friends and that Bamaart sought the younger man’s advice where Pieter Teyler’s legacy was
concerned.
But even if one accepts that van Marum and Bamaart were the driving force behind the
establishment of the “Bookhall”, that still leaves the question of why they came up with this
idea. It is worth quoting van Marum at some length here. Having heard of Teyler’s will and
the large sum of money reserved for the “arts and sciences”, expectations were high “amongst
those who were interested in the advancement of useful sciences”. He continues:
“The ardour of Mr Bamaart for the Physical Sciences was well known, as was also apparent
from the collections he had brought together, to the best of his ability, for his own use. His
intelligence and liberal views were recognized by many in this City, and it was therefore to be
expected of his influence with the appointed co-directors of Teyler’s estate who had not so
much advertised themselves as advocates or patrons of the said sciences, that he would leave
nothing untried to make sure that the opportunity would be created to produce such
collections and facilities at Teylers Foundation as would be judged the most suitable to
function there for the extension and propagation of the Physical sciences. To this end he
procured the approval of his fellow-directors for the construction of a spacious hall designed
for setting up Physical Instruments, natural objects, placing of drawings and prints, and of a
library specially selected for the Physical Sciences. In accordance with this plan the building
has been proposed under the name of Teylers Museum.”1
So, to summarise, according to van Mamm the Oval Room was built in order to provide
facilities for the “expansion and cultivation of the natural sciences” [natuurkundige
weetenschappen]. Again, this is not implausible. On the contrary, there is no denying that
both Bamaart and van Mamm had a keen interest in this area of knowledge. Bamaart’s
collection consisted of scientific instruments, and he was a member of the Natuurkundig
Gezelschap.126 According to van Marum’s account, it was also Bamaart who insisted a small
“observatory” be installed on the roof of the new “Bookhall”.1 7
The only point one should bear in mind here is that this is still van Marum’s account written
some 30 years after the discussions with Bamaart took place. As will be shown in the
125 “bij diegenen, die in de bevordering van nuttige wetenschappen belang stelden”; “Men kende den ijver van
den Heer Bamaart voor Natuurkundige Wetenschappen, blijkbaar ook uit de verzamelingen ter eigene
beoefening, naar zijn vermögen aangelegd. Zijne schranderheid en liberale denkwijze werden, althans bij velen
hier ter Stede erkend, en men konde dus van zijnen invloed bij de medebenoemde Directeuren van Teijlers
nalatenschap, die zieh niet zo zeer als voorstanders o f begunstigers van gemelde wetenschappen hadden bekend
gemaakt, verwachten, dat hij niets onbeproefd zoude laten, om het daar heen te besturen, dat er gelegenheid
zoude worden daargesteld, om zoodanige verzamelingen en inrigtingen, bij Teijlers Stichting te maken als meest
geschikt zouden geoordeeld worden om aldaar, ter uitbreiding en voortplanting van Natuurkundige
wetenschappen, werkzaam te zijn. Ten dien einde bewerkte hij de toestemming der medebestuurderen tot het
bouwen van eene mime zaal, bestemd voor het aanleggen van Physische Werktuigen, van Natuurlijke
voorwerpen, plaatsing van Teekeningen en Prenten, en van eene, voor Natuurkundige Wetenschappen,
inzonderheid uitgezochte Bibliotheek. Ingevolge dit plan is het gebouw daargesteld, onder den naam van Teiilers
Museum bekend.” Martinus van Mamm: “De Geschiedenis van de oprigting van Teyler’s Museum”, 1823-1833,
Haarlem, NHA, Archief van Mamm, vol. 529, nr. 9, fol. 9-10.
126 Sliggers, “Honderd jaar natuurkundige amateurs te Haarlem,” 87-88.
12 Martinus van Mamm: “De Geschiedenis van de oprigting van Teyler’s Museum”, 1823-1833, Haarlem,
NHA, Archief van Mamm, vol. 529, nr. 9, fol. 10-11.
following section, van Mamm’s subsequent actions leave no doubt that to his mind the
scientific instruments ranked above all other collections the Foundation acquired. In his
recollections, he makes it sound as if this had been the case with all those involved in the
acquisition, i.e. the trustees as well. However, as will be discussed in the following section,
contemporary records indicate that in the trustees’ view, the geological collections were at
least of equal, if not even of far greater, importance. The last thing this means is that van
Marum’s recollections should be discarded as unreliable - on the contrary, the reasons for this
biased view are easily identifiable - but it does suggest the possibility that Bamaart might
have been if not less enthusiastic, then perhaps less single-mindedly focused on the natural
sciences than van Mamm was.
But whatever motivated Bamaart, the “Bookhall” was being built, and Bamaart had evidently
played a large part in bringing this about.
Tragically, however, Bamaart did not live to see the building completed. On November 2nd
1779, he passed away, suddenly and unexpectedly after a short bout of illness. Van Mamm
describes this as a devastating experience, both on a personal and a professional level. Not
only did van Mamm lose a good friend, but the pain must have been exacerbated by the fact
that Bamaart had turned to van Marum for medical assistance, and the young doctor had
found himself unable to stop the illness - described as “fibris continua nervosa” - from
progressing. What’s more, with Bamaart’s death he also lost
“[...] any prospect of being active in an agreeable way at Teyler’s Foundation in bringing
together the collections mentioned before, and extending the Physical Sciences.”
As he put it, the remaining tmstees had “little inclination [...] to execute the plan devised by
Mr Bamaart.”128
Indeed, no mention is subsequently made of the new building in the minutes of the tmstees’
meetings for almost two years, and it took two years before van Mamm became involved with
the new building again. He even claimed that one of the tmstees had told him privately that if
building work had not progressed so far at the time of Bamaart’s death already, the remaining
tmstees would have abandoned the plans.12
10. Was it a Library?
But whether the threat was real or not, this obviously never happened. In fact, by late 1782,
Viervant had delivered what was to be his masterpiece: the huge, oval shaped, two-storey
128 “[...] alle uitzigt om bij Teijlers Stichting op eene aangenaame wijze, ter aanlegging van de hiervoor bedoelde
verzamelingen, en ter uitbreiding van Natuurkundige Wetenschappen, werkzaam te worden”; “weinig neiging
[...] om het plan, door den Heer Bamaart beraamd, te volgen.” Ibid., fol. 12.
129 Ibid., fol. 12-13.