And having shown all this, then he must tell us how the ignorance of an author, on a point which it was neither his duty nor design to introduce in his work, detracts from the merits of the same. We cannot leave this point without saying to the Reviewer that a man makes a bad figure in attempting to support a charge of ignorance against another, by the consequences of his own blunder. "Egerane," says the Reviewer "is found in Worcester, which locality Dr C. has not mentioned." This is a variety of Vesuvian, and is not we think found at Worcester. But Vesuvian is found at Worcester, and it is so mentioned by Dr C. The mistake of the Reviewer arose from a want of discrimination between a variety and a species. We might add here the remark that one so critical with others should be more precise himself than to give a whole state as the locality of a mineral. Fifth. "Among other instances of unpardonable inattention to the progress of science, we may notice the description of Humite, which our author should have known has proved to be Condrodite, and so of Sillimanite, which has been ascertained to be Cyanite; and of Meionite, which is now referred to Scapolite." 66 This weighty charge is of the same general nature as the preceding one, and is to be answered much in the same way. We have shown that Dr Comstock's book is replete with evidence of indefatiguable labor and research; and that it displays a full acquaintance with those works which have recorded the progress of science." Something more than three instances should be found in a volume of 400 pages to establish imputations of this sort. But let us examine the evidences adduced by the Reviewer to support the foregoing charge of "unpardonable inattention to the progress of science." On reference to Dr C's. book, we find Humite included in an appendix, containing a list of new minerals "which have been but imperfectly described, or which have not been analyzed; and of those which came to the knowledge of the writer too late to be inserted in their proper places." On examining several recent systematic treatises on mineralogy we find no evidence that this mineral has proved to be Condrodite or Brucite. If the fact is so, which, by the way, we think cannot be established by any good authority, still it has been very recently ascertained; and bears no valid testimony against the author's attention to the progress of science." The Reviewer is nearly right in saying that Sillimanite has been ascertained to be Cyanite; his only error here lies, in saying, that it has been ascertained, while it is yet doubtful; and in leading the reader to suppose that Dr C. has neglected to say any thing on the subject. At page 173 of Dr Comstock's book, the reasons which have led to the opinion that Sillimanite is the same as Cyanite, with the reasons also for a contrary opinion, are fully detailed. We are so well pleased however to find one instance in which the Reviewer is in some measure countenanced by a good authority, that we will allow it to cover the bootless mis-statement with which it is associated. We sincerely hope for the sake of the Reviewer that Meionite has been referred by somebody to Scapolite; we are obliged to say however that we have before us no good evidence of the fact. We have only farther to notice under this head, that the Reviewer by taking advantage of what he knew to be a typographical error, has attempted to strengthen his imputations against Dr Comstock's work, by making the author call Condrodite, Chondorcite. Our taste may be singular, but we think there is more dignity in an open dereliction of truth, than in a timid, and sly insinuation of that which is known to be false. Sixth. "Under chrystalized Lepidolite' we are told that it occurs at Paris, Maine, where no such thing is known." Let the reader turn to Robinson's Catalogue of Localities, page 5, and he will find it asserted that Lepidolite "occurs in great abundance at Paris, Maine, sometimes chrystallized in six sided tables, and forming short columns." Seventh." In excluding from the external character of minerals, the angular measurements, he has at once struck out one of three all important characters." Dr Comstock has not "struck out," or "excluded" the angular measurements; on the contrary he has given them a very copious and complete alphabetical table, containing, if not every mineral, at least almost every mineral described in the work! Not one student in a hundred in mineralogy either understands the use of the goniometer, or ever thinks of its employment. It is absurd then, in an introductory work, to place constantly before the pupil, the angular measurements of minerals, while he is expected, of course, to overlook them. The arrangement of Dr C. in placing these measurements in a se parate table, to be consulted as occasion may require, is therefore judicious, and should have been a matter of commendation and not of blame. We believe the very point which the reviewer has selected for condemnation, will be a reason with practical teachers for preferring this work to others. We happen to know the opinion of some distinguished mineralogists on this subject, and it agrees entirely with our own in this particular. Eighth. "An air of parade is given to the book by the introduction of a few of Professor Mohs' new terms; but no kind of explanation is given, and we strongly suspect our author knows but little about it." Dr Comstock has done in this respect no more than Cleaveland and other writers on mineralogy have done; and what it was incumbent upon him to do. He first names a mineral, and then informs the pupil what appellations other popular writers have given the same. There surely is no ostentation in doing what is common with other authors in treating of the same subject, and what is necessary for the due instruction of the pupil. But Dr C. has given no explanation of Mohs' terms, says the reviewer. Is it no explanation of a term to tell in plain English what that term means? Now the reader will find when the name of a mineral from Mohs is given, the synonimous English word preceding, and standing in direct connexion with it. If any farther explanation is wanted by the reviewer, it must of course be something which Mr Haidinger, the learned translator of Mohs, has not thought it necessary to give. Ninth. "This work is as full of errors of the press as of the pen, and so far from facilitating the progress of science, carries us back something like ten years." This pithy sentence contains three distinct allegations. We will examine them separately. 1st-The book is full of errors of the pen. This assertion rests wholly upon the ipse dixit of the Reviewer, for it will be found upon examination, that he has not substantiated a single error. Now we suppose the Reviewer's intention was to execute capital punishment upon Dr Comstock's book. In cases of this sort it is usual to require the testimony of two persons equal to mankind in general for truth and veracity, to obtain a conviction. We leave it to the reader to decide after the foregoing exposition, how many such reviewers it will take to complete the condemnation of our author. of the press. 2d.-It is full of errors of the This work is not "full of errors of the press," in any just sense of the expression. That there are errors in it is con fessed in the errata. If any one will consider the difficulty of printing a work from manuscript, consisting almost wholly of technical terms, he will not expect a first edition to be entirely free from errors. We have examined the work with some attention, and have been unable to discover any errors that could mislead a reader, which are not noticed in the errata. The book is perhaps as free from gross blunders of the press as many works which have passed the ordeal of the North American without blame. It is, in truth, considering the nature of the work, as little obnoxious to the charge of typographical inaccuracy, as some numbers of the North American Review itself. We are fond of facts,-let us mention one here, and as it happens to be within the knowledge of the editor of the North American, our readers may apply to him for the particulars. A proof-reader had occasion to examine a late number of the North American Review, and in the compass of one hundred pages, he detected more than two hundred errors, great and small. 3d.-Instead of advancing the science of mineralogy, it carries us back ten years. A man who sets out without truth for his guide should have a good memory, or he will sometimes cross his track. At the outset the Reviewer charges Dr Comstock with having made up his book from Cleveland's, a work on which the Reviewer very justly bestows high commendation, and which was published five years ago. At the end of the article he charges Dr Comstock with having carried the science back ten years! But we have before shown that Dr. Comstock has not made up his work from Cleveland; and that on the contrary he has abundantly consulted more recent publications, that his work is based upon the new edition of Phillips, which was published but two years ago; that he had before him, Mohs' excellent work published in 1825; that he has consulted the recent periodical publications, and even extracted from them, facts which had not been before the world more than two months. Such is a literary notice from the North American-a tissue of misrepresentation, unfairness and impertinence, from the first sentence to the last-when there is a motive for writing down an author. In a future number, we propose to examine a wriVOL. II.-No. 1. 6 ter on a science kindred to that of which Dr C. treats, and which was noticed in terms of unqualified praise, in the pages of that journal. We shall then show that errors and deficiencies of the most important nature, can be slipped over in silence. Should it so fall out, that the author of the work we take in hand, should be the writer of the foregoing article from the North American, thre will be a propriety in our selection which will be felt. TO H Some hours there be when every heart bows down to Memory, I think of thee at evening when a lovely day is done, And when the night hath stolen their sweets from hidden bowers, When the moon hath risen over the peaceful-looking sea, And the shadow trembles on the ground beneath the beechen treeFor all of these are meet to be upon the heart and eye As the loveliness that lingers when a lovely thing goes by. I think of thee when orchard-blooms along the vallies shine, "T is meet I should remember then our few acquainted days. The summer with its rich delights shall be endear'd to me, Alas that all upon the earth that's lovely must decay- INEZ. |