Aurivillius said that if Bergman “had found good reasons to make a certain
decision, then he was relentless” [11]. Aurivillius also said in his memorial lecture
that:
among You, who had gained access to his closest confidence, know that his friendship was
noble and trustworthy. If he promised something, one could be confident [that he would
keep his promise]. If advice was needed, one could be certain to receive, if not always the
most pleasant advice, but usually the advice that turned out to be the best in the end. [12]
A comment in a letter from Scheele to Gahn, dated December 1771, gives a
slightly different picture: “I have noted, that when I am not taking measures myself,
Bergman does not fulfil his promises”.
The picture of Bergman that emerges from letters and his writings is largely
positive and Bergman appears to have been a friendly, respected, and agreeable
man. Unlike his predecessor as professor in chemistry, Johan Gottschalk Wallerius
(1709–1785; Sect. 9.1), he did not seek open confrontation, and when he criticised
the works of others in his papers, he was always polite.
2 His friendship with
Scheele, who had a far lower social status, is also notable. In a letter to French
chemist Guyton de Morveau (1737–1816), Bergman even wrote that his greatest
discovery was that of Scheele’s brilliant mind [8]. Perhaps Hjelm was not far from
the truth, when he wrote that Bergman did not care much about attention, but that it
was important for him to be remembered after his death [13]. Bergman’s largest
shortcoming was, according to Hjelm, that he exhausted himself and ruined his
health [14].
Much of Bergman’s success was probably due to his skills as an author.
Whatever the topic, his writing is always captivating and inspiring. He was well
acquainted with the classical authors. Interestingly, Bergman seldom sat down as he
wrote; instead he put the paper on a book and wrote as he was walking around in
the room [9]. Occasionally he would rest a knee on a chair. Still, his handwriting is
very easy to read (Fig. 3.3). While other authors have to edit their texts multiple
times, Bergman wrote efficiently and it has been said that he rarely edited his texts.
Bergman was also good at expressing himself orally; he was happy and polite
towards everyone [15].
Schufle came to the conclusion that Bergman was very well off, [16] but his
calculations are based on a misconception regarding the value of the Swedish
currency (Appendix 3). In fact, Bergman’s economy was rather strained (Sect. 9.3).
It seems that Scheele, who could afford to buy and renovate a house in Köping, had
a more solid economy.
2
For the single exception, see Sect. 9.6.
28
3 The Two Men
decision, then he was relentless” [11]. Aurivillius also said in his memorial lecture
that:
among You, who had gained access to his closest confidence, know that his friendship was
noble and trustworthy. If he promised something, one could be confident [that he would
keep his promise]. If advice was needed, one could be certain to receive, if not always the
most pleasant advice, but usually the advice that turned out to be the best in the end. [12]
A comment in a letter from Scheele to Gahn, dated December 1771, gives a
slightly different picture: “I have noted, that when I am not taking measures myself,
Bergman does not fulfil his promises”.
The picture of Bergman that emerges from letters and his writings is largely
positive and Bergman appears to have been a friendly, respected, and agreeable
man. Unlike his predecessor as professor in chemistry, Johan Gottschalk Wallerius
(1709–1785; Sect. 9.1), he did not seek open confrontation, and when he criticised
the works of others in his papers, he was always polite.
2 His friendship with
Scheele, who had a far lower social status, is also notable. In a letter to French
chemist Guyton de Morveau (1737–1816), Bergman even wrote that his greatest
discovery was that of Scheele’s brilliant mind [8]. Perhaps Hjelm was not far from
the truth, when he wrote that Bergman did not care much about attention, but that it
was important for him to be remembered after his death [13]. Bergman’s largest
shortcoming was, according to Hjelm, that he exhausted himself and ruined his
health [14].
Much of Bergman’s success was probably due to his skills as an author.
Whatever the topic, his writing is always captivating and inspiring. He was well
acquainted with the classical authors. Interestingly, Bergman seldom sat down as he
wrote; instead he put the paper on a book and wrote as he was walking around in
the room [9]. Occasionally he would rest a knee on a chair. Still, his handwriting is
very easy to read (Fig. 3.3). While other authors have to edit their texts multiple
times, Bergman wrote efficiently and it has been said that he rarely edited his texts.
Bergman was also good at expressing himself orally; he was happy and polite
towards everyone [15].
Schufle came to the conclusion that Bergman was very well off, [16] but his
calculations are based on a misconception regarding the value of the Swedish
currency (Appendix 3). In fact, Bergman’s economy was rather strained (Sect. 9.3).
It seems that Scheele, who could afford to buy and renovate a house in Köping, had
a more solid economy.
2
For the single exception, see Sect. 9.6.
28
3 The Two Men