TO BE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHAT MAY LIE AHEAD, CHEMISTS MUST KNOW
IN DETAIL THE ROAD ALREADY TRAVERSED
I
1876, universities in the modern sense did not exist in America, and industrial research was practically unknown. Chemical activity centered around a few institutions in the eastern part of the country, in which were located the small number of chemists with training adequate to carry on original work. These men made their investigations either alone or with the aid of an assistant or two. They worked almost entirely in the field of mineralogical chemistry. This was a natural consequence of the westward expansion of the previous fifty years. In the course of discovery and exploitation of the western territories, many new minerals had been discovered, and mining became a major industry. Most of the chemists of the time were called upon to analyze the minerals and to determine the value of various ores which were continually being sent to them. Therefore, when they took u p a research problem, it was usually based upon their experiences with ores, minerals, or analytical methods. Such men as Wolcott Gibbs, F. A. Genth, J. L. Smith, and others (15) made major contributions in this field. They trained very few students as their successors, however, largely because instruction in chemistry was confined almost entirely to very elementary courses. Laboratory instruction was lacking, or was offered to a few selected students on a rather inadequate basis ( 1 2 ) . Chemical industries were widely scattered. They were usually located at the site of some basic raw material, and they seldom employed any method of chemical control. It was not until 1900 that the Census Bureau even attempted to list chemists employed in industries producing “chemicals and allied products.” I n that year, there were only 276 industrial chemists listed (IO). Nevertheless, interest in chemistry was not lacking. Enthusiastic students learned what they could in American colleges, then spent several years in Europe, usually in Germany. There the newer sciences or organic and physical chemistry were taught by the recognized masters in these fields, and the applications of chemistry to industry were clearly pointed out. American students returned home to form the nucleus around which university research sprang up in the following decade. This was soon followed by the rapid growth of research in the chemical industries. The formation of the AMERICANCHEMICAL SOCIZITYin 1876 was an evidence of a growing appreciation of the importance of all phases of chemistry. The founders were men of broad vision and wide interests. Many wtye keenly interested in the history of their science. Although the Division of the History of Chemistry was not founded until a relatively late period in the development of the Society, historical studies were actively carried on by a number of American chemists during its earliest days. Even before the Society began, they were at work, and their studies had much to do with the actual founding of the organization. It is, therefore, important to trace the steps by which this interest in the history of chemistry led to the formation of a great chemical society, and how this Society, in turn, fostered and stimulated the study of history. The chief source of chemical information in the 1870’s was the American Chemist, published by the brothers C. F. Chandler of Columbia and W. H. Chandler of Lehigh University. This important journal carried original papers, reprints of significant N
c
E
. 2
European articles, abstracts, and news notes and letters from chemists throughout the country. The Chandlers were evidently interested in historical matters, and the pages of their journal contain many interesting and important articles of a historical nature. Two men were outstanding in that field and were frequently represented in the pages of the journal: Henry Carrington Bolton and Benjamin Silliman, Jr. Bolton (3) (1843-1903) was a man of independent means who had traveled and studied widely in Europe. He taught for a time a t Columbia and at several other colleges, but in 1887 he retired and devoted the rest of his life to research in the history and bibliography of chemistry. He built up the finest library on the history of chemistry which then existed in America. The outstanding result of his studies was his “Select Bibliography of Chemistry, 1492-1892,” with supplements which carried it on to 1903. His interests were wide and he published many shorter papers which are still of interest. Silliman (1816-1885) was professor of chemistry a t Yale, where he had succeeded his famous father, Benjamin Silliman, Sr. He had helped found the Sheffield Scientific School, edited the American Journal of Science, and through his extensive consulting work was one of the most influential scientists of his day. His father had been active during a long period when science in America was undergoing its first major development, and the younger Silliman had grown up in close contact with the leading scientists of the country. I n addition, he had access to the records and correspondence of his father. Thus he was in an unusually fine position to record the history of science in America, and in this field lay his major historical publications. His elaborate study of the history of chemistry in America (14), in which he described the work of 184 American chemists, was the first such study, and has been invaluable to later historians. CENTENNIAL OF CHEMISTRY
At this time, the number of American chemists was relatively small, and the leading workers knew each other personally. However, there were still many chemists who had almost no outside contacts and no opportunity to discuss problems of mutual interest with their fellow workers. This fact had impressed Bolton, and in the April 1874 number of the American Chemist ( I S ) he published a letter which stressed that the year 1774 had been a notable one for chemistry, being the year of Scheele’s discovery of chlorine, Priestley’s discovery of oxygen, and other important scientific achievements. He, therefore, proposed that this year be considered the starting point of modern chemistry and that its centennial be celebrated in the current year of 1874 by a meeting of chemists “at some pleasant watering-place, to discuss chemical questions, especially the wonderfully rapid progress of chemical science in the past hundred years.” This suggestion was at once approved by letters from Silliman and other chemists, including Rachel L. Bodley, a “lady professor” as she “described herself, at the Woman’s Medical College of Pennsylvania. She made the suggestion that the meeting be held a t the Priestley home in Northumberland, Pa. Following Bolton’s suggestion, she proposed that the date of the meeting be August 1, 1884, the centennial of the actual discovery of oxy-
H. M. Leicester, College of Physicians and Surgeons, San Francisco, Calif. 1053
1054
INDUSLTRIAL A N D E N G I N E E R I N G C H E M I S T R Y
Vol. 43, No. 5
Oddly enough, these men with such close common interests did not meet until 1920. Both were active in administration and research, and these activities prevented personal contact. At length, however, Smith determined to talk with C. A. Browne. At the meeting of the AMERICAN CHEMICAL in Evanston, Ill., in 1920, he SOCIETY sought him out with the intention of discussing their historical studies. Browne has given us a full account of the pleasant hours which they spent on the shore of Lake Michigan discussing their common interests and showing each other such of their treasures as they had brought with them (2). Smith was always ready to talk of historical matters, and in his office a t the Univeisity of Pennsylvania he had surrounded himself with his collection of liistoriral books and objects. €€e was accustomed to show these to his visitors, but only too often he w&s rebuffed by the guest's polite lack of interest in one of his especially valued mementos. hlthough he was most anxious to advance the cause of the history of chemistry, these experiences had prevented I n the hislot-ical collection qf the Bakelite Dioi.sion q/"Union Carbide and Carhim from taking, up to this time, any positive steps. Kow, in conversation bon i s this notebook in which Leo Baekelarzd recorded his c-liscoveyy o l Bakelite with his fellow enthusiast, he began to feel that at last the time wm ripe to biingtogether those members of the h I E R I C A h . CHEMICAL SOCIETYwho gcn. In accordance nith her suggestion, this mreting place was shared his interests. The two men, therefore, agreed that a t cshosen, and the gathering took place ( 1 , 6). the nevt meeting of the Society, in Rochester in the spring of The meeting v a s so successful that near its end Persifor Frazer 1921, they would bring a number of old books and manuscripts of t,he University of Pennsylvania proposed t,hat a national and hold an informal meeting of all those interested in the dischemical society be formed. Bolton favored the proposal, as d i d cussion of historical topics. T T . F. Chandler, but most of the others thought it would be better This meeting was held April 27, 1921, and about thirty chemnto organize as a section of the iimerican Association for the .Idists attended. Smith showed some of his collection, and Browne vancement of Science. Bolton acceded to t,his vietr.. anti the talked on Kew England chemistry and on an early British food matter was dropped for the moment, but the seed had been chemist, Frederick Accum, of whose life he had made a study. planted. Two years later, under the leadership of C. F. CharidThose who attended mere well pleased and agreed that, without ler, the seed grew, and the AMERICANC m m c a r . Socrmu w a y any formal organization, such a program should be planned as founded. There is no doubt that it stemmed dircctly from t"ne orie of the reg~darfeatures of future meet'ings of the Society ( 7 ) . I'ricstley Centennial of t'wo years before. -4ccordingly, in S e w York in September 1921, a notice, probI n its early dags, the Society made no provision for research in ably writt,en by Smith himself, was posted, reading: "History of the history of chemistry. The older members who had mainChemistry. President Edgar F. Smith and kindred spirits will tained an interest in the field gradually dropped out, and with meet Friday afternoon, September 9, in Room 301, hlines, t o the cessation of publication of the American Chemist in 1877, discuss their hobbies" ( 1 2 ) . Smith was president of the Society there ceased to be a convenient outlet for historical papers. The at this time and was thus in a posit,ion to give his activities full interest in the history of chemistry entered a latent period. publicity. About one hundred chemists responded to the invitaThis does not mean that it died out, hoxever. There are altion, and a lively discussion followed. It was decided that there ways men with a keen interest in the subject, and if they are conivias sufficient interest in the history of chemistry t o warrant forpelled to work alone, they will do so. Among the younger cheniCHEMICAL SOCIETY. At mal organization within the A~YERICAN ists who became active in the Society a t the beginning of the that time, tho Society was organized into divisions, which were twentieth century were tTyo who became outstanding historians aut,onomous, as now, and sections, which did not have the formal of chemistry: Edgar Fahs Smith ( 5 ) (1854-1928) and Charles organization of the divisions, but hoped to reach divisional status Albert I3ron-ne ( 4 , 9) (1870-1947). Both men had a broad culin time. The group a t New York set up a Section of the History tural background, both had studied in Germany, and bot'h were of Chemistry, with C. 8. Browne as chairman and Lyman Newel1 interested in the history of chemistry, especially as it related to as secret,arp. Plans were laid for the first official meeting in Birbmerica. Browne approached the study from the standpoint of mingham the following year. agricultural chemistry, and Smith from a study of the history of At almost the same time, another section was organized, the chemical developments in and around Philadelphia, but both had Section of Chemical Education. Education was a subject also a full appreciation of the significance of these special st'udies to close to the heart of President Smith, and he was actively interthe history of chemistry as a whole. I n addition, each was an ested in promoting the growth of this section as well. Nevertheenthusiastic collector of early chemical books and manuscripts, less, he warned that it must not in any way infringe on the activiand on frequent trips to Europe, each increased his collection ties of the Sect,ion of the History of Chemistry ( 1 6 ) . Actually, by numerous pnrchases.
L
the two sections worked and have continued to work together very closely. At Birmingham in April 1922, the Section of the History of Chemistry held its first formal meeting. Smith made a plea that the members devote themselves to research on the development of chemistry in their own localities. This was a subject on which both he and Browne felt deeply, and there is little doubt but that both intended that the major work of the section should be a study of the history of American chemistry. This desire on the part of the founders has always been respected, and an important portion of each meeting has usually been given to this subject. The division has never become provincial, however. Much work of great significance has always been reported on the general history and philosophy of chemistry. The Council of the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETYat Birmingh a m voted that, after that meeting, all sections before receiving divisional status would be required to go through a probationary period of three years to justify their formation and prove their ability to continue in active work (8). The newly formed section h a d little difficulty in demonstrating its fitness. Even a t Birmingham, eleven papers had been presented, and over one hundred chemists had attended the meeting. In the following year, the spring meeting at New Haven coincided with the dedication of the new Sterling Chemical Laboratory of Yale, and the section arranged an extensive exhibit of historical material relating to chemistry at Yale. Smith gave one of the major addresses of the meeting on the subject (‘History of Chemistry in America with Special Reference to Yale.” The pattern for future meetings was now set. Following the example of Smith and Browne, members of the section brought books, manusoripts, medallions, and other illustrative material to each meeting. The informal discussions were as important as the formal papers. At first, the latter were given by a rather small group, much the same at each meeting, but it soon became evident that there was actually a wider interest in history than had originally been suspected. Now that there was an opportunity for presentation of papers in this field, an increasing number of men began to offer titles, and the names which appeared on the programs became more varied‘ For a long time, Smith had wished to publish a journal in the history of chemistry. Now he felt the time had come. He was n o t too optimistic about its possible circulation, however. He, therefore, attempted to raise a subsidy to support the projected publication. While he was thus engaged, the Section of Chemical Education laid plans to publish the Journal of Chemical Educa&on. This offered a means for printing historical papers, and so Smith laid aside his plans for a special historical journal. The first number of the Journal of Chemical Education appeared in 1924, and ever since it has been the official organ of the Section and Division of the History of Chemistry, as well as of the Division of Chemical Education. Once more, as in the days of the American Chemist,purely historical papers pertaining to chemist r y could be published in America. The editors of the journal have always been interested in historical subjects, and most of the significant historical papers presented at meetings of the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY have subsequently appeared in its pages. The opportunity to hear or present papers on historical topics stimulated those interested to new activity. As aeresult, the section had little trouble in proving its right to become a division. The report of the Council meeting a t Detroit in September 1927 stated: ‘[The Section of the History of Chemistry, having held successfully the six meetings prescribed by the Council, petitioned that it be made a division of the Society, and this request was granted and the bylaws submitted approved.” The meetings of the division have been flexible and have often been adapted to a special location or occasion. Among its outstanding symposia have been those on the history of the American chemical industry a t New York in 1935 on the occasion of the kercentenary of American chemical industry; symposia on the
Edgar Fahs Smith Collection at University of Pennsylvania specializes in chemical history
I n 1960, laboratory of major chemical company was a disordered array of glassware, burners, and electrical wiring
I n this modern. research laboratory, new chapters are being added to the fast-growing history of chemistry 1055
1056
INDUSTRIAL AND ENGINEERING CHEMISTRY
Vol. 43, No. 5
development of chemistry in the South, held at Richmond in 1927 A further outcome of t’he division’s work has been the strengthand at Memphis in 1942; and a symposium on chemical indusening of an interest in the establishment of research centers detries in the Chicago area in 1946. Noteworthy joint symposia voted to the history of chemistry. Bolton’s collection was given were held with the Division of Chemical Education in Buffalo in to the Library of Congress after his death, and it is there available 1931 in honor of Edgar Fahs Smith, for the purpose of discussing to scholars. However, the vast size of the Library of Congress the history of American chemical education; with the Division and its multitude of interests preclude its devoting t’oits historical of Medicinal Chemistry at Baltimore in 1939 on the history of collection in chemistry the individual attention which it deserves. medical education in Baltimore; with the Divisions of -4griculThe members of the division have realized this and have, theretural and Food Chemistry and of Fertilizer Chemistry a t Detroit fore, actively supported the growth of specialized research liin 1940 t o honor the work of Liebig as an agricultural chemist; braries which center around t.he collections begun by individual and the two symposia a t Chicago in 1950, one with the Division members. Such are the Newell Collection a t Boston University of Industrial and Engineering Chemistry to explain the reasons and especially the Smit,h Collection a t the University of Pennsylfor the shift of leadership in chemistry from France to Germany vania. The latter is an outgrowth of the remarkable library during the nineteenth century, and the other with the Division assembled by Smith. To it have been added, in the course of of Chemical Literature on the history of chemical literature. time, the most valuable portions of the collections of C. A. Browne These symposia make possible a fuller understanding of the and Tenney L. Davis, as well as many other gifts and purchases. forces which have molded present conditions. What is probably The library has recently realized the old dream of Smith by its more important, they have indicated the factors which have in publication of Chymia, an annual in the history of chemistry thr past tended to produce progress or stagnation in science and which is unique in its field. It is very evident that the support may produce similar results again. and interest in the history of chemistry created by the existence I n addition to these symposia, special exhibits have been arof the Division of the History of Chemistry have made possible, ranged a t many of the meetings. These special features have inas never before, a realization of the value of research in this field. cluded an exhibit on Kew England chemists at the SwampProspects for the future are bright. Through its general scott meeting in 1928, one on Joseph Priestley a t the Washprograms, symposia, and exhibitions of historical material, the ington meeting in 1933, and another on Edgar Fahs Smith and division has reached a large group of chemists who are greatly the Smith Collection at Philadelphia in 1950. interested in historical matters, though they may lack the time The meetings of the division have continued to grow in interest for original research in the field. This has created a new deand importance. I n the mand for more information. earlier days, programs Chemical industries ai e recseldom lasted more than Officers of the Division of the History of Chemistry, ognizing the value of unone morning, and when derstanding their own past 1927-1 951 the Society met in cities far and the various phases of Year Chairman Secretary from the larger population their growth. An increaa1927-1932 centers, often no meeting of Lyman Newell Tenney L. Davis ing number of colleges and 1933-1934 the division mas held. More F. B. Dains Tenney L. Davis universities are realizing the 1935-1939 recently, however, one- and Tenney L. Davis Mildred Grafflin cultural importance of the 1940 James Couch Mildred Grafflin two-day meetings have behistory of science, and the 1941 come common, and they James Couch Ralph E. Oesper pioneer work of such institu1942-1946 are held regularly. Thus, Harrison Hale Ralph E. Oesper tions as Harvard and Wis1947 a t San Francisco in 1935 no Henry M. Leicester Ralph E. Oepser consin in this field is ex1948-1951, meeting was held, but in the Henry M. Leicester Sidney M. Edelstein panding. The division is same city in 1949 a successone of the few organizations ful session took place. in a position to satisfy the It is noteworthy that prior to the founding of the division, only demand for information of this type, and it is well prepared to a few American chemists devoted any attention to historical carry on this task. Although small as divisions go, its memmatters. Once it had been founded, however, it served to bring bership of 160 is more than double that of three years ago. Its together a number of men who felt a real interest in the history plans for the future include a number of joint symposia which will of chemistry, and, more important, it stimulated them to begin bring to members of other divisions an understanding of its unique historical studies of their own by showing what had been done role. The next seventy-five years may be expected to produce a and what remained to be done. Smith and Browne, by their volume of historical studies which will give to the world an unstudies on the history of American chemistry, had shown that derstanding of the significance of chemistry which can be obmany of the early chemists whom Silliman had known only by tained in no other way. name had actually done much to stimulate the progress of science in this country. Now, in the Division of the History of ChemisLITERATURE CITED try, a group of new workers is carrying on the study with increasing vigor, and the broad outlines of our chemical development (1) Am. Chemist, 5 , 35-114 (1874). Full report of meeting. have been filled in with new details. Smith’s plea for regional ( 2 ) Browne, C. A . , J . Chem. Education, 14,503-13 (1937). (3) I M . , 17, 457-61 (1940). studies has been heeded. It is to be hoped that a comprehensive (4) Deischer, C. K., Chymia, 1, 11-22 (1948). history of chemistry in America will become available in the not (5) J . Chem. Education, 9, 620-34 (1932). too distant future. (6) J . Am. Chem. Soc., 48, No. BA4, 3-10 (1926). (7) J. IND. American historians have also taken up the wider field of the END-. CHEM.,13,397 (1921). (8) Ibid., 14, 358 (1922). whole development of alchemy and chemistry. Pioneering stud(9) Klickstein, H. S.,and Leicester, H. M . , J . Chem. Education,. ies, such as those of Hopkins on Greek alchemy and of Davis on 25,315-18 (1948). Chinese alchemy, have attracted world wide attention. Most (10) Munroe, C. E., J . Am. Chem. Soc., 48,No.8A, 234 (1926). of these investigations were reported before the division in the (11) Newell, L. C., J . Chem. Education, 9, 667-9 (1932). (12) Powers, 8. R., J . Am. Chem. Soc., 48,No. 8 4 237-54 (1926). decade from 1930 to 1940. There is little doubt but that they (13) Silliman, B., Am. Chemist, 4, 362 (1874). would not have even been attempted had not the division brought (14) Ibid., 5,70-114,195-209 (1874). together those of like interests and stimulated them to active re(1.5) Smith, E. F., J . Am. Chem. SOC.,48, No. SA, 69-88 (1916). search in the history of chemistry. (16) Swan, J. N., J . Chem. Education, 9, 670-6 (1932).
