Note 53 — APPENDIX IV. On the Doctrine of Undulatory Currents.

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.