the short period of just a few years, it is still worth taking a closer look at all five of these first
trustees’ biographies - albeit that very little is actually known about them - both in order to
get a general idea of the composition of the Foundation’s board, and also because these five
individuals sat on the board during the constitutive and therefore particularly formative period
of the Foundation’s history.
In alphabetical order, the five trustees appointed by Teyler through his will were: Jacobus
Bamaart, a broker and a resident of Haarlem - he was soon to play an important part in the
inception of Teylers Museum; Isaac Brand, a nephew of Pieter Teyler’s who lived in
Haarlem, and became the president of the board of trustees because of his seniority; Gerard
Hugaart, like Teyler the former proprietor of a textile factory and together with his wife
Femina Heems an ardent supporter of Haarlem’s Mennonite orphanage — Femina Heems had
also helped sponsor a new, grander entrance to one of Haarlem’s Mennonite churches in 1757
together with Pieter Teyler and four other senior members of their parish; Antoni Kuits, as
mayor of Haarlem a long-standing member of the town’s political elite and also the only of
the first five trustees who was not a Mennonite; finally, Willem van der Vlugt, another
nephew of Teyler’s, who also lived in Haarlem and was a broker.74
Also present at the first and all subsequent meetings was Koenraad Hovens, whom Teyler had
appointed as secretary to the Foundation, i.e. the trustees. Incidentally, in 1807 Hovens
changed his position when he was elected to a trusteeship as successor to Willem van der
Vlugt. Until then however he took on the crucial task of coordinating and implementing most
of the decisions taken by the trustees, and acting as chief liaison with the Learned Societies.
Hovens was an affluent silk manufacturer, also an active supporter of Haarlem’s Mennonite
orphanage, and after Teyler’s death increasingly known for his involvement in politics.
On the one hand the composition of the board of trustees shows how strongly the Teyler
Foundation was rooted in Haarlem’s Mennonite community, but on the other hand it also
clearly shows how this did not have a constrictive effect. Kuits’ non-membership of the
Mennonite church was obviously less important than his other merits. One could say that the
Foundation’s Mennonite roots had a greater impact on style than on substance.
Another important point is that it would be mistaken to assume that the five trustees were the
only ones involved in setting up the Foundation, or that they took their decisions in isolation,
even though they had been granted privileged status by Pieter Teyler. Certainly during the
early years of the Foundation’s existence they drew upon outside expertise and were just five
individuals amongst the many involved in the larger enterprise of implementing Pieter
Teyler’s last will and testament. The members of the Learned Societies for instance had
known Pieter Teyler just as well as the trustees. Similarly, Koenraad Hovens was seemingly
denied the privilege of a trusteeship by Teyler, yet closer inspection of his position as
secretary to the trustees reveals that Teyler himself was obviously well aware just how pivotal
74 On the trustees see: Mijnhardt, Tot heil van ’t menschdom: culturele genootschappen in Nederland, 1750-
1815, 298-299. On Hugaart see also: Visser, Wezen en weldoen: 375ja a r doopsgezinde wezenzorg in Haarlem,
136. On van der Vlugt see also: Verheus, Naarstig en vroom: Doopsgezinden in Haarlem 1530-1930,207.
75 Visser, Wezen en weldoen: 375 ja a r doopsgezinde wezenzorg in Haarlem, 133; Verheus, Naarstig en vroom:
Doopsgezinden in Haarlem 1530-1930, 207.
Hovens’ job was for the success of the entire project, certainly during the Foundation’s
constitutive period. There is hardly any other way of explaining why Teyler stipulated that
Hovens was to receive the same salary as the trustees, yet his successors only half that
amount. Another example of the intimate involvement of non-trustees is that of Adriaan van
Zeebergh. A young pensionary of the council of Haarlem (pensionaris van Haarlem) and a
lawyer by training, he was called upon repeatedly in legal matters during the first months of
the Foundation’s existence.7 Then, when the first opening on the board of trustees came up in
1780, Zeebergh was elected a new trustee. Over the following decades, it was Zeebergh who
initially proved to be van Marum’s strongest ally, but later also opponent on the board of
trustees. As such, his impact on the history of Teylers Museum should not be underestimated.
3. Administrative Affairs
As yet, however, all that was in the future. First, the five first trustees had to officially accept
the positions Pieter Teyler had had in mind for them. Then, a host of administrative, financial
and legal matters awaited them, and needed to be tackled over the course of the ensuing
months. One of the first things they did was to sell off some of Teyler’s assets, such as his
horses, stables, coach, and his property outside Haarlem, Lustrust.
Far more importantly, though, they also lost no time in appointing a caretaker for Teyler’s
former house and collections, as required by Teyler’s will. There seems to have been little
discussion about Teyler’s recommendation of nominating the painter Vincent van der Vinne
for this position. The first time his name is mentioned in the minutes of the trustees’ meetings
(aside from a preceding summary of Teyler’s will) is on June 5th 1778, when he joined the
trustees for their meeting in Teyler’s old town house in the Damstraat 21. At this point van
der Vinne had evidently already accepted the post of kastelein, because what was discussed
was the partition of Teyler’s old house. It was agreed that all except four rooms could be
used by van der Vinne. One room on the ground floor towards the back of the house, opening
out onto the central courtyard, should serve as the main meeting room. This room became
known as the Grote Herenkamer. On the first floor, parts of the room above the meeting room
were to house all documents required by the Foundation, acting as a sort of archive. A third
room facing the street on the first floor was to serve as storage space for the Foundation’s
collections. Finally, a small room on the ground floor, opposite the main meeting room from
the central court yard, was to serve as a second meeting room, should it ever occur that one of
the Learned Societies and the Foundation held meetings simultaneously. This room later
became known as the Kleine Herenkamer.
Although the term caretaker, or kastelein in Dutch, might give the impression that this was a
lowly position, it was in fact quite prestigious. Van der Vinne for one was not just any
6 His name is first mentioned in writing in June 1778: “Directienotulen”, 26.06.1778, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 5.
77 “Directienotulen”, 05.06.1778, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 5.