reminded on his role in Bergman’s appointment as professor. He was willing,
however, not only to grant Bergman’s wife a pension, but also to raise Bergman’s
salary. Thus, in April 1777, it was clear to Bergman that he would remain in
Uppsala. Bergman declined the raised salary, and explained that he would be
grateful if his wife was granted a pension of 100 riksdaler in the case of his death,
and if he was given the right to retire with salary in case his health prevented him to
continue his duties as professor. The King was relieved, and increased the pension
for Bergman’s wife to 150 riksdaler. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in
Stockholm was also relieved, and Bergman was granted annual funding of 150
riksdaler for his research (Sect. 19.4).
When Bergman had declined, Nostiz was asked by the Prussian Academy to
persuade Scheele to come to Berlin. Strangely enough, he did not do so. Nyström
suggested that the reason was that Bergius, whom Nostiz had consulted, had
convinced him that Scheele was unlikely to accept the offer. Nostiz replied the
Academy in July with a new summary of the three men’s strong sides. Apparently,
the position was offered to von Engeström. Unlike Bergman, von Engeström
immediately accepted in August 1777. King Frederick was however not impressed.
According to Nositz, von Engeström had made a bad general impression and his
financial demands were very high. The King rejected Engeström as a candidate in
September. Still at this point, no one had actually asked Scheele, whom d’Alembert
had recommended in the first place. Count Nostiz turned to Bergius, who finally
asked Scheele in October 1777. As expected, Scheele declined, although his letter
to Bergius has not survived. In the end, Marggraf got his wish through, and Achard
became his successor, but not until Marggrafs death in 1782. Achard had some
interactions with Scheele.
In a study of fluorite, Achard launched a new, erroneous, theory of fluorite and
hydrofluoric acid, a theory that Scheele disproved in one of his last papers [7, 8].
Scheele expressed himself very politely compared to his criticism of Weber
(Sect. 18.2) and Desavive (Sect. 27.2).
The invitation to Berlin was regarded as a great honour for Bergman; he mentioned it in his short autobiography and it is included in early biographies as a proof
of Bergman’s great reputation. The truth, that it was actually Scheele who was
intended for the position, was unknown to Bergman, Scheele and their contemporaries; as far as they knew, the offer was passed to Scheele after Bergman had
declined.
References
1. Fors H (2003) Mutual Favours (diss.). Depatment of History of Science and Ideas, Uppsala
University, Uppsala, p 192
2. Zekert O (193) Carl Wilhelm Scheele Sein Leben und seine Werke, 3–7. Theil, Gesellschaft für
Geschichte der Pharmazie, Mittelwald, p 217–227
3. Nyström E (1971) Torbern Bergmans kallelse till Berlin. Uppsala University
4. Annerstedt C (1913) Uppsala universitets historia, vol 3:1, Almqvist & Wiksell, Uppsala, p 521
5. Annerstedt C (1913) Uppsala universitets historia, vol 3:1, Almqvist & Wiksell, Uppsala, p 522
16 The Invitation to Berlin
233
however, not only to grant Bergman’s wife a pension, but also to raise Bergman’s
salary. Thus, in April 1777, it was clear to Bergman that he would remain in
Uppsala. Bergman declined the raised salary, and explained that he would be
grateful if his wife was granted a pension of 100 riksdaler in the case of his death,
and if he was given the right to retire with salary in case his health prevented him to
continue his duties as professor. The King was relieved, and increased the pension
for Bergman’s wife to 150 riksdaler. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in
Stockholm was also relieved, and Bergman was granted annual funding of 150
riksdaler for his research (Sect. 19.4).
When Bergman had declined, Nostiz was asked by the Prussian Academy to
persuade Scheele to come to Berlin. Strangely enough, he did not do so. Nyström
suggested that the reason was that Bergius, whom Nostiz had consulted, had
convinced him that Scheele was unlikely to accept the offer. Nostiz replied the
Academy in July with a new summary of the three men’s strong sides. Apparently,
the position was offered to von Engeström. Unlike Bergman, von Engeström
immediately accepted in August 1777. King Frederick was however not impressed.
According to Nositz, von Engeström had made a bad general impression and his
financial demands were very high. The King rejected Engeström as a candidate in
September. Still at this point, no one had actually asked Scheele, whom d’Alembert
had recommended in the first place. Count Nostiz turned to Bergius, who finally
asked Scheele in October 1777. As expected, Scheele declined, although his letter
to Bergius has not survived. In the end, Marggraf got his wish through, and Achard
became his successor, but not until Marggrafs death in 1782. Achard had some
interactions with Scheele.
In a study of fluorite, Achard launched a new, erroneous, theory of fluorite and
hydrofluoric acid, a theory that Scheele disproved in one of his last papers [7, 8].
Scheele expressed himself very politely compared to his criticism of Weber
(Sect. 18.2) and Desavive (Sect. 27.2).
The invitation to Berlin was regarded as a great honour for Bergman; he mentioned it in his short autobiography and it is included in early biographies as a proof
of Bergman’s great reputation. The truth, that it was actually Scheele who was
intended for the position, was unknown to Bergman, Scheele and their contemporaries; as far as they knew, the offer was passed to Scheele after Bergman had
declined.
References
1. Fors H (2003) Mutual Favours (diss.). Depatment of History of Science and Ideas, Uppsala
University, Uppsala, p 192
2. Zekert O (193) Carl Wilhelm Scheele Sein Leben und seine Werke, 3–7. Theil, Gesellschaft für
Geschichte der Pharmazie, Mittelwald, p 217–227
3. Nyström E (1971) Torbern Bergmans kallelse till Berlin. Uppsala University
4. Annerstedt C (1913) Uppsala universitets historia, vol 3:1, Almqvist & Wiksell, Uppsala, p 521
5. Annerstedt C (1913) Uppsala universitets historia, vol 3:1, Almqvist & Wiksell, Uppsala, p 522
16 The Invitation to Berlin
233