Letter to R.K. Greville, LL.D. in reply to Professor Balfour / by John Joseph Griffin.

Date:
1851
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Letter to R.K. Greville, LL.D. in reply to Professor Balfour / by John Joseph Griffin. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. The original may be consulted at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.

    13/14 (page 15)
    them at 409) errors, and he wonders that tlierc were not more to correct. The Second Edition is, therefore, according to Dr, Balfour’s showing, with the single exception of the transposition of tlie Rizanths, a better book than the First Edition. He tries, indeed, to make out, that his First Edition was defective in many particulars Avhen first published, but in his previous correspondence he always assured me that his work was written “ ur to the j,atest discov- eries.” For what purpose has he so completely changed his estimate of his own work ? Professor Balfour will not, “ even to gr.itity Mr. Griffin,” disapprove of the libel inserted by the “ friendly reviewer” in the North British Agricul- turist. It is, in his opinion, a very proper review. But he says, (page 19,) “ whether the review in question has injured the sale of the Second Edition of my book, or whether that review was written with the view of injuring it, are matters with which I have nothing whatever to do.” Indeed??? This singidar statement shows how extremely primitive are the views that Dr. Balfour entertains respecting business. While he is printing a new Class-Book for his own benefit, with the avowed intention of displacing the Class-Book that he sold to me, he has, he says, nothing whatever to do ^vith the proceed- ings of a “ friendly reviewer,” who comes forward to vilify the old book, destroy its character, and drive it out of the mai-ket, which of course would make way for the new book. The Professor has nothing whatever to do with the fact, whether the re\new was, or was not written with a view to that end. He has no personal interest in the matter! Overflowing with amiable simplicity, he sees nothing wrong in all this! nothing but the active kindness of friends zealous for his interest, and conveniently placed to cover him with their responsibility, and protect alike his scientific reputation, bis commercial prospects, and his character for truth, honesty, and fair dealing. Quite apropos, while Avriting the above, I have received a copy of tlie '•'‘North British Agriculturist'''' for 17th September, wliicli contains a “ Review” of my former Pamphlet and of Professor Balfour’s Reply. The “ friendly reAueAver” states that:— “ As Mr. Griffin has taken gi'eat pains to endeavour to justify and explain some of the errors Avhich A\’’e pointed out in the book, we think it proper to I’etuni to this subject, noticing these pamphlets, although merely to re-assure our readers of the TRUTII of our former remarks. “ There can only be one opinion as to the propriety of our doing this [i. Q.jmblish- ing the atrocious review of 1th May'] : had we remained silent, we should haA^e justly been regarded as winking at a deception upon the public, in alloAving to pass as genuine and accurate a spurious edition of a Avork, which in its original state, Ave had highly commended, but which has in its iiew form been spoiled and rendered ridicidous by had editing. “ It would be an uncalled for infliction on the patience of our readers to go over in detail the bolstered-up apologies given in ]\Ir. Griffin’s pami)hlet, for the various errors in the ncAv manual to which we, and other revieioers, have called attention.” These extracts prove the truth of the proverb, that '•'• if you hray a fool in a mortar, yet will his foolishness not depart from himf The “ fricndl}'^ reviewer” knoAvs that there Avere no errors in the book to justify and explain. I had simply to prove that his assertions Avere falsehoods. After reading my evidence, he cooly rc-assures tlie readers of the North British Agriculturist,