12 
door nature; that no dependance is to be put in the ac- 
counts given in books; and that the only valuable know- 
ledge of nature which a man can possess, is that which he 
acquires by his own observation. ‘In books,” says one of 
these writers, “‘ we can only obtain knowledge at second- 
hand; and this, like a story, circulated among village gos- 
sips, is more apt to gain in falsehood than in truth, as it 
passes from one to another; but in field-study, we go at 
once to the fountain-head, and obtain our facts pure, and 
unalloyed by the theories and opinions of previous obser- 
vers.”’* 
Now, if we want to gain a knowledge of the history and 
manners of some celebrated character, will any one be ab- 
surd enough to say, “O, you must go and observe for your- 
self, because in printed accounts you have only what is 
known at second-hand ;—they contain errors, and cannot be 
trusted.” I consider the case parallel with the reasonings 
of the writers I have alluded to. To know the history of 
the Ostrich, is it necessary that we should travel individually 
to Africa? or of the Condur, that we should visit Pata- 
gonia? or of the Crocodile, that we should navigate the 
Nile? Will any man of ordinary candour say that we can 
derive no accurate knowledge of these animals from books? 
I think not; on the contrary, every unprejudiced person 
will acknowledge, that a large fund of information concern- 
ing them can be thus acquired; and it is no argument 
against book-study, that errors exist, or that every thing is 
not to be gained from them that we could wish.--How are 
we to get a knowledge of the History of Ireland?—By 
books, unquestionably ; and it would be ridiculous to con- 
" * Rennie in Montagu’s Ornithological Dictionary, IX. — 
