Our English cotemporary, _Engineering_, appears to have seriously
exercised itself in the perusal of our good-natured article
on "English and American Scientific and Mechanical Engineering
Journalism," which appeared in the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, February
4th; at least, we so judge from the tenor of an article in response
thereto, covering a full page of that journal. The article in question
is a curiosity in literature. It deserves a much wider circulation
than _Engineering_ can give it, and we would gladly transfer it to our
columns, but for its exceeding length--a serious fault generally, not
only with _Engineering's_ articles, but most other technical journals
published in England. It would scarcely do for them to be brief in
their discussions, and above all other things, spice and piquancy
must always be excluded. _Engineering_ evidently labors under the
conviction that the heavier it can make its discussions, the more
profoundly will it be able to impress its readers. Hence, we are
equally astonished and gratified to find a gleam of humor flashing out
from the ordinary sober-sided composition of our learned contemporary.
The article came to us just as we were laboring under an attack of
dyspepsia, and its reading fairly shook our atrabilious _corpus_. We
said to ourselves, "can it be possible that _Engineering_ is about to
experience the new birth, to undergo regeneration, and a baptism of
fire?" The article is really worth reading, and we begin to indulge
the hope that at least one English technical is going to try to make
itself not only useful, but readable and interesting. And what is
most perplexingly novel in this new manifestation, is the display of
a considerable amount of egotism, which we had always supposed to be
a sinful and naughty thing in technical journalism. And, as if to
magnify this self-complaisance, it actually alludes to its "_own
extensive and ever-increasing circulation in America_." Now to show
how small a thing can impart comfort to the soul of our cotemporary,
we venture to say that the circulation of _Engineering_ in this
country cannot much exceed three hundred copies per week.
It evidently amazes our English cotemporary that a journal like the
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, which, according to its own notions, is chiefly
the work of "scissors and paste," should circulate so widely; and it
even belittles our weekly circulation by several thousand copies,
in order to give point to its very amusing, and, we will also add,
generally just criticism.
The writer in _Engineering_, whoever he may be, appears to be a sort
of literary Rip Van Winkle, just waking out of a long sleep; and
he cannot get the idea through his head that it is possible that a
technical journal can become a vehicle of popular information to
the mass of mankind, instead of being the organ of a small clique of
professional engineers or wealthy manufacturers, such as seems to
hold control of the columns of _Engineering_, and who use it either
to ventilate their own pet schemes and theories, or to advertise, by
illustration and otherwise, in the reading columns, a repetition of
lathes, axle-boxes brakes, cars, and other trade specialities, which
can lay little or no claim to novelty. It is, furthermore, a crying
sin in the estimation of our English critic that American technical
journals do not separate their advertisements from the subject matter;
and he thinks that when Yankee editors learn that trade announcements
are out of place in the body of a journal, they will see how to make
their journals pay by making them higher priced. Now we venture to
say, without intending to give offence, that Yankee editors understand
their business quite as well as do English editors; and it is
presumable, at least, that they know what suits their readers on
this side, much better than do English editors. We venture to
suggest--modestly, of course--that journalism in the two countries
is not the same, and should the editor of _Engineering_ undertake
to transfer his system of intellectual labor to this side of the
Atlantic, he would not be long in making the discovery that those
wandering Bohemian engineers, who, he tells us, are in sorrow and
heaviness over the short-comings of American technical journals, would
turn out after all to be slender props for him to lean upon. We think
it probable, however, that with a little more snap, a journal like
_Engineering_ might possibly attain a circulation, in this country, of
500 or 1000 copies weekly.
Why, American engineers have scarcely yet been able to organize
themselves into an association for mutual advancement in their
profession, much less to give the reading public the benefit of their
experience and labors! This fact alone ought, of itself, to satisfy
_Engineering_ that no such journal could profitably exist in this
country. Whenever our American engineers are ready to support such a
journal, there will be no difficulty in finding a publisher.
_Engineering_, in its casual reference to the various technical
journals of America, omits to name our leading scientific monthly, but
introduces with just commendation a venerable cotemporary, now upwards
of three score years of age. Now, it is no disparagement of this
really modest monthly to say, that perhaps there are not sixty hundred
people in the States who know it, even by name; and so far as the use
of "scissors and paste" are made available in our technical journals,
we venture the assertion that the editorial staff expenses of the
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN are as great, if not greater, than those of
_Engineering_. The question, however, is not so much one of original
outlay, but which of the two journals gives most for the money. In
this very essential particular, and with no intention to depreciate
the value of _Engineering_, we assert, with becoming modesty, that the
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN occupies a position which _Engineering_ will never
be able to attain.
* * * * *