Collectio Mineralium

Mining, collecting, knowing: Habsburg state-building, resources, and geographies in the context of Archduke Leopold’s mineralogical catalog1

Collectio mineralium. Leopold’s II mineralogical catalog between history, science and collecting37

Beyond borders. The mineralogical collecting between the Grand Duchy of Tuscany and the Habsburg territories at the end of the 18th century73

The manuscript, which constitutes the core of this volume, is the catalog of the mineralogical collection belonging to Archduke Peter Leopold of Habsburg-Lorraine, written at the end of 1765 after he was appointed as reigning Grand Duke of Tuscany.

Originally written in German, the text is now accessible in English, thanks to this work edited by Giovanni Pratesi, along with Annarita Franza and Johannes Mattes, the latter belonging to the Austrian Academy of Sciences.

This edition—curated by Firenze University Press—is an expression of the commitment of our University, and its publication was supported by our Museum System, whose staff also contributed with an opening essay.

The Florentine academic tradition also transpires from the dedication of the volume, entitled to the memory of Curzio Cipriani (1927–2007), who was, among his various prestigious positions, Director of the Natural History Museum, Italian representative in the “Commission of Museums” of the International Mineralogical Association, and Full Prorector of our University.

Cipriani was a reference figure in the national and international panorama of mineralogy, devoting part of his scientifically industrious and highly successful career to the enhancement of the mineralogical collections in Florence. Therefore, it is not by chance that in 2001, the species CIPRIANIITE Ca4(ThCa)Σ٢Al(Be0.5☐1.5)Σ٢[B4Si4O22](OH)2 was named after him. This would be enough to value Cipriani’s commitment to mineralogy, not to mention his deep involvement in the broader field of scientific museology.

For these reasons, I greatly appreciate the fact that this publication—which represents the mineralogical collection catalog of Grand Duke Peter Leopold, later Emperor Leopold II—has been dedicated to Cipriani’s memory, and his scientific activity, underlining his commitment to the enhancement of scientific museums, to which he gave new and powerful meanings.

Curzio Cipriani is also to be credited for today’s rich Museum System of the University of Firenze that preserves various kinds of naturalistic, scientific, and artistic collections according to precise criteria of conservation, and following the principles of modern museology.

Many of the authors who signed the introductory essays of this volume were directly or indirectly students of Cipriani. Therefore, to all who contributed to this publication, and in particular to the editors, goes the gratitude of our University for having realized a work of great scientific value, and for remembering the example of a great Master.

Mining, collecting, knowing: Habsburg state-building, resources, and geographies in the context of Archduke Leopold’s mineralogical catalog

On 28 July 1764, the Viennese newspaper Wienerisches Diarium reported in detail on an elaborately orchestrated visit by the rising generation of the Habsburg dynasty elite to the Lower Hungarian mining district around Banská Štiavnica (Schemnitz, Slovakia):

Today is the second day that we will always remember with pleasure. On the third of June 1751, we were delighted by the personal presence of Her Imperial Roman Majesty Franciscus, but today by the happiest arrival of Her Royal Roman Majesty Josephus II. He has come here […] in order to visit the local and surrounding gold, silver, copper, lead, and iron mines. It is well known how many interesting and admirable objects our mines offer. So many rare machines of art, which lift the surface and trench waters, drive ore and rock; so many pushing, dredging, and washing plants; silver and lead smelteries; […] not less [interesting are] the sampling, extracting, and silver-burning laboratories. […] As soon as His Royal Majesty and the two most illustrious princes […] got off the carriage, they were most humbly welcomed […] and received samples of gold and silver ore, placed in one entirely gold-plated and two silver-plated mining tubs.1 (Anonymous 1764, 4–5)

The royal entourage of the recently crowned Joseph II (1741–1790) was led by his brother Leopold (1747–1792), his future brother-in-law Albert Kasimir of Saxony-Teschen (1738–1822), and the top officials of the Viennese central administration. This included the Court Chamber of Coinage and Mining (Hofkammer in Münz- und Bergwesen), the supreme authority responsible for minting and mining in the Habsburg dominions. The two-week journey to Bratislava (Pressburg) and the rather peripherally located mining region in the Western Carpathians, about 200 km east of the capital city and imperial seat, was strictly business, not pleasure for the three Habsburg offspring. The visit of this lucrative industrial area, significant for the economy and financial power of the Habsburg Monarchy, took place at the dedicated request of the ruling couple, Maria Theresia (1717–1780) and Franz Stephan (1708–1765). The journey was to prepare the young men for their further involvement in governmental affairs and their later role as sovereigns. In fact, Joseph II was to inherit the imperial dignity from his father in 1765 and was installed alongside his mother as co-regent in the Habsburg dominions. Leopold married that same year with Maria Luisa of Spain (1745–1792), went to Florence as Grand Duke of Tuscany and succeeded his brother as Holy Roman-German Emperor in 1790 (Wandruszka 1965). At the same time, Albert Kasimir obtained a powerful position as Habsburg Palatin (Stadtholder) in Hungary and got married to Maria Christina (1742–1798), a daughter of Maria Theresa.2 The dense program of the journey encompassed the inspection of several underground galleries and laboratories, the study of the technical infrastructure, and practical work on-site. During their stay, they were dressed entirely in miner’s habit,3 and the three young noblemen even extracted ore samples from veins using a pickaxe.

The historian Peter Konečný (2013a, 350–1) has analyzed the political and educational intentions of this journey and those of other Habsburg rulers to the Slovak mining towns in the context of the representational demands of stakeholders such as the Viennese court, the mining administration, and regional estates (Landstände). By “showing personal presence on ground”, representatives of the Habsburg dynasty underpinned their direct control of the mining area as a significant source of state income. Thus, claims of the Hungarian Court Chamber and the kingdom’s nobility arising at the Diet (Landtag) of Bratislava were to be fended off. Moreover, during the trip, Joseph II and Leopold were introduced to a “practical knowledge culture” complementing the education they had received at the Viennese court.

The so-called “Golden Mining Book” (Goldenes Bergbuch 1764), a handwritten description of the Lower Hungarian mining districts containing sketches of mines, smelters, and minting plants, bears witness to the political significance of this knowledge.4 Made for the personal use of Joseph II and Leopold on this special occasion, the “Golden Mining Book” served to familiarize the two prospective rulers with mining, its technologies, and financial benefit in the run-up to the trip and to prepare and follow up the instructions on-site (Vozár 2000). In particular, a preserved travel diary of Leopold (1764), in which he excerpted the information provided in the “Golden Mining Book” and combined it with his observations of mines, machines, tools, and tasks of workers, demonstrates the interdependency of these fields of knowledge with imperial policy (Vozár 1990). This is how Leopold (1764, 141r–141v) summed it up:

It is certainly not among the least advantages for the state that mining feeds so many souls and extracts the hidden gold and silver from the earth, so that [the metals] circulate throughout the monarchy and increase the universal mass of money and wealth in the country. Moreover the sovereign profits from the exchange of metals, which are all sold to the mint and are cheaper than if he had to either buy them from abroad […] or mine them at own expense in his own mines. Everybody understands clearly […] that mines have very significant advantages and their benefits are crucial to the country, the shareholders of the mines and the sovereign. Therefore, it is necessary […] to know what causes a well-experienced miner to choose this or that mountain and whether there is such or such metal in it.5

The archival document at the center of this volume is a handwritten catalog of a mineral collection dedicated to Archduke Leopold. It was made by the end of 1765 after the appointment of the eighteen-year-old prince, now calling himself “Petro Leopoldo”, as the reigning Grand Duke of Tuscany (Franza et al. 2019).

Preserved in the Historical Archive of the Natural History Museum of the University of Firenze, the catalog presents a leather binding with a golden Habsburg double-headed eagle emblem, an elaborate title page and a half-page ink drawing of the Lower Hungarian mining town of Kremnica (Kremnitz)6 served representational needs. The appendix consists of an index arranged according to types of metals and minerals as well as an explanation of chemical symbols used. The order of the objects within the catalog that comprised specimens from all significant mining districts of the Habsburg dominions (including two objects from the Americas and Saxony) was given without any recognizable principle. This may have been of secondary importance because, in collections, specimens could be subjected to rearrangement, whereas the catalog primarily served as a key to the knowledge associated with the objects (Findlen 1994, 36–7). However, the specimens originating from non-Hungarian mining districts such as in Bohemia, Carinthia, Styria, and Tyrol were added towards the end of the catalog and with less care. The index classified the specimens according to their value, with the gold-, silver-, and copper-bearing ores that were extracted largely in Lower Hungary listed first.7

The compilation of the catalog, which was executed at the Viennese Court Chamber of Coinage and Mining,8 needs to be understood in the context of the aforementioned journey and Leopold’s introduction to mining, metallurgy, and mineralogy. The president of the Court Chamber, Johann Seyfried von Herberstein (1706–1771),9 presumably commissioned to request outstanding specimens from the local mining administrations in the Habsburg lands.10 However, these did not only provide samples of ore and so-called “handstones” (beautifully crystallized minerals or ore specimens the size of a hand),11 but also added information about finding places, circumstances of discovery, as well as the structure and purity of the respective veins. This information was supplemented with details about chemistry, natural history, and ore processing. The mid-level civil servant in charge of arranging the received objects, assembling the attached information, and compiling the inventory was Raitrath Johann Franz Pirk(h)ert (1725–1789),12 a control official in the accounting department of the supreme coinage and mining authority. However, judging by the three handwritings used in the catalog, only the description of the first two thirds of objects originates from Pirkhert’s pen. One of the other two authors, who was identified by his signature, was Hofkammerrat Igna(t)z Franz Kempf(en) von Angret (1704–1767).13 Like Herberstein and presumably also Pirk(h)ert, Kempf was involved in the aforementioned journey of Joseph II and Leopold to Hungary and had been among the mining officials that had presented samples of ore as gifts upon the arrival of the entourage. Although it is unclear if these objects were later integrated into the collection, the catalog is above all the result of an exchange process of specimens that brought various actors, spaces, and fields of knowledge together. In the state-building process of the Habsburg Monarchy, which gained momentum during an era of reform in the second half of the eighteenth century (Szabo 2018), the Vienna Court Chamber, upgraded by Maria Theresa to the supreme financial authority of the Habsburg Monarchy in 1762,14 rendered itself a “center of calculation” (Latour 1987, 235). Turning Vienna into a node of knowledge and power, expanded or newly established bureaucratic bodies, learned institutions, and imperial collections gathered resources through “cycles of accumulation” and hegemonic practices of exchange with the Habsburg dominions.

Since the early 2000s, historians of science and scholars dealing with issues of mutual social, cultural and economic exchange made significant efforts to reframe the “traditional” mining history, which previously only rather small circles of specialists were discussing. A reconsideration of the early modern mining bureaucracy, cameralistic economy, and its actors under the aspects of knowledge and power opened the field to new research questions such as (underground) resources, sustainability, and environmental history. Jakob Vogel (2013) studied intersections between the knowledge worlds of European mining and the cameralist bureaucracy in the second half of the nineteenth century. “Enlightenment underground” was the framing Vogel used to interpret the scientific professionalization of education in mining academies as well as the tranches of natural history, technological, and practical knowledge that circulated among scholars, officials, societies, and mining journals. Based in particular on his study of Saxon mining, Andre Wakefield (2009) investigated cameralism as natural, economic, and technological sciences aimed at improving bureaucratic practices. A recent issue of the journal Renaissance Studies edited by Tina Asmussen and Pamela Long (2019) dealt with the “cultures of mining” as “cultures of knowledge”, by referring to the concept of “trading zone” coined by Peter Galison (1997: 803) as “social, material, and intellectual mortar binding together the disunified traditions of experimenting, theorizing, and instrument building.” Marianne Klemun (2007, 2013) examined the collection, exchange, and scientific study of minerals, especially by officials and scholars involved in the eighteenth-century Habsburg mining administration, such as the well-known naturalists Ignaz von Born (1742–1791), Belsazar Hacquet (1739–1815), or Nikolaus Joseph von Jacquin (1727–1817).

The majority of the aforementioned studies are based on the mining districts in Saxony and Hungary. The state educational institutions established there as the Kurfürstlich-Sächsische Bergakademie (1765) in Freiberg and the Praktische Bergschule (1762, since 1770 Academy) in Banská Štiavnica, responsible for the entire Habsburg Monarchy, became models for the founding or reorganization of mining schools in other parts of Europe (Brianta 2000; Vaccari 2009). In this regard, the contributions of Peter Konečný (2012, 2013b) and Hartmut Schleiff (2013a, 2013b) on the reformation of mining education and the emergence of scientifically trained functional elites in the administration of the mining state (Bergstaat) are particularly noteworthy. Through the example of Saxony, Sebastian Felten (2018) dealt with processes of “boundary-work” (Gieryn 1983) between the experts in and around the mines and their bureaucratic and scientific knowledge production. Despite the close cooperation between the guild-organized miners, the naturalists employed in the mining academies, and the bureaucracy, which, in case of the Habsburg Monarchy, consisted of professionally trained officials recruited from the nobility and the bourgeoisie, there were limits to the exchange of knowledge and specimens. In part, this was due to different professional interests and social backgrounds. By contrast, the private mineral trade between collectors and scholars flourished in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (Klemun 2000; Vogel 2019).

Comparing the catalog dedicated to Leopold with his travel diary, the Golden Mining Book, and other eighteenth-century mineral collections raises questions regarding the circulation of specimens, their ‘biographies’, and the various actors and functions of the knowledge involved. Due to the catalog’s context of origin, this volume refers to broader processes such as the reform of the mining education, the establishment of large natural history collections in both Firenze and Vienna, and a new self-image of ‘enlightened’ monarchs. We argue that the catalog represents a powerful tool to better understand the interplay between imperial practices of collecting and representing with specific regard to mineralogical, mining, and bureaucratic knowledge on the threshold of the Enlightenment. Although the described collection has not been located yet, the comparatively small number of objects allows a detailed study of the mineralogical specimens and mining locations involved. In addition, the catalog illustrates the transformation process that objects underwent when they were sent to the Viennese Court by local mining authorities. Leopold’s catalog, thus, is much more than a simple list; it provided a representative account of the collection, located the specimens spatially, temporally, and comparatively, and related the objects to knowledge outside the specific collection.

In the following, this essay aims less at a detailed examination of the catalog and the objects described, which will be undertaken in a later essay, but I would like to contextualize the catalog from three different angles. The first section describes the bureaucratic structures, geographies of power and knowledge15 in which the catalog is embedded. This is followed by a brief outline of mining and the economy in the Habsburg dominions around 1750. Finally, imperial practices of collecting and representation will be discussed.

At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the Habsburg Monarchy did not form a unified state or nation, but a rather loose aggregation of different dominions held together by personal dynastic union, the military, and administrative authorities based at the imperial seat of Vienna (Evans 1979, 447). As was the case with most of Europe’s early modern states, rulers of multiple monarchies could draw on resources from several countries during times of crisis or use them to maintain their control over a particular territory. Depending on the form of such a “composite monarchy” (Koenigsberger 1989; Elliott 1992), its various parts could be based on a common jurisdiction or on local legal structures and traditions, with a relationship of dominance often existing between the countries of an association. Efforts by sovereigns to achieve greater integration between dominions at the legal, cultural, or institutional level and to streamline administration also led to reservations and resistance of the regional nobility, as Emperor Joseph II had to learn in his later program of reform driven by enlightened despotism (Josephinism)16 (Reinalter 2008; Elliott 2009). The Habsburg conglomerate of dominions, which had emerged in a long historical process, was constituted heterogeneously and each part faced individual challenges. As Peter Maťa (2019, 48) has pointed out, the Habsburg integration policy depended on the cooperation with the regional estates and the balancing of power relations within each region in order to stabilize the entire territory. The “asymmetrical process of internal consolidation” caused considerable territorial differences in the Habsburg state formation and led to a monarchy of “multiple speeds.”

The geopolitical heartland of the Habsburg rule (Vocelka 2001, 21–3), clustered around the Danube stream, was formed by the Austrian Hereditary Lands, the Lands of the Bohemian Crown, and the Kingdom of Hungary. The first consisted of the Archduchy of Austria, the Duchies of Styria, Carinthia and Carniola, the County of Tyrol, as well as possessions at the Adriatic coast and in Swabia. Together with Bohemia, they were the most populous and economically productive dominions and more interconnected with each other than with the other parts of the monarchy. In Styria, Carinthia, Bohemia, and Tyrol, there existed a profitable mining industry. In the second half of the eighteenth century, the Styrian mines produced as much pig iron as the whole of England (Good 1984, 21). The Kingdom of Hungary, on the other hand, was primarily built on agriculture. With the exception of the industrialized mining areas in present-day Slovakia, the coastal towns on the Adriatic, and the area around Bratislava (seat of the Hungarian administration until 1783), it largely served as the monarchy’s “breadbasket.” The Banat of Timișoara and Transylvania (from 1765 Grand Duchy), which had fallen to the Habsburgs in the wars with the Ottoman Empire, were not governed by the Hungarian administration, but directly by the court offices in Vienna.17 The territories were economically developed through reconstruction measures, investments, and the settlement of miners from eastern Slovakia and the Habsburg hereditary lands (especially Tyrol). Despite their significance for trade and commerce, the Austrian Netherlands and Lombardy were detached from the other Habsburg dominions and thus posed a geopolitical challenge. The Grand Duchy of Tuscany, which Franz Stephan von Lothringen had received in exchange for his ancestral lands on the occasion of his marriage to the emperor’s daughter Maria Theresa, was not part of the Habsburg territories. Although Tuscany served as a source of funds for Habsburg warfare and the emperor’s private undertakings, it retained a special status.18

Recent scholarship has introduced the analytical concept of the “fiscal-military state” (Storrs 2009) to the eighteenth-century Habsburg Monarchy (Godsey 2018; Godsey et al. 2021). Originally described as peculiar to Great Britain, historians now use the term to describe a phenomenon that applied to the major European powers of the eighteenth-century, namely the financing of the military in war- and peacetime as the core function of a state. For the Habsburg territories, warfare and its funding had lasting state-building effects.19 Long-term armed conflicts fought against the Ottoman Empire and the War of the Austrian Succession (1740–1748)20 had not only indebted the state budget and increased a tax burden, but also revealed the military and financial incapacity of the monarchy to effectively overcome such challenges. The provision of a powerful army even in peacetime and the transfer of responsibility for recruiting, training, and equipping soldiers from the estates to the crown was ensured by regular taxation of seigneurial demesnes. The centralization of bureaucracy and the reforms carried out under Count Friedrich Wilhelm von Haugwitz (1702–1765), who headed a joint supreme administrative and financial authority (Directorium in publicis et cameralibus) existing between 1749 and 1761, served to “mobilize resources” and to restrain the political power of the estates in the Habsburg dominions (Maťa 2019, 46). The Court Chamber, re-established as the supreme financial authority in 1762, had a significant integrative effect on the various Habsburg dominions. The tasks of the subordinated Court Chamber of Coinage and Mining involved the efficient exploitation of the dominions’ mineral resources, which had helped to fund the costly Seven Years’ War (1756–1763) for continental supremacy (Winkelbauer 2019, 773–4). Although it had not resulted in any significant border shifts for the Habsburg Monarchy, the war financed through bonds and high taxes worsened the meanwhile chronic state deficit21 and deepened the rivalry with Prussia, which emerged from the conflict as a new European super power.

Leopold’s catalog is embedded in this political geography and the bundling of power, space, and knowledge at one central spot to exercise control and authority over vast territories. Bringing together specimens and knowledge from all major mining districts of the monarchy, the catalog was created during a prolonged period of state crisis that required a fundamental reform of the monarchy, its bureaucracy, as well as financial budget planning.22 Thus, the knowledge gathered in the catalog was practice-oriented. By offering insights in a profitable use of ore resources, technologies, and industrial infrastructure, it should meet the rising demands of absolutist sovereigns who began to consider such knowledge and its potential for governmental affairs. In his recent book on the Habsburgian Enlightenment (Aufklärung habsburgisch), the historian Franz Fillafer (2020, 18–9) examined different varieties of the Enlightenments and their influence on state-building, which he interpreted as a

condensation of multi-stranded efforts by local actors who were active on different tracks. […] The state is thus no longer to be understood as an omnipotent regulatory and allocative instance that distributed resources and imposed guidelines; it appears much more as a kind of relay into which various actors infiltrated their content as they competed for feed-in priority and for the validity power of their concepts.

During the reforms of Maria Theresa, (scientific) knowledge useful to the state, its development and a higher efficiency of the monarchy’s economy and administration were of special significance. Accordingly, by order of Maria Theresa, Gerard van Swieten (1700–1772), her Majesty’s personal physician and prefect of the court library, initiated a reform of the autonomous universities that had fallen behind in European comparison. The reforms removed them from the influence of the Jesuit order and placed them as new state institutions under the supervision of public officials, so-called directors of studies (Studiendirektoren). All teaching materials, including Lecture Books (Vorlesebücher) that were read aloud during class required state approval and the new curricula focused on the training of public servants such as court officials, priests, advocates, or physicians (Mühlberger 2009, 71–3). The reforms also involved an upgrading of natural history education (natura physica), which was to provide basic instruction in botany, chemistry, mineralogy, and zoology. At the University of Prague as the oldest central European university, the chair of natural history was established in 1752 and Johann Baptist Bohadsch (Boháč) (1724–1768) was appointed to fill it. In 1762, by the orders of Franz Stephan, he traveled to the chamber estate (Kammergut) in Upper Austria. There he studied the area mineralogically and botanically as well as the local salt production (Lobitzer and Pošmourný 2010).23 In 1763, the founding of a chair for mining sciences followed. It existed until the appointment of its holder Johann Thaddäus Peithner (1727–1792) to Banská Štiavnica in 1772. In addition, a Natural History Cabinet was established at the University of Prague in 1775, which comprised of (mineral) collections of Franz Josef Count Kinsky (1739–1805) and Ignaz von Born (1742–1791) and was further enriched by ore specimens provided by the Bohemian local mining administrations. In Vienna, a new university building (today the seat of the Academy of Sciences) was inaugurated in 1756. It housed an anatomic theatre and observatory, and was designed to bring together all faculties. The first chair of botany and chemistry was established at the medical faculty in 1749 and the Lorraine naturalist Robert-François de Laugier (1722–1793) was appointed to it. In 1763, the court decreed that more lectures were to be given on mineralogy at the Philosophical Faculty. Laugier’s successor as professor and director of the Botanical Garden was the Belgian naturalist Nikolaus Joseph Jacquin. He had previously held the newly created chair of chemistry and mineralogy, metallurgy and docimastics in Banská Štiavnica from 1762 to 1768. The founding of a chair for general natural history at the University of Vienna did not take place until 1775 (Svojtka 2010, 2016).

Research was not the primary function of a university and its professors. Rather, it was above all the court collections and individual state authorities that developed into important centers of scientific practice and were closely interwoven with the state bureaucracy. These included the Court Library, the Natural History Cabinet, the Physical Cabinet, the Coin and Antiquities Cabinets, the Oriental Academy, the House, Court and State Archives as well as the Dutch botanical garden and menagerie at Schönbrunn. The imperial collections that, step by step, became centralized in Vienna were housed in the Court Palace (Hofburg) Augustinian Wing.24 The Natural Cabinet, established by Franz Stephan as a private collection, became state property in 1765, and served as a place of instructions for the young archdukes. Similar to the other imperial collections, they were increasingly expanded and musealized under Franz Stephan, i.e. reorganized, cataloged, and made accessible to a wider circle of individuals.25

Besides the Italian dominions, Bohemia and Moravia also represented significant centers of scholarship in the Habsburg Monarchy. In Olmouc (Olmütz), the Societas eruditorum incognitorum in terris Austriacis was founded as the first learned society in 1746 by Joseph Freiherr von Petrasch (1714–1772), followed by the Bohemian Learned Private Society in Prague developed in 1770 around Ignaz von Born. The emergence of Vienna as a center of knowledge was above all connected to the imperial court. Its influence on the scientific landscape of the Habsburg dominions was proving to be more durable than in other European cities. Besides the acquired control over the higher education infrastructure, the imperial administration was located here and the door-to-door agglomeration of scientific and bureaucratic knowledge was another contributing factor. The merging of these spheres manifests itself in the professional field of scholarly experienced higher court officials. For example, Johann de Baillou (1679–1758), director of the Natural Cabinet, or the Imperial Mathematician Joseph Anton Nagel (1717–1794)26 were entrusted with both scientific and state-administrative tasks. By opening up the monarchy as a hub and resource for scientific practices, such imperial agents contributed to the spatial concentration of power and knowledge and the amalgamation of the different Habsburg dominions.

The interest in minerals was not only fueled by a passion for the collection process, the aesthetics of the specimens, or their study. It was also of economic significance since minerals formed the basis of industrial products. As the information on the precious metal content, the yield of ore veins or the processing of ores in Leopold’s collection catalog indicates, this kind of knowledge helped to manage the heavily indebted monarchy.27 Not only the value of minerals, the profitability of mines and technologies, but also considerations on how the state could gather practical knowledge on-site and exploit the resources more efficiently by means of a service-minded and disciplined bureaucracy were of interest. Like Leopold, Joseph had intensively studied questions of administration and rulership during his time as crown prince (Plattner 2008). The goal of his later visions on government was the creation of a centralist-bureaucratic unitary state with a homogeneous body of subordinates.

However, the expansion of state authority, the elimination of intermediary powers between sovereign and subordinates, and the mobilization of economic resources for the purpose of a sovereign-ordained welfare program were rooted in the period before 1765 (Reinalter 2008, 19). Severe crises under Maria Theresa’s rule, such as the Seven Years’ War, had required an increase in tax revenue and had revealed the backlog in the administration of the Habsburg lands. This offered a field of action for various players. Besides those from the cameral estate administration, the army, monasteries and noble businesses,28 the urban bourgeoisie and local scientific societies significantly contributed to the state-building process by providing resources such as knowledge, labor, and their own interests (Fillafer 2020). Mercantilist, cameralistic, and physiocratic concepts justified interventions in agribusiness, trade, customs, commerce, and infrastructure policies, supervised by a constantly reformed bureaucracy (Hackl 2008). As each of the Habsburg dominions represented a separate economic area, political measures, such as the abolition of internal customs duties29 and the expansion of transport routes, were meant to unify the monarchy economically. Similar to Leopold’s catalog, which brought together specimens from all the important mining areas of the monarchy, the administration aimed at an organic management and even exploitation of all the raw materials of the monarchy, the labor force of its subordinates, as well as useful knowledge (Matis 1981).

The establishment and operation of state manufactories and workhouses, where the poor had to labor in a welfare regime instead of receiving alms, should increase the economic productivity. The export of raw materials as well as the import of industrial products were heavily taxed in order to improve the financial power of the state. The strengthening of the central state administration in the second half of the eighteenth century came at the expense of the guilds, manorialism, and municipal magistrates, whose powers were subsequently restricted. Often, state estates functioned as an “experimental field” and models for private landed estates (Fillafer 2020, 262). To promote enterprises and manufactures, monopoly rights were granted for production and technologies, and traditional state monopolies such as the sovereign mining regal, the salt monopoly, the mining and trading of mercury, or the tobacco monopoly were expanded. These cameralistic measures were contrasted by liberalizations in trade, the free movement of labor (abolition of serfdom) and restriction of landlord prerogatives, such as the processing and marketing of the products of subjects (Komlosy 2019, 997).

In each of their lands, the Habsburg sovereigns had private domain and regalian rights such as tolls, customs, mining revenues and profits from minting coins. This was accompanied by the salt monopoly30 and the state-controlled trade of precious metals. The Bergregal (disposal of unexploited mineral resources) led to a separation of land ownership and mining rights. Either the sovereign reserved the privilege to exploit ores and minerals to himself (especially in case of salt and precious metals)31 or he granted it to third parties such as landlords, estates and cities, who had to pay taxes for it (usually 10% of the extracted raw material). Oftentimes, mining operations were carried out by so-called “Gewerken”, a form of private mining co-operatives, which united several shareholders with different shares in a joint tenancy. In some cases, the Bergregal included the privilege of the sovereign to buy the extracted ores in advance and at a lower price than the normal trade value.

The whole protoindustrial sector around resources extraction, metallurgy, and metal processing represented an important source of income, which was used to pay off the state debt and to finance the costly Vienna court household. Habsburg sovereigns thus had keen interest in an efficient, profitable, and safe operation of the mines they owned. Yet these mines had the advantage of being independent of the approval of the estates. Sovereigns also encouraged private ventures by providing financial subsidies or by granting privileges. The mining regions within the monarchy, together with Saxony and Latin America, from which the two ‘foreign’ objects in Leopold’s collection originate, were among the most important in the world. These include the rich mercury mines of Idrija (Idria, Carniola), the iron production around the Styrian Erzberg, the iron, copper, and silver mining in Carinthia, the Bohemian silver and iron mines, the salt production in the Kammergut (Upper Austria), the silver, copper, and salt mining in Tyrol, and especially the Hungarian gold, silver, and copper mines. Banat and Transylvania directly administered by Vienna held a special position. After the conquest of these regions at the beginning of the eighteenth century, a prosperous mining industry was established there. The settlement of miners from other parts of the monarchy and Southern Germany was encouraged and the expertise and technologies from other mining regions was implemented. Precious metals, copper, and iron ore were exploited in the Banat region, and silver and salt in Transylvania (Slotta et al. 2002; Popescu and Wollmann 2013).

Before a general mining law was introduced in the Habsburg Monarchy in 1854, the legal provisions were laid down in numerous regional and local mining ordinances (Bergordnungen).32 As Miroslav Lacko (2017a, 52) has pointed out by using the example of iron production, the monarchy’s economic policy and regulatory engagement in the mining industry did not open up to liberal ambitions before the 1780s. Starting in 1781, state mining courts were established, limiting the rights of the sovereign over those of the landowner. In 1785, raw materials such as alum and cobalt were taken out of the mining regal, as were mercury and cinnabar, but it was not until 1840 that their sale was released (Brusatti 1979, 113–5).

In the Kingdom of Hungary, the state held a particularly powerful position and was able to enforce a state copper monopoly. Hungary therefore served as a “test area for cameralist reforms”, which were later extended to other mining districts (Konečný 2013c, 162). Since the seventeenth century, private mining co-operatives in Hungary were obliged to sell their copper ores to state-owned smelters. Due to the price regulation by court authorities, the state gained control over private mining co-operatives, but also ensured that they could sell their products on fixed terms. After Hungarian revolts against Habsburg rule from 1703 to 1711, further state measures to ensure hegemony in mining, especially in iron smelting, were enforced (Lacko 2016, 2017b). In 1747, contracts with bankers and merchants, such as Jakob Küner von Künersberg (1694–1764), guaranteed stable sales of copper production on the European market. By means of integrating into the state budget system, part of the Habsburg dominions’ mining revenues flowed directly into the Viennese court. In addition to the copper revenues in Smolník, the mercury production in Idrija was of particular significance for the state budget. The copper and mercury funds, which pooled the state mining revenues, served as a guarantee for the state bonds raised on the European financial market (Lacko 2017b). Due to the high debt burden, the funds themselves ran into financial difficulties and resulted in a backlog of payments to private mining co-operatives.

Overall, the mining industry in the Habsburg dominions faced considerable challenges at the beginning of the second half of the eighteenth century. In addition to the above-mentioned fiscal burden, a decline in production in several mining regions, a decrease in the quality of certain ores,33 and the high investments required for mining drainage, made several undertakings unprofitable and impaired the minting of coins. The resulting state interventions to increase productivity were intended to implement more efficient working and organizational methods. State measures included the centralization of production and decision-making processes and the introduction of new technological methods in ore mining and processing, which were also mentioned in Leopold’s mineral catalog. Public subsidies and tax benefits were implemented to provide financial incentives and enable long-term investments. While visits by court officials to mining districts had previously served as an instrument to initiate technological innovations, the training of mining officials was now to be fundamentally reformed. According to the model of cameral sciences, the practical and local knowledge of miners and mining officials was to be standardized, systematized, made explicit in state-supervised teaching programs, and supplemented with knowledge from jurists, technicians, and naturalists, for example in mineralogy and chemistry (Konečný 2017, 68).

Until the end of the eighteenth century, a new body of experts employed as public servants and trained in reformed or newly established state educational institutions took over decisive functions in the higher mining administration. A milestone was the aforementioned founding of a chair of mining sciences (Academia metallurgica, 1763–1772) at the University of Prague, whose holder, Johann Thaddäus Peithner (1770), was to provide basic theoretical training to mining aspirants. Even more impactful was the transformation of the practical training school34 (praktische Lehrschule) in Banská Štiavnica into the monarchy’s Mining Academy, which took place between 1763 and 1770 (Konečný 2013, 102–5; 2017, 82–3). With its prosperous mining area, the technological potential demonstrated during visits of court officials, and close ties to the Viennese administration, Banská Štiavnica had the best prerequisites. While the curricula offered in Prague and Idrija were initially continued, Peithner and Giovanni Antonio Scopoli (1723–1788), who worked there as professors, were appointed to Banská Štiavnica in 1772 and 1769, respectively. By 1770, three chairs had been established at the Mining Academy, for metallurgical chemistry and mineralogy (1763, held by Nikolaus Joseph Jacquin), mechanics and hydraulics (1765, Nikolaus Poda von Neuhaus) and mining science and mining law (1770, Christoph Traugott Delius).35

The state training offensive and the institutional developments that occurred simultaneously with the emergence of Leopold’s catalog did not follow a predefined plan. Rather, they were the result of several different political decisions and initiatives, especially those by Peithner. Yet, the reforms turned out to be highly effective. With the gradual centralization and standardization of education in Banská Štiavnica, mining knowledge in the Habsburg Monarchy was bureaucratized, ascribed a scientific status, and situated at the intersection of theoretical and practical approaches. Thus, Leopold’s catalog anticipates later developments, namely the centralization and bureaucratic use of knowledge and the pooling, comparison, and evaluation of specimens.

The development of public and private collections is closely linked to the formation of mineralogy as a scientific discipline. Towards the end of the eighteenth century, mineralogy emerged distinct from natural history by methods of identifying minerals. In particular, Abraham Gottlob Werner (1749–1817) at the Freiberg Mining Academy had promoted these new methods (Werner 1772; Guntau 2009, 168–9). To quote Anke te Heesen and Emma Sparry (2001), collecting embodied a form of spatially organized knowledge acquisition and was closely linked to the practices of sorting, ordering, and cataloging. Without comparison and exchange of specimens that would not naturally occur side by side in situ, mineralogical knowledge acquisition and classification of nature was impossible. Knowledge was passed on not only by traveling mining officials and collectors, but also through the transfer of specimens and the catalogs enclosed when larger collections changed hands (Klemun 2013). According to the well-established division into the three “kingdoms” of nature adopted by Carl von Linné (1707–1778) in his Systema Naturae (1735)36 mineralogical cabinets also included specimens that we do not count as such today, like fossils, conchylia (shells), and zoophytes (i.e., corals, anemones). All the more importance was placed on the ordering of the objects that were stored in glass cases or in subdivided drawers and often additionally packed in small paper boxes to protect them from dust. For contemporaries, collections did not represent a fixed unit, but were constantly expanded and supplemented through purchases, exchanges, sales of duplicates, and sometimes personal collecting trips. Therefore, cabinets and their catalogs always had an ephemeral character.

In this regard, mineral collections had multiple purposes, such as arousing aesthetic enjoyment, establishing social contacts between collectors, and linking the fields of “mining” and “mineralogy” that developed jointly in the second half of the eighteenth century (Klemun 2000; 2017, 306; Vogel 2015). According to Johann Georg Krünitz’ (1803, 14–6) Oeconomische Encyclopädie (Economic Encyclopedia), mineral cabinets aimed at the “expansion of mineralogy” by striving for “order and completeness.” Prestigious and rare objects increased the “fame of wealthy, tasteful and learned individuals”, i.e., a status gain for collectors. This made the trade with mineralogical specimens a “lucrative business.” Similarly, natural history cabinets open to the public influenced the taste of owners and visitors and offered instruction and expertise to professionals. Unlike zoological and botanical specimens, where “faithful illustrations [in textbooks] can still help out”, the study of mineralogy was particularly dependent on experience and personal autopsy. Collections of economically useable ores, established at “universities, mining and trade academies, secondary schools and main mining sites”, followed utilitarian goals. They served metallurgical and mining officials and cameralists for demonstration and instruction, and thus promoted “cameral and commercial science in general” (Krünitz 1803, 36, 39). As part of a ‘patriotic’ attitude, collecting increased the knowledge about the ‘fatherland’ and prevented “true rarities of nature from being taken out of the country” (Krünitz 1806, 581). Natural history cabinets were thus of state-level relevance. Their sovereigns and bureaucracy in particular promoted mineralogy as a “very useful science.” According to the arrangement of specimens and the various branches of mineralogy, Krünitz (1803, 16–8, 32, 38) distinguished between five different types of collections:

The general knowledge of fossils or mineralogy includes first the knowledge of the characteristics of fossils (Characteristica mineralogica), second, the recognition of fossils (Oryctognosia), third, the mountain science (Physica subterranea), fourth, the mineralogical geography (Geographia mineralogica), and fifth, the economic mineralogy (Mineralogia oeconomica). A large mineral cabinet, which is to be used for the study of all these five special sciences, must therefore also consist of five special mineral collections, and these are: the first one according to the characteristics, the second one a methodical, the third one a physical, the fourth one a geographical or suite collection, and the fifth one an economic mineral collection. […] The establishment of large suite collections of minerals will therefore remain merely a work for princes and kings, who thereby find one of the best opportunities to erect immortal monuments to themselves for the benefit of their states, […]. The suite collections have become known only in recent times, and first in Saxony. The first one was established about 1764 at the Freiberg Mining Academy, and the other one was the former Stieglitz Mineral Collection in Leipzig, which was sold to the Collegium Theresianium in Vienna in 1770.37

Likewise, Leopold’s catalog corresponds to a suite collection (Suiten-Sammlung).38 It contained geographical information on the mountains, mining districts, pits, galleries, and veins, where the specimens were found, as well as details on the circumstances of their extraction, the precious metal content of ores and their processing.39 The samples, in turn, provided important information about new ore deposits, their precious metal content, and mineability. Like other suite collections, the catalog assembled not only rare and valuable objects, but also non-precious mountain kinds, “if only the fossil, which it is supposed to show, can be seen well, and the usually breaking fossils, by which this kind is especially distinguished, can be seen in the proper proportion to it”40 (Krünitz 1803, 30–1). However, supplying sources of the specimens, i.e. the local mining administrations in the Habsburg dominions and, as far as the two valuable samples from America and Saxony are concerned, (foreign) donors, dealers, or collectors, were not indicated in the catalog.

The arrangement of the objects by locality or by metal/mineral types for the purpose of instructing the young archduke can be guessed based on the information of the index. Thus, the catalog itself represents a snapshot of a cultural transformation process and indicates the change in meaning to which specimens are subjected when they are transferred from their context of origin to a mineral collection (Alberti 2005, 562). In this regard, the Court Chamber functioned as a transitional space. There, the knowledge associated with the objects was structured through its recording in the catalog—albeit not yet according to the criteria that developed as mineral collections were spreading and increasing in size.

Since the second half of the eighteenth century, Vienna became an important hub for the international exchange of mineral specimens (Stütz 1807, 35; Huber and Huber 1981; Vogel 2015, 308). This was not only due to the mineralogical expertise and the communication networks of mining officials and scholars converging here, but also to the growing number of private collectors such as civil servants, aristocrats, businessmen, bankers, pharmacists, clergymen, and professors, among them social climbers.41 These included, for example, the well-researched merchant Jakob Friedrich van der Nüll (1750–1823) who, through generous purchases, built up an extensive mineral collectio described by the mineralogist Friedrich Mohs (1804) in three volumes (Flügel et al. 2011). Prior to the establishment of the first professional businesses for trading minerals by private individuals around 1800 (Fritscher 2012; Lacour 2014, 367–81),42 the personal proximity of the collector to the state bureaucracy and mining administration played a decisive role. In many cases, traveling officials and naturalists residing in the different Habsburg dominions served as intermediaries for the trade of mineral specimens (Klemun 2000, 16; Vogel 2015, 309–10). They stood at the intersection of different fields of knowledge and maintained a lively communication with mining officials at home and abroad, the state bureaucracy, local mining operators and other sources of supply such as dealers and grinders. The channels of exchange maintained by mining officials and naturalists illustrate how the spheres of the public and the private were intertwined through the assembly of collections by sovereigns and numerous individual collectors (Hamm 2001). Higher mining officials understood the practice of collecting as part of their professionalization as academically-trained civil servants. They themselves often amassed extensive suite collections, organized the distribution or sale of collectibles from individual mines, and gave away pieces to teaching collections or fellows as a sign of their commitment to the scholarly community.

Since “collecting must be a difficult thing for most beginners” (Krünitz 1803, 39), only a small number of collectors are likely to have ventured into the field and visited the mining towns themselves. Although, in the Habsburg Monarchy, the Court Chamber of Coinage and Mining itself may have provided a semi-public platform for the acquisition and exchange of minerals, private mineral dealers gradually took over this task. At the turn of the nineteenth century, Abbé Andreas Xaver Stütz (1807, 29–37), director of the Imperial Natural History Cabinet, mentioned an “auction institute [for minerals] with 4 to 5 auctions” annually as well as two stores in Vienna, located in today’s Gluckgasse and at Stephansplatz. As advertisements in the Viennese newspaper Wienerisches Diarium indicate, the trade of minerals in the eighteenth century only to a small extent seemed to take place in the public sphere or in stores. Objects were offered for purchase in the private homes of collectors (Anonymous 1786, 965). Travelling dealers, who were frequently specialized in a mining region and provided catalogs of their specimens available for purchase, could be visited in their lodgings (Anonymous 1795, 1226). In many cases, the catalogs were created on the occasion of the sale of a collection.43 Thus, in addition to their scientific and economic use, mineral objects were increasingly attributed a cultural significance as collectors’ items (Fritscher 2012, 104).

Collections of mining authorities and their educational institutions, by contrast, served as “tools of state knowledge” (Vogel 2015, 301). Although the Court Chamber of Coinage and Mining did not create a central geognostic-mineralogical collection within its authority until 1835, it encouraged the establishment of collections at higher education institutions (Haidinger 1843, 1; Klemun 2017, 173). Mostly set up by individual professors on an institutional mandate or on their own initiative for the purpose of teaching students, they were gradually expanded through donations from patrons, exchanges with other organizations, collecting activities of professors, or through purchases of their private collections.44 Almost simultaneously with the founding of the Freiberg Mining Academy (1765), where an own collection was built up, the Habsburg mining administration commissioned the establishment of a mineral collection for educational purposes at the mining school in Banská Štiavnica. Jacquin, who was appointed professor there in 1763, had been entrusted with this task at the expense of the Court Chamber of Coinage and Mining even before the classes began (Klemun and Hühnel 2017, 305). The collection of the academy was continuously enlarged, for example through the purchase of professor Peithner’s collection in 1774.45 In 1781, the collection was enriched by six boxes of specimens from Italy, which the mining academy received as a gift for shipping minerals to Grand Duke Leopold in Florence (Kašiarová 2004, 180–2). Likewise, samples of ore from Banská Štiavnica, indispensable in suite collections of Hungary, enriched the personal collections of Crown Prince Joseph (1763), Archduke Maximilian (1777), and Archduchess Maria Anna (1778) (Kašiarová 2004, 183).

The mineral trade strategies of the state bureaucracy, the Habsburg court, and other European ruling houses followed diplomatic considerations and were embedded in power-political relations. While the exchange or bestowals of minerals between royal courts must be understood as a diplomatic gesture, signaled solidarity and sealed alliances, the possession of extensive mineral collections also meant a not to be undervalued prestige gain for sovereigns. Exquisite and rare specimens fulfilled the representational needs of powerful dynasties. Since the middle of the eighteenth century, mineralogical collections were established at Europe’s leading royal houses, e.g. in France (1739–1745), Russia (1767), Prussia (1770), and Spain (1771). A decisive factor in each case was the involvement of the state bureaucracy (Vogel 2015, 306). By requesting copies from local authorities or by conducting their own surveys, mining officials contributed significantly to the development of suite collections and supplied specimens for mineral exchanges with foreign countries.

The foundation of the emperor’s Natural History Cabinet (Naturalien-Cabinet) in Vienna was laid by the aforementioned purchase of the private collection of the Florentine architect and scholar Jean de Baillou (1679–1758). It contained around 30,000 objects46 including minerals, fossils and durable zoological specimens such as corals or crabs (e.g. Fitzinger 1856; Hamann 1976; Riedl-Dorn 1998; Koeberl et al. 2018). After the purchase, which took place around 1748, the former director of the Uffizi followed his collection to Vienna and was appointed by Franz Stephan as the first director of the Natural History Cabinet. Collecting trips undertaken in the following years, for example by Jacquin to the West Indies (1754–1759), led to its expansion (Klemun and Hühnel 2017, 45–128). Franz Stephan’s collection, which became state property and opened to the public after the death of the emperor, was to be further expanded under the new direction of Baillou’s son, Johann Ludwig Balthasar (1731–1802). This expansion should especially include mineralogical specimens from the Habsburg dominions, whose study was considered to be of special importance for the knowledge and the exploitation of soil resources. For this purpose, Maria Theresa ordered that the collection be reorganized according to current scientific knowledge and supplemented with samples of ore to be sent in by all mines of the monarchy (Fitzinger 1856, 447–8; Fischer et al. 1976, 2).

Since insufficient progress was made in cataloging the collection, this task was finally in 1776 entrusted to the influential Transylvanian naturalist and mining official Ignaz von Born. He worked at the Prague Mint and Mining Master’s Office (Münz- und Bergmeisteramt) and had already published a two-volume catalog of his own extensive collection arranged after the Swedish mineralogist Axel Frederic von Cronstedt (1722–1765) (Born 1772–1775).47 Due to his former service as a mining councilor (Bergrat) at the Main Chamber Earl’s Office (Oberkammergrafenamt) in Baňská Štiavnica, his activity as a Freemason and his leading role in the founding of the Learned Society (Gelehrte Gesellschaft) in Prague, Born was very well connected to domestic and international naturalists.48 Thanks to his relations to mining officials and donations of foreign scholars such as Georges-Louis de Buffon (1707–1788), Johan Christian Fabricius (1745–1808) or Friedrich Wilhelm von Trebra (1740–1819), Born was able to significantly expand the collections (Fitzinger 1856, 449). From 1878 to 1880, with the support of Karl Haidinger (1756–1797) and Johann Carl Megerle von Mühlfeld (1765–1842) he rearranged the mineral collection according to the principle of Cronstedt and Wallerius (Haidinger 1782). Of the plan to catalog the whole collection, Born (1778) finally could publish only the first volume on Testacea (shellfish). During the short reign of Emperor Leopold II (1790–1792), more space was allocated to the Natural History Cabinet and Andreas Xaver Stütz (1793) was entrusted with the rearrangement of the collection. However, it was not before 1797 that the handwritten inventory of the mineral specimens, the so-called Catalogus Stützianus, was begun, which was completed in 1806 (Riedl-Dorn 2021, 45).

Collecting is a connecting endeavor. In the case of Leopold’s collection, it linked the world of high aristocracy with the state agencies and the working environment of miners. As this essay suggests, catalogs can be understood as a materialization of complex exchange processes between persons, objects, and knowledge. They arose from natural-historical, representative, instructional, or practical needs, for example when specimens or whole collections changed hands and ‘gaps’ of a collection had to be identified. Even if the claim to completeness and order pursued by many authors of catalogs (especially in the case of published ones) could not be fulfilled due to the flourishing mineral trade, they can serve as sources for the interrelationships and circumstances in which they were created.

This also applies to Leopold’s catalog. Its emergence is closely intertwined with the state-building process of the Habsburg Monarchy, the significance of mining technologies and mineralogical knowledge for ‘patriotic’ goals and state governance, the formation of mineralogy and mining as fields of scientific practice, and the professionalization of its players through the centralization and academization of their education. Thus, the creation of the catalog coincides with a period of transformation, where not only political and economic reforms considerably changed the relationship between state and citizen, public and private, but also imperial practices of rulership in the Habsburg Monarchy formed a long-lasting alliance with ‘useful’ fields of research. In this respect, the catalog also bear witness to social, spatial, and epistemic settings in which mining officials interacted and served as intermediaries between different knowledge contexts.

The catalog certainly did not serve exclusively to instruct the archduke. As the descriptions of the individual specimens indicate, it assembled objects with different places of origin, precious metal content and mineralogical characteristics. The focus was not exclusively on the curiosity, representative function, or aesthetics of the specimens, but also on their geographical comprehensiveness and value, which was indicated for numerous objects. By collecting the specimens and arranging them in the catalog, something like a ‘mental map’ of the natural resources, significant mining districts, and economic development of the Habsburg domains was created. In this respect, the specimens in Leopold’s collection represented both an inventory of the monarchy’s mining endeavors and a possible ‘testing ground’ for reform ideas how to improve mining and its benefit for the state.

Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Goldenes Bergbuch. 1764. Beschreibung von denen sammentlichen Schemnitzer sowohl Kayserlich-Königlich- und gewerckschaftlichen Grüben, alß von der gesammten hierzu gehörigen Wercks-Operation, und Waldungen, wie folget (Manuscript commissioned by the Court Chamber in Vienna and compiled by the local mining administrations in Banská Štiavnica, Kremnica, Banská Bystrica). Collection of Manuscripts and Old Prints, Cod. Ser. n. 12938.

Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Leopold. 1764. Journaux de mes voyages de Frankforth, des mines d‘Hongrie, et en Bohème et Moravie en 1764. Travel reports of the year 1764: on Joseph’s coronation in Frankfurt (with excerpt from the coronation protocol) (1r–102r), on mines in Hungary (103r–179r), on Bohemia and Moravia (195r–284v). Collection of Manuscripts and Old Prints, Cod. Ser. n. 12178.

Anonymous. 1764. „Schemnitz in Nieder-hungarn, vom 20. Julii“. Wienerisches Diarium 60 (28 July): 4–5. – Reports continued in 61 (1 August): 3–4; 62 (4 August): 4–5; 63 (8 August): 9; 64 (11 August): 3–4; 65 (15 August): 3–4; 67 (22 August): 3–4; 68 (25 August): 3–4; 69 (29 August): 9–11; 70 (1 September): 3–4; 71 (5 September): 9–10.

Anonymous. 1771. Catalogus des von dem Wohlseligen Geh. Rath Büchner hinterlassenen Naturalien-Cabinets, welches den elften Merz 1711 an die Meistbietenden veractioniret werden soll. Halle: Beyersche Schriften.

Anonymous. 1786. „Licit. Stuffen, Steine und Mineralien“. Wienerisches Diarium 33 (26th April): 965.

Anonymous. 1794. „Conchilien und Mineralien zu verkaufen“. Wienerisches Diarium 33 (23rd April): 1226.

Anonymous. [Christian Ludwig Stieglitz]. 1772. Vollständiger Catalogus einer Suiten Mineralien-Sammlung, welche aus 4263 Numern bestehet: aus allen Ländern Europens und den übrigen Welttheilen mit größter Sorgfalt gesammlet. Leipzig.

Asmussen, T., Long, P. O. 2019. “Introduction: The cultural and material worlds of mining in early modern Europe.” Renaissance Studies. Special issue on the cultural and material worlds of mining in early modern Europe 34 (1): 8–30.

Bohadsch, J. B. 1782. „Hrn. Johann Bohadsch Bericht über seine auf allerhöchsten Befehl im Jahr 1763 unternommene Reise nach dem oberösterreich. Salzkammerbezirk“. Abhandlungen einer Privatgesellschaft in Böhmen, zur Aufnahme der Mathematik, der vaterländischen Geschichte, und der Naturgeschichte. Zum Druck befördert von Ignatz Edlen von Born 5: 91–227.

Born, I. von. 1772–1775: Lithophylacium Bornianum seu Index Fossilium, quae collegit, in classes et ordines digessit Ign. de B., 2 voll. Prague: Gerle.

Born, I. von. 1778. Index Rerum Naturalium Musei Caesarei Vindobonensis. Pars 1, Testacea. Verzeichniss der natürlichen Seltenheiten des k.k. Naturalien Kabinets zu Wien. Erster Theil, Schalthiere. Wien: Kraus.

Brianta, D. 2000. “Education and Training in the Mining Industry, 1750–1860: European Models and the Italian Case.” Annals of Science 57: 267–300.

Brusatti, A. 1979. Betrachtungen zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte, edited by H. Matis, K. Bachinger, H. Koller. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

Dickson, P. G., Rauscher, P. 2019. „Die Hofkammer im 18. Jahrhundert“. In Verwaltungsgeschichte der Habsburgermonarchie in der Frühen Neuzeit. Vol. 1: Hof und Dynastie, Kaiser und Reich, Zentralverwaltungen, Kriegswesen und landesfürstliches Finanzwesen, hrsg. von M. Hochedlinger, P. Maťa, T. Winkelbauer, 848–55. Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau.

Elliott, J. H. 1992. “A Europe of Composite Monarchies.” Past & Present 137 (1): 48–71.

Elliott, J. H. 2009. Spain, Europe & the Wider World, 1500–1800. Yale: Yale University Press.

Evans, R. J. W. 1979. The Making of the Habsburg Monarchy, 1550–1700. Oxford: Clarendon.

Felten, S. 2018. “The history of science and the history of bureaucratic knowledge: Saxon mining, circa 1770.” History of Science 56 (4): 403–31.

Felten, S. 2020. “Mining culture, labour, and the state in early modern Saxony.” Renaissance Studies 34 (1): 119–48.

Fettweis, G., Hamann, G. hrsg. von. 1989. Über Ignaz von Born und die Societät der Bergbaukunde. Vorträge einer Gedenkveranstaltung zur 200. Wiederkehr des Gründungstages im September 1786 der ältesten internationalen wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft. Wien: Austrian Academy of Sciences.

Fillafer, F. 2020. Aufklärung habsburgisch: Staatsbildung, Wissenskultur und Geschichtspolitik in Zentraleuropa 1750–1850. Göttingen: Wallstein.

Fillafer, F., Walling, T. hrsg. von. 2016. Josephinismus zwischen den Regimen. Eduard Winter, Fritz Valjavec und die zentraleuropäischen Historiographien im 20. Jahrhundert. Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau.

Findlen, P. 1994. Possessing Nature: Museums, Collecting, and Scientific Culture in Early Modern Italy. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: University of California Press.

Fischer, M., Moschner, I., Schönmann, R. 1976. „Das Naturhistorische Museum in Wien und seine Geschichte“. Annalen Naturhistorisches Museum Wien 80: 1–24.

Fitzinger, L. J. 1856. „Geschichte des kaiserlich-königlichen Hof-Naturalien-Cabinetes zu Wien. 1. Abt.: Älteste Periode bis zum Tode Kaiser Leopold II. 1792“. Sitzungsberichte der math.-naturwiss. Classe der kaiserl. Akademie der Wissenschaften 21, 3. Abt.: 433–79.

Flügel, H. W., Huber, P., Huber, S., Machan, A. 2011. Jakob Friedrich van der Nüll. Großbürger und Sammler in Wien an der Wende zum 19. Jahrhundert. Wien: Natural History Museum.

Franza, A., Fabozzi, R., Vezzosi, L., Fantoni, L., Pratesi, G. 2019. “The catalog of the mineralogical collection of the emperor Leopold II (1747–1792): Collecting and learning in eighteenth-century Europe.” Earth Sciences History 38 (2): 173–203.

Fritscher, B. 2012. “Making objects move: On minerals and their dealers in 19th century Germany.” HOST 5 (1): 84–105.

Galison, P. 1997. Image & logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Gieryn, T. 1983. “Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists.” American Sociological Review 48 (6): 781–95.

Godsey, W. 2018. The Sinews of Habsburg Power: Lower Austria in a Fiscal-Military State 1650–1820. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Godsey, W. D., Maťa, P., Winkelbauer, T. edited by. 2021. The Habsburg Monarchy as a Fiscal-Military State c. 1648–1815: Contours and Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Good, D. F. 1984. The Economic Rise of the Habsburg Empire, 1750–1914. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: University of California Press.

Guntau, M. 2009. “The rise of geology as a science in Germany around 1800.” In The Making of the Geological Society of London, edited by C. Lewis, S. J. Knell, Geological Society Special Publication 317, 163–77. London: The Geological Society.

Hackl, B. 2008. „Die staatliche Wirtschaftspolitik zwischen 1740 und 1792: Reform versus Stagnation“. In Josephinismus als aufgeklärter Absolutismus, hrsg. von H. Reinalter, 191–272. Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau.

Haidinger, K. 1782. Disposito rerum naturalium Musei Caesarei Vindobonensis. Wien: Wappler.

Haidinger, K. 1843. Bericht über die Mineralien-Sammlung der K. K. Hofkammer im Münz- und Bergwesen. Wien: Carl Gerold.

Hamann, G. 1976. Das Naturhistorische Museum in Wien. Die Geschichte der Wiener naturhistorischen Sammlungen bis zum Ende der Monarchie. Wien: Natural History Museum.

Hamm, E. 2001. “Unpacking Goethe’s collections: The public and the private in natural-historical collecting.” The British Journal for the History of Science 34: 275–300.

Hassmann, E. 2015. Quellen und Regesten zur Schatzkammer, Gemäldegalerie und zu den drei Kabinetten aus dem Archivbestand des k. k. Oberstkämmereramtes. 1777 bis 1787 mit einem Nachtrag zu den Jahren 1748 bis 1776 (Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien, 15/16). Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau.

Heesen, A. te, Spray, E. C. 2001. „Sammeln als Wissen“. In Sammeln als Wissen. Das Sammeln und sein wissenschaftliche Bedeutung, hrsg. von A. te Heesen, E. C. Spary, 7–21. Göttingen: Wallstein.

Huber, S., Huber, P. 1982. „Zur Tradition des Mineraliensammelns im Raume Wien“. Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Mineralogischen Gesellschaft 128: 77–86.

Hutterer, H., Seitschek, S. 2019. „Die zivile Zentralverwaltung der Habsburgermonarchie: Das Allgemeine Verwaltungs-, Finanz- und Hofkammerarchiv“. In Österreichische Archive: Geschichte und Gegenwart, hrsg. von P. Elbel, 139–96. Brno: Masaryk University Press.

Isser, M. von. 1905. Schwazer Bergwerks-Geschichte. Eine Monographie über die Schwazer Erzbergbaue. Hall in Tirol.

Kašiarová, E. 2004. “The archival documents of the State Central Mining Archives in Banská Štiavnica related to different kinds of museum collections at home and abroad.” Scripta Geologica. Special Issue 4: 180–92.

Klemun, M. 2000. „Internationale Kontakte und Funktionen des Mineraliensammelns am Beispiel von Sigmund Zois (1747–1819)“. Berichte der Geologischen Bundesanstalt 51: 13–20.

Klemun, M. 2007. “Writing, ‘inscription’ and fact: Eighteenth century mineralogical books based on travels in the Habsburg regions, the Carpathian Mountains.” In Four centuries of geological travel: the search for knowledge on foot, edited by P. Wyse Jackson, 49–61. London: The Geological Society of London.

Klemun, M. 2013. „,Wissen im Gepäck‘: Reisendes Bergpersonal zwischen den Bergbauorten in den habsburgischen Ländern (1765–1805)“. In Staat, Bergbau und Bergakademie: Montanexperten im 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhundert, hrsg. von H. Schleiff, P. Konečný, 75–91. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

Klemun, M. 2017. “Different functions of learning and knowledge—geology takes form. Museums in the Habsburg Empire, 1815–1848.” In Museums at the forefront of the history and philosophy of geology: history made, history in the making, edited by G. D. Rosenberg, R. M. Clary, 163–75. Boulder: Geological Society of America.

Klemun, M., Hühnel, H. 2017. Nikolaus Joseph Jacquin (1727–1817) – ein Naturforscher (er)findet sich. Wien: V&R Unipress.

Kneschke, E. H. hrsg. von. 1864. Neues allgemeines Deutsches Adels-Lexicon, vol. 5. Leipzig: Voigt.

Koeberl, C., Brandstätter, F., Harzhauser, M., Riedl-Dorn, C. 2018. “History and importance of the geoscience collections at the natural history museum Vienna.” In Museums at the forefront of the history and philosophy of geology: history made, history in the making, edited by G. D. Rosenberg, R. M. Clary, 131–61. Boulder: Geological Society of America.

Koenigsberger, H. G. 1989. “Composite States, Representative Institutions and the American Revolution.” Historical Research 62: 135–53.

Komlosy, A. 2019. „Handelskompanien, Industrieförderung und staatliche Wirtschaftspolitik.“ In Verwaltungsgeschichte der Habsburgermonarchie in der Frühen Neuzeit. Vol. 1: Hof und Dynastie, Kaiser und Reich, Zentralverwaltungen, Kriegswesen und landesfürstliches Finanzwesen, hrsg. von M. Hochedlinger, P. Maťa, T. Winkelbauer, 991–1004. Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau.

Konečný, P. 2012. “The hybrid expert in the ‘Bergstaat’: Anton von Ruprecht as a professor of chemistry and mining and as a mining official, 1779–1814.” Annals of Science 69 (3): 335–47.

Konečný, P. 2013a. „Der Herrscher im Bergwerk. Visitationsreisen der Habsburger-Lothringer in die ungarischen (slowakischen) Bergreviere am Beispiel einer Reise von 1764“. In Die Repräsentation der Habsburg-Lothringischen Dynastie in Musik, visuellen Medien und Architektur. 1618–1918, hrsg. von W. Telesko, 346–66. Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau.

Konečný, P. 2013b. „Die Montanistische Ausbildung der Habsburgermonarchie, 1763–1848“. In Staat, Bergbau und Bergakademie: Montanexperten im 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhundert, hrsg. von H. Schleiff, P. Konečný, 95–124. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

Konečný, P. 2013c. “Sites of chemistry in the Schemnitz Mining Academy and the eighteenth-century Habsburg mining administration.” Ambix 60 (2): 160–78.

Konečný, P. 2017. „Kameralisten, Bildungsreformer und aufstrebende Bergbeamte: Johann Thaddäus Anton Peithner und sein Vorschlag zur Gründung einer Bergakademie im Habsburgerreich“. Montánna história 8–9: 66–89.

Krünitz, J. G. hrsg. von. 1803. Oeconomische Encyclopädie, oder allgemeines System der Staats- Stadt- Haus- u. Landwirthschaft, vol. 91 (Mine – Mistbeetkasten). Berlin: Joachim Pauli (see articles on Mineralien-Cabinett: 14–39).

Krünitz, J. G. hrsg. von. 1806. Oeconomische Encyclopädie, oder allgemeines System der Staats- Stadt- Haus- u. Landwirthschaft, vol. 101 (Nahmenbret – Nebennote). Berlin: Joachim Pauli (see articles on Naturalienhandel: 491–3, and Naturalienkabinett: 493–583).

Lacko, M. 2016. „Das Verwaltungs- und Wirtschaftssystem in den ungarischen und deutschen frühneuzeitlichen Bergbaugebieten aus vergleichender Perspektive“. Der Anschnitt 68 (4–5): 156–67.

Lacko, M. 2017a. „Zwischen Regulierung und Liberalisierung: Staatliche Wirtschaftspolitik in der Habsburgermonarchie und das Eisenhüttenwesen in der ersten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts“. Montánna história 8–9: 38–65.

Lacko, M. 2017b. „Bergbau und Staatsfinanzen der Habsburgermonarchie in der Zeit der Staatsreformen 1748–1749“. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 125(2): 362–84.

Lacour, P. Y. 2014. La République naturaliste: Collections d’histoire naturelle et Révolution française (1789–1804). Paris: Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle.

Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.

Lindner, D. 1986. Ignaz von Born. Meister der Wahren Eintracht. Wiener Freimaurerei im 18. Jahrhundert. Wien: Österreichischer Bundesverlag.

Linné, C. von. 1735. Systema Naturæ, sive regna tria naturæ systematice proposita per classes, ordines, genera, & species. Leiden: Theodor Haak.

Lobitzer, H., Pošmourný, K. 2010. „Johann Baptist Bohadsch – Ein Pionier der naturwissenschaftlichen Erforschung des Salzkammergutes“. Jahrbuch der Geologischen Bundesanstalt 150 (3–4): 473–90.

Majer, J. 2000. „Konjunkturen und Krisen im Böhmischen Silberbergbau“. In Konjunkturen im europäischen Bergbau in vorindustrieller Zeit, hrsg. von C. Bartels, M. A. Denzel, 73–83. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

Maťa, P. 2019. „Die Habsburgermonarchie“. In Verwaltungsgeschichte der Habsburgermonarchie in der Frühen Neuzeit. Vol. 1: Hof und Dynastie, Kaiser und Reich, Zentralverwaltungen, Kriegswesen und landesfürstliches Finanzwesen, hrsg. von M. Hochedlinger, P. Maťa, T. Winkelbauer, 29–62. Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau

Matis H. 1981. „Staatswerdungsprozeß und Ausbildung der Volkswirtschaft“. In Von der Glückseligkeit des Staates. Staat, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in Österreich im Zeitalter des aufgeklärten Absolutismus, hrsg. von H. Matis, 15–29. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

Mattes, J. 2015. Reisen ins Unterirdische. Eine Kulturgeschichte der Höhlenforschung. Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau.

Meusburger, P. 2015. “Relations Between Knowledge and Power: An Overview of Research Questions and Concepts.” In Geographies of Knowledge and Power, edited by P. Meusburger, D. Gregory, L. Suarsana, 19–74. Dordrecht-Heidelberg-London-New York: Springer.

Mohs, F. 1804. Des Herrn Jac. Fried. von der Null Mineralien-Kabinett nach einem durchaus auf äußere Kennzeichen gegründeten Systeme geordnet, 3 voll. Wien: Camesinaische Buchhandlung.

Mühlberger, K. 2009. „Das „Antlitz“ der Wiener Philosophischen Fakultät in der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Struktur und personelle Erneuerung.“ In Eduard Suess und die Entwicklung der Erdwissenschaften zwischen Biedermeier und Sezession, hrsg. von J. Seidl, 67–102. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Peithner, J. T. 1770. Erste Gründe der Bergwerkswissenschaften aus denen Physisch-Metallurgischen Vorlesungen. Prague: Clauser.

Plattner, I. 2008. „Josephinismus und Bürokratie“. In Josephinismus als aufgeklärter Absolutismus, hrsg. von H. Reinalter, 53–96. Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau.

Popescu, T., Wollmann V. 2013. Localităţi miniere din Transilvania, Banat și Maramureș întrun atlas din secolul al XVIII-lea [Mines in Transylvania, from the Maramureș and from the Banat in an 18th-century atlas]. Sibiu: Honterus.

Raffler, M. 2007. Museum – Spiegel der Nation? Zugänge zur historischen Museologie am Beispiel der historischen Museologie am Beispiel der Genese von Landes- und Nationalmuseen in der Habsburgermonarchie. Wien: Böhlau.

Rauscher, H. 2019. „Die Niederösterreichische Kammer“. In Verwaltungsgeschichte der Habsburgermonarchie in der Frühen Neuzeit. Vol. 1: Hof und Dynastie, Kaiser und Reich, Zentralverwaltungen, Kriegswesen und landesfürstliches Finanzwesen, hrsg. von M. Hochedlinger, P. Maťa, T. Winkelbauer, 856–65. Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau.

Reinalter, H. 2008. „Josephinismus als Aufgeklärter Absolutismus – ein Forschungsproblem? Gesellschaftlicher Strukturwandel und theresianisch-josephinische Reformen“. In Josephinismus – eine Bilanz/Échecs et réussites du Joséphisme (Das Achtzehnte Jahrhundert und Österreich 22), hrsg. von W. Schmale, R. Zedinger, J. Mondot, 19–33. Bochum: Winkler.

Reinalter, H. hrsg. von. 1991. Die Aufklärung in Österreich: Ignaz von Born und seine Zeit. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

Riedl-Dorn, C. 1998. Das Haus der Wunder. Zur Geschichte des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien. Wien: Holzhausen.

Riedl-Dorn, C. 2021. „Ordnung muss sein. Von der Naturaliensammlung zu den „Vereinigten k.k. Naturaliencabineten“ unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Zeit Josephs II“. Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse 905: 41–57.

Saint Laurent, J. de. 1746. Description abrégée du fameux cabinet de M. le Chevalier De Baillou, pour servir à l’histoire naturelle des pierres précieuses, métaux, minéraux et autres fossiles, par Joannon de Saint-Laurent. Luques: Sauveur & Jean-Dominique Marescandoli.

Salzmann, A. 2007. „Die Bedeutung der steirisch-kärntnerischen Gewerkenfamilie Stampfer, Reichsgrafen im Reich der Habsburger und der Fugger“. Geo.Alp, Special Volume 1: 101–9.

Scheutz, M. 2019. „Salz(ober)amt in Gmunden und Salzkammergut.“ In Verwaltungsgeschichte der Habsburgermonarchie in der Frühen Neuzeit. Vol. 1: Hof und Dynastie, Kaiser und Reich, Zentralverwaltungen, Kriegswesen und landesfürstliches Finanzwesen, hrsg. von M. Hochedlinger, P. Maťa, T. Winkelbauer, 928–31. Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau.

Schleiff, H., Konečný, P. hrsg. von. 2013a. Staat, Bergbau und Bergakademie: Montanexperten im 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

Schleiff, H. 2013b. “Knowledge Practices in the Establishment and Reproduction of the Mining Elite in Saxony, 1765–1868. The Practice of Knowledge and the Figure of the Savant in the 18th Century.” In Scholars in Action. The Practice of Knowledge and the Figure of the Savant in the 18th Century, edited by A. Holenstein, H. Steinke, M. Stuber, 827–51. Leiden: Brill.

Schönburg-Hartenstein, J. 1987. Josef Anton Nagel – ein Direktor des physikalischen Kabinettes. Wien: Austrian Academy of Sciences.

Slotta, R., Wollmann, V., Dordea, I. hrsg. von. 1999. Silber und Salz in Siebenbürgen, vol. 1. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau Museum.

Stermitz, M. 2006. „Wirtschaft und Finanzen der Habsburgermonarchie 1787–1816“. Rudolfinum: 111–6.

Storrs, C. edited by. 2009. The Fiscal-Military State in Eighteenth-Century Europe. Essays in honour of P.G. Dickson. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Stütz, A. X. 1793. Neue Einrichtung der k.k. Naturalien Sammlung zu Wien. Wien.

Stütz, A. X. 1807. Mineralogisches Taschenbuch. Enthaltend eine Oryctographie von Unterösterreich zum Gebrauch reisender Mineralogen, edited by J. G. Megerle von Mühlfeld. Wien-Trieste: Geistinger’s Buchhandlung.

Svojtka, M. 2010. „Lehre und Lehrbücher der Naturgeschichte an der Universität Wien von 1749 bis 1849“. Berichte der Geologischen Bundesanstalt 83: 48–61.

Svojtka, M. 2016. „Das Fach Naturgeschichte und seine Fachvertreter an der Universität Prag von 1749 bis 1849“. Berichte der Geologischen Bundesanstalt 118: 95–105.

Szabo, F. 2018. “Cameralism, Josephinism, and Enlightenment: The Dynamic of Reform in the Habsburg Monarchy, 1740–1792.” Austrian History Yearbook 49: 1–14.

Titius, C. H. 1783. „Auszug aus dem Reise-Journal … von seiner vorzüglich zu Besichtigung fremder Naturalien-Sammlungen in dem Jahr 1777 … angestellten Reise“. Johann Bernoulli’s Sammlung kurzer Reisebeschreibungen und anderer zur Erweiterung der Länder- und Menschenkenntniß dienender Nachrichten 10: 131–84.

Vaccari, E. 2009. “Mining academies as centers of geological research and education in Europe between the 18th and 19th centuries.” De Re Metallica 13: 35–42.

Vocelka, K. 2001. Glanz und Untergang der höfischen Welt. Repräsentation, Reform und Reaktion im Habsburgischen Vielvölkerstaat. Wien: Ueberreuter.

Vogel, J. 2013. „Aufklärung untertage. Wissenswelten des europäischen Bergbaus im ausgehenden 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhundert“. In Staat, Bergbau und Bergakademie: Montanexperten im 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhundert, hrsg. von H. Schleiff, P. Konečný, 13–31. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

Vogel, J. 2015. Stony realms: mineral collections as markers of social, cultural and political spaces in the 18th and early 19th century. Historical Social Research 40(1): 301–20.

Vozár, J. edited by. 1990. Denník princa Leopolda z cesty do stredoslovenských banských miest roku 1764. Das Tagebuch des Erzherzogs Leopold von der Reise in die Mittelslowakischen Bergstädte. Martin: Osveta.

Vozár, J. hrsg. von. 2000. Das goldene Bergbuch: Schemnitz, Kremnitz, Neusohl. Zlatá kniha banícka: Banská Štiavnica, Kremnica, Banská Bystrica. Košice: Banská Agentúra.

Wakefield, A. 2009. The Disordered Police State: German Cameralism as Science and Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wandruszka, A. 1965. Leopold II. Erzherzog von Österreich, Großherzog von Toskana, König von Ungarn und Böhmen, Römischer Kaiser, 2 voll. Wien-Munich: Herold.

Werner, A. G. 1772. Von den äusserlichen Kennzeichen der Fossilien. Leipzig: Crustus.

Wilson, W.E. 1994. The History of Mineral Collecting 1530–1799: with notes on twelve hundred early mineral collectors. Tucson: The Mineralogical Record.

Winkelbauer, T. 2019. „Grundzüge des habsburgischen Finanz- und Steuerwesens“. In Verwaltungsgeschichte der Habsburgermonarchie in der Frühen Neuzeit. Vol. 1: Hof und Dynastie, Kaiser und Reich, Zentralverwaltungen, Kriegswesen und landesfürstliches Finanzwesen, hrsg. von M. Hochedlinger, P. Maťa, T. Winkelbauer, 767–824. Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau.

1 Translation of the original German quote: „Der heutige Tag ist nun der zweyte, dessen wir uns jederzeit mit Vergnügen erinnern werden. Den 3ten Junii 1751. sind wir durch die persönlich allerhöchste Gegenwart Ihro Röm. Kaiserl. Majestät FRANCISCI, heute aber durch die beglückeste Ankunft Ihro Röm. Kön. Majestät JOSEPHI II. erfreuet worden, als welche […] anhero gekommen, um die hiesigen, als die umliegenden Gold- Silber- Kupfer- Bley- und Eisen-bergwerke zu sehen. Es ist bekannt, wie viel sehens- und bewundernswürdige Gegenstände diese unsere Bergwerke darbieten. So viele seltene Kunst-maschinen, welche die Tag- und Graben-wasser heben, auch Erz und Berg treiben: so viel Puch- Schlämm- und Wasch-werker: Silber- und Bley-schmelz-hütten: […] nicht minder die Probier- Solvier- und Silber-brenn-laboratoria. […] Sobald nun Se. Königl. Majestät mit denen Durchlauchtigsten zweyen Prinzen […] aus dem Wagen ausgestiegen waren, wurden Höchst-dieselben […] allerunterthänigst bewillkommet, und auf einem ganz vergoldten und 2. andern ganz versilberte Berg-tröglen einige schöne Gold- und Silber-hältige Erz-stufen dargereicht.“ The reports continued in the following issues: 61 (1 August): 3–4; 62 (4 August): 4–5; 63 (8 August), p. 9; 64 (11 August): 3–4; 65 (15 August): 3–4; 67 (22 August): 3–4; 68 (25 August): 3–4; 69 (29 August): 9–11; 70 (1 September): 3–4; 71 (5 September): 9–10.

2 In later years, Albert Kasimir became a famous collector and founder of the “Albertina”, today the world’s largest collection of graphic art.

3 During the visit of the Lower Hungarian mining region the whole entourage was dressed in miner’s habit (Leopold 1764, 110v). For the use of miner’s habit and the professionalization of mining education in Saxony see Felten (2020, 133–6).

4 Known today as the „Goldenes Bergbuch“ (1764) due to its precious design, three exemplars of this manuscript have been preserved. The original title is Beschreibung von denen sammentlichen Schemnitzer sowohl Kayserlich-Königlich- und gewerckschaftlichen Grüben, alß von der gesammten hierzu gehörigen Wercks-Operation, und Waldungen, wie folget. The manuscript was commissioned by the Vienna Court Chamber and compiled by the mining authorities in Banská Štiavnica (Schemnitz), Kremnica (Kremnitz), and Banská Bystrica (Neusohl). It contains numerous mostly colored plans and construction drawings, including those of the mining machines by the technician Oberkunstmeister Joseph Karl Hell (1711–1789). See for an edition of the manuscript Vozár (2000).

5 Translation of the original German quote: „[…] indeme die Ernehrung so vieller Seelen, das verborgene Gold und Silber, so aus der Erde herausgezohen wird und in der ganzen Monarchie circuliert, wodurch die Universalmassa des Geldes und des Reichtums im Land vermehret, gewiß nicht unter die geringste Vortheile eines Staats zu zehlen sind. Über dieß gewinnet noch der Landesfürst in der Auslösung dieser metallen, so ihme alle in die Münze verkaufet werden und auf solche Art ihme viel wohlfeiler zustehen können, als wennn er dieselbe entweder aus der Fremde erkaufen […] oder selbsten auf eigene Unkösten aus seinen eigenen Gruben ziehen solte. Jedermann siehet klar […], daß die Vortheile der Bergwerken sehr groß und deren Nutzen sowohl für das Land als für die Gewerken, wie nicht weniger für den Landesfürsten sehr groß seie. Derohalben wird es notwendig sein […] von der Kenntniß zu sagen, welche einen wohlerfahrenen Bergmann veranlasset, diesen oder jenen Berg für seinen Bau zu erwählen und daß dieser eheher als jener Metal führet, […]“.

6 Known especially for gold mining and its mint, Kremnica was originally the most influential of the seven Lower Hungarian mining towns and the seat of a Mining Chamber (Münz- und Bergkammer). The Main Chamber Earl (Oberkammergraf) also resided in the town, before he moved to Banská Štiavnica at the end of the sixteenth century. As the highest mining official in Lower Hungary, the Chamber Count was responsible for the three local Mining Chambers in Kremnica, Banská Štiavnica, and Banská Bystrica. In addition to Kremnica, the seven Lower Hungarian mining towns, which united for economic interests until 1453, included Banská Bystrica (Neusohl), Banská Štiavnica (Schemnitz), Pukanec (Pukanz), Nová Baňa (Königsberg), Ľubietová (Libethen), and Banská Belá (Dilln).

7 In the index, so-called “minor” metals such as iron, lead, mercury or cinnabar and “Berg-Arten” (colorful ores) were listed comparatively later.

8 An overview of the archival holdings of the Court Chamber and the Court Chamber of Coinage and Mining, preserved in the Austrian State Archive, provides Hutterer and Seitschek (2019, 165–96).

9 Born in Graz, Herberstein belonged to the Order of Knights of Malta, resigned from the order due to marriage and made a career as an administrative official in Trieste and Carniola. Between 1762 and 1765, Herberstein served as the president of the Viennese Court Chamber.

10 No reference to Leopold‘s catalog could be found in the archival indices of the Court Chamber of Coinage and Mining or in the indices of the holdings “Österreichisches Camerale” and “Camerale Ungarn” of the Court Chamber (1764–1766). Nevertheless, requesting ore samples from local mining authorities was a common practice of the Court Chamber and the Viennese Court. The holdings of the Court Chamber Presidium start with September 1797.

11 The term “handstone” was also used to describe (artistically) carved ore specimens that were mounted on pedestals. This practice is documented particularly in Bohemia and Lower Hungary.

12 Born in Vienna on 24 June 1725, Johann Franz Pirk(h)ert was the son of Hofkammer-Concipist Matthias Heinrich P. and married Philippina von Felsenberg (+1815). Similar to his father, he served as an official in the Viennese Court Chamber of Coinage and Mining. His death is recorded in the death register of the parish “St. Maria Rotunda” in Vienna on 22 September 1789.

13 Born in Colmar (Alsace), Kempf started his career as an accountant of the Banat provincial administration in Timișoara in 1723. After joining the Viennese Court Chamber as a Counselor in 1741, he served as Commissioner of the mining towns in Lower Hungary and as Chamber Count in Banská Štiavnica in 1750–1754. In 1759, Kempf was ennobled for his services and obtained the status of a baron (Kneschke 1864, 63–4). At last, he held the position of a Hofrath in the Viennese Court Chamber.

14 During the ‘long’ eighteenth century, the Viennese Court Chamber underwent numerous changes and reorganizations (Dickson and Rauscher 2019, 851–2). The administrative reforms that began in 1761 significantly strengthened its responsibility and increased its staff. In addition, the Court Chamber of Accounts and the General Cashier’s Office were established.

15 For a theoretical discussion, concepts, and research questions on the intertwining of knowledge and power, see Meusburger (2015).

16 For the reception of “Josephinism” in the twentieth century see the volume edited by Fillafer and Wallnig (2016).

17 As an inalienable crown property, the Banat (1718) was subject to the Viennese Court Chamber and the Court War Council (Hofkriegsrat). Transylvania, in turn, was governed as a crownland by the newly established Transylvanian Court Chancellery.

18 Initially governed by Viennese and Lorraine officials on behalf of Franz Stephan, the Grand Duchy was fundamentally reformed under the reign of Leopold. See the other contributions on Leopold and his collections in Firenze in this volume.

19 The Court War Council served as a central authority for all parts of the monarchy. For the execution of common tasks such as border protection, obligations were distributed to all dominions.

20 The war was caused by the disputed succession of Maria Theresa to the lands of her father Emperor Karl VI (1685–1740).

21 While the state treasury was already empty when Maria Theresa came to power, the monarchy’s debt amounted to 118 million florins in 1756 and to 376 million florins in 1780, the year of the regent’s death. As countermeasures, the precious metal content of coins was reduced and, starting in 1762, paper money, so-called blank notes (Blancozettel), was put into circulation (Stermitz 2006, 111). By 1765, the interest on the bonds alone had already eaten up half of the state budget. All the more important for the state budget was the mining industry, which provided the precious metal for the minting of coins.

22 This included, for example, the introduction of a central state accounting system as a controlling authority (Hofrechenkammer), a general treasury (Generalkasse) (both in 1761), and the annual preparation of a state estimate covering all military and civil concerns, which was first done for the military year of 1767.

23 The report of the journey was published not before 1782 by the naturalist and mining official Ignaz von Born. See Bohadsch (1782).

24 After the death of Emperor Franz Stephan (1765), the Coin, Physical and Natural History Cabinet, previously located in the Treasury and in the reading room of the Court Library respectively, was moved to the Augustinian Wing that had been substantially enlarged in 1764–1765. From the court rooms, one crosses the two rooms of the Natural History Cabinet to the two rooms of the Physical Cabinet and finally to the room of the Coin Cabinet. See Schönburg-Hartenstein (1987, 97), Hassmann (2015, 37–45).

25 Fitzinger (1856, 447) states that the Natural History Cabinet was opened twice a week on Maria Theresa’s order for “general visit”, at first presumably only nobles and scholars. Verifiably, the Natural History Cabinet was open to the general public (including women and children) from 1769, and the Physical Cabinet and the Coin Cabinet from 1773 at the latest. See Hassmann (2015, 69–72); Koeberl et al. (2018, 143).

26 In 1747–1748 Nagel was sent to Styria, Lower Austria, Carniola and Moravia by order of Franz Stephan to study the natural wonders there (including caves and mines) and to collect for the Natural History Cabinet founded in 1748 with the purchase of Baillou’s collection. In 1750, further journeys followed to acquire natural specimens, presumably to England, France and the Netherlands, and in 1751 to collect minerals in the Hungarian Carpathians. In 1763 Nagel was sent to Hall in Tyrol to improve the salt brew system, where two years later the third brew pan was inaugurated in the presence of the imperial couple. Since 1772 Nagel served as the Director of the Physical Cabinet. See Schönburg-Hartenstein (1987), Mattes (2015, 47–9).

27 The Napoleonic Wars, the occupations of Vienna and the cessions of territory and reparations agreed in the Peace of Schönbrunn (1809) finally led to the state bankruptcy of the Habsburg Monarchy in 1811.

28 For example, Count Johann Gottlieb II. Stampfer (1733–1803), whose family operated (copper) mining in Carinthia, served as Chamber Count and head of the Mining Academy in Banská Štiavnica (1765–1774). His father had been employed as a high mining official and finally as Vice-President of the Vienna Court Chamber. See Salzmann 2007.

29 A unified customs territory, including most of the Austrian and Bohemian dominions, was created in 1775. However, this did not yet encompass Hungary, Tyrol, the Forelands, Belgium and Milano.

30 The income from salt production and trade from the sovereign’s chamber property (Kammergut) in the provinces above and below the Enns (Upper and Lower Austria) represented an essential part of the income of the salt monopole. See Rauscher (2019); Scheutz (2019).

31 The mining of “minor” metals such as iron, copper and lead was also strictly regulated. See Brusatti (1979, 115).

32 Dating back to the Middle Ages, these included, in particular, regulations on mining and metallurgy, dues to the sovereign, privileges of miners, jurisdiction, and the structure, duties and control of mining authorities.

33 For example, the silver production in Bohemia as well as silver and copper mining in Schwaz (Tyrol) declined and required state subsidies (Isser 1905, 171; Majer 2000, 8). Similarly, the copper production in Banská Bystrica decreased (Lacko 2017, 371). Around 1760, the Bohemian mines were operating at a loss, and in the Austrian territories, only the mercury production in Idrija (Carniola) yielded significant profits. See Konečný (2013a, 347).

34 Precursors of these improvements were mining schools established in the Habsburg Monarchy in the first half of the eighteenth century in Jáchymov (Joachimsthal, Bohemia 1716), Banská Štiavnica (1735), Smolník (Schmöllnitz, Hungary 1747), Oravița (Oravitza, Banat 1747), and Idrija (Idria, Carniola 1763), as well as lectures on mining-related topics at the Collegium Theresianium in Vienna, an educational institution for public officials founded in 1746.

35 The history of Delius‘ private mineralogical collection are described in the other catalog’s essays.

36 In the first edition of his work Systema Naturae (1735), Carl von Linné distinguished between the animal, vegetable and mineral “kingdoms” of nature and introduced the categories: classes, ordines, genera, and species for the classification of the specimens.

37 Translation of the original German quote: „Die allgemeine Kenntniß der Fossilien oder die Mineralogie begreift aber erstlich, die Kenntniß der Kennzeichen der Fossilien (Characteristica mineralogica), zweytens, die Erkennungslehre der Fossilien (Oryctognosia), drittens, die Gebirgskunde (Physica subterranea), viertens, die mineralogische Geographie (Geographia mineralogica), und fünftens, die ökonomische Mineralogie (Mineralogia oeconomica), in sich. Ein großes Mineralien=Cabinett, das zu dem Studio aller dieser fünf besondern Wissenschaften angewendet werden soll, muß also auch aus fünf besondern Mineralien=Sammlungen bestehen, und diese sind: die erste eine nach den Kennzeichen, die zweyte eine methodische, die dritte eine physikalische, die vierte eine geographische oder Suiten=Sammlung, und die fünfte eine ökonomische Mineralien=Sammlung. […] Die Errichtung großer Suiten=Mineralien=Sammlungen wird also bloß ein Werk für Fürsten und Könige bleiben, die dadurch eine der besten Gelegenheiten finden, sich, zum Nutzen ihrer Staaten, verewigende Denkmäler zu errichten, […]. Die Suiten=Mineralien=Sammlungen sind nur erst in neuern Zeiten, und zwar zuerst in Sachsen bekannt geworden. Die erste ist ohngefähr 1764 bey der Freybergischen Bergakademie angelegt worden, und die andere war die ehemalige Stieglitzische Mineralien=Sammlung in Leipzig, welche 1770 an das Theresianische Kollegium in Wien verkauft wurde.“

38 See the catalog of the suite collection by Christian Ludwig Stieglitz (1724–1772) [Anonymous 1772], whose description of the specimens resembles those of Leopold‘s catalog.

39 An illustration depicting the places of origin of ore and mineral samples from almost all parts of the monarchy can be found in section Catalog (Fig. 16) of this volume.

40 Translation of the original German quote: „[…] wenn nur das Fossil, welches sie eigentlich zeigen soll, gut zu erkennen ist, und die gewöhnlich dabey brechenden Fossilien, wodurch sich diese Art besonders auszeichnet, in dem gehörigen Verhältnisse daran zu sehen sind.“

41 Stütz (1807, 29–37) named over two dozen private mineral collectors in Vienna. For an impressive reference of 1,200 individuals, who collected minerals before 1800, see Wilson (1994).

42 Johann Georg Krünitz (1806, 492) mentioned the mineral shop (Mineralien=Tausch= und Handlungs=Comptoir) in Hanau (Hesse, Germany) run by Carl Caesar Leonhard (1779–1862), “where one can get whole collections of 700 and more pieces, some of them 5–6 inches in size, for 400 Thaler, as well as small collections of 200 small pieces for 6 Thaler” and similar firms in Freiberg and Ilmenau. Carl Heinrich Titius (1783, 154–8), curator of the Electoral Saxon Natural History Cabinet in Dresden, stated in the report of his 1777 journey through Germany, England, and France that the German brothers Adolarius Jacob Forster (1739–1806) and Ingham Henry Forster (1725–1782) run mineral shops in London and Paris and trade with specimens from all over Europe. For example, important mineral collections of the Forster brothers were purchased by the Spanish king in 1792 and by the Russian tsar in 1802.

43 See, for example, the catalog of Geheimrat Büchner‘s natural history collection, printed on the occasion of an auction: Anonymous (1771).

44 On precursors of museum institutions in the Habsburg Monarchy see Raffler (2007, 167–8).

45 Peithner’s mineral catalog has been even preserved in the fund of the Main Chamber Earl’s Office, stored in the Central Mining Archives in Banská Štiavnica.

47 In 1775, on the recommendation of the president of the Court Chamber of Coinage and Mining Count Franz Kolowrat-Novohradsky (1739–1802), it was considered to commission Nikolaus Joseph von Jacquin to catalog the holdings of the Natural History Cabinet. Jacquin himself owned a large collection of minerals, known abroad. See Koeberl et al. (2018, 143); Klemun & Hühnel (2017, 303–10).

48 Promoted to Court Councilor (Hofrat) of the Court Chamber in 1779, Born introduced technological improvements in mining, such as the amalgamation method for separating silver and gold from ores, organized an international symposium for mining in Baňská Štiavnica (1786) and even initiated the first international association for mining science, the Societät für Bergbaukunde (1786–1791) (Lindner 1986, 185–7; Fettweis and Hamann 1989). Born was on friendly terms with the high state official, scholar and Freemason Joseph von Sonnenfels (1733–1817). On the biography of Born and his scholarly impact see in particular Reinalter (1991).

Figure 1 – Luigi Paradisi (d. 1893), Portrait of the Archduke Peter Leopold, Grand Duke of Tuscany. Firenze, sec. XIX. Museo Galileo, Ritratti di medici e scienziati et al., n. 3718.

Figure 2 – Map of the Royal Mining Towns, in Lower Hungary 1760. Ministerstvo Vnútra Sr, Štátny Archív V Banskej Bystrici - Pobočka Banská Štiavnica.

Figure 3 – Windschachter Pit in Banská Štiavnica. In: Goldenes Bergbuch, 1764, fol. 25. Courtesy of Ministero della Cultura/Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Firenze, Palatino 1094.

Figure 4 – Hydraulic, so-called “Carl Höllische” water machine in the Leopoldischacht in Banská Štiavnica. In: Goldenes Bergbuch, 1764, fol. 53. Courtesy of Ministero della Cultura/Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Firenze, Palatino 1094.

Figure 5 – Mining machines operated with horses. In: Goldenes Bergbuch, 1764, fol. 57. Courtesy of Ministero della Cultura/Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Firenze, Palatino 1094.

Figure 6 – Tabula Geographica Europae Austriacae Generalis sive Regionum Terrarumque Omnium ac Singularum Augustissimae Domui Austriacae Hereditariarum. The first and for half a century the only printed map of the entire Austrian Hereditary Lands, 1725–30. Map author: Johann Christoph Homann. Woldan Collection, Austrian Academy of Sciences.

Figure 7 – Detail of the plan of the imperial capital of Vienna, taken 1769–1772, Map author: Josef Daniel von Huber (1778). Woldan Collection, Austrian Academy of Sciences.

Figure 8 – Joseph Square with the Imperial Court Library in Vienna, on the left the Augustinian Wing, where the imperial natural history collection was housed (1779). Colored etching, in: Karl Schütz, Johann Ziegler, Sammlung von Aussichten der Residenzstadt Wien von ihren Vorstädten und einigen umliegenden Oertern. Vienna: Artaria 1798, Tab 6.

Figure 9 – Joseph Anton Nagel was commissioned by Emperor Franz Stephan to explore mines and caves in the monarchy and to collect minerals. In doing so, he also visited the so-called “treasure chamber” in a mine in Eisenerz (Styria). Sebastian Rosensting(e)l: Ink drawing of the “treasury chamber”, containing aragonite in the shape of human figures, in: Joseph Anton Nagel: Beschreibung des Ötscherberges und anderer in Steiermark befindlicher Dingen. Manuscript. Vienna, 1747, Tab VII. Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, Manuscript Collection, Cod. 7920.

Figure 10 – Portrait of Ignaz von Born. In: Re Metallica Et Monetaria A Consilus Aulicis. Quae. Sitrerumnatura, Requirit. Ovid. Beirin pinx. Jacob Adam sculp. Viennae 1782. Viennae apud Artaria Societ. Cum Priv. S.C.M. University of Oklahoma Libraries History of Science Collections.

Collectio mineralium. Leopold’s II mineralogical catalog between history, science and collecting

In his review of Wandruska’s first volume on Leopold II’s biography (1963), Del Pane (1964) stated that historiography had left the figure of Leopold II in the shade. According to the author, the fact that

he ruled a little country for twenty-five years and then appeared just like a meteor on the scene of the Holy Roman Empire, […] has been distracting scholars from investigating an extremely suggestive theme for those who study the problems of the Modern era.

However, even if Leopold II held the title of Holy Roman Emperor for only two years (1790–1792), his reign is regarded as one of the greatest eras of consistent and committed reform in the four-hundred-year history of the Habsburg monarchy (Szabo 2018). Furthermore, the historiographical gap pointed out by Del Pane (1964) appears all the more surprising if we consider that the first historical accounts on Leopold’s II life were published at the end of the 18th-century (e.g., Rastrelli 1792; Becattini 1797), and at the beginning of the 19th-century, the historian and statesman Gino Capponi (1792–1876) collected documents and oral testimonies to write a “History of Peter Leopold.” Sestan (1951) found that Capponi’s project impressed various Italian 19th-century scholars such as Pietro Colletta (1775–1831), who strongly encouraged Capponi to complete Leopold’s II biography.1 Unfortunately, Capponi never finished his book, whose drafts are now preserved at the Central National Library of Firenze. Since then, numerous biographies on Leopold II have been printed, but a complete survey is beyond the scope of this study. However, it is worth mentioning Wandruska’s (1963) classical critique, and Leopold’s II biographical profile edited by Pasta (2015).

A search of the literature revealed that there is a large volume of published studies describing Leopold’s II political, economic, administrative, and religious reforms as the Grand Duke of Tuscany (1765–1790) (e.g., Bellatalla 1984; Mangio 1988; La Rosa 1997; Rosa 1999; Capra 2005). Most of these works focus on his criminal justice reform, which made Tuscany the first country to abolish capital punishment (1786) in modern history (Berlinguer and Colao 1989; Edigati 2011; Dezza 2017). It has to be noted that diverse studies then examine the cultural background in which these reforms were carried out (e.g., Tacchi 1992; Contini 2002; Tazzara et al. 2020). However, few studies have investigated Leopold’s scientific interests. This research topic can represent one of “those suggestive themes” that Del Pane (1964) hoped would be further explored in future studies on Leopold’s II life.

This work is based on the investigation of primary sources along with museum objects (both artifacts and naturalistic specimens) that are currently preserved in diverse Italian and foreign institutions. Analyzing the link between these two different typologies of mute evidence (Hodder 2012) will help to unearth new facts about Leopold’s scientific activities, as well as to understand their values and meanings in a broader transnational and cultural context. The findings shown in this study thus represent a relevant contribution to research on Leopold’s II scientific biography, providing new insights into his interest in geo-mineralogical collecting. So far, very little attention has been paid to this aspect, although mineral collecting was definitely a relevant cultural and scientific practice in Europe between the late 18th and early 19th-century (e.g., Wilson 1994). The improvement of scientific mineralogy went hand-in-hand with the economic development of individual territories to the point that mineral collections, as outlined by Vogel (2015), became public pictures of a country’s natural resources. Although mining and geo-mineralogical collecting represent well-established research themes in the history of the Habsburg monarchy (e.g., Mattes in this volume), these topics have not been adequately examined with reference to Leopold’s biography, thus leaving in a “space of invisibility”2 the interesting and fascinating catalog of his mineralogical collection.

Quoting the famous David Copperfield’s incipit, “to begin my life with the beginning of my life, I record that I was born”, Peter Leopold was born on 5 May 1747 at the Schönbrunn Palace. The story of his birth is reported in the Diary of the chamberlain Johann Joseph von Khevenhüller-Metsch (1706–1776), who recorded that the newborn was named Peter, after Peter the Great (1682–1725), and Leopold in accordance with the traditional Habsburg and Lorraine name (Khevenhüller-Metsch 1908). Leopold’s mother, Maria Theresa of Habsburg (1717–1780) was the only female ruler in the history of the Habsburg dominions and under her reign the monarchy underwent a series of important institutional, financial, medical, and educational reforms.3 Yonan (2011) argued that Maria Theresa has been styled by the literature as the Landesmutter (the mother of her country), while Aliprantis (2019) stated that her reign greatly influenced the liberal reforms in 19th-century imperial Austria. Maria Theresa was then fond of science, whose practical importance she recognized for the government of the Habsburg territories. Mineralogy was one of her interests due to its importance for the development of mining science and the exploitation of raw materials. In 1776, she called Ignaz Edler von Born (1742–1791) to Vienna to manage the naturalistic collections belonging to her late husband, Holy Roman Emperor Francis I (1708–1765), who was passionate about chemistry, mechanics, and mineralogical collecting (Lhotsky 1941, 1945; Riedl-Dorn 1996; Zedinger 2008; Hassmann 2015). In this regard, Fischer et al. (1976), along with Mattes in this volume, reported that in 1748 Francis I acquired and transferred to the Hofburg Palace the naturalistic collection belonging to the Florentine scholar Ritter Johann von Baillou (1684–1758), which encompassed more than 30,000 minerals, fossils, shells, and snails. This collection, of which Baillou was in charge as Director for Life, became the basis of the emperor’s private Naturalien-Cabinet together with the pre-existing Physical Cabinet and the Coin and Antique collection. Following Francis’ death, Maria Theresa presented his collections to the Austrian state so they could be accessible to everyone interested in the natural sciences. They were open to visitors twice a week and can be considered as the founding of today’s Naturhistorisches Museum. These collections also had the role of making familiar to the public the geo-mineralogical resources (and their economic value) available in the Habsburg dominions. Von Born thus organized the collections according to the latest scientific standards and checked that the most representative specimens of all the imperial mines were present (Koeberl et al. 2018). Therefore, mineralogy was not strange to Leopold’s familiar, cultural and political environment.

The education of the young archduke was entrusted to counts Franz (1718–1766) and Anton (1723–1806) Thurn-Valsassina-Como-Vercelli, two educated officials attracted by the intellectual currents of the Enlightenment and whose family was passionate about mineral collecting (Meixner 1960). Leopold’s portrait as a young student is given by Maria Theresa, who wrote an Instruction to Franz von Thurn to be sure of his son’s proper education. Leopold had a sensitive nature, a generous heart, and was good in studies—wrote Maria Theresa—but he was also a rude lazy guy full of himself, and a gossip lover. On 15 May 1762, Franz von Thurn sent to the Maria Theresa a report entitled Fidèle tableau de S. A. R. l’archiduc Léopold dans le temps qu’on me charge de la direction de sa conduite, a document in which his pupil was described as a rebel teenager, but very fond of science and technology (von Arneth 1881). In this regard, the correspondence between Leopold and the Thurn brothers highlighted how he was particularly interested in chemistry and in visiting mines, factories, agricultural land reclamations, and port facilities (Wandruska 1963).

On 18 August 1765, after the sudden death of his father, Leopold was appointed as Grand Duke of Tuscany and on 13 September he arrived in Firenze along with his wife Maria Luisa of Spain (1745–1792). The literature on the cultural and scientific aspects of his governorship (e.g., Bellinazzi and Contini 2002; Bertelli and Pasta 2003) has revealed that Leopold was a patron of various scholars such as the botanist Giorgio Santi (1746–1822) (Bindi 2014) and an active supporter of the ‘useful’ sciences. In her analysis on this subject, Klein (2016) used the sciences of mining (Bergwerkskunde) and salts (Salzwerkskunde) as two examples to illuminate the concept of nützliche Wissenschaften (useful sciences), i.e., the knowledge generated by the sciences, which might improve a country’s education, progress, and civilization. So, it was not by chance that Leopold financed the Livorno edition of the Encyclopédie (1770–1779) and the Italian translation of William Bailey’s Advancement of Arts Manufactures and Commerce (1773) (Pacini Fazzi 2008); established a thermal center in Montecatini, which was open to the public and where hydrothermal treatments based on the chemical analysis of both thermal and mineral water were prescribed (Becagli 1985);4 promoted the establishment of the Florentine Specola Astronomica e Meteorologica (Astronomical and Meteorological Observatory) with the assistance of Leonardo Ximenes (1716–1786) (Triarico 2000); built and maintained strong relationships with the natural philosophers belonging to the Accademia delle Scienze di Siena detta de’ Fisiocritici (Manganelli and Benocci 2013). In this regard, between 1776 and 1777, Leopold along with the psychist Domenico Bartaloni (1750–1798) promoted the installation of two lightning rods in Siena, which were part of a network that the Grand Duke made installed in the major city centers. Bertucci (2009) found that the cultural debate on lightning rods was deeply connected to the 18th-century scientific investigations into the electricity’s nature. This view is supported by Abbri (1987) who pointed out that lightning rods soon became a symbol of Leopold’s enlightened politics.

McClellan (1985) outlined that the expression ‘useful science’ also included the establishment of institutions and university chairs to promote scientific research and new communication networks. As an example, Leopold instituted the first chair of chemistry at the University of Pisa in 1757 and established the Imperiale e Reale Museo di Fisica e Storia Naturale (the Imperial and Royal Museum of Physics and Natural History) in Firenze on 22 February 1775. The latter should also include a scientific academy that he would have personally financed.5 Almost every paper that has been written on the Imperial and Royal Museum of Natural history discusses its importance within Leopold’s reforms to enhance science institutionalization and cultural renewal for the public good. Here, it will be discussed the role played by this institution within Leopold’s scientific activities.

As stated before, Leopold was fond of science and grew up in an environment that seemed to be permeated by natural sciences and geo-mineralogical collecting. But did these solicitations turn into personal interests beyond the socio-political choices inspired by the Enlightenment? First response can be found in Leopold’s private library held in the grand-ducal residence at Pitti Palace. In her interesting analysis, Knieling (2016) showed that Leopold preferred the purchase of contemporary books rather than rarities. Most of the volumes were acquired in France and concerned the topics of his administrative and political reforms. However, Franza et al. (2019) have found that natural sciences were also represented. The study of the library’s catalog (Catalogue des livres du Cabinet particulier, 1771)6 has revealed the presence of a section named Sciences et Art, which encompassed 876 volumes. Among these books, it is worth mentioning the Dictionnaire universel des fossils by Elie Bertrand (1793), the De la fonte, des mines, des fonderies by Christoph Andreas Schlüter (1750), and the Lettre du duc de Noya Carafa sur la tourmaline (1759).7 But the catalogue also included the Traites des pétrifications by Louis Bourguet (1742), the Oryctologie and the Conchyliologie by Antoine Joseph Dezallier d’Argenville (1755 and 1757).

Leopold’s studies on the physics and chemistry of minerals found practical application in the research and experiments he performed at the Imperial and Royal Museum of Physics and Natural History. For instance, the investigation on the combustibility of gems (i.e., diamond, ruby, spinel, orient sapphire, water sapphire,8 emerald, hyacinth, garnet, chrysolite, turquoise, rock crystal, orient amethyst, water topaz, opal, and pearls) through a concave mirror that he had been carrying out at the Physics Cabinet since 1773.9 Here Leopold was assisted by the chemist Hubert Franz Hoefer (1728–1795), who was the administrator of the Court pharmacy from 1767 to 1790. Drawing on an extensive range of sources, Piccardi (2004) provided an in-depth analysis of Hoefer’s scientific work showing its relevance to the chemical knowledge of the time. In particular, the author analyzed the Tabula affinitatum (1766), i.e., a table showing chemical affinities between substances modeled on both Étienne-François Geoffroy’s Table des differents Rapports observés entre differentes substances (1718) and Anton Rüdiger’s Systematische Anleitung zur reinen und überhaupt applizierten oder allgemeinen Chymie (1756), that Hoefer commissioned in 1766 for the grand-ducal apothecary’s shop. The table is now preserved at the Galileo Museum in Firenze together with Leopold’s chemistry workbench. Scorrano et al. (2002) described its complex arrangements outlined that it was openable and presented, on the lower part, a cupboard fitted with pedal-driven bellows for improving the substances’ combustion. On both sides, there were drawers and shelves for the storage of scientific instruments and chemical preparations. Some of these compounds were prepared by the Grand Duke himself under the supervision of Felice Fontana (1730–1805) and Giovanni Fabbroni (1752–1822), who were the director and vice-director of the Imperial and Royal Museum of Physics and Natural History (Pasta 1989; Knoefel 1990). Leopold was therefore a regular visitor10 to the museum’s laboratories and established with Fabbroni a fruitful scientific collaboration.11 Fabbroni was a go-between Leopold and various French chemists such as Antoine Baumé (1728–1804) and Jean Antoine Claude Chaptal (1756–1832) (Horn and Jacob 1998; Barnard and Fones 2012). For example, Leopold asked for the catalog of the chemical preparations sold by Baumé in 178712 and ordered Fabbroni to make several purchases the following year.13 On 4 November 178814 Fabbroni asked Chaptal to send to the Grand Duke from his apothecary shop in Montpellier15 63 pounds of diverse compounds, among these 5 pounds of spirit of hartshorn (ammonium carbonate), and 3 ounces of hellstone (silver nitrate) (Testi 1980). Fabbroni’s letters to Chaptal, formed a part of a very interesting correspondence that highlighted how Leopold was interested not only in buying compounds for his experiments, but also in keeping posted on the last advancements in chemistry in France,16 such as the vitriol oil (sulfuric acid, according to Testi 1980) crystallization process. On 17 June 1788 Fabbroni handled the shipment of 17 pounds and 2 ounces of Venus’ crystals (copper acetate) from Lyon by the chemist François Bonafous (dates uncertain). A good example of Leopold’s direct involvement in the preparation and execution of chemical experiments is the purchase of a supply of lute in late December 1786. On this occasion, Leopold was not in Firenze and thus asked Fabbroni to put the compound in a box and sent it to Pisa where he was at that time.17 The lute was a compound of clay mixed with oil, which was used in chemical distillation to seal vessels to prevent the dispersion of steam and to protect the surfaces from the heat (e.g., Linden 2003). The fact that Leopold asked for a quantity of lute while he was away from the Imperial and Royal Museum of Physics and Natural History shows that he continued to carry out experiments even outside of his chemical cabinet.

On 1 March 1790 Leopold came back to Vienna to be crowned as Holy Roman Emperor. His chemical cabinet was therefore transferred to the museum on 27 July, and then arranged in three purpose-built rooms on 30 November of the same year.18 Its contents were detailed in Laboratorio di chimica (Chemical Laboratory), i.e., a catalog of more than 100 pages collecting all the preparations, books, and scientific instruments that were present in Leopold’s cabinet.19 In the first room were placed the chemical compounds for a total of ca. 1013 preparations displayed on 13 shelves. In the second room were stored the samples that—as noted by the anonymous cataloguer—“were obtained analyzing the three kingdoms of nature.” The writer also pointed out that most of these preparations needed to be renovated because they were evaporated or altered. In the closet on the left were kept the substances of animal and/or human origin (e.g., cow’s milk serum, gelatinous part of dried human blood, urine salts) for a total of ca. 130 specimens. Subsequently, substances of vegetal origin (i.e., ca. 299 samples among which various essential oils) were listed. The closet on the left preserved the chemical preparations of mineralogical origin (e.g., diverse samples of sulfur alum, mercury, arsenic, and realgar) for a total of ca. 440 specimens. In the closet, there were also kept ca. 106 books about chemistry, most of them in German or French. At the end of this list, a note outlined that both the side and the floor shelves contained the reagents and substances useful for experiments, which were not part of the general catalog. Various utensils, tools, and scientific instruments were then stored in all the three rooms devoted to the cabinet’s exhibition.

Considering all this evidence, it seems that Leopold felt a genuine interest in chemistry and its relations with mineralogy, as the analysis of the catalog of his mineralogical collection seems to confirm.

As stated by Swinney (2011, 31), catalogs are themselves museum objects, more precisely “meta-objects, collections of records about collections, an archive of an archive.” Swinney (2011) also noticed, quoting Latour (1987, 2), that catalogs are usually perceived as “working tools” whose reliability is usually unquestioned and taken for granted. On the contrary, the author suggested critically examining these sources to investigate what kind of knowledge can be acquired and reconstituted through their analysis. Catalogs are indeed both material objects and media throughout a collection is constructed and constituted, and the specimens encompassing it are arrayed. Furthermore, catalogs recorded the existence of those samples that are no longer available for a variety of reasons (i.e., lost, decay, damage, theft and so on).

The catalog of Leopold’s mineralogical collection, which is preserved at the Historical Archive of the Natural History Museum of the University of Firenze,20 has been transcribed and translated in this volume. Latour (1987) and Spivak (2000) remarked how both transcription and translation are not simply copying processes, but they involve the creation of new meanings21 in changing language, temporary perspective, and cultural backgrounds. By drawing on the concept, Lynch (1999) stated that catalogs present the documentary representation of a specimen as the results of a selection of diverse information identifying and describing that object. As an example, catalogs contain data about hierarchical relations such as who oversaw compiling them. In this regard, the genesis of the catalog of Leopold’s mineralogical collection bearing the title Collection Mineralium or Collection of domestic and foreign ore metals – semi-metals – mountain juices – native mountain colors. Ores and mountain kinds22 was analyzed in Mattes (this volume), who highlighted the presence of three handwritings.

It is interesting to note that the writers used distinct styles that revealed a diverse mineralogical knowledge as well as a different awareness about mineral collecting. For instance, Samples Nos. 186–187 present interesting gemological considerations regarding the possibility to use these specimens as polished stones. Whilst the vagueness of other accounts (e.g., Samples Nos. 218, 220, and 227) seems to coexist with the notes on minerogenetic processes shown in Sample No. 232. These findings indicate the last author was a more skilled expert than the previous ones. He knew how to identify minerals, assess their quality, and spot their differences. What has just been stated is proven by the description of Samples Nos. 197–200 in which the mineralogical and economic considerations are supported by reflections on the collecting value of the specimens. Furthermore, it should be noted the use of new terms to define some minerals such as greis, roßzahn, and plinz. The latter replaced the term Eysen Spath (e.g., Sample No. 129) and it was used to indicate siderite.23 The same goes for the identification of cinnabar, which was indicated as zinopel (Sample No. 148), zinopl (Sample No. 149), zinober (Sample No. 155), and at last with the term still in use of zinnober (Sample No. 201).

Since Collectio Mineralium is not mentioned in any bibliography or library indexes,24 it is useful to provide its physical description, following the standards proposed by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (2011). The catalog, consisting of 110 pages, contains a case-by-case list of Leopold’s mineral collection for a total of 242 specimens. The volume size is 33 cm tall by 21.5 cm wide by 1.5 cm thick. The binding is a full blinded-tooled calf with border decoration formed of golden fleurons. In the center, there is the golden engraving of the House of Habsburg’s emblem (Kusler 2017). The text was written on a watermarked paper, which was produced by the Dutch paper company founded by Cornelis (1683–1755) and Jan (1688–1757) van Honig in 1738.25 The page layout is in two columns and the manuscript’s language is a variant of the Early New High German (Steger 2019), while the calligraphic style is Fraktur (Baltolu 2018). The title page, which is the only catalog’s page printed in full, shows the title and the year of issue (1765). It should also be noted the presence of three stamps that can help in the reconstruction of the volume’s collecting history. The first stamp on the frontispiece—which is also the oldest—reports the wording “Museo di Fisica e Storia Naturale Firenze.” The second stamp is only partially decipherable and bears the word “Instituto” together with a label showing the date 1889. The last one says “Istituto di Studi” and “Gabinetto di Geologia.” These findings suggest that Collectio Mineralium was first deposited at the Imperial and Royal Museum of Physics and Natural History. The deposit reasonably occurred in 1771 when Leopold gave all the literary books and oriental manuscripts preserved at the Pitti’s Palace respectively to the Magliabechiana and Laurenziana libraries. The scientific volumes were donated to the brand-new established Academy of Philosophical Sciences and to other scientific institutions. The catalog of Leopold’s mineralogical collection was thus presumably transferred from the Grand Duke’s personal library to the Imperial and Royal Museum of Physics and Natural History’s archive on this occasion. Later, the catalog was acquired by the Institute of Advanced Practical Studies and Specialization in Firenze (Istituto di Studi Superiori Pratici e di Perfezionamento), which was founded in 1807. The Institute consisted of three main sections: Medicine and Surgery, Natural Sciences, Philosophy and Philology (Rogari 2005). The catalog of Leopold’s mineralogical collection thus became part of the library of the Natural Sciences Section and more precisely it was preserved in the Geology Cabinet.

Within the catalog there is only one engraving representing the Lower Hungarian mining town of Kremnica (Kremnitz).26 At the end of the volume, an index27 groups the samples according to their nature28 and extraction site.29 The page number of the relative catalog description is also reported. It should be noted the presence of a second index showing the “chemical signs”, i.e., the alchemical symbols30 that are present in the catalog.31 To each cataloged mineral was assigned a progressive number providing a link between a single specimen and its documentary representation. Unfortunately, Leopold’s collection has not been located yet and therefore this relation cannot be reconstructed.32

As mentioned before (Mattes, this volume), the genesis of Leopold’s catalog is related to the journey he made, together with his brother Joseph (1741–1790) and his future brother-in-law Albert Kasimir von Sachsen-Teschen (1738–1822),33 to visit the mining districts in Lower Hungary in 1764. Before their departure, Leopold and Albert Kasimir received diverse gifts34 coming from the Vienna Court Chamber of Coinage and Mining in Banská Štiavnica (Schemnitz, Slovakia). Among these items, there were three copies of the Goldenes Bergbuch (Golden Book),35 which contained the descriptions of Lower Hungarian mining districts together with 16 models of mining, metallurgical and minting machines (Vozár 1983, Janetschek 1998). The first stage of the journey (20 July 1764) was in Siglisberg, near Banská Štiavnica. Here the princes received some gold and silver ores together with medals and commemorative coins minted in the Kremnica Mint. Subsequently, they arrived in Windschacht and, even on this occasion, they were greeted by the local authorities with fine silver and gold specimens, while the mining officers instructed the princes in reading mining maps. In Banská Štiavnica, they received gold and silver ores as a present and, after being equipped like miners,36 they spent most of the day visiting mining tunnels.37 They even knocked off38 some silver ore specimens. In the afternoon, they visited Nicolaus Joseph von Jacquin’s (1727–1817) chemical laboratory (Klemun and Hühnel 2017) where he carried out chemical experiments for more than three hours using local ores. The next day, the princes visited the Kaiser-Franz-Erbstollen, i.e., a mining tunnel that opened on the occasion of Francis’ I visit in 1751. On Tuesday, they made a tour of the above ground works and learned about the different technologies of ore processing and smelting.39 Subsequently they were instructed on administrative and economic management of a mining site. Banská Štiavnica seemed to be the most important part of the royal journey consisting of big representation events, factory and mine visits, and a torchlight procession with up to 1200 miners. On Thursday, the whole entourage went to Kremnica where they visited the Royal Mint. According to the Wienerisches Diarium of 29 August 1764, each prince received a “costly and beautiful” handstone (Handstein) representing the Kremnitz mine that contained different kinds of ore.40 However, Balážová (2017) pointed out that only two handstones were made: one for Joseph, the other for his brother Leopold. The first was donated to the imperial treasury on 14 March 1765, and it is preserved at Kunsthistorisches Museum (Inv. No. KK_4146). As stated by Balážová (2017), the identification of the handstone given to Leopold is still open, even if the author assumed that a Handstein was kept in the Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum (Budapest) (Inv. No. D 3154) could be the one he received in Kremnica. The next day, the princes set off for Banská Bystrica where they visited diverse metallurgical facilities. On 31 July 1764 Joseph, Leopold, and Albert Kasimir came back to Vienna. The visit to the Hungarian mines was a formative experience, especially for Leopold who had the possibility to acquire on-site new knowledge on mineralogy, chemistry, and mining sciences. While Joseph was portrayed as the ambitious heir to the throne, Leopold—as stated by Konečný (2017, 362) —“was shown as an inquisitive young man who knew how to handle minerals.”

A closer investigation of Leopold’s catalog reveals other interesting insights.41 As mentioned earlier and in Mattes (this volume), the specimens were grouped according to their nature, which represented the amount of valuable minerals potentially extractable from a mining deposit.42 For instance, skeletal galena from the Transylvania area weighing 20 pounds in pure lead was valued at 134 scruples in fine gold (No. 11). Whilst a specimen of azurite extracted from the mines of St. Philip and Jacob (No. 12) was cataloged as representative of the copper’s good quality that could be mined in the Romanian mountains of Oravița (i.e., 6 pounds of copper were estimated at 4 lots in fine silver). A sample of chalcopyrite with a mixed schist and quartz matrix then represented with its 10 pounds of copper, the valuable mineral that was present in the St. Ferdinand mine in Upper Hungary (No. 16). This approach showed how the practice of mineral collecting in Leopold’s catalog combined scientific and utilitarian goals. The mineral descriptions are evidence not only of the scientific knowledge of the time, but also of the economic and political power of the House of Habsburg through the exploitation of the natural resources that were present in its dominions (Wakefield 2009).

Another interesting aspect of Leopold’s catalog is the investigation of the terms used for describing the specimens. The transcription and translation of the text reported the word-for-word translation, while the endnotes presented a historical and scientific analysis aiming to characterize the specimens according to the contemporary mineralogical terminology. As an example, and according to Haditsch and Maus (1974), the term Eisenblüte meant aragonite, even if in the early 19th-century literature it was used to indicate the crystal growth in caves (i.e., stalactites and stalagmites). Röschgewächs usually identified a sample of stephanite, but it could also mean argentite and acanthite. Gelf referred to marcasite, even if this species is described with both the term malachitische (Sample No. 10), and the expression grün und braun Kupfer (Sample No. 38). Another term frequently used is glanz, which means ‘shining’. So, the term Bleiglanz, literally “shining lead”, indicated galena. This mineral could also be identified through the exclusive use of Glanz. Glanze was then used as a descriptive term for all sulfur minerals, relatively soft, dark-colored, with a metallic luster. Glanzerz identified argentite or sillimanite. To distinguish between the different mineralogical species, it was necessary to compare the definition given in the text with other information reported in the catalog such as the locality where a sample was mined. Subsequently, these data were compared with the information present in both the IMA database—which includes information on more than 5400 approved mineral species and their properties—and the Mindat.org data source containing more than 1 million species/locality information on minerals found at more than 300.000 localities (Hazen et al. 2019). However, the absence from Mindat.org database of a species presented in the Collectio Mineralium Leopold’s catalog, may have two different meanings: (1) the species may have been reanalyzed in the following centuries and thus ascribed to a different mineralogical species; (2) some areas (e.g. gossan cap, leached zone, oxidized zone, enriched zone) of the historical mines where the specimens were collected in the mid-1700s could now be exhausted.

Finally, another intriguing aspect of Leopold’s catalog is the presence of 4 specimens (Samples Nos. 140–144), whose description could indicate the discovery of meteorite fragments. These specimens were recovered in Hronec, which is a village now located in the Banská Bystrica Region. Sample No. 143 was described as an “ironstone of a rare kind, striking in clay-like sediments”, while Sample No. 144 as a “very compact ironstone.” All the samples contained a high quantity of pure iron. However, the Meteoritical Bulletin Database, which is the official database—managed by the Meteoritical Society—gathering information for all the meteorites known, does not show any specimens that have been found in Hronec so far.

In the previous section, the catalog of Leopold’s mineralogical collection has been investigated from different points of view. The analysis has revealed an unknown page of Leopold’s scientific biography, i.e., his interest in mineralogy, mining science and mineralogical collecting. However, some might say that Collectio Mineralium just represents the natural progression of a ‘family passion’. Therefore, it remains to be investigated whether Leopold expressed an interest in these subjects other than the catalog of his mineral collection. The analysis of the period that he spent in Firenze is a privileged viewpoint to answer this question. As mentioned above, Leopold established the Imperial and Royal Museum of Physics and Natural History in 1775 and worked in the chemistry cabinet, while building a positive scientific relationship with Fabbroni. However, it is still to be investigated whether Leopold had a concrete interest in the museum’s administration,43 especially in the management of the geo-mineralogical collections.44

For instance, it was found that Leopold acquired on 12 November 1771 the naturalistic collection belonging to the late merchant Peter von Spreckelsen (d. 1771) (Schröder 1851), which has been described in Benvenuti et al. (this volume). In this regard, it has to be noted that the acquisitions promoted by Leopold continued in the years to come. As an example, on 14 October 1780 he donated to the museum a collection of “microscopic” fossil shells, which were preserved in tiny glass jars within a wooden box. This collection was gifted to him by the abbot Ambrogio Soldani (1736–1808), who is primarily known for his studies on the meteorite shower that fell on Siena in 1794 (Marvin 1998; De Gregorio 2008). On the same day, Leopold sent to the museum 57 “pieces of natural history” (“pezzi di storia naturale”) that he received from “Lagusius”45 on behalf of the naturalist Francesco Bartolozzi (1750–1817).46 The von Spreckelsen’s collection and the acquisitions made in 1780 showed Leopold’s interest into the enrichment of the geo-mineralogical collections since the early days of the Imperial and Royal Museum of Physics and Natural History’s foundation.

As discussed in Benvenuti et al. (this volume), the Habsburg dominions represented the main areas from which the new museum acquisitions were coming.47 For instance, on 6 December 1784 a mineral dealer known as Epstein (dates uncertain) informed Leopold on the shipment from Vienna of the mineral collection he sold to the museum.48 The next year, more precisely on 10 February 1785, Leopold paid 300 “zecchini” (pure gold coins) for a mineralogical collection to Johann Weiss (dates uncertain),49 who was both a mineral dealer operating in Vienna and the owner of a rich collection of gems that included, according to Wilson (1994, 103), some really fine specimens such as 46-cm green beryl from Siberia.

After his return to Firenze from a long stay in Vienna (1778–1779), during which he had the opportunity to visit some iron deposits in Carinthia, Leopold found out that the iron mines50 present in the Grand Duchy of Tuscany were not adequately exploited. So, he invited some Habsburg mining experts, such as Thaddeus Rauscher (dates uncertain), to visit the local iron mines on 7 October 1779. In this project, Leopold was helped by Fabbroni.51 In a first report52 Fabbroni recorded, without mentioning any name, how one of those experts went back to Carinthia and another, who stayed in Firenze seemed unable to continue with the work. So Baron Ecker, who was the owner of extensive foundries in Carinthia and had also escorted Leopold in his visit abroad, came to Firenze along with his most experienced colleagues. After receiving Rauscher’s report in 1780, Fabbroni wrote to Leopold stating that Rauscher was not aware of the advancements in iron-making processes outside his homeland.53 As an example, Rauscher criticized the use of three fires to produce iron in the Mammiano mines without reflecting, according to Fabbroni, on the fact that the local iron ores are bigger than those extracted in Carinthia. And again, Rauscher stated that the quality of the iron produced in Livorno was too malleable and therefore unsuitable for the manufacture of nails and plowshares. Conversely, Fabbroni considered this defect easily fixable. Fabbroni agreed with Rauscher on the necessity to reorganize the wood production for supplying the furnaces in Val di Cecina. Both then acknowledged the excellent quality of the local coal deposits, a finding that encouraged the search for new mining veins. In the years to come, Fabbroni studied the coal deposits in Val di Cecina on Leopold’s request. For instance, on 26 December 178854 he received from the Secretary of the State Council Alessandro Pontenani (dates uncertain), two boxes encompassing 20 presumed coal samples found by Francesco Henrion (dates uncertain) in the northern and southern surroundings of Cecina to verify their nature and, in case of positive findings, whether the quarries deserved to be excavated. Leopold was so interested in this research that on 21 January 1789 he ordered Fabbroni to go to Montecatini Val di Cecina to examine the local coal deposits.55 On 14 May 1789 Leopold asked Fabbroni to write a book that reported the quarries’ exact location, data about their quality, the excavation methods, together with all the information Fabbroni considered useful to promote the coal extraction in the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. Fabbroni was also asked to analyze some ores mined from the Lagoni of Monte Cerboli to ascertain the presence of borax.56 Leopold then suggested that Francesco Giovannini (dates uncertain), who was a mineral prospector known as Il Pollacco, should also participate to the field research.57 On 12 November 1789, Fabbroni sent to Francesco Grobert (dates uncertain) his instructions for starting the excavation of the coal deposits in Val di Cecina.58 At the beginning of the new year, on 30 January 1790, Fabbroni informed Pontenani to have finished writing the book Leopold requested, which he entitled Dell’antracite o carbon di cava detto volgarmente carbon fossile (On anthracite or quarry coal, commonly called hard coal).59 However, coal was not the only mineral species that aroused Leopold’s interest. As an example, he sent to Fabbroni a silver ore from Anghiari, a parish near Arezzo, so he could characterize the specimen in the museum laboratories.60

Leopold was also interested in the use of minerals in artworks. To investigate this further aspect, we need to virtually move to the Galleria dei Lavori, the Florentine hardstone and semiprecious stone workshop that was founded by Ferdinando de’ Medici (1549–1609) in 1558 (Giusti 2005). When Francis I was crowned Grand Duke of Tuscany in 1737, it was feared that the Galleria dei Lavori would have closed its doors: the royal court would have not left Vienna, the grand-ducal finances were going through a moment of crisis, and Giovanni Battista Foggini (1652–1725), who was the Galleria’s headmaster, had died without leaving an ‘heir’ up to his skill and inventiveness (e.g., Spinelli 2019). However, as stated by Giusti (2006), everything was about to change when Louis Siries (1686–1754), i.e., the orfèvre du roi at the court of Louis XV (1710–1774) (Avisseau-Broustet 1996), was hired as a goldsmith and engraver in 1732. Brini and Pioppi (2010) noticed that Siries was a fine and polyhedric craftsman as demonstrated by his huge collections of more than 2000 chisel punches.61 Siries also worked on glyptic and in 1746 he realized a lapis lazuli and gold cameo, based on a drawing of Giuseppe Zocchi (1711–1767) (Tosi 1997), showing Empress Maria Theresa as protector of art, science, and craft (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Inv. n. XII 695). From that moment on, a strong relationship was established between the Galleria dei Lavori and the House of Habsburg-Lorraine, which would last over time.62 In 1759, Cosimo Siries (died 1789) succeeded his father Louis in the direction of the Galleria dei Lavori. Like his father, Cosimo was a medalist, an engraver and a skillful bronzesmith. He established a positive relationship with Leopold and realized for the Grand Duke, as pointed out by Masala (1997, 57), various trinkets, snuffboxes, tabletops in hardstones and even diamond rings between 1766 and 1782. Among the works he made it has to be noted a ciborium (1782) with pillars and frames in lapis lazuli, friezes in Spanish coralline, agata bezels, and a jasper small door. The host was realized using pure oriental chalcedony (Giusti et al. 1978, 443). Unlike is father regency, Leopold commissioned diverse works also for the Pitti Palace’s grand-ducal residency such as gold cutlery, soup tureens and bowls (Gonzales-Palacios 1986, 109), and a hardstone commode (1769–1771) showing the Trionfo di Europa and the Quattro Stagioni as auspicious subjects for his rule (Firenze, Palazzo Pitti, Appartamento degli Arazzi, Inv. n. O.d.A. 1911, 835). Leopold was also fond of hardstone artworks illustrating allegories and marine subjects such as the two tabletops that represented the allegories of water and air realized in 1765 and in 1766. Both the works were stolen by the Napoleonic troops and are currently preserved respectively at the Musée du Louvre (Inv. n. MR. 407) and at the Hermitage Museum (Inv. n. 5318). Leopold was then interested in the use of scagliola to illustrate neoclassical subjects such as the tabletop representing the Titus’ quadriga (1768, Firenze, Palazzo Pitti, Galleria Palatina, Inv. n. MPP 1911, 19443, 19483), and the two panels showing the Dance of the Hours and the Maidens that adorned a candelabra (1772, Firenze, Palazzo Pitti, Galleria d’arte moderna, Inv. n. 827, 828). These works were made by Lamberto Cristiano Gori (1727–1801), who was appointed by Leopold as the court’s “scagliolista” (i.e., scagliola artist). Gori held this position until 1795 (Bono 2004; Colle 2004).

The Galleria dei Lavori had professional connections with the Imperial and Royal Museum of Physics and Natural History. For instance, the artisans of the Grand Ducal mint were involved in the restoration and manufacturing of both instruments and furniture for the museum.63 And again, the offcuts from the working of semi-precious stones should be sent to Fontana by order of Leopold’s secretariat.64 Between the two institutions was also evidenced by the exchange of craftsmen specialized in the processing of mineralogical specimens. For instance, Cristofano Perini (dates uncertain), who was a lapidarist, was transferred on Cosimo Siries’ suggestion to the museum in June 1787.65 Leopold’s interest in the use of hard stones, precious and semi-precious stones in art works was not limited to the Galleria dei Lavori but also included several items66 stored in the Treasury of the General Wardrobe (Stanza del Tesoro della Guardaroba Generale).

After leaving Firenze in 1790, Leopold did not give up his interest in mineralogy and mineralogical collecting. According to Fitzinger (1856 and 1868), he dedicated himself to the valorization and enrichment of the Habsburg mineralogical collections. For instance, he acquired from Andreas Graf von Hadik (1710–1790) (von Arneth 1877) a mineral collection encompassing gold, amethyst, jasper, opal specimens in addition to silicified wood samples and diverse fossils. Leopold II also donated to the imperial cabinet the mineralogical collection he received from Friedrich Samuel von Rossan Schmidt (1737–1794)67 for his crowning ceremony. This collection was transferred to Vienna by Federico Manfredini (1743–1829).68 Afterwards, he ordered to move the Habsburg mineralogical collections in the larger Hofburg’s rooms and to reorganize the entire exhibition. The collection was open to the general public every day of the week except on Tuesdays. Unfortunately, Leopold II never got to see the new exhibition because he suddenly died on 1 March 1792.

Behind the curtains of naturalistic museums worldwide are a great number of historical catalogs. These volumes describe the specimens and the processes through which the collections were established (e.g., Alberti 2005). These data often remain unknown to the public because catalogs are rarely part of museum exhibitions. However, they represent unique sources of information, whose study shows how collections are the results of complex cultural, social, and scientific practices within networks of varied persons, places, and things (e.g., Byrne et al. 2011). Furthermore, as shown in this paper, their analysis problematizes the act of collecting through the investigation on how a collection developed, the impact it has had during the centuries and the roles it continues to play in both historical and scientific research.

This paper has shown that the investigation of historical catalogs provides useful information not only for understanding the formation of naturalistic collections in the past, but also to acknowledge they are relevant to contemporary museum studies, thus promoting a more meaningful historical approach to both geosciences and geo-heritage.

Archivio Museo Galileo (AMG), ARMU 001, aff. 1, c. 3; aff. 3, c. 338; aff. 10, c. 412; aff. 26, c. 458; aff. 147, c. 97; aff. 153–154, cc. 114, 126; aff. 168, c. 150; aff. 174, c. 174.

AMG, ARMU 002, aff. 2, c. 5; aff. 7, c. 84; aff. 23, c. 124; aff. 47, c. 208; aff. 49, c. 212; aff. 90, c. 368; aff. 107, c. 409.

AMG, Fab. 04, cc. 2–4, 9, 20, 25, 28–29,49, 56, 71, 80, 83, 101, 113, 126, 131.

Archivio Storico del Sistema Museale di Ateneo, Università degli Studi di Firenze (AS-SMA), Collectio Mineralium oder Sammlung in- und aus-Ländischer Erzte Metallen – Halb-Metallen – Berg-Säfften – Nativ-Berg-Farben. Erzt- und Berg-Arten.

AS-SMA, Catalogo delle produzioni naturali passate al Real Museo di Firenze prima dell’anno 1792, cc. 7–11, 25–27; 30–213; 223–631; 643–701; 705–731.

Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze (BNCF), Catalog des livres du cabinet particulier de LL.AA.RR. Firenze, de l’Imprimerie granducale 1771. Rari Post. 153.

BNCF, Catalog des pierres gravées, par Louis Siriès, orfèvre du roi de France, présentement directeur des ouvrages en pierre dure de la galerie de S. M. impériale à Florence. Florence : chez André Bonducci, 1757. Misc. Magl. 11 03.1.

Národní Archiv (Prague National Archive), Inventario delle robe esistenti nella stanza del tesoro detta della Guardaroba Generale, cc. 199–202.

Abbri, F. 1987. “La “spranga elettrica”: Frisi e l’elettricità”. In Ideologia e scienza nell’opera di Paolo Frisi (1728–1784), a cura di G. Barbarisi, 161–99. Milano: Franco Angeli.

Aliprantis, C. 2019. “The afterlife of Enlightened Absolutism: commemoration of Maria Theresa and Joseph II and the politics of liberal reform in nineteenth-century imperial Austria.” European Review of History 26 (2): 305–30.

Arneth, A. R. von. 1877. Andreas Graf Hadik’s Zug nach Berlin. In:Vaterländisches Ehrenbuch Geschichtliche Denkwürdigkeiten aus allen Ländern der österreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie, Teuffenbach, A. von, 447–52. Wien und Leiden: Karl Proaska.

Arneth, A. R. von. 1881. Briefe der Kaiserin Maria Theresia an ihre Kinder und Freunde. Wien: Braumüller.

Arrigoni, T. 1984. “La ricerca mineraria nelle Colline Metallifere alla metà del Settecento: l’esperienza di uno scienziato viaggiatore, Giovanni Targioni Tozzetti”. In Siderurgia e miniere in Maremma tra ‘500 e ‘900: archeologia industriale e storia del movimento operario, I. Tognarini, 55–64. Firenze: All’insegna del Giglio.

Arrigoni, T. 1985. “Geologia e ricerca mineraria nel Settecento: Giovanni Arduino e le miniere della Toscana”. Ricerche Storiche 15 (2): 275–94.

Arrigoni, T. 1989. “Scienza e tecnica nelle miniere e nella siderurgia Toscana del Settecento: lineamenti”. In La Toscana dei Lorena: riforme, territorio, società, a cura di Z. Ciuffoletti, L. Rombai, 123–36. Firenze: L.S. Olschki.

Avisseau-Broustet, M. 1996. « Historique de la collection de pierres gravées du cabinet de France aux XVIIIe et XIXe siècles ». Zeitschrift Für Kunstgeschichte 59 (2): 214–29.

Balážová, B. 2017. „Von den „Naturalia“ zum „Theatrum Machinarum“ Barocke Handsteine aus den mittelslowakischen Bergbaustädten“. Opuscola Historiæ Artium 66: 20–43.

Baltolu, R. 2018. „Die Rolle der Fraktur in der Gotico-Antiqua“. Archiv für Diplomatik, Schriftgeschichte, Siegel- und Wappenkunde 63 (1): 337–66.

Barnard, C., Fones, A. 2012. “The Platinum Decathlon – A Tribute to the Foresight of Antoine Baumé.” Platinum Metals Review 56 (3):165–77.

Beals, H. K. 1995. “The Juan Pérez-Josef De Cañizares Map of the Northwest Coast.” Terrae Incognitae 27 (1): 46–56.

Becagli, V. 1985. “Da San Giuliano a Montecatini. Lo sfruttamento delle risorse termali nella Toscana del Settecento”. In Una politica per le terme: Montecatini e la Val di Nievole nelle riforme di Pietro Leopoldo. Atti del Convegno di studi, Montecatini Terme, 25-26-27 ottobre 1984, 174–210. Siena: Edizioni Periccioli.

Becattini, F. 1797. Vita pubblica e privata di Pietro Leopoldo d’Austria granduca di Toscana poi imperatore Leopoldo II. Siena: all’insegna del Mangia.

Bellatalla, L. 1984. Pietro Leopoldo di Toscana granduca-educatore: teoria e pratica di un despota illuminato. Lucca: M. Pacini Fazzi.

Beller, S. 2006. A Concise History of Austria. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bellinazzi, A., Contini, A. 2002. La corte di Toscana dai Medici ai Lorena. Roma: Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali, Direzione Generale per gli archivi.

Berlinguer, L., Colao, F. 1989. La Leopoldina nel diritto e nella giustizia in Toscana. Milano: Giuffré.

Bertelli, S., Pasta, R. 2003. Vivere a Pitti. Una reggia dai Medici ai Savoia. Firenze: L.S. Olschki.

Bertucci, P. 2009. “Enlightening towers: public opinion, local authorities, and the Reformation of meteorology in eighteenth century Italy.” Transections of the American philosophical society 98 (5): 25–44.

Bindi, U. 2014. Giorgio Santi scienziato pientino del Settecento. Biografia e scritti inediti. Pienza: Fondazione Conservatorio San Carlo Borromeo.

Bono, K. 2004. “Lamberto Cristiano Gori 1727–1801 e l’evoluzione della scagliola in Toscana tra Settecento e Ottocento”. DecArt. Rivista di Arti Decorative 2: 67–77.

Brini, A., Pioppi, S. 2010. “La collezione Siries: Tecnica e catalogazione di 1902 punzoni donati al Museo dell’Opificio delle Pietre Dure”. OPD Restauro 22:180–8.

Brown, K. 2012. A History of Mining in Latin America: From the Colonial Era to the Present. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Burgassi, P. 2012. “Historical notes on the discovery and development of geothermal resource in Larderello (Tuscany Region, Italy)”. Technika Poszukiwań Geologicznych 1.

Byrne, J. M. 1997. Religion and the Enlightenment: From Descartes to Kant. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.

Byrne, S., Clarke, A., Harrison, R., Torrence, R. 2011. “Networks, Agents and Objects: Frameworks for Unpacking Museum Collections.” In Unpacking the Collection Networks of Material and Social Agency in the Museum, edited by S. Byrne, A. Clarke, R. Harrison, R. Torrence, 3–28. Cham: Springer.

Capra, C. 2005. “Habsburg Italy in the age of reform.” Journal of Modern Italian Studies 10 (2): 218–33.

Celková, M. 2004. “Imperial visits of the Habsburgs in the collection fund of the Slovak Mining Museum in Banská Stiavnica.” Scripta Geologica 4: 54–64.

Cembrzyński, P. 2017. “Gold rush or considered investment? Origins of mining towns in the medieval Central Europe.” Acta rerum naturalium 21: 59–72.

Cipriani, C., Fantoni, L., Poggi, L., Scarpellini, A. 2011. Le collezioni mineralogiche del Museo di storia naturale dell’Università di Firenze dalle origini a oggi. Firenze: L.S. Olschki.

Colle, E. 2004. “Scagliole granducali”. DecArt. Rivista di Arti Decorative 1: 26–35.

Contardi, S. 2002. La casa di Salomone a Firenze. L’imperiale e Reale Museo di Fisica e Storia Naturale (1775–1801). Firenze: L. S. Olschki.

Contardi, S. 2009. “Gli Oggetti della Scienza Lorenese: le Collezioni Scientifiche del Regio Museo di Fisica e Storia Naturale di Firenze”. Quaderni storici 44 (130): 153–78.

Contini, A. 2002. La reggenza lorenese tra Firenze e Vienna: logiche dinastiche, uomini e governo, 1737–1766. Firenze: L. S. Olschki.

Contini, A. 2003. “«La naissance n’est qu’effet du hazard». L’educazione delle principesse e dei principi alla corte leopoldina”. In Vivere a Pitti: una reggia dai Medici ai Savoia, R. Pasta, S. Bertelli, 1000–50. Firenze: L.S. Olschki.

Crosland, M. P. 2004. Historical Studies in the Language of Chemistry. Mineola: Dover Publications.

De Gregorio, M. 2008. “I fossili, il diluvio, la creazione: Ambrogio Soldani a duecento anni dalla morte”. Bollettino Senese di Storia Patria 115: 509–21.

Del Pane, L. 1964. “Recensione di Wandruska A. Leopold II”. Rivista di Storia dell’Agricoltura 4: 409–15.

DeSilvey, C. 2007. “Practical remembrance: material and method in a recycled archive.” In Practicing the archive: reflections on method and practice in historical geography. Historical Geography Research Series 40, edited by E. Gagen, H. Lorimer, A. Vasudevan, 37–45.

Dezza, E. 2017. “Il Granduca, i filosofi e il Codice degli Irochesi. Il principio ‘contumax pro confesso habetur’ e la riforma leopoldina”. Italian Review of Legal History 3: 1–79.

Edigati, D. 2011. Prima della Leopoldina: la giustizia criminale toscana tra prassi e riforme legislative nel XVIII secolo. Napoli: Jovene.

Fabozzi, R. 2019. Il catalogo dei minerali di Pietro Leopoldo. Un collezionista che divenne Imperatore. Laurea II ciclo (magistrale). Università degli Studi di Firenze.

Fischer, M., Moschner, I., Schonmann, R. 1976. „Das Naturhistorische Museum in Wien und seine Geschichte“. Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien 80: 1–24.

Fitzinger, L. J. F. J. 1856. „Geschichte des kais. Kön. Hof-Naturalien-Cabinetes zu Wien“. Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Klasse 21: 433–79.

Fitzinger, L. J. F. J. 1868. „Geschichte des kais. Kön. Hof-Naturalien-Cabinetes zu Wien“. Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Klasse 57: 1013–92.

Franza, A., Fabozzi, R., Fantoni, L., Pratesi, G. 2019. “The catalog of the mineralogical collection of the Emperor Leopold II (1747–1792): collecting and learning in eighteenth-century Europe.” Earth Sciences History 38 (2): 173–203.

Giusti, A. M. 1992. Pietre dure: l’arte europea del mosaico negli arredi e nelle decorazioni dal 1500 al 1800. Torino: U. Allemandi.

Giusti, A. M. 2005. L’arte delle pietre dure da Firenze all’Europa. Firenze: Giunti.

Giusti, A. M. 2006. “I Siries, una dinastia di artisti alla guida della manifattura granducale”. In Arte e Manifattura di corte a Firenze: dal tramonto dei Medici all’Impero (1732–1815), a cura di A. Giusti, 16–27. Livorno: Sillabe.

Giusti, A. M., Mazzoni, P., Martelli Pampaloni, A. 1978. Il Museo dell’Opificio delle Pietre Dure a Firenze, inv. n. 443. Milano: Electa Editrice.

Gonzales-Palacios, A. 1986. Il tempio del gusto. Le arti decorative in Italia fra classicismo e barocco. Il Granducato di Toscana e gli Stati Settentrionali. Milano: Longanesi.

Gori, O., Toccafondi, D. 2013. Fra Toscana e Boemia. L’archivio di Pietro Leopoldo d’Asburgo Lorena nell’Archivio nazionale di Praga. Roma: Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali e del Turismo, Direzione Generale per gli Archivi.

Hackmann, W. D. 1995. Catalog of pneumatical, magnetical and electrical instruments. Firenze: Giunti.

Haditsch, J. G., Maus, H. 1974. Alte Mineralname im deutschen Schrifttum. Leoben: Inst. f. Mineralogie u. Gesteinskunde d. Montanist. Hochschule Leoben.

Hassmann, E. 2015. „Quellen und Regesten zur Schatzkammer, Gemäldegalerie und zu den drei Kabinetten aus dem Archivbestand des k. k. Oberstkämmereramtes. 1777 bis 1787 mit einem Nachtrag zu den Jahren 1748 bis 1776“. Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien 15/16.

Hazen, R. M., Downs, R.T., Eleish, A. et al. 2019. “Data-Driven Discovery in Mineralogy: Recent Advances in Data Resources, Analysis, and Visualization.” Engineering 5 (3): 397–405.

Hodder, I. 2012. “The interpretation of documents and material culture.” In SAGE biographical research, edited by J. Goodwin, 171–88. London: Sage.

Horn, J., Jacob, M. C. 1998. “Jean Antoine Claude Chaptal and the Cultural Roots of French Industrialization.” Technology and Culture 39(4): 671–98.

International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. 2011. ISBD International Standard Bibliographic Description. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Saur.

Janetschek, H. 1998. “Machine Drawing in the Habsburg Patrimonial Lands: 1700—1850.” ICOHTEC 4: 66–75.

Kasiarová, E. 2000. „Die bedeutenden Besucher des Schemnitzer Bercjbaugebietes (Banskä Stiavnica, Slowakei)“. Berichte der Geologischen Bundesanstalt 52: 49–54.

Kasiarová, E. 2004. “The archival documents of the State Central Mining Archives in Banská Stiavnica related to different kinds of museum collections at home and abroad.” Scripta Geologica 4: 180–92.

Khevenhuller-Metsch, J. J. 1908. Aus der Zeit Maria Theresias: Tagebuch des Fursten Johann Josef Khevenhuller-Metsch: 1742–1776, vol. 2, 151–3.Wien: A. Holzhausen.

Klein, U. 2016. “Useful knowledge, useful science.” In The Making of Useful Knowledge, edited by T. Morel, G. Parolini, C. Pastorino, 39–48. Berlin: Max Planck Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte.

Klemun, M., Hühnel, H. 2017. Nikolaus Joseph Jacquin (1727–1817) – ein Naturforscher (er)findet sich. Wien: Vienna University Press.

Knieling, N. 2016. “Pro captu lectoris habent sua fata libelli. Collezionismo librario e diffusione delle idee illuminate alla corte di Pietro Leopoldo”. Archivio Storico Italiano 174: 107–40.

Koeberl, C., Brandstätter, F., Harzhauser, M., Riedl-Dorn, C. 2018. “History and importance of the geoscience collections at the Natural History Museum Vienna.” In Museums at the Forefront of the History and Philosophy of Geology: History Made, History in the Making, edited by G. D. Rosenberg, R. M. Clary, 131–62. Milwaukee: Geological Society of America.

Konečný, P. 2017. „Der Herrscher im Bergwerk. Visitationsreisen der Habsburger-Lothringen in die ungarischen (slowakischen) Bergreviere am Beispiel einer Reise von 1764“. In Die Repräsentation der Habsburg-Lothringischen Dynastie in Musik, visuellen Medien und Architektur/Representing the Habsburg-Lorraine Dynasty in Music, Visual Media and Architecture, 1618–1918, hrsg. von Werner Telesko, 346–66. Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau.

Koschatzky, W., Krasa, S. 1982. Herzog Albert von Sachsen-Teschen 1738–1822. Reichsfeldmarschall und Kunstmäzen. Wien: Österreichischer Bundesverlag.

Kusler, A. 2017. “‘Maiestatis Hungariae Aquila’: Christoph Lackner and the Hieroglyph of the Habsburg Eagle.” In Emblems and the Natural World, Intersections 50, edited by K. A. E Enenkel, P. J. Smith, 419–53. Leiden: Brill.

La Rosa, G. 1997. Il sigillo delle riforme: la Costituzione di Pietro Leopoldo di Toscana. Milano: Vita e Pensiero.

Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Lhotsky, A. 1941–1945. Die Geschichte der Sammlungen. Zweite Hälfte von Maria Theresia bis zum Ende der Monarchie (= Festschrift des Kunsthistorischen Museums zur Feier des fünfzigjährigen Bestandes). Wien: Ferdinand Berger.

Linden, S. J. 2003. The Alchemy Reader: From Hermes Trismegistus to Isaac Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lindner, D. 1986. Ignaz von Born, Meister der Wahren Eintracht. Wien: Osterreich Bundesverlag Gesells.

Long, P. 2011. Artisan/Practitioners and the Rise of the New Sciences, 1400–1600. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.

Long, P. 2017. “Multi-tasking pre-professional: Architect/engineers and other bricolagic practitioners as key figures in the elision of boundaries between practice and learning in sixteenth-century Europe: Some Roman examples.” In The Structures of Practical Knowledge, edited by M. Valleriani, 223–46. Cham: Springer.

Lynch, M. 1999. “Archives in formation: privileged spaces, popular archives and paper trails.” History of Human Sciences 12: 65–88.

Manganelli, G., Benocci, A. 2013. “250 years of Atti dell’Accaemia dei Fisiocritici in Siena: its contribution to natural history.” Archives of natural history 40 (1): 168–71.

Mangio, C. 1988. La polizia toscana: organizzazione e criteri d’intervento 1765–1808. Milano: Giuffré.

Marvin, U. B. 1998. “The shower of stones at Siena, 1794: history’s most consequential meteorite fall.” In Volcanoes and history, edited by N. Morello, 303–21. Brigati: Genova.

Masala, D. 1997. I Siries: una famiglia di incisori fra Settecento e Ottocento. Laurea ciclo unico (quinquennale). Università degli Studi di Firenze.

McClellan, J. E. 1985. Science Recognized, Scientific Societies in the Eighteenth Century. New York: Columbia University Press.

Meixner, H. 1960. „Die Mineraliensammlung der Grafen Thurn-Valsassina auf Schloss Bleiburg. Teil 1: Zur Geschichte einer alten Sammlung“. Carinthia II, Mitt. Naturwiss. Ver. f. Ktn. 15 (70): 107–27.

Monti, M. T., Ratcliff, M. J. 2004. Figure dell’invisibilità. Le scienze della vita nell’Italia d’Antico Regime. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki.

Mori, G. 1958. “L’estrazione di minerali nel granducato di Toscana durante il periodo delle Riforme (1737–1790)”. Archivio Storico Italiano 116 (2): 207–46.

Mottana, A., Mussino, A., Nasti, V. 2012. “Minerals from the Carpathian Mountains and from Transylvania donated by Joseph II (1785) to the Museum of the Collegio Nazareno, Rome, Italy.” Central European Geology 55 (1): 103–22.

Nesti, A. 2006. “La siderurgia in Toscana dal XVI al XX secolo”. In Paesaggi industriali del Novecento: siderurgia e miniere nella Maremma toscana, edited by M. Prete, 1–10. Firenze: Polistampa.

Pacini Fazzi, M. 2008. “Riflessioni sull’editoria tecnico-scientifica nell’Italia del Settecento”. Rara Volumina 1/2: 53–66.

Papp, G., Weisburg, T. 1991. “The mineral collection of Archduchess Maria Anna.” In Museums and Collections in the History of Mineralogy, Geology and Paleontology in Hungary, edited by G. Vitális, T. Kecskeméti, Annals of the History of Hugarian Geology 3: 135–143.

Pasta, R. 1989. Scienza, politica e rivoluzione. L’opera di Giovanni Fabbroni (1752–1822) intellettuale e funzionario al servizio dei Lorena. Firenze: L. S. Olschki.

Pasta, R. 2015. “Pietro Leopoldo”. Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani 83: 563–73.

Patvaros, J. 1995. “In memoriam Christoph Traugott Delius, the Eminent Scholar and Professor of Mining in “Schemnitzer Bergakadamie”.” Mineral Resources Engineering 4 (4):381–8.

Piccardi, G. 2004. “Uberto Francesco Hoefer e la Tabula Affinitatum”. Nuncius 19 (2):545–68.

Porter, T. M. 1981. “The promotion of mining and the advancement of science: the chemical revolution of mineralogy.” Annals of science 38 (5): 543–70.

Rastrelli, M. 1792. Memorie per servire alla vita di Leopoldo II Imperatore dei Romani, già Gran Duca di Toscana. Firenze.

Reisner, A., Schiemer, A. 2016. „Das Wien(n)erische Diarium und die Entstehung der periodischen Presse“. In Österreichische Mediengeschichte, hrsg. von M. Karmasin, C. Oggolder, vol. 1, 87–112. Wiesbaden: Springer.

Riedl-Dorn, C. 1996. „Ignaz von Born (1742–1791) - ein siebenbürgischer Naturforscher“. Stapfia 45: 345–55.

Rogari, S. 2005. “Gli anni dell’Istituto di Studi Superiori Pratici e di Perfezionamento”. In L’Università degli Studi di Firenze fra istituzioni e cultura nel decennale della scomparsa di Giovanni Spadolini, a cura di S. Rogari, 13–7. Firenze: Firenze University Press.

Rosa, M. 1999. Settecento religioso. Politica della ragione e religione del cuore. Venezia: Marsilio.

Schröder, H. 1851. Lexikon der hamburgischen Schriftsteller bis zur Gegenwart, vol. 7, 258. Hamburg: im Auftrage des Vereins.

Scorrano, G., Nicolini, N., Masoner, I. M. 2002. “Leopold’s Workbench: The Hapsburg-Lorraine Grand Duke and Chemistry.” Journal of Chemical Education 79 (1): 47–52.

Smith, P. H. 1994. “Alchemy as a Language of Mediation at the Habsburg Court.” Isis 85 (1):1–25.

Spinelli, R. 2019. “La serie dei ritratti medicei di Giovan Battista Foggini. Note d’archivio sulla committenza e la cronologia”. Paragone 144: 40–54.

Štefánik, M. 2016. “The Kremnica Town Book of Accounts: The Economy of a Mining and Mint Town in the Kingdom of Hungary.” In Money and Finance in Central Europe during the Later Middle Ages. Palgrave Studies in the History of Finance, edited by R. Zaoral, 42–56. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Steger, H. 2019. “Middle High and New High German.” In Part 2 The study of languages, edited by E. Haugen, 1282–344. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.

Sukopp, T. 2018. “Discoveries of Oxygen and the “Chemical Revolution” in the Context of European Scientific Networks.” In Knowledge Communities in Europe, edited by B. Schweitzer, T. Sukopp, 15–47. Wiesbaden: Springer.

Swinney, G.N. 2011. “What do we know about what we know. The museum ‘register’ as museum object.” In The things about museums. Objects and experience, representation and contestation, edited by S. Dudley, A. J. Barnes, J. Binnie, J. Petrov, J. Walklate, 31–46. London: Routledge.

Szabo, F. A. J. 2018. “Cameralism, Josephinism, and Enlightenment: The Dynamic of Reform in the Habsburg Monarchy, 1740–92.” Austrian History Yearbook 49: 1–14.

Tacchi, A. 1992. “La vita teatrale a Firenze in età leopoldina, ovvero tutto sotto controllo”. Medioevo e Rinascimento 6: 361–73.

Tazzara, C., Findlen, P., Soll, J. 2020. Florence after the Medici: Tuscan Enlightenment, 1737–1790. New York: Routledge.

Testi, G. 1980. Dizionario di alchimia e chimica antiquaria. Roma: Edizioni mediterranee.

Tosi, A. 1997. Inventare la realtà: Giuseppe Zocchi e la Toscana del Settecento. Siena: Banca Toscana.

Triarico, C. 2000. La Specola di Leonardo Ximenes a Firenze e la catalogazione dei suoi strumenti. In Giuseppe Toaldo e il suo tempo nel bicentenario della morte: scienze e lumi tra Veneto e Europa, a cura di L. Pigatto, 381–409. Cittadella: Bertoncello artigrafiche.

Vaccari, E. 1996. “Cultura scientifico-naturalista ed esplorazione del territorio: Giovanni Arduino e Giovanni Targioni Tozzetti”. In Politica della scienza: Toscana e stati italiani nel tardo Settecento, a cura di G. Barsanti, V. Becagli, R. Pasta, 243–63. Firenze: L.S. Olschki.

Vitali, S. 1992. “Sulle tracce degli antichi. Aspetti della ricerca mineraria in Toscana fra Sette e Ottocento”. Archeologia Medievale 19: 675.

Vocelka, K. 2009. Geschichte Österreichs: Kultur, Gesellschaft, Politik. München: Heyne Verlag.

Vogel, J. 2015. “Stony Realms: Mineral Collections as Markers of Social, Cultural and Political Spaces in the 18th and Early 19th Century.” Historical Social Research 40 (1): 301–20.

Vozár, J. 1983. Das Goldene Bergbuch. Schemnitz, Kremnitz, Neusohl Eine wichtige Quelle für die Geschichte des Bergbauwesens in der Slowakei. Košice: Banská agentúra Košice.

Wakefield, A. 2009. The Disordered Police State German Cameralism as Science and Practice, 26–48. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Weiss, R. A., Esparza, J. 2015. “The prevention and eradication of smallpox: a commentary on Sloane (1755) ‘An account of inoculation’.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 370 (1666): 20140378.

Wilson, W. E. 1994. “The history of mineral collecting.” Mineralogical Record 25 (6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yonan, M. E. 2011. Empress Maria Theresa and her Politics of Habsburg Imperial Art. Louisville: Penn State Press.

Zedinger, R. 2008. Franz Stephan von Lothringen (1708–1765): Monarch, Manager, Mäzen. Wien: Böhlau Verlag.

1 Sestan (1951, 195) quoted a passage of the letter Colletta sent to Capponi on 19 December 1828: “Sii tu lo storico della Toscana novella; ma per amore di tutti i santi […] oggi solo Leopoldo deve farti buco nella mente. Scrivi e scrivi. Ti dirò cosa impertinente, ma soffrila […] riempi questo vuoto con un bel libro. O foss’io giovine quanto te! Quali speranze vorrei nutrire! E tu puoi più di quel che io potrei, sol che vorrai: e vuoi.”

2 Monti and Ratcliff (2004) described as “space of invisibility” (“spazio di invisibilità”, in the original text) the conceptual category aiming to provide a critical revision of the lesser-known aspects, which underlaid the social and intellectual dynamics of scientific discoveries as well as the progress of empirical sciences (see also Long 2011 and 2017).

3 Among them, the codification of the traditional criminal justice system (the Constitutio Criminalis Theresiana) in 1769, the establishment of new educational institutions (e.g., the Theresarium in 1746), and the promotion of a variolation campaign in 1767 (Byrne 1997; Beller 2006; Vocelka 2009; Weiss and Esparza 2015).

4 In this regard, Vaccari (1996) pointed out that Giovanni Targioni Tozzetti (1712–1783) and Giovanni Arduino (1714–1795) made several journeys to detect the presence of mineral deposits in the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. Likewise, Burgassi (2012) described the discovery of boric acid made by Hubert Franz Hoefer (1728–1795) in both Lagone Cerchiaio and in the fumaroles near Pomarance.

6 The catalog is currently preserved at the Central National Library of Firenze, Manuscript and Rare Books Section (Rari Post. 153). A catalog’s second copy that belonged to Maria Luisa of Spain is kept at the Newberry Library in Chicago (Z491.C277).

7 The presence of this book within Leopold’s library, along with Nollet’s Lettres sur l’électricité (1753) and Franklin’s Expériences et observations sur l’électricité (1751), provide information about his interest in the study of electrical phenomena. This finding is confirmed not only by the establishment of a Tuscan network of lightning rods but also by the scientific instruments he acquired for the Imperial and Royal Museums of Physics and Natural History. Most of these instruments are electrostatic, pneumatic, and mechanical devices that are now preserved at the Galileo Museum in Firenze. Among them, there is a device for demonstrating the properties of lightning rods (Inv. 2693), an ampoule to electrically simulate the northern lights (Inv. 423), and a Nairne cylinder electrical machine (Inv. 2736). The latter was custom-made for Leopold by Edward Nairne (1726–1806) in 1773. The following year, the Grand Duke awarded Nairne with a gold medal and a prize of 1,415 Tuscan lire. Cf. AMG, ARMU 001, aff. 153–154, cc. 114, 126. Further information about these electrical instruments can be found in Hackmann (1995). For an overview of the scientific collections present in the Imperial and Royal Museum of Physics and Natural History at the time of Leopold’s rule see Contardi (2009).

10 As an example, Giovanni Tommaso Mannucci (1750–1814) sent a letter to Fabbroni on 3 September 1789 to inform him of the Grand Duke’s visit the next day. Mannucci wrote that the Grand Duke would have arrived half past two in the afternoon, passing through the door that faced the street. Cf. AMG, Fab. 04, c. 3.

11 Besides assisting in his chemical experiments, Fabbroni was also a key figure for Leopold’s mining interests. For instance, he supervised, on behalf of the Grand Duke, the excavation and polishing of some crystals from the mountains in the surroundings of Pistoia. Leopold was so pleased with his scientific relationship with Fabbroni that he instructed his personal secretary, Ranieri Fulger (dates uncertain), to send to Fabbroni a letter (4 December 1789) in which he thanked the Florentine scholar for his services. Fabbroni replied with a heartfelt letter for Leopold’s commendation the following day. Cf. AMG, Fab. 04, cc. 2–4 and c. 113.

18 AMG, ARMU 004, aff. 73, c. 307. The document also reported the economic estimate made by Fabbroni of Leopold’s chemical cabinet for a total of 7217 lire.

20 Archivio Storico del Sistema Museale di Ateneo, Università degli Studi di Firenze (AS-SMA), Collectio Mineralium oder Sammlung in- und aus-Ländischer Erzte Metallen – Halb-Metallen – Berg-Säfften – Nativ-Berg-Farben. Erzt- und Berg-Arten.

21 The catalog of Leopold’s mineralogical collection was migrated from a paper- and manuscript-based medium to digital media by its digitalization. Subsequently, its text was transcribed, translated, and then printed into hard copy. At each stage, the catalog is re-materialized. As DeSilvey stated (2007, 41) these stages constitute “a moment of mimetic labour [which] opened up a channel of communication that tracked along former networks of relation and resonance.”

22 The catalog’s original title is Collectio Mineralium oder Sammlung in- und aus-Ländischer Erzte Metallen – Halb-Metallen – Berg-Säfften – Nativ-Berg-Farben. Erzt- und Berg-Arten. Mit einen beygefügten Inhalts-Verzeichnis Für Ihro königl. Hochheit dem Durchleuchtigsten Erz-Herzog PETRO LEOPOLDO Erz-Herzog von Oesterreich etc. etc. Auf Hohen Befehl verfasset, und in die Ordnung gesetzet von Joanne Francisco Pirkhert Im Jahr 1765. PRAESIDE Camerae Caesareae & Caesareo Regiae Aulicae Comite Seifrido ab HERBERSTEIN Erklärung nachfolgender Mineralien und Berg-Arten.

24 The only studies to date that have investigated the catalog of Leopold’s mineralogical collection are Fabozzi (2019) and Franza et al. (2019).

25 Further information on the Honig paper company can be found in Beals (1995, 51).

26 See Mattes in this volume and his note 7. See also Štefánik (2016) and Cembrzyński (2017).

27 It is interesting to note that each section of the index shows diverse blank pages. This finding may indicate an interest in adding new specimens to Leopold’s collections.

28 The specimens were divided into Gold-Erzt (i.e., samples containing gold), Electrum oder Göldisches Silber-Erzt (i.e., specimens containing golden silver), Silber-Erzte (i.e., samples containing silver), Kupfer-Erzte (i.e., specimens containing copper), Bley-Erzte (i.e., samples containing lead), Zinn-Erzte oder Zwitter (literally, tin-ores or hybrids), Eißen Erzte oder Stein (literally, iron-ores or rocks), Queck-Silber (i.e., samples containing mercury), Zinober (i.e., samples containing cinnabar), Küeß (pyrite specimens), Marcasiten (marcasite samples), Schwefel (i.e., specimens containing sulfur), Antimonium (i.e., samples containing antimony), Wißmuth (i.e., specimens containing bismuth), Zink oder Spiauter (i.e., samples containing zinc), Kobold (i.e., samples containing cobalt), Arsenicum (i.e., samples containing arsenic), Saltz (salt), Vitriol (i.e., specimens containing vitriol), Alaun (i.e., specimens containing alum), Stein-Kohlen (stone coals), Brennende Materien (literally, burning matters), Berg-Arten (literally, mountain kinds), Nativ-Berg-Farben (literally, Native-Mountain-Colors), Aus unbekanten Orten (i.e., specimens whose provenance is unknown).

29 The greater part of the specimens came from the Carpathians area with a few exceptions such as Sample No. 63, which came from Bohemia, and Sample No. 164 coming from America. The latter was described as a fine gold specimen from Potosí, which can be identified with the state of San Luis Potosí in Mexico, where gold and silver deposits were discovered starting from the 16th-century (e.g., Brown 2012).

30 A complete survey of the use of alchemical symbols in the 18th-century is beyond the scope of this work (see Crosland 2004 for an overview). However, it is worth noting that the presence of alchemical symbols to indicate metals and metallic compounds in Leopold’s catalog are evidence of the analytical definition of simple substances, and thus of the determination of mineral composition by analytically determining procedures. The latter derived, as Porter has shown in his seminal work (1981), from both the practical activities of mineral assayers and the theoretical analysis of chemically literate scholars who were involved in mining industries. On both alchemy and the knowledge of minerals and metals at the Habsburg court see Smith (1994).

32 Cipriani et al. (2011), Mottana et al. (2012, 105) and Fabozzi (2019) assume that Leopold’s collection may have merged into the mineralogical collections preserved at the Florentine Natural History Museum. Fabozzi (2019) hypothesizes that Samples Nos. 3, 9, 12, 58, and 64 can be identified with the minerals bearing the inventory numbers 498, 1037, 114, 1031, 1044. This assumption is based on the similarity of the specimens’ cataloging descriptions reported in both Collectio Mineralium and Inventario del Reale Gabinetto di Fisica e Storia Naturale (1793). However, no document explicitly mentions these samples as belonging to Leopold’s mineralogical collection. Further research has been carried out within the Mineraliensammlung at the Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna, where the Habsburg mineralogical collections are preserved. Even in this case, ancient catalogs and museum inventories have shown no reference to Leopold’s collections. The same holds for the investigations performed at the Institute of Mineralogy and Petrography of the University of Innsbruck. However, the current exhibition does not preserve any specimens that can be identified as part of Leopold’s mineralogical collection.

33 Albert Kasimir von Sachsen-Teschen was Leopold’s brother-in-law since he married Maria Christina (1742–1798), who was Maria Theresa’s fifth daughter, on 8 April 1766. Albert Kasimir was a keen collector of works of art and part of his graphics collection is now preserved at the Albertina Museum in Vienna (e.g., Koschatzky and Krasa 1982).

34 In her interesting article, Čelková (2004) described the items that are now preserved in the Kammerhof of the Slovak Mining Museum and have been collected on the various visits of the Habsburg family to Banská Štiavnica. The items belonging to Francis I, Leopold, Joseph, and Albert Kasimir are listed on pages 55–60.

35 Leopold’s copy is preserved at the Central National Library of Firenze (Palatino 1094). The volume counts 235 pages, among these 78 plates concern city views (e.g., at cc. 3–4 is a Banská Štiavnica’s view depicted by Carlo Giovanni Della Martina in 1764, while at c. 161 is a Kremnica’s view), maps, prospects, ink drawings, and watercolors relative to the mines described in the text. Some plates are on two pages, whilst the larger are folded within the volume. The most important plates are then signed by their respective authors, who were also mining technicians such as Carl Ployer, Joachim Miller, Gottfried Deschau, Andreas Marini, Johann Göllner, and Benedict Feil. The volume is bound in crimson velvet, with paperback covers engraved in gold and gilt cut. It is written in German and different handwritings are easily recognizable throughout the manuscript. On the first page is visible the stamp of the Museum of Physics and Natural History in Firenze, which is also present on the fifth page together with Leopold’s stamp.

36 In her review of Schemnitz’s renewed visitors, Kasiarová (2000) reported some of the events surrounding the royal journey. Among these, there was Leopold’s and Joseph’s visit to the Glanzenberg mine that was documented, in addition to archival records, by the stone plaque walled in this gallery. Kasiarová (2000) pointed out how the custom of displaying these celebratory plaques was reserved for the rulers that had visited the mines. There are various maps showing the places where these plates were located with their original inscriptions. During their visits to the underground mines, important guests used to wear mining dresses that were sewn in the local villages. The Slovak Mining Museum still preserves Leopold’s overcoat (i.e., a pink-gold brocade overcoat with damask plant decoration in green silk, Inv. No. SH 926).

37 In this regard, the catalog description of Sample No. 150 reported that “His Majesty, the Roman King himself, even worked in these chams”, mentioning the Joanni Chasms in the Pacher Gallery. This is a reference to Francis’ I visit in 1751 during which (just as Leopold, Joseph, and Albert Kasimir) he visited the tunnels and knocked off an ore. Kasiarová (2000) noticed that the shafts in which the rulers had worked were named after them. On this basis, the Leopold Gallery, which was mentioned in the catalog description of Sample No. 253, can be potentially identified as the shaft he visited in 1764.

38 Kasiarová (2000) noticed that important visitors used beautifully decorated irons and mallets, which were either made by local craftsmen or brought by guests from Vienna. Leopold and Albert Kasimir’s hammers are preserved at the Slovak Mining Museum (Inv. Nos. UH 2337, UH 2338).

39 In the underground, Joseph, Leopold, and Albert Kasimir were shown different types of mining activities. They were acquainted with the production processes as well as with the resulting mineralogical products. A reference to these techniques is given in the description of Sample No. 154, in which the processing of the mineralogical specimen was carried out according to the “usual techniques.” Probably the author did not detail the method that was used to determine the various metal contents since it had already been shown to Leopold during his visit. In the same vein, the author did not illustrate either the brass-manufacture processing that was mentioned at Sample No. 156 or the construction of a gateway reported in the description of Sample No. 158. Other references to mining equipment and practices can be found at Sample No. 49 where a mining compass was described. Interesting hints on extractive metallurgy are then mentioned in Samples Nos. 193, 194, 198, and in the Notandum at the end of the main text.

40 Balážová (2017) described the handstein as a selected piece of ore the size of a human hand, that was valued for its rarity based on its appearance and high-quality composition. From the end of the 17th-century, these kinds of objects were modified into more fashionable works of art (Tafelaufsatz) representing motifs of the Central Slovak mining towns.

41 A more comprehensive analysis of the mineralogical samples listed in the Collectio Mineralium is given in the catalog’s endnotes.

42 As an example, Sample No. 127 represented a specimen of pyrargyrite, and marcasite evaluated up to 500 lots in fine silver and 6 pounds in refined copper.

43 As the Grand Duke of Tuscany, Leopold was directly involved in the museum administration. For instance, on 14 April 1777, he approved a new regulation regarding the museum’s janitor based on the suggestions proposed by the director’s assistant Giuseppe Pigri (d. 1804). Whilst from August to November 1789 he dedicated himself to improving the museum management from an economic and organizational perspective. These reports followed the museum rules Leopold issued on 9 March 1782 to complete the general regulation dated 1775. Cf. AMG, ARMU 002, aff. 2, c. 5; aff. 7, c. 84; Fab. 01, cc. 393, 398, 415; ARMU 001, aff. 1, c. 3.

44 In this regard, it has to be noted that Leopold dealt with mineralogical collections also besides the acquisitions he patronized for the Imperial and Royal Museum of Physics and Natural History. As an example, he deposited in the Royal Cabinet the catalog about the geo-mineralogical specimens and fossils collected in the Volterra area that was written by Abbot Giuseppe Gherardini (1713–1786) from the Abbey of St. Giusto. The specimens are divided into five groups (e.g., Soils, Stones, Metals, Concretions, and Petrifications). The volume is accompanied by a rich set of notes concerning the diverse kind of specimens, among which there are various samples of alabaster, quartz, diasper, cinnabar, antimonium, sulfur, saltpeter, pumice stone, corals, and various animal fossils. It is interesting to note that the group named as Metals in the catalog’s index is then titled as Minerals in the main text. Cf. BNCF, Palatino 1121.

45 Lagusius is the translation into Hellenizing Latin of Johann Georg Hasenöhrl’s (1729–1796) surname. He was the Viennese physician who vaccinated Leopold’s family against smallpox in 1769 (Contini 2003).

46 AMG, ARMU 001, aff. 3, c. 338. In the Imperial and Royal Museum of Physics and Natural History’s history, Francesco Bartolozzi hit the headlines because he was banned from entering the museum by Grand Ducal order, after Luigi Gagli (dates uncertain), who was the museum’s cashier and guardian, sued him for slander in 1782. Bartolozzi asked for the revocation of this measure in both 1791 and in 1792 without succeeding. Fontana readmitted him only in 1799. Cf. AMG, Fab. 01, cc. 338–341, c. 556; ARMU 006, aff. 54, cc. 206–209; ARMU 003, aff. 6, cc. 29–32.

47 In this regard, it should be noted that also renewed collectors, who came to visit the Florentine mineralogical collections, were from the Habsburg territories. For instance, on 16 February 1784 the Prince of Liechtenstein visited the Imperial and Royal Museum of Physics and Natural History. He was welcomed by Gagli replacing Fontana, who was absent due to illness. Gagli wrote to Leopold that the Prince of Liechtenstein was so satisfied with the tour that he gave him a medal as a present. Gagli hoped that the prince’s kindness did not contravene the Grand Ducal provisions that prohibited the museum staff from accepting gratuities from visitors. Cf. AMG, Fab. 01, c. 546; ARMU 001, aff. 26, c. 458. Wilson (1994, 102) included the two Princes of Liechtenstein—Johann (1760–1836) and Louis (1780–1833)—among the most well-known Austrian aristocrats who were also mineral collectors. Unfortunately, the documents do not report the Prince of Liechtenstein’s name in full.

50 On the history of Tuscan mines in the 18th-century see Mori (1958), Arrigoni (1984, 1985, 1989), Vitali (1992), Nesti (2006).

51 AMG, Fab. 02, c. 1. On 27 June 1777, Fabbroni ordered the manufacturing of some metal rods to Giorgio Holzer (dates uncertain), who worked for the Reale Magona (i.e., the Royal Mines). Cf. AMG, ARMU 002, aff. 47, c. 208.

55 AMG, Fab. 03, c. 21–25. The instructions Leopold sent to Fabbroni were to analyze the quality of the soil on the hill where the quarry was located. Subsequently, he had to investigate the deposit’s size, its features and ascertain the presence of other quarries. Leopold recommended that Fabbroni repeat his instructions for all the discovered deposits. Fabbroni had then to send a detailed report to the Grand Duke stating whether it was convenient to start the excavation works. Leopold granted in advance Fabbroni the amount of 12 pure gold coins to cover his travel expenses. See also AMG, ARMU 002, aff. 90, c. 368.

57 In 1789, Il Pollacco personally sent a letter to Leopold to inform him about his findings. Fabbroni cherished this prospector, who had found several local specimens (e.g., diverse minerals coming from Volterra) for the enrichment of the museum collections, to the point of asking Leopold to give him extra money for his services. Il Pollacco was hired as the museum’s first outside employee, as shown in Cipriani et al. (2011, 52), in December 1790. Cf. AMG, Fab. 002, cc. 250–253 and 255; ARMU 004, aff. 71, c. 299.

59 AMG, Fab. 03, cc. 7, 11–13, 23–28. Fabbroni sent a heartfelt letter to thank Leopold for the generous reward he was given for the writing of the volume on 12 February 1790. Fabbroni’s book was printed in 250 copies by Gaetano Cambiagi (dates uncertain).

61 The chisel-punches represented diverse subjects such as architectural vedutas (Firenze, Museo dell’Opificio delle Pietre Dure, depositi).

62 This is exemplified by the white and brown onyx plate that Maria Theresa sent to Siries from Vienna in 1755 to make a cameo portraying the royal family (Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Inv. n. XII, 74). It should also be mentioned the catalog encompassed 168 engravings Siries released in 1759 and that were acquired by Maria Theresa (Giusti 1992, 113). Among these, there were diverse cameos realized in carnelian and gold (e.g., Vienna Kunsthistorisches Museum, Inv. n. XII, 556, 564, 566, and 619). A copy of Siries’catalog is preserved at BNCF, Catalog des pierres gravées, par Louis Siriès, orfèvre du roi de France, présentement directeur des ouvrages en pierre dure de la galerie de S. M. impériale à Florence. Florence: chez André Bonducci, 1757. Misc. Magl. 1103.1. Francis I was also interested in Siries’ works and during his visit to Firenze purchased a painting of semi-precious stones with a marine subject for his father-in-law Charles VI (1685–1740), a tray, and a table with the top in semi-precious stones with a gilded bronze frame. Siries realized for Francis I a series of more than 60 paintings in semi-precious stones, which were adorned with a gilded bronze frame, illustrating countries architecture and human figures. All the paintings were sent to Vienna and they are still preserved at the Hofburg Palace (Giusti 2006).

66 From the reading of the general inventory of Leopold’s Treasury General Wardrobe is learned that he had a huge box inlaid with semi-precious stones (Wardrobe 1); a hardstone snuffbox along with tiny boxes for an apothecary use (Wardrobe 2); various hardstones painting to be kept next to the bed, a small gold crucifix with semiprecious stones that has been described as “bello assai” (very beautiful), tiny hard stones paintings to be kept next to the bed showing the Madonna of the Ss. Annunziata; other paintings and some small piles of hard stones, and a lapis lazuli chessboard (Wardrobe 3). In the second part of the same wardrobe, there was a touchstone painting to be kept next to the bed showing a golden-silver Madonna, an urn to be used during the Holy Week made of gold leaf and precious stones, a tray realized with precious stones, diverse crowns in hardstones, a cup inlaid with semi-precious stones, some “modern” hardstones. This last type of stone material was also used to make some “beautiful” tiny cups that were kept in Wardrobe 5. In Wardrobe 6 there was a tiny cup that was described as “beautiful and modern” (“bella e moderna”) and it was used to preserve a set of crystal balls and buds (“bocciuoli”) made in golden silver. Other two similar cups were stored in Wardrobe 8. 207 pounds of silver in bars and 85 pounds of golden silver were then preserved in the room downstairs. Národní Archiv (Prague National Archive), Inventario delle robe esistenti nella stanza del tesoro detta della Guardaroba Generale, cc. 199–202. For an overview of Leopold’s archive, a part of which is currently stored at the Prague National Archive, while the other one at the Firenze State Archive see Gori and Toccafondi (2013).

67 Friedrich Samuel von Rossan Schmidt held commercial relationships with the Imperial and Royal Museum of Physics and Natural History. Between 9 January and 6 March 1793, when Ferdinand III (1769–1824) was the Grand Duke of Tuscany, Rossan sold to the museum a collection encompassing minerals, fossils, and other natural specimens. The negotiation was supervised by Fabbroni and the acquisition seemed to be a great one since it counted three boxes of minerals and books, for the settlement of which Fabbroni is forced to ask Luigi Bartolini (1745–1800) for an advanced payment of 7000 lire. Another mineral collection provided by Rossan was acquired in 1794. Cf. AMG, ARMU 007, aff. 5, c. 30; Fab. 05, c. 210, 212, 216; ARMU 009, aff. 6, c. 13.

68 Like Schmidt von Rossan, Manfredini was among the providers of the Imperial and Royal Museum of Physics and Natural History. For instance, he was involved in the so-called “agata affair”, concerning a specimen of agata that Carl Fredrik Fredenheim (1748–1803), director of the Swedish Natural History Museum, sent to Felice Fontana. The latter assumed that the sample had been sent to him as a purchase proposal and, considering it to be a fake, he proposed to Fredenheim a very low economic valuation. At the end, the Swedish minister Johan Claes Lagersvärd (1756–1836) was forced to request the formal restitution of the specimen. Cf. AMG, ARMU 005, aff. 48, c. 142.

Figure 1 – Martin van Meytens (1695–1770), Franz I. Stephan und Maria Theresia mit elf Kindern. Vienna, 1764–1765. Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Gemäldegalerie 3149.

Figure 2 – Magnifying glass belonging to Archduke Leopold. It is contained in a leather case that bears the initials “A. L. “ (Archduke Leopold) and consists of two biconvex lenses, which are set in a short ivory tube. Museo Galileo, Imss n. 3561.

Figure 3 – Portrait of Giovanni Fabbroni (1752–1822). Courtesy of Fototeca-Accademia dei Georgofili.

Figure 5 – Pompeo Batoni (1708–1797), Kaiser Joseph II und Großherzog Pietro Leopoldo von Toskana. Rome, 1769. Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Gemäldegalerie 1628.

Figure 6 – The mining overcoat Leopold wore on the occasion of his visit to the Banská Štiavnica mines in 1764. Slovenské Banské Múzeum, SH 926, 1968/00922, Fárací plášť Leopolda II, 1764. Photo by B. Babiaková.

Figures 7–8 – Details of the hammer Leopold used to mine some silver ores in Banská Štiavnica (1764). Slovenské Banské Múzeum, UH 2338, 1968/03508, Kladivko Leopolda II, 1764. Photo by K. Patschová.

Figure 9 – The handstein that was given to Archduke Joseph on the occasion of his visit to Kremnica in 1764. Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Handstein mit Bergwerk, Kremnica, 1764, Kunstkammer 4146.

Figure 10 – The handstein Leopold received as a gift during his visit to Kremnica in 1764. Matthias Scarwuth, Franz Xaver Glantz (attributed to), Handstein aus den mittelslowakischen Bergbaustädten, 1764. Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Budapest.

Figure 11 – Il trionfo d’Europa e le Quattro Stagioni, Firenze, 1771. Palazzo Pitti, Appartamento degli Arazzi, Inv. O.d.A. 1911, 835.

Figure 12 – L’Allegoria dell’Acqua. Firenze, 1765.a The State Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg Inv. n. Epr-5318. Photograph © The State Hermitage Museum. Photo by Vladimir Terebenin.

Figure 13 – L’Allegoria dell’Aria. Firenze, 1765. Musée du Louvre, Inv. MR 407.

Figure 14 – Ciborium with flower decoration in bas-relief of semi-precious stones and gilded copper canopy, ca. 1782. Courtesy of Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali e per il turismo - Museo dell’Opificio delle Pietre Dure di Firenze, Inv. n. 345.

Beyond borders. The mineralogical collecting between the Grand Duchy of Tuscany and the Habsburg territories at the end of the 18th century

In his interesting analysis of mineral collections in 18th-century France, Simon (2002) stated how history of science has reserved to 18th-century mineralogy the uncomfortable status of a “latter-day dark ages that bridges the gap between the enchanted, mystical world view of the Renaissance and the objective analytical sciences of the 19th-century”, which often1 tends to be absorbed into larger narratives such as the development of geology and the emerging branch of crystallography (e.g., Laudan 1987; Rappaport 1997; Salvia 2013). However, 18th-century mineralogy had a pivotal role in the history of natural sciences, following the debate over the nature of minerals and their taxonomy, and was also of great economic importance in the development of mining science (e.g., Dym 2008; Malaquias and Pinto 2011). According to Simon (2002), another important aspect of eighteenth-century mineralogy, which represents the core of this chapter, is mineral collecting. In this regard, Klemun et al. (2018) highlighted how naturalistic collections and museums, along with botanical gardens (Klemun 2008), can be considered as multi-coded spaces of knowledge, in which epistemes are represented by cognitive elements as well as by diverse practices and visual forms. This view is supported by Vogel (2015) who underlined how mineral collections are markers of social, cultural, and political spaces in 18th-century European societies. The act of collecting minerals is not only a scholarly practice but also a tool of state knowledge through which to exhibit a country’s natural resources and economic development. In this setting, the investigation of the notion of “motion” in reference to the specimens and their circulation become of great importance for an in-depth understanding of the multifaceted spatial and heuristic interconnections that characterized 18th-century mineral collecting. On this subject, Klemun (2012) showed how natural history cabinets and museums represent “scientific spaces”, where the specimens became scientific and culturally determined objects. However, before entering a museum display, they physically crossed what Klemun (2012) defined as a “space in between”, i.e., the route that encompasses the different spaces of knowledge (the place where a specimen was recovered and the museum location), spatial entities (e.g., means of transportation), and all the ephemeral phenomena (such as gaining, preserving, and documenting) that are involved in the acquisition and circulation of the specimens. The “space in between” is thus an analytical category that comprises scholars, mineral dealers, collectors, the practices of packing, transport, and transformation, as well as all the different forms of documentation (letters, notes, labels, and inventories) that were part of a specimen’s journey.

Based on the concept of the “space in between”, this chapter examines the way in which the mineralogical specimens from the mining territories of the House of the Habsburg became collector’s items within the Florentine Imperial and Royal Museum of Physics and Natural History between 1771 and 1790.2 Data for this study were gathered analyzing the 18th-century inventories and catalogs currently preserved at the Historical Archive of the University Museum System in Firenze. In addition, this study has investigated the documents relative to the museum’s administration that are kept in other local research institutions such as the Archive of the Galileo Museum, and the Firenze State Archive.

One of the first collections coming from a German-speaking country that was acquired by the Imperial and Royal Museum of Physics and Natural History belonging to the Hamburg merchant Peter von Spreckelsen (d. 1771). The purchase, which was made by the museum director Felice Fontana (1730–1805) between 4 and 7 October 1771, is well-described in a report he wrote from Livorno—where von Spreckelsen lived and died—to the Grand Ducal Secretariat of Finance. Here, Fontana stated that he had bought all von Spreckelsen’s collection (including showcases and shelves), which he had personally packed in 20 wooden boxes. The latter were loaded onto a river ship departing from Pisa, which would have reached Firenze in one day.3 Van Spreckelsen’s collection encompassed ca. 220 mineralogical specimens, for the greater part metallic minerals coming from the German territories, but samples from the Hungarian mining districts were also present.4 Six specimens have actually been identified in the collections of the Florentine Museum of Natural History.5

In his seminal work of 2011, Cipriani found that the acquisitions made to increase the mineralogical collections kept in the new-established Imperial and Royal Museum of Physics and Natural History were described in detail in the Cataloghi di produzioni naturali passate al Real Museo di Firenze prima dell’anno 1792,6 i.e., a volume comprising diverse catalogs7 relative to the museum acquisitions that were made between 1771 and 1792. Among these, there was the mineralogical collection that Baron Friedrich Samuel von Rossan Schmidt (1737–1794)8 proposing for acquisition in 1787; a list of minerals that were acquired by a German merchant9 including diverse specimens from the Habsburg territories;10 and a brief inventory (both in German and in Italian) of six minerals11 coming from Vienna which were sent to the Grand Duke Leopold by Count Amedeo di Stampfer (dates uncertain), who was the Vice-President of the Aulic Chamber for the Monetary and Mountain Affairs.12 The register also contains the catalog13 of the mineralogical collection belonging to Christoph Traugott Delius (1728–1779), and two catalogs illustrating the mineralogical collections that were acquired with the mediation of Ignaz von Born (1742–1791) on Leopold’s order.

Around November 1780, the Imperial and Royal Museum of Physics and Natural History acquired the mineralogical collection belonged to Christoph Traugott Delius (1728–1779), who was a professor at the Bergakademie in Schemnitz (today Banská Štiavnica, Slovakia) and the author of one of the first academic mining handbooks (Delius 1773; Battek 2015). The acquisition of Delius’ collection was formalized on 20 December 1780 and approved by the Viennese authorities eight days later for a prize of 2000 “zecchini”. However, there is no further news of the acquisition until 13 September 1783 when Luigi Dithmar Schmidweiller (dates uncertain), who was the Director of the Finance Secretariat of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany (1780–1794), wrote a letter to Albrecht Meyer (dates uncertain), an Imperial Councilor in Vienna (1783–1785), stating that—by order of the Grand Duke Leopold—Delius’ heirs would have received their payment when all the minerals had been formally delivered to Ignaz von Born.14 A document dated ten days later reported the payments that had been done for the transport of the minerals by sea from Trieste to Livorno, and then by river from Pisa to Firenze.15

The catalog of Delius’ collection was written in German and translated into Italian16 by Leopoldo de Lagusi (dates uncertain) with the scientific collaboration of Giovanni Fabbroni. On the front cover, a note informed that all the minerals were numbered and provided with chemical signs showing their qualities. The specimens were listed according to their mineralogical class,17 order, genre, and species. The Italian copy of Delius’ catalog is written in very clear handwriting up to the section Genre 6 – Lead (“Genere 6 – Piombo”). Subsequently, different handwriting—more difficult to decipher—can be discerned. Alchemical symbols are reported for some metals (e.g., the Moon for silver, Venus for copper, Mars for iron). The total number of the specimens listed by ‘genres’ is 2708, including some of considerable economic value and 36 precious stones. A complete survey of Delius’ collection is out of scope here; however, it has to be noted that almost all the minerals described in the catalog came from the Habsburg territories. Currently, 21 specimens have been found in the collections of the Natural History Museum of Firenze.18

The mineralogical collections that were acquired with Born’s mediation were delivered in two shipments and described in two different catalogs. The first one was entitled Catalogue des Mineraux achetés pour Son Altesse Royale le Grand Duc de Toscane, and was written in German despite the French title. This register, which was followed by an Italian translation,19 encompassed 1066 specimens, whose greater part came from the Habsburg mining districts. The minerals were listed in a progressive numerical order, grouped according to a systematic criterion, and briefly described.20 A note on the title page of the Italian translation informed that all the specimens were labeled with a printed number with a tiny red line. The second shipment encompassed ca. 920 minerals, which were listed in a Latin inventory.21 The total number of the minerals purchased by von Born was about 2000 specimens, the majority of which came from the Habsburg mining territories, especially from areas such as today Austria, Hungary, Transylvania, and Slovakia.

Another interesting source of information regarding the topic of this study is the museum’s General Catalog that reported the mineralogical specimens kept in the Imperial and Royal Museum of Natural History over the time. On 21 February 1775, i.e. when the museum was open to the public, Leopold ordered with a motuproprio a complete inventory of all the specimens preserved in the museum at that time. The inventory was organized according to the diverse species and reported the number of the shelves where the specimens were on display, and how many samples of each species were owned. Giuseppe Pigri (d. 1804), a professor of mechanics and an expert in mathematics (Pigri 1758) as well as the assistant of the museum’s director, and Giuseppe Panzanini (dates uncertain), Minister of the Audit Office and Unions of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany (1775–1777), were appointed to compile the inventory, while Alessandro Cerchi (dates uncertain) and Bartolomeo Coppini (dates uncertain) oversaw writing the text under dictation and then copied it into the inventory.22 Its drafting was completed in a very short time (July 1775) and turned out to be a topographical inventory, which described a specimen’s exact location and how many samples encompassed the museum collections.23 The volume reported that the geo-mineralogical collections comprised ca. 24284 specimens. Since it was completed quickly, several specimens were not inventoried. To fill these gaps, a new survey was carried out.24 In a further book25 are listed the so-called “appendices” (“appendici”), which contained all the items that had been acquired or received by other cabinets (e.g., the Royal Cabinet) from 13 July 1775 until December 1777.

On 19 November 1789, Leopold ordered that a catalog of all the specimens held in the museum—whether in storage or on display—was compiled.26 The cataloging of the mineralogical collection began between May and June 179327 and resulted in 8 volumes that corresponded to the rooms in which the collections were displayed.28 The specimens were listed following a topographical criterion, starting from those on the top shelves. The descriptions, which sometimes were also very detailed, concerned the specimens’ external features, but did not give information about their collecting history apart from the specimens acquired before 1792 (e.g., Delius’ and von Spreckelsen’s collections). The total number of the cataloged specimens was 25243, to which had to be added the artifacts realized with semi-precious stones (e.g., tables) as well as the carved rocks representing the various activities that were performed in the Habsburg silver mines. With respect to the research question, the analysis of these catalogs showed that most of the samples came from Central Europe, i.e., from Saxony to Transylvania, from Bohemia to Slovakia. A comparative study between these specimens and those that are preserved at the Firenze University Museum System, showed that 4200 specimens described in the 18th-century catalogs are still kept in the museum collections (Tab. 1).

Table 1 – Number of the specimens listed in 1793 catalogue that are still preserved in the Firenze University Museum System grouped by continent.

A significant contribution to the collection was given by specimens coming from Germany, mainly from Saxony and Harz, but also from Romania, with Transylvania and Banat as main places of origin. These are followed by the specimens coming from Slovak Republic, with the region of Banská Štiavnica as prevalent area, Austria (Tyrol, Carinthia, Styria) and Czech Republic (the Bohemian territories included between Příbram and the Joachimsthal, today Jáchymov). It should be also noted that few minerals that are today part of the mineralogical collections came from the Hungarian areas. This inconsistency may be due to the geopolitical changes that occurred during the centuries that have brought to reassign the localities of provenience according to the new spatial organization of politics.

The high incidence of minerals from the Habsburg domains listed in the 1793 catalog is not surprising, considering that many of these mining localities were already present in the Collectio Mineralium, the catalog of Leopold’s mineralogical collection that is preserved in the Historical Archives of the Firenze University Museum System. These localities are mostly mining basins located along the Carpathian Mountains, extending from Central to Eastern Europe across the territories of present-day Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, and Romania (Tab. 2).

Table 2 – Localities listed in the Collectio Mineralium corresponding to the localities reported in the 18th-century catalogs present at the Firenze University Museum System. Ancient names of the localities are reported with the modern names in brackets.

These findings, while preliminary, may help us to understand how the material and cultural dimensions of mineralogical museum collections represent a precious source of data not only to investigate the history of mineralogy and mineral collecting, but also to reconstruct the knowledge development processes. As Klemun (2012) stated: “collections are no longer seen as immutable entities, but rather as things and their meaning in flux.” These historiographical changes are well represented by the social, cultural, administrative, and economic perspectives emerging from the analysis of the circulation of the mineralogical specimens between the House of the Habsburg and the Imperial and Royal Museum of Physics and Natural History.

Another marked observation to emerge from the data is the correlation between mineralogical collecting and the advancements of mining science in the 18th-century. As noted by Wilson (1994), mines are historically the preferred places for acquiring new specimens for mineral collections. However, as pointed out by Rudwick (1996) and Klemun (2004), in the 1770s a new trend aroused in the German-speaking countries that saw collectors and scholars becoming interested in samples coming from mines to increase the geological knowledge of the territories. In this context, the collections that were sent to the Imperial and Royal Museum of Physics and Natural History and arranged by Ignaz von Born are paradigmatic of how mining played a pivotal role in both mineralogy and collecting.

As put forward by Vogel (2015), the evidence found in this study also confirms the emergence of an enlightened practice of mineral collecting throughout Europe that was associated with both scientific interests and utilitarian goals as the development of a country’s economic power. Investigating the making of the mineralogical collections, which contained specimens coming from the Habsburg territories, opens new doors not only for understanding the wide array of practices involved in the 18th-century collecting, but also for comprehending the processes of communication that link collectors, collections, and institutions. In this casestudy, the specimens whose place of origins can be traced in the Habsburg dominions, can therefore be considered as a key element of the identity-building of the Imperial and Royal Museums of Physics and Natural History in Firenze.

Archivio Storico, Sistema Museale di Ateneo (AS-SMA), Inventario generale del Real Museo, 1775.

AS-SMA, Cataloghi di produzioni naturali passate al Real Museo di Firenze prima dell’anno 1792.

AS-SMA, Continuazione dell’Inventario generale del R. Museo. Nota delle Produzioni acquistate in aumento della Raccolta di Storia naturale dentro questi – Anno 1793.

Barocchi, P., Bertalà, G. G. 1993. Collezionismo mediceo: Cosimo I, Francesco I e il Cardinale Ferdinando: documenti 1540–1587. Modena: Panini.

Barocchi, P., Ragionieri, G. 1983. Gli Uffizi: quattro secoli di una galleria. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi Firenze 20-24 settembre 1982. Firenze: L. S. Olschki.

Battek, M. J. 2015. “Christoph Traugott Delius – creator of modern mining in Middle Europa.” Hereditas Minariorum 2: 67–77.

Cipriani, C., Fantoni, L., Poggi, L., Scarpellini, A. 2011. Le collezioni mineralogiche del Museo di storia naturale dell’Università di Firenze dalle origini a oggi. Firenze: L. S. Olschki.

Cipriani, C., Scarpellini, A. 2007. Un contributo alla mineralogia settecentesca: la collezione di Giovanni Targioni Tozzetti. Firenze: L. S. Olschki.

Ciprini, C., Fantoni, L., Scarpellini, A., Poggi, L., Mazzetti, G. 2004. “Appunti per la storia del Museo di Storia Naturale dell’Università di Firenze: Le collezioni mineralogiche. Nota III: la costituzione della collezione (1790–1844)”. Atti e Memorie dell’Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere: La Colombaria 69: 255–325.

Delius, C. T. 1773. Anleitung zu der Bergbaukunst nach ihrer Theorie und Ausübung, nebst einer Abhandlung von den Grundsätzen der Berg-Kammeralwissenschaft für die Kaiserl. Königl. Schemnitzer Bergakademie entworfen. Wien: Johann Thomas Edler von Trattner.

Dym, W. 2008. “Scholars and Miners: Dowsing and the Freiberg Mining Academy.” Technology and Culture 49 (4): 833–59.

Eddy, M. D. 2008. The Language of Mineralogy John Walker, Chemistry and the Edinburgh Medical School, 1750–1800. London: Routledge.

Filetti Mazza, M., Tomasello, B. 1999. Galleria degli Uffizi 1758–1775: la politica museale di Raimondo Cocchi. Modena: Panini.

Klemun, M. 2004. “The Royal Natural History Collection in Vienna (18th century): from possessing minerals as a private treasure towards territorial ambitions as consciousness.” Scripta Geologica 4: 193–9.

Klemun, M. 2008. “Space, state, territory, region and habitat: alpine gardens in the Habsburg countries.” Studies in the History of Gardens & Designed Landscapes 28 (3–4): 414–23.

Klemun, M. 2012. “Introduction: ‘Moved’ Natural Objects – ‘Spaces in Between’.” HOST, Journal of History of Science and Technology 5: 9–16.

Klemun, M., Loskutova, M., Fedotova, A. 2018. “Skulls and blossoms: Collecting and the meaning of scientific objects as resources from the 18th to the 20th century.” Centaurus 60: 231–7.

Laudan, R. 1987. From Mineralogy to Geology: the Foundations of a Science, 1650–1830. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Malaquias, I., Pinto, M. S. 2011. “Searching for Modernization—Instruments in the Development of Earth Sciences in Portugal (18th Century).” Centaurus 53 (2): 116–34.

Oldroyd, D. 1998. Sciences of the Earth. Studies in the History of Mineralogy and Geology. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Pigri, G. 1758. Nuove tavole degli elementi dei numeri dall’1 al 10000 di Giuseppe Pigri…: con le quali si abbreviano le più difficili operazioni dell’aritmetica, molto più facilmente e sicuramente si faccia con quelle dei logaritmi. Pisa: per Gio. Paolo Giovannelli e compagni.

Rappaport, R. 1967. “Lavoisier’s Geologic Activities, 1763–1792.” Isis 58 (3): 375–84.

Rappaport, R. 1997. When Geologists Were Historians: 1665–1750. New York: Cornell University Press.

Rudwick, M. 1996. “Minerals, strata and fossils.” In Cultures of natural history, edited by N. Jardine, J. A. Secord, E. C. Spary, 266–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Salvia, S. 2013. “Emil Wohlwill’s “Entdeckung des Isomorphismus”: A Nineteenth-Century “Material Biography” of Crystallography.” Ambix 60 (3): 255–84.

Seidler, A. 2019. „Der Netzwerker Ignaz von Born“. In Aufgeklärte Sozietäten, Literatur und Wissenschaft in Mitteleuropa, hrsg. von D. Breuer, G. Tüskés, 381–405. Berlin-Boston: De Gruyter.

Simon, J. 2002. “Mineralogy and mineral collections in 18th century France.” Endeavour 26 (4): 132–6.

Tongiorgi Tomasi, L. 1988. “Collezioni e immagini naturalistiche in Toscana dal Cinque al Settecento. La nascita dei Musei Scientifici e il rapporto arte-scienza”. Museologia Scientifica 5 (1–2): 31–67.

Vaccari, E. 1996. “Cultura scientifico-naturalista ed esplorazione del territorio: Giovanni Arduino e Giovanni Targioni Tozzetti”. In La politica della scienza: Toscana e stati italiani nel tardo Settecento: atti del Convegno di Firenze 27–29 gennaio 1994, a cura di G. Barsanti, V. Becagli, R. Pasta, 243–63. Firenze: L. S. Olschki.

Vogel, J. 2015. “Stony Realms: Mineral Collections as Markers of Social, Cultural and Political Spaces in the 18th and Early 19th Century.” Historical Social Research 40 (1): 301–20.

Wilson, W. E. 1994. “The history of mineral collecting 1530–1799.” Mineralogical Record 25 (6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1 As stated by Simon (2002), one of the few exceptions avoiding this tendency are the studies that focus on the contribution of 18th-century mineralogy to Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier’s chemical revolution (e.g., Rappaport 1967; Oldroyd 1998). A complete survey of the connections between mineralogy and chemistry in the 18th-century is beyond the scope of this chapter, nonetheless it is noteworthy to mention the work of the English naturalist John Walker (1731–1803) (Eddy 2008).

2 This timespan indicates the beginning of the relocation (1771) of the naturalist collections that were housed in the Royal Gallery (today the Uffizi Galleries) to Palazzo Torrigiani, i.e., the building where the Imperial and Royal Museum of Physics and Natural History would have been accommodated. The year 1790 can be considered as the date that marked the drawing up of the museum inventory. The inventory of the naturalistic and anatomical collections was proposed by Giovanni Fabbroni (1752–1822), who was the museum’s vice-director at that time, and approved by the Grand Ducal Secretariat on 9–13 January 1790. The writer in charge of the inventory of the mineralogical and anatomical collections was the “Maestro di scritto” (Master of the Writing) Giovacchino Frosini (dates uncertain). Attilio Zuccagni (1754–1807), who was a professor of natural sciences, physician, explorer, and Superintendent at Botanical Garden, inventoried the specimens that were part of the museum exhibition. Archivio Museo Galileo (AMG), ARMU Affari 004, aff. 6, c. 70. On the origin of the naturalistic collections that were preserved at the Royal Gallery, which were arranged by the members of the Medici family, see Barocchi and Ragionieri (1983), Tongiorgi Tomasi (1988), Barocchi and Bertalà (1993), Vaccari (1996), Filetti Mazza and Tomasello (1999), Cipriani et al. (2004), Cipriani and Scarpellini (2007).

4 Cipriani (2011) stated that the inventory of von Spreckelsen’s collection is reported in an undated register entitled Cataloghi e Fogli relativi ai prodotti naturali esistenti nel R. Museo; ed ad alcune macchine o Istrumenti pervenuti al medesimo, which is currently preserved at the Historical Archive of the Galileo Museum. Here the specimens belonging to von Spreckelsen’s collection are listed under the capital letter V.

5 These are a copper specimen from Bad Lauterberg im Harz (Inv. No. G38), two samples of chalcopyrite from Blankenburg and Hohegeiss (Inv. Nos. G1379 and G1444), a clinochlore from Brocken (Inv. n. G11768), a tetrahedrite from Ruis in Switzerland (Inv. No. G1516), and a malachite from Naila in Upper Franconia, Germany (Inv. No. G7992).

6 Archivio Storico–Sistema Museale di Ateneo (AS-SMA), Cataloghi di produzioni naturali passate al Real Museo di Firenze prima dell’anno 1792. A copy of this document can be found in the Galileo Digital Library.

7 The volume contains 24 catalogs and inventories of naturalistic collections that were acquired by the Imperial and Royal Museum of Physics and Natural History at the end of the 18th-century. Some of them belonged to Italian naturalists such as Ermenegildo Pini (1739–1825), Giovanni Mariti (1736–1806), Giovanni Fabbroni (1752–1822), Pietro Rossi (1738–1804), and Stefano Andrea Renier (1759–1830). Others belonged to foreign scholars as Déodat de Dolomieu (1750–1801), Adolf Modéer (1739–1799), and Abraham Gevers (1712–1780).

8 The catalog reported a list of 17 minerals (e.g., lead and antimony samples) that Schmidt von Rossan sent to Luigi Dithmar Schmidweiller (dates uncertain) on 3 September 1787. This inventory represents the second part of a mineralogical collection (the first part was sold in 1786) that von Rossan tried to sell to the Imperial and Royal Museum of Physics and Natural History without succeeding. AS-FI, Imperiale e Reale Corte Lorenese, f. 399.

9 The inventory was entitled Nota di alcune Pietre e Minerali acquistati da un mercante tedesco per questo R: Museo di Firenze. The merchant’s name was unspecified, but the minerals the museum acquired on this occasion were marked with a capital letter “O” that was crossed twice by the copyist. The collection was purchased for 1007 French lire and most of the 103 specimens were ore minerals. Among them, there was a “heavy and calcareous spar”, and a specimen of “colorful Icelandic chalcedony” which should have been remarkable judging by their price (60 French lire). Another note, which was written in Latin, mentioned the acquisition of samples from an anonymous German merchant. It referred to 39 minerals without any data on their monetary value. Among them there was a specimen of native gold from Transylvania. Finally, a third list reported the purchase from a German dealer named Dolmar (dates uncertain) of 25 specimens that came from diverse European areas.

10 Among these, seven minerals came from the Hungarian areas (e.g., a spat specimen from Banská Štiavnica), six from Carinthia, three from Ischl in Upper Austria, while a lead specimen and a pseudo-galena came from Bohemia and Transylvania.

11 The specimens were extracted from the caves located in Obervellach as well as from the quarries situated in Bleiberg (“Montagna di Piombo”). They were a specimen of iridescent yellow ore (“miniera di rame gialla a guisa di coda di pavone”); a copper silica stone (“pietra silicea di rame” – Kupfer Kies); a red and yellow sulfur from the copper mines in Obervellach (“zolfo rosso e giallo come nasce dalle miniere di rame di Obervellach”); a molybdenum with white crystallized lead spatum from Bleiberg (“molybdena con lo spato bianco di Piombo cristallizzato di Bleyberg”); a yellow lead spathum from Bleiberg (“spato di piombo giallo di Bleiberg”); molybdenum with transparent lead spathum crystals (“molybdena con cristalli di spato di piombo trasparenti”). The specimens were placed in the museum exhibition according to their mineralogical classes together with a copy of their original paper labels.

12 Camera Aulica per gli Affari Monetari e Montanistici. Cf. Il Mentore Perfetto de’ Negozianti, ovvero guida ed istruzione per rendere più agevoli le loro speculazioni, vol. 2, 1793: 12. On the scientific activity of Amedeo Stampfer, who was also in contact with Giovanni Antonio Scopoli (1723–1788), see Opuscoli scelti sulle scienze e sulle arti tratti dagli atti delle accademie, e dalle altre collezioni filosofiche e letterarie, dalle opere più recenti inglesi, tedesche, francesi, latine, e italiane, e da manoscritti originali, e inediti. Presso G. Marelli, Milano: 226; Archeologia Romana, vol. 5 (1779): 269–71; Gazzetta Universale (1793): 431.

13 This catalog was entitled Catalogo originale di una copiosa Raccolta di Minerali posseduta dal Consigl:re Delius e passata dopo la sua morte a questo R: Museo di Firenze.

14 On Born’s scientific works and his relationships with the House of Habsburg see, for example, Seidler (2019). For the acquisition of Delius’ collection on behalf of Leopold, Born was rewarded by Leopold with a snuffbox that was made by Persian lapis lazuli. It was very precious (its value was estimated at over 100 “zecchini”) because the gemstones were of a “very good” color. Furthermore, it was carved from a single stone and manufactured in Rome. AMG, ARMU Affari 001, aff. 168, c. 150.

16 Introduzione Italiana del precedente Catalogo di Minerali di Delius, fatta in Pisa dal Sig: Leopoldo de Lagusi con l’assistenza del Sig:re Gio’ Fabbroni.

17 The mineralogical classes reported in the catalog of Delius’ collection are Earths (“Terre”), which included the rocks, Salts (“Sali”), Flammable ores (“Corpi Infiammabili)”, Metals and Semi-metals (“Metalli e Semimetalli”).

18 Eight marble specimens (Inv. Nos. M831, M837, M842, M846, M851, M870, M901, M921), three quartz specimens (Inv. Nos. G4690 comprising two specimens and G4695), two calcite specimens (Inv. Nos. G7089, G7175), a specimen of opal (Inv. No. G1151), fluorite (Inv. No. G3204), actinolite (Inv. No. G11118), biotite (Inv. No. G11619), and amber (four specimens, Inv. No. G12718).

19 Introduzione Italiana del preced:e Catalogo di minerali spediti al R: Museo dal Cav:e De Born.

20 The catalog reported basic information such as a mineral’s identification and its geographical provenance. No taxonomic data were listed.

21 Catalogus Fossilium quae Florentine Museum transmittuntur ab Equite Born Musei Caesarei Vindobonensis Praeside.

22 AMG, ARMU Affari 002, aff. 36, c. 168. Alessandro Cerchi and Bartolomeo Coppini were two copyists who were assigned by the Grand Ducal administration to the Imperial and Royal Museum of Physics and Natural History. Cerchi was at the museum from 1775 to 1784, while Coppini worked just for the compilation of the first museum inventories (1774–1777).

24 AS-FI, Imperiale e Real Corte Lorenese, f. 5257. The new inventory was entitled Aumento all’Inventario generale del Real Gabinetto. Nota dei generi che appartenevano al Real Gabinetto prima del 13 luglio mille-settecento-settanta-cinque. A copy of this inventory is preserved at the Historical Archive of the Firenze University Museum System.

25 AS-FI, Imperiale e Real Corte Lorenese, f. 5258. This further inventory was entitled Continuazione dell’Inventario del Real Gabinetto e sua Biblioteca a tutto il Dicembre 1777. Prima parte nella quale sono descritti tutti i generi pervenutili tanto dalla Real Guardaroba che da qualunque altra parte alla riserva dei Generi provvisti dal medesimo Gabinetto (dopo il 13 luglio mille-settecento-settanta-cinque a tutto dicembre mille-settecento-settanta-sette). A copy of the inventory is preserved at the Historical Archive of the Firenze University Museum System. Differently from the aforementioned inventory, which was just a list of samples sorted by numbers, the latter described the specimens according to the date of their acquisition and geographical provenance. A capital letter (A, B or C) was assigned to the specimens to indicate in which room they were displayed.

27 AS-SMA, Continuazione dell’Inventario generale del R. Museo. Nota delle Produzioni acquistate in aumento della Raccolta di Storia naturale dentro questi – Anno 1793.

28 The rooms that were devoted to the exhibition of the mineralogical collections (i.e. rooms from IX to XVI) were located on the second floor of Palazzo Torrigiani.

Figure 1 – Map of the Supreme Court of Justice of Firenze. In: Luigi Giachi, Descrizione Geografica dello Stato Fiorentino nel Granducato di Toscana diviso nelle sue vere Giurisdizioni di ciascun Vicariato. 1782, Tomo Primo, n. 29. Courtesy of Ministero della Cultura/ Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Firenze, Palatino 1093.

Figure 2 – Portrait of Felice Fontana (1730–1785). In: Giulio Provenzal, Profili bio-bibliografici di chimici italiani: sec. XV- sec. XIX. Roma, Istituto nazionale medico farmacologico Serono, 1930, Tav. VIII. Museo Galileo, Cons. Biografie F003.

Figure 3 – Chalcopyrite, Blankenburg, Germany, Inv. n. G1379 (size 6x3x4 cm). Natural History Museum – Museums System, University of Firenze. Photo by Stefano Dominici.

Figure 4 – Chalcopyrite, Hohegeiss, Germany, Inv. n. G1444 (size 6x9x6 cm). Natural History Museum – Museums System, University of Firenze. Photo by Stefano Dominici.

Figure 5 – Clinochlore, Brocken, Germany, Inv. n. G11768 (size 4x2x2 cm). Natural History Museum – Museums System, University of Firenze. Photo by Stefano Dominici.

Figure 6 – Tetrahedrite, Ruis, Switzerland, Inv. n. G1516 (size 3x5x3 cm). Natural History Museum – Museums System, University of Firenze. Photo by Stefano Dominici.

Figure 7 – Malachite, Naila, Germany, Inv. n. G7992 (size 4x6x4 cm). Natural History Museum – Museums System, University of Firenze. Photo by Stefano Dominici.

Figure 8 – Group of marble tiles belonging to the Delius Collection. From left-right, top to bottom: pink marble, Seravezza, Apuane Alps, Tuscany, Italy, Inv. n. M901 (size 8x8x0.5 cm); red-brown marble with red and yellow spots, Transylvania, Romania, Inv. n. M851 (size 7x7x0.5 cm); gray-black marble with white veins, Tyrol, Austria, Inv. n. M842 (size 7x7x0.5 cm); red and white marble, Sicily, Italy, Inv. n. M846 (size 8x8x0.5 cm); red marble with green veins and fractures filled with white calcite, Moravia, Czech Republic, Inv n. M921 (size 7x7x0.5 cm); yellow-green marble with red and white spots, unknown provenance, Inv. n. M837 (size 7x7x0.5 cm); green-brown marble with black spots, Tyrol, Austria, Inv. n. M831 (size 7x7x0.5 cm); red marble with white spots, Bohemia, Czech Republic Inv. n. M870 (size 13x10x0.5 cm). Natural History Museum – Museums System, University of Firenze. Photo by Stefano Dominici.

Figure 9 – Quartz, Unknown provenance, Inv. n. G4690 (size 12x8x3 cm). Natural History Museum – Museums System, University of Firenze. Photo by Stefano Dominici.

Figure 10 – Quartz (var. ferruginous), Unknown provenance, Inv. n. G4695 (size 13x8x1 cm). Natural History Museum – Museums System, University of Firenze. Photo by Stefano Dominici.

Figure 11 – Calcite, Unknown provenance, Inv. n. G7089 (size 10x8x5 cm). Natural History Museum – Museums System, University of Firenze. Photo by Stefano Dominici.

Figure 12 – Calcite, Unknown provenance, Inv. n. G7175 (size 7x12x5 cm). Natural History Museum – Museums System, University of Firenze. Photo by Stefano Dominici.

Figure 13 – Fluorite, Saxony, Germany, Inv. n. G3204 (size 5x5x5 cm). Natural History Museum – Museums System, University of Firenze. Photo by Stefano Dominici.

Figure 14 – Actinolite (Amphibole supergroup), Banat, Romania, Inv. n. G11118 (size 5x12x7 cm). Natural History Museum – Museums System, University of Firenze. Photo by Stefano Dominici.

Figure 15 – Biotite (Mica group), Bohemia, Czech Republic, Inv. n. G11619 (size 4x9x7 cm). Natural History Museum – Museums System, University of Firenze. Photo by Stefano Dominici.

Figure 16 – Amber, Unknown provenance, Inv. n. G12718 (various sizes; max. 2x1x1 cm). Natural History Museum – Museums System, University of Firenze. Photo by Stefano Dominici.

* The initials in brackets (e.g. U2) indicate the location of the mine within the map shown in figure 16.

Annarita Franza, University of Florence, Italy, annarita.franza@unifi.it, 0000-0003-3146-6957

Johannes Mattes, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria, johannes.mattes@oeaw.ac.at, 0000-0002-8546-7149

Giovanni Pratesi, University of Florence, Italy, g.pratesi@unifi.it, 0000-0001-6329-901X

Annarita Franza, Johannes Mattes, Giovanni Pratesi (edited by), Collectio mineralium. The Catalog of Holy Roman Emperor Leopold’s II Mineralogical Collection, © 2022 Author(s), content CC BY 4.0 International, metadata CC0 1.0 Universal, published by Firenze University Press (www.fupress.com), ISSN 2704-6044 (online), ISBN 978-88-5518-494-6 (PDF), DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-494-6

Figure 4 – Windschachter Prospect, Banská Štiavnica. In: Goldenes Bergbuch, 1764. Courtesy of Ministero della Cultura/ Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Firenze, Palatino 1094.

Figure 6 – Map of the Banská Štiavnica mines. Ministerstvo Vnútra Sr, Štátny Archív V Banskej Bystrici - Pobočka Banská Štiavnica.

Figure 8 – Glanzenberg Adit in Banská Štiavnica. Here Archduke Leopold served as miner on the occasion of his royal visit in 1764.

Figure 9 – Josephi Stollner. In: Goldenes Bergbuch, 1764. Courtesy of Ministero della Cultura/ Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Firenze, Palatino 1094.

Figure 12 – Kremnica Prospect. Goldenes Bergbuch, 1764. Courtesy of Ministero della Cultura/ Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale Firenze, Palatino 1094.

Figure 16 – Map of the mines cited in the Collectio Mineralium. Map by Johannes Mattes.

i The term “Schaar-Cluft” indicates a slot that joins with another. See: Beurard, Jean Baptiste. 1809. Dictionnaire Allemand-Français contenant les termes propres à l’exploration des mines, à la minéralogie et à la minéralogie, p. 382. Paris: Chez Mongie, jeune, Libraire.

ii Franz Zippe describes the term “Saal-Band” as follows: “The minerals have either grown directly on the rock of the mountain mass in the corridors or there is a peculiar, sometimes clayey mass between the rock and the grown minerals, which is usually called the band.” See: Zippe, Franz Xaver. 1846. Anleitung zur Gestein- und Bodenkunde oder das Wichtigste aus der Mineralogie und Geognosie, p. 383. Prague: J. G. Calve’sche Buchhandlung. The historical English term “rider” or “rither” means an ore-deposit overlying the principal vein.

i In mining, the term “Erz-Stufe” indicates a “hewn or chipped specimen of ore or stone, a handstone.” See: Krünitz, Johann Georg. hrsg. von. 1841. Oeconomische Encyclopädie, vol. 177, p. 186 [article: Stufe]. Berlin: Pauli. Krünitz Enzyklopädie online: <http://www.kruenitz1.uni-trier.de/>.

i The term “Horn-Gestein” indicates hornblende. See: Reuss, Franz Ambrosius. 1798. Dictionnaire de minéralogie, p. 84. Hof: G.A. Grau. It is worth mentioning that the term “Hornstein” means quartz (var. chalcedony, chert). See: Fourestier, Jeffrey de. 1999. Glossary of Mineral Synonyms. The Canadian Mineralogist, Special Publication, p. 152.

i The term “Bleiglanz” is a synonym for common lead glance. See: Leonhard, Carl Caesar. 1809. Handbuch einer allgemeinen topographischen Mineralogie, vol. 3, p. 321. Frankfurt am Main: Bei Johann Christian Hermann.

ii The term “löthig” means “having or containing one lot or half an ounce, from the word ‘lot’, a certain weight.” See: Küttner, Carl Gottlieb, Nicholson, William. 1809. New and complete Dictionary of the German language for Englishmen. According to the German Dictionary of Mr. J. C. Adelung, vol. 2, p. 490. Leipzig: E.B. Schwickert. Translated in the following as “lots.” In this regard, it is worth analyzing the weight units cited in the text. According to Metrà (1793–1797), the unit to measure gold and silver in Vienna divided as follows: Mark, Loth, Quintel, Ducaten, Pfennige, Mandel Gran. One mark corresponds to 16 lots, which are equivalent to 256 Pfennige (dinars). See: Metrà, Andrea. 1793–1797. Il Mentore perfetto de’ negozianti, ovvero Guida sicura de’ medesimi, ed istruzione, per rendere ad essi più agevoli, e meno incerte le loro speculazioni, 5 voll. Presso Wage Fleis e Comp.: Trieste. These observations are also reported in a manuscript dated back at the beginning of the 19th-century that is now preserved at the Central National Library of Firenze. The volume, which shows the stamp of the Museum of Physics and Natural History, is entitled Pesi, misure e monete delle principali piazze dell’Europa (“Weights, measurements and moneys of the main Europe’s marketplace”). At page 112, it is said that there is only one weight unit in Vienna, i.e. the lot worthing diverse pounds depending on the object’s quality. For example, the common pound (i.e., the weight unit employed to evaluate any kind of merchandise with the exception of gold, silver, jewellery, and apothecaries’ products) is worth 32 lots, the pound utilized by apothecaries 24 lots, while the pound used by the jewellers is estimated to be 16 lots. The mark, which represents a precious metals weight unit from the 11th-century, is valued at 16 lots. See: Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze, Palatino 1030, cc. 112–113.

i The production of copper containing cuprous oxide in a special furnace is known as “Gaarmachen” (nearly equivalent to “refining”), and the copper is called “Gaar Kupfer” (nearly equivalent to “dry” copper). Quotation of Schnabel, Carl. 1905. Handbook of Metallurgy. Translated by Henry Louis. 2nd Issue, vol. 1: Copper – Lead – Silver – Gold, p. 238. London: Macmillan.

i “Klein-speisig” means that an object is consisting of small shiny cubes or leaves. See: Krünitz, Johann Georg. hrsg. von. 1787. Oeconomische Encyclopädie, vol. 40, p. 327 [article: Klein=speisig]. Berlin: Pauli.

i In mining, a “Gefährte” is a vein or chasm, which runs parallel to the main corridor. See: Hartwig, Otto Ludwig. hrsg. von. 1782. Johann Karl Gottfried Jacobssons Technologisches Wörterbuch. Part II, p. 37. Berlin-Stettin: Nicolai.

i The term “Rösch-Gewüx” means silver ore containing arsenic, iron and copper or black silver-glance. See: Sporschil, John. edited by. 1830. A complete dictionary of the English and German and German and English Languages, vol. 2, p. 503. Leipzig: A.G. Liebeskind; and Lucas, Newton Ivory. 1868. Englisch-Deutsches und Deutsch-Englisches Wörterbuch, vol. 2, p. 1597. Bremen: Schünemann. See also: Zepharovich, Victor von. 1873. Mineralogisches Lexicon für das Kaiserthum Österreich, vol. 2: 1858–1872, p. 309. Wien: W. Braumüller. In Hungarian mining towns, accumulations of small crystals of stephanite or polybasite are usually called “Rösch gewächs”, in contrast to argentite, called “Weichgewächs.”

ii The term “Erz-Stufe” indicates a “hewn or chipped piece of ore or stone, a handstone.” See: Krünitz, Johann Georg. hrsg. von. 1841. Oeconomische Encyclopädie, vol. 177, p. 186 [article: Stufe]. Berlin: Pauli.

iii “Kalch“/“kalchartig” (or “Kalk”/”kalkartig”) is a synonym for chalk/calcareous. See: Krünitz, Johann Georg. hrsg. von. 1784. Oeconomische Encyclopädie, vol. 32, p. 610 [article: Kalk]. Berlin: Pauli.

i The term “Bergart” means different kinds of ore (mountain kinds). See: Jablonski, Johann Theodor. 1748. Allgemeines Lexikon der Künste und Wissenschaften, p. 123. Königsberg-Leipzig: Hartung.

The term “Küeß” means pyrite. As stated by Petrini (1792), it also indicates an iron ore mineralized by sulfur and arsenic (i.e. white pyrite, gray pyrite, gray-turquoise pyrite, and marcasite). See: Petrini, Giovanni Vincenzo. 1792. Gabinetto mineralogico del Collegio Nazareno descritto secondo i caratteri esterni e distribuito a norma de principi costitutivi, vol. 2, p. 365. Roma: presso I Lazzarini.

The term “Lasurerz” means bornite, whereas “Lazur” indicates azurite. See: Bayliss, Peter. 2011. Glossary of obsolete mineral names. The Mineralogical Record. 2nd Issue, p. 540.

i The term “Spiegel spath” indicates “specular spath.” It is a kind of spar, which consists of smooth, reflecting leaves. According to Demidov (1806), “Spiegel-Spath” is a calcareous spar formed by three-sided pyramids of yellow and sparkling brown color. See: Krünitz, Johann Georg. hrsg. von. 1833. Oeconomische Encyclopädie, vol. 137, p. 506 [article: Spiegelspath]. Berlin: Pauli. Demidov, Pavel Grigorevic. 1806. Minéraux et pétrifications, vol. 2, p. 100. Moscow: Schildbach; Valentini, Francesco. 1836. Gran dizionario grammatico-pratico italiano-tedesco, tedesco-italiano, vol. 2, p. 1054. Lipsia: Barth.

In mining, the term “Gelf-Erz” (or “Kupferkies”) indicates yellow copper ore, which is chalcopyrite. The term also indicates a copper gold mine. See: Petrini, Giovanni Vincenzo. 1792. Gabinetto mineralogico del Collegio Nazareno descritto secondo i caratteri esterni e distribuito a norma de principi costitutivi, vol. 2, p. 72. Roma: presso I Lazzarini; Joyce, Frederick. 1827. Praktische Anleitung zur chemischen Analytik und Probierkunst. Translated by Joseph Waldauf von Waldenstein, p. 204. Vienna: Mörschner und Jasper; Fourestier, Jeffrey de. 1999. Glossary of Mineral Synonyms. The Canadian Mineralogist, Special Publication, p. 129.

i The term “Pech Kupfer Erzt” (copper pitch ore or pitchy copper ore) indicates a mixture of tenorite + chrysocolla + goethite + malachite + MnO. See: Fourestier, Jeffrey de. 1999. Glossary of Mineral Synonyms. The Canadian Mineralogist, Special Publication, p. 276. Bayliss, Peter. 2011. Glossary of obsolete mineral names. The Mineralogical Record. 2nd Issue, p. 238.

i The expression “Küeßige Gelf Erzt Stufe” indicates “a specimen of yellow copper pyrite ore”, i.e., chalcopyrite. See: Egleston, Thomas. 1886. Catalogue of Minerals and Synonyms, p. 42. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.

i “Hangend” is a mining term meaning a location designation for rock that overlays a reference layer. In mining, it normally indicates the roof of a gallery. See: Murawski, Hans, Meyer, Wilhelm. edited by. 2010. Geologisches Wörterbuch. 12th Issue, p. 70. Cham: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.

According to Duhamel (1800), in Hungarian mines, the term “Bleyschuss” means galena. See: Duhamel, [Jean-Pierre-François Guillot-]. 1800. Dictionnaire portatif allemand et français des termes de mines, p. 32. Paris: chez Courcier.

i The term “Eisenschuß” or “Eisenmal” indicates a “dark, brown, valueless mountain type” or “similar valueless rock, which breaks with the hermaphrodites or tin ores.” See: Krünitz, Johann Georg. hrsg. von. 1785. Oeconomische Encyclopädie, vol. 10, p. 690 [article: Eisenmal]. Berlin: Pauli.

i According to Petrini (1792), the term “Speiss” indicates “mispickel”, i.e. white arsenical pyrite. The term “mispickel” actually refers to arsenopyrite. See: Petrini, Giovanni Vincenzo. 1792. Gabinetto mineralogico del Collegio Nazareno descritto secondo i caratteri esterni e distribuito a norma de principi costitutivi, vol. 2, p. 100. Roma: presso I Lazzarini; Fourestier, Jeffrey de. 1999. Glossary of Mineral Synonyms. The Canadian Mineralogist, Special Publication, p. 231.

i The term “pfauen Schweifigen” means peacock tarnish, which is a balanced assemblage of yellow, green, blue, and red colors with a dark shade of brown. Blue and yellow generally predominate, and yellow seems to be the ground color. It is sometimes found on yellow copper ore. See: Hoffmann, Christian A. 1811. Handbuch der Mineralogie, vol. 1, p. 87. Freiberg: Craz und Gerlach; Werner, Abraham Gottlob. 1849–1850. A Treatise on the External Characters of Minerals, edited by the Wernerian Club, p. 59. London: Wernerian Club.

i “Fahlerz” or “Fallerz” means grey copper. It may indicate tetrahedrite or tennantite. See: Freiesleben, Johann Carl. 1848. Vom Vorkommen der Kupfererze in Sachsen, p. 132. Freiberg: Engelhardt; Bayliss, Peter. 2011. Glossary of obsolete mineral names. The Mineralogical Record. 2nd Issue, p. 310.

i The term “Schwarzerzt” means “black silver-ore.” It may indicate alabandite, stephanite, and tetrahedrite. See: Beil, Johann A., Karmarsch, Karl. 1853. Technologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen, französischen und englischen Sprache, p. 519. Wiesbaden: Verlag von Christian Wilhelm Kreidel; Bayliss, Peter. 2011. Glossary of obsolete mineral names. The Mineralogical Record. 2nd Issue, p. 862.

i The term “Eisenblüte”—and all its spelling variants, the most common being “Eisenblüth”—is an old German name for “aragonite.” In the early 19th-century literature it also indicates the growth of mineral formations in caves as stalagmites and stalactites. Melzer used it to describe an unspecified mineral sample. According to Petrini (1792), “Eisen bluth” indicates “flos ferri.” See: Petrini, Giovanni Vincenzo. 1792. Gabinetto mineralogico del Collegio Nazareno descritto secondo i caratteri esterni e distribuito a norma de principi costitutivi, vol. 2, p. 82. Roma: presso I Lazzarini.

ii The term “Schmölz” does not refer to a location, but to the modern German term “Schmelze” that means smelted ores in a smeltery. See: Newton, Ivory Lucas. 1868. Englisch-Deutsches und Deutsch-Englisches Wörterbuch, p. 1712. Bremen: Schünemann.

i The term “Lebererz” can indicate various types of minerals as brown and liver-colored “feather ore”, liver- and yellow-colored copper ore or red-colored ironstone. See: Adelung, Johann Christoph. 1796. Grammatisch-kritisches Wörterbuch der Hochdeutschen Mundart. 2nd Issue, vol. 2, p. 1959. Wien: Bauer.

i The term “angeflohen” means “tinge.” See: Archivio Museo di Storia Naturale di Firenze (AMSN). … Cataloghi delle produzioni naturali passate al Real Museo prima del 1792. …

i The term “braun Kupfer” indicates bornite, whereas “grün Kupfer” means malachite. The latter term indicates what in Hungarian mines is known as mountain-green (“verd de montagne”), which is found within copper strands. See: Duhamel, [Jean-Pierre-François Guillot-]. 1800. Dictionnaire portatif allemand et français des termes de mines, p. 113. Paris: chez Courcier; Bayliss, Peter. 2011. Glossary of obsolete mineral names. The Mineralogical Record. 2nd Issue, p. 151, p. 386. Both of the above-mentioned minerals are not listed in the Mindat database for Oravița.

Despite the fact that today marcasite is a well identified mineralogical species, in the 18th-century the term “marcasiten” meant arsenopyrite (“arsenic-kies”). On this basis, it is difficult to determine which mineralogical species the author was referring to, because gold may be contained in arsenian pyrite, marcasite, and arsenopyrite. See: Reuss, Franz Ambrosius. 1798. Dictionnaire de minéralogie, p. 386. Hof: G.A. Grau.

i According to Bayliss (2011) the term “Gelf-Erz” means Ag-rich chalcopyrite or Ag- or Au-rich pyrite. In this case, the link between the terms “gelf” and “Küeß” emphasizes the occurrence of a pyrite with a high content of silver. See: Bayliss, Peter. 2011. Glossary of obsolete mineral names. The Mineralogical Record. 2nd Issue, p. 367.

i “Schüssig” is a term used by miners and means “haltig” (“containing an uncertain/low amount of”). See: Wünsch, Christian Ernst. 1781. Briefwechsel über die Naturprodukte. Part I: Von den Mineralien, p. 356. Leipzig: Breitkopf.

i The term “Kern” is a synonym for “Spatheisenstein”, which means siderite. See: Reuss, Franz Ambrosius. 1798. Dictionnaire de minéralogie, p. 92. Hof: G.A. Grau; Bayliss, Peter. 2011. Glossary of obsolete mineral names. The Mineralogical Record. 2nd Issue, p. 920.

i The expression “löthen Schmunde” most likely refers to “valueless rock residue.”

i The term “Eisenstein” means ironstone. However, iron-bearing specimens usually do not contain silver-bearing minerals (in particular, if they are oxides or oxyhydroxides, like in this case).

The Mindat database do not report achantite among the mineralogical species that have been found in this locality so far.

i The term “Kernstufe” indicates “brown hematite”, which means goethite. See: Cuyper, Antoine Charles de. edited by. 1869. Revue de l’exposition de 1867: publiée par la revue universelle des mines, de la métallurgie, des travaux publics, des sciences et des arts appliqués à l’industrie, vol. 3, p. 571. Paris: Noblet; Fourestier, Jeffrey de. 1999. Glossary of Mineral Synonyms. The Canadian Mineralogist, Special Publication, p. 52; Bayliss, Peter. 2011. Glossary of obsolete mineral names. The Mineralogical Record. 2nd Issue, p. 157.

ii “Branderz” means bituminous cinnabar-ore. See: Ebers, John. edited by. 1796. The new and complete dictionary of the German and English dictionary, vol. 1, p. 452. Leipzig: Breitkopf and Haertel.

iii Volkelt describes “drusen” as different “types of spar, in a holey structure, or caves and fissures in the mountains.” See: Volkelt, Johann Gottlieb. 1775. Historische Mineralogie oder Beschreibung der Mineralien, p. 109. Breslau-Leipzig: Gutsch.

iv It is very likely that the term “Vütterung” is an old expression of “(Ver)Witterung” (weathering). Or it means “Fütterung” (filling).

i The term “Graupen” indicates an ore in form of granules. See: Minerophilus, [Johann Caspar Zeisig]. 1743. Neues und Curieuses Bergwercks-Lexicon, p. 274. Chemnitz: Joh. Christoph und Joh. David Stößeln/Stößel.

i The term “Glanz-Erzt” usually indicates achantite. In the 18th-century scientific literature it also means galena. However, it is unlikely that the cataloguer referred to these mineralogical species, while describing the sample. Indeed, it contained up to 60 pounds of refined copper.

i The term “Kupfer Nückl” indicates nickeline. In 1694, Urban Hjärne (1641–1724) named it “Kupfernickel” after Old Nick, a mischievous and deceptive spirit of German mythology. The ore seemed to contain copper but yielded none. The term also refers to the German words meaning “copper nickel” due to ore’s pale color and nickel content. According to Petrini (1792), “Kupfernickel” indicates a nickel specimen containing sulfur, arsenic, iron and cobalt. See: Petrini, Giovanni Vincenzo. 1792. Gabinetto mineralogico del Collegio Nazareno descritto secondo i caratteri esterni e distribuito a norma de principi costitutivi, vol. 2, p. 201. Roma: presso I Lazzarini; Howard-White, Frank Buller. 1963. Nickel, an historical review, p. 31. London: Van Nostrand.

i The term “Pochgang” or “Pocherz” means ore that is already extracted, but not yet crushed or further processed. In: Tolhausen, Alexandre. edited by. 1878. Technological Dictionary in the English, German & French Languages: Containing about 76,000 Technical Terms and Locutions Employed in Arts, Trades and Industry in General. 2nd Issue, p. 429. Leipzig: B. Tauchnitz.

i The term “Zwitter” goes back to the idea that there exists a hybrid type between rock and ore, called “Zwitter.” In most cases, the term indicates cassiterite or tinstone. See: Fourestier, Jeffrey de. 1999. Glossary of Mineral Synonyms. The Canadian Mineralogist, Special Publication, p. 392.

ii The term “Zinn Graupen” indicates a tin ore showing large granules. Crystals small in size are called “Zinn Zwitter”. See: Petrini, Giovanni Vincenzo. 1792. Gabinetto mineralogico del Collegio Nazareno descritto secondo i caratteri esterni e distribuito a norma de principi costitutivi, vol. 2, p. 116. Roma: presso i Lazzarini.

According to the Mindat database, it is worth mentioning that neither bornite nor azurite are mineralogical species found in this area so far.

i The term “fahlerzt” means dark and white copper. See: AMSN. … Catalogo delle produzioni naturali passate al Real Museo di Firenze prima dell’anno 1792. …

ii The term “weiß Kupfer Erzt” means white copper, which is marcasite. According to Petrini (1792), the term also indicates a copper ore that has been mineralized by sulfur, and arsenic with a minimum iron content. See: Petrini, Giovanni Vincenzo. 1792. Gabinetto mineralogico del Collegio Nazareno descritto secondo i caratteri esterni e distribuito a norma de principi costitutivi, vol. 2, p. 69. Roma: presso I Lazzarini; Fourestier, Jeffrey de. 1999. Glossary of Mineral Synonyms. The Canadian Mineralogist, Special Publication, p. 377.

75. Silver-, copper-, and lead-bearing minerals with achantite and/or stephanite.

i The term “Seiger[-]tiefe” means perpendicular depth. See: Grieb, Christopher Friedrich. 1873. Dictionary of the German and English Languages. 7th Issue, vol. 2, p. 781. Stuttgart: Neff.

i The term “blending” indicates a piece of ore that contains zinc blende. See: Anonymous. hrsg. von. 1854. „Vereinsnachrichten für den Monat November 1854“. Verhandlungen und Mitteilungen des siebenbürgischen Vereins für Naturwissenschaften 5 (11): 175.

ii The term “Roth gülden Erzt” indicates a red silver-rich ore. According to Duhamel (1800), this kind of mineral, whose crystals are transparent like a ruby (“durchsichtig”), is hard to recognize if the sample has not been cut with a knife. The term indicates pyrargyrite. See: Duhamel, [Jean-Pierre-François Guillot-]. 1800. Dictionnaire portatif allemand et français des termes de mines, p. 149. Paris: chez Courcier; Fourestier, Jeffrey de. 1999. Glossary of Mineral Synonyms. The Canadian Mineralogist, Special Publication, p. 305.

i In mining, the term “Gur” or “Guhr” describes a mushy, earthy liquid: “In mining, the word ‘Guhr’ is used to refer to a moist, greasy substance that emerges from the rock and mountain fissures, which looks like a very finely powdered white chalk or lime-like earth but is of liquid constancy like porridge. Oftentimes, it looks like buttermilk. The miners consider the ‘Guhr’ a fairly certain sign of the presence of a metallic vein.” See: Ersch, Johann Samuel. 1877. Johann Gottfried Gruber: Allgemeine Encyclopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste, vol. 96, p. 240. Leipzig: J.F. Gleditsch.

84. Chalcopyrite, iron-bearing minerals, calcite, quartz, malachite (?), cinnabar.

i The expression “Weiss Eisen Spath” is a synonym for “Stahlstein”, which means white or spathic iron. According to Petrini (1792), it was a mixture of iron brown lime with manganese white lime and air lime in different proportions. This kind of ore has granules, and it is often mixed with quartz and pyrite. See: Petrini, Giovanni Vincenzo. 1792. Gabinetto mineralogico del Collegio Nazareno descritto secondo i caratteri esterni e distribuito a norma de principi costitutivi, vol. 2, p. 81. Roma: presso I Lazzarini.

The term “Stein-Flachs” means “Asbestos.” See: Krünitz, Johann Georg. hrsg. von. 1733. Oeconomische Encyclopädie, vol. 2, p. 492 [article: Asbest]. Berlin: Pauli.

i The term “Cuprum virgineum” means “native copper.” See: Lenz, Johann Georg. 1794. Versuch einer vollständigen Anleitung zur Kenntniss der Mineralien: Metalle und Gebirgsarten, vol. 2, p. 11. Leipzig: Crusius.

ii The expression “Anima Veneris” means anima of Venus/Copper. Similarly, it refers to a former preparation of copper. See: Hopper, Robert. 1845. Lexicon Medicum, or Medical Dictionary, vol. 1, p. 69. New York: Harper & Brothers.

iii The specimen’s mineralogical features suggests that the cataloguer described a “Kupfer glassertz” (vitreous copper). It indicates a copper ore that had been mineralized by sulfur and has no iron content. See: Petrini, Giovanni Vincenzo. 1792. Gabinetto mineralogico del Collegio Nazareno descritto secondo i caratteri esterni e distribuito a norma de principi costitutivi, vol. 2, p. 65. Roma: presso I Lazzarini.

i Zincken (1762) describes the term “Cement Kupfer” (“cement copper”) as follows: “Cement copper: in the Hungarian mine near the mountain town of Neusel, there is a spring in the so-called “Herrengrund”, deep in the mountain. If you put iron in this water, the iron is covered with a crust of small copper particles and is increasingly lost under this copper crust, until it is completely consumed. The copper, which has remained in the form of iron, like a nutshell, is so fine that it can be worked and driven like silver and is called cement copper. When it gets gold plated, it is easy that [costumers] will be cheated, because they don’t realize the smoothness of copper in goldsmithing.” See: Zincken, Georg Heinrich. 1762. Curieuses und reales Natur-Kunst-Berg-Gewerck- und Handlungs-Lexikon, p. 449.

The specimen’s provenance is not specified. Nevertheless, many localities, where almandine-pyrope garnets were found, are well known in Hungary starting from Medieval time. See: Horváth, Eszter, Bendő, Zsolt. 2011. “Provenance study on a collection of loose garnets from a Gepidic period grave in Northeast Hungary.” Archeometriai Muhely 8: 17–32.

i In mining, the term “angestandten” means an ore that is exposed in a gallery.

i Bergmilch” (or “Höhlenmilch”, “Mondmilch”, “Nix”, “Lac Lunae”, in English “moonmilk”) is a pasty or crumbly form of calcite or other calcareous mineral, which is microcrystalline. See: Krünitz, Johann Georg. hrsg. von. 1803. Oeconomische Encyclopädie, vol. 93, pp. 378–9 [article: Mondmilch]. Berlin: Pauli.

The specimen’s description seems to refer to “miniera bruna” (brown ore). This ore contains copper, sulfur, arsenic, a minimum content of iron and antimony, and up to 5 parts of silver. See: Petrini, Giovanni Vincenzo. 1792. Gabinetto mineralogico del Collegio Nazareno descritto secondo i caratteri esterni e distribuito a norma de principi costitutivi, vol. 2, p. 365. Roma: presso I Lazzarini.

i The term “Frauen-Eis” (or “Marien-Eis”, “Marien-Glas”) indicates gypsous spar or selenite. See: Krünitz, Johann Georg. hrsg. von. 1795. Oeconomische Encyclopädie, vol. 67, p. 392 [article: Frauen-Eis]. Berlin: Pauli.

i “Pachmann” or “Pachma(h)l” indicates “pure pieces of silver ore, similar to Glaserz.” See: “Letter of Johann Christoph Götz, 16 January 1737.” 1795. In Mineralogische, Chemische und Alchymistische Briefe von reisenden und andern Gelehrten an den ehemaligen Chursächsischen Bergrath J. F. Henkel, hrsg. von Anonymous, vol. 3, p. 281. Dresden: Walther.

i The term “bley-schweif” is used to indicate a sample of galena with a lower content of sulfur. The term also indicates a lead ore that is similar to galena, which has not a distinct shape. This kind of ores are transparent, and greasy to the touch. See: Petrini, Giovanni Vincenzo. 1792. Gabinetto mineralogico del Collegio Nazareno descritto secondo i caratteri esterni e distribuito a norma de principi costitutivi, vol. 2, p. 32. Roma: presso I Lazzarini.

Crocoite was recognized by Mikhail Vassilyevich Lomonosov (1711–1765) in 1763 as a “red lead ore.” However, no crocoite has been found in Banská Štiavnica so far. Other orange/red lead minerals, such as vanadinite or wulfenite, have been only recently recovered in Banská Štiavnica. Moreover, wulfenite was originally named as “plumbum spatosum flavo-rubrum” in 1772 by Ignaz von Born (1742–1792) and vanadinite was discovered only in 1801. See: Auer, Christian. 1998. “The Annaberg District: Lower Austria.” Mineralogical Record 29: 177–89.

133. Chalcanthite (?), tetrahedrite/tennantite/ chalcocite, aragonite (var. flos ferri).

i The term “Hornschiefer” indicates a “kind of horn rock (Corneus fissilis), which consists of leaves and slices, and has a blackish, dark brown, red or other color.” See: Krünitz, Johann Georg. hrsg. von. 1789. Oeconomische Encyclopädie, vol. 6, p. 761 [article: Horn-Felsstein]. Berlin: Pauli.

i The term “Spießglas” is a synonym for antimony (glance). See: Ludwig, Christian. 1765. Teutsch-Englisches Lexicon. 3rd Issue, col. 120. Leipzig: Gleditsch.

The samples reported in the records 140–144 are very interesting. In fact, the writer used some phrases (e.g. “found on a field”; “ironstone of rare kind, striking in clay-like sediments”; “pure iron”; “very compact ironstone”) that recall the physical characteristics of iron meteorites. However, according to the Meteoritical Bulletin Database, no meteorite occurrences have been reported for this locality so far.

i The term “letten” indicates an unusable “tough, fat and greasy mountain kind, like clay.” It is also used as synonym for damp-muddy soil, loamy mud. Krünitz, Johann Georg. hrsg. von. 1799. Oeconomische Encyclopädie, vol. 77, p. 296 [article: letten]. Berlin: Pauli.

i The term “Alderstein” means “Aetites.” See: Franke, [Traugott]. 1855. Technologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen, französischen und englischen Sprache: mit Bezug auf Gewerbe, Physik, Chemie, Nautik, Bergbau, Mineralogie und sonstige mechanische und industrielle Wissenschaften, p. 3. Wiesbaden: Kreidel.

ii In German, the term “pülsche” was used for liquids that become turbid when mixed. See: Müller, Josef. hrsg. von. 1944. Rheinisches Wörterbuch, vol. 6, col. 1184–5. Bonn: F. Klopp.

i The term “natürliches Berg-Grün”, produced in Hungary, indicates a copper mineral. See: Krünitz, Johann Georg. hrsg. von. 1792. Oeconomische Encyclopädie, vol. 56, p. 115 [article: Kupfer]. Berlin: Pauli.

ii The term “Berg-Grün” (verde di montagna) means malachite. See: AMSN. … Catalogo delle produzioni naturali passate al Real Museo di Firenze prima dell’anno 1792 …; Petrini, Giovanni Vincenzo. 1792. Gabinetto mineralogico del Collegio Nazareno descritto secondo i caratteri esterni e distribuito a norma de principi costitutivi, vol. 2, p. 58. Roma: presso I Lazzarini.

i The term “Zinopel” may indicate both a red massive quartz + hematite and a mixture of iron-rich quartz [Jasper] and pyrite. See: Bayliss, Peter. 2011. Glossary of obsolete mineral names. The Mineralogical Record. 2nd Issue, p. 1090; Fourestier, Jeffrey de. 1999. Glossary of Mineral Synonyms. The Canadian Mineralogist, Special Publication, p. 391.

i In mining, the term “Gewächs-Erz” or “Unter-Erd-Gewächs“ is used as a synonym for mineral specimens. See: Weber, Johann Anton. 1745. Lexicon Encyclion. Oder kurzgefaßtes Lateinisch-Teutsches und Teutsch-Lateinisches Universal-Wörterbuch, p. 832. Chemnitz: Stößel.

ii The term “Glanzspath“ means sillimanite. See: Bayliss, Peter. 2011. Glossary of obsolete mineral names. The Mineralogical Record. 2nd Issue, p. 376.

The term “Glaserz” indicates silber glance. See: Siegl, Walter. 1951. „Erzmikroskopische Studie des Glaserzes des Radhausberges bei Gastein“. Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Mineralogischen Gesellschaft 112: 131–43. However, this term might also indicate chlorargyrite, a mineral that is often found in the Harz mountains (Germany). See: Bayliss, Peter. 2011. Glossary of obsolete mineral names. The Mineralogical Record. 2nd Issue, p. 376.

i The term “Rothgulden Bluth” indicates a red radiated or streaked silver ore. See: Petrini, Giovanni Vincenzo. 1792. Gabinetto mineralogico del Collegio Nazareno descritto secondo i caratteri esterni e distribuito a norma de principi costitutivi, vol. 2, p. 35. Roma: presso I Lazzarini.

ii The term “blutmahlig” was hardly used and indicates the color of a red/blood mole. Short (1931) stated that “proustite is a lighter red in hand specimen than pyrargyrite.” The specimen analyzed here has been described as “reddish-golden, blood-colored.” So it is possible to identify the specimen as a proustite sample. See: Short, Maxwell Naylor. 1931. Microscopic Determination of the Ore Minerals, USGS Bulletin 825, p. 136.

i In mining, the term “Zubau” means the construction of a gallery that leads to a main gallery or shaft.

i See for the German term “Galmei“ or “Galmey”: Krünitz, Johann Georg. hrsg. von. 1788. Oeconomische Encyclopädie, vol. 15, p. 800 [article: Galmey]. Berlin: Pauli. The term indicates smithsonite and/or hydrozincite. See: Fourestier, Jeffrey de. 1999. Glossary of Mineral Synonyms. The Canadian Mineralogist, Special Publication, p. 128.

i In mining, a rock or mountain is called “mild” if it offers low resistance, is soft and easily fragile.

i The term “schwarz Kupfer” means “black copper.” It may indicate cuprite or tenorite. Cuprite is a copper ore so it is possible that the cataloguer was describing a cuprite sample. However, no cuprite has been found in the Ahrn Valley (South Tyrol) so far according to the Mindat database. See: Bayliss, Peter. 2011. Glossary of obsolete mineral names. The Mineralogical Record. 2nd Issue, p. 864.

i The term “Rosette Kupfer” indicates “rose-copper”, which means refined copper. See: Franke, [Traugott]. 1855. Technologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen, französischen und englischen Sprache: mit Bezug auf Gewerbe, Physik, Chemie, Nautik, Bergbau, Mineralogie und sonstige mechanische und industrielle Wissenschaften, p. 126. Wiesbaden: Kreidel.

The term “Kupferkönig“ means “le régule de cuivre”, which is the regulus of copper. It indicates the finer and most weighty part of a copper ore, which settles at the bottom during the melting process. See: Schwan, Christian Friederich. 1784. Nouveau dictionnaire de la langue allemande et Françoise, vol. 2, p. 135. Amannheim: Schwan et Fontaine; Krünitz, Johann Georg. hrsg. von. 1792. Oeconomische Encyclopädie, vol. 56, p. 250 [article: Kupfer-König]. Berlin: Pauli; Küttner, Carl Gottlieb, Nicholson, William. 1809. New and complete Dictionary of the German language for Englishmen. According to the German Dictionary of Mr. J. C. Adelung, vol. 2, p. 387. Leipzig: E.B. Schwickert.

i The term “Strahlen” is an old synonym for crystals. See: Nemnich, Philipp Andreas. 1821. Neues Waaren-Lexikon in zwölf Sprachen, vol. 3, col. 157. Hamburg: Müller.

ii The term “Ma(h)lwerk” indicates black clear tin ore in schist rock. See: Anonymous. hrsg. von. 1772. Vollständiger Catalogus einer Suiten Mineralien-Sammlung, p. 198. Leipzig.

The expression “roth und gelber Schweffel” indicates red sulfuret of arsenic, which means realgar. However, any realgar samples have been found in Smolník so far according to the Mindat database. See: Fourestier, Jeffrey de. 1999. Glossary of Mineral Synonyms. The Canadian Mineralogist, Special Publication, p. 299.

i The term “Eisenstein” means iron-ore, which is hematite. See: Franke, [Traugott]. 1855. Technologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen, französischen und englischen Sprache: mit Bezug auf Gewerbe, Physik, Chemie, Nautik, Bergbau, Mineralogie und sonstige mechanische und industrielle Wissenschaften, p. 275. Wiesbaden: Kreidel.

ii The term “Greis” indicates a mixture of quartz and glimmer. See: Leonhard, Carl Caesar. 1809. Handbuch einer allgemeinen topographischen Mineralogie, vol. 2, p. 357. Frankfurt am Main: Hermann.

According to the Mindat database only andradite garnets have been found in Frauenberg so far.

i As stated by Duhamel (1800), the term “Kupfer Lazur” means “mountain-blue.” It derives from the decomposition of Cu-rich pyrites. The term describes a blue-copper ore that has been mineralized by sulfur. The term indicates azurite. See: Duhamel, [Jean-Pierre-François Guillot-]. 1800. Dictionnaire portatif allemand et français des termes de mines, p. 113. Paris: chez Courcier; Petrini, Giovanni Vincenzo. 1792. Gabinetto mineralogico del Collegio Nazareno descritto secondo i caratteri esterni e distribuito a norma de principi costitutivi, vol. 2, p. 529. Roma: presso I Lazzarini.

i The term “(Poch)Stempel” indicates a tool to crush the ore during the process of beneficiation. See: Beil, Johann A., Karmarsch, Karl. 1853. Technologisches Wörterbuch der deutschen, französischen und englischen Sprache, p. 438. Wiesbaden: Kreidel.

i The term “Wolfram” indicates a mineral that is usually found in tin mines. It is black or brown, shiny, and layered. This kind of ores, although very heavy, can be crushed with the fingers. According to Lehmann (1761), the term indicates a mixture of silica and iron lime with a minimum content in tin lime. It means Mn-rich ferberite or Fe-rich hübnerite. See: Lehmann, Johann Gottlob. 1761. Physikalisch-chymische Schriften, als eine Fortsetzung, p. 356. Berlin: Wever; Petrini, Giovanni Vincenzo. 1792. Gabinetto mineralogico del Collegio Nazareno descritto secondo i caratteri esterni e distribuito a norma de principi costitutivi, vol. 2, p. 102. Roma: presso I Lazzarini; Bayliss, Peter. 2011. Glossary of obsolete mineral names. The Mineralogical Record. 2nd Issue, p. 1064.

ii The term “unart“ indicates the so-called gangue, a commercially worthless material that surrounds, or is closely mixed with a wanted mineral in an ore deposit. The separation of minerals from gangue is known as mineral processing. See: Krünitz, Johann Georg. hrsg. von. 1848. Oeconomische Encyclopädie, vol. 195, p. 227 [article: Unart (Bergbau)]. Berlin: Pauli.

198. The mineralogical features of the analyzed specimen have not been described.

199. The mineralogical features of the analyzed specimen have not been described.

200. The mineralogical features of the analyzed samples have not been described.

i The term “Weiss Zinn” means “white tin.” It indicates a white or gray, sometimes greenish or yellowish ore, semi-transparent and crystallized in pyramids or irregular shapes. See: Petrini, Giovanni Vincenzo. 1792. Gabinetto mineralogico del Collegio Nazareno descritto secondo i caratteri esterni e distribuito a norma de principi costitutivi, vol. 2, p. 116. Roma: presso I Lazzarini.

i In mining, the term “Erbeis“ means that the material is very hard so that the miners have to interrupt their work. See: Grimm, Jacob, Grimm, Wilhelm. hrsg. von. 1862. Deutsches Wörterbuch, vol. 3, col. 713–5. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.

i In mining, the term “Schrot” indicates iron grains that remain in the slag, when the iron melts in the furnace. See: Grimm, Jacob, Grimm, Wilhelm. hrsg. von. 1899. Deutsches Wörterbuch, vol. 15, col. 1775. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.

According to De Fourestier (1999), the term “Blau-Erz” means siderite. Bayliss (2011) noted that the term also indicates “altered siderite.” On this topic see Prochaska, Walter. 2012. “Siderite and magnesite mineralizations in Palaeozoic strata of the Eastern Alps (Austria).” Journal of Alpine Geology: 309–22. See Fourestier, Jeffrey de. 1999. Glossary of Mineral Synonyms. The Canadian Mineralogist, Special Publication, p. 45; Bayliss, Peter. 2011. Glossary of obsolete mineral names. The Mineralogical Record. 2nd Issue, p. 134.

In mining, the term “Plinz” ( or “Flinz”, “Plönz”) is a synonym for iron spar (“Eisenspat”). See: Schiller, Erich. edited by. 1878. Technological Dictionary. English, German, French, p. 357. Wiesbaden: Bergmann.

ii In mineralogy, the term “Roßzahn” (or “Rohwand”, “Wandstein”) is a synonym for ankerite. Niederrist, J[osef]. 1857. Naturgeschichte des Mineralreiches für den practischen Bergmann. Part I, p. 145. Brünn: Winiker.

i The term “Modererz” means goethite ± ferrihydrite. See: Bayliss, Peter. 2011. Glossary of obsolete mineral names. The Mineralogical Record. 2nd Issue, p. 637.

227. The mineralogical features of the analyzed samples have not been described.

i The term “Roth stein” indicates a red ore (“pierre rouge”). Its color is due to the high content of metal oxides, especially iron. According to Duhamel (1800), the iron content is so high in this kind of minerals that even the soil and the plants surrounding their place of recovery are “tinted” in red. See: Duhamel, [Jean-Pierre-François Guillot-]. 1800. Dictionnaire portatif allemand et français des termes de mines, p. 150. Paris: chez Courcier.

As stated by Duhamel (1800), the term “Leber-farben” indicates a liver-colored mineral. It may indicate either an assemblage of cuprite ± chrysocolla ± goethite or an assemblage of cinnabar ± idrialite ± clay. See: Duhamel, [Jean-Pierre-François Guillot-]. 1800. Dictionnaire portatif allemand et français des termes de mines, p. 116. Paris: chez Courcier; Bayliss, Peter. 2011. Glossary of obsolete mineral names. The Mineralogical Record. 2nd Issue, p. 561.

i The term “Blau-Eisen-Erz” indicates vivianite. See: Bayliss, Peter. 2011. Glossary of obsolete mineral names. The Mineralogical Record. 2nd Issue, p. 133.

For “Stuffen-Probe“ see: Krünitz, Johann Georg. hrsg. von. 1820. Oeconomische Encyclopädie, vol. 117, p. 470 [article: Probe]. Berlin: Pauli.

Maria Theresa (ruler of the Habsburg dominions, spouse of Emperor Franz I Stephan) 3, 6, 10, 12–3, 17, 29, 39–40, 50, 61

Banská Štiavnica (Schemnitz, Slovak Republic) 1, 4–8, 11, 13, 17, 21, 27, 29, 48, 50–2, 55, 77, 79, 88, 104, 112, 121, 145

Firenze 2, 4, 7, 10, 40, 42–3, 45, 49, 56–9, 61–4, 74–5, 77, 79–80, 90

Vienna 4, 6–7, 9, 13, 17–22, 24–9, 38, 40, 45, 50, 52, 55–6, 58, 61, 64, 77, 79, 136

References Abbri, F. 1987. “La “spranga elettrica”: Frisi e l’elettricità”. In Ideologia e scienza nell’opera di Paolo Frisi (1728–1784), a cura di G. Barbarisi, 161–99. Milano: Franco Angeli. Alberti, S. 2005. “Objects and the Museum.” Isis 96(4) Alberti, S. 2005. Objects and the Museum. Isis 96 (4) Aliprantis, C. 2019. “The afterlife of Enlightened Absolutism: commemoration of Maria Theresa and Joseph II and the politics of liberal reform in nineteenth-century imperial Austria.” European Review of History 26 (2) Anonymous. [Christian Ludwig Stieglitz]. 1772. Vollständiger Catalogus einer Suiten Mineralien-Sammlung, welche aus 4263 Numern bestehet: aus allen Ländern Europens und den übrigen Welttheilen mit größter Sorgfalt gesammlet. Leipzig. Anonymous. 1764. „Schemnitz in Nieder-hungarn, vom 20. Julii“. Wienerisches Diarium 60 (28 July): 4–5. – Reports continued in 61 (1 August): 3–4; 62 (4 August): 4–5; 63 (8 August): 9; 64 (11 August): 3–4; 65 (15 August): 3–4; 67 (22 August): 3–4; 68 (25 August): 3–4; 69 (29 August): 9–11; 70 (1 September): 3–4; 71 (5 September): 9–10. Anonymous. 1771. Catalogus des von dem Wohlseligen Geh. Rath Büchner hinterlassenen Naturalien-Cabinets, welches den elften Merz 1711 an die Meistbietenden veractioniret werden soll. Halle: Beyersche Schriften. Anonymous. 1786. „Licit. Stuffen, Steine und Mineralien“. Wienerisches Diarium 33 (26th April) Anonymous. 1794. „Conchilien und Mineralien zu verkaufen“. Wienerisches Diarium 33 (23rd April) Arneth, A. R. von. 1877. Andreas Graf Hadik’s Zug nach Berlin. In:Vaterländisches Ehrenbuch Geschichtliche Denkwürdigkeiten aus allen Ländern der österreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie, Teuffenbach, A. von, 447–52. Wien und Leiden: Karl Proaska. Arneth, A. R. von. 1881. Briefe der Kaiserin Maria Theresia an ihre Kinder und Freunde. Wien: Braumüller. Arrigoni, T. 1984. “La ricerca mineraria nelle Colline Metallifere alla metà del Settecento: l’esperienza di uno scienziato viaggiatore, Giovanni Targioni Tozzetti”. In Siderurgia e miniere in Maremma tra ‘500 e ‘900: archeologia industriale e storia del movimento operario, I. Tognarini, 55–64. Firenze: All’insegna del Giglio. Arrigoni, T. 1985. “Geologia e ricerca mineraria nel Settecento: Giovanni Arduino e le miniere della Toscana”. Ricerche Storiche 15 (2) Arrigoni, T. 1989. “Scienza e tecnica nelle miniere e nella siderurgia Toscana del Settecento: lineamenti”. In La Toscana dei Lorena: riforme, territorio, società, a cura di Z. Ciuffoletti, L. Rombai, 123–36. Firenze: L.S. Olschki. Asmussen, T., Long, P. O. 2019. “Introduction: The cultural and material worlds of mining in early modern Europe.” Renaissance Studies. Special issue on the cultural and material worlds of mining in early modern Europe 34 (1) Avisseau-Broustet, M. 1996. « Historique de la collection de pierres gravées du cabinet de France aux XVIIIe et XIXe siècles ». Zeitschrift Für Kunstgeschichte 59 (2) Balážová, B. 2017. „Von den „Naturalia“ zum „Theatrum Machinarum“ Barocke Handsteine aus den mittelslowakischen Bergbaustädten“. Opuscola Historiæ Artium 66 Baltolu, R. 2018. „Die Rolle der Fraktur in der Gotico-Antiqua“. Archiv für Diplomatik, Schriftgeschichte, Siegel- und Wappenkunde 63 (1) Barnard, C., Fones, A. 2012. “The Platinum Decathlon – A Tribute to the Foresight of Antoine Baumé.” Platinum Metals Review 56 (3):165–77. Barocchi, P., Bertalà, G. G. 1993. Collezionismo mediceo: Cosimo I, Francesco I e il Cardinale Ferdinando: documenti 1540–1587. Modena: Panini. Barocchi, P., Ragionieri, G. 1983. Gli Uffizi: quattro secoli di una galleria. Atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi Firenze 20-24 settembre 1982. Firenze: L. S. Olschki. Battek, M. J. 2015. “Christoph Traugott Delius – creator of modern mining in Middle Europa.” Hereditas Minariorum 2 Beals, H. K. 1995. “The Juan Pérez-Josef De Cañizares Map of the Northwest Coast.” Terrae Incognitae 27 (1) Becagli, V. 1985. “Da San Giuliano a Montecatini. Lo sfruttamento delle risorse termali nella Toscana del Settecento”. In Una politica per le terme: Montecatini e la Val di Nievole nelle riforme di Pietro Leopoldo. Atti del Convegno di studi, Montecatini Terme, 25-26-27 ottobre 1984, 174–210. Siena: Edizioni Periccioli. Becattini, F. 1797. Vita pubblica e privata di Pietro Leopoldo d’Austria granduca di Toscana poi imperatore Leopoldo II. Siena: all’insegna del Mangia. Bellatalla, L. 1984. Pietro Leopoldo di Toscana granduca-educatore: teoria e pratica di un despota illuminato. Lucca: M. Pacini Fazzi. Beller, S. 2006. A Concise History of Austria. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bellinazzi, A., Contini, A. 2002. La corte di Toscana dai Medici ai Lorena. Roma: Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali, Direzione Generale per gli archivi. Berlinguer, L., Colao, F. 1989. La Leopoldina nel diritto e nella giustizia in Toscana. Milano: Giuffré. Bertelli, S., Pasta, R. 2003. Vivere a Pitti. Una reggia dai Medici ai Savoia. Firenze: L.S. Olschki. Bertucci, P. 2009. “Enlightening towers: public opinion, local authorities, and the Reformation of meteorology in eighteenth century Italy.” Transections of the American philosophical society 98 (5) Bindi, U. 2014. Giorgio Santi scienziato pientino del Settecento. Biografia e scritti inediti. Pienza: Fondazione Conservatorio San Carlo Borromeo. Bohadsch, J. B. 1782. „Hrn. Johann Bohadsch Bericht über seine auf allerhöchsten Befehl im Jahr 1763 unternommene Reise nach dem oberösterreich. Salzkammerbezirk“. Abhandlungen einer Privatgesellschaft in Böhmen, zur Aufnahme der Mathematik, der vaterländischen Geschichte, und der Naturgeschichte. Zum Druck befördert von Ignatz Edlen von Born 5 Bono, K. 2004. “Lamberto Cristiano Gori 1727–1801 e l’evoluzione della scagliola in Toscana tra Settecento e Ottocento”. DecArt. Rivista di Arti Decorative 2 Born, I. von. 1772–1775: Lithophylacium Bornianum seu Index Fossilium, quae collegit, in classes et ordines digessit Ign. de B., 2 voll. Prague: Gerle. Born, I. von. 1778. Index Rerum Naturalium Musei Caesarei Vindobonensis. Pars 1, Testacea. Verzeichniss der natürlichen Seltenheiten des k.k. Naturalien Kabinets zu Wien. Erster Theil, Schalthiere. Wien: Kraus. Brianta, D. 2000. “Education and Training in the Mining Industry, 1750–1860: European Models and the Italian Case.” Annals of Science 57 Brini, A., Pioppi, S. 2010. “La collezione Siries: Tecnica e catalogazione di 1902 punzoni donati al Museo dell’Opificio delle Pietre Dure”. OPD Restauro 22:180–8. Brown, K. 2012. A History of Mining in Latin America: From the Colonial Era to the Present. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Brusatti, A. 1979. Betrachtungen zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte, edited by H. Matis, K. Bachinger, H. Koller. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Burgassi, P. 2012. “Historical notes on the discovery and development of geothermal resource in Larderello (Tuscany Region, Italy)”. Technika Poszukiwań Geologicznych 1. Byrne, J. M. 1997. Religion and the Enlightenment: From Descartes to Kant. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press. Byrne, S., Clarke, A., Harrison, R., Torrence, R. 2011. “Networks, Agents and Objects: Frameworks for Unpacking Museum Collections.” In Unpacking the Collection Networks of Material and Social Agency in the Museum, edited by S. Byrne, A. Clarke, R. Harrison, R. Torrence, 3–28. Cham: Springer. Capra, C. 2005. “Habsburg Italy in the age of reform.” Journal of Modern Italian Studies 10 (2) Celková, M. 2004. “Imperial visits of the Habsburgs in the collection fund of the Slovak Mining Museum in Banská Stiavnica.” Scripta Geologica 4 Cembrzyński, P. 2017. “Gold rush or considered investment? Origins of mining towns in the medieval Central Europe.” Acta rerum naturalium 21 Cipriani, C., Fantoni, L., Poggi, L., Scarpellini, A. 2011. Le collezioni mineralogiche del Museo di storia naturale dell’Università di Firenze dalle origini a oggi. Firenze: L.S. Olschki. Cipriani, C., Scarpellini, A. 2007. Un contributo alla mineralogia settecentesca: la collezione di Giovanni Targioni Tozzetti. Firenze: L. S. Olschki. Ciprini, C., Fantoni, L., Scarpellini, A., Poggi, L., Mazzetti, G. 2004. “Appunti per la storia del Museo di Storia Naturale dell’Università di Firenze: Le collezioni mineralogiche. Nota III: la costituzione della collezione (1790–1844)”. Atti e Memorie dell’Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere: La Colombaria 69 Colle, E. 2004. “Scagliole granducali”. DecArt. Rivista di Arti Decorative 1 Contardi, S. 2002. La casa di Salomone a Firenze. L’imperiale e Reale Museo di Fisica e Storia Naturale (1775–1801). Firenze: L. S. Olschki. Contardi, S. 2009. “Gli Oggetti della Scienza Lorenese: le Collezioni Scientifiche del Regio Museo di Fisica e Storia Naturale di Firenze”. Quaderni storici 44 (130) Contini, A. 2002. La reggenza lorenese tra Firenze e Vienna: logiche dinastiche, uomini e governo, 1737–1766. Firenze: L. S. Olschki. Contini, A. 2003. “«La naissance n’est qu’effet du hazard». L’educazione delle principesse e dei principi alla corte leopoldina”. In Vivere a Pitti: una reggia dai Medici ai Savoia, R. Pasta, S. Bertelli, 1000–50. Firenze: L.S. Olschki. Crosland, M. P. 2004. Historical Studies in the Language of Chemistry. Mineola: Dover Publications. De Gregorio, M. 2008. “I fossili, il diluvio, la creazione: Ambrogio Soldani a duecento anni dalla morte”. Bollettino Senese di Storia Patria 115 Del Pane, L. 1964. “Recensione di Wandruska A. Leopold II”. Rivista di Storia dell’Agricoltura 4 Delius, C. T. 1773. Anleitung zu der Bergbaukunst nach ihrer Theorie und Ausübung, nebst einer Abhandlung von den Grundsätzen der Berg-Kammeralwissenschaft für die Kaiserl. Königl. Schemnitzer Bergakademie entworfen. Wien: Johann Thomas Edler von Trattner. DeSilvey, C. 2007. “Practical remembrance: material and method in a recycled archive.” In Practicing the archive: reflections on method and practice in historical geography. Historical Geography Research Series 40, edited by E. Gagen, H. Lorimer, A. Vasudevan, 37–45. Dezza, E. 2017. “Il Granduca, i filosofi e il Codice degli Irochesi. Il principio ‘contumax pro confesso habetur’ e la riforma leopoldina”. Italian Review of Legal History 3 Dickson, P. G., Rauscher, P. 2019. „Die Hofkammer im 18. Jahrhundert“. In Verwaltungsgeschichte der Habsburgermonarchie in der Frühen Neuzeit. Vol. 1: Hof und Dynastie, Kaiser und Reich, Zentralverwaltungen, Kriegswesen und landesfürstliches Finanzwesen, hrsg. von M. Hochedlinger, P. Maťa, T. Winkelbauer, 848–55. Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau. Dym, W. 2008. “Scholars and Miners: Dowsing and the Freiberg Mining Academy.” Technology and Culture 49 (4) Eddy, M. D. 2008. The Language of Mineralogy John Walker, Chemistry and the Edinburgh Medical School, 1750–1800. London: Routledge. Edigati, D. 2011. Prima della Leopoldina: la giustizia criminale toscana tra prassi e riforme legislative nel XVIII secolo. Napoli: Jovene. Elliott, J. H. 1992. “A Europe of Composite Monarchies.” Past & Present 137 (1) Elliott, J. H. 2009. Spain, Europe & the Wider World, 1500–1800. Yale: Yale University Press. Evans, R. J. W. 1979. The Making of the Habsburg Monarchy, 1550–1700. Oxford: Clarendon. Fabozzi, R. 2019. Il catalogo dei minerali di Pietro Leopoldo. Un collezionista che divenne Imperatore. Laurea II ciclo (magistrale). Università degli Studi di Firenze. Felten, S. 2018. “The history of science and the history of bureaucratic knowledge: Saxon mining, circa 1770.” History of Science 56 (4) Felten, S. 2020. “Mining culture, labour, and the state in early modern Saxony.” Renaissance Studies 34 (1) Fettweis, G., Hamann, G. hrsg. von. 1989. Über Ignaz von Born und die Societät der Bergbaukunde. Vorträge einer Gedenkveranstaltung zur 200. Wiederkehr des Gründungstages im September 1786 der ältesten internationalen wissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft. Wien: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Filetti Mazza, M., Tomasello, B. 1999. Galleria degli Uffizi 1758–1775: la politica museale di Raimondo Cocchi. Modena: Panini. Fillafer, F. 2020. Aufklärung habsburgisch: Staatsbildung, Wissenskultur und Geschichtspolitik in Zentraleuropa 1750–1850. Göttingen: Wallstein. Fillafer, F., Walling, T. hrsg. von. 2016. Josephinismus zwischen den Regimen. Eduard Winter, Fritz Valjavec und die zentraleuropäischen Historiographien im 20. Jahrhundert. Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau. Findlen, P. 1994. Possessing Nature: Museums, Collecting, and Scientific Culture in Early Modern Italy. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: University of California Press. Fischer, M., Moschner, I., Schonmann, R. 1976. „Das Naturhistorische Museum in Wien und seine Geschichte“. Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien 80 Fischer, M., Moschner, I., Schönmann, R. 1976. „Das Naturhistorische Museum in Wien und seine Geschichte“. Annalen Naturhistorisches Museum Wien 80 Fitzinger, L. J. 1856. „Geschichte des kaiserlich-königlichen Hof-Naturalien-Cabinetes zu Wien. 1. Abt.: Älteste Periode bis zum Tode Kaiser Leopold II. 1792“. Sitzungsberichte der math.-naturwiss. Classe der kaiserl. Akademie der Wissenschaften 21, 3. Abt. Fitzinger, L. J. F. J. 1868. „Geschichte des kais. Kön. Hof-Naturalien-Cabinetes zu Wien“. Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften mathematisch-naturwissenschaftliche Klasse 57 Flügel, H. W., Huber, P., Huber, S., Machan, A. 2011. Jakob Friedrich van der Nüll. Großbürger und Sammler in Wien an der Wende zum 19. Jahrhundert. Wien: Natural History Museum. Franza, A., Fabozzi, R., Vezzosi, L., Fantoni, L., Pratesi, G. 2019. “The catalog of the mineralogical collection of the emperor Leopold II (1747–1792): Collecting and learning in eighteenth-century Europe.” Earth Sciences History 38 (2) Fritscher, B. 2012. “Making objects move: On minerals and their dealers in 19th century Germany.” HOST 5 (1) Galison, P. 1997. Image & logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Gieryn, T. 1983. “Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists.” American Sociological Review 48 (6) Giusti, A. M. 1992. Pietre dure: l’arte europea del mosaico negli arredi e nelle decorazioni dal 1500 al 1800. Torino: U. Allemandi. Giusti, A. M. 2005. L’arte delle pietre dure da Firenze all’Europa. Firenze: Giunti. Giusti, A. M. 2006. “I Siries, una dinastia di artisti alla guida della manifattura granducale”. In Arte e Manifattura di corte a Firenze: dal tramonto dei Medici all’Impero (1732–1815), a cura di A. Giusti, 16–27. Livorno: Sillabe. Giusti, A. M., Mazzoni, P., Martelli Pampaloni, A. 1978. Il Museo dell’Opificio delle Pietre Dure a Firenze, inv. n. 443. Milano: Electa Editrice. Godsey, W. 2018. The Sinews of Habsburg Power: Lower Austria in a Fiscal-Military State 1650–1820. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Godsey, W. D., Maťa, P., Winkelbauer, T. edited by. 2021. The Habsburg Monarchy as a Fiscal-Military State c. 1648–1815: Contours and Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gonzales-Palacios, A. 1986. Il tempio del gusto. Le arti decorative in Italia fra classicismo e barocco. Il Granducato di Toscana e gli Stati Settentrionali. Milano: Longanesi. Good, D. F. 1984. The Economic Rise of the Habsburg Empire, 1750–1914. Berkeley-Los Angeles-London: University of California Press. Gori, O., Toccafondi, D. 2013. Fra Toscana e Boemia. L’archivio di Pietro Leopoldo d’Asburgo Lorena nell’Archivio nazionale di Praga. Roma: Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali e del Turismo, Direzione Generale per gli Archivi. Guntau, M. 2009. “The rise of geology as a science in Germany around 1800.” In The Making of the Geological Society of London, edited by C. Lewis, S. J. Knell, Geological Society Special Publication 317, 163–77. London: The Geological Society. Hackl, B. 2008. „Die staatliche Wirtschaftspolitik zwischen 1740 und 1792: Reform versus Stagnation“. In Josephinismus als aufgeklärter Absolutismus, hrsg. von H. Reinalter, 191–272. Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau. Hackmann, W. D. 1995. Catalog of pneumatical, magnetical and electrical instruments. Firenze: Giunti. Haditsch, J. G., Maus, H. 1974. Alte Mineralname im deutschen Schrifttum. Leoben: Inst. f. Mineralogie u. Gesteinskunde d. Montanist. Hochschule Leoben. Haidinger, K. 1782. Disposito rerum naturalium Musei Caesarei Vindobonensis. Wien: Wappler. Haidinger, K. 1843. Bericht über die Mineralien-Sammlung der K. K. Hofkammer im Münz- und Bergwesen. Wien: Carl Gerold. Hamann, G. 1976. Das Naturhistorische Museum in Wien. Die Geschichte der Wiener naturhistorischen Sammlungen bis zum Ende der Monarchie. Wien: Natural History Museum. Hamm, E. 2001. “Unpacking Goethe’s collections: The public and the private in natural-historical collecting.” The British Journal for the History of Science 34 Hassmann, E. 2015. „Quellen und Regesten zur Schatzkammer, Gemäldegalerie und zu den drei Kabinetten aus dem Archivbestand des k. k. Oberstkämmereramtes. 1777 bis 1787 mit einem Nachtrag zu den Jahren 1748 bis 1776“. Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien 15/16. Hazen, R. M., Downs, R.T., Eleish, A. et al. 2019. “Data-Driven Discovery in Mineralogy: Recent Advances in Data Resources, Analysis, and Visualization.” Engineering 5 (3) Heesen, A. te, Spray, E. C. 2001. „Sammeln als Wissen“. In Sammeln als Wissen. Das Sammeln und sein wissenschaftliche Bedeutung, hrsg. von A. te Heesen, E. C. Spary, 7–21. Göttingen: Wallstein. Hodder, I. 2012. “The interpretation of documents and material culture.” In SAGE biographical research, edited by J. Goodwin, 171–88. London: Sage. Horn, J., Jacob, M. C. 1998. “Jean Antoine Claude Chaptal and the Cultural Roots of French Industrialization.” Technology and Culture 39(4) Huber, S., Huber, P. 1982. „Zur Tradition des Mineraliensammelns im Raume Wien“. Mitteilungen der Österreichischen Mineralogischen Gesellschaft 128 Hutterer, H., Seitschek, S. 2019. „Die zivile Zentralverwaltung der Habsburgermonarchie: Das Allgemeine Verwaltungs-, Finanz- und Hofkammerarchiv“. In Österreichische Archive: Geschichte und Gegenwart, hrsg. von P. Elbel, 139–96. Brno: Masaryk University Press. International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. 2011. ISBD International Standard Bibliographic Description. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter Saur. Isser, M. von. 1905. Schwazer Bergwerks-Geschichte. Eine Monographie über die Schwazer Erzbergbaue. Hall in Tirol. Janetschek, H. 1998. “Machine Drawing in the Habsburg Patrimonial Lands: 1700—1850.” ICOHTEC 4 Kasiarová, E. 2000. „Die bedeutenden Besucher des Schemnitzer Bercjbaugebietes (Banskä Stiavnica, Slowakei)“. Berichte der Geologischen Bundesanstalt 52 Kašiarová, E. 2004. “The archival documents of the State Central Mining Archives in Banská Štiavnica related to different kinds of museum collections at home and abroad.” Scripta Geologica. Special Issue 4 Khevenhuller-Metsch, J. J. 1908. Aus der Zeit Maria Theresias: Tagebuch des Fursten Johann Josef Khevenhuller-Metsch Klein, U. 2016. “Useful knowledge, useful science.” In The Making of Useful Knowledge, edited by T. Morel, G. Parolini, C. Pastorino, 39–48. Berlin: Max Planck Institut für Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Klemun, M. 2000. „Internationale Kontakte und Funktionen des Mineraliensammelns am Beispiel von Sigmund Zois (1747–1819)“. Berichte der Geologischen Bundesanstalt 51 Klemun, M. 2004. “The Royal Natural History Collection in Vienna (18th century): from possessing minerals as a private treasure towards territorial ambitions as consciousness.” Scripta Geologica 4 Klemun, M. 2007. “Writing, ‘inscription’ and fact: Eighteenth century mineralogical books based on travels in the Habsburg regions, the Carpathian Mountains.” In Four centuries of geological travel: the search for knowledge on foot, edited by P. Wyse Jackson, 49–61. London: The Geological Society of London. Klemun, M. 2008. “Space, state, territory, region and habitat: alpine gardens in the Habsburg countries.” Studies in the History of Gardens & Designed Landscapes 28 (3–4) Klemun, M. 2012. “Introduction: ‘Moved’ Natural Objects – ‘Spaces in Between’.” HOST, Journal of History of Science and Technology 5 Klemun, M. 2013. „,Wissen im Gepäck‘: Reisendes Bergpersonal zwischen den Bergbauorten in den habsburgischen Ländern (1765–1805)“. In Staat, Bergbau und Bergakademie: Montanexperten im 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhundert, hrsg. von H. Schleiff, P. Konečný, 75–91. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Klemun, M. 2017. “Different functions of learning and knowledge—geology takes form. Museums in the Habsburg Empire, 1815–1848.” In Museums at the forefront of the history and philosophy of geology: history made, history in the making, edited by G. D. Rosenberg, R. M. Clary, 163–75. Boulder: Geological Society of America. Klemun, M., Hühnel, H. 2017. Nikolaus Joseph Jacquin (1727–1817) – ein Naturforscher (er)findet sich. Wien: Vienna University Press. Klemun, M., Loskutova, M., Fedotova, A. 2018. “Skulls and blossoms: Collecting and the meaning of scientific objects as resources from the 18th to the 20th century.” Centaurus 60 Kneschke, E. H. hrsg. von. 1864. Neues allgemeines Deutsches Adels-Lexicon, vol. 5. Leipzig: Voigt. Knieling, N. 2016. “Pro captu lectoris habent sua fata libelli. Collezionismo librario e diffusione delle idee illuminate alla corte di Pietro Leopoldo”. Archivio Storico Italiano 174 Knoefel, P. K. 1990. Felice Fontana: vita e opere. Rovereto: Longo. Koeberl, C., Brandstätter, F., Harzhauser, M., Riedl-Dorn, C. 2018. “History and importance of the geoscience collections at the Natural History Museum Vienna.” In Museums at the Forefront of the History and Philosophy of Geology: History Made, History in the Making, edited by G. D. Rosenberg, R. M. Clary, 131–62. Milwaukee: Geological Society of America. Koenigsberger, H. G. 1989. “Composite States, Representative Institutions and the American Revolution.” Historical Research 62 Komlosy, A. 2019. „Handelskompanien, Industrieförderung und staatliche Wirtschaftspolitik.“ In Verwaltungsgeschichte der Habsburgermonarchie in der Frühen Neuzeit. Vol. 1: Hof und Dynastie, Kaiser und Reich, Zentralverwaltungen, Kriegswesen und landesfürstliches Finanzwesen, hrsg. von M. Hochedlinger, P. Maťa, T. Winkelbauer, 991–1004. Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau. Konečný, P. 2012. “The hybrid expert in the ‘Bergstaat’: Anton von Ruprecht as a professor of chemistry and mining and as a mining official, 1779–1814.” Annals of Science 69 (3) Konečný, P. 2013a. „Der Herrscher im Bergwerk. Visitationsreisen der Habsburger-Lothringer in die ungarischen (slowakischen) Bergreviere am Beispiel einer Reise von 1764“. In Die Repräsentation der Habsburg-Lothringischen Dynastie in Musik, visuellen Medien und Architektur. 1618–1918, hrsg. von W. Telesko, 346–66. Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau. Konečný, P. 2013b. „Die Montanistische Ausbildung der Habsburgermonarchie, 1763–1848“. In Staat, Bergbau und Bergakademie: Montanexperten im 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhundert, hrsg. von H. Schleiff, P. Konečný, 95–124. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Konečný, P. 2013c. “Sites of chemistry in the Schemnitz Mining Academy and the eighteenth-century Habsburg mining administration.” Ambix 60 (2) Konečný, P. 2017. „Der Herrscher im Bergwerk. Visitationsreisen der Habsburger-Lothringen in die ungarischen (slowakischen) Bergreviere am Beispiel einer Reise von 1764“. In Die Repräsentation der Habsburg-Lothringischen Dynastie in Musik, visuellen Medien und Architektur/Representing the Habsburg-Lorraine Dynasty in Music, Visual Media and Architecture, 1618–1918, hrsg. von Werner Telesko, 346–66. Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau. Konečný, P. 2017. „Kameralisten, Bildungsreformer und aufstrebende Bergbeamte: Johann Thaddäus Anton Peithner und sein Vorschlag zur Gründung einer Bergakademie im Habsburgerreich“. Montánna história 8–9 Koschatzky, W., Krasa, S. 1982. Herzog Albert von Sachsen-Teschen 1738–1822. Reichsfeldmarschall und Kunstmäzen. Wien: Österreichischer Bundesverlag. Krünitz, J. G. hrsg. von. 1806. Oeconomische Encyclopädie, oder allgemeines System der Staats- Stadt- Haus- u. Landwirthschaft, vol. 101 (Nahmenbret – Nebennote). Berlin: Joachim Pauli (see articles on Naturalienhandel: 491–3, and Naturalienkabinett: 493–583). Kusler, A. 2017. “‘Maiestatis Hungariae Aquila’: Christoph Lackner and the Hieroglyph of the Habsburg Eagle.” In Emblems and the Natural World, Intersections 50, edited by K. A. E Enenkel, P. J. Smith, 419–53. Leiden: Brill. La Rosa, G. 1997. Il sigillo delle riforme: la Costituzione di Pietro Leopoldo di Toscana. Milano: Vita e Pensiero. Lacko, M. 2016. „Das Verwaltungs- und Wirtschaftssystem in den ungarischen und deutschen frühneuzeitlichen Bergbaugebieten aus vergleichender Perspektive“. Der Anschnitt 68 (4–5) Lacko, M. 2017a. „Zwischen Regulierung und Liberalisierung: Staatliche Wirtschaftspolitik in der Habsburgermonarchie und das Eisenhüttenwesen in der ersten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts“. Montánna história 8–9 Lacko, M. 2017b. „Bergbau und Staatsfinanzen der Habsburgermonarchie in der Zeit der Staatsreformen 1748–1749“. Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung 125(2) Lacour, P. Y. 2014. La République naturaliste: Collections d’histoire naturelle et Révolution française (1789–1804). Paris: Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle. Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press. Laudan, R. 1987. From Mineralogy to Geology: the Foundations of a Science, 1650–1830. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lhotsky, A. 1941–1945. Die Geschichte der Sammlungen. Zweite Hälfte von Maria Theresia bis zum Ende der Monarchie (= Festschrift des Kunsthistorischen Museums zur Feier des fünfzigjährigen Bestandes). Wien: Ferdinand Berger. Linden, S. J. 2003. The Alchemy Reader: From Hermes Trismegistus to Isaac Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lindner, D. 1986. Ignaz von Born, Meister der Wahren Eintracht. Wien: Osterreich Bundesverlag Gesells. Lindner, D. 1986. Ignaz von Born. Meister der Wahren Eintracht. Wiener Freimaurerei im 18. Jahrhundert. Wien: Österreichischer Bundesverlag. Linné, C. von. 1735. Systema Naturæ, sive regna tria naturæ systematice proposita per classes, ordines, genera, & species. Leiden: Theodor Haak. Lobitzer, H., Pošmourný, K. 2010. „Johann Baptist Bohadsch – Ein Pionier der naturwissenschaftlichen Erforschung des Salzkammergutes“. Jahrbuch der Geologischen Bundesanstalt 150 (3–4) Long, P. 2011. Artisan/Practitioners and the Rise of the New Sciences, 1400–1600. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press. Long, P. 2017. “Multi-tasking pre-professional: Architect/engineers and other bricolagic practitioners as key figures in the elision of boundaries between practice and learning in sixteenth-century Europe: Some Roman examples.” In The Structures of Practical Knowledge, edited by M. Valleriani, 223–46. Cham: Springer. Lynch, M. 1999. “Archives in formation: privileged spaces, popular archives and paper trails.” History of Human Sciences 12 Majer, J. 2000. „Konjunkturen und Krisen im Böhmischen Silberbergbau“. In Konjunkturen im europäischen Bergbau in vorindustrieller Zeit, hrsg. von C. Bartels, M. A. Denzel, 73–83. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Malaquias, I., Pinto, M. S. 2011. “Searching for Modernization—Instruments in the Development of Earth Sciences in Portugal (18th Century).” Centaurus 53 (2) Manganelli, G., Benocci, A. 2013. “250 years of Atti dell’Accaemia dei Fisiocritici in Siena: its contribution to natural history.” Archives of natural history 40 (1) Mangio, C. 1988. La polizia toscana: organizzazione e criteri d’intervento 1765–1808. Milano: Giuffré. Marvin, U. B. 1998. “The shower of stones at Siena, 1794: history’s most consequential meteorite fall.” In Volcanoes and history, edited by N. Morello, 303–21. Brigati: Genova. Masala, D. 1997. I Siries: una famiglia di incisori fra Settecento e Ottocento. Laurea ciclo unico (quinquennale). Università degli Studi di Firenze. Maťa, P. 2019. „Die Habsburgermonarchie“. In Verwaltungsgeschichte der Habsburgermonarchie in der Frühen Neuzeit. Vol. 1: Hof und Dynastie, Kaiser und Reich, Zentralverwaltungen, Kriegswesen und landesfürstliches Finanzwesen, hrsg. von M. Hochedlinger, P. Maťa, T. Winkelbauer, 29–62. Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau Matis H. 1981. „Staatswerdungsprozeß und Ausbildung der Volkswirtschaft“. In Von der Glückseligkeit des Staates. Staat, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in Österreich im Zeitalter des aufgeklärten Absolutismus, hrsg. von H. Matis, 15–29. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Mattes, J. 2015. Reisen ins Unterirdische. Eine Kulturgeschichte der Höhlenforschung. Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau. McClellan, J. E. 1985. Science Recognized, Scientific Societies in the Eighteenth Century. New York: Columbia University Press. Meixner, H. 1960. „Die Mineraliensammlung der Grafen Thurn-Valsassina auf Schloss Bleiburg. Teil 1: Zur Geschichte einer alten Sammlung“. Carinthia II, Mitt. Naturwiss. Ver. f. Ktn. 15 (70) Meusburger, P. 2015. “Relations Between Knowledge and Power: An Overview of Research Questions and Concepts.” In Geographies of Knowledge and Power, edited by P. Meusburger, D. Gregory, L. Suarsana, 19–74. Dordrecht-Heidelberg-London-New York: Springer. Mohs, F. 1804. Des Herrn Jac. Fried. von der Null Mineralien-Kabinett nach einem durchaus auf äußere Kennzeichen gegründeten Systeme geordnet, 3 voll. Wien: Camesinaische Buchhandlung. Monti, M. T., Ratcliff, M. J. 2004. Figure dell’invisibilità. Le scienze della vita nell’Italia d’Antico Regime. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki. Mori, G. 1958. “L’estrazione di minerali nel granducato di Toscana durante il periodo delle Riforme (1737–1790)”. Archivio Storico Italiano 116 (2) Mottana, A., Mussino, A., Nasti, V. 2012. “Minerals from the Carpathian Mountains and from Transylvania donated by Joseph II (1785) to the Museum of the Collegio Nazareno, Rome, Italy.” Central European Geology 55 (1) Mühlberger, K. 2009. „Das „Antlitz“ der Wiener Philosophischen Fakultät in der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Struktur und personelle Erneuerung.“ In Eduard Suess und die Entwicklung der Erdwissenschaften zwischen Biedermeier und Sezession, hrsg. von J. Seidl, 67–102. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Nesti, A. 2006. “La siderurgia in Toscana dal XVI al XX secolo”. In Paesaggi industriali del Novecento: siderurgia e miniere nella Maremma toscana, edited by M. Prete, 1–10. Firenze: Polistampa. Oldroyd, D. 1998. Sciences of the Earth. Studies in the History of Mineralogy and Geology. Aldershot: Ashgate. Pacini Fazzi, M. 2008. “Riflessioni sull’editoria tecnico-scientifica nell’Italia del Settecento”. Rara Volumina 1/2 Papp, G., Weisburg, T. 1991. “The mineral collection of Archduchess Maria Anna.” In Museums and Collections in the History of Mineralogy, Geology and Paleontology in Hungary, edited by G. Vitális, T. Kecskeméti, Annals of the History of Hugarian Geology 3 Pasta, R. 1989. Scienza, politica e rivoluzione. L’opera di Giovanni Fabbroni (1752–1822) intellettuale e funzionario al servizio dei Lorena. Firenze: L. S. Olschki. Pasta, R. 2015. “Pietro Leopoldo”. Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani 83 Patvaros, J. 1995. “In memoriam Christoph Traugott Delius, the Eminent Scholar and Professor of Mining in “Schemnitzer Bergakadamie”.” Mineral Resources Engineering 4 (4):381–8. Peithner, J. T. 1770. Erste Gründe der Bergwerkswissenschaften aus denen Physisch-Metallurgischen Vorlesungen. Prague: Clauser. Piccardi, G. 2004. “Uberto Francesco Hoefer e la Tabula Affinitatum”. Nuncius 19 (2):545–68. Pigri, G. 1758. Nuove tavole degli elementi dei numeri dall’1 al 10000 di Giuseppe Pigri…: con le quali si abbreviano le più difficili operazioni dell’aritmetica, molto più facilmente e sicuramente si faccia con quelle dei logaritmi. Pisa: per Gio. Paolo Giovannelli e compagni. Plattner, I. 2008. „Josephinismus und Bürokratie“. In Josephinismus als aufgeklärter Absolutismus, hrsg. von H. Reinalter, 53–96. Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau. Popescu, T., Wollmann V. 2013. Localităţi miniere din Transilvania, Banat și Maramureș întrun atlas din secolul al XVIII-lea [Mines in Transylvania, from the Maramureș and from the Banat in an 18th-century atlas]. Sibiu: Honterus. Porter, T. M. 1981. “The promotion of mining and the advancement of science: the chemical revolution of mineralogy.” Annals of science 38 (5) Raffler, M. 2007. Museum – Spiegel der Nation? Zugänge zur historischen Museologie am Beispiel der historischen Museologie am Beispiel der Genese von Landes- und Nationalmuseen in der Habsburgermonarchie. Wien: Böhlau. Rappaport, R. 1967. “Lavoisier’s Geologic Activities, 1763–1792.” Isis 58 (3) Rappaport, R. 1997. When Geologists Were Historians: 1665–1750. New York: Cornell University Press. Rastrelli, M. 1792. Memorie per servire alla vita di Leopoldo II Imperatore dei Romani, già Gran Duca di Toscana. Firenze. Rauscher, H. 2019. „Die Niederösterreichische Kammer“. In Verwaltungsgeschichte der Habsburgermonarchie in der Frühen Neuzeit. Vol. 1: Hof und Dynastie, Kaiser und Reich, Zentralverwaltungen, Kriegswesen und landesfürstliches Finanzwesen, hrsg. von M. Hochedlinger, P. Maťa, T. Winkelbauer, 856–65. Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau. Reinalter, H. 2008. „Josephinismus als Aufgeklärter Absolutismus – ein Forschungsproblem? Gesellschaftlicher Strukturwandel und theresianisch-josephinische Reformen“. In Josephinismus – eine Bilanz/Échecs et réussites du Joséphisme (Das Achtzehnte Jahrhundert und Österreich 22), hrsg. von W. Schmale, R. Zedinger, J. Mondot, 19–33. Bochum: Winkler. Reinalter, H. hrsg. von. 1991. Die Aufklärung in Österreich: Ignaz von Born und seine Zeit. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Reisner, A., Schiemer, A. 2016. „Das Wien(n)erische Diarium und die Entstehung der periodischen Presse“. In Österreichische Mediengeschichte, hrsg. von M. Karmasin, C. Oggolder, vol. 1, 87–112. Wiesbaden: Springer. Riedl-Dorn, C. 1996. „Ignaz von Born (1742–1791) - ein siebenbürgischer Naturforscher“. Stapfia 45 Riedl-Dorn, C. 1998. Das Haus der Wunder. Zur Geschichte des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien. Wien: Holzhausen. Riedl-Dorn, C. 2021. „Ordnung muss sein. Von der Naturaliensammlung zu den „Vereinigten k.k. Naturaliencabineten“ unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Zeit Josephs II“. Sitzungsberichte der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Klasse 905 Rogari, S. 2005. “Gli anni dell’Istituto di Studi Superiori Pratici e di Perfezionamento”. In L’Università degli Studi di Firenze fra istituzioni e cultura nel decennale della scomparsa di Giovanni Spadolini, a cura di S. Rogari, 13–7. Firenze: Firenze University Press. Rosa, M. 1999. Settecento religioso. Politica della ragione e religione del cuore. Venezia: Marsilio. Rudwick, M. 1996. “Minerals, strata and fossils.” In Cultures of natural history, edited by N. Jardine, J. A. Secord, E. C. Spary, 266–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Saint Laurent, J. de. 1746. Description abrégée du fameux cabinet de M. le Chevalier De Baillou, pour servir à l’histoire naturelle des pierres précieuses, métaux, minéraux et autres fossiles, par Joannon de Saint-Laurent. Luques: Sauveur & Jean-Dominique Marescandoli. Salvia, S. 2013. “Emil Wohlwill’s “Entdeckung des Isomorphismus”: A Nineteenth-Century “Material Biography” of Crystallography.” Ambix 60 (3) Salzmann, A. 2007. „Die Bedeutung der steirisch-kärntnerischen Gewerkenfamilie Stampfer, Reichsgrafen im Reich der Habsburger und der Fugger“. Geo.Alp, Special Volume 1 Scheutz, M. 2019. „Salz(ober)amt in Gmunden und Salzkammergut.“  In Verwaltungsgeschichte der Habsburgermonarchie in der Frühen Neuzeit. Vol. 1: Hof und Dynastie, Kaiser und Reich, Zentralverwaltungen, Kriegswesen und landesfürstliches Finanzwesen, hrsg. von M. Hochedlinger, P. Maťa, T. Winkelbauer, 928–31. Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau. Schleiff, H. 2013b. “Knowledge Practices in the Establishment and Reproduction of the Mining Elite in Saxony, 1765–1868. The Practice of Knowledge and the Figure of the Savant in the 18th Century.” In Scholars in Action. The Practice of Knowledge and the Figure of the Savant in the 18th Century, edited by A. Holenstein, H. Steinke, M. Stuber, 827–51. Leiden: Brill. Schleiff, H., Konečný, P. hrsg. von. 2013a. Staat, Bergbau und Bergakademie: Montanexperten im 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Schönburg-Hartenstein, J. 1987. Josef Anton Nagel – ein Direktor des physikalischen Kabinettes. Wien: Austrian Academy of Sciences. Schröder, H. 1851. Lexikon der hamburgischen Schriftsteller bis zur Gegenwart, vol. 7, 258. Hamburg: im Auftrage des Vereins. Scorrano, G., Nicolini, N., Masoner, I. M. 2002. “Leopold’s Workbench: The Hapsburg-Lorraine Grand Duke and Chemistry.” Journal of Chemical Education 79 (1) Seidler, A. 2019. „Der Netzwerker Ignaz von Born“. In Aufgeklärte Sozietäten, Literatur und Wissenschaft in Mitteleuropa, hrsg. von D. Breuer, G. Tüskés, 381–405. Berlin-Boston: De Gruyter. Sestan, E. 1951. Europa settecentesca e altri saggi. Milano: Ricciardi Editore. Simon, J. 2002. “Mineralogy and mineral collections in 18th century France.” Endeavour 26 (4) Slotta, R., Wollmann, V., Dordea, I. hrsg. von. 1999. Silber und Salz in Siebenbürgen, vol. 1. Bochum: Deutsches Bergbau Museum. Smith, P. H. 1994. “Alchemy as a Language of Mediation at the Habsburg Court.” Isis 85 (1):1–25. Spinelli, R. 2019. “La serie dei ritratti medicei di Giovan Battista Foggini. Note d’archivio sulla committenza e la cronologia”. Paragone 144 Spivak, G. C. 2000. “Translation as culture.” Parallax 6 Štefánik, M. 2016. “The Kremnica Town Book of Accounts: The Economy of a Mining and Mint Town in the Kingdom of Hungary.” In Money and Finance in Central Europe during the Later Middle Ages. Palgrave Studies in the History of Finance, edited by R. Zaoral, 42–56. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Steger, H. 2019. “Middle High and New High German.” In Part 2 The study of languages, edited by E. Haugen, 1282–344. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Stermitz, M. 2006. „Wirtschaft und Finanzen der Habsburgermonarchie 1787–1816“. Rudolfinum Storrs, C. edited by. 2009. The Fiscal-Military State in Eighteenth-Century Europe. Essays in honour of P.G. Dickson. Aldershot: Ashgate. Stütz, A. X. 1793. Neue Einrichtung der k.k. Naturalien Sammlung zu Wien. Wien. Stütz, A. X. 1807. Mineralogisches Taschenbuch. Enthaltend eine Oryctographie von Unterösterreich zum Gebrauch reisender Mineralogen, edited by J. G. Megerle von Mühlfeld. Wien-Trieste: Geistinger’s Buchhandlung. Sukopp, T. 2018. “Discoveries of Oxygen and the “Chemical Revolution” in the Context of European Scientific Networks.” In Knowledge Communities in Europe, edited by B. Schweitzer, T. Sukopp, 15–47. Wiesbaden: Springer. Svojtka, M. 2010. „Lehre und Lehrbücher der Naturgeschichte an der Universität Wien von 1749 bis 1849“. Berichte der Geologischen Bundesanstalt 83 Svojtka, M. 2016. „Das Fach Naturgeschichte und seine Fachvertreter an der Universität Prag von 1749 bis 1849“. Berichte der Geologischen Bundesanstalt 118 Swinney, G.N. 2011. “What do we know about what we know. The museum ‘register’ as museum object.” In The things about museums. Objects and experience, representation and contestation, edited by S. Dudley, A. J. Barnes, J. Binnie, J. Petrov, J. Walklate, 31–46. London: Routledge. Szabo, F. A. J. 2018. “Cameralism, Josephinism, and Enlightenment: The Dynamic of Reform in the Habsburg Monarchy, 1740–92.” Austrian History Yearbook 49 Tacchi, A. 1992. “La vita teatrale a Firenze in età leopoldina, ovvero tutto sotto controllo”. Medioevo e Rinascimento 6 Tazzara, C., Findlen, P., Soll, J. 2020. Florence after the Medici: Tuscan Enlightenment, 1737–1790. New York: Routledge. Testi, G. 1980. Dizionario di alchimia e chimica antiquaria. Roma: Edizioni mediterranee. Titius, C. H. 1783. „Auszug aus dem Reise-Journal … von seiner vorzüglich zu Besichtigung fremder Naturalien-Sammlungen in dem Jahr 1777 … angestellten Reise“. Johann Bernoulli’s Sammlung kurzer Reisebeschreibungen und anderer zur Erweiterung der Länder- und Menschenkenntniß dienender Nachrichten 10 Tongiorgi Tomasi, L. 1988. “Collezioni e immagini naturalistiche in Toscana dal Cinque al Settecento. La nascita dei Musei Scientifici e il rapporto arte-scienza”. Museologia Scientifica 5 (1–2) Tosi, A. 1997. Inventare la realtà: Giuseppe Zocchi e la Toscana del Settecento. Siena: Banca Toscana. Triarico, C. 2000. La Specola di Leonardo Ximenes a Firenze e la catalogazione dei suoi strumenti. In Giuseppe Toaldo e il suo tempo nel bicentenario della morte: scienze e lumi tra Veneto e Europa, a cura di L. Pigatto, 381–409. Cittadella: Bertoncello artigrafiche. Vaccari, E. 1996. “Cultura scientifico-naturalista ed esplorazione del territorio: Giovanni Arduino e Giovanni Targioni Tozzetti”. In Politica della scienza: Toscana e stati italiani nel tardo Settecento, a cura di G. Barsanti, V. Becagli, R. Pasta, 243–63. Firenze: L.S. Olschki. Vaccari, E. 2009. “Mining academies as centers of geological research and education in Europe between the 18th and 19th centuries.” De Re Metallica 13 Vitali, S. 1992. “Sulle tracce degli antichi. Aspetti della ricerca mineraria in Toscana fra Sette e Ottocento”. Archeologia Medievale 19 Vocelka, K. 2001. Glanz und Untergang der höfischen Welt. Repräsentation, Reform und Reaktion im Habsburgischen Vielvölkerstaat. Wien: Ueberreuter. Vocelka, K. 2009. Geschichte Österreichs: Kultur, Gesellschaft, Politik. München: Heyne Verlag. Vogel, J. 2013. „Aufklärung untertage. Wissenswelten des europäischen Bergbaus im ausgehenden 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhundert“. In Staat, Bergbau und Bergakademie: Montanexperten im 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhundert, hrsg. von H. Schleiff, P. Konečný, 13–31. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Vogel, J. 2015. Stony realms: mineral collections as markers of social, cultural and political spaces in the 18th and early 19th century. Historical Social Research 40(1) Vozár, J. 1983. Das Goldene Bergbuch. Schemnitz, Kremnitz, Neusohl Eine wichtige Quelle für die Geschichte des Bergbauwesens in der Slowakei. Košice: Banská agentúra Košice. Vozár, J. edited by. 1990. Denník princa Leopolda z cesty do stredoslovenských banských miest roku 1764. Das Tagebuch des Erzherzogs Leopold von der Reise in die Mittelslowakischen Bergstädte. Martin: Osveta. Vozár, J. hrsg. von. 2000. Das goldene Bergbuch: Schemnitz, Kremnitz, Neusohl. Zlatá kniha banícka: Banská Štiavnica, Kremnica, Banská Bystrica. Košice: Banská Agentúra. Wakefield, A. 2009. The Disordered Police State: German Cameralism as Science and Practice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wandruska, A. 1963. Leopold II, vol. 1. Wien-München: Verlag Herold. Wandruszka, A. 1965. Leopold II. Erzherzog von Österreich, Großherzog von Toskana, König von Ungarn und Böhmen, Römischer Kaiser, 2 voll. Wien-Munich: Herold. Weiss, R. A., Esparza, J. 2015. “The prevention and eradication of smallpox: a commentary on Sloane (1755) ‘An account of inoculation’.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 370 (1666): 20140378. Werner, A. G. 1772. Von den äusserlichen Kennzeichen der Fossilien. Leipzig: Crustus. Wilson, W. E. 1994. “The history of mineral collecting.” Mineralogical Record 25 (6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wilson, W.E. 1994. The History of Mineral Collecting 1530–1799: with notes on twelve hundred early mineral collectors. Tucson: The Mineralogical Record. Winkelbauer, T. 2019. „Grundzüge des habsburgischen Finanz- und Steuerwesens“. In Verwaltungsgeschichte der Habsburgermonarchie in der Frühen Neuzeit. Vol. 1: Hof und Dynastie, Kaiser und Reich, Zentralverwaltungen, Kriegswesen und landesfürstliches Finanzwesen, hrsg. von M. Hochedlinger, P. Maťa, T. Winkelbauer, 767–824. Wien-Köln-Weimar: Böhlau. Yonan, M. E. 2011. Empress Maria Theresa and her Politics of Habsburg Imperial Art. Louisville: Penn State Press. Zedinger, R. 2008. Franz Stephan von Lothringen (1708–1765): Monarch, Manager, Mäzen. Wien: Böhlau Verlag.