particularly those of the interior - were concerned, he seems to have used Ulrich’s design of
the entrance façade as a reference point. This was in fact already noted by the first journalist
who is known to have published an extensive description of the new museum premises once
they had been completed, and again highlights how important the entrance façade was. 3
With the planning phase largely completed, in November 1879 the cornerstone to the new
museum premises was laid by the president of the Teyler Foundation’s trustees, van der
Vlugt, during a small ceremony to mark the occasion. Inevitably, the construction work
suffered a few setbacks over the course of the following months and years — soon after
building had commenced, an unexpected bout of frost damaged the groundwork for instance,
or in October 1880 parts of the entrance façade crashed to the ground. 4 In the overall scheme
of things however, these setbacks remained minor in scale, and building work commenced
rapidly. In January 1885, the new annex was ready to be used. The author of the hand-written
account from which was already quoted above summarised:
“On Sunday, 18 January 1885, the new rooms of the Museums were opened for many invited
guests, the master builders and the architect, and on 26, 27 & 28 January many interested
persons and accompanying ladies were admitted so that they could inspect [the new
premises].35
One of the tickets required by the general public to enter the museum during these three days
has been preserved in the museum archives, and reveals that the building was accessible
between 1 lam and 3pm.3 The auditorium had already been inaugurated with a public lecture
by the curator of physics Elisa van der Ven on January 23 , but the collections had not been
transferred to the new building yet. The curators soon began to do so, though, and the
exhibition area was largely furbished by the summer of 1885.37
3. Awe my Guard
The impact of its new premises on the overall character of the museum can hardly be
overestimated. It is not just that the museum roughly doubled in size; what was even more
striking about the new building and, at the same time, reveals much about how the trustees
33 J. Craandijk, “Pieter Teyler van der Hulst en zijne Stichting te Haarlem,” Eigen Haard 11 (1885): 118. Van
Gestel and Reinink clearly confirmed this on the basis o f their own research: Gestel and Reinink, “Het ‘nieuwe
museum’ van Teyler (1877-1885),” 284.
34 On the problems caused by frost see: Gestel and Reinink, “Het ‘nieuwe museum’ van Teyler (1877-1885),”
253. On the setback building the façade see: “Teyler’s Fundatie te Haarlem”, 1867-c. 1887, ATS, vol. 78, fol.
202.
35 “Op Zondag, 18 Januari 1885, werden de nieuwe localen der Musea voor vele genoodigden, de bouwmeesters
en den architect opengesteld, en den 26, 27 & 28 Januari werd aan vele belangstellenden met hunne dames ook
de toegang verlend om deze in oogenschouw te nemen.” ‘Teyler’s Fundatie te Haarlem”, 1867-c. 1887, ATS,
vol. 78, fol. 206.
36 The ticket can be found in: ‘Teyler’s Fundatie te Haarlem”, 1867-c. 1887, ATS, vol. 78.
37 ‘Teyler’s Fundatie te Haarlem”, 1867-c. 1887, ATS, vol. 78, fol. 206-207.
saw the museum’s overall role at this point in history, is the entrance façade that was
constructed as part of the new annex.
It has already been pointed out that the trustees were clearly aware of the symbolism of
constructing a new entrance. The fact that they realised just how much of an effect the
entrance area in itself would have on the entire museum and particularly how it was
perceived, is reflected by the pivotal role the façade was accorded throughout the process of
designing the Foundation’s newest building. It has also been pointed out how strongly the
new entrance contrasted with the old way of access to Teylers Museum, i.e. through Teyler’s
old town house. In other words, the fact that the museum was provided with a specifically
designed entrance area in itself already marks a turning point in the museum’s history and, as
was already mentioned in previous chapters, was clearly reflected by a significant increase in
visitor numbers. The records indicate that attendance increased about fourfold, increasing to
about 3000 annually after 1885.38
But what still deserves a little more attention is the design of the entrance façade itself,
already because the trustees’ architectural preferences reveal a little about their own self-
image, or rather how they saw the museum.
It has been suggested that Ulrich was strongly influenced by the design of the Neue Hofburg
in Vienna.39 Intriguingly, Gottfried Semper had been involved in the construction of this
Viennese building - recall how it was Semper who drew up the plans for “Albertopolis” in
South Kensington, as described in the previous chapter. But whatever Ulrich’s sources of
inspiration, what is particularly striking is the monumentality of his design. The façade has
been described as representing a form of “neo-classical baroque”, although the 19' century
journalist referred to above described the building as being held in an “Italian Renaissance”
style.40 The museum’s towering entrance doors, the ionic columns that frame them, the steps
one has to walk up to reach the entrance, and the group of three statues on the roof of the
building that resemble ancient goddesses and represent “Fame” crowning “art” and “science”
with laurel wreaths - these are just some of the features that ensure the museum stands out
amongst the adjacent Dutch town houses from the 18' century.
The neo-classical, monumental style the museum was held in not only ensured none of the
passers-by could miss it; it also guaranteed that it was recognisable as a cultural institution. It
was clearly in accordance with the temple-like designs the general public would by this time
have come to expect from public centres of “high culture” such as theatres, opera houses, or
museums. Much the same can be said of the interior: having passed through the entrance
doors, visitors entered a small rotunda, with a marble floor, antique-looking statues
representing various branches of knowledge set in alcoves, and with plaster reliefs
allegorising various branches of the arts and sciences lining the walls. Exaggerating only a
little, it was as if they had entered a place of worship for the arts and sciences.
38 This assessment is based on the amount o f signatures in the visitor’s books and the total amount o f visitors
provided in the art curator’s annual reports after 1885.
Gestel and Reinink, “Het ‘nieuwe museum’ van Teyler (1877-1885),” 284.
40 Ibid.