house in the regular way, and to make the planned building as spacious as the situation
allows”.120
By July 1779 all purchases had been finalised, with assurances that all buildings would be
cleared by August 1st. On July 9th the trustees contacted an architect from Amsterdam,
Leendert Viervant, and asked him to draw up plans “for the proposed building” (het
voorgenomen Gebouw). He delivered them about a month later, and the plans were discussed
and revised throughout October, and a final version accepted in January 1780. In the
meantime, the buildings had been razed. Then, on April 2801 1780, the cornerstone of this new
“Bookhall” was laid by the president of the board of trustees, Willem van der Vlugt. Building
work only commenced slowly though, and what came to be known as the “Oval Room” was
completed in 1784.
What, though, induced the trustees to build such a “Bookhall” at all? Nothing to this effect
was mentioned in Teyler’s will, and even though he had left the Societies his collection of
books, it was not a vast one. What’s more, as with all his other collections save the coins and
medals, it did not take the Foundation long to sell off Teyler’s personal library, even if they
did do so after having constructed the new building.121 Their decision to build this huge
extension to Pieter Teyler’s house is all the more puzzling because no documents providing
any clues as to their underlying motivation have been preserved.
The only document that does contain any significant information on the debates surrounding
this milestone in the Foundation’s history are van Marum’s autobiographical recollections
from the 1820s. These recollections are best taken with a pinch of salt - not only were they
penned some three decades after the event, but van Marum had by this time had a huge row
with the trustees and his text is almost vitriolic in tone — but nevertheless, in many respects his
account is plausible, and all the facts he gives can be corroborated.
The most important claim van Marum makes is that both he and Bamaart were in fact the
driving force behind the establishment of the new building. After describing how their mutual
interest in the study of nature [natuurkunde] had led to their becoming not only acquainted but
also good friends soon after van Marum’s arrival in Haarlem, van Marum remembers how this
in turn meant that he soon learnt of the contents of Teyler’s will after the Mennonite’s death,
and this in turn “occasioned many consultations” between Bamaart and van Marum.122 More
specifically, van Marum remembered how Bamaart had spoken “with me many times, before
the plan for the construction of this Museum was decided upon, about how it was to be
“opdat men zieh in volgende tijden niet beklage dat deeze gelegenheid voorbij geslipt is”; “dus het Erf agter
deezen Huize regelmatig te bekomen, en het voorgenomen Gebouw zo ruim te kunnen maken als de Situatie
eenigzins toelaat”; “Directienotulen”, 18.06.1779, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 5.
Martinus van Marum: “Joumaal van mijne verrichtingen ter verkrijging eener Bibliotheek i Teyler’s
Museum”, 1783-1790, Haarlem, NHA, Archiefvan Marum, vol. 529, nr. lid , fol. 3.
“aanleiding tot menigvuldige gesprekken”; Martinus van Marum: “De Geschiedenis van de oprigting van
Teyler’s Museum”, 1823-1833, Haarlem, NHA, Archief van Marum, vol. 529, nr. 9, fol. 7.
furnished.” 123 Note also how the new institution had become known as a “Museum” by the
time van Mamm wrote his account of the events.
There is no reason to doubt that van Mamm and Bamaart were close, or that Bamaart would
have sought van Marum’s advice on all matters concerning the study of nature, including
Pieter Teyler’s legacy. Firstly, there is no reason why van Mamm should have made this up,
and secondly another, unrelated sequence of events underscores the idea that these two men
were in contact over matters concerning the Foundation. This sequence of events is the one
surrounding the Second Society’s first prize essay competition. More specifically, two
occurrences make more sense if one takes into account that van Mamm’s opinion on issues of
natural philosophy mattered to Bamaart. Firstly, Bamaart was the only one of the trustees
who did not immediately approve the Second Society’s draft of a question for the
competition, but asked to be allowed to mn it by an external “expert” before publication. Only
one word was subsequently inserted by that expert (the German word for “phlogiston”), but in
all likelihood this “expert” was van Mamm B who, as was mentioned above, not only entered
but also won the contest. The fact that van Mamm entered the contest in turn helps explain the
second occurrence: when van Mamm was elected a member of the Second Society in
December 1779 - some months before the closing date for entries into the competition - he
was probably already working on the treatise he was planning to submit to his future comembers
anonymously some months later. Van Mamm was not present at his election and
might even have been unaware that he was a candidate, but when the Second Society
informed the tmstees that they wished to add van Mamm to their number, the minutes record
how it
“is a point of reflection both about the present case and about future elections of new
Members of the Society, that it might happen that such a new Member had written an essay or
had the intention of writing one in order to compete for the prize on the topic proposed for
that current year, and this might be the reason why such an elected person might not accept
his Election, in order not to be barred from competing for the prize.” 1
Taking into account that eventually only one essay was submitted B that by van Mamm — the
fact that this issue became “a point of reflection” makes it highly likely that somebody was
well aware that van Mamm was planning to enter the competition. This could easily have
been members of the Second Society Bbut if so, they subsequently disguised this well in the
minutes of the meetings at which van Mamm’s essay was evaluated. It is far more likely that
Bamaart was the one who brought up this issue, without referring explicitly to van Mamm.
So, even though all this is largely speculative, one can clearly say that there is no evidence
whatsoever in outright contradiction with van Mamm’s later claim that Bamaart and he were
123 “[v]eelmalen [...], voor dat het plan tot den aanbouw van dit Museum werd vastgesteld, met mij over de
inrigting van hetzelve.” Ibid., fol. 10.
“komt ter bedenkinge zo omtrent het tegenwoordig geval als bij volgende verkiezingen van nieuwe Leden tot
de Genootschappen, dat het veellicht zou kunnen gebeuren, dat zodanig nieuw Lid eene Verhandeling had
geschreven o f voorneemens was te schrijven om te dingen naar den prijs op het onderwerp voor dat loopende
Jaar voorgesteld, en zulks aanleidinge mogt geeven, dat zulk een verkoozen persoon de Verkiezinge niet
aanname, om niet versteeken te worden van te dingen naar den prijs.” “Notulen Tweede Genootschap”,
17.12.1779, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 1382.