74 Review of O. Gregory^s Treatise on Mechanics, 



were any thing of consequence in this volume, which truly 

 was his own, and not the property of others, such language 

 would be excusable. The fact however is,, that the mae- 

 rials, and in many parts, the work itself, is a literal trans- 

 cript from the writings of others, and that we only see now 

 and then remarks, notes, or observations of the compiler. 



This compilation then, for it cannot with truth be called 

 by any other name, should be estimated only by those 

 principles, which are requisite, and applicable, in works of 

 this kind. These are judgment in selecting, arrangement, 

 order and connexion of materials gathered from many dis- 

 cordant sources. On these principles we have graduated 

 our opinions in reviewing the present work. 



The writers to whom our author is indebted for the first 

 volume of his treatise, are Francoeur, Prony, Poisson and 

 Bossut in French ; Newton, Emerson, Simpson, Hutton, 

 Martin, Young, Vince, Smeaton, and others in English j 

 Gallileo and Frisi, in Italian, and Don Juan in Spanish. The 

 first sixty or seventy pages on Statics are a literal translation, 

 without the variation of any material point, from Francoeur 

 and Prony. The next following subjects on the mechani- 

 cal powers, and the strength and stress of materials are al- 

 most altogether from Emerson and Simpson ; that on cords 

 and arches from Hutton. Thus the whole subject of Stat- 

 ics is an excerption from other writers. If we consider only 

 the subject matter, this is all well, and perhaps better than 

 if the compiler had attempted to treat it de novo, for he has 

 furnished abundant materials even for the most ambitious 

 student ; but there is a discordance in those materials, ill 

 calculated either for 4aste or improvement in science. — 

 Francoeur and Prony are diffuse and prolix, and though 

 lucid and explanatory, contain little substance in many pa- 

 ges ; on the contrary, Emerson is concise, and often times 

 intricate, leaving much to be supplied by the learner. 

 These dissimilar writers are however brought together, and 

 periiaps intermixed one with another. This incongruity 

 appears to exist throughout the volume. The first part 

 of his Statics is too wire drawn and trifling for a book on the 

 higher branches of science, even though intended for begin- 

 ners. In proportion as we attenuate a subject by minute de- 

 tails, we destroy its interest, and something always should 

 remain for the exercise of the student's own powers of 



