saw, we can trust implicitly to the accuracy of his details in describing every thing which fell under his observation. The same high character is due to Pococke and Sandys, writers whose simplicity of style and thought afford a voucher for the truth of their narratives. Nor are Thevenot, Paul Lucas, and Careri, though less frequently consulted, at all unworthy of confidence as depositories of historical facts. In more modern times we meet with equal fidelity, recommended by an exalted tone of feeling, in the volumes of Chateaubriand and Dr Richardson. Clarke, Burckhardt, Buckingham, Legh, Henniker, Jowett, Light, Macworth, Irby, Mangles, Carne, and Wilson, have not only contributed valuable materials, but also lent the aid of their names to correct or to confirm the statements of some of the more apocryphal among their predecessors.
The chapter on Natural History has no pretensions to scientific arrangement or technical precision in its delineations. On the contrary, it is calculated solely for the common reader, who would soon be disgusted with the formal notation of the botanist, and could not understand the learned terms in which the student of zoology too often finds the knowledge of animal nature concealed. Its main object is to illustrate the Scriptures, by giving an account of the quadrupeds, birds, serpents, plants, and fruits, which are mentioned from time to time by the inspired writers of either Testament.
EDINBURGH, September, 1831.