The British Journal for the History of Science

http://journals.cambridge.org/BJH

Additional services for The British Journal for the History of Science:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

S. M. Jørgensen and his controversy with A. Werner: a reconsideration

HELGE KRAGH

The British Journal for the History of Science / Volume 30 / Issue 02 / June 1997, pp 203 - 219
DOI: 10.1017/S0007087497003014, Published online: 08 September 2000

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0007087497003014

How to cite this article:

HELGE KRAGH (1997). S. M. Jørgensen and his controversy with A. Werner: a reconsideration. The British Journal for the
History of Science, 30, pp 203-219 doi:10.1017/S0007087497003014

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/BJH, IP address: 128.143.23.241 on 16 Nov 2013

BJHS, 1997, 30, 203–19

S. M. Jørgensen and his controversy with

A. Werner : a reconsideration
H E L G E K R A G H*

The controversy between Alfred Werner and Sophus Mads Jørgensen over the structure of
complex inorganic compounds is not among the best known of the many controversies in
the history of chemistry, but it is one of the most thoroughly described in the historical
literature. This is due almost solely to the works of George Kauffman, the distinguished
American historian of chemistry and specialist in the history of coordination chemistry.
Kauffman has described and analysed almost every aspect of the development of
coordination chemistry and has in several works dealt with the Werner–Jørgensen
controversy which ran from 1894 to 1899." Because of Kauffman’s expertise and many
works in the area, his account is likely to be taken as authoritative and his conclusions
repeated in later historical works. This paper argues that this is unwarranted at least in one
particular respect, namely the evaluation of Jørgensen and the way the controversy
terminated. Kauffman’s version of this episode has frequently appeared in print during a
period of thirty-five years, first in 1959 and most recently in 1994. My conclusion is that
it cannot survive critical examination.#
Apart from revising the existing historiography of the Werner–Jørgensen controversy,
this paper offers a reconsideration of the Danish chemist Jørgensen, and includes new
material relating to the nominations for the Nobel prize for chemistry for 1907. Since my
argument is based on the notion of controversy, I start with some general reflections on this

* History of Science Department, Aarhus University, 8000 Aarhus, Denmark.

A preliminary version of the paper was read to a symposium arranged by the Danish Society for the History
of Chemistry on 5 November 1993. It was subsequently published (in Danish) in H. Kragh (ed.), Den Komplekse
Kemi : Bidrag til Complexkemiens Historie i Danmark, Danish Society for the History of Chemistry, 6,
Copenhagen, 1994, 39–62. The present version is wholly revised. I am grateful to Anita Kildebæk Nielsen and
David Knight for their suggestions and critical comments on an earlier version of this paper.
1 The relevant works are G. B. Kauffman, ‘ Sophus Mads Jørgensen (1837–1914) : a chapter in coordination
chemistry history ’, Journal of Chemical Education (1959), 36, 521–7, reprinted in Selected Readings in the History
of Chemistry (ed. A. J. Ihde and W. F. Kieffer), Easton, PA, 1965, 185–91 ; ‘ Sophus Mads Jørgensen and the
Werner–Jørgensen controversy ’, Chymia (1960), 6, 180–204 ; ‘ Jørgensen, Sophus Mads ’, DSB, New York, 1973,
vii, 179–80 ; Classics in Coordination Chemistry, Part 2 : Selected Papers 1798–1899, New York, 1976 ; Inorganic
Coordination Compounds, London, 1981 ; ‘ Theories of coordination compounds : Alfred Werner’s triumph ’, in
Coordination Chemistry : A Century of Progress, ACS Symposium Series 565, Washington, DC, 1994, 3–34.
Another valuable source is P. S. Cohen, ‘ Effect of the fixity of ideas on the Werner–Jørgensen controversy ’,
Werner Centennial Issue, Advances in Chemistry Series (1967), 62, 8–40. A concise account of the episode is given
in A. J. Berry, From Classical to Modern Chemistry : Some Historical Sketches, New York, 1968, 177–85.
2 Professor Kauffman has seen this article. He considers his own interpretation better supported by the
published documents and the main thesis of the present paper to be purely conjectural.
204 Helge Kragh
subject and the wider perspective of the theoretical change in inorganic chemistry that
followed Werner’s introduction of the coordination concept in 1893.

ON CONTROVERSIES
During the last couple of decades controversy studies have been increasingly popular
among historians and sociologists of science and technology. As a result, it has become
clear that controversies are not aberrations compared with the normal development of
science, but are, on the contrary, part and parcel of this development. Consequently,
controversies do not need to be explained in ways different from those of other scientific
events and do not necessarily require external or non-scientific explanations (although such
may enter, of course). Moreover, to be involved in a scientific controversy, whether as a
winner or loser, is neither embarrassing nor does it necessarily imply a loss in reputation
(although it may do). Controversies play a significant and completely rational role in the
progress of science, for example by increasing the competitive pressure and forcing the
participants to studies more extensive and penetrating than if the conflict had not existed.$
Inconsistencies are brought into focus through controversies and, as such, controversies
help in recognizing foundational problems. As Kauffman has emphasized, the Werner–
Jørgensen controversy is a fine example of this.
In order for a scientific disagreement to qualify as a controversy, it should be of some
duration, be expressed in public, and take place by means of arguments and
counterarguments. That is, it should contain elements of a social and methodological
nature. Moreover, a controversy is more than just a debate or a discussion : the parties must
be committed to one of the opposing views, hold it important enough to defend, and attack
the rival view. Whether or not passions enter the controversy, it involves more than a
quarrel between two individual scientists. The relevant scientific community is part of it,
and only if the community considers the disagreement worth taking seriously will it
develop into a controversy. Usually, major parts of the scientific community will be
engaged on both sides of the disagreement, although often with a disproportionate
engagement. On this view, there is no doubt that the discussion between Werner and
Jørgensen was a real controversy. It is important to realize that not all controversies are
of the same kind. They may usefully be distinguished in controversies of fact, of theory and
of principle.% In a controversy of fact, scientists disagree about the experimental basis of

3 H. Kragh, ‘ Anatomy of a priority conflict : the case of element 72 ’, Centaurus (1980), 23, 275–301, especially
276–8. For analyses of scientific controversies in general, see R. G. A. Dolby, ‘ Controversy and consensus in the
growth of scientific knowledge ’, Nature and System (1980), 2, 199–218 ; H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr and A. L.
Caplan (eds.), Scientific Controversies : Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and
Technology, Cambridge, 1987 ; and T. Brante and A. Elzinga, ‘ Towards a theory of scientific controversies ’,
Science Studies (1990), 3, 33–46. Much of the interest in controversies relates to scientific and technological
disagreements involving different social and political consequences. Such ‘ mixed controversies ’ involve
substantial elements of external influence. See for example H. M. Collins (ed.), ‘ Knowledge and controversy ’,
special issue, Social Studies of Science (1981), 11. Considerably less interest has been devoted to purely scientific
controversies.
4 See E. McMullin, ‘ Scientific controversy and its termination ’, in Engelhardt and Caplan, op. cit. (3), 49–92.
 The Jørgensen–Werner controversy 205
a knowledge claim, that is, whether the claimed property or entity actually exists. A
controversy of theory involves different theoretical views, whereas a controversy of
principle relates to, for example, basic methodological or ontological principles. Such
controversies often involve discussions of ontology in the sense that the competing theories
may give different answers to what exists, as was the case in the Werner–Jørgensen debate.
The three categories are not mutually exclusive, of course, and in the history of chemistry
we find examples of all three categories as well as examples where two or three of them
appear together.& The controversy between Werner and Jørgensen was primarily a
controversy of theory with an element of controversy of fact. Although methodological
principles played some role, they did not enter the controversy significantly.
My analysis is limited to the end of the controversy and does not include the larger
change in inorganic chemistry that took place as a result of Werner’s innovative work. This
change is often referred to as a ‘ revolution ’, but neither Kauffman nor others have
explained in what sense the change was revolutionary. Since ‘ revolution ’ in science is often
associated with Kuhn’s idea of paradigm shift it is natural to ask if Werner’s theory
constituted a revolution in Kuhn’s sense. Revolutionary changes are of different kinds, with
some revolutions (such as Einstein’s) being ‘ deeper ’ than others.' Werner’s theory does
seem to qualify as at least a quasi-Kuhnian revolution of relatively little depth, a period of
transition where an established paradigm or research tradition was replaced with a new
one. However, the community of inorganic chemists did not convert instantly or
universally ; the conversion took place gradually over a period of twenty years and at
different pace in different countries. Neither did the chemists accept all of the new theory’s
component elements, or none of them, but typically endorsed some elements (such as the
double set of valencies) before others (such as the octahedral model). These are non-
Kuhnian features that fit well with how other major changes in chemical theory, including
Lavoisier’s, have occurred.
The theories of Werner and Jørgensen were weakly incommensurable, but not
incomparable. As in many other examples of radical, but not deep changes, the
disagreements between the old and new research traditions were not paradigm-dependent

5 Case studies of controversies in the history of nineteenth- and twentieth-century chemistry include W. H.
Brock (ed.), The Atomic Debates : Brodie and the Reception of the Atomic Theory, Leicester, 1967 ; R. G. A.
Dolby, ‘ Debates over the theory of solutions : a study of dissent in physical chemistry in the English-speaking
world in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries ’, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences (1976), 7,
297–404, and ‘ Thermochemistry versus thermodynamics : the nineteenth-century controversy ’, History of Science
(1984), 22, 375–400 ; K. Fujii, ‘ The Berthollet–Proust controversy and Dalton’s chemical atomic theory
1800–1820 ’, BJHS (1986), 19, 177–200 ; L. R. Graham, ‘ A Soviet Marxist view of structural chemistry : the theory
of resonance controversy ’, Isis (1964), 55, 220–31 ; R. F. Hirsh, ‘ A conflict of principles : the discovery of argon
and the debate over its existence ’, Ambix (1981), 28, 121–30 ; H. Kragh, ‘ Elements nos. 70, 71 and 72 : discoveries
and controversies ’, in Episodes from the History of the Rare Earth Elements (ed. C. H. Evans), Dordrecht, 1996,
68–90 ; M. D. Saltzman, ‘ The Robinson–Ingold controversy : precedence in the electronic theory of organic
reactions ’, Journal of Chemical Education (1980), 57, 484–8 ; H. P. W. Vermeeren, ‘ Controversies and existence
claims in chemistry : the theory of resonance ’, Synthese (1986), 69, 273–90. See also Kragh, op. cit. (3) and
Kauffman, ‘ S. M. Jørgensen and the Werner–Jørgensen controversy ’, op. cit. (1).
6 On the concept of ‘ depth ’ in scientific revolutions, see for example E. McMullin, ‘ Rationality and paradigm
change in science ’, in World Changes : Thomas Kuhn and the Nature of Science (ed. P. Horwich), Cambridge,
MA, 1993, 55–78.
206 Helge Kragh
to any significant extent. Werner and Jørgensen applied the same kind of criteria in the
assessment of their theories and agreed as to what should count as evidence, although they
disagreed about what weight should be given to specific criteria and evidence. They had
no problem in communicating, which was a condition for the controversy being scientific.
The disagreement between Werner and Jørgensen about many experiments was not
primarily rooted in different theoretical assumptions, but rather resulted from the
difference in goals pursued by the two chemists and from differences in their research
practices.( These brief remarks could be amplified, but that would need another paper. I
have just wanted to point out that the Werner–Jørgensen controversy may be of interest
from the point of view of theory of science. The fin de sie[ cle revolution in structural
inorganic chemistry seems not to have received attention by philosophers and historians of
scientific revolutions.) I suggest that the case, if properly analysed, could usefully enter the
arsenal of empirical studies from which historically oriented philosophers draw much of
their ammunition.*

T H E W E R N E R – J Ø R G E N S EN C O N T R O V E R S Y
Sophus Mads Jørgensen was professor of chemistry at the University of Copenhagen from
1887 to 1908 and devoted most of his scientific life to the study of complex metal
compounds. He was much inspired by the Swedish chemist Christian Wilhelm Blomstrand,
who in his Chemie der Jetztzeit from 1869 had developed an electrochemical theory of
valency according to which metal compounds consisted of chains of molecules or atoms
bound to the metal atom."! For example, Blomstrand assigned to luteo cobaltic chloride

7 This kind of theory-independent incommensurability in experiments has been investigated in X. Chen, ‘ How
do scientists have disagreement about experiments ? Incommensurability in the use of goal-derived categories ’,
Perspectives on Science (1994), 2, 275–301.
8 For example, it is not included in I. Bernard Cohen’s massive work on revolutions in the history of science.
I. B. Cohen, Revolutions in Science, Cambridge, MA, 1985.
9 The most systematic attempt to test theories of scientific change by comparison with historical case studies
is the Virginia Polytechnic Institute project, the main results of which are published in L. Laudan et al., ‘ Scientific
change : philosophical models and historical research ’, Synthese (1986), 69, 141–223, and A. Donovan, L. Laudan
and R. Laudan (eds.), Scrutinizing Science : Empirical Studies of Scientific Change, Dordrecht, 1988. For criticism,
see T. Nickles, ‘ Remarks on the use of history as evidence ’, Synthese (1986), 69, 253–66. The Virginia Polytechnic
Institute project includes several chemical cases, from Lavoisier to the polywater episode, but not Werner’s
revolution in inorganic chemistry. For a related attempt to account for differences in the acceptance of theories,
of possible relevance to the Werner–Jørgensen case, see R. Laudan and L. Laudan, ‘ Dominance and disunity of
method : solving the problems of innovation and consensus ’, Philosophy of Science (1989), 56, 221–37. The social
constructivist view of controversy and consensus is another perspective within which the Werner–Jørgensen
controversy might be analysed. Did Werner emerge as the winner because he was able to enlist by rhetorical
means more allies for his cause, or because his model fitted better with experimental data than Jørgensen’s ? For
reasons of brevity I do not confront the case with the claims of social constructivists. For some hints of what a
social constructivist version might look like, see H. M. Collins, ‘ The place of the core-set in modern science :
social contingency with methodological propriety in science ’, History of Science (1981), 19, 6–19.
10 G. B. Kauffman, ‘ Christian Wilhelm Blomstrand (1826–1897) : Swedish chemist and mineralogist ’, Annals
of Science (1975), 32, 13–37. See also A. Brostro$ m, Wilhelm Blomstrand och Atomernas Vetenskap, Stella Report,
3, Uppsala University, 1995.
 The Jørgensen–Werner controversy 207
X
Co X
NH3 NH3 NH3 NH3 X

X X

NH3 NH3
H3N X NH3 NH3
NH3 NH3

NH3 X

Figure 1. Cobalt praseo salts of the formula [CoX (NH ) ]X according to Jørgensen (above) and
# $%
Werner (below). Jørgensen explained the two isomeric configurations by assuming cobalt to have
two different valencies. According to Werner, it reflected different positions of the X-atoms in the
octahedral complex CoX (NH ) . From A. Werner, ‘ Beitrag zur Konstitution anorganischer
# $%
Verbindungen ’, Zeitschrift fuX r anorganische Chemie (1893), 3, 266–330.

the structure Co (NH ENH ECl) . As witnessed by their correspondence, Jørgensen

# $ $ '
became a close friend of Blomstrand, some eleven years older than he and with whom he
had much in common, both scientifically and personally. They shared a conservative
mentality, a deeply ingrained empiricism and a distrust of hypotheses that went beyond
experimental facts or broke with existing tradition. Jørgensen modified Blomstrand’s
system and supplied it with a greatly extended empirical basis in the form of many new
preparations of complex salts all of which, he argued, fitted with the chain model.
According to Jørgensen’s version, the chains might be of different length, but he believed
that chains with four ammonia molecules were the most stable. The luteo salt was found
to consist of three chains, two with one ammonia molecule and one with four ammonia
molecules ; that is, Co(NH ENH ENH ENH ECl)(NH ECl) . Starting in 1878, Jørgensen
$ $ $ $ $ #
developed his system in a large number of experimental works and by 1890 it was generally
accepted as the most plausible representation of the structure of metal complexes.
The Blomstrand–Jørgensen system was in 1893 challenged by 26-year-old Alfred
Werner’s widely different approach to the structure of inorganic compounds."" According
to Werner, the metal was the central element that attracted the surrounding molecules and
ions by secondary valencies in such a way that their number was constant, the coordination
number. In the case of the ammonia cobalt chlorides, the six ammonia molecules were
arranged octahedrally around the cobalt ion, forming an ionic complex to which the

11 A. Werner, ‘ Beitrag zur Konstitution anorganischer Verbindungen ’, Zeitschrift fuX r anorganische Chemie
(1893), 3, 266–330. For context, see G. B. Kauffman, Alfred Werner : Founder of Coordination Chemistry, Berlin,
1966, and Classics in Coordination Theory, Part I : The Selected Papers of Alfred Werner, New York, 1968.
208 Helge Kragh
chloride ions were attached by ordinary ionic bounds (primary valencies) ; that is, for the
luteo cobaltic chloride, [Co(NH ) ]Cl . We need not go into the details of Werner’s theory,
$' $
which was developed and modified through the 1890s and by the turn of the century had
largely replaced older conceptions of inorganic valency. A thorough and clear analysis of
the views of Werner and Jørgensen can be found in Kauffman’s works. What matters is
that Werner’s theory differed radically from the Blomstrand–Jørgensen view (see Figure 1).
The two theories pictured the structure of inorganic compounds differently and yielded
different predictions of, for example, electrical conductivity and the number and kind of
isomers. As a result, Jørgensen and Werner became involved in a controversy the public
phase of which lasted from 1894 to 1899.

ARGUMENTS AND METHODOLOGIES

The dispute between Werner and Jørgensen was nourished by their different personalities
and views of science. Werner’s theory was not merely an improvement of existing inorganic
structural chemistry, but a generational revolt against a tradition that had gained an
accepted position as normal science in Kuhn’s sense. Among other things, Werner’s
approach differed from that of Jørgensen and Blomstrand and their generation in being
bolder and more theoretically oriented. Although Werner was a highly skilled
experimentalist, he considered the value of experiments to lie primarily in their relation to
theories, either as inspiration or test. Hypothetical reasoning, where a hypothesis is first
suggested and only then compared with experimental evidence, was a natural part of
Werner’s approach, whereas it conflicted with Jørgensen’s Baconian conception of good
science. Jørgensen’s somewhat narrow empiricism was not restricted to the chemistry of
metal compounds. For example, he remained sceptical of the atomic theory and warned his
students that atoms and molecules should primarily be conceived as convenient means of
representing empirical data and not as real objects."# As another illustration of his cautious
conservatism, in his textbook of inorganic chemistry, both in its first edition of 1888 and
the second of 1896, Jørgensen chose not to mention the periodic system."$
Being an arch-experimentalist, Jørgensen felt Werner’s system to be methodologically
suspicious as well as lacking in solid empirical support. He seems to have considered it a
personal attack as well as a break with good manners in chemical research. In a letter to
Blomstrand in the spring of 1893 he expressed clearly his dislike of Werner’s ‘ in more than
one respect strange treatise about, among other things, the constitution of metal ammonia
salts ’. Concerning this strange treatise, he wrote :
Much can be said about Werner’s fantasies on the constitution of platinum bases. For example,
with regard to the isomerism of the substituted platodiamminechlorides he merely presents my
views in a new clothing, for he has to assume a successive substitution, just as I do. Yet I do not

12 N. Bjerrum, ‘ Introductory lecture ’, in Proceedings of the Symposium on Coordination Chemistry,

Copenhagen, 1954, 12–16.
13 S. M. Jørgensen, Mindre Lærebog i Uorganisk Chemi, Copenhagen, 1888 ; 2nd edn 1896. In this respect,
Jørgensen differed from his colleague Julius Thomsen, who was an advocate of atomic theory and speculated
about atomic explanations of the periodic system. See H. Kragh, ‘ Julius Thomsen and nineteenth-century
speculations on the complexity of atoms ’, Annals of Science (1982), 39, 37–60.
 The Jørgensen–Werner controversy 209
think I will elaborate the point. The matter cannot be made clear to a larger audience without
going into details more lengthy than Werner’s theory deserves. On the other hand, I believe I have
refuted with sufficient clarity his main points and the central point in his own theory, so that
everyone can see how frivolous he is throughout in this line of argument."%

The refutation that Jørgensen referred to appeared in an appendix on ‘ Einige

theoretische Bemerkungen ’ in a lengthy paper published in the autumn of 1894 in the
Zeitschrift fuX r anorganische Chemie, Jørgensen’s favourite journal. Apart from including
a wealth of experimental data, which he claimed to be in conflict with Werner’s theory,
Jørgensen also criticized Werner from a methodological and ethical point of view. For
example, he wrote about one of Werner’s conclusions that it was a ‘ subreption ’, thereby
intimating that Werner had deliberately misrepresented experimental data."& He suggested
that Werner’s entire line of argument was deliberately biased in order to make the
coordination theory appear more convincing than it was in reality. But he, Jørgensen, had
seen through the trick and now set himself the task of revealing what he called an ‘ illusion ’.
The exposure was necessary in view of the fact that ‘ Werner’s theory has been received in
many quarters with much applause – although hardly from those who have dealt in detail
with the metal-ammonia salts.’"' Although he did not say so directly, Jørgensen hinted that
Werner and his followers lacked expertise in the chemistry of metal ammonia salts and that
the success of Werner’s theory thus could not be ascribed to scientific reasons but had to
be a bandwagon effect. As far as Jørgensen was concerned, Werner was not a real expert,
but a chemist who was too blinded by his own hypothesis to infer without bias from the
experimental data. The picture of Werner as an armchair chemist was also included in a
paper of 1896, where Jørgensen responded to what he called Werner’s ‘ polemics ’.
According to Jørgensen, Werner’s ‘ way of polemizing ’ neither invited nor deserved a
detailed rejoinder – ‘ for the questions cannot be decided at a writing desk, but only by
experiment ’."(
This barely concealed attack received a quick reply from Werner who felt obliged to
‘ protest energetically against the kind of scientific discussion ’ that characterized
Jørgensen’s paper. Although Werner praised his adversary’s ‘ masterly conducted
experimental investigations ’, his reply, too, was highly polemical and he complained that
Jørgensen forced his results to fit into the erroneous chain theory rather than interpreting

14 Jørgensen to Blomstrand, 24 May 1893, University Library of Lund, UB1. Original in Danish. Part of the
letter is (somewhat inaccurately) translated in G. B. Kauffman, ‘ Christian Wilhelm Blomstrand (1826–1897) and
Sophus Mads Jørgensen (1837–1914). Their correspondence from 1870 to 1897 ’, Centaurus (1977), 21, 44–63, on
57.
15 The word subreption (from the latin subreptus) means a fallacious representation or an inference drawn
from it, sometimes with the connotation that the fallacy is deliberate. Jørgensen defended his use of the term by
arguing that ‘ subreption … is in logic a certain kind of false inference and has here no offensive meaning
whatsoever ’. S. M. Jørgensen, ‘ Zur Konstitution der Kobalt-, Chrom- und Rhodiumbasen, XI ’, Zeitschrift fuX r
anorganische Chemie (1899), 19, 109–57, on 116. This paper is translated and annotated in Kauffman, Classics
in Coordination Chemistry, op. cit. (1), 103–65.
16 S. M. Jørgensen, ‘ Zur Konstitution der Kobalt-, Chrom- und Rhodiumbasen, VI ’, Zeitschrift fuX r
anorganische Chemie (1894), 7, 289–330, on 317.
17 S. M. Jørgensen, ‘ Zur Konstitution der Kobalt-, Chrom- und Rhodiumbasen, VIII ’, Zeitschrift fuX r
anorganische Chemie (1896), 13, 172–90, on 172.
210 Helge Kragh
them unbiasedly.") As seen from Zurich, Jørgensen’s objections were totally unwarranted.
Jørgensen’s polemics were also countered by Fritz Reitzenstein, a friend and colleague of
Werner, who was disturbed by what he considered an attack on Werner’s scientific
honesty."* Apparently Jørgensen realized that he had gone too far, for in a publication of
1899 he claimed that he had been misunderstood and that he had never had any intention
of offending his opponent.#! Yet it is difficult to see how his words could be read differently.
Another kind of objection concerned the predictions that followed from the two
theories. Both Jørgensen’s and Werner’s theories predicted (or rather allowed) the
existence of certain compounds not known empirically, and in general the predictions were
different. Obviously, if one of the predicted compounds were found to exist, it would count
as evidence for the theory in question, whereas the non-existence would constitute a
problem. But how does one decide that a chemical compound, perhaps highly unstable,
does not exist ? Jørgensen complained that Werner’s arguments were preconceived in
favour of his own theory. If a compound to be expected to exist according to the
Blomstrand–Jørgensen system was unknown, then Werner concluded (said Jørgensen) that
it does not exist and hence that the non-existence was an argument against the system ; but
if Werner’s theory predicted whole series of compounds, and these were not known to
exist, Werner explained away the difficulty by referring to them as ‘ not yet observed ’.#"
Jørgensen was not the only one in the controversy to use strong words and accusations
of incompetence. Perhaps the strongest evidence in favour of Werner’s theory came from
measurements of electrical conductivity made by Werner and his Italian friend Arturo
Miolati in 1893–94. However, on the instigation of Jørgensen, his colleague Emil Petersen
produced in 1897 new data on conductivity and freezing point depression that, according
to Petersen, disagreed with the coordination theory ; since they could not be explained by
Jørgensen’s theory either, he concluded that reliable information about the constitution of
complex salts could not be obtained by such physico-chemical measurements and that the
Werner–Miolati method was therefore of no use.## Only in 1902, in a paper with Charles
Herty, did Werner respond to Petersen’s claim, and then with a surprisingly direct ad
hominem argument. Werner and Herty claimed that Petersen’s work ‘ proves that the
author has not mastered the area he has examined to the extent that would have been
desirable ’. Moreover : ‘ His criticism is quite unwarranted and his experiments in part
conducted in just such a way that they must lead to the wrong conclusions.’#$ A wounded
Petersen, who meanwhile had advanced to a full professorship at the University of
18 A. Werner, ‘ Beitra$ ge zur Konstitution anorganische Verbindungen, II ’, Zeitschrift fuX r anorganische Chemie
(1895), 8, 153–88.
19 F. Reitzenstein, Ammoniak-, Pyridin-Salze und Hydrate Bivalenter Metalle, Habilitationsschrift, University
of Wu$ rzburg, 1898, 45. Reitzenstein wrote in 1898 an extensive and pro-Wernerian survey of metal ammonia salts
in which he described Jørgensen’s opposition as reactionary. F. Reitzenstein, ‘ U> ber die verschiedenen Theorien
zur Erkla$ rung der Konstitution der Metallammoniaksalze ’, Zeitschrift fuX r anorganische Chemie (1898), 18,
152–210.
20 Jørgensen, op. cit. (15), 116–17.
21 Jørgensen, op. cit. (16), 319.
22 E. Petersen, ‘ U> ber die Anzahl der Ionen in einigen Kobalt-Ammoniakverbindungen ’, Zeitschrift fuX r
physikalische Chemie (1897), 22, 410–23.
23 A. Werner and C. Herty, ‘ Constitution anorganischer Verbindungen ’, Zeitschrift fuX r physikalische Chemie
(1901), 38, 331–53, on 331.
 The Jørgensen–Werner controversy 211
Copenhagen, rejoined with a bitter attack on Werner and his ‘ unproved postulates ’ and
‘ preconceived views about ‘‘ constitution ’’ ’.#% Jørgensen had used Petersen’s data as
ammunition against the coordination theory, but, characteristically, Werner chose to
restrict his attack to the lesser-known Petersen. Also many of Jørgensen’s strongest-worded
objections were directed not toward Werner himself, but toward less prominent chemists
supporting the coordination theory (such as G. Richter, a collaborator of Werner’s).#&
According to Jørgensen, theory must be wholly subordinated experimental facts and had
no role in chemistry except as a means of classifying experimental results in the simplest
and most convenient way. It followed that a theory, in order to be acceptable, must be
founded inductively on experiments and not contain ad hoc hypotheses that could not be
tested directly in the laboratory. In this regard, he felt that Werner’s coordination theory
was clearly lacking. Moreover, Jørgensen was a traditionalist who was only willing to
modify the existing structural theory ‘ if the facts force me to do so ’, and he could see no
such force.#' In one of his rare methodological statements, he elaborated :
If one calls a hypothesis good when it leads to new and hitherto unnoticed facts and when it is
able to give a logical interpretation of these facts, then one has to admit that Blomstrand’s idea
shows clear characteristics of a good hypothesis. However, any hypothesis has only a limited
duration. Contrarywise, [experimentally found] connections, transformations, and relations
between various groups of substances are facts that will remain unchanged. For this reason it is
necessary that the new hypothesis, which some day will replace Blomstrand’s, must be able to
interpret such facts in a way that is simpler and in better accord with the basic theorems of
science. This is a condition that cannot be dispensed with.#(
Again, in a letter to Blomstrand he compared the coordination theory unfavourably with
the chain theory. Jørgensen now emphasized the methodological weakness of Werner’s
system :
Our theory does not claim to be the last word [?] with regard to the constitution of these
numerous compounds, but still a new and better theory must be coherent with the views which
are accepted [?] as valid in the sciences … What Werner’s system lacks is exactly that it does not
satisfy this indispensable condition. For this reason he has to construct new hypotheses all the
time, such as he does in his latest works ; but as soon as one examines them [the hypotheses]
closely, he abandons them and that with the same frivolity.#)
Jørgensen ended the public part of the controversy in a paper of 1899 where he summarized
his position, maintaining that the chain theory remained a more satisfactory framework for
understanding the chemistry of metal ammonia salts than the rival coordination theory. He
24 E. Petersen, ‘ U> ber die Anzahl der Ionen in Metalammoniakverbindungen ’, Zeitschrift fuX r physikalische
Chemie (1902), 39, 249–52.
25 Robert Merton found that priority controversies are often fought by followers not directly involved in the
research in question, not by the discoverers themselves. R. K. Merton, ‘ Priorities in scientific discovery : a chapter
in the sociology of science ’, American Sociological Review (1957), 22, 635–59, on 638 (reprinted in Merton, The
Sociology of Science : Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago, 1973, 286–324). However, this seems not
to be the case with other kinds of controversy, where the key scientists cannot stay behind the scenes in the
same way. Yet scientists of eminence will often try to avoid direct confrontation by criticizing their opponent’s
supporters or leaving strong attacks to their own supporters.
26 S. M. Jørgensen, ‘ Zur Konstitution der Kobalt-, Chrom- und Rhodiumbasen, VII ’ Zeitschrift fuX r
anorganische Chemie (1896), 11, 416–53, on 449.
27 S. M. Jørgensen, ‘ Recherches sur la constitution des sels cobaltammonie! s ’, Kongelige Danske Viden-
skabernes Selskab, Oversigter, 1895, 1–31, on 30–1.
28 Jørgensen to Blomstrand, 1 September 1897, University of Library of Lund, UB1. Original in Danish.
212 Helge Kragh
concluded that he was ‘ even more convinced than earlier that blomstrand’s theory, with
the modifications I have proposed, still brings all essential aspects of the chemistry of metal
ammonia salts into agreement with our entire chemical system of knowledge ’.#* Jørgensen
realized that the chain model had its limitations, but believed that this well-established,
partially correct theory was preferable to Werner’s ambitious and speculative ideas. These,
he wrote, amounted to a discussion of ‘ all sorts of possibilities, of which the only certain
thing is that they are just mere possibilities ’.$! Jørgensen further complained that Werner
and his followers used arbitrary assumptions to force the chemical compounds into the
system and often changed their assumptions so as to prove anything possible. With such
an approach, the coordination theory might be saved, but only at the expense of its
simplicity and scientific nature.$" Jørgensen was particularly unwilling to accept the
octahedral model, which he found ‘ accidental and arbitrary ’. If only the octahedral model
was abandoned, then perhaps his and Werner’s theories could be brought to ‘ merge into
a higher unity ’, he suggested.$# But the octahedral model was a cornerstone in Werner’s
system and in flat disagreement with the Blomstrand–Jørgensen chain model, as Jørgensen
must have known. No compromise was possible.
Although Jørgensen opposed Werner’s system, he also recognized its partial support by
experiment and came to respect Werner as a worthy opponent. While he had earlier
insinuated that Werner was lacking in specialist experimental knowledge, in his paper of
1899 Jørgensen mixed criticism with praise. ‘ [Werner] is the only one who has tried to
build a new theory considering all details … [and] he has not been satisfied with casual
suggestions ’, Jørgensen wrote. ‘ Furthermore, it is to his credit that not only has he
stimulated new researchers by his many striking and ingenious observations, but he himself
has revealed many new, interesting, and important facts, and I hope that he will reveal
more new facts.’$$ These were generous words, but in spite of the praise Jørgensen
remained adamant in his rejection of Werner’s system.

THE END OF THE CONTROVERSY

According to the standard historiography, this marked Jørgensen’s ‘ gracious withdrawal
from the controversy ’, which took place ‘ without any trace of jealousy or rancor ’.$%
Similar remarks can be found in practically all retrospective comments, whether in
historical articles, eulogies and obituaries, or made by Danish chemists writing the history
of their science. Thus, Stig Veibel states that the controversy occurred ‘ completely without
bitterness ’ and that the discussion between Werner and Jørgensen was ‘ heated, but always
urbane ’. Kai A. Jensen repeats that the controversy proceeded in ‘ a very chivalrous
29 Jørgensen, op. cit. (15), 151.
30 Jørgensen, op. cit. (15), 151.
31 See for example Jørgensen’s criticism of the Wernerian G. Richter in Jørgensen, op. cit. (15), 150. This kind
of criticism followed Werner’s system long after the controversy had ceased. For an example, see Alfred W.
Stewart’s methodological criticism of 1919, as quoted in C. A. Russell, The History of Valency, Leicester, 1971,
223.
32 Jørgensen, op. cit. (15), 154.
33 Jørgensen, op. cit. (15), 151.
34 Kauffman, ‘ S. M. Jørgensen and the Werner–Jørgensen controversy ’, op. cit. (1), 202–3, and the same in
Kauffman, ‘ S. M. Jørgensen : a chapter ’, op. cit. (1), which is a shorter version of the former paper.
 The Jørgensen–Werner controversy 213
manner ’, and in a book on the history of chemistry Hakon Lund asserts that ‘ the polemics
was from both parties conducted in the most beautiful way ’.$& Now it does not appear
from the evidence here cited that the controversy was particularly harmonious or
chivalrous. And if it was really a ‘ scholarly rivalry ’ and ‘ a fine example of an ideal
scientific discussion ’, as Kauffman writes,$' why then call it a controversy in the first place ?
The similarly worded evaluations might indicate a root in a common source, as is indeed
the case. The source is S. P. L. Sørensen’s eulogy over Jørgensen, delivered at a meeting in
the Danish Chemical Society in April 1914.$( At this occasion, Sørensen presented the
polemics as a friendly intellectual dispute rather than a controversy and described
Jørgensen’s last comments of 1899 as ‘ chivalrous ’. Almost forty years later, Niels Bjerrum,
a former student of Jørgensen, gave a brief historical lecture on the development of
chemistry from Blomstrand to Werner at a symposium on coordination chemistry held in
Copenhagen. He characterized the controversy as follows : ‘ It was a [sic] academical
discussion, carried out in an urbane manner and could be taken as a model of a fine
scientific discussion.’$) Bjerrum conceivably relied on Sørensen’s eulogy and later authors
have repeated the evaluations of Sørensen and Bjerrum.
It goes without saying that as a historical source Sørensen’s eulogy should be viewed
with critical eyes. For one thing, obituaries and eulogies are by their very nature laudatory
and edited versions of a person’s life and career, hence not the place where critical
evaluations normally appear. Jørgensen was a great figure in Danish science, and it would
have been unthinkable to include in his eulogy matters that could taint his reputation.
Moreover, Sørensen was a former student of Jørgensen, whom he admired and whose
empiristic conception of chemistry he shared. Sørensen, who in 1901 became head of the
Carlsberg Laboratory and eight years later won fame by his introduction of the pH scale,
started his career with research in the chemistry of complex metal compounds, very much
in Jørgensen’s style. His doctoral dissertation of 1899 included many critical comments on
Werner’s system and belonged to the research tradition that Jørgensen had cultivated.$*
Jørgensen’s last scientific paper, published in 1906, was written jointly with Sørensen and
made use of the Blomstrand–Jørgensen formulae.%! Nor is it irrelevant to mention that
Jørgensen served as Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Carlsberg Foundation from
1885 to his death in 1914 and thus had close connections to Sørensen both as a scientist and
science administrator. According to Sørensen’s eulogy, not only was the debate chivalrous,

35 S. Veibel, Kemien i Danmark I : Kemiens Historie i Danmark, Copenhagen, 1939, 213 and ‘ Science in one
city : Copenhagen ’, May and Baker Laboratory Bulletin (1970), 9, 5–12 ; K. A. Jensen, ‘ Kemi ’, in Københavns
Universitet 1479–1979 (ed. M. Pihl), 14 vols., Copenhagen, 1983, xii, 427–580, on 501 ; H. Lund, Hovedtræk of
Kemiens Historie indtil A} r 1900, Copenhagen, 1973, 120. Veibel, Jensen and Lund were all professors of chemistry
in Denmark.
36 Kauffman, Classics in Coordination Chemistry, op. cit. (1), 102, and ‘ S. M. Jørgensen and the
Werner–Jørgensen controversy ’, op. cit. (1), 180. See also the DSB entry for Jørgensen, also by Kauffman.
37 S. P. L. Sørensen, ‘ S. M. Jørgensen ’, Fysisk Tidsskrift (1913–14), 12, 217–41. A less heroic account of the
controversy was given by Thorstein Hiorthdahl, professor of chemistry at the University of Oslo. T. Hiortdahl,
‘ Mindetale over S. M. Jørgensen ’, Tidsskrift for Kemi (1914), 11, 160–5.
38 Bjerrum, op. cit. (12), 15.
39 S. P. L. Sørensen, ‘ Studier over Koboltidoxalater ’, dissertation, University of Copenhagen, 1899.
40 S. M. Jørgensen and S. P. L. Sørensen, ‘ Ueber eine neue mit Magnus gru$ ner Salze isomere, rote
Verbindung ’, Zeitschrift fuX r anorganische Chemie (1906), 48, 441–5.
214 Helge Kragh
but Jørgensen admitted the truth of Werner’s system in 1907, when Werner succeeded in
preparing the violeo salt of dichlorotetraamminecobalt(III)-chlorid – CoCl (NH ) Cl –
# $%
that ought to exist according to his system, and the non-existence of which had been one
of Jørgensen’s major objections in 1899. Sørensen reported a conversation from 1907 in
which Jørgensen concluded that ‘ the strife is now decided ’, that is, with the new evidence
Jørgensen recognized Werner’s system to be verified and therefore gave up his opposition.
That, at least, is the way the audience in 1914 must have understood Sørensen’s words, and
it is the same interpretation that lies behind Kauffman’s claim that in 1907 ‘ Jørgensen
promptly acknowledged the validity of Werner’s views.’%"
The problem is that Jørgensen never clearly stated that he acknowledged Werner’s
theory. In fact, after 1899 he completely ignored his rival’s views and stuck to the
structural formulae and nomenclature of the chain model. In his last experimental
research, a series of investigations of platinum bases, there is no hint of the coordination
theory, and there is no indication that he changed his mind later on.%# We are left with
Sørensen’s recollection and his quotation from memory of a conversation that took place
more than six years earlier. Assuming that Jørgensen did say that ‘ the strife is now
decided ’, is it not possible that he meant something different than Sørensen thought ? For
example, he may have meant that there was no longer any basis for further dispute, for
given the new evidence the large majority of chemists would undoubtedly accept the
coordination theory. If so, the controversy was de facto over, but Jørgensen was free to
disagree with the majority, as I conjecture he did privately.
The violeo salt of 1907 was important evidence for the truth of Werner’s theory, but it
was no crucial experiment and there were still many chemical facts that seemed
incompatible with the theory. For example, the Nobel Committee chemists did not find the
evidence particularly convincing. Even more impressive evidence was produced in 1911,
when Victor King and Ernst Scholze, working in Werner’s laboratory in Zurich, succeeded
in preparing the first optically active metal ammonia compounds.%$ Their success was soon
followed by the resolution into optical isomers of other coordination compounds,
including, in 1914, a coordination compound that did not contain carbon. These
experiments were another strong reason for accepting the octahedral hypothesis, such as
Jørgensen apparently did in 1912, according to the standard history. Jørgensen was ‘ full
of admiration ’, said Sørensen, and, according to Kauffman, ‘ the correctness of Werner’s
views became all the more apparent to Jørgensen ’.%% Yet we have no solid evidence that
41 Kauffman ‘ S. M. Jørgensen and the Werner–Jørgensen controversy ’, op. cit. (1), 202. Similarly in the DSB
entry where Jørgensen is said to have ‘ graciously capitulated ’ when confronted with Werner’s salt. According to
Kauffman, Classics in Coordination Chemistry, op. cit. (1), 100, and also ‘ Theories of coordination compounds ’,
op. cit. (1), 21 and Werner, op. cit. (11), 36, Jørgensen ‘ immediately conceded defeat ’. Naturally, the claim has
dispersed into other works of history of chemistry. See for example A. J. Ihde, The Development of Chemistry,
New York, 1964, 389, and L. Tansjo$ , ‘ While waiting for Werner : chemistry in chains ’, in Coordination
Chemistry : A Century of Progress (ed. G. B. Kauffman), Washington, DC, 1994, 35–40.
42 S. M. Jørgensen, ‘ Zur Konstitution der Platinbasen, IV ’, Zeitschrift fuX r anorganische Chemie (1906), 48,
374–88.
43 For details, see Kauffman, Inorganic Coordination Compounds, op. cit. (1), 121–36 ; and ‘ The discovery of
optically active coordination compounds : a milestone in stereochemistry ’, Isis (1975), 66, 38–62.
44 Sørensen, op. cit. (37), 238 ; Kauffman, ‘ S. M. Jørgensen and the Werner–Jørgensen controversy ’, op. cit.
(1), 202.
 The Jørgensen–Werner controversy 215
Jørgensen did in fact accept Werner’s theory either in 1907 or 1912. None of the evidence
in favour of the coordination theory amounted to indisputable proof and it could easily
be argued that the evidence was flawed or that Werner’s theory had only limited empirical
support. Such arguments were actually made by several chemists. For example, the British
chemist John Newton Friend criticized Werner’s assumption of nitrogen being tetravalent
in ammonium chloride and claimed that Werner’s structure was inconsistent in assigning
different valencies to the four hydrogen atoms.%& It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that
Kauffman reads into this episode of history a methodological moral. By 1907, and even
more by 1912, there was convincing evidence for the soundness of Werner’s system.
Jørgensen ought to have responded to Werner’s new evidence by giving up his opposition ;
therefore, Kauffman seems to imply, he must have done so. In this way Jørgensen appears
as a rational chemist as well as a gentleman of science.
To summarize, the basis of the claim that Jørgensen accepted Werner’s system in 1907
is weak, and Kauffman’s assertion that Jørgensen became even more convinced in 1912
lacks any evidence in contemporary sources whatsoever. Given Jørgensen’s vested interest
in the chain model, his deep conservatism and dislike of Werner’s theory, and the strong
demands he placed on scientific proof, it seems not too far-fetched to assume that he never
accepted the coordination theory. It is possible, and in my view likely, that he carried the
remnants of the controversy with him to the grave and that he never accepted the new
paradigm in inorganic chemistry. When Werner visited Copenhagen in December 1913
(without meeting his old adversary),%' Jørgensen may have been as little convinced about
the coordination theory as Priestley was convinced about Lavoisier’s oxygen theory at the
end of his life. If so, Jørgensen exemplifies the ‘ Planck–Kuhn thesis ’ according to which
an old paradigm disappears only with the death of the old guard.%( This is a conjecture,
of course, but it has a certain plausibility and does not, to my knowledge, conflict with
known sources.%)

THE NOBEL PRIZE AND JØRGENSEN’S REPUTATION

There is one further reason to doubt the accuracy of Sørensen’s account and the standard
history of the controversy based in part on this source. According to Sørensen, in early 1907
Henri Moissan wrote a draft for the nomination of Jørgensen for a Nobel prize, but ‘ he
[Moissan] was caught by death and the nomination was never submitted ’.%* Compare with

45 According to Friend, and also to Blomstrand and Jørgensen, nitrogen was pentavalent. J. Newton Friend,
The Theory of Valency, London, 1909, 120. On Werner’s model of ammonium chloride, see A. Werner, New
Ideas on Inorganic Chemistry, London, 1911, 67–70 (a translation by E. P. Hedley of Werner, Neuere
Anschauungen auf den Gebiete der Anorganischen Chemie, Braunschweig, 1905).
46 Jørgensen was ill, but it is possible that Werner paid him a visit during his three-day stay in Copenhagen.
See Kauffman, Werner, op. cit. (11), 93.
47 D. L. Hull, P. D. Tessner and A. M. Diamond, ‘ Planck’s principle ’, Science (1978), 202, 717–23 ; T. S.
Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn, Chicago, 1970, 151.
48 About seventy letters to and from Jørgensen are deposited at the Royal Library in Copenhagen. However,
the correspondence throws no light on the history of coordination chemistry.
49 Sørensen, op. cit. (37), 239.
216 Helge Kragh
Kauffman’s version, which is that ‘ Moissan died later that year, and the proposition was
never submitted.’&! Moissan undoubtedly wrote a draft, which Sørensen may have seen,
but he did not die before sending it to the Nobel Committee in Stockholm. The Nobel
archives reveal that Jørgensen was nominated for the chemistry prize not only by Moissan,
but also by Gaston Darboux, who included Paul Sabatier as a second nominee. Moissan’s
recommendation is dated 26 January 1907, less than a month before his death on 20
February, and proposed Jørgensen as the candidate for a full prize ; as second candidate he
nominated Sabatier and as third the Italian chemist Giacomo Ciamician.&" In his letter of
nomination, Moissan emphasized the value of Jørgensen’s extended and systematic
experimental work : ‘ Within this particular area of the chemistry of metal ammonia bases,
which connects the inorganic chemistry with the most complicated organic chemistry, Mr.
Jørgensen occupies a great position. With a few exceptions, he has coordinated and
classified all the series of these compounds with the trivalent metals … Mr. Jørgensen’s
work is important and deserves to be bestowed attention.’ Moissan mentioned explicitly
that this high opinion of Jørgensen’s work was independent of the theoretical ideas of the
structure of metal salts : ‘ Mr. Werner’s investigations and interpretations of this subject
[metal ammonia compounds] have in no way reduced the value of the results achieved by
Mr. Jørgensen.’&# Although the Committee considered Jørgensen’s work valuable, it did
not seriously consider crediting him with a prize. As the Committee wrote, ‘ His work is
undoubtedly of great importance within the special area to which it belongs, but it cannot
be said to be of a pioneering nature ; as the Committee sees it, it would be difficult to
ascribe to it the scientific range that must be an indisputable condition for obtaining a
Nobel prize.’&$
Besides Jørgensen, many notable chemists were nominated for the 1907 prize, including
Mendeleev and Berthelot (who both died before the election) as well as Nernst, Rutherford,
Buchner, Werner and Wallach ; the prize was in the end awarded to Eduard Buchner for
his discovery of cell-free fermentation. As regards Werner’s candidature, the Committee’s
evaluation was somewhat reserved. The importance of his ‘ working hypothesis ’ was
recognized but the Committee was not convinced about its empirical support : ‘ It appears
that the time for awarding the originator [of the hypothesis] with a Nobel prize will only
be ready when his conception – which at the time is applicable only to certain special
classes of compounds – has been developed into a theory of more general scope and when
means have been obtained for testing experimentally the validity of this theory to a larger

50 Kauffman, ‘ S. M. Jørgensen and the Werner–Jørgensen controversy ’, op. cit. (1), 183, without quoting the
source.
51 Nobel Archive, Royal Academy of Science, Stockholm. See also E. Crawford, J. L. Heilbron and R. Ullrich,
The Nobel Population 1901–1937 : A Census of the Nominators and Nominees for the Prizes in Physics and
Chemistry, Berkeley and Stockholm, 1987, 172–3, and E. Crawford, The Beginnings of the Nobel Institution : The
Science Prizes, 1901–15, Cambridge, 1984. Moissan was a Nobel laureate of 1906 and Sabatier received the prize
in 1912. I am grateful to the Swedish Royal Academy of Science for permission to use the Nobel material.
52 Moissan to Nobel Committee, 26 January 1907, Nobel Archive, Royal Academy of Science, Stockholm.
Original in French.
53 Memorandum of Nobel Committee, 30 September 1907, Nobel Archive, Royal Academy of Science,
Stockholm. Original in Swedish. The Nobel Committee for Chemistry consisted of O. Hamarsten, P. Klason, O.
Petterson, H. G. So$ derbaum and O. Widman.
 The Jørgensen–Werner controversy 217
extent.’&% Six years and eighteen nominations later the Committee acknowledged that
Werner’s coordination theory was indeed worthy to be awarded the prestigious prize.
Given Jørgensen’s strong position in Danish chemistry and his almost hegemonic
dominance in inorganic structural research it is understandable that Werner’s system was
for a long time avoided by Danish chemists. There was a strong tradition in Copenhagen
for such research in the 1890s, but S. P. L. Sørensen and other of Jørgensen’s students
either criticized the coordination theory or ignored it. The exception to the rule may have
been Emil Koefod, who was Jørgensen’s assistant from 1888 to 1892 and in 1894 wrote a
doctoral dissertation where he evaluated Werner’s system positively.&& He referred to it as
a ‘ really scientific system ’ which ‘ offered several advantages ’ and explained the structure
of the platinum ammine compounds (Koefod’s subject) ‘ in a natural way ’. However, in
spite of such praise he chose to keep consistently to the Blomstrand–Jørgensen
interpretation in his work. Whatever his personal views, he may have felt that a too clear
support of Werner’s system might have harmed his career opportunities. Twelve years later
the climate had changed. Niels Bjerrum, a coming leader of Danish chemistry, was a
student of Jørgensen and wrote one of his first major works on the hydrates of
chromium(III) chloride. Not only was there no trace of either the controversy or the
Blomstrand–Jørgensen theory in Bjerrum’s paper, but it rested fully on Werner’s system for
which it provided further support.&'
Scientists entering a controversy have more at stake than the theory they support. The
outcome of the controversy may also affect the scientists’ reputations and possibilities of
further career advancement, which is a contributing cause for the intensity with which
controversies are often fought. Yet, as mentioned, many controversies of theory and of fact
build on, or stimulate, experimental work that will have a value independent of the
outcome of the dispute and in such cases the loss in reputation of the losing party need not
be serious. In the controversy with Werner, Jørgensen was unquestionably the loser and
his image as a conservative, even reactionary scientist was strengthened because of the
controversy. However, his reputation as the grand old man of inorganic structural
chemistry was not seriously damaged. This reputation rested first of all on his meticulous
experimental work, the validity of which was not affected by the Wernerian revolution.
The Werner–Jørgensen controversy is one among many cases which show that
experimental results do not, as a rule, change when an old paradigm is replaced by a new
one. As emphasized by Kauffman, much of the data on which Werner based his theory had
its origin in compounds first prepared by Jørgensen, a fact stressed also by Werner
himself.&( So in spite of losing the controversy, the experimentalist Jørgensen continued to

54 Memorandum of Nobel Committee, Nobel Archive, Royal Academy of Science, Stockholm.

55 H. E. Koefod, ‘ Om Nogle Nitroso-Platinammoniakforbindelser ’, dissertation, University of Copenhagen,
1894.
56 N. Bjerrum, ‘ Einige Bemerkungen u$ ber Chromchloridsulfate ’, Berichte der deutschen Chemischen
Gesellschaft (1906), 39, 1597–602 ; English translation in Niels Bjerrum : Selected Papers, Copenhagen, 1949,
249–54. See also G. B. Kauffman, ‘ Niels Bjerrum (1879–1958) : a centennial evaluation ’, Journal of Chemical
Education (1980), 57, 779–82, 863–7.
57 A. Werner, ‘ S. M. Jørgensen ’, Chemiker-Zeitung (1914), 38, 557–9. In this obituary, Werner praised
Jørgensen’s experimental work and characterized his opposition to the coordination theory as objective and
factual (to have been ‘ in sachlicher Form ’). Remarkably, but not surprisingly, this characterization differed
218 Helge Kragh
be rated highly in the chemical community, as is illustrated by his Nobel nominations in
1907 and the award in 1906 of the Lavoisier medal from the French Academy of Science.
Having so strongly identified himself with an experimental tradition, it mattered less that
Jørgensen, the cautious system-builder, came out of the controversy in a much less healthy
condition.

CONCLUSION
A scientific controversy may terminate in three different ways. The two sides may come to
agree that one of the views (or a third alternative) is the most satisfactory because it agrees
better with experiments, is theoretically superior, more coherent, or the like. In this case,
the controversy is resolved, in the sense that consensus is reached by epistemically based
agreement. A controversy may also end by just being abandoned, withering away because
of lack of interest or because the protagonists of one of the competing views vanish from
the scene or become so few and marginalized that they no longer count. In still other cases
termination is reached by closure, which means that a measure of external authority
intervenes in order to declare the controversy ended ; the decision is then influenced by non-
epistemic factors, which force the controversy to an end, although it may still be
unresolved. External authority played no role in the Werner–Jørgensen controversy, which
was decided by means of epistemic arguments in the sense that a large majority of inorganic
chemists came to recognize the scientific superiority of Werner’s theory over that of
Blomstrand and Jørgensen. However, as far as Jørgensen was concerned, I argue that the
controversy was not resolved but rather abandoned. Jørgensen gave up the fight after 1899,
but without conceding to his rival, and there is reason to assume that he never accepted the
rival coordination theory. Silence should not be taken for consent and whatever Jørgensen
meant in private was, strictly speaking, irrelevant for the controversy. It would be
interesting to know how Jørgensen thought about coordination chemistry after 1907, but
the question is more interesting from the point of view of scientific biography – or
psychology – than it is from the point of view of controversy. A controversy is public by
definition and views are only relevant in so far as they are published or otherwise made
known to the scientific community in question.
I believe the nature of the Werner–Jørgensen controversy has been somewhat
misrepresented in prevailing historiography and that it was much more of a genuine
controversy than implied by Kauffman. Contrary to discussions and disputes, controversies
are characterized by a certain intensity in the arguments that betrays that the combatants
are not merely seeking the truth, but have invested part of their soul and career in a
particular view.&) This notion of controversy is different from that suggested by Hans

markedly from the way in which Werner characterized Jørgensen’s stand while the controversy was still raging.
Werner further speculated that Jørgensen ‘ undoubtedly realized ’ the advantages of the coordination theory in
1895, but this is a speculation that does not agree with Jørgensen’s publications.
58 There is no standard definition of (scientific) controversy, but, as mentioned earlier in this paper, it is useful
to distinguish it from other forms of communication, such as debate, discussion, polemics and dispute. If not, the
term will lose its significance and any kind of disagreement between scientists qualify as a controversy. Webster’s
 The Jørgensen–Werner controversy 219
Vermeeren, who identifies a controversy with a situation of multiple theory confrontation
where there is no obvious way out in the form of theory succession.&* In my view, this
definition is too narrow and ignores the crucial role played by the involved scientists’
emotions and attitudes. The influence of human (and, in a broader perspective, political)
factors leads to arguments that are often sharp, biased and insinuating, or otherwise
deviate from academic norms. The controversy between Werner and Jørgensen was rich
in such arguments and had little in common with the ordinary picture of a detached
scientific discussion. Finally, the revised picture of the controversy I have proposed may be
said to be rather unflattering with regard to Jørgensen’s role. It is indeed less flattering than
the one in most existing historical writings, but only in the conventional sense. Instead of
being a chivalrous discussant and detached truth-seeker, Jørgensen emerges as also a bold
combatant and a human being strongly attached to a dying tradition in chemistry. It is a
picture that leaves Jørgensen (and Werner, too) less heroic, but with his scientific
excellence untouched. As argued by Gerald Geison in his study of Pasteur, deheroization
does not necessarily imply a devaluation of the work of the scientific hero.'!

Dictionary defines a controversy as ‘ 1. dispute, debate, or contention ; disputation concerning a matter of opinion.
2. contention, strife, or argument ’, which is not very helpful. Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of
the English Language, New York, 1996.
59 Vermeeren, op. cit. (5). Many controversies, for example relating to discovery claims of chemical elements,
do not involve theory at all or only insignificantly.
60 G. L. Geison, The Private Science of Louis Pasteur, Princeton, 1995.