The Epitome of Electricity appears to me to contain a concise, but perspicuous and correct statement of the laws of that branch of Philosophy, and an interesting collection of facts and experiments, by which they are illustrated.
JEREMIAH DAY,
Professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy.
Yale College, Nov. 25, 1809.
[As the authors could not transmit to Professor Day a copy of the Epitome of Galvanism, without unduly delaying the publication, his testimonial, of course, refers only to the Epitome of Electricity.]
PREFACE.
Having denominated the following work an epitome of Electricity and Galvanism, it seems reasonable to request that the reader should keep the nature of our plan in view. If the book do not contain, on the subjects proposed to be treated, all that is most important, let it be condemned. But let not detail be expected where the design requires conciseness. There are some articles under which we were obliged, either to omit unimportant improvements, or to occupy several pages in describing them.
Where, however, omissions of any consequence have taken place, we have endeavoured carefully to refer to the books which will supply them; so that our work may not only teach the elements and substance of the science, but direct those who wish to pursue it most extensively—We particularly regretted that we could not describe a variety of electrometers.
Short as our work is, we found it, notwithstanding, scarcely practicable to avoid some repetition. In a few instances the historical and scientific parts may be observed, in a small degree, to interfere. Where history was useful to illustrate experiment, or experiment composed a part of history, we did not choose to separate what perspicuity required to be kept together. We hope, on the whole, that we do not need more indulgence in this respect, than we shall readily find, from those who are fond of the subjects which it was our business and our pleasure to investigate.
In making our epitome, we have often written without a special reference to any book; sometimes we have abridged the writings of others; sometimes we have taken paragraphs with the alteration of a few words; and sometimes we have introduced full quotations. In the latter case, we have always wished to make a distinct reference to the author quoted; and in other cases, we have generally made our acknowledgments where we were particularly indebted. But as our work was begun without any determination to publish it, we have probably made some selections, of which we have ourselves forgotten the authors from whom they were taken. Of the fairness of a work of this nature, we suppose there can be no question. Johnson, when speaking of the system of logic published by Watts, has made our apology—“If he owes part of it to Le Clerk, it must be considered, that no man who undertakes merely to methodise or illustrate a system, pretends to be its author.”