1839-40-] DISPUTE WITH CHARLESWORTH. 141 



which the principal demand is in England. Would it 

 then not be unfair to represent such a publication as a 

 systematic piracy; as though translations of scientific 

 works were not being made every day with the consent 

 of the authors ? ' Yes ; but unfortunately Agassiz had 

 failed to get that consent from Sowerby's sons, the col- 

 laborators and finishers of the " Mineral Conchology." 

 There lay the mistake. Agassiz adds : " I affirm that 

 the insinuation of my having entered upon this under- 

 taking with a view to pecuniary emolument, to be alto- 

 gether unfounded. On the contrary, only three hundred 

 copies have been struck off, and I agreed with the editor, 

 as the price of my participation in it, that the work 

 should not be sold at a sum above that necessary to 

 cover the expense of its publication." In regard to 

 his own " Poissons fossiles," he says, " I shall esteem 

 myself fortunate to see the work translated in whatever 

 shape it may appear." Charlesworth rejoined, reiter- 

 ating all his previous criticisms, and adding others ; 

 and finally, James De Carle Sowerby wrote a letter, the 

 27th July, 1839, also inserted in the " Magazine of 

 Natural History," Vol. III., p. 418, in which he ap- 

 proved the strictness of Charlesworth, and suggested 

 that some protection be afforded, at least by their 

 brother authors, to those who make original and costly 

 publications. It seems from his letter that the " sale 

 of the 'Mineral Conchology' has only been about four 

 hundred copies, above one-fourth of which number 

 have been sent abroad. The encouragement, there- 

 fore, for carrying on the work has hitherto been not 

 very great." 



