421

Business & Education

Pre-20th century Denmark: time immaterial since time immemorial

Jane Graham
November 11th, 2016


This article is more than 8 years old.

If you ask anyone in Copenhagen for the time, a quick glance at a watch or a clock brings confirmation: at one time, judgements were made based on the movements of a large flag or ball

16th century Copenhagen was no place to be if you were a stickler for time (photo: unknown)

It was King Christian IV, whose reign spanned from 1596 until his death in 1648, who first noticed the discrepancies of Copenhagen’s official clocks as he was making his way around the capital. Although all of them showed different times, not one of them was actually correct.

It seems, however, that the king was the only person who cared, and his complaints to the magistrate responsible were pretty much ignored – despite them having come from the highest power in the land. It appeared that Copenhagen’s citizens had a pretty relaxed relationship with time. They couldn’t see any problem in the actual time being a bit less, or a bit more than the clock showed, just as long as they got done whatever it was that needed doing; and so, despite the protestations of the king, the situation remained unchanged for the next 150 years.

When statesman and royal physician Johann Friedrich Struensee began to furtively take more and more control of the country around 1770, he attempted to bring the country in line with other European nations, promoting order and, naturally, consistent time-keeping. He asked Christian Horrebow, a professor in astronomy at Copenhagen Round Tower observatory, to come up with a solution that would make all the capital’s clocks tell the same – and correct – time.

Marginally less painful than flagellation
After some consideration, Professor Horrebow suggested that twice a week a flag hung from the top of Copenhagen’s Round Tower observatory could signal 12 o’clock – a signal visible from anywhere in the city. All of the official clocks would then be set according to the flag and pay a small annual fee to the observatory for its trouble.

The suggestion was met with resistance from many quarters, who felt that having to pay for a service they found unnecessary, which they had never needed in the past, was quite outrageous. It was in fact only the university that found the suggestion of a fee reasonable, but then it was the university that owned the observatory!

After much wrangling and a 50 percent reduction in the fee, the suggestion became a royal ordinance and the first signal from the Round Tower was made on New Year’s Day in 1772. Initially, it created more confusion than there had been beforehand, with folk stubbornly refusing to change their clocks, while the city’s watchmakers complained that they were the true experts when it came to timekeeping, not Professor Horrebow.

Not 13:00 until ball’s dropped
A halt was called to the dispute, and for 100 years it was a city fixture to note the flag on top of the Round Tower being taken down every Wednesday and Saturday as a sign that it was now 12 o’clock midday. This signal continued even after the observatory moved in 1861.

Not everyone was completely satisfied with this solution, however, and the subject came up for debate in Parliament on various occasions during the years 1865-67. Captain Tuxen, who became an MP after serving in the navy, believed that his idea for consistent time keeping was much better than the Round Tower’s flag, which was only really effective in windy weather. He suggested that a large ball be attached to a high mast on the top of Nikolai Church tower, which could be dropped at a specific time each day. It was a different era than the one of Professor Horrebow, in which electrical technology could now be exploited to make the whole procedure precise to the exact second. Of course, there were still opponents to the suggestion. This time, many people found it far too risky to use unstable, new-fangled electricity in connection with such an important matter.

Despite opposition, Captain Tuxen’s idea did come to fruition, and on 6 July 1868 Copenhagen’s new time signal came into operation. At 1 pm exactly, a ball on top of Nikolai Tower dropped down its mast – a ritual it repeated every single working day for the next 40 years. The ball became part and parcel of Copenhagen’s skyline: an object that people looked out for, waiting for it to fall so they could adjust their watches accordingly. And now, after so many ups and downs, it has now been laid to rest in the City Museum in Copenhagen Town Hall.


Share

Most popular

Subscribe to our newsletter

Sign up to receive The Daily Post

















Latest Podcast

A survey carried out by Megafon for TV2 has found that 71 percent of parents have handed over children to daycare in spite of them being sick.

Moreover, 21 percent of those surveyed admitted to medicating their kids with paracetamol, such as Panodil, before sending them to school.

The FOLA parents’ organisation is shocked by the findings.

“I think it is absolutely crazy. It simply cannot be that a child goes to school sick and plays with lots of other children. Then we are faced with the fact that they will infect the whole institution,” said FOLA chair Signe Nielsen.

Pill pushers
At the Børnehuset daycare institution in Silkeborg a meeting was called where parents were implored not to bring their sick children to school.

At Børnehuset there are fears that parents prefer to pack their kids off with a pill without informing teachers.

“We occasionally have children who that they have had a pill for breakfast,” said headteacher Susanne Bødker. “You might think that it is a Panodil more than a vitamin pill, if it is a child who has just been sick, for example.”

Parents sick and tired
Parents, when confronted, often cite pressure at work as a reason for not being able to stay at home with their children.

Many declare that they simply cannot take another day off, as they are afraid of being fired.

Allan Randrup Thomsen, a professor of virology at KU, has heavily criticised the parents’ actions, describing the current situation as a “vicious circle”.

“It promotes the spread of viruses, and it adds momentum to a cycle where parents are pressured by high levels of sick-leave. If they then choose to send the children to daycare while they are still recovering, they keep the epidemic going in daycares, and this in turn puts a greater burden on the parents.”