Literary Museums and Writers’ Houses in Flanders

The preservation of literary heritage in Flanders involves issues of cultural memory, public funding, education and shifting social values. Across the regions, efforts to maintain places tied to its literary past – such as writers’ houses, museums, and commemorative sites – vary significantly in scope and success. This entry discusses these efforts through a series of cases, illustrating the achievements and ongoing struggles of preserving literary landmarks in the region. In tracing key sites, public debates, and institutional responses, it offers a window into how Flanders continues to negotiate the legacy and relevance of its literature.

Flanders’ literary heritage is primarily managed by Het Letterenhuis, a public institution in Antwerp that serves as the central archive for the region’s literary collections and actively promotes this heritage to the public (Hendrix, 2010). Next to this centralised repository, Flanders is home to several literary museums, often housed in buildings not directly connected to the writers they commemorate. This is the case for the Maeterlinck Cabinet in the Museum Arnold Vander Haeghen in Ghent, the Emile Verhaeren Museum in Puurs-Sint-Amands, the André Demedts house in Sint-Baafs-Vijve, and the Timmermans-Opsomer House, which closed down in 2018, with its collection transferred to the Stadsmuseum Lier.

Few homes of the most canonical authors are open to the public. The birthplace of 1911 Nobel Prize winner Maurice Maeterlinck (1862-1942) in Ghent was largely demolished in 1971, despite the installation of a bronze commemorative plaque in 1962 for the centenary of his birth, and it was completely torn down in 2018 to make way for new apartments. The birthplaces of Louis Paul Boon (1912-1979), Hugo Claus (1929-2008), Willem Elsschot (1882-1960), Paul van Ostaijen (1896-1925), and Gerard Walschap (1898-1989) remain private residences. In 2003, Van Ostaijen’s birthplace in Antwerp came on the market, prompting Geert Buelens – a Von Ostaijen expert – to argue that Belgium should prioritise preserving such literary landmarks (Buelens in Cuyt 2003). Despite the public debate, the house remained in public ownership, just as it did in 2021 when it became available again. Furthermore, in 2004, the mayor of Londerzeel decided against purchasing Walschap’s birthplace, claiming it lacked historical and architectural significance beyond its emotional value as the writer’s birthplace. This decision sparked criticism from journalist Erick Rinckhout, who stated that an artist’s birthplace is inherently exceptional and urged at least the placement of a commemorative plaque on the building’s façade (Rinckhout, 2003). Despite this, the house was demolished by its new owner in 2008.

Despite challenges in preserving its literary heritage, Flanders is home to several writers’ houses that are open to the public and that are directly linked to the lives of notable authors – places where they were born, lived, worked, or died: the Desiderius Erasmus House and Maurice Carême Museum in Anderlecht, the Guido Gezelle Museum in Bruges, the Cyriel Verschaeve Museum in Alveringem, the René De Clercq Museum in Deerlijk, the Ernest Claes Museum in Zichem, the Herman Teirlinck House in Beersel and Stijn Streuvels’ Lijsternest in Anzegem. However, nearly all these houses have faced financial difficulties and struggled to attract new, younger visitors, putting their future at risk. A key factor in this decline is that most of these monuments rely on support from local (and provincial) governments and organisations, as long as they remain unrecognised as protected heritage sites. Moreover, the reduced emphasis on literature in Flanders’ secondary school system has led to fewer students reading these authors’ works. As a result, younger generations develop little interest in their lives and writing, making it increasingly difficult to attract new visitors. Since the beginning of the new millennium, this has sparked debates among museologists, scholars and politicians about the relevance and purpose of writers’ houses and the need to reinvent their appeal and public function.

These problems can be illustrated through Flanders’ most important writers’ houses – the only two built by their respective inhabitants: the Herman Teirlinck House and Stijn Streuvels’ Lijsternest. The latter, built in 1905, was the author’s home and workplace until he died in 1969. Designed by his friend, architect Jozef Viérin, the house remains well-preserved, with much of its furniture, paintings and books still intact. In 1977, the Province of West Flanders acquired the house and its contents, with plans to transform it into a museum and memories in tribute to Streuvels’ legacy. It opened as such in 1980, yet, over time, its backwards-looking commemoration of Strevuels has made room for a more forward-looking project. Indeed, the place closed in 2008, and after renovations, it reopened in 2014 with a new purpose. During the summer, the house is open to the public, and it serves as a stop along the local walking and cycling routes, particularly the so-called Literaire Lus, which connects houses dedicated to Streuvels, De Clercq and Demedts. In the winter months, it hosts a writers’ residency in collaboration with Passa Porta, an international literary house in Brussels.

Teirlinck’s house in Beersel, designed by architect Henry Van de Velde and financed by Alexander Hess, the author’s friend and patron, was home to Teirlinck from 1936 until he died in 1967. In 1979, the municipality of Beersel acquired the house and its garden, transforming it into a museum and art gallery. However, in 2013, news broke that the house was at risk of closure and demolition due to declining visitor numbers. This sparked a debate on the importance of preserving writers’ houses. Hans Vandevoorde, professor of Dutch literature at Vrije Universiteit Brussel, argued that a past at risk of being lost must be cherished. He emphasised that schools no longer teach Teirlinck’s works, such as Het Ivoren Aapje or Het Zelfportret, which led to the risk of forgetting a fundamental part of the Flemish literary tradition. He highlighted the double value of writers’ houses in preserving this tradition: first, they provide a “historical sensation”, offering a momentary but powerful connection to the past, which could inspire further exploration of the author’s work. Second, such houses keep the memory of the writer alive, helping us learn more about both the author and their era (Vandevoorde, 2013; 34.). Leen Van Dijck, then director of Het Letterenhuis, also advocated for preserving writers’ houses. She suggested that they play a crucial role in maintaining cultural legacy, especially when great writers are rarely studied in schools anymore (Van Dijck in Van der Speeten, 2013). In this context, she affirmed that any means to raise awareness of our literary heritage is valuable. However, Koen Van Bockstal, the director of Vlaams Fonds Voor de Letteren, stressed the need to rethink their purpose, arguing that they could serve as both historical spaces that preserve “living memories of our literature” and as creative spaces for contemporary authors and translators (Van Bockstal in Van Den Broeck, 2013). A solution came in 2017 when the non-profit organization Het Huis van Herman Teirlinck was established to revitalise the house. In 2021, it reopened as a dynamic cultural centre, offering writers’ residencies and hosting music and literary performances.

Flanders’ literary heritage faces ongoing challenges not only in economic terms but also in relation to the region’s difficult past. Over the past decade, Cyriel Verschaeve (1874-1949) has been at the centre of debates about Flanders’ extremist history. A Flemish author, priest, nationalist, and Nazi collaborator during World War II, Verschaeve was sentenced to death in absentia in 1946 for recruiting young men into the Flemish SS. After he died in Austria in 1949, his grave became a site of youth pilgrimages until 1971. In 1973, members of the far-right Vlaamse Militanten Orde exhumed and repatriated his remains to Alveringem, where he had served as chaplain between 1911 and 1939. The following year, the Cyriel Verschaeve Museum was established when the former chaplaincy in Alveringem was purchased and converted into a museum by the non-profit organisation Verschaeven-Komitee. It closed in 2008 due to a lack of visitors. However, it was reopened in 2015 after the Alveringem municipal government decided to revive it as part of the World War I centenary commemorations. The museum was redesigned as a space for historical reflection rather than a pilgrimage site to provide context on Verschaeve’s controversial legacy. Discussion about his commemoration resurfaced in 2020 amid international debates on historical memory following the George Floyd protests and the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement. Several memorials dedicated to Verschaeve – including his tomb, multiple street names, and the museum – have faced criticism for perpetuating his veneration. In 2020, the Flemish Socialist Party called for the removal of a commemorative plaque in Tielt, which was taken down in 2024. Meanwhile, several streets named after him in Marke, Lanaken and Zoersel have been renamed, though not without opposition from right-wing parties. The controversy intensified in 2023 when a wreath-laying ceremony at his grave, marking fifty years since his remains were repatriated, reignited concerns over his continued commemoration as part of Flemish identity.

How to cite this entry: Nemegeer, G. (2025). Literary Museums and Writers’ Houses in Flanders. In R. Baleiro, G. Capecchi & J. Arcos-Pumarola (Eds.), E-Dictionary of Literary Tourism. University for Foreigners of Perugia. https://doi.org/10.34623/zdg2-hn59