opinions of contemporary writers where they are different: and lastly, from the generalizing nature of Chaptal's work, he was obliged to have recourse to other authors for practical details not furnished by him: and to his own notes[1] for some of these, which, to an author writing for the improvement of his subject, might seem superfluous, but which he, considering himself as writing for those who were entirely ignorant of it, could not but deem essential.
He has not, therefore, exactly followed Chaptal's arrangement, and has in many cases used his own language. The important chapters on fermentation, however, are either a liberal translation, or a careful abridgment from his work: and he, therefore, hopes he has avoided any considerable error into which he might have been betrayed, by having but a limited acquaintance with chemistry.
Whatever other errors the work may contain, he trusts that they are not of a nature
- ↑ The compiler is happy to acknowledge himself indebted to the kindness of a gentleman of high rank in the colony, for the first work of Chaptal, in which, the practical matters here alluded to, are treated in detail by M. Dussieux, of the Society of Agriculture at Paris. He has been, of course, less under the necessity of referring to his own notes, in which, from want of experience, he could not altogether confide. He has, also, in preparing the work for the press, retrenched many notices from various authors, from the necessity of keeping the work in small bounds; and from a persuasion, that most of them might be brought under some one of the general principles established by Chaptal.
