in Reply to an Article in the Westminster Review. 367 



the formation of the instrument the scale adopted is the divi" 

 sion of the octave into 53 divisions, instead of which I should 

 have said the true or mathematical division. So far I admit 

 the writer may very probably be correct, as the circumstance 

 depends altogether on the mode in which it has been tuned, 

 and not on its mechanical construction. But when, after stating 

 himself more than once that the difference between the true 

 or mathematical division and that which divides the octave 

 into 53 equal parts is so minute as to be quite inappreciable, he 

 comes forward, and, in allusion to my having taken one of these 

 modes of division instead of the other, to which it so remark- 

 ably assimilates, he, without considering for a moment the 

 possibility of any obscurity attaching to the description given 

 in the review, launches out into such expressions as, " There 

 was but a right and a wrong, and the latter has by inadvert- 

 ency been pounced upon by the author of the essay ;" " The 

 author of the essay has run carelessly over the account, and 

 gone away with exactly the wrong idea of it;" " This is what 

 the French would call a major oversight;" &c. &c, — and when 

 in the present article he at one place observes " that if an in- 

 strument is constructed (like the one in question) with the 

 sounds of the perfect or mathematical scale, each of these 

 sounds approaches very nearly to one of the sounds in the equa- 

 ble division into 53," and in the very same article, to give a 

 forcible impression to his objection, he flatly states that the in- 

 strument " contained nothing like a division of the octave into 

 53 equal intervals," — really his candour becomes very ques- 

 tionable, and we are led inevitably to the conclusion that he 

 is influenced by a desire to find fault rather than to correct, 

 and more disposed to carp at this merely incidental and com- 

 paratively frivolous notice of the organ than to exercise his 

 genius in discussing the merits of the work itself. 



He proceeds to state that my account of the instrument is 

 " exceedingly inaccurate". Now I completely deny that there 

 is the slightest inaccuracy in my statement concerning its 

 complexity and number of sounds ; and I must here again ob- 

 serve, that the reviewer has misrepresented the case. It may 

 be proper to observe, that his extract from my work is not 

 faithfully given. Instead of my saying of the instrument that 

 it would be too much to expect from it complete success, as 

 the superabundance of keys must prove an insuperable objec- 

 tion to the execution," he should have transcribed the last 

 words, "impediment to the execution." This, however, though 

 objectionable as an extract, is comparatively of but little im- 

 portance. By way of substantiating his charge of inaccuracy, 

 he says, " The fact is, that the division which gives the ma- 



