meeting room. The design they chose rather tellingly coincided with the style in which so-
called “regentenkamers” all over the Netherlands were furbished, i.e. meeting rooms for
governors. We will return to this in the next section, in which we take a look at the early
history of the Foundation. Before doing so however, it is worth dwelling briefly on Teyler’s
choice of “arts and sciences”.
6. Teyler’s Choice of “Arts and Sciences”
Pieter Teyler’s instructions detailing that the members of the Learned Society for the arts and
sciences were to devote time to the study of nature, poetry, history, the art of drawing, and
numismatics, indicates that this is how he defined the “arts and sciences”, or at least that these
were what he considered the most important branches of the arts and sciences. His choice had
an impact on the character of the Society itself, but also on Teylers Museum itself, in the
sense that it affected its collections policy. Although the museum gradually began to lead a
life of its own and the successive curators’ personal interests were eventually just as important
as Teyler’s selection of areas of study in determining what was to be acquired, one can for
instance easily imagine how it would have been a lot more difficult for the Foundation’s
trustees to defend their decision to let van Marum acquire a geological collection and
scientific instruments if Teyler had not included “the study of nature” in his list. One can also
say with little exaggeration that Teyler’s explicitly stating that both the arts and the sciences
was what defined the museum’s unique evolution and resulting shape throughout the course
of the 19* century, essentially because the definition of what constituted the “arts and
sciences” changed fundamentally over the course of the late 18th and the entire 19th century:
oversimplifying only a little, the restriction lay in the fact that Teylers Museum could never
be simply an “art museum” or a “science museum” — because of what Teyler wrote in his will.
But Teyler’s choice is somewhat confusing, and already puzzled the members of the Second
Society shortly after Teyler passed away. The minutes of a series of meetings of its members
in 1780 record how they were confused by what they considered “the absurdity of the
arrangement of the sciences as it occurs in Mr P. Teyler van der Hulst’s will”, and how they
unsuccessfully sought permission from the trustees to change the order in which they were
required to hold the prize essay competitions.67 In their opinion, it would have been better “to
deviate to such an extent from the words in the founding document [the will] that the order of
67“d ’absurditeit van de rang-schikking der weetenschappen in het testament van den Heer P. Teijler vander Hulst
voorkomende”; “in zoo verre van de woorden in der Fondatie a f te wijken, dat de rang der weetenschappen, in de
programmata. en verhandelingen over dezelven, mogte over een komen met den natuurlijken aard deezer
weetenschappen” ; “d’extensie van dit artikel in het testament bevindelijk meerder moest worden geadribueerd
aan d ’onachtzaamheid, o f onbedachte willekeurigheid van den Nots. [Notaris] welke het testament schrijft, dan
aan den testateur zelven, die op zijne fundatie wel bedacht is.” The entire discussion was sparked by the
sequence in which the goddesses representing the branches o f the arts and sciences should be placed on the
medal that was to be awarded to the winners o f prize essay competitions. “Notulen Tweede Genootschap”,
03.11.1780 & 17.11.1780, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 1382.
the sciences, in the Society’s publications on the same, may coincide with the natural order of
these sciences”. At the same time however, they went out of their way not to suggest they
were criticising Teyler’s choice, stating that “the formal text of this paragraph in the will
should be attributed to the carelessness or the thoughtless caprice of the Notary who writes the
will rather than to the testator himself, who is intent on his foundation.”
Teyler’s puzzling choice is perhaps best understood if one bears two points in mind. Firstly,
as was also pointed out above, the definition of what counted as “arts and sciences” was about
to undergo a complete transformation, as medieval systems of knowledge struggled to
accommodate for the increasing importance and popularity of the empirical, and particularly
the experimental, sciences. Any selection of “arts and sciences” from before 1800 is therefore
bound to sound unfamiliar to post-19th century ears. Secondly, like the rest of his will,
Teyler’s choice of subjects must be taken to reflect his own interests and preferences.
Consider numismatics for instance. In all likelihood this only made the list because it was a
personal hobby of Teyler’s, as his detailed and protective instructions concerning his
collection of coins and medals suggests. Whatever definition of the “arts and sciences” one
chooses to use, numismatics is unlikely to be included. The art of drawing, too, must have
been close to Teyler’s heart. One need only recall that he was a board member of the local
Drawing Academy. Poetry, too, might well have been something Teyler enjoyed, which
would help explain why the only document written by Teyler himself (besides his will) which
was preserved for posterity is a poem. As for the study of nature, there is little evidence of any
profound or longstanding interest of Teyler’s in this area. Yet it would not have made him
stand out amongst his contemporaries if he had been interested in natural philosophy. The
foundation of the Hollandsche Maatschappij shows there was no shortage of Haarlem citizens
prepared to devote time to the experimental sciences, and at least four of Teyler’s friends are
known to have done so outside the Maatschappij,68 Still, why he put it at the top of the list
remains an intriguing puzzle. Finally, as far as history is concerned, one can assume that
Teyler had some sense of history, simply because numismatic collections frequently consisted
of coins and medals commemorating historic events. Yet the specific reasons why Teyler
included this in his list remain elusive. Although again, in general, it can be said that historical
awareness was on the rise. One of the friends Teyler appointed member of the society for arts
and sciences for instance had been made the official town chronicler (Gerrit Willem van
Oosten de Bruijn). And, in a much larger frame of reference, the year in which Teyler penned
his will was the same year in which Johann Winckelmann published his groundbreaking
monograph on the history of art.
To conclude, it is interesting to note that Teyler did not include music in his will in any form
at all. What’s more, whilst other contemporaries usually kept sheets of music or some
Jacobus Bamaart, Bemardus Vriends, Jan Bosch, Comelis Elout. All o f them were named in Teyler’s will and
given positions either at the Foundation or one o f the societies. See: Bert Sliggers, “Honderd jaar natuurkundige
amateurs te Haarlem,” in Een elektriserend geleerde: Martinus van Marum, 1750-1837, ed. Lodewijk. C. Palm
and Anton Wiechmann (Haarlem: J. Enschedé, 1987), 87-91.