National History: Understanding Education and Patronage in the 19th Century
© Marc Rothenberg
DRAFT! DO NOT QUOTE WITHOUT PERMISSION

When I started graduate school some twenty years ago, doing disciplinary history was, I thought, unproblematic. After all, I had Charles Rosenberg's model from the history of biology and medicine to draw upon. Rosenberg's model, first presented at the History of Science Society meeting in 1963 ("On the Study of American Biology and Medicine: Some Justifications," Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 1964, 38: 364-376) and refined over the subsequent decade, had a few basic premises: "The scientist is not only an individual but a member of society generally and of a specific learned discipline." ("Factors in the Development of Genetics in the United States: Some Suggestions," Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 1967, 22:45) "Ideas are international," but societal context is particular. ("Study of American Biology," p. 365). A "scientist's conception of [his/her] task was shaped by the techniques, the ideas, the values and aspirations which education in a particular discipline had instilled in [him/her]" ("Development of Genetics," p. 45). "The sum of scientific achievement . . . is shaped by the interaction of external circumstances . . . and the scientist's personal, internal aspirations" ("Factors, p. 45). In short, Rosenberg presented disciplinary history as a vehicle for overcoming the internal-external split. He was advocating an integrated approach to disciplinary history.

Thus, it was natural for me to write a dissertation examining the relationship between the education of American astronomers and their research. In doing so, I examined such issues as the introduction and integration of theories and techniques from France and Germany into American astronomy, the quantification of American astronomy, and the importance of informal educational centers. Using Rosenberg's model, I felt confident in examining a number of issues within a narrow time frame and particular societal context, combining social and intellectual history ("The Educational and Intellectual Background of American Astronomers, 1825-1875" Bryn Mawr College, 1974).

Subsequently, however, I prepared an essay for the General History of Astronomy, volume 3B. Because it is now doubtful that this essay will appear in print, I present it below.

"What People Became Astronomers"

Historians have generally argued that a professional scientific career was a nineteenth-century phenomenon. In Great Britain, according to these arguments, it was not until well into the Victorian era that science was considered a separate career path, rather than either part of a cultured gentleman's repertoire or an asset in advancing in one of the more traditional careers, such as the military. German science awaited the great reform and expansion of its universities which began in the last decade of the eighteenth century. Only the educational structure of post-revolutionary France made it possible to have a career in science in that nation.

If we accept Crosland's definition of a professional career as entailing 'full-time and remunerated employment entered into after a course of training' ('The Development of a Professional Career in Science in France', 38), then the above arguments hold true for astronomy. It is very difficult, for example, to discern any educational pattern for astronomers before 1800. There was no course of training that someone could undertake in anticipation of a professional scientific career.

However, I shall take a broader view of a professional, expanding the definition to include anyone who earned their living, at least in part, practicing astronomy. Approximately 300 men (and a handful of women) did so in Europe, its colonies and the United States between 1650 and 1850. I have analyzed the lives and careers of 262 of these professional astronomers in
this chapter. These are professional scientists who either published at least ten astronomical papers during this era (according to the Bibliographie général de l'astronomie jusqu'en 1880), or made sufficiently significant contributions to astronomy to merit inclusion in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography under the category. They directed observatories, taught, worked for nautical almanacs, accepted government stipends or conducted surveys. Representing the most productive professional astronomers of the period, the 262 came from twelve different nations, although over 75% came from Germany, France, the British Empire and Italy (see Table 1). Excluded from the analysis were a somewhat indeterminate number of marginal figures: professors with few publications, junior observatory staff and almanac computers.

Using this more inclusive definition of a professional, we find that there was a significant community of professional astronomers active before 1800. Forty-three percent of our group had begun their careers prior to that year. Employment opportunities at any one time might have been limited and the form of preparation and the pattern of selection of candidates uncertain compared to the highly structured astronomical communities of nineteenth-century France and Germany, but there were university chairs, observatory posts and government stipends. The availability of employment varied considerably from nation to nation. France, with its institutions of higher education, military and Académie des sciences, was the early center for professional astronomy. Forty-one percent of the astronomers active before 1800 had positions at one time or another in France. In contrast, German states employed only 13%. The effect of changing conditions after 1800, such as the expansion of the German university system, is illustrated in the contributions of the two nations to the community of professional astronomers active after 1800: Germany employed 35%, while France only 15%.

The most important single factor in determining the career patterns of professional astronomers was the national context. Although the content of astronomy may transcend political and cultural boundaries, astronomers had limited geographical mobility in the pursuit of their careers. In the wake of the collapse of the intellectually unified medieval world, rising national consciousness and competition and the increasing sophistication and diversification of astronomical techniques, different nations developed different means of certifying scientists for employment; language barriers became significant; national styles evolved. A skilled observer might be prized in Great Britain, but be of marginal importance to the more theoretically oriented French community or to the more rigorously mathematical German practical astronomers.

As a result, approximately 85% of professional astronomers remained in the same country throughout their careers (using a post-1870 concept of Italy and Germany and ignoring travel to temporary research sites and for educational purposes), a percentage which fluctuated little during two centuries. Those who did move often remained within the same cultural nexus, departing German-speaking Switzerland or Austria for Germany. The only large scale immigration was the result of Russia's attempt to import Western science during the last half of the eighteenth and first half of the nineteenth centuries. One quarter of all professional astronomers who immigrated--30% of those who did so after 1800--went to Russia.

English-speaking astronomers were the least likely among the major groups to immigrate. No member of either the British or American professional communities took a position on the Continent. Language problems were perhaps partially responsible, but probably much more important were the large differences in training, apparatus and perceived research problems. George B. Airy's comparison of English and Continental astronomers is one contemporary recognition of such differences: "In England, an observer conceives that he has done every thing when he has made an observation.... In the foreign observatories, on the contrary, an observation is considered as a lump of ore, requiring for its production, when the proper machinery is provided, nothing more than the commonest labour, and without value till it has been smelted." (Report of the Second Meeting of the British Association, 184.)

In contrast, one in four Italian astronomers found positions in other countries. Inferior facilities, a sense of isolation and the Revolution of 1848 may be the contributing factors to this brain drain. Falling in between were the Germans, with an immigration rate of nearly 20%. This figure reflects both the desire of less advanced nations to import German astronomers and the unhappiness of some Germans with the hierarchical structure and slow advancement in Germany.

Institutional mobility was more likely than international mobility. Only about 60% of the professional astronomers who remained in one country throughout their professional careers also remained at the same institution. The rate varied from approximately 70% for Britain, the smaller European countries and the United States, to about 50% for Germany, Italy and France. Relatively high mobility for the large, growing community in Germany is not surprising; neither is the immobility of astronomers in smaller nations where the professional astronomical community was centered about one or two institutions. The likelihood of an astronomer changing his place of employment, after all, was in the first instance dependent upon the number of alternative opportunities available. One variable was the number of positions. Another was the longevity of astronomical contemporaries. A third, which helps explain the apparent anomaly of Britain's low rate of institutional mobility despite the size of its astronomical community, was the incompatibility of different institutions. Oxford scientists, for example, did not take professorships at Cambridge, or vice versa. The philosophical differences were too great.

The most common movement for astronomers was intellectual--between disciplines. Throughout the Western world, astronomy was closely linked to mathematics, natural philosophy and the geophysical sciences. Almost half of the professional astronomers either made significant contributions to other disciplines (according to the Dictionary of Scientific Biography) or held chairs in them. Multi-disciplinary chairs or chairs where the teaching of astronomy was subsumed under another discipline were not uncommon. About 14% of the professional astronomers made contributions to at least two disciplines other than astronomy, usually mathematics and physics.

The desire, opportunity or necessity to publish or teach in more than one discipline showed national biases. Germany had the most specialized community; only 38% worked in a field other than astronomy, while less than 10% contributed to two outside fields. Fifty-eight percent of French professional astronomers, in contrast, worked in another discipline, while nearly one quarter contributed to two additional disciplines. Part of the difference between the French and Germans was an artifact of time. Astronomers active in the nineteenth century were generally more likely to limit their activities to astronomy than those of the preceding two centuries, and German astronomy developed later than French astronomy. However, some of the difference was a reflection of the broader interests of French astronomers and a need to be qualified for whatever employment opportunities were available.

Since French academic salaries in the nineteenth century were low, French scientists commonly engaged in the practice of the cumul, the holding of positions in more than one institution. These positions were frequently in related but different disciplines. Two examples from astronomy are Dominique Arago, who was both Professor of Descriptive Geometry at the École Polytechnique and director of the Paris Observatory, and Jean-Baptiste Biot, who held the professorship of mathematical physics at the Collège de France and of astronomy at the Paris Faculté des Sciences. Such men could be thought of as professional scientists concerned with astronomy, rather than professional astronomers. Designating them as astronomers in an arbitrary decision. It would have been equally valid to analyze their careers in a study of French physicists. Highly restrictive barriers between disciplines did not exist, while a system which accepted the cumul encouraged men to be able to teach many subjects, spreading themselves thin.

In the German university system, however, a reputation acquired through publications was the key to employment and promotion. Collegiate or pedagogical skills were not as important as an in depth knowledge of the discipline.

National differences also appear in the structure of professional astronomical communities. British professionals were generally divided into two distinct groups, each following a separate career path. The professors and observatory directors were usually university educated and expected to be productive researchers. Observatory assistants, in contrast, were often more prized for their hands than their minds. They were closer to the mathematical practitioners--the sub-culture of the scientific world consisting of surveyors, instrument makers, map makers and other technicians--than to research astronomers. The social, intellectual and astronomical gaps between the two groups were too large to be easily overcome. It was a rare accomplishment when one of the 'obedient drudges' (as Pond called the assistants at Greenwich) gained recognition as an astronomer in his own right.

In Germany, however, the structure of the professional astronomical community, although hierarchical, was neither static nor bifurcated. Bright young men could advance from assistant to director. To list just a few examples: Karl Harding and F.W. Bessel, both assistants at Schröter's observatory at Lilienthal, went on to professorships in astronomy at Göttingen and Königsberg respectively; Johann Encke started his career as an assistant at Seeberg Observatory and concluded it as Director at Berlin. German assistants were apprentice astronomers with scientific aspirations in common with their superiors, not permanent drudges.

Perhaps the structure of the German astronomical community seemed so fluid because of the homogeneous background of German astronomers. Astronomy was generally a middle-class occupation in Europe, although it did offer some opportunity for social advancement (see Table 2), but the Germans were more middle-class than most. Only one in six German professional astronomers came from lower-class households, in comparison to one in four in Britain. (Italy had the highest rate of social mobility: one in three Italians came from lower-class families.) The Germans also drew upon the more educated, non-mercantile middle-class for their astronomers. Over half the fathers were educators, ministers, civil servants or scientists. The French drew upon similar backgrounds (excluding ministers) for over half their astronomers. In Britain, however, mercantile and manufacturing families were important contributors to the astronomical community. The educators, ministers, etc. who loomed so large in Germany raised less than 30% of British professional astronomers.

From the perspective of the social history of science, professional astronomers seem to have had more in common with other professional scientists of the same nationality than they did with other astronomers operating under different educational and social systems. At least, that is the implication of this discussion. Unfortunately, the quantitative data is not yet available to confirm such a sweeping conclusion for over two hundred years, a dozen nations and a variety of disciplines. We still simply know too little about who the scientists were.

Subsequent work in the history of American and British astronomy has provided much additional information on the education of astronomers and the patronage/employment systems. The evidence supports the conclusion that understanding the education and employment of astronomers within national contexts requires an understanding of national educational and employment/patronage systems. To do the history of astronomy requires one to go beyond that field to the larger national history. That is the issue I wish to discuss in this session.