of collections was being debated at a high, ministerial level. In fact Reuvens developed
detailed plans for a “Museum of Antiquities” at the end of the 1820s, with plans for a whole
new building in neo-classical style already being drawn up - even the Royal architect
Tieleman Franciscus Suys was involved upon the minister of education’s request.149
According to Reuvens’ plans, this Museum was not just to serve scholars of antiquities, but
open every day of the week for better accessibility.150 But alas for Reuvens, despite the fact
that he enjoyed the King’s support the monarch had acknowledged the need for a new
museum building, to be built either in Leiden or in Brussels in May 1830 - his plans never
materialised. 1 They were essentially thwarted once the Belgians declared their independence
in October 1830. The economy was already in the doldrums and the King and his government
were preoccupied with other matters. Reuvens died just five years later, suddenly and
unexpectedly at the young age of 42.
Another example of the role of museums being critically debated is provided by a public
lecture delivered in 1840 by the writer Johannes Bosscha sr. — incidentally and yet
intriguingly he was the father of van der Willigen’s acolyte Johannes Bosscha jr. - which he
gave as president of the Holland Society for Liberal Arts and Sciences (Hollandsche
Maatschappij van fraaie kunsten en wetenschappen, not to be confused with the Hollandsche
Maatschappij der Wetenschappen or Holland Society in Haarlem that has been mentioned
frequently before). According to the author of Bosscha’s obituary, the Society’s board of
trustees subsequently saw to it that “this important piece directly [be] made available
separately, in the hope that this would ‘promote the flourishing of the arts and sciences in the
Netherlands’”.152 It was published under the revealing title “Address, containing an attempt at
answering the question: what obligations do governments have with regard to the arts and
sciences?” Crucially, it contained the following passage — as summarised in Bosscha’s
obituary Hwhich is worth quoting at some length to understand the context within which the
crucial last sentence was uttered:
“There is in Man an irresistible need to increase his vital sensations. When he doesn’t feel
alive, he looks for stimuli to rouse himself and to feel that he is alive. Therefore people should
be given nobler stimuli than those which, driven by a need inherent in man’s nature, they seek
in liquor. To cultivate a sense of elegance, beauty and euphony among people, to make them
susceptible to enjoyment of art and to provide them with the means to taste this pleasure - this
will, although slowly, but in the long run more effectively, be more successful against alcohol
abuse than prohibition or excise duty. Our era finds little pleasure in what does not speedily
149 On these plans see: Hoijtink, “Een Rijksmuseum in wording: Het Archaeologisch Cabinet in Leiden onder het
directoraat van Caspar Reuvens (1818-1835)”; Hoijtink, “Caspar J.C. Reuvens en de Musea van Oudheden in
Europa (1800-1840),” 145—147. On a drawing o f the museum as Reuvens imagined it in 1826 he wrote
“Voorlopige Schets van een Museum van Oudheden”. On this see: Hoijtink, “Een Rijksmuseum in wording: Het
Archaeologisch Cabinet in Leiden onder het directoraat van Caspar Reuvens (1818-1835),” 232.
150 Hoijtink, “Caspar J.C. Reuvens en de Musea van Oudheden in Europa (1800-1840),” 143.
151 On the King’s support see: Ibid., 145.
152 “dit belangrijk stuk onverwijld afzonderlijk verkrijgbaar gesteld [werd], in de hoop dat daardoor ‘de bloei van
kunsten en wetenschappen in Nederland zou bevorderd worden’”; “Redevoering, bevattende een proeve van
beantwoording der vraag: welke verpligting rust er op de regeringen ten aanzien van kunsten en
wetenschappen?”; Arnold Ising, “Johannes Bosscha,” vol. 5, Mannen van Beteekenis (Haarlem: Kruseman &
Tjeenk Willink, 1875), 362.
achieve results; but governments, whose task is not confined to one human lifetime, should
place a proper appreciation of the long-lasting interests of the people without being carried
away by quick results. Our Museums should therefore not just be considered as luxury items,
and our public colleges for prospective artists should not be treated as if they were only a
means to provide part of the nation with a decent income.”153
This proposal to establish museums as a good alternative to the escapism offered by liquor is
all the more remarkable in that it was put forward many years before Henry Cole expressed
the same sentiments.
A third example is provided by an article published in 1844 by Johannes Potgieter, the
founder of the hugely popular and influential journal De Gids, on the hanging of paintings at
the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, i.e. at the Trippenhuis. Invoking memories of a time when
“the Dutch flag was greeted as the mistress of the sea” and the Netherlands had been a major
political power, Potgieter lamented how the museum did not serve to underscore any sense of
national pride.154 In his opinion, focusing on depictions of historical events and hanging them
in a chronological order in a manner that did their glorious depictions justice, would go a long
way towards cultivating an appropriate sense of nationhood amongst Dutch citizens. Needless
to say, his suggestions fell on deaf ears at the Rijksmuseum itself.1
A final example of a discussion about the public role of museums involved the
Rijksmuseum’s collections as well: in 1862 a group of artists and other connoisseurs of the
arts took on the task of lending a little more urgency to the idea of constructing a new
building for the nation’s paintings, as the Trippenhuis was increasingly perceived to be
inadequate.1 The new museum should act as a memorial as well, celebrating 50 years of
Dutch monarchy in 1863. It was therefore to carry the name “Museum Koning Willem I”, in
honour of the first Dutch King. A competition was held in 1863 and 21 architects submitted
proposals. The Germans Ludwig and Emil Lange from Munich, who had already designed the
museum of fine arts in Leipzig, won first prize. Pierre Cuypers came second. Again, however,
these plans never materialised; yet, in this case, many of the members that formed the
commission for the proposed new museum were later intimately involved in drawing up plans
“[E]r is in den Mensch een onweerstaanbare behoefte naar verhooging zijner levensgewaarwordingen.
Wanneer hij zieh niet leven voelt, zoekt hij naar prikkels om zieh op te wekken en zieh te voelen leven. Men
geve dus aan het volk edeler prikkels dan die welke het, gedreven door een behoefte in het wezen van den
mensch gelegen, in Sterken drank zoekt. Gevoel voor welstand, schoonheid en welluidendheid bij het volk aan te
kweeken, het vatbaar te maken voor kunstgenot en het de middelen te verschaffen om dit genot te smaken - dat
zal, wel langzaam, maar op den duur beter dan verbods- en belastingwetten tegen het misbruik van sterken drank
werken. Onze tijd schept wel geen behagen in hetgeen niet met spoed tot eene uitkomst leidt; doch de
regeeringen, wier werkkring zieh niet tot een menschenleeftijd bepaalt, behooren een juiste waardeering van de
duurzame belangen des volks te stellen boven het wegsleepende van snelle resultaten. Men beschouwe dan onze
Musea niet alleen als voorwerpen van louter weide, en behandele onze openbare kweekscholen voor toekomstige
kunstenaars niet alsof zij enkel middelen waren om aan een gedeelte der natie een eerlijk bestaan te
verschaffen.” Ibid., 364.
154 “de hollandsche vlag werd begroet als de meesteresse der zee”; Everhardus Johannes Potgieter, “Het Rijks-
Museum te Amsterdam,” in De werken van E.J. Potgieter, ed. Johan C. Zimmerman, vol. 2 (Haarlem: H.D.
Tjeenk Willink & Zoon, 1903), 100.
1 Ellinoor Bergvelt, Pantheon der Gouden Eeuw: van Nationale Konst-Gallerij tot Rijksmuseum van
Schilderijen (1798-1896) (Zwolle: Waanders, 1998), 154-158.
156 On this project see: Duparc, Een eeuw strijd voor Nederlands cultureel erfgoed, 53-55.