<<it was Maupertuis who introduced [Mme du Cha^telet] to both Koenig and
Alexis Claude Clairaut. Clearly, she had profited from Maupertuis' lessons.
Or, at least she thought she had.>>
Alexis-Claude are the correct pr/enoms for Clairaut, who proofread Chatelet's
math in her translation of Newton's _Principia_ (1756). And I'd agree with
this reading of Chatelet's relationships at this point in her life.
<<Nonetheless, Koenig's influence on her seems to have been not insignificant,
which can be easily overlooked because his relationship with the Marquise
became an uneasy one.>>
Uneasy is right. He later (after 1740) claimed to have prepared her in
everything she had done that was in the least bit interesting or original,
especially the _Institutions physiques_ (1740). When you think of it, this
sort of accusation is probably as logically difficult to reply to as the
classic, "Have you left off beating your wife."
<<Koenig was probably a mere nine months together with the Marquise.
Voltaire, however, later wrote in his memoirs: "We were visited by several of
the learned, who came to philosophise in our retreat: among others we had the
celebrated Koenig for two entire years ... ." This might be an indication of
the strong impression Koenig had left on the couple.>>
But could it not also be an indication that Voltaire, wishing he had
understood the conversations better, colluded consciously or unconsciously in
the downgrading of the marquise's level of understanding? After all, the
leibnizian Koenig is almost surely one of the models for Pangloss in
_Candide_. And Newton's mathematical advances have almost no space in
Voltaire's _El/ements de la philosophie de Newton_ (1738), which is dedicated
to Chatelet in language that hints of Voltaire's continued struggle with
calculus:
"J'offre de simples e/l/emens \a celle qui a p/en/etr/e toutes les profondeurs de
la g/eom/etrie transcendante, et qui seule parmi nous a traduit et comment/e le
grand Newton. [...] ou Newton, l'inventeur du calcul de l'infini... ou vous,
Madame, qui, au milieu des dissipations attach/ees \a votre /etat, poss/edez si
bien tout ce qu'il a invent/e." (v31, p22-23) [I offer simple elements to the
woman who has penetrated transcendant geometry, and who alone among us has
translated and annotated the great Newton [...] inventor of the infinite
[sic] calculus... where you, Madame, amid the distractions attached to your
estate, possess so well all that he has invented.]
"Minerve dictait [...] j'e/crivais" [Minerva dictated; I wrote]
<<Also written much later was an account by Formey stating that, at every
session with Mme du Chatelet, Koenig appeared armed with a paper containing
the particular "lesson" he wished to expound. He would proceed to explain and
prove. Then he would ask Mme du Chatelet whether she understood and accepted
it. If the answer was yes, he would present the paper to her, saying "sign".>>
I have no quarrel with the documentation but I want to ask whether others
besides me don't find it hard to square this account with the evidence we
have of Emilie du Chatelet's much more equal relationships with all the other
learned men in her life. There is a letter Voltaire wrote to Koenig on
November 17, 1752 containing what looks to me like an ego stroke for the
prickly Koenig:
"dans une retraite philosophique, avec une dame d'un g/enie etonnant et digne
d'e^tre instruite par vous dans les math/ematiques" (in Voltaire, OC,
Bestermann, v97, p243)
<<According to Formey, the signed papers provided the material for
_Institutions physiques_. Esther Ehrman in her book _Mme du Chatelet_ (1986)
gives as a reference for this statement MS 2376 (Examen de la Genese) and MS
2377 (Examen des Livres du Nouveau Testament) in the Bibliotheque de Troyes.>>
A few years ago I made a pretty thorough reading of the _Institutions
physiques_, a copy of which exists at Yale, and think it well worth the
perusal. Chatelet's leibnizian approach to physics is a lot clearer than
Wolff's and one gets a very good picture of what material philosophy was like
in the 18th century, or what thermodynamics was before Joule, Carnot and
Clausius. After this reading I can remember looking at Ehrman's book and
marking the Bibliotheque de Troyes for a research trip. I can add nothing at
this point except a prayer that the lost, bound correspondance of Chatelet
and Voltaire will turn up in my lifetime.
Bill Everdell