Volume 27, Number 1

Bull. Hist. Chem., VOLUME 27, Number 1  (2002)

33

In the 1860s, he was able to convince the Russian cus-

toms officials to provide him with samples of bitter al-

mond oil that had been confiscated at the border.  He

then returned to the topic of his earliest studies, exam-

ining the processes of oxidation and reduction in vari-

ous aromatic compounds in more detail, despite the fact

that this was far from the cutting edge in current re-

search, as Butlerov lamented in his obituary of Zinin

(50).  In the 1870s, Zinin branched out to study the com-

pound lepidene, which later was determined to be

tetraphenylfuran.  Over the course of several years Zinin

studied various reactions using lepidene, carefully sepa-

rating the different isomers formed in the reactions.

Soviet historians of chemistry credit Zinin with stimu-

lating the study of hetrocyclic chemistry in Russia (51).

This brief outline of Zinin’s life and career illus-

trates several general points about the history of chem-

istry in Russia during the nineteenth century as well as

aspects specifically about Zinin himself.  The most im-

portant thread running through his career was his em-

brace of “pure” chemistry and his avoidance of applied

or technical chemistry.  Zinin’s biography suggests some

possible reasons for his attitude.  We remember that

Zinin studied mainly astronomy and mathematics as an

undergraduate student at Kazan’ University, and he ob-

viously intended to pursue these fields in his graduate

training.  He taught these subjects and assisted the as-

tronomy professor in his research.  He apparently had

no desire to focus on chemistry until Curator Musin-

Pushkin decided that the incumbent chemistry profes-

sor was incompetent and needed to be replaced.  Since

there were extremely few Russian students willing and

able to pursue advanced training during the first half of

the nineteenth century, the curator had little choice but

to select Zinin to be the future chemistry professor.  Zinin

himself had little choice in the matter.  Like so many

Russian students during the first half of the nineteenth

century, he was not from the elite nobility and had scant

opportunities for advancement outside an academic ca-

reer.  The administration officials at Kazan’ University

selected the topic of Zinin’s magistr dissertation, and

they also drafted his plan for study abroad.

While Zinin sincerely enjoyed studying science, it

is not certain that he wanted to devote himself to chem-

istry at this time.  To me, this is the implication of the

episode during his study abroad when–under the influ-

ence of fellow Russian students in Berlin who were

studying medicine–he abandoned his study of chemis-

try and turned to medicine.   Returning to the study of

chemistry after a short interlude, Zinin soon decisively

embraced chemistry under Liebig’s influence.  Thus it

must have been especially difficult for him to accept the

switch to studying technology as demanded by Curator

Musin-Pushkin.  Again, Zinin had little choice in the

matter, and he likely went along with the plan because

it gave him an extra year of research abroad and be-

cause the new plan did not significantly alter his intended

path of study.  He displayed his feelings about having to

teach technology, however, when, in 1840, he tried to

obtain the position in chemistry at Khar’kov University

instead of returning to Kazan’ University to teach tech-

nology.  After being frustrated in this attempt, he reluc-

tantly returned to Kazan’, but once there he devoted little

attention to teaching technology or conducting any re-

search with applications to technology.  Moreover, Zinin

fled Kazan’ at the first opportunity to take a position at

the Medical-Surgical Academy in St. Petersburg.

On the basis of these experiences, it is easy to see

why Zinin did not devote more attention to the possible

applications of his research in industry or agriculture.

This neglect of practical applications is perhaps surpris-

ing in such a devoted follower of Liebig.  Zinin not only

adopted Liebig’s ideas about complex radicals, which

guided much of Zinin’s research throughout his career,

but he also supported many of Liebig’s teachings out-

side of “pure” chemistry, as was shown in the public

lecture given by Zinin in 1847.  However, despite his

evident attachment to Liebig, the Russian adopted only

the “theoretical” side of Liebig’s ideas as a guide to his

research and not the “practical” side.  The efforts of

Kittary, Zinin’s successor in technology at Kazan’ Uni-

versity, show that ample opportunities existed there to

promote technology.

Thus, when Zinin discovered an easy method to

reduce nitrobenzene to aniline in 1842, he did not fol-

low up this work with further investigations and did not

explore the possibility of industrial or commercial uses

for this reaction.  Instead, it was Hofmann who seized

upon Zinin’s initial insight and developed its practical

uses.  Zinin was not the first to obtain aniline; several

others had obtained it as early as 1826 by alternative

methods.  Aniline was originally discovered by Otto

Unverdorben (as “Crystallin”), and it was subsequently

obtained from coal tar in 1834 by Friedlieb Ferdinand

Runge (as “Kyanol”) and from the decomposition of

indigo in 1840 by Fritsshe (as “Anilin”).  Note, how-

ever, that each researcher gave a different name to the

product, which obscured its identity.  Not until1843 did

Hofmann demonstrate that all of these products were

identical.  Auguste Laurent was also interested in these

---

34

Bull. Hist. Chem., VOLUME 27, Number 1  (2002)

products, and in 1843, in collaboration with Hofmann,

he managed to convert phenol into aniline (52).  It is

clear that aniline and its related compounds were im-

portant and active areas of chemical research at the time

when Zinin developed his method for preparing aniline

that was far simpler and of greater potential use than

any of the earlier methods.

Zinin’s aversion to the practical uses of his research

was also a common feature of Russian chemistry dur-

ing the nineteenth century.  Very few Russian chemists

had much contact with industrialists, and only a small

number of Russian chemists were employed in the do-

mestic chemical industry throughout the nineteenth cen-

tury.  The reasons for this lack of contact are not clear

although it resulted partly from the emphasis on theory

in the academic culture in Russia and partly from the

insular nature of the Russian industrialists (53).  In ad-

dition, Homburg’s argument that the key players in the

early development of the dye industry were the color-

ists and not the academic chemists indicates that we

should not have expected Zinin to develop his discov-

ery into a practical method for the dye industry (54).

On the other hand, some chemists in Russia–espe-

cially during the first half of the century–devoted a con-

siderable amount of time to “practical” activities, such

as serving as technical consultants for governmental

agencies.  These practical activities had little to do with

direct industrial applications and were mainly pursued

to gain the chemists a “local” reputation.  As noted

above, while he was in Kazan’, Zinin did not have con-

tacts with industrialists and did not undertake practical

activities.  However, this is in marked contrast to the

years after he moved to St. Petersburg when he actively

pursued these types of local activities.  For example,

during his first four years in the capital, he served as a

member of the Manufacturing Council of the Ministry

of Finance, traveled to the Caucasus region to study

mineral water for the Ministry of Finance, served on

the commission to build St. Isaac’s Cathedral, and was

the secretary of the Mineralogical Conference, among

other activities.  He continued his involvement in a wide

range of committees and other assignments until his

death (55).

This involvement in local, practical activities after

his move to St. Petersburg helps explain, I believe, an-

other facet of Zinin’s scientific career.  Despite his im-

pressive research, especially that conducted while in

Kazan’, Zinin remained rooted in the “local” tradition

of chemistry in Russia, not in the later “professional”

tradition.  This was in contrast, for example, to Aleksandr

Mikhailovich Butlerov, who in the late 1850s became

one of the first professionalized Russian chemists (56).

With this traditional outlook Zinin did not develop a

strong interest in chemical theory and thus did not grasp

the theoretical implications of his 1841 discovery.

Hofmann, on the other hand, used Zinin’s work as a key

initial part of his far-reaching development of the chem-

istry of amines and his formulation of the ammonia type

(57).

Zinin’s work with aniline was not his only brush

with a potentially useful compound.  In 1853 Zinin con-

ducted research on nitroglycerin as an explosive agent

but did not publish this work nor follow it up.  Shortly

after this, another Russian began studies on large

amounts of nitroglycerin.  However, it was left to Alfred

Nobel to transform nitroglycerin into dynamite and de-

velop large-scale methods for its manufacture, as well

as for blasting caps and other associated products.  And

how did Nobel learn about nitroglycerin?  He learned

about it from Zinin, who taught chemistry to Nobel in

the 1850s.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1.

For biographical information about Zinin, see N.A.

Figurovskii and Iu.I. Solov’ev, Nikolai Nikolaevich

Zinin: Biograficheskii ocherk  [Nikolai Nikolaevich

Zinin: A Biographical Sketch], Izd. Akademii Nauk

SSSR, Moscow, 1957; A.P. Borodin and A.M. Butlerov,

“Nikolai Nikolaevich Zinin: Vospominaniia o nem i

biograficheskii ocherk” [“Nikolai Nikolaevich Zinin:

Reminiscences of Him and a Biographical Sketch”], Zh.

Russ. Fiz.-Khim. Obshch., 1880, 12, Otd. Khim., 215-

252.  The latter is reprinted in A.M. Butlerov, Sochineniia

[Collected Works], Izd. Akademii Nauk SSSR, Moscow,

1958, vol. 3, 92-116.  For studies in English, see H. M.

Leicester, “N.N. Zinin, An Early Russian Chemist,” J.

Chem. Educ.,  1941,  17, 303-306; D. E. Lewis, “The

University of Kazan–Provincial Cradle of Russian Or-

ganic Chemistry. Part I: Nikolai Zinin and the Butlerov

School,” J. Chem. Educ.,  1994,  71, 39-42; and N. M.

Brooks, “Nikolai Zinin at Kazan University,” Ambix,

1995, 42, 129-142.

2.

About Magnitskii, see J. T. Flynn, “Magnitskii’s Purge

of Kazan University: A Case Study in the Uses of Reac-

tion in Nineteenth-Century Russia,” J. Mod. Hist., 1971,

43, 598-614.

3.

N. P. Zagoskin, Istoriia Imperatorskogo Kazan’skogo

universiteta za pervyia sto let ego sushchestvovaniia,

1804-1904 [History of the Imperial Kazan’ University

for the First Hundred Years of its Existence, 1804-1904],

Kazan’, 1904, Vol. 3, pp. 350-351.

---

Bull. Hist. Chem., VOLUME 27, Number 1  (2002)

35

4.

For examples of the traditional view, see C. H. Whittaker,

The Origins of Modern Russian Education: An Intellec-

tual Biography of Count Sergei Uvarov, 1786-1855,

Northern Illinois University Press, DeKalb, IL, 1984,

158; and M. K. Korbut, Kazan’skii Gosudarstvennyi

Universitet imeni V.I. Ulianov-Lenina za 125 let 1804/

5-1929/30 [Kazan’ State University named V.I. Ulianov-

Lenin for the 125 Years 1804/5-1929/30], Kazan’, 1930,

Vol. 1, 15-17.

5.

Otchet Imperatorskogo Kazan’skogo Universiteta i

uchebnago okruga za 17 let, c 1827 po 1-e Genvaria

1844 goda, po upravleniiu Tainogo Sovetnika Musina-

Pushkina [An Account of the Imperial Kazan’ Univer-

sity and the Educational District for the 17 Years from

1827 to the 1st of Genvaria 1844 under the Administra-

tion of Curator Musin-Pushkin], Kazan’, 1844.

6.

J. T. Flynn, The University Reform of Tsar Alexander I,

1802-1835, Catholic University of America Press, Wash-

ington, DC, 1988, 90-103.

7.

See Ref. 3, 1902, Vol. 1, p 278.

8.

G. V. Bykov and S. A. Pogodin, “Oborudovanie i

materialy Khimicheskoi laboratorii Kazan’skogo

universiteta v nachale 30-kh godov XIX v. (po

rukopisnym dokumentam)” [“Equipment and Materials

of the Chemistry Laboratory of Kazan’ University at the

Beginning of the 1830s (according to Handwritten Docu-

ments)”] Pamiatniki nauki i tekhniki, 1981, No. 1, 156-

174.  About Dunaev, see 172, 174.

9.

Tsentral’nyi gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv

Respubliki Tatarstania [Central State Historical Archive

of the Republic of Tatarstan’], Kazan’, f. 977, op. Sovet,

d. 2157, ll. 3-7.

10. Ref. 9, f. 977, op. Sovet, d. 1986, ll. 5-5 ob.

11.

Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv [Russian

State Historical Archive], St. Petersburg, f. 733, op. 41,

d. 239, ll. 9-10.

12. Ref. 9, f. 92, op. Sovet, d. 80, ll. 43-44.

13. Ref. 9, f. 92, op. Sovet, d. 80, ll. 132-133.

14. For biographical information about Klaus, see N. N.

Ushakova,  Karl Karlovich Klaus, 1796-1864, Nauka,

Moscow, 1972.

15. Ref. 11, f. 733, op. 41, d. 239, ll. 72-123.

16. Ref. 11, f. 733, op. 41, d. 239, ll. 123-132.

17. K. M. Baker, Ed. and trans., The Nature and Purpose of

Public Instruction in Condorcet: Selected Writings, Li-

brary of Liberal Arts, Indianapolis, IN, 1976.  Both En-

glish and French versions of Condorcet’s first essay

(1791) are also available at http://ishi.lib.berkeley.edu/

~ h i s t 2 8 0 / r e s e a r c h / c o n d o r c e t / p a g e s /

instruction_main.html.

18. See N. A. Hans, A History of Russian Educational Policy,

1701-1917, P. S. King, London, 1931, 41-50.

19. For a good discussion of Uvarov and his policies, see

Ref. 4, Whittaker.

20. See Ref. 1, Figurovskii and Solov’ev, 43; Butlerov,

Sochineniia, Vol. 3, 95.

21. W. H. Brock, Justus Liebig, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, 1997.

22. N. N. Zinin, “Beiträge zur Kenntniss einiger

Verbindungen aus der Benzoylreihe,”  Ann. Chem.

Pharm., 1839, 31, 329-332;  “Über einige

Zersetzungsprodukte des Bittermandelös,” Ann. Chem.

Pharm., 1840, 34, 186-192.

23. Ref. 11, f. 733, op. 41, d. 239, ll. 232-233.

24. Tsentral’nyi gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv Sankt-

Peterburga [Central State Historical Archive of St. Pe-

tersburg], f. 14, op. 3, d. 15932, l. 1.

25. Ref. 23, f. 14, op. 3, d. 15932, l. 2.

26. Ref. 11, f. 733, op. 41, d. 239, l. 237.

27. Ref. 23, f. 14, op. 3, d. 15932, ll. 9-20.

28. Reprinted in N. N. Zinin, Trudy po organicheskoi khimii

[Collected Works on Organic Chemistry], B.A. Arbuzov

et al., Ed., Nauka, Moscow, 1982, 15-32.

29. For a discussion of these ideas, see P. Munday, “Liebig’s

Metamorphosis: From Organic Chemistry to the Chem-

istry of Agriculture,” Ambix, 1991, 38, 135-154.

30. This letter [Ref. 11, f. 733, op. 41, d. 58380, ll. 26-29] is

quoted in Ref. 1, Figurovskii and Solov’ev, pp 181-183.

31. For a more detailed discussion of Musin-Pushkin’s ar-

guments for not allowing Zinin to apply for the position

at Khar’kov University, see Ref. 1, Brooks, pp 134-136.

32. Ref. 9, f. 977, op. Sovet, d. 2602, ll. 11-11 ob.

33. This actually was named a kabinet, which indicates that

it was less well equipped than a full-fledged laboratory.

34. Ref. 5, pp 156-158.

35. Ref. 9, f. 977, op. Sovet, d. 2853, l. 1.  Klaus also asked

for, and was granted, an additional 148 rubles for “mi-

nor expenses” on March 6, 1845, and an extra 79 rubles

and 50 kopecks for glassware on December 12, 1845;

Ref. 9, f. 977, op. Sovet, d. 2853, ll. 2-5.

36. For information about Kittary, see Iu.S. Musabekov,

“Modest Iakovlevich Kittary,” Zh. Prikl. Khim., 1952,

25, 1128-1133.

37. For more detail about chemists and “local” reputations

in Russia, see N. M. Brooks, The Formation of a Com-

munity of Chemists in Russia, 1700-1870, Ph.D. The-

sis, Columbia University, 1989.

38. Ref. 9, f. 977, op. Sovet, d. 2859, ll. 1-2.

39. N. N. Zinin, “Opisanie nekotorykh novykh

organicheskikh osnovanii, poluchennykh pri deistvii

serovodoroda na soedineniia uglevodorodov s

azotnovatoi kislotoi” [“Description of Several New Or-

ganic Bases Obtained through the Action of Hydrogen

Sulfide on Compounds of Hydrocarbons with Nitric

Acid”], Bulletin scientifique publie par l’Academie Im-

perial des Sciences de Saint-Petersbourg, 1843, 10, col.

273-285.  Reprinted in Ref. 27, pp 33-41.

40. In 1840 Fritsshe had given the name aniline to the prod-

uct that was produced by the distillation of indigo with

potassium hydroxide.  See Bulletin scientifique publie

par l’Academie Imperial des Sciences de Saint-

Petersbourg, 1842, 10, col. 352.

---

36

Bull. Hist. Chem., VOLUME 27, Number 1  (2002)

41. “N. N. Zinin: Nekrolog,” Ber. Dtsch. Chem. Ges., 1880,

13, 449-50.

42. N. N. Zinin, “O produktakh deistviia sernistogo

ammoniia na nekotorye organicheskie tela i o

sochetannykh kislotakh soedinenii khlora s naftalinom”

[“On the Products of the Action of Ammonium Sulfide

on Some Organic Bodies and on Acids of Chlorine Com-

pounds Combined with Naphthalene”], Bulletin de la

class physico-mathematique de l’Academie Imperiale

des Sciences de Saint-Petersbourg,  1845,  3, col. 129-

138; reprinted in Ref. 27, pp 42-49.  N. N. Zinin, “Ob

azobenzide i nitrobenzinovoi kislote” [“On Azobenzid

and Nitrobenzene Acid”], Bulletin de la class physico-

mathematique de l’Academie Imperiale des Sciences de

Saint-Petersbourg, 1846, 4, col. 273-286; reprinted in

Ref. 27, pp 49-59.

43. L. Gumilevskii, Zinin, Molodaia Gvardiia, Moscow,

1965, 112.  This information must be treated with cau-

tion, however.  The author does not provide any source

for his statements about Zinin’s move to the Medical-

Surgical Academy.  Moreover, no other biography in-

cludes these details.

44. This speech is reprinted in Ref. 1, Figurovskii and

Solov’ev, pp 183-197.

45. Ref. 11, f. 733, op. 90, d. 104, l. 1.

46. Ref. 11, f. 733, op. 90, d. 104, ll. 2-3.

47. Ref. 9, f. 977, d. 9130, l. 20; also quoted in Ref. 1,

Figurovskii and Solov’ev, 58.

48. Ref. 11, f. 733, op. 90, d. 104, ll. 11.

49. See the document reprinted in Ref. 1, Figurovskii and

Solov’ev, pp 197-198.

50. Ref. 1, Butlerov, Sochineniia, Vol. 3, 111.

51. Ref. 1, Figurovskii and Solov’ev, pp 144-147.

52. J. R. Partington, A  History of Chemistry, Macmillan,

London, 1964, Vol. 4, 183-185, 389, 434-436.

53. I have explored this issue in an unpublished paper, “Aca-

demic Chemistry and the Chemical Industry in Russia,”

presented at the History of Science Society Annual Meet-

ing, Kansas City, Missouri, October 22-25, 1998.  The

abstract for this paper is available at http://

d e p t s . w a s h i n g t o n . e d u / h s s e x e c / a n n u a l / 1 9 9 8 /

abstracts98p1.html.

54. E. Homberg, “The Influence of Demand on the Emer-

gence of the Dye Industry: The Roles of Chemists and

Colourists,” J. Soc. Dyers Colour, 1983, 99, 325-333.

55. Ref. 11, f. 733, op. 120, d. 291, ll. 5-22.

56. See N. M. Brooks, “Alexander Butlerov and the

Professionalization of Science in Russia,” Russ. Rev.,

1998, 57, 10-24.

57. M. N. Keas, “The Nature of Organic Bases and the

Ammonia Type,” in C. Meinel and H. Scholz, Ed., Die

Allianz von Wissenschaft und Industrie: August Wilhelm

Hofmann (1818-1892), VCH, Weinheim, 1992, 101-118.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Nathan M. Brooks is Associate Professor of History at

New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM  88003,

[e-mail].

HISTORY OF SCIENCE SOCIETY

CALL FOR PAPERS

“Crossing Borders”

November 7 – 10, 2002

Milwaukee, WI, USA

The program committee particularly encourages submission of papers and sessions around the following

sub-themes:

1.  Topographies of Knowledge

2.  Circulation: Knowledge, Objects, Practices, People

3.  Visual Cultures of Science, Technology, and Medicine

Proposals for sessions and contributed papers must reach the History of Science Society Executive Office,

Box 351330, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-1330; phone: [phone]; fax: 206-685-

9544; e-mail:  [e-mail] by April 2, 2002. Proposals must be submitted through the HSS Web site:

http://www.hssonline.org/2002meeting

or on the annual meeting proposal forms available online (forms may also be requested from the HSS

Executive Office).