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 farmed 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. — A Friend to 

 fair Criticism. 



The Vignette for the Titlepage, — Sir, In oflPering some remarks (not 

 of a complimentary 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 only 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 yoiu* 

 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 third 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 heady against which my chief objection lies ; but I am not quite satis- 

 fied with his tally which, though plainly enough the lion's property, is yet so 

 injudiciously arranged relatively to the giraffe, that, at the first glimpse^ it 

 strikes the eye of the beholder as belonging to the latter animal, flourishing 

 his posterior appendage in a frolicsome mood. Nearly the same remark 

 applies also, and applies stUl more strongly, to the taU 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, and 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. . ... 



