Sublime Émilie - Insights into science and art through Kaija Saariaho’s opera. Kaija Saariaho’s monodrama received its Finnish premiere April 2nd, 2015 at the Finnish National Opera. The title character Émilie du Châtelet (1706–1749) was a significant French Enlightenment mathematician, physicist and philosopher whose love of knowledge and science was equally matched by a passion for men, jewellery and gambling. Marquise du Châtelet is known as the first woman in the history of science to achieve significant results in mathematics and physics. The scientific community and general audiences had a chance to learn about Émilie’s unique life and work on the eve of the premiere of the opera. A group of international researchers and artists who share an interest in her story came together for a series of lectures, discussions and music performances in Helsinki on 1–2 April 2015. The event was prepared by the AvaraOpera collective, operating at University of the Arts Helsinki, and it is produced in collaboration with the Finnish National Opera. The event is jointly funded by University of the Arts and the Finnish Cultural Foundation. http://bit.ly/sublimeemilie

1. Mary W. Gray
Professor of Mathematics and Statistics
American University
Washington DC
mgray@american.edu
Émilie Du Châtelet – A Woman as a Scientist
Helsinki, 1 April 2015

2. A mistress of Voltaire?

3. A Newtonian philosopher whose
insights and analyses were
appropriated by Voltaire?

4. An aristocratic dilettante with
few if any real accomplishments?

5. A scientist whose understanding of
fire and light not only surpassed that
of Voltaire and others of her era but
led to fundamental re-thinking of the
phenomenon?

6. A devoted mother
whose desire to educate her
son inspired her to write a Leibnizian
physics textbook?

7. The translator of Newton’s Principia whose
lucid commentary made its concepts
accessible to a century of Francophone
scientists?

9. As we know, Du Châtelet has been the subject
of an opera, she also appears in a 2007French
film for television, Divine Emilie, and of an
episode of a 2005 British and American
television series Einstein’s Big Idea, which credits
Émilie’s insights as presaging E = mc2
A novelist has imagined that Émilie’s last child
lived to maturity, leading the life that Émilie might
had lived had her brilliance and energy been more
conventionally directed:
Laurel Corona, Finding Emilie: A Novel, Gallery Books, New York, 2011
Another has written a book about her for young girls:
Jacqueline Duhême. Les passions d'Emilie : La marquise du Châtelet, une femme
d'exception, Gallimard-Jeunesse, Paris, 2014.

10. At least four plays have recently been written about
Du Châtelet in English alone:
Lauren Gunderson.
Émilie: La Marquise Du Châtelet
Defends Her Life Tonight,
Samuel French, Inc.,
New York, 2010.
Du Châtelet contemplates her death

11. ​
In Legacy of Light Karen Zacarias
conjures a parallel between the work
and childbirth concerns of Du
Châtelet and those of a twenty-first
century astronomer

12. Émilie’s Voltaire begins with
Voltaire in a bathtub
and continues fancifully including the
largely discredited image of Émilie in
men’s clothing
Arthur Giron, Émilie’s Voltaire,
Samuel French, Inc., New York, 2010

13. Jyl Bonaguro expanded the cast
to include the mathematicians
Clairaut and Maupertuis
as well as Voltaire and his
valet Longchamp,
Saint-Lambert, the
Marquis du Châtelet
and the Duc de Richelieu
Jyl Bonaguro, Urania: The Life of Émilie Du Châtelet

14. As with many women in science, evaluations of Du Châtelet’s contributions tend to be
bimodal – discounted or inflaed
The work is forgotten, ignored and/or characterized as
insignificant, derivative, lacking in originality and creativity
Or
It is praised far beyond its merits
“magnificent that the dog can play the piano at all” syndrome
In accounts at both extremes there is excessive attention to physical characteristics,
typical when female protagonists are discussed –
Quick, were Newton and Euclid short or tall, handsome or not, nattily
dressed or generally disheveled?
and to social life and surroundings at court and at Cirey

15. Her birth
Her aristocratic, but not particularly wealthy, family connections
A father nurturing by the standards of the time
Her husband
Similar background
Even temperament
Happiest in the field with his military command
Friendly relations with Voltaire
Her liaison with Voltaire
But specifics are not so clear
Details of initial meeting
Fluctuating relations
Close involvement with his difficulties with authorities
and financial affairs
Her affair with Saint-Lambert
With rival embellished accounts
Her “late-life” pregnancy and death

16. Outside the scope of Du Châtelet as a scientist
French translation of Mandeville’s Fable of the Bees
together with a preface
Discours sur le Bonheur
Examien de Genese
Scientific writings
Institutions de physique
Réponse de Madame la Marquise du Chastelet,
a la lettre que M. de Mairan
Dissertation sur la nature et la propagation du feu
Principes mathématiques de la philosophie naturelle par feue
Translation of Newton and Commentary

17. How much of Voltaire’s work might be hers?
How much of her work may be that of Maupertuis or
Clairaut or another mathematician or physicist?
Did that she devoted so much time to such activities as
appearing in private productions of Voltaire’s plays
and operas, gambling, and engaging in court politics
provide distractions that may have kept her from
more scientific work?
Why did she decide to have a child, contemplating
that complications might lead to her death?
Are there works of hers that were lost after she died
and never recovered?
Are there unknown unknowns?
Tombe d’Émilie du Châtelet [1706-1749]
Femme de sciences, traductrice de Newton,
amie de Voltaire

18. Achieved some regard during her lifetime through correspondence with leading
philosophers, physicists and mathematicians
Her contributions – however extensive - were quickly forgotten
Voltaire wrote an extravagant Éloge, long on praise but short on
credit for her accomplishments
Principia translation was published only 10 years after her death and
partly because of the interest in cosmology inspired by
return of Halley’s comet
Twenty-first century recognition has in some cases been exaggerated – see in
particular the E = mc2 attribution
Some have found her work “essentially derivative” of a number of her male
contemporaries, particularly Voltaire
A number of her contemporaries give her credit for original thought
- but not in the sense of proving new theorems, the
usual criterion for being called a mathematician

19. In Du Châtelet’s short but colorful life there are many incidents that lend themselves to
reporting from selective perspectives and several treatises the origin and fateof which
are unclear.
We focus on three:
The publication of Éléments de la philosophie de Newton
attributed to Voltaire but dedicated to Du Châtelet
The papers submitted to the 1736 Académie des Sciences prize essay
competition on the “Nature and Propagation of Fire” together
with Institutions de physique
The posthumously published translation/commentary on Newton’s
Principia Mathematica

20. Sifting out fact from fiction is made difficult by the scarcity of sources. We have
Published and unpublished writings by Du Châtelet, especially
the trove of writings found by Wade in St. Petersburg
Letters to and from friends and colleagues,
Voltaire’s problematic Éloge and Mémoire
survivors write the history
Some of the approach of authors can be inferred from the titles they chose:
Mitford: Voltaire in Love [1957]
Edwards: The Divine Mistress: A Biography of Émilie du Châtelet, The
Beloved of Voltaire [1970]
Hamel: An eighteenth-century Marquise: a study of Émilie du Châtelet
and her times [1910]
Bodanis: Passionate Minds: Émilie du Châtelet, Voltaire, and the Great
Love Affair of the Enlightenment [2006]
Zinsser: Daring Genius of the Enlightenment (originally La Dame
d’Esprit: A Biography of the Marquise Du Châtelet) [2006]
Arianrhod: Seduced by Logic: Émilie Du Châtelet, Mary Somerville and
the Newtonian Revolution [2012]
Badinter: Émilie, Émilie: l’ambition feminine au XVIIIe [1983]

21. Roughly in order, the portrayals range from not very informative romanticism
to a serious analysis of the work of Du Châtelet
Only Arianrhod addresses in any detail the actual mathematics
to be found in her works
Not all have much to say about the three topics of central interest, but when
they do, the perspectives can be quite different
Edwards, Hame and Mitford are the least informative about Du Châtelet as
philosopher and scientist
Badinter and Zinsser have the most to say about her work as well as her life
Mitford and Edwards focus heavily on the relationship with Voltaire
Hamel relies heavily on the letters and other writing of those from the
aristocratic and intellectual assemblages she frequented

22. Edwards: In his Mémoire Voltaire notes that he “failed to mention that he and
Du Châtelet also collaborated on a major project, a long and intricately
detailed treatise on the work of Sir Isaac Newton.”
Voltaire might be referring to Élements, where in the frontispiece we see Du
Châtelet hovering above, but no acknowledged co-authorship. Or he might
be asserting his role in her later independent work, or
the part Du Châtelet played in his separate
submission to the Académie contest. Edwards
largely credits Voltaire as author, citing her
apprenticeship as encouraging her to continue
her studies, but his claim that it was easy to
identify her contributions, resulting in her
widespread recognition as “an independent
thinker, a woman of powerful intellect” appear
inconsistent with his attribution.

23. Was Voltaire motivated by his association with Newtonians during his exile in England, did
he want to add to his reputation as philosopher, poet, dramatist and historian?
Or did he take up the project to engage and maintain the interest of Du Châtelet at the
beginning of their relationship?
Although Élements was intended for a wider audience, did Voltaire actually undertake
sufficient study of the algebra and geometry of the original to be the principal author?
Does his glowing “Minerve dictait et j’ecrivais” imply co-authorship as well as
acknowledgement of assistance/
Or was omitting recognition of Du Châtlet as co-author necessary to give the work credibility
– for at the time who could take seriously the contribution of a scandalous woman
pretending to be a scientist?
Mitford – and recall her book is Voltaire in Love – says Voltaire performed a
service to France by forcing himself to understand the original so that he could
make it clear to others. On the other hand, Clairaut later advised Voltaire to
devote his time to philosophy and poetry and give up science, in which he
would never rise above mediocrity.

24. Considering that she had completed her translation of the Aeneid at about the same
time, Du Châtelet’s Latin as well as her understanding of mathematics was probably
superior to Voltaire’s.
Boldanis identifies Du Châtelet as a co-author, but his
evaluations are generally overly generous to her without
specific analysis of why, other than referring to her
comments that she decided to write her own original
works of natural philosophy because of the “false steps”
and “confused ideas” of another – presumably Voltaire –
that she had previously encountered. Although focusing
primarily on the social context of her work, Hamel also
raises the question of joint authorship.
Others are not so wedded to the idea of co-authorship. The Zinsser-edited Selected
Philosophical and Scientific Writings of Émilie Du Châtelet, for example, does not
include Élements as a work of Du Châtelet.

25. By the mid-1730’s Du Châtelet and Voltaire were established at their retreat at Cirey,
where Voltaire presided over elaborate experiments, focused in particular on efforts to
show that fire was actually matter, that is, that it had weight.
Much havoc, but no definite conclusions resulted. Only
Zinsser has detailed – if imaginative - descriptions,
concluding that Voltaire intended all of the elaborate
equipment for his own use, with Du Châtelet as an
assistant, not as a partner. Increasingly disenchanted, she
worked in secrecy and at night to try to substantiate her own view of the nature of fire
and of light.
Although accounts of the two experiments differ, most biographers
emphasize her courage in proceeding on her own, with even those
most inclined to see her work as derivative considering her Académie
submission as totally independent – an 84-page document produced in
a month. Would Voltaire have tried to sabotage her work had he known?
Did she fear humiliation or anticipate sweet revenge?

26. The two independent solutions submitted to the Académie received what we
might call honorable mention. Both were Newtonian in approach whereas the
three winners, among them Euler, adhered to the Cartesian
view prevalent in the Académie at that time.
Between the submission and preparing the work for
publication the following year, Du Châtelet had been
studying the work of Leibniz and Wolff in preparation
for writing her Institutions de physique and
sought unsuccessfully to alter the Newtonian
formulation f = ma to the vis viva formulation
f = ma2 that appeared in Institutions.
This created a substantial controversy in the French scientific
community, including a dispute with the Académie secretary
Mairan.

27. Although at the time Du Châtelet received credit for her contribution to the evolution
of the vis viva theory, biographers tend to ignore or else to exaggerate the effect of her
influence seeing her work as precursor to Einstein or even as foundational to the
technologies of the Internet.
Du Châtelet’s announced intention in writing
Institutions de physique was to provide
a textbook for her young son. The less
scientifically inclined of her biographers refer
to it merely as a book dedicated to him.
Even though presented as an
attempt to reconcile complex
ideas from leading theories of
the time, it was broadly well
received by the educated populace and scientific journals but
fell out of use as physics moved from natural philosophy to a
experimental focus. A Hagengruber-edited volume has analyzed its
influence in the Newton/Leibniz debate.

28. Arianrhod deals best with the discussion in the last chapter of
vis viva that captured the attention of the scientific community
as a skillful blend of the Newtonian and Leibnizian approaches.
It was considered by Voltaire to be an abandonment of Newton.
The publication of Institutions de physique marked a coming
of age and solidified her growing reputation among the
Intellectuals of the Enlightenment in the judgment of those
of her biographers who seriously analyzed her work.
After the publication of Institutions de physique, Du Châtelet
turned to what began as a translation but became much more
as she struggle frantically to finish the Commentary as she
foresaw her death.
What should dominate an assessment of the originality of
her work are the Institutions de physique and the Principia
translation and commentary as it is very clear that Voltaire
had very little to do with either.

29. Serious biographers emphasize the accomplishment that her “Newton”
represents, not only as a translation but as a commentary.
Authors’ discernment of the significance of Du Châtelet’s work can be initially
recognized in part by whether they refer to the end product as only a
translation or whether then focus on the commentary, which occupied her up
until her death in September 1749.
Her extensive understanding of the mathematics of the original was developed
through long and intensive study with Maupertuis, König, Jacquier and
Clairaut.
The translation was granted permission to be published in 1746 and was
substantially completed by the next year.

30. Three sources of Newton were available in France in the 1740’s
1) The vernacular popularization of Algarotti and the earlier
Voltaire/Du Châtelet Éléments
2) Specialized Mémoires by Académie members covering
specific points
3) Newton’s own writings in Latin and English, very
difficult to penetrate by even the well-trained
Did Du Châtelet feel that the Éléments needed to be supplemented by the propagation
of Newton’s actual original work?
Or was it the residual belief that her contribution to Éléments had not been adequately
recognized?
Or was it the belief that as a service to science and satisfaction to herself she was
compelled to bring clarity and accessibility to Newton’s work?

31. The Principia project had been taken up in the early 1740’s, put aside and revived
several times.
While it was in progress Du Châtelet also wrote Discours sur la Bonheur, worked
on her five volume Examen de Genese and was heavily involved in the financial
affairs of her husband’s family.
With the complete of the translation came the conviction that more was needed –
under the premonition of an early death.
The nature of the Du Châtelet/Voltaire relationship had changed from that of
lovers to that of sometimes contentious friends and she had begun a liaison with
Saint-Lambert. At what was for the mid 18th century an advanced age she became
pregnant. Her husband rushed to be with her long enough to give the color of
fatherhood to the expected child, but subsequently neither he nor Saint-Lambert
nor Voltaire concerned himself much with the child, who died before the age of
two.

32. Overview of the theory of gravity
Summary of the more complex topics of the Principia
Chapter on the shape of the earth, based on the work by Maupertuis and Condamine
Daniel Bernoulli’s work on tides
Some topics from astronomy
Some extracts from the mathematical work of Clairaut
Summary of the work of Newton and his earliest Continental followers
Converted Newton’s geometric approach to one that was calculus based
Du Châtelet deposited with the king’s library her notebooks showing her progress on
the work, authenticating it through drawing, additions, and revisions. Unfortunately
eight volumes of her correspondence with Voltaire were apparently destroyed, perhaps
by Saint-Lambert, with whom they were reported to have been left.

33. There are fanciful descriptions of varying accuracy of Du Châtelet’s last days and death
that she delivered her child almost unnoticed and placed her upon a geometry book
that Voltaire threw himself down the stairs in his grief – a few day after relating how
much more difficult had been his birth pangs with his Catalina
that Saint-Lambert cradled her head as she struggled with her last breath
Some biographers end their accounts abruptly with her death
Others present a synopsis of the remainder of Voltaire’s life, including his return
to his affair with his niece and an unhappy sojourn in Berlin
Still others relate Saint-Lamber’st success in acquiring another mistress from a
well-known figure (Rousseau)
As noted, Voltaire’s self-serving Élage and Mémoire created an image of Du Châtelet that
it took centuries to overcome
Ten years after her death, inspired perhaps by the return of Halley’s comet, Clairaut
assembled her papers and oversaw the publication of her “Newton.”
Diderot and d’Alembert credited her for her contributions to the knowledge of Newton
through her translation and Commentary, but she was soon forgotten.

34. In the books considered, there is not, in my opinion a feminist perspective on Du Châtelet’s
work per se, nor really on her career. Mitford’s portrayal of her as a flighty socialite
and scientific dilettante being the furthest from such.
Unlike Kovalevskaya, Germain, and Noether, Du Châtelet has never become a major
icon among women in the mathematical sciences
Why
Lack of discernable original contributions as a mathematician, certainly
Tendency to avoid as heroines those who may be considered as
coquettes or society dilitantes no matter their contributions
No discernable concern for the position or involvement in science of
other women or other involvement in “feminist” causes
No concern for the education or advancement of women, including her
daughter
Is Discours sur le bonheur a “revolutionary cry for female independence”
as charactierzed by Arianthod, who does see her as a heroine for
young women and for “any thinking person” as Voltaire predicted?
Not to my knowledge or observation