快猫短视频

The play begins in 2001. The Nobel Foundation has decided to award a
鈥渞etroNobel鈥� for those great discoveries that happened before the Nobel Prize
started in 1901.

Professor ASTRID ROSENQVIST, the self-assured chair of the Chemistry Nobel
Prize Committee, and her male colleagues BO HJALMARS, SUNE KALLSENIUS and KJELL
SVANHOLM sit at a table. Slightly apart sits the amanuensis, ULLA ZORN. She
seems nervous, playing with a pencil, notebook and tape recorder in front of
her. The periodic table hangs on the wall.

The committee鈥檚 task should be easy, reaching back to a time when science was
done for science鈥檚 sake, when discovery was simple, pure and unalloyed by
controversy, priority claims and hype . . .

KALLSENIUS: Gibbs . . . Willard Gibbs. What鈥檚 chemistry without
thermodynamics . . . without the Phase Rule?

SVANHOLM: Sure, Gibbs is important . . . but for this . . . the first prize?
And again an American? Maybe later on, but now? (Beat)The choice is
obvious. (Beat, then slow and forceful) Dimitri . . . Ivanovitch . . .
Mendeleyev. Can you imagine chemistry without the periodic table? Just look
behind you. (Points with thumb without even turning around) Why do we
have it hanging there? It鈥檚 our Rosetta Stone.

HJALMARS: What about Louis Pasteur? (Speaks slowly and pompously)
鈥淭he Prizes should be distributed to those who have conferred the greatest
benefit on Mankind.鈥�(Reverts to ordinary tone) That鈥檚 what it says in
Alfred Nobel鈥檚 Will. (Beat) If you stop people on the street with the
question, 鈥淲ho has conferred the greatest benefit on Mankind? Gibbs? Mendeleyev?
Or Pasteur?鈥� They鈥檒l ask, 鈥淗ow do you spell `Gibbs鈥� or `Mendeleyev鈥�?鈥� You won鈥檛
hear that said of Pasteur.

KALLSENIUS: But this is no spelling bee! And we aren鈥檛 people on the street!
Surely, members of the Royal Academy of Sciences have a wider view of the words
鈥済reatest benefit on Mankind.鈥� (Suddenly notices Zorn furiously
writing) Wait a moment! (Points to Zorn)Is this part of the formal
meeting?

ROSENQVIST: Of course not. (Shakes head at Zorn, who ostentatiously
crosses out her notes) Before we continue with names, let鈥檚 not forget why
we鈥檙e here this morning.

HJALMARS: (Irritable) Why don鈥檛 we stick to one job at a time? We
haven鈥檛 even agreed on the shortlist for the 2001 Nobel Prize鈥�

SVANHOLM: (Grumbles) And why haven鈥檛 we? (Beat) Because
every year our shortlists are getting longer鈥�

ROSENQVIST: (Good-natured) But why be surprised? There are more chemists than
ever . . . (Chuckles) Some of them even do work important enough for a
狈辞产别濒鈥�

HJALMARS: Precisely! But what about our important work . . . my important
work? All I seem to do is read other people鈥檚 papers鈥�

ROSENQVIST: You, as a Swede, ought to be proud to pay that price!

HJALMARS: I鈥檓 getting tired of paying it! No wonder Swedish chemists don鈥檛
win the real Prize! Instead of working in the lab, all our time is spent in the
library winnowing winners.

SVANHOLM: Very clever! What about Tiselius?

HJALMARS: (Dismissive) That was over 50 years ago.

SVANHOLM: What about Bergstr枚m? What about Samuelsson? They鈥檙e
Swedes.

KALLSENIUS: That Nobel Prize was in Medicine.

SVANHOLM: That only shows that medicine can鈥檛 manage without chemists!

ROSENQVIST: Gentlemen, enough! This year, all the Nobel committees are
spending more time than usual. Picking laureates for our Centenary is a special
responsibility.

KALLSENIUS: Picking? We鈥檙e bickering! (Beat)I don鈥檛 ever remember
our arguing this much . . . and this long.

. . . the committee takes a short break (BLACKOUT. KALLSENIUSand HJALMARS
move left downstage, whileROSENQVIST andZORN move right downstage.
Very dark, spotlight solely on faces of the two men)

KALLSENIUS: You certainly sounded dubious.

HJALMARS: I didn鈥檛 notice any excitement on your side of the table.

KALLSENIUS: True.(Beat) Initially, I thought the retroNobel was a
half-baked idea.

HJALMARS: And now?

KALLSENIUS: Less so.

HJALMARS: But it may take weeks.

KALLSENIUS: It may be worth it.

HJALMARS: What is this . . . a Nobel power trip? Selecting regular Nobel
prizewinners and now also retroNobelists?

KALLSENIUS: (Ignores comment, pensive) What do you know about Ulla
Zorn?

HJALMARS: Nothing. (Beat) Astrid brought her.

KALLSENIUS: Hmm.

HJALMARS: What does that mean?

KALLSENIUS: Just hmm.

(BLACKOUT. Very dark, spotlight solely on faces of the two women. ROSENQVIST
clearly enjoying her cigarette. Both speak in low tones)

ZORN: You haven鈥檛 told them about me, have you?

ROSENQVIST: Not yet.

ZORN: They must be wondering鈥�

ROSENQVIST: I鈥檓 sure they are. All the Nobel Committee secretaries I know are
considerably older.

ZORN: Aren鈥檛 they expecting a chemist for secretary?

ROSENQVIST: That鈥檚 why you are called an amanuensis.

ZORN: But why not tell them what I do? It鈥檚 no secret鈥�

ROSENQVIST: All in good time . . . trust me.

ZORN: Of course, I trust you. Still . . .

ROSENQVIST: I know men . . . I mean I know how to handle men . . . or I
wouldn鈥檛 be where I鈥檓 now . . . at least with this committee.

(BLACKOUT to permit committee members to reassemble, then light) . . .

SVANHOLM: Why not a Swede for the first one? When it came to the regular
Nobel Prizes, the Academy waited until the third prize before giving it to
Arrhenius.

ROSENQVIST: Careful! Remember what it says in Nobel鈥檚 Will. (Picks up
small green booklet of Nobel Foundation Directory) I quote: 鈥淚t is my
express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration whatever shall be
given to the nationality of the candidates, but that the most worthy shall
receive the prize, whether he be a Scandinavian or not.鈥�

SVANHOLM: But the retroNobel has nothing to do with his Will. Of course, by
honouring the Prize on its 100th anniversary, we also honour Alfred Nobel . . .
(Beat) And he was a Swede . . . and proud of it.

HJALMARS: Kjell is right. Besides, picking a compatriot ought to simplify
life for us.

KALLSENIUS: How so?

HJALMARS: Because I can think of only two serious candidates, Scheele and
Berzelius.

KALLSENIUS: Not bad! Of course, with Scheele you鈥檝e just moved back to the
18th century. By the way, (turns to Rosenqvist) how far back can we
go?

ROSENQVIST: No limit. But we ought to stick to real chemists, so even
Paracelsus is out. No retroNobel for alchemists.

HJALMARS: Focusing on the 18th century may not be a bad idea. People
published less . . . so we have less to read. There were fewer journals . . .
which again means less work. And most of them worked alone, so we won鈥檛 have the
usual arguments about dividing the Prize.

SVANHOLM: I probably shouldn鈥檛 be the one to complicate life . . .
considering that I brought up one of our compatriots in the first place. But if
we select Carl Wilhelm Scheele, what about Antoine Laurent Lavoisier?

KALLSENIUS: In that case, we must add Joseph Priestley.

SVANHOLM: You鈥檙e right. Maybe we鈥檇 better drop them all in favour of
Berzelius.

ROSENQVIST: Because there may be less competition? We can鈥檛 allow that to
become the reason! I suggest we stick to the discovery of oxygen. Didn鈥檛 that
start the chemical revolution? Everything else . . . all the hundred and some
Nobel prizes since 1901 . . . followed from that. Oxygen ought to come first!
Even if a Frenchman or an Englishman gets the credit.

. . . Prior to the discovery of oxygen, chemists thought that when things
burnt they gave off an elusive substance called phlogiston. Along with two kinds
of earths, water and air, phlogiston was one of the five elements from which
everything else could be created. As HJALMARS puts it, the language of chemistry
was 鈥渁n unholy mess鈥�. That all changed with the discovery of the 鈥渧ital gas鈥� by
the French tax collector, public servant and chemist ANTOINE LAURENT LAVOISIER .
. . or was it by the Unitarian English clergyman JOSEPH PRIESTLEY? . . . or even
the Swedish apothecary CARL WILHELM SCHEELE?

Oxygen set the stage for the chemical revolution鈥攖he correct
identification of the elements and an understanding of the true nature of
chemical reactions. In short, the discovery of oxygen led in a fairly direct
line to pharmaceuticals, dyes, plastics . . . to all modern chemistry.

Alternating between scenes set in 2001 and 1777, the play brings the three
protagonists and their companions to Sweden for the fictitious Stockholm
Challenge, intended to resolve the question of who discovered oxygen.

Here, the savvy, ambitious 19-year-old MME LAVOISIER, who assisted LAVOISIER
with his work, the housewifely MRS PRIESTLEY, and FRU POHL, who will marry
Scheele only on his deathbed, chat in a sauna . . .

MME LAVOISIER: (Dreamily) I have never been beaten before . . . not
like that. Can we do it again?

FRU POHL: Madame! The secret of sauna is moderation. But if you desire it,
you shall be beaten again . . . after you sweat some more. (Beat) If it
were winter, we could offer another surprise to Madame.

(Mrs Priestley enters, still fussing with towel, mobcap askew)

MRS PRIESTLEY: That was bracing!

MME LAVOISIER: The cold water?

MRS PRIESTLEY: (Starts adjusting her mobcap) Swedish birch branches . . . are
they special?

FRU POHL: (Moves aside to make room for Mrs Priestley on bench) The skill of
the attendant is more important than the quality of the birch.

MME LAVOISIER: And you, Madame? You have practice . . . with the birch?

. . . MME LAVOISIER soon manoeuvres the conversation to a question that is
never far from her mind: which of the men has left the best paper trail. At
first FRU POHL insists that SCHEELE is too busy running his pharmacy in
K枚ping and doing chemistry to worry about who gets the glory. (Later,
KALLSENIUS will refer to SCHEELE as 鈥渢he idealised scientist: a nerd鈥�.) But
after some prodding, she intimates that the paper trail will show that SCHEELE
beat the other two to the discovery . . .

MME LAVOISIER: (Taken aback) You say he started in 1770? You are
certain?

FRU POHL: Perhaps it was 1771. But the book tells it all . . . I remember the
dinner, soon after he had settled in K枚ping, when he told me, exhausted,
that it was finished. He asked me to post it to the printer Swederus in
Uppsala.

MME LAVOISIER: But two years have passed! Where is the book? And are its
contents known to anyone?

FRU POHL: (Hesitantly) I believe so.

MME LAVOISIER: Their names?

FRU POHL: Anders Retzius, his first chemical colleague still from
惭补濒尘枚鈥�

MRS PRIESTLEY: And now Professor of Chemistry at Lund. Dr Priestley knows him
well.

MME LAVOISIER: No others?

FRU POHL: The mineralogist Johan Gottlieb Gahn, who introduced Carl Wilhelm
to his greatest supporter, Professor Torbern Bergman鈥�

MRS PRIESTLEY: Of Uppsala. Dr Priestley thinks him the most famous chemist in
Sweden.

MME LAVOISIER: (Turns to Fru Pohl) We also value him. But no one else?

FRU POHL: One more.

MME LAVOISIER: Who?

FRU POHL: Your husband. (Beat) In 1774. In a letter.

MME LAVOISIER: (Angrily) It was never received!

FRU POHL: Perhaps. (Beat) But Madame will see it . . . tomorrow . . .
as will Monsieur Lavoisier, (turns to Mrs Priestley) and Dr
Priestley. (Rises, stretches out hand to Mme Lavoisier) But now let us
visit the attendant. The birch is waiting. You have sweated enough.

The stage for the next excerpt requires the suggestion of a palace setting.
The Stockholm Challenge is about to begin鈥攖he chemists in the presence of
King Gustavus III will repeat one another鈥檚 key experiments and pass judgment.
They bow to the royal party鈥擫AVOISIER, who鈥檚 not adverse to hobnobbing
with royalty, with a flourish; PRIESTLEY, the political radical, with obvious
discomfort.

First LAVOISIER runs PRIESTLEY鈥檚 experiment, heating mercury oxide to release
a gas. A mouse placed in a flask of the gas lives longer than a mouse in a flask
of air. PRIESTLEY has shown that he can make oxygen, and that oxygen can sustain
life. But the political radical is a chemical conservative. PRIESTLEY refers to
his gas as 鈥渄ephlogisticated air鈥�, framing his discovery in terms of the
established but flawed theory that LAVOISIER will demolish.

Next, in a flashy experiment that showcases his technical expertise,
LAVOISIER shifts the emphasis from merely making oxygen to understanding its
chemistry, including the still revolutionary idea that during chemical reactions
substances may change, but matter can neither be added or taken away . . .

LAVOISIER: But do you not agree, Monsieur, that we human mortals are just
physiological machines, subject to the rule of some eternal balance? I have
measured that vital balance of a man breathing. I have measured it most
precisely. I have shown that when we breathe, the body takes definite amounts of
oxygen and transforms it into other gases and water. I will show you this, but,
to demonstrate it, Monsieur (he confronts Priestley) . . . a timepiece
is not sufficient (Beat) . . . for exact weights are essential! Since
nothing is gained nor lost in this world, the balance of life鈥檚 chemistry can be
determined only by measuring the weight of the man and the oxygen breathed by
丑颈尘鈥�

SCHEELE: But that cannot be sufficient!

LAVOISIER: Nor is it! We also need to capture and weigh all expired gases,
and liquids emitted . . . hence my experiment. I have devised a rubber suit
allowing us to catch all effluents of the body . . . to balance the equation . . .
Dr Priestley, are you prepared to perform the experiment?

(Lights out, except for spots on the two men performing the experiment, and
eventually Scheele and Mme Lavoisier)

PRIESTLEY: Indeed I am . . . even weighing things on your balances.

LAVOISIER: You will need some help, Dr Priestley . . . I often employ as many
as five assistants in carrying them out. Often, Mme Lavoisier recorded our
measurements, even using her drawing talent to document new equipment.

SCHEELE: I will help you, Dr Priestley.

PRIESTLEY: Apothecary Scheele is the equal of five assistants. But we do
require a volunteer for the experiment . . . to wear your modern suit of armour.
(Turns to his wife, who is not seen)Mary?

MRS PRIESTLEY: (Most reluctant) I would help you, Joseph, but I fear for my
life in this French contraption.

PRIESTLEY: Have no fear! 鈥楾is but science.

MME LAVOISIER: I will do it! (She marches up, with determination. She
picks up 鈥渞ubber suit鈥�, not unlike old-fashioned diving suit. Projections of
Lavoisier鈥檚 famous respiration experiment are shown on a rear screen with rest
of stage continuing dark)

LAVOISIER: Gentlemen. Not only must you weigh my spouse to the nearest grain
. . . you must also weigh her suit. You have already weighed the vital air she
breathed, and now you must capture the air exhaled and analyse it. Not all the
vital air inhaled is used. And much fixed air is exhaled . . . which you will
capture in limewater. And one more matter! Water is also exhaled . . . as a
vapour. And it must be accounted for. The measurements will take several
hours.

MRS PRIESTLEY: (Shocked, not seen) Poor Madame!

LAVOISIER: Quantitative experimentation is a hard mistress (looks at
wife).

(Passage of time indicated by light and sound)

LAVOISIER: (To Priestley and Scheele) I trust you took care. The margin of
error must not be more than18 grains in 125 pounds. What do you find?

PRIESTLEY: The subject has lost some weight. (Mme Lavoisier is pale, but
smiles)

SCHEELE: When we take into account the water breathed out, there is a rough
balance indeed.

LAVOISIER: As there must be! (Beat) Nothing is created鈥�

FRU POHL: Except by God.

LAVOISIER: Nor lost.

MRS PRIESTLEY: Except by Man.

SCHEELE: My compliments on your experiment, Monsieur Lavoisier. Would you now
do me the honour of performing the experiment I brought to your attention some
three years ago in my letter鈥�

LAVOISIER: I know of no letter鈥�

. . . then it鈥檚 SCHEELE鈥檚 turn. He dictates instructions for creating oxygen
by heating silver carbonate, which LAVOISIER follows. The gas relights a glowing
splint, demonstrating that it can sustain combustion. SCHEELE dubs the gas 鈥渇ire
air鈥�. The three chemists debate the experiments. PRIESTLEY is contemptuous of
LAVOISIER鈥檚 offering . . .

PRIESTLEY: The experiment you so laboriously had us do . . . with balances .
. . and the patient suffering of your wife . . . did demonstrate I readily
confess . . . one function of your . . .(assumes sarcastic tone)
鈥渆minently respirable air鈥�. (Triumphantly) But Monsieur, you did not
show us how you made that air. (Beat) And that royal question brought
all of us to Stockholm.

LAVOISIER: I knew my air was there in ordinary air . . . did I not see metals
combine with it, and sulphur, and phosphorus?

PRIESTLEY: That does not show us how you produced the dephlogisticated air . . .

LAVOISIER: Pray stop calling it 鈥渄ephlogisticated鈥�, Dr Priestley. The name
derives from a theory that is pass茅.

PRIESTLEY: Not for me.

SCHEELE: Nor for me.

LAVOISIER: Yet we all accept the existence of this air, hitherto unknown,
even if it is a part of normal breathable air. Why not a new name, to avoid this
argument? Why not call it oxygen?

PRIESTLEY: And yield to the tyranny of a nomenclature, invented by you! . . .
Sir, I am against tyranny . . . in any form.

LAVOISIER: (Resigned) The time will come when all men will see, oh
so clearly, Messieurs, that when a new structure is needed for a science, when,
indeed, there must be a revolution, that there must be new names.

But you question my work, the most precise in Europe? I saw the need for a
common gas involved in rusting, burning and respiration. I heard another
apothecary, our own Bayen, recite how he decomposed mercurius calcinatus . . .
with mercury remaining behind and a gas being given off.

PRIESTLEY: But you did not know what that gas was!

LAVOISIER: I knew there had to be a vital gas . . .

PRIESTLEY: But until that October 1774 dinner in Paris when I informed you of
my observations . . . you did not know the nature of that air . . .

SCHEELE: And until that October 1774 day when you got my letter which told
you how to make fire air . . .

The scene ends in total confusion, all shouting, the wives as well. There is
no decorum; even royal trumpets cannot halt this donnybrook.

How will the 18th-century scientists resolve their priority dispute? To whom
will the 21st-century scientists award the first retroNobel? According to the
historic record on 30 September 1774, SCHEELE did send LAVOISIER a letter
outlining his experiments. But did LAVOISIER ever get to see it? ZORN knows the
answer. To find out more you will have to go and see Oxygen.