Chronicle

At the Commission on the History of the Physical and Mathematical Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences*

The Commission on the History of the Physical and Mathematical Sciences was organized in 1944, but only in 1945 did it obtain the opportunity to work under normal conditions. With the completion of the re-evacuation of academic institutions, the members of the Commission concentrated in Leningrad, where, with the arrival of Academician A. N. Krylov, the Commission began its regular activity in studying and publishing the works of outstanding Russian and foreign scholars.

On October 26, 1945, the Commission suffered a grievous loss: its chairman, Academician A. N. Krylov, died.

In connection with his death, the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences appointed Academician S. I. Vavilov chairman of the Commission and Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences T. P. Kravets his deputy.

During the period from August 1945 to June 1946 the Commission held 14 meetings, at which 17 scientific reports were delivered. Of these meetings, one, a public meeting, was devoted to the 200th anniversary of the birth of Gaspard Monge; at two other meetings the Commission celebrated the anniversaries of its members: the 80th birthday of Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences M. A. Chatelain and the 70th birthday of Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences T. P. Kravets.

Of the works planned by the Commission for 1946, the following have now been completed:

Clairaut’s Theory of the Figure of the Earth—a translation has been made under the editorship of Prof. N. I. Idelson; the treatise has been supplied with commentary and an introductory article. Monge’s Descriptive Geometry—a translation has been made under the editorship of Prof. D. I. Kargin, and the following articles have been prepared for publication: Prof. A. I. Molok, “G. Monge—Public and Political Figure,” Prof. D. I. Kargin, “G. Monge—Creator of Descriptive Geometry,” and Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences B. N. Delone, “G. Monge—Mathematician.”

Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences T. P. Kravets prepared for publication the first volume of the works of P. N. Lebedev and completed his work on preparing for publication the first volume of Faraday’s Experimental Researches in Electricity.

Prof. S. Ya. Lurie published the book Archimedes and prepared for publication Sketches on the History of Science in the Ancient World (now being printed).

During 1945–1946, Academician S. I. Vavilov worked on preparing for publication B. N. Menshutkin’s work Lomonosov, with the addition of a special article, “Lomonosov’s Works on Optics.”

Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences T. P. Kravets worked on a biography of P. N. Lebedev and identified new additional materials characterizing the life and activity of this scholar.

Prof. N. I. Idelson worked on a biography of d’Alembert.

In addition, the Commission carried out work on preparing and publishing two collections: a collection devoted to the works of B. S. Jacobi, and a collection of the works

* Compiled from the materials of the Commission. —Ed.

E. Kh. Lenz. At the present time four memoirs by Lenz in the field of physics have been translated into Russian. The translations were made under the editorship of Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences T. P. Kravets.

In preparing for publication the collection devoted to the works of B. S. Jacobi, the following took part: Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences M. A. Shatelen, Prof. D. S. Pashentsev, Prof. I. I. Lyubimenko, Prof. D. V. Efremov, Prof. D. I. Kargin, and others.

A member of the Commission, Academician V. I. Smirnov, headed the Commission’s work on the publication, in accordance with the Government’s decree, of the collected works of Acad. A. N. Krylov. At the present time the Commission has reviewed, edited, and sent to press: half-volume II of volume II (“Terrestrial Magnetism and the Compass”)—editor Prof. N. I. Idelson—and volume III (“Mathematical Physics” and “Approximate Calculations”), editor V. I. Smirnov. Preparation for publication of the other volumes was under way.

The work of the Commission on history also attracted the attention of Leningrad’s scientific public, and representatives of research institutions and higher educational establishments, especially Leningrad State University, took part in its meetings.

The activity of the Commission was constantly covered in the press and mainly in the Bulletin of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, which published detailed reports on each meeting.

At the regular meetings of the Commission, held on May 31 and June 7, 1946, reports were heard by T. P. Kravets, “Faraday’s Experimental Researches in Electricity,” and by Ya. G. Dorfman, “Lavoisier—Physicist,” brief summaries of which we give below.

T. P. Kravets, in his report, pointed out that in the introductory chapter prefaced to his Russian translation of the first volume of Faraday’s Experimental Researches in Electricity, he attempted to illuminate the era and milieu in which the famous scientist worked, using for this purpose the material contained in the book itself.

T. P. Kravets notes that in Faraday’s time there did not yet exist a unified doctrine of electricity: the following kinds of electricity were known: static electricity, voltaic electricity, which we have renamed galvanic, animal electricity, thermoelectricity, and volta-induction electricity discovered by Faraday; disputes were still going on as to whether, in each individual case, there was a manifestation of one and the same agent or of different ones.

The terminology in Faraday’s book does not correspond to modern terminology; thus Faraday, instead of the word “charge,” everywhere uses the word “force”; instead of “north pole,” “marked pole”; he often calls the source of electromotive force an “electromotor,” and so on.

In Faraday’s epoch there did not yet exist a unified unit of measurement for electricity, which greatly hindered Faraday in the precise formulation of the laws of electricity.

There was no electrical engineering industry, and as a consequence Faraday himself had to wrap wires with paper or silk, prepare galvanometers himself, and so forth.

A simple count of the proper names used by Faraday in this book shows with whom Faraday was most closely connected in life, and whose ideas he valued most highly. Such people included: Humphry Davy, Harris, Ampère, Berzelius, Arago. At the same time, the absence from the book of the names of certain famous contemporaries of Faraday indicates that Faraday was not familiar with the theory of electricity. In Faraday’s book there is only one mention of Ohm and his law, which was unknown to Faraday, who did not know the German language.

Finally, T. P. Kravets pointed out that in the first volume there are sections relating to: 1) induction, 2) electrochemistry, 3) the dielectric constant and its determination, 4) the identity of individual sources of electricity, and, finally, 5) various kinds of discharge. Having briefly characterized each of these sections, T. P. Kravets dwelt

that Faraday, the creator of the doctrine of ions, strange as it may seem, was an anti-atomist, and by way of illustration he cites the quotation: “All these laws,” wrote Faraday, “can easily be expounded from the point of view of atoms, but I look upon atoms with great suspicion, since it is easy to reason about them, but it is much harder to form for oneself a clear idea of their nature, especially when complex bodies are involved.” In Volume II Faraday presents an argument by which he refutes the existence of atoms.

In a report, Ya. G. Dorfman set forth certain results of a recently completed large and many-year study of the work and life of A. L. Lavoisier.

The speaker indicated that the principal characteristic of Lavoisier’s scientific creativity has remained unclear up to now. Some point to the fact that Lavoisier used especially accurate balances; others note the law of conservation of substance and of the elements formulated by him; however, it has not been made clear what is the chief feature of Lavoisier’s creativity.

The investigation led Prof. Dorfman to the following thesis: “Lavoisier, like many of his contemporaries, followed Boyle’s indications concerning the necessity of applying physics in chemical investigations; however, Lavoisier, like Lomonosov, did not confine himself to fragmentary use of individual physical methods or instruments, but consistently applied the entire aggregate both of the theoretical views and of the experimental methods of contemporary physics to the basic problems of chemistry.”

In biographies of Lavoisier, written, as a rule, by chemists, it is usually overlooked that Lavoisier received from the well-known astronomer and physicist La-Caille a profound knowledge in the field of physics.

Pointing out that Lavoisier’s first works concern physical questions, the speaker revealed in them the direct influence of La-Caille. Thus it turned out that by the time Lavoisier turned to chemical problems, he was in fact a specialist physicist (in our modern understanding), and moreover was naturally disposed critically toward chemistry. The speaker emphasized that even then Lavoisier not only took pains to establish a class of physics in the Academy of Sciences, but also called his own works physical and chemical (always placing physics first).

In a brief survey of Lavoisier’s work, Prof. Dorfman showed vividly that in all his major investigations Lavoisier acted first and foremost as a physicist. Lavoisier’s very understanding of the term “physics” does not differ from our modern understanding. The law of conservation of mass was for him a natural conclusion from Newtonian physical theory.

To measure the amount of ponderable matter, Lavoisier constructed the most accurate balances and areometers; to measure the amount of heat, which he regarded as imponderable matter, he constructed (together with Laplace) a calorimeter.

It is characteristic that when Lavoisier succeeded in refuting phlogistic chemistry, in the heated polemic that arose many outstanding mathematicians and physicists immediately took Lavoisier’s side, whereas all the leading chemists found themselves in opposition to the new ideas; and although Lavoisier for many years belonged to the Academy’s chemistry class, nevertheless in his brief autobiography, written just before his death, Lavoisier indicated that he had devoted the greater part of his life to works in the field of physics and chemistry, again, as in his youth, placing physics first.

All these circumstances the speaker cited in proof of the thesis he had stated at the beginning.

Appendix

Work Plan of the Commission on the History of the Physical and Mathematical Sciences for the Five-Year Period 1946–1950

1. History of ancient mathematics.
2. Translations: 1) Conic Sections by Apollonius of Perga, 2) On the Quadrature of the Parabola, On the Sphere and Cylinder, On Spirals, On Conoids and Spheroids by Archimedes.
3. Chrestomathies: 1) on ancient physics, 2) on ancient mathematics.
4. Mathematics of the ancient world in sources.

In Astronomy

1. Preparation for publication of materials on astronomy in the Academy of Sciences, including the pre-Pulkovo period.
2. Archival Research—study and publication of unpublished materials of Kepler and Gauss.
3. Classics of Natural Science—Galileo’s Correspondence with His Pupils Castelli and Cavalieri.
4. Chrestomathy on Astronomy, beginning with antiquity and ending with Copernicus.
5. A short course in the history of astronomy.

In Mechanics

1. Mechanics in the Academy of Sciences (Daniel Bernoulli, V. V. Ostrogradsky, I. O. Somov, Chebyshev, and Lyapunov).
2. Translations: 1) Clairaut, Figure of the Earth, 2) Bernoulli, Hydrodynamics.
3. Chrestomathy on Mechanics, beginning with antiquity and ending with Leonardo da Vinci.
4. A short course in the history of mechanics.

In Mathematics

1. Archival Research—letters of Lagrange, Laplace, Bernoulli, and others, and the publication of unpublished materials kept in the archives of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR.
2. History of Mathematics in the Academy of Sciences.
   1) The early period, including Ostrogradsky, Bunyakovsky, and the beginning of Chebyshev’s school.
   2) The new period—Lyapunov, Markov, Voronoi, Steklov, Günther.
3. Descriptive Geometry by G. Monge.

In Physics

1. On electricity: Selected works of Gilbert, Ampère, Faraday, Maxwell, Coulomb’s Law, Ohm–Kirchhoff’s Law, Joule–Lenz Law, Law of Conservation of Energy, Photoelectric Effect.
2. On optics: Selected works of Fresnel, Quanta, Interference, Diffraction, Quantum Nature of Light, Geometrical Laws of Reflection and Refraction, Wave Nature of Matter, Light Pressure and the Speed of Light.
3. On molecular physics: Continuity of the Gaseous and Liquid States, X-ray Examination of Crystals, First Works on Radioactivity, Liquefaction of Gases, Second Beginning of Thermodynamics.
4. Publication of collections: Jacobi, Lenz, Golitsyn, Avenarius, Umov, Feodorov.
5. Collections dedicated to those who were devoted to Newton, Galileo, and Copernicus: Faraday, Franklin, Leonardo da Vinci, Helmholtz, and Descartes.