that only the section of the Rijksmuseum that contained its collection of paintings was opened
to the public in that year, whereas the section with historical items took another two years to
furbish. In the overall scheme of things, that is still remarkable close to the opening in
Haarlem.) The question then arises in how far this was pure coincidence.
Although the coincidence is striking, great caution is called for here and one should not jump
to any conclusions. More to the point, it would be far too simple to portray what was
happening in Haarlem merely as an attempt at emulating de Stuers. For one, the trustees of the
Teyler Foundation had too many good reasons of their own for constructing the new annex to
Teylers Museum when they did. The establishment of the Teyler Foundation in 1778 - the
event the trustees intended to celebrate with the new annex - had obviously not been planned
to coincide with de Stuers’ activities, for instance. What’s more, there is no direct evidence of
events in Amsterdam having had any impact whatsoever on the decision making process in
Haarlem. Neither de Stuers nor the Rijksmuseum are mentioned in any of the documents
pertaining to the construction of the extension to Teylers Museum.
But at the same time there is clear evidence that at least some of those involved in the various
aspects of expanding Teylers Museum were well-informed about what was happening in
Amsterdam, both with regard to the new building for the Rijksmuseum and with regard to de
Stuers’ attempts at securing a more high-profile involvement of the government in cultural
matters. It is another matter to determine just how much of an impact — if any -- this
knowledge of issues that were being discussed in Amsterdam and The Hague had on what
was decided in Haarlem, but it does underscore that it wouldn’t suffice to see the construction
of the new annex to Teylers Museum as having occurred in total isolation from other
developments in the museum world.
The three individuals that would have most definitely been privy to information concerning de
Stuers’ activities were: Johannes Enschede, a member of Teylers Second Society, Hendrik
Jacobus Scholten, curator of Teylers Museum’s collections of fine art since 1872, and — albeit
to a lesser extent than the other two - the trustee L.P. Zocher.
Enschede and Scholten were members of a committee that can be seen as the kernel of the
cultural ideals so vociferously propagated by de Stuers in the Netherlands.44 It will not come
as much of a surprise that de Stuers was himself a member of this committee and in fact
dominated it during the brief period of its existence between 1874 and 1879. The overall
amount of members varied, but was never more than ten.
Some background information on this committee is necessary in order to be able to assess the
implications of Enschede’s and Scholten’s membership. The committee was founded a few
months after de Stuers had published his famous article in De Gids, although its establishment
had already been discussed prior to the article’s publication. Its task was to advise the
department of education and arts and sciences at the Dutch interior ministry. Technically, this
department was the predecessor to the department of arts and sciences that de Stuers was
44 For the following information on this committee see: Duparc, Een eeuw strijd voor Nederlands cultureel
erfgoed, 2-13 & 71-78.
appointed to in 1875 - however, the former essentially consisted of just one man (Hendrik
Vollenhoven) and even though he was provided with three assistants, he focused almost
exclusively on matters pertaining to education. So de Stuers’ department was fundamentally
different from the one it replaced.
The committee did a lot to create awareness for issues concerning Dutch cultural heritage.
Without the committee, de Stuers’ department at the interior ministry might never have been
created. What’s more, along with Enschede and Scholten the committee included some other
prominent members - the architect of the new Rijksmuseum, Pierre Cuypers, was one of them
for instance. Yet throughout its existence the committee’s position was an awkward one. At
first, because nine high-profile intellectuals were advising a civil servant - the head of the
department for education and arts and sciences - who wasn’t really interested in issues
pertaining to the area they were advising him on. And then, after this civil servant was
replaced by Stuers (who of course was anything but disinterested in issues surrounding Dutch
heritage) in 1875, the committee’s position remained awkward simply because de Stuers
refused to resign from the committee, even though he did step down as secretary to the
committee. As a result, de Stuers was essentially advising himself, and the committee’s role
was in danger of being reduced to rubber stamping de Stuers’ policies. Finally, by 1879,
major disagreements amongst its members had made the committee unable to function and it
was officially dissolved by March 1879.46
Let us return to Enschede and Scholten: Enschede was one of the first eight members
appointed to the committee, and as such would have participated in the more than 50 meetings
that were called over the course of the committee’s existence. One can assume that at least
part of what he leamt during these meetings would have found its way to Haarlem, i.e. that he
would have shared information with his friends and colleagues at home. Scholten only joined
the committee some years later, in 1877. Nevertheless, the fact that he was appointed a
member at all indicates that he was generally recognised within those circles that were
pushing for reform of the Dutch government’s approach to its nation’s cultural heritage.
Zocher, finally, was involved in at least one project that Cuypers was involved in as well.47
As a well-established architect working in the same geographical region of the Netherlands, it
is plausible that Zocher would have at the very least heard rumours of what Cuypers was
working on.
As was already said, these connections do not provide direct proof that the construction of
new museum premises in Amsterdam and Haarlem were in any way connected. But they do
underscore the notion that both can be seen as the manifestation of a fundamental change of
attitude towards the role of museums in the Netherlands that was taking place at the end of the
1870s.
That the implications of these changes, or rather of a new role for museums as state-sponsored
“exercises in civics”, were both generally recognised and also taken very seriously becomes
45 Ibid., 1-2.
46 Ibid., 12-13.
Wagt and Fielmich, Architectuurgids Haarlem, 82.