158
d’Arcueil, the most fertile scientifi c circle of its day.
There, in 1809, he became better acquainted with
François Arago, a younger colleague in astronomy, with
whom he would have a long and stormy professional
relationship. They traveled together for the Bureau des
longitudes and collaborated on several projects and
papers early in their careers but soon developed op-
posing scientifi c views. By 1815, they were engaged
in a polemical rivalry over competing theories of light,
with Biot taking a conservative neo-Newtonian posi-
tion while Arago embraced the new and more radical
wave theory of light. Twelve years Arago’s senior, Biot
was an Orléanist and a devout, regenerate Catholic, an
eloquent and dignifi ed academic whose productivity
in research and publishing nevertheless failed to win
him an 1822 bid for the Académie’s highest post of
Secrétaire perpetuelle. To Biot’s disappointment, this
coveted, permanent seat would go to his rival in 1830,
which provided the radical constitutional liberal Arago
with tremendous power and infl uence. Biot had to be
satisfi ed with his election in 1835 to the Académie’s
temporary post of vice president.
Despite their differences, Arago and Biot would
soon become pendant fi gures as the two main academic
supporters of early photography. With their mutual ex-
pertise in optical science, they made natural technical
consultants for emergent photographic science, and
Jacques-Louis Mandé Daguerre sought them both out in
the mid- to late 1830s. In 1838, together with Alexander
von Humboldt, they offi cially examined Daguerre’s
process prior to the Académie’s fi rst public report on
daguerreotypy in January, 1839. Biot’s remarks to the
Académie at the January 7 meeting echoed those of
Arago in describing the process as a formidable tool for
empirical science; he saw the process as a new means
“to study the properties of natural agents” and to supply
independent proof of scientifi c assumptions. Conclud-
ing that fi rst offi cial communication on photography,
Biot credited Daguerre with having placed an “artifi cial
retina” at the disposal of physicists.
By this time, Biot and Arago had set aside some of
the bitterness of their rivalry. However, when the Brit-
ish photographic inventor William Henry Fox Talbot
learned that Arago had brought Daguerre’s work before
the Académie, Talbot cannily approached Biot to pres-
ent his claim of priority of invention to the Académie.
Biot was famously supportive of younger colleagues, a
respected elder who embraced the ideal of an interna-
tional, politically disinterested realm of pure scientifi c
dialogue. In the months to come, Biot served as Talbot’s
advocate before the Académie on numerous occasions.
Still, there was no obvious confl ict between Arago and
Biot over the Daguerre/Talbot contest. For his part, Biot
had no signifi cant personal stake in Talbot, although the
men were acquainted through British scientifi c circles.
However, Biot did have an old and dear friendship with
Talbot’s main ally and scientifi c advisor, Sir John Her-
schel. In acting as Talbot’s representative before the Aca-
démie, Biot may have been acting upon the friendship
and courtesy he felt for their mutual friend, Herschel.
While giving Talbot a window to the offi cial proceed-
ings, Biot was careful to maintain his neutrality. From
1839 to 1841, he corresponded with Talbot in a spirit
of honesty and good faith, giving advice and reporting
to the English inventor on the Académie’s continuing
discussion of his claims. He also thoroughly examined
Talbot’s methods, and personally presented each of
Talbot’s successive communications and his own fi nd-
ings to the Académie, but he would not enter the debate
as a partisan. Yet Biot ultimately expressed his frustration
over the rivalry between Daguerre and Talbot—and other
photographic inventors, for that matter—and plainly felt
that Talbot’s reticence to reveal his methods was harm-
ful to scientifi c progress, as well as to Talbot’s own best
interest. More than once he urged Talbot to quit stalling
and publish explicit descriptions of his methods. By the
end of almost three years of Talbot’s protracted struggles
with the Académie, Biot was perhaps weary of carrying
out the service of intermediary. When Talbot sent Biot
some photographic papers and instructions for their use
in 1841, Biot declined to examine them himself, but
instead passed them on to Victor Regnault, a colleague
with fresh enthusiasm for the new art.
Biot was not known as a photographer himself, and
it appears he did not belong to any of the early photo-
graphic societies. His role in early photography was thus
essentially that of a technical authority. In addition to
examining Daguerre’s and Talbot’s processes, he joined
Regnault in assisting Louis Désiré Blanquart-Evrard
when Blanquart brought his paper process before a
joint committee of members of the French academies
of science and beaux-arts in April of 1847. There, Biot
also agreed to an impromptu sitting to test the suitability
of the process for portraiture. Indeed, unlike Arago, of
whom no photographic portrait is known, Biot posed
for a number of portraits, including sitting for Regnault
at least four times. As a gesture of respect, Regnault
sent some of those portraits to members of the British
scientifi c community as mementos of this esteemed
French scientist.
Biot was a respected writer on historical subjects
as well as science, and over his long life he published
more than 300 articles and many textbooks. He died in
1862 at the age of 88.
Laurie DahlbergBiography
Jean-Baptiste Biot was born in Paris 21 April 1774.
Although his father wanted him to enter commerce, Biot