Det siste tiåret av syttenhundretalet var det offentlege dansk-norske ordskiftet prega av tiltakande skriveri, og etter kvart kritiske ytringar, om statsmakta. Styringsmakta freista i 1799 å få ein slutt på agelause ytringar, ved å innføra strenge prentelovar. Denne artikkelen vil sjå på den norske allmenta i perioden mellom 1807 og 1814 og vurdera om kongemakta si disiplinering av skribentane fungerte. Det vil bli hevda at opposisjonelle meiningar framleis vart framsett då, men på eit anna sett enn før: via ein prosess kalla «underdanig opposisjon», der skribentane makta å nytta ein pålagt lojalitetsdiskurs til sin eigen føremon.
In 1799 the Dano-Norwegian regime attempted to counter increasing public criticism by introducing new press laws which would severely reduce freedom of expression. The article seeks to examine the extent to which the authorities managed to discipline public writers in Norway by investigating the Norwegian press during the Napoleonic Wars. Several Norwegian newspapers and journals began publication during this period, which in the Denmark–Norway case lasted from 1807 to 1814. Newly established newspapers, such as Tiden and the government-issued Budstikken, printed news to a much greater extent than their predecessors, thus changing the character and role of the press in publishing a number of defiant statements. In particular, the possible establishment of a Norwegian university was an important topic of discussion generating newspaper contributions as well as a series of separate publications. Nevertheless, the public discourse of the period was characterized by servile writings. Harsh press laws and intense pressure exercised by members of the authorities left little room for frank political criticism. In this publishing climate it is my assertion that Norwegian writers adapted and managed to exploit the loopholes that existed within the system to utter divergent opinions. Through irony, symbolism and allegory, Norwegians expressed opinions readily understood by the reader but difficult to punish for a regime unwilling to exert a large degree of arbitrary power. Furthermore, partially based on James C. Scotts theory on the communicative strategies of suppressed groups in autocratic societies, the article points to an approach used by the writers, named «subservient resistance», where loyal discourse is used to justify ones writings and render it possible to publish dissident political statements.
Norsk avishistorie startet før 1660. Det viser verket Norsk presses historie 1660–2010. Norsk pressehistorie startet etter 1875. Det viser Statistisk sentralbyrås folketellinger. Denne artikkel drøfter hva begge deler innebærer. Artikkelen har to siktemål. For det første søker den å påvise at pressens historie må forstås som næringens historie, og avishistorien forut for næringsetableringen som pressens forhistorie. For det andre søker den å demonstrere hva som kan oppnås av ny pressehistorisk innsikt ved å flytte oppmerksomheten fra produkt til produsent, fra publikasjon til organisasjon. Dette gjøres gjennom en diskusjon av forutsetningene for og konsekvensene av pressens hamskifte fra attåtnæring til næring.
The point of departure of this article is the recently published History of the Norwegian Press 1660-2010, a work that defines newspapers as publications and employs two types of criteria, form and content, to determine whether or not newspapers qualify as publications. The article notes that the criteria are used differently to determine the origin of the Norwegian press and the number of newspapers – the former determined by content, the latter by form. A demand that publications must fulfil both criteria would thus alter the history of the newspaper. The articles main objective, however, is in examining the origin of the newspapers as firms, and hence their transformation from being the publications of other industries into that of becoming their own industry. As an indicator of industrial development, the article uses occupational status in the four censuses carried out between 1866 and 1900, the main source of statistics on industry in Norway at that time. The study shows that in this period the newspaper industry was almost exclusive to the capital, but around 1900 it had sufficiently spread into the provinces that the claim of being a nationwide industry could be warranted. The article notes that the foundation of the newspaper industry coincided with the introduction of political parties and transformation of the newspapers into a party press, thus indicating that there was no conflict between the political and commercial aims of the newspapers, as apparently it was their political branding that enabled them to professionalize their staff and develop into an industry. For the political parties, however, making themselves dependent on the newspaper industry could produce significant organizational and political changes.
Posttrafikk med dampskip til Nord-Norge ble innledet i 1838, men postdampskipene hadde få avganger og brukte lang tid. Skipene lå i havn om natten. I 1893 ble hurtigruten startet på oppdrag fra postverket. Den utnyttet dampskipets evne til å velge kurs, om så stå rett mot vinden. Ved å navigere etter klokke og kompass, kunne et trygt seilingsforløp gjentas i uvær eller stummende mørke. Dette var en nyvinning når det gjaldt navigasjon. Ved å seile både dag og natt, reduserte hurtigruten reisetiden på strekningen med anslagsvis 40 %. Dette var et stort gjennombrudd for rutegående dampskipstrafikk langs norskekysten, men metoden har ikke spredt seg til andre, fremmede farvann.
In northern Norway, postal traffic by steamship dates back to 1838, but many years later, in the 1880s, still there were few departures and ships remained overnight in ports. However, in 1893, the Norwegian postal service started a new practice. Unlike sailing ships, which navigated according to the winds, steam ships could sail in any direction, even directly into the wind. With the aid of a chronometer and compass a captain and pilot could chart a safe course in fair weather and repeat it in bad weather or darkness, even in dangerous waters close to the coast. By sailing at night as well as during the day, the sailing time of steamers could be reduced by about 40%. This was a major breakthrough for postal traffic, but it was confined to the Norwegian coast and did not spread to foreign waters, not even to nations around the North Sea. How could this navigational breakthrough in Norway have passed unnoticed among British navigators? Three reasons stand out: the first the natural characteristics of the British coastline, which is mostly open to the sea, unprotected by reefs and islets. There are few good natural harbours. The main ports located in estuaries and encumbered by large tidal variations is a challenge to all ships traffic, in particular for vessels sailing in accordance with schedules. Operation of a schedule with fixed arrival and departure times each day of the year would be impossible. Second, there is the risk of major accidents. Along the coast of England, and particularly in the English Channel, the traffic is intense, often in dense fog, and the risk of collision is great. Third, a more suitable option for the British postal service is rail, where even along the coast a rail-based mail system is more conducive to one based on the sea.