Royal approval preceded teaching

On September 2, 1811, King Frederick VI of Denmark–Norway approved the establishment of a full university in Norway. Initially called the Royal Frederick University, it was the predecessor of today’s University of Oslo. Entrance examinations were held in July 1813, and teaching began in August, almost two years after the founding decision. The year 1811 therefore denotes royal approval, not the beginning of classes.

The university was not a measure introduced only after Norway separated from Denmark in 1814. Higher education had previously been concentrated in Copenhagen, and Norwegian demands for a university had long been constrained by financial concerns and considerations of preserving the united state. The Royal Norwegian Society for Development, founded in 1809, advanced the discussion, with Herman Wedel-Jarlsberg among its leaders. Nicolai Wergeland’s prizewinning work Mnemosyne brought educational ideals into public debate.

References: [1] [3]

Educational ideals faced financial and spatial constraints

Those involved did not all envisage the same kind of university. They placed different emphases on classical learning, training officials, and practical subjects. The plan of 1812 proposed eight faculties and practical training departments, but what actually emerged were four faculties: Theology, Law, Medicine, and Philosophy. War and strained finances limited its scale; not every unit in the founding plan can be treated as having opened.

Kongsberg was considered as a site, but in 1812 the choice shifted to Christiania, now Oslo, whose hospital offered advantages for medical teaching. Support was not confined to cash: Frederick VI used his private funds to purchase the Tøyen estate for the university. Land, buildings, books, and teachers’ salaries were different resources requiring separate consideration. No single donation establishes that the university already possessed everything needed for teaching.

References: [1] [3]

An appointment list was not a teaching staff

The Law Faculty’s beginnings were particularly difficult. Drawing on appointments and course records, Aubert’s faculty history of 1870 states that three law teachers were originally envisaged, but regular operation was achieved only in 1816. Nicolaus Falck, appointed in 1813, remained in Kiel because of the war and other circumstances and never took up his duties in Norway. Further appointments in 1814 also failed to produce a stable staff. A considerable gap separated appointments on paper from sustained teaching.

On February 9, 1815, Jonas Anton Hielm was appointed to teach law temporarily for six to nine hours a week and conduct examinations. The document specified an annual salary of 1,000 Rbd. S.V.; this was an agreement on remuneration, not proof that the money was actually paid. He later taught general jurisprudence, Norwegian property law and its comparison with Roman law, and organized exercises. Only on March 23, 1816, when Lorents Lange and Henrik Nikolai Steenbuch were appointed professor and lecturer respectively, did the faculty acquire two permanent teachers.

References: [2]

A handful of books sustained the first classes

The theology teacher Svend Hersleb also faced wartime transport difficulties. Elstad’s article quotes his letters: during the first semester he had only seven books at hand, while his lecture manuscripts and materials remained in Copenhagen. In November 1813, he reported teaching Amos, Judges, an introduction to Hebrew, and an overview of theology to ten students, with three already qualified listeners attending two of the courses. These figures describe particular classes, not university-wide enrollment.

In late April 1815, three candidates sat the first examination qualifying them for theological office in the cathedral school’s great hall. Bishop Bech opened the proceedings, and Hersleb and other teachers participated in examining them. Early teaching relied on existing premises and a small staff, gradually taking shape through courses, language training, and examinations. Even after the institution acquired the university title, these everyday arrangements still had to be established individually.

References: [3]

Books shipped across the sea still needed organizing

Book supplies show that political boundaries did not entirely coincide with scholarly connections. Munthe’s library history records that wartime blockade delayed the departure of books from Copenhagen. Even after the political separation in 1814, the Danish side fulfilled its delivery commitments. In late June 1815, two ships brought 299 crates of books, initially stored in borrowed warehouse space at Akershus.

Georg Sverdrup, the professor of classics who also managed the library, still had to purchase, register, and house books. Student assistants were already involved in 1814, and for a time the library shared rented accommodation with professors’ living quarters and classrooms. The many donated books included duplicates, outdated works, and material unsuited to current courses. Receiving crates did not mean students could immediately locate the knowledge they needed: cataloging, shelving, and targeted purchases were equally important.

References: [4]

Rules gradually stabilized temporary arrangements

The university initially operated under the preparatory regulations of 1812 and parts of Copenhagen University’s statutes of 1788, until its own organizational law was established on July 28, 1824. Aubert clearly distinguished these stages at the beginning of his faculty history. University organization in the new state drew on familiar older rules while gradually adapting staff appointments, professional qualifications, and local administration.

Knowledge resources were not entirely confined to the campus. The borrowing rules of 1815 recorded by Munthe already allowed people outside the university to use the collections. The system of 1824 still prioritized teachers’ and students’ needs while admitting suitably qualified outside readers. From temporary teachers and borrowed classrooms to organized books and written rules, the early university’s effects were achieved chiefly through these sustainable organizational arrangements, rather than merely through the formal standing conferred by a royal decision.

References: [2] [4]