and its workings. Recall how the acquisition plan for the instrument collection which he drew
up in 1789 included models with the express purpose of enabling visitors to understand
various principles of technology that had a bearing on everyday life; or, how around the turn
of the century van Marum was striving to make the geological collections as accessible as
possible. Finally, in a similar vein, what has not been mentioned yet is a plan that van Marum
devised in 1810 upon the behest of Napoleon’s representative in the Netherlands. The entire
country had been annexed by this time and formed part of the French Empire. Van Marum’s
plan basically proposed transforming Teylers Museum into something akin to an école
polytechnique. These plans had no impact whatsoever, because Napoleon’s retreat from the
Low Countries soon after appears to have led to the plans being discarded almost
immediately, and it is perhaps even doubtful whether van Marum really wanted to see them
pursued himself, given that he had drawn them up by order of the French - but, if anything,
what they do clearly demonstrate is that van Marum had no difficulty whatsoever thinking in
utilitarian terms.
So van Marum clearly was an advocate of utilitarian ideals - but at the same time, one has to
be careful not to go too far in one’s conclusions. Put simply, van Marum had a pronounced
utilitarian streak, but he wasn’t a die-hard radical in this respect. The crucial point is that he
was clearly of the opinion that knowledge should serve some practical purpose, i.e. should
contribute to the improvement of people’s daily lives or it would be wasted, but at the same
time the primary focus of all his work lay with the systematic accumulation of knowledge, i.e.
research, on the workings of nature. Put differently, van Marum did not consider it beneath
him to involve himself with practical appliances - in actual fact the whole idea that a
distinction between “applied sciences” and “pure science” was somehow justified, as well as
the idea that the latter was in some way superior to the former and therefore also more
prestigious only emerges during a later period in history — but his main interest lay with the
experimental study of nature.132
This in turn helps explain some of the things he didBor rather some of the things he didn’t do
B which might otherwise seem puzzling. There is his apparent lack of interest in the
Oeconomische Tak for instance, which had been formed in M i l as part of the Holland
Society, with the purpose of the “promotion of Trade, Arable Farming and Agriculture,
Shipping and Fisheries, etc. in our Country and in the Colonies of this State”.133 Its ties with
the Holland Society were cut early during the French period, and by the second half of the
19‘ century, the Oeconomische Tak had evolved into the Manufacturers’ Society. Van Marum
doesn’t seem to have been particularly bothered by the fact that it was separated off from the
Holland Society, and did not for instance attempt to merge the two associations while he was
secretary of the Society — although later in life he did repeatedly accept a seat on the jury that
32 On the lack o f distinction between “applied sciences” and “pure sciences” see: Bert Theunissen, “Nut en nog
eens nut": wetenschapsbeelden van Nederlandse natuuronderzoekers, 1800-1900 (Hilversum: Verloren 2000),
13-36.
133 “bevorderinge van den Koophandel, Land- en Akkerbouw, Zeevaart Visscheryen, enz. in ons Vaderland en in
de Volksplant ingen van deezen Staat”; Bierens de Haan, De Hollandsche Maatschappij der Wetenschappen,
1752-1952, 167. An earlier attempt to reform the entire Society had been thwarted by the Directors.
was tasked with assessing contributions to a national manufacturers’ fair, in 1809, 1820 and
1825. (The fairs were held in Amsterdam, Ghent and Haarlem respectively.)134
What is even more striking though is that van Marum showed no interest in the Oeconomische
Tak.'s cabinet of models (Modellen Kabinet), which was established in 1783 with the aim of
storing models that illustrated technological principles and models that were part of patent
applications. Its budget appears to have been a lot smaller than Teylers Museum’s and it was
never prominent enough to attract much attention, but nevertheless the minutes of the
Oeconomische Tak's meetings suggest it was upheld and expanded for many decades, even
being opened to the general public in 1825.135
Similarly, it has been noted previously that while van Marum did get into contact with many
members of the Royal Society during his trip to London in 1790, he completely neglected the
“Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce”. This is all the more
striking because the Society of Arts, as it was referred to, had just moved to new premises
near the boarding-house where van Marum was staying. As has been pointed out before,
“[o]ne might conclude from Van Marum’s behaviour in London that he was less intensely
interested in these social and economic possibilities of the natural sciences [as propounded by
the Society of Arts and the Oeconomische Tak\ than in the actual internal development of
science and research”.
All this is worth keeping in mind when trying to understand how van Marum would have
defined the position of Teylers Museum within the topography of Dutch collections.
5. This Way Up
One final point needs to be addressed in trying to understand what van Marum wanted to
achieve through his research, as well as what motivated him, and that is that van Marum was
perfectly aware of how his research could help him establish and maintain a position in the
upper echelons of society.
This was a reciprocal process: attaining a certain status, reputation, and level of prestige
helped van Marum attain his own research objectives. In Bourdieu’s terms, he was acquiring
cultural capital that he could spend on his research. So it would be far too simple to depict van
Marum as “career-hungry” and obsessed with his social status — but at the same time one
134 Forbes, “Applied Technology,” 324-326.
135 For a very brief summary o f the cabinet’s history and function see: Titus M. Eliens, Kunst, nijverheid,
kunstnijverheid: de nationale nijverheidstentoonstellingen als spiegel van de Nederlandse kunstnijverheid in de
negentiende eeuw (Zutphen: Walburg Pers, 1990), 38. For transcripts o f the meetings in which the cabinet was
discussed between 1783 and 1840 see: “Modellen Kabinet, besluiten daaromtrent”, 1783-1840, Haarlem, NHA,
Nederlandsche Maatschappij voor Nijverheid en Handel te Den Haag, vol. 609, nr. 844.
136 R.J. Forbes, “Introduction,” vol. 2, Martinus van Marum: Life & Work (Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink & Zoon,
1970), 7.