In 1792, scientists of the Paris Academy. Quick information about degree measurements. Moving to Paris. Sunset of life

June 6, 2012 is the day of a rare phenomenon: the passage of Venus against the background of the Sun. 250 years ago, thanks to a similar event, astronomers for the first time reliably determined the distance from the Earth to the Sun. The history of the longest astronomical expedition is connected with it.

1. Paris Observatory astronomer Guillaume Legentil went to India in 1760 to observe the passage of Venus against the background of the Sun. 2. On the ship Berrier of the French East India Company, Legentille reached the Ile-de-France island in the Indian Ocean 3. Ile-de-France was a crossroads of sea routes from Europe to India and China. There was a French naval base here 4. Legentille waited for more than six months for a passing ship to India. The voyage took almost three more months, but when the frigate La Sylphide approached the port of Mahe, where there was a French fortress, the Indian boatmen reported that the city had been captured by the British, as well as Pondicherry, where the astronomer was heading

The idea of ​​using the passage of Venus against the background of the Sun to measure the distance to this luminary was first expressed in 1663 by the Scottish mathematician James Gregory, and the practical method was developed three decades later by the English astronomer Edmund Halley. He indicated that it was necessary to record the time of Venus's appearance against the background of the solar disk and the time of its departure from the disk. To increase the accuracy of the results, observation points should be located as far apart in latitude as possible. Halley named several suitable places, including the city of Pondicherry (now Puducherry) in southeastern India. In 1722, the French astronomer and cartographer Joseph Nicolas Delisle simplified Halley's method - now it was enough to determine the time of only one of the specified events, but it was necessary to very accurately know the longitude of each observation point.

At Delisle's initiative, the Paris Academy of Sciences developed a program for international observations of the transit of Venus in 1761. The oldest French astronomer compiled a detailed map of the visibility of the planet's passage and sent letters to his European colleagues, urging them to participate in observations. 120 scientists responded to Delisle’s proposal in 1761, and eight years later - 150. Observations were carried out in all parts of the world. Thanks to this first experience of extensive international scientific cooperation, the distance to the Sun was determined with fairly high accuracy: it differed from the value accepted today by about 2%.

From Siberia to Australia

Transits of Venus across the disk of the Sun occur extremely rarely - four times every 243 years: twice with an interval of 8 years, and then a break of 105.5 years, then again two passages after 8 years and a break of 121.5 years. After this, the whole cycle repeats. Each time Venus's movement against the background of the Sun lasts just over six hours. On June 6, 2012, this astronomical phenomenon is best observed in its entirety in Siberia, Alaska, the Pacific Ocean, eastern Asia, and Australia from approximately 2 a.m. to 9 a.m. Moscow time. And partially - immediately after sunrise (Venus will already be in its background) in the European part of Russia, Kazakhstan, Central and South Asia, Europe and East Africa. The next passage will take place only in 2117. In order not to damage your eyesight, you should observe only through a very dark filter - this can be smoked glass on a candle. Another option is to look at an inclined paper screen with a piece of cardboard with a small hole punched at a distance in front of it. The light passing through the hole will give on paper an image of the Sun with Venus slowly moving against its background (in the form of a dark dot).

Long way to Pondicherry

Three expeditions set off from France to distant countries by order of Louis XV to observe Venus: Abbot Chappe d'Auteroche - to Siberia, to Tobolsk, Abbot Pingre - to the island of Rodrigues in the Indian Ocean, and Guillaume Legentil - to Pondicherry, the capital of French possessions in India . For the latter, this journey unexpectedly dragged on for 11 years.

Guillaume Joseph Hyacinthe Jean-Baptiste Legentil de la Galesière was born on September 12, 1725 in the Norman city of Coutances. His father, a poor nobleman, sent his son to Paris to receive a theological education, and he even became an abbot, but under the influence of Professor Delisle's lectures he became interested in astronomy and in 1753 was hired at the observatory of the Academy of Sciences. 34-year-old Guillaume Legentil sailed to India on March 26, 1760 from the port of Lorient in the west of the country on the newly built three-masted merchant ship Berrier, owned by the French East India Company. Legentille planned to take it to the island of Ile-de-France (now Mauritius), through which routes from Europe to India and China passed.

Traveling from the first days turned out to be unsafe. The Seven Years' War (1756-1763), which engulfed almost the entire world, was in full swing. England and France were at enmity, and therefore the captain of the Berrier changed course as soon as he saw the enemy on the horizon. Having sailed around Africa from the south, the ship reached Ile-de-France on July 10, spending three and a half months on the transition. And two days later, with a ship arriving from India, news arrived about the war that had begun there. Legentille was able to leave the island only on March 11, 1761, on board the frigate La Sylphide, urgently sent from France to help Pondicherry, the siege of which by English troops had lasted since the fall of the previous year. People in Ile-de-France did not yet know that in January, after four months of siege, the city capitulated, and the British literally razed its citadel to the ground. Legentille hardly believed that he could finally say goodbye to Ile-de-France only 10 years later, and before that he would have to return here more than once.

Exoplanet model

Observations of the transit of Venus, carried out in the 18th and 19th centuries, allowed astronomers to quite accurately determine the distance from the Earth to the Sun and understand the scale of the solar system. But in the 21st century, this astronomical phenomenon seems to have lost the special significance that was given to it in the past. However, in 2012, astronomers decided to take advantage of a unique opportunity to simulate the situation with searching for the atmospheres of exoplanets located near other stars. For this purpose, the passage of Venus against the background of the Sun will be considered as analogous to the passage of an exoplanet against the background of its star. Particular attention will be paid to the interaction of sunlight with the atmosphere of Venus, as the planet gradually obscures the edge of the Sun. Even the Hubble Space Telescope will be connected to the observations, although it never looks at the Sun (bright light can damage it). Hubble will be pointed at the Moon and will record the slightest change in its brightness, caused by the fact that Venus will cover a small part of the Sun and less sunlight will fall on the Moon. This is roughly how they look for planets around other stars, registering a slight drop in the star’s brightness when a planet passes against its background.

It is impossible to go ashore

A constant oncoming monsoon blowing from the northeast forced the La Sylphide to make a long detour - to pass along the eastern coast of Africa, past the island of Socotra and cross the Arabian Gulf. Finally, on May 24, the ship approached the southwestern coast of the Hindustan Peninsula near Mahe. From the Indian boat the captain was informed that this city, like Pondicherry, was now owned by the British. The ship raised the Portuguese flag for camouflage and set sail along the Indian coast to the south. Legentille still hoped that rumors about the fall of the capital of the French colonial possessions would turn out to be false and he would have the opportunity to get to the observation point. But on May 29, La Sylphide made a stop at the Dutch fort of Galle in the south of Ceylon, and the sad news was confirmed. The captain decided to return to Ile-de-France.

The French astronomer had to observe the passage of Venus on June 6, 1761 directly from the deck of a ship in the middle of the Indian Ocean a little south of the equator, in an area with approximate coordinates 5° 45" S, 87° 15" E. from the meridian of Paris, which was then used by French astronomers as the origin of longitude (now this corresponds to 89 ° 35 "E from Greenwich). In the telescope, Venus looked like a small black circle 30 times smaller than the Sun, against a bright background which it was moving. Legentille recorded the time the planet entered and left the disk of the Sun, but could not determine the coordinates of the observation site with high accuracy, since the ship was constantly moving. In addition, the pendulum clock that the astronomer used to determine longitude, in sea conditions The pitching was unreliable, rendering the results useless for calculating the distance to the Sun. On June 23, La Sylphide returned to the Ile-de-France, and Legentil found himself again on the island to which he had said goodbye three and a half months earlier.

Years of wandering

The scientist did not at all want his expedition to end so ingloriously after so much effort and testing. Fortunately, there was still a chance - the next transit of Venus in 1769. Therefore, Legentille decided to postpone his return to Paris and spend eight years exploring the nature of the nearby islands. From 1761 to 1765, he made three voyages to Madagascar, where his base was the Fort Dauphine fortress (now Taulanaru), compiled accurate maps of the eastern coast of this island, collected information on ethnography and studied wind directions, ebbs and flows, flora and fauna. The scientist fell in love with the local cuisine for its variety of dishes from poultry, meat, fish, vegetables and fruits. After all, on the Ile-de-France, where he lived between voyages, food was prepared mainly from sea turtles, which were brought there in thousands from the neighboring island of Rodrigues to supply warships. With no hope of getting to Pondicherry, Legentille calculated that during the transit of Venus in 1769, the most complete data could be obtained from areas east of India. He decides to go to the Mariana Islands in the Pacific Ocean, a possession of Spain allied with the French. It was necessary to get there through the Philippines.

On May 1, 1766, Legentille left Ile-de-France on the Spanish ship El Buen Consejo, believing that he was now parting with this island forever (the scientist planned to return to his homeland through Mexico, bypassing first the Pacific and then the Atlantic Ocean to make a trip around the world that was rare at that time). With such a dream, the Frenchman arrived on August 10 in the capital of the Philippines, where, at the request of the Spanish captain who delivered him, he began to accurately determine the latitude and longitude of Manila. Observations and calculations took several days. During this time, the small ship on which the astronomer planned to reach the Mariana Islands left the port. However, when leaving the strait into the open ocean, it sank, and not all passengers managed to escape. So this time Legentil was lucky: even if he had survived the crash, all his scientific diaries would have been lost.

Apparently, considering this situation a sign of fate, the scientist decided that it would be better to spend the three years remaining before the passage of Venus in Manila. In addition, here he found support in the person of Don Estevan Melo, who was interested in astronomy, the priest of the cathedral, and Don Andres Rojo, the nephew and secretary of the archbishop.

For several months, Legentille carefully measures the coordinates of his observatory, monitors the weather and studies the nature of the Philippines. He is delighted with the country, calls it the best in Asia, and the local oranges are the most delicious, “against which the Portuguese ones are nothing.” But having discovered that the number of cloudy days in Manila is high, the astronomer nevertheless decides to move to Pondicherry, which has already been liberated from the British. What finally pushed him to leave was a conflict with the Spanish governor of the Philippines, who did not believe letters of recommendation from Paris and may have suspected the Frenchman of espionage.

Legentille set sail from Manila on February 5, 1768 on the Portuguese sailing ship San Antonio. The ship was chartered by Armenian merchants who lived in the neighborhood of Pondicherry - in Madras (now Chennai). They were carrying the proceeds - chests full of silver piastres - and stopped in Manila on their way home from Macau. This flight was also not without incident. When the ship was sailing through the narrow Strait of Malacca, which was very dangerous for sailors, the navigator suddenly quarreled with the captain and locked himself in the cabin, leaving the ship to the will of the wind. With great difficulty, and not without the help of threats, Legentil and the merchants managed to persuade him to return to his duties.

On the ruins of the citadel

On March 27, 1768, exactly eight years after setting sail from France, Legentille finally reached Pondicherry. In honor of the long-awaited guest, the Governor-General of French India, Count Jean Laud de Lauriston, hosted a luxurious dinner party at his country residence. And the very next day, a place was chosen for the construction of the observatory - the ruins of the governor's palace of Raj Niwas. A stone building was erected over the surviving part of the powerful wall, where Legentil both worked and lived.

In total, the scientist spent almost two years in India. Here he continued observations of the winds characteristic of this area - the monsoons, begun in Ile-de-France and continued in Madagascar and the Philippines, and eventually compiled a map of seasonal winds in the Indian Ocean, important for sailing navigation. The scientist also collected ethnographic information about the main people of South India - the Tamils, almost unknown in Europe at that time.

In addition, Legentille managed to become well acquainted with Indian astronomy. The Brahmin priest, who predicted lunar and solar eclipses, taught him his method, which turned out to be, according to the scientist, “very simple and fast.” Before the eyes of the astonished Frenchman, in 45 minutes the Brahman calculated the lunar eclipse, without taking notes, but only moving cowrie shells around the table, like dominoes on an abacus. At the time of Legentil's arrival in Pondicherry, the transit of Venus (which could be observed here on June 4, 1769 from 5:20 a.m.) was more than a year away. However, the scientist still had to determine the exact coordinates of the observatory, as well as test a new telescope, unexpectedly sent as a gift by a certain Englishman from Madras.

The weather was favorable for observations. Throughout May and early June the skies over Pondicherry were clear in the mornings. And on the evening before the event, Legentille and the governor observed the satellites of Jupiter. But, waking up in the middle of the night, the astronomer was horrified to discover that the entire sky was covered with clouds. Despite the prevailing calm, he still had a faint hope that by morning the wind would disperse them. However, a weak breeze that arose at 5 o'clock did not change the situation. The clouds completely cleared only two hours after the end of the long-awaited event, at 9 am, and from that moment the Sun, as if in mockery, shone all day. After such a failure, Legentille was so depressed for two weeks that he could not even keep a diary: the pen literally fell from his hands. He later wrote: “I have traveled more than ten thousand leagues, but it seems that I crossed such vast expanses of sea, sending myself into exile from my homeland, only to see the unfortunate cloud that obscured the Sun at the very moment of my observations and deprived me of that “What I strived for with all my might.” The grief was aggravated by a letter from Manila - Don Estevan Melo reported the results of his observations, carried out in excellent visibility.

Scientific novel

During the expedition, which lasted more than 11 years, Guillaume Legentil twice failed to complete his main task - to conduct full observations of the passage of Venus against the background of the Sun, but he received extensive scientific data about India, the Philippines and the islands of the Indian Ocean. The total duration of its sea voyages is almost two years. The scientist compiled detailed maps and determined the exact coordinates of many points, collected information on geography, botany, zoology, and ethnography. Eight years after returning to his homeland, Legentille published the results of his work - two volumes of 1600 pages - “A journey through the Indian seas, undertaken by order of the king in connection with the passage of Venus across the disk of the Sun on June 6, 1761 and 3 of the same month 1769 by Monsieur Legentille of the Royal Academy of Sciences" (the date June 3 corresponds to the moment the passage of time began in Europe, and in India it was already June 4). Thanks to this work, Europeans for the first time received scientific information about the countries of the Indian Ocean. The book was greeted with enthusiasm and was read as an adventure novel. Its facsimile reprints are still a success.

Island of bad luck

Legentille could not leave Pondicherry immediately: his strength was undermined by despair and illness - dysentery and tropical fever. Only on April 16, 1770, the scientist again saw Ile-de-France, where, due to a debilitating illness, he had to wait for the next ship. Three months later, the French ship Endien arrived on the island. Legentille loaded eight boxes of collections onto it and eagerly awaited departure, knowing that hurricanes would begin in the fall. But the Endien set course for France only four months later, on November 19, 1770. This time Legentille had no doubt that he was finally saying goodbye to the island. However, just a couple of weeks later, on December 3, while anchored near the Ile de Bourbon (now Reunion), the ship was caught in a severe hurricane and lost its rudder, bowsprit and two of its three masts. The sails were torn, there were holes in the sides and on the deck. For repairs we had to return to Ile-de-France. The 220 km journey, which usually took one day, took almost a month. Only on January 1, 1771, the tormented ship approached the island, causing, according to the scientist, “the greatest surprise of its inhabitants, who least of all expected to see us again.”

Meanwhile, Legentille had a reason to rush back to France: while still in Pondicherry, he learned that relatives in Normandy had spread a rumor about his death and decided to divide his property. However, an unexpected obstacle arose on the scientist's path. Due to personal hostility, the new commissioner of Ile-de-France forbade the captain of the French ship Duc de Duras, which was sailing from China to his homeland, to take Legentil on board. The scientist later recalled that this was the only unpleasant episode that he encountered in the French colonies during his entire travels: “I experienced the same difficulties from the administration of the island that I encountered four years ago in Manila. But under the previous commissioner of the island, I was given all the available opportunities.”

But Legentil was lucky - on March 7, 1771, the Spanish warship Astrea arrived on the island. Its captain, whom the scientist met back in Manila, said that he would be glad to take him to Europe. However, you had to pay for travel on a foreign ship. And although the astronomer, who traveled at the expense of the state, was afraid of accusations of excessive waste of government money, he had no choice in the current situation. Eight boxes containing collections of corals, rare shells and other curiosities of the “Indian seas” had to be left on the island in order to be delivered on a French ship. Unfortunately, this collection never arrived in France, despite subsequent searches.

Having loaded his belongings aboard the Astraea in advance, Legentille eagerly awaited the signal to sail promised by the captain every morning. Finally, on March 30 at 10 a.m., a cannon shot sounded, and he hurried to the ship, this time to leave Ile-de-France forever. Only by the beginning of May, “Astraea” barely circumnavigated the south of Africa, falling into a series of storms at the Cape of Good Hope, which it struggled with for two weeks. “In the stormy ocean, I was worried that I would have to see the Ile-de-France again, an island that I had become very fond of, but the sight of which had become unbearable due to the misfortunes I had recently experienced there. However, the captain assured me that he would turn back only as a last resort,” Legentille later recalled.

Strange gift

In June 1771, shortly after crossing the equator into the Northern Hemisphere, the 26-gun Spanish ship Astraea, on which Legentille was returning to Europe, met an English ship in the Atlantic. The Spaniards, who had been at sea for a long time, did not rule out the possibility that Britain would again be their military adversary. Therefore, they ordered the ship to stop, and its captain, whom they decided to arrest, to come to the Astraea. However, the Briton was able to convince his former opponents that a new military conflict had been avoided, and presented the latest issues of the London Gazette to confirm his words. The captain of the Astrea suggested celebrating the good news with a joint feast, putting several types of Spanish wines, meringues with cream, biscuits and other sweets on the table. Returning to his ship, the British sent a return gift: a bag of potatoes and a “proportional amount” of butter, which caused some bewilderment to the French scientist. Legentille noted that “at sea, any treat is a joy, and this unusual food for us brought great pleasure.” At that time, potatoes had not yet received recognition in France. Only the following year, 1772, did the Paris Faculty of Medicine declare potatoes edible.

Returning to France, Legentille immediately went to his native Coutances to put in order the affairs of the estate, which had been shaken due to the negligence of the manager. Residents of the city warmly welcomed their fellow countryman

“Please recognize me as alive”

On August 1, 1771, after a four-month voyage, the Astraea finally arrived at the capital of Spanish maritime trade - the port of Cadiz. Here the traveler unloads his tools, books and belongings onto a French ship bound for Le Havre, but leaves scientific notes and diaries with him. Waiting out the hot season, Legentille stayed in Cadiz for almost a month. He was sheltered by the famous astronomer, naval officer Antonio de Ulloa, founder of the first Spanish astronomical observatory. He lent his colleague Spanish money when it turned out that it was impossible to pay with French money here - silver piastres were demanded everywhere. On August 31, Legentille left Cadiz for Madrid on a horse-drawn carriage. The trip around Spain took more than a month. On the morning of October 8, 1771, Legentille crossed a mountain pass in the Pyrenees and found himself in his homeland. He wrote in his diary: “I finally set foot on the soil of France, where I had not been for 11 years, 6 months and 13 days.”

The joy of returning was overshadowed by a number of troubles. Due to the long absence of news, the Academy of Sciences transferred Legentil to the category of veterans, and another person took his position. The wife, considering the rumors about her husband’s death to be true, remarried. The chargé d'affaires, whom Legentil had hired to take care of his estate before leaving for India, demanded an increase in payment, despite the fact that he could not explain where a large sum of the owner's funds had been spent. Relatives were eager to sell off their property and divide the money. First of all, to dispel rumors and put things in order, Legentille went to Normandy. Residents of the city of Coutances looked with interest at the “revived” fellow countryman. He managed to challenge the attorney's demand, but he did not win the trial. Not only did he not get the missing money back, but he also had to pay legal fees.

Things were going better in Paris. On February 28, 1772, the king reinstated the scientist at the Academy of Sciences. And two years later, at the age of 48, Legentille married for the second time, wooing a distant relative from Normandy - the young Mademoiselle Marie Pothier, the heiress of a rich fortune. In Paris, the family settled in the observatory building, where the scientist began to work again, finding peace and family happiness. A funny document has been preserved in the archive: Madame Legentille received a reprimand from the administration for drying her daughter’s diapers in the garden under the windows of the observatory.

After the publication of a book about the journey, Legentille was appointed by decree of the king in 1782 as one of three academicians in the category of astronomy of the Paris Academy of Sciences.

The events of the French Revolution that began in 1789 - uprisings, pogroms of landowners' estates, abolition of noble titles - also affected the academician-astronomer, who was the hereditary lord of the tiny town of Galezier, with a population of several hundred people, next to his native Coutances. But he was much more impressed by the overthrow of the monarchy in September 1792. Legentille, who was in good health, soon fell seriously ill and died at home on October 22 at the age of 67. Due to the severity of the revolutionary times, no speeches were made over his grave, and the obituary appeared only 18 years later, already under Napoleon. The position of the astronomer at the Academy remained unoccupied, and the Academy itself was abolished in 1793 by the National Convention. Had Legentille lived a little longer, he could well have ended his journey not so peacefully: a year after his death, the so-called era of terror began - many “enemies of the revolution” became its victims, including 10 out of 48 academicians, among whom was the director of the Paris Academy of Sciences, famous chemist Antoine Lavoisier.

Earth - Sun

Despite the failure of Legentil's mission, the Paris Academy of Sciences managed to achieve success in implementing its project. Observations of the passage of Venus, made by many scientists at various points on the Earth, were brought together and processed. Labor-intensive calculations of the distance from the Earth to the Sun were completed in 1771 by Delisle's student, the French astronomer Jerome Lalande. The value he obtained—about 12,000 Earth diameters—exceeds the modern value by only 2%. A similar result (“11,964 earthly popereshnikov”) was obtained in St. Petersburg. Calculations under the leadership of academician Leonhard Euler were carried out based on the results of observations carried out in 1769 from eight points in Russia (St. Petersburg, three points on the Kola Peninsula, Guryev, Orenburg, Orsk and Yakutsk). English astronomers obtained a result that was close in value. Now the average distance between the centers of the Earth and the Sun (it is called the astronomical unit) is taken to be 149,597,870.7 km. This is 11,740 times the diameter of the Earth and 107 times the diameter of the Sun.

FOURCROY, Antoine Francois

French chemist and statesman, Antoine François de Fourcroix was born in Paris; in his youth he studied writing and was a copyist. After a chance meeting with F. Vic d'Avir, the permanent secretary of the Royal Medical Society, Fourcroix received the opportunity to study medicine. In 1780, he received the degree of Doctor of Medicine and was elected a member of the Medical Society. During his student years, Fourcroix showed great interest in chemistry, which he studied under the leadership of Professor J. B. Buquet, Buquet was a leading chemist of the time and became famous for his experiments on the action of gases on animals; according to Fourcroy, he was one of the first chemists to oppose the theory of phlogiston. At the suggestion of Buquet, Fourcroy began in 1778. began teaching a course in chemistry and natural history at the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Paris. In 1784, he became a professor at the Botanical Garden. Since 1785, he has been a member of the Paris Academy of Sciences. With the outbreak of the revolution, Fourcroix became involved in active political activities. In 1792, he became a member Jacobin Club, was a deputy of the National Convention in 1793. He took part in various government and scientific committees and the Medical Society, where he held a leadership position. Since 1801 - chief administrator of public education in France. He took part in the restoration of the renewed University of Paris and in the organization of a network of primary and secondary schools in France, and was involved in the reorganization of mining in France. In April 1809, Fourcroix received the title of Count of the Empire from Napoleon.

The main works are devoted to the systematization and classification of chemical compounds. Fourcroix was one of the closest associates of A. L. Lavoisier, although he did not immediately recognize antiphlogistic chemistry. Back in 1786, Fourcroy acted as a supporter of the phlogiston theory; True, he sets out in his book the foundations of both theories - phlogiston and oxygen, but when explaining, for example, the phenomena of combustion and calcination of metals, he, following Maceur, says that simultaneously with the addition of “vital air” (oxygen) from this body to the burning body the phlogiston contained in it is removed. However, in 1786, Fourcroy completely abandoned the phlogiston theory and widely promoted the oxygen theory, promoting its rapid spread and recognition. Together with L. B. Guiton de Morveau, A. L. Lavoisier and C. L. Berthollet developed in 1786-1787. new chemical nomenclature. In 1799, together with L.N. Vauquelin, he discovered the chemical nature of urea. He was the first to observe (1800) the thermal effect of electric current by connecting a poorly conducting wire into a galvanic circuit.

Fourcroix was widely known as the author of textbooks and monographs on chemistry. In particular, his work “Elements of Natural History and Chemistry” in four volumes (1786), which was a reworking of his own book “Elementary Lectures on Natural History and Chemistry” in two volumes (1782), became widespread. He took part in the publication of the “Methodological Encyclopedia of Chemistry, Pharmacy and Metallurgy” (1786-1789). These works were reprinted many times in various languages. He acted as a popularizer of science. He wrote the works “Chemical Philosophy” (1792, Russian translations 1799 and 1812) and “System of Chemical Knowledge” (vol. 1-2, 1801-1802). Foreign honorary member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (since 1802).

Degree measurements are geodetic measurements of the arc length of the Earth's meridian to determine the shape of the Earth and its polar and equatorial radii.
People learned that the Earth is spherical in ancient times. The first assumptions about the sphericity of the earth were made by Pythagoras around 530 BC.
It is also known that back in the 11th – 10th centuries BC. In China, extensive work was carried out to determine the size of the Earth. Unfortunately, detailed information about these works has not survived.
For the first time in history, the size of the Earth was determined by the Greek scientist Eratosthenes, who lived in Egypt. Eratosthenes measured the length of the arc of the earth's meridian between the city of Alexandria and the city of Siena (Assouan region) and obtained the length of the earth's circumference equal to 39,500 km, and the radius of 6,320 km. Eratosthenes obtained very approximate results, but quite satisfactory for that time.
In the 7th century AD. According to the measurements of Arab scientists, the circumference of the Earth was found to be 40,255 km, and the radius was 6,406 km.
Comparing the results of determining the size of the Earth carried out by Eratosthenes and Arab scientists, it is easy to notice that the discrepancies between them are very significant. All this is explained primarily by the fact that linear measurements were made using primitive methods of very low accuracy.
In Europe, the first to measure the length of the meridian arc between Paris and Amiens was the Frenchman Jean Fernel in 1528. To do this, he designed a special counter, which was mounted on the carriage wheel. Having traveled along the road from Paris to Amiens, he calculated the distance between the points. Fernel was very mistaken in his calculations; his data were very approximate. He did not take into account the fact that the carriage was moving along winding roads, and not in a straight line.
For a long time, scientists puzzled over how and how to accurately measure the length of the meridian arc, until triangulation came to the rescue.
In 1553, the mathematician G. Frisius (Rainer) proposed triangulation. After this, all degree measurements were carried out using triangulation. The triangulation method opened a new era in the study of the shape and size of the Earth.
The first in Europe to carry out degree measurements was the Dutch scientist W. Snellius. Willebrord Snellius was born in Leiden, Holland. The day of his birth remains unknown, and the year of birth is still disputed to this day. Some believe that it was 1580, while others believe it was 1581. His father was a professor of mathematics at Leiden University, and for some time he even taught Hebrew. W. Snell studied at Leiden University. After graduating from university, he traveled a lot around Germany, where he met scientists T. Brice and I. Kepler. For that time, W. Snell was a widely erudite scientist, equally knowledgeable in mathematics, physics, navigational astronomy and geodesy. In 1613 he became a professor at Leiden University. In 1615 he began work on degree measurements. Here he first applied the method of triangulation in the modern sense of the word. The work lasted two years and was completed in 1617.
Measurements of angles in triangles were made with a metal quadrant with a diameter of 70 cm, having degree divisions and equipped with diopters and a sighting tube. Using this device it was possible to observe points at a distance of up to 45 km. The accuracy of angle measurements was within 4´.
After processing field measurements, the following data were obtained: the length of the arc of the meridian at 10 was equal to 107.338 km, and the length of the quarter of the Earth's meridian was 9,660.411 km with a relative error of 3.4%.
In 1624, his book Tirhus Batavus, a textbook on navigation with navigation tables, was published. In it, he first used the term “loxodrome” - a line on the surface of a ball intersecting the meridians at the same angle (aoxodrome - a line with a constant azimuth).
Snell wrote all his works in Latin, which was the international scientific language at that time. He translated many of the mathematical works of his compatriots into Latin, which contributed to their dissemination in the scientific world.
The first degree measurements did not satisfy Snell - he decided to repeat his work. Other bases were measured, the accuracy of measuring angles was increased, but he was unable to complete his work. W. Snell did not live to a ripe old age; he died on October 30, 1626 in Leiden at the age of 46. The work he began was completed by his compatriot Muschenbrock a hundred years later.
For modern knowledge, W. Snell's mistake seems big, but for that time the results were good. The main difficulty in his work was that he used short bases and did not have the opportunity to measure angles more accurately. Despite the low accuracy of his work, his services to science are great and his main merit is that he was the first to use the triangulation method for degree measurements. His works brought him worldwide fame.
In the summer of 1669, the Frenchman Jean Picard measured the length of the meridian arc between Malvoisiana (near Paris) and Sourdon (near Amiens). For his measurements he used an improved theodolite. What was new in Picard’s work was that he reduced all his measurements to sea level.
According to Picard's data, the length of the Earth's radius was found to be 6,371.692 km, and the value of 10 was 111.212 km.
Scientists have used Picard's data for almost sixty years. Picard's astronomical and geodetic measurements were of enormous scientific and practical importance.
In 1683, under the leadership of the director of the Paris Astronomical Observatory, Giovanni Dominico Cassini, measurements of the meridian arc from Dunkirk to Collioure began. The work dragged on for decades.
In 1713 D. Cassini died. The work he began was continued by his son Jacques Cassini. In 1718, i.e. after 35 years the work was completed. According to the calculations of Jacques Cassini, the Earth turned out to be elongated towards the poles. As it turned out later, Jacques Cassini made a mistake in his calculations.
To finally verify the true size of the Earth, in 1735 the Paris Academy of Sciences decided to measure the length of the meridian arc in different parts of the globe. It was decided to carry out measurements in Europe and America.
In 1735, an expedition consisting of academicians La Condamine, Bouguer and Gaudin set off for Peru. The expedition was headed by Academician Condamine. The work was completed in 1742. In Peru, a meridian arc 350 km long was measured.
In 1736, an expedition consisting of academicians Montpertuis, Clairaut, Camus, Lemonnier and the Swedish physicist Celsius was sent to Lapland. In Lapland, it was possible to measure an arc 100 km long.
After processing field measurements from both expeditions, it was found that the Earth's polar axis is 25 km shorter than the equatorial one.
On May 8, 1790, the French National Assembly adopted a decree on the reform of the system of measures. Two commissions were created at the same time. The first commission, headed by the mathematician Lagrange, recommended a decimal system of measures; the second, led by Laplace, recommended taking one forty millionth of the length of the arc of the Earth's meridian as a unit of length.
On March 26, 1791, the National Assembly approved both proposals.
It was decided to measure the arc length of the Earth's meridian from Duncarc, located in northern France, to Barcelona (Spain). Both cities lie on the same Parisian meridian and are at sea level. The length of the meridian arc was 90 40′.
There was very labor-intensive work to be done. It was necessary to observe 115 triangles, two bases and determine 5 astronomical points.
Academicians J. Delambre and Meshen were appointed leaders of these works. The work began on June 25, 1792 and was completed in the fall of 1798.
Upon completion of all computational work, J. Delambre received new data on the dimensions of the Earth's ellipsoid. These data were accepted by all European states for further use in geodesy and cartography.
At the same time, the length of the meter was obtained equal to 443,296 Parisian lines and the unit of weight was the kilogram.
Mechanic Lenoir made a platinum ruler 100 mm long, 35 mm wide and 25 mm thick. This standard was placed in a mahogany case, lined with red velvet inside.
On June 22, 1799, at a ceremonial meeting of the Academy of Sciences, the transfer of the standard meter and kilogram to the State Archives of France took place. Since then, this standard has been called the “archival meter.” France completely switched to the new system of measures on January 1, 1840.
In the period from 1816 to 1855 under the leadership of the director of the Pulkovo Observatory V.Ya. Struve carried out extensive work on degree measurements in Russia.
The length of the meridian arc from Ishmael to Hammerfest (northern Norway) was measured. In the literature, this arc is called the “Struve arc”.
The length of the arc is 3000 km and its latitude is 25020′ 08″.
In honor of this event in the village. Obelisks were installed near Novo-Nekrasovka near Izmail and in the city of Hamerfest. Works by V.Ya. Struve are an important contribution of Russian geodesists to world science.

The progress of the human mind was facilitated, according to the enlighteners, by the development of various sciences, on the one hand, and the spread of enlightenment, on the other. The development of reason and, above all, the progress of sciences, in their opinion, have a decisive impact on all aspects of social and cultural life - both on the progress of technology, and on the creation of a reasonable political system, and on the improvement of morality and morality, rationalizing them and eliminating prejudices and prejudices .

At the same time, the opposite line, criticism of science, also played an important role in the ideological preparation of the French bourgeois revolution. It is represented primarily by Rousseau.

The confrontation between two lines of attitude towards science in the ideology of the Enlightenment permeates all the pre-revolutionary and revolutionary years. Defense of science is the main content of the activities of encyclopedists. The counterscientific line found its expression in Rousseauian criticism of science, in various mystical sects and movements and, of course, in plebeian rage against the scientific organizations that existed at the beginning of the revolution. For all the ideologists of egalitarianism, scientists were a privileged class, and the scientific institutions that existed in pre-revolutionary France - the Academy of Sciences, the Royal College, the school of military engineers in Mézières, the Paris Observatory and the Royal Botanical Garden - were defenders of despotism and social inequality. It goes without saying that among the honorary members of the academy in pre-revolutionary France there were many close associates of the king, his ministers? state advisers. However, it should be remembered that the number of academicians receiving salaries was very large (20 in 1699), and their salaries were small: in 1785, all academicians (they were then called “pensioners”) received 54 thousand livres. Of the 48 members of the academy at the beginning of the 18th century. half were forced to look for extra work in the service in other places. At the same time, members of the academy who were not included in the staff (“associates”) waited a long time for the opportunity to move to the rank of “pensioners.” The plebeian identification of scientists with the privileged class, which served as a powerful impetus for the counter-scientific movement in pre-revolutionary France, was largely based simply on a misunderstanding.

In addition, the counterscientific movement had its origin in the nature of scientific research in pre-revolutionary France. Along with the growth of applied research - mechanics, chemistry, physics, geography, navigation, etc. many developments in the French Academy were alien to any connection with social needs, with the tasks of developing industry, trade, and technology. Many topics have been developed for years and decades and have not yielded positive results. For the less educated classes, many topics of scientific research seemed useless whims of the sophisticated mind of intellectuals1.

It should be said that the word “savant” during this period was used to describe an erudite rather than a researcher. If back in the 16th century. The clergy was considered the most typical representative of the layer of educated people (clerc), then already by the XVLL1 century. the word “clerk” is used with an ironic connotation and denotes a pedant or scholastic rather than an educated and learned person. The word “scientist” is more applicable to an educated person, rather than to a person who has devoted his life to independent scientific research and lives on the money received for it229.

All these semantic changes in words characterizing the layer of intellectuals show that in pre-revolutionary France the special status of the scientist as a person engaged in scientific activities and in paid public service is just beginning to take shape, and that often here such an image of a scientist is replaced by another image, identifying the scientist simply with an educated person with knowledge in a number of areas or erudite in areas far from real life.

And yet, the creation in 1666 of the Paris Academy of Sciences, which grew out of the research circle that gathered around M. Mersenne (1588-1648), was a major step towards the professionalization of science, the institutionalization of scientific quests and the acquisition of a special status for scientists. In pre-revolutionary France, scientific institutions and societies gradually began to take shape, a layer of scientific researchers operating with specific norms of mutual criticism, verification and refutation of research results and developing a “scientific ethos”. In those same years, the system of scientific publications was intensively developed - scientific works, journals, scientific notes were published, the exchange of results obtained in the course of research was established, special mechanisms for social support of scientific research were formed, in particular, a system of competitions on a specific topic put forward by one or another scientific society or academy.

In pre-revolutionary France, along with universities, many provinces had their own academies. Needless to say, many scientists combined research with teaching at universities, and research was an epiphenomenon of teaching. However, the growth of academies in the provinces of France (by 1750 there were 24 of them) significantly changed the position and status of the scientist. Among the academies, the most famous were the academies in Lyon, Bordeaux, Dijon, Montpellier, and Marseille. They held competitions, including international ones, on certain scientific problems. For example, the academy in Bordeaux for 1715-1791. announced 149 competition problems, mainly in physics and medicine. Since 1702, the "Newspaper of Scientists" ("Journal des s?avants") became a state journal and, in fact, the organ of the Academy of Sciences.

The growth of scientific research in pre-revolutionary France and the change in attitude towards it can be demonstrated by comparative statistics on the number of articles in various journals. In 1722 and 1723 "Mercure de France" published a) 1 article on economic and social issues, b) 4 articles relating to various natural sciences, c) 3 - on problems of philosophy, d) 150 poems, theater reviews, about 50 articles on historical topics . In 1750 and 1751 the proportions of articles on different topics have changed: a) 11 articles on economic and social issues, b) 26 articles on natural sciences, c) 1 article on philosophical problems, d) 10 poems, theater reviews, etc. In the "Journal des S?avants" in 1720 and 1721. the following were published: a) 32 articles on theology and religion, b) 6 - on philosophy, c) 7 - on natural sciences, d) 7 - on politics. In 1750 and 1751 the proportions are already different: a) 47, b) 0, c) 70, d) 15. In 1780 and 1781. In this same journal, a) 37 articles on theology and religion were published, b) 135 on philosophy and natural science, c) 25 on politics. Attention should be paid to the increase in the number of articles on the natural sciences from 1720 to 1781: 1 :26:39 in "Mercure de France"; 7:70:135 in "Journal des Séavants", i.e. more than 35 times in half a century230.

In the provinces of France, along with academies, scientific societies are emerging, uniting lovers of natural sciences, local historians, and scientists. The number and activity of members of scientific societies who discuss the latest philosophical literature, the results of experiments, and theoretical problems of natural science are increasing. Thus, in 1742 in Dijon the problems of natural law were discussed, in 1770 in Besançon - the influence of philosophy on the sciences, etc.231

New journals are emerging, both strictly scientific and popular science. In 1758, the Journal encyclopédique wrote that “now is not the time when journals are published only for scientists. Today the whole world reads and wants to read everything”232. However, the royal power did not allow “everything to be read.” Every branch of the press was supervised, every printed word was strictly controlled. In 1789, 33 censors supervised legal sciences, 21 censors supervised medicine, 5 censors supervised anatomy, 9 censors supervised mathematics and physics, and 24 censors supervised fiction. Books that they found seditious were banned and burned233. And yet, the expansion of knowledge in all areas and the popularization of scientific achievements are a fact of the spiritual culture of pre-revolutionary France. But it is equally certain that before the revolution, anti-scientific sentiments were growing among various layers of French society, and the spiritual culture of pre-revolutionary France was a bizarre amalgam of scientistic-enlightenment worldview with occultist, mystical, astrological and openly anti-scientific views. Along with the encyclopedists with their criticism of church faith and aggressive skepticism, there was belief in the Rosicrucians, alchemists, astrologers, in signs and wonders, in Kabbalah and the devil. “Paris has never been so greedy for innovations and superstitions as in that initial period of the Age of Enlightenment. Having ceased to believe in the legends about biblical saints, they began to look for new ancient saints for themselves and found them in charlatans - Rosicrucians, alchemists and philaletes, who flocked there in droves "; everything implausible, everything that goes against the limited school science meets with an enthusiastic reception in Parisian society, bored and combed in the philosophical fashion. The passion for the secret sciences, for white and black magic permeates everywhere, right up to the highest spheres. " Court ladies and girls of blue blood, princesses and the baronesses set up alchemical laboratories in their castles and city mansions, and soon an epidemic of mystical madness engulfed the common people... Nothing unusual seemed too absurd at that time, and never was it so convenient for swindlers as in that, at the same time, rational and an era greedy for sensations that tickle the nerves, carried away by all kinds of tomfoolery, believing, despite all the disbelief, in all kinds of magic."

Fr. A. Mesmer (1734-1815), who spoke in 1766 with a dissertation “On the influence of the planets,” where astrological

1TsyLg S Sjers“. M„ 1985. pp. 96-98. 186

the doctrine of the influence of constellations on a person was combined with the assumption of a certain primordial fluid - the force of general gravity permeating the universe, later creates a new theory of “animal magnetism”, conducts magnetic sessions, during which he not only heals the mentally ill, but tries to predict with the help of mediums and predict the future, transmit thoughts at a distance, look inside the body of another person and in this way determine diseases. And although the French Academy pronounces a verdict on the “invalidity of magnetism,” hundreds of articles and pamphlets are published in defense of mesmerism; An atmosphere of religious insanity and hysteria is created around Mesmer's personality. A significant contribution to mesmeromania was made not only by the high society, among which there were many fanatics of mesmerism, but also by representatives of various ideological movements - from Freemasonry to Catholicism234.

The mystical teaching of L.C. Saint-Martin (1743-1803), who tried to combine Gnosticism with Kabbalah and with the teachings of Swedenborg and Boehme and openly opposed the skepticism of the Enlightenment, enjoyed great popularity in pre-revolutionary France.

From other positions, the ideologists of the “Social Circle” criticize science and Reason - Abbot C. Faucher (1744-1793) and journalist N. de Bonville (1760-1828), closely associated with the Masonic lodges and the Order of the Illuminati. Opposing wealth inequality and attempting to revive early Christianity, they advocated an egalitarian-plebeian program that valued science as a force supporting and largely responsible for inequality among people. The development of the arts and sciences entails an increase in luxury and

privileges granted to people of mental work. Therefore, the elimination of inequality, including property inequality, involves not only the elimination of various kinds of privileges enjoyed by representatives of the “aristocracy of the spirit” - scientists, priests, artists, but also the destruction of the civilized state, due, in particular, to the differentiation and growth of the arts and sciences. meant at the same time opposition to those social institutions that ensured cultural life in pre-revolutionary France, primarily the Academy of Sciences and the Academy of Arts. It is in them that the main source of troubles and vices of the culture of this period is seen. The egalitarian line in the counterscientific movement was especially clearly manifested in the movement of the starving lower classes of the plebeians - in the movement of the “mad”, the ideologist of which was ZhRu (1752-1794). 9

Along with communist motives, egalitarian, agrarian-craft hopes also penetrated into the teachings of G. Babeuf (1760-1796). Therefore, for Babeuf and the Babouvist movement, the future republic of equals turns out to be an agrarian state, and its population - peasants and artisans. The decree on management proposed by him lists those knowledges that are considered useful in the future society of equals. In the first place among them is agriculture, in the last place are teaching and scientific activities, which are allowed only to the extent necessary. to ensure peasant and craft labor. Only physical labor is the indisputable basis for acquiring the rights of citizens in the future society. F. Buonarroti, outlining the teachings of G. Babeuf, noted that “the main and most important occupations of citizens should be those that provide them with food, clothing, housing and the subject of which are agriculture and crafts used for the exploitation of land, construction of buildings, production of furniture and manufacture of fabrics. Speaking against “false (useless) science,” the Babouwists believed that the entire body of knowledge should be limited to only directly useful knowledge, which “should encourage them (people - A.O.) to love equality, freedom and the fatherland and make them capable of serving him and defending him.’ Therefore, in their educational program, teaching science pursues purely utilitarian goals and is very narrow in scope1®.

Babeuf’s egalitarian-communist program drew attention to the fact that certain social disasters were associated with the development of the arts and sciences - “the sophistication of the arts gave rise to a taste for excess, an aversion to the simplicity of morals, a predilection for effeminacy and frivolity,” the growth of the sciences served as “the basis for differences, superiority and liberation from social labor."235 However, in contrast to the radical egalitarian program of the "mad* and the egalitarian peasant utopia, they allowed the growth of science within certain limits: "... the sciences should be called upon to facilitate human labor by inventing new machines and improvements of old'236. Elsewhere, F. Buonarroti notes: “With the help of the sciences, diseases are sometimes cured or prevented; they teach a person to know himself; they protect him from religious fanaticism, alert him against despotism, make his leisure time pleasant and elevate his soul to the highest virtues.” 237. Allowing the development of sciences within the rather strict limits of a natural craft economy, the Babouvist preached general asceticism and rough egalitarianism: the community provides citizens with equal and moderate income, housing, identical clothing, food items so that there is not even a sign of apparent superiority of one man over another. It goes without saying that within the framework of such “barracks communism” the place of the arts and sciences is very doubtful - after all, they are simply not needed in such an ascetic life.

It was these counter-scientific sentiments and movements that were the basis on which science policy was pursued in the early years of the French Revolution. Counter-scientific attitudes and sentiments could not help but find their expression in the National Assembly and the Convention, on the pages of numerous newspapers, magazines, brochures, and in debates that unfolded in political clubs in Paris. The attitude towards science and its organizations, of course, was heterogeneous. Some sought to preserve intact the hopelessly outdated forms of organization of the sciences and arts, while others generally denied the value of not only the previous forms of organization, but also science itself. The egalitarian radicalism of the Jacobins, who saw in previous forms of organization something completely outdated and outdated, inextricably linked with the royal regime, with the privileges granted by royal power and the patronage system, was not only fed by the plebeian counter-scientific sentiments and attitudes of the urban lumpen-proletariat and petty bourgeoisie, but also in turn shaped these attitudes. Well-justified criticism of the way the sciences and arts were organized in royal France, the system of hierarchy of ranks and classes, the undemocratic mechanisms for choosing its members and social support, depending on the personal preferences, connections and goodwill of the corral, its favorites and favourites, the court and ministers, often turned into criticism science as such, into rejection of scientists and the work they do.

In connection with the discussion of the activities of the Academy of Sciences, its reports on the tasks that were assigned to it by the Constitutional and National Assemblies, and then by the Convention, in connection with the discussion of its budget and the amount of fees for both scientists and artists among members of government organizations, and especially Committee of Public Education, a sharp struggle arises between supporters of the preservation of the Academy of Sciences and opponents of any corporations. Having received an order in May 1790 to prepare a reform of weights and measures, the Academy of Sciences in March 1791 presented a draft unit of measures prepared by a commission that included Lavoisier, Monge, and Laplace. Only in August 1793 did the Convention issue a decree introducing a unified system of weights and measures, although it still took a lot of time for the final approval of a unified metric system throughout France. All the outstanding scientists of France - Laplace, D'Alembert, Lagrange highly appreciated this first scientific enterprise of the revolution, which, as noted in the Decree of the Convention on the 18th of Germinal III, is "the creation of the republic, the triumph of the French people and success in the field of culture"15; However, despite the fact that the Academy of Sciences successfully worked on the tasks of the revolutionary government, counter-scientific sentiments and attitudes became increasingly widespread, expressed with increasing force and in ever more violent terms. This struggle reached its height during the discussion of the budget of the Academy of Sciences in August 1793, prepared by the Committee of Public Education. Members of this committee, in particular the chemist A.F. Fourcroix (1755-1809), proposed to exclude from the Academy all persons who emigrated from France, but still preserve the Academy as a scientific organization. Fourcroix repeatedly exposed the slander against the academy and its academic corps. The discussion of the status of the Academy of Sciences and its budget in the Committee of Public Education ended with the preparation of a draft decree, according to

^Starosemskdya-Iikshtma O. Essays on the history of science and technology during the French bourgeois revolution, 1789-1794. M.; L; 1946. From 149.

^Masters of Arts about art. MP 1967. T. 4: First half of the 19th century. From 30.

Sciences and "Incompatible with a free regime" was supported not only by the Convention, but by the radical artists of Paris. The Convention adopted a decree according to which all academies were abolished. On August 8, 1793, the Academy of Sciences was closed

The year before, on August 17, 1792, 22 French universities were closed. In 1794, the Central School of Public Works was created, later renamed the Polytechnic School.

And among the scientists - members of the Academy there were also supporters of the liquidation of this institution. N.S. Chamfort called the Academy of Inscriptions and Fine Literature a school of flattery and slavery, in which not only was there no spirit of freedom, but the spirit of servility reigned. The Academy of Sciences was also criticized by the chemist Fourcroix, who emphasized the uselessness of the former academy and the archaic nature of its organization.

The preservation of the Academy of Sciences was advocated primarily by its treasurer Lavoisier, who assessed the Convention's decree of August 8, 1793 as disastrous for the development of sciences in France, for planned scientific enterprises, in particular for the financing of work in chemistry, for the preparation of the metric system. He sends letters to Lacknal and Arbogast, where he notes that the decision of the Convention complicates the work of the Commission of Weights and Measures. After debates in the Convention, during which a decree was adopted on August 14, 1793, allowing members of the Academy of Sciences to meet in the usual place for classes, i.e. in the Louvre, but left without any attention by the Directory of the Paris Department, supporters of the liquidation of all academies won. The Academy of Sciences was destroyed. The time of persecution of scientists began. And in this persecution of science and scientists, Catholics and defenders of the new cult of the Supreme Being were unanimous. Thus, the Catholic deputy of the Convention P.-TDurand-Maillan (1729-1814), speaking in December 1792 against the dominance of science, rejected the very idea of ​​​​creating any scientific corporations. He was supported during the discussion of the project of reform of higher education proposed by Condorcet, the chairman of the Jacobin club EJSieyes (1748-1836) and P.K.FDonu (1761*1840) - a deputy from the Girondin party. They considered the existence of the Academy of Sciences as a state monopoly in the field of progress of the human mind unacceptable. After the decree of the Convention of August 14, 1793, carried out at the insistence of J. Lakanal (1762-1845), the struggle between supporters of preserving the academy and its liquidation intensified. Attempts to preserve the Academy of Sciences were regarded by the most radical sections of the population of Paris as a desire to establish a new aristocracy of scientists and strengthen a new caste of the rich. The exponent of these egalitarian sentiments was the Paris Commune, which sent a deputation to the Convention on September 15, 1793, so that it would strongly object to the preservation of the Academy of Sciences and the creation of new state institutions in the field of science. She was supported by the deputies of the Convention J. Cambon (1754-1820) and Fabor d'Eglantin (1750-1794), who opposed the restoration of the academies under a different name.

These counter-scientific sentiments and attitudes, this policy destructive to science, were opposed primarily by Lavoisier, who, in a letter to Lakanal dated August 28, 1793, called the time French science was experiencing - a time of persecution and emigration of scientists from Paris. He especially emphasized that “if the sciences are not provided with assistance, they decline in the state and it is difficult to restore even their previous level”239.

However, the counter-scientific line is increasingly asserted in the Convention. We can say that in the winter of 1793 she won the Convention. On November 24, 1793, Lavoisier was arrested. Risking their lives, chemists L.K. Cade de Gassicourt (1731-1799) and A. Baume (1728-1804) turned to

Convention of Public Salvation, demanding the release of Lavoisier. Lagrange signed the scientists' petition for clemency from the Arts and Crafts Consulting Bureau. But most scientists, and those who actively participated in the political life of France and who could help Lavoisier, were silent. L. Carnot (1753-1823), L. B. Guiton de Morveau (1737-1816), 1\Monge (1746-1818), Fourcroix were silent. The latter was one of the collaborators and propagandists of Lavoisier’s antiphlogistic chemical theory, one of the creators of the chemical industry of revolutionary France, so necessary for its defense, was the most radical member of the Convention, advocating the abolition of the Academy of Sciences, and in December 1793 he became chairman of the Jacobin Club. After the coup d'etat of 9 Thermidor and the guillotine of Robespierre, Fourcroy betrayed his former adherents by delivering a report to the Convention on January 3, 1794, where he argued that the Jacobins were both tyrants and obscurantists, that they had conspired against the progress of the human mind and the development of the arts and sciences. He took an active part in the prosecution of Lavoisier, who was executed on May 8, 1794. It was at Lavoisier’s trial that the words were spoken: “The Republic does not need scientists!” They are attributed to J.-B. Cofignal (1746-1794) - vice-president of the tribunal who arrested Robespierre. Some scientists even doubt that they were uttered at all, considering them to be a royalist joke, launched to discredit the revolutionary era in the eyes of intellectuals. Thus, the historian of the French revolution M. Guillaume categorically rejects any possibility of uttering these words at the tribunal that tried Lavoisier240. However, research in recent years has shown that this counter-scientific aphorism, expressing a negative attitude towards scientists and science, was widespread even before the tribunal that tried Lavoisier; he only expressed in a concrete form those attitudes that were inherent in the mass consciousness of revolutionary France. Thus, speaking at the Convention on December 12, 1792, Durand-Maillant said that the French people do not need sciences for their happiness. In July 1793, Convention deputy Gentz ​​defended the idea that the republic does not need scientists, but free people and beings worthy of respect. According to him, it cannot be assumed that the conquest of freedom is the result of the development of the arts and sciences. There are no patriots among scientists, and academics, in his opinion, are people of phrases, not republicans. On September 18, 1793, the newspaper Moniteur published an article that “proved” that the republics? needs not scientists, but prosecutors and lawyers. The attack on science as the refuge of an “aristocracy of scientists” was simultaneously accompanied by criticism of theoretical scientific knowledge as speculation divorced from life. In contrast to academic science, the ideals of utilitarian and conformist science, oriented towards the direct application of scientific results in industry and ideological loyalty, were increasingly put forward. It goes without saying that these slogans about the creation of a “new science” related to life expressed the real needs of revolutionary France, which urgently needed for its defense the development of a number of industries and the creation of new crafts. But it is necessary to see the other side of this criticism of science - hidden and obvious counter-scientific sentiments and attitudes. The struggle for a new, free science, which was fundamentally different from the previous, archaic, speculative science9, was at the same time a way of reorienting French science towards the development of applied and important tasks from a state point of view, a form of criticism of scientific knowledge, its rejection in the name of revolutionary tasks and ideals. Thus, J. Bouquier wrote to the Convention that the free sciences do not need a caste of speculative scientists, whose minds are constantly in the realm of dreams and chimeras. Speculative sciences, divorced from the lives of people, are likened to them by poison, which undermines strength, exhausts them and destroys republics. IZhBukye was not alone in denying science241.

The confrontation between two lines of attitude towards science in the public consciousness of France in the revolutionary years resulted primarily in the formation of state support for scientific research, the creation of new state-subsidized institutes, the reorganization of the former academy, the formation of a professional layer of scientists and a new image of science, on the banner of which are inscribed the words: " Progress and benefit." The system of social support for science that has emerged in these years has led to the fact that applied developments, important for the development of industry, crafts, trade, and technology of revolutionary France, are increasingly coming to the fore. Scientists are increasingly involved in the creation of new types of weapons, in the modernization of textile, leather and metallurgical factories that produced items necessary for the army, in applied developments that played a huge role in strengthening the combat capability of the French Republic. Already by 1795, such an objective situation had developed when it became clear that the republic needed scientists, primarily scientists capable of carrying out applied research important for the military industry of France. Reason became instrumental rationality.

To train this kind of scientist, it was necessary to rebuild the education system242. Therefore, during the period of the Jacobin dictatorship, the Central School of Public Works arose, which later became known as the Polytechnic School. The best scientific forces of France were involved in teaching there - Lagrange, Laplace, Monge, Berthollet, Chaptal, etc. Its main task was to train engineers of various specialties - from artillerymen to topographers. Its leader for more than 20 years was G. Monge. In the program for the course “Descriptive Geometry*,” a science created by G. Monge to solve problems in civil engineering technology, he not only sets out a program for reforming the education system of the then France, but also formulates a new image of science, which gives priority to the study of applied problems: “To liberate French people from the foreign dependence in which they have hitherto been, it is necessary, first of all, to direct public education to the knowledge of objects requiring precision, which has been completely neglected until our time, and to accustom our specialists to the use of all kinds of instruments designed to bring precision to work and measure its degree. Secondly, it is necessary to expand the knowledge of many natural phenomena necessary for the progress of industry, and to take advantage of the fortunate circumstance that industry has at its disposal the most important resources that it requires for the development of the general education of the people.

Finally, it is necessary to disseminate among our specialists the knowledge of the methods used in the arts, and the knowledge of machines designed to either reduce manual work or bring greater uniformity and precision to the results of the work ... "20 In these words, which opened the lectures of G. -Mopzha on descriptive geometry, new ideas about science, its meaning and tasks are expressed.Many speeches by outstanding mathematicians, physicists, chemists of revolutionary France are imbued with a feeling of the need to reorient science, the formation of a new image of science in the public consciousness and the promotion of new priorities and fundamentally new social meaningful goals.

The attitude towards knowledge and the image of science emerging in various strata of French society are the most important characteristics of both social psychology and ideological movements that existed in France before and during the revolution. However, until now these aspects of the spiritual and ideological life of pre- and revolutionary France have not been the subject of either historical or philosophical research. Only in recent years, thanks to the efforts of representatives of the so-called historical school of the “Annals”, the features of revolutionary consciousness are beginning to emerge, unconscious attitudes, value orientations and preferences expressed by various layers of French society are being revealed. Revolutionary consciousness, or rather, revolutionary mentality, as historians of this school prefer to say , ceases to be

^Monge G. Nzhchsrpggelyish geometry. M, 1947. P. 9.

something monolithic, various levels and layers are revealed in it, and the spiritual life of France of this period appears much more clearly. Thus, in the book of the modern historian M. Vovel “Revolutionary mentality. Society and mentality in the French revolution*, the essence of revolutionary consciousness is highlighted. The starting point for the revolutionary mentality, according to Vovel, is a feeling of fear, which leads to the fact that “punitive” predominates in the revolutionary movement impulses*. Fear of conspiracies both outside and within revolutionary groups is expressed in terror, which is controlled and controlled fear, deliberately instilled in the enemies of freedom. Revolutionary mentality finds its* expression in the focus on destruction or total destruction of the past, and the “turning point”, “fatefulness” of the moment being experienced, the radicality and instantaneity of destruction, the invincibility and irreversibility of revolutionary shifts are emphasized243.

These attitudes of revolutionary consciousness permeate the consciousness of scientists who accepted the revolution and directly participated in it, and the social psychology of those layers of French society that carried out the Great French Revolution. It goes without saying that they are expressed in the contradictory interaction of two types of attitudes towards science, one of which can be called scientistic, and the other counter-scientific. The attitudes of revolutionary mentality, their dialogue-conflict, their repulsion and attraction, the entire complex amalgam of value orientations and preferences, which only in recent years have begun to be studied in detail, find their realization and embodiment both in the politicization of the consciousness of scientists themselves, in particular in the emergence of the idea scientific revolution, and in those priorities that are accepted by various layers of French society and put forward to science as its urgent, pressing tasks, for example, the reorientation of scientific research to applied developments of a military-defense nature.

The philosophy of the Enlightenment ideologically prepared the French Revolution. This is the thesis that everyone takes for granted. Moreover, the figures of the French revolution repeatedly declared themselves to be the heirs of Montaigne, Rousseau, Diderot, Mably, Helvetius and others. Ideologists who did not accept the revolution also emphasized the connection between the philosophy of the Enlightenment and revolutionary theory and practice, accusing Enlightenment ideology “of unleashing criminal passions" that gave rise to the revolution244.

Historians have drawn attention to the existence of a qualitative difference between the classical and late Enlightenment in France, to the lack of direct intellectual continuity between the ideologists of the Enlightenment and the Jacobins. Thus, Dlhorne wrote: “After 1770, the direct influence of the great leaders of philosophy ended”245. In 1789, completely different people entered the arena of history - very decisive ideologists and politicians who translated abstract “philosophies” into the language of revolutionary actions. And although they all saw the enlighteners as harbingers of the revolution, they still could not help but note the difference between their philosophical constructs and political practice. Thus, Mirabeau wrote: “Between the metaphysician, who in the silence of his office grasps the truth in all its expressive purity, and the statesman, who is obliged to reckon with the past, with difficulties and obstacles, between the teacher of the people and the political administrator, there is this essential difference that one thinks only about what is, and the other cares about what could be... If you want to achieve your goal, then you must constantly remember that you are on earth, and not in the world of ideas."246

Of course, in the pathetic speeches of the tribunes of the revolution there is a lot of Enlightenment ideology. Here are appeals to Reason, criticism of prejudices, the cult of freedom, and an appeal to justice, equality and fraternity, to the inalienable rights and freedoms of man247^.

But later their position changed radically. Robespierre began to defend the need for terror. Marat furiously began to “prove” that the power of Reason alone was not enough, that the people needed a military tribune, a dictatorship, and the almighty force of power248.

The philosophy of the Enlightenment, with its confidence in the omnipotence of Reason, turned into a repressive ideology of suppressing “dissent” during the French Revolution and experienced a strange metamorphosis in the sanctioning of terror. The scientistic philosophy of the Enlightenment, which saw in science the way to build a new society, a new morality, a new state, turned into a political ideology that sanctioned suppression, coercion, repression, and terror. That layer of the “middle class”, which, having adopted the ideas of the Enlightenment, became first parliamentary representatives of the people, and then “leaders of the people”, was a layer of middle and lower officials, lawyers, notaries, judges, lawyers. In the Founding Assembly, 373 of the 577 delegates of the “third estate” were representatives of the so-called legal estate. It was this group that became the ideologists of the revolution, its tribunes and, at the same time, its victims249.

An important role in the transformation of the philosophy of the Enlightenment into revolutionary political programs was played by mass consciousness, which had specific value orientations, attitudes, symbolism, etc. This mass consciousness, or revolutionary mentality, not only perceived the ideas of Enlightenment philosophy, but also significantly modified them. The Jacobins who came to power , liquidated the democratic system created in 1789-1792. and embodied the ideas of the Enlightenment. By the decree of October 10, 1793 “On the revolutionary order of government” the constitution of 1793 and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1789 were abolished. Personal freedoms (of speech, assembly, press) were abolished, judicial guarantees and the right to defense were abolished, in particular , the decree on suspicious persons of September 17, 1793, where suspicious persons were “those who, by their behavior, or their connections, or by their speeches or writings, show themselves to be supporters of tyranny, feudalism and enemies of freedom”, “those who cannot prove the legality of their means of subsistence and the performance of civic duties”, those who are “denied the issuance of certificates of trustworthiness”250®. On June 10, 1794, a decree on enemies of the people was adopted, which declared those “who, by force or cunning, seek to destroy public freedom.” The specification of this very broad formulation included a list of “enemies of the people” - from “unscrupulous suppliers” to persons who tried “to cause a decline of spirit in order to further the plans of the tyrants.”29 J. PlMarat at the end of 1790 wrote on the pages of “Friend of the People”: “Start by capturing the king, the Dauphin and the royal family... Then cut off without any shaking the heads of counter-revolutionary generals, ministers and former ministers; the mayor and members of the municipality who are opponents of the revolution; kill without any mercy the entire Parisian general staff, all the deputies of the National Assembly - priests and supporters of the ministry, all the known henchmen of despotism... Six months ago, five hundred, six hundred heads would have been enough... Now that you have foolishly allowed your inexorable enemies to form conspiracies and accumulate their forces, it may be necessary to cut off five or six thousand heads; but even if twenty thousand had to be cut off, one cannot hesitate for a single minute.”30 Later, Marat increasingly increased the number of victims of terror: “Freedom will not triumph until the criminal heads of two hundred thousand of these villains are cut off.” He was ready for millions of victims31.

Robespierre was initially against the death penalty. Speaking in the National Assembly on May 30, 1791, he argued the injustice of the death penalty, which contributes more to the multiplication of crimes than to their prevention251*. But already in 1793, his position changed radically - he was already calling on the revolutionary tribunal for terror, not burdened by any legality: “It is useless to assemble juries and judges, since this tribunal has jurisdiction over only one type of crime - high treason - and for it there is one punishment - death"252. In February 1794, he insisted: “If the driving force of the government in a period of peace must be virtue, then the driving force of the people's government in a revolutionary period must be both virtue and terror-virtue, without which terror is pernicious, terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror - this is nothing more than swift, strict and unyielding justice."253

In the instructions he wrote, which became the basis of the law on terror (June 10, 1794), the idea was that the basis for a sentence could be the judge’s conscience, illuminated by love for justice and the fatherland. According to him, “to execute the enemies of the fatherland, it is enough to establish their identity. What is required here is not punishment, but their destruction”254*5.

Terror now turns out to be one of the virtues and one of the ways to educate people. The boundaries of terror are expanding more and more: at first it applies only to “enemies of the people”, and then to the suspicious (“Law on Suspects” of October 17, 1793) and even to politically passive citizens255.

Of course, there were no statistics of those killed, guilloted, or repressed. HOWEVER, according to D. Greer, from March 1793 to August 1794, at least 500 thousand people were imprisoned, 16,594 people were executed according to official sentences, 10-12 thousand were shot without trial in Vendée, Toulon, Nantes , Lyon and other places of armed resistance to the "dictatorship of Reason". The repressions in the Vendée were especially brutal (according to some sources, 100 thousand people died here).