clear if one takes a closer look at the reason why the advisory committee Enschede and
Scholten sat on was dissolved48: in the late 1870s de Stuers and Cuypers saw themselves
accused of trying to promote Roman-Catholicism through the mediaeval, neo-Gothic, “old-
Dutch” style in which they had apparently decided to fashion all public buildings they were
responsible for, including of course the new Rijksmuseum. De Stuers even felt compelled to
publish an essay rejecting these accusations, but this just elicited a retaliatory article from
none other than a fellow member of the advisory committee, Carel Vosmaer. Although
Vosmaer had published his rebuke - in which he reiterated that de Stuers and his allies were
trying to use their promotion of Dutch cultural heritage to help convert the Protestant majority
of Dutch Christians to Roman-Catholicism - under a pseudonym, it appears to have been
clear to all involved who the real author was. A sharp exchange of opinions ensued during the
next meeting of the advisory committee, with Vosmaer and two other members subsequently
resigning.
At the time, fundamental debates on the role Catholics were to take within a secular society
were raging in the Netherlands.49 One strand of Catholicism in particular, referred to as
ultramontanism and which placed a strong emphasis on the Pope’s absolute authority, was
perceived as a threat by many Protestants in the Netherlands and served to heighten a widely
held and age-old sense of distrust of all forms of Christianity that were not sanctioned by the
Reformed Church. (Recall how Mennonites such as Teyler, while not in any way restricted in
practising their faith, had not been able to take on public office.) The reason ultramontanism
was perceived as such a threat was that it seemed to undermine the state’s authority. Rather
than pledge allegiance to the Dutch nation, Catholics were being asked to pledge allegiance to
the Pope, residing “beyond the mountains”. At a time when a strong sense of nationhood was
merging amongst Dutch Liberals, this formed a particularly sensitive dilemma.
These issues largely came to the fore in debates concerning the organisation of the Dutch
educational system, with Dutch bishops at one point declaring their followers should not to
send their children to state-run schools. Yet, even if Vosmaer’s and de Stuers’ discussions
were merely a side show within a series of more prominent debates, the fact that these debates
revolved around educational matters shows how museums were accorded an influential and
formative role, precisely as educational institutions, by the late 1870s.
One final aspect about the dispute that led to the dissolution of the advisory committee that is
intriguing is the fact that Scholten took sides with Vosmaer. The curator of Teylers Museum’s
art collection did not resign from the committee, but clearly had his misgivings about the neo-
Gothic style Cuypers had chosen for the new Rijksmuseum. Was this perhaps a more widely
held sentiment amongst those associated with the Teyler Foundation, reflecting its Mennonite
roots? And if so, was this perhaps one of the reasons for choosing such a blatantly
monumental neo-classical design theme for the Foundation’s own museum? This was, after
48 The following summary o f the dispute leading to the advisory committee’s dissolution is based on information
provided in: Duparc, Een eeuw strijd voor Nederlands cultureel erfgoed, 11; Jos Perry, Ons fatsoen als natie:
Victor de Stuers, 1843-1916 (Amsterdam: SUN, 2004), 119-138.
49 On this see for example: R.A.M. Aerts et a t, Land van kleine gebaren: een politieke geschiedenis van
Nederland 1780-1990 (Nijmegen: SUN, 2010), 116-127.
50 Ibid., 123.
all, a conscious choice, given that the trustees had a total of 18 designs to chose from,
following the architectural competition they held. Unfortunately, at least from a historian’s
point of view, all proposals except the winning one submitted by Ulrich were destroyed or
returned to their authors once Ulrich’s had been singled out as the best. Just two others have
been partially preserved, seemingly by accident — and they are not enough to draw any far-
reaching conclusions from.5 So, given that the available evidence on any possible influence
of ultramontanist thought on the design of Teylers Museum is purely circumstantial, any
statement concerning this matter would have to remain largely speculative.
However, what is indisputable is the huge impact the extension to Teylers Museum had, not
just on the overall character of the museum as was described above, but also on the specific
handling and presentation of the museum’s collections. Before focusing on how the new
building affected the scientific collections, however, it is worth learning a little more about
the curators that were in charge of these collections at the time of the construction of the new
annex.
III. T.C. Winkler & E. van der Ven
1. Tiberius Cornelis Winkler
During the years in which the new annex was added to Teylers Museum, Tiberius Cornelis
Winkler was in charge of the museum’s geological collections and Elisa van der Ven was
responsible for the scientific instruments and laboratory. Throughout their careers, these men
showed great passion not only for scientific research, but also for passing on scientific
knowledge. They were educators and popularisers of science. Van der Ven was not only a
gifted teacher, but also wrote a series of popular articles on physics and mathematics. Winkler
wrote and published more than a dozen books aimed mainly at a youthful audience,
explaining various aspects of the study of nature.
Winkler was a self-made man and social climber. He was bom in Leeuwarden in 1822, where
he attended school until he was 13, when he became an apprentice to a grain merchant.
While he was an apprentice he taught himself French, displaying a knack for languages that
led him to subsequently learn German and English as well. Aged 22, Winkler married. His
brother-in-law, a medical student in Groningen, suggested he continue his schooling and
51 For more detail on these alternative designs see: Gestel and Reinink, “Het ‘nieuwe museum’ van Teyler (1877-
1885),” 237-243.
52 On Winkler’s biography see: D. Winkler and H.W. Heinsius, ‘Tiberius Cornelis Winkler,” in Album der
Natuur (Haarlem: H.D. Tjeenk Willink, 1898), 320-329; Marian Stegeman, “T.C. Winkler En de Popularisering
van de Natuurstudie: Een Onderzoek Naar de Verschillen En Overeenkomsten Met Het Werk van Heimans En
Thijsse” (master thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 2004); Marijke H. Besselink, “Winkler? Nooit van
gehoord,” Teylers Magazijn 57 (1997): 7-9; Joop van Veen, ‘Tiberius Cornelis Winkler, 100 jaar geleden
overleden,” Teylers Magazijn 57 (1997): 9-12.