Search

In this article, I argue that chemical lectures at universities played a crucial role in the establishment of chemistry as a well-defined science in Germany around 1800. In particular, lecture demonstrations served to secure the facticity of facts. This was important, because the concept of the chemical fact was at the centre of the prevailing epistemology, which itself partly reflected the social order of chemistry as a science in Germany, and partly served to foster it. In the dialectic constellation of research and teaching, professor-chemists took the lead in the social and epistemological definition of chemistry.

Atypical career of a chemist in Germany around 1800 consisted of being trained as an apothecary, followed by an occupation as a professor at a university or another institution of higher education. These conditions deeply influenced the concept and the practice of chemistry as a science. Johann Friedrich August Göttling is an intriguing example for merging education and daily duties of teaching with the self-image of a scientific chemist. He linked chemical teaching, work, and research by using different hybrid media, such as the Almanach oder Taschenbuch für Scheidekünstler und Apotheker, a stove specifically designed for the narrow student's room, portable laboratories, a pharmaceutical boarding school and textbooks. This allowed him to practice three different forms of chemistry as a science. A "socio-epistemological diagram" of German chemistry around 1800 shows that these forms neatly corresponded to the then predominant three-level epistemology. In particular, the concept of a chemical fact served to link pharmaceutical practice with teaching practice, while granting only the chemistry done by professors the status of a science.

The German debate about Lavoisier's chemistry started late, was confined to the theory of combustion, mainly focused on two experiments and was closed relatively soon. The perspective from academic teaching allows a better understanding of these features. There was a far-reaching correspondence between the usual practice of academic chemistry teachers and the epistemic criteria taken to be relevant during the debate about Lavoisier's chemistry. A case study based on textbooks written or used at the University of Jena between 1790 and 1800 allows drawing conclusions about why and how academic chemists succeeded in integrating what was seen as the "chemical revolution" without revolutionising their own practice. If the debate had any profound impact on German chemistry at all, it was the consolidation of the rupture between academic teachers and their apothecary colleagues.