Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:30:53.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aspects of French Theoretical Physics in the Nineteenth Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

J. W. Herivel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In France, as in other European countries, especially Britain and Germany, the nineteenth century was a period of great progress and achievement in science. This would still have been true if Claude Bernard and Louis Pasteur had been the only outstanding French scientists of the nineteenth century, whereas there were, of course, many others apart from an impressive number of brilliant French mathematicians. Nevertheless, although it was a great century for French science there was perhaps something rather disappointing about it, and something rather ingrowing about the attitude of French scientists towards scientific developments in other countries. For example, the French took it hard that the creator of the theory of evolution should have been an Englishman, remembering too late Darwin's predecessor Lamarck, and they certainly were very slow in accepting Darwin's theory of evolution.1 Again, the French may have felt that after the important contributions of French scientists such as Coulomb, Poisson, Biot and, above all, Ampère, the theory of electricity and magnetism which is today principally associated with the names of Faraday and Maxwell should have been created by a Frenchman. Once again this new theory was only accepted very slowly and hesitantly, and even unwillingly, in France—one thinks, for example, of the criticisms levelled at the theory by Pierre Duhem in his “The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory”.2 Of course it might be that if one knew how to weigh properly the various achievements of French scientists in different branches of science one would find that, allowing for her rather static population during the nineteenth century, the total contribution of France compared well with those of Britain and Germany. Nevertheless, in one case at least, that of theoretical physics, there seems to have been an unmistakable failure to live up to the promise of the beginning of the century. The purpose of this paper is to advance possible reasons to explain this failure.

Type
Research Article
Information
The British Journal for the History of Science , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , December 1966 , pp. 109 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © British Society for the History of Science 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Thus Renan, , in his L'Avenir de la Science (Paris, 1890) preface, p. viiGoogle Scholar, referring to the tyranny exercised by the requirements of French for clarity and discretion, remarks: “Le français ne veut exprimer que des choses claires; or les lois les plus importantes, celles qui tiennent aux transformations de la vie, ne sont pas claires: on les voit dans une sorte de demi-jour. C'est ainsi qu'après avoir aperçu la première les vérités de ce qu'on appelle maintenant le darwinisme, la France a été la dernière à s'y rallier.”

2 For example, his criticism of Maxwell's introduction of the displacement current. See translation of Duhem's work by Wiener, P. (Princeton, 1954), pp. 78–79.Google Scholar

3 To substantiate this guess it would be necessary to take full account of demographic factors. My attention has been drawn to an interesting study of scientific creativity in the light of demographic factors in an article by Yuasa in vol. i of Japanese Journal for the History of Science.

4 For details of the educational scene in France during the revolutionary and Napoleonic eras I have depended mainly on d'Irsay, S., Histoire des universités françaises et étrangères des origines à nos jours, 2 vol. (Paris, 1933–1935)Google Scholar, Liard, L., L'Enseignement supérieur en France, 1789–1889, 2 vol. (Paris, 1888, 1894)Google Scholar, and two important articles by Williams, L. P., “Science, Education and the French Revolution”, Isis, xliv (1953), 311–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Science, Education and Napoleon I”, Isis, xlvii (1956), 369–382.Google Scholar Williams's articles, hereafter referred to as Williams [I] and [II], have a particularly rich documentation, and form the inevitable point of departure for any future research on the subject of science and education in France in the revolutionary and Napoleonic eras.

5 For an account of the educational plans of the idéologues under the Directory, see Williams [I], where reference will be found to various works on the subject such as those by Picavet, F., Les Idéologues (Paris, 1891)Google Scholar, and by Van Duzer, C. H., Contributions of the Idéologues to French Revolutionary Thought (Baltimore, 1935).Google Scholar

6 The richest source of biographical material on J. B. Fourier is found in the Éloge of V. Cousin to the Académie Française (5 05 1831)Google Scholar, and in the same author's Notes Biographiques … de M. Fourier (Paris, 1831).Google Scholar

7 For the history of the École Polytechnique during its first hundred years, see École Polytechnique, Le Livre du centenaire 1794–1834, 3 vol. (Paris, 1895).Google Scholar

8 Boutaric, A., Marcelin Berthelot, 1827–1907 (Paris, 1927), p. 13.Google Scholar

9 Williams, ‘II’, op. cit. (4), 376–379.Google Scholar

10 For example, the scientist J. L. F. Bertrand was elected captain of the Garde Nationale of his locality in Paris. See Éloge of Bertrand in Darboux, G., Éloges Académiques et Discours (Paris, 1912), pp. 1–60.Google Scholar

11 In marked contrast to the existence in both Britain and Germany, for example, of a number of powerful, independent centres of scientific activity. There can be no doubt that the undue concentration in Paris of the foremost French scientific institutions had a markedly adverse effect on the general health of French science in the nineteenth century (and beyond). For one thing, it made possible the practice of the cumul by which one scientist held teaching positions in a number of different institutions; for another, residence in Paris made it all too easy for French scientists to follow the revolutionary tradition of involvement in politics. The resulting gains to teaching or politics were far outweighed by the inevitable loss to creative scientific research.

12 But a study of Carnot Savant remains to be written.

13 For an account of Fourier's part in the Egyptian campaign, see. Champollion-Figeac, J.J., Napoléon et Fourier (Paris, 1844).Google Scholar

14 Cousin, V., Notes Biographiques (n. 6 above), p. 35.Google Scholar

15 Arago was Ampère's natural successor in France in the fields of electricity and magnetism.

16 The subsequent biographical details on Gay-Lussac are taken from an obituary notice prepared by J. B. Biot and read before the Royal Society of London at their annual commemoration meeting on 30 November 1850. Biot tells us that the then president, Lord Rosse, who asked for the notice of Gay-Lussac, had been responsible “for the happy notion of making these annual obituary notices into veritable scientific memoirs assessing the achievements of the scientist in question” (see Journal des Scavans, 1850, for the remarks of Biot and a French version of the obituary notice).

17 For some biographical details of Arago, see preface by von Humboldt to Arago's Oeuvres (13 vol., Paris, 1854–1862).Google Scholar

18 Loc. ignot.

19 Hamilton's application to analytical dynamics of concepts drawn from wave theory provides an obvious example of creative work in the subject both intrinsically, and for its later influence on the development of the wave mechanical version of Quantum Mechanics.

20 Involving, that is, a full application of probability theory as opposed to the earlier work of Joule and Krönig.

21 As opposed to a competent, and even original, theoretical physicist such as Lamé, G. (1795–1870).Google Scholar

22 This and subsequent details relative to Verdet are taken from the biographical notice by de la Rive, A. A. in Vol. i of Oeuvres de E. Verdet, publiés par les soins de ses élèves, 8 vol. (Paris, 1872).Google Scholar

23 Williams, [II], op. cit. (4), 372–373.Google Scholar

24 de Lamartine, A., Des Destinés de la Poésie in Oeuvres Complètes, tome i (Paris 1862), pp. 26–28.Google Scholar

25 Related in Picard, E., Éloges et Discours Académiques (Paris, 1931), p. 79.Google Scholar

26 The play in question “Arthur de Bretagne”, was published after Bernard's death in 1886. Girardin was professor at the Sorbonne. See Foster, M., Claude Bernard (London, 1889), pp. 8–9.Google Scholar

27 Newton and Laplace provide the obvious examples, as opposed, for example, to Maxwell and Einstein.

28 Williams, [II], op. cit. (4), 376–379Google Scholar

29 I cannot accept Koyré's view of the altogether secondary role of experiment in the development of Galileo's kinematical views. Galileo's reference in his letter of 16 October 1604 to Paolo Sarpi (quoted in Koyré, A., Études Galiléennes (Paris, 1939), p. 78)Google Scholar to the experiments he had observed on falling bodies raises a serious difficulty for the extreme idealist attitude towards Galileo. In fact, it seems entirely possible that the main reason why Galileo succeeded where Descartes failed was the former's experimentally-based certainty of the true law, as opposed to Descartes' intentional disregard of any experimental findings on the grounds that the phenomenon of falling bodies was hopelessly complicated by the presence of a resisting force not susceptible of an exact treatment.

30 Maxwell, J. C., A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism (3rd edition, Oxford, 1892), p. viii.Google Scholar

31 This was certainly true before the present century. But theories such as Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, or Dirac's Electron Theory, open up the possibility of aesthetic considerations playing an increasingly important role in future advances in theoretical physics.

32 For an illuminating account of Newton's attitude to hypothesis, see Crombie, A. C., “Newton's Conception of Scientific Method”, Bulletin of the Institute of Physics (11 1957), pp. 350–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

33 Largely contained in the first two volumes (especially the second) of his Cours Philosophique Positiviste (Paris, 1830, 1835).Google Scholar

34 See, particularly, the preface to Ampère's Mémoire.

35 Laplace, P. S., Essai Philosophique sur les Probabilités (3rd edition, Paris, 1816), p. 2.Google Scholar

36 Berthollet, C. L., Essai de Statique Chimique (Paris, 1803).Google Scholar

37 For a good exposition of Fourier's views see the preliminary discourse to his Théorie Analytique de la Chaleur (Paris, 1822).Google Scholar

38 Comte, A., Cours Philosophique Positiviste, vol. ii (Paris, 1835), p. 435.Google Scholar

39 Ibid., p. 648.

40 Ibid., p. 429.

41 For a very interesting historical synopsis of the history of the kinetic theory of gases, see the letter from Maxwell to Kelvin reproduced by Bernstein, H. T. at pp. 210–213 of his “J. Clerk Maxwell on the History of the Kinetic Theory of Gases”, Isis, liv (1963), 206–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42 Arago, , Oeuvres, Notices biographiques, vol. ii, p. 107.Google Scholar

43 Institut de France, Académie des Sciences, Funerailles de M. Regnault (Paris, 1878).Google Scholar

44 Biot, , op. cit. (Journal des Scavans, 1850, 710)Google Scholar. A rather different view is given by Crosland, M. P., “The Origins of Gay-Lussac's Law of Combining Volumes of Gases”, Annals of Science, xvii (1961), 1–26, especially pp. 11–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 Leçons sur la Philosophie Chimique (Paris, 1837).Google Scholar

46 For biographical details on Bertrand, see Darboux, , op. cit. (n. 10 above).Google Scholar

47 Op. cit. (22), p. xvi.Google Scholar

48 For this and subsequent details see preface by Picard, E. to Oeuvres de Charles Hermite, 4 vol. (Paris, 1905–1917).Google Scholar