[1] An autograph letter of Philipp Reis to Mr. W. Ladd, the well-known instrument maker of Beak Street, London, describing his telephone, is still preserved, and is now in possession of the Society of Telegraph Engineers and Electricians of London. It is reproduced at p. 81.

[2] As to the difference in quality of the instruments, see the testimony of the maker, Albert of Frankfort, on p. 44. Prof. Pisko (see p. 101) seems to have had a peculiarly imperfect instrument.

[3] Dr. Messel, F.C.S., a former pupil of Reis, and an eye-witness of his early experiments, makes, in a letter to Professor W. F. Barrett, the following very interesting statement: “The original telephone was of a most primitive nature. The transmitting instrument was a bung of a beer-barrel hollowed out, and a cone formed in this way was closed with the skin of a German sausage, which did service as a membrane. To this was fixed with a drop of sealing-wax a little strip of platinum corresponding to the hammer of the ear, and which closed or opened the electric circuit, precisely as in the instruments of a later date. The receiving instrument was a knitting needle surrounded with a coil of wire and placed on a violin to serve as a sounding board. It astonished every one quite as much as the more perfect instruments of Bell now do. The instrument I have described has now passed into the hands of the Telegraph Department of the German Government.” [The instrument now in the museum of the Reichs Post-Amt in Berlin is not this, but is the first of the “Improved” Telephones described later by Reis in his “Prospectus” (see p. 85), and is stamped “Philipp Reis,” “1863,” “No. 1.”] S.P.T.

[4] Or sometimes “tension-regulators,” though the latter term is acknowledged by most competent electricians to be indescriptive and open to objection.

[5] See Die Geschichte und Entwickelung des Elektrischen Fernsprechwesens (issued officially from the Imperial German Post-office, 1880), p. 7.

[6] The name “Telephone” had already been applied by Sir C. Wheatstone (1831) to an acoustic arrangement for transmitting sounds through wooden rods to a distant place in a purely mechanical manner. It is needless to observe that speech as well as music can be thus transmitted; and though Wheatstone gave telephonic concerts, this does not prove (nor do telephonic concerts given through Reis’s instrument prove) that speech could not be transmitted also. The name “Fernsprecher,” now used in Germany for the Telephone, was only suggested in 1877 by Dr. Stephan, Postmaster of the German Empire, in obedience to the absurd fashion which has raged since 1871 in Germany of rejecting words of classic derivation.

[7] See proceedings in U. S. Court (Dowd suit), Edison’s second answer, and Prescott’s ‘The Speaking Telephone,’ p. 218.

[8] Published volume of Proceedings in the United States Patent Office, before the Commissioner of Patents. Evidence for A. G. Bell, p. 6.

[9] Proc. Soc. Telegr. Engin. and Electr. vol. xi. p. 134, 1882.

[10] ‘Electrical Review,’ July 22, 1882, p. 49.

[11] Mr. E. Albert, of the firm of J. W. Albert and Sohn, of Frankfurt, to whom Reis entrusted the manufacture of Telephones for public sale, thus writes: “The most important part was the membrane, because the delicacy of the apparatus depended principally upon that part. As it was not possible to make every membrane equally good, so it came about that instruments of different degrees of superiority came into use, and various decisions were arrived at as to the ability of the instrument to perform the functions for which it was designed. Those who happened to have a poor instrument were able to hear but little; while those who possessed a good instrument were astonished at its performances. A good instrument reproduced the words sung into it in such a manner that not only the pitch but also the words of the song were perfectly understood, even when the listener was unacquainted with the song and the words.”

M. St. EdmÉ, of Paris, who contributed to ‘Cosmos,’ vol. xxiv. p. 349, 1864, an article on Reis’s Telephone, of which he had seen an example in KÖnig’s atelier, said that when the scale was sung it needed a trained ear to distinguish the notes amidst the noises of the receiver. He must have got hold of an uncommonly bad transmitter with a flabby tympanum to have failed so completely.

[12] Letter of Dr. Messel to Professor W. F. Barrett quoted, in Professor Barrett’s memoir, ‘On the Electric Telephone,’ read Nov. 19, 1877, to the Dublin Royal Society. Vide Proc. Roy. Soc. Dubl. 1877.

[13] See Barrett’s ‘Telephones Old and New’ (1878), p. 12.

[14] See Reis’s own remark at bottom of p. 57.

[15] [This was the number formerly accepted on the authority of Despretz as the minimum number of vibrations that could evoke the sensation of a tone in the human ear. The limit now more usually recognized is that of Helmholtz, who assigns from thirty to forty double vibrations per second as the minimum.]—S. P. T.

[16] [The three plates or tables with which Reis accompanied his Memoir, containing a variety of undulatory curves corresponding to various combinations of tones, both of musical concords and of dissonant sounds, are not reprinted in this book in their entirety. Table I. contained three sets, the first of which is reproduced by photo-lithography in reduced facsimile in Fig. 47, p. 173. It was also reproduced by W. von Legat in his Report from which Plate I. at end of this book is copied, Fig. 1 of that plate being the same as Fig. 1 of Reis’s Table I. Fig. 2 of Plate 1, was in like manner copied by Legat from the first figure of Reis’s Table II., and Fig. 3 of Plate I., which represents the curves of a non-harmonious combination is the same as Reis’s Table III., the only difference being that in Reis’s Table III. the irregular undulations of the resultant curve were emphasised by being labelled ‘Dissonanz.’]—S. P. T.

[17] [This is true for speech-tones as well as for musical tones. Each kind of tone may be represented by its own characteristic curve.]—S. P. T.

[18] [This is the fundamental principle, not only of the telephone, but of the phonograph; and it is wonderful with what clearness Reis had grasped his principle in 1861.]—S. P. T.

[19] [That is, at any single demagnetisation of the needle, it vibrates and emits the same tone as if it had been struck or mechanically caused to vibrate longitudinally.]—S. P. T.

[20] [This range was simply due to the degree of tension of the tympanum; another tympanum differently stretched, or of different proportions, would have a different range according to circumstances.]—S. P. T.

[21] [The so-called “galvanic tone” heard on opening or closing the circuit was well-known, and Wertheim had shown that this tone was, for any given rod of iron, identical with its “longitudinal tone,” i.e. the tone produced by striking it on the end so as to produce longitudinal vibrations. But it was one of the most important discoveries in Reis’s researches that such a rod could take up any tone in obedience to the vibrations forced upon it by periodic interruptions in the magnetising current in the spiral of any degree of rapidity within very wide limits. The translator has had occasion to examine this point, and has found iron, steel, and cobalt wires varying from 4 to 10 inches in length, including some used by Reis himself as receivers, to be capable of taking up vibrations from as slow as 40 per second to the very shrillest whistle audible to human ears, or exceeding 36,000 per second. It is sometimes also mistakenly supposed that such a wire can respond only to the vibrations of tones that are musical, not to those that are articulate, including both consonants and vowels. This, however, is an entire mistake. For, using such a wire as a receiver (surrounded by its proper coil and mounted with an appropriate sounding board, or, better still, tympanum), in conjunction with a well-adjusted transmitter, the articulation transmitted surpasses that obtainable with any of the ordinary magnetic receivers in distinctness, though not in loudness. This discovery of Reis’s is of the greatest importance, especially as some who ought to know better have very unjustly denied the capability of this part of the apparatus to act as a telephone receiver for articulate sounds.]—S. P. T.

[22] [This limit is a mistake of Professor BÖttger’s. The longitudinal tone of an unstrained iron or steel wire 10 inches long would be a note about four octaves above the middle c of the piano; whereas, in fact, any note of the whole piano-gamut down to the lowest note, can be reproduced by such a wire, as stated in preceding footnote.]—S. P. T.

[23] [Professor BÖttger had not to wait long for the fulfilment to a very large degree of this anticipation; for within six months Dingler’s Journal, in which this article appeared, contained Legat’s report on Reis’s instruments, in which not only were various modifications in their construction made known, but also the transmission of voice-tones, not yet perfectly but with recognisable modulations and intonations, was recorded. Reis had, indeed, succeeded nearly as well as this with his first instrument, as his memoir of 1861 shows. See p. 58.]

[24] [Compare ‘Die Geschichte und Entwickelung des Fernsprechwesens,’ a pamphlet issued officially in 1880 from the Imperial German Post-Office in Berlin, p. 6.]

[25] [Plate VIII. of the original in Vol. IX. of the Zeitschrift.]

[26] [Plate IX. of the original Memoir.]

[27] [This word, as the context and ending of the paragraph shows, should have been spelled tones. The letter, written in English by Reis himself, is wonderfully free from inaccuracies of composition; the slip here noted being a most pardonable one since the plural of the German “ton” is “tÖnen,” the very pronunciation of which would account for the confusion in the mind of one unaccustomed to write in English. So far as is known, this is the only piece of English composition ever attempted by Reis.—S. P. T.]

[28] [Reis here sketched a figure identical in all its parts with that which a fortnight later was issued in his ‘Prospectus.’ His sketch is reproduced in facsimile in Fig. 28.]

[29] [This was the little auxiliary signalling apparatus at the side of the box, placed there for the same reasons as the auxiliary call-bell attached to modern telephones.]

[30] [This word is underscored in Reis’s original letter.]

[31] [Compare BÖttger Polyt. Notizbl. 1863, p. 81, the notice translated at p. 61 preceding.]—S. P. T.

[32] [This rather obscure passage refers to the call-key or communicator fixed to the side of the instruments, and which as the inventor explains in his Prospectus (see p. 87), to be intended, like the call-bell or communicator of modern telephones, as a means of sending signals to the speaker, and which, as the Prospectus says, can also be used—as any call-bell can—for telegraphing words by a pre-arranged code of signals.]—S. P. T.

[33] [Fig. 30 of this book.]

[34] [References.] Telephon von Reis im Jahresbericht des physikalischen Vereins zu Frankfurt-a.-M. fÜr 1860-1861, pag. 57 bis 64. MÜller-Pouillet, Physik, 1863, 6. Auflage, II pag. 352, Fig. 325. Berl. Ber. fÜr 1861, xvii. pag. 171 bis 173. Der Musiktelegraph in der “Gartenlaube” 1863, Nr. 51, pag. 807 bis 909. Aus der Natur 1862, xxi. pag. 470 bis 484; KÖnig’s Catalog, 1865, pag. 5.

[35] [This part of the apparatus is in fact a “call,” serving precisely the same function as the call-bell attached to ordinary telephones, by which the subscriber can be “called up” to listen to the instrument. It is not without importance to observe that this function was perfectly well-known at the time; for it was gravely argued during a former telephone law-suit in England that the presence of this “signal-call” at the side of the Reis Transmitter was a proof that it was intended to transmit singing only and not speech, or “else there would not have been that little Morse-instrument at the side by which to talk”! This suggestion is, however, self-evidently absurd, because if this had been the case the little electromagnetic Morse telegraph would have been fixed, not on the side of the transmitter but on that of the receiver. Reis himself explains the use of the “call” (see p. 87) in his “Prospectus.”]—S. P. T.

[36] [Professor Pisko seems to have got hold of an unusually unfortunate specimen of the instrument if he could make it neither speak nor sing. His transmitter must have been in exceedingly bad condition to fail so completely.]

[37] This error has been copied by Count du Moncel, along with the other defects of the article, into the fifth volume of his ‘Applications of Electricity,’ published in 1878. It is rather amusing now to read, at p. 106, of Du Moncel’s treatise that “Heisler” (sic) “pretends” that the telephone of “Reuss,” which “appears” to have been invented “anterior to the year 1866,” was capable of transmitting vocal melodies! Count du Moncel, though he has since posed as an authority on the telephone, did not in 1878 shine in that capacity, for on the very same page of the Count’s book may be found the following astounding sentiment:—“If it is true, as Sir W. Thomson has assured us, that at the Philadelphia Exhibition of 1876 there was a telegraphic system transmitting words, we may recognize,” &c. Count du Moncel has since found out that it is true that there was a Telephone in Philadelphia in 1876: perhaps he will next discover that “Reuss” did, “anterior to the year 1866,” actually “appear” to transmit not only what “Heisler” “pretends” he did, but that he also transmitted spoken words.—S. P. T.

[38] Ueber Fortpflanzung der TÖne auf wilkÜhrlich weite Entfernungen, mit HÜlfe der ElektricitÄt (Telephonie). Polyt. Journ. clxviii. 185; aus BÖttger’s Notizbl. 1863, Nr. 6. [See translation on page 61.]

[39] ‘Philosophical Magazine,’ April 1882.

[40] ‘Atti del R. Istituto Veneto di Scienze,’ vol. vi. ser. 5.

[41] Proc. Roy. Soc. No. 218, 1882.

[42] See Proc. Roy. Dubl. Soc. Feb. 17, 1879.

[43] Vide ‘The Electrician,’ Feb. 10, 1883.

[44] Journal Soc. Telegr. Engin. and Electricians, vol. xii. p. 137.

[45] Proc. Physical Soc. vol. ii. p. 259, 1878.

[46] ‘Journal Soc. Telegraphic Engineers,’ vol. iv. p. 117, 1874.

[47] The term “semi-conductor” is very rarely used by electricians, who prefer the term “partial conductor” as being more correct. Moreover, electricians, from Faraday downwards, are practically agreed in calling plumbago a good conductor, and worthy of being classified by reason of its high conductivity along with the metals. The substances known as “semi-conductors” are those given in Ferguson’s ‘Electricity,’ p. 49 (edition of 1873), namely, alcohol, ether, dry-wood, marble, paper, straw, and ice. Mascart and other eminent authorities agree in this classification. It would tax even Mr. Edison’s unrivalled ingenuity to make of these materials a transmitter that should alter its resistance by pressure!

[48] LÜdtge’s German Patent, dated Jan. 12, 1878,describes a “Universal Telephone” in which a tympanum was applied to convey vibrations to an interruptor made of hard coke-carbon.

[49] See Prescott’s ‘Speaking Telephone,’ p. 158.

[50] ‘British Patent,’ No. 1874, of the year 1876 (dated 4th May).

[51] Prescott, ‘Speaking Telephone,’ p. 203.

[52] Yet Bell’s claim (British Patent Specification) runs: “I claim the production of any given sound or sounds from the armature of the receiving instrument.”

[53] In making these comparisons in parallel columns, I wish to repudiate in the most emphatic way any sinister inference that might be drawn as to Graham Bell’s use of descriptions and curves identical in so many points with those of Reis. For, in the first place, I believe Professor Bell to be incapable of such contemptible appropriations, and the candour with which he has himself invited comparison by giving various references to Reis’s papers, itself precludes such inference. In the second place, I do not think that at the date of these quotations Bell understood German sufficiently well to comprehend Reis’s very precise statement of the problem of the Telephone. I simply exhibit these parallel extracts to show the thoroughness with which Reis had grappled with the problem with which, fourteen years later, Bell also grappled; and to prove in the most irrefragable manner, from the necessary identity in the terms selected for expressing the facts of the solution of the problem, that the problem to which each found a solution was identical. The circumstance that does, however, puzzle me, and which does not appear in these parallel extracts, is that, whilst in his original memoir, Reis speaks in detail of the auditory ossicles and their movements as having suggested his transmitter, and casually mentions the phonautograph of Scott in support of his views, Bell, in his original lecture before the American Academy, speaks in detail of Scott’s phonautograph as having suggested his transmitter, and casually refers to the auditory ossicles and their movements.

[54] Reis’s failures were chiefly with the vowels, Bell’s more particularly with the consonants. Reis’s contacts were liable to break, and the following-springs of his contact-regulators too little pliable. Bell’s transmitter could not open and close the circuit proportionally with the motions of the tympanum, and owing to the sluggishness due to self-induction in the coils of his telephone, the induced undulations of the current failed to come up in suddenness to those of the tympanum. In consequence whip sounded like whim, and kiss like kith, even in the perfected Bell Telephones made two years after Bell’s first “improvements” in telephony were patented.

[55] The following very remarkable passage occurs in the evidence given by Professor Graham Bell concerning Reis’s Telephones. (See published volume of ‘Proceedings in the United States Patent Office before the Commissioner of Patents.’ Evidence for A. G. Bell, p. 14.)

Question 37. “If a Reis Telephone, made in accordance with the descriptions published before the earliest dates of your invention, would in use transmit and receive articulate speech as perfectly as the instruments did which were used by you on June 25, 1876, at the Centennial, would it be proof to you that such Reis’s Telephones operated by the use of undulatory movements of electricity in substantially the same way as your instruments did upon the occasion referred to?”

Answer by Bell. “The supposition contained in the question cannot be supposed. Were the question put that if I were to hear an instrument give forth articulate speech transmitted electrically as perfectly as my instruments did on the occasion referred to in the question, I would hold this as proof that the instrument had been operated by undulatory movements of electricity, I would unhesitatingly answer, Yes.”

Surely no better authority is needed to support the proposition that if Reis made his Telephone speak, as he said he did, he employed undulatory currents.