without difficulty in bringing him over to his own opinions. We are
ignorant of the means which he took; no doubt friendly discussion
and the repetition of the requisite experiments, would be sufficient
to satisfy a man so well acquainted with the subject, and whose mode
of thinking was so liberal as Morveau. Into the middle of the second
half-volume of the chemical part of the Encyclopédie Méthodique
he introduced a long advertisement, announcing this change in his
opinions, and assigning his reasons for it.
The chemical nomenclature at that time in use had originated with
the medical chemists, and contained a multiplicity of unwieldy and
unmeaning, and even absurd terms. It had answered the purposes of
chemists tolerably well while the science was in its infancy; but the
number of new substances brought into view had of late years become
so great, that the old names could not be applied to them without
the utmost straining: and the chemical terms in use were so little
systematic that it required a considerable stretch of memory to retain
them. These evils were generally acknowledged and lamented, and
various attempts had been made to correct them. Bergman, for instance,
had contrived a new nomenclature, confined chiefly to the salts and
adapted to the Latin language. Dr. Black had done the same thing: his
nomenclature possessed both elegance and neatness, and was, in several
respects, superior to the terms ultimately adopted; but with his usual
indolence and disregard of reputation, he satisfied himself merely with
drawing it up in the form of a table and exhibiting it to his class.
Morveau contrived a new nomenclature of the salts, and published it in
1783; and it appears to have been seen and approved of by Bergman.
The old chemical phraseology as far as it had any meaning was entirely
conformable to the phlogistic theory. This was so much the case that
it was with difficulty that Lavoisier was able to render his opinions
intelligible by means of it. Indeed it would have been out of his power
to have conveyed his meaning to his readers, had he not invented and
employed a certain number of new terms. Lavoisier, aware of the defects
of the chemical nomenclature, and sensible of the advantage which his
own doctrine would acquire when dressed up in a language exactly suited
to his views, was easily prevailed upon by Morveau to join with him in
forming a new nomenclature to be henceforth employed exclusively by
the antiphlogistians, as they called themselves. For this purpose they
associated with themselves Berthollet, and Fourcroy. We do not know
what part each took in this important undertaking; but, if we are to
judge from appearances, the new nomenclature was almost exclusively
the work of Lavoisier and Morveau. Lavoisier undoubtedly contrived the
general phrases, and the names applied to the simple substances, so far
as they were new, because he had employed the greater number of them in
his writings before the new nomenclature was concocted. That the mode
of naming the salts originated with Morveau is obvious; for it differs
but little from the nomenclature of the salts published by him four
years before.
The new nomenclature was published by Lavoisier and his associates in
1787, and it was ever after employed by them in all their writings.
Aware of the importance of having a periodical work in which they could
register and make known their opinions, they established the _Annales
de Chimie_, as a sort of counterpoise to the _Journal de Physique_,
the editor of which, M. Delametherie, continued a zealous votary of
phlogiston to the end of his life. This new nomenclature very soon made
its way into every part of Europe, and became the common language of
chemists, in spite of the prejudices entertained against it, and the
opposition which it every where met with. In the year 1796, or nine
years after the appearance of the new nomenclature, when I attended the
chemistry-class in the College of Edinburgh, it was not only in common
use among the students, but was employed by Dr. Black, the professor
of chemistry, himself; and I have no doubt that he had introduced it
into his lectures several years before. This extraordinary rapidity
with which the new chemical language came into use, was doubtless owing
to two circumstances. First, the very defective, vague, and barbarous
state of the old chemical nomenclature: for although, in consequence of
the prodigious progress which the science of chemistry has made since
the time of Lavoisier, his nomenclature is now nearly as inadequate
to express our ideas as that of Stahl was to express his; yet, at the
time of its appearance, its superiority over the old nomenclature was
so great, that it was immediately felt and acknowledged by all those
who were acquiring the science, who are the most likely to be free from
prejudices, and who, in the course of a few years, must constitute the
great body of those who are interested in the science. 2. The second
circumstance, to which the rapid triumph of the new nomenclature was
owing, is the superiority of Lavoisier's theory over that of Stahl.
The subsequent progress of the science has betrayed many weak points
in Lavoisier's opinions; yet its superiority over that of Stahl was
so obvious, and the mode of interrogating nature introduced by him
was so good, and so well calculated to advance the science, that no
unprejudiced person, who was at sufficient pains to examine both, could
hesitate about preferring that of Lavoisier. It was therefore generally
embraced by all the young chemists in every country; and they became,
at the same time, partial to the new nomenclature, by which only that
theory could be explained in an intelligible manner.
When the new nomenclature was published, there were only three nations
in Europe who could be considered as holding a distinguished place
as cultivators of chemistry: France, Germany, and Great Britain. For
Sweden had just lost her two great chemists, Bergman and Scheele, and
had been obliged, in consequence, to descend from the high chemical
rank which she had formerly occupied. In France the fashion, and of
course almost the whole nation, were on the side of the new chemistry.
Macquer, who had been a stanch phlogistian to the last, was just
dead. Monnet was closing his laborious career. Baumé continued to
adhere to the old opinions; but he was old, and his chemical skill,
which had never been _accurate_, was totally eclipsed by the more
elaborate researches of Lavoisier and his friends. Delametherie was
a keen phlogistian, a man of some abilities, of remarkable honesty
and integrity, and editor of the Journal de Physique, at that time a
popular and widely-circulating scientific journal. But his habits,
disposition, and conduct, were by no means suited to the taste of his
countrymen, or conformable to the practice of his contemporaries. The
consequence was, that he was shut out of all the scientific coteries
of Paris; and that his opinions, however strongly, or rather violently
expressed, failed to produce the intended effect. Indeed, as his
views were generally inaccurate, and expressed without any regard to
the rules of good manners, they in all probability rather served to
promote than to injure the cause of his opponents. Lavoisier and his
friends appear to have considered the subject in this light: they never
answered any of his attacks, or indeed took any notice of them. France,
then, from the date of the publication of the new nomenclature, might
be considered as enlisted on the side of the antiphlogistic theory.
The case was very different in Germany. The national prejudices of the
Germans were naturally enlisted on the side of Stahl, who was their
countryman, and whose reputation would be materially injured by the
refutation of his theory. The cause of phlogiston, accordingly, was
taken up by several German chemists, and supported with a good deal
of vigour; and a controversy was carried on for some years in Germany
between the old chemists who adhered to the doctrine of Stahl, and the
young chemists who had embraced the theory of Lavoisier. Gren, who was
at that time the editor of a chemical journal, deservedly held in high
estimation, and whose reputation as a chemist stood rather high in
Germany, finding it impossible to defend the Stahlian theory as it had
been originally laid down, introduced a new modification of phlogiston,
and attempted to maintain it against the antiphlogistians. The death
of Gren and of Wiegleb, who were the great champions of phlogiston,
left the field open to the antiphlogistians, who soon took possession
of all the universities and scientific journals in Germany. The most
eminent chemist in Germany, or perhaps in Europe at that time, was
Martin Henry Klaproth, professor of chemistry at Berlin, to whom
analytical chemistry lies under the greatest obligations. In the year
1792 he proposed to the Academy of Sciences of Berlin, of which he was
a member, to repeat all the requisite experiments before them, that
the members of the academy might be able to determine for themselves
which of the two theories deserved the preference. This proposal was
acceded to. All the fundamental experiments were repeated by Klaproth
with the most scrupulous attention to accuracy: the result was a
full conviction, on the part of Klaproth and the academy, that the
Lavoisierian theory was the true one. Thus the Berlin Academy became
antiphlogistians in 1792: and as Berlin has always been the focus of
chemistry in Germany, the determination of such a learned body must
have had a powerful effect in accelerating the propagation of the new
theory through that vast country.
In Great Britain the investigation of gaseous bodies, to which
the new doctrines were owing, had originated. Dr. Black had begun
the inquiry--Mr. Cavendish had prosecuted it with unparalleled
accuracy--and Dr. Priestley had made known a great number of new
gaseous bodies, which had hitherto escaped the attention of chemists.
As the British chemists had contributed more than those of any other
nation to the production of the new facts on which Lavoisier's theory
was founded, it was natural to expect that they would have embraced
that theory more readily than the chemists of any other nation: but
the matter of fact was somewhat different. Dr. Black, indeed, with
his characteristic candour, speedily embraced the opinions, and even
adopted the new nomenclature: but Mr. Cavendish new modelled the
phlogistic theory, and published a defence of phlogiston, which it was
impossible at that time to refute. The French chemists had the good
sense not to attempt to overturn it. Mr. Cavendish after this laid
aside the cultivation of chemistry altogether, and never acknowledged
himself a convert to the new doctrines.
Dr. Priestley continued a zealous advocate for phlogiston till the very
last, and published what he called a refutation of the antiphlogistic
theory about the beginning of the present century: but Dr. Priestley,
notwithstanding his merit as a discoverer and a man of genius, was
never, strictly speaking, entitled to the name of chemist; as he was
never able to make a chemical analysis. In his famous experiments, for
example, on the composition of water, he was obliged to procure the
assistance of Mr. Keir to determine the nature of the blue-coloured
liquid which he had obtained, and which Mr. Keir showed to be nitrate
of copper. Besides, Dr. Priestley, though perfectly honest and candid,
was so hasty in his decisions, and so apt to form his opinions without
duly considering the subject, that his chemical theories are almost all
erroneous and sometimes quite absurd.
Mr. Kirwan, who had acquired a high reputation, partly by his
_mineralogy_, and partly by his experiments on the composition of
the salts, undertook the task of refuting the antiphlogistic theory,
and with that view published a work to which he gave the name of "An
Essay on Phlogiston and the Composition of Acids." In that book he
maintained an opinion which seems to have been pretty generally adopted
by the most eminent chemists of the time; namely, that phlogiston is
the same thing with what is at present called _hydrogen_, and which,
when Kirwan wrote, was called light _inflammable air_. Of course Mr.
Kirwan undertook to prove that every combustible substance and every
metal contains hydrogen as a constituent, and that hydrogen escapes
in every case of combustion and calcination. On the other hand, when
calces are reduced to the metallic state hydrogen is absorbed. The book
was divided into thirteen sections. In the first the specific gravity
of the gases was stated according to the best data then existing. The
second section treats of the composition of acids, and the composition
and decomposition of water. The third section treats of sulphuric acid;
the fourth, of nitric acid; the fifth, of muriatic acid; the sixth,
of aqua regia; the seventh, of phosphoric acid; the eighth, of oxalic
acid; the ninth, of the calcination and reduction of metals and the
formation of fixed air; the tenth, of the dissolution of metals; the
eleventh, of the precipitation of metals by each other; the twelfth,
of the properties of iron and steel; while the thirteenth sums up the
whole argument by way of conclusion.
In this work Mr. Kirwan admitted the truth of M. Lavoisier's theory,
that during combustion and calcination, oxygen united with the burning
and calcining body. He admitted also that water is a compound of oxygen
and hydrogen. Now these admissions, which, however, it was scarcely
possible for a man of candour to refuse, rendered the whole of his
arguments in favour of the identity of hydrogen and phlogiston, and
of the existence of hydrogen in all combustible bodies, exceedingly
inconclusive. Kirwan's book was laid hold of by the French chemists,
as affording them an excellent opportunity of showing the superiority
of the new opinions over the old. Kirwan's view of the subject was
that which had been taken by Bergman and Scheele, and indeed by every
chemist of eminence who still adhered to the phlogistic system. A
satisfactory refutation of it, therefore, would be a death-blow to
phlogiston and would place the antiphlogistic theory upon a basis so
secure that it would be henceforth impossible to shake it.
Kirwan's work on phlogiston was accordingly translated into French,
and published in Paris. At the end of each section was placed an
examination and refutation of the argument contained in it by some one
of the French chemists, who had now associated themselves in order to
support the antiphlogistic theory. The introduction, together with the
second, third, and eleventh sections were examined and refuted by M.
Lavoisier; the fourth, the fifth, and sixth sections fell to the share
of M. Berthollet; the seventh and thirteenth sections were undertaken
by M. de Morveau; the eighth, ninth, and tenth, by M. De Fourcroy;
while the twelfth section, on iron and steel was animadverted on by
M. Monge. These refutations were conducted with so much urbanity of
manner, and were at the same time so complete, that they produced all
the effects expected from them. Mr. Kirwan, with a degree of candour
and liberality of which, unfortunately, very few examples can be
produced, renounced his old opinions, abandoned phlogiston, and adopted
the antiphlogistic doctrines of his opponents. But his advanced age,
and a different mode of experimenting from what he had been accustomed
to, induced him to withdraw himself entirely from experimental science
and to devote the evening of his life to metaphysical and logical and
moral investigations.
Thus, soon after the year 1790, a kind of interregnum took place in
British chemistry. Almost all the old British chemists had relinquished
the science, or been driven out of the field by the superior prowess
of their antagonists. Dr. Austin and Dr. Pearson will, perhaps, be
pointed out as exceptions. They undoubtedly contributed somewhat to
the progress of the science. But they were arranged on the side of
the antiphlogistians. Dr. Crawford, who had done so much for the
theory of heat, was about this time ruined in his circumstances by
the bankruptcy of a house to which he had intrusted his property.
This circumstance preyed upon a mind which had a natural tendency to
morbid sensibility, and induced this amiable and excellent man to put
an end to his existence. Dr. Higgins had acquired some celebrity as an
experimenter and teacher; but his disputes with Dr. Priestley, and his
laying claim to discoveries which certainly did not belong to him, had
injured his reputation, and led him to desert the field of science. Dr.
Black was an invalid, Mr. Cavendish had renounced the cultivation of
chemistry, and Dr. Priestley had been obliged to escape from the iron
hand of theological and political bigotry, by leaving the country. He
did little as an experimenter after he went to America; and, perhaps,
had he remained in England, his reputation would rather have diminished
than increased. He was an admirable pioneer, and as such, contributed
more than any one to the revolution which chemistry underwent; though
he was himself utterly unable to rear a permanent structure capable,
like the Newtonian theory, of withstanding all manner of attacks,
and becoming only the firmer and stronger the more it is examined.
Mr. Keir, of Birmingham, was a man of great eloquence, and possessed
of all the chemical knowledge which characterized the votaries of
phlogiston. In the year 1789 he attempted to stem the current of the
new opinions by publishing a dictionary of chemistry, in which all the
controversial points were to be fully discussed, and the antiphlogistic
theory examined and refuted. Of this dictionary only one part appeared,
constituting a very thin volume of two hundred and eight quarto pages,
and treating almost entirely of _acids_. Finding that the sale of
this work did not answer his expectations, and probably feeling, as
he proceeded, that the task of refuting the antiphlogistic opinions
was much more difficult, and much more hopeless than he expected, he
renounced the undertaking, and abandoned altogether the pursuit of
chemistry.
It will be proper in this place to introduce some account of the most
eminent of those French chemists who embraced the theory of Lavoisier,
and assisted him in establishing his opinions.
Claude-Louis Berthollet was born at Talloire, near Annecy, in Savoy,
on the 9th of December, 1748. He finished his school education at
Chambéry, and afterwards studied at the College of Turin, a celebrated
establishment, where many men of great scientific celebrity have been
educated. Here he attached himself to medicine, and after obtaining
a degree he repaired to Paris, which was destined to be the future
theatre of his speculations and pursuits.
In Paris he had not a single acquaintance, nor did he bring with him
a single introductory letter; but understanding that M. Tronchin,
at that time a distinguished medical practitioner in Paris, was a
native of Geneva, he thought he might consider him as in some measure
a countryman. On this slender ground he waited on M. Tronchin, and
what is rather surprising, and reflects great credit on both, this
acquaintance, begun in so uncommon a way, soon ripened into friendship.
Tronchin interested himself for his young _protégée_, and soon got him
into the situation of physician in ordinary to the Duke of Orleans,
father of him who cut so conspicuous a figure in the French revolution,
under the name of M. Egalité. In this situation he devoted himself to
the study of chemistry, and soon made himself known by his publications
on the subject.
In 1781 he was elected a member of the Academy of Sciences of Paris:
one of his competitors was M. Fourcroy. No doubt Berthollet owed his
election to the influence of the Duke of Orleans. In the year 1784 he
was again a competitor with M. de Fourcroy for the chemical chair at
the Jardin du Roi, left vacant by the death of Macquer. The chair was
in the gift of M. Buffon, whose vanity is said to have been piqued
because the Duke of Orleans, who supported Berthollet's interest, did
not pay him sufficient court. This induced him to give the chair to
Fourcroy; and the choice was a fortunate one, as his uncommon vivacity
and rapid elocution particularly fitted him for addressing a Parisian
audience. The chemistry-class at the Jardin du Roi immediately became
celebrated, and attracted immense crowds of admiring auditors.
But the influence of the Duke of Orleans was sufficient to procure
for Berthollet another situation which Macquer had held. This was
government commissary and superintendent of the dyeing processes.
It was this situation which naturally turned his attention to the
phenomena of dyeing, and occasioned afterwards his book on dyeing;
which at the time of its publication was excellent, and exhibited a
much better theory of dyeing, and a better account of the practical
part of the art than any work which had previously appeared. The arts
of dyeing and calico-printing have been very much improved since the
time that Berthollet's book was written; yet if we except Bancroft's
work on the permanent colours, nothing very important has been
published on the subject since that period. We are at present almost as
much in want of a good work on dyeing as we were when Berthollet's book
appeared.
In the year 1785 Berthollet, at a meeting of the Academy of Sciences,
informed that learned body that he had become a convert to the
antiphlogistic doctrines of Lavoisier. There was one point, however,
upon which he entertained a different opinion from Lavoisier, and
this difference of opinion continued to the last. Berthollet did not
consider oxygen as the acidifying principle. On the contrary, he was
of opinion that acids existed which contained no oxygen whatever.
As an example, he mentioned sulphuretted hydrogen, which possessed
the properties of an acid, reddening vegetable blues, and combining
with and neutralizing bases, and yet it was a compound of sulphur and
hydrogen, and contained no oxygen whatever. It is now admitted that
Berthollet was accurate in his opinion, and that oxygen is not of
itself an acidifying principle.
Berthollet continued in the uninterrupted prosecution of his studies,
and had raised himself a very high reputation when the French
revolution burst upon the world in all its magnificence. It is not
our business here to enter into any historical details, but merely
to remind the reader that all the great powers of Europe combined
to attack France, assisted by a formidable army of French emigrants
assembled at Coblentz. The Austrian and Prussian armies hemmed her
in by land, while the British fleets surrounded her by sea, and thus
shut her out from all communication with other nations. Thus France
was thrown at once upon her own resources. She had been in the habit
of importing her saltpetre, and her iron, and many other necessary
implements of war: these supplies were suddenly withdrawn; and it was
expected that France, thus deprived of all her resources, would be
obliged to submit to any terms imposed upon her by her adversaries.
At this time she summoned her men of science to her assistance, and
the call was speedily answered. Berthollet and Monge were particularly
active, and saved the French nation from destruction by their activity,
intelligence, and zeal. Berthollet traversed France from one extremity
to the other; pointed out the mode of extracting saltpetre from the
soil, and of purifying it. Saltpetre-works were instantly established
in every part of France, and gunpowder made of it in prodigious
quantity, and with incredible activity. Berthollet even attempted to
manufacture a new species of gunpowder still more powerful than the
old, by substituting chlorate of potash for saltpetre: but it was found
too formidable a substance to be made with safety.
The demand for cannon, muskets, sabres, &c., was equally urgent and
equally difficult to be supplied. A committee of men of science, of
which Berthollet and Monge were the leading members, was established,
and by them the mode of smelting iron, and of converting it into
steel, was instantly communicated, and numerous manufactories of these
indispensable articles rose like magic in every part of France.
This was the most important period of the life of Berthollet. It
was in all probability his zeal, activity, sagacity, and honesty,
which saved France from being overrun by foreign troops. But perhaps
the moral conduct of Berthollet was not less conspicuous than his
other qualities. During the reign of terror, a short time before the
9th Thermidor, when it was the system to raise up pretended plots,
to give pretexts for putting to death those that were obnoxious to
Robespierre and his friends, a hasty notice was given at a sitting
of the Committee of Public Safety, that a conspiracy had just been
discovered to destroy the soldiers, by poisoning the brandy which was
just going to be served out to them previous to an engagement. It was
said that the sick in the hospitals who had tasted this brandy, all
perished in consequence of it. Immediate orders were issued to arrest
those previously marked for execution. A quantity of the brandy was
sent to Berthollet to be examined. He was informed, at the same time,
that Robespierre wanted a conspiracy to be established, and all knew
that opposition to his will was certain destruction. Having finished
his analysis, Berthollet drew up his results in a Report, which he
accompanied with a written explanation of his views; and he there
stated, in the plainest language, that nothing poisonous was mixed
with the brandy, but that it had been diluted with water holding small
particles of slate in suspension, an ingredient which filtration would
remove. This report deranged the plans of the Committee of Public
Safety. They sent for the author, to convince him of the inaccuracy of
his analysis, and to persuade him to alter its results. Finding that
he remained unshaken in his opinion, Robespierre exclaimed, "What,
Sir! darest thou affirm that the muddy brandy is free from poison?"
Berthollet immediately filtered a glass of it in his presence, and
drank it off. "Thou art daring, Sir, to drink that liquor," exclaimed
the ferocious president of the committee. "I dared much more," replied
Berthollet, "when I signed my name to that Report." There can be no
doubt that he would have paid the penalty of this undaunted honesty
with his life, but that fortunately the Committee of Public Safety
could not at that time dispense with his services.
In the year 1792 Berthollet was named one of the commissioners of
the Mint, into the processes of which he introduced considerable
improvements. In 1794 he was appointed a member of the Commission
of Agriculture and the Arts: and in the course of the same year he
was chosen professor of chemistry at the Polytechnic School and
also in the Normal School. But his turn of mind did not fit him for
a public teacher. He expected too much information to be possessed
by his hearers, and did not, therefore, dwell sufficiently upon the
elementary details. His pupils were not able to follow his metaphysical
disquisitions on subjects totally new to them; hence, instead of
inspiring them with a love for chemistry, he filled them with langour
and disgust.
In 1795, at the organization of the Institute, which was intended to
include all men of talent or celebrity in France, we find Berthollet
taking a most active lead; and the records of the Institute afford
abundant evidence of the perseverance and assiduity with which he
laboured for its interests. Of the committees to which all original
memoirs are in the first place referred, we find Berthollet, oftener
than any other person, a member, and his signature to the report of
each work stands generally first.
In the year 1796, after the subjugation of Italy by Bonaparte,
Berthollet and Monge were selected by the Directory to proceed to
that country, in order to select those works of science and art with
which the Louvre was to be filled and adorned. While engaged in the
prosecution of that duty, they became acquainted with the victorious
general. He easily saw the importance of their friendship, and
therefore cultivated it with care; and was happy afterwards to possess
them, along with nearly a hundred other philosophers, as his companions
in his celebrated expedition to Egypt, expecting no doubt an eclat from
such a halo of surrounding science, as might favour the development of
his schemes of future greatness. On this expedition, which promised so
favourably for the French nation, and which was intended to inflict a
mortal stab upon the commercial greatness of Great Britain, Bonaparte
set out in the year 1798, accompanied by a crowd of the most eminent
men of science that France could boast of. That they might co-operate
more effectually in the cause of knowledge, these gentlemen formed
themselves into a society, named "The Institute of Egypt," which was
constituted on the same plan as the National Institute of France. Their
first meeting was on the 6th Fructidor (24th of August), 1798; and
after that they continued to assemble, at stated intervals. At these
meetings papers were read, by the respective members, on the climate,
the inhabitants, and the natural and artificial productions of the
country to which they had gone. These memoirs were published in 1800,
in Paris, in a single volume entitled, "Memoirs of the Institute of
Egypt."
The history of the Institute of Egypt, as related by Cuvier, is not
a little singular, and deserves to be stated. Bonaparte, during
his occasional intercourse with Berthollet in Italy, was delighted
with the simplicity of his manners, joined to a force and depth of
thinking which he soon perceived to characterize our chemist. When
he returned to Paris, where he enjoyed some months of comparative
leisure, he resolved to employ his spare time in studying chemistry
under Berthollet. It was at this period that his illustrious pupil
imparted to our philosopher his intended expedition to Egypt, of which
no whisper was to be spread abroad till the blow was ready to fall;
and he begged of him not merely to accompany the army himself, but to
choose such men of talent and experience as he conceived fitted to
find there an employment worthy of the country which they visited,
and of that which sent them forth. To invite men to a hazardous
expedition, the nature and destination of which he was not permitted
to disclose, was rather a delicate task; yet Berthollet undertook it.
He could simply inform them that he would himself accompany them;
yet such was the universal esteem in which he was held, such was the
confidence universally placed in his honesty and integrity, that all
the men of science agreed at once, and without hesitation, to embark
on an unknown expedition, the dangers of which he was to share along
with them. Had it not been for the link which Berthollet supplied
between the commander-in-chief and the men of science, it would have
been impossible to have united, as was done on this occasion, the
advancement of knowledge with the progress of the French arms.
During the whole of this expedition, Berthollet and Monge distinguished
themselves by their firm friendship, and by their mutually braving
every danger to which any of the common soldiers could be exposed.
Indeed, so intimate was their association that many of the army
conceived Berthollet and Monge to be one individual; and it is no small
proof of the intimacy of these philosophers with Bonaparte, that the
soldiers had a dislike at this double personage, from a persuasion
that it had been at his suggestion that they were led into a country
which they detested. It happened on one occasion that a boat, in which
Berthollet and some others were conveyed up the Nile, was assailed by a
troop of Mamelukes, who poured their small shot into it from the banks.
In the midst of this perilous voyage, M. Berthollet began very coolly
to pick up stones and stuff his pockets with them. When his motive for
this conduct was asked, "I am desirous," said he, "that in case of my
being shot, my body may sink at once to the bottom of this river, and
may escape the insults of these barbarians."
In a conjuncture where a courage of a rarer kind was required,
Berthollet was not found wanting. The plague broke out in the French
army, and this, added to the many fatigues they had previously endured,
the diseases under which they were already labouring, would, it was
feared, lead to insurrection on the one hand, or totally sink the
spirits of the men on the other. Acre had been besieged for many weeks
in vain. Bonaparte and his army had been able to accomplish nothing
against it: he was anxious to conceal from his army this disastrous
intelligence. When the opinion of Berthollet was asked in council,
he spoke at once the plain, though unwelcome truth. He was instantly
assailed by the most violent reproaches. "In a week," said he, "my
opinion will be unfortunately but too well vindicated." It was as he
foretold: and when nothing but a hasty retreat could save the wretched
remains of the army of Egypt, the carriage of Berthollet was seized
for the convenience of some wounded officers. On this, he travelled on
foot, and without the smallest discomposure, across twenty leagues of
the desert.
When Napoleon abandoned the army of Egypt, and traversed half the
Mediterranean in a single vessel, Berthollet was his companion.
After he had put himself at the head of the French government, and
had acquired an extent of power, which no modern European potentate
had ever before realized, he never forgot his associate. He was in
the habit of placing all chemical discoveries to his account, to the
frequent annoyance of our chemist; and when an unsatisfactory answer
was given him upon any scientific subject, he was in the habit of
saying, "Well; I shall ask this of Berthollet." But he did not limit
his affection to these proofs of regard. Having been informed that
Berthollet's earnest pursuits of science had led him into expenses
which had considerably deranged his fortune, he sent for him, and said,
in a tone of affectionate reproach, "M. Berthollet, I have always one
hundred thousand crowns at the service of my friends." And, in fact,
this sum was immediately presented to him.
Upon his return from Egypt, Berthollet was nominated a senator by the
first consul; and afterwards received the distinction of grand officer
of the Legion of Honour; grand cross of the Order of Reunion; titulary
of the Senatory of Montpellier; and, under the emperor, he was created
a peer of France, receiving the title of Count. The advancement to
these offices produced no change in the manners of Berthollet. Of this
he gave a striking proof, by adopting, as his armorial bearing (at the
time that others eagerly blazoned some exploit), the plain unadorned
figure of his faithful and affectionate dog. He was no courtier
before he received these honours, and he remained equally simple and
unassuming, and not less devoted to science after they were conferred.
As we advance towards the latter period of his life, we find the same
ardent zeal in the cause of science which had glowed in his early
youth, accompanied by the same generous warmth of heart that he ever
possessed, and which displayed itself in his many intimate friendships
still subsisting, though mellowed by the hand of time. At this period
La Place lived at Arcueil, a small village about three miles from
Paris. Between him and Berthollet there had long subsisted a warm
affection, founded on mutual esteem. To be near this illustrious
man Berthollet purchased a country-seat in the village: there he
established a very complete laboratory, fit for conducting all kinds of
experiments in every branch of natural philosophy. Here he collected
round him a number of distinguished young men, who knew that in his
house their ardour would at once receive fresh impulse and direction
from the example of Berthollet. These youthful philosophers were
organized by him into a society, to which the name of Société d'Arcueil
was given. M. Berthollet was himself the president, and the other
members were La Place, Biot, Gay-Lussac, Thenard, Collet-Descotils,
Decandolle, Humboldt, and A. B. Berthollet. This society published
three volumes of very valuable memoirs. The energy of this society was
unfortunately paralyzed by an untoward event, which imbittered the
latter days of this amiable man. His only son, M. A. B. Berthollet, in
whom his happiness was wrapped up, was unfortunately afflicted with a
lowness of spirits which rendered his life wholly insupportable to him.
Retiring to a small room, he locked the door, closed up every chink
and crevice which might admit the air, carried writing materials to
a table, on which he placed a second-watch, and then seated himself
before it. He now marked precisely the hour, and lighted a brasier of
charcoal beside him. He continued to note down the series of sensations
he then experienced in succession, detailing the approach and rapid
progress of delirium; until, as time went on, the writing became
confused and illegible, and the young victim dropped dead upon the
floor.
After this event the spirits of the old man never again rose.
Occasionally some discovery, extending the limits of his favourite
science, engrossed his interest and attention for a short time: but
such intervals were rare, and shortlived. The restoration of the
Bourbons, and the downfall of his friend and patron Napoleon, added to
his sufferings by diminishing his income, and reducing him from a state
of affluence to comparative embarrassment. But he was now old, and the
end of his life was approaching. In 1822 he was attacked by a slight
fever, which left behind it a number of boils: these were soon followed
by a gangrenous ulcer of uncommon size. Under this he suffered for
several months with surprising fortitude. He himself, as a physician,
knew the extent of his danger, felt the inevitable progress of the
malady, and calmly regarded the slow approach of death. At length,
after a tedious period of suffering, in which his equanimity had never
once been shaken, he died on the 6th of November, when he had nearly
completed the seventy-fourth year of his age.
His papers are exceedingly numerous, and of a very miscellaneous
nature, amounting to more than eighty. The earlier were chiefly
inserted into the various volumes of the Memoirs of the Academy.
He furnished many papers to the Annales de Chimie and the Journal
de Physique, and was also a frequent contributor to the Society of
Arcueil, in the different volumes of whose transactions several memoirs
of his are to be found. He was the author likewise of two separate
works, comprising each two octavo volumes. These were his Elements of
the Art of Dyeing, first published in 1791, in a single volume: but the
new and enlarged edition of 1814 was in two volumes; and his Essay on
Chemical Statics, published about the beginning of the present century.
I shall notice his most important papers.
His earlier memoirs on sulphurous acid, on volatile alkali, and on
the decomposition of nitre, were encumbered by the phlogistic theory,
which at that time he defended with great zeal, though he afterwards
retracted these his first opinions upon all these subjects. Except his
paper on soaps, in which he shows that they are chemical compounds
of an oil (acting the part of an acid) and an alkaline base, and his
proof that phosphoric acid exists ready formed in the body (a fact long
before demonstrated by Gahn and Scheele), his papers published before
he became an antiphlogistian are of inferior merit.
In 1785 he demonstrated the nature and proportion of the constituents
of ammonia, or volatile alkali. This substance had been collected in
the gaseous form by the indefatigable Priestley, who had shown also
that when electric sparks are made to pass for some time through a
given volume of this gas, its bulk is nearly doubled. Berthollet merely
repeated this experiment of Priestley, and analyzed the new gases
evolved by the action of electricity. This gas he found a mixture of
three volumes hydrogen and one volume azotic gas: hence it was evident
that ammoniacal gas is a compound of three volumes of hydrogen and one
volume of azotic gas united together, and condensed into two volumes.
The same discovery was made about the same time by Dr. Austin, and
published in the Philosophical Transactions. Both sets of experiments
were made without any knowledge of what was done by the other: but it
is admitted, on all hands, that Berthollet had the priority in point of
time.
It was about this time, likewise, that he published his first paper on
chlorine. He observed, that when water, impregnated with chlorine, is
exposed to the light of the sun, the water loses its colour, while, at
the same time, a quantity of oxygen gas is given out. If we now examine
the water, we find that it contains no chlorine, but merely a little
muriatic acid. This fact, which is undoubted, led him to conclude
that chlorine is decomposed by the action of solar light, and that its
two elements are muriatic acid and oxygen. This led to the notion that
the basis of muriatic acid is capable of combining with various doses
of oxygen, and of forming various acids, one of which is chlorine: on
that account it was called _oxygenized muriatic acid_ by the French
chemists, which unwieldy appellation was afterwards shortened by Kirwan
into _oxymuriatic acid_.
Berthollet observed that when a current of chlorine gas is passed
through a solution of carbonate of potash an effervescence takes place
owing to the disengagement of carbonic acid gas. By-and-by crystals
are deposited in fine silky scales, which possess the property of
detonating with combustible bodies still more violently than saltpetre.
Berthollet examined these crystals and showed that they were compounds
of potash with an acid containing much more oxygen than oxymuriatic
acid. He considered its basis as muriatic acid, and distinguished it by
the name of hyper-oxymuriatic acid.
It was not till the year 1810, that the inaccuracy of these opinions
was established. Gay-Lussac and Thenard attempted in vain to
extract oxygen from chlorine. They showed that not a trace of that
principle could be detected. Next year Davy took up the subject and
concluded from his experiments that _chlorine_ is a simple substance,
that muriatic acid is a compound of chlorine and hydrogen, and
hyper-oxymuriatic acid of chlorine and oxygen. Gay-Lussac obtained this
acid in a separate state, and gave it the name of _chloric acid_, by
which it is now known.
Scheele, in his original experiments on chlorine, had noticed the
property which it has of destroying vegetable colours. Berthollet
examined this property with care, and found it so remarkable that
he proposed it as a substitute for exposure to the sun in bleaching.
This suggestion alone would have immortalized Berthollet had he done
nothing else; since its effect upon some of the most important of
the manufactures of Great Britain has been scarcely inferior to that
of the steam-engine itself. Mr. Watt happened to be in Paris when
the idea suggested itself to Berthollet. He not only communicated it
to Mr. Watt, but showed him the process in all its simplicity. It
consisted in nothing else than in steeping the cloth to be bleached
in water impregnated with chlorine gas. Mr. Watt, on his return to
Great Britain, prepared a quantity of this liquor, and sent it to his
father-in-law, Mr. Macgregor, who was a bleacher in the neighbourhood
of Glasgow. He employed it successfully, and thus was the first
individual who tried the new process of bleaching in Great Britain. For
a number of years the bleachers in Lancashire and the neighbourhood
of Glasgow were occupied in bringing the process to perfection. The
disagreeable smell of the chlorine was a great annoyance. This was
attempted to be got rid of by dissolving potash in the water to be
impregnated with chlorine; but it was found to injure considerably the
bleaching powers of the gas. The next method tried was to mix the water
with quicklime, and then to pass a current of chlorine through it. The
quicklime was dissolved, and the liquor thus constituted was found to
answer very well. The last improvement was to combine the chlorine
with dry lime. At first two atoms of lime were united to one atom of
chlorine; but of late years it is a compound of one atom of lime, and
one of chlorine. This chloride is simply dissolved in water, and the
cloth to be bleached is steeped in it. For all these improvements,
which have brought the method of bleaching by means of chlorine to
great simplicity and perfection, the bleachers are indebted to Knox,
Tennant, and Mackintosh, of Glasgow; by whose indefatigable exertions
the mode of manufacturing chloride of lime has been brought to a state
of perfection.
Berthollet's experiments on prussic acid and the prussiates deserve
also to be mentioned, as having a tendency to rectify some of the ideas
at that time entertained by chemists, and to advance their knowledge
of one of the most difficult departments of chemical investigation.
In consequence of his experiments on the nature and constituents of
sulphuretted hydrogen, he had already concluded that it was an acid,
and that it was destitute of oxygen: this had induced him to refuse his
assent to the hypothesis of Lavoisier, that _oxygen_ is the _acidifying
principle_. Scheele, in his celebrated experiments on prussic acid,
had succeeded in ascertaining that its constituents were carbon and
azote; but he had not been able to make a rigid analysis of that
acid, and consequently to demonstrate that oxygen did not enter into
it as a constituent. Berthollet took up the subject, and though his
analysis was also incomplete, he satisfied himself, and rendered it
exceedingly probable, that the only constituents of this acid were,
carbon, azote, and hydrogen, and that oxygen did not enter into it as
a constituent. This was another reason for rejecting the notion of
_oxygen_ as an acidifying principle. Here were two acids capable of
neutralizing bases, namely, sulphuretted hydrogen and prussic acid, and
yet neither of them contained oxygen. He found that when prussic acid
was treated with chlorine, its properties were altered; it acquired a
different smell and taste, and no longer precipitated iron blue, but
green. From his opinion respecting the nature of chlorine, that it was
a compound of muriatic acid and oxygen, he naturally concluded that by
this process he had formed a new prussic acid by adding oxygen to the
old constituents. He therefore called this new substance _oxyprussic
acid_. It has been proved by the more recent experiments of Gay-Lussac,
that the new acid of Berthollet is a compound of _cyanogen_ (the
prussic acid deprived of hydrogen) and _chlorine_: it is now called
_chloro-cyanic acid_, and is known to possess the characters assigned
it by Berthollet: it constitutes, therefore, a new example of an acid
destitute of oxygen. Berthollet was the first person who obtained
prussiate of potash in regular crystals; the salt was known long
before, but had been always used in a state of solution.
Berthollet's discovery of fulminating silver, and his method of
obtaining pure hydrated potash and soda, by means of alcohol, deserve
to be mentioned. This last process was of considerable importance to
analytical chemistry. Before he published his process, these substances
in a state of purity were not known.
I think it unnecessary to enter into any details respecting his
experiments on sulphuretted hydrogen, and the hydrosulphurets and
sulphurets. They contributed essentially to elucidate that obscure part
of chemistry. But his success was not perfect; nor did we understand
completely the nature of these compounds, till the nature of the
alkaline bases had been explained by the discoveries of Davy.
The only other work of Berthollet, which I think it necessary to notice
here, is his book entitled "Chemical Statics," which he published
in 1803. He had previously drawn up some interesting papers on the
subject, which were published in the Memoirs of the Institute. Though
chemical affinity constitutes confessedly the basis of the science,
it had been almost completely overlooked by Lavoisier, who had done
nothing more on the subject than drawn up some tables of affinity,
founded on very imperfect data. Morveau had attempted a more profound
investigation of the subject in the article _Affinité_, inserted in
the chemical part of the Encyclopédie Méthodique. His object was, in
imitation of Buffon, who had preceded him in the same investigation,
to prove that chemical affinity is merely a case of the _attraction of
gravitation_. But it is beyond our reach, in the present state of our
knowledge, to determine the amount of attraction which the atoms of
bodies exert with respect to each other. This was seen by Newton, and
also by Bergman, who satisfied themselves with considering it as an
attraction, without attempting to determine its amount; though Newton,
with his usual sagacity, was inclined, from the phenomena of light,
to consider the attraction of affinity as much stronger than that
of gravitation, or at least as increasing much more rapidly, as the
distances between the attracting particles diminished.
Bergman, who had paid great attention to the subject, considered
affinity as a certain determinate attraction, which the atoms of
different bodies exerted towards each other. This attraction varies
in intensity between every two bodies, though it is constant between
each pair. The consequence is, that these intensities may be denoted by
numbers. Thus, suppose a body _m_, and the atoms of six other bodies,
_a_, _b_, _c_, _d_, _e_, _f_, to have an affinity for _m_, the forces
by which they are attracted towards each other may be represented by
the numbers x, x+1, x+2, x+3, x+4, x+5. And the attractions may be
represented thus:
Attraction between _m_ & _a_ = x
_m_ & _b_ = x+1
_m_ & _c_ = x+2
_m_ & _d_ = x+3
_m_ & _e_ = x+4
_m_ & _f_ = x+5
Suppose we have the compound _m a_, if we present _b_, it will unite
with _m_ and displace _a_, because the attraction between _m_ and _a_
is only x, while that between _m_ & _b_ is x+1: _c_ will displace _b_;
_d_ will displace _c_, and so on, for the same reason. On this account
Bergman considered affinity as an _elective attraction_, and in his
opinion the intensity may always be estimated by decomposition. That
substance which displaces another from a third, has a greater affinity
than the body which is displaced. If _b_ displace _a_ from the compound
_a m_, then _b_ has a greater affinity for _m_ than _a_ has.
The object of Berthollet in his Chemical Statics, was to combat this
opinion of Bergman, which had been embraced without examination
by chemists in general. If affinity be an attraction, Berthollet
considered it as evident that it never could occasion decomposition.
Suppose _a_ to have an affinity for _m_, and _b_ to have an affinity
for the same substances. Let the affinity between _b_ and _m_ be
greater than that between _a m_. Let _b_ be mixed with a solution of
the compound _a m_, then in that case _b_ would unite with _a m_,
and form the triple compound _a m b_. Both _a_ and _b_ would at once
unite with _m_. No reason can be assigned why _a_ should separate from
_m_, and _b_ take its place. Berthollet admitted that in fact such
decompositions often happened; but he accounted for them from other
causes, and not from the superior affinity of one body over another.
Suppose we have a solution of _sulphate of soda_ in water. This salt is
a compound of _sulphuric acid_ and _soda_; two substances between which
a strong affinity subsists, and which therefore always unites whenever
they come in contact. Suppose we have dissolved in another portion
of water, a quantity of barytes, just sufficient to saturate the
sulphuric acid in the sulphate of soda. If we mix these two solutions
together. The barytes will combine with the sulphuric acid and the
compound (_sulphate of barytes_) will fall to the bottom, leaving a
pure solution of soda in the water. In this case the barytes has seized
all the sulphuric acid, and displaced the soda. The reason of this,
according to Berthollet, is not that barytes has a stronger affinity
for sulphuric acid than soda has; but because sulphate of barytes
is insoluble in water. It therefore falls down, and of course the
sulphuric acid is withdrawn from the soda. But if we add to a solution
of sulphate of soda as much potash as will saturate all the sulphuric
acid, no such decomposition will take place; at least, we have no
evidence that it does. Both the alkalies, in this case, will unite to
the acid and form a triple compound, consisting of potash, sulphuric
acid, and soda. Let us now concentrate the solution by evaporation,
and crystals of sulphate of potash will fall down. The reason is, that
sulphate of potash is not nearly so soluble in water as sulphate of
soda. Hence it separates; not because sulphuric acid has a greater
affinity for potash than for soda, but because sulphate of potash is a
much less soluble salt than sulphate of soda.
This mode of reasoning of Berthollet is plausible, but not convincing:
it is merely an _argumentum ad ignorantiam_. We can only prove the
decomposition by separating the salts from each other, and this can
only be done by their difference of solubility. But cases occur in
which we can judge that decomposition has taken place from some other
phenomena than precipitation. For example, _nitrate of copper_ is a
_blue_ salt, while _muriate of copper_ is _green_. If into a solution
of nitrate of copper we pour muriatic acid, no precipitation appears,
but the colour changes from blue to green. Is not this an evidence that
the muriatic acid has displaced the nitric, and that the salt held in
solution is not nitrate of copper, as it was at first, but muriate of
copper?
Berthollet accounts for all decompositions which take place when a
third body is added, either by insolubility or by _elasticity_: as, for
example, when sulphuric acid is poured into a solution of carbonate
of ammonia, the carbonic acid all flies off, in consequence of its
elasticity, and the sulphuric acid combines with the ammonia in its
place. I confess that this explanation, of the reason why the carbonic
acid flies off, appears to me very defective. The ammonia and carbonic
acid are united by a force quite sufficient to overcome the elasticity
of the carbonic acid. Accordingly, it exhibits no tendency to escape.
Now, why should the elasticity of the acid cause it to escape when
sulphuric acid is added? It certainly could not do so, unless it has
weakened the affinity by which it is kept united to the ammonia. Now
this is the very point for which Bergman contends. The subject will
claim our attention afterwards, when we come to the electro-chemical
discoveries, which distinguished the first ten years of the present
century.
Another opinion supported by Berthollet in his Chemical Statics is,
that quantity may be made to overcome force; or, in other words, that
it we mix a great quantity of a substance which has a weaker affinity
with a small quantity of a substance which has a stronger affinity, the
body having the weaker affinity will be able to overcome the other, and
combine with a third body in place of it. He gave a number of instances
of this; particularly, he showed that a large quantity of potash,
when mixed with a small quantity of sulphate of barytes, is able to
deprive the barytes of a portion of its sulphuric acid. In this way he
accounted for the decomposition of the common salt, by carbonate of
lime in the soda lakes in Egypt; and the decomposition of the same
salt by iron, as noticed by Scheele.
I must acknowledge myself not quite satisfied with Berthollet's
reasoning on this subject. No doubt if two atoms of a body having a
weaker affinity, and one atom of a body having a stronger affinity,
were placed at equal distances from an atom of a third body, the
force of the two atoms might overcome that of the one atom. And it is
possible that such cases may occasionally occur: but such a balance
of distances must be rare and accidental. I cannot but think that all
the cases adduced by Berthollet are of a complicated nature, and admit
of an explanation independent of the efficacy of mass. And at any
rate, abundance of instances might be stated, in which mass appears to
have no preponderating effect whatever. Chemical decomposition is a
phenomenon of so complicated a nature, that it is more than doubtful
whether we are yet in possession of data sufficient to enable us to
analyze the process with accuracy.
Another opinion brought forward by Berthollet in his work was of a
startling nature, and occasioned a controversy between him and Proust
which was carried on for some years with great spirit, but with perfect
decorum and good manners on both sides. Berthollet affirmed that bodies
were capable of uniting with each other in all possible proportions,
and that there is no such thing as a definite compound, unless it
has been produced by some accidental circumstances, as insolubility,
volatility, &c. Thus every metal is capable of uniting with all
possible doses of oxygen. So that instead of one or two oxides of
every metal, an infinite number of oxides of each metal exist. Proust
affirmed that all compounds are definite. Iron, says he, unites with
oxygen only in two proportions; we have either a compound of 3·5 iron
and 1 oxygen, or of 3·5 iron and 1·5 oxygen. The first constitutes
the _black_, and the second the _red_ oxide of iron; and beside these
there is no other. Every one is now satisfied that Proust's view of
the subject was correct, and Berthollet's erroneous. But a better
opportunity will occur hereafter to explain this subject, or at least
to give the information respecting it which we at present possess.
Berthollet in this book points out the quantity of each base necessary
to neutralize a given weight of acid, and he considers the strength
of affinity as inversely that quantity. Now of all the bases known
when Berthollet wrote, ammonia is capable of saturating the greatest
quantity of acid. Hence he considered its affinity for acids as
stronger than that of any other base. Barytes, on the contrary,
saturates the smallest quantity of acid; therefore its affinity for
acids is smallest. Now ammonia is separated from acids by all the
other bases; while there is not one capable of separating barytes. It
is surprising that the notoriety of this fact did not induce him to
hesitate, before he came to so problematical a conclusion. Mr. Kirwan
had already considered the force of affinity as directly proportional
to the quantity of base necessary to saturate a given weight of acid.
When we consider the subject metaphysically, Berthollet's opinion is
most plausible; for it is surely natural to consider that body as the
strongest which produces the greatest effect. Now when we deprive an
acid of its properties, or neutralize it by adding a base, one would
be disposed to consider that base as acting with most energy, which
with the smallest quantity of matter is capable of producing a given
effect. This was the way that Berthollet reasoned. But if we attend
to the power which one base has of displacing another, we shall find
it very nearly proportional to the weight of it necessary to saturate
a given weight of acid; or, at least those bases act most powerfully
in displacing others of which the greatest quantity is necessary to
saturate a given weight of acid. Kirwan's opinion, therefore, was more
conformable to the order of decomposition. These two opposite views of
the subject show clearly that neither Kirwan nor Berthollet had the
smallest conception of the atomic theory; and, consequently, that the
allegation of Mr. Higgens, that he had explained the atomic theory
in his book on phlogiston, published in the year 1789, was not well
founded. Whether Berthollet had read that book I do not know, but there
can be no doubt that it was perused by Kirwan; who, however, did not
receive from it the smallest notions respecting the atomic theory. Had
he imbibed any such notions, he never would have considered chemical
affinity as capable of being measured by the weight of base capable of
neutralizing a given weight of acid.
Berthollet was not only a man of great energy of character, but of
the most liberal feelings and benevolence. The only exception to this
is his treatment of M. Clement. This gentleman, in company with M.
Desormes, had examined the carbonic oxide of Priestley, and had shown
as Cruikshanks had done before them, that it is a compound of carbon
and oxygen, and that it contains no hydrogen whatever. Berthollet
examined the same gas, and he published a paper to prove that it was
a triple compound of oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen. This occasioned a
controversy, which chemists have finally determined in favour of the
opinion of Clement and Desormes. Berthollet, during this discussion,
did not on every occasion treat his opponents with his accustomed
temper and liberality; and ever after he opposed all attempts on the
part of Clement to be admitted a member of the Institute. Whether
there was any other reason for this conduct on the part of Berthollet,
besides difference of opinion respecting the composition of carbonic
oxide, I do not know: nor would it be right to condemn him without a
more exact knowledge of all the circumstances than I can pretend to.
Antoine François de Fourcroy, was born at Paris on the 15th of June,
1755. His family had long resided in the capital, and several of his
ancestors had distinguished themselves at the bar. But the branch from
which he sprung had gradually sunk into poverty. His father exercised
in Paris the trade of an apothecary, in consequence of a charge
which he held in the house of the Duke of Orleans. The corporation
of apothecaries having obtained the general suppression of all such
charges, M. de Fourcroy, the father, was obliged to renounce his mode
of livelihood; and his son grew up in the midst of the poverty produced
by the monopoly of the privileged bodies in Paris. He felt this
situation the more keenly, because he possessed from nature an extreme
sensibility of temper. When he lost his mother, at the age of seven
years, he attempted to throw himself into her grave. The care of an
elder sister preserved him with difficulty till he reached the age at
which it was usual to be sent to college. There he was unlucky enough
to meet with a brutal master, who conceived an aversion for him and
treated him with cruelty: the consequence, was, a dislike to study; and
he quitted the college at the age of fourteen, somewhat less informed
than when he went to it.
His poverty now was such that he was obliged to endeavour to support
himself by becoming writing-master. He had even some thoughts of going
on the stage; but was prevented by the hisses bestowed on a friend
of his who had unadvisedly entered upon that perilous career, and was
treated in consequence without mercy by the audience. While uncertain
what plan to follow, the advice of Viq. d'Azyr induced him to commence
the study of medicine.
This great anatomist was an acquaintance of M. de Fourcroy, the father.
Struck with the appearance of his son, and the courage with which he
struggled with his bad fortune, he conceived an affection for him, and
promised to direct his studies, and even to assist him during their
progress. The study of medicine to a man in his situation was by no
means an easy task. He was obliged to lodge in a garret, so low in
the roof that he could only stand upright in the middle of the room.
Beside him lodged a water-carrier with twelve children. Fourcroy acted
as physician to this numerous family, and in recompence was always
supplied with abundance of water. He contrived to support himself by
giving lessons to other students, by facilitating the researches of
richer writers, and by some translations which he sold to a bookseller.
For these he was only half paid; but the conscientious bookseller
offered thirty years afterwards to make up the deficiency, when his
creditor was become director-general of public instruction.
Fourcroy studied with so much zeal and ardour that he soon became well
acquainted with the subject of medicine. But this was not sufficient.
It was necessary to get a doctor's degree, and all the expenses at that
time amounted to 250_l._ An old physician, Dr. Diest, had left funds
to the faculty to give a gratuitous degree and licence, once every two
years, to the poor student who should best deserve them. Fourcroy was
the most conspicuous student at that time in Paris. He would therefore
have reaped the benefit of this benevolent institution had it not
been for the unlucky situation in which he was placed. There happened
to exist a quarrel between the faculty charged with the education of
medical men and the granting of degrees, and a society recently formed
by government for the improvement of the medical art. This dispute had
been carried to a great length, and had attracted the attention of all
the frivolous and idle inhabitants of Paris. Viq. d'Azyr was secretary
to the society, and of course one of its most active champions; and
was, in consequence, particularly obnoxious to the faculty of medicine
at Paris. Fourcroy was unluckily the acknowledged _protégée_ of this
eminent anatomist. This was sufficient to induce the faculty of
medicine to refuse him a gratuitous degree. He would have been excluded
in consequence of this from entering on the career of a practitioner,
had not the society, enraged at this treatment, and influenced by
a violent party spirit, formed a subscription, and contributed the
necessary expenses.
It was no longer possible to refuse M. de Fourcroy the degree of
doctor, when he was thus enabled to pay for it. But above the simple
degree of doctor there was another, entitled _docteur regent_, which
depended entirely on the votes of the faculty. It was unanimously
refused to M. de Fourcroy. This refusal put it out of his power
afterwards to commence teacher in the medical school, and gave the
medical faculty the melancholy satisfaction of not being able to enroll
among their number the most celebrated professor in Paris. This violent
and unjust conduct of the faculty of medicine made a deep impression on
the mind of Fourcroy, and contributed not a little to the subsequent
downfall of that powerful body.
Fourcroy being thus entitled to practise in Paris, his success depended
entirely on the reputation which he could contrive to establish.
For this purpose he devoted himself to the sciences connected with
medicine, as the shortest and most certain road by which he could
reach his object. His first writings showed no predilection for any
particular branch of science. He wrote upon _chemistry_, _anatomy_,
and _natural history_. He published an Abridgment of the History of
Insects, and a Description of the Bursæ Mucosæ of the Tendons. This
last piece seems to have given him the greatest celebrity; for in
1785 he was admitted, in consequence of it, into the academy as an
anatomist. But the reputation of Bucquet, at that time very high,
gradually drew his particular attention to chemistry, and he retained
this predilection during the rest of his life.
Bucquet was at that time professor of chemistry in the Medical School
of Paris, and was greatly celebrated and followed on account of his
eloquence, and the elegance of his language. Fourcroy became in the
first place his pupil, and afterwards his particular friend. One
day, when a sudden attack of disease prevented him from lecturing as
usual, he entreated Fourcroy to supply his place. Our young chemist at
first declined, and alleged his ignorance of the method of addressing
a public audience. But, overcome by the persuasions of Bucquet,
he at last consented: and in this, his first essay, he spoke two
hours without disorder or hesitation, and acquitted himself to the
satisfaction of his whole audience. Bucquet soon after substituted him
in his place, and it was in his laboratory and in his class-room that
he first made himself acquainted with chemistry. He was enabled at the
death of Bucquet, in consequence of an advantageous marriage that he
had made, to purchase the apparatus and cabinet of his master; and
although the faculty of medicine would not allow him to succeed to the
chair of Bucquet, they could not prevent him from succeeding to his
reputation.
There was a kind of college which had been established in the Jardin
du Roi, which at that time was under the superintendence of Buffon,
and Macquer was the professor of chemistry in this institution. On
the death of this chemist, in 1784, both Berthollet and Fourcroy
offered themselves as candidates for the vacant chair. The voice of
the public was so loud in favour of Fourcroy, that he was appointed
to the situation in spite of the high character of his antagonist and
the political influence which was exerted in his favour. He filled
this chair for twenty-five years, with a reputation for eloquence
continually on the increase. Such were the crowds, both of men and
women, who flocked to hear him, that it was twice necessary to enlarge
the size of the lecture room.
After the revolution had made some progress, he was named a member of
the National Convention in the autumn of the memorable year 1793. It
was during the reign of terror, when the Convention itself, and with
it all France, was under the absolute dominion of one of the most
sanguinary monsters that ever existed: it was almost equally dangerous
for the members of the Convention to remain silent, or to take an
active part in the business of that assembly. Fourcroy never opened his
mouth in the Convention till after the death of Robespierre; at this
period he had influence enough to save the lives of some men of merit:
among others, of Darcet, who did not know the obligation under which he
lay to him till long after; at last his own life was threatened, and
his influence, of course, completely annihilated.
It was during this unfortunate and disgraceful period, that many
eminent men lost their lives; among others, Lavoisier; and Fourcroy is
accused of having contributed to the death of this illustrious chemist:
but Cuvier entirely acquits him of this atrocious charge, and assures
us that it was urged against him merely out of envy at his subsequent
elevation. "If in the rigorous researches which we have made," says
Cuvier in his Eloge of Fourcroy, "we had found the smallest proof of
an atrocity so horrible, no human power could have induced us to sully
our mouths with his Eloge, or to have pronounced it within the walls of
this temple, which ought to be no less sacred to honour than to genius."
Fourcroy began to acquire influence only after the 9th Thermidor, when
the nation was wearied with destruction, and when efforts were making
to restore those monuments of science, and those public institutions
for education, which during the wantonness and folly of the revolution
had been overturned and destroyed. Fourcroy was particularly active
in this renovation, and it was to him, chiefly, that the schools
established in France for the education of youth are to be ascribed.
The Convention had destroyed all the colleges, universities, and
academies throughout France. The effects of this absurd abolition soon
became visible; the army stood in need of surgeons and physicians, and
there were none educated to supply the vacant places: three new schools
were founded for educating medical men; they were nobly endowed. The
term _schools of medicine_ was proscribed as too aristocratical;
they were distinguished by the ridiculous appellation of _schools of
health_. The _Polytechnic School_ was next instituted, as a kind of
preparation for the exercise of the military profession, where young
men could be instructed in mathematics and natural philosophy, to make
them fit for entering the schools of the artillery, of engineers,
and of the marine. The _Central Schools_ was another institution for
which France was indebted to the efforts of Fourcroy. The idea was
good, though it was very imperfectly executed. It was to establish a
kind of university in every department, for which the young men were
to be prepared by a sufficient number of inferior schools scattered
through the department. But unfortunately these inferior schools were
never properly established or endowed; and even the central schools
themselves were never supplied with proper masters. Indeed, it was
found impossible to furnish such a number of masters at once. On that
account, an institution was established in Paris, called the _Normal
School_, for the express purpose of educating a sufficient number of
masters to supply the different central schools.
Fourcroy, either as a member of the Convention or of the _Council of
the Ancients_, took an active part in all these institutions, as far
as regarded the plan and the establishment. He was equally concerned
in the establishment of the Institute and of the _Musée d'Histoire
Naturelle_. This last was endowed with the utmost liberality, and
Fourcroy was one of the first professors; as he was also in the School
of Medicine and the Polytechnic School. He was equally concerned in the
restoration of the university, which constituted one of the most useful
parts of Bonaparte's reign.
The violent exertions which he made in the numerous situations which
he filled, and the prodigious activity which he displayed, gradually
undermined his constitution. He himself was sensible of his approaching
death, and announced it to his friends as an event which would
speedily take place. On the 16th of December, 1809, after signing some
despatches, he suddenly cried out, _Je suis mort_ (_I am dead_), and
dropped lifeless on the ground.
He was twice married: first to Mademoiselle Bettinger, by whom he had
two children, a son and a daughter, who survived him. He was married
for the second time to Madame Belleville, the widow of Vailly, by whom
he had no family. He left but little fortune behind him; and two maiden
sisters, who lived with him, depended afterwards for their support on
his friend M. Vauquelin.
Notwithstanding the vast quantity of papers which he published, it
will be admitted, without dispute, that the prodigious reputation
which he enjoyed during his lifetime was more owing to his eloquence
than to his eminence as a chemist--though even as a chemist he was
far above mediocrity. He must have possessed an uncommon facility
of writing. Five successive editions of his System of Chemistry
appeared, each of them gradually increasing in size and value: the
first being in two volumes and the last in ten. This last edition
he wrote in sixteen months: it contains much valuable information,
and doubtless contributed considerably to the general diffusion of
chemical knowledge. Its style is perhaps too diffuse, and the spirit
of generalizing from particular, and often ill-authenticated facts, is
carried to a vicious length. Perhaps the best of all his productions is
his Philosophy of Chemistry. It is remarkable for its conciseness, its
perspicuity, and the neatness of its arrangement.
Besides these works, and the periodical publication entitled "Le
Médecin éclairé," of which he was the editor, there are above one
hundred and sixty papers on chemical subjects, with his name attached
to them, which appeared in the Memoirs of the Academy and of the
Institute; in the Annales de Chimie, or the Annales de Musée d'Histoire
Naturelle; of which last work he was the original projector. Many of
these papers contained analyses both animal, vegetable, and mineral,
of very considerable value. In most of them, the name of Vauquelin is
associated with his own as the author; and the general opinion is,
that the experiments were all made by Vauquelin; but that the papers
themselves were drawn up by Fourcroy.
It would serve little purpose to go over this long list of papers;
because, though they contributed essentially to the progress of
chemistry, yet they exhibit but few of those striking discoveries,
which at once alter the face of the science, by throwing a flood of
light on every thing around them. I shall merely notice a few of what I
consider as his best papers.
1. He ascertained that the most common biliary calculi are composed of
a substance similar to spermaceti. This substance, in consequence of
a subsequent discovery which he made during the removal of the dead
bodies from the burial-ground of the Innocents at Paris; namely, that
these bodies are converted into a fatty matter, he called _adipocire_.
It has since been distinguished by the name of _cholestine_; and has
been shown to possess properties different from those of adipocire and
spermaceti.
2. It is to him that we are indebted for the first knowledge of the
fact, that the salts of magnesia and ammonia have the property of
uniting together, and forming double salts.
3. His dissertation on the sulphate of mercury contains some good
observations. The same remark applies to his paper on the action of
ammonia on the sulphate, nitrate, and muriate of mercury. He first
described the double salts which are formed.
4. The analysis of urine would have been valuable had not almost
all the facts contained in it been anticipated by a paper of Dr.
Wollaston, published in the Philosophical Transactions. It is to him
that we are indebted for almost all the additions to our knowledge
of calculi since the publication of Scheele's original paper on the
subject.
5. I may mention the process of Fourcroy and Vauquelin for obtaining
pure barytes, by exposing nitrate of barytes to a red heat, as a
good one. They discovered the existence of phosphate of magnesia in
bones, of phosphorus in the brain and in the milts of fishes, and of a
considerable quantity of saccharine matter in the bulb of the common
onion; which, by undergoing a kind of spontaneous fermentation was
converted into _manna_.
In these, and many other similar discoveries, which I think it
unnecessary to notice, we do not know what fell to the share of
Fourcroy and what to Vauquelin; but there is one merit at least to
which Fourcroy is certainly entitled, and it is no small one: he formed
and brought forward Vauquelin, and proved to him, ever after, a most
steady and indefatigable friend. This is bestowing no small panegyric
on his character; for it would have been impossible to have retained
such a friend through all the horrors of the French revolution, if his
own qualities had not been such as to merit so steady an attachment.
Louis Bernard Guyton de Morveau was born at Dijon on the 4th of
January, 1737. His father, Anthony Guyton, was professor of civil
law in the University of Dijon, and descended from an ancient and
respectable family. At the age of seven he showed an uncommon
mechanical turn: being with his father at a small village near Dijon,
he there happened to meet a public officer returning from a sale,
whence he had brought back a clock that had remained unsold on account
of its very bad condition. Morveau supplicated his father to buy it.
The purchase was made for six francs. Young Morveau took it to pieces
and cleaned it, supplied some parts that were wanting, and put it up
again without any assistance. In 1799 this very clock was resold at a
higher price, together with the estate and house in which it had been
originally placed; having during the whole of that time continued to go
in the most satisfactory manner. When only eight years of age, he took
his mother's watch to pieces, cleaned it, and put it up again to the
satisfaction of all parties.
After finishing his preliminary studies in his father's house, he went
to college, and terminated his attendance on it at the age of sixteen.
About this time he was instructed in botany by M. Michault, a friend
of his father, and a naturalist of some eminence. He now commenced law
student in the University of Dijon; and, after three years of intense
application, he went to Paris to acquire a knowledge of the practice of
the law.
While in Paris, he not only attended to law, but cultivated at the same
time several branches of polite literature. In 1756 he paid a visit
to Voltaire, at Ferney. This seems to have inspired him with a love
of poetry, particularly of the descriptive and satiric kind. About a
year afterwards, when only twenty, he published a poem called "Le Rat
Iconoclaste, ou le Jesuite croquée." It was intended to throw ridicule
on a well-known anecdote of the day, and to assist in blowing the fire
that already threatened destruction to the obnoxious order of Jesuits.
The adventure alluded to was this: Some nuns, who felt a strong
predilection for a Jesuit, their spiritual director, were engaged in
their accustomed Christmas occupation of modelling a representation of
a religious mystery, decorated with several small statues representing
the holy personages connected with the subject, and among them that
of the ghostly father; but, to mark their favourite, his statue was
made of loaf sugar. The following day was destined for the triumph of
the Jesuit: but, meanwhile, a rat had devoured the valuable puppet.
The poem is written after the agreeable manner of the celebrated poem,
"Ververt."
At the age of twenty-four he had already pleaded several important
causes at the bar, when the office of advocate-general, at the
parliament of Dijon, was advertised for sale. At that time all public
situations, however important, were sold to the best bidder. His father
having ascertained that this place would be acceptable to his son,
purchased it for forty thousand francs. The reputation of the young
advocate, and his engaging manners, facilitated the bargain.
In 1764 he was admitted an honorary member of the Academy of Sciences,
Arts, and Belles Lettres, of Dijon. Two months after, he presented to
the assembled chamber of the parliament of Burgundy, a memoir on public
instruction, with a plan for a college, on the principles detailed in
his work. The encomiums which every public journal of the time passed
on this production, and the flattering letters which he received, were
unequivocal proofs of its value. In this memoir he endeavoured to
prove that man is _bad_ or _good_, according to the education which he
has received. This doctrine was contrary to the creed of Diderot, who
affirmed, in his Essay on the Life of Seneca, that nature makes wicked
persons, and that the best institutions cannot render them good. But
this mischievous opinion was successfully refuted by Morveau, in a
letter to an anonymous friend.
The exact sciences were so ill taught, and lamely cultivated at Dijon,
during the time of his university education, that after his admission
into the academy his notions on mechanics and natural philosophy were
scanty and inaccurate. Dr. Chardenon was in the habit of reading
memoirs on chemical subjects; and on one occasion Morveau thought
it necessary to hazard some remarks which were ill received by the
doctor, who sneeringly told him that having obtained such success in
literature, he had better rest satisfied with the reputation so justly
acquired, and leave chemistry to those who knew more of the matter.
Provoked at this violent remark, he resolved upon taking an honourable
revenge. He therefore applied himself to the study of Macquer's
Theoretical and Practical Chemistry, and of the Manual of Chemistry
which Beaumé had just published. To the last chemist he also sent an
extensive order for chemical preparations and utensils, with a view
of forming a small laboratory near his office. He began by repeating
many of Beaumé's experiments, and then trying his inexperienced hand
at original researches. He soon found himself strong enough to attack
the doctor. The latter had just been reading a memoir on the analysis
of different kinds of oil; and Morveau combated some of his opinions
with so much skill and sagacity, as astonished every one present. After
the meeting, Dr. Chardenon addressed him thus: "You are born to be an
honour to chemistry. So much knowledge could only have been gained by
genius united with perseverance. Follow your new pursuit, and confer
with me in your difficulties."
But this new pursuit did not prevent Morveau from continuing to
cultivate literature with success. He wrote an _Eloge_ of Charles V. of
France, surnamed _the Wise_, which had been given out as the subject
of a prize, by the academy. A few months afterwards, at the opening of
the session of parliament, he delivered a discourse on the actual state
of jurisprudence; on which subject, three years after, he composed a
more extensive and complete work. No code of laws demanded reform more
urgently than those of France, and none saw more clearly the necessity
of such a reformation.
About this time a young gentleman of Dijon had taken into his house an
adept, who offered, upon being furnished with the requisite materials,
to produce gold in abundance; but, after six months of expensive
and tedious operations (during which period the roguish pretender
had secretly distilled many oils, &c., which he disposed of for his
own profit), the gentleman beginning to doubt the sincerity of his
instructer, dismissed him from his service and sold the whole of his
apparatus and materials to Morveau for a trifling sum.
Soon after he repaired to Paris, to visit the scientific establishments
of that metropolis, and to purchase preparations and apparatus which he
still wanted to enable him to pursue with effect his favourite study.
For this purpose he applied to Beaumé, then one of the most conspicuous
of the French chemists. Pleased with his ardour, Beaumé inquired what
courses of chemistry he had attended. "None," was the answer.--"How
then could you have learned to make experiments, and above all, how
could you have acquired the requisite dexterity?"--"Practice," replied
the young chemist, "has been my master; melted crucibles and broken
retorts my tutors."--"In that case," said Beaumé, "you have not
learned, you have invented."
About this time Dr. Chardenon read a paper before the Dijon Academy
on the causes of the augmentation of weight which metals experience
when calcined. He combated the different explanations which had been
already advanced, and then proceeded to show that it might be accounted
for in a satisfactory manner by the _abstraction_ of phlogiston.
This drew the attention of Morveau to the subject: he made a set of
experiments a few months afterwards, and read a paper on the _phenomena
of the air during combustion_. It was soon after that he made a set of
experiments on the time taken by different substances to absorb or emit
a given quantity of heat. These experiments, if properly followed out,
would have led to the discovery of _specific heat_; but in his hands
they seem to have been unproductive.
In the year 1772 he published a collection of scientific essays under
the title of "Digressions Académiques." The memoirs on _phlogiston_,
_crystallization_, and _solution_, found in this book deserve
particular attention, and show the superiority of Morveau over most of
the chemists of the time.
About this time an event happened which deserves to be stated. It had
been customary in one of the churches of Dijon to bury considerable
numbers of dead bodies. From these an infectious exhalation had
proceeded, which had brought on a malignant disorder, and threatened
the inhabitants of Dijon with something like the plague. All attempts
to put an end to this infectious matter had failed, when Morveau tried
the following method with complete success: A mixture of common salt
and sulphuric acid in a wide-mouthed vessel was put upon chafing-dishes
in various parts of the church. The doors and windows were closed and
left in this state for twenty-four hours. They were then thrown open,
and the chafing-dishes with the mixtures removed. Every remains of the
bad smell was gone, and the church was rendered quite clean and free
from infection. The same process was tried soon after in the prisons
of Dijon, and with the same success. Afterwards chlorine gas was
substituted for muriatic acid gas, and found still more efficacious.
The present practice is to employ chloride of lime, or chloride of
soda, for the purpose of fumigating infected apartments, and the
process is found still more effectual than the muriatic acid gas, as
originally employed by Morveau. The nitric acid fumes, proposed by Dr.
Carmichael Smith, are also efficacious, but the application of them
is much more troublesome and more expensive than of chloride of lime,
which costs very little.
In the year 1774 it occurred to Morveau, that a course of lectures on
chemistry, delivered in his native city, might be useful. Application
being made to the proper authorities, the permission was obtained,
and the necessary funds for supplying a laboratory granted. These
lectures were begun on the 29th of April, 1776, and seem to have been
of the very best kind. Every thing was stated with great clearness,
and illustrated by a sufficient number of experiments. His fame now
began to extend, and his name to be known to men of science in every
part of Europe; and, in consequence, he began to experience the fate of
almost all eminent men--to be exposed to the attacks of the malignant
and the envious. The experiments which he exhibited to determine the
properties of _carbonic acid gas_ drew upon him the animadversions of
several medical men, who affirmed that this gas was nothing else than a
peculiar state of sulphuric acid. Morveau answered these animadversions
in two pamphlets, and completely refuted them.
About this time he got metallic conductors erected on the house of the
Academy at Dijon. On this account he was attacked violently for his
presumption in disarming the hand of the Supreme Being. A multitude of
fanatics assembled to pull down the conductors, and they would probably
have done much mischief, had it not been for the address of M. Maret,
the secretary, who assured them that the astonishing virtue of the
apparatus resided in the gilded point, which had purposely been sent
from Rome by the holy father! Will it excite any surprise, that within
less than twenty years after this the mass of the French people not
only renounced the Christian religion, and the spiritual dominion of
the pope, but declared themselves atheists!
In 1777 Morveau published the first volume of a course of chemistry,
which was afterwards followed by three other volumes, and is known
by the name of "Elémens de Chimie de l'Académie de Dijon." This book
was received with universal approbation, and must have contributed
very much to increase the value of his lectures. Indeed, a text-book
is essential towards a successful course of lectures: it puts it in
the power of the students to understand the lecture if they be at
the requisite pains; and gives them a means of clearing up their
difficulties, when any such occur. I do not hesitate to say, that a
course of chemical lectures is twice as valuable when the students are
furnished with a good text-book, as when they are left to interpret the
lectures by their own unassisted exertions.
Soon after he undertook the establishment of a manufacture of saltpetre
upon a large scale. For this he received the thanks of M. Necker,
who was at that time minister of finance, in the name of the King of
France. This manufactory he afterwards gave up to M. Courtois, whose
son still carries it on, and is advantageously known to the public as
the discoverer of _iodine_.
His next object was to make a collection of minerals, and to make
himself acquainted with the science of mineralogy. All this was soon
accomplished. In 1777 he was charged to examine the slate-quarries
and the coal-mines of Burgundy, for which purpose he performed a
mineralogical tour through the province. In 1779 he discovered a
lead-mine in that country, and a few years afterwards, when the
attention of chemists had been drawn to sulphate of barytes and its
base, by the Swedish chemists, he sought for it in Burgundy, and found
it in considerable quantity at Thôte. This enabled him to draw up a
description of the mineral, and to determine the characters of the
base, to which he gave the name of _barote_; afterwards altered to
that of barytes. This paper was published in the third volume of the
Memoirs of the Dijon Academy. In this paper he describes his method of
decomposing sulphate of barytes, by heating it with charcoal--a method
now very frequently followed.
In the year 1779 he was applied to by Pankouke, who meditated the great
project of the _Encyclopédie Méthodique_, to undertake the chemical
articles in that immense dictionary, and the demand was supported by a
letter from Buffon, whose request he did not think that he could with
propriety refuse. The engagement was signed between them in September,
1780. The first half-volume of the chemical part of this Encyclopédie
did not appear till 1786, and Morveau must have been employed during
the interval in the necessary study and researches. Indeed, it is
obvious, from many of the articles, that he had spent a good deal of
time in experiments of research.
The state of the chemical nomenclature was at that period peculiarly
barbarous and defective. He found himself stopped at every corner for
want of words to express his meaning. This state of things he resolved
to correct, and accordingly in 1782 published his first essay on a
new chemical nomenclature. No sooner did this essay appear than it
was attacked by almost all the chemists of Paris, and by none more
zealously than by the chemical members of the academy. Undismayed by
the violence of his antagonists, and satisfied with the rectitude of
his views, and the necessity of the reform, he went directly to Paris
to answer the objections in person. He not only succeeded in convincing
his antagonists of the necessity of reform; but a few years afterwards
prevailed upon the most eminent chemical members of the academy,
Lavoisier, Berthollet, and Fourcroy, to unite with him in rendering
the reform still more complete and successful. He drew up a memoir,
exhibiting a plan of a methodical chemical nomenclature, which was read
at a meeting of the Academy of Sciences, in 1787. Morveau, then, was
in reality the author of the new chemical nomenclature, if we except
a few terms, which had been already employed by Lavoisier. Had he
done nothing more for the science than this, it would deservedly have
immortalized his name. For every one must be sensible how much the new
nomenclature contributed to the subsequent rapid extension of chemical
science.
It was during the repeated conferences held with Lavoisier and the
other two associates that Morveau became satisfied of the truth of
Lavoisier's new doctrine, and that he was induced to abandon the
phlogistic theory. We do not know the methods employed to convert
him. Doubtless both reasoning and experiment were made use of for the
purpose.
It was during this period that Morveau published a French translation
of the Opuscula of Bergman. A society of friends, under his
encouragement, translated the chemical memoirs of Scheele and many
other foreign books of importance, which by their means were made
known to the men of science in France.
In 1783, in consequence of a favourable report by Macquer, Morveau
obtained permission to establish a manufactory of carbonate of soda,
the first of the kind ever attempted in France. It was during the
same year that he published his collection of pleadings at the bar,
among which we find his Discours sur la Bonhomie, delivered at the
opening of the sessions at Dijon, with which he took leave of his
fellow-magistrates, surrendering the insignia of office, as he had
determined to quit the profession of the law.
On the 25th of April, 1784, Morveau, accompanied by President Virly,
ascended from Dijon in a balloon, which he had himself constructed,
and repeated the ascent on the 12th of June following, with a view of
ascertaining the possibility of directing these aerostatic machines,
by an apparatus of his own contrivance. The capacity of the balloon
was 10,498,074 French cubic feet. The effect produced by this bold
undertaking by two of the most distinguished characters in the town was
beyond description. Such ascents were then quite new, and looked upon
with a kind of reverential awe. Though Morveau failed in his attempts
to direct these aerial vessels, yet his method was ingenious and
exceedingly plausible.
In 1786 Dr. Maret, secretary to the Dijon Academy, having fallen a
victim to an epidemic disease, which he had in vain attempted to
arrest, Morveau was appointed perpetual secretary and chancellor of
the institution. Soon after this the first half-volume of the chemical
part of the Encyclopédie Méthodique made its appearance, and drew the
attention of every person interested in the science of chemistry. No
chemical treatise had hitherto appeared worthy of being compared
to it. The article _Acid_, which occupies a considerable part, is
truely admirable; and whether we consider the historical details, the
completeness of the accounts, the accuracy of the description of the
experiments, or the elegance of the style, constitutes a complete model
of what such a work should be. I may, perhaps, be partial, as it was
from this book that I imbibed my own first notions in chemistry, but
I never perused any book with more delight, and when I compared it
with the best chemical books of the time, whether German, French, or
English, its superiority became still more striking.
In the article _Acier_, Morveau had come to the very same conclusions,
with respect to the nature of _steel_, as had been come to by
Berthollet, Monge, and Vandermonde, in their celebrated paper on the
subject, just published in the Memoirs of the Academy. His own article
had been printed, though not published, before the appearance of the
Memoir of the Academicians. This induced him to send an explanation to
Berthollet, which was speedily published in the Journal de Physique.
In September, 1787, he received a visit from Lavoisier, Berthollet,
Fourcroy, Monge, and Vandermonde. Dr. Beddoes, who was travelling
through France at the time, and happened to be in Dijon, joined the
party. The object of the meeting was to discuss several experiments
explanatory of the new doctrine. In 1789 an attempt was made to get
him admitted as a member of the Academy of Sciences; but it failed,
notwithstanding the strenuous exertions of Berthollet and his other
chemical friends.
The French revolution had now broken out, occasioned by the wants of
the state on the one hand, and the resolute determination of the clergy
and the nobility on the other, not to submit to bear any share in the
public burdens. During the early part of this revolution Morveau took
no part whatever in politics. In 1790, when France was divided into
departments, he was named one of a commission by the National Assembly
for the formation of the department of the Côte d'Or. On the 25th of
August, 1791, he received from the Academy of Sciences the annual
prize of 2000 francs, for the most useful work published in the course
of the year. This was decreed him for his Dictionary of Chemistry,
in the Encyclopédie Méthodique. Aware of the pressing necessities of
the state, Morveau seized the opportunity of showing his desire of
contributing towards its relief, by making a patriotic offering of the
whole amount of his prize.
When the election of the second Constitutional Assembly took place,
he was nominated a member by the electoral college of his department.
A few months before, his name had appeared among the list of members
proposed by the assembly, for the election of a governor to the
heir-apparent. All this, together with the dignity of solicitor-general
of the department to which he had recently been raised, not permitting
him to continue his chemical lectures at Dijon, of which he had already
delivered fifteen gratuitous courses, he resigned his chair in favour
of Dr. Chaussier, afterwards a distinguished professor at the Faculty
of Medicine of Paris; and, bidding adieu to his native city, proceeded
to Paris.
On the ever memorable 16th of January, 1793, he voted with the majority
of deputies. He was therefore, in consequence of this vote, a regicide.
During the same year he resigned, in favour of the republic, his
pension of two thousand francs, together with the arrears of that
pension.
In 1794 he received from government different commissions to act with
the French armies in the Low Countries. Charged with the direction
of a great aerostatic machine for warlike purposes, he superintended
that one in which the chief of the staff of General Jourdan and
himself ascended during the battle of Fleurus, and which so materially
contributed to the success of the French arms on that day. On his
return from his various missions, he received from the three committees
of the executive government an invitation to co-operate with several
learned men in the instruction of the _central schools_, and was named
professor of chemistry at the _Ecole Centrale des Travaux publiques_,
since better known under the name of the _Polytechnic School_.
In 1795 he was re-elected member of the Council of Five Hundred, by
the electoral assemblies of Sarthe and Ile et Vilaine. The executive
government, at this time, decreed the formation of the National
Institute, and named him one of the forty-eight members chosen by
government to form the nucleus of that scientific body.
In 1797 he resigned all his public situations, and once more attached
himself exclusively to science and to the establishments for public
instruction. In 1798 he was appointed a provisional director of the
Polytechnic School, to supply the place of Monge, who was then in
Egypt. He continued to exercise its duties during eighteen months,
to the complete satisfaction of every person connected with that
establishment. With much delicacy and disinterestedness, he declined
accepting the salary of 2000 francs attached to this situation, which
he thought belonged to the proper director, though absent from his
duties.
In 1799 Bonaparte appointed him one of the administrators-general
of the Mint; and the year following he was made director of the
Polytechnic School. In 1803 he received the cross of the Legion of
Honour, then recently instituted; and in 1805 was made an officer
of the same order. These honours were intended as a reward for the
advantage which had accrued from the mineral acid fumigations which
he had first suggested. In 1811 he was created a baron of the French
empire.
After having taught in the _Ecole Polytechnique_ for sixteen years, he
obtained leave, on applying to the proper authorities, to withdraw into
the retired station of private life, crowned with years and reputation,
and followed with the blessings of the numerous pupils whom he had
brought up in the career of science. In this situation he continued
about three years, during which he witnessed the downfall of Bonaparte,
and the restoration of the Bourbons. On the 21st of December, 1815, he
was seized with a total exhaustion of strength; and, after an illness
of three days only, expired in the arms of his disconsolate wife, and a
few trusty friends, having nearly completed the eightieth year of his
age. On the 3d of January, 1816, his remains were followed to the grave
by the members of the Institute, and many other distinguished men: and
Berthollet, one of his colleagues, pronounced a short but impressive
funeral oration on his departed friend.
Morveau had married Madame Picardet, the widow of a Dijon academician,
who had distinguished himself by numerous scientific translations from
the Swedish, German, and English languages. The marriage took place
after they were both advanced in life, and he left no children behind
him. His publications on chemical subjects were exceedingly numerous,
and he contributed as much as any of his contemporaries to the
extension of the science; but as he was not the author of any striking
chemical discoveries, it would be tedious to give a catalogue of his
numerous productions which were scattered through the Dijon Memoirs,
the Journal de Physique, and the Annales de Chimie.