trustees’, given that they essentially chided van der Vinne for complaining about the burden
of visitors. Interestingly, the museum’s general accessibility was important to the trustees
despite Pieter Teyler not mentioning that his collections should be open to anyone besides
those associated with the Foundation. It has also been shown how the new museum evidently
generated some interest among strangers even before the Oval Room had been completed and
how, once the electrostatic generator had been installed in the museum, fixed opening hours
were set by the trustees following a suggestion by van Marum. Visitors from outside Haarlem
were welcome for one hour every day of the week except Sunday, residents of Haarlem could
see the collections every Tuesday between 10am and 1pm.
Every visit followed the same procedure, which was to remain in place throughout van
Marum’s lifetime: tickets could be picked up either at van Marum’s home or at the home of
one of the trustees on the day of the visit. They were free of charge, although it appears
visitors were expected to tip the servants of the Foundation House, especially the kasteleiri’%
servant who would accompany visitors through the museum and show them around. This can
be deduced from the fact that these gratuities were discussed in 1790, and the servants were
forbidden to accept them after 1826 - although they were then compensated for their loss of
income by the trustees.149
Aside from the opening hours, some rules restricting access were in place. Obtaining tickets
from van Marum or the trustees meant potential visitors could be screened. No instance in
which a person showing interest was turned down was ever recorded, but one visitor who
arrived on van Marum’s doorstep in 1803, the German civil servant Kaspar Heinrich von
Sierstorpff, did record how he was critically examined by the director. He describes the
experience as follows:
“The first thing I did the next morning was to visit Professor van Marum. Hoping to get
acquainted with this Physicist and Co-Director of the famous Taylor Museum, I had obtained
letters of reference to him. He did not however welcome me with the politeness which I had
become accustomed to after dealing with French scholars, but more like a custodian of such
an institution who has tired of endlessly giving strangers guided tours. After a formal exam to
assess whether I had read any of his works and how much of these I might understand, I
received a written referral to the so-called servant of the museum and was allowed to come
back a few hours later.”150
Van Marum also suggested the amount of visitors that were allowed to enter the museum at
the same time should be restricted, to fourteen. The aim was clearly to prevent any damage to
the valuable instruments housed in the Oval Room, but this formed a restriction
nonetheless.151
149 “Directienotulen”, 24.09.1790, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 5. On the change o f rules in 1826 see: “Directienotulen”,
24.10.1826, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 7. I am grateful to Geert-Jan Janse for drawing my attention to this passage in
the minutes o f the trustees’ meetings.
Kaspar Heinrich von Sierstoipff, Bemerkungen a u f einer Reise durch die Niederlande nach Paris im eilften
Jahre der großen Republik, vol. 2, 1804, 559. Published anonymously, later attributed to von Sierstorpff.
“De Heeren Directeuren van Teijlers Fundatie gelieven te overweegen ...”, c. 1784, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 20.
This is clearly van Marum’s handwriting.
Interestingly, in June 1790 another amendment to the rules was introduced. The minutes of
the trustees’ meetings read:
“As visits to the Museum can often not be allowed in the morning because of Experiments
being performed or arrangements being made, it is decided, on such occasions and because of
other circumstances that may arise, to restrict visits to the Museum to the afternoon from 3 to
4 o’clock with notes from the Director and accompanied by the servant.”
In other words, the museum was first and foremost a place of research, and visitors were
occasionally getting in the way — or rather van Marum s way. Note that this is before his trip
to London, and before the addition of a separate laboratory to the premises. It is not that
visitors were not welcome: upon van Marum’s return from London and the start of the
instrument maker Fries’s employment by the Foundation some three months later, the mles
were amended again, and the opening hours were actually extended. Fries, rather than the
“servant”, was now entrusted with accompanying visitors during their tour through the
museum - although he had to share any gratuities he received with the servant girls at the
Foundation House - and received instructions that he was to grant visitors access to the Oval
Room not only between noon and 1pm, but also between 3pm and 4pm. A provision was
added that if experiments or other work was being conducted that did not allow for the
presence of visitors, they could be told to return at 3pm.153
This entire episode drives home the point that during this stage of its history, Teylers Museum
was not a public institution that sought to actively attract visitors, but a research centre that
was open to the public. It is all the more notable how adamant the trustees remained, however,
that the museum should be open to anyone who showed an interest, for example by extending
the opening hours to accommodate for van Marum’s research activities in 1790.
The rules and the admission procedure essentially didn’t change over the course of the next
decades. Tickets were no longer written out by hand, but printed as from 1805. That same
year, the decision was taken to announce in advance through local newspapers whenever the
museum needed to be closed for cleaning, so that visitors “will not be disappointed”.
Clearly, visitors were still being taken into account.
The fact that in 1810 the trustees emphasised that the museum was only accessible “under
certain conditions” in a letter to the mayor of Haarlem most likely has to do with the fact that
they were wary of the mayor’s intentions. Perhaps worried that the town could stake a claim
to some form of influence on the Foundation’s decisions if some of the institutions the
Foundation funded (such as the almshouse or the museum) were classified as “public”, they
152 „Alzo te meermaalen door het neemen van Proeven o f maaken van Schikkingen in het Museum de
bezigtiging van hetzelve des voormiddags niet kan toegelaaten worden, word beslooten, bij zodaanige
gelegenheden en om andere voorkomende Omstandigheden , het Musaeum des namiddags van 3 tot 4 uren te
laaten bezigtigen met briefjes van den Directeur en onder geleide van den Knegt.” “Directienotulen”,
04.06.1790, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 5.
153 “Directienotulen”, 24.09.1790, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 5.
154 “Directienotulen”, 06.09.1805, Haarlem, ATS, vol. 6. ^
155 “niet teleurgesteld worden”; as quoted in: Geert-Jan Janse, “Uit nieuwsgierigheid en ter ondemcht, m
Teylers Museum 1784-2009: een reis door de tijd, ed. Maijan Scharloo (Haarlem: Teylers Museum, 2009), 16.