But just like all the other international exhibitions of that time, there was a strong competitive
element to the Electrical Exhibition too. More specifically, it was competitive in two ways.
Firstly, the idea was not only to showcase the progress that had been achieved in science and
engineering in general, but also to develop the market for electrical apparatus. To the
organisers of the exhibition, even the participants of the international conference were
primarily potential clients for the exhibitors of electrical apparatus. A representative of the
French government at least explained as much to the Dutch minister of trade and commerce
when he wrote that for “the exhibitors”, “the modest expenses of installing [their exhibits]
will be a good investment”, because “[T]hey will profit from a unique event, that has been
anticipated for a long time and that was difficult to organise, at which they can display their
inventions, explain their systems and let their machines function in front of the greatest
scientists of the world.”2
Secondly, on another level and again in much the same way as with all previous international
exhibitions, the race was on to establish which country was the most productive and
progressive, i.e. which country’s display included the most spectacular innovation. This
contest was less of an open one than that between different manufacturing companies.
Manufacturers could measure and compare their level of success by citing the prizes that were
awarded to them by an independent and international jury during international exhibitions.
The jurors in turn had concrete criteria through which they could evaluate manufacturers’
products, such as their durability, practical use, aesthetic quality, etc. A sense of national
pride, by contrast, was far less tangibleH but its importance should nevertheless be anything
but underestimated during this particular period in history. The “nation state” had recently
become a hugely important political category, and almost literally so. One could even say that
the stability of the political system in Europe at the time depended in no small part on citizens
developing a sense of pride that they belonged to a particular nation state: in defining
themselves as members of such a nation state and pledging allegiance to it, even if only
subconsciously, they were turning themselves into good and reliable citizens.
This contest of the nation states at international exhibitions brings us back to Oyens. Although
he was probably not very worried about the stability of the European or even the Dutch
political system in general, it was clear to him that in taking on the task of organising the
Dutch section of the Paris Exhibition he had also accepted the higher responsibility of
providing a positive image of the Netherlands at this exhibition, certainly in comparison with
the other nations’ displays. It was of course clear that the Netherlands, as a comparatively
small country, would not be able to take on many of the larger nations. But Oyens was
confident that the Dutch need not shy away from the competition. As he confidently declared
in a letter to the Dutch minister of trade and commerce which he sent shortly after his
2 “les exposants” ; “Les dépenses modiques d’installation [...] seront pour eux de l’argent bien place”; “Ils
profiteront, en effet, d’une occasion unique, qui était depuis longtemps désirée et qui ne pouvait être que
difficilement offerte, de produire leurs inventions, d’expliquer leurs systèmes et de faire fonctionner leurs
appareils devant la réunion des plus grands savants du monde.” G. Berger to G.J.G. Klerck, 08.12.1880, The
Hague, NL-HaNA, WHN / Handel enNijverheid I, 2.16.60.04, inv.-nr. 287.
appointment, Oyens felt that “the Netherlands can certainly successfully compete with other
countries, in particular concerning the excellent organisation of the telegraph service.”
In spite of his confidence, however, Oyens — who lived in Paris and ran a business there— soon
found it difficult to rally the troops at home in support of his cause. The Dutch government in
particular followed its traditionally liberal approach of leaving all cultural and economic
matters - which obviously included international exhibitions - to private initiative, and was
therefore reluctant to provide Oyens with any funding for his display, or any government
items to include in it.
And then, matters began to look even worse when he heard that the British Postmaster
General had announced his office would send in “every kind of electrical and in particular
telegraphic instruments which have been used by the British government since 1837 until
now, and which demonstrate the important improvements that have gradually taken place in
this area.”4 By drawing attention to their long history of important contributions to the
development of telegraph systems, the British were of course bolstering their claim to preeminence
in this area of technology B which was precisely the area in which Oyens had hoped
the Dutch would be able to prove their mettle.
Somewhat desperate, Oyens again wrote to the Dutch ministry of trade and commerce.
Attempting to invoke a sense of debt towards the French government as the hosts of this
international exhibition, he first reported how he had heard about the British plans, and then
“how pleased His Excellency the Ministre des Postes & Telegraphes, under whose patronage
the Exhibition will be held, would be if the Dutch Government would also contribute such an
important collection.”
Ultimately, however, his pleas were to no avail. The ministry of trade and commerce did
actually take them seriously enough to pass the matter on to the state telegraph company
(RijkstelegraaJ). But its chief director did not consider it wise to try and match this British
show of past ingenuity. He scribbled his reply on the letter he had been sent by the ministry,
stating: “The state telegraph company acquires its instruments from abroad and is therefore
unable to contribute anything original or special. In such a situation it is better, I think, to
refrain entirely from participating.”6 And this way, no extra costs were of course incurred
either.
3 “Nederland zeker met andere landen günstig kan wedijveren, vooral wat de voortreffelijke inrigting van het
telegraafwezen aangaat”; G. Oyens to G.J.G. Klerck, 04.03.1881, The Hague, NL-HaNA, WHN / Handel en
Nijverheid I, 2.16.60.04, inv.-nr. 287.
4 “elke soort van electrische en in ’t bijzonder telegrafische instrumenten welke sedert 1837 tot heden door de
Engelsche regeering zijn gebruikt worden, en welke dus de belangrijke verbeteringen aantoonen welke
successievelijk op dat gebied hebben plaats gehad”; G. Oyens to G.J.G. Klerck, 17.03.1881, The Hague, NL-
HaNA, WHN / Handel en Nijverheid I, 2.16.60.04, inv.-nr. 287.
5 “hoe aangenaam het Z.E. den Ministre des Postes & Telegraphes, onder wiens bescherming de Tentoonstelling
zal plaats hebben, zou zijn indien de Nederlandsche Regeering ook eene dergelijke belangrijke verzameling zou
willen inzenden.” Ibid.
6 “De Rijkstelegraaf ontvangt zijn toestellen van buiten ’s lands en zou dus niets oorspronkelijks o f eigenaardigs
kunnen inzenden. In zoodanig geval doet men, meen ik, beter zulks geheel te onthouden.” Hoofddirecteur der