Nation building in Norway

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nation building is a term coined by American political scientists to denote the processes that took place in a number of former colonies in the Third World as they broke away from their mother countries and established themselves as states of their own. In more recent Norwegian historical research, the term "nasjonsbygging" is used for this and applied to the emergence of Norway as a nation after the separation from Denmark in the Peace of Kiel .

History of patriotism in Norway until 1814

Conceptual

patriotism

In the 18th century, the term “patriotism” was used in Denmark-Norway in two ways: On the one hand, it was about the realization of a general civic virtue, about putting aside self-interest in favor of the common good. In addition, "patriotism" was also used in the sense that it was a matter of promoting the special Norwegian language. General patriotism was a virtue that belonged to civil society as such. “National patriotism” dealt with general social interests in their specific form in one part of society, namely the nation. The relationship between general citizen patriotism and particular patriotism with regard to the Norwegian nation formed an important issue in the intellectual elite of Denmark-Norway in the second half of the 18th century. In the 18th century, the Dane Tyge Rothe wrote pamphlets in which he particularly emphasized the unadulterated morality and freedom of the Norwegian peasants. His understanding of patriotism related to the government. In 1788 he wrote Om nogle Danmarks og Norges Fordringer til hinanden; i Anledning af Kronprinsens Rejse til Norge . In it he examined the relationship between Norway and Denmark for the first time and demanded that the two empires should be absolutely equal in the state as a whole. There he also wrote the sentence: "To love the fatherland means to love the government under which one lives."

The reason-based patriotism of the Norwegian magistrate ( Sorenskriver ) Hans Arentz in his 1787 book Grund-Tegning af den fornuftige Norske Patriotism is different. Arentz thinks that patriotism is a natural human characteristic that arises without government intervention; it does not change by combining different landscapes under one government. So a Norwegian remains a Norwegian regardless of his nationality. The state bond between Norway and Denmark does not mean that Norwegians and Danes cannot be kept apart, any more than in Great Britain the Scots and the English or in the Habsburg Empire the Austrians, Bohemians and Hungarians. But since this patriotism could be both a virtue and a vice, in that xenophobia could arise from it, he demanded that patriotism should be controlled by reason. "Sensible patriotism" is only sensible if it conforms to civic virtues and duties. So there is a general patriotism in Norwegian and Danish. Norwegian sensible patriotism therefore implied loyalty to the king, benevolence towards the royal family, sincere sympathy towards the Danish people, promotion of everything that promotes the good of the state as a whole; nevertheless the Norwegian fatherland remains the real and natural goal. So Arentz was by no means open to separatist ideas.

nationalism

In the 18th century the term “nationalism” was still uncommon, and in Norway-Denmark it was unknown until the last few years. In 1796, the poet Jens Zetlitz rejected the idea that he had succumbed to “offensive nationalism” (fornærmende nationalism) and emphasized that he felt completely free of it. The fact that nationalism developed from patriotism within the state was due to the state structure itself. Denmark-Norway was a multiethnic state: The Oldenburg ruled over Danes, Norwegians, Germans and Icelanders, plus Sami, Eskimos, Africans, residents of West India and Bengal. The seat of government, Denmark, played a special role within this structure. This led to the conflict over German influence in connection with the Citizenship Act of January 15, 1776. The act gave the indigenous residents of Denmark, Norway and the duchies the sole right of access to public office. But there were many Germans within the country who were now excluded from all offices. In the duchies they were even in the majority. The state ideology was nevertheless supranational, primarily represented by the absolutist king common to all, but also by the general civic sentiment. A special ideology for a national patriotism would have been an attack on the ideology of a state society and thus ultimately on this state itself. The Norwegian patriots were far from developing separatist ideas. Nonetheless, the particular focus on the specifically Norwegian horizon aroused corresponding fears in Danish circles. But the Norwegian patriots did not want to leave the multi-ethnic state, but wanted to be placed on an equal footing with the Danish nation within this state.

Nationalism in Norway had two dimensions: a horizontal and established dimension, which was due to the Danish language, culture and the Danish state apparatus, which had grown over several centuries, and a weaker vertical dimension, which was due to popular life, popular culture and one's own past that built up prehistory. At the end of the 18th century, however, the Norwegian intellectuals did not yet have the means to give the Norwegian fatherland a political and programmatic form. In recent historical research this is referred to as "cultural nationalism". Before 1800 he had no tendency to break away from Denmark. In the 19th century, the Norwegian nationalists increasingly oriented themselves towards an “actual and historical Norwegianism” in an inner and more untouched ethnic and cultural tradition that was to be based on a cultural society rooted in the people.

Fatherland

General discussions

In his book Tanker om Kjærlighet til Fædernlandet , Tyge Rothe defined the fatherland as follows in 1759:

“Det folk blandt hvilket mennesket lever som borgere, det er hans fæderneland […] Fædernelandet betyder menneske, med hvilke vi som borgere ere foreende, ok ikke dennem, blandt hvilke vi først saae dagens lys […] er fæderneland vi leve som borgere; Any holder almost ved denne setning, som ved en leedesnoer, paired every ikke shall forvildes. "

“The people in which a person lives as a citizen is his fatherland. [...] Fatherland means people with whom we are united as citizens, and not those with whom we see the light of day. [...] The fatherland is the country in which we live as citizens; I stick to this sentence as a guideline that will not confuse me. "

- Tyge Rothe, Tanker om Kiærlighed til Fædernelandet . Pp. 17-20.

For him, the fatherland was civil society, and promoting it is a moral virtue, a duty. However, he admitted that there was a “force”, a pull in people to the place where they were born, but this should not become a general rule. Because the love of the country should not be confused with the desire of the individual to live in the city of his parents. Although people have already spoken of Norway and Denmark as “twins”, it was obvious that the Danes viewed Denmark as the fatherland of the entire state. The countries were ruled by a Danish royal family, administered by a Danish law firm and defended by a Danish fleet.

The Norwegian-born jurist Eiler Hagerup wrote a pamphlet Brev om Kierlighed til Fædrenelandet in 1767 , in which he describes the love of the country as a connection between the love of civil society and the love of the country of birth. His text was directed against the dominant influence of the Germans under the Struensee government, when he warned that if you were to love your fatherland you shouldn't get the feeling that you were a stranger in your own country, and so already announced the redanization under the successor Guldberg .

In 1788 Johan Nordahl Brun wrote a price publication Fornuftig Kierlighet til Fædrenelandet ( Sensible Fatherland Love ). She won the prize awarded by “Det Nordiske Selskab i London” for the best work on the subject of “Love for the Fatherland in general or for Denmark and Norway in particular”. He tied the love of the fatherland not to the place of birth, but to the place of the earliest formation, i.e. to the place where one grew up, and turned away from the enlighteningly rational construction of the love of fatherland as a virtue. Even the judge and writer Envold de Falsen did not consider the place of birth to be an essential part of the fatherland. He himself was born in Denmark, but had worked in Norway and thus became a Norwegian by choice. Envold de Falsen inserted “culture” as a mediating link between reason and feeling. Because this is the place of development of the individual.

The specifically Norwegian

The question soon arose, what is specifically Norwegian?

At first the difference in the nature of the countries was obvious, from which different characters were then derived. Nicolai Wilse suggested that Norway and Denmark were so different in nature, as if they were each part of a different planet. The particular characteristics of the Norwegians were then described in contrast to the conditions in Copenhagen. Jonas Rein complained about Copenhagen's depraved culture which is destroying the immaculate Norwegians. For Zetlitz, Norway and Copenhagen were downright opposites. Christian Frederik Hagerup argued for a Norwegian university with the stuffy air, bad and sloppy food in Copenhagen, all sorts of debauchery that changed the normal Norwegian nature. In Norway the students could indulge in innocent and refreshing merrymaking, such as hunting, concerts and boat trips. That would strengthen the noble character that is characteristic of the Norwegian way of life. So the cliché of innocent country life was used. In the past, Copenhagen was only a stopover for a large number of students on the way to other universities on the continent, especially Rostock and Wittenberg. The Thirty Years' War ended these studies in Germany, and Christian IV forbade attending Catholic universities. In 1629 it was determined that the state examination in Copenhagen was a mandatory requirement to hold a clerical office in Denmark or Norway. That was also an argument for a Norwegian university, because now the European intellectual life could be brought directly to Norway and the university could determine that students could study at other universities on the continent. Tyge Rothe went back to the medieval Norwegians from Snorri's descriptions and pointed out that the Norwegian peasants of the time were able to speak frankly and directly with the king - in contrast to the situation in Copenhagen. Another element was personal freedom to deal with one's own affairs as she saw fit. It was traced back to the property that was protected by the Odals Rescue . In contrast to the other European countries, feudal rights and serfdom never existed in Norway. Wergeland later relativized this view by pointing out in his work Norges Historie that in practice this freedom only applied to the nobility and clergy. In contrast, the people to be distinguished from these classes immediately lost their freedom. In addition, the Norwegians were particularly loyal to the king. The Norwegians always see the king as the protector of their rights and freedom. The Norwegian poets were conservative and they were completely far from anti-royalism and democracy. They saw such things as foreign and unnorwegian. Zetlitz explicitly accused the Norwegian magazine Hermoder of this tendency. This loyalty to the king was struck by the Peace of Kiel on January 14, 1814. This can be seen in the numerous letters and submissions to the Imperial Assembly in Eidsvoll.

The native poetry was also geared towards what was considered "Norwegian" from the past. This is particularly evident in Claus Frimann's “Birkebeinersang”. Like many of his contemporaries, he derived his motif of bringing up children in the prehistory of Gerhard Schøning's French-inspired Norges Riiges Historie (1771): According to this, the children were placed in the cold snow or ice-cold water in the early days to harden them and to get out of them to make a people of fighters. Schøning had taken this motif from Montesquieu's climate theory in De l'esprit des lois . Cold pulls the outer fabric together and makes it strong, and physical strength creates confidence, courage and independence. Holberg also supported this theory when he asserted that the Norwegians had more courage and vehemence than the Spaniards and Italians, because the cold drove courage and irascibility to the marrow and heart. Voltaire was also of this opinion regarding the Swedes in his book Histoire de Charles XII, roi de Suède (1731). The view that the north is the fighters' fatherland apparently originated in France. However, the Norwegians of the "Norske Selskab" rejected these heroic fabrics. They preferred the nature depictions of rugged rocks and thundering waterfalls, as they were fashionable in England.

The bearers of patriotism before 1814

The multitude of patriotic texts from the end of the 18th century should not hide the fact that patriotism was not an issue among the population. He was tied to a few individuals. There was no movement. It was completely unsuccessful: Neither a university nor a national bank was achieved. No specifically Norwegian institutions emerged at all. The conspiratorial efforts against Sweden to convert to this empire also failed. Patriotic newspapers like Hermoder only lasted a few years, appeared at great intervals and then disappeared due to a lack of suitable articles. The only success that can be booked is the successful defense of the law of odals. Even contemporaries asked about the causes of this unsuccessfulness and attributed them to provincialism and egoism and to the fact that one expected quick successes and quickly gave up.

For the general well-being and especially for the well-being of Norway, mainly clergymen and civil servants were involved. In the last decade of the 18th century Norway had seven bishops and 794 clergymen. Of these, three bishops and 24 clergy are called patriots, i.e. people who were specifically active in Norway for the national idea. Of 1220 civil servants, 27 were committed to the national idea, the majority from the higher ranks (bailiff, judge). They were mainly recruited from southeast Norway and the cities. Of the 24 patriotic pastors, 20 were born in Norway, only one of the patriotic bishops. Of the 27 patriotic officials, 18 were born in Norway. Quite a number of very active patriots were born in Denmark: Wilse, Moltke, Hans Møller and the editor Conrad Peterson. When the National Assembly was convened in 1814, 28 of the 54 national patriots before 1800 were still alive. At the beginning of the 19th century, the civil service in Norway consisted of about 800 officers, 600 civil servants and 400 clergy. Of these 1,800 civil servants, 1,250 were born in Norway, 350 in Denmark and the remaining 200 mostly in Germany (including the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein). Most of the Norwegian-born officials came from families who had immigrated from Denmark and Germany. There were also many who had Danish mothers because the Norwegian students in Copenhagen often got married there too. According to a somewhat uncertain contemporary survey, there were 208 civil servants from Norway in Denmark and 158 civil servants from Denmark in Norway in 1814. In the Norwegian officer corps, 65% were born in Norway, most of the others in Denmark or Germany. The highest offices were all occupied by Danes. However, the immigrant families soon felt themselves to be Norwegian, and very few responded to the Danish king's call to return to Denmark after the breakaway of Norway. It also played a role that the opportunities for advancement in Norway were better than in Denmark. The civil servants were oriented towards Copenhagen in terms of education and relatives, while the merchants were more towards England because of their trade relations. Their families came mostly from Germany or the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. Most of the merchants in Trondheim were from Flensburg. In Christiansand people of Danish origin predominated and in the 18th century many families from England had immigrated to Vestlandet.

Various reasons for the unsuccessful effort to create national consciousness in Norway are discussed: There were no institutions that could sustain a stable and continuous patriotic effectiveness. Nor were there any spiritual or intellectual centers in Norway, not even a national patriotic association. The national aspirations were diffuse and very different. Rationalists stood against traditionalists, liberals against conservatives. The initiatives were very person-dependent. Theoretical and ideological discourse has been neglected in favor of quick practical results. When this did not materialize, the patriots only had a loose framework of ideas, so that the movement soon fell into lethargy. In addition there was the provincial status of Norway and the distance from the capital Copenhagen, where the decisions were made but the patriots were not noticed due to a lack of connections. Still, the patriotic movements were not entirely meaningless. When the connection to Denmark was broken in 1814, one could fall back on the experiences of the 18th century. This time turned out to be a training ground, so to speak. There were also certain elements that became useful in 1814: These include the awareness of being different from Denmark. Something like a national identity and a feeling of special togetherness had developed. The only thing missing was the general will to form a nation of its own. It was only created by external circumstances in 1814 and then led to resistance against the incorporation into the Swedish state.

The political discussion

Brun, Rothe and Arentz were firmly rooted in the tradition of natural law of the 17th century. For them, the union between Denmark and Norway under an absolutist government was a social contract governed by reason. The emotional attachment of a Norwegian to Norway was not sufficient for a national social contract of its own. In theory, a state could be both national and reasonable, but only under certain historical conditions that these authors did not take for granted. In this ideological argumentation environment, a further development towards a patriotism emancipating itself from Denmark was not possible.

Nicolai Wilse chose an independent approach. He is known as one of the most ardent advocates of a Norwegian university of his own in 1793. Although he comes from Denmark, he is considered to be a pioneer of extensive Norwegian independence. In 1795 he wrote an article in the newly founded newspaper Hermoder under the title "Om den norske Selvstændighed med Hensyn til Periodiske Skrifter for Norge" (About Norway's independence with regard to periodicals for Norway) and referred to the magazines Minerva, which appear in Denmark and Den danske Tilskuer . For him, “independence” was the special characteristic that a person or a people had by nature, which expressed itself in the fact that the person or the people consisted of themselves as far as possible. Despite the similarities between Norway and Denmark over the centuries, the time had come when Norwegians should be Norwegian in terms of nature. He found that despite the union with Denmark, Norway could be culturally and naturally independent. He also thought of Norwegian state institutions of his own. Norway could have political independence, as far as the Union allowed. His idea came down to extensive autonomy within the entire state. These lines of thought were well received in Norway, and they turned against Denmark's guardianship of a country of a completely different nature, criticizing Denmark for having usurped Norway's freedom to treat art and science in its own way. During this period of time "Patria", "Fatherland" and "Nation" were used synonymously for the civil society within the "twin kingdom of Denmark-Norway". It was only in the course of the romanticism of the 19th century that the term nation came to mean a people that could be defined in terms of language, culture and history.

This development caused dissenting voices in Denmark. Jacob Baden wrote in 1793: “I do not name the patriot who loves one Denmark, one Norway; rather when love embraces both states and works for the good of both. ”Jens Zetlitz experienced negative reactions to his national poetry in Denmark. In a criticism in Lærde Efterretninger from 1796 it was stated: “My complaint is that many Norwegians do not regard the Danish-Norwegian state, but simply the country Norway as their father's house and those who were born in Zealand or Fyn not as citizens because they were not born in Norway, but as half-brothers. ”That is a way of thinking about home, from which one should keep one's distance. Zetlitz defended his preference for Norway over Denmark and denied the charge that he harbored offensive nationalism. In his opinion, bourgeois society would lose more than gain by suppressing such feelings of home. They are not the object of moral laws. That was a rational argument based on natural law: The love of home is in the nature of man and is therefore subject to the laws of nature and therefore not part of human freedom of action. Only Laurids Engelstoft freed the discussion from reasoning arguments: “Should we judge the voice of our own heart? […] Can we argue away the dictates of nature? ”That was the argument that Norwegian patriots like Zetlitz had been making for a long time and for which they had been criticized.

The discussion also extended to training. Gradually the theoretical discussion turned to practical problems. In view of Norway's relative backwardness, the Patriots advocated a shift in the emphasis of education to practical sciences. In 1788, Hagerup said that useful sciences such as mechanical engineering, physics, mathematics, astronomy and natural history should be promoted. "Theology, Arabic manuscripts and extinct languages" should be left to the Danish researchers. Real schools came to the fore. Latin classes were felt to be superfluous. A mining academy based on the Swedish model was founded in Kongsberg. This educational policy, geared towards practical applicability, had an impact in 1793 on the debate on founding the university in Christiania. The patriots deliberately developed a training culture that deviated from Denmark and which was perceived as specifically Norwegian, a national science, public sphere and literature.

In both Denmark and Norway the language was a special point in the national feeling. Because at the court and in the upper class, German or French were spoken, the scholars spoke Latin, and the Norwegians and Danes already at the beginning of the 18th century found it outrageous that the foreign and foreign-language upper class regarded Danish as an inferior language. It was only with Holberg that Danish acquired a certain national prestige. However, he turned himself against the love of the fatherland, as nationalism was called at the time, which produced xenophobia and opposed Christian love of neighbor. His ideals were cosmopolitan and cosmopolitan were also the ideals of the "Norske Selskab". He translated Latin and French texts into Danish, but had no meaning for Danish literature. His own creations also followed classic style guidelines. This is how it was handled in the "Norske Selskab": It was not interested in national traditions, but imitated foreign, especially Latin models - or Holberg himself. Only after 1770 was Holberg's idea of ​​a Danish-language literature seriously tackled. In 1775 it was decreed that Latin schools should also teach the mother tongue.

Even clothing became the subject of patriotic discussion. Sweden introduced national costumes in 1778 . In 1788 a prize was anonymously announced in Copenhagen for the three best articles on the topic: "Er det nyttigt eller skadeligt at indføre en National-Dragt?" Five main points that should be addressed were addressed in the competition. It was not just about practical clothing, but also about the clothing industry, sales market and the defense against foreign luxury goods as well as the identification of class differences.

But the political discussion took place not only between Norwegians and Danes, but also between the Norwegian patriots of different interests among themselves. Critics of the plan to set up a Norwegian university of their own said that it could only be so small that it could only serve to train officials, but that it would not bring about a scientific upswing in Norway. They felt that a wide range of high schools across Norway was more useful for education than a single university. There was also the suspicion that a Norwegian university could be interpreted as the beginning of separatist nationalism. The Danish pastor Otto Ottesen brought this point of view into the debate and earned a storm of indignation on the part of the Norwegians, who far rejected any separatist ideas.

But the location and the financing were also disputed. Local interests led to the proposals Christiania, Tønsberg, Stavanger, Bergen and Trondheim. In terms of financing, they wanted to rely on the generosity of their own people, and the patriots assured them that they did not want to burden the state budget. However, doubts soon arose, and the state was eventually resorted to by proposing to divert part of the Norwegian tax revenue. In 1795 the request to found a Norwegian university was refused by the king because the funding was not secured. Instead, Norwegian grammar schools were given the right to take the university entrance exam themselves.

In 1796, Bernt Anker proposed the establishment of a special Norwegian national bank. He pointed out that in Christiania there were movable assets amounting to 1,000,000 Reichsthaler, but only 30,000 Reichthaler circulation money. Trade between Norway and abroad requires an expansion of the money supply. He had a bank in each of the four dioceses in mind, but initially in Christiania. It should be run privately as a stock corporation without the state giving any guarantees for the loans. Here, private interests mixed with patriotism, as he wanted to fill the executive positions with members of his family in his proposal. The government pursued a very cautious and deflationary monetary policy after 1790. On February 11, 1791, "Den dansk-norske Speciesbank" was founded. It was the first bank to serve Denmark and Norway equally and was given a branch in Christiania in 1797 and branches in Bergen and Trondheim in 1798. Monetary policy ran counter to the interests of the timber trade and was essentially geared towards Danish interests. The exchange rate of the kingdom Thaler was up against the British pound much so that the timber transport by almost 1 / 3 shrank. He had a rather inflationary monetary policy in mind. But he did not find sufficient support, partly because the merchants, unlike him, were lenders, partly because they held shares in Dansk-norske Speciesbank. After 1800, his plan was no longer relevant.

Controversy also was Odalsrecht discussed. It hinders development. It led to the overuse and destruction of the land by trying to get as much out of the land as possible in the time until the owner demanded the surrender of the land. The negative consequences were particularly evident in forestry. In addition, the Odalsrecht was considered to be an outdated legal institution from the old royal times that an enlightened time was no longer appropriate. In particular, the right to reclaim after a possession was considered an interference with the property system. The proponents, for example Johan Nordahl Brun, on the other hand, emphasized the tradition that is reflected in this legal system. He also said that the Odal Law strengthens the love of the country, the bond with the ancestral land, which cannot be replaced by buying and selling. This must be protected against the money power of buyers. The Odalsbauer became Brun's successor to the lost nobility. Envold de Falsen also wrote in 1793: "The Norwegian nobility has disappeared, and I do not complain about the loss as long as the peasants have Odal and property." The Odals farmer was seen as a freeborn aristocratic remnant. The Odalsrecht had prevented serfdom in Norway. The defenders saw it as embodied in the spirit of the entire nation. The government had the question examined at the ting meetings of autumn 1787 and winter 1788. The result was the recommendation to leave the Odal Law. So the debate had no impact on Odals law, but created a deep split among Norwegian patriots into traditionalists and reformers. This dividing line became even more apparent after 1814.

The rejection of the university weakened the patriotic movement. As early as 1780 and 1790, doubts had occasionally arisen as to how deeply the patriotic spirit was rooted in the general population. In 1788, Hans Strøm complained that the Norwegians did not show the slightest sign of the strength of their minds and bodies, of their hardiness, their hard work and their simplicity, which the inhabitants of mountainous countries used to distinguish. Instead, one fell into lethargy, indifference and effeminacy. Johann Brun characterized the milieu of Bergen as follows: “Here we only see trade, only hear about the exchange rate, order, freight rates, clipfish and round fish and so on. To stay out of all this and to turn your mind to the bare rocks or the pits of mining, that is not so easy. ”Many people agreed with this criticism. The ideas about the Norwegian national character that Zetlitz had described were perceived by the critics not as a description of reality, but as ideological postulates.

All patriotic considerations before 1809 were within the scope of the Danish Empire. Efforts to break away from Denmark and join Sweden did not arise until 1809 with Count Wedel and were something completely new in relation to the time before.

The history

As early as the 17th century, Erik Bredal (1643–1672 Bishop of Trondheim) campaigned for the establishment of a Norwegian university. The first step towards this was the "Trondhjemske Selskab" founded by Bishop Johan Ernst Gunnerus and Gerhard Schøning in 1760, which from 1767 was allowed to call itself " Det Kongelige Norske Videnskabers Selskab " (The Royal Norwegian Scientific Society). From 1761 the society published scientific papers, but was mainly devoted to topics related to agriculture in Norway. Gunnerus was brought from Struensee to Copenhagen to reform the university there and on this occasion again brought up the Norwegians' desire for their own university. During his tenure, the weekly Norges Intelligence Seddeler (1770–1773) was published. In 1771, Peter Frederik Suhm published anonymously the Essai sur l'état présant des Sciences, des Belles Lettres et Beaux Arts dans le Danemarc et dans la Narvégue , in which he regretted the lack of a Norwegian university. A whole series of historical-topographical works were published with the aim of stimulating local patriotism.

In 1791 "Det corresponderende Topografiske Selskab for Norge" was founded in Christiania. The purpose of the society should be to collect all knowledge about Norway. She also published a magazine: Topografisk Journal for Norge . Clergy, civil servants and the military were heavily involved here. The members provided descriptions of their districts and the military dealt with the militarily important cartography. The national-patriotic approach was still small. Articles like “Experiment and experience with reindeer lichen as an addition to bread” appeared. When the company dissolved, its work was continued by the "Selskabet for Norges Vel", which followed a much more patriotic line.

With the exception of Johan Herman Wessels, the poets of the “Norske Selskab” in Copenhagen have a clear patriotic trait. They got to know the Swiss description of nature of towering mountain pinnacles, foaming streams, lofty forests and glittering lakes and based their pre-romantic descriptions of Norway on these models. The Norwegian poet Christian Braumann Tullin, who renewed poetry in Norway-Denmark, was particularly influenced by the Swiss Haller.

Thomas Bartholin asked why the ancient Vikings did not fear death and, in response, put together a series of texts and verses from Norrønen literature that were supposed to prove fearlessness.

There were few libraries in the 18th century. In 1784 a public library was established in Christiania. The private libraries were all the more important for this. Illiteracy was widespread until 1700. After that, however, teaching was promoted and in 1736 the compulsory confirmation was introduced. Initially, there were few Danish books in the libraries. The majority were in Latin and German. During the 18th century, French books were on the rise. Hugo Grotius and Pufendorf, also Machiavelli and above all Montesquieu and Rousseau were represented. Rousseau in particular was mentioned and quoted frequently in catalogs, letters and articles after 1760. During this time, Montesquieu and Rousseau played the largest part in shaping the opinion of the Norwegian educated, mostly clergymen. The rural population was little affected by these ideas. In a response to Tyge Rothes' writing from 1788, the poet Hans Ström complained about the lack of community spirit and the lack of interest in public questions. The vanguard of the Norwegian national consciousness sat in Copenhagen, especially in "Det Norske Selskab". A strong sense of nationality is unlikely to have developed among the farmers who had not even looked after the residents of the neighboring valley.

In 1771 Even Hammer (1732–1800) wrote a patriotic pamphlet entitled Philonorvagi velmeente Tanker, til veltænkende Medborgere , in which he spoke of Denmark having sucked Norway off. In this way, Norway had been exposed to a mass of money in circulation of six to seven tons of gold, if not more. Apparently he had the special taxes and military expenses in mind, where he mentioned the “last Holstein campaign of the Norwegians”. On page 95 of his book he also attacked the Danish grain monopoly. Hammer's writing resulted in the demand for an independent economic administration for Norway. He also asked for his own Norwegian bank, his own secondary and commercial schools and his own university. Many anonymous writings appeared after him with the same tendency. However, these writings had little response: They were written in Copenhagen by young students who later entered the civil service and then fell silent. Hammer, for example, became a bailiff in Romsdal in 1773.

In 1793 the demand for a Norwegian university was intensified. In 1796 the demand for a Norwegian bank came up again. In Norske Intelligence Sedler a prize was awarded for the best work on the topic "Hvorledes et Universitet i Norge kunde indrettes til størst Nytte for Landet, med Hensyn til Tidernes cultur, og Videnskabernes Tilstand" (How a Norwegian university for the greatest benefit of the country in view can be adjusted to the current culture and the state of science). The main prize was 200 Reichsthaler, the second prize 100 Reichsthaler. Christen Prams Forsøg om en Højskoles Anlæg i Norge (attempt to found a university for Norway) was awarded as the best work . Pram was a Dane from Copenhagen. In 1795 the application for his own university was presented to the king. In the meantime, the topic of one's own university led to the most extensive discussion among the patriots before 1807. Wilse advocated a general academic orientation of the university, so that it was also there for the offices in the state and the promotion of particularly gifted people according to their special skills . The model was the University of Copenhagen. The university should be an educational institution of general culture. On the other hand, Wilse also called for a "contemporary" focus on the special needs of Norway. In 1793, in his university plan, he separated the so-called “learned luxury” from the “useful and necessary”. Eventually the proposals came to a small university, in which one should concentrate on the natural sciences useful in Norway. The young students were also seen exposed to the moral dangers of the capital when they were forced to travel there for the required exams. In almost all texts dealing with the establishment of a Norwegian university, the moral ruin that Norwegian students would be drawn into is a major theme. Copenhagen represented a strange lifestyle for Norwegians. In contrast, the authors considered the Norwegian national character to be pure and unspoilt.

Patriotism in the period of freedom from printing under Struensee between 1770 and 1772 differed from the patriotism of the reform period between 1784 and 1801. It was more a patriotism of general dissatisfaction with limited political goals. It was only worn by a few Norwegians in Copenhagen and had little strength because it depended on fortuitous opportunities. After 1784 there was also movement in the Norwegian civil service towards a more national perspective. State patriotism was shaken by the withdrawal of the freedom to print in 1799 and the battle of Copenhagen in 1801. A romantic-rhetorical patriotism of the whole state with panegyric poems emerged. It was the era of Oehlenschläger's Guldhornene .

Political events

Olav II of Denmark, the son of Margaret I , was after the death of his father Håkon VI. of Norway in 1380 as Olav IV. King of Norway. This connection between Norway and Denmark under one king lasted until 1814, when the Peace of Kiel forced Denmark to cede Norway to Sweden. Christian III went even further in his election surrender in October 1536: After that, Norway was no longer a separate kingdom, of which he was king, but a member within the Danish Empire, on an equal footing with Jutland, Funen, Zealand and Skåne. Only when Friedrich III. became an absolutist ruler, the position changed by calling himself king of Denmark and Norway. The law that introduced absolutism was only made known when his successor Christian V ascended the throne . Whether Norway actually ceased to exist as an empire in the meantime is controversial. There are voices who deny this. In any case, the consequence was that high offices in Norway were consistently filled with Danes. The clergy spoke Danish. After Christian III. Oddur Gottskálksson had approved the printing of the translation of the New Testament from German into Norrøne and had it printed, but only allowed distribution in Iceland and not in Norway, but only introduced a Danish translation there and also the church ordinance for Norway was only available in Danish, the demise of the old Norwegian language was only a matter of time. Anyone wanting to become a pastor in Norway had to study in Copenhagen and then preach the Gospel in Danish.

But there was also national resistance. It was worn by the rural population, who were very proud of their family trees, which went back a long way. The peasants viewed the officials as strangers who were clearly different from them in language and customs. In contrast, the civil servants and the townspeople all belonged to the German-Danish cultural area.

In 1788 Crown Prince Frederik came to Norway to visit. This visit was the occasion for an abundance of writings, which on the one hand paid homage to the Crown Prince to the point of flattery, and on the other hand presented political demands, mostly poetically baffled. The Crown Prince was celebrated as a representative of virtue and thus also as Norway's benefactor. For he had removed the flatterers from his court. This also included the request for the abolition of the grain monopoly and a reform of Norway policy. The demand for a university of its own was renewed.

On March 11, 1790 there was a conspiratorial meeting between Gustav Mauritz Armfelt and four Norwegians, the merchants Carsten Tank and Amund Linnes Hofgaard from Fredrikshald , the merchant Jens Moestue from Christiania and the owner of Odal's iron factory Hansen Neumann on the Swedish side of the Norwegian - Swedish border. It was about breaking Norway out of the Danish Union with Swedish help. But you didn't want to be Gustav III. submit, and so the one authorized by Gustav III. of Sweden plans. Economic interests were behind this procedure. Most of all, Neumann was dependent on deliveries of pig iron from Sweden. Moestue had close trade ties with Sweden, especially Värmland . He sold wine and brandy for hardware. Trade with Sweden played an important role for Fredrikstad. He also referred to the timber transport from Kongsvinger and Eidskog through Värmland. So these four people were representative of Eastern Norway. In 1809, sympathizers for Wedel's plan to unite Norway with Sweden came from this area , as it did again in 1814.

The outbreak of war in 1807 led to a new constellation. In 1809 state-political patriotism established itself on the line of Count Wedels. After Sweden's defeat by Russia in 1809, Crown Prince Christian August , as the Swedish heir to the throne, became the bearer of hope for the patriots oriented towards Sweden. Because the defeat seemed to them to reduce the risk of a regional hegemonic great power Sweden. But his sudden death in 1810 had to change the direction of reform patriotism. The arrival of Christian Frederik as Danish governor in 1813 divided the movement. Because he pursued the goal of a semi-autonomous Norway with its own university and bank within the Danish Empire. The decisive factor was the dependency of Denmark on supplies and the fact that even as the elected King of Norway he was still heir to the throne of Denmark. But these tendencies of the conservative patriots were broken off with the Peace of Kiel . The only possible goal now was internal autonomy within a union with Sweden. All major political actors now favored this path: Wergeland, Welhaven , Schweigaard, Ueland and the young Bjørnson . It was not until 1870 that there was renewed opposition, which Norway wanted to resolve both from the Swedish king and from other union obligations. In 1890 this goal was expressly formulated as anti-union nationalism. But throughout the 19th century the struggle for national culture was waged under the terms “civil servant culture” against “peasant culture”, “Danomania” against “Norwegian” (norskdom = Norwegianism), “Ostland” against “Westland”. In 1877 Arne Garborg complained that Norway was not a real nation. Because in the concept of nation there is a fully natural, conscious unity within and a self-confident independence towards the outside, but you have neither. The Norwegian intelligentsia is just a Danish province.

Norway after 1814

Alongside the student associations, the peasants were the driving force behind politics. The peasants had been politicized by John Neergaard . He wanted to unite them in one party.

National resistance

The theory of popular sovereignty, which had led to the constitution of Eidsvoll, was influenced not only by France, but also by the ideas of German political romantics about the “people's soul” and the “people's spirit”. After 1814 the task was to join the Norwegians with a cultural bond in order to create a people, an organism. This was ultimately intended to legitimize the right to a sovereign government of its own. This message should not only be conveyed externally but also internally. Not only abroad should Norway perceive Norway as its own nation, but also its own people first had to understand this.

From the period between 1814 and 1824 there are no indications that May 17th was specially celebrated as constitutional day. The student festival on May 17, 1824 was more of a reaction to the politics of King Karl Johan . The more he tried to promote the unification of Sweden and Norway, the more he fought against all events that could run counter to this goal. This led to a ban on the celebrations on May 17th, which then rather incited the students and now gave these celebrations a decidedly patriotic character. In 1829 the confrontation came to a head when a peaceful gathering in the market square was broken up by the military on May 17th. Henrik Wergeland was also present at this meeting. He found the military intervention so scandalous that he sent his student uniform in a basket to the commandant in Akershus. These events around the “Battle of the Market Place” and Wergeland decisively increased the general national awareness in Norway.

Wergeland and Welhaven

The conflict

In 1830 Wergeland published "Skabelsen, Mennesket og Messias". This work was immediately attacked anonymously by Welhaven in a polemical poem "Til Henrik Wergeland". This initiated the long dispute between Wergeland and Welhaven. In 1831 it developed into what is called "Stumpefeiden" in Norwegian literary history.

In 1832, some leaders of the student association "Studentsamfundet" separated and founded a new association "Det norske Studentenforbund", which consisted of supporters of Welhaven who called themselves the intelligentsia and later called "Troppen" (the troops). Your publication organ was called 1832-1834 Vidar , directed by Welhaven, Schweigaard, Stang and PA Munch , and from 1836 Den Constitutionelle . Vidar strived for a high standard, containing many translations from German magazines, especially from the literary and critical journals of the Börsenhalle , but also some from the Revue encyclopedique . The student association around Wergeland, which was called "The Patriots", published the magazine Folkebladet . There was also the newspaper Statsborgeren , which took the same line, but was much more aggressive, so that its publisher was even convicted of insulting. Wergeland then became the newspaper's editor. The newspaper was the most feared periodical of the time. The aim of the newspaper was to position the democratic ideas of the peasant opposition against the bureaucracy of urban culture. The anti-Danish nationalism of the newspaper went so far that employees of the newspaper suggested “counting all Danes living in Norway, as is known to happen in Poland and Hungary with the Jews and Gypsies living there.” This already showed the tendency towards nation building ethnic cleansing.

Welhaven published his poem “Norges Dæmring” (Norway's Twilight) in 1834, in which he presented his movement as a people among the people and expressed his disgust for the rawness of the peasant party and Wergeland. The poem met with outrage. Nicolai Wergeland , Wergeland's father, wrote a reply: "Forsvar for det norske Folk og udförlig criticism over det berygtede Skrift Norges Dæmring" (Defense for the Norwegian people and a detailed criticism of the notorious Norges Dæmring), in which the invitation to public Burning of the works of Welhaven can be found, which was also observed in some places at the May 17th celebration in 1835. Welhaven was keen to show that it is impossible to radically break with a culture that has grown over several centuries. The newspaper Den Constitutionelle was the organ of the supporters of Welhaven and the intellectuals and directed against the democratic tendencies of the peasants. Welhaven's followers saw the people as an organism that has grown throughout history. Welhaven's friend Schweigaard had already asked the question in 1832: “How can one skip a number of centuries without negating all history? What has once been assimilated cannot be eliminated again. ”Wergeland, on the other hand, said that the Norwegians should continue on the basis of the saga time. The unfortunate development of the "dark 400 years" of Danish rule would have to be skipped. Wergeland believed in an organic development of democracy and national consciousness and was very much influenced by Herder .

The question remained as to whether the new national life should be democratic or aristocratic, whether it should come from the people or rest on the inheritance of a refined upper class. The agitation of the farmer's leader John Neergard brought a change in the composition of the Storting in 1833, the "peasant parliament". Some saw in it the realization of the principles of the constitution of 1814, others the triumph of narrowness and the tendency towards barbarism.

The nationalisms of Wergeland and Welhaven

Wergeland combined patriotism and cosmopolitan ideals. He carried the deism of the 18th century and developed an idealistic historical pantheism. He was the engine of romance in Norway. He expressed all of this in the poem Skabelsen, Mennesket og Messias . He was of the opinion that what is natural is also good, and that what is both good and natural is also unadulterated national. For him, democratization and the fatherland belonged together. Therefore, for him, privileged classes were incompatible with the concept of the fatherland. For the farmer's sons who immigrated to Christiania from the countryside, he was the political leader. For Wergeland, the peasantry represented the old saga period with its language, customs and facilities, namely the natural and the good.

Welhaven, on the other hand, saw the task of assimilating the culture taken in from abroad. This was a culture of the Danish upper class in Norway. To negate them meant breaking a cultural continuity. Welhaven and his followers understood people to be a cultural nationality that was limited to a small aristocratic part of the Norwegian people.

Wergeland's nationalism was aggressively promoted in the Statsborgeren newspaper, which he ran . Employees of the newspaper suggested “counting all Danes living in Norway, as is known to happen in Poland and Hungary with the Jews and Gypsies living there.” Here the tendency of nation-building towards ethnic cleansing was already evident. A Norwegian Marseillaise appeared in the Statsborgeren in good Danish language , which turned against the Jutian language, which had spread to Norway. The most celebrated poet in Denmark at the time was Johan Ludvig Heiberg , whose plays in Norway were performed in Danish by Danish actors. An appeal appeared in Statsborgeren : “Norwegian actors, Norwegian plays, Norwegian music. A Norwegian theater in the capital of Norway. Away with the Jutes! To hell with the language spoilers, the vagabonds! ”Until now, the language of the peasants had been perceived as vulgar until Wergeland turned it into a literary instrument. This was the beginning of the language dispute, which has continued to the present day. For Wergeland, the Danish language was shallow.

On Constitution Day 1831, an association was founded that renounced urban luxury. The members only wore clothes made of wool they had woven themselves. Silk, cotton, and foreign buttons were frowned upon. Wergeland wrote an award poem about it, "Stella with the two-wall dress". Wergeland himself wore a two-wall suit . In 1832, the Hambach Festival was extensively commented on in the Norwegian press .

Rudolf Keyser and Peter Andreas Munch

Keyser and his student Munch, in addition to their activity of copying the old Norwegian laws in the Copenhagen archive, also pursued a national-patriotic goal. They wanted not only to prove the independence of the Norwegian people, but also to show that the Norwegian people were originally a pure race who had immigrated from the north to Sweden and Denmark before the saga. This culture has been preserved in Iceland just as it can be found among the Norwegian mountain farmers. In their opinion, the sagas represent the life of the people authentically. The Danes, on the other hand, come from Norway as well as a mixture of Goths and Germans. You would therefore have a scholarly, but no original, access to the Old Norse sources. In their opinion, the sagas were not the work of a single author, but rather a product of the folk spirit. According to them, the entire poetry of the Edda period was the product of the whole people. Keyser and Munch were thoroughly rationalistic and scientific in their research method, and deeply rooted in romanticism in the application of their results and their interpretation. They represented a cultural nationalism. These views, which were more rooted in academic circles, also became the guideline for the adult education center movement Christopher Bruuns , who saw the emergence of a nation as being linked to the educational offensive among the peasant class in order to come back to the values ​​that Bruun saw as unorwegian.

In 1842, under the direction of the Reich archivist Christian Christoph Andreas Lange , who was friends with Keyser and Munch, one of the first general scientific newspapers, Norsk Tidsskrift for Videnskab og Litteratur (Norwegian journal for science and literature), appeared, which played a major role in the further development of national consciousness played.

The conclusion

The national consciousness only prevailed with the dispute with Sweden about equality between Norway and Sweden within the Union. The pivotal points of this development were the flag dispute with Sweden, the so-called "Bodøsache", the governor dispute and the consular dispute . In the last years of the 19th century, the development of national consciousness can be considered complete.

Notes and individual references

  1. ^ For example, Lucian W. Pye: Politics, personality, and nation building: Burma's search for identity ; Reinhard Bendix: Nationbuilding and Citizenship (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977)
  2. ↑ Norsk samfunnsleksikon 1987 p. 279.
  3. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 19.
  4. ↑ a b Elviken p. 42.
  5. ↑ Rothe: Om nogle Danmarks og Norges Fordringer til hinanden; Copenhagen 1788 p. 115.
  6. ↑ Arentz, Grundtegning ... p. 19.
  7. ↑ Arentz, Grundtegning ... p. 70.
  8. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 22.
  9. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 140.
  10. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 141.
  11. ↑ Storsveen (2004) p. 11.
  12. ↑ Elviken p. 30 f.
  13. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 27.
  14. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 31.
  15. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 37.
  16. ↑ Envold de Falsen: Om Urbanitet. (1800). In: Envold Falsen's scrifter . Christiania 1821 p. 99 f.
  17. ↑ Wilse, Kiøbenhavnske Lærde Efterretninger 1793/20 p. 319.
  18. ↑ Hagerup: "Brev fra en Ven i Trondhjem til sin Ven i Kiøbenhavn." In: Minerva 1788 H. 4 P. 334.
  19. ↑ Bliksrud p. 192.
  20. ↑ Storsveen (2004) p. 218.
  21. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 49.
  22. ↑ Bliksrud p. 194.
  23. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 133.
  24. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 115 f.
  25. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 123 gives a more precise breakdown.
  26. ↑ At the age of 68 he took the initiative to celebrate May 17th.
  27. ↑ Glenthøj p. 30 f.
  28. ↑ Glenthøj p. 34 f.
  29. ↑ Storsveen (1997) pp. 134-136.
  30. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 137 f.
  31. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 39.
  32. ↑ Hermoder 1795 issue 1 p. 87.
  33. ↑ Hermoder 1795 issue 1 p. 89.
  34. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 42.
  35. ↑ Bliksrud p. 186.
  36. ↑ Baden in his own Kjøbenhavns Universitets-Journal 1793 issue 4 pp. 178, 180.
  37. ↑ Lærde Efterretninger 1796 No. 32 p. 504.
  38. ↑ Michael Gottlieb Birckner: "Om Kierlighet til Fædrelandet". In Birckner's echoed scribes . Copenhagen 1800 p. 47.
  39. ↑ Quoted in Storsveen (1997) p. 44. Engeltoft uses the expression "bortsofisticere" (to deviate from).
  40. ↑ "Tale, holden i det Kgl. Norske Videnskabers Selskab i Trondhjem, i et høitideligt Møde ved Hs. Kongelige Høiheds Kronprindsens Nærværelse den 14 July 1788 af Selskabets Vice-President Dr. og Stiftsprost CF Hagerup. “ Minerva 1789 H. II. p. 340.
  41. ↑ There were two secondary schools at that time: The new Bürgererschule in Trondheim from 1783 and the older Seminarium Fridericianum in Bergen from 1750. The bishopric cities had Latin schools, and the Kongsberg school became a Latin school in 1787.
  42. ↑ Bliksrud p. 189.
  43. ↑ Bliksrud p. 190.
  44. ↑ Bliksrud p. 191.
  45. ↑ The text was published in German in the book: Drey Treatises on the Question Is it Useful or Harmful to Introduce a National Costume? Published Copenhagen 1791.
  46. ↑ Niels Treschow: “Tanker i Anledning af Hr. Professor Wilses Bekiendtgjørelse i de norske Intelligence Blade No 13 dette Aar. “In: Norske Intelligence Sedler 1793 H. 16.
  47. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 90.
  48. ↑ Storsveen (1997) pp. 92-95.
  49. ↑ Storsveen (1997) pp. 97-99.
  50. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 102.
  51. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 103.
  52. ^ Norsk historisk leksikon.
  53. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 106 f.
  54. ↑ Envold de Falsen: Et Par Ord om det norske Akademie, som Giensvar paa i Tillægget til de Berlinske Tidender No. 72 for 1793, indrykkede under title: Insendt fra Norge. (A few words about the Norwegian Academy in response to articles in Berlinske Tidende No. 72 from 1793, indented under the title: Sent in from Norway) Copenhagen 1793 p. 99.
  55. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 109 f.
  56. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 112.
  57. ^ Hans Strøm: En Nordmands Fordring til sine Landsmænd ved Anledning af Rothes Danmarks and Norges Fordringer til hinanden. Christiania 1788 p. 2 f.
  58. ↑ Round fish are essentially all fish that do not belong to the flat fish.
  59. ^ "Brev fra Herr Johan Nordahl Brun til J. Zetlitz" Samleren 2. 1788 H. 37 P. 166.
  60. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 142.
  61. ↑ Elviken p. 36.
  62. ↑ Srorsveen (1997) p. 66.
  63. ↑ Elviken p. 38.
  64. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 67.
  65. ↑ Elviken p. 44.
  66. ↑ Elviken p. 45.
  67. ↑ Thomas Bartholin: Antiquitatum Danicarum de causis contemptae a Danis adhuc gentilibus mortis, libri tres. 1689.
  68. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 66.
  69. ↑ "En Nordmands Fordringer til sine Landsmænd i Anledning af Rothes Danmarks og Norges Fordringer til hinanden". Intelligents Sedlerne 1788 p. 25.
  70. ↑ Elviken p. 48.
  71. ↑ Elviken p. 59.
  72. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 11.
  73. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 12.
  74. ^ Norske Intelligence Sedler 1793 H. 26
  75. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 80.
  76. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 81.
  77. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 86 f.
  78. ↑ Sverre Bagge (ed.) Norske middelalder dokumenter i utvalg . Bergen, Oslo, Tromsø 1973. No. 145.
  79. ↑ Erling Ladewig Petersen: “Norgesparagrafen i Christian III. håndfestning 1536. Studier over det 16. århundredes fortolkning. ”In: Dansk Historisk tidskrift . 12. Række, VI. (1973) p. 459.
  80. ↑ Elviken p. 15 f.
  81. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 53 f.
  82. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 60 f.
  83. ↑ a b Storsveen (1997) p. 144.
  84. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 145.
  85. ↑ Storsveen (1997) p. 146.
  86. ^ Arne Garborg: Den ny-norske Sprog- og Nationalitets-bevægelse. Christiania 1877 p. 110.
  87. ^ Arne Garborg: Den ny-norske Sprog- og Nationalitets-bevægelse. Christiania 1877 p. 118.
  88. ↑ Elviken p. 98.
  89. ↑ Elviken p. 96.
  90. ↑ "Stump" were epigram-like four-line poems that were very popular as a political weapon at the time. They were frequently used by both in their hostile aggressiveness, hence the name.
  91. ↑ The best-known verse reads:
    A jumping cod thinks it is a bird
    when it splashes over the water.
    Welhaven made a verse for Christmas.
    and thinks he is Apollo's cousin.
  92. ↑ Storsveen (2004) p. 602.
  93. ↑ a b Elviken p. 102.
  94. ↑ So in Holter in Fenstad and Nitteberg in Gjerdrum. Storsveen (2004) p. 605.
  95. ↑ Vidar 1832 No. 15 p. 115.
  96. ↑ Elviken p. 109.
  97. ↑ Elviken p. 112 f.
  98. ↑ Elviken p. 99.
  99. ↑ Elviken p. 101.
  100. ↑ Elviken p. 106.
  101. ↑ Statsborgeren XII p. 95. Quoted in Elviken p. 103.
  102. ↑ Seip (1914) p. 34.
  103. ↑ Elviken p. 106 f.
  104. ^ "Tyskland" in Morgenbladet No. 166 of June 14, 1832.
  105. ↑ Elviken, p. 122.
  106. ↑ In 1816 English smugglers were arrested in Bodø. England demanded compensation for the misery that had befallen its citizens. The Swedish Foreign Minister recognized the demand at the expense of the Norwegian treasury, which caused outrage in Norway.

literature

  • Sigurd Aa. Aarnes: "'Nation building' - et nyttig begrep i study av nordisk nasjonalromantikk". In: Oskar Bandle , Jürg Glauser , Christine Hollinger and Hans-Peter Naumann : Nordic Romanticism. Files of the XVII. Study conference of the International Association for Scandinavian Studies, 7-12. August 1988 in Zurich and Basel. Helbing & Lichtenhahn Basel 1991. pp. 291-295.
  • Heinrich Anz: The own and foreign mythology . In: Hans Joachim Gehrke: Historical images and founding myths . Würzburg 2001. ISBN 3-935556-86-1 . Pp. 145-158.
  • Liv Bliksrud: “Norsk grålysning eller europeisk aftenrøde? Patriotism i Norske Selskab i København. ”In: KULT's series of publications No. 88 from Norsk foskningsråd. Oslo 1997. pp. 185-201. (Norwegian dawn or European sunset? Patriotism in "Norwegian society" in Copenhagen.)
  • Andreas Elviken: The Development of Norwegian Nationalism . Berlin 1930.
  • Rasmus Glenthøj: En modern nations fødsel. Norsk national identification hos embedsmend og borgere 1807-1820. Syddansk Universitetsforlag 2008. ISBN 978-87-7674-326-0 .
  • Gate Ivar Hansen: Et skaninavisk nasjonsbyggingsprojekt. Skandinavisk selskab (1864–1871) (PDF; 993 kB). Oslo 2008.
  • Astrid Oxaal: “Debates om nasjonaldrakt i siste del av 1700-tallet”. In: Norsk patriotisme for 1814 . KULT's series No. 88 from Norsk foskningsråd. Oslo 1997. pp. 203-218.
  • Odd Arvid Storsveen: “'Fornuftig Kierlighed til Fødrelandet.' An analysis of Norske patriotisme mellom 1784 and 1801. “In: Norsk patriotisme for 1814 . KULT's series No. 88 from Norsk foskningsråd. Oslo 1997. pp. 1-183. (Reasonable Love for the Fatherland. An Analysis of Norwegian Patriotism between 1784 and 1814).
  • Odd Arvid Storsveen: En bedre vår. Henrik Wergeland og norsk nasjonalitet . 2 volumes. Oslo 2004.