letter was phrased van Breda would in .11 likelihood have been expected to contribute items
from his own personal collection to the new institution as well.
When the Commission was disbanded, the collections in Haarlem were initially sealed off
There was some debate as to whether they should be transferred to the Trippenhuis in
Amsterdam, but they eventually remained in Paviljoen Welgelegen.186 Staring was
subsequently tasked with completing the geological map on his own and given full control
over e co ection in Haarlem. A first section of the map was published in 1858 When
Staring moved to the town of Vorden in 1864, it was decided to transfer the geological
collection to I^iden and incorporate it into the National Museum of Natural History. By this
time Staring had assembled three times as many specimens as he had still listed in the
guidebook some ten years earlier.187
Yet these no longer included a whole set of items from the Pietersberg in Maastricht, which
had been sold to the Teyler Foundation in 1861 for a total of f6000,-. The largest part of this
sum, f5000,-, was paid to the University of Groningen for specimens that had originally
elonged to Camper, the rest of the money went to the state for specimens collected by
Staring during his work on the geological map.188 Van Breda fully supported this transaction
- he first drew the trustees’ attention to the possibility of a deal - and even offered to sell the
Foundation his own collection, many parts of which would complement the other specimens
from the Pietersberg, for about flO.OOO,-. He doesn’t even appear to have been after any
personal gain as he simultaneously stated that he “would hand over fhis collection] only
re uctantly before he died”. Although one of the trustees was dispatched to discuss this
proposal with van Breda, no reference is made to this offer in the final transaction with
Staring and the University of Groningen. Staring, at least, was thanked
[...] for his kind efforts to transfer the said collection into the possession of this Foundation
and for his [unreadable] concern for the safe transference of the objects from the Pavilion to
the building of T.F. [the Teyler Foundation]”190
And despite all the acrimony brought about by the Commission and van Breda’s later fallout
with the trustees about the provenance of parts of his own collection, when the deal with
Staring and Groningen was made, it was ultimately van Breda’s work that had helped expand
and enhance the collections at Teylers Museum.
Another, unrelated example of the way in which van Breda would have seen himself
confronted with the changing role and status of museums can be found in his dealings with
mineral traders: whereas the dealers van Marum had worked with and purchased items from
still catered primarily to individual, rich collectors (i.e. “patrons”), by the middle of the 19th
i E H Afdeling ^ “ unde”, 27.09.1856, Haarlem, NHA, Archief KNAW, vol. 64, nr. 4, fol 407-413
lgg Kok, De musea in Paviljoen Welgelegen,” 141.
189 p kectienotulen”> 27.09.1861, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 9.
vol. 9.n8aarne [Zlj" C0" eCtie] v66r zijn 0verlijden zou afstaan”; “Directienotulen”, 30.11.1860, Haarlem, ATS,
190 “[...] voor zijn welwillende bemoeijingen om de bedoelde verzameling in eigendom aan deze Stichtine te
het en, V00r,zljne aangeevende [unreadable] zorg voor het veilig overbrengen der voorwerpen van
het Paviljoen naar het gebouw van T.St.”; “Directienotulen”, 21.02.1862, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 9.
century museums and other educational institutions had become major clients for mineral
dealers, rivalling rich connoisseurs as a main source of income. What’s more, in van Breda’s
correspondence concerning the acquisition of geological specimens, one regularly finds
“science” equated with “the public good” and both are invoked as an argument as to why a
particular item or collection should be sold to someone - or rather should not be, if it is in
danger of no longer being publicly accessible. One example is provided by the German
geologist Christian Erich Hermann von Meyer who, upon having sold van Breda a number of
specimens in 1860, wrote:
“As difficult as it is for me to part with these important fossils, it is a reassuring feeling that
the pieces on which my research is based, are now safely preserved for science in Teylers
Museum; in smaller museums or in private collections they would have been lost sooner or
later. The objects are worthy of Teylers Museum [...].” 191
Of course it is questionable whether this type of argument really did carry much weight, or
whether it wasn’t just used to gloss over other matters and deliberations; but nevertheless, it is
striking how “the public good” and whatever was seen to serve it (e.g. science) had become
part of everyone’s rhetorical repertoire.
Recall also how van Marum had still persuaded the trustees that he needed to go to
Switzerland in order to acquire certain geological specimens directly “from the source”
because they were not pleasing to the eye and therefore not readily available from mineral
traders. In contrast, by the time van Breda worked at Teylers, traders were emphasising that
the specimens they had on offer were precisely classified and proudly presented complete sets
of specimens that illustrated classificatory systems.
6. The Rhenish Mineral-Office Krantz
A good example of the changes that had taken - and were taking - place is one of van Breda’s
most loyal suppliers, the “Rhenish Mineral-Office Krantz” (Rheinisches Mineralien Comptoir
Krantz). This had been established by August Anton Krantz in 1833 when he was still
studying in Freiburg, the German town famous for its mining academy.192 He then set up shop
in Berlin, but moved his headquarters to Bonn in 1850, “on account of the greater facilities
191 “So schwer ich mich von diesen wichtigen Versteinerungen trenne, so ist es mir doch ein beruhigendes
Gefühl, die Stücke die meinen Untersuchungen zu Grunde liegen, nunmehr im Teylerschen Museum auf sichere
Weise der Wissenschaft erhalten zu sehen; in kleineren Museen oder Privatsammlungen würden sie früher oder
später verloren gegangen seyn. Die Gegenstände sind des Teylerschen Museums würdig [...].” C.E.H. von Meyer
to J.G.S. van Breda, 06.03.1860, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 2284.
192 Krantz gave a very brief summary o f his business in the introductory remarks to the following sales
catalogue: Verzeichniss von verkäuflichen Mineralien, Gebirgsarten, Versteinerungen (Petrefacten) und
Gypsmodellen seltener Fossilien im Rheinischen Mineralien-Comptoir des Dr. A. Krantz in Bonn (Bonn, 1855),
iii.