Johannes W.

van Spronsen
State University of Utrecht
The Priority Conflict between
Utrecht, The Netherlands
Mendeleev and Meyer

The longest battle over priority in the
discovery of the periodic system of chemical elements
was fought between Dmitri Ivanovitch Mendeleev and
Lothar Meyer. Their difficulties arose largely from the
fact that Meyer published his first periodic system (I)
after Mendeleev's views (Fig. 1) had been officially
stated (3,s). When Meyer published his article in 1870,
he knew of these views only from the brief report in the
Zeitschrijt fur Chemie (4). But before Meyer presented
his ideas in a periodical, he had already worked them
out in 1868 into a system (Fig. 2) intended for the new
edition of his "Moderne Theorien der Chemie." Mende-
leev, of course, was not aware of this when Meyer's
publication reached him. I n the fight for priority Meyer
did not refer to this latter system at all. After he had
given the manuscript to Remeld, his successor as pro-
fessor of chemistry at Eherswalde in July, 1868, he did
not recall it until May, 1893, when he read a paper on
the periodic system before the Deutsche Chemische
Gesellschaft (5). Reme14 in turn passed this system on
to Seubert, Meyer's colleague a t the University of
Tubingen since 1885, who published it (5) in 1895, the
year in which Meyer died.
We cannot altogether accept the contention that in
1864 in the first edition of his cited textbook (5, 6)
Meyer had classified only elements with analogous
properties and had not considered their interrelation-
ships. The elements-even though only a fraction of
the known elements were included-occur in the order
of increasing atomic weight, hut Meyer put the main
emphasis on valence (Figs. 3, 4). Both investigators
had to make alterations in their subsequent systems,
e.g., in the atomic weights of indium, cerium, and
uranium. Mendeleev indeed had a better view of the
consequences of his discovery than Meyer, although
both had immediately accepted the periodic system as
the basis of inorganic chemistry. The textbooks of both
(7, 8) provide indisputable evidence of this. Already in
his first two publications of 1869 Mendeleev ($3, 9)
related the atomic volume to the atomic weighd, whereas
Meyer (I) brought forward his views on this point
only in 1870.
Mendeleev (10) expressedhisclaimtopriority asfolloas:
Obgleieh ein Feind aller Prion'tntsjragen, habe ich mieh doch en&
sehlossen, die niedergesehn'ebenen Bemerkungen zu maehen, u m so
mehr, als mirdie H . H . Gemt1,'Meyer und theilweiseH7. Blomstmnd
die P r i o d i i t meines Systemsstreitig machen, gegen einander aber
mil solehen Alzspriiehen nicht aujtreten, o b s c h a solche def Zeit des
Erseheinens obenerwdhnter Abhandlungen nach eher gerechtferligl
wiiren. Sehon die Aujzdhlung so verschiedener Anspniche beweist an
und jiir sieh zur Geniige, dass meine Schlussfolgemngen den
Aujgaben, welehe sieh obenemahnte eminente Chemiker gestellt
haben, entspveeha, ohne augleich nu? Weidwholungen ihrer Aussa-
gen t u sein; ieh glaube auch voraussetzen ru d u ~ f e n ,dass noch
gemuer Bekanntsehaft mit den uon mi? erhaltenen Ergebnissen man
m e i n a I d e m die Selbstirndigkeit nicht absprechen wird.l

C =I2 51 =28 7 =70 Sn =118 'London correspondent of the Deutsche Chemische Gesellschaft,
N=ld P=31 lil r 7 5 Sb ~ 1 2 2 81 ~ 2 1 0
0 ~ 1 6 5 ~ 3 2 Sr ~ 7 9 4 Te =I287
who, in 1871 claimed priority for the English discoverer of the
F --.10 - -
CI ...
-155 E
, -~~
- =80 J =I27
~ periodic system, William Odling ( 1 1 ) .
LC = 7 NO ~ 2 3 K =39 m ~ 8 % c, ~131 TI = a 4 ¶Despite my dislike for priority disputes, I have decided t o
ca = 4 0 5, =876 80 ~ 1 3 7 ~b = m make the following comments. This has become the more im-
9 =45 ce = ~ 2
?Er = M Lo ~ 9 4
portant since Gerstl, Meyer, and partly Bloomstrand have dis-
=W
7 ~ 1 DI ~ 9 5 puted my right to claim priority of the system of the elements,
91" = f i b ~h =(18? although they do not challenge each other's claim for priority
Figure 1. First periodic ryrtem of Mendeleev (1869). which would be more justifiable in the light of the above-men-
timed facts. The existence of such widely different claims by it-
self proves that my conclusions m e correct. I will also pres&ne
that a close study of my work and results will recognize the orig-
.~ - - . .-inality of my ideas.
~

. ~~
~

.
~

~
~~

~.
--
-
3 T-ym~-i- -
~

D X) I2 13 15 S

",,,,or,.,a,
~ ~

%- nmc .so* e+m

, 4 P*rW mu M. M lm

Figure 2. Firrt periodic ryrtem of Meyer 118681.

136 / lournol o f Chemical Education


Figvre 3. Meyer's +em of elements of 1864.
Figvre 4. Elements outride Meyer'l system of elements (18641.
The priority affair proper did not start until ten years
later, Meyer having already in 1876 referred to the
problem in a footnote of the third edition of his text-
book (12). The conflict broke out because of a letter
Wurtz (13) wrote to the Deutsche Chemische Gesellsehaft
in 1880. I n this letter Wurtz stated that the German
translator of his book "La Thborie atomique" (14) had
given too much credit to Meyer. According to Wurtz,
there was no need to do so, since Meyer (1) himself
ascribed the fundamental idea to Mendeleev. Meyer,
however, had not expressed himself in the terms stated
by Wurtz, and the interpretation was also incorrect,
because the fundamental idea was already known to
him and had rather originated from Meyer himself.
Meyer put the matter literally: "Die nachstehende Ta-
belle ist i m Wesentliehen identisch mit der von Mendelejeff
gegebenen."3 I n the second edition of his textbook (1872)
Meyer gave credit to Mendeleev only for arrangement
of all the elements and remarked in addition that the
system of the Russian scientist resembled his own
system closely. Wurtz' conclusion, however, was quite
different: Meyer had added important things, but the
fundamental idea came from Mendeleev.
The only discrepancy we have been able to find be-
tween the original edition of Wurtz' hook (14) is that
on page 172 the German translator (15) has added the
name of Lothar Meyer, which he placed before that of
the Russian in the line on page 137 of the French
edition reading " M . Mendelejej a ddmontrh que leurs
variations sont une fonction pbriodique de leur poids ato-
mique." What is of much greater importance to us is the
fact that Wurtz mentioned de Chancourtois, the first
discoverer of the periodic system (1862). Although
Wurtz only noted that Mendeleev's work was analogous
to that of de Chancourtois, and made no reference to
the literature, this statement is remarkable because it
was the first to be made on this point (16).
In 1880 this rectification lead to detailed claims of
priority by both investigators. Meyer returned to the
history of the system (l7), "nieht aus allzu grosser
Bescheidenheit den Antheil, den ich an derselben genom-
men, der Vergessenheit anheim fallen zu l a ~ s e n . " ~
Meyer defended himself against Mendeleev's conten-
tion (10) that his 1864 system was a simple composition
of groups of analogous elements. I t included, according
to the author himself, a tendency both toward an
arrangement of the elements in the order of their
atomic weight and the obtainment of a periodicity in
properties. The group Cu, Ag, An was placed by Meyer
a t the end of his arrangement (Fig. 3) because of the
different valence of the elements of this group; he
believed that they did not belong together. He could
not classify the elements zinc, cadmium, and mercury
in any other group of divalent elements. In his opinion,
the incorrectly determined atomic weights of molyb-
denum, niobium, vanadium, and tantalum were re-
sponsible for the fact that these elements could not be
given their correct places. After they had been properly
determined, Meyer was able to include all of them in
one system, but before he made this public the report,
of Mendeleev's Lecture had appeared. As regards the
prediction of elements, Meyer gave priority to Mende-
leev if Newlands' claim for priority (18) was not
justified which Meyer could not yet confirm.
In his turn Meyer criticized Mendeleev's system
(Fig. 2) because it contained not one hut three kinds
of series of elements that were not of an equal length.
This discontinuity was caused by seven elements whose
atomicweights had, as we now know, been incorrectly
determined. These were erbium, yttrium, indium, ceri-
um, lanthanum, didymium, and thorium. If Mendeleev
had wanted to achieve a simple system, Meyer said,
he would have changed those atomic weights. Quite to
the contrary, Meyer claimed he had made a one-series
system (Fig. 5) hut these seven elements had not been
included here either, with the exception of indium.
From his graphic representation of the atomic volumes
(Fig. 6) Meyer drew the conclusion that the first long
period began only with the third period. Mendeleev's
division, however, began after the very first series of
elements, which indeed caused a faulty incorporation
of some rather poorly investigated metals.
To explain the limitations of his earlier publication
Meyer said:
Ich wiire i n meiner Arbeil gem auf die Verschiedenh&ten unserer
Tafeln ndher eingegangen; aber bei dem darnals besehninkten und
fest begrenzten Raume der Annalen durfle ieh die Freundliehkeil
der Redaktion, die mir ganz ausnahmsweise die Veriiffenlliehung
einer keine n e u a experimentella Daten enlhaltsnda Abnandlung
verstattete, nicht missbrauchen und musste mich der (iussersta
Kiirze befleissigen. Ich sagte daher, meine T a f d sei "im WesentlG
ehen" (d.h. i n der Anordnung naeh der Grosse der Atorngewichtc)
"idenliseh mil d m eon Mendelejeff gegebenen." Dies war velleicht
elwas zuviel H@ilichkliehkeit aberjedenfalls besser, als hnlte ich mi7 zuviel
Verdienst z u g e s ~ h r i e b a . ~
Meyer remarked that Mendeleev did not mention
the improvements Meyer had added to his system.
Meyer concluded that after deduction of his own mod-
erate share in the development of the periodic system,
i.e., the setting up of a simple series according to in-
creasing atomic weight as well as the discovery of the
lThe table below is, in its important aspects, identical t o the
one given by Mendelejeff.
-'.. . my contribution t o the historical event will not be forgotten
because of too much modesty on my part.
51 would have liked t o discuss the difference between our tables
in more detail but I was obliged t o be brief. The editors of the
Annalen had made an exception in permitting me to publish
material which did not contain new experimental results, and I
did not want to abuse this privilege. I stated that my table is "in
its important aspects" (i.e., in the arrangement according to
atomicweights) "identical to theonegiven by Mendelejeff." This
was perhaps an overstatement but better than taking too much
credit for myself.
Volume 46, Number 3, Morch 1969 / 137

mmm",u",,,,m",,
z" ,":mb,,W
Figure 5. Meyer'r 1870 periodic system.
periodicity, Mendeleev's merit still remained very great.
He hoped that the whole matter could now be settled,
and concluded: "Es ist nicht leicht, gegen jemanden, der
einem die eigenen Lieblingsgedanken unerwartet durch-
kreuzt, vollig objektiu gerecht zu bleiben."8
To this defense by Meyer, which was really also an
attack, Mendeleev replied by sending his first original
Russian publication of March, 1869 to the editors of
the Berichte der deutschen chemischen Gesellschaft (19).
Furthermore, Mendeleev reprinted the official report
of the meeting of scientists held on August 23, 1869, at
which he had spoken on the atomic volume of the
elements. Both papers had already appeared in Decem-
ber, 1869, before Reyer's publication. Mendeleev
presumed that Meyer had read only a report of these
publications and not the original texts. Mendeleev then
indicated by means of many quotations from his first
work, that' he had copied nothing from Meyer, includ-
ing the divisions in the system, as he understood Meyer
to claim. We have seen, however, that this was not
what Meyer had meant. Meyer remarked that the
expression periodicity of the properties had been created
by him. Meyer repeated only, according to Mendeleev,
what had already been found by Mendeleev himself.
I n March, 1869, Mendeleev believed that uranium
(atomic weight = 116?) was a homolog of boron and
aluminum. A year later he assigned to indium the place
he had earlier given to uranium. Meyer did so too, at
about the same time. Meyer also did not precede
Mendeleev in the correction of the atomic weights of
cerium, uranium, and yttrium. When Meyer proposed
to double the atomic weight of uranium, Mendeleev
had already altered this value.
Mendeleev concluded that, if Meyer had discovered
a periodic system in 1864, he could not have failed to
see that the difference in atomic weight between B (11)
Figure 6. Meyer'r graphic reprerentation of atomic volumer,
138 / Journal of Chemical Education
and Al (27) was the same as between C (12) and Si (28).
The criticism was indeed justified that in 1864 Meyer
had classified only according to valence and not to
atomic weight and had also made use of wrong valences,
e.g., tetravalence or hexavalence for aluminum.
I n his defense Mendeleev summarized his work from
1869 in ten points. He claimed that his system:
1. die chemisehe Aehnlichkeit der Elemente ausdriickt, s o n d m
2. aueh der Eintheilung dm Elemente in Metalle und Melalldide
entsprieht;
3. ihre Werthigkeit unterscheidet;
. . zusammenstellt k.B.
4. dhnliehe Elemente verschiedener Gruppen
B, C, Si, Al, Ti);
5- . die d m Homolooie dhnliehe Uebereinstimmuno d e ~Elemente.
~~~~ ~
a u j welche vide Chemiker hinwiesa, erkldrt;
6. Wasserstoff als ein tgpisehes Element ausseheidet, was auch die
gegenwdrtige Wissensekajt anerkennt;
7. die verb~eitetsten.undi n der Natursich gegenseitig begleitenden
ge&nseitigen ~ e r & d s e h a j t hinweist. ~nsserdem-weist
10. ein Vergleich der speeifisehen Gewichte und speeifisehen Volu-
mina der oerschiedenen R e i h a angehdrigen Elemente bis 2%
einem gewissen Grade a u j die Naturgemdssigheit des Systems
auch i n dieser Beziehung hin.'
Point 10 was intended to show that Mendeleev had
been earlier than Meyer in drawing a conclusion as to
the specific volume. He wrote on this point:s
Als mir (im Anfang 1870) aus Moskau die Correctur meiner
Abhendlung "Uber Atomvolum der Elemente" zugeschickt wurde,
setzte ieh am Schlusse derselba folgende Anmwkung, aus welcher
zu ersehen ist, wie wenig ich geneigt bin, Prioritatsjvagen selbst
anruregen. Seite 71 (Anmerkung): Das hier erdrterte habe ich auf
der Versammlung im August 1869 rnitgetheilt. 1870 erschien in
Liebig's Annalen (nachdem diese Abhandlung sum Drucken ab-
gesehiekt war) ein denselben Gegenstand behandelnder AujsatE des
H m . L. Meyer. Die Schlussfolgerungen des H m . Meyer griinden
sieh a u j die Zulassung des Don mi7 gegehenen Systems dm Elemente
8It is not easy t o be completely objective toward someone who
has unexpectedly interfered with one's own ideas.
'1. reflects the chemical similarity of the elements;
2. corresponds to the separation of the elements into metsls
and nonmetals;
3. separates the eloments by valence;
4. places similar elements of different groups close together
fB. .
, , C. Si., Al., Ti):
,,
5. explsins the recurrence of properties of the elements;
6. identifies hydrogen a s a typical element which is generally
accepted by contemporary chemists;
7. places those elements close together which occur together in
nature;
8. points out the shortcomings of Prout's hypothesis;
9. brings out the relationship between the elements;
10. allows s. comparison of specific weights and specific volumes
of the elements belonging to different rows, which, t o a
certain degree, proves that the systemis based on natural law.
8When I received the corrected copy of my paper on "Atomic
Volumes of the Elements" from Moscow (early in 1870), I added
the following comment which shows how little I a m interested in
bringing up questions of priority. Comment on page 71: The
subject matter of this paper was presented by me at the conven-
tion in August, 1869. I n 1870 there appeared in Liebig's Annalen
(after this manuscript had been sent in far printing) a paper on
the same subject by Mr. L. Meyer. His conclusions are based
on the rtcceptance of the system of elements proposed hy,me and
agree with mine drawn from considerations of atomic volume.
The findings have been made clearer by the attached graphical
representation. I t is not my intention t o open the question of
priority with this added comment (such questions are, in my
opinion, of little scientific interest), but t o point in particular t o
the table attached t o Mr. Meyer's publication as a means t o
help find a. solution to the complicated relationships referred
t o above.
und slimmen mit den "on mir hinsichtlich dm Atomvoluma g e z ~
gena liberein. Die Sehlussjolgerungen haben dureh die der Abhan-
dlung beigegebene graphische Darstellung an Klarheit gewonna.
Mil dem Neiderschreiben dieser Naehsehrijt will ieh nicht die Frage
betliglieh der wissenschafllichen Prioritdt anregen (meiner Ansieht
noch haben diese Fragen pft gar kein wissensehajtliehes Intemsse),
sondem nu? die Aufmerksamkeit auj die, diesel. Abhandlung des
H m . Meyer beigegabme Tajel, als auj ein Miltel, das bei der Auf-
kliirung der eompliebten Beziehungen, auj welehe in der wxherge-
hende Zeilen hingewiesen wurde, behlilflieh sein konnte, lenka.8
Mendeleev claimed further:
1. to have given expression in August, 1869, to d l the ideas which
a t the time of writing formed the basis of the periodic system;
-~thst Mwer was not mior to him snd had added nothine new:
2. ~~~~ ~ ~
3. that ~ e i e was
r the first German to set up the outward fork
of the periodic system, but
4. that Meyer did not comprehend the deeper meaning. He pre-
dieted no atomic weights, and did not alter any.
I t is clear from this contest for priority that both
Meyer's and Mendeleev's discoveries were made at
about the same time, and that one of the discoverers
had indeed been the first to publish, but might not
have been the first to conceive the idea. It is in fact of
little use to discuss this point: we must give both of
them their due.
Mendeleev mas of opinion that, if anyone had intro-
duced a new factor, it had been Carnelley (20) with his
discovery of the periodicity in magnetic properties.
Mendeleev did acknowledge a debt to Lenssen and
Dumas, as he had pointed out before.
Mendeleev entered into this detailed discussion only
because Meyer had written that Mendeleev had set up
the system 'I-ohne ihn zu nennen-"= and because
Meyer personally sent him a reprint. He ended with
the words, recognizably inspired by the Scriptures:
Auj einen Brief hiitte ieh mit einem Briej geantwmtet, auj die
Abhandlung anlworte ieh mil einer Abhandlung, auj Tajeln mil
Tajeln, auf 1870 mil 1869, aujDetember (Meyer's publication was
dated December, 1869) mil Miim und August, weil ich die v a
einem so berlihmten Gelehrta, wie L. Meyer, gemaehlen Anspl-ziche
jlir nichts anderes als einen Iwthum halten kann.1°
This reply was quite contrary to Meyer's expecta-
tions (21). He believed he had given an exposition of
facts with complete detachment. He bad not known of
the abstract of Mendeleev's publication and claimed
credit only for ideas not originated by Mendeleev.
Meyer thought it asking too much
. . . dass wir deutschen Chemiker, ausser den in germanischen und
romaniseha aueh noch die in slavischen Spraehen meheinenden
Abhandlungen lesen und die deutschen Beriehte liber ihren Inhalt
auj ihre Gaauheil prUjen sollen."
Meyer persisted in the opinion that Mendeleev should
have mentioned him.
He himself mentioned Mendeleev in all the editions
of his textbook. I n 1872 he credited Mendeleev with
.
9, . without mentioning his name.
1OTo a letter my reply would have been another letter, to a
paper I reply with a paper, to a table with another table, to
1870 with 1869, to December [Meyer's publication was dated
December, 18691 with March and August, because I can only
assume that the famous L. Meyer has been mistaken in making
his claims.
..
1'. that we German chemists should read, in addition to the
publications in the Germanic and Romanic languages, those i~
t,h*
. ~ Slavic
~~ ~
accuracy of Content.
~
--
- - ~laneuaees and check the German translatiom for thew
'>It would be premature to make changes in the atomic weights
on the basis of yet uncertain data.
the honor of having been the first investigator to classify
all the elements. The whole conflict would never have
arisen, according to him, if Wurtz had not allowed his
letter to be printed.
These publications became known in England through
abstracts (22-24). I n France, attention was once again
turned to Mendeleev (85) by Krakau, the correspondent
of the Russian Chemical Society, who gave an abstract
of Mendeleev's lectures. These lectures dealt with the
element scandium, just discovered by Nilson and al-
ready predicted by Mendeleev. The system found in
his French (26) and English (27, 28) publications of
1879 was here again reproduced.
The foregoing considerations indicate that Mendeleev
did not tend to over-estimate the value of the contribu-
tions of other scientists. He justified this particularly
by saying, as he also stated later (29), that they pre-
dicted no elements and therefore gave no evidence of
having comprehended the broad basis of the new nat-
ural law. Even Meyer ( 1 ) said: ". . . es wurde uoreilig
sein, auf unsichere Anhaltspunkte hin eine Andewng der
bisher angenommenen Atomgewichte ~orzunehmen."'~In
this Meyer had justice on his side, because although
the rearrangements of some elements had been made
correctly, others were not.
Literature Cited
(1) MEYER,L., Ann. Suppl., VII,354 (1870).
(2) MENDELEEV, D., J . RUSSchem. Sac. (Russ.),1, 60 (1869).
(3) SEUBERT,KARL, (Edito~),"Dm nsturliche System der
chemisehen Elemente, Abhandlungen von Lothar Meyer
and D. Mendelejeff," Ostwald's Klassiker no. 68, Leip-
zig, 1895.
(4) MENDELEEV, D., Z. Chem., 12,405 (1869).
(5) MEYER,L., Ber., 26, 1230 (1893).
(6) METER,L., "Die modernen Theorien der Chemie und ihre
Redeat,~me
- -~~~~~~~~~~ fiir die chemische Statistik. "Breslau (Wro-
claw), 1864, p. 135.
(7) METER,L., "Die modernen Theorien der Chemie und ihre
Bedeutung fur die chemische Statistik," Breslm (Wro-
claw), 2nd ed., 1872, 5th ed., 1884.
(8) MENDELEEV, D. I., "Osnovu Khimii," St. Pctersburg, 2nd
ed.. Vol. I. 1872, Vol. 11. 1873, 8th ed., Vol. I, 1905,
voi.11,1906.
(9) MENDELEEV, D., 2nd ~ e e t i ojSeientisls
n~ (Russ.)August 23,
10, 62 (1869).
(10) MENDELEEV, D., Ber., 4,348 (1871).
(11) SPRONSEN, J. W. VAN, Chem. Weekblad, 60,683 (1964); "The
Periodic System of Chemical Elements: A History of the
First ~ u n d r e dYears."
(12) MEYER,L., "Die modernen Theorie der Chemie," (3rd ed.),
Breslau (Wroclaw). 1876. D. 290.
(13) WURTZ, A.; Ber., 13,'6 (18&i)'
(14) WURTZ,A,, "La Theorie atomique," Paris, 1879.
(15) WURTZ,A,, "Die atomische Theorie," Leipeig, 1879.
(16) SPRONSEN, J. W. VAN, "L'Histoire de la. D4oouverts du
S y s t h e periodique des E l h e n t s ehimiques et I'Ap-
port de B4guyer de Chaneourtois," paris, 1965.
(17) MEYER,L., Ber. 13, 259 (1880).
(18) SPRONSEN, J. W., VAN, Chymia, 11, 125 (1966).
\--, MBNDET~EEV.
119) ----- D.. Ber.. 13. 1796 (18801.
(20) C A R N E L L E Y , ' ~ , ~ e r .iz,
, i958 (18791.'
(21) MEYER,L., Bw., 13, 2043 (1880).
(22) MEYER,L. Chem. News, 41, 203 (1880).
(23) MENDELEEV, D., Chem. News, 43, 15 (1881).
(24) MEYER,L., Chem. News, 43, 15 (1881).
(25) MENDELEEV, D., Bull. soe. chim. France, [2], 38, 139 (1882).
~, MENDELEEV.
(261
(1879).
. D.., Mon. sci. Docleur Quesneuille. 131, 9, 691
(27) MENDELEEV, D., Chem. News, 40,231, 243,255, 279 (1879).
(28) MENDELEEV, D., Chem. News, 41, 2, 27, 39, 49, 61, 71, 83,
93, 106, 113, 125 (1880).
(29) MENDELEEV, D., "Principes de Chemie," Paris, 1899, Vol.
11, p. 436.
Volume 46, Number 3, March 1969 / 139