Now mark the translation.

"Ces traductions seront quelquefois accompagnées des textes originaux, et des eclaircissemens qui seront jugés nécessaires; en publiant occasionellement le texte original, on se propose," &c.

The version of "generally" by quelquefois, and the unauthorized introduction of occasionellement, prove that the Professor's experience in translations may justly lead him to suspect their accuracy. Let it not be supposed that any variation in the copies of the Prospectus can have led him into error, for we have taken our extract from his own copy, published in the appendix. Neither can we consider the quelquefois to be an accidental mistranslation, nor the occasionellement a casual insertion; for these very two words are made the foundation of a vehement tirade against the committee, for encouraging translators to the exclusion of editors. The words of the Prospectus have a signi fication directly contrary to that attributed to them, and the actions of the committee, as appears from their list of publications, fully prove that they have not neglected the encouragement of editorial labours, where they were required. They have only published the originals when they possessed a philological or ethnological value; but when the matter of the works alone deserved attention, they have wisely avoided a useless expense. They have not imitated Fleischer, the recent editor of Abulfeda, who declares in his preface that the work which he has edited is utterly useless and worthless.

We must leave for the present the supplemental matter connected with the second head of accusation, and come to the third. The Professor gravely asks, "Into what language are these translations to be made?" Now, after he had established to his own satisfaction, that the general system of translations was bad, one would have supposed that it was to him a matter of perfect indifference what nation was to be cursed by an enterprize which would injure" the methodical and truly scientific study of the oriental languages;" nay, rather, that he would have protested against France and Germany being allowed to share in such destructive proceedings. No such thing: the Professor in his zeal against England flings consistency to the winds; maintains in good set terms that the readers of French, Latin and German ought not to be excluded from the advantages that may result from the labours of the committee; and astounds us by the declaration, that English is inferior to any of the rival languages as a medium of translation. Had not rage clouded his intellects, the Professor might have stopped to consider, whether a speculation undertaken by British enterprize, supported by British money, and managed, for the most part, by British talent, should not be chiefly directed to the advantage of the British

people? Had he, however, consulted the list of publications, or rather, had he not chosen to forget the contents of that list, when a want of memory served his purpose, he would have seen that the committee have received and published both French and Latin translations of oriental works. This is not the place to enter into a defence of the capabilities of the English language: the Professor declares that it contains few compound words; will he furnish us with a compound epithet which it cannot express?

The wrath of the Professor is marvellously excited by the eulogium which the Prospectus bestows on Arabic and Persian literature, principally, we suppose, because he is, as he tells us, ignorant of both. We have heard that our painter of lious invariably vituperated tigers, leopards and elephants. To the Arabian literature, he objects its deficiency in epic and dramatic poetry, and generally in works of invention. He declares his intention of proving that the best portion of the "Thousand and One Nights" has been derived from an Indian original, and throws down the glove to the Baron de Sacy, who has undertaken to prove the direct contrary. "Non nostrum tantas componere lites;" we hope, however, to derive much both of instruction and amusement from the controversy. But though we by no means assent to the Professor's assertion in its present unlimited form, let us see if we cannot find some defence for the poor Arabians in this very book. What is said respecting the Chinese?

"This disdain of fabulous traditions, which Voltaire praises as a trait of wisdom, arises, perhaps, from a deficiency of imagination; but, as a compensation, this sobriety of intellect gives a great weight to their testimony."

It is

Now we make the very same claim for the Arabians. chiefly as historians and geographers that we feel disposed to value the ancient Arabian and Persian writers; there are many important matters in both departments of knowledge for which we must seek elucidation from them-the history of the crusades, and the several routes of the Indian trade before the age of De Gama, will occur to every body; we shall mention another,—that mixed religious and political revolution which placed the Sassanides on the throne of Persia, restored the religion of Zerdusht to nearly its pristine splendour, checked the progress of Christianity eastwards, and threw it back upon the west; a revolution which has left traces of its influence in Jewish and Christian heresies, and in the religion of Mohammed.

To the Persians our author metes out even a less share of justice than to the Arabs; he says, and with truth, that "their literature has fallen into gross extravagances, and their prose usurped the most ambitious ornaments of poetry." It is true, the only proof

he quotes is the translation of the Bahar Danush, an Ossianic romance, translated by Mr. Jonathan Scott-a criterion about as fair as Lady Morgan's Wild Irish Girl, Maturin's Montorio, or Mrs. Radcliffe's Mysteries of Udolpho, would be of the English language. We must confess that the style adopted very generally by the modern Persian writers merits the blame bestowed upon them; but does the Professor mean to insinuate that the earlier writers are subject to the same imputations? If so, he is either wholly ignorant of them, or perversely determined to misrepresent them. We must not pass over our author's parody of the modern Persian style, especially as a joke with him is a very serious matter.

"I shall not now mount the gallant courser of criticism, descended from the noble blood of the great Alexandrian steed Aristarchus, to combat the gasconading tribe of perverted taste, ranged under the banner of affectation. Firmly seated in the saddle of reason, supported on the stirrups of solid argument, I am sure to make head against the enemy effectively. But in pursuing the fugitives too obstinately with the arrows of derision, I might easily go astray in the sandy deserts of prolixity; and then, perhaps, in spite of myself, I would retain you, my worthy friend, who have hastened to accompany me on the dromedary of attention, you over whose prosperity may Allah watch;—I would retain you, perhaps in spite of myself, near the briny well of weariness, under the gloomy tents of ennui."

Risum teneatis amici?. This burst, in "Ercles' vein," offends not simply against good taste; it is a still grosser violation of good faith. If it means any thing, it must be taken as the general sample of Persian style; or, as the Professor declares himself ignorant of the language, as a fair sample of all the translations from that language with which he had an opportunity of becoming acquainted. Now previous to the date of his pamphlet, four translations from the Persian had been published by the Oriental Committee: the History of the Afghans, the Adventures of Hatim Tai, the Autobiography of the Emperor Jahangueir, and the Autobiography of Sheikh Mohammed Ali Hazin, none of which present the slightest trace of this bombastic style, but are, on the contrary, as remarkable for the simplicity of their construction, as they are for the intensity of their interest, Was A. W. Schlegel ignorant of their existence? Then must he forfeit all claim to the knowledge which alone would justify his assumption of the character of a censor. Was he acquainted with these works? We shall not write the sentence that would be dictated by belief in such an alternative.

But we shall be told, as some of Schlegel's admirers have told us already, that in the interval between the composition and publication of this pamphlet, the circumstances of the case had

altered, the committee had filled up the lacune in the sketchy outline which alone their first prospectus presented, and that some allowance must be made for the disappointment of the Professor, when he found that his visit to London produced no great sensation. To such excuses we give their full weight; there is sufficient proof that between the writing and the printing of the pamphlet, Professor Schlegel had learned that some of his charges were groundless, and had an opportunity of making the same discovery with regard to most of the others. Before his pamphlet appeared, he had learned that the Armenian language was not excluded; he might have learned the same fact respecting the Japanese; it could not have been concealed from him, that the committee had, with prompt liberality, undertaken to print both French and Latin translations; he could not have been ignorant that the careful editing of the originals, when they were philologically valuable, formed an essential part of the committee's labours. For both facts he might have had the unimpeachable authority of his friend, A. F. Stenzler, who was then employed both in editing the Raghuvansa, and translating it into Latin. We shall not inquire too minutely how much of this possible knowledge was actual: and we are content to believe that the Professor acted under misapprehension when he wrote the pamphlet, but where are we to find his excuse when he published it?

One word more before we leave this very painful part of our subject the Professor says,

"The Shah Námeh is the most ancient and most remarkable monument of Persian literature. Those acquainted with the subject assure me that the manuscripts vary very considerably. Until the extent and importance of these variations have been determined by the collation of a great number of manuscripts, and the text constituted according to the rules of criticism, a translation would be a hazardous, useless, and perhaps injurious (why?) enterprise."

He adds in a note,

"In writing these lines, I was ignorant that this labour is in a great degree completed. A young German orientalist, Mohl, now at Paris, has been several years preparing a complete edition of the Sháh Námeh."*

The Professor was unfortunately ignorant of some other matters which he might have known. To say nothing of Lumsden's labours, there appeared at Calcutta, in 1829, an edition of the Sháh Námeh, carefully collated with a number of the oldest and best manuscripts, by Turner Macan. The number collated was

Every true lover of oriental literature will be delighted to hear that this able scholar has just commenced the printing of this edition, the expenses of which, by a generous rivalry, are to be defrayed by the Asiatic Society of Paris.

seventeen, and four fragments containing the greater part of the poem; and some of these MSS. belong to the fifteenth century.

We gladly turn from these effusions of pride, petulance, and passion, to the Professor's remarks on Sanscrit literature; they contain many suggestions equally practical and profound, but they are sullied by a spiteful spirit against all English scholars, living and dead. Yet, as if to prove the truth of the aphorism, that "anger is a short madness," the Professor even here scarcely ventures on a single insinuation of consequence, which he does not subsequently contradict. His theory of the similarity, almost amounting to identity, between the Sanscrit and the ancient language of the Medes and Persians, is not indeed original, as the reader might be led to suppose from the ludicrous self-complacency with which it is propounded, but still we trust that the Professor will further develope his views on the subject. The profound observations on Sanscrit grammar merit the attention of scholars; but their connection with the general purpose of the pamphlet it is not easy to discover. The carping critique on Wilson's Sanscrit Lexicon admits, however, of no such doubt; it was designed to depreciate that very meritorious work; but with cunning that defeats its own ends, the Professor prepares an escape from the charge of unfairness, by slipping in at the conclusion of the criticism, " for the first attempt to form a dictionary no other plan was practicable than that which has been adopted."

We come now to our author's remarks on the editions and translations of Sanscrit works published by English scholars. In no part of the work is the determination to depreciate the English more flagrant; occasions for censure are sought with Lyncean eyes; praise, for in many instances praise was unavoidable, is niggardly bestowed, and even then clogged by petty and trifling exceptions. A flagrant instance of this is his account of that noble monument of sound learning, deep research, and acute critical judgment, Haughton's edition of the Institutes of Menú; the Professor, however, regrets "that the words are not placed as far asunder as the rules for the junction of letters would permit." "How can they call Venus a perfect beauty?" said Momus, "I am sure I heard her slippers creak.”

The London edition of the Hitôpâdêsa deserves all that Mr. Schlegel has said in its dispraise, perhaps more. It was an edition hurried through the press to supply the immediate wants of the East India College, and it cannot compete for a moment with the one on which the Professor and his learned colleague, Dr. Lassen, have expended the labour of many years. We are serious in our wish that he may be well remunerated for his toil, and earnestly recommend the adoption of the Professor's work.