The British Society for the History of Science

The British Society for the History of Science Politics by Other Means: Justus von Liebig and the German Translation of John Stuart Mill's " Logic" Author(s): Pat Munday Source: The British Journal for the History of Science, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Dec., 1998), pp. 403-418 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The British Society for the History of Science Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4027874 Accessed: 16-09-2015 03:43 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Cambridge University Press and The British Society for the History of Science are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize , preserve and extend access to The British Journal for the History of Science.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 150.131.202.2 on Wed, 16 Sep 2015 03:43:12 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

BJHS, 1998, 31, 403-18

Politics by other means: Justus von Liebig and the German translation of John Stuart Mill's Logic PAT MUNDAY:

Compared with other scientists of the nineteenth century, the German chemist Justus von Liebig (1803-73) was a complex figure. In part, this was because Liebig established such broad borders for his science. Chemical methods, popular and professional publications about chemistry, technological applications, promoting the car and even politics - all were central concerns stemming from Liebig's notion of chemistry as the central science. When Liebig discovered John Stuart Mill's Logic, a work on the philosophy of science, it struck a deep chord within him. Mill's high praise for Liebig's chemistry certainly provided Liebig with a means to promote his own reputation. In addition, Mill's Logic presented science as a central method for the general reform of society, a goal Liebig was himself struggling to define in the early 1840s. In the scientific method, Mill discovered a 'rule by the elite', which he could never find nor justify in his political philosophy. This was a rule that greatly appealed to Liebig, and he set out to ensure that Mill's work was translated and published in German. Though many details of this transaction are known, this paper seeks to investigate the relationship between Liebig and Mill's book, and the significance of this relationship for understandingLiebig's role as a gatekeeper and interrelations between science and politics. Liebig would never have agreed with the notion that 'Leben ist leben', that is, that life is living. Rather, for Liebig, life was making, that is, the active construction of a planned self. This utilitarian end justified extreme means. In Mill's philosophy, Liebig found an empirical blueprint for remaking both science and society. Mill emphasized the role of the individual maker in this process and, clearly, Liebig saw himself in this role. MILL'S SYSTEM OF LOGIC John Stuart Mill (1806-73) was a British philosopher best known for his contributions to the moral and political theory of utilitarianism.As a radical liberal, Mill believed that the conservative and traditional foundations of society needed to be torn up and replaced by ' Department of Technical Communication, Montana Tech of the University of Montana, Butte, Montana 59701, USA. I thank Wilhelm Lewicki for his support and encouragement, Andrew D. Wilson for the use of rare editions of Mill's Logic, Dr Raab at the GenerallandesarchivKarlsruhe and Ilse Dobslaw at the Vieweg Archive in Wiesbaden. In addition, I thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful criticisms and advice.


404

Pat Munday

rationally grounded institutions. The problem of 'the tyranny of the majority' in democracy constituted a serious challenge for Mill's liberalism. Like most nineteenthcentury liberals, Mill overestimated the degree to which an intellectual elite might perfect society. He feared the prospect of uneducated masses deciding important political questions: [theotherconditionrequisiteto goodgovernmentis] Thatit be governmentby a selectbody,not by the peoplecollectively:That politicalquestionsbe not decidedby an appeal,eitherdirector indirect,to the judgementor will of an uninstructedmass,whetherof gentlemenor of clowns; but by the deliberately-formed opinionsof a comparatively few, speciallyeducatedfor the task.1 Even with representative democracy, Mill was no supporter of universal suffrage. At least until widespread public education could be achieved, he believed the middle class should elect representativesto act like ventriloquists, speaking for the general good: No practicalandjudiciousstatesmancould... takehis standanywherebuton themiddleclass... it does not follow, that he is obligedto take theirpolicy;it follows only, that he mustbe able to makethemtakehis... He cannottherefore,attemptUniversalSuffrage.To extendthe suffrageto the whole middleclass, to equaliseits distributionamongthat class, to enablethat class to exerciseit freely,all this he can and oughtto aim at.2 Mill looked to science as a model of what society could become. By studying the methods and historical development of science, Mill hoped to provide a model for social progress in general. Mill's nineteenth century was an era of transition. As Mill wrote in 1831, 'Mankind have outgrown old institutions and old doctrines, and have not yet acquirednew ones.'3 When Mill wrote this, he had already begun to study the logic of science as a rational method to provide these new doctrines and institutions.4 Mill's System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive: Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation, was first published in 1843, an important and influential work on the philosophy of science that made a lasting contribution to what has become known as 'the scientific method'. As Richard Rorty has stated, Mill began a school of philosophy, 'doing for science what the utilitarianshad done for morality - making it something you could use instead of something you could merely respect'.'

1 John Stuart Mill, 'Review of Bailey's Rationale of Political Representation', London Review (July 1835), 1, 341-71, on 347-8. As quoted in J. H. Burns, 'J. S. Mill and democracy, 1829-61', in Mill: A Collection of Critical Essays (ed. J. B. Schneewind), Garden City, NY, 1968, 280-328. 2 John Stuart Mill, 'ART. VIII. - A letter to the Earl of Durham on reform in Parliament, by paying the elected', London and WestminsterReview (April 1839), 32, 475-508, on 475-6. As quoted in Burns, op. cit. (1), 300. Cf. Alan S. Kahan, Aristocratic Liberalism, Oxford, 1992, and Oskar Kurer,John Stuart Mill: The Politics of Progress, New York, 1991. 3 John StuartMill, 'Spirit of the age, I', Examiner (January1831), 20-1. Reprintedin Ann P. Robson and John P. Robson (eds.), Newspaper Writings by John Stuart Mill, Toronto, 1986, 227-34, on 230. 4 John M. Robson, 'Textual introduction', J. S. Mill, A System of Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive: Being a Connected View of the Principles of Evidence and the Methods of Scientific Investigation (ed. J. M. Robson), 2 vols., Toronto, 1973-74, i. The 1973 volume consists of Books I-III of Mill's Logic, and the 1974 volume consists of Books IV-VI. 5 Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton, 1979, 308.


Liebig and Mill

405

In the tradition of Bacon and Locke, Mill believed science to be a process of induction based on experience. For Mill, science begins with inductive methods that are probable only, and eventually claim deductive certainty. Bacon's inductivism had largely centred on enumeration, whereby repeated observations lead us to a general law. Mill went beyond the simple enumerativeinduction espoused by Bacon, however, and developed methods to vary experimental circumstances and thus identify causal connections. Though Mill's emphasis was on the inductive and law-like linking of cause and effect, he by no means discounted hypotheses. His chapter on hypotheses seems almost an afterthought in the 1843 edition, but by the fourth edition (1856) he argued: 'all experimentalinquiry assumes provisionally some theory or hypothesis, which is to be finally held true or not, according as the experiments decide.' 6 Thus, hypotheses are speculative presuppositions that help guide experimental research. Mill's Logic was itself a work of induction, guided by the hypothesis that science provided the surest possible route to progress. By analysing historical examples of scientific argumentsand discoveries, Mill hoped to develop an inductive method that could be used to perfect politics, the social sciences, business and life. His examples varied widely. Examples from the scientific revolution included investigations of gravity and space by Kepler, Descartes and Newton. Examples from his contemporariesincluded investigations of magnetism by M. Arago, planetaryorbits by Sir John Herschel and chemical physiology by Justus Liebig. Mill used these various examples to define and codify what have become known as Mill's Methods of Experimental Inquiry, or Mill's Canons, more frequently known as Mill's Methods to American readers. These comprise a chapter in many modern logic textbooks.7 These four methods are: (1) Method of Agreement; (2) Method of Difference; (3) Method of Residues; (4) Method of Concomitant Variation. The methods of agreement and difference are often applied together, to guide inquiry into basic cause and effect relationships. The method of residues is used to identify secondary or minor causes that contribute to effects largely, but not completely, explained by well-known causal laws. The method of concomitant variation is used to identify proportional cause and effect relationships, especially in cases where the cause cannot simply be eliminated via the method of difference.In order to clarify these methods and to demonstratetheir immediate relevance for Liebig, consider the following examples from Mill's Logic: I shall select, as a first example,an interestingspeculationof one of the most eminentof theoreticalchemists,BaronLiebig.The objectin view, is to ascertainthe immediatecauseof the deathproducedby metallicpoisons. 6 John Stuart Mill, Logic, 4th edn, 2 vols., London, 1856, bk 2, ch. 5, pt 6. Cf. John Stuart Mill's Philosophy of Scientific Method (ed. Ernest Nagel), New York, 1950, bk 3, ch. 7, pts 4-5. On the historical development of Mill's Logic, see Struan Jacobs, 'John Stuart Mill on induction and hypotheses', Journal of the History of Philosophy (1991), 29, 69-83. Jacobs is original in pointing out that Mill's emphasis on hypotheses does not merely complement his inductive method but, rather, transforms it as an account of scientific discovery. 7 See, for example, Irving M. Copi and Carl Cohen, Introduction to Logic, 8th edn, New York, 1990, 377-417, or PatrickJ. Hurley, A Concise Introductionto Logic, 5th edn, Belmont, CA, 1994, 486-505. Note also that Mill's Logic was edited by ErnestNagel and reprintedas John StuartMill's Philosophy of ScientificMethod, New York, 1950 and 1974. Nagel, like most twentieth-centuryphilosophers of science, seemed to have lost interest in how science actually was done, and he deleted the many examples Mill had compiled.


406

Pat Munday

Arsenious acid, and the salts of lead, bismuth, copper, and mercury, if introduced into the animal organism, except in the smallest doses, destroy life. These facts have long been known, as insulated truths of the lowest order of generalization; but it was reserved for Liebig, by an apt employment of the first two of our methods of experimental inquiry, to connect these truths together by a higher induction, pointing out what property, common to all these deleterious substances, is the really operating cause of their fatal effect.8 Mill used Liebig's theory of metallic poisons to demonstrate the methods of agreement and difference. The given metallic salts are soluble and chemically combine with substances such as animal flesh or milk, and preserve them against putrefaction. Furthermore, the presence of these salts on living tissue produces small scars that are rejected by the surrounding living tissue. Since 'organic life consist[s] in a continual state of decomposition and recomposition', the presence of the metal salts agrees with (that is, causes) the death of the tissue. Employing the method of difference, Liebig found that insoluble metallic salts do not act in a poisonous manner. Furthermore, the poisonous action of soluble salts can be halted by introducing another substance that renders them insoluble. For example, 'The disease called painter's cholic, so common in manufactories of white lead, is unknown where the workmen are accustomed to take, as a preservative, sulphuric-acid-lemonade.'9 To explain the method of residues, Mill quoted a passage from Sir John Herschel on the orbital periods of comets. For the most part, the orbit of a comet could be predicted using a well-known law, Newton's inverse square law for gravitational attraction. Yet a comet's period takes slightly longer than that calculated by gravity alone. There is a residual causal factor, which Herschel speculated to consist of a subtle medium that occupied space and caused a bit of drag on the motion of orbiting bodies.10 To explain the method of concomitant variation, Mill considered the theory of tides. Compared with the position of the earth relative to the sun and fixed stars, the variation of tides corresponds most closely with the position of the moon. Unlike the other methods, concomitant variation works through proportional or quantitative relationships.1' Mill's use of examples, and the importance of his Logic, was by no means limited to the above four methods. More generally, Mill was interested in the historical progress of sciences such as chemistry. According to Mill, as a science matures it becomes increasingly deductive in character. This change is brought about by a combination of experimental inquiry and speculative hypotheses that subsume diverse observations and natural laws under general theories. We can now understandhow an experimentalmay transformitself into a deductive science by the mere progress of experiment... As when Newton discoveredthat the motions, whether regularor apparently anomalous, of all the bodies of the solar system, (each of which motions had been inferred by a separate logical operation, from separate marks,) were all marks of moving round 8 John StuartMill, Logic, 3rd edn, 2 vols., London, 1851, bk 3, ch, 9. This example translated by Schiel in the 2nd German edition (1865). Liebig's 'theory of metallic poisons' is from Justus Liebig, Animal Chemistry (tr. William Gregory), London, 1846, 335ff. In earlier editions of Logic, Mill used 'Liebig's theory of the contagiousness of chemical action' as his first example. Cf. Schiel's translation, 1st German edition (1849). 9 Mill, op. cit. (8), bk 3, ch. 9, on 419. 'Sulphuric-acid-lemonade'was a dilute mixture of sulphuric acid in sugar water. 10 John Stuart Mill, Logic, 6th edn, 2 vols., London, 1865, bk 3, ch. 8, pt 4. 11 Mill, op. cit. (10), bk 3, ch. 8, pt 6.


Liebig and Mill

407

a common centre, with a centripetalforce varying directly with mass, and inversely as the square of the distance from that centre. This is the greatest example which has yet occurred of the transformation, at one stroke, of a science which was still to a great degree merely experimental, into a deductive science. Transformations of the same nature, but on a smaller scale, continually take place in the less advanced branches of physical knowledge, without enabling them to throw off the character of experimental sciences. Thus with regard to the two unconnected propositions before cited, namely, Acids redden vegetable blues, Alkalies make them green; it is remarked by Liebig, that all blue colouring matters which are reddened by acids contain nitrogen... Although this connecting of detached generalizations is so much gain, it tends but little to give a deductive character to any science as a whole; because the new courses of observation and experiment, which thus enable us to connect together a few general truths, usually make known to us a still greater number of unconnected new ones. Hence chemistry, though similar extensions and simplifications of its generalizations are continually taking place, is still in the main an experimental science; and is likely so to continue, unless some comprehensive induction should be hereafter arrived at, which, like Newton's, shall connect a vast number of the smaller known inductions together, and change the whole method of the science at once.12

Chemistry, the new science, Mill compared with the physics of two hundred years ago. Mill praised the role of 'great generalizers' who introduced theories linking diverse observations. As 'great generalizers', physics had its Newton, whereas chemistry now had its Liebig. Mill developed this analogy further: Some of the most remarkable instances which have occurred since the great Newtonian generalization, of the explanation of laws of causation subsisting among complex phenomena, by resolving them into simpler and more general laws, are to be found among the speculations of Liebig in organic chemistry. These speculations... afford, however, so admirable an example of the spirit of the Deductive Method, that I may be permitted to present some specimens of them here.13

Mill discussed several examples of Liebig's theories, including the metamorphosis of organic bodies due to 'the contagious influence of chemical action', respiration as a chemical process, the preservation of animal substances by salt and the dependence of agricultural crops upon mineral (that is, inorganic) elements. In this section, Mill spent twelve pages discussing and praising Liebig's work. Clearly, he was impressed by Liebig's contributions to the science of chemistry, as one final quotation will attest: Now this extremely special and apparently precarious generalization [concerning what Liebig called metamorphosis] has, in the hand of Liebig, been converted, by masterly employment of the Deductive Method, into a law pervading all nature, in the same way as gravitation assumed that character in the hands of Newton.14 Mill became aware of Liebig's work, and many other contemporary scientific examples, through his friend, the Scottish philosopher and psychologist Alexander Bain (1818-1903): The only person from whom I received any direct assistance in the preparation of the 'System of Logic' was Mr. Bain ... He went carefully through the manuscriptbefore it was sent to press, and enriched it with a great number of additional examples and illustrations from science.15 12 Mill, op. cit. (9), bk 2, ch. 4, pt 6. 13 Mill, op. cit. (9), bk 3, ch. 8. pt 1. 14 Mill, op. cit. (9), bk 3, ch. 9, pt 1. 15 John Stuart Mill, Autobiography (ed. CurrinV. Shields), New York, 1957, 159n. Cited in Robson, op. cit. (4), p. lxviii.


408

Pat Munday

In Bain's own words: The main defect of the work [that is, the draftof Logic],however,was in the Experimental incorrect.It was on thispointthatI was able Examples... theseweretoo few andnot infrequently to render the greatest service. Circumstanceshad made me tolerably familiar with the Experimental Physics,ChemistryandPhysiologyof thatday,andI setto workto gatherexamples fromall availablesources.Liebig'sbookson the applicationof Chemistryhadthenjustappeared, and containedmanynew and strikingfacts and reasonings.16 Bain, in turn, had learned of Liebig's work through lectures delivered by Liebig's former student William Gregory (1803-58), who translated much of Liebig's work into English from 1839 to 1848.17 After publication of the first English edition of Logic in 1843, Mill became conscious of a wider audience. He had long been opposed to what he called the a priori school of Schelling and other post-Kantian German philosophers. After speaking with a German visitor, Mill wrote to his friend Auguste Comte: he [theGermanvisitor]had reada veryfavorablearticleon the subject[of my Logic]published in the little town of Hohenzollern-something ... It describes[myLogic]as the bestphilosophical workEnglandhas producedin our timeandaddedthatit certainlywas not Germanphilosophy. I believethereis, in Germany,the beginningof a strongreactionagainstwhatis calledGerman philosophyandthatpositivismwill findsupportthereearlierthanhadbeenexpected.Theremust exist, amongphysicistsandphysiologistsandevenamongactiveyoungpeopleintenton politics, a sincereaversionto [the customaryGerman]vaguenesson the one hand, and to the quietist tendenciesin the metaphysicsof Schellingand Hegel.18 Friedrich Schelling was of course central to the development of the post-Kantian philosophical school of Naturphilosophie. The basic tenet of this school was that mind and nature formed a unity, whereby all external appearanceswere determinedby inner laws of necessity and the action of polar forces. This unity made it possible to predict external phenomena from purely introspective considerations. But Naturphilosophie as a philosophical movement was largely over by the 1830s. Because of the relative lack of cultural communication between Britain and the German states in the early nineteenth century, many of the texts on Naturphilosophie were not available in English translation until after 1830. Furthermore, only the more speculative and general works by better known Naturphilosophen such as Schellingand Lorenz Oken were available in translation. Thus, for the most part, the 'German philosophy' of Mill's criticism was a generation out of date.'9 16 Alexander Bain, John Stuart Mill: A Criticism with Personal Recollections, New York, 1969, 66. Bain was aided by John Shier. Bain continued his collaboration with Mill through the 8th edition of Logic. Cf. Robson, op. cit. (4), pp. lxxi-lxxii, lxxxviii. 17 Robson, op. cit. (4), p. lxxii n 62. 18 Mill to Comte, 31 December 1844, in Oscar A. Haac (tr. and ed.), The Correspondenceof John Stuart Mill and Auguste Comte, New Brunswick, 1995, 278. Cf. 'I consider that school of philosophy [that is, German Naturphilosophie] as the greatest speculative hindrance to the regeneration so urgently required, of man and society.' Mill to Gomperz, 19 August 1854, in Francis Mineka and Dwight Lindley (eds.), The Later Letters of John Stuart Mill, 1849-1873, Toronto, 1972, 239. 19 David Knight, The Age of Science: The Scientific World-View in the Nineteenth Century, Oxford, 1986, 63-9.


Liebig and Mill

409

Empiricist critics of Naturphilosophie, such as Mill, sometimes overstated its a priori tendencies, accusing it of being a philosophy of science that did not require experiment. Yet some followers of this philosophy were led to develop innovative experiments demonstrating remarkable cause and effect relations. Such phenomena might have been ignored from a more empirical or positivist perspective. Hans Christian Oersted, and his investigations of magnetism and electricity, seems to be a prime example.20At any rate, Schelling's work was already in general disfavour after the 1830s, and the present clearly belonged to empiricists such as Mill.

LIEBIG AND MILL Justus von Liebig was, arguably, the pre-eminent chemist of the nineteenth century. Born into a lower middle class family in the backward nation of Hesse-Darmstadt, Liebig both helped create and rode a wave that established Germany as the foremost scientific nation by the end of the nineteenth century. He is best known as the founder of modern organic chemistry, as the editor of the premier chemical journal now known as Liebig's Annalen, for the development of large classes in laboratory chemistry and for the application of chemical principles to animal and plant physiology. His initial foray into the chemistry of physiology, Organic Chemistry in its Applications to Agricultureand Physiology, was first published in 1840. English, French and German editions appeared the same year. The English and Frencheditions were translatedby students of Liebig. As a measure of Liebig's international reputation, we can look to the publishing record of this text, which became known as Liebig's Agricultural Chemistry. Over the years, there were eight more German editions, and sixteen more editions in nine other languages.21 The international character of Liebig's work was made possible by the emergence of an international culture of science throughout Western civilization in the early nineteenth century. When Liebig began offering laboratory based instruction in organic chemistry in the 1830s, his programme attracted students from the many nations of Germany and Europe. By 1843, Liebig had sixty-eight students, twenty-one of whom were nonGerman.22After their graduation, Liebig kept in close touch with many of his students. He took an active interest in their work as practical chemists, which often included political and industrial agendas. With connections in France, England and most German states, he built up an influential network of informal communication. This network helped feed articles to the journal Liebig edited, kept him abreast of important industrial needs and developments, enhanced his international reputation and made him aware of a potential audience for popular science writing. In the 1830s, Liebig's laboratory was a virtual factory for producing organic analyses. 20 On Oersted, I have used an unpublished manuscript by Andrew D. Wilson, Keene State College, Keene, New Hampshire. 21 On Liebig's many publications, see Carlo Paoloni, Justus von Liebig: Eine Bibliographie sdmtlicher Verdffentlichungenmit biographischen Anmerkungen, Heidelberg, 1968. 22 Armin Wankmuller,'Auslandische Studierendeder Pharmazieund Chemie bei Liebig in Giessen', Deutsche Apotheker-Zeitung (1967), 107, 463-6.


410

Pat Munday

Liebig and his students laboured side by side, performing one analysis after another of organic compounds. Many of these compounds were of interest to pharmaceutical manufacturers such as Liebig's friend Emanuel Merck. The analyses were published in Liebig's journal, and often elsewhere as well.23 Yet Liebig's programme was not merely a Baconian enumeration of one fact after another. From the beginning, Liebig had an eye on the bigger picture. In a seminal article published in 1831, wherein he introduced a new method of organic analysis and reported on results using this method to analyse quinine, morphine and other commercially important pharmaceuticals, Liebig announced the beginning of 'a truly scientific organic chemistry'.24 Liebig's imagination was fired by his friend FriedrichWohler's synthesis of organic urea from its inorganic isomer ammonium cyanate. Analysis was, for Liebig, just a first step in a programme to synthesize complex and valuable organic compounds such as quinine and morphine.25 As a key step in understanding how such syntheses might be accomplished, Liebig developed a speculative theory of metamorphosis. By metamorphosis, Liebig meant the processes by which plants transform air into fruit, or the grass eaten by a cow becomes flesh. Though speculative, Liebig's theory of metamorphosis was grounded in mechanical atomism, whereby chemical changes occurred via molecular collisions and subsequent atomic rearrangement.26Though not directly verifiable, Liebig's contact theory played an important auxiliary role in guiding his research and experiments.27Ultimately, this line of thinking culminated in Liebig's grand explanations, such as respiration as a chemical process, that Mill so highly praised. Beginning with Liebig's first visit to Britain in 1837, he was impressed by the wealth of opportunitiesit offered for expanding his various chemical programmes.The Britishpublic provided a broad audience for his popular books on chemistryand society, the agricultural sector was hungry for scientific applications that promised increasedproductivity, and the British Association for the Advancement of Science was a platform for extending his scientific influence. Monetary gain was not the least of Liebig's objectives. In at least four ways, Liebig tried to cash in on his scientificpopularity in Britain.Liebig's

23 Pat Munday, 'Justus Liebig's Research School: historiographic artifact and anachronism', in History of Interrelations between Biology, Chemistry and Physics in the 19th and 20th Centuries (ed. Brigitte Hoppe), Munich, 1997, 398-414. Cf. chapter titled 'The Liebig Research School in Giessen', in Joseph S. Fruton, Contrasts in Scientific Style: Research Groups in the Chemical and Biochemical Sciences, Philadelphia, 1990, 1-71. Note that Fruton includes Schiel in Appendix 1, 'The Liebig Research Group', ibid., 288. Vogt is listed in Appendix 2, 'Selected other Liebig pupils', ibid., 306. Ludwig Buchner is not listed. 24 Justus Liebig, 'Ueber einen neuen Apparat zur Analyze organischerKorperund uber die Zusammensetzung einiger organischer Substanzen', Poggendorffs Annalen der Physik und Chemie (1831), 21, 1-43. 25 Friedrich Wohler and Justus Liebig, 'Untersuchungen uber die Natur der Harnsaure', Annalen der Pharmacie (1838), 26, 241-3. Cf. Justus Liebig, 'On the products of the decomposition of uric acid', Report of the Seventh Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (1838), 6, 38-41. 26 Pat Munday, 'Liebig's metamorphosis: from organic chemistry to the chemistry of agriculture', AMBIX (1991), 38, 135-54. 27 As Jacobs (op. cit. (6), 77) points out, Mill never explicitly addressed how it is that hypotheses about unobservable entities such as atoms come to be proven.


Liebig and Mill

411

most successful British venture was in the book trade. From 1840 onward, translations of Liebig's works such as Organic Chemistry in its Applications to Agriculture and Physiology and Familiar Letters on Chemistry sold well in the British market. Liebig probably believed these popular works preparedthe Britishpublic for other entrepreneurial endeavours. In 1845-46, he tried to market quinidine, a byproduct of quinine manufacture, as a quinine-substitute in England. Because of its chemical similarity to quinine, Liebig was convinced it could substitute it medically. He rushed it to marketwithout adequatemedical trials. It proved worthless.28During the same period, Liebig tried to market an artificial fertilizer to British farmers who were eager, in the face of impending famine and lower Corn Law subsidies, to raise production. The fertilizer also proved worthless, and a public embarrassment to Liebig. Beginning in 1852, Liebig instigated his British friends and students to collect a large testimonial from the British public; he even expected Parliament might grant him a ?300-400 yearly stipend. Though this effort, too, failed, it was not for want of trying.29 Why did Liebig seem driven to promote himself and markethis science in Britain?In late 1844, shortly before being ennobled as a baron,30Liebig began negotiating to buy some rural property near his home in Giessen. He needed money to purchase, develop and maintain this rural property as a gentleman's estate. This need, perhaps, drove him to attempt to capitalize on his British popularity. In addition to Liebig's need for cash, however, he was vain. He had worked very hard to achieve an improved social station, and he seemed always in fear of falling. Throughout his life, he strove for every scrap of recognition that might augment his reputation.31Liebig wanted to be that Newton of chemistry described in Mill's works. Liebig considered his work not merely a contribution to chemistry and related sciences, and he believed chemistry to be a science of central interest to society. Like Mill, he often set up Naturphilosophie, as developed by Schelling and others, as a straw man opposed to his own positivist and empiricallygrounded research. In May 1840, several months before the publication of Agricultural Chemistry, he published a scathing polemic titled 'Der

28 On the 'quinidine caper', which involved the German pharmaceutical manufacturerMerck, the British industrial family of Muspratt and several of Liebig's students, see William H. Brock (ed.), Justus von Liebig und August Wilhelm Hofmann in ihren Briefen, Weinheim, 1984. Cf. Justus von Liebig, 'Ueber Chinoidin', a short article published anonymously in AugsburgerAllgemeinen Zeitung in 1846; reprinted in Andreas Kleinert (ed.), Justus von Liebig: 'Hochwohlgeborner Freyherr', Mannheim, 1979, 25-6. 29 On furtherdetails of Liebig'sBritishpromotions, see Pat Munday, 'Sturm und Dung: Justus von Liebig and the Chemistry of Agriculture', doctoral thesis, Cornell University, 1990, ch. 7, 'The decline of Liebig's influence on agronomy', 247-87. Cf. William H. Brock, Justus von Liebig: The Chemical Gatekeeper, Cambridge, 1997, for a full description of Liebig's British affairs. 30 Liebig knew he was soon to be made a baron. He had been fishing for some kind of honour, though this might not be what he had in mind. See Liebig to the Hesse-Darmstadt state minister Justin von Linde, 29 December 1844, in Eva-Marie Felshow and Emil Heuser (eds.) Universitdtund Ministerium im Vormdrz:Justus Liebigs Briefwechsel mit Justin von Linde, Giessen, 1992, 211. 31 Pat Munday, 'Social climbing through chemistry: Justus Liebig's rise from the niedererMittelstand to the Bildungsbuirgertum',AMBIX (1990), 37, 1-19.


412

Pat Munday

Zustand der Chemie in Preussen' ('The state of chemistry in Prussia'). It appeared as an article in his own journal, and as a pamphlet for mass distribution. According to Liebig, Naturphilosophie was responsible for the backwardness of Prussian science: andignoranceno progressfor the sciencesis to be Fromthis productof obdurateself-overrating theygraspontothefalseGoddessof German expected;withwhathaste,withwhatconcupiscence with its strawstuffedandrougepainteddeadskeleton.It promisesthemlight, Naturphilosophie without troublingthem to open their eyes; it gives them results without observationor experiment,and withoutclarifyingnatureand form,purpose,and activity,whichone wantsto explain;with life-force,dynamic,specific,with loud andin theirmouthssenselesswords,which whichthey likewisedo not understand.32 they do not understand,they explainappearances, 'Der Zustand' served, in part, as a shot over the bow to prepare German readers for the impending publication of Agricultural Chemistry. As a major theme of Agricultural Chemistry, Liebig promoted his mineral theory, the belief that plants subsisted primarily on inorganic constituents of the soil. This was opposed to the humus theory, the belief that plants fed exclusively on organic decomposition products such as rotting flesh, compost or manure. Furthermore,many humus theorists had argued that plants had a vital force, or Lebenskraft, which might even enable them to synthesize inorganic elements found in analyses of plant ashes. Associating humus theory and vitalism with Naturphilosophie was a rhetorical device that underminedLiebig's critics. As discussed earlier, Naturphilosophie as a philosophical school was on its last legs by 1840. It provided a convenient, if not exactly accurate, negative means for a new generation of scientists such as Liebig to define themselves.33Liebig seized upon Mill's Logic as a positive means to define himself. Liebig probably heard about Mill's Logic, and its high praise for him, from his student Alexander W. Williamson (1824-1904). Williamson's father worked with James Mill, the renowned philosopher and father of John Stuart Mill. The young Williamson was befriended by John Stuart Mill, who played a considerable role in guiding his education. Williamson studied with Liebig in Giessen from April 1844 to the summer of 1846. He and Liebig developed a close working relationship, and after performing six original chemical investigations, Liebig awarded him the degree of Doctor without requiring a thesis. Williamson's father, who had lived in Germany some years earlier, even visited Giessen in the summer of 1845. He and Liebig then discussed how best to prepare his son for a teaching career in chemistry. A year later, at the advice of John Stuart Mill, young Williamson left Giessen to study with Auguste Comte in Paris.34In a letter to Comte, Mill cited a conversation with the elder Williamson, reporting'Liebig ... has the highest opinion 32 Justus von Liebig, 'Der Zustand der Chemie in Preussen', Annalen der Chemie und der Pharmacie (1840), 34, 97-136. Cf. Regine Zott and Emil Heuser (eds.), Die streitbarenGelehrten:Justus Liebig und die preuflischen Universitdten,Berlin, 1992. 33 On Naturphilosophie, see Kenneth L. Caneva, Robert Mayer and the Conservation of Energy, Princeton, 1993, especially 275-309. This is the only historically and philologically sensitive account of Naturphilosophie I have read. It is far too brief, and the subject deserves fuller treatment. 34 J. Harris and W. H. Brock, 'From Giessen to Gower Street: towards a biography of Alexander William Williamson', Annals of Science (1974), 31, 95-130. Though Williamson was 'a voluminous letter writer', these letters were inadvertently stolen by burglars who used them to wrap the stolen family silver.


Liebig and Mill

413

of him [Alexander]and speaks of him as one destined to do things in chemistry.'35Liebig's assessment proved true. Following several years studying with Comte in Paris, Williamson accepted a post teaching chemistryat UniversityCollege London in 1849.36He subsequently made many contributions to chemical theory and industrial chemistry.37 Williamson might have provided a critical link between Mill and Liebig. Though it is impossible to verify, one can imagine the conversation that transpired,Williamson telling Liebig about Mill's inductivist philosophy and high regard for Liebig's work, and Liebig praising a healthy English philosophy that disapproved of German metaphysics. Best of all, Liebig was in a position to do Mill (and himself) some good. Beginning with Liebig's student days in Paris, he had formed a close friendship with a publisher from Braunschweig, Eduard Vieweg (1797-1867). Their published correspondence numbers more than 500 letters, and provides insight to the Germanpublication of Mill's Logic. After obtaining a copy of Mill's Logic, Liebig sent it to Vieweg with an urgent request: Willyou undertakethe publicationof an Englishworkwhoseappearancein Germanywouldbe It is healthyEnglishphilosophywhich,sinceBaconof Verulamand timelyand epoch-making? Galileo,is the foundationof all truescience.I havereadandstudiedMill'sSystemof Logicwith increasingsatisfaction,and am of the view thatthis manknowsmoreaboutchemistry,physics, medicine,politicalscience,etc. than most Germanchemists,physicists,or physicians.The way hasmadeit subjectto mockeryandderisionby scientists. philosophyproceedswithus [Germans] They [Germanphilosophers]do not facilitateour researchor clarifyour intellect,insteadthey lead us astrayinto errorand confuseus. Mill has done me the honourof takingup my method of research(on agriculturaland animalchemistry)as a modelin his book and,if you readwhat he saysaboutit, you will not be ableto resistpublishingthis book.Butyou shouldnot put it off. The timeis herefor our readersandadmirersto havesucha work,andI don'tdoubtthatit will be translated.And it would makeme nearlyas happy,if it is publishedby anotherbookseller insteadof you, with whomin the eyesof the peopleI havebecomeentwined.I certainlydo not believethatthis book will be a liabilityfor a publisher,andI would,if you will be the publisher, writeto Mr. Mill myselfand ask whatrevisionshe mightperhapshaveto make.Writeto me or betteryet to Dr. Schiel(whomI havearrangedto be available)a few linesaboutthisrightquick.38 Jacob Schiel (1813-89) translated the two editions of Mill's Logic published by Vieweg.

35 Mill to Comte, 24 June 1845, in Haac, op. cit. (18), 306. 36 Note that Williamson's father and James Mill, among others, had helped to found University College London as an institution where middle class (and non-religious) students could find practical instruction. 37 E. Robert Paul, 'Alexander W. Williamson on the atomic theory: a study of nineteenth-century British atomism', Annals of Science (1978), 35, 17-31. 38 Liebig to Vieweg, 2 May 1847, in Margarete and Wolfgang Schneider (eds.), Justus von Liebig: Briefe an Vieweg, Braunschweig, 1986, 216-17, my translation. The German reads: 'Die Einlage enthalt eine Anfrage, ob Du den Verlag eines englishcen Werkes ubernehmenwillst, dessen Erscheinen in Deutschland ganz an der Zeit ist und, wie ich glaube, Epoche machen durfte. Es ist gesunde englische Philosophie, welche seit Bacon von Verulam und Galilei die Grundlage ist non aller wahren Naturforschung. Ich habe das System of Logic von Mill mit der groEtenBegierdeund stets wachsender Befriedigunggelesen und studiert und bin der Ansicht, daf3dieser Mann mehr weif3und besser wei6, wie man Chemie, Physik, Medizin, Staatswirtschaftetc. studierenmuS, als wie die meisten Chemiker, Physiker, Mediziner in Deutschland. Die Art und Weise, wie man Philosophie bei uns getrieben, hat sie zum Gespotte und Gelachter der Naturforscher gemacht. Sie erleichterte unsere Forschungen nicht und klarte nicht unseren Geist auf, sondern sie fiihrte uns durch Irrlichterauf Abwege und verwirrte uns. Mill hat mir die Ehre angetan, meine Methode der Untersuchung(aus der Agrikulturchemieund der Tierchemie)


414

Pat Munday

The first was published in 1849, titled Die inductiven Logik.39The second was published as two volumes in 1862-63, titled System der deductiven und inductiven Logik. Like many young men who studied with Liebig, Schiel received far more than an education in chemistry. Following doctoral work at Heidelberg, Schiel studied organic analysis for a short time with Liebig in Giessen in 1842. Before securinga teaching position at Heidelberg in 1845, Schiel must have formed a close relationship with Liebig. Not only did Liebig promote Schiel as the translator of Mill's Logic, but he also planned to engage him as his agent in England before the collapse of the 'quinidine caper'." Apparently,Schiel was eager to translateMill's Logic. Even before Liebig'sletter reached Vieweg, a letter arrived from Schiel requesting the assignment. Liebig had sent Schiel a copy of the book, which impressed Schiel and his associates at Heidelberg.41 In correspondence with Vieweg, Schiel argued that the whole point of Mill's work was to develop a broad perspectiveon the scientific method as a means to promote progress in the social and historical sciences.42Though Vieweg would have preferred publishing only a very short summary of Mill's book emphasizing its praise for Liebig, he eventually succumbedto Schiel's zeal for Mill's work. By June 1847, Vieweg had approvedthe project and Schiel was busy translating. Come January 1848, Schiel'stranslation of Mill's Logic was in press, and there was some concern as to whether last minute changes should be made to reflectMill's second English edition (1846).43Both Schiel and Vieweg wanted Liebig to write the foreword, but he declined because he did not want to appear self-aggrandizing.44Schiel wrote the foreword for both the first and second German editions. Because of unforeseen political events, it took nearly an entire year for Schiel to correct the proofs. In January 1849, he wrote to Vieweg requesting prompt payment for his services, explaining that he needed to travel to England for a time.45He wrote again a month later, now urgently:

und Schlufwiesen als Muster in sein Buch aufzunehmen, und wenn Du lesen willst, was er darubersagt, so wirst Du nicht widerstehen konnen, das Buch in Deinen Verlag zu nehmen. Dies soll Dich aber nicht bestechen. Die Zeit is da, wo ein solches Werk bei uns Leser und Verehrerfindet, und ich zweifle nicht, daE es ubersetzt werden wird, und es ist mir beinahe lieber, wenn es ein anderer Buchhandlerubernimmt als Du, der in den Augen der Leute mit Liebig zusammengewachsenist. Ich glaube gewig, dagidieses Buch dem Verlegerkeinen Nachteil bringt, und ich wurde, wenn Du der Verleger wirst, Herrn Mill selbst schreiben und ihn fragen, ob und welche Verbesserungener vielleicht anzubringenhat. Schreibe mir oder besser Herrn Schiel (den ich nicht entfernt zur Ubersetzung veranlaf3thabe) eine Zeile recht bald daruber.' 39 John Stuart Mill, Die inductive Logik. Eine Darlegung der philosophischen Principien wissenschaftlicher Forschung, insbesondere der Naturforschung (tr. Jacob Schiel), Braunschweig, 1849. 40 Liebig to Kolbe, 22 July 1846, in Alan J. Rocke and Emil Heuser (eds.), Justus von Liebig und Hermann Kolbe in ibren Briefen, 1846-1873, Mannheim, 1994, 34. 41 Schiel to Vieweg, 29 April 1847, Vieweg Archive, Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Wiesbaden. 42 Schiel to Vieweg, 18 June 1847, Vieweg to Schiel, 13 June 1847, Schiel to Vieweg, 4 July 1847, Vieweg Archive. 43 Schiel to Vieweg, 21 January 1848 and 16 February1848, Vieweg Archive. Mill heavily revised each of the eight editions of the Logic. See Robson, op. cit. (4), pp. lxxviii-lxxxix. 44 Liebig to Vieweg, 20 October 1849, in M. and W. Schneider, op. cit. (38), 239. 45 Schiel to Vieweg, 5 January 1849, Vieweg Archive.


Liebig and Mill

415

I cannot delay my departurelonger, and must wait on you, for my future depends on it. I suppose my trip will go further than England, I am not sure where. But it will give rise to a report that any bookseller will gladly accept, and they will do well with it in war and peace. If you do not intentionally wish to break our business association, then I will write you further about this. In any case, it will not fall hard on me to tell you that you have not made the right choice. I am writing Professor Liebig today, and I hope to receive your answer not much later than his.46 Liebig understood the dire straits Schiel had found himself in, and he too prodded Vieweg to complete his business with Schiel quickly: I have a letter from Dr. Schill [sic] of Heidelberg. The poor wretch wants to take off for America, and aches for money. He says he has not received an answer from you in weeks, and he despairs. He needs to go to Frankfurt,in order to speak with Mohl, but cannot etc. [sic] Friend, take pity on him, and if he has done well by you, do well by him. If you do it quickly, it is doubly good.47 Why was Schiel so anxious to flee Germany? Like many of Liebig's students, including Ludwig Buichner and Carl Vogt, Schiel was involved in democratic agitation that contributed to the uprisings of March 1848 and the formation of the Frankfurt Parliament. The democrats espoused middle class representative government in a Germany still ruled by enlightened despots. Their political agenda was, in many ways, similar to the democracy envisioned by John Stuart Mill. Yet the Frankfurt Parliament failed to achieve the broader aspirations of its liberal protagonists. Though it made some gains in building a foundation for a united Germany, from the beginning, the emphasis was on law and order first, and industrial growth second. No wonder, as Hamerow wrote, 'By the end of 1848 the bourgeoisie of Europe was in retreat before the forces of a revived conservatism.' When it came to law and order and industrialization, the conservatives could 'outliberalize the liberals'. 48 According to a document written by a Heidelberg official and filed with the university there, Schiel was accused of being the ringleader of the democratic association in Heidelberg.49 Apparently, his involvement was serious enough that he had to flee the country, again like other former students of Liebig, including Vogt and Biichner. Schiel sailed for America and stayed there until 1857. While there, he published some work on

46 Schiel to Vieweg, 8 February 1849, Vieweg Archive, my translation. The German reads: 'Ich kann meine Abreise nicht lInger verschieben, und darf von Ihnen doch wohl erwarten, daI3Sie das Ihrige thun werden, mir meine ganze Zukunft ohne Grund nicht zu verderben. Meine Reise geht vermutliche weiter als England. Nach kann ich nichts bestimmtes sagen, aber sie wird AnlaIW zu einem Bericht geben, den jeder Buchhandler gerne nehmen wird, und [dassein?] Verlegerin Krieg und Friedendamit gut fahren wird. Wenn Sie unsere geschaftliche Verbindungnicht absichtlichzu unterbrechenwiinschen, so werde ich Ihnen weiteres daruberschreibenin andere Falle wird es mir nicht schwer fallen, Ihnen zu beweisen, dag Sie diesmal den richtigen Griff verfehlt haben. Ich schreibe heute an Prof. Liebig; ich hoffe, Ihre Antwort nicht viel spater als die seinige zu erhalten.' 47 Liebig to Vieweg, 10 February1849, M. and W. Schneider,op. cit. (38), 237-8, my translation. The German reads: 'Ich erhalte eben einen Brief von Dr. Schill [sic] von Heidelberg. Der Armste will nach Amerika und seufzt nach Geld. Er sagt, er hatte seit Wochen kein Antwort von Dir und sei in Verzweiflung,er wolle nach Frankfurt, um mit Mohl zu sprechen und konne nicht etc. Freund, habe Mitleid mit seiner Lage, und wenn er etwas gut bei Dir hat, so gib es ihm. Du tust, wenn es schnell geschieht, ein doppelt guites Werk.' 48 T. S. Hamerow, Restoration, Revolution, Reaction: Economics and Politics in Germany, 1815-1871, Princeton, 1958, on 173, 191. 49 'GehorsamsterBriefe des Oberamts Heidelberg', 18 July 1848, #236/8499, GenerallandesarchivKarlsruhe.


416

Pat Munday

chemical analyses, and eventually a small book about his travels in the Humboldt Range of the Rocky Mountains.50 Upon his return to Germany, Schiel tried to pick up where he had left off. He resumed correspondence with Vieweg, and began a translation of Mill's Logic for the second German edition (1862-63). The edition included the full text of Mill's revised work. This would indicate that sales of the first edition had been fairly good, and that Vieweg did not fear losing money on a new edition of such a lengthy and seeminglyspecializedtwo-volume text.51

Vieweg and Schiel hoped Mill would write a foreword or perhaps otherwise help promote the second German edition of his work. Unfortunately,they neglected to inform Mill that a new translation was in progress until just before publication. They learned Mill had already been working with Theodor Gomperz of Vienna on the other German edition.52Mill wrote, informing Schiel, 'I am sorry that I am precluded from associating myself in any way with this work which you have done me the honour to undertake, as a highly competent countrymanof yours, a friend of mine has been for some time engaged, with my sanction, in making a complete translation of the "System of Logic"'. Gomperz' translation was not, however, published until after 1873. PerhapsMill was aware of how slowly his friend Gomperz worked, for he went on to encourage Schiel, 'This [support of Gomperz' work] however need not prevent me from mentioning to you that the fifth [English] edition, published a few months ago, contains a considerable number of minor additions and improvements, and one entire new chapter.'53Schiel and Vieweg took up Mill's suggestion, and delayed publication some months until Schiel had incorporated the various revisions from Mill's fifth English edition. Schiel was less successful in regaining his post at Heidelberg. He wrote to the Minister of the Interior in May 1859, requesting he be reinstated as a Privatdocent.54 This was not a secureposition, but would have allowed Schiel to offer lecturesfor a fee. Both the Interior Minister's and the faculty senate's records state, as fact, that Schiel had left his Privatdocent position in 1849 without notifying either the faculty or the senate. Yet no explicit reason for Schiel's flight was ever mentioned, or requested.It is as if everyone was bound by an Act of Oblivion to forget the revolutionary events of 1848.55 The faculty senate did approve reinstatingSchiel as Privatdocentfor the winter semester of 1859/60. Whether by volition or force, Schiel left Heidelberg a year or so later and spent several years in Frankfurt,where he lectured on organic chemistry to medical students. In May 1867, he took up residencein the comparativelyliberal state of Baden-Baden.Perhaps

50 Jacob Schiel, Reise durch die Felsen- & Humboldtgebirge, Schaffhausen,1859. 51 According to Schiel, the second edition sold 1250 copies. Schiel to Vieweg, [?] September 1867, Vieweg Archive. 52 Cf. Mill to Gomperz, various letters c. 1862, in Marion Filipiuk et al. (eds.), Additional Letters of John Stuart Mill, Toronto, 1991. 53 Mill to Schiel, u.d., copied by Schiel and sent to Vieweg with Schiel's letter of 1 July 1862, Vieweg Archive. 54 Ministerium des Innern to the engerer Senat, 24 May 1859. E.N. 6208, R.N. 6838, Generallandesarchiv Karlsruhe. 55 The situation recalls the original Act of Oblivion, invoked during the trial of Socrates, that forbade mention of Athenian political tyranny from the Peloponnesian War period.


Liebig and Mill

417

Schiel came into an inheritance,for he built a house and claimed to have paid 9000 Gulden for the property alone.56 In a Germany where democratic action could lead to expulsion, science was politics by other means. Considered as a cultural Gestalt, political conservatism, religious authority and science based on untested metaphysical speculations were of a piece. Political conservatives, for example, might determine a person's station in life by the circumstances they were born into. This would prevent a socially ambitious young man like Liebig from entering the ranks of the scientific elite. Likewise, religious conservatives might frown on a chemical physiology that explained human metabolism in terms of chemical reactions that might occur in a steam-engine. Many students of Liebig, like his young friend Carl Vogt, realized the radical political connotations of this science. In 1844, Vogt wrote Liebig: Scienceshouldconscientiously be keptby the authoritiesto a magicalsemi-darkness; as soon as it addressesquestionsconcerninglife, whackit on the fingers.Forheaven'ssakesI ask you to be carefulwith yourprogressin agricultural chemistry!If bad luck wills it, andyourideason soil cultivationand productiongain a realfoothold,then all the socio-politicalquestionswhichthe statedealswith will drawthe attentionof the policeto chemistry.I still do not understandwhy they are not keepinga vigilanteye on you and yourwhollycommunistscientificdirection.Oh! If I werethe police chief!You would be the firstamongthe demagogues.57 Mill, like Vogt, realized a thorough grounding in scientific method was necessary to the utilitarian social revolution he envisioned. Mill's Logic was an explicit appeal to the truth of nature for a method to reshapepolitics. Materialist chemical explanations were a means of reforming human beings into a sort of steam-engine capable of calculation. Science is a social activity, and often a contentious process. In Germanyespecially, materialismcould not be promoted without contending with the conservative proponents of vitalism, if not the police. Liebig was a 'good German' with a half-formed political consciousness. He could embrace positivist science while kow-towing to the Prince of Hesse-Darmstadtor the King of Bavaria.When writing to the Bavarianking, he could disparagethe very materialismhe promoted in his popular collections of Letterson Chemistry.Liebig worked with chemistry to achieve the art of the possible. Perhaps he was unaware of his own sublimation of politics into chemistry. His students, however, were not unaware, and in the work of Schiel, Vogt and Biichner, there was no clear line between science and politics. Liebig's colleague at Giessen, the philosopher Moriz Carriere, also demonstrates this awareness of the connection between science and politics. He heard Liebig's lectures in 56 Schiel to Vieweg, 25 August 1867, Vieweg Archive. 57 Vogt to Liebig, quoted in Brigitte Jaschke, Ideen und Naturwissenschaft: Wechselwirkungen zwischen Chemie und Philosophie am Beispieldes Justus von Liebig und Moriz Carriere,Stuttgart,1996, 97, my translation. The German reads: 'Die Wissenschaften sollen mit Gewalt in einem gewissen magischen Halbdunkel gehalten werden und sobalt sie mit dem Leben in Beziehung treten wollen, klopft man ihnen auf die Finger. Ich bitte Sie ums Himmelswillen, seien Sie vorsichtig mit Ihren Fortschrittenin der Agriculturchemie!Wenn das Ungliick es will, da13Ihre Ideen iiber Bodenbebauung und Production thatsachlichen FuE fassen und mit allgemein socialpolitischen Fragen, mit denen sich der Staat ex officio befaI3t,sich verkniipfen, so ist es um die Chemie, als polizeilich erlaubte Wissenschaft geschehen [...] Ich begreife noch nicht, daf3 man auf Sie und Ihre ganz communistische Richtung in der Wissenschaft kein wachsames Auge haben will. 0! Wenn ich Polizeiminister ware! Sie miigten zuerst als Demogogue daran!'


418

Pat Munday

1835 and 1836, and became fond of quoting Liebig in work he published in the 1840s. Carriere demonstrates a more highly developed political consciousness than Liebig possessed: he belonged to a Sonderbunde like the one Schiel had led, edited the Free Hessian News with Carl Vogt, and served as a delegate in the FrankfurtParliament.58 In supporting young men such as Vogt and Schiel, I believe Liebig demonstrated his position as a closet liberal.59As a young man, Liebig had lived through difficult times. It must have seemed remarkableto him that he could have risen to such a high social station from such a lowly beginning. Realizing the limitations of what might be achieved in his own career, he hoped for better days to come. He could hold up Vogt's scientific researches and Schiel's translations of Mill as legitimate and seemingly innocent intellectual achievements.Through these achievements,he could promote the careersof his proteges. At the same time, as a nineteenth-centuryheir of the Enlightenment, he could hope their intellectual achievements would promote progress in other areas.

58 Jaschke, op. cit. (57), 130-3, 196. 59 In Vogt's case, Liebig waged a battle of words to convince the Crown to approve him for a teaching post at Giessen. Though Liebig succeeded, Vogt became entangled in the events of 1848 and, like Schiel, was banished. See various correspondence c. 1842-43 involving Liebig, Linde and Vogt in Felschow and Heuser, op. cit. (30). Cf. Jaschke, op. cit. (57), 281-7.
