64 STUDY OF NATURAL HISTORY. 
rested only upon the faith of drawings in the hands 
of his friends. From these circumstances, numberless 
errors inevitably resulted: and, with all our respect 
for the venerable author, we are compelled to con- 
firm the judgment already passed upon this work 
by Cuvier.* Nevertheless it must be admitted that 
a large number of really new and most interesting 
birds were now, for the first time, sufficiently well 
described; and that, at the period when they were 
published, both the General Synopsis and the Index 
Ornithologicus were useful and even valuable pub- 
lications. They accomplished, ‘in their generation,” 
the object for which they were intended,—they 
advanced science; while their very imperfections 
brought about that revolution in our mode of in- 
vestigation, which has now rendered them of little 
service. We should have wished, for the reputation 
of the first writer whose works we studied, that the 
History of Birds had never appeared; since it is 
merely an enlargement of the Synopsis, presenting 
us, in the year 1820, with the systematic views which 
were prevalent in 1782; a system, in short, which, 
having served its turn, is now only a matter of 
history. We feel pained at being called upon to 
criticise the works of authors who are now living, for 
it will surprise most of our readers when they are 
told that the amiable and venerable author of the 
Synopsis is now enjoying a vigorous old age, having 
outlived, if report speaks true, ninety-four winters. 
Should these remarks ever meet his eye, we pray him 
to pardon their freedom; and we entreat him to re- 
ns 

* Régne Animal, vol. iv. p. 135. 
