1

In 1743 the Danish-Norwegian government distributed a questionaire1 to all government

officials in Denmark and Norway. 43 questions were to be answered2. As the clergy was
reckoned to be the learned class above the others, the questionaire was also sent on to the
clergy all the way from the bishops to the vicars.1 The answers from bailiffs of the time,
however, also show a sound knowledge of the topics in question.
Some of the descriptions are missing today, but we still have 172 left. They will be
published in five or six volumes at The compartment of sources, The national archives of
Norway. Volume I comes in the end of this year 2003, if everything go as planned. The
original intention of the questionaire was to collect material for a 9-volumes work on
norwegian circumstances, a socalled topographical work.
The questions are open, that means, they state the subject of interest, but leave it much to
the interviewee to formulate the answers and give details. The answers consequently bear
the stamp of the officials personality and in a body give an impression of what occupied the
wellbred, cultured and educated class in the early 18th century. The subject matter is in other
words a piece of history of learning in this springtime of enlightenment. Seen in this way
the questionaire shows a change of pattern in way of thought.

It seems that at this time there was a feeling of change almost like the one we have in our
times: Lots of changes in a relatively short time. In the introduction to his work The first
attempt of the natural history of Norway, printed in 1752, the bishop of Bergen, Erik
Pontoppidan,3 states:

Our time has had the great advantage to see from the
beginning of this century the progress of science caused by
more important discoveries than many of the earlier secula
seen together..2

A short view of the previous world of thought shows:

In the roughly the universe was seen as not understandable for man. It was subject to the
great wisdom and unscrutableness of God – or the intermediation of the devil, inscrutable
that too. The church, only, had the right to state how the world was built and how it
functioned. People were subjected to believe in a symbolic and hierachical order of the
world. A more down - to - earth inquiring attitude to their surroundings was suppressed.3
But, however, the map seemed to differ from the real world. Slowly, slowly, with many
reactions and setbacks (the new thoughts were, of course, seen as dangerous, devastating
and disintegrating on society), one worked towards a new understanding. Slowly the new
thought were accepted all over.

1A letter from the higher official Otto von Rappe to bishop Dorph (Christiania/Oslo bishop-archive 4c-045-56, d. Brev)
he writes as follows: … i have received good answers from higher and lower officials and royal servants, but alas, i
know none to give better acounts than the clergy. All of them have studied and have red quite a lot of books and have the
knowledge of all kinds of curiosities, moreover have good knowledge of farming and agriculture.
2Erik Pontoppidan, The first attempt on the natural history of Norway, Kbh. 1752.
3Luckily this was preserved in the arabic world.

1
 1
The project of the 43 questions shows that the thoughts of the renaissance at last had
become common amongst the educated in Denmark-Norway too.
The nature was no longer symbolic and hierarchical. God was really present. God was
the reason for dealing with science. And science was dealt with. Getting to learn the nature
was the way to get to know the creation of God and to know God himself. The bishop Erik
Pontoppidan continues:4

See, there is a God, … though he, that lives in an

unaccessible light, and can not be seen by the eye of an
ordinary mortal, however, the mind sees and experiences
him in his acts.

And God’s acts were the world of reality, a down-to earth conception of our surroundings.
By studying the real world, one learned housekeeping, the housekeeping of God, and the
housekeeping of man.

The housekeeper and housekeeping were important and much used consepts. The word
theology was translated in norwegian to Gods housekeeping (hushold /-er). Erik
Pontoppidan, in the preface to his work (The first attempt …), mentions W. Derhams
physico-theology and astro-theologi, Fabricii pyro- and hydro-theology, Alvards bronto-
theology and so on, which he translates: God’s housekeeping with the physical world, the
stars and he goes on: God’s housekeeping with the fishes, with the birds, the plants,
God’s houskeeping with the place, and God as the great housekeeper of it all.
And so the researchers fell upon science in small. They observed and collected and
systematized and gave names to the birds, the fishes, the plants, the stars, in short, every
subject of nature. And in the big: how people lived, how they organized, what they ate - and
so on. They wanted to scrutinize everything from the smallest part to the whole. The
interests went further than to register the animal kingdom, the plant kingdom and the
mineral kingdom. Earlier and contemporary ways of living, trade and industry, history and
lingvistics and ways of production were discussed. We also see the beginning of a social
science, the beginning of the science of nutrition and so on.
Also subjects that might be unknown to the society were taken into consideration. Only
the theology was left alone, as stated in the first volume of the first edition of the
Copenhagen society’s volumes:4
And so the researchers fell upon science in small. They observed and collected and
systematized and gave names to the birds, the fishes, the plants, the stars, in short, every
subject of nature. And in the big: how people lived, how were they organized, what did they
eat - and so on. They wanted to scrutinize everything from the smallest part to the whole.
The interests went further than to register the animal kingdom, the plant kingdom and the
mineral kingdom. Earlier and contemporary ways of living, trade and industry, history and
lingvistics and ways of production were discussed. We also see the beginning of a social
science, the beginning of the science of nutrition and so on.

4Erik Pontoppidan, The first attempt on the natural history of Norway, Kbh. 1752, page a1b-a2.

1
 1
Also subjects that might be unknown to the society were taken into consideration. Only
the theology was left alone, as stated in the first volume of the first edition of the
Copenhagen society’s volumes:5

.. Except the theology, unless the study concerns philology or

church-history in the holy bible.
Everything belonged in a greater connexion, in the houskeeping of God. Underlying was
the hope that when everything was found out, then Gods whole world would be fully
understood.

Consequently the whole and the part and the role of the part in the wholeness were
importent. The whole and the part were related to each other as a chinese box containing
uncountable rooms - or a beehive or a composite of the both, if such is imaginable. And
there was a sense of democracy through it all, with due regard to real knowledge. We are all
builders and contributors to the wholeness. The learning of nature or natural history it was
called.5 Towards a later time these descriptions are called topographical. This word was not
so much in use by this time – at least in Norway. One used several different words, but the
concern was descriptions of place in the widest conception.

The place was seen as a whole. Ideally each place was a unit containing everything those
who lived there needed and themselves and their habitat/housing. An example: On one of
the questions concerning herbs and deceases, one of the officials answered:

I think that God has given each and every place the herbs
they need to cure or relieve any decease they might have.

In spite of years of hunger, in 1740 to 1742, or may be because of them, one believed in
God’s reason and order, God’s plan. It was man’s duty to find this reason and this order
and his plan. God has created the world in such a way that ideally each place should
contain people enough to live from what the place could offer, or said in the opposite
way: there should be resources enough in each place so that the people in that place could
live. Therefore it is man’s duty to study the creation in order to understand God and his
plans, the housekeeping of God. Each phenomenon had to be studied apart on each place.
God’s plan was fundamentally the same everywhere, but creation was infinitely rich with
local variations in countless combinations. This made it necessary to understand
difference. Each environment, each part had its duty and contributed to the whole.

5Scientific works from the lovers of learning and science in the Copenhagen society, Kbh. 1745, page 4. It is stated that
it is not at all any intention in the society to stydy any questions of religious belief, only church-history and linguistics.

1
 1
The journey got a special meaning in this context. The journey gave a continuous
experience of places and their difference. There was an obligation to tell others about it
afterwards, very often in print. There are quite a few books of travel from this time.

The enthusiasm and optimism of the time can be felt, it is almost touchable. The project
was to see, count, measure, weigh, so that others, by doing the same, could come to the
same results. There the mathematical-scientific method started. There was a great joy and
optimism in the work and a great joy of the results. Everything could be found out! The
world could be fully understood.
Well, God and his world was the ultimate reason for this research. But God himself and
spirit was above. The spiritual world was put aside. God, and the thinking and conscious
man were not condemned to be non-existing. In the opposite, Descartes, for instance,
showed the existence of God and of the spirit in man. But, as i have understood,
Descartes learned that spirit could not be weighed or measured or counted, and could
therefore not be subject to science.
hit

Well, back to the officials and the clergy and their answers. Their inspired occupation
with the real world led to – and had their background in the learned societies. The
university of Copenhagen didn’t function well at the time. In 1728 it simply burned
down. The new occupations with natural history led to a demand for contact with others
of the same interests, ways of communication.
The beginning of The society of Copenhagen in 1742 and its activities is one of the factors
that created the professional environment that made possible the questionaire of the 43
questions. The later bishop in Bergen, Erich Pontoppidan was among the seven learned
members who constituted The Copenhagen society for the lovers of learning and branches
of knowledge. The members were well established and learned personalities in the danish
and international academic life. The members met weekly in the home of the preses, the
lord Johan Ludvig Holstein6 for discussionsand reading of papers to each other. The
members especially, had an obligation to contribute with their papers for discussion and
publishing. All interested, members or not, were invited to send in papers. There should be
full openness outwards, so that others could make use of the knowledge. The Copenhagen
society’s publications started to be printed in 1745.
The academy was modelled on academies elsewhere in Europe, created as a consequence
of the thoughts of the renaissance. At last the renaissance came to us living up in the north.
Pontoppidan states the importance of the inspiration of such learned societies:6

To the progress of the history of nature have almost in all

the countries of Europe nowadays, flourishing learned
societies been of great help, by mutual encouragement,
instruction, caution, careful opposition, visitors,
experiments, and the communication of their finished thesis
to common knowledge by yearly publications.

6Erik Pontoppidan, in The first attempt on the natural history of Norway, Kbh. 1752, page a1b.

1
 1
7
Francis Bacon was the great inspirer and giver of ideas. His idea was that all the branches
of knowledge should not be used for a narrow egoistical or economical purpose. In the
learned societies all the results should be made accessible for the public. The Copenhagen
society followed, as we can see, this concept. The Copenhagen society’s publications
started in 1745.8

There was a discussion: should the publishing be in danish, to serve the native interests, or
in latin to make use of the communication abroad.7 In the preface to the first volume of the
Copenhagen periodical publications it is stated that the prints will be in danish, because the
works mainly concerned domestic subjects. The writers were also well learned in latin and
other european languages, they had access to the many foreign models.9 The nearest was
the swedish academy’s periodical publication that was so renowned and loved, that people
elsewere in Europe learned swedish to be able to read the papers published there in the
original language. The swedish papers were also translated and published in Germany,
France and Italy.10
The learned societies contributed to make scientific papers open to the public. Otherwise it
very often took a year and a day before things like that were printe, or the manuscripts
suffered fire or were not published at all.11 There was also the censorship on printed matters
to take into consideration. Anyhow: the enthusiasm was the case by us was also the case
elsewhere in Europe. There was all in all a lively, enthusiastic activity inside and over the
borders.

I want to take a big jump to our circumstances today, and give

We can look back upon three centuries of research. In the course of the renaissance we
gradually left a symbolic worldview and established a worldview of reason and rationality.
In the course of these centuries the scientific research on the material part of our world has
been predominant, and, as we have seen, they have altered our way of living tremendously,
mostly for good, i will only dwell on the good. The topographical investigations were an
important part of the starting of this.
The topographical descriptions concerned God’s presence in the material world, both
spirit and matter. When everything was mapped and everything understood, the hope was
that maybe man could understand, if not God himself, then perhaps the nature of God.

7Francis Bacon, 1561-1626.

8Scientific works contributed and red in the Copenhagen society of lovers of learning and science in the years 1743 and
1744, Kbh. 1745, preface.
9Scientific works contributed and red in the Copenhagen society of lovers of learning and science in the years 1743 og
1744, Kbh. 1745, preface.
10Sten Lindroth, The history of the royal swedish academy 1739-1818, Sth. 1967, bd. I:i, s. 208ff.
11Peter Dass, Description of Nordlands amt or the trumpet of Nordland is a good example. Written in the years of
1680-90, it was published in 1739 in Bergen, second edition in Copenhagen 1763. It was, however, very well known
earlier, thanks to the copies made by hand.

1
 1
God and spirit covered no weight or plane or room, wherefore they were outside the
possibilities of research. Towards our time we have seen that the spiritual part of us and of
the world is situated between romanticism and a disacknowledgement that such a part of
the world exsists. For a time it became out of focus for the possibilities and interest of
science. God’s presence, spirituality, was no longer a theme.
Nowadays there is knowledge present that through the physics, chemistry and
mathematics one can suggest that a spiritual world exists. Solid matter is mostly emptyness,
according to Einstein, as i have understood, round an energypattern. This is the case with
humans too. The observation of the elementary particles itself may change the results in the
way the observer expects. Or, said in another way: the univers seems to consist of pure
energy that changes according to man’s intention and expectation.

1
 1
Breve fra Hans Gram 1685-1748, ed. by Herman Gram, Kjøbenhavn 1907.
Dass, Peter, Beskrivelse over Nordlands amt or Nordlands trompet, Bergen 1739, 2. ed. Kiøbenhavn 1763,
(in all 46 editions).
Djupedal, Reidar, Den store innsamlinga av topografisk, historisk og språklig tilfang 1743 og "det kongerige
norge", Heimen, bd. X , 1955-57.
de Fine, Bendix Christian, Stavanger amptes udførlige beskrivelse, første utgave ved N. Nicolaysen i
Norske magasin ii, 1870, 2. ed.: Vitskapleg kildeutgåve ed. by Per Thorson, Stavanger 1952, 3rd edition by
Rogaland historie og ættesogelag, Stavanger 1952.
Faggot, Jac., Tankar om fäderneslandets känning och beskrifwande in kongl. Swenska wetenskaps
academiens handlingar för månaderna januar, februar ock martius 1741, stockholm 1743.
Imsen, Steinar og harald winge norsk historisk leksikon, oslo 1988.
Jessen-schardebøll, Erich johan, det kongerige norge fremstillet efter dets naturlige og borgerlige tilstand,
tome 1, kiøbenhavn 1763.
Jøcher, christian gottlieb, allgemeines gelehrten lexicon aller stände sowohl männ- als weiblichen
geschlechtes [etc.], Leipzig 1750.
Kuhn, thomas s., The structure of scientific revolutions, s.i. 1962.
Lindroth, sten, kungl. Svenska vetenskapsakademiens historia, stockholm 1967.
Pontoppidan, Erik, danske atlas, kiøbenhavn 1763.
Pontoppidan, Erik, det første forsøg paa norges naturlige historie, forestillende dette kongeriges luft,
grund, fielde, vande,væxter, metaller, mineralier, steen-arter, dyr, fugle, fiske og omsider indbyggernes
naturell, samt sædvaner og levemaade, kiøbenhavn 1752.
Pontoppidan, Erik, sandhed til gudfrygtighed, kiøbenhavn 1737.
Ramus, jonas, norriges beskrivelse, kjøbenhavn 1715.
Robinson-sheares, dictionary of national biography, oxford, london 1909, ed. By sidney lee.
Salmon, thomas, the universal traveller or, a complete description of the several nations of the world,
london 1752.
Sao, akershus stiftamt, div. Pakkesaker, pakke 23.
Schnitler, peter, grenseeksaminasjonsprotokoller 1742-1745, kjeldeskriftfondet, ved lars ivar hansen og tom
schmidt, oslo 1985.
Skrifter som udi det kjøbenhavnske selskab af lærdoms og videnskabers elskere [etc.] Kjøbenhavn 1745.
Lindroth, sten, svenska vetenskapsakademiens historia, stockholm 1967.
Topographisk journal bd. 1 og 9, chistiania 1792-1805.
Wille, hans jacob, beskrivelse over sillejords præstegield, kiøbenhavn 1786.

1
 1
However, nowadays we think: does spirit exist? Does matter exist? Some think the one
exists, some think the other, some think both. The followers of the two sides can in rare
cases agree upon the following: we don’t know, but we think the other part builds his
conviction on his feelings and not on his reason. Well - but: is there a ghost in the
machine, as the author Arthur Koestler talked about?

1
 1..In short, the questions are about the situation, boundaries, and face of the respective districts, number of provinces and towns in each, the
nature of the inhabitants, the farming and cattle breeding, fishing, what kind of woods, the use of the woods, what kind of tame and wild
animals and fouls, what deseases and which herbs to cure them, what herbs for colouring, minerals and their use, ways of communication,
antiquities, birthnames and dialect
2. The collections of Abraham Kall, The Royal Library, Copenhagen.
3..Erik Pontoppidan, 1698-1764, bishop in Bergen 1747-1754, author of scientific, historical and religious works.
ccording to Robinson.Sheares 2909: William Derham, 1657-1735, belonged to the clerical order, elected to the vicarage of
minster, Essex, studied all kinds of nature-history, broad contact with contemporaries of the same interests, member of Royal
iety in 1702. Fabricius: there were quite a lot of theologians by that name, also interested in nature history. Jøcher, 1750: Alvardus,
e Bernardi, there are quite a lot of Bernardis belonging to the clerical order who are also working with nature history.
5..The natural history concerns itself with what we today call science. In addition what man needed to live and how the nutrition
worked in the human body. In short: every aspect of nature and human life in it. History in all forms were included.
...
Johan Ludvig Holstein, 1694-1763, count, high official in the danish government.
7..We remember the translation of the bible by Martin Luther. He gave a tremendous impuls in the use of the mothertongue.