Substance of a lecture on the functions of the mouth, and the structure of recent and fossil teeth / [Alexander Nasmyth].

  • Alexander Nasmyth
Date:
[1840]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Substance of a lecture on the functions of the mouth, and the structure of recent and fossil teeth / [Alexander Nasmyth]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    7/16 (page 7)
    MR. NASMYTH’S REPLY TO MR. OWEN. [From The Lancet of July 11, 1840.] To the Editor of The Lancet. Sir:—I lose no time in undertaking the “ explanation ” and “justification” of my views on dental development, but before entering upon that duty, allow me to make an observation with respect to the separate publication of the abstract of my papers, read at the British Association, and con¬ tained in the forthcoming volume of last year’s “ Transactions.” Had I been aware that such a cunning outcry would be raised on what I shall proceed to show is alto¬ gether a groundless assumption, I, certainly, for my own sake, should not have sent you that abstract for review. It was the most convenient and concise, as well as the only corrected document for me to refer to on the subject; but my opponent has reaped far more advantage from it than I have, by attempting to raise a prejudice against me with respect to it. That that prejudice is utterly unfounded, my conduct will at once show ; for so far from being forced to rely solely upon this abstract in “justifying” and “explaining” my views of dental de¬ velopment, I have really no occasion to refer to it at all, and shall proceed to my task with, simply, the reports published last year in the “ Literary Gazette ” and “ Athenaeum,” before me. I may remark, however, that I had copies of the abstract for some time in my possession before I sent one to you, and that I had received repeated assurances from Mr. Phillips, in writing, that I was at liberty to give publicity to my views on the subject of dental development in any way I thought proper. My motive for sending you a copy of it for review, was very natural; I wished you to compare my own account of my researches with Mr. Owen’s history of his “ Nou- velle Theorie,” in order that you might not have to complain, that you were only made acquainted with my views, through the re¬ port of a third party. The report of my papers, given iu the “ Literary Gazette,” was not my own, whilst that which I sent to the “Athenaeum” was so altered and abridged, that I cannot be considered re¬ sponsible for it. However, I have not the slightest reluctance to challenge Mr. Owen to a comparison of our respective preten¬ sions, even under the disadvantage of quot¬ ing from hasty reports of my own papers, made or modified by other persons; whilst he is at liberty to appeal, in his defence, to a statement, carefully drawn up by himself, after my views had been laid before two different sections of the British Association (of which he is one of the Council, and was present at the meeting), and after the pub¬ lication of the reports of my papers. With respect to my “ Abstract,” I at once slate that it contains no interpolation whatever of matter not contained in the “ Literary Ga¬ zette” and “ Athenaeum,” and I am therefore quite at a loss to divine why I am not jus¬ tified in having sent it to you for review. I conceive, on the contrary, that I was only doing bare justice to myself by taking this step.* * As Mr. Owen has published in another journal, as well as in The Lancet, a long and rambling letter to Professor Phillips, charging me with introducing matter into my “ Abstracts ” of the papers read at the British Association, which was not con¬ tained in those papers themselves, allow me to extract here, my reply to his accusation :— “ The abstract of my papers given in the ‘ Transactions’ of the Association con¬ tains no interpolations whatever; no matter which was not contained in the papets themselves: I wish the same could be said of all Mr. Owen’s reports published in the same work. The promptness with which that gentleman at once accuses others of the practice of interpolation, appears to have its origin in the circumstance, that he is far from being unfamiliar with that prac¬ tice himself. I should advise him, before he again { prays ’ Prof. Phillips to compare my abstract for the ‘ Transactions ’ with the reports in the ‘ Literary Gazette ’ and 1 Athenasum,’ to request the secretary to institute a similar comparison between his own abstract, in the ‘ Transactions ' pub¬ lished in 1839, and the reports given in the weekly journals, shortly after the meeting of the Association in 1838. Prof. Phillips would, by so doing, be able to make out a