1805.] Defence of Sir Wm~ Jones aga'xvji M. Du Perron. 419 



in cujiis ieflione voces pl'irimPE in dims 

 vd trts divil-ie,^ ut Z^nJicum proJert D. 

 Jo.ies, eoque an ipfe Pcrrice icieiit critico 

 laltcm mill' lo k'^iori du'jitandi anfas prae- 

 be'.'* p. 84.7. — " This text, ipcorre<5}ly 

 written -u Zcndic letters, in the reading 

 of wtiic. (i. e., the text i.i It il cs :is before 

 exhibited) many words are divided i:'.to 

 two or tlire , and z\i > errone. (jfl/ traiif- 

 lited into Engli(h, Mr. Joaes produces as 

 Zend, (o as to sfford, at leall to a four 

 critic, room to dcnibt whether he under- 

 ftoode-en ihe Pcrfian." 



Tiif- f.tlfiiy of this (la:emcnt your read- 

 ers will a- once perceive. Sir W. JoniS 

 does fwt produce this as a Ipecimen of" 

 Zend ; oil the cor.irary he aflerts, in the 

 introilucii-in to it, thit it is " a ipecimen 

 of the f/ld Ptiiian l:ingiiage and chiiradtcr, 

 which Bahm .n v/rotedttv/n troni memory, 

 as hii books in "ahlavi (the ancient Pcr- 

 fico-Chaldaic) an;l Deri (the polilhed dia- 

 Ie£l of the Perfian) had not been th.n 

 brought to Bengal." Does not this de- 

 monltrate that S r VV. Jones did not inif- 

 take this fur Z:nd, but pr ductd ii mere- 

 ly as a fpecirnen of ancitnt Pci/ian before 

 i'sadmixure with Arabic words ? But 

 Sir W. J.ines calls this " a curious paf- 

 fage from the Z.;nd. He d^es ; and 

 though it is difficult to know in «hat fenfe 

 he ules the term Zjnd (far it has firveial), 

 jet it is*vii'ici)i he does not mean the lan- 

 guage 1" Cilled, as ^e had immediately 

 before ^l^el■t^^d ihe padage is a fpecirnen of 

 the ancient Pcifitn. B<hinanj the author 

 of it, was acciittomed to call the language 

 in which his prophet's bo k was w' itteo 

 Aveita, an! the Utters Zend. — S;e Sir 

 VV. Jones's Works, v.l. i , p, 80. And 

 it is probable be quoted as fron tueZ^nJ- 

 Aveita, though ihe piece is too //ft'v 'o 

 make 'I part i-f the work traiifiateu by M. 

 Du Perron. It is Ikely, h .wevtr, that 

 Sir William ulai the Itnri merely to de- 

 flgnate thole pi' riple? ot the Zendic leli- 

 gion (JioielTdi by his fri^-n.-) Bahman. 



As I widi t.. do Mr. Du P. fni^ juf- 

 tice in every u-fpefl, I thnk it ligtu to 

 produce his amcndt^^ text ;iiid accurate 

 'verfion, as he trriii. them (iiera leiUone 

 rejliluta acUilaque acurata merfiom, 

 &c.), of the p;.irdge in dilputc, which 



• It mutt be allowed that there are feveral 

 words in the lopy as priiited in Italics -which 

 kre impropfrly rtiviJed ; but tlu-fe are evi- 

 dently fauUi of the conipofitor, who lepjrat- 

 ed them by endeavouring to fix form: awkward 

 accents which were ufed lo dcfignatc thrlong 

 voweli, All thefc accents 1 have lei tout, as 

 being unnecea.irjr ia the prcfcatcure. 



your learned readers who may not have 

 the Otipnek' hat ii hand may collate at plea- 

 fure, not only with the copy g ven abova, 

 but alfj with that in the Afiatic Re- 

 fearchcs. 



Mr. Du PeiTon intrcduces it thus : — 

 " Sic Perfice fonat kcus nimis credulo An- 

 glus ex ore Bahman Parjl except us. 



" Az, pad mad tfcheh kepad mad na 

 kkojlnuiid beid largucz bchefcht na <vi- 

 neid, be djae kheir khnfict bifch i/incid ; 

 mekavra be azaran nadareJ, kcanra he 

 hitfch gounab majazareid : az kheifcha- 

 vandi dervifch har.g madared, dad oven- 

 dadi khalckiyckta be kar dared : az 'vif- 

 takhi ze tan pajjin andcj'cbeh nomayed, 

 mabada khe az ou tan khefchra douzakhi 

 koned : 'vc an tfcheh bekkifchtan na kha- 

 hed be kafan ma pefandeid 'va me koneid : 

 hartfche be gueiii konid be mino az ouh 

 pazirch ayid.'" 



What Mr. Du P. calls his accurate 

 •verjion fhall f How. 



" A patre et matre quod (i (a) patre et 

 matre gratus non fis (fi eisnnn plscueris), 

 riunquam parridiiiim vdebis ; loco litnig- 

 ni genii, pravum (afSiftic-ntm) videbis ; 

 magnos cum mails non habeas (in mala 

 non fera^), pai vis tiLo modo malum non 

 facias : a propinqultate pauperis verecun- 

 diam non habeas j juftitiam et puritatem 

 Creatoiis unici in opus habeas (opere imi. 

 teris) : a re''urre8ione a corpcre poftea 

 (future) f. Iliciu.iinem monlires (de ea 

 attente cogites) ; ablit quod ab eo (ejus 

 obl.vione) corpus tuum inlcrnale facias ; 

 et illud quod com teipfo (tibi ipfi) rton 

 veils cum aliquo (aleri) gratuin non red- 

 das (rcddere non iVudtas) et non facias ; 

 qiiidquid in murdo t^oc facis, in ccelo, ex 

 CO icceptatio (leceptio, retrihutio) venie'.'* 



Wlist Mr. Du P."s readers may gain by 

 thh amended text and accurate nje-Jion, I 

 (hall not prcitnd to fay, bat I raf ;r (iii- 

 peif tiiat no man can obtain an\ addition- 

 al inforiTia^i.n from either. Tj me the 

 changes made fcem to aniwer n > otntr pur- 

 pole than certain paintings do or ii me o'd 

 catliedral wind.ws — they pre'vent the light 

 Jrom comv'tg in. 



Mr. Da P. has changed rijlakhi into 

 'vijlakht i this, if net an error ot the prefs, 

 iii?y be lucli Zend as is exhibited in the 

 I'cndidad Sadc, but it is neitlier Pchlevi, 

 Ai'ibic, nur Peifjin. 



Now fupp'ilc the original text exhibited 

 in the Afi tic Rclearciies be incorre£fly 

 written, as Mr, Du P. afT^rts, wiiat had 

 Sir William Jone> to do wiili :!iis ? H 

 productd it as it was written dgvvn b 

 Bdiman : to have altered or to have tor 

 lured it by crit.cilVn, would Lave been ab 

 3 CJ z fur ' 



