politically. The University of Leiden’s natural history collection had originally belonged to
the stadtholder, but was brought to Paris by the French in 1795.10 It was only upon its return
twenty years later that it was placed in the university’s care. The former Royal Cabinet of
Natural History had been established by Lodewijk Napoleon. His original idea of combining
the collections with a menagerie and botanical gardens in Haarlem never however
materialised, one reason being that Lodewijk moved his residence from Haarlem to
Amsterdam, and the collections followed him there.11
At the same time the new National Museum of Natural History provides an indication of some
of the idiosyncrasies of Dutch history too, and how the generalisations have their limits. The
stadtholder's natural history collections for instance were publicly accessible in The Hague
long before they were confiscated, and could be taken as an early example of - or at least a
precursor to - the public museums as they proliferated at the beginning of the 19th century.
Their accessibility certainly illustrates how the division between the stadtholder and Dutch
citizens was less pronounced than the division between monarchs and their subjects in other
European countries of the time. This relative lack of a centralised, monarchist tradition is also
recognisable in the fact that it was Temminck’s own, privately acquired collections, rather
than both the (formerly) Royal collections that were merged with it in order to form the new
national museum, which formed the nucleus of the new institution.12
Both the idiosyncrasies of the Dutch situation as well as general shift in the status of
collections described above are key elements to understanding the origins and the early
history of Teylers Museum. But while addressing the question of how this specific
institution’s history fits into the overall history of collections is important, in order to do so it
is equally important to realise that the driving force behind its establishment was the
ubiquitous Martinus van Marum. Through his lifelong directorship he left an indelible mark
on the museum, even if he did reduce his activities at the museum after 1803; and while his
far-reaching ambition and personal talents helped put Teylers on the map, as was already
mentioned the benefit was mutual in the sense that his association with the Teyler Foundation
also helped boost van Mamm’s own career.
A deeper understanding of this institution’s first years can only be gained by familiarising
oneself at least a little with the cultural and political debates that raged throughout van
Marum’s career. They are particularly relevant in as far as they concerned the importance of
the acquisition and production of knowledge, because of the implications this had for the
character and use of the collections that fell under his purview. How important for instance
10 On the history o f this collection see Theodor H. Lunsingh Scheurleer et al., 150 ja a r Koninklijk kabinet van
schilderijen, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, Koninklijk Penningkabiet (The Hague: Staatsuitgeverij, 1967).
11 For an account o f this enterprise and its effects for Haarlem see: Elsa van der Pool-Stofkooper, “Verwachting
en werkelijkheid: parken en tuinen van het domein Welgelegen in de periode 1808-1832,” in Paviljoen
Welgelegen 1789-1989: Van buitenplaats van de bankier Hope tot zetel van de provincie Noord-Holland
(Haarlem: Schuyt, 1989), 132-138.
12 Similar developments are discernible in the art world, where essentially local collections in The Hague and
Amsterdam were simply declared “national” museums in the aftermath o f the French Revolution: Debora J.
Meijers, ‘T h e Dutch Method o f Developing a National Art Museum: How Crucial Were the French
Confiscations o f 1795?,” in Napoleon’s Legacy: The Rise o f National Museums in Europe, Berliner
Schriftenreihe Zur Museumsforschung 27 (Berlin: G+H Verlag, 2009), 41-54.
was public accessibility? How was the public that was to be granted access defined and
screened? Was the purpose of the museum the production of knowledge, its diffusion, both, or
more? Was the knowledge stored in the museum to serve the purpose of demonstrating the
complexity and beauty of God’s creation, or was its value to be judged by the amount of
practical applications it brought forth? Did van Marum’s views differ from those of others
who were concerned with the museum, such as the trustees of the Teyler Foundation? What
role did the museum itself play in possible disputes? Did they have an impact on the
collection itself or its management? These are the questions that will be addressed over the
course of the following chapters. Ultimately, the aim is to situate van Marum within these
debates, in order to understand how Teylers Museum was managed during the first decades of
its existence.
2. Martinus van Marum’s Formative Years & The Holland Society of Sciences
Before turning to van Marum’s role in the establishment of Teylers Museum however, it is
worth learning a little more about his formative years, i.e. his youth and what he did in the
years before he became involved with the Teyler Foundation.13
Martinus van Mamm was bom in Groningen in 1750. His father had been trained as a
constructional engineer and a surveyor, and later became a master potter in Delft, where van
Marum attended the Latin School. He appears to have been an excellent student, as he was
allowed to present a Latin poem twice at prize ceremonies, an honour that was reserved for
the best student of a class. When van Mamm was 14 his family moved back to Groningen. On
December 31st 1764, he enrolled at the town’s university, from which he was to graduate
some nine years later.
His teachers in Groningen included Wouter van Doeveren, Dionysius van de Wijnpersse,
Sebald Justinus Brugmans (who was already mentioned above), and Petrus Camper. Of these,
Camper undoubtedly had the most profound influence on his young student’s life. Camper
was recognised as one of his generations’ most formidable intellectuals, and his wide range of
activities included studies of plant life, the human body, animal life, and finally fossilized
remains. He was particularly interested in comparative studies. Camper even ventured into
13 Unless indicated otherwise, the details o f van Marum’s biography are taken from: Alida M. Muntendam, “Dr.
Martinus van Marum (1750-1837),” ed. E. Lefebvre, J.G. de Bruijn, and R.J. Forbes, vol. 1, Martinus van
Marum: Life & Work (Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink & Zoon, 1969), 1-72; Gerda H. Kurtz, “Martinus van Marum,
Citizen o f Haarlem,” ed. E. Lefebvre, J.G. de Bruijn, and R.J. Forbes, vol. 1, Martinus van Marum: Life & Work
(Haarlem: Tjeenk Willink & Zoon, 1969), 73-126; Bert Theunissen, “Martinus van Marum, 1750-1837,” in Een
Elektriserend geleerde: Martinus van Marum 1750-1837, ed. Lodewijk. C. Palm and Anton Wiechmann
(Haarlem: J. Enschedé, 1987), 11-32; Mart J. Lieburg, “Martinus van Marum en de geneeskunde,” in Een
elektriserend geleerde: Martinus van Marum, 1750-1837, ed. Lodewijk. C. Palm and Anton Wiechmann
(Haarlem: J. Enschedé, 1987), 183-222.