It was a sticky day in late May 2000 and I was waiting for the Faculty of Theology’s (doctoral) Congregation ceremony. Three years earlier I had defended my thesis on Finns’ studies abroad before the establishment of the Academy at Turku in 1640, and my study had been rated in the highest class. As such, I was the so-called primus doctor leading the procession and it was my ceremonial duty to answer the following question concerning my excellence: “Did the establishment of the Royal Academy in 1640 raise academic standards in Finland?” It was a question that required a reasoned argument but in the end it came down to a simple yes or no. Without a doubt the audience was expecting me to expatiate on the University’s huge significance for seventeenth-century social improvement, and of course an answer in the affirmative.

Unfortunately my research clearly demonstrated the establishment of the Academy at Turku did not advance science in Finland. The number of students increased considerably, but somewhat concomitantly the number of those studying abroad fell dramatically. Ever since the Middle Ages scholarship had been sought from the most prestigious European centres of learning – Paris, Louvain, Rome, Prague, Wittenberg and Rostock. The University in Åbo/Turku, formed out of the Cathedral School, with its initial library collection of a princely 21 volumes, was hardly in a position to offer a decent scientific foundation for anything. In Turku it was possible to learn how to mimick, in an average sort of way, European learning, but cutting-edge science remained out of reach. In short, quantity was no substitute for quality. Prior to the eighteenth century therefore, the Academy of Turku’s significance in terms of international scholarship was indeed practically nil. I recall how, after arguing my case, I answered the ceremonial question with a clear ‘no, the establishment of the university at Turku did not lead to the advancement of science in Finland.’ As I made my way back to my seat, a hush filled the room.

Meanwhile, Professor Simo Heinonen, who had proffered the ‘innocent’ question, met my commentary with a courteous ‘I accept your response.’