WILHELM OSTWALD The GREAT PROTAGONIST Part I1 WILDER D. BANCROFT Cornell University. Ithaca, New York
T
HE first American student in Ostwald's laboratory was Morris Loeb and the second, A. A. Noyes. Among the American students publishing work done or begun in the old laboratory were the following, in alphabetical and not chronological order: W. D. Bancroft, S. L. Bigelow, Edgar Buckingham, G. W. Coggeshall, H. M. Goodwin, G. A. Hulett, H. C. Jones, Louis Kahlenberg, F. B. Kenrick, Morris Loeb, W. Lash Miller, A. A. Noyes, T. W. Richards, E. C. Sullivan, 0. F. Tower, J. E. Trevor, A. J. Wakeman, W. R. Whitney. The old laboratory was not a very satisfactory place to work in when I left in 1892, only five years after it was opened. I t became much worse as years went on. F. H. N. in Nature wrote about it in 1901 as follows :
Henry and Collan had studied cases of what Ostwald called auto-catalysis. In 1891 Ostwald wrote a review of a paper by Stohmann in which he gave the modem definition of catalysis: "Catalysis is the acceleration by the presence of a foreign substance of a chemical reaction which is taking place slowly." In 1909 Ostwald was awarded the Nobel prize in chemistry for his work on catalysis. This shows that it was possible for h i to receive the highest recognition for work without making use of atomistic conceptions. It may be urged that the great feature of Ostwald's work was rather qualitative than quantitative, that catalysis was to be considered as accelerating an already existent reaction rather than as starting i n otherwise non-existent reaction. The answer to this is that neiThe Leipzig laboratory in which Ostwald worked until 1897, ther vau't Hoff nor anybody else had seen this before was situated in the "Landwirtschaftlicbes Institut," an old pile Ostwald and that i t was a number of years after Ostoriginally devoted to agricultural chemistry, and in every way wald had formulated it before people accepted it. In unfitted for the carrying on of those delicate experiments which brought Ostwald to the forefront of scientific workers. . . . fact the writer of this sketch has his doubts about it It would have been difficult to construct a laboratory worse even now. In the spring of 1904 Ostwald gave the Faraday Lecadapted for physica-chemical investigations. But in spite of all these drawbacks the laboratories were soon overcrowded, and ture in the theater of the Royal Institution. The main additional benches had to be fitted up in the corridors and cellars thesis of the lecture was that "it is possible to deduce all to accommodate the increasing numbers. the stoichiometrical laws from the principles of chemical In 1894 a new laboratory was authorized. The dynamics: the law of constant proportions; the law of building was finished in the fall of 1897 and was dedi- multiple proportions; and the law -of combining cated in January 1898 under the name of Physical weights." Ostwald did not make a success of this for Chemistry Institute, the name of Second Chemical two reasons. I n the first place the laws of definite Laboratory being dropped. Ostwald felt that the proportions are natural though not necessary conseimportant new field to be developed was catalysis. quences of the atomic theory. In the second place I t must not be thought that this was Ostwald's intro- Ostwald did not really prove his thesis. From the fact duction to catalysis. I n 1883 be had studied the rate that a chemical individual does not vary in composition of hydrolysis of methyl acetate by acids. In 1889 within finite ranges of temperature and pressure, Ost-
wald says that he can deduce the law of dehite proportions. This is a non sequitur. Sodium chloride may have a definite composition and potassium chloride may have a definite composition without there being necessarily any relation between the two. If there were as many sodium chlorides as there are hydrocarbons and if that had been generally true for all salts, we should probably never have had the laws of de6nite and multiple proportions. These are very interesting experimental facts and certainly cannot be deduced at present from any premises which do not already contain them. Starting with January, 1898, the wheels went round merrily in the new laboratory and the English-speaking students flocked in so rapidly that it was reported that the chief assistants had already forgotten their German without having yet learned English. All went well except with the director. Ostwald was a fine figure of a man with a superb chest. He looked in 1892 as though no fatigue would ever be too much for him; but he took no exercise and played no games. He worked incredibly hard and his idea of rest was to change from one form of intense mental effort to another form. Smce he did not know anything about athletics, he never distinguished until too late between going stale and the beginning of a breakdown. Like many people he was pretty well played out by the end of the semester but a few weeks painting at the seashore put him into shape again. I have been told that in the summer of 1893 he collapsed while lecturing, which was a very bad sign. He kept going fairly well until 1895. The experience and disappointment in regard to energetics a t Liibeck in September 1894 was not a good start for the winter's work and by the end of 1895 he was pretty sick. He was given leave of absence for the summer semester. When he came back in the fall of 1896 he was in fairly good shape and in the winter of 1896-97 be did a tremendous piece of work on the crystallization of supersaturated and supercooled liquids. The work on periodic phenomena with metallic chromium in 1899 cheered Ostwald up a bit, though the final collapse of this investigation, owing to the inability to get more of the same chromium, cannot -have been helpful. Things got gradually worse. His memory was not so phenomenal as formerly, though doubtless much better than that of most people. Talking to the advanced students about their work became a strain rather than a joy, and he paid two extra assist&ts out of his own pocket to take some of this load off his shoulders. As time went on Ostwald's ability to do chemistry and his interest in the subject became less and less. In the winter of 1904-5 Ostwald asked to be relieved of giving lectures in the summer semester. The minister referred this to the faculty which refused the request. Ostwald resigned his chair. Many of his friends urged him to reconsider his decision and he agreed to do so provided he was not required ever to give any more lectures in chemistry. Even a university faculty could not reverse itself to that extent publicly. A few weeks
later Ostwald was named as thofirst German exchange professor to Harvard, so he remained a university ' professor until the summer of 1906. In view of the great importance of the research work done in Ostwald's laboratory relatively to the lectures, most chemists felt and still feel that the Leipzig faculty made a bad mistake. There is something to be said on their side. In 1900 Ostwald began giving lectures on philosophy t o over four hundred people; the lectures he then published as a book. In 1901 he started a new journal, the Annalen der Naturfihilosofihie, with himself as editor. I n 1904 he was one of the principal speakers at the International Congress of Arts and Sciences in St. Louis; but he spoke before the section of philosophers and not before the chemists. I t may well have been that the Leipzig faculty felt that Ostwald should decide whether his main interest was chemistry or philosophy. Whether this was so or not, Ostwald did decide in favor of philosophy and retired to Gross-Bothen in Saxony where he lived as a free lance the rest of his life. Sodium rhodanate would probably have saved Ostwald for chemistry. I shall not follow Ostwald into the field of philosophy; but there are other matters of interest to chemists and I propose to mention a few of them. In 1901 Ostwald announced that his health did not permit his being active longer in the affairs of the German Electrochemical Society of which he was a charter member and the first president. There was not enough work on electrochemistry being published to keep the society going, so it was proposed to change the name to the German Society for Applied Physical Chemistry. Ostwald, with his feeling for the dramatic, advised calling the society the German Bunsen Society for Applied Physical Chemistry and this was adopted in 1902 though against a good deal of opposition. This title is usually abbreviated to Bunsen Society which brings it in line with the Faraday Society. The absence of the word "electrochemical" in the names of the two societies has made it possible for the American.Electrochemical Society to change its name to the. El&rochemical Society, though it too has had to broaden its scope. As has been previously mentioned, Ostwald thought that he had proved in 1887 that the electromotive force of the electrode Hg, HgzClz, N KC1 was 560 millivolts. This electrode is still known as the normal calomel electrode. For measurements involving hydrogen ions a hydrogen electrode is a convenient reference electrode and is so used. In 1905 the Bunsen Society was asked to make the normal hydrogen electrode the official electrode and to call its potential difference arbitrarily zero. The nominal reason was that it was better to have a standard that everybody knew-was wrong than one like the normal calomel electrode which was so near right than it might be misleading. Actually it was a fight between the G6ttingen and the Leipzig laboratories. Ostwald was not strong enough to win; but he saved something from the wreck. The next year the Bunsen Society adopted two standards. If the unknown electrode is measured against the calomel elec-
trode, the value of the cell is called En; if the unknown electrode is measured against the hydrogen electrode, the value of the cell is called E,. That is equivalent to calling the potential difference between mercury and the solution zero and the potential difference between hydrogen and the solution also zero. I n other words the Germans now have two standards, both wrong. Politics does enter into science a t times. I n 1909 Ostwald published a book entitled "Grosse Manner" in which he attempts to classify men of genius and to formulate the laws governing their careers. He divides the men of genius into two general classes, the romanticists and classicists, the chief difference between them being one of mental reaction velocity. The classicists have a low reaction velocity and the romanticists a high one. The classicists tend to be phlegmatic and melancholic while the romanticists are sanguine and choleric. The differenceis thus one of mental temperature. Ostwald was, of course, a romanticist. I n this country Whitney is a romanticist, while Richards was and Langmuir is a classicist. With himself in mind Ostwald brings out strikingly the tendency of the romanticist to change in later life to another branch of the science or even to another science. Ostwald attributes this, apparently properly, to mental exhaustion; but he rather implies that i t is also connected with the romantic temperament. I n this I think that he gives a false impression, though I may be reading into his words more than he meant to put there. I should prefer to word the matter a little ditferently. As a result of his temperament the romanticist is more likely to break down from mental exhaustion than the classicist and is consequently more likely to change his subject in later life. If the romanticist does not break down, I should doubt his changing over to another branch of the same science. In 1912 Ostwald published a book called "Der energetische Imperatier." The review that I wrote of i t a t that time is still applicable. Thccncrgpticc inqwmtivr, as Ostwold dpfines it, is that energy is to bc comrmed and not wasted. Whether Ostwald lives up tu his own m.ixilns is a matter of opinion. This volumc contains his suggestions as to: an international organization of chemists; a universal language; an international coinage; the proper size of a printed page; universal disarmament; the setting of type; the improvement of schools; a new type of university; German script; the development of genius; the status of women; and a new calendar. No one will deny that these thing'! are all worth thinking about. One may also admit that Ostwald's views on tbese subjects are interesting; but one cannot help feeling that a man may develop a mania for reform. It seems probable that Ostwald would accomplish more if he would concentrate himself on not to exceed half a dozen refoms and should carry them through. To this extent the book is a disappointment. It is very valuable, however, as showing the workings of an active brain.
In 1912 Ostwald published another book entitled "Monumentales und dekoratives Pastell" in which he describes a modified form of pastel which should stand up in the open air in spite of the sulfuric acid from the burning of coal.
After the World's Fair a t St. Louis, Ostwald spent some time a t Niagara Falls painting. He was tremendously impressed by the beauty of the autumn leaves, which is so different from anything that they have in Germany. He expressed himself to me as planning to paint a great many pictures and t o exhibit them some winter in New York. He said that he expected to be hailed as the discoverer of the American landscape. The pictures were not painted, the exhibition was not held, and Ostwald is not considered the discoverer of the American landscape. It was a wonderful dream and thoroughly characteristic of Ostwald. After the World War Ostwald put in a great deal of time on the theory of color. I n 1923 he published a book called "Farbkunde." The last years of Ostwald's life were devoted to studying the theory of color. Anybody who has received a Nobel prize is eligible t o make nominations for future awards. Ostwald wrote to Arrhenius nominating himself for a Nobel prize in physics in recognition of his work on color. The award was not made; but Ostwald was absolutely right in thinking that the work was worthy of an award. After these details i t is desirable to get a general view of Ostwald's work. We can distinguish three groups of scientific men. I n the first and very small group we have the men who discover fundamental relations. Among these are van't Hoff, Arrhenins, and Nernst. I n the second group we have the men who do not make the great discovery but who see the importance and bearing of it, and who preach the gospel to the heathen. Ostwald stands absolutely a t the head of this group. The last group contains the rest of us, the men who have to have things explained to us. There are all gradations in this group, from the men who need only a suggestion to those who never learn. The first group is apt to be helpless without the second group. Ostwald was a great protagonist and an inspiring teacher. He had the gift of saying the right thing in the right way. When we consider the development of physical chemistry as a whole, Ostwald's name, like Abou ben Adhem's, leads all the rest. Odwald has really outlined his great value to the world, probably consciously, in the book "Grosse Manner." I n many cases the great genius is not able to get his idea accepted and that task falls to a man who may he less clever but who speaks a language that the world understands. There are plenty of illustrations in modem chemistry of the truth of this view of Ostwald. The theory of stereochemistry was developed independently by van? Hoff in Holland and by LeBel in France; but i t is very much of a question whether either of these men could have got the theory accepted in any reasonable time. Nobody will dispute that the work essential to the adoption of the theory was done by Johannes Wislicenus in Germany. The experiments of P f a e r on osmotic pressure and of Raoult on the lowering of the freezing-point were very interesting; but nobody knew just what they meant. It was van't Hoff who furnished the theoretical explanation which was lacking, and who thereby enabled Pfefier and Raoult to get
the credit which was properly due them. The theory of osmotic pressure was due to van't Hoff, the theory of electrolytic dissociation to Arrhenius, and the modem theory of electromotive forces to Nemst; i t was Ostwald who fought the battles which resulted in the acceptance of these views. Avogadro was put across by his countryman, Cannizzaro; Gibbs by Roozeboom and by Ostwald; Donnan by Jacques Loeb; and Darwin to a great extent by Huxley. It is clear enough what Ostwald accomplished; but what made it possible for him to be the man who did what he did? He had many advantages and one serious handicap, that of coming from Riga, which would normally have barred him from ever becoming professor a t a German university without ever having studied in Germany. He was a man of many talents, with an enormous capacity for work, a phenomenal memory, and great personal charm. He was a skilfnl experimenter, he saw things as a whole, he loved to expound, he had a facile pen, an extraordinarily interesting suhject, and a journal of his own. Certainly none of these things singly was sufficient and I doubt whether all combined will account for Ostwald. There was another gift made by the fairy godmother which was the most important of all. I have known two chemists who would push Ostwald hard for many-sidedness; but they were both swamped by their multiplicity of talents and are practically unknown to the scientific world. Van't Hoff had the same subject, was the greater genius, had the advantage of having become famous through his conception of the tetrahedral carbon atom, and was nominally a coeditor with Ostwald. It was a foregone conclusion that van't Hoff would receive the first Nobel prize in chemistry, and everybody knew that he was the ideal man for the award. Yet everybody will also admit that van't Hoff played second fiddle to Ostwald so
far as the development of physical chemistry was concerned. Wolfgang Ostwald had an even more generally interesting subject in colloid chemistry than his father had in physical chemistry; he had his own journal and a plethora of words; and he had the advantage of having his father back of him. He has done well; hut he is a second Ostwald only by birth. What was the magic gift that Wilhelm Ostwald had and that van't Hoff and Wolfgang Ostwald did not have? I think that it was the gift of expression, which enabled Ostwald to say a thing in such a way that the reader understood i t and was interested by it. The difference is seen clearly if one compares any book by Wilhelm Ostwald with any book by van't Hoff or by Wolfgang Ostwald. It was the fact that Ostwald could write as he did that, combined with his other advantages, made h i the leader that he was. Slosson could write so that he made thousands of people interested in chemistry; but he was not an investigator and did not have the fmt-hand knowledge which would make him a leader of chemists. It was this gift of expression which made it possible for Ostwald to do certain things that van't Hoff could never do. Ostwald's gift for leadership showed itself in the way his pupils regarded him all through their lives. They usually believed what Ostwald said even when they knew that he was not right. If I have succeeded a t all in showing what I, the most carping of Ostwald's pupils, have always felt about him, it will he easy for anybody to realize the attitude of Ostwald's more enthusiastic followers. He was a great man and he did a great work which no other man could have done as well as he did it. Ostwald was absolutely the right man in the right place. He was loved and followed by more people than any chemist of our time.
(This i s the second and conduding insldment of Dr. Bancroft's article.)
A CHEMICAL FLOWER GARDEN OF 1706
Reproduced from a paper by LCmery in the Memoirs of the French Academy. He secured his "vegetations" by the use of iron salts, and inferred that iron is therefore necessary to the growth of plants. A non-chemist at present, using ammonia water in the preparation of a "depression plant," might similarly be tempted by a wrong process of inference to reach the right conclusion that ammonia is necessary to the growth of plants. (Contr.ibufed by Tenncy L. David)
