Of corpses, light and electricity

Abstract

What is the essential requirement for the existence of living beings? In the early 19th century, this question was approached in two different ways. The first approach proposed that electricity was responsible for movement in animals, a theory known as animal electricity or Galvani’s theory. However, Volta presented a more materialistic perspective, stating that an electric circuit did not rely on the presence of an animal muscle to function (embodied in Volta’s pile, 1800). The second approach suggested that animal tissues possessed a component beyond their measurable chemical composition, necessary for movement, though not detectable by any analytical method. This theory, known as vitalism or the phlogiston theory, proposed that there was a vital force at play. Later, Friedrich Wöhler demonstrated that the organic materials synthesized in the body were identical to those created in the laboratory, without the involvement of any animal tissue (e.g., the artificial synthesis of urea in 1828). Scientific progress rarely occurs abruptly; more often, it intertwines with the demands of civil society. An illustrative example is the significant development of studies in electricity, physics, and chemistry during the early decades of the 19th century, an era in which the drive towards a clear and measured understanding of science was very strong. This wave of interest can also be attributed, to some extent, to the spectacular demonstrations of new discoveries, which fueled human desire to challenge the divine and assume the role of the creator.