Useful Natural History? Pest Control in the Focus of the Economic Society of Bern

USEFUL NATURAL HISTORY? PEST CONTROL IN THE FOCUS OF THE ECONOMIC SOCIETY OF BERN

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss

Many scientific disciplines in the eighteenth century were increasingly oriented towards the needs of practice. This new understanding of science was linked to a utilitarian concept of nature, economic ideas about raising productivity, and political ideas focused on increasing prosper- ity and promoting “common weal” [Glückseligkeit]. The economic and patriotic societies that arose throughout Europe primarily in the second half of the eighteenth century emerged from this fundamental process of transformation into modernity, of which they were simultaneously the driving force.1 The Economic Society of Bern [Oekonomische Gesellschaft Bern], founded in 1759, was one of the most important of these societies, not least because of its dual-language publication organ, which was read

The present article was written at the Institute of History of the University of Bern, in the context of a research project entitled “Useful Science, Nature Appropriation and Politics. The Economic Society of Bern in the European Context, 1750–1850” (headed by André Holenstein and Christian Pfister). This project is funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Albrecht von Haller Foundation of the Burgergemeinde Bern, and the University of Bern Research Foundation. Some of the material used here was first presented in a lecture by Martin Stuber at the Göttinger Umwelthistorisches Kolloquium (13 April 2005, moderated by Bernd Herrmann). Other parts are based on a lecture held by the authors as part of the lecture cycle of the Historical Society of the Canton of Bern (30 October 2009). 1 André Holenstein, Martin Stuber and Gerrendina Gerber-Visser (eds.), Nützliche Wissenschaft und Ökonomie im Ancien Régime. Akteure, Themen, Kommunikationsfor- men (Heidelberg 2007); regarding the European movement, see Marcus Popplow (ed.), Landschaften agrarisch-ökonomischen Wissens. Strategien innovativer Ressourcennutzung in Zeitschriften und Sozietäten des 18. Jahrhunderts (Münster 2010); Torsten Meyer and Marcus Popplow, ‘“To Employ Each of Nature’s Products in the Most Favourable Way Possible”—Nature as a Commodity in Eighteenth-Century German Economic Discourse’, Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung 29 (2004), 4–40; Rudolf Schlögl, ‘Die patriotisch-gemeinnützigen Gesellschaften. Organisation, Sozialstruktur, Tätigkeitsfelder’, in Helmut Reinalter (ed.), Aufklärungsgesellschaften (Frankfurt/M. 1993), 61–81; Henry E. Lowood, Patriotism, Profit and the Promotion of Science in the German Enlightenment. The Economic Scientific Societies 1760–1815 (New York and London 1991); see also the contribu- tion by Holger Böning in this volume.

© Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss, 2013 | doi:10.1163/9789004243910_039 This is an open access chapter distributed under the terms of the CC BY-NC-NDMartin Stuber4.0 license. and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access 892 martin stuber and regula wyss throughout Europe.2 Its typical actor was the learned magistrate who was simultaneously a technical expert, a political reformer, and an administrator with executive responsibilities. In the period up to 1800, approximately two-thirds of a total of 120 regular members and 67 subscribers of the society gained a seat in the Great Council of Bern and were thus political decision-makers.3 A second key actor group consisted of clerics, who dominated the affiliated societies [Zweiggesellschaften] scattered throughout the entire territory of Bern with a total of 228 members, and also served as local representatives of the parent society.4 A total of 192 honorary members comprised a third actor group, consisting of interna- tionally prominent personalities as well as meritorious members of the affiliated societies.

Natural History of the “Useful” and the “Harmful”

In his synthetic study of economic and patriotic societies in Germany, Henry E. Lowood emphasised that the focus of their work from the 1770s began to be dominated by natural history. The principal reason he cited was that these societies realised that economic development would not be achieved without better knowledge of natural history.5 The study of natural history had been a priority of the Economic Society of Bern since its founding. As part of its comprehensive programme of work in support of agriculture, forestry, commerce and trade (1762), the Society devoted approximately 80 studies to questions concerning “the natural

2 Martin Stuber et al. (ed.), Kartoffeln, Klee und kluge Köpfe. Die Oekonomische und Gemeinnützige Gesellschaft des Kantons Bern OGG (1759–2009) (Bern 2009); Daniel Salz- mann, Dynamik und Krise des ökonomischen Patriotismus. Das Tätigkeitsprofil der Oekono- mischen Gesellschaft Bern 1759–1797 (Nordhausen 2009); Conrad Bäschlin, Die Blütezeit der Ökonomischen Gesellschaft zu Bern 1759–1766 (Laupen 1917). 3 On the group of members who were magistrates, see Regula Wyss and Martin Stuber, ‘Paternalism and Agricultural Reform: The Economic Society of Bern in the Eighteenth- Century’, in Koen Stapelbroek and Jani Marjanen (eds.), The Rise of Economic Societies in the Eighteenth Century: Patriotic Reform in Europe and North America (Basingstoke 2012), 157–181. 4 On the group of members who were clergymen, see Regula Wyss and Gerrendina Gerber-Visser, ‘Formen der Generierung und Verbreitung nützlichen Wissens. Pfarrherren als lokale Mitarbeiter der Oekonomischen Gesellschaft Bern’, in Holenstein et al. 2007 (note 1), 41–64; Regula Wyss, Pfarrer als Vermittler ökonomischen Wissens? Die Rolle der Pfarrer in der Oekonomischen Gesellschaft Bern im 18. Jahrhundert (Nordhausen 2007). 5 Lowood 1991 (note 1), 279–281.

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access useful natural history? 893 history of the internal and external fruits of the land and the animals that it nourishes.”6 The Economic Society implemented this comprehensive plan at several levels. Topographic descriptions captured information on current conditions and available development potential for specific districts or regions; in addition to economic and ethnographic information, they also contained findings from the realm of natural history concerning climate and wind conditions, rocks and minerals, large and small fauna, weeds, and pests.7 Moreover, the Economic Society compiled systematic catalogues of specific categories of local raw materials. One example was the cata- logue of mineral resources in the territory of Bern, published by the clerk [Landschreiber] Gottlieb Sigmund Gruner.8 The major output, however, was an inventory of current and potential plant resources that comprised eleven systematic catalogues listing a total of 650 species of “useful” wild and cultivated plants. Based on scientifically systematised nomenclature, this inventory contained native species or varieties as well as foreign ones with a potential for ecesis.9 Albrecht von Haller, who was president of the Society for several years, played a key role in this major undertaking.10 The universal scholar was committed not only to the search for the “useful”, however, but also sought to combat what was “harmful”. Dur- ing a European-wide livestock epidemic, Haller published a strategy for controlling the epidemic in the publication organ of the Society; he then

6 ‘Entwurf der vornehmsten Gegenstände der Untersuchungen, zur Aufnahme des Feldbaues, des Nahrungsstandes und der Handlung’, Abhandlungen und Beobachtungen gesammelt durch die oekonomische Gesellschaft zu Bern [hereafter AB] (1762), no. 1, 1–54: 7–16. 7 Gerrendina Gerber-Visser, Der ökonomisch-patriotische Blick. Statistik und Volk- saufklärung in den Topographischen Beschreibungen der Oekonomischen Gesellschaft Bern, dissertation, University of Bern (Bern 2009). 8 Gottlieb Sigmund Gruner, ‘Anzeige der bishiehin in der Landschaft Bern entdeckten Mineralien’, AB (1767), no. 1, 165–254; see Alex Cooper, ‘“The Possibilities of the Land”: The Inventory of “Natural Riches” in the Early Modern German Territories’, in Margaret Schabas and Neil de Marchi (eds.), Oeconomies in the Age of Newton (Durham and London 2003), 129–153. 9 Martin Stuber and Luc Lienhard, ‘Nützliche Pflanzen. Systematische Verzeichnisse von Wild- und Kulturpflanzen im Umfeld der Oekonomischen Gesellschaft Bern’, in Hol- enstein et al. 2007 (note 1), 65–106; Martin Stuber, ‘Kulturpflanzentransfer im Netz der Oekonomischen Gesellschaft Bern’, in Regina Dauser et al. (eds.), Wissen im Netz. Botanik und Pflanzentransfer in europäischen Korrespondenznetzen des 18. Jahrhunderts (Augsburg 2008), 229–269. 10 Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss, ‘Der Magistrat und ökonomische Patriot’, in Hubert Steinke, Urs Boschung and Wolfgang Proß (eds.), Albrecht von Haller. Leben—Werk— Epoche (Bern 2008), 347–380: 362–368.

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access 894 martin stuber and regula wyss successfully implemented the strategy in his role as health councillor [Sanitätsrat].11 Just how closely economic and patriotic natural history was, overall, linked with the “useful/harmful” dichotomy was illustrated by a lecture on the status of this science delivered by the pastor and scholar Jakob Samuel Wyttenbach on 25 March 1781 at a gathering of the Economic Society of Bern.12 Natural history, according to Wyttenbach, teaches us to distinguish the entire “inventory of creatures” from one another with precision and accuracy, in terms of whether they can be used “for pleasure and benefit” or should be repelled “as foes and harmful destroyers of our toil.” Although he emphasised at the outset that the “influence of natural history on the welfare of society” was so clear and convincing that he need give no further examples of it, he proceeded to do precisely that in the course of his lecture. He justified the study of natural history on the basis of its economic benefits, as a result of which it was more than just an object of “mere curiosity” that served as a “pleasurable and trifling pastime” for gentlemen of leisure. Natural history was nothing less than the “basic science of farming, livestock husbandry, the arts, human activ- ity, and generally the processing of all materials that busy human hands.” Wyttenbach’s plea naturally contained some physico-theological ideas, according to which the study of nature is also a way to “knowledge of the Almighty, the most wise and supreme Creator”, who wished to instruct humans through “the beauty of his works, the wisdom of his world order, and the fatherly benevolence of all his aims.”13 In the context of human society, however, Wyttenbach focused on justifying natural history solely in terms of usefulness. The “insect expert” was frequently ridiculed for collecting caterpillars, hunting butterflies, and breeding tiny beetles and preserving them carefully in his collections. The “plant collector”, by contrast, was far less subject to such mockery, as everyone was aware of the value of precise knowledge about medicinal plants. Yet this view ignored

11 Albrecht von Haller, ‘Abhandlung von der Viehseuche’, AB (1772), no. 2, 49–79. See Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss, ‘Die Bekämpfung der Viehseuche 1772/73’, in André Holen- stein et al. (eds.), Berns goldene Zeit. Das 18. Jahrhundert neu entdeckt (Bern 2008), 71–73. 12 Jakob Samuel Wyttenbach, ‘Betrachtungen über den gegenwärtigen Zustand der Naturgeschichte Helvetiens und insbesondere des Kantons Bern’, Magazin für die Naturkunde Helvetiens II (1788), 1–22; see Martin Stuber ‘Epilog: “Die Abgaben der Natur zu vervielfältigen”’, in Holenstein et al. 2008 (note 11), 135–139. 13 See for example Wolfgang Wiegrebe, Albrecht von Haller als apologetischer Physikotheo loge. Physikotheologie: Erkenntnis Gottes aus der Natur (Frankfurt/M. et al. 2009); Robert Felfe, Naturgeschichte als kunstvolle Synthese. Physikotheologie und Bildpraxis bei Johann Jakob Scheuchzer (Berlin 2003).

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access useful natural history? 895 the fact that the investigations undertaken by experts on insects were “the best means for understanding harmful insects, preventing their reproduction, and eradicating them.”14 Wyttenbach’s argumentation was made against the background of a relatively low level of institutionalised science in Bern at this time. When it came to applied science, the members of the Economic Society of Bern regularly cited the example of Sweden, where an influential group associ- ated with the botanist Carl von Linné and the Academy of Sciences had been working towards more intensive use of local resources on a scientific basis since the 1730s.15 The great appeal of the example of Sweden was also evident in relation to pest control. In the collections of selected trans- lations of Swedish papers dealing with political economy, natural science and agriculture, which were published with the support of the Economic Society of Bern, there is a revealing passage on this subject by Carl von Geer, President of the Swedish Academy of Sciences for many years: “It is a pressing matter for us to discover ways to banish these harmful insects. This requires knowledge of their nature and their characteristics; what they favour or eat, at what time they reproduce, etc. These things alone should encourage us to investigate these insects.”16 Although the members of the Economic Society had objectives very similar to those of their Swedish colleagues, they faced very different insti- tutional conditions. Whereas applied natural history in Sweden was sup- ported by a state-financed scientific academy, a state-financed botanical garden, and state-financed research trips, all of these things were non- existent in Bern. At the time the Economic Society was founded (1759) there were no proper scientific institutions, with the singular exception of the “Hohe Schule”, an institution of higher learning that concentrated primarily on educating clergymen and jurists. It was only in the following

14 Wyttenbach 1788 (note 12), 5–6. 15 [Vinzenz Bernhard Tscharner]‚ ‘Vorrede’, AB (1762), no. 1, I–XLI: XX–XXI; see Stuber and Lienhard 2007 (note 9), 67–71; on Sweden, see Lisbet Körner, Linnaeus: Nature and Nation (Cambridge 1999); Gerlinde Hövel, “Qualitas vegetabilium”, “vires medicamento- rum” und “oeconomicus usus plantarum” bei Carl von Linné (1770–1778). Erste Versuche einer zielgerichteten Forschung nach Arznei- und Nutzpflanzen auf wissenschaftlicher Grundlage (Stuttgart 1999). 16 Carl von Geer, ‘Rede von dem Nutzen den die Insekten und die Untersuchung derselben uns verschaffen; gehalten vor der königl. schwedischen Akademie der Wissenschaften den 18. April 1744’, Auserlesene Sammlung zum Vortheil der Staatswirthschaft, der Natur- forschung, und des Feldbaues, mit Beyfall der löbl. oekonomischen Gesellschaft in Bern; aus dem Schwedischen übersetzt von Gottlieb Sigmund Gruner 2 (1769), 1–24: 22.

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access 896 martin stuber and regula wyss decades that the Society of Natural Science [Naturforschende Gesell- schaft, 1786], the Botanical Garden (1789), the Bernese Academy (1805), the agricultural school in Hofwyl (1808) and, above all, the University of Bern (1834) were founded.

Combating “Prejudice” and “Idleness”

Agro-economic reform projects in the eighteenth century focused as much on reducing damage and loss as they did on increasing production. According to Günter Bayerl, not only was “useful nature” discovered in the eighteenth century; it was also “the century of the discovery of pests.”17 However, a long time elapsed before work concerned with the latter received due attention from historians. With a few exceptions, it was only in recent years that publications on pest control in early modern times18 or even in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries19 began to

17 Günter Bayerl, ‘Die Natur als Warenhaus. Der technisch-ökonomische Blick auf die Natur in der Frühen Neuzeit’, in Sylvia Hahn and Reinhold Reith (eds.), Umwelt-Geschichte. Arbeitsfelder—Forschungsansätze—Perspektiven (Wien et al. 2001), 34–51: 45; regarding Bayerl’s research concept of “economisation of nature”, which largely corresponds to the application-oriented natural history practised by the Economic Society of Bern, see also Günter Bayerl and Torsten Mayer, ‘Glückseligkeit, Industrie und Natur—Wachstumsdenken im 18. Jahrhundert’, in Günter Bayerl, Norman Fuchsloch and Torsten Meyer (eds.), Umweltgeschichte—Methoden, Themen, Potentiale (Münster et al. 1996), 135–158: 143; in relation to the economic and patriotic societies: Meyer and Popplow 2004 (note 1). 18 Christoph Reichmuth, ‘Vorratsschädlinge und Vorratsschutz im Wandel der Zeit’, in Bernd Herrmann (ed.), Beiträge zum Göttinger Umwelthistorischen Kolloquium 2008–2009 (Göttingen 2009), 17–76; Katharina Engelken, Dominik Hünniger and Steffi Windelen (eds.), Beten, Impfen, Sammeln. Zur Viehseuchen- und Schädlingsbekämpfung in der Frühen Neuzeit (Göttingen 2007); Bernd Herrmann, ‘Zur Historisierung der Schädlingsbekämp- fung’, in Torsten Meyer and Marcus Popplow (eds.), Technik, Arbeit und Umwelt in der Geschichte. Günter Bayerl zum 60. Geburtstag (Münster et al. 2006), 317–338; Christian Rohr, Zur Wahrnehmung, Deutung und Bewältigung von Heuschreckenplagen in Mit- teleuropa im Spätmittelalter und in der Frühen Neuzeit, in Thoralf Klein et al. (ed.), Umweltgeschichte in globaler Perspektive (Erfurt 2011, www.db-thueringen.de/servlets/ DerivateServlet/Derivate-23892/Rohr_Heuschreckenplagen.pdf ); Jutta Nowosadtko, ‘Die policierte Fauna in Theorie und Praxis. Frühneuzeitliche Tierhaltung, Seuchen- und Schädlingsbekämpfung im Spiegel der Policeyvorschriften’, in Karl Härter (ed.), Policey und frühneuzeitliche Gesellschaft (Frankfurt/M. 2000), 297–340; Verena Winiwarter (ed.), Bodenfruchtbarkeit und Schädlinge im Kontext von Agrargesellschaften (Wien 1998). 19 Lukas Straumann, Nützliche Schädlinge. Angewandte Entomologie, chemische Indus- trie und Landwirtschaftspolitik in der Schweiz 1874–1952 (Zürich 2005); Sarah Jansen, “Schädlinge”. Geschichte eines wissenschaftlichen und politischen Konstrukts 1840–1920 (Frankfurt/M. and New York 2003).

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access useful natural history? 897 appear. These more recent studies can be read from the perspective of a broad history of knowledge that analyses multiple interactions between different types of knowledge—daily experience, administrative know- how, technology, and science. This provides a stimulating backdrop for examining the question that will subsequently be taken up here: the extent to which natural history was actually fundamental for the development of pest control practices. In particular, no assumptions should be made about a history of linear progress in which the rationality of economic and patriotic science gradually prevailed over the irrationality of the peasantry. Of greater interest is the notion of open dynamics among different types of knowledge, concerned with conflict between different value systems at the cultural level and distribution of labour, goods and competence at the material level.20 The portion of the work plan of the Economic Society for 1762 concerned with natural history contains numerous research questions on agricultural pests [vermin]: which are the most harmful pests in the country and which appear at certain periodic intervals? Which ones keep to particular plants, on which they feed? Which species attack our seeds, grass species, different crops and vines in certain years? Which ones do damage to the leaves and the wood of trees?21 And finally: which pests and wild animals are found in each district, and how can they be repelled and how annihilated?22 The Economic Society could not fully implement this comprehensive programme, of course, either in general or with particular reference to pests. A systematic search of the written statements of the Economic Society for references to pests initially reveals an impressive list:

20 See for example André Holenstein, ‘Industrielle Revolution avant la lettre. Arbeit und Fleiss im Diskurs der Oekonomischen Gesellschaft Bern (2. Hälfte 18. Jahrhundert)’, in Holenstein et al. 2007 (note 1), 17–40; Holger Böning, Hanno Schmitt and Reinhard Siegert (eds.), Volksaufklärung. Eine praktische Reformbewegung des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts (Bre- men 2007); Holger Böning, ‘Popularaufklärung—Volksaufklärung’, in Richard van Dülmen and Sina Rauschenbach (eds.), Macht des Wissens. Die Entstehung der modernen Wissens- gesellschaft (Köln, Weimar and Wien 2004), 563–581; Hubert Steinke, ‘Die Einführung der Kartoffel in der Waadt 1740–1790. Agrarmodernisierung aus bäuerlicher Sicht’, Zeitschrift für Agrargeschichte und Agrarsoziologie 45 (1997) 15–39. 21 Entwurf 1762 (note 6), 15–16. 22 Ibid., 14.

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access 898 martin stuber and regula wyss

– Ants [Ameisen]23 – hive beetles [Bienenbauschaben], bee lice [Bienenläuse], wax moths [Bienenbaumotten]24 – plant lice [Blattläuse]25 – blight [Brand], mildew [Mehltau], rust [Rost]26 – flea beetles [Erdflöhe]27 – mole crickets [Erkrebse, Maulwurfsgrillen, Werren]28 – hares [Hasen]29 – woodworms [Holzwürmer]30 – grain worms [Kornwürmer]31

23 ‘Vollständige Anleitung zu der Pflanzung und Wartung der Fruchtbäume aus Hrn. Ph. Millers grossem englischem Gärtner-Lexiko’, Sammlung auserlesener Schriften von Staats- und landwirthschaftlichem Inhalte. Mit beyfall einer löbl. Oekonomischen Gesellschaft zu Bern herausgegeben (1764), 1–341: 337; Prämie ‘Erfindung eines tüchtigen Mittels, die Fruchtbäume vor den Ameisen und dem Meelthau zu bewahren’, AB (1772), no. 1, XXII; ‘Über Vertilgung der Ameisen, Schaben und Wanzen’, Gemeinnützige Nachrichten und Bemerkungen besonders für Freunde der Naturgeschichte und der Landwirthschaft; herausgegeben auf Veranstaltung der physisch-oekonomischen Gesellschaft in Bern [hereafter GN] (1798), no. 2, 161–176. 24 Cathérine-Elisabeth Vicat-Curtat, ‘Anmerkungen über die Bienen, falschen Motten und Läuse’, AB (1764) no. 1, 79–126: 82 and 118–120; id., ‘Versuche eines neuen Mittels zu Vermehrung der Bienenschwärme’, AB (1769), no. 2, 93–108. 25 ‘Meteorologische Tabellen vom Jenner, Hornung, März, April, Mäy und Junius 1763’, AB (1763), no. 3, 205–231: 226. 26 J. Giauque, ‘Abhandlung ansehend den Landbau auf dem Tessenberg’, Der schweitze rischen Gesellschaft in Bern von landwirthschaftlichen Dingen [hereafter SG] (1760), no. 2, 444–464: 460–464; Johann Ludwig Stürler, ‘Schreiben des Herrn Stürlers von Cottens, über die Weise, den Brand im Getreid zu verhüten’, SG (1760), no. 4, 896–912; Niklaus Emanuel Tscharner, ‘Von dem Brand und dem Rost im Getreide’, AB (1762), no. 2, 25–40; [N.N.], ‘Anzeige einer leichten Zubereitung des Getreides, um die Saat vor dem Mehltau und dem Brand zu verwahren’, AB (1764), no. 2, 41–59; [N.N.], ‘Brief eines Correspondenten über den Brand im Getreide’, AB 1 (1768), 138–141; [N.N.], ‘Nachricht an das Landvolk vom Brand im Getreide’, Neue Sammlung physisch-oekonomischer Schriften [hereafter NS] (1785), 215–244; Prämie ‘die besten durch die Erfahrung bewährt erfundenen Mittel, den Rost im Getreide zu verhüten’, AB (1768), XXXIII. 27 Louis François Henri de Menon de Turbilly, ‘Abhandlung von dem Reps, Rübsame oder Levat’‚ AB (1762), no. 3, 209–226: 222; Johann Rudolf Tschiffeli, ‘Flachsbau mit unter- mengtem Türkenkorne’, AB (1763), no. 1, 193–198: 197. 28 ‘Auszug aus dem vierten Theil Hannövrischer Nützlicher Sammlungen von 1759’, SG (1761), no. 2, 409; [N.N.], ‘Mittel Wie die Erdkrebse [Wären] zu vertreiben’, AB (1766), no. 4, 164–165; Niklaus Anton Rudolf Holzer, Beschreibung des Amtes Laupen 1779, ed. by Hans A. Michel (Bern 1984), 36; Niklaus Emanuel Tscharner, ‘Physisch-oekonomische Beschreibung des Amts Schenkenberg’, AB (1771), no. 1, 101–220: 118. 29 Menon de Turbilly 1762 (note 27), 222; ‘Meteorologische Tabellen, und landwirthschaftliche Beobachtungen, vom Jenner, Hornung, März, Aprill, May und Brachmonat 1767’, AB (1768), no. 1, 171–207: 176 and 188. 30 Niklaus Emanuel Tscharner, ‘Abhandlung von der Natur, Wartung und Nutzung der Buche’, SG (1760), no. 3, 682–724: 721. 31 See below.

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access useful natural history? 899

– cockchafers [Maikäfer], cockchafer grubs [Engerlinge]32 – moles [Maulwürfe]33 – mice [Mäuse]34 – caterpillars [Raupen]35 – cockroaches [Schaben]36 – snails [Schnecken]37 – birds [Vögel]: finches [Finken], sparrows [Sperlinge], ravens [Raben], partridges [Rebhühner]38 – bugs [Wanzen]39 – wasps [Wespen], hornets [Hornissen]40 For not a few of these species classification as “useful” or “harmful” was not fixed but varied, depending on the context. The Economic Society’s affiliate in the Aargau reported in 1767 that hares invaded the pits where “carrots and cabbages” were stored,41 and because the snow was so high, they had even damaged espalier trees around farmhouses by gnawing their branches.42 Niklaus Emanuel Tscharner, by contrast, characterised the hare as a valu- able resource: “Hares are many, and they are the best tasting in the country”, he wrote in 1771 in reference to his district of Schenkenberg.43 Birds,

32 Miller 1764 (note 23), 340–341; Prämie ‘demjenigen, der ein probhältiges Mittel anzeigen wird, die weissen Käfer (Ingern) von einem Stük Landes zu vertreiben oder abzu- halten’, AB (1768), no. 1, XXXI; [N.N.], ‘Von dem Maykäfer’, Gemeinnützige Nachrichten und Bemerkungen besonders für Freunde der Naturgeschichte und der Landwirtschaft; auf Veranstaltung der oekonomischen Gesellschaft in Bern herausgegeben [hereafter GN] (1796), 97–102; [N.N.], ‘Vertilgung der Käfer’, GN (1797), 33–48. 33 Alexander Wildermett, ‘Topographische Beschreibung des Bieler-Sees und der umliegenden Landschaft, insbesondere der Herrschaft Erguel’, AB (1768), no. 2, 143–179 and 160–161; Holzer 1984 (note 28), 35; Jean Bertrand, ‘Anfangsgründe des Landbaues auf Erfahrungen und Vernunft gegründet, zum Gebrauche des Landvolks; eine gekrönte Preis schrift’, AB (1773), 1–154: 136. 34 Holzer 1984 (note 28), 35; Prämie ‘auf das dienlichste Mittel die Feldmäuse zu vertreiben’ (1774), NS (1782), LVI. 35 Vollständige Anleitung 1764 (note 23), 338–339. 36 Preis ‘auf die beste Abhandlung über die Vertilgung der Schaben, besonders der bey uns in der Hauptstadt immer schädlicher werdenden Art, die nicht nur wollene, sondern auch seidene Zeuge angreift, und besonders den mit Pferdehaaren ausgestopften Mobilien so gefährlich ist’, GN (1796), no. 1, 14f.; [N.N.]‚ ‘Vertilgung der Schabe’, GN (1797), 51–52. 37 Tschiffeli 1763 (note 27), 197–198; Tscharner 1771 (note 28), 118. 38 Johann Rudolf Tschiffeli, ‘Nachricht von dem sehr nüzlichen Anbaue des Moorhirses’, AB (1763), no. 1, 233–239: 235; ‘Beyträge von der Oeconomischen Gesellschaft zu Nydau für das Jahr 1764’, AB (1765), no. 1, LI–LXX: LVII–LVIII; ‘Ein bewährtes Mittel die Vögel von Weinstöcken, Hopfäckern (Beunden) u. dergl. zu verscheuchen’, GN (1797), 188–189. 39 [N.N.], ‘Gegen die Wanzen’, GN (1796), 144. 40 [N.N.], ‘Ein Mittel die Wespen und Hornissen zu vertilgen’, GN (1796), 32. 41 AB (1768), no. 1, 176. 42 AB (1768), no. 1, 188. 43 Tscharner 1771 (note 28), 117.

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access 900 martin stuber and regula wyss too, could be either “pests” or “useful” animals. There were complaints about “ravenous birds” such as finches and sparrows that “plucked entire beakfuls” from millet fields44 or “extraordinary numbers” of ravens that devoured the spring seed on freshly sown fields.45 On the other hand, as will be seen below, certain bird species were regarded as useful animals when, for instance, they devoured cockchafers. Even among insects— the classic pests in our context—useful qualities in certain species were sought out as a basis for the production of food, medicines, textiles, and general household articles. This extended beyond bees and silkworms to include such insects as ants, flies, grasshoppers and wasps.46 The most important elements in the discourse on pests in the Eco- nomic Society can be found in condensed form in a treatise on control of the mole cricket, an insect about 5 cm in length that attacks vegetable cultures, grain crops, and the roots of potato tubers.47 Unfortunately, according to this document, there was negligence in the pursuit of “harmful insects, caterpillars, grub-worms, moles, etc.” Out of “prejudice or idleness” farmers allowed these “little foes” to go unpunished while they caused “the greatest devastation”, although it would be easy to contain them. It was hoped that the instructions provided in the treatise would raise awareness among farmers and show them that the efforts they made to “destroy these insects” would be rewarded by the benefits they would receive. Moreover, the treatise called for the police being mandated to see that “all-out war was declared” on these enemies, as part of the objec- tive was to ensure that they did not “spread from the fields of the idle to the fields of hard-working landowners.”48 In the view of the Economic Society of Bern, therefore, it was necessary to make pests a field of know ledge, labour, and administration. The extent to which natural history was a basis for this endeavour will now be analysed further, using two case studies focusing on cockchafers and grain worms, respectively.

44 Beyträge Nydau 1765 (note 38), LVIII. 45 ‘Meteorologische Tabellen von Bern vom Januario, Februario und Martio, 1760’, SG (1760), no. 2, 470–484: 483. 46 Geer 1769 (note 16). 47 [N.N.], Mittel 1766 (note 28), 164–165. 48 Ibid., 165.

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access useful natural history? 901

Combating the Cockchafer

In his topographical description of the district of Laupen (1779), Rudolf Holzer described the life cycle of the cockchafer and the destruction it caused: as a grub under the ground, it devoured the roots of grasses, dam- aging hay aftermath in the first year and spring hay in the second; in the third year, as a beetle, it damaged the flowers, leaves and fruits of trees.49 Unfortunately, however, no one was concerned with protection against this “devastation”; instead, cockchafers were protected by “superstition”. According to Holzer, a farmer reckoned it was his merit “when he sacri- fices his efforts and the sweat of his brow to an evil that he understands to be a punishment from Heaven, without grumbling.”50 Niklaus Emanuel Tscharner advanced a similar argument in his topographical description of the district of Schenkenberg (1771), where he served as bailiff [Land- vogt]. Also briefly describing the three-year cycle of the cockchafer, he launched an outright tirade against the superstitious and negligent farmers: according to him, they believed it was practically a “sin” to go after the cockchafer, and, in addition, thought this a waste in terms of time and costs; instead, they preferred to arm themselves with “stoic disinterest”.51 The course pursued by the Economic Society in controlling the cockchafer comes into clearer focus if placed in a longer-term context. In 1479 the Bishop of Lausanne anathematised the Bernese cockchafer, a widespread practice at that time.52 In 1689 the Bernese authorities issued their first ordinance concerning cockchafers [Käfer-Mandat], which was subsequently revised numerous times (1690, 1693, 1708, 1726, 1749).53 They

49 See S. Keller, ‘Biologie’, in Rudolf Büchi et al. (eds.), Neuere Erkenntnisse über Mai- käfer (Frauenfeld 1986), 12–24: 13–15. 50 Holzer 1984 (note 28), 35. 51 Tscharner 1771 (note 28), 118. 52 Catherine Chène, Juger les vers: exorcismes et procès d’animaux dans le diocèse de Lau- sanne (XVe–XVIe s.) (Lausanne 1995); on medieval animal trials in general, see Peter Din- zelbacher, Das fremde Mittelalter. Gottesurteil und Tierprozess (Essen 2006); Leo Zehnder, Volkskundliches in der älteren schweizerischen Chronistik (Basel 1976), 410–412; on the general history of cockroaches in the canton of Bern, see Walter Bieri, ‘Die Maikäfer im Ober- aargau’, Jahrbuch des Oberaargaus 9 (1966), 59–69; Ulrich Freudiger, ‘Von der Bekämpfung und Naturgeschichte des Maikäfers in alter Zeit’, Berner Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Hei- matkunde (1949), 169–179; Johannes Strickler, ‘Von den Maikäfern’, Landwirthschaftliches Jahrbuch (1908), 723–738; Samuel Studer, ‘Einige Bemerkungen und Fragen, die Maikäfer betreffen’, Naturwissenschaftliche Anzeigen 1 (Bern 1818), 19–23. 53 ‘Anstallten, das Ungezeiffer ausszureüten’ (22.2.1689), in Rechtsquellen des Kantons Bern, ed. by Hermann Rennefahrt (Aarau 1866), 820–822 (under “Erster Teil, Stadtrechte, 8.2 Das Stadtrecht von Bern VIII, 2, Wirtschaftsrecht”); Repertorium der Policeyordnungen

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access 902 martin stuber and regula wyss justified this step by stating that the “all too rampant vermin” were not only causing the peasants to suffer damage but also diminishing the authorities’ tithe revenue. The following specific regulations were issued: 1) Each household head was obligated to see that someone followed after the plough to collect unearthed grubs, especially on enclosed land where swine and geese could not reach them. Control was to be exercised by the “village head” [Dorfmeister or Vierer], who had to burn the grubs collected and could also order anyone failing to collect grubs conscientiously to be charged with the costs of having it done and pay a fine in addition. 2) Cockchafers were to be shaken from trees and hedges, put into sacks, placed in water, and subsequently measured and burned by the designated overseer. Each household was to deliver as many Mäss54 as there were persons over the age of ten in the household. Additional amounts were to be compensated with a silver coin (Kreuzer) per Mäss by the authorities. Designated overseers could also order anyone failing to collect chafers conscientiously to be charged with the costs of having it done and pay a fine in addition. 3) As the insects were decimated in no small measure by finches and titmice who fed on them, hunting of finches was completely forbidden, while in the case of titmice a limited prohibition forbade “any excessive shooting and capture.” Revision of precisely this decree was pending when a letter from the authorities was read at a meeting of the Economic Society on 28 July 1770, “in which the Society was asked to provide advice about the best possible way to remedy the devastation caused by the chafers; in order to respond befittingly to this high-level order [hoher Befehl], the affiliated societies were invited—in consultation with the peasants—to send such advice to the Society.” Within less than one month, twelve letters had been received in response, followed shortly thereafter by another eight letters.55 Some of the letters came from members of the Economic Society who were bai- liffs [Landvogt] in the Bernese territory,56 while others came from civil

der Frühen Neuzeit, vol. 7.1: Orte der Schweizer Eidgenossenschaft: Bern und Zürich (Frankfurt/M. 2006), no. 2607, 3038, 3600, 4066 and 4446. 54 Measuring unit corresponding to 13–14 litres. See URL: http://www.hls-dhs-dss.ch/ textes/d/D26187.php. 55 ‘Auszüge einiger Berathschlagungen der oekonomischen Gesellschaft’, AB (1771), no. 1, I–XXII: VIII–XI. 56 E. von Graffenried von Burgistein, S. Engel, Stürler von Cottens, N.E. Tscharner, V.B. Tscharner, and G. de Seigneux de Correvon, a magistrate from Lausanne.

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access useful natural history? 903 servants57 and rural clergymen58 who were members of affiliated societies in Aarau, Lausanne, Nyon, Payerne, Simmental, Vevey and Yverdon. The diverse origins of the letters reflect the spatial variation of cockchafer populations. In general, the regular exchange of letters with affiliated societies dispersed throughout the territory of Bern was one of the prereq- uisites for the spatially differentiated transfer process envisioned by the Economic Society, in terms of both ecological and social connectivity.59 Bernese territory extended from the Lake of Geneva through the Emmen- tal to the Bernese Oberland and included all agricultural zones of pre- modern Switzerland.60 This is not the place to discuss the diverse contents of these 20 letters about the problem of cockchafers, some of which provided great detail. A few examples will have to suffice. All respondents agreed that the main shortcoming was weak enforcement of the cockchafer ordinance of 1689. Beat Ludwig Mesmer, for instance, a clergyman from Reutigen in the Ber- nese Oberland, stated: “This much I know, that I read out the cockchafer ordinance from the pulpit at the appropriate time, but have concluded to my dismay that not the slightest effort has been made to enforce it. There is a certain superstition among our peasants, that the more one strives to eradicate these vermin, all the more they will reproduce.”61 Enforcement was also made more difficult by the fact that cockchafers, naturally, did not recognise political borders. A report from the Bernese Aargau stated that “cockchafers fly with the winds, which bring entire swarms into the country.”62 A complaint from Payerne lamented increased trouble with cockchafers due to failure by the neighbouring canton of Freiburg to do anything to control them.63 And from Nyon came a report that local resi- dents imported large numbers of cockchafers collected not far from the

57 J.-D. Bourgeois, L.-E. Bourgeois, D.-J. de Dompierre, L.-F. de La Fléchère, F.-L. Haldimand, J.-G. Pillichody. 58 F.-X. Duchet, D.-H. Dupraz, J. Ernst, G. Henchoz, B.L. Mesmer, J.-L. Muret; see Wyss 2007 (note 4). 59 See Martin Stuber, ‘Das Korrespondenznetz der Oekonomischen Gesellschaft Bern, 1759–1800’, in Ulrich Johannes Schneider (ed.), Kulturen des Wissens (Berlin and New York 2008), 123–132. 60 See André Schluchter, ‘Agrarzonen’, in Historisches Lexikon der Schweiz (Basel 2002), vol. 1, 144–147. 61 Letter from B.L. Mesmer to the Economic Society, 13 August 1770 [Burgerbibliothek Bern, hereafter BBB]; also: Letter from J. Ernst to the Economic Society, 25 August 1770 (BBB). 62 Letter from J. Ernst to the Economic Society, 25 August 1770 (BBB). 63 Letter from D.-J. de Dompierre to the Economic Society, 18 April 1770 (BBB).

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access 904 martin stuber and regula wyss border in Savoy, so that they could earn as much additional compensation as possible.64 Clergyman Duchet from the affiliated society in Vevey made a sugges- tion worth noting. He recommended greater use of the natural enemies of the cockchafer such as swine [Acherumsweide], chickens and ducks, as well as crows and ravens. He came to the conclusion that this was per- haps the reason why these birds were more respected in Sweden, England and overseas.65 Finally, there is the proposal made by Niklaus Emanuel Tscharner. By contrast with the old cockchafer ordinance that prescribed the same quantity of cockchafers to be collected by every person, he proposed to link the obligation to collect the insects to social class as determined by the land area owned.66 Tscharner’s idea, which was also proposed by other magistrates such as Samuel Engel,67 was fully adopted in the new cockchafer ordinance of 1771.68 Overall, the greatest changes by comparison with the old ordinance of 1689 can be seen in improved and more specific provisions for enforcement and fines. Thus those charged with oversight were now required to file precise reports on enforcement in spring and in autumn; the collected fines were divided equally between the local magistrate and the overseer; and there was a provision for an extraordinary tax that could be levied in “flight years” [Flugjahre].69 In material terms, the obligation to collect grubs during ploughing and to collect cockchafers in flight years was the core of the new ordinance, as in the ordinance of 1689. A look at the flight years of the so-called “Bern brood” reveals a series of intense years—1762, 1765, 1768, and 1771—that ends abruptly.70 The

64 Letter from S. Engel to the Economic Society, 1 August 1770 (BBB). 65 Letter from F.X. Duchet to the Economic Society, 12 August 1770 (BBB). 66 Letter from N.E. Tscharner to the Economic Society, 11 August 1770 (BBB); see Karl Wälchli, Niklaus Emanuel Tscharner. Ein Berner Magistrat und ökonomischer Patriot 1727– 1794 (Bern 1964), 131–133. 67 Letter from S. Engel to the Economic Society, 1 August 1770 (BBB); BBB GA Oek. Ges.52 (4) Remarques sur le Projet, Samuel Engel, Nyon, 22 April 1770. 68 ‘Maikäfermandat’ (9.3.1771), in Rennefahrt 1866 (note 53), 822–824. 69 The life cycle of an individual cockchafer takes three years. This cycle occurs syn- chronously for a majority of individuals throughout a region, leading to the emergence of larger numbers of cockchafers every three years. These years are called “flight years” [Flug- jahre; English-language entomologists usually call them broods, referring to the group of individuals in flight rather than the time of flight]. Flight years vary from region to region; in Bern, they are the years following those divisible by three. See Keller 1986 (note 49), 21–23. 70 ‘Maikäferauftreten nach Flügen im Kanton Zürich, Berner Flug (1762–1980)’, in Büchi et al 1986 (note 49), 31.

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access useful natural history? 905 question of how much the new cockchafer ordinance of 1771 might have contributed to this cannot be answered satisfactorily here, as too many influencing factors were at work, including climate conditions. When Bern experienced a new series of pronounced flight years around the turn of the century (1798, 1801, 1804, 1807, 1810), many contemporaries attributed it to the practical break-down in enforcement of the cockchafer ordinance owing to political upheaval. In response to this, the Eco- nomic Society publicly announced a prize in 1803 for the best response to the question: “What are the most sure and feasible means, based on the natural history and the habits of this beast, of preventing or anticipating the damage that the cockchafer causes as a grub, as well as in its fully developed form.”71 The prize question, developed in cooperation with the Bernese Society of Natural Science72 in its published form consisted of no less than six printed pages. Respondents were given time to answer until 1809, i.e. a period covering two complete cockchafer cycles. Questions were posed, for example, about the causes of regional differences in flight years or the extent to which the insects “migrated from place to place like locusts.” Interest was also expressed in regions that had so far remained free from this “plague”, as well as regions that had only recently been affected: “What data are available on their gradual increase and advance in such places?” It was requested that data be based on continual observation in natural settings; in doing so, this research was explicitly meant to go beyond a significant publication in the Bemerkungen der Pfälzischen physikalisch-oekonomischen Gesellschaft by Christian Kleemann, whose work was based on observations of artificial incubators.73 Given the scope of this prize question, answers to which would have required actual research projects, it is not surprising that no satisfactory responses were submitted. The question was ahead of its time in terms of its relation to specialised entomological research.74 Only four decades later

71 ‘Preis-Aufgab, die Vertilgung oder Verminderung der Maykäfer und ihrer Larven der Engerlinge betreffend’, Monatliche schweizerische Nachrichten (1803), 48–53; see Peter Lehmann, Bescheidene Lebenszeichen im Schatten einer glorreichen Vergangenheit? Die Oekonomische Gesellschaft im Übergang von der Reformsozietät zum Landwirtschaftsverein 1798–1831, master’s thesis in history, University of Bern, 2008, 41. 72 With S.E. Studer and F.A. Meisner. 73 Christian Friedrich Karl Kleemann, ‘Von den Maykäfern’, Bemerkungen der Kuhr pfälzischen physikalisch-oekonomischen Gesellschaft vom Jahr 1770 (1771), second part, 299–409. 74 See, for example, Charles Huber, Die Ringe des Apollo. 150 Jahre Entomologischer Ver- ein Bern 1858–2008 (Bern 2008); Fritz Schwerdtfeger, Julius Theodor Christian Ratzeburg 1801–1871 (Hamburg and Berlin 1983).

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access 906 martin stuber and regula wyss

Fig. 1. Life cycle of the cockchafer, in Christian Friedrich Karl Kleemann, ‘Von den Maykäfern’, in: Bemerkungen der Kuhrpfälzischen physikalisch-oekonomischen Gesellschaft vom Jahr 1770 (1771, 2. Teil), 299–409, Tab. I.

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access useful natural history? 907 was it possible to identify the different Swiss flight years of the cockchafer with precision.75 And it was only more than a century later that a spatially accurate map of the different Swiss flight years was produced, based on systematic field research.76 Individual responses to the question were received from people with practical experience, however, and published in the Gemeinnützige schweizerische Nachrichten. This was not the same thing as natural history research, however. The point was not to explore “the secrets of the cockchafer’s marital bed and child bed” but how to prevent “future concrete damage”.77 Hence recommendations were made for stricter and more efficient enforcement of the official ordinance, as well as for conservation of birds as the natural enemies of the cockchafer—a demand that had already been made in the ordinance of 1689.

Combating the Grain Worm

In the mid-eighteenth century a new technology to control storage pests was increasingly coming into use: the grain dryer.78 The Neapolitan mathematics professor and agronomist Bartolomeo Intieri had developed this device and documented over two decades of experience with it in 1754.79 His invention was imitated in various towns in France by, among others, scholar and economist Duhamel du Monceau and the Jesuit Esprit Pezenas, a mathematics professor and instructor of ship-building in Mar- seille.80 With knowledge of experience that had been gained in Marseilles, Geneva councilman Du Pan conducted experiments with Intieri’s grain

75 Otto Heer, ‘Über geographische Verbreitung und periodisches Auftreten der Mai- käfer’, Landwirthschaftliche Abhandlungen (1841), 3–33. 76 ‘Aires actuelles des différents régimes’, in Maurice Decoppet, Le hanneton. Biologie, apparition, destruction. Un siècle de lutte organisée dans le canton de Zurich. Experiences récentes (Lausanne and Genève 1920), cartes 17. 77 [N.N.], Gemeinnützige schweizerische Nachrichten (30.4.1803), 271. 78 The following is based on the entry for ‘Korndarre’ in Johann Georg Krünitz, Ökonomisch- technologische Enzyklopädie 45 (1789), 1–155; K.B. Maréchaux, ‘Würdigung sämmtlicher bis jetzt bekannt gewordener Methoden, das Getreide, mehrere Jahre hindurch, ohne Nach- ttheil für dassselbe, aufzubewahren’, Polytechnisches Journal 5 (1821), 223–253. 79 Bartolomeo Intieri [Fernando Galiani], Della perfetta conservazione del grano (Napoli 1754). 80 Henri-Louis Duhamel du Monceau, Traité de la conservation des grains, et en par- ticulier du froment (Paris 1753); id., Supplément au Traité de la conservation des grains; con- tenant plusieurs nouvelles expériences; une méthode plus simple de conserver les grains que celle qui a été publiée en 1754 (Paris 1765); [Esprit Pezenas], ‘Méthode pour mettre le bled en état de se conserver’, in Mémoires de Mathématique & de Physique rédigés à l’Observatoire de Marseille (Marseille 1756).

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access 908 martin stuber and regula wyss dryer, developed the invention further, and documented his experience in detail. In 1756 first the hospital and then the Grain Chamber [Kornkam- mer] introduced the grain dryer in Geneva. The new technology spread from Geneva to Bern and Zurich. The grain dryer employed a principle of physics: the larger the surface area of a body, the quicker moisture evaporates from it. Threshed grain was spread in the grain dryer over as wide a surface area as possible, in receptacles arranged vertically in layers. The dryer was heated by a coal fire. Thanks to the enlarged surface area, grain dried much more rapidly this way than in conventional grain piles.81 Bernese authorities were interested in the new invention, as a sufficient food supply for their subjects was of central concern in the paternalistic concept of the state under the Ancien Régime in the Republic of Bern.82 Official granaries in the capital city and in the districts were meant to ensure minimal basic supplies of food during times of shortage. In years when harvests were good, the authorities built up stores of grain which they released onto the market during shortages in order to stabilise grain prices. By using paternalistic techniques of this sort as a ruling strategy, the Republic of Bern was acting in a fashion similar to that of enlightened monarchies such as Prussia.83 After an extraordinarily poor harvest in 1757, the Great Council of Bern seized the initiative and undertook expansion and new construction of official grain storehouses.84 This made the question of optimal grain storage a timely one. From the time grain first began to be stored in large amounts there had been problems of losses owing to mould, fermentation and pests. The question of how grain could be stored without major losses occu- pied numerous economic societies from Sweden to Turin, Paris and

81 Krünitz 1789 (note 78), 56–68. 82 Christian Pfister, ‘Deregulierung. Vom Paternalismus zur Marktwirtschaft 1798–1856’, Berner Zeitschrift für Geschichte 60 (1998), 160–173: 162; Anton Brandenberger, Ausbruch aus der “malthusianischen Falle”. Versorgungslage und Wirtschaftsentwicklung im Staate Bern 1755–1797 (Bern 2004), 323f. 83 Pfister 1998 (note 82), 165; on the granary system in Prussia, see Lars Atorf, Der König und das Korn. Die Getreidehandelspolitik als Fundament des brandenburg-preussischen Auf- stiegs zur europäischen Grossmacht (Berlin 1999), 120–133. 84 Various documents in the records of the Grain Chamber provide evidence of these activities. State Archives of the Canton of Bern [hereafter StAB] BVI 44, Berichte und Denkschriften über die Getreideversorgung des Landes, 1725–1795; see Dieter Schnell, ‘Obrig- keitliche Kornhäuser’, in Holenstein et al. 2008 (note 11), 468–471: 470; Martin Körner, ‘Kornhäuser in der städtischen Versorgungspolitik’, in Thomas Lörtscher (ed.), “währschaft, nuzlich und schön”. Bernische Architekturzeichnungen des 18. Jahrhunderts (Bern 1994), 25–30.

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access useful natural history? 909

St. Petersburg.85 The Economic Society of Bern also took up the question of the “best means of storing grain” in its comprehensive work plan. Spe- cifically, the Society wanted to find out how storehouses needed to be constructed in order to store grain securely in the minimal amount of space, and how grain could best be protected against storage pests.86 In addition to making grain storable by drying it in a grain dryer—which will be central focus of discussion below—the Economic Society also issued publications in the 1760s on other methods of controlling storage pests. For instance, rapid drying immediately after harvest without using a grain dryer was proposed, after which the grain was to be filled into in sacks treated with lye and stored at a level above the ground.87 Another publication advocated treating the grain with salt.88 Samuel Engel, who twice held the office of bailiff [Landvogt], 1748–1754 and 1760–1765, and was a member of the Grain Chamber from 1756 to 1760, had already concerned himself with the storage of grain prior to the founding of the Eco- nomic Society in 1759.89 Engel had scarcely begun to serve his first term as bailiff when he made a request for the construction of a new grain storehouse at his official residence, which was immediately approved. He took great care when it came to maintaining grain supplies, making sure that the public grain supply was cleansed annually, which was not a common practice. As a member of the Grain Chamber, Engel put the issue of installing a grain dryer on the agenda of the state administration. He may have been motivated in this regard by his friend Albrecht von Haller. This Bernese universal scholar had acquired Intieri’s description of the grain dryer from a Paduan correspondence partner already in October of 1755,90 and all of the above-mentioned publications by Duhamel du Monceau on pest control by means of the grain dryer could be found in Haller’s library, as well.91

85 J.D. Reuss, Repertorium Commentationum a societatibus litterariis editarum, scientia naturalis, vol. VI: oeconomia (Göttingen 1806), 196–202. 86 Entwurf 1762 (note 6), 30f. 87 Isaac Marcet de Mezieres, ‘Auszug einer Abhandlung von der einfältigsten und gewissesten weise das Getreid aufzubehalten’, AB (1763), no. 3, 181–188. 88 François Joseph Antoine de Hell, ‘Anzeige eines Mittels zu Bewahrung des Getreides’, AB (1768), no. 2, 127–137. 89 Paul Pulver, Samuel Engel. Ein Berner Patrizier aus dem Zeitalter der Aufklärung 1702– 1784 (Bern and Leipzig 1937), 59. 90 Letter from von Haller to Giambattista Morgagni, 10 October 1755, in Erich Hintzsche (ed.), Albrecht von Haller, Giambattista Morgagni. Briefwechsel 1745–1768 (Bern and Stut- tgart 1946), 65. 91 Maria Teresa Monti (ed.), Catalogo del Fondo Haller della Biblioteca Nazionale Braid- ense di Milano (Milano 1983–1994), 13 vols., no. 2305, 2299 and 2304.

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access 910 martin stuber and regula wyss Enzyklopädie , Vol. 45 (1789), 1–155, Fig 2617–2621. Fig. 2. Grain dryer developed by Henri-Louis Duhamel du Monceau, in Johann Georg Krünitz, Ökonomisch-technologische

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access useful natural history? 911

In this initial phase, the state project of introducing a grain dryer was clearly directed by Samuel Engel.92 He wrote a treatise entitled “On a new method for long-term storage of grain without vitiation and wast- age”, which was printed by the state printing office and distributed to all members of the Great Council so that they could familiarise themselves with the topic.93 A review of the issue, which the Council sought from the Venner Chamber and the Grain Chamber, resulted in a recommenda- tion that the state introduce the method described by Engel.94 The Great Council followed Engel’s expert advice, deciding to install a drying oven in the big grain storehouse. In 1760 Engel’s treatise on grain storage also appeared in the publication organ of the Economic Society.95 The Society’s archives contain comprehensive documentation on the grain dryer, including a manuscript of 175796 by Esprit Pezenas of Marseilles—already mentioned here—as well as transcripts of letters from other persons in various cities who were also concerned with introducing the grain dryer and who were in contact with the Geneva councilman Du Pan.97 The administrative documents of the Grain Cham- ber include a transcript of Du Pan’s treatise on the grain dryer, with an accompanying letter of 1759. It can be assumed that these documents, concerning the same object and contained in two different archives, were available to Samuel Engel as sources for his own publication. Engel based his work heavily on Du Pan’s experience and remarked that he could also envision possible publication of Du Pan’s and Pezenas’s writings in the publication organ of the Economic Society.98 Engel’s treatise also related closely to two papers dealing with long-term storage of grain that were published in the same volume by the Society of Natural Science in Zurich

92 StAB BVI 24, Manual der Korndirektion der Stadt Bern, 10 August 1757–23 May 1759, 397f. 93 Samuel Engel, Abhandlung über eine neue Weise, das Getreyd lange Jahr ohne Verd- erbniss und Abgang zu erhalten (Bern 1759). 94 StAB BVI 44, Berichte und Denkschriften über die Getreideversorgung des Landes, 1725–1795. 95 Samuel Engel, ‘Abhandlung über eine neue Weise, das Getreid lange Jahr ohne Ver- derbnis und Abgang zu erhalten’, SG (1760), no. 4, 785–816. 96 Manière de mettre le Bled en état de se conserver en voyé à la cour de France par le R.P.: Pezenas, Professeur en Mathematique à Marseille, date du 30e avril 1757, page 1–9, BBB GA Oek. Ges. 67 (11) Memoires et lettres sur l’utilité d’une etuve, et la manière de les construire et dessécher le bled. s.d. 97 BBB GA Oek. Ges 67 (11) Memoires et lettres sur l’utilité d’une etuve, et la manière de les construire et dessécher le bled. s.d. 98 No later editions of either paper have been found. Engel 1760 (note 95).

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access 912 martin stuber and regula wyss

[Naturforschende Gesellschaft] in 1761.99 The first paper, of which Engel had a transcript,100 summarised what the author, Heinrich Schinz, had presented in a talk given at the Society of Natural Science in 1760. The second, written by Engel’s friend Johannes Gessner, gave a detailed expla- nation of the causes of grain losses and discussed possible measures for reducing them. In his comprehensive scientific paper, Gessner described insects and their life cycles and gave his reasons for doing so: For it will be much easier to identify means of combating them, and thereby show how the damage to be dealt with can be prevented and how already noticeable vitiation can be halted, if we can first learn about their constitu- tion and nature, their industriousness, their behaviour, their habits, when they appear, the places they invade, and the parts they destroy.101 After an introduction heavily laced with physico-theological ideas,102 Gess- ner expanded on the problems of grain loss and their causes. In his view, the greatest threats to grain supplies were the grain moth and the grain weevil. While other pests such as mice, martens and rats devoured a portion of the grain reserves and also contaminated them with their feces,103 the insects used the mealy core of the grain as nourishment or even as a nesting place for their eggs.104 Adult grain moths laid their eggs in the grain piles, where newly hatched worms subsequently bored into individual kernels to consume the mealy core. In autumn they crawled into the woodwork of the granary, pupated, and emerged as moths the following spring. Among the grain worms were some species that subsisted entirely on wheat berries and some that caused damage only to spelt. Grain weevils had no wings but they did have an elongated snout, and they fed on grain in the form of worms as well as adult weevils.105 His investigations brought Gessner to the conclusion that the factors that caused grain to germinate—a certain amount of moisture and warmth—were the same

99 Heinrich Schinz, ‘Abhandlung von einer neuen Weise, das Getreyd lange Jahre ohne Verderbnis und Abgang zu erhalten’, in Abhandlungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft Zürich (Zürich 1761), vol. 1, 133–188: 149f.; Johannes Gessner, ‘Abhandlung über die verschiedenen Arten das Getreyd zu bewahren, und derselben Auswahl’, ibid., 231–320: 268; see also Engel 1760 (note 95), 813. 100 BBB GA Oek. Ges. 67 (10) Abhandlung von einer neuen viel vorteilhafteren Methode das Korn zur Aufbewahrung in den Magazinen fähig zu machen, verfasst von der Physika- lischen Gesellschaft Zürich 1759. 101 Gessner 1761 (note 99), 255f. 102 Ibid., 240f. 103 Ibid., 268. 104 Schinz 1761 (note 99), 145f. 105 Gessner 1761 (note 99), 256–265.

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access useful natural history? 913 factors that caused vitiation of grain and fostered the reproduction of insects.106 Engel also described these causes in his paper. But unlike Gessner, he refrained from comprehensive discussion of basic principles of natural history. In his view, the key issue was practical problem-solving, and his arguments followed the logic of politics and economics. Physico- theological considerations, however, were a feature common to the work of both Gessner and Engel. Thus, according to Engel, “One thing remains wondrous: Providence has seen fit to care for every creature, even every insect, no less than for mankind . . . even the tiny worm finds its appropriate tender food and nourishment . . .”107 Schinz and Engel as well as Gessner reported on previously applied methods of preventing pests from invading stored grain. Grain was covered with lime to protect it from invasion by animals; but if fissures developed in the lime, this measure was of minimal benefit. Different publications described a great variety of means—from sulphur vapour to boiled garlic—for treating stored grain.108 Grain was disbursed in shallow piles in the granary so it would dry more rapidly. Regular turning over with a shovel was done to prevent too much moisture. But these measures were very costly and labour-intensive and required a great number of granaries. All three authors expected the most benefit from the new technological development represented by the grain dryer. A drying oven could dry grain within twelve hours, whereas this had previously taken a full 20 years.109 The normal procedure was to store the grain in low piles on the granary floor after threshing and to aerate it regularly. This method required about 20 years for grain to dry thoroughly enough to prevent it from attack by grain weevils. After deciding to construct a grain dryer, the Bernese authorities in 1759 commissioned a second member of the Economic Society, Franz Ludwig von Graffenried (von Carrouge)110 to supervise its installation.111 In January 1759 granary administrator Niklaus Emanuel Haller, brother of Albrecht von Haller, already received from Geneva a model of the grain dryer oven; in winter of 1760 a dryer was constructed in Bern based on this model,

106 Ibid., 246–252. 107 Engel 1760 (note 95), 788–789. 108 Gessner 1761 (note 99), 298–301. 109 Schinz 1761 (note 99), 167. 110 F.L. von Graffenried, who was part of the circle of the Economic Society from the beginning, was elected to the Great Council in 1745, became a member of the Grain Coun- cil in 1761, and assumed the office of bailiff [Landvogt] in Wangen in 1762. 111 Schinz 1761 (note 99), 174.

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access 914 martin stuber and regula wyss

Fig. 3. Grain pests, in Johannes Gessner, ‘Abhandlung über die verschiedenen Arten das Getreyd zu bewahren, und derselben Auswahl’, in: Abhandlungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft Zürich (1761), 231–320.

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access useful natural history? 915 and was tested with small amounts of grain in the following summer. In May and June of the next year, Graffenried conducted additional experiments with larger amounts of grain.112 He compiled the results of his experiments with the grain dryer, describing benefits as well as amounts of grain lost for his various samples, in a report that appeared in the publication series of the Economic Society in 1762.113 According to Graffenried’s data, losses with dried grain were far less than those normally experienced with undried grain.114 Moreover, he presented a comparison showing that greater amounts of dough and bread could be produced from dried grain than from undried grain.115 Graffenried had already participated in a meeting of the Grain Cham- ber in September of 1760, although he was not yet a member of the Cham- ber at that time. In the same month he was given a mandate to inspect the granaries in Moudon and Payerne.116 In March of 1761, Graffenried was granted broad leeway for trials with the grain dryer, with as much space and grain allocated as he needed to carry out these tests.117 While this experimental phase was still underway in 1763, the bailiff of Nyon, who was active in the local affiliate of the Economic Society, expressed a wish to obtain a grain dryer for his granary. The Grain Chamber denied the bailiff’s request, citing the following reasons: 1) the grain dryer in Bern was only an experimental operation and not an “infallible rule”; 2) construction of a grain dryer required specialists who were unlikely to be found in Nyon; 3) the people of the Vaud region were not striving for the common good but were acting only in their own interests, and a dryer was too expensive in any event. Moreover, not every bailiff was familiar with the use of a grain dryer. For these reasons, the bailiff was advised to continue to sieve and carefully aerate his grain in future.118 Although the Grain Chamber had decided in favour of constructing a grain dryer as

112 ‘Mémoire de Mr. Mathey’, 1767, StAB BVI 44, Berichte und Denkschriften über die Getreideversorgung des Landes, 1725–1795. 113 Franz Ludwig von Graffenried, ‘Nachricht von der auf hohen Befehl zu Bern mit der Korndarre angestellten Probe’, AB (1762), no. 4, 183–186. 114 Engel mentioned a loss of 20–25 per cent in 20 years. After drying, Graffenried spoke of a one-time loss of 3.5 per cent. Engel 1760 (note 95), 813; Graffenried 1762 (note 113), 183–186. 115 The Grain Chamber reported the same success in 1765, also in response to the question from the Great Council about the effectiveness of drying grain. StAB BVI 27, Manual der Korndirektion der Stadt Bern, 28 October 1763–28 May 1766, 345–350. 116 StAB BVI 25, 26 May 1759–27 June 1761, 178 and 189–196. 117 Ibid., 404, 429, 462 and 490f. 118 StAB BVI 26, June 1761–5 October 1763, 403–406.

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access 916 martin stuber and regula wyss proposed by Engel, it was wary of granting permits for construction of an additional dryer. Moreover, in its justification the Chamber shows deep mistrust about the competence and honesty of the people of Vaud. Overall, however, the Bernese authorities remained committed to the new technology of grain preservation. In 1767 Graffenried von Carrouge was asked by the Grain Chamber to make plans for a grain dryer in Aarau as well.119 Graffenried became a technical expert in all aspects of grain drying, drawing up plans120 and securing a carpenter to do the job who had already familiarised himself with the construction of such grain dryers. The Grain Chamber interceded with the Guilds Commission [Handwerks- direktorium] to ensure that the carpenter would be able to hire as many journeymen as he needed for work on the dryers.121 In 1769 the Council informed the Grain Chamber about new decisions concerning the construction of granaries and grain dryers. A large grain storehouse with a capacity of ten to twelve thousand sacks and including a grain dryer was to be built at a site in Vaud still to be determined. In the German-speaking region, a drying oven was planned for the existing grain storehouse in Thun, and an additional storehouse with a drying oven was to be built in Burgdorf.122 Concurrent with his responsibility for directing projects and his engineering duties relating to grain dryers, Graffenried exchanged letters with other experts. Between 1759 and 1761 he corresponded with Johann Jakob Ott, the long-time president of the economic commission of the Society of Natural Science in Zurich, who was also engaged in the construction of a grain dryer.123 The archives of the Grain Chamber also contain an exchange of letters between Graffenried and the engineer of the King of Sardinia in which both experts discuss technical details and possibilities for optimisation.124 Knowledge transfer took place through various channels. In addition to Graffenried’s correspondence, there were other exchanges of experience involving various members of the Eco- nomic Society of Bern and representatives of Society of Natural Science

119 StAB BVI 28, 4 Juni 1766–2 March 1768, 299. 120 StAB BVI 29, 9 March 1768–17 January 1770, 78. 121 StAB BVI 28, 4 Juni 1766–2 March 1768, 299–303. 122 StAB BVI 29, Manual der Korndirektion der Stadt Bern, 9 March 1769–17 January 1770, 144–146. 123 AB (1762), no. 1, LV. 124 ‘Mémoire de Mr. Mathey’, 1767, StAB BVI 44, Berichte und Denkschriften über die Getreideversorgung des Landes, 1725–1795. The engineer of the King of Sardinia originally came from Vallorbe and was on the list of honorary members of the Economic Society of Bern from 1761.

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access useful natural history? 917 in Zurich, who then made their knowledge available to the state administration of Zurich.125 But exchange also took place at the level of the administrative commissions. In 1759 the Grain Chamber in Bern sent Du Pans’s paper, together with a wooden model of his grain dryer, to Zurich.126 Basle also contacted the Grain Chamber in Bern asking for a report of its experience, in response to which the Chamber in 1770 sent transcripts of Graffenried’s reports on his experiments of 1762 with the grain dryer and of his report to the Great Council in 1765, and also dispatched a sample of dried grain to Basle by way of a merchant. On the basis of experience in Bern, Solothurn decided to obtain a grain dryer as well, and the secretary of the affiliate in Solothurn procured a sample of dried grain from the Economic Society in Bern for the Grain Chamber in Solothurn.127 Further evidence of the reputation of the Bernese grain dryer can be found in reports by two noted travel writers. Johann Gerhard Reinhard Andreae devoted several lines to the grain dryer in letters from Switzer- land written in 1763 and published subsequently, providing among other things a very graphic description of the success of this technology in controlling pests: Here, sir, I have seen several piles of grain lying about that had not been dried. And what destruction they had suffered from worms! Half a bucketful of worms was flushed out of them during washing. What a horrible sight! By contrast . . . dried grain, when completely sheltered from the open air, is entirely protected from being plagued by worms, but if, as happens here, the air can penetrate to some extent, only the upper part of the grain is affected by worms, and only a very thin layer and by few worms.128 And Count Karl von Zinzendorf, who visited Switzerland to study its trade policy in 1764, carefully recorded how the grain dryer in Bern was constructed and described its function in detail in his report. As no cop- perplate engraving existed of the Bernese grain dryer, he recommended ordering a model of the device.129

125 AB (1764), no. 1, XV, XX and XXIV; Schinz 1761 (note 99), 174–188. 126 StAB BVI 44, Berichte und Denkschriften über die Getreideversorgung des Landes, 1725–1795. 127 Letter from F.J. Hermann to the Economic Society, 9 September 1767 (BBB). 128 Johann Gerhard Reinhard Andreae, Briefe aus der Schweiz nach Hannover geschrie- ben, in dem Jahre 1763 (second edn., Zürich and Winterthur 1776), 204–211: 204. 129 Otto Erich Deutsch (ed.), ‘Bericht des Grafen Karl von Zinzendorf über seine han- delspolitische Studienreise durch die Schweiz 1764’, Basler Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Altertumskunde 35 (1936), 151–354: 301f.

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access 918 martin stuber and regula wyss

Conclusion: Administrative Knowledge and Technology

Towards the end of the seventeenth century the Bernese state increasingly expanded its interventions in the political economy to cover its entire territory.130 The Economic Society put efforts in this area on a new basis by systematically recording the resources of the territory of Bern and making consistent distinctions between “useful” and “harmful”. In an effort to counterbalance the “idleness” and “prejudice” of the rural people, the Economic Society of Bern aimed to make pests a field of endeavour, administration, and knowledge. Like their colleagues in Stockholm, Göt- tingen and Zurich, the members of the Economic Society of Bern postu- lated natural history as the scientific foundation for their agro-economic reform project. This was indeed the case with cultivated plants. First of all, scientific nomenclature was the prerequisite for large-scale international exchange of the seeds of new cultivated plants as well as for exchange of experience with such plants. Secondly, a proper inventory of current and potential plant resources in the territory of Bern could only be made using scientific taxonomy. With regard to pest control practices, however, science was of no immediate fundamental significance, even though it was maintained from Sweden to Zurich and Bern that this was the case. Concrete measures to control the cockchafer still had the same basis in natural history in 1800 that they had had a century earlier; no advance had been made beyond knowledge of the three-year cycle of the cockchafer, which had already formed the foundation of the first Bernese ordinance at the end of the seventeenth century. Nor was the grain dryer based on a natural history of storage pests; rather, it was the result of technology transfer rooted in physical knowledge. The fact that the Economic Society nonetheless highlighted the fundamental quality of natural history had to do, among other things, with attempts to justify science. It was not scientific knowledge but two other types of knowledge that were at the centre of the efforts to control pests covered in this study. On one hand, the Economic Society generated administrative knowledge, which it was predisposed to do; many of its members were engaged simultaneously as experts, administrators and members of the government. With respect to the cockchafer, surveys conducted by letter elicited differentiated knowledge about local enforcement of official ordinances and suggestions for optimising them. The overall goal of local connectivity

130 See, for example, Regula Wyss and Nelly Ritter, ‘Kammern und Kommissionen’, in André Holenstein et al. 2008 (note 11), 32–36.

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access useful natural history? 919 pursued by the economic and patriotic societies coincided here with the intentions of the administration, which increasingly viewed knowledge about “locality”—understood as the total of all social, economic and cultural factors at work at the local level—as a central basis for its polic- ing measures.131 Significantly, on the other hand, the attempt to promote natural history research on the cockchafer by means of a prize question was a failure. The systematic and continual work of observation in a natural setting that this would have required was beyond the capacity of lay researchers; it pointed towards specialised, professionalised entomology that was to become institutionalised only in the nineteenth century. In the case of the grain dryer, in addition to the administrative knowledge which experts in the Economic Society prepared for political decision- makers and the administration, technology must be counted as a further form of knowledge. The introduction of the grain dryer should be seen as a form of technology transfer and can be explained by the categories established in cultural transfer research [Kulturtransferforschung].132 Characteristic of the Economic Society in this regard was the fact that Bern first figured as a target culture, but only a short time later became a source culture. The prerequisite for this was Bern’s comprehensive com- munication network, which not only extended into the Republic of Let- ters but was also interwoven with administrative units. Although virtually no immediate impact of natural science research on the practices of pest control has been identified here, this conclusion does not apply from a longer-term perspective. Utilitarian access to nature, with the dichotomous distinction between “useful” and “harmful” that was developed by application-oriented natural history, was to domi- nate well into the twentieth century. At the same time, it was precisely the orientation of science towards practice that revealed the limits of knowledge based on natural history and led to the restructuring of established disciplines and the genesis of new ones.133 Finally, approaches that transcended an instrumental concept of nature are recognisable in the

131 André Holenstein, “Gute Policey” und lokale Gesellschaft im Staat des Ancien Régime. Das Fallbeispiel der Markgrafschaft Baden(-Durlach) (Tübingen 2003), 2 vols.; id., ‘“Local- Untersuchung” und “Augenschein”. Reflexionen auf die Lokalität im Verwaltungsdenken und -handeln des Ancien Régime’, Werkstatt Geschichte 16 (1997), 19–31. 132 See Hansjürgen Lüsebrink, Interkulturelle Kommunikation. Interaktion, Fremd- wahrnehmung, Kulturtransfer (second edn., Stuttgart and Weimar 2008), 129–179. 133 On this topic, see Günter Bayerl, ‘Prolegomenon der “Grossen Industrie”. Der technisch-ökonomische Blick auf die Natur im 18. Jahrhundert’, in Werner Abelshauser (ed.), Umweltgeschichte. Umweltverträgliches Wirtschaften in historischer Perspektive (Göt- tingen 1994), 29–56: 53.

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access 920 martin stuber and regula wyss discourse about pest control based on natural history. In precise observation of individual insect species, it is possible to detect an interest in the diversity of creation that was not directly related to a specific purpose: every organism, whether useful or harmful, had a value of its own. Just how closely knowledge of nature and its interconnections was at the same time linked with utilitarian access, however, is evident in the above-mentioned prize question about the cockchafer (1803), which sought information about the natural enemies of cockchafer grubs and cockchafers and expressed interest in how this knowledge could be “put to greater use” in order to help “lessen” the scourge of the cockchafer.134

134 Preis-Aufgab 1803 (note 71), 12.

Martin Stuber and Regula Wyss - 9789004243910 Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 06:24:38AM via free access