A letter to Dr. David Boswell Reid, ... in answer to his pamphlet intitled "An exposure of the misrepresentations in the Philosophical Magazine and Annals," / by Richard Phillips.

Date:
1831
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A letter to Dr. David Boswell Reid, ... in answer to his pamphlet intitled "An exposure of the misrepresentations in the Philosophical Magazine and Annals," / by Richard Phillips. 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.

    5/32 (page 1)
    Arc. Sin, In a pamphlet, entitled An Exposure of the Misrepresentations in the Philosophical Magazine and Annals, (§*c. contained, as asserted, in a review of your Elements of Practical Chemistry, you have freely bestowed terms of contempt upon the author ot that criticism; denouncing him as a doughty critic, of utter incapacity and cool efirontery; as an infatuated, and, unaccount- ably, totally and gi’ossly ignorant person; as one who is captious, cavilling, clumsy, audacious, and guilty of gross misrepresenta- tions, &c. These, Sir, are a few of the phrases which you have applied to the writer of the review in question; and you will perhaps think that I possess more courage than prudence, when, after such a description, I venture to avow, as I now do, that I am the author of, and alone responsible for, every statement which the criticism contains. I assure you, however, that I do not complain of the language in which you have described me. Nature has provided her ! creatures with means of defence, suited to the stations they were intended to occupy; and to you (in this respect) she has been peculiai-ly liberal, supplying you with stores of invective, which, I ample as they once were, you must have now nearly exhausted. I am not aware that I have made use of any expression, in |; speaking of your work, that is disallowed by the language of I. fair criticism, I have, indeed, once said that 1 thought a certain I statement culpably inaccurate; and as the result of an exami- P nation of an important chapter, I also ventured to state, that )' you appeared to me not to be sufiiciently acquainted with the (» science which you had undertaken to teach. Whether I was I! justified in expressing these opinions, remains to be discussed; 0 and in replying to your Exposure, 1 shall more minutely detail il the facts upon which my conclusions were founded. The observation that first excites your displeasure, ought, I 41 think, to have produced a very different feeling. Having sup- 1 posed it probable that your book did not appear entirely without !; sanction of Dr. Hope, to whom it is dedicated, you call it 3^ “insinuating that he must have superintended the work;” and 1'^ yet you say that he has been pleased to “ express his approba-