+Intro slide
+Letter by Torner
I want to start with a letter written by Samuel Torner, a little known Swedish 18th century naturalists,
It is addressed to his friend in Uppsala, Samuel Liljeblad, later professor in Economy at Uppsala
University. The letter is peculiar in several different ways, covering more than 56 pages, it reads
more like a diary, in fact it seems to have been written over a period of almost two months; the first
date Torner mentions is the 5 of December 1793, the last is the 11 of February 1794.
While commenting on events taking place between these dates, the text is organised so as to
describe the a day in the household of Joseph Banks. Banks, as you know was the president of the
Royal Society, but maybe also famous for his role on Captain Cooks first expedition when Banks
travelled together with Daniel Solander, a journey that cemented their future work on global natural
history. In this work Banks was the gentleman scholar and Solander, his friend but also his employee.
+Picture Banks Soho Square
Solander was just one among several Swedish naturalist working for Banks. Torner was also
employed by Banks for a period in the 1790s, by this time Solander was of course long dead.
In between descriptions of how the Banks household had breakfast, dinner and tea, and his own
work in the library and the collections, Torner also discusses the state of natural history in late 18th
century London.
He writes: “Natural history is flourishing happily in England. Happily, as long as she is not missing
enterprising patrons, such as Sir Joseph Banks, this generous gentleman. But to be a happy botanist,
what subsidies are not necessary. You can hardly imagine. Firstly you need access to a complete
library in natural history, like that of Sir Joseph Banks”. …
Torner then goes on describing how attention to details and carefulness that characterised the work
involved identifying plants. If using illustrations in this work they needed to be made from living
plants, in the natural environment, rather than “dry specimen”. But this was not enough, in order to
“insure” a plant one needed compare it examples in Linnaeus herbarium. However since it was
possible that Linnaeus himself had exchanged or given away the specific example he had described,
and kept one not “fully in agreement” with his original characterisations, further action was needed.
To achieve a good order a solution was necessary which Torner wrote “limited” those “engaged
scrutinising plants”. Only those with sufficient contact could proceed, since you had to write to
“Professor Swartz, for investigations on plants from the Occident, Thunberg for plants from Japan
and Cape.” It was even necessary to “rappel” Solander from the other world, in order for him to join
Sir Joseph in examining the South Pacific plants. Although Solander would surely mind having yet
again to “root around in a dry herbarium. ”Is it” (and I am not sure this is an opinion Torner ascribes
to Solander, or if it his own) “as if we learn nothing, never rise our soul above the gravel of the
earth.”
After listing some more people whose expertise needed to be engaged in the work, including Banks
Swedish librarian Jonas Carlsson Dryander and Liljeblad to whom the letter was addressed Torner
writes: ”Now I have dared to introduced a group of prominent men on the stage. Myself, I dare not
to be seen in this splendid assembly. They may play their roles without bothering me. I have nothing
against Botany.” This “charming and entertaining science” had given Torner a comfortable life in
London, a place full entertainment. However, botany was no longer what it was, the Temple of the
Goddess Flora had been closed, her worshippers had been driven out, although open again, the
party was over, it was trivial bread and water offerings, instead of happy ecstatic celebration, even
the flowers were cold and lifeless, artificial.
I will return to Torner’s sense of alienation and how he thinks natural history had changed character,
as well as his descriptions of what botanical work involved in London in the 1790s but first
something why I am interested in Torner in the first place.
+Presentation of project
We don’t know that much about Samuel Torner. Correspondence between Banks and Olof Swartz
reveal Swartz had recommended him to Banks in response to the latter’s request to recommended
him a Swedish naturalist to assist him in London. How long he stayed in London and what happened
to him afterwards I do not know. What I do know is that Torner is just one among several Swedish
naturalist that moved between Uppsala/Stockholm in the late 18th century.
It is this group of mobile naturalists that form the focal point in a project I am working on called
“Westward Science Between 1760-1810 – on Social Mobility and the Mobility of Science”. It is
funded by the Swedish Research Council and hosted by this centre, I am due to finish it end 2014
beginning of 2015.
On the slide is a (not conclusive) record of Swedish naturalists visiting London. My starting point is
that these individuals were central in bringing Linnaean nomenclature and taxonomy to Britain and
beyond. Today I will particularly focus on Daniel Solander, one of Linnaeus so called disciples who
probably need no further introduction, Jonas Carlsson Dryander, a late student of Linnaeus, also the
nephew of Lars Montin who probably taught him natural history at a young age. I also touch on the
work of Adam Afzelius, another late student of Linnaeus, who London as a base during the ten years
he spent abroad, on leave from his job as “Demonstrator” at the Uppsala Botanical garden. During
his 10 year leave Afzelius also travelled to the west coast of Africa on behalf of the Sierra Leone
Company, doing an inventory of the natural history around Free Town. I will however only briefly
discuss this. Instead I will focus on what these naturalists did in London and how it can contribute to
our understanding of how Linnaean natural history became a global science.
+ Picture Solander, Dryander, and Afzelius
Natural history in the 18th century – collection and geography
Torner describes a complex system of referencing, drawing on the expertise of a wide range of
people and comparing specimen from different collections with one another and with illustrations
made according to specific standards. Several such technologies for securing and storing information
have recently become the focal point in research on Linnaeus and natural history in the 18th century.
Betina Dietz has written about systems for exchanging and correcting information in correspondence
between naturalists. Isabelle Charmantier and Staffan Muller Wille have focused on the paper
technologies of Linnaeus, including his use of index cards , and how Linnaeus used his own printed
floras and faunas as annotation platforms, as places to store information in between editions. Such
technologies helped naturalists deal with the information overload created by the influx of new
material to Europe following the expansion of contacts with the rest of the globe.
Torner’s letter also illuminate the role of collections, and especially the role of Linnaeus collection,
which in 1782, had moved across to North Sea, from Uppsala to London. As Alix Cooper highlights in
her study Inventing the Indigenous. Local Knowledge and Natural History in Early Modern Europe,
Linnaeus understanding of the field of natural history was characterised by division and hierarchies,
as such it undermined the role of decentralised local knowledge and favoured knowledge generated
at the centre, and with the help of great collections.
Cooper’s discussion highlight the importance of geography, of the spatial dimension, and how it in
the beginning of the 18th century was about to change. It might be possible to say that Linnaeus
centrality in the mid-18th century gave the European landscape of natural history a Northern tilt.
Soon enough though, France and Britain, or more precisely Paris and London, wrestled to the front
position as European centres of science.
In both cases this process reflected the growing exposure to the none European natural world and
France and Britain’s role as colonial powers. In France the centralisation was to a not small extent
the result of the actions taken by the state and its representatives, while in Britain and London the
process was more organic, reflecting changes in society, the role of learning in polite society. It was a
situation that allowed individuals such as Banks, backed up by the Royal Society, and the Navy of
course, to take central stage.
I mention this because I think it is significant for why I am working with Swedish naturalists in
London rather than Paris, where with a few exception there were not many. Of course the reception
of Linnaeus taxonomy differed between France and Britain, in the latter place Linnaeus was a best
seller, but I also think the private nature of British natural history, that fact that the state played a
much lesser role allowed the integration of the brain drain of Swedish naturalist into British natural
history.
Me and Nicklas, talking about this workshop, discussed the compatibility of Baltic nationals in the
world of science in the 18th century, coming from small neutral states, they posed no threat to the
expanding powers of Europe, in terms of divided loyalties. Moreover, I suspect their education,
geared towards work in a state apparatus, made them quite useful in different administrative
capacities.
That early modern states co-opted groups with distinct skills is nothing new. The Huguenots are
maybe the best known example of such transfer, as Anne Goldgar has studied their role in
intellectual refugees in her book Impolite Learning. The Swedish naturalists in London were not
escaping prosecution, but they left a country where the interest for natural history was in decline
and moved to one where natural history was taking centre stage. One could maybe borrow the
terms push and pull from emigration studies to describe this process.
I am interested in the individual reasons for why my Swedish naturalist crossed the North Sea, here
though I am going to focus on what it tells us of changes taking place in European natural history in
the second half of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century.
The argument I am elaborating on is that this movement is indicative of a system change within
natural history. From one associated with one-man, or maybe one-household-collection, albeit
connected with other naturalists in correspondence network, to one which demanded a clusters of
collections for referencing, preferably located geographically close to one another. The Swedish
contribute to this integrative process, in a sense they were part of bridging the 18th and the 19th
century, if you want their journeys mark a link between the republic of letters and the
institutionalised science of the 19th century.
For the rest of the paper I am going to elaborate a bit more on what they did and how we can
understand it along the way I have outline above.
+Taxonomic Oracles
In his biography on Solander Edward Dyker refers to him as the taxonomic oracle of London, and
this label sums up quite well a role the Swedish naturalists played in London. A vast number of
specimen were handed to Solander and Dryander, to be identified, from single dried plants to big
collections. I will talk more about collections soon but what I want to emphasis here is the scale of
this work, it is about identification of specimen on a mass scale. This is obviously hard to prove but I
suspect that the speed with which individuals such as Dryander and Solander processed the material
they were given to identify was central in establishing London’s role as a natural history centre.
I hope to expand on this role more in the future, because I think it is central in explaining the
dominant role of Linnaeus in Britain at the time. In addition to what we already know about how
Linnaean natural history was diffused to a broad public, with the help of print and lectures I suspect
the processing work of the Swedish naturalists was central in establishing Linnaean taxonomy in
London.
Focusing on the instant identification, the ability to cover a lot of material on a short time, also
points us towards the type of knowledge Solander and Dryander among others possessed. It is an
ability to observe and label specimen quickly which emanates from years of experiences and a long
education. It is an embodied form of knowledge. The speed in this work could only be generated by
them being physically present in London. Correspondence as a means to communicate would not
have worked. Their status as oracles emanated from their connection to Linnaeus. During his first
years in London, Solander played the role of being the extended eyes, hands and ears of Linnaeus.
He was frequently called in to witness experiments, to validate observations, made by British
naturalists, he was a stand in for Linnaeus. Over time, and particularly after Linnaeus had passed
away, he gained an independent status, which was passed on to individuals like Dryander.
+ Administrating and Organising Collections
Next to being a taxonomic oracle and a Linnaeus witnesses, Solander and Dryander were also
deeply involved in the collection building activities that took place in England. Again there is a lot to
be said about Solanders work in the British Museum prior to his engagement with Banks. Solander
was employed as an Assistant, and spend his initial years in London organising the natural history
collection of the Museum, open to the public only in XXXX. Tying in with work I have done elsewhere
on the significance of displaying techniques, and how such skills were learned, it is worth
highlighting that Solander’s work involved not only labelling single specimen to correspond with
Linnaeus names, genera, and classes but also how to catalogue and store these.
+British Museum and Solander Box
The traces of Solander’s work are still with us today, the Solander Box. It is also worth highlighting
that Solander had been trained by Linnaeus in the art, he had been with Linnaeus organising the
collections of the Louisa Ulrika, Adolf Fredrik, the queen and king of Sweden, and Count Carl Gustaf
Tessin.
Dryander put is life and soul into writing a four volume bibliography of Banks library: Catalogus
bibliothecae historico-naturalis Joseph Banksi, published between 1798 and 1800. It was a
masterpiece in terms of attention paid to details and classification according to contemporaries,
printed in only a few hundred copies it has largely been forgotten.
There was not only the matter of creating shelf mark, boxing specimen and labelling already existing
collections, as we know them today, as a fixed or finite collections. It was a complex job that
involved merging collection, of creating categories and infrastructures that could integrate and host
a constant stream of new specimen. This involved creating catalogues which could expand, Solander
botanical and zoological catalogues in the British Museum was for example initially made up of loose
slips, only later on were they bound together, in two sets of series containing 25 and 27 volumes.
+Portland Collection
It is important to underline that this type of work was solemnly taking place in public or semi-public
institutions such as the British Museum, or Banks collection. Solander was also engaged in classifying
and organising one of the biggest private collections in England at the time, belonging to the
Duchess of Portland. This collection was sold upon the death of the Duchess, she died only 3 years
after Solander. The introduction to the auction catalogue, listing the lots of material for sale, indicate
the value Solander’s classifying job had added to the collection, although it in this case it was sold in
lots assembled to give buyers a taste of the variety of the whole collection, rather than following the
classes and groups Solander used in his classifying work. Something the author of the introduction,
Benjamin Stillingfleet said, might cause regret among the true lovers of science. From a financial
point of view however it was regarded as the most profitable approach. It also indicate the potential
lucrative dimension to natural history in late 18th century London where natural history was
consumed.
+Authentication of Collections
This is not to say that provenance and integrity of different collections were not respected. In fact,
one line of work that Dryander was particularly involved in, was in assisting Banks obtaining
collections historically relevant to the taxonomic work of Linnaeus. Dryander was engaged in the
purchasing the George Cliffords and Paul Hermans herbariums, both on which both Linnaeus had
worked on while living in the Dutch Republic. Correspondence around this reveal the significance of
Dryander’s intimate knowledge of Linnaeus work, including being able to recognise his hand writing,
and how it was put to use evaluating this material. Together with purchase of Linnaeus collection, by
John Edward Smith in 1782, this suggest a growing historical awareness among in British natural
history. In order for London to work as a centre for natural history it needed not only to
accommodate all the new global material, it also needed access to historically significant collections,
particularly such collections that was linked to Linnaeus, the father of modern botany.
Gatekeepers, educators and employees
Another role which Dryander frequently played was one of being a gate keeper. While Banks was
away it was Dryander who welcomed or rejected visitors. This included protecting the collections
from thieving French naturalists (L. Hertier), but it could also be about protecting the reputation of
Linnaeus. Fearing visitors would discover mistakes made by Linnaeus, and use them to discredit him
and his taxonomy, visitors such as L. Hertier were refused access to Linnaeus’ collection. Much more
common however was Dryander playing the role of educator, introducing visitors to more technical
aspects of Linnaean taxonomy. Solander’s work at the British Museum also involved guiding visitors
to the collections. Rumours have it that Solander was such an entertaining guide people turned
away when someone else was taking his place. Solander did also play a role in London society,
entertaining both together with Banks but also alone. Dryander, had by all account a different
personality. In fact Banks called Mr Dry. He was living a frugal life devoted to science in the Banks
household. Banks correspondence with friends concerning Dryanders last day, also suggest a
subordination. Banks is relating to Dryander as his librarian, a valuable employee, whose long service
rendered him special care on his death bed.
This also brings me back to Torner’s letter and its slightly melancholic tone. This is obviously my
guess but botanical work in the centre that Torner describes comes across as a very bureaucratic
process, the slow working of a huge machinery, leaving little room for individual passion. In fact later
on in his letter to Liljeblad Torner admits the only botanising he did these days were among the
Myosties Lappula, the prostitutes of London. The fact that neither Dryander, Solander, Afzelius or
Turner as far as I know never set up their own households in London, is indicative of their
subordinated status. It also reflects social differences. Both Dryander and Afzelius proposed to
daughters of fellow London naturalists, but were rejected. It might be too small a sample to draw a
conclusion on but setting up a scientific household in London was expensive, and the Swedish
naturalists were poor.
So how to conclude:
In this paper I suggested that the Swedish naturalists bridged two ways of doing natural history at
the end of the 18th century, one associated with the Republic of Letters, with collaborations between
individual naturalists, drawing on resources in their own house hold, and one more closely affiliated
with the institutionalisation of the 19th century, drawing on the work of many subordinated people
and involving the integration and administration of collections and libraries.
My Swedish naturalists contributed to the centralisation and institutionalisation in several different
ways, drawing on their education and experiences. Their Baltic origins, the attention they paid to
details, systems and infrastructures enabled them to play a role in London. Their work did however
not promote their status above a certain level, they struggled becoming head of their own scientific
households. When Afzelius finally returns home, after 10 years in London, including 3 years in Sierra
Leone, one of his reasons is his longing for a more independent position, as the head of his own
household. Unfortunately for him, Thunberg took for ever to die, in fact Afzelius was forced to
return to the same position he had had before he left, as demonstrator at the Botanical Garden. A
life that occasionally made him long for Africa and London. If I only had been rewarded like Mungo
Park, he wrote in a letter to Baron Silverhjelm in 1801. It reveals the problems Afzelius had
converting his experiences from Africa into a successful career both in London and at home in
Uppsala. It is also I suggest indicative of the ambivalent positions of Linnaeus’ students, working in a
transnational manner at a time when natural history became increasingly nationalised.