but not only his instruments, he himself was evidently also of incalculable value to research
efforts like those of van Breda. In fact, for many years, he was an employee of the Teyler
Foundation in all but name and “customarily submitted a monthly account for his time and
expenses”. 73 Yet almost no documents that could shed some real light on this individual’s
activities and his personality have been preserved.174 What is known is that he taught
mathematics and physics at various schools in Haarlem and went to great lengths to provide
as many people as possible with access to scientific knowledge. He was a teacher at the local
Gymnasium as from 1850 and later, after 1864, at the newly established HBS as well as at an
evening school. He set up the association “Weten en Werken” in Haarlem, which had the aim
of providing members of the working classes with possibilities to enhance their education. He
also acted as the prime mover in the establishment of a number of popular science journals,
the most prominent of which was a monthly publication with the title Album der Natuur.
Logeman founded this together with Pieter Harting and Douwe Lubach.
Interestingly, he doesn’t appear to have worked for the Teyler Foundation anymore after van
der Willigen was placed in charge of the instrument collection. In 1876, when van der
Willigen had been elected a member of Haarlem’s town council, he appears to have voted
against Logeman being appointed to a panel of experts who were supposed to advise the
town’s gas board.175 This might point towards some kind of animosity between the two men.
But let us return to van Breda. Just like van Marum, he was a polymath and while he was
obviously well-versed in the physics of his day, his main interest appears to have been
geology. A comparison of his overall expenditures during his tenure at Teylers with the costs
incurred by van Marum as director of the museum reveals that van Breda spent roughly the
same amount of money as his predecessor, but that in van Breda’s case the largest part of the
money was spent on geological specimens.176
Most of the items van Breda purchased came from quarries in Solnhofen in Southern
Germany and Oeningen in Switzerland. He had established a close business relationship with
the owner of the latter quarry, Leonhard Barth - van Breda had first travelled to Switzerland
in 1817 and returned in the early 1830s and 1852 - and was able to procure some of the best
items discovered there.177 Barth seems to have been a slightly shady figure, although van
Breda appears to have tolerated his idiosyncratic business practices as long as they worked in
his favour. The specific example from which this can be deduced concerns the geology
professor Oswald Heer from Zurich, who was equally interested in what Barth unearthed and
also corresponded with van Breda. Barth had struck a deal with Heer that he would sell him
173 Turner, The Practice o f Science in the Nineteenth Century: Teaching and Research Apparatus in the Teyler
Museum, 13—14.
For a thorough and comprehensive analysis o f what is known see: O.H. Dijkstra, “Willem Martinus
Logeman,” Jaarboek 1974 Haerlem (1974): 138-159. A short but informative summary o f his life is provided
by: J.C. Ramaer, “Logeman, Wilhelmus Martinus,” ed. P.C. Molhuysen and K.H. Kossmann, vol. 9, Niew
Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek (Leiden: Sijthoff, 1933), 616-618.
175 This was at a council meeting held on 27.01.1876: Verslagen van het Verhandelde in de Zittingen van den
Raad der Gemeente Haarlem, 1876 (Haarlem: J. Enschede & Zonen, 1876), 60-61.
176 Breure and Bruijn, Leven en werken vanJ.G.S. van Breda (1788-1867), 419-420.
177 On van Breda’s first journey south, his later travels, and his dealings with Barth see: Ibid., 75-90 & 177 &
177-189.
every item for 50 cents, on condition that Heer accept every item he was offered. This is
perhaps in itself already an indication that Heer was not exactly business savvy, but what
made the deal even worse was of course the fact that Barth was supplying van Breda with
specimens from his quarry as well. It is not clear to what extent Heer was informed of Barth’s
dealings with van Breda, although he was clearly aware of the fact that van Breda was
purchasing items off Barth.1
In ordering, cataloguing and caring for the geological collection van Breda was assisted by
Tiberius Comelis Winkler, who was later to succeed van Breda along with van der Willigen.
In this sense the separation of the two scientific collections at Teylers Museum, which was to
be formalised through the appointment of both Winkler and van der Willigen in van Breda’s
stead, was already discernible during van Breda’s tenure at the museum: Logeman looked
after the instruments, while Winkler took care of the geological specimens. It is striking how
van Breda appears to have treated them as mere assistants - both were never formally
employed to work for the museum, even if they were remunerated for their efforts. On the
other hand one could also say that van Breda gave both of them their break: Logeman is sure
to have profited from his association with Teylers Museum, financially and otherwise;
Winkler — a self-made man with no university degree - was later promoted to the prestigious
post of curator. Yet Winkler at least was slightly dismissive of his former boss, pointing out in
what disorder he had found the collection after van Breda left.1
5. Confronted with New Ideas
But even if van Breda’s handling of the collections that fell under his purview reflected more
of an “old school” approach, that doesn’t mean he didn’t see himself directly confronted with
newer ideas concerning the public role of museums. One revealing example, in which van
Breda was dismissive of what he was presented with, occurred during the early phase of his
work as a member of the commission that had been tasked with compiling a geological map
of the Netherlands.
In order to understand what was going on, one needs to know that the Commission had been
provided with a collection of geological specimens from all over the Netherlands. This
collection was not inconsiderable; its core had been assembled from a variety of private and
institutional collections and it was constantly expanded with specimens sent to the
commission by so-called “correspondents” from all areas of the Netherlands. These new items
then became state property. A major section of the original core collection consisted of items
collected by Petrus Camper, which were now being looked after by the University of
78 Breure, “J.G.S. van Breda als Paleontoloog, privé en in Teylers Museum,” 177. Breure wrongly refers to
Oswald Heer both as “Oskar” (p. 177) and “Otto” (p. 216) Heer.
179 Tiberius C. Winkler, Catalogue systématique de la collection paléontologique du Musée Teyler (Harlem: Les
Héritiers Loosjes, 1863), ii.