German Physics Textbooks in the Goethezeit,Part 2

Cf. Stichweh , op. cit. (ref. 5). chap. 5.

Ibid., chap. 4, traces electrical theory in the Germanies; on electricity and magnetism up to Aepinus, see Home's R. W. “Introductory monograph”, in Home R. W. Connor P. J. (eds & transl.), Aepinus's Essay on the theory of electricity and magnetism (Princeton, 1979), 3–224. Heilbron , Elements (ref. 3), 79–89, traces quantification.

On the earlier textbook tradition in the Germanies, see Lind , op. cit. (ref. 5), chaps. 1–5.

I don't mean to imply that Coulomb was seen as such in the Germanies, at least before 1800; “Coulomb” and “Mesmer” will serve below as foils for an opposition meaningful to modern readers. Coulomb's practices as a ‘precision’ mathematical physicist in a modern sense have themselves been cast into doubt by Heering Peter , “The replication of the torsion balance experiment: The inverse square law and its refutation by early 19^th century German physicists”, in Blondel Christine Dörries Matthias (eds), Restaging Coulomb: Usages, controverses et réplications autour de la balance de torsion (Instituto e Museo di Storia della Scienza, 15; Florence, 1994), 47–66. Kuhn , The essential tension (ref. 8), chap. 8, is also interesting in this regard.

See Aepinus Franz U. T. , Sermo academicus de similitudine vis electricae atque magneticae (St Petersburg, 1758); and idem, Tentamen theoriae electricitatis et magnetismi (St Petersburg, 1759), transl. in Home Connor , op. cit. (ref. 18), 227–478. Aepinus's works present an analogy between magnetism and electricity. Though Aepinus is one of the early quantifiers, his analogy tells us only to look for similar causes in electricity or magnetism when we discover some cause in the other: Both are fluids, and the Aepinian analogy posits them as behaving alike.

On Newtonians and Boscovich, see Lind , op. cit. (ref. 5), chaps. 4.4 and 6.1.

See Boscovich Roger Joseph S.J., A theory of natural philosophy , transl. by Child J. M. (Cambridge, Mass., 1966) of the 1763 edn of Philosophia naturalis theoria redacta ad unicam legem virium in natura existentiam (Vienna, 1758).

Gabler Matthias , Theoria magneti (Ingolstadt, 1781), 10, 13–14, 21–23, 61–62, 79, 83.

On the earlier period, see Lind , op. cit. (ref. 5).

Kästner Abraham G. , Die mathematischen Anfangsgründe, multiple vols in 4 parts (Göttingen, 1758–66¹); the vols went through different editions, the last in 1801. Karsten Wenceslaus J. G. , Lehrbegriff der gesamten Mathematik (7 vols, Greifswald, 1767–77); idem, Anfangsgründe der mathematischen Wissenschaften (3 vols, Greifswald, 1780).

See Gilles Bernhard , Johann Ch. P. Erxlebens “Anfangsgründe der Naturlehre” als Spiegelbild der physikalischen Wissenschaft im letzten Viertel des 18. Jahrhunderts , Diss. rer. nat. (Mainz, 1978); and Herrmann Dieter , “Georg Christoph Lichtenberg als Herausgeber von Erxlebens Werk ‘Anfangsgründe der Naturlehre’”, NTM, Schriftenreihe für Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften, Technik und Medizin , vi/1–2 (1969), 68–81, 1–12. The others are Erxleben Johann P. C. , Anfangsgründe der Naturgeschichte , 3rd and 4th edns by Gmelin Johann F. (Göttingen, 1768¹, 1773², 1782³, 1791⁴; Vienna, 1787³); idem, Anfangsgründe der Chemie, 2nd and 3rd edns by Wiegleb Johann C. , edn of 1785 by von Wasserberg Franz X. A. (Göttingen, 1775¹, 1784², 1793³; Vienna, 1785²).

Kästner Abraham G. , Vermischte Schriften (2 vols, Altenburg, 1783³), ii, 358–64.

See Göttingische Anzeigen von gelehrten Sachen , lxxii, issue of 16 June 1760, 633–6; also Mayer Tobias , The unpublished writings of Tobias Mayer , ed. and transl. by Forbes Eric G. (Göttingen, 1972), iii, esp. § 23. Erxleben, in “Nachricht von dem in Wien vorgenommen Heilungen einiger Krankheiten durch den Magnet”, Philosophische Bibliothek, ii (1775), 478–82, is prepared to entertain the possibility of Mesmer's claims, whereas Sulzer H. J. , “Nachricht [über] das Gutachten einiger Mitglieder der Köngl. Academie der Wißensch. [in Berlin] über den Inhalt des Schreibens über die Magneteneur vom Herrn D. Mesmer in Wien”, Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek, xxvi (1775), 190–2, reports that the Prussian Academy of Sciences was very sceptical about them. From the horse's mouth, see Mesmer Anton , Mémoire de Mr. Mesmer sur la découverte du magnétisme animal (Paris, 1779).

On the ‘French’ chemistry, see Hufbauer , op. cit. (ref. 5), chap. 7. Outside the textbooks, chemistry had already become important to physics by about 1770. On the arrival of chemistry, see Stichweh , op. cit. (ref. 5), chap. 2, esp. pp. 99–116; see also Lind , op. cit. (ref. 5), chap. 5.4, and on Kant, chap. 6.2.

Karsten Wenceslaus J. G. , Physisch-chymische Abhandlungen (2 vols, Halle, 1786–87), i, 97–199; ii, 1–148.

In the subsequent analysis here, I shall omit Hamberger (1784), Merrem (1786; 1793), Ebert (1789), Daetzel (1790), and Schrader (1797), since these remain traditional or can be placed in the orbit of other texts, though Schrader's text has the illustrations on the page, unusual. I shall also omit Adams (1798–99), as it inhabits a universe (Britain) rather different from the German in structure. Swinden (1786) also falls from consideration since special physics falls from his book. I was unable to see Hamberger (1780), Suckow (1782²), Ambschel (1791–93), and Link (1798).

I have omitted the very chemically oriented text of Bourguet 1798, where the magnet is still treated more or less as a mineral.

In his section on magnetism, Achard also does not cite Prevost P. , De l'origine des forces magnétiques (Paris/Geneva, 1788), which would have been a good place then to have obtained a pro-Coulomb view. Mesmer's “animal magentism”, and especially his work of 1779, op. cit. (ref. 29), with a German translation in 1781, set off a second phase of the question on the analogy between electricity and magnetism. The 1780 prize question of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences posed the question on the analogy between magnetism and electricity in light of Mesmer.

On the problems with Coulomb's results, in any case, see the papers in Blondel Dörries , op. cit. (ref. 20).

Also see Crawford Adair , Experiments and observations on animal heat and the inflammation of combustible bodies (1779) (London, 1788²), 435–9. On Lichtenberg and electricity, see Heilbron Elements (ref. 3), 212.

On Lichtenberg, see Georg Christoph Lichtenberg 1742–1799: Wagnis der Aufklärung, Ausstellung … Darmstadt … Göttingen (Munich, 1992); Baasner Rainer , Lichtenberg: Das groβe Ganze (Paderborn, 1992); and Heißenbüttel Helmut , Aufklärung über Lichtenberg (Göttingen, 1974).

On the above, see Lichtenberg Georg Christoph , Physikalische und Mathematische Schriften [= vols vi–ix of Vermischte Schriften], ed. by Lichtenberg L. C. Kries F. (4 vols, Göttingen, 1803–6), iv, 92–94, 142–6, 383, 391; idem, Briefwechsel, ed. by Joost Ulrich Schöne Albrecht (4 vols, Munich, 1983–92), ii, 931; iii, 30–37.

Also Lichtenberg , Briefwechsel (ref. 38), ii, 862–3; iii, 1042–4; idem, Physikalische (ref. 38), iv, 134.

Idem, Physikalische (ref. 38), iv, 365–91. Werner Georg F. , Entwurf einer neuen Theorie der anziehenden Kräfte des Ethers, der Wärme und des Lichts (Frankfurt/Leipzig, 1788) emerged in opposition to Crawford's theory of heat. Favouring hypotheses, Werner (ibid., 26–50) posits a self-attractive force in most matter, and also an aether, inelastic, all penetrating, attractive to all other matter, which fufils the role of the Boscovich-Kant force of repulsion. Werner's treatise is a bridge between Euler's aether physics and the Boscovich-Kant construction of matter.

Lichtenberg , Physikalische (ref. 38), i, 174.

The essays are in German in ibid. , iv, 51–126; and, in idem, Über eine neue Methode, die Natur und Bewegung der elektrischen Materie zu erforschen (Leipzig, 1956); on making visible and sensible, idem, Briefwechsel (ref. 38), ii, 925–7, 966–71; iv, 43–44.

Idem, Physikalische (ref. 38), iv, 55–58, 84–85, 92–96.

The indifference point is described in Brugmans Anton , Tentamen philosophica de materia magnetica (Franeker, 1765), transl. by Eschenbach C. G. as Philosophische Versuche über die magnetische Materie (Leipzig, 1784), 62–66, and the culmination point added to the German text, 81–82. Lichtenberg credits Brugmans with turning the tide against vortex theories; moreover, the change from a mechanics to a chemistry of fluids for magnetism stands out more clearly in Brugmans , Magnetismus seu de affenitatibus magneticis observantes academiae (1778), transl. by Eschenbach C. G. , Beobachtungen über die Verwandtschaften des Magnets (Leipzig, 1781). There, for instance, when he studies the relation of heat to magnets, he does not weigh the magnet while hot, but rather after having been heated then cooled: He is interested in possible chemical changes due to calcination. See idem, Magnetismus , 66. Cavallo Tiberius , A treatise on magnetism (London, 1787), 87–92, 132–3, gives the indifference and culmination points as well, and rejects the vortex theory; at 23–24, he also notes that experiment has not demonstrated an inverse square law.

Lichtenberg , Physikalische (ref. 38), iii, 265, and cf. 47–49. Lichtenberg might have approved of Ritter's complaint that the French chemistry made physics into a Wasserwissenschaft when it really should be a Feuerwissenschaft: See Ritter Johann W. , Die Physik als Kunst: Ein Versuch die Tendenz der Physik aus ihrer Geschichte zu deuten (Munich, 1806), 44–45.

Lichtenberg , Physikalische (ref. 38), iv, 201–2.

Id., Briefwechsel (ref. 38), iii, 377.

Id., Physikalische (ref. 38), iv, 136, 161–6.

Id., Briefwechsel (ref. 38), ii, 966–71.

Cf. Lichtenberg's review of Fischer's Physikalishes Wörterbuch in Georg Christoph Lichtenberg: Schriften und Briefe , ed. by Promies Wolfgang (4 vols, Munich, 1969–72), iii, 198–202. Eschenmayer Carl A. , Versuch die Geseze magnetischer Erscheinungen aus Säzen der Naturmetaphysik a priori zu entwicklen (Tübingen, 1798), based on Kant's dynamic view, already presented a rather naturphilosophisch construction of magnetism from attractive and repulsive forces, from which matter also derives.

Lichtenberg , Briefwechsel (ref. 38), iii, 70.

“Introduction to a coherent presentation of useful physical propositions, as preparation for a future science of nature.” Id., Physikalische (ref. 38), iv, 129, 133–4; in idem, Briefwechsel (ref. 38), iv, 1031, he said, “Erxleben may indeed be newly edited as often as it pleases; so it should be always said, Sine me liber ibit in Orbem“.

On German physics, Romanticism and Naturphilosophie, cf. Lind , op. cit. (ref. 5), chap. 6.3–6.4; and on Ritter Wetzels Walter D. , “Johann Wilhelm Ritter: Romantic physics in Germany”, in Cunningham Andrew Jardine Nicholas (eds), Romanticism and the sciences (Cambridge, 1990), 199–212. For this section, I was unable to see textbooks by Poppe and Wucherer. Fischer's edition of Gren makes the mathematics a bit more sophisticated, but does not alter the text in essentials. Gilbert's edition of Schrader (1804²) also simply introduces new content, but does speak in favour of Coulomb (ibid., 277–8). Trommsdorff's translation of Cavello (1804–6) introduces nothing extraordinary and seems to have had no measureable effect as a German text. Gamauf's notes from Lichtenberg's lectures were used above to help illuminate the period 1780–1800, and do not seem to have altered views, textbook or otherwise, of Lichtenberg or physics. Mayer Johann R. , Systematische Darstellung aller Erfahrungen in der Naturlehre (3 vols, Aarau, 1806–8), is rather an encyclopaedia than a textbook. Pfaff Christian H. , Aphorismen über Experimentalphysik (Copenhagen, 1800) was not a textbook in any normal sense.

von Yelin Julius Conrad , Über Magnetismus und Electricität als identische Urkräfte: Eine Rede gehalten in der öffentlichen Versammlung der königlichen Baierischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Munich, 1818), argued electricity and magnetism are manifestations of a fundamental Urkraft to which all other forces could be reduced.

A colleague of Siber's, Späth Johann L. , Über den natürlichen Magnetismus unserer Erde (Nuremberg, 1822), formulated a mechanical vortex theory of celestial-mineral magnetism, which he mixed with chemical properties, perhaps drawn from Naturphilosophie. Steffens Henrik , Beyträge zur innern Naturgeschichte der Erde (Freyberg, 1801) shows how quickly, under the banner of Naturphilosophie, magnetism may be resolved into a chemical and natural historical issue: See ibid. , 103–4, 108–12, 130–1, 154–5, 239, 256, 269–70; cf. also idem, Grundzüge zur philosophischen Naturwissenschaft (Berlin, 1807), 41–42, 91; and idem, Polemische Blätter für Beförderung der speculativen Physik (Breslau, 1829), 66–67, 88–91.

Cf. Gregory Frederick , “Theology and the sciences in the German Romantic period”, in Cunningham Jardine (eds), op. cit. (ref. 53), 69–81.

Parrot Georg F. , Coup d'oeuil sur le magnétisme animal (St Petersburg, 1816), esp. pp. 33–34, 52–57, pushes animal magnetism into the realm of the psychosomatic. He (ibid., 52–57) sees positing of the fluid as the chief physical issue and prefers attributing any physical phenomena to an electro-galvanic fluid. Pfaff Christian H. , Über und gegen den thierischen Magnetismus (Hamburg, 1817) is also doubtful about animal magnetism. He attributes continued interest in it to the dynamical philosophy, galvanism and the vogue of Ritter.

See Muncke Georg W. , System der atomischen Physik (Hanover, 1809).

Cf. the review of Mayer's textbook in Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung, 11 January 1802, Nr. 10, Sp. 73–78.

Cf. Lind , op. cit. (ref. 5), chap. 7.2. I was unable to see the textbooks by Hemprich, Hallaschka, Poppe and Spunar; Beudant-Hartmann (1830) presents no significant changes from German language textbooks.

On Fechner, see Heidelberger Michael , Die innere Seite der Natur. Gustav Theodor Fechners wissenschaftlich-philosophische Weltauffassung (Philosophische Studien, lx; Frankfurt a.M., 1993).

Eisenlohr's textbook was, admittedly, more successful, going through at least eleven editions, 1836–78. The first two editions of this text have some likeness to Baumgartner's texts, in that physics is declared a “mechanics” in which imponderables and an aether still exist.

Euler Leonhard , Lettres à une Princesse d'Allemagne (3 vols, Paris, 1768–72/74¹), in German as Briefe an eine deutsche Prinzessin … (3 vols, Leipzig/Riga/St Petersburg, 1769–73¹; repr. Brunswick, 1986), with no seeming translator. Earlier Euler began writing a physics textbook in German. Had he finished and published it, it would have been the most sophisticated one for a long time: See his Anleitung zur Naturlehre (c. 1744–50; 1st pub. 1862) in Opera omnia (Leipzig/Berlin/Geneva, 1926–), ser. 3, i, 16–178.

Placidus Heinrich , “Über die Preisfrage: Kommt das Newtonische oder Eulerische System vom Licht mit den neusten Versuche…”, in Neue philosophische Abhandlungen der baierischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, v (1789), 145–398, claimed Euler's aether physics can be saved only if it can integrate the new chemistry.

Cf. Kleinert , op. cit. (ref. 2) on Lichtenberg as the transitional figure. Stichweh , op. cit. (ref. 5), 116–72, seems to see the rise of imponderables, binding as they do physics and chemistry, as the central event of the period called in this essay the “Goethezeit”. The centrality of the imponderables he buys, however, at the price of deemphasizing Lichtenberg, Kant , Naturphilosophie, and the “Austrian” solution.

Mesmer's key treatise had been published in 1779, op. cit. (ref. 29). Essays by Swinden, Steiglehner and Hübner for the 1780 prize question were published by the Bavarian academy. The essays move at the level of counting up analogies for and against. Hübner Lorenz , Abhandlung über die Analogie des electrischen und magnetischen Kraft in Neue philosophische Abhandlungen der baierischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, ii (1780), 351–84, is open to looking for analogies, though he also exposits the disanalogies; in the end, he (ibid., 366–8, 381, 383) seems to be convinced of the analogy, allows the possibility of animal magnetism, and posits a vortex theory for magnetism. The most interesting part of Cölestin Steiglehner's Beantwortung der Preisfrage über die Analogie der Electricität und des Magnetismus in ibid. , 227–350, besides remarks on Mesmer, is his claim that magnetic matter, unlike electric, does not flow, at least not in terms of an emanation system, and he does not seem to envisage a vortex theory; Steiglehner presents a theory of magnetism by polarization, similar to Gabler's and Coulomb's (see ibid. , 279–80, 335–6, 346–50). van Swinden J. H. , Dissertatio de analogia electriciti et magnetismi in ibid. , 1–226, repr. with additions in idem, Recueil des mémoires sur l'analogie de l'electricité et du magnétisme (3 vols, The Hague, 1784), i, 1–506, finds more grounds against the analogy than for it: See ibid. , 13–15, 31–36, 51, 116, 175–7, 215–29, 328–9, 419–23, 504–6; ibid. , ii, 329–446, concerns Mesmer, about whose theories Swinden was dubious. Hemmer Johann J. , “[Über die] neue philosophische Abhandlungen der baierischen Akademie der Wissenschaften … 1780”, Rheinische Beiträge zur Gelehrsamkeit , i/4 (1781), 428–66, reviewing the essays, claimed as well that the magnetic fluid, unlike the electric, did not flow (ibid., 432, 438, 441–2).

Alone amongst physics textbook writers in his interest for Mesmerism, J. Weber was not all alone: cf. Voß J. H. , Der thierische Magnetismus als die höchste Naturkraft…. Ein Buch zur Vertilgung der Aberglaubens (Cologne, 1819), esp. 13–15, 22–23, 51–52, 128–9, 145. Physicians and life-scientists seem to have been the chief enthusiasts: cf. Kluge Carl A. F. , Versuch einer Darstellung des animalischen Magnestismus als Heilmittel (Berlin, 1815).

See Steffens , Polemische (ref. 55), 144. As a physico-physiological posit, the aether plays a crucial role in Kant's Opus postumum. The big role of the aether and W. Weber for later German mathematical physics is clear from Wise M. Norton , “German concepts of force, energy, and the electromagnetic ether, 1845–1880”, in Cantor G. N. Hodge M. J. S. (eds), Conceptions of the ether (Cambridge, 1981), 269–307; cf. also Stichweh , op. cit. (ref. 5), 203. Oersted's speech in the Versammlung deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte, 1830, in Isis, 1831, 853–57, moves speculative physics in a new direction: Oersted speaks of speculation in terms of “thought experiment”.

Lichtenberg , Briefwechsel (ref. 38), ii, 370, 431; iii, 84, 179–82.

Figures on Kant's enrolments are from Arnoldt Emil , Gesammelte Schriften (Berlin, 1909), v/2, 338–9. On Lichtenberg's enrolments, see Lichtenberg , Briefwechsel (ref. 38), iii, 219, 299; Gilles , op. cit. (ref. 27), 33, has a false date for the latter letter. Lichtenberg's assertion in December 1786 that he has often more than a hundred seems an exaggeration based only on his enrolments since April.

Despite shortcomings, the basic source here is still Eulenburg Franz , Die Frequenz der deutschen Universitäten von ihrer Gründung bis zur Gegenwart (Leipzig, 1904). Cf. Stichweh , op. cit. (ref. 5), 33, as well on matriculations.

On physics, mathematics and medicine, see Clark William , “The scientific revolution in the German nations”, in Porter Roy Teich Mikuláš (eds), The scientific revolution in national context (Cambridge, 1992), 90–114, p. 102; on these subjects in general, cf. Stichweh , op. cit. (ref. 5), esp. 318–34, 340–51. On German mathematical and physical sciences at individual universities, see, besides the other works cited (esp. in ref. 5 supra and ref. 76 infra), Günther Siegmund , “Die mathematische und Naturwissenschaften [sic] an der nürnbergischen Universität Altdorf”, Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg, iii (1881), 1–36; Jaenicke Walther , “Naturwissenschaften und Naturwissenschaftler in Erlangen 1743–1993”, in Kössler Henning (ed.), 250 Jahre Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg. Festschrift (Erlangen, 1993), 629–81; Zentgraf E. (ed.), Aus der Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften an der Universität Freiburg i. Br. (Beiträge zur Freiburger Wissenschafts- und Universitätsgeschichte, xviii; Freiburg i.Br., 1957); Lorey Wilhelm , “Die Physik an der Univesität Gießen im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert”, and “Die Physik an der Universität Gießen im 19. Jahrhundert”, Nachrichten der Gießener Hochschulgesellschaft, xiv (1940), 14–39, and xv (1941), 80–132; Schimank Hans , “Zur Geschichte der Physik an der Universität Göttingen vor Wilhelm Weber”, Rete , ii/3 (1974), 207–52; Kistner Adolf , “DieAnfänge der Experimentalphysik in Heidelberg”, Zeitschrift für Geschichte des Oberrheins, n.s. 1 (1937), 110–34; Nentwig Heinrich , Die Physik an der Universität Helmstedt, von 1700–1810 (Wolfenbüttel, 1891); Schaff Josef , Geschichte der Physik an der Universität Ingolstadt , Diss. Phil. (Erlangen, 1912); Huter Franz (ed.), Die Fächer Mathematik, Physik und Chemie an der philosophischen Fakultät zu Innsbruck… (Forschungen zur Innsbrucker Universitätsgeschichte, x; Innsbruck, 1971); Schmidt-Schönbeck Charlotte , 300 Jahre Physik und Astronomie an der Kieler Universität (Kiel, 1965); Jordan Karl (ed.), Geschichte der Mathematik, der Naturwissenschaften und der Landwirtschaftswissenschaften, as vol. vi in Geschichte der Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel, 1665–1965 (Kiel, 1968); Siebert Helmut , “Leben und Werk der Königsberger Mathematiker”, Jahrbuch der Albertus-Universität zu Königsberg, xvi (1966), 137–70; Wiener Otto , “Das physikalische und das theoretisch-physikalische Institut”, Festschrift zum 500 jährigen Jubiläum der Universität Leipzig (Leipzig, 1909), iv/2, 24–69; Schmitz Rudolf , Die Naturwissenschaften an der Philipps-Universität Marburg 1527–1977 (Marburg, 1978); Hackenberg Roslind , Die Entwicklung der Naturwissenschaften an der Universität Marburg von 1750 bis zur Westfälischen Zeit , Diss. Med. (Marburg, 1972); von Müller Karl Alexander (ed.), Die wissenschaftlichen Anstalten der L.-M. Universität zu München… (Munich, 1926); Uebele Hellfried , Mathematiker und Physiker aus der ersten Zeit der Münchener Universität…, Diss. Phil. (Munich, 1972); Del-Negro Walter , “Die Pflege der Naturwissenschaften an der alten Universität” in Festschrift: Universität Salzburg, 1622-1962-1972 (Salzburg, 1972), 109–19; Reindl Maria , Lehre und Forschung in Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften, insbesondere Astronomie, an der Universität Würzburg von der Gründung bis zum Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts (Quellen und Beiträge zur Geschichte der Universität Würzburg, Beiheft 1; Neustadt a.d. Aisch, 1966); Volk Otto , “Mathematik, Astronomie und Physik in der Vergangenheit der Universität Würzburg”, in Baumgart Peter (ed.), Vierhundert Jahre Universität Würzburg: Eine Festschrift (Quellen und Beiträge zur Geschichte der Universität Würzburg, vi; Neustadt a.d. Aisch, 1982), 751–85.

The source here is von Selle Götz (ed.), Die Matrikel der Georg-August-Universität zu Göttingen (2 vols, Hildesheim, 1937).

The source here is Toepke G. (eds), Die Matrikel der Universität Heidelberg (7 vols, Heidelberg, 1884–1916).

Sources here are Erler G. (ed.), Die Matrikel … der Albertus-Universität zu Königsberg (3 vols, Leipzig, 1908–17); Grundlich F. (ed.), Das Album der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, 1665–1865 (Kiel, 1915); Hofmeister A. Schäfer E. (eds), Die Matrikel der Universität Rostock (6 vols, Rostock, 1889–1922).

On Königsberg, see Olesko , Physics (ref. 5); and, in general, idem, “Physics instruction in Prussian secondary schools before 1859”, in idem, Science (ref. 5), 94–120. Olesko's work brings out the pedagogical moment in the ability of physics to develop from a genre to a profession. On the Bonn seminar, see Schubring Gerd , “The rise and decline of the Bonn Natural Sciences Seminar”, in Olesko , Science (ref. 5), 57–93. On teaching-research in chemistry, see Holmes Frederic L. , “The complementarity of teaching and research in Liebig's laboratory”, in Science (ref. 5), 121–64. The ability to attract and support majors in physics was made especially pressing, given the Kulturkampf between classical philology and the natural sciences during the Goethezeit: See Schöler Walter , Geschichte des naturwissenschaftlicen Unterrichts im 17. bis 19. Jahrhunderts (Berlin, 1970), esp. 93, 108f; and Oken in Isis , xxii/12 (1829), 1225–31. On later evolution of the career-structure in physics, see Stichweh , op. cit. (ref. 5), chap. 5.5–5.6. The seminar system in the arts and sciences faculty had arisen to support classical philology, and it is no accident that philology majors and doctoral dissertations tended to predominate in numbers. The eighteenth-century history of funding natural science cabinets is, with so much else, in Heilbron , Elements (ref. 3), 139–44. Similar specialization to that traced above in the Germanies emerged in London as well in the 1820s and 1830s: See Hays J. N. , “The London lecturing empire, 1800–50”, in Inkster Ian Morrell Jack (eds), Metropolis and province: Science in British culture, 1780–1850 (London, 1983).

There is a collection of dissertations in the Göttingen library under the call numbers: Academica Goettingensia, 4° H.L.P. iv, 26/5, 1770–1837, and 8° H.L.P. iv, 26/6, 1830–37. Collation of this collection of dissertations with the Promotionsurkunden and the “Zettel” file in the Göttingen university archive indicates that all but a few dissertations appear in the collection. A number of individuals, however, obtained the doctorate with no dissertation and, moreover, the number seems to have increased in the second half of our period in Göttingen. The statutes mandated a dissertation, but also had an escape clause: See Ebel Wilhelm (ed.), Die Privilegien und ältesten Statuten der Georg-August-Universität zu Göttingen (Göttingen, 1961), 187 (iv), 191 (ix).

The 1789 dissertation by Wilckens Henry D. was a piece on magnetic declination in Göttingen and a piece on electrical experiments. The 1821 work by Paulsen J. C. W. was a defence of the vibratory theory of heat. The astronomy dissertations were in 1793 by Wildt J. C. D. on the orbit of Saturn, and in 1822 by Lehmann J. W. H. on comets; the work on crystallography of 1821 was by Kupffer A. T. , The dissertations in the medical faculty were in 1787 by Kitz F. C. on electricity in medicine, and in 1789 by Ehmbsen C. F. , on specific ‘airs’ in medicine.

See Verzeichnis der Berliner Universitätsschriften, 1810–1885, ed. by the Königliche Universitätsbibliothek Berlin (Berlin, 1899); Milkau Fritz (ed.), Verzeichnis der Bonner Universitätsschriften, 1818–1885 (Bonn, 1897); Pretzsch Karl (ed.), Verzeichnis der Breslauer Universitätsschriften, 1811–1885 (Breslau, 1905).

Descriptions of meetings, including members and papers read, 1822–, with the sections, 1828–, are in Oken's journal, Isis: Anzeiger, 1821, 196–202; 1823, 553–9, 1336–46; 1825, 761–79, 1242–55; 1826, 264–6; 1827, 297–409; 1828, 417–596; 1829, 217–450; 1830, 449–776; 1831, 785–1160; 1833, 289–580; 1834, 545–760; 1836, 161–244, 641–810; 1837, 321–552; 1838, 473–620. After 1828, the Versammlung (Gesellschaft) deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte issued an Amtlicher Bericht on meetings. This Amtlicher Bericht, first issued under Humboldt's tenure as chairman, was itself part and parcel of the plan, along with the sectioning, to expropriate the society from Oken, his crowd and Isis. See Sachs Johann J. , Die Versammlung der deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte in Berlin i.J. 1828 kritisch beleuchtet (Leipzig, 1828), esp. 52–56, who argued for the sectioning. On the sectioning, see Lampe Hermann (ed.), Die Entwicklung und Differenzierung von Fachabteilungen auf den Versammlungen von 1828 bis 1913 (Schriftenreihe zur Geschichte der Versammlungen deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte; Hildesheim, 1975), ii, esp. 1–12; on Oken and the Versammlung, see Smit Pieter , “Lorenz Oken und die Vesammlungen deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte”, in Querner Hans Schipperges Heinrich (eds), Wege der Forschung 1822–1972 im Spiegel der Versammlungen Deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte (Berlin/New York, 1972), 101–24. Schipperges Heinrich , Weltbild und Wissenschaft: Eröffnungsreden zu den Naturforscherversammlungen 1822 bis 1972 (Schriftenreihe zur Geschichte der Versammlungen deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte; Hildesheim, 1976), iii, while also seeing Oken's vision as being distorted by Humboldt in 1828, has naturphilosophisch currents as still strong at the Versammlung up till 1854, at least in view of the tropes and rhetoric used about the unity of nature and science. With the death of Schelling occurring shortly before, the 1854 meeting in Göttingen has been taken as the symbolic turning point towards Materialismus and technology in German science. On this point, and others, see the articles by Degen Heinz in Naturwissenschaftliche Rundschau, vii (1954), 271–77, 358–67; viii (1955), 145–50, 180–9, 420–7, 472–80; ix (1956), 185–93, 333–40. Other tibits are in Pfannenstiel Max (ed.), Kleines Quellenbuch zur Geschichte der Gesellschaft Deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte (Berlin, 1958).

Lichtenberg , Briefwechsel (ref. 38), iii, 219, cf. also 206.

So the statutes of 1834, in Koch Johann F. W. (ed.), Die preussischen Universitäten: Eine Sammlung der Verordnungen (2 vols in 3 parts, Berlin, 1839–40), ii/2, 858, § 2.

Cf. Stichweh , op. cit. (ref. 5), 161, n. 205, on Fischer as the key text. I have a hard time as well with the moral of Heilbron's story, in Elements (ref. 3), 240. My textbook position is that, though supporters of a mathematical-mechanical approach existed all along in the Germanies, so too did those of a medical-chemical approach, and that the former did not take over Naturlehre, turning it into a physics that Poggendorff would acknowledge as such, until post-1820. Given the “comic” cast of my story, and its hero as Lichtenberg, it was not inevitable fate, and surely not “die Vernunft der Listen” (a phrase turned by David Sabean), that the sort of physics the blessed T. Mayer envisaged in the 1760s in Göttingen was resurrected triumphant with Gauß and W. Weber in the 1830s.