Academia & Ideas & Gender Issues & Science Posted by James Killus, 25 Jul 2007 03:37 am
Lavoisier
Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier was born in 1743 to Jean-Antoine Lavoisier, a prominent lawyer, and Emilie Punctis, who belonged to a rich and influential family, and who died when Antoine-Laurent was five years old. He was basically raised by his maiden 
aunt Mlle Constance Punctis, who arranged for his education at the College Mazarin, which was noted for its faculty of science.
Although young Antoine completed a law degree in accordance with family wishes, his true calling was in science. On the basis of his early scientific work, primarily in geology, he was elected at the age of 25—to the Academy of Sciences, France’s most elite scientific society.
In the same year as his election to the Academy, in order to finance his scientific research, he bought into the Ferme Générale, the private corporation that collected taxes for the Crown on a for profit (as you can see, “privatization” is hardly a new idea). A few years later he married the daughter of another “tax farmer.” Her name was Marie-Anne Pierrette Paulze, and she was not quite 14 at the time. Madame Lavoisier learned English, in order to translate the work of British chemists like Joseph Priestley and Henry Cavendish for her husband. She also studied art and engraving and illustrated Lavoisier’s scientific experiments.
Lavoisier has been called the “father of modern chemistry” for good reason. He established the principle of conservation of mass in chemistry and physics, and performed a series of experiments which, combined with the work of Priestly and Cavendish, overthrew the theory of phlogiston as an explanation of combustion, and thereafter the swept away the classical theory of the elements (earth, air, fire, and water). Lavoisier’s replacement table of the elements ran to some 33 “irreducible substances” most of which were what we today recognize as elements, such as mercury, sulfur, and oxygen, which he renamed from “dephlogistonized air.” He also performed such flashy experiments as demonstrating that diamond is made from carbon by burning one in an atmosphere of pure oxygen.
During the Reign of Terror in 1794, Antoine Lavoisier was arrested, along with 27 others, by the French Revolutionary Tribune for abusing the office of Ferme Générale by adulterating tobacco with water. They were guillotined the same day. When asked for his defense, Lavoisier is famously said to have remarked, “I am a scientist,” to which the tribunal replied, “The Revolution has no need of scientists.” Then “snick” went the head of Lavoisier. That’s the famous part of the story, anyway, usually given as a cautionary tale about the anti-science nature of revolutions.
Popular accounts often omit the predatory nature of the Ferme Générale, which was, after all, basically a protection racket, there being no limit to the taxes collected except what the tax collectors could gouge from the populace. The Crown got its share, but everything above that was pure profit, and the agency was very profitable, profitable enough to finance the purchase of diamonds to burn, something which was probably well-known to the revolutionaries.
So Lavoisier, despite actually being a politically liberal who had worked for many reforms, was vulnerable to the revolutionary fervor of the times. Still, he might have survived, were it not for the fact that he had a famous enemy, one Jean-Paul Marat. Yes, that Marat. 
Why did Marat hate Lavoisier? Because, years before, Marat had applied for membership in the French Academy and had been rejected, with Lavoisier being a major factor in the rejection. It seems that Marat had taken to the idea of “animal magnetism” as propounded by Franz Mesmer, a process also called Mesmerism, and which is now called hypnosis. The
French Academy had appointed a commission of scientists, which included Lavoisier, and also the American Ambasador, one Benjamin Franklin to look into the matter. The commission concluded that animal magnetism was “the product of mere imagination,” thus dashing Marat’s hopes for acceptance.So fate set up Laviosier for the perfect storm of vengeance, from Marat, over the professional slight, from the revolutionary tribunal over the tax farming business, and perhaps even from those who had been outraged by the extravagance of burning a fabulous gemstone simply to prove that it was just another form of coal.
The story doesn’t end there, though. Lavoisier’s widow remarried, to an Englishman whose language she spoke (in more ways than one) because of her service to her brilliant husband. The Englishman’s name was Benjamin Thompson, also known as Count Rumford. Thompson had been born in America, and was a Tory who fled the colonies after the American Revolution, leaving his wife behind (forever, as it turned out). He conducted studies on the physics of gunpowder explosions and manufactured munitions. During the course of boring out cannons, he took careful measurements of the heat generated. On the basis of those experiments, using the same methods whereby Lavoisier had overthrown the theory of phlogiston he established that one of Lavoisier’s proposed elements, caloric, could not be an element, and must be for form of energy, of motion (albeit, motion at the smallest scale). This was published in 1798.
What part did Marie-Anne play in all of this? She and Thompson were married in 1804 (Thompson’s wife having died some time before), and separated shortly thereafter. So Marie-Anne came too late as Thompson’s wife to be said to have played a role in his earlier researches. Still, there might be more to it all than that, but I’m not sure I can get through all the layers of irony in the stories of these interwoven lives, to say precisely what.
Trackbacks
Responses to “Lavoisier”
-
on 25 Jul 2007 at 4:12 am 1. JP Stormcrow said …
What part did Marie-Anne play in all of this? She and Thompson were married in 1804 (Thompson’s wife having died some time before), and separated shortly thereafter. So Marie-Anne came too late as Thompson’s wife to be said to have played a role in his earlier researches
You might want to read this eccentric short paper by a Hungarian named Béla Lukács on Rumford. In addition to a description of Rumford soup - which somehow gets mentioned in Marx’s Kapital, it includes the following story on Rumford/Lavoisier and their mutual wife.
I was told that Rumford had an extended visit to Lavoisier in Paris. Then there were high argumentations about Heat Fluid vs. Kinetic Theory. Also that Rumford tirelessly courted Lady Lavoisier, while in Paris. Then, after 1794, the execution of Lavoisier (as a Count, not as a chemist), Rumford reappeared and married the widow. I will continue that Love Story soon, but now let us see the idea of my informer. Surely the two males fought for the female and this was the reason to occupy opposite viewpoints about Heat.
The author does not believe the story for complicated reasons involving notions of honor among noblemen … anyone interested should read it themselves. The author is colorful, maybe a crackpot, may be just the language - can’t tell yet need to read more of his eclectic writings. Here is his description on his homepage of the article:
not only directed the Bavarian Arsenal, invented the Rumford Soup (and so went even into Marx’ Capital, and found experimental evidences against Lavoisier’s Heat Fluid; he invented the best fireplace of kitchens too and found a thermodynamic way to displease his wife. Thermodynamics is mighty; you should better study it.
-
on 25 Jul 2007 at 10:04 am 2. James Killus said …
I realize I should have put a page break in this. Let’s see if I can fix that.
-
on 25 Jul 2007 at 10:10 am 3. James Killus said …
There, fixed.
That is a fascinating set of anecdotes, JP. One can only hope that they are true. It would make a fascinating theatrical production, wouldn’t it?
-
on 25 Jul 2007 at 10:24 am 4. JP Stormcrow said …
That is a fascinating set of anecdotes, JP. One can only hope that they are true
Yes, in reading it - I never figured out whether it was the writer’s or the co-author’s ex-fiancee - I think it was the writer’s. When I get the time I want to go read some of his other stuff.
-
on 25 Jul 2007 at 10:31 am 5. Sven DiMilo said …
Lavoisier was also the “father” of my own little esoteric scientific niche: animal energetics. He (with LaPlace) was the first to measure the metabolic rate of an animal.
-
on 25 Jul 2007 at 1:52 pm 6. Oaktown Girl said …
What timing - I just learned about the Lavoisiers last week while watching the Jacque-Louis David episode of Simon Schama’s The Power of Art. That is the series I mentioned in my “Kill Your Television” post a few weeks back. The David episode is really enjoyable - chock full of French Revoltionary and arty goodness - and I highly recommend it. I think it’s still showing this week on many PBS stations around the country, and is worth seeking out. Of course those documentaries can’t be all things to all people (not enough time on this, too much time on that, glossed over the other thingy, etc), but I think overall it’s worth a look.
Passing thought regarding Madame Lavoisier being “not quite 14″ at the time she married Monsieur Lavoisier: sounds a whole lot better than “13″, doesn’t it?
But M. Lavoisier made and excellent choice because clearly she was brilliant and was a great help to him. (And as far as I know, it was a happy enough match). It’s challenging enough to learn a new language well enough to do basic translations, let alone translating scientific writings. Add to that her talent for drawing and painting, and I can only say, “Wow!”.
-
on 25 Jul 2007 at 3:46 pm 7. James Killus said …
If the story that Thompson had visited Paris when Lavoisier was still alive is correct, then those “high argumentations about Heat Fluid vs. Kinetic Theory” would put M. Lavoisier at the center of that particular scientific advance as well. What is happening here is nothing less than the discovery/invention of the principle of the conservation of mass. Given that Newton had previously articulated the principle of the conservation of momentum, the extension of conservation principles to chemistry became the second great scientific unification (the first being Newton’s unification of mechanics and astronomy). So in three nearly consecutive human lifetimes, you go from the proto-science that preceded Galileo to what is recognizably modern science with the Lavoisiers and Thompson. That set the stage for what might be characterized as the never-ending of scientific revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries.
-
on 25 Jul 2007 at 4:10 pm 8. JP Stormcrow said …
It would make a fascinating theatrical production, wouldn’t it?
Yes it would. Did a few cursory searches and everyone else seems to put the first meeting of Thonpson/Rumford and Marie-Anne after 1800. My searches did turn up a play that had been performed about Count Rumford as a part of a scientific conference.The site also included a short, lively history of Rumford’s life - an interesting and multi-faceted individual.
-
on 26 Jul 2007 at 12:32 am 9. Porlock Junior said …
Slight misprint in the first line. 1743. BTW, while one is picking nits, is the “no need for scientists” story generally accepted as true by the relevant scholars? ISTR seeing it treated with considerable skepticism, but could be all wrong about this.
Had no idea of the Rumsford connection. It’s amusing without any need for silly reductive notions like the Hungarian’s “Surely the two males fought for the female and this was the reason to occupy opposite viewpoints about Heat.” Right, and Galileo’s problems were really about his Oedipal relations with the Pope. Oh, well.
Speaking of revolutions and scientists, we had an odd revolutionary exchange there: Rumford for Priestley. Let’s see now, whose mistress was responsible for Priestley’s clinging to phlogiston?
Yet another revolutionary connection: France not only financed our revolution but providede the gunpowder — by the efforts of Lavoisier a few years earlier. http://porlockjr.blogspot.com/2005/07/le-quatre-juillet-please-rise-and-sing.html
-
on 26 Jul 2007 at 10:10 am 10. Oaktown Girl said …
Hi Porlock - typo fixed. Thanks! I know there are still some other slight glitches floating around up (none so far as I know impacting the factual information) which will be fixed later.
As for my own comment in #6, what I meant to say was “art history goodness”, not “arty” goodness. And of course, it was David who painted the above portrait of the Lavoisiers. Here’s a good site for links to images of many of David’s works. Check it out.
Sven - that “little esoteric scientific niche: animal energetics” of yours sounds rather interesting. I’d sure like to hear more about that. (Hint, hint!)
-
on 26 Jul 2007 at 11:39 am 11. JP Stormcrow said …
It seems that many of these early scientists were quite the interesting folk. Cavendish comes to mind as well. (maybe it is something about Chemistry.)
Henry Cavendish had a peculiarly odd demeanor. He was morbidly shy of women and strangers and avoided ever speaking to them. He wore a coat of faded velvet and a three-cornered cocked hat from the previous century so he must have looked almost as curious to his con-temporaries as he does to us. He admitted to a “singular love of solitariness.” He was a tall man with a thin, squeaky voice. He spoke with hesitation and difficulty, especially when embarrassed. At home, his servant was instructed by written notes what to prepare for dinner ? usually ‘a leg of mutton.’
“[Cavendish] probably uttered fewer words in the course of his life than any man who lived to fourscore years.” -Lord Brougham”
OT - In looking up some stuff on these guys, I discovered that there is a “Nostalgia Wikipedia”, which consists of a December 2001 snap of Wikipedia. Kinda fun to look at some of the entries. Other than straight bio information, here is what is written on Dick Cheney: Supporters of Mr. Cheney point to his reputation for knowledge and character. Opponents and detractors accuse him of being closely tied to the oil industry.
Knowledge and character.
-
on 26 Jul 2007 at 2:36 pm 12. James Killus said …
I remember WSJ shill Paul Gigot during the 2000 campaign that what Cheney brought to the ticket was “gravitas.”
It took me a while to realize that this meant “a deep voice.” Unfortunately, I also realized that this mattered.
-
on 26 Jul 2007 at 3:51 pm 13. Oaktown Girl said …
I just saw James’ comment above and am desperate to go on a long rant about “Gravitas” and “The Adults” returning to the White House, but am too tied up at work to do it now.
Perhaps I can pass this very important rant-baton to someone else out there who can do it justice?
-
on 26 Jul 2007 at 4:04 pm 14. James Killus said …
Also, in response to Porlock Jr., the “no need of scientists” line (also sometimes given as “The Republic has no need for scientists”) is considered apocryphal by many, and quoted by many more. Hence my use of the word “famously,” as fame and the truth are barely nodding acquaintances.
-
on 26 Jul 2007 at 8:06 pm 15. JP Stormcrow said …
I am all out of rant about this administration.
All I have is this quote from a 1999 Cheney speech to an Oil and Gas group.Oil is the only large industry whose leverage has not been all that effective in the political arena.
From the MOJ:
I’d sure like to hear more about that. (Hint, hint!)Hinting is too subtle. everyone write stuff and click on the “Submit a Post” link and thereby Submit 2 The MOJ. You too can see your timeless words deployed beneath a soothing picture of old train tracks amongst verdant foliage. In fact you can even write about and include your own pictures of old train tracks amongst verdant foliage. (And check in tomorrow morning if you want to see what that’s like).
-
on 26 Jul 2007 at 10:50 pm 16. Oaktown Girl said …
Very nicely plugged, JP!
That Cheney quote leaves me speechless. Was it some kind of pathetic attempt to try to ease peoples’ minds about having oil men as both President and Veep?
That quote is perhaps even more outrageous than the one during the VP debate vs. Lie-berman where he claimed that his financial success during the Clinton years had almost nothing to do with the government, when in fact he’d built his fortune on govt. contracts:
Sen. Lieberman: Bernie, Dick Cheney must be one of the few people in America who does - who thinks that nothing has been accomplished in the last eight years.
(snip)
I think if you asked most people in America today that famous question that Ronald Reagan asked, “Are you better off today than you were eight years ago?” most people would say, “Yes.”
And I’m pleased to see, Dick, from the newspapers, that you’re better off than you were eight years ago, too.(LAUGHTER)(From 1995 until last July, Cheney served as chief executive officer of Halliburton, a Texas-based oil drilling and oil services company. His salary in 1999 was nearly $1.3 million.)
Mr. Cheney: And most of it - and I can tell you, Joe, that the government had absolutely nothing to do with it. (LAUGHTER)(APPLAUSE)
Lie-berman of course let that go unchallenged. But then again perhaps it’s hard to think clearly when you’re…oh hell. I’ll be polite for once and just not say it.
It still makes me want to weep when I remember that a lot of people in the Limbaugh-listener group actually thought having oil men in the White House was going to keep gas prices down.
1. Hug the Shoggoth That’s when they chopped the mayor’s head off, back in ‘93 «