in der Architektur In: WOLZOGEN, A. von (hrsg.),
Aus Schinkels Nachlass, 2 Bd., Berlin: Kniglichen Geheimen Hofbuchbruderei, 1862 B.
_______________,Schinkels Bericht an Seine Majestt den Knig vom 8. Januar 1823 In:
WOLZOGEN, A. von (hrsg.), Aus Schinkels Nachlass, 3. Bd., Berlin: Kniglichen
Geheimen Hofbuchbruderei, 1863.
_______________, Stellung der Baukunst zu den brigen Knsten In: WOLZOGEN, A. von
(hrsg.), Aus Schinkels Nachlass, 2. Bd., Berlin: Kniglichen Geheimen Hofbuchbruderei,
1862 C.
SCHNE, R., Die Grundung und Organisation der Kniglichen Museum In: Zur Geschichte
der Kniglichen Museen in Berlin Festschrift zur feier ihres funfzigjhrigen Bestehens,
Berlin: s/e, 1880.
SHEEHAN, J. J., Aesthetic theory and Architectural Practice: Schinkels Museum in Berlin In:
WETZEL, D. (ed.), From the Berlin Museum to the Berlin Wall: essays on the cultural and
political history of modern Germany, Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1996.
SHELLEY, H. C., The British Museum Its History and Treasures, Boston: L. C. Page & Co.,
1911.
SIMON, W. M., Variations in Nationalism during the Great Reform Period In: The American
Historical Review, vol. 59, n. 2, 1954.
TUETEY, A. e GUIFFREY, J., La Comission de Musum et la cration du Muse du Louvre
(1792-1793), Paris: s/e, 1910.
VIRILIO, P., Le crpuscule des lieux In: La ville nest pas un lieu, Paris: 10/18, 1977.
ZIOLLOWSKI, Th., German Romanticism and Its Institutions, Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1992.

11