320 Analysis of Scieiilijic Books. 



d'endroits, le sens de I'original est tout-a-fait defigurt. EUe 

 parut cependant precedee d'une preface du Docteur Thomson, 

 qui assurait I'avoir confrontee c) I'original, ct gu'elle etait par- 

 faitemcnt Jidiie. Sur ce temoignage, le redacteur du Journal 

 de Physique en fit faire une version en Franqais qui renferme 

 naturellement toutes les fautes de la traduction Anglaise. C'est 

 done par le desir de voir cet ouvrage juge tel qu'il est, que j'ai 

 public une traduction d'apr^s I'original Suedois, et sans autres 

 changements que la correction de quelques nombres, que j'ai 

 tache de rendre plus exacts ; la substitution du resultat de 

 nouvelles analyses a d'autres moins parfaites, et le rem place- 

 ment de quelques exemples par d'autres mieux choisis." 

 Under these circumstances, we have felt it our duty to compare 

 the English translation of 1814, with the French of 1816, for 

 which we have the author's assurance in the words just quoted, 

 that it is really faithful to the original Swedish, an assertion in 

 which Dr. Thomson necessarily acquiesces, as he has not any 

 where, that we know of, called it in question. We had scarcely 

 begun this hard task, before it was evident that the Black and 

 Co. translation is any thing but literal, and in some instances 

 the sense, even of the passages, is perverted. Dr. Thomson 

 did well to speak with caution of its fidelity. We forbear to 

 quote the parallel passages alluded to, because we do not think 

 it worth while to employ our reader's time or our own so un- 

 profitably ; but, if any one doubt our accuracy, he may soon cure 

 his scepticism by referring to the two books. He need not look far 

 for ample proof of the truth of our assertion. The excuse for all 

 this we suppose will be, that they translated from the original 

 Swedish, and we have been comparing their translation with 

 the French. The apology, however, is inadmissible, for Ber- 

 zelius has declared the French translation to be faithful to its 

 prototype, and we cannot but believe that he is quite as con- 

 versant with the Swedish and French languages as Messrs. 

 Black and Thomson are with the Swedish and English. 



But the point that chiefly concerns us is, has the English trans- 

 lation perverted the general views of the original work, and espe- 

 cially those passages, which have been commented on by us ? 

 For it is, in fact, the original which has been on its deliverance at 

 the bar of critical justice ; though the translation comes in of 

 course as accessary after the fact, and must also plead, (guilty, 

 we fear,) to a separate indictment for its own peculiar sins of 

 inaccuracy and error. 



The note respecting the quantity of oxygen in the earths, and 

 the method of ascertaining it in silica, is very much shortened 

 in the French translation, the passages quoted by us being 

 wholly omitted. We cannot decide, therefore, who has best 

 right to the nonsense it contains, the author or his translators. 

 It is not necessary, however, as we have said before, to trouble 



