work "does not aspire to be consulted as an authority, but merely to be read as a digest of current knowledge, adapted to popular use." Yet even in such a biography, rigid accuracy as far as his authorities went, the public had a right to expect; but in this treatise the truth is too often lost sight of amid the charms of a romantic style and an enchanting narrative. This is not owing to any unfair bias in the historian's mind. For the conclusions drawn from his facts are generally such as do credit to his feelings as well as his judgment. It is owing to imperfect knowledge, arising apparently in part from want of diligence in using authorities actually at his command, and in part from the disadvantages which all writers must labour under who approach the subject without a knowledge of Arabic and acquaintance with the early Arabian authors.

In one respect this is the more inexcusable, because Washington Irving confesses, in his preface, to have "profited by recent lights thrown on the subject by different writers, and particularly by Dr. Gustav Weil, to whose industrious researches and able disquisitions he acknowledges himself greatly indebted." From such authorities he has, indeed, enriched his pages with many facts hitherto new to the English reader, and with many a story delightfully told. But he has not used them invariably as he might. Had he studied with diligence the invaluable work of Dr. Weil, he would have avoided many of the mistakes and imperfections which must seriously detract from the value of his biography. Another objection, and one that runs throughout the book, is, that the author writes too much for effect. The style is beautiful. A charm of romance is thrown around the topics so poetically portrayed. But truth is sometimes sacrificed to effect. And thus the very essence and only worth of an historical treatise is, in great measure, lost. It is true that very often, if not always, this may be owing to the indistinctness or imperfection of the author's knowledge. But the fault itself is not the less to be regretted.

A most prejudicial result of this uncritical and rhetorical style is, that the fabricated stories of supernatural and miraculous events, which the, pious credulity of later days engrafted on the