Physics and Naturphilosophie : A Reconnaissance

DSB = Dictionary of scientific biography, ed. by Gillispie Charles C. , 16 vols. New York, 1970–80.

Anonymous, 1825. Review of Weber 1819 and 1821. Isis von Oken, Bd. 1 [des Jahres], Hft. 1, cols. 33–37.

Balsam Paul Heinrich (ed.), 1868. Mittheilungen über die Thätigkeit der physikalischen Gesellschaft zu Stettin in den Jahren 1835–1867. Stettin. Not seen.

Beetz Wilhelm , 1873. Der Antheil der k. bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften an der Entwickelung der Electricitätslehre. Munich.

Berg Hermann , 1976. “Entdeckungen und Dialektik Johann Wilhelm Ritters: Licht und Elektrochemie im Jena der Romantik.” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Gesellschafts- und Sprachwissenschaftliche Reihe, Jg. 25, 71–75.

Berg Hermann Germann Dietrich , 1977. “Ritter und Schelling — Empirie oder Spekulation (mit Ritters Briefen an Schelling).” In [ Lange Erhard (ed.)], Die Philosophie des jungen Schelling: Beiträge zur Schelling-Rezeption in der DDR (Weimar), 83–113.

Berg Hermann Richter Klaus , 1986. “Ritters Leben und Werk.” In Ritter 1986, 6–40.

Biermann Kurt-R. , 1960. “Aus den Anfängen der wissenschaftlichen Laufbahn Franz Neumanns, des Begründers der mathematischen Physik in Deutschland.” Forschungen und Fortschritte, Jg. 34, 97–101.

Blasche Bernhard Heinrich , 1819. “Critik der vorzüglichsten, auf die Wiederherstellung und Fortbildung der Naturphilosophie einflußreichsten, seit 1801 erschienenen Werke. Oder Welche Stufe der Entwickelung hat die Naturphilosophie in unserer Zeit erstiegen? Ein Versuch zur Beantwortung dieser Frage.” Isis oder encyclopädische Zeitung von Oken, Bd. 2 [des Jahres], Hft. 9, cols. 1420–88.

Breidbach Olaf , 1988. “Schleidens Kritik an der spekulativen Naturphilosophie.” In Schieiden Matthias Jakob , Schelling's und Hegel's Verhältnis zur Naturwissenschaft. Zum Verständnis der physikalistischen Naturwissenschaft zur spekulativen Naturphilosophie. Ed. by Breidbach Olaf (Weinheim), 1–56.

Brinkmann Richard (ed.), 1978. Romantik in Deutschland. Ein interdisziplinäres Symposion. Stuttgart.

Bryk Otto Immanuel , 1909. Entwicklungsgeschichte der reinen und angewandten Naturwissenschaft im XIX. Jahrhundert . Bd. 1: Die Naturphilosophie und ihre Überwindung durch die erfahrungsgemässe Denkweise (1800–1850) . Leipzig; reprinted Leipzig, 1967.

Burke John G. , 1966. Origins of the science of crystals. Berkeley & Los Angeles.

Caneva Kenneth L. , 1974. “Conceptual and generational change in German physics: The case of electricity, 1800–1846.” Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, December 1974. [For a planned but unachieved reprinting of this work by Arno Press I prepared an “Introduction — 1980” and an index, copies of which are available from me on request.].

Caneva Kenneth L. 1980. “Ampère, the etherians, and the Oersted connexion.” The British journal for the history of science, xiii, 121–38.

Caneva Kenneth L. 1993. Robert Mayer and the conservation of energy. Princeton.

Chenevix Richard , 1804. “Observations sur un Mémoire du docteur Christian-Samuel Weiss, imprimé dans la Minéralogie de M. Haüy…. Annales de chimie, ou Recueil de mémoires concernant la chimie et les arts qui en dependent, et spécialement la pharmacie, t. 52, [3^e cahier], 307–39; cahier of 30 Frimaire an XIII (= 21 December 1804).

Chenevix Richard 1805. “Bemerkungen, veranlaßt durch einen Aufsatz des Dr. Christian Samuel Weiß…. Annalen der Physik, Bd. 20, St. 4 (= St. 8 des Jahres), 455–84.

Christensen Dan Ch. , 1995. “The Ørsted-Ritter partnership and the birth of Romantic natural philosophy.” Annals of science, lii, 153–85.

Clark William , 1997. “German physics textbooks in the Goethezeit.” History of science (forthcoming).

Colding Ludvig August , 1856. “Naturvidenskabelige Betragtninger over Slægtskabet mellem det aandelige Livs Virksomheder og de almindelige Naturkræfter.” Oversigt over det Kgl. danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Forhandlinger og dets Medlemmers Arbeider i Aaret 1856, 136–68. Translated as “Scientific reflections on the relationship between the intellectual life's activity and the general forces of nature” in Dahl 1972, 105–27.

Cunningham Andrew Jardine Nicholas (eds), 1990. Romanticism and the sciences. Cambridge.

Crowe Michael J. , 1967. A history of vector analysis: The evolution of the idea of a vectorial system. Notre Dame & London.

Dahl Per F. , 1963. “Ludwig Colding and the conservation of energy.” Centaurus, viii, 174–88.

Dahl Per F. 1972. Ludwig Colding and the conservation of energy principle: Experimental and philosophical contributions. New York & London. “The scientific work of L. A. Colding” on pp. xiii–xxxv.

Dahl Per F. 1978. “Colding, Ludvig August.” In DSB, xv, 84–87.

Darmstaedter Ernst , 1931. “Achim von Arnim und die Naturwissenschaft.” Euphorion; Zeitschrift für Literaturgeschichte, Bd. 32, 454–76.

Doncel Manuel G. (eds), 1987. Symmetries in physics (1600–1980). Ed. by Doncel Manuel G. , Armin Hermann, Louis Michel, and Abraham Pais. Bellaterra.

Eichner Hans , 1982. “The rise of modern science and the genesis of Romanticism.” PMLA, xcvii, 8–30.

Engel Friedrich , 1911. Grassmanns Leben, published as vol. iii, part 2 of Grassmann 1894–1911.

von Engelhardt Dietrich , 1975. “Naturphilosophie im Urteil der ‘Heidelberger Jahrbücher der Literatur’ 1808–1832.” Heidelberger Jahrbücher, Bd. 19, 53–82.

von Engelhardt Dietrich 1978. “Romantik — Im Spannungsfeld von Naturgefühl, Naturwissenschaft und Naturphilosophie. Einführendes Referat.” In Brinkmann 1978, 167–74.

von Engelhardt Dietrich 1979. Historisches Bewußtsein in der Naturwissenschaft von der Aufklärung bis zum Positivismus. Freiburg & Munich.

von Engelhardt Dietrich 1981. “Prinzipien und Ziele der Naturphilosophie Schellings — Situation um 1800 und spätere Wirkungsgeschichte.” In Hasler Ludwig (ed.), Schelling: Seine Bedeutung für eine Philosophie der Natur und der Geschichte (Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt), 77–98.

von Engelhardt Dietrich 1990. “Historical consciousness in the German Romantic Naturforschung.” In Cunningham Jardine 1990, 55–68.

Faivre Antoine , 1983. “Physique et métaphysique du feu chez Johann Wilhelm Ritter (1776–1810).” Études philosophiques, 25–52.

Feldman Theodore , 1978. “Josef Weber: A transitional figure of the Bavarian Enlightenment and Romantik.” In Brinkmann 1978, 202–13.

Fischer Emil , 1962. “Christian Samuel Weiß und seine Bedeutung für die Entwicklung der Kristallographie.” Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Humboldt- Universität zu Berlin, Mathematischnaturwissenschaftliche Reihe, Bd. 11, 249–55.

Fischer Emil 1963. “Christian Samuel Weiß und die zeitgenössische Philosophie (Fichte, Schelling).” Forschungen und Fortschritte, Jg. 37, 141–3.

Fries Jacob Friedrich , 1822. Die mathematische Naturphilosophie nach philosophischer Methode bearbeitet. Heidelberg; reprinted photomechanically in Fries 1967–82, vol. xiii, 1979.

Fries Jacob Friedrich 1826. Lehrbuch der Naturlehre. Zum Gebrauch bey akademischen Vorlesungen. Erster Theil: Experimentalphysik. Jena; reprinted photomechanically in Fries 1967–82, vol. xv, 1973.

Fries Jacob Friedrich 1967–82. Sämtliche Schriften. Ed. by Gert König Geldsetzer Lutz . Aalen. 25 vols..

Gavroglu Kostas (eds), 1994. Trends in the historiography of science. Ed. by Gavroglu Kostas Christianidis Jean Nicolaidis Efthymios . Dordrecht, Boston & London.

Gérard Jean-Pierre , 1961. “Sur quelques problèmes concernant l'oeuvre d'Ørsted en électromagnétisme.” Revue d'histoire des sciences, xiv, 297–312.

Gilbert Ludwig Wilhelm , 1805. “Vorerinnerung des Herausgebers.” Annalen der Physik, Bd. 20, St. 4 (= St. 8 des Jahres), 417–21. The introduction to four articles by Richard Chenevix published under the umbrella title “Kritische Bemerkungen, Gegenstände der Naturlehre betreffend, geschrieben, während seiner Aufenthalt in Deutschland”, 417–96.

Gower Barry , 1973. “Speculation in physics: The history and practice of Naturphilosophie.” Studies in history and philosophy of science, iii, 1972–73, 301–56.

Grassmann Hermann Günther , 1839. “Ableitung der Krystallgestalten aus dem allgemeinen Gesetze der Krystallbildung.” In Programm der Ottoschule in Stettin, March 1839, 5–26. Not seen; reprinted in and quoted from Grassmann 1894–1911, vol. ii, part 2, 1902, 115–46.

Grassmann Hermann Günther 1844. Die lineale Ausdehnungslehre ein neuer Zweig der Mathematik dargestellt und durch Anwendungen auf die übrigen Zweige der Mathematik, wie auch auf die Statik, Mechanik, die Lehre vom Magnetismus und die Krystallonomie erläutert. Leipzig; reprinted in Grassmann 1894–1911, vol. i, part 1, 1894, 1–319.

Grassmann Hermann Günther 1845. “Neue Theorie der Elektrodynamik.” Annalen der Physik und Chemie, Bd. 64 (= Bd. 140 der ganzen Folge = Bd. 4 der dritten Reihe), St. 1 [des Bandes], No. 1 [des Jahres], l-18; reprinted in Grassmann 1894–1911, vol. ii, part 2, 1902, 147–60.

Grassmann Hermann Günther 1894–1911. Hermann Grassmanns gesammelte mathematische und physikalische Werke. Ed. by Engel Friedrich . 3 vols, each in 2 parts. Leipzig.

Grassmann Justus Günther , 1824. Raumlehre für die untern Klassen der Gymnasien, und für Volksschulen. Zweiter Theil: Ebene räumliche Großenlehre. Berlin. Not seen.

Grassmann Justus Günther 1827. “Über den Begriff und Umfang der reinen Zahlenlehre.” Programm des Königlichen und Stadt-Gymnasiums in Stettin, October 1827. Not seen.

Grassmann Justus Günther 1829. Zur physischen Krystallonomie und geometrischen Combinationslehre, Hft. 1. “Zur Mathematik und Naturkunde”, Bd. 1. Stettin. Not seen.

Grassmann Justus Günther 1833. “Combinatorische Entwicklung der Krystallgestalten.” Annalen der Physik und Chemie, Bd. 30 (= Bd. 106 der ganzen Folge), Ergänzungsband, 1–43.

Griggs Earl Leslie (ed.), 1956–71. Collected letters of Samuel Taylor Coleridge. 6 vols. Oxford.

Groth Paul Heinrich , 1926. Entwicklungsgeschichte der mineralogischen Wissenschaften. Berlin; reprinted Wiesbaden, 1970.

Guiot Jean-Paul , 1985. “Sechs unveröffentlichte Briefe von Johann Wilhelm Ritter (1776–1810).” Centaurus, xxviii, 218–43.

von Hagen A. Th. , 1809. Review of Nasse 1809. Heidelbergische Jahrbücher der Literatur , Jg. 2, Abth. 1 (“Theologie, Philosophie und Pädagogik”), Bd. 2 [des Jahres], Hft. 2 (= Hft. 49 der ganzen Folge), 260–9. Published anonymously; for authorship see Engelhardt 1975, 75.

Harding Marius Christian (ed.), 1920. Correspondance de H. C. Örsted avec divers savants. 2 vols. Copenhagen.

Hartung Walter , 1912. Die Bedeutung der Schelling-Okenschen Lehre für die Entwicklung der Fechnerschen Metaphysik. Leipzig.

Hartwig Wolfgang , 1955. “Physik als Kunst. Über die naturphilosophischen Gedanken Johann Wilhelm Ritters.” Ph.D. diss., Freiburg i.B. Not seen.

Haüy Renö-Just , 1804–5. Handbuch der Physik für den Elementarunterricht. Aus dem Französischen, mit Anmerkungen und Zusätzen von Christian Samuel Weiß. 2 vols. Leipzig. Not seen.

Heidelberger Michael , 1993. Die innere Seite der Natur: Gustav Theodor Fechners wissenschaftlichphilosophische Weltauffassung. Frankfurt am Main.

Hennemann Gerhard , 1959a. Naturphilosophie im 19. Jahrhundert. Freiburg & Munich.

Hennemann Gerhard 1959b. “Hans Christian Oersted als Naturphilosoph.” Philosophia naturalis, Bd. 5, 1958–59, 348–53.

Hennemann Gerhard 1967. “Der dänische Physiker Hans Christian Oersted und die Naturphilosophie der Romantik.” Philosophia naturalis, Bd. 10, 1967–68, 112–22.

Hermann Armin , 1967. “Faraday, der romantische Physiker.” Physikalische Blätter, Bd. 23, 343–6.

Hermann Armin 1968. “Johann Wilhelm Ritter. Eine Biographie.” In Ritter 1968, 7–21.

Hermann Armin 1969a. “Der Kraftbegriff bei Michael Faraday und seine historische Wurzel.” In Karl-Heinz Manegold (ed.), Wissenschaft, Wirtschaft und Technik. Studien zur Geschichte. Wilhelm Treue zum 60. Geburtstag (Munich), 469–76.

Hermann Armin 1969b. “Physik im 19. Jahrhundert — Eigendynamik und Abhängigkeit der Entwicklung.” In Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften und der Technik im 19. Jahrhundert. 5. Gespräch der Georg-Agricola Gesellschaft (Düsseldorf), 95–116.

Hermann Armin 1972. “Naturphilosophie.” In Hermann Armin (ed.), Lexikon Geschichte der Physik, A-Z; Biographien, Sachwörter, Originalschriften und Sekundärliteratur (Cologne), 247–9.

Hermann Armin 1976. “Dynamismus und Atomismus — Die beiden Systeme der Physik in der 1. Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts.” Erkenntnis, Bd. 10, 311–22.

Hermann Armin 1977. “Schelling und die Naturwissenschaften.” Technikgeschichte, Bd. 44, 47–53.

Hermann Armin 1987. “Unity and metamorphosis of forces (1800–1850): Schelling, Oersted and Faraday.” In Doncel 1987, 51–62.

Herschel William , 1801. “Untersuchungen über die wärmende und die erleuchtende Kraft der farbigen Sonnenstrahlen; Versuch über die nicht-sichtbaren Strahlen der Sonne und deren Brechbarkeit; und Einrichtung großer Teleskope zu Sonnenbeobachtungen.” Annalen der Physik, Bd. 7, St. 2 (= St. 2 des Jahres), 137–56, pl. IV.

Hoffmann Paul , 1927. “Achim von Arnim über Johann Wilhelm Ritter.” Archiv für Geschichte der Mathematik, der Naturwissenschaften und der Technik, Bd. 10, 357–62.

Holser William T. , 1976. “Weiss, Christian Samuel.” In DSB, xiv, 239–42.

Hüffmeier Dorothee , 1961. “Johann Wilhelm Ritter, Naturforscher oder Naturphilosoph?” Sudhoffs Archiv für Geschichte der Medizin und der Naturwissenschaften, Bd. 45, 225–34.

James Frank A. J. L. (ed.), 1991. The correspondence of Michael Faraday. Vol. i. London.

Jungnickel Christa McCormmach Russell , 1986. Intellectual mastery of nature: Theoretical physics from Ohm to Einstein. Vol. i: The torch of mathematics, 1800–1870. Chicago & London.

Kaiser Walter , 1987. “Symmetries in romantic physics.” In Doncel 1987, 77–92.

Kant Immanuel , 1786. Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Naturwissenschaft . Riga; reprinted in and cited from Kants gesammelte Schriften, ed. by Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Abt. 1, Bd. 4 (Berlin, 1911), 465–565.

von Klinckowstroem Carl , 1921. “Goethe und Ritter. (Mit Ritters Briefen an Goethe.)” Jahrbuch der Goethe-Gesellschaft, Bd. 8, 135–51.

von Klinckowstroem Carl 1922. “Johann Wilhelm Ritter und der Elektromagnetismus.” Archiv für Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften und der Technik, Bd. 9, 1920–22, 68–85.

Knight David M. , 1967. “Steps towards a dynamical chemistry.” Ambix, xiv, 179–97.

Knight David M. 1970. “The physical sciences and the Romantic movement.” History of science, ix, 54–75.

Knight David M. 1975. “German science in the Romantic period.” In Crosland Maurice P. (ed.), The emergence of science in Western Europe (London; New York, 1976), 161–78.

Knight David M. 1990. “Romanticism and the sciences.” In Cunningham Jardine 1990, 13–24.

Knight David M. 1992. Humphry Davy: Science and power. Oxford.

Kostoula Anna , 1994. “The problem of method in the study of the influence a philosophy has on scientific practice: The case of thermoelectricity.” In Gavroglu 1994, 379–84.

Krafft Fritz , 1982. “Bedingungen und Voraussetzungen für das Entstehen moderner Physik in der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts.” In Luboš Nový (ed.), Impact of Bolzano's epoch on the development of science (Prague), 75–101.

Kuhn Thomas S. , 1959. “Energy conservation as an example of simultaneous discovery.” In Clagett Marshall (ed.), Critical problems in the history of science (Madison), 321–56.

Lampe Hermann Querner Hans (eds), 1972. Die Vorträge der allgemeinen Sitzungen auf der 1.-85. Versammlung 1822–1913. Hildesheim.

Lawrence Christopher , 1990. “The power and the glory: Humphry Davy and Romanticism.” In Cunningham Jardine 1990, 213–27.

Lefebure Molly , 1990. “Humphry Davy: Philosophic alchemist.” In Gravil Richard Lefebure Molly (eds), The Coleridge connection: Essays for Thomas McFarland (Basingstoke & London), 83–110.

Lennig Petra , 1993. “Gustav Theodor Fechner und die Naturphilosophie.” In Gloy Karen Burger Paul (eds), Die Naturphilosophie im Deutschen Idealismus (Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt), 204–23.

Levere Trevor H. , 1968. “Faraday, matter, and natural theology — Reflections on an unpublished manuscript.” The British journal for the history of science, iv, 95–107.

Levere Trevor H. 1971. Affinity and matter: Elements of chemical philosophy 1800–1865. Oxford.

Levere Trevor H. 1977. “Coleridge, chemistry, and the philosophy of nature.” Studies in romanticism, xvi, 349–79.

Levere Trevor H. 1980. “Humphry Davy, ‘The Sons of Genius’, and the idea of glory.” In Forgan Sophie (ed.), Science and the Sons of Genius: Studies on Humphry Davy (London), 33–58.

Levere Trevor H. 1981. Poetry realized in nature: Samuel Taylor Coleridge and early nineteenth-century science. Cambridge.

Lewis Albert C. , 1975. “An historical analysis of Grassmann's Ausdehnungslehre of 1844.” Ph.D. diss., University of Texas at Austin. Not seen.

Lewis Albert C. 1977. “H. Grassmann's 1844 Ausdehnungslehre and Schleiermacher's Dialektik.” Annals of science, xxxiv, 103–62.

Lewis Albert C. 1981a. “Justus Grassmann's school programs as mathematical antecedents of Hermann Grassmann's 1844 ‘Ausdehnungslehre’.” In Jahnke Hans Niels Otte Michael (eds), Epistemological and social problems of the sciences in the early nineteenth century (Dordrecht, Boston & London), 255–67.

Lewis Albert C. 1981b. “F. Schleiermacher's influence on H. Grassmann's mathematics.” In Mehrtens Herbert Bos Henk Schneider Ivo (eds), Social history of 19^th-century mathematics (Boston, Basel & Stuttgart), 246–54.

Lind Gunter , 1992. Physik im Lehrbuch 1700–1850: Zur Geschichte der Physik und ihrer Didaktik in Deutschland. Berlin.

McRae Robert J. , 1975. “Ritter, Johann Wilhelm.” In DSB, xi, 473–5.

von Martius Carl Friedrich Philipp , 1857. “Denkrede auf Christian Samuel Weiß.” Gelehrte Anzeigen der k. bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Bd. 44, nos. 3–5 (7–12 January), cols. 30–48; reprinted with a few changes and omissions as “Christian Samuel Weiss” in Martius 1866, 327–44.

von Martius Carl Friedrich Philipp 1858. “Denkrede auf Joh. Salomo Christoph Schweigger.” Gelehrte Anzeigen der k. bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Bd. 46, nos. 10–12 (23–27 January), cols. 81–99; reprinted with a few changes and omissions as “Johann Salomo Christoph Schweigger” in Martius 1866, 345–64.

von Martius Carl Friedrich Philipp 1859. Erinnerung an Mitglieder der mathematisch-physikalischen Classe der K. Bayr. Akademie der Wissenschaften. Munich. Not seen; reprinted as “Erinnerung an frequentirende Mitglieder der mathematisch-physikalischen Classe” in Martius 1866, 549–619.

von Martius Carl Friedrich Philipp 1866. Akademische Denkreden. Leipzig.

Marx Carl Michael , 1825. Geschichte der Crystallkunde. Carlsruhe & Baden; reprinted Wiesbaden, 1970.

Mason Stephen F. , 1953. Main currents of scientific thought: A history of the sciences. New York.

Mason Stephen F. 1962. A history of the sciences. New rev. edn. New York.

Mende Erich , 1975. “Der Einfluß von Schellings ‘Prinzip’ auf Biologie und Physik der Romantik.” Philosophia naturalis, Bd. 15, 1974–75, 461–85.

Meyer Kirstine , 1920a. “The scientific life and works of H. C. Ørsted.” In Ørsted 1920, vol. i, pp. xi–clxvi.

Meyer Kirstine 1920b. “H. C. Ørsteds Arbejdsliv i det danske Samfund.” In Ørsted 1920, vol. 3, pp. ix–clxvi.

Muncke Georg Wilhelm , 1819. Review of Yelin 1819a. Heidelberger Jahrbücher der Litteratur, Jg. 12, no. 44, 702–4. Published anonymously; for probable authorship see Engelhardt 1975, 79.

Muncke Georg Wilhelm 1832. Review of Schelling 1832. Heidelberger Jahrbücher der Litteratur, Jg. 25, Bd. 1 [des Jahres], Hft. 6, 527–8. Published anonymously; for authorship see Engelhardt 1975, 81.

Nasse [Johann Friedrich] Wilhelm , 1809. Ueber Naturphilosophie in Bezug auf Physik und Chemie. Ein Beytrag zur kritischen Uebersicht der physikalisch-chemischen Litteratur. Freyberg.

Neumann Franz Ernst , 1823. Beiträge zur Krystallonomie . Erstes Heft. Berlin & Posen; reprinted in an edited version in Franz Neumanns Gesammelte Werke (3 vols, Leipzig, 1906–28), i, 1928, 175–321.

Neumann Luise , 1904. Franz Neumann. Erinnerungsblätter von seiner Tochter. Tübingen & Leipzig.

Nielsen Keld , 1989 and 1991. “Another kind of light: The work of T. J. Seebeck and his collaboration with Goethe.” Parts I and II. Historical studies in the physical and biological sciences, xx, 1989–90, part 1, 1989, 107–78; xxi, 1990–91, part 2, 1991, 317–97.

Olesko Kathryn Mary , 1980. “The emergence of theoretical physics in Germany: Franz Neumann & the Königsberg school of physics, 1830–1890.” Ph.D. diss., Cornell University, May 1980.

Olesko Kathryn Mary 1991. Physics as a calling: Discipline and practice in the Königsberg Seminar for Physics. Ithaca & London.

Orsini Gian Napoleone Giordano , 1969. Coleridge and German idealism: A study in the history of philosophy with unpublished materials from Coleridge's manuscripts. Carbondale & Edwardsville, London & Amsterdam.

Ørsted Hans Christian , 1798a. “Kemiske Breve. Første Brev.” Bibliothek for Physik, Medicin og Oekonomie, Bd. 14, Andet Hefte (= Aarets Sjette Hefte), 152–60; reprinted in Ørsted 1920, vol. iii, 3–6.

Ørsted Hans Christian 1798b. “Breve over Kemien. Andet Brev, om Varmen.” Bibliothek for Physik, Medicin og Oekonomie, Bd. 14, Fierde Hefte (= Aarets Ottende Hefte), 313–27; reprinted in Ørsted 1920, vol. iii, 7–14.

Ørsted Hans Christian 1799a. “Naturphilosophiens første Grunde. (I Anledning af Hauchs Naturlære.)”, Philosophisk Repertorium for den nyeste danske Literatur, Bd. 2, No. 10, 145–224. Signed “H.C.Ø” at the end.

Ørsted Hans Christian 1799b. Grundtrækkene af Naturmetaphysiken tildeels efter en nye Plan. Foranlediget ved Herr Oberhofmarschal Hauchs Begyndelsesgrunde af Naturlæren. Særskilt Aftryk af Philosophisk Repertorium. Copenhagen; reprinted in Ørsted 1920, vol. i, 33–78.

Ørsted Hans Christian 1799c. “Breve over Chemien. Fjerde Brev.” Bibliothek for Physik, Medicin og Oekonomie, Bd. 16, Andet Hefte (= Aarets Sjette Hefte), 165–177; reprinted in Ørsted 1920, vol. iii, 21–27.

Ørsted Hans Christian 1799d. Dissertatio de forma metaphysices elementaris naturae externae. Copenhagen; reprinted in Ørsted 1920, vol. i, 79–105.

Ørsted Hans Christian 1803a. Materialien zu einer Chemie des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts. Erstes Stück. Regensburg; reprinted in Ørsted 1920, vol. i, 133–210.

Ørsted Hans Christian 1803b. “Uebersicht der neuesten Fortschritte der Physik.” Euoropa. Eine Zeitschrift, Bd. 1, Hft. 2, 20–48. Published anonymously; reprinted in Ørsted 1920, vol. i, 112–31.

Ørsted Hans Christian 1803c. “Expériences sur la lumière; par M. Ritter, à Jena, communiquées par Orsted, docteur à l'université de Copenhague.” Journal de physique, de chimie, d'histoire naturelle et des arts, t. 57, [6° cahier], 409–11; cahier of Frimaire an 12 (= November/December 1803).

Ørsted Hans Christian 1805a. Review of Saxtorph 1802–3. Kjbenhavnske lærde Efterretninger for Aar 1805, Nr. 26–27, 401–15, 419–25; reprinted in Ørsted 1920, vol iii, 79–89, 89–94.

Ørsted Hans Christian 1805b. “Om Overensstemmelsen mellem de elektriske Figurer og de organiske Former.” Det skandinaviske Litteraturselskabs Skrifter, [Förste Aargang], Bd. 1, 1–22; reprinted in Ørsted 1920, vol. iii, 96–105.

Ørsted Hans Christian 1805c. “Nye Undersögelser over det Spörgsmaal: Hvad er Chemie?” Det skandinaviske Litteraturselskabs Skrifter, [Förste Aargang], Bd. 2, 240–63; reprinted in Ørsted 1920, vol. iii, 105–16.

Ørsted Hans Christian 1806. “Sur la propagation de l'électricité.” Journal de physique, de chimie, d'histoire naturelle et des arts, t. 62, 369–75 (cahier of May).

Ørsted Hans Christian 1807a. “Betragtninger over Chemiens Historie, en Forelæsning.” Det skandinaviske Litteraturselskabs Skrifter, 3. Aargangs 2. Bind, 1–54; reprinted with some changes in Ørsted 1851–52, vol. v, 1851, 1–32.

Ørsted Hans Christian 1807b. “Betrachtungen über die Geschichte der Chemie; eine Vorlesung von H. C. Oerstedt.” Journal für die Chemie und Physik, Bd. 3, Hft. 2, 194–231; reprinted in Ørsted 1920, vol. i, 315–43.

Ørsted Hans Christian 1811. Første Indledning til den almindelige Naturlære, et Indbydelsesskrivt til Forelæsninger over denne Videnskab. Copenhagen; reprinted in Ørsted 1920, vol. iii, 151–90.

Ørsted Hans Christian 1812. Ansicht der chemischen Naturgesetze, durch die neueren Entdeckungen gewonnen. Berlin; reprinted in Ørsted 1920, vol. ii, 35–169.

Ørsted Hans Christian 1813. Recherches sur l'identité des forces chimiques et électriques. Transl. by de Serres Marcel . Paris.

Ørsted Hans Christian 1816. “[Theorie over Lyset].” Oversigt over det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Forhandlinger og dets Medlemmers Arbeider fra 1 November 1815 til 31 Mai 1816 (publ. 1816), 12–15; reprinted in Ørsted 1920, vol. ii, 433–5. Also published in Det Kongelige danske Videnskabernes Selskabs philosophiske og historiske Afhandlinger, Förste Deel (publ. 1823), pp. xvi–xix, in the section “Oversigt over det Kongelige danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Forhandlinger og dets Medlemmers Arbeider fra 1814 til 1822”; cited as Ørsted 1816 (1823). Dated to 1 March 1816 from the manuscript Protocoll of the Society.

Ørsted Hans Christian 1820. Experimenta circa effectum conflictus electrici in acum magneticam. Copenhagen, 21 July 1820; reprinted in Ørsted 1920, vol. ii, 214–18.

Ørsted Hans Christian 1822. “Oersted über das Studium der allgemeinen Naturlehre.” Journal für Chemie und Physik , Bd. 36 (= Jahrbuch der Chemie und Physik, Bd. 6), Hft. 4 (= Hft. 12 des Jahres), 458–88.

Ørsted Hans Christian 1850a. Aanden i Naturen . Copenhagen. Also published with an additional title page as Samlede og efterladte Skrifter, vol. i, 1851.

Ørsted Hans Christian 1850b. Aanden i Naturen. [Bd.] 2: Naturvidenskaben og Aandsdannelsen. Copenhagen. Also published with an additional title page as Samlede og efterladte Skrifter, vol. ii, 1851.

Ørsted Hans Christian 1850–51a. Der Geist in der Natur. Deutsche Original-Ausgabe des Verfassers. 2 vols. Munich.

Ørsted Hans Christian 1850–51b. Gesammelte Schriften. Transl. by Kannegiesser Karl Ludwig . 5 vols. Leipzig.

Ørsted Hans Christian 1851–52. Samlede og efterladte Skrifter. 9 vols. Copenhagen.

Ørsted Hans Christian 1852. The soul in nature, with supplementary contributions. Transl. from the German by Leonora Horner Joanna B. , London.

Ørsted Hans Christian 1920. Naturvidenskabelige Skrifter (= Scientific papers). 3 vols. Copenhagen.

Ørsted Mathilde (ed.), 1870. Breve fra og til Hans Christian Ørsted. 2 vols. Copenhagen.

Ostwald Wilhelm , 1896. Elektrochemie, ihre Geschichte und Lehre. Leipzig.

Poggi Stefano Bossi Maurizio (eds), 1994. Romanticism in science: Science in Europe, 1790–1840. Dordrecht, Boston & London.

Pohl Georg Friedrich , 1821. “Versuche und Bemerkungen über den Zusammenhang des Magnetismus mit der Electricität und dem Chemismus, insbesondere über die Art und Weise der magnetischen Wirksamkeit des Schließungs-Drahtes der galvanischen Kette.” Annalen der Physik , Bd. 69 (= Annalen der Physik und der physikalischen Chemie, Bd. 9), St. 2 (= St. 10 des Jahres), 171–92, pl. II.

Pohl Georg Friedrich 1822. “Beiträge zur näheren Kenntniß des Elektro-Magnetismus.” Isis von Oken, Bd. 1 [des Jahres], Hft. 4, cols. 390–409, pl. IV.

Pohl Georg Friedrich 1826. Der Process der galvanischen Kette. Leipzig.

Pohl Georg Friedrich 1829. “Versuche und Bemerkungen über das polare Verhalten der Flüssigkeit in der galvanischen Kette, mit Berücksichtigung einiger dahin gehörigen Mittheilungen der Herrn Marianini, C. H. Pfaff und de la Rive.” Annalen der Physik und Chemie, Bd. 16 (= Bd. 92 der ganzen Folge), St. 1 (= St. 5 des Jahres), 101–17.

Pohl Georg Friedrich 1841. “Ueber galvanische Ketten mit zwei verschiedenen Flüssigkeiten, und über einiges aus den neuesten, diesen Gegenstand betreffenden Untersuchungen.” Annalen der Physik und Chemie, Bd. 54 (= Bd. 24 der 2. Reihe = Bd. 130 der ganzen Folge), St. 4 (= No. 12 des Jahres), 515–37.

Pohl Georg Friedrich 1843. “Pohl, Georg Friedrich.” In Nowack Karl Gabriel (ed.), Schlesisches Schriftsteller-Lexikon, Hft. 6 (Breslau), 95–100. Published anonymously; Pohl's authorship inferred from style and personal content.

Pohl Georg Friedrich 1846. Der Elektromagnetismus und die Bewegung der Himmelskörper in ihrer gegenseitigen Beziehung. Breslau.

Poppe Kurt , 1959. “Johann Wilhelm Ritter, der Physiker der Romantik.” Die Drei. Anthroposophische Zeitschrift zur Erneuerung von Wissenschaft, Kunst und sozialem Leben, Bd. 29, 29–38. Journal not seen.

Poppe Kurt 1960. “Der Münchener Kreis der Spätromantik und der Siderismus Johann Wilhelm Ritters.” Die Drei. Anthroposophische Zeitschrift zur Erneuerung von Wissenschaft, Kunst und sozialem Leben, Bd. 30, 180–96. Journal not seen.

Poppe Kurt 1968. “Nachwort. Über das wissenschaftliche Leben Johann Wilhelm Ritters.” In Ritter Johann Wilhelm , Fragmente aus dem Nachlaß eines jungen Physikers (Auswahl) (Stuttgart), 81–116.

Rehm Else , 1971. “Unbekannte Briefe Johann Wilhelm Ritters an Armin, Savigny, Frommann, Schelling und andere aus den Jahren 1800–1803.” Jahrbuch des freien deutschen Hochstifts, 32–89.

Rehm Else 1973. “Johann Wilhelm Ritter und die Universität Jena mit Briefen Ritters aus den Jahren 1803–1804.” Jahrbuch des freien deutschen Hochstifts, 190–240.

Reuschle [Carl] Gustav , 1846. “Die Naturphilosophie und die Physik. 6. [Artikel]. Die allgemeine Gravitation und die Pohlische Circularpolarität.” Jahrbücher der Gegenwart, Hft. 12, November/December, 1040–55.

Richter Klaus (ed.), 1988. Der Physiker des Romantikerkreises Johann Wilhelm Ritter in seinen Briefen an den Verleger Carl Friedrich Ernst Frommann. Weimar. “Der Physiker Johann Wilhelm Ritter” on 11–84.

Ritter Johann Wilhelm , 1798a. Beweis, daß ein beständiger Galvanismus den Lebensproceß in dem Thierreich begleite. Weimar.

Ritter Johann Wilhelm 1798b. “Schreiben an F. A. von Humboldt bey Uebersendung des Beweises, daß ein beständiger Galvanismus den Lebensproceß im Thierreiche begleite; — Im Junius 1798.” In Ritter 1806, vol. i, 43–58.

Ritter Johann Wilhelm 1801a. “[Auffindung nicht sichtbarer Sonnenstrahlen außerhalb des Farbenspectrums, an der Seite des Violets.]” Annalen der Physik, Bd. 7, St. 4 (= St. 4 des Jahres), 527, in a section headed “Auszüge aus Briefen an den Herausgeber”, 501–28.

Ritter Johann Wilhelm 1801b. “Versuche und Bemerkungen über den Galvanismus der Voltaischen Batterie. Dritter Brief.” Annalen der Physik, Bd. 8, St. 4 (= St. 8 des Jahres), 385–473, pl. VI.

Ritter Johann Wilhelm 1801c. “Chemische Polarität im Licht. Ein mittelbares Resultat der neuern Untersuchungen über den Galvanismus.” Litteratur-Zeitung (Erlangen), Intelligenzblatt, no. 16, 18 April, cols. 121–3.

Ritter Johann Wilhelm 1801d. “Bemerkungen zu Herschel's neueren Untersuchungen über das Licht; — Vorgelesen in der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft zu Jena, im Frühling 1801.” In Ritter 1806, vol. ii, 81–107; reprinted in Ritter 1968, 57–73 and abridged in Ritter 1986, 117–27.

Ritter Johann Wilhelm 1802. “Versuche über das Sonnenlicht.” Annalen der Physik, Bd. 12, St. 4 (= St. 12 des Jahres), 409–15.

Ritter Johann Wilhelm 1805. Das electrische System der Körper. Ein Versuch. Leipzig.

Ritter Johann Wilhelm 1806. Physisch-Chemische Abhandlungen in chronologischer Folge. 3 vols. Leipzig.

Ritter Johann Wilhelm 1810. Fragmente aus dem Nachlasse eines jungen Physikers. Ein Taschenbuch für Freunde der Natur. 2 vols. Heidelberg.

Ritter Johann Wilhelm 1968. Die Begründung der Elektrochemie und Entdeckung der ultravioletten Strahlen. Ed. by Hermann Armin . Frankfurt am Main.

Ritter Johann Wilhelm 1986. Entdeckungen zur Elektrochemie, Bioelektrochemie und Photochemie. Ed. by Berg Hermann Richter Klaus . Leipzig.

Saxtorph Friedrich , 1802–3. Electricitets-Lære, grundet paa Erfaring og Forsøg, og sammenlignet med de meest bekiendte Hypotheser. 2 vols. Copenhagen.

Schelling Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph , 1797. Ideen zu einer Philosophie der Natur. Erstes, zweytes Buch. Leipzig; reprinted in Schelling 1856–61, Abth. 1, Bd. 2, 1857, 1–343 and in Schelling 1927–59, Bd. 1, 1927, 653–723 and Ergänzungsband 1, 1956, 77–350; cited from the former.

Schelling Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph 1798. Von der Weltseele: Eine Hypothese der höhern Physik zur Erklärung des allgemeinen Organismus. Hamburg; reprinted in Schelling 1856–61, Abth. 1, Bd. 2, 1857, 345–583 and in Schelling 1927–59, Bd. 1, 1927, 413–651; cited from the former.

Schelling Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph 1799a. Erster Entwurf eines Systems der Naturphilosophie. Jena & Leipzig; reprinted in Schelling 1856–61, Abth. 1, Bd. 3, 1858, 1–268 and in Schelling 1927–59, Bd. 2, 1927, 1–268.

Schelling Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph 1799b. Einleitung zu seinem Entwurf eines Systems der Naturphilosophie. Jena & Leipzig; reprinted in Schelling 1856–61, Abth. 1, Bd. 3, 1858, 269–326 and in Schelling 1927–59, Bd. 2, 1927, 269–326.

Schelling Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph 1800. “Allgemeine Deduction des dynamischen Proceßes oder der Categorieen der Physik.” Zeitschrift für spekulative Physik, Bd. 1, Hft. 1, 100–36; Hft. 2, 3–87; reprinted in Schelling 1856–61, Abth. 1, Bd. 4, 1–78 and in Schelling 1927–59, Bd. 2, 1927, 635–712.

Schelling Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph 1832. Ueber Faraday's neueste Entdeckung. Munich; reprinted in Schelling 1856–61, Abth. 1, Bd. 9, 1861, 439–52 and in Schelling 1927–59, Ergänzungsband 4, 1959, 375–88.

Schelling Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph 1856–61. Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schellings sämmtliche Werke. 14 vols in 2 divisions. Stuttgart & Augsburg.

Schelling Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph 1927–59. Schellings Werke. Ed. by Schröter Manfred . 12 vols. Munich.

Schiel David Heinrich Joseph , 1833. “Über den Einfluß der Naturphilosophie auf die Naturwissenschaft.” Unpublished lecture of 25 September at the 11^th Versammlung deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte in Breslau; cf. Lampe and Querner 1972, 85.

Schimank Hans , 1933. “Johann Wilhelm Ritter, der Begründer der wissenschaftlichen Elektrochemie. Ein Lebensbild aus dem Zeitalter der Romantik.” Abhandlungen und Berichte des Deutschen Museums, Jg. 5, 175–203.

Schimank Hans 1947. “Die Physik des 19. Jahrhunderts. Geistesgeschichtliche Züge ihres Bildes und ihre Entwicklung zumal in Deutschland.” Die Naturwissenschaften, Bd. 34, 1947—[1948], 2–10.

Schieiden Matthias Jacob , 1844. Schelling's und Hegel's Verhältniss zur Naturwissenschaft. Leipzig.

Schleiermacher Friedrich , 1839. Dialektik , ed. by Jonas Ludwig (= Friedrich Schleiermacher's sämmtliche Werke, Abth. 3, Bd. 4, 2. Th.). Berlin.

Scholz Erhard , 1989. “The rise of symmetry concepts in the atomistic and dynamistic schools of crystallography, 1815–1830.” Revue d'histoire des sciences, t. 42, 109–22.

Schubert Gotthilf Heinrich , 1808. Ansichten von der Nachtseite der Naturwissenschaft. Dresden; reprinted Darmstatt, 1967.

Schuster Julius , 1922. “Christian Samuel Weiß und die Naturphilosophie.” In Degering Hermann Christ Karl Schuster Julius , Aus der Handschriften-Abteilung der Preussischen Staatsbibliothek. Abhandlungen und Nachbildungen von Autographen. Ludwig Darmstaedter zum 75. Geburtstag dargebracht (Berlin), 87–97.

Seebeck Thomas Johann , 1810. “Wirkung farbiger Beleuchtung.” In von Goethe Johann Wolfgang , Zur Farbenlehre (Tübingen), in the section “Statt des versprochenen supplementaren Theils.” Not seen; reprinted in and cited from Goethe. Die Schriften zur Naturwissenschaft, 1. Abt., Bd. 7 (Weimar, 1957), 25–39.

Seebeck Thomas Johann 1825. “Magnetische Polarisation der Metalle und Erze durch Temperatur-Differenz.” Abhandlungen der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1822–23 (publ. 1825), Abhandlungen der physikalischen Klasse, 265–373.

Seebeck Thomas Johann 1829. “[Ausführliches Gutachten vom 21. Mai 1829 an das preußische Kultusministerium über die wissenschaftlichen Leistungen von Georg Friedrich Pohl].” Manuscript in Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin — Preußischer Kulturbesitz, Handschriftenabteilung, Sammlung Darmstaedter, F 2e 1821 (1): Th. J. Seebeck, Bl. 5–16; 23 pp.

Shanahan Timothy , 1989. “Kant, Naturphilosophie, and Oersted's discovery of electromagnetism: A reassessment.” Studies in history and philosophy of science, xx, 287–305.

Snelders Henricus Adrianus Marie , 1970a. “The influence of the dualistic system of Jakob Joseph Winterl (1732–1809) on the German Romantic era.” his, lxi, 231–40.

Snelders Henricus Adrianus Marie 1970b. “Romanticism and Naturphilosophie and the inorganic natural sciences 1797–1840: An introductory survey.” Studies in romanticism, ix, 193–215.

Snelders Henricus Adrianus Marie 1971. “J. S. C. Schweigger: His Romanticism and his crystal electrical theory of matter.” Isis, lxii, 328–38.

Snelders Henricus Adrianus Marie 1973. “De invloed van Kant, de romantiek en de ‘Naturphilosophie’ op de anorganische natuurwetenschappen in Duitsland.” Ph.D. diss., Rijksuniversiteit te Utrecht.

Snelders Henricus Adrianus Marie 1990. “Oersted's discovery of electromagnetism.” In Cunningham Jardine 1990, 228–40.

Stauffer Robert C. , 1957. “Speculation and experiment in the background of Oersted's discovery of electromagnetism.” Isis, xlviii, 33–50.

Steffens Henrich , 1821. “Ueber das Verhältniß der Naturphilosophie zur Physik unserer Tage.” In Schriften. Alt und Neu, 2 vols. (Breslau), i, 67–84.

Steffens Henrich 1829. “Zur Geschichte der heutigen Physik.” In Polemische Blätter zur Beförderung der speculativen Physik, Hft. 1 (Breslau), 1–166.

Steffens Henrich 1832. Review of Schelling 1832. Jahrbücher für wissenschaftliche Kritik, Bd. 2 [des Jahres], no. 11/12, July, cols. 84–91.

Steffens Henrich 1841. “Over Naturphilosophiens Forhold til den empiriske Naturvidenskab.” Forhandlinger ved de skandinaviske Naturforskeres andet Möde, der holdtes i Kjöbenhavn fra den 3^die til den 9^de Juli 1840 (Copenhagen), 25–42. Translated as Steffens 1843.

Steffens Henrich 1843. “Über das Verhältniß der Naturphilosophie zur empirischen Naturkunde.” Isis von Oken, Hft. 4, cols. 265–76.

Stichweh Rudolf , 1984. Zur Entstehung des modernen Systems wissenschaftlicher Disziplinen: Physik in Deutschland 1740–1890. Frankfurt am Main.

Strickland Stuart Walker , 1992. “Circumscribing science: Johann Wilhelm Ritter and the physics of sidereal man.” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, September 1992.

Strickland Stuart Walker 1994. “Reopening the texts of romantic science: The language of experience in J. W. Ritter's Beweis.” In Gavroglu 1994, 385–96.

Sysak Janusz , 1993. “Coleridge's construction of Newton.” Annals of science, 1, 59–81.

Treder Hans-Jürgen , 1984. “Zum Einfluß von Schellings Naturphilosophie auf die Entwicklung der Physik.” In Sandkühler Hans Jörg (ed.), Natur und geschichtlicher Prozeß: Studien zur Naturphilosophie F.W.J. Schellings (Frankfurt am Main), 326–34.

Trumpler Maria Jean , 1992. “Questioning nature: Experimental investigations of animal electricity in Germany, 1791–1810.” Ph.D. diss., Yale University, May 1992.

Wagner Johann Jakob , 1802. Theorie der Wärme und des Lichtes. Leipzig. Not seen.

Wasmuth Ewald , 1951. “Novalis Beitrag zu einer ‘Physik in einem höheren Stile’.” Neue Schweizer Rundschau, Neue Folge, Bd. 18, 1950–51, 531–46.

Weber Joseph , 1817. “Der Electrophantes (Electricitätsweiser) eine electrische Vorrichtung durch dynamische Naturforschung entdeckt.” Annalen der Physik, Bd. 55 (= Bd. 25 der neuen Folge), St. 3 (= St. 3 des Jahres), 326–39.

Weber Joseph 1819. Physik als Wissenschaft, oder die Dynamik der gesammten Natur. Erster Theil: Allgemeine Dynamik der Natur. Landshut. Not seen.

Weber Joseph 1821. Wissenschaft der materiellen Natur, oder Dynamik der Materie. Munich & Leipzig. Not seen.

Websky [Christian Friedrich] Martin , 1880. “Gedenkworte am Tage der Feier des hundertjährigen Geburtstages von Christian Samuel Weiss den 3. März 1880, gesprochen von den Herren Websky, [Christian Ernst] Weiss, [Karl Friedrich] Rammeisberg, [Wilhelm] Hauchecorne, [Heinrich Ernst] Beyrich”, pp. i–xxx. No title page, place, or date; possibly an extract from some journal.

Weiss Christian Samuel , 1801. De notionibus rigidi et fluidi accurate definiendis dissertatio physica. Leipzig. Not seen.

Weiss Christian Samuel 1804a. “Anhang. Dynamische Ansicht der Krystallisation.” In René-Just Haüy , Lehrbuch der Mineralogie. Aus dem Französischen übersetzt, mit Anmerkungen versehen von Dietrich Ludwig Gustav Karsten. Erster Theil (Paris & Leipzig), 365–89. As explained in the preface (p. x), the actual translators were Weiss and Carl Johann Bernhard Karsten (1782–1853).

Weiss Christian Samuel 1804b. “Entwickelung der hauptsächlichsten Resultate neuerer philosophischer Nachforschungen über das Wesen und die allgemeinsten Verhältnisse der Materie.” In Haüy 1804–5, vol. i, 1804, 641–67. Not seen.

Weiss Christian Samuel 1804c. “Ueber die Zustände von Festigkeit und Flüsssigkeit und ihre verschiedenen Arten.” In Haüy 1804–5, vol. i, 1804, 668–99. Not seen.

Weiss Christian Samuel 1809a. De indagando formarvm crystallinarvm charactere geometrico principali dissertatio. Leipzig.

Weiss Christian Samuel 1809b. Commentatio de charactere geometrico principali formarvm crystallinarvm octaëdricarvm pyramidibvs rectis rectangvla oblongata. Leipzig. Not seen.

Weiss Christian Samuel 1815. “Uebersichtliche Darstellung der verschiedenen natürlichen Abtheilungen der Krystallisationssysteme.” Abhandlungen der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin, 1814–15 (publ. 1818), Abhandlungen der physikalischen Klasse, 289–336, 1 folded table.

Weiss Christian Samuel 1817. “Ueber eine verbesserte Methode für die Bezeichnung der verschiedenen Flächen eines Krystallisationssystems; nebst Bemerkungen über den Zustand von Polarisirung der Seiten in den Linien der krystallinischen Structur.” Abhandlungen der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin, 1816–17 (publ. 1819), Abhandlungen der physikalischen Klasse, 286–336.

Wetzels Walter Dominic , 1968. “Johann Wilhelm Ritter: Physik im Wirkungsfeld der deutschen Romantik.” Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, April 1968.

Wetzels Walter Dominic 1971. “Aspects of natural science in German Romanticism.” Studies in romanticism, x, 44–59.

Wetzels Walter Dominic 1973. Johann Wilhelm Ritter: Physik im Wirkungsfeld der deutschen Romantik. Berlin & New York.

Wetzels Walter Dominic 1990. “Johann Wilhelm Ritter: Romantic physics in Germany.” In Cunningham Jardine 1990, 199–212.

Wiederkehr Karl Heinrich , 1988. “Christian Samuel Weiß (1780–1856) unter dem Einfluss der romantischen Naturphilosophie und sein Briefwechsel mit H. Chr. Oersted über Atomistik und Dynamik.” Centaurus, xxxi, 63–85.

Williams Pearce L. , 1962. “The physical sciences in the first half of the nineteenth century: Problems and sources.” History of science, i, 1–15.

Williams Pearce L. 1965. Michael Faraday; A biography. London & New York.

Williams Pearce L. 1966. The origins of field theory. New York.

Williams Pearce L. 1967. “Michael Faraday and the physics of 100 years ago.” Science, clvi, 1335–42.

Williams L. Pearce ed., 1971a. The selected correspondence of Michael Faraday. 2 vols. Cambridge.

Williams L. Pearce ed. 1971b. “Faraday, Michael.” In DSB, iv, 527–40.

Williams L. Pearce ed. 1973. “Kant, Naturphilosophie and scientific method.” In Giere Ronald N. Westfall Richard S. (eds), Foundations of scientific method: The nineteenth century (Bloomington & London), 3–22.

Williams L. Pearce ed. 1974. “Oersted, Hans Christian.” In DSB, x, 182–6.

von Yelin Julius Conrad , 1819a. Ueber Magnetismus und Electricität als identische und Urkräfte. Munich. For dating, see letter of 22 August 1819 from Yelin to Ørsted in Harding 1920, vol. ii, 612.

von Yelin Julius Conrad 1819b. “Ueber Magnetismus und Electricität, als identische Urkräfte.” Annalen der Physik , Bd. 62 (= Bd. 32 der neuesten Folge = Annalen der Physik und der physikalischen Chemie, Bd. 2), St. 1 (= St. 5 des Jahres), 93–101. The text is mostly a paraphrase by Ludwig Wilhelm Gilbert, the editor.

An earlier version of this paper was presented at a conference on “German medicine and science in the Era of Romanticism, 1780–1830” at Yale University in April 1994. I thank Alix Cooper, Bruce Kirchoff, Stuart Strickland, and Maria Trumpler for helping me obtain copies of hard-to-find items, and Ruth Katzenstein for preparing the figures. In general I have followed the citation conventions outlined in Caneva 1993, pp. xiii–xiv.

Cf. Gower 1973, 303: “Like Romanticism, Naturphilosophie cannot easily be defined. The network of ideas, methods and attitudes it is supposed to represent is best understood in terms of the ideas, methods and attitudes of individuals. There is probably no single individual who could usefully and accurately be described as a typical Naturphilosoph.“.

A valuable contemporary review of the Naturphilosophie literature is Blasche 1819, which summarizes and critiques the major works of Schelling, Oken (his favourite), Steffens Gotthilf Heinrich Schubert (1780–1860), and Wagner Johann Jakob (1755–1841). Blasche Bernhard Heinrich (1766–1832) was an educator and theologically-minded amateur philosopher.

Jungnickel McCormmach 1986, p. xxii.

Cf. Knight 1975, 168: “… [Schelling] has received more attention in recent years from historians, because of his influence — Real or supposed — Upon the development of electrochemistry, electromagnetism and energetics. To be interested in Naturphilosophie because it contributed to the main stream of modern science is to do what is pejoratively called ‘whig history’: Perhaps it can be better described as ‘applied history of science’, of which the ‘pure’ branch is concerned with studying past science for its own sake, and seeing it in the context of its own day. If we try to do applied history before we have done pure history, we shall get a distorted vision of the past; and we shall be all too prone to invoke mysterious ‘influences’ connecting apparently similar theories held at widely different times or places.” Although I largely agree with this sentiment, I don't regard it as whiggish or in any other way inappropriate to be interested in Naturphilosophie insofar as it “contributed to the main stream of modern science”; whiggish is only its assessment from a presentist perspective.

Hermann has authored what is effectively the canonical formulation of such claims. For example, in the entry for “Naturphilosophie” in an encyclopedia of the history of physics he wrote: “Thus Naturphilosophie, too, contributed to the development of physics, demonstrably for example with the chemical theory of galvanism ( Ritter Johann Wilhelm 1798), with the discovery of electromagnetism ( Ørsted Hans Christian 1820), with the formulation of the energy principle ( Mayer Julius Robert 1842), and with Faraday's discoveries” ( Hermann 1972, 249). The same quartet of discoverers was later assigned to the tradition of “Dynamismus”, which Hermann identified as an essential component of Schelling's Naturphilosophie (Hermann 1976, 313–14, 316; 1987, 54–60). Sidestepping (with apparent ambivalence) the question of the relationship between Naturphilosophie and dynamism, in a later work Hermann assigned to dynamism the idea of “the inner unity of all the forces of nature”. He saw the work of Ritter Ørsted Faraday Mayer as having been influenced by this idea, but he neglected to identify any actual historical connections (Hermann 1977, 50–52). Note that the most recent volume devoted to “Romanticism in science” (Poggi and Bossi 1994) has no chapter on physics.

Williams (1973, 5) classed as Naturphilosophen Coleridge Ørsted Ritter Schelling Weiss , plus (“in the background”) Ampère André-Marie (1775–1836) and (“more hesitantly”) Davy. All, he said, experienced the impact of the French Revolution, all were politically conservative as adults, and “All, finally, were Romantics. This term is notoriously difficult to define but we can enumerate the characteristics shared by the Naturphilosophen. They were all highly sensitive men, seeking both beauty and truth in their philosophy. Most wrote poetry and expressed their emotions in verse. All had a deep sense of form and thought architectonically. The whole was always more important and more than the sum of the parts. All recognized the importance of and all felt the near ecstacy of creativity springing from the active mind. Spirit was as real to them as body. All underwent youthful crises and discovered Kant as the answer to their personal angst” (5–6). Aside from the fact that Williams did not even begin to demonstrate the justice of this characterization on the basis of evidence relative to his set of seven, it would not get the historian very far even if it were accurate. That is, such a general characterization of “Romantic” might be able to function in a classificatory fashion as a timeless ideal type, but it is of little use in explaining the particular concepts of, and the specific connections among, historically situated actors.

“Questioning nature” is the central theme of Trumpler 1992.

Strickland (1992, 28–29) nicely described Ritter as struggling with basically the same issue: “Ritter could not back away from his commitment to give systematic form to historical experience, but neither could he deny its contradictions. He wanted to abandon neither the always-incomplete unity offered by theory nor the chaotic completeness of history…. Instead of remaining endpoints of a single, unmarked trail, history and theory turned into two competing strategies for mastering the same terrain.”.

Williams 1965, 59; cf. 137, introducing his treatment of Ørsted: “The possibility that electricity and magnetism were but different modes of action of the underlying and fundamental forces of attraction and repulsion was a primary tenet of the Kantian dynamical philosophy.” See also Williams 1966, 32–43; 1973, 3.

Williams 1965, 62; cf. 1973, 3–5.

Kant 1786, 522, 532, 532.

Lind's survey of German physics textbooks indicates that the self-styled followers of Kant did not in fact succeed — Or apparently even try — To elaborate a dynamic explanation of heat, electricity, magnetism, and light (Lind 1992, 268–72). Clark (1997) came to a similar conclusion: With regard to the place of both Kantian dynamism and Naturphilosophie in German physics texts, an initial toying with Kraftlehre typically gave way to a more conventional treatment in terms of Stofflehre and a description of traditional instruments and phenomena. Lind's and Clark's works are goldmines of information.

Fries 1822, 450–2, 503–5, 546–59 (“Form der Aggregation” on 556); 1826, 70–76 (“Formen der Aggregation” on 74); cf. Caneva 1993, 185, 192.

Eichner 1982, 16.

Eichner 1982, 21.

Snelders 1973, 1, 15, 76, 77.

Klinckowstroem 1922, 70–71; cf. 1921, 137. Engelhardt (1990, 56) sketched a more complex though similar-spirited typology without, however, fleshing it out with historical particulars and connections: “It is a well-known fact that the influence of Schelling's metaphysical natural philosophy dominates the Romantics' understanding of nature…. The Romantic Naturforscher, however, remain sceptical and negative towards the speculative deduction of culture and nature as it is employed by the Idealists Schelling and Hegel…. They equally maintain a distance from Kant's transcendental philosophy. Romantic Naturforschung cannot be identified with Naturphilosophie, which is itself not homogeneous around 1800: It can be transcendental, metaphysical or sensualistic-empirical. Equally there are major divergences between the individual Naturforscher. Nevertheless, according to the view of the Romantic Naturforscher, physics and metaphysics should not be mutually exclusive, but interrelated.” See also Engelhardt 1975, 53; 1978, 169; 1979, 105; he identified as among the most important “Anhänger der romantischen Richtung” von Baader Franz (1765–1841), Carus Carl Gustav (1789–1869), von Eschenmayer Carl August (1768–1852), von Görres Jacob Joseph (1776–1848), Novalis (i.e., Friedrich von Hardenburg, 1772–1801), Oken Ørsted Ritter Schubert Steffens Ignaz Troxler Paul Vitalis (1780–1866), and Joseph Carl Windischmann Hieronymus (1775–1839). I believe that even a slight acquaintance with the work of these men will reveal the hopelessness of distinguishing them conceptually from genuine Naturphilosophen. In a later work, Engelhardt (1981, 77–85) followed an excellent précis of Schelling's Naturphilosophie and its relationship to the natural science of the day with a comment that nicely captures the futility of trying to make sharp distinctions: “Many Romantics went through developments in their life that led from a Kantian beginning via acceptance of Schelling to independent sketches” (85).

Wetzels 1971, 45–48; 1973, 1–17; 1990, 199–201 (quote on 201).

In a richly detailed acount, Lind (1992, 278–95) presented, as a case-study of the “romantische Naturphilosophie” represented in German physics texts, the chemist Karl Wilhelm Gottlob Kastner (1783–1857). Lind's more general synthetic treatment of “romantische Naturphilosophie” (297–312) is also valuable, and emphasizes features not dealt with here. Casting his fine-meshed net even wider than Lind, Clark (1997) gave a valuable accounting of the place of Naturphilosophie in German physics texts.

Gower (1973, 310–20) — In general an excellent analysis — Suffers from this misplaced attention, although in principle he knew better: “Despite its lack of success, Ritter's attempt to deploy a presuppositional framework of [Schellingean] metaphysical concepts in the construction of empirical theories is possibly the most interesting feature of his work. The inaccessible productivities of speculative physics become generalized processes described in terms of polar Grundkräfte: The unifying aim of Schelling's metaphysics is to be achieved by means of a dynamical physics. It is these kinds of analogies, rather than superficial and derivative poetry, overwritten and florid prose, ventures into occultism and mysticism, etc., which point more surely to Romantic sympathies among scientists” (338–9). Cf. Krafft (1982, 87): “And thus it was less Schelling's Naturphilosophie … than the fundamental ideas contained in it of the unity of nature and forces, of polarity, of dynamism and organism and the related heuristic principle of analogy that exerted a strong influence as empirical paradigms [Leitbilder der Empirie] in the sense sketched by Novalis.”.

In addition to the sources cited here, see Caneva 1974, 132–57 and 1993, 282–6, which give further references and some extended examples. Hermann (1969b, 97 [= 1972, 248]) identified as recurring traits of romantische Naturphilosophie “the conviction in the inner relatedness of all of nature, in the similarity in the phenomena in the three kingdoms of nature, and in the thoroughgoing polarity of all of the forces of nature”. Nielsen (1989, 112) emphasized preoccupation with the organic unity of the world, teleology, opposing fundamental forces, interrelations among phenomena, and polarity. Rejecting the term Naturphilosophie as imprecise, Christensen (1995, 172–4, 177–83; cf. 155) offered a plausible characterization of “Romantic natural philosophy”, though one not well grounded in specific historical examples.

Cf. Caneva 1980, 125–8: “Although the exact connexions between the phenomena of heat, light, electricity, and chemical activity were often still vague, it is clear that Ampère, Fresnel, and Dulong — Aided by Petit and supported by Arago — Shared a world view in which these phenomena were seen as depending on the vibrations and combinations of an all-pervading ether” (128).

Caneva 1993, 285, citing Schelling 1799a, 9, 203; 1799b, 321–6. Cf. Wetzels 1973, 96: “Triadic periodicity is without doubt one of the most essential of Ritter's conceptual schemas [Denkschemata]. To that extent he does not distinguish himself from the other Romantics.” In his critical review of Schelling 1799a, Blasche (1819, cols. 1445–6) noted that “The principal task of the book (which is at the same time the principal task of Naturphilosophie), to derive a priori a dynamic graduated series [Stufenfolge] in nature, is only very imperfectly accomplished”.

Beetz 1873, 16, citing Schelling 1797 from Schelling 1856–61, Abth. 1, Bd. 2, 176. Blasche (1819, cols. 1430–1) plumped for the recognition of gravity (Schwere), light, and heat as the three Naturmächte representing the three fundamental divine ideas of the Monas, the Dyas, and the Trias.

Cf. Nasse 1809, 42–43 (cited in Snelders 1973, 140): “The first principle of nature, which manifests itself to us everywhere in its activity, and from which alone all natural knowledge proceeds, and which expresses itself immediately through life itself, is dualism, or dynamics.” Later on Nasse interpreted galvanism, electricty, and magnetism as “Formen” of a fundamental underlying chemism, the “erste Potenz” of the whole (52, 53). Of force he wrote (21): “Force, as force in the broadest sense, can indeed never be recognized in reality as force, but always only as product of the effect itself; the expression force is therefore merely symbolic.”.

Caneva 1993, 289–93, 295–7. The conclusion that it was illegitimate on metaphysical grounds for Schelling to assume hypothetical imponderable fluids for heat, light, electricity, and magnetism is in a sense logically correct but historically moot: Schelling went ahead and defended the assumption of a Lichtmaterie, a Wärmematerie, an elektrische Materie, and (less often) a materielles Princip des Magnetismus (Williams 1966, 47; cf. Caneva 1993, 290–1 and the references cited there). Blasche (1819, cols. 1429–30) criticized Schelling's materialistic conception of light and heat as contributing nothing to the sought-for dynamical understanding of the phenomena.

Williams 1966, 47. Christensen (1995, 164) provided no evidence for Kant's and Ritter's alleged belief in the “transformability” of forces.

E.g. Snelders 1973, 1, 75; Kaiser 1987, 78. Cf. Caneva 1993, 278 and the references cited there.

Hermann 1976, 312; 1987, 54, 58–59.

Hermann 1976, 312. In later restatements of this view Hermann (1977, 49; 1987, 54) used the word Urkraft instead of Naturkraft. He similarly took as a sign of Ritter's connection with Naturphilosophie his supposed “conviction in the inner relatedness of all of the forces of nature” (Hermann 1969b, 100). Such language misrepresents contemporary usage and is otherwise too vague and imprecise to be of much historiographical utility.

In addition to the works discussed here, see also those of Friedrich Johann Nasse Wilhelm (1778–1851), Heinrich David Schiel Joseph (1812–72), Schieiden Matthias Jacob (1804–81), and the critical review of Nasse 1809 by A. Th. von Hagen, cited in the bibliography. Despite the title of his book, Nasse did not address the issue of the influence of Naturphilosophie on physics (as opposed to chemistry).

Steffens 1821, 72–73, 84. This was written before Ørsted's discovery of electromagnetism.

Steffens 1821, 67–68.

Steffens 1821, 74–77 (quote on 74).

Cf. Berg Germann 1977, 83–84 (which quotes from Steffens's autobiography of 1841); Berg and Richter 1986, 13–15; Hermann 1968, 11–12.

Steffens 1829, 91, 102–3, 118–22 (quote on 120).

Steffens 1829, 166. Lind (1992, 300) noted the dilemma facing someone who wished to write a physics text grounded in Naturphilosophie: Since such a physics as yet existed only programmatically, the author had either to present a largely traditional physics supplemented by a few prospective naturphilosophisch suggestions, or to grope uncertainly through as yet unsecured territory. There thus arose no textbook canonization of naturphilosophisch physics: “Each author writes with the consciousness of having to make a new start, and many probably also with the consciousness that a textbook in the spirit of Naturphilosophie is not yet possible in a satisfactory manner. None of these books became a paradigm” (308–9).

Schelling 1832, 10–11 = 1856–61, Abth. 1, Bd. 9, 443. For Ritter's having influenced Schelling, see Breidbach 1988, 27.

Schelling 1832, 27, citing Schelling 1799b, 75 (= 1856–61, Abth. 1, Bd. 3, 321)and 1800, § 56ff (= 1856–61, Abth. 1, Bd. 4, 65).

Schelling 1832, 31 = 1856–61, Abth. 1, Bd. 9, 448; cf. Steffens 1832, col. 84 and Caneva 1974, 149–51. Botanist Carl Friedrich Philipp von Martius (1794–1868), long-time secretary of the mathematical-physical class of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences, was of the opinion that Schelling's Naturphilosophie had exerted little or no influence on the “exact sciences” — Except, by way of reaction, by encouraging the inductive path of experimental research (Martius 1859 [= 1866, 574–5, 576]). Beetz (1873, 17–18) approvingly quoted (from Martius 1859, 22) the passage cited here from p. 576.

Snelders 1973, 133.

Schelling 1832, 11, 14= 1856–61, Abth. 1, Bd. 9, 443, 445.

Schelling 1832, 11 = 1856–61, Abth. 1, Bd. 9, 443.

Steffens 1832, cols. 88, 89, 90.

Steffens 1832, col. 90: “Heat, too, has entered into the sphere of magnetism, accompanying all three forms, excited by all, exciting all, not to be derived from any single one.” Years later his language sounded more like something we expect to hear; cf. 1841, 31–32 (=1843, col. 269): “The attempt to regard the phenomena of chemistry and magnetism as modifications of electricty characterizes recent physics, and hidden in this lies the hope that we could learn to consider electricity itself as a modification of gravitation. Light, heat appear more and more as the modifying forces, and natural science approaches an original dualism that penetrates and controls all material existence….”.

In addition to sources cited elsewhere, see Beetz 1873, 8–15, 19; Berg Richter 1986, 13–15; Guiot 1985, 218; Gower 1973, 327–39; Hartwig 1955; Hennemann 1967, 116–17; Ostwald 1896, 67–70; Schimank 1947, 2–3; Wetzels 1971, 52–59; 1973, passim. I here use “Romantic” as a convenient English equivalent to “naturphilosophisch”, without wishing to prejudice the question of the utility of elsewhere distinguishing between Romantic and naturphilosophisch science.

Trumpler 1992, 159–60.

Trumpler 1992, 188–9.

Wetzels 1990, 202.

One of Trumpler's most interesting observations concerns the differences between Ritter's abstract and schematic style of illustrating his galvanic experiments compared to the more lifelike representations of Galvani and Humboldt. She wrote: “Ritter often referred to his illustrations as ‘formulas’ instead of as ‘figures’ and believed that these formulas applied not just to animal electricity but also revealed general principles of the universe” (Trumpler 1992, 184). I would suggest that a prior Romantic interest in discovering symmetries and correspondences among a wide range of phenomena might have encouraged Ritter's style of illustration, that is, to extract the universal from the particular. See the discussion below of Ritter's interest in abstract representational schemas.

Berg Germann 1977, 83, 94; Hermann 1968, 12; Hüffmeier 1961, 225–6, 229–31; Klinckowstroem 1921, 137–9; 1922, 75–76; Snelders 1970b, 201; 1973, 88–90; 1990, 233. The East Germans Berg and Richter (1986, 10), on the other hand, saw no contradiction; “With regard to electromagnetism, Ritter and Ørsted can serve as examples that among the representatives of Romantic Naturphilosophie there were by all means natural scientists who worked according to the inductive method. It has heretofore been too little noted that Ritter, as one of the first at the time of the development of dialectics by German classical philosophy, recognized objective dialectics in nature — Even if still in naturphilosophisch disguise — And worked according to the dialectical method.”.

Hüffmeier 1961. Noting in particular the complex sources of Ritter's and Ørsted's science, Eichner (1982, 24) urged that “any attempt to divide scientists neatly into ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’ must necessarily fail.”.

Strickland 1992, 22; this theme is further developed in Strickland 1994. He went on: “At the risk of trading one faulty framework for another, I want to approach Ritter and Naturphilosophie with what I take to be a more profound and enigmatic pair of oppositions. On the reading I suggest, Naturphilosophie is not so much a speculative alternative to empirical science, but an engagement with the tensions between diachronic and synchronic conceptions of nature, on the one hand, and between experience and representation, on the other” (Strickland 1992, 22–23).

See the references cited above in ref. 36.

Ritter, letter of 25 December 1800 to Goethe, in Klinckowstroem 1921, 145.

Ritter, letter of 16/17 August 1805 to Ørsted, in Harding 1920, vol. ii, 119.

A letter of Ritter's of 14 April 1801 to his publisher implies that he knew Schelling's two works of 1799; others of 18 and 23 January 1802 show him inquiring after Schelling's Zeitschrift für spekulative Physik (Richter 1988, 97, 125, 128; Rehm (1971, 49, 60) had previously published the first and last letters cited). In a letter of June 1798 to Alexander von Humboldt, Ritter wrote that “out of ‘this absolute identity of the spirit in us and in nature outside of us’ there radiates to us the joyous undeceivable hope really to be able to solve the great problem of all the phenomena of nature” (Ritter 1798b in 1806, vol. i, 58; cited in Wetzels 1973, 24). Wetzels identified the words in single quotes as coming from Schelling 1797 (= Schelling 1856–61, Abth. 1, Bd. 2, 54; cf. Wetzels 1968, 204).

In this paper I have not attempted to document the extensive and important personal connections among Ritter, Schelling, Novalis, and Arnim on the one hand and among Ritter, Ørsted, Weiss, and Seebeck on the other.

Eichner 1982, 23; Guiot 1985, 218, 238; Hermann , in Ritter 1968, 57; Hermann 1969b, 101; 1987, 57–58; Knight 1990, 19; Krafft 1982, 82; Treder 1984, 330. In citing Schelling's influence on Ritter Ørsted Eichner (1982, 22–23) noted that both were trained as pharmacists: “[They] could make the step from wild speculations to concrete discoveries only because they had absorbed the ‘causal,’ empirical paradigms of what was then ‘normal science’ long before they drifted into Schelling's orbit” (23).

Poppe 1968, 95–96.

Wetzels 1971, 54; 1990, 207–8; or in more detail in 1973, 32–34, where he called this “the discovery that, in the domain of pure physics, is to be regarded as his probably most important contribution” (32).

Snelders 1973, 89–90; 1970b, 199–200. In Snelders's view, “The discovery found little resonance, doubtless because of the Romantic speculations that were included in the paper alongside the facts” (1973, 90).

Gower 1973, 336; cf. McRae 1975, 474. The accounts of Kaiser (1987, 81–82) and Richter (1988, 63–64) are also excellent in this regard.

Berg 1976, 72–73, especially the schematic comparisons on 73.

Ritter 1801c, col. 123; cf. Richter 1988, 64 (which omits “wie” in the first sentence of paragraph III and the last ten words of the passage). Because of the rarity and importance of this source I give the original here: I. Es giebt Strahlen im Sonnenlicht, die nicht leuchten, und deren einer Theil stärker, der andere schwächer, gebrochen wird, als alle diejenigen, welche leuchten. II. Das Sonnenlicht im ungetheilten Zustand ist eine Neutralisation der beyden letzten Bestimmungsgründe aller chemischen Thätigkeit: Oxygeneität und Desoxygeneität gleich Hydrogeneität. III. Durch das Prisma gehen beyde wie Pole auseinander. Die rothe Seite des Spectrum[s], und was äußerlich an sie grenzt, wird die der Oxygeneität, die Violette hingegen, und was an sie grenzt die der Hydrogeneität. Die Maxima von beyden fallen außer das sichtbare Spectrum; ihre Indifferenz aber immer dasselbe, in die Gegend des Grün.

A contemporaneous report of Ritter's work, extracted from a letter to the editor of the Annalen der Physik, Ludwig Wilhem Gilbert (1769–1824), said in its entirety: “— — On February 22nd I found solar rays — Discovered by means of horn silver — Also on the violet side of the spectrum of colours, outside of it. They reduce even more strongly than violet light itself, and the field of these rays is very large, (cf. Annalen, VII, 1801, 149, Anmerkung). More on this soon” (Ritter 1801a, 527). Either this represents Gilbert's selective assessment of what was important about Ritter's work, or it was written before Ritter had in fact developed his ideas. It is perhaps significant in this connection that the parenthetic reference — Likely Gilbert's — Was to a footnote of Gilbert's in which he elaborated on Herschel's suggestion that one look for a similar difference in the chemical properties of coloured light by mentioning Scheele's discovery that horn silver darkens more readily in violet light than elsewhere in the spectrum (Herschel 1801, 148–9).

Ritter 1801c, col. 123; quoted with a few changes in Ritter 1801d in Ritter 1806, vol. ii, 107 (= Ritter 1968, 73 = Ritter 1986, 127); quoted from the latter in Richter 1988, 64 and (in part) in Snelders 1973, 90; 1970b, 200, and Berg and Richter 1986, 37. In the original: Es wird das Resultat einer größeren faktischen Untersuchung, die Polarität der Chemie, der Elektricität, des Galvanismus, des Magnetismus, der Wärme u.s.w. ihren Principien nach aufzuzeigen, als Eine und Dieselbe in allen. Dies Eins und Alles in seiner reinsten freyesten Erscheinung ist das Licht; ein Satz, der nun den Namen einer bloßen Meynung nicht mehr dulden wird. Das Licht ist die Quelle jeglicher Kraft, die Leben schafft und Thätigkeit, der zeugende Saame alles Guten, was die Erde trägt. Mag immerhin auf der einen Seite, wie z.B. im Eisen, es fast sich selber verlieren: Im Menschen kehrt es doch zu sich zurück, und feyert selbst, mit allen Farben, seines Daseyns ewiges Fest.

Ritter, letter of c. 3 May 1801 to Friedrich Carl Frommann Ernst (1765–1837), in Richter 1988, 99. Frommann received the undated letter on 4 May, and it typically took only a day for Ritter's letters to get to him.

Ritter, letter of 6 May 1801 to Arnim, in Rehm 1971, 38. Later in the letter Ritter reported that he had “finally” found dualism in sound: Bass is to descant as the zinc side of the battery is to the copper or silver side, or as oxygen is to hydrogen, +E to -E, red to violet, “etc.” (41).

Ritter 1801d in 1806, vol. ii, 82–83 = 1968, 57–58 = 1986, 117.

Ritter 1801d in 1806, vol. ii, 82–83 = 1968, 61 = 1986, 120. See pp. 104–6 (= 71–72 bzw. 126–7) for another pictorial Schema comparing the chemischer Gegensatz of the spectrum (seen as having an oxygen and a hydrogen side) to the Schema of the distribution (Vertheilung) of both electricity (plus and minus) and magnetism (north and south). Uncoloured light, before its prismatic separation, is a Neutrum similar to water before its separation into oxygen and hydrogen. In a letter to Ørsted of 20/23 May 1803, Ritter expounded his belief in the infinite graduated Triplicität of light, beginning with its division into three distinct Bilder of colour, chemical action, and heat (Harding 1920, vol. ii, 33–34, 39); in offering two versions of a Schema representing the polar relations among the coloured, chemical, and thermal phenomena associated with light, he added oracularly: “This can lead you, by the way, to the triunity [Dreyeinigkeit] of all indifferences, e.g. also that of water, of iron, etc.” (39).

Ritter 1801d in 1806, vol. ii, 92 = 1968, 63 = 1986, 123.

Ritter 1802, 410; cf. Gower 1973, 336. Ørsted's several expositions of Ritter's work were true to its spirit, and noted the gradual interpenetration of the complementary actions (Ørsted 1803b, 20–21 = 1920, vol. 1, 113; 1803c, 409–10= 1920, vol. 1, 245–6). In each article he gave an account of Ritter's discovery that an eye rendered galvanically positive sees objects with a reddish hue and larger than normal, whereas to one rendered negative objects appear blue and smaller: “When we remember that the positive pole of the battery is the oxidizing, the negative the deoxidizing, and that the blue colour in the spectrum lies closest to the violet, then the connection between this and the previous discovery becomes very clear to us” (Ørsted 1803b, 20–22 [quote on 21–22] = 1920, vol. 1, 113). In the German article he went on to discuss other patterns of phenomena involving oxidation and deoxidation, acids and bases, positive and negative poles (and their association with expansion and contraction), and Chladni's discovery that the tones of a flute are higher in hydrogen than in oxygen. This is the stuff of Naturphilosophie! Ørsted further elaborated on the polar chemical aspects of light in his Ansicht der chemischen Naturgesetze (1812, 215–17 = 1920, vol. ii, 132–3).

Ritter 1801b, as discussed in Caneva 1974, 142–3.

Ritter 1801b, 455; figure simplified somewhat from pl. VI, fig. 2 (cf. Caneva 1974, 143). Cf. Ørsted (1803b, 29 = 1920, vol. i, 119): “Just as the tension is strongest at both ends of the pile and decreases from there to the middle (where it becomes = 0), so too has the chemical effect attained its maximum at the poles, and follows the same law of decrease as the tension.”.

Ritter 1805, 223, as quoted in Strickland 1992, 36.

Wetzels 1973, 95. Cf. Ritter , quoting from one of his lectures in a letter of 4 August 1804 to Ørsted (Harding 1920, vol. ii, 74; poorly translated in Gower 1973, 333): “There are thus properly only two processes on earth that differ according to their principle: The universal separation process and the universal unification process. The product of the restrained separation process is the magnet with its magnetic tension, that of the completed separation process the separated heterogeneous bodies themselves. The product of the restrained unification process is the determinate pair of heterogeneous bodies with its electrical tension, that of the complete unification process the complete suspension [Aufgehobenheit] of heterogeneity in identity, the so-called chemical product, without any electrical tension.”.

Cf. Ritter's attempts to identify the natural hieroglyphs of positive and negative electricity as circle and cross (Wetzels 1973, 84–92) and a like-spirited endeavour by Ørsted (1805b, 2–5 = 1920, vol. iii, 96–97). For the philosophical and metaphysical context of meanings within which Ritter's physics and chemistry were embedded see Faivre 1983.

An excellent depiction of Ritter's cultural and personal context is Strickland 1992.

In addition to sources cited elsewhere, see Hennemann 1959a, 9, 76–82; 1967, 112–15, 119–22; Knight 1990, 18–19; Krafft 1982, 78–81; Levere 1971, 131–9; Mason 1953, 290 = 1962, 361; Mende 1975, 477; Nielsen 1991, 397; Snelders 1970a, 237; 1970b, 194, 198, 214; 1973, 1, 93–94, 97–100; 1990, 238.

The soul in nature — Translated from among the works published in the first four volumes of the German edition of Ørsted's collected works (Ørsted 1850–51b) — Is a collection of Ørsted's writings that usually fails to state the original place of publication and sometimes omits the date of publication (or composition), hence an unelaborated reference to something said in it is a very poor guide to Ørsted's thinking, one that typically ignores the question of how his ideas might have changed over time. For a relatively compact expression of Ørsted's views — That the goal of science is to discover connections in nature; that all of nature is caught up in restless development and transformation; that there is a fundamental unity to nature and its laws; that the laws of nature are the same as the laws of reason; that nature is a manifestation of divine reason — See the first eight sections of Ørsted 1811 or its translation as Ørsted 1822.

Caneva 1993, 287–99.

Gower 1973, 340–2; Meyer 1920a, pp. xv–xviii; Stauffer 1957, 34; Williams 1962, 7; 1973, 15–16; 1974, 182–4, esp. 184; “The Kantian doctrine of Grundkräfte led [Ørsted] directly to the idea of conversion of forces.” Meyer (1920a, p. xviii) and Williams (1974, 184) both trace Ørsted's alleged disbelief in atoms to the influence of Kant; it should be noted, however, that already in 1812 Ørsted was moving tentatively toward a “dynamical atomism” (see, in passages redolent of the tropes of Naturphilosophie, Ørsted 1812, 252–71 = 1920, vol. ii, 149–57) and that in Ørsted's and Weiss's “Briefwechsel über Atomistik und Dynamik”, begun in 1829, Ørsted defended atomism against Weiss's dynamism, and specifically criticized Kant (Harding 1920, vol. i, 280–340, esp. 281–5; cf. Stichweh 1984, 168). Again, one needs to consider how Ørsted's views changed over time.

In claiming that “To Kant and Ørsted matter had no ontological status, and what was generally perceived of as matter was nothing but the effect of polar dynamical forces”, Christensen (1995, 160) ignored both Kant's presentation of Materie as the Subject of everything required for the spatial existence of Dinge, his definition of Masse as quantity of matter, and his law of the invariable quantity of matter (Kant 1786, 503, 537, 541), as well as Ørsted's own matter-accepting elaboration of Kantian ideas (as discussed presently).

Ørsted 1799b, 69–70 = 1920, vol. i, 71–72. Ørsted used the term Grundkræfter in Danish (1799b, 38 = 1920, vol. i, 54) and vires primitivas in Latin (1799d, 18 = 1920, vol. i, 89), but neither very often.

Ørsted 1798a, 154–5; 1798b, 313–14; 1799c, 173 (quote) = 1920, vol. iii, 4, 7, 25. As he said in a footnote, “I have indeed always considered the cause of heat to be material, and that because it can pass from one body to another, and it is after all an old rule: Qualitates non migrant a corpore ad corpus” (1798b, 314 bzw. 7), which recalls Kant's invocation of the principle, “accidentia non migrant e substantiis in substantias” (Kant 1786, 550).

See Christensen (1995) on Ørsted's relationship to Kant and Ritter; in my opinion he exaggerated the extent of Ørsted's allegiance to dynamism and rejection of matter-based explanations. According to Krafft (1982, 79), Ørsted was influenced by the Romantic ideas of Steffens before he had any contact with (among others) Schelling and Ritter in 1801. Ørsted followed some of Steffens's chemical ideas in a paper “On the correspondence between electrical figures and organic forms” (Ørsted 1805b, 9–18 = 1920, vol. iii, 99–103). This connection needs to be explored in more detail.

Ørsted 1805a, 407–8 = 1920, vol. iii, 83–84.

Ørsted 1812, 114–15= 1920, vol. ii, 88.

Beetz 1873, 17; cited in Stauffer 1957, 35.

Ørsted 1799b, 79 = 1920, vol. i, 77, the latter quote as translated in Meyer 1920a, p. xviii.

Ørsted 1799d, p. iii = 1920, vol. i, 81.

Ørsted 1811, 38 = 1920, vol. iii, 185.

Ørsted 1812, 12 = 1920, vol. ii, 41–42. From among the many naturphilosophisch usages in this work I cite only a few: “Now in this way from transformation to transformation it [i.e., nature] brings its forces under the most diverse forms of action, and we call a body the space which is filled with such a distinctive activity, but which appears to our senses as rest” (66 bzw. 66); “[A]ll substances of the Earth [are] nothing but resting points of the activity with which nature proceeds from work to work in the formation of the Earth” (68 bzw. 67); plus talk about stages of development (Entwickelungsstufen) and parallel developmental series of organic substances and metals (67, 69–70 bzw. 67; cf. 291 bzw. 166, where an alchemically inspired reflection on similarities between the developmental histories of metals and planets led him to the conclusion “that both developments have proceeded according to the same laws, only according to different powers [Potenzen]!”).

Harding 1920, vol. ii, 3–6 (their correspondence occupying pp. 7–260); Hermann 1969b, 102–3; Snelders 1970b, 203.

Stauffer 1957, 40; Snelders 1990, 233. On Ørsted's first meetings with Ritter (18–21 September 1801 and 13 August-4 September 1802) see his excited account in M. Ørsted 1870, vol. i, 24–26, 76–81.

Ørsted 1811, 37–38 = 1920, vol. iii, 184–5; cf. 1803b. He quite generally spoke in terms of the different Wirkungsformen of the two basic Grundkräfte (e.g., Ørsted 1812, 252 = 1920, vol. ii, 149). In September 1802 Ørsted described Ritter's experiments on light in his travel diary as “so infinitely important” (M. Ørsted 1870, vol. i, 79).

Meyer 1920a, p. xxvii; cf. Snelders 1970a, 236–8; 1970b, 203–4.

Ørsted 1816, 12 = 1816 (1823), p. xvi = 1920, vol. ii, 433. A passage in a review of Ørsted's Materialien by the chemist Hermbstädt Sigismund (1760–1833) indicates that the reviewer regarded Winterl as following in Schilling's footsteps: “An andronia and a thelyke, a masculine and a feminine substance as Winterl would have discovered them, a principle of acidity and alkalinity that neutralize each other or bring each other to indifference, afford the sought-for duplicities, the conflicts and indifferences, in which the whole game of Schellingianism consists” (quoted in Snelders 1970a, 237, from the Neue allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek, Bd. 88, 1804, 469).

Ørsted 1805b, 18–19 = 1920, vol. iii, 103–4 (quote on 19 bzw. 104); cf. 1805c, 251, 256–7 = 1920, vol. iii, 110, 113. Criticizing the attempt to base chemistry on elemental substances, he wrote: “If on the contrary everything depends on certain fundamental forces and on the forms in which they express themselves, then one must be able to discover the principle of these forms and to indicate which and how many are possible, more or less according to the model [Mönster] that Schelling has given us by representing them according to the three dimensions in space” (1807a, 33 = 1807b, 216 = 1920, vol. i, 332, which has Muster). This passage was omitted from the reprinting of Ørsted 1807a in Ørsted 1851–52.

Ørsted 1805c, 254 = 1920, vol. iii, 111–12 (quote on 112). In both papers Ørsted cited Ritter's work for support.

Ørsted 1805c, 255, 256 = 1920, vol. iii, 112.

Ørsted 1807a, 29–30 = 1851–52, vol. v, 20 = 1807b, 214 = 1920, vol. i, 330.

Ørsted 1812, 133 = 1920, vol. ii, 96.

Ørsted 1812, 151 = 1920, vol. ii. 104.

Ørsted 1805c, 252, 256 = 1920, vol. iii, 111, 112; 1812, 134 = 1920, vol. ii, 96–97.

Gower 1973, 343; Hennemann 1967, 117; Mason 1953, 386 = 1962, 476–7; Snelders 1970b, 202; 1973, 93; Williams 1966, 61–62.

Kant 1786, 518 (Conflict); Schelling 1797, 74 (Streit); 1798, 432 (Conflict); the latter two as cited in Caneva 1993, 288, 389 n. 56. Cf. Snelders 1990, 232: “Kant saw the world as an equilibrium between the opposing forces of attraction and repulsion, while Schelling believed in a conflict in which these forces constantly strove to overcome each other, an attractive force constantly battling with a repulsive force producing a basic polarity in matter and, ultimately, in the whole universe.”.

Ørsted 1799d, 6, 13, 18 = 1920, vol. i, 85, 87, 89.

Ørsted 1805b, 10= 1920, vol. iii, 100; he elsewhere used the terms Vexelspil af Kræften (5 bzw. 98) and Strid (18 bzw. 103).

Ørsted 1807a, 49–53 = 1851–52, vol. v, 29–32; 1807b, 228–30 = 1920, vol. i, 341–3; cf. Scott 1975, 251–9.

Ørsted 1812, 222–3 = 1920, vol. ii, 136; translated in Gower 1973, 347; cf. Schelling 1798, 433, 482.

Schelling 1799b, 288–9; translated in Gower 1973, 318.

Ørsted 1820, 4 = 1920, vol. ii, 218.

Caneva 1980, 128, citing Ørsted 1806, 371, 372. Gerard (1961, 307) suggested Ritter's influence here.

Ørsted 1812, 140 = 1920, vol. ii, 99; Caneva 1980, 129.

Williams 1966, 51–62.

Stauffer 1957, 48. The words in internal quotes are from Ørsted 1799b, 79 = 1920, vol. i, 77, as translated in Meyer 1920a, p. xviii and cited by Stauffer on p. 39.

Stichweh 1984, 147.

Stichweh 1984, 148; cf. Beetz 1873, 18, and Caneva 1993, 394, n. 4 of chap. 8. Considering the theoretically inspired empirical investigations of Ritterand Ørsted, I think Olesko (1980, 89–90) went too far in claiming that “Nothing ‘new’ could really issue from the experiments of the Naturphilosophen, for what was ‘new’ was merely the uncovering of what had already existed, if only in belief. Discovery and the related idea of progress was therefore lacking in their framework for experimentation.”.

Pohl 1822, col. 409.

Shanahan 1989, 289.

Shanahan 1989, 296.

Shanahan 1989, 297, 296, respectively.

For the influence of Kant and Schelling both on Weiss's early work (e.g., Weiss 1801) and on his better-known work in crystallography, see the brief sketch in Fischer 1963, 142–3. At least one letter from Weiss to Arnim (of 10 August 1801) has been noted (Schuster 1922, 90).

Burke 1966, 153, 157; cf. Scholz 1989. According to Burke , “many of the modern aspects of the science of crystallography were presented for the first time” in Weiss 1815 (157).

On Weiss's career and works see Martius 1857.

Burke 1966, 151.

Fischer 1962, 249–50; Holser 1976, 239; Wiederkehr 1988, 64–65. Of Weiss's 1801 dissertation, Wiederkehr wrote: “Following Kant and Schelling, the state of solidity vis-à-vis fluidity is interpreted here in terms of the presence of particular forces” (65).

Wiederkehr 1988, 65. Groth (1926, 19, 63) and Wiederkehr (1988, 63–64) mention Weiss's correspondence with Oken in the Darmstaedter collection in Berlin.

Schuster 1922, 92–95; Weiss C. E. in Websky 1880, pp. xi–xii. Gilbert (1805, 420) put down Weiss's additions to his translation of Haüy's mineralogy as “naturphilosophistische Träumereien”.

Groth 1926, 60; Burke 1966, 152–3; Snelders 1973, 44–48; Kaiser 1987, 83, 87; Wiederkehr 1988, 63–64, 72–73; Scholz 1989, 112–13. Upon their meeting in 1806 in Munich, Schelling told Weiss of his enthusiastic approval of Weiss's crystallographic work, in particular of Weiss 1804a (Schuster 1922, 91). In (for him) typical fashion, Snelders (1973, 48) expressed considerable ambivalence over how to classify Weiss: “Although the influence of Naturphilosophie is clearly demonstrable in Weiss's work, he certainly did not feel himself to be a follower of it. On the contrary, he always reaches back to Kant, although he asserts that not everything can be explained with the Kantian Grundkräfte.” The fatal weakness of Snelders's “although” style of historiography — Such constructions pepper his account of virtually all the major figures in this study — Is its preoccupation with identifying people as this or that — In the context, moreover, of a good-guy, bad-guy characterization of the choices — Instead of seeing people's work as a creative reworking of a variety of sources.

Weiss 1804a, 365–6. Chenevix Richard (1774–1830), self-appointed scourge of all things naturphilosophisch, published an account of Weiss's essay in French. Subsequently translated by Gilbert into German, Chenevix's paraphrase remained close to Weiss's meaning as it took broad liberties with his wording. Here, cf. Chenevix 1804, 309 = 1805, 457. See also Burke 1966, 152; Snelders 1973, 183 (citing from another work of Weiss's of 1805); Kaiser 1987, 83 (quoting in translation from Weiss 1804a, 335); and Fischer 1962, 251 (an account of two Latin addresses of Weiss's on crystal structure from 1809 which assume the same basic construction out of opposing polar forces (as in Weiss 1809a, 1)). Weiss 1804b and 1804c are probably also relevant (Snelders 1973, 57).

Weiss 1804a, 367–9; cf. Chenevix 1804, 308–9 = 1805, 456–7. “Material substance”, “matter” and “substances” render Materie(n). Weiss went on to cite Winterl in this connection (370). Cf. Burke 1966, 152; Snelders 1973, 45–46; Kaiser 1987, 83 (quoting in translation from Weiss 1804a, 367). For Gegensätze see also Weiss 1817, 307, as quoted in Marx 1825, 231.

Weiss 1804a, 371, quoted in Wiederkehr 1988, 73; Groth 1926, 60.

Kaiser 1987, 83; Burke 1966, 153; cf. Weiss 1804a, 389.

Weiss 1817, 307; quoted (with unmarked changes and omissions) in Marx 1825, 231.

Websky 1880, p. v.

The Darmstaedter collection in Berlin contains (or contained) ninety-nine letters of Weiss's dating from 1795 to 1820 ( Schuster 1922, 88).

Nielsen 1989, 107–9, 120–1.

Nielsen 1989, 134, 135–6 (quote); cf. 131.

Nielsen 1989, 109–14, 119.

Nielsen 1991, 396. He identified Ritter, Ørsted, Weiss, Goethe, and Seebeck as struggling to find a “third way” between inductive empiricism and an abstract mathematical approach.

Nielsen 1989, 126, quoting from a letter of 13 March 1808 from Seebeck to Hegel; cf. 109: “Seebeck came into contact with Schelling's ultimate bid for a reconciliation of experimental physics with philosophy — His speculative physics. But he rejected it, just as most of the people that Seebeck was in close contact with, Goethe, Hegel, Ritter, and Weiss, rejected it. Still, all of them were greatly influenced by the idealistic philosophy and shared many of the notions common to the different versions of romantic Naturphilososphie.”.

Nielsen 1989, 135, citing Seebeck 1829.

Seebeck 1829, 22–23: Ich habe schon aber einzelner Partien derselben erwähnt und sie für unzulässig erklärt, womit ich bereits angedeutet habe, daß ich das Grundprinzip, aus dem ein großer Theil derselben erwachsen ist, für verwerflich halte, und über das letztere finde ich es nöthig, mich noch bestimmter zu erklären. — HE. Pohl hat Goethe's Idee von der Metamorphose in der organischen Natur auf die unorganische angewandt, und zwar in dem Sinn einer Veredlungsmetamorphose. (Proz. d. galv. Kette. S. 249 u.f.) Die unorganischen Körper sollen, nach HE. Pohls Meinung, durch den chemischen Prozeß veredelt, höher ausgebildet werden. Diese Vorstellung ist gänzlich unstatthaft, und wird noch verkehrter durch die jenen Körpern zugeschriebenen Tendenzen und Widerstrebungen, die selbst als Bilder, eben so wie alle aus der Physiologie entlehnten Kunstausdrücke verwerflich sind, da sie der [/] Natur nicht angemessen und in dem Gebiete des Chemismus, von dem hier die Rede ist, durchaus nicht anwendbar sind. Diese Art von Physik, welche man die alchymistische zu nennen hätte, halte ich für eben so verderblich als die rohe mechanisch-atomistische Physik, und ich könnte es nur beklagen, wenn den fanatischen Priestern der einen oder der andern dieser Lehren besondere Kanzeln errichtet würden.

Nielsen 1989, 129, 144, 129. He also stressed Seebeck's acceptance of the centrality of Goethe's notion of the empirically exhibitable Urphänomen (142–3); for both men the notion of “invisible light” was a contradiction in terms (148).

Seebeck 1810, 28, as translated in Nielsen 1989, 145.

Seebeck, letter of 29 January 1811 to Goethe, as quoted in translation from manuscript in Nielsen 1989, 158.

Nielsen 1989, 158.

Cf. Seebeck's work on entoptic figures in crystals, which is reminiscent not only of Schelling (as Nielsen remarked) but also of Weiss's crystallography of opposing forces (Nielsen 1991, 334).

Nielsen 1991, 363–91.

Quoted in Nielsen 1991, 368, 385–6. An enthusiastic, if insufficiently nuanced, case for the influence of Naturphilosophie on Seebeck's thermoelectric work is presented in Kostoula 1994.

In his summary memoir reporting his discovery — “Magnetic polarization of metals and ores by means of a difference in temperature” — Seebeck used the radical lack of correspondence between the sequences of metals in his (thermo)magnetic and the traditional (galvano)electrical series as proof of the dissimilar nature of magnetism and electricity and to disprove Ampère's electrodynamic explanation of magnetism (Caneva 1974, 126; Nielsen 1991, 382–3, both quoting Seebeck 1825, 292–3).

Nielsen 1991, 388; a note to the first sentence assigns to Williams (1966, 46–48) the suggestion that the notion of “convertibility of forces” is a central theme of Naturphilosophie.

Nielsen 1989, 130–1; 1991, 388–90; cf. Caneva 1974, 23–131.

Nielsen 1991, 390.

Pohl 1843, 96.

Pohl , 1843, 97–98 (quote on 98); quoted in German in Caneva 1974, 170–1, n. 109.

Engelhardt 1990, 56. Pohl (1843, 96) reported without elaboration that after moving to Berlin in 1820 as professor of mathematics and physics at the Friedrich-Wilhelms-Gymnasium he heard lectures with Hegel in philosophy and Weiss in mineralogy.

Ostwald (1896, 471–79) especially treats Pohl's theory of the pile; see also Snelders 1973, 174–6; Caneva 1974, 74–80, 151–7.

Ostwald 1986, 471–3. In reproducing one and a half pages from the preface to Pohl's Process, Ostwald quoted Pohl's conviction that “the relation between liquid and metal is alone the real soul [eigentliche Seele] of the activity, whereas the contact electricity of the different metals forms only the stimulant for the animation [Belebung] of this activity” (474).

Pohl 1821, 180–1, 191–2. It is terminologically noteworthy that Pohl never spoke here of Kräfte. See Caneva 1993, 297–9 for further examples of Pohl's preference for terms like “activity”, “efficiency” and “primitive active polarity” instead of “force” as a designation for magnetism, electricity, and chemism.

Pohl 1822, col. 390.

Pohl 1822, col. 391. After discussing the operation of a simple galvanic cell he noted: “Let me be allowed further only the observation that, just as the mechanical acivity of the lever or pendulum served as a guiding pattern [leitendes Vorbild] for the chemical action of the voltaic circuit, so again can the latter afford a fruitful schema for organic functions, from which physiology is capable of deriving a great deal” (col. 395). In this and his previous paper Pohl explicitly placed himself in Ritter's intellectual tradition (1821, 181; 1822, cols. 402, 409).

Pohl 1829, 102.

Pohl 1841, 519.

Pohl 1846, 3. The present account draws heavily from Caneva 1974, 154–7. Pohl 1822 (cols. 399–400) had already identified a schematic correspondence between electromagnetic rotations and gravitational systems.

Pohl 1846, 5–7, 23 and 10, respectively.

Pohl 1846, 57–58. For a contemporary critique, see Reuschle 1846. Cf. Ritter's “Siderismus”, which interpreted the motions of pendula and Balanciers on analogy with the motions of the heavenly bodies (Wetzels 1973, 51, 116–17; Nielsen 1989, 132; Strickland 1992, 169–71), and Weiss's comparison between polarization and the rotation of the heavenly bodies, a view he said Seebeck also shared (letter of c. March/May 1829 to Ørsted — Recalling ideas he had in 1815 — In Harding, 1920, vol. i, 301).

Caneva 1974, 6, 364–413.

Lewis (1981b, 252) noted that, in Caneva 1974, “Grassmann's terminology in his physics publications is convincingly viewed as fitting in the manner of the Naturphilosophie although no evidence has been found that Grassmann saw himself in this tradition”. Cf. Stichweh 1984, 316.

Lewis 1977, 109–10; Caneva 1974, 396–7.

Lewis 1977, 112, 121 (without giving the German word); cf. Schleiermacher 1839, passim.

Lewis 1977, 121 = 1981b, 249.

i. Grassmann G. 1827, as quoted in Engel 1911, 5–6 and from there in Caneva 1974, 396–7.

Grassmann J. G. 1824, 194–5, as quoted in Lewis 1981a, 259.

On Neumann as Weiss's student, see Marx 1825, 241–2.

Grassmann H. G. 1839, 115.

For further evidence of Grassmann's enduring interest in the interconnections among different classes of phenomena — Electricity and chemism; magnetism and gravitation; heat, light, electricity, magnetism, and chemism; etc. — See the titles of lectures he delivered between 1838 and 1850, as cited in Caneva 1974, 399; some are reprinted in Balsam 1868.

See the discussion in Caneva 1974, 404–12.

Lewis (1977, 122; cf. 147, 160) identified Stufe (translated as “step”) as one of the key concepts in the Ausdehnungslehre, one whose meaning was, he thought, “unique” to Grassmann. Lewis appears not to have recognized the importance of Grassmann's crystallographic background, nor the naturphilosophisch connections of the word Stufe.

Caneva 1974, 383, 366–7, respectively; on Fechner see also Hartung 1912, 14; Heidelberger 1993, 13–15, 18, 32–39, 43–44, 150–1; Hennemann 1959a, 9; Lenning 1993, 206–12, 218; Snelders 1973, 152–3.

See also Fischer 1962, 253–4; Stichweh 1984, 226.

On these aspects of the work of Neumann, Fechner, and Weber, see Caneva 1974, 383–94, 365–74, 374–82, respectively. See there for references to their scientific work.

Neumann L. 1904, 82, as quoted in German in Caneva 1974, 383.

Schubert 1808, 23, quoted from Neumann's diary in Neumann L. 1904, 83; partially quoted in German in Caneva 1974, 383, and in full in English in Olesko 1980, 90–91.

Schubert 1808, 7, 12, 14, 16, 19–20, 21, 22, 53, 61, 63, 203; cf. Olesko 1980, 83–91.

Schubert 1808, 14, 19, 102–6, 137, 153; quote on 61.

Olesko 1980, 71–72, 73, 91; cf. 75–80, 83, 118–19, 177, 190, and especially 117: “it was primarily Naturphilosophie which set the initial direction of Neumann's program and the character of his research values.” Her second chapter is entitled “From Naturphilosophie to Naturwissenschaft” (70–117).

Olesko 1980, 92, 110–11, 117–19, 128, 184–6, 192–4, 242, 246, 399–412, 438, 446–8, 452, 456–7, 498; quote on 111, 176, 224, 244; cf. 195: “Effecting a reorientation toward mechanics which would establish a closer connection with what was observable and which would, in a sense, ‘physicalize’ mechanics, was one of the most profound conceptual and methodological changes in German physics during the first half of the nineteenth century.” Neumann retained important elements of this approach even as his later work became more abstractly mathematical: “Because it dealt explicitly with appearances alone and skirted the issue of the underlying nature of things, the potential, used by Neumann to obtain a generalized expression for induction, was the single most important innovation that modified the mechanical approach in the study of certain physical phenomena” (Olesko 1980, 204; on Neumann's use of the potential see Caneva 1974, 258–9, 392–4).

Caneva 1974, 6, 364, 376, 383–94, 538; cf. Olesko 1980, 73 for a single suggestion in this direction. In those places where she discussed Neumann's desire to unify diverse classes of phenomena she made no connection with Naturphilosophie (69, 259–60). She criticized my suggestion that Neumann's use of the concepts of mechanics in the domains of light and electrodynamics might have been facilitated by an originally Romantic belief in the essential interconnectedness of all natural phenomena (Caneva 1974, 384; Olesko 1980, 238–9).

Olesko 1980, 95–107; cf. Caneva 1974, 384–5. Note that neither work examined Weiss's scientific publications. Olesko (1980, 104–5, 114–15) cited from letters from Weiss to Neumann and from a letter from Neumann to Weiss in the Niedersächsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek and the Preussische Staatsbibliothek (Darmstaedter collection).

Olesko 1980, 95. Schubert (1808, 202–3) invoked Kepler in arguing for “correspondences” between the laws of crystallization and those of the planetary system.

Olesko 1980, 93; cf. 107, 176–7. However, Olesko never referenced Neumann's alleged use of microcosm-macrocosm terminology, and I am not aware that he ever invoked it. She devoted a section to “Approaching physics through the study of minerals and crystals” (176–93).

Olesko 1980, 106; cf. 185–6.

Olesko 1980, 108–10, 187 (quote). Of Neumann's Beiträge Mitscherlich Eilhard (1794–1863) wrote in a Gutachten of 1825: “The poetic-metaphysical language that one encounters now and again [hin und wieder], as well as his whole method of presentation, might arouse a few doubts about his scientific education” (quoted in Biermann 1960, 100).

Olesko 1991, 33.

In addition to sources cited elsewhere, see Hermann , in Ritter 1968, 44; Hermann 1987, 57; Knight 1967, 196; 1990, 20; Krafft 1982, 84, 100; Nielsen 1991, 395; Snelders 1970b, 214; 1973, 1, 208; Wiederkehr 1988, 66. Such claims are typically based on no real evidence and little by way of argument.

Kuhn 1959, 338.

Kuhn 1959, 338–9, 339. Snelders (1973, 208–9) implicitly accepted Kuhn's account. The fourth and fifth Germans were Carl Friedrich Mohr (1806–79) and Karl Holtzmann (1811–65).

Kuhn 1959, 338. Olesko (1980, 82) likewise had only weak and limited evidence for her claim that “exposure to Naturphilosophie was an integral part of one's university education in Germany between 1810 and 1830”.

Caneva 1993, 217, 218, 299–304 (on Naturphilosophie and the vital force); 116, 182, 218–19, 276, 277, 321, 352 (on Liebig and the conservation of energy).

Gower 1973, 349.

Dahl 1963, 176; 1972, p. xix; Colding 1856, 157–8, translated in Dahl 1972, 119–20.

Colding 1856, 137, 155, 158; translated in Dahl 1972, 105–6, 118, 120. Cf. Dahl 1963, 183; 1972, pp. xxxii–xxxiii; 1978, 85, at the last of which he wrote: “Oersted's personal influence on Coldings's religiophilosophical development is clear and was repeatedly acknowledged by Colding himself. Moreover, his preoccupation with a fundamental underlying harmony or unity in the material world was a recurrent and dominant contemporary philosophical view, voiced especially in Naturphilosophie, of which Oersted was a firm adherent.”.

Colding 1856, 156–7 (quote on 156); translation adapted from Dahl 1972, 119.

Colding 1856, 158; translation adapted from Dahl 1972, 120.

Caneva 1993, 150–2; cf. also 79–142.

Caneva 1993, 248–9, 268–71.

Cf. Colding 1856, 160–1: “[E]verything in nature is directed toward a union, toward a leveling of everything that conflicts and opposes [Udjevning af alt det Stridende og Modsatte], and a perfectly harmonious balance…. [I]t is owing to this conflict among opposites [Kamp imellem Modsætningerne] that nature evolves, and only because of it is the spiritual life, which is the goal of nature, able to make progress” (translation adapted from Dahl 1972, 121–2).

Dahl 1963, 176; 1972, pp. xviii–xxi. I am preparing a separate study of Colding's work and his relationship to Ørsted.

Meyer 1920b, pp. lxxv–lxxvii; Dahl 1963, 180–1; 1972, 15–16.

Caneva 1993, p. xxii; chapter 7 is entitled “Mayer and Naturphilosophie” (275–319). In recounting the history of those who argued for such a connection (275–6), I neglected to record Mason's brief but probably influential account in a widely known book (Mason 1953, 398 = 1962, 491). See also Bryk 1909, pp. xxv–xxvi, 91, 603.

Williams 1962, 7. Kuhn (1959, 338, 353–4, n. 83) had made a tentative suggestion in the same direction. Omitting Faraday, so had Mason (1953, 370 = 1962, 457).

Williams 1965, 62–67 (quote on 63); cf. Williams 1967, 1337–8.

Williams 1966, 67–69. I ignore here Williams's attempt to tie Faraday to Boscovichean point atomism as well, though his arguments somewhat run together in his account of the genesis of Faraday's field concept.

Williams 1971, 530; the Faraday quote is from 1845.

Hermann 1967, 344–6; 1969a, 469–70, 475–6; 1969b, 106–7, 109–10. Especially in his later writings, Hermann (1987, 60) tended more toward the identification of Faraday as a “dynamist”. Hennemann (1959a, 9) expressed a pre-Williams belief in such a connection.

Gower 1973, 324–5.

Krafft 1982, 82; Lawrence 1990, 213–14, 222–3; Knight 1990.

Kaiser 1987, 182.

Knight 1967, 181–4, 196 (last two quotes).

Knight 1970, 54–55 (quote on 55).

Knight 1970, 55, 61.

Knight 1975, 170, 171 (quote).

Knight 1990, 20, 21–22. In his recent biography, Knight's Davy is for the most part free of Germanic influences, yet some of the old ambivalence remains: On the same page Davy is presented as a follower of Newton's and not Schelling's conception of natural powers, yet “Coleridge was aware of German idealistic thinking generally and probably passed on some idea of Schelling's Naturphilosophie to Davy in Bristol, where it may have formed part of Davy's mental background” ( Knight 1992, 58).

Levere 1968, 95–97 (quote on 95–96).

Levere 1968, 96. Levere's later citations of this passage — Where it is dated to around 1808 — Omit the brackets around Ritter's name and put a comma after “country” (1971, 33; 1981, 2).

Levere 1971, 33.

Levere 1968, 100.

Levere 1971, 24–30, 34, 45, 75–76 (quote on 25). Nevertheless, in a later work, after distancing Davy from Coleridge's brand of idealistic philosophy, Levere (1980, 41, 47) referred to Davy as “tinged ever so lightly with second-hand German metaphysics”.

One of my scholarly pet peeves is frustratingly common in this literature: Either the absence of cited evidence to support specific claims or unelaborated references to (say) a page and volume of someone's collected works (or letters or manuscript notes or whatever) — That is, without mention of where the citation was from or of the year and place of publication (or composition), as if that made no difference to the argument.

Levere 1977, 354–7, 362–8; 1981, 6–7, 36–38; Sysak 1993, 72–73. On Coleridge's knowledge of Schelling see Orsini 1969, 232–3; Levere 1977, 360; 1981, 69–81. The excellent account of Naturphilosophie in Levere 1981 is based on a broad and deep familiarity with the primary sources.

Lefebure 1990, 83–84, 97, 101; Levere 1977, 357–8, 361; 1981, 20–35.

Griggs 1956–71, passim. Of Coleridge's and Davy's correspondence Williams (1965, 67) wrote: “There is, unfortunately, very little recorded in their letters about the topics which they discussed but it does not seem to strain historical probability too much to believe that a good part of the time was spent on metaphysics and its relationship to chemistry…. Of one thing we can be certain and that is that Davy received as much as he gave.” The absence of evidence cannot be so easily papered over.

Williams 1965, 39.

His edition of Faraday's selected correspondence (Williams 1971a) contains nothing on Coleridge, nothing on Davy relevant to a Naturphilosophie connection, and no index entries under Kant, Schelling, or Naturphilosophie. The recent first volume of Faraday's complete correspondence (through 1831) contains two letters to Davy, from 1821 and 1823, both on matters of business (James 1991, nos. 149 and 202). There is nothing relevant to the Williams thesis.

Williams (1966, pp. ix–x, 32–63) has tried to find a place for Kant , Naturphilosophie, and Ørsted in the creation of the field concept. As far as Faraday in concerned, the only hope I see for establishing such a connection would be in terms of his reading of Ørsted. In a later work Williams (1971b, 527; cf. 1967, 1338–9) wrote that “The origins of field theory are to be found in Faraday's detailed experimental researches on electricity, but the speculations and imaginings which led him to the experiments and the courage which permitted him to publish physical heresies owe something to his unquestioning belief in the unity and interconnections of all phenomena. This belief, in turn, derived from his faith in God as both creator and sustainer of the universe.” More recent work of Geoffrey Cantor, David Gooding, and Ryan Tweney supports this dual emphasis on experiment and religion to the exclusion of any reliance on Coleridge, Kant, or Naturphilosophie. Wiederkehr (1988, 76–77) accepted Williams's tracing of the roots of the field concept to Kant and Naturphilosophie as transmitted by Ørsted; in a rather undeveloped argument he further urged Weiss's role in contributing to the formulation of an early field concept (80–81).

Darmstaedter 1931; Rehm 1971, 34–41; Snelders 1970b, 206–7; 1973, 100–1. Although I often disagree with his interpretations, Snelders's dissertation (1973) contains a rich lode of valuable and little-known information.

Kaiser 1987, 81; Krafft 1982, 86; Snelders 1970b, 207–8; 1973, 85–88; Wasmuth , 1951; Wetzels 1971, 49–50.

Caneva 1974, 127–8, 188, 190; Kaiser 1987, 84; Martius 1858; Snelders 1971; 1973, 101–4.

Snelders 1973, 138; Wagner 1802.