Page 2

Is is scarcely possible to imagine two instances, in which the literal truth of the asser-
tions made in the letters before referred to, could be more strikingly exemplefied. In the
first extract, the term felt is inelegantly and inaccurately employed, because applied to a part
(the vertebra) destitute of feeling. Again, the term whose is twice used ungrammatically
in the space of four lines! The author seems to have been ignorant that who is applied
to persons, which and that to things. There is some obscurity and even inaccuracy in this passage
in the language of the original; but the idea intended to be conveyed, must be evident to
every one, at all acquainted with the subject. It is difficult to imagine how it could be ren-
dered with more simplicity and perspicuity, than in the American translation. But the En-
glish translator, ignorant of his subject, has followed the original into a palpable error. "A
lever is a bar, moveable about a fixed point." "The body which communicateds motion to the
bar, is called the power, and the body which receives the motion, the weight."--(Enfield's
Philosophy.) To say, therefore, "that every vertebra and the parts attached to it, represent
a lever," &c. (English translation) is much the same as to assert, that a horse is a part
of the coach. The truth is, there is as much difference between the power and the
lever, as there is between a dunce and a critic, or any other two objects in nature, which
possess but few properties in common. It is equally absurd, in speaking of the vertebral
column, to say "the it is the power, which draws it forwards," and "that the resistance
(or weight) is in the muscles," (English translation) because the very reverse is notorious-
ly the fact. The weight or resistance which tends to carry the vertebral column forwards,
evidently resides in the abdominal and thoracic viscera, &c. and the power, which op-
poses this, in the muscles placed on the posterior part of the trunk; and to affirm the con-
trary, is as absurd as to say, that the coach draws the horse.

Nor has the author of the handbill been more fortunate in his second extract. There is
no doubt that the English translator has given the literal construction, but this so far from
being any evidence of the excellence of his work, proves conclusively, that he was unqualified
for the task he had undertaken. It is perfectly evident, from the connections of the sentence,
and the plainest principles of natural philosophy, that there is an error, probably typographi-
cal, in the original, though neither the English translator, nor the sagacious author of the
handbill, had the intelligence to perceive it. The author having first stated the well-known
principle in optics, that "light in passing from a rarer into a denser medium, is refracted
towards the perpendicular, and in passing from a denser into a rarer, is refracted from the
perpendicular," then applies this principle to the course of the light passing through the
humours of the eye. He first shows that the light in passing from the air into the cornea, that
is from a rarer into a denser medium, is refracted towards the perpendicular, in other words,
is made to converge. Again, in passing from the aqueous into the crystalline humour, which
is also passing from a rarer to a denser medium, it is refracted still more towards the per-
pendicular, i.e. its convergency is increased. But when it passes from the crystalline into
the vitreous humour, the circumstances are reversed. It then passes from a denser into a
rarer medium, and of course, according to the principles already laid down, it is refracted
from the perpendicular in other words, "its convergency is diminished"* (American transla-
tion.) No doubt by a typgraphical error the term "convergence"* was used instead of "di-
vergence;" this is sufficiently evident in a variety of ways, first, because as it now stands
in English, which is literal translation, it is a palpable absurdity, a contradiction in terms;
and secondly, if there could be any doubt on the subject, it is perfectly cleared up in the
latter part of the sentece, in which it is remarked, "it may perhaps be said that the nature might have
arrived at the same results by diminishing the refractive power of the crystalline humor," &c.
One scarcely knows which to admire most, the literal accuracy of the translator, or the
critical acumen of the author of the handbill.

It is amusing to see an attempt made to test the value of an elborate scientific work of 430
closely printed octavo pages, by extract of six or eight lines; it reminds us of the Pedant in
Hierocles, who having a house to sell, brought a brick in his pocket as a specimen.

The publishers think it proper on this occasion to remark, notwithstanding the attempt
which has been made to impress the bpublic with the belief, that as English translation of Ma-
gendie will be published in this country, they have good reasons for believing that the second

*See the extract from the orginal.