Perhaps more importantly, though, one has to understand that - as far as the history of the
museum is concerned - the significance of Teyler’s will lay more in the gist of the whole
document, rather than its precise contents. Already for the simple reason that Teyler had not
referred to the establishment of a museum, his will could not act as a kind of blueprint of what
needed to be done in the future. Yet it did have a significant impact on the daily running of
the museum, in the sense that the will set the tone of future debates concerning policy. It was
an unchangeable, firm reference point that in itself can be taken as an almost typical product
of certain traditions and the values associated with those traditions, which in turn lived on
through Teyler’s will; more to the point, Teyler was a Mennonite, and the contents of the will
reflect Mennonite traditions and their priorities in life, i.e. the Mennonite views on society; by
stipulating that kindred spirits were to be appointed as trustees of the Teyler Foundation,
Teyler ensured that the core views and values he espoused as a member of the Haarlem
Mennonite community continued to be upheld through his Foundation.
In the turbulent decades after his death however, these views and what they entailed were
frequently assailed. Most importantly, they were not easily compatible both with the
utilitarianism and the Republicanism increasingly associated with the French Republic and
Empire, and proved to be the source of some friction between the Foundation’s trustees and
the director of the Foundation’s museum, Martinus van Marum.
This warrants taking a closer look at this Mennonite community in Haarlem. Now, in order to
gain some understanding of the Haarlem Mennonites’ status within society as a whole, the
parish members’ self-perception and also they way in turn were perceived by others, it is
important to understand two of the major factors that shaped this community - both of which
clearly discernible in Teyler’s will, but can at the same time also help understand why
Teyler’s bequest was met with such animosity when the museum was first opened (reflected
in the anecdotes about Teyler’s life recorded by visitors and mentioned above), and, most
importantly, can also help obtain an idea of how those kindred spirits of Teyler’s that were
going to be entrusted with upholding his legacy, i.e. the Foundation’s trustees, perceived
themselves, the role of the Foundation, their own position and role in society, and by
extension the museum’s function.
These two factors are, firstly, some of the core beliefs Mennonites hold, and, secondly, one of
the most striking idiosyncrasies of the Dutch Republic, the curiously Dutch tradition of decentralised
governance at all levels, which is frequently subsumed under the heading of
“regentencultuur”. In Haarlem, both merged to form what can be described as “Mennonite
regentendom”.
As far as the first point is concerned, three characteristics of Mennonite theology in particular
are important. Firstly, Mennonites are not allowed to participate in any form of violence. This
in turn led to their refusing to take any form of public office as this would have meant they
might have had to condone a state’s use of force through its organs of power. As a result,
Mennonites stayed out of the fray as far as state politics were concerned. Their outsider’s
62 Piet Visser, ed., Wezen en weldoen: 375 ja a r doopsgezinde wezenzorg in Haarlem (Hilversum: Verloren,
2009), 121-148.
status was further enhanced in the Dutch Republic, where all public office could only be
assumed by members of the Reformed Church, to which the majority of citizens belonged.
Although religious minorities were tolerated in the Dutch Republic Sthis did not go without
saying in other countries at the time - they were effectively barred from taking public office.
Being barred from politics, both by conviction and by law, members of the Mennonite Church
therefore turned to trade and the arts and sciences as an outlet for their talents. Generally
speaking they did so successfully, and by the end of the 18th century a handful of Mennonite
families in Haarlem had amassed a huge fortune amongst themselves. One area just outside
town was even referred to as the “Mennonite Heaven” (Menniste Hemel), because many
Mennonite families had built small summer residences there - including Pieter Teyler.
While this “Mennonite Heaven” indicated a certain ambivalence towards the second
important characteristic of Mennonite faith tfthe obligation not to indulge in any material
riches - the Haarlem Mennonites certainly didn’t waste any money either. It is these remnants
of a frugal life alongside the Mennonite families’ obvious wealth that may very well have
caused other citizens in Haarlem to gain the impression that these families were greedy with
their money - the establishment of a magnificent museum with Pieter Teyler’s money would
then only have confirmed this prejudice, and may very well help explain some of the vitriolic
remarks visitors recorded about his apparent stinginess as they were quoted above.
But even if they were no longer living a frugal life, all Mennonite families were deeply
involved in charitable work, devoting large amounts of money and time to such institutions as
orphanages or so-called Hofjes. A good example both of how seriously they took this
responsibility, but also how Mennonite views on their role within society could clash with the
ideals of good citizenship as they began to emerge over the course of the 19 century, is an
episode from the 1850s in which the Dutch state wanted to classify the Mennonite orphanages
and Hofjes as almshouses for the poor. The Mennonite parish and Teylers Foundation (as the
organisation funding Teylers Hofje) strongly opposed this move, on the grounds that they
considered the definition of the orphans and widows in these houses as “poor” incompatible
with their own mission.64 In their opinion, if members of a Mennonite parish had to live in
poverty, that parish had failed to live up to its responsibilities. It was the duty of those in
privileged positions to ensure the well-being of those less well off. This left little room for a
state enforcing a kind of “Robin Hood”-redistribution of wealth.
The third and final striking feature of 18th Mennonite theology is its relative lack of dogma.
Adult baptism is perhaps the best example of the Mennonite concept of their belief as a
conscious, emancipated decision every individual has to make for himself before God.
Similarly, in matters of sin Mennonites know no intermediary between the individual sinner
and God » o n ly God can redeem the sinner, and he only forgives those who genuinely act in
faith.
63 Ibid., 135-136.
4 Simon Leendert Verheus, Naarstig en vroom: Doopsgezinden in Haarlem 1530-1930 (Haarlem: Rombach
Boek en Beeld, 1993), 134. On the Teyler Foundation’s reaction to the new law on poverty and charity see:
“Directienotulen”, 17.05.1850 & 21.02.1851 & 18.04.1851 & 12.12.1851 & 26.11.1852 & 02.12.1853 &
15.09.1854 & 18.01.1856, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 9.