90 Retrospective Criticism, 



white objects, of which I cannot guess the meaning. And lastly, though not 

 least in importance, the portrait of Linnaeus is wholly unlike the man, save 

 and except his tie wig. Much stress, perhaps, ought not to be laid on a mere 

 fancy composition, like the one in question ; at the same time, its general 

 correctness and excellence of execution are not altogether unimportant. 

 The titlepage is to the volume something like what the vestibule is to the 

 building ; and it is, at least, ill-judged to raise an unfavourable impression in 

 limine. I admire your Magazine, Mr. Editor, but not so the engraved title- 

 page, which, I must say, strikes me as unworthy of the book to which it is 

 prefixed. The artist has not, neither the designer [IVIr. Harvey] nor en- 

 graver [Mr. Branston], affixed his name, and has acted wisely by the 

 omission, as the cut does him no credit; indeed, I infinitely prefer the 

 vignette on the cover. I have again to apologise for the freedom of my re- 

 marks, and the more so as the subject of them is a/ree and voliinta>y gift on 

 your part, and one on which your purchasers had, of course, no right to 

 calculate. But where things are good in the main, we are apt to wish them 

 to be free from blemishes in the subordinate parts ; and you must be aware 

 that reproof is most profitably administered, that is, with the best chance of 

 success, not to those who have the most faults to correct, but to those who 

 are most disposed to correct them. 



Should you think well, Mr. Editor, to print these remarks, as you have 

 done similar ones on a former occasion, the sooner you take the opportunity 

 of doing so, the better ; retrospective criticism being a dish that should be 

 eaten hot, or it loses half its flavour. Yours, &c. — B, Coventry , Nov. 20. 



The same objections having been made by " An Original Subscriber," and 

 others, we shall try what can be done for a title to Vol. III. — Cond. 



The Water Shrew (Vol. II. p. 399.), I am inclined to think, is not so 

 rare an animal in this country as has, been supposed ; I occasionally see it 

 on the small brooks in this parish, rapidly swimming along the surface of 

 the water, and, when alarmed, diving with great agility. — W. T. Bree. 

 Allesley Rectory, Sept. 8. 1829. 



Dr. lire's Geology. — Sir, I trouble you with a few remarks upon a letter 

 in your last Number, containing strictures on Dr. Ure's Geology, perceiving 

 you set apart in your miscellany a chapter for communications of the nature 

 alluded to. I certainly am much surprised at the decided tone which the 

 author assumes throughout, and the mode in which he lays down the law 

 concerning right and wrong ; having anticipated rather the contrary from the 

 professions he repeatedly makes in the outset, 



It surely becomes one, who is " not even a tyro in geology," rather to ask 

 a question concerning any point he may not perfectly agree with, than pe- 

 remptorily to pronounce that " all this is palpably wrong." To take Mr. 

 H.'s arguments in order j I may remark, in the first place, that, in my opi- 

 nion, he has been a little hasty in calling the mistake in the Table of Equiva- 

 lents " an important error." An unprejudiced reader cannot, surely, view 

 it in any other light than as a mere printer's mistake, one which may at any 

 time occur in a work of any extent ; and the utmost that can be said of it 

 is, that it is rather a gross oversight in the correction of the press. For, 

 although Dr. Ure may not be a geologist, practically speaking, every one will 

 give him credit for knowing the place of the lias in the geological series. 

 Neither can I conceive this error likely to be at all injurious to the science, 

 even with the youngest student ; for in the table immediately preceding the 

 one mentioned by H., that bed is in its proper place, and all the doubt 

 which such a contradiction could cause the reader might at once be re- 

 moved by turning to the chapter specially appropriated to the subject. 

 Secondly, with regard to the account of the fossils of the iron-sand, I must 

 again differ as to the importance of the error therein supposed ; nay, I will 

 say, I think there is no error at all. Dr. Ure undoubtedly has not given us 

 all the information he might have done, concerning those fossils, at least, he 

 has not put it in the proper place , in this respect his arrangement is much 



