This strong emphasis upon the individual and his decisions in turn also meant that Mennonites
were in principle far more open to new theological concepts that other Christian communities
— oversimplifying just a little, one can say that as long as a Mennonite genuinely held onto his
core beliefs and as long as he continued to act altruistically out of genuine conviction, nothing
was categorically forbidden. More specifically, this meant that their beliefs did not prevent
Mennonites from engaging in the newly emerging experimental sciences. On the contrary,
Mennonite theology was easily compatible with a physico-theological approach to the study
of nature.
Returning to Teyler’s will, one can see how its core elements fit in well with overall
Mennonite priorities and views. The fact that his Hofje, the study of theology, and the arts and
sciences were obviously close to his heart make him an almost typical member of Haarlem’s
Mennonite community. The little that is known about his overall lifestyle - such as his house
Lustrust in the Menniste Hemel — does not make him look eccentric either. His family history,
too, would have allowed him to blend in: many of the most prominent Mennonite families in
Haarlem could trace their roots back to the 17th century, when their ancestors had arrived from
other countries to avoid religious persecution. Since then, these same families had established
a densely woven family and business network. Typical areas of business were the textile
trade, the printing business, and by the end of the 18th century the financial sector.
As far as the “regentencultuur” is concerned, this is a lot harder to pinpoint. Yet it is at least as
important as Teyler’s Mennonite background, not only in the sense that its effects can be
discerned in the Foundation’s organisational structure, but also because it goes a long way
towards explaining the way the trustees of the Foundation saw themselves, namely as
“regenten” - which is probably best translated as governors. In order to understand this
point’s full significance, a little more needs to be said about the Dutch Republic’s unique
traditions of governance.
The system of governance that had emerged in the Dutch Republic i | which has also been
described as an “uit zijn krachten gegroeide laat-middeleeuwse stadstatenbond” - differed
significantly from that in neighbouring countries in the sense that power almost always lay
with a type of executive committee, rather than one central, presidential-type leader.65 These
committees were comprised of governors, i.e. regenten. The habit of forming such committees
was not just confined to one level of administration, but could be found almost everywhere.
Whether a local orphanage needed to be run, or a city, or even the Republic itself, it was
always such committees that took the decisions. The stadtholder himself for instance was
officially just at the service of the States-General of the Dutch Republic.
What else was special about this organisational principle was that the members of such
committees, i.e. the governors, were not necessarily noblemen, as was much more likely to be
the case in neighbouring countries. The Dutch Republic was almost meritocratic in the sense
that such governors were often successful traders or businessmen, from well-established
families. The system was not democratic or even open to all: the governors saw to it that only
5 W.W. Mijnhardt, as quoted in: R.A.M. Aerts et al., Land van kleine gebaren: een politieke geschiedenis van
Nederland 1780-1990 (Nijmegen: SUN, 2010), 17.
members of established families could sit on the committees, and would often even pass on a
position on such a committee to their own heirs. In this sense they of course emulated
nobility’s behaviour, but what set them off from traditional forms of nobility was that they
claimed their rights as much on the basis of successful trade and business practices as they did
on family membership.
This is obviously a very concise and therefore inevitably superficial description of the main
facets of what came to be known as the “regentencultuur”. Some caution is called for in using
that label too broadly anyway, as it has acquired meanings and connotations of its own which
have in turn changed over the years. This is not the place for a detailed discussion of the term
and its usage, but what is important to note is that the general belief in the advantages of a
benevolent patriarchy that this “regentencultuur” entailed and which obviously pervaded
Dutch society at the time, also had an impact on the Dutch Republic’s cultural life. The
Holland Society for instance differed from its counterparts in neighbouring countries - the
national academies - in that it consisted of two separate classes of members: a group of so-
called “Directors”, and a group only referred to as “members”. The Directors essentially
provided all the Society’s funding, in exchange for which they basically ran the institution.
The members were “savants” or natural philosophers who were welcome to use the Society as
a platform through which to discuss, improve, or publish their work — but they had little say in
managerial or organisational matters.
Generally speaking, Teyler devised a similar organisational structure for the institutions that
were to be set up with his bequest. The Foundation’s trustees (who were referred to as
Directeuren, i.e. “Directors” in Dutch) took care of all organisational and financial matters,
with the aim of facilitating the work of the institutions that Teylers had wanted to see
established as far as possible. With regard to the Learned Societies, this meant they were
granted every freedom and funding necessary for the “encouragement of the arts and
sciences”.
Considering that the Holland Society was founded only four years before Teyler penned his
will, it is conceivable that his own plans were directly inspired by the establishment of the
Society. It seems however that Teyler had drawn up plans for a similar Learned Society years
earlier already. Documents indicating as much were found amongst his papers after his death,
and it is likely that he picked up on these earlier plans when drafting his will.66
Be that as it may, the organisational structure as it was set out by Teyler in his will clearly
indicated that he saw their role within this structure as equivalent to that of “regenten” in
other institutions. That the group of men he appointed indeed saw themselves as members of
this elite class of governors too, can be inferred from one of their first acts as newly appointed
trustees after Teyler’s death, which was to furbish one room in Teyler’s old house as a
6 “Voor-Rede,” in Verhandeling over de Gephlogisteerde en Gedephlogisteerde Luchten, vol. 1,
Verhandelingen uitgegeven door Teyler’s Tweede Genootschap (Haarlem: J. Enschede; J. van Walre jun., 1781),
i-ii. The trustees’ account o f having found these papers after Teyler’s death is confirmed by the minutes o f the
Second Society, in which the members record how they had to rewrite parts o f the introduction to the first
edition o f the Verhandelingen, because the trustees had come across Teyler’s earlier draft for the establishment
o fa Learned Society: “Notulen Tweede Genootschap”, 06.07.1781, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 1382.