015 



INVENTION AND DISCOVERY. 



INVENTION AND DISCOVERY. 



946 



object of the scientific historian is truth for its own sake ; he has 

 nothing to do with conventions made for the sake of peace. 



This rule, that first publication gives the right, until the contrary is 

 proved, is adopted for the sake of its own probability as a starting 

 point. Select at hazard the name of a result, and of its first 

 announcer ; no doubt will exist in the mind of any one, used to the 

 history of science, that it is at least fifty to one the name of the real 

 discoverer is thus given. But if it be the fact that the discovery was 

 made at an earlier period, and if that fact can be established, the 

 history of the human mind must not be falsified by adherence to a 

 rule. If, for example, it could be made out, from internal evidence, 

 that Archimedes must have had an algebra and a differential calculus, 

 which deference to the notions of his time prevented him from pub- 

 lishing, it would never do to let the formal claims of Leibnitz and 

 Newton prevent the allowance of that of Archimedes : for then would 

 result the suppression of the actual fact, which, if true, would be of 

 great consequence, namely, that the Greek mathematics were powerful 

 enough to lead their best minds to the discoveries of modern times. 

 We insist upon this because we have observed a considerable tendency 

 in writers of history to establish a rule on legal grounds of peace and 

 convenience. There is also a confusion between two distinct things ; 

 the claims of history, and the claims of the individual : the former 

 demands true facts, the latter just appreciation of his merit. By a 

 perversity of the human mind, Newton and Leibnitz would lose fame 

 to-morrow, more or less, that is, more with some and less with others 

 if an undoubted manuscript of Archimedes were to turn up, showing 

 that he possessed a formal differential calculus. We are apt to assign 

 praise to mere priority, independently of originality, and to withdraw 

 it on failure of priority. But it is forgotten that the merit of priority 

 only lies in this, that the earlier an invention or discovery is made the 

 ruder are the methods and instruments, and the fewer the hints to 

 which it is due. For example, D'Alembert re-invented Taylor's theo- 

 rem [TAYLOR, in BIOG. Div.J in, or shortly before, 1754. He has all 

 the merit due to the discovery, as in 1754. But could it now be 

 proved that Taylor's works, 4c., were recent forgeries, so that D'Alem- 

 bert should stand as the original inventor, it would be impossible to 

 put him in Taylor's place ; the differential calculus was in two very 

 different states in 1716 and in 1754. 



There is also an injurious tendency to stand by the fixed rule as a 

 thing of good consequences, in the way of punishment or stimulus : 

 and certainly there is no denying that if it were but right to substitute 

 in history the thing which is not for the thing which is, there are 

 advantages arising from the adoption of the rigid rule of first publica- 

 tion. Tartaglia [TARTAGLIA, in Bioo. Div.] suppressed his method for 

 cubic equations from a selfish motive : Cardan, to whom he had com- 

 municated it under promise of secrecy, published it, with a sufficient 

 acknowledgment ; nevertheless the rule always goes by Cardan's name. 

 There is little to regret here : Tartaglia was willing, simply that he 

 might be able to puzzle his contemporaries, to retard the progress of 

 algebra ; it is not certain that he ever would have published his dis- 

 coveries. The public has rewarded the individual to whom they were 

 indebted for knowledge by affixing his name to the rules he announced. 

 If it were understood that the name attached to any scientific result 

 was always that of the first publisher, saving all the rights of history 

 over the truth of the discovery, this and similar acts of nomenclature 

 might be a satisfactory use of the norma loquendi. It hag sometimes 

 happened that individuals have deposited sealed packets with public 

 scientific bodies, to preserve their rights in the event of any one else 

 arriving at results which they wished to avoid making public until 

 they had followed them out to their remote conclusions. This practice 

 ifl one which would not prevent the name of any other person from 

 being attached to the content* of the packet, if he came independently 

 by the same results, and published them before the packet was 

 opened, though unquestionably the packet would prove the privity of 

 the depositor. 



The next question is, what constitutes a sufficient publication. And 

 here the answer is, that the only mode which can give the discoverer 

 no further duty in the matter, is the press. If any one should prefer 

 written correspondence, public lectures, or oral conversation, it must 

 be at his own risk. A printed book, pamphlet, magazine, or newspaper 

 which any one who likes may buy, is a record of the court of history 

 from the day of its appearance : but any other mode of communica- 

 tion, which is of its own nature not addressed to the public at large, 

 must be put in and proved before it can be available. A communica- 

 tioil to a scientific body, for example, is only so much better than a 

 letter to a friend, as it is more public and more easily proved : but 

 unless it be published in the transactions of that body, in which case 

 it ranks with a book from the date of publication, it will require sub- 

 sequent establishment. There is, however, always a difficulty with 

 regard to such communications, particularly when the transactions of 

 the academy in question do not appear till some time after the reading 

 of the memoir. It is impossible to know what an author has added as 

 the paper went through the press : that is, if a contest of dates should 

 arise, it will always be necessary to assume the date of publication, 

 unless some proof can be given that the memoir as published is, in tin: 

 matter under dispute, the same as that which was originally com- 

 municated. It has happened before now, that a communication pre- 

 sented has been almost entirely remodelled before it was printed. Wo 



AHTS AJfD SCI. DIV. VOL. IV. 



have little doubt that, in course of time, bodies which publish trans- 

 actions will find it necessary to require that authors should either 

 print their communications as presented, or date such additions as 

 they feel desirous of making. Since these remarks were first written, 

 some of the scientific societies have enforced attention to these 

 points. 



The most remarkable question of publication that ever arose was 

 that relative to the invention of fluxions. [FLUXIONS ; COHMERCIUM 

 EPISTOLICUM.] There never was a case in which it was more necessary 

 to consider the rights of history, and not to judge by any fixed rule. 

 Newton, unquestionably the first inventor, made no publication what- 

 ever at the time : an anagram, or transposed sentence, cannot be looked 

 upon in any other light than as a sealed packet. Leibnitz has ac- 

 cordingly the full merit of an inventor, and priority of publication. 

 Newton has given proof that he could have published it, if he had 

 chosen. He is the first inventor ; Leibnitz is the benefactor of the 

 world. 



It frequently happens, as before observed, that independent dis- 

 coveries take place about the same time : there is no doubt that 'such 

 is the fact. When the publications take place very nearly at the same 

 time, particularly when they are in different countries, it is easy 

 enough to admit the real independence of the two. If the same thing 

 should appear in the notices of the Royal Society and the Comptes . 

 Rendus of the French Institute within a few weeks of each other, the 

 presumption is strong in favour of neither writer having had a com- 

 munication, directly or indirectly, from the other : and this presump- 

 tion must be rebutted by any one who desires to prove plagiarism. 

 But as the interval of time becomes greater, the presumption, so far as 

 it is derived from time only, is weakened. In such a case, the internal 

 evidence of the writings themselves must be carefully looked at. There 

 is usually a very great difference between the modes in which different 

 investigators arrive at, and even in which they state, the same con- 

 clusions : those who would do a dishonest thing might know this as 

 well as others, and might endeavour to counterfeit originality. To 

 detect the base metal is not always easy : to prove its baseness is next 

 to impossible. But it mostly happens that really independent investi- 

 gators carry their results to different lengths ; one will go further in 

 one part of the subject, another in another. 



As may be supposed, the most disputed cases are national ones ; 

 including in that term the schisms of different classes in the same 

 country, as the scientific feuds of universities, of literary societies, &c. 

 And between people of different countries and governments, the 

 question arises in two distinct ways, not only as to the definition of 

 the discovery itself, and the priority of publication, but as to the 

 country to which the discoverer is to be said to belong. And here 

 there seems to us to be a necessity for a distinction which is rarely 

 made, and no wonder; national pride is the mortal enemy of dis- 

 criminative argument. All people like to believe that their race is 

 gifted by nature with talent, and that their public policy is calculated 

 to draw it out. For proof of this they appeal to their great writers 

 and thinkers, among whom they include all whom they have drawn 

 into their country, and all whom they have driven out. Now it is 

 clear that the eminent men who have been induced to settle in a 

 country not then- own, may be a credit to the institutions, but can be 

 none to the race, of their adopted country ; while those who are driven 

 away may do honour to the race but not to the institutions of the land 

 from which they are exiled. Take the cases for instance of Lagrange 

 and De Moivre. Lagrange, who, of many offers made to him when he 

 left Prussia, preferred that of the king of France, resided in that 

 country from 1787 till his death in 1813, was exempted from the 

 expulsion of foreigners ordered by Robespierre, and received, during 

 all governments from the old monarchy to the empire, every possible 

 honour and aid, is a greater credit to French institutions and feelings 

 than if he had been born in their country. But so far as blood is 

 concerned, he is almost wholly Italian, having been born, and 

 established his first reputation, at Turin : his mother tongue was 

 Italian, and his first work was published in Italian. It is said, we do 

 not know on what authority, that his great grandfather was a French- 

 man, which may entitle France to claim the eighth part of him. De 

 Moivre, on the other hand, born of French parents and educated in 

 France, was driven from his country by religious fanaticism, and none 

 of his works were published either in France or in French. Whatever 

 credit his talents may do to his race, he is the disgrace of their 

 institutions, as to the time in which he lived. Not that he received 

 such encouragement here as would entitle us to say that the honour 

 lost by France was wholly gained by England. While picking up a 

 scanty living by private teaching, the only way in which he could find 

 tune to read the Prinoipia was by tearing it leaf from leaf, and carrying 

 a leaf in his pocket to look at while walking from one pupil to another, 

 or at any other chance interval. 



There is much absurdity in the mode by which national prowess in 

 matters of discovery is tested. A few of the very first names are made 

 the only subjects of comparison. There is some presumption, certainly, 

 that the great names are the best of many, and that the plants are 

 most numerous where the largest plants are found. But this presump- 

 tion must not be urged when an attentive consideration will settle the 

 question without it. Archimedes was the greatest of the Greek 

 mathematicians ; but Sicily was not therefore tho most celebrated in 



3r 



