NATURE 



31. 



LA VOISIER. 

 La Rh'olutton Chitnique : Lavoisier. Par M. Berthelot. 

 (Paris : Fdlix Alcan, 1890.) 



A MONGST the crop of literature which the centenary 

 -t^ of the French Revolution has produced, there are 

 probably no works more interesting to the historian of 

 science in general, and certainly none more interesting 

 to the historian of chemistry in particular, than the two 

 biographies of Lavoisier which then appeared, the one 

 due to the patient industry of M. Grimaux, and the other 

 to the patriotic zeal of M. Berthelot. These works have 

 necessarily much in common, but they dififer essentially 

 in the standpoint from which their authors regard their 

 subject. AI. Grimaux's book was the first to make its 

 appearance. It deals more especially with the public 

 life of Lavoisier, with his work as a fcrmier-g^ndral 

 and at the Regie des Poudres, and with his labours as an 

 economist and as a social and political reformer. To a 

 reader but little versed in the history of science the 

 general tendency of M. Grimaux's work is to place in 

 high relief the political side of Lavoisier's career ; and to 

 magnify the servant of the State at the expense of the 

 chemist. Hence [it was but proper and natural that M. 

 Berthelot, the Perpetual Secretary of the Academy, should 

 have felt urged to set forth in a clearer light the nature of 

 the service which his illustrious predecessor, who fought 

 so nobly for the Academy during the dark days of the 

 Great Terror, has rendered to science. M. Berthelot has 

 accordingly occupied himself almost exclusively with the 

 scientific part of Lavoisier's work. If he dwells at all on 

 the details of his career as an administrator, it is only for 

 the purpose of explaining the conditions which directed, 

 controlled, or in any way modified. the course of his inves- 

 tigations. For the greater part of these details he is 

 mainly indebted to M. Grimaux. M. Berthelot has, 

 however, enjoyed this advantage over M. Grimaux, that 

 he has been in a position to study the minutes of the 

 Academy, more especially at about the period of the 

 Revolution, and he has had the rare privilege of being 

 able to peruse the laboratory journals of Lavoisier, which 

 had been preserved by the pious care of Madame 

 Lavoisier and her descendants. These documents are 

 of the greatest interest and importance, for they enable 

 us not only to determine the exact time and sequence of 

 his researches, but also to trace the gradual development 

 of his conceptions, and the manner in which he shook 

 himself free from the trammels of phlogistonism. These 

 registers, thirteen in number, are deposited in the Archives 

 of the Institute. They have been most carefully examined 

 and collated by M. Berthelot, and a statement of the 

 results of the analysis forms a considerable and specially 

 valuable section of his work. 



It is a remarkable circumstance, as M. Grimaux has 

 already stated, that, in spite of the glory which surrounds 

 the name of Lavoisier, a century should have elapsed 

 before any substantial effort should have been made to 

 do justice ^to his memory. Beyond the ^loge by Four- 

 croy (inspired, there is too much reason to fear, by the 

 extraordinary revulsion of ^public feeling which imme- 

 NO. 1083, VOL. 42] 



diately followed the death of Robespierre), and the short 

 biographical notices by Lalande and Cuvier, there had 

 been no real attempt to deal with the career of the man 

 whom his countrymen regard as the Newton of 

 chemistry until the appearance of M. Grimaux's book. 

 Dumas— who exercised such a predominant influence on 

 chemical thought in France, and who throughout his life 

 professed the most fervent admiration for Lavoisier, the 

 official republication of whose works he superintended — 

 never did more towards the realization of his oft-repeated 

 intention of producing such a monograph as M. Grimaux 

 has now given us than is to be seen in a few enthusiastic 

 pages, more eloquent, perhaps, than exact, in his " Le9ons 

 de Philosophic Chimique." The tardiness of this repara- 

 tion does not fail to strike M. Berthelot, and he ventures 

 to discuss its cause. We do not propose to follow him in 

 this. Qiii s' excuse s' accuse : the conclusion is not credit- 

 able to the national fame or to its sense of retributive 

 justice. No statue of Lavoisier is to be found in the city 

 of his birth and death. Republican Paris is apparently 

 unwilling to give any outward and visible sign of contri- 

 tion for the great crime of May 8, 1794. 



It is hardly surprising that in a book written at a time 

 when France had invited the world to assist her to com- 

 memorate an epoch which had such a tremendous influ- 

 ence on her destiny, M. Berthelot should have sought 

 and found a parallel between the work of Lavoisier and 

 the great upheaval which so completely changed the 

 social and political aspect of his country. The active 

 revolt against phlogistonism no doubt had its origin in 

 France, and Lavoisier was unquestionably the leader in 

 the revolution. That, however, is not saying that he was 

 the actual author of it. Black, who in this as in other 

 matters was far ahead of the scientific thought of his age, 

 had already convinced himself of the inadequacy of 

 Stahl's generalization even as a theory of combustion, 

 and Black's influence still counted for something in this 

 country. Indeed, as Lavoisier admits, it also counted 

 for much with at least one man in France, and that man 

 was Lavoisier himself. He spoke of Black as " le savant 

 illustre qui le premier a r^uni et mis en corps de doctrine 

 le phdnom^ne de la fixation de Fair dans les corps." 

 Black's great discovery was, in fact, the real beginning 

 of la revolution chimique. M. Berthelot is constrained 

 to admit this. 



" La thdorie du phlogistique recevait par Ik une premiere 

 atteinte : les changements survenus dans les propridtds 

 de la chaux et des alcalis caustiques se trouvant expliquds, 

 non par la presence ou I'absence de cet agent mystdrieux, 

 comme on I'avait fait jusque-lk ; mais par celle d'une 

 matiere chimique ddtermin^e, que Ton pouvait recueillir, 

 peser, et transporter d'une combinaison dans une autre. 

 Aussi les partisans de la thdorie rdgnante se hat^rent-ils de 

 rdfuter Black. II s'engagea k cette occasion une premiere 

 lutte, qui pr^luda k la grande discussion de Lavoisier." 



Black, however, was not fitted to lead a revolution. A 

 man of philosophic calm, gentle and somewhat retiring 

 in disposition, he had nothing of the fire and energy of 

 Lavoisier ; he hated controversy, and was constitution- 

 ally so indolent that it was only under pressure that he 

 could be induced to write out the results of his investiga- 

 tions for publication. Black, who wrote French with 

 ease — he was born at Bordeaux, and spent much of his 



