suggestion that the invention was his. Further confu- 

 sion for later generations resulted from some ambigu- 

 ous entries in the Allgemeine Deutsche Biographic of 1 888. 

 The name "multiplier" seems not to have originated 

 with Schweigger himself. Speter credits it to Meineke 

 as "working" editor of Schweigger's Journal, but See- 

 beck seems to have used it much earlier. 10 



Conceding priority of conception to Schweigger 

 (Gumming has not been a real competitor on this 

 point) does not alter the fact that all three seem to 

 have reached their results independently of one 

 another, that the first work of each on this subject 

 was published within a period of five months, that 

 there were significant differences in their conceptions 

 of the uses and the optimum design of their devices 

 and that between them they provided an adequate 

 foundation for the subsequent development of the 

 galvanometer to become the primary electrical- 

 measuring instrument. 



In the matter of publication, Schweigger, as editor 

 of what was popularly called Schweigger's Journal, 

 had an obvious advantage, and presented his ex- 

 periments beginnings on page 1 of the first volume 

 of his Journal for 1821, published January 1 of that 

 year. 16 Oersted's paper had appeared two volumes 

 previously. He began by referring to Oersted's 

 discovery as "the most interesting to be presented in a 

 thousand years of the history of magnetism." He 

 was, in fact, so impressed with the epochal nature of 

 Oersted's achievement that he commemorated it by- 

 giving his Journal a second title so that "volume one" 

 of the new title could begin in the year after Oersted's 

 publication. 



Poggendorf, as a relatively junior student, had no 

 such easy access to publicity, but he had a staunch 

 admirer in one of his professors, Paul Erman at the 



15 T. Seebeck, "Uber den Magnetismus der Galvanischen 

 Kette," Abhandlungen dei Koenigliche Akadimie der Wissenschqften 

 ,/ Berlin (1820 1821), pp. 289-346. The phrase "Schweigger's 

 multiplier" is used on page 319. The many experiments 

 described in this paper added little or nothing to contemporary 

 appreciation of the multiplier as an instrument, 



" J. S. ( !. Schweigger, Journal fur Chemie and Physik 1 1821 I, 

 vol 11, pp. 1 IK, 1"> I.'. I'anes I li arc the paper presented in 

 Halle on September 16, 1820; pages 7-18 are the paper pre- 

 sented in Halle on November 4, 1820, and pages 35 12 are 

 "a few additional words." The preface to the whole volume 

 is dated January 1, 1821. A somewhat earlier public announce- 

 ment referring to Schweigger's discovery appeared in the 

 Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung (November 1K20), no. 296, cols. 

 I'L'L' ii_M, but this was lacking in detail and seems not to 

 have been noticed by any scientists. 



University of Berlin. Erman added a seven-page 

 postscript on Poggendorf's invention to his book 

 Outline of the Physical Aspects of the Electro-chemical 

 Magnetism Discovered by Professor Oersted, published 

 before April 182 1, 17 with an introductory paragraph: 



Heir Poggendorf, who is one of the most excellent or- 

 naments of the lecture room and laboratory of the Univer- 

 sity here, carried out a very coherent and well-conceived 

 investigation of electro-chemical magnetism, leading step- 

 by-step to a method of amplifying this activity-phenome- 

 non by means of itself. 



The postscript begins by referring to the "condenser 

 [Kondensator] just brought to my attention by Herr 

 Poggendorf" and explains that he cannot release his 

 treatise "without preliminary announcement of this 

 subject of the highest importance." (It can be in- 

 ferred from the text that the name "condenser" was 

 chosen because of the device's enhancing of mag- 

 netic measurements analogously to the enhancing of 

 electric measurements by Volta's electrostatic "con- 

 denser.") 



Immediately on reading the book, Schweigger 

 published extracts, mainly of the postcript, with 

 indignant comments on Erman's remissness (or worse) 

 in having failed to mention Schweigger's prior work. 18 



However, Erman was not alone in his unawareness, 

 if it was that, of Schweigger's discovery. 



Rival editor Gilbert of the Annalen der Physik re- 

 viewed Erman at much greater length than Schweig- 

 ger, reprinting most of the postscript with evident 

 enthusiasm, and stating in his preamble that the 

 invention is attributed to "a young physicist studying 

 here in Berlin, Herr Poggendorf." 19 Only in a foot- 

 note is the reader directed to another footnote in the 

 next article in the volume, where Gilbert finally 

 states that he "cannot leave unmentioned the fact 

 that this amplifying apparatus seems to be due to 

 Herr Professor Schweigger." He then quotes rather 

 fully from Schweigger's first two papers. 16 Oersted 

 in 1823 explained the situation thus: "The work of 

 M. Poggendorf, having been mentioned in a book 



17 P. Erman, Umrisse zu den physischen Verh'dltnissen dei von 

 Herrn Prof. Oersted entdeckten elektro-chemischen Magnetismus 

 (Berlin, 1KLM ). Hoppe (footnote 13) states that Erman's book 

 was published in May; however, it is referred to in .1 letter 

 dated April I, 1821, by Raschig, Annalen der Physik (1821), 

 vol. 67, pp. 427-436. 



ls Op. cit. (footnote 16), vol 32, pp. 38 50. 



" Annalen dei Physik ( 1821 I, vol. 67, pp. 382-426, and footnote 

 on pages 429-430 of same volume. The footnote accompanies 

 the article by Raschig mentioned in footnote 17. 



128 



BULLETIN 240: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 



