The most recent of the French systems, that by Brongniart, seemed to combine nearly all the requisites that could be desired in an elementary treatise; and a translation of it would probably, ere this, have been given to the American public, had we not been led to expect the work of Professor Cleaveland, which, it was anticipated, would at least possess one important advantage over the work of Brongniart, and every other; it would exhibit, more or less extensively, American localities, and give the leading features of our natural mineral associations.
Thus it appears[8] that the work of Professor Cleaveland was eminently needed; the science, at large, needed it; and to American mineralogists it was nearly indispensable. It appeared too at a very opportune moment. Had it come a few years sooner, it might not have found many readers. Now it is sustained by the prevailing curiosity, and diffused state of information regarding mineralogy; and, in turn, no cause could operate more effectually to cherish this curiosity, and to diffuse this information still more widely, than this book. Professor Cleaveland is therefore entitled to our thanks for undertaking this task; and, in this age of book-making, it is no small negative praise if an author be acquitted of unnecessarily adding to the already onerous mass of books.
With respect to the PLAN of this work, Professor Cleaveland has, with good judgment, availed himself of the excellencies of both the German and French schools.
Mr. Werner, of Fribourg, in some sense not only the founder of the modern German school of mineralogy, but almost of the science itself, is entitled to our lasting gratitude for his system of external characters, first published in 1774. In this admirable treatise he has combined precision and copiousness, so that exact ideas are attached to every part of the descriptive language, and every character is meant to be defined.
It is intended that a full description of a mineral upon this plan shall entirely exhaust the subject, and that although many properties may be found in common among different minerals, still every picture shall contain peculiar features, not to be found in any other. It would certainly appear, at first view, that this method must be perfect, and leave nothing farther to be desired. It has, however, been found in practice, that the full descriptions of the Wernerian writers are heavy and dry; they are redundant also, from the frequent repetition of similar properties; and from not giving due prominence to those which are peculiar, and therefore distinctive, they frequently fail to leave a distinct impression of any thing on the mind, and thus, in the midst of what is called by the writers of this school a full oryctognostic picture, a student is sometimes absolutely bewildered.
Some of the modern French writers, availing themselves of Mr. Werner's very able delineation of the external characters of minerals, have selected such as are most important, most striking, distinctive, and interesting; and drawing a spirited and bold sketch, have left the minuter parts untouched: such a picture, although less perfect, often presents a stronger likeness, and more effectually arrests the attention.
This is the method of description which has been, as we think, happily adopted, to a great extent by Mr. Cleaveland.
Mr. Werner, availing himself of the similarities in the external appearance of minerals, has (excepting the metals) arranged them also upon this plan, without regard to their constitution; that is, to their real nature, or, at least, making this wholly subservient to the other: this has caused him, in some instances, to bring together things which are totally unlike in their nature, and, in other instances, to separate those which were entirely similar. Whatever may be said in favour of such a course, considered as a provisional one, while chemical analysis was in its infancy, the mind can never rest satisfied with any arrangement which contradicts the real nature of things; in a word, the composition of minerals is the only correct foundation for their classification. This classification has been adopted by several of the ablest modern French writers.
"It is believed," (says Professor Cleaveland, Preface, p. 7.) "that the more valuable parts of the two systems may be incorporated, or, in other words, that the peculiar descriptive language of the one may, in a certain degree, be united to the accurate and scientific arrangement of the other.
"This union of descriptive language and scientific arrangement has been effected with good success, by Brongniart, in his System of Mineralogy—an elementary work, which seems better adapted both to interest and instruct, than any which has hitherto appeared. The author of this volume has, therefore, adopted the general plan of Brongniart, the more important parts of whose work are, of course, incorporated with this."