36 
REVIEWS. 
produced a reflecting microscope far superior to those previously in 
use; the advantages of this instrument were such, that, for a time, he laid 
aside his researches on the achromatic object-glasses. 
In 1824, Dr. Goring, with the assistance of Mr. Cuthbert, so far im¬ 
proved upon the arrangement of Professor Amici that, for some years, this 
form of instrument was the most perfect microscope manufactured in this 
country. Like the reflecting telescope, however, it speedily fell into disuse, 
owing to the difficulties attending the arrangement and management of the 
reflectors. In the u Micrographia,” and other works* of Mr. Pritchard, 
are ably detailed the construction of this instrument, as improved by him¬ 
self and Dr. Goring. To the liberal and judicious patronage of the latterf 
British microscopists are especially indebted, as to it they owe the con¬ 
struction, by Tully, of the first achromatic object-glass (in 1824) in this 
country—of the diamond lens, by Varley and Pritchard—and of the im¬ 
proved reflecting instrument of Amici, by Cuthbert. Impulses like these, 
given at the threshold, if we may so speak, of scientific enterprise, have a 
wonderful effect in urging it on, and stimulating others to action; but 
those who give them are often unable rightly to appreciate their prospec¬ 
tive results. This was the case with the late Dr. Goring, who stated it 
as his opinion, in 1829, “ that microscopes are now placed completely on 
a level with telescopes, and, like them, must remain stationary in their 
construction.” The advances made since then have been such, that now 
microscopists would hesitate before pronouncing such an opinion. 
“ The Microscope, in its History and Construction,” by Mr. Hogg, is a 
work essentially of a different stamp from those we have been considering, 
and may be regarded as belonging to a daily-increasing class of observers. 
It is a work for the million ; and we gladly hail it, as we do all such 
works tending to direct their too often misspent energies into a wholesome 
direction. With a similar object in view as that of Mr. Quekett, it has 
chosen a much wider range of subjects, which, consequently, are not 
treated with the accuracy which characterizes that invaluable treatise; it 
will, however, we feel confident, prove very acceptable to a large class of 
readers. Its pretensions to originality are few; but the variety of the 
selections are an ample compensation for this defect. The plates and 
woodcuts with which it is interspersed are beautifully executed, and reflect 
great credit on the taste and liberality of its publisher. We regret that it 
is, in many places, disfigured by what, in charity, we must call misprints, 
as no member of the profession to which Mr. Hogg belongs could be guilty 
* The “ Microscopic Cabinet” and the “ Microscopic Illustrations.” 
+ “ Quekett’s Practical Treatise,” 45. 
