Circulating Knowledge, Enrolling Support

As time wore on, the dissemination of Steinheil’s ideas and his quest forfinancial and logistical support began to reveal the difficulty of reconciling the different interests involved in the development of the technology. His presentation to the Akademie der Wissenschaftenin 1838 was duly published, and reproduced and summarized in a number of journals, fromDinglers to the French Annales de chimie et de physique, and Charles and John Watt’s The Chemist.⁸³ Curiously,

⁸¹ BHStA, MInn 45175/1, Steinheil to General-Conservatorium, 19 Apr. 1836.

⁸² Steinheil,Ueber Telegraphie, pp. 4–5.

⁸³ Anonymous,‘Über Steinheil’s elektro-magnetischen Telegraphen mit betreffenden historischen Notizen’,DPJ, 67 (1838), pp. 388–400;‘Notice sur le télégraphe galvanique de M. Steinheil’,Annales de

however, Steinheil published little if anything more concerning his own telegraph system and apparatus. Even the Kunst- und Gewerbe-Blatt, published by the Bavarian Polytechnischer Verein, which was often called upon to assess patent applications, and of which Steinheil was a member, limited itself to reproducing an article from the Leipzig-basedPolytechnisches Centralblatt.⁸⁴

It was in fact Wilhelm Weber in Göttingen who encouraged Steinheil to publish his findings as soon as possible, in an effort to pre-empt the actions of his competitors—primarily in England. ‘Gauβ was wondering’, Weber wrote in 1838, ‘if you might not be inclined to produce a detailed account of your telegraph.’ ‘You know that Wheatstone in London is causing quite a stir with such a telegraph,’ he explained, pointing out that the English professor was preparing an article on the topic.‘It is clear that, especially if this [Wheatstone’s publication] is thefirst essay to appear on the matter and, as will undoubtedly be the case, it is circulated widely and quickly, the whole matter will appear before the world in a false light for a long time.’Weber even suggested that he might publish in his and Gauβ’s journal dedicated to their magnetism project theResultate aus den Beobachtungen des Magnetischen Vereins.‘That way, it would soon make its way to England, and especially into the hands of the people there who have the most authority—Herschel, Babbage, Airy, Miller, etc.—and the society in which your account appeared would prevent any misuse in England.’⁸⁵

What Weber understood, which Steinheil seemed reluctant to acknowledge, was that publication was increasingly the means of securing one’s intellectual property, not simply at home but on the international knowledge market.

Referring once again to the matter in December 1838, Weber insisted that Steinheil at the very least share his work with Wheatstone and Michael Faraday:

‘Wheatstone, though he is of a superficial nature, will not fail to act respectfully, and in this matter it is certainly important to circulate in many directions.’⁸⁶

It is unclear why Steinheil was reluctant to follow Weber’s advice, but he was also evidently acutely aware of the stakes involved in addressing different audi-ences. To the General-Conservatorium and the Bavarian government he had emphasized his‘scientific duty’to make his correspondents aware of a develop-ment which could be of such importance for mankind.⁸⁷ He had depicted his experiment in the grandest possible terms, as a contribution to the onward march

chimie et de physique, 71 (1839), pp. 347–51;‘Notice on the Galvanic Telegraph of M. Steinheil’,The Chemist, or Reporter of Chemical Discoveries and Improvements, 1 (1840), pp. 33–4.

⁸⁴ D. E. Thomas,‘Der Polytechnische Verein in Bayern (1816–1933)’,ZBLG, 64 (2001), pp. 431–60;

J. Hülsse, ‘Anwendung des Elektromagnetismus auf Telegraphie’, KGB, vol. 16, no. 7 (1838), pp. 412–38. In 1834, Steinheil had even replaced the former editor of the Gewerbe-Blatton the Verein’s central administrative committee—see ‘Gutachten einer Commission des polytechnischen Vereins’,KGB,12, no. 4 (1834), p. 1.

⁸⁵ DMM FA005/0614, Weber to Steinheil, 10 Sept. 1838.

⁸⁶ DMM FA005/0614, Weber to Steinheil, 18 Nov. 1838.

⁸⁷ BHStA, MInn 45175/1, Steinheil to General-Conservatorium, 19 Apr. 1836.

of‘physics’ and to the reproduction of human speech. But in his notes for an article which appears to have been published, in edited form, in Schumacher’s Jahrbuch für Astronomiefor 1839, Steinheil also expressed his regret that readers were often interested in‘specific ideas’rather than their practical development.‘As long as [these ideas] exist only in the imagination, the wish cannot be expressed often enough that it would be possible to realize them, and men dream of the advantages which might be obtained from the diffusion of that which is being prepared. Once this has happened, one takes the matter for granted and the interest disappears.’⁸⁸ Selling a project in appealing, ambitious terms, as Steinheil had done to theAkademieand the government, was one thing; obtaining concrete support for further, perhaps less inspiring but necessary, trials and experiments was another. Indeed, the second part of his statement may perhaps suggest that the Bavarian state’s interest in his telegraph had dwindled at this point.

There was a type of‘art’(Kunst), Steinheil believed, which sought to maintain an interest in big ideas by preserving the‘veil which contains temptation’, in order to‘maintain fantasy in tension’. This art, however, stood in‘stark contrast with the tendency of the researcher, who sees in wingèd fantasy rather an enemy’. Here was a clear indication, therefore, that there were limits to Steinheil’s willingness to fuel unrealistic expectations. A researcher, he believed, prefers to‘present the naked truth, whether or not it is as pleasing as the earlier fantasy . . . the researcher thus proceeds to disappoint’.⁸⁹Echoing Gauβ’s comments on the‘fantasy’involved in his project, this statement hints at the direction of developments in telegraphy at the time. Lofty visions as to the nature and purpose of the technology provided a leitmotif throughout its development. Expectations had to be raised to stimulate interest and involvement, but these would necessarily have to be tempered as experimentation and trials were undertaken.

With regard to telegraphy,‘whose feasibility is now proven’, Steinheil wrote, it was time‘to approach the sober question, . . . whether the cost which it demands can be outweighed by the advantages obtained’. This practical reasoning, in Steinheil’s mind, no longer fell within the purview of the scientist.⁹⁰ Having successfully pitched his contribution to science and the art of communication, Steinheil was practically calling for others to engage in the more mundane aspects of the work ahead, recognizing a boundary between his competency and that of others. Immediate expectations had to be brought closer to reality if the tele-graphic project was to be realized. The state collaborators whom Steinheil des-perately needed were struggling to make this shift, however.

⁸⁸ DMM FA005/0399, Notes,‘Noch eine Mittheilung über den viel besprochenen Telegraphen’, undated (probably 1838/9).

⁸⁹ DMM FA005/0399, Notes,‘Noch eine Mittheilung’. ⁹⁰ Ibid.