: S 32 Mr, cost are’s ‘franjlation of 
1 have likewise made no fcraple to fuppofe that, how- 
ever diftlndt and elegant both the Arabic letters and 
-figures are in later manufcripts, they were not fo in thofe 
of a more -ancient date, fo that the one might eafily be 
xniftaken for the other, where there is a limilarity : and 
this miftake would be the more eafily committed by a 
perfon ignorant of the fulxjefi: lie was upon. This pro- 
bably was the cafe of all fiich as were hired by bookfellers 
■ to tranfcribe manufcripts for fale; and for this reafon, 
when the tranfcriber had made any mifiake, he would 
not blot it out for fear of fpoiling the fale of his book. 
There is an inftance of this fort in this very manu- 
script in the obfervations of the third eclipfe, which is 
iChat. of the Moon, as you will fee in the tranfcript and 
•franflation fent you laft year by Mr. schultens. 
If what hath been faid be allowed me, as 1 hope it will 
not be thought too much, T think I fliall be able to ac- 
-eount poffibly, if not probably, for the differences be- 
tween the ©bfervations as fet down in the manufcript, 
_,and the reful-t of the calculations by modern tables: a 
thing which hath not been hitherto attempted, as few 
•who have been verfed in aftronomy have been ac- 
quainted with the Arabic language; and they on the 
other hand, who have well underftood Arabic, have 
.been as little converfant with aftronomy. 
What 
