A new professorship has always marked the establishment of a new field within a discipline, and the process of disciplinary differentiation is evident in the establishment of chairs. For the humanities and natural sciences, this development is not only well researched but also particularly interesting, as the range of subjects involved is quite diverse. Looking at chair creation further refines our picture of the numerical development of the teaching staff, allowing us to add, to the faculty-specific distribution of personnel resources gleaned from the university’s personnel directories, subject-specific weightings.

Conversely, however, not every new professorship entails the institutionalization of a new discipline. It is important to distinguish between horizontal and vertical expansion: the horizontal expansion of chairs broadens the range of disciplines with new subjects, while a vertical expansion increases the number of full professorships in established fields.

Completion of the “basic framework”
By 1870, the horizontal expansion in the natural sciences in Germany was essentially complete. Most universities of the time had a complete “basic framework” of disciplines (Marita Baumgarten): mathematics, physics, chemistry, mineralogy, botany, zoology, and geography were almost universally represented by independent, regular professorships. The completion of this basic framework in the humanities, however, was delayed. Core subjects were particularly promoted from the 1890s and only fully represented before the First World War. By 1914, most German universities had chairs for philosophy; for ancient, oriental, and modern philologies and comparative linguistics; for ancient and modern history; and for archaeology and art history. Only at this point did the humanities catch up with the backlog they had faced since the decline of the neohumanistic educational ideal in the mid-nineteenth century.

The development of chairs at the University of Basel largely conformed to these trends but differs significantly in one regard. In the natural sciences, the creation of chairs matched the pace of German universities. Since the 1818 reform at the latest, mathematics, natural history (including botany), and chemistry and physics (divided since 1852) had full professorships. The partial reform of 1855 added zoology, prominently represented by Ludwig Rütimeyer, and the 1866 University Act added a chair for mineralogy and geology. Geography was the only subject that lagged behind, obtaining its own chair only in 1911 and thus completing the basic framework for the natural scientists.
Vertical expansion with a horizontal dimension
The completion of the humanities, however, occurred – predictably – more slowly than in the natural sciences, and – surprisingly – more slowly than at German universities. Between the 1866 and 1937 University Acts, humanities chairs were scarcely expanded horizontally, but they were topped up vertically: philosophy, German studies, Romance studies, and economics each received two chairs, and history even three. While the particular focus of these many professorships was not set by law, given the small scale of Basel’s university, we can assume that the various disciplines divided subareas among themselves rather than duplicating efforts, as was explicitly required in the 1960s in response to the surge in student numbers.

The distinction between vertical and horizontal expansion, in other words, is not clear-cut: the increase in the humanities also had a horizontal dimension within the field, as older subareas were elevated to subdisciplines with their own professorships or newer branches were institutionally established. This internal boundary-setting remained more flexible in the humanities compared to the natural sciences, where the 1937 law mandated the subdisciplinary division of the three chemistry professorships (inorganic, organic, and physical chemistry).
This increase in the humanities is evident in the personnel directories after 1900 as an increase in the number of full professorships in the humanities, reflecting the trend of promoting this branch of knowledge. Still, the broadening of the subject spectrum within the humanities did not keep up with the developments at German universities. From 1866 to 1937, only two previously unfunded subjects received endowed chairs: art history and English philology. By contrast, oriental studies, comparative linguistics, and archaeology still lacked permanently funded chairs in 1937. This was unusual, as most German universities had endowed these fields before 1914 as part of establishing their basic academic frameworks.

A shift in external university relations
The significant delay in funding certain academic chairs in Basel can be attributed to the uniquely close relationship – at least since the cantonal separation – between the city’s educational elite and the university, particularly the Faculty of Liberal Arts. The university, reestablished in 1835 as a “civic academy,” relied heavily on private support – voluntary positions and unpaid teaching lectureships, foundations, and donations. In exchange, the university catered to the neohumanistic educational ideals and representational needs of Basel’s citizens.

The disciplinary gaps that still existed between humanities chairs at the legal level in 1937 were a direct consequence of this close connection between the city’s elite and the university. In 1874, a bequest from the Vischer-Heussler family established the basis for a foundation that funded professorships, under the patronage of the Voluntary Academic Society, in comparative linguistics (including Sanskrit) and archaeology. During the twentieth century, these private funds were gradually replaced by state funding, initially as regular teaching contracts and, in the 1950s, by the establishment of personal full professorships.

It would be incorrect to attribute the sciences’ advantage in completing the basic framework solely to the entanglement between the city’s elite and the university. The educational faction representing old Basel also supported natural sciences research. Neohumanism’s educational program viewed natural sciences as equally integral to the humanities in establishing the unity of the Faculty of Liberal Arts (Philosophische Fakultät). The shift from the contemplation of nature for purely educational purposes, represented in Basel by Peter Merian’s natural history, to more industry-focused research, exemplified by dye chemist Rudolf Nietzki, weakened many ties to the city’s educated elites. Consequently, part of the university’s informal support base eroded.

However, this did necessitate earlier or stronger state intervention to support natural sciences. Instead, new connections formed within the symbiotic triangle of university, state, and chemical/pharmaceutical industry. The canton’s financial resources – federal funds only began flowing in the 1950s – were insufficient to maintain internationally competitive research for this knowledge-intensive industrial sector. As chemistry evolved from a textile industry supplier to a leading force in the second industrialization phase, new private, highly liquid funding sources became available to the sciences from the late 19th century.

The natural sciences’ lead in establishing publicly funded professorships cannot be explained by less favorable “external relations,” which, if they existed, were only temporary. Rather, this development reflects both the generally increased importance these fields gained in the epistemological landscape of modernity, and the priorities of a state increasingly influenced by modern industrial society’s pressure to innovate.

Expansion from below
Around 1900, Basel’s political authorities recognized academic chemistry’s importance in the capitalist innovation system and Basel’s need for competitive positioning. To economize, they attempted in 1895 to cover the entire field of chemistry with a single professorship, thus preventing a second position. Simultaneously, they appointed Rudolf Nietzki, an application-oriented dye chemistry specialist with a career alternating between academia and industry, as full professor. While the state’s understanding of academic activities’ economic relevance was still clouded by financial reservations in 1895, the outlook improved with the construction of the Institute of Chemistry in 1910. The division into inorganic and organic chemistry, institutionally anchored at the extraordinary (associate) professor level in 1895 as a compromise, was now implemented at the university chair level.

Although the state repeatedly conveyed its interests to the university, the process of horizontal expansion should not be viewed as overly directive. New subjects or subdisciplines were not simply established from above through planned faculty or government decisions. This usually represented only the endpoint of a lengthy, opaque process that developed from below, beginning at the assistant professor level and evolving unpredictably.

This process might be imagined as follows. Initially, an assistant would notice a new scientific trend, familiarize themselves with it during research stays at leading universities, receive a teaching assignment for the new field upon return, complete a habilitation, and enter the pool of applicants awaiting a full professorship. Then, a professorship would suddenly become available through retirement, departure, or death. The successor’s strategy focused not only on inheriting the chair’s resources in staff, funding, and space at the university but also on arguing for its expansion, supported by international competition pressures and the need to relieve subdisciplines of their load. Thus, if public funds were not too scarce, one professorship became two. And if private sponsors also contributed, a new institute could be founded.