56 
On the Different Methods 
[Feb* 
well executed it must be allowed to give a tolerable notion of the general condition 
of the surface, but that notion is one rather of effect than of detail ; it is general, not 
particular ; nor will it bear any verification or minute examination by the applica- 
tion of any standard. And it is to be considered, that to give even the rough notion 
here indicated, requires a talent in using the brush, not to be found with every one. 
For one draftsman capable of such work, ten will be found incapable. And as the 
expression of ground in this method, is entirely a matter of tact or practice, cor- 
rected by a natural taste, and does not depend on the application of any mechanical 
contrivance or rule, it is evident that none but proficients can attempt to do any 
thing that shall be useful in this way. The German system can be taught to any 
one, and even the first or rudest essay, will often be superior (as conveying more 
exact information) than perhaps the most successful essays in the pictorial style. 
Yet, though I find no difficulty myself in giving the preference to the German 
method, as superior in principle to the other, as being capable of always keeping 
pace wfith the utmost accuracy of observation, I must not conceal from the 
reader, that the pictorial style lias its advocates, and these no common ones. In 
this country, all who have studied under Mr. Dawson, of the Ordnance Survey, 
are enthusiastic in its praise, and it is pronounced impossible to withhold assent to 
the excellence of the system after examining his surveys. Mr. Dawson himself, 
who has been so many years employed in representing ground, must be allowed 
to be a witness in its favor worthy of some credit. But the most powerful cham- 
pion I have yet met in its favor, is M. Puissant, the author of two treatises on 
Geodesie and Arpentage. In a pamphlet which he has published, he ably states the 
merits of his favorite system and the demerits of the German ; and he has, upon the 
whole, made out a better case for the pictorial method than d priori I should have 
judged possible. Yet the strongest objection that he has brought against the Ger- 
man style is the difficulty of distinguishing between a hollow and a projection. 
Thus, suppose a cone of a certain angle and height, and a conical depression of the 
same angle and depth, it is evident that they would be represented by a circle uni- 
formly tinted with that shade which corresponds with the angle of their sides. But 
though it must be confessed that the method has no means of discriminating in 
these cases, supposing the two instances to be artificial— models in fact — yet, in na- 
ture there is always this assistance, that the course of the streams will tell in which 
direction the surface is inclined. Such a hollow, in fact, would, supposing no 
outlet, inevitably have water at the bottom ; and this was the answer given by a 
draughtsman of this school, who was at first puzzled when appealed to, to say whether 
the surface was in depression or in relief. Another objection made by M. Puissant, 
and it is not without its force, is the difficulty of distinguishing the detail names 
of towns, rivers, &c., in a map finished in this way, in consequence of the very 
dark shade which is so much spread over the map. This objection, though appli- 
cable also to the pictorial style, has only half the force it has in the other, Yet, 
finally, in spite of M. Puissant’s evident leaning towards his own favorite style, the 
force of truth compels him to acknowledge that the draughtsman ought to prac- 
tise and be familiar with both. And he allows that for military topography, par- 
ticularly in a country where the inclination of surface is not' considerable, the 
German method has wonderful power. What tells more in its favor, is that a com- 
mission of the first mathematicians in France having been ordered to report on both 
systems, and to recommend one for general adoption in the Bureau des Cartes, the 
numbers were so nearly equal for each, that no final report could be drawn up. 
frx 1IS ^ S sa £ in =\ luucdl the German, if we reflect that the French are not often 
finlv? PJ- e * errm f? lo r ei > n suggestions and foreign systems to their own. And 
s-ivp r?. . lss . a “ t 18 ol, Kg e d to acknowledge, that to enable the pictorial system to 
which ^ 1 ;« 1SC i lnformutlon > must be combined with a series of lines of equal level, 
acknowled^M P^ Ual 1°. g , iving V? the question altogether. In fact, though I 
not found my confidence nf 1 ? an abIe . adv ; ocat e for the method he prefers, I have 
and it must be admit i sha ^ en “ the other, by any thing he has advanced ; 
the other is tile mos | d ^ tl ^„ raost Prejudiced in favor of the pictorial system, that 
is actually to be preferred?* 1 * 10 ’ and .consequently the most definite. But which 
of the person who has to ll any P ai ^ lar cas e> must depend upon the character 
lected. 1 t0 choose > and the nature of the information he has col- 
nf Jv force oftlT objections 1 wh inf m^vT to tlie other > 1 am not insensible 
: n ~ P‘|Per to notice them and to ennn' ° t0 i b ° tb ‘ ^ * s » i n fact, the object 
g the three c o-ordinates b’esidestSuvVwr^ be . n ° otber method of express- 
ltles tUese two > which might yet be free from the oh- 
