420 Defence of Sir TVm. Jones aga'xnft M, Du Perron, [Dec. \, 



fiird. We have hid fac fwiiles of two 

 ancient MSS. publilhed, the CoJex Alex- 

 cnarinus and the Codex Bexa, in which 

 theie are m^ny erammitical errors : had 

 we aflced Dr-.. Woide airj Kipling, t. e 

 editors, why they publi'lied them fo ? 

 What would they have -triweied ? Why 

 this, " We wtie bound in conlcience and 

 honour to give a laitlifisl copy of ou/ MS., 

 and the copy is precifely the fame as the 

 orif^inal.'" Had trty reduced thefc vene- 

 rable remains of aritiqaily to every punc- 

 tilio of critical requifition, of what ufe 

 would their labours have birn to the re- 

 public of letters, or to biblical criticifm ? 

 None. 



If Sir William Jones had changed a 

 fingle word in Bahman's autngraph, eveiy 

 critic would have deemed it an unvvar- 

 raniablc licenfe. 



But Mr. Du P., difdaininf: to be hound 

 by the rules of corrcfl criticifm, pluni^es 

 at once into reforrn, and alters the text j 

 and he may alter it as he pleafes, and (o 

 rn»y any other gentleman, and call his al- 

 teied copy m.re correal than the original : 

 and what thi-n ? Why it 's no lonoer the 

 original of Bahman, but trie allereJ copy 

 ot another, and in juft ci iticilm of no ufc or 

 importance whatever. 



It may be afked, <« Why does Mr. Du 

 r. alter Bahman'a text ?" Why, to make 

 }iis readers believe that Sir W J. (througli 

 bis ignorance') was imp li:d up. ii Hy the 

 Pirfe;;, and that he could not d.ftingiufh 

 Pehlevi from Zend, or ciihcr fiom motltrn 

 Perfian ! Hence his firit utifonndtd aifer- 

 tionthat Sir W. J. believed the language 

 to he Zend (which I have already, I n'pe, 

 furnciently expofti!) ; and a fecond aflir- 

 tion, which 1 dial! now produce, that the 

 words are mere modern Peifian, wliich 

 iSir W. J. could not dlllinguifh frim 

 Zend : — '• Etiarn recentem Prrficum efc, 

 quifque Perfici idiomatis pcritusjiatim dc- 

 prehcndct.'"'' p. 8+7. 



Now, Sir, I venture to affert, iha? there 

 is not a Perfian fchilir in 'Liirvipc or Alia 

 \\\\o would write tlie fame Itnic in lucli 

 terms as thofc found in the c py taken from 

 Bahnian, nor even in that pi.niuced by 

 Mr. Du Perron, though t: anvj'adufedf'.r 

 the pU'-pofe. Among ieveral ctlurs, one 

 til" iitial charaflcriftic of rnodtrn Perfian 

 is wai'ting, viz., tiie coniir.Oii pvop:.rtioii 

 of Arabic won'.S. 



In the piece produced in the Afiatic Re- 



ftarches lliere is but one term , '^j \^ 



IJ'alik^ wiiich appears to he Arabic, and 

 this, thoue,h a common term for the Cre- 

 ,aor hi the lattti language, might have 



been an original word borrowed by the 

 Arabic ; or both the ■•.r.^bic and anrient 

 Perfian mifi:ht have hj.J the famt term to 

 expiefs the (amt idea, wliich uctafionally 

 hq;t.eri=! in all l3ri!:iiajxes where iiciiher 

 boiiowl iT nor leii'.j.ig lakes place ;~or 

 fecondly, Dahman, as i^e quoted frcm 

 mem'ry, m ght have forg. .rer the real 

 Perfnn woril, and fubftitutcd ihe pi ceding 

 Arabic w -rd for it. At -in" rare. ii-Jthtr 

 tile word, nor the ftrufture A the whole 

 pad" f;e, will ,'ff iitl any ground for Mr. 

 Du Perron's rnoft iiiiberal cenfure. 



But wha: is nio<< difingmui-us in tl'is 

 bufmris is, his corrupting ihe text (f Sir 

 W. Jone.-, and then priiuirg that corrupt- 

 ed text as ihe counterpart of that in he 

 Afiu.c,R-rsarchs.s. Above, the reailer 

 has tnr text aa i- Itands in ihe Aiiatic Ke- 

 fearches} the toUjwmg is that wiiich Mr. 

 Dn P. pretends he lias c pifd from that 

 woi.k., Hs the texr of Sir W. Jones : the 

 coirupie-1 or lallVly-i op-ed wonis I have 

 diUinguilhed by Romaii ciK.radlcrs. 



" Az pidu tnad ehe ce p'du mad ne 

 hhojchnud bid h.rgiz. bi liiflit ne niinid ; 

 be jaji cirfa hi'x.ah ainiJ ; mchanra be 

 aziiaii nic Jarid, cehanra behich gunah 

 mnjazarid : aj khjba<vendi der'vtjb nang 

 midand : dad u vendad ikhalik. yckta 

 be cor darid . az rrjlakhi zi ten pc.fm en- 

 dijlieh nemayid mnhi^da ce afhu tin khi rh 

 ra Jrzichi cunid -va anche Zi^ khi fiei na 

 fc!ial).id be kaian mapafendid va ma cu- 

 nid : herche be giti cunid be mainu avc 

 aueh pazlrah ajcd.'"'' 



Some of theie are pribably typographi- 

 cal cr.ors, but if fiich, they are not notic- 

 ed in Mr. Du P.'s lift of errata. Some 

 are fucSi alterations as do not affeft the 

 fenll;, but others arc glaring corruptions. 

 At firlt 1 th'iiight the London editi^^n of 

 the Ail.-.tic xxele.irchei. h»t mifled him, as 

 it probably did on a fcrnier occalion : but 

 wh-n I compared that with the Calcutta 

 edition, and both wiih tne fame pl.ice in 

 Sir W. Jones's Works, vol. J., p. 317 ; 

 and, to con;pl-tc the evidence oi) ihishcad, 

 collated the ihiee copies with one in th^ 

 Taalttkcinracter, whicli I received from 

 Ii,d a, I f und nothing to fanftion 

 thofc coniipticns of Sir W. Jones's text 

 which difgr..cethe psgc in x\\iGnpncl;'ha^. 

 Whcth'r theie cciMiptions, on which (a 

 much of Mr. Du P.'s i iveclive is found- 

 ed, p.oceeded from carcl.(rni.lV, cr fjmt- 

 thir.g V\,orre, I pretend ret to deiermii e. 



Now, Sir, to hear fuch a pt ribn quef- 

 tii.nii.g whciher Sii \V. Joi.es uiv.Ierito.-d 

 Pciil.in ! and founding Ins charge of ig- 

 roiaiice on mifrcprelciitations and coriup- 

 tiyns made by himfeii, I confefs excited no 



fmall 



