Given the circumstances under which this series of lectures was conceived, the novelty of the
size and of the composition of the audience begs the question of whether van Marum was now
availing himself of the political climate to implement a dream he had had for a long time, or
to what extent he felt he had to expand the audience of his lectures in order to bolster his
utilitarian credentials, thereby making sure he would be able to continue with his private
research activities. Given that there is no more than circumstantial evidence surrounding this
matter, a fully satisfactory answer to this question is unfortunately not possible. In later years
van Marum at least kept claiming that he had repeatedly requested a large auditorium be
constructed by the Foundation, so that he could give lectures to larger audiences. He mentions
this in the recollections he penned in the 1820s, he explicitly says so in a letter to Charles-
Franijois Lebrun in 1811, the matter seems to arise during a discussion on the possible uses of
the first annex to the Oval Room that was completed in 1824, and in his 1795 lectures van
Marum appears to complain about the fact that he had not been provided with premises that
would allow for a large audience by the Foundation.144
However, it is striking how all of these claims are made after 1795, and the minutes of the
meetings of the trustees, as well as the minutes of the meetings of Teylers Second Society,
contain no evidence to support the notion that the idea of a large auditorium was either floated
by van Marum or seriously discussed and rejected by the trustees before the French
occupation - even though that does remain perfectly plausible. What’s more, in the
introductory remarks to his 1795 lectures van Marum seems to be explaining that the reason
he had never given lectures before such a large audience on behalf of the Teyler Foundation
before, was that there were no adequate premises available in the vicinity of the Foundation’s
chemical laboratory, which made lectures on chemistryB van Marum’s main interest at the
time - impossible.145
Finally, there is the fact that van Marum terminated his lectures in 1797, apparently earlier
than he had originally planned. He explained to his audience that he would not continue
giving them because of the inadequacy of the premises, which is again perfectly plausible.146
Yet it also fits what seems to be a more general pattern: the termination of all three of van
Marum’s lecture series coincide with the moment they ceased to benefit him in the ways
described above. The lectures before a large audience ended in 1797, when French influence
was beginning to wane; no records revealing that he might have continued on as town lecturer
after his appointment to the directorship of Teylers Museum have been found; and he never
gave lectures for the trustees or the Second Society anymore once he had had the major row
with van Zeebergh early in 1803.
Martinus van Marum: “De Geschiedenis van de oprigting van Teyler’s Museum”, 1823-1833, Haarlem,
NHA, Archief van Marum, vol. 529, nr. 9, fol. 131-132; on the letter to Lebrun see: Mijnhardt, Tot heil van 't
menschdom: cultúrele genootschappen in Nederland, 1750-1815, 337. On the discussions in the 1820s see:
Michiel Kersten, “Een schilderijenzaal o f een gehoorzaal,” Teylers Magazijn 13 (1986): 9-12. He complains
most vociferously during his last public lecture: “Openbare lessen in 1795 & 1796”, 11.11.1795, Haarlem, NHA,
Archief van Marum, vol. 529, nr. 12.
145 Ibid.
146 Ibid., 08.03.1797.
Van Marum’s status and reputation might also help explain why he never cut his ties with
Teylers Museum, despite a number of offers to become a professor he received over the years,
despite his relative independence as secretary of the Holland Society (a salaried post), and
despite the fact that he almost wasn’t on speaking terms with the trustees after 1803 - the
point being that van Marum had not only made Teylers Museum, but Teylers Museum had
essentially made van Marum too. Apart from his undeniable talent, it was the fact that it was
generally known that the Teyler Foundation had considerable financial muscle, and that van
Marum’s opinion on how to invest the Foundation’s money bore heavily on the trustees’
decisions, which opened many doors for him. Van Marum must have known that it was his
position as director of Teylers Museum, as much as his qualities as a researcher, that had
enabled him to build his network and reputation.
6. Bottom Line
By placing all these snippets of circumstantial evidence next to each other, the vague outlines
of van Marum’s ideas on the production and the consumption of knowledge begin to emerge,
and by extension one also begins to obtain an idea of what role “the public” played in any of
his considerations.
It is clear that van Marum was a deeply religious man, was an empiricist, and considered it a
waste not to apply the fruits of research to the overall benefit of society. As far as van Marum
was concerned, the benefits of his research could be twofold: on the one hand his findings
could bring about a better understanding of God’s creation, or rather a realisation of the
beauty that lay beneath its complexity, and secondly his findings could help improve every
citizen’s quality of life.
In this sense his aim was to serve the general populace. Yet at the same time he sort of kept
his distance from that general populace, setting himself off from the masses: he was perfectly
comfortable for instance with giving his lectures to a select, small audience — the only time he
demonstrated scientific principles to a large and diverse audience of complete laypeople was
under some political pressure, in the aftermath of the French Revolution, just one year after
Lavoisier had been guillotined, and during a period in which the Dutch were forced to
emulate their French neighbours in referring to each other as “citizens”, rather than any other
title that might suggest non-meritocratic social privilege.
So in no small part van Marum was perhaps still rooted in a tradition of science as a
gentlemanly pastime, and perfectly comfortable with that too; but he was equally capable of
using the general populace to further his own ends — in a way that actually benefitted the
populace, it has to be said — once this began to emerge as the main political category through
which any form of power, influence, or privilege had to be legitimised.