public by the photographer”. 136 No explanation as to what exactly was meant by “making
them public” was added to the minutes of the meeting at which the trustees discussed this -
they only reveal that the trustees agreed to the Commissioner’s proposal. Maybe he was
thinking of an exhibition, or a publication. The fact that the trustees did agree was not self-
evident. Many other owners of works by Raphael who had been approached by Ruland or
Albert were far more restrictive, sometimes demanding that they could keep the negatives of
the photographs taken, or explicitly demanding that impressions of the negatives should not
be sold. This is an interesting example of how the advent of photography brought about a
recalibration of the status of “original” works of art with regard to their reproducibility. In an
article describing the efforts he had undertaken, which was published after the completion of
the catalogue, Ruland included a list of the many institutions that had allowed photographs to
be taken of the works in their possession and marked those from which copies could be
obtained with an asterisk. Strangely enough the Teyler Foundation is listed as having allowed
photographs of “about 25” drawings to be taken, but there is no asterisk beside their entry.138
Perhaps the Commissioner had dropped the entire idea by the time the photographs were
actually taken, because this appears to have taken some time. In fact it is only in August 1861
that one finds the following passage in the minutes of a meeting of the trustees:
“From Mr C. Ruland, private secretary of H.R.H. the Prince Consort of England, two Series
of photographs of drawings by Raphael present in Teylers Museum have been received, with
an attendant letter missive, in which on behalf of the Prince gratitude is expressed to the
Trustees for the permission to have photographs made of those drawings, & also [unreadable]
the particular satisfaction of the Prince about the way these photographs have been produced
by Mr Tinker [name unreadable], a local photographer.”139
The trustees duly sent a reply thanking Ruland two weeks later. And whether impressions of
the photographs were made public” or not, the entire episode does demonstrate how, on the
one hand, Teylers Museum, too, was directly affected by what was happening in London and,
on the other hand, how Teylers Museum’s collection of fine art was considered to be of
international importance. And it is yet another indication that in the Netherlands as well,
attitudes towards the public had changed in so far that it was not considered out of the
ordinary for a King’s Commissioner to try and let the public share in the fruits of
technological advance that had made possible the reproduction of some masterpieces of fine
art, by enquiring whether the photographer could make these images public - whatever that
meant, exactly. So, having obtained an impression of what was going on in Great Britain, it is
“photografische afbeeldsels [...] door den photografist publiek worden gemaakt”: “Directienotulen
23.09.1859, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 9.
137 Montagu, “The ‘Ruland/Raphael Collection’,” 38-40.
j3* Becker and Ruland, ‘The ‘Raphael Collection’ o f H.R.H. The Prince Consort,” 32.
“Van den Heer C. Ruland, particulieren Secretaris van Z.K.H. den Prinsgemaal van Engeland, zijn ontvangen
twee Serien van photographien van in Teylers Museum aanwezige teekeningen van Raphaël, met eene
geleidende missive, waarin namens den Prins aan Directeuren dank betuigd wordt voor de verleende vergunning
om photographien van die teekeningen te laten maken, & tevens [unreadable] de bijzondere tevredenheid van
den Prins over de wijze waarop die photographien door den Heer Tinker [unreadable] photograaf alhier,
vervaardigd zijn.” “Directienotulen”, 02.08.1861, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 9.
time to take a closer look at what role museums were ascribed in the Netherlands halfway
through the 19lh century.
IV. Jacob Gijsbertus Samuel van Breda at Teylers Museum
lJ Mid-Century Dutch Liberalism
From what was described in the previous section it clearly transpires that the connotations the
term “museum” carried were changing profoundly around the middle of the 19th century and
that the effects of this were reflected by events in the Netherlands on a number of levels. It is
important to have at least an inkling of what huge shifts were taking place even before the last
quarter of the 191 century in order to be able to contextualise what was happening at Teylers
Museum in Haarlem. However, as was already suggested above, one also needs to realise that
a profound impact resulting from what was happening in countries such as Great Britain and
Germany with regard to the public display of collections was only really felt towards the end
of the 19* century in the Netherlands. Despite such obvious connections with international
developments like the Paleis van Volksvlijt in Amsterdam or the photographs taken of
Raphael’s drawings at Teylers upon Prince Albert’s request, the direct effect of all these
developments was initially more tangential in nature — certainly in Haarlem. The kind of
cultural ideal espoused by Prince Albert and others did not catch on in the Netherlands until
the final quarter of the 19th century.
There are two main reasons that there is no sign of the changes taking place elsewhere
immediately being embraced in Haarlem or, for that matter, in the rest of the Netherlands. The
first of these is the strictly liberal approach of successive Dutch governments in all matters
pertaining to cultural policy. Their attitude inevitably played a significant part in setting the
boundaries within which the role of museums in Dutch society - including Teylers Museum -
was determined. The second reason is more directly relevant to the situation at Teylers
Museum: van Marum’s successor and van der Willigen’s predecessor, Jacob Gijsbertus
Samuel van Breda, proved not to be open to the kind of innovation taking place in Great
Britain and other surrounding countries. He had something of a patrician attitude concerning
his role at the museum and adopted more of an “old school” approach as to what public role
the collections under his purview were to fulfil. Although van Breda expanded the collections
and used his considerable reputation and clout to ensure they remained of a high quality, the
overall role they fulfilled was still much the same when van Breda left as it had been when
van Marum passed away.
Both points deserve more scrutiny. Let us start with the first. Without exaggerating much, the
Dutch government’s policy with regard to museums up until the 1870s can be easily
summarised: it essentially rejected all calls for it to get involved in any significant way, no