A M B I X , P a r t 3, N o v e m b e r 1983

T H E O R Y OR PRACTICE ? T H E E I G H T E E N T H - C E N T U R Y D E B A T E O N

T H E SCIENTIFIC S T A T U S OF CHEMISTRY

B Y C H R I S T O P H M E I N E L *

T o say that chemistry has to approach its subject matter, the m a t e r i a l structure of the wor ld

and the causes of mater ia l transformations, i n a theoretical and pract ical manner, experi-

entia et ratione, is a commonplace observation w h i c h can also be said of other fields.1

Nevertheless, there seems to be a closer relationship between theory a n d practice i n chem­

istry i n the sense of an interdependence between both fields. A l r e a d y i n the seventeenth

century, chemists agreed upon this as an almost self-evident m a x i m . If, however, i n

academic arguments either the one or the other aspect dominated, a n d at one point theory,

and at another point practice, was considered to be the real master of the subject, then this

was u l t i m a t e l y due to the after-effects of mediaeval scholastic schemes of scientific classifica­

t ion and their influence on the conception of science, combined w i t h a usually a n d a l l too

superficial dist inct ion between itecopiit a n d irpäfys.2

Jean Beguin's wel l -known Tyrocinium Chymicum of 1608 is a good example of the long

line of authors who first of a l l sought to define the character a n d part icular nature of

alchemy a n d then thoroughly, and for better reasons, of modern chemistry i n the altercation

of both theory a n d practice : 3

C u m autem omnes disciplinae vulgo sint ve l theoricae ve l practicae, C h y m i a non acquiescens i n cognitione et contemplatione corporum m y s t o r u m ut scientia P h y s i c a ; sed finem habens T O ipyov repay pa . . . et iamsi forte inveniantur, q u i theoria sola contenti ad jucundissimas artis hujus iyx^prjtJ1^ . . • per accidens se non accing-ant . 4

T w o generations later Robert Boyle methodical ly discussed the permanent a n d immediate

lack of theory concerning the practice of chemistry and developed one of the first empir ical

conceptions of theory. B y p u t t i n g experiment as the checking device for theories right into

the centre of his chemical research programme, 5 he thereby finally banished the scholastic

formal-speculative concept of theory from the sphere of scientific theory formation. E a r l y

histor ical surveys of chemistry, as long as they were not merely out to antedate as far as

possible the beginnings of the subject at any price, also looked upon the connection of theory

a n d practice as the origin of chemistry as a science. 6 Short, popular a n d easily remembered

formulae such as scientia practica, philosophia per ignem or s i m p l y pyrosophia characterized

this specific nature of chemistry.

U n d e r the impression of the scientific revolution, reflection on the a i m a n d method of

chemistry was revived at the beginning of the eighteenth century, 7 but i t d i d not however

surpass the conclusions which h a d already been reached on the question of the relationship

between theory and practice. If M i k h a i l Lomonosov i n 1741 put forward i n his Elementa

Chimiae Mathematicae as the p r i m a r y theorem the postulate that the real chemist must be

both a theorist and a practit ioner, 8 and if Pierre Joseph Macquer later eloquently pointed

* Institut für Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften, Universität H a m b u r g , 2000 H a m b u r g 13,

Bundesstr. 55. Translated from the G e r m a n b y E l k e T e i c h m a n n (University of Leicester).

out the close connection between raisonnement and experience,9 then both convictions m a y

well have already belonged to a firm rhetorical store a n d become c o m m o n knowledge to the

extent that a more detailed discussion on the relationship between the two fields d i d not

appear to be urgent as far as chemistry was concerned. T h i s basic att itude was to change

and give w a y to a new, violent controversy 1 0 only i n connection w i t h K a n t 1 1 and as a result

of the consciously felt chemical revolut ion, which gave rise to the heightened awareness of

theory shown b y the generation of chemists fol lowing Lavoisier . However, we shall not

consider this later development i n the present study.

The conventional d iv is ion of theoretical and pract ical chemistry was therefore adhered

to from stubborn habit , w i t h few questions being raised concerning the inseparable connec­

t ion between the two spheres. F o r example, Macquer's famous Ehmens de Chymie

Théorique, which appeared i n 1749, was short ly followed b y his Elemens de Chymie Practique,

where i t seemed as though i t was a case of two themes which h a d to be i n d i v i d u a l l y t r e a t e d . 1 2

Nevertheless, the extent to w h i c h the o ld contrast between theory and practice h a d already

been b l o t t e d out is indicated b y the v e r y fact that Macquer largely defined his theoretical

chemistry on the basis of its operations—"séparer . . . examiner . . . decomposer . . . composer

. . . combiner . . . reunir . . . r e j o i n d r e " 1 3 — a n d that he closed each volume w i t h a chapter on

"Theorie de l a construction des vaisseaux" and on "Theorie de l a construction des fourn-

eaux" , w h i c h we w o u l d clearly assign to the pract ica l side of the subject.

W r i t e r s of chemical textbooks unfortunately only very rarely gave accounts of the

criteria of such subdivisions. Whenever they d i d so, however, didactic arguments for the

keeping up of the t radi t ional d iv is ion seem to have been to the fore. A s Macquer a r g u e d , 1 4

only theoretical chemistry allowed a logical, systematic representation from basic to com­

plex, from k n o w n to u n k n o w n ; pract ical chemistry, on the other hand, opposed systematic

exposition, because here the subject matter (e.g. the procedure of analysis) dictated the form

of representation. F o r the same reason other contemporary authors declared themselves i n

favour of a div is ion into didactic and pract ica l chemistry (chemia dogmática—chemia

practica, experimentalis) instead of the conventional t e r m s . 1 5

This , however, only solved the problem of the theory and practice i n discussion w i t h i n

the discipline. In wider contexts the question whether chemistry works m a i n l y theoretic­

a l ly or m a i n l y pract ical ly kept t u r n i n g up again wherever this d iv is ion interferred w i t h

another ancient-mediaeval d iv is ional system; namely wherever i t came to represent chem­

istry as true science, scientia, or as mere art, ars. A s late as the seventeenth century no less

a person than D a n i e l Sennert, a first-rate chemical author i ty himself, denied the subject the

q u a l i t y of a scientia b y reserving searches for u l t imate causes exlusively to Physica a n d b y

al lowing only productive 7roirföts—principally w i t h a pharmaceutical object ive—to

c h e m i s t r y . 1 6 This idea also remained unchanged to a great extent i n the publ ic opinion of

the eighteenth century. I n 1786 even I m m a n u e l K a n t himself categorically denied the

possibi l i ty of chemistry becoming mathemat ica l and deductive, and decided that i t could

therefore "nichts mehr als systematisch K u n s t oder Experimental lehre, niemals aber

eigentliche Wissenschaft w e r d e n " 1 7 (be no more than a ski l led art or experimental science,

never a real science).

The chemists of the eighteenth century never t i red of fighting this verdict and t r y i n g to

prove that their subject was a real scientia. T h e y even produced their own l i terary form of

chemical programmes, which had the sole function of promot ing chemistry a n d representing

i t as a science i n its own r i g h t . 1 8 There is scarcely a definition of the subject f rom the pen of

an eighteenth-century chemist which d i d not push the rat ional and scientific aspect to the

fore. B u t th is made it necessary at the same t ime to assign a specific character to the newly

understood science of chemistry i n such a w a y as to del imit i t f rom physica, the most general

science, as wel l as from n a t u r a l history a n d pharmaceutical pract ice . 1 9 A s regards content,

genuinely chemical levels of explanation, l ike the phlogiston theory, or specific research

programmes i n v o l v i n g the concept of elements, the theory of combustion, or the concept of

affinity, could be provided, which allowed a p la in a n d consistent definition of chemical

knowledge a n d laboratory procedures.

The argument about theory and practice, revived again i n the context of the scientia-

ars debate, can however not only be seen i n the internal development of chemistry. A more

important reason is to be looked for i n the sociological field and can only be understood from

the part icular w a y i n which chemistry became inst i tut ional ized as an academic discipline.

L e t us t r y to put ourselves i n the posit ion of the young subject of chemistry at the

beginning of the eighteenth century, of a subject part icular ly i n which the standard quota­

t ion of grey theory a n d the green trees of l i f e — w h i c h , notably, comes from the m o u t h of

Mephisto—swings to the other extreme. F o r i t was precisely the experimenting chemist

who h a d to brush off soot and dust f rom his coat before he entered the honourable meeting

of his learned faculty colleagues. H e r m a n Boerhaave's inaugural lecture as professor of

chemistry i n Leiden i n 1718 clearly shows i n i ts opening sentences the w a l l of disapproving

reserve which the representative of an apparently very unacademic, ungainly, technical and

even d i r t y business, such as chemistry, h a d to face:

H a n c videtis sortem meam hodie, q u i coram Principibus i n República V i r i s , i n consessu sapientissimorum Professorum, i n conspectu denique h o m i n u m i n o m n i scientiarum genere perfectissimorum, verba habere cogar de Chemia! de C h e m i a ! quae áspera, hórrida, laboriosa, a commercio Sapientum remota, ignota E r u d i t i s ve l suspecta, ignem, fumos, ciñeres, sordes spirans, v i x u l l a amoenitatis specie com-mendata habetur . 2 0

Thirteen years later Boerhaave's successor, H i e r o n y m u s D a v i d Gaubius, repeated the same

complaint from the same lecturn using almost the same words: Instead of well-stacked

bookshelves the chemist on ly possessed his apparatus, a n d i n the middle of ovens, vessels a n d

pokers he was seen " n o n otiose ad p u l p i t a m desidentem, sed atrás carbone m a n u s . " 2 1 The

origin of chemistry f rom the practice of metallurgists already gave away its low status:

ab i l l i terato hoc rudique d o m i n u m genere p r i m u m exercita, depurata dein et obscurata ab impostoribus, i n se hórrida, laboribus plena, plena periculis, ab otiosis speculationibus a l i e n a . 2 2

T h a t is w h y the learned men's repugnance at the "fades monstrosa" of chemistry was only

too comprehensible. 2 3

The unfortunate association w i t h alchemy meant a further burden. After a l l , i t h a d

been precisely the fal l ing apart of theory and practice, the discrepancy between highest

theoretical demand and a most disi l lusioning reality, which h a d discredited a lchemy: i t

promised the philosopher's stone a n d rushed its disciples into disaster; i t promised life's

e l ix ir for which the alchemist worked himself to death. I t is on ly too understandable that

chemistry d i d everything to demarcate itself from its predecessor and that i t d i d not want to

have anything i n common w i t h alchemy bu t the name:

L a C h y m i e . . . n 'a heureusement rien de c o m m u n que le n o m avec cette ancienne Chymie , et cette conformité est méme encore u n m a l pour elle, par l a raison que e'en est u n pour une filie pleine d'esprit et de raison, mais fort peu connue, de porter le n o m d'une mere fameuse par ses inepties et ses extravagances. 2 4

W i t h regard to publ ic opinion, however, the image of the chemist s t i l l almost coincided w i t h

that of the alchemist. Textbooks and programme speeches of chemistry are ful l of com­

plaints about this distorted image. Gabie l Francois Venel a p t l y characterized the s ituation

i n the E n c y c l o p e d i c :

Les personnes les moins instruites ne distinguent pas le chimiste d u Souffleur; Tun et T autre de ees noms est également mal-sonnant pour les oreilles. Ce préjugé a plus n u i au progrés, d u moins ä l a propagation de Tart, que des imputat ions plus graves prises dan le fond méme de l a chose, parce qu 'on a plus craint le r idicule que l ' erreur . 2 5

It was of l i t t le help when Venel merely dissociated himself f rom the gushing speculations of

the alchemists and referred to the m u c h tighter and completely different relationship of

theory and practice i n chemistry i n order to del imit i t also from those occult a n d speculative

schools of thought which l i k e d to see themselves as "higher chemistry" i n the eighteenth

century.

Quelques demi-philosophes seront peut-étre tentés de croire que nous nous sommes eleves aux généralites les plus hautes; mais nous savons bien au contraire, que nous nous en sommes tenus aux notions qui découlent le plus immediatement des faits et des conoissances particuliers, et q u i peuvent éclairer de plus prés l a p r a t i q u e . 2 6

I n the concurring judgement of the t ime, the two factors w h i c h were held most respons­

ible for the delay i n recognition of chemistry as an academic disc ipl ine and true science were

that the st igma of the mere technical c lung to the subject and that i t came fr ightful ly close

to the shady practice and theoretical deception of a deceitful alchemy. I n a textbook where

the m a i n a i m was to educate a real chemicus theoretico-pradicus instead of a b l i n d empiricus,

J o h a n n Chris t ian Z i m m e r m a n n gave the fol lowing reasons for the low regard of chemistry:

daß i . die wenigsten Personen wissen, was eigentlich die Chemie sey, u n d das W o r t Chemie insgemein . . . vor A l c h y m i e nehmen, u n d dieserhalb mehrentheils einen C h y m i c u m einen A l c h y m i s t e n , G o l d - K o c h oder Betrüger z u nennen pflegen, . . . u n d daß 2. die Haupstücken der Chemie, ohne eine gehörige gesunde Theorie oder ohne die physicalischen Ursachen z u wissen oder einzusehen, nach empirischer A r t , mehrentheils n u r einzeln tract ir t werden u n d , durch die Gewohnheir, gröstentheils z u kunst- u n d handwercksmäßigen Professionen geworden s ind u n d auch also bearbeitet werden. 2 7

Wherever theory and practice were m a i n l y understood as a separation between inte l ­

lectual disposition and m a n u a l a c t i v i t y i n order to differentiate between ars a n d scientia, i t

no longer meant a mere quarrel of methods w i t h i n the discipline for chemistry (which h a d

anyway already decided this question for itself i n principle), but rather social acknowledge-

ment a n d rank order i n the system of sciences. J o h a n n Georg M e n n , first appointed pro­fessor of chemistry at Cologne i n 1777, m a y therefore have h a d good reason for fearing that i t m i g h t :

z u geringschätzig erscheinen, daß ich m i c h hier bey gemeinen Verrichtungen, die m a n n u r der mitt leren Klasse der Menschen z u überlassen gewohnet ist, etwas umständ­l i c h aufgehalten u n d diese zur E m p f e h l u n g der Chemie angebracht habe. 2 8

Since questions of the system of sciences and their hierarchy were of great importance at

universities a n d i n learned societies, if only because of their inst i tut ional structure, the con­

nection of chemistry w i t h the workshop or even the a c t i v i t y of an apothecary, was to its

part icular disadvantage i n the academic wor ld , as long as this could cause a conflict of

interests between professional ethics a n d aspects of career for the i n d i v i d u a l chemist. Thus ,

i n an o b i t u a r y of Macquer i t is indicated how far remote an academic att i tude a n d a pro­

fessor's d i g n i t y s t i l l was f rom pract ica l w o r k i n a laboratory:

Lorsque les progrés des conoissances les [professeurs] ont forces a sortir des écoles pour interroger l a nature dans les laboratoires, i ls ont c r u q u ' i l étoit de leur dignité d ' y paroitre avec leurs robes: ils sesonts réduits, par cet appareil , a Timpossibilité d 'y faire autre chose que d iscour ir . 2 9

I t is therefore not surprising that the professor of chemistry at the J a r d i n d u R o i i n Paris , a l though usual ly treated as equal to the other professors, h a d to be content w i t h the t i t le of a démonstrateur. 3 0

Enl ightened contemporaries were quite conscious of the social impl icat ion of the div is ion

into theory a n d practice. I n his Discours Préliminaire of the Encyclopédie, D ' A l e m b e r t

harshly judged this social class-judging divis ion into free and mechanical arts a n d branded

it as an instrument of power of the phys ica l ly inferior, intel lectual ru l ing classes. 3 1 Denis

Diderot judged s imi lar ly on the separation of the arts libéraux f r o m the arts méchaniques.

Cette dist inct ion, quoique bien fondee, a produit u n mauvais effet, en avil issant des gens tres-estimables et trés-utiles, et en fortifiant en nous je ne sais quelle paresse naturelle, q u i ne nous portoit deja que trop ä croire, que donner une appl icat ion constante et suivie ä des experiences et ä des ob jets particuliers, sensibles et matériels, c'étoit déroger ä l a dignité de l 'esprit h u m a i n ; et que de pratiquer, ou méme d'étudier les arts méchaniques, c'étoit s'abbasisser ä des choses dont l a recherche est laborieuse, l a meditat ion ignoble, l 'exposit ion difficile, le commerce deshonorant, le nombre inépuisable, et l a valeur m i n u t i e l l e . 3 2

The baffling, almost l i teral , coincidence of these arguments w i t h those of the debate about

the status and rank of chemistry shows that the emancipation of the subject was also part

of the great historical process i n which the new bourgeoisie replaced the old contemplative

ideal of life b y a new one, which contained the ideas of progress a n d active formation of the

wor ld . I n 1802 H u m p h r y D a v y put the chemist's new w a y of seeing himself at the begin­

ning of his chemistry lectures at the R o y a l I n s t i t u t i o n :

Science has given to h i m an acquaintance w i t h the different relations of the parts of the external w o r l d ; a n d more t h a n that, i t has bestowed u p o n h i m powers w h i c h m a y be almost called creative; which have enabled h i m to modi fy a n d change the beings

surrounding h i m , and b y his experiments to interrogate nature w i t h power, not s i m p l y as a scholar, passive and seeking only to understand her operations, but rather as a master, active w i t h his own i n s t r u m e n t s . 3 3

I n this context, i t is most remarkable how, since the middle of the eighteenth century,

chemistry h a d carried through the tendency to give up the sterile and restrictive dist inct ion

between theory and practice and replace i t w i t h the modern, s t i l l common, d iv is ion of the

subject into pure and applied chemistry, chemia pura and chemia applicata. W h a t at first

sight o n l y seems to be a m i n o r shift of trend, or even a mere battle of words, attentive

contemporaries soon recognized as a carefully constructed re-conception of chemistry as a

whole. After a l l , i t meant the abol i t ion of the fruitless d iv is ion into theoretical science

a n d pract ical arts. F r o m then on, the k i n d of work, be i t m a n u a l or intel lectual , was no

longer to decide the rank of the subject, but its real rank a n d d igni ty was to derive solely

f rom its research aims.

I n pure chemistry this points at principles and laws of mater ia l phenomena a n d trans­

formations; i n applied chemistry i t points at their u t i l i za t ion for men's needs. The most

int imate connection of chemical theory a n d experimental practice was, however, imposed

on both areas as a self-evident condit ion.

The origin and descent of this conception can be determined very precisely. O n 10

August 1751 the great Swedish chemist J o h a n n Gottschalk Wal ler ius , a representative of the

best mineralogical-chemical and agricultural-chemical school of thought i n Scandinavia,

wrote the " B r e f o m Chemiens rätta Beskaffenhet, N y t t a och W ä r d e " to an anonymous

addressee, who h a d i t pr inted i n the same year . 3 4 Here we meet expl ic i t ly the new distinc­

t i o n for the first t i m e :

U m eine gründliche Käntnis v o n der Chemie z u erlangen, halt i ch es v o r das be­quemste, dieselbe i n die abgesonderte (chemia pura) u n d die ausübende (chemia applicata) einzuteilen. . . . D i e abgesonderte Chemie ist eine Wissenschaft v o n der Vermischung u n d dem Grundstoffe (principiis) [sie] der Körper. D i e ausübende Chemie ist eine K u n s t , welche zeiget, wie m a n durch Vermischung oder T e i l u n g der Körper verschiedene, bei vielerlei Zufällen i m gemeinen L e v e n nüzliche Stoffe zubereiten könne. 3 5

The model for the n a m i n g was avowedly mathematics, which h a d already been famil iar

w i t h the d i v i s i o n into pure and applied mathematics for some t i m e . 3 6 I n the very same

year, 1751, Wal ler ius programmatica l ly introduced the new conception i n minute detai l i n

his dissertation De nexu chemiae cum utilitate reipublicae.31 T h r o u g h his textbook on

physical chemistry, first wr i t ten i n Swedish, and i n L a t i n a n d G e r m a n translations, i t

decisively influenced the Scandinavian and G e r m a n t r a d i t i o n . 3 8 Wal ler ius modified his

or ig inal ideas i n the textbook insofar as he now recognized that, w i t h the help of his new

dist inct ion, not only the o ld div is ion into theory and practice became untenable, but also

the tiresome quarrel about ars a n d scientia h a d come to an end, as applied chemistry could

now see itself as a "pract is ing science" i n a l l its parts.

D e n n die Theile der angewendeten Chemie bekommen das Ansehen der Wissen­schaften oder der ausübenden Wissenschaften, indem sie nach Gründen errichtet werden, welche die reine Chemie hergiebt . 4 0

O n this basis Wal ler ius created his later, often adopted, sub-division of appl ied chemistry

into nine single branches, namely medical chemistry, stone chemistry (Lithurgica), salt

chemistry (Halurgica), fire chemistry (Tejurgica), metal chemistry (Metallurgica), glass

chemistry (Hyalurgica), economic chemistry, colour chemistry (Chromatica) a n d arts or

crafts chemistry (Chemia technica sen opificiaria) . 4 1 A c c o r d i n g to Wal ler ius , each of these

areas of appl icat ion should be established on the principles of pure chemistry as the c o m m o n

" f u n d a m e n t u m , n o r m a atque m a n u d u c t r i x " , 4 2 and each of them was to represent an inde­

pendent, self-contained science, compris ing both theoretical a n d pract ical aspects.

I n addit ion, thanks to the successful publications of the indefatigable Christ ian E h r e n ­

fried Weigel , the m a n who, as professor of chemistry i n Sweden's Greifswald, p layed the

unique part of a mediator between Scandinavian a n d G e r m a n chemists, Waller ius 's con­

ception r a p i d l y made its w a y into G e r m a n textbooks . 4 3 T h i s was the case i n part icular ,

when the new generation of textbooks beginning w i t h Erxleben's Anfangsgründe der

Chemie** i n 1775, superceded the older recipe collections or works w h i c h were subdivided b y

chemical operations. The new div is ion into pure and applied chemistry soon entered

general systems of l e a r n i n g . 4 5 - —

A d m i t t e d l y few authors made such a clear dist inct ion i n their terminology as Wal ler ius

or Weige l d i d . The latter h a d specifically pointed out that one should ' 'angewandte oder

besondere Chemie . . . m i t der ausübenden oder practischen nicht verwechse ln" . 4 6

B u t from then on i t was the idea of pure a n d applied science i n Wallerius 's sense that formed

the basis of the terminological dist inct ion, and not the other w a y round, when pure, phys ica l

or theoretical chemistry was s t i l l almost used synonymously a n d contrasted w i t h applied,

pract ical or experimental chemistry. T h e change of meaning was to be such a complete one

that since the early nineteenth century the t e r m " p r a c t i c a l chemistry" has almost entirely

disappeared from the technical terminology of most languages.

The r a p i d v i c t o r y leads one to assume that the idea had, so to speak, been i n the air for a

long t ime. W e also find i t , almost simultaneously w i t h Wal ler ius 's Bref of 1751, in Lomonosov 's unfinished outline of a teaching course of physical chemistry , 4 7 and, i m p l i c i t l y ,

i n Venel 's exposition on chemistry i n the Encyclopédie*8 I n fact, the dist inct ion between

pure a n d appl ied chemistry fitted effortlessly into the conception of science of the E n l i g h t e n ­

ment, w h i c h h a d put to the fore the aspect of utilité, the common usefulness. 4 9 B y establish­

i n g the subject on the formula "pure a n d applied c h e m i s t r y " Wal ler ius t i g h t l y joined the

w a y the discipline saw itself to the great a n d forward-looking trends of his t ime, the phi lo­

sophical rat ional ism a n d scientism of the Enl ightenment as wel l as to the programme of

general usefulness w h i c h was to culminate i n u t i l i t a r i a n i s m . 5 0 T h e ut i l i tar ian argument

formed the image of chemistry i n the eighteenth century to such an extent that since

Boerhaave's Elementa Chemiae51 of 1732, always quoted as a shining example of this,

scarcely one textbook of chemistry a n d h a r d l y one chemical periodical came from the press

without recommending itself to the reader w i t h the argument of the subject's usefulness.

E v e n eighteenth-century definitions of chemistry regularly included this aspect in the

characterization of their subject.

I t is also noticeable how strongly, part icular ly i n the l i n k i n g of chemistry to general use­

fulness, the subject's connections w i t h cameralistics [Kameralwissenschaft] a n d economics

gained acceptance. T h i s aspect of the history of chemistry has been quite wrongful ly

neglected. J o h a n n J o a c h i m Becher, the intel lectual ancestor of phlogiston theory in the

seventeenth century, h a d already been b o t h a chemist a n d a pol i t ica l economist. Georg

E r n s t Stahl , the great theorist of chemistry, h a d simultaneously prepared the w a y to

appl icat ion w i t h important standard works of metal lurgy a n d technology of fermentation

(Zymotechnia). I n this t r a d i t i o n the followers of S t a h l increasingly incorporated chemistry

together w i t h the agricultural reform movement, and w i t h technology (in Beckmann's

sense) into the economic programme of the modern state. I n relation to the increase a n d

improvement of the country's products a n d to the tapping of new sources of raw material ,

chemistry promised economically important contributions to the increase of p r o d u c t i v i t y

and the raising of publ ic funds . 5 3 The m i n i n g industry i n German and Scandinavian coal

and steel areas, the b i g F r e n c h state monopolies l ike the production of saltpetre and porce­

la in and, last but not least, the agricultural societies which were established everywhere on

the Continent based on the B r i t i s h model i n the second half of the eighteenth century, h a d

an influence on this part icular att i tude towards chemistry that should not be underesti­

m a t e d . 5 4 I t is remarkable that later on economic theorists a n d reformers often assigned

chemistry to the univers i ty subject of economics, after this connection h a d already been

realized i n seventeenth-century Sweden, the country of origin of chemical mineralogy a n d

agr icul tural chemistry, i n Stockholm's Bergskollegium. F o l l o w i n g this example the

universities of U p p s a l a (1750), L u n d (1758) a n d A b o (1761) h a d affiliated their new chairs

of chemistry to economics, not to medicine, as was usual elsewhere. 5 5 I n Germany, too,

such chairs of chemistry were established w i t h i n newly created cameralist faculties (Gießen

1777, Lautern/Heidelberg 1774, M a i n z 1785) or i n independent economic institutes (Rinte ln

a n d M a r b u r g 1789).

N o t least must this inst i tut ional development be seen as a consequence of that revalua­

t ion of the subject, after w h i c h practice was no longer considered as low work, but an

applicat ion which immediate ly contributed to general usefulness as the highest social a i m .

I n this w a y i t became possible to declare the subject's innate utilitas to be the very proof

a n d measure of its academic nobilitas, as H i e r o n y m u s D a v i d Gaubius h a d already resolutely

done i n his Oratio inauguralis, qua ostenditur, Chemiam artibus academicis jure esse inserendam

of 1731. 5 6 I t is obvious that such an att i tude of m i n d meant that purely speculative

curiosity remained suspicious.

Nous convenons au contraire que l a perfection des A r t s , l a découverte de nouveaux objets de manufacture et de commerce sont, sans coñtredit, ce q u ' i l y a de plus beau, de plus interessant dans l a C h y m i e , et ce q u i l a rend vraiment estimable. Que seroit-elle en effet sans cela? s i ce n'est une science purement théorique, capable d'occuper seulement quelques esprits abstraits et spéculatifs, mais oiseuse et inut i le a l a société. 5 7

It w o u l d therefore seem to be i n line w i t h the conclusions being presented i n this paper

that i n 1803, at the just refounded E s t o n i a n U n i v e r s i t y of Dorpat , the first chair of "theo­

retical and applied chemistry" was established i n the Phi losophical F a c u l t y , a n d the newly

appointed professor, Alexander N i k o l a u s Scherer, addressed his inaugural lecture to the

question In welchem Verhältnisse stehen Theorie und Praxis der Chemie gegeneinander ?b%

H i s answer was that the opposit ion between theory a n d practice could not exist for the

chemist, because theory i n its true sense was the embodiment of practice; a n y so-called

theory w h i c h d i d not a p p l y to practice was " n i c h t Theorie, sondern ein H i r n g e s p i n s t " . 5 9

Scherer, who h a d managed a stoneware factory near P o t s d a m t i l l the beginning of h is

academic teaching, concluded that i t w o u l d not be u n t i l the contrary view merged into the

synthesis of a science appl ied to the r ight end that one w o u l d get away f r o m :

dem Vorurthei le , welches bisher alle Theorie gegen sich erweckte, daß sie den höchsten Zweck alles menschlichen Wissens, Gemeinnützigkeit u n d Anwendbarke i t aufs menschliche Leben, vereitele. 6 0

Evidence l ike these programmatica l words of Scherer can be taken as an expression of

the intel lectual ident i ty or the conscious self-representation of a discipline. B u t this

obviously i l luminates only one aspect of the historical process. The historian is s t i l l called

upon to confront such claims w i t h historical real i ty. F o r us, however, such utterances

remain invaluable indicators of the spirit of an age, and of the mentalities a n d motives of i ts

contemporaries, a n d should therefore be taken into the historical account even if they were

mere intentions w i t h o n l y l i m i t e d immediate pract ica l consequences. F o r , admittedly , at

least i n the development of science, consciousness must be counted as a d r i v i n g force i n

history.

I n this context, the sources ci ted w i l l have made clear that chemistry of the eighteenth

century, i n its attempt to achieve support and acknowledgment as a scientific, academic

discipline, was forced to see that the t r a d i t i o n a l dist inct ion between theory a n d practice

was an incr iminat ing heritage. I n 1751, when i t was for the first t ime expl ic i t ly replaced b y

the div is ion of the subject into pure a n d applied chemistry as a s y m p t o m of a new under­

standing of science, chemistry was able to reduce its own aims a n d its publ ic image to a

c o m m o n denominator w i t h the spirit of the Enl ightenment i n terms of uUlitas. This re­

orientation, which was expressed i n the terminological change from theoretical a n d pract ical

chemistry to pure a n d applied chemistry, has no doubt contributed to the fact that at the

end of the eighteenth century, chemistry enjoyed a wide popular i ty a n d received such a

rapid , fresh impetus that at last i t even acquired the attr ibute of being the favoured science

of its t i m e . 6 1

R E F E R E N C E S

I . Schipperges has shown that the distinction was a general, historically almost i n v a r i a n t theme for

older medicine. See H e i n r i c h Schipperges, " D i e arabische M e d i z i n als Praxis u n d als T h e o r i e " ,

Sudhoffs Archiv, 43 (1959), 317-28; idem, " Z u m T o p o s v o n 'ratio et e x p e r i m e n t u m ' i n der älteren

Wissenschaftsgeschichte", i n : Fachprosa-Studien. Beiträge zur mittelalterlichen Wissenschafts- und

Geistesgeschichte, ed. b y G u n d o l f K e i l , B e r l i n , 1982, p p . 25-36.

2. See Nicholas L o b k o w i c z , Theory and Practice. History of a concept from Aristotle to Marx, N o t r e

D a m e , L o n d o n , 1967; a n d for the terminological-historical aspect L u t z Geldsetzer, '"Science' i m

französischen S p r a c h u n d D e n k r a u m " , i n : Der Wissenschaftsbegriff. Historische und systematische

Untersuchungen, ed. b y A l w i n D i e m e r (Studien zur Wissenschaftstheorie, 4) Meisenheim, 1970,

p p . 76-89.

3. See also examples i n E b e r h a r d Schmauderer [ed.], Der Chemiker im Wandel der Zeiten. Skizzen zur

geschichtlichen Entwicklung des Berufsbildes, W e i n h e i m , 1973.

4. Joannes Beguinus, Tyrocinium Chymicum, commentario i l lustratum a G e r a r d o Blasio, 2nd ed.,

A m s t e r d a m (1669), p. 2, w i t h the editor's footnote: " C u m experientia practicae v e r i t a t e m theoriae

corroboret, unice v e r u m C h y m i a t r i a e studiosum eo a l l a b o r a n d u m esse censemus, ut m a n u a l i

experientiae noctu diuque incumbat, quo t a n d e m dulcissima hujus artis usura frui possit".

5. See M a r i e Boas, Robert Boyle and Seventeenth-Century Chemistry, Cambridge, 1958, esp. p p . 205-8,

a n d more recently E l i s a b e t h Ströker, Theoriewandel in der Wissenschaftsgeschichte. Chemie im 18.

Jahrhundert, F r a n k f u r t / M a i n , 1982, p p . 33-42.

6. P r e v i o u s l y H e r m a n n Boerhaave, Sermo academicus de chemia suos errores expurgante, L e i d e n ,

1718, p. 12 a n d also [Gabriel F r a n c i s Venel] Chymie, i n : Encyclopédie ou dictionnaire raisonné des

sciences, des arts et des metiers, T o m e I (Paris 1751), p p . 435-436. F o r further reference compare

also Jost W e y e r , Chemiegeschichtsschreibung von Wiegleb (1790) bis Partington (1970). (Arbor

Scientiarum, Reihe A , 3) H i l d e s h e i m , 1974, while the M a r x i s t interpretation of the history of

chemistry w o u l d keep to the dogmatic-systematic separation of theory a n d practice, as does

W i l h e l m Strube, Die Chemie und ihre Geschichte (Forschungen zur Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 5) B e r l i n ,

1974, a n d idem, Der historische Weg der Chemie, V o l . I-II, Leipzig, 1976-1981.

7. F o r parallels i n medicine, see R i c h a r d Toellner, " M e d i c i n a T h e o r e t i c a — M e d i c i n a Pract ica. Des

P r o b l e m des Verhältnisses v o n Theorie u n d Praxis i n der M e d i z i n des 17. u n d 18. J a h r h u n d e r t s " ,

i n : Theoria cum Praxi. Zum Verhältnis von Theorie und Praxis im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert.

A k t e n des III. Internationalen Leibnizkongresses, H a n n o v e r 1977, V o l . I V : Naturwissenschaft,

T e c h n i k , M e d i z i n , M a t h e m a t i k (Studia L e i b n i t i a n a Supplementa, X X I I ) Wiesbaden, 1982, p p . 6 9 -

73-

8. M i c h a e l Lomonossow, Elementa chimiae mathematicae (1741), G e r m a n i n : M i c h a i l Wassiljewitsch

Lomonossow, Ausgewählte Schriften, V o l . I : Naturwissenschaften, B e r l i n 1961, p. 70.

9. [Pierre Joseph] Macquer, Dictionnaire de Chymie, contenant la théorie et la pratique de cette science,

2iéme ed., T o m e I, Paris, 1778, p p . X X X V - X X X V I : " L a théorie ne peut étre utile q u ' a u t a n t

qu'elle nait des experiences deja faites, ou qu'elle nous montre Celles q u i sont ä faire; car le raisonne-

ment est en quelque sorte l 'organe de l a vue d u Physicien, mais l'expérience est son toucher; et ce

dernier sens doit constamment rectifier chez l u i les erreurs auxquelles le premier n'est que t r o p

sujet. Si l'expérience q u i n'est point dirigée par l a théorie est toujours u n tátonnement aveugle, l a

théorie sans l'expérience n'est jamais q u ' u n coup d'oeil trompeur et m a l assure; aussi est-il certain

que les plus importantes découvertes que l ' o n ait faites dans l a C h y m i e , ne sont dues q u ' a l a

reunion de ees deux grands secours".

10. C o m p a r e J o h a n n Bartholomäus Trommsdorff, Versuch einer allgemeinen Geschichte der Chemie,

E r f u r t , 1806, part III, p p . 134-146, a n d especially Ströker (1982, see note 5), p p . 253-98.

11. K a n t ' s Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft (1786) i n particular a n d the preface to

the second edition of Kritik der reinen Vernunft (1787) have strongly influenced chemists' t h i n k i n g ,

as i n the case of Jeremias B e n j a m i n R i c h t e r a n d especially F r i e d r i c h A l b r e c h t C a r l G r e n .

12. [Pierre Joseph] Macquer, Ehmens de Chymie Théorique, Paris, 1749; idem, Élemens de Chymie

Pratique, contenant la description des operations fundamentales de la Chymie, T o m e I - I I , Paris, 1751.

Despite their titles b o t h works are more concerned w i t h facts t h a n theories.

13. M a c q u e r (1749, see note 12), p p . 1-2.

14. M a c q u e r (1751, see note 12), I, A v a n t - p r o p o s .

15. A n t o n Ridiger, Systematische Anleitung zur reinen und überhaupt applicirten oder allgemeinen

Chymie, L e i p z i g 1756, p. 26; see also Christ ian E h r e n f r i e d Weigel , Einleitung zur allgemeinen

Scheidekunst, V o l . I—III, L e i p z i g , 1788-1793, I, p. 92.

16. D a n i e l Sennert, De Chymicorum cum Aristotelicis et Galenicis consensu ac dissensu (1619), i n : Opera,

V o l . I, L y o n , 1656, p p . 181-2.

17. I m m a n u e l K a n t , Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft, R i g a , 1786, Vorrede, p. X ,

i n : Werke, ed. b y W i l h e l m Weischedel, V o l . 8, D a r m s t a d t , 1975, p. 15.

18. Christoph Meinel, " D e praestantia et utilitate Chemiae. Selbstdarstellung einer jungen D i s z i p l i n

i m Spiegel ihres programmatischen Schrift tums", Sudhoffs Archiv, 65 (1981), 366-89.

19. T h i s a i m w h i c h exists i n all these programmes a n d especially i n chemistry textbooks is p a r t i c u l a r l y

clear i n Venel 's contribution " C h y m i e " to the Encyclopédie (see note 6).

20. Boerhaave (1718, see note 6), p . 2.

21. H i e r o n y m u s D a v i d G a u b i u s , Oratio inauguralis, qua ostenditur, chemiam artibus academicis jure

esse inserendam, L e i d e n , 1731, p. 7.

22. Ibid., p . 13. 23. Ibid., p. 13.

24. M a c q u e r (1778, see note 9), I, s.v. C h y m i e , p. 373.

25. V e n e l (1751, see note 6), p. 408.

26. Ibid., p . 419.

27. J o h a n n Christ ian Z i m m e r m a n n , Allgemeine Grundsätze der theoretisch-practischen Chemie, V o l . I - I I ,

Dresden, 1755-6, I, p. 2.

28. J o h a n G e o r g M e n n , Rede von der Notwendigkeit der Chemie, Köln, 1777.

29. F . V i c q D ' A z y r , " E l o g e de M a c q u e r " , i n : Éloges lus dans les séances publiques de la Société Royale de

Médecine, 5 (1785), 45.

30. J e a n - P a u l Contant, L'enseignement de la chimie au Jardín Royal des Plantes de Paris, Cahors, 1952,

p p . 42-4.

31. " D i s c o u r s preliminaire des E d i t e u r s " , i n : Encyclopédie (1751, see note 6), I, p. X I I I .

32. [Denis Diderot] , " A r t " , i n : ibid., p. 714.

33. H u m p h r y D a v y , A discourse introductory to a course of lectures on chemistry, delivered i n the theatre

of the R o y a l Institution o n the 21st of J a n u a r y 1802, i n : The collected works of Sir Humphry Davy,

ed. b y J o h n D a v y , V o l . II, L o n d o n , 1839, p. 319.

34. J o h a n n Gottschalk Wallerius, Bref om Chemiens rätta Beskaffenhet, Nytta och War de, t i l N . N .

öfwersändt, och af h o n o m ti l T r y c k e t befordradt, Stockholm, U p p s a l a , 1751.

35. Ibid., p p . 3 - 4 ; here taken from an apparently unauthorised a n d not v e r y reliable translation " V o n

der C h e m i e " , Monatliche Beiträge zur Naturkunde, ed. b y J o a n D a n i e l Denso, B e r l i n , 1 (1752),

61-95, 2 (1752), 161-76; here p. 64. Different, however, i n the original: "Chemia pura är en

W e t t e n s k a p o m kropparnas b l a n d n i n g , theras principier och grundämnen".

36. T h e origin of this distinction i n the mathematical sciences has not been determined, b u t there also

the division into speculative-theoretical or practical mathematics seems to have been the usual

case, as i n [Jacques] O z a n a m , Dictionnaire Mathématique, A m s t e r d a m , 1691, p. 2: " L a speculative

ou théorique s'arréte simplement ä l a conoissance d'une chose. L a pratique enseigne ä faire et á

executer une chose". L a t e r the contrast between Mathématica pura ("quae q u a n t i t a t e m absolute

consideratam tractat, p r o u t a materia abstrahitur") a n d Mathematica mixta ("in quibus praeter

considerationem quantitatis . . . et iam subjectum, cui inest, connotatur") , takes over, as i n Johannes

W a l l i s , Mathesis Universalis (1657), m : Opera Mathematica, V o l . I, Oxford, 1695, a n c * still i n the

Encyclopédie, T o m e X , Neuchatel , 1765, p p . 188-9, s.v. Mathématique. Christ ian Wolff r e m a r k ­

ably gave equal weight to all four categories, b y translating Mathesis impura sive mixta b y " d i e

angebrachte M a t h e m a t i c k " (Christian Wolff [ed.], Mathematisches Lexicon, L e i p z i g , 1716, col.

866-9), while the later revision of this lexicon clearly favoured the division into "Mathesis p u r a sive

s i m p l e x — M a t h e s i s i m p u r a vel m i x t a , die angebrachte M a t h e m a t i c k " i n the place of the distinction

between theoretical a n d practical mathematics (Vollständiges Mathematisches Lexicon, p a r t I,

L e i p z i g : Gleditsch, 1734, col. 811-15). H e r e also a similar re-orientation takes places as i n c h e m ­

istry so that i n the end G e o r g S i m o n Klügel, Mathematisches Worterbuch, 1. A b t l g . , V o l . I l l ,

L e i p z i g , 1808, s.v. M a t h e m a t i k , o n l y knew the distinction between pure a n d applied categories.

37. L a u r e n t i u s H i o r t z b e r g , Dissertatio chemica de nexu chemiae cum utilitate röipublicae, praes. J o h a n n

G o t t s c h a l k Wallerius, Stockholm, 1751.

38. J o h a n n Gottschalk Wallerius, Chemia physica . . . förestellande chemiens natur och beskaffenhet,

D e l I—II, V o l . I - V , S t o c k h o l m 1759-1768. I n the case of Wallerius a n d numerous subsequent

authors of textbooks, the t e r m " p h y s i c a l c h e m i s t r y " contained a clear demarcation from the

medical-pharmaceutical tradit ion i n chemistry.

39. See esp. T o r b e r n B e r g m a n , Anleitung zur Vorlesungen über die Beschaffenheit und den Nutzen der

Chemie und die allgemeinsten Verschiedenheiten natürlicher Korper, f r o m the Swedish, S t o c k h o l m ,

L e i p z i g , 1770, 2nd. ed., Stockholm, L e i p z i g , 1779; a n d idem, An essay on the usefulness of chemistry

and its application to the various occasions of life, transí, from the G e r m a n b y J e r e m y B e n t h a m ,

L o n d o n , 1784.

40. J o h a n n Gottschalk Wallerius, Physische Chemie, welche von der Natur und Beschaffenheit der

Chemie . . . handelt, from the L a t i n b y Christ ian A n d r e a s M a n g o l d , Schleusingen, 1772, p. 15.

41. Ibid., p p . 3-11, a n d also i n W a l l e r i u s (1751, see note 34), p p . 7-28.

42. Hiortzberg/Wallerius (1751, see note 37), p. 7.

43. C o m p a r e i n part icular Christ ian E h r e n f r i e d Weigel , Grundriß der reinen und angewandten Chemie,

V o l . I—II, Greifswald, 1777, to w h i c h reference was made b y J o h a n n Christ ian Wiegleb, Handbuch

der allgemeinen Chemie, V o l . I - I I , B e r l i n , Stettin, 1781, u p to L e o p o l d G m e l i n , Handbuch der

theoretischen Chemie, V o l . I, F r a n k f u r t / M a i n , 1817, p p . 3-4.

44. J o h a n n Christ ian P o l y k a r p E r x l e b e n , Anfangsgründe der Chemie, Göttingen, 1775.

45. C o m p a r e J o h a n n J o a c h i m E s c h e n b u r g , Lehrbuch der Wissenschaftskunde. Ein GrindriQ encyklo-

pädischer Vorlesungen, B e r l i n , Stettin, 1792, § 56, p p . 212-213. A n a n o n y m o u s l y published

Handbuch der gemeinnützigen Chemie bei verschiedenen chymischen Arbeiten, Leipzig , 1785, divides

chemistry without hesitation into learned a n d useful (pp. 4-5).

46. W e i g e l (1788, see note 15), I, p. 98. N o systematic distinction between these areas was made before

André-Marie A m p e r e , Essai sur la Philosophie des sciences, Paris, 1834.

47. M i c h a e l Lomonossow, Prodromus ad veram chimiam physicam (1752-1754), G e r m a n i n : L o m o n o s ­

sow (1961, see note 8), p p . 199-237. 4

48. V e n e l (1751, see note 6), p p . 408-37.

49. Geldsetzer (1970, see note 2), p . 83.

50. See also K a r l H u f b a u e r , The Formation of the German Chemical Community, Berkeley, L o s Angeles,

L o n d o n , 1982, p p . 13-29. 9

51. H e r m a n n Boerhaave, Elementa chemiae, L e i p z i g , 1732, w i t h elaborate explanation of the useful­

ness of chemistry i n medicine a n d the mechanical arts (pp. 80-115).

52. H e i n r i c h Jantzen, Johann Joachim Becher als theoretischer und praktischer Privatökonom, P h . D .

thesis, Köln, 1925.

53. F o r the cameralist p r o g r a m m e of chemistry i n the 18th century, see especially Christian E h r e n f r i e d

Weigel , Vom Nutzen der Chemie insbesondere in Absicht auf Pommern betrachtet, Greifswald, 1774,

p p . 2 0 - 2 1 : " W e n n n u n die M a c h t , der R e i c h t h u m u n d der W o l s t a n d eines Staats n a c h der Menge

der begüterten E i n w o h n e r desselben geschätzt werden darf, wenn sich selbige auf die häufigere

E r z i e l u n g , bessere V e r a r b e i t u n g u n d einen stärkern Absatz der Landesproducte, auf die daraus

erwachsende einträgliche Beschäftigung mehrerer E i n w o h n e r , auf einen stärkern U m l a u f des

Geldes, auf die V e r b r e i t u n g u n d A u f n a h m e des Handels , auf das Uebergewicht der ausgehenden

W a a r e n gegen die einkommenden gründen, die Chemie aber, wie ich es n u n kurz erwiesen habe, zu

E r r e i c h u n g dieser Vortheile i n mancher A b s i c h t sehr wol angewandt werden k a n n , j a nothwendig

erfordert wird, so muß ein jeder Patriotischer Bürger wünschen, daß sie hier mehr geachter, mehr

getrieben, mehr zur V e r e d l u n g unsrer Landesproducte angewandt werden möge". S i m i l a r l y also

i n Christ ian E h r e n f r i e d Weigel , Der Einfluß chemischer Kenntnisse in die Oekonomie, besonders des

schwedischen Pommerns, Greifswald, 1775; G[eorg] A[dolf] Suckow, Von dem Nuzzen der Chymie

zum Behuf des bürgerlichen Lebens und der Oekonomie, M a n n h e i m , L a u t e r n , 1775; [ J o h a n n G e o r g

Pickel], Von dem Nutzen und Einfluß der Chemie auf das Wohl eines Staats und auf verschiedene

Künste und Wissenschaften, Würzburg, 1785.

54. F o r a recent study of such influences see Charles Coulston Gillispie, Science and Polity in France at

the end of the Old Regime, Princeton, N . J . , 1980, esp. p p . 50-73, 368-87, 391-413. T h e similarity

i n the pattern of institutionalization a n d the m u t u a l support of chemistry a n d economics are

evident from the still valuable W i l h e l m Stieda, Die Nationalökonomie als Universitätswissenschaft,

A b h a n d l u n g e n der K g l . Sachs. Ges. der Wissenschaften, phil.-hist. Klasse, 25 (1906), N o . 2.

55. See H u g o Olsson, Kemiens historia i Sverige intill är 1800 (Lychnos Bibl iotek, 17:4) U p p s a l a , 1971,

p p . 40-51.

56. G a u b i u s (1731, see note 21), p. 10.

57. M a c q u e r (1778, see note 9), II, p p . 488-9, s.v. L a b o r a t o i r e de c h y m i e ; see also Pietro Moscati ,

Discorso académico dei vantaggi delta educazione filosófica nello studio delta chimica, M i l a n o , 1784, *

p. 35: " L ' i m p o s t o r e fraudulento si contenta del mirabile, l 'ozioso contemplatore della sterile

curiositä, i l filosofo e b u o n cittadino n o n dee cercare che l 'utile ed i l v e r o " .

58. A l e x a n d e r Nicolaus Scherer, In welchem Verhätnisse stehen Theorie und Praxis der Chemie gegenein­

ander ?, D o r p a t , 1803. *

59. Ibid., p . 14. 60. Ibid., p. 16.

61. See also K a r l Hufbauer, " S o c i a l Support for C h e m i s t r y i n G e r m a n y d u r i n g the E i g h t e e n t h C e n t u r y :

H o w a n d w h y d i d it change?", Hist. Stud. Phys. Sei., 3 (1971), 205-31; a n d H u f b a u e r (1982, see

note 50), p. 29.