Interview with Verónica Ramírez Errázuriz and Patricio Leyton Alvarado, authors of “Astronomy and Politics in Chile: The Role of Friedrich Ristenpart, Director of the National Astronomical Observatory, in the Dissemination and Popularization of Science, 1909–1911”

Verónica Ramírez Errázuriz researches nineteenth- and twentieth-century astronomy and the representation and appropriation of this knowledge by the public. Among her books are Astronomía, literatura y espiritismo: Camille Flammarion en América Latina (2022) and Lo que auguran los astros: Espectáculos, maravillas y catástrofes en la prensa chilena (1868-1912) (coauthored with Lorena B. Valderrama, 2021). Patricio Leyton Alvarado researches science publics, the relationship between laymen and experts, and the circulation and appropriation of scientific knowledge. He is coauthor of Una aproximación a las ciencias de la tierra en el Chile decimonónico (2019). You can read their article “Astronomy and Politics in Chile: The Role of Friedrich Ristenpart, Director of the National Astronomical Observatory, in the Dissemination and Popularization of Science, 1909–1911” in HAHR 104.1.

Interview by Rebeca Martínez-Tibbles

1. How did you come across the figure of Friedrich Ristenpart? What made you decide to research him further?

We were studying the French astronomer Camille Flammarion and the circulation of his popular works in Latin America at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth. As we read the sources, Friedrich Ristenpart emerged as the main scientific authority in Chile who opposed Flammarion’s idea that the Halley’s Comet of 1910 could cause harm to the population. After concluding our work on Flammarion, we decided to follow the trail of Ristenpart, especially his role in popular education in Chile as director of the National Astronomical Observatory.

2. What was Ristenpart’s role in popularizing scientific knowledge in Chile? What legacy if any does his work to popularize science have in the country today?

Ristenpart was the main authority in charge of calming Chileans in light of terrifying and dramatic beliefs and discourses circulating in connection to the passage of Halley’s Comet in 1910. He was also the voice of scientific authority in the Chilean media during the aftershocks of the 1906 Chilean earthquake. Ristenpart had come to Chile from Germany (his country of origin) determined to build the most important astronomical complex in the Southern Hemisphere, and to open its doors to the public so that Chileans could learn about astronomy. However, his project remained unfinished. His main supporter was the Chile’s president, Pedro Montt, who died in 1910, two years after the German scientist had arrived in Chile. Since that time, Ristenpart’s scientific and informative work in the South American country has been little studied.

3. Can you speak more about the Ristenpart’s relationship and shared goals with Chile’s president at the time, Pedro Montt? What broader lessons about the connection between science and politics can we take from their relationship?

Ristenpart was recruited from Germany by President Montt’s government, which was contemplating a major fiscal expenditure on scientific development and on rebuilding the scientific facilities affected by the 1906 earthquake. Astronomy, seismology, and meteorology greatly interested Montt because of their connection to weather predictions—important for the development of navigation (in a country with a large maritime territory) and agriculture—but also because of how they might help prevent natural disasters, especially the earthquakes to which Chile is prone. These three scientific disciplines were understood as interconnected at the time. Their global reach was also seen as an opportunity to connect with the rest of the world and build diplomatic networks.

The project to build a new observatory in Chile and Ristenpart’s outreach program would benefit the government in this regard. Ristenpart’s astronomical project was hampered by the fact that Montt’s successor didn’t share his ideas, which demonstrates how closely a political project can be tied to a scientific one. Ristenpart took his own life a couple of years later.

4. What were the challenges faced by Ristenpart in changing public opinion about the National Astronomical Observatory, and how did his difficulties reflect broader popular anxieties in Chile at the time?

One of Ristenpart’s main challenges was trying to convince the Chilean population that it was important to spend state resources on the development of astronomy, a science that the local population viewed as very distant from their lives. To this end, he dedicated himself to explaining the practical benefits of astronomy.

5. How do Ristenpart’s initiatives speak to larger scientific motivations in twentieth-century Chile and Latin America more broadly?

In short, in Latin American countries were celebrating their first centenary as republics in 1910, and they wanted to show the world that their states were not failed and that they had achieved various accomplishments deemed typical of so-called modern nations. Participating in scientific projects of global interest, such as timekeeping, earthquake prediction, and sky charting, among others, was a way to become part of that modern, developed world.

Additionally, as mentioned above, in Chile in particular advancing climate prediction was a necessity, given the importance of Valparaíso as a strategic Pacific port, the importance of the agricultural industry to the country, and the need to predict natural disasters.