unpardonable, did not even condescend to inform them when, how, and from whom the manuscript was obtained. However, the extraordinary merit of the work, and the lively, laughing style in which it is written, quickly recommended it sufficiently to the literary world. The celebrated Meiners, professor of philosophy in the university of Göttingen, translated it into German; and Langlès, the well-known orientalist, published in 1802 a French translation, with copious notes, a chronological notice on the khans of the Krimea, and a map of Kashmere.
In English there has not, I believe, appeared any new edition,—none, at least, which has acquired any reputation; though there are extremely few books of travels which better deserve to be known, or which, if properly edited, are calculated to become more extensively popular. Forster was a man of very superior abilities; and his acquirements—whatever M. Langlès, a person ill calculated to judge, may have imagined—were various and extensive. He possessed an intimate knowledge of the Persian, and the popular language of Hindostan; and appears to have made a considerable progress even in Sanscrit. Neither was he slightly conversant with modern literature; and although it may be conjectured from various parts of his work that the history of ancient philosophy and literature had occupied less of his attention, he may yet be regarded as one of the most accomplished and judicious of modern travellers. This being the case, it is difficult to explain why he should now be less read than many other travellers, whose works are extremely inferior in value, and incomparably less amusing.
