Retrospective Criticism. 89 
In conclusion, I would strongly recommend this pleasing 
volume to every lover of nature, and particularly to all young 
persons, whose taste for searching into the wonders of creation 
and the works of their Creator, may possibly be in a great 
degree formed by the early perusal of such books. I also 
sincerely congratulate the public and the author on the speedy 
demand for a second edition ; —the author, on the success of 
his well-executed performance —the public, on their due 
estimation of it, which affords a demonstrative proof that the 
taste for natural history is on the increase. No one, I will 
venture to say, who possesses the former edition, will regret 
having become a purchaser of the new one. — 4 Friend to 
fair Criticism. 
The Vignette for the Titlepage.— Sir, In offering some remarks (noé 
of a cor aplimentary kind) on the new engraved titlepage for the First and 
Second Volumes of your Magazine, which, in the last Number, you have 
had the liberality to present to your purchasers without making (as the 
manner of some is*) any additional charge for such articles, I fear I 
may be performing a rather ungracious ‘office, and transgressing the 
spirit of that excellent old proverb, which tells us that “we ought not 
to look a gift horse in the mouth.” It is one feature, however, of 
your Magazine, that you not oniy allow “ contributors to criticise one 
another, ” but to criticise yourself too; and, as on former occasions (see 
Vol. I. p- 96. and 303.) you took in such good part the criticisms of your 
correspondents on the ornamental vignette on the cover, I make bold to say 
a word or two on the one now presented to us in the new titlepage. My 
remarks are not made in a bad spirit; so far from it, that I beg to assure 
you, if I derived less pleasure from the perusal of your Numbers than I do, 
or felt no interest in the success of your undertaking, I should not think 
it worth while to say a single word on the subject. In the first place, then, 
the head of the lion is almost unintelligible ; until the ¢hird examination of 
the print I could not, for the life of me, make out the physiognomy of the 
noble beast. What I now suppose to represent the animal’s ear, at first 
view looks like his eye, and his eye like his nose; and in this manner, I 
find, others, besides myself, have construed his features. Thus much for the 
lion’s head, against which my chief objection lies ; but I am not quite satis- 
fied with his éail, which, though plainly enough the lion’s property, is yet so 
injudiciously arranged relatively to the girafle, that, at the first glimpse, it 
strikes the eye of the beholder as belonging to the latter animal, flourishing 
his posterior appendage in a froliesome mood. Nearly the same remark 
applies also, and applies still more strongly, to the tail of the serpent. By 
the way, I know not what right you have to set the lion and the serpent 
together so by the ears; but, for this, perhaps, you have sufficient authority, 
and may know better than myself. But to proceed (for I have not yet 
done finding fault); the fish in the foreground is very imperfectly por- 
trayed, and “the head of the vulture is almost as unintelligible as that of the 
lion. In the lower corner of the print on the left, immediately under the 
vulture’s tail, there is something like a fir tree, which is very awkwardly in- 
troduced, and not well represented ; and near it are two pair of small, round, 
* The dirty practice of making the purchasers of works which appear in 
periodical numbers pay extra, id dearly too, for the mere ordinary titlepage 
and index to each volume, is become too common with some, otherwise 
respectable, editors. On this subject I may, perhaps, take some future 
opportunity to make a few observations. 
