Auroral Research and the Character of Astronomy in Enlightenment Sweden

Abstract

The observation of the magnetic effects of the aurora borealis by Olof Hiorter in the 1740s was hailed by Swedish scientists as one of the major discoveries in contemporary research. This article investigates the political and academic context of the discovery, focusing on the astronomical ideals promoted by Hiorter. He used the discovery in order to buttress the importance of his own scientific character – technically competent, hard-working and research-oriented. He contrasted this ideal with the character of an ordinary university professor who was described as more of a bureaucrat, interested in science only as long as it could boost his reputation, and not averse from stealing results of technically more competent underlings. Hiorter's opponents at the university decried his lack of theory and devalued the importance of technical skill. This conflict is discussed in the context of ideals concerning cultural, political and economic values of science and scientists.

Keywords:

• History of Science
• Aurora Borealis
• Sweden
• Eighteenth Century
• Olof Hiorter
• Anders Celsius

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Gunnar Broberg, Jacob Orrje, collaborators on this special issue, and two anonymous referees for valuable comments.

Notes

1. Minutes of the Academy of Sciences, 7 February 1747, Archives of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm (ARSAS). Klingenstierna similarly wrote that this was one of the most important discoveries of its kind in science for a long time: Nordenmark (1942: 77–78).

2. Graham to Celsius, 16 April 1741, Uppsala University Library (UUL), A277. The same paragraph, with slightly different orthography, is quoted in Hiorter (1747: 36).

3. Hiorter to Elvius, 6 March 1747, ARSAS.

4. Hiorter to Elvius, 10 March 1747, ARSAS.

5. Hiorter to Elvius, 10 March 1747, ARSAS.

6. Hiorter to Elvius, 17 March 1747, ARSAS.

7. Hiorter to Elvius, 10 March 1747, ARSAS. In a letter from 17 March Hiorter claimed he had already twice stated what title he wanted.

8. Unless otherwise stated the biographical information in this section is from Nordenmark (1942: 3–62).

9. This is what the episode described in this section is called in the sources (“Hiorterska tvisten”). For example, UUL, A552.

10. The deed is dated 29 July 1747. It is printed in Nordenmark (1942: 93–95); quote on pp. 94–95. This rather complicated passage reads in the original: “Ytterst, och som desse mina föregående förbindelser grunda sig deruppå, at jag oqwald för framtiden må til min dödeliga afgång njuta säkerhet uti de friheter, som mig betingade äro, så för min person och tilhörigheter, som Observatorii wärkets och Sciencens upkomst, samt at jag på intet sätt derifrån må blifwa wräkt, hwarken genom ens eller annans åtgärd, under hwad namn och sken det wara kan”.

11. Hiorter to the University Chancellor (Carl Gyllenborg), s.d. The letter was read in the Senate 12 December 1744. UUL, U46 B5. It is quoted almost in extenso in Nordenmark (1942: 36–39).

12. Hiorter to the University Chancellor (Carl Gyllenborg), s.d. UUL, U46 B5.

13. Hiorter to the University Chancellor (Carl Gyllenborg), s.d. UUL, U46 B5.

14. Hiorter to the University Chancellor (Carl Gyllenborg), s.d. UUL, U46 B5. More examples of Hiorter's reasoning along these lines are given in Nordenmark (1942: 49–52).

15. Having practical experience meant little in an academic context according to Rosén: “No one is a great lawyer though he advocates much, no one is a great physician though he treats many ill people, no one is a great clergyman though he often preaches”. Nils Rosén, reservation to Senate decision 29 December 1744 (copy). UUL, A552. This reservation probably concerned a decision by the Senate to approve of Hiorter getting a position as observer. Cf. Nordenmark (1942: 47).

16. Olof Hiorter, “Ödmiukt memorial”, read in the Senate 20 December 1744. UUL, A552.

17. Olof Hiorter, “Underdån- ödmiukt Memorial”, 10 January 1745 (copy). UUL, A552.

18. Letter from the Senate to the Chancellor, 31 December 1744 (copy). UUL, A552.

19. Nils Rosén, reservation to Senate decision 29 December 1744 (copy). UUL, A552. This reservation probably concerned a decision by the Senate to approve of Hiorter getting a position as observer.

20. Olof Hiorter, “Underdån- ödmiukt Memorial”, 10 January 1745 (copy). UUL, A552.

21. There are 59 letters from Hiorter to Elvius in ARSAS.

22. Elvius testimonies are in UUL, A552.

23. Minutes, 22 February 1747, ARSAS; Lindroth (1967: 497).

24. Minutes, 21 February 1747, ARSAS.

25. On Ekström's scientific status, which was comparable to that of George Graham in England, see Amelin (1999).

26. Hiorter to Elvius, 6 March 1747, ARSAS.

27. Hiorter to Elvius, 6 March 1747, ARSAS. The Latin expression, deriving from a fable from antiquity, literally means “harp-playing asses”, i.e. bunglers. The fact that Hiorter addressed Elvius as “brother” signified friendship and should not be taken literally.

28. Hiorter to Wargentin, 20 February 1750, ARSAS. Cf. Hiorter to Wargentin 9 March 1750, ARSAS.

29. Wargentin to Hiorter, 19 February 1750, UUL.

30. Wargentin to Hiorter, 8 March 1750, UUL.

31. On the exchange between Hiorter and Elvius regarding Höpken's eulogy, see letters between these two during 1745, ARSAS.