This bird is subject to variety; in some the lower part of the neck before, the breast, and middle of the belly, white.

Various have been the opinions concerning the dun-diver; some have considered it as the female of the goosander; others make it a distinct species. Both these birds have, upon dissection, been found to possess a labyrinth, or enlargement of the bottom part of the windpipe; a formation hitherto only discovered in the males of the duck genus. The crest, or feathers on the back of the head, of this bird is also considerably longer than in the goosander; a circumstance not observed in the female of any species. The tail of the goosander is said to be composed of eighteen feathers; whereas this bird has twenty feathers in that part.

From these circumstances we cannot hesitate in our opinion of these birds being distinct species.

• Dr. Latham observes that Dr. Heysham has proved, by dissection, that some of the larger dur-divers were males, and that in Cumberland this bird is infinitely more common than the goosander; at least ten or fifteen of the first to one of the last. We must, however, observe, that in many of the aquatic birds, in particular, the young do not arrive to maturity in plumage till the third, or perhaps fourth year, before which the males most resemble the female in feathers.

In order to clear up all doubt indisputably would be to prove, by dissection, there are female goosanders, which does not at present seem to be satisfactorily ascertained.

We have never had an opportunity of observing the tail of the goosander; but if it is true that it has only eighteen feathers, it will certainly be an unerring mark of distinction, for we can speak with certainty as to the dun-diver having twenty.

This bird is said to be common in Germany; but most probably breeds in the lakes of the more northern parts of the world.'

We shall add a curious account of two eagles taken from the

nest.

John Maxwell, esq. of Ardbraccan in Ireland, favoured us with two young birds of this species alive, taken the preceding year on a mountainous precipice, or craggy cliff, called Slieve Donald, impending the sea in the county of Down.

That gentleman informed us, two men, covered with sackcloth and armed, were lowered by ropes to the area, which, with considerable difficulty, they robbed of two young, leaving only one addled egg behind.

The old eagles being so furious as to create serious alarm, neither the nest or colour of the egg were noticed. Some fragments of flesh were in the nest.

The eaglets were covered with a glossy, dark, murry-coloured down (as it was termed). A basket was attached to the ropes that conveyed the men down; into this the young birds were put; but from the incessant violence and amazing strength of the parent birds, were with difficulty carried off.

These birds were not twelve months old when we received them. On their first moulting they became much darker, particularly about the breast and thighs, the latter almost wholly of a dusky black; at

two years old the base of the bill became yellow; in the third year there was not any material change. At this time one of them killed the other, and devoured it; probably neglected to be fed, for they before lived together in perfect harmony.

The food of this bird is said to be principally fish: but it is probable every animal of inferior strength suffers from its rapacity.

It is not uncommon in Scotland and Ireland, and breeds generally in the neighbourhood of large lakes, or on the sea-cost amongst the most stupendous cliffs.

Between the upper and lower lakes of Killarney is a rock called the Eagle's Nest, originating from the circumstance of its breeding there annually.

This bird is said to watch the osprey catching fish, when it pursues that bird till he quits his prey, which it seizes most dexterously in the air.

From the astonishing height these and some other birds fly, we are led to believe they are capable of living in a much lighter air than other animals. From the top of some of the highest mountains in Scotland we have seen several soaring together at so great a distance as to appear scarce larger than a swallow.'

We shall only add a short account of the common swallow, from the second volume. We have already observed that our author admits the migration of these birds.

The food of this bird, as of the whole genus, is winged insects, in catching which it is extremely dexterous; and, considering the velocity of its flight, the sight must be incomparably quick. It makes its first appearance with us in April, sometimes as early as the first week, if the weather is mild; and it sometimes happens that after their arrival a long easterly wind prevails, which so benumbs the insect tribes, that thousands die for want of food. We recollect as late as the ninth of May the swallows on a sudden disappeared from all the neighbouring villages around. The thermometer was at 42, and we were at a loss to conceive what was become of these birds, which a day or two before were seen in abundance. But by chance we discovered hundreds collected together in a valley close to the sea side, at a large pool which was well sheltered. Here they seem to have found some species of fly, though scarce sufficient to support life; for many were so exhausted that after a short time on wing were obliged to pitch on the sandy shore.

Why it should be necessary to account for the loss of this tribe of birds in the winter, by making them to immerse during that season, is extraordinary, when at the same time no doubts have been entertained of the migration of other birds, whose powers on wing are far inferior. And yet there have not been wanting persons who have declared they have seen them drawn up in nets, and restored from their benumbed state. Others are said to lie torpid in cliffs, hollow trees, and such places: but even this more probable account is to be doubted, except perhaps with respect to a few of the latter broods, which had not strength to undertake so long a flight. If we calculate the velocity of this bird on wing, and that it can and does suspend itself in the air for fourteen or sixteen hours together in search of food,

it cannot fly over a less space than between two and three hundred miles in that time. We have frequently observed upon the downs swallows follow, and repeatedly fly round with great ease, a horse in a full trot, at a rate not less than ten miles an hour, in order to pick up the flies roused from the grass by the motion of his feet.

It is certain, however, some few are seen in the winter months before Christmas, although they had all disappeared long before."

A list of British birds systematically arranged, and an explanation of the technical terms of ornithology, conclude this work.

ART. XI-An Examination of the Strictures of the Critical Reviewers, on the Translation of Juvenal, by IV. Gifford, Esq. 4to. 2s. 6d. sewed. Hatchard. 1803.

THE justice of our criticism, on the Translation of Juvenal by Mr. Gifford, rests on EVIDENCE, which every page of his Work will redouble. The merits of our Review the public must estimate: its impartiality defies the insolence of imposture.

Neither our desires nor our duties impel us to trace Mr. Gifford through the secret paths of his private life. The purity of his morals equals, we hope, the indecency of his writings. His person ater an albus homo'-his origin, his domestic connexions, his friends, and his flatterers, are objects as irrelevant to his literary deserts, as they were UNKNOWN to that tribunal of our associates which decided on his Juvenal. He was judged, with rigid integrity, by his works alone. Innumerable proofs of his delinquency were suppressed; extracts, as indulgent as friendship itself could have selected, were produced in his defence; and never was a translator convicted of dcbasing an ancient classic on clearer testimony, or before a more disinterested court.

The rancorous vulgarity of this publication adds effect to our remarks, and disgrace to its author. From us it requires no reply. To scurrility and falsehood all reply must be vain. Unrivaled in his own style of composition, we recommend to Mr. Gifford-'con la dovuta modestia '- -an exclusive cultivation of this style. Here, at least, he may hold undivided empire; reign here and revel,' fearless of being detected, as in his version of Juvenal, ultra crepidam.' Here, in NATIVE luxuriance, may his florid rhetoric-Xaprav lap-rival the sweets of Hymettus, outvie the bloom of Eden!!

To console those among his admirers who have deplored his discomfiture as a candidate for the classic laurel, we could display the matchless records of his renown, won in the career of his immediate study.

* In our Review, vol. 36, New Arr. p. 10—17, 188—192, and 316-32%. CRIT. REV. Vol. 38. July, 1803. 2 A

An enumeration of these splendid trophies we resign to abject flatterers, who may still attempt to impose on the public the lacquered lead of Mr. Gifford for the Corinthian brass of Juvenal. Flattery corrupts both the giver and the receiver.' A different spirit animates us. Nothing,' as an admirable critic teaches, is more absurd or useless than the panegyrical comments of those who criticise from the imagination, rather than from the judgement.' Neither daunted by the name, nor deceived by the reputation, of any writer, we assert the humble privilege of a desire to undeceive:-una-prerogativa di desiderio e non di fatto' di potere sciogliere gli uomini da que' lacci e da quella cecità nella quale sono stretti ed imbaragliati dalla birba, dalla ciurmeria, dalla ciarlataneria, e dalla furfante

ria.

Strangely have our desires alarmed the head, and agitated the heart, of Mr. Gifford; or his struggle with a plentiful lack of learning,' we suspect, would have been less strained, and his violence less intemperate.

A few observations are extorted from us, by a sense of duty to our readers.

In the art of evasion, mis-statement, and subterfuge, Mr. Gifford is an adept*. He has not hesitated to falsify passages which he pretends to have extracted from our Review, but, with Protéan address, changes sides, and accuses us of intentionally altering lines.

suce non immemor artis,

Omnia transformat, sese in miracula rerum.'

We thus vindicate our good faith. In page 57 of the translation, these words occur:

Why wait THEY.'"

Do we NOW.'

The inadvertence of our amanuensis, or celerity of the compositor, in page 322 of our Review, vol. 36, has inserted:—

We pass unconsidered many inaccurate quotations from our Review, intended by Mr. Gifford, we suppose, to answer 6 some purpose; and shall only hint to this modest translator, that access to original authors, to editors and translators, is not an advantage peculiar to himself. He asserts, with becoming veracity, that (by our wa confession!) to one edition our knowledge was confined. In conquirenda excu iendaque tanta lectionum farragine, we were accompanied, not only by Ruperti but by principal editors of Juvenal. Familiar with Heuninius, before Ruperti appeared, ke supplied, as we remarked in our Review, p. 189, our original quotations.

the

We quoted from one excellent edition: therefore Mr. Gifford concludes that we con sulted no other!

Verbal inaccuracies, which abound in this publication, might have taught Mr. Gifford, that, in a periodical work, the utmost care cannot always prevent trivial press-errors. He liberally asserts, however, that we have misprinted these insignificant words to answer' our detestable purpose.' The criticism itself, p. 322, shows that we had no purpose' 'to answer;' since, to the words we and not, our readers will perceive the remarks have NOT the slightest allusion, but relate merely to an inelegant use of the expletive do. Of charges alike fallacious and absurd, gross misrepresentation, despicable artifice, and unexampled scurrility, a detailed confutation would be wearisome and useless. The instances which we have already produced sufficiently develope the MANLY CANDOUR of Mr. Gifford.

The character of BRUCE requires from us no support: but the confidence (perhaps another word would be more pertinent) of Mr. Gifford merits a reprimand. The Egyptians de- / voured human flesh cleven hundred years after the death of Juvenal: therefore, according to Mr. Gifford, they were NOT cannibals when he wrote!! Were the Egyptians really less depraved in the time of the satyrist? The evidence of Juvenal himself decides in the negative. That the eating of human flesh was not uncommon in the age of Abdollatiph, we have shown in an article commended by those who can judge, uninjured by the abuse, and uncontaminated by the praises, of Mr. Gifford. His teeth in vain attempt to corrode a file. Will he trust to Juvenal himself? We imagine that he will not, since his translation gives the passage unfaithfully. He was unable or averse to render, with propriety,

Sed qui mordere cadaver

Sustinuit, nil umquam hac carne libentius edit'.

which has no relation to the man who came' first or last,' but is a distinct and isolated observation, exposing the ferocious greediness of those whom we must still denominate cannibals..

A futile defence of corrupted diction is accompanied by ar guments of adequate inanity.

Because authors in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuriesneither correct models of taste, nor engaged in works indispensably requiring the exercise of that delicate faculty-have used peculiar phrases, which their subjects or the times allowed, must we permit Mr. Gifford to borrow their antiquated vulgarisms, and inweave this 'strano linguaggio' into a laboured modern translation?

Shakspeare, Jonson, Dryden, Pope, Gray, and other eminent English writers, have adopted words now obsolete, or low, or requiring exquisite skill of application; therefore Mr. Gif