The translations are next criticised with capricious severity, for we are loth to attribute our author's strange selection of examples to a worse feeling than caprice. The character of Sir William Jones is tested by his version of the Hitôpâdêsa, a work which the Professor knows to be posthumous, and believes to have been written as a mere exercise when first that excellent scholar had begun to study Sanscrit. The same test is applied to Wilkins! Has the Professor forgotten his obligations to that admirable scholar's translation of the Bhagavad Gita? Has he tasted the waters of oblivion since he wrote in the preface to his own translation of the same poem, " in interpretatione Bhagavat Gita elaborandâ, interpretationem viri clarissimi Caroli Wilkins, magno mihi adjutumento fuisse, non modo non diffiteor, sed ultro gratoque animo id agnosco?" Were we disposed to adopt the style of carping criticism, we might easily show that "maximo" might with great propriety be substituted for "magno" in this passage; that many of Wilkins' slips have been faithfully copied by his successor, and that some of Schlegel's deviations from the English translation are any thing but improvements. We have no objection to the Professor's exulting merriment over the tricks played by the crafty Bramins on the first students of the Sanscrit; they were paralleled and surpassed in the middle ages, when Greek began first to be taught in western Europe. But it is not quite fair for the men who march at their ease into a stormed citadel, to laugh at those who first entered the breach, for having made a few false steps when surrounded by the enemy's smoke.

From translations in general, the Professor, after a long interval, comes to translations from the Sanscrit in particular. We agree in the necessity of all the requisites he authoritatively declares must be united in a judicious interpreter of this difficult language, and are especially anxious to state our cordial assent to the following:

"The nations of Asia, from a thousand causes, have a circle of ideas, an intellectual horizon far different from that to which we have been accustomed. Their authors often speak of matters, of which we, at least such of us as have not been in Asia, cannot form a clear idea from want of experience."

Professor Schlegel thus deliberately makes the very same assertion, for which he pours all the vials of his wrath on the head of Professor Wilson.

We cannot now examine the details of the noble plan of an academy for Oriental Literature, which concludes the letter to Sir James Mackintosh. The adoption of it, in its full extent, we believe to be impossible, but there are many admirable hints

VOL. XI. NO. XXII.

2

in it by which our countrymen will profit; for no nation has more frequently and usefully applied the maxim, “fas est ab hoste doceri," than England.

Before finally taking leave of the Professor, we must notice a matter frequently insinuated, but never directly expressed in his pamphlet. He seems to think that he did not meet the reception in England which his merits deserved. What the amount of the Professor's expectations were, is beyond our powers of conjecture; but they must have exceeded the "digito monstrari et dicier hic est," if they were not amply realized. The Athenæum has already amply vindicated the British Museum against the charge of discourtesy, by showing, from the example of the great Parisian Library, that permitting the loan of books leads to intolerable abuses. The Professor's claim to a special exception in his own favour is ridiculous; in the literary republic there must at all events be equality.

Professor Schlegel commenced the study of Sanscrit late in life, and manifestly regards the great proficiency he has made with the partiality proverbially bestowed upon "the children of old age." He has done but little,-a translation of the Bhagavad Gitâ, and part of the Ramayana, and an edition of the Hitôpâdêsa, are all the works that have resulted from his ten years' toil, -but that little has been done well. He insinuates, indeed, that the lateness of the period when Indian literature began to be cultivated on the continent was owing to the continental system of Napoleon. We can assure him that the great European war operated as strongly in suppressing oriental literature here, as in France and in Germany. It is a merit of which the English scholars must not be deprived, that for many years they pursued a laborious and difficult study, uncheered by public sympathy, unsupported by public aid, not unfrequently ridiculed as patrons of "difficiles nuga." Until the appointment of Professor Lee, the English Universities could show no successors worthy of Hyde, Pococke, or even White; in Ireland at the present hour, a limited acquaintance with the Biblical Hebrew only, is regarded as a sufficient qualification for the professorship of Oriental languages. On this subject we shall quote the words

of Sir W. Jones.

"If learning in general has met with so little encouragement, still less can be expected for that branch of it, which lies so far removed from the common path, and which the greater part of mankind have hitherto considered as incapable of yielding either entertainment or instruction; if pain and want be the lot of a scholar, the life of an Orientalist must certainly be attended with peculiar hardships. Gentius lived obscurely in Holland, and died in misery; Hyde, who formed many important projects, had not the support and assistance which

they deserved and required. The labours of Meninski immortalized and ruined him."

The discouragements thus described by Sir William Jones, were aggravated during the close of the last and the commencement of the present century. Still there were persons who zealously pursued the study of what Mr. Haughton has well called "a gigantic language," and who were ready to offer themselves as guides and instructors, when a revolution in public taste brought oriental studies into fashion. If the honoured veteran Colebrooke had revealed the history of his own feelings, how frequently would he have recorded the sinking of the heart and the failing of the spirit, arising from the prospect there frequently appeared of his labours remaining, if not wholly unknown, at least unappreciated! A brighter day dawned; attention was drawn to the neglected treasures of the East, and the continental scholars began to follow in the paths which the English had laid open. The greater part of them owned their obligations to those who had first opened the road and smoothed its worst difficulties; they regarded them as modern classical students do the editors of the Greek and Roman authors at the revival of literature, not as perfect, but as guides to perfection. As such they were once praised by Mr. Schlegel himself, and would probably have retained his good word,-his good opinion they cannot have lost,--had not some unnamed disappointment to vanity, or some pecuniary loss on the edition of the Hitôpâdêsa soured his temper and warped his better judgment.

It is gratifying to add, that few continental Orientalists have shared these feelings of hostility to England. In the last advertisement issued by the committee of the Oriental Translation Fund, we find the names of Klaproth, Von Hammer, Stanislas Julien, and the lamented Rémusat, among those translators whose works are in a state of immediate preparation. Thus have they given the most convincing, because the most practical proof, of their approbation of the committee's proceedings. Schlegel indeed quotes the Baron de Sacy as at least in part supporting his views and sharing his suspicions. This is as gross a misrepresentation as any other in the pamphlet, and that is saying a great deal. De Sacy, having shown that the translation of the Memoirs of the Emperor Jahangueir differed in some particulars from a partial translation of the work previously published, expresses a wish that an opportunity had been afforded of deciding between the conflicting statements by a reference to the original. He then says,

"With whatever reserve we hazard an opinion on this subject, we cannot avoid regretting that Mr. Price, who knew the fragments pub

lished by Mr. Anderson, did not devote himself to the critical examination of the work which he has translated; and we must, in the second place, express an anxious desire that the committee of translation, formed under the auspices of the Asiatic Society of Great Britain, should add to the works whose publication they so efficiently encourage, the original texts, or at least, all that can render the perusal of them more useful, and furnish a benevolent and enlightened criticism the means of appreciating their merit and importance. Doubtless, as the works presented to the committee become more numerous, the necessity will be felt of making a judicious selection, as necessary to the success of this honourable enterprize, as worthy of the knowledge and talent of those distinguished men who have associated their names for this eminent service rendered to the literature of Asia. We venture to hope that these reflexions will not be taken in bad part."

Now, can our readers believe that Mr. Schlegel alludes to this candid, honourable, and manly criticism,-without however venturing to quote it, as perfectly supporting his objections to the principles on which the labours of the committee are founded? He also quotes Professor Lee's letter to Sir Alexander Johnston, in the year 1827, on the defective state of Arabic and Persian dictionaries, as a proof that the time has not yet arrived when translations may be undertaken with advantage. Is the Professor ignorant of all that has been done since that letter was written to remedy these deficiencies? We cannot speak of such an excellent scholar and worthy man as Professor Lee, otherwise than in terms of respect and admiration, but we must remark that the letter here quoted has always appeared to us rather too highly coloured. Dr. Lee's extensive knowledge and wondrous powers of memory have given him a command over minute details which few students can hope to attain; but from this superiority has arisen a taste for all the little particulars and trifling niceties of the old grammarians, and a dislike, or perhaps contempt, of the simplification of knowledge. It requires an extensive previous acquaintance with the Hebrew language to read the Doctor's Hebrew Grammar profitably, and his additions to the admirable Persian Grammar of Sir Wm. Jones seem to us any thing but improvements. The new edition, however, of Richardson's Persian Dictionary, edited by Mr. Johnston, under the auspices of the East India Company, obviates all the objections that might be founded on this out-of-date letter.

We had written thus far when we received a copy of Mr. Von Hammer's article in the Vienna Jahrbücher, on the subject of .this pamphlet, and we regret to find that he has bestowed such

The Baron de Sacy is at this very moment engaged in printing for the committee the celebrated metrical grammar of the Arabic language, called the Alfiyah; thus prac. tically showing how much he respects the objects and favours the plans of the com mittee.

severe castigation on the unfortunate Professor. In only one point does he agree with his compatriot-the necessity of the committee's exercising great caution in the selection of the works they honour with publication. This he illustrates by a harsh, but apparently not undeserved attack on Fraser's translation of the War in Bosnia; at the same time he bears honourable testimony to the great merits of Mitchell's Turkish Maritime History. On all the great points of Schlegel's pamphlet, Hammer is at issue with the Professor, and meets him with irresistible strength. He ridicules the display of titles in what with him is truly a title page; he defends the literature of the Western Asiatics with a display of spirit and learning which sets all competition at defiance; the presumptuous condemnation of the Arabic and Persian languages he exposes as it well merits, and he proves that from them both, important elucidations of that very Sanscrit literature for which Schlegel contends may be derived. He blames the Professor for appealing to the Asiatic Society as a stranger instead of as a member, and wonders at the real or assumed ignorance of the Society's usages that led him to declare,

"I only know that at your general meetings, the president, the director, and the members of the committee, have alone the right to speak; the other subscribers only vote in silence by white and black

balls."

We more than share Von Hammer's astonishment, as we happen to know that Professor Schlegel claimed and exercised his right of addressing the Society when he was last in England. Mr. Von Hammer defends the East India Company from the charge of neglecting literature, insinuated rather than directly stated by Mr. Schlegel; he triumphantly exhibits the list of works which have issued from the presses of Calcutta and Madras since the year 1826, and answers the Professor's complaint of these works being printed on inferior paper by quietly observing that they are printed on better paper than that used for the complainant's own pamphlet. This however is not all; it is not even a fair specimen of the benefits that the East India Company has conferred on eastern literature and science. Truly ungrateful would the oriental scholars, both of England and the continent, be, if they forgot their obligations to that great commercial body. They have liberally patronized every undertaking, whether literary or scientific, that tended even remotely to promote the happiness and well-being of the people placed under their care. With respect to the education of their civil servants and writers, the following statement, taken from a work lately published by Parbury, will be sufficient to prove that every possible attention is paid to preparing these gentlemen for the important duties they have to discharge.