Incidentally, in what ways it differs from previous publications on Teylers Museum has
already been outlined above.
First of all, the idea is that this book will provide anyone who has come across Teylers
Museum and is interested in its history with a better understanding of just th a t! no matter
from which angle they want to approach it or what amount of background knowledge they
already have. In other words, this is a book aimed at experts in search of more detail and
background information on Teylers Museum, as well as anyone merely in search of a good
read. Although, inevitably and perhaps also because it was devised as a scholarly work, those
already familiar with some of the literature and sources this study is based on — or even just
the historical context in which the Museum developed - will probably find this book easier to
read than others. Nevertheless, great care was taken to keep this account of Teylers Museum’s
history as self-explanatory as possible.
Secondly, this book hopes to be of particular value to all those who are interested in the
changing status of scientific instrument collections over the course of the 19th century. It
remains striking just how few cabinets of physics — which were almost ubiquitous in the 18th
century - were preserved in their entirety until the beginning of the 20th century, although
instruments from these cabinets then frequently resurfaced in science museums and museums
of the history of science. Perhaps the demise of the cabinet of physics is the main reason why
relatively little has been published on the overall status of 19th century instrument
collections.31 The amount of publications (although not their quality) certainly pales in
comparison with the body of literature on the history of 19th century art collections,
collections of antiquities and even natural history collections that has become available over
the course of the past decades. By providing a detailed analysis of one of the few instrument
collections that did survive the 19th century intact and by identifying the reasons why this was
the case, this study hopes to be of further use to those poring over other instrument
collections.
Thirdly and finally, this study hopes to contribute to the growing body of literature on the
history of Dutch collections and museums in the 19th century.32 Any account of the history of
For publications that address not only the history o f particular instrument collections or particular science
museums and their precursors, but also the question o f the overall status o f scientific instrument collections in
the 19 century, see for example: Friedrich Klemm, Geschichte der naturwissenschaftlichen und technischen
Museen, vol. 2, Deutsches Museum: Abhandlungen und Berichte 41 (München: Oldenbourg Verlag, 1973); P. R.
de Clercq, ed., Nineteenth-century Scientific Instruments and Their Makers (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1985);
Anthony J. Turner, “From Mathematical Practice to the History o f Science: The Pattern o f Collecting Scientific
Instruments,” Journal o f the History o f Collections (1995); Anthony J. Turner, “Paris, Amsterdam, London: The
Collecting, Trade and Display o f Early Scientific Instruments,* 1830-1930,” in Scientific Instruments: Originals
and Imitations, ed. Peter R. de Clercq (Leiden: Museum Boerhaave, 2000), 23-47; Jim Bennett, “European
Science Museums and the Museum Boerhaave,” in 75 Jaar Museum Boerhaave (Leiden: Museum Boerhaave,
2006), 73-78; Robert G.W. Anderson, “Thoughts on Science Museums and Their Collections,” in 75 Jaar
Museum Boerhaave (Leiden: Museum Boerhaave, 2006), 79-87.
The list o f available literature on the history o f Dutch museums is already extensive if one only focuses on
scholarly monographs on institutional collections in the Netherlands, i.e. if one excludes scholarly articles
published in journals, publications on collections acquired by individuals, monographs published by museums
themselves, and publications on Belgian collections and museums: Johan A. Bierens de Haan, De geschiedenis
van een verdwenen Haarlemsch Museum van Natuurlijke Historié: het Kabinet van Naturalien van de
Hollandsche Maatschappij der Wetenschappen, 1759-1866 (Haarlem: E.F. Bohn, 1941); Theodor H. Lunsingh
Dutch museums should not exclude Teylers Museum. The most straightforward reason is that
Teylers Museum was the first building in the Netherlands that was not only purpose-built to
house a collection, but also referred to as a museum from the very beginning onwards. What’s
more, it always enjoyed a certain prominence, already because of the Teyler Foundation’s
financial muscle. But it is also of great interest and can, in particular, complement the existing
literature on Dutch institutional collections because Teylers Museum was privately owned
throughout the period of history that is covered by this study. The lion’s share of literature on
institutional collections - and this does not just ring true for the Netherlands but also for
international publications - concerns institutions in which the state or some form of officially
sanctioned and publicly funded body was intricately involved. To some extent the ratio of
literature on government-supported collections to literature on privately owned collections
reflects the actual ratio of these collections. Indeed, as the 19th century progressed, Teylers
Museum’s status as a privately owned museum became increasingly exceptional. But that
idiosyncratic status just makes it all the more interesting, and a better understanding of the
way those in charge of the Museum defined its public role and the reasons why it continued to
thrive in the face of its idiosyncratic status, can contribute to an increasingly nuanced picture
of the overall status of collections in the 19* century, particularly in the Netherlands.
VI. Structure of the Book
This book consists of the introductory section you are currently reading, and four main
chapters, followed by a conclusion.
Scheurleer et al., 150 Jaar Koninklijk kabinet van schilderijen, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Koninklijk Penningkabiet
(The Hague: Staatsuitgeverij, 1967); Frederik J. Duparc, Een eeuwstrijd voor Nederlands cultureel erfgoed (The
Hague: Staatsuitgeverij, 1975); Ellinoor Bergvelt, Pantheon der Gouden Eeuw: van Nationale Konst-Gallerij tot
Rijksmuseum van Schilderijen (1798-1896) (Zwolle: Waanders, 1998); Bert Sliggers and Marijke H. Besselink,
eds., Het verdwenen museum: natuurhistorische verzamelingen 1750-1850 (Haarlem: Teylers Museum, 2002);
Ruurd B. Halbertsma, Scholars, Travellers, and Trade: The Pioneer Years o f the National Museum ofAntiquities
in Leiden, 1818-1840 (London; New York: Routledge, 2003); Ellinoor Bergvelt and Lieske Tibbe, eds., Het
Museale Vaderland, vol. 4, De Negentiende Eeuw 27 (Rotterdam: Werkgroep 19de eeuw, 2003); Julia
Noordegraaf, Strategies o f Display: Museum Presentation in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-century Visual Culture
(Rotterdam: NAi Publishers, 2004); Ellinoor Bergvelt, Debora J. Meijers, and Mieke Rijnders, eds., Kabinetten,
galerijen en musea: het verzamelen en presenteren van naturalia en kunst van 1500 tot heden (Zwolle:
Waanders, 2005); Donna C. Mehos, Science and Culture fo r Members Only: The Amsterdam Zoo Artis in the
Nineteenth Century (Amsterdam University Press, 2006); Rudolf Effert, Royal Cabinets and Auxiliary Branches:
Origins o f the National Museum o f Ethnology, 1816-1883 (Leiden: CNWS Publications, 2008); Tibbe and
Weiss, Druk bekeken: collecties en hun publiek in de 19e eeuwj Ellinoor Bergvelt et al., eds., Napoleon’s
Legacy: The Rise o f National Museums in Europe, 1794-1830, Berliner Schriftenreihe Zur Museumsforschung
27 (Berlin: G+H Verlag, 2009); Ellinoor Bergvelt et al., eds., Specialization and Consolidation o f the National
Museum after 1830. The Neue Museum in Berlin in an International Context, Berliner Schriftenreihe Zur
Museumsforschung 29 (Berlin: G+H Verlag, 2011); Mirjam Hoijtink, Exhibiting the Past: Caspar Reuvens and
the Museums o f Antiquities in Europe, 1800-1840 (Tumhout: Brepols, 2012); Hieke Huistra, “Preparations on
the Move: The Leiden Anatomical Collections in the Nineteenth Century” (PhD-thesis, Leiden University,
2013).