120 EULOGY ON ALEXANDER VOLTA. 



unitedly, was uusuccessfal, the bygrometrical state of the atmosphere 

 not having been favorable. A few days after, at Lavoisier's country- 

 house, electrical symptoms became manifest, though no change had 

 been made iti the method of observation. Yolta was not present at this 

 last trial. 



This circumstance was the origin of all the difiiculties. Some physi- 

 cists, as a general rule, without a thorough examination, regard as dis- . 

 coverers those who are the first, by experiment, to establish the exist- 

 ence of a fact. Others again regard the work of experiment as a second- 

 ary matter, reserving their admiration for those who have planned the 

 investigation. 



These principles are both too exclusive. Pascal assigned to his 

 brother-in-law, Perrier, the duty of ascending the Puy-de-Dome to ob- 

 serve the barometer, and yet Pascal's name alone is connected with 

 that of Toricelli, when referring to the proofs of the pressure of the air. 

 Michell and Cavendish, on the contrary, in the eyes of physicists, share 

 with no one the credit of their celebrated experiment on the attraction 

 of terrestrial bodies, although it had often occurred to others to attempt 

 it; and, in this case, execution was everything. The work of Volta, 

 Lavoisier, and Laplace belongs to neither of these two categories. I 

 will grant, if desired, that a man of genius alone could conceive the idea 

 that electricity assists in the generation of vapor; but to place this idea 

 beyond the pale of hypothesis, special means of observation and new 

 instruments must be invented. Those used by Lavoisier and Laplace 

 were the inventions of Yolta; they were constructed in Paris, under his 

 own eyes; and he was present when they were first tested. Multiplied 

 proofs of direct co-operation unquestionably connect Yolta's name with 

 every theory relating to the electricity of vapor. Who, however, would 

 dare afiflrm, in the absence of a positive declaration of this great physi- 

 cist to the contrary, that the experiment was not undertaken at the 

 suggestion of the French savant ? While there is doubt, would it not 

 be natural, on this, as well as on the other side of the Alps, in re- 

 ferring to these phenomena, not to separate again the names of Yolta, 

 Lavoisier, and Laplace; to cease to see in it, here a question of misun- 

 derstood nationality, and there a subject of virulent accusation, scarcely 

 excusable, if even no cloud obscured the truth ? 



These reflections will, I hope, put an end to a disgraceful dispute, 

 which malicious passions have endeavored to i^erpctuate. They will, at 

 all events, prove, by an additional example, how delicate a matter is the 

 l)roprietorship of the productions of the mind. When three of the most 

 brilliant geniuses of the eighteenth century, in the zenith of their glory, 

 could not agree as to what part of the invention belonged to ^ach, in 

 an experiment made by all, need we be astonished to see such conflicts 

 arise among beginners ? 



In spite of the length of this digression, I must not dismiss the exper- 

 iment which suggested it without dwelling upon its great importance, 



I 



