own qualifications, citing Haarlem’s isolated position as the main reason he would prefer to
take up an alternative offer he had received from the University of Delft:
“Without question there is very much that is great about a private Foundation [the Teyler
Foundation] that wants its resources to serve science, and to ensure that these great intentions
are done justice and developed even further is a tempting task. I also understand very well that
many things could perhaps be done for the general cause of all physicists by someone who is
not burdened by other duties of his position, with regards to cooperation on a national level as
well as for international relations. But this is an ambition that aims high, to attract those
members of the scientific circle of friends for regular interaction. In order to break the
isolation [isolement] of Haarlem a lot of friendship will be necessary, and a certain amount of
authority. Following this line of thought it then seems again as if I needed to earn my spurs in
Delft first, and become familiar with the nature of and [... unreadable] of relations.”176
In other words, “the isolation of Haarlem” weighed more heavily than the absence of any
teaching obligations at Teylers and the possibility to focus entirely on research.
By this time, the second aspect could no longer be ignored either: the Foundation’s finances.
The changes in the global economy were beginning to take their toll on the Foundation’s
budget, which of course had already been stretched to the limit when Lorentz was taken on.
The War, inflation, the Russian Revolution, and the introduction of personal taxes all brought
about change in the financial world during this time. When the trustees were looking for a
successor to van der Pol, they therefore openly told Lorentz that they were “of the opinion
that they would have to be prepared for a possible cave-in and significant loss of value of
stocks”.177 They had already lost a lot of money as a result of the Russian Revolution, when
the Russian government bonds they held became worthless. Even though the trustees were
able to compensate for this loss by investing in Dutch companies and bonds, the financial
markets were still far from stable.178 The year Coster was taken on, 1923, was the year in
which hyperinflation brought the young Weimar Republic to its knees. Lorentz accordingly
warned Coster that he had to consider his new position a temporary one, as there was a
possibility that the entire physics department would have to economise - small wonder Coster
soon left for Groningen.179
176 “Ontegenzeggelijk is er erg veel moois in een particuliere Stichting [Teylers], die haar middelen aan de
wetenschap wil dienstbaar maken, en om te zorgen dat dit mooie der bedoeling tot zijn recht komt en nog verder
ontwikkeld wordt is een aantrekkeljke taak. Ook zie ik heel wel in, dat er vele dingen wellicht te doen vallen
voor de gemeene zaal der physici juist voor iemand, die geen drukke ambtsplichten heeft, zoowel voor de
binnenlandsche vriendschappen als voor buitenlandsche verstandhouding. Maar het is een ambitie, die nogal
hoog mikt, deze van een wetenschappelijken vriendenkring aan te trekken tot geregeld verkeer. Om het
isolement van Haarlem te breken zal veel vriendschap noodig zijn, en een zeker gezag. In dezen gedachtengang
lijkt het dan weer alsof ik in Delft eerst mijn sporen daartoe moet verdienen, en bekendheid verwerven met
karakter en den binnenkant [?] van verhoudingen.”: A. Fokker to H.A. Lorentz, 03.01.1923, Haarlem, NHA,
Archief Lorentz, vol. 364, nr. 24.
77 “van oordeel zijn dat zij rekening moeten houden met een mogelijke ineenstorting en waardevermindering
van rentegevende papieren.” This is the way Fokker quotes Lorentz, in: A. Fokker to Lorentz, 03.01.1923,
Haarlem, NHA, Archief Lorentz, vol. 364, nr. 24.
178 See the accountant’s reports covering this period, in: “Rekeningen met Toelichting”, 1889-1945, Haarlem,
ATS, vol. 609. The worthless Russian bonds were kept: “Coupons”, c.1917, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 2414.
179 “Jaarverslag 1922-1923”, 07.04.1923, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 191.
Interestingly, even well into the 1930s the Foundation had in fact not actually lost any of its
capital, which, at about £2.000.000,- was still considerable.180 But, crucially, the trustees were
no longer able to gain much of a return on the assets they owned. The accountant’s annual
reports confirm what Fontein, by this time president of the board of trustees, pointed out in
1926: “that one needs to be very frugal in order to retain flOm [f10.000,-] at the end of each
year, which is quite necessary“.181 By this time, he and his fellow members of the board were
no less concerned than they had been after van der Pol left. It is worth recalling that the
Foundation had a lot more to pay for than Lorentz’ laboratory: all the other departments at the
museum - the most costly of which for many years was the library - , the museum itself, the
Hofje, the two learned societies, and a wide range of charities all required regular payments.
As was already mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, lengthy discussions on how to
economise ensued, and during these discussions the idea to close down either the laboratory
or the art department was even floated several times by different members of the board. It was
finally decided that all the prints and drawings the Foundation owned in duplicate were to be
sold off.182 Sensing what else might still be coming, the curator of the art department, H. van
Borssum Buisman, subsequently agreed to select prints and drawings that could be put on the
market, but repeatedly protested heavily against any paintings being sold.183 Lorentz himself
also went on record protesting against other departments economising in order to maintain his
own department’s budget. But as Fokker soon noticed, all departments felt the squeeze, with
the laboratory’s annual budget being set at fl4.000,- rather than the f l 7.000,- both Fokker and
Lorentz considered necessary and had asked for.
So, in a way, it looked as if Zocher’s premonitions about the Foundation’s finances had been
correct. Zocher himself had passed away in 1915. Yet Fontein’s enthusiasm was never
broken, he never showed any signs of regretting having taken on Lorentz. On the contrary,
when Lorentz passed away, Fontein gave a small eulogy at the following meeting of the board
of trustees, in which he spoke of Lorentz tenure and personality in no less than glowing terms.
Acknowledging that Lorentz had not been able to perform as much research at Teylers as he
had wanted to himself, Fontein nevertheless drew attention to the “successen” of the
conservators, emphasised Lorentz’ impeccable character and fine intellect, and proudly
quoted Kamerlingh Onnes as having stated that the country should be eternally grateful to the
Teyler Foundation because it had created a position for Lorentz in which he was free to focus
exclusively on his research. But, Fontein continued, far more than the Foundation had been
able to assist Lorentz, it had benefitted from his worldwide fame:
180 “Rekeningen met Toelichting”, 1889-1945, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 609.
1 1 “dat men heel en heel zuinig moet zijn om jaarlijks flOm [flO.OOOF] te kunnen overhouden wat toch
noodzakelijk is.”: “Directienotulen”, 14.05.1926, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 15.
182 “Directienotulen”, 30.04.1926-11.06.1926, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 15.
183 “Directienotulen”, 14.05.1926, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 15, fol. 5 & fol. 9.