THE

PREFACE

то

DR. BROOKES's

NEW AND ACCURATE SYSTEM OF

NATURAL HISTORY.

PUBLISHED IN THE YEAR 1763.

PREFACE.

OF all the ftudies which have employed the induftrious or amused the idle, perhaps Natural Hiftory deferves the preference; other fciences generally terminate in doubt, or reft in bare fpeculation, but here every step is marked with certainty, and while a description of the objects around us teaches to fupply our wants, it fatisfies our curiofity.

The multitude of Nature's productions, however, feems at firft to bewilder the inquirer, rather than excite his attention; the various wonders of the animal, vegetable, or mineral world, feem to exceed all powers of computation, and the fcience appears barren from its amazing fertility. But a nearer acquaintance with this ftudy, by giving method to our researches, points out a fimilitude in many objects which at first appeared different; the mind by degrees rifes to confider the things before it in general lights, till at length it finds Nature, in almoft every inftance, acting with her ufual fimplicity.

Among the number of Philofophers, who undaunted by their fuppofed variety, have attempted to give a defcription of the productions of Nature, Ariftotle deferves the firft place. This great philofopher was furnished by his pupil Alexander, with all that the then known world could produce to complete his defign. By fuch parts of his work as have escaped the wreck of time, it appears that he underftood Nature more clearly, and in a more comprehenfive manner than even the prefent age, enlightened as it is with fo many later difcoveries, can VOL. IV. G

boaft.

boaft. His defign appears vaft, and his knowledge extenfive; he only confiders things in general lights, and leaves every fubject when it becomes too minute or remote to be useful. In his Hiftory of Animals, he first defcribes man, and makes him a standard with which to compare the deviations in every more imperfect kind that is to follow. But if he has excelled in the hiftory of each, he, together with Pliny and Theophraftus, has failed in the exactness of their defcriptions. There are many creatures defcribed by thofe Naturalifts of antiquity, which are fo imperfectly characterized, that it is impoffible to tell to what animal now fubfifting we can refer the defcription. This is an unpardonable neglect, and alone fufficient to depreciate their merits, but their credulity and the mutilations they have fuffered by time, have rendered them ftill lefs useful, and juftify each fubfequent attempt to improve what they have left behind. The moft laborious, as well as the most voluminous Naturalift among the moderns is Aldrovandus. He was furnifhed with every requifite for making an extenfive body of Natural Hiftory. He was learned and rich, and during the courfe of a long life indefatigable and accurate. But his works are infupportably tedious and difgufting, filled with unneceflary quotations and unimportant digreffions. Whatever learning he had he was willing fhould be known, and, unwearied himfelf, he fuppofed his readers could never tire; in fhort, he ap pears an ufeful affiftant to those who would compile a body of Natural Hiftory, but is utterly unfuited to fuch as only with to read it with profit and delight.

Gefner and Jonfton, willing to abridge the voluminous productions of Aldrovandus, have attempted to reduce Natural History into method, but their efforts have been fo incomplete as fcarcely to deferve mentioning. Their attempts were improved

upon

upon fome time after by Mr. Ray, whofe method we have adopted in the Hiftory of Quadrupedes, Birds, and Fishes, which is to follow. No fyftemati→ cal writer has been more happy than he in reducing Natural Hiftory into a form, at once the shortest yet moft comprehenfive.

The fubfequent attempts of Mr. Klein and Linnæus, it is true, have had their admirers, but as all methods of claffing the productions of Nature are calculated merely to eafe the memory and enlighten the mind, that writer who answers fuch ends with brevity and perfpicuity is moft worthy of regard. And in this refpect Mr. Ray undoubtedly remains ftill without a rival; he was fenfible that no accurate idea could be formed from a mere diftribution of animals in particular claffes; he has therefore ranged them according to their moft obvious qualities; and, content with brevity in his diftribution, has employed accuracy only in the particular defcription of every animal. This intentional inaccuracy only in the general system of Ray, Klein and Linnæus have indertaken to amend, and thus by multiplying divifions, instead of impreffing the mind with diftinct ideas, they only ferve to confound it, making the language of the science more difficult than even the science itself.

All order whatsoever is to be used for the fake of brevity and perfpicuity; we have therefore followed that of Mr. Ray in preference to the reft, whofe method of claffing animals, though not fo accurate, perhaps is yet more obvious, and being shorter, is more eafily remembered. In his life time he publifhed his Synopfis Methodica Quadrupedum et Serpentini Generis, and after his death there came out a pofthumous work under the care of Dr. Derham, which, as the title page informs us, was revifed and perfected before his death. Both the one and the

other