A.D. 1784.—Swinden (Jan Hendrik Van) (1746–1823), who had been made Professor in the University of Franequer at the early age of twenty (1767), and was at this time occupying the Chair of Natural Philosophy and Mathematics at Amsterdam, publishes in three volumes, at La Haye, his “Recueil de Mémoires sur l’Analogie de l’Electricité et du Magnétisme,” etc. (“De Analogia ...” in Vol. II of the “Neue Abhandl. der Baierischen Akad. Phil.”). The latter contains all the essays sent to the Electoral Academy of Bavaria on the subject—“Is There a Real and Physical Analogy Between Electric and Magnetic Forces; and, if Such Analogy Exist, in What Manner Do These Forces Act Upon the Animal Body?”
Van Swinden’s essay, which gained him one of the prizes, shows that, in his opinion, the similarity between electricity and magnetism amounts merely to an apparent resemblance, and does not constitute a real physical analogy. He infers from this that these two powers are essentially different and distinct from one another, but the contrary opinion was maintained by Profs. Steiglehuer and Hubner, who contended that so close an analogy as that exhibited by these two classes of phenomena indicated the effects of a single agent, varied only in consequence of a diversity of circumstances.
The eminent professor, Gerard Moll, of Utrecht, has communicated to the Edinburgh Journal of Science (1826, Vol. I. part ii. pp. 197–208) a biographical notice of Van Swinden, wherein he gives a list of the latter’s principal works and there speaks of one of his best-known productions in following manner: “The Positiones Physicæ (Opusc. Scelti, X. 7), as far as they are published (Harderovici, 1786, Vol. I and Vol. II. part i.), are allowed to rank among the best elements of natural philosophy, and have been found by actual experience to belong to the best sources from which the young student could draw his information on those parts of natural philosophy, and its general principles, as are contained in the first volume and part of the second, which is all that was published. The work itself is on a most extensive plan; and the multifarious avocations which crowded on Van Swinden in Amsterdam delayed the publications, and made him afterward abandon all thoughts of completing a work which would have done the greatest honour to its author, and which even now, unfinished as it is, is celebrated as an excellent specimen of sound reasoning and profound learning.”
Van Swinden was the first President of the Royal Institute of the Netherlands. He entered with ardour into all the new discoveries of his day and kept up an extensive correspondence with many of the leading scientific characters of the time, notably with the Swiss philosopher, Charles Bonnet (whose “Contemplations de la Nature” he annotated extensively); with Dr. Matthew Maty (who became secretary of the Royal Society upon the resignation of Dr. Birch in 1765, and who was appointed, by the king, principal librarian of the British Museum upon the death of Dr. Gowin Knight, 1772); with the eminent French physician, Michel-Augustin Thouret, Dean of the Paris “Faculté de Médecine”; as well as with Delambre, Euler, De Saussure, and many others who have been named elsewhere in this “Bibliographical History.”
The following is further extracted from Prof. Moll’s interesting paper: “Mr. Biot, in his treatise on Natural Philosophy (Tome III. p. 143) asserts that we are indebted to Cassini IV. (see Jean Dominique, Comte de Cassini, at A.D. 1782–1791) for much of what we know even about the diurnal variation of the needle. This, I think, is not fair. We do not mean to undervalue Mr. Cassini’s observations, but it is unquestionable that long before the publication of that philosopher’s work, Mr. Van Swinden had observed and published (‘Recherches sur les aiguilles aimantées et leurs variations’—Mémoires présentés à l’Académie des Sciences de Paris, Tome VIII—prize essay 1777) that which Mr. Biot less accurately is pleased to ascribe to his countryman. In this respect, however, Mr. Van Swinden was treated with more justice by other eminent philosophers, such as Haüy, Halley and Burkhardt.” (Consult also the “Acta Acad. Petrop.” for 1780, Part I. Hist. p. 10.)
In the afore-named very meritorious work, “Recueil de Mémoires,” etc., crowned by the Bavarian Academy, Van Swinden has treated fully of the then current theories relative to electrical and magnetical phenomena, reviewing the entire field of their application. In so doing he has necessarily made numerous references to discoverers and experimenters of all countries, the names of many of which appear in the present compilation, and while it is, of course, useless here to quote these anew, it has been thought best, for a record, to specify such as are infrequently met with, and which appear in many of his most important articles, even at the risk of being accused of diffuseness or prolixity. They are as follows:
References.—John T. Needham (Vol. IV, Mem. Brussels Acad. for 1783); Phil. Trans., 1746, p. 247; J. G. Lehmann (“Abhandlung von Phosph.”; “Von Magnet Theilen im Sande,” “Novi Com. Acad. Petrop.,” Vol. XII. p. 368, etc.); M. De La Cépède, “Essai sur l’El. nat et artif.”; C. E. Gellert (“Com. Acad. Petrop.,” Vol. XIII. p. 382, Exp. 15, 16); J. F. Henckel, “Pyritologia,” etc.; J. E. Von Herbert, “Theor. Phæn. Elect.,” cap. 4, prop. 8; C. F. M. Déchales, “Mundus Mathematicus,” lib. 1, Quartus Exper. Ordo., exp. 16, Tome II. p. 488, ed. 2, etc.; M. Marcel’s Dissertation on powdered magnets, which appears in the Dutch “Uitgezogte Verhandelingen,” Vol. I. p. 261, etc.; Jean M. Cadet (“Nova Acta. Physico. Med. Acad. Natur. Curios.,” Tome III); Abbé Giraud-Soulavie (“Comment. ... Œuvres de Mr. Hamilton,” note 4, p. 303); J. B. Le Roy (“Mém. de l’Acad. de Paris,” for 1753, p. 447; for 1772, p. 499; Jour. de Phys., Vol. II); Rudolph Richard (“Magazin d. Hamb.,” IV. p. 681); Gilles A. Bazin, “Descrip. des Cour, Mag.,” Plates 14, 16–18; J. F. Gross, “Elektrische Pausen,” Leipzig, 1776; Jour. de Phys., Vol. X. p. 235; Niccolo Bammacaro, “Tentamen de vi Electrica,” etc., s. 6; Samuel Colepress (Phil. Trans., 1667, No. 27, Vol. I. p. 502); E. F. Du Tour, “Discours sur l’aimant,” s. 27; “Recueil des Prix de l’Acad. de Paris,” Tome V. mém. ii. p. 49; “Mém. Math, et Phys.”; Mr. Calendrin, at Van Swinden’s, Vol. I. pp. 233, etc.; M. Blondeau (“Mém. de l’Acad. de Marine,” Brest., Tome I. s. 46, pp. 401–431, 438); J. A. Braun, “Observations,” etc.; “Novi. Comment. Acad. Petrop.,” Vol. VII. pp. 388, 407; M. Antheaulme (“Mém. sur les aimants artif.” (prize essay), 1760; “Mém. de l’Acad. Roy.,” 1761, p. 211; Van Swinden, 1784, Vol. II. pp. 95, 170); J. N. Reichenberger, “Directorium magneticum magneticis,” etc., and “Hydrotica,” as at Van Swinden, 1784, Vol. II. pp. 272–273; Geo. C. Schmidt, “Beschr., einer Elektrisir Masch.,” etc., 1778; M. De la Folie (Jour, de Phys., 1774, Vol. III. p. 9); Cölestin Steiglehner, “Obs. phaenom. elect.,” “Ueber die Annal der Elek. und des Magn.”; Lorenz Hubner, “Abh. u. d. Annal. u. mag. Kraft”; Jos. Thad. Klinkosch, “Schreiben,” etc., “Beschreib. d. Volta ... Elektrophors.” Reference should also be made to Noad, “Manual,” etc., p. 641; Encycl. Brit., 1857, Vol. XIV. p. 6; “Messager des Sciences et des Arts,” Gand, 1823, pp. 185–201, detailing all of Van Swinden’s works; Antoine Thillaye’s treatise presented to the Ecole de Médecine le 15 Floréal, An. XI; Butet (“Bull, des Sc. de la Soc. Philom.,” No. 43, Vendémiaire, An. IX).
A.D. 1784.—Cotugno (Domenico), Professor of Anatomy at Naples, thus addresses Le Chevalier G. Vivenzio under date October 2, 1784: “The observation which I mentioned some days ago, when we were discoursing together of the electrical animals, upon which I said I believed the mouse to be one of that number, is the following: Toward the latter end of March, I was sitting with a table before me and observing something to move about my foot, which drew my attention. Looking toward the floor I saw a small domestic mouse, which, as its coat indicated, must have been very young. As the little animal could not move very quick, I easily laid hold of it by the skin of the back and turned it upside down; then with a small knife that laid by me, I intended to dissect it. When I first made the incision into the epigastric region, the mouse was situated between the thumb and finger of my left hand, and its tail was got between the last two fingers. I had hardly cut through part of the skin of that region, when the mouse vibrated its tail between the fingers, and was so violently agitated against the third finger that, to my great astonishment, I felt a shock through my left arm as far as the neck, attended with an internal tremor, a painful sensation in the muscles of the arm, and such giddiness of the head, that, being affrighted, I dropped the mouse. The stupor of the arm lasted upward of a quarter of an hour, nor could I afterwards think of the incident without emotion. I had no idea that such an animal was electrical; but in this I had the positive proof of experience.” (See G. Vivenzio, “Teoria e pratica della elettricità med.” ... Napoli, 1784.)
Cotugno’s observations attracted much attention throughout Italy and gave rise to many experiments, notably by Vassalli, who, however, merely concluded from them that the animal’s body could retain accumulated electricity in some unaccountable manner.
References.—Essai sur l’histoire, etc., J. B. Biot, p. 9; Journal de Physique, XLI. p. 57; Mémoires Récréatifs, etc., par Robertson, Paris, 1840, Vol. I. p. 233; Cavallo, Electricity, London, 1795, Vol. III. p. 6; Izarn, Manuel, Paris, 1804, p. 4; Journal Encyclopédique de Bologne, 1786, No. 8; Poggendorff, Vol. I. p. 417; Sue, aîné “Hist. du Galv.,” Vol. I. pp. 1–2.