knowledge, or was this an end in itself? (One might rephrase this by asking what their
“philosophy of science” was, but some caution is called for when using the term “science” in
regard to anything concerning the 19th century, because the word’s connotations changed
profoundly during this period in history.)
Ultimately the most interesting and relevant question is of course in what regards these three
curators’ mindset had an impact on their work at Teylers Museum, and therefore by extension
on Teylers Museum itself. It may seem that their ideas on the value of knowledge are far less
relevant in this respect than a host of other contingent factors such as more general scientific
developments, their own personal research interests, or a host of external factors such as the
facilities and budget at their disposal. However, while all this is also important, their ideas on
the value of knowledge were highly relevant on a far more fundamental level. More precisely,
what is crucial is their definition of, and attitude towards, “the public”. Above all, this is
reflected in their ideas on the communication of knowledge. Did they make a distinction
between “amateurs” and “professionals” for instance? But it is also reflected in their attitude
towards the use value of knowledge. Was, for example, the abstract analysis of natural
phenomena ultimately worthwhile because it could lead to technological applications that
would in turn benefit “the public”? Finally, the reason the curators’ ideas on “the public” are
so important in assessing the history of Teylers Museum - and in fact provide the key to a
better understanding of Teylers Museum’s 19th century development — is because on a more
general level “museums” became “public” institutions as the 19th century progressed. Phrased
in another manner, the changing definition and overall role of “the public” in Western society
had a huge, and in many instances also reciprocal, impact on the definition of the overall role
of museums in that society.
This brings us to the second main issue of this study: the changing connotations of the word
“museum” over the course of the 19th century.
IV. The Complexity of the Term “Museum”
In the simplest of terms, one could posit that by the end of the 19th century museums had
become primarily associated with the public presentation of material collectionsE- where
“public” is taken to mean “accessible to all”, regardless of their personal background. It is
important to stress that one is talking of “material collections” too, i.e. collections of objects
or collectible items. The point is that one can collect and present a lot more. One such
example is provided by books, which in turn can be seen as representatives of knowledge in
general. By the end of the 19th century, however, libraries, i.e. publicly accessible collections
of books, were distinct from museums.
This definition of museums’ primary purpose as the public presentation of material
collections contrasts strongly with earlier definitions of the same term. As the 18th century
drew to a close, museums were still largely associated with the humanist spirit of the late
Renaissance, and carried far broader connotations. Museums were seen as sites for the
accumulation of knowledge, and as such were seen as akin to academies. They were places
where scholars could meet and were provided with all the resources needed to pursue their
scholarly activities.
This simple summary of course amounts to little more than a caricature of 19 century
developments, which merely helps to set the scene. Far more than following a
straightforward, linear path through history, the changing connotations of the term “museum”
and the proliferation of public museums throughout the Western hemisphere, were the result
of highly complex historical processes occurring over the course of the 19l century. What’s
more, these processes differed according to local circumstances.
All in all these processes were in fact so complex that their analysis has brought forth a host
of scholarly literature on various aspects of the history of museums and collections over the
past decades.14 The history of collections has become a research area in its own right, with
entire groups of historians and journals devoted to it.15 This area of study is in turn closely
connected to the equally new field of museum studies, although the object of museum studies
is more to analyse and improve the present day role and impact of museums, with less of a
focus on these institutions’ history.
A certain appreciation of the subtleties of these complex historical processes is pivotal in
gaining an understanding of the history of Teylers Museum. The easiest way to gain such an
appreciation is by drawing attention to some of the main themes that run through the body of
literature devoted to the history of collections and museums. Two issues in particular
constantly recur and have led to numerous debates amongst scholars working on the history of
collections.
The first of these is the question in how far a definition of what constitutes a “museum” is at
all possible. The general consensus has become that “museums” form anything but a clearly
definable set of institutions, either today or in history. The general opinion is far more that
museums have emerged as a particular type of collecting and displaying collections, typical of
a particular period in history (i.e. modernity), which was brought forth by a variety of
developments within the political and cultural domain, and is closely tied to modem
definitions of what was deemed “cultural”.16 What does distinguish this specific group of
collections from others, though, is that it is perceived as some sort of absolute, or universal,
form of displaying collections, despite the blurriness of its definition. In analogy with Andrew
Cunningham’s and Perry Wiliams’ claim that the definition of “science” as a universally
Por a comprehensive recent overview see Randolph Stam, MA Historian s Brief Guide to New Museum
Studies,” The American Historical Review 110, no. 1 (2005): 68—98.
15 The earliest example is Journal o f the History o f Collections, first published in 1982.
16 One o f the first to argue this point was Kenneth Hudson: Kenneth Hudson, A Social History o f Museums:
What the Visitors Thought (London: Macmillan, 1975).