The Periodic System and Its Influence on Research and Education in Germany between 1870 and 1910
In 1895 Karl Seubert (1851–1942) published some of the most important papers by Lothar Meyer (1830–1895) and Dmitrii I. Mendeleev (1834–1907) on the so-called natural system of elements. He wrote: . . . At first it seems incomprehensible to today’s reader of these essays that the general reception of the system was delayed for many years even though it was presented in a final form and its benefit for theoretical, practical and pedagogical purposes had been explained in detail. . . . Seubert discovered a lack of interest in the field of inorganic chemistry, but also an inadequate description of the system. He remarked that Meyer’s explanations were too short, and Mendeleev’s too circuitous. The system became a resounding success when the deductions which were drawn from it were confirmed by experiments in rapid succession: the selection of the atomic weight with respect to the known number of equivalents, as in the case of indium and uranium; the change in the order, regardless of the valid atomic weights, such as the platinum group; and, last but not least, the prediction of new elements and their chemical properties which were proved true with the discoveries of scandium, gallium and germanium quickly one after the other. The brilliant vision and the boldness of Mendelejeff led the system to its unquestioned victory. Seubert was Meyer’s colleague for many years. From 1878 to 1895, they worked together on the redetermination of atomic weights and published several papers on this topic. Seubert was the first biographer to write about Meyer and was responsible for publishing his most important papers. Nevertheless, Seubert regarded Mendeleev’s role in the discovery of the periodic system to be of greater importance. This is shown by the last sentence of the previously quoted passage. Seubert’s remark elicits two questions: First, why did Seubert consider Meyer’s role in the discovery of the periodic system as less important? Second, was its reception in Germany truly delayed? These questions are connected to several different factors: politics within German chemistry; didactic approaches to teaching chemistry in schools and universities; and the role of the periodic system in the public sphere.