Incidentally, Israels adds that he was loth to go the Rijksmuseum with its display of old
masters because he was far more excited by the works of contemporary, living artists. As he
put it:
“The exhibitions at Arti [et Amicitiae] seemed much more beautiful to me, and I admired in
particular Pieneman, Gallait, Calame and Koekoek [19th century Dutch painters].”81
3. The More Visitors, the More Exclusive?
If those were his criteria, then one can safely assume that he would have enjoyed the display
at Teylers Museum too. (He is known to have visited at least once because he signed the
visitor’s book, although this was some years later, in 1866.82) And even if he would not have
been allowed to copy the paintings that hung there, he would still have been very welcome. At
any rate there is nothing that indicates that the Teyler Foundation’s trustees did not embrace
the public and welcome any interest in the museum’s collections. On the contrary, in 1845 for
instance Teylers Museum’s opening hours were changed so as not to coincide with the times
during which the famous cathedral organ was demonstrated, so that visitors to Haarlem could
enjoy both of these attractions.83 Even before this measure was taken visitor numbers had
been rising steadily for some time, so that in 1836 the ailing van Marum had even asked the
trustees to set up a new rule that tickets to the museum could only be obtained early in the
morning, “in order to discourage to some extent the all too great influx of persons wanting to
visit Teylers Museum”.84 The amount of visitors did not go down after 1840 - on the
contrary, noticeably more artists, presumably attracted by the newly opened First Art Gallery,
signed the visitor’s book.85
What’s more, over the course of the subsequent decades the trustees never hesitated to enable
the members of other Learned Societies or professional associations to visit the museum. In
1861 they even briefly took on an “additional servant [...] to help with the supervision”, after
having agreed to open the museum every day for a whole week in July, while the Dutch
national arts and crafts fair was being held in Haarlem.86 Other examples for requests that
1 “Mij kwamen de tentoonstellingen op Arti veel mooier voor en ik bewonderde vooral Pieneman, Gallait,
Calame en Koekoek.” Ibid., 2.
82 Janse, “Uit nieuwsgierigheid en ter onderricht,” 19.
83 “Directienotulen”, 11.07.1845, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 8.
“om den al te grooten toevloed van personen ter bezigtiging van Teylers Museum, eenigermate tegen te gaan”;
“Directienotulen”, 08.07.1836, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 8.
85 Janse, “Uit nieuwsgierigheid en ter onderricht,” 19. During this period some visitors may also have been
attracted by the fact that J.G.S. van Breda was appointed as van Marum’s successor in 1839. He evidently
continued the tradition o f letting visitors sign the visitor’s book - although he did not do so at the Holland
Society, where, just like van Marum, he was put in charge o f the natural history. Incidentally, in the years after
van Breda’s departure in 1864 there is a sharp decline in signatures in the visitor’s book at Teylers Museum,
although this picks up again in the late 1870s.
86 “extra-bediende [...] om mede toezigt te houden”; “Directienotulen”, 15.03.1861 & 07.06.1861, Haarlem,
ATS, vol. 9.
were readily granted include ones by the Haarlem section of the Society for the Abolition of
Strong Liquor {Maatschappij tot afschaffing van den sterken drank) in 1858 and 1867, the
Haarlem section of the Dutch Society for the Advancement of Medicine (Nederlandsche
Maatschappij tot Bevordering van Geneeskunde) in 1855, or the Dutch Agrarian Society
(Hollandsche Maatschappij van Landbouw) in 1863.87 The latter had organised the national
agrarian exhibition in Haarlem in that year. In a move that betrays the overall status of women
in late 19th century society, the trustees of the Teyler Foundation explicitly noted that
members of the Society who wanted to visit the museum “with a lady” were allowed to do
88
SO.
But while visitors were obviously welcome, what transpires equally clearly from the trustees’
actions is that they considered Teylers Museum a place where visitors were to behave in an
orderly, civilised manner. In June 1838 for instance they decided to close the museum for the
duration of the annual Haarlem funfair. In doing so they wanted to prevent a repeat of the
“far-reaching abuse” they had had to experience the year before.89 No details of what exactly
happened or was damaged were recorded, but the events were evidently traumatic enough for
the trustees to continue closing the museum during the funfair period for many years to
come.90 A similar decision was taken in May 1850, when the trustees recorded how they had
decided “on the occasion of the big music festival, which will take place here in the City, to
grant no access to Tevlers Museum”, which meant the museum was closed for an entire
week.91
As the explanation given in 1838 suggests, the trustees’ primary - if not even sole - motive in
coming to these decisions was most certainly a legitimate concern for the safety of the
museum’s valuable collections. Their decision to close the museum must therefore not be
seen as an expression of some sort of disdain they harboured for laypeople who had not had
the privilege of any form of “high-brow” education - as anybody who has ever been in charge
of a publicly accessible collection can tell you, valuable, unique objects on the one hand and
as large as possible a crowd of people from all walks of life on the other hand are not
necessarily a match made in heaven.
But at the same time the trustees’ decision to restrict access to the museum to those whose
credentials (such as their membership of a professional association) suggested they could be
tmsted to behave in a civilised manner, chimes well with a certain aura of exclusivity that
public displays of art in particular were beginning to acquire and sometimes even cultivate.
Crucially, both by accident and by design, public art exhibitions were becoming places where
87 “Directienotulen”, 04.06.1858 & 02.08.1867 & 25.05.1855 & 13.02.1863, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 9.
88 “Directienotulen”, 13.02.1863, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 9. “Op verzoek van de Commissie voor de in September
aanst. hier ter stede te houden algemene Landbouw-tentonstelling, wordt de toegang tot de Musea van T.St aan
de leden der Hollandsche Maatschappij van Landbouw, met eene dame, op vertoon van hun diploma toegestaan,
van 24-30 September, van 2-4 ure.” ,
89 “Directienotulen” 01.06.1838, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 8. “Directeuren, in aanmerking nemende, dat in het vorige
jaar, gedurende de Kermis, een verregaand misbruik is gemaakt van de vergunmng, ter bezigtiging van het
Museum, hebben besloten den gewonen toegang tot hetzelve dit jaar niet te verleenen [...] .
90 “Directienotulen”, 03.05.1839 & 25.06.1841 & 17.06.1842, Haarlem, ATS, voi 8-
91 “ter gelegenheid van het groote muziekfeest, ’t welk te dezer Stede zal plaats hebben, den toegang tot Teylers
Museum niet te verleenen”; “Directienotulen”, 31.05.1850, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 9.