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.

    3/14 (page 5)
    “ My Text-Booiv!”—The expression seems plain enough. When Professor Balfour wrote this letter, he either wished me to believe that he intended to use the work, if he wrote it, for his Text-Book, or he wished to deceive me. M liich ? Certainly, my object in writing to a newly-elected Professor of Botany in the University of Edinburgh, to ask him to write an Elementary Course of Botanyj was with the view that the work should become his Text-Book; and when I received*a letter in whicli he said in effect, “ I shall make it my Text-Book, I considered that the Professor .entertained the same view—namely, that he intended to make the work his Text-Book, and intended that I should so under- stand him. No reasonable man can give any other than two interpretations to Professor Balfoiu'’s letter: he either intended to produce a Text-Book for his own class, and used words to convey that idea to me ’, or he intentionally misled me on that subject. The doubt woidd seem to be removed by the ex- planation he gives in his present letter to you, (p. 13,) where, speaking of his letter to me of 4th January, 1847, he says:— “The words, no doubt, express the intention I at that time entertained, to use the Manual for the purposes of iny class, as was very natural, considering it to be my o_wn book, and under my own conh’ol. In point of fact, I did so use it, and did ever3''thing in my power to promote its sale.” Yet he now argues that, although such was then his intention, and although such intention was expressed to me, [which expression certainly governed my conduct,] he is in nowise pledged thereby. This letter, howeA*er, was only a preliminary to the pledge—properly so called. On the 11th February, 1847, I visited Professor Balfoiu’ in Edinburgh, and I then explained to him what I wanted him to do, and heard his proposals for altera- tions and improvements on the French work. One-of these proposals I did not approve of: it was, that Jussieu’s arrangement of the plants should be aban- doned, and the arrangement of Decandolle be substituted. I objected to this alteration, on the ground, that Jussieu’s work had acquired a great reputation, and that it was inexpedient to alter a work that was successful. To this argu- ment Professor Balfour replied, that he was not in the practice of teaching the system of Jussieu, and that, as the book was to be his Text-Book, the altera- tion was indispensable, for the book would not otherwise suit his pupils. Upon tliis, I M'ithdrew my objection, and the alteration was made. On this point, and on all the points that were discussed between us at this interview, there was no reserve whatever as to the destination of the work—“/ shall make it my Text-Book; I shall modify it for that purposed Such were Professor Balfour’s declarations—promises—p)ledges. It was at this interview that, after the constitution of the volume was agreed on, I offered to pay Professor Balfour two hundred pounds for his labour; to which terms he agreed. If Professor Balfour had on this occasion stated his intention, or if he had given the least hint of his having any intention, not to use the work as his Text-Book, I should have closed the negotiation at once, making him no offer. But his written desire of Jan. 4th, and his express promise at the interview of Feb. 11th, to make the book his Text-Book, induced me to believe that he meant hona fide to do so, and this belief influenced my offer of payment. If, when he wrote and