Between 1869 and 1871, D. I. Mendeleev, a teacher at the University at St Petersburg published a textbook of general chemistry intended for his students. The title, Principles of Chemistry was typical for the time: it meant that chemistry was no longer an inquiry on the ultimate principles of matter but had become a science firmly established on a few principles derived from experiment.

The connections between science and education, disciplines which are usually considered separately, were particulary strong in the U.S.A. in the early decades of the nineteenth century. Many American scientists at that time were employed as educators, and interested in matters of pedagogy. Like educators they were interested in popularizing their subject, and promoting it into a profession. The overlapping of science and education was especially evident in the area of apparatus. The philosophical apparatus that American scientists were acquiring at a (...) great rate might be considered scientific. In fact, it was often used for public demonstrations of natural philosophy, and seldom used for the advancement of science. In many instances this apparatus was indistinguishable from that developed for the educational reform known as object teaching. The proliferation of this apparatus was furthered by a growing apparatus industry operating within a growing consumer culture. (shrink)

Summary This paper presents a case study that contributes to the current debate among historians of chemistry concerning the role and influence of pedagogy in science. Recently, Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent and her colleagues concluded that in nineteenth-century France, ?textbooks played an important role in discipline building and in creating theories?.1 Developing this idea further, this paper examines the dissemination of knowledge through face-to-face chemical lectures, showing that the influence of pedagogical strategy on theoretical content of the science is far from negligible. (...) The pedagogy of William Cullen was essentially responsible for the prevalence of the doctrine of affinity in British chemistry from the 1760s onwards. Cullen used his affinity theory as a pedagogical tool that to a large extent defined his discipline, and the pedagogical pyramid that he headed similarly ensured that the doctrine would remain at the heart of British chemistry. From a pedagogical tool, the doctrine of affinity was transformed over time into a chemical tool, offering British chemists a disciplinary common ground that both set and reinforced the boundaries to their discipline. 1A. Garcia-Belmar, B. Bensaude-Vincent and J.R. Bertomeu-Sánchez, ?The Power of Didactic Writings: French Chemistry Textbooks of the Nineteenth Century?, in Pedagogy and the Practice of Science: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, edited by D. Kaiser (Cambridge, MA, 2005), 243. (shrink)

This paper addresses the conceptual as well as social origins of Mendeleev’s discovery of the periodic law and its reception by the chemical community by taking account of three factors: Mendeleev’s early research and its relevance to the discovery; his concepts of chemistry, especially that of the chemical elements; and the social context of the discovery and the reception in the chemical community. Mendeleev's clear distinction between abstract elements and simple bodies was a departure from Lavoisier’s famous definition of elements (...) as an endpoint of analysis and originated from his research in indefinite compounds. As a comparison, the paper also analyzes Lothar Meyer’s approach to the classification of the elements. Mendeleev’s new concept of chemical elements and the existence of an audience in the form of the newly established Russian Chemical Society, and his ``German connection'', helped Mendeleev in his discovery and its reception. (shrink)