Jens Smed archive: an ICES history lesson

Jens Smed archive An ICES history lesson in ICES

In the fo Jens Smed ta the re

ollowing collection of articles akes the helm, bringing you, eader, on the voyage of ICES.

In the beginning Overfishing, science, and politics: the background in the 1890s to the foundation of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea The founding of ICES - prelude, personalities and politics: Stockholm (1899); Christiania (1901); Copenhagen (1902) On the foundation of ICES: a look behind the scenes at the events in Britain Germany’s participation in the foundation of ICES, withdrawal during the First World War, and re-entry after the War Deutschland und die Gründung des ICES The accession of Belgium to ICES Finland’s Participation in early ICES The accession of France to ICES Russia, USSR and ICES: for years a tricky problem USA’s and Canada’s long way to ICES

Who is Jens Smed?

Shining stars – personalities of ICES The correspondence between Fridtjof Nansen and Otto Krümmel during the years 1899 to 1911 Walther Herwig: the First President of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Otto Krümmel über Fridtjof Nansen’s für den 1. Generalsekretär von Kandidatur ICES A note on D’Arcy Thompson’s relations to Germany and German scientists Otto Krummel’s Participation in the International Oceanographic Cooperation in the 1890’s and his troubles with the Kiel Commission Three Russian oceanographers and their relations to colleagues at early ICES The relations between Otto Krümmel and Martin Knudsen during the foundation and early years of ICES Martin Knudsen’s activities at the ICES Service Hydrographique Martin Knudsen - the oceanographer A note on Gerhard Schott’s relations to Scandinavian colleagues and ICES

Excellence in marine science Note on the Council’s Hydrographical Card-Index Report on work carried out by the Service Hydrographique of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, 1951-1954 The Service Hydrographique of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Hydrographic Investigations in the North Sea, the Kattegat and the Baltic before ICES Early Discussions and Tests of the Validity of Knudsen’s Hydrographical Tables Hydrographic work of the Ingolf expedition (1895 and 1896) to Icelandic and West Greenland waters Early international North Sea current studies The history of standard seawater The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea - Its Organization and its Activities within Physical and Chemical Oceanography History of International North Sea Research (ICES) International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Organizations intended to promote and coordinate international research on the oceans Abortive plans for a world-wide oceanographic expedition The interest of Belgian scientists in marine International endeavours to save the Helgoland harbour after World War I Early Attempts at Determination of the Salinity of Seawater from Measurement of its Electric Conductivity The eel and Mediterranean oceanography: A Danish contribution to ocean science The Central Laboratory of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and its Successor Martin Knudsen (1871—1949) and the Standard Seawater Otto Krümmel initiates determination of bottom water temperature from measurement of the resistance of telegraph cables Early plans for telegraphic communication with the Faroes and Iceland in the interests of meteorology and fishery Abortive plans for salinity determinations as a means for position finding at sea The Stockholm Conference 1899 – outside the meeting rooms Charlottenlund Castle

An assessment of Jens Smed as an historian Address to Jens Smed on the occasion of the presentation of the first ICES-History Award, Aalborg, 23. 9. 1995 Dear Jens Smed, my last formal meeting with you was back in 1984, when I stood up on the occasion of your 70th birthday as well as on the occasion of your stepping down from the post of the ICES Hydrographer. In this successful career you had established a worldwide known data base and we honoured your work with presenting to you a special volume of the [ICES] RPV [volume 185], the so called Smed Volume “Hydrobiological variability in the North Atlantic and adjacent seas” which was the result of an ICES Mini-Symposium in 1982.

For today I was asked - and gladly accepted - to briefly talk about another career of yours, namely that related to ICES History. For the preparation I had available a compilation of contributions to ICES History (compiled by Jens Smed) and I learned, that your first historic paper dates back to 1979 (History of Standard Sea Water, coauthored by Fred Culkin). Furthermore, I counted 8 published and 11 unpublished manuscripts, the latter probably waiting in a queue ready to go to appropriate journals or books. Your papers concentrate on three issues: the role of nations and their political interests to found the ICES, the role of eminent scientists like Nansen, Krümmel, Pettersson, Schott, Knudsen, and Herwig and their scientific interests in creating international cooperation, and thirdly the impact of ICES products like e.g. the Hydrographic Tables in the advancement of our science. In most cases, your papers allow a deep look behind the curtains. What do we see: Mean conditions to pursue our science do not really change?

As an example, I can refer to your paper dealing with Otto Krümmel’s letters to Otto Pettersson: Krümmel tried in 1893 to join the work of the International Group headed by Pettersson, in which the North Sea and the Skagerrak/Kattegat should be surveyed regularly. Krümmel offered simultaneous work in the Baltic, but very soon he could not contribute anymore because of difficulties with the Preußische Kommission zur Untersuchung der Meere back home in Kiel. Its president Professor Karstens was jealous that Krümmel had established all the contacts to the international group and would not support the Baltic work with ship-time or money. It was only after Karstens resigned, the Kiel Kommission was converted to the Deutsche Wissenschaftliche Kommission in 1902 and Krümmel had become a member. Then, there was even an own vessel available to the joint work (Poseidon). The message from this is straightforward: It is not only in the marine environment, but it is also in the means and methods we use to organize our science that there is a decadal variability.

This to me explains why Jens’ engagement in the history of ICES is so successful: it is simply a continuation of his earlier work, where he carefully compiled the data necessary for us today to understand processes relevant to the decadal variability in the environment. Therefore, Jens, if you also keep on going to assemble carefully the historical data and facts, you will provide us with the basis to understand, that behind the day to day business that seems to drown us, (including vigorous discussion on the ICES structure), there is some mean way to conduct our science and all our quarrels are fluctuations around the mean.

With this in mind, Jens, the work done so far in your historic career is of good weight. If we put it on a balance scale, it would certainly outweigh me standing on the other end of the scale by my own. But, by calling upon the President of ICES, representing the concentrated weight of the ICES-community, we may get the scale into a position which allows us to properly express our sincere appreciation for your contribution to ICES as a historically grown entity, and to also express our hopes, that further contributions are to be expected.

(Open letter from Prof. Dr. J. Meincke)

Jens Smed retired from his posts with the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea as Hydrographer and Chef du Service Hydrographique on 31 March 1984.

Smed was born in Vinterslev, a village in Jutland, on 20 March 1914. He was educated first in the village school and then at Aarhus Katedralskole from 1929 to 1933, when he entered the University of Copenhagen to read physics. In 1938, he interrupted his studies in Copenhagen to spend a term in Paris, and in 1939 he took his master’s degree in physics and then joined the Service Hydrographique of the Council. In 1941, he was awarded the gold medal in physics of the University of Copenhagen. He became Hydrographer to the Council in succession to Dr Jacob P. Jacobsen in 1946, and two years later he succeeded Professor Martin H. C. Knudsen as Chef du Service Hydrographique.

Knudsen established an international reputation for his work on the determination of salinity and his studies relating to the equation of state of sea water, and Jacobsen was best known for his development of the temperature—salinity (T—S) diagram as a tool in water mass analysis, whereas Jens Smed became internationally recognized, first, for the development of ICES as a regional oceanographic data centre and, second, for his work on long time series of T—S data.

Under him the Service Hydrographique played a vital role in the quality-control, exchange, promulgation, and archiving of hydrographic data collected by ICES member countries. It established important links with the World Data Centres for Oceanography in Washington, D.C., and Moscow and the various national data centres and marine and fisheries science laboratories in the member countries; those links did much to facilitate the flow of data and information amongst the marine science communities in Europe and North America. The part played by Jens Smed and the Service Hydrographique in the timely publication of data was no less important. The latter took place through the medium of the Council’s series of publications — bulletins, data lists, inventories, atlases, and charts. All this work was done with limited resources and a small but devoted staff whose permanent members were Inger Bondorff, Poula Holm, Birthe Knudsen, and Ruth Larsen. Smed’s work with long time series of temperature and salinity data for the surface layers of the northernmost North Atlantic, the North Sea, and the Celtic Sea was of considerable value to physical oceanographers, fisheries scientists, and plankton investigators, but became relevant in a wider context as the need to investigate climatic fluctuations emerged as a matter of urgent scientific and public concern.

History of Oceanography A Tribute to Jens Smed Number 19, 2007

Note on the Council's Hydrographic Card-Index ICES Journal/Journal Du Conseil International Pour l'Exploration de la Mer VOL. XV. No. 2, 1948 Jens Smed The card-index, which was started by Captain W. Nellemose records observations of temperature and salinity, taken simultaneously. The region covered comprises the North Atlantic, the Norwegian Sea, the North Sea, the Transition Area, and the Baltic.

Two sorts of cards are employed: “surface cards”, for surface observations only; and “station cards”, for observations at a series of depths at stations.

The surface observations at stations are recorded both on the station cards and on the surface cards. Both sets of cards record the following data: - year, date, position, temperature and salinity. The station cards also indicate the depths to which the recorded temperatures and salinities relate, and the bottom depth. In addition the cards carry reference numbers or symbols indicating the publications from which the observations were taken. The cards are arranged by 1° -squares.

The card-index contains all temperature and salinity observations published in the Bulletin Hydrographique 1902-1939. Numerous other publications have been searched and the relevant observations extracted and recorded on the cards. The card-index may undoubtedly be considered as containing most of the available data on salinity (with simultaneous observations of temperature) for the above-mentioned waters.

Copies - manuscript or Leicafilm - of index-cards may be had upon application to the Hydrographical Department of the Council, Charlottenlund Slot, Charlottenlund. If copies of a large number of index-cards are desired, it may be necessary to make a moderate charge, to cover the cost of copying.

Report on work carried out by the Service Hydrographique of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea 1951-1954 A.I.O.P., PROC.-VERB. NO. 6, 1955. E 10

Jens Smed ICES Service Hydrographique Bulletin Hydrographique. This publication contains oceanographical data (temperature, salinity, pH, excess base, and the content of various constituents of sea water) collected in the North Sea, the North Atlantic and adjacent waters, mainly by institutions in member countries. During the period under consideration, the issues for 1948 and 1949 were published.

Hydrographical Card Index. The card index covers the same regions as the Bulletin Hydrographique. It contains observations of temperature and salinity, taken simultaneously, together with a few minor collections of temperatures only. The card index has now been checked and carried up to date and may be considered fairly complete with regard to observations of salinity and simultaneous observations of temperature from the regions covered. Copies of card index data have been delivered on request to scientists in member countries.

Wind data for areas of the North Sea, received from the German Hydrographic Institute, have been copied and distributed regularly.

Synoptic Hydrographic Charts. This series of charts was started by Commander Lumby and published by the Fisheries Laboratory, Lowestoft for the period June 1950 to June 1952. The publication was then taken over by the Council and the charts have since been prepared by the Service Hydrographique of the Council.

For each month a set of four charts is published: Two charts show the distribution of surface temperature (referred to the middle of the month) and surface salinity and two charts show currents and winds as 10-day means at a network of stations. The charts for temperature, salinity and wind cover the area 47½ °N—63 °N, 11 °E—21 °W, i.e. North Sea, English Channel, Irish Sea and the north eastern North Atlantic, whereas the current chart is limited to the southern North Sea and the Channel mainly. A short descriptive note accompanies the set. The charts are issued about four months after the month to which they refer.

Variation of Surface Water Temperature. Since 1876, the Danish Meteorological Institute has arranged for regular observations of surface temperatures from vessels crossing the North Atlantic. This comprehensive material, which

has most kindly been placed at our disposal by Mr. Helge Thomsen, Head of the Nautical Section of the Danish Meteorological Institute, has been used for calculating temperature anomalies for 1°-squares for each month in the whole period of years from 1876 up to the present. The anomalies have been averaged over greater areas. These averages together with their yearly and 5-yearly means have been published in a series of notes in the Annales Biologiques.

It is found that for all areas north of 55 °N a conspicuous rise of temperature sets in about 1920, the temperatures reaching high values in the 1930s and 1940s.

With data from the same sources it has been found that in an area off the eastern coast of Scotland the temperature rise begins in the first years of the 1930s. From card index data the same conclusion has been arrived at for a number of areas in the southern and northern North Sea. Homogeneity of Water Column in the southern North Sea. This subject was studied in order to find out in which areas surface observations of temperature and salinity were representative for the whole water column. The work was based on the data in the Hydrographical Card Index. The mean temperature difference and the mean salinity difference between surface and bottom were computed for each month and each 1 °-square and recorded in monthly charts.

Physical Oceanography in Scandinavia EARTH-SCIENCE REVIEWS International Magazine for Geo-Scientists Volume 3, 1967

Jens Smed Oceanography has old traditions in the Scandinavian countries as a natural consequence of the sea-faring and fishery interests of these countries. Since modern oceanographic investigations began in the last decades of the 19th century, Scandinavia has taken a continued interest in this science. In the following, some information is given on recent developments in oceanographic research in the individual Scandinavian countries.

Denmark The Danish Institute for Fishery and Sea Research, located at the Charlottenlund Castle, undertakes oceanographic investigations in inner Danish waters, in the North Sea, and in the northern North Atlantic (with special emphasis on the waters near the Faroe Islands and Greenland). The research vessels are Dana and Adolf Jensen. The latter is a minor boat for Greenland's coastal waters.

The Danish Meteorological Institute (in Charlottenlund, near Copenhagen) collects routine oceanographic data from coastal stations and light vessels in Danish waters, and surface-water temperatures from commercial vessels plying the northern North Atlantic. Furthermore, information on ice in Greenland waters is collected and published regularly.

Also in Charlottenlund is the Standard Sea Water Service, developed at the beginning of the century by Martin Knudsen and now working under the auspices of the International Association of Physical Oceanography. It prepares Standard Sea Water which is used in laboratories all over the world as a standard for the determination of the salinity of sea-water samples.

A few years ago, a chair in physical oceanography was set up at the University of Copenhagen. The holder of it, Professor Dr. Nils Jerlov, carries on his wellknown research on marine optics there.

Waves and harbour and beach hydraulics are studied by the Laboratory for Harbour Building.

Finland Oceanographic work is concentrated at the Institute of Marine Research (Merentutkimuslaitos) in Helsinki. It is directed by Professor Dr. Ilmo Hela. The

chief region of investigation is the Baltic. Objects of investigation are the general characteristics of the water and their fluctuations, which are mainly caused by the exchange of water through the Danish Sounds. Available for work at sea is the icebreaker Aranda, which serves as a passenger boat during summer time. Furthermore, observations are collected regularly from some light vessels and a great many coastal stations.

Much interest is shown in marine chemistry, and important laboratory work has been done on methods for the determination of the constituents of sea water.

As the northern part of the Baltic is ice-covered for a great part of the year, it is only natural that ice studies have played a great role in the activities of the Institute of Marine Research. Fluctuations of sea level have also been intensely studied.

Marine geology is one of the research subjects of the Geological Survey (Geologinen Tutkimuslaitos) in Otaniemi.

Iceland Because of the overwhelmingly important position that fishing has assumed for the national economy of Iceland, oceanography must, by necessity, carry a high priority in Icelandic science. In fact, much oceanographic work has been done in recent years in the seas around the island under the direction of Dr. Unnsteinn Stefánsson, (head of the oceanographic section of the Department of Fisheries at the Reykjavik University's Research Institute (Atvinnudeild Háskólans, Fiskideild). Available for these investigations are the research vessel Mariá Júlia and the patrol vessel Aegir.

A new and exciting subject for research is the oceanographic change connected with the emergence of the volcanic island Surtsey, south of Iceland.

Norway For many years Bergen has been an important center for research in physical oceanography. Names such as B. Helland-Hansen and H. U. Sverdrup were connected with the Geophysical Institute (University of Bergen), now headed

by Prof. Dr. H. Mosby. Highly significant work on, for instance, the interaction between sea and air, on oceanographic instrumentation, and on the oceanography of the Norwegian Sea in general is being made there. The institute has the research vessel Helland–Hansen at its disposal.

Important work in physical oceanography, mainly for the benefit of the fishing industry, has also been carried out from another institution of Bergen, viz. the oceanographic department of the Fisheries Directorate headed by Dr. J. Eggvin. The institution commands a number of research vessels of which G.O. Sars, Johan Hjort, and G.M. Dannevig should be mentioned.

At the Oceanographic Institute of the University of Oslo, Professor Dr. J. E. Fjeldstad has carried out pioneering theoretical work, especially on internal waves. The chair is now held by Dr. O. H. Sælen.

Also situated at Oslo is the Norwegian Polar Institute, where work on ice forecasting, the oceanography of the Arctic Ocean, and the heat content of the ocean has been carried out.

Oceanographic work has, in recent years, been carried out also by the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment. It commands the vessel H. U. Sverdrup which is designed for physical oceanography with particular reference to acoustics.

Sweden The dominating oceanographic research centre in Sweden is the Oceanographic Institute at Gรถteborg, established by the late Professor Dr. Hans Pettersson and now directed by Professor. Dr. B. Kullenberg. Extremely important work has been carried out on a variety of subjects: marine optics, radio-chemistry, and study of ocean sediments. Basis of the latter was the construction of the famous Kullenberg corer.

Important oceanographic research, mainly investigations of the Baltic and the Skagerrak, is also going on at the Fisheries Board of Sweden (Gรถteborg). This institute has at its disposal the research vessels Skagera and Thetis, the first of which is also used by the Oceanographic Institute. The routine oceanographic observations from Swedish light ships are carried out under the auspices of the Fisheries Board.

Theoretical work on the dynamics of the ocean (and the atmosphere) is carried out at the International Meteorological Institute in Stockholm which was established by the late Professor Dr. C. G. Rossby and is now directed by Professor Dr. B. Bolin.

Inter-Scandinavian collaboration in oceanography The Scandinavian countries were among the first to realize that the problems of oceanography and fish biology had to be studied on an international basis.

Thus, they took the initiative in the establishment in 1902, of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, the oldest international oceanographic organization in the world. This organization, which is still active in oceanography and fish biology, has, from the start, had its central office in Copenhagen. Among the founders of the International Council were such oceanographers as Martin Knudsen (Denmark), Fridtjof Nansen (Norway) and Otto Pettersson (Sweden).

The close cooperation between the Scandinavian countries in many matters, mediated now mainly by the Nordic Council, would seem to motivate a close regional cooperation also in physical oceanography in the same way as has existed for a number of years in marine biology. As a matter of fact, such ideas are at present under investigation. Preliminary plans comprise a centre for modern oceanographic instrumentation in Bergen, theoretical studies in Stockholm, and joint expeditions with Gรถteborg as a centre.

The Service Hydrographique of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea ICES Journal/ Journal du Conseil International pour l'Exploration de la Mer 32, 2 1968

Jens Smed Service Hydrographique, International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Charlottenlund Slot, Charlottenlund The hydrographic department of the ICES Central Office, its origin and activities are described. These followed mainly from its function as a hydrographic data centre for the ICES region, implying screening, filing, distribution, and publishing of the data, and preparation on their basis, of charts, graphs, and tables of mean values and anomalies. Some contributions of the Service to the unification of hydrographic work are mentioned. Information is given about the staff throughout the years, from the start and during more than a generation headed or supervised by Martin Knudsen. The present plans for a rearrangement of the Service are touched upon. There is an appendix listing the papers by the staff members.

Origin In the “Programme for the hydrographical and biological work in the parts of the Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, the Baltic and adjoining Seas�, approved by the International Conference held in Kristiania (now Oslo) in 1901, the establishment of an International Council with a permanent Central Bureau and an International Laboratory was recommended.

The purpose of the Central Bureau should be: To give uniform directions for the hydrographic and biological research in accordance with the resolutions drawn up in the programme of the present Conference, or in accordance with such modifications as may be introduced later with the consent of the states represented.

To undertake such particular work as may be entrusted to it by the participating governments.

To publish periodical bulletins which shall contain the actual data obtained in the cruises of all the participating states at the earliest possible date, and also such other papers as may prove useful in coordinating the international work.

To make proposals for the graphic representations, scales, signs, and colours to be used in the charts for the purpose of obtaining uniformity in the publications, the decision regarding which shall rest with the International Council.

In connection with the investigations, to make application to the telegraph administrations for the purpose of obtaining determinations from time to time of the changes in resistance of the cables which cross the area in any direction.

Professor Martin Knudsen. 1902—1948. Head of ICES Service Hydrographique.

With regard to the officials of the Central Bureau, it was decided that should the General Secretary represent hydrographical science, one of his principal assistants should be a biologist, and vice-versa. The other assistant should preferably be experienced in statistical work.

When the International Council was constituted on 22 July 1902, a biologist, Dr. P. P. C. Hoek, was nominated General Secretary. The first assistant to the Bureau should therefore be a hydrographer. In accordance with the wish expressed at the meeting of the Council, Martin Knudsen was appointed first assistant. His department at the central office was named Service Hydrographique.

Activities With regard to the work with which the Service Hydrographique has mainly been concerned, reference may be made to the Report from the Hydrographical Sub–Committee on Organisation of the Service Hydrographique, submitted in 1928. According to this report the Service Hydrographique should be engaged in the following activities: 1 ) to prepare the material for the publication of the Bulletin Hydrographique; 2 ) to undertake the rapid dissemination of hydrographical observations; 3 ) to combine data in diagrams and charts, for special areas; 4 ) to undertake the technical sponsorship of hydrographical publications of the Bureau; 5 ) to further unification of the work and collaboration between the workers in the several participating countries; 6 ) to draw attention to changes and amplifications which appear to be desirable in the hydrographical programmes; 7 ) to carry out any other hydrographical work that may be entrusted to it by the Council.

Publication of hydrographic data According to the programme for the hydrographical work, unanimously adopted on the International Conference in Stockholm in 1899, “The observations, meteorological as well as hydrographical, made on board the special steamers at the time of the survey in the typical months are to be immediately worked out under the supervision of the central bureau for publication in a bulletin, wherein the conditions of the sea and the atmosphere are to be represented by tables and synoptical charts in cooperation with the meteorological institutes of the nations represented”.

It had been decided that the international cruises should take place four times a year, viz., in February, May, August, and November. The first international cruises were carried out in August, 1902. The hydrographic data collected during these cruises were published in the series “Bulletin des résultats acquis pendant les courses périodiques”. The Bulletin, published quarterly, contains for each of the months mentioned the hydrographic and meteorological data collected by the research vessels of the member countries during the international cruises, together with information on apparatus and methods used. Furthermore, from the start of the series, surface charts of temperature and salinity were included, and, from the second year, graphs showing the distribution in vertical sections. Finally, starting from the second quarter the Bulletin has a section giving the results of the planktoninvestigations carried out during the cruises.

Preparation of the above-mentioned surface maps was discontinued in 1905; maps were replaced by tables, and data collected between the seasonal cruises were included in the Bulletin. For this reason its title was, for the 1905—1906 and 1906—1907 issues, changed to Bulletin trimestriel des résultats acquis pendant les croisières périodiques et dans les périodes intermédiaires.

The same title was, strange to say, retained for the 1907—1908 issue, although for that year all the hydrographic data were published in one volume, instead of in four quarterly parts, and although the plankton data were published as a separate volume. This arrangement was followed in succeeding years, and in consequence the titles Bulletin Hydrographique and Bulletin Planktonique were used for the two volumes into which the original had been split.

It should here be mentioned that the Atlantic Committee, set up in 1921, for a long period of years published, in the series Rapports et Procès-Verbaux du Conseil, an annual Rapport Atlantique. In these Rapports, the first of which covered the year 1921, were published many hydrographic observations originating from the area of the Committee. For a period of years the staff of the Service Hydrographique took care of the printing of the hydrographic part of the Rapport Atlantique.

Occasionally the usefulness—or rather the lack of same—of the Bulletin has been discussed. However, the Sub-Committee on Organization of the Service Hydrographique in 1928 went as far as to say: “A scientific Service Hydrographique centred in Copenhagen will always be essential to the Bureau because the Bulletin Hydrographique is a hydrographical necessity”.

In 1932, the question of the Bulletin again came up and was considered by a Sub-Committee on Economies in the Service Hydrographique who concluded “the preservation of the Bulletin to be absolutely necessary because it is the only way in which the hydrographical material can come to the knowledge of the scientific workers. Many years' experience shows that hardly a single treatise on hydrography dealing with the areas within the Council's activities has appeared, in which extensive reference to the Bulletin Hydrographique

has not been made”. Some economy was made, and other advantages obtained, by rearranging the Bulletin so that the temperature and salinity observations, surface as well as sub-surface, were grouped by areas. This arrangement is used for the 1932 issue onwards. In order to practice even more economy the Bulletin was from the 1947 issue onwards printed by an offset method, the complete manuscript being typed in the Service Hydrographique.

From 1957, punched cards were used by the Service Hydrographique for handling hydrographic data. This gave new possibilities with regard to publication. The data in the punched cards may be printed mechanically from the cards on offset master sheets from which the necessary number of copies may then be run by means of an offset machine. This method was used from 1957 onwards. The listing is carried out by a service bureau as the Service Hydrographique does not have the necessary machinery. The offset printing, however, is undertaken partly by the staff of the Service Hydrographique.

The data are now published as a suitable collection becomes ready, whereas before 1957 the data were held up until all data for a year had been received and prepared. The new procedure makes it less convenient to arrange the published data according to 1 ° squares as in the Bulletin Hydrographique.

The data are therefore published according to cruise. The volumes are bound so that they may easily be arranged in loose-leaf files. Because of these various changes it was felt that the name “Bulletin Hydrographique” should be abandoned, and the new series was named ICES Oceanographic Data Lists.

In editing the oceanographical material much effort has always been displayed in screening the data and so, by correspondence with the contributors, many doubtful points were cleared up before publication.

Rapid dissemination of hydrographic data There is a general need for a rapid distribution of the data collected, these preferably to be given also in the form of graphical presentations. During the first years of the Council's existence this need was met by the Bulletin as it was at that time published quarterly and could be issued with fairly short delay. Furthermore, the Bulletin contained from the start various charts showing the distribution of surface temperature and salinity in the region, and from the second volume also graphs showing the distribution of temperature and salinity the standard hydrographic sections worked. This arrangement was continued to 1914, i.e., to the cessation of the quarterly cruises.

In the mid-twenties the hydrographic activity of the ICES countries once more reached a considerable level and the need for a rapid dissemination of data arose. To meet this need it was decided to publish, in addition to the ordinary Bulletin Hydrographique, a tri-monthly bulletin, Bulletin Hydrographique Trimestriel. This Bulletin was issued over the period January 1926—March 1928, and contained in a provisional form tables, charts and diagrams, together with a short discussion of the data with special regard to important deviations from normal conditions. The Bulletin was circulated, in a mimeographed

form, shortly after the end of the quarter that it covered, and thus gave a picture of very recent conditions in the sea.

However, in 1928 the Council decided to discontinue the Bulletin Hydrographique Trimestriel and adopted a new procedure to maintain the function which it was intended to serve, i.e., the rapid dissemination of information. On the arrival of the hydrographic material at the Service Hydrographique the tables were inspected and sent to the printer for setting up in such a form that the lead blocks could afterwards be used for the Bulletin Hydrographique. Offprints taken from these blocks were available to interested workers from month to month.

With the re-arrangement of the Bulletin Hydrographique from the 1932 issue this procedure was no longer practicable. Instead, those data lists for which there was thought to be an urgent need were now duplicated and copies supplied on request. As the data in these lists were arranged according to cruises they made up a useful supplement to the Bulletin in its new form.

At the meeting of the Hydrographical Committee in 1950, a discussion took place on ways and means to make hydrographical investigations more useful to biologists. As one outcome of this discussion it was agreed that special consideration should be given to the preparation and publication of charts of surface temperature, salinity, and wind conditions over the North Sea and adjacent waters as soon as possible after the data had become available.

In accordance with this agreement Monthly Hydrographic Charts, or Synoptic Hydrographic Charts, as they were also called, were for the period June 1950—June 1952 prepared by Lieutenant Commander J. R. Lumby and published by the Fisheries Laboratory, Lowestoft. After this trial period the preparation and publishing of the charts were taken over by the Service Hydrographique, starting with the charts for July 1952.

The charts were apparently well received, even by marine biologists. Thus, at the meeting in 1953, the Plankton Committee expressly wished “to convey to the Hydrographical Committee their appreciation of the value of the Synoptic Hydrographic Charts which they find most useful”.

In 1955, however, the Chairman of the Consultative Committee asked the Chairmen of the various committees to procure more specific statements on the value of the charts than had been available hitherto. The Hydrographical Committee, in its reply, stressed that the prime purpose of the Synoptic Hydrographic Charts was to supply marine biologists with information. In this connection, the Committee pointed out that a long series of such charts can be expected to be of particular value when various relationships between hydrography and marine biology suggest themselves for examination. The effort made now to produce the charts would probably reduce labour costs in the long run. The Committee thought that a long series of synoptic charts would provide unique material for the examination of questions pertaining to the interrelation between the atmosphere and the sea. Thus they would have a value to branches of science beyond the scope of activity of ICES.

In accordance with a decision of the 1956 meeting the Synoptic Hydrographic Charts were extended to include the area of Kattegat, the Belts and the western Baltic, whereas the number of observations for an extension towards north and west was found to be insufficient.

After some years, the immediate interest in the Synoptic Hydrographic Charts appeared to decline, and in 1961 the Hydrographical Committee, with some reluctance, recommended cessation of production and publication, because of the apparently limited use to which they had hitherto been put, and with a view to the impracticability of producing and distributing the charts in less than four months after the month to which they related. The charts were then stopped after publication of those covering the month of December 1958.

Monthly charts for a number of depth levels, and for the bottom, would evidently have been more useful than those for the surface; but it was realized that sufficient material was not available for such charts to be prepared regularly for large areas. In 1953, however, the Service Hydrographique prepared, at the instigation of fishery biologists, mainly herring experts, a considerable number of so-called Herring Hydrographical Charts. These charts, some of which were circulated, gave the distribution of temperature and salinity at several depths in areas of the Norwegian Sea for certain periods. Because of lack of sufficient interest in the charts by the biologists - probably because it proved difficult to obtain information on the occurrence of herring, which was to have been included in the charts - the undertaking was not followed up.

After the introduction of punch cards for handling the data, the Service Hydrographique is able to furnish copies of data either as punched cards or on magnetic tape, or in the form of printouts. As there still appears to be some need for monthly mean values of surface temperature and salinity the Service Hydrographique, at the instigation of the Oceanographic Laboratory, Edinburgh, and with some financial support from this and a few other institutions, has calculated such means for areas of 1 ° latitude by 2 ° longitude of the region 41 ° N—66 ° N, 11 ° E—39 ° W for each individual month of the period 1957—1962.

Hydrographic card index In the mid-thirties Commander Nellemose, then Administrative Secretary of ICES, started a hydrographical-biological card index recording observations from the ICES area. Information on this card index as regards number of index cards, areas covered etc. may be found in the Council's Administrative Report for 1942—1945. In 1945, the Consultative Committee appointed a Sub-Committee for Consideration of the Card Index. In accordance with proposals in 1946 by this Sub-Committee, the rather incomplete biological index was stored in the archives whereas the hydrographic index was placed under the supervision of the Service Hydrographique. Much work has since been done in checking and completing the Hydrographic Card Index. Many requests for hydrographic information were answered on the basis of the Index

which was also used when arranging the data for the Bulletin Hydrographique.

The steadily increasing amount of data received annually during the first half of the 1950s meant a considerable increase of the work required for keeping the index up to date. In 1955, there were plans for an extensive oceanographic programme to be carried out during the International Geophysical Year (IGY) 1957—1958. An important part of this programme was the Polar Front Survey in the northern North Atlantic. As this survey was chiefly to take place in the ICES area, the organization of it was left to ICES. Thus the IGY would evidently give rise to a great increase in the flow of data to the ICES Service Hydrographique. Furthermore, it became clear that oceanography was now expanding so rapidly that the great amount of data for the IGY would be no isolated event; on the contrary, the annual amount of data could be expected to rise even more in future years.

To cope with the increased data, a mechanisation of the hydrographic index would be highly desirable, not to say a necessity. In 1957, a decision to that effect was made, and the ICES Hydrographical Committee set up a SubCommittee to consider the problems involved. Professor I. Hela, who already had considerable experience in the use of punch cards in science, was nominated Chairman of the Sub-Committee, a capacity in which he served until 1962, when he was followed by Professor O. H. Sælen.

An investigation was made to find out which types of punched cards were already in use for recording of oceanographic data. It turned out that only a few institutions had introduced such cards. Of these cards those introduced by the US Hydrographic Office would probably be widely used.

With this in mind it was decided to make the ICES system for punching of data from Hydro and BT stations compatible, as far as possible, with that of the US Hydrographic Office. Without changes, the Hydrographic Office system could not be taken over as ICES had to pay attention to the interest of fishery biology while the Hydrographic Office had to cover other interests, in submarine acoustics, for instance.

The ICES system was adopted by the Council in 1958. A description of it was published in 1962 by the Service Hydrographique as a small manual, “ICES Oceanographic Punch Cards”.

Introduction of a hydro-chemistry card for punching of marine chemical observations was postponed for a few years, awaiting agreement among the chemists on the units to be used in chemical oceanography. As soon as this agreement was arrived at the chemistry card was adopted. A description of it is given in a 2nd edition (published 1966) of the ICES punch card manual which also covers the changes made in the system after the publication of the 1st edition.

In accordance with the above scheme the data for 1957 onwards have been punched into IBM cards. These are used for automatic preparation of the ICES Oceanographic Data Lists as explained above. Furthermore, copies of

the punched cards are shipped to the US National Oceanographic Data Centre (NODC) with whom ICES has an arrangement for exchange of cards. In return ICES receives copies of cards covering the data published in the series Bulletin Hydrographique and its predecessors, which data are already on punched cards in the US NODC. As the latter institution adopted the system used by US Hydrographic Office - a system with which, as explained above, the ICES system is for the main part compatible - no technical difficulties are involved in such an exchange. In this way an archive of oceanographic punch cards covering the ICES area is being built up in the Service Hydrographique.

Mean charts and tables On several occasions the temperature and salinity data published in the series Bulletin Hydrographique (with its predecessors) have been worked up in the form of mean charts by the staff of the Service Hydrographique.

The first work of this sort was “The salinity of the North Sea and adjacent waters calculated on the basis of observations from the period August 1902—May 1905”, prepared by Martin Knudsen and Kirstine Smith, and published in volume 6 of the series Rapports et Procès-Verbaux. The mean salinity over the period is given in charts for a number of depths and for the bottom. The mean distribution of the salinity in a number of standard sections is also shown. By way of further information there is added, for the surface, a map which indicates the salinity's mean deviation from the mean value, and for the bottom a map which for each of the fixed stations gives the greatest and the least salinity found.

Essentially the same charts and sections were given as part of a general review of the hydrographical conditions in the seas investigated by the Council.

This review, which was published as a supplement to the Bulletin for the year 1906—1907, covered, however, also the temperature conditions which were represented by mean charts and sections for the months of February, May, August, and November, i.e. the months in which the quarterly cruises were made. The temperature observations used were collected over the period August 1902—May 1906.

In 1933, the Service Hydrographique published an Atlas de température et salinité de l’eau de surface de la Mer du Nord et de la Manche, prepared by J.P. Jacobsen and his staff. The salinity charts are based upon material from 1902—1928 (North Sea) or 1903—1927 (English Channel). The temperature charts are, as far as the North Sea is concerned, mainly reproductions, extended by the introduction of additional curves, of charts published 1922 in the series Bulletin Hydrographique and based upon observations from the period July 1905—June 1914. For the English Channel, however, the charts refer to the same period as the salinity charts, viz., 1903—1927.

The Atlas contains a temperature chart and a salinity chart for each month of the year, as well as mean charts for the year of temperature and salinity. In addition there are summary tables giving monthly and annual means of temperature and salinity, as read from the charts, at points of intersection be-

tween full, half, or quarter degree lines of latitude and longitude. A description by J. P. Jacobsen of the methods used in preparing the Atlas was published by the Council in 1934.

The above Atlas deals with the conditions in the surface of the sea only. As it would be of some interest to know to what extent surface observations were representative for the whole water column in the central and southern North Sea the question was, at the instigation of the then Chairman of the Hydrographical Committee, Professor H. U. Sverdrup, taken up by the Service Hydrographique. As a result were published monthly mean charts showing the temperature and salinity differences between surface and bottom, averaged over 1 ° squares. The charts are published in Annales Biologiques, volume 10 (“On the Homogeneity of the Water Column in the Southern North Sea”).

When the Synoptic Hydrographic Charts had been introduced a need was felt for mean charts of temperature and salinity for the area covered by them.

Lieutenant Commander J. R. Lumby then brought together into a set of Provisional Mean Charts the information given in existing charts. He stressed, however, that these provisional charts would be a temporary help only.

The Council, therefore, decided that new monthly mean charts should be published by the Service Hydrographique. The charts were to be based upon the data collections in the Service Hydrographique and other available sources. The punching of the whole material and the computing of mean values were carried out by the German Hydrographic Institute, and the preparation of the charts was in the hands of Professor G. Dietrich and his staff in Kiel, as the Service Hydrographique did not have the necessary staff and facilities for the work.

The volume (Mean Monthly Temperature and Salinity of the Surface Layer of the North Sea and adjacent Waters from 1905 to 1954), published in 1962, has 24 charts representing the mean temperature and mean salinity of the surface layer of the area 47 ½ ° N—63 ° N, 11 ° E—2l ° W for each month of the year, based on data for the period 1905—1954. Furthermore, it contains tables giving the mean values of temperature im( and salinity of the surface layer for each individual month of the years from 1905 to 1954 inclusive, and the grand monthly means for this period, for 293 regions or stations. The borders of these regions, and the positions of the stations, are shown in a special index map.

During the first years of the 1950s the Service Hydrographique carried out a considerable work in extracting and interpolating data of temperature and salinity for a number of depths in the North Sea. The intention was to prepare and publish mean charts on the basis of the material. These plans had to be given up because of lack of time and staff when other tasks came up.

However, salinity charts have now been prepared and published as a joint undertaking of the German Hydrographic Institute and the ICES Service Hydrographique, the first named institution having already published the corresponding charts and graphs showing the temperature conditions.

Tables and graphs of temperature and salinity anomalies To the fishery biologists, information on deviations from the mean conditions may be of more interest than knowledge of the mean values. An increased interest in these deviations followed the rise of the temperature of the air and the surface water that occurred in great areas of the northern hemisphere from about 1920, a rise that in some regions had considerable consequences for the flora and fauna.

Therefore, since the 1940s, monthly anomalies of surface temperature and/or salinity in a number of areas of the North Sea and the northern North Atlantic were calculated and published by the Service Hydrographique. These anomalies were based not only on the data available in the ICES Service Hydrographique, but also on the temperature data collected by the Danish Meteorological Institute, data that go as far back as 1876.

Unification of work The Service Hydrographique has repeatedly contributed to unify work and to further collaboration. As an example, it might be mentioned the contribution which the Service Hydrographique made in the 1930s to the preparation of proposals for nomenclature and units to be used for the indication of the content of constituents of seawater.

In 1946, the Service Hydrographique was asked by the Hydrographical Committee “to co-ordinate the activities of different countries in regard to the sampling from commercial vessels and lightships, to get the best coverage of the waters in which the Council is interested, and to systematize methods”.

Also the introduction and enforcement of the ICES punch card scheme represent a definite step towards uniform handling of the hydrographic data in the member countries and, as a result of the circulation of the ICES punch card manual, in even wider circles.

Standard seawater At the start of the international investigations a great need was felt for a laboratory “to test and improve the methods of marine research, with the special purpose of facilitating the hydrographical work of the various investigators and of securing comparable results”. In 1902, a Central Laboratory of the Council was therefore set up at Kristiania with the above duties.

The director was Fridtjof Nansen, and his assistants V. Walfrid Ekman (physics) and Charles J. J. Fox (chemistry).

At the Stockholm conference (1899), Martin Knudsen pointed out the great advantage of using standard water for analysis of seawater samples, and he prepared such standard water in the summer of 1900 and again in the summer of 1902, for use in the international work. The production of standard water was now taken over by the Central Laboratory. With the end of the year 1908, Nansen did not wish to continue as Director and it was decided to close the Laboratory. It had now become clear, however, that a standard water, produced at a laboratory, was required. It was decided, therefore, that

from the beginning of 1909, the standard water should be prepared and distributed by the Service Hydrographique under supervision of the head of the Service Martin Knudsen. This arrangement continued until the outbreak of war in 1914 when the Standard Sea-Water Service was taken over by Martin Knudsen for his personal account, in order to relieve the Council of pecuniary responsibility.

Publications In addition to the publications mentioned above, a considerable number of papers have been published by the staff of the Service Hydrographique.

Many of these papers, although representing work of a more personal character, have been carried out at the instigation of the Hydrographical Committee or the Hydrographic Consultant. A list of contributions prepared wholly or partly by staff members of the Service Hydrographique as part of their work for the Service is given in an appendix at the end of this paper.

Furthermore, the Service Hydrographique has had the technical arrangement of many of the other hydrographical papers published in the series of ICES. Secretarial work The Service Hydrographique functions as secretariat of the Hydrographical Committee (since 1966: Hydrography Committee) and its sub-committees and working groups. This also involves some activity in connexion with the planning of the annual meetings.

Staff As mentioned at the outset Martin Knudsen was in 1902 elected hydrographical assistant to the Bureau. In this capacity he was Head of the Service Hydrographique and Editor of the Council's hydrographic publications. He was re-elected principal hydrographic assistant each year until 1920.

At this time, the war years had slowed down the activities of the Council. As a consequence it was decided to elect, instead of the two Principal Assistants (for hydrography and plankton, respectively), three Editors, viz. for hydrography, plankton and statistics, the editing of the corresponding Bulletins to be entrusted to their care. Thus, for the years 1920—1925, Martin Knudsen was Editor for Hydrography. In the daily work Martin Knudsen was from about 1903 assisted by Johan GEHRKE who was with the Service Hydrographique until his death in 1923. For the period 1904—1913, Miss Kirstine Smith was also employed there.

At the meeting in 1925, the appointment of a permanent hydrographer was discussed, but it was decided that a hydrographical assistant should be appointed temporarily for one year only. In the meantime enquiries should be made as to the appointment of a hydrographer with larger functions and responsibilities.

In accordance with this decision Dr. V. I. Pettersson was, in September 1925, appointed hydrographical assistant, temporarily for one year. His service was

prolonged twice, both times for one year. During this period (1925—1928) Professor Knudsen acted as Hydrographic Consultant.

At the meeting in 1928, the Council, as already reported above, decided upon the activities in which the Service Hydrographique should in the future be engaged. This decision involved some change in the staffing of the Service Hydrographique. It was resolved that Professor Knudsen should be asked to be “Chef du Service” and to undertake the general supervision of all its hydrographic work. Furthermore, Dr. J. P. Jacobsen should be asked to be the Council's Hydrographer and attend to the daily work.

The same year, the Service Hydrographique was reorganized in accordance with this resolution. At about the same time Mr. A. Lomholt was appointed Hydrographical Secretary, a position he held until his resignation in 1938. In 1939, the author was appointed Hydrographical Secretary. In 1946, after the death of Dr. J. P. Jacobsen, he took over as Hydrographer to the Council.

In 1948, Professor Knudsen asked to be released from his position as Hydrographic Consultant. The Council resolved: a ) that no re-appointment as Hydrographical Consultant be made; b ) that the Hydrographer of the Council be responsible for carrying out the work of the Hydrographical Department which is covered by the rules, recommendations or resolutions of the Hydrographical Committee; c ) that on matters which are not governed by the above rules, recommendations or resolutions, the Hydrographer of the Council should consult the Chairman of the Hydrographical Committee.

These are the rules that have since governed the Service Hydrographique.

The work in the Service Hydrographique has always required some technical and clerical assistance. This demand became greater when it was decided to prepare the Bulletin Hydrographique (now the ICES Oceanographic Data Lists) in the Service; also the files of punched cards call for much work. At present (1968) the staff comprises an assistant secretary, two full-time and two parttime assistants.

Plans for re-arrangement As will appear from the foregoing, the ICES Service Hydrographique has throughout the years been functioning as data centre for the ICES region, as far as the hydrographic data are concerned.

With the creation of the Oceanographic World Data Centres A (Washington) and B (Moscow) the position of the ICES data centre may have changed. The World Data Centres - originally created to receive the data collected during the International Geophysical Year, but now permanent institutions - are expected to receive all data resulting from “declared national programmes”.

The data collected by the ICES countries in the ICES region are delivered to the World Data Centres either directly or via the Service Hydrographique.

In view of this situation it seemed appropriate to consider whether a continuation of the ICES regional centre is required. So in 1965, the Chairman of the Hydrographical Committee, Professor I. Hela, sent a questionnaire to the members of the Committee asking them to indicate their opinion with regard to the desirability of continuing the Service Hydrographique. It appeared that members answering the inquiry felt that the continuation of the ICES regional data centre is necessary for the marine scientists of the ICES countries.

The replies to the questionnaire were summarized by Professor Hela in a report (Hela, 1965) to the 1965 meeting of the Hydrographical Committee. After discussion of the report, the Committee recommended to the Council that a meeting be held of representatives of each member country to consider the matter. The meeting, held in March 1966, resulted in a report (Hela and Smed, 1966) containing among other items, proposals for a considerable rearrangement of the Service Hydrographique.

With a view to the accelerating increase in the amount of oceanographic data being collected and because the ICES Oceanographic Data Lists do not appear to be used frequently enough to warrant continuation it was recommended that publication of these Lists should in general cease with the 1962 set of volumes. However, Data Lists should still be published from cooperative studies performed under the auspices of the Hydrographical Committee and reported to ICES. It was the prevailing opinion among ICES oceanographers that cessation of the Oceanographic Data Lists would presuppose alternative means of obtaining oceanographic data from ICES. A centralized data collection was therefore, essential. Such a collection was also important for the preparation of atlases and for data analyses. The data filed would have to be limited to standard observations of temperature, salinity, and chemical constituents and to bathythermograph data.

The full responsibility for the quality of the oceanographic data to be stored by the Service Hydrographique should be transferred from the Service to the national institutions and services in question, except for the data to be published in the Data Lists. This procedure should speed up incorporation of large quantities of data into the collections of the Service Hydrographique.

The discontinuance of quality control by the Service Hydrographique, together with the cessation of the Data Lists will save some staff. These savings could be deployed in the field of data analysis. To quote the report of the Meeting on the Service Hydrographique: “With regard to the proposal to concentrate on data analysis, the Meeting agreed that it was desirable to reorientate the work of the Service Hydrographique in this direction. The Service should actually become an oceanographic data analysis centre desired so as to provide such presentations of oceanographic data as the Council’s scientific experts, both biological and hydrographic, require in order to pursue their researches effectively. The Meeting examined certain tasks of this nature and listed them in order of priority. It was strongly of opinion,

however, that such work cannot be carried out without the provision of suitable computer facilities and additional staff”.

At the ICES Statutory Meeting in October 1966, the Hydrographical Committee endorsed these proposals in general. According to the Service Hydrographique, in order to enable it to meet the demands of scientists of the member countries should be given the staff, room, and facilities necessary for undertaking the tasks conferred on it.

The Council however, could not at present endorse these recommendations, because provision of adequate space for the facilities and staff requested would necessarily depend upon the host agreement to be concluded with the Government of Denmark.

References The above account is mainly based upon the reports listed below. Copies of these reports, in which further references are given, are available on request to ICES Service Hydrographique.

Hela, I., 1965. “Summary of the results of the inquiry carried out in 1965 amongst the members of the Hydrographical Committee on the Service Hydrographique and on ICES Oceanographic Data Lists”.

ICES CM 1965 (Hy:4). Also in ICES CM 1966 (N: 1 b). 5 pp. (mimeo).

Hela, I. and Smed, J., 1966. “Report of the ICES Meeting on Service Hydrographique. Charlottenlund, 28—30 March 1966”. ICES CM 1966 (1a). 8 pp. (mimeo).

Smed, J., 1949. “The Service Hydrographique of the International Council”. ICES CM 1949. Also in ICES CM 1966 (1b). 7 pp. (mimeo).

Smed, J., 1949. “Bulletin Hydrographique 1902—1946”. ICES CM 1949. 8 pp. (mimeo).

Smed, J., 1966. “ICES Service Hydrographique 1949—1966”. ICES CM 1966 (l c). 6 pp. (mimeo).

Smed, J., 1966. “The ICES Service Hydrographique, its development as a regional data center and its relation to the World Data Centres”. ICES CM 1966 (1c). 4 pp. (mimeo).

Appendix List of Publications prepared, wholly or partly, by the Service Hydrographique of the International Council 1902—1967 Data Lists 1903—1905. Le Bureau du Conseil. “Bulletin des résultats acquis pendant les courses périodiques”.

1902—03, 1903—04, 1904—05.

1906—1909. Le Bureau du Conseil. “Bulletin trimestriel des résultats acquis pendant les croisières périodiques et dans les périodes intermédiaires”. 1905—06, 1906—07, 1907—08.

1910—1962. Le Bureau du Conseil. "Bulletin hydrographique ". 1908—09, 1909—10,...1914—15, 1920—1923, 1924, 1925, . . . 1937, 1938—1939, 1940—1946 (avec un appendice pour les années 1936—1939), 1947, 1948,...1956.

1926. Le Bureau du Conseil. “Bulletin hydrographique. Appendice supplémentaire d'observations de surface anglaises pour la période 1915—1923”.

1926. Le Bureau du Conseil. “Bulletin hydrographique. Appendice I et II pour les années 1923 et 1924”.

1927. Le Bureau du Conseil. “Bulletin hydrographique. Appendice d'observations de l’Allemagne pour 1919—1925 et de la Lettonie pour 1925 et 1926”.

1963—1967. Service Hydrographique. “ICES Oceanographic Data Lists”. 1957, No s. 1—9; 1958, Nos. 1—12; 1959, Nos. 1—9; 1960, Nos. 1—10; 1961, Nos. 1—6.

Charts and tables of mean values and anomalies 1906. Knudsen, M. and Smith, K. “The salinity of the North Sea and adjacent waters calculated on the basis of observations from the period August 1902—May 1905”. Rapp. P-v. Reun. Cons. perm. int.

Explor. Mer, 6, Partie A: 26—30 + 15 plates.

1909. Le Bureau du Conseil. “Resume de l'hydrographie des mers explores par le Conseil; avec 23 planches donnant les moyennes de la salinite et de la temperature de la Mer du Nord”. Bull, trimest. Result. Crois. period. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, Annee 1906—1907, Partie supplemental.

78 pp. (German and English versions) + 23 plates.

1919. Le Bureau du Conseil. "Variations de la temperature de l'eau de surface dans certains carres choisis de PAtlantique pendant les annees 1900—1913. “Bull, hydrogr. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer. 37 pp. + 7 plates.

1922. Le Bureau du Conseil. "Variations de la temperature de l'eau de surface de la Mer du Nord pendant les annees 1905—1914". Bull, hydrogr. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer. 37 pp. + 4 plates.

1926—1928. Le Service Hydrographique du Bureau. "Bulletin Hydrographique trimestriel". 1926, (l)— (4); 1927, ( l ) — (4); 1928, (1).

1933. Le Bureau du Conseil (Service Hydrographique). "Atlas de temperature et salinite de l'eau de surface de la Mer du Nord et de la Manche". 32 pp.

1947—1962; 1964—1967. SMED, J. "Monthly anomalies of the sea surface temperature in areas of the northern North Atlantic and in an area on the eastern coast of Scotland 1876—1965". Annls biol., Copenh., 2—17 and 19—22.

1947. Smed, J. "The variation from year to year of the surface temperature in the southern North Sea".

Annls biol., Copenh., 2: 44—9.

1949. Smed, J. "Monthly anomalies of the surface temperature in areas of the northern North Sea".

Annls biol., Copenh., 4: 57—60.

1951; 1964; 1967. Smed, J. "Monthly anomalies of the surface salinity in an area of the southern North Sea during the years 1932—1939 and 1946—1950; 1951—1958; 1959—1963". Annls biol., Copenh., 7: 85—8; 19: 36—7; 22: 25—6.

1952. Smed, J. "Monthly anomalies of the surface temperature in the Celtic Sea during the years 1903—1939 and 1946—1950". Annls biol., Copenh., 8: 58—62.

1952—1960. Service Hydrographique. "Synoptic Hydrographic Charts. July 1952, August 1952 . . . December 1958".

1963. Smed, J. "Monthly anomalies of the sea surface temperature in areas of the North Sea during 1902—1958". Annls biol., Copenh., 18: 34—42.

1963. Smed, J. "Monthly anomalies of the surface temperature in the Celtic Sea during the period 1948 to 1958". Annls biol., Copenh., 18: 57—8.

1964. Smed, J. "Monthly anomalies of the surface salinity in the Celtic Sea during 1903—1958". Annls biol., Copenh., 19: 50—3.

1967. Goedecke, E., Smed, J. and Tomczak, G. "Monatskarten des Salzgehalts der Nordsee, dargestellt fur verschiedene Tiefenhorizonte".

Dt. Hydrogr. Z., Erganzungsheft Reihe B (4°), (9). 13 pp. + 96 charts.

Other publications 1903. Knudsen, M. “On the standard water used in hydrographical research until July 1903”. Publs Circonst. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, (2) 9 pp.

1903. Knudsen, M. "Ober den Gebrauch von Stickstoffbestimmungen in der Hydrographie". Publs Circonst. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, (4/5) 1—9.

1903. Knudsen, M. "Gefrierpunkttabelle fiir Meerwasser". Publs Circonst. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, (4/5) 11—3.

1904. Knudsen, M. "a<—Tabelle. Anhang zu den 1901 herausgegebenen Hydrographischen Tabellen".

Publs Circonst. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, (11) 23 pp.

1905. Knudsen, M. "On the influence of the East Icelandic Polar Stream on the climatic changes of the Faroe Isles, the Shetlands and the North of Scotland". Rapp. P.—v. Reun. Cons. perm. int. Explor.

Mer, 3: Appendix C, 1—8.

1906. Knudsen, M. "On the determination of temperatures by measuring the resistances in telegraph cables". Rapp. P.—v. Reun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, 6: (C) 40—4.

1907. Knudsen, M. "Salzgehaltsbestimmungen des Oberflachenwassers als Hilfsmittel bei Positionsbestimmung an Bord". Publs Circonst. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, (38) 9 pp. + 1 plate.

1907. Knudsen, M. "Some remarks about the currents in the North Sea and adjacent waters". Publs Circonst. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, (39) 7 pp.

1907. Gehrke, J. "Mean velocity of the Atlantic currents running north of Scotland and through the English Channel". Publs Circonst. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, (40) 18 pp.

1909. Gehrke, J. "Ober Farbe und Durchsichtigkeit des Ostseewassers. Mit einer allgemeinen Theorie des Zusammenhanges zwischen Farbe und Durchsichtigkeit in natiirlichen Gewassern". Publs Circonst. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, (45) 20 pp.

1909. Gehrke, J. "Beitrag zur Hydrographie des Finnischen Meerbusens". Finnl. hydrogr.—biol. Unters., 3: 1—39 + 3 plates.

1909. Knudsen, M. "Ein Wasserschopfer zur Benutzung wahrend der Fahrt des Schiffes". Publs Circonst.

Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, (50) 11 pp. + 2 plates.

1910. Gehrke, J. "Beitrage zur Hydrographie des Ostseebassins". Publs Circonst. Cons. perm. int. Explor.

Mer, (52) 191 pp. + 2 plates.

1911. Knudsen, M. "Ober Bestimmung von S', Meersalzgehalt des Brackwassers". Publs Circonst. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, (56) 3—8.

1913. Knudsen, M., Gehrke, J. and Witting, R. Hydrographical section. "Memoire sur les travaux du conseil permanent international pour l'exploration de la mer pendant les annees 1902—1912". Ed. C. F. Drechsel. Rapp. P.—v. Reun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, 16: 56—82.

1922. Gehrke, J. "On the after—effect of ice—winters upon the deep—sea temperatures of the Kattegat". Publs Circonst. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, (75) 58 pp. + 1 plate.

1922. Knudsen, M. "On measurement of the penetration of light into the sea". Publs Circonst. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, (76) 16 pp.

1923. Knudsen, M. "Some new oceanographical instruments". Publs Circonst. Cons. perm. int. Explor.

Mer, (77) 16 pp.

1923. Gehrke, J. "Further investigations on the after—effect of ice—winters upon the deep—sea temperature of the Kattegat". Publs Circonst.

Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, (81) 11 pp.

1925. Knudsen, M. "L'emploi de l'Eau Normale dans l'oceanographie". Publs Circonst. Cons. perm. int.

Explor. Mer, (87) 11 pp.

1928. Pettersson, V. I. "Apparatus for quantitative measurements of plankton in situ". J. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, 3: 351—9.

1929. Knudsen, M. "A frameless reversing waterbottle". J. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, 4: 192—3.

1930. Jacobsen, J. P. "Remarks on the determination of the movement of the water and the intermixing of the watersheets in a vertical direction". Rapp. P.—v. Reun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, 64: 59—68.

1930. Jacobsen, J. P. "The mixing of water masses in the sea". Rapp. P.—v. Reun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, 67: 19—30.

1934. Jacobsen, J. P. "Temperature and salinity at the surface of the North Sea and the English Channel". (Description of the methods used in preparing the Atlas published in 1933 by the Service Hydrographique of the Bureau of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea.) 20 pp.

1938. Jacobsen, J. P., Buch, K., Schulz, B. and Wattenburg, H. "Nomenclature and units for the indication of the content of constituents of sea water". Rapp. P.—v. Reun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, 107: (HI) 3—9.

1943. Jacobsen, J. P. "The Atlantic current through the Faroe—Shetland Channel and its influence on the hydrographical conditions in the northern part of the North Sea, the Norwegian Sea, and the Barents Sea". Rapp. P.—v. Reun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, 112: 5—47.

1943. Smed, J. "Annual and seasonal variations in the salinity of the North Atlantic surface water".

Rapp. P.—v. Reun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, 112: 77—94.

1946. Smed, J. "Report on the hydrographical and biological card—index of the Council". Rapp. P.—v.

Reun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, 116: (II) 17—9.

1947. Smed, J. "The inflow of Atlantic water into the North Sea through the Orkney—Shetland Channel". J. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, 15: 27—38.

1948. Smed, J. "Hydrographic conditions in the Faroe—Shetland Channel in August 1946". Annls biol., Copenh., 3: 10—2.

1948. Smed, J. "Hydrographic conditions at the northern entrance to the North Sea in August 1946".

Annls biol., Copenh., 3: 40—1.

1949. Jacobsen, J. P. (f) "Some characteristic features in the variation of surface temperature in the North Atlantic". J. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, 16: 17—43.

1949. Smed, J. "The increase in the sea temperature in northern waters during recent years". Rapp.

P.—v. Reun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, 125: 21—5.

1954. Smed, J. "On the homogeneity of the water column in the Southern North Sea". Annls biol., Copenh., 10: 75—80. 1962. (Service Hydrographique.) "ICES Oceanographic Punch Cards". 11 pp. (mimeo).

1965. Smed, J. "Variation of the temperature of the surface water in areas of the Northern North Atlantic". Spec. Publs int. Commn NW Atlant. Fish., (6) 821—5.

1966. (Service Hydrographique.) "ICES Oceanographic Punch Cards", 2nd edition. 16 pp. (mimeo).

Charlottenlund Castle Issued by ICES 1976 Jens Smed The history of Charlottenlund dates from the 17th century, At that time the place was called “the small deergarden”, It belonged to the king, who in 1663 gave one of his valets permission to establish a resort there.

In 1671, the buildings were taken over by Ulrik Frederik Gyldenløve, natural son of King Frederik III, Gyldenløve improved and enlarged the gardens, and as a sort of compensation the king (Christian V) conveyed to him "the small deergarden", The wood, which already then had about the same extent as now, was named "Gylden-lund", (i.e, golden grove) after Gyldenløve, In the neighbourhood of the resort, and probably at the same place where now the Castle is situated, Gyldenløve had his own summer-house.

Already in 1681, the king again acquired Gyldenlund. About 1690, he had the summer-house rebuilt. The new house had two stories, each of which contained a hall with many windows through which the view could be enjoyed.

Gyldenlund was now a place of excursion for the royal family, but only intended for trips in the daytime as it was not possible to put up for the night there. The birthdays of the members of the royal family were often celebrated at Gyldenlund.

A few years after his accession in 1699, Frederik IV left the country-house to his son, crown prince Christian (later King Christian VI) who in 1717—1718 had the house rebuilt. In a contemporary description it is called “a small, but neat summer house”. The court often visited the place, especially in the hunting season.

At his accession in 1730 Christian VI presented Gyldenlund to his sister, princess Charlotte Amalie (1706—1782). In the years 1731—1733 she had the old summer house replaced by a somewhat larger and statelier building which faced the Sound. This building constitutes the middle part of the present castle. It had a basement, two stories, and an attic with three windows, and a mansard roof.

Characteristic for the baroque style of the building is the emphasizing of the central part by outside staircase, portal, and pilasters. As a decoration over the entrance portal was placed princess Charlotte Amalie's back-to-back monogram which can still be seen there.

It has been said that the exterior is distinguished neither by clearness nor elegance, but that it emanates a certain plain comfort that suits the place and interprets its popular spirit.

On the ground floor were the hall and the garden-room, and on the first floor was the festival hall with the portraits, still to be seen there, of Christian VI and his queen, Sophie Magdalene.

After this rebuilding the country house was renamed. Christian VI is said to have scratched these lines on a windowpane of the new building: “Guldenlund muss fort, Charlottenlund heisst dieser Ort”. Thus the place was named after princess Charlotte Amalie.

During half a century the princess spent the summers at the small country seat near the Sound, and the court often paid a visit there. During winter it happened that they sledged from town to Charlottenlund.

After the death of princess Charlotte Amalie in 1782, the Castle was taken over by the Crown. During the war in 1807, it was occupied by British troops.

Later the place was frequently used by princess Louise Charlotte (a sister of King Christian VIII) and her consort, landgrave Wilhelm of Hassen.

After their wedding in 1869, crown prince Frederik (later King Frederik VIII) and princess Louise of Sweden moved into the Castle where for the rest of their lives they spent the summers. Thus the Castle became the frame of the childhood and youth of their sons, the later Kings Christian X (of Denmark) and Håkon VII (of Norway).

Originally the building had a length of 27 m only and was thus rather small for per-manent use. In 1880—1881, two wings were therefore added. They are felt as a natural and harmonic extension of the old castle. However, it is to be regretted that, at the same time, the architect also added a dome and a lantern which, nowadays at any rate, are felt to be inconsistent with the unpretentiousness of the building. It is to be deplored that the plans for removing the dome and the lantern have not yet been carried out.

After the death of Frederik VIII in 1912 the queen dowager continued to spend the summer at the Castle. She died in 1926. The Castle remained uninhabited from then until 1936, when the Danish Institute for Marine Research and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea moved in.

In connection with the extension of the Castle in 1880—1881, the buildings near Strandvejen were erected to house soma of the servants. Also stables and a coach house ware built there.

In recent years the buildings have housed the head gardener, the porter and some staff members of the Institute for Marine Research. Because of the great increase in staff of the two institutions, it became necessary in the 1960s and 1970s to move some sections of the institutions into these buildings, such as the Laboratory for the Study of Pollution in Freshwater, the Greenland Fishery Investigations, and the Service Hydrographique of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. During a period in the 1950s and 1960s the stables housed an interesting exposition, “Fiskan og Havat” (The Fish and the Sea). Plates and graphs illustrated fishery and fisheries research. A number of oceanographic instruments

were on show. Plankton organisms could be studied in microscopes. Models of rare fish were exhibited. The exposition was well attended end much appreciated by the public. It is felt that it was a very good supplement to the Danmarks Akvarium situated on the opposite side of the small square. It is much to be regretted that “Fisken og Havat” was dissolved. The building with the old stalls - was well suited for this purpose. Now the stables and the coach house are under rebuilding for use as a marine pollution laboratory.

Danmarks Akvarium was inaugurated in 1939 as an independent institution and has remained so throughout the years. The public has shown great interest in it, and the attendance has been very good. In 1975 an extension was inaugurated. Combined with the Akvarium is a physiological laboratory, a division of the Institute of Marine Research. A neighbouring building houses the Danish Bilharziosa Laboratory.

Near these buildings, on the other side of Strandvejen, is what was formerly called “The Kitchen Garden of the Queen Dowager”. It is now Charlottenlunds “fly-paper”, a much frequented bathing place.

The garden around the Castle was originally in baroque style, but has long ago been changed into the English style. Especially noticeable are the three larch-trees immedi-ately to the west of the Castle, They undoubtedly date back to the time of princess Charlotte Amalie.

On the great lawn of the garden, near the big larch trees, a monument was unveiled in 1938, to the memory of King Frederik VIII and Queen Louise.

The garden is surrounded by Charlottenlund Wood, which has for centuries been a very popular resort for the inhabitants of Copenhagen. An anonymous writer declared in 1838: it seems as if one has here deliberately let the art come short of the graces of Nature and has exclusively been in search of a home for the pleasures of a more elevated kind, While Ceres and the Naiad, as it were, vie in glorifying this graceful place, its friendly charms are from all sides smiling fondly on us, It is small wonder that the place already at an early date got the name Gyldenlund and was chosen as one of the chief favourites of the Copenhageners, as all will agree that hardly any other place near the capital presents more variety for the eye and for the more gentle feelings.

A very interesting part of the wood is the arboretum, or Forstbotanisk Have, established in 1838. Although it is situated only a few steps from Charlottenlund railway station probably very few of those attending meetings in the Castle ever visited this place; so it may be appropriate to draw attention to it.

Here, on an area of eight acres, more than 700 different species and varieties of trees and shrubs may be seen. This exotic wood with its rich ground flora of wild plants has also attracted birds of many species, which lends an additional charm to the place.

The history of standard seawater Oceanologia Acta Volume 2 Number 3 pp. 355—364 1979 F. Culkin ¹ J. Smed ² ¹ Institute of Oceanographic Sciences, Wormley, Godalming, Surrey, GUS 5UB, England. ² Conseil International pour l'Exploration de Ia Mer, Charlottenlund Slot, DK-2920, Charlottenlund, Denmark.

Received 17/11/1978, in revised form 18/12/1978, accepted 2/1/1979.

Abstract A standard seawater, to be used in all salinity determinations, was first recommended to oceanographers by Martin Knudsen in 1899. The history of how the standard was developed over the past 70 years or so, in such a way that continuity was maintained in all chlorinity and salinity determinations, is described in this paper. Discussion of the Primary Standard and of the history of the Standard Seawater Service are also included.

Oceanol. Acta, 1979, 2, 3, 355-364.

Résumé L'histoire de l'eau normale.

L'utilisation d'une eau normale pour toutes les mesures de salinité fut recommandée aux océanographes pour Ia première fois par Martin Knudsen en 1899. Le présent article décrit Ia façon dont cette eau normale fut mise au point, au cours de ces 70 dernières années, de façon à ce que soit maintenue une continuité dans toutes les mesures de chlorinité et de salinité. L‘Eau Normale Primaire ainsi quel’histoire du Service de I’Eau Normale sont également évoquées.

Oceanol. Acta, 1979, 2, 3, 355 - 364.

Introduction Unquestionably one of the most important and, indeed, one of the most frequently studied parameters of seawater is the salinity or salt content. Data centres today contain the results of millions of salinity determinations. The fact that most of these data, obtained by different workers over a long period of time, can be compared with a fair degree of confidence is due largely to the dedication and efforts of two Danish hydrographers, Martin Knudsen and Frede Hermann, who between them supplied the oceanographic community with a salinity standard for more than seventy years. The idea of a standard seawater, to be used in all salinity determinations, was conceived at the end of the 19th century by Knudsen who organized and directed what later became known as the Standard Seawater Service. Following Knudsen's death in 1949 Helge Thomsen took over the administrative responsibilities of the Service until 1959, when he was succeeded as Director of the Service by Knud-

sen's former assistant, Hermann. The scientific responsibility for the reparation of the standard water, however, rested with Hermann from 1947 until 1974, a period in which heavy demands were made on him because of the considerable expansion which took place in oceanography during this period.

Hermann met all these demands and maintained supplies of a very high quality standard, with the minimum of help, and his untimely death in 1977 came as a severe shock to his many friends.

Over the years standard seawater has been used by physicists, chemists, biologists and engineers, all of whom came to expect that their demands would be met. Perhaps few of them realized that they were being served, not by a commercial organization, but in the main by one man who also had research interests. It is for their enlightenment and to pay tribute to the work of Knudsen and Hermann that this historical account has been written.

The basis of the salinity determination The determination of salinity as carried out for the past eighty years or so is based on two facts. Firstly, the proportions of the major constituents of seawater are almost constant throughout the major oceans, and secondly, the major constituent, chloride, is the one which can be determined most accurately and precisely (by titration or precipitation with silver nitrate). The methods which are used for the determination of chloride do not differentiate between chloride and the small amount of bromide which is also present in seawater, so in practice the two halides are determined together and calculated as chloride to give what is called chlorinity. Perhaps the first relevant discovery in the story was the fact that when silver nitrate solution is added to a solution of a chloride, such as seawater, a white precipitate of silver chloride is formed. This reaction was used by Robert Boyle in the 17th century to distinguish between fresh or brackish waters, which contain little or no chloride, and seawater. By the beginning of the 19th century several other major constituents of seawater had been discovered. Five of these elements were determined in seawater samples from various sources by Marcet (1819) who also determined total dissolved salts by evaporating a sample to dryness and weighing the residue. As a result of this work, Marcet concluded that â&#x20AC;&#x153;all specimens of seawater contain the same ingredients all over the world, these bearing nearly the same proportions to each other so that they differ only as to the total amounts of their saline contentsâ&#x20AC;?. This was the first statement that the composition of seawater is constant, or nearly so, and it was confirmed by a number of other workers between 1820 and 1865.

Studies of ocean circulation which were carried out later in the 19th century involved investigating the distribution of salinity and density. Consequently there was a need for a better method of determining total dissolved salts than the tedious and unreliable one of evaporating a sample to dryness and weighing the residue. This is where the concept of constant composition of seawater became useful because it meant that the total dissolved salts could be estimated from the concentration of any one constituent once the relationship between the two had been established. The constituent chosen to

estimate total dissolved salts by this means was chloride (plus bromide), simply because it was the easiest to determine accurately, and it was first used in hydrographic work by the Danish chemist Forchhammer (1865). Instead of using the evaporation method, he obtained the total dissolved salts by adding together the weights of a number of individual constituents which he determined separately. Forchhammer's work confirmed Marcet's findings and he established that the total dissolved salts could be obtained by multiplying the chloride content by the factor 1.812, a relationship which he used in tracing water masses, particularly the Gulf Stream. Incidentally, Forchhammer also introduced the term â&#x20AC;&#x153;salinityâ&#x20AC;? for total dissolved salts.

Mention should also be made here of another major classical study carried out in the 19th century, viz. that by Dittmar (1884) who analysed seawater samples collected during the Challenger Expedition (1873-1876). Dittmar is the one who is usually credited with firmly establishing the constancy of composition of seawater, although it should be pointed out that he also established that there were some small deviations from constancy, particularly in the proportions of calcium. It is also interesting to note that Dittmar's coefficient of 1.805 8 for converting chloride to salinity is remarkably close to the value of 1.806 55 which is used today.

By the end of the 19th century a number of countries, mainly European, were collecting salinity data and carrying out studies in physical oceanography. The use of the chloride titration and a coefficient for converting chloride content into salinity were widely accepted and hydrographic tables were available.

However, there was some lack of uniformity, both in the method of analysis and in the value of the coefficient (1.806-1.829) used. Consequently, results obtained by different workers were not always comparable.

The chlorinity determination Basically, only two methods have been used to any great extent for the routine determination of chlorinity of seawater. In the Mohr method (Mohr, 1856) the seawater is titrated with a silver nitrate solution of known strength to the point where all the chloride and bromide have been precipitated, as detected by indicators which change colour when a slight excess of silver has been added. The Volhard method, which was introduced later (Volhard, 1874), involves adding an excess of silver nitrate solution to the seawater sample, filtering off the precipitated silver halides, and determining the excess of silver in the filtrate by titration with thiocyanate solution, using ferric alum as indicator.

An important point concerning the standardization of the silver nitrate solution, which is necessary in both methods, should be emphasized here. Silver nitrate is not a good primary standard, because it cannot be dried without decomposition, which means that it is not possible to prepare a silver nitrate solution of known strength simply by dissolving a weighed quantity of crystals in a given volume of water. The usual practice has always been to prepare a solution of approximately the desired concentration and then standardize this against a reliable standard of known composition, such as potassium

chloride. In these days of accurately calibrated analytical balances, highly purified chemicals and readily available chloride-free water for preparing solutions this is probably not too difficult, but it should be borne in mind when considering the problems involved in the determination of chlorinity in the 19th century. Another important point about this procedure, which will be mentioned again later, is that it involves the use of atomic weights (relative atomic masses), the accepted values of which are subject to revision periodically.

The need for a standard water Towards the end of the 19th century there was a considerable growth in hydrographic investigations and this led the participating European countries to convene a preparatory conference in Stockholm in 1899 to establish the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). By this time Knudsen had improved the Mohr method of chlorinity determination by developing special burettes and pipettes. He had also prepared a number of sealed tubes of seawater, the chlorinity of which was determined accurately by the Volhard method, and these had been used successfully to standardize the silver nitrate solutions used in Danish hydrographic work. In effect, this was referring all chlorinity determinations to one standardization, thus giving greater internal consistency. He therefore submitted to the Stockholm Conference a “Proposal about an international institution for procuring standard water” (Conférence Internationale, 1899 a).

In his proposal, Knudsen stressed the importance of the measurement of salinity of seawater in physical, climatological and biological investigations and maintained that the measurement could be carried out by titration with an accuracy of 0.04% but that this was not generally achieved by the methods then in use. Usually a few titrations were carried out by weighing and all volumetric titrations were then referred to these. Knudsen pointed out that titration by weighing was at that time a fairly difficult operation which it was almost impossible to carry out often enough to obtain the desired accuracy and he thought that the errors in salinity determinations were usually as high as 0.10 to 0.15‰. From his own investigations on the “Ingolf” Expeditions of 1895 and 1896, however, Knudsen knew that some Atlantic water types differed by only 0.10 to 0.25‰ in salinity so there was a need for greater accuracy in salinity determination than that usually obtained.

Obviously, better homogeneity could be obtained in salinity determinations if all water samples were examined in one laboratory but Knudsen realized that this would not be very practical. Instead he proposed that all interested nations should contribute to the establishment of an institution for procuring a standard water. This institution would prepare (and standardize in terms of its chlorinity) the standard water and distribute samples to interested laboratories, together with a statement of the physical and chemical qualities (properties) of the standard. These laboratories would then determine the halogen content (chlorinity) of their own samples simply by comparison with

the standard water by titration, thus eliminating a number of sources of error.

The success of such a scheme depended heavily upon the physical and chemical properties of the standard water being determined with great accuracy, implying that the work should be carried out by experienced physicists and chemists with considerable instrumental resources at their disposal. Knudsen suggested that the new institution should have a staff consisting of a manager, a physicist, a chemist and two assistants. A detailed consideration of the programme of work which Knudsen deemed necessary shows that this was by no means an unduly large staff. To start with it would be necessary to obtain a quantity of open Atlantic seawater and investigate its physical and chemical properties, by which Knudsen meant: “A detailed determination of the total salinity and the quantity of the single salts. Determination of carbonic acid, sulphuric acid, alkalinity, specific gravity, etc., the coefficient of refraction and absorption for light with different wavelengths. Determination of the specific electric resistance, the surface tension and the viscosity. Determinations of freezing point, boiling point, etc.”.

Some of the water would then be sealed in glass tubes and examined at intervals to find out if any alteration had taken place, for instance by interaction between the glass and the water. The results of these investigations would be used to decide if seawater was a suitable standard. Similar investigations would be carried out on an artificially produced seawater to find out if this offered any advantages. After these investigations, which Knudsen expected to take about two years, it would be possible to decide not only what should be the future standard for use in the determination of the halogen content of seawater but also what should be chosen as standard in determining the other physical and chemical qualities of seawater, if the investigations had shown that use of a reference standard should be preferred to an absolute determination.

In his proposal, Knudsen carefully emphasized that the institution was not to deal with general hydrography, such as the study of hydrographical variations. He thought, however, that the institution should use the knowledge and practice which it would obtain by investigation of the standard water to carefully investigate water from different places “for the determination of the qualities and mark of different waters, that the general hydrography can be able to use the results of the Institution”.

Knudsen's proposal has been reported here in some detail, to some extent in his own words, because so much of what he achieved in later years is suggested in it. Persuasive though his arguments were, Knudsen's proposal was not accepted in its entirety by the Conference. Knudsen himself later expressed his opinion that the members of the Conference had not seen clearly the advantage of using a standard water for all titrations (Knudsen, 1903) and one may surmise also that the Conference was reluctant to accept the considerable expense which would have been involved. Whatever the reasons,

the proposal for the establishment of an institution devoted to the preparation and study of a standard water was not accepted, but some of Knudsen's other ideas were, though in modified forms. For instance, it was resolved to charge Knudsen with the task of experimentally revising certain hydrographic tables (Conférence Internationale, 1899d). It was proposed that the relationship between the quantity of halogen contained in the (sea) water and the density of the water should be carefully investigated by an experimental examination of the tables prepared by Knudsen (Knudsen, 1899). A revision of the tables compiled by Makaroff, Krümmel et al., as well as a definitive determination of the relationship between density and salinity was also urgently needed. These investigations were to be carried out at the Technical University in Copenhagen under the direction of a committee consisting of Murray, Knudsen, Pettersson, Nansen, Krümmel, Dickson and Makaroff. The means for carrying out the work were to be solicited from learned societies in the countries concerned. This resolution was the background to the determination of constants and the compilation of the Hydrographical Tables, a formidable task undertaken by Knudsen and his collaborators during the following two years.

Despite his doubts, Knudsen's arguments for a standard water evidently found favour with the members of the Conference, as is shown by the following quotation from the hydrographical programme which they agreed upon (Conférence Internationale, 1899b).

“The chemical analysis shall be controlled by physical methods and physical determinations by chemical analysis in the following manner. From every collection of samples examined at least three shall be selected and sent to the central bureau. Standard samples shall be sent in return”.

A footnote explains this further: “By Standard water shall be understood samples of filtered seawater, the physical and chemical properties of which are known with all possible accuracy by analysis, and statements of which are sent to the different laboratories, together with samples. In respect to halogen the ordinary water samples have to be compared with the standard water by analytical methods”.

Thus, the need for a standard water for use in all chlorinity titrations was established.

The international standard seawater The central bureau from which standard samples would be sent, which is mentioned in the hydrographical programme quoted in the previous section, refers to a proposal by Fridtjof Nansen, one of the Norwegian delegates to the Stockholm Conference, that a Central Laboratory should be established in connection with the Central Bureau of the organization (ICES). This Central Laboratory would carry out a number of important investigations of general interest to the hydrographic and biological research and would also have the responsibility for supplying standard water. Nansen's proposal was incorpo-

rated in a recommendation from the Conference (Conférence Internationale, 1899c).

Knudsen appears to have accepted the decisions of the Stockholm Conference gracefully and far from being discouraged he set about preparing samples of standard water to avoid some of the delay which would be involved in setting up the Central Laboratory. In describing the standard water used in hydrographical work up to July 1903. Knudsen gave the following reasons for proceeding (Knudsen, 1903).

“1) Though, in my opinion, the members of the Stockholm conference did not clearly see the advantage of using a standard water for all titrations, I did not hear a single remark against it, and I myself felt convinced that standard water sooner or later would be a great advantage, perhaps a necessity for hydrographical work.

“2) It did not seem probable to me that the whole international cooperation would begin within a short time (experience has shown that it took three years) and in the meantime it would be useful to have at hand reliable standard water.

“3) The researches done for the determination of the constants of different kinds of seawater would offer a convenient occasion for determining the constants of standard water.

“4) In case I should succeed in carrying through the work of the constantsdetermination and have compiled some Hydrographical Tables that could be generally adopted, I thought it of importance that the standard water used should be investigated with the same means and methods as used in the researches upon which the tables would be founded”.

It should be stressed that preparation of standard water was nothing new to Knudsen. Prior to the Stockholm Conference he had made five different batches of such standards for use in Danish hydrographic work. The standard water prepared in 1900 in connection with the constant determinations was therefore designated No. VI. A description of the preparation of No. VI (and applicable also to later batches) was given by Forch et al. (1902) and again in more detail by Knudsen (1903). Suffice to say here that the chlorinity of this batch was determined by the Danish chemist Sørensen who prepared a sample of potassium chloride, weighed it, corrected the weight for buoyancy in air and used this for the titrimetric standardization of a solution of silver nitrate. This solution was then used for the titration of the chlorinity of the samples of seawater to be used as standard water. The chlorinity of standard water No. VI, and of all following standards which were referred to it, is thus based upon the chlorine in Sorensen's sample of potassium chloride and therefore depends upon the values of atomic weights which he used.

About 80 tubes of standard water No. VI were prepared in April 1900 and random samples were investigated with regard to chlorinity (by Volhard titration and by a gravimetric method) and specific gravity. Periodic checks of the specific gravity revealed an increase of 0.015 in σ₀ over two years which was

attributed to dissolution of the glass. This did not affect the chlorinity significantly, as the glass did not contain any chlorine. It did mean, however, that the water in the tubes was of little value as a density standard, though this is less true of the modern standard water which is stored in a more resistant glass.

This first standard water for international use was distributed to Russia, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Germany and it was used for all Danish titrations between May 1900 and August 1902, by which time the stock was nearly exhausted. ICES had just been established and international cooperation was beginning to gain momentum but the Central Laboratory had not yet been opened. Knudsen was therefore asked to prepare a new supply of standard water. As before, water taken from the Atlantic, having a chlorinity of 19.50‰ was used. This water was diluted with an appropriate quantity of distilled water, to give a chlorinity nearer to that of standard No. VI, as had been laid down previously (Knudsen 1903), before it was sealed in tubes. Of the 201 tubes prepared in this batch, which was designated VI a, 168 were distributed free of charge to the member countries of ICES, a few were used for determination of chlorinity, using standard VI as reference, and density, and the remainder were dispatched to the Central Laboratory which opened in Christiania (now Oslo) in 1902.

In the meantime a second preparatory conference had been held in Christiania in 1902 at which Knudsen presented a provisional report on the determination of the constants of seawater and the compilation of the Hydrographical Tables. A resolution from the Conference read as follows.

“The Conference recognizes the extreme value of Dr. Martin Knudsen's Hydrographic Tables and expresses its cordial thanks to him for his admirable work” (Conférence Internationale, 1901a).

In the hydrographic programme the use of Knudsen's Tables was directly prescribed (Conférence Internationale, 1901b), “Preliminary determinations of salinity may be made on board ship with appropriate instruments; but the exact determinations of the salinity and density of water samples shall take place in a scientific laboratory on shore. The ratios between salinity, density and chlorine given in Dr. Martin Knudsen's Hydrographic Tables are to be adopted; and the salinity is to be calculated by the use of these Tables from the determinations of chlorine or from the specific gravity”.

It was further prescribed that, “The same standard seawater shall be employed in all cases for standardizing the solutions used for chlorine determinations”.

In the autumn of 1902 the Central Laboratory was opened, with V. W. Ekman and C. J. J. Fox as assistants. In the first report from the laboratory the preparation in July 1903 of about 100 tubes of standard water (VI b), standardized by comparison with Knudsen's standard water VI a, was mentioned. This was obviously a provisional venture and the report stressed that steps had been

taken for the preparation of a primary standard water to be compared directly with Knudsen's water VI. It was intended that this primary standard should be used to standardize subsequent batches of standard water, presumably because stocks of water VI were running low.

Before the new primary standard could be prepared and analysed it became necessary to prepare two more batches (VI c and VI d, about 250 tubes of each) for general distribution. In December 1903, however, about 120 tubes of seawater were reserved as the primary standard. Probably because light conditions during the winter months were not suitable for accurate chlorinity determinations, the analyses were delayed, but finally in October 1905 the chlorinity of the new Primary Standard (designated P) was established as 19.448 2‰ by direct comparison with Knudsen water VI. In the following two years, four other batches of standard water (P1 - P4) were prepared and analysed at the Central Laboratory.

The standard seawater service The responsibilities of the Central Laboratory were numerous (Went, 1972) but unfortunately it had a relatively short life. In 1908, Nansen decided that he no longer wished to continue as director and it was decided to close down the Laboratory, The Council (ICES) agreed that, whereas the further elaboration of special problems in future must be entrusted to the specialists of the various countries, there remained “practical charges, in which all the hydrographers are concerned. e.g., the preparation of normal (standard) water. It seems natural to hand over again to Docent M. Knudsen this task and to decide that, to defray part of the expenses, those who want the normal water, will in future contribute to its cost”. Knudsen agreed to direct, on behalf of the Council, the preparation and distribution of the standard seawater and the remaining stocks (83 tubes of P and 49 tubes of P4) were transferred from the Central Laboratory to Copenhagen in September 1908.

Knudsen's reports to ICES in the following few years revealed that standard seawater was becoming widely adopted for the determination of salinity.

Four more batches (P5 - P8) of standard water were prepared in Copenhagen in the years leading up to the outbreak of war in 1914, at which point Knudsen assumed responsibility for the Standard Seawater Service in a personal capacity in order to release the Council of financial responsibility. Under this arrangement a further seven batches (P9 – P15) were prepared in the period 1920 - 1937.

For each standard seawater in the series P5 - P15 the link with the original Knudsen VI was maintained. Usually six tubes of a new batch were used, three of them being compared with Primary Standard P and three with a previously produced batch, usually the latest. The comparison was carried out by the Volhard method, as modified by Sørenson (Forch et al., 1902), and the agreement between these comparisons was such that the results were considered accurate to the third decimal place. All the analyses on batches P5 P15 were carried out by J. P. Jacobsen, one of Knudsen's collaborators in the work on the seawater constants and the Hydrographic Tables and, incidentally, Hydrographer to ICES from 1926-1946.

During the Second World War, the demand for standard seawater was fairly limited but nevertheless it became necessary to produce a new batch (P16) in 1943. The preparations for this were made by Frede Hermann, with some guidance from J. P. Jacobsen, and Hermann also made the chlorinity analyses.

Previously, as an undergraduate, Hermann had assisted in the work connected with the 1937 Primary Standard, and from 1941, when he joined the Danish Hydrographical Laboratory as Knudsen's assistant, until the end of 1974 he was in charge of the preparation of the standard seawater.

In 1947, at the age of 76, having on his own responsibility prepared and supplied standard seawater since 1914, Martin Knudsen felt that this responsibility should be taken over by some competent scientific body interested in the matter, in order to secure continuity in the work. He therefore proposed to the Association International d'OcĂŠanographie Physique (AIOP) that this organization should take over the responsibility for the preparation of standard seawater and support the preparation financially so that it could be sold at a price allowing the users to obtain it more freely. The proposal was adopted at the Oslo meeting of AIOP in August 1948. Under this new arrangement another batch (P17) of standard water was prepared in late 1948. In February 1949, Knudsen issued a circular announcing the new arrangements and the availability of P17.

A few months later, Martin Knudsen passed away and an era in the history of the Standard Seawater service ended. Because of his foresight, however, the Service was able to continue. At the request of AIOP, Helge Thomsen took over the administrative responsibilities and Hermann continued to prepare the standard and carry out the analyses. This arrangement continued, with the annual demand for the standard increasing gradually, until 1959 when Thomsen informed the Secretary of AIOP that he wished to retire as Director of the Standard Seawater Service. Thomsen's proposal of Hermann as his successor was welcomed by AIOP in view of Hermann's expertise and long association with the Service and Hermann took over full responsibility in January 1960.

From 1960 onwards, there was considerable expansion in oceanography throughout the world, with a corresponding increase in the demand for standard seawater (Fig. 1), rising to more than 30 000 in some years. The changes which were forced upon Hermann in this period included the use of a 4 000 l tank (a far cry from the 30 l or so which Knudsen found ade-

quate at first), and various improvements in the circulation and filtration systems, all of which enabled him to produce batches of 9 000 ampoules. Collection of seawater, which in some years amounted to 2 000 gallons, had to be arranged well in advance and for this Hermann had an amicable arrangement with a Danish shipping line. Washing and drying of the ampoules and labelling, packing and dispatch of the filled ampoules were dealt with by a part time helper. Preparation of the seawater (mixing, filtering, diluting, etc.) which took several weeks for each batch, was dealt with by Hermann and his laboratory assistant. The major organizational problem was usually the filling session when the water was transferred from the large tank to the ampoules in which it was sold. Once the water had been diluted to the desired salinity (35‰) it was necessary to transfer as much of it as possible to the ampoules in one operation. For this Hermann hired a team of twenty-four people, consisting of family, friends and colleagues, to work at weekends. These filling sessions were an impressive sight to the newcomer, a hive of activity with everyone working non-stop to keep production flowing. Every stage of the operation, filling, sealing, packing, was watched keenly by Hermann to ensure that standards (of work) were maintained. Nor did Hermann's responsibilities end when the water was in the ampoules because he then had to determine the chlorinity of each batch by a very precise analytical method (Hermann, Culkin, 1978). As the Service had to cover running costs, he was also expected to balance the books, a task in which he was helped for many years by his secretary, Miss Lemvig.

From the start the preparation of the standard has remained the same in principle though there have been some changes in detail. The water has usually been collected at the surface in the North Atlantic and transported in glass carboys or, more recently, polythene containers to the Standard Seawater Service premises. It is then pumped through filters into the storage tank and circulated through the filters for two to three weeks to achieve thorough mixing. During this period the seawater is gradually diluted with distilled water to give a final salinity near to 35‰, and the temperature is raised to ca. 26˚C, so that when it is finally transferred to glass ampoules (at 20 - 24˚C) the seawater is slightly undersaturated with dissolved air. In earlier years filter papers were used to remove particulate matter but more recently membrane filters of pore size ca. 0.3 µm have been used in an attempt to eliminate bacteria. For sealing the seawater in the glass ampoules the method used today is similar to the one described by Knudsen in 1903, though the scale is now much bigger of course (Fig. 2). The water is pumped from the storage tank to a manifold or horizontal glass tube on the filling table. Each outlet from the manifold is fitted with a small length of rubber tubing into which is inserted one (open) end of a clean dry ampoule. The ampoule is almost filled with seawater and then the rubber tubing is closed by means of a clamp (c in Fig. 2 a) while the upper tip of the ampoule is sealed by drawing off in an air/acetylene flame. After cooling, the ampoule is inverted and the second tip is sealed. By operating two filling benches, each handling fortyeight ampoules at a time, it is possible to produce about 7 000 ampoules of standard seawater in a day.

Although the Service was always operated from Denmark until 1975 it was accommodated in a number of locations When the Service was first transferred from Christiania to Copenhagen in 1908, the standard was probably prepared in the Hydrographic Laboratory of the Danish Commission for Marine Investigations (then co-located with ICES at Jens Kofoeds Gade 2) according to the address on the labels of batches P5 - P8 in 1914, when Knudsen took over the responsibility in a personal capacity, the Service moved to the Laboratoire Hydrographique which had premises in the Technical University (Polyteknisk Laereanstalt) where Knudsen as a professor in the University of Copenhagen had his laboratories. On Knudsen's retirement from the University in 1941, the Service was transferred to Charlottenlund Castle near Copenhagen which, from 1936, was the seat of the Danish Institute for Marine Research (Danmarks Fiskeri og Havundersøgelser) as well as the ICES headquarters. Batch P16, under the name of Professor Knudsen and batches P17 onwards, under the name of “Association d'Océanographie Physique, Dêpot d'Eau Norrnale”, were prepared at this address. When space could no longer be made available in the Castle, the Service finally moved to rented accommodation at Mariendalsvej in Copenhagen where it remained until it was transferred to England in 1974.

Thus, from a laboratory scale beginning, the Standard Seawater Service expanded into a fairly large operation. It developed to the stage where it was not a full-time occupation for one man but it was sufficiently time consuming to interfere seriously with other activities, such as research. For many years, Hermann successfully combined the two but he had considerable responsibility as head of the Danish Hydrographical Laboratory and this fact, together with some personal problems, led to his decision in 1973, to retire from the Service. He therefore proposed to IAPSO (formerly AIOP) that the responsibility for operating the Service should be passed to F. Culkin, who had collaborated with him in the chlorinity calibrations for several years. With financial help from IAPSO the equipment and stocks were transferred from Charlottenlund to Wormley at the end of 1974 and production was recommenced in 1975. For the next two and a half years, the Service was operated along the same lines as in Denmark, i.e., as a separate non-profit making organization, responsible to IAPSO The disadvantages of this system, relying as it did on a great deal of part-time help, led to the decision in 1977 to transfer the responsibility for general administration of the Service to the appropriate sections of the Institute of Oceanographic Sciences and to leave only the preparation and analyses of the standard to the scientific staff.

The primary standard Although the use of a standard water of known chlorinity obviated the need for individual laboratories to prepare their own potassium chloride solutions, all chlorinities to the present day can be traced back to potassium chloride and the 1900 atomic weights.

Among the standard waters which Knudsen prepared for his own work was the batch designated standard water VI. The chlorinity of this water was de-

termined by Sørensen, both by a gravimetric method and by titration with silver nitrate solution. At that time the accepted definition of chlorinity was: “By chlorinity is understood the mass of chlorine equivalent to the total mass of halogen contained in the mass of 1 kg of seawater”.

In determining chlorinity, Sørensen used pure potassium chloride to standardize his silver nitrate solutions and the chlorinity of 19.380‰, which he obtained for standard water VI, was based on the values of atomic weights adopted .in 1900. The chlorinities of all subsequent Normal or Standard seawaters prepared between 1902 and 1937 were then determined, directly or indirectly, by comparison with standard water VI. The sequence of comparisons is fully described by Jacobsen and Knudsen (1940) who claimed that Sørensen's method would not introduce an error greater than 0.001‰, in such a comparison. Nevertheless, when a new Primary Standard was prepared in 1937 some fundamental changes were proposed.

In 1936, when stocks of the 1900 Primary Standard were running low Knudsen submitted a “Report on Standard Water” to ICES (ICES, 1936) explaining the situation. He stressed that it was necessary for future determinations of chlorinity to be secured in a similar way as before and consequently that the preparation and distribution of standard water be continued. It was therefore necessary to produce a new Primary Standard. As the subject was also of interest to countries outside ICES (the standard was, by then, being distributed to thirty seven countries), Knudsen expressed his intention to propose to the Association International d'Océanographie Physique (AIOP) that the organization be charged with the task of directing the preparation of the new Primary Standard and the physical and chemical investigations involved, and that AIOP should defray the expenses of assistance, etc., in connection with the work and publish a report on it. Knudsen further put forward the idea that, when the work on the Primary Standard was finished, the preparation of the ordinary standard should go on as hitherto under his direction, but that when

he no longer wished to keep the responsibility the Primary Standard should be at the disposal of the Council, which could then charge the Danish Hydrographic Laboratory, or some other competent institution or person in Copenhagen, with the preparation and distribution of the ordinary standard seawater.

This proposal by Knudsen was approved by the ICES Statutory Meeting in 1936 and also by the AIOP Executive Committee (AIOP, 1937) who adopted it as follows: “A scheme was considered for the preparation of a new primary standard seawater, the details of which had been circulated to members of the Executive Committee in June 1936. It was agreed to make a grant of £350 to Pr. Knudsen towards the cost of assistance and apparatus. The Executive Committee authorized Pr. Knudsen to prepare and distribute ordinary samples of standard seawater based on this primary standard, and reserved, the right to authorize all modifications of this arrangement.”

The new Primary Standard was prepared in 1937, and designated Urnormal or Primary Standard 1937. The chlorinity was determined by Inger Knudsen by direct comparison with Primary Standard P and some of the earlier standard sea waters, taking the chlorinities of these as known. In describing the preparation of the new Primary Standard, Jacobsen and Knudsen (1940), pointed out that a tube of seawater was probably not the best standard for maintaining continuity over a long period of time. Another unsatisfactory point was the fact that the definition of chlorinity made it dependent on the ratios of certain atomic weights which meant that, if the definition were strictly adhered to, there would be breaks in the chlorinity determinations every time the accepted values of atomic weights changed. Jacobsen and Knudsen (1940) argued, therefore, that a far better standard would be pure silver (Atomgewichtssilber) and they proposed a new definition of chlorinity, based on the following measurements and reasoning.

1) Let Ag denote the number giving the mass (in grams) of Atomgewichtssilber just necessary to precipitate the halogens in 1 kg of seawater sample, of which the chlorinity expressed in ‰ is Cl. It is then natural, by definition, to put Cl. proportional to Ag, because Ag is the quantity which can be determined with greater relative accuracy than any other chemical quantity which could be considered in this connection.

Thus CL = k. Ag grams Atomgewichtssilber- (1) where k has the same value for all seawater samples and consequently the same as it has for Urnormal 1937.

2) A chlorinity of 19.381 0‰, as determined by Inger Knudsen by comparison with previous standards, was adopted for Urnormal 1937, thus ensuring continuity between past (as far back at 1902) and future chlorinity determinations.

3) Investigations carried out by Pr. Otto Hönigschmid in München established that 58.994 28 g Atomgewichtssilber were necessary and sufficient to precipitate the halogens in 1 kg of Urnormal 1937.

4) Substituting these values in equation (1): 19.381 0‰ = k x 58.994 28 g Atomgewichtssilber Or Cl = 0.328 523 4 Ag‰.

The new definition thus became: “The number giving the chlorinity in per mille of a seawater sample is by definition identical with the number giving the mass with unit gram of Atomgewichtssilber just necessary to precipitate the halogens in 0.328 523 4 kg of the seawater sample”.

This definition has the advantage of being independent of accepted values of atomic weights and the use of pure silver as the ultimate standard provides a continuous link between all chlorinity determinations. It is obvious, however, that it would not be practicable to calibrate every batch of standard seawater against pure silver. In practice every few years, the Standard Seawater Service prepares a small number of ampoules of seawater and determines the chlorinity against pure silver (some of which was prepared by Hönigschmid for the 1937 determinations). These ampoules of seawater are regarded as the practical Primary Standard against which the chlorinity of ordinary standard seawater is determined.

The reliability of standard seawater For a solution such as seawater, calibrated in terms of one of its chemical constituents or physical properties, to be satisfactory as a standard, two major requirements must be met.

1) The calibration must be carried out by a method which is at least as accurate as the method for which the standard is intended.

2) The calibration should not change significantly during a reasonable period of storage.

In assessing the reliability of standard seawater as a salinity standard it must be borne in mind that the methods of salinity determination have changed drastically in recent years. Standard seawater was originally intended as a chlorinity standard and as such it meets the above-mentioned requirements very satisfactorily. For many years, the chlorinity calibration was carried out by the Volhard method which was considerably more accurate and precise than the volumetric methods in routine use. In 1969, a combined gravimetric/potentiometric method (Hermann, Culkin, 1978), which was much simpler operationally than the Volhard, was adopted and tested independently at both Charlottenlund and Wormley on all batches of standard produced between 1969 and 1974. Agreement between the two laboratories was usually better than 1 x 10 ⁻⁴ in the chlorinity value, with a standard deviation of ± 23 x 10 ⁻⁴, , which is more than adequate. Storage of the standard in glass ampoules also presents no problems from the point of view of chlorinity, as

glass contains no halogens and the small amount of silica which does dissolve, even from the most resistant glass, has a negligible effect on the chlorinity.

In the past 15—20 years, the chlorinity titration has been almost completely replaced, as a means of determining salinity, by the measurement of electrical conductivity. The present practice is to fill the salinometer cell with standard seawater and adjust the instrument to read the conductivity corresponding to the certified chlorinity. This means that standard seawater is now being used as a conductivity standard, although it is only calibrated in terms of chlorinity. The conductivity method also assumes that the conductivity/chlorinity relationship is the same, or nearly so, for all batches of standard. Recent investigations carried out in four different laboratories (Millero et al., 1977; Poisson et al., 1978) have shown that this assumption is valid for most batches. These studies, of more than twenty different batches of standard seawater, prepared in the period 1962—1975, revealed variations in pH and dissolved silicate content but only four batches (prepared in 1967—1969) had unacceptably high conductivities (equivalent to 0.004— 0.007‰ in salinity) .At least one of these batches was found some time after its preparation to be contaminated by bacteria (Hermann, personal communication) and it is possible that oxidation of dissolved organic matter to C0₂ by the bacteria increased the conductivity during storage. Steps have been taken in recent years to avoid a recurrence of this problem by filtering the sea water through a membrane filter at the preparation stage.

The evidence, suggests, therefore, that standard seawater is a reliable standard for conductivity and, incidentally, for density measurements. Nevertheless, the preparation of the standard almost certainly involves some disturbance of its C0₂ system, on which the conductivity is very dependent, and for some time there has been a strong feeling that if the seawater is to be used as a conductivity standard then it should be calibrated in conductivity as well as chlorinity. Development of an instrument for measuring the absolute conductivity of seawater to 1 in 10⁵ has proved exceedingly difficult, although such an instrument is now in operation at Wormley. A simpler proposal (UNESCO 1978) that the conductivity of each batch should be measured relative to a defined potassium chloride solution is under consideration by the Joint Panel on Oceanographic Tables and Standards and a proposal may be formulated in the near future.

References AIOP, 1937. Proc. Verb. No. 2 Ass. Ocl:anog. Pbys. Gen Ass., Edinburgh 1936.

Conférence lnternationale, 1899 a. Conférence Internationale pour l'Exploration de Ia mer, réunie a Stockholm 1899, XLII-XLVI. Conférence lnternationale, 1899 b. Conférence Internationale pour l'Exploration de Ia mer, réunie a Stockholm 1899, 6-7.

Conférence Internationale, 1899 c. Conférence Internationale pour l'Exploration de Ia mer, réunie a Stockholm 1899, 12-13.

Conférence Internationale, 1899 d. Conférence Internationale pour l'Exploration de Ia mer, réunie a Stockholm 1899, 16.

Conférence Internationale, 1901 a Conférence Internationale pour l'Exploration de Ia mer, réunie a Kristiania, 1901, 26.

Conférence Internationale, 1901 b. 2e Conférence Internationale pour l'Exploration de Ia mer, réunie a Kristiania, 1901, 4-5.

Dittmar W., 1884. Report on the scientific results of the exploring voyage of H.M.S. Challenger, Physics and Chemistry, 1, HMSO, London.

Forch C. Knudsen M. Siirensen S. P. L., 1902. Berichte über die Konstantenbestimmungen zur Aufstellungen der hydrograftschen Tabellen, K. danske Vidensk. Selsk. Skr., 6, Raekke, naturvidensk og mathem Afd. XII, 1, p. 22.

Forchhammer G., 1865. On the composition of seawater, at different depths, and in different latitudes, Proc. R. Soc., 155, 203 - 262.

Hermann F., Culkin F. 1978. Preparation and chlorinity calibration of standard seawater, Deep Sea Res., 25, 1265 - 1270.

ICES, 1936. Conseil Permanent International pour l'Exploration de Ia Mer, Rapp. et Proc. - Verb., C, 33.

Jacobsen J. P.,Knudsen M., 1940. Urnormal 1937 or Primary Standard water 1937, Assoc. Océanog.

Phys., Pub. Sci., No 7, 38 p.

Knudsen M., 1899. The Danish “Ingolf” Expedition, Hydrography, 1, 2, 37-39.

Knudsen M., 1903. On the standard-water used in the hydrographical work until July 1903, Cons. Internat. pour l'Explor. de la Mer, Pub. De Circ., No. 2, 9 p.

Marcet A., 1819. On the specific gravity and temperature in different parts of the ocean and in particular seas, with some account of their saline contents, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London, 109, 161-208.

Millero F. J., Chetirkin P., Culkin F., 1977. The relative conductivity and density of standard seawaters, Deep•Sea Res., 24, 315-321.

Mohr C. F., 1856. Neue massanalytische Bestimmung des Chlors in Verbindungen, Ann. Chem. Pharm., 91, 335-338.

Poisson A., Dauphinee T., Ross C. K., Culkin F., 1978. The reliability of standard seawater as an electrical conductivity standard, Oceanol. Acta, 2, 4, 425-433.

Volhard J., 1874. Über eine neue Methode der massanalytischen Bestimmung des Silbers, J. Prakt.

Chem., 117, 217-224.

Went A. E. J., 1972. Seventy years a growing. A history of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, 1902-1972, Rapp. P.-V. Riun. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer, 165, 252 p.

UNESCO, 1978. Eighth report of the Joint Panel on Oceanographic Tables and Standards, Tech. Pap. Mar. Sci., No. 28, 35 p.

The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Its Organization and its Activities within Physical and Chemical Oceanography Lecture given at 18th meeting of NATOs Military Oceanography Group (MILOC) 1983 Jens Smed The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (or ICES, as it is called now in the age of acronyms) was founded in 1902, mainly on Scandinavian initiative, by the countries bordering the North Sea and the Baltic. The Swedish government called a Preparatory Conference in Stockholm in 1899, which was followed by a Second Conference in Christiania (now Oslo) in 1901. On these Conferences, the programmes for regular international investigations in the North Sea, the Baltic and the north eastern North Atlantic were agreed upon, and ICES could then be founded at a meeting in Copenhagen in 1902.

This does not mean, of course, that there were no earlier investigations of these waters. There had been a number of national expeditions. Of special interest as background for the founding of ICES is the initiative taken by the Swedish chemist, Otto Pettersson. He had become interested in the hydrography of the Skagerrak and the Kattegat, mainly in an attempt to explain the fluctuations of the Swedish herring fishery. (I use the word hydrography in the sense in which it is usually used in ICES, i.e., for physical and chemical oceanography.) The Swedish investigations started in 1890: for this year a network of fixed stations were worked in less than a week by means of several vessels; observations were made at a number of standard depths, and the stations were worked each season.

Obviously, Otto Pettersson succeeded in selling this scheme to colleagues in other countries; for from November 1893 hydrographic expeditions from Scotland, Norway, Sweden, Germany, and Denmark worked in the North Sea and the Baltic in accordance with the scheme. At the same time it was suggested that these investigations should be supplemented by biological research, so that charts showing the distribution of living organic matter at different seasons could be produced - in the same way as the hydrographic situation would be shown by charts and sections.

It was this cooperation that was formalized by the establishment of ICES in 1902. In the introductory remarks to the programme it was stressed that in the execution of the investigations it should constantly be kept in mind that their primary objective was to promote and improve the fisheries. This may have given rise to the idea sometimes met that ICES is a regional fisheries organization only - which is certainly not correct.

Eight countries joined ICES from the start. They are seen from Figure 1 which shows the sections to be worked by the various member countries according to the Stockholm programme. These eight founding members are commemorated in the ICES flag or pennant which carries eight stars, viz., the seven stars of the Great Bear constellation plus the North Star.

B: British Da: Danish Du: Dutch F: Finnish G: German N: Norwegian R: Russian S: SwedishFigure 1. Section to be worked according to the Stockholm programme.

The ICES Headquarters were placed in Copenhagen and have been located in the Copenhagen region ever since. At the start in 1902 a Central Laboratory was also established, located in Christiania (Oslo) and headed by Fridtjof Nansen. Many ingenious oceanographic instruments were developed there and a number of analytical methods elaborated. The Central Laboratory was closed in 1908 when Nansen, because of other commitments could no longer direct its work.

Organization of ICES ICES was originally based upon a contract between the member countries, a contract which had to be renewed every five years. From 1968 this contract has been replaced by a Convention. The main function of ICES has always been to encourage investigations into the study of the sea, and to coordinate the operations to this end of the participating governments. According to the Convention it shall be the duty of the Council: d ) to promote and encourage research and investigations for the study of the sea, particularly those related to the living resources thereof;

e ) to draw up programmes required for this purpose, and to organize, in agreement with the Contracting Parties, such research and investigations as may appear necessary; f ) to publish or otherwise disseminate the results of research and investigations carried out under its auspices or to encourage the publication thereof.

In the beginning, ICES was only interested in the north eastern North Atlantic, including the North Sea and the Baltic (as seen from Figure 1). However, according to the Convention the Council shall â&#x20AC;&#x153;be concerned with the Atlantic Ocean and its adjacent seas, and primarily with the North Atlanticâ&#x20AC;?.

At present ICES has eighteen members (sixteen European countries together with Canada and USA). The various components of the ICES organization are shown in the diagram Figure 2.

Figure 2. Diagram showing the various components of the ICES organisation and the functional relationship between them.

As far as the Hydrography Committee is concerned its task is to keep under review and to coordinate investigations in physical and chemical oceanography, including studies referring to the environment of living resources.

Coordinated seasonal cruises In August 1902, the first seasonal cruises under the auspices of the Council were undertaken. The data collected were published in a Bulletin which also contains charts showing the distribution of surface temperature and salinity together with figures illustrating the distribution of temperature and salinity on the various sections.

The seasonal investigations of the distribution of temperature and salinity, as well as the content of dissolved oxygen and nitrogen, were continued in reasonably good accordance with the adopted scheme up to 1914 when the World War brought the work to a stop. After the war the resumption of work at sea went very slowly. It is only by the end of the 1920s that an appreciable number of stations were worked each year. The coordinated seasonal cruises were not carried out anymore.

Cooperative investigations The seasonal cruises were in a way replaced by cooperative investigations where many research vessels worked together in an intensive study of a limited area for a short period of time. Such an expedition took place during a week of August 1931 when five research vessels, together with a number of light vessels, worked a dense network of hydrographic observations (including current measurements) in the Kattegat.

An intensive hydrographical-biological survey of the Faroe–Shetland area was planned for the summer of 1940, but did not come off because of the war.

Already at the first Council meeting after the war, in October 1945, the project was however, taken up again and was now extended to a survey of the whole North Sea. In spring of 1947 and 1948, Combined HydrographicalBiological Investigations were carried out on the sections shown in Figure 3; the hydrographic part of the investigation was repeated in May and September 1949.

Figure 3. Stations worked during the Combined HydrographicalEiological Investigations 1947—1949

A great event was the North Atlantic Polar Front Survey, sponsored by ICES and the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF) as an integral part of the world-wide oceanographical programme of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) 1957—1958. The main periods were spring and autumn 1958; but in fact pertinent scientific cruises were undertaken throughout the entire IGY period, i.e., July 1957—December 1958. Figures 4 and 5 show the cruises undertaken in the second half of 1958. All hydrographic data from the Polar Front Survey have been published by ICES in the Data List series. The hydrographical and biological results were dis-

cussed in a number of papers presented at an ICES Special Meeting in 1959 and published in a volume of the series Rapports et Procès-Verbaux. Lastly, the data form the basis for the great “Atlas of the Hydrography of the Northern North Atlantic Ocean”, compiled by a Working Group headed by the late Professor Dietrich and published by ICES.

Figure 4.·Cruises undertaken during July-December, 1958 as part of the North Atlantic Polar Front Survey.

Figure 5. Key showing the cruises taken by individual ships.

In 1960, another great project was carried out - the so-called “Overflow 1960 Expedition”. Already from observations by the Danish Ingolf Expedition 1895 and 1896 was deduced the phenomenon of deep, coldwater overflow from the Norwegian Sea into the North Atlantic Ocean across the Greenland– Scotland submarine ridge. That such an overflow existed was confirmed at other occasions. However, there was a need for a thorough investigation of the phenomenon by a multiship expedition. This took place during three weeks in June 1960 with nine research vessels involved. The survey was limited to the Iceland–Faroe part of the Ridge. Figure 6 shows the network of stations which were all of them sampled three times with a week's interval.

The parameters determined were temperature, salinity and contents of oxygen and nutrients. Furthermore, after the second and third field survey current measurements by anchored instruments, especially of bottom currents, were undertaken at nine stations for about three days; at some of these stations hourly observations of temperature and salinity were made for the assessment of internal waves. It should be mentioned that the Overflow Expedition was the first survey to take advantage of the modern methods of long-term recording by anchored instruments in deep water.

Figure 6. Grid of hydrographic stations sampled during the “Overflow 1960” Expedition.

The survey showed that the cold overflow water is found nearly everywhere on the Iceland-Faroe Ridge where the depth exceeds 300 m. The overflow is however, far from evenly distributed over the Ridge and is mainly concentrated in four branches. The total volume transport in these four branches was about 1.1 million m 3/sec. However, an even greater contribution of this type of water to the North Atlantic originates from the Faroe Bank Channel, viz. 1.4 million m 3/sec.

The temperature, salinity, and some other data were published by ICES. The results were discussed in a number of papers presented at an ICES Symposium, and the papers were later on published in the Rapports et ProcèsVerbaux series.

In the years after the Overflow 1960 Expedition, a fast development of instruments, such as current meters, took place. It was therefore decided to undertake another Overflow Expedition, this time covering the whole Greenland-Scotland Ridge and taking advantage of modern instruments such as STDs and moored current meter arrays.

The Overflow 1973 Expedition took place in August/September 1973, with participation of thirteen research vessels. The cooperation was arranged in space and time so that each ship carried out its individual scientific programme and simultaneously contributed a facet to the general topic of water mass exchange across the Ridge. The observations should primarily describe the kinematics and, if possible, detect the dynamics of the Arctic water overflow into the North Atlantic. Figure 7 shows the overall hydrographic station grid. The positions of current meter moorings are shown in Figure 8, those of the tide gauges in Figure 9.

Figure 7. Grid of hydrographic stations sampled during the “Overflow 73” Expedition.

Figure 8. Current meter moorings during the “Overflow 73” Expedition.

Figure 9. Tide gauges operating during the “Overflow 73” Expedition.

An inventory of the observations was published by ICES whereas the data proper were published nationally as were also the scientific papers which were based upon the data. Up to now, more than fifty papers have been published.

The various field projects, such as the IGY Polar Front Survey, and the Overflow 1960 and Overflow 1973 expeditions had all revealed a correlation between the hydrobiological conditions in the Greenland–Scotland Ridge area and the event-type signals in shorter time series from moored instrumentation. There was clearly a need for a project whose aim would be: •

to provide sufficiently long time series of near-bottom currents and temperature in the Greenland-Scotland Ridge area for a statistically significant analysis of the formerly observed fluctuations in the period range 3-10 days;

•

to support the interpretation of the fluctuations by carrying out hydrographic surveys with special emphasis on the overflow of cold bottom waters.

This lead to the design of the Project MONA. (Monitoring the Overflow into the North Atlantic). The results from the Overflow Expeditions had given an indication of the key positions for monitoring the overflow. Here seven current meter moorings were deployed as the first phase (1975/1976) of MONA (Figure 10). Four arrays gave a return of one year good data, one array was out for three months only. The second phase consisted of six moored arrays around the Faroes; unfortunately, none of these moorings could be recovered. Several hydrographic surveys were conducted; an example from 1977 is shown in Figure 11. A discussion of the material would seem to show that, at least for the Iceland–Faroe Ridge a major source of the low-frequency fluctu-

ations is baroclinic instability, and that the average input of energy from fluctuating winds is an order of magnitude less effective.

Figure 10. Moored stations during MONA Phase 1 1975â&#x20AC;&#x201D;1976.

Figure 11. Example of hydrographic survey in relation to the MONA project.

The projects just reported dealt with the overflow over the GreenlandScotland Ridge of the deep-water of the Greenland/Norwegian Sea. Another interesting and somewhat controversial subject is how this deep water is formed. One possibility is that it is formed in winter in a process the climax of which is the formation of intense, short-lived deep vertical convection cells of small horizontal extent, “chimneys” in oceanographic slang.

A study of the formation, redistribution, and modification of water masses in the Norwegian/Greenland Sea has been hampered by a lack of high quality data, especially data gathered near the time when surface layer densities reach their peak, i.e. about the month of March. The general hydrography during any season was only poorly known from the available data. There was a special need for sampling directed at regional variations in deep water properties, and also for data about dissolved oxygen and nutrients fields in general, as well as for information about the distributions of other geochemical tracers, such as tritium or isotopes of caesium and strontium.

This situation led to the launching of the ICES Deep Water Project 1979— 1982, the purpose of which was to investigate the conditions for the formation and spreading of Arctic Deep Water.

Skagerrak, as the transition zone between the North Sea and the Baltic, is a hydrographically interesting but complicated region. A fact also contributing to this is the deep Norwegian Trench which cuts into the Skagerrak, reaching there its maximum depths, with an inflow of high salinity water at the bottom. As the Skagerrak was also considered to be of great interest to fishery research and to marine biology in general, ICES agreed to carry out an international investigation of the area, including a study of the deep currents in the Norwegian Trench. The investigation, the Joint Skagerrak Expedition 1966, took place during four weeks in the summer of 1966 with participation of seven research vessels. There were three periods of quasi-synoptic observations, and most of the twenty one sections with 233 stations (Figure 12) were worked in each of these periods. Current measurements were made at anchor stations, by drogues and by self-recording current meters laid out for periods of up to twenty days (Figure 13).

Figure 12. Positions of sections and stations worked during the Joint Skagerrak Expedition 1966.

Ⓝ anchor station Norway; Ⓢ anchor station Sweden; ㊉ autonomous current meter Germany, the figures indicate station number; X parachute drogues Scotland.

Figure 13. Current meter stations during the Joint Skagerrak Expedition 1966.

The data were published in four volumes of the ICES Oceanographic Data Lists. An Atlas issued in the same series gives, by means of about 200 charts and sections, a general description of the distribution of a number of physical and chemical parameters in the Skagerrak and adjacent waters during the Expedition. The more detailed discussion of the hydrographical conditions has been given in a number of scientific papers published by the participants.

One of the greatest oceanographic projects ever undertaken in the North Sea took place in 1976. In the early 1970s, a group outside ICES had been established with the purpose of planning an ambitious programme for investigation of the currents in an area of the northern part of the North Sea - an unexplored area with regard to large-scale moored current meter exercises.

At about the same time, a group of marine scientists working at the Sonderforschungsbereich â&#x20AC;&#x153;Meeresforschungâ&#x20AC;? in Hamburg came up with a proposal for a multi-disciplinary exercise the main purpose of which would be to obtain data for testing ecosystems. The plan was to study the phytoplankton spring bloom in an area of the northern North Sea and its dependence on various factors. The exercise would require intensive current measurements in the region to be investigated. Obviously, it would therefore be a great advantage to combine this programme with that of the Northern North Sea Group. A merging of the two programmes was arranged. At this stage, ICES was invited to co-sponsor the joint project and agreed to do so. The joint project (called JONSDAP 76 from Joint North Sea Data Acquisition Programme 1976) had two parts, INOUT and FLEX. INOUT was an extended version of the original current measuring programme, a study of the water movements of the whole North Sea, with special emphasis on the northern part, combined with a study of storm surges and sea level. FLEX (named so from Fladen Experiment) was a detailed investigation of the primary production in the Fladen Ground area of the northern North Sea. The field phase of INOUT was from 15 March to 25 April 1976, during which period about 200 automatically recording current meters were deployed at about 90 positions, several offshore tide gauges were laid and more than ten ships worked hydrographic stations. Figures 14 and 15 show the positions of the current meters.

Figure 14. Network of moored stations during the INOUT part of JONSDAP 76.

Figure 15. Moored JONSDAP 76 stations in the FLEX area.

The field phase of FLEX was from 25 March to 15 June during which period the conditions at the centre of the FLEX box were monitored nearly continuously by at least one research vessel. More than 80 current meters were deployed at about 20 positions in the box, and observations were made from about 20 vessels and one aircraft; Figure 16 shows the working periods of the vessels and the aircraft.

Figure 16. Operating periods of the vessels participating in the FLEX part of JONSDAP 76.

JONSDAP 76 is probably the greatest oceanographic venture ever undertaken in the North Sea. It involved about 50 institutes of the countries bordering

the North Sea and the English Channel and some institutes in Canada and the United States. The enormous amount of data were collected in two data centres: the INOUT data in Liege, the FLEX data in Hamburg. When the data sets are complete and. processed they will be transferred to the Service Hydrographique of ICES and to the two oceanographic World Data Centres.

To enhance interdisciplinary use of the material the German FLEX Coordination Group issued a Draft Atlas by way of which raw data have been distributed in graphical form to participants. At ICES we have prepared for publishing a detailed inventory of the observations made during JONSDAP 76.

The scientific evaluation of the material by the participants is still going on.

Up to now more than 100 papers have been published, based upon the JONSDAP 76 data.

Also in the Baltic ICES has been involved in cooperative investigations. These should preferably have participation from all countries bordering the Baltic.

Until 1971, however, the German Democratic Republic was not a member of ICES. This may be one of the reasons for the establishment of an informal cooperation of Baltic Oceanographers who meet at a Conference every second year to discuss oceanographic investigations in the area. Upon recommendation of these Conferences of Baltic Oceanographers a Cooperative Investigation of the Baltic was carried out in August 1964. This was followed up by the International Baltic Year (IBY) 1969â&#x20AC;&#x201D;1970, again a joint oceanographic project organized by the Conferences of Baltic Oceanographers. In both cases the data were published by ICES; for the Baltic Year the data lists were accompanied by an Atlas. Figure 17 shows the network of 39 standard stations worked regularly, as far as possible in accordance with a fixed time schedule. The periods covered by the various research vessels appear from Figure 18. The Atlas gives for each cruise the distribution of various parameters on two standard sections.

Figure 17. Grid of standard stations worked during the International Baltic Year (IBY) 1969â&#x20AC;&#x201D;1970.

Figure 18. Grpah showing the IBY cruises, with names of research vessels.

In the 1960s, there was an increasing concern about the pollution of the sea, and the need for relevant studies became clear. ICES realized that such studies would involve a broad field of scientific activities. In order to understand pollution a detailed knowledge of the processes, both those involving the sea water itself and those associated with the life of the marine organisms, is required. In 1967, ICES took up the study of marine pollution in the North Sea, by setting up a Working Group with that purpose. This was followed up in 1968 by the establishment of the Working Group on the Study of the Pollution of the Baltic. Cooperation with the Conferences of Baltic Oceanog-

raphers ensured that representatives from all countries bordering the Baltic could take part in the work of the Group. In 1971, the Group was replaced by a Joint ICES/SCOR Working Group on the Study of the Pollution of the Baltic and its Effects on Living Resources. The SCOR (Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research) participation provided useful contacts to scientists with experience from areas outside the Baltic where the problems are to some degree the same, such as the Great Lakes of North America.

The Working Group soon realized that it would be necessary to intensify the research activities in the Baltic to understand the processes affecting the pollution of the area, and a comprehensive programme was formulated. The programme identified basic research needs for improving our understanding of the Baltic. A number of tasks were specified which required interdisciplinary and international cooperation for a successful accomplishment. Several of these tasks deal with physical oceanography: 8 ) Exchange of water and dissolved materials with the North Sea. The purpose was to obtain an understanding of the mechanism that determines the water transfer to and from the Baltic as a function of temperature and salinity and the meteorological conditions; and to determine the flux of nutrients and perhaps other constituents to and from the North Sea. This task was at least partly covered by the Danish Belt Project 1974—1979 with continuous current measurements in the Danish Sounds, supplemented with monthly physical, chemical and biological observations in the whole Transition Area between the Baltic and the North Sea. Simultaneous observations over limited periods were carried out in the Bornholm Strait.

9 ) The Baltic Circulation Experiment, aiming at, first, an understanding of the general circulation of water and materials in the Baltic and, second, the determination of parameters to be used in more advanced dynamic circulation models. A successful Special Meeting on this item was held by ICES in 1974.

10 ) The open sea experiment, the purpose of which was: a ) to gain an. understanding of the mechanism of the vertical transport of momentum and matter in the open Baltic, especially in the vicinity of and through the halocline. b ) to determine the possible interaction between the upper and lower layers of the Baltic through breaking internal waves and. other mechanisms.

The Baltic Open Sea Experiment (BOSEX 77) was carried out in the period 5— 22 September 1977 in a square with 30 km sides (Figure 19). All countries around the Baltic Sea participated, contributing a total of 11 research vessels.

Currents were observed by means of 50 moored current meters at 10 stations: in the .centre and at the corners of the square and along its diagonals, so that scales in the range 3—50 km were covered.

Figure 19. Network of Baltic standard stations and the grid of BOSEX stations.

Unfortunately, the weather became rather severe. Much of the time wind was above 15 m/sec. During part of the period, the wind was of hurricane force, which made it impossible even for the larger vessels to work. The hydrographic observations suffered least. It has been estimated that about 60 % of the physical and chemical observations planned were carried out, but only 20 % of the pollution observations and 10% of the biological and sedimentological observations. Data and preliminary evaluations have been reported in BOSEXIANA, a sort of Draft Atlas issued by ICES. An overall report on the results has been prepared for publication. About 50 scientific papers based upon the BOSEX data have been published up to now.

Data Banking and Data Products The banking of the data from the projects described and from other cruises is an essential task. Realizing the importance of making the data available to the oceanographic community in general, the member countries of ICES from the start in 1902 sent their hydrographic data from the region to the ICES Service Hydrographique which has acted as data centre for the 10 region ever since.

Up to 1962, including all hydrographic station data from the ICES area could be published, from 1902 to 1956 in the Bulletin Hydrographique, from 1957 to 1962 in the Oceanographic Data Lists. The “data explosion” setting in about 1960 made it virtually impossible however, to publish all data, also because new types of data cropped up, such as those from STDs and XBTs (expendable bathythermographs). There was also not the same need as earlier for publishing the data, because of the introduction of automated data handling which made it easy to extract from a data bank the material re-

quested. So after 1962, ICES has published only the data from certain cooperative expeditions, such as the Joint Skagerrak Expedition and some of the Baltic Expeditions. Instead, an automated data bank has been established, containing as many as possible of the hydrographic data - both old and recent - available from the ICES region. From this bank copies of data are supplied on request.

When the data are no longer published there is a pronounced need for inventories of observations. So for the years 1969 onwards, ICES has published an annual “Report on Oceanographic Cruises and Data Stations”, now produced on microfiches. For some joint projects, such as JONSDAP 76, more detailed inventories are issued. Also for the oceanographic observations at the North Atlantic Ocean Weather Stations we prepare detailed inventories, issued annually.

Utilization of the data bank for preparation of mean charts and mean values lies near at hand. A number of such products have been prepared by ICES throughout the years. An example is the “Atlas of Mean Monthly Temperature and Salinity of the Surface Layer of the North Sea and adjacent Waters”.

The Atlas, based upon data from the period 1905—1954, contains not only mean charts for the period, but also tables of mean values for each individual month of the period, and for each of a great number of fields. The monthly mean charts of temperature and salinity for a number of subsurface levels in the North Sea and in the Baltic, issued by the German Hydrographic Institute, supplement the Atlas. These charts too are based upon ICES data.

A sort of continuation of the tables of the ICES Atlas are the monthly means of surface temperature and salinity in areas of 1 ° latitude by 2 °longitude, prepared so far for each year of the period 1955—1974.

At the Service Hydrographique we have also produced various series of monthly charts, e.g. since 1970, monthly charts of bottom temperature and salinity in the North Sea, and another series of monthly charts showing temperature and salinity at 10 m and near bottom in Skagerrak and Kattegat.

Examples are shown in Figures 20 and 21.

Figure 20. Bottom temperature (°C) February 1983.

Figure 21. Bottom salinity (â&#x20AC;°) February 1983.

History of International North Sea Research (ICES) North Sea Dynamics 1983

Jens Smed The North Sea is one of the most intensively investigated seas of the world.

For about a century investigations have been going on in the area, many of them internationally coordinated. As the North Sea has always been in the centre of interest of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), and as all the countries surrounding the North Sea are members of ICES, the coordination of most of the international investigations in the region has taken place within this organization. In the following some highlights will be described.

The early years International North Sea research is often considered to begin with the establishment of ICES. If this was so, it is surprising that the participants in the 1st Preparatory Conference for the Exploration of the Sea at Stockholm (Anon.

1899) in the course of a few days were able to come up with a detailed and well balanced plan for international investigations. As a matter of fact, the Conference did not start from scratch. A fairly close cooperation in the study of the North Sea and adjacent waters had already developed. The initiative came from the Swedish chemist Otto Pettersson. He and another Swede, Gustaf Ekman, had become interested in the hydrography of Skagerrak and Kattegat, .mainly in an attempt to explain the fluctuations of the herring fishery. They organized systematic investigations by Swedish vessels, beginning February 1890. By means of five steamers, about 70 stations were worked in less than a week. Already here we find the typical observation pattern: a network of fixed stations worked at nearly the same time, observations being made at a number of standard depths, and these stations being worked several times year.

In 1891, Denmark adopted the same method of simultaneous hydrographic observations at stations in Kattegat, the Danish sounds and parts of the western Baltic. Four times a year, i.e., in early February, May, August, and November, 13 sections were worked by Danish gunboats (Wandel and Rørdam 1896).

It was soon realized however, that isolated investigations in small areas were of limited value. So the Meeting of Scandinavian; Naturalists in Copenhagen in 1892 endorsed the proposal by Petterson and Ekman that a scheme of an

International Hydrographic Survey of the Baltic, the North Sea, and adjacent parts of the North Atlantic should be drawn up. The scheme should include seasonal working of sections together with regular surface observations from steamers plying certain routes.

A detailed report of the Swedish investigations up to 1893 was published by Pettersson (1894a). In continuation of this report, Pettersson (1894b) presented his proposed scheme for an international hydrographic survey.

Obviously Otto Pettersson had succeeded in selling his scheme to colleagues in other countries; for from November 1893 hydrographic expeditions from Scotland, Norway, Sweden, Germany, and Denmark worked in the North Sea and the Baltic in accordance with the scheme. At the same time it was suggested that cooperation in biological research, especially-with regard to plankton, in different parts of the North Sea and the Baltic should be considered, so that charts showing the distributions of living organic matter in these regions at different seasons could be produced- in the same way as the hydrographic conditions would be shown by means of charts and sections.

Pettersson presented his scheme for international cooperation in marine studies at the 6th International Geographical Congress in London, 1895, and reported on the results obtained. The Congress recognized the scientific and economic importance of these results and expressed as its opinion â&#x20AC;&#x153;that the survey of the areas should be continued and extended by the cooperation of the different nationalities concerned on the lines of the Scheme presented to the Congress by Prof. Petterssonâ&#x20AC;?.

With this support Pettersson now wished to have the international cooperation formalized. So the next step by him and other Swedish scientists was to persuade the Swedish government to convene an International Conference for the Exploration of the Sea in Stockholm in June 1899. Represented were Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, Netherlands, Norway, Russia, and Sweden.

According to the Draft Programme accompanying the invitation to the Conference, observations should be planned for the temperature and salinity of the water, its content of various gases and the quality and quantity of the plankton. The observations should be made four times a year at such fixed positions which from earlier research were known to be the most important ones. The purpose was to study simultaneously: 1 - The system of currents of the North Atlantic and its changes in the various seasons. On these changes were supposed to depend, the variations in plankton on which again fish were depending; but the changes of the currents were also thought to determine the appearance and disappearance of migrating fish.

2 - The temperature of the water layers in the various seasons.

Weather and climate of the countries around the North Sea, or in northern Europe in general, were thought to depend to a high degree upon these temperatures.

Obviously the connexion between the hydrographic conditions and the occurrence of fish was considered to be closer than it turned out to be, and the same applies to the connection between water temperature and weather and climate.

The Conference adopted a programme (Anon. 1899) for the hydrographical and biological work in the northern parts of the Atlantic Ocean and in the North Sea and adjacent waters, which should be carried out for a period of at least five years. In the introductory remarks it was stressed that in the execution of the investigations it should constantly be kept in mind that their primary objective was to promote and improve the fisheries. The sections to be worked by the participating countries are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Sections to be worked according to the Stockholm programme. B British; Da Danish; Du Dutch; F Finnish; G German; N Norwegian, R Russian; S Swedish.

Pettersson reported this programme to the 7th International Geographic Congress which was held in Berlin later in 1899. The Congress declared the decisions of the Stockholm Conference to be so important, also for the advancement of the oceanography in general, that it urgently recommended to the participating governments that the decisions be carried out in full.

A 2nd Preparatory Conference took place at Kristiania (now Oslo)] two years later (Anon. 1901). Here the programme for the future work in hydrography, fishery biology, and study of plankton and bottom fauna was adopted. The programme was essentially the same as that agreed upon at the Stockholm Conference.

The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea could then be formally founded in Copenhagen in July 1902 (Anon. 1903; Went 1972). Founders

were the seven countries participating in the Stockholm Conference and Finland, which in spite of its political position became a member in its own right.

Coordinated seasonal cruises In August 1902 the first seasonal cruises under the auspices of the Council were undertaken. The data collected were published in a Bulletin which also contained charts showing the distribution of temperature and salinity on the various sections.

On the basis of the observations in the 3-year period August 1902-May 1905 charts and sections showing average conditions were prepared (Knudsen and Smith 1906), and in a supplement to the Bulletin for the year 1906/1907 Knudsen and his collaborators recommended that gave a general review of the hydrographic conditions in the area investigated, with charts and sections showing mean values of temperature and salinity in the North Sea. The investigations of the distribution of temperature and salinity, as well as ¡the content of dissolved oxygen and nitrogen, were continued in reasonably good accordance with the adopted scheme up to 1914 when the World War brought the work to a stop. In the last part of the period there was a tendency to carry ou~investigations more frequently, but at the same time reduce the number of stations worked, as reported by Knudsen and Gehrke 1913) in their review of the hydrographic conditions based upon the observations during the first 10 year period of ICES. After the war the resumption of work at sea went very slowly. It is only by the end of the 1920s, that an appreciable number of stations were worked each year. The regular seasonal cruises were not carried out any more, and during the 1930s, there would not seem to be much international coordination of research in the North Sea. Combined hydrographical-biological investigations 1947-1949 In 1938 however, Johan Hjort, then Chairman of the Council's Consultative Committee, initiated a discussion on combined hydrographical-biological investigations (Hjort 1938). As it has always been a goal in ICES to achieve a close cooperation between hydrographers and biologists, this initiative was well received, and in response to it the Council established a Sub-Committee to consider the matter. Its first task would be to come up with a programme for an intensive survey of the FaroeShetland area over the period April to October 1940. These seasons were considered to cover the time of greatest hydrographical change, and would cover the spring and autumn development of phytoplankton.

In proposing a preliminary programme, the Sub-Committee had in mind the fundamental problem of studying the relation between changes in the hydrographical and plankton conditions and the fluctuation of the fisheries, and the importance of finding out to what extent variation in the strength of the Atlantic Current is a responsible factor. Or to be more specific:

with regard to phytoplankton: to study the dependence of phytoplankton production on such environmental factors as nutrient salts, light, vertical circulation, and the stability of the water layers; with regard to hydrography: to study the variation of the influx of Atlantic water into the Norwegian Sea and the North Sea and to discover to what extent single lines of observations could be regarded as representative of conditions during each month, and to find by means of anchor stations the influence and amplitude of internal waves.

It was recommended that the work to be undertaken each month should consist of lines of stations radiating from the Shetlands, each line being worked both on the outward and return passage. On the outward voyage the work should be done as fast as possible to make the material more suitable for dynamic calculations; on the return voyage, more time should be spent on plankton observations. Furthermore, each month a 2—3 days anchor station with hourly observations should be undertaken.

At each station temperature, salinity, and phosphate and oxygen content should be determined, if possible also nitrate content, pH value and light.

Phytoplankton samples should be collected regularly, and also standard collection of macroplankton should be included in the programme.

This preliminary programme was circulated in spring 1939 to a great number of scientists, including some on the other side of the Atlantic, for comments.

The detailed plans were agreed upon by the ICES Statutory Meeting in May 1939. The should take place in April—September 1940, supplemented by Atlantic sections more to the south in April/May and September/October.

This investigation would obviously give important information about the inflow to and outflow from the northern North Sea. At the same time additional investigations on hydrography, plankton and fish fry were planned in the northern North Sea, in order to make the hydrographic investigations in the Shetland area more useful to fishery research.

Then came the war, during which ICES lay hove-to. However, immediately after the war the plans were taken up again. Already at the first post-war Council Meeting, in October 1945, the Council’s Hydrographer, J. P. Jacobsen, in the Hydrographical Committee drew attention to the discussions in 1938— 1940 on combined hydrographical and biological investigations, stressing that during these discussions some fundamental views on the planning of such investigations had been presented which would be essential for combined investigations everywhere. So it would seem appropriate to revive the discussion. In the same meeting Professor N. Zeilon reported on a Swedish plan for hydrographical investigations in the North Sea and adjacent waters, mainly a support of the work of the biologists.

These ideas and plans led to the revival of the Sub-Committee for Organization of combined Hydrographical–Biological Investigations established in 1938. Detailed plans were worked out and in spring of 1947 and 1948, joint investigations were carried out under the auspices of the Sub-Committee with participation from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, England, and Scotland; in

spring 1948, the observation network covered the whole North Sea (Figure 2). At the cruises in 1947, and, especially in 1948, phytoplankton was sampled at a great number of stations; in 1948, at some stations zooplankton was also sampled. The hydrographic part of the investigations was repeated in May and September 1949. It was then agreed to work up the material before deciding upon a continuation.

In 1952, the Sub-Committee was disbanded. Apparently no separate report on the hydrographic investigations 1947—1949 has been published. The task of working up the data was shared between J. B. Tait who would work up the results of the investigations in the Faroe–Shetland Channel, and J. Eggvin who would deal with the data from the North Sea proper. Both investigators felt, however, that an adequate account of the hydrography of these regions depended upon inclusion of data from previous years. Tait incorporated part of the material in his volume on the Faroe–Shetland Channel investigations 1927—1952 (Tait 1957).

The results of the phytoplankton investigations were published by Braarud et al. (1953). On the basis of samples from 4 depths at 100 stations, i.e., about every second of the stations indicated in Figure 2, they got a picture of the plankton vegetation in the North Sea which they compared with the picture of the hydrographic conditions. From the plankton distribution they were able to distinguish between 16 areas and they demonstrate that this picture fits quite well into Tait’s currents chart.

Figure 2. Stations worked during the Combined Hydrographical-Biological Investigations 1947â&#x20AC;&#x201D;1949.

Young Fish Surveys and Hydrography A considerable amount of information about the variation from year to year of the hydrographic conditions in the North Sea has been obtained in connection with the International Young Fish Surveys, coordinated by ICES. They started with very intensive surveys of young herring in spring and autumn of 1960 and 1961. Figure 3 shows as an example the dense network of hydrographical stations worked during the multiship survey in spring 1961.

Figure 3. Route and station chart for the hydrographic investigations during the International Young Herring Survey in spring 1961 (Rogalla 1966).

The temperature and salinity data from the four surveys were worked up by a coordinating group and the results published in a Report edited by Rogalla (1966). For each survey charts of temperature, salinity and density at surface and bottom are presented, as well as charts showing the difference between surface and bottom values of these parameters; furthermore is shown the distribution of the same parameters on a north–south and an east–west section. In an appendix to Rogalla’s report, Arthur Lee compares the sea surface temperature during the surveys with the average conditions over the period 1905—1954 as given in the ICES Atlas (Anon. 1962) and he shows that the anomalies can be very largely explained in terms of the anomalies of the air temperature.

These surveys were taken up again in spring 1967 and have since then been carried out annually - in recent years from about mid-January to mid-March'.

On the basis of the hydrographic data collected, charts of bottom temperature and bottom salinity, as well as charts showing the deviation of these parameters from the long term means have been produced regularly by the Service Hydrographique since 1970.

ICES Diffusion Experiment RHENO 1965 In the 1960s, there was an upsurge of interest in studying the diffusion processes, an interest which was not limited to the purely theoretical aspects. At that time, the problems of waste disposal had become serious in some regions, and there was a tendency to get rid of many types of waste by dumping them in the sea. A need arose then for knowing what happened to the waste - how the distribution would develop. This distribution is essentially determined by turbulent diffusion. In oceanography and marine biology the diffusion processes are of importance for the distribution of chemical elements, including trace elements, and for distribution of suspended matter and plankton, including fish eggs.

A number of diffusion studies by means of tracers were carried out on a national basis, especially in the Federal Republic of Germany under the leadership of J. Joseph. There was however, a need for a large-scale experiment with participation of several ships. In 1964, ICES at the instigation of Joseph recommended that studies be carried out on a international basis by multiship investigations using tracers on a large scale in different sea areas and under different hydrographical and meteorological conditions. The project should start with a joint investigation with Rhodamine B in the North Sea in the summer of 1965. The Hydrographical Committee set up a Working Group, chaired by Weidemann, to plan in detail the North Sea experiment, which got the code-name RHENO, for Rhodamine Experiment in the North Sea. The experiment started on 13 August 1965 when 25 tons of dye solution, containing 2 tonnes of Rhodamine B, was released by at carrier at 56 ° 30 ’N, 4 ° 00’E (Figure 4). During the first day the survey of the patch was done by two aircraft flights.

Figure 4. Positions of dye released (X) and current meters (A,B,C) during ICES Diffusion Experiment RHENO 1965 (Weidemann 1973).

The next day the surveying by shipborn fluorometers started and was continued until 5 September; measurable concentrations could at that date be traced in a patch of about 40 by 50 nautical miles. Four vessels (from the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, England, and Scotland) were involved in the surveys, the total length of the survey profiles amounting to about 3â&#x20AC;&#x2030;100 nautical miles. About 150 stations were worked to investigate the vertical distribution of the dye. During the Experiment, nine current meters were moored, at the three positions indicated in Figure 4, yielding more than 4000â&#x20AC;&#x2030;h of records. The results of the Experiment, including the current measurements, were published by ICES (Weidemann 1973).

Joint Skagerrak Expedition 1966 Skagerrak, as the transition zone between the Baltic and the North Sea, is a hydrographically interesting but complicated region. Another fact contributing to this is the deep Norwegian Trench which cuts into the Skagerrak, reaching there its maximum depths, with an inflow of high salinity water at the bottom. As the Skagerrak was also considered to be of great interest to fishery research and to marine biology in general, ICES in 1965, agreed to work out plans for an international investigation of the area, including a study of the deep currents in the Norwegian Trench. The Hydrography Committee established a Working Group with the aim of planning and organising a multiship expedition in the Skaggerak area during the summer of 1966. The Working Group was chaired by G. Tomczak, of the Federal Republic of Germany, who had taken the initiative to the Expedition, and the Group had representatives from the other interested countries, viz., Norway, Sweden,

Finland, and Scotland. The Working Group decided to extend the area of investigation to include also the northern part of the Kattegat, and the whole area of the Norwegian Trench, i.e., to 59 ° 20 ‘N.

Figure 5. Positions of hydrographic sections and stations worked during the Joint Skaggerak Expedition 1966 (Anon. 1970).

The Expedition took place during four weeks in June—July 1966, with participation of seven research vessels from the five countries mentioned. The hydrographic sections and stations worked appear from Figure 5 above.

Measurements of temperature, salinity, and oxygen and phosphate content sometimes also of pH and of silicate content - were made on 21 sections at a total of 233 stations. There were three periods of quasi-synoptic observations, and most of the stations were worked in each of the periods.

Current measurements were made at anchor stations, drifting stations and by self-recording current meters laid out for periods of up to 20 days. Figure 6 shows the positions where current measurements were made. These measurements covered nearly 5 000 recording hours at depths between 4 m and 560 m; the deepest records were 2 m above sea-bottom.

Figure 6. Stations where current observations were made during the Joint Skagerrak Expedition 1966 (Anon. 1969). N: Anchor station, Norway; S: Anchor station, Sweden; +: Autonomous current meter, Fed. Rep. of Germany; X: Parachute drogues, Scotland.

Also a great many vertical records were made by means of BTs, STDs and transparency meters. Continuous recordings of the temperature of the surface layer were made by means of the Delphin instrument, undulating between the surface and 70 m depth; the Delphin records covered 36 profiles of a total length of about 1 200 nautical miles.

The data were published in four volumes of the ICES Oceanographic Data Lists. An Atlas issued in the same series gives, by means of about 200 charts and sections, a general description of the distribution of a number of physical and chemical parameters in the Skagerrak and adjacent waters during the Expedition. The more detailed discussion of the hydrographical conditions has been given in a number of scientific papers published by the participants.

Current measurements in the North Sea In the Stockholm programme (Anon. 1899) it was stated that “Observations on currents and tides should be carried out as frequently as the circumstances allow”. The currents should be investigated directly with current meters or indirectly by means of suitable drifters. It was recommended that occasionally the research vessels should be anchored and measure the current throughout a complete tidal period. During the first several years, however, the hydrographic part of the international investigations were concentrated upon the seasonal cruises by which a fairly complete picture of the distribution of the water masses of the North Sea was obtained, their temperature, salinity and oxygen content, and the variation of these parameters throughout the year.

There was now an obvious need for information about the currents. With regard to the residual currents, not much could be done by international investigations at that time; one had mainly to rely upon the results from drift bottles and sea bed drifters. Also the tidal currents however, were poorly known. So in June 1911, vessels from seven ICES member countries during a

fortnight carried out observations of current at several depths on ten stations distributed over the North Sea. Instruments used were those constructed by Ekman, Jacobsen and Pettersson. The results were published, as tables and figures, in the Bulletin Hydrographique (Anon. 1912). Observations of currents over periods of 14 days at stations in the North Sea were again carried out in August 1912 and August 1913, partly at the same positions as in 1911.

The earlier results were confirmed as far as the tidal currents were concerned. The residual currents however, were quite different, which could be explained by different meteorological conditions.

Not much current measuring was made in the North Sea the next twenty years. From the 1930s, however, J. N. Carruthers arranged, under the auspices of ICES, for current observations to be carried out with his vertical log instrument from a number of light-vessels in the southern North Sea - a venture that was continued after the war and gave much valuable information.

In the meantime, moored self-recording current meters, the paddle wheel instruments, had come to the fore, pioneered by the German Hydrographic Institute, and Carruthers arranged that observations were made by the Institute at positions selected by ICES, mainly on the plaice spawning grounds in the Southern Bight. Other measurements by means of this type of instrument were carried out under the direction of the British Admiralty and the U.K. National Institute of Oceanography.

Useful information about the currents in the southern North Sea and the German Bight was obtained in this way. The real breakthrough however, came with the introduction in 1964 of current meters recording on magnetic tape. While the earlier instruments covered less than one month records, the new type would cover two to three months. Furthermore, other parameters, such as temperature, could be recorded by the new instruments.

At the meeting of the Hydrography Committee in the autumn of 1969, it became clear that a number of laboratories around the North Sea were contemplating the establishment of permanent moored current-recording stations and that there was an interest in coordinating the siting, monitoring, and servicing of them. The Committee decided therefore to form a Study Group on the matter. The Study Group, chaired by John Ramster, should investigate the possibility of establishing and maintaining a permanent network of recording current meters in the North Sea. The work of the Group resulted in an agreement to put out eight stations for the period September 1970 to September 1971. Figure 7 shows the positions of the stations and the names of the countries responsible for them. A detailed report on the experiment was issued by ICES (Ramster and Koltermann, 1976). The experiment showed that the moored station technique was viable, also in a heavily fished area like the North Sea.

Figure 7. Stations of the ICES Pilot North Sea Network 1970—1971 (Ramster and Koltermann 1976).

Joint North Sea Data Acquisition Programme 1976 (JONSDAP 76) Outside ICES, another cooperation on current measuring was developing. The start was made in Hamburg in April 1970, by an informal meeting between oceanographers and meteorologists representing eleven institutions in the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom. They discussed a possible cooperation in oceanographic research between the two countries, especially with regard to the use of moored ocean data stations in connection with mathematical modelling of the circulation of the North Sea (Ramster 1977).

The Hamburg meeting was followed up by one in London in October 1970, which was attended also by oceanographers and meteorologists from the Netherlands. At this meeting it was decided to join efforts in a scheme for the establishing of a network of permanent ocean data stations in the North Sea, a network which became known as the Joint North Sea Information System, or JONSIS. Later on, oceanographers from Belgium, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden joined the JONSIS community. In the various countries, new groups of people became interested, so that JONSIS developed into an informal forum of oceanographers, fisheries scientists, coastal engineers, mathematical modellers in oceanography, and administrators, in the countries bordering the North Sea. It was realized by the Group that it would take some years before the oceanographic buoys needed for the plan would be operational. What could be done immediately however, was to establish a pilot network of ocean data stations which would monitor some of the parameters. This pilot project could be expected to provide experience which would be of much value for the main phase of the project.

These considerations resulted in the establishment of the JONSIS pilot network of moored stations and coastal observation sites in function during the years 1971—1973. It may be noted that some of the moored buoy stations of the ICES Pilot Project 1970—1971 continued as part of the JONSIS network.

This network was a rather open one - too open to satisfy the requirements of the modellers. So it was decided to carry out in September—October 1973, an extensive programme in the Southern Bight, the so called JONSDAP 73 (Joint North Sea Data Acquisition Programme 1973) with 70 current meters and 24 offshore tide gauges deployed for 40 days.

JONSDAP 73 was never claimed to be more than a feasibility study of logistics and of the effectiveness of the pooling of resources. Nevertheless it gave much useful material for modellers and others. An inventory of the available data was published by the JONSDAP 73 Coordinator (Lennon).

Already in 1972, a group, the Northern North Sea Group, had been established within JONSIS with the purpose of planning a much more ambitious programme for investigations in an area of the northern part of the North Sea - an unexplored area with regard to large-scale moored current meter exercises. The Group was aiming at carrying out the programme some time in 1975.

At about the time when the planning of this programme was going on in JONSIS, a group of marine scientists working at the Sonderforschungsbereich “Meeresforschung” (SFB 94) in Hamburg came up with a proposal for a multidisciplinary exercise the main purpose of which would be to obtain data for testing ecosystems. The plan was to study the phytoplankton spring bloom in an area of the northern North Sea and its dependence on various factors. The exercise would require intensive current measurements in the region to be investigated. Obviously, it would therefore be a great advantage to combine this programme with that of the North Sea Group. At a meeting in Hamburg in 1973, a merging of the two programmes into one, the JONSDAP 76, was agreed upon and the year of the campaign was changed to 1976. At the same time, a JONSIS Modelling Group (JONSMOD) was established, with Nihoul as chairman.

In 1974, ICES was invited to co-sponsor the JONSDAP 76 investigation which now had two parts, code-named INOUT and FLEX. INOUT was an extended version of the original current measuring programme, a study of the water movements of the whole North Sea, with special emphasis on the northern part, combined with a study of storm surges and sea level. FLEX (from Fladen Ground Experiment) was a detailed investigation of the primary production in an area of the northern North Sea. ICES agreed to co-sponsor the programme, and a joint ICES/JONSIS Working Group was established with Artur Svansson as chairman. A Group of National Contacts, headed by John Steele, was set up with one contact person in each participating country. Also, a Data Management Group was formed, chaired first by Harald Duchrow, later on by John Ramster. It was further decided to appoint two project managers: for FLEX Harald Duchrow (from 1976 Klaus Schulze), for INOUT John Ramster.

The field phase of INOUT was from 15 March to 25 April, during which period about 200 automatically recording current meters were deployed at 83 posi-

tions, 11 off-shore tide gauges were laid, and more than 10 ships worked hydrographic stations. Figure 8a shows the positions of the current meters.

Figure 8a (left). JONSDAP 76. INOUT moored network (Ramster 1977).

Figure 8b (right). JONSDAP 76. Moored stations in FLEX area. (Ramster 1977).

The field phase of FLEX was from 25 March to 15 June, during which period the conditions at the centre of the FLEX box were monitored nearly continuously by at least one research vessel. More than 80 recording current meters were deployed at about 20 positions in the box (Figure 8b), and observations were made from about 15 ships and one aircraft.

JONSDAP 76 was the greatest oceanographic venture ever undertaken in the North Sea. It involved about 50 institutes of the countries bordering the North Sea, the English Channel, Canada, and the United States. More than 20 vessels carried out about 50 cruises, and data were obtained from about 300 moored instruments.

The enormous amount of data were collected in two data centres, the INOUT data in Liège, the FLEX data in Hamburg. When the data sets are complete and processed, they will be transferred to the two oceanographic World Data Centres.

The cruises have been reported on the so-called ROSCOP forms. Edited versions of the reports are more detailed in ICES Oceanographic Data Lists and Inventories, No.50. A more detailed inventory of the JONSDAP 76 observations is in preparation for publication in the same series.

To enhance interdisciplinary work, the German FLEX Coordination Group of SFB 94, in cooperation with the FLEX Data Centre, issued a Draft FLEX Atlas by way of which raw data, both from FLEX and INOUT, were distributed in graphical form to participants.

In the meantime the working up of the material by individual scientists has been going on. Nearly 100 papers have already been issued nad more may be expected during the years to come. There can be no doubt that JONSDAP 76 was a success.

Patch studies Plans for patch studies are not new in ICES. Already Russell, in his contribution to the discussion in 1938—1940 on hydrographic-biological investigations incorporated such plans in his outlines for the study of the North Sea. The basic problem he would like to see investigated was the causes of good and poor year classes. He suggested to limit the investigation to one sort of fish only. At a region with maximum abundance of eggs of the fish considered, investigations should be undertaken of plankton, nutrient salts, and of the hydrographic conditions. The drift of the developing eggs and larvae should be followed by ships, e.g., for 2 months. Such investigations should be undertaken year after year. This might make it possible to pin down good or poor survival of eggs and larvae to a single factor or complex of factors. During the discussions in 1945 already referred to, Jacobsen drew attention to Russell's ideas, stating that from a hydrographic point of view this plan for a combined hydrographical-biological investigation seemed excellent. He suggested that one or more positions in the area with maximum occurrence of fish eggs or larvae should be marked by floats so constructed that they would follow the movement of the surface water without any appreciable influence from the wind.

These plans were not carried out. However, 30 years later in 1975, the ICES Symposium on “North Sea Fish stocks – Recent Changes and their Causes” recommended that a patch study should be undertaken in the southern North Sea, with the purpose of following the movements of a fish species from spawning through the larval drift stage to the nursery area. The hydrographic problem was essentially that of following a particular patch of water of high larval density for a period of some weeks while measuring advection and diffusion of the patch, and studying the nutrient budget.

The ICES Working Group on the Coordination of Hydrographic Investigations in the North Sea discussed the proposal and considered it an exciting but difficult hydrographic problem, a problem for whose solution there appeared to be a real biological demand. So the Group agreed to further examine the feasibility of the experiment. Discussion went on over the next two years, and in 1977 a Study Group was established to consider proposals for the study of movements of a patch of plaice eggs and larvae and to coordinate relevant activities.

In February 1978, some preliminary experiments were carried out by Belgium and the United Kingdom, and reports on both were presented to the ICES Statutory Meeting the same year, as was also the report of the study Group.

The Group had defined the aims of the project as follows:

a ) the tracking of a “plaice egg patch” through all stages of development from newly spawned eggs to metamorphosed fish, at a time interval of 3-4 days; b ) the measurement of those physical parameters needed to enable comparisons to be made between the observed development of the plankton patch and the diffusion and advection of the water in which the patch is living. This might entail at the least, a fixed network of moored stations that vary in position, a succession of dyetracer studies with measurements being made in horizontal and vertical planes, and the use of shallow water Swallow floats; c ) the collection of those chemical and ancillary biological measurements that were needed for the successful modelling of the development of the patch and also an explanation of its development in qualitative terms.

From the replies to a circular which the Study Group sent to hydrographers and biologists, it would seem that there was considerable interest in patch studies and that such studies would take place in the North Sea without any further intervention from ICES. It was also clear that there was no general desire for a joint exercise like JONSDAP 76. There would be a core programme which would be tackled by one institute and which might be supplemented by other institutes.

Such a core programme was carried out by the United Kingdom early in 1980.

At its meeting later in the year, the Study Group realized that no other work was being or would be undertaken in the foreseeable future under the topic of the Patch Study in the North Sea. So no further action was taken.

Synoptic charts in near real-time Most multiship expeditions are aiming at a sort of synoptic picture, such as were the seasonal expeditions coordinated by ICES during the period 1902— 1914 and also the Young Fish Surveys. Synoptic hydrography where the data are presented in near real-time mode is however, a fairly recent thing in the North Sea region. The first instance would seem to be the ICES Pilot Project on Rapid Utilization of Synoptic Oceanographic Observations. The initiative was taken by Jens Eggvin, of the Institute of Marine Research in Bergen. In a lecture at the meeting of the Hydrographical Committee of ICES in 1959, he introduced the plan. His reasoning was that we know how certain hydrographic situations influence the fisheries. Prediction of such hydrographic situations would therefore be of great value to fishermen. In order to produce a forecast it was necessary to have regular synoptic charts in near realtime of temperature and salinity in the surface layer. Even if a forecast was not possible such a series of charts were likely to supply material for the study of causal relations.

Eggvin's proposal was that all relevant hydrographic observations from the North Sea and adjacent waters should be channelled to a centre, preferably by means of radio communication, and should be redistributed by the centre

to all interested institutes. These would then, on the basis of the data, be able to prepare charts in which they could insert any additional information of a local nature to which they might have access, such as information concerning the actual fishery. These charts would enable interested institutes firstly to study the conditions in the sea and perhaps come up with some causal connexions; and secondly, try to make forecasts with regard to such hydrographic situations which are of importance to fishery.

The Hydrographical Committee acted on Eggvin's lecture by appointing a SubCommittee for Telegraphic Communication of Oceanographic Observations, to establish collaboration in synoptic hydrography and its application to fisheries. The Sub-Committee developed codes for telecommunication of hydrographic data and of information on occurrence of fish (kind of fish and character of fish shoals).

After a trial period in Novemberâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;December 1965, the Pilot Project was run from January to March 1966, at the Institute of Marine Research in Bergen under the direction of Eggvin, on the basis of data contributed by eight countries (Eggvin 1966). Charts showing the distribution of temperature, temperature anomaly, and salinity of the surface layer together with temperaturedepth curves for a number of fixed stations were produced for 10â&#x20AC;&#x201C;day periods and transmitted by facsimile 1 to 4 days after the termination of each period. An analysis of the charts was distributed a few days later.

The Pilot Project was successful. The data coverage was good, so that dependable charts could be prepared (Figure 9). Some forecasts could be made with regard to fish occurrence, ice formation, and distribution of characteristic water masses. In view of the success, and recognizing the increasing worldwide interest in synoptic oceanography and its potential value for the fishery, the Sub-Committee recommended that an international centre for synoptic fishery oceanography should be established within ICES, and it invited the Council to take steps to continue the Pilot Project on a permanent basis.

Figure 9. Example of oceanographic information issued in near real-time during ICES Pilot Project (Eggvin 1966).

A continuation would entail considerable expenses to the Council, or to the countries that would be sharing the operational centre. The fisheries biologists, however, did not feel convinced that the benefits of the Project would justify the expenses involved, and there was no continuation.

The Project has been dealt with in some detail as it would seem to be the first large-scale experiment of its type, at least in European waters. A somewhat similar project of worldwide scale has since been established jointly by IOC (Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission) and WMO (World Meteorological Organisation), viz., the so-called IGOSS: the Integrated Global Ocean Services System. It should be added that if the fishery biologists in ICES were not persuaded of the value to them of charts in near real-time, this does not mean that they were not at all interested in synoptic charts of the North Sea region. They stressed that what they needed were monthly charts of bottom temperature and bottom salinity, and that the availability of these charts in delayed mode was sufficient. The Service Hydrographique has therefore,

from July 1969 onwards, regularly prepared and distributed such charts, based upon the data received from ICES member countries.

North Sea data and environmental data products It may be appropriate to finish with a few words about the banking of the data from the projects described above and other North Sea data. Realizing the importance of making the data available to the oceanographic community in general, the member countries of ICES, since its establishment in 1902, have sent their hydrographic data from the region to the ICES Service Hydrographique which has acted as data centre for the region (Smed 1968).

Up to and including 1962, all hydrographic station data from the ICES area could be published in the Bulletin (1902—1956) or in the ICES Oceanographic Data Lists (1957—1962). The “data explosion” setting in about 1960, made it virtually impossible however, to publish all data, also because new types of data appeared on the scene, such as those from STDs and XBTs (expendable bathythermographs). There was also not the same need as earlier for publishing the data, because of the introduction of automated data handling which made it easy to extract from a data bank the material requested. So after 1962, ICES has published only the data from certain cooperative expeditions, such as the Joint Skagerrak Expedition 1966. Instead, an automated data bank has been established at the Service Hydrographique, containing as many as possible of the hydrographic data - both old and recent - available from the ICES region. From this bank, copies of data are supplied at request.

However, when the data are no longer published, there is a pronounced need for inventories of observations. For the years 1969, onwards ICES has therefore published an annual “Report on Oceanographic Cruises and Data Stations”, now produced on microfiches. It should be stressed that these Reports also contain a great amount of information about biological, geophysical, meteorological, and pollution observations. For some joint projects, such as JONSDAP 76, more detailed inventories are issued.

Utilization of the data bank for preparation of mean charts and mean values lies near at hand. A number of such products have been prepared by ICES throughout the years, such as the mean charts prepared by Martin Knudsen in the early days of ICES and those by Jacobsen in the 1930s. A more recent product is the Atlas of Mean Monthly Temperature and Salinity of the Surface Layer of the North Sea and adjacent Waters (Anon. 1962). The Atlas, based upon data from the period 1905—1954, was prepared by an ICES SubCommittee chaired by G. Dietrich. It contains not only mean charts for the period, but also tables of mean values for each individual month of the period, and for each of a great number of fields. The monthly mean charts of temperature and salinity for a number of sub-surface levels in the North Sea, issued by the German Hydrographic Institute, supplement the ICES Atlas.

These charts too are based mainly upon ICES data.

A sort of continuation of the tables of the ICES Atlas are the monthly means of surface temperature and salinity in areas of 1 °latitude by 2 °longitude, prepared so far for each year of the period 1955—1973.

With a view to the increasing interest in time series of temperature, monthly anomalies (base period July 1905—June 1914) of sea surface temperature in three areas of the North Sea have been calculated (Smed 1981). Figure 10 gives smoothed pictures of the fluctuations of sea surface temperature over the period 1902—1973 in the southwestern (A/A’), southeastern (B/B’) and central (E/E') North Sea.

Figure 10. Overlapping 5–year means of yearly anomalies (base period July 1905—June 1914) of sea surface temperature in the southwestern (A/A'), southeastern (B/B') and central (E/E') North Sea (Smed 1981).

The future In addition to the internationally coordinated research in the North Sea much work has been carried out throughout the years on a purely national basis (Model 1966). However, in spite of all research it is evident that the North Sea still holds many unsolved problems. With the ever increasing importance of the North Sea for a wide number of purposes there is an urgent need for a better understanding of the physical, chemical, and biological processes taking place there.

It is to be hoped that also in the future, much North Sea research will be undertaken as internationally coordinated investigations. 'Many problems can be tackled only by a concerted effort of several countries. The soaring expenses paint to the same: a close cooperation in the utilization of the resources available for research at sea and an effective exchange of data and results. Also in the future ICES should play an important role in coordinating North Sea research.

References (In order to keep the list within reasonable limits reference to the discussions in ICES Committees and Working Groups have been omitted; the reader is referred to the relevant volumes of Proces-Verbaux des Reunions).

Anon (1899) Conférence internationale pour l' exploration de la mer, réunie à Stockholm 1899 Anon (1901) 2.Conférence internationale pour l'exploration de la mer, réunie à Kristiania 1901 Anon (1903) Conseil permanent international pour l'exploration de la mer, première réunion.

Rapp P v Reun Cons Int Explor Mer 1(B) :1—37 Anon (1912) Continual hydrographi;cal observations in the North Sea 1—14 June 1911. Bull Hydrogr l'année juillet 1910—juin 1911 Anon (1962) Mean monthly temperature and salinity of the surface layer of the North Sea and adjacent waters from 1905 to 1954. Cons Perm Int Explor Mer Service Hydrogr Anon (1969) Joint Skagerrak expedition 1966, vol 1—4. ICES Oceanogr Data Lists Anon (1970) Joint Skagerrak expedition 1966, vol 5. ICES Oceanogr Data Lists Braarud T., Gaarder K R, Grøntved J (1953) The phytoplankton of the North Sea and adjacent waters in May 1948. Rapp P v Reun Cons lnt Explor Mer 133. 87pp.

Eggvin J. (1966) Pilot project on rapid utilization of synoptic oceanographic .observations. CM 1966,. N. 17 Hjort J. (1938) Proposal by the Chairman of the Consultative Committee. Rapp P v Reun Cons Perm lnt Explor Mer 107(1) :41 Knudsen M., Gehrke J. {1913} Hydrographical Section. In: Drechsel CF (ed) Memoire sur les travaux du Conseil Permanent International pour l'Exploration de la Mer pendant les années 1902-1912. Rapp R v Reun Cons lnt E'kplor Mer 16:56—74 Knudsen M., Smith K. (1906) The salinity of the North Sea and adjacent waters calculated on the basis of observations from the period August 1902—May 1905. Rapp P v Reun Cons lnt Explor Mer 6(A) : XXVI—XXX Lennon G. W., JONSDAP 73. An international oceanographic exercise in the southern bight of the North Sea. IOS Bidston, UK. 30pp Model F. (1966) Geophysikalische Bibliographie von Nord- und Ostsee. Dtsch Hydr Z Erg H CA) 8 Pettersson O. (1894a) A review of Swedish hydrographic research in the Baltic and North Seas. Scot Geogr Mag 10:281—302, 352—359, 413—427, 449—462, 525—539, 617—631 Pettersson O. (1894b) Proposed scheme for an international hydrographic survey of the North Atlantic, the North sea, and the Baltic. Scot Geogr. Mag 10:631—635 Ramster J. W. (1977) Development of cooperative research in the North Sea: The origins, planning and philosophy of JONSDAP 76. Mar Pol 1:318—325 Ramster J. W., Koltermann K. P. (1976) Report of the working group on permanent moored current meter stations in the North Sea. Coop Res Rep 53. 150pp Rogalla E. H. (1966) Hydrographic investigations in the North Sea during the international conjoint herring survey 1960/1961. Coop Res Rep Ser A, No 7. 108pp Smed J. (1968) The Service Hydrographique of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. J Cons 32:155—171 Smed J. (1981) Monthly anomalies of the sea surface temperature in areas of the North Sea 1902-1973. Ann Biol 36:65—68

Walther Herwig: the First President of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Ocean Sciences: Their History and relation to Man Proceedings of the 4th International Congress on the History of Oceanography Hamburg 1987 pp. 323— 330 Jens Smed Following university studies in law and administration, Walther Herwig (1838 to 1912) from 1864 held various governmental posts in German states until, in 1889, he was appointed Director of the Klosterkammer in Hannover. In 1901, he retired from this office in order to dedicate the rest of his active life to the advancement of German fisheries. Already in the 1870s, Herwig had become interested in the development of fisheries, and in 1885, he was the founder of a separate section for sea fishery within the German fishery organization, a section which in 1894 became an independent institution, the “Deutscher Seefischerei-Verein”. In his capacity as president of this organization, Herwig contributed greatly to the advancement of German sea fisheries.

Herwig realized that in the long run more marine research would be a prerequisite for the development of fisheries. He was therefore active in establishing the first movable biological station on the German North Sea coast in 1888, and in the foundation of the Biologische Anstalt Helgoland in 1892. He also arranged a number of fishery expeditions to the Baltic and the North Sea, and even some to the Barents Sea. It became clear to Herwig however, that a thorough investigation of the seas exceeded the capacity of a single country; so there was a need for coordinated cooperation between interested countries. Herwig was on the point of taking the initiative in such international co-operation when the Swedish government issued an invitation to a preparatory conference with the same purpose. Herwig headed the German delegation to this and the following conference and was elected President of the organization that resulted, viz. the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. He held this office until 1908 when illness forced him to retire.

Introduction When the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) in 1902 was established by eight of the countries surrounding the North Sea and the Baltic Walther Herwig, the head of the German delegation to the founding conference was elected president of the new organization. In his home country, he had then for many years been the great leader with regard to encouraging the sea-fishery and advancing the study of the sea.

Walther Herwig was born in 1838 in the small town Arolsen, in the principality of Waldeck - one of the many German principalities of that time. Details about Herwig's boyhood and youth and his university studies are given by Heincke and Henking (1913) and by Meyer-Waarden (1977). After, in 1864, having finished his studies of law and administration, Herwig entered the governmental services, first in Waldeck, later on in Prussia. In 1889 he was appointed Director and the year after President of the Klosterkammer in Hannover. The Klosterkammer administers the General Hanoveranian Convent Fund which owns the land and other properties of the convents situated in the former kingdom of Hannover. For the main part the land was secularized as a consequence of the reformation in the 16th century. The territories now comprise about 40 000 ha; they were somewhat greater at Herwig's time. The revenue from the fund is used for running the University of Gottingen, but also as support for churches, schools and all sorts of charity purposes.

The post as Klosterkammer President, with all its versatility, made great demands on Herwig's high capabilities and obviously suited him well. He was active in increasing the land of the Klosterkammer with areas outside the province of Hannover and he took a special interest in what he called inner colonization, i. e. development and utilization of otherwise barren soil, such as heath and moor areas.

In 1901 Herwig decided to retire from his post at Klosterkammer and from governmental services in general. This decision is usually reported to have come as a surprise to his surroundings. However, in a letter which Victor Hensen on behalf of the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Preussische Commission zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung der deutschen Meere in Kielâ&#x20AC;? wrote to the ministry it said that Herwig was overburdened and that his health is failing . It is likely therefore that Herwig himself felt that he had to slow down. In any case he decided to dedicate the rest of his active life to the advancement of German sea fishery and of the study of the sea.

Herwig's achievements in developing German fisheries It is not quite clear how Herwig's interest in fishery matters was aroused.

From 1877 however, he was a member of the German Fishery Organization, the Deutscher Fischerei-Verein. Herwig's interest in fishery items was strengthened when during a short period (1878 to 1880) he held an administrative post at Marienwerder in West Prussia. As there had been a considerable decrease in the fish stocks of the river Lippe and its tributaries the government directed Herwig to prepare a report as to whether protected areas should be established in these rivers. Herwig (1878) wrote a detailed report in which he much exceeded the terms of reference given, as he investigated all the measures that might be taken in order to increase the fishery.

Another relevant activity of Herwig's when he was at Marienwerder was the establishment of a fish hatchery. His general interest in fishery matters is also seen from the fact that from 1879 he was on the committee of the (joint) Fischerei-Verein for East and West Prussia. As the West Prussian fishermen

wished to have their own organization Herwig in 1880 founded a separate one for this province.

In 1880, Herwig was appointed to a high post in the administration of the province Brandenburg. He moved to Berlin and although his position had nothing to do with fishery his close connection with the “Deutscher FischereiVerein” now developed. In 1881 he became a member of its committee, and in 1884 a vice-president.

The “Deutscher Fischerei-Verein” was an umbrella-organization for a great many state, provincial and regional organizations dealing mainly with freshwater fishery. That part of German fishery was taken well care of by this network of organizations. The situation was quite different as far as sea fishery was concerned. This fishery was at a low and had very difficult conditions.

Herwig realized that and upon his suggestion the “Deutscher FischereiVerein” in 1885 established a section for sea fishery, the “Sektion für Küstenund Hochseefischerei”, which later (Herwig 1894) became a separate organization with its own rules (Anon. 1898) and with Herwig as its president. According to its programme (Herwig 1885a; 1885b) the Sektion should function as a centre for the endeavours to increase the German coastal and sea fishery, e. g. by working for the building of ports of refuge. It should contribute to a better yield of fishing operations by working for the introduction of the most suitable fishing gear, and for protection of the young-fish stock. The marketing possibilities should be facilitated. Steps should be taken to have vessels and fishing gear insured. With regard to scientific matters the Sektion should work for establishing observation stations, introduction of fishery statistics, and other relevant research. An important aspect of the activities of the Sektion was the publishing of its “Mittheilungen”, a periodical issued monthly from June 1885. It was a sort of newsletter and contained articles about all items relating to sea fishery.

All these activities would of necessity require financial support from outside.

In this respect it was no doubt a great advantage that Herwig was a member of the Prussian chamber of deputies and that he had many contacts in the German parliament, the “Reichstag”.

Herwig stressed the need for developing the German herring fishery (Herwig 1897). The background for his endeavours in that respect was that Germany annually imported salt herrings for more than thirty million Mark. Herwig arranged that governmental support was given for promoting the herring fishery, and his endeavours led to success: while in 1886 there were only fourteen German herring luggers in the North Sea the number in 1911 had risen to 284.

At about the time of the founding of the Sektion, the first German fishery steamer was built (1884) and was not received with sympathy by the fishermen. Herwig however, recognized its importance and even participated in one of its voyages in the North Sea. The steamers landed great quantities of fresh fish. So there was now a need for persuading people in the interior of the country to include more fish in their daily food. This purpose was pursued

by the participation of the organisation in trade exhibitions such as that in Bremen 1890 and that in Berlin 1896 (Herwig 1895) where fish dishes were propagated.

Another contribution of the organization to these exhibitions was a number of ship models. They were later deposited in the Altona Town Museum (Deutscher Seefischerei-Verein 1904a; Henking 1904) where those which were not destroyed during the Second World War are still to be seen.

An important task of the “Deutscher Seefischerei-Verein” was to find new fishing grounds for exploitation by German fishery. During its first years of existence it concentrated upon the Baltic and the North Sea. Later it wanted to extend its activities to more distant regions, and the Barents Sea came into the picture. A prosperous German whale fishery had taken place in these northern waters in earlier times, and Herwig wished to investigate whether some sort of fishery could again be developed there. This was so much the more important because the increasing fleet of steam trawlers was accused of overfishing the North Sea. As a German naval vessel in the summer of 1898 should go on a training cruise to the north it was therefore arranged that the opportunity should be used for a preliminary investigation. Experimental fishing was made at the west coast of Spitsbergen and southward to Bear Island.

As the results from this expedition were inconclusive a new expedition was sent to the region the year after. This time the expedition fleet consisted of a fishing vessel, a whaler and a transport vessel. Bear Island was chosen as land headquarter, one of the reasons being that this island had not been occupied by any country. The report on the expedition (Herwig (1900)) concluded that there should be reasonably good possibilities for German whaling from Bear Island whereas fishery could be only a side-line.

Not all marine scientists in Germany however, were happy with Herwig's direction of the Bear Island expedition. The members of the Kieler Commission considered it to be too one-sided. They criticised that the expedition had neglected to study such items as fish food, young-fish, fish egg, and the currents of the region¹.

Herwig's name is still associated with Bear Island. The natural harbour used by the expedition was named Herwig-Hafen, and the Norwegian version of this word, Herwighamna, is now the official name of the place (Anon. 1942).

Herwig and marine research in Germany At the time of the establishment of the “Sektion für Küsten- und Hochseefischerei” little was known about the biological conditions in German coastal waters. It is true that the “Preussische Commission zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung der deutschen Meere in Kiel” had been established in 1870. For its members however, participation in this work was a secondary occupation only. Nevertheless some preparatory work had been carried out in the Baltic whereas virtually nothing had been done in North Sea coastal waters. In the spring of 1888 the Sektion therefore established on the North

Sea coast the first movable biological station in Germany, with E. Ehrenbaum in charge of it. The first result of his studies was an elucidation of the natural history of the North Sea shrimp.

Although much useful work was carried out from the movable station the need for a permanent station was felt. The ideal place for such a station would be the island of Helgoland which however, was British at that time. But in 1890 the island was turned over to Germany (in exchange for the island of Zanzibar). Herwig (Hg. 1890) immediately pointed to the importance of establishing a biological station on Helgoland, and already in 1892 the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Biologische Anstalt Helgolandâ&#x20AC;? was founded with F. Heincke as its director and Ehrenbaum as leader of the section for fishery biology.

In the Baltic an expedition with the steamer Holsatia took place in 1887 during which, under the direction of Victor Hensen, important scientific and practical information was obtained. Herwig and his organisation decided to follow up these investigations on a new expedition, to be carried out in 1901, with Holsatia and a North Sea cutter. As it was clear now that the ICES seasonal cruises would be started in a foreseeable time the scientific part of the Holsatia expedition was arranged in such a way that it might be considered a preparatory version of these cruises. The expedition gave rise to considerable international cooperation. In advance of the cruise, the participating zoologist was sent to the leader of the Danish biological investigations, C. G. Joh. Petersen, to study the handling of some of the gear constructed by Petersen.

Furthermore, a young-fish net was made after the directions of the Norwegian biologist Johan Hjort who had used this type of net in the Norwegian Sea with great success. Moreover, the leader of the Swedish hydrographic investigations, Professor Otto Pettersson arranged a Swedish expedition with the gunboat Svensksund to take place simultaneously with the Holsatia cruise, to study those parts of the eastern Baltic which were not covered by the German expedition. Otto Pettersson also supplied the instruments to be used for gas-analytic studies, and he sent a young Swedish hydrographer, the later so famous V, Walfrid Ekman, to collect the samples which were then analysed in Pettersson's Stockholm laboratory. At the same time Finnish scientists made observations in the northern part of the Baltic. The results of the Holsatia expedition were published with an introductory description by Herwig (1902).

Herwig and ICES Time was now ripe for formalizing international cooperation in the study of the Baltic, the North Sea and adjacent waters. The initiative to establish the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) was taken by the Swedish chemist and oceanographer Otto Pettersson. He had advertised his plan for cooperative investigations at the International Geographical Congress in London in 1895 which had recommended the plan. He and his colleague Gustaf Ekman then approached King Oscar II of Sweden, proposing the convocation of a conference to organize an international study of the northern seas. The king ordered that the countries bordering the North Sea

and the Baltic were invited to be represented at a Preparatory Conference in Stockholm in 1899².

It is interesting that also Herwig and his colleagues on the committee of the “Deutscher Seefischerei-Verein” at an early date had plans about international cooperation on the study of the sea and its inhabitants. This appears from a memorandum which Herwig in 1899 sent to the German Ministry of the Interior, obviously an information paper that should assist the government in its consideration of the invitation from Sweden. The memorandum, which was published some years later (Deutscher Seefischerei-Verein 1904b), stresses the need for international cooperation in the study of the sea. Reference was made to a Swedish multiship expedition in Skagerrak and Kattegat in February 1890, and to cooperative studies by a number of countries in 1893/94. These investigations might be taken as a model for future international studies of the hydrographic and biological conditions in the Baltic, the North Sea and adjacent regions.

The memorandum went on to emphasize that the idea of the Swedish scientists to establish international investigations already years ago had been aired from other quarters, e. g. the “Deutscher Seefischerei-Verein”. At the occasion of the sea fishery exhibition in Berlin 1896 Herwig and his colleagues had established personal contact with representatives of sea fishery in foreign countries. There were agreement of views, and in May 1897 a draft programme, prepared by Herwig and the German scientists in cooperation with a Dutch representative was ready. The programme, which is given in full in the memorandum, stressed the need for a common plan for simultaneous investigations of the North Sea in the service of the fishery, especially in order to solve the problem of overfishing. Such investigations would exceed what the individual states could carry out. So there was a strong need for international co-operation, in the same way as it was already practised in several other sciences, such as meteorology, geodesy, polar research, and the study of solar eclipses.

It was not until autumn 1898 however, that Herwig, Reincke and Henking could meet at Dortmund with P, P, C. Hoek, Fishery Consultant to the Dutch government and Director of the Zoological Station at Den Helder (Reincke and Henking 1913). They were about to propose to the governments of Germany and the Netherlands that relevant states should be invited to send representatives to a conference the task of which should be to establish an international commission for the scientific study of the North Sea and the Baltic, with a special view to overfishing and related problems. At that time however, the Swedish government had already decided to invite a number of countries (Denmark, Germany, Great Britain with Ireland, The Netherlands, Norway and Russia) to send representatives to a conference at Stockholm.

The invitation was accompanied by a brief draft programme for cooperative investigations (Anon. 1899) Herwig felt that the Swedish programme was not sufficiently orientated towards solving the overfishing problem. So although he was positive to the invitation from Sweden, in his memorandum to the German Ministry of the

Interior he stressed that international studies of the overfishing were so imminent and indispensable that it might be desirable to make Germany's participation in international co-operative investigations conditional upon the inclusion of such studies in the programme. Therefore Germany at the conference should submit proposals along these lines that would supplement the Swedish programme.

The Conference took place at Stockholm on 15th to 23rd June 1899. Walther Herwig, accompanied by Professors F. Reincke, V. Hensen and O. Kriimmel represented Germany. At the opening session Herwig mentioned how Germany had contributed to the study of the science of the sea, especially when it had become clear that there was a need not only for purely theoretical research, but also for the solving of practical fishery problems. During this work it had been realized also in Germany that the individual scientist and the individual country felt isolated. It was therefore natural to reduce the difficulties stemming from this isolation by the creation of an international organization.

On behalf of the German delegation Herwig submitted a detailed proposal which contained programmes for the hydrographical and biological work and for the establishment of a central administration.

The Conference agreed upon a number of recommendations (Anon. 1899) for the cooperative work to be carried out and for the establishment of a central office, with a central laboratory. Herwig was eager to get the work started and on his proposal a recommendation was carried expressing the desirability that the investigations should begin on 1 May 1901.

Herwig was surprised that Belgium and France had not been invited to the Conference. In a footnote to his report to the Reich Chancellor he maintained that when invitations were sent out France had simply been forgotten. Belgium was indeed remembered; the negotiations however, had been incorrectly started. Apparently, in the last hour an attempt was made to get things right, but without success ³. Be that as it may. In any case the Conference decided that the governments of France and Belgium should be informed about the recommendations passed.

As a supplement to the proceedings of the Conference (Anon. 1899) it is most interesting to read two German reports. One of them ⁴ signed by all German delegates, gives i. a., a brief characterization of each of the other delegates, such as their scientific background and their expertise. The other document is Krümmel's report to the Ministry ⁵. It contained an interesting account of the discussions outside sessions about where to place the headquarters of the new organization, and it reported about the deliberations in the German delegation with regard to the appointment of officers. Krümmel's choice would be as follows: Headquarters - Kiel; General Secretary - Hoek; 1st Assistant Martin Knudsen or H. N. Dickson; President - the Swedish or British Delegate.

Krümmel added however, that he was afraid it would be difficult to obtain this combination.

It was now clear that international investigations would become a reality. The countries involved started preparations for it, and special research vessels

were built in several countries, e.g. in Germany the RV “Poseidon”. Each country established an administration of its participation in the international investigations. Herwig had a great reputation, and the members of the Kiel Commission obviously feared that the administration of Germany's participation should be left to him - or to his organization which would be about the same. In a letter of March 1900 to the ministry Victor Hensen on behalf of the Commission declares that although Herwig had rendered great services to the development of fisheries it would be unfortunate if he should make decisions in scientific matters, too ¹. The problem was solved by setting up a commission, the “Deutsche Wissenschaftliche Kommission für die Internationale Meeresforschung” (DWK) with Herwig as its chairman and with representatives for the Kiel Commission, the “Biologische Anstalt Helgoland” and the “Deutscher Seefischerei-Verein” as members. For the investigations the DWK got at its disposal the RV “Poseidon”. The administration of the vessel and of the funds made available to DWK was delegated to Herwig.

Some time should elapse however, before the investigations could be started. The need was felt for a second Preparatory Conference, which was held in Kristiania (Oslo) in May 1901 (Anon. 1901); and this time Belgium was invited.

Again Walther Herwig was chief delegate for Germany. At the Stockholm Conference the biological programme had been less elaborated than the hydrographic one; so on Herwig's suggestion it was decided now to discuss mainly the biological questions. On behalf of the German delegation Herwig laid before the Conference a very detailed proposal for the biological programme. He stressed however, that this programme was that of the Germans and that it would not in its details imply any obligation for the other countries.

The Conference agreed upon a revised “Programme for the hydrographical and biological work in the Northern parts of the Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, the Baltic and the adjoining Seas”. The background for international cooperative investigations in the area was ready then, and it was recommended that the delegates should meet at Copenhagen as soon as the governments represented had definitely accepted the programme agreed upon by the Conference.

During the next months all countries represented at Kristiania, except Belgium, accepted the programme, and the Danish government could then convene the founding assembly, opened in Copenhagen on 22nd July 1902 by the Danish Prime Minister, Deuntzer (Anon. 1903). Here representatives of the various governments formally gave their agreement to the establishment of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Although not stated directly in the published proceedings from the Kristiania Conference decision had been made there about the filling of the top posts of the organization, as appears from a document in the Council's archives (Went 1972). According to this decision Herwig would become President, Otto Pettersson Vice-President and Hoek General Secretary.

There can be no doubt that Herwig was a happy choice as the first president of the International Council. For years he had taken a great interest in sea fishery and had contributed very much to its promotion in his home country.

Although not a scientist by education, he was greatly interested in the advancement of the science of the sea and fully realized its importance for the practical fishery. Last, but certainly not least, he was an extremely skilled administrator and negotiator with a wide experience in these capacities from his home country. Henking, the General Secretary of the “Deutscher Seefischerei-Verein” relates (Henking 1928) that in Germany it would often come to quite heated discussions in meetings of representatives for fishery and fishing industry. At such occasions Herwig showed his mastership as a leader of negotiations: he was always able to smooth away the differences of opinion, and to do it in such a way that he kept the respect and attachment of the contending parties.

The same intuition Herwig showed when he in his capacity as president chaired the meetings of the International Council and its Bureau. The many different opinions which the participants from the various member countries represented and the variety of questions discussed made the president's task a difficult one. But Herwig mastered it. Henking (1928) relates that Fridtjof Nansen, the oceanographer and arctic explorer and one of the founders of ICES, at the end of the Council Meeting at Hamburg in February 1904 pointed out that at the five conferences or annual meetings held up to then all decisions had been unanimous. That was not usual at such assemblies, and Nansen credited Herwig's great skill with this unique result. It was also Fridtjof Nansen who once told the German director of fisheries, Hans Lübbert, that without Herwig's eminent diplomatic and organizing abilities the international cooperation in marine research would never have come off or have continued for so long time (Lübbert 1912). Another token of the high veneration in which Herwig's person was held by his international colleagues is a remark

by Professor D'Arcy Thompson of Scotland, another of the founders of ICES: “Herwig was like a father to us”, he said (Lübbert 1912).

It is not the intention here to go into details about the activities of ICES during the years when the organization was lead by Herwig. A general report on the work during the first two years is given by Herwig and his colleagues in the Bureau (Herwig, Pettersson, and Hoek 1905). Annual reports are published in the Council's series Rapports et Proces-verbaux. The period is also described by Went in a chapter of his history of ICES (Went 1972).

In his late sixties Herwig's health was declining, and when the Council in June 1907 met in London for its annual meeting he had to send his regrets because of illness. In his absence he was re-elected president and accepted the election. He presided over the Bureau meeting in Berlin in January 1908.

However, in a letter of 2 July 1908 he informed the General Secretary that illness rendered it impossible for him to travel to Copenhagen and therefore he was not able to participate in the Council meeting to take place there that same month. He added that his age and the state of his health did not allow him further activities in the service of the International Council ⁶. This infor-

mation was received with much regret by the meeting, and the members of the Council in an address to Herwig expressed their high appreciation of his services to the organization ever since the Conference at Stockholm in 1899.

It says in the address (in English translation), i. a.: “We feel that the spirit of cordial cooperation and goodwill which exists between the various members of the Council, and on which the successful working of the organization depends, has been largely promoted by the unfailing sympathy and courtesy which you have shown to all alike, and that whatever success the work of the Council may attain in the future will be due in a large measure to the ability and tact with which you have conducted the proceedings of the Council during its earlier years”. ⁷ In his letter of thanks Herwig stressed that the work in the past first period could only be the beginning of a long-term effort. Only its continuation would show the amount and size of the problems inhered in the study of the sea ⁸.

Considering that ICES has since then been working on these problems for 80 years, this prophecy by Herwig certainly must be said to have come true.

Herwig's health did not improve. He had now withdrawn from the public and lead a retired life - first in Arolsen, his native town, later on in Berlin where he died on 16 December 1912. At the Council meeting in 1913, the then ICES President, F. Rose in his opening speech (Anon. 1913) commemorated Walther Herwig and said: “President Herwig ... possessed a clearness of insight, a talent for organization, and a diplomatic ability, which enabled him to most successfully conduct the business of the Council ... ” Rose then presented to the Council Walther Herwig's portrait as a gift from the DWK. This portrait now adorns the Walther Herwig Room, a meeting room in the premises of ICES. In Germany Walther Herwig is commemorated by naming a fishery research vessel, a new wing of the “Bundesforschungsanstalt für Fischerei”, Hamburg and a street at Cuxhaven harbour after him.

Acknowledgements I am most grateful to Mr. W. Lenz for having suggested the topic to me and for proposing to the Klosterkammer that the institution grant me financial support for research on the subject. I should like to express my respectful thanks to the Klosterkammer Director for this support. Furthermore, I am indebted to the relevant authorities for access to the library of the “Bundesforschungsanstalt für Fischerei”, Hamburg, to “Zentrales Staatsarchiv”, Potsdam and Merseburg and to the ICES archives. I am most thankful to Mrs. Ruth Larsen for excellent typing work in connection with the preparation of this and other manuscripts.

Notes ZStA Merseburg = Zentrales Staatsarchiv, Dienststelle Merseburg ¹) Letter of 12 March 1900. - ZStA Merseburg, Rep. 87 B, Nr. 3646, Bl. 181-181a. ²) Letter of 24 March 1906 from Otto Pettersson to the Director of the Musee Oceanographique, Monaco, Dr. Jules Richard. I am grateful to Mmc Carpine-Lancre of the Musee Oceanographique for drawing my attention to this letter in the archives of the Musee.

³) Report of 22 August 1899 by Herwig to the Reich Chancellor. - ZStA Merseburg, Rep. 87 B, Nr. 3646, Bl. 106-llOa. ⁴) Bericht tiber die Stockholmer Konferenz vom 15. bis 23. Juni 1899 (gez. Herwig, Reincke, Hensen, Kriimmel). – ZstA Merseburg, Rep. 87 B, Nr. 3646, Bl. 98-105. ⁵) Bericht tiber die Ergebnisse der internationalen Konferenz zur Erforschung der nordeuropaischen Meere in Stockholm 15 bis 23 Juni 1899, erstattet von Prof. Dr. O. Krümmel in Kiel. - The report is addressed to the Minister of Public Instructions and Ecclesiastical and Medical Affairs. - ZStA Merseburg, Rep. 76-VC, Sekt. 1, Tit. 11, Nr. 11, Bd. 1, Bl. 275-285. ⁶) Letter in the ICES archives. ⁷) Copy of address in the ICES archives. ⁸) Letter of 23 November 1908. ICES archives.

References Mitt. = Mittheilungen der Sektion ftir Ktisten- und Hochseefischerei des Deutschen FischereiVereins (June 1885 - Sept.1894) or Mittheilungen des Deutschen Seefischerei-Vereins (Oct. 1894 onwards) Anon., 1898: Satzungen des Deutschen Seefischerei-Vereins.Mitt. 1898, pp. 33-38.

Anon., 1899: Conference internationale pour l'exploration de la mer, reunie a Stockholm 1899.

Anon., 1901: 2. Conference internationale pour l'exploration de Ia mer reunie a Kristiania 1901.

Anon., 1903: Conseil Permanent International pour l'Exploration de la Mer, Premiere reunion. Copenhague, juillet 1902. - Rapp. P. - v. Reun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, Vol. 1 (B).

Anon., 1913: Proces-verbaux de Ia douzieme reunion du Conseil et des reunions des sections.

- Rapp. P. - v. Reun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, Vol. 19.

Anon., 1942: The place-names of Svalbard. – Norges Svalbard- og Ishavs-Unders¢kelser: Skrifter om Svalbard og Ishavet, No. 80.

Deutscher Seefischerei-Verein, 1904a: Die Sammlung des Deutschen Seefischerei-Vereins.

Mitt. 1904, pp. 99-105.

Deutscher Seefischerei-Verein, 1904b: Dber Internationale Untersuchungen der nordeuropiiischen Meere im Interesse der Seefischerei. Mitt. 1904, pp. 112-122.

Reincke, F. and H. Henking, 1913: Dr. Walther Herwig. Prasident des Deutschen SeefischereiVereins. Ein Gedenkblatt. Mitt. 1913, pp. 92-136.

Henkin g, H., 1904: Aus dem Museum des Deutschen Seefischerei-Vereins. Mitt. 1904, pp.

443-463.

Henking, H., 1928: Walther Herwig.- Rapp. P.- v. Reun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, Vol. 47, pp. 18-20.

Herwig, W., 1878: Fischereiverhaltnisse in der Lippe. Circulare des Deutsch. Fisch.-Vereins, 1878, pp. 20-31.

Herwig, W., 1885a: Unser Programm. Mitt. 1885, pp.1-5.

Herwig, W., 1885b:Vortrag in der General-Versammlung des Deutschen Fischerei-Vereins am 20. April 1885. - Circulare des Deutsch. Fisch. Vereins, 1885, pp. 57-60.

Herwig, W., 1894: Die Umwandlung der Sektion des Deutschen Fischerei-Vereins ftir Kiistenund Hochseefischerei in den Deutschen Seefischerei-Verein. Mitt. 1894, pp. 235-249.

Herwig, W., 1895: Fischereiausstellung in Berlin 1896. Mitt. 1895, pp. 53-56.

Herwig, W., 1897: Die Grosse Heringfischerei Deutschlands und die Mittel zu ihrer Hebung.

Mitt. 1897, pp. 109-149.

Herwig, W, 1900: Die Expedition des Deutschen Seefischerei-Vereins in das nOrdliche Eismeer vom Jahre 1899. Mitt. 1900, pp. 1-37 and 14 figs.

Herwig, W., 1902: (Introduction to) Die Ostsee-Expedition 1901 des Deutschen SeefischereiVereins. Pp. I-VII in: Abhandlungen des Deutschen Seefischerei-Vereins, Vol. VII. Herwig, W., 0. Pettersson, and P. P. C. Hoek, 1905: General review. Pp. 1-17 in: General Report on the Work of the Period July 1902-July 1904. - Rapp. P. - v. Reun. Cons. perm. int.

Explor. Mer, Vol. III. Hg (W. Herwig), 1890: Helgoland. Mitt. 1890, pp. 76-77.

LUbber t, H., 1912: Der Vater der deutschen Seefischerei. Hamburger Nachrichten (Morgenausgabe), 24. Dec. 1912.

Meyer-Waarden, P.-F., 1977: Walther Herwig, 1838-1912. Portrait eines bedeutenden Staatsdieners und Pioniers. - Schriften der Bundesforschungsanstalt fiir Fischerei Hamburg, Vol. 13.

Went, A. E. J., 1972: Seventy Years Agrowing. - Rapp. P. - v. R6un. Cons. int. Explor. Mer, Vol. 165.

Deutschland und die Gründung des ICES DGM-Mitteilungen 3 / 1988

Jens Smed On the invitation of the Swedish government, representatives of the countries bordering on the North Sea or the Baltic came together at Stockholm in June 1899 to organize an international cooperative study of these seas. The outcome of this conference was the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). Although this organization was not formally established until 1902, the basic decisions about the investigations were made at the Stockholm conference. Not yet decided upon at the conference was the place of the Central Bureau. Furthermore, each of the cooperating countries would have to decide upon from where their contributions to the common work should be organized.

As far as Germany is concerned these questions are dealt with in a letter of 12 January 1900 from the Preussische Kommission zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung der deutschen Meere to the appropriate governmental department. The following is an extract of this letter, which was signed by Hensen as Convener of the Kommission.

"Das Centralbüreau. sollte wohl nicht in einem der betheiligten Groβstaaten seinen Sitz haben. Es würde zu befürchten sein, daβ dadurch dem ganzen Unternehmen der Stermpel der Einseitigkeit ertheilt werde. In solchem Fall wäre es fast unvermeidlich, daβ der betreffende Groβstaat seine Kräfte, seine Sprache und auch wohl seine Interessen in den Vordergrund treten lassen würde. Daβ wir (nicht unberechtigter Weise) diese Furcht hegen würden, wenn etwa England der Sitz des Centralbüreaus werden würde, ist wenigstens sehr wahrscheinlich. Es dürfte also geboten sein, in einem der kleineren Staaten das Büreau zu bilden. Holland, auf dessen freundschaftliche Gesinnung sowohl wie nach Regierung sowie nach Bevölkerung zu rechnen wäre, liegt etwas zu sehr im Winkel, um in Betracht kommen zu können. Es würde daher an einen der nordischen Staaten zu denken sein. Mit diesen in gemeinschaftlicher Arbeit verbunden zu sein, liegt ja auch durchaus im deutschen Interesse, urn so mehr, als der Kongreβ ergab, daβ die Beziehung der nordischen Staaten in bezug auf Meeresuntersuchung zu England viel lebhaftere geworden waren, als die zu Deutschland, das in dieser Richtung bisher zu schwache Dotationen ausgeworfen hat. Es liegt Dänemark am meisten in der Mitte aller Staaten und uns am nächsten. Es finden sich in Kopenhagen eine erhebliche Zahl von, für Meeresforschung interessierten, Gelehrten. Von dort aus hat man seit langer Zeit entsprechende Forschungen betrieben, neuerdings noch durch eine schwimmende biologische Station, der fast immer ein Marinefahrzeug zur Verfügung steht, und durch die

Ingolfexpeditionen. Es dürfte wohl Kopenhagen der gegebene Ort für das Centralbüreau sein. Über das Personal des Centralbüreaus sich auszusprechen, ist es noch nicht an der Zeit. Es dürfte aber wichtig sein, darauf aufmerksam zu machen, daβ ausgeprägte politische Abneigung gegen Deutschland verbunden mit rücksichtsloser Energie Eigenschaften sein würden, gegen deren Eintritt in dies Büreau wohl ein veto eingelegt werden müβte. Für die Frage des Orts der unmittelbaren Besorgung der Angelegenheiten in Deutschland wäre folgendes zur Erwägung zu stellen.

Die biologische Station in Helgoland ist ausschlieβlich zur Meeresforschung errichtet. Ihr Personal gibt sich, neben Museumsarbeiten und der Beistandleistung gegenüber den besuchenden Forschern ganz dieser Aufgabe hin. Dies würde deren Wahl empfehlen. Indessen ist die Isolierung vom Festland und allen dessen Hülfsmitteln in Apparat, Baulichkeiten und Rath, etwa von Universitäten, so graβ und zeitweise so unüberwindlich, daβ Helgoland als Sitz der Geschäftsleitung unmöglich dienen kann.

Es käme ferner zur Erwägung, ob die Centralen des deutschen oceanischen Handels und z.Th. der Hochseefischerei, Bremen und Hamburg als Ort der Leitung gewählt werden können. Bei geschickter Einleitung bezüglicher Verhandlungen unter Benutzung der Rivalität beider Staaten würden wahl erhebliche Beiträge, wohl auch die Erstellung eines Schiffes zu erlangen sein.

Bremen liegt indessen etwas abgelegen und hat in der Ostsee fast keine, in der Nordsee nur geringe Interessen. Hamburgs Lage und Handel legt dagegen eine Herbeiziehung für das Unternehmen etwas näher. Wenn es sich demnach zu empfehlen scheint, Hamburg in verstärktem Maaβe zu diesen Arbeiten heranzuziehen, so ergibt doch die nähere Prüfung, daβ dies nicht ganz einfach und namentlich nicht rasch thunlich ist.

Hamburg hat sich durchaus opferwillig für gewisse Zweige der Wissenschaft erwiesen. Sein botanischer und sein zoologischer Garten, seine naturwissenschaftlichen Museen und Institute und seine Krankenhäuser würden geradezu eine brilliante Ausstattung einer Universität sein, diese aber fehlt. Die Tradition des Handels und das ausgesprochene Vorherrschen der Geldmacht in der Stadt haben wahl einen gewissen Einfluβ gegenüber nicht sofort klar nutzbaren wissenschaftlichen Unternehmungen. Man neigt sich unter solchen Umständen dazu, den Nutzen zahlenmäβig klar dargelegt sehen zu wollen, und ist etwas mehr geneigt, zu fragen, was man selbst oder die Vaterstadt davon habe. Auch das Reichsamt des Innern hat solche Erfahrungen gemacht. Die groβe Hamburg-Amerika-Linie, die mit der deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition Ehre einlegen wollte, stellte dafür zunächst die Francia und erst als sich eins unserer Mitglieder der undankbaren Aufgabe unterzog, das Schiff zu kritisieren, sah sie sich gemüβigt, mit der Valdivia ein Schiff zu stellen, das zwar viel weniger gut, als das von anderer Seite angebotene Schwesterschiff Olinda immerhin ein bedeutend besseres Angebot war.

Die erwähnte rühmliche Opferwilligkeit Hamburgs trägt vielleicht etwas stark den Charakter, daβ der Zweck ist, zum Vergnügen, zur Belehrung und zum Nutzen von Jung und Alt in Hamburg möglichst und in mannigfaltigster Weise zu dienen. Dazu wird an den wissenschaftlichen Instituten das Personal, die Gelehrten eingeschlossen, besoldet und voll ausgenutzt. Hoch anzuerkennen ist es, daβ dabei die Vertreter der Wissenschaften darüber hinaus Vieles geleistet haben und leisten. Indessen sie, wie überhaupt Museumsbeamte, sind auβerordentlich gebunden und belastet durch das stets zuströmende, in Hamburg sehr groβe Material, das zur speziellen Ausbildung in den Museumsarbeiten zwingt. Dies läβt den Vertretern der Fächer, die für die internationalen Meeresuntersuchungen in Betracht kommen würden, die Muβe nicht, sich mit den bezüglichen Fragen theoretisch und praktisch zu beschäftigen. Daher findet sich zur Zeit in Hamburg kein Gelehrter, der ein Interesse für die Sache mit der erforderlichen Erfahrung und Gesundheit so verbindet, daβ er für die in Rede stehenden Arbeiten leitend eintreten könnte und wollte. Daβ sich mit der Zeit solche Kräfte finden und ausbilden lieβen, ist nicht in Abrede zu stellen, aber besonders günstig wird Hamburg dafür nicht sein.

Es handelt sich nun darum, in dieser Angelegenheit das deutsche Reich und sozusagen das “made in Germany” gut zu repäsentieren. Eine so starke Herausforderung der internationalen Kritik, wie es sein würde, wenn man für die Meeresforschung Hamburg und seine Gelehrtenwelt den fremden Meeresforschern gegenüberstellen wollte, empfiehlt sich nicht und man würde nicht sicher genug auf Erfolg rechnen können, um das räthlich zu machen. Zu dieser Arbeit gehört einiges Können, einiges Wissen, einige Erfahrung und einige literarische Leistung und Verbindung, sowie einige persönliche Beziehungen, kurz das Ergebnis eines längeren Lebens und Strebens, des Einzigen, was keinerlei Macht sofort zu verschaffen vermag.

Die in Hamburg gebaute deutsche Seewarte ist ein Institut der Kriegsmarine, von der das über die popularisierenden Tendenzen Hamburgs Gesagte nicht gilt. Die Aufgaben der Seewarte liegen indessen nur zu einem sehr kleinen Theil in der hier zur Frage stehenden Richtung. Es muβ zwar eine gewisse Betheiligung der Seewarte gehofft werden, aber ihre ganze Stellung scheint doch eine solche zu sein, daβ sie die Aufgaben der Leitung nicht wird übernehmen können.

Es scheint also, daβ sich kein Vorteil daraus ergeben würde, den einmal durch Delegierung dreier Mitglieder der Kommission nach Stockholm betretenen weg zu verlassen. Daher ist zu empfehlen, unter Anlehnung an die Königliche Kommission zur Untersuchung der deutschen Meere im Interesse der Fischerei sowie an die Christian-Albrecht-Universität die Leitung nach Kiel zu verlegen. Dies dürfte auch den Beifall der Kaiserlichen Admiralität finden.

Wenn auch die Kriegsmarine bei ihrem jetzigen Stand und bei den bevorstehenden Vergröβerungen kaum direkten Antheil an diesen Meeresuntersuchungen wird nehmen können, so geschieht das doch noch indirekt durch den Unterricht, den Mitglieder der Kommission an der MarineAkademie zu ertheilen haben und auch sonst durch gelegentlichen,

gegenseitig nützlichen Meinungsaustausch im Verkehr. Ferner ist es nicht ausgeschlossen, daβ - wie schon früher, u.a. durch die Erdumsegelung der Gazelle begonneen - später einmal die Marine eine direkte Betheiligung an den Arbeiten eintreten läβt.

Was die Kommission selbst angeht, möchte sie nicht unterlassen zu betonen, daβ nicht von ihrer Seite der Anstoβ zu dem, zur Zeit noch recht schwierigen Unternehmen gegeben worden ist. Indessen ist sie der Ansicht, daβ es ihr, eine genügende Unterstützung seitens des Reichs vorausgesetzt, sicher ebenso gut gelingen wird, alles Erforderliche herzustellen und zu leisten, wie irgendeiner der Kommissionen der benachbarten Staaten. Es haben ja für die in Betracht kommenden Untersuchungen in der Nord- und Ostsee von den sechziger Jahren an Mitglieder der Kommission die Grundlagen und die Methoden zurn groβen Theil geschaffen. Die Gelehrten aller anderen Städte Deutschlands würden immer ohne uns nicht vorwärts kommen können.

The issue was that the German government established the Deutsche wissenschaftliche Kommission für die internationale Meeresforschung to direct the German participation in the international cooperation. The new Kommission included representatives of the Preussische Kommission (Kiel), the Biologische Anstalt Helgoland, and the Deutsche Seefischerei-Verein, and was presided over by Walther Herwig, the later President of ICES. With regard to the division of work it was decided that all hydrographic work, including the direction of the seasonal hydrographic cruises, would be taken care of by the Kiel Kommission. The same applied to the general biological investigations, whereas the investigation of food fish and the experimental fishing would be undertaken by the Biologische Anstalt Helgoland. The fishery statistics would be handled by the Deutsche Seefischerei-Verein.

Otto Krümmel über Fridtjof Nansen’s für den 1. Generalsekretär von Kandidatur ICES DGM-Mitteilungen 1 / 1989 Jens Smed At the Preparatory Conference for the founding of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) in Stockholm in June 1899, Germany was represented by the President of the Deutsche Seefischerei-Verein, Walther Herwig and Professors Heincke, Hensen and Krümmel . The recommendations of the Conference are published in the official proceedings. It may however, be of sane interest to quote parts of the report of the German delegates, submitted to their government. The report gives, i. a. , a brief characterization of the delgates from the other countries represented on the Conference: “Dr. Petersen bewährte sich als ruhiger verständiger Sachkenner auf dem Gesamtgebiete der biologischen Meeresforschungen. Dr. Knudsen beherrscht die Details der physikalischen Meereskunde in ausgezeichneter Weise, wenn er auch, wie bei seiner Jugend nicht zu verwundern, darüber nicht selten den Ueberblick über die eigentlichen Aufgaben der Konferenz verlor”.

(Dr. Petersen established himself as a calm sensible expert on the total area of marine biological research. Dr. Knudsen mastered the details of the physical oceanography in an excellent manner, though he, surprisingly in his youth, he often lost the overview on the actual tasks of the conference.)

“Die englischen Delegirten hatten in Sir John Murray einen Ozeanographen ersten Ranges, dessen Autorität und hohe Intelligenz in den Sitzungen namentlich der das hydrographische Programm ausarbeitenden ersten Kommission stark hervortrat; seine Neigung, rasch zum Abschluβ zu drängen, erwies sich nicht immer als der Sache förderlich. In den praktischen Fischereifragen schien Murray, wie aus manchen Anzeichen zu schlieβen, in Meinungsverschiedenheiten mit seinen übrigen englischen Kollegen gerathen zu sein. Der HauptFischerei–Inspektor Archer erwies sich als nicht genügend unterrichtet, um die Aufgaben der Konferenz zu fördern. Es fehlten ihm die zoologischen Kenntnisse, um das biologische Programm zu erfassen und er wuβte von der geographischen Lage der Fischereigründe in der Nordsee so gut wie Nichts. So hat er die Verhandlungen meistens nur aufgehalten, zumal er auch kein Wort Deutsch verstand. Professor D’Arcy Thompson, der einen Theil seiner zoologischen Studien in Deutschland gemacht hat, suchte diese Lücken im Wissen und Können seines Kollegen Archer nach Möglichkeit zu decken und zu ersetzen; er war nicht nur durch Fachwissen, sondern auch

durch persönliche grosse Liebenswürdigkeit ein werthvoller und angenehmer Mitarbeiter”.

(The British delegates have in Sir John Murray, an oceanographer of the first rank, whose authority and high intelligence in the hydrographic program sessions prepared by the first commission came forward strongly, and his tendency to push too fast to finish has proved to be no more beneficial than the cause. In the practical fishery questions seemed Murray, schlieβen like from some signs of being fallen into disagreement with his other English colleagues. The main fisheries inspector Archer proved to be not enough informed to promote the functions of the Conference. He lacked the zoological knowledge to grasp the biological program, and he wuβte on the geographical location of fishing grounds in the North Sea as good as nothing. He has only delayed the negotiations generally, especially since he also understood a word of German. Professor D'Arcy Thompson, who has made a part of his zoological studies in Germany was looking for, these gaps in knowledge and skills of his colleagues to cover if possible and to replace Archer, he was not only expertise, but also by great personal charm a valuable and pleasant staff) “Unter den von Norwegen entsandten Delegirten repräsentierte Dr. Fridtjof Nansen unzweifelhaft eine der interessantesten Persönlichkeiten der Konferenz. Nansen hat sich einigermaβen in die Methoden der praktischen Seewasseruntersuchung eingearbeitet, trat jedoch, vielleicht verwöhnt durch frühere Ovationen, in den Verhandlungen mehr hervor, als seiner Sachkenntnis entsprach und war deshalb nicht immer glücklich. Dr. Hjort, der in der letzten Zeit vorzugsweise praktische Untersuchungen in den norwegischen Fjorden ausgeführt hatte, vertrat vorzugsweise die Interessen der norwegischen Küstenfischerei, unterhielt übrigens die freundlichsten Beziehungen zu den deutschen Fachgenossen”.

(Undoubtedly represented among the delegates sent from Norway, Dr. Fridtjof Nansen, one of the most interesting personalities in the conference.

Nansen has einigermaβen in the practical methods of seawater analysis beitet an incorporated, however, came forth perhaps spoiled by previous ovation in the negotiations more than his expertise and was therefore not always equal happiness. Dr. Hjort, who had performed in recent times, preferably practical investigations in Norwegian fjords represented, preferably the interests of the Norwegian coastal fishing, the way the friendliest relations maintained with the German colleagues) “Eine ganz wesentliche Förderung der Konferenz ging von Professor Otto Pettersson aus, der unermütlich thätig war, um diese ihn seit Jahren aufs Lebhafteste beschäftigende Angelegenheit einer guten Lösung nahe zu bringen. In der ersten (hydrographischen) Kommission stellte er seine grosse Erfahrung zur Verfügung; in den allgemeinen Sitzungen trat er immer ausgleichend und vermittelnd hervor, sobald sich irgendwo Gegensätze austhaten, und hatte bei der liebenswürdigen Art, in der er sich gab, fast durchweg den besten Erfolg”.

(A highly significant promotion of the conference came from Professor Otto Pettersson, who was tirelessly active, to take him to the most lively in years following employment-matter of a good solution close. In the first (hydrographic) Commission, he put his wealth of experience available, in the general sessions, he stepped forward always balancing and mediating, as soon as austhaten somewhere opposites, and had the gracious manner in which he gave himself, almost without exception the best success) The Conference recommended i. a. that a Central Bureau, with a Central Laboratory should be established and should be headed by a General Secretary.

Neither the location of the institution, nor the candidates for the post as General Secretary were touched upon at the sessions of the Conference.

These items however, were of course eagerly discussed by the delegates outside the sessions. It is interesting to note Professor Krümmel’s opinion in these matters, as expressed in his report of 5 August 1899 to the relevant minister (Minister der geistlichen Unterrichts- und Medicinalangelegenheiten). The German delegation would prefer Kiel as seat of the Central Bureau.

They realized however, that the British and Norwegian delegations were definitely against this. Krümmel states in his report: “Wird aber der Sitz der Centralstelle ausserhalb Deutschland zugestanden, so sollen dafür gewisse Kompensationen in der Zusammensetzung des Ausschusses und des ständigen Personals der Centralstelle beansprucht werden: also entweder der Vorsitz im Ausschuβ für den deutschen Delegirten zur Bedingung gemacht, oder etwa die Ernennung eines Deutschen zum Generalsekretar gefordert werden.

An geeigneten Persönlichkeiten zunächst für den leitenden Ausschuss ist in Deutschland kein Mangel: die Kieler Ministerialkomrnission, der Seefischereiverein, die Universitäten bieten Auswahl.

Anderes und zwar ungünstiger liegt allerdings die Kandidatur eines Deutschen als Generalsekretärs oder ersten Assistenten Ich kann nicht umhin, mich darüber ausführlicher auszusprechen.

Es waren hinreichende Ahzeichen dafür vorhanden, daβ unter den fremden Delegirten selbst einer bereits ernsthaft seine Bewerbung um die Stelle des Generalsekretärs unter der Hand betrieb: Dr. Fr. Nansen. Da er einen weltbekannten Namen und eine energische Persönlichkeit in die Wagschale werfen kann, jederzeit abkömmlich ist, weil ihn, obwohl er ein fester Jahrgehalt bezieht, doch keine amtliche Thätigkeit bindet; da ferner seine Vermögenslage ihm auch gestattet, nach Ablauf der Beobachtungsperiode von fünf Jahren, wenn sie nicht verlängert werden sollte, auf seine Besitzungen nach Norwegen zurückzukehren, so ist nicht zu bezweifeln, daβ seine Bewerbung viele Fürsprecher finden wird: Sir John Murray erwies sich der Kandidatur seines alten Freundes ersichtlich geneigt Anderseits ist aber geltend zu machen, zunächst dass nach meinen Beobachtungen Dr. Nansens Persönlichkeit mir nicht Gewähr genug bietet, dass er ein international zusammengesetztes Institut mit dem nötigen Takt zu leiten verstehen würde: - durch die zahlreichen ihm aller Orten dargebrachten Ovationen gehört er

bereits zu dem stark verwöhnten Theil der Sterblichen -; vornehmlich aber, dass seine wissenschaftliche Qualifikation mir nicht über jeden Zweifel erhaben scheint. Dr. Nansen hat, obwohl ursprünglich Zoologe, sich seit seiner Rückkehr aus dem hohen Norden mit Eifer in die ozeanographischen Methoden eingearbeitet; aber, wie sich auf der Konferenz zeigte, besitzt er doch nicht die Grundlagen auf physikalisch-mathematischem Gebiet, um auf die Dauer wirklich so fördernd für die Meereskunde wirken zu können, wie man es von einem so hoch besoldeten Generalsekretär in einer internationalen Stellung erwarten muss. Der von Nansen als sein privater Vorschlag dem Programm für die Centralstelle beigegebene Entwurf für ein Laboratorium konnte von mir schon in den Verhandlungen der Konferenz nicht günstig beurtheilt werden, da er mir viel zu weit geht und zum Theil auch solche rein wissenschaftlichen Untersuchungen ins Auge fasst, die an sich vielleicht für die Ozeanologie wertvoll sein können, aber mit dem eigentlichen Zweck der ganzen Organisation: Erkenntnis der äusseren Lebensbedingungen der nutzbarem seefische - nichts mehr zu thun haben, also den betheiligten Regierungen nicht gut anpfohlen werden können. Auch die Festlegung bestimmter Beobachtungsmethoden als der maassgebenden entspricht nicht der deutschen Auffassung von Freiheit wissenschaftlicher Forschung: wir haben gerade auf dem Gebiet der Wasseruntersuchung durch Kohlrausch Methoden erneuern und zur höchsten Leistungsfähigkeit vervollkamnen sehen, die man früher als ganz unzureichend verworfen hatte.

Ich bin nach Alledem der Meinung, dass Dr. Nansen auf ozeanologischem Gebiete nur Leistungen eines eifrigen Dilettanten aufweisen kann.

Beträchtlich ihm überlegen in wissenschaft. licher Hinsicht wird der dänische Delegirte, Dr. Martin Knudsen, Docent an der Polytechnischen Lehranstalt in Kopenhagen, genannt werden müssen: als fachmässig ausgebildeter Physiker und Chemiker, der auch einige Zeit bei Warburg in Berlin gearbeitet hat, steht er Nansen voran, an Erfahrung an Bord kommt er ihm mindestens gleich.

Falls er seine Kandidatur für die Centralstelle wünschen sollte, würde ich sie durchaus unterstlitzen.

Ein ebenso starker Bewerber könnte von englischer Seite in der Person des Dr. H. N. Dickson, welcher früher mitglied des Scotch Fishery Board und physikalischer Gehilfe Sir John Murray’s war una jetzt zum Lecturer on physical geography in Oxford gewählt ist, genannt werden. Ich würde ihn ebenfalls nach seinem bisherigen sehr tüchtigen Leistungen Dr. Nansen entschieden vorziehen und pari passu mit Dr. Knudsen empfehlen.

Einen deutschen Kandidaten für diese Stellung vermag ich leider nicht zu nennen. Herr Dr. G. Schott. der Ozeanograph der Tiefsee Expedition, ist zwar ein strebsamer und fleissiger Arbeiter. sehr aber auf physikalischem und chemischem Gebiet leider ohne jede Vorbildung. geschweige denn im Besitze hinreichender Kenntnisse um im Bereiche einer internationalen Centralstelle die deutsche Wissenschaft angemessen zu vertreten; er steht in dieser Hinsicht noch merklich hinter Nansen zurück, der sich wenigstens bemüht hat, die Lücken seiner Vorbildung nachträglich zu ergänzen. - Auch von mir selbst bitte ich ganz absehen zu wollen, da ich nicht geneigt bin, die mir

durchaus zusagende und liebgewordene akademische Lehrthätigkeit mit irgend einern andern Beruf zu vertauschen, und die hohe Dotation der in Betracht kommenden Stelle mich nicht lockt.

Wenn ich selbst zum Schluss meiner Meinung über die Besetzung der Centralstelle äussern darf, so würde ich diese Frage beispielsweise dann für zweckmässig und auch vom deutschen Standpunkte aus befriedigend gelöst halten, wenn als Sitz: Kiel, als Generalsekretär Dr. Hoek, als erster Assistent Dr. Knudsen oder Dickson, als Vorsitzender des Ausschusses der schwedische oder englische Delegirte bestimmt wurde; ich befürchte aber dass diese Kombination schwer zu erlangen sein wird”.

(But is the seat of the Central office outside Germany is warranted, to ensure some compensation in the composition of the committee and the permanent staff of the Central Office are claimed: that is, either the chairman of the Ausschuβ for the German delegates made a condition, or about the appointment of a German national for Secretary General will be required.

At appropriate figures for the first committee in conducting German-land is no shortage: the Kiel Ministerialkomrnission, the Seefischereiverein, the Universities offer selection.

Others, however, is unfavorable and that the candidacy of a German General or as the first assistant I can not help myself from above-führlicher pronounce.

There were sufficient for Ahzeichen exist among the foreign delegates daβ even an already seriously pursued his candidature for the post of SecretaryGeneral under the hand: Dr. F. Nansen. Since it can take a world-renowned name and an energetic personality into the scales, at any time dispensable, because he, although he is a solid year salary, but does not bind any official action, as also his financial situation he also allowed after the observation period of five years is when they should not be extended to return to his estates in Norway, so no doubt, daβ his application found many advocates is: Sir John Murray proved to the candidacy of his old friend's inclination can be seen the other hand, but to make claims, first that Dr. Nansen's personality according to my observations do not provide sufficient guarantee that he would be understood to lead an international institution with the necessary composite clock - by the numerous standing ovations results presented him everywhere he is already one of the heavily drenched part of mortals -; primarily but that his academic qualifications do not seem beyond reproach. Dr. Nansen has, although zoologist originally, incorporated since his return from the far north with zeal in the oceanographic methods, but, as was shown at the conference, he has not the fundamentals of physical-mathematical field for the duration really supportive work for the customer to sea, as one would expect from such a high-salaried general secretary in an international position must. He could of Nansen as its private proposal to the program for the Central site included abandoned draft of a laboratory already in the negotiations of the Conference will not be judged favorably of me, because he gave me much too far, and partly also those purely scientific investigations into

the eye sums that may in itself can be valuable to the oceanography, but the actual purpose of the whole organization: knowledge of the conditions of life of the seaplane usable - have nothing to do anymore, so the government took part can not be anpfohlen well. Even the definition of certain methods of observation corresponds to when the Maas-giving is not the German concept of freedom of scientific research: we have replace just the area of water under investigation by Kohlrausch methods and the highest performance vervollkamnen see that they had rejected earlier as quite inadequate. I may have after all of the opinion that Dr. Nansen on ozeanologischem areas only performance obligations of an eager amateur.

Significantly superior to him in science. Licher respect, Copen-hagen, the Danish delegate, Dr. Martin Knudsen, Docent at the Polytechnic College in, must be known: as a professional moderately trained physicist and chemist who has worked for some time at Warburg in Berlin, he is preceded by Nansen, to experience on board, he is at least equal to him. If he should wish his candidacy for the central office, I would definitely unterstlitzen.

An equally strong contender might of the British side in the person of Dr. HN Dickson, who formerly member of the Scotch Fishery Board, and physical assistant Sir John Murray's was una is now elected Lecturer on physical geography at Oxford, to be called. I would prefer him to his previous decision also very efficient service, Dr. Nansen and pari passu with a friend, Dr. Knudsen.

A German candidate for this position, I unfortunately can not be mentioned.

Dr. G. Schott. Oceanographer of the deep sea expedition, is indeed an ambitious and diligent workers. but very physical and chemical activities, unfortunately without any training. let alone in possession of sufficient knowledge about the areas of an international central authority to represent adequately the German science and he is back in this regard still noticeably behind Nansen, who has at least tried to supplement the gaps in his education later. Even from myself I want to please refrain entirely, because I'm not inclined to Einern me quite congenial and cherished academic career as a teacher with any other profession to change, and the high allocation of the suitable location not attract me.

If I can even express the end of my opinion about the occupation of the central place, I would consider this question, for example, be solved for practical and also from the German point of satisfactory, if a seat: Kiel, as Secretary General, Dr. Hook, the first assistant Dr . Knudsen and Dickson, as a preChairman of the Committee of the Swedish or English delegates was determined, but I fear that this combination will be difficult to obtain) As Krümmel surmised, this composition was not obtained. During the Second Preparatory Conference at Kristiania (Oslo) in May 1901, it was informally recommended to split up the central institution into two: a Central Bureau in Copenhagen, with P. P. C. Hoek as General Secretary, and a Central Laboratory at Kristiania, with Fridtjof Nansen as its Director. Although Krümmel in his report quoted above would seem to have been too negative with regard to Nansen’s qualifications, it is well known that Nansen himself felt a lack of

knowledge in mathematics and physics. At the Central Laboratory however he remedied this by choosing the highly qualified Walfrid Ekman as his First Assistant. Nansen's many ideas and Ekman’s mathematical and physical expertise were undoubtedly a happy combination. It should also be mentioned that in spite of Krümmel’s criticism, the programme finally adopted for the activities of the Central Laboratory was essentially that proposed earlier by Nansen.

The post as first assistant to the Central Bureau in Copenhagen was filled by Martin Knudsen. At the top of the organization came Walter Herwig as President and Otto Pettersson of Sweden as Vice-President. This solution must have satisfied also Professor Krümmel.

Hydrographic Investigations in the North Sea, the Kattegat and the Baltic before ICES Ocean Sciences: Their History and relation to Man Proceedings of the 4th International Congress on the History of Oceanography, Hamburg 1990 Bundesamt für Seeschiffahrt und Hydrographie Jens Smed At the International Conference for the Exploration of the Sea, held in Stockholm in 1899, a detailed programme for hydrographic investigation of the North Sea, the Baltic and adjacent waters was agreed upon, so that when the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) had been founded in 1902, the programme could be implemented without delay. The prompt agreement upon such an extensive programme would seem to presuppose experience from earlier investigations in the region. In fact, a number of national expeditions had taken place during the 1870s and 1880s. From Germany, extensive cruises were carried out by Pommerania in the Baltic in 1871 and in the North Sea in 1872, and by Drache in the North Sea in 1882 and 1884. In Sweden, Frederik Laurentz Ekman (F. L. Ekman) arranged an intensive survey of the Baltic, the Kattegat, and Skagerrak in the summer of 1877.

In Denmark, hydrographic observations were made in the Kattegat during the summers of 1884—1886, in connection with Carl Georg Johannes Petersen’s zoological investigations. A synoptic survey of Skagerrak and northern Kattegat was taken in February 1890, by Otto Pettersson and Gustav Ekman with five Swedish ships. From 1891, synoptic surveys of Kattegat, the Sound, the Belts, and the Belt Sea were taken regularly four times a year by Danish ships.

During the year 1893/1894, such seasonal synoptic surveys were carried out over a large region, five countries participating in the coordinated cruises.

Introduction At the Preparatory Conference for the founding of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) in Stockholm 1899, a detailed programme for the hydrographic investigation of the North Sea, the Kattegat, and the Baltic was agreed upon, and when ICES in 1902, had been formally established the programme could be implemented immediately. It might seem strange that such an extensive programme could be set up so fast without earlier experience. As a matter of fact coordinated investigations in which several countries participated had taken place during the 1890s in the

North Sea and adjacent waters, and these cooperative investigations had been preceded by a number of national scientific activities in the region.

National Investigations The German Fishery Organization (Deutscher Fischerei–Verein), whose aim it was to further the development of the fishery, realized the necessity of a scientifically safe basis for obtaining practical results. This would especially apply to the fishery in the open parts of the North Sea and the Baltic, where the physical conditions were rather unknown. At the request of the Organization, the Prussian government in 1870 set up the “Preussische Commission zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung der deutschen Meere in Kiel”. The activities of the Commission should include a study of the hydrographic conditions, the flora and fauna of the Sea, and the distribution, food, reproduction and migration of food fish. The studies obviously had a practical purpose. The Commission stressed however, that it had to consider its task a scientific one, as a solving of the scientific questions was a prerequisite for attaining the practical goals.

The first action of the Commission was to establish in 1871, a number of coastal stations where daily measurements of temperature and specific weight of the water were made at the surface and at one or more subsurface levels. From the specific weight, the salinity was then calculated by means of the so-called specific weight coefficient.

It was realized that such stations could be representative for a minor region only. So there was a need for an investigation of the conditions of the open sea. It was therefore decided to carry out in 1871 a reconnaissance cruise in the Baltic to obtain a first survey of a great part of this sea, and at the same time gain experience in such work, i.e., try out the instruments and methods to be used in the future investigations. The government placed at the disposal of the expedition the dispatch-vessel Pommerania, a paddle-wheel steamer. After two minor shakedown cruises in June 1871 - one of them to the great depths of the Skagerrak - the main expedition took place from 6 July to 23 August 1871. It covered the Baltic as far north as Stockholm. A total of 46 stations were worked on the second shakedown cruise and 170 stations on the main expedition. About the instruments and methods used and the hydrographic results obtained is reported by Karsten and Jacobsen (1873).

The cruise was successful, especially from a hydrographic point of view. It gave some idea about the extent of the inflowing North Sea water and about where there was a need for additional coastal stations. Such additional stations were established in 1872, on the coasts of Germany, Sweden, and Denmark, With regard to the biological part of the cruise, the results were less clear. There was obviously a need for further investigations. The Commission felt however, that a new cruise in the Baltic should be preceded by a reconnaissance cruise in the North Sea. This cruise took place in 1872, from 21 July to 9 September, again onboard the Pommerania. The route is shown in Figure 1 (dashed line). A total of 255

hydrographic stations were worked. At each station temperature and specific weight of the water were determined at a number of depths or at surface only. Meteorological observations were made at each station, and at a few stations the current, surface, and subsurface were measured. The 357 hydrographic results were reported by Meyer (1875). The expedition gave important information about the hydrography of the North Sea. The continuation of the Baltic Current along the Norwegian coast was proved, as was the Jutland Current. The inflow of saline water from the North into the Norwegian Trench was demonstrated. The great temperature difference in summer between a shallow surface layer and the deeper layers in the northern part of the North Sea was shown, as was the quasi-homogeneity of the whole water column in the southern part.

Figure 1. Routes and stations of Pommerania in 1872 (dashed line) and of Drache in 1882 and 1884 (full lines).Anon. 1886.

The Pommerania expedition in the North Sea covered two summer months only. The daily observations of temperature and salinity which, from about 1880, were carried out aboard a number of light vessels showed however, great variations of these quantities, both seasonal and inter annual. So there

was obviously a need for additional investigations, also because the Pommerania expedition had shown how complicated the North Sea was regarding the distribution of both temperature and density of its waters. Furthermore, Pommerania had made very few subsurface observations in the northern part of the North Sea. The important section Bergen–Shetland had been abandoned because of bad weather, and even on the replacement section, Bergen–Peterhead, no subsurface observations could be made on the stretch from Bergen to about the Greenwich meridian. The German Hydrographic Office (Hydrographisches Amt) decided to fill in this gap and in the summer of 1882, it sent the gunboat Drache on a research cruise to the northern North Sea. The cruise took place from 23 May to 6 July. It went from Wilhelmshaven across the central North Sea to Aberdeen, from there due north to Lerwick (Shetland), across the northern North Sea to Bergen and then through the eastern part of the North Sea back to Wilhelmshaven (Figure 1).

When working up the hydrographic data from this cruise, it was realized that for the drawing of hydrographic conclusions more data were needed from the central part of the North Sea and from the Norwegian Trench. Another cruise was therefore launched, again with the Drache. It took place from 30 April to 13 June 1884. The route and the stations worked (a, b, c, ... hh, ii, kk) are shown in Figure l.

On both cruises hydrographic stations were worked with intervals of about 50 nautical miles, except within and on the edge of the Norwegian Trench where considerably shorter intervals were chosen. Observation depths (m) were 0, 15, 30, 50, 100, 150, 200, 300, and near bottom. For subsurface temperature observations the Negretti–Zambra reversing thermometers were used. For water sampling, a water bottle constructed by H. A. Meyer and already in use on the Pommerania North Sea expedition in 1872, was employed. Salinity was determined by specific weight determinations, made by hydrometers. A considerable amount of current measurements at 0 m, 15 m, and 30 m depth were made. At subsurface levels current direction was observed by means of the Aime instrument, current speed with a cup instrument.

On the basis of the data obtained, the Drache report (Anon. 1886) presents charts showing isohalines and isopycnics for surface, 30 m depth and near bottom, and interestingly it mentions that the isopycnic lines may be compared to the isobars which surround an atmospheric pressure centre. The suggestion is made that the salinity charts, when available for all seasons, might be of use for the shipping, at least in some regions, as they would make it possible to replace soundings by a determination of the salinity.

In the meantime, a number of investigations had been implemented by Scandinavian scientists. The Norwegian North-Atlantic Expedition with Vøringen during the summers of 1876, 1877, and 1878, organized by the meteorologist Henrik Mohn and the biologist Georg Ossian Sars, although not working in the North Sea, was of importance for the study of this sea because of its investigation of the adjacent northern waters (Mohn, 1887). In Sweden, the chemist F. L. Ekman in the summer of 1877, conducted an extensive in-

vestigation of the Baltic, the Kattegat, and the Skagerrak during which about 1800 records of temperature and salinity from different depths were collected at stations distributed all over the region (Figure 2). Unfortunately, however, because of ill health F. L. Ekman did not succeed in working up the material before his death in 1890. So the data were worked up and the results were published by the Swedish chemist Otto Pettersson (F. L. Ekman and O. Pettersson, 1893). This expedition gave the first overall view of the hydrography of the Baltic and the Kattegat. One interesting result was the discovery of the layer of minimum temperature existing at a certain depth in the Baltic during summer.

Figure 2. Sections and stations worked by F. L. Ekmanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s expedition in July 1877. (F. L. Ekman and O. Pettersson, 1893)

Meanwhile, in the winter of 1877/1878, after 70 years of absence, the herring reappeared off the west coast of Sweden. This induced the Swedish chemist Gustav Ekman to carry out hydrographic measurements on the fishing grounds in January 1878 and during the winter 1878/1879, in order to investigate whether there was a connection between the hydrographic conditions and the occurrence of fish (G. Ekman, 1880). It was obvious however, that such local small-scale investigations did not suffice. So in February 1890, Pettersson and Ekman organized an investigation of the Skagerrak and the northern part of the Kattegat by means of five Swedish ships. In this way the whole investigation could be undertaken within a few days and thus a quasisynoptic view of the situation could be obtained. The expedition revealed the essential hydrographic conditions of the region at the time of the investigation, as appears from the report of the organizers (Pettersson and Ekman, 1891).

Pettersson realized that there was a need for extending the observations to the North Sea proper, and to repeat them regularly in order to investigate the seasonal and annual variations of the hydrographic conditions. At the Meeting of Scandinavian Naturalists at Copenhagen in 1892, he lectured about the general features of the hydrography of the North Sea and the Baltic (Pettersson, 1892). In a session of the physical section of the same meeting, he opened a discussion (Anon., 1892) on the advantages that might be obtained for the hydrographic investigation of these regions by cooperation, according to common plans, between Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish scientists and scientific institutions. He was aware that some investigations were carried out by Danish vessels, but complained that in Sweden they did not even know when these seasonal cruises took place.

As a matter of fact, considerable Danish activities could already be reported.

During the summers of 1884 to 1886, about 450 observations of temperature and specific weight of the water at various depths had been made in the Kattegat in connection with C. G. Joh. Petersen’s zoological investigations, carried out by the fishery protection vessel Hauch (Anon., 1893). In spite of their sporadic character the observations showed (Rørdam, 1891) that planned investigations would be of great interest, not only for the understanding of animal life, but also in respect of meteorology and hydrography. In 1890, the Danish Søkortarkiv (i.e., Hydrographic Office) therefore came up with a plan for a hydrographic investigation of the Danish waters (Wandel, 1896). In view of the fast variations of the hydrographic conditions in these waters synoptic observations should be projected. The plan suggested that observations be carried out one day in each season, viz. the first day of February, May, August, and November. Each time a network of fixed stations should be worked (Figure 3). From 1891, the observations were carried out in accordance with this plan. The observations made during the period 1891 to 1893, were worked up and published by Kristian Rørdam (1896). In addition to the raw data (and salinities derived from the specific weights) the paper gives for each of the seasonal investigations a description of the temperature and sa-

linity conditions in the region, illustrated by charts and profiles with isotherms and isohalines.

Figure 3. Sections and stations worked during the Danish seasonal cruises in the 1890s.

(Wandel, 1896).

Cooperative Investigations The Meeting of Scandinavian Naturalists at Copenhagen in 1892, approved the proposal of Otto Pettersson that a common plan should be set up for the hydrographic investigations carried out by the Scandinavian countries in their adjacent waters and cooperation be established (Anon., 1892). In fact, the cooperation was extended also to non-Scandinavian countries when Pettersson and Ekman drew up a plan for an International Hydrographic Survey of the Baltic, the North Sea, and adjacent parts of the North Atlantic. The plan was modelled after the investigations carried out regularly by Denmark, viz. a number of fixed stations worked on seasonal cruises. Data from these cruises would be supplemented by observations from light vessels and commercial

routes. According to the plan, the cooperative investigations should cover one year, starting 1st May 1893. Danish, Scottish, German, Norwegian, and Swedish institutions were expected to participate.

The cooperation was successful and continued, at least to some degree, also after the year covered by the plan. In the following the achievements of the individual countries in these pre-ICES cooperative investigations are considered.

Denmark As mentioned, regular seasonal cruises were carried out by Danish vessels already from 1891. The investigations during 1891 to 1893 reported on above, gave an overall picture of the general hydrographic conditions in the Danish waters. On the other hand these investigations also showed that in some parts of the region the hydrographic conditions changed considerably from one year to another. It was therefore decided to continue the seasonal cruises in 1894 to 1896, but limited to a minor number of profiles of special importance for estimating the hydrographic conditions in the area. The observations were published by Kristian Rørdam (1897). For the years 1897 and 1898, it was necessary to introduce additional limitations in the number of stations worked. As a matter of fact only two profiles were worked in full, viz. the profile across the northern entrance to the Kattegat and the profile Gedser Rev-Darss, where the deepwater inflow to the Baltic proper takes place. Furthermore, a single station was worked on a number of the other profiles, making it possible to construct a longitudinal profile through the deep channel of Kattegat and the main connection between Kattegat and the Baltic. On the basis of the investigations during the foregoing years, it could be expected that observations on the limited network of stations would show the most important hydrographic changes in the area. The observations carried out during the two years were published by Martin Knudsen (1899a).

A thorough and painstaking working up of the observations carried out in the years 1894 to 1898 was undertaken by Martin Knudsen (1899b). For each season, he presents graphs showing the distribution of temperature and salinity for each of the profiles for which data are available, accompanied by a description and explanation of the hydrographic situation in the region. Furthermore Knudsen, in a general overview, enters upon a number of more principal questions, such as the renewal of the bottom water of the Baltic.

The figures confirmed that the inflow of high salinity water to the Baltic takes place intermittently. Knudsen also set up a relation between wind, air pressure, and water exchange in the transition area between the North Sea and the Baltic.

It is in the same paper that is launched what has been called Knudsen’s theorem, which is a formulation of the equations of conservation of mass and salt in a two-layer flow. Knudsen uses the theorem on the water exchange in the Gedser-Darss section which contains the sill depth to the Baltic proper. On the basis of the few observations available from the region, Knudsen states that the salinity of the inflowing deepwater may be taken as 17.4 ‰, that of

the outflowing Baltic water as 8.7 ‰. Continuity then obviously requires that inflow to the Baltic is half the amount of the outflow. This also implies that the supply of fresh water (precipitation and river water minus evaporation) to the Baltic is equal to the inflowing amount of salt water, and is half of the amount of the outflowing water.

Knudsen stressed that these calculations were based on insufficient data.

However, although plenty of observations became available in the following years, the two salinity values 8. 7 ‰ and 17.4 ‰ have, as pointed out by Svansson (1975), been used over and again during the years - as a matter of fact during the next 75 years. A review of the attempts to determine the seawater exchange of the Baltic is given by Torben Schelde Jacobsen (1980).

Scotland The Fishery Board of Scotland joined the cooperative investigations in August 1893. Dickson reports that he had been instructed by the Board to make a survey with HMS Jackal along the northern and northwestern edges of the continental shelf, with the double object of extending and completing the work done by H. R. Mill to the west of Lewis during July and August 1887, and of taking part in the international survey of the North Sea, which was at that time being arranged, at the instance of the Swedish Government,

by Professor Pettersson of Stockholm (Dickson, 1894).

The Scottish part of the survey was to examine the channels - including the Faroe–Shetland Channel - connecting the North Sea with the Norwegian Sea and the Atlantic “in order to ascertain the sources of the different waters flowing through them, and the manner of their passage at different times of the year”. Stations were worked in positions that would allow the largest number of combinations into profiles. One series of profiles radiated outwards from the North Sea to the deeper water beyond the shelf; another series of profiles were perpendicular to the first one. The first cruise, which lasted nearly the whole month of August 1893, gave a very good coverage of the region. The data obtained made it possible to draw charts of the region showing the distribution of temperature at 7 depth levels and of salinity at surface and bottom (or 200 m), and to show the distribution of these parameters on a number of vertical sections.

The two next cruises, in November 1893 and February 1894, though planned to be of shorter duration, were intended to cover all the stations east of the Orkneys and Shetland. The cruises were however hampered by very bad weather, so that in November only five stations were worked, in February only two. As Scotland had not participated in the May 1893 survey, a cruise was undertaken in May 1894 when 10 stations were worked.

When the data collected by all the cooperating countries on the seasonal cruises had been made available together with data collected by merchant vessels during the same periods Dickson (1896) summarized the material, in so far as it referred to the surface waters of the North Sea and the entrance

to the Skagerrak, in charts showing the distribution of surface temperature and salinity for May, August, and November 1893 and February and May 1894. They are accompanied by charts showing the distribution of air temperature and air pressure over the region during the cruise periods.

In the following years Dickson, who obviously had difficulties in getting funds for work at sea, concentrated upon collecting material from meteorological offices and from captains of a number of private vessels with the purpose of constructing monthly charts showing the distribution of temperature and salinity over the Atlantic north of 40 ° N during the years 1896 and 1897. During 1896, monthly expeditions by Norwegian and Swedish vessels would make cruises in the North Sea. It was Dickson’s view that these combined efforts would do much to clear up many of the questions suggested by the preliminary work during 1893 to 1894; but it is equally certain that they cannot attain to their full value, nor can the matter be finally set at rest, unless deep-sea observations are made simultaneously in the Faroe– Shetland channel, and at the north-western entrances to the North Sea. (Dickson, 1896) Fortunately enough, Dickson succeeded in having such observations made by the officers of HMS Research during August 1896. 10 deep stations, together with a number of surface stations were worked over the Wyville–Thomson Ridge and round the western and northern border of the continental shelf several of them repetitions of earlier Jackal stations. This made it possible (Dickson, 1897) to compare the hydrographic situation in the region in August 1896 with that in August 1893. The sea surface temperature during the two periods shows considerable differences which, according to Dickson, become intelligible when the meteorology of the periods is taken into consideration.

Another important Scottish contribution to the hydrography of the North Sea region in this pre-ICES period is the report by T. W. Fulton (1897) on the currents of the North Sea and their relation to fisheries. Fulton refers to the observations of temperature and salinity as one method to trace the course and extent of oceanic and Baltic water in the North Sea. As another method of tracing the movement of the water he mentions the study of the distribution of the plankton organisms which are carried by the water. Such studies were undertaken by the Swedish planktologists P. T. Cleve (1894) and C. W. S. Aurivillius (1894). A third method, somewhat related to the study of plankton drifts, is the use of floating bodies, such as bottles, whose place and time of immersion is known, and which can be subsequently identified when they are recovered. This method was used in the North Sea by Fulton during the years 1894 to 1897. The number of floats (bottles and wooden slips) set adrift was circa 3500, and the recovery about 16 percent. On the basis of these recoveries Fulton prepared his well-known chart showing the main features of the surface currents of the North Sea. In his paper on the movements of the surface waters of the North Sea Dickson (1896) draws attention to “the brilliant researches of the Swedish ocean-

ographers, Ekman and Pettersson” which have shown that a complete discussion of the conditions in the Baltic is not possible without tracing the incoming and outgoing currents to their origins and endings. He stresses the rapid changes occurring in the area and continues: What is wanted is, as it were, a series of instantaneous photographs recording the distribution of temperature and salinity in the whole body of water between the Faroe Islands and the Gulf of Bothnia, and between the Norwegian Sea and the English Channel; and that not only in different seasons of one year, but in successive years. The network of almost simultaneous observations which alone can make it possible to draw such synoptic charts, involves the combined operation of a larger number of ships than any one government can reasonably be expected to send to sea at one time; but the evidence brought out by the Swedish researches, amounting almost to actual proof that increased physical knowledge must lead to increased acquaintance with the habits and migrations of some of our food fishes, opens a way towards an international scheme of observations in which all the countries interested in the fisheries of the North Sea and the Baltic may take part, each exploring the areas more immediately concerning it, and at the same time contributing observations to the general fund. (Dickson, 1896) These remarks may be seen as a foreboding of the cooperation which materialized with the founding of ICES. Germany According to Krümmel (1895), no invitation to participate in the cooperative investigation was received by Germany. This must have been due to lack of communication, as the Copenhagen programme - which, it is true, was published as late as December 1894 - assigned the investigation of the western Baltic between the islands of Als and Rügen to Germany. However, from the newspapers, Krümmel learned about the Danish and Swedish investigations in May 1893. This made him approach Pettersson in order to arrange for German participation, which was agreed upon by the earlier mentioned Commission zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung der deutschen Meere. So from August 1893, Germany took part in the cooperative investigations. The missing cruise in May 1893 was replaced by one in May 1894.

Krümmel was under the necessity of using vessels which were out in other business. So the observations were limited to a maximum of four stations each season. In July 1894, an additional three stations were worked in the Baltic proper. Krümmel used the material of the various investigations in his general paper on the physics of the Baltic (Krümmel, 1895).

Norway The Norwegian participation started in November 1893. According to Krümmel (1895), the existing political tension impeded an official participation by

Norway. This view would seem to be a mistake however, as Johan Hjort (1895) reported that the Department of the Interior had charged him with the work to be carried out as the Norwegian part of the cooperative investigation.

Hjort made observations off the southern and western coasts of Norway, as far as possible in coherence with the observations by the other cooperating countries. Because of the severe weather often reigning in these regions many plans, however, had to be given up or changed. Nevertheless a considerable amount of hydrographic stations were worked, i.e. on the important sections across the Norwegian Trench. Furthermore, Hjort arranged that a number of steamers collected water samples and made temperature observations at the sea surface when crossing the North Sea and Skagerrak. The hydrographic material from the period November 1893 to April 1895, was published by Hjort (1895) and was accompanied by graphs showing the distribution of temperature and salinity on the sections worked. Also included were charts prepared by Pettersson and showing the distribution of surface salinity in the North Sea, Skagerrak and Kattegat in a number of months, based upon all material available.

Sweden Sweden participated in each of the four seasonal cooperative investigations (May, August and November 1893, February 1894), each time with 2 or 3 vessels. The area investigated by Swedish vessels was mainly the Skagerrak.

As storms prevented a thorough investigation of the Skagerrak in February 1894, an expedition was organized in February 1896, in order to obtain a more complete knowledge of the winter state of the Skagerrak. The expedition was carried out in conjunction with Norwegian investigations on the Atlantic coast of Norway and with those of Danish hydrographers in the Kattegat. When the Swedish herring fishery in the autumn of 1896 nearly failed, it was decided to undertake an investigation of the hydrographic conditions in the Skagerrak in December 1896 - this investigation was also carried out in conjunction with Norway (Cleve et al., 1897). In addition to these expeditions a great many surface samples were collected during 1896 on several routes across the North Sea. A very detailed report, accompanied by tables and graphs, on the Swedish investigations was published by Pettersson and Ekman (1897); the main points of the report were also made available in an English version (Anon., 1898). The authors attach much importance to, and discuss in detail, the variation in the distribution of what they call “bank water”, i.e. water of salinity between 32 ‰ and 34 ‰. It was postulated to be formed on the banks west of Jutland and west of southern Norway. According to the Swedish investigators the occurrence of this water on the Swedish coasts of Skagerrak and northern Kattegat was a condition for a rich fishery there. On the basis of the data available from the Baltic deeps the authors also discussed the changes of the conditions of the Baltic since F L. Ekman’s expedition in 1877.

Concluding Remarks The results obtained by the cooperative investigations were promising. It appeared that further hydrographic studies would be of great importance to the fisheries. There was also considerable hope, especially expressed by Pettersson (1896), that hydrographic observations might contribute to better weather prognoses. In the meantime, Pettersson had continued to propagate his plans for international cooperation. In a series of articles (Pettersson, 1894a) he presented a detailed review of Swedish hydrographic research in the Baltic and the North Sea. These articles led up to the publication of his proposed scheme for an international hydrographic survey of the North Atlantic, the North Sea, and the Baltic (Pettersson, 1894b). It is this scheme, the Copenhagen programme of 1892, that was tried out in the cooperative investigations in 1893/1894 and Pettersson expressed the hope: that the experience gained from this scientific cooperation will lead to an international agreement about the division of labour, and satisfactorily settle the question of methods and measures to be adopted in the course of future hydrographic survey. (Pettersson, 1894 b) In order to obtain support for an extension of the cooperation Pettersson presented his scheme, with such amendments to which the experience acquired during the cooperation in 1893/1894 gave rise, at meetings of relevant international bodies, such as the 6th International Geographic Congress, held in London in 1895. Here a resolution was passed stating that: the Congress recognizes the scientific and economic importance of the results of recent research in the Baltic, the North Sea and the North Atlantic, especially with regard to fishing interests and records its opinion that the survey of the areas should be continued and extended by the cooperation of the different nationalities concerned on the lines of the scheme presented to the Congress by Prof. Pettersson. (Quoted after Pettersson, 1896).

Time was now ripe for a formalizing and extension of such cooperation. Initiatives in that respect were in preparation by German and Dutch scientists (Smed, 1988). Before these plans could be implemented however, the Swedish government, at the suggestion of Pettersson and Ekman invited a number of European governments to a Preparatory Conference for the Exploration of the Sea, to be held in Stockholm in 1899 (Anon., 1899). After a 2nd Preparatory Conference at Kristiania (Oslo) in 1901, ICES was founded in Copenhagen in 1902. During the following years the cooperative marine research in the region was coordinated by this organization.

References Anon., 1886: “Die Ergebnisse der Untersuchungsfahrten S. M. Knbt. ‘Drache’ in der Nordsee in den Sommern 1881, 1882 und 1884”, Veröff. Hydrogr. Amt der Admiralität, Berlin. 77 pp. and 15 plates.

Anon., 1892: Forhandl. ved de skandinaviske Naturforskeres 14. Møde (1892), pp. 171—183.

Anon., 1893: Oversigt over Skrabningerne. pp. 1—34. In: C. G. Joh. Petersen (ed.): “Det videnskabelige Udbytte af Kanonbaaden ‘Hauch’sTogter ide danske Have indenfor Skagen i Aarene 1883—1886”. København, 1893.

Anon., 1898: Recent hydrographic research in the North and Baltic Seas. Scottish Geogr.

Mag. 14, 416—425 and 465—479.

Anon., 1899: Conférence Internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer, réunie à Stockholm 1899. Stockholm Aurivillius, C. W. S., 1894: Planktonundersøkningar: Animalisk Plankton. In: “Redogörelse för de svenska hydrografiska undersøkningar åren 1893—1894.” Bihang till Svenska Vet. Akad. Handlingar, Vol. 20, Part IV, No. 3.

Cleve, P. T., 1894: Planktonundersøkningar: Cilioflagellater och Diatomaceer. In: “Redogörelse för de svenska hydrografiska undersøkningar åren 1893—1894.”. Bihang till svenska Vet. Akad. Handlingar, Vol. 20, Part III, No. 2.

Cleve, P. T., G. Ekman, J. Hjort, and O. Pettersson, 1897: “Skageracks tillstånd under den nuvarande sillfiskeperioden” Göteborg, 1897.

Dickson, H. N., 1894: Report on physical investigations carried out on board HMS “Jackel” 1893 to 1894. Twelfth Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, pp. 336—382 and plates XVI—XIX. Dickson, H. N., 1896: The movements of the surface waters of the North Sea. Geogr. Journ. 7, 255—267.

Dickson, H. N., 1897: Report on physical investigations carried out on board HMS “Research”, during August 1896. Fifteenth Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, pp.

280—296.

Ekman, F. L. and O. Pettersson, 1893: Den svenska hydrografiska expeditionen 1877. Kungl.

Svenska Vet. Akad. Handlingar, N. F 25 (1). 163 pp.

Ekman, G., 1880: Hydrografiska undersøkningar vid Bohuskusten. Bihang till Göteborgs och Bohusläns Hushålln. Salsk. Qvartalsskrift, 42. 68 pp. + 8 plates and 1 chart.

Fulton, T. W., 1897: The currents of the North Sea, and their relation to fisheries. Fifteenth Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, pp. 334—394.

Hjort, J., 1895: “Hydrografisk-biologiske Studier over norske Fiskerier”. Christiania, 1895.

Jacobsen, T. S., 1980: Sea water exchange of the Baltic. Measurements and methods. The Belt Project, National Agency of Environmental Protection, Copenhagen. 107 pp.

Karsten, G. and O. Jacobsen, 1873: Physikalischchemische Untersuchungen. Die Expedition zur physikalisch-chemischen und biologischen Untersuchung der Ostsee im Sommer 1871 auf SM Avisodampfer "Pommerania". Pp. 1—63. In: Jahresbericht der Commission zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung der deutschen Meere in Kiel für das Jahr 1871.

Knudsen, M. (ed.), 1899a: Observationerne i 1897 og 1898. Beretning fra Kommissionen for videnskabelig Undersøgelse af de danske Farvande. 2 (2), 5—18.

Knudsen, M., 1899b: De hydrografiske Forhold ide danske Farvande inden for Skagen i 1894—98. Beretning fra Kommissionen for videnskabelig Undersøgelse af de danske Farvande. 2 (2), 19—79 and 20 plates.

Krümmel, O., 1895: Zur Physik der Ostsee. Petermanns Mitteilungen. 41, 81—86, 111—118.

Meyer, H. A., 1875: Zur Physik des Meeres. Die Expedition zur physikalisch-chemischen und biologischen Untersuchung der Nordsee im Sommer 1872. Pp. 1—42. In: Jahresbericht der Commission zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung der deutschen Meere in Kiel für die Jahre 1872, 1873.

Mohn, H., 1887: The North Ocean, its Depths, Temperature and Circulation. In: “The Norwegian North-Atlantic Expedition 1876—1878”. Christiania, 1887.

Pettersson, O., 1892: Några almänna drag af Nordsjöns och Ostersjöns hydrografi. — Forhandl. Ved de skandinaviske Naturforskeres 14. Møde (1892), pp. 78—87.

Pettersson, O., 1894a: A review of Swedish hydrographic research in the Baltic and the North Sea. Scottish Geogr. Mag. 10, 281—302, 352—359, 413—427, 449—462, 525— 539,617—631 and plates I—XVIII. Pettersson, O., 1894b: Proposed scheme for an international hydrographic survey of the North Atlantic, the North Sea and the Baltic. — Scottish Geograph. Mag. 10, 631—635.

Pettersson, O., 1896: über die Beziehung zwischen hydrographischen und meteorologischen Phanomenen. Meteorol. Zeitschr., Aug. 1896, pp. 285—321.

Pettersson, O. and G. Ekman, 1891: Grunddragen av Skageracks och Kattegats hydrografi.

Kungl. Svenska Vet. Akad. Handlingar, N. F. 24.

Pettersson, O. and G. Ekman, 1897: De hydrografiska förandringarna inom Nordsjöns och Ostersjöns område under tiden 1893—1897. Kungl. Svenska Vet. Akad. Handlingar, 29 (5).

Rørdam, K., 1891: NogleTrrek af Kattegats Hydrografi i 1884—1886. Preprint (pp. 233—242) from C. G. Joh. Petersen (ed.): “Det videnskabelige udbytte af Kanonbaaden ‘Hauch’s Togter i de danske Have indentor Skagen i Aarene 1883—1886.” København, 1893.

Rørdam, K. (ed.), 1896: De hydrografiske Forhold ide danske Farvande indenfor Skagen i 1891—93. Beretning fra Kommissionen for videnskabelig Undersøgelse af de danske Farvande. 1 (1), 1—197 and 1 (2), Tavie I—XXXXVII. Rørdam, K. (ed.), 1897: Observationerne i 1894—96. Beretning fra Kommissionen for videnskabelig Undersøgelse af de danske Farvande, 2 (1).

Smed, J., 1988: Walther Herwig - the first President of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). This volume, pp.

Svansson, A., 1975: Physical and chemical oceanography of the Skagerrak and the Kattegat. I. Open sea conditions. - Fish. Bd. Sweden, Inst. Mar. Research, Report No. 1.

Wandel, C. F., 1896: Indledning. Beretning fra Kommissionen for videnskabelig Undersøgelse af de danske Farvande, 1 (1), III—XII.

Early Discussions and Tests of the Validity of Knudsen's Hydrographical Tables Historisch-Meereskundliches Jahrbuch/History of Oceanography Yearbook Band 1 / Volume 1 1992

Jens Smed During the years 1899–1901 experimental investigations of the constants of seawater were carried out in Copenhagen by a team of scientists headed by Martin Knudsen. The outcome was Knudsen’s Hydrographical Tables which give, i.a., corresponding values of chlorinity, salinity, and specific gravity at 0 ° C. The Tables were based upon the generally accepted assumption that the composition of the salt in seawater is practically the same everywhere. It caused considerable uneasiness therefore when certain analyses at a couple of Laboratories questioned the reliability of the Tables. The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea instituted an investigation of the matter. The results of this investigation restored confidence in the Tables.

Frühe Diskussionen und Tests über die Brauchbarkeit der Hydrographischen Tabellen von Knudsen. In den Jahren 1899–1901 versuchte Martin Knudsen in Kopenhagen mit einer Gruppe von Wissenschaftlern die Konstanten des Seewassers experimentell zu bestimmen. Als Ergebnis entstanden die Hydrographischen Tabellen von Knudsen, die die entsprechenden Werte von Chlorinität, Salzgehalt und spezifischem Gewicht bei 0 ° C angeben. Die Tabellen basierten auf der generell akzeptierten Annahme, daβ die Zusammensetzung des Salzes im Meerwasser praktisch überall gleich ist. Es enstanden daraus erhebliche Unsicherheiten, als bestimmte Analysenergebnisse in einigen Laboratorien die Zuverlässigkeit der Tabellen in Frage stellten. Der Internationale Rat für Meeresforschung veranlaβte eine Untersuchung der Angelegenheit, deren Ergebnis die Vertrauenswürdigkeit der Tabellen wieder hergestellt wurde.

Figure 1. Martin Knudsen (1871–1949)

1. The Tables and their basis It was realized early, that the direct determination of the salt content of a seawater sample is a complicated and difficult process. From the analyses of seawater by Forchhammer (1865), Tornøe (1880), Schmelck (1882), and Dittmar (1884), however, it had become clear that the salt in seawater has practically the same composition regardless of the position and depth from which it originates. To determine the salt content of a seawater sample it would therefore suffice to measure the concentration of any one of the components. The concentration of the ions of chlorine (together with the very small amounts of bromine and iodine) could easily be determined by the socalled Mohr titration. From the chlorine concentration (the chlorinity) the concentration of salt (the salinity) would then be found in multiplying by a constant, the coefficient of chlorine, a concept that was introduced by Forchhammer.

If the composition of the salts in seawater is the same, irrespective of the salinity, there must also be a constant relationship between salinity and specific gravity (density) at a fixed temperature. Tornøe (1880) introduced a concept called the coefficient of specific gravity, defined as salinity divided by specific gravity-1, and found it to be very nearly constant at a given temperature, and he concluded that the variation in the results should most probably be ascribed to errors of observation. As a check of the methods Tornøe de-

termined the salinity of the same sample both from its chlorine concentration by titration and from its specific gravity by hydrometer measurements and found good agreement between the results.

Although it was now generally agreed that the two coefficients practically were constants there was still some disagreement with regard to the values of these constants. So there was a need for further investigations of the relation between chlorinity, salinity, and specific gravity. A number of tables had been set up by various oceanographers. Thus Martin Knudsen (1899), in his report on the hydrographic work of the Ingolf Expedition had published tables for determination of the specific gravity of seawater, referred to distilled water at 4 °, from its temperature and chlorinity. Other oceanographers, such as F. L. Ekman, Makarov and Krümmel, had published tables for reduction of the specific gravity of seawater to some standard temperature. The Conférènce Internationale pour l' Exploration de la Mer at Stockholm (Anon., 1899) then decided that the relation between the quantity of halogens contained in the water and the specific gravity of the water should be carefully investigated by an experimental revision of the tables published by Knudsen; furthermore, that there was an urgent need for a revision of the tables compiled by Makarov, Krümmel and others, as well as for a definitive determination of the relationship between specific gravity and salinity.

In accordance with the decision of the Conference these investigations were carried out at the Technical University of Copenhagen under the supervision of a committee consisting of John Murray, Knudsen, Pettersson, Nansen, H. N. Dickson and Makarov. The work was undertaken by a team directed by Knudsen. Already at the 2nd Conférènce Internationale (Anon., 1901) at Kristiania (Oslo), Knudsen could present the Hydrographical Tables (Knudsen, 1901) which were the outcome of the work. The Conference decided that within the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea the ratios between salinity, density, and chlorine given by Knudsen's Hydrographical Tables should be adopted, and the salinity should be calculated by the use of these Tables from the determination of chlorine or the specific gravity.

The interest taken in an accurate determination of the specific gravity is due, i.a., to the fact that knowledge of the distribution of this property of the water under certain assumptions makes possible the calculation of the currents in the ocean. This was especially important at a time when the currentmeters available were primitive. The specific gravity also indicates whether the water column is stable or not. If instability occurs, i.e. dense water is overlying lighter water, mixing will take place with its consequences for the life in the sea. It may, e.g., bring nutritious water from the deep up into the euphotic zone where photosynthesis may occur.

2. The reliability of the Tables is questioned Trusting the correctness of Knudsen's Tables, hydrographers in the following years calculated the salinity of water samples by means of these tables. It caused some disturbance therefore when Thoulet (1905) maintained that the characteristics specific gravity, chlorinity, and content of SO 3 of a seawater

sample were independent of each other. Consequently, it would not be possible to derive one of these figures from the others either graphically by means of linear relations or from tables calculated in advance, unless a rough approximation would suffice.

Thoulet's contention was based upon analyses of a great many samples collected by Prince Albert of Monaco's vessel Princesse-Alice on cruises in the North Atlantic, mainly in the Azores region, during the years 1901–1903. The analyses had been carried out by M. Chevallier in the Laboratoire d'Oceanographie at Nancy, and by L. G. Sabrou in the Laboratoire du Musée Océanographique at Monaco. Chevallier (1905) states that the results of the analyses made at Nancy and at Monaco of the same samples were in complete accordance with each other.

In·an earlier paper, Thoulet (1902), based upon the cruises carried out in 1901, presented for a number of samples chlorinity values determined by titration as well as by hydrometer, using Knudsen's tables. Although the mean value of the differences was well within the accuracy (0.03 ‰) established by the Stockholm Conference, the individual differences varied from 0.07 ‰ to + 0.07 ‰. Already here, Chevallier in a footnote (Thoulet, loc. cit., p. 14) raised the question whether these deviations might indicate that waters of same specific gravity do not always contain the same quantity of chlorine or, in other words, do not have exactly the same chemical composition.

If so, it would, says Chevallier, be simpler and more reliable to obtain the parameter σ 0, i.e. (specific gravity at 0 ° C -1) x 1000, from measuring the specific gravity by pycnometer at 0 ° C, or from use of a hydrometer at t ° C and undertake the reduction to 0 ° C graphically.

The results of the analysis of the seawater samples collected during the 1903 cruise of Princesse-Alice were published by Sabrou (1904). Of special interest here are his values of the SO 3 content. He states that the variations of the values are small and that it is not yet possible to see the relation between the values and either depth or salinity.

Chevallier (1905) discusses in more detail the relation between specific gravity and salinity of seawater. He presents a number of examples in order to show how much samples of the same specific gravity may deviate from each other with regard to chlorinity and SO 3. He also presents a graph showing the observed Cl and SO 3 contents in relation to the specific gravities. From the graph it appears, e.g., that σ 0 = 28.55 corresponds to chlorinities varying between 19.62 ‰ and 19.875 ‰ while according to Knudsen's tables the chlorinity should be 19.665 ‰. For the same σ 0 -value the SO 3 content varies from 2.285 ‰ to 2.330 ‰.

The contention by Thou1et and his colleagues at Nancy and Monaco, that it is not possible to determine salinity and σ 0 of a seawater sample unambiguously with sufficient accuracy from its chlorine content by means of Knudsen's Hydrographical Tables was not well received by the Vice-President of the In-

ternational Council, Otto Pettersson. In a letter 1 to Knudsen he writes (translated from Swedish): I am beginning to think that I can foresee hydrographical troubles.

Now our friend Thoulet has been out, and as I told you 2 years ago the old stubborn and conceited man does not stop denying the basis of our observation system until he has got a public answer. I knew the fellow and predicted that a controversy was unavoidable. D'Arcy Thompson writes me a letter where he says that “I do not doubt that you and Knudsen have both taken this difficulty into consideration and I know of course also Dittmar's results as to the comparatively constant composition of seawater but nevertheless some of the statements made by Thoulet and Chevallier are somewhat disquieting.”

Won't you take the matter into close consideration, read what Thoulet writes and inform me what you think should be done? I can inform you that on my proposal Thoulet 2 years ago sent a control sample to the Central Laboratory which was found to be absolutely wrong. Nansen who communicated this to him got a rude letter as answer. Nansen is down on the old Thoulet and will, I think, readily join issue with him. If you wish to have information about Thoulet's analyses you may get it from Nansen.

D'Arcy Thompson was not the only scientist who found the papers from the Nancy laboratory bewildering. A. J. Robertson (Scotland) in a letter 2 to Martin Knudsen asked for comments on Chevallier's paper “which attacks your hydrographic tables”. Knudsen' answer 3 was clear enough: With regard to M. Chevallier, Professor. Thoulet & Co. let me first say that my opinion about the matter is completely the same now, as when the work on the determination of the constants just was finished. All of it has been considered in the work with the determinations, and if the Monaco-people would read and understand my papers: ‘Berichte über die Konstantenbestimmung zur Aufstellung der hydrographischen Tabellen.’ (D. Kgl. Vid. Selsk. Skrifter, 6. Rakke, naturvid. og mat. Afd. XII. I), ‘Bericht über die Aufstellung der neuen hydrographischen Tabellen.' (Wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchung, herausgegeben von der Kommission zur Untersuchung der deutschen Meere in Kiel und der Biologischen Anstalt auf Helgoland, Abteilung Kiel, Neue Folge, Band 6) on that subject, I think they would spare their efforts to more useful problems. The salinity is by definition deducted from the chlorine by means of the tables and does not need

1

Letter of 1 May 1905 from Otto Pettersson to Martin Knudsen.

2

Letter of 27 April 1905 from A.J. Robertson to Martin Knudsen.

3

Letter of 1 May 1905 from Martin Knudsen to A. J. Robertson.

more words. The density can approximately be deduced from the chlorine and the approximation is good enough for our purposes.

In the last of my papers named ... I wrote (page 158): “The figure shows that the formula is sufficient, but also that from a determination of chlorine the second decimal place in σ 0 could not be expected to be quite true.

In his reply4 to Otto Pettersson, Knudsen goes more into details. It reads (translated from Danish): With regard to the Thoulet question, the most likely explanation is probably that his results are based upon inaccurate analyses. That there is something right in what he writes I also found at the determination of the constants, you know, and I have given a full account of it in the report about the determinations. True, the deviations that he states having found are more than 10 times as great as those found by me, and this undeniably makes the usability of the σ 0/Cl relation disappear.

It seems to me, that there might be a reason to collect a great many samples from differentregions and to determine σ 0, Cl, and SO 3 of each of them. In this way one would obtain a more certain knowledge as to how much the relation between σ 0 and Cl really varies, and one would in particular come to know whether it is possible to include the SO 3 -determinations into the quantities characterizing the seawater. I think therefore that it would be of interest to have such a series of investigations carried out, not for the sake of Thoulet & Co., but because of the possibility of finding in SO 3 a new characterizing quantity.

The results of the Monaco-people promise well in this respect.

I hope you have quieted D'Arcy Thompson; this is, I think, all that is necessary in this matter.

Otto Pettersson is still indignant at Thoulet's procedure. In a new letter 5 to Knudsen it says (translated from Swedish): Thoulet's paper is an unparalleled effrontery. Nansen informed him that his Cl-determinations were wrong, and still he publishes them!

What about you writing a short summary in French in the Monacopublications about how 1. salinity and Cl-content are now defined, 2. how they are determined, 3. how the various waters you used for standards were in accordance with each other

4

Letter of 3 May 1905 from Martin Knudsen to Otto Pettersson.

5

Letter of 6 May 1905 from Otto Pettersson to Martin Knudsen.

all this without mentioning Thoulet at all.

Pettersson goes on, saying that in the suggested summary by Knudsen it should be proposed that the Monaco laboratory collect 10 water samples from the Atlantic and 10 from the Mediterranean and that water from these samples be sent for analysis and control to Knudsen, Nansen, and Thoulet. Cl, σ 0, and, possibly, SO 3 should be determined and the results should be published in the same periodical as Chevallier's paper. Pettersson asks for Knudsen's opinion about this procedure.

Knudsen was not keen on being involved in a project of this type. In his reply 6 to Pettersson he writes (translated from Danish): With regard to the Thoulet question, I do not feel much inclined to take the field against all the misapprehensions of this sort which have turned up and assuredly will turn up again. I also think that another could do this much better than I, and is there no other who will - well, then Thoulet may cry in the wilderness. If the tables and our whole working plan cannot bear that, then they certainly are of little value. If the Central Laboratory and Thoulet could agree upon determining Cl, σ 0, and SO 3 of some water samples it would most likely be very desirable.·However, I do not engage on being a participant in such a test.

3. Investigations restore confidence in the Tables

Pettersson followed up the ideas ventilated in the exchange of letters between him and Knudsen. He put forward a proposal to investigate a number of water samples as exactly as possible with regard to contents of Cl, SO 3, and gases, as well as alkalinity and specific gravity. After a brief discussion in the Hydrographical Section of the Council a committee consisting of Pettersson, Krümmel, and Nansen was nominated “to investigate the values of Cl, SO 3 and σ 0, in a series of water samples” (Anon., 1905, p. 26).

At the annual Council Meeting held a couple of months later, in July 1905,

No further details about the discussion are reported in the proceedings of the meeting. However, in a letter 7 to Donald Matthews, of the Plymouth Laboratory, Knudsen wrote: ... With regard to Mr. Chevallier's paper we have been talking it over, and the general opinion on the meeting was that the Monaco people have not been able to carry out the analysis very well ...

Knudsen's letter was in reply to a letter 8 in which Matthews asked what Knudsen thought of Chevallier's paper which was “discussing the Prince of Monaco's samples and proving; that your tables are all wrong and that the ratio sp. gr./‰ is variable”. Matthews reported that in analysing water sam-

6 Letter of 9 May 1905 from Martin Knudsen to Otto Pettersson.

7 Letter of 25 July 1905 from Martin Knudsen to Donald Matthews.

8 Letter of 15 July 1905 from Donald Matthews to Martin Knudsen.

ples from the Atlantic and Indian Oceans he had tried to find a sample that would support Chevallier's contention, but hitherto without success. He very seldom got a difference of 0.02 ‰ Cl between the titration and the pycnometer methods, and the average difference was less than 0.01 ‰ Cl. He went on asking whether Knudsen considered the matter to be of sufficient interest to justify the preparation of a separate paper - for printing in the Council's Publications de Circonstance or elsewhere. Matthews was at that time working on a report based upon Stanley Gardiner's seawater samples from the Atlantic and Indian Oceans. He thought however, that his publishing of a few of the analyses of Gardiner's Indian Ocean results before the full report was ready would meet with no objection from Gardiner.

Although Knudsen 9 asked Matthews to prepare the paper as soon as possible the plan did not materialize. The reason, given in a letter 10 from Matthews to Knudsen, shows something about the communication difficulties of the time: .... I cannot publish any of the determinations of Cl to σ 0, for the Indian Ocean until I hear from Mr. Gardiner. I believe he is at present on a coral reef which is seldom visited, and unless the Admiralty can help me I shall not be able to get a letter from him for six months ...

Contributing to Matthews giving up his plan to write a paper on the matter may also have been that the Thoulet-people in reality withdrew their contention that there is no unambiguous relationship between specific gravity and chlorine content of seawater. This became clear from a paper by Allemandet (1905) which he reports on his analyses of the seawater samples collected by Princesse-Alice during 1904. Allemandet did find a difference between the specific gravity determined by the Knudsen method and by pycnometer.

However, difference was as small as 0.00005, and that was about the accuracy (0.00004) required in the Stockholm programme.

In the meantime the committee set up by the Council to deal with the question continued its work. A report (Anon., 1906, p. 46) describes the organization the project. 14 water samples should be collected at various regions and depthsv The analysis of the samples would be carried out in the Council's Laboratory at Kristiania and in the hydrographical laboratories of Helsingfors Kiel, Monaco and Nancy.

The insistence on a geographical and vertical spread of the sampling was due to the fact that the Hydrographical Tables were based exclusively upon investigation of samples of surface water, and only a few of them originated from the ocean proper. The project should avoid this drawback.

At the Council meeting in August 1909, the Committee, on which Homén from Helsingfors had now replaced Nansen, submitted to the Hydrographical Section a protocol on the determinations carried out in the various laborato-

9 Letter of 25 July 1905 from Martin Knudsen to Donald Matthews.

10 Letter of 30 July 1905 from Donald Matthews to Martin Knudsen.

ries involved (Anon., 1910, p. 50). The Committee regarded these determinations as sufficient and its commission as ended. The Section charged Profesor Krümmel with the task of getting the parallel determinations summarized in a report to be compiled by Dr. Ruppin at Kiel.

Finally, at the meeting in September 1910 of the Hydrographical Section, Krümmel informed (Anon., 1911, p. 50) the members that the Report summarizing the parallel determinations of the values of Cl, SO 3, and σ 0 of the samples had now been completed by Ruppin (1910). The determinations had fully confirmed the reliability of Knudsen's Tables. Also the ratio SO 3 : Cl was found to be virtually constant. Ruppin had furthermore made a recalculation of the older determinations by Tornøe and Dittmar and had found an extremely good agreement between all the measurements. The confidence in Knudsen's Tables had been restored.

Literature Allemandet, G. H. 1905: Analyses des échantillons d'eau de mer recueillis pendant la Campagne du yacht "Princesse-Alice" en 1904. Bull. Musée Océanogr. Monaco, No. 43.

Anon. 1899: Conférence Internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer, réunie à Stockholm 1899. Stockholm.

Anon. 1901. 2. Conférence Internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer réunie à Kristiania 1901. Première partie. Kristiania, 1901.

Anon., 1905. Rapp. P.-v. Réun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, IV, part C. Anon., 1906. Rapp. P.-v. Réun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, VI, part C. Anon., 1910. Rapp. P.-v. Réun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, XII, part B. Anon., 1911. Rapp. P.-v. Réun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, Xlll, part B. Chevallier, M. 1905. Relation entre la densité et la salinité des eaux de mer. Bull. Musée Océanogr. Monaco. No. 31.

Dittmar, W. 1884. Report on the scientific results of the exploring voyage of H .M.S. Challenger. Physics and Chemistry, 1. HMSO, London.

Forchhammer, J. G. 1865. On the composition of seawater, at different depths, and in different latitudes. Proc. Roy. Soc., 155, 203–262.

Knudsen, M. 1899. Hydrography. In: The Danish "lngolf'-Expedition. 1(2): 22–161.

Knudsen, M. 1901. Hydrographical Tables. Copenhagen.

Ruppin, E. 1910. Bericht über das Verhältnis der Cl, SO 3, and σ 0, -Werte in einer Reihe von 14 verschiedenen Meerwasserproben gemäβ den in den Laboratorien zu Helsingfors, Kiel, Kristiania, Monaco und Nancy erhaltenen Resultaten. Publ. Circ. Cons. perm. int. Explor.

Mer, No. 55.

Sabrou, L.G., 1904. Analyses des echantillons d'eau de mer recueillis pendant Ia Campagne du yacht "Princesse-Aiice" en 1903. -Bull. Musee Oceanogr. Monaco, No. 18.

Schmelck, L. 1882. On the solid matter in seawater. In: The Norwegian North-Atlantic Expedition 1876–1878, vol. 1 Chemistry.

Thoulet, J. 1902. Etude des échantillons d'eaux et de fonds rékoltés pendant la campagne du yacht "Princesse-Alice" dans l' Atlantique Nord en 1901. - Résultats des Campagnes Scientifiques du Prince de Monaco, Fasc. XXII.

Thoulet, J. 1905. Mémoires océanographiques. Première série. - Résultats des Campagnes Scientifiques du Prince de Monaco, Fasc. XXIX. Tornøe, H. 1880. On the amount of salt in the water of the Norwegian Sea. In: The Norwegian North-Atlantic Expedition 1876-1878, vol. 1. Chemistry.

Archival matter The letters referred to in the footnotes of this paper are kept in the archives of Kommissionen for Danmarks Fiskeri- og Havunder-søgelser, now delivered to Rigsarkivet (The Danish Record Office). The letters are found under the reference F.27-210, D.2.

Otto Krummel's Participation in the Internationa Oceanographic Cooperation in the 1890s and his Troubles with the Kiel Commission 11 Historisch-Meereskundliches Jahrbuch/History of Oceanography Yearbook Band 2 / Volume 2 1994

Jens Smed After a successful synoptic investigation of the Skagerrak and northern Kattegat by Swedish ships in 1890, its organizer, Otto Pettersson aimed at seasonal synoptic investigations including also the North Sea.·He succeeded in enlisting Denmark, Norway, Scotland, and Sweden for joint investigations in May, August, and November 1893 and February 1894, When Otto Krümmel at Kiel became aware of the project he wished to join it by making observations in the Baltic in the same months, an extension which Pettersson gratefully welcomed. Krümmel succeeded in accomplishing the scheduled cruises in spite of difficulties in getting access to a ship for the purpose because his plans were opposed by the chairman of the Prussian “Kommission für wissenschaftliche Untersuchung der deutschen Meere in Kiel”. So when Otto Pettersson, in 1896, wished to engage Krümmel in a continuation of the project he had to decline the application. However, with the foundation of ICES in 1902, where Krümmel played an important role the seasonal cruises were systematized and greatly extended.

Otto Krümmels Teilnahme an der internationalen ozeanographischen Kooperation in den 1890ern und seine Schwierigkeiten mit der Kieler Kommission. Nach einer erfolgreichen synoptischen Untersuchung im Skagerrak und nordlichen Kattegat durch schwedische Schiffe im Jahre 1890 strebte ihr Organisator, Otto Pettersson solche Untersuchungen für die vier Jahreszeiten an, wobei auch die Nordsee erfaβt werden sollte. Er konnte Dänemark, Norwegen, Schottland und Schweden für gemeinsame Untersuchungen im Mai, August, und November 1893 sowie im Februar 1894 dafür gewinnen. Als Otto Krümmel in Kiel von dem Projekt erfuhr, wollte er mit Untersuchungen in der Ostsee zu den gleichen Monaten beitragen. Diese Ausweitung des Programmes wurde von Pettersson begrüβt. Krümmel gelang die Bereitstellung von zeitgleichen Ausfahrten, obwohl er Schwierigkeiten

11 It should be born in mind that the present article may be biased as it is based solely upon letters by Otto Krümmel and therefore states his point of view only.

hatte, Zugriff zu einem Schiff für diesen Zweck zu bekommen, da seine Pläne auf Widerstand beim Vorsitzenden der Preuβischen “Kommission für wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen der deutschen Meere in Kiel” stieβen. Als Otto Pettersson 1896 Krummel für eine Fortsetzung des Projektes gewinnen wollte, konnte dieser dem Anliegen nicht entsprechen. Jedoch mit der Gründung des ICES in 1902, bei der Krümmel eine wichtige Rolle spielte, konnten die Terminfahrten systematisiert und ausgedehnt werden The Swedish oceanographer Otto Pettersson (1848–1941) had realized that if a synoptic view of the oceanographic conditions in an area of the sea should be obtained it was necessary to have several ships working in the area at the same time. In 1890, he and Gustaf Ekman organized such a study of the Skagerrak and the northern part of Kattegat by means of 5 Swedish ships (Pettersson and Ekman, 1891).

The Swedish investigation was a success, and Pettersson developed more advanced plans. He now aimed at extending the observations to the North Sea proper and to repeat them regularly in order to study the seasonal and annual variations of the hydrographic conditions. Pettersson was aware however, that such a project would exceed the capacity of a single country. So at the Meeting of the Scandinavian Naturalists at Copenhagen in 1892 he, after lecturing on the general features of the hydrography of the North Sea and the Baltic (Pettersson, 1892), opened a discussion on the advantages for the hydrographic investigation of these regions by cooperation between Danish, Norwegian and Swedish institutions after a common plan (Anon., 1892). The Meeting approved Pettersson's proposal that a common plan should be set up for the hydrographic investigations to be carried out by the Scandinavian countries in their adjacent waters and cooperation be established. According to the plan a number of fixed stations should be worked on 1 May, 1 August, and 1 November 1893, and on 1 February 1894 (Smed, 1990).

Pettersson wished to have also Scotland involved in the cooperation, so that the inflow from the Atlantic to the North Sea might be studied. With some assistance from Pettersson's colleague Sir John Murray the Scottish cooperation was arranged.

The relevant German institution, viz. the Prussian Kommission zur Wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung der deutschen Meere in Kiel (Kölmel, 1990) had not been invited to join the cooperation. However, in the newspapers Professor Otto Krümmel (1854–1912), of the Kiel University, read about the project.

Although a professor in geography and not yet a member of the above Commission Krümmel was deeply interested in the hydrography of the Baltic. In a letter 12 to Pettersson he therefore inquired whether he might participate in the cooperation. If so, he would make observations on a number of stations in the Baltic. Pettersson jumped at this offer. He had come to the conclusion (Pettersson and Ekman, 1897, p. 58) that the state and variations of the Baltic

12

Letter of 23 June 1893.

could be kept track of by means of a few deep stations. It should therefore be easy to follow these variations from season to season and from year to year.

Pettersson considered this to be most useful, as the variations apparently were decisive for an understanding of the changes which occurred in the climatic conditions of Sweden. As Pettersson could not have at his disposal the vessels necessary for the task Krümmel's offer was most opportune.

In July 1893, Krümmel could inform Pettersson that on 1 August, 1 November, and 1 February observations would be made in the Fehmarnbelt. He had also good hope that the survey steamer Nautilus of the imperial German Navy would be ordered to make observations in deep water near Rügen on 1 August. However, Krümmel requested that Pettersson would not yet make this information public: Man ist in Berlin immer etwas empfindlich, und wenn wir für künftige Fälle wieder eine Unterstützung hoffen wollen, ist aile nur mögliche Diskretion sehr erwünscht. 13 Nautilus did make observations north of Rügen on 31 July and 1 August. Unfortunately however, because of a defective Miller-Casella thermometer the observations were unreliable and Krümmel, in sending them to Pettersson urgently requested him not to publish them.

Krümmel's own observations on a preparatory cruise in the Eckernförde Bay on 27 July and on the main cruise in Fehmarnbelt on 1 August were successful and he reports in detail on them to Pettersson. At the same time however, he reveals his troubles with the chairman of the Kiel Commission, Professor Gustav Karsten (1820–1900). Pettersson had expressed a wish for a personal exchange of views about the best methods to be used in oceanographic research. Krümmel would present this wish to the Commission. However, he had not much hope for a positive reception: Ich bezweifle aber, dass sich die Kommission auf mehr einlassen wird als auf die Erlaubniss, dass ich auf Kosten der Kommission die Fahrt am l November wiederhole. Die Kommission ist die älteste Institution ihrer Art in Europa und hat vor 20 Jahren ja sehr Bedeutendes geleistet zur physikalischen Erforschung der Ostsee und Nordsee.

Seitdem aber G. Karsten alt geworden und namentlich seit H. A. Meyer gestorben ist, liegt das Schwergewicht der Arbeiten auf dem Gebiet der Planktonforschung, also bei Hensen und dem Zoologen Brandt, daneben auch bei dem Botaniker Reinke, sodass wenig Mittel für die physikalischen Aufgaben übrig sind. Die Kommission, namentlich der Geschäftsführer Karsten, war sehr empfindlich davon berührt, erst durch mich von den neuen schwedisch-dänischen Terminuntersuchungen zu erfahren; vielleicht hatte Karsten erwartet, officiell aufgefordert zu werden zur Mitarbeit. Jedenfalls betrachtet er gegenwärtig diese ganze Sache mit sehr wenig Wohlwollen, und ich

13 Letter of 14 July 1893.

habe es nur durch den starken Druck, den die andern Mitglieder der Kommission zu Gunsten meiner Vorschläge ausübten, erreichen können, die Fahrten zu machen und die Instrumente zu beschaffen.

Ich theile Ihnen diese Interna mit, damit Sie sehen, dass ich nicht gut weiter gehen kann als bisher geschehen, also eine voile Identität der Methoden wohl kaum zu erlangen sein dürfte. Vielleicht wäre mehr zu erreichen, wenn Sie selbst ganz officiell der Kommission den Vorschlag machten, dass Sie in einer Sitzung im Oktober den Herren Ihre Methoden und Ziele darlegen wollten; hätten Sie vorigen Herbst einen solchen Vorschlag gemacht, so wäre die Sache wahrscheinlich ganz anders in Fluss gekommen.14 Also the next cruise, planned for l November, caused problems, as the Commission's budget for the year was exhausted. Krümmel was again bitter: Die Ministerial-Kommission hätte wohl noch Mittel gehabt für zwei Fahrten, wenn nicht Professor Karsten erhebliche Summen zur Construction und Erprobung eines Tiefenstrom-Messers (mit elektrischer Registrirung) durch seinen Schwiegersohn Prof. Leonhard Weber hätte verbrauchen lassen.15 This instrument was tried out at a cruise in the Little Belt in September 1893, and Krümmel took the opportunity to join the cruise and make some observations of his own.

By means of the German navy's training ship, Pelikan, Krümmel was able to undertake the autumn cruise, though not until the middle of December, and also a cruise in February 1894.

As Krümmel joined the cooperation too late to carry out any work in May 1893, he instead undertook a cruise on board the training ship in May 1894.

Prospects for a cruise as far as Gotland at the end of May had also been held out to Krümmel. He was up against high odds, however: the Navy decided that experiments with carrier-pigeons should be made from the vessel which therefore had to return to the harbour to pick up the pigeons!

Da haben die kaiserlichen Tauben den Ozeanographen verdrängt; denn der Pelikan braucht zur Fahrt nach Gotland und zurück doch gewiss ca. 5 Tage, und solange konnten die Tauben nicht Warten. 16 In late July, Krümmel got his cruise to the Gotland Deep, with interesting results: Die Gotlandtiefe scheint wirklich neues Wasser erhalten zu haben; herzlich bedaure ich, keine Gasproben liefern zu können.17

14 Letter of 7 August 1893.

15 Letter of 11 October 1893.

16 Letter of 22 May 1894

.

17 Letter of 25 July 1894.

Krümmel used the data collected at his seasonal cruises for a general paper on the physics of the Baltic (Krümmel, 1895).

After the success of the 1893/1894 cooperative investigations, Pettersson wished to have the systematic observations continued. Krümmel had to inform him however, that official participation by either Germany or the Kingdom of Prussia would not seem to be possible for financial reasons: Dennoch wäre schon etwas zu machen, wenn die Kieler Kommission dazu die Hand böte. Aber Sie wissen, dass ich nicht Mitglied der Kommission bin; und wie eifersüchtig der alte Professor Karsten ist, davon will ich Iieber schweigen. Augenblicklich ist die Kommission durch einige grosse Publikationen (der Biologische Station in Helgoland) mit ihren Mitteln engagirt, sodass ich in diesem Jahre keinen Pfennig für meine Pläne erhalten würde. Zwar stehen die anderen Mitglieder der Kieler Kommission an meiner Seite, aber es hat schon widerwärtige Sitzungen genug meinethalben gegeben, so dass ich Bedenken trage meine Freunde immer wieder vorzuschicken. Ueber kurz oder lang wird ja doch einmal eine Aenderung eintreten, und bis dahin muss man Geduld haben. 18 Krümmel ends with saying that he will probably discuss a systematic investigation of the home seas with governmental officials in Berlin: Viel Hoffnung auf ein günstiges Resultat habe ich nicht, da eben die Entscheidung beim Finanzminister liegt und der ist kein Freund wissenschiftlicher Expeditionen. Der sicherste Weg zu einem Erfolg wäre wenn man den Kaiser dafür interessiren könnte, aber in so hohe Regionen habe ich keine Fühlung. 19 In January 1896, Pettersson again approached Krümmel concerning a resumption of the successful cooperation in 1893/1894. Krümmel was very reluctant in his reply. He pointed out that the earlier investigations he had to carry out from naval vessels and must pay the expenses from his own pocket.

Furthermore: Auch das Wenige was mir die Ministerial-Kommission gewährt hat, ist nur durch steten Kampf mit dem Geschäftsflihrer der Kommission, Prof. Karsten, zu erlangen gewesen, da dieser Herr auf mich höchst eifersüchtig ist und statt meiner lieber seinen Schwiegersohn, Prof.

Weber, mit solchen Aufgaben betraut gesehen hatte, die dieser aber gar nicht leisten kann (das Beobachten wahl, aber nicht das Bearbeiten, da er nichts von der Literatur weiss). Als Sie mir nun schrieben, dass eine neue Serie von Terminbeobachtungen geplant sei, stand für mich sofort fest, mich diesmal nur dann persönlich zu betheiligen, wenn eine andere Persönlichkeit nicht zu haben ware, indem ich an-

18 Letter of 1 July 1894.

19 Letter of I July 1894.

nahm, dass die Schwierigkeiten, die mir der alte Karsten entgegensetzen würde, einer anderen Persönlichkeit erspart bleiben dürften.20 The person Krümmel had in mind was Gerhard Schott, of the Deutsche Seewarte, who would be very suitable for the task. Unfortunately however, the services of Schott at the Seewarte could not be dispensed with.

Krümmel is fairly optimistic that the Commission in the near future will be more interested in his oceanographic investigations: Andererseits aber hoffe ich dass nun bald die Kieler Kommission selbst etwas mehr Leben entfalten wird: Prof. Karsten giebt, wie ich höre, die Geschäftsleitung vom 1 April an an Prof. Hensen ab, und ausserdem ist der Kommission ein jungerer Assistent, Dr. Apstein, beigegeben, der, ein früherer Schüler von mir, gut für aile ozeanographischen Beobachtungen vorbereitet ist. Ich hoffe, dass sich, nicht gleich aber doch nach einiger Zeit, auch unsere Kieler Kommission für die Frage wird interessiren lassen, warum Hering und Sprott bald kommen, bald ausbleiben, und dann müssen die alten Herren an die Terminbeobachtungen Anschluss suchen.21 With this concluding remark Krümmel refers to the relation between the occurrence of fish and the physical conditions in the sea which Pettersson and others claimed to have proved (Krümmel, 1896).

Krümmel was right: Karsten left the Commission and was·replaced·by Hensen. Furthermore, Krümmel became a member of the Commission. As Hensen was favourably disposed towards participation in a cooperative investigation Krümmel now had some hope for the future: ... doch zeigt sich, dass unter Karsten’s Leitung (bitte das Folgende ganz vertraulich!) die Geschafte der Kieler Kommission nach allen Richtungen hin so verfahren und verwirrt worden sind, dass Hensen bat, ihm erst diesen Sommer zur Reinigung dieses Augiasstalles frei zu lassen. Ich glaube, dass zum Winter eine Betheiligung durch den Assistenten der Kommission, den bekannten Planktonforscher Dr. Apstein, wird stattfinden können. So lange Karsten lebt, wird er freilich Untersuchungen dieser Art mehr zu hindern als zu fördern bereit sein. 22 Pettersson's plan for a new international cooperation in 1896 did not materialize, except for a joint Swedish–Norwegian investigation of the western part of Skagerrak in the month of December (Cleve et al., 1897). The investigation was occasioned by the fact that in the autumn of 1896, the herring failed to appear at the coasts of Bohuslän (Krümmel, 1899).

20 Letter of 16 March 1896.

21 Letter of 16 March 1896.

22 Letter of 28 May 1896.

Already at that time however, Pettersson had made more far-reaching plans.

In order to obtain support for an extension of the cooperation he presented his plans at, i.a., the 6th International Geographic Congress, held in London in 1895. Here a resolution was passed: The Congress recognizes the scientific and economic importance of the results of recent research in the Baltic, the North Sea, and the North Atlantic, especially with regard to fishery interests and records its opinion that the survey of the areas should be continued and extended by the cooperation of the different nationalities concerned on the lines of the scheme presented to the Congress by Prof. Pettersson. (Pettersson, 1896, p. 317) Referring to this resolution, Otto Pettersson and Gustaf Ekman could, in 1897, approach King Oscar II of Sweden to get him interested in summoning a conference of representatives of the northern European countries with the purpose of planning a cooperative study of the northern seas. This led to the Preparatory Conferences in 1899 and 1901, and finally to the founding of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) in 1902. This body now took over the coordination of the seasonal cruises, a project that was continued for several years.

In Germany a consequence of this development was the establishment in 1900 of the Deutsche Wissenschaftliche Kommission für Meeresforschung (DWK). It should act as an advisory board on marine research and fishery affairs and at the same time be the national link to ICES (Wegner, 1990).

Krümmel became a prominent and active member of DWK, and he was a delegate to the Preparatory Conferences where he had an important role when the programme of work of ICES was established. As long as Krümmel was connected with the University of Kiel he participated in the ICES meetings as a delegate of Germany.

DWK established a hydrographical and general biological marine laboratory at Kiel. Its hydrographical section with two assistants from the Prussian Commission was directed by Krümmel. The DWK also got its own research vessel (Poseidon); so Krümmel did no longer need go begging the Navy for participating in a cruise. His years of distress were over.

Acknowledgments I am greatly indebted to Dr. Artur Svansson for drawing my attention to the collection of letters to Otto Pettersson and for assistance in the preparation of the manuscript. He had spotted the letters at the now abolished Bornö Station and handed them over to the University, where a grandson of Otto Pettersson is a librarian. Copies of the letters from Otto Krümmel to Otto Pettersson have kindly been made available by the University Library, Göteborg.

Archival material All letters referred to throughout the paper are from Otto Krümmel to Otto Pettersson. They are kept in the “Collection of Letters to Otto Pettersson” in the collection of manuscripts of the University Library, Göteborg (Sweden).

Literature Anon. 1892. Forhandl. ved de skandinaviske Naturforskeres 14. Mode, 171–183.

Cleve, P. T., Ekman, G., Hjort, J., and Pettersson, O. 1897. Skageracks Tillständ under den nuvarande Sillfiskeperioden. Göteborg, pp. 1–44.

Kölmel, R. 1990. The Prussian "Kommission zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung der deutschen Meere in Kiel" and the origin of modern concepts in marine biology in Germany.

In: W. Lenz and M. Deacon (eds.) Ocean Sciences: Their History and Relation to Man. - Dt. Hydrogr. Z., Erg.-H. B, 22: 399–407.

Krümmel, O. 1895. Zur Physik der Ostsee. Petermanns Mitteilungen, 41: 81–86 and 111–118.

Krümmel, O. 1896. Ueber die Abhängigkeit der grossen nordischen Seefischereien von den physikalischen Zuständen des Meeres. Mitth. d. Deutsch. Seefischerei-Vereins, 1896, 122– 127.

Krümmel, O. 1899. Das Misslingen der schwedischen Hering-Fischerei im Winter 1896/97. Mitth. d. Deutsch. Seefischerei-Vereins, 133–140.

Pettersson, O. 1892. Nägra almänna drag af Nordsjöns och Östersjöns hydrografi. Forhandl. ved de skandinaviske Naturforskeres 14. Mode, 78–87.

Pettersson, O. 1896. Ueber die Beziehung zwischen hydrographischen und meteorologisehen Phänomenen. Meteorol. Zeitschr., 285–321.

Pettersson, O. and Ekman, G. 1891. Grunddragen af Skageracks och Kattegats hydrografi.

Kungl. Svenska Vet. Akad. Handlingar, 24 (11): 1–162.

Pettersson, O. and Ekman, G. 1897. De hydrografiska förändringarna inom Nordsjöns och Ostersjöns omräde under tiden 1893–1897. Kungl. Svenska Vet. Akad. Handlingar, 29 (5): 1– 125.

Smed, J. 1990. Hydrographic Investigations in the North Sea, the Kattegat and the Baltic before ICES. In: W. Lenz and M. Deacon (eds) Ocean Sciences: Their History and Relation to Man. Dt. hydrogr. Z., Erg.-H. B, 22: 357–366.

Wegner, G., 1990: Some Remarks about the Role of the Deutsche WissenschaftlicheKommission für Meeresforschung in the Promotion of Interdisciplinary Investigations. In: W. Lenz and M. Deacon (eds) Ocean Sciences: Their History and Relation to Man. Dt.hydrogr. Z., Erg.H. B, Nr. 22, 408–416.

On the foundation of ICES: a look behind the scenes at the events in Britain British Marine Science and Meteorology: The history of their development and application to marine fishing problems Buckland Occasional Papers: No. 2 1996

Jens Smed

Figure 1. Jens Smed at Aalborg, September 1995. The ICES Hydrographer 1946â&#x20AC;&#x201D;1984 and the recipient of the ICES History Award 1995.

In the last quarter of the nineteenth century, the idea arose that there might be a connection between the occurrence of fish and the hydrographical (oceanographical) conditions. So when after 70 years absence, herring reappeared in the winter of 1877/1878 on the west coast of Sweden, the Swedish Government asked the Swedish chemist Gustaf Ekman to carry out hydrographic observations on the fishing grounds (Ekman, 1878). It became obvious however, that such local investigations were not sufficient. So in February 1890, Ekman and his colleague, Otto Pettersson, organized an investigation of the Skagerrak and the northern part of the Kattegat by five Swedish ships (Pettersson and Ekman, 1891, pp. 1â&#x20AC;&#x201D;162). In this way, the investigations could be undertaken in only a few days and thus a quasisynoptic view of the hydrographic situation in the region obtained.

Pettersson realized, however, that the observations should be extended to the North Sea proper, and should be repeated regularly in order to study the seasonal variations and the variations from year to year. Consequently, at the

meeting of Scandinavian Naturalists at Copenhagen in 1892, he opened a discussion on the advantages that might be obtained by the hydrographic investigation of the North Sea, the Skagerrak, and the Kattegat by cooperation between Scandinavian scientists (Anon., 1892, pp. 171—183). The meeting approved Pettersson’s proposal. To take care of the Swedish investigations, the Swedish Academy of Sciences established a commission consisting of Pettersson, Ekman, and Professor August Wijkander. The joint investigation was carried out in May, August, and November 1893 and February 1894. In fact, the cooperation was extended to include Germany and Scotland also, which made it possible to also cover the Baltic and a small part of the North Atlantic. The two last-mentioned countries did not participate in May 1893 but made observations in May 1894 instead (Smed, 1990, pp.

357—366).

The results obtained were promising. It appeared, however, that further hydrographic studies would be of importance to the fishery research. There were also some ideas, especially expressed by Pettersson, that hydrographic observations might contribute to better weather prognoses. So Pettersson proposed a scheme for an international hydrographic survey of the Baltic, the North Sea, and an adjacent part of the North Atlantic. He presented this scheme at meetings of relevant international bodies, such as the Sixth International Geographic Congress held in London in 1895 (Pettersson, 1895), which gave the scheme its blessing. This made the commission approach the Swedish government in 1897, and suggest the summoning of an international meeting for discussion of a plan for cooperation. The outcome was the Preparatory Conferences at Stockholm 1899 and at Kristiania (Oslo) 1901, which resulted in the foundation of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) in 1902.

The decisions, and the short accounts of the discussions leading up to them, are given in the minutes of the Conferences (Anon., 1899a; Anon., 1901).

What is not officially reported however, are the discussions that took place behind the scenes in the various countries in advance of, and in relation to, the conferences. These, often very outspoken, discussions throw considerable light on the events leading up to the establishment of ICES and, as pointed out by Arthur Lee (1993, p.8), there is a need for such additional information.

In response to the application by the commission to the Swedish government, the Swedish-Norwegian Ministry for Foreign Affairs sounded out the governments in what was described as the countries bordering the seas that surround the Scandinavian peninsula in regard to establishing international cooperation for the scientific exploration of the sea fisheries. According to the Swedish government the inquiry was favourably received by all parties. 23

23 Identical letters of 14 April 1899 from the Swedish government to its ministers in Berlin, London, Copenhagen, Brussels, and St. Petersburg.

Copy in the archives of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Copenhagen.

Geographical institutions also expressed an interest: Hugh Robert Mill, Librarian of the Royal Geographical Society, London informed 24 Pettersson that he thought the Society should be able to do something to help with the international work A meeting of the Society would be held in April (1898), when the Prince of Monaco would read a paper on oceanography. Sir John Murray and J. Y. Buchanan, both of them participants of the Challenger expedition 1872— 1876, would be there and possibly the question of international cooperation might be taken up. This did not happen however. According to Mill 25, the Prince spoke for two hours, so it was impossible to find time for any discussion, and Mill did not get an opportunity to talk to the Prince later on. He supposed that the Prince had been taken possession of by people not interested in oceanography or ignorant of the British students of that science! But Mill could report that Sir Clement Markham, the President of the Royal Geographical Society was greatly interested.

Apparently, however, the inquiry had not been too well received by the British government. Murray 26 at least was very annoyed and disappointed at the British reply. He knew that some of the officials were rather favourably inclined towards the proposal. “But we have at the Treasury some people who block every scientific proposal that involves an expenditure of money. They are especially afraid of me, or of any proposal that I may favour. They seem to think that if I once get another opportunity that I will run the country in for another Challenger Expedition costing many, many thousands. I am quite disgusted with the way in which the Treasury people have treated me and I think the best thing I can do is to separate myself from all Government work and retire in my shell”. Murray expressed the hope that Pettersson's proposals might be carried through and yield much new knowledge, and he would always assist if he could.

In April 1899, the Swedish government, though some of the governments had not yet been able to give their final views on the preliminary programme (Anon., 1899(a), pp. I—III) which had been submitted to them, felt that it should no longer defer the convocation of the planned conference, given the practical interest attached to a solution of the important questions involved and considering the desire expressed already. Consequently, the Swedish government instructed 27 its ministers to address to the governments of Germany, Great Britain (with Ireland), Denmark, the Netherlands, and Russia a formal invitation to take part, by way of official delegates, in a conference which would open at Stockholm on 15 June 1899. That Norway is not mentioned in this context is due to the fact that in a way it was signatory to the invitation as this was sent out by the King and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, both of them at that time common to Sweden and Norway.

24 Letter of 31 March 1898 from H. R. Mill to Otto Pettersson.

25 Letter of 28 April 1898 from H. R. Mill to Otto Pettersson.

26 Letter of 12 September 1898 from John Murray to Otto Pettersson.

27 See 1

The conference would be charged with the elaboration of a plan for the joint exploration, in the interest of the sea fisheries, of the hydrographical and biological conditions of the Arctic Sea (including the Norwegian Sea), the North Sea, and the Baltic. The above mentioned preliminary programme would serve as a basis for the programme of work of the conference. It was understood, however, that during the conference the delegates would be free to discuss any questions of interest to sea fisheries and having relevance to the goal which the conference proposed to attain.

In June 1899, the Preparatory Conference was held at Stockholm. The British delegates were Walter E Archer, Inspector of Fisheries (Figure 2); D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson, Professor at the University of Dundee (Figure 3); and Sir John Murray (Figure 4). As reported by Lee (1992, pp. 36â&#x20AC;&#x201D;38), the British government stressed that the outcome of the conference should be of practical value to the fisheries. So part of the instructions to the British delegation to the conference read as follows: 1 ) You should propose that the scientific investigations shall be accompanied by a practical expose of the steps to be taken in order to bring the exercise of seafishing more in accord with the natural conditions regulating the growth and increase of fish, and thus permanently increase the supply of fish in the markets of the countries adjoining the North Sea. 2 ) In making this proposal, which you should do at the outset, you should make it clear that the principal object which Her Majesty's Government have in view, in directing you to take part in the conference, is to secure a careful enquiry into the effect of the present methods of fishery in the North Sea and you should give every assistance in promoting a scheme for determining whether protection against overfishing is needed, and if so, where, when, and how should protection be given.

3 ) You should propose that a thorough scheme of obtaining statistical information with regard to the quantity and quality of fish caught by the various methods of fishery shall be organized, with a view of determining whether protection against overfishing is needed either by the prohibition of trawling in certain selected areas or the limitation of fishery during certain selected seasons.

Figure 2. Walter Archer.

The importance that the British delegation attached to the fisheries aspect of the conference was underlined when D'Arcy Thompson proposed, after it had been decided to establish a central organization, that the following paragraph be inserted in the report of the Conference (Anon., 1899a, p. XLI): That in all researches, whether hydrographical or biological, undertaken by the National Institutions or by the Central Organisation, it be recognized as a primary object to estimate the quantity of Fish available for the use of man, to record the variations in its amount from place to place and from time to time, to ascribe natural variations to their natural causes, and to determine whether or how far variations in the available stock are caused by the operations of man, and, if so, whether, when, or how, measures of restriction and protection should be applied.

Figure 3. Dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Arcy Wentworth Thompson.

It is obvious that whereas a detailed hydrographic programme was set up by the Conference, the biological and fisheries matters were by no means elaborated to the same degree. It was felt that both time and the necessary preparation were lacking. So the programme was agreed upon in a more general form, in order that unanimous acceptance of it might be arrived at.

An internal German report (Smed, 1989, p. 6) intimates that there was some difference of opinion within the British delegation, especially that Murray disagreed with his colleagues with regard to the practical application of the results as far as the management of fisheries was concerned. In his report 28 to the German Reichskanzler on the Conference, the Head of the German delegation, Walther Herwig, relates one example of this disagreement. Herwig had suggested an introductory remark to the preamble, suggesting that the knowledge of the hydrographical and biological conditions in the northern seas was not yet sufficient to form a safe basis for general legal and political agreements concerning sea fishery. John Murray agreed completely in this. It was therefore very surprising when he later had to state that, although he had not changed his mind, the other British delegates could not accept the formulation suggested by Herwig under any circumstances.

After long discussions, a preamble was agreed upon in which was said, i.a., “that a rational exploitation of the sea should rest as far as possible on scientific enquiry”, and that “in the execution of the investigations it (should) be kept constantly in view that their primary object is to promote and improve the fisheries through international agreements”. This obviously caused Herwig to indulge in a fit of sulks towards part of the British delegation. He reported in a caustic way that at least a part of the delegation appeared to feel mainly called upon to supervise the other part.

As the British delegates did not give any explanation of their objection, Herwig tried to find one himself. He found it in certain fisheries problems in Great Britain, viz., the clash of interests between trawl fishermen and line fishermen. Because of the great economic importance of the British sea fishery, this clash became a political factor. Each sector urgently requested that severe measures be taken, which, however, might ruin the other part. The government had not yet taken sides and had explained this attitude by the need to wait for the results of the expected Stockholm Conference. A Conference resolution to the effect that honest science could not play this role of an oracle would therefore not fit into British policy.

As the British government had stressed that they wished the Conference to come up with a programme of direct importance to fisheries, it is no wonder that they considered the outcome as unsatisfactory. The reaction of the government on the recommendations of the Conference appears in a letter 29 from D'Arcy Thompson to Otto Pettersson: “The government will so far ac-

28 DDR Zentrales Staatsarchiv, Abt. Merseburg, Rep. 87 B, Nr. 3646, Blatt 106—110.

29 Letter of 2 June 1900 from D'Arcy Thompson to Otto Pettersson.

cept the proposals of the Conference as to become a party to the establishment of an International Council, that they will send two representatives to this International Council, and pay their proportion (not exceeding £925 per annum) of the expenses of the Central Bureau for two years - all this on condition that the International Council shall make arrangements for a resume of past works and statistics, and shall before the end of two years submit a new programme of investigation likely to be of practical benefit to the fisheries”.

D'Arcy Thompson explains: You will see from this that our Government are not willing in the meantime to spend money on actual research. This is due to many causes. The cost of the war is perhaps one. The criticism our proposals have received, especially from the Plymouth people, is probably another. The imperfect organization of the Fishery Department in England (as opposed to Scotland) is a third. But I am still hopeful that the matter is only postponed and that in time all will go well. I have repeatedly urged on the Government that if our Scottish Fishery Board were supplied with a new and larger ship, we could do our share in the programme of investigation without further cost. But as yet we cannot get the new ship. I shall not cease to work until we do get it.

As a matter of fact, their vessel, Garland, had been pronounced unseaworthy (Lee, 1992, p. 39). D'Arcy Thompson summed up his opinion: The whole matter is somewhat discouraging, but I am very glad it is not worse.

John Murray is more critical, as is seen from his letter 30 to Robert Irvine of Granton. The letter was copied (confidentially) to Otto Pettersson. It says in it: The reply of Lord Salisbury (the British Prime Minister) is extremely unsatisfactory, and, in my opinion, discreditable to the government of Great Britain.

30 Letter of 2 June 1900 from John Murray to Robert Irvine.

Figure 4. John Murray.

Murray had been told that much correspondence had passed between the Fishery Board for Scotland and the Fisheries Department of the Board of Trade concerning the reply that should be sent to the Swedish government and that there was considerable difference of opinion between these two bodies. Murray had understood that the Foreign Office refused to reply in terms of the first draft laid before them, because these were too indefinite.

Murray thought the reply that had been sent was apparently some compromise concocted by D'Arcy Thompson, Archer, and Sir Courtenay Boyle, the Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade. His letter continues: The Conference pointed out distinctly the nature, scope, and duration of the researches which the British Government would be expected to undertake, and there is no more difficulty in our Government estimating the outlay involved in carrying out this work than there has been in the case of Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, who have already accepted the programme. Our Government evidently do not wish to spend the money for the ships, officers, naturalists, etc., necessary to carry out the scientific researches allotted to them in the cooperation, but they would like, all the same, to reap the benefit following from any such researches.

The distinction in Lord Salisbury's letter, between “a scheme of investigations which would result in the acquisition of information of practical advantage to the fishing interests of this country'” and “information of a purely scientific value” indicates a very muddled state of mind with regard to all the problems under discussion, and “no fellow” can understand what is meant by their offer to send two representatives to the International Council and to pay towards the expenses of the Bureau a sum of £1850 for a period of two years. This is an absurd proposal, and should be rejected by the other countries.

This reply of Lord Salisbury must be taken as a refusal on the part of Great Britain to join with the other Powers in carrying out the programme of the Stockholm Conference. The Swedish Government in their reply should say that they very much regret that the British Government cannot see their way to join with the other North Sea States in a scientific exploration of the North Sea for a period of five years, with the view of obtaining information on which International Fishery Regulations in the North Sea might be based, in accordance with the recommendations of the Stockholm Conference. The Swedish Government should also intimate that they propose to call together the delegates mentioned in par. H (an interim organ which might be useful in constituting the Council and the Central Bureau) whose Governments have accepted the programme, to determine what steps should be taken in the altered conditions brought about by the declination of Her Majesty's Government to cooperate. When the Swedish Government have sent their reply, we will get a Member of Parliament to move for copies of the correspondence with reference to this Conference.

Also Otto Pettersson, who had got a copy of Lord Salisbury's letter, was surprised that although the British would participate in the expenses as proposed by the Conference - though for two years only - they did not mention anything about the investigations. “Do they think they can content themselves with contributing to the administration without carrying out investigations and supplying material”, he writes 31 to Nansen. He suggested that in order to arrive at an understanding the interim commission set up at the Stockholm Conference should be summoned. He was aware that the practical fishery questions were neglected at the Conference and an agreement on this matter should therefore be obtained at the meeting of the commission.

As a matter of fact Pettersson had proposed several times to Nansen that Norway should invite the next international conference to Kristiania (Nansen, 1900). In a private letter Pettersson had invited the Swedish–Norwegian minister in London, Carl Lewenhaupt, to ask the British government whether they would accept that the next conference be held at Kristiania, an application which had got a favourable reply 32. When informed 33 about this, Nansen found 34 it would seem to indicate that Great Britain would participate in the investigations as he took it that they could not contribute to the Central Bureau without also doing their part of the work. He too, however, found Lord Salisbury's reply, of which he received a copy from Pettersson, a strange one 35. He commented that, to some degree, the British had their own dele31 Letter of 22 May 1900 from Otto Pettersson to Fridtjof Nansen. —Archived at Oslo University Library, Collection No. 48.

32 Letter of 15 May 1900 from Minister Carl Lewenhaupt to Otto Pettersson.

33 Letter of 18 May 1900 from Otto Pettersson to Fridtjof Nansen. —Archived as 8 above.

34 Letter of 27 May 1900 from Fridtjof Nansen to Otto Pettersson.

35 Letter of 6 June 1900 from Fridtjof Nansen to Otto Pettersson.

gates to the Conference, i.e. Archer and D'Arcy Thompson, to thank for the fact that the biological programme did not become very detailed.

There was considerable discussion among the biologists in England when the resolutions passed at the Stockholm Conference were published in the periodical Nature (Anon., 1899c, pp. 34—37). E. J. Allen of the Plymouth Laboratory of the Marine Biological Association, (Allen, 1899a, p. 54), while generally favourably disposed towards the plans of the Conference, suggested that the hydrographical investigations should be extended to include the English Channel, the Irish Sea, and the western coasts of the British Isles. He noted that this was of importance also when considering the North Sea fisheries as it had been clearly demonstrated that Channel water enters the southern North Sea, and the fauna of this region had been shown to be an extension of the Channel fauna. Allen was somewhat sceptical with regard to an elaborate and expensive organisation with a central bureau and a central laboratory as proposed by the Stockholm Conference. He considered that an international Council, composed chiefly of the experts actually responsible for carrying out the investigations and meeting once a year would be an adequate arrangement for coordinating the investigations of the different countries.

William Abbott Herdman, Liverpool, was considerably more critical (Herdman, 1899a, p. 78) and characterised the report of the Conference as a disappointing document in some respects. He found that the primary, biological investigations were passed over lightly in the report whereas the secondary, physico-chemical work in the central bureau was strongly recommended. It had been anticipated, he said, that the report “would contain strong recommendations to the Governments concerned involving the use of sufficient boats and men to carry out a definite scheme of biological investigations during a definite period”. The report however, said nothing about this. “In place of asking for boats and men, it urges...the establishment of a ‘central bureau’, in which the work will apparently in large part be that of a physicchemical laboratory”. Herdman concluded by stating that, in his opinion, “what we want at the present time is not conferences, or committees, or a central bureau, so much as boats and men, and work at sea”.

These “letters to the editor” of Nature caused H. M. Kyle to enter into the discussion (Kyle, 1899, pp. 151—152) defending the decisions of the Stockholm Conference. He pointed out that if more stress was laid on the hydrographical work than on the biological, the reason was that the biological investigations of the fisheries in the North Sea were in certain respects in a more advanced state than the hydrographical research. Some biological investigations could not be followed up because of lack of knowledge about temperature, salinity, currents, and so on. Hence, biologists should welcome hydrographic work, and not object to its seemingly greater prominence. Furthermore, this work was not intended to hinder the prosecution of strictly biological research.

The polemics were continued by Herdman (1899b, p. 177) and Allen (1899b, p. 227), the latter still sceptical with regard to the justification for establishing

a central bureau with a central laboratory: “All past experience has shown that the British Government is very reluctant to spend money upon scientific investigations of any kind ....”. It is therefore of the utmost importance, he argued, that what money is spent should be put to the best possible use, and he could not see any justification for using a considerable sum of money on a new organisation with a new laboratory. This does not mean that Allen was not cooperative. When in a letter 36 to the Swedish Hydrographic Commission he acknowledged receipt of an account of the exploration of the Atlantic Ocean during the years 1898—1899, he added: “I shall always regard it as a duty to assist such investigations by every means m. my power”.

Allen was sympathetic towards the International Council, participated in some of the Statutory Meetings and supplied data to its publications. Herdman, on the contrary, for many years opposed the Council. As late as in 1907, Ernest Williams Lyons Holt, Dublin, in a private letter 37 to Martin Knudsen, editor of the Council's Bulletin Trimestriel des Resultats wrote: Among the physical observations which are being sent to you, you will find some which were communicated to me by Mr. Johnstone, with whom I have made arrangement for joint hydrographic cruises at the future quarterly periods. Professor Herdman has some sort of authority over Mr. Johnstone, and as he (Herdman) has lately been conducting a campaign against the International Researches I am not sure that he would approve of Johnstone's communicating his results to the International Bureau. Therefore unless he or Herdman sends you the results direct it might be as well not to mention Mr. Johnstone's name.

In 1912, an attempt at reconciliation with Herdman and the people of the Marine Biological Association was planned. Pettersson had suggested to the Council's President, Walter E. Archer that H. H. Gran of Norway be invited as an expert to the Council meeting in April. Archer was not against this idea; however, he then also wanted to invite Herdman and another British scientist 38. His intention with this was to pacify the Marine Biological Association.

Otto Pettersson doubted that the people of the Association would easily become friends of the Council; but Archer stated that he had now got a greater appropriation, and he had let Herdman have a certain amount of this. “Everything in England appears to be a question of money, and Archer buys the followers he thinks that he needs”, Pettersson comments, and he did not have much sympathy for Archer's methods.

With regard to Herdman, Pettersson thought that he had materialized spirits which he could not control. According to Pettersson, Herdman was a distinguished naturalist who was not cast for playing any other role in the Council.

36 Letter of 14 December 1901 from E. J. Allen to the Swedish Hydrographic Commission.

37 Letter of 10 April 1907 from E. W. L. Holt to Martin Knudsen. — Kept in Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen under code F.27—210, D.2.

38 Letter of 25 March 1912 from Otto Pettersson to C. F. Drechsel. —Archived as 1 above.

However, Pettersson did not object to Herdman's admission and he agreed that there was a need for new blood in the Council. It was then decided 39 that Gran would be invited by the General Secretary, Christian Frederik Drechsel, whereas Archer would invite the English guests. In case Herdman should attend the meeting, everybody would have to do his best to bring about a reconciliation, Drechsel said: a grand “reconciliation feast” would perhaps not be amiss! Nothing came of it, however, for neither Gran nor Herdman attended the meeting. Later on Herdman obviously changed his mind. In 1920, Otto Pettersson could report 40 that Herdman, from being an antagonist to the Council had become its most ardent supporter.

Reverting now to the year 1900: with regard to oceanography there were more positive news, even conversions to report, according to Mill 41 One good thing is that Markham is now one of the keenest advocates of oceanography I have ever known. The change is like the conversion of St. Paul, for beforehand he was actually a persecutor! Now he has taken to writing epistles to the Admiralty and other communities of unbelievers.

It was the intention to have the next conference in October 1900. With a view to this Murray 42 informed Pettersson that he would not be able to participate as he was departing for Christmas Island. If he had been at home however, he would have come if Pettersson so wished, whether the government had appointed him or not. Murray stated that he had given the Foreign Office officials a piece of his mind about the reply they sent the Swedish government. The answer he got from them had been to this effect: The secret of the situation is that what with the war and other expenses the Treasury would flatly refuse to grant a large sum of money at the present moment for investigations. So you must blame Hicks– Beach (Chancellor of the Exchequer) and his myrmidons. There is absolutely no arrière-pénsee about the position we are taking up. No Machiavellian desire to see other countries pull the chestnuts out of the fire for us! It is merely L.S.D. To this, Murray had replied that it would have been better to have said this in the communication to the Swedish minister. Murray concluded that this was the result of war, which was always bad for science. (The war referred to is the Boer War in South Africa.)

In connection with Murray's criticism of his government's lack of interest in science it may be appropriate to quote from a contemporary note in Nature (Anon., 1899b, p. 37) though it was related to quite another context:

39 Letter of 27 March 1912 from C. F. Drechsel to Otto Pettersson. —Archived as 1 above.

40 Letter of 13 October 1920 from Otto Pettersson to C. F. Drechsel. —In ICES archives, File 8B Atlanten.

41 Letter of 18 October 1900 from H. R. Mill to Otto Pettersson.

42 Letter of 4 September 1900 from John Murray to Otto Pettersson.

science, and especially the latest developments of science, are the last things to interest our Government and the Government Departments; they do not believe in science, they care to know very little about it, and the scientific spirit is absent from too many of their plans and doings.

Murray may finally have become appeased to the official policy. At least he does not seem to have come over for the Kristiania Conference, which had been postponed until May 1901 when he was back from his travels. The British representatives at the Conference were Sir Colin Scott Moncrief, Under– Secretary of State for Scotland; Walter Garstang, of the Marine Biological Association's Laboratory at Plymouth; D'Arcy Thompson; and H. R. Mill (Anon., 1901). In advance of the Conference the latter wrote 43 to Otto Pettersson that he might be tempted to resign his nomination in favour of Henry Newton Dickson, whom he considered to be much more in touch with the special work. But Mill had reason to believe that Dickson would not be appointed in his case if he did so.

As the hydrographical programme had been worked out in detail already at the Stockholm Conference the changes made in it at Kristiania were mainly editorial only. The biological and fishery programmes, however, which had been somewhat neglected at Stockholm were now elaborated to a much higher degree: they took up four times as much space as in the Stockholm version.

There was much uncertainty as to whether the British government would accept the new programmes and commit itself to cooperate. In July 1901, Mill 44 informed Otto Pettersson that he had heard nothing yet as to the action which his government would take but he thought the signs were hopeful. A month later however, he was much less optimistic 45. He had heard no more about the position of the government in the North Sea business. But from the long delay he feared the worst, and also Scott Moncrieff was very pessimistic. It would be deplorable in a high degree if nothing was done, Mill felt.

In the end, however, the British Cabinet decided (Lee, 1992, p. 40) that the country should play a full part in the investigations proposed. In January 1902, the Foreign Office informed the Swedish and Norwegian governments that Great Britain agreed to the decisions reached by the two Conferences.

To cover the British part of the expenses involved in running the Central Bureau an amount of £ 38 000 for a 3-year period would be applied for in Parliament. Application would also be made for grants allowing the hire of two steamers for participation in the investigations (Anon., 1903a). Shortly after,

43 Letter of 18 April 1901 from H. R. Mill to Otto Pettersson.

44 Letter of 20 July 1901 from H. R. Mill to Otto Pettersson.

45 Letter of 15 August 1901 from H. R. Mill to Otto Pettersson.

the Danish government was notified and at the same time asked for the date of the forthcoming founding meeting46.

Information about the British decision caused considerable relief among the other countries. In view of Great Britain’s geographical position its participation in the investigations was of greatest importance, as stressed by Nansen (1902) in a letter to H. R. Mill: How glad I am that England has come forward so splendidly as to the International Oceanographical Research. I congratulate you most heartily, but I congratulate also ourselves, for I have always considered that British investigations (on the Wyville Thomson Ridge and in the Atlantic) would be of most importance to us. And now I understand that they will be started at a proper scale. I feel also certain that the men for it, understanding what is wanted, may be found, or they may easily get the training necessary, for it is actually very simple. I do not doubt that the work will be a great success.

At the Kristiania Conference, it had been decided to propose to the governments that Copenhagen should be the seat of the organization to be established. The Danish government, with the agreement of the governments of Germany, Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Russia, and Sweden, and the Senate of Finland, then summoned a meeting of delegates from these countries to Copenhagen where the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea would, at long last, be founded on 22 July 1902 (Anon., 1903b).

Acknowledgement I am greatly indebted to the late Arthur Lee for valuable comments on my manuscript which was written in response to his article in the ICES/CIEM Information.

References Allen, E. J. 1899a. The Stockholm Fisheries Conference. Nature, 61.

Allen, E. J. 1899b. The Stockholm Fisheries Conference and British Fishery Investigations.

Nature, 61.

Anon. 1892. Forhandlinger ved de skandinaviske Naturforskeres 14. Mode. Kobenhavn, 1892.

Anon. 1899a. Conférence Internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer, réunie à Stockholm 1899.

Anon. 1899b. Notes. Nature, 61.

Anon. 1899c. The Stockholm Fisheries Conference.Nature, 61.

Anon. 1901. Conférence Internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer, réunie à 1901.

Anon. 1903a. Reports of the British Delegates attending the international Conferences held at Stockholm, Christiania and Copenhagen with respect to Fishery and Hydrographical

46 Letter of 5 February 1902 from the British Legation at Copenhagen to the Danish Prime Minister. Copy archived as 1 above.

Investigations in the North Sea and Correspondence relating thereto HMSO, London, Cd. 1313.

Anon. 1903b. Rapp. P.-v. Réun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, 1 (B).

Ekman, G. 1878. Hydrografiska vinterobservationer vid Bohuskusten. Göteborgs och Bohusläns Hushållnings-Sallskaps Qvartalsskrift, Julihäftet 1878.

Herdman, W. A. 1899a. Stockholm International Conference on the Exploration of the Sea. Nature, 61.

Herdman, W. A. 1899b. Stockholm International Conference on the Exploration of the Sea. Nature, 61.

Kyle, H. M. 1899. Proposals of the Stockholm Fisheries Conference. Nature 61.

Lee, A. J. 1992. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's Directorate of Fisheries Research: its Origins and Development. Lowestoft, U.K. Lee, A. J. 1993. New light on the foundation of ICES. ICES/CIEM Information, issue no. 21.

Nansen, F. 1900. Letter of 23 May 1900 from Fridtjof Nansen to the Norwegian Prime Minister Johannes Steen. Fridtjof Nansen: Brev, II, no. 284.

Nansen, F. 1902. Letter of 5 March 1902 from Fridtjof Nansen to Hugh R. Mill. Fridtjof Nansen: Brev, II, no. 299.

Pettersson, O. 1895. Proposed scheme for international hydrographic survey of the Northern Atlantic. In: Proceedings of the VI:th Intern. Geogr. Congress, London.

Pettersson, O., and Ekman, G. 1891. Grunddragen af Skageracks och Kattegats hydrografi enligt den svenska vinterexpeditionens 1890 iakttagelser samt föregàende arbeten. Kgl. VetenskapsAkademiens Handlingar, 24(11).

Smed, J. 1989. Otto Krümmel über Fridtjof Nansens Kandidatur für den 1. Generalsekretar des ICES. DGM Mitteilungen, 1/1989.

Smed, J. 1990. Hydrographic investigations in the North Sea, the Kattegat and the Baltic before ICES. Deutsche Hydrogr. Zeitschr., Erganzungsh., Reihe B, 22.

Archival material Except where otherwise indicated the letters are kept in the Collection of Letters to Otto Pettersson, held at the University Library, Goteborg.

Plate 3. D’Arcy Wentworth Thomas.

Plate 4. Sir John Murray.

Plate 1.

Plate 2.. (see page 144)

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) Sciences of the Earth An Encylopedia of Events, People, and Phenomena Volume 2 H-Z 1998 Edited by Gregory A. Good International Organizations in Oceanography

Jems Smed An international oceanographic research organization founded in 1902, by countries bordering the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. The fluctuations in the Swedish herring fishery during the last quarter of the nineteenth century, induced the Swedish scientists to carry out hydrographic (that is, physical oceanographic) research in the seas around Sweden in order to investigate the possibility of a connection between the hydrographic situation and the occurrence of fish. In 1890, the chemists Otto Pettersson (1848—1941) and Gustaf Ekman (1852—1930) organized an investigation of the Skagerrak and the northern Kattegat straits between Denmark and Sweden by means of five Swedish ships. The whole investigation could be undertaken in a few days and thus a quasi-synoptic view of the situation could be obtained. Pettersson realized, however that there was a need for extending the observations to the North Sea proper, and to repeat them regularly in order to investigate the seasonal and annual variations of the hydrographic conditions. At the meeting of Scandinavian naturalists at Copenhagen in 1892, he got approval for a proposal that a common plan should be set up for hydrographic investigations to be carried out by the Scandinavian countries in their adjacent waters and cooperation be established. The project was implemented in 1893 and 1894. A great number of oceanographic stations were established in the Baltic, the northern North Sea, and minor parts of the North Atlantic during seasonal cruises. The cooperation was extended to include Germany and Scotland (Smed, pp. 357—366).

The results obtained by the cooperative investigations were promising. It appeared that further hydrographic studies would be important to the fisheries. There was also considerable hope, especially expressed by Pettersson, that hydrographic observations might contribute to better weather prognoses. In order to obtain support for an extension of the cooperation, Pettersson presented his scheme at meetings of relevant international bodies, such as the Sixth International Geographical Congress, held in London in 1895.

Here, a resolution was passed stating that the Congress recognizes the scientific and economic importance of the results of recent research in the Baltic, the North Sea, and the North Atlantic, especially with regard to fishing interests and records

its opinion that the survey of the areas should be continued and extended by the cooperation of the different nationalities concerned on the lines of the scheme presented to the Congress by Professor Pettersson.

Time was now ripe for formalizing and extending such cooperation. Initiatives were in preparation by German and Dutch scientists. Before these plans could be implemented, however, the Swedish government, at the suggestion of Pettersson and Ekman, invited a number of European governments to send representatives to a Preparatory Conference for the Exploration of the Sea, to be held at Stockholm in 1899 (Anon., Conférence Internationale). After a Second Preparatory Conference at Kristiania (Oslo, Norway) in 1901, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) was founded at Copenhagen, Denmark, in 1902 (Went, passim).

ICES has dealt with all aspects of oceanographic and marine biological research, such as the physical and chemical properties of the sea, the biology, ecology, and population dynamics of exploited fish and shellfish stocks, and the contamination and quality of the marine environment. The work has been carried out by means of standing committees, working groups, ad hoc teams, special meetings, symposia, and annual meetings.

The hydrographic activities of ICES embrace planning and' coordination of cooperative investigations in the North Atlantic, including the North Sea and the Baltic. These investigations form part of the program of multidisciplinary work that aims at the understanding not only of the features and dynamics of the water masses, but also of the influence that changes in the physical environment may have on the distribution and abundance of the fishery resources in the area. Because the physical characteristics of the water masses govern distribution and transport of contaminants in the marine environment, the hydrographic investigations are also relevant to marine pollution studies.

Another aspect of the ICES's hydrographic activities has been its provision of services as a regional centre for collection, storage, and retrieval of data. This has been accomplished by the ICES secretariat maintaining a large bank of oceanographic data Supplied by the member countries and dating back to the beginning of the twentieth century.

The history of ICES remains to be thoroughly explored. Its archives in Copenhagen have not been much used for historical research. They comprise correspondence from 1902 to the present. Complete sets of all papers and documents presented at the annual meetings and of all publications issued by the organization throughout the years are also available.

JensSmed Bibliography Anon. 1899. Conférence Internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer, réunie à Stockholm 1899. - Stockholm

Lee, Arthur J. 1984. The ICES Hydrography Committee: A review of its activities since 1945. Rapp. P.-v. Réun. Cons. int. Explor. Mer, 185, 7-29 Smed, J. 1990. Hydrographic investigations in the North Sea, the Kattegat and the Baltic before ICES. In Ocean Sciences: Their History and Relation to Man, edited by Walter Lenz and Margaret Deacon. Deutsche Hydrographische Zeitschrift, Ergänzungsheft Reihe B, 22, 357-366 Thomasson, E. H. (ed.). 1981. Study of the sea. The development of marine research under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. - Fishing News Books, Farnham, England Went, A. E. J. 1972a. Seventy years agrowing. A history of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, 1902-1972. - Rapp. P.-v. Réun. Cons. int. Explor. Mer, 165 See also: Deutsche Seewarte; Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission; International Organizations in Oceanography; Oceanography, Physical; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

Organizations intended to promote and coordinate international research on the oceans Sciences of the Earth: An Encyclopaedia of Events, People, and Phenomena Volume 2 H-Z 1998 Edited by Gregory A. Good International Organizations in Oceanography Jens Smed Oceanography is often considered as having started with the British Challenger expedition (1872—1876). It was followed by several other national oceanographic expeditions during the last quarter of the 19th century. Although much important information was obtained in this way, it became clear that a thorough knowledge of the seas and oceans necessitated cooperation between countries. This led to the establishment of a number of international organizations during the 20th century (Wooster, “International Cooperation”, pp. 123—136).

The first of these organizations was the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), an intergovernmental organization established in 1902 by eight countries bordering on the North Sea and the Baltic. Its headquarters have since then, been in the Copenhagen, Denmark, area, from 1902 to 1908, supplemented by a central laboratory in Kristiania (Oslo, Norway) directed by Fridtjof Nansen (1861 - 1930). Member countries are coastal states of the Baltic and North seas and of the eastern Atlantic, north of Gibraltar, together with the United States and Canada. The organization has been concerned throughout its history with the Atlantic Ocean and its adjacent seas and primarily with the North Atlantic.

After World War II, there were problems with regard to the coordination of oceanographic investigations in the Baltic because not all countries bordered by it were members of ICES. While the USSR became a member in 1956, the German Democratic Republic was still outside. To remedy this situation a meeting, chaired by Ilmo Hela (1915-1976), was held at Helsinki in 1957 (Matthäus, pp. 11 - 25). It was attended by marine scientists from all countries bordering on the Baltic. In order to stress that they participated in their own capacity, only the meeting was named the Conference of Baltic Oceanographers (CBO). It was stated that their resolutions would be given mainly for themselves. The CBO met again in 1959, and from 1962 onwards it has met every second year. Between the meetings senior scientists act as a steering committee.

The CBO recommended a number of standard deep-basin stations and standard sections that should be worked often, preferably during five specified synoptic periods each year. Several joint research programs were organized,

such as the Cooperative Synoptic Investigation of the Baltic in August 1964, the International Baltic Year (IBY) 1969/1970, the Baltic Open Sea Experiment (BOSEX) 1977, and the Patchiness Experiment (PEX) 1986.

The origin of the Commission Internationale pour l'Exploration Scientifique de Ia Mer Mediterranee (CIESM, International Commission for the Scientific Exploration of the Mediterranean Sea) should be sought in a decision by the Ninth International Geographic Congress in 1908, that a commission be established to summon a conference of representatives of all Mediterranean countries with the task of setting up a program for an oceanographic exploration of the Mediterranean Sea, with special regard to the interests of sea fisheries (Covetto, pp. 327 - 336). What the congress had in mind was clearly an organization much like ICES, and the program when finalized was to a high degree based upon the experience within ICES. The commission met at Monatoin 1910 and agreed upon a plan for the oceanographic work to be carried out. The next meeting took place at Rome in 1914. Because of World War I, however, the first general constitutive and definitive conference could take place only in 1919, at Madrid. Activities were again suspended from 1939 to 1949 because of World War II. Revised statutes were adopted in 1970. Seventeen countries were members of CIESM by the early 1990s.

CIESM was established with these aims: to serve as liaison body for research workers in Mediterranean laboratories; to promote joint international activities on behalf of countries bordering on the Mediterranean; and at periodic meetings to enable scientists to compare their results and methods, organize their research in the light of an overall plan, and produce syntheses. Several scientific committees have long worked within CIESM, two of them dealing with physical and chemical oceanography respectively, according to the Yearbook of International Organizations (pp. 862 - 863).

When the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) was established in 1919, it set up a Section of Physical Oceanography (Vaughan, p. 89).

In 1922, cooperation with biologists was decided upon and the name changed to Section of Oceanography, which was altered again in 1931 to become International Association of Physical Oceanography (IAPO). In 1967, the association's field of activity was broadened somewhat and the name changed to International Association for the Physical Sciences of the Ocean (IAPSO). The association was founded to promote the scientific study of problems relating to the ocean and the interactions taking place at its boundaries, chiefly insofar as such study may be carried out by the aid of mathematics, physics, and chemistry. It initiates, facilitates, and coordinates investigations of those problems of the ocean that require international cooperation (Anon., Yearbook, p. 478).

The International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF), established in 1950, was a governmental organization comprising the countries with fisheries interests in the northwestern part of the North Atlantic. It had the same function in this region as the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) and ICES together in the eastern North Atlantic - that is, it had management functions like NEAFC, but took its scientific advice from

its own Research and Statistics Committee. Under the auspices of this committee the ICNAF member countries carried out a considerable amount of oceanographic research in the region. In 1979, ICNAF was replaced by the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO). It has twelve contracting parties, including the European Economic Community. Also under the aegis of NAFO, much oceanographic work has been undertaken in the region (Anon., Yearbook, p. 646).

In 1923, the Second Pan-Pacific Science Congress established an International Committee on the Chemical and Physical Oceanography of the Pacific, to collect data on the temperatures, chemical features, and currents of the Pacific Ocean. The third congress, in 1926, decided, however, to replace the committee by another, the International Committee on the Oceanography of the Pacific, with a broader sphere of interest. The relevant congress resolution decided that the work of the committee be conducted with the intent of establishing for the Pacific an institution similar to the North Atlantic ICES. The committee established three subcommittees: on physical and chemical oceanography, fundamental marine biology, and fisheries technology. The purposes of the committee were, in collaboration with national committees in the member countries, to stimulate oceanographic research in the Pacific, to enable the different countries whose shores border on the Pacific or that have possessions in the Pacific to coordinate their researches, and to standardize the methods and appliances used in oceanographic research (Vaughan, pp. 95 - 96). The committee greatly stimulated oceanographic research in the Pacific. The Fifth Pacific Science Congress, in 1933, further broadened the scope of the committee's activities when it empowered each national committee to establish subcommittees on the following five subjects: physical and chemical oceanography, marine biology, corals and coral reefs, fisheries, and fishery technology.

In 1975, at the Thirteenth Pacific Science Congress, a Committee on Marine Sciences was established within the Pacific Science Association, to initiate and promote cooperation in the study of marine sciences relating to the Pacific region. The committee has maintained a centre for exchange of publications on marine science among the scientists of the region and has organized international expeditions. The committee had members in eleven countries in 1990 (Anon., Yearbook, p. 919).

In the 1970s, the need was felt for an organization that would promote and coordinate marine research in the northern Pacific Ocean and the Bering Sea - a sort of Pacific ICES and therefore nicknamed PICES - and a number of meetings on the matter were held. Because of several obstacles, however, it was only in 1990 that agreement for the establishment of PICES was reached

by Canada, Japan, the United States, and the Soviet Union. The convention was supposed to come into force by the end of 1991 (Wooster, â&#x20AC;&#x153;New Organizationâ&#x20AC;?, pp. 7 - 8).

As a consequence of the tragic loss in 1912 of the ocean liner Titanic from its collision with an iceberg, a number of maritime countries in 1913 sent vessels to patrol the regions in the vicinity of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland

along the transatlantic shipping lanes, where in the spring and early summer, icebergs are a menace to navigation. In 1914, the International lee Patrol was established. The United States agreed to undertake the management of the patrol, the expenses to be defrayed by the countries interested in transatlantic navigation. Since then, except for a few years during the world wars, the Ice Patrol Service has been active, carried out by the U.S. Coast Guard. Twenty countries are contributing to the service. The main duties of the Ice Patrol have been to find icebergs and field ice, to determine their drift, and to communicate this information. To forecast the drift, however, there is a need for observations of temperature and salinity, by means of which it is possible, under certain assumptions, to determine the current by the so called dynamic computations. Over the years, the Ice Patrol has therefore collected a great number of observations, published in an annual Bulletin issued by the Coast Guard (Vaughan, pp. 100 - 102).

Consejo OceanografitoIbero-Americano (lbero-American Oceanographic Council), established in 1927, was intended to be composed of those countries in the Iberian Peninsula and America in which the language is either Spanish or Portuguese. However, only Spain and ten Spanish-American countries joined the council. The purpose of the organization was to promote, coordinate, and standardize, among other things, oceanographic investigations within the member countries. The council also served as a medium for exchanging information between member countries (Vaughan, pp. 91 - 92).

The council seems to have been dissolved because of the civil war in Spain and World War II. At its session in 1950, the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) decided to promote coordination of research in, among other sciences, oceanography and marine biology. This led to the setting up in 1955 of an International Advisory Committee on Marine Science (IACOMS) to advise UNESCO on the promotion of international cooperation in marine science, a task that in 1959 was taken over by the Special Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR). While this committee was instrumental in planning and organizing the International Indian Ocean Expedition (IIOE), 1959 - 1965, it soon became dear that such a vast international cooperative undertaking required the commitment of governments. Upon recommendation of a conference in which a number of international organizations were involved, UNESCO in 1960, decided to establish an Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) to promote concerted action of the UNESCO member states in the field of oceanographic research (Roll, passim). IOC then took over the coordination of IIOE. Among other international programs for scientific investigation of the oceans coordinated by IOC may be mentioned the International Cooperative Investigation of the Tropical Atlantic (ICITA), 1963 - 1964, the Cooperative Investigation of the Caribbean and Adjacent Regions (CICAR), 1967 - 1976, and the Cooperative Investigations in the Mediterranean (CIM), 1969 - 1979. IOC also cosponsored the Cooperative Investigation of the Northern part of the Eastern Central Atlantic (CINECA), 1970 - 1975, for which ICES was the leading agency.

In 1969, IOC adopted a Long-term and Expanded Programme of Oceanic Exploration and Research (LEPOR), which contained a new element: “the goal of enhanced utilization of the ocean and its resources for the benefit of mankind”. This new goal is related to the increased influence of the developing countries in the commission. The IOC started with 40 members, mainly industrial countries; the number of member countries in 1991 was 118.

In addition to IOC, UNESCO has a Division of Marine Sciences (originally named Office of Oceanography). The cooperation between the two bodies is especially pronounced in relation to training, education, and mutual assistance (TEMA) in the marine sciences. In this matter IOC is principally a coordinating and advisory unit, while the Division of Marine Sciences is the operative unit. The regular program of the division has three parts: first, activities carried out in cooperation with or in support of IOC; second, activities in promoting marine science, which, broadly are covered by IOC resolutions and, in due course, benefit IOC; and third, activities that serve marine science needs of UNESCO member states that are not covered in IOC's program.

While the long-term objectives of the programs of IOC and the division are identical, there are differences in the short and medium - term objectives.

The principal function of the IOC is to develop, recommend, and coordinate international programs for the scientific investigation of the oceans and related services that call for action by its members; the division's principal function is to stimulate and assist study, research, and training of research. personnel in marine sciences and to assist and strengthen national and regional research and training institutions. Furthermore, in the programs of IOC, emphasis is on the oceanic region, whereas in those of the division, emphasis is on the coastal regime (Anon. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, annex Vl).In 1991, the Office of IOC and marine science-related issues was established, which includes the IOC Secretariat and the Division of Marine Sciences.

The Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR) may be said to have its roots in an International Joint Commission on Oceanography set up in 1946 by the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), with the purpose of exploring ways of developing marine science in general (Wolff, pp. 337 - 343).

In 1951, however, ICSU decided to restrict the future work of the commission to the investigation of the structure and animal life of the deep-sea floor. The commission first met at Monatoin 1952, where the establishment of the journal DeepSea Research was decided upon, and again in Rome in 1953. In 1954 ICSU disbanded the commission and replaced it by a small committee to consider such problems of deep-sea research, of a joint biological and geophysical nature, that it would be useful to study in cooperation with IUGG and the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS). The committee, meeting at Copenhagen in September 1955, recommended that ICSU set up a Special Committee on Oceanic Research m deal with such aspects of ocean science that could not be effectively handled by IAPO (Wolff, pp. 337 - 343).

In spring 1957 ICSU acted •upon this recommendation by putting forward a “Suggested Framework for the Constitution of SCOR” and decided upon its

terms of reference: “SCOR is a Special Committee of ICSU charged with furthering the coordination of scientific activity in all branches of oceanic research, with a view to framing a scientific program of world-wide scope and significance. In framing its program, SCOR will take care to acknowledge the autonomy of other existing international bodies” (Wolff).The constitutive meeting of SCOR was then held at Woods Hole in August 1957. There, the committee's terms of reference were abbreviated somewhat, including deleting the acknowledgement of the autonomy of other existing international bodies.

The real breakthrough of SCOR came with its third meeting in New York in 1959, where the plans for its first major project, the IIOE, were presented.

SCOR was responsible for the coordination of this multidisciplinary and multiship expedition until 1962 when IOC took over the task.

SCOR (in which acronym S now stands for Scientific) is a nongovernmental organization with national committees on which academies and research councils are represented. It works mainly through a wide variety of working groups. Furthermore, SCOR provides scientific advice to UNESCO and IOC, and organizes scientific meetings, such as international oceanographic congresses.

STOR was established to overcome some of the difficulties caused by the interdisciplinary nature of oceanographic problems by furthering international scientific activity in all branches of oceanographic research. Its interdisciplinary character may be illustrated by the fact that four ICSU bodies are affiliated with it: IAPSO, the: International Association of Biological Oceanography (IABO), the Committee for Marine Geology (CMG), and the International Association for Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics (IAMAP).

This very interdisciplinary nature of oceanography, along with the logistical difficulties and expense of oceanic research, has necessitated international interaction and collaboration. The appearance of the numerous international committees, congresses, and associations outlined above suggests that many different perspectives may still be brought to bear on the history of oceanography. It is a quintessential international science.

Bibliography Anon. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. Summary Report: Eleventh Session of the Assembly. Paris: International Oceanographic Commission, 1980.

Yearbook of International Organizations 1990/91, edited by the Union of International Associations. Vol. 1, Organization Description and Index. München and elsewhere: K.G. Saur, 1990.

Covetto, Arthur. “La Commission international pour l'exploration scientifique de la Mer Méditérranée, origines, difficultes initials”. In Premier Congres International d'Histoire de l'Océanographie, 3 vols. Bulletin de l’Institut Océanographique, (Monaco) Numéro Spécial 2 (1968): pp. 327-335.

Matthäus, Wolfgang. “The History of the Conference of Baltic Oceanographers”. In Beiträge zur Meereskunde (Berlin) 57 (1987): 11 - 25.

Roll, Hans Ulrich. A Focus for Ocean Research. Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission: History, Functions, Achievements. IOC Technical Series no. 20. Paris: International Oceanographic Commission, 1979.

Vaughan, Thomas Wayland. International Aspects of Oceanography. Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press, 1937.

Wolff, Torben. “The Creation and First Years of SCOR (Scientific Committee on Oceanic. Research)”. In Ocean Sciences: Their History and Relation to Man, edited by Walter Lenz and Margaret Deacon, pp. 337-343. Deutsthe Hydrographische Zeitschrift, Ergänzungsheft, Reihe B, no. 22. Hamburg, 1990.

Wooster, Warren S. “International Cooperation in Marine Science”. In Ocean Yearbook 2, edited by Elisabeth Mann Borgese and Norton Ginsburg. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1980.

“New North Pacific Science Organization Models Itself after ICES”. In ICES Information, no.

18. Copenhagen, 1991.

See also Geophysical Societies and International Organizations; Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC); International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES); International Geophysical Year; International Organizations in Oceanography; International Polar Years; Meteorological Societies; Oceanographic Expeditions up to H.M.S. Challenger; Oceanography, Physical

The correspondence between Fridtjof Nansen and Otto Krümmel during the years 1899 to 1911 Historisch-Meereskundliches Jahrbuch/History of Oceanography Yearbook Band 6/Volume 6 1999

Jens Smed During a period of years an exchange of letters took place between the Norwegian polar explorer and oceanographer Fridtjof Nansen (1861–1930) and the German geographer and oceanographer Otto Krümmel (1854–1912). At first, the correspondence, initiated by Nansen, dealt mainly with the measurement of the specific gravity of seawater by means of hydrometers, a subject on which Krümmel was an expert. Later on, other oceanographic items were touched upon.

Der Briefwechsel zwischen Fridtjof Nansen und Otto Krümmel in den Jahren 1899 his 1911. Zwischen dem norwegischen Polarforscher und Ozeanographen Fridtjof Nansen (1861–1930) und dem deutschen Geographen und Wegbereiter der modernen Ozeanographie Otto Krümmel (1854–1912) fand über mehrere Jahre ein wissenschaftlicher Gedankenaustausch statt. Dieser Briefwechsel, der durch Nansen initüert wurde, betraf insbesondere die Messung des Salzgehaltes im Nordpolarmeer. Vor allem interessierten Nansen die Erfahrungen Krlimmels beim Einsatz von Artiometern an Bord zur Messung von Dichte und spezifischem Gewicht des Seewassers. Es erfolgte eine intensive Beratung Nansens durch Krümmel, den anerkannten Experten für diesen methodischen Wissenschaftsbereich. Ausserdem wurden im Verlaufe des Briefwechsels weitere ozeanographische Fragestellungen erörtert und Erfahrungen ausgetauscht.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the geographer Otto Krümmel (1854–1912) held a professorship at the University of Kiel. He was one of the first German oceanographers. Some general aspects of his scientific contacts with leading German and foreign personalities of the time have been published by J. Ulrich and G. Kortum (1997). In particular, Krümmel during a period of some years corresponded with a number of outstanding Scandinavian scientists47. While the letters between Krümmel and the Danish physicist and oceanographer Martin Knudsen, exchanged during the years 1904-1912, carry a friendly or even a familiar stamp, Krümmel's very extensive correspondence with the Swedish chemist and oceanographer Otto Pettersson, during the years 1893-1903, mainly deals with a number of special scientific prob-

47 Krümmel corresponded with these Scandinavian scientists especially since 1902 within the scope of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). Special oceanographic problems were for instance the measurements of the bottom temperature and the salinity in the northern Polar Basin.

lems and, therefore, is of a more official nature. The letters between Fridtjof Nansen and Otto Krümmel were at first purely factual, mainly concerning measurements of the salinity of the water of the North Polar Basin. Later on, the correspondence got a more personal character, and the two scientists exchanged some of their main publications: Nansen sent his book In Nacht und Eis and Krümmel sent his Handbuch der Ozeanographie. The correspondence took place in German. At the Institute of Marine Research at the University of Kiel, the portraits of Fridtjof Nansen and Otto Krümmel commemorate the traditional co-operation between Kiel and Scandinavia in the Entrance Hall and Library area.

The observations on the Fram Expedition 1893–1896 initiated the correspondence between Nansen and Krümmel. During the working up of the material collected on the expedition, Nansen ran into difficulties. In order to obtain reliable values of the salinity of the water in the North Polar Basin he needed the advice of a competent physical oceanographer. A scientist well qualified as a guide in this matter was Otto Krümmel at Kiel.

Nansen, being a serious working scientist, was anxious to get “die vollstandige Literatur der letzten Jahre” (the complete literature of recent years), i.e. to obtain a list of all recent publications relevant to his problem. He took a special interest in the determination of the salinity by means of the hydrometer, which at that time was the customary apparatus for measurement of the specific gravity of seawater and other liquids. Nansen knew that Krümmel had much experience in using hydrometers (Krümmel, 1890). So, by letter of 23 February 1899, he asked Krümmel some specific questions about the possible limits of error of the measurements and about the influence of the surface tension of the seawater on the hydrometer readings. In this context it should be noted that since 1889 Krümmel had been much engaged in determination of the specific gravity of seawater and in using hydrometers on board research vessels. He had also prepared a conversion table for the German glass hydrometers. In 1894, Krümmel published a paper “Ueber einige neuere Beobachtungen an Aräometern” (“On some recent observations about hydrometers), in the Annalen der Hydrographie und maritimen Meteorologie, a reprint of which he now sent to Nansen together with a fourpages letter of 27 February 1899, where he dealt with the questions asked by Nansen in detail. He explained the dissimilarity of the hydrometer readings which puzzled Nansen by the different development of the capillary wave around the stalk of the scale, and he described his own experience and the relevant findings of John Y. Buchanan (1844–1925), the famous English chemist, whose method he had learned about in June 1898 on board the yacht of the Prince Albert I of Monaco (1848–1922). Furthermore, he discussed the reasons for the irregularities of the surface tension, and he ends his letter with the following sentence: Nun haben Sie eine grosse Abhandlung über deren Lecture Sie hoffentlich nicht ungeduldig geworden sind; aber ich weiss aus eigener Erfahrung zu gut, welche Sorgen und Schmerzen diese Araeometer

einem gewissenhaften Beobachter machen und hoffe, Ihnen ein wenig damit geholfen zu haben, bin auch zu weiterer Auskunft bereit.

(Now you have a long paper, and I hope you will not become impatient reading it. From my own experience I know all too well, however, the worries and pains which these hydrometers cause a conscientious observer. I hope I have helped you a little, and I am ready to give further information.)

In his letter of thanks of 11 March 1899, Nansen described some experiments which he had made on immersing glass rods and a thermometer in the sample vessel. Like the Russian hydrographer Stepan O. Makarov (1849–1904) and Krümmel he had found that this operation influenced the hydrometer readings and thus was a source of error. Nansen considered, however, that his observations on the expedition showed only small variations because the measurements had always been made in nearly the same way. He continued: Ich hoffe daher zu ziemlich zuverlässigen Resultaten im Bezug auf den Salzgehalt des Wassers im Polarbecken gelangen zu können, und für Ihren wertvollen Heistand in dieser Sache bin ich Ihnen ausserordentlich grossen Dank schuldig.

(I hope therefore to obtain fairly reliable results with regard to the salinity of the water in the Polar Basin, and I am most thankful to you for your valuable assistance in this matter.)

As a token of his gratitude Nansen sent Krümmel a copy of the new, revised edition of his book In Nacht und Eis with his dedication (Figure 1) together with reprints of some of his papers (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Excerpt of letter of 11 March 1899 from Fridtjof Nansen to Otto Krümmel (left: first page; right: last page of the letter).

Krümmel's description of Buchanan's method appealed to Nansen who would like to do some experiments with it. So he asked Krümmel where to obtain a good hydrometer of Buchanan's or Krümmel's model.

Krümmel answered Nansen by a long letter of 20 March 1899, once more considering the theme “hydrometer observations”. He pointed especially to the change of the surface tension by particles of dust and soot in the water and described his own precautions in using the apparatus. With regard to the procurement of a hydrometer he referred to the glass-blower Oscar Bock at Hamburg. Krümmel concludes his letter with a detailed description of his method and of the top weights used with the hydrometer.

In the autumn of 1900, the correspondence between the two scientists was resumed. Nansen had sent a reprint of his paper on his experience with hydrometers. In a letter of thanks of 3 October 1900, Krümmel described his recent findings about the influence of grease in seawater upon the hydrometer measurements. The grease, which was traced back to plankton organisms, could have a considerable effect upon the observations.

Krümmel then raised the question of bottom water temperatures, asking whether Nansen on his recent cruise in the Norwegian Sea had found the same value, -1.5 °, as had been observed earlier, and what was the temperature of the bottom water in the Polar Basin? Krümmel needed this information for a new edition of his popular book Der Ozean In this context he also asked for a copy of Nansen's longitudinal profile through the Polar Basin, based upon the data from the Fram Expedition.

Nansen in his answer of 7 November 1900 (Figure 2), regretted that because of lack of time it had not been possible for him to finish the requested longitudinal profile. However, he described in detail the bottom temperatures which he had measured in the regions investigated by the Fram Expedition during the years 1894 and 1896, from which he concluded that the bottom temperature in the Polar Basin was about -0.7 ° In the Norwegian Deep he had found bottom temperatures from -1.15 ° to -1.19 ° in the past summer at depths of about 3 000 m. Mohn's 48 observation of a bottom temperature of 1.5 ° in the basin north of the Jan Mayen Ridge during the Vøringen Expedition (1876–1878) was probably correct as the Vøringen temperature observations generally were in good accordance with his own. He hoped, however, to investigate the matter during the following summer.

48 Henrik Mohn (1835–1916), Norwegian meteorologist

.

Figure 2. Excerpt of letter of 7 November 1900 from Fridtjof Nansen to Otto Krümmel.

Later in the letter, Nansen deals with hydrometer measurements once more.

He was very satisfied with the new highly exact results obtained by the “sink hydrometer” which he had used on the water samples collected in the past summer. In this connection he wrote: Ach wenn ich nur dieses Instrument an Bord der Fram gehabt hätte, aber man wird immer klug zu spät. (Ah, if I could have used this apparatus on board Fram, but we always become wise too late.)

Nansen then expressed the hope that he might welcome Krümmel to Kristiania in the spring of' 1901 at the occasion of the International Conference for the Exploration of the Sea, and he finished the letter with a brief summary of the planned expeditions with the new research vessel Michael Sars. In a postscript he asked: Haben Sie nicht daran gedacht, eine neue Auflage von Boguslawskis und Krümmels Ozeanographie zu schreiben? (Did you not think of writing a new edition of Boguslawski's and Krümmel's Oceanography?)

By a brief letter of 21 April 1901, Krümmel informed Nansen that the German Government had given him and the zoologist Karl Brandt (1854–1931), also from Kiel, permission to participate in the International Conference, to be held at Kristiania in May 1901. He finished his letter as follows: Wir dürfen auch wohl darauf rechnen, Ihren Dampfer Michael Sars 49 in Kristiania einmal zu sehen? Vermutlich sind wir deutschen Delegirten schon am 4. Mai morgens in Kristiania, um Zeit zu haben für

49 The research vessel actually belonged to the Board of Fisheries (Fiskeristyrelsen).

eine vorherige Orientierung und Besprechung. Also auf baldiges Wiedersehen und abermalige erfolgreiche Zusammenarbeit!

Mit kollegialem Gruss Ihr ergebenster.

O. Krümmel.

(May we also count on seeing your steamer Michael Sars in Kristiania at some time? I suppose that we German delegates will arrive at Kristiania already on 4 May in the morning in order to have time for orientation and discussions prior to the Conference. So I hope to meet you soon and look forward to a successful cooperation! With greetings from colleague to colleague, Yours faithfully, O.Krümmel.)

Unfortunately we have no account of the meeting between Nansen and Krümmel in May 1901.

Apparently the correspondence was not taken up again until the following year. By letter of 23 May, 1902 Krümmel asked Nansen to supply him with a meter wheel, and it should be one “in der vorzüglichen Ausführung, wie Sie es uns vor einem Jahr in Kristiania vorführten” (“Of the excellent type that you showed to us a year ago in Kristiania”). The meter wheel was for use on board the new research vessel Poseidon which had just got in commission. In the meantime the vessel had passed its trial trip in the North Sea, and Krümmel reported briefly to Nansen on the seaworthiness of the ship and on its research equipment. In conclusion, Krümmel thanked Nansen for a copy of his latest work, Oceanography of the North Polar Basin, and added, “Ich gehe jetzt gleich daran, es genauer zu studieren”. (“I shall now presently begin to study it more closely”). On 20 November 1902, Krümmel sent a detailed letter to Nansen, informing him about the complete equipment of Poseidon for the German monitoring cruises.

The Central Laboratory of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea had now been established under the direction of Nansen. On 26 August 1903, Krümmel inquired whether the Laboratory was able to recommend a current-meter “Zur Untersuchung der Tiefenströme auf den Stationen der Terminfahrten” (“for investigation of the deep currents on the stations of the monitoring cruises”). The answer must have been positive, because on 11 September 1903, Krümmel orders a propeller current–meter from the Laboratory.

By letter of 1 November 1903 to Nansen Krümmel acknowledged receipt of the current–meter. He complained about the lack of accurate directions for its use, and he suggested a number of minor amendments. In conclusion, however, he stated: “Im ganzen finde ich das Prinzip des Apparats geistreich und hoffe auf gute Erfolge damit” (Generally I think the principle of the apparatus is ingenious, and I hope to get good results with it).

A further letter from Krümmel to Nansen, dated 17 January 1905, is about some of the first measurements of the depths of the sea by means of an

echosounder. Krümmel had learned about the invention by the Norwegian engineer Berggraf of an instrument permitting to measure the depth of the sea by an acoustic method: Man will die Meerestiefe auf akustischem Wege messen. Ein elektromagnetischer Summer soll seine tiefen Brummtöne im Wasser produciren und auch an den Meeresboden schicken, dart werden sie reflektirt und, an die Meeresoberfläche zurückgelangt, von einem Telephon mit Resonanzröhre nach einer gewissen Zeit gehört. Aus der Zeit und der bekannten Geschwindigkeit des Schalls im Wasser lässt sich die durchgelaufene Strecke entsprechend der doppelten Meerestiefe berechnen. So unsere Zeitungen.

(They will measure the depth of the sea by an acoustic method. An electric buzzer will produce low sounds within the water and send them down to the bottom of the sea. There they will be reflected and having, after a certain time, reached the sea surface they can be heard by means of a telephone with resonance tube. From the time and the known velocity of sound in water the traversed way of the sound, equal to the double depth of the sea, may be calculated. So according to our newspapers.)

Krümmel asked whether Nansen knew anything about this matter, as the inventor was his countryman, and he finished the letter with a request. “Vielleicht erfreuen Sie mich mit ein paar Zeilen in dieser Sache” (I should be pleased to receive a few lines from you on this matter). Unfortunately we do not know Nansen's answer to this inquiry.

During these years, Walfrid Ekman, Nansen's assistant at the Central Laboratory, was working at a new determination of the coefficient of compressibility of seawater. Krümmel was just finishing the first volume of his Handbuch der Ozeanographie, and in a letter of 12 April 1906, to Ekman he regretted that new values of the coefficient were not yet available for inclusion in his book.

At the same time he drew attention to an acoustic method for determination of the coefficient, reported in the older literature. He suggested that Ekman might use this procedure to check the values obtained by other methods.

The same subject is dealt with in the last available letter from Krümmel to Nansen, dated 30 June, 1906. Krümmel here refers to a method for production of submarine signals introduced for navigation purposes by a company in Boston. His idea is that the method might also be used for determination of the compressibility of seawater, and he considers that it would lead to excellent results. A comment from Nansen or Ekman on the subject has not been found.

In 1907 Krümmel had finished the first volume of his Handbuch der Ozeanographie. He sent a copy to Nansen who, by letter of 14 May 1907, from London, where he now represented the Norwegian Government, expressed his appreciation:

“Es ist mir ein Fest gewesen darin zu lesen und das ist ein Werk das jetzt sehr dringend notwendig erwunscht war und gewiss könnte niemand es besser schreiben als Sie.” (It has been a feast for me to read in it. It is a work that was urgently needed, and certainly nobody could write it better than you.)

Four years later, Krümmel had finished the second volume of his Handbuch and again he sent a copy to Nansen who, by letter of 21 February 1911, congratulated Krümmel on the “ausgezeichneten Vollendung dieser hochwichtigen Arbeit, die in der kunftigen Meeresforschung von grosser Bedeutung warden wird” (excellent completion of this highly important work which will be of great significance in future marine research).

This is the last accessible correspondence between the Norwegian polar explorer and the German geographer and oceanographer, who died at Cologne a year later, on 12 October, 1912, at an age of 58 years only.

Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance received from the Collection of Manuscripts at the National Library in Oslo, where Krümmel's letters to Nansen and Ekman are archived, and from the Archives of the Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz in Berlin. We are also greatly indebted to the late Elsa Krümmel, the daughter–in–law of Otto Krümmel, for entrusting us with Fridtjof Nansen’s letters, to Dr. Artur Svansson for assistance in producing the manuscript, and to Prof. Dr. Gerhard Kortum for some corrections and useful additions.

References Krümmel, O. 1890. Ueber den Gebrauch des Aräometers an Bord zur Bestimmung des spezifischen Gewichts des Seewassers. Ann. d. Hydrogr. u. Marit. Meteorol., H. 10: 1–15.

Krümmel, O. 1894. Ueber einige neuere Beobachtungen an Aräometern. Ann. d. Hydrogr. u.

Marit. Meteorol.: 415–427.

Krümmel, O. 1901. Neue Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Aräometers. Wiss. Meeresuntersuch. K. Kornmission Kiel, Bd. 5: 8–36.

Krümmel, O. 1907. 1911: Handbuch der Ozeanographie. Bd. 1–2, 2. Auflage, Stuttgart.

Nansen, F. 1897, 1898. In Nacht und Eis. Bd. 1–2. Kristiania (Oslo).

Nansen, F. 1902. Oceanography of the North Polar Basin.– Kristiania (Oslo).

Ulrich, J. & Kortum, G. 1997: Otto Krümmel (1854–1912). Geograph und Wegbereiter der modernen Ozeanographie. Kieler Geograph. Schriften, Bd. 93. Kiel: 310 pp.

Sources of the original letters Letters of Fridtjof Nansen to Otto Krümmel: Archives of the Institut für Meereskunde an der Universitat Kiel, Nachlaβ Otto Krümmel.

Letters of Otto Krümmel to Fridtjof Nansen: National Library in Oslo, Archives U.B. Oslo, Brevs, Nr. 48.

Abortive plans for a world-wide oceanographic expedition History of Oceanography No. 12 September 2000

Jens Smed Abstract After several years of campaigning for a synoptic investigation of the North Atlantic deep-water, the Swedish oceanographer, Otto Pettersson succeeded in arranging that the first reconnaissance cruises should be made with the naval vessels that would cross the Atlantic on their way to the ceremonial openings of the Panama Canal, scheduled for March 1915. These plans were defeated by the outbreak of World War I. After the war, Otto Pettersson and Christian Frederik Drechsel, Vice-President and General Secretary of ICES, respectively, launched a plan for a worldwide oceanographic expedition.

They proposed that the research vessel Hirondelle II, which was offered for sale after the death in 1922 of Prince Albert I of Monaco, should be acquired for four years of oceanographic investigation of the world oceans. They explored various possibilities of financing the project, which all failed. The idea of buying a smaller vessel, which would be cheaper to run, also had to be relinquished. As some of the Unions of the International Research Council had expressed a wish that an exploration as complete as possible of all oceans be organized by international co-operation, ICES passed the ball to the Section for Oceanography of the International Union for Geodesy and Geophysics. Here too the practical obstacles to such an expedition by an international ship were considered insurmountable. Instead there was agreement about the subjects of universal interest to which all national expeditions should pay attention, and standardization of methods and apparatus. There was meagre outcome of the ambitious plans for a world-wide expedition.

The plans for an international synoptic investigation of the North Atlantic deepwater in connection with the opening of the Panama Canal had to be relinquished because of the outbreak of the World War in 1914 (Smed, a).

After the war, the originators of the plan, Otto Pettersson and C.F. Drechsel, Vice-President and General Secretary of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) respectively, launched a new proposal: a plan for a worldwide oceanographic expedition.

It is interesting that the need for an expedition of this type was felt elsewhere at the same time. In his presidential address to the meeting in 1920 of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, William A. Herdman

raised the question if the time had not come for a new Challenger Expedition (Herdman 1920, pp. 813-825). The subsequent discussion of the address strongly supported the need for a new worldwide oceanographic expedition.

A resolution was unanimously agreed which pointed out the importance of urging the initiation of a national expedition for the exploration of the ocean, and requesting that the council of the British Association should take the necessary steps to impress this need upon His Majesty’s Government and the nation (Anon. 1920a, pp.

30—32).

This resolution from the Association’s section for zoology was vigorously supported by the sections for chemistry, physics, geology, and geography. An editorial in Nature took up the matter and strongly recommended the plan (Anon. 1920b, pp. 101—102). In spite of all this backing the plan was never implemented. The British authorities chose to support work in the Antarctic.

According to Pettersson (1924, p. 39), Prince Albert I of Monaco a few months before his death in 1922 in a letter to the President of ICES, Henry Maurice, had expressed the wish that the leadership of the oceanographic exploration of the Atlantic would be taken over by the most vigorous of the existing organizations for that purpose, i.e. ICES. So when the successor to Prince Albert wanted to dispose of Hirondelle II, the research vessel of the late Prince, Pettersson saw a chance of getting an expedition started. In a letter of November 1922 to Jules Richard, Director of the Musée Océanographique in Monaco, he commented upon the sale of the ship: if only King Oscar II of Sweden had still been 11 living Pettersson would have proposed that the King take the initiative in an international exploration of the oceans and buy or hire Hirondelle for four years of hydrographical investigations. The first year would be for the exploration of the Gulf Stream, second and third year for work in the Pacific, the fourth year in the Indian Ocean.

Hirondelle, staffed by the best experts among the European oceanographers, should make the circumnavigation under the ensign of Prince Albert. Alas, however, now the two most enlightened sovereigns of our time have passed away, Pettersson ended his letter 50.

A fortnight later, Pettersson informed Professor Louis Joubin (Paris), a close collaborator of the Prince, that he had corresponded with Drechsel about the possibility of organizing a world—wide oceanographic investigation in memory of Prince Albert. Hirondelle would make a cruise around the world for a study of ocean currents and their importance for navigation, fisheries, and the climate of the continents. Using modern methods, salinity, temperature, dissolved gases, plankton, and the eggs and fry of the fishes would be studied 51.

50 OP to Jules Richard 23 November 1922. Mo. 51 OP to Louis Joubin 5 December 1922. Mo.

According to Rouch (1968, pp. XLI—XLII), it was Richard who, in his capacity as executor testamenti of Prince Albert, was charged with the sale of Hirondelle. He also wished very much that the ship should be used for research in the future. Richard therefore asked the well—known oceanographer JeanBaptiste Charcot, for whom the French navy’s vessel Pourquoi–Pas? was practically reserved, whether the navy might be interested in purchasing Hirondelle. Charcot answered that this was an excellent idea and that he would try to get the admiral commanding the Mediterranean squadron to support it. Still, according to Rouch, Charcot did not really do much in this respect because he knew that if the navy acquired Hirondelle, which was much better equipped for oceanographic research than Pourquoi–Pas?, it would be very difficult for him to get the navy fit out “his” vessel every year.

Sometime in 1923, Pettersson learned from Richard that Hirondelle had not yet been sold, and that Richard desired to have the matter settled. This brought Pettersson back to his idea of a four years’ circumnavigation of the globe to study ocean currents. Such a continuation of the scientific work of Prince Albert would be a proper way to honour his memory. Pettersson was aware, of course, that the purchase and running of Hirondelle was not possible for a single country in the then state of Europe, harassed by the economic depression after the War. Drechsel had estimated that the expenses involved in an expedition lasting 4 years would amount to 12 million francs (incl. purchase of Hirondelle). For a single country, perhaps also for an organization like ICES, this would seem insurmountable. However, if they succeeded in making many of the large countries throughout the world interested in the plan, the expenses falling upon each country would not be high. Pettersson explained that ICES would meet in Paris in October 1923, where the matter would be discussed on the basis of a proposal to be prepared by Drechsel and himself. It was important for them to know Richard’s opinion: would he, as a friend and collaborator of Prince Albert, wish that Hirondelle should continue the great exploration of the ocean that the Prince had started 52. Richard’s reply is not known. As explained above, however, he was strongly interested in Hirondelle being kept as a research vessel.

In any case, Pettersson and Drechsel prepared a memorandum for the ICES meeting, pointing out the possibility of starting research on a grand scale that arose if Hirondelle became available. It stressed the need for investigations in the three oceans. In the North Atlantic, the Gulf Stream and its continuation should be studied; in the South Atlantic, the great features of oceanic circulation were to be explored. The Pacific Ocean was an immense and nearly uncultivated field for oceanographers, so even if two years were allotted to the study of this ocean it would mean only a reconnoitring exploration. This, however, might be fundamental for subsequent investigations by the adjacent countries. A survey of the Indian Ocean was likely to be of the greatest importance for the knowledge of the climatic conditions of the adjoining

52 OP to Jules Richard 2 September 1923. Mo.

countries, which are so dependent on the monsoon rainfall (Pettersson and Drechsel, 1923, pp. 60—70).

Apparently the memorandum had been circulated at least to some scientists in advance of the ICES meeting. In a letter to Drechsel, the Danish oceanographer Martin Knudsen declared that he found the idea of a four years’ circumnavigation very fine. He thought, however, that at the time would be so difficult to implement that it was hopeless to make the proposal. He would not be surprised if the Council (i.e. ICES) would be unwilling to recommend to the Danish Foreign Office, the diplomatic channel used by ICES, that it take up the matter 53.

The ICES meeting, having studied the proposal, expressed the opinion that an increased knowledge of the Ocean systems is not merely of scientific interest but also of practical importance for the explanation and the forecasting of phenomena affecting life both in the sea and on land.

It was considered that an investigation of this type had to be extended over many years and that it could best be initiated by a preliminary reconnaissance by means of a suitable vessel such as Hirondelle. The recommendation continued: The Council appreciates the fact that the authors of the proposal have not invited the Council to undertake or to contribute to the expenses of the investigation, which go far beyond the limits both of the resources and the mandate of the Council, but merely to give to their proposal the support of its recommendation. The Council gladly recommends the proposal to the favourable consideration of the Governments and the scientific institutions of all countries. The Council makes this recommendation the more readily because it believes that the investigation may produce results of importance to fishery investigations.

Finally, it was stated that should the proposal get adequate support the Council would be prepared to undertake the general direction of the work (Anon. 1923, pp. 18—19).

Immediately after the ICES meeting in Paris, negotiations were started with leading authorities on the study of the sea in Europe and America. In England the matter was presented to the Challenger Society by William Herdman (University of Liverpool), Stanley Gardiner (Cambridge University), and Henry Maurice (Secretary, the Fishery Department). Especially in the Latin countries there was sympathy with the idea of acquiring Hirondelle, because of Prince Albert’s connection with those countries (Pettersson, 1924, pp. 36—44).

Problems arose, however. When the proposal had become known an American company became interested in Hirondelle because of the very low price at which it was offered. So in early December 1923, Richard asked Pettersson 53 Martin Knudsen to Dr 2 September 1923. Draft copy in Rigsarkivet (Copenhagen), No. F.27—210, Box D.14.

whether those behind the proposal were prepared to pay 1 600 000 francs immediately for the vessel. If not, negotiations with the Americans would continue 54.

Pettersson’s idea was that the ten member countries of ICES should buy the ship, whereas the running costs would be paid by the other states bordering the oceans to be investigated. For the first year he had in mind Canada, USA, Argentina, Brazil, and the Cape Colony. The difficulty was to provide the money for the purchase at short notice. Pettersson realized that the diplomatic channels would be too slow. So he got the idea that the leading newspapers in the ICES countries might be induced to guarantee that the purchase price would be available, and he suggested that the Swedish newspapers should take the lead 55 56. It was necessary with short delay to show the persons in Monaco that there was a serious interest in buying Hirondelle for oceanographic purposes57.

Pettersson, who with his family was on holiday in Meran (Tyrol), was busy writing letters to all quarters to create interest in the matter. Drechsel also was active. He had put his trust in the Rockefeller—financed International Education Board, which had just been established in 1923 (Kohler, 1985, pp.

94—95). Its purpose was to promote science on an international scale, mainly in Europe. So when a representative of the Board visited Copenhagen, Drechsel contacted him, hoping that the Board would be willing to support the purchase of Hirondelle. The representative took up the matter with the leader of the Board, Wickliffe Rose, who spent the period December 1923 to April 1924 in Europe visiting institutions potentially worth supporting (Aaserud, 1998, p.

204). The reply gave Drechsel the impression that his proposal had been favourably received. The Board was understood to have a section for biological science, and the Hirondelle plan might fall within the province of this section.

Drechsel was invited to send an official account of the plan to the Board in New York. He did so 58. But at that time it was all too late. In view of the policy subsequently followed by the Board, viz. to concentrate upon supporting a few of the most excellent national research institutions “to make the peaks higher” (Aaserud, 1998, p. 203), it appears unlikely that it would have supported the project to buy Hirondelle.

By letter of 21 January, 1924 Richard informed Drechsel that the bargain would now be closed shortly, and invited him to be quick if he wanted to purchase the ship. At the same time Richard forwarded the declaration from the Captain of Hirondelle that it was an excellent sea—ship 59. Pettersson had not 54 5. OP to GE 12 December 1923. OPP. 55 OP to GE 16 December 1923. OPP. 56 OP to GE 26 December 1923. OPP. 57 OP to GE 5 January 1924. OPP. 58 9. Dr to GE 10 January 1924. OPP. 59 Jules Richard to Dr 21 January 1924. OPP.

yet given up completely. He ventilated the idea that Sweden might buy the ship for use in the training of naval officers. Their training cruises could then be combined with scientific research. Another idea was to apply to Wallenberg, the Swedish financial matador, who might simply buy Hirondelle via a telegram and thereafter present the State of Sweden with it! The State might then place the ship at the disposal of an international exploration of the Atlantic etc., or use it as a training ship 60. The opportunity was missed, however. According to Pettersson (1924, p. 44) a definitive offer was made by the director of the Spanish institute for sea research, but in vain. Hirondelle had already been sold to America. The buyer was a film company, which made little use of it (H. Pettersson, 1955, p. 3). The proud ship came to a sad end, as a coal depot ship, at the Panama Canal (Rouch, 1968, p. XLII).

Even though the plan to acquire Hirondelle failed, Pettersson did not give up.

In January 1924, when he realized that the game was up, he launched a new idea, to buy or to have constructed a new vessel 61. This would probably be considerably more expensive than the purchase of Hirondelle would have been. On the other hand a minor motor vessel, which would cover the needs, would be much cheaper to run. Pettersson’s and Drechsel´s extensive correspondence with colleagues about the Hirondelle project had revealed, however, that there was a great divergence of opinion. Some 13 thought that instead of a large vessel like Hirondelle many small vessels, working simultaneously in different regions according to a common programme, would be preferrable. Others recommended a repetition of the Challenger cruise around the world. Others, again, maintained that, at least in the start, work should be limited to the Atlantic Ocean, and that the nations interested should adopt their preferred type of vessel (Anon., 1925, pp. 29—30).

It was now realized that for the time being it was not possible to implement the project of buying or having constructed a vessel for an international expedition. It would be useful, however, to reconsider the various opinions and proposals put forward. The new global organizations established after the war (Smed, b) offered a platform for these discussions, such as the meeting at Madrid in October 1924 of the Section for Oceanography of the International Union for Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG), one of the Unions under the International Research Council (IRC). Here the representative of the American Geophysical Union initiated a discussion about international cooperation in support of the proposal for an international scientific expedition.

The discussion resulted in the wish that a committee be established to consider the possibility of founding an international organization for investigation of the sea. In 1925, another of IRC´s Unions, the International Union of Biological Sciences, expressed a wish to have organized, by international co— operation, an exploration as complete as possible of all oceans. So apparently there was still some interest in such a project (Anon. 1925, pp. 29—31).

60 OP to GE 30 January 1924. OPP. 61 OP to GE 14 January 1924. OPP.

ICES now passed the ball to IUGG, and the ICES President, Henry Maurice, on behalf of the Council attended a meeting of IUGG´s Section for Oceanography at Stra (Venice) in July 1926 62 63. At the meeting of the Section’s Executive Committee the question of an international marine research expedition was discussed. It was unanimously agreed that the practical obstacles to an organized international expedition by means of an international ship were likely to prove insurmountable. Maurice therefore suggested that the purposes which the authors of the proposal had in view would be best advanced by maintaining contact between the various national expeditions64. The points that should first and foremost be kept in view were (Anon. 1927, pp. 22—23): 1 ) An agreement as to the subjects of universal interest to which all expeditions should be asked to pay attention.

2 ) The standardization of methods.

3 ) The standardization of apparatus. These items are certainly important.

But compared to the original plans for a worldwide expedition the results of Pettersson’s and Drechsel´s great efforts were meagre.

Acknowledgements I am greatly indebted to Mr. Rutger Irgens for access to the correspondence of his grandfather, Otto Pettersson; to Mme J. Carpine-Lancre for copies of relevant letters; and to Dr. Artur Svansson for assistance in processing the manuscript.

References Literature Anon. 1920a. The Scientific Investigation of the Ocean. Need for a New “Challenger” Expedition. Nature 106: 2653 Anon. 1920b. The Re—challenge to the Ocean. Nature 106: 2656 Anon. 1923. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, Rapp. P.—v. Réun., 32 Anon. 1925. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, Rapp. P.—v. Réun., 38 Anon. 1927. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, Rapp. P.—v. Réun., 41 Aaserud, F. 1998. Videnskabernes København i 1920’erne belyst af amerikansk filan—tropi. pp. 201—219 in: Thomas Söderqvist et al. (eds.): Videnskabernes København. Roskilde Universitets forlag.

Herdman, W. A. 1920. Oceanography and the Sea—Fisheries. Nature 105: 2652 Kohler, R.E. 1985. Science and Philanthropy: Wickliffe Rose and the International Education Board. Minerva,23 (1), 75—95 Pettersson, H. 1955. A pioneer of international deep sea research. In Essays in the natural sciences in honor of 62 Henry Maurice to Dr 23 June 1926. Rigsarkivet (Copenhagen), No. 10.649, Box 1, File 1.A.1.

63 Dr to Henry Maurice 26 June 1926. As 13.

64 Henry Maurice to Dr 6 August 1926. As 13.

Captain Allan Hancock. Univ. S. Calif. Press, 1—8 Pettersson, O. 1924. Förslag till en världsomfattande internationell havsforskningsex— pedition. Ymer, 1924, No. 1 Pettersson, O. and C.F. Drechsel. 1923. Memorandum on an International Expedition for Sea Research. Cons. perm. int.

Explor. Mer, Rapp. P.—v. Réun., 32: Rouch, J. 1968. Discours de M. le Commandant J. Rouch. Bull. Inst. Océanographique, No. spécial 2, 1: xxxvi—xlii.

Smed, J. a. Early Plans for an International Synoptic Investigation of North Atlantic Deep— Water. Unpublished MS Smed, J. b. ICES and the New Organizations. Competition or Co—operation? Unpub—lished MS14 Archival material Abbreviations used: Dr: C.F. Drechsel; GE: Gustaf Ekman; Mo: Archives of the Musée océanographique, Monaco; OP: Otto Pettersson; OPP: Private collection (R. Irgens) of letters.

The accession of Belgium to ICES ICES/CIEM Information No. 36 September 2000

Jens Smed Former ICES Hydrographer and Chef du Service Hydrographique Belgium did not play a part in the first planning meeting for ICES because Professor Otto Pettersson’s contact in Belgian scientific circles, Professor W. Spring, in consultation with his colleague Professor Edouard Van Beneden, strongly advised against inviting Belgium to the Stockholm Conference in 1899. They felt that the Belgian Government would not nominate the right representative and would not be able to understand the value of an international project relating to the sea! In their view, if the Government decided to send a Delegate to the Conference it would most likely be a diplomat, an officer from the Ministry of Agriculture, or a shipowner, and this would be quite inappropriate. Professor Spring pointed out in his letter to Pettersson that since the Belgian coastline was so short the participation of the Netherlands could very well make up for the absence of his own country. He and Van Beneden both agreed that every attempt to regulate the fishery in the North Sea would be premature as long as the physical and biological conditions of the sea were unknown, and they therefore strongly approved of the plans for investigations put forward by Pettersson.

The absence of both Belgium and France was noted at the 1899 meeting though, and as proposed by Dr Walther Herwig, “The Conference recommends that these resolutions be brought to the knowledge of the governments of France and Belgium”. The other participants supported this line which the relevant Foreign Offices could use as a basis for future negotiations. These took place in due time, and the Chair of the Belgian Committee for Mariculture, Professor E. Willegue, who was asked by the Ministry of Agriculture for his committee’s view, replied after consultation that it felt that Belgium should join the proposed joint venture. Moderate plans were drawn up, but to everyone's surprise they were not agreed to by the Belgian Minister of Finance. He said he could not favour an industry of secondary importance to the degree suggested because he feared that it would give rise to much greater demands by the main industries of the country. So the Government decided that Belgium should not join the international organization.

Fortunately, an alternative approach was possible. In 1898 the Director of the Royal Belgian Museum of Natural History, Edouard Dupont, had urged a member of his staff, Gustave Gilson, to gather marine organisms in Belgian coastal waters in order to create documented collections which at that time were missing in the Museum. When Dupont learned of the deplorable deci-

sion of the financial authorities he suggested that Gilson, in addition to his work for the Museum, should undertake the work required by the International Scheme. As the apparatus and the existing organization could be used, the only expense for Belgium in taking part in the International Scheme would be the payment of a small contribution to the running of the Central Office. Gilson accepted the arrangement and the Belgian Government agreed to pay the contribution. Consequently, Belgium was represented by Gilson at the Second Preparatory Conference in Kristiania (Oslo), though only on the last day, when he presented a draft programme for the investigations which he intended to undertake as part of the international work. He also signed the report of the Conference together with the other Chief Delegates.

In the exchanges before the Kristiania meeting, Willegue had discussed with Dr. P. P. C. Hoek the best site for the headquarters of the Scheme and the candidates for General Secretary. In an “absolutely secret” letter he expressed his opinion that England was highly occupied by other matters and, in any case, not very sympathetic at all for the moment, and France was too far off. Belgium had nothing at all to offer, neither the men, nor the institutions, nor the willingness, and Germany might not be acceptable to France.

Sweden was too far away, and Denmark was also too difficult to reach. Willegue thought that his colleague, Van Beneden, had the qualifications to be the General Secretary “but he is stubborn in his Huxleyism and perhaps lacks zeal and energy”. Holland to him was the obvious country to house the Headquarters. He changed his mind a little later, suggesting that Belgium really had all that was needed!

In August 1901 the Swedish Government started negotiations with various countries about a final meeting to establish the new organization. By early September several countries had answered positively, but there had been no news from Belgium. When Belgium had still not replied by early 1902, Pettersson wrote directly to Gilson, who confirmed that the Ministry was much in favour of Belgium's accession to the new organization. In principle it had already decided to pay its share of the expenses to be incurred by the organization’s Bureau and Laboratory and to make a certain amount available to Gilson for the investigations which would be assigned to him. The great difficulty concerned the construction of a research vessel. This would mean a great expense, and the Minister of Finance had declared that no money was available, adding, however, that in two years' time he would be more inclined to approve a grant. Gilson suggested that it might help overcome this resistance if the Swedish/Norwegian envoy in Brussels approached the Belgian Foreign Minister, explaining how much his Government would appreciate Belgium’s joining the Scheme.

Pettersson passed on the suggestion to his Government together with the idea that it might encourage the Belgian authorities if they were informed confidentially that Sweden was proposing to solve the vessel problem initially by equipping the gunboat "Svensksund" for the purpose and placing it at the disposal of Pettersson and his colleagues. He thought something similar might be done in Belgium. The Swedish/Norwegian delegation in Brussels

was instructed by the Foreign Minister to follow this line. The reply from the Belgian Government was that the question was still under consideration. The envoy added that the greatest problem obviously was the procurement of a vessel. The budget did not allow for the construction of a suitable vessel, and the existing fishery protection vessels were too small for hydrographic work.

Unfortunately the deliberations in Brussels dragged on, and Belgium was not represented at the constitutive meeting of ICES in July 1902. Strictly speaking, therefore, Belgium is not one of the organization's founding countries. In due course, however, the Belgian Government expressed its desire to join. Consequently, at the second Council meeting, in February 1903, Belgium, although not yet an official member, was represented by a "special delegation" which included Gustave Gilson, who made an announcement about the work that Belgium intended to carry out as its contribution. The meeting agreed, “that the Danish Government be requested to take the necessary steps to enable the Kingdom of Belgium to enter into the international organization on an official footing”. A little later Belgium applied for membership, and at the Council meeting in February 1904, Gustave Gilson and Auguste Hamman were welcomed as the official Belgian Delegates for the first time. Belgium's joining ICES was first and foremost due to Gilson's untiring efforts. With very small financial means he carried out much of his country's contribution to the cooperative activities himself, sampling two sections in the southern North Sea and the Channel, viz., Blankenberghe–Orford Ness, and Cap Gris Nez– Dover, quarterly from a ferry for many years.

(A fuller version of this paper complete with detailed references is available on request from the Editor.)

The interest of Belgian scientists in marine ICES/CIEM Information No. 36 September 2000 Jens Smed The interest of Belgian scientists in marine matters dates to initiatives undertaken at Belgian universities during the last century. Some of these were: •

In 1842, Pierre Joseph Van Beneden, a Professor at the Catholic University of Louvain, set up a rudimentary laboratory at Ostend to study marine biology. It was the first of its kind in Belgium.

•

At Liège University, Professor Edouard Van Beneden pioneered research in marine science. He also established a laboratory at Ostend.

•

At Brussels University, Paul Pelseneer, an internationally renowned authority on molluscs, was one of the first to offer a regular course in marine biology.

•

Adrien de Gerlache organized an Antarctic scientific expedition in the period 1897–1899 with a multinational team (9 Belgians, 6 Norwegians, 2 Poles, one Romanian, and one American) that used the sailing vessel “Belgica”. The research carried out was directed towards geology, meteorology, oceanology, and marine fauna. In 1905, 1907, and 1908 the “Belgica” made Arctic expeditions to the Greenland Sea, and to the Kara and Barents seas, respectively.

In 1926 Gustave Gilson, a successor of Pierre Joseph Van Beneden, organized the “First International Conference on the Ocean” in Ostend. A year later the "Zeewetenschappelijk Instituut" (ZWI) (Institute for Marine Science) was founded. Over a period of more than 30 years, the institute was occupied mainly with research in the science and statistics Belgian marine research over the years of fisheries. From the early 1960s this work was taken over by the Department of Sea Fisheries. The Department is a public research organization depending on, and supervised by the Ministry of Agriculture. In the same period, Ghent University and the Royal Institute for Natural Science began research into oceanic matters.

At the end of 1970, the Belgian Government started a national "Environment/Water" research programme that included the “Sea” project. From 1971 to 1976 about 200 research workers from different universities and scientific institutes cooperated in this project. In 1976, under the aegis of the Ministry of Public Health and the Environment, a unit was established to build a mathematical model of the North Sea and the estuary of the Scheldt (MUMM, the Management Unit of the Mathematical Model of the North Sea). The mission of the unit is to use the scientific results achieved by the “Sea” project in making policy decisions. MUMM is now a department of the

Royal Belgian Institute for Natural Sciences, a state scientific institution. Its staff of about thirty-five people forms a multidisciplinary team that is active in all the matters pertaining to the management of the marine environment.

Since 1985 MUMM has had at its disposal not only its own oceanographic research vessel (RV â&#x20AC;&#x153;Belgicaâ&#x20AC;?) but also an aircraft equipped with a wide range of sensors and up-to-date computing and data processing facilities. It is involved in many activities related to the sea such as on-site monitoring of the quality of the marine environment, airborne surveillance of pollution and human activities, mathematical modelling (coastal and estuarine hydrodynamic, chemical, and physical processes and accidental and chronic pollution), impact assessment, preparation of legal measures and of emergency plans, and international cooperation.

The present mission of the Sea Fisheries Department is to provide the scientific basis for the rational and sustainable exploitation of living marine resources, the protection of the marine environment, and the quality control and assurance of fishery products. The Department comprises four operational sections: Biology, Monitoring, Gear Technology, and Product Technology, with a total staff of about forty-five. It is involved in scientific and policysupporting programmes financed by the Federal Government, the Prime Minister's Services for Scientific, Technical, and Cultural Affairs, the Flemish Government, and the fishing industry. The research by the Department is strongly service-oriented towards industrial scientific organizations and management bodies, the Government, the fishing industry, and consumers.

International endeavours to save the Helgoland harbour after World War I Historisch-Meereskundliches Jahrbuch/History of Oceanography Yearbook Band 8 / Volume 8 2001 Jens Smed The island of Helgoland, British since 1807, became part of Germany in 1890, in exchange of the island of Zanzibar. It was obvious to Deutscher Seefischerei-Verein (German Sea-Fishery Association) and the German fishery biologists that the island would be an ideal place for a fishing harbour and a biological station (Hg., 1890). So already in 1892 the Biologische Anstalt Helgoland was established. Throughout the years however, the island was fortified and became an important fortress for the German Navy during World War I. This entailed that the Allied Powers, after Germanyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s defeat, demanded demolition of the fortifications and the harbour under Section XIII, Article 115 of the Peace Treaty (Drechsel, 1919a).

Demolition of the harbour would be disastrous not only to the fishery, but also to the work of the Biologische Anstalt. The scientists of the Anstalt, under the direction of Friedrich Heincke, had contributed much to the work carried out under the auspices of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). For instance, it was Heincke who was in charge of the working up of the statistical material of the international plaice investigations in the North Sea. The importance of the harbour for the future fishery research was stressed in papers by German scientists (Hagmeier, 1919; Hirsch, 1920). So in August 1919, Heincke sent two pamphlets about the menacing plans to the General Secretary of ICES, C. F. Drechsel, asking him and the President of ICES, Otto Pettersson, to work against these plans (Drechsel, 1919b). Pettersson was also approached directly by Heincke who stated that the only hope now was that England would be content with rendering Helgoland and its harbour unfit for every military use. The harbour might then be preserved for the peaceful purpose of sea fishery and marine research. He appealed to Otto Pettersson in his capacity of President of ICES (Heincke, 1919).

ICES as an organization had to be neutral and could not interfere. Pettersson and Drechsel however, set up a memorandum in which they expressed the hope that those parts of the harbour which were absolutely necessary for marine research would be saved, viz. the inner harbour, such parts of the outer constructions that protected the inner harbour and made landings possible, and a basin for rearing of fish. The memorandum was sent to delegates of the other neutral member countries (Pettersson and Drechsel, 1919). The intention was that the delegates might wish to use the memorandum as a

basis for an address by the scientists of their country to their government, asking this to transmit the address to the foreign authorities concerned.

Drechsel, who was also Chairman of the Danish Commission for Fishery and Sea-Investigations, in this capacity published an article: “Proposal for the Conservation of Part of the Helgoland Harbour” in the Danish periodical for the fishing industry. The article was forwarded by the Danish Fishery Association to the Danish Ministry for Foreign Affairs asking that representations be addressed to the Entente Powers that some alteration of Article 115 is made.

Also in the public there was considerable interest in the matter. The Danish newspaper Politiken printed an article, which stressed the importance of saving the harbour and thus making it possible for the Biological Station to continue its work for the solution of questions important for the fishery (BevingPetersen, 1919). When Drechsel got the impression that Vicomte de Faramond, who had been a military attaché at Copenhagen, was a member of the Commission established to attend to the execution of Article 115, he translated his article together with that from Politiken into French and sent them to the Vicomte.

Already, before the memorandum had been circulated Drechsel approached the Scottish delegate D'Arcy Thompson about the matter, appending the above mentioned articles (Drechsel, could be no doubt D’Arcy Thompson’s, 1919c). They're about support of the endeavours to save the harbour. He had backed up the protest against a policy which would seek to exclude a generation of German men of science from all scientific intercourse with those of the allied nations: “Need we ask what a man has thought or said, or even what he has done, in these last sad years?” (Thompson, 1919: 154). In a letter to Drechsel, who quoted it to Reincke, he declared: “I am greatly opposed to the policy, advocated by certain persons, of refusing to associate or correspond with all German scientific men” (Drechsel, 1919d).

Not all agreed in the procedure followed by Pettersson and Drechsel, as appears from a letter by Pettersson to the Norwegian Johan Hjort (Pettersson, 1 919a): With regard to the Helgoland affair, you have undoubtedly given me a sage counsel, but it is not always that I can follow my friends’ counsels. Sometimes I must follow my own counsels and my conviction. ( .... ) I knew your and Petersen’s (i.e. the Danish biologist C. G. Joh. Petersen) standpoint, so I approached Gran (the Norwegian plankton expert H. H. Gran), not you. However, I have asked Drechsel to keep you informed as I think that you should know about all the measures taken, even if you don't like them. (Translated from Swedish).

Obviously in order to calm Hjort, Pettersson stressed that the Council's Bureau had not been involved in the matter.

An approach to Prince Albert of Monaco had a negative outcome. The Prince recalled, as reported by his spokesman Jules Richard, that the Germans with great violence, approved by 93 savants had proceeded to the hateful destruc-

tion of the most useful institutions. So how could he propose to the allies that Germany kept an advanced post, which might come to play an important military role? It would especially be difficult for the Prince, as he had suffered from the brutality of the invaders although he had never ceased to be neutral. With his letter, Richard enclosed a copy of Prince Albert's book La guerre Allemande et la conscience universelle (Richard, 1920).

In his reply Pettersson declared that he already had been informed about “the inconsiderate and outrageous manner in which the German troops had behaved with regard to the estate and the personal property of His Highness”. But this was just the reason why he had addressed a plea for the maintenance of the German Biological Institute of Helgoland to the Prince.

He felt that if the Prince would use his influence with the Allied Powers in favour of a scientific institution in a hostile country this would carry the more weight; both on account of his scientific authority and of the personal injury he had suffered. Pettersson added that he had sent a similar address to the U.S. ambassador in Stockholm who had promised to take care that it came in the right hands, viz. those of President Wilson. Pettersson realized that Wilson was not likely to have any notice of Reincke's institution on Helgoland.

However, in a speech on his arrival in Paris, Wilson had declared “he had no room for hatred in his heart”. So he must be the right man to apply to in a question concerning the future of the study of the sea, Pettersson judged. By forwarding their memorandum to the Prince Pettersson and Drechsel had wished to draw his attention to the matter in his capacity of oceanographer and director of biological investigations.

After the death of King Oscar of Sweden and King Charles of Portugal, Prince Albert was the only sovereign in Europe who was in a position to remonstrate against the destruction of the Helgoland harbour which, if properly altered, might give shelter to the North Sea fishermen and be a safe anchoring place for the research vessels of the biological institute, Pettersson finished. (Pettersson, 1920a) Pettersson's opinion about Prince Albert's publication appears from a letter to Drechsel: “Have you read Monaco's fanatical pamphlet against the German Emperor?” (Pettersson, 1920b). Pettersson often used “Monaco” synonymously with “Prince Albert”.

In the meantime, Pettersson had appealed to the daily press in Sweden in order to evoke a public interest in the matter. In an article in Svenska Dagbladet he explained how important it was for the work of the famous Biological Institute that the Helgoland harbour was saved. The attention of the scientific world would with anxiety and hope be directed to the results of the Commission who should decide on the destiny of Helgoland. “One day will also this episode of the World War and its consequences come under the verdict of history” he finished solemnly and, perhaps, warningly (Pettersson, 1919 b).

The Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs took care that his ministers in the relevant countries forwarded a memorandum signed by the Swedish biolo-

gists to the Allied Powers. The Danish government also approached the international commission dealing with the matter. It was stressed that the whole question had attracted the vivid interest of the Scandinavian press and the fishery organizations. It would be regarded as recognition of the utility of the international research work and the needs of the fishermen if the demolition of the Helgoland harbour were carried out with due consideration to the scientific and fishery interests involved (Drechsel, 1919 e).

The representations may have had their effect. In March 1920 the British Foreign Office could inform the Swedish minister in London that according to the Commission due consideration would be given to the interests of the Biological Institution when drawing up the final plans for the destruction of the Helgoland harbour, and it was not anticipated that the work of demolition would adversely affect the Institution as then constituted (Phipps, 1920). A week later the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs confidentially informed Pettersson that according to a report from the Swedish minister in Rome the small harbour for fishing vessels at Helgoland would be preserved (Hamilton, 1920 a). Finally, according to an answer from the President of the Peace Commission the demolition of the fortifications and the naval harbour on Helgoland would not affect the fishery harbour and would in no way menace the conditions of the Biological Station and its future activities. It was even his opinion that the removal of all military works would be an advantage to the scientific research on the island (Hamilton, 1920b).

Heincke could probably not subscribe to this. But he admitted that although they had not got all that they had hoped for originally they could be content with what they had obtained. In any case this was more than they could have expected according to the terms of the peace treaty. Heincke realized that this was largely due to the support rendered by the neutral states Denmark and Sweden, initiated by Drechsel and Pettersson (Heincke, 1920).

So the story got a happy ending. Heincke and his successor, Wilhelm Mielck, did succeed in ameliorating the institution by obtaining earlier military buildings for an extension of the Institute (Werner, 1993: 44â&#x20AC;&#x201C;45). The Biologische Anstalt Helgoland could resume its meritorious work.

Acknowledgements I am greatly indebted to Dr. Artur Svansson for copies of many letters in Swedish archives and for much assistance in the processing of the manuscript.

My thanks are also due to Mm Jacqueline Carpine-Lancre for copy of a letter in the archives of the Musee oceanographique, Monaco.

References Beving-Petersen, J. O. 1919. Helgoland Havn. (The Harbour of Helgoland). Politiken, 30 September 1919.

Drechsel, C. F. 1919a. Letter of 23 October 1919 to Friedrich Reincke. Rigsarkivet (Copenhagen), No. 10.649, Box 5, File l.A.4.

Drechsel, C. F. 1919b. Letter of 29 August 1919 to Otto Pettersson. ICES Basement Archive, File 1. D.

Drechsel, C. F. 1919c. Letter of 10 November 1919 to D'Arcy Thompson. St. Andrews University Library, Manuscripts and Muniments.

Drechsel, C. F. 1919d. Letter of 12 November 1919 to Friedrich Reincke. Rigsarkivet (Copenhagen), No. 10.649, Box 5, File l.A.4.

Drechsel, C. F. 1919e. Letter of 16 April 1920 to Heincke. Rigsarkivet (Copenhagen), No. 10.649, Box 5, File l.A.4.

Hagmeier, A. 1919. Helgolands Hafen im Dienste der Fischereibiologie. (The Helgoland Harbour in Service of the Fishery Biology). Der Fischerbote, I 1. 188 pp.

Hamilton [Carl Fredrik Hugo?]. 1920a. Letter of 6 April 1920 from the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Otto Pettersson. Landsarkivet (Gothenburg), The Otto Pettersson Collection, Box 25:3:E. Hamilton 1920b. Letter of 11 May 1920 from the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Otto Pettersson. Landsarkivet (Gothenburg), The Otto Pettersson Collection, Box 25:3:E. Heincke, F. 1919. Letter of 22 October 1919 to Otto Pettersson. Rigsarkivet (Copenhagen), No. 10.649, Box 5, File l.A.4 Heincke, F. 1920. Letter of 28 November 1920 to Drechsel. Rigsarkivet (Copenhagen), No. 10.649, Box 5, File l.A.4.

Hg. 1890. Helgoland (Helgoland). Deutscher Fischerei Verein, Mittheilungen der Section für Küsten- und Hochseefischerei, 1890, pp. 76–78.

Hirsch, E. 1920. Bedeutung der Helgoländer Hafenanlagen für praktisch-wissenschaftlichen Forschungen (The importance of the Helgoland Harbour for scientific investigations of practical significance). Der Fischerbote, 12(6), 314–317.

Pettersson, O. 1919a. Letter of 28 December 1919 to Johan Hjort. Oslo University Library, Collection of Manuscripts, Ms. 4o, 2911 :XIXA. Pettersson, O. 1919b. Helgolands hamn mäste raddas. (The harbour of Helgoland must be saved). Svenska Dagbladet, 9 November 1919.

Pettersson, O. 1920a. Letter of 14 January 1920 to Jules Richard. Archives of Musée océanographique, Monaco.

Pettersson, O. 1920b. Letter of 17 January 1920 to C. F. Drechsel. ICES Basement Archive, File J. D. Pettersson, O. and C. F. Drechsel. 1919. Circular of 4 December 1919 to ICES delegates in neutral member countries. Rigsarkivet (Copenhagen), No. 10.649, Box 5, File l.A.4.

Phipps, E. 1920. Letter of 30 March 1920 from U.K. Foreign Office to the Swedish minister in London. Landsarkivet (Gothenburg), The Otto Pettersson Collection, Box 25:3:A. Richard, J. 1920. Letter of 5 January 1920 to Otto Pettersson. Landsarkivet (Gothenburg), The Otto Pettersson Collection, Box 25:3:E. Thompson, D'Arcy. 1919. International Relations in Science. Nature, 104 (2608).

Werner, P. 1993. Die Gründung der Königlichen Biologischen Anstalt auf Helgoland und ihre Geschichte bis 1945. (The Foundation of the Royal Biological Institution on Helgoland and its history up to 1945). Helgolander Meeresuntersuchungen, 47 (Suppl.), 1-182.

Overfishing, science, and politics: the background in the 1890s to the foundation of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea ICES Marine Science Symposia 215: 13-21. 2002 Jens Smed and John Ramster The world of the 1890s was a very different place in which to live and work compared with the present, and needs to be taken into account when considering the accomplishments made then in a fisheries research context. In various places, but notably in Scandinavia, scientists had begun to realize that there was a connection between the distribution of fish and the properties of the water in which they lived. With this in mind, Otto Pettersson organized the first multinational survey of a sea area in 1893—1894, and then, apparently, became obsessed with the idea that such joint international schemes were the wave of the future. Over the next five years, he worked tirelessly to bring about a scheme that took in the seas of northwestern Europe by making contacts in all its coastal nations. His German colleagues supported him from the beginning, providing that the research findings would be related to the development of a rational fishing policy. British colleagues were, however, divided in their opinions about his proposals, having been engaged in an internal argument about “overfishing” throughout the latter half of the 19th century. Great Britain, at the time, had a fishing industry that dwarfed those of the rest of Europe combined. Pettersson's plans really needed British participation if they were to lead to meaningful international agreements about fishing in the North Sea in particular.

Introduction We think that it is important to have some sense of the daily lives of the people in the 1890s, as a background to the work carried out in a fisheries research context during that decade. For example, reading and writing at night had to be done by candlelight or oil lamps: the 5 700 electric light bulbs set in the Palace of Electricity at the 1900 Paris Exposition were the most concentrated manmade light ever seen and very much a “special case” (Preston, 1999), In the plays of Chekhov, a servant seems to be either lighting or snuffing out the candles all the time. Steel nibs were then the norm for writing with in that flickering half-light, though “reservoir” pens, or fountain pens, had begun to appear. Copies of correspondence were made meticulously by hand in the various ministries and business offices across Europe with people employed specifically for this work. Ibsen (1918), in The Wild Duck, has a pensioned-off army officer only too pleased to copy material from a local office

to eke out his money. There were some telephones on local networks, but even when he died in 1912, Strindberg had only twelve numbers on the personal directory in his Stockholm flat. Cable or telegraph services had, for 25 years, been the current miracle for rapid, long distance communication. In June 1897, for example, Queen Victoria pressed a button in the telegraph room of Buckingham Palace to send a simple Diamond Jubilee message around the world in a little over two minutes. Cable was, in fact, the Victorian Internet. The postman brought the more mundane day-to-day messages, with deliveries in the bigger towns and cities being made hourly, between 8â&#x20AC;&#x2030;am and 9â&#x20AC;&#x2030;pm each day in many cases. Railways were well developed, but horse drawn vehicles, or, the horse itself, remained just about the only means of making shorter journeys as the alternative to walking. Neither the power of electricity nor that of the internal combustion engine had yet been harnessed for any practical purpose. For some reason, men wore hats most of the time when they were outside of buildings, and women were dressed very elaborately by today's standards. This was, in fact, the world of the plays of Ibsen, Strindberg, and Chekhov and, whilst we may think things happened at a fairly leisurely rate, it did not seem so to those involved, as D'Arcy Thompson records in a letter written just after the turn of the twentieth century (R. D'Arcy Thompson, 1958, p.159): The conditions under which we work, against time, in the midst of controversy, and with everything about us insecure, are so worrying and laborious, so different from the conditions under which scientific work ought to go on, that the toil and responsibility are greatly increased.

It was also a time of atrocious conditions for factory workers all over Europe and for sailors, merchant seamen, fishermen, and, especially, fisher lads at sea. Great fortunes had been made quite recently by trawler owners everywhere, but especially in Great Britain, as the railways carried fresh fish quickly from the coast to the inland cities where there were ready markets. These cities were growing in political entities different, in some cases, from those of today. Sweden and Norway, for example, was one country, as far as foreign affairs were concerned, and ruled by the same monarch. Great Britain and Ireland were one country per se. Germany and Belgium were both relatively new countries, and Finland was still a Grand Duchy of Russia. Moreover, even as the planning meetings for ICES were taking place in 1899 and 1901, relations between Great Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands were strained by the war in South Africa. On 1 January 1900, there were serious articles in the British newspapers about the possibility of France taking the chance offered

by Britain's involvement in South Africa to launch a combined forces raid on London. On the same day, Kaiser Wilhelm promised the rebirth of the German navy.

Anarchism, meanwhile, was rampant. In the 1890s, Spanish and French presidents and an Austrian empress were assassinated, and in 1900, an Italian king. One of the reasons was the gross inequality of life within each of what are now the nations of the ICES community. In Britain, for example, fifteen of

the nobility earned over £100 000 a year from land rents, while a senior British ambassador was paid only £5 000 a year, a vice admiral £1 460, and an ordinary sailor £32. Tradesmen, clerks, and teachers earned about £80 a year. In the United States, half of the wealth was owned by 1 % of the population, The Commandant of the Marine Corps was paid $5 500 a year, a captain $2 000, and a private $166, Clerks averaged $1 320 and chambermaids $480 a year (Preston, 1999).

When these and other facts of daily life are taken into account, it seems to us that the accomplishments of the founders of ICES become much more formidable than when considered in a scientific vacuum. This is because it becomes clear that they managed to get nations working together - against all odds - nations which, in most other spheres of life, both internally and externally, were not at all inclined to cooperate.

The need for cooperation During the ninteenth century, various people in northwestern Europe began to think that there was a connection between the spatial distribution of fish in the sea and the changing character of the sea itself. With this in mind, Scandinavian scientists had undertaken more or less scattered hydrographic and biological investigations of the sea surrounding their countries in the 1870s and 1880s. For example, when the Bohuslän herring reappeared off the west coast of Sweden in the winter of 1877—1878, after an absence of seventy years, Gustaf Ekman was asked by the Agricultural Society for the Gothenburg and Bohuslän County to investigate the oceanographic background to see if it could account for the phenomenon (see also Corten, 1999, for a recent view). Then again, in July—August 1887, Oscar Nordqvist was in charge of a Finnish expedition looking into all aspects of the Gulf of Bothnia and adjacent waters (Simojoki, 1978).

The most important of these ventures, however, took place in February 1890 when Otto Pettersson, a Swedish chemist, extended Ekman’s studies by organizing an investigation of the Skagerrak and the northern part of the Kattegat by using five Swedish vessels at the same time. Because of the number of ships in use, the necessary observations could be made in a few days and thus a quasi-synoptic view obtained (Pettersson and Ekman, 1891). It was also realized that it was important to obtain information about the variation in hydrographic conditions during each year and from year to year. To be of real value, therefore, the observations had to be repeated regularly and, ideally, extended into the northern North Sea. Since this required cooperation with other countries, Pettersson, after giving a lecture at the meeting of the Scandinavian Naturalists in Copenhagen in 1892 on the general characteristics of the North Sea and the Baltic (Pettersson, 1892a), broached the subject The advantages to be gained from joint hydrographic investigations of these seas by Denmark, Norway, and Sweden (Pettersson, 1892b) had been made so obvious by the multi ship exercise of 1890 that the meeting agreed that he and his colleague, Gustaf Ekman, should sketch out a plan of campaign (Ekman and Pettersson, 1892).

Consequently, when the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences received a grant in 1893 to be used for hydrographic investigations of the seas surrounding Sweden, it asked Otto Pettersson, a member of the Academy, together with Gustaf Ekman and August Wijkander, to be in charge of the investigations.

They established themselves as the Swedish Hydrographic Commission and asked Scottish and German colleagues to join the project .so that the observations could be extended to cover the region north of Scotland as well as the southern Baltic. The main investigation took place in May, August, and November 1893 and February 1894 (Smed, 1990a). The cooperation was successful and was continued to some extent after the year covered by the plan.

The idea of permanent cooperation germinates in Scandinavia Pettersson now felt that there was a need for a more permanent arrangement. He proposed a scheme for an international hydrographic survey of the North Atlantic, the North Sea, and the Baltic based on the experience gained from the cooperative investigations in 1893—1894. He expressed the hope that this experience would “lead to an international agreement about the division of labour, and satisfactorily settle the question of methods and measures to be adopted in the course of future hydrographic survey” (Pettersson, 1894).

He presented his scheme to the International Geographical Congress held in London in 1895. The Congress passed a resolution to the effect that “the Congress recognises the scientific and economic importance of the results of recent research in the Baltic, the North Sea and the North Atlantic, especially with regard to fishing interests, and records its opinion that the survey of these areas should be continued and extended by cooperation of the different nationalities concerned on the lines of the scheme presented to the Congress by Professor Pettersson” (Anon., 1895).

In Sweden, Pettersson had received some support for his plans from the fishermen‘s organizations. He had, however, also met with strong opposition.

The influential fishery biologist and politician Axel Vilhelm Ljungman, for example, argued that such investigations had nothing to do with fishery questions. Pettersson was now able to refer to the “London Resolution”, stressing that he had not proposed its specific mention of the fisheries’ interest in such investigations, but rather, as he wrote to Ekman, “It was two of the greatest fishery bosses from Grimsby who firmly demanded that the matter should be slanted towards fisheries problems and they made sure that it was clear that there was an urgent need to investigate the North Sea on this count .... sometimes one gets support from unexpected quarters” (Smed, unpublished manuscript).

Pettersson was encouraged by the Swedish government to proceed with his plans and found that the Norwegian biologist Johan Hjort, who had been involved in the 1893—1894 joint investigations, was also interested in more permanent cooperation. In 1895, Hjort wrote from Jena inviting Pettersson to take the necessary steps to establish an international investigation programme. He intimated that a plan might be presented to various countries

such as “England (i.e. Great Britain and Ireland) Sweden, Norway, and others?” in the autumn of 1896 (Smed, unpublished manuscript). Hjort reported, after a visit to Great Britain in 1896, that Sir John Murray, a participant in the British “Challenger” expedition, who was then writing the scientific report of the voyage, was prepared to start international work if Fridtjof Nansen would take the lead in Norway and Otto Pettersson in Sweden (Smed, unpublished manuscript). This was confirmed when John Murray visited Norway in the summer of 1897 and met with Nansen and Hjort. Murray suggested that Nansen should organize a conference on the matter in Kristiania (now Oslo).

If this was not possible, he would take it upon himself to invite to Edinburgh a number of experts from the Scandinavian countries, Great Britain, Germany, and France to obtain agreement about the methods and instruments to be used. The conference would embrace physical as well as biological investigations.

On 19 October 1897, the Swedish Hydrographic Commission approached King Oscar II of Sweden and Norway suggesting that the Swedish government should propose to the governments of Norway, Denmark, and Great Britain a joint investigation of the hydrographic and biological conditions of the Baltic, the North Sea, and the Norwegian Sea in the interest of fisheries. The main task of this cooperative venture would be to study the currents and the nature and quantity of food in the upper 800 —1000 m in all seasons. The area to be investigated would be divided among the participating countries, and each nation would establish an observation system in a certain part of its adjacent sea. The investigations should be continued for at least five years in order to study the year-to-year variations. It was suggested that the respective governments should designate delegates to meet for the preparation of detailed plans. It was thought that good results would be obtained via cooperation, as the experience in 1893—1894 had shown, and that, if the selected countries joined with Sweden, others were also likely to follow. In that case, the Swedish government might consider whether negotiations should be extended to other North Sea countries as well as to Russia and France (Smed, unpublished manuscript).

The King requested a statement on the matter from the Swedish Academy of Sciences, which asked two of its members, H. H. Hildebrandsson and Hjalmar Theel, to consider the pros and cons and draft it. In their paper, they referred to the international cooperation that had taken place in meteorology since 1872 and that was now considered indispensable. They explained that there was the same need for cooperation in oceanography. The Academy forwarded these views to the King (Smed, unpublished manuscript), and in March and April 1898, the governments of Denmark, England, and Norway were asked if their support for the idea of sustained cooperation in the investigation of the sea might be expected.

The reactions were positive, in principle, from Denmark and Norway; the problem was Great Britain. The British Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, wanted, in advance, more specific information about the scope of the proposed inquiry. It apparently seemed to him that a strictly

scientific and technical investigation of the physical and biological conditions of the waters was all that was being contemplated. However valuable such an inquiry would be in itself, it should, in the opinion of the British government, only be conducted as ancillary to the study of “whether any existing methods of fishing are or are not exercising a detrimental effect on the supplies of fish in the waters of the seas in question.”

If this were to be the main object of the proposed research, the British government would be willing to participate (Smed, unpublished manuscript).

The overfishing argument in Great Britain The reason for this interest in whether fishing was having a detrimental effect on North Sea fish stocks was based on harsh political and economic facts. For over 40 years, there had been a continuous argument in Britain as to whether trawls were both damaging the seabed and killing the small fish before they had a chance to recruit to the main fisheries. Phenomenal growth of the fishing industry along the North Sea coast of Great Britain had occurred during the period 1845—1865 after the railway network was in place to take fish daily to the new cities that had formed around the steam driven industries of Victorian Britain. The trawler owners of Grimsby, Hull, and Aberdeen, in particular, had made fortunes in a matter of 10—20 years. Figure 1 shows that as late as 1904, the British fishing industry was bigger, both in value and in the weight of fish taken, than the rest of the North Sea fishing nations combined. This situation was even more marked throughout the second half of the nineteeth century.

Figure 1. The quantity and value of fish landed from the fishing grounds of Northern Europe in 1904 (ICES, 1906).

The concept of “overfishing”, as used in the modern sense, was first mooted in Britain in 1854. Official Commissions of Enquiry into Sea Fisheries of vari-

ous levels of formality were established in the years 1863, 1876, 1883, and 1893, with at least three others on a smaller scale during the period 1867— 1880. The line fishers complained about the arrival of the trawlers and sought the enquiries initially, but then, in the late 1870s, the trawler owners themselves saw their catch rates falling and wanted the government to do something about it.

The Commissions of Enquiry were non-trivial exercises, with the first of them being typical of the rest. Some 62 000 questions and answers are listed in the minutes of evidence after the three commissioners had travelled the length of the coasts of Great Britain. An example of the procedure adopted is the examination of Thomas Ramster in Hull on 3 October 1863 (Report Comm.,1865): 7330 (Mr Caird) Have you long been connected with the fishing trade in Hull? - Yes, for these last 20 years.

7344 Does a boat bring as many fish to the market now as it did then?

- Yes. 7347 Are the fish caught now the same kind of fish that were caught then? - No, there are larger fish caught now.

7348 Do you find that you get as many soles on the average as you did 20 years ago? - Not so many now, owing to our having had mild winters. The winters used to be more severe than they are now. If we had a severe winter now there would be as many soles as we ever caught.

7376 Do the Dutch use a smaller mesh? - Yes. 7377 Do they catch smaller fish? - Yes. 7378 Is that advantageous to the fishery in general? - I don’t know that it is, but such fish would be of no use in our markets.

7424 How long has an inspector existed here? — I don’t know.

7425 Has he been here ever since your time? — Yes, ever since I was here.

7426 Have you ever heard of fish being seized? - Yes, it has been seized at different times, principally owing to the vessels having met bad weather.

The witness withdrew.

Figure 2. “Professor Huxley, LL.D., F.R.S., L.S.D.” Professor of Natural History, Naturalist, Inspector of Fisheries, etc. ‘There is more in heaven and earth, O ratio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy’ — (so perhaps he’ll find it in the rivers).” This is the caption used by Punch, 19 March 1881, when it caricatured Thomas Huxley as a money-grabbing scientist via the “L.S.D.” in his list of honours. This stood for Pounds, Shillings, and Pence in the monetary sense.

Unfortunately, the Chair of this commission, Thomas Huxley (Figure 2), the public face of Charles Darwin as well as an eminent scientist in his own right, gained the idea from the answers given by such “practical men” that their evidence was not to be trusted. They had little idea, it seemed to him, of how the trawls of first the new sailing smacks and then the steam driven vessels might be destroying spawn on the seabed. What to them was firm evidence was quite obviously a case of mistaken identity to him, and his opinions carried the day with his colleagues because he was the generally accepted “maid of all work” in natural science to the government. If anything, his view hardened over the years so that by 1883, he was reiterating his 1866 ideas that “probably all the great sea fisheries are inexhaustible; that is to say, nothing we do seriously affects the number of fish. And, that any attempt to regulate these fisheries seems consequently from the nature of the case to be useless” (Lee, 1992).

Whilst this is a simplification of his views, it was the general perception and by 1883 was not accepted by the trawler owners and some of the younger generation of fisheries workers. However, other “experts” did agree with him, and the government between .1883 and 1898 found itself being offered greatly differing advice from scientists. This was mainly because previous governments had not followed the recommendations of the successive commissions to begin the systematic collection of fisheries statistics at the main ports in England and Wales so that the analyses made by one worker would not only be based on reasonable data, but also could be checked by

others. The situation was better in Scotland. The details of the arguments that took place between Huxley, Lankester, Mcintosh, D’ Arcy Thompson, Holt, Garstang, and other fisheries scientists during the period 1883—1898 are fully documented by Southward (1996), Adams (1996), Smed (1996), and Lee (1992).

Frank Buckland (Figure 3) was, for a time, a co-worker of Huxley in the fisheries field. In 1867, he had become one of the fisheries inspectors whose appointments had been recommended by an earlier enquiry and, between 1875 and his death in 1880, he sat on four Royal commissions that looked into fish and fishing. He held views different from Huxley’s on fisheries matters in many regards, but particularly in that of the need for the government to fund fisheries science. For example, he wrote in 1867: What objection can be reasonably argued against the employment of revenue cruisers for the accommodation of naturalists, appointed by Government...in order that they make a thoroughly practical examination of the dark and mysterious habits of food fishes. The trawl and tow net, we firmly believe, if judiciously and persistently employed over an extended area of the sea, by men able to identify what the nets drag up and entangle, would do more to bring to light what is now hidden and unknown than all the evidence collected by the Sea Fisheries Commission. It is a Government question, and not one of private or individual research. We feel confident that the time is not far distant when properly equipped naturalists will be sent by Government to investigate the habits of deep sea fish (Burgess, 1996).

Figure 3. Frank Buckland: a pioneer of fisheries research in Great Britain and Ireland. This photograph shows Frank at work with an oyster settling tray.

In some ways, Ole Olsen (Figure 4) carried on Buckland’s work after the latter’s early death in 1880 at the height of his influence in some regards. Olsen

was a Norwegian who was born in Kristiansand in 1839, became a fisherman at the age of 14, and then, in 1871, established himself in Grimsby as a compass adjuster. He also began publishing Olsen’s Fisherman’s Almanac, which still appears yearly. Later in the 1870s, he published, as a complementary venture to his Almanac, Close’s Fisherman’s Chart of the North Sea, which summarized the practical man’s state of knowledge about the North Sea grounds at that time. In 1880, he started selling logbooks in which fishermen noted down anything about their daily experiences whilst fishing which they deemed to be of general interest. Frank Buckland was sponsor of the prize of £25 for the logbook judged to be the best. This kind of material had already been used by Close and Olsen to produce the North Sea chart and would be used by Olsen in 1883 in his Piscatorial Atlas of the North Sea. In the introduction to that work, he wrote: “Seeing that fishery questions are now regarded of high importance, I trust my ‘Atlas’ may help to supply reliable information of a practical kind for consultation at a moment’s notice.” It would be difficult to better the spirit of this “mission statement” for the aims of fisheries science today. Indeed, the scope of the work - and the vision that brought it into being - is quite remarkable given the state of academic knowledge at that time of the distribution of fish in the North Sea and of its currents and topography.

Figure 4. Ole Osen: “fixer”, visionary, and practical man who produced charts of the North Sea fishing grounds, a Piscatorial Atlas of the North Sea, and a Fisherman's Almanac that still comes out each year.

That same vision appears time and again at critical moments in the 1890s as Olsen unswervingly supported the need for more fisheries science with his support for Pettersson’s 1895 “London Resolution” (cf. Anon., 1895) being a prime example. Another is the fact that Olsen, as the secretary of the Grimsby Fisheries Society, ensured that, in 1892, Ernest Holt had laboratory space at the Society’s hatchery and aquarium in nearby Cleethorpes when he began his classic work on the state of the Grimsby trawl fishery (Holt, 1895). In 1888, when the Society was started, the town had been indisputably the biggest fishing port in the world with landings of 60 000 t of fish a year caught by 800 vessels. By 1895, it was vying for first place with Hull on the other side of the Humber. Olsen, then, working from the heart of the world’s commercial fishery, not only produced marvellously practical products, but also found time to influence politically what was happening in the wider world and to

advance fisheries research by actively helping the new breed of scientists that Holt personified. In sum, he has to be seen as one of the most influential men working on the sidelines of European fisheries science of that decade.

Since 1883, the National Sea Fisheries Protection Association, an influential group of English trawler owners, skippers, and fish merchants, with also some Members of Parliament in membership, had been lobbying for international action in the North Sea to regulate the catching of immature, unmarketable fish. An international convention of 1882 had dealt with such things as the width of territorial seas, fishing vessel registration, and other “housekeeping” matters, but not with the amount of fishing itself. The British government agreed to host a meeting in July 1890 about size limits and fishing regimes.

The meeting proved abortive because there was no common ground between the British delegates and those from the other countries about acceptable size limits. Moreover, the few statistics and fledgling marine science used by the German delegation underlined yet again that decisions could not really be taken in the present state of ignorance of the fundamentals of marine ecology and fishing theory. The international scheme proposed in 1898 offered a possible solution to the dilemma facing Lord Salisbury and his government. Therefore, after second thoughts, a message was sent to Sweden that Great Britain was “deeply interested in the result of any enquiry which may be undertaken into the hydrographic conditions prevailing in the seas and oceans which wash the shores of this country and those of the adjacent parts of Europe” and would participate in the proposed cooperation (Smed, unpublished manuscript) without preconditions, but stressing the need for an early solution to fishery questions. The British authorities were assured that nothing would hinder inclusion of a study of fishing methods in the proposed cooperation. At the same time, though, it was pointed out that an investigation of the physical and biological conditions was seen as a necessary prerequisite (Smed, unpublished manuscript).

Parallel developments in Germany and The Netherlands Smed (1990b) noted that Walther Herwig, an influential member of the Deutscher Fischerei-Verein (DF-V), succeeded in 1885 in forming a subgroup of this national association with a specific interest in coastal and high seas fisheries. The association was then 15 years old and had been founded to strengthen all aspects of the German fishing industry because most of the fish consumed were imported from the Netherlands and Great Britain (Lenz, unpublished manuscript). Professor Victor Hensen had been working in Kiel since 1875, in fact, as a marine fisheries scientist looking at both the environmental and fish population aspects, and Friedrich Heincke wrote about the overfishing problem in 1888. It was Herwig’s vision, however, that led to a more systematic development of the fishing industry in Germany.

Walther Herwig’s interest in fish and fishing appears to stem from a childhood interest in natural history in general that never left him. MeyerWaarden (1977) described how, as a young boy, Herwig tracked the movements of salmon up the Weser to their spawning grounds in the Eder and

Emmer and was interested even then in how the stock might be protected. In later life, he proved to be an able and successful administrator in several quite diverse fields in the new state of Germany. Some of the main reasons for his success in all his posts were his natural friendliness and his down-toearth personality. Plans of all kinds were developed with enthusiasm, but implemented with caution and level headedness. He had, his biographer says, “High intelligence paired with broad based knowledge and a limitless will to work and to get things done. His single-minded determination was coupled with great organisational skills, political delicacy and exceptional diplomacy ...

His sense of humour was one of the most endearing sides of his character and with it he built bridges and overcame difficulties” (Meyer-Waarden, 1977). These aspects of his personality have been emphasized to help explain why he was such a great success in the international field.

The international conference in London in 1890 had been called in an attempt to close all the fisheries off the German and Danish coasts to protect the supposed nursery grounds of many North Sea stocks. This aim was not achieved, as was noted earlier, mainly because of the work of Heincke which showed that not enough was known to justify such a move. The German delegation realized that this was only a temporary respite, and Herwig began the deliberate encouragement of the growth of the industry for political reasons, knowing that this could exacerbate the general overfishing problem (Lenz, unpublished manuscript). Herwig saw the need “not to be a gnome between monsters” (Lenz, unpublished manuscript) before the inevitable international regulations were tabled, and to this end even forced the DSF-V to suppress complaints in Germany about catch rates and to support Heincke’s view that “international protection regulations of any kind seem to be too early at the present and only suited to handicap the growth of the German high sea fishery” (Lenz, unpublished manuscript). Only in this way, it was reasoned, could Germany itself become the main supplier of the fish needed by its growing population. Figure 5 emphasizes again, however, that the growth was relatively slow compared with the size of the industry in Great Britain.

Figure 5. The number of steam fishing vessels at work in Germany and England (Great Britain?) in 1885, 1894, 1904, and 1911, respectively (Carmona, 1990).

Great Britain and Germany had agreed amicably in 1890 to exchange Helgoland for Zanzibar as colonial possessions. Two years later, Herwig was instrumental in setting up the Biologische Anstalt Helgoland with Heincke as its

first director. From the beginning, it apparently was planned to underpin the rational management of the North Sea with scientific programmes that provided data on which effective legislation could be based that would not ruin the German industry. In 1894, indeed, Heincke was circulating for the first time the idea of extending territorial waters from 3 to 12 miles so that national laws could relate to the coastal zones where young fish were to be found at times. At the third annual meeting of the DSF-V in 1898, which had guest delegates from Belgium, Denmark, France, the Netherlands, and Scotland, Herwig drew attention to the arguments in Great Britain about overfishing and the need for a proper scientific understanding of the situation. This meant, as he saw it, that more financial support was needed for research because the North Sea was such a large and difficult area in which to work.

In 1894 and 1896, Pettersson had unsuccessfully approached the German oceanographer Otto Krümmel, who had participated in the joint 1893—1894 project, about continued cooperation (Smed, 1994). By 1897, the situation had changed as a Swedish agricultural scientist, Alexander Müller, had paved the way for Pettersson in Germany. Müller was interested in the climatological aspect of the project because of its importance to agriculture. Amongst his many influential contacts in Germany was Georg Neumayer, head of Deutsche Seewarte at Hamburg, who promised to work for the project (Smed, unpublished manuscript). It was Müller, too, who first informed the Swedish/Norwegian Minister in Berlin, Lagerheim, about the plans (Smed, unpublished manuscript). In general, the project was well received. Krümmel told Pettersson that the Imperial Minister of the Navy, Admiral von Tirpitz, was very interested. Vessels would be available for regular seasonal observations in the North Sea and perhaps in the Baltic (Smed, unpublished manuscript). Therefore, at Pettersson’s suggestion, the Swedish government, through Lagerheim, approached Germany at the same time as the other three countries. It turned out that Admiral von Tirpitz had understood from KrUmmel that the investigations would cover oceanographic observations for use only in meteorology. Lagerheim was able, fortunately, to correct this impression, and von Tirpitz declared that the meteorological observations could easily be combined with those to be made in the interest of the fisheries without incurring extra expense (Smed, unpublished manuscript). This item was now included, therefore, in the applications that went out to the various governments. In the meantime, Pettersson had been in contact with P. P. C. Hoek in The Netherlands. He had been involved earlier in 1897 with Herwig and the DSF-V in confidential plans for an international study of the North Sea specifically to deal with the overfishing problem that were now superseded by the Swedish initiative. He could, therefore, inform Pettersson that an inquiry about participation was likely to be welcomed by his government (Smed, unpublished manuscript). Consequently, the Netherlands was added to the list of nations to be approached.

Conclusion The world of fisheries research before ICES was a mix of pure scientists with scientific axes to grind, scientists with political axes of various kinds to grind,

and politicians who were the paymasters of the scientific enterprises that got under way in each of the countries bordering the North Sea. Otto Pettersson’s obsession with the idea that oceanography in general, and fisheries oceanography in particular, “was work not for the narrow waters but for the open sea, and in due time, for all the oceans of the world” (D’Arcy Thompson, 1948) was the key to bringing all these people together because it forced him to overcome all the political and practical problems that arose. Bringing people together to discuss common problems was the first and most important step and, based on our own experience, remains the essential step to the continued development of science within the ICES community.

Acknowledgements We are grateful to Artur Svansson for acting as an electronic repository for Jens Smed’s papers on the early years of ICES and to Walter Lenz for permission to cite his 1990 working paper.

References Adams, J. A. 1996. The Scottish contribution to marine and fisheries research with particular reference to fisheries research during the period 1882—1939. British Marine Science and Meteorology: the history of their development and application to marine fishing problems.

Buckland Occasional Papers, 2: 97—116.

Anonymous. 1895. Report of the 6th International Geographical Congress, pp. 587—590.

Anonymous. 1899. Conference Internationale pour ]'Exploration de Ia Mer, Reunie it Stockholm, pp. 1—17. Stockholm.

Burgess, G. 1996. Frank Buckland and the Buckland Foundation. British Marine Science and Meteorology: the history of their development and application to marine fishing problems.

Buckland Occasional Papers, 2: 7—32.

Carmona, X. 1990. The development of Spanish commercial fisheries between 1830 and th 1930. A general survey In Working Papers on Ocean Resources History for the 10 International Economic History Congress, Leuven, pp. 1—13. Ed. by H. N. Scheiber. Center for the Study of Law and Society, University of Califomia, Berkeley, California, USA. Corten, A. 1999. A proposed mechanism for the Bohuslän herring periods. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 56: 207-220.

Ekman, G., and Pettersson, O. 1892. Förslag till en internationell hydrografisk undersøkning af Nordsjø - och Ostersjøomrädet under 1893—1894 (Proposal for an international hydrographic investigation of the North Sea and Baltic Sea regions during 1893-1894). 8 pp.

Palmqvists Boktryckeri, Stockholm. (In Swedish).

Holt, E. W. L. 1895. An examination of the present state of the Grimsby trawl fishery. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, New Series, 3: 337—448.

Ibsen, H. 1918. The Wild Duck. Selected Works, English. Boni and Liveright, Inc., New York. pp 3-342.

ICES. 1906. Bulletin Statistique des Peches Maritimes des Pays du Nord de l'Europe, 1903-04.

Vol.l, Copenhagen.

Lee, A. J. 1992. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's Directorate of Fisheries Research: Its Origins and Development. MAFF, Directorate of Fisheries Research for England and Wales, Lowestoft, England, UK. 332 pp.

Lenz, W Unpub. ms. Fisheries protection conventions in the North Sea: from scientific disputes to the foundation of ICES in 1902. Working papers on Ocean Resources History for the 10th International Economic History Conference, Leuven, 1990.

Meyer-Waarden, P.-F. 1977. Walther Herwig, 1838-1912. Portrait eines bedeutenden Staatsdieners und Pioniers (Walther Herwig, 1838-1912. Portrait of an important government official and pioneer). Schriften der Bundesforschungsanstalt für Fischerei Hamburg, Vol. 13. (In German).

Pettersson, O. 1892a. Några allmänna drag af Nord- och Östersjøns hydrografi (Some general features of the hydrography of the North Sea and the Baltic). In Forhandlingeme ved de Skandinaviske Naturforskeres 14. Møde i Kjøbenhavn den 4—9 Juli 1892, pp. 78—'67. Copenhagen. (In Swedish).

Pettersson, O. 1892b. (Introduction to the discussions at the above meeting). In Forhandlingeme ved de Skandinaviske Naturforskeres 14. møde i Kjøbenhavn den 4—9 Juli 1892, pp. 171-176. Copenhagen. (In Swedish).

Pettersson, O. 1894. Proposed scheme for an International Hydrographic Survey of the North Atlantic, the North Sea, and the Baltic. Scottish Geographical Magazine, 10: 631-635.

Pettersson, O., and Ekman, G. 1891. Grunddragen af Skageracks och Kattegats hydrografi enligt den svenska vinterexpeditionens 1890 iakttagelser samt föregående arbeten (Fundamental features of the hydrography of the Skagerrak and the Kattegat according to the observations of the Swedish winter expedition 1890 and previous investigations). Kungliga Svenska Vetenskaps-akademiens Handlingar, 24(11): 1—162 with 10 plates. (In Swedish).

Preston, D. 1999. Besieged in Peking. Constable and Co. Ltd., London. 337 pp.

Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Sea Fisheries of the United Kingdom. London, 1865, Vol. 2.

Simojoki, H. 1978. The history of geophysics in Finland, 1828-1918. Societas Scientiarum Fennica, Helsinki. 157 pp.

Smed, J. 1990a. Hydrographic investigations in the North Sea, the Kattegat and the Baltic before ICES. Deutsche Hydrographische Zeitschrift, Ergiinzungsheft Reihe B, 22: 357-366.

Smed, J. 1990b. Walther Herwig: the first president of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). Deutsche Hydrographische Zeitschrift, Ergiinzungsheft Reihe B, 22: 323-329.

Smed, J. 1994. Otto Krümmel's participation in the international oceanographic cooperation in the 1890s and his troubles with the Kiel Commission. Historisch-Meereskundliches Jahrbuch, 2: 59—67.

Smed, J. 1996. On the foundation of ICES: a look behind the scenes at the events in Britain.

British Marine Science and Meteorology: the history of their development and application to marine fishing problems. Buckland Occasional Papers, 2: 141—154.

65

Smed, J. Unpub. Ms On the foundation of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea: Stockholm 1899- Christiania 1901-Copenhagen 1902.40 pp.

65 Letters quoted from this paper: a) Otto Pettersson to Gustaf Ekman. Undated (ca. August 1895) letter. LAG. b) Johan Hjort to Pettersson 18 November 1895 and an undated letter (November 1895). UBG c) Hjort to Pettersson 17 October 1896. UBG.

Southward, A. J. 1996. The Marine Biological Association and fishery research, 1884—1924: scientific and political conflicts that changed the course of marine research in Great Britain.

British Marine Science and Meteorology: the history of their development and application to marine fishing problems. Buckland Occasional Papers, 2: 61-79.

Thompson, D'Arcy W 1948. Otto Pettersson. 1848—1941. Journal du Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer, 15: 121-125.

Thompson, R. D'Arcy. 1958. D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson, the scholar-naturalist, 1860-1948, by his daughter. Oxford University Press, London. 244 pp.

Abbreviations used: KVA: Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien, Stockholm.

LAG: Landsarkivet, Gothenburg.

RAS-UD: Riksarkivet, Stockholm. UD 1902 Doss-system.

SIN: Swedish/Norwegian.

UBG: Universitetsbiblioteket, Gothenburg.

UBO: Universitetsbiblioteket, Oslo. Collection of manuscripts, No. 48.

d) Otto Pettersson, Gustaf Ekman, and August Wijkander to King Oscar II 18 October 1897. RAS-UD, Vol. 2396, Mal 11. e) Protocol of the meeting of KVA on 10 November 1897. KVA's archives. f) Lord Salisbury to the SIN Minister in London (Lewenhaupt) 5 July 1898. RAS-UD, Vol. 2396. Mal 11. g) Lord Salisbury to the SIN Minister in London (Lewenhaupt) 30 November 1898.

RAS-UD, Vol. 2396, Mai II. h) Lewenhaupt to the SIN Foreign Minister 2 December 1898. RAS-UD, Vol. 2396, Mal II. i)

Alex

MUller

to

Otto

Pettersson

21

February

1898.

UBG.

Martin Knudsen - the oceanographer ICES Marine Science Symposia 215: 124-131. 2002 Jens Smed Martin Knudsen was introduced to hydrography (i.e., physical oceanography) when, at a young age, he was appointed to undertake the physical and chemical investiga tions on the Danish Ingolf expedition in 1895 and 1896 to the waters around Iceland and western Greenland. He was a Danish Delegate to the Stockholm Conference, which entrusted him with the task of an experimental revision of the existing hydrographical tables. This work resulted in Knudsen's Hydrographical Tables, used the world over for threeMquarters of a century. Knudsen introduced the use of standard seawater for salinity determinations, and was in charge of the Standard Seawater Service from 1908 to 1948. He designed new versions of instruments, such as burettes, pipettes, reversing thermometers, water bottles, and bottom samplers. Knudsen was attached to 'ICES Headquarters from 1902 to 1948 in various capacities: Hydrographical Assistant, editor, Hydrographic Consultant, and Chef du Service Hydrographique. He was a Danish Delegate to the Council during 1902— 1947, Vice–President during 1933—1947, and Chair of the Hydrography Committee from its establishment in 1925 until 1947.

Keywords: hydrographical tables, instruments, Martin Knudsen, standard seawater.

Introduction Martin Knudsen's scientific work was spread over two branches of science: physics and hydrography (i.e., physical oceanography). As a physicist, he was attached to the University of Copenhagen and the Polytechnical College of Denmark from 1896 to 1941 in the capacity as assistant, lecturer, and, from 1912 to 1941, professor. He was an expert who was highly esteemed internationally on the kinetic theory of gases, especially on their behaviour at low pressures. In hydrography, Knudsen became a pioneer in salinity determination because of his Hydrographical Tables and his responsibility during a long period of years for the preparation of standard seawater. For nearly half a century, he was connected with ICES in various capacities: Hydrographer, Delegate, Chair of the Hydrography Committee, and member of the Bureau.

Martin Knudsen's introduction to hydrography Martin Knudsen was introduced to hydrography when he was appointed to undertake the physical and chemical investigations on the Danish Ingolf expedition to the waters around Iceland and western Greenland in the summers of 1895 and 1896 (Figure 1). As he declared in his report on the hydrographical work of the expedition (Knudsen, 1899a), until that time he

had been totally unacquainted with that type of research. Nevertheless, he did outstanding work. Knudsen's talent for designing instruments became apparent. He developed an apparatus for analysis of the gases held in seawater and designed an improved version of the reversing thermometer.

He was also aware of the importance of more exact salinity determinations, as it had become clear that dissimilar water masses might differ only slightly ¡in salinity, sometimes by not more than the inaccuracy inherent in most of the previous salinity determinations. Knudsen, therefore, rejected the method of determining salinity from measuring specific gravity. Instead, he determined the chlorine (or rather halogen) content of the water samples by means of volume titration according to the Mohr method, i.e., precipitation of the chlorine with a solution of silver nitrate, using potassium chromate as an index. In order to increase the accuracy of the method, Knudsen introduced sealed tubes of seawater whose salinity had been determined with great care by a Volhard titration; this water was then employed to calibrate the silver nitrate used for the titration of the water samples. In this way, all chlorine determinations were referred to the same standard and resulted in internal consistency. The salinity value was obtained by multiplying the chlorine content or chlorinity by the so called coefficient of chlorine. While processing the data from the Ingolf expedition, Knudsen also prepared tables facilitating calculation of the specific gravity of a seawater sample from its temperature and salinity.

Figure 1. Martin Knudsen in the laboratory of the cruiser Ingolf. Courtesy of the Zoological Museum, Copenhagen.

An important part of the shipboard hydrographic work was the determination of the amounts of dissolved gases in the water. Knudsen constructed an apparatus for simultaneously measuring the amounts of nitrogen and oxygen in a sample of seawater (Figure 2). With regard to oxygen, Knudsen found some apparent anomalies. It was generally assumed that surface water was

just saturated with air, in accordance with the temperature of the water. In the material from the Challenger expedition, however, William Dittmar had found some samples with more oxygen than was consistent with the laws of gas absorption. He had tried to account for the apparent anomaly in a variety of ways, but was at last led to suggest that the anomaly might be the result of observational errors (Dittmar, 1884). Hercules Tornøe, in working up the material from the Norwegian Vøringen expedition, encountered the same problem. He, however, was not inclined to accept observational errors as the explanation. He concluded that the amount of oxygen in surface water depended not only on the temperature of the water, but also on the effect of one or more causes as yet unknown (Tornøe, 1880).

On the Ingolf expedition, Knudsen also found a number of cases of oxygen supersaturation in surface water and was able to solve the mystery. He conceived the idea that the phenomenon might be due to oxygen production by phytoplankton photosynthesis and confirmed this assumption by investigating, in cooperation with the expedition's botanist, C. H. Ostenfeld, the type and amount of plankton at the locations where the water samples were collected. It turned out that oxygen content was low where zooplankton were dominant, but high where phytoplankton predominated. Some simple experiments by Knudsen corroborated that supersaturation of oxygen in the upper water layers might indeed be explained from phytoplankton photosynthesis (Knudsen, 1896). In this way, the results that had puzzled Dittmar and Tornøe became understandable.

Figure 2. Knudsen's apparatus for determination of the content of oxygen and nitrogen in seawater.

The Hydrographical Tables Knudsen's achievements on the Ingolf expedition and in working up hydrographic data from inner Danish waters were eminent. It was, therefore, natural that he, in spite of his young age (born 1871), became one of the three Danish Delegates to the International Conference for the Exploration of the

Sea at Stockholm in 1899. Here he received favourable attention, as suggested by an internal German report on the Conference (Krümmel, 1899).

Knudsen's experience from the Ingolf expedition led him to propose to the Conference that an international institution for procuring standard seawater should be established (Knudsen, 1899b). Although recognizing the importance of using standard seawater for salinity determinations, the Conference did not adopt the proposal. It preferred a plan submitted by the Norwegian Delegate Fridtjof Nansen that, in connection with the Central Office of the new organization, there should be a Central Laboratory which, i.a., should produce and distribute standard seawater (Nansen, 1899).

The favourable decision on Nansen’s proposal did not imply a lack of confidence in Knudsen. This is evident from the fact that the Conference entrusted him with the task of an experimental revision of the existing hydrographical tables, viz. his own from the Ingolf expedition as well as those compiled by Krümmel, Makarov, and others. The idea for such a revision came from Otto Pettersson. In a letter to Nansen, Pettersson had deplored the lack of reliable tables giving the relation between the chemical analysis of seawater and its specific gravity. So if there were a conference about an international exploration of the sea, Pettersson intended to propose the appointment .of a committee for the investigation and revision of all existing tables in order to clarify the correspondence of a specific gravity value in chemical analysis.

Pettersson thought this investigation should be conducted in the laboratory of the Polytechnical College in Copenhagen under the direction of Martin Knudsen (Pettersson, 1898). A committee, consisting of Sir John Murray, Knudsen, Pettersson, Nansen, Otto Krümmel, H. N. Dickson, and S. O. Makarov, was appointed to direct the work which was organized by Knudsen and carried out at the physical laboratory of the Polytechnical College where Knudsen was on the staff. He was assisted mainly by the Danish J. P. Jacobsen and S. P. L. Sørensen, and the German Carl Forch. Knudsen, with his collaborators, determined the constants of seawater, i.e., the relation between chlorinity and salinity, and between chlorinity and specific gravity of the water at different temperatures. These constants formed the basis for the preparation of the famous Hydrographical Tables which permitted an accurate determination of the chlorine content, salinity, and specific gravity of a seawater sample from a Mohr titration against standard seawater. Tables of salinity and specific gravity were also included on the basis of hydrometer readings.

The determination of the constants and the elaboration of the Hydrographical Tables represented a formidable task which was carried out by Knudsen and his small team in less than two years.

The Tables and a report on the work were presented at the second International Conference for the Exploration of the Sea at Kristiania (Oslo) in May 1901. The Conference gave its blessing to the Tables, deciding that: The ratios between salinity, density and chlorine given in Dr. Martin Knudsen's Hydrographical Tables are to be adopted; and the salinity is to be calculated by use of these Tables from the determinations of chlorine or from the specific gravity (Anon., 1901).

Even though the work had been undertaken with utmost care, there are indications, as pointed out by Wallace (1974), that Knudsen considered his salinityâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;chlorinity equation only a temporary measure which a new study might change. There was a preponderance of non-oceanic samples in the material used, with 15 of the 26 samples coming from the North Sea and the Baltic, and all except two were surface samples. Accordingly, it was felt that there might be a need for a study consisting of more oceanic samples and with more time at its disposal. Regardless, Knudsen's equations and his Tables were used worldwide for nearly three quarters of a century. During this long period, the equation and the Tables generally remained unchallenged, except for some doubt about their reliability expressed by a couple of laboratories soon after their appearance. The doubt, however, turned out to be unjustified (Smed, 1992).

The Standard Seawater Service The Stockholm Conference had decided that there was a need for a standard seawater to be used in chlorine titrations and that it should be produced by the Central Laboratory. Martin Knudsen foresaw that the establishment of the Laboratory would take some time. In order to bridge the gap during this period, he decided to prepare a batch of such water. It should be remembered that the preparation of standard water was nothing new to Knudsen.

Even before the Stockholm Conference, he had made five batches for use in Danish hydrographic work. Consequently, the standard water prepared for use in the determination of constants for the revision of the existing tables was designated No. VI. The chlorinity of this standard water was determined by the chemist S. P. L. Sørensen on the basis of a sample of potassium chloride. All subsequent standards were based, therefore, on the chlorine content of this sample of potassium chloride and consequently depended on the atomic weights then adopted.

As surmised by Knudsen, there was a clear need for standard water even if international cooperation had not yet been established. Several institutions in the prospective Member Countries of the International Council obtained samples, and the demand increased when the seasonal cruises agreed upon at Stockholm were begun in 1902. As the Central Laboratory was not yet fully established, Knudsen had to prepare one more batch of standard water.

From 1903, the Central Laboratory took over production, including the preparation of a Primary Standard in 1905. Knudsen was apparently somewhat disappointed that he had not been entrusted with the Standard Seawater Service. In a letter to Otto Pettersson, who had complained about the delay in preparation of the Primary Standard at the Central Laboratory, Knudsen declared that since the Laboratory had been entrusted with the preparation of standard seawater, he assumed that this was considered to be of more concern to the Laboratory than to him, and that the Laboratory could do it better than he (Knudsen, 1903).

In 1908, however, it was decided to close down the Central Laboratory and assign most of its tasks to the national laboratories. But it was felt that there

was one practical charge that was of interest to all hydrographers, viz. the preparation of standard seawater. The Council decided to delegate this task to Martin Knudsen in his capacity as Hydrographical Assistant to the Bureau (ICES, 1909). So, during the following years until the outbreak of World War I in 1914, the standard seawater was prepared by Knudsen under the authority of the Council. At that time, Knudsen took over the Standard Seawater Service in a personal capacity in order to relieve the Council of the financial responsibility during the war, an arrangement that also continued after the war. There was increasing demand for standard water and, in the 1930s, the stock of the Primary Standard from 1905 used for determining the salinity of ordinary standard seawater was running low. It therefore became necessary to prepare a new Primary Standard. At the Council meeting in 1936, Knudsen explained that since the standard water was used worldwide, he intended to propose to the International Association for Physical Oceanography (IAPO) that it should direct the preparation of a new Primary Standard and defray the expenses connected with the physical and chemical work and the publication of a report. This was agreed by ICES and accepted by IAPO (Anon., 1937).

The chlorinity of the new Primary Standard 1937 was determined by comparison with the chlorinities of the standard water samples hitherto used, thereby achieving conformity with the results of the chlorinity titrations based upon the two Primary Standards. The chlorinity was found to be 19.3810 ‰.

It was pointed out, however, that the chlorinity, as defined by Sørensen, depended on the adopted values of the atomic weights. This meant that there would be slight breaks in the chlorinity determinations when new values of atomic weights were agreed upon. Also, a tube of seawater was probably not the best standard if continuity were to be maintained over a long time period. These drawbacks were remedied by choosing pure silver, so-called Atomgewichtssilber, as the standard and introducing a new definition of chlorinity. Investigations carried out by Professor Hønigschmid in Munich indicated that 58.99428 grams of Atomgewichtssilber were necessary and sufficient to precipitate the halogens in one kilogram of the Primary Standard 1937. As 19.3810 / 58.99428 = 0.3285234, the new definition of chlorinity became: The number giving the chlorinity in per mille of a seawater sample is by definition identical with the number giving the mass with unit gram of Atomgewichtssilber just necessary to precipitate the halogens in 0.3285234 kilogram of the seawater sample (Jacobsen and Knudsen, 1940).

When Knudsen was in his late seventies, anxious to ensure the continuation of the Standard Seawater Service, he proposed to IAPO that it should assume responsibility for the future preparation of standard seawater. This was accepted by IAPO in August 1948 (Anon., 1949), with the work still to be done in the Danish Hydrographical Laboratory (Figure 3). In February 1949, Knudsen distributed a circular about the new arrangement.

Figure 3. Bottling of standard seawater in Copenhagen.

A few months later, he passed away. However, because of the arrangement with IAPO (later IAPSO), the Service continued (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Tube of standard seawater.

Designing of instruments During the Ingolf expedition, Knudsen, in addition to designing a more reliable version of the reversing thermometer and constructing an apparatus for

analysis of air dissolved in seawater, also introduced improved types of pipettes (Knudsen, 1897) and burettes which greatly facilitated the chlorine titration and became used worldwide. Because of these improvements by Knudsen, his introduction of standard water, and his Hydrographical Tables, the chlorine titration of seawater became universally known as the Mohrâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; Knudsen titration.

In 1898, the Commission for Scientific Investigation of the Danish Waters invited Knudsen to develop a method for measuring temperature and salinity of seawater in situ. He fulfilled this request by developing an instrument which made it possible to determine salinity and temperature of seawater without collecting water samples or removing the thermometer from the water (Knudsen, 1900). The instrument was especially suitable for determining the depth of the discontinuity layer, which is so pronounced in Danish waters. Though the method aroused considerable interest, it did not really come into use. There apparently were technical difficulties, for instance, with regard to compensation for capacity and energy loss in the cable between the submerged part of the apparatus and the shipboard instrumentation (Smed, 2002).

During a roughly 10-year period, beginning in 1909, Knudsen concentrated on work in pure physics, especially on the laws of the molecular movements in gases at low pressure, and published a series of papers on these subjects. It is understandable, therefore, that he did not find time to develop new oceanographic instruments. In 1916, however, he was approached by the Danish marine biologist Johannes Schmidt, who was anxious to continue his search for the spawning area of the European eel and was planning a great expedition which would be launched when World War I was over. During the expedition, Schmidt intended to measure the penetration of light into the sea at different latitudes and in different types of water. He expressed the hope that Knudsen would take an interest in this matter and consider constructing suitable instruments. This application inspired Knudsen to begin work on determining the absorption of light in seawater. In 1922, he published his spectrophotometer together with some results obtained by means of the instrument (Knudsen, 1922).

Knudsen also designed new types of already existing instruments (Knudsen, 1923). For example, his insulating water bottle (Figure 5) was a further development of the Petterssonâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Nansen bottle, but was considerably shorter, and easier to handle. Knudsen also introduced a simpler closing mechanism for the bottle. In his instruments, Knudsen aimed at simplicity in construction, compactness, and reliability in use. This is clearly evident in his reversing water bottle and even more so in its frameless version (Figure 6), designed with a view to using a number of such instruments on the wire at the same time.

New types of meter wheels were also made as well as new types of weights or messengers used for releasing reversing water bottles and other instruments.

Figure 5. Knudsen's insulating water bottle.

Figure 6. Knudsen's frameless reversing water bottle.

For the quantitative study of the amount of fish food at the sea bottom, the director of the Danish Biological Station, C. G. J. Petersen, had constructed a bottom sampler which he developed into the widely used Petersen grab. As Petersen admitted, however, this apparatus was unsuitable for use on hard sandy bottom where the samples were probably not representative. Knudsen therefore decided to construct a bottom sampler for hard bottom to be used as a supplement to the Petersen grab (Knudsen, 1927). The Knudsen bottom sampler (Figure 7) worked satisfactorily, penetrating about 30â&#x20AC;&#x2030;cm into firm sandy bottom.

Figure 7. Knudsen's bottom sampler for hard bottom.

Work at the ICES Service Hydrographique During the long period from 1902 to 1948, Martin Knudsen was closely connected with ICES. When the organization was formally established, the Council decided that its Central Office in Copenhagen should have, in addition to a General Secretary, two principal assistants for hydrography and biology, respectively. In view of his earlier achievements, it was natural that Martin Knudsen should be chosen to fill the post of Hydrographical Assistant. In this capacity, he was chief of the Hydrographic Department of the Office, the Service Hydrographique. The main hydrographic activities of the Member Countries in an ICES context during the first years of the organization were the seasonal cruises to a number of fixed stations. The hydrographic data from these cruises, together with surface observations from a number of ship routes, were sent to the Service Hydrographique and published in quarterly, and later annual, bulletins edited by Knudsen. In this way, a unique hydrographic data bank was established at ICES, available to the international scientific community and used by Knudsen and his collaborators for the preparation of charts and sections showing the distribution of temperature and salinity in the seas investigated.

Knudsen was re-elected Hydrographical Assistant each year until 1920. At this time, the war years had greatly slowed the activities of the Council. As a consequence, it was decided to elect, instead of two principal assistants, three editors for hydrography, plankton, and fishery statistics, with the editing of the corresponding bulletins to be entrusted to their care. Knudsen continued as editor of the Bulletin Hydrographique. As an interim arrangement for a short period (1925â&#x20AC;&#x201D;1928), the Council appointed a temporary Hydrographer, whereas Knudsen acted as Hydrographic Consultant. When a permanent Hydrographer was appointed in 1928, Knudsen was invited to become

Chief of the Service Hydrographique and thus be responsible for the general supervision of its work. This arrangement continued until Knudsen asked to be released from his post in 1948, at the age of 77.

Another linkage between the Knudsen family and ICES was through Knudsen's daughter, Inger Bondorff. She had been deeply involved in the meticulous titrations carried out in connection with the preparation of the Primary Standard 1937, working for some time in the laboratory of Professor Otto Hønigschmid in Munich (Jacobsen and Knudsen, 1940). Inger came to the Service Hydrographique in 1952. Her main task was the preparation of the Monthly Synoptic Charts of Temperature and Salinity, but she also did most of the technical drawings for the working groups and the Secretariat. Another type of work in which she participated and acquired much skill involved screening the hydrographic data received for inclusion in the ICES data bank.

Inger retired in 1986, but maintained an interest in ICES nearly until her death in 1997. So there was a linkage between the Knudsen family and ICES throughout most of the 20th century.

Epilogue It is amazing how much Martin Knudsen (Figure 8) achieved in his lifetime.

During nearly half a century, he held posts as assistant, lecturer, or professor of physics at the University of Copenhagen and the Polytechnical College of Denmark. As mentioned earlier, his research in pure physics was highly regarded. He became a member of the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters from 1909, and was its Secretary from 1917 to 1945. He was Rector of the University of Copenhagen for a period, and was an eminent organizer and administrator, to the benefit of many societies.

Knudsen was a member of the Danish Commission for the Study of the Sea and leader of the Commission's Hydrographical Laboratory from 1902 to 1948. At ICES, Knudsen held many posts. In addition to being on the staff of the Central Office, he was a Danish Delegate to the Council during the period 1902—1947, and during 1933—1947 was a Vice–President. Knudsen chaired the Council's Hydrography Committee from its inception in 1925 until 1947.

Besides all of these duties, he found time for the hydrographic work reported in this paper. Martin Knudsen died on 27 May 1949.

Figure 8. Martin Knudsen (1871—1949).

Acknowledgements I am greatly indebted to Dr. Artur Svansson for valuable discussions on the manuscript and for his assistance in its processing.

References Anonymous. 1901. 2. . Conférence Internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer, réunie à Kristiania 1901, Premiere Partie, p. 5.

Anonymous. 1937. Association Internationale d'Océanographie Physique, Procès-Verbaux, 2: 52.

Anonymous. 1949. Association Internationale d'Océanographie Physique, Procès-Verbaux, 4: 58.

Dittmar, W. 1884. Report on researches into the composition of ocean-water collected by H.M.S. "Challenger" during the years 1873—1876. In Report on the Scientific Results of the Voyage of H.M.S. "Challenger". Physics and Chemistry, I: 139—230.

ICES. 1909. Rapports et Procès-Verbaux des Réunions du Conseil Permanent International pour l'Exploration de la Mer, 11(B): 16—18.

Jacobsen, J. P., and Knudsen, M. 1940. Urnormal 1937 or Primary Standard Sea-Water 1937.

Association d'Océanographie Physique, Publications Scientifiques, 7. 38 pp.

Knudsen, M. 1896. De l’influence du plankton sur des quantités d'oxygène et d'acide carbonique dissous dans l'eau de mer (On the influence of plankton on the quantities of ox-

ygen and carbonic acid in seawater). Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des Sciences, 123: 1091—1093. (In French).

Knudsen, M. 1897. Pipette zum raschen und genauen Abmessen von Flüssigkeiten (Pipette for fast and accurate measuring of liquids). Chemiker-Zeitung, 21(64). (In German).

Knudsen, M. l899a. Hydrography. The Danish “Ingolf”—expedition, 1: 23—161.

Knudsen, M. 1899b. Proposal about an international institution for procuring Standard Water. Conférence Internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer, Réunie à Stockholm 1899, Supplement 4.

Knudsen, M. 1900. Maaling af Havvandets Temperatur og Saltholdighed ved Hjælp af elektrisk Telefonbro (Measurement of the temperature and salinity of seawater by means of an electrical telephone bridge). Beretning fra Komrnissionen for videnskabelig Undersøgelse af de danske Farvande, 2(3). (In Danish).

Knudsen, M. 1903. Letter of 31 December 1903 to Otto Pettersson. Archived in Gothenburg University Library's Collection of Letters. (In Danish).

Knudsen, M. 1922. On measurement of the penetration of light into the sea. Publications de Circonstance du Conseil Internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer, 76.

Knudsen, M. 1923. Some new oceanographical instruments. Publications de Circonstance du Conseil Internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer, 77.

Knudsen, M. 1927. A bottom-sampler for hard bottom. Meddelelser fra Kommissionen for Havundersegelser, Serle: Fiskeri, VIII(3).

Krümmel, O. 1899. Bericht über die Ergebnisse der internationalen Konferenz zur Erforschung der nordeuropäischen Meere in Stockholm 15 bis 23 Juni 1899 (Report on the results of the International Conference for the Exploration of the North European Seas in Stockholm 15 to 23 June 1899). Appended to letter of 5 August 1899 to the Minister der geistlichen Unterricht und Medizinalangelegenheiten, Berlin. Rep. 76-VC, Sekt. 1, Tit. 11, Nr. 11, Bd. 1, Blatt 275—285. Archived in Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin. (In German).

Nansen, F. 1899. Appendix 2 to Résolutions textuelles. Conférence Internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer, Réunie à Stockholm 1899.

Pettersson, O. 1898. Letter of 29 October 1898 to F. Nansen. Archived in the Oslo University Library's Collection of Manuscripts, File 48. (In Swedish).

Smed, J. 1992. Early discussions and tests of the validity of Knudsen's Hydrographical Tables.

Historisch-Meereskundliches Jahrbuch, 1: 77—86.

Smed, J. 2002. Early attempts at determination of the salinity of seawater from measurement of its electric conductivity. In Oceanographic History: The Pacific and Beyond. Papers from the 5th International Congress on the History of Oceanography, 369—373. Ed.

by K. R. Benson and P. F. Rebbock. University of Washington Press, Seattle and London.

Tornøe, H. 1880. On the air in seawater. In The Norwegian North—Atlantic Expedition 1876—1878. Chemistry, 1—23. Wallace, W. J. 1974. The development of the chlorinity/salinity concept in oceanography. Elsevier Oceanography Series, 7: 148.

Early Attempts at Determination of the Salinity of Seawater from Measurement of its Electric Conductivity Oceanographic history: the Pacific and beyond.

2002 (pp.369— 373) University of Washington Press Jens Smed 66 In the late 19th century, a method was developed for determining the salinity of a seawater sample from measurement of its electrical conductivity. Martin Knudsen went a step further by designing an instrument which, based upon the same principle, made it possible to determine the salinity and temperature of the seawater without collecting water samples or pulling the thermometer out of the water. The instrument was especially suitable for determining the depth of the discontinuity layer. Though the method aroused considerable interest it did not really gain ground, undoubtedly because the underlying instrumental technique was not sufficiently developed at the time.

Salinity is an important quantitative measure in physical oceanography where it is used for estimating density of seawater, which in its turn is used for computation of currents. Moreover, as salinity of seawater is a conservative quantity it is used for identification of water types.

Determination of salinity, as the total measure of inorganic dissolved substances, is by evaporation of the water and weighing of the residue. This is a difficult process, because some carbon dioxide and hydrogen chloride escape during the evaporation process and corrections must be made for this. Furthermore, at sea methods involving weighing cannot be used. So the methods to be applied on board a ship have to be indirect ones. Only two such methods were in use in the late 19th century: by hydrometer and by titration. By hydrometer the density is measured, from which the salinity is calculated. By titration the chlorinity is determined and the salinity then calculated. In both cases the assumption is made that the proportions of the major constituents of seawater are constant throughout the oceans. That this assumption was justified was demonstrated by the work of the Danish chemist and geologist Georg Forchhammer during the years 1843—1865.67 66

Bygroften 17. DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark. I am greatly indebted to Dr. Artur Svansson for assistance in preparing the manuscript and for presenting the paper at the Congress.

67

2. G. Forchhammer, “On the composition of sea-water in the different parts of the ocean”, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. 155 (1865): 203—262.

Based on his experience from participation in the Norwegian North Atlantic Expedition (1876—1878), the Norwegian chemist Hercules Tornøe concluded that the accuracy of the two methods was about the same. 68 Although such accuracy might be considered quite good in general, it had become clear that the differences in the salinities of some water types were of the same order as the range of accuracy, i.e., 0.01—0.02 per cent salinity. Consequently there was a need for more accurate determinations.

Already at an early date attempts were made to determine the salinity of seawater by measuring one of its physical properties other than density. The most promising property in this respect was, according to Tornøe, the electrical conductivity of the water. Tornøe became a pioneer in this matter. At the meeting on 6 October 1893, of the Norwegian Academy of Science, he reported on a series of investigations which showed that the salinity of the seawater could be determined easily and accurately by measuring the electrical conductivity of the water. 69 The conductivity would be determined by means of alternating current and a telephone bridge. As conductivity is also greatly influenced by temperature, the temperature would have to be determined with great accuracy and its influence eliminated. The method is described in detail by Tornøe in a later papers.70 Here he explained that at the instigation of Fridtjof Nansen he undertook the task to supply Nansen's Polar Expedition with the necessary instruments for determination of salinity from electric conductivity.

Tornøe did not measure the absolute values of the electric conductivity of the seawater - that was done later by Ernst Ruppin 71 - but preferred to determine the conductivity in proportion to that of a standard solution, viz., a 3.5 % solution of potassium chloride. He set up a table showing the relation between the salinity of seawater and its electric conductivity in proportion to that of the potassium chloride solution.

Tornøe stressed that an error of 0.1 ° in the determination of the temperature for seawater of normal salinity causes an error of 0.008 in the salinity percentage. So it would be desirable to determine the temperature with greater accuracy. When Tornøe carried out these experiments, he did not have the necessary facilities. He intended however to repeat his experiments when the observations from the Nansen Expedition had become available. He expected that it should be quite possible to determine the salinity percentage of seawater with an accuracy of about 0.005 % by the method. Apparently

68 H. Tornøe. “On the amount of salt in the water of the Norwegian Sea”, in The Norwegian North-Atlantic Expedition 1876—1878, Vol. 1, Chemistry (1880). 45—76.

69 H. Tornøe, in Norske Videnskabsselskabs Forhand, (Oversigt,1893), 47.

70 H. Tornøe, “Om Bestemmelse af Sóvandets Saltgehalt ved Hjælp af dets elektriske Ledningsevne”, Nyt magazine for Naturvidernskabern. 34 (1895): 232—240.

71 E. Ruppin, “Bestimmung der elektrischen Leitfähigkeit des Meerwassers”, Wissenshaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen, Neue Folge, 9 (1906): 179—183.

however, the method did not fulfil Tornøe's expectations. Krümmel states that Tornøe himself had characterized the method as impractical.72 As a matter of fact, Nansen did use the conductivity method for a short period on his North Polar expedition. He agreed that by this method it was in principle possible to determine the salinity with an accuracy of at least 0.05 %. 73 The method, however, gave rise to considerable troubles. Apparently these could be ascribed to irregularities in the contacts of the standards of resistance used or to a defective insulation of the electrodes. The method also had the drawback that the calculation of salinity from the readings of the instrument required a considerable amount of time. The irregular working of the instrument caused Nansen to cease using the method. It may be these experiences that caused Tornøe also to lose confidence in the method and to give up further development of it. Also in the 1890s, Gustav Karsten, apparently without knowing the work of Tornøe, briefly discussed the possibility of using the electrical conductivity for determination of the salinity. 74 At his suggestion, Leonhard Weber made some preliminary experiments on the change of conductivity with the salinity. Karsten's conclusion was that the method was sufficiently accurate for weak solutions only. This did not necessarily preclude the use of the method also for higher salinities, as such samples might be diluted in a known proportion. Nevertheless Karsten expressed the opinion that the method would be of no practical importance.

As is well known, half a century would elapse before the method was developed for routine use. A prerequisite was more accurate determinations of the specific conductivity of seawater as a function of its temperature and salinity, such as those carried out by Thomas, Thompson, and Utterback. 75 In this context it should be borne in mind that at the turn of the century, the original Mohr method for titration was being considerably improved. According to this method the seawater is titrated with a silver nitrate solution of known strength to the point where all chloride (and bromide) has been precipitated. This point is detected by indicators that change colour when a slight excess of silver nitrate has been added. The method was then improved by the young Danish physicist Martin Knudsen who, during his participation

72 O. Krümmel, Handbuch der Ozeanographie, Vol. 1 (Stuttgart, 1907), 290.

73 F. Nansen, “The Oceanography of the North Polar Basin”, The Norwegian North- Polar Expedition 1893-1896 Scientific Results, 3, no. 9 (1902):198—199.0 74 9. G. Karsten, “Die physikalischen Beobachtungen an den Stationen. Ueber die bisherigen Ergebnisse und über fernere Aufgaben zur Physik der deutschen Meere”, Wissenshaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen, Neue Folge, 1 (1896): 145—180.

75 B. D. Thomas, T. G. Thompson, and C. L. Utterback, “The electrical conductivity of sea water”, J. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, 9 (1934): 28—35.

in the Danish Ingolf Expedition of 1895 and 1896, developed special burettes and pipettes for use in the titration.76 A problem in the Mohr titration was that silver nitrate is not well suited for a primary standard. As it cannot be dried without decomposition it is not possible to prepare a silver nitrate solution of known strength by dissolving a weighed quantity of crystals in a given volume of water. The usual procedure was, therefore, to prepare a solution of approximately the concentration wanted and then standardize this against a reliable standard of known composition, such as potassium chloride. Even the preparation of such a standard might involve problems at that time when highly purified chemicals and chloride-free water could not be taken as a matter of course. 77 To overcome this difficulty with titration, Knudsen prepared sealed tubes of seawater whose salinity had been determined by the more accurate Volhard titration for use during the Ingolf Expedition. This water was then used to standardize the silver nitrate solutions. In this way all chlorinity determinations were referred to one and the same standard, which gave great internal consistency. After the introduction by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) of the Standard Seawater and the publishing of the Hydrographical Tables, 78 the Mohr–Knudsen titration completely dominated salinity determination worldwide for more than half a century.

In 1898, the Commission for Scientific Investigation of the Danish Waters invited Martin Knudsen to design instruments for measuring the temperature and salinity of seawater without collecting water samples or pulling the thermometer out of the water to read it. To measure the temperature Knudsen decided to use an electrolyte because of its great temperature coefficient for electric resistance compared to that of metals. The electrolyte was contained in a small vessel of such a form that it would rapidly assume the temperature of the surroundings. For determination of the salinity, Knudsen measured the resistance (or the conductivity) of the water, using a vessel through which the water could move freely when lowered. The vessel was connected to a Wheatstone bridge on board by means of cables. The salinity was measured during the lowering of the instrument, the temperature during the hauling up. The instrument was calibrated by titration of a water sample and by use of a reversing thermometer, respectively.

When the instruments had been constructed and tried out in the laboratory and aboard ship, a small expedition was arranged with a sailing boat in August 1900. Observations of temperature and salinity were made by means of the new instrumentation at a number of depths at several stations. The new

76 M. Knudsen, “Hydrography”, in The Danish Ingolf Expedition, I (1899): 22—161.

77 F. Culkin and J. Smed, “The history of standard sea water”, Oceanologica Acta, 2 (1979): 355—364.

78 Anon. 1901a. 2. Conférence Internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer réunie à Kristiania 1901. Première partie, Kristiania, 1901, 7, 5.

method worked satisfactorily except that for unknown reasons the reading corresponding to a certain temperature or salinity changed during the expedition, and even on each station, so that the calibration had to be repeated often. A report on the instrumentation and on the hydrographic results of the expedition was published by Knudsen.79 In spite of the calibration difficulties the expedition showed the applicability of the method. The position of the discontinuity layer, so pronounced in Danish waters, was shown very clearly. A disadvantage of the Knudsen instrumentation was its bulkiness which in strong currents caused considerable drift of the cable, thereby making the determination of the depth of the instrument uncertain. In calm weather and with no current however, the method worked well at small depths.

Knudsen continued to work on the problem, as is clear from his reply to a letter from Otto Krümmel of Kiel University in May 1905. 80 Krümmel was at that time writing his famous textbook, Handbuch der Ozeanographie. Ruppin, also at Kiel, had informed Krümmel that Knudsen had continued his investigations on the electrical conductivity of seawater - information Ruppin probably obtained during his participation in the meeting of Hydrographic Assistants, held at Copenhagen in July 1904. 81 Krümmel stressed that he wanted his book to give the newest and best information on this matter and he would especially make a point of giving the absolute values of the resistances (i.e., to give them in the unit Ohm). He knew only of the few values found by Weber and quoted by Karsten. 82 Krümmel stated that such work could easily be carried out at Kiel. However, before starting he wanted to know whether Knudsen had carried on his investigations after 1900 and whether he intended to publish the results in the near future.

Knudsen answered that after 1900, he had not published anything about electric determination of temperature and salinity. He had however, worked on the matter and had now obtained new instruments that made it possible to determine the depth simultaneously with temperature and salinity. This was absolutely necessary, Knudsen stated, as the sole purpose of the method was to determine correctly the transition between the water layers. The new instruments had not yet been tried out, and Knudsen was not able to say

79 14. M. Knudsen, Maaling af Havvandets Temperatur og Saltholdighed ved hjælp af elektrisk Telefonbro. Beretning fra Kommissionen for videnskabelig Undersøgelse af de danske Farvande (1900) 80 Letter, Otto Krümmel to Martin Knudsen, 26 May 1905. Danish State Archives (hereafter DSA), F.27—210, D2.

81 L. G. Sabrou, Report sur la Reunion des Assistants hydrographes à Copenhague a sur les methodes d'analyzing a usage dans les Laboratoires du Conseil international permanent pour l'Exploration de la Mer, Bull. Musée Océanogr. Monaco, 31 (1904).

82 G. Karsten, “Die physikalischen Beobachtungen.”

when he would find time for it. So he asked Krümmel not to wait for further publications. 83 To Krümmel's question about the absolute values of the electric resistance, Knudsen answered that he had made no such determinations, but that they might, of course, be carried out simply by comparing with a known solution.

As mentioned earlier, these measurements were then undertaken at Kiel by Ruppin.

In spite of Knudsen's remarks in his above mentioned letter to Krümmel, he does not seem to have published anything more on the subject. That he was expecting an easy way of determining salinity to be developed is clear, however, from a remark in his paper on salinity determination as an aid in position finding at sea. 84 The fact that determination of salinity was a rather circumstantial matter should not, he argued, stop the study of the method as it might safely be supposed that sufficiently fast and convenient ways of determining the salinity would be developed if the method turned out to be usable.

That Knudsen was still working on the problem during the following years appears from his letter in May 1910 to Dr. Kerp of the Reichs Gesundheitsamt in Berlin. Here Knudsen explained that at present, he was aiming to record the salinity of the bottom water of the Great Belt in order to obtain information about the exchange of water between Kattegat and the Baltic Sea. As Professor Walther Nernst had told him that Kerp was able to record the salinity of fresh water, he asked for particulars of the procedure as he would like to avoid, of course, the preliminary experiments of the resistance vessels, etc., if they had been undertaken already by Kerp. 85 In reply Knudsen received some publications dealing with the measurement and recording of the electrical conductivity of water, together with an invitation to see the instruments in the laboratory. 86 Knudsen did not expect, however, that it would be possible for him to go to Berlin during the year.

Besides, he found the description very clear and easily understandable.87 There is no indication that Knudsen did try to make recordings of the bottom salinity in the Great Belt by means of measurements of the electrical conductivity. He obviously limited the activities to the recording of temperature of

83 Letter, Knudsen to Krümmel, 27 May 1905. DSA F.27—210, D2.

84 M. Knudsen, “Salzgehaltbestimmungen des Oberflächenwassers als Hilfsmittel bei Positionsbestimmungen an Bord”. Publication de circonstance (1907), 38 85 Letter, Knudsen to Dr. Kerp, 30 May 1910. DSA F.27—210, D6.

86 Letter, Prof. Spitta, Head of the Hygienische Laboratorium, Berlin to Knudsen, 4 June 1910. DSA F.27—210, D6.

87 Letter, Knudsen to Prof. Spitta, 8 June 1910. DSA F.27—210, D6.

the bottom water by means of a thermograph placed at the bottom during certain periods in the summer of 1910.88 Some years later, Knudsen's experiments aroused considerable interest in England. After World War I, the British Navy realized that for submarine navigation detailed information about the water layers was important. To discuss this matter, a small conference on submarine oceanography was held on 10 March 1920. 89 Here one of the participants, J. Stanley Gardiner, Director of Fishery Investigations and Scientific Adviser to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, suggested that Knudsen be contacted about his work on the measurement of density by electrical conductivity.

The background for Stanley Gardiner's suggestion is that a few days earlier he had met Knudsen at the first post-war ICES meeting, which was held in London, 2—6 March. 90 At this occasion Knudsen had told Gardiner about his experiments, as is seen from Gardiner’s letter of 12 March: I was very deeply interested in my conversation with you in respect to the utilization of electrical conductivity for determining the salinity etc. of the seawater. It seems to me that it might be of very great use to our British fisheries to the South West and I would like to follow it up and make further experiments. Can you help me by telling me what sort of apparatus you were experimenting with and what results you got? I am practically speaking asking you to let me commence where you left off in your experiments, but you said you would have no objection to my doing so. One can only proceed by experiment so far as apparatus is concerned and I want to get out a design at once so that we can try in the early summer. I shall probably not have any great success to report to you, but it appeals to me scientifically and my experiments should be of use to all even if negative. 91 Knudsen forwarded to Gardiner his old report about the measurement of temperature and salinity by means of electric conductivity. In the covering letter he stated that the methods available, especially with respect to the very important use of pure sinusoidal currents, were much better now, and the compensation for the capacity and the energy loss in the cable could now be done much better. Knudsen would be glad if the method could be worked through in such a way that it might be of real use. He stressed however, that the task was not a very easy one, and he feared that the method might only be of real advantage in waters where temperature and salinity varied sub-

88 Letter, Knudsen to Inspector of Fisheries, F. V. Mortensen, 6 April 1910. DSA F.27-210, D6.

89 M. B. Deacon, “G. Herbert Fowler (1861—1940): the forgotten oceanographer”, Roy. Soc., Notes and Records, 38 (1984): 278.

90 Anon., “Procès-verbaux de la trèizieme réunion du Conseil”, Rapp. P -v. Réun. Com. perm. int. Explor. Mer., 26, no. B (1920).

91 Letter, Stanley Gardiner to Knudsen, 12 March 1920. DSA F.27—210, D12.

stantially. 92 Although Knudsen's report was in Danish, Gardiner felt that he could follow it all right as to the general ideas. 93 However, he would now have it carefully translated so that he and his colleagues could really consider it properly.

There does not seem to have been any communication to Knudsen as to whether Gardiner succeeded in carrying out the planned experiments. In July 1920, however, E. C. Jee of the Fisheries Division of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries forwarded to Knudsen a memorandum on the proceedings of a meeting on methods of salinity determination, held on 5 July 1920. 94 In addition to Jee, the meeting was attended by representatives of the Government Laboratory and the National Physical Laboratory. Here attention was drawn to the possibility of using an electric conductivity method and it was stated that, according to a recent communication from Professor Knudsen of Copenhagen, this method had special application at sea since a large number of observations could be taken concurrently of salinity and temperature during the hauling of the apparatus from the bottom, the observations being recorded in the ship's laboratory. It was suggested to attempt a simplification of Knudsen’s apparatus and to undertake a series of preliminary experiments to determine the accuracy of the method. It was considered possible on a cruise to obtain salinities to, say. 0.05 % within some five minutes after reaching the stratum investigated.

Again, it is not clear what came of these plans. Especially for the Navy’s Submarine Service, however, methods of measuring salinity and density by continuous recording were of importance, and it was agreed that it’s Scientific Research and Experiment Department should do some preliminary work on the design of such instruments.95 When available, the instruments should be tried out on board a submarine which in the meantime had been fitted out for oceangraphic research, with Donald J. Matthews appointed to discuss the results. However, this project was soon given up, as the Navy did not consider the work to be of sufficient use to the Submarine Service. 96 It was not before the late 1940s, when advanced electronics had become available that the development of this type of instrument, designed to obtain profiles of salinity and temperature, gained momentum. A review of a number of papers describing such instruments, published during the years 1948— 1954, was presented by Cox. 97 This development led to the highly sophisticated modern Salinity-Temperature Depth (STD) recorder.

92 Letter, Knudsen to Stanley Gardiner, 17 March 1920. DSA F.27—210. D12.

93 . Letter, Stanley Gardiner to Knudsen, 29 March 1920. DSA F.27—210, D12.

94 Letter, E. C. Jee to Knudsen, 17 July 1920. DSA F.27—210, D12.

95 M. B. Deacon, “G. Herbert Fowler”, 279.

96 Ibid., 282.

97 R. A. Cox, “Essay review. Recent work on the measurement of salinity by electrical means”, J. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, 20 (1955): 306—309.

Finland’s Participation in Early ICES History of Oceanography: Abstracts of the VII International Congress on the History of Oceanography, Kaliningrad September 2003 (pp.89 – 93) Kaliningrad University Press

Jens Smed Hydrographical work in Finland was inaugurated in 1887 by Oscar Nordqvist who in July–August was in charge of an expedition to the Gulf of Bothnia and adjacent waters (Simojoki, 1978, p. 103). A more systematic investigation of the Baltic was started in 1898. In July of that year, the 15th Conference of Scandinavian Naturalists was held at Stockholm. Here the Swedish chemist and hydrographer Otto Pettersson opened a debate about future hydrographical research. In the discussion participated, i. a., Theodor Homen, from Finland, and Martin Knudsen, from Denmark (Anon., 1899a, p. 248). An agreement was obtained between Pettersson, Homen, and Knudsen that they would carry out simultaneous observations in the Baltic four times a year. Finland's part would be observations in the Aland Sea and the Gulf of Bothnia. The investigations started in August 1898, and were repeated in October and December, as well as in April and May 1899 (Simojoki, 1978, p.

104).

Otto Pettersson had wider plans, however, and mainly on his initiative an International Conference for the Exploration of the Sea assembled at Stockholm in June 1899. In view of her contribution to the study of the Baltic, it was natural that Finland should be invited to be represented at the Conference. At that time, however, Finland was not an independent country, but an autonomous grand duchy under Russia. She could therefore not be invited directly, which caused some problems. It was not so that Russia didn’t agree in Finland’s participation in the international work. On the contrary, the Russian government considered it desirable and useful that Finnish institutions took part in the study of the Baltic, and they were enquired as to how far they could participate in the investigations. The inquiry was received so late, however, that it was not possible to react upon it before the Conference. This gave rise to some irritation in Finland, not against the Russians who claimed that the delay was due to a late receipt of the invitation from Stockholm, but against Sweden. The Finns maintained that an independent invitation should have been sent to the Senate of Finland. According to Pettersson, they soon realized however, that this procedure would hold out certain difficulties (Pettersson, 1901).

As the opportunity for Finland to be represented at the Stockholm Conference had been missed, the Meteorological Commission of the Finnish Society of Sciences addressed a letter to the Conference. They reported on the work

already carried out by Finland in the Baltic - work that would be continued, as far as possible in accordance with the rules to be laid down by the Conference, and they expressed their interest in the international work (Anon., 1899b, pp. XLVII—XLIX). The application served its purpose. When the areas to be investigated were allotted to the various countries, the Gulf of Bothnia and the Aland Sea were assigned to Finland (Anon, 1899b, p. 9).

The Senate of Finland approved that Finland should participate in the international cooperation, and it was prepared to pay Finland's part of the expenses of the Central Office to be established. Moreover the Senate was willing to commit Finland to five years of cooperation. This was contrary to Russia, who at that time would bind herself for two years only and refused to contribute to the Central Office, as Nordqvist had been informed at a meeting in St. Petersburg. Here he moreover learned that also the investigation of the Gulf of Finland would be left to the Finns (Homen, 1900). The Russian Czar also approved that Finland built her own research vessel (Pettersson, 1902).

In this context Finland was now considered an autonomous state and was represented as such by Oscar Nordqvist at the 2nd Conference for the Exploration of the Sea at Christiania in May 1901. Nordqvist's relations to the Russian delegate, Nikolai Knipovitsch, were good, as appears from the fact that it was upon Knipovitsch's proposal that Nordqvist was admitted to the presidential Council, on par with the chief delegates of the other countries (Anon., 1901, p. XXI).

Finland was represented also at the constituent meeting of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) at Copenhagen in July 1902 and is, therefore, one of the founding members of the organization. Her delegates were Nordqvist and Homen, Secretary of the Finnish Meteorological Commission. The meeting set up, i. a., a Committee for the Baltic with Nordqvist as its convener. Soon after, he was forced to give up this post, however. On a subject touching upon the Russian policy in Finland he had expressed himself in a way that the Russian administration did not approve.

As a consequence, he was dismissed from office in the autumn of 1902. He had to withdraw from the commissions entrusted to him, including participation in ICES (Jarvi, 1928, pp. 49—51).

On the whole, the Russification of Finland had become stronger when General Nikolai Bobrikov in 1898, was appointed governor–general of the grand duchy. Finland had been given a status as an autonomous state, whereas Bobrikov would make her an ordinary province of the Russian empire. The conflict led to the assassination of Bobrikov in June 1904 (Simojoki, 1978, p.

103). This resulted in even harder conditions in Finland. The leaders of the passive resistance movement, among them Homen, were arrested and exiled. Homen was sentenced to five years of exile at Novgorod in Russia. His conditions there were fairly liberal. He could continue his hydrographic studies, and he sent home detailed instructions for the Finnish expeditions. Nevertheless he felt isolated. He lived like the pixie in the enchanted castle, he wrote to Martin Knudsen (Homen, 1904). On the other hand, the stillness and

the completely undisturbed setting had its advantages, he felt. However, the exile at Novgorod did not last long. Perhaps because of her lack of success in the war against Japan, Russia for some time introduced a more liberal policy in Finland. In any case, Homen was allowed to return home already in February 1905 (Simojoki, 1978, p. 86).

During a few years, Finland now participated in ICES as an autonomous state, and her delegates met much friendliness from those of Russia. In March 1908, however, the Russian government raised objections against Finland being represented by a delegate of her own at the meetings of ICES. It was claimed that because Finland was an inseparable part of the Russian empire, she could not have her own representatives at international meetings. According to the Russian Prime Minister, Stolypin, Finnish civil servants could only be ordered to participate in such meetings in the capacity of experts to support the Russian delegates. The Senate of Finland agreed in the views of the Prime Minister in the case of conferences whose task was to conclude treaties or conventions. They insisted however, that the situation was different when scientists from various countries met to discuss scientific matters.

In that case they did not represent their government, but the scientific research in their country. If the result of the discussions was summarized in resolutions, which sometimes happened, these resolutions did not bind the governments. So the independent participation of Finnish scientists in such meetings did not conflict with the rules which apply to conferences after international laws. Finland therefore must be represented at international meetings about scientific questions without the Finnish delegates at such meetings being subordinate to the Russian delegates, the Senate declared (Anon., 1908).

This declaration had no effect, however. In the autumn of 1909, the Russian ambassador in Copenhagen complained to the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs about Finland being named separately, and not as a part of Russia, in the Council's Procés–Verbaux and other publications. The Ministry referred to an analogue situation, viz. Great Britain and Ireland, who were named “Great Britain (including Ireland)”. The ambassador seemed for the moment to be satisfied with this reference and promised to do his best to smooth the waters at home. He explained that it was not the Russian Foreign Ministry, but the Minister of the Interior who had complained. The General Secretary of ICES, C. F. Drechsel, proposed to Walter Archer, the ICES President, to keep the matters at status quo until further representations might be received from Russia (Drechsel, 1909).

Such renewed representations were made in 1910. Archer agreed with Drechsel that the Bureau could do nothing but accept the Russian views.

There were two problems however, viz. the number of votes, and the amount of contributions. Whereas Russia and Finland hitherto had disposed of a total of 4 votes, they would in the future have two votes only. This change was not likely to be of any importance as it had never been necessary to decide any resolution by a majority of votes. Important was however, the

question about the contributions. It would seriously interfere with the work of the Council if the contribution from Finland would cease.

As pointed out by Malkki (1990, pp. 319—322), von Grimm obviously tried to mediate, but was disavowed by his ministry. So from 1910, the Finnish representatives at ICES were included in the Russian delegation. As a matter of fact ICES had no choice as Russia's membership was at stake. The Russian Foreign Ministry had intimidated that Russia was not likely to renew her membership after 22 July 1910, as she would have to attach great weight to the exploration of her inner waters. However, Russia did stay a member of ICES until the World War, and Finland's status did not change. Both Russia and Finland paid their contributions.

During the war, no full Council meeting could be held. Early in 1918, however, the Bureau considered to invite delegates from the neutral member states to a meeting in Copenhagen. The ICES President, Otto Pettersson, proposed that also Finland should be invited to send representatives if the country could be considered neutral (Pettersson, 1918a). The situation in Finland at that time was rather chaotic. But a month later, Pettersson could give Drechsel the welcome information that the Finnish Hydrographical–Biological Commission still existed, and that Rolf Witting, the director of marine research in Finland, had got better conditions. There was every prospect that Finland would now participate in ICES as an independent state. The Commission should therefore be contacted forthwith about participation in the coming meeting (Pettersson, 1918b).

Drechsel wished to get more information about the political aspect. He approached the Danish Ministry for Foreign Affairs where he was advised that Finland must now be regarded as a recognized independent and also neutral state. As there was a civil war in the country it was, however, not considered opportune to invite representatives to the meeting (Drechsel, 1918a). Pettersson's reaction upon this was that the Finns should be informed about the meeting although it under the circumstances would be difficult to invite the Commission to send delegates. Should, however, any of its members be travelling on the continent at the time of the meeting they would be welcome to attend it (Pettersson, 1918c ). A letter to this effect was sent to the former delegates Witting and J. A. Sandman (Drechsel, 1918b). No member of the Commission attended the meeting, however.

Pettersson was eager that Finland should not be lost for ICES. When he had received Witting's great work about the land upheaval in the region (Witting, 1918), he suggested to Drechsel that Witting should be requested to publish a brief summary in the ICES series Publications de circumstance (Pettersson, 1918d): “Perhaps Knudsen would correspond a little with Witting. We must not lose contact with Finland. Politically, Finland is impossible to have to do with. It is said that when His Excellency Reichenau [German minister at Stockholm] had approached Wallenberg [Swedish Foreign Minister] requesting that Sweden should occupy Finland and throw out the Russians, Wallenberg replied: “Have Your Excellency ever had a porcupine in your pocket? I have, and I will never do it again.” Well we do not ask about the policy. So we

annex Finland to our Council; we “bag the porcupine”. (Translated from Swedish.)

Pettersson followed up his contact with Witting. In June 1919, he informed him about the plans for a full Council Meeting to be held in Copenhagen or London. To this meeting those nations would be asked to send delegates, which actively pertained to the international exploration of the sea. This would probably apply to Finland because of the activities of her Hydrographical–Biological Commission (Pettersson, 1919).

The meeting took place in London in March 1920, where Finland was represented by Witting and T. H. Jarvi, Director of Fisheries. In his opening speech, Otto Pettersson mentioned that the first acts of the Finnish government after Finland had gained her freedom and independence was to reorganize on a broader basis both her Board of Fisheries and the Thalassological Institute.

He then in Swedish added a congratulation to the Finnish colleagues from their Scandinavian kinsmen, especially the Swedes with whom they shared the responsibility for investigating the Baltic Sea (Anon., 1920, pp. 7—8). Finland was again an independent member of ICES. Acknowledgment I am greatly indebted to Dr. Artur Svansson for copies of letters in Swedish archives and for assistance in processing the manuscript.

References Abbreviations used: RAC: Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen UBO: National Library, Oslo. Collection of Manuscripts, No. 48 UBG: Gothenburg University Library. Collection of manuscripts ZStA: DDR zentrales Staatsarchiv, Abteilung Potsdam. (Now in Bundesarchiv, Berlin).

Anon. 1899a. Forhandlingar vid det 15de skandinaviska naturforskarmotet i Stockholm den 7—12 July 1898. Stockholm, 1899 Anon. 1899b. Conférence Internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer, réunie à Stockholm 1899.- Stcckholm, 1899 Anon. 1901. 2. Conférence Internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer réunie à Kristiania 1901. Première partie. - Kristiania, 1901 Anon. 1908. Report of 20 May 1908 by the Senate of Finland, sent by the German embassy in St. Petersburg to the German Reichskanzler.- ZStA Anon. 1920. Report of the 13th Meeting of the Council. - Rapp. P.-v. Reun. Cons. penn. int.

Explor. Mer, XXVI, B Drechsel, C. F. 1909. Letter of 18 November 1909 to the President of ICES, Walter Archer.

RAC, No. 10.649, Box 4 Drechsel, C. F. 1918a. Letter of27 March 1918 to Otto Pettersson. RAC, No. 10.649, Box 16 Drechsel, C. F. 1918b. Letter of 22 April 1918 to Witting and Sandman. RAC, No. 10.649, Box 16 Homen, T. 1900. Letter of 14 July 1900 to Otto Pettersson. UBG

Homen, T. 1904. Letter of 7 December 1904 to Martin Knudsen. RAC, F. 27—210, Box D. 1 Jarvi, T. H. 1928. Oscar FrithiofNordquist. 1858—1925. Rapp. P.-v. Reun. Cons. penn. int.

Explor. Mer, XL VII Malkki, P. 1990. The early membership of Finland in ICES. In W. Lenz and M. Deacon (eds): "Ocean Sciences: Their History and Relation to Man". Deutsche Hydrographische Zeitschrift, Erganzungsheft, Reihe B, Nr. 22.

Pettersson, O. 1901. Letter of 30 January 1901 to FridljofNansen. UBO. Pettersson, O. 1902. Letter of 29 April 1902 to FridtjofNansen. UBO. Pettersson, O. 1918a. Letter of 13 January 1918 to C. F. Drechsel. RAC, No. 10.649, Box 16.

Pettersson, O. 1918b. Letter of 23 February 1918 to C. F. Drechsel. RAC, No. 10.649, Box 16.

Pettersson, O. 1918c. Letter of 30 March 1918 to C. F. Drechsel. RAC, No.10.649,Box 16 Pettersson, O. 1918d. Letter of 30 October 1918 to C. F. Drechsel. RAC, No. 10.649, Box 16 Pettersson, O. 1919. Copy of undated letter to Rolf Witting, appended to letter of 30 June 1919 to C. F. Drechsel. RAC,No. 10.649, Box 16.

Simojoki, H. 1978. The History of Geophysics in Finland 1828—1918. Societas Scientiarum Fennica, Helsinki.

Witting, R. 1918. Hafsytan, geoidytan och landhqjningen utmed Baltiska Hafvet och vid Nordsjon. Fennia, 39 (5). Helsingfors.

Three Russian oceanographers and their relations to colleagues at early ICES History of Oceanography: Abstracts of the VII International Congress on the History of Oceanography Kalininagrad September 2003 (pp. 93 – 98) Kaliningrad University Press Jens Smed Several Russian oceanographers played an important role during the early years of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). In the following, the relations between: S. 0. Makarov, N. M. Knipovitsch, and J. Schokalsky and some of their colleagues at ICES are dealt with.

Makarov Stepan Ossipovitsch Makarov (1849- 1904), Admiral in the Russian Navy, carried out extensive oceanographic investigations (Soloviev, 1968). In 1881 – 1882, he studied the oceanography of the Bosporus, especially the exchange of water between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. With the corvette “Vitiaz” he made an oceanographic cruise around the world during 1886 1889 (Akhmatov, 1926, pp. 97 - 102). In a letter of March 1901 to the Swedish chemist and oceanographer, Otto Pettersson, founder of ICES (Svansson, 2003), he discussed the working up of the data from the cruise. He agreed with Pettersson that it was preferable to indicate the salinity of the water instead of its specific weight because the question of a reference temperature was then avoided. Makarov expressed his regret that there was no international convention about these matters. The mariners, however, always made observations of specific weight, and Makarov was afraid that the data would not be sufficiently accurate when converted to salinity percent. So for this reason he stuck to observations of the specific weight and reduced them to 15° and 17.5°, using as normal the density of fresh water at 4° and 17, 5° respectively. For observations from great depths he gave also the density at the measured temperature compared to the density of fresh water at 4° (Makarov, 1892).

In 1893, Otto Pettersson had finished his working up of the data from F.L. Ekman's expedition in 1877 (Ekman and Pettersson, 1893), and he sent a copy of the paper to Makarov, who, with his letter of thanks, transmitted the graphs from the book, which he was preparing about the results of the “Vitiaz” cruise around the world. When the book had been published (Makarov, 1894a) he sent a copy to Pettersson, thanking him for a communication about his “bathometer”, i.e. water bottle (Makarov, 1894b).

Makarov did not participate in the International Conference for the Exploration of the Sea, held at Stockholm in 1899. However, as the Conference realized that there was a strong need for a revision of various tables used in the hydrographic work, including those of Makarov for reduction of the specific weights, it was natural that Makarov became a member of the committee established by the Conference for directing the revision (Anon., 1899, p. 16).

Makarov lost his life in the battle between the Russian and Japanese navies in 1904.

Knipovitsch Nikolai Mikhailovitsch Knipovitsch (1862- 1939) got his first contacts with the marine investigations in the northwestern Europe when in 1897 - 1898 he visited marine institutions in the Scandinavian countries, Great Britain, and Germany (Stepanjants et al., 1998, pp. 69- 75). Especially, he got close relations to Otto Pettersson.

In this context it may be of interest that Knipovitsch mastered the Swedish language because he had spent his adolescence in Helsinki where his father was a military surgeon at the Russian fortress Sveaborg (Soldatov, 1927, p. 1).

In any case, he appreciated that Otto Pettersson sent him some papers in Swedish. In his letter of thanks he stressed how important it was for him that his investigations would be carried out in accordance with those made by Swedish and Norwegian scientists and after the same methods (Knipovitsch, 1898).

Knipovitsch did not attend the International Conference for the Exploration of the Sea at Stockholm in June 1899, where the basis for ICES was laid; Russia was represented by Oscar von Grimm. Knipovitsch was, however, anxious to follow the plans established at the Conference. So in early July and late September 1900, he investigated the triangle in the Barents Sea which the Conference had allocated to Russia as part of her share of the international programme (Knipovitsch, 1900).

The Stockholm Conference was followed by a conference at Christiania (Oslo) in May 1901. For a long time it was uncertain whether Russia wished to be represented there. In February 1901, however, Knipovitsch could inform Otto Pettersson that funds for the continuation of his investigations in the Murman and Barents seas had been granted for a period of four years (Knipovitsch, 1901a). The Russian government had granted some means for fishery research and other matters of benefit to the fishermen of the northern regions of the country, the so-called pomors (i.e. the inhabitants of the coast) - means to be administered by a Committee (Lajus, 2002). Knipovitsch had then included in his programme the investigations in the Barents Sea allocated to Russia by the Stockholm Conference. So the work would in any case be carried out. At long last, however, the Russian government decided to be represented at the Christiania Conference (Smed, 2003): Knipovitsch was one of the delegates. He reported to the Conference that the work in the Barents Sea allocated to Russia had already been started and would be continued (Knipovitsch, 190lb).

Now Knipovitsch got problems at home. He was a•zoologist by education, originally without much knowledge of oceanography. So he applied to Otto Pettersson for recommendation of an assistant and for information about hydrographical tables (Knipovitsch, 1900). Pettersson sent his own assistant, Augusta Palmquist, who spent three months during the summer of 1901 at the laboratory in Alexandrovsk, where she obviously did a good job (Knipovitsch, 1902). However, the Committee that was in charge of the administration of the investigations wanted results that could be used immediately in the fishery whereas Knipovitsch, like Pettersson, wanted to obtain scientifically valid oceanographic observations as a basis for further research, which might later be of use to the fishermen. So after five years, Knipovitsch had to give up his leadership of the station, which was taken over by his assistant, Leonid Breitfuss (Lajus, 1999, p. 51). In accordance herewith, Knipovitsch informed Otto Pettersson that he no longer was responsible for the management and the practical aspects of the expeditions, but only for the scientific investigations (Knipovitsch, 190lc). However, Knipovitsch continued to represent Russia in ICES as long as his country stayed a member, i.e. up to World War I, and in 1913- 14 he was a member of the organisation's executive body, the Bureau.

Then came the war. The internal disturbances in Russia escalated: in 1917 the October Revolution broke out. During the first turbulent years after the revolution, there was much anxiety among ICES people in Scandinavia about the fate of their Russian colleagues. Fortunately, a Swede, Guido Schneider, who was professor of zoology at the University of Dorpat (Estonia) in February 1921, could inform Otto Pettersson about a number of Russian biologists. The two former delegates to ICES, Kusnetzov and Knipovitsch, were now in service at the bolshevists in St. Petersburg. “The latter was already much exhausted and very weak”, he reported (Schneider, 1921). However, in the autumn of 1921, Knipovitsch, as an expert in fishery matters, visited Helsinki, participating in negotiations with Finland about a fishery convention. From there he wrote to his old friend Martin Knudsen, a Danish delegate to ICES, with whom he had been without any contact since before the war, as Russia for some years had been nearly completely isolated from foreign countries (Knipovitsch, 1921 ).

The Russian revolution in 1917 cut the ties between Russia and ICES, allegedly because the Russian contribution for the year 1914- 15, deposited by the General Secretary of ICES, C. F. Drechsel, in a Russian Bank, had been confiscated by the communist government (Smed, 2003). Knipovitsch however, did his best to get matters right. He should have a good chance of doing this because he had known the communist leader V.I. Uljanov (Lenin) for many years. As a matter of fact, the two families had known each other from the underground movement before the revolution. Knipovitsch was a social democrat and had in the 1880s and 1890s been imprisoned several times (Fridman, 1987, pp. 179- 180). Although he was not a member of the communist party, Lenin had much confidence in him and leaned on him in fishery matters. So when Drechsel, who felt guilty of the loss of the confiscated

money, applied to him for help (Drechsel, 1921) he approached Lenin, stressing how important it was for Russia, or now for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), again becoming a member of ICES. Lenin was positive; however, for political reasons the efforts did not result in membership (Smed, 2003).

Knipovitsch stood well with his colleagues in ICES. In a volume published in honour of Knipovitsch's forty years (1885 - 1925) jubilee as a researcher Drechsel paid tribute to his many years of excellent work in service of ICES: “And most of all, his colleagues have, during the lengthy period of his cooperation with them, learned to appreciate his genial personality, his loyalty, and that generous consideration for the advancement of the work as a whole, without which no international undertaking can ever hope to thrive” (Drechsel, 1927). Also Otto Pettersson contributed an article to the Miscellany (Pettersson, 1927). D'Arcy Thompson, Scottish delegate to ICES, sent congratulations and good wishes at the occasion of the jubilee, which was officially celebrated in Moscow on 26 February 1926. Knipovitsch' fifty years jubilee was also marked by a Miscellany in his honour. D'Arcy Thompson contributed an article on “The Horn of the Narwhal” (Shimkewich, 1935).

Schokalsky Youlii Mikhailovitsch Schokalsky, or Jules de Schokalsky, (1856- 1940) had a background very different from that of Knipovitsch. He was a nobleman with a military charge, viz. as a professor at the Naval Academy of St. Petersburg with rank as an officer of marines. At an early date, he had met or corresponded with several scientists who later played an important role in ICES. As Secretary of the Physical Section of the Imperial Russian Geographical Society, he was one of the Russian delegates at, and a Vice-President of the 6th International Geographical Congress, held in London in 1895. Here he met, i.a., John Murray, Otto Pettersson, and Hugh Robert Mill. He was a member of the small committee who worked out the recommendation about cooperative investigations of the North Sea to which Otto Pettersson repeatedly referred in his efforts to establish ICES (Pettersson, 1895). Especially with Hugh Mill, Schokalsky got a close friendship, and throughout the years they maintained an extensive correspondence “in fluent French or halting English” (Mill, 1951, pp. 54- 55).

Schokalsky attended the 9th International Geographical Congress, held 27 July – 6 August, 1908 at Geneva. In this connection he, with wife and daughter, visited Great Britain. Before that he may have met with John Murray at St. Petersburg. Murray with daughter were on their way through Russia to Japan. In Moscow, just before starting on the trans-Siberian railway, Murray wrote a letter of introduction for Schokalsky to D'Arcy Thompson, who was a professor at the University College, Dundee (Scotland), pointing out that Schokalsky was especially interested in the marine work of the Scottish Fishery Board, of which D'Arcy Thompson was a member, and would much appreciate to have a talk on fishery matters (Murray, 1908). However, although

Schokalsky with family reached Edinburgh they did not find time for visiting Dundee.

Schokalsky participated in the ICES meeting in 1913. An item discussed at this meeting was the organisation of the oceanographic investigations to be carried out in the Atlantic from the warships crossing the ocean to take part in the ceremonies in connection with the opening of the Panama Canal in March 1915 (Smed, 2004). Schokalsky immediately made preparations for Russian participation. He also asked Otto Pettersson, originator of the project, to accelerate as much as possible the diplomatic applications (Schokalsky, 1913), and he requested information from D'Arcy Thompson as to whether Great Britain would participate in the project. With regard to the Council meeting scheduled for September 1914, Schokalsky hoped that if the Russian and British delegates worked together, it would “be possible to obtain more order, and especially I have to obtain that the President will stand for some years only and that this function [will] go round all the nations”. He stressed that he could not agree with the term “hydrography” instead of “oceanography”. Hydrography was a science quite different from oceanography, and the word had for many years had a very distinct meaning, as agreed by all his English friends, such as John Murray and H. R. Mill. The wrong use of the word “was a misunderstanding in Copenhagen of some gentlemen, very good scientists but not geographers at all and very little mariners, and now they wish not to go back only by the reason of “amour proper””. But this should be no reason for continuing such confusion in the scientific literature, he asserted (Schokalsky, 1914). In the middle of June 1914, D'Arcy Thompson was not yet able to answer Schokalsky's question about British participation in the project, being without information from the Admiralty: “our Admiralty is not a body that can be hurried!” (Thompson, 1914). However, as the war broke out in August 1914, there was no Council meeting in September, and no European warships participated in the opening of the Panama Canal.

At Christmas 1916, D'Arcy Thompson received from Schokalsky a postcard showing the hall of the Russian Geographical Society in St. Petersburg (now renamed Petrograd), changed into a hospital (Schokalsky, 1916). In the following years there was not much postal communication between Russia and Western Europe. So when in April 1918, Otto Pettersson received a letter from Schokalsky, it was delivered by a friend of his. He asked for reprints of Pettersson's papers, for use in the Laboratory for Physical Oceanography (Schokalsky, 1918). Obviously Schokalsky was still its Director. But things had changed, as appears from the cancellations in the letterhead: the Ministry of Naval Affairs was no longer “imperial”, and Schokalsky was no longer Lieutenant-General. The October Revolution had made the difference.

Schokalsky's colleagues in the ICES community were concerned about him, an aristocrat, under the new regime. Schokalsky must have realized that and by way of a Swedish cartographer, G. Backhoff, who had worked in Petrograd, which he left in June 1920, in August informed Martin Knudsen that the Schokalsky family were in relatively good health, though somewhat impaired from the past strong winter. The setting in of the warmer season had height-

ened their vitality, and they lived in the hope that they might overcome the next winter which probably would bring even harder trials (Backhoff, 1920).

In spite of all difficulties Schokalsky continued working. In 1922, he, “now being able to correspond”, applied to D'Arcy Thompson for copies of oceanographic literature published during the last ten years because during this period they had been completely cut off from receiving scientific literature. It was important for Schokalsky to have access to this material as he was writing his-book-“Oceanography” (Schokalsky, 1922). Check paper here – a treaty instead of his book?

In July 1923, Schokalsky wrote Martin Knudsen that in August he should attend an International Meteorological Conference. at Utrecht and would like to go via Denmark to visit Knudsen, Ryder (Director of the Danish Meteorological Institute), and ICES. So he requested Knudsen to ask the Danish authorities for permission for him and his daughter to pass through Denmark (Schokalsky, 1923). When he met Knudsen in Copenhagen he inquired about the conditions on which Russia (or now USSR) might again join ICES. Apparently he had no mandate from his government to negotiate the question, however, and nothing came out of his inquiry (Smed, 2003).

In October 1926, Knudsen received a letter from Schokalsky who was then in Paris, representing the Leningrad Academy of Sciences at a meeting. “I took this opportunity to write you freely, because from “there” it is impossible”, he wrote. He reported about the results of his cruises in the Black Sea, i.a. that he had obtained a record-long (119 cm) column of the bottom sediments. He would be glad if Knudsen would inform the Danish Academy of Sciences about the results “because this year the terror is anew much harder, and every support from abroad is very good for us”. He finished by expressing the hope that Knudsen might have had “a good rest during summer. When shall we have - a rest; God knows only. But we have not lost our energy” (Schokalsky, 1926).

It is obvious that Schokalsky must have had a hard time under the new regime. He lost all his properties and became extremely poor. But he retained his post as President of the Russian Geographical Society and was able to carry on his important work on the oceanography of the Black Sea. During his last years, his conditions improved somewhat, and on his 80th birthday in 1936, he was even feted by the Soviet Government and received considerable presents (Mill, 1951, p. 54). He passed away in 1940. The USSR Geographical Society re-issued a selection of his works in three volumes, of which the “Oceanography” was published in 1959.

Acknowledgements I am greatly indebted to Dr. Artur Svansson for copies of many letters in Swedish archives and for continued assistance in processing the manuscript. I thank Dr. Julia Lajus for copy of the manuscript of her contribution to the symposium “100 Years of Science under ICES”, and I thank her and Vera Schwach for copies of letters in Russian and Norwegian archives, respectively.

Russia, USSR, and ICES: For Years A Tricky Problem History of Oceanography: Abstracts of the VII International Congress on the History of Oceanography Kalininagrad September 2003 (pp. 98 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 103) Kaliningrad University Press Jens Smed The application by the Swedish scientists Otto Pettersson, Gustaf Ekman, and August Wijkander to King Oscar II of Sweden in 1897, inviting the King to convene a conference with the purpose of establishing international cooperation on the study of the northern seas, had primarily in view cooperation between Denmark, Great Britain, Norway, and Sweden. It was added, however, that if these nations would join the project others were likely to be interested, and it might then be considered to extend the negotiations to other countries, among them Russia (Pettersson et al., 1897). During the following year, negotiations were extended to Germany and the Netherlands, but apparently not to Russia. Nevertheless also this country was approached when the Swedish Government announced that it intended to issue official invitations to a conference at Stockholm in June 1899 (Douglas, 1899). The approach to Russia may have been made at the suggestion of Otto Pettersson who had been informed that the Russian naturalist Nikolai Knipovitsch wished his investigations in the Murman Sea to be coordinated with the Swedish and Norwegian work (Knipovitsch, 1898).

Russia did accept the invitation and was represented at the Stockholm Conference by Inspector of Fisheries Oscar von Grimm. Problems arose, however, when the participating countries were inquired by the Swedish Government as to whether they could accept the resolutions passed by the Conference. In Russia, the matter belonged under the Minister of Agriculture, Yermolov, who had passed it on to a commission for closer study. In this commission the minister of finance, Vine, was not represented however, because he found that Russia already for several years had undertaken marine investigations on its own and was spending considerable amounts on them. So he for his part could not see the use of spending additional means on the planned international Central Bureau (Gyldenstolpe, 1900a).

In December 1900, the Swedish/Norwegian representative at St. Petersburg, A. Gyldenstolpe, took up the matter with Yermolov, stressing the importance, which the Swedish Government attached to Russia's participation in the cooperation. According to Yermolov, a decision had not yet been made; but there would in no case be money available for 1901. However, this did not necessarily prevent Russia from being represented at the forthcoming meeting, planned to take place at Christiania in October 1900, and now adjourned because of the illness of the German chief delegate, Walther Herwig. It then

appeared that Yermolov suspected Herwig's illness to be a â&#x20AC;&#x153;diplomaticâ&#x20AC;? one: Germany had agreed in cooperation on the condition that the other countries also would participate, and Yermolov had heard rumours that Germany now was seeking a pretext for a postponement of the further discussions of the project, hoping that circumstances might allow her to withdraw (Gyldenstolpe, 1900b). In view of the somewhat peculiar formulation of the German reasons for requesting an adjournment of the meeting it is understandable that such rumours might arise (Smed, 2004). Fortunately, the rumours were false, and the Russian Government was informed that both Germany and Great Britain now had accepted to participate (Gyldenstolpe, 1901a). In February 1901, Knipovitsch could then write Otto Pettersson that the necessary amount of money for the continuation of his investigations in the Murman and Barents seas had been granted for 4 years, and that he hoped to be able to attend the Christiania Meeting (Knipovitsch, 1901a).

In March 1901, the Swedish/Norwegian representative at St. Petersburg could at long last report that Russia intended to be represented at Christiania (Gyldenstolpe,1901b). Her delegates were von Grimm and Knipovitsch. On the Conference, the latter reported that the investigations in the Barents Sea allotted to Russia by the Stockholm Conference were nearly identical with part of the programme already carried out there under his direction. So this work would in any case be undertaken (Knipovitsch, 1901b). Whether Russia would contribute to the planned Central Bureau was, however, still an open question.

The resolutions passed at Christiania with regard to the hydrographical programme were practically the same as those from the Stockholm Conference whereas the programme for the biological work was considerably more detailed. The recommendations for the establishment of a permanent international Council with a Central Bureau were repeated (Anon., 1901). When the governments represented at the Conference were approached by the Swedish/Norwegian Foreign Minister (Lagerheim, 1901) as to whether they could endorse the resolutions, the answers were generally in the affirmative. The answer from Russia dragged on, however. This made Otto Pettersson suggest to C.F. Drechsel, one of the Danish delegates to the Conferences that he should try to influence the Russian Government through the Danish court.

This might be possible because the Russian Empress Dowager, Maria Fedorovna, was the former Danish Princess Dagmar, a daughter of King Christian IX (Penersson, 1901). Drechsel accepted the idea, but would not burden the old King with the matter. Instead he approached Prince Valdemar, youngest son of Christian IX (Drechsel, 1901a). The Prince did hand over the relevant information to his sister, then in Denmark, to take with her back (Drechsel, 1901b). It is uncertain whether the royal interference had any influence.

However, in March 1902, the Emperor approved that Russia would contribute to the expenses of the Central Bureau of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), to be established in Copenhagen in 1902 (Gyldenstolpe, 1902). The approval covered a period of two years only, but

was renewed, so that Russia agreed to stay a member of the organization for the stipulated 5-years-period.

For some years the organization was now prolonged for a year at a time. Several times Russia's participation was uncertain. In the end, however, she stayed a member of ICES until the First World War. For the year 1914/15 Russia's payment of the contribution, 14 000 roubles, was somewhat delayed.

However, thanks to the good offices of Knipovitsch, now a member of the ICES Bureau, the amount was paid to the General Secretary when he visited St. Petersburg in 1915. At the advice of the local Danish legation Drechsel deposited the money in the well-reputed Azov-Don Bank. The reason for not transferring the money to Denmark was that the rate of exchange was low at the time. Then the political changes in Russia began. Otto Pettersson, now President of ICES, became somewhat nervous with regard to the outstanding account, but felt relieved by reminding himself that “in the world of banks deposits are sacrosanct” (Pettersson, 1917). Drechsel supported him by referring to the fact that the money was under the protection of the Danish legation. But the new Russian government got a short life, being swept out by the October Revolution. The new regime confiscated the finance houses, including the Azov-Don Bank. Drechsel, who to some degree felt guilty of the Joss of the money because he was responsible for its depositing, applied to Knipovitsch for help (Drechsel, 1921).

Knipovitsch did try to assist. But he stressed that he did not belong to the communist party and that he had nothing to do with administrative matters.

The only thing he could do, and what he had now done, was to write directly to V.I. Uljanov (Lenin), whom he had known personally for many years.

Knipovitsch had pointed out, i.a., that to his mind Russia should again participate in the activities of ICES as soon as the political situation made this possible. He argued that membership of ICES “was necessary for the study of the problems of oceanology, general hydrobiology of the seas, biology of the commercial sea animals, safeguarding the natural riches of the waters” (Knipovitsch, 1921). Lenin informed the Russian Academy of Sciences that Knipovitsch's document should be treated with all confidence and his proposal be accepted immediately (Lebedkina, 1970, p. 45). Consequently the Government asked Knipovitsch to take over the negotiations about Russian participation in the activities of ICES. In order to prepare the ground Knipovitsch wrote a private letter to Drechsel in which he pointed out that two questions were involved: the money deposited in the Azov-Don Bank, and Russia's participation in ICES. He stressed that his Government was prepared to repay the money. The difficulty was, he claimed, that Russia had received no invitation to re-enter ICES. From his recent conversations in Moscow he could assure that such invitation would be favourably received. It would be in the interest of both ICES and the development of marine research in Russia that the obstacles were removed. He expressed the hope that the ICES Bureau could and would take steps to do this (Knipovitsch, 1922). Drechsel, of course, was not entitled to take any decision in this matter without consulting his colleagues in the Bureau. So he sent provisional

answer (Drechsel, 1922a), which was held in such terms that Knipovitsch with some reason might interpret the letter as being positive- which he did.

Drechsel was anxious that Russia should again become a member. In his letter to the President of ICES, Henry Maurice, about the matter he expressed the view that as Russia had never formally withdrawn from the Council, she ought to be readmitted without further formalities, like Belgium and other countries, if she repaid the lest money and undertook to pay the ordinary annual contributions. On the other hand Drechsel was aware that the political situation in Russia made it very doubtful whether the participating countries would accept Russian membership. So it might be necessary to have the question of Russia's re-entry circulated to the various governments. This would require an application from Russia for readmission to the Council. But then she was not treated like the other countries, which had not withdrawn, Drechsel argued, and from Knipovitsch's letter he foresaw that this would give rise to difficulties. Under these circumstances it might be preferable to answer Knipovitsch in a way that kept the question of Russia's readmission in abeyance, thus gaining time to see how Russian politics would develop (Drechsel, l922b).

Maurice answered, after unofficially having consulted the British Foreign Office, that payment of the lost amount of money must not be mixed up with the question of renewed participation. If Russia wished to participate in the work of the Council, her Government should apply formally to the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, requesting it to ascertain whether a proposal on the part of Russia to join the International Council would be favourably entertained by the other participating countries. He added that he, personally, did not think that the Soviet Union could be regarded as “standing in the shoes of the late Russian Government, and therefore entitled to claim re-entry as a matter of course” (Maurice, 1912). Based upon the views expressed by Maurice, Drechsel drafted a reply which, after some modification by the Director of the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was sent to Knipovitsch (Drechsel, 1922c).

Although Knipovitsch did not answer Drechsel's letter, he was still highly interested in getting Russia affiliated to ICES. This appears from his letter to Martin Knudsen where he stated that it was important for him, and not only for him, to know whether ICES had any connection with what he called “the English Research Council”. If so, Knipovitsch deemed that it would not be possible for Russia to participate in ICES in a near future, though the Russian hydrographers and marine biologists considered such participation as exceedingly desirable. Knipovitsch furthermore wanted to know whether Germany had re-entered ICES (Knipovitsch, 1925). Knudsen could reassure Knipovitsch that the two organizations, the International Research Council (IRC) and ICES, were virtually independent of each other. The only connection was that one of the Unions of IRC had an Oceanography Section of which the President of ICES was one of the vice-presidents. With regard to Germany, Knudsen explained that she had not yet re-entered ICES, but would probably do so before long. Concerning the question of Russia's affiliation to ICES

Knudsen recommended that Knipovitsch unofficially approached Otto Pettersson, and perhaps also Johan Hjort, both of them members of the ICES Bureau. Personally he would be happy to see Knipovitsch within the ICES circle; again (Knudsen, 1925).

As the years passed, without ICES receiving any information about the disputed money, Drechsel found the situation increasingly disagreeable, both for the relations of ICES with Russia and the Russian institutions, and for him personally. So he once more approached Knipovitsch for help (Drechsel, 1926a). Knipovitsch referred to their earlier correspondence and pointed to the circumstance that according to Drechsel Russia, in order to re-enter ICES, should have applied to the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This had been impossible because at that time there was no diplomatic relations between Denmark and Russia (USSR). When later such relations had been established, Knipovitsch had made several attempts to get negotiations started, but in vain. According to Knipovitsch, the main hindrance was that Germany had not been accepted in ICES. He maintained that purely political circumstances, not the interest of marine research, had been decisive for ICES. However, he still wanted to see a happy issue of the situation, which was unpleasant to both parts, and he had again been authorized by his Government to negotiate the matter, based upon the understanding that the confiscated amount would be paid on the condition that USSR might re-enter ICES. He did not omit to point out that his Government considered the repayment to ICES an exception made because of the great importance of this international scientific organization. He suggested that Drechsel might privately approach the delegates of various ICES member countries to find out whether USSR's reentry into ICES would meet with any hindrance (Knipovitsch, 1926a).

Drechsel still considered it necessary to keep separated the two items involved, viz. repayment of the 14 000 Roubles, and readmission of Russia to ICES. The governments participating in ICES would not understand why the two items should be combined, and for Russia it was much to be preferred to be admitted for purely scientific reasons, Drechsel argued. With regard to Germany's readmission, which Knipovitsch had mentioned as a condition for Russian participation, Drechsel could now unofficially communicate that it was likely to take place in a few months. So his advice to the Russian Government would be to await Germany's readmission, pay the 14 000 Roubles, and then approach the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs with a demand to be readmitted to the Council (Drechsel, 1926b). Knipovitsch asserted, referring to his earlier mentioned letter to Lenin, that personally he agreed completely with Drechsel that the two questions should be dealt with separately.

He was now going to attend a meeting of leaders of Russian fishery laboratories where he would discuss the matter on the basis of Drechsel's advice (Knipovitsch, 1926b).

Obviously, Knipovitsch did not succeed in persuading his Government. When visiting the ICES Office in 1927, he declared that a condition on the part of his Government was that Russia should be admitted beforehand to the Council.

Then the 14 000 Roubles could be paid together with the annual subscription.

Drechsel, in reporting this to Maurice, added that he, personally, thought nothing could be relied upon with regard to the repayment (Drechsel, 1927a).

Maurice, after consultation with the British Foreign Office, stressed that the question of readmission was not one for the Council to decide. Application should be made via the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the various Governments. With regard to the confiscated money he stated that “the Council would be justified in feeling aggrieved if the fact that the Soviet Government had stolen its money were disregarded”. The British Foreign Office had also agreed “that no sort of bargain could be entered into with the Soviet Government on this question because 1) one does not make conditions with a thief and 2) the Soviet Government do not consider themselves bound by any undertaking they enter into, and that any promise on their part would in any case be valueless”. (Maurice, 1927).

In spite of all the talk about the 14 000 Roubles, the admittance of Russia obviously was no longer a question about money, but a purely political matter. So even a compromise suggested by Knipovitsch that the 14 000 Roubles be paid to the Council for some research work to be carried out (Drechsel, 1927b) was not accepted. While Otto Pettersson still maintained that as Russia had never formally withdrawn from the Council she might simply declare her re-entry and pay her debt (Pettersson, 1927), Johan Hjort did not think that the other countries would agree that Russia had not withdrawn. A declaration of this nature would raise a multitude of feelings and political opinions; therefore they had to stick to the standpoint held by Maurice (Hjort, 1927).

And so it became: the answer to Knipovitsch was formulated in accordance with the views of Maurice, though in more polite terms (Schoning, 1927).

For Otto Pettersson, the real founder of ICES, Russia's absence from the organization must have been a great disappointment. In 1934, he touched upon the matter in a letter to Knipovitsch, who in his reply essentially repeated his earlier views. It is interesting, however, what he now explained about his letter to Lenin in 1921: Knipovitsch had proposed that USSR should repay the 14 000 Roubles, and that it should again participate in ICES as soon as the political circumstances allowed. Unfortunately, Knipovitsch now stated, because of a sad misunderstanding the Government combined the two proposals in a way that was unacceptable to ICES, viz. that the financial question could be solved when USSR had been accepted by ICES (Knipovitsch, 1934).

One may doubt whether it really was misunderstanding on the part of teh Government!

During the 1930s some interest in membership of ICES was still shown by USSR. Upon request her legation in Copenhagen received copies of the Council's Statutes both in 1931 and 1936, but the applications did not lead to any further negotiations. After the Second World War the political situation in Europe had changed, and the matter was taken up again. At the ICES Statutory Meeting in Paris in 1954, USSR was represented by observers, and in August 1955, the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs received from the USSR Government a verbal note that the Union wished to become a member of ICES (Svenningsen, 1955). All ICES member countries approved USSR's admis-

sion - though originally with some slight reservation from Spain, in case of a negative attitude on the part of USSR towards the application of Spain for membership of the United Nations. At the ICES Statutory Meeting in 1955, the President could then officially announce the admission of USSR (Anon., 1956, p. 16). After a break of forty years, Russia was again a member of the ICES family.

Acknowledgment My sincere thanks are due to Dr. Artur Svansson for copies of a great many letters in Swedish archives and for constant assistance in the processing of the manuscript.

References The list of references may be obtained on application to the writer.

The eel and Mediterranean oceanography: A Danish contribution to ocean science UNESCO Ocean sciences bridging the millennia: A spectrum of historical accounts 2004 Selim Morcos, Jens Smed, and Artur Svansson Abstract The migration of the fully grown but not yet mature eel from the freshwater streams of Europe to the Atlantic Ocean and the entry of the young recently metamorphosed individuals from the ocean back to the streams intrigued scientists for a long time. Their quest to find the migration route and spawning grounds of the eel was spearheaded by Johannes Schmidt who mounted successive eel expeditions in the Atlantic Ocean in the first decades of the 20th century. Early observations in the Mediterranean led Schmidt to explore that sea on R/V Thor in 1908â&#x20AC;&#x201D;1909 and 1910 in search of the eel's spawning grounds. Although it was a disappointment that they did not find what they had hoped for, the Danish scientists turned their disappointment into a real triumph by producing what was probably the first comprehensive scientific description of the Mediterranean. Nielsen's treatise on the physical oceanography of the Mediterranean in fact laid the real basis of today's understanding of this sea's physical processes. Schmidt and his colleagues managed eventually to find the spawning grounds, but they were located in 1913 - in the Sargasso Sea. The paper discusses the quest for the eels' routes and the contributions of the Danish scientists Johannes Schmidt and Jens Nikolai. Nielsen as well as that of their compatriot, the brewer Jacob Christian Jacobsen, who financed their expeditions and research through his Carlsberg Foundation.

Key words: eel migration, Mediterranean oceanography, research vessels, Sargasso Sea Introduction In a way, one might say that the present knowledge of the basic physical oceanography of the Mediterranean is owed indirectly to a partly freshwater fish, the eel (a diadromous fish that migrates freely between fresh and marine waters). (See Figure 1.) This article recounts a remarkable story of how biologists and oceanographers teamed together (see Figure 2) to solve one of the most mysterious problems that puzzled the scientists who were working

during the first decades of the 20th century 98. In addition, the story relates to us the legacy of two Danes: (i) the fishery biologist/oceanographer Johannes Schmidt and his perseverance in following the routes of the elusive eel and (ii) Jacob Christian Jacobsen, an industrialist who made a fortune in the brewery industry and then, enthusiastic about science, spent much of it generously on research. This support was provided through his creation: the Carlsberg Foundation, the management of which he entrusted to the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters. Jacobsen died in 1887 99.

Figure 1. The European eel (Anguilla vulgaris Turton). According to Lagler et al. (1977), it is now classified as: Anguilla anguilla Linnaeus. (Source of image: NOAA, USA)

The Stockholm (1899) and Christiania (1901) conferences100 laid emphasis on the fact that food fishes and other organisms of the sea were dependent on the chemical and physical conditions and their changes. However, in the beginning, it seemed as if the new

98

In fact, the eel was for centuries one of the “deepest mysteries” of the sea. Grown (but not yet mature) eels inhabit freshwater streams and lakes, but upon reaching sexual maturity in the autumn, they disappear into the sea to spawn. On the other hand, the eel has long been known to occur in coastal waters from which they enter into freshwater in the spring. It was not known from exactly where in the sea they came. Pliny and Aristotle believed they arose from the mud in the bottom of the sea (Sverdrup et al., 1942). Only through the work of Schmidt and his colleagues is it now known that, after leaving the fresh waters of Europe, the adult eels congregate to the southeast of the Bermuda Islands to spawn, after a journey of about 5000 kilometres. From there the larvae are swept back by the eastward currents. After three years, they reach European waters, as young recently metamorphosed eels, where they enter freshwater bodies. There they remain for five to eight years before returning to the sea.

99

Carlsberg Foundation: Jacob Christian Jacobsen established “an institution for the encouragement of scientific and scholarly subjects, which shall have the name of the Carlsberg Foundation”, according to the charter and deed of gift, dated 25 September 1876. This Foundation is thus the oldest among the great wave of similar prestigious foundations, such as Carl Zeiss (1889), Nobel (1900), Rockefeller (1913), Ford (1936), etc. The first donation of the foundation was a capital sum of one million Kroner, secured by a mortgage on the Carlsberg property where his brewery and residence were located. Jacobsen's vision, which was extraordinary at this time, led to the establishment of a national institution. He wanted an independent foundation in which the regard for commercial interests or for heirs and descendents would be subordinated to the priority of quality management overseeing research. To accomplish this, he asked the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters to take charge of the new institution, managing the foundation through a board of directors selected from its own ranks. In 1910, Joharmes Schmidt was appointed as the second director of the Carlsberg Laboratory's physiology department. This shifted the emphasis from yeast research (which was related to the beer industry and thus had been selected by the first director Emil Christian Hansen, from 1879) to Schmidt's wide-ranging interest in botany, bacteriology, zoology, genetics and oceanography. According to a Carlsberg report, his achievements in marine biology were not the least of his triumphs (Glamann, 2002).

100 See article by]. Smed on the founding of ICES, p. 139 in this volume (Smed, 2004).

knowledge and understanding, obtained on these matters, fell short of expectations and, according to some, could hardly be said to stand in reasonable proportion to the enormous amount of work and expenditure employed in the investigation. It was Dr. Schmidt 101 who put this criticism to shame; his first cruise 102 already demonstrated, in 1903, that the most important food fish of Iceland, the Cod, only spawned on the south coast where the water has a sufficiently high temperature. Only here were the eggs and tiny fry of the Cod found.

In this way, a distinct and clear connection was proved between the biology of the Cod and the physical, oceanographical conditions.

(Martin Knudsen, 1934)

Figure 2. ICES activities brought biologists and hydrographers to work together. Shown here are fisheries biologist Anders Cornelius Johansen (left) and hydrographer Jens Nicolai Nielsen in the Thor's laboratory in 1902. (Photo from Danish fisheries document.)

In pursuit of the eel On his second cruise with the Thor, in 1904, the first eel larva was found to the west of the Faroes. This led to the eel investigations, which later, more than anything else, made Schmidt's name famous.

(Martin Knudsen, 1934).

The discovery of the fully grown larva of the freshwater eel (Anguilla vulgaris Turton) 103 in the Atlantic led to a series of expedition headed by Schmidt to investigate the biology and wanderings of the European and American eels.

Among the many expeditions of Schmidt, several were dedicated to eel inves-

101 Johannes Schmidt.

102 On Danish R/V Thor.

103 According to Lagler et al. (1977), it is now classified as: Anguilla anguilla Linnaeus.

tigations and were funded by the State but mostly by the Carlsberg Foundation and other private contributors.

Before Schmidt's discovery in 1904, Italian investigators had found grown eel larvae in the Mediterranean; but there was still no evidence that it spawned outside that sea. Year after year, Schmidt continued his expeditions in search of the larvae, fries and their routes. The 1905—1906 cruises made it clear that the northern and western European eels came from the Atlantic. The 1908—1910 Thor expeditions to the Mediterranean - funded by the Carlsberg Foundation and other private sources - showed that the eel did not spawn at all in the Mediterranean, but that the larvae found there came in from the Atlantic through the Strait of Gibraltar. The 1911—1915 expeditions showed that the eel larvae increase in quantity and decrease in size (age) from east to west in the Atlantic Ocean, thus giving rise to a conclusion that the spawning grounds lay in the western part of the Atlantic (where the Sargasso Sea occupies a vast area extending between the West Indies and the Azores; see Figure 3). Schmidt did eventually find the spawning ground, actually in the Sargasso Sea in 1913, from research on the R/V Margrethe just before she sank).

Figure 3. The map on the right shows the European freshwater eel's and its breeding place in the Sargasso Sea and its path of migration north eastward to the coasts where the still translucent elvers (transformed eel larvae) rise into the fresh water of Europe and Africa (i.e. at all coasts marked by a heavy black line}. The smallest eel larvae were found in the hatched area of the Sargasso Sea, and then became progressively larger as they spread out and migrated to Europe. Along the way, the numbers indicate the outer limits for eel larvae of 10, 15, 25, and 45 millimetres in length; 'ul' indicates the limit for 'untransformed' eel larvae (the limit between eel larvae and elvers). The map on the left shows the American freshwater eel's breeding place, also in the southern part of the Sargasso Sea, and the eels' dispersion to America's east coasts. The larvae and elvers spread from the densely dotted area to all coasts and islands that are marked in dark (heavy) black line. The numbers indicate the outer limits for larvae of 15 and 30 millimetres in length; 'ul' indicates the limit for untransformed larvae. The American eel has been found from Greenland to Guyana. Source: Caption and maps adapted from Plate 23 of Winge and Tåning 1947.

Starting in 1920, two ships successively named Dana then carried out the consolidating research. The conclusion was reached through the 1920—1922 expeditions, which proved that all the eels of Europe spawn only within a

restricted area of the western Atlantic in the vicinity of the West Indies (i.e. within the Sargasso Sea). From there, in the course of two to three years, the larvae drift towards the coast of Europe. Furthermore, it was proved that the American eel (Anguilla rostrata Lesueur) has its spawning centre near that of the European eel. The larvae of the American eel migrate for a period in the same currents as the European eel. However, because their larval stage lasts only one year (as contrasted to the European eel whose larval period is three years) they separate from the European larvae just as the current brings them near the North American coast. This gives an explanation of the fact that the fry of the two species (spreading out from almost the same place) are distributed to different sides of the Atlantic. (The two preceding paragraphs are adapted from Jespersen and TĂĽning, 1934).

Thor investigation in the Mediterranean Sea J. Schmidt, scientific leader on the Danish research vessel Thor when the first eel larva was found in 1904, realized that only by finding smaller and smaller larvae could he trace the spawning grounds. Eight years earlier, two Italians had found larvae in the Strait of Messina. They were smaller than those found in the Atlantic but not small enough to prove that the Mediterranean was the spawning ground. Nevertheless, it was considered worth investigating and a Danish expedition on the Thor was carried out in the Mediterranean Sea (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Danish R/V Thor. Photo from a Danish fisheries document.

Although they never found any small larvae, it should be pointed out that Schmidt and his co-workers took advantage of the possibilities afforded by the cruise (1908â&#x20AC;&#x201D;1909) to conduct basic marine zoological and hydrographic observations. The latter work was carried out by Schmidt himself in the absence (at that time) of the hydrographer Nielsen. In the summer of 1910, hoping this season would be more favourable, they returned - but in vain. On that cruise, however, Nielsen was present to complete his renowned pioneering hydrographic work, which he published in 1912. The previously mentioned basic marine zoological observations led to a remarkable result: the Mediterranean is a poor sea. The plankton biomass was shown to decrease steadily from an Atlantic high value in the west to nearly nil in the east. Nu-

trient determinations made on board Dana II (see Figure 5) in 1930 confirmed the biological paucity of the Mediterranean Sea.

a

b

Figure 5. a) Danish R/V Dana (II). Photo from Danish fisheries document. b) Relaxing on board the Thor. Left to right: Ove Paulsen (planktologist), Johannes Schmidt (fisheries biologist), and Jens N. Nielsen (physical oceanographer). Photo from Winge and Tåning (eds.)

1947, Plate 6.

Nielsen became interested in the Mediterranean when he received the hydrographic data of the Thor winter cruise of 1908—1909. He wrote a short note in the Danish Geografisk Tidsskrift (Nielsen, 1910), which induced him to become a member of the Thor summer expedition in 1910 104. His work on the Hydrography of the Mediterranean and Adjacent Waters (Nielsen, 1912) is the result of exact observations105. According to Nielsen, a tenth of a degree in the Mediterranean has about the same importance in indicating changes as a whole degree has in the Atlantic. Nielsen was an independent and original personality. He was best known to those who sailed with him, an understanding and honest friend and a highly gifted scientist. Nielsen died on 5 August 1932.

(Adapted from Ove Paulsen's obituary on Nielsen, 1932).

Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of Jacqueline CarpineLancre, who provided valuable information and counsel in the preparation of this text. They valued the assistance of Michael Tran for his ingenuity and resourcefulness in finding illustrations, and appreciated the skilful editing of Gary Wright.

(This is included as an endnote but I cannot find it in the original text – maybe it can be left out?) 7. As is mentioned elsewhere in this volume, CIESM stands for the name in French of the Commission Internationale pour l'Exploration Scientifique de la Mer Méditerranée. The Commission no longer employs the English acronym (ICSEM), which was in use earlier and still can be found in various documents.

104 One of the earliest publications on the Thor results was Nielsen's paper, published in French in the Bulletin of the Oceanographic Institute of Monaco (Nielsen, 1911).

105 See mention of this paper in the article by Mira Zore-Armanda, page 179 in this volume (Zore-Armanda, 2004).

References Carpenter, W. B. 1872. Report on scientific research carried out during the months of August, September and October 1871, in H. M. Surveying Ship. Shearwater. Proc. Roy. Soc., 20:535— 644.

Carpenter, W. B. and Jeffreys, J. G. 1871. Report on deep-sea researches carried out during the months of July, August and September 1870, in H. M. Surveying Ship Porcupine. Proc.

Roy. Soc., 19:146—221.

Carpine, C. 2002. La pratique de l'océanographie au temps du Prince Albert 1er, 331 pp.

Musée Océanographique, Monaco. In French.

Glamann, K. 2002. The Carlsberg Foundation, The Early Years, 207 pp. The Carlsberg Foundation, Copenhagen.

Jespersen, P. and Tåning, A. V. 1934. Foreword. In Introduction to the reports from the Carlsberg Foundations Oceanographical Expedition around the world 1928—30, Dana Report No. 1, 7-16, The Carlsberg Foundation, Copenhagen.

Knudsen, M. 1934. In Memoriam, Johannes Schmidt. In Introduction to the reports from the Carlsberg Foundation's Oceanographical Expedition around the world 1928—30, Dana Report No. 1, 3-5, The Carlsberg Foundation, Copenhagen.

Lagler, K. F. et al. 1977. Ichthyology, 506 pp. John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA. Nielsen, J. N. 1910. De hydrografiske Undersøgelser (hydrographical investigations). In Schmidt, J., Nielsen, J. N., and Jacobsen, J. P., Fra den Danske Oceanografiske Expedition til Middelhavet i Vinteren 1908—09 (on the Danish oceanographic expedition to the Mediterranean in the winter of 1908—09), Geografisk Tidsskrift, 1909—1910, 20(6):245— 251, Copenhagen. (In Danish) Nielsen, J. N. 1911. Sur les températures des grandes profondeurs particulièrement dans la Méditerranée (note préliminaire) (on deep sea temperatures, especially in the Mediterranean, preliminary paper). Bulletin de l'Institut océanographique, Monaco, 209:11 p., 2 fig. (In French.)

Nielsen,J. N. 1912. Hydrography of the Mediterranean and Adjacent Waters. Report on the Danish Oceanographical Expeditions, 1908—1910, to the Mediterranean and Adjacent Seas, 1:77—191, with plates II-XI, Copenhagen. Paulsen, O. (1932) J.N. Nielsen (1877— 1932).]ournal du Conseil, Copenhagen, Denmark, 7(3):339—342.

Smed, J. 2004. The founding of ICES - prelude, personalities and politics. Stockholm (1899); Christiania (1901); Copenhagen (1902). In Ocean Sciences Bridging the Millennia, A spectrum of historical accounts, Proceedings of ICHO VI, Qingdao, China, 1998, eds. S. Morcos et al.,pp.139-162, UNESCO (Paris) and China Ocean Press, Beijing.

Sverdrup, H. U., Johnson, M. W., and Fleming, R. H. 1942. The Oceans: their Physics, Chemistry, and General Biology, 1087 pp., Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, USA. Winge, Ø. and Tånng, Å. V. (eds) 1947. Naturforskeren Johannes Schmidt (natural scientist Johannes Schmidt; his life and expeditions narrated by friends and colleagues), 187 pp., Gyldendalske Boghandel Nordisk Forlag, Copenhagen. (In Danish.)

Zore-Armanda, M. 2004. Development of Mediterranean physical oceanography. An overview. In Ocean Sciences Bridging the Millennia, A spectrum of historical accounts, Proceedings of ICHO VI, Qingdao, China, 1998, eds S. Morcos et al., pp. 179-195, UNESCO (Paris) and China Ocean Press, Beijing.

Further reading Boetius,J. and Harding, E.F. 1985. A re-examination of Johannes Schmidt's Atlantic eel investigations. Dana, 4 [Special issue on Atlantic Anguilla]:129—162, Danish Institute for Fisheries and Marine Research, Charlottenlund, Denmark.

Drechsel, C.F. (1914) Les expeditions océanographiques danoises dans la Méditerranée. In IXe Congrès international de zoologie tenu à Monaco du 25 au 30 mars 1913, 123—129, Impr. Oberthür, Rennes, France. (In French) Wolff, T. 1967. Around the world in search of eels. In Danish Expeditions on the Seven Seas, 151—198, Rhodos, International Science and Art Publishers, Copenhagen.

The founding of ICES - prelude, personalities, and politics: Stockholm (1899); Christiania (1901); Copenhagen (1902) UNESCO Ocean sciences bridging the millennia: A spectrum of historical accounts 2004 Jens Smed Abstract In the late nineteenth century, the idea developed that there was a connection between the physical and chemical conditions in the sea and the occurrence of fish. This led Otto Pettersson to organize cooperative synoptic investigations of the northern North Sea and parts of the Baltic in 1893â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 1894. In response to a need for an extension of these investigations, international conferences were held at Stockholm in 1899 and at Christiania in 1901, where a programme was set up for synoptic hydrographic and biological investigations of the northern seas four times a year. Each of the cooperating countries were to be responsible for the exploration of a certain area. Outlines of the activities of a central bureau at Copenhagen and a central laboratory at Christiania were agreed upon, and the corner stones were laid for the founding, in 1902, of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) in Copenhagen.

Introduction: the motivation During the nineteenth century, the idea of a connection between the conditions in the sea and the occurrence of fish developed (Smed and Ramster, 2002). With this in mind Scandinavian scientists had, in the 1870s and 1880s, undertaken more or less scattered hydrographical and biological investigations of the sea surrounding their countries. In order to obtain a synoptic view of the situation, the Swedish chemist Otto Pettersson (see Figure 1 on p.

18 in article by Svansson, this volume) organized an investigation in February 1890 of the Skagerrak and the northern part of the Kattegat using five Swedish vessels. (See article by Svansson, starting on p. 17, this volume.) The observations were carried out in a few days and thus a quasi-synoptic view was obtained (Pettersson and Ekman, 1891).

It was important to get information about the seasonal and year-to-year variation of the hydrographical situation. The observations therefore had to be repeated regularly. Furthermore, Pettersson realized that the observations should be extended to the northern North Sea. This increase of work would require cooperation with other countries. Hence, at the Meeting of Scandinavian Naturalists at Copenhagen in 1892, Pettersson gave a lecture on the general characteristics of the North Sea and the Baltic (Pettersson, 1892a)

and initiated a discussion about the advantages that might be obtained from hydrographic investigations of these seas by cooperation - according to a common plan - between Denmark, Norway, and Sweden (Pettersson, 1892b).

On the proposal of the Meeting, Pettersson and his colleague Gustaf Ekman set up a plan for the cooperation (Ekman and Pettersson, 1892). In addition, Scotland and Germany joined the project, which meant that the observations could be extended to also cover a region north of Scotland as well as the southern Baltic. The main investigation took place in May, August, and November 1893 and February 1894 (Smed, 1990).The cooperation was successful and was continued to some extent after the year covered by the plan.

Search for permanent cooperation: special fishery interest Pettersson felt that there was now a need for a more permanent arrangement. He proposed a scheme for an international hydrographic survey of the North Atlantic, the North Sea, and the Baltic, based on the experience gained from the cooperative investigations in 1893—1894. He expressed the hope that this experience would: lead to an international agreement about the division of labour, and satisfactorily settle the question of methods and measures to be adopted in the course of future hydrographic survey. (Pettersson, 1894) Pettersson presented his scheme at the International Geographical Congress held in London in 1895. The Congress passed a resolution to the effect that: the Congress recognizes the scientific and economic importance of the results of recent research in the Baltic, the North Sea and the North Atlantic, especially with regard to fishing interests, and records its opinion that the survey of these areas should be continued and extended by cooperation of the different nationalities concerned on the lines of the scheme presented to the Congress by Prof. Pettersson'.

(Anon., 1895) In Sweden, Pettersson had received some support for his plans from the fishermen's organizations. However, he had also met with strong opposition. The influential fishery biologist and politician A. V Ljungman argued that such investigations had nothing to do with fishery questions. Pettersson could now refer to the above resolution, and he did not abstain from stressing that the resolution's terms, referring to the interest of the fisheries in such investigations, had not been proposed by him, but were inserted at the request of two of the greatest trawler owners at Grimsby, who maintained that it was urgent to investigate the North Sea in the interest of the fisheries. “Sometimes one gets support from unexpected quarters”, he remarked (Pettersson, 1895).

International investigations in northern European waters Pettersson could now go ahead with his plans. Also the Norwegian biologist Johan Hjort, who had been involved in the 1893—1894 joint investigations, was interested in a more permanent cooperation. In 1895 he wrote from

Jena to Otto Pettersson, inviting the latter to take the necessary steps for establishing international investigations. Hjort intimated that a plan might be presented to various countries (such as “England 106, Sweden, Norway, and others”) in the autumn of 1896 (Hjort, 1895). On a visit to Great Britain in 1896, Hjort reported that Sir John Murray, a participant in the British Challenger expedition (1872—1876) and the editor of the reports of that expedition, was prepared to start international work if Fridtjof Nansen (see photo at end of this article) would take the lead in Norway and Otto Pettersson would do likewise in Sweden (Hjort, 1896).This was confirmed when John Murray (Figure 1), in the summer of 1897, visited Norway and met with Nansen and Hjort. Murray suggested that Nansen should summon a conference on the matter in Christiania (now Oslo). Otherwise, he would take it upon himself to invite to Edinburgh a number of real experts from the Scandinavian countries, England, Germany, and France to obtain an agreement about methods, instruments etc. The conference should embrace physical as well as biological investigations. It was felt that there was a special need for obtaining uniformity in the plankton observations (Nansen, 1898).

Figure 1. John Murray (Source: NOAA. USA)

Similarly, in Germany an initiative had been taken to organize joint international investigations. On 19 March 1897, Walther Herwig, Friedrich Heincke, and Hermann Henking, all of the Deutscher SeefischereiVerein (German sea fisheries association), met confidentially at Dortmund with Paulus P. C. Hoek (consultant to the Dutch government on scientific questions concerning the

106 “England” was generally used, at least in the Scandinavian countries, synonymously with 'Great Britain'. The same will often be the case in this paper.

fisheries). An agreement about future joint investigations was obtained, and in early May 1897, a draft programme for an international synoptic investigation of the whole North Sea was ready. The first thing would be to establish an international commission for the scientific study of the North Sea with regard to overfishing and related questions. To get this started it was proposed that the German government should invite the countries interested in the North Sea fishery - namely Belgium, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and the Netherlands - to send representatives to an international scientific conference, preferably in Hamburg or Bremen. The conference would set up a commission, which should be charged with the task of preparing a programme for a joint scientific investigation of the North Sea (Herwig, 1899).

The German initiative was, however, overtaken by Sweden. When the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences in 1893 received a grant to be used for hydrographic investigations of the seas surrounding Sweden, it designated Otto Pettersson, member of the Academy, together with Gustaf Ekman and August Wijkander to be in charge of the investigations. The three persons established themselves as the Swedish Hydrographical Commission, apparently with the first two as a sort of executive board (Svansson, 1993). As indicated, for a long time Pettersson had been striving for an extended cooperation in the study of the sea. Therefore, on 19 October 1897, the Commission approached Oscar II (King of Sweden and Norway), suggesting that the Swedish government should propose to the governments of Denmark, England, and Norway that they cooperate with Sweden according to a common plan on the investigation of the hydrographical and biological conditions of the Baltic, North and Norwegian seas in the interest of the sea fisheries.

As background for the application the Commission referred to the experience gained during the international investigations in 1893â&#x20AC;&#x201D;1894 and to the resolution adopted by the International Geographical Congress in 1895. They pointed to the fact that the occurrence of fishes, and especially of the migratory ones, depended upon the movements of the upper layers of the sea and upon the variations of fish food (plankton) in these layers. Therefore, a rational utilization of the fisheries, as well as future legislation for them, must be based on the knowledge about the major movements of these layers and about the nature and quantity of fish food in the layers. So the task of the cooperation would be to study these items in the upper 800â&#x20AC;&#x201D;1000 metres of the sea at all seasons. The area to be investigated should be distributed among the participating countries, so that all nations would establish observation systems in certain parts of their adjacent seas.

The investigations should be continued for at least five years in order to study the year-to-year variations. It was suggested that the respective governments should designate delegates to meet for the preparation of detailed plans. The countries whose accession to the arrangement was considered especially important were Norway, Denmark, and England. Even if only these three countries were to join Sweden, the experience gained during the 1893â&#x20AC;&#x201D;1894 cooperation had shown that essential results could still be obtained. Fur-

thermore, if these countries were to join the project, others would be likely to follow. In that case, the Swedish government might consider whether the negotiations should be extended to the other North Sea countries as well as to Russia and France (Pettersson et al., 1897).

The King requested a statement on the matter from the Academy, which submitted the question to two of its members, viz. Hugo Hildebrand Hildebrandsson and Hjalmar Théel. In their statement they referred to the international cooperation that had taken place since 1872 in meteorology and which was now considered indispensable. They explained that there was the same need for cooperation within oceanography. The Academy gave the two experts’ statement their blessing and transmitted it to the King (Anon., 1897).

In March and April 1898, an enquiry was addressed to the governments of Denmark, England, and Norway as to whether their accession to a definitive plan for cooperation in the investigation of the sea might be expected.

In 1894 and 1896, Pettersson had, in vain, approached the German oceanographer Otto Krümmel, a participant in the 1893—1894 project, about continued cooperation (Smed, 1994). Now the situation had changed. A Swedish agricultural scientist, A. Müller, had paved the way for Pettersson. Müller was interested in the climatological aspect of the project because of its importance to agriculture. He had many influential contacts in Germany. Among these were Georg Neumayer, Head of Deutsche Seewarte (roughly translated as the German naval observatory) at Hamburg, who promised to work for the project (Müller, 1898a). It was also Müller who first informed the Swedish/Norwegian minister in Berlin, Alfred Lagerheim, about the plans (Müller, 1898b). The project was well received. Krümmel informed Pettersson that the Minister of the Imperial Navy, Admiral von Tirpitz, was very interested.

Vessels would be available for regular seasonal observations in the North Sea and perhaps in the Baltic (Krümmel, 1898). Consequently, on Pettersson's suggestion, Germany was also approached by the Swedish government through Lagerheim.

It turned out that Admiral von Tirpitz had understood from Krümmel that the investigations should cover oceanographic observations for use in meteorology only. Fortunately the misunderstanding was caught and corrected by Lagerheim, and von Tirpitz declared that meteorological observations could easily be combined with those to be made in the interest of the fisheries without an increase of expenses (Lagerheirn, 1898). Pettersson was happy to learn about this interest in oceanography from the meteorologists. It was evidently a new attitude from that quarter. The meteorological aspect had not been touched upon in the application to King Oscar II. However, it would certainly be to the benefit of the project, especially from a scientific point of view, that the observations needed for meteorological purposes be added to the programme (Pettersson, 1898a}; so this item was now included in the applications to the governments. In the meantime, Pettersson had been in contact with Paulus Hoek. As mentioned previously, Hoek had been involved earlier in plans for an international study of the North Sea. He could now inform Pettersson that an inquiry about participation in the cooperation to be

established on Swedish initiative was likely to be welcomed by the Dutch government (Pettersson, 1898b). Also, upon the suggestion of Pettersson, the latter country was then approached officially.

The reactions upon the application to the governments about participation in the cooperation were in principle positive from Denmark, Germany, Norway, and the Netherlands. The problem was with England. Hugh Mill, Secretary to the Royal Geographical Society, was aware of this and informed Pettersson about a forthcoming meeting at the Society where Prince Albert I of Monaco would read a paper on his oceanographic work. Mill expected John Murray and John Buchanan to attend the meeting, and the question of international cooperation might come up (Mill, 1898). This made Pettersson suggest to his government that their minister in London, Carl Lewenhaupt, attend the meeting in order to approach the above persons about the planned cooperation (Pettersson, 1898c). Lewenhaupt was only partly successful in this matter. To be sure, the meeting was informed of the plan (Pettersson, 1898d); however, there was no time for discussion of it. Murray was not present, but was known to have approved the plan, and because of his authority on the subject his word was supposed to be decisive (Lewenhaupt, 1898a). Pettersson had also written privately to Lewenhaupt who, in his reply, reported having indicated straight out to Clement Markham, President of the Geographical Society, that Pettersson wanted Murray to lead the project, not the Prince of Monaco (Lewenhaupt, 1898b).

Britain becomes interested A month later, Lewenhaupt met John Murray and got the impression that the British government would agree to being represented at a conference for planning the cooperation (Lewenhaupt, 1898c). The official answer, however, was somewhat disappointing. The British Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, wanted to receive more specific information in advance regarding the scope of the proposed inquiry, as it might appear that a strictly scientific and technical investigation of the physical and biological conditions of the waters was all that was contemplated by the Swedish government.

However valuable such an inquiry would be in itself, it should - in the opinion of the British government - only be conducted as ancillary to the study of what the British government considered the larger purpose, namely â&#x20AC;&#x153;whether any existing methods of fishing are or are not exercising a detrimental effect on the supplies of fish in the waters of the seas in questionâ&#x20AC;?. If this was to be the main object of the proposed research plans, the British government would be willing to participate (Cecil, 1898a).

In England, there were conflicts between trawlers and line-fishermen, the latter maintaining that the use of trawls caused destruction of spawn and thereby entailed a decline in the amount of fish. The British government apparently wanted the planned conference to settle this dispute. In some circles it was perhaps also hoped that the conference might lead to a revision of the limits of territorial waters. The government had forbidden trawling by British ships in the Moray Firth, whereas foreign ships could trawl in the part

of the firth outside the three-mile limit - to the detriment of the British fishermen. These matters had given rise to great discussions in the Parliament and elsewhere, and the Swedish plan to summon a conference had attracted considerable attention in those parts of Great Britain that were especially dependant on the fisheries (Lewenhaupt, 1898d).

Later on, the British government came to the conclusion that the fishing industries of the country were â&#x20AC;&#x153;deeply interested in the result of any inquiry which may be undertaken into the hydrographic conditions prevailing in the seas and oceans which wash the shores of this country and those of the adjacent parts of Europeâ&#x20AC;?. England was therefore interested in participating in the proposed cooperation (Cecil, 1898b). Contrary to the earlier letter from Lord Salisbury, no conditions for cooperation were set forth. The government, however, wanted more information on the precise scope of the proposed inquiry as the matter was intimately connected with fishery questions, which needed an early solution. Lewenhaupt could reassure the British authorities that nothing would hinder the inclusion of a study of the fishing methods in the proposed cooperation; however, an investigation of the physical and biological conditions was a necessary prerequisite (Lewenhaupt, 1898e).

The Stockholm conference is on; Russia is invited After positive notifications from the various countries already mentioned, the Swedish government could now inform them that it intended to issue official invitations to a conference to be held in Stockholm in June 1899 (see Conference poster, Figure 2). A programme for the conference was appended. Attention was drawn to the concern expressed by the British government with regard to the limitations of the subject of the conference. In order to counter this concern, a statement by Otto Pettersson was added which explained the necessity of the purely scientific investigations taking precedence over those dealing with fishing methods and with the legislation concerning them (Douglas, 1899a).

Figure 2. 1899 poster (Source: Swedish Hydrographic Commission/ICES)

It was a little surprising that, at the same time, Russia was also being approached, as apparently there had been no earlier indications of contacts with St. Petersburg on the matter. The approach was probably made at the

suggestion of Otto Pettersson. He had sent some of his papers to the Russian naturalist Nikolai Knipowitsch (see article by J Lajus, p. 127 in this volume) who in September 1898 informed Pettersson about his investigations in the Murman Sea and his planned expedition to the White Sea and neighbouring waters. He explained how important it would be for him to coordinate these investigations with the Swedish and Norwegian work and to use the same methods. He would therefore, if necessary, take the liberty to apply to Otto Pettersson in order to coordinate how the hydrographic work might best be organized (Knipowitsch, 1898). This may have induced Pettersson to suggest to the Swedish government that Russia be invited to the conference, the more so as Russia was mentioned as a possible participant in the cooperation in the application to King Oscar II. Whereas Russia did not yet answer the inquiry, the replies from the other countries were positive; however, the British government still had some hesitation concerning the proposed subjects of the conference. Nonetheless, they agreed that the knowledge of the conditions essential to the existence, growth and propagation of the useful fishes in the North Sea and adjacent waters was so defective that the adoption of any measures to restrict the exercise of certain methods of fishing was rendered impracticable because of a lack of data on which to base such measures. The government also agreed that accurate information about the physical and chemical conditions under which fish live in the sea, the quality and quantity of fish food in the water and on the sea bottom, and the growth and propagation of the different species of fish, would be a necessary prerequisite of any legislation. The government could therefore agree to the proposals in the draft programme, provided that they were allowed to instruct their delegates that the scientific investigations should be accompanied by an account of the steps to be taken in order to bring the exercise of sea-fishing more into accord with the natural conditions regulating the growth and increase of fish in the seas under investigation (Cecil, 1899). Also the Danish reply mentioned the possibility of raising the question about the harmfulness of trawling (Beckâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Friis, 1899).

After these declarations, the Swedish/ Norwegian legations were instructed to convey to the respective governments an invitation to a conference to be opened in Stockholm on 15 June 1899 (Douglas, 1899b). Otto Pettersson did not want a conference solely of administrators (Pettersson, 1899a); therefore, at his request the legations were instructed to urge each country to send a scientist who had devoted his time to the study of the sea, a person from the fishing industry as well as such directors of biological stations on the North Sea coasts who were interested in cooperating in the study of fishes and fisheries. It would also be appropriate for meteorologists who had studied the sea from a climatological point of view to participate in the discussions at the conference.

All the invited countries agreed to send representatives to the conference.

France and Belgium had not been invited. Ostensibly, the former had been overlooked by the inviting government, although France had been mentioned in the application to King Oscar. With regard to Belgium, Otto Pettersson had

approached the two prominent Belgian naturalists, Professors W Spring and Edouard van Beneden, to find out whether their country might be willing to participate in the planned cooperation. Both had strongly advised against inviting Belgium to send delegates to the conference as they doubted that the Belgian government would understand the importance of the project; and should that government decide to send a delegate to the conference they would most likely nominate a person without any knowledge of the matters to be discussed (Smed, 2000). Pettersson, therefore, had found no reason to propose that an invitation be sent, as he explained to the Foreign Minister (Pettersson, 1899b).

The Stockholm event The Conference, in which 21 delegates (14 scientists and 7 administrators) participated, was held in Stockholm on 15â&#x20AC;&#x201D;23 June 1899. A number of important recommendations (Anon., 1899) to the governments were passed in order to establish: d ) a programme for hydrographic investigations, according to which the participating countries should undertake observations along certain fixed lines (see map, Figure 3); e ) a programme for cooperation on the biological investigations, including (inter alia) experimental fishing; f ) a central bureau with a laboratory, under the guidance of a permanent international council; and g ) that the investigations should start on 1 May 1901 and be continued for a period of at least five years.

Figure 3. Map annexed to the Stockholm 1899 Conference Report. It subdivides the sea into portions for which the eight participating countries would take responsibility, as finally decided in Copenhagen (1902). Key: B - Britain; Da - Denmark; Du - The Netherlands: F - Finland; G - Germany; N - Norway; R - Russia; and S - Sweden.

The Conference made it known that for various reasons it would be very desirable that the Faroes and Iceland be connected to the European telegraph network as soon as possible. Also, it was submitted that France and Belgium should be informed of the recommendations of the Conference. An interim Committee comprised of the chief delegates offered their service if decisions had to be taken before the constitution of the Council.

When the respective governments were informed of the results of the Conference, they also received a proposal, originally put forward by the German delegation, that the central bureau's annual expenses, estimated at 96â&#x20AC;&#x2030;000 Marks, be divided as follows: four parts each for Germany, Great Britain, France, and Russia; one part each for Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden (Bostrom, 1899).

In general, the governments who had been represented at Stockholm agreed to cooperate, some of them on the understanding that the cooperation of the other countries was guaranteed. Russia's attitude apparently was negative; their Minister of Finance declaring that for several years, Russia had carried out marine investigations on her own and had spent considerable amounts on them. So, for his part he did not see the use of spending additional means on an international central bureau (Gyldenstolpe, 1900a).

France declined the invitation to participate. The government declared that a programme much like that agreed upon by the Stockholm Conference had already been adopted and started by France. Furthermore, the French parliament had voted fairly substantial amounts for the establishment of a tech-

nical service for the sea fisheries. Therefore, the administration could not ask for additional grants for work that, as it were, would mean a needless repetition of research that had already been planned and was in hand (Delcasse, 1900).

Reservations of Great Britain Great Britain's attitude was rather one of reluctance. Lord Salisbury again stressed the desirability of the work being directed “to promoting a scheme of investigations, which would result in the acquisition of information of practical advantage to the fishing interests of this country as apart from information of a purely scientific value”. The British government had observed “that the Conference had in view, as a primary project, the promotion and improvement of fisheries by means of international agreements and that it considered scientific enquiry by means of international cooperation the best way of determining the regulations necessary for the development of the sea fishing industry”. However, they were not satisfied that all the recommendations were calculated to obtain that objective. In such circumstances the British government would limit its participation in the International Council provisionally to two years. Furthermore, it was a condition that before the end of the two-year period the Council should collate and analyse the sea fishing investigations carried out by the participating countries in order to see how far such investigations were likely to afford information of practical advantage to the fisheries. Thereupon the Council should submit a clear programme of research, showing the period over which such work should continue, the outlay involved and the part of the programme falling upon Great Britain. With such a report before them, the government would decide whether or not to undertake the work. At the outset, they would be prepared only to send two representatives to the Council and to pay, for two years, their portion of the expenses of the Bureau (Cecil, 1900).

This very reserved position brought about some harsh comments by John Murray: “The reply of Lord Salisbury is extremely unsatisfactory, and, in my opinion discreditable to the government of Great Britain” (Murray, 1900).

According to John Murray, the reply of Lord Salisbury had to be taken as a refusal on the part of Great Britain to join with the other countries in carrying out the programme of the Stockholm Conference (Smed, 1996). Otto Pettersson too was surprised and disappointed with the contents of Lord Salisbury's letter. ”Do they think they can confine themselves to contribute to the administration without being willing to carry out investigations and supply the material”, he wrote to Fridtjof Nansen (Pettersson, 1900).

Stumbling blocks ahead In September 1900, the Swedish/Norwegian Foreign Ministry decided that the time had come to call a meeting of the interim Committee established by the Stockholm Conference (Lagerheim, 1900a). In the meantime, also Belgium and Finland had agreed to join the cooperative effort. The meeting would be held at Christiania (now Oslo), starting on 15 October 1900. As an

argument for holding the meeting at Christiania, the Norwegian government in an application to King Oscar referred to the possibilities for scientific and practical investigations, which the Norwegian fisheries and the vast coast of Norway offered (Anon., 1900). An underlying motive was certainly the fact that Norway wanted to host the planned central bureau of the organization.

Already in December 1899, Johan Hjort, when received in audience by King Oscar, had discussed this idea (Nansen and Hjort, 1899).

Obviously the meeting could not limit its discussions to purely administrative matters, such as the establishment of a bureau and a central laboratory. Belgium and Finland would now join the cooperation whereas some countries were not yet able to carry out the investigations allotted to them. Therefore, as pointed out in the meeting programme, there was a need for a revision of the research plans, especially those for the biological investigations and the fish studies. As well, the relations between these studies and the hydrographical and meteorological observations should be more clearly specified. The participating countries were therefore invited to let their delegates be accompanied by experts whom they might consult on special questions (Lagerheim, 1900b). In this way, the meeting of the interim Committee in reality would become a new conference, and it was officially termed the 2nd International Conference for the Exploration of the Sea. Russia, however, had still not indicated whether she would join the cooperation. This caused the Swedish/Norwegian Foreign Ministry to emphasize to the Russian government the importance of their country being represented at the Conference even if she, like Great Britain, would bind herself for only two years (Lagerheim, 1900c). Apparently Russia's passivity entailed other problems. The German government declared that they did not find the moment favourable for a continuation of the deliberations of the Stockholm Conference. First, the Russian government had not yet given word of their adhesion to the plans. Furthermore, Germany, as well as several other countries, had to wait for their parliaments to accept the plans and then provide the necessary means for the preparatory work before it could be continued.

Moreover, Dr. Herwig, Germany's representative on the interim Committee, was struck by a severe attack of an illness that seemed to be of long duration.

As the programme accompanying the invitation was just a sort of agenda without fixed propositions, it would be difficult for a new delegate to take over. Under these circumstances the German government requested that the meeting be adjourned (Richthofen, 1900). The Norwegian government, having fixed the date of the meeting, decided to comply with the German request. Johannes Steen, the Prime Minister, commented - with some basis, one would think - that the German letter might give the impression that Germany, in any case, would have declined the invitation (Steen, 1900). Fortunately it turned out that the doubt about Germany's willingness to cooperate was ill founded. In November 1900, Herwig emphasized the interest, which he and his government felt for the endeavours undertaken by Pettersson and his Swedish colleagues (Herwig, 1900). Russia, however, did not react. An application to the relevant minister at St. Petersburg revealed that he,

like the Norwegian Prime Minister, had suspected Herwig's illness to be a â&#x20AC;&#x153;diplomaticâ&#x20AC;? one. He had heard rumours that Germany, who only had agreed on participation if the other countries also did, now sought a pretext for the postponement of the meeting, hoping that circumstances would allow her to eventually withdraw from the project. If this should turn out to be Germany's intention, there was a new situation - the minister intimated. The Swedish envoy interpreted this statement to mean that in this case Russia's willingness to participate would further decrease (Gyldenstolpe, 1900b).

As a matter of fact, the question had been considered by the Imperial Council, who decided to await the decisions of Germany and England (Grimm.

1900). Therefore, it was fortunate that Russia could now be informed about the official notifications from these countries and about the positive letter from Herwig. Knipowitsch, at least, was anxious to cooperate. Already in the summer and autumn of 1900, he carried out the investigations in the Barents Sea allotted to Russia by the Stockholm Conference (Knipowitsch, 1900). He had been granted the necessary means for the continuation of his work in this region over a four-year period. So whether or not Russia joined the cooperation, he would continue his work (Knipowitsch, 1901). It is no wonder that Pettersson stressed the importance of timing the Christiania meeting so that Knipowitsch would be able to attend.

The Christiania conference Herwig stressed how important it was that the majority of the countries receive the necessary grants from their governments before the Conference.

Johan Hjort had learned that this condition would probably be fulfilled in the spring of 1901. Therefore, he proposed to the Norwegian Prime Minister, that the conference be held in May (Hjort, 1901). In accordance with this proposal, the conference was called on 6 May 1901 (Lagerheim, 1901a). This time Belgium and Finland were also represented. The fairly detailed programme for the hydrographic work set up at Stockholm could in all essentials be adopted by the Christiania Conference. However, a new decision was added: that the newly prepared Hydrographical Tables would be used for calculation of the salinity from determination of the content of chlorine or the specific gravity. Great progress was made with regard to the programme for the biological work, which at Stockholm had only been dealt with in a sketchy way. A detailed scheme for the study of the biology of food fish was now established, and a study on the extent of the destruction of undersized fish in the ordinary practice of fishing was planned. In addition, programmes for the investigation of the plankton and the bottom fauna were drawn up, and rules for the elaboration of uniform critical statistics of the sea fisheries of the participating countries were agreed upon. Furthermore, the tasks to be allotted to the Central Laboratory could now be enumerated (Anon., 1901a). The Conference considered it absolutely indispensable that each country should provide a steamer specially constructed for scientific fishery research - an important statement as it brought about the construction of such vessels in several of the cooperating countries. At the start of the work in 1902, three countries possessed vessels specially constructed for the investigations,

namely Norway (Michael Sars), Russia (Andrei Pervoz vanny) and Germany (Poseidon). Some countries used modified steam trawlers: Denmark (Thor) and England (Huxley). The Netherlands and Sweden hired trawlers for the investigations.

A difficult question was where the central institution should be placed. Norway wanted to host it and was supported by Sweden. The Germans proposed Hamburg or Kiel: they could accept Amsterdam, but not Great Britain. The British could not agree to have the institution placed in Germany or the Netherlands (Went, 1972, p. 11). Behind these attitudes lay, probably or at least partly, the Boer War in South Africa in which Great Britain favoured one side and the Netherlands and Germany the other. An incident may throw light upon this situation. Otto Pettersson had written in English to Hoek who, in his reply, remarked (Hoek, 1901): “Did not we correspond in German earlier? In Holland we are no more so fond of English, English people and England as we were - say three years ago!” Hoek adds, however: “But I am not a chauvinist - so to me it is the same!”

The question about the place of the central institutions, together with various other items concerning the organization to be established, was discussed in a meeting of the chief delegates. Their proposals were not treated in plenary, but submitted directly to the governments. They read as follows (Anon., 1901b): i) ii ) iii ) iv ) v) vi ) vii )

That the Central Bureau be located in Copenhagen, That Dr. Walther Herwig be President of the International Council and of the Central Bureau, That Dr. Otto Pettersson be Vice-President, That Dr. Paulus Hoek be General Secretary, That the Central Laboratory be stationed in Christiania, That Dr Fridtjof Nansen be Director of the International Laboratory, That the cost of the International Laboratory be in the first instance defrayed out of the funds which Norway offers to contribute for the purpose; that the balance of the sum required be taken from the funds voted by the participating governments, with expectation that this contributory sum shall not exceed that which Norway furnishes 107; that the International Laboratory be subordinate to the Central Bureau to which its functions shall be reported and its accounts rendered.

The delegates had now done their part of the work, and they had recommended that the International Council should meet in Copenhagen as soon as the governments of the participating countries had definitively accepted the programme set up by the Conference, or that each government should send

107

This proviso was later cancelled at the request of Nansen.

a delegate (accompanied, if desired, by specialists) with full powers to decide what regulations should be made for the prompt constitution of the Central Bureau.

It fell upon the Swedish/Norwegian Foreign Ministry to approach the various countries represented at Christiania as to whether they would agree to the programme. The Ministry, however, needed an application from Norway before taking any steps, and here apparently there were difficulties. The problem was the sum of 10 000 kroner, which Norway had offered to pay annually in support of the Central Bureau (with Laboratory) if it were to be located at Christiania. As it had now been recommended to have only the Laboratory there, would the Norwegian government still grant the amount? According to Nansen, the opinion in Christiania was that the recommended arrangement was less considerate to Norway because this country alone should pay to the Laboratory just as much as Sweden, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, and England together, in addition to her contribution to the general funds whereas no extra contribution was demanded from Denmark for getting the Central Bureau. It was doubtful whether it would be in keeping with Norway's dignity as a country to accept this arrangement, Nansen stated. What would happen if Norway definitely refused to accept the Laboratory? To have it in Copenhagen would be an impossibility, Nansen declared 108. Would it then be necessary to make new proposals, which again should be discussed? Nansen saw no end to this (Nansen, 1901a).

Pettersson certainly did not agree with Nansen's interpretation of the situation. Everybody had left the Christiania Conference convinced that the Norwegian delegates and the Norwegian government had found the arrangement acceptable, namely that the Central Laboratory - which, according to Pettersson, was the better part of the central institution - was placed in Christiania under a Norwegian director and with an international grant of 13 000 Mark annually. The Norwegian government and parliament had, of course, the right to cancel or reduce their grant because of the new situation.

This, however, would not necessitate a new conference. It was true, Pettersson admitted, that some sort of a central laboratory was necessary, but the idea about an “experimenting” laboratory and an extra grant to it from the country where it would be located was entirely Norwegian. Pettersson explained that if the Norwegian parliament cut or cancelled the extra grant, then this would imply that the laboratory, instead of becoming an independent experimenting scientific laboratory, would be reduced to tasks absolutely necessary for the international work and would probably become a branch of the central institution at Copenhagen (Pettersson, 1901a). As a matter of fact, Pettersson thought, as he explained to his Foreign Minister, that the Norwegians only wanted to get off cheaper because they did not get the Bureau (Pettersson, 1901b). Pettersson's view was probably correct. Nansen, in any case, did not want to waste more words on the subject. What he had

108 The argument behind was the lack of possibilities for experiments in deep waters

.

written was not his own view, but the opinion of those in Norway who would have to deal with the matter, he declared, adding that both he and Pettersson knew the true facts (Nansen, 1901b).

Herwig now became impatient. He emphasized to Pettersson the importance of obtaining, as soon as possible, clear declarations from the governments that they would adhere to the recommendations passed by the Christiania Conference. Otherwise, he feared that the whole matter might go astray (Herwig, 1901). Pettersson passed on this view to the Swedish/Norwegian Foreign Ministry who, unfortunately, had to await a request from Norway to initiate conversations with the governments. Soon after receipt of this request the Ministry informed the countries about the recommendations passed at Christiania and asked for their acceptance (Lagerheim, 1901b). The answers were mainly positive, although Belgium did not reply and Russia did not agree to contribute to the Bureau and Laboratory. Nonetheless, the Russian government promised that their investigations in the Barents Sea and the White Sea would be carried out in accordance with the Christiania programme, which was Pettersson's main interest. All the same, he found the situation unsatisfactory and suggested that the Danish delegate, Christian Frederik Drechsel, should induce King Christian IX of Denmark - whose daughter, Princess Dagmar, was now Empress Dowager Maria Fedorovna of Russia to intervene. Pettersson did not fail to stress how much King Oscar had done to get the negotiations started in 1899, and he considered intervention by the Danish King to be natural, especially since the Central Bureau would be located in Copenhagen (Pettersson, 1901c). Drechsel did try to influence the Russian government via the Danish Court (Drechsel, 1901). It is not known whether this move had any influence. In early March 1902, however, the Russian Emperor approved a grant to the Bureau and Laboratory for two years (Gyldenstolpe, 1902).

Already at an early date, when there was reason to believe that the governments would accept the recommendations, the Danish government was asked whether it would take preliminary steps with a view to summon a meeting of the interim Committee or of delegates accompanied by experts (Lagerheim, 1901c). The Danish parliament, however, was slow in handling the matter and as long as it had not voted the grants for Denmark's participation, its government could take no steps (Lagerheim, 1902). At long last, invitations were issued to a meeting in Copenhagen, to start on 22 July 1902 (Anon., 1903a).The participants were welcomed by the Danish Foreign (and Prime) Minister, J. H. Deuntzer (Anon., 1903b). The Council then constitutionalized itself (Anon., 1903c).This was done without many formalities. To avoid these, it had been decided the evening before to skip the scrutiny of credentials, replacing this procedure by just a verbal declaration by the delegates that they had come to constitute the Council. It is true that Pettersson and Hoek had a problem here as this procedure was not in accordance with their instructions, but the question was solved by telegraphic applications to their governments (Herwig and KrĂźmmel, 1902).

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

Figure 4. Some representative ships in early ICES investigations: (a) R/V Poseidon in Hamburg during ICES third meeting (1904). Source: H. Rozwadowski; (b) R/V Michael Sars Sac.; (Source: Norwegian Fishery Museum, Bergen; (c) R/V Skagerak. Source: CEFAS, Lowestoft; (d) R/V Andrei Pervozvanny. Museum of the World Ocean, Kaliningrad, Russia; (e) The original ICES banner designed by Otto Pettersson. The eight stars in the flag, viz. the seven stars of the Plough/Big Dipper and the Pole Star/North Star are said to symbolize the eight founding Member Countries of ICES: Denmark, Finland, Germany, Great Britain (with Ireland), the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, and Sweden. Source: ICES; (f) R/V Huxley. Source: Š British Crown, reproduced with permission of CEFAS, Lowestoft.

ICES in existence The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea had now been founded, and in accordance with the informal decisions at the Christiania Conference it established a Bureau (executive board) consisting of Herwig (President), Pettersson (Vice-President) and Hoek (General Secretary). The decisions concerning a Central Bureau in Copenhagen and a Central Laboratory (directed by Nansen) in Christiania were also confirmed. The meeting could then start discussion about the Council's future activities (Anon., 1903d).With regard to a programme for the practical biological work the meeting identified two main items: the migrations of the most important food fish of the North Sea, especially herring and cod; and the question of overfishing in those parts of the North Sea, Skagerrak, and Kattegat most frequented by British, Dutch, German, and other trawlers, with special regard

to plaice, sole and other flatfish, and haddock. To consider these questions the Council established two Special Committees: Committee on Migration of Food Fishes (Committee A). Convener: Johan Hjort.

Committee on Overfishing (Committee B). Convener: Walter Garstang.

A third Special Committee was set up for the purpose of investigating the problems about the fisheries of the Baltic (Committee C). Convener: Oscar Nordqvist.

The hydrographers considered the hydrographic programme adopted at Stockholm and Christiania and agreed on a number of supplements to it. It was resolved that the countries that were already prepared to start work should make their first seasonal cruise in August 1902, and for the other countries, as soon as possible. All the seasonal cruises should be in operation by 1 May 1903 at the latest. With the acceptance of these decisions, the basis for the work of the Council had been fixed and the cooperation could commence Jens SMED, Bygtoften 17, DK - 2800 Lyngby, Denmark Tel: +4545871101 Acknowledgement I am greatly indebted to Artur Svansson for copies of a great many letters in Swedish archives, for valuable discussions about relevant items, and for perpetual assistance in the processing of this and other manuscripts.

Editors' notes 1. Among the vessels shown in Figure 4 (pp. 154â&#x20AC;&#x201D;155), the Andrej Pervozvanny was the first built specifically for scientific work. Launched in Bremen, Germany, in 1899, she got underway on 25 May of that year on the first ICES-related research cruise, led by N.M. Knipowitsch [see artide on the 'Murman Sdentific-Fishery Expedition', by J Lajus, starting on p. 127 in this volume}. The equipment - for research on hydrology, bottom sediments, and plankton, particularly for fisheries (pelagic and bottom fauna) - included various types of trawls. She served for 60 years, finishing her long career by conducting surveys in the Barents Sea until 1959.

2. Fridtjof Nansen (1861-1930) participated in early ICES activities. He is shown below, in summer 1914, possibly in Bergen, Norway, on board the marine research boat Armauer Hansen. Nansen (on the left) is keeping an eye on the work being done in connection with an oceanographic cruise to the Azores, where scientific investigation of this part of the Atlantic was carried out.

Fridtjof Nansen (left). Photo: K. Groin - Courtesy of the Norwegian Library’s database services.

Acronyms used in references KVA The archive of Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien, Stockholm.

LAG Landsarkivet, Gothenburg. The Gustaf Ekman Collection.

RAS Riksarkivet, Stockholm. UD 1902 Dosssystem.

RPV Rapports et Proces-verbaux des Reunions du Conseil permanent international pour 1 'Exploration de la Mer. SIN Swedish/Norwegian.

UBG Universitetsbiblioteket, Gothenburg. Collection of letters.

UBO Universitetsbiblioteket, Oslo. Collections of manuscripts, Collection No. 48.

References Anonymous, 1895. Report of the 6th International Geographical Congress, 587—590, London.

Anonymous, 1897. Protocol of the meeting of Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien on 10 November 1897. In KVA. Anonymous, 1899. Conférence Internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer, réunie à Stockholm 1899.

Anonymous, 1900. Recommendation of 24 August 1900 from the Norwegian government to King Oscar II. In RAS, 2397b, mål. 11.

Anonymous, 1901a. 2. Conférence Internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer, réunie a Kristiania 1901, Premiere partie, contenant le compte-rendu des seances et les resolutions.

24: 27 pp., Kristiania [in the present paper spelled Christiania], Norway.

Anonymous, 1901b. Document dated Christiania, 10 May 1901. Copy in ICES Basement Archive, Collection of letters to and from Hoek.

Anonymous, 1903a. RPV, 1(B):31-32.

Anonymous, 1903b. RPV, 1(B):3—4.

Anonymous, 1903c. RPV, 1 (B):4—6.

Anonymous, l903d. RPV, 1(B):7—30.

Beck-Friis, L. G. 1899. Letter of 3 March 1899 from the S/N Minister in Copenhagen to his Foreign Minister. In RAS, 2396, mål. 11.

Bostrom, K. G. 1899. Letter of 28 October 1899 from the S/N Foreign Minister to the S/N legations. In RAS, 2912, mål. 3.

Cecil, R. (Lord Salsbury), 1898a. Letter of 5 July 1898 to Carl Lewenhaupt, S/N Minister in London. In RAS, 2396, mål. 11.

Cecil, R. (Lord Salsbury), 1898b. Letter of 30 November 1898 to Carl Lewenhaupt, S/N Minister in London. In RAS, 2396, mål. 11.

Cecil, R. (Lord Salsbury), 1899. Letter of 21 March 1899 to Carl Lewenhaupt, S/N Minister in London. In RAS, 2396, mål. 11.

Cecil, R. (Lord Salsbury), 1900. Letter of 7 May 1900 to Carl Lewenhaupt, S/N Minister in London. In RAS, 2912, mål. 3.

Delcassé, T. 1900. Letter of 19 February 1900 from the Foreign Minister of France to the S/N Minister in Paris. In RAS, 2912, mål. 3.

Douglas, L. 1899a, Draft letter of 7 February 1899 from the S/N Foreign Minister to the S/N legations at St. Petersburg, Berlin, The Hague, London, and Copenhagen, and to the Norwegian Department of the Interior. In RAS, 2396, mål. 11.

Douglas, L. 1899b. Letter of 14 April 1899 from the S/N Foreign Minister to the S/N legations at St. Petersburg, Berlin, Brussels, London, and Copenhagen, RAS, 2396, mål. 11, Drechsel, C. E. 1901. Letter of 22 November 1901 to Otto Pettersson, In UBG, Ekman, G., and Pettersson, O. 1892. Förslag till en internationell hydrografisk undersökning af Nordsjö- och Östersjöomrädet under 1893—1894 (Proposal for an international hydrographic investigation of the North and Baltic Seas during 1893—1894), 8 pp.

Palmquists Boktryckeri, Stockholm.

Grimm, O. von, 1900. Letter of 7 December 1900 to Otto Pettersson. In RAS, 2912, mål. 3.

Gyldenstolpe, A. l900a. Letter of 25 April 1900 from the S/N envoy at St. Petersburg to his Foreign Minister, In RAS, 2912, mål. 3, Gyldenstolpe, A. 1900b. Private letter of 9 December 1900 from the S/N envoy at St. Petersburg to his Foreign Minister, In RAS, 2912, mål. 3, Gyldenstolpe, A. 1902. Letter of 7 March 1902 from the S/N envoy at St. Petersburg to his Foreign Minister. In RAS, 2913, mål. 5.

Herwig, W. 1899. Über internationale Untersuchungen der nordeuropäischen Meere im Interesse der Seefischerei (International research in northern European seas for the benefit of sea fisheries). Memorandum to the Imperial Minister of the Interior, Berlin.

Rep. 87 B, Nr. 3646, Blatt 13-18. In Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin. Later published in Mittheilungen Deutsches Seefischerei-Vereins, 1904, 112—122.

(In German.)

Herwig, W. 1900. Letter of 28 November 1900 to Otto Pettersson. In UBG. Herwig, W. 1901. Letter of 23 July 1901 to Otto Pettersson. In UBG. Herwig, W., and Krümmel, O. 1902. Bericht über die Konferenz in Kopenhagen vom 22. bis 25. Juli 1902, betreffend die international Meeresforschung (Report on the conference in Copenhagen, 22—25 July 1902). Report to the Imperial Minister of the Interior, Berlin.

Rep. 76-VC, Sekt. 1, Tit. 11. Nr. 11. Bd. 3, Blatt 88—92. In Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin. (In German.)

Hjort, J. 1895. Letter of 18 November 1895 and an undated letter (Nov. 1895) to Otto Pettersson. In UBG. Hjort, J. 1896. Letter of 17 October 1896 to o.tto Pettersson. In UBG. Hjort, J. 1901. Letter of 6 January 1901 to the Norwegian Prime Minister. In RAS, 2397a, mål.

11.

Hoek, P. P. C. 1901. Letter of 22 February 1901 to Otto Pettersson. In UBG. Knipowitsch, N. 1898. Letter of 24 September 1898 to Otto Pettersson. In UBG. Knipowitsch, N. 1900. Letter of 24 October 1900 to Otto Pettersson. In UBG. Knipowitsch, N. 1901. Letter of 16 February 1901 to Otto Pettersson. In UBG. Krümmel, O. 1898. Letter of 1 April 1898 to Otto Pettersson. In RAS, 2396, mål. 11.

Lagerheim, A. 1898. Letter of 16 April 1898 to the S/N Foreign Minister, Ludvig Douglas. In RAS, 2396, mål. 11.

Lagerheim, A. 1900a. Letter of 3 September 1900 from the S/N Foreign Minister to the S/N legations. In RAS, 2397b, mål. 11.

Lagerheim, A 1900b. Letter of 18 September 1900 from the S/N Foreign Minister to the S/N legations, with programme. In RAS, 2397b, mål. 11.

Lagerheim, A 1900c. Letter of 21 September 1900 from the S/N Foreign Minister to the S/N legation in St. Petersburg, with memorandum of 19 September by Otto Pettersson. In RAS, 2912, mål. 3.

Lagerheim, A. 1901a. Letter of 22 March 1901 from the S/N Foreign Minister to the S/N legations. In RAS, 2397a, mål. 11.

Lagerheim, A. 1901 b. Letter of 14 August 1901 from the S/N Foreign Minister to the S/N legations. In RAS, 2913, mål. 5.

Lagerheim, A. 1901c. Letter of 9 October 1901 from the S/N Foreign Minister to the S/N legation in Copenhagen. In RAS, 2913, mål. 5.

Lagerheim, A. 1902. Letter of 7 January 1902 from the S/N Foreign Minister to the S/N legation in Copenhagen. In RAS, 2913, mål. 5.

Lewenhaupt, C. 1898a. Letter of 27 April 1898 to the S/N Foreign Minister, Ludvlg Douglas. In RAS, 2396, mål. 11.

Lewenhaupt, C. 1898b. Letter of 27 April 1898 to Otto Pettersson. In UBG. Lewenhaupt, C. 1898c. Letter of 24 May 1898 to the S/N Foreign Minister, Ludvig Douglas. In RAS, 2396, mål. 11.

Lewenhaupt, C. 1898d. Letter of 20 August 1898 to the S/N Foreign Minister, Ludvig Douglas.

In RAS, 2396, mål. 11.

Lewenhaupt, C. 1898e. Letter of 2 December 1898 to the S/N Foreign Minister, Ludvig Douglas. In RAS, 2396, mål. 11.

Mill, H. R. 1898. Letter of 31 March 1898 to Otto Pettersson. In UBC. Murray, J. 1900. Letter of 2 June 1900 to Robert Irvine. Copy to Otto Pettersson in UBC. Müller, A. 1898a. Letter of 21 February 1898 to Otto Pettersson. In UBC. Müller, A. 1898b. Letter of 27 February 1898 to Otto Pettersson. In UBG. Nansen, F. 1898. Letter of 4 April 1898 to Otto Pettersson. Letter no. 254 in Fridtjof Nansen: Brev. II. Oslo, 1961.

Nansen, F. 1901a. Letter of 20 June 1901 to Otto Pettersson. In UBC. Nansen, F. 1901b. Letter of 16 July 1901 to Otto Pettersson. In UBC. Nansen, F., and Hjort, J. 1899. Letter of 19 December 1899 to King Oscar II. In RAS, 2397b, mål. 11.

Pettersson, O. 1892a Några allmänna drag af Nord- och Ostersjöns hydrografi (Some hydrography characteristics of the North Sea and the Baltic Sea). Forhandlingerne ved de Skandinaviske Naturforskeres 14. Møde i København den 4—9 Juli 1892, 78-87, Copenhagen. (In Danish.)

Pettersson, O. 1892b. (Introduction to discussions at the above meeting.) Ibid. 171—176.

Pettersson, O. 1894. Proposed scheme for an International Hydrographic Survey of the North Atlantic, the North Sea, and the Baltic. Scottish Geographical Magazine, 10:631-635.

Pettersson, O. 1895. Undated letter (ca. August 1895) to Gustaf Ekman. In LAC. Pettersson, O. 1898a. Letter of 23 April 1898 to the S/N Foreign Ministry. In RAS, 2396, mål.

11.

Pettersson, O. 1898b. Letter of 28 June 1898 to P. P. C. Hoek. Copy in ICES Basement Archive, Collection of letters to and from Hoek.

Pettersson, O. 1898c. Letter of 9 April 1898 to the Swedish Civildepartement. In RAS, 2396, mål. 11.

Pettersson, O. 1898d. Research in the North Atlantic. Memorandum of 23 April 1898, forwarded to the Royal Geographical Society by the S/N Minister in London, Carl Lewenhaupt. The Geographical journal, 11: 609—610.

Pettersson, O. 1899a. Letter of 18 April 1899 to the Swedish Civilminister, J. E. von Krusenstjeroa. In RAS, 2396, mål. 11.

Pettersson, O. 1899b. Letter of 27 April 1899 to the S/N Foreign Minister. In RAS, 2396, mål.

11.

Pettersson, O. 1900. Letter of 22 May 1900 to Fridtjof Nansen. In UBO. Pettersson, O. 1901a. Letter of 25 June 1901 to Fridtjof Nansen. In UBO. Pettersson, O. 1901b. Letter of 24 June 1901 to the S/N Foreign Minister. In RAS, 2397a, mål.

11.

Pettersson, O. 1901c. Letter of 20 November 1901 to C.E Drechsel. In ICES Basement Archive, File 2.A. Pettersson, O., and Ekman, G. 1891. Grunddragen af Skageracks och Kattegats hydrografi enligt den svenska vinterexpeditionens 1890 iakttagelser samt föregående arbeten (Characteristic features of the hydrography of the Skagerrak and Kattegat according to the observations on the Swedish expedition in the winter 1890 and earlier investigations). Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, 24(11):162 pp. with 10 plates, Stockholm. (In Swedish.)

Pettersson, O., Ekman, C. and Wijkander, A. 1897. Letter of 18 October 1897 to King Oscar II. In RAS, 2396, mål. 11.

Richthofen, Evon. 1900. Letter of 1 October 1900 from the German Foreign Minister to the S/N legation in Berlin. In RAS, 2397b, mål. 11.

Smed, J. 1990. Hydrographic investigations in the North Sea. the Kattegat and the Baltic before ICES. In Ocean sciences: Their History and Relation to Man, Proceedings of ICHO IV Hamburg, Germany, 1987. eds W. Lenz and M. Deacon, Deutsche Hydrographische Zeitschrift, Hamburg, Erganzungsheft, Reihe B, Nr. 22, 357—366.

Smed, J. 1994. Otto Krümmel's participation in the international oceanographic cooperation in the 1890's and his troubles with the Kiel Commission. Historisch-Meereskundliches jahrburh, 2: 59—67, Smed, J. 1996. On the foundation of ICES: A look behind the scenes at the events in Britain. In British Marine Science and Meteorology: The history of their development and application to marine fishing problems, 141—154 (Buckland Occasional Papers, No. 2).

Smed, J. 2000. The accession of Belgium to ICES. ICES/ClEM Information, No. 36, 5—7. Copenhagen.

Smed, J., and Ramster, J. 2002. Overfishing, science and politics: the background in the 1890s to the foundation of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), 100 Years of Science under ICES, papers from a symposium held in Helsinki, 1—4 August 2000, ed. E. D. Anderson, ICES Marine Science Symposia, 215: 13—21. 610 pp. ICES, Copenhagen.

Steen, J. 1900. Letter of 11 October 1900 from the Norwegian Prime Minister to the S/N Foreign Minister. In RAS, 2397b, mål. 11.

Svansson, A. 2004. Otto Pettersson the oceanographer (1848—1941). In Ocean Sciences Bridging the Millennia, A spectrum of historical accounts, Proceedings of ICHO VI. Qingdao, China, 1998, eds. S. Morcos et al.. pp. 00-00?? UNESCO (Paris) and China Ocean Press, Beijing.

Went, A. E. J. 1972. Seventy Years Agrowing, RPV, 165:252 pp.

Other references Though currently unpublished, efforts are being made to make the following two manuscripts available electronically or otherwise. Enquiries and suggestions may be sent to the author of this article. (See address at the end of the text.)

Svansson, A. (1993) Bakgrunden till bildandet av Svenska Hydrografiska Kommissionen (background for the formation of the Swedish Hydrographic Commission). Unpublished manuscript, 4 pp. (In Swedish.)

Svansson,A. (2000) 'Otto Pettersson, the Oceanographer'. Unpublished manuscript, 253 pp.

The Central Laboratory of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and its Successor Earth Sciences History 24.2 2005 Jens Smed Abstract The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) was established in 1902, for the coordination of studies of the Northern seas. The first intergovernmental marine science organization, ICES played a leading role in marine research for many years. Essential for its work was standardization of the methods and instruments used in the research. Critical for this aim was the establishment of a central laboratory to ensure uniformity of the methods used in hydrography 109 and marine biological research. Director of the laboratory, set up in Christiania (Oslo) in 1902, was the Norwegian marine scientist and polar explorer Fridtjof Nansen (1861—1930). During the few years (1902—1908) that the laboratory existed, Nansen and his two scientific assistants, Vagn Walfrid Ekman (1874—1954) and Charles J. J. Fox, made pioneering work. When the laboratory was dissolved a few of its functions were assigned to the hydrographical assistant at the ICES office in Copenhagen, Martin Knudsen (1871—1949), who later on developed his own international laboratory. In his several capacities, Knudsen and his laboratory exerted great influence upon the development of marine research.

Origin and organization of the Central Laboratory During a century, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) has played an important role in the development of the marine sciences by planning and coordinating cooperative investigations in the North Atlantic and adjacent seas. The investigations form part of the programme of multidisciplinary work that aims at the understanding not only of the features and dynamics of the water masses, but also of the influence that changes in the physical environment may have on the distribution and abundance of the fishery resources in the area.

109

During the period covered by this article the word hydrography was in ICES use for physical oceanography. It will therefore be used in the same sense here.

Figure 1. Fridtjof Nansen. Source: Nansen: Brev, II.

The first programmes for these investigations were drawn up by a Preparatory Conference for the Exploration of the Sea, held at Stockholm in 1899, on the initiative of the Swedish chemist and hydrographer Otto Pettersson (1848—1941). The Conference passed recommendations about the coordinated hydrographical and marine biological programmes to be carried out by the participating countries. 110 In order to obtain uniformity of methods and standardization of the instruments to be used in the research, the Conference decided to establish a central laboratory. One of the Norwegian dele-

110 Anon., Conférence internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer, réunie à Stockholm 1899 (Stockholm: Imprimerie K. L. Beckman, 1899), 12— 13.

gates to the Conference, Fridtjof Nansen (1861—1930, Figure 1), submitted a proposal specifying the tasks of the laboratory. 111 The original intention was that the laboratory be co-located with the central office and be an integral part of it. To Nansen, it was important that the laboratory had easy access to deep ocean water in order to facilitate its experiments and investigations.

The west coast of Sweden and the coasts of Norway would be well suited for the purpose. Nansen maintained that he had not originally thought of the possibility of taking over the position as director of the central office. However, Johan Hjort (1869—1948), Norwegian fishery biologist and a delegate to the Stockholm Conference, zealously pursued the idea until Nansen decided to apply for the job. 112 The German delegation to the Stockholm Conference evidently had a different view of Nansen's aspirations. In an internal German report on the Conference, one of the delegates, Professor at the Kiel University Otto Krümmel (1854—1912), stated that in private talks Nansen seriously applied for the post as General Secretary. Krümmel did not doubt that Nansen's application would have many advocates: he could take over at any time as he was not bound by official duties, and his financial circumstances would allow him to return to his estates at the end of the five year period of investigations, if these should not be prolonged. Krümmel, however, had reservations about Nansen's personality, doubting that he possessed sufficient tact to run an internationally constituted institution. The ovations Nansen had received for his famous polar explorations had, in Krümmel's view spoiled him. Moreover, Krümmel did not find that Nansen's qualifications were beyond doubt. It was true that Nansen, originally a zoologist, had eagerly acquainted himself with hydrographical methods after his return from the north. It became apparent to Krümmel at the Conference, however, that he did not have sufficient foundation in physics and mathematics to enable him to promote the science of the sea, as a highly salaried General Secretary in an international office should. He preferred the Danish physicist and hydrographer Martin Knudsen (Figure 2), who had carried out valuable work as hydrographer on the Danish Ingolf expedition to Icelandic and West–Greenland waters in 1895 and 1896.

Krümmel also saw another strong applicant for leadership of the Central Bureau, including the laboratory, in Henry Newton Dickson (1866—1922), a former member of the Scottish Fishery Board and assistant to Sir John Murray (1841—1914), who participated in the Challenger expedition around the world 1872—1876 and edited the Challenger Reports. Compared to candidates such as Knudsen and Dickson, Nansen had by this time published very little on hydrography. 113

111 Nansen, Appendix 2, Conférence internationale, Stockholm, 1899, 22—23. 4 112 Nansen to Otto Pettersson 16 December 1899, Steinar Kjærheim (ed.), Fridtjof Nansen, Brev, II. Oslo, 1961.

113 Jens Smed, Otto Krümmel über Fridtjof Nansens Kanditatur für den 1. Generalsekretär von ICES, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Meeresforschungen, Mitteilungen, 1989, No.1: 6—8.

Figure2. Martin Knudsen (1871—1949).

In addition, Nansen's proposed programme for the activities of the laboratory, did not find favour in Krümmel's eyes. He criticized that it included purely scientific investigations, which might perhaps be of value to hydrography but did not have anything to do with the real purpose of the organization, viz. to understand the external living conditions of the food fish. Krümmel feared that such a programme could not persuasively be recommended to the participating governments for subvention.114 The Norwegian government decided to invite interested states to send representatives to a Second Preparatory Conference, at Christiania 6—11 May 1901. The Conference was presided over by Nansen. Here the final plans for the international investigations were set up and approved. Despite Krümmel's disapproval, Nansen's proposal survived; the hydrographic part of the plans did not differ essentially from what was decided at the Stockholm Conference. However, detailed instructions for the activities of the Central Laboratory were now established. The purpose should be: 115 h ) To control apparatus and to insure uniformity of methods. The various instruments now used for oceanic research should be examined in order to settle which are the most trustworthy. Experiments may also be made to improve the apparatus and instruments or to construct new and better ones. i ) The water-samples sent by the workers of the participating states, are to be analysed and examined at the central laboratory, from which also samples of standard water should be provided.

114 Report in ZSM: Rep. 76 - VC, Sekt. 1, Teil II, Bd. 1, Blatt 275—285. For archival abbreviations see ARCHIVES at the end of the article.

115 Anon., 2. Conférence internationale pour l’Exploration de la Mer réunie à Kristiania. Première partie, 1901 (Kristiania, Steen’ske Bogtrykkeri, 1901), 22—23.

j ) In the central laboratory various important investigations of general interest for oceanic research may be carried out. The various methods for determining salinity, temperature, gases, plankton etc. of the sea should be carefully tested, in order that standard methods may be fixed. k ) Facilities should be afforded to the participating states for sending students to the central laboratory to be trained for oceanic research. l ) The investigators of the participating states, or special expeditions, may if desired, be supplied from the central laboratory with instruments, apparatus etc. for oceanic research at cost price.

The delegates to the Christiania Conference agreed to transmit to their respective governments the following recommendations: •

That the Central Bureau be located in Copenhagen.

•

That the International Laboratory be stationed in Christiania.

•

That Dr. Fridtjof Nansen be Director of the International Laboratory.

•

That the cost of the International Laboratory be in the first instance defrayed out of the funds which Norway offers to contribute for the purpose; that the balance of the sum required be taken from the funds voted by the participating governments, [...]; that the International Laboratory be subordinate to the Central Bureau to which its functions shall be reported and its accounts rendered.

The recommendations are published as an enclosure in the British delegates’ report to the Foreign Secretary. This report also gives some background for the recommendations.116 They were agreed upon by the various governments and were formally adopted by the first meeting of the Council at Copenhagen on 22 July 1902. 117

116 Colin Scott Moncrieff and D'Arcy W. Thompson, Reports of the British delegates attending the international conferences held at Stockholm, Christiania, and Copenhagen, with respect to fishery and hydrographical investigations in the North Sea, and correspondence related thereto.

North Sea Fishery investigations, Parliamentary Papers 1902, XV, Cd. 1313 (London: HMSO, 1903).

117 Anon., Rapports et Procés-verbaux des Réunions, Conseil permanent internationale pour l’Exploration de la Mer. 1903.1: 7—8.

Figure 3. View of the Laboratory building today. Photograph by Artur Svansson.

Figure 4. Vagn Walfrid Ekman 1902. Courtesy of Artur Svansson.

So in spite of Krümmel's distrust Nansen became a leader, though not as General Secretary. According to Krümmel he had strong advocates, such as John Murray. Nansen, who earlier had wanted both the Central Office and the Central Laboratory to be located at Christiania, now apparently found the outcome satisfactory. In a letter to the Norwegian prime minister Otto Blehr (1847—1927), he stated that the Norwegians had reason to be satisfied with the arrangement, because they got that part of the central organization which had, in their opinion, any real value, namely the Laboratory (Figure 3).

According to Nansen the Central Bureau in Copenhagen was now essentially limited to a sort of communication bureau with some office workers! “So I am afraid that Norway has got the lion's share of the whole and that the oth-

ers as yet have not really become aware of what they have done”, Nansen deplared.118 At the inaugural meeting of the Council, Nansen was requested to have the Laboratory in working order by 1 October 1902 at latest, and to nominate his two assistants without delay. Nansen immediately nominated the Swedish physicist Vagn Walfrid Ekman (Figure 4) as his First Assistant, for physical work, and promised to nominate a Second Assistant later for chemical work.

Nansen knew Ekman's capabilities as they had already worked together. During his North Polar Expedition 1893—96 with the Fram, Nansen had noticed that the ice did not drift in the direction of the wind, but was deflected to the right. He surmised that this might be a consequence of the rotation of the Earth. The effect of this rotation on movements on the Earth had been pointed out long ago by the French mathematician Gaspard de Coriolis (1792— 1843) and was well-known by the meteorologists. Scientists had not realized, however, that this pseudo-force would influence the relatively slow movements in the sea. Ekman now developed Nansen’s reasoning mathematically into his classical theory for wind driven currents. Ekman also explained the dead water phenomenon, which Nansen had encountered during the Fram expedition, as an effect of internal waves.

Nansen, perhaps realizing his own insufficient knowledge of physics and mathematics, was eager to obtain Ekman for the Laboratory. He declared that he would regret it very much if he had to take over the direction of the Central Laboratory without having Ekman’s assistance. On the other hand, he was sympathetic of Ekman’s interest in a professorship in applied mathematics then vacant at the University of Christiania.119 Ekman did not get the professorship, so 1 September 1902 he started at the Central Laboratory. Nansen could then report to the Bureau at the end of the month that the Laboratory had begun work at Kronprinsensgate 12, in Christiania. The premises were eight rooms on the ground floor and two in the basement. The house was surrounded by streets only slightly trafficked, quiet conditions being of importance for some of the experiments to be undertaken in the Laboratory120 As assistant in chemistry Nansen chose a young Englishman, Charles J. J. Fox, who had studied under William Ramsay (1852— 1916) in London and Richard Wilhelm Heinrich Abegg (1869—1910) in Breslau, and was recommended by both as especially qualified for the post at the Central Laboratory. Nansen proposed that Fox should visit Otto Pettersson’s laboratory in Stockholm and should then, as suggested by Pettersson, start on methods for storing water samples to be used for gas analyses. 121

118 F. Nansen to Otto Blehr 11 August 1902. In Nansen, Brev, II (1961).

119 F. Nansen to Walfrid Ekman 13 February 1902. In Nansen, Brev, II (1961).

120 Nansen to the ICES Bureau 13 October 1902. lEA, File Central Laboratory.

121 Nansen to Otto Pettersson 21 November 1902. In Nansen, Brev, II (1961).

The staff included a woman secretary, acting also as accountant, and a laboratory servant, for which a clever artisan, skilled in delicate mechanical work, had been chosen. This appears from the “Scheme for the Equipment of the Central Laboratory” which also describes the arrangement of the Laboratory and the instruments procured. 122 The annual amount to be made available to the Laboratory by the Council was 11 700 Kroner. The Director could furthermore dispose of a subvention of 10 000 Kroner annually which the Norwegian government had granted for the purpose. 123 It was stipulated that in any papers sent out by the Central Laboratory it should be designated “Central Laboratory for the international study of the sea”. This is in accordance with the original name for the organization: “International Council for the Study of the Sea”. It is curious to note, however, that the stamp of the Laboratory, used upon some early letters, has “Central Laboratory for the international Oceanic Research”.

Achievements of the Central Laboratory The achievements of the Central Laboratory were chronicled in the annual reports of the Laboratory, delivered to the Bureau, the executive body of the Council, and published as annexes to the administrative reports of the Council.

Supply of oceanographic instruments In the first circular issued by the Central Laboratory, Nansen stressed the desirability for water bottles and other oceanographic instruments used in the countries participating in the international work be identical. The necessary uniformity would be best obtained if instruments were ordered through the Laboratory. Nansen proposed therefore, that the national laboratories should supply the Central Laboratory with lists indicating which and how many of various apparatus and instruments they wished to order. The circular enumerates what the Laboratory could supply: 124 Pettersson–Nansen water bottle (small type for depths down to about 600 m, large type for greater depths); plankton nets of various types; meter wheels; wires for water bottles; reversing thermometers for temperature measurements in the greatest depths; thermometers for measurement of the sea surface temperature; burettes, pipettes, hydrometers and pycnometers for determination of the salinity of seawater samples, apparatus for determination of the dissolved gases.

During its first year, the Laboratory supplied many instruments to the member countries, so there was obviously a demand for such a service. This activity entailed considerable work, because the instruments had to be tested before they were distributed. It appears from the annual reports that this 122 Anon., Scheme for the equipment of the Central Laboratory. Rapports et Proces-verbaux, 1903,2: 68-7l.

123 Anon., Business organization for the Central Laboratory for the International Study of the Sea. Rapports et Proces-verbaux, 1903,2: 64-67.

124 In IBA, File Central Laboratory.

service continued to be an important part of the Laboratory’s activity throughout its existence.

Check analyses of seawater samples In order to assure comparability of the salinity data collected by the various member countries, it had been decided that a few water samples from each cruise should be sent to the Central Laboratory for analysis and comparison of the results. The samples were subjected to a determination of the specific gravity by hydrostatic weighing and a weight titration by Volhard’s method.

These analyses were time-consuming and were, in the long run, judged to be unnecessarily elaborate. It was therefore decided to limit the analysis to determination of the specific gravity followed by a Mohr titration, as a rough check. Even this type of analysis impeded other work in the Laboratory. As Ekman stressed, these analyses were not intended as a sort of policing of the accuracy with which the analyses were carried out in the various national laboratories; they should instead only enable a check of their mutual uniformity. One impediment to that goal was that relatively few samples were received from the laboratories where open ocean water was handled, whereas a great many samples were received from the Baltic, a hydrographic environment that was, in this context, less interesting. Ekman and Nansen suggested, therefore, that the Laboratory be exempted from this work. 125 Martin Knudsen, who was consulted on the matter, agreed.126 Accordingly, at the Council meeting at Amsterdam in February 1906, it was decided that it should no longer be compulsory to send samples to the Central Laboratory for this analysis. 127 Preparation of standard seawater Martin Knudsen had introduced the standard water concept during his participation in the Ingolf expedition. He had prepared a number of sealed tubes of a seawater whose chlorinity had been determined accurately by the Volhard titration method. This water was utilized for standardizing the silver nitrate solutions used in the Mohr titrations. By this procedure great internal consistency was obtained as all values were referred to the same standard. On the basis of his experience with this method, Knudsen submitted to the Stockholm Conference a proposal for the establishment of an international institution for supplying standard seawater. 128 The Conference, however, preferred a plan set forth by Nansen, according to which provision of standard water to the member countries should be one of the tasks of the Central Laboratory.

125 Walfrid Ekman to Martin Knudsen 15 February 1906. RAC, No. 1935, Box D.1.

126 M. Knudsen to W. Ekman 19 February 1906. RAC, No. 1935, Box D.l.

127 F. Nansen and W. Ekman, Report of the Central Laboratory, July 22nd 1905—July 21st 1906. Rapports et Procès-verbaux, 1906, 6: XXXI. 128 Martin Knudsen, Proposal about an international institution for Procuring Standard Water. Conférence internationale, Stockholm, 1899, XLII—XLVI.

During its first year, the Laboratory produced a provisional supply of about 100 tubes of standard water. The chlorinity of this water was determined by comparison with a secondary standard (VIa) prepared earlier by Martin Knudsen. 129 Steps were taken, however, for preparation of a primary standard (P) to be compared directly with Knudsen’s original water (VI). Before this primary standard could be prepared and analysed it became necessary in 1903 and 1904, to produce two new batches, about 250 tubes each. Unfortunately some tubes of the latter batch got a preliminary indication of the chlorinity which turned out to be erroneous. So when Knudsen received another batch of tubes, this time without indication of chlorinity, he took the occasion to give Ekman some friendly advice: always have sufficient stock of seawater to be able to comply with the demand; always indicate the chlorinity on each tube; and never distribute standard water with a preliminary indication of chlorinity. Knudsen considered the production and supply of standard water to be the principal task of the Laboratory, and it should be carried out in a way that nobody could set forth well-founded criticism in this respect.130 Ekman agreed; what had happened in connection with this batch of standard water had been painful to him. He would now take care that there always was a couple of carboys with seawater available in the Laboratory, as the long time for procuring such water had been the real cause of the recent misfortune.131 In October 1905, the Primary Standard P was ready and its chlorinity established as 19.448 ‰. In the following two years, four new batches of standard seawater were prepared and analysed.

Determination of the compressibility of seawater A determination of the compressibility of seawater had been made by the British physicist, Peter Guthrie Tait in connection with the working up of the data from the Challenger expedition. 132 In the following years, however, physical oceanography developed rapidly. So when ICES was established, the hydrographers involved in its activities were of the opinion that Tait’s results were not up to the current standards of accuracy and completeness. The Central Laboratory was prepared to carry out the new determinations. It was not clear, however, who should do the work. Nansen explained to Otto Pettersson that his former assistant, the Norwegian Jacob Schetelig (1875— 1935), had thought of starting these determinations. Nansen agreed, however, that it would be preferable to have them carried out in the laboratory of the French physicist Emil–Hilaire Amagat (1841—1915), an expert on compressibility studies, as proposed by Pettersson who had contacted the French 129

Fred Culkin and Jens Smed, The history of standard seawater. Oceanologica Acta,

1979, 2:

355—364.

130 M. Knudsen to W. Ekman 7 January 1905. RAC, No. 1935, Box D.3.

131 W. Ekman to M. Knudsen 11 January 1905. RAC, No. 1935, Box D.3.

132 P. G. Tait, Note on the compressibility of water, seawater, and alcohol, at high pressures. Proceedings of the Royal SocietyofEdinburgh, 1884, 12: 223—224; P. G. Tait, Further note on the compressibility of water. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1884, 12: 757— 758; P. G. Tait, The pressure errors of the Challenger thermometers. The Challenger Expedition, Narrative, II, 1889, Appendix A.

hydrographer Julien Thoulet (1843—1936) about the matter. 133 Thoulet drew attention to the experiments of this type, which the British hydrographer John Young Buchanan (1844—1925) had made on board the Princesse Alice, the research vessel of Prince Albert I of Monaco (1848—1922) during her cruise the previous summer. 134 As a matter of fact, Buchanan had, as early as during the Challenger expedition, experimented with the use of piezometers for determination of the compressibility of seawater.

In his letter to Otto Pettersson, Nansen proposed several options. He raised the question whether the Swedish hydrographer Johan Wilhelm Sandstrom (1874—1947) would be willing to go to Amagat’s laboratory in Paris, whether he had made the relevant preliminary studies, and whether he had the necessary experience of doing precision determinations. If not, it might be a solution to let him and Jacob Schetelig go there together. It would be difficult to dispense with Walfrid Ekman for the purpose. Not only would the determinations take up some weeks; time would also be needed for preliminary work and experiments. At one time the Norwegian physicist Vilhelm Bjerknes (1862—1951) was apparently interested in the problem. If Bjerknes would take on the task, it could hardly be in better hands, Nansen declared. 135 As early as April 1903, Sandstrom had proposed to the Central Laboratory a method for measuring compressibility. 136 By this method the water sample should be contained in a glass vessel connected by a capillary tube with a smaller vessel filled with mercury. The apparatus, a sort of piezometer, should be lowered to a known depth in the sea and the compression of the water should be measured by weighing the mercury pressed into the larger vessel - a method earlier used by Buchanan. Nansen had had an instrument of this type designed and ordered a prototype from the instrument maker C. Richter in Berlin.

In the end, it fell to Walfrid Ekman to carry out the investigations. He adopted Sandstrom’s method. Ekman took it for granted that the compressibility formula established by Tait was essentially correct, so that the work could be limited to a verification or improvement of its constants. For this purpose a few measurements made with the new instruments and method would suffice. After preliminary investigations in the Christiania Fiord, the first measurements were undertaken in the 1200 m deep Sognefiord in July 1905. Most of the work at sea, however, was carried out in the Mediterranean and in the Atlantic, off Portugal, from the research vessel Princesse Alice, placed at Ekman’s disposal for the purpose by Prince Albert of Monaco. In working up the observations, however, Ekman came to the conclusion that Tait’s formula was too inaccurate to permit much improvement of it. It was therefore de-

133 25 F. Nansen to Otto Pettersson 18 March 1903. GUCP. 134 Julien Thoulet to Otto Pettersson 11 March 1903. GUCP. 135 F. Nansen to Otto Pettersson 13 February 1904. GUCP. 136 F. Nansen, Report of the Central Laboratory July 22nd 1903—July 21st 1904, Rapports et Procès-verbaux, 1904, 2: XX—XXIV, on XXIII—XXN.

cided to carry out a new series of measurements - this time in the Laboratory. The work was started during the summer of 1907 and finished in April 1908. A detailed description of the work was published by Ekman. 137 On the basis of the measurements he established a new formula giving the compressibility of seawater as a function of its pressure, temperature, and specific weight at 0 °. From this formula, together with Knudsen’s Hydrographical Tables 138 and the formulas given there, Ekman computed and published tables for calculating density in situ of seawater.139 This equation of state of seawater was used universally in hydrographic research. Three quarters of a century elapsed before it was replaced by a new one, The International Equation of State 1980, which was used from 1 January 1982.140 During the preparations for the new equation of state, the admirable precision of Ekman’s measurements was stressed by Bradshaw and Schleicher.141 According to them, the major discrepancy between Ekman’s figures and those of the 1970s could be explained by a pressure error in Ekman’s measurements, stemming from his use of certain of Amagat’s values for the relative volume of distilled water at 0 ° 142 As a matter of fact, Ekman was aware of this pressure uncertainty.

Construction of instruments One of the tasks of the Central Laboratory was to design new instruments and to improve existing ones.

Insulated water bottles In the older types of water bottles, used for procuring water samples from various depths for determination of the temperature there, the insulation consisted of solid walls of material of low heat conductivity. This construction had the drawback that the water bottle needed a long time to assume the temperature of the water. Otto Pettersson overcame to some degree this problem by using the water itself as an insulating substance. In his water bottle the walls were made up of concentric cylinders of thin brass or celluloid, and the lid and the bottom of parallel rubber plates. When the water bottle was brought to the surface and opened the temperature was measured by

137 Walfrid Ekman, Die Zusammendrückbarkeit des Meerwassers nebst einigen Werten für Wasser und Quecksilber. Publications de circonstance, Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, 1908, No. 43. 47 pp.

138 Martin Knudsen, Hydrographical Tables (Copenhagen, 1901).

139 V. Walfrid Ekman, Tables for sea-water under pressure. Publications de circonstance, 1910, No. 49. 48 pp.

140 UNESCO, Background papers and supporting data of the International Equation of State of Seawater 1980. UNESCO Technical Papers in Marine Science, 1981, No. 38.

141 A. Bradshaw and K. Schleicher, Compressibility of distilled water and seawater. Deep—Sea Research, 1976, 23: 583—593.

142 E–H. Amagat, Mémoire sur l’élasticité et la dilabilité des fluids, jusqu’aux très hautes pressions. Quatrième mémoire: eau. Annales de Chimie et de Physique, 6. serie, 1893,29: 543—574.

injecting a thermometer into the sample. 143 However, when opening the water bottle, the water in the insulating spaces of the lid could pour into the central chamber and could slightly change the temperature of the water there. This drawback was corrected in the Nansen version of the instrument, the Pettersson–Nansen water bottle. In this apparatus a pressure protected thermometer, incorporated in the water bottle where it fills out a hole in the lid, was sent down with the bottle. This arrangement also made it possible to read the thermometer immediately after the water bottle had come up when the insulation was still effective. Furthermore, Nansen introduced a new closing method that ensured the tight closing of the water bottle, which was a weak point in the original Pettersson instrument.

Ekman published the first description of the Pettersson–Nansen water bottle and, at the same time, discussed the change of the temperature of seawater caused by the adiabatic process according to which compression results in warming, expansion in cooling. 144 Nansen had drawn attention to this effect and had set up tables for the correction of its influence.145 When calculating these tables, however, the change with pressure of the coefficient of dilatation and of the specific heat capacity had not been taken into consideration.

This was done by Ekman who worked out curves which, for every 200 m down to 3000 m, showed the decrease of the temperature of seawater of salinity 34.85 per mille when being raised to the surface. He noted that if water was raised from the greatest depth then known, 9636 m, its temperature would be lowered by 1.3 °—1.4 ° C. Ekman pointed out that the temperature effect in the solid walls caused by the relaxation of pressure was the most serious drawback of the insulated water bottle. As it was impracticable to calculate the quantity of cold transmitted in a given time from the walls into the central chamber by way of the insulating water, the correction to be made for the adiabatic cooling was very uncertain. Ekman carried out an experimental investigation of the insulating properties of the Pettersson– Nansen water bottle. His conclusion was that the hundredths of the degree in the 235 readings must, in most cases, be considered as approximate. With this reservation the smaller (600 cm3) water bottle might be used down to depths of about 1000 m, whereas the large-type water bottle could not be recommended.

The same paper described a new kind of insulated water bottle, by means of which water samples might be taken from below the surface from a ship in motion. This frameless water bottle (Figure 5), designed jointly by Nansen and Ekman, contained a thermometer to be read when the bottle had arrived

143 Otto Pettersson, A review of Swedish hydrographic research in the Baltic and the North Sea, Part I. The Scottish Geographical Magazine, 1894, 10: 282—302, on p. 284.

144 V. Walfrid Ekman, On the use of insulated water—bottles and reversing thermometers. Publications de circonstance, 1905, No. 23. 28 pp. and two plates.

145 Fridtjof Nansen, Some oceanographical results of the expedition with "Michael Sars" in the summer of 1900. Nyt Magazin for Naturvidenskaberne, 1901, 39: 129—154, on 136.

on deck. The first version of this water bottle, supplying a sample of ca.

450 cm3, insulated for two to three minutes. A latter version of the instrument, supplying a sample of ca. 800 cm3, insulated for four to five minutes.

The depth of the sample was determined by a Rung bathometer, a glass tube pressure gauge invented by the Danish meteorologist Georg Adolf Rung (1845—1903). 146 The first instrument tried out was graded to 60 m only.

Down to this depth, samples were easily taken while the ship was steaming at 7 knots, and it was claimed that the instrument would probably have worked at considerably greater depths.

Figure 5. The Nansen–Ekman insulating water bottle for use from a ship in motion.

Reversing water bottles A non-insulated reversing water bottle (Figure 6), designed at the Central Laboratory, was described in the paper referred to above. The instrument was made in two patterns, one to be fastened at the end of the line, the other on the side of the line. Both were operated by messengers, and the latter type had also an arrangement for releasing a messenger below, so that any number of water bottles might be used simultaneously on the line - an arrangement first proposed by the British hydrographer Hugh Robert Mill (1861—1950). 147 The reason for designing the reversing water bottle was that it should be used with reversing thermometers. So the water bottle carried two brass tubes for this type of thermometers which were reversed with the closing and reversal of the apparatus. Ekman gave a description of the

146 G. A Rung, Ein Universalbathometer. Wassertiefenmesser mit gleichgetheilter Skale. Zeitschrift für Instrumentenkunde, 1892, 12: 287— 288.

147 H. R. Mill, On the periodic variation of temperature in tidal basins. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Edinburgh, 1884, 12: 927—932.

reversing thermometers supplied by C. Richter in Berlin, and reported on some experiments with them, in order to investigate their accuracy and their speed of registering. He concluded that well made thermometers might allow very accurate measurements.

Figure 6. Ekman’s reversing water bottle. Courtesy of Artur Svansson.

Bottom sampler Walfrid Ekman designed an instrument for collecting sediment samples, a technically improved version of an instrument constructed by his father, Fredrik Laurents Ekman (1830—1890). 148 Nansen further improved the instrument, replacing the brass lining of the sounding tube by a number of glass tubes. In soft bottom, samples of the full length of the instrument, 180 cm, could be obtained. Usually, however, the sample was not longer than one metre, even if the instrument had penetrated to its full length into the bottom.149 Current meters Trustworthy current meters were vital for the study of the sea. Two instruments were constructed in the Laboratory, designed by Ekman and Nansen, respectively. The Ekman current meter, well known to many now elderly hy-

148 F. L. Ekman and Otto Pettersson, Den svenska hydrografiska expeditionen Ar 1877. Kongliga Svenska Vetenskaps-akademiens Handlingar, 1893, 25(1). 163 pp., on pp. 26—33.

149 V. Walfrid Ekman, An apparatus for the collection ofbottom samples. Publications decirconstance, 1905, No. 27. 6 pp.

drographers, was invented during the Laboratory’s first year, though the description of it was published somewhat later. 150 This meter, which was started and stopped by messengers, registered the speed of the current from the number of revolutions of a propeller, counted by a dial-work. The direction, indicated by a tail fin, was registered in an ingenious way (a further development of which was described by Ekman): 151 a compass needle in whose upper surface there is a groove was mounted below one of the dial-work wheels which were put in motion by the propeller. From a hopper shots dropped at regular intervals into the groove of the compass needle and fell into one of thirty-six compartments of the compass box. In this way it was possible to find not only the mean direction of the current but also how much the current had veered around this direction. Even the change of current direction with time could be studied if, as suggested by Nansen, each shot was engraved in a different way. The instrument worked satisfactorily except for currents below 10 cm/sec, when the roll of the ship spoiled the measurements.152 It may be added that twenty years later, Ekman overcame this problem by his Repeating Current–Meter. 153 This instrument was used successfully for the investigation of currents down to several hundred metres. For use in the upper water layers Ekman constructed the less complicated Protected Current– Meter. 154 The original version of the Nansen Current–Meter was constructed by Nansen before the establishment of the Central Laboratory and was described by Ekman. 155 An improved version, however, was produced by the Laboratory in accordance with ideas set forth by Nansen. It was a pendulum current meter, the current being measured by the displacement of a pendulum hanging freely by a thread. The pendulum, which carried six wings, ended in a point.

Below the pendulum the instrument had a wax covered concave disc. When a messenger struck the frame, the pendulum would drop onto the disc and make a mark in it, the compass needle being arrested at the same time. The position of the mark would then indicate the speed and direction of the current. The release of the pendulum was regulated by clockwork, making it possible to get a series of recordings in the wax layer. When this had been smoothed with a warm knife the instrument could be lowered for a new series. 156 In an appendix Ekman reported on the releasing clockwork used and

150 V. Walfrid Ekman, Kurze Beschreibung eines Propell–Strommessers. Publications de circonstance, 1905, No. 24. 4 pp. and one plate.

151 V. Walfrid Ekman, Improvement of the Ekman current—meter.Publications decirconstance, 1906, No. 34: 41—42.

152 Fridtjof Nansen, Report of the Central Laboratory, July 22nd 1903—July 21st 1904. Rapports et Procès-verbaux, 1904, 2: XX—XXIV, on XXI. 153 V. Walfrid Ekman, On a new repeating current–meter. Publications de circonstance, 1926, No. 91. 27 pp.

154 V. Walfrid Ekman, An improved type of current–meter. Journal du Conseil, 1932, 7:3—10.

155 V. Walfrid Ekman, On a new current–meter invented by Prof. Fridtjof Nansen. Nyt Magazin for Naturvidenskaberne, 1901, 39: 163—187.

156 Fridtjof Nansen, Methods for measuring direction and velocity of currents in the sea. Publications de circonstance, 1906, No. 34: 1—32.

also described the carrying out of measurements from buoys by means of Nansen’s and his own meters. 157 Determination of the atmospheric gases dissolved in seawater The hydrographic programme adopted at the Stockholm Conference required that at each hydrographic station samples of seawater should be collected for analysis of their content of atmospheric gases. Furthermore, it was desirable that the existing tables of absorption of nitrogen and oxygen should be revised. 158 Otto Pettersson and Martin Knudsen concluded on the basis of their experiments that these two gases and carbon dioxide could not be determined in the same sequence. Nevertheless the chemical assistant of the Central Laboratory, Charles Fox, devoted himself to the task of designing an apparatus by which the content of each of the three gases could be determined in one operation. In 1904, he had an apparatus for the complete extraction and estimation of the dissolved gases ready (Figure 7). 159

Figure 7. Fox’s apparatus for determination of the content of oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide in seawater.

A detailed description of the apparatus and its use was published by Fox in 1905.160 He declared that his apparatus must stand or fall largely as a result of what Knudsen and Pettersson thought of it, since they were recognized

157 V. Walfrid Ekman, Current-measurements by means of buoy and releasing clockwork. Publications de circonstance, 1906, No. 34: 33—41.

158 Anon., Conférence internationale, Stockholm, 1899, p. 7.

159 Fridtjof Nansen, Report of the Central Laboratory. July 22nd 1903—July 21st 1904. Rapports et Procés-verbaux, 1904, 2: XX—XXIV, on XXII—XXIII. 160 C. J. J. Fox, On the determination of the atmospheric gases dissolved in sea-water. Publications de circonstance, 1905, No. 21.:24 pp. and one plate.

experts on the subject. Fox quoted Pettersson’s opinion that the apparatus was too complicated for general use - an opinion he, according to Fox, had presumably got from looking at the picture accompanying the description of it. Fox defended his instrument, not claiming any special virtue for simplicity, nor admitting that complexity was necessarily a vice. He pointed out that the Pettersson–Nansen water bottle was very complicated compared to the glass bottle with cork used earlier! It was necessary, he argued, to view complexity of structure from the point of view of convenience and accuracy of manipulation. In the case of his apparatus, if that was done, Fox maintained that it was superior to others. 161 Knudsen feared that the importance of gas analyses had been overestimated by the hydrographers. With respect to oxygen determinations, the less accurate titrimetrical method would be sufficient for many purposes. Knudsen raised the general question about what use might be made of nitrogen and carbon dioxide analyses. He referred to his own earlier considerations of the subject.162 As he did not have time to bring his thoughts on this matter to a proper end, he hoped, that Fox would do it and, in a paper, clearly indicate where and when analyses ought to be carried out, and what information such series of analyses might be expected to give. 163 Fox’s apparatus does not appear to have been a success. For instance, A. J. Robertson, assistant to D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson (1860—1948) at the University College, Dundee, Scotland, complained to Martin Knudsen that he had now for some months been experimenting with the apparatus and had experienced nothing but vexation and worry. So he was thinking of giving up the Fox apparatus.164 Although Fox did not have success with his gas analysis apparatus, he did succeed in determining the coefficients of absorption in distilled water and seawater of nitrogen and oxygen 165 and carbon dioxide, 166 an important work.

Dissolution of the Central Laboratory A few years after the turn of the century, Nansen became involved in Norwegian politics. He was very active when the Union between Sweden and Norway was dissolved in 1905, and Prince Carl of Denmark became King of Norway under the name of Håkon VII. As a matter of fact, when Nansen attended the ICES meeting in Copenhagen in July 1905, his more important task

161 Fox to Knudsen 3 May 1905, RAC, No. 1935, Box D.4.

162 Martin Knudsen, Über den Gebrauch von Stickstoffbestimmungen in der Hydrographie. Publications de circonstance, 1903, No.4. 9 pp.

163 M. Knudsen to C. J. J. Fox 5 May 1905, RAC, No. 1935, Box D.4.

164 A. J. Robertson to M. Knudsen 20 July 1906, RAC, No. 1935, Box D.2.

165 C. J. J. Fox, On the coefficients of absorption of the atmospheric gases in distilled water and sea water. I: Nitrogen and oxygen. Publications de circonstance, 1907, No. 41.23 pp. and one plate.

166 C. J. J. Fox, On the coefficients of absorption of the atmospheric gases in distilledwater and sea water. II: Carbonic acid. Publications de circonstance, 1909, No. 44. •31 pp.

was to negotiate confidentially with Prince Carl and with the King of Denmark and the Danish government about these political matters. In 1906, the Norwegian government appointed Nansen its first minister in London. Under these circumstances he would spend less time on directing the Laboratory. In April 1906, Ekman therefore, on Nansen’s proposal, was appointed Deputy Director of the Laboratory. Ekman’s wider responsibility is evidenced by the fact that, while the first three annual reports of the Laboratory were signed

by Nansen, the fourth one was signed jointly by Nansen and Ekman and the following ones by Ekman alone.

In spite of his other tasks, Nansen still took a great interest in the Central Laboratory in 1906. Its future was not clear, however. The international investigations might come to an end in 1907, as they were planned for only a five– year period. In December 1905 Johan Hjort reminded Nansen of this, pointing out that it would be desirable to use the opportunity of the Council meeting at Amsterdam in February–March 1906, for a discussion of the conditions for a potential continued cooperation. Nansen felt, however, that as long as he was ignorant about the positions of the various countries, he was unable to present any plan or proposal for a continuation of the Laboratory. 167 So at the Amsterdam meeting, which Nansen did not attend, only a casual discussion about the future of the Laboratory took place.

Immediately after the Amsterdam meeting, Johan Hjort and the Norwegian hydrographer Bjørn Helland–Hansen (1877—1957) informed Nansen about the informal negotiations regarding the future of the Laboratory. In reply, Nansen, in a detailed letter to Johan Hjort, expressed his opinion about the importance and the future tasks of a Central Laboratory. 168 The letter is in Norwegian; however, an English translation of the main part of it, dated August 1906, is kept in the Council’s archives. It was probably laid before the Bureau or the Council. Here Nansen reported on what had been achieved by the Laboratory with regard to the various tasks it had been assigned. He concluded that, after the experience gained, it seemed imperative to maintain and, if possible, further develop a central institution like the Laboratory in Christiania. This would ensure that the international investigations would be of the greatest possible value. At the same time it would be easier for the participants to get the most up-to-date and appropriate equipment. So, if it should prove difficult to carry on the Central Laboratory in Christiania, steps ought to be taken to secure the establishment of a similar institution at another place where its work might be continued.

At the Council meeting in June 1907, it became clear that all member countries were prepared to continue the cooperation for at least one more year.

Nansen then announced that, because of the uncertainty with regard to the continuation of the international investigations, it had not been possible to secure the Norwegian supplementary contribution for the Laboratory. At the 167 F. Nansen to Johan Hjort 4 January 1906, Nansen, Brev, 1963, III. 168 F. Nansen to Johan Hjort 23 Apri11907, Nansen, Brev, 1963, III.

suggestion of Nansen the Council, however, granted the usual amount of 11 700 Kroner for running the Laboratory during 1907/08, though with great reluctance from the acting President, Otto Pettersson. 169 From an internal German report on the meeting, it would seem that there was no longer full satisfaction with the work of the Laboratory. According to the report, the Laboratory could not escape severe criticism in narrower circles of the hydrographers, and it was maintained that they did not want the Laboratory to be continued after July 1908. In this connection it was stated that the industry and the scientific achievements of Walfrid Ekman were just as recognized, as those of the chemist, Dr Fox, were regarded as unsatisfactory. 170 After the meeting, Nansen declared that, for financial reasons, he could not keep the Laboratory going without dispensing with Dr Fox’s services. On the other hand the meeting had expressed a strong wish that Ekman would continue at the Laboratory. So Ekman continued, whereas Fox left in September 1907. The Laboratory was now in a state of disorganization. At the meeting of the ICES Bureau in January 1908, Johan Hjort, representing Nansen who was prevented from attending the meeting, explained that Nansen did not have in mind to propose that the Laboratory be continued in its present form under his direction and with a special Norwegian grant. Nansen considered it very desirable, however, that standard seawater would be prepared in the future and that, if possible, testing could take place of the instruments used for continuation of hydrographic research. The Bureau then decided to submit the following proposal to the Council: The Central Laboratory has, with the end of the financial year 1907— 08, fulfilled its task in a meritorious manner. The further elaboration of special problems in future must be entrusted to the specialists of the different countries. There remains, however, one practical charge, in which all hydrographers are concerned, viz. the preparation of normal water [i.e. standard seawater]. It seems natural to hand over to Docent Knudsen this task and to decide that, to defray the expenses, those who want the normal water, in future will pay an adequate price for each sending.

This proposal was considered by the Council at its meeting in Copenhagen in July 1908. Nansen was prevented from attending the meeting. He had, however, made his position clear in a letter to Johan Hjort, the content of which was reported to the meeting. Nansen was convinced that a central institution for the hydrographical part of the investigations was a necessity if their value should not be essentially diminished. It had become clear that in the Norwegian Sea and the Atlantic Ocean, salinity differences of 0.03 per mille, or even 0.02 per mille, were of crucial importance. An accuracy of that order in inves-

169 Anon., Rapports et Procés-verbaux, 1907, 7: 32—34.

170 Report in DDR Zentrales Staatsarchiv, Dienststelle Potsdam (now in Bundesarchiv, Berlin).

tigations carried out by many observers from different countries could only be obtained if reliable instruments and good methods were used. In the future, a central institution for checking instruments and methods was, therefore, a necessity. 171 The meeting agreed generally with the proposal submitted by the Bureau. In accordance with the above view of Nansen, Hugh Mill was of the opinion that it would be useful also in the future to have a regular agency to which hydrographers might apply for information or general instruction. So the resolution was modified to read that there remained practical charges with which all hydrographers were concerned, e.g. preparation of standard water. 172 With this modification the resolution was adopted by the Council and that was the end of the Central Laboratory.

Laboratoire Hydrographique International In October 1908, Martin Knudsen, in his capacity as Hydrographical Assistant to the Bureau, received some leftover materials from the dissolved Central Laboratory, including a small stock of standard seawater. At the Council meetings in the following years he reported on the preparation of new batches of standard water, the nse of which had spread beyond the member countries to such a degree that more than one fourth of the water was sold to institutions outside the organization.

Hugh Mill had been right, however, in surmising that there was a need for other services than just preparation and supply of standard water. So in July 1912, Martin Knudsen circulated a letter to a number of hydrographers, asking for their opinion quite privately on a proposal for the establishment of a central hydrographical laboratory. Knudsen thought that such a laboratory might render good services to hydrographers even if it was kept on a much smaller scale than the former laboratory at Christiania. If desired, Knudsen was willing to undertake the direction of such a laboratory, which might lean upon the Danish Hydrographical Laboratory and his Physical Laboratory at the University of Copenhagen. With this plan the annual expenditure would be limited to the salary of one assistant together with a certain amount for various materials and for rent of a storeroom. Knudsen considered that a main task of the laboratory should be to supply and test hydrographical apparatuses and equipment, as he had often been requested by hydrographers to do this. At present, however, he could only advise about the producers of the instruments. It would also be useful if the laboratory would be able to supply various commonly used hydrographical instruments at short notice.

Knudsen therefore proposed that the laboratory should keep such instruments in stock. It should furthermore undertake testing of instruments which were supplied through its agency or which were submitted to it for testing. It

171 F. Nansen to Johan Hjort 14 July 1908, Nansen, Brev, 1963, III. 172 Anon., Rapports et ProcĂŠs-verbaux, 1909, 11: 16â&#x20AC;&#x201D;18.

should also be a task of the laboratory to design new instruments or amend old patterns.

In the main Knudsen’s plan was supported by the recipients of his letter. So in July 1912, he submitted to the ICES Bureau a proposal 173 for an International Hydrographical Laboratory in accordance with the ideas put forward in his circular letter. The proposal was discussed by the Hydrographical Section of the Council at its meeting in September 1912. The Section regarded it as highly desirable, in the interest of uniformity of work, that the instruments listed in Knudsen’s proposal should be kept in stock to meet occasional demands. Furthermore, newly invented instruments should, as far as possible, be purchased and lent for trial to the members of the International Council.

In response to this discussion the Council decided that a hydrographical laboratory should be established, under the direction of Knudsen, for providing and testing instruments and distributing them by sale. A credit of 4 600 Kroner was voted for the purpose, including 3 600 Kroner for providing a stock of instruments and 1 000 Kroner for additional expenses. 174 The laboratory, named Laboratoire hydrographique international, obviously got a flying start. During the first six months of its existence, the laboratory supplied a great number of instruments to 15 scientific institutions in member and non-member countries. 175 The many orders for instruments, many requests for calibration work, and a great many inquiries of widely varying types implied the need for additional assistance. The Bureau considered, however, that more experience with the types of instrument requests was needed, so the laboratory had to continue for one more year under the same financial conditions as hitherto.

During 1913, great efforts were made by Knudsen to create a comprehensive depot of oceanographic instruments at the laboratory. His success in this matter appears from the pricelist issued. 176 At the 1913 Council meeting in Copenhagen, Knudsen reported on the arrangement and work of the laboratory and invited the participants to pay a visit to it. There was general agreement that the laboratory was a most useful institution whose work and resources were expected to become more and more in demand. 177 These expectations turned out to be fulfilled. In 1914, Knudsen approached the Bureau with a request for additional support. He stressed that it was necessary to have scientific assistance for running the laboratory. Each instrument that arrived must be checked and perhaps tested, and very extensive calibration work was undertaken. For this latter work, auxiliary instruments were often needed. At present, however, no resources were available to purchase them.

173 Martin Knudsen, Proposal regarding an International Hydrographical Laboratory. Rapports et Procés-verbaux. 1913, 15: 122—127.

174 Anon., Rapports et Procés-verbaux, 1913, 15: 60.

175 M. Knudsen to the Council’s General Secretary 17 June 1913, RAC, No. 1935, Box D.11 176 Anon., Laboratoire hydrographique, DepOt d ‘instruments: Preisliste, 1914 (Copenhagen).

177 Anon., Rapports et Procés-verbaux, 1913, 19: 76—78.

In response to this request the Bureau at its meeting in April–May 1914, agreed to propose to the next Council meeting that the annual grant for the Laboratoire hydrographique be augmented to 3 000 Kroner.178 This decision, however, was never implemented because of the outbreak of the World War three months later. At that time, the Laboratoire had a debt to various instrument makers of about 13 000 Kroner. It is true that about the same amount was due to the Laboratoire for delivered instruments, but it was doubtful whether this would all come in. Under these circumstances, the Bureau was uneasy at the financial responsibilities implied. In order to relieve the Council of pecuniary responsibilities, Knudsen then took over for his personal account Laboratoire hydrographique, its assets and debts, the stock intended for sale, the standard seawater, and the instruments and appliances not intended for sale.179 In February 1920, Knudsen reported to the Bureau about the activities of the Laboratoire during the war and afterwards. He stressed its importance for hydrographic research which, to a large extent, made it possible to secure similarity of methods and comparability of results. If the Council so preferred, he was willing to continue the Laboratoire on his own responsibility. This was accepted, but the Council reserved its right to again take over the Laboratoire.180 However, the Council never felt inclined to do this. So the Laboratoire continued to be run by Knudsen as his private firm. He cooperated closely with the keeper of the Physical Laboratory of the University of Copenhagen, Hans Jørgen Nielsen (1879—1971), who produced many of the instruments invented or designed by Knudsen.

In 1948, when Knudsen reached his late seventies, he proposed that one of the tasks of the Laboratoire, the preparation of standard seawater, be taken over by the International Association of Physical Oceanography as one of its Permanent Services. The Service continued to be located at Copenhagen (Figure 8) until 1974, when it was moved to the National Institute of Oceanography at Wormley, England.

178 Protocol of the ICES Bureau meeting in April–May 1914. In ICES Secretariat.

179 General Secretary to the Council’s delegates 21 September 1914, RAC, No. 1935, Box D.11.

180 Protocols of the ICES Bureau meetings in March 1920 and July 1921. In ICES Secretariat.

Figure 8. Bottling of standard seawater in Copenhagen.

Laboratoire Oceanographique With Martin Knudsen’s death in May 1949, the Laboratoire hydrographique came to a stop. It had a natural successor, however. In October 1949, the previously mentioned H. J. Nielsen completed his seventieth year and therefore had to resign from his post as keeper of instruments at the Physical Laboratory of the University. Nielsen was an eminent technician. Since 1904, he had worked closely with Martin Knudsen in the production of instruments conceived by Knudsen for use in his scientific work, partly on gas kinetics, partly on hydrographic problems. Among the new hydrographic instruments may be mentioned improved water bottles, photometers for measuring the penetration of light into the sea, current meters and bottom samplers. During the long period of years, there had been an exceptionally harmonious and fruitful cooperation between the two gifted men, the scientist and the technician. 181 In spite of his age, Nielsen at his retirement was still an active mind and full of energy. It was therefore quite natural that he established a workshop where he continued manufacturing instruments for use in marine research. His Laboratoire oceanographique, which in a way may be considered a continuation of Knudsen’s Laboratoire hydrographique, had a considerable export to oceanographic institutions in many countries.

Nielsen was active right up to his death in August 1971, at an age of nearly ninety-two years. After his death, the Laboratoire remained at a standstill for some months. In the meantime, a journeyman who during a period of years had been working for Nielsen at the Laboratoire, took the opportunity in February 1972 to start a new firm, Oceanographic Instruments, which intended to continue the programme of production followed by the Laboratoire oceanographique. At about the same time, however, Nielsen’s daughter, Ms K. M. Nielsen, decided to continue the old firm, and from 15 March 1972, activities were resumed under the name “Laboratoire oceanographique, Suc181 R. E. H. Rasmussen, Mindeord om konservator Hans Jørgen Nielsen (obituary). Fysisk Tidsskrift, 1971, 69: 145—147.

cessors of Conservator H. J. Nielsen”. The instruments were produced by machine works in the Copenhagen region. The Laboratoire continued its activities up to the end of 1986 when Ms Nielsen, who was now at an advanced age, decided to close the firm. And that was the end of what Martin Knudsen had started three quarters of a century before.

Acknowledgments I am greatly indebted to my referees, Professor Eric Mills and Dr Helen Rozwadowski, for all their assistance and guidance in the preparation of the final manuscript. My sincere thanks are also due to Dr Artur Svansson for his incessant assistance in processing my manuscripts.

Archives Gothenburg University Library, Collection of letters to Otto Pettersson (GUCP) ICES Basement Archive (IBA) Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen (RAC) Zentrales Staatsarchiv, Dienststelle Merseburg [Now in Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturstelle, Berlin] (ZSM).

References Abbreviations used: R. P. -v.: Rapports et Procès-verbaux des Réunions du Conseil permanent international pour l‘Exploration de la Mer. P. c.: Publications de circonstance du Conseil permanent international pour l‘Exploration de la Mer. Amagat, E–H., Mémoire sur l’elasticité et la dilatabilite des fluids,jusqu’aux très hautes pressions. Quatrième memoire: eau. Annales de Chimie et de Physique, 6. serie, 1893, 29:543—574.

Anonymous, Conférence internationale pour l’Exploration de la Mer réunie à Stockholm 1899. Stockholm: Imprimerie K. L. Beckman, 1899.

Anonymous, 2. Conférence internationale pour l’Exploration de la Mer réunie à Kristiania 1901. Première partie contenant lecompte rendu de seances et les résolutions (Kristiania, Steen’ske Bogtrykkeri, 1901).

Anonymous, R. P.-v., 1903, 1:7—8.

Anonymous,Business organization for the Central Laboratory for the International Study of the Sea. R. P.-v., 1903, 2:64—157.

Anonymous,R. P.-v., 1903,2:68—71.

Anonymous, R. P.-v., 1907, 7:32—34.

Anonymous,R. P.-v., 1909,11:16—18.

Anonymous, R. P.-v., 1913, 15:60.

Anonymous, R. P.-v., 1913, 19:76—78.

Anonymous, Laboratoire hydrographique, Depôt d’instruments, Preisliste (Copenhagen, 1914).

Bradshaw, A and K. Schleicher, Compressibility of distilled water and seawater. Deep—Sea Research, 1976, 23: 583—593.

Culkin, F. and J. Smed, The history of standard seawater. Oceanologica Acta, 1979, 2: 355—364.

Ekman, F. L. and 0. Pettersson, Den svenska hydrografiska expeditionen Ar 1877. Kongliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar, 1893, 25(1).

Ekman, V. Walfrid, On a new current-meter invented by Prof. Fridtjof Nansen.

Nyt Magazin for Naturvidenskaberne, 190 I, 39(2): 163—187.

Ekman, V. Walfrid, On the use of insulated water-bottles and reversing thermometers. P. c., 1905, No. 23.

Ekman, V. Walfrid,,An apparatus for the collection of bottom samples. P. c., 1905, No. 27.

Ekman, V. Walfrid,, Kurze Beschreibung eines Propell-Stronunessers [Short description of a propeller current-meter]. P. c., 1905, No. 24.

Ekman, V. Walfrid,,Improvement of the Elcman current—meter. P. c., 1906, No. 34:41—42.

Ekman, V. Walfrid,,Current—measurements by means of buoy and releasing clock—work P. c., 1906, No. 34:33—41.

Ekman, V. Walfrid,, DieZusammendriickbarkeit des Meerwassers nebst einigen Werten fiir Wasserund Quecksilber [The compressibility of seawater together with some values for water and mercury]. P. c., 1908, No. 43.

Ekman, V. Walfrid,, Tables for sea-water under pressure. P. c., 1910, No. 49.

Ekman, V. Walfrid,, On a new repeating current-meter. P. c., 1926, No. 91.

Ekman, V. Walfrid,,An improved type of current-meter. Journal du Conseil, 1932, 7:3—10.

Fox, C. J. J., On the determination of the atmospheric gases dissolved in seawater. P. c., 1905, No. 21.

Fox, C. J. J., On the coefficients of absorption of the atmospheric gases in distilled water and sea water. I: Nitrogen and oxygen. P. c., 1907, No. 41.

Fox, C. J. J., On the coefficients of absorption ofthe atmospheric gases in distilled water and sea water. II: Carbonic acid. P. c., 1909, No. 44.

Kjrerheim, Steinar (ed.), FridljofNansen, Brev, II (Oslo, 1961).

Kjrerheim, Steinar (ed.), FridijofNansen, Brev, Ill (Oslo, 1963).

Knudsen, Martin, Proposal about an international institution for Procuring Standard Water, in Conférence Internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer, réunie à Stockholm 1899. (Stockholm, 1899), XLII—XL VI.

Knudsen, Martin,Hydrographical Tables (Copenhagen, 1901).

Knudsen, Martin, Über den Gebrauch von Stickstoftbestimmungen in der Hydrographie [On the use of determinations of nitrogen in the hydrography]. P. c., 1903, No.4.

Knudsen, Martin,Proposal regarding an International Hydrographical Laboratory. R. P.-v., 1913, 15:122—127.

Mill, H. R., On the periodic variation of temperature in tidal basins. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1884, 12:927—932.

Nansen, Fridtjof, Proposal for a central laboratory. Conférence Internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer, réunie à Stockholm 1899, Appendix 2.

(Stockholm, 1899).

Nansen, Fridtjof, Some oceanographical results of the expedition with "Michael Sars" in the summer of 1900. Nyt Magazinfor Naturvidenskaberne, 1901,39:129—154 and 14 plates.

Nansen, Fridtjof, Report of the Central Laboratory for the year July 22nd 1903—July21st 1904.R. P.-v., 1904, 2:XXXXIV. Nansen, Fridtjof, Methods for measuring direction and velocity of currents in the sea. P. c., 1906, No. 34:1—32.

Pettersson, Otto, A review of Swedish hydrographic research in the Baltic and the North Seas. The Scottish Geographical Magazine, 1894, 10:282—302, on p. 284.

Rasmussen, R. E. H., Mindeord om konservator Hans Jørgen Nielsen, Fysisk Tidsskrift, 1971, 69:145—147.

Rung, G. A. Ein Universalbathometer. Wassertiefenmesser mit gleichgetheilter Skale [Universal bathometer; instrument for measuring water depth}. Zeitschriftfor Instrumentenkunde, 1892, 12: 287—288.

Scott Moncrieff, Colin and D’Arcy W. Thompson, Reports of the British delegates attending the international conferences held at Stockholm, Christiania, and Copenhagen, with respect to fishery and hydrographical investigations in the North Sea and correspondence related thereto.

North Sea Fishery investigations, Parliamentary Papers 1902, 15, Cd. 1313 (London: HMSO, 1903).

Smed, Jens, Otto Krümmel über Fridtjof Nansens Kandidaturfür den 1. Generalsekretar von ICES. Deutsche Gesellschaftfor Meeresforschungen, Mitteilungen, 1989, No. 1:6—8.

Tait, P. G., Note on the compressibility of water, seawater, and alcohol, at high pressures. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1884, 12:223—224.

Tait, P. G., Further note on the compressibility of water. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1884, 12:757—758.

Tait, P. G., The pressure errors of the Challenger thermometers. The Challenger Expedition, Narrative, II, 1889, Appendix A. UNESCO, Background papers and supporting data of the International Equation of State of Seawater 1980. UNESCO Technical Papers in Marine Science, 1981, No. 38.

Martin Knudsen (1871—1949) and the Standard Seawater Historisch-Meereskundliches Jahrbuch/History of Oceanography Yearbook Band 11 / Volume 11 2005 Jens Smed In connection with the determination of the salinity of seawater samples by titration the Danish hydrographer 182 Martin Knudsen (1871—1949) made use of a standard seawater to whose chlorinity that of the other samples was referred, a procedure that implied great internal consistency of the values.

This concept of standard water was adopted by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). Its Central Laboratory in Christiania (Oslo) was directed to produce the standards, a task which in 1908 was transferred to Knudsen within his duties as hydrographic assistant to the ICES Bureau.

Later he took over the Service as personal activity. In 1948, it was transferred to the International Association for Physical Oceanography (IAPO). Some doubt with regard to the applicability of the Copenhagen Standard Water for determination of the chlorinity of Mediterranean water turned out to be groundless.

Martin Knudsen (1871—1949) und das Standard-Seewasser. Bei der Bestimmung des Salzgehaltes einer Wasserprobe durch Titration benutzte der Dänische Hydrograph Martin Knudsen (1871—1949) ein StandardSeewasser, dessen Chlorgehalt auf den der anderen Proben bezogen wird.

Dieses Verfahren bringt eine große relative Übereinstimmung der Werte. Die Benutzung eines Standardwassers wurde von dem International en Rat für Meeresforschung (ICES) übernommen. Dessen Zentrallabor in Christiana (Oslo) wurde angewiesen, dieses Normal wasser herzustellen. 1908 wurde diese Aufgabe Knudsen im Rahmen seiner Tätigkeit als hydrographischer Assistent am ICES–Büro übertragen. Später führte er diesen Dienst in privater Regie durch. 1948 wurde er der International Association for Physical Oceanography (IAPO) übertragen. Einige Zweifel gegenüber der Anwendbarkeit des Kopenhagener Standardwassers für die Bestimmung des Chlorgehaltes von Wasser aus dem Mittelmeer erwiesen sich als grundlos.

Martin Knudsen's introduction of the standard seawater concept In the 1890s, two methods for determination of the salinity of seawater were in general use. By one method the specific gravity was measured and the salinity obtained by multiplying the surplus of the specific gravity over 1 by the so-called specific gravity coefficient. The other method consisted in determining the chlorinity by titration: a few titrations were carried out by

182

In Scandinavia the word hydrography was used for physical oceanography.

weighing, and all volume titrations were referred to these; the salinity was then obtained by multiplying the chlorinity by the so-called chlorinity coefficient. None of these methods were very accurate, the titration method usually being considered the better one. Because titration by weighing is difficult and time consuming the Danish hydrographer Martin Knudsen thought that it would not be undertaken so often that sufficient accuracy was achieved. He estimated that usually the accuracy at the time was not better than 0.10 to 0.15 ‰ in salinity. From his work on the Ingolf Expedition in 1895 and 1896 to Icelandic and West Greenland waters he concluded, however, that various types of Atlantic water existed which differed in salinity by 0.10 to 0.25 ‰ only (Knudsen, 1899a). This obviously implied that some types of Atlantic water could not be distinguished by their salinity as determined by the methods then in general use. However, it was possible to determine the salinity with an accuracy of 0.04 ‰. Knudsen had obtained this accuracy when analysing the water samples from the Ingolf Expedition and later Danish hydrographic investigations. He had prepared a number of sealed tubes of seawater, its chlorinity had been determined accurately by the Volhard titration method. This water was then utilized for standardizing the silver nitrate solutions used in the Mohr titrations. In this way all chlorinity determinations were referred to one standard whereby great internal consistency was obtained.

Standard seawater to be used in ICES investigations On the basis of his experience in this matter Knudsen submitted to the Stockholm Conference 1899, which inaugurated the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), a proposal for the establishment of an international institution for procuring standard seawater (Knudsen, 1899b, pp. XII— XLVI). He stressed that salinity measurements were important because they constituted the foundation of all physical, climatological, and biological examinations of seawater. If the measurements should be of any value, however, accuracy and homogeneity were a necessity. Obviously this might be obtained if all water samples were examined in one laboratory. Knudsen realized that this procedure was not practicable. Instead he proposed the establishment of the above mentioned institution whose principal work would be to prepare standard seawater and distribute samples to the various laboratories together with a specification of the physical and chemical properties of the water. The laboratories would then by titration determine the chlorinity of their own samples, using the standard water for reference, and in this way avoid various sources of error. The preparation of the standard seawater and the determination of its physical and chemical properties would have to be done by experienced physicists and chemists who should have great instrumental resources at their disposal in laboratories especially fitted for such investigations. In Knudsen's proposal a staff consisting of a manager, a physicist, a chemist, and two assistants was foreseen. This might seem to be quite a large staff. However, it should be born in mind what Knudsen included in the investigation of the physical and chemical properties of the water:

A detailed determination of the total salinity and the quantity of the single salts. Determination of carbonic acid, sulphuric acid, alkalinity, specific gravity etc., the coefficient of refraction and absorption for light with different wave-length. Determination of the specific electric resistance, the surface tension, and the viscosity. Determinations of freezing point and boiling point etc.

Figure 1. Martin Knudsen in the laboratory of Ingolf (courtesy Torben Wolff, Zoological Museum, Copenhagen).

After these investigations some of the water would be sealed in glass tubes and examined at intervals to find out whether the properties of the water had changed, for instance by interaction between water and glass. From this it might be seen whether seawater was a suitable standard. A similar examination of artificially produced â&#x20AC;&#x153;seawaterâ&#x20AC;? should also be carried out, in order to see whether this water should offer any particular advantage in comparison with real seawater. These investigations, which Knudsen expected to take two years, would render it possible to decide what should be the future standard for use in the determination of the halogen content of seawater, and also what should be chosen as standard in determining the other physical and chemical properties of seawater if the investigations would have shown that use of a reference standard was to be preferred to an absolute determination. Knudsen was anxious to stress that the proposed institution should not undertake general hydrography, such as the study of hydrographical variations. However, it should use the knowledge and practice, which it gained by the investigation of the standard water, to study carefully water from different places â&#x20AC;&#x153;for the determination of the qualities and mark of dif-

ferent waters, that the general hydrography can be able to use the results of the Institution”. Furthermore, it should investigate such samples of water which the hydrographer who had gathered them preferred to have examined by the institution with its more experienced staff and better scientific resources.

The Conference did not adopt Knudsen's proposal. Yet it resolved (Anon., 1899, pp. 6—7) that From every collection of samples examined at least 3 shall be selected and sent to the central bureau. Standard samples shall be sent, in return.

In a footnote it is explained that: By standard water shall be understood samples of filtered seawater, the physical and chemical properties of which are known with all possible accuracy by analysis, and statements of which are sent to the different laboratories, together with samples. In respect to halogen the ordinary water samples have to be compared with the standard water by analytical methods.

So the Conference did recognize the importance of using standard water.

However, instead of Knudsen's proposal it preferred a plan set forth by the polar explorer and marine scientist Fridtjof Nansen (1861—1930) that in connection with the Central Bureau of the organization to be established there should be a central laboratory to carry out a number of tasks listed in the plan (Nansen, 1899, pp. 22—23). Among these tasks was the procuring of standard water: The water-samples sent by the workers of the participating states should be analysed and examined at the central laboratory, from which also samples of standard water should be provided.

This decision in favour of Nansen's proposal did not mean any lack of confidence in Knudsen, as clearly appears from the fact that he was entrusted with the task of a revision of the various existing hydrographical tables.

Figure 2. Fridjof Nansen (Nansen: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Brevâ&#x20AC;?, II.)

Knudsen foresaw that the establishment of a central laboratory would take some time. In order to avoid lack of standard water in this period he decided to prepare a batch of such water. In 1903 he explained in detail the background for this decision (Knudsen, 1903, pp. 3â&#x20AC;&#x201D;4): 1. Though, in my opinion, the members of the Stockholm conference did not clearly see the advantage of using a standardwater for all titrations, I did not hear a single remark against it, and I myself felt convinced, that standard-water soon or later would be a great advantage, perhaps a necessity for cooperative hydrographical work.

2. It did not seem probable to me that the whole international cooperation would begin within a short time (experience has shown, that it took three years) and in the meantime it would be useful to have at hand reliable standard-water.

3. The researches done for the determination of the constants of different kinds of seawater would offer a convenient occasion for determining the constants of standard-water.

4. In the case I should succeed in carrying through the work of the constants-determination and have compiled some hydrographical tables that could be generally adopted, I thought it of importance that the standard-water used should be investigated with the same means and methods as used in the researches upon which the tables would be founded.

In this connection it should be born in mind that preparation of standard water was nothing new to Knudsen. Already before the Stockholm Conference he had made five different batches for use in Danish hydrographic work. So the standard water prepared for use in the constants-determinations for the revision of the tables was designated No. VI. A description of the collection and storage of the water to be used for the standard samples was published

by Knudsen (1902, pp. 15—27; 1903, p. 4). Incidentally, the latter paper also explains why standard water is supplied in the well known characteristic tubes: at the time of the preparation of No. VI Knudsen happened to have a surplus of the tubes employed for gas analyses. So he used them for the standard water samples, and this type has been used ever since.

The chlorinity of standard water No. VI had been determined by the Danish chemist Søren Peter Lauritz Sørensen (1868—1939) who based his determination on a sample of potassium chloride (Sørensen, 1902, pp. 93—137). All following standards, referred to No. VI, are therefore based upon the chlorine in this sample of potassium chloride and consequently depending upon the atomic weights then in use.

As surmised by Knudsen there was a real need for standard water even if the international cooperation had not yet been formally established. From May 1900 to August 1902 standard water No. VI was used for all Danish titrations, and samples were distributed to Finland, Germany, Norway, Russia, and Sweden, after which only a few tubes of the original stock of 80 were left.

The international cooperation, including seasonal cruises, was now starting which created a need for more standard water. As mentioned above this should in principle be supplied by a central laboratory which, however, was only now being established in Christiania (Oslo). Knudsen was therefore requested to supply a new batch of standard water. As a matter of fact he had expected this request; so he had kept a stock of seawater for the filling of the tubes, which took place in August 1902. The chlorinity of this provisional standard water was determined by comparison with No. VI and got No. VIa. 201 tubes were produced for distribution free of charge to laboratories in the member countries of the International Council.

The Central Laboratory takes over production of standard seawater It was a great disappointment to Knudsen that he did not get the leadership of the standard seawater service, as he explained in a confidential letter to the Swedish chemist and hydrographer, and "father" of ICES, Otto Pettersson (1848—1941).

Figure 3. Bottling of standard seawater in Copenhagen.

As he was convinced that standard seawater was a necessity for marine research, even if he thought that his hydrographic colleagues did not see this clearly, he had used the opportunity of the determination of the constants of seawater for preparation of standard water. In this way Knudsen and his collaborators had got more than a year's training in this work, a training which Knudsen considered indispensable for preparing standard water of an adequate quality. So it appeared incredible to him that the homogeneity of the whole system should be broken shortly after it had been established. However, he had now dispensed with it; but he expressed concern that the chemist of the Central Laboratory, Charles J. J. Fox, might not have sufficient training in this special matter.183 Otto Pettersson agreed that exact standards were important, and there should be full accordance between Knudsen's and the future standard water. However, the rules adopted at the Stockholm Conference had laid the standard water service in the hands of the Central Laboratory if it would avail itself of the right. 184

183 Martin Knudsen to Otto Pettersson 1 April 1903. Copy in RAC, No. 1935, Box D.39.

.

184 Pettersson to Knudsen 4 April 1903. RAC, No. 1945, Box E.65

Figure 4. Tube of standard seawater.

There now remained only 80 of the original stock of 201 tubes of standard water VIa. So preparation of a new batch should preferably begin before long. Knudsen reminded Nansen about this, and at the Council meeting at Copenhagen in 1903 they discussed where this batch should be produced, without arriving at a decision. Knudsen pointed out that production of more provisional supplies at Copenhagen should be avoided. In the interest of continuity between the old and the new standard water Knudsen and his collaborators would assist the Central Laboratory as much as possible.185 Nansen stated that at present it would have been convenient to the Central Laboratory if a new supply of standard water could have been produced in Copenhagen. He was afraid, however, that the budget of the Laboratory did not allow this; he had understood that the expenses would amount to about 800 Kroner. In case the standard water should be produced at the Central Laboratory, Nansen asked a number of questions concerning technical details of the production.186 Knudsen answered these questions and advised that two sets of 200 tubes each be produced, one set to be used for distribution at request, the other to be kept in the Laboratory as a primary standard. He had a few spare copies of No. VI which he could offer for use in the preparation of the primary standard.187 In July 1903 the Central Laboratory, after much consultation with Knudsen about details, did produce about 100 tubes of standard

185 Knudsen to Nansen 24 April 1903. Copy in GULP. 186 Nansen to Knudsen 27 April l903. RAC, No. 1945, Box E.65.

187 Knudsen to Nansen 29 April l903. Copy in GULP.

water (VIb) which was standardized by comparison with Knudsen's water VIa. The VIb water was a provisional standard, and the report of the Laboratory states that steps had been taken to prepare a primary standard water to be compared directly with the standard water VI (Nansen, 1903, p. XLI).

There was obviously some discontent with the delay in the preparation of the primary standard. Otto Pettersson touched upon the matter in a letter to Knudsen who answered that of course it was not good to have provisional standard water. Apparently Knudsen was still disappointed that the standard seawater service had been taken away from him. In any case he went on saying that when the Central Laboratory had been entrusted with the preparation of standard water it must be due to the consideration, he supposed, that the matter was of more concern to the Central Laboratory than to him, and that the Laboratory could do it better than he could. For this reason he would abstain from any criticism of possible provisional standards.188 As a matter of fact it became necessary for the Central Laboratory to prepare two more provisional standards (VIc and VId) in December 1903 and November 1904, respectively (Nansen, 1904, p. XX; 1905, p. XXII). Unfortunately some tubes of VId were sent to Knudsen with a preliminary indication of chlorinity which later turned out to be rather erroneous. So when Knudsen received another batch, this time without any indication of chlorinity at all, he took the opportunity to give the physical assistant at the Central Laboratory, Vagn Walfrid Ekman (1874â&#x20AC;&#x201D;1954), who was in charge of the production of the standards, some friendly advice: always have sufficient stock of seawater to be able to comply with the demand; always indicate the chlorinity on each tube; and never distribute standard water with a preliminary indication of chlorinity.

Knudsen stressed that he considered the production and supply of standard water the principal task of the Laboratory, and it should be carried out in a way that no well founded criticism could be set forth.189 In 1905, at long last, the Primary Standard (P) was prepared by the Central Laboratory and its chlorinity determined by comparison with Knudsen's standard water VI. In the following years four batches (P1â&#x20AC;&#x201D;P4) of standard water were prepared at the Central Laboratory, their chlorinities being determined by comparison with P. Martin Knudsen head of the Standard Seawater Service In 1908 the Council considered that the Central Laboratory had fulfilled its purpose and should be abolished, and its tasks transferred to the national laboratories. It was felt, however, that there was one practical charge in which all hydrographers were interested, viz. the preparation of standard water. The Council decided to hand over this task to Martin Knudsen within his duties as hydrographical assistant to the Bureau (Anon., 1909, pp. 16â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 19). So Knudsen was again in this business, and in October 1908 he received 188 Knudsen to Pettersson 31 December 1903. GULP. 189 Knudsen to Walfrid Ekman 7 January 1905. RAC, No. 1935, Box D.3.

some left—over materials from the Central Laboratory, including a stock of standard water P4 and of the Primary Standard P. During the following years, up to the outbreak of war in 1914, four batches (P5—P8) of standard water were produced under the authority of the Council. Then Knudsen took over the Standard Seawater Service as personal activity in order to relieve the Council of the financial responsibility. Seven batches (P9—P15) were prepared during the period 1920—1937 (Culkin and Smed, 1979, pp. 355—364).

Discussion of a standard seawater for the Mediterranean In the meantime some doubt had arisen as to whether the Copenhagen Standard Seawater was applicable as a standard for titration of all types of seawater. At meetings of the Commission Internationale pour l’Exploration Scientifique de la Mer Mediterranée (CIESM) in 1919 and following years it was claimed that the Copenhagen Standard Water could not be used as a standard for determining the chlorinity of Mediterranean water by titration because of the difference in chemical and physical properties, such as salinity, density, proportions of the constituents, coefficient of thermal dilatation, viscosity, and surface tension. Use of Copenhagen Water as standard would give erroneous results, it was claimed. The truth of this assertion was never proved. No experimental study of the subject was carried out, nor was any attempt made to evaluate the asserted error. Nevertheless the discussions at CIESM continued; a compilation of them was published by Freundler and Pilaud (1930). The question for CIESM was: what should replace the Copenhagen Water? The French chemist G. Bertrand proposed to the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) that for volumetric titration of the halogens in seawater a solution of pure sodium chloride (NaCl), to be prepared by each individual laboratory, should be used as a standard. The Danish chemist Einar Biilmann (1873—1946) informed Knudsen about the proposal and asked for his comments.190 Knudsen advised against it because the titrations usually were carried out by non-chemists.191 He later explained in more detail the difficulties involved in the use of a NaCl solution as standard: The solution would have to be prepared by the user who not always would be a skilled chemist. On board a ship the operation would be additionally complicated (Knudsen, 1925, pp. 9—10). Bertrand's proposal was recommended by IUPAC at its 4th Conference in 1923. The method was discussed by the Spanish marine chemist J. Giral (1926, pp. 18—21). It does not seem to have been followed, however.

The other possibility discussed by CIESM was a standard seawater of Mediterranean origin. Apparently there was a belief that use of a Mediterranean standard water of a chlorinity about 21 ‰, applied in connection with Knudsen's Tables, would give more correct results. This was definitely wrong. As shown by the French chemist Maurice Menaché (1907—1986) the error by

190 Einar Biilmann to Knudsen 2 March 1923. RAC, No. 1935, Box D.8.

191 Knudsen to Biilmann 5 April1923. RAC, No. 1935, Box D.S.

this procedure can be as large as 0.07 ‰ in chlorinity (Menaché, 1950). Knudsen's Tables have been calculated for a standard water of chlorinity 19.38 ‰ and are not valid for a standard of an appreciably different chlorinity. If such a standard is preferred it is, as stressed by Knudsen (1925, p. 8), necessary to prepare new tables if the rather complicated calculations for obtaining from the burette readings the chlorine content of the seawater sample shall be avoided. As a matter of fact, however, Knudsen did express the view that with regard to the Mediterranean it would be an advantage to have a standard seawater of a chlorinity about 21 ‰ for use in the daily titrations, as this procedure would result in a higher accuracy than could be obtained by using the Copenhagen water as standard. It is somewhat of a mystery what has brought Knudsen to this conclusion. The Danish hydrographers Helge Thomsen (1904—1985) and Frede Hermann (1917—1977) suggested that Knudsen may have had in mind the effect of the amount of silver nitrate adhering to the walls of the burette, an amount that differs when the burette reading changes from 19 to 21. Also, they continued, Knudsen may have thought of the possibility that a difference in viscosity and surface tension between Copenhagen Standard Seawater and the sample of Mediterranean water could bring about a difference between the two volumes measured by means of the pipette. As it is not known that Knudsen ever investigated these questions experimentally he has probably based his above views upon purely theoretical considerations (Menaché, 1951, p. 2).

On the basis of detailed investigations Menaché could conclude that Copenhagen Standard Water might without any perceptible error be used as a standard for the determination of the chlorinity of Mediterranean water by the classic Mohr–Knudsen method with the use of Knudsen's Hydrographical Tables (Menaché, 1951).

Preparation of Primary Standard 1937 The doubt with regard to the general applicability of the Copenhagen Water had not caused any decrease in the demand for it, and in the 1930s the stock of the Primary Standard P was running low. So it became necessary to produce a new Primary Standard. At the meeting of ICES in 1936, Knudsen explained the situation (Knudsen, 1936, pp. 33—34). As the standard water was used worldwide he intended to propose to the International Association for Physical Oceanography (IAPO) that this organization should direct the preparation of the new Primary Standard and defray the expenses connected with the physical and chemical work and the publishing of a report. The proposal was adopted by ICES as well as by IAPO, whose Executive Committee made a grant of £ 350 towards the cost of the project and authorized Knudsen to prepare and distribute ordinary samples of standard seawater, based on the Primary Standard. The Committee reserved the right to authorize all modifications of this arrangement (Anon., 1937, p. 52).

The chlorinity (19.3810 ‰) of the new standard, the Primary Standard 1937, was determined by comparison with the Primary Standard P whereby accordance in the results of the chlorinity titrations based upon the two stand-

ards was secured. In connection with the preparation of the new Primary Standard it was pointed out that the chlorinity as defined by S. P. L. Sørensen was depending on certain atomic weights. This meant that there would be breaks in the continuity of chlorine determinations when new values of atomic weights were adopted. Also, a tube of seawater was probably not the best standard if continuity should be maintained over a long period of years.

These drawbacks were remedied by choosing pure silver, so-called Atomgewichtssilber, as standard and introducing a new definition of chlorinity: The number giving the chlorinity in per mille of a seawater sample is by definition identical with the number giving the mass with unit gram of Atomgewichtssilber just necessary to precipitate the halogens in 0.3285234 kg of the seawater sample.

For practical reasons the chlorinity of only a few tubes of seawater was determined against pure silver. These tubes are then regarded as the practical Primary Standard and the chlorinity of ordinary standard seawater is determined against them (Jacobsen and Knudsen, 1940).

IAPO takes over the Standard Seawater Service A batch of standard water (P16) was prepared in 1943, still under the responsibility of Knudsen. However, he was now in his late seventies and was anxious to secure continuation of the Standard Seawater Service. He therefore proposed to IAPO that this organization should take over the responsibility for the future preparation and distribution of standard seawater. This was agreed upon by IAPO in August 1948 (Anon., 1949, p. 58). The work should still be carried out in Copenhagen. In February 1949 Knudsen distributed a circular about the new arrangement, at the same time announcing the availability of a new batch (P17) of standard water. A few months later he passed away. Because of the arrangement with IAPO, however, the Service could continue.

Acknowledgements I am greatly indebted to Artur Svansson and Jørgen Møller Christensen for drawing my attention to letters in Swedish and Danish archives, respectively, and to Artur Svansson for unceasing assistance in processing the manuscript.

References Literature R.: Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, “Rapports et Procès-verbaux des Réunions”.

P.: Cons. penn. int. Explor. Mer, “Publications de circonstance”.

Anon. 1899. Conférence Internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer, réunie a Stockholm 1899. Imprimerie K.L. Beckman, Stockholm.

Anon, 1909. R., l l(B).

Anon. 1937. Association Internationale d'Oceanographie Physique, Procès-verbaux, No.2.

Anon. 1949. Association Intemationale d'Oceanographie Physique, Procès-verbaux, No.4.

Culkin, F. & J. Smed. 1979. The history of standard seawater. Oceanologica Acta, 2(3).

Freundler, P. & M. Piland. 1930. Sur l'eau normale mediterranéenne. Station Océanographique de Salammbô, Bulletin No. 19.

Giral, J. 1926. Quelques observations sur l'emploi de l'eau normale en océanographie.P., No. 90.

Jacobsen, J.P. & M. Knudsen. 1940. Urnorrnal 1937 or Primary Standard Sea-Water 1937.

Association Internationale d’Océanographie Physique, Publ. Scientifiques, No.7.

Knudsen, M. 1899a. Hydrography. The Danish ,Ingolf'-expedition, I(2). Copenhagen.

Knudsen, M. 1899b. Proposal about an international institution for procuring standard water., “Conférence Internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer, réunie a Stockholm“.

Stockholm.

Knudsen, M. 1902. Einsammeln und Aufbewahren der Wasserproben. In: Knudsen, M. (ed.): Berichte über die Konstantenbestimmungen zur Aufstellung der hydrographischen Tabellen. D. Kgl. Danske Vidensk. Selsk. Skrifter, 6. Række, naturvidensk. og mathem.

Afd., XII(l).

Knudsen, M. 1903. On the standard water used in the hydrographical research until July 1903. - P., No.2.

Knudsen, M. 1925. L'Emploi de l'eau normale dans l'océanographie. - P., No. 87.

Knudsen, M. 1936. Report on Standard-Water. - R., 100 (1).

Menache, M. 1950. Du choix d'une eau normale pour la Méditerranée. Bull. Institut Océanographique, No. 980. Monaco.

Menache, M. 1951. De l'emploi de l'eau normale de Copenhague comme etalon dans le dosage de la chlorinité des eaux méditerranéennes. Bull. Institut Océanographique, No. 985.

Monaco.

Nansen, F. 1899. Proposal for a central laboratory. Conférence Internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer, réunie a Stockholm 1899. Stockholm.

Nansen, F. 1903. Report of the Central Laboratory for the year July 22nd 1902—July 21st 1903. - R., 1.

Nansen, F. 1904. Report of the Central Laboratory. July 22nd 1903—July 21st 1904. - R., 2.

Nansen, F. 1905. Report of the Central Laboratory: July 22nd 1904—July 21st 1905. - R., 4.

Sørensen, S. P. L. 1902. Chlor- und Salzbestimmung. Knudsen, M. (ed.): “Berichte über die Konstantenbestimmungen zur Aufstellung der hydrographischen Tabellen". D. Kgl. Danske Vidensk. Selsk. Skrifter, 6. Række, naturvidensk. og mathem. Afd., XII (1).

Archival material Abbreviations used: GULP: Gothenburg University Library, Collection of letters to Otto Pettersson.

RAC: Rigsarkivet (National Archive), Copenhagen.

Otto Krümmel initiates determination of bottom water temperature from measurement of the resistance of telegraph cables DGM-Mitteilungen 1/2006 Jens Smed At the Second International Conference for the Exploration of the Sea, held at Kristiania (Oslo) in 1901, it was decided that observations of temperature and salinity should be undertaken quarterly at fixed lines and on fixed dates under the auspices of the organization to be established, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). Even if these observations were supplemented with some from liners and cargo boats it did not, however, allow to follow the hydrographic situation in much detail. A way to overcome this as regards temperature was to measure the electric resistance of the telegraph cables. As the resistance of the cable depends upon its temperature, i.e. the temperature of the water surrounding it, determination of the resistance would be a way to find the average temperature of the bottom water along the cable.

This is the background for a paragraph (§ 10) of the decisions made at the Kristiania Conference according to which a task of the ICES Central Bureau should be: In connection with the investigations, to make application to the telegraph administrations for the purpose of obtaining determinations from time to time of the changes in the resistance of the cables which cross the areas in any direction (Anon., 1901, p. 22).

The originator of this paragraph was Otto Krümmel (1854—1912), professor at the Kiel University and a member of the German delegation to the Conference. This appears from his letter to Martin Knudsen (1871—1949), hydrographic assistant to the ICES Bureau, shortly after the ICES meeting in July 1905. Krümmel was interested in following the temperature variations of the bottom water in the Belt Sea and the western Baltic.

Earlier investigations had shown that the layering of the water in these regions might change completely within a couple of days. Unfortunately no lightship, from which the situation might be followed, was stationed in the western Baltic. In order to obtain at least something, if not salinity then at any rate temperature, Krümmel referred to the above mentioned paragraph from the Kristiania Conference and continued: Wenn wir neulich in unserer hydrographischen Sektion nicht soviel Zeit mit der Polemik [Fridtjof] Nansen c/a [Otto] Pettersson unnütz verloren hätten, wäre ich schon damals auf diese Idee, als deren geistigen Vater ich mich betrachte ( seit 12 Jahren), zu sprechen gekom-

men. Aber da § 10 diese Dinge ohne Weitres dem Centralbureau überwiesen hat, bedarf es keines besonderen Beschluss mehr, um sie Ihnen von Neuem ans Herz zu legen. Leider habe ich versäumt, mich in den letzten Jahren genauer mit der Technik der Kabeltelegraphie bekannt zu machen (es gab dringlichere Sorgen), sodass ich nicht imstande bin zu sagen, ob man tägliche Beobachtungen des Widerstandes oder der Widerstandsänderung von den Telegraphisten verlangen kann. Jedenfalls gehört das in Ihr Ressort, und da Sie ein ausgezeichneter Elektriker sind, werden Sie selbst bald angeben können, was in dieser Hinsicht möglich ist. §10 ermächtigt Sie zu direkten Verhandlungen mit den Kabelverwaltungen. Seien Sie mir nicht böse, dass ich Ihre Ferienruhe oder Ferienbedürftigkeit mit diesem § 10 störe; aber ich musste die Sache notwendig wieder einmal anregen (Krümmel, 1905).

This letter got Knudsen started on the matter. So at the ICES meeting in Amsterdam in February 1906 he could present a report giving the monthly temperatures of the bottom water during the period 1902—1905 along three lines crossing the North Sea. No measurements came from cables crossing the region referred to by Krümmel. According to the report, however, the Danish Hydrographical Laboratory, whose leader was Martin Knudsen, would endeavour to procure measurements on several other cables (Knudsen, 1905, pp. 40—44).

Apparently the subject was only taken up again half a century later when the then leader of the Laboratory, Frede Hermann (1917—1977), presented monthly temperatures from the following cables and years: •

East Iceland—Faroe Islands, 1909—1939.

•

Faroe Islands—Shetland Islands, 1908—1939.

•

Newbiggin (England)—Marstrand (Sweden), 1905—1939.

From these data the variation of the bottom water temperatures was deduced (Hermann, 1954).

An interesting example of the influence of the water temperature on the cable resistance was reported by C.S. Parfree, Standard Telecommunication Laboratories (England). By the end of 1974, the British postal administration had found that during the foregoing years the attenuation of the cables crossing the North Sea showed an increasing trend. The phenomenon was first ascribed to an ageing of the cables, and many hypotheses were set forth to explain this ageing, such as contamination of the cables, either during their making or in the water. In comparing the variation of the cable attenuation with the temperature of the water as shown by the Monthly Synoptic Charts of Temperature and Salinity in the North Sea (Smed, 1971—1983) Parfree could prove, however, that the increase of the cable attenuation was due to an increase of the water temperature (Parfree, 1977, pp. 139—143).

Acknowledgement I am greatly indebted to Dr. Artur Svansson for assistance in processing this and other manuscripts.

References Anonymous. 1901. 2. Conférence intemationale pour l’Exploration de Ia Mer rennie a Kristiania 1901, Premiere partie.

Hermann. F. 1954. Sea Bottom Temperatures as derived from Resistance Measurements from Telegraph Cables. ICES Hydrographical Committee 1954, Document No. 63.

Knudsen, M. 1906. On the determination of temperatures by measuring the resistances in telegraph cables. In: Rapports et Procès-verbaux des Réunions, Conseil permanent international pour l’Exploration de la Mer, Vol. 6, Part C. Krümmel, O. 1905. Letter of 7 August 1905 to Martin Knudsen. In Rigsarkivet (Copenhagen), Archive No. 1935, Box D.2.

Paifree, C.S. 1977. Die Temperaturabhängigkeit der Dämpfung von Seekabelsystemen der STC. In: Elektrisches Nachrichtenwesen, Band 52.

14-MHz-

Smed, J. 1971—1983. Monthly Synoptic Charts of Temperature and Salinity in the North Sea 1969, ...... , 1980. Published by ICES. Jens Smed

The relations between Otto Krümmel and Martin Knudsen during the foundation and early years of ICES Historisch-Meereskundliches Jahrbuch/History of Oceanography Yearbook Band 12 / Volume 12 2006 Jens Smed The German geographer Krümmel and the physicist Knudsen, both members of their national delegation to the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), developed friendly relations, which are retraced on the basis of their correspondence. Obviously they took similar views during the critical phase of the founding of ICES. Die Beziehungen zwischen Otto Krümmel und Martin Knudsen während der Gründung und der ersten Jahre des ICES. Der deutsche Geograph Krümmel und der dänische Physiker Knudsen, beide Mitglieder ihrer nationalen Delegation für den Internationalen Rat für Meeresforschung (ICES), entwickelten eine freundschaftliche Beziehung, die auf der Basis ihrer Korrespondenz nachgezeichnet wird. Zum Ausdruck komrnt, dass sie in der kritischen Gründungsphase des ICES ähnliche Standpunkte vertraten.

Introduction As reported by Ulrich and Kortum 192 the German geographer and oceanographer Otto Krümmel (1854—1912) was in close correspondence with Scandinavian colleagues, such as Otto Pettersson (1848—1941), Fridtjof Nansen (1861—1930), Martin Knudsen (1871—1949), and Bjørn Helland–Hansen (1877—1957). When Ulrich and Kortum's book was published only a few letters exchanged between Krümmel and Knudsen were available. As pointed out by Ulrich and Smed 193 these letters “carry a friendly and even familiar stamp”. Recently several more letters exchanged between Krümmel and Knudsen have surfaced. In view of these men's important contributions to the science of hydrography (i.e. physical oceanography) it may be of interest to present essential parts of their correspondence. The main stress will be laid upon Krümmel's letters, many of which will be quoted verbally to show Krümmel's characteristic friendly and lively style.

192 Ulrich, J. & G. Kortum, 1997: Otto Krümmel (1854—1912). Geograph und Wegbereiter der modernen Ozeanographie. Kieler Geographische Schriften, 93: 255—264.

193 Ulrich, J. & J. Smed, 1999: The correspondence between Fridtjof Nansen and Otto Krtimmel during the years 1899 to 1911. Historisch— meereskundliches Jahrbuch, 6, p. 59

.

Krümmel's first impression of Knudsen Krümmel first met Knudsen at the International Conference for the Exploration of the Sea, held at Stockholm in June 1899 194 where they acted as delegates for their respective countries. Krümmel, the highly esteemed professor at the Kiel University, obviously was favourably impressed by the young Danish physicist and hydrographer. In his report to the Prussian government on the Conference Krümmel wrote 195: Dr. Knudsen beherrscht die Details der physikalischen Meereskunde in ausgezeichneter Weise, wenn er auch, wie bei seiner Jugend nicht zu verwundern, darüber nicht selten den Oberblick tiber die eigentlichen Aufgaben der Konferenz verlor.

Also when question was about candidates for the leading positions at the central office of the organization to be established, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), Krümmel had great confidence in Knudsen, whereas he did not find the Norwegian zoologist and polar explorer Fridtjof Nansen qualified for such posts: Betrachtlich ihm überlegen in wissenschaftlicher Hinsicht wird der dänische Delegierte, Dr. Martin Knudsen, genannt werden müssen: als fachmässig ausgebildeter Physiker und Chemiker, der auch einige Zeit bei Warburg in Berlin gearbeitet hat, steht er Nansen voraus, an Erfahrung an Bord kommt er ihm mindestens gleich. Falls er seine Kandidatur für die Centralstelle wünschen sollte, würde ich sie durchaus unterstützen".196 Knudsen did become First Assistant to the Bureau, the Executive Board of the Council. Both in this capacity and earlier he frequently corresponded with Krümmel, and they soon got on familiar terms as it appears from the letters exchanged. In the following a number of these letters are quoted, arranged according to the item which gave rise to the correspondence.

Elaboration of the Hydrographical Tables In his report on the hydrographical work on the Ingolf expedition to Icelandic and west Greenland waters Knudsen had published tables for calculation of the specific gravity of a water sample from its temperature and chlorinity.197 Other hydrographers had compiled tables for reduction of the specific gravity to a standard temperature and for the relation between salinity and density.

194 Conference internationale pour !'exploration de Ia mer, reunie a Stockholm 1899. Stockholm, lmprimerie K. L. Beckman.

195 Smed, J, 1989: Otto Krtimmel tiber Fridtjof Nansens Kandidatur fur den 1. Generalsekretar von ICES. DGM—Mitteilungen, Nr. 1/1989: 6.

196 Ibidem: 7—8.

197 Knudsen, M: 1899. Hydrography. The Danish ,,Jngolf'—Expedition 1895—1896, vol. I, part 2: 37—39.

The Stockholm Conference felt that now there was a need for revising the various tables and resolved 198: The relation between the quantity of halogen contained in the water and the density of the water shall be carefully investigated by an experimental revision of the tables compiled by Knudsen (Ingolf Exp. Ü.

37). The tables compiled by Makaroff, Krümmel and others for the relation of specific gravity to density and salinity are likewise in urgent need of experimental revision.

The Conference proposed that the revision should be carried out at the Technical College in Copenhagen under the direction of a Committee consisting of Sir John Murray, Knudsen, Otto Pettersson, Nansen, Krümmel, H.N. Dickson, and S.O. Makaroff. The work should be organized by Knudsen who was on the staff of the Technical College. The means for carrying out the revision should be requested from such learned societies in the participating countries which had funds for this type of investigations.

A close correspondence on the project now developed between Krümmel and Knudsen. In reply to a question from Krümmel about the progress of the preparations Knudsen in early 1899 forwarded some provisional plans.

Krümmel noted with satisfaction that the work had been started. Among the water samples to be investigated he would, however, like to see one from the eastern Mediterranean (salinity about 40 ‰). He stressed the need for tables covering such high salinities in order to avoid the less accurate extrapolation, and he offered to procure the water sample.

Krümmel furthermore asked for a detailed budget for the work: how many persons should assist; how long time was needed; how much money should be asked for. He did not believe that the Berliner Akademie would grant anything unless a German scientist took part in the work.199 Obviously Krümmel was not quite satisfied with Knudsen's provisional plans, as appears from a letter to Otto Pettersson.200 This does not mean, however, that he had lost confidence in Knudsen. In his above letter 201 to him it says: Bei uns wird man sich bald mit der Frage der Centralstelle beschäftigen und wenn es nach meinem Gutachten geht, so werden Sie selbst einer der Generalsekretäre.

It is also symptomatic that Krümmel ends his letter with a kind offer: Sollte Ihnen der Gebrauch der deutschen Sprache Schwierigkeiten mac hen, so schreiben Sie mir bitte nur in Ihrer Muttersprache, die ich

198 As (3): 16.

199 Krümmel to Knudsen 3 August 1899. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 38.

200 Krümmel to Otto Pettersson 8 August 1899. In: UBG, Collection of letters to Otto Pettersson.

201 As 8

ganz gut lese, namentlich in einer so deutlichen Handschrift wie der Ihrigen.

Knudsen, however, stuck to German when he late September 1899, sent a very detailed plan for the work to Krümmel, asking for his comments.202 The plan was well received by Krümmel who, however, found it too comprehensive, and proposed much simplification. 203 Taking into consideration Krümmel's comments Knudsen could then circulate his “Proposal for the Experimental Revision of the Tables showing the Relation between the Specific Gravity, Density, Quantity of Halogens, and Salinity of the Seawater". 204 Now problems arose about the German contribution to the project. It turned out that the Berliner Akademie had no funds available. Krümmel then approached the Reich Chancellor Office, a procedure that would imply much correspondence; Krümmel, however, counted on a positive issue. Also in this case it would be a condition that the contribution should be used for a certain part of the project, and that a German scientist should take part in the work. Krümmel explained that he had found a clever young man who could investigate the thermal expansion of seawater of different salinity. 205 The person concerned was Dr. Carl Porch, assistant at the Technical College in Darmstadt.206 Late February 1900, Krümmel could at long last inform Knudsen that the German contribution, 2000 Mark, had been granted. 1000 Mark would go to Carl Porch to cover his expenses in connection with his stay in Copenhagen, and 1000 Mark should be used for purchasing the instruments required for his investigalions. Krümmel admitted that this arrangement was rather awkward. But it was no use worrying about it, and he was sure that Porch's participation would be a great help.207 The work now proceeded and resulted in the Hydrographical Tables, which were presented at the 2nd Preparatory Conference for the Exploration of the Sea, held in Christiania (Oslo) in May 1901. Knudsen made out the balance sheet of the project and submitted it to the auditors, Krümmel and Nansen. 208 Both approved the accounts. Krümmel added that he had in vain looked for a bill from Knudsen; it had certainly not been the intention of the

202 Knudsen to Krümmel28 September 1899. In: RAC, No. 1845, Box E. 65.

203 Krümmel to Knudsen 8 October 1899, In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 38.

204 Knudsen to the members of the relevant committee 14 October 1899. In: Landsarkivet (regional archive), Gothenburg. Otto Pettersson's Collection, Box 12, Tuck 3.

205 Krümmel to Knudsen 3 February 1900. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 38.

206 Krümmel to Knudsen 15 February 1900. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 38.

207 Krümmel to Knudsen 27 February 1900. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 38.

208 Knudsen to Krümmel and Nansen 26 June 1901. In: RAC, No. 1945, Box E. 65.

Stockholm Conference that he should work without charge. It would now be the task of the International Council, when established, to fix his salary 209, a point of view that was fully agreed by Nansen.210 As a matter of fact Knudsen did not get any salary, but was offered, and accepted, the post as First Assistant to the Bureau of the Council. The publishing of the report on the investigations gave rise to some confusion. Knudsen had obviously arranged with Krümmel that the report should appear in the series “Wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen”, put out by the “Kommission zur Untersuchung der deutschen Meere in Kiel”. So Krümmel asked Knudsen to submit the manuscript, translated into German.211 In the meantime Knudsen had, however, approached the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters about publication in their series. He explained that he had got an invitation to put out the report in Germany, but hesitated in doing so before the report had been published in Denmark. Otherwise it might give the impression that the work had been carried out by Germans, although only one German scientist had participated, compared to several Danish.212 Not unexpectedly Krümmel was not overjoyed by this information, as appears from his letter to Knudsen 213: Sie haben zwei Damen einen Heiratsantrag gemacht und nun wollen Sie die erste sitzen lassen?! Ich habe unserm hochverehrten gemeinsamen Freunde Hensen, dem Geschäftsführer der Kieler Kommission, noch keine Mittheilung von Ihrem letzten Briefe gemacht; der alte Herr ist durch einen sehr tragischen Todesfall in seiner Farnilie in schwere Trauer versetzt und ich wollte deshalb noch etwas warten...Aber sehr angenehm wird auch Herr Hensen nicht durch lhrer Diplomatie berührt sein, wenn am Ende wir Kieler diejenigen sind, welche “sitzen bleiben”.

Even this incident did not spoil the friendly relations between the two.

Krümmel continued his letter saying that he would send his new assistant to Knudsen in order to learn about methods and instruments: Einstweilen müssen Sie es sich schon gefallen lassen, wenn wir Sie als unseren Generalstabschef behandeln.

Knudsen now proposed to issue the report both in Kiel and in Denmark.

Krümmel agreed, stressing that the Kiel version should be fairly complete

209 Krümmel: Revisionsanmerkungen. 3 July 1901. In: RAC, No. 1945, Box E. 65.

210 Nansen: Revisionsanmerkungen. 16 July 1901. In: RAC, No. 1945, Box E. 65. Das Maritime Observatorium Zings! der Universitlit Leipzig 1957—1994 123 211 Krümmel to Knudsen 3 January 1902. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 38.

212 Knudsen to the Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters 6 January 1902. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 38.

213 Krümme1 to Knudsen 9 January 1902. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 38.

with regard to Porch's part of the work whereas the chemical part might be dealt with briefer than in the original Danish text.214 And so it became.

Scales and colours in the Council's publications The Christiania Conference had decided that one of the tasks of the organization's Central Bureau should be: to make proposals for the graphic representation, scales, signs and colours to be used in the charts for the purpose of obtaining uniformity in the publications, the decision regarding which shall rest with the international council". 215 In 1903, Otto Pettersson would see this decision implemented and wrote Knudsen: 216 It is now necessary that we make arrangement for common scales and colours; if not we shall get a Babylonian confusion". (from Swedish) He then proposed certain scales for distances and depths as well as a colour scale. Knudsen approached Krümmel to learn his views on the matter.

Krümmel stressed that this subject was Knudsen's competence, but he considered that Knudsen would most easily satisfy Pettersson if he based his proposal on the colours used by him. Krümmel continued: Nachst Prof. Pettersson hat Dr. Nansen in diesem Punkte einen ausgepragten Geschmack, und es wird deshalb gut sein, sich auch mit Dr. Nansen in Einvernehmen zu setzen.

Personally Krümmel could accept any colour scale if only it was used internationally. He asked Knudsen to get the question settled as soon as possible.217 It so happened that a meeting, presided over by Prince Albert of Monaco, should be held at Wiesbaden in connection with the preparation of the General Bathymetric Chart of the Ocean. Pettersson, Nansen, and Krümmel were all invited to participate. Pettersson therefore proposed a small meeting of these three persons and Knudsen at Wiesbaden for discussion of the scales and colours question. The meeting, which Nansen was prevented from attending, came up with a protocol on the matter. Shortly after, Krümmel proposed a minor change in order to obtain a more simple proportion between

214 Krümmel to Knudsen 2 February 1902. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 2.

215 2.Conference internationale pour !'exploration de Ia mer reunie 1i Kristiania 1901, premiere partie, p. 22, § 9. Kristiania, Steen'ske Bogtrykkeri, 1901 216 Otto Pettersson to Knudsen 15 March 1903. In: UBG, Collection of letters to Otto Pettersson.

217 Krümmel to Knudsen 26 March 1903. In: RAC, No. 1945, Box E. 65.

the vertical and horizontal scales. 218 Pettersson again raised some questions about these matters which induced Krümmel to write Knudsen 219: Was die Profile (sections) betrifft, so bitte ich, Herrn Professor Pettersson aile Concessionen zu machen, die Sie vor Ihrem wissenschaftlichen Gewissen verantworten könne. Sie wissen, dass ich diese Profilfrage im Grunde für eine ziemlich ausserliche Sache halte, über die ich mir an Ihrer Stelle kein graues Haar wachsen lassen würde (wogegen auch Ihre Frau Gemahlin protestiren dürfte).

Study of the compressibility of seawater For the computation of currents by the dynamical method according to Vilhelm Bjerknes the compressibility of the seawater plays an important role. It had become obvious, however, that the values of the compressibility as a function of temperature and salinity found by P.G. Tait 220 221were not satisfactory. With reference to this Krümmel stressed the need for new, more exact determinations. He asked whether Knudsen would be willing to carry out these investigations if the Council proposed it and would grant sufficient funds. If so, Krümmel would set forth a such proposal, nicht weil ich für die 'Cirkulationstheorie' sehr begeistert wäre (ich halte Mohns Verfahren für viel besser), sondem weil wir bestrebt sein müssen, solange die intemationale Organisation besteht, die Physik des Meeres nach aller Möglichkeit zu fördern, nicht bloss die Fischereisache. ...Pettersson, Nansen, (Hugh) Mill und (Theadar) Homén will ich schon dafür gewinnen; die ersten sind ja Bjerknesianer, die müssen also! 222 Knudsen declared that he would always be interested in experimental work and therefore also in an investigation of the compressibility of seawater. If the Council would assign this task to him and grant a sufficient subvention he was prepared to undertake the work. 223 When Otto Pettersson visited Kiel in December 1903, Krümmel discussed the proposal with him and got his approval. So Krümmel invited Knudsen to state the amount necessary for an experimental investigation by which the compression's dependence of the water's temperature, salinity, and perhaps also gas content, was determined. Krümmel would then make the proposal at the 218 Krümme1 to Knudsen 26 Aprill903. In: RAC, No. 1945, Box E. 65.

219 Krümmel to Knudsen 19 October 1903. In: RAC, No. 1945, Box E. 65.

220 Tait, P. G. 1884. Note on the compressibility of water, seawater and alcohol, at high pressures. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Edinburgh, vol. 12. pp 223—224.

221 Tait, P. G. 1884: Further Note on the compressibility of water. Ibid.: 757—758. 30. Knudsen to Krümmel 28 October 1903. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 39.

222 As 28 223 Knudsen to Krümmel 28 October 1903. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 39.

forthcoming meeting of the Council. He explained that Hugh Mill supported the plan, but feared difficulties from the biologists, such as D’Arcy Thompson.

Krümmel would avert these difficulties in advance by emphasizing the importance of the investigation for the determination of the currents in water layers where current measurements would be imperfect. Knowledge of the currents in these layers was essential because the spreading of plankton, fish eggs, and fish larvae depended on them (Figure 3). 224

Letter of Krümmel to Knudsen (29.12.1903; original on two sheets) asking to state the amount necessary for an experimental investigation on the dependence of seawaters compressibility on temperature and salinity.

Knudsen admitted that he was not yet able to present a final budget. His estimate, however, was 5000—6000 kroner for the investigations and about 2000 kroner for his personal work. If Krümmel found these amounts too high Knudsen advised that they gave up the project. Should, however, Krümmel find the amounts reasonable Knudsen would set up a definitive budget. He stressed that if there should be any possibility for implementing the plan it was necessary that the other hydrographers presented good reasons for it; 224 Krümmel to Knudsen 29 December 1903. In: RAC, No. 1945, Box E. 65.

he himself could not do it as he was interested in carrying out the investigation (Figure 4). 225 Figure 4. Letter of Knudsen to Krümmel (5.1.1904) telling that he would be interested to do the investigations for 2000 Kroner for himself and 5000— 6000 Kroner for the measurements.

The meeting of the Council at Hamburg in February 1904 instructed, however, the Central Laboratory at Christiania, to thoroughly examine the laws of compressibility of seawater". The task was carried out by V. Walfrid Ekman. 226 227 Meeting of the hydrographical assistants On the proposal of Knudsen, a meeting of the hydrographical assistants at the laboratories of the Council's member countries was held in Copenhagen in July 1904. The purpose was that these persons, who worked more or less isolated on the same questions, should meet each other, exchange ideas, and perhaps come up with new ones or with amendments of the methods in use.

L.G. Sabrou, of the Musée Océanographique at Monaco, who attended the meeting as a guest, published a report on the meeting.228 A draft report had, however, been sent to Krümrnel who certainly did not agree in the form it had got 229: aus den Erzählungen Dr. Ruppins [Krümmel's assistant] und nun auch aus dem Manuskripte Ihrer Zusammenkunft habe ich den Eindruck gewonnen, als ob die von Ihnen geleitete Versammlung ihre Kompetenz mehrfach überschritten hat. Die Herren Assistenten waren nach Copenhagen geschickt, um technische Spezialfragen (Apparate, Methoden und dergl.) zu besprechen und zu einheitlichen Direktiven zu gelangen. Statt sich hierauf zu beschranken, sind auch organisatorische Fragen in Resolutionen gefasst worden; das ist eine Prärogative der Mitglieder des Centralausschusses und nicht Sache unserer Assistenten! Wenn das Protokoll in der Form, wie ich bei Dr. Ruppin gesehen habe, gedruckt und veröffentlicht wird, so haben Sie einen sehr unangenehmen Tadel seitens unseres verehrten Präsidenten Herwig zu erwarten, der über solche Übergriffe ganz energisch einschreiten wird. Wollen Sie also, um diese Folgen zu verhüten, die äussere Form des Protokolls durchweg so ändern, dass die “Resolu-

225 Knudsen to Krümmel 5 January 1904. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 39.

226 Ekman, V. W., 1908: Die Zusammendrückbarkeit des Meerwassers nebst einigen Werten für Wasser und Quecksilber. Cons. perm. int.

Explor. Mer, Publications de circonstance, No.43.

227 Ekman, V. W., 1910: Tabellen für Meerwasser unter Druck. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, Publications de circonstance, No. 49.

228 Sabrou, L.—G., 1904: Rapport sur Ia Reunion des Assistants hydrographes a Copenhague et sur les methodes d'analyse en usage dans les laboratoires du Conseil international permanent pour !'exploration de lamer. Bulletin du Musee Oceanographique de Monaco, No. 22.

229 Krümmel to Knudsen 28 July 1904. In: RAC, No. 1945, Box E. 65.

tionen” verschwinden und daraus “Wünsche” oder “Anträge” werden, und zwar Anträge, die von den beteiligten Assistenten ihren Vorgesetzten zur Prüfung und alsdann zur Weitergabe an den Centralausschuss empfohlen werden sollen.

Wenn unsere Assistenten beschliessen, an diesen oder jenen Punkten der Nordsee oder Ostsee sollen neue Stationen eingeführt oder soll der Strom gemessen werden, so ist das einfach eine Insubordination.

Solche Beschlüsse können nur die bevollmachtigten Mitglieder des Centralausschusses fassen; sonst konnten diese ja ohne weiteres ihre Entlassung nehmen, wenn das Sache der Assistenten werden soll! Also wollen Sie bitte unter Aufwand Ihres diplomatischen Scharfsinns diese Klippen umschiffen und den Text des Protokolls entsprechend ändern.

Ich fürchte, dass schon Herr Dr. Hoek [General Secretary of the Council] seinen Protest erheben würde, wenn er Ihr Manuskript sähe. Machen Sie bitte in der äusseren Form aile Konzessionen, die nur möglich sind. Die Sache selbst braucht dabei gar keinen Schaden zu leiden.

In his reply by return of post — it is surprising how fast the postal service worked these days! — Knudsen explained that as a matter of fact he had been a little uneasy with regard to the discussion of the organizational questions; not that he thought these discussions would have any bad consequences, but because they took up time. On the other hand he had found that the hunger for discussion of these questions shown by some of the participants had to be satisfied in order to get a fruitful discussion of the special questions. In his opinion the factual contents of the protocol as it now appeared could do no harm. With regard to the formal wording of it, however, he was grateful that Krümmel had drawn his attention to this point. He agreed that the protocol should be worded so that it was clear to anybody that the meeting had no authority to make resolutions.230 This somewhat reluctant admission of the less happy course of the meeting did not fully reassure Krümmel 231: Ihre soeben angelangten Zeilen haben meine Besorgnisse nur zum Teil beschwichtigt. Nach meiner Auffassung, die auch die des Präsidenten Herwig ist, haben wir unsere Assistenten zu Ihnen hingeschickt, damit Sie die Herren instruiren und sich überzeugen, ob die Arbeitsmethoden überall conform sind. Statt dessen tritt die Versammlung zusammen, wählt einen Vorsitzenden und gebiert sich als wissenschaftliche hydrographische Konferenz, die ihren Vorgesetzten nicht bloss Vorschläge machen will, sondern eine Kritik an den Anordnungen dieser Vorgesetzten ausspricht. Wenn das Präsident Herwig erfahrt, sollen Sie mal ein Ungewitter erleben! –Also – diese verfängli230 Knudsen to Krümmel 29 July 1904. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 39.

231 Krümmel to Knudsen 30 July 1904. In: RAC, No. 1945, Box E. 65.

chen Geschichten müssen aus den Protocol heraus; ich dachte nicht, dass Herr Dr. Ruppin das Alles mitrnachen würde, Vollmacht hatte er jedenfalls nicht dazu.

Was den Kopf des Annexe A [the proposals] betrifft, so würde ich schliesslich noch folgende Form annehmen können: Die Versammlung von Hydrographen, die als Assistenten in der internationalen Meeresforschung tätig sind, unterbreitet den Leitern der hydrographischen Untersuchungen der einzelnen beteiligten Länder folgende Vorschläge zu wohlwollender Erwägung.

So kommt wenigstens die Insubordination nicht gar zu sehr zum Vorschein. Ich möchte Ihnen, der Sie soviel Mühe mit den Herrn gehabt haben nnd der Sache aufopfernd dienen, schmerzliche Folgen von Formfehlern nach Möglichkeit ersparen. Ich glanbe, dass es jetzt gut gehen wird. Übrigens bitte ich diese Korrespondenz zwischen uns beiden als vertraulich zu behandeln; auch ich werde davon nichts weiterberichten.

The incident had by no means destroyed the good relations between the two, as appears from the continuation of Krümmel's letter: Wenn Sie etwas Nettes mit Ihrer Frau lesen wollen in den Ferien, so empfehle ich Ihnen: Frenssen, die drei Getreuen (das ich schöner finde als Jörn Uhl) und Ludovic Halévy: L’Abbé Constantin (Paris, Calmann–Lévy), ein sehr liebenswürdiges Buch und leichtes Französisch.

Herzliche Grüsse Ihnen und Ihrer Frau Gemahlin!

The proposals of the meeting of hydrographical assistants were published in the form suggested by Krümmel. 232 Once more, Krümmel returned to the meeting of the assistants. Surface temperature and salinity data from the seasonal cruises were entered on charts for publication in the Bulletin des Résultats Acquis pendant les Croisières Périodiques. When the number of observations increased problems arose.

Knudsen asked for suggestions for a solution. Krümmel commented and then reverted to the ill-fated meeting 233: Dass die unglückselige Assistenten–Versarnmlung auch hierfür einen Vorschlag formulirt hat, ist sehr schlimm. Es ist eine eklatante Überschreitung der Kompetenz seitens unserer Assistenten und ausserdem ein Übergriff in die Ihnen personlich vom Central– Ausschuss übertragenen Aufgaben. An Ihrer Stelle würde ich mir sehr energisch verbeten haben, dass die Herren Assistenten Ihnen dahin redeten. Denn wie viel Material Ihnen zugeht, das können die

232 Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, Rapports et Proces—verbaux, vol. 4, p.<36>. 1905.

233 Krümmel to Knudsen 15 September 1904. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. I.

einzelnen Assistenten unmöglich wissen, sondern das wissen Sie nur, als der Redakteur des Bulletins, in dessen Händen alles Material zusammenfliesst. Solche Vorschläge, wie in dem Cirkular vom 14 d.

M., können allein von Ihnen ausgehen, und was die Herren Assistenten beschliessen, ist ganz gleichgültig; und wenn der Antrag damals von Ihnen selbst angeregt sein sollte, so war das nicht diplomatisch von Ihnen; in solchen Dingen sind Sie allein eine grössere Autoritat als aile Assistenten zusammengenommen.

Handbuch der Ozeanographie in preparation For many years Krümmel had been working on a handbook of oceanography to replace that published by Boguslawski. In this connection he was aware that Knudsen had made some research on the electrical conductivity of seawater.234 Krümmel wished his book to give the newest and best also on this matter. His application 235 to Knudsen for updated information was fruitless, however, as Knudsen had published no additional results. 236 Krümmel worked hard on his Handbuch - apparently too hard. In July 1906 he wrote Knudsen 237: Am 4 August verreise ich auf 5 Wochen (Hannover, Schweiz) ... Ich bin überarbeitet und muss Rube haben.

Three months later, however, he could inform Knudsen 238: Endlich, endlich bin ich nach barter dreijähriger Arbeit soweit, den ersten Teil des Manuskripts des Handbuchs der Ozeanographie in die Druckerei zu schicken. Ich fürchte nur, meinen geographischen Kollegen wird das Buch zuviel Physik, meinen hydrographischen Freunden zuviel Geographie zu enthalten scheinen.

Krümmel had not needed worry about this. His Handbuch became the standard work on oceanography for many years to come.

Krümmel on the controversy Knudsen versus Hoek Martin Knudsen in his capacity as Hydrographical Assistant to the Bureau did not cooperate well with the General Secretary, Paulus P. C. Hoek.239 The controversy blazed up when Knudsen introduced a sort of hydrographical intelligence service. This did not suit Hoek who claimed that such corre-

234 Knudsen, M., 1900: Maaling af Havvandets Temperatur og Saltholdighed ved Hjrelp af elektrisk Telefonbro. Beretning fra Kommissionen for videnskabelig Undersøgelse af de danske Farvande, Bd. 2, Del 3.

235 Krümmel to Knudsen 26 May 1905. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 2.

236 Knudsen to Krümmel 27 May 1905. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 2.

237 Krümmel to Knudsen 24 July 1906. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 2.

238 Krümmel to Knudsen. 21 October 1906. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 2.

239 Smed, J,, 2005: Martin Knudsen's controversies with the first General Secretary of ICES, P.P.C. Hoek. Unpublished manuscript, 14 pp.

spondence was the prerogative of the General Secretary. When he circulated this decision Knudsen got furious and wrote the Council's President and Vice– President, Walther Herwig and Otto Pettersson respectively. He also applied to Krümmel on the matter, explaining that he would much prefer that his position as an assistant were converted into that of convener of a Hydrographical Commission. In that case he would report directly to the Council, not to the Bureau, i.e. to the General Secretary.240 Krümmel could understand Knudsen's difficult situation: 241 es ist gewiss eine besonders schwierige Lage für Sie, zugleich Assistent am Centralbureau und bevollmächtigter Delegierter des Central– Ausschusses für einen der beteiligten Staaten zu sein, und ich glaube, alle Kollegen der hydrographischen Section sind Ihnen nur dankbar dafür, dass Sie die Schwierigkeiten bisher mit Geduld ertragen und damit unsere gemeinsamen Arbeiten so erfolgreich gefördert haben.

Ob aber in der hydrogr. Section viel Stimmung dafür sein wird, aus der Assistentenstelle für Sie eine Convenerstelle zu machen, ist schwer zu sagen: die Verträge der beteiligten Staaten laufen ja nur wenig mehr als ein Jahr; und wann die nächste Sitzung des Central–Ausschusses sein wird, ist ja auch unbestimmt. Ich werde in der nächsten Woche für ein paar Tage nach Hannover reisen zum Besuche meiner Schwiegereltern und werde sehen, ob ich Herrn Präsident Herwig dort sprechen kann ... Meine persönliche Meinung geht dahin, dass Herr Dr. Hoek sich selbst dabei sehr gut stünde, wenn er Ihnen möglichst freie Hand liesse; nur dass Sie ihm regelmässig Vortrag hielten über den Stand Ihrer Korrespondenzen. Natürlich sind aile organisatorischen Fragen nicht ohne Einverständnis mit dem Bureau zu behandeln. Nur alle Details sollten Ihnen bleiben. Ihre Idee von der Convenerstelle für Hydrographie will ich mir noch weiter überlegen und Ihnen dann mitteilen, wie ich mir den modus procedendi denke.

Otto Pettersson did not support Knudsen's strong reaction upon Hoek's procedure, and obviously Krümmel was also somewhat reluctant. This may have induced Knudsen to come to a peaceful arrangement with Hoek. 242 Krümmel welcomed this outcome 243: Es ist mir nicht gelungen, Herrn Präsidenten Herwig in Hannover zu sprechen, da er noch auf seiner Villa in Arolsen war. lch bezweifele aber nicht, dass er bei gegebener Gelegenheit auf Herrn Dr. Hoek in unserm Sinne einwirken wird. Ich freue mich deshalb sehr, dass Sie

240 Knudsen to Krümmel 27 September 1905. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 2.

241 Krümmel to Knudsen 28 September 1905. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 2.

242 Knudsen to Krümmel 9 October 1905. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 1.

243 Krümmel to Knudsen 15 October 1905. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 1.

selbst mit Herrn Dr. Hoek eine Aussprache gehabt haben und noch weiter versuchen wollen, mit ihm zusammen zu arbeiten.

Outlines on the Council's hydrographical work – Knudsen's problems and Krümmel's comments.

When the International Council was founded in 1902, the member countries had committed themselves to a 5 year period only. In 1906, the Bureau found therefore that time had come to take stock with regard to the hydrographical results obtained. So at the meeting of the Council at Amsterdam in March 1906, the Hydrographical Section was requested to prepare a brief summary of the principal results of the investigations. Persons were nominated to report on each of the seas investigated and on the relation between hydrographical and biological phenomena. These reports should be collated by Knudsen, and the manuscript handed over to the Bureau as soon as the authors had expressed their agreement with its form and contents. This caused problems to Knudsen, however, as some of the contributions were rather circumstantial. Krümmel commented to Knudsen 244: ich kann Sie nur lebhaft bedauem, dass Sie mit der Redaktion unserer sogenannten “Kurzen Übersicht” soviel Plage haben, wenn ich auch selber dazu beitrage, indem ich verschiedene Streichungen für geboten erachtete. Wenn doch unsere lieben Kollegen ihre Steckenpferde einmal hübsch im Stalle lassen könnten, aber [Otto] Pettersson und [C.H.] Wind glauben immer, ihre Paradepferde vorführen zu müssen. Was geht uns der Golfstrom bei Neufundland an? Was Bjerknes? Was die Einzelheiten der Gezeitenströme beim Noord Hinder? Alles das hat für die Pointe der ganzen Cooperation, die Förderung der Fischereifragen, nur eine sehr indirekte Bedeutung, und es ist gradezu gefährlich, unseren Decernenten in den Ministerien mit solchen zu kommen. Hier heisst es: Maas halten, und diese “Kurze” Übersicht ist schon zu umfangreich im Ganzen. Jede Streichung, die Sie noch vornehmen können oder die Andere vorschlagen, wird meinen Beifall haben.

Schliesslich bitte ich Sie noch dringend mir eine Druck Korrektur des deutschen Textes zugehen zu lassen. Wenn wir unsere Regierung ein schlechtes Deutsch vorsetzen, so werde ich dafür verantwortlich gemacht. Ich verspreche Ihnen umgehende Erledigung mit nächster möglicher Post.

Knudsen succeeded in overcoming the difficulties, and the Bureau published 245: A brief statement of the present state and of some of the most important results of the Hydrographical Investigations, prepared by the Hydrographical Section of the Council, at Amsterdam, March 1906” and also

244 Krümmel to Knudsen 25 March 1906. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 1.

245 Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, Rapports et Proces-verbaux, vol. 6, pp.48—61. 1906.

a version in German: “Kurze Uebersicht”. The governments of the member countries agreed, however, to continue the cooperation for at least one more year, 1907—1908. The Council then resolved 246: In the coming financial year a short general review [grosszügige Uebersicht] of the knowledge of the hydrographical conditions in the parts of the sea investigated by the International Council, which has been acquired during the international cooperation, shall be drawn up by the Hydrographical Department of the Bureau and circulated in draft to the members of the Council before publication as a supplement to the Bulletin.

A draft of the general review, prepared by Knudsen and his staff, was circulated for comments to the members of the Council in June 1908. Krümmel commented 247: ich hatte in den letzten Wochen sehr viel zu tun und konnte infolge dessen erst gestern und heute Ihren Entwurf der ,”grosszügigen Übersicht etc.” in die Hand nehmen. Wie Sie selbst ganz richtig sagen, kann Ihr Manuskript unmöglich einer Diskussion im Detail, etwa in der hydrographischen Sektion, unterworfen werden; es würde dann wohl jeder irgend einen Teil beanstanden und eine endlose Debatte die Folge sein. Deshalb stimme ich Ihnen völlstandig zu, wenn Sie im Titel zorn Ausdmck bringen wollen, dass Sie allein (und Ihre Mitarbeiter) die Verantwortung für den Inhalt übernehmen. Übrigens werden Sie nicht schwer an dieser Verantwortung zu tragen haben: ich finde den Entwurf ganz vortrefflich, und kann nur sehr bedauern, dass er mir nicht schon im Sommer 1906 zur Verfügung stand.

Denn was ich in meinem Handbuch der Ozeanographie über dies Gebiet sage, ist nur allzusehr Stückwerk und konnte darnals auch nicht viel besseres werden.

In accordance with a decision of the Council meeting in July 1908 the general review was published, in English and German, as a supplement to the Bulletin Trimestriel pour l’anné 1906—1907. 248 Krümmel moves to Marburg Since 1884, Krümmel had been professor of geography at the Kiel University.

In March 1911, however, he wrote Knudsen 249: Nun aber eine kleine Überraschnng für Sie und die anderen Herren im Centralbureau: ich werde Anfang April Kiel verlassen und an die Uni-

246 Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, Rapports et Proces—verbaux, val. 7, pp. 30—31. 1907.

247 Krümmel to Knudsen 26 June 1908. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 4.

248 Resumee de l'Hydrographie des Mer Explorees par le Conseil. Bulletin Trimestriel pour l'annee 1906—1907, Partie supplementaire. 1909.

249 Krümmel to Knudsen 2 March 1911. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 5.

versität Marburg a.d.Lahn übersiedeln. Der Minister hat mir ein so vorteilhaftes Angebot gemacht, dass ich nicht habe ablehnen können.

Vorläufig werde ich aber mein Verhältnis zur internationalen Meeresforschung beibehalten d. h. Mitglied des Central–Ausschusses und der Druckschriften–Kommission bleiben. Mein Nachfolger in der geographischen Professur in Kiel ist noch nicht ernannt; das steht aber nahe bevor. Ich weiss noch nicht genau, wer es wird; ich hoffe Meinardus. Einstweilen übernimmt Herr Kollege Brandt die Direktion auch der hydrographischen Abteilung des hiesigen Laboratoriums, bis mein Nachfolger ernannt und hier angekommen ist.

Die ganze Sache hat sich sehr rasch entwickelt, wenn sie auch flir meine älteren Fachgenossen keine Überraschung bedeutet.

Knudsen has obviously expressed surprise that Krümmel left Kiel for a chair of geography at Marburg. Krümmel commented 250: Ihre Verwunderung über meinen Weggang von Kiel ist mir doch etwas überraschend: ich bin hier Professor der Geographie; eine Professur für Ozeanographie gibt es nicht. Ich habe mich auch stets mit andern Zweigen der Geographie beschäftigt, sowohl in den Vorlesungen, wie in Publikationen. Auch in Marburg kann ich die Literatur ebenso gut verfolgen, wie in Kiel; nur dass die Leitung des hiesigen Laboratoriums mir abgenommen wird, ist der Unterschied, und zwar ist mir das ganz angenehm.

Krümmel still kept his association with the Council. So when Knudsen in 1912 in a circular letter 251 to a number of his hydrographical colleagues ventilated a proposal that the Council should establish a minor international hydrographical laboratory, Krümmel's attitude was positive, but sceptical 252: Sie haben alle Gründe für und wider mit grösster Objektivitüt dargelegt und jedenfalls nachgewiesen, dass eine solche Institution sehr nützlich wirken könnte. Eine andere Sache ist es, ob man dafür beim Central–Ausschuss Propaganda machen soll. Sie werden begreifen, dass ich in dieser Hinsicht jetzt Zurückhaltung liben muss, da ich ja an der letzten Sitzung [in April 1912] leider nicht teilnehmen könnte, also gar nicht weiss, wie jetzt wohl die Stimmung überhaupt ist; auch habe ich jetzt mit den praktischen Arbeiten des Laboratoriums nichts mehr zu tun. Unzweifelhaft ist, dass die Institution Geld kosten wird; einen Assistenten und einen Speicherraum fortdauernd, eine gewisse Dotation von ein paar tausend Kronen einmalig, damit einiger Vorrat beschafft werden kann. Ich kann nicht beurteilen, ob im Bureau und unter den Delegierten sehr viel Wohlwollen für die Hydrographie

250 Krümmel to Knudsen 9 March 1911. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 5.

251 Knudsen to a number of hydrographers 3 July 1912. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 7.

252 Krümmel to Knudsen 6 July 1912. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 7.

vorhanden ist; wir hatten früher wenigstens dann und wann Grund zu klagen.

Also earlier Krümmel had touched upon the problems which hydrographical research had met with. Referring to the German contribution to the Council's activities he wrote Knudsen 253: ich hoffe jedoch, ... dass man nicht alles Geld für praktische Fischereiversuche wegnehmen wird.

On the same line is his reaction when Knudsen had proposed an increase of salary for his assistant, Johan Gehrke. Krümmel strongly supported the proposal, but warned that a positive outcome was by no means certain 254: Denn je länger uns’re Organisation in Funktion ist, um so stärker wird das Bestreben, hydrographische Arbeiten und Ansprüche zurückzudrängen und die speziell zoologischen dafür auszudehnen.

Ich mache im Bereiche unsrer deutschen Kommissionen jedes Mal, wenn unser Budget beraten wird, die unangenehmsten Erfahrungen, namentlich jetzt, wo das Geld bei uns sehr knapp geworden ist.

Obviously an eternal problem for the hydrographers in the Council!

In his letter255 of July 1912, the last one he wrote Knudsen, Krümmel expressed the hope that he still would be a delegate to the Council, so that he could attend its forthcoming meeting in September. He ended his letter: Mir selbst geht es wieder gut; wenn ich von gewissen Diätschranken absehe, ist alles wie vor dieser unliebsamen Attacke.

The recovery did not last, however. At the Council meeting in September the Acting President gave the information that “Professor Krümmel on account of ill health had been obliged to withdraw as a member of the Council; he will, however, be remembered for the good work he has done”. A telegram with greetings was sent to Krümmel. 256 In the session of the Hydrographical Section The Chairman, Professor Knudsen, acknowledged the great and valuable services which Professor Otto Krümmel, formerly member of the Section, had rendered both to hydrography in general and to the hydrographical work of the International Cooperation for the Study of the Sea. Prof. Krümmel had, with his “Handbuch der Ozeanographie” inscribed his name in the annals of science, and his eminent personal qualities would ever be remembered by the Section. 257

253 Krümmel to Knudsen 12 May 1909. In: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 5.

254 As 61 255 Krümmel to Knudsen 18 August 1910.ln: RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 5.

256 Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, Rapports et Proces–verbaux, vol. 15, p. 8. 1913.

257 Ibid., p. 70.

Otto Krümmel passed away in October 1912. He was commemorated by the Council at its meeting in 1913.258 Acknowledgements I am greatly indebted to Jørgen Møller Christensen and Artnr Svansson for drawing my attention to letters in Danish and Swedish archives respectively, and to Artnr Svansson for continued assistance in processing this and other manuscripts.

References Abbreviations used: RAC: Rigsarkivet (National Archive), Copenhagen.

UBG: University Library, Gothenburg.

258 Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, Rapports et Proces–verbaux, vol 19, p. 10. 1913.

A note on Gerhard Schott's relations to Scandinavian colleagues and ICES Historisch-Meereskundliches Jahrbuch/History of Oceanography Yearbook Band 13 / Volume 13 2007 Jens Smed The German oceanographer Paul Gerhard Schott (1866—1961) had close relations to several Scandinavian colleagues as appears from his correspondence and his participation in international meetings.

Schott's international activities before World War 1 The relations of Gerhard Schott to the Swedish oceanographer Otto Pettersson (1848—1941) date back to May 1895 when Schott asked (in English) for information about Pettersson's paper in the Scottish Geographical Magazine (Pettersson, 1894). As an assistant at the Deutsche Seewarte, Schott was interested in the investigations dealt with in the above paper. Furthermore, he would like to review the paper in the Geographische Zeitschrift.259 Pettersson obviously answered in German; for from then on their correspondence was in this language. At that time Pettersson was interested in surface observations from the North Atlantic. Schott intimated that the Deutsche Seewarte might assist in this matter, especially by way of the shipping company Hamburg-America Linie, and he suggested that Pettersson should approach Georg Neumayer (1826—1909), the Director of the Seewarte, when they met at the forthcoming International Geographical Congress in London.260 In 1898, when Germany was planning the Valdivia expedition in which Schott should participate, he again approached Pettersson, this time asking for guidance, especially with regard to the chemical work to be carried out on board, but also about the instruments to be used during the expedition.261 A closer cooperation must have developed between Schott and Pettersson; for at the 9th International Geographical Congress at Geneva in 1908 they presented a joint paper on the importance of an international exploration of the Atlantic Ocean, which was published in English, German and France in different journals (Pettersson and Schott, 1908, 1909, 1910). They pointed out that researches in the Atlantic would be a natural continuation and completion of the ongoing investigations of the Nordic seas, coordinated by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). They recommended therefore that synoptic oceanographic surveys be carried out in the Atlan-

259 Gerhard Schott to Otto Pettersson 1 May 1895. ULGP. 260 Schott to Pettersson 13 May 1895. ULGP. 261 Schott to Pettersson February through July 1898 (several letters). ULGP.

tic during one year, using the methods that had stood the test in the investigations of the North Sea and the Baltic (Smed, 2004).

It is interesting to see how clearly Schott advocated the “practical” way of obtaining information about the conditions in the sea. In a paper on the Congress he stressed the importance of obtaining a detailed knowledge of the currents and their seasonal variation. He added: Aber im Hinblick auf gar manche neuere und neueste theoretische Arbeit über Entstehung und Wesen der Meeresströmungen möchte ich doch immer von neuem sagen: Weniger Schreibtischarbeit, weniger Experimente auch in Wannen, in Trägen, deren Dimensionen mit denen des Weltmeeres geringe oder keine Aehnlichkeit haben, sondern mehr Berüchsichtigung der tatsächlichen Beobachtungen, mehr Aufarbeitung zunächst dieser Beobachtungstatsachen. Manche gefährliche oder gewagte Behauptung wäre wohl unterblieben, wenn man die Gültigkeit mancher Einzelerscheinungen in Fjorden, Buchten usw. nicht zu kühn sofort auf den Weltozean ausgedehnt und übertragen hätte! (Schott, 1910: 423) The paper by Pettersson and Schott was well received by the Congress which adopted a resolution stressing the importance of the physical and biological investigation of the Atlantic Ocean in the interest of shipping, fisheries, and meteorology. To follow up the resolution the Congress established an International Committee for the Scientific Exploration of the Atlantic (short: Atlantic Committee), of which both Schott and Pettersson became members (Claparède, 1909).

The Atlantic Committee met at Monaco in 1910 under the presidency of Prince Albert I (1848—1922) of Monaco. Here Schott pointed out that it would be very difficult to carry out the investigations by research vessels alone. So he proposed to make use of cargo boats, by means of which four synoptic cruises should be made annually. The boats should be equipped with oceanographic instruments, and each boat should have an oceanographer on board. Schott suggested to start with the exploration of five lines crossing the North Atlantic and permitting to study the whole Gulf Stream (Berget, 1910). The selection of the lines to be worked was left to the 10th International Geographical Congress, held at Rome in 1913. Now it was proposed, however, that the observations should be made on board vessels equipped for this special purpose. Schott had come to the conclusion that for various reasons his earlier proposal to carry out these observations by means of cargo boats did not work (Schott, 1915). It would be necessary by preparatory expeditions to determine the size, regional extent, and nature of the daily periodical variations. Only in this way it would be possible to find out about the existence and size of the aperiodic changes from year to year.

These preparatory expeditions would of necessity have to be carried out by special ships, such as research vessels or naval ships. The Congress gave the plan its blessing (Anon., 1915).

In the end, ICES, in consultation with the President of the Atlantic Committee, Prince Albert of Monaco, undertook to organize the investigation. It was soon realized that the cruises would probably have to be made by means of naval vessels, and it was proposed to make use of the opportunity when such vessels from various European countries simultaneously crossed the Atlantic at the occasion of the opening of the Panama Canal, scheduled to take place in early 1915. The Atlantic project was discussed at the ICES meeting in September 1913. Schott, who had been invited to participate as a guest, reminded the meeting that of the North Atlantic region's 45 millions km 2 only 4 millions km 2 had been investigated by international cooperation, mainly the North Sea and the Baltic. An explanation of many of the natural conditions of the waters hitherto investigated should, however, probably be sought in the open Atlantic. For instance, the aperiodic fluctuations of the Atlantic Current at the coasts of Europe very likely had their origin on the American side; but these waters were entirely untouched as far as modern scientific investigation was concerned. Also with regard to climatology, it was only by observations in the open Atlantic that it might be hoped to attain an understanding of the causes responsible for the variable character of the seasons. After the study of the surface conditions, one should now seek to determine the fluctuations of heat in the water masses below the surface. The Titanic disaster in 1912 had shown that also in the interests of shipping it was necessary to investigate the Labrador Current and the movement of icebergs in it. Schott considered the plan of employing naval vessels on their way to the opening of the Panama Canal an excellent one. He estimated that the observations would extend their voyage by 8 to 10 days. The meeting elaborated a definite programme for the investigations (Anon., 1913).

Prince Albert accepted, in his capacity of President of the Atlantic Committee, to convene a conference to discuss the programme. Great efforts were now made to obtain commitment from the countries that they would participate.

The turning-point came when Schott could inform Pettersson that Germany would take part in the project.262 During the Kiel Regatta (the Kieler Woche) in June 1914, a few oceanographers, including Schott, were invited by Prince Albert to discuss the programme on board his yacht Hirondelle II. Furthermore, a meeting for settling the final details was scheduled to take place at the ICES Headquarters in September 1914. In August, however, came the war. All efforts had been a waste.

Schott's reaction upon the War The war in 1914 must have come as a shock to Schott, as to most others, and he did not make a secret of his feelings. When in August 1914 he wrote the Head of the ICES Service Hydrographique, Martin Knudsen (1871—1949), about the North Sea temperatures he stated that he would like to add some private lines:

262 Pettersson to Drechsel2 April1914. RAC, Archive No. 10.649, Box 131, File 8.B.I

.

Niemand kann mehr als ich die vorläufige Zersprengung der international en Meeresarbeit bedauem; gerade im jetzigen Augenblick, da wir vor der Atlantik-Fahrt standen! Wer hätte dies Ende Juni in Kiel gedacht, als die Englischen Schiffe neben den unsrigen lagen und wir bei Albert von Monaco an Bord waren. Aber es hilft nichts, wir miissen hindurch, und wir werden hindurch komrnen!

Wir haben gar keinen Hass gegen Frankreich; im Gegenteil, die Nation tut uns leid u. wir können deren Gefühle verstehen. Auch Russland ist nicht das ärgste, da es sich ausdehnen will zum Bosporus u.s.w., kan man zur Not sein Vorgehen verstehen, wenn wir uns auch auf das äusserste dagegen wehren werden. Was kein Deutscher versteht, ist England, das angeblich erste Kulturvolk, uns verwandt, das nur aus Handelsneid uns Krieg macht: England soli und wird diese Schande büssen. Von Herrn Prof. Pettersson erhielten wir famosen Brief der Sympathie. Wir glauben dass die Kriege nicht gar zu lange Zeit dauern, und dass bald wieder Kulturaufgaben daran kommen an die Reihe.263 Soon after the outbreak of the war Germany broke off her connection with ICES and did no longer pay her membership subscription, for which reason the other members considered the country as retired from the organization.

In Germany, however, it was apparently regarded as a temporary interruption of membership only. This opinion was also expressed by Schott in a letter to the General Secretary of ICES, Christian Frederik Drechsel (1854— 1927): Ich bin überzeugt, dass nach dem Krieg die internationale Organisation der Meeresforschung wieder Leben erhält und erhalten muss, nachdem sie so viel geleistet; denn das Meer ist frei und keine allein englische oder allein deutsche Dömane, ist vielmehr der gegebene Schauplatz des gemeinsamen friedlichen Weltbewerbes aller seefahrenden Nationen auch auf wissenschaftlichen Gebiet, Wenn die deutsche Regierung jetzt erklärt hat “dass das internationale Untemehmen vorläufig auβer Tätigkeit gesetzt ist”, so bedeutet dies meiner Meinung nach eben nur die Feststellung einer Tatsache der Gegenwart; es bedeutet keine Ablehnung für die Zukunft, soviel ich sehe, und aile, die ich sprach, sind überzeugt, dass mit dem Frieden auch Ihre groβe Organisation ganz oder teilweise von selbst wieder da sein wird. Was ich dabei in bescheidener Weise mitwirken kann, geschieht sicher und bei jeder Gelegenheit; des dürfen Sie versichert sein! Habe ich doch sehen müssen, dass im Monate des Kriegsbeginns 2 groβe Fahrten mir zertriimmert sind: 1 ) die Panama-Reise; 2 ) die Expedition des Dr. B. Schulz auf S. M. S. Möwe nach der Südsee.

Ich bin elastisch und zuversichtlich genug, zu sagen, dass diese Untersuchungen nur aufgeschoben, nicht aufgehoben sind.

263 Schott to Knudsen 25 August 1914. RAC, Archive No. 1935, Box D. 10.

Also bitte glauben Sie nicht, dass Deutschland im Prinzip u. in Zukunft ablehnend ist.264 In accordance with this view Schott, as early as February 1920, informed Drechsel that Germany had decided to resume research in the North Sea and the Baltic according to the international plans and that she was prepared to re-enter ICES as soon as an opportunity offered.265 This was obviously a much too optimistic view. Drechsel, who had just in London attended the first ICES meeting after the War, had to inform Schott that in his opinion there was at the moment no possibility for bringing Germans together with Frenchmen and Belgians. He thought, however, that reestablishment of cooperation would be possible if the matter were approached quietly and diplomatically, and no official remarks being made before time was ripe for it.266 The post-war years were extremely difficult for German scientists.

Schott poured out his bitterness to Fridtjof Nansen (1861—1930) with whom he had exchanged data and publications during many years. In December 1921 he wrote: Für jede denkenden deutschen Gelehrten, auch den typischen Gelehrten “Professor”, ist es heute bei uns unmöglich, in der Wirrniss und Bedrängnis eines Industrie-Kulturvolkes, ganz abseils von den weltgeschichtlichen Problemen der Gegenwart sich zu halten. In der Tat, Samojeden und Eskimos haben, mochte man sagen, eine htihere Herzensbildung als die “kultivierten” Nationen, in denen Materialismus, Imperialismus der “Weltmächte” ihre Orgien feiern.267 The situation in Germany became aggravated when in 1923 France occupied the Ruhr District because Germany did not pay the reparations as laid down in the treaty of Versailles. In a letter to Nansen, Schott wrote about the “fürchterliche Ruhr-Verbrechen der Franzosen”.268 In his reply Nansen expressed his anxiety about the situation: Die ganze Sachlage in Deutschland und das Benehmen der Franzosen giebt mir viele Sorgen, und es scheint mir dass Europas Zukunft noch viel finsterer als je aussieht.269 Schott's participation in ICES after the War In the following years, the situation improved somewhat. In 1926, when Germany had become a member of the League of Nations she re-entered

264 Schott to DrechsellO December 1914. RAC, Archive No. 10.649, Box 5, File 1.A.4.

265 Schott to Drechsel28 February 1920. RAC, Archive No. 10.649, Box 5, File l.A.4.

266 Drechsel to Schott 17 March 1920. RAC, Archive No. 10.649, Box 5, File l.A.4.

267 Schott to Nansen 26 December 1921. NNL, File No. 48.

268 Schott to Nansen 24 January 1923. NNL, File No. 48.

269 Nansen to Schott 22 February 1923. Nansen: Brev, V (Oslo, 1978), letter no. 1242.

ICES (Smed, 2005). In 1927, the first year that the country after its re-entering sent a full delegation to the annual meeting, Schott participated. In the Hydrographical Committee he presented a memorandum on the improvement of the Bulletin hydrographique trimestriel. He stressed that the first requirement was to obtain good mean values of salinity in the North Sea, based on observations during a number of years and covering the shortest possible periods, at most months. The second requirement was to ensure adequate geographical distribution of the actual observations of temperature and salinity in the North Sea and the Atlantic, and to ensure regular service in procuring these values on fixed routes (Schott, 1927). Also in 1928, Schott took part in the ICES meeting. It was decided to terminate the Bulletin trimestriel, and Schott became a member of a sub-committee to discuss what should replace the quarterly Bulletin (Anon., 1928). Again in 1931 Schott attended the ICES meeting. This year, however, Bruno Schulz (1888-1944) took over in various sub-committees. The reason was that Schott would retire from Deutsche Seewarte on 1 November 1931 to be replaced there by Schulz.

Epilogue Schott's qualifications were held in high esteem by his Scandinavian colleagues. When Otto Pettersson and Martin Knudsen had been asked in 1919 to give their opinion about Schott and Alfred Merz (1880—1925; professor at the Institut und Museum für Meereskunde in Berlin) with a view to the appointment of one of them to an office, Pettersson declared: Ich halte Prof. Merz für kompetent ein selbständiges Lehreramt, e.g. als Professor der Meereskunde an der neuen Universität in Hamburg zu erhalten und seine rege Tätigkeit als Anmelder und Kritiker lässt mich vermuten dass sein Unterricht anregend wirken wird. Professor Gerhard Scholls gesammte wissenschaftliche Leistung und Erfahrung auf dem Gebiet der ozeanographischen Forschung erscheint mir aber so iiberlegen derjenigen des Prof. Merz dass der Vorschlag letzterem eine Stellung als Obergutachter an der Deutschen Seewarte zu erteilen, unter dessen Leitung auch Professor Schott arbeiten würde, mir unbegreiflich vorkommt. Professor Schott ist einer der bedeutendsten Vertreter der Ozeanographie unserer Zeit.270 Probably also Knudsen gave preference to Schott since Pettersson wrote him: “I should be glad if we succeeded in crossing this intrigue of Penck”. Albrecht Penck (1858—1945) was at that time Director of the Institut für Meereskunde at Berlin and probably wanted to have a foot in ICES. Acknowledgements I am indebted to Mme Jacqueline Carpine–Lancre for access to relevant literature, and to Dr. Artur Svansson for copies of letters in Swedish archives, useful comments, and assistance in processing the manuscript.

270 Pettersson to Knudsen 28 January 1919. RAC, Archive No.1935, Box D. 11.

References Anonymous. 1913. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, Rapp. P.-v. Reun., 19:48-53 and 78-81.

Anonymous. 1915. Atti del X'Congresso Internazionale di Geografia, Roma 1913: CLXXXIICLXXXIII. Anonymous. 1928. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, Rapp. P.-v. Reun., 49: 54 and 58.

Berget, A. (ed.). 1910. Commission internationale pour I' exploration scientifique de l' Atlantique. Proces-Verbal de Ia reunion du 31 mars 1910 a Monaco. Bull. Inst. Oceanogr.

Monaco, No. 176.

Claparede, A. (ed.). 1909. Compte rendu des travaux du ge Congres International de Geographie, I: 121-122 and 147-148.

Pettersson, 0. 1894. A review of Swedish hydrographic research in the Baltic and in the North Sea. Scottish Geogr. Mag., 10.

Pettersson, 0. and G. Schott. 1908. Sur !'importance d'une exploration internationale de l'Ocean Atlantique. Bull. Inst. Oceanogr. Monaco, No. 128.

Pettersson, 0. and G. Schott. 1908. Die Bedeutung einer internationalen Erforschung des Atlantischen Ozeans in physikalischer und biologischer Hinsicht. Annalen der Hydrographic und Maritimen Meteorologie: 406-410.

Pettersson, 0. and G. Schott. 1909. On the Importance of an International Exploration of the Atlantic Ocean. Geogr. J. 33: 68-71.- 1909. Scottish Geogr. Magazine: 23-28.

Schott, G. 1910. Neuere ozeanographische Arbeiten der deutschen Marine, insbesondere der Seewarte. Compte rendu des travaux du 9e Congres International de G6ographie, II: 420-425.

Schott, G. 1915. Die Stellungnahme der deutschen Schiffahrtsgesellschaften zur wissenschaftlichen Erforschung des Atlantischen Ozeans, sowie ein neuer ozeanographischer Gesichtspunkt ftir die geplanten Arbeiten. Atti del X'Congresso Internazionale die Geografia, Roma 1913: 102-106.

Schott, G. 1927. Memorandum re Quarterly Hydrographical Bulletin. Cons. perm. int. Explor.

Mer, Rapp. P.-v. Reun., 45: 70-72.

Smed, J, 2004. Early plans for an international synoptic investigation of North Atlantic Deep Water. In: S. Marcos et al. (eds): Ocean Sciences Bridging the Millennia. A spectrum of historical accounts. Proceedings ofiCHO-VI, Qingdao, China, 1998: 163-178.

Smed, J, 2005. Germany's participation in the foundation of ICES, withdrawal during the First World War, and re-entry after the War. 32 pp. Unpublished MS. Letters Abbreviations used: NNL: Norwegian National Library, Oslo. Collection of manuscripts.

RAC: Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen.

ULGP: University Library, Gothenburg. Collection of letters to Otto Pettersson.

Fridtjof Nansen’s role in the foundation of ICES History of Oceanography Number 19, September 2007 Jens Smed I. The Stockholm Conference and preceding events Norway was involved at an early stage in the endeavours to establish an international cooperation for the study of the North Sea and adjacent waters.

From the start, the Norwegian zoologist Fridtjof Nansen (1861—1930) played an important role in the organization of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). In the summer of 1897 when the British oceanographer Sir John Murray (1841—1914) visited Christiania (Oslo) he, Fridtjof Nansen, and the Norwegian biologist Johan Hjort (1869—1948) discussed summoning of a conference for consideration of the matter. Murray proposed that Nansen should take the initiative to invite the conference to Christiania. If not, Murray would invite to Edinburgh a few real experts and interested persons from the Scandinavian countries, England (Note. “England” was often used synonymously with “Great Britain”.), Germany, and France in order to obtain an agreement about uniformity of research methods, instruments etc. The conference should comprise both physical and biological investigations. Especially with regard to the latter, such as the study of plankton, there was a need for more uniformity, Murray and Nansen felt (Nansen, 1898).

At about the same time an initiative was taken in Sweden. In October 1897, three Swedish scientists, Otto Pettersson (1848—1941), Gustaf Ekman (1852—1930), and August Wijkander (1849—1913) proposed to Oscar II (1829—1907), King of Sweden and Norway, that the Swedish government should submit to the governments of Norway, Denmark, and England that they cooperate with Sweden according to a common plan, on the investigation of the hydrographical (i.e. oceanographic) and biological conditions of the Norwegian Sea, the North Sea and the Baltic in the interest of the sea— fishery. As reason for the petition they referred partly to a resolution passed by the International Geographical Congress in London in 1895 (Pettersson, 1896), partly to the experience obtained during the work in the foregoing years, especially in 1893—94, when the three Scandinavian countries together with Scotland and Germany carried out quarterly synoptic investigations according to a common plan (Smed, 1990). The purpose would be to elucidate the conditions and movements of the upper water layers, from the surface to a depth of about 800—1000 m, at all seasons and to study the nature, amount, and variations of the plankton in these layers. The investigations would cover at least five years, and it was proposed that they would start 1

May 1899 or 1 May 1900. The work would be divided between the participating countries, each of them investigating a certain area. To plan the work it would be necessary that representatives of the countries met and worked out proposals for submission to their governments. In the petition it was stated that even if acceptance were obtained only by the countries mentioned important results might be gained, as experience from the investigations in 1893â&#x20AC;&#x201D;94 had shown. Furthermore, if these countries would be willing to participate in the project it might be assumed that it would be easier to obtain the accession of other countries, and it was supposed that the Swedish government would then consider extending the negotiations about participation in the work to the other North Sea countries as well as to Russia and France.271 Upon the decision of King Oscar the Swedish/Norwegian Foreign Ministry in April 1898 approached the governments of Denmark, England, and Germany as to whether they were likely to be interested in cooperation. Norway had already been approached on 15 March. Otto Pettersson informed Nansen about this development in case he did not already know about it. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Support the matter with your influenceâ&#x20AC;?, Pettersson appealed to him.272 Nansen considered it a matter of course that Norway would join the international investigation, and he promised to use his influence if this would be of any importance (Nansen, 1898). In September, the Norwegian government signified its support to the plan. Apparently Pettersson had envisaged an international conference in 1898. Nansen too found it regrettable that the conference did not come off. He expressed the hope, however, that it could be arranged in 1899.273 On the whole the replies from the governments approached were positive. So in April 1899 the Swedish/Norwegian Foreign Ministry formally invited Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, The Netherlands, Norway, and Russia to send official delegates to a preparatory conference whose purpose should be to establish a plan for a joint exploration of the northern seas. The Conference was held at Stockholm in June 1899 (Anon., 1899). As a matter of course Nansen was a member of the Norwegian delegation to the Conference where he presented plans for a Central Laboratory to be established in connection with the Central Bureau of the new organization (Nansen, 1899a).

II. Deliberations about headquarters and president Now discussions began as to where the Central Bureau of the organization should be located and who should be in charge of it. In a letter to Pettersson, Nansen made his position clear. He stressed the importance of having the Bureau near the sea, at a place where water depth and other conditions

271 Letter of 18 October 1897 from the members of the Swedish Hydrographical Commission to King Oscar II. Archived in Riksarkivet, Stockholm in Civildepartementet (Ministry of Public Administration), Cabinet Act, series E1, vol. 3031, act no. 14, 2537/99, 23rd February 1900.

272 Letter of 29 March 1898 from OP to FN. 273 Letter of 21 October 1898 from FN to OP.

would facilitate experiments and investigations. According to Nansen only three coasts could be considered: the Swedish west coast and the coasts of Norway and Scotland. The latter was a little too shallow, Nansen found. None the less he had at Stockholm been, and still was, in favour of Scotland if the organization could have John Murray for president, because of his great personal merits as an administrator, etc. Nansen was afraid, however, that it would be difficult to have this arranged as he had got the impression that Murray was not persona grata in England. Also it could not be concealed that hydrography was at a low level in England, which according to Nansen had a limited capacity, although the Scot Hugh Mill (1861—1950) was one of the best. Furthermore, Germany would probably not join the organization if the Central Bureau was located in Scotland.

On the whole there was some doubt whether the German government was really interested in the plans. So, two of the German delegates to the Stockholm Conference, Victor Hensen (1835—1924) and Otto Krümmel (1854— 1912), had requested Nansen to influence their government in a positive direction. The Germans had become anxious that England would not participate. Nansen told them, however, that even if only Germany and the three Scandinavian countries cooperated results could be obtained that would surprise even the most sanguine. Germany, the great seafaring nation must, of course, be actively interested in participating in this work, Nansen argued. He felt that the German authorities had a positive attitude to the matter. But now they had advanced what he considered a preposterous idea, viz. to place the central institution in Copenhagen. His surprise culminated when he learned that they would propose the Dutch fishery biologist Paulus P.C. Hoek (1851—1914) as president of the organization. These ideas would paralyse the whole undertaking in the start, Nansen found. Copenhagen was the wrong place because of the shallow waters in the region which would render difficult the testing of instruments and methods. With regard to Hoek as president, Nansen had got the impression that he had not much idea about modern marine research. Nansen invited Pettersson to contact the leader of the new Institut und Museum für Meereskunde in Berlin, Ferdinand von Richthofen (1833—1905) who might persuade his German colleagues to give up their strange ideas.

Nansen’s opinion was that because of Pettersson’s initiative in the matter the central institution should be located in Sweden, e.g. in Gothenburg. He stressed that a condition sine qua non for this was that Pettersson became its leader. Nansen had understood, however, that the Swedish did not wish to have the institution, but would prefer that it was placed in Norway. In that case Christiania would be the right place as it had several well—qualified men, first and foremost Johan Hjort, but also Haaken Hasberg Gran (1870— 1955), Alf Wollebæk (1879—1960), and Bjørn Helland–Hansen (1877—1957).

Nansen stressed that should he be asked to take charge of the institution it

would be a condition that he did not receive any salary because he was already paid by the Norwegian state (as a professor at the university).274 Pettersson referred to meetings which Hjort had had in Stockholm with the King, and with the civil minister and Pettersson. He summed up what had been agreed upon at these meetings, agreements which according to Hjort also would cover Nansen's intentions: Sweden would not propose that the central laboratory etc. be located there, but would support the Norwegian proposal that it be placed in some town on the coast of Norway. This town would be Christiania if Nansen became director of the institution and if the Norwegian government and the town of Christiania would approve and support the establishment of the institution there; if not, Pettersson thought that another town, Christiansand or Bergen, should be chosen. He stressed, however, that Norway and Sweden would in any case follow the decisions of the conference, even if their common wish to have the central institution placed in Norway could not be brought into being because of the influence of other nations. At the above meetings it had moreover been agreed that the negotiations with foreign countries should, at present, aim at assuring their consent in principle to the decisions of the conference. Only when this had been obtained efforts should be directed upon having the central institution placed at Christiania. From Hjort, Pettersson had understood that also the Norwegian prime minister consented to this agreement. In Sweden there would be no problems. It was true that they would now have to deal with a new minister whose opinion in this matter was not known, but the King had given his word and had promised to let the diplomatic service work for the implementation of the plan. Pettersson then explained that the reason why the minister, Gustaf Ekman, and he himself did not advocate that Sweden got the central institution was not that they did not want it. They doubted, however, that they at Gothenburg would find the necessary compliance from the town. Furthermore, they considered it a most important advantage to the whole cooperation having Nansen as director of the institutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s central laboratory. So the proposal was no sacrifice for them and they would support it as long as possible. If they were outvoted by the other nations, however, they would have to give in and accept that the institution was placed elsewhere.

For according to Pettersson the central institution might be placed even at Køge or Hamar (small provincial towns in Denmark and Norway, respectively) although it would be absurd.

With regard to the German proposals to place the institution at Copenhagen and to make Hoek its director Pettersson stated that he, of course, had no sympathy for any of them. He thought, however, that it would not be difficult to get the Germans change their mind and he suggested a procedure to follow: one should try to get the support in principle of Denmark, Holland, Russia, and England, or at least as many of these countries as possible. Then it must be awaited that the Swedish parliament approved the government's

274 Letter of 1 April 1900 from FN to OP.

proposal. After that it should be proposed to the King that he summoned the so-called Commission H, established at the Stockholm Conference, to Christiania. Nansen and Hjort should then make the proposal that the central office should be placed at Christiania, and Nansen should have everything ready that might serve as reason for this; if possible he should propose where at Christiania the institute should be placed. Could it not be placed somewhere in the Palace Garden, which the King or the government would make at disposal, Pettersson suggested, such as was the case with Villa Nazionale at Naples, he added! (Pettersson here referred to the famous zoological station which Anton Dohrn got permission to establish in a public park.) The representatives of Sweden would then support Norway's proposal and would propose that Nansen be made the leader of the institution. After these "instructions" to Nansen, Pettersson stressed the importance of having England join the cooperation. If it were limited to Germany and the Scandinavian countries the contributions to the central institution would be small and it would be difficult to defray its expenses. Furthermore, England's participation was important because the inflow of Gulf Stream water between Orkney and Shetland and over the Wyville Thomson Ridge should be watched. It is true that Nansen and Hjort might go there now and then on a cruise; but in the long run this would be much too burdensome, and the observation network would be incomplete. In this connection Pettersson declared that England ought to be at the head of an Atlantic cooperation besides participating in the North Sea cooperation, and both projects should have Sir John Murray as connecting link, so that they really cooperated. From the Netherlands Pettersson apparently did not expect much: "As to Holland I am afraid that this country is not seriously with anything except with her trade."

Pettersson had been informed that Nansen had promised his minister to write an article in a Norwegian newspaper about the purpose of the international work. This article might then be 19 reprinted in Sweden and serve as a support for the decision to be made by the Swedish parliament. In this case, Pettersson warned, it would be advisable not to mention his name in the article since his countrymen would be inclined to think that the whole matter was just one of his scientific hobbies!

What would do its work on the parliament are such things as, e.g., that Hjort and (C.G.Joh.) Petersen have found that our most common fishes, such as cod a.o., are migratory fishes and that our fiords are empty during summer and that we must out on the open sea to find out where cod, herring, eel, and salmon live when they disappear from our horizons. Furthermore, that we have now come to the point where we must turn to practical account the prolonged investigations of the arctic seas with which our seas exchange fish food, water etc.

Also, we need a firm ground for the fishery legislation, which only science can produce. Finally, we Norwegians and Swedes have for a long

time had a fruitful cooperation search.275(from Swedish.)

on

the

field

of

marine

Now, however, there were internal problems in Norway. According to Nansen everything was made into politics; also the questions about fishery and marine research should be used to angle for votes: to fawn on Western Norway the government and part of the parliament had got the idea to place the fishery administration, together with the management of the marine research, at Bergen, and to fawn on Northern Norway by placing the Technical University at Trondheim. Both ideas were all wrong, Nansen found. He thought that oceanography and fishery research would in Bergen get most unfavourable conditions: “I know Bergen quite well and can only say that science will not flourish there”.276 Nansen’s words may have been coloured by the fact that he had stressed he would not take over the management of an international institution if he could not cooperate closely with the managers of the Norwegian fishery and marine research, i.e. Hjort and his staff. Such cooperation was only possible, Nansen found, if the institutions were located in the same town, and the international institution could only be established at Christiania, he felt. For various reasons Christiansand would not be a solution, nor would Bergen. He had informed the parliament to this effect. This “the thrifty Bergen people" had taken as a personal affront and had raised an outcry about.

Nansen may have had good reason to feel disappointed. When Hjort in December 1899, had been on the above mentioned trip to Stockholm a provisional agreement had been arrived at, and this agreement was, according to Nansen, based upon the assumption that the Norwegian investigations would be placed at Christiania. The Norwegian government, however, stuck to the decision that the management of the Norwegian fishery and marine research should be established at Bergen. Consequently Nansen had informed the Prime Minister, Johannes Steen (1827—1906), that under these circumstances he could not take over the management of an international institution. He urged the government to advocate that Gothenburg became the seat of the central institution, and not Copenhagen as suggested by the Germans. The latter choice would, according to Nansen, lead the international investigations into a false track from the start. It would be about as bad as if he were sitting at Christiania directing these investigations without being in touch with the ongoing Norwegian investigations of this kind (Nansen, 1900a).

Pettersson was less pessimistic. He agreed that it was bad if the headquarters of the practical work were separated from the central institution. It would be still stranger, he found, if the Technical University of Norway were separated from the Capital and its University. “Will Norway return to the arrangement before the time of Harold the Fair-Haired," he asked somewhat sarcastically.

275 Letter of 4 April 1900 from OP to FN. 276 Letter of 17 April 1900 from FN to OP.

(Before the Norwegian King Harold the Fair-Haired (ca.â&#x20AC;&#x2030;860â&#x20AC;&#x201D;ca.â&#x20AC;&#x2030;940), the country was split up into a number of minor kingdoms, two of them in the Bergen and Trondheim regions, respectively.) Pettersson was of the opinion, however, that the situation was not hopeless. It would be more demanding for the leaders with regard to cooperation, and would in general be more arduous. But it would work, no doubt about that, Pettersson optimistically concluded.277 Nansen was still fighting for his ideas. In a letter to the Norwegian prime minister he complained that they had negotiated about inviting the next international conference to Christiania without informing him. Otto Pettersson had several times proposed to him that the Norwegian government or the King should issue such invitations. Nansen, however, had not been able to reply as long as there was no decision with regard to the seat of the Norwegian investigations. He took it for granted that it was of no interest to Norway having the conference at Christiania if there was no desire to have the international institution there. Personally, he could not take on the work connected with such a conference if it did not entail some advantage to the country or to the Norwegian investigations. Nansen then proposed an arrangement, according to which Hjort temporarily should be appointed a member of the Board of Fisheries at Bergen. If Christiania should become the seat of the central institution Hjort should return there and have a replacement at Bergen. If not, he should stay at Bergen. In case this arrangement was acceptable Nansen suggested that the conference be invited to meet at Christiania in the autumn of 1900 (Nansen, 1900b).

The government did not accept Nansen's suggestion, and he complained to Otto Pettersson about the situation: The government was not willing to postpone the removal of the Norwegian marine investigations (and Hjort) to Bergen, thereby breaking off the direct cooperation between these investigations and Nansen. Nevertheless the government wanted that he should be willing to take over the direction of the central institute, although they did not meet his wishes at any single point. Nansen was bitter: The only thanks he had received for declaring himself willing under certain conditions were that he had been violently attacked and scolded in the parliament by the minister in charge of this business. The minister made it look as if Nansen was an incompetent who had encroached upon a field where he had the experts against him. Nansen went on reporting, however, that the same day at a meeting with the prime minister he had promised to postpone his decision and to ask Otto Pettersson whether the meeting could be delayed until the autumn. Nansen and Hjort could then in peace carry out their cruise with the new research vessel Michael Sars, and Nansen would consider whether after that he saw the situation in a new light (Nansen, 1900c).

Although Pettersson had been informed by the above letter, Nansen the next day sent him an obviously more official letter containing the same infor277 Letter of 26 April 1900 from OP to FN.

mation and questions, to some degree in exactly the same wording, but without all the complaints.278 The same day Nansen wrote to the Norwegian prime minister, making his position clear after their meeting the day before.

He found that the government now had the choice between either moving the Board of Directors of the Norwegian fishery and marine research to Bergen and in so doing give up getting the international Central Bureau to Christiania, or getting this, but then keep the management of the Norwegian research at Christiania. As promised he should, however, postpone his final decision until autumn, although he considered the possibility that he should then have changed his mind as being very small. He submitted that in return the government postponed until autumn the removal of the management of the marine research to Bergen. There might be a possibility, though very small, that the government would look differently on the matter when the experience from the summer cruise had become available. Nansen did not conceal that he felt ill-treated by the government, more specifically by the head of the department in question. In Nansen's opinion other motives than purely objective ones had been decisive; and although the government had refused to fulfil any of his conditions it was now required that he should make the sacrifice (Nansen, 1900d). In some way or other, however, an agreement must have been obtained, apparently through Johan Hjort. In a letter to the prime minister Nansen declared that under the conditions which he had mentioned to Hjort and which the prime minister had now accepted he was willing to take over the management of the Central Bureau if such a wish should be expressed by the other countries, and if the Bureau would be placed at Christiania (Nansen, 1900e).

It is not quite clear which functions Nansen had accepted to take over. Pettersson may have been in doubt too. In any case he asked whether he might assume that Nansen would take upon him 4 ) the presidency of the organization and 5 ) the directorship of the central laboratory.

Nansen must have answered in the affirmative during Pettersson's visit to Christiania shortly after. Pettersson stated that he would have preferred Sir John Murray as president (or honorary president). As this was now impossible, however, the choice must fall upon Nansen.279 John Murray could not be elected, as he would not participate in the conference; he had planned to go to Christmas Island on business.

III. Postponement of the planned conference at Christiania In the meantime, the Norwegian government had fixed the date for the conference to 15 October 1900 (Nansen, 1900f). Because Germany, because of an illness of their chief delegate, Walther Herwig, had not notified their par-

278 Letter of 27 May 1900 from FN to OP. 279 Letter of 27 August 1900 from OP to FN.

ticipation the conference was postponed to spring 1901, however. This delay was not popular among the Scandinavian scientists. It was especially inconvenient to Johan Hjort who had interrupted his cruise with Michael Sars in the Norwegian Sea in order to go to Christiania for presentation of the vessel, its instrumentation, and the results of the cruise to the participants of the conference, only to be informed that it had been postponed because of the failure of the Germans to notify participation. "That is not likely to increase your sympathy with the Germans", Pettersson wrote to Hjort and was certainly right.280 Hjort was disappointed, and temperamental, as he declared that he would have nothing to do with future conferences, and his attitude towards Germany's participation in the cooperation was expressed clearly: With regard to Germany's position you know that barely anything can surprise me. I have always considered it a desperate thing that politicians shall participate in our conferences, (Footnote. The German chief delegate, Walther Herwig, was an administrator and politician.) and I still do. I stick to my old passion: cooperation of the scientists of the Scandinavian countries.281 (From Norwegian.)

The Swedish–Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Norwegian Department of the Interior had, however, come to an agreement (a rare event, according to Pettersson!) that they would comply with the desire of the Germans for a postponement of the conference.

Although the delay was annoying, Pettersson later came to the conclusion that in a way it might be considered a piece of good fortune as it was not certain that all countries would have been represented at a meeting on 15 October 1900. After having talked with a number of Russian scientists he foresaw "a damned work" with the Russians, and perhaps also with the Germans, concerning the central institution and especially the central laboratory.

According to Pettersson it was evident that the Germans had no idea of how the central institution should work or how a comprehensive investigation of the sea should be carried out. It would therefore be extremely useful if the observations from Michael Sars could be worked up at once, so that “these people” could get an idea of how the work should be done, and not think that just collection of usual “dead material” in a set of tables was the purpose. Pettersson appealed to Nansen282: Can't you press Gran and Hjort to quickly publish their results? However, don't mention the conference in this connection; for our friend Hjort becomes furious if only he hears about Germans and Herwig etc.

I am not so very surprised about that; for he has been badly treated when he had to travel to Christiania in vain. (from Swedish.)

280 Letter of 6 October 1900 from OP to JH, archived with 12 below.

281 Letter of 10 October 1900 from JH to OP. 282 Letter of 13 October 1900 from OP to FN.

Pettersson then asked Nansen not to bring (Hercules) Tornøe (1856—1907) to the conference, but anybody else (Lemkuhl, Mohn, Schmelck etc.). This request is rather surprising. An earlier letter from Tornøe to Pettersson does not reveal any controversy between them. Tornøe does mention, however, that it is not easy to touch neither private persons nor the government for money after Nansen had drawn heavily (nearly half a million kroner) upon them.283 IV. Informal meeting at Gothenburg Because the international conference had been postponed, Pettersson wished to arrange a meeting of Scandinavian marine scientists. He had obviously broached the idea to his Norwegian colleagues. Nansen thought that such a meeting would be very interesting, and if he were free he should like to come. Hjort, however, declared that he was unable to come; he pointed to the danger that it might cause ill feelings in the other countries.284 Nevertheless Pettersson sent out invitations to a meeting at Gothenburg.285 In a letter to Nansen he explained that from Norway he would like to see Nansen, Hjort, and Gran, from Denmark C.F. Drechsel (1854—1927), C.G.Joh. Petersen (1860—1928), and Martin Knudsen (1871—1949). One purpose of the meeting was undoubtedly to consider items connected with the forthcoming international conference. Officially, however, the purpose was to discuss the continuation of the ongoing Scandinavian cooperation until the international investigations started. The Swedish government had advised that this formulation be used and be circulated by the newspapers, stressing that the meeting was a private one.286 As a matter of fact Pettersson sent to the editors of the Swedish newspapers the following communication asking them whether they would be inclined to print it in their “honoured paper”: Private meeting of Scandinavian scientists. The meeting of the international Commission at Christiania where definitive proposals will be made for the joint investigations of the northern seas during the years 1901—1905 by the North Sea countries and Russia, at the request of the German government has been postponed to the beginning of next year. The possibility then arises that the international investigations cannot start at the fixed time, 1st May next year. Therefore a private meeting of the leaders of the investigations in the Scandinavian countries will be held at Gothenburg at the end of this week in order to discuss how the hydrographical work which during a series of years has been carried out by Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish Commis-

283 13. Letter of 20 October 1893 from Hercules Tornøe to OP. 284 Letter of 3 November 1900 from FN to OP. 285 Telegram of 9 November 1900 from OP to FN. 286 Letter of 9 November 1900 from OP to FN.

sions should be arranged between 1st May 1901 and the date when the wider cooperation to be established at the forthcoming conference at Christiania can start. The meeting is solely in the nature of a private deliberation.287 (from Swedish.)

The note had been prepared in cooperation with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who considered that in this formulation Germany and other countries should have nothing to complain about. Pettersson requested Nansen either to send the note directly to a Christiania newspaper or to rewrite it in Norwegian and send it in his own name, for "if not they will write some nonsense of their own".288 Hjort did not change his mind with regard to the Gothenburg meeting. He cabled to Pettersson that he strongly depreciated the meeting if the wider international cooperation was still desired, as he felt sure that the other countries would make the meeting a pretext for withdrawal.289 In a following letter he explained that he had learned what a bad impression all the unfortunate discussions in Norway last spring had made abroad. He had been informed that every word was reported to the German government and to Herwig. Furthermore, Hjort knew that the Germans were very jealous of the Scandinavian cooperation, so every appearance of keeping them out should be avoided. If the Germans and others now learned about the Gothenburg meeting Hjort thought that the greater plan would break down. Personally he would have preferred, as mentioned above, that the cooperation had been limited to Scandinavians. As other countries had been invited, however, they should act accordingly. He had considered it his duty to consult the prime minister, who was the convener of the international conference, and the minister had agreed completely with him. Hjort stressed that his only intention was to be loyal to international cooperation.290 Nansen obviously was of two minds with regard to the meeting. He informed Pettersson that he would come291, but backed out a few days later. The problem was that he had been incautious enough to consult the government, who were much against his participation when neither H.H.Gran nor Johan Hjort went there, as he was Norway's official representative in the international committee. Furthermore, he was not the leader of Norwegian marine research, so he would not fit into the designation of the meeting as "a private meeting of the leaders of marine research in the Scandinavian countries." It would, according to the Norwegian government, be especially invidious that he participated in a narrow meeting as Norway had issued invitations to a larger conference. Nansen regretted that the government had been mixed up 287 Circular of 10 November 1900 from OP to the editors of Swedish newspapers (copied to FN).

288 Letter of 12 November 1900 from OP to FN. 289 Telegram of 13 November 1900 from JH to OP. 290 Letter of 13 November 1900 from JH to OP. 291 Telegram of 11 November 1900 from FN to OP.

in the matter, which gave the Scandinavian meeting a more official stamp.292 The next day he, in even stronger words, explained to Pettersson how terribly annoyed he was that he had yielded to the government. He should not have cared a damn and could have gone whatever they would have said. He intimated that it might have been Hjort's uneasiness that spread to the government and made them want to talk with him. In a way he felt that he was an offender who had failed in the last minute â&#x20AC;&#x201D; a very unpleasant feeling, he added.293 Pettersson took it calmly. He told Nansen that he would have acted in the same way, as authorities should be obeyed both in Norway and Sweden. At the same time he informed Nansen that he now had invited Hensen and other German colleagues to the meeting. "Eine private gesellige Zusammenkunft" (a private social gathering) as he called it. He requested Nansen to pass on this information to "His Excellency Steen" (the Norwegian prime minister) and continued somewhat sarcastically, for although we hold an absolutely private meeting we nevertheless will not keep it secret. Will you tell His Excellency that if I had imagined that he saw any danger in scientists holding a private meeting to discuss scientific questions I should not have proposed this as it is far from my intention to arrange anything which is unpleasant to the Norwegian government. When the invitation now has been sent out, however, I must also for us scientists claim the right to meet and discuss our matters â&#x20AC;&#x201D; a right which we here in Sweden have had from the oldest times; which, as His Excellency knows, they also have in Denmark; and which is also held in respect in Finland under His Excellency Bobrikoff (the Russian governorâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;general in Finland).294 (from Swedish.)

The Gothenburg meeting was held on 20 November 1900. Participants were Leonid Breitfuss (leader of the Russian investigations in the Barents Sea), Oscar Nordqvist (leader of the Finnish investigations in the Gulfs of Finland and Bothnia), Martin Knudsen from Denmark, and from Sweden Per Cleve, August Wijkander, Filip Trybom, Gustaf Ekman, Otto Pettersson, and Vilhelm Bjerknes (Norwegian, but at that time working at Stockholm). The invited marine scientists from Kiel and Hamburg were prevented from coming. Pettersson sent a report on the meeting to Nansen. The purpose of the meeting was here stated as being: to compare and discuss the equipment which the various countries would have at disposal at the start of the international cooperation which by the Stockholm Conference had been proposed to be 1 May

292 Letter of 14 November 1900 from FN to OP. 293 Letter of 15 November 1900 from FN to OP. 294 24. Letter of 17 November 1900 from OP to FN.

1901, as well as the preparations which at that time ought to be finished. (From Swedish.)

Obviously to avoid every criticism the report ended: Organizational questions concerning the future were not discussed; they were considered to be reserved for the deliberations of the official Commission which before long will meet at Christiania.295 (From Swedish.)

No doubt “organizational questions” were eagerly discussed behind the scenes!

As a matter of fact, Nansen had at last decided to attend the meeting. It then happened that he received the information about the final date for the meeting so late that he could not make it. Their meeting was dogged by misfortune, as Nansen expressed it to Pettersson. However, he used the opportunity to stress that the prime minister's and Hjort's action in this matter should be considered only as caution and diplomatic sagacity, in order to get the international investigations started. “That we consider this caution to be somewhat exaggerated is another matter”, he added.296 V. Nansen hesitatingly agrees to accept leadership Herwig´s ill health had held up the plans for the Christiania Conference. In November 1900, however, Herwig informed Pettersson that he now was in full convalescence and that he and his government were as warm friends as ever of the planned investigations. He did not say anything about the time for the Conference.297 When informing Nansen about Herwig´s application Pettersson took the opportunity to ask for particulars about Nansen's negotiations with the Germans during the past summer. He stressed that everybody in Sweden involved in the question worked on getting the Central Bureau to Christiania with Nansen as its leader. For this, however, it was absolutely necessary that Norway definitely joined the cooperation and cancelled its reservations, “as far as it does not disturb the plans for her own fishery investigations”.298 Nansen confirmed that Norway would accede to the cooperation; the "reservation" mentioned should probably be considered as just an empty phrase for the benefit of the Norwegian parliament. In order to get an idea about Germany's position Nansen had written privately to von Richthofen. According to him Germany was likely to join the cooperation, and he thought that the delay really was due to Herwig's illness. The trouble was, von Richthofen

295 Letter of 25 November 1900 from OP to FN. 296 Letter of 25 November 1900 from FN to OP. 297 Letter of 28 November 1900 from Walther Herwig to OP. 298 Letter of 13 December 1900 from OP to FN.

had added, that they needed a leader and there was too much disagreement among the marine scientists in Germany.299 What Pettersson would have liked to know, however, was not the content of Nansen´s correspondence with von Richthofen. As he explained in a private letter to Nansen he was interested in learning about the attitude of Herwig, i.e. the German government, towards the proposal for placing the Central Bureau at Christiania. The Germans were now establishing an “Oceanographic Museum” in Berlin. Could that mean that they wished to place the Central Bureau in this town? Nansen might have got some idea about the intention of Germany during his visit there earlier in the year. According to Pettersson England would not raise any objection against placing the Centre at Christiania. As far as Sweden was concerned Pettersson had been instructed to support the proposal that the Central Bureau and Laboratory of the cooperation be placed at Christiania if the conditions there were found to be favourable for the purpose, and provided that Norway definitely acceded to the international cooperation. With regard to this Pettersson again stressed to Nansen how necessary it was that the country which took the lead joined the cooperation unreservedly. He had no doubt that this was the intention. However, the intentions of a government might change, as might also the governments themselves, and it would be an intolerable situation, especially for Nansen as the leader, if, for example., the Minister or the Fishery Board at Bergen some time in the future would refuse to carry out part of the international work, explaining that the fishery plan and the fishery interests of the country demanded that Michael Sars and Hjort did not go out. If the government had unconditionally acceded to cooperation it would in such a case have to send another vessel, e.g. Heimdal (survey ship), instead of Michael Sars or to order the Fishery Board to carry out the investigations. If, on the other hand, the government had acceded arbitrarily, then difficulties might arise. Pettersson continued: The person who may make these difficulties is — our friend Hjort.

Well, remember now that I speak privately and absolutely frankly!

These difficulties will arise, if I know the mentality of our good friend Hjort. He is the greatest power of our whole cooperation, but also its greatest risk as he is indifferent about collaboration. He wants to have the investigations carried out but thinks that he can do it all himself and that it is completely unnecessary to have, e.g., the Germans join.

Furthermore, he is easily irritated, and if he gets the idea that Norway fares better by herself, then he goes his own way. As to the Fishery Board at Bergen I don't know anything about it. I can tell you, however, what our own Swedish Fishery Board has tried. It would take advantage of the international investigation to obtain its own steamer (in the Baltic; but Lundberg would not allow us to get a new steamer on the west coast). After that they would not care a damn about the

299 Letter of 17 December 1900 from FN to OP.

international work. Well, I have stuffed this nice plan into a bag together with its instigator, the inspector of fisheries, Lundberg. It will not be the Fishery Board that obtains the steamer, but we who get both steamer and station! Now, I consider the Norwegian Fishery Board at Bergen to be better and infinitely cleverer than our own.

However, to be confident it is necessary to have concrete forms and agreements among the nations. If the condition laid down by the Norwegian government is a "departmental phrase" only it should be easy to get it cancelled now when the time of the agreement has come. If it should turn out that it is not so easy to get it cancelled, then it means that it is really dangerous. (from Swedish.)

Pettersson reported to Nansen that Hjort a couple of months earlier had asked to be considered as in the future standing outside the project. However, Pettersson knew Hjort sufficiently well, he thought, to hope that Hjort, on the contrary, would be the one who carried out the most important part of the work. But however tremendously he appreciated Hjort he would not conceal to Nansen that only three persons saw this matter in its entirety: Nansen, Herwig, and Pettersson, as Sir John Murray unfortunately was now out of the running. They should therefore strive for making the organization so firm that great frictions could be avoided. It would in any case be a very difficult matter to lead the cooperative effort, he thought, and he advised Nansen to get from his government a fixed grant for five years. If not he was likely to have a troublesome time.300 Nansen found that it was difficult for him to demand a grant for the central institution as it had not been decided where the institution should be placed; the money for the Norwegian investigations they had already. With regard to the earlier mentioned â&#x20AC;&#x153;phraseâ&#x20AC;? which Pettersson feared was a reservation from the Norwegian government, Nansen could again assure him. It just expressed that in such matters the government formally depended upon parliament; there could hardly be any doubt about a positive outcome.301 VI. The Christiania Conference and its proposals In the meantime, Pettersson had received from Herwig a request for information about the time for the Christiania Conference.302 This meant that at long last the Swedish/Norwegian Foreign Ministry could issue invitations to the Conference, to be held in May 1901 (Anon., 1901). At the Conference, which was presided over by Nansen, it was proposed to split up the central institution into two, viz. a Bureau at Copenhagen with Hoek as leader (General Secretary) and a Laboratory at Christiania directed by Nansen. These proposals are not mentioned in the report of the Conference, because they would have to be approved by the governments. This became a problem in 300 Letter of [?] December 1900 from OP to FN. 301 Letter of 2 January 1901 from FN to OP. 302 Copy of letter of 18 December 1900 from Herwig to OP, archived with letter of 25 December 1900 from OP to FN.

Norway. Nansen informed Pettersson that the Norwegian government could not do anything before parliament had reconsidered the matter because an additional grant of 10 000 kroner annually from Norway had been offered on the understanding that both Bureau and Laboratory were placed in Christiania. According to Nansen, the opinion was that the arrangement now recommended was less considerate to Norway because it was demanded that she alone should pay to the Laboratory just as much as Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Holland, and England together, in addition to her contribution to the general funds, whereas no extra contribution was demanded from Denmark for the Central Bureau. As this was regarded as a very inconsiderate arrangement it was doubtful whether it would be in keeping with Norway's dignity as a country to accept it. Nansen declared that he had been aware of this situation and had tried, in vain, to give the matter another form. The only thing he had obtained was to get cancelled the proposed expression “on condition that the expenses (of the Council) should not exceed the share contributed by Norway”, a change that was fortunate, for with the original wording the Norwegian authorities would in no case have accepted the arrangement, Nansen maintained. Apparently he was bitter: he stated that he now had submitted the proposal etc. to the government and had placed his service at disposal if it was wanted; by this he had done his share, he declared. He considered it a mistake that the Conference could not agree upon an arrangement based upon the original premises; in that case everything could now have been settled. He was afraid that the decision would again be delayed. What would happen if Norway definitely decided not to accept the Laboratory? To have it at Copenhagen would be impossible. Would it then be necessary to have a new conference to make new proposals, which again would be discussed? Nansen saw no end of this. The best had absolutely been, he said, to have followed the proposal at Stockholm according to which it all had come to Scotland under John Murray.303 VII. Nansen’s discontent repudiated by Pettersson Pettersson, however, did certainly not agree on Nansen’s interpretation of the situation. In a long, detailed and rather sharp letter to Nansen he made clear his opinion. It was unfortunate that the Norwegians did not find the proposal of the Conference satisfactory. Everybody had left the Conference confident that Norway had got her desiderata fulfilled as far as this was possible, and that the Norwegian representatives and even the Norwegian government had found the proposal acceptable. When it was found impossible to get the whole central institution to Christiania it was split up, so that the Central Laboratory, the better part of the organization, came there under a Norwegian director and with an international grant of 13 000 Mark. The splitting up was done because it was assumed that Norway wanted the Central Laboratory and that the offer of an extra contribution was made first and foremost to get the Laboratory established. Of course, the Norwegian gov303

Letter of 20 June 1901 from FN to OP.

ernment and parliament had the right to cancel or reduce the grant because of the new situation. According to Pettersson, however, this did not necessitate a new conference. It was true that some sort of a central laboratory certainly was necessary, but the idea about an experimental Central Laboratory as well as the idea about an extra grant to it from the country where it would be located was entirely Norwegian. Pettersson added that it was a brilliant idea, and in his opinion the leader of such an institution would have an absolutely unique opportunity for scientific success and for making discoveries within the methodology of hydrography as well as with regard to the dynamics of ocean and atmosphere. For this purpose he would have at his disposal resources which were unusually great for a scientific laboratory (more than 20 000 Mark annually). Should now the Norwegian parliament make use of its right to cut or cancel its extra grant this would, of course, imply, Pettersson explained, that the Central Laboratory instead of becoming an independent experimenting scientific laboratory would be reduced to the tasks which were absolutely necessary for the international work. In that case it would probably become a branch of the central institution at Copenhagen where they had Knudsen, a well qualified and trained physicist who would be able to produce “standard water” and for this the 13 000 Mark from the Council should be sufficient. Pettersson then aired the possibility of placing the Central Bureau, without the Laboratory, at Christiania, stating somewhat tartly that perhaps the Norwegian parliament would not appreciate it so much having the central institution moved to Christiania that it would repeat its generous offer, if the tasks of the institution were fishery statistics, proof-reading, and to give opinion on questions of collisions between trawlers and police boats, or the interests of line-fishermen. Perhaps it would also be realized in Norway that Christiania might not be the best place for a statistical institution that would keep track of the commodity prices at Geestmünde, Ostende and other cities! Finally, with direct reference to Nansen's letter, Pettersson strongly repudiated that the Conference had "demanded" anything from Norway, and it would also not do so from Denmark.304 In spite of the reproaches in Pettersson's letter, Nansen took it calmly and did not wish to waste more words on the matter, because both he and Pettersson knew the true facts of the case, he said. He declared that what he had written was not his own view, but the opinion of those in Norway who would have to deal with the matter.305 Obviously he was still bitter, however. In a letter to Hjort he complained that he knew nothing about his government's position with regard to the international laboratory etc., as they had not given him any information at all and he did not like to go and see them. The whole matter had lost most of its interest to him, and he now strongly considered withdrawing from it, he said (Nansen, 1901).

304 Letter of 25 June 1901 from OP to FN. 305 Letter of 16 July 1901 from FN to OP.

VIII. Norway agrees to the proposals of the Christiania Conference The uncertainty about Norway’s acceptance of the proposals of the Christiania Conference had spread to Denmark. The Danish marine biologist C.G. Joh. Petersen had been aboard the Norwegian research vessel Michael Sars during a cruise and had gotten the impression from Johan Hjort that the Norwegian government was not really interested in cooperation unless the total administration was placed in Norway.306 Otto Pettersson, however, could confirm that the Norwegian government now had indicated that it would adopt the decisions of the Conference, would participate in the general expenses, and would ask the parliament to agree in the additional grant of 10 000 kroner for the Central Laboratory. Pettersson added that what Steen says about Nansen and what Nansen says about Steen and what Hjort says about both may be quite amusing and naughty, but can no longer influence the ongoing negotiations. [...] The trouble in Norway is a divertissement in the intervals which unfortunately, are somewhat too long.307 (from Swedish.)

In the end, the Norwegian parliament did agree to the proposals of the Christiania Conference, and Pettersson could congratulate Nansen on the result. It would really have been a remarkable blunder if Norway had lost the opportunity, Pettersson wrote, and continued: Scientific academies and institutions shoot up as mushrooms on fertile field everywhere in the world; here we have something new with quite another scope, and it was fortunate that Norway understood this. Might you now have a good cooperation between østlandet and vestlandet [i.e. between Christiania and Bergen] and between the county kings and the Central Laboratory! And might His Excellency Hoek understand his business! It is not impossible that he does. Let us hope the best and give him “a fair field”.308 (from Swedish.)

Everything was now ready for the formal establishment of the new organization, and after an invitation from the Danish government, the founding meeting of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea was held at Copenhagen in July 1902 (Anon., 1902).

IX. Nansen finds the outcome of the events satisfactory to Norway The following month, Nansen informed the new Norwegian prime minister, Otto Blehr, about the outcome of the Copenhagen Conference. Of importance, in addition to the establishment of the Central Bureau at Copenhagen and the Central Laboratory at Christiania, was that the organization of the practical - scientific fishery investigations would be taken care of by two

306 Letter of 14 September 1901 from C.F. Drechsel to OP. 307 Letter of 30 September 1901 from OP to Drechsel. In the Council’s basement archives.

308 Letter of 15 [?] 1901? from OP to FN.

Commissions, one for the investigation of the overfishing question, especially concerning flatfish in the southern North Sea, the other for investigation of the reproduction, migrations and distribution of the fishes. The questions to be dealt with by the second Commission were of the most burning interest to the Norwegians, Nansen stressed. It was therefore important that Johan Hjort had been elected convener of this Commission. An Englishman, Garstang, became convener of the first Commission which, Nansen explained, was of little or no interest to Norway. Nansen continued: I think we Norwegians have every reason to find this arrangement, which was the best that could be obtained under the present circumstances, satisfactory in every respect, in as much as the direction of the most important part of the work will be in Norway, and we also get that part of the central organization which is of any real value, viz. the Laboratory. The Central Bureau which the Norwegians last year were disappointed not to get is in this way considerably curtailed and is now practically reduced to just a sort of communication office with some clerks, but is in fact deprived of any expert leadership. It is true that an expert hydrographical assistant is appointed there, but the central point for this part of the work will probably be in the Laboratory at Christiania where it all will be controlled. So I am afraid that Norway has got the lion's share of it and that the others have not yet quite become aware what they have done. (Nansen, 1902) (from Norwegian.)

One might think that Nansen here had overdone the Norwegian share a bit.

However, of course, he had to sell the best possible arrangement to his government. And more essential: it was actually an introduction to a plea for more governmental support of Hjort's work. In the main part of the letter Nansen praised Hjort's efforts at the Conference, where he had stressed the necessity of practical results in a way that made it understandable to everybody. Nansen expressed the hope that Hjort would get the necessary support from the government, which would repay manifold.

In any case Norway was now ready for participation in the programme of international cooperation, and Nansen directed the Central Laboratory until its closing in 1908 (Smed, 2005).

Acknowledgements I am most grateful to Vera Schwach and Artur Svansson for useful comments, and I am greatly indebted to Artur Svansson for arranging my access to relevant archival material and for constant assistance in processing the manuscript.

Literature Anonymous. 1899. Conférence internationale pour l'exploration de la mer, réunie à Stockholm 1899. Stockholm, Imprimerie K.L. Beckman.

Anonymous. 1901. 2.Conférence internationale pour l'exploration de la mer réunie à Christiania. — Première partie, contenant le compte—rendu des séances et les résolutions.

Kristiania, Steen’ske Bogtrykkeri. — Seconde partie, contenant les suppléments. Bergen, Griegs Bogtrykkeri.

Anonymous. 1902. Rapp. P.—v. Réun., Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, I(B), 1—85.

Nansen, F. 1898. Letter of 4 April 1898 to Otto Pettersson. — Nansen: Brev, II (Oslo, 1961), letter no. 254.

Nansen, F. 1899a. Conférence internationale pour l’exploration de la Mer, réunie à Stockholm 1899, Appendix 2.

Nansen, F. 1899b. Letter of 16 December 1899 to Otto Pettersson. Nansen: Brev, II (Oslo, 1961), letter no. 279.

Nansen, F. 1900 a. Letter of 2 May 1900 to the Norwegian prime minister, Johannes Steen. — Nansen: Brev, II (Oslo, 1961), letter no. 283.

Nansen, F. 1900 b. Letter of 23 May 1900 to the Norwegian prime minister, Johannes Steen.

—Nansen: Brev, II (Oslo, 1961), letter no. 284.

Nansen, F. 1900 c. Letter of 26 May 1900 to Otto Pettersson. — Nansen: Brev, II (Oslo, 1961), letter no. 285.

Nansen, F. 1900 d. Letter of 27 May 1900 to the Norwegian prime minister, Johannes Steen.

— Nansen: Brev, II (Oslo, 1961), letter no. 286.

Nansen, F. 1900 e. Letter of 1 July 1900 to the Norwegian prime minister, Johannes Steen.— Nansen: Brev, II (Oslo, 1961), letter no. 287.

Nansen, F. 1900 f. Letter of 1 September 1900 to the Norwegian prime minister, Johannes Steen. — Nansen: Brev, II (Oslo, 1961), letter no. 289.

Nansen, F. 1901. Letter of 24 October 1901 to Johan Hjort. — Nansen: Brev, V (Oslo, 1978), letter no. 1208.

Nansen, F. 1902. Letter of 11 August 1902 to the Norwegian prime minister Otto Blehr. — Nansen: Brev, II (Oslo, 1961), letter no. 310.

Pettersson, O. 1896. Ueber die Beziehungen zwischen hydro— graphischen und meteorologischen Phänomenen. — Met. Zeitschr., XIII, 285—321, on p. 317.

Smed, J. 1990. Hydrographic investigations in the North Sea, the Kattegat and the Baltic before ICES. — Deutsche Hydrogr. Zeitschr., Ergänzungsh., Reihe B, 22, 357—366.

Smed, J. 2005. The Central Laboratory of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and its successors. – Earth Sciences History, 24 (2), pp. 225—246.

Further reading Schwach, V. 2000. Havet, Fisken og Vitenskapen. Fra Fiskeriundersøkelser till Havforskningsinstitutt 1860—2000. Kapittel 3: En Fiskeriforvaltning med Vitenskap. – John Grieg AS, Oslo, 405 pp.

Smed, J. 2004. The Founding of ICES – prelude, personalities and politics. Stockholm (1899); Christiania (1901); Copenhagen (1902). – In Ocean Sciences Bridging the Millennia. A Spectrum of Historical Accounts, Proceedings of ICHO VI, Qingdao, China, 1998, eds S. Morcos et al., pp. 139—162. UNESCO, Paris, and China Ocean Press, Beijing.

Svansson, A. 2004. Otto Pettersson, the oceanographer (1848—1941). Extracts from a biography in preparation. — In Ocean Sciences Bridging the Millennia. A Spectrum of Historical Accounts, Proceedings of ICHO VI, Qingdao, China, 1998, eds S. Morcos et al., pp.

17—28. UNESCO, Paris, and China Ocean Press, Beijing.

Archival material The letters to Otto Pettersson are kept in the archives of the University Library, Gothenburg,

Collection of Letters to Otto Pettersson; those to Fridtjof Nansen are in the archives of the National Library, Oslo, Collection of Letters No. 48. OP: Otto Pettersson FN: Fridtjof Nansen JH: Johan Hjort

ICES and the new organizations — competition or cooperation?

History of Oceanography Number 19, September 2007 Jens Smed Abstract The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) was established in 1902 for the study of the Northern Seas. A need for regularly worked hydrographic (i.e. oceanographic) stations in the North Atlantic was soon felt, however. This led to the setting up of an International Commission for the Scientific Exploration of the Atlantic, chaired by the Prince Albert I of Monaco (1841—1922). Plans for a detailed study of the North Atlantic by naval vessels crossing the ocean in connection with the opening of the Panama Canal in 1915 were prepared, but were not implemented because of the outbreak of the World War. After the war Unions of the newly established International Research Council set up a Section and a Subsection for physical and biological oceanography respectively, later on combined into a Section for Oceanography. ICES feared that this body would mean a menacing competition, a fear that was renewed when the President of the Section for Oceanography proposed to establish a sort of umbrella organization for a number of bodies dealing with oceanography, including ICES. The proposal was turned down, however, and the outcome was cooperation, not competition.

I. Introduction When the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) was established in 1902, the region to be studied by the member countries was essentially the North Sea, the Baltic, and the Norwegian and Barents seas. At the first Preparatory Conference, held in Stockholm in 1899, however, the Swedish Hydrographic Commission, chaired by Otto Pettersson (1848— 1941), stated that from a hydrographic and biological point of view it was not possible to fix so narrow limits for the area of investigation because of the influence exerted by the currents in the Atlantic on the waters of the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea, so it would obviously be necessary to keep track of the variations originating in the Atlantic. The Commission proposed therefore that the Conference should decide whether the work of the organization to be established should be extended to cover a part of the northern Atlantic, or a separate, more extended investigation of the Atlantic should be undertaken by the countries bordering the North Atlantic, such as Great Britain,

France, the USA, and Canada. In the latter case the investigations might be supported by the marine stations on the oceanic islands such as Punta Delgada on the Azores, and might be combined with the work of the Prince of Monaco (Commission Hydrographique Suédoise, 1899, pp. XXXI—XXXII). The Conference decided to limit the Atlantic investigations of the organization to a minor region northwest of Scotland.

The need for regularly worked hydrographic stations in the open Atlantic was however, still felt, and the Swedish delegates had not given up the idea of extending the observations to the western Atlantic. In a letter to Fridtjof Nansen (1861—1930), Norwegian delegate to the Stockholm Conference, Otto Pettersson intimated that it should not be impossible to start also an “Atlantic cooperation”. Sir John Murray (1841—1914), the famous Scottish oceanographer, would be a sort of honorary president of both bodies in order to get them form a whole (Pettersson, 1899). This idea was not realized.

But the need for regularly worked hydrographic stations in the open Atlantic was again stressed, this time by the Council’s hydrographer Martin Knudsen (1871—1949) in a paper contributed to the Eighth International Geographic Congress, held at Washington, D. C. in 1904, in which he expressed the hope that USA would join ICES in exploring the Atlantic (Knudsen, 1905, pp. 506— 508).

In the meantime Otto Pettersson, trying to remedy the drawbacks of the situation, planned to organize observations from a network of private yachts crossing the Atlantic, an initiative that did not achieve much success, however (Smed, 2004, pp. 165—166). So at the Ninth International Geographic Congress, held at Geneva in 1908, he and Gerhard Schott (1866—1960), of the Deutsche Seewarte (German Marine Observatory), recommended that synoptic oceanographic surveys be carried out in the Atlantic during one year (Pettersson and Schott, 1908, pp. 387—393). Referring to this, the Congress resolved that the physical and biological investigation of the Atlantic Ocean was one of the most pressing problems in oceanography (Claparède, 1909, pp. 121—122, 147—148).

II. Establishment of new commissions In order to follow up the resolution the Congress proposed the establishment of an “International Commission for the Scientific Exploration of the Atlantic”, in short: an Atlantic Commission. Also a resolution stressing the necessity of a modern investigation of the Mediterranean was adopted by the Congress, and the establishment of a Mediterranean Commission was proposed. The chairman of the oceanography section of the Congress, Otto Krümmel (1854—1912), was authorized to ask a number of oceanographers and persons connected with natural science to become members of the commissions. He was also requested to ask Prince Albert of Monaco whether he would do the two commissions the honour of becoming their 34 chairman, which the Prince agreed to (Ulrich and Kortum, 1997, pp. 251—252). During the following two years, the members of the commissions were nominated, and meetings were held in Monaco in 1910 in co nnection with the inaugu-

ration of the Musée Océanographique. Here detailed plans for a study of the Atlantic were discussed (Berget, 1910).

III. ICES fears competition Although Otto Pettersson had been deeply involved in the establishment of the Atlantic Commission and in the plans for its work he now apparently feared that the new organization would develop a more extended cooperation not including ICES, a fear he imparted to the General Secretary of ICES, Christian Frederik Drechsel (1854—1927). ICES had approached the USA to induce this country to join ICES. Drechsel thought that this step might have dissatisfied some people behind the Prince of Monaco and the Atlantic Commission, and that they now would try to get the USA join the Commission instead (Smed, 2004, p. 169). Drechsel communicated this fear to C.P.O. Moltke, Danish representative in the USA (Drechsel, 1911) who, however, assured him that the USA was not interested in a type of organization which had purely scientific purposes (Moltke, 1911). So the risk that USA would join a rival organization was over for the time being.

IV. ICES takes over the initiative from the Atlantic Commission The exploration of the Atlantic was again discussed at the Tenth International Geographic Congress, held in Rome in 1913. Here modified plans were agreed upon which were reported to the chairman of the Atlantic Commission, the Prince of Monaco. He was of the opinion, however, that in the coming year work should be concentrated on getting the Mediterranean Commission constituted. So he suggested that activities in the Atlantic be postponed for a year.

ICES now took over preparation of detailed plans for the investigation of the Atlantic. These were discussed by an informal meeting of some members of the Atlantic Commission and other scientists, presided over by the Prince of Monaco, at Kiel in June 1914. The plans should have been realized by means of naval vessels crossing the Atlantic in connection with the opening of the Panama Canal. Because of the outbreak of the First World War the plans were not carried out (Smed, 2004, pp. 174—175).

The Atlantic Commission never did become a menace to ICES. As a matter of fact it did not meet after the meeting in Monaco in 1910, except for the informal meeting at Kiel mentioned above. So the Atlantic Commission did not survive the First World War, whereas its twin sister, the Mediterranean Commission (Commission internationale pour l’exploration scientifique de la Mer Méditerranée (CIESM)) still exists. It met in Rome in 1914 and was formally constituted at a meeting in Madrid in 1919.

V. New situation – new fear After the war Otto Pettersson, now President of ICES, feared that Monaco, as he often named Prince Albert, would win England’s support for a plan to create a coalition of the Allies for marine research. To counteract this, he suggested that ICES should cooperate with CIESM, linking up the connection

which had been cut in 1914, and reviving the investigations of the Atlantic (Pettersson, 1918).

An entirely new situation had developed, however. Because of the ill feelings of the Allies against Germany, preparations for the establishment of new organizations, limited to allied and some neutral countries, were started to replace the International Association of Academies. It 35 was claimed that this procedure was in accordance with the Peace Treaty, ratified by Germany. An article of the Treaty said that "treaties, conventions and agreements of an economic and technical character" not included in a specific list ceased to be operative, and it was maintained that this article was intended to cover also conventions on scientific matters (Anon., 1919, pp. 154—155). So, new organizations not including the Central Powers should be established (Kevles, 1971, pp. 56—60). Meetings with this purpose had been held already in 1918 in London (Anon., 1918, pp. 133—134) and Paris (C.G.K., 1918, pp. 325— 327), and they were followed up by an Assembly at Brussels in 1919 (Schuster, 1920) where an International Research Council (IRC) was constituted which would function as a federation of national research councils and academies. The objects of the Council would be (H.G.L., 1919, pp. 464—466): m ) To coordinate international efforts in the different branches of science and its applications. n ) To initiate the formation of international associations or unions deemed to be useful to the progress of science. o ) To direct international scientific action in subjects which do not fall within the province of any existing association. p ) To enter, through the proper channels, into relations with the Governments of the countries adhering to the Council to recommend the study of questions falling within the competence of the Council.

Several unions were instituted under IRC, such as the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG), which in its turn was split up in a number of sections. One of them, the Section for Physical Oceanography, would deal with tides, currents, temperature, salinity, density, and other physical phenomena of the oceans. According to Ablon (1919, p. 27), the physical oceanographers did not accept the biologists joining their section. In any case the marine biologists set up their own Subsection for Biological Oceanography, under the Section for Applied Biology, a section of the International Union of Biological Sciences (Joubin, 1921). It would be completely independent of the Section for Physical Oceanography, but Prince Albert of Monaco became President of both. G. Magrini was elected secretary of the physical section, Louis Joubin of the biological subsection.

According to Ablon (1919, p. 26) an embarrassing situation occurred at the Brussels Meeting when a Belgian delegate outright asked the French participants a question “which was on everybody's lips”, viz. why France for so long time had stayed outside the cooperation. When one of the French delegates, Professor Delage, tried to explain that it was due to lack of grants the Belgian delegate bluntly exclaimed:

That is untrue! If France has stayed outside the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea it is at the instigation of one man only, Mr. Fabre—Domergue! (from French.)

As explained elsewhere (Smed, 2001, pp. 6—7) this would seem to have been the general opinion in ICES. Also in French quarters the opposition of the Inspector General for Fisheries, Paul Fabre–Domergue (1861—1940), was mentioned as one of the reasons for the country’s delayed participation in ICES (Le Danois, 1920, p. 3).

At first the relation that the new organization might have to ICES was not clear to the authorities of the latter. The General Secretary, who received his first information about the new organization by a letter (Gilson, 1919) from the Belgian delegate to ICES, Gustave Gilson (1859—1944), got the impression that the Brussels meeting expected ICES to change its name and become a section under the new body. Drechsel considered that the only task of IRC was to assure that no international institution in which the Allies were involved had anything to do with Germany. Of course he did not accept that ICES could be controlled by the IRC, and he had learned that the English member of the ICES Bureau, Henry Maurice (1874—1950), also had rejected this idea (Drechsel, 1919a, 1919b). Otto Pettersson too, at that time President of ICES, also must have misunderstood the purpose of the IRC, which he apparently considered as being dominated by Belgium. He expressed the view that the International Bureau at Brussels presumably would turn out to be a bluff! Belgium had never accomplished anything and would never play a dominating role (Pettersson, 1919a).

Drechsel was aware that not everybody admired the work of ICES. He drew Pettersson’s attention to some critical articles by the British fishery biologist W. C. McIntosh in the periodical Nature where it was said that it is just the consideration of the almost valueless mass of certain statistics that, amongst other things, has led to the view that, judged by its promises and performances, the “International Council for the Investigation of the Sea”, so far as the welfare of the British fisheries is concerned, is a series of waste of money (McIntosh, 1920, p. 358).

Drechsel added, however: “It is probably of no importance. I am more afraid of Monaco and his entourage” (Drechsel, 1919c). Pettersson’s point of view was that: We can cooperate with Monaco, and a division of work we can accept, but it should not become a combination. (from Swedish. Pettersson, 1919b) As a matter of fact the situation was quite different. At the Brussels meeting the British delegate Arthur Schuster, Secretary of the Assembly, officially announced that the allied countries, and the neutral countries admitted to the International Research Council, would receive an invitation from the British government to send delegates to a conference in London, the purpose of which would be to establish a plan for joint biological and fishery studies in

the North Atlantic and the North Sea. Schuster pointed out that the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea at Copenhagen still existed, and it was to be hoped that the United States, Canada, and France would join it.

The Subsection for Biological Oceanography then: 1 ) asked the General Secretary of ICES to propose to his organization to extend its field of investigation to the North Atlantic and to invite those allied and neutral countries bordering on the North Atlantic, but not yet represented on ICES, to take part in the investigations; 2 ) expressed the wish that ICES, for these investigations, would establish relations with the bodies founded by the International Research Council (This was acceptable because Germany had left ICES); 3 ) expressed the wish to see France join the investigations of the North Atlantic (Schuster, 1920, pp. 37—38).

This declaration obviously called for cooperation with ICES, not for competition. Nevertheless there was apparently still some fear that the new organization would compete with, or even replace ICES. Otto Pettersson did not like the new body. Drechsel could accept cooperation about questions of common interest on condition of complete liberty and independence - not as he had understood what was suggested at Brussels: that the one institution should be controlled by the other. Personally he would be happy to see any cooperation with the Brussels institution postponed as long as possible (Drechsel, 1920).

This attitude may have had the result that the Prince of Monaco, representing the Institut Océanographique in Paris and the Musée Océanographique in Monaco, was not invited as a guest to the first post-war ICES meeting. The matter had been discussed with Drechsel by Otto Pettersson who, however, realized that an invitation might have disadvantages, because the Prince, being President of the two oceanographic bodies of the IRC, might represent a competitive organization (Pettersson, 1920).

The Section for Physical Oceanography at its first General Assembly, held in Paris in January 1921, summarized the scientific scope of the Section as follows (Proudman, 1934): •

Morphology of the sea bottom,

•

Morphology of the surface of the oceans and seas,

•

Movements of the water masses,

•

Physical and chemical studies of seawater.

In a letter to Drechsel, Otto Pettersson pointed out that two great organizations existed which could divide the work under mutual agreement between them: Atlantic cooperation (i.e. ICES) presided over by Maurice, with headquarters in Copenhagen and Drechsel as its General Secretary, and the Mediterranean cooperation headed by the Prince of Monaco, with its centre in Paris and Magrini as its Chief Secretary. Pettersson continued in his usual outspoken way (Pettersson, 1921):

These two cooperations at present regard each other with a dignified reserve comme deux chiens de porcelaine sur une cheminée. I have studied the situation a little during my stay in France last winter and found at the bottom of people's feelings the same inveterate distrust as there exists in political relations between England and France which gave me a bad apprehension for the future which you will easily understand. Both cooperations have a point of contact in Paris where the influence of Monaco is great. The government of France has to pay a contribution to both cooperations and sooner or later the question will arise: “can we not be content with one?”

Now it seems very natural that France should not be content with one cooperation since France has to care for its Mediterranean fisheries which are at present neglected in a way which seemed almost ridiculous to me - and its far more important Atlantic fisheries. So the participation of France on both sides would be self-evident if it were not for the existence of a third cooperation - that founded at Bruxelles which pretends to embrace both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean and which has practically done nothing except the construction of an immense scheme of rules and paragraphs which will never come into execution. This nebulous cooperation embraces all things: geology, meteorology, physics etc. and is presided by the Prince of Monaco. As Magrini has a too scanty reputation among scientists he is only Secretary; the Scientific leader should be professor Schuster of R.S. (i.e. the Royal Society). As the contribution of countries who enter into this “international cooperation” is only 500 francs annually and the names of Monaco and Schuster are known all over the world, a great number of governments and Academies in Europe have bestowed upon themselves the cheap pleasure of membership and I find that the Swedish Academy (of Sciences) has also accepted the invitation.

The ICES Bureau intended to send Otto Pettersson as its representative to a meeting of the Executive Committee of the IRC's Section for Physical Oceanography at Paris in January 1922. Pettersson assured Drechsel that he would not go without having ascertained the solidity of the cooperation. On the other hand he realized that ICES could not ignore the existence of the two organizations: the Mediterranean Commission and the IRC Section for Physical Oceanography, especially because Louis Joubin, an ICES delegate, was a member of both. There was now a need for ascertaining, Pettersson thought, whether the leaders of the two organizations were sympathetic towards an independent cooperation with ICES on the basis of a well regulated division of labour and free intercourse and exchange of results, experience, and community of methods. Maurice and Drechsel agreed that ICES must cooperate with the IRC and the Mediterranean Commission, although they did not have much confidence in them. Maurice declared that the IRC had shown no signs so far of doing serious work, and Drechsel did not believe that any serious work in the Atlantic would ever be carried out on the part of the French, Spanish, and Portuguese institutions (Drechsel, 1921).

Pettersson did go to the meeting in Paris. Here it was decided to establish special Committees for the study of the Atlantic and the Pacific. It was suggested that Maurice should be President of the Atlantic Committee, and the other members should be Otto Pettersson, Edouard le Danois, and two Americans. Drechsel was somewhat dissatisfied with this decision. He felt that ICES was entitled to decide who should be its representatives on the Committee.

He considered it to be to the benefit of the common work if Maurice took over the presidency of the Committee; on the other hand, the fact that the Committee was established with members of ICES, Americans, and others, could only mean a splitting up of ICES (Drechsel, 1922a). Maurice was of the opinion that unless the Atlantic Committee was definitely affiliated to and controlled by ICES there would be a split of ICES in any case, because it was not likely that the French would finance participation in ICES and in the Mediterranean Commission at the same time, and, in addition, provide the means for the Atlantic Committee; they were not really interested in North Sea work, but would work in the Atlantic. Maurice thought they should conduct their Atlantic work as participators in ICES. If they were going to undertake this work through an organization outside ICES, it would not be long before they ceased to be members, he believed (Maurice, 1922). Drechsel considered it impossible in the long run to keep all countries, from Finland to Portugal, together in one Council, partly because of the different interests of the countries, partly because of the intrigues which he felt would continue to occur as long as France, Spain, and Portugal were members. At that time ICES had not been fully reorganized after the First World War. France had become a member, and negotiations were conducted with Spain and Portugal. Drechsel now suggested that these negotiations should be stopped and France be given up as a member. Instead Estonia, Latvia, Poland, and Germany should join ICES, which would mean about the same income. France, Spain, and Portugal would then have their own Council, fully independent of ICES, but with Maurice as its president (Drechsel, 1922b).

Maurice believed that now there was a need for a meeting of the ICES Bureau to find out what the French were driving at with regard to the Atlantic Committee, as he did not propose to go into the Committee in the dark. At the meeting, which was held in London in March 1922, the Secretary of the Committee, Ed. le Danois, explained its genesis and purpose: In order to split up the work of the Oceanographic Section of the IRC, it had been proposed to have an Atlantic and a Pacific Committee. France, the USA, and Canada had expressed willingness to join the Atlantic Committee, and the USA had agreed that the president of the Committee would be a European and that its seat would be in Europe. The Committee would not be powerful enough to carry out research, but would be an academic body (Anon., 1922). In that case Maurice thought it would be better for the Committee to have a scientist as president, but Le Danois was of the opinion that Maurice in his capacity as President of ICES - an established organization and the best representative of oceanography in Europe - would have full scientific support.

Johan Hjort (1869â&#x20AC;&#x201D;1948), Viceâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;President of ICES, felt, based upon his long experience, that international cooperation in order to be effective must be

practical. So at present the only advantage of setting up an Atlantic Committee was the support of the USA, and he thought this might better be obtained by the USA rejoining ICES - an opinion shared by Maurice. Otto Pettersson pointed out that so far the Committee had only a poor foundation. The matter might be taken up later when the Committee was in working order. Le Danois, however, stressed that before setting to work the Committee wished to get the support of ICES, and a common president would help in this connection. It would be dangerous to the unity of research in the Atlantic if USA were allowed to run the Committee alone.

After these discussions it was agreed to postpone the decision. In this connection it may be relevant that it had been proposed to form within ICES an Atlantic Committee with Johannes Schmidt (1877—1933) as its leader. As Schmidt had not shown any disposition to accept such a position it was considered preferable instead to further develop the existing Atlantic Slope Committee of ICES, chaired by Le Danois. However, a North Atlantic Committee, chaired by Schmidt, was established by ICES in 1923.

VI. Bureaucracy in the Section for Oceanography To establish relations with other organizations, both the Section for Physical Oceanography and the Subsection for Biological Oceanography invited ICES and CIESM to nominate a delegate to their Executive Committee (Joubin, 1921, p.4). It was regarded in the Subsection that the results achieved were not satisfactory compared to those obtained by the Section for Physical Oceanography, and a combination of the two bodies was proposed (Joubin, 1922, p.4). This was implemented in 1922, resulting in the Section for Oceanography.

Apparently it took several years to get the Atlantic and Pacific Committees of the Section formed. As late as the Assembly of the Section at Prague in September 1927, it was reported that the two Committees were being constituted (Anon., 1928, p. 15). As stated by Le Danois the Atlantic Committee had no means for carrying out research. This was left to ICES, the Service of International Ice Observation and Ice Patrol (the International Ice Patrol, effectively the U.S. Coast Guard) in the North Atlantic (established in 1913 after the Titanic catastrophe), and the North American Committee on Fishery Investigations. So in the report of the Committee attention was drawn to the necessity of augmenting the relations with these organizations to develop activities (Anon., 1928, p. 32). In the Pacific the situation was similar. Here the work was done by the International Committee on the Chemical and Physical Oceanography of the Pacific, founded in 1923, and in 1926 changed into the International Committee on the Oceanography of the Pacific (Vaughan, 1937, pp. 95—96). So the two regional Committees of the Section in reality represented just a lot of bureaucracy, as did also an arrangement that the presidents of the active organizations should be vice–presidents of the Section.

After the death in 1922 of Prince Albert of Monaco, the Spanish delegate Odon de Buen (1863—1945) had become President of the Section. At its Assembly at Stockholm in 1930 he proposed the establishment of an “umbrella”

federation that would embrace a number of organizations dealing with oceanography: •

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Commission

•

Internationale pour l’Exploration Scientifique de la Mer Mediterranée

•

Bureau Hydrographique International

•

International Committee on the Oceanography of the Pacific

•

Ibero–American Oceanographic Council (founded in 1926).

To these came the Committees set up by the Section itself, viz. the Committees for the Atlantic and the Pacific, and a Tidal Committee. The problem was that all organizations of the first group were governmental, whereas the Committees of the Section were not. Also the federation had therefore to be governmental and have delegates from governments as well as from the nongovernmental Committees.

There was no general acceptance of this arrangement. It called for an effective collaboration of physicists and biologists in the Section itself. The British delegate Joseph Proudman was convinced that admission of biologists to the Section would cause difficulties and should be avoided in the interest of science.

The reason for taking up these discussions at the time was that the whole system of the International Research Council was under reorganization and a new convention would be introduced in 1931. In view of this, the Presidency proposed that it should continue its functions until then. Proudman declared that this motive was not persuasive, and requested voting. The proposal was turned down. On the motion of Proudman Martin Knudsen was then elected President, Rolf Witting (1879—1944) Secretary. On the proposal of Knudsen Odon de Buen and Magrini were elected members of the Executive Committee.

VII. Cooperation – not competition In the new convention, in which the International Research Council was renamed the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), the former Sections were named Associations. So the Section for Oceanography became the Association Internationale d’Océanographie Physique (or International Association for Physical Oceanography (IAPO)). The oceanography Association was authorized to set up its own statutes. This was done at the Assembly in Lisbon in 1933 (Anon., 1934, pp. 29—31). It was decided that the Association should mainly deal with those parts of oceanography in which mathematics, physics, and chemistry were used for the scientific study of the sea. The Atlantic and Pacific Committees of the former Section were abolished, whereas the Committee on Tides survived. It was furthermore decided that any international organizations that were engaged in physical oceanography might obtain membership of the Association. Accordingly the Assembly decided to invite to become members the five governmental international organizations

mentioned in Odon de Buen’s proposal, together with the International Ice Patrol in the North Atlantic. So the final outcome was cooperation, not competition.

Acknowledgments I am grateful to Mme. Jacqueline Carpine–Lancre and Professor Eric Mills for copies of relevant material, to Mme. Jacqueline Carpine–Lancre for most valuable comments on the manuscript, and to Dr. Artur Svansson for continued assistance in processing it.

References Ablon. 1919. La conférence de Bruxelles. La Pêche Maritime, 7 Août 1919.

Anon. 1918. Inter—Allied Conference on International Scientific Organisations. Nature, 102 (2555).

Anon. 1919. International Organisations in Science. Nature, 104 (2608).

Anon. 1922. Protocol of ICES Bureau Meeting, March 1922. In Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen, No. 10.649, Box 7, File 1.A.7.

Anon. 1928. Réunion plénière de la Section (plenary meeting). Prague, Septembre 1927.

Section d'Océanographie, Bulletin No. 11.

Anon. 1930. Réunion pléniaire de la Section (plenary meeting). Section d’Océanographie, Bulletin No. 14.

Anon. 1934. Cinquième Assemblée Générale réunie à Lisbonne Septembre 1933 (5th General Assembly). Association d’Océanographie Physique, Procès—verbaux No. 1. Helsingfors, 1934.

Berget, A. (ed.). 1910. Commission internationale pour l’exploration scientifique de l’Atlantic (International Commission for the Scientifique Exploration of the Atlantic). Procès— Verbal de la réunion (meeting report) du 31 mars 1910, à Monaco. Bulletin de l’Institut Océanographique, No. 176. Monaco, 1910.

C.G.K. 1918. Inter—Allied Conference on International Organisations in Science. Nature, 102 (2565).

Claparède, A. (ed.). 1909. Compte Rendu des travaux du 9e Congrès International de Géographie (meeting report of the the 9th international geographic congress), 1. Geneva.

Commission Hydrographique Suédoise. 1899. Proposition sur les limites de la région à explorer.

Conférence internationale pour l’Exploration de la Mer réunie à Stockholm 1899. Stockholm: Imprimerie K. L. Beckman, 1899.

Drechsel, C. F. 1911. Letter of 1 May 1911 to C. Moltke. In Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen, No. 10.649, Box 4, File 1.A.4.

Drechsel, C. F. 1919a. Letter of 22 August 1919 to Otto Pettersson. In Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen, No. 10.649, Box 5, File 1.A.4.

Drechsel, C. F. 1919b. Letter of 29 August 1919 to Otto Pettersson. In ICES Basement Archive, File 1.D. Drechsel, C. F. 1919c. Letter of 27 September 1919 to Otto Pettersson. In Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen, No. 10.649, Box 33, File 1.L.

Drechsel, C. F. 1920. Letter of 6 December 1920 to Henry Maurice. In Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen, No. 10.649, Box 5, File 1.A.4.

Drechsel, C. F. 1921. Letter of 25 November 1921 to Henry Maurice. In Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen, No. 10.649, Box 5, File 1.A.4.

Drechsel, C. F. 1922a. Letter of 25 January 1922 to Henry Maurice. In Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen, No. 10.649, Box 5, File 1.A.4.

Drechsel, C. F. 1922b. Letter of 21 February 1922 to Henry Maurice. In Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen, No. 10.649, Box 5, File 1.A.4.

Gilson, G. 1919. Letter of 7 August 1919 to C. F. Drechsel. In Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen, No. 10.649, Box 33, File 1.L. Greenaway, F. 1996. Science International. A History of the International Council of Scientific Unions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

H.G.L. 1919. The Brussels Meeting of the International Research Council. Nature, 103 (2958).

Joubin, L. 1921. Procès—verbal de la séance de la Sous—Section d’Océanographie biologique. Réunion du 27 janvier 1921. Bulletin de l’Institut Océanographique, No. 386.

Monaco, 1921.

Joubin, L. 1922. Procès—verbal de la séance de la Sous—Section d’Océanographie biologique. Réunion du 14 janvier 1922. Bulletin de l’Institut Océanographique, No. 407.

Monaco, 1922.

Kevles, D. J. 1971. “Into Hostile Political Camps”: The Reorganization of International Science in World War I. Isis, 62 (1): 47—60.

Knudsen, M. 1905. The hydrographic methods used in International Cooperative Study of the Sea. Report of the Eighth International Geographic Congress held in the United States 1904. Washington, D. C. Le Danois, Ed. 1920. Le Conseil permanent pour l’Exploration de la Mer. In Office Scientifique et technique des Pêches Maritimes, Notes et Mémoires, No. 4.

Maurice, H. 1922. Letter of 31 January 1922 to C. F. Drechsel. In Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen, No. 10.649, Box 5, File 1.A.4.

McIntosh, W.C. 1920. International Council for Fishery Investigations. Nature, 105 (2638).

Moltke, C.P.O. 1911. Letter of 17 June 1911 to C. F. Drechsel. In Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen, No. 10.649, Box 4, File 1.A.4.

Pettersson, O. 1899. Letter of 10 December 1899 to Fridtjof Nansen. In the Norwegian National Library’s Collection of Letters, File 48.

Pettersson, O. 1918. Letter of 16 December 1918 to C. F. Drechsel. In Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen, No. 10.649, Box 33, File 1.L. Pettersson, O. 1919a. Letter of 2 September 1919 to C. F. Drechsel. In ICES Basement Archive, File 1.D. Pettersson, O. 1919b. Letter of 28 September 1919 to C. F. Drechsel. In Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen, No. 10.649, Box 33, File 1.L. Pettersson, O. 1920. Letter of 17 January 1920 to C. F. Drechsel. In ICES Basement Archive, File 1.D. Pettersson, O. 1921. Letter of 12 November 1921 to C. F. Drechsel. In Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen, No. 10.649, Box 16, File 1.D, Gen.II. Pettersson, O. and Schott, G. 1908. Sur l’importance d’une exploration internationale de l’océan Atlantique (on the importance of an international exploration of the Atlantic Ocean). Bulletin de l’Institut Océanographique, No. 128. Monaco, 1908. [An English ver-

sion was published 1909 in The Geographical Journal, 33: 68—71; a German version (under the name of G. Schott) 1910 in Compte Rendu des Travaux du 9e Congrès International de Géographie, 2. Proudman, J. 1934. Letter of 10 May 1934 to Martin Knudsen. In Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen, No. 1945, Box E.8.

Schuster, A. (ed.). 1920. International Research Council. Constitutive Assembly held at Brussels, July 18th to July 28th, 1919. Reports of Proceedings. Harrison & Sons, London.

Smed, J. 2001. The Accession of France to ICES. Unpublished MS, Rev. 1. 16 pp.

Smed, J. 2004. Early plans for an international synoptic investigation of North Atlantic deep water. In Ocean Sciences Bridging the Millennia. A spectrum of historical accounts. Proceedings of ICHO VI, Qingdao, China, 1998, eds S. Morcos et al., pp. 163—178. UNESCO, Paris, and China Ocean Press, Beijing.

Ulrich, J. and Kortum, G. 1997. Otto Krümmel (1854—1912) Geograph und Wegbereiter der modernen Ozeanographie (geographer and pioneer of modern oceanography). Kieler Geographische Schriften, 93. 310 pp. Kiel.

Vaughan, T.W. 1937. International Aspects of Oceanography. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Hydrographic work of the Ingolf expedition (1895 and 1896) to Icelandic and West Greenland waters Earth Sciences History Volume 27, Number 2, 2008 Jens Smed Abstract The Danish expedition in the summers of 1895 and 1896 on board the cruiser Ingolf to Icelandic and West Greenland waters mainly had zoological tasks, the results of which are treated in the present issue by Wolff. However, the expedition also obtained significant results in physical oceanography. The existence of a vast subsurface ridge, the Reykjanes Ridge, was proved. On the basis of the hydrographic stations worked, the expedition's physicist and chemist Martin Knudsen was able to describe the hydrographic situation of the area. He proved the division of the Irminger Current into an easterly and westerly branch northwest of Iceland, and the extent and magnitude of the East Icelandic Polar Current were established. The existence of an overflow over the Iceland-Faroe Ridge of cold, low-salinity bottom water from the Norwegian Sea into the Atlantic was demonstrated. Knudsen designed a new, reliable reversing thermometer for use on the expedition, and he constructed an instrument that made it possible to measure aboard the ship the content of oxygen and nitrogen dissolved in the water. He showed that the supersaturation of surface water with oxygen might be explained from the photosynthetic processes of phytoplankton.

Introduction The British Challenger Expedition 1872â&#x20AC;&#x201D;1876 opened a new era in the study of the oceans, including the deep sea. It was followed by a number of expeditions by other nations, for example in Scandinavia by the Norwegian NorthAtlantic Expedition on the Vøringen to the Norwegian Sea during the summers of 1876, 1877, and 1878. Of special interest to Denmark were the seas around Iceland and Greenland, as at that time these islands were Danish dependencies. The Danish Government decided therefore that an expedition to these waters should be arranged during the summers of 1895 and 1896, for four months each year. In the instructions for the expedition it was expressly pointed out that its principal object should be zoological studies and collections. Hydrographic work (i.e. physical and chemical oceanography) was allotted a minor role. That the expedition nevertheless achieved hydrographic results of considerable importance must be ascribed to the fortunate circum-

stance that the hydrographic work was entrusted to the young physicist Martin Knudsen (1871—1949).

The expedition was undertaken on board the cruiser Ingolf. It was equipped with a newly constructed deckhouse (see Figure 1) containing three cabins, a large one for the zoologists and two smaller ones for the physicist and the botanist respectively. As a curiosity it may be mentioned that the deckhouse, having been removed from the ship after the expedition, for a number of years served as a limnological laboratory and after that as a laboratory for research on freshwater fishery.

Figure 1. The deckhouse functioned as a laboratory for the five participating scientists (Zoological Museum, Copenhagen).

The ship's captain and leader of the expedition was Commander Carl Frederik Wandel (1843—1930), who had considerable previous experience of navigation and survey in the sea areas to be investigated (see Figure 2). In his report on the voyage he presented a short narrative of the expedition, including a description of the vessel, the apparatus and their application and also a report on the results of the soundings (Wandel 1899).

Of special interest were the soundings southwest of Iceland where information about the depths was almost entirely missing. No one still believed in the old story about the existence in this region of the so-called Busse Island (Christy 1897; Wandel 1899, pp. 17—19). Two soundings by British vessels had shown the occurrence of a plateau that was surmised to be part of a submarine ridge (Jeffreys 1877, p. 185 and Plate 2). The dense network of soundings from Ingolf could now prove the existence of a vast ridge, the Reykjanes Ridge, extending from the Reykjanes Peninsula and connecting southwards with the great Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

Figure 2. Commander Wandel on the bridge of the Ingolf.

When in 1895 Knudsen was appointed to undertake the physical and chemical investigations on the expedition he was, as he declared in his report, totally unacquainted with that type of work, and also his opportunity to study the existing hydrographical literature had been very limited (Knudsen 1899, p. 25). He had been studying physics, and although he had not yet received his MA degree his unusual gifts and his talent for experimental physics had been recognized by his professor, Christian Christiansen (1843—1917), to whom Knudsen became a private assistant only two years after having started his studies. It was undoubtedly upon the recommenda-

tion of Christiansen that Knudsen was appointed physicist of the Ingolf Expedition. In a letter to the Swedish oceanographer Otto Pettersson (1848— 1941), Christiansen thanked him for the trouble he had taken to acquaint Knudsen with the subtleties of the analysis of seawater.309 Knudsen's task during the expedition was to make observations of the temperature of the seawater, to determine its specific gravity and its salinity, and to take water samples in evacuated glass balloons for later analysis of the gases held in the seawater.

Determination of temperature, specific gravity, and chlorinity For measurements of temperature in the deep, the 1895 voyage used ordinary Negretti & Zambra reversing thermometers.310 Before long, however, most of the thermometers were unfit for use, as the mercury often would entirely fill up the tube of the thermometer after reversal. This was obviously a great inconvenience because it made the taking of series very troublesome, and in consequence the number of observations had to be limited. Therefore, as one of the improvements done before the 1896 cruise, Knudsen designed a new type of reversing thermometer where the mercury reservoir was placed on the side of the thermometer tube instead of in a prolongation of it (see Figure 3).

Figure3. Left and centre: Negretti-Zambra reversing thermometer as lowered and when reversed. Right: the Knudsen version of the reversing thermometer.

Furthermore, the scale was divided in such a way that readings of 0.01 ° could be made without difficulty. A Copenhagen glassblower, F. C. Jacob, solved the technically complicated task brilliantly, so this type of thermometer was used during the second voyage and proved to be highly reliable (Wandel 1899, pp. 9—10; Knudsen 1897b, pp. 10—11).

The specific gravity of the water samples collected was determined on board by means of hydrometers.

The values were reduced to the temperature 17.5 ° by means of a table worked out by the German Otto Krümmel (1854—1912) (1890), and from these reduced figures the salinity values, in parts per thousand, were found by multiplying the expression (specific gravity - 1) by the so-called 'specific gravity coefficient' (1310). Knudsen realized, however, that salinity values obtained in this way would not be very exact, mainly because of the difficulties involved in the hydrometer readings

309 Christiansen to Pettersson, 29th November 1896.

310 A reversing thermometer is a mercury-in-glass thermometer that records temperature upon being inverted and thereafter retains its reading until returned to its first position (Baker et al., 1966). From around 1900 to 1970 it was the device chiefly used by oceanographers to determine water temperatures below the surface.

due to the vibrations caused by the ship's engine and propeller. Knudsen was well aware of the importance of exact salinity determinations, as it had turned out that different water masses might differ only slightly in salinity, sometimes not much more than the error margins of the salinity determination. More accurate salinity values could, however, be obtained from determination of the chlorine content by titration. As a matter of fact Knudsen used the salinity values arrived at by the specific gravity measurements only for revealing significant titration errors.

For determination of the chlorine content, the 'chlorinity'311 of the water samples Knudsen used volume titration according to the Mohr method: precipitation of silver chloride by a solution of silver nitrate and using potassium chromate as index (see Figure 4). The exact strength of the silver nitrate solution was determined repeatedly by titration of seawater whose content of chlorine had been determined with great accuracy beforehand. This method of using a seawater sample as a standard had previously been employed by Hercules Tornøe (1856—1907) on the Norwegian North-Atlantic Expedition (Tornøe 1880 b, p. 46). In this way the amounts of chlorine could be determined with great accuracy.

Figure4. Martin Knudsen in the physical laboratory, carrying out titration by adding silver nitrate from a burette to a sample of seawater whose amount has been determined by means of his special pipette (Zoological Museum, Copenhagen).

Knudsen, however, went a step further. He wanted the chlorine values to be comparable with those arrived at by other oceanographers. He therefore obtained a water sample from Otto Pettersson, the chlorine content of which had been determined by weight analysis. Knudsen made a comparison between this sample and the one that had been used as a standard for the determinations on board. All his chlorine values thus referred to the chlorine value of the water sample analysed by Pettersson.

Knudsen greatly improved the titration method, constructing a pipette (see Figure 5) by means of which the measuring of the volume of seawater might be made easily and accurately (Knudsen 1987 c). The trick was that a special two-holed cock was fitted to the upper part of the tube. In this way the awkward adjustment of the water level to the mark in the tube could be avoided.

The water, when being measured off for titration, was sucked up above the cock which was then shut, after which the second hole was opened, letting 311 The chlorinity of water was defined as the weight of chlorine in grams per kilogram of seawater, after the bromides and iodides had been replaced by chlorides. To make the definition independent of atomic weight, chlorinity is now defined as 0.3285233 times the weight of the silver equivalent of all halides.

the excess water run out. The modifications introduced by Knudsen, and his later development of Hydrographical Tables (Knudsen 1901), have made his method of chlorine determination become known as the Mohr–Knudsen titration.

Figure 5. The Knudsen pipette.

From the chlorine (or rather the halogen) content of a water sample, its salinity was obtained by multiplying by the so-called chlorine coefficient for which Knudsen used the value 1809 (Wallace 1974, p. 140). His use of just this value is not surprising as it had been found by Tornøe (1880 b, p. 58) as a mean value for a number of samples from the Norwegian Sea, and had been used by Axel Hamberg (1863—1933) for samples from Greenland waters (Hamberg 1884, p. 9).

In the tables reporting the results of the observations, Knudsen included not only the salinity values, but also the 'chlorinities', although the salinities had simply been obtained by multiplying the chlorinities by a constant - the 'chlorine coefficient'. The reason was that he considered it only a question of time before the practice of reporting the salinity of seawater would be discontinued. He explained this opinion by reference to the difficulties involved in a direct determination of the salinity. Determination of it as the sum of the quantities of salts (in grams) in one kilogram of seawater was out of the question as a routine method because of the complicated chemical analyses involved, with all their sources of error. Also determination of the salinity by evaporating a certain amount of seawater and drying and weighing the residue is difficult and may not give reliable results, as decompositions may take place during the process.

This necessitates corrections, which would involve other sources of error.

Therefore it had become customary to determine the salinity from the specific gravity or the chlorinity by application of the coefficients. Here a problem arose, however: the scientists who had worked out the coefficients had obtained values deviating so much from each other - also if limited to ocean waters - that salinity values differing by as much as 0.06 ‰ for the same chlorinity or specific gravity might easily occur. This would of course hinder comparison of the results of different expeditions.

Now Knudsen logically raised the question: what is gained by going from the amount of chlorine to the total amount of salt, and what is the purpose of the determination of chlorinity and salinity? He answered the last question by stating that it was necessary to find a number that characterized each water sample. The amount of chlorine, however, could fulfil this task just as well as the salinity value computed from it. Choosing salinity as the principal feature of a water sample would only render it difficult to compare different

series of observations, because there could be disagreement as to which coefficient should be used.

It would therefore be preferable to consider the chlorinity as the principal or characteristic feature of a water sample. Also the chlorine coefficient might be an additional characterizing figure for the water. Some chemists had come to the conclusion that the coefficient was increasing with decreasing salt content. Greater coefficients would therefore be found for coastal waters, and also in areas influenced by water from melting sea ice if Otto Pettersson's observations were correct that the proportion between the amount of sulphate ions and the amount of chlorine in sea ice is greater than in seawater.

Knudsen did not, however, succeed with his very logical suggestion that chlorinity should be considered as the principal characteristic of seawater. The International Conference at Stockholm in 1899 decided that “[a]t every point and from every depth where the temperature is observed, a sample of water shall be collected for the determination of its salinity and density” (Anonymous 1899, p. 4).

As Knudsen considered the specific gravity values determined by hydrometers as rather inaccurate he did not include them in the published tables. Instead he deduced the specific gravity from the temperature and the chlorine content of the sample. Based upon investigations by Fredrik Laurents Ekman (1830—1890) on the expansion of waters of different salinities by heating (Ekman 1870), Knudsen developed a table from which the specific gravity referred to that of distilled water at 4 ° might be calculated on the basis of temperature and chlorinity. Specific gravity values determined in this way for each station were represented graphically in Knudsen's report.

Analyses of the gases dissolved in seawater From the 1830s, a number of investigations of the amount of air dissolved in seawater had been undertaken. Accounts of the early experiments have been given by Oscar Jacobsen (1873 a) and Hercules Tornøe (1880 a, pp. 1—5). The experiments showed very variable results and were obviously faulty. The first reliable measurements of the content of gases in seawater would seem to have been those undertaken by Jacobsen during the Pommerania Expedition to the North Sea in 1872 (Jacobsen 1875). Already during the Pommerania Expedition in the Baltic in 1871, Jacobsen had collected water samples and determined their gas content. The experiment turned out to be a failure, however, because the water sampler used was unsuitable for the purpose (Jacobsen 1873b) However, it enabled him to develop the method of analysis in detail, which could then be practised on the cruise in 1872 when a suitable water sampler was used.

Jacobsen considered it to be out of the question to keep the water samples until the end of the cruise, as oxidation of the organic substances in the samples might take place, changing the relative amounts of the various gases. On the other hand, he considered it impossible to carry out the gas analyses on board the ship with sufficient accuracy. He decided therefore to follow a

middle course, viz. to drive off the gases from the seawater samples by boiling, immediately after collecting the samples and keep the gases in sealed tubes for later analysis in the laboratory. Jacobsen's investigations enabled him to reject the earlier somewhat confused ideas about the content of gases in seawater, e.g. that because of the pressure water at depth should have a high content of gases. As a matter of fact, Jacobsen concluded that the sum of the amounts of oxygen and nitrogen in seawater below the surface is nearly the same as the amount of these gases that the water would take up at the surface from the atmosphere, less the oxygen amount that might have been used for oxidation of the organic matter in the water.

Practically the same procedure for the determination of the gas content in seawater was applied by William (Wilhelm) Dittmar (1833—1892) who carried out the analyses of the samples collected of the British Challenger Expedition 1872—1876 (Dittmar 1884), and by Tornøe, who dealt with the samples from the Norwegian North-Atlantic Expedition 1876—1878 (Tornøe 1880a, pp. 11—14).

The main reason for carrying out the gas analyses was to be sought in the conclusions that supposedly could be drawn from them. As pointed out by Tornøe, the quantity of nitrogen in water from the depths should give an indication of the temperature at which it was absorbed at the sea surface, because no change of the nitrogen content would have taken place after the water had left the surface where it was supposed to have been saturated with air. The content of nitrogen might therefore give interesting hints about where and when the water had last been at the surface, from which information some conclusions might be drawn as to the movements of the water.

Knudsen, however, showed that it is by no means easy to draw reliable conclusions about water movements from nitrogen-content data (Knudsen 1899, pp. 150—151; 1903, pp. 4—9); arid this was also emphasized by Ernst Ruppin (1904, pp. 128—129).

The determinations of the oxygen content were mainly carried out in order to study the life conditions of the marine animals. It was found that the ratio of the oxygen content to that of nitrogen usually decreased with the depth. This could easily be explained from the use of oxygen by the living animals and from the oxidation of organic matter. At the surface, however, the proportion of oxygen to nitrogen was supposed to be such as would result when the water was saturated with air, in accordance with the temperature of the water, its salinity, and the atmospheric pressure. Nevertheless, both Dittmar and Tornøe found several cases of an excess of oxygen above the quantity demanded by the law of gas absorption. Dittmar wrote: It is difficult to see, how a seawater can contain more oxygen per litre than is demanded by the law of gas absorption. I tried to account for the apparent anomaly in a variety of ways, and at last was led to suspect, that it might be the result of observational errors (Dittmar 1884, p. 188).

Tornøe, on the other hand, did not believe that the unexpected results could be explained from observation errors, but suggested that the explanation should be sought in some unknown causes. He wrote: the relatively large proportion of oxygen as compared with the total amount of air present in the surface water of the northern tracts of the sea investigated, will be found to arise from supersaturation with oxygen, and not, as might be supposed, from imperfect saturation with nitrogen, seeing that the proportion of oxygen exceeded that computed from these experiments by as much as, or even more than, 0.5 cm 3; for a difference so considerable does not admit of being ascribed to errors of observation. On the basis of these facts, the proportion of oxygen in surface water is shown to depend not only on pressure and temperature, but, probably, also on the effect of one or more causes as yet unknown (Tornøe 1880a, p. 19).

Otto Pettersson also studied the content of gases in seawater. Apparently he did not find the boiling procedure, as carried out on board ship, to be satisfactory. So he introduced a change in the method of analysis. He had water samples sucked up into evacuated sealed tubes and undertook both the boiling and the analysis in his home laboratory, which procedure made possible a more careful boiling (Pettersson and Ekman 1891, pp. 14—17).

Problems still occurred, however. Using Pettersson's method, the Danish chemist Kristian Rørdam (1860—1939) analysed the samples from hydrographic investigations in the shallow Danish waters and found great variations in the proportion of oxygen to nitrogen (Rørdam 1896). Rørdam raised the question of whether the gas contents from the analyses really were the same as those contained in samples in situ in the sea. Reactions might have taken place in the samples in the period between collection and analysis, as had already been pointed out by Jacobsen. Rørdam concluded, therefore, that only when seawater is analysed immediately after having been sampled can one be sure that the amounts of air found by the analysis are the same as those that a sample contained in the sea would have.

This doubt about the reliability of Pettersson's procedure was published just in time to make Knudsen construct for the second part of the expedition an apparatus for gas analysis that could be used on board so that the analyses might be undertaken without delay and the possibility of reactions in the samples could thus be avoided (see Figure 6). With this apparatus he undertook in 1896 about 130 analyses (Knudsen 1899, pp. 30—36; 84—95).

Figure 6. Knudsen 's apparatus for determination of the content of oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide in seawater.

Demonstration of the cause of oxygen supersaturation in sea water Knudsen, like Dittmar and Tørnoe, found several cases of oxygen supersaturation in the surface water. He supposed, however, that the phenomenon might be due to development of oxygen by the photosynthetic processes of the phytoplankton. He found some confirmation of this assumption by investigating, in cooperation with the expedition botanist, Carl Hansen Ostenfeld (1873-1931), the type and amount of plankton at the places where the gas content was analysed. It turned out that where zooplankton was dominant, the oxygen content was low whereas it was high where phytoplankton dominated. It was well known, of course, that plants and animals consume oxygen when breathing, whereas plants also, under the influence of light, assimilate carbon dioxide and give off oxygen.

In order to study the phenomenon more clearly, Knudsen, assisted by Ostenfeld, performed two experiments (Knudsen 1899, pp. 157â&#x20AC;&#x201D;160). First they filled two bottles with seawater, introduced some living copepods into one of them and placed the bottles in a water bath for three hours. Then the air dissolved in the water of the two bottles was analysed. While the nitrogen contents were the same, the oxygen content in the bottle with the copepods turned out to be less than half that in the bottle without copepods - a clear indication that the reduction of the oxygen content had been caused by the respiration of the copepods.

In the second experiment, the influence of diatoms upon the oxygen content was studied. Three bottles were filled with seawater and placed in a water bath. Identical amounts of diatoms were placed in two of the bottles, and one of these bottles was wrapped in tinfoil to exclude the light. After three hours, the air dissolved in the water of the three bottles was analysed. While the nitrogen contents of the bottles were essentially equal there were great differences of the oxygen contents: compared to the bottle without diatoms, the oxygen content of the water which contained diatoms, but had not been exposed to light, was considerably lower, a deficit caused by the respiratory action of the diatoms; and what was more interesting - the bottle with diatoms exposed to light showed a very considerable increase in oxygen content, obviously because the oxygen produced by the assimilation process greatly exceeded that used in the respiration process. These experiments

thus made it clear that supersaturation with oxygen can occur in the upper water layers when these are rich in phytoplankton. In this way the variations found by Dittmar, Tornøe and Rørdam became understandable.

It is true that this explanation of the supersaturation had been suggested earlier by Otto Pettersson (1894a, p. 8; 1894b, p. 627). From his investigations in the Baltic in April 1893, he found that the upper layers at 15 m were slightly supersaturated with oxygen - the same phenomenon that had been found at high latitudes in the Arctic by Tornøe and in Antarctic samples by Dittmar. Pettersson discussed the phenomenon with Per Theodor Cleve (1840—1905), a diatom specialist at Uppsala. They arrived at the conclusion that both supersaturation with oxygen and oxygen deficiency probably were due to the influence of living organisms. The predominance of phytoplankton, characteristic for both Arctic, Antarctic and Baltic waters in some seasons, might cause the supersaturation, whereas the respiration .of zooplankton and higher animals might explain the deficiency.

It was Knudsen, however, who provided the proof of the hypothesis, and he obviously was fully aware of the importance of the discovery. He did not wait to including it in his full report on the hydrographic investigations of the expedition but published it in several periodicals shortly after his return (Knudsen 1896a, 1896b, 1897a). The importance of the discovery also appears from the fact that another periodical reported on it (Anonymous 1897).

Pettersson stated that Knudsen's results from his analyses of the gases in seawater were among the most important ones to be found in hydrographic literature up to then (Pettersson 1900, p. 4).

Drift bottles During the cruise of 1896, twenty drift bottles were dropped in order to try to get some information about the surface currents in that region. In order to protect the bottles if they landed on a rocky coast they were placed in small wooden boxes which were filled up with melted pitch and painted red to make them easily detectable (see Figure 7). When the expedition report was published in 1899, ten of the bottles had been found: six on the west or north coast of Norway, two on the Faroe Islands, and two on the east or north coast of Iceland (Wandel 1899, pp. 20—21). This drift confirmed, inter alia, assumptions about the course of the East Icelandic Polar Current.

Figure 7. A sailor with the wooden box for a drift bottle (Zoological Museum, Copenhagen).

The main hydrographic results of the expedition In all, 144 deep sea soundings were carried out, and at nearly all these stations the temperature and salinity were determined at intermediate depths at a total of 550 locations. From the temperature and salin-

ity data, Knudsen constructed twenty-five hydrographic sections (see the example in Figure 8).

Figure 8. Section XXI east of Iceland from the Iceland-Faroe Ridge and northwards. It shows the East Icelandic Polar Current with temperatures below 0 °.It is based on five stations with depths from 433 m to 1,666 m and interpolation of data from two crossing sections (Stations f and g from Sections XVI and XVII).

Hydrographic work of the Ingolf expedition On the basis of these sections he gave a detailed description of the hydrographic situation in the area investigated and drew conclusions with regard to currents and water types.

Of special interest were Knudsen's findings about the Irminger Current, a branch of the North Atlantic Current, running north along the west coast of Iceland. It is named after the Danish Admiral Carl Irminger (1802—1888), who implemented the first systematic hydrographic investigations of the seas round Iceland and described the currents of that region.

Knudsen. proved that the Irminger Current divides into a westerly and an easterly branch northwest of Iceland. The westerly branch, when meeting the East Greenland Polar Current, turns south as a warm undercurrent. flowing beneath the Polar Current.

Also important was the information obtained about the extent and magnitude of the East Icelandic Polar Current (Knudsen 1899, p. 24). Furthermore, Knudsen was the first who proved the existence of an overflow over the Iceland-Faroe Ridge of cold, low-salinity bottom water from the Norwegian Sea into the Atlantic (Knudsen 1898, p. 156), a phenomenon that about sixty years later was studied by a joint investigation-the 1960 Overflow Expedition

(Tait 1967)-and again in 1973 by another joint survey-the 'Overflow '73 Expedition', covering the whole of the Greenland-Scotland Ridge (Anonymous 1976).

Another important outcome of the expedition should not be overlooked. It was stated by Wallace as follows: While the "Ingolf' Expedition was important in a number of ways, its greatest value...[lay] in its ancestral relationship to the Hydrographical Tables and to the later work of Knudsen and his associates....It was on this expedition that Knudsen formulated many of his basic ideas which influenced his later papers (Wallace 1974, p. 139).

This assertion was undoubtedly correct as far as the development of hydrography has been concerned.

Acknowledgements I am greatly indebted to Torben Wolff for proposing the subject of this paper and suggesting some changes in the manuscript; to the reviewers; to David Oldroyd for most valuable comments and emendation of the language; and to Artur Svansson for assistance in processing the paper.

Archives Gothenburg University Library, Collection of letters to Otto Pettersson.

References Anonymous. 1897. Oxygen and carbonic acid in sea-water. Scottish Geographical Magazine 13:97.

Anonymous. 1899. Conférence internationale pour l' exploration de la mer, réunie à Stockholm 1899. Stockholm.

Anonymous. 1976. Overflow '73 Inventory. ICES Oceanographic Data Lists 29.

Baker, B. B., Deebel, W. R. and Geisenderfer, R. D. (eds). 1966. Glossary of Oceanographic Terms, 2nd edn. Washington D. C.: U. S. Naval Oceanographic Office.

Christy, M. 1897. On 'Busse Island'. In: C. C. A. Gosch (ed.), Danish Arctic Expeditions 1605 to 1620. Book 1. The Danish Arctic expeditions to Greenland, pp. 164—202. London: The Hakluyt Society.

Dittmar, W. 1884. Report on researches into the composition of ocean water collected by H. M. S. "Challenger" during the years 1873-1876. Report on the Scientific Results of the Voyage of H .MS. "Challenger", Physics and Chemistry I: 139—230.

Ekman, F. L. 1870. Om hafsvattnet utmed Bohuslänska kusten (On the seawater along the coast of Bohuslän). Kungliga Svenska Vetenskaps Akademiens Handlingar, Ny följd 9: 1— 44.

Hamberg, A. 1884. Hydrografiskkemiska iakttagelser under den svenska expeditionen till Grönland 1883 (Hydrographicchemica1 observations on the Swedish expedition to Greenland 1883). Part I, Bihang till Kungliga Svenska Vetenskaps Akademiens Handlingar 9: 1—65.

Jacobsen, 0. 1873a. Ueber die Luft des Meerwassers. Annalen der Chemie und Pharmacie 167: 1-37.

Jacobsen, 0. 1873b. Die Beobachtungen auf der Expedition 1871. Jahresbericht der Commission zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung der deutschen Meere 1: 37—56.

Jacobsen, 0. 1875. Ueber die Luft des Meerwassers. Jahresbericht der Commission zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung der deutschen Meere 2—3: 45—58.

Jeffreys, J. G. 1877. Preliminary report of the biological results of a cruise in H. M. S. Valorous to Davis Strait in 1875. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 25: 177—230.

Knudsen, M. 1896a. Ueber das Abhangigkeitsverhliltnis zwischen dem Sauerstoff und Kohlensauregehalt des Meerwassers und dem Plankton des Meeres. Annalen der Hydrographie und maritimen Meteorologie 24: 463—466.

Knudsen, M. 1896b. De l'influence du plankton sur les quantites d'oxygene et d'acide carbonique dissous dans l'eau de mer. Comptes rendus des seances de l'Academie des Sciences 123: 1091-1093.

Knudsen, M. 1897a. Le plankton marin et 1es gaz de l'eau de mer. Revue scientifique, 4th series, 7: 584-586.

Knudsen, M. 1897b. Ingolfekspeditionens :tysiske Maalinger 1895-96 (The physical measurements 1895—96 of the Ingolf Expedition). Nyt Tidsskrift for Fysik og Kemi 2: 7—14.

Knudsen, M. 1897c. Pipette zum raschen und genauen Abmessen von F1lissigkeiten.

Chemiker Zeitung 21:637.

Knudsen, M. 1898. Ingolf Expeditionens hydrografiske Undersøge1ser (The hydrographical investigations ofthe Ingolf Expedition). Geografisk Tidsskrift 14: 151—159.

Knudsen, M. 1899. Hydrography. The Danish Ingolf Expedition I (2): 22—61. Copenhagen.

Knudsen, M. (ed.) 1901. Hydrographical Tables. Copenhagen: G. E. C. Gad. Knudsen, M. 1903. Ueber den Gebrauch von Stickstoffbestimmungen in der Hydrographie Conseil permanent international pour l 'exploration de la mer: Publications de circonstance 4: 1—9.

Krümmel, 0. 1890. Ueber die Bestimmung des spezifischen Gewichts des Seewassers an Bord. Annalen der Hydrographie und Maritimen Meteorologie 18: 381-395.

Pettersson, 0. 1894a. Redogiirelse for de svenska hydrografiska undersiikningarne aren 1893—1894. I. Ostersjiin (Report on the Swedish hydrographic investigations during the years 1893-1894. I. The Baltic Sea). Bihang till Kungliga Svenska Vetenskaps Akademiens Handlingar 19 (II), No.4: 1—14.

Pettersson, 0. 1894b. A review of Swedish hydrographic research in the Baltic and the North Seas, Part VII. The Baltic in 1893, according to the survey of the Swedish Commission.

Scottish Geographical Magazine 10: 624—635.

Pettersson, 0. 1900. Die hydrographischen Untersuchungen des Nordat1antischen Ozeans in den Jabren 1895-1896. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen 46: 1-7, 25—34.

Pettersson, 0. and Ekman, G. 1891. Grunddragen af Skageracks och Kattegats hydrografi enligt den . svenska vinterexpeditionens 1890 iakttagelser samt fiiregaende arbeten (The characteristic features of the hydrography of Skagerack and Kattegat according to the observations of the Swedish expedition in the winter of 1890 and earlier investigations).

Kungliga Svenska Vetenskaps Akademiens Handlingar 24: 1—162.

Ruppin, E. 1904. Zweiter Beitrag zur Bestimmung und Verwertung des Gasgehaltes des Meerwassers. Wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen, Neue Folge 8: 125—134.

Rørdam, K. 1896. Kemiske Analyser af nogle Vandpmver fra Kattegat og 0sters0en indsamlede i 1893 samt Analyse af de i Vande! vrerende Luftarter (Chemical analyses of some water samples from Kattegat and the Baltic together with analysis of the gases in

the water). Beretning fra Kommissionen for videnskabelig Undersagelse af de danske Farvande 1: 189—197.

Tait, J. B. (ed.). 1967. The Iceland-Faroe Ridge International (ICES) 'Overflow' Expedition, May-June 1960. Rapports et proces verbaux des reunions: Conseil international pour l’exploration de lar mer 157: 1-274.

Tornøe, H. 1880a. On the air in sea water. The Norwegian North-Atlantic Expedition 1876— 1878, Chemistry 1: 1-23.

Tornøe, H. 1880b. On the amount of salt in the water of the Norwegian Sea. The Norwegian North-Atlantic Expedition 1876--1878, Chemistry 3:45--65.

Wallace, W. J. 1974. The Development of the Chlorinity/Salinity Concept in Oceanography, Elsevier Oceanographic Series, No.7. Amsterdam, London and New York.

Wandel, C. F. 1899. Report of the voyage. The Danish Ingolf Expedition, I (1): 1-21. Copenhagen.

Wolff, T. 2008. The first Danish deep-sea expedition on the Ingolf. 1895 and 1896. Earth Sciences History 27: 164—187.

Early international North Sea current studies History of Oceanography Number 22, September 2011 Jens Smed Introduction An 1899 conference held in Stockholm eventually led to establishment of the International Council for Exploration of the Sea (ICES). That conference adopted a programme for hydrographic work stating, ‘observations on currents and tides should be carried out as frequently as circumstances allow.312 The programme called for the direct investigation of currents with meters, or indirectly by means of suitable drifters. It recommended research vessels to anchor occasionally to measure the current throughout a complete tidal period. During the early years, the hydrographic part of the international investigations concentrated upon seasonal cruises. However, they obtained a fairly complete picture of North Sea water mass distributions. This included their temperature, salinity, oxygen content, and seasonal variation.

New facilities for current-measurements Before about 1900, ocean current information was mainly deduced from temperature and salinity distribution. The Norwegian oceanographer, Bjørn Helland–Hansen (1877—1957), stated that that this method offered only superficial knowledge. However, the early years of the twentieth century brought possibilities for direct measurement of current direction and velocity, both at the surface and at depth. The appearance of new current-meters, such as Walfrid Ekman’s (1874—1954) propeller design, Otto Pettersson’s (1848—1941) bifilar and Fridtjof Nansen’s (1861—1930) pendulum made this progress possible.313 Between 1904 and 1905 A. M. van Roosendaal and Cornelis H. Wind (1867—1911) took observations in the North Sea to test and compare these instruments. Then A. F. H. Dalhuisen and W.E. Ringer continued these measurements into 1906.314 Helland–Hansen made extensive use of Ekman’s instrument in 1906 for measurements in the Norwegian fiords, Norwegian Sea, and North Sea. He

312 Conférence internationale pour l’exploration de la mer réunie à Stockholm 1899, (Stockholm, 1899).

313 V. W. Ekman, ʽKurze Beschreibung eines Propell-Strommessersʼ, Publications de circonstance, 24, (1905); A. M. van Roosendal and C.H. Wind, ʽPrüfung von Strommessern und Strommessungsversuche in der Nordseeʼ, Publications de circonstance, 26, (1905); O. Pettersson, ʽBeschreibung des Bifilar-Strommessersʼ, Publications de circonstance , 24, (1905); F. Nansen, ʽ Methods for Measuring Direction and Velocity of Currents in the Seaʼ, Publications de circonstance, 34, (1906).

314 A. F. H. Dalhuisen and W. E. Ringer, ʽFortgesetzte Strommessungsversuche in der Nordseeʼ, Publications de circonstance, 36, (1907).

concluded that the measurements proved the reliability of current observations at considerable depth.315 The need for a summary of North Sea currents The question about current measurements emerged in a council meeting at Amsterdam in February-March 1906. With the five year cooperation period coming to an end in 1907, they had to discuss the future. The meeting considered that international cooperation had promoted science with regard to practical and theoretical fishery problems. They desired to continue cooperation in the best form for the participating governments.316 The Council’s Bureau requested them to prioritise problems.

Max Weber reported that the Netherlands government laid great stress upon receiving a summary of the conditions of North Sea currents, both at the surface, and, as far as possible, at deeper layers. He also wanted this before July 1907.

Later, the Dutch expert, Wind, explained in detail to the Council’s Bureau what was wanted: 4 ) Collection and working up of all material useful for the purpose, mainly from the log-books of light-ships, sailing ships, and steamers. In the Netherlands such work was already in hand and partly finished.

5 ) Amalgamation of the direct current-measurements with what might be concluded from other hydrographical data, such as surface temperature and salinity, and drift bottle experiments.

6 ) Enhancements of the material of direct current-measurements both by continuation of the ongoing work and by organizing direct measurements at surface and several depths from lightships.

Wind wanted one person to do the work of 1 and 2 instead of each country handling it separately. An obvious candidate would be the Bureau’s Hydrographical Assistant, Martin Knudsen (1871—1949). Had he not the necessary time and assistance, the Bureau would give the lead to another of the participating scientists, such as Professor Krümmel (1854—1912).317 Wind’s application occasioned the Bureau to invite Knudsen to express his view on the matter. Knudsen stated that the currents in the North Sea were much studied with abundant material collected.318 The Council’s Hydrographical Section mentioned the following as among the more important, relevant results:

315 B. Helland-Hansen, Current-Measurements in Norwegian Fiords The Norwegian Sea and The North Sea in 1906, Bergen Museums Aarbog 1907 No 15, (Bergen, 1908).

316 Rapports et Procès-verbaux des Réunions, 6, (1906).

317 Copenhagen, Rigsarkivet, Archive number 1935 Box D.2 (hereafter RAC), Wind to the Council’s Bureau, 20th July 1906.

318 RAC, Knudsen to the Council’s Bureau, 25th August 1906.

Water of high salinity streams into the North Sea from the Atlantic Ocean in part through the English Channel but mainly by the North.

The salt stream entering by the Channel becomes mixed with the North Sea water especially by the strong tidal currents. It must be born in mind, however, that the action of strong winds, often prevalent in the region, on the progress of Channel water and its mixing with North Sea water, may be very great. Considerable changes in the alternating tidal currents during stormy weather have been pointed out by observations on certain lightships.

These changes, although temporary, if occurring at certain times of the year, may produce great alterations in the physical conditions of life in the shallow and narrow parts, and greatly modify the transported surface plankton.

Complete knowledge of the movement of the surface-water has been obtained at certain places mainly through observation on lightvessels and this is to a certain degree true of the deeper layers also in at least one place in the open sea, this result having been obtained by direct current measurements.

Certain phenomena suggest that the water masses in the southern part of the North Sea to a certain degree belong to a region by itself with distinct hydrographic conditions.

The exact knowledge of the conditions of the currents is of great importance for the study of the fate of pelagic fish-eggs.

A branch of the Atlantic current spreads over the northern North Sea plateau, running from the sea north of Shetland in a southerly and south-easterly direction. This current which is influenced by the configuration of the bottom, carries salt water partly into the central area of the northern North Sea plateau (more than 80â&#x20AC;&#x2030;m deep), partly along the western slope of the Norwegian Channel into the deeper parts of the Skager Rak. Giving off heat to the air during the winter this water is cooled down to a relatively low temperature, which is retained during the summer, the water in question then being the bottom-layer. The upper water-layers are renewed by new water masses which together with the coastal waters off Scotland and Norway produce a cyclonic circulation on the northern North Sea plateau, this fact being proved by the hydrographical conditions and also by experiments with drifting bottles.

North of the Dogger Bank there is a region in which the cold bottom water is, from a hydrographic point of view, somewhat different from the surrounding water. The coastal waters in the western as well as in the southern part of the North Sea acquire a special character from the strong tidal currents which act so as to render the water practically homogeneous from the surface to a considerable depth.

It has become obvious that the unperiodic variations in the North Sea are of very great importance. The variations take place with very varying rapidity. The conditions may also be very different from year to year. Thus the Atlantic water obtained a much greater extension in 1905 than in previous years, both temperature and salinity having unusually high values in 1905 not only in the Atlantic Ocean and in the Channel but also in the North Sea. This extract is the North Sea part of A brief statement of the present state and of some of the most important results of the Hydrographical Investigations, prepared by the Hydrographical Section of the Council, at Amsterdam, March 1906. Knudsen quotes the German version of the statement.

Max Weber requested preparation of the summary before the July of 1907, but it was not possible. Therefore at the London council meeting that June, the Hydrographical Section proposed a resolution instructing: the leader of the Hydrographical Department of the Bureau to prepare, if possible by the beginning of March 1908, a numerical and graphical account of the currents of the North Sea both on the surface and in deeper layers as far as the data available allow and makes a grant from the funds of the Council to meet the necessary expense of the work.319 Walfrid Ekman charged with summary preparation The General Secretary, Paulus P. C. Hoek (1851—1914), pointed out that the Draft Expenditure assigned no funds for next year to meet the expenses of the proposed work. However, by transferring the task to the Council’s central laboratory, the meeting overcame this problem. From the laboratory’s 1902 inception at Kristiania (Oslo), the Norwegian government accepted having to pay 10 000 Kroner for its annual running. With the Council’s future beyond 1907 uncertain, the Laboratory’s leader, Fridtjof Nansen, was not able to secure Norway’s contribution for the ensuing year. In spite of this, and after considerable discussion, the Council agreed to pay the usual 11 700 Kroner.

However, at the request of Cornelis Wind and seconded by several members of the Hydrographical Section, the council wanted the laboratory’s acting director, V. Walfrid Ekman to report upon the North Sea currents. Nansen accepted this condition.

Knudsen submitted this decision to Ekman, explaining that the work was mainly to collect existing observations, printed or unpublished, and amalgamate them into a numerical and graphical summary.320 Atuned to the matter, Ekman requested countries bordering the North Sea to supply him with a list of observations they already possessed. New observations might then be carried out on the coming August cruises.321 319 Rapports et Procès-verbaux des Réunions, 7, (1907).

320 RAC, Knudsen to Ekman, 24th June 1907.

Knudsen reported the Danish Meteorological Institute publishing currentdata from Danish lightvessels in the series Nautical-meteorological Annual.322 According to its Director, Wladimir Peter Köppen (1846—1940), the Deutsche Seewarte had a large collection of log-books from which information about the currents might be deduced. This work would cost for three to four hundred Marks. The Seewarte was interested in the purpose of the desired charts: should they only present average conditions or should they depict approximate synoptic movements? With a view to the physical conditions of the North Sea in general, and especially to the aim of the International Study of the Sea a synoptic handling of the problem would be very advantageous.323 Ekman sent Knudsen a copy of this letter, dated 10th July 1907, asking whether he believed that the material offered by Köppen should be worked up at the Bureau’s expense. Ekman for his part thought that there was every reason to do this, and that he preferred the synoptic treatment.324 Knudsen too was of the opinion that the log-book material should be worked up, and if at all possible the synoptic method used. However, he doubted that the Bureau could defray the expenses. If the Laboratory paid for the work, Knudsen would consider this procedure fully warrantable.325 Ekman was not sure whether the Laboratory would have the necessary funds for defraying the expenses involved in working up the German observations.

He thought that Copenhagen might defray the expenses, referring to the resolution’s words that the council “makes a grant from the funds of the Council to meet the necessary expense of the Work”. “In any case, the work must be done”, he added.326 Knudsen admitted that he had forgotten the last sentence of the resolution.

He did not think that the Council would pay; however, to be safe he would ask the Bureau.327 The General Secretary declared that no funds were available for the purpose.328

321 RAC, Ekman to Knudsen, 26th June 1907.

322 RAC, Knudsen to Ekman, 28th June 1907.

323 RAC, Köppen to Ekman, 10th July 1907.

324 RAC, Ekman to Knudsen, 2nd September 1907.

325 RAC, Knudsen to Ekman, 5th September 1907.

326 RAC, Ekman to Knudsen, 7th September 1907.

327 RAC, Knudsen to Ekman, 10th September 1907.

328 RAC, Knudsen to Ekman, 11th September 1907.

Ekman’s programme for North Sea current measurements In the meantime, Wind requested Ekman to come up with an international programme of North Sea current-measurements for 1907. However, Ekman was in doubt whether the tidal currents or the water transport should have preference. In view of the relatively few measurements obtainable, he preferred a compromise between the alternatives, though with main stress upon tidal currents. In any case, this would only give a valuable result if the water transport problem was also taken.

On this basis Ekman set up a draft programme, involving Belgium, Scotland, Norway, Germany, Sweden, and Holland. In August 1907, he sent the draft to Bjørn Helland-Hansen, with whom Wind had contact.329 In view of the late date, only very few of the planned measurements were carried out: those of the Belgian in the Channel, a few by the Scots, and the usual Dutch ones.330 The project held in abeyance At the Copenhagen council meeting of July 1908, an Hydrographical Section agenda item was: Report on the elaboration of the observations regarding the currents in the North Sea. The item further informed the Section that, “Dr. V. Walfrid Ekman would soon report on the currents of the North Sea”.331 Thirteen months later, the same item recurred on the agenda, where “Mr. Helland-Hansen stated that Dr. Ekman was busy at work”. The section acknowledged the urgent necessity of getting this work finished soon.332 Helland-Hansen’s statement is somewhat puzzling. Ekman had just spent some months in Manchester working on the problem about the stability and instability of the movements of fluids. Ekman informed Knudsen that he had presently laid aside North Sea current work. He did so, after consultation with Nansen, for the sake of his own future, though he disliked in this way deferring a task that he had accepted. What reconciled him was that the amount of material would continue increasing, so that any eventual charts would be better than if published now.333 This viewpoint upset the hydrographers. Otto Krümmel (1854—1912) asked Knudsen, “Has Prof. Ekman really not yet finished his work on the currents of the North Sea?”334 As a matter of fact Knudsen had just requested some information from Ekman about working up the current-observations.335 Ek329 Bergen, Statsarkivet i Bergen, Helland-Hansen Arkivet (hereafter HH), Ekman to Helland-Hansen, August 1907.

330 HH, Ekman to Helland-Hansen, 7th January 1908.

331 Rapports et Procès-verbaux des Réunions, 11, (1909).

332 Rapports et Procès-verbaux des Réunions, 12, (1910).

333 RAC, Ekman to Knudsen, 24th June 1909.

334 RAC, Krümmel to Knudsen, 18th August 1910. The quotation is a translation from the original German.

335 RAC, Knudsen to Ekman, 1st August 1910.

man explained that before the Central Laboratory’s closure he had prepared some preliminary statistical working up of current-observations at Danish and English coastal stations, of water level observations, and differences in dead reckoning at German vessels.336 In the coming year, he did not expect to be able to spend any appreciable time on North Sea currents. However, he hoped that there should be no need for further delay.337 Ekman’s continuing interest in the project shows itself in his asking for copies of the current-measurements undertaken during the seasonal cruises. Although few in number, he considered the direct measurement material the more important. In the time left before working up the material into the current charts, he was considering a proposal on the measurement method.

Knudsen passed on the content of Ekman’s letter to the Hydrographical Section in August 1910, where the Section acknowledged the communication with regret.338Knudsen gave Ekman the supplementary information that Krümmel had found the delay understandable and they would look forward to finishing the work with interest.339 Observations from anchored vessels In spite of Krümmel’s words, some people may now have lost patience. In any case, the Danish Commission for Sea Research proposed continuous North Sea observations by an anchored vessel for two months. It stressed the importance of having some knowledge of the hydrographical and biological changes taking place in deeper water over a short time period. It further maintained, that with regard to hydrographic investigations, only in this way would it be possible to get information about deep currents for a long enough time to display the effect of different meteorological conditions. By such an undertaking it would be possible, in a more complete and rational way than hitherto, to procure really connected observations of the hydrographical and biological conditions. Through the continuity of these observations material would be obtained which might be expected to be specially well suited for elucidating the question of the connection between the hydrographic, planktological, and biological changes.

Wind commented that instead of using one vessel for several months, using several vessels for two weeks would provide an advantage. The vessels should be anchored, possibly in early June, and each participant country to provide one vessel for the investigation.

This resolution ended the discussion:

336 Method for determining the current from the difference between the ship’s position expected from the course steered and the distance travelled as recorded on the log, and the real position.

337 RAC, Ekman to Knudsen, 10th August 1910.

338 Rapports et Procès-verbaux des Réunions, 13, (1911).

339 RAC, Knudsen to Ekman, 27th September 1910.

The International Council, having discussed the proposal of the Danish Commission to anchor a ship for 2 months in the North Sea for hydrographical and other observations, agrees that the time has now come to investigate in greater detail the fluctuations of the different hydrographical and biological elements in the North Sea. To this end, having regarded also the questions put forward by the Dutch and British Governments (comp. Proc. Verb. VI 24, VII 30), it is resolved that observations of temperature, salinity and currents, and of plankton and other biological conditions be taken at 7 selected positions at several depths from anchored ships at short intervals during a period of 14 days as early as possible in June 1911. At the same time similar observations at lightships should be carried out.

These observations of temperature, salinity and currents are to be published in the Hydrographical Bulletin; and the Assistant for Hydrography is instructed to prepare a digest correlating the results obtained.340 Each of Sweden, Germany, Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands would supply one ship, and Britain two. Suitable positions for each ship were given, and a number of lightvessels from which observations should also be carried out were pointed out.

As the resolution referred to the original requirements from the Dutch government the new project might in a way be considered as a further development of the earlier plans.

The measurements were carried out according to the plans, although stormy weather caused some problems. The raft from which the Swedish hydrographers preferred to make measurements capsized, resulting in loss of instruments.341 Otto Pettersson (1848—1941), the Council’s Swedish father, momentarily became pessimistic with regard to the future of hydrography in the Council.

He felt a need to reorganize the work.342 Martin Knudsen on the other hand found that the situation was much better now than a couple of years ago.

With the continuous measurements carried out in June last, the hydrographers were on the right track. These investigations should be continued to get better determinations of the tidal movements and obtain real information about the resulting currents.343 Petterson was happy to learn that the June current-measurements were a success. With regard to Sweden they had now overcome the difficulties, by

340 Rapports et Procès-verbaux des Réunions, 13, (1911).

341 RAC, Knudsen to Ekman, 31st March 1911.

342 RAC, Pettersson to Knudsen, 30th November 1911.

343 RAC, Knudsen to Pettersson, 4th December 1912.

fastening the instruments to a subsurface buoy.344 Pettersson stressed that Knudsen must present a résumé of the results; this was for persuading the hydrographers to repeat the measurements.345 Pettersson discussed the meteorological situation concerning the day when the storm overturned the Swedish raft. He inquired whether Knudsen had prepared synoptic weather maps for the period 1st—14th June.346 Knudsen explained that the Danish Meteorological Institute would prepare such maps for the period. Later, Pettersson approached Nils G. Ekholm (1848—1923) at the Meteorological Office in Stockholm, to discuss working up the meteorological observations collected during 28th May—15th June 1911. Knudsen was asked to supply Ekholm with the relevant material.347 Ekholm did work up the meteorological observations, from which he published a paper on the weather on the North Sea during the first half of June 1911. He preceded this with a long section on the history of meteorology!348 Obviously Knudsen now realized how much work was involved in working up the current-measurements. So he declared that if the investigations should be repeated he must receive the material in a more worked up form than hitherto, or he would be overwhelmed.349 Pettersson agreed to a repetition of the current-measurements in 1912, preferably in August. However, he stressed that they should be combined with biological investigations. The biologists and their administrators did not understand why vessels should be deployed in the North Sea for a fortnight each year just for obtaining tidal constants and current-velocities alone.

However, they would understand an investigation that threw light upon the life and distribution of migrating fish at spawning time.350 Knudsen was also in favour.351 By late February 1912, Knudsen received the last part of the hydrographical observations from the investigations of 1st—14th June 1911. About a month later, he distributed to the Council’s members and experts a provisional report. This presented preliminary results of the tidal currents and mean currents, which he followed with a proposal for similar investigations in council– year 1912—1913.352

344 RAC, Pettersson to Knudsen, 7th December 1912.

345 RAC, Pettersson to Knudsen, 10th December 1911; Pettersson to Knudsen, 26th December 1911.

346 RAC, Pettersson to Knudsen, 27th December 1911.

347 RAC, Pettersson to Knudsen, 15th February 1912.

348 N. Ekholm, ʽDas Wetter auf der Nordsee während der ersten Hälfte von Juni 1911ʼ, Publications de circonstance, 64, (1913), 1-30.

349 RAC, Knudsen to Pettersson, 3 rd January 1912.

350 RAC, Pettersson to Knudsen, 6th January 1912.

351 RAC, Knudsen to Pettersson, 10th January 1912.

352 RAC, Knudsen to the Council’s members and experts, 12th April 1912.

By return of post Knudsen received congratulations from Pettersson, who had great visions. He now saw these investigations as the start of a great international cooperation which in the course of time would also include the oceans!353 At the Council meeting at Copenhagen in April 1912, Knudsen reported on the working up in tables and charts of the data collected in the 1911 project.

That discussion resulted in the resolution: 7 ) that observations of temperature, salinity and current be printed in extenso as tables; 8 ) that a summary be given containing the most important tidal constants with their graphical representation; 9 ) that, by way of example, the complete series of diagrams of the observations taken at the Horns Reef and the Dutch station be given [in order to compare the results obtained by use of two different sorts of instruments]; 10 ) that the meteorological conditions be presented by means of charts and otherwise.

The publication should form a part of the Hydrographical Bulletin. In accordance herewith it was included in Bulletin Hydrographique pour l’année Juillet 1910—Juin 1911, issued in 1912.

A discussion on repeating the project resolved: That continuous hydrographical observations be carried out at selected points in the North Sea during the first fourteen days of August 1912.354 This year, however, only Sweden, Germany, Scotland, and England sent research vessels. Lightvessels from Denmark, Germany, Belgium, England, and the Netherlands participated in the project. Detailed instructions for the observations were given. It was considered advisable to have the working up of the current-measurements carried out in a uniform manner in the Hydrographical Department of the Bureau. So it was resolved: that the velocities and directions of the currents obtained by each country be transmitted to the Bureau for further elaboration.

With the project a success, the September 1912 Council meeting decided upon annual repetitions, passing a resolution that: A fortnight’s hydrographical observations are to be undertaken once a year in the Skager Rak and the North Sea from ships at anchor, by the following countries: Sweden, Germany, Holland, England and Scotland. The observations are, as far as possible to be carried out simul-

353 RAC, Pettersson to Knudsen, 14th April 1912.

354 Rapports et Procès-verbaux des Réunions, 14, (1912). available.

taneously, at times and places which from year to year are to be determined by the Council, or by correspondence.

The definite selection of locality and date of the fortnight’s observations at anchor during the summer 1913 should, if possible, be postponed till the results of the 1912 observations are available. However, in order to secure uniformity, the first half of August is provisionally considered most suitable.355 England, Scotland, and Sweden sent a research vessel each, with a further two Dutch and four English lightvessels participating.

The British Board of Agriculture and Fisheries published ship positions: with the English vessel Hiawatha east of Shields, the Scottish vessel working northeast of Aberdeen, and the Swedish vessel in the Skagerak.356 Their observations were of current-measurements near the surface and bottom every hour of the fortnight, and in fine weather at intermediate depths. Special attention was paid to the submarine waves expected at depths where the heavier bottom water and lighter surface water were in contact with one another. The instrument descriptions imply that Ekman’s propeller and Jacobsen’s Libelle were the types of current-meter used. The temperature and salinity of various water layers were determined, and plankton samples collected.

At the Copenhagen Council meeting in September 1913, the Hydrographical Section considered it desirable, that continuous observations should also be made during the present year, for a period of 14 days, from ships at anchor in the Skager Rak and the North Sea. A resolution to this effect was passed, stating that Denmark, Germany, Holland, Belgium, and England would make observations on light-ships only, whereas places for observations by Sweden and Scotland were not yet decided upon. Obviously the project was reduced in scale, for simultaneous observations were no longer necessary.357 When it was stated that observations should be made during the present year this must be understood as the Council-year, that is, 22nd July 1913—21st July 1914. Apparently no observations from ships at anchor were carried out in this period.

The Report on the activities of the Hydrographical Department of the Bureau for the year July 1913—July 1914 states that the harmonic analysis of the continuous current-observations in the North Sea during the first half of August 1912 were completed. A brief report on the results as well as graphical

355 Rapports et Procès-verbaux des Réunions, 15, (1913).

356 ʽHydrographic and plankton observations in the North Seaʼ, Nature, 91, (1913), 593-4.

357 Rapports et Procès-verbaux des Réunions, 19, (1913).

representations of them were worked out and the tables made ready for printing.358 End of the project The outbreak of war in August 1914 brought the project to a stop. The Hydrographical Department continued with working up the collected material.

According to the report of work during the years 1914–1916 a harmonic analysis of the continuous current measurements in the North Sea August 1913 was carried out, and a brief survey of the results of the continuous current-measurements undertaken in the North Sea and Skagerrak during the previous years was published in the Hydrographical Bulletin.359 Ekman now became active. In April 1913, he approached Otto Pettersson to finance an assistant for working out the North Sea current survey, that he had taken upon himself several years ago. Pettersson was keen on having the current-measurements worked up. However, they considered whether it should be done just then or to wait until the 1913 observations became available. He suggested to Knudsen, that on his next visit to Copenhagen they might get Ekman to come over from Lund for a discussion.360 In December 1914, Pettersson took up the matter in a letter to Knudsen.

When the Bureau considered Ekman’s request of the previous year it decided to forward his request to the September Council meeting, that was cancelled because of the war. Pettersson suggested that a budget entry, “600 kr. (VII, 27). Working up material from special cruises”, would meet Ekman’s request, if Knudsen agreed.361 Unfortunately the amount in question was normally used as payment for working up annual current-measurements. Knudsen would therefore appreciate that the entry in question also this year might be kept for this purpose.

This would also make it possible to carry out the calculations of the tides which Pettersson had asked for in the above letter. When the budget had been adopted Knudsen would be willing to find a way out for the 600 kr to Ekman.362 Pettersson was sour upon receiving this answer. He pointed out that if the Ekman fee did not figure in the budget, it might look as if the Copenhagen office staff were monopolizing the budget. Pettersson declared that these items were, despite warfare, taken up with the full amounts – to which he had no objection.363

358 Rapport Administratif 1913-1914, (1915).

359 Rapport Administratif 1914-1915, 1915-1916, (1917).

360 RAC, Pettersson to Knudsen, 30th April 1913.

361 RAC, Pettersson to Knudsen, 11th December 1914.

362 RAC, Knudsen to Pettersson, 15th December 1914.

363 RAC, Pettersson to Knudsen, 19th December 1914.

Otto Pettersson also received problems from another direction. His draft budget for 1914—1915 included honorariums to the editor of plaice questions, the leader of the herring investigations, the leader of the eel investigations and the amount to Ekman.364 Henry Maurice (1874—1950), the Council’s English Vice–President, gave the draft a very rough reception. He pointed to favouratism among the nations. With regard to the proposed payment to Ekman Maurice’s view was: That is a new payment and therefore all the more less suitable to be included in an emergency budget, but I have not the slightest doubt that the Council will be prepared to pay whatever sum is justified in respect of Prof. Ekman’s work after they meet.365 After this letter, the three items were omitted from the budget whereas the payment to Ekman survived. So the estimate then carried the item: Prof. Walfrid Ekman for hydrographical work (cf. Proc. Verb. VII, p. 34) 600 Kroner together with a remark, According to proposal of Professor Pettersson has been included as a new item 600 Kr. to Professor Walfrid Ekman for work already carried out and partly paid out by Professor Ekman.366 Otto Pettersson and Gustaf Ekman (1852—1930) each paid Walfrid Ekman 300 kroner in advance. G. Ekman wrote: Walfrid Ekman has now got 600 kr. and will return the 300 kr. he has got of us. I have asked him to send the amount to Hans [Pettersson (1888—1966)] who will return it to you. (From Swedish).367 It is surprising to learn Ekman was still working on North Sea currents as late as February 1916. At that time he asked Knudsen whether the currentobservations published in the Nautical-Meteorological Annuals had been analysed with regard to the tidal current, especially those from the lightvessels Horns Rev, Vyl, and Skagens Rev. If not, he had to carry out such analyses, perhaps also for the stations in the Kattegat, as a preparation for their use in the study of the North Sea currents. Although the observations were estimates only, Ekman considered this material very valuable in view of the long continuous series. At the same time Ekman asked whether use of anemometers and of Jacobsen’s instrument had been contemplated. Observations by means of these instruments would make the material even more valuable.368 On behalf of Knudsen, Jacobsen replied that only part of the currentobservations had been analysed. His current-meter had been applied on

364 St. Andrews, University of St Andrews library, D’Arcy Thompson’s archive, Pettersson to Maurice, 6th January 1915.

365 D’Arcy Thompson’s archive, Maurice to Pettersson, 11th January 1915.

366 ʽRapport Administratif 1913-1914ʼ, Rapports et Procès-verbaux des Réunions, VII, (1915).

367 Gothenburg, Landsarkivet, The Otto Pettersson Collection, Pettersson to G. Ekman, 5th April 1915.

368 RAC, Ekman to Knudsen 2nd February 1916.

some of the lightvessels and part of the material obtained had been worked up. The wind speed had not been measured.369 What Ekmanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s belated activities resulted in is a mystery.

Acknowledgements I am greatly indebted to Dr. Artur Svansson for much assistance in the processing of this and other manuscripts.

369 RAC, J. P. Jacobsen to Ekman 5th February 1916.

Early plans for telegraphic communication with the Faroes and Iceland in the interests of meteorology and fishery History of Oceanography Number 22, September 2011 Jens Smed Early commercial plans The idea of a telegraph cable crossing the northern North Atlantic emerged in the middle of the 19th century. The Danish King granted an American, Colonel T. Shaffuer, a cable connection concession from the Shetland Islands, via the Faroes and Iceland, to Greenland. Shaffuer also planned extending it to Labrador.370 Shaffuer interested the British government in the project, which ordered the naval vessel Bulldog to make soundings and investigate the nature of the sea floor along the route.371 Shaffuer supplied the Danish scientist, Georg Forchhammer (1794—865), with surface and subsurface water samples from ten positions between Iceland and Greenland, for use in his pioneer studies on the composition of seawater.372 At the same time another vessel, Fox, was chartered to find suitable landing places for the cables over land. In order to give the project an official stamp, a representative of the Danish government participated in the Fox's voyage.373 With the vessel in Southampton, Queen Victoria and her family favoured the expedition with a visit. In Great Britain, members of the Privy Council and representatives of the Atlantic Telegraph Company heard testimony on the feasibility of laying and operating a cable from Britain via the Faroes and Iceland to Canada.374 In spite of royal interest the project was not implemented. Obviously, there was not sufficient economic support for it, as a more direct telegraph connection between Europe and America already existed.

Meteorological interests However, European weather forecasters strongly needed meteorological observations from the Faroes and Iceland. So the first director of the Danish Meteorological Institute, Niels Hoffmeyer (1836—1884), stressed the im370 P. Mengel, Hvor fører kablerne hen? (Copenhagen, 1991).

371 F. L. McClintock, Remarks illustrative of the Sounding Voyage of H.M.S. Bulldog (London, 1861).

372 Georg Forchhammer, 'On the composition of Sea-water in the different parts of the Ocean', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 155, (London, 1865), 203—262.

373 T. Zeilau, Fox-Expeditionen i Aaret 1860 over Færøerne, Island og Grønland med Oplysninger om Muligheden af et nordatlantisk TelegrafAnlæg (Copenhagen, 1861 ).

374 A. McConnell, 'Marine Sciences and the British Parliamentary Papers', History of Oceanography, 4, (1992), 7-8.

portance to the weather services of a telegraphic communication with these islands.375 In connection with the Scandinavian Naturalists’ Stockholm meeting in 1879, Hoffmeyer succeeded in obtaining a special audience with King Oscar II (1829—1907) of Sweden and Norway, who, to Hoffmeyer's surprise, turned out to be fully versed in the principles of modern meteorology. The King was very positive with regard to the proposal about the establishment of telegraphic communication with the Faroes and Iceland. He instructed the director of the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, Professor Henrik Mohn (1835—1916), to work for the project in the Permanent Meteorological Committee. The King invited the meetings' participants to the royal castle Drottningholm. At that time, the King asked Mohn, the Swedish meteorologist Hugo Hildebrandsson (1838—1925), and the Secretary of the Swedish Academy of Sciences, Carl Lindhagen (1860—1946), to assist Hoffmeyer in any way they could. The King also recommended the plan to his Government when it came to carrying through the project. Hoffmeyer estimated that it would make a considerable impression upon the British member, Robert H. Scott, of the forthcoming August 1880 Permanent Meteorological committee meeting at Bern, when Mohn was to indicate royal support. The German committee member, Georg Neumayer (1826—1909), also warmly supported the project.376 The Bern meeting passed a resolution in support of Hoffmeyer's project. In September 1880, the Wien conference on agricultural weather services also spoke in favour of his plans. In negotiations with foreign colleagues Hoffmeyer never discussed the economic side of the project. However, in a letter to the Danish Ministry of Naval Affairs, he did suggest a key for expenses distribution among the countries in the project.377 In the meantime another project emerged. Hoffmeyer learned from a newspaper that an agent had come over from the USA to Great Britain to prepare laying out a cable from Europe to Iceland and Greenland. However, Hoffmeyer supposed that in this respect, Carl Frederik Tietgen (1829—1901), founder of the Great Northern Telegraph Company, with whom Hoffmeyer cooperated on the matter, was on his guard against this project.

ICES interests None of the projects did materialize, and now the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) came into the picture. Under a cooperative project, the Danish Meteorological Institute and Deutsche Seewarte had published North Atlantic synoptic weather charts for several years. These are usually called Hoffmeyer charts, after their founder. In June 1899, the German delegation to ICES assembled at Stockholm, set out a programme of hy375 N. Hoffmeyer, Études sur les tempêtes de l’Atlantique septentrional et Projet d'un service télégraphique international relatif à cet océan, (Copenhagen, 1880).

376 Copenhagen, Rigsarkivet, Archive Nr. 1956, No. A.3, N. Hoffmeyer to General von Raasløff, 21st July 1880.

377 Copenhagen, Rigsarkivet, Archive Nr. 1956, No. A.3, N. Hoffmeyer to the Danish Ministry of Naval Affairs, 29th December 1880.

drographic work. According to this, the charts should be prepared for the seasonal cruises with as little delay as possible, yet with sea surface temperatures added. In this context it was proposed that the Conference should point to the necessity of a telegraph connection of the Faroes and Iceland with the rest of Europe. This was agreed and a resolution passed: The Conference declares that it is of the greatest importance both for high sea-fisheries and for the weather-forecasts for long periods, that the Faroe-Islands and Iceland should be included in the European telegraph system as soon as possible.378 As the motivation for the resolution originated in the programme proposed by the German delegation it is no wonder that its chief delegate, Walther Herwig (1838—1912), warmly recommended the project to his Government.

In a memorandum to the Imperial Minister of the Interior, Count von Posadowsky-Wehner, he pointed out the advantages that such a telegraphic communication would offer German interests: it would be of the greatest importance to the fishing vessels under the Icelandic coast; it would be of advantage to the fisheries and to German commerce in general; and it would be useful to the weather service. So Herwig strongly advised granting the subvention wanted by the Danish government in connection with the project.

Finally, he pointed to the fact that the first German cable ship was just being launched. If German vessels could be involved in laying out the cable it would be an economic gain. Herwig added that the authorities of the Imperial Navy might already be aware how important an exact knowledge of the position of the cable was, as this would facilitate the watching and destruction of the cable in case of war!379 The second preparatory Conference for the establishment of ICES, held at Christiania (Oslo) in May 1901 repeated the resolution of the Stockholm Conference.380 With its dependencies of Iceland and the Faroes, Denmark had a natural interest in telegraphic connection with them. The Danish government had previously broached a plan for financing the project in 1899, via twenty year subscriptions to meteorological telegrams from the islands. Up to February 1904, only two countries had adopted this plan: the Danish-Icelandic Government promised an annual subvention of about £5000 while Sweden agreed to subscribe for twenty years at £400 per year.381

378 Conférence internationale pour l' exploration de la mer, réunie à Stockholm 1899, Imprimérie K. L. Beckman, (Stockholm, 1899), XIII-XIV. 379 Berlin, Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz, MS Walther Herwig to the Imperial Minister of the Interior, Count von Posadowsky-Wehner, 16th February 1900. Previously: DDR Zentrales Staatsarchiv, Abt. Merseburg, Rep. 87B, Nr. 3646, Blatt 216—220.

380 2 Conférence internationale pour l’exploration de la mer réunie à Kristiania 1901, Première partie, Steen'ske Bogtrykkeri, (Kristiania, 1901).

Copenhagen, Rigsarkivet, Arkiv Nr. 10.649, Box 5, File l.A.4, Director of the Great Northern Telegraph Company, Edouard Suenson, to C. F. Drechsel, 16th February 1904. (Note, this item is archived under the year 1914.)

381

The Danish chief delegate, Christian Frederik Drechsel (1854—1927), eagerly circulated a memorandum on the project at the ICES meeting in February 1904. No response had come from the resolutions passed at Stockholm and Christiania. Drechsel surmised that a reason for the negative attitude might be the British-Boer South African war which had brought the deliberations between the Danish and the other Governments interested in the matter to a temporary stop. The Danish Government then urged the Great Northern Telegraph Company to take the enterprise in hand. However, it was necessary to get financial support from the interested countries. In return, these countries would gratuitously obtain daily meteorological telegrams from Iceland. The telegrams would be sent free of charge by all the European lines belonging to the Telegraph Company. In addition to the subventions by Denmark/Iceland and Sweden there was still a need for about 200 000 Francs annually. It was suggested that Great Britain, Germany, and Russia should each support the project with 20 000 Francs, and Norway, Holland, and Belgium with 10 000 Francs each.382 Obviously the circular had been submitted in advance to the Director of the Telegraph Company for approval.383 In response to Drechsel's circular ICES resolved: i)

ii )

to communicate to the various governments participating in the international investigations in the North Sea and North Atlantic the measures taken by the Danish Government to include the islands of Iceland and Faroe in the European telegraphic system; and to express the opinion that it would be of great importance for the fisheries of the several countries taking part in these investigations and for meteorological purposes that the measures proposed should be carried out.384

Several delegates made the reservation that the measures proposed meant an extension of the telegraphic system, and not the proposed plan for division of expenses. However, the delegates would consider themselves morally bound to do their best to urge upon their governments the extension of the system.

Final implementation In the meantime other plans for obtaining telegraphic communication with the North Atlantic islands had come up, and the matter could be solved without the cooperation of ICES.385 As regards the section to the Faroes and Iceland, the old Shaffner project was now carried out by the Great Northern 382 Conseil permanent international pour l'Exploration de la Mer, Rapport et Procès-verbaux, vol. II, (1904), 29-32.

383 Copenhagen, Rigsarkivet, Arkiv Nr. 10.649, Box 5, File l.A.4, Director of the Great Northern Telegraph Company, Edouard Suenson, to C. F. Drechsel, 20th February 1904. (Note, this item is archived under the year 1914.)

384 Conseil permanent international pour l'Exploration de la Mer, Rapport et Procès-verbaux, vol. II, (1904), 18.

385 Copenhagen, Rigsarkivet, Arkiv Nr. 10.649, Box 5, File l.A.4, Director of the Great Northern Telegraph Company, Edouard Suenson, to C.F. Drechsel, l41b April 1904. (Note, this item is archived under the year 1914.)

Telegraph Company. The communication with the Faroes was opened 1st August 1906 and extended to Iceland 27th August 1906. The last part of the project, via Greenland to North America, was implemented as late as New Year 1963.386 Acknowledgment I am greatly indebted to Dr. Artur Svansson for much assistance in processing this and other manuscripts.

ISSN 2218-0796

386 P. Thestrup, Vogn og tog - prik og streg. P & Ts historie 1850—1927, (Copenhagen, 1992).

A note on D’Arcy Thompson’s relations to Germany and German scientists Historisch-Meereskundliches Jahrbuch/History of Oceanography Yearbook Band 16 / Volume 16 2010

Jens Smed Introduction The extremely versatile Scottish scientist D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson (1860-1948) had from his youth close relations to Germany. He got part of his scientific education at German universities, and throughout the years he kept contact with his German colleagues also in periods when the feelings between Great Britain and Germany were at a low.

The first contacts with the German colleagues At the Preparatory Conference for the founding of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), held at Stockholm in 1899, where D’Arcy Thompson was one of the British delegates, he met the German delegates Walther Herwig (1838-1912), Victor Hensen (1835-1924), Friedrich Heincke (1852-1929), and Otto Krümmel (1854-1912). In the report on the Conference to their authorities the German delegates gave a brief characterization of some of their foreign colleagues. About the British delegates it says i.a.: “Die englischen Delegierten hatten in Sir John Murray einen Ozeanographen ersten Ranges, dessen Autorität und hohe Intelligenz in den Sitzungen namentlich der das hydrographische Programm ausarbeitenden ersten Kommission stark hervortrat; seine Neigung rasch zum Abschluss zu drängen, erwies sich nicht immer als der Sache förderlich. In den praktischen Fischereifragen schien Murray, wie aus manchen Anzeichen zu schliessen, in Meinungsverschiedenheiten mit seinen übrigen englischen Kollegen gerathen zu sein. Der HauptFischerei-Inspektor Archer erwies sich als nicht genügend unterrichtet, um die Aufgaben der Konferenz zu fördern. Es fehlten ihm die zoologischen Kenntnisse, um das biologische Programm zu erfassen und er wusste von der geographischen Lage der Fishereigründe in der Nordsee so gut wie nichts. So hat er die Verhandlungen meistens nur aufgehalten, zumal er auch kein Wort Deutsch verstand. Professor D´Arcy Thompson, der einen Teil seiner zoologischen Studien in Deutschland gemacht hat, suchte diese Lücken im Wissen und Können seines Kollegen Archer nach Möglichkeit zu decken und zu ersetzen; er war nicht nur durch

Fachwissen, sondern auch durch persönliche groe Liebenswürdigkeit ein wertvoller und angenehmer Mitarbeiter.” 387 During World War I and after A fairly close correspondence on biological matters developed between Heincke and D’Arcy Thompson.388 This was brought to a stop by World War I. The war, of course, created bad blood between the inhabitants of the belligerent countries. In an editorial in the periodical “Nature” it was said that since the beginning of the war it had been increasingly obvious that direct communications between the Allied Powers and the Central European Powers was no longer possible. It did not seem probable that the Allies would consent to personal communications with the German peoples, even after the cessation of the hostilities. 389 Quite naturally a different attitude reigned in the neutral countries. Members of their learned societies addressed an appeal for tolerance to academies of the allied nations and the United States, as a protest against a policy which would seek to exclude a generation of German men of science from all scientific intercourse with those of the allied countries.

This appeal was backed up by D’Arcy Thompson in a letter to “Nature” where he advocated that whatever overtures their German-speaking colleagues might make to them on scientific matters should be freely reciprocated.

“Need we ask what a man has thought or said, or what he has done, in the last sad years?”, he added. 390 In a letter to Christian Frederik Drechsel (18541927), General Secretary of ICES, who quoted it to Heincke, Thompson referred to his letter to “Nature” and continued: “I am greatly opposed to the policy, advocated by certain persons, of refusing to associate or to correspond with all German scientific men.

In short, I sympathise with the letter which has recently been addressed to us by the scientific men of the Neutral Nations.” 391 After the war Thompson therefore had taken up again his correspondence with German colleagues as appears from a letter to the Danish oceanographer Martin Knudsen (1871-1949): “I have had a long letter this week from [Ernst] Ehrenbaum [18611942] whom I had written. He tells a sad story, and I have the greatest possible sympathy for him and for our many friends in the same posi-

387 “Bericht über die Stockholmer Konferenz vom 15. bis 23. Juni 1899“, signed by Herwig, Hensen, Heincke, and Krümmel. In: DDR Centrales Staatsarchiv, Dienststelle Merseburg, Rep 76-VC, Sekt 1, Tit 11, Nr. 11, Bd 1, Blatt 98-105. (Now in Geheimes Staatsarchiv Deutscher Kulturbesitz, Berlin).

388 Letters from Heincke to Thompson 1902-1912 and copies of letters from Thompson to Heincke 1905-1912. ULA. 389 Anonymous (i.e. Lockyer). 1919. International Organisation of Science. Nature, 102 (2566), pp. 341-342.

390 D’Arcy Thompson. 1919. International Relations in Science. Nature, 104 (2608), p. 154.

391 Drechsel to Heincke 12 November 1919. RAC, Nr. 10.649, Box 5, File 1.A.4.

tion. The conditions in Germany are terrible; and we do not fully appreciate them, by any means.” 392 An indication of Thompson’s attitude towards his German colleagues may also be seen in the fact that when at Heincke´s 70 years birthday a Festschrift was published in his honour Thompson contributed an article (about the “Heringskönig” (Regulus glesne)). In his letter of thanks Heincke wrote i.a.: “Mein grosser Wunsch ist noch zu erleben, dass wir Deutsche wieder zu gemeinsamer wissenschaftlicher Arbeit mit den anderen in der internationalen Meeresforschung beteiligten Länder zusammen kommen.” 393 Thompsons communication with Gerhard Schott At the ICES meeting in Copenhagen September 1913 D’Arcy Thompson had met Gerhard Schott (1866-1961) of the Deutsche Seewarte, author of the recently published “Geographie des Atlantischen Ozeans” which was reviewed by Thompson.

After the war Schott approached Thompson with a request for reprints. At the same time he raised a confidential subject, perhaps caused by the severe economic situation in Germany at the time: He had the complete reports on the Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition auf d.

“Valdivia”, all 18-20 volumes bound. As the reports mainly dealt with zoological items they did not have great interest to him, a geographer and physicist, although he had been a member of the expedition. So he would be willing to give them off to a biological or zoological institute at a relatively low price. He could then be sure that the reports came to good use. Schott finally expressed the hope that an international scientific investigation of the North Sea and the Baltic would soon begin with participation of all countries.394 A month later Schott reverted to the price of the “Valdivia” volumes: “Ich wäre bereit sein, obwohl es mir doch jetzt schwer wird, mich von den herrlichen Tafeln und Karten zu trennen, das Ganze für M. 20 000 abzugeben, eben an ein europäisches Fachinstitut. Massgebend wollen Sie dabei beachten, bitte, dass Japaner, die hier alles aufkaufen (sogar 1 Professor ist dazu hier), mir mehr bieten, aber ich mag den Mongolen es nicht geben. Diese Japaner kaufen auch unsere SüdseeWerke der „Peiho”-Expedition u.s.f., es ist traurig.” 395 Two years later the situation in Germany had aggravated rendering also Schott´s scientific work difficult, as appears from his letter to Thompson:

392 Thompson to Knudsen 31 January 1920. RAC, Nr. 1935, Box D.12.

393 Heincke to Thompson 30 June 1922. ULA. 394 Schott to Thompson 22 April 1920. ULA. 395 Schott to Thompson 23 May 1920. ULA.

“Was Ihr Notiz am Ende Ihres Briefes vom 17. Okt betrefft, so ist die Jugend Ihres Optimismus erfreulich; wir können diese Gefühle nicht teilen, wie die Entwicklung zeigt. Auch das jetzige Kabinet Bonar Law in Ihren Land ist offenbar für uns nur eine neue Erschwerung, dazu der Italiener mit seiner nationalistischen Politik: es wird immer schlimmer, und die Nahrungsmittel- und Kohlennoth bei uns ganz ungeheuerlich. Wenn die Politiker wüsten, was sie im Mittelstand, dem Träger der Kultur, anrichten! Ich muss nächstens mein Laboratorium einschränken oder schliessen [footnote: Vertraulich: Silbernitrat etc. hat mir allerdings M. Knudsen in vornehmer Weise beschafft], weil wir Beamte u. a. werden entlassen müssen. Wir fühlen uns vor einer Katastrophe stehen, ganz anders als im Krieg, wenn die Wirtschaftsvernunft nicht von den Regierungen erfassen wird.” 396 Next year the situation had become even worse, France having now occupied the Ruhr district. Schott reported that Bruno Schulz’ investigations in the Baltic might for a long time be their last greater project: “Hier sind ja die Verhältnisse absolut trostlos – Ihre Prophezeiungen von 1921, 1922 waren leider, wie Sie verzeihen, immer falsch. Auch jetzt wird es noch tiefer hinab gehen, obschon es ja schon in Bezug auf Geld viel schlimmer ist als je im Russland. Die beiliegende Briefmarke, die ich fand, hat ein Wert = 6 – 800 000 000 M!! Ein Brot kostet M. 2•100•000•000, dh. über 2 Milliarden. Dabei wird & muss der Staat 25% der Beamten entlassen – vielleicht mich auch – u. die übrigen schlechter bezahlen als die Arbeiter-Lehrlinge.

Lloyd George, der jetzt klug redet, hat den unentschuldbaren Fehler gemacht, dass jetzt Frankreich ganz Europa beherrscht, und wir nicht wie 1813 das Joch abschütteln können, weil wir dank Lloyd George gänzlich entwaffnet sind; oder es gibt ein furchtbares Verzweiflungsdesaster bei uns, zumal wir in der Tat 20 – 30 Millionen Menschen nicht im Lande ernähren können. Hätte man uns wenigstens die Kolonien für unseren Bevölkerungsüberschuss belassen! Von Frankreich, wenn es die Macht hat, haben wir nie etwas Anderes erwartet; wohl aber durften wir eine klugere englische Politik erwarten, als sie 1919 gemacht wurde. Nun ist es zu spät. Wir erwarten ein Ende mit Schrecken; unsere Nerven gehen zu Ende. Seien Sie nicht böse über meine Offenheit.” 397 The situation improves The situation in Germany soon became better, and so did also that of German oceanography. During the years 1925-1927 the great “Meteor”expedition was undertaken. In 1926 Heincke´s hope was fulfilled: Germany

396

Schott to Thompson 22 November 1922. ULA.

397

Schott to Thompson 21 October 1923. ULA.

re-entered ICES. 398 In May 1939 the annual ICES meeting was held in Berlin.

At a social gathering in connection with the meeting D’Arcy Thompson gave the speech of thanks, in which he looked back upon his young days in Germany and the early years of ICES: “Die complicirte Organisation die wir jetzt haben bestand noch nicht.

Wir hatten weder Kommissionen noch Arbeit für sie zu tun. Wir hatten nur unsern Weg zu finden, da wo es kein Pfad gab. Bis zu späten Stunden, lang nach die Arbeitstunden beendet waren, Hensen und Heincke, Grimm aus Petersburg, Knipowitsch von der Murmanküste, und alle unsere kleine Menge von Schottland bis zu der Ostseeküste, sassen in einem Kreiss der alten Herwig herum, der uns wie ein prächtiger und beliebter Magister war.

Ich kann noch weiter in meine Deutsche Erinnerungen zurückgehen.

Ich erinnere mich den weltberühmten Helmholtz, als er nach Edinburg kam und da geehrt wurde, lange Zeit her. Dann war ich nur ein Knabe; ich war schon ein alter Mann geworden als Max Planck, eben so gross und vielleicht noch mehr weltberühmt als Helmholtz, auch Edinburg besuchte; und es war dann mein Vorrecht ihn in demselben Zimmer als früher Helmholtz zu begrüssen und Willkommen zu heissen.

Ich erinnere mich Karl Gegenbaur in Heidelberg, und Ernst Haeckel in Jena, und Weismann und Wiedersheim in Freiburg, und manchen anderen von den grossen Deutschen die die heutige Wissenschaft begründeten. Ich kann noch weiter zurückblicken, und michselbe als einen lustigen Knabe sehen, der Deutschland mit dem Rucksack durchwanderte, und so zum ersten Male hier in Berlin kam, mehr, ein gutes Bisschen mehr, als sechzig Jahre her. [...]

Wir leben jetzt in einer neuen Welt; die gute alte Zeit ist überall vorbei. Aber wir können uns darauf erfreuen, und darauf stolz sein, dass wir es zuletzt so herrlich weit gebracht haben.” 399 The coming war There is a background of sadness in Thompson’s speech which is reflected in his regret that the good old time is no more. He must undoubtedly have been aware that the meeting was held in the shadow of a coming war. World War II broke out a few months later, hampering for years international cooperation.

References Abbreviations: ULA: University Library, St. Andrews.

398 Jens Smed: Germany’s participation in the foundation of ICES, withdrawal during the First World War, and re-entry after the War. Unpublished Ms. 32 pp.

399 Thompson’s speech of thanks at the occasion of the ICES Annual Meeting at Berlin in May 1939. ULA.

RAC: Rigsarkivet (National archives), Copenhagen.

The accession of France to ICES History of Oceanography Number 21, September 2009 Jens Smed It may wonder that France was not a founding member of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). As a matter of fact France was not invited to participate in the Preparatory Conference at Stockholm in 1899. In their application to King Oscar II (1829-1907) of Sweden and Norway, inviting the King to convene a conference for organizing the study of the sea, the Swedish scientists Gustaf Ekman (1852-1930), Otto Pettersson (18481941), and August Wijkander (1849-1913) mention only Norway, Denmark, and Great Britain as those countries whose cooperation it was most important to obtain. It says further that even if only these three countries would join Sweden in the investigations important results might be obtained, as the experience from their cooperation in 1893/94 had shown. The application goes on saying that if the governments of these countries were willing to join the scheme it would probably be easier to obtain participation from others. The Swedish government might then consider whether negotiations about participation in the work should be extended to the governments of the other North Sea countries as well as to Russia and France (1).

At an early stage it has obviously become clear that the invitation should be extended to other than the three countries first mentioned; for a copy of the application to the King carries a handwritten footnote saying: “Germany and The Netherlands added later”. So these countries were added to the list of those invited, as were also Russia (with Finland).

From the invitation to the Conference (2) Walther Herwig, the chief delegate for Germany noted that France and Belgium had not been invited. He considered it an error that these countries had been omitted. So the programme presented to the Conference by the German delegation contained a proposal to the effect that the governments of France and Belgium be invited to adhere to the agreements of the Conference (Anon., 1899, p. XVI). The proposal was carried in a somewhat weakened version (loc. cit., p. 16): “The Conference recommends that these resolutions be brought by the nations concerned to the knowledge of the governments of France and Belgium”.

In his report to the German Reichskanzler on the meeting Herwig explained that already before the Conference he had pointed out that the various states bordering on the North Sea had different interests - a fact that should be taken into consideration at the international agreements. In this respect Germany belonged to a group of countries comprising also Belgium, France, and The Netherlands, but hardly Russia. It would therefore be an advantage

to have France and Belgium involved in the proposed investigations. According to Herwig the course of the Conference had confirmed him in this view.

Conversation with the Swedish/Norwegian Foreign Minister and the Swedish delegates had convinced him that they did not see any inconvenience in the German proposal - on the contrary, they were in favour of it. So Herwig abode by the proposal, though in the somewhat weakened form quoted above. The recommendation would give the two states an opportunity to enter into negotiations about participation without directly inviting them to do so, which the Conference should avoid. According to Herwig, however, a strong resistance against the proposal arose from the British delegates, followed by the Norwegians. After some formal objections they stated that it was the intention, in addition to the international organization for the exploration of the northern seas, to establish a second organization which should comprise the countries bordering on the Atlantic Ocean, i.e. first and foremost Great Britain, France, and the United States. Herwig aired the opinion that this might be just a passing thought by the British delegate John Murray.

However, the ideas about a special Atlantic organization may have been real enough, as such plans emerged repeatedly during the following years. But even if such a project should materialize this would, according to Herwig, rather speak for the recommendation than against it. The issue was that the recommendation was carried unanimously (3).

Belgium decided to join the International Council in 1903 (Smed, 2000, pp. 57). France, however, was many years about reaching the same decision.

Through the medium of the Swedish/Norwegian legation in Paris the French government was informed about the resolutions passed by the Stockholm Conference and was asked whether it would be prepared to participate in the project (4). In reply to an inquiry by the Foreign Minister, Théophile Delcassé (1852-1923), the Director of the Mercantile Marine, who had examined the question from a biological point of view, declared that participation in the project would cause considerable expenditure, and the Parliament had already voted the necessary amounts for carrying out scientific research of benefit to the fisheries (5). A negative opinion was also given by the Service Hydrographique of the Navy who considered that although the observations of currents, salinity, and temperature proposed by the Conference would have undeniable scientific interest and might even supply information useful to the navigation, the advantages to be expected were not sufficient to justify the expenses that participation in the project would entail (6). From these opinions the answer by the French government must be in the negative and the reasons adduced in support of this were those stated in the opinions cited above (7).

This was the decision of the administrators. Apparently nobody had asked the French scientists. Their opinion was far more positive. In a long article Julien Thoulet (1843-1936) reported about the Stockholm Conference, regretting that this event had passed nearly unnoticed in France (Thoulet, 1901, pp. 193-198). Charles Rabot, of the Société de Géographie, presented a detailed report on the Conference, noting that France had not been involved in

this great scientific project of so considerable practical interest: “In 1899 our budget of three millions has not been able to provide the few thousands francs necessary for the participation of our country in the Stockholm Conference and to assume the engagement resulting of this participation” (Rabot, 1901, pp. 289-291). Rabot followed up the subject by reporting on the inaugurating meeting in Copenhagen 1902, again noting that France kept out of the project. He stressed that it had been organized not only for solving purely scientific problems, but also for the benefit of the fishermen. He expressed the hope that the absence of France was provisionally only and that in the near future Europe’s second maritime power would adhere to the international maritime researches (Rabot, 1902, pp. 188-190). Also the distinguished marine biologist Alfred Giard (1846-1908) greatly regretted that France stayed outside the cooperation, and battled in vain for her adhesion to the organization (A.C., 1908, pp. 493-494). On his request the “Association française pour l’avancement de science” at its congress in 1905 discussed participation of France in the North Sea investigations organized by ICES (Anon., 1905a, p. 3). The congress expressed the wish that France should take part in these investigations which should be clearly oriented towards practical problems of interest to the fisheries (Anon., 1905b, p. 3).

ICES as well needed the cooperation of France. There might, e.g., be a need for restrictions on some fisheries in the North Sea. Obviously they could not become effective without the participation of France. So the ICES Bureau, the executive board of the organization, kept contact with French authorities about the matter. At the meeting of the Bureau in April 1907 the General Secretary, Christian Frederik Drechsel (1854-1927), reported that from correspondence with Professor Giard it appeared that the “Comité consultatif des pêches maritimes” had decided to propose to the Minister of Naval Affairs that France in future should participate in ICES. The Bureau considered it desirable to await the decision of the French government before steps were taken to promote the participation of France (8).

In July 1910 the Bureau must have found that time was ripe for further steps to be taken. In a letter to the ambassador of France in Copenhagen the interest that ICES took in the cooperation of France in the international investigations was stressed. It was explained that during recent years the investigations had been extended more and more to the Atlantic with its great fishing grounds near Ireland and Newfoundland. Also the English Channel offered favourable conditions for biological and oceanographical studies.

The letter goes on saying that ICES already several times had corresponded with the ambassador on this matter, and it had now decided to invite representatives of France to its next meeting for a discussion of the possibilities of cooperation (9).

Also USA had expressed an interest in joining ICES. So at the Bureau Meeting in September 1910 and the immediately following Council Meeting Hugh M. Smith, Deputy Commissioner of Fisheries, USA, and Fabre Domergue (18611940), Inspecteur Général des Pêches Maritimes, France, were present as

guests and were informed in some detail about the activities of ICES. The Bureau protocol reports (10): â&#x20AC;&#x153;H.M. Smith then stated that he was anxious that USA should join and hoped this wish would be realized: but in view of the areas concerned he should regard it very unfortunate if Canada did not join also.

Fabre Domergue said that he very much wished that France also should co-operate; for several reasons it might, however, not be so easily effected.

Finally it was decided that official letters should be forwarded to U.S. America and France - through the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs stating the desirability of their co-operation. [...] The letter to France should take a more vague form to that to USA, saying that the Bureau and Council had endeavoured to give Dr. Fabre Domergue all the information regarding their organization and the object for which the investigations were conducted, that the interchange of views seemed most useful, and the Council would be very glad if the French Government could see their way to co-operate.â&#x20AC;?

During the meeting Fabre Domergue had solicited information about the amounts spent in the various countries on the international investigations. So at the end of the meeting the Bureau distributed a circular to the member countries requesting answers to the following questions: 1. The amount of the annual contributions of each participating country for international sea investigations. 2. How is the administration of the investigations carried out in each country? 3. What ships are available in each country for the investigations? (11). The replies received were submitted to Fabre Domergue.

In November 1910 the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, at the request of ICES, officially invited France and USA to join the Council. A memorandum describing the organization and its activities accompanied the invitation (12).

Shortly after, information was received that steps had been taken by USA to join ICES. From the French government, however, there was no response, and private letters to Fabre Domergue remained unanswered (13, 14). So when in November 1911 the Danish delegate to ICES and Hydrographical Assistant to the Bureau, Martin Knudsen (1871-1949), paid a visit to Paris the General Secretary asked him to find out about Fabre Domergue's opinion and why he did not answer letters (15). Knudsen could report that the Ministry of Naval Affairs had asked Fabre Domergue for information concerning participation of France in ICES. Fabre Domergue had then communicated the expenses involved, viz.: construction of a research vessel, ca. 80 000 francs; running of it, ca. 100 000 francs annually; the annual contribution to the Bureau, 31 000 francs. The government would not burden the budget with expenses of that size. For the investigations then carried out by France about 60 000 francs were available annually, of which about 40 000, francs were used for the laboratory in Paris; so it was out of question to spend 31 000 francs on the running of the Bureau in Copenhagen and then be unable to contribute substantially to the investigations. Asked whether ICES could in any way

assist Fabre Domergue in the endeavours to obtain the participation of France he had answered that at present there was absolutely nothing to do.

During his conversation with Knudsen Fabre Domergue had remarked that after all he would have more sympathy for cooperation between France, Spain, Portugal, and Italy. As nothing was said as to whether such cooperation was in preparation Knudsen paid a visit to Jules Richard (1863-1945), Director of the Musée Océanographique at Monaco. He, however, knew only about the negotiations concerning Mediterranean and Atlantic investigations that had taken place in connection with the inauguration of the Musée in March 1910, and it was absolutely not to be expected that France would pay any contribution to the Atlantic investigations proposed there (16).

At the Bureau meeting in April 1912 it was noted that very favourable communications had just been received from USA according to which the final information about their accession to ICES could be expected any day (17).

Through the medium of the Danish minister in Paris this information was communicated to the French government which was reminded that since a Council Meeting would probably be held in September it would be convenient to have the reply of France before that time. The French Minister of Foreign Affairs answered that he had not failed to inform the Minister of Naval Affairs about the desire of the Danish government. Hitherto, however, the Administration had not been in favour of participation in ICES. Nevertheless the Minister of Foreign Affairs had requested that the study of the question should be taken up again, and he would seek a solution that would satisfy the wish expressed by the Danish government (18).

Now a private person interfered: the French shipowner Oscar Dahl. He had met with Drechsel and the Danish marine biologist Johannes Schmidt (18771933) in Copenhagen where they had discussed the question of the accession of France to ICES. Soon after Drechsel sent Dahl a detailed description of ICES, its way of working, and some of the problems dealt with. Drechsel stressed that France was likely to profit greatly from joining ICES, and on the other hand ICES could only with difficulty do without France as a participant.

France with her extensive coasts, her considerable fishery, her distinguished scientists, and her great resources in practically all spheres would be able to excellently supplement and augment the great and for the economic life hopefully important tasks on which ICES was engaged (19).

Dahl had come to the conclusion that the reason why France had not joined ICES simply was a question of persons. He maintained that because of mutual jealousy the persons involved could not agree between themselves upon the choice of a delegate and had then preferred that France was not represented at the Council Meetings. They had urged that the British naturalists were said to be just waiting for the opportune moment for Great Britain to withdraw from the Council, and that even among Scandinavian naturalists there was a certain dissatisfaction with the results hitherto obtained. Dahl had protested against these contentions and had referred to the fact that recently USA had joined ICES. He would do his utmost to support the accession of France to ICES, which he considered to be of great importance to him and his fellow

trawler-owners. So he solicited from the ICES Bureau such information that would enable him to prove to the French Minister of Naval Affairs that France simply was victim to a case of personal susceptibility (20).

Drechsel admitted that there was some dissatisfaction and disagreement between the scientists concerning the results obtained by the investigations.

This would always be so where scientists were involved, he thought, and he stressed that all those who were directly connected with ICES had worked in full harmony. Outside these circles, however, there were some who seemed to be of the opinion that the money spent should have been used for purely scientific research instead of, as in ICES, for scientific investigations aiming at practical results leading to international legislation. In England this view was essentially represented by the Marine Biological Association. Also a few Scandinavians held this view, though only Norwegians, Drechsel thought. All the leading persons on this subject in the member countries cooperated in full agreement. During the 11 years that ICES had existed, every decision and every programme had been adopted unanimously (21).

Now Oscar Dahl took steps to persuade the Ministry of Naval Affairs that France should join ICES. In this matter he was supported by Jean Charcot (1867-1936) who already then had a great name in France as an explorer and oceanographer. When reporting to Drechsel Dahl stressed how extremely important it was to emphasize to the French government the practical results to be obtained from the international investigations, such as those by Johannes Schmidt at Iceland which with remarkable accuracy allowed to establish the migration of cod around the island. Dahl was sure that the minister who had the decision would mainly take into consideration how much useful information the trawler-owners could extract from the investigations. Personally Dahl had the greatest respect for the scientific side of the work (22).

Dahl's campaign may have contributed to convince the French government.

In any case it now decided to join ICES on the conditions set out in the memorandum annexed to the official invitation submitted earlier. The decision was communicated officially about New Year 1914 together with the information that the research vessel â&#x20AC;&#x153;Pourquoi-Pas?â&#x20AC;?, under the command of Jean Charcot, had been designated to cooperate in the oceanographic and biological investigations (23).

It was, of course, welcomed that France now agreed to cooperate. A difficulty was, however, that France expected two conditions to be fulfilled: First, its contribution should be the lower one of the two rates used in ICES, i.e., the same as that paid by Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and The Netherlands. Second, ICES should as soon as possible distribute its studies in a direction more favourable to the interests of the French fishermen and mariners.

In ICES it caused some surprise that France was willing to place itself in a position of lower contribution relative to Germany, Great Britain, and Russia.

There was also some concern that this might cause other member countries to apply for a reduction of their contribution. Moreover it was not clear how the French request for a different distribution of the investigations should be interpreted (24). As a solution to the contribution question the Senior Vice-

President of ICES, Otto Pettersson suggested that France would pay an annual amount in between what was paid by the small countries and the great powers. This might be justified with reference to the fact that some of the coasts of France were bordering on the Mediterranean, in which ICES did not work. It was therefore proposed that France should pay half the contribution paid by the great powers, till the ICES investigations in the Atlantic would have reached such an extent and have become so expensive that it would seem reasonable that France should pay the full contribution. In proposing the reduced amount the ICES Bureau also had in mind that if France paid the full contribution it might claim an extensive use of the French language in the meetings and reports whereas the official languages of ICES had hitherto been English and German only (25).

In the French Administration, however, there was still much opposition against France joining ICES. According to Oscar Dahl Fabre Domergue was the implacable enemy. He was said to have spread the rumour that ICES did not supply any service, and that certain countries - such as Great Britain and Germany - were only waiting for the definitive refusal by France before withdrawing from the organization. In Dahl's opinion it was solely due to Fabre Domergue that the accession of France to ICES had not yet become official although it had been agreed in principle by the minister (26).

To get things going Drechsel in May 1914 met in Paris with the Minister of Naval Affairs and explained to him the importance to ICES of the accession of France, but also the importance or even the necessity for France to participate, especially if Fishery conventions should be established for the North Sea. The Minister declared they were ashamed that they had not yet implemented this matter; he would now seek the necessary appropriation and would do his best to accelerate the decision (27). Actually the matter was already in progress at that time. In March 1914 the French Foreign Minister had informed the Minister of Public Instruction that adhesion of France to ICES had been applied for. As an argument he explained that whereas the organization hitherto had mainly worked in the North Sea it now planned to extend the exploration to the Atlantic Ocean. If the adhesion of France to ICES became effective the R/V “Pourquoi-Pas?” would be made available for the investigations that would be assigned to France (28).

Now Henry Maurice (1874-1950), the British member of the ICES Bureau, sought a meeting with the newly appointed Chef du Service des Pêches Maritimes, F. Kerzoncuf, in order to discuss with him details about the accession of France to ICES, and to obtain already then the cooperation of France on work in the English Channel. Maurice met Kerzoncuf at Boulogne in June 1914 and got the impression that the accession of France was sure, that Kerzoncuf, however, had considerable difficulties with the scientists of his country and especially with Fabre Domergue (29). It was doubtful whether things would be so far advanced as to enable France to be represented at the forthcoming session of the Council, in September 1914. Kerzoncuf was therefore invited to attend the Council Meeting in a private or semi-official capacity

(30). In August, however, the World War broke out, and the planned Council Meeting was cancelled.

The activities of ICES now had to be kept at a low level. The main goal became to keep the organization alive. ICES did survive the war, and in October 1919 Maurice reminded Kerzoncuf about their conversation before the war and asked whether it was still the intention of France to join ICES. Kerzoncuf answered in the affirmative. The reason why he had not written Maurice earlier on this matter was that a bill whose purpose was to create an Office Scientifique et Technique des Pêches Maritimes had been before the French parliament. It had now been passed. The new Office should centralize all research to be done at sea. The Office had the disposal of two vessels, which could be consecrated to oceanographic investigations. So Kerzoncuf hoped that France would be able to effectively support the common programme for the exploration of the sea (31). Incidentally, in the opening address at the inauguration of the above mentioned Office the speaker deplored the modest contributions by France to marine research and continued (Anon., 1919a, pp. 344-345): “hitherto France, in spite of the requests which many times have been addressed to her, has taken no part in the international investigations for the scientific exploitation [sic] of the seas.” (From French).

An editorial in a fishery magazine about the inauguration strikes the same note (Anon., 1919b, pp. 336-337): “And now to work! It is too long that France, who has refused to adhere to the International Research Institute [i.e. ICES], has worked blindly in routine and ignorance.” (From French).

In the ICES Bureau there was some doubt as to whether the answer from Kerzoncuf could be taken as an official request from France to become a member of the organization (32). That this was so, however, became confirmed by a direct application from British authorities to those of France (33).

Immediately after receipt of this confirmation the ICES Bureau arranged that the French Minister of Foreign Affairs was approached. Referring to the negotiations before the war and to the recent correspondence between France and Great Britain the Bureau again invited France to join ICES and to send delegates to the first post-war Council Meeting, to be held in London in March 1920. It was explained that the main item to be discussed at the meeting was the question of investigation of the plaice in the North Sea and an international convention about the protection of that fish. Before the war the delegates had agreed upon a proposal on this matter, and all member countries had been disposed to enter into negotiation with the Danish government on the basis of the principles proposed - some of the countries, however, on the condition that all the interested states, including France, were ready to participate (34).

A decree issued by the President of France then nominated Kerzoncuf and Théodore Tissier, Head of the Conseil d'Administration de l'Office Scientifique et Technique des Pêches Maritimes, delegates to the Council Meeting and

authorized them to sign relevant documents on behalf of France (35). The two delegates, accompanied by some experts, participated in the London meeting where Kerzoncuf observed that because of special circumstances France had not joined the Council as early as she ought to have done and that he would be the first to admit how much this delay had been detrimental to the fishery interests of his country (Anon., 1920, pp. 25-26).

The membership of France would now seem to be settled. However, when in early April an official document to that effect had not yet been received the General Secretary reminded Kerzoncuf that before the London meeting the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs had addressed to the French Government an official invitation to join ICES. As no answer had been received the Ministry was in a dilemma as to when it should communicate to the member governments the outcome of the negotiations (36). Kerzoncuf was astonished that the official reply had not yet reached the Danish Ministry, and he would take steps to speed up matters. He stressed that there were no problems involved; the delay must be due to administrative slowness (37). At long last a delayed letter was received from the French Government, saying that on the basis of the power allotted to them by the President of France the French delegates to the London meeting had acceded to ICES, and that France would from now on contribute to the expenses of the Bureau of the Council together with the other participating governments (38). This was further confirmed when the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs in January 1921 announced that the Office Scientifique et Technique des Pêches Maritimes would for five years represent France at ICES and would pay an annual contribution of 25 000 Danish Kroner (39). After 20 years of negotiations France had become a member of ICES. Acknowledgements.

I am greatly indebted to Mme J. Carpine-Lancre for copies of relevant letters and articles and for most useful comments. My thanks are also due to Professor Eric Mills for copies of articles and for interesting comments on the topic.

I am most grateful to Dr. Artur Svansson for copies of letters in Swedish archives and for unceasing assistance in the processing of the manuscript.

Literature A.C. (= Adolphe Cligny). 1908. Alfred Giard (nécrologue). – Bulletin trimestriel de l´enseignement professionnel et technique des pêches maritimes, XIII (3).

Anonymous. 1899. Conférence internationale pour l'exploration de la mer, réunie à Stockholm 1899. Imprimerie K.L. Beckman, Stockholm.

Anonymous. 1905a. Journal de Monaco, 48e année, no. 2448.

Anonymous. 1905b. Journal de Monaco, 48e année, no. 2472.

Anonymous. 1919a. L'inauguration de l'Office des Pêches. La Pêche Maritime, 27 Mars 1919.

Anonymous. 1919b. L´office technique et scientifique des Pêches est institué. La Pêche Maritime, 20 Mars 1919.

Anonymous. 1920. Procés-verbaux de la treizième réunion du Conseil. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, Rapp. P.-v., Réun., 26 (B).

Rabot, C. 1901. Réunion de la Commission internationale des recherches océanographiques.

La Géographie, IV (10).

Rabot, C. 1902. Réunion de l´Association internationale pour l´étude des mers. La Géographie, VI (3).

Smed, J. 2000. The accession of Belgium to ICES. ICES/CIEM Information, No. 36.

Thoulet, J. 1901. L´étude internationale de l´Océan. Revue scientifique (revue rose), 4e série, XV (7).

Letters (or copies) Abbreviations: G.S.: General Secretary of ICES, C.F. Drechsel.

RAC: Rigsarkivet (Copenhagen).

RAS: Riksarkivet (Stockholm), UD 1902 Doss-system.

S/N: Swedish/Norwegian.

1.

Gustaf Ekman, Otto Pettersson, and August Wijkander to King Oscar II 18 October 1897. RAS, Vol. 2396, Mål 11.

2.

The S/N Foreign Minister to his legations in Berlin, London, Copenhagen, Brussels (for The Netherlands), and St. Petersburg 14 April 1899. As 1.

3.

Report in DDR Zentrales Staatsarchiv, Abt. Merseburg, Rep. 87 B, Nr. 3646, Blatt 106-110a. (Now in Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin).

4.

Mål 3.

The S/N Foreign Minister to his legation in Paris 28 October 1899. RAS, Vol. 2912,

5.

Note from the chief of the naval staff to the Service hydrographique of the Navy 7 February 1900. Archives Nationales (Paris), Marine 1 JJ/123.

6.

Unsigned note (probably from the Service hydrographique) to the chief of the naval staff 10 February 1900. As 5.

7.

The French Foreign Minister, T. Delcassé, to the S/N legation in Paris 19 February 1900. As 4.

8.

Protocol of the Bureau Meeting in April 1907. In ICES Secretariat.

9.

G.S. to the ambassador of France in Copenhagen 15 July 1910. RAC, No. 10.649, Box 42, File 2.A. 10.

1.A.7.

Protocol of the Bureau Meeting in September 1910. RAC, No. 10.649, Box 7, File

11.

Circular from G.S. to the ICES member countries 26 September 1910. As 9.

12.

G.S. to the Danish Ministry for Foreign Affairs 12 November 1910. As 9.

13.

G.S. to Fabre Domergue 7 November 1910. As 9.

14.

G.S. to Fabre Domergue 16 February 1911. As 9.

15.

G.S. to Martin Knudsen 8 November 1911. RAC, No. 1935, Box D.3 and as 9.

16.

Martin Knudsen to G.S. 11 November 1911. As 15.

17.

Protocol of the Bureau Meeting in April 1912. As 8.

18.

Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to G.S. 20 April 1912. As 9.

19.

G.S. to Oscar Dahl 30 April 1913. As 9.

20.

Oscar Dahl to G.S. 7 May 1913. As 9.

21.

G.S. to Oscar Dahl 15 May 1913. As 9.

22.

Oscar Dahl to G.S. 29 December 1913. As 9.

23.

The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Danish ChargĂŠ d`affaires in Paris 26 December 1913. As 9.

24.

Henry Maurice to G.S. 13 January 1914. As 9.

25.

Memorandum by Otto Pettersson 26 January 1914. As 9.

26.

Oscar Dahl to G.S. 20 March 1914. As 9.

27.

G.S. to Oscar Dahl 23 May 1914. As 9.

28.

The French Foreign Minister to the Minister of Public Instructions 7 March 1914.

Archives nationales (Paris), F17 13 061.

29.

Henry Maurice to G.S. 19 June 1914. As 9.

30.

G.S. to F. Kerzoncuf 8 July 1914. As 9.

31.

Kerzoncuf to Maurice 31 October 1919. As 9.

32.

G.S. to Maurice 13 January 1920. As 9.

33.

Cable from Maurice to G.S. 21 January 1920. As 9.

34.

ICES Bureau to the French Minister for Foreign Affairs 22 January 1920. As 9.

35.

Decree issued by the President of France, Paul Deschanel, 28 February 1920. As 9.

36.

G.S. to Kerzoncuf 7 April 1920. As 9.

37.

Kerzoncuf to G.S. 3 May 1920. As 9.

38.

French Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Danish legation in Paris 20 April 1920. As 9.

39.

As 9.

French Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Danish legation in Paris 26 January 1921.

Germanyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s participation in the foundation of ICES, withdrawal during the First World War, and re-entry after the War Historisch-Meereskundliches Jahrbuch/History of Oceanography Yearbook Band 16 / Volume 16 2010 Jens Smed 1. Germanyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s early plans for international cooperation In 1898 the German authorities were approached by the Swedish government as to whether Germany might be expected to join a co-operation with the purpose of exploring the Nordic Seas in the interest of the fisheries. At that time similar plans for an international cooperation had already been under consideration in Germany. On 19 March 1897 Walther Herwig (18381912) and Hermann Henking (1858-1942), both of them leading members of the German Seafishery Organization (Deutscher Seefischerei-Verein (DSV)), and Friedrich Heincke (1852-1929), Director of the Biologische Anstalt on Helgoland, met confidentially at Dortmund with Paulus P.C. Hoek (18511914), consultant to the Dutch government on scientific questions concerning the fisheries. An agreement about future joint investigations was reached, and in May 1897 a draft programme for an international synoptic investigation of the North Sea was ready. An international commission should be established and charged with the task of preparing a programme for a joint scientific investigation of the North Sea, with special reference to overfishing and related problems. For this purpose it was proposed that the German government should invite the countries interested in the North Sea fishery, viz. Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, France, England, Scotland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, to send representatives to an international conference, as explained in a memorandum from DSV to the German Minister for the Interior (1).

2. Germany becomes a founding member of ICES The German plans were overtaken by the Swedish invitation. In the above memorandum the President of DSV, Walther Herwig, was anxious to stress the earlier German endeavours to establish international cooperation. He explained that when the Germans, unlike the Swedes, had placed the question of overfishing in the front it was because of the great interest which this problem had for the non-Scandinavian countries bordering the North Sea. He assumed that in this matter he was in accordance with his English and Scottish colleagues. Herwig finished his memorandum by stressing that the over-

fishing question was so urgent that it might be desirable to let German participation in the international work depend upon the inclusion of a study of this problem. In any case Germany during the negotiations with Sweden and the other coastal states should take an initiative in this direction.

Germany accepted the Swedish invitation to an international conference, to be held at Stockholm in June 1899. German representatives were Herwig and Heincke together with Victor Hensen (1835-1924) and Otto KrĂźmmel (18541912), both of them professors at Kiel University and members of the Preussische Kommission zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung der deutschen Meere (Prussian Commission for the Scientific Investigation of the German Seas). The delegation presented detailed programmes for the hydrographical and biological works as well as for the organization of a central institution (Anon., 1899, pp. XII-XVII).

After the Conference some doubt apparently arose as to whether Germany really intended to join the cooperation. Fridtjof Nansen (1861-1930), Norwegian delegate to the Conference, got an opportunity to talk to the German government about the matter. The problem was that the Germans had become afraid that Great Britain would abstain from joining the organization, Nansen reported to Otto Pettersson (1848-1941), the Swedish originator of the Conference. Nansen continued: "I told them then that we could probably manage without Great Britain if only Germany and the three Scandinavian countries joined hands and agreed. We should then carry out a work which would give results that were likely to surprise even the most sanguine, and Germany as the coming great seafaring nation must, of course, be strongly interested in participating in this work which we Scandinavians would enter upon whether the others joined it or not. Yes, I said somewhat more to the same effect. The German government liked this very much; they thanked me for drawing attention to this point (of course I didn't omit to mention the "fleet bill") and promised to take a vivid interest in the matter. [---] Frankly, I got the impression that they liked to listen to a man who was outside the various German cliques. Incidentally, both KrĂźmmel and Hensen had asked me to talk to the government and try to influence them." [from Norwegian] (2) So Nansen obviously felt sure that the Germans now were positively minded towards the cooperation. However, they had got what Nansen considered a preposterous idea, viz. to place the central institution at Copenhagen, and his surprise culminated when they said that they would propose the Dutchman P.P.C. Hoek for its president and that he should move to Copenhagen. Nansen thought that these ideas would crush the whole matter at birth. As far as the place was concerned Copenhagen would be very disadvantageous. To have a central institution at such shallow waters in the basic phase when experiments should constantly be made with all sorts of methods and instruments to obtain, if possible, some uniformity in the investigations - that would be fatal. Laboratory work, of course, might just as well be undertaken

at Copenhagen as elsewhere. That would be only part of the work, however, and a part that would be of relatively little importance if it could not be undertaken in connection with direct experiments at various depths in the sea, at least to a certain degree. So the central institution should be situated on a coast with rather deep water in the neighbourhood, preferably with a fiord where experiments could be made in fairly protected waters and in all sorts of weather, Nansen stressed. Then he offered an explanation of the German position: "It is clear enough to see what the intention of the Germans is: they will simply make politics. Denmark should be won politically by getting the institution, by way of consolation for Slesvig [which Denmark had lost to Prussia in 1864], and The Netherlands should be drawn closer by making a Dutchman president." [from Norwegian] Nansen had got the impression, however, that the German government would be willing to take up another attitude in this respect if Norway and Sweden did not agree in their plan.

Although KrĂźmmel and Hensen had asked Nansen to try to influence the German government it is not likely that they would have agreed with him about where to place the institution and whom to be its leader. In his report to the Prussian government KrĂźmmel stated that he would consider a solution placing the central institution at Kiel with Dr. Hoek as General Secretary for appropriate and also satisfactory to Germany. He realized, however, that the British and Norwegian delegations were definitely against this (Smed, 1989, p.7). A report of January 1900 from the Prussian Kommission to the relevant governmental department stresses that the central institution should be placed in one of the smaller countries. The Netherlands were too much out-of-the-way. Denmark on the contrary had a central situation in relation to all the participating countries. So Copenhagen would seem to be the right place, also because much marine research had already been carried out from there (Smed, 1988, p.3).

There were still many outstanding questions to be solved after the Stockholm Conference, and in September 1900 the Swedish/Norwegian Foreign Minister issued invitations to a new conference, to be held at Christiania (Oslo) in October 1900. The German government declared, however, that they did not find the moment favourable, giving as reasons: that the Russian government had not yet announced their adhesion to the cooperation plans; that Germany and several other countries must await that their parliament voted the necessary means before the preparatory work could be continued; and that Herwig, Germany´s chief delegate, had got a severe attack of an illness which seemed to be of long duration, and it would be difficult for a new delegate to take over. The German government therefore solicited that the meeting be adjourned (3).

The Norwegian government as host reluctantly decided to comply with the German request. The Prime Minister, Johannes Steen (1827-1906), commented, however, that the German letter might give the impression that

Germany in any case would have declined the invitation. In reply to an inquiry by Pettersson Nansen declared that he knew even less than Pettersson about this matter. Nansen had written a private letter to Ferdinand von Richthofen (1833-1905), Head of the newly established Institut für Meereskunde in Berlin, to find out about the real background for Germany´s attitude. Von Richthofen, however, could give no other reason than Herwig´s illness. The trouble was, he added, that they needed a leader, and that the German marine scientists disagreed too much among themselves (4).

Fortunately it turned out that the doubt about Germany´s willingness to cooperate was a mistake. After his recovery Herwig in November 1900 by a letter to Pettersson emphasized the interest which he and his government felt for the endeavours shown by Pettersson and his Swedish colleagues (5).

Herwig ventilated the idea of a confidential private discussion with Pettersson, Gustaf Ekman (1852-1930), and perhaps a few other Scandinavians about the outcome of the Stockholm Conference in advance of the Christiania meeting (6). This discussion did not materialize, however. Instead of that Herwig put forth some ideas about the procedure to be followed in establishing the cooperation (7). He suggested, i.a., that the place of the Central Bureau should be decided upon by the governments in advance of the Christiania meeting – an idea that was not adopted.

The Swedish/Norwegian Ministry for Foreign Affairs could now renew their invitation, this time for a conference in May 1901. Herwig, Heincke, and Krümmel were again members of the German delegation. Hensen would in no circumstances, participate any more (Smed, 1999, pp. 26-29) and was replaced by another professor at the Kiel University, Karl Brandt (1854-1931).

Also Hermann Henking, General Secretary of DSV, attended the Conference.

While the biological investigations had been dealt with rather superficially at Stockholm they were in the centre of the discussions at Christiania. The German delegation presented a detailed proposal for a biological programme (Brandt et al., 1901). Elaboration of uniform critical statistics of the sea fisheries in the participating states would be an important part of the activities of the new organization. Henking (1901) made an appeal for more detailed statistics, such as that carried out at Geestemünde, the greatest fishing port in Germany. He suggested a cooperation with the fishing boats, referring to the cooperation of the hydrographers with commercial vessels. A proposal by Hensen and Brandt (1901) for the determination of the amount of plankton in the sea was also submitted to the meeting.

The conference agreed upon a detailed programme for the hydrographical and biological investigations as well as for the establishment of a Central Bureau. On the basis of these decisions the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (later acronymized ICES) could now be founded at Copenhagen in 1902 (Anon., 1903, pp. 4-6). Herwig was elected President of the organization. He held this post until 1908 when he resigned because of illhealth. He was replaced by an Englishman, Walter E. Archer (1855-1917), who resigned in 1912. His successor was again a German, Fritz Rose.

3. Germany’s withdrawal during the First World War In August 1914 the war broke out. This meant that some ICES member countries were fighting each other: Germany on one side, Russia and Great Britain on the other. For the organization this was, of course, a precarious and very dangerous situation. Otto Pettersson together with the other Swedish delegate to ICES, Gustaf Ekman, got a meeting with the Swedish Foreign Minister, Knut Wallenberg (1853-1938) – a meeting at which also the German minister in Stockholm, Walter von Reichenau (1884-1942), was present. They agreed that Rose must retire as ICES President and Pettersson take over in his capacity as Senior Vice-president. He would then call a meeting of delegates from the neutral countries. Von Reichenau would address representations on the matter to his government in Berlin, and Wallenberg to the representatives of Great Britain and Belgium in Stockholm (8).

The General Secretary of ICES, Christian Frederik Drechsel (1854-1927), did not agree in these plans. He met with Rose at Warnemünde where they decided to issue a circular that formulated the principles upon which the work was to be continued according to a budget set up (9). Pettersson and Ekman maintained that the President and the General Secretary were not entitled to make decisions without authorization from the Council. They stuck to their proposal that a meeting of delegates of the neutral member countries be convened, and that these countries should carry on the organization during the war.

The British member of the ICES Bureau, Henry Maurice (1874-1950), admitted that this might perhaps be desirable, but he would rather look at the matter this way: “With one exception, the countries participating in the International Organization are friendly with one another. Some of them are fighting in alliance against Germany, the others are neutral. I am disinclined, personally, to admit that the fact that Germany has been pleased to disturb the peace of Europe 400, should put her in a position also to break up, even temporarily, our organization. True we cannot hold a meeting, but I doubt whether any meeting is necessary.” (10) Drechsel had done his utmost to keep Germany within the organization. In a private letter he had urgently invited Rose to exert his influence on his government in order that Germany paid her contribution for the budgetary year 1914/15. Failure to pay would imply withdrawal of the German delegates 400 A year before this letter was written, the king of the United Kingdom visited Berlin with his family on the occasion of the wedding of his daughter to a German prince. Among the guests was Wilhelm Filchner, leader of the German Antarctic-Expedition 1911/12. In his autobiography (1956) he recalls an invitation to London by admiral Jellicoe with the words ”come soon, otherwise it will be too late, because the war is now unavoidable”. Despite the wedding ceremonies the negotiations failed – obviously, because the German military (including the navy), the German Kaiser Wilhelm II and especially the German heavy industry were no longer willing to accept the position of British world power.

from Council and its executive body, the Bureau, and Germany would thus be deprived any influence on the decisions to be taken, Drechsel stressed (11).

His appeal to Rose had no effect, however. In February 1915 the German government informed the Danish Ministry for Foreign Affairs that Germany during the war would abstain from further cooperation in the work of ICES, because an essential part of the investigations had been suspended. The government hoped, however, to resume participation when quieter times had come (Anon., 1917, p. V). Consequently Rose had to resign as ICES President, as he explained in a letter to Drechsel where he thanked the members of the Council for the support he had received from them. He continued: “My government has, in a note on the subject, expressed the hope that it may, when matters have settled down, again be able to participate.

This entirely corresponds to my own personal sentiments. I am firmly convinced that the international work undertaken by the various countries in common on behalf of their fisheries is indispensable. If we wish to maintain our fisheries at a high level, and develop the same to a flourishing industry, then international co-operation affords the only way by which this object may be attained. You may, therefore, confidently rely on my exerting my utmost efforts as soon as the present disturbances have subsided, to procure the renewal of Germany´s participation in the international investigation of the sea”. (Anon., 1917, pp. V-VI) So at that time the Germans apparently did not consider the move as a withdrawal, but as a temporary break of membership.

A detailed description of the situation of ICES during the war is given in Rozwadowski (2002, pp. 59-64).

4. Germany’s re-entry after the War Otto Pettersson was unanimously elected President after Rose. In 1916 it was proposed that the vacant seat in the Bureau should be filled with the Norwegian delegate Johan Hjort (1869-1948). Drechsel, who apparently considered that Germany might re-enter ICES soon after the end of the hostilities, explained in a letter to Henry Maurice that such previous election might impede the delicate task of reconstructing the Council. Drechsel was anxious to stress that no deliberations at all had taken place in this matter between the Danish government and any German authority, nor between the ICES Bureau and any German person or authority. The aim was only to have the Council restored to its former shape, he claimed. He felt that if any of the previously participating countries bordering on the North Sea were not represented on the Council it would be impossible to carry out much of the ICES programme, e.g. an international legislation for the fisheries, and there was a risk that in such case other countries might withdraw from the Council (12).

Although Drechsel did not say so it is difficult not to interpret his letter as a desire to reserve a seat for Germany in the Bureau. Maurice, of course, understood the letter this way, and in his confidential answer he put it in plain terms: "You think it necessary to keep a seat in the Bureau vacant for the German delegate, and I gather that you are afraid that if this is not done Germany will refuse to come into the Council again, and that some other countries will retire from it out of sympathy with her. Now, although, as you are aware, I attach great importance to the maintenance of the Council in being [complete(?)], I do not admit that it is necessary for the future of the Council that Germany should be able to resume her seat on precisely the same terms after the war as if she had never withdrawn from participation.

I agree, further, that, from the point of view of International legislation, it is important that every power fishing in the North Sea and adjacent waters should be represented, but if the cooperation of the Council can only be maintained by giving special favourable terms to a country which for three years has withdrawn from participation and which, at the back of your argument, would only be prepared to resume participation if she is accorded special favourable terms, I would rather let the whole organisation go than submit to any such proposition.

I can see that, from your point of view, the question is one of some diplomatic delicacy, but I think that you will understand what I mean when I say that we over here are all getting rather tired of diplomacy."

(13) Drechsel asserted that he had been misinterpreted. What he wanted to avoid was any prejudicing of the election after the war (14).

Drechsel had kept contact with the German fishery biologists. One of these, F. Heincke, had expressed a longing for the resumption of the international work, an attitude that Drechsel reported to Maurice (15). The answer, however, was deprecatory: "I confess that cooperation with Germans strikes me as very difficult.

Their enormities have been too disgusting to be easily forgotten." (16) Drechsel still believed that their German colleagues: Heincke, Ehrenbaum (1861-1942), Henking etc., were all against the war. He admitted, however, that cooperation immediately after the war between Englishmen and Germans, even on purely scientific matters, would be very difficult. He suggested therefore that the governments might contribute to the Bureau and continue to work after the existing programmes by the intermediation of the Bureau without any meeting of delegates until agreement about such a meeting could be obtained (17).

In late 1918, when an armistice had been concluded, Maurice in principle agreed to Drechsel's suggestion. He added, however: "It will be extraordinarily hard for some of us to contemplate the resumption of cooperation in peaceful researches with representatives of Germany. I doubt whether you in Denmark can quite realise the steadily growing disgust and horror of the German mentality and of everything German which the incidents of the war have implanted in the minds of people in this country. Whether the Germans will wish immediately to resume the International work I am somewhat doubtful.

Should they wish to do so, it is still a matter of doubt whether their participation would be acceptable. Personally, I do not feel that their participation in the work is essential, and I do not consider that their presence or absence need govern the question of resumption." (18) Drechsel declared that he shared the opinion of Maurice about the Germans, referring, i.a., to Germany's "robbery" of Schleswig-Holstein from Denmark in 1864! He added, however, that it had been a pleasure for him to cooperate with Germans like Heincke, Henking, and Ehrenbaum. He had often spoken about the war with Heincke and his wife, and their feelings were the same as his own (19).

It is obvious that fishery investigations in the North Sea required the cooperation of Germany if they should be of any value. As appears from the above, however, there was after the war, not unexpectedly, much ill-feeling towards Germany in the allied countries. Otto Pettersson wrote to Martin Knudsen (1871-1949), Danish delegate and Hydrographic Assistant to the Bureau: "Have you seen what Nature (i.e. Lockyer 401) writes about international cooperation? What a presumption! It will probably be difficult to restore our Council in its entirety. Our policy will be, I suppose, first to reconstruct the Council with the powers, which already are participating that is without Germany as a start. Therefore we ought to hold a meeting already in April before Germany gets settled down so that she is able to join. Later, when the Council has come into operation the question will be again to admit Germany if possible, something for which I shall work as much as I am personally able to do." [from Swedish] (20) The article to which Pettersson refers is an editorial in the periodical "Nature" (Anon., 1919, pp. 341-342) where it is said that since the beginning of the war it had become increasingly obvious that direct communication between the Allied Powers and the Central European Powers was no longer possible, and it did not seem probable that the Allies would consent to personal communication with the German peoples, even after the cessation of

401 Sir Joseph Norman Lockyer (1836-1920) was the founder and first editor of the journal Nature

the hostilities, until the latter had adopted an entirely new attitude towards the rest of the world. International organizations must therefore be freed from German membership and influence. This might be accomplished either by excluding the Germans from the existing organizations or by establishing new and independent ones formed by the Allies together with some neutral powers.

Pettersson did not like this attitude and wrote to D'Arcy Thompson (18601948), the Scottish delegate to ICES, about it, which he in January 1919 communicated to Drechsel (21). D'Arcy Thompson had answered that Pettersson should take no notice of what "Nature" wrote ("newspapers, you know").

What Pettersson feared was that the United States or France would start a great worldwide union, with exclusive tendency, for exploration of the sea.

He thought that the British as soon as possible after 1 April 1919 when Great Britain re-entered actively into the Council, should arrange a meeting and get the Council started before the new German government attained to request Germany's re-entry. For if such a request came to the Bureau before the Council had constituted itself it would be rather difficult to settle the matter by correspondence. Pettersson added that in fact it would be a stupid thing of the British to aim at excluding the Germans: "They are excellent scientists and their research can only be useful to the Englishmen. It is not likely that the new Germany will get a leading rĂ´le very soon, and even less likely that she will get any force to stand out against England's goals for regulation of the North Sea fishery." [from Swedish] Obviously Pettersson, an inhabitant of a neutral country, had not understood the animosity, or even hatred, that had developed between the peoples of the belligerent countries as it came to expression in, e.g., a number of letters to the editor of "Nature", such as a letter (Walsingham, 1918, p. 4) concerning, i.a., the use of the German language in zoological nomenclature.

Here it reads: "Let us trust that for the next twenty years at least all Germans will be relegated to the category of persons with whom honest men will decline to have any dealings."

In order to avoid any bias it should be added that in 1914 a similar "animosity" was expressed towards England and the Englishmen by the German oceanographer Gerhard Schott in letters to Martin Knudsen (22) and Drechsel (23). The same enmity manifested itself in lectures by Merz and Penck at the Institut fĂźr Meereskunde in 1915 (Neubert, 1997, pp. 91-92).

Quite naturally a different attitude reigned in the neutral countries. Members of their learned societies addressed an appeal for toleration to the academies of the allied nations and of the United States, a protest against a policy which would seek to exclude a generation of German men of science from all scientific intercourse with those of the allied countries. In an ICES

context it is interesting to note that this appeal was backed up by D'Arcy Thompson (1919, p. 154) who felt that whatever overtures their Germanspeaking colleagues might make to them on scientific matters should be freely reciprocated: "Need we ask what a man has thought or said, or even what he has done, in these last sad years?"

In a letter to Drechsel, who quoted it to F. Heincke, D'Arcy Thompson refers to his letter to "Nature" and continues: "I am greatly opposed to the policy, advocated by certain persons, of refusing to associate or to correspond with all German scientific men. In short, I sympathise with the letter which has recently been addressed to us by the scientific men of the Neutral Nations.â&#x20AC;? (24) However, another British marine biologist, Ray Lankester, announced (Lankester, 1919, p. 172) his disagreement with this attitude: "I think that the less our academies and societies move in this matter the better."

D'Arcy Thompson did not change his mind. To Martin Knudsen he wrote: "I have had a long letter from Ehrenbaum to whom I had written. He tells a sad story, and I have the greatest possible sympathy for him, and for our many friends in the same position. The conditions in Germany are terrible; and we do not fully appreciate them here, by any means."

(25) The leading German marine scientists wanted the continuation of ICES, and Germany's accession to it. Heincke in a paper published during the war (Heincke, 1917, cols 565-592) - in fact a memorandum prepared for the Prussian Ministry of Culture and approved by the governmental authorities stressed the importance of ICES and of continuing it after the war. He realized, however, that some years must elapse before scientists from the former enemy countries would be able to work together impartially and dispassionately at international meetings. Asked by Drechsel for further particulars Heincke explained that whether the German government after the war could and would grant the necessary funds would essentially depend upon the outcome of the war. Personally he would support the continuation of ICES as much as he could, and he believed that the goal would be reached. However, many of his colleagues, e.g. the Kiel people, did not think so, he added (26).

The Dutch delegates Ewoud van Everdingen (1873-1955) and Heinrich Carl Redeke (1873-1945) considered it most desirable that German experts, such as Heincke and Ehrenbaum, would participate in the first post-war meeting of ICES. For this reason they would prefer to have the meeting on neutral ground, as it might be less difficult for both Englishmen and Germans to meet in a neutral country (27). Otto Pettersson, the President of ICES, was in doubt with regard to the advisability of this idea. He stressed, however, that he too wished Germany to become a member in the long run. If that did not come to pass, he would himself withdraw from the Council! (28)

It was finally decided to hold the meeting in London in 1920, and at the proposal of Maurice the previous member countries were invited to send delegates. Russia and Germany could be left out of consideration, however: Russia because she had no recognized government at that time, Germany because Belgium and France most likely would refuse to cooperate with her.

France and Canada were inquired as to whether they would now be disposed to join the Council. (29) This made Pettersson uneasy. He agreed that Germany could not for the present be officially invited. He thought, however, that if France and the United States were invited Germany might feel passed over; the Dutch and the Finnish would then make objections and the Council would split up. He added that if Germany on her own initiative should apply for participation in the meeting a real difficulty would arise. In that case at least Sweden and Finland would side with her. (30) Germany did not apply for participation in the first post-war Council meeting, and the question about her readmission was not touched upon at all in the meeting. In his presidential address, however, Otto Pettersson mentioned "the long and methodic exploration of the fish life in the North Sea by Heincke, Ehrenbaum, Reibisch a.o.", and as the eldest member of the Council, who had been with it from the beginning, he, for his part, looked forward to the time when the international work could be resumed to its former extent (Anon., 1920a, p. 8).

Although Germany did not yet apply for participation her interest in membership was unabated. In a presentation of the re-established Deutsche Wissenschaftliche Kommission fĂźr Meeresforschung (DWK) it was stressed that Germany as soon as possible must join ICES because of the extraordinary importance which this organization had achieved, and it was stated that the continuation of German marine research was a necessity, also because it was the only means to make possible the future accession of Germany to ICES (Anon., 1920b, pp. 310-312).

Apparently some people in Germany were too optimistic with regard to her readmission. In February 1920 Gerhard Schott (1866-1961) wrote Drechsel that Germany had decided to resume research in the North Sea and the Baltic in accordance with the international plans and that she was prepared to reenter ICES as soon as an opportunity offered (31). Drechsel, who had just in London attended the first Council meeting after the war, informed Schott as well as Ehrenbaum and Heincke that in his opinion there was at the moment no possibility for bringing Germans together with Frenchmen and Belgians.

He thought, however, that re-establishment of cooperation would become possible if the matter were approached quietly and diplomatically and no official remarks being made before time was ripe for it. Germany's admission to the League of Nations would highly further her re-entry into ICES (32).

Nevertheless Drechsel was optimistic with regard to an early re-entry of Germany. Shortly after the above letter to Schott he wrote Pettersson that Maurice, who had now become President of ICES, fully realized the necessity of Germany's readmission. So the decision would rest upon France and Bel-

gium, and it was to be hoped that before the next Council meeting these countries could be convinced of the necessity of Germany's re-entry. (33) A few months later Drechsel again raised the question to Maurice (34). In the meantime, however, Spain and Portugal had indicated that they too wished to join the organization. From conversation with their representatives, and with those of France, Maurice had learned that as yet it was much too early to consider the readmission of Germany. He had got the impression that if this matter was discussed now, or in the near future, ICES would lose France and Belgium as well as Spain and Portugal. Maurice did not find it worth while to make this great sacrifice for the sake of admission of Germany. He felt that ICES would be much stronger with France, Spain, and Portugal, and without Germany than with Germany but without the other three countries. (35) The Dutch delegates were still pressing for the readmission of Germany in order to get her involved in the discussion of establishing a convention on the plaice fishery in the North Sea, a matter that had been discussed already before the war. So the Dutch government approached ICES via the Danish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, pointing out the importance of such a convention being adhered to by all North Sea states. As Germany had voluntarily withdrawn from ICES it was out of question that the other powers might ask her to become a member again. On the other hand one might fear that, in view of the hostile feelings towards her, she would not expose herself to a refusal if she asked for readmission. It was therefore suggested that the Danish government who had taken the initiative with regard to the conclusion of a convention might find reason to draw the attention of the other powers interested in the matter to the importance of Germany again becoming a member of ICES (36). Drechsel agreed that from the point of view of the Council Germany's readmission could only be recommended. The question seemed to be, however, whether an agreement to this could be obtained from the British, French, and Belgian governments and their delegates (37).

It was now obvious to Maurice, much as he regretted it, that not only was it necessary to secure German adhesion to any convention that might be agreed upon for the protection of the plaice fisheries, or any other fisheries, of the North Sea, but also that the Council could not be regarded as complete until Germany again was a member. It appeared to him that everything depended upon the official attitude of the French and Belgian Governments, and particularly of the French. The British Foreign Office was of the opinion that it would be preferable to defer any discussion of the matter until after a Conference which was to take place in London in March 1921, a Conference of the Allies to which representatives of the German government had been invited. Maurice continued: â&#x20AC;&#x153;That Conference may have one of two results â&#x20AC;&#x201C; no third one I think is possible. Either the Germans will be reasonable, and a settlement will be reached, and as a result there will be a more or less complete detente, relieving the strain of present relations between France and Germany; or the situation will become very much worse than at pre-

sent; in fact, I suppose it may be necessary to contemplate the possibility of a return to something like a state of war.

In the latter event, it would of course be perfectly useless to discuss any question of the return of Germany to the International Council; in the former, it is most likely that a reasonable arrangement could be made with the consent of the French and the Belgians. By this I mean that we might get them to agree beforehand that in the event of Germany expressing a wish to rejoin the Council they would not raise any objection.â&#x20AC;? (38) Unfortunately the Conference was not successful, and both Maurice and Drechsel realized that the negative outcome prevented readmission of Germany to ICES at least for a time, as well as official cooperation in general.

A main problem for ICES was the question about a convention for the plaice fishery in the North Sea, so that overfishing might be avoided after the "closing period" caused by the war. Drechsel was working eagerly for such a convention. As it now could not be negotiated officially with Germany he suggested that the matter might be handled unofficially by correspondence, so that later when Germany had re-entered ICES her accession to the convention would be a mere formality (40). During the war and the early post-war years Drechsel had corresponded privately with German fishery biologists, keeping them informed about the activities in ICES, so that they might work in the same direction and in the same way as the member countries. E.g., he kept Ehrenbaum informed (41) about the negotiations concerning the North Sea plaice question, and he sent the resolutions adopted by the 1920 Council meeting to Ehrenbaum (42), Heincke, and Schott.

ICES had unofficially been invited to hold its annual meeting in Paris in 1922 or 1923. The French representative Ed. le Danois, who conveyed the invitation to Maurice, pointed out, however, that if in the meantime Germany had become a member of ICES problems might arise. It was, in his view, not so much a question of French feelings because when once the Germans were admitted to the League of Nations the French would be prepared to give them a friendly welcome. But he felt that it would be very difficult and embarrassing for German delegates on rejoining the Council to meet for the first time in Paris, and he thought that they might be disposed to regard the holding of the meeting there as arranged in order to humiliate them (43).

The meeting in 1922 was, however, held in Copenhagen, without German participation. In the meantime the Danish government at the request of the ICES Bureau had made informal inquiries as to the attitude of the participating countries towards the readmission of Germany. The replies received showed that most countries would approve Germany's re-entry, and no country was directly against it; France would abstain from voting. The President then stated that the matter was not to be discussed by the Council before an application was received from Germany and had been considered by the governments of the participating countries (Anon., 1922, pp. 14-15). It turned out, however, that the French member of the Bureau, ThĂŠodore Tissier (1866-1944), was dissatisfied with the way in which the General Secretary

had presented to the Council the replies of the member countries. There was a risk, he felt, that it might be interpreted as if France had no objections to the readmission of Germany. The truth was that France did have objections, but abstained from formulating them in order to avoid any disagreement in the Council and out of regard for the Scandinavian states. Because of their geographic position as well as the conditions of their economy these countries might have an interest in renewing the relations with Germany in matters relating to the exploration of the sea. France, however, who mourned for the recent loss of one and a half million of her sons and who had to restore her vast devastated regions by her own milliards had a natural dislike of collaborating with Germany in the Council. The gesture of France meant that she left to her friends the liberty to express themselves as they wished. But this was no reason that they should hasten to make use of this liberty (44).

The remark by Tissier that France had to restore her devastated regions by means of her own resources may refer to the non-payment of the reparation imposed upon Germany at the Treaty of Versailles. This gave rise to the occupation of the Ruhr territory by French and Belgian troops in early January 1923, an event which, of course, caused strong resentment in Germany. E.g., Gerhard Schott in a letter to Nansen used the term "the terrible Ruhr crime of the Frenchmen" (45). In his reply Nansen expressed concern: "The whole situation in Germany and the conduct of the Frenchmen cause me great anxiety, and it appears to me that the future of Europe looks darker than ever."

(Nansen, 1923, letter No. 1242) Shortly after the Ruhr occupation Drechsel in a letter to Carl Heinrici (18761944), Chairman of the Deutsche Wissenschaftliche Kommission fĂźr Meeresforschung (DWK), expressed the hope that the situation would not impede scientific cooperation. Heinrici, however, informed the relevant German ministry that DWK wanted to postpone international cooperation until the question about the Ruhr occupation had been settled (Lenz, 1992).

Asked by Maurice whether France was prepared to arrange the 1923 Council meeting in Paris Tissier declared that having the meeting in Paris would of necessity imply that Germany had not in advance been readmitted to the Council, as the French opinion would not understand that Germans got a ceremonious welcome in the capital of France. Tissier demanded that his declarations were inserted in the protocol of the Bureau meeting. This became too much to other members of the Bureau. Hjort declared that he personally would find it very offensively if a protocol on international scientific cooperation contained observations so politically coloured. With regard to the condition that no Germans would be allowed to attend a meeting in Paris Hjort considered it desirable to postpone meeting there until such conditions were not imposed (46). Hjort had a long discussion with Maurice on the matter and got the impression that Maurice would write privately to Tissier, trying to induce him to withdraw the whole statement. Hjort added that personally he was completely unwilling to accept the mentality which Tissier's conduct betrayed, although it obviously was due to an excited state of mind (47). Maurice did succeed in calming down Tissier, and the embarrassing remarks could be omitted from the protocol (48). The incident shows, however, the difficul-

ties that ICES was up against in the endeavour to re-establish the pre-war state of things.

The 1923-meeting of the Council could be held in Paris without problems as Germany had not yet become a member, and the General Secretary reported that the situation in Germany was such that no application for readmission could be expected for the present (Anon., 1923, p. 11). By this statement he may have had in mind the very confused conditions, politically and financially, which reigned in Germany at that time.

Germany's readmission to ICES was not discussed at the meeting in 1924.

This did not mean, however, that there was no cooperation on certain scientific matters, as appears from the information to the meeting that the German legation at Copenhagen had communicated to the Danish government that the German investigations of the North Sea plaice question would be finished in January 1925 (Anon., 1924, p. 12).

During 1925 the question of Germany´s re-entry was negotiated via the Danish Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Non of the member countries opposed in principle Germany´s readmission. France and Great Britain, however, could not agree in Germany´s request to contribute annually DKK 15,000 whereas the other great powers had to pay DKK 25,000. Furthermore there were questions concerning the languages to be used in the Council. From its establishment up to the outbreak of war the organization had two official languages, English and German. When Germany resigned membership, and France in 1920 had become a member the official languages became English and French. France would now make it a condition for Germany´s readmission that the German language should not be allowed in the Council (49).

This attitude did not receive general support. Johan Hjort e.g., did not consider the cash contribution to be of much importance, and with regard to the language question he maintained that this was for the Council to decide, according to its rules of procedure. So the French claim would mean an interference with the rights of the Council. Personally Hjort thought it unreasonable to exclude the German language, and he considered it an offensive condition to Germany (50).

This was definitely the opinion among the German scientists. They requested that the use of German should be allowed in all verbal communications of the Council and that contributions in German should be accepted in its publications (Lenz, 1992). At the Bureau Meeting in September 1925 the General Secretary could present the following note from Germany to the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs: “The German Government is prepared, in case of Germany´s readmission, to pay a yearly contribution of Kr. 25,000. But before the Government can finally decide this the question of languages must be solved in one for Germany satisfactory way. In the opinion of the German Government it is not sufficient to leave the decision with regard to the use of the German language to the International Council. On the contrary it must beforehand be surely guaranteed that an entirely free use of the German language during the verbal deliberations in all meetings and

conferences of the Council may together with the English and French languages enjoy the same rights as before the war. A restriction to the effect that the use of the German language only should be admitted when the German representative masters neither the English nor the French language is not acceptable. Moreover the German Government cannot abstain from having the Procès-Verbaux published as before the war also in German and that in the Rapports and in the Publications de Circonstance the papers of the German scientists should be printed in their own language...” (51) The Bureau decided to adhere to the standpoint that the Council had the sole right to regulate its proceedings, and the reply to the German note stated “that the Bureau is unable to accept the view that the Council is not competent to decide the question of the languages which may be used in its transactions”. It was further stressed that “entry as a member of the Council is a privilege which carries with it the necessity of accepting, as they stand, the rules of the Council, which apply to all members of the Council without distinction”.

The Netherlands had always advocated an early readmission of Germany. So now the Dutch delegate van Everdingen pointed out that there might be some misunderstandings with regard to the language question, and he proposed passing a resolution to clear up matters and facilitate Germany´s reentry. The President, however, wished to avoid any action, which might suggest that the Council were pressing Germany to join it by offering her terms to secure her adhesion. Instead he promised that unofficial steps should be taken to clear up any misunderstanding. Hjort happened to be on his way to Berlin where Heinrici would be given an opportunity to see him and have explained how matters were standing. In order to satisfy van Everdingen the President would then inform the Council that the question about Germany´s re-entry would be treated semi-officially.

Hjort did meet Heinrici and other high officials in Berlin. His impression was, as he reported to the Norwegian Prime and Foreign Minister, that Germany was now prepared to enter the Council without conditions if the French government would accept the Council´s decision in the language question (52).

However, when the Bureau met in early May 1926 it had still not received any official communication from Germany. The President informed the Bureau that France and Great Britain via the Danish government had notified Germany about their attitude regarding the languages to be used in the Council, viz. that English and French should be the only official languages.

This information caused some concern among the members of the Bureau until Tissier explained that it was not to be considered an ultimatum, but just a “note verbale.” The British and French governments would be prepared to consider objections (53).

About the same time Germany announced her desire to re-enter ICES from the forthcoming financial year. Shortly after, however, she received the note mentioned above – without the addition that it was not an ultimatum. Drech-

sel regretted that the note had been sent through official channels; this meant that the matter had again come into the hands of the diplomats (54).

Not unexpectedly the note gave rise to new discussions in Germany. Although negotiations between the Danish government and Germany continued during the summer, Drechsel apparently had lost every hope when he on 25 August 1926 wrote Maurice that he considered it “quite hopeless to arrive at any satisfactory result this time” (55). Only three days later, however, he could inform Maurice that Germany had now officially communicated to the Danish government that they thought agreement might be obtained by verbal discussions and that they on 2 September would send Heinrici, Wilhelm Mielck, and a member of the German legation in Copenhagen, applying for such discussions (56).

During the discussions the Germans accepted the decision of the Bureau concerning the languages to be used in the verbal communications of the Council. With regard to the Council´s publications the following rules were agreed (Anon., 1927a, p. 19): “Authors of papers are free to write in their own language, but are earnestly requested to write them if possible in one of the four languages which are more or less universally known, namely, English, French, German or Spanish. If the author of a paper finds it necessary to write in some other language, he will be expected to consent to the translation of his paper, before printing, into English or French.”

So at long last the language question had been solved, and Germany had again become a member of ICES. At the Council Meeting a few days later Maurice could welcome (in French) Heinrici and Mielck as representatives of Germany, on which Heinrici replied (in French and German, finishing by some words in English!) (Anon., 1927a, pp. 14-15).

In view of the earlier unfriendly exchange of words it is gratifying to note that at the next Council Meeting, in 1927, Tissier in warm words proposed Heinrici for membership of the Bureau (Anon., 1927b, p. 20). Peace had been restored – until a new war broke out.

Acknowledgments I am greatly indebted to Walter Lenz for suggesting some notes and for writing the Abstract; to Vera Schwach and Artur Svansson for copies of documents in Norwegian, respectively Swedish archives, and to A. Svansson for extensive assistance in the processing of the manuscript.

References Literature Anonymous. 1899. Conférence internationale pour l´exploration de la mer, réunie à Stockholm 1899. Stockholm.

Anonymous. 1903. Rapp. P.-v. Réun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, 1(B).

Anonymous. 1917. Report of Administration. 1914-15. 1915-16. - Rapp. P.-v. Réun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, 24.

Anonymous. 1919. International Organisation of Science. – Nature, 102 (2566).

Anonymous. 1920a. Rapp. P.-v. Réun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, 26.

Anonymous. 1920b. Die Deutsche Wissenschaftliche Kommission für Meeresforschung. – Der Fischerboote, 12 (6).

Anonymous. 1922. Rapp. P.-v. Réun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, 28.

Anonymous. 1923. Rapp. P.-v. Réun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, 32.

Anonymous. 1924. Rapp. P.-v. Réun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, 34.

Anonymous. 1927a. Rapp. P.-v. Réun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, 41.

Anonymous. 1927b. Rapp. P.-v. Réun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, 45.

Brandt, K., F. Heincke, W. Herwig & O. Krümmel. 1901. Antrag, betreffend das Programm für den biologischen Theil der Internationalen Meeresforschungen. – 2. Conférence internationale pour l´exploration de la mer, Seconde partie, Supplément 4. Bergen.

Heincke, F. 1917. Die internationale Meeresforschung vor und nach dem Kriege. – Internat.

Monatsschrift für Wissenschaft, Kunst und Technik, 11 (5).

Henking, H. 1901. Anschlag über B § 10 und 11 des biologischen Programms betreffend Fischereistatistik. – 2. Conférence internationale pour l´exploration de la mer, Seconde partie, Supplément 7. Bergen.

Hensen, V. & K. Brandt. 1901. Vorschlag für die Bestimmung der Planktonmasse des Meeres.

- 2. Conférence internationale pour l´exploration de la mer, Seconde partie, Supplément 2. Bergen.

Lankester, E.R. 1919. International Relations in Science. – Nature, 104 (2609).

Lenz, W. 1992. The Six Years of Germany´s re-joining ICES past World War I. (Lecture at the ICES History Dinner 1992). In: W. Lenz. 2002. Die treibenden Kräfte in der Ozeanographie seit der Gründung des Deutschen Reiches. Berichte ZMK-Hamburg.

Reihe B Nr. 43.

Nansen, F. 1923. Brev, V. Oslo 1978.

Neubert, H.-J. 1997. Das öffentliche Vortragswesen des Instituts für Meereskunde. – Historisch–Meereskundliches Jahrbuch, 4.

Rozwadowski, H.M. 2002. The sea knows no boundaries. A century of marine science under ICES. – ICES in association with University of Washington Press. Seattle and London.

Smed, J. 1988. Deutschland und die Gründung des ICES. – DGM Mitteilungen, 1988, No. 3.

Smed, J. 1989. Otto Krümmel über Fridtjof Nansens Kandidatur für den 1. Generalsekretär von ICES. – DGM Mitteilungen, 1989, No. 1.

Smed, J. 1999. Controversies in Germany in Connection with the Foundation of ICES. – DGM Mitteilungen, 1999, No. 1.

Thompson, D´Arcy. 1919. International Relations in Science. – Nature, 104 (2608).

Walsingham, Lord. 1918. German Naturalists and Nomenclature. – Nature, 102 (2549).

Letters (or copies) Abreviations used: Dr: C.F.Drechsel.

FN: Fridtjof Nansen.

HM: Henry Maurice.

JH: Johan Hjort.

OP: Otto Pettersson.

VH: Victor Hensen.

-----LAG.OP: Landsarkivet, Gothenburg. The Otto Pettersson Collection.

RAC: Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen.

RAS: Riksarkivet, Stockholm. UD 1902 Doss-system.

S/N: Swedish/Norwegian.

UBG: University Library, Gothenburg. Collection of Manuscripts.

UBO: University Library, Oslo. Collection of Manuscripts.

ZStA Merseburg: DDR Zentrales Staatsarchiv, Dienststelle Merseburg (now in Geheimes Staatsarchiv Deutscher Kulturbesitz, Berlin).

1.

2.

3.

“Über internationale Untersuchungen der nordeuropäischen Meere im Interesse der Seefischerei.” ZStA Merseburg, Rep. 87B, Nr. 3646, Blatt 13-18. – It had obviously been the intention to publish the memorandum in Mittheilungen der Deutschen Seefischerei-Verein, 1899, No. 1. As a matter of fact it already existed in print with a footnote saying that to delay its publishing was not considered desirable in the interest of German science and German seafishery. Nevertheless immediate publishing was relinquished. The memorandum was eventually published in Mittheilungen, 1904, pp.

112-122.

FN to OP 1 April 1900. UBG.

4.

German Foreign Ministry to the S/N Legation in Berlin 1 October 1900. RAS, Vol. 2397b, Mål 11.

FN to OP 17 December 1900. UBG.

5.

Walther Herwig to OP 22 November 1900. UBG.

6.

Herwig to OP 28 November 1900. UBG.

7.

Herwig to OP 18 February 1901. UBG.

8.

OP to JH 4 September 1914. UBO, File 2911:XIXA.

9.

10.

Circular letter from F. Rose and Dr to the delegates 21 September 1914. RAC, F. 27210, Box D. 10.

HM to Dr 15 September 1914. RAC, No. 10.649, Box 5, File 1.A.4.

11.

Dr to F. Rose 19 December 1914. As 10.

12.

Dr to HM 5 January 1917. As 10.

13.

HM to Dr 16 January 1917. As 10.

14.

Dr to HM 2 February 1917. As 10.

15.

Dr to HM 27 April 1917. As 10.

16.

HM to Dr 26 May 1917. As 10.

17.

Dr to HM 23 June 1917. As 10.

18.

HM to Mrs. Dr 13 December 1918. As 10.

19.

Dr to HM 4 January 1919. As 10.

20.

OP to Martin Knudsen 11 January 1919. RAC, No. 1935, Box D.11.

21.

OP to Dr 21 January 1919. ICES Basement Archives, File “Salt production project”.

22.

Gerhard Schott to Martin Knudsen 25 August 1914. RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 10.

23.

Gerhard Schott to Dr 10 December 1914. As 10.

24.

Dr to F. Heincke 12 November 1919. As 10.

25.

D’Arcy Thompson to Martin Knudsen 31 January 1920. RAC, No. 1935, Box D. 12.

26.

F. Heincke to Dr 15 May 1917. As 10.

27.

van Everdingen and Redeke to Dr 7 April 1919. RAC, No. 10.649, Box 16, File 1.D.

28.

OP to van Everdingen 28 April 1919. As 27.

29.

HM to Dr 30 July 1919. As 27.

30.

OP to Dr 9 August 1919. As 27.

31.

Gerhard Schott to Dr 28 February 1920. As 10.

32.

Dr to Gerhard Schott 17 March 1920. As 10.

33.

Dr to OP 27 March 1920. LAG.OP, File Ö 25:3.

34.

Dr to HM 23 June 1920. As 10.

35.

HM to Dr 7 July 1920. As 10.

36.

37.

Copy of letter of 28 January 1921 from the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Dr, appended to 37. As 10.

Dr to HM 29 January 1921. As 10.

38.

HM to Dr 17 February 1921. As 10.

39.

Dr to HM 16 March 1921. As 10.

40.

Dr to Ehrenbaum 31 March 1921. As 10.

41.

Dr to Ehrenbaum 29 December 1919. As 10.

42.

Dr to Ehrenbaum 17 March 1920. As 10.

43.

HM to Dr 1 November 1921. As 27.

44.

45.

Appendix to circular of 28 May 1923 from Dr to the Members of the Bureau. RAC, No. 10 649, Box 7, File 1.A.7.

Gerhard Schott to FN 24 January 1923. UBO, File 48.

46.

JH to Dr 1 June 1923. As 44.

47.

JH to Dr 14 June 1923. As 44.

48.

Tissier to Dr 17 September 1923. As 44.

49.

Legation of France in Oslo to the Norwegian Prime and Foreign Minister 23 February 1925. Archive after Johan Hjort (lodged with the archives of the Norwegian Department for Foreign Affairs, Oslo), Box 1925-1929.

JH to the Norwegian Ministry for Foreign Affairs 21 March 1925. As 49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

Protocol of the Bureau Meeting August-September 1925. As 44.

JH to the Norwegian Prime and Foreign Minister, Mowinckel, 16 September 1925. As 49.

Protocol of the Bureau Meeting May 1926. As 44.

54.

Dr to HM 12 August 1926. RAC, No. 10.649, Box 1, File 1.A.1.

55.

Dr to HM 25 August 1926. As 54.

56.

Cable from Dr to HM 28 August 1926. As 54.

Martin Knudsen's activities at the ICES service hydrographique History of Oceanography Number 21, September 2009 Jens Smed Martin Knudsenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s appointment with ICES At the 2nd International Conference for the Exploration of the Sea in Christiania (Oslo) in 1901 it had been decided that should the General Secretary of the Council to be established represent hydrographical (i.e. physical oceanography) science, one of his principal assistants should be a biologist, and vice versa (Anon., 1901, p. 19). At the first meeting of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), Copenhagen, July 1902 the Dutch biologist Paulus P.C. Hoek (1851-1914) was elected General Secretary (Anon., 1903, p.

7). Consequently a hydrographical assistant should be appointed. The meeting agreed to empower the Bureau, i.e. the Council's President, VicePresident, and General Secretary, to communicate with candidates as to the conditions for the post, and it also agreed upon the proposal of the VicePresident, Otto Pettersson (1848-1941) that the Danish hydrographer Martin Knudsen (1871-1949) be communicated with in the first place. In accordance herewith Knudsen was appointed First Assistant to the Bureau from 1 August 1902.

The choice of Martin Knudsen for the post came naturally in view of his earlier achievements. He had carried out valuable work on the "Ingolf"-Expedition 1895 and 1896 to Icelandic and West-Greenland waters. He had worked up hydrographical data from inner Danish waters and from the routes to Iceland and Greenland in a number of important papers. Furthermore, he had participated as a Danish delegate at the two Conferences in 1899 and 1901 heralding ICES. When at the first of these it was decided to undertake a revision of the existing hydrographical tables the direction and accomplishment of the

work was entrusted to Knudsen. The outcome of the work was the Hydrographical Tables, which Knudsen could present already in 1901 (Smed, 2010).

In his accounts of the expenditure involved in the elaboration of the Tables Knudsen had not included any salary for his own work. The auditors of the accounts, Otto Krümmel (1854-1912) and Fridtjof Nansen (1861-1930), mentioned this in their comments. Otto Pettersson therefore pointed out to the Danish chief delegate at the Christiania Conference, Christian Frederik Drechsel (1854-1927), that they all felt indebted to Knudsen for his great unsalaried work, and he asked Drechsel to discuss the matter with Knudsen, so that at the first meeting of the Council proposal might be made for a salary to Knudsen, or, if for formal reasons this would not be possible, he might be offered an appointment as First Assistant to the Bureau or as Editor of the hydrographic bulletins which should be issued (Pettersson, 1902).

There can be no doubt that Knudsen was highly esteemed among his colleagues. This is clearly expressed in an internal German report on the Stockholm Conference. At that time the intention was to have a central office, including a laboratory, under direction of a General Secretary. In the report mentioned the possible candidates for this post were discussed. Otto Krümmel, a member of the German delegation to the Conference, indicated as well qualified candidates Knudsen and the Englishman Henry N. Dickson (1866-1922). Krümmel would prefer any of these for Fridtjof Nansen, who was considered to be interested in the post (Smed, 1989, pp. 6-8).

The Bulletin The backbone of the hydrographic investigations decided upon by the Council were those carried out along fixed lines four times a year, viz. during the first week of February, May, August, and November, the first cruises to be undertaken in August 1902. The data from these seasonal cruises were sent to the Council's central office, and it was Knudsen's main task, in his capacity as Hydrographic Assistant to the Bureau, to edit the data for publication in the "Bulletin des résultats acquis pendant les croisières périodiques", which was published quarterly.

The Bulletin did not only include the raw data: temperature, salinity, and content of oxygen, nitrogen, and carbon dioxide, all at standard depths, together with meteorological observations; for the periods of the seasonal cruises Knudsen prepared and published in the Bulletin two charts showing isotherms and isohalines at the surface of the region investigated. One chart, on the scale of 1:18,000,000, gave a view of the entire region; the other, on a larger scale (1:6,000,000), showed the situation in the North Sea, the Skagerrak, the Kattegat, and part of the Baltic. The isolines were based not only upon the data from the standard stations, but also upon observations made on board mail steamers, light-ships etc. during the periods of the seasonal cruises.

The observation programme of these cruises also included collection of

samples of plankton for qualitative determination, with a view to discern between different water masses on the basis of their plankton. These observations were published in the Bulletin from the second number onwards.

Starting with the second year the Bulletin furthermore showed the distribution of temperature and salinity at depth along the fixed lines by means of the so-called hydrographic sections, prepared by Knudsen and his assistant Johan Gehrke. This addition to the Bulletin was welcomed by the Council as constituting an important improvement.

General Report on the work 1902-1904 At the Council Meeting in Hamburg in February 1904 the delegates felt a need for taking stock and decided that a report on the results of the work during the first two years of the international cooperation should be prepared and published. The report should contain a short general introduction for which the Council was to be considered responsible, and a number of annexes, which were published on the responsibility of their authors.

Obviously there were some problems with the editing of the Report. Pettersson stated that Knudsen, of course, would be editor of the hydrographic part (Pettersson, 1904a). Knudsen was willing, but he could not really imagine that Hoek would leave it to him (Knudsen, 1904a). Apparently Hoek was against the Report in general. In any case Pettersson wrote to Knudsen, re-

questing information about the prospects and as to whether Hoek intended to resist, passively or actively, against the Report. Pettersson would do everything to bring about the Report and he was prepared to cooperate and discuss the matter with everybody who had the same end. Against those, however, who would not put the Report in order before the end of the year he would make war (Pettersson, 1904b)!

Apparently the pinpricks continued. The relations between Knudsen and Hoek were not the best. When Pettersson requested information regarding various details in the Report (Pettersson, 1904c) Knudsen regretted that he could give only incomplete information. As he had expected he had not much cooperation with the editor, i.e. Hoek. His assistance with the Report was limited to his functioning as an intermediary between Hoek and the draughtsman or the process reproduction firm as far as a few figures and charts were concerned. Knudsen added, however, that if only Hoek would abstain from interfering with the hydrographic part of the Bulletin he would, for a quiet life, let him do with other items what he liked (Knudsen, 1904b).

Knudsen was obviously disappointed about the Report. To Theodor HomĂŠn (1858-1923), a delegate for Finland to the Council, but at that time exiled to Novgorod in Russia, he wrote that a General Report was now being prepared whereby, in his opinion, a number of serious errors were made; fortunately, however, he had not much to do with the project, he added (Knudsen, 1904c).

Among the hydrographers opinions were divided as to what the Report should contain. The Norwegian Bjørn Helland-Hansen (1877-1957) confidentially informed Knudsen about a meeting with Otto Pettersson who thought that there should go much hydrography into the Report. According to Helland-Hansen Otto Pettersson wanted to have all "fishery events" proved by means of hydrography and was not afraid of publishing whims although they lacked a solid basis. Pettersson would prepare a draft, which he asked Helland-Hansen to go over before sending it to Knudsen. Helland-Hansen would be pleased to try to clear the stones away, so that Knudsen might get off easi-

ly from his business if it could not be totally avoided (Helland-Hansen, 1904), an offer which Knudsen gratefully accepted (Knudsen, 1904d).

The Report (Anon., 1905a) was published in an English and a German version. Knudsen contributed a paper to its hydrographic section. He had earlier written a popular account in Danish about the science of hydrography and some of the results obtained (Knudsen, 1905a). This account had a section about the waters around the Faroe Islands and Iceland, at that time Danish dependencies. The section also reported on the influence of the EastIcelandic Polar current on the climate of the Faroes. Pettersson, to whom Knudsen had sent his Danish manuscript to learn his opinion about it, now proposed that Knudsen prepared for inclusion as an annex to the General Report a paper about the influence of the Polar current upon the climate not only of the Faroe Islands, but also of the Shetland Islands and northern Scotland. It was important, Pettersson stressed, to get the Englishmen understand that their climate was influenced by hydrographic changes (Pettersson, 1904d)! Knudsen did prepare the paper (Knudsen, 1905b) which he could easily do, as he had already dealt with the subject earlier (Knudsen, 1900, pp.

37-42).

Change of programme After the original programme of hydrographic observations had been followed during the first two years a need for some change was felt. The first indication came from a meeting of the hydrographers who were engaged as assistants in the international cooperation. The meeting, which was held at Copenhagen on 18-23 July 1904, was attended by 15 hydrographers from the Council's 8 member countries. As a guest L.-G. Sabrou from the MusĂŠe OcĂŠanographique at Monaco participated and published a report on the meeting (Sabrou, 1904, pp. 1-15). The purpose of the meeting, which had been summoned by the Council at the suggestion of Knudsen, was to give the hydrographers, who worked isolated in the laboratories on more or less the same problems, an opportunity to discuss their work and exchange ideas, and in this way come out with new ideas or more perfect methods of work. The par-

ticipants presented a number of papers which were discussed and some of which were later published in the Council's series "Publications de circonstance".

An important outcome of the meeting was a number of proposals (Anon., 1905b, p. 36) about hydrographic investigations to be carried out, viz.: -that chemical investigations of the substances, which have a direct bearing on the existence of animal and vegetable life should be carried out as an essential part of the hydrographic work -that current measurements should be made, at the surface as well as in the depth -that observations should be conducted over certain areas of the territory for the international researches which had not hitherto been investigated -that hydrographic investigations should be carried out during the intervals between the cruises.

Unfortunately these proposals were addressed directly to the leaders of the hydrographic research in the member countries. This procedure caused some trouble to Knudsen who had chaired the meeting. As stressed by Otto Pettersson in letters to Knudsen such proposals, which would mean a complete change of the existing programme, should be addressed to the responsible authority of the organization, i.e. the Council (Pettersson, 1904e, 1904f). Also KrĂźmmel referred to what he called the unhappy meeting of assistants. He strongly criticized that the meeting in the explanation to the proposals also suggested how the data should be handled at the hydrographic department of the Council, the Service Hydrographique, and be published in the Bulletin.

This, he said, was clearly beyond the competence of the meeting and an encroachment on the task given to Knudsen by the Council; what the assistants decided about this did not matter at all. In such matters Knudsen alone was a greater authority than all the assistants taken together. KrĂźmmel added that if Knudsen had prompted this himself he had acted undiplomatically (KrĂźmmel, 1904). These manifestations made Knudsen modify his report on the meeting.

At the Council Meeting in July 1905 Knudsen reported to the Hydrographical Section on the meeting of the assistants (Anon., 1905b, p. 28). The recommendations were discussed in connection with a number of proposals by Knudsen. In a paper he pointed out that the object of the hydrographical investigations was to learn the general or average hydrographical situation, first and foremost temperature, salinity, and currents, at each place and at each depth, as well as the changes with time of these quantities. The question was to which degree the seasonal cruises would throw light upon these problems. While they supplied good material for the determination of the mean salinity and of the average deviation from the mean, the salinities, and the currents deduced from them, changed so rapidly and irregularly that the seasonal cruises could not give a picture of all the important changes. With regard to temperature the seasonal cruises had contributed but little to the determination of average values, amplitudes, and phase shifts at each place and at each depth. For both temperature and salinity there was obviously a need for observations at shorter intervals. Knudsen thought that this could be obtained without increased expenses and work of the research vessels and he put forth some suggestions for a programme: In the Baltic a satisfactory system of observations might be obtained by limiting the number of stations and instead make more frequent expeditions. In the Belt Sea and the Kattegat the seasonal cruises might perhaps be replaced by frequent observations carried out by fishery protection vessels etc. In Skagerrak and the North Sea a few fixed stations might be selected for alternate investigations by the interested countries. If moreover hydrographical observations would be made in connection with biological and fishery investigations, and if merchant vessels could be enlisted in the observation service to a much higher degree a satisfactory system of observations would be obtained. If furthermore, appropriate instruments for making sub-surface observations underway were available much would be gained (Knudsen 1905c, p. 38).

Perhaps Knudsen did not express himself with sufficient care at that occasion. In any case the Scottish delegate D'Arcy Thompson (1860-1948) pointed out that there was a risk that Knudsen's words be taken to mean

"that the methods on which we have been working are bad and unsatisfactory, and I see a danger of their being used by persons, who are unsympathetic towards our work, or who have little knowledge of hydrography, in such a way as to create prejudice against the International Cooperation. [..] If it were to be said that your words mean that we can draw no sound conclusions from such work as has hitherto been done, even as regards the broad elementary facts of the hydrography of the North Sea, what reply would you make to such a statement as that?" (Thompson, 1906a).

D'Arcy Thompson must have become aware that the Council and its activities, especially the hydrographic ones, were not particularly popular in some circles.

Knudsen replied that his remarks had been written in order to call attention to the aperiodic variations and not in order to show the advantages or failures of the methods used by the Council. He would consider it unfair if his words were interpreted to say that no sound conclusions could be drawn from the work carried out. To the hypothetical question raised by D'Arcy Thompson the answer would be that the investigations had given important results in many respects. Knudsen enumerated some of the results. For instance, the elementary facts of the hydrography of the North Sea were now so well known that it was reasonable to look somewhat more to the details, especially the aperiodic variations (Knudsen, 1906a). D'Arcy Thompson was satisfied that Knudsen's explanations were precisely on the lines that he himself had anticipated, and he felt that they would remove any risk of misunderstanding (Thompson, 1906b).

In any case, the Council agreed in Knudsen's proposal and requested the representatives of the participating states to make an endeavour to arrange for hydrographic cruises between the dates of the regular seasonal cruises, either according to the complete programme or a reduced one, with the understanding that the regular seasonal cruises should still be carried out with as little modification as possible. Knudsen was requested to undertake the necessary correspondence with those responsible for the hydrographical

work in the various countries. In support of this project Knudsen started an "intelligence service". He felt that as the research at sea was no longer limited to the four seasonal cruises there was a need for collecting information about the hydrographical programmes planned in the member countries and distributing this information to those interested. The idea was to keep the cruise leaders informed about the investigations planned for the next few months. This might lead to some coordination of the investigations. Knudsen's intelligence service was welcomed by the hydrographers. The English Ernest Holt, for instance, wrote that the service was of the greatest utility, and he expressed the hope that Knudsen would be able to continue it (Holt, 1905). Unfortunately, however, it gave rise to some controversy with the General Secretary (Smed, 1999).

Temperature data from measurement on telegraph cables It is evident that even some additional cruises would by no means give a continuous picture of the hydrographic situation. For the surface layer this might to some degree be remedied by routine observations from commercial vessels. Some information about the temperature of the bottom water might be obtained by measuring the electrical resistance of the telegraph cables as this resistance depends upon the temperature of the bottom water. This is the idea behind a decision by the 1st Preparatory Conference at Stockholm that one of the tasks of the Central Bureau would be "to make in connection with the investigations application to the telegraph administrations for the purpose of obtaining determinations from time to time of the changes in the resistance of the cables which cross the areas in any direction" (Anon., 1899, p. 13).

This formulation was repeated at the 2nd Preparatory Conference at Christiania (Anon., 1901, p. 22). The idea came obviously from Otto KrĂźmmel as he in a letter to Knudsen stated that he considered himself its spiritual father and had done so for 12 years (KrĂźmmel, 1905). Apparently no action had been taken in this matter until KrĂźmmel drew attention to it in the letter just mentioned. Here he pointed out that in the Belt Sea and the western Baltic

continuous observations were necessary if information about the changes in the bottom layers should be obtained, as the changes here could be very fast.

Investigations on the section Arkona-Trelleborg in August 1904 had, in fact, shown a complete change of the temperature and salinity layering during 3040 hours. Such changes might, of course, be tracked by observations from lightships. Unfortunately, however, there was no such vessel at a strategic position. So in order to get something continuous, if not salinity then at least temperature, it was necessary to resort to measuring the resistance of the telegraph cables as often as possible. A little pointedly Kr端mmel added that he would have talked about this idea at the recent meeting of the Hydrographical Section if the meeting had not wasted so much time upon the polemics Nansen versus Pettersson. However, no special resolution was necessary, he stressed; reference to the Christiania decision was sufficient. It authorized Knudsen to direct negotiations with the cable administrations, and Kr端mmel invited Knudsen to get started. Kr端mmel added that as Knudsen was an excellent electrician he would soon be able to find out what was possible in this respect!

Knudsen did follow up upon this. A month later he wrote to the leader of the Danish Telegraph Administration on the matter (Knudsen, 1905d). The response was positive, and Knudsen informed Kr端mmel that he had now made some experiments on cable measurements. In the first instance he considered it worth while to determine the mean temperatures of the cables by direct measurements with thermometer in order to have good base values (Knudsen, 1905e). Measurements on the cables in the inner Danish waters Knudsen considered as of minor importance. So the interest was concentrated on the cables across the North Sea. The difficulty was that these cables, owned by the Great Northern Telegraph Company, were in permanent use.

Someway, however, Knudsen must have succeeded in making Great Northern interested in the matter; for at the Council Meeting at Hamburg in March 1906 he could present a paper on the subject, based upon measurements carried out by the telegraph company on three cables across the North Sea (Knudsen, 1906b, pp. 40-44). Knudsen stated that the Danish Hydrographical

Laboratory, of which he was the chief, would endeavour to procure measurements from a total of 16 cables. This project does not seem to have materialized, however.

Mean Charts. Rearrangement of the Bulletin As intimated above Knudsen was of the opinion that there now was sufficient material for the determination of the average salinity at each standard station and observation depth. He therefore proposed to the meeting that average values were calculated on the basis of the observations now available. The averages would be used for the construction of isohalines in charts for the different depth levels and on representative sections. As it would be useful to know how large a deviation of the salinity from the average might be expected the mean deviation should also be indicated in the charts and sections. Knudsen presented a sample chart, which showed how the elaboration of the hydrographical material would appear. The Council adopted Knudsen's proposal, and the Bureau was requested to prepare and publish the charts and sections mentioned (Knudsen, 1905f, p. 42). This task was carried out during the following year (Knudsen and Smith, 1906, pp. XXVI-XXX with 15 plates).

The extension of the hydrographic investigations to cover also the periods between the seasonal cruises made Knudsen propose a rearrangement of the Bulletin. It should now contain also the observations made in the intervals between the seasonal cruises. All hydrographic station data should be presented in tables, and partly also graphically in sections. Serial data from light-ships and lighthouses should be included in the Bulletin if the salinity had been determined titrimetrically. Under the same condition all surface observations (temperature, salinity, and currents) should be published in extenso (Knudsen, 1905g, p. 44). This change of the Bulletin was accepted by the Council.

From July 1905 the Bulletin then underwent a number of changes. As it was no longer limited to the observations made at the seasonal cruises its title was changed to "Bulletin trimestriel des rĂŠsultats acquis pendant les

croisières périodiques et dans les périodes intermédiaires". The previous first part of the Bulletin was split up into two, one of which contained a station list and meteorological data, the other exclusively hydrographic surface observations, viz. all pairs of surface temperature and salinity. Furthermore, each quarterly number of the Bulletin now contained 9 charts showing the average temperature of the sea surface of the North Sea for 10-day periods. A large part of the material used in these charts had been received from the Deutsche Seewarte and from the Dutch Meteorological Institute. In accordance with a resolution proposed by Otto Pettersson and passed by the Council meeting in 1906 the Bulletin from November 1906 onwards also contained the results of the hydrographic cruises worked up after Vilhelm Bjerknes' dynamical method, viz. charts showing the depths of the isobaric surfaces of 10, 20, 30, 50, 100, 200, 300, and 500 decibar. The elaboration of the curves of equal depth of the isobaric surfaces was carried out by Knudsen and his staff after some instruction by the Swedish Johan Wilhelm Sandström (1874-1947) and in accordance with the method published by Sandström and HellandHansen (1903).

Brief Statement and Review At the meeting of the Hydrographical Section in 1906 Hugh Robert Mill (1861-1950), England, stated that the British government desired a discussion about publication of the results of the international investigations. So the Bureau asked the Section to prepare a brief summary of the principal results.

Three small groups at the meeting worked out parts of the summary, which Knudsen then collated. It was resolved to hand over the manuscript to the Bureau as soon as the authors had expressed their agreement with its form and contents (Anon., 1906, pp. 30-38). The final editing was left to Knudsen, a task that gave him some trouble. He circulated an edited version to those involved and received very many additions to it (Knudsen, 1906c). Having incorporated these amendments in a new version Knudsen circulated this, asking for speedy approval (Knudsen, 1906d). An idea of the editorial difficulties may be obtained from a letter in which Krümmel expressed his regret

that the editing of the so-called Brief Statement had caused Knudsen so much trouble. Krümmel had considered it necessary to cancel some parts of the summary. He thought that "our dear colleagues" should have kept their parade horses in the stables. However, Pettersson and Wind [the Netherlands expert] should always pursue their craze, Krümmel found, and he continued: "What does the Gulfstream at Newfoundland concern us? What Bjerknes? What the details about the tidal currents at Noord Hinder?

All this has for the point of the whole cooperation, the furtherance of the fishery questions, a very indirect importance only and it is actually dangerous to come to our authorities in the ministries with such things. Here it says: be moderate, and on the whole the "brief" summary is already much too extensive. Every further cut you may undertake, or the others propose, will have my approval" (Krümmel, 1906).

(From German.)

Also Theodor Homén uttered some dissatisfaction. He was especially surprised that Helland-Hansen could express himself with such certainty about the Norwegian Sea. The material available was indeed very scanty, Homén found. Knudsen and Nansen had stated that it was difficult to get anything at all out of it. So Homén did not support that part of the summary; however, he would not oppose against its inclusion (Homén, 1906). H. R Mill was anxious that the summary should not be given a too official status. He suggested that it should be treated as an expression of the views of the members of the Hydrographical Section of the Council and not as a formal resolution of the whole Council (Mill, 1906). The summary was published as an appendix to the proceedings of the Council meeting (Anon., 1906, pp. 48-61).

The "brief statement" was obviously to be considered as a short report, intended for the relevant ministries in the member countries. The hydrographers, however, felt a need for a more detailed general report on the results obtained during the period 1902-07, and the question was brought up at the meeting of the Hydrographical Section in June 1907. In the meantime Knudsen and his staff had prepared draft charts and sections showing mean tem-

peratures and temperature variations in the North Sea. The Council decided to publish them, and if possible also the corresponding salinity charts and sections, together with a short explanation and discussion. This fitted well to a resolution, passed by the above meeting, according to which a short general review of the knowledge of the hydrographical conditions in those parts of the sea investigated by the International Council, which had been acquired during the international cooperation, should be drawn up by the Hydrographical Department of the Bureau and circulated in draft to the members of the Council before publication as a supplement to the Bulletin. The North Sea temperature charts and sections mentioned above should be appended. The review was published, in English and German, as a supplement to the Bulletin 1906-07 (Anon., 1909).

As a matter of fact a review of the currents in the North Sea should have been included in the supplement. This request dates back to the Council meeting in 1906. The termination of the five-year period of cooperation, to which the governments had committed themselves, drew nearer. This may be the reason why the Bureau in January 1906 had asked for information as to which problems the various governments felt were pressing for solution.

The Netherlands government laid great stress upon receiving a summary of the conditions of the currents at the surface and, if possible, also in deeper layers of the whole North Sea. In accordance with this Cornelis H. Wind (1867-1911) of the Netherlands at the meeting of the Hydrographical Section in 1907 proposed that all data apt to give information about the currents in the North Sea should be summarized and worked up. The Section agreed and submitted to the Council a draft resolution that instructed the leader of the Hydrographic Department of the Bureau to prepare, if possible by March 1908, a numerical and graphical account of the currents in the North Sea, and requested the Council to make a grant to meet the expenses. It was added that the results of this investigation should be included in the above mentioned short general review. Unfortunately, however, it turned out that no money was available on the budget for this purpose. The task was then transferred to the Central Laboratory where it should be dealt with by the physical

assistant, Vagn Walfrid Ekman (1874-1954). Incidentally, about that time Knudsen published some general remarks about currents and water masses of the North Sea (Knudsen, 1907a).

At the meeting in June 1907 the Council, at the suggestion of Knudsen, recommended that the national directors of the hydrographic cooperation should devote attention to undertaking investigations on a large scale at appropriate lines, in order to determine the salinity of the sea surface by modern exact methods with the object of examining the practical value of using this procedure for fixing the position at sea in foggy weather. The possible usefulness of the method in the various regions of the sea was discussed by Knudsen (1907b).

Changes of work after 1907 At the abolishment of the Central Laboratory in 1908 the task of producing standard seawater was assigned to Knudsen in his capacity as hydrographical assistant to the Bureau (Smed, 2005a, pp. 157-170). When it later on turned out that there was a need also for other of the services earlier afforded by the Central Laboratory, such as supply of instruments, Knudsen established a small "Laboratoire Hydrographique" as part of the Council's office (Smed, 2005b, pp. 225-246).

From the year July 1907-June 1908 the arrangement of the Bulletin was changed. The hydrographical material for a whole year was now collected in one volume, the Bulletin Hydrographique. The tables of surface data were accompanied by coloured charts showing for each of the seasons the distribution of temperature and salinity over the whole region, and more detailed charts showed the distribution of surface salinity in the North Sea. The 10days charts of surface temperature in the North Sea were continued. The temperature and salinity observations at depth were assembled in two chapters, one covering the fixed stations, another the observations made in between. Hydrographic sections based upon the data were given as in the earlier volumes. A chapter contains the amounts of oxygen, nitrogen, and carbonic acid held by the water, together with some observations on cur-

rents. The same arrangement of the data in the Bulletin was used during the following years. The Bulletins for the years 1910-11, 1911-12, and 1912-13 contain appendices on continuous hydrographical observations carried out at fixed positions in the North Sea during a fortnightly period in each of the years 1911, 1912, and 1913. The appendices give tables recording the observations of current, temperature, and salinity together with a discussion of the results, especially with regard to the tidal currents.

With the outbreak of war in 1914 most work at sea was discontinued; so the flow of hydrographic data petered out. At the suggestion of the Council's President, Otto Pettersson, Martin Knudsen and his staff, consisting of Johan Gehrke and a part-time clerk, used these years for working up data received in pre-war years. On the basis of this material together with data supplied by the Deutsche Seewarte and the Netherlands Meteorological Institute the variation of the surface temperature in a number of areas of the North Atlantic during the years 1900-1913 was studied and the results published as tables and graphs in a special volume of the series Bulletin Hydrographique (Anon., 1919). Also a paper on the variations of the surface temperature in the North Sea during the years 1905-1914 was prepared and published in this series (Anon., 1922).

Martin Knudsenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s changing functions Knudsen's position in the ICES office was not always easy, partly perhaps because he besides being First Assistant to the Bureau was also a Danish delegate to the Council. As already mentioned he had in the Council's early years some controversies with the then General Secretary, P.P.C. Hoek. In 1920 he had again problems. To elucidate the atmosphere it may be appropriate to go into some detail. As Knudsen explained in a confidential letter to D'Arcy Thompson he had understood that Otto Pettersson did not wish him to continue his work in the office. Knudsen supposed that this would suit the General Secretary, C.F. Drechsel, well as clerks work more steadily than men of science. Knudsen added that he had never been enthusiastic over the ideas of Otto Pettersson and especially not over the plan of the Atlantic Bulletin on

which they had spent so much work; so he did not wonder that Pettersson would like to get rid of him (Knudsen, 1920). D'Arcy Thompson was exceedingly sorry to hear of Knudsen's difficulties in the office and was aware that it was not quite a new story. Perhaps as a sort of consolation he assured that he too had his difficulties. Indeed he had felt them ever since the cooperation began. Commenting on Pettersson he continued: "Otto Pettersson's attitude sometimes puzzles me. His other instincts seem to interfere with his freedom of opinion as a scientific man. He often seems to be more at home, and able to work better, with his non-scientific than with his scientific colleagues." (Thompson, 1920) Some change in Knudsen's position did occur when the Bureau at its meeting in March 1920 decided to replace the positions as Principal Assistants by three Editors, for hydrography, plankton, and fishery statistics respectively.

Knudsen became Editor for hydrography.

In 1924 there were again problems. Johan Hjort (1869-1948), an ICES vicepresident, had proposed that the Bulletin Hydrographique should be discontinued (Knudsen, 1924). This was not agreed; so Knudsen continued as editor of the Bulletin. There were controversies with Drechsel, however. Knudsen reported to Otto Pettersson that Drechsel determinedly strove at getting him out of the service of the office and would perhaps succeed, as Knudsen could not continue to endure working this way, feeling friction on all points. He would much appreciate it if Pettersson could find another arrangement as he still was highly interested in international hydrography (Knudsen, 1925). In 1925 a hydrographic assistant, Otto Pettersson´s son Wilhelm Irgens Pettersson (1883-1971), was engaged for one year, an appointment that was renewed twice. In this period Knudsen was Hydrographic Consultant to the Bureau. In 1928 Jacob Peter Jacobsen (1877-1946) was appointed Hydrographer, and Knudsen was invited to become Chief of the Service Hydrographique and thus to have the general supervision of the hydrographic work in the Service. Knudsen kept this post until 1948 when, at an age of 77, he wanted to be released from it.

Acknowledgement I am greatly indebted to Dr. Artur Svansson for assistance in processing this and other manuscripts.

References Abbreviations used: R: Conseil Permanent International pour l’Exploration de la Mer, Rapports et Procès-verbaux des Réunions.

P: Conseil Permanent International pour l’Exploration de la Mer, Publications de circonstance.

D.1, D.2, D.12, D.14: The letters referred to under these designations are kept in Rigsarkivet (Copenhagen), Archive no. 1935, Box numbers D.1, D.2, D.12, or D.14 as indicated.

Anon. 1899. Conférence internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer, réunie á Stockholm 1899. (Stockholm).

Anon. 1901. 2.Conférence internationale pour l'Exploration de la Mer réunie à Kristiania 1901. Première partie. (Christiania).

Anon. 1903. R, 1(B).

Anon. 1905a. General report on the work of the period July 1902-July 1904. R, 3.

Anon. 1905b. R, 4(C).

Anon. 1906. A brief statement of the present state and of some of the most important results of the hydrographical investigations, prepared by the Hydrographical Section of the Council, at Amsterdam, March 1906. R, 6(C).

Anon. 1909. Short general review of the hydrographical conditions in the seas investigated by the International Council; with 23 plates representing mean values of salinity and temperature in the North Sea. Supplement to Bulletin Trimestriel 1906-07.

Anon. 1919. Variations de la température de l'eau de surface dans certains carrés choisis de l'Atlantique pendant les années 1900-1913.

Anon. 1922. Variations de la température de l'eau de surface de la Mer du Nord pendant les années 1905-1914.

Helland-Hansen, B. 1904. Letter of 3 September 1904 to Martin Knudsen. In D.1.

Holt, E. W. L. 1905. Letter of 28 August 1905 to Martin Knudsen. In D.2.

Homén, T. 1906. Letter of 30 June 1906 to Martin Knudsen. In D.1.

Knudsen, M. 1900. Den østislandske Polarstrøms Indflydelse paa Færøernes Klima. In: "Iagttagelser over Overfladevandets Temperatur, Saltholdighed og Plankton paa

islandske og grønlandske Skibsruter i 1899 foretagne under Ledelse af C.F. Wandel, bearbejede af Martin Knudsen og C. Ostenfeld".

Knudsen, M. 1904a. Letter of 7 October 1904 to Otto Pettersson. In D.1.

Knudsen, M. 1904b. Letter of 3 November 1904 to Otto Pettersson. In D.1.

Knudsen, M. 1904c. Letter of 15 December 1904 to Otto Pettersson. In D.1.

Knudsen, M. 1904d. Letter of 8 September 1904 to Bjørn Helland-Hansen. In D.1.

Knudsen, M. 1905a. Havets Naturlære (Hydrografi) med særligt

Hensyn til de danske

Farvande. Skrifter udgivne af Kommissionen for Havundersøgelser, No. 2.

Knudsen, M. 1905b. On the influence of the East Icelandic Polar Stream on the climatic changes of the Faeroe Isles, the Shetlands and the North of Scotland. In “General Report of the Work of the Period July 1902-July 1904”. R, 4(C).

Knudsen, M. 1905c. Some remarks on the hydrographical investi- gations. In R, 4(C).

Knudsen, M. 1905d. Letter of 5 September 1905 to the Danish Telegraph Administration. In D.2.

Knudsen, M. 1905e. Letter of 3 November 1905 to Otto Krümmel. In D.1.

Knudsen, M. 1905f. Proposal for working out the data of the hydrographical observations. In R, 4(C).

Knudsen, M. 1905g. Proposals for the reform of the Bulletin. In R, 4(C).

Knudsen, M. 1906a. Letter of 18 June 1906 to D’Arcy Thompson. In D.2.

Knudsen, M. 1906b. On the determination of temperatures by measuring the resistance in telegraph cables. In R, 6(C).

Knudsen, M. 1906c. Circular letter of 9 March 1906 to the hydrographers. In D.1.

Knudsen, M. 1906d. Circular letter of 24 March 1906 to the hydrographers. In D.1.

Knudsen, M. 1907a. Some remarks about the currents in the North Sea and adjacent waters.

P, 39 .

Knudsen, M. 1907b. Salzgehaltsbestimmungen des Oberflächen- wassers als Hilfsmittel bei Positionsbestimmung an Bord. P, 38.

Knudsen, M. 1920. Letter of 24 January 1920 to D’Arcy Thompson. In D.12.

Knudsen, M. 1924. Letter of 27 September 1924 to Bjørn Helland-Hansen. In D.14.

Knudsen, M. 1925. Letter of 21 April 1925 to Otto Pettersson. In D.14.

Knudsen, M. and Kirstine Smith. 1906. The salinity of the North Sea and adjacent waters calculated on the basis of observations from the period August 1902-May 1905. In R, 6(A).

Krümmel, O. 1904. Letter of 15 September 1904 to Martin Knudsen. In D.1.

Krümmel, O. 1905. Letter of 7 August 1905 to Martin Knudsen. In D.2.

Krümmel, O. 1906. Letter of 25 March 1906 to Martin Knudsen. In D.1.

Mill, H. R. 1906. Letter of 30 March 1906 to Martin Knudsen. In D.1.

Pettersson, O. 1902. Letter of 26 May 1902 to C. F. Drechsel. Rigsarkivet (Copenhagen), Nr.10.649, Box 425, File 1.

Pettersson, O. 1904a. Letter of 4 October 1904 to Martin Knudsen. In D.1.

Pettersson, O. 1904b. Letter of 8 October 1904 to Martin Knudsen. In D.1.

Pettersson, O. 1904c. Letter of 31 October 1904 to Martin Knudsen. In D.1.

Pettersson, O. 1904d. Note of 30 September 1904 to Martin Knudsen. In D.1.

Pettersson, O. 1904e. Letter of 29 August 1904 to Martin Knudsen. In D.1.

Pettersson, O. 1904f. Letter of 9 September 1904 to Martin Knudsen. In D.1.

Sabrou, L.-G. 1904. Rapport sur la Réunion des Assistants hydrographes à Copenhague et sur les méthodes d'analyse en usage dans les laboratoires du Conseil international permanent pour l'Exploration de la Mer. Bulletin du Musée Océanographique de Monaco, No. 22. Monaco.

Sandström, J.W. and B. Helland-Hansen. 1903. Ueber die Berech- nung von Meeresströmungen. Report on Norwegian Fishery and Marine Investigations, II(4).

Smed, J. 1989. Otto Krümmel über Nansen's Kandidatur für den 1. Generalsekretär von ICES. DGM-Mitteilungen 1/1989.

Smed, J. 1999. Martin Knudsen's controversies with the General Secretary of ICES, P.P.C. Hoek. Unpublished manuscript.

Smed, J. 2005a. Martin Knudsen (1871-1949) and the Standard Seawater. Historisch – Meereskundliches Jahrbuch, Band 11.

Smed, J. 2005b. The Central Laboratory of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) and its Successors. Earth Sciences History, 24, 151-163.

Smed, J. 2010. Contribution to the history of Knudsen’s Hydrographical Tables. In Papers presented at ICHO-VIII. Thompson, D’Arcy. 1906a. Letter of 13 June 1906 to Martin Knudsen. In D.2.

Thompson, D’Arcy. 1906b. Letter of 21 June 1906 to Martin Knudsen. In D.2.

Thompson, D’Arcy. 1920. Letter of 31 January 1920 to Martin Knudsen. In D.12.

Abortive plans for salinity determinations

as a means for position finding at sea History of Oceanography Number 20, September 2008 Jens Smed

When Martin Knudsen (1871-1949), Hydrographic Assistant to the Bureau of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), in January 1907 studied the material of surface salinities collected by the ICES member countries since the organizationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s start in 1902 he, as mentioned in his letter to Admiral Carl Frederik Wandel (1843-1930) of the Danish Navy, got the idea that determination of surface salinity on board ships might be an aid in determining their positions (1). He explained his ideas in a memorandum, which he distributed to a great number of oceanographers and fishery biologists in the Council's member countries. Knudsen pointed to the fact that the determinations of the surface salinity in the Atlantic, the Norwegian Sea, the English Channel, the North Sea, and the Skagerrak had shown that the curves of equal salinity, the isohalines, have a typical form and distribution, and this might perhaps be used as an aid to the determination of position at sea in thick weather. In the open sea soundings were impossible when the ship was steaming at full speed and it would therefore be of importance to get information about the position by other means. In the neighbourhood of the coasts soundings were possible. However, soundings and bottom samples would in many cases not give sufficient information about the position. So a series of salinity determinations might, according to Knudsen, be an important means for correct navigation (2).

Knudsen took as an example a ship that in hazy weather was making for the Channel from the Atlantic and found rapidly decreasing salinities. This would obviously be a warning that the ship was in the neighbourhood of a coast and perhaps on a dangerous position; for if the ship followed the middle of the Channel the salinities would decrease slightly and fairly evenly. As another example Knudsen took the situation at the northern coast of Scotland. From here 67 salinity observations were available, made at distances varying from 5 to 10 nautical miles off the coast and covering all seasons and all kinds of weather. The highest of these salinities was 35.16%o. Consequently, if a ship approaching the coast observed a salinity higher than 35.16 %o it might with a high degree of probability be concluded that the ship was more than 5-10 miles from the coast and in no risk of running ashore. If on the other hand the ship found a salinity of about 34.90 %o it would probably be within a distance of 5-10 miles from the shore.

In his memorandum Knudsen pointed out that as the coasts in most cases are washed by relatively fresh water similar conclusions might probably be drawn for many other localities. The method might therefore be of importance for the prevention of damage to ships, men and cargo. Knudsen added that the ships' officers

would easily learn to carry out the salinity determinations by the ordinary titration procedure.

It was not his idea, Knudsen stressed, that the above examples could be used as sailing directions at the then state of knowledge; however, sailing directions would be a result of systematic oceanographic observations carried out in sufficient number with this object in view. Knudsen was therefore anxious that a much larger and appropriate material should be obtained, and he solicited the opinion of his colleagues as to whether this matter should in future be included into the working programme of the organization.

Undoubtedly to the surprise of Knudsen it turned out that the idea of using salinity determinations in the navigation was not a new one. As Otto KrĂźmmel (1854-1912) informed him (3) the same proposal had been broached in the report on the cruises undertaken by the German gunboat "Drache" in the North Sea (Anon., 1886, p.7). As a matter of fact the method had also been used on board French and Russian warships during the 1890s (Lebedintsev, 1908, pp. 57-64).

Knudsen received several answers to his circular. Hugh Robert Mill (18611950), England, considered that such observations would in many cases be found useful. However, it seemed to him that in cases of emergency the time required for collecting a sample, carrying out a sufficiently careful titration and calculating the result would make the method useless. The situation would be different if a direct-reading instrument could be devised which would give the salinity without calculation. So at present he did not think it would be wise to lay too much stress on the method of salinity, except in such localities as the entrance to the Baltic. In this region the salinity differences sometime were so large that salinities measured by hydrometer were exact enough to allow determination of the position with great accuracy. Mill raised the question whether it would not be possible to make some useful suggestions as to sea surface temperature as a guide to navigation - taking into account also prevailing wind and the season. In any case Mill strongly agreed that an effort should be made to obtain additional material on which to base any recommendations (4). In this context it may be mentioned that Mill's idea about using temperature measurements as a navigation aid was by no means a new one. As early as 1795 Benjamin Franklin, in conjunction with Jonathan Williams, at Philadelphia published a paper called "Thermometrical Navigation", a work that materially assisted safe navigation in subsequent years (Barlow, 1933, pp. 18-21).

Ernest Holt, Ireland, was prepared to arrange for the taking of water samples for the purpose in question off the south-west coast of Ireland. He was afraid, however, that it might be found difficult to make practical use of the method there (5). Knudsen agreed that the salinity at those places would not be very suitable for the determination of the position, and suggested that Holt should not trouble himself with observations made especially for that purpose (6).

Leonid Breitfuss (1864-1950), Russia, stated that in the Barents and Kara Seas it was not possible to determine the position from the surface salinity as this varied much, not only from season to season, but also from year to year.

It might perhaps be possible to use the salinity in deeper layers for the purpose; this procedure, however, would be too difficult for the mariner (7).

The Swedish oceanographer Otto Pettersson (1848-1941) emphasized his interest in studying the border waters and the variation of their extent, because all fishing was going on in these waters. It would be interesting, he thought, if such studies might be useful also for the navigation. He pointed out, however, that for instance in Skagerrak the surface salinity varies greatly with the season. On the other hand Pettersson mentioned a number of places, such as the entrance to the Channel, where the method might work. He would like to see a short paper from Knudsen about the plan before proceeding with it (8).

Walther Herwig (1838-1912), the President of the Council, stressed that the idea reported on in the circular might get greater importance for determination of the position at sea if it would be possible to develop it into a system of practical use. He suggested therefore that Knudsen worked out a programme to this effect, including an estimate of the expenses involved (9).

When Knudsen submitted his circular to the General Secretary of the Council, Paulus P.C. Hoek (1851-1914), he added that he would appreciate it if his memorandum might be issued in the publications of the Council (10).

Obviously this was not done. Instead of that Knudsen, as suggested by Pettersson, published a short paper on the item (Knudsen, 1907). In the paper Knudsen pointed out the general conditions that must be fulfilled in order that the method might be used: the salinity should vary perceptibly between places not too distant from each other, and the variation at each point should not be too great compared to the salinity differences occurring within the area determined by the uncertainty of the dead reckoning. A necessity for using the method was therefore a good knowledge of the mean distribution and variation of the salinity. Here Knudsen could refer to a recent publication (Knudsen and Smith, 1906, pl. I and II) which for the North Sea and adjacent waters gives, inter alia, charts showing the distribution of isohalines at the surface and also a map which by means of curves indicates the salinity's mean deviation from the mean value.

Knudsen declared that he had not investigated whether the method might be used in the Baltic, the Belts and the southern Kattegat: he considered the observation material in the Baltic to be too small, and in the Belts and the southern Kattegat the very irregular currents made it unlikely that the method could be used to any advantage. On the basis of the charts referred to above Knudsen concluded, however, that the method would be of use along the Dutch coast and along the French coast of the Channel. On the other hand it would not seem that it could be used in the Skagerrak or in the central part of the North Sea; as to the usefulness of the method near the coasts of the North Sea nothing could be said because of the scarcity of observations.

Knudsen pointed out that in the eastern part of the North Atlantic the positions of the isohalines were highly variable which, as explained above, was very unfavourable to the applicability of the method. The situation was different in the western part of the Atlantic. In the region between 40o N and

50o N British and Danish vessels throughout three years had collected a considerable number of water samples (about 1200). By plotting the surface salinities on a map Knudsen showed that the areas with salinities all above, respectively all below, 35 %o were separated by a zone about 100 nautical miles wide. However, the extreme positions of the 35 %o isohaline, as found on the basis of the data then available, might be somewhat in error, because of errors in the determination of the salinities and of the positions of the observation points. The only way to fix the extreme positions of the 35%o isohaline would be, Knudsen stated, to carry out on board titration of water samples collected immediately before and after a safe determination of the position of the ship. Altogether it might be supposed that the distance between the extreme positions of the 35 %o isohaline was 60-100 nautical miles. It might very well be, Knudsen commented, that a navigator after days with thick and stormy weather would be grateful for the information about his position that he could get from salinity determinations. It might perhaps be better to use other isohalines, or to determine the limits of an area in which the salinity gradient had a certain value. Altogether, many different investigations should be carried out when a really reliable material had become available, in order to find the best method for using the salinities in the navigation. As long as such investigations had not been undertaken the possibility of a useful application of salinity observations in the navigation should not be written off.

By an application to the Director of the Danish United Steamship Company Knudsen tried to make the Company interested in the matter. It would be a great advantage, he thought, if he at the forthcoming Council meeting could report that the Company had declared its willingness to organize the necessary investigations from its ships (11). Apparently, however, no reply to the application was received.

At the Council Meeting in London June 1907 Knudsen reported (Anon., 1907, p. 18) on the preliminary investigations carried out to test whether salinity determinations on board vessels might be used as an expedient in navigation. The following resolution was then carried (loc.cit., p. 30): "The Central Council recommends, with reference to the suggestion made in Publications de circonstance No.38, that the directors of the hydrographic work in connection with the international co-operation in the various countries, should devote attention to undertaking investigations on a large scale on appropriate lines in order to determine the salinity of the sea surface by modern methods, with the object of ascertaining the practical value of this method for fixing the position at sea in foggy weather".

In the following years regular observations were indeed undertaken along a number of lines. Apparently, however, the use of these observations for determination of the position at sea was not studied further. The lack of interest in the method may have arisen from the salinity determination on board a ship being considered a rather circumstantial piece of business.

Knudsen was aware of that and realized that it might be a hindrance to the practical use of the method. He stressed, however, that this should not im-

pede further investigations, as it with nearly complete certainty might be assumed that before long sufficiently fast and convenient ways of determination of the salinity would be found if the proposed method for position finding at sea proved useful. He thought that as long as the inapplicability of the method had not been proved or at least made very likely, one in the interest of mankind was obliged to carry out so comprehensive investigations that the method could be judged with certainty (Knudsen, 1907).

The fast and convenient method for measuring salinity, which Knudsen had in mind, was probably its determination by means of the electric conductivity of the seawater. He had already published a paper on this matter (Knudsen, 1900) and from his correspondence with Otto Krümmel it is known that he was still working on the problem (Smed, 2002, pp. 369-377). However, Knudsen did never publish anything more about it. As is well known, several decades should elapse before the problem was solved - and at that time more sophisticated methods for position finding at sea, also practicable in thick weather, had become available.

Acknowledgement. I am greatly indebted to Dr. Artur Svansson for assistance in processing the manuscript.

Literature Anonymous. 1886. Die Ergebnisse der Untersuchungsfahrten S.M. Knbt. "Drache". Berlin.

Anonymous. 1907. Rapp. P.-v. Réun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, VII, part B. Barlow, E.W. 1933. Notes upon the history of the survey and charting of ocean currents. Mar. Observer, 10 (109).

Knudsen, M. 1900. Maaling af Havvandets Temperatur og Saltholdighed ved Hjælp af elektrisk Telefonbro. - Beretning fra Kommissionen for videnskabelig Undersøgelse af de danske Farvande, 2 (3).

Knudsen, M. 1907. Salzgehaltsbestimmungen des Oberflächen- wassers als Hilfsmittel bei Positionsbestimmungen an Bord. - Publ. de circ. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, No. 38.

Knudsen, M. and K. Smith. 1906. The salinity of the North Sea and adjacent waters calculated on the basis of observations from the period August 1902 - May 1906. - Rapp. P.-v.

Réun. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, VI, Part A, Annex A. Lebedintsev, A. 1908. Chemical analysis of seawater on board for use in the navigation. In: Vestn. Ryboprom, 1908. (In Russian).

Smed, J. 2002. Early attempts at determination of the salinity of seawater from measurement of its electric conductivity. In: Keith R. Benson and Philip F. Rehbock (eds): Oceanographic History. The Pacific and Beyond. University of Washington Press, Seattle and London.

Letters The letters are stored in the archives of Kommissionen for Fiskeri- og Havundersøgelser, now in Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen. Archive no. 1935, Box D.2 or D.4 as specified below.

MK: Martin Knudsen

1. MK to C.F. Wandel 13 January 1907. - D.4.

2. Circular letter of 14 January 1907 from MK. - D.2.

3. Otto Krümmel to MK 16 January 1907. - D.2.

4. H.R. Mill to MK 25 January 1907. - D.2.

5. E.W.L. Holt to MK 21 January 1907. - D.2.

6. MK to E.W.L. Holt 25 January 1907. - D.2.

7. L. Breitfuss to MK 16(29) January 1907. - D.2.

8. Otto Pettersson to MK 20 January 1907. - D.2.

9. Walther Herwig to MK 28 January 1907. - D.2.

10. MK to P.P.C. Hoek 14 January 1907. - D.2.

11. MK to the Director of the Danish United Steamship Company 24 May 1907. - D.4.

USA’s and Canada’s long way to ICES History of Oceanography Number 20 September 2008 Jens Smed Introduction USA and Canada were not among the founding countries of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). According to the programme annexed to the Swedish government’s invitation to the International Conference for the Exploration of the Sea, held at Stockholm in 1899, the purpose of the cooperation was an exploration of the North Sea, the Baltic, and the “mer glaciale”, i.e. the Norwegian Sea (Anon., 1899, pp. I-III). Already at this Conference, however, the Swedish delegation proposed that USA and Canada should be invited to join the observation system agreed upon by the Conference. This would seem to be a natural extension of the investigations. So the proposal was strongly supported by the British and Norwegian delegates. At first also the German delegates gave the proposal a kind reception, although they did not find an extension of the investigations to the western part of the Atlantic necessary. They considered that the British observations, which according to the adopted scheme should be carried out west of Scotland, would cover the eastern part of the so-called Gulfstream Drift. This would give sufficient information about the conditions in the Atlantic, in so far as they would influence the physical and biological situation in the North Sea and the Norwegian Sea, the German delegates judged. The idea of the Swedish proposal was to obtain as many physical and biological data as possible. As the Conference proceeded the German delegation got the impression, however, that this was not in the foreground at the British delegates, but that their main purpose was to get the centre of gravity of the new organization shifted as far to the west as possible. England, or rather Scotland, would then make out the natural centre of the whole system, and it was then evident that the Central Bureau of the organization must be placed in Edinburgh, the home town of Sir John Murray (1841-1914). When at last this purpose, according to the German delegates, was expressed openly they gave up their support. The Swedish delegate Gustaf Ekman (1852-1930) then withdrew his proposal, as a unanimous resolution now was out of the question (Krümmel, 1899, Blatt 281).

The idea that the Central Bureau should be placed in Edinburgh was by no means foreign to the Norwegians. In a letter to the “father” of ICES, Otto Pettersson (1848-1941), Fridtjof Nansen (1861-1930), one of the Norwegian delegates, discussed the matter. If it was possible to have Murray as president of the organization Nansen would vote for Scotland as domicile of the Central Bureau because of Murray’s great advantages, i.a. as an administrator (Nansen, 1899). In the end, however, the German Walther Herwig (1838-1912) became president of the organisation, and the administration was split up in

a Central Bureau at Copenhagen and a Central Laboratory at Christiania, now Oslo (Anon., 1902, pp. VIII-XV).

The Swedish delegates had not completely given up the idea of extending the observations to the western Atlantic. In a letter to Fridtjof Nansen Otto Pettersson declared that it should not be impossible to start also an “Atlantic cooperation”, with John Murray as a sort of honorary president of both bodies in order to get a unity out of it (Pettersson, 1899). This idea was not carried into effect. But the need for oceanographic stations in the open Atlantic continued to emerge. In a paper submitted to the Eighth International Geographic Congress, held at Washington, D.C. in 1904 Martin Knudsen (18711949), Danish delegate to the International Council and First Assistant to its executive body, the Bureau, pointed out that such stations were greatly wanted in order to understand many of the oceanographical changes in the waters studied by the Council. He expressed the hope that America some day would join the work and fill the gap in the European investigations (Knudsen, 1905, pp. 506-508).

The same hope was expressed by Nansen in a memorandum addressed to the other Norwegian delegate, Johan Hjort (1869-1948), in August 1906: “...if the investigations are to be extended to the Atlantic Ocean which I, for my part, regard as necessary hoping that the United States and even Canada might be induced to take part in the researches..” (Nansen, 1906).

USA is approached As time passed the Council became exceedingly interested in USA becoming a member. In the meantime, however, a potential rival had emerged. The Ninth International Geographic Congress, held in Geneva in 1908, had proposed the establishment of an International Commission for the Scientific Exploration of the Atlantic. The Commission was formally set up at a meeting held in Monaco in 1910, in connection with the inauguration of the Musée océanographique. Prince Albert (1848-1922) agreed to take over the chairmanship. The question was now whether USA would join this Commission which would diminish the chances of her joining the Council. So the General Secretary of the Council, Christian Frederik Drechsel (1854-1927), approached the Danish minister in USA, Carl Moltke (1869-1935), asking him to make inquiries about the matter (Drechsel, 1910a). From application to various circles in USA Moltke had learned that there was an interest in joining the Atlantic Commission, but a proposal about this had apparently been defeated in Congress (Moltke, 1910a).

With regard to USA’s interest in the Council Moltke got positive reactions both from the Commissioner of Fisheries, C.M. Bowers, and from the influential Senator H.C. Lodge. The latter stated that he should be very glad personally to do anything he could “to promote the oceanography which had been the subject of the Conference at Monaco”, and he “should be happy to support any recommendations which the Administration may take for the cooperation of the United States in that work” (Lodge, 1910).

This sounded promising, and the Council’s President, Walter E. Archer (1855-1917), suggested that Moltke should point out which individuals in America might be invited to the forthcoming meeting in September 1910.

Archer was, however, somewhat alarmed by the tone of the letter from Senator Lodge, when he referred to the Monaco Conference, which had dealt with purely scientific work. Archer, who had fought to bring the work of the Council on a more practical footing, was sure that Great Britain would not continue her membership if the Council adopted as basis of its programme such proposals as those decided upon at Monaco. The support of America would be very dearly bought, if it lead to the secession of Germany and Great Britain, he added. So it should be carefully pointed out to the Americans that the object of the organization was not the pursuit of pure science, but the solution of definite fishery problems (Archer, 1910a).

Letters in accordance with these instructions were sent to the US Secretary of Commerce and Labor, C. Nagel, and the Commissioner of Fisheries, C.M. Bowers. The hope was expressed that they would be able to come and discuss the matter in a more private way in order later to proceed through official channels, if possible. It was added that Archer had invited Professor Prince in Canada to attend the next Council Meeting, and that it was the intention to approach French experts with the same in view (Drechsel, 1910b).

As the two USA persons approached were not able to attend the Meeting the Deputy Commissioner of Fisheries, Hugh M. Smith, was directed to informally represent the Department of Commerce and Labor. In order to furnish him with some advance information about the views and wishes of the Council relative to the nature and extent of a possible cooperation of USA Drechsel sent him a brief memorandum, “Facts which speak in favor of cooperation between North America and the countries of Northern Europe as regards international study of the sea.” (Drechsel, 1910c) USA shows interest in membership Hugh Smith did attend the Council Meeting. In the session of the Fisheries and Statistical Section he gave, upon invitation, some information about USA’s mackerel fishery, from early times her great high-sea fishery. During the last 25 years, however, a great decline in the catches had taken place.

The cause of this diminution was not clear, but Hugh Smith was inclined to believe that physical conditions acting on the eggs and young were responsible. He would welcome and support investigations from the side of the International Council to solve the problem (Anon., 1911, p. 58).

That the relevant US administration was seriously interested in cooperation appears from a communication of 11 November 1910 from the US Department of Commerce and Labor to the Secretary of State, quoted by Drechsel in an appendix to a letter to Archer (Drechsel, 1911a): “Judging from the important results already obtained by the council and from the announced programme for future work, the department feels that it will be of very decided advantage for the United States Government to have a place in this council and to cooperate therewith in the consideration of questions that affect the prosperity of our ma-

rine fisheries. The most important fishes of the North Atlantic are identical on the two sides, and the economic problems connected therewith are the same. By joining with the other great fishing nations in this practical work the United States will have the invaluable advantage of cooperation with the leading specialists in the world in the elucidation of problems that would otherwise have to be solved independently at great loss of time and money and will be able to anticipate some of the developments in the marine fisheries that have given much trouble to the European powers.”

In the autumn of 1910 official invitations to join the International Council were then communicated by the Danish Ministry for Foreign Affairs to USA and France, who both had been represented at the Council Meeting (Moltke, 1910b). As Canada had not sent a representation to the meeting it was considered preferable not to invite this country for the time being (Archer, 1910b). Otto Pettersson became momentarily uneasy about the invitations.

He felt that the Council’s member countries should have had an opportunity to approve the procedure (Drechsel, 1911b). Fortunately it turned out that there was no problem.

USA seemed to accept the invitation. In January 1911 the reply was received that a proposal for the necessary appropriation had been submitted to Congress. This was, of course, a gratifying message, though the Danish Ministry felt that it was to anticipate events. The normal procedure would have been that the US government declared their willingness to participate and then asked for the appropriations. Archer felt that USA now was likely to cooperate (Archer, 1911). The necessary appropriation for participation was, however, in the first instance turned down by Congress. Nevertheless the Council’s Bureau felt that time had come to ask the member countries for their consent to the participation of USA (Drechsel, 1911c).

USA becomes a member of ICES In USA the matter was again taken up by Congress. In December 1911 the Secretary of State, P.C. Knox, submitted an appropriation to the Secretary of the Treasury, explaining the background for the proposed cooperation (Knox, 1911). On 20 April 1912 the Senate and the House of Representatives in “joint committee” voted the necessary amount for USA’s participation in the Council (Danish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 1912). An official application for membership was now submitted by the US Government and was duly agreed by the member countries.

At the next Council Meeting, in September 1912, USA was represented by Hugh Smith. An informal meeting was held in which the programme for the cooperation with USA was discussed. Johan Hjort (1869-1948) lectured on the results of his last expedition in the Atlantic Ocean. He drew attention to the importance of the hydrographical [footnote: In ICES the word hydrography was used for physical oceanography] conditions in the western Atlantic being studied after the same plan as that used in European waters. These conditions would influence the life and propagation of fish off the coasts of USA and Newfoundland. Hugh Smith stated that the study of the life and

propagation of the mackerel on both sides of the Atlantic was one of the most important problems for a continued investigation. Otto Pettersson expected that the cooperative investigations would bring important information also in marine meteorology (Anon., 1913a, pp. 54-57).

At the Council Meeting in September 1913 Hugh Smith again represented USA. In the session of the Hydrographical Section he reported that the US Bureau of Fisheries had for many years been conducting hydrographic investigations on various parts of the Atlantic coast. It was the intention hereafter to carry out these investigations in accordance with the practice prevailing in the other member countries. To this end the physical apparatus and methods recommended by the Council's Hydrographical Laboratory would replace those formerly used. The Bureau of Fisheries had now taken steps to carry out the hydrographic work called for by the Council Meeting in 1912 (Anon., 1913a, pp. 78-79). Hugh Smith then reported on some work undertaken during the past year under direction of Henry Bryant Bigelow as well as on observations made by the Bureau of Fisheries in cooperation with US Coast and Geodetic Survey (Anon., 1913b, pp. 88-91).

Canada not interested in membership It would obviously be an advantage if also Canada joined the cooperation.

As a matter of fact Archer had suggested that both Canada and Newfoundland be invited. If they considered the matter favourably it might lead to their opening negotiations with France as problems had arisen because of fishing in late years on the fishing banks in their neighbourhood by French trawlers.

In that case the two countries might induce France to join the cooperation (Archer, 1911). Also Hugh Smith stressed the importance of cooperation with Canada. So the Danish minister in Washington, Carl Moltke, approached the Canadian Minister of Fisheries, L.P. Brodeur, who expressed Canada’s strong interest in the work carried out by the International Council. However, because of the great work at that time falling upon the Canadian Directorate of Fisheries it could not at present take on new tasks. But he hoped that in some years his country would be able to join the Council (Moltke, 1911).

Time passed, and Canada still did not express any wish to take part in the cooperation. Early in 1913, however, the Canadian Commissioner of Fisheries, E. E. Prince, came to see Hugh Smith about the participation of Canada in the International Council. Hugh Smith pointed out the great advantages to both Canada and USA and to the entire fishery work in the North Atlantic that would accrue if Canada joined the Council. Prince was personally in favour of Canada’s participation (Smith, 1913). At the instigation of the Council’s Bureau the English delegate Henry Maurice (1874-1950) now induced the British government to approach the Canadian government on the matter. The Canadian authorities, however, did not find it desirable that Canada should join the International Council at that time. The Bureau then decided to invite Prince to privately attend the meeting in September 1913, so that he might be acquainted with the Council’s work, programme, and deliberations. Prince did not come to the meeting but indicated that he might visit Europe in September 1914 and should then be pleased to attend the Council Meeting.

Thereafter it might be possible for him to induce the government of Canada to revise their decision with regard to membership of the Council (Anon., 1913b, pp. 18-19).

World War I: USA leaves ICES Then the war broke out in August 1914, and no Council Meeting was held.

The war would obviously bring the Council in a difficult financial situation as no contributions could be expected from the belligerent countries. The Council’s Bureau struggled to keep the organization alive (Smed, unpublished MS).

The Scandinavian countries and The Netherlands promised to pay their contributions for the year 1914-15. The same did Great Britain, although engaged in the War. As USA at that time was a neutral country Drechsel approached Hugh Smith to obtain that also USA’s contribution would be paid (Drechsel, 1914). But he was informed that although the contribution was included in the budget passed by Congress the US government was not likely to pay, referring to the probable discontinuance of all Council work during the year and the indefinite postponement of the Council Meeting. However, if it could be shown that the work would continue and that the usual expenses of the Council would go on, the matter would at least be reconsidered (Smith, 1914). Drechsel, with support from the US ambassador in Copenhagen, M. F. Egan, succeeded in persuading the US authorities that the above requirements were fulfilled and that USA was due to pay, which they finally did in December 1914.

In February 1915 the German government informed the Danish Ministry for Foreign Affairs that Germany during the war would abstain from further cooperation in the work of the Council. Consequently the German Fritz Rose, who had followed Archer as President, resigned from the post. The delegates for Sweden in an official letter to the Council’s General Secretary proposed that the delegate for USA, Hugh Smith, be elected President (Pettersson and Ekman, 1915). A motive for the proposal may have been to keep USA connected with the Council. The proposal does not seem to have got any support, and Otto Pettersson was unanimously elected President.

Although USA did not formally withdraw from the Council the US Congress would not make any financial provision for the country’s membership after the year 1914-15. According to Hugh Smith the reason was: “1. the very unsettled state of affairs in Europe and the withdrawal of the principal countries in the work, 2. the failure of Canada to join the council when Canada’s fishery interests in the North Atlantic are larger than those of the United States and are closely connected therewith, and 3. lack of interest in Congress in scientific or fishery investigations whose center is so remote from our shores.”

Hugh Smith assured that personally he wished the cooperation to continue, and he would be pleased to present the matter to his government at the proper time with a view to resuming the relations. He expressed the hope that they might not be entirely cut off from communication, pending a time when they might expect again to be associated (Smith, 1915a).

The Council decided to abstain from requesting any contributions for the year 1915-16 from the governments. Drechsel hoped that in this case USA would stay a member during the year (Drechsel, 1915). The decision was received positively by Hugh Smith who again expressed the hope that nothing would prevent the re-adherence of USA as soon as international affairs became a little more settled (Smith, 1915b).

Apparently USA had still not officially withdrawn. For in February 1916 Drechsel again wrote to Hugh Smith. It was now desirable to call for contributions for the year 1916-17. The question was whether USA, still a neutral country, could be approached or not. The inquiry should be unofficial to begin with; for if the attitude of the government were unfavourable there might come an official answer which would mean the withdrawal of the country from the Council (Drechsel, 1916a). The answer from Hugh Smith was in the negative. The authorities had reached the decision that it would be impracticable for USA to resume active affiliation with the Council until the European conflict was over and conditions had assumed a more or less normal state. It would probably be futile to bring up the subject in Congress until peace had been established. Hugh Smith reiterated that as soon as time was ripe he would bring the subject to the attention of the US Department of State in the expectation that it might prevail upon Congress to authorize resumption of the relations with the Council (Smith, 1916).

Drechsel again mobilized the US ambassador. In 1916 negotiations were going on about the relinquishment of the Danish West Indies (now the Virgin Islands) to USA. Apparently Drechsel saw a chance that these negotiations might induce USA to pay the contribution for 1916-17. He stressed, however, that the amount itself was not the main thing, but it was essential that USA stayed a member of the Council (Drechsel, 1916b). As this did not give any result Drechsel in the autumn of 1917, when the ambassador was on the point of leaving for USA, again approached him and furnished him with a memorandum about the desirability of USA rejoining the Council (Drechsel, 1917). USA, however, became engaged in the war, and in July 1918 Hugh Smith informed Drechsel that his government now was not directly interested in the work of the Council. No future engagements or responsibilities of any kind could be assumed by USA until the war had been satisfactorily concluded (Smith, 1918).

Futile post-war negotiations When the war was over Drechsel reminded Hugh Smith about his promise to bring the matter of USAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s participation in the Council to the attention of his government (Drechsel, 1919a). The consensus of opinion in Washington was, however, that in the unsettled state of affairs it would be impracticable for USA to participate. It would be difficult to secure from Congress the funds and authority for resumption of the relations to the Council. An important feature in this connection was the failure of Canada to participate. The feeling in Washington was that Canada would hold aloof from the Council, but be desirous of entering into more active cooperation with USA in oceanographic work (Smith, 1919). Drechsel would not give up, however. He maintained

that it would be highly to the detriment of the international investigations if USA should now withdraw. He thought that the subscription for participation in the Council was so small that it did not count, and he pointed to the fact that the work of the Council had more and more been extended to the Atlantic and was now carried out in such vicinity of the American coasts that the adhesion of USA and Canada to the Council ought to be justified by these facts alone (Drechsel, 1919b).

USA was invited to send representations to the first post- war Council Meeting, held in London in March 1920. An attaché at the US London embassy, Lincoln Hutchinson, represented his country. The General Secretary stressed the importance of early information about USA participation in the Council.

Hutchinson declared that it was his intention to urge his government to take part in the investigations, though he could give no assurance whatsoever that his endeavours would meet with success (Anon., 1920, p. 21). Shortly after the meeting the Council’s President, Henry Maurice (1874-1950), met with a member of the Commercial Department of the US London Embassy who promised that his department would do their utmost to further the idea of American participation. In view of this Maurice thought it better to wait and see what could be done by representations in various quarters (Maurice, 1920a).

Hugh Smith again stressed that they took very much interest in the matter and that they wished to follow the work of the Council. However, in view of previous experiences and the economic situation he deemed it impossible to obtain the necessary appropriations from Congress. On the other hand, USA would like to have a representative on the Council – not a full member, but a delegate who could follow the work and keep USA in touch with the Council.

Drechsel found this standpoint peculiar. Apparently USA and Canada wished to remain in touch with the Council and its work, but they would not pay any contribution (Drechsel, 1920a). The same impression the Danish marine biologist Johannes Schmidt (1877-1933) had got during his visit to Washington.

He was told that Hugh Smith was in favour of his country’s membership, but that other US authorities were not. They would cooperate informally with the Council, but would join Canada, and they would have “working and no talking”. Drechsel realized that this remark referred to the Council, and he admitted that there might be something in it. E.g., the Council had passed a number of Resolutions about hydrographic work that was “desirable”, which had not been implemented, however (Drechsel, 1920b).

Maurice was still optimistic. At a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science he had met C.A. Kofoid (1865-1947) of California, who was most anxious that USA should rejoin the Council. So Maurice did not consider the case of America’s membership quite hopeless (Maurice, 1920b).

Hugh Smith still felt, however, that it was futile to expect that his government would re-enter the Council. The main hindrance was again the failure of Canada and Newfoundland to join the organization. Instead these countries and USA had now entered into an arrangement for oceanographic investigations on both the Atlantic and the Pacific coast, to be coordinated by an International Committee on Sea Fisheries Investigations. At its inaugurating meeting

the Committee agreed that contact should be established with the International Council. Hugh Smith wondered whether some form of limited membership of the Council might be practicable, pending the time when it might be feasible for the three countries to become regular members (Smith, 1921a).

Now Otto Pettersson gave up hope, as appears from his letter to Drechsel (Pettersson, 1921): “You now realize, I think, that our proposal to America is in vain, and we must content ourselves with having started universal marine research and worked out its methods.” (From Swedish.)

The suggestion for limited membership was declined with the motivation that the Council was made up of delegates officially appointed by the participating countries and was working in accordance with a definite constitution.

However, the Council at least pretended to keep up the illusion about an USA membership at a later date: “The Council has learned with pleasure from Dr. Hugh Smith’s letter that he is still able to regard the eventual adhesion of the United States as a possibility and the Council will, in the meantime, be glad to maintain the most intimate relation possible with the International Committee of the United States, Canada and Newfoundland”. (Anon., 1921, p.

12).

The members of the American Committee soon changed their mind with regard to contact with ICES. At their meeting on 4 November 1921 they decided that the work of the Committee had not yet developed far enough to call for establishment of contact with the Council. At the same meeting they passed a number of resolutions about the future work of the Committee (Smith, 1921b). Drechsel passed on these resolutions to Maurice. He was not impressed: “If they cannot do anything better than this, I do not think we need worry much about contact with them” (Maurice, 1921).

Soon after Hugh Smith, the main spokesman for USA’s membership of the Council, tendered his resignation.

Interest for membership emerges in the 1930s In spite of their actual attitude Henry Maurice undoubtedly expected that USA and Canada some day would join the Council. It is probably to these countries he refers in an article in The Times in June 1924: “ The Council welcomes new adherents, but does not seek them. It knows that, sooner or later, every country with an Atlantic seaboard and with fishery problems to solve will seek admission to it. Those countries which at present stand aside from it will realize in time that in the matter of marine investigations a special significance attaches to the adage “union is strength”, and that the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea is the obvious rallying point of those who foresee, if they have not already experienced, the difficulties attending the rational exploitation of the fisheries under modern conditions.” (Maurice, 1924, p. 6).

About the same time Otto Pettersson approached Drechsel, asking whether he, in case it should be proposed by the Bureau, would be prepared to go to USA for a couple of weeks in order to work for cooperation with the Council and for USA’s participation in the investigation of the ocean. He stressed that if something should be done in USA “it should be now, just now! Now or never!” In USA the Coast and Navy [i.e. Geodetic] Survey, the Fishery authorities, and the learned institutions should be approached. At the same time Drechsel might, on behalf of Pettersson, receive the Agassiz medal recently awarded him. This would open the learned societies for Drechsel, and he would get introduction to the great patronages (Pettersson, 1924).

Pettersson’s idea does not seem to have been carried out. But the interest for cooperation with the Council on marine research did again emerge in USA. Early in 1930 the Council received a confidential letter from Albert Eide Parr, curator of the newly established Bingham Oceanographic Foundation.

Parr pointed out that the interest of the American nation was now rapidly turning towards the problems of marine biology and oceanography. So it would seem to be an opportune moment to take up again the question of USA joining or cooperating with the Council. Parr therefore solicited information about “the inception, organization, functions and scope of the Council, and also, if possible, a suggestion for the United States joining it”. The application induced Henry Maurice to contact E. J. Allen, Director of the Plymouth Laboratory, to get some information about the merits of Parr and the Bingham Foundation. Allen estimated that the Foundation was a thing to be encouraged, but it did not represent the important oceanographical work of USA, such as the Bermuda Biological Station and Bigelow’s Oceanographical Institute.

Information about the Council and the formalities in connection with admission to it was sent to Parr, but nothing more issued from the application. Obviously the Council considered it more important to establish connections with other American institutions. So Henry B. Bigelow, Director of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), USA, and A.G. Huntsman of the Atlantic Biological Station, Canada, were invited to the annual Council meeting at Copenhagen in 1931. Huntsman was unable to attend, but Bigelow did participate, representing the North American Council on Fisheries Investigations. He had one more reason for visiting Copenhagen in 1931, viz. to inspect the WHOI research vessel “Atlantis” which was under construction on a Copenhagen shipyard and was scheduled for delivery later in the year (Schlee, 1978, pp. 17-18). Bigelow gave an account of WHOI and of his plans for investigation of the western part of the North Atlantic. The Council passed a resolution to the effect that it considered the moment opportune for entering into close cooperation with both WHOI and the North American Council on Fisheries Investigations. It was of the opinion, that effective cooperation could best be achieved by close personal touch between the workers, and accordingly invited representatives of both bodies to take part regularly in its deliberations. The purpose was to arrive at unity of plans and methods in the study of those fundamental problems, which were identical or similar on both sides of the Atlantic (Anon., 1931, p. 21).

During the following years guests from USA and Canada usually attended the annual Council meetings. To further the cooperation the Council at its meeting in 1933 established an Atlantic Committee, consisting of its North Western Area Committee and its Atlantic Slope Committee. The main purpose of this “super-committee” was to enable its two constituent Committees jointly to maintain liaison with the American Council on Fisheries Investigations. The latter would each year send a summary on its work in the Atlantic Ocean to the Atlantic Committee for publication in the International Council’s Rapport Atlantique, and the hydrographical data would be sent directly to the Council’s Service Hydrographique for publication in the Bulletin Hydrographique. In return the Atlantic Committee would report to the North American Council (Anon., 1933, p. 16).

After World War II: a period of negative attitude The Second World War meant a break in most of the Council’s activities and in the Annual Meetings. After the war USA and Canada were invited to join ICES. But the reply dragged on. At the meeting of the ICES Bureau in March 1946 the President, Johan Hjort, informed the members that he had been asked by Professor Bigelow whether one of his assistants might attend the Council Meeting at Stockholm in August 1946. The ICES authorities considered, however, that it would be undesirable to see guests from USA before a reply had been received to the invitation to join the organization (Anon., 1946). Later on the authorities must have changed their mind. For as a matter of fact Mary Sears, of WHOI, did attend the Stockholm meeting as a guest (Anon., 1947, p. 9). In 1947 USA declared that direct participation in the Council would not be possible (Blegvad, 1947). At many of the Council meetings in the following years, however, USA was represented by observers, as was also Canada.

In 1950 the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF) was established, with member countries from both sides of the North Atlantic. USA and Canada concentrated their interest on the new organization. So when the Regional Fisheries Attaché of the U. S. Embassy at Copenhagen, Andrew W. Anderson, inquired at home about the situation with regard to membership of ICES he was informed that USA had no intention of joining it. ICES and ICNAF were considered as complementary organizations, and the existing exchange of fisheries information was felt to be adequate to meet the needs of USA. As little U.S. fishing was conducted in the ICES region fisheries research should be concentrated in the ICNAF area. Also the exchange of information in the oceanographic field was considered to be adequate, and the flow was likely to increase when the data exchange mechanism of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) was more fully developed – an exchange mechanism in which the ICES data centre presumably would participate. It was pointed out that 11 nations were members of both ICNAF and ICES and that 11 of the 16 members of ICES were also members of IOC. This should insure a continuation of cooperation and coordination and a free flow of information (Anderson, 1962).

USA and Canada finally members of ICES In 1965, however, the US Department of State sought information about ICES (Tambs-Lyche, 1965), and early in 1966 USA, in a letter to her embassy in Copenhagen, declared her intention to become a member of ICES. The US embassy at Ottawa was also informed. This does not mean, however, that the two countries rode partner race. Whereas Canada became a member in 1967 USA needed considerably more time. In 1967 the Senate had agreed on the necessary appropriation for participation, but it was deleted in “joint committee” of Senate and House (Sullivan, 1967). The situation was the same in 1968 (Sullivan, 1968) and again the following years. Only in 1973 USA could at long last re-enter ICES. Acknowledgement I am greatly indebted to Dr. Artur Svansson for copies of letters in Swedish archives and for perpetual assistance in the processing of this and other manuscripts.

References RAC: Rigsarkivet, Copenhagen. Archive No. 10.649.

Anderson, A. W. 1962. Letter of 20 September 1962 to the General Secretary of ICES, A. Fridriksson. RAC, Box 42, File 2.A. 1956-1966.

Anonymous. 1899. Conférence internationale pour l’exploration de la mer, réunie à Stockholm 1899. Imprimerie K. L. Beckman, Stockholm.

Anonymous. 1902. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, Rapports et Procès – verbaux des Réunions, I(A).

Anonymous. 1911. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, Rapports et Procès – verbaux des Réunions, XIII(B).

Anonymous. 1913a. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, Rapports et Procès – verbaux des Réunions, XV(B).

Anonymous. 1913b. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, Rapports et Procès – verbaux des Réunions, XIX(B).

Anonymous. 1920. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, Rapports et Procès – verbaux des Réunions, XXVI(B).

Anonymous. 1921. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, Rapports et Procès – verbaux des Réunions, XXVII. Anonymous. 1931. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, Rapports et Procès – verbaux des Réunions, LXXIV. Anonymous. 1933. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, Rapports et Procès – verbaux des Réunions, LXXXV(I).

Anonymous. 1946. Protocol of the Bureau Meeting on 30 March 1946. RAC, Box 1, File 1.A. Anonymous. 1947. Cons. perm. int. Explor. Mer, Rapports et Procès-verbaux des Réunions, ère CXVII, 1 partie.

Archer, W.E. 1910a. Letter of 14 July 1910 to C.F. Drechsel. RAC, Box 41, File 2A: USA. - “ -. 1910b. Letter of 14 October 1910 to Drechsel. RAC, Box 41, File 2A: USA. - “ -. 1911. Letter of 28 January 1911 to Drechsel. RAC, Box 4.

Blegvad, H. 1947. Letter of 14 May 1947 from the General Secretary of ICES to the Danish Foreign Ministry. RAC, Box 1, File 1.A. Danish Ministry for Foreign Affairs. 1912. Letter of 24 April 1912 to Drechsel. RAC, Box 41, File 2A: USA. Drechsel, C.F. 1910a. Letter of 10 May 1910 to C. Moltke. RAC, Box 4.

- “ -. 1910b. Letters of 23 July 1910 to C. Nagel and C.M. Bowers. RAC, Box 41, File 2A: USA. - “ -. 1910c. Letter of 12 September 1910 to Hugh Smith. RAC, Box 41, File 2A: USA. - “ -. 1911a. Letter of 28 June 1911 to Archer. RAC, Box 41, File 2A: USA. - “ -. 1911b. Letter of 30 January 1911 to Archer. RAC, Box 41, File 2A: USA. - “ -. 1911c. Letter of 24 April 1911 to the Danish Minister for Foreign Affairs. RAC, Box 41, File 2A: USA. - “ -. 1914. Letter of 5 August 1914 to Hugh Smith. RAC, Box 43, File 2B: USA. - “ -. 1915. Letter of 31 March 1915 to Hugh Smith. RAC, Box 43, File 2B: USA. - “ -. 1916a. Letter of 12 February 1916 to Hugh Smith. RAC, Box 43, File 2B: USA. - “ -. 1916b. Letter of August 1916 to M.F. Egan. RAC, Box 43, File 2B: USA. - “ -. 1917. Letter of 10 November 1917 to M.F. Egan. RAC, Box 43, File 2B: USA. - “ -. 1919a. Letter of 22 July 1919 to Hugh Smith. RAC, Box 41, File 2A: USA. - “ -. 1919b. Letter of 23 October 1919 to Hugh Smith. RAC, Box 41, File 2A: USA. - “ -. 1920a. Letter of 26 March 1920 to Henry Maurice. RAC, Box 41, File 2A: USA. - “ -. 1920b. Letter of 9 August 1920 to Otto Pettersson. Landsarkivet, Gothenburg, The Otto Pettersson Collection, Box 25:3. nd Knox, P.C. 1911. Letter of 20 December 1911 to the Secretary of the Treasury. 62 Congress, nd 2 Session, House of Representatives, Foreign Intercourse, Doc. No. 341, pp. 7-8. Appended to letter of 1 February 1912 from the Danish Ministry for Foreign Affairs to Drechsel. RAC, Box 41, File 2A: USA. Knudsen, M. 1905. The hydrographic methods used in international cooperational study of the sea. Report of the Eighth International Geographic Congress held in the United States 1904. Washington, D.C. Krümmel, O. 1899. Bericht über die Ergebnisse der internationalen Konferenz zur Erforschung der nordeuropäischen Meere in Stockholm 15 bis 23 Juni 1899. Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz (Berlin), Rep. 76–VC, Sekt. 1, Tit. 11, Nr. 11, Blatt 275–285.

Lodge, H. C. 1910. Letter of 21 June 1910 to C. Moltke. Copy appended to letter of 7 July 1910 from Drechsel to Archer. RAC, Box 41, File 2A: USA. Maurice, H. G. 1920a. Letter of 30 April 1920 to Drechsel. RAC, Box 41, File 2A: USA. - “ -. 1920b. Letter of 31 August 1920 to Drechsel. RAC, Box 43, File 2B: Gen. - “ -. 1921. Letter of 21 December 1921 to Drechsel. RAC, Box 41, File 2A: USA. - “ -. 1924. Exploration of the sea. Practical investigations of the International Council. The Times Trade and Engineering Supplement, June 28, 1924.

Moltke, C. 1910a. Letter of 9 June 1910 to Drechsel. RAC, Box 4, File 1.A.4.

- “ -. 1910b. Letter of 2 December 1910 to Drechsel. RAC, Box 41, File 2A: USA. - “ -. 1911. Letter of 18 November 1911 to Drechsel. RAC, Box 41, File 2A: USA. Nansen, F. 1899. Letter of 16 December 1899 to Otto Pettersson. Letter no. 279 in: Nansen: Brev, II (1961).

- “ -. 1906. Memorandum addressed in August 1906 to Johan Hjort. In part quoted pp. 28-33 in: E.M. Thomasson (ed.): “Study of the Sea”. Farnham, Surrey, 1981.

Pettersson, O. 1899. Letter of 10 December 1899 to Fridtjof Nansen. Norwegian National Library’s Collection of Letters, File 48.

- “ -. 1921. Letter of 24 June 1921 to Drechsel. RAC, Box 41, File 2A: USA. - “ -. 1924. Letter of 1 April 1924 to Drechsel. RAC, Box 41, File 2A: USA. Pettersson, O. and G. Ekman. 1915. Letter of 18 February 1915 to Drechsel. RAC, Box 1, File 1.A.1.

Schlee, S. 1978. On almost any Wind. Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London.

Smed, J. 2007. Decline of ICES during the First World War and rise after the War. Unpublished manuscript. 32 pp.

Smith, H. 1913. Letter of 17 February 1913 to Drechsel. RAC, Box 41, File 2A: USA. - “ -. 1914. Letter of 19 August 1914 to Drechsel. RAC, Box 43, File 2B: USA. - “ -. 1915a. Letter of 27 February 1915 to Drechsel. RAC, Box 43, File 2B: USA. - “ -. 1915b. Letter of 7 July 1915 to Drechsel. Copy appended to letter of 7 March 1916 from Drechsel to Egan. RAC, Box 43, File 2B: USA. - “ -. 1916. Letter of 13 March 1916 to Drechsel. Copy appended to letter of 17 April 1916 from Drechsel to Egan. RAC, Box 43, File 2B: USA.

- “ -. 1918. Letter of 5 July 1918 to Drechsel. RAC, Box 41, File 2A: USA. - “ -. 1919. Letter of 5 September 1919 to Drechsel. RAC, Box 41, File 2A: USA. - “ -. 1921a. Letter of 6 June 1921 to Drechsel. RAC, Box 41, File 2A: USA. - “ -. 1921b. Letter of 22 November 1921 to Drechsel. RAC, Box 43, File 2B:Gen. Sullivan, W. L. 1967. Letter of 9 November 1967 to the Council’s President, A. E. J. Went. RAC, Box 43, File 2A:14.

- “ -. 1968. Letter of 11 September 1968 to the Council’s General Secretary, H. Tambs-Lyche.

RAC, Box 43, File 2A:14.

Tambs-Lyche, H. 1965. Letter of 19 November 1965 to W. L. Sullivan. RAC, Box 43, File 2A:14.

The Stockholm Conference 1899 – outside the meeting rooms ICES/CIEM Information Issue No. 34 September 1999

Jens Smed Former ICES Hydrographer and Chef du Service Hydrographique In Issue No. 30 of this newsletter questions about the “housekeeping” for the first meetings were posed: how long did it take to travel to Stockholm, how did the participants get around the town, etc. From some amazing sources Jens Smed has put together the following account of what went on behind the scenes and how it was accomplished.

The proceedings of the Stockholm Conference show quite clearly that the participants worked hard. Over a few days they prepared the programmes and made the decisions that formed the basis of the future International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). Fortunately, however, not all was work. Several social events took place, and the Swedish hosts were very hospitable. For example, at the frontier foreign Delegates received free railway tickets (1st class, also sleeping-car) for travel in Sweden.

The Conference started on Thursday, 15 June. The evening before, the Swedish Delegates welcomed their foreign colleagues at an informal party at the Café Anglais. A. R. Akerman, who was to become President of the Conference, welcomed everyone in English. One of the German Delegates, V. Hansen, replied in German. All the discussions at the Conference took place in English or German, according to the choice of the individual speaker. This apparently did not cause any serious difficulty, except for the Chief British Delegate, W. E. Archer. The official words of welcome to the Conference were expressed in French by the Swedish Minister of the Interior.

King Oskar II had initiated the Conference, and he took an interest in it from start to finish. On Friday, the 16th, at 11 a.m., he received all the Delegates in a ceremonial audience at the Royal Palace. Each Delegate was presented to the King and was addressed by him. Afterwards the King showed the assembly a message recently received via “bottle-post” from the Polar explorer S. A. Andrée, who had disappeared in the Arctic in 1897. The King discussed this matter in detail with another Polar explorer, Fridtjof Nansen, who was one of the Norwegian Delegates to the Conference. From this the Delegates realized that the King was genuinely interested in scientific questions.

On Sunday, the 18th, the Delegates were invited for an all-day excursion, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., via the steamer “Norden” to Gripsholm, a royal castle on the banks of Lake Mälaren. On the outward passage they had breakfast, and on the way back a late lunch was served. In the fine weather the excursion was most successful. The old castle, so rich in memories of the past and with collections of old portraits, was visited under the guidance of an expert from the National Museum.

On Monday, the 19th, the King invited the Delegates to a formal dinner at the Royal Palace. Other guests included the heads of the British, Danish, German, and Russian Missions at Stockholm and several Swedish and Norwegian Ministers, and the Swedish Crown Prince and Prince Carl were also present with their respective entourages. Fifty people in total were present. After the dinner the King conversed with each Delegate in the most amiable way.

The next day the Delegates were invited by the City of Stockholm to a banquet at Saltsjöbaden. The guests were taken there by the beflagged steamer “Ifillersjö”, being entertained on the way by two quartets and, upon arrival at their destination, with military music.

The menu of the banquet left nothing to be desired: Hors d’oeuvre Potage tortue clair Sole à la Dieppoise Asperges nouvelles au beurre Poulets rôtis Concombres Glace napolitaine Fromage Desserts During the dinner the company was entertained by both quartets and a military band.

The speech of welcome was given in French by the Prefect of Stockholm. The senior German Delegate, Dr W. Herwig, replied in German. Professor Nansen spoke at length in English about the progress of the Conference. He thought that many of the Delegates had come with only little hope that any really important results would come from the negotiations. Experience had shown, however, that it had not been difficult to obtain general agreement, and the Conference was now on its way to making unanimous resolutions – a great result which boded well for the future.

On Thursday, 22 June, the Swedish Ministry gave a dinner in honour of the Delegates at Restaurant Hasselbacken on Djurgården. Also present were members of the diplomatic corps and leading Swedish scientists.

The Conference ended on Friday, the 23rd, at 1.30 p.m. In the afternoon the Delegates were invited to travel by the Crown steamer “Sköldmön” to the Royal Summer Palace, Drottningholm, situated on the banks of the Mälaren.

The Palace was visited under expert guidance.

During the weekend the Delegates returned to their home countries after a successful Conference and many pleasant social events.

Sources Report to the German Imperial Minister for the Interior, by the German delegation in pleno.

Report to the Prussian Minister for Ecclesiastical Instruction and Medical Affairs, by the German Delegate, Otto Krümmel.

Reports in the newspaper “Stockholms Dagblad” collected by Artur Svansson.