Tpre merit of this work consists principally in its arrangement. The idea of ordering the receipts in an alphabetical form is good. - First of all, the directions for cooking were printed with scarcely any other than the haphazard disorder of an old housekeeper's sugar-paper—rough-calf-covered memorandum book. The " March of Intellect" in the kitchen then gave birth to classifi- cation, and further to copious indexes. Such do Mrs. RUNDELL and Mrs. DALGAIRNS, the modern Delphic sy-bils possess. So also Dr. KITCHINER, the martyr to culinar7 experiments, since he ruined his peptic organs by experimenting on the respective digestibility of beef, veal, and mutton. But we have observed that ladies are impatient of index, and maladroit in their use. Boys thumb the dictionary at school so eternally, that in future life it costs little to them to hunt from page to page ; but the taper-fingered dame turns the page with less familiarity. The Dictionary is consequently a happy idea for their use, and a proof that the schoolmaster is in the kitchen as well as in the parlour. The practice of cookery, as here laid down, is that of the Cuisine Bourgeoise, and appears very well adapted to homely purposes. Were we inclined to be critical, and to condescend to particulars, as Mrs.DODS says, we should object to Mr. DOLBY'S putting eggs in suet dumplings ; but this is in truth not a damning fault ; an% -we are not so intolerant as to roast the, book at his own fire for an offence which, after all, does not in the least concern the genteel, —for who eats dumplings at all, much less suet dumplings ?—the i very name of dumpling s banished from good society. Poor mi- serable slaves that we are, of words and forms ! The work is well printed, well written, and altogether well got up. We ree commend it
*Dolby's Cook's Dictionary. London, 1830.