street itself, it is said, was thus denominaied" from one Vitellianus, supposed to have superintended the direction of it: the Britons calling Vitellianus, in their language, Guctalin." Statist. Acc. xvi, 325. N.' A Dictionary being a work of that particular description of which no analysis can be rendered, it is only by means of specimens that an idea of it can be conveyed; and we have now presented examples of the most remarkable among the particular qualities, by which we regard the present work as distinguished. We might add a specimen of its general train, which might be taken with almost equal propriety from any part of the work: but we cannot farther extend the bounds of this long article, and must come to a conclusion. It is chiefly in one particular, but that one is of the first and highest importance, that the endowments of Dr. Jamieson have fallen short of his attempt. He is a good antiquary and a good linguist; and he has manifested patience, industry, and good sense but he is only a second or third-rate philosopher. Had his fortunate qualities been added to the head of a Tooke, what an admirable production should we have received! Let not the public, however, despise a truly valuable gift because it is not beyond all price, and because something better can be conceived. Dr. Jamieson's merits are still of a high order; and he has contributed aid of the greatest importance to the accomplishment of an object which would be of so much value,-an etymological dictionary of our language; etymological in the true sense of the term, a dictionary in which the primary use of all important words should be satisfactorily displayed. ART. III. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, Vol. I. THE maxim, "divide and conquer," is equally applicable to politics and to literature; since, in those sciences which embrace a great variety of objects, a division of labour becomes necessary to enable their votaries to make any considerable progress. This is particularly true of natural history, and especially of that most interesting department of it, Zoology, in which, though each part be intimately connected with every other, it is scarcely possible for ordinary minds to take more. than a general view of the whole. Consequently, as Zoology has been subdivided into ornithology, conchology, entomology, &c. so its cultivators generally arrange themselves under the heads of Ornithologists, Conchologists, Entomologists, &c. according according as they apply themselves more particularly to the study of birds, shells, or insects. Such a sub-division has the effect of calling forth the activity of a much greater number of naturalists, by adapting the studies of each class to the taste and genius of the individuals who compose it; while, as it is impossible to become master of any one subject without frequent reference to those with which it is more immediately connected, this partition of industry contributes to the general interest of the science. In large towns, where a number of individuals of similar tastes and similar pursuits reside, it is natural that they should occasionally meet together, and communicate to each other the discoveries which they have made in their favourite study, and the projects which they have formed for its advancement. From such meetings, have arisen the societies and academies to which science is indebted for much of the progressive improvement which it has received. Several respectable societies of naturalists have lately appeared; and among others we have now to notice an Entomological Society. This Entomological Society of London, the first part of whose Transactions is now before us, was formed about four years ago, and we believe that its members are not numerous. Its President is Mr. A. H. Haworth, the author of a respect able work on British insects, the Lepidoptera Britannica*. This institution is not altogether new in this country; since, about 60 years ago, London possessed a similar association, denominated the Aurelian Society. If we may judge from the name of this latter, however, its objects were much less extensive than those of the present Entomological society: the views of which are very commendable, since few parts of natural history better deserve the attention of mankind than entomology. The number of insects is prodigious; and so many of them have an influence on the comforts, the luxuries, or the inconveniences of man, that it becomes desirable for him to extend his knowlege of such interesting neighbours. Much has indeed been done since the time of Linné, to advance the study of entomology: but, while the number of known species has been prodigiously increased, the study of their economy and uses has been lamentably neglected. It is the cultivation of this alone which can remove from entomologists the ridicule which is too often thrown on them as triflers and insect-hunters. The first part of their transactions, which the Entomological Society has published, will probably not be considered as very important; and indeed we think that the See Rev. Vol. xlix. N. S. p. 83. Society Society has been rather hasty in offering to the public so small a specimen of their labours. It contains only five articles, of which the first and most important occupies nearly twothirds of the whole. This paper is a Review of the rise and progress of the science of Entomology in Great Britain, chronologically digested, by the President. It affords some judicious remarks on those British writers who have treated on the natural history of insects, from the work of Mouffet, in 1634, to the entomological part of Dr. Shaw's General Zoology, in 1806. It is rather singular that, among the British authors, should appear the names of Linné and Fabricius: we suppose that they were introduced through inadvertency: but they will not be the less acceptable to those who make the history of entomology an object of investigation. We believe that the catalogue of British writers on entomology furnished by Mr. Haworth is very complete: but we cannot commend the style in which the paper is composed. It abounds with pretty allusions and poetical quotations; which, however they might enliven an essay read before a private society, are not well adapted to a didactic paper, which is intended to meet the eye of the public. The second memoir, by the Rev. Thomas Skrimshire, contains some observations on rearing Insects, and may be interesting to those who have few opportunities of witnessing the changes that take place in insects in their natural habitations. No III. gives a systematic description of a rare and curious insect, sometimes found in chalky soils among grass, the Lygaus Micropterus, by the Rev. John Burrell. No account is given of the manners or economy of this insect, nor is its place in the systematic arrangement pointed out. The description is illustrated by two well-executed coloured figures. The fourth essay is of more importance, and contains an account of several rare insects, which were not before known as inhabitants of Great Britain. Among these, we particularly notice the Lamia Dentator, the Trichius variabilis, the Necrophorus bimaculatus, and the Sphinx Galii; of all of which, coloured engravings are added. The last paper in the collection is written also by Mr. Burrell, and presents the beginning of a Catalogue of Insects found in Norfolk. We were particularly pleased with the appearance of this paper, because we think that provincial fauna afford one of the best means of perfecting the Zoology of a country, while they enable the student to derive abundant illustration from the district in which he resides. This catalogue of Norfolk insects promises to be very extensive, since Mr. Burrell REV. SEPT. 1810. D has has not gone through more than three genera, and has enumerated 57 species. Though we cannot speak in very high terms of the importance of the Entomological Society's Transactions, as far as they have yet fallen under our observation, we must applaud the institution itself, and wish it every success. We would, however, recommend it to the committee who prepare the Transactions for the press, to be more attentive to the typography than they seem hitherto to have been; since we have noticed several unpardonable errors in the present Fasciculus. ART. IV. All the Odes of Pindar, translated from the original "Four swans sustain a car of silver bright, pp. 360. With heads advanc'd, and pinions stretch'd for flight: POPE.-Temple of Fame. Rolls his impetuous, vast, unfathomable song." See WEST'S Pindar;- Translation of Horace, book 4, ode 2. Here are two great modern testimonies, and one antient, in favour of Pindar; and of both kinds we could in course enumerate a legion. Whence comes it, then, that even among scholars he is one of the most unpopular of antient poets? In Congreve's excellent remarks, prefixed to his two Odes in imitation of Pindar, the wild deviation of Cowley from his model was admirably exposed. To fancy that rambling and incoherent thoughts, conveyed in loose and irregular numbers, were a just imitation of the great Theban's energetic and compressed style, was as preposterous a mistake as the audacity of genius ever committed, or the servility of dullness ever copied. The followers lowers of Cowley carried their Pindarics to the extremity of burlesque; and not contented, in aping their real original, the leader of the metaphysical school of versifiers, to father conceits and witticisms and antitheses on one of the gravest and chastest writers of antiquity, they with equal injustice represented him as one of the wildest violators of every rule of metre, and as a mere rhythmical rhapsodist. Congreve, as we observed, sufficiently pointed out this ignorance in the modern composers of Pindarics: who, forgetful that the dithyrambics of Pindar (his "lawless numbers," as Horace styles them,) are lost, imagined that their own extravagant and barbarous stanzas were correct copies of the comparatively regular strophe, antistrophe, and epode, in which his only remaining writings convey his eulogies on the conquerors in the four sacred games of Greece. His hymns in honour of the gods being also lost, we are unable to account for the more than mortal honours which were conferred by antiquity on this extraordinary poet. Enough, however, remains to justify, in the opinion of some of the best modern critics, the less romantic homage which was paid to him by the antients.-How then, we again ask, is it that he is still so unpopular? The difficulty of answering this question would seem to be much increased from the good fortune which Pindar experienced in this country, by finding a translator equal in his kind to the translator whom Homer obtained in Pope, or Lucan in Rowe. We mean Gilbert West; whose genius, if the genius of any man could have done it, would have rendered Pindar a favourite among us. He selected, and with excellent judgment, some of the most striking of the Olympic, Pythian, Nemean, and Isthmian odes: he accompanied his vigorous, correct, animated, highly poetical translations, with a full and learned dissertation on the first of those great national solemnities, the games of Greece: he interspersed it with notes explanatory of the mythological, historical, and geographical allusions of the original; and, in a word, he presented the classical reader with a publication almost without a rival since his time, for genius adorned by taste, and for learning unalloyed by ostentation. Yet Pindar remains unpopular; and Gilbert West is little read. Bold, then, indeed, is Mr. Girdlestone, when such a selection has failed, to endeavour to interest us in all the odes of Pindar."He who aspires to reach the tow'ring height Of matchless Pindar's heav'n-ascending strain, Like him, who falling nam'd th' Icarian Main.” So said Gilbert West, in the translation above cited. Yet this sentiment did not restrain him from the fearful attempt |