awarded it—has often been denied them by egotistical Laureates. The cases of
Rosalind Franklin, Oswald Avery and Lise Meitner come to mind immediately. As scientific discoveries are almost invariably ‘collegiate’, and because
the prize bestows a kind of Wagnerian ‘heroic genius’ upon the winner, the
exaltation of the individual has often led to a profound resentment dividing
former colleagues. In this case however, Haber’s unconditional endorsement
of Robert’s work was probably genuine, heartfelt and deserved, and Robert in
turn treasured their friendship until Haber’s death in 1934. In the same
speech Haber also generously acknowledged Nernst’s contribution to his
prize. At the ceremony, all the German Laureates from 1914 to 1919 were
present who, because of the war were previously unable to travel to
Stockholm. Only one other Laureate was present, the English physicist
Charles Glover Barkla. The German Laureates however had a wonderful time
reveling in the celebrations laid on by their Swedish hosts.
47 But discontent at
the Swedish Academy’s decision rumbled on. Two Frenchmen awarded prizes
that summer (for Medicine and Economics
48 ) refused to accept them. Some
such as Theodore Richards declared that they would not shake the hands of
German Scientists at Nobel ceremonies or anywhere else until sincere remorse
was forthcoming for signing the ‘Manifesto of the 93’, and in such a climate,
given the bitterness that infected the world after the war, even Haber’s public
endorsement of Robert’s work was still not enough to permit the accolade
‘Haber-Le Rossignol process’ to ever gain any popular or professional currency, and replace the—by then—ubiquitous, ‘Haber process’.
49 Later life
was not kind to Robert and in comparison this lack of universal recognition
seems unimportant. However, although no resentment ever lay in his heart, it
may have been a life-long regret for Robert that, unlike ‘Haber’, the name ‘Le
Rossignol’ never became synonymous with nitrogen fixation. But Robert was
to suffer a Nobel ‘double whammy’, for along with the Award, Haber also
received 138,198
50 Swedish Kronor equivalent to around a quarter of a
million pounds today which, because of ratcheting German inflation, he kept
in a Swedish bank.
51 It would therefore have been perfectly possible for
Haber’s ‘endorsement’ of Le Rossignol to translate into a royalty payment for
1918, in accordance with their additional private contract (Sect. 15.4.1)
made only eighteen months earlier. In the short term however, no payment
was made.
52
There were however some compensations for Robert as significant professional recognition followed the Nobel Award to his friend. The American
Chemical Society Member listing for May 1921 shows that Robert was
admitted to this prestigious organization in 1920,
53 and less than a year after
Haber’s award, he was elected a Fellow
54 of the Institute of Chemistry of
15 The Post-war Years 1919–1930
343
Rosalind Franklin, Oswald Avery and Lise Meitner come to mind immediately. As scientific discoveries are almost invariably ‘collegiate’, and because
the prize bestows a kind of Wagnerian ‘heroic genius’ upon the winner, the
exaltation of the individual has often led to a profound resentment dividing
former colleagues. In this case however, Haber’s unconditional endorsement
of Robert’s work was probably genuine, heartfelt and deserved, and Robert in
turn treasured their friendship until Haber’s death in 1934. In the same
speech Haber also generously acknowledged Nernst’s contribution to his
prize. At the ceremony, all the German Laureates from 1914 to 1919 were
present who, because of the war were previously unable to travel to
Stockholm. Only one other Laureate was present, the English physicist
Charles Glover Barkla. The German Laureates however had a wonderful time
reveling in the celebrations laid on by their Swedish hosts.
47 But discontent at
the Swedish Academy’s decision rumbled on. Two Frenchmen awarded prizes
that summer (for Medicine and Economics
48 ) refused to accept them. Some
such as Theodore Richards declared that they would not shake the hands of
German Scientists at Nobel ceremonies or anywhere else until sincere remorse
was forthcoming for signing the ‘Manifesto of the 93’, and in such a climate,
given the bitterness that infected the world after the war, even Haber’s public
endorsement of Robert’s work was still not enough to permit the accolade
‘Haber-Le Rossignol process’ to ever gain any popular or professional currency, and replace the—by then—ubiquitous, ‘Haber process’.
49 Later life
was not kind to Robert and in comparison this lack of universal recognition
seems unimportant. However, although no resentment ever lay in his heart, it
may have been a life-long regret for Robert that, unlike ‘Haber’, the name ‘Le
Rossignol’ never became synonymous with nitrogen fixation. But Robert was
to suffer a Nobel ‘double whammy’, for along with the Award, Haber also
received 138,198
50 Swedish Kronor equivalent to around a quarter of a
million pounds today which, because of ratcheting German inflation, he kept
in a Swedish bank.
51 It would therefore have been perfectly possible for
Haber’s ‘endorsement’ of Le Rossignol to translate into a royalty payment for
1918, in accordance with their additional private contract (Sect. 15.4.1)
made only eighteen months earlier. In the short term however, no payment
was made.
52
There were however some compensations for Robert as significant professional recognition followed the Nobel Award to his friend. The American
Chemical Society Member listing for May 1921 shows that Robert was
admitted to this prestigious organization in 1920,
53 and less than a year after
Haber’s award, he was elected a Fellow
54 of the Institute of Chemistry of
15 The Post-war Years 1919–1930
343