1801.] 
O-bel ifeos, or BEL, the Sun, diminu- 
tively. / ply 
To what has been faid, I beg leave to 
add one proof more, by obferving, that 
befides Babylon in Chaldea, there was al'o 
a Babylon in Eg ypt*; and that this Baby- 
lon, as Sirabo relates, was built by Baby- 
lonians+: Diodorus Siculus, who relates the 
fame, adds, that they built a city, which, 
from their native place, they cailed Bady- 
lont. This is the fame city which is now 
called Old Cairo; itis a fuburb of the 
capital lately taken by the Britifh arms. 
And what is more curious, both, the pyra- 
mids of Memphis, and the Obelisks ot He- 
liopolis, are in its neighbourhood: the py- 
ramids can to this day be feen from New 
Babylon, or Old Cairo, fo near they are§, 
All this feems to prove that the origin 
both, of obelisks and pyramids isto bederived 
from Old Babyloz, confequently that their 
etymology al/o ought to be derived from 
the Affyriac or Hebrew language. _Whe- 
ther Semiramis and Belus were tabulous or 
not, this is no matter. It is enough, that 
Belus was worlhipped by the Babylonians ; 
that an obelisk, as well as a pyramid, ex- 
ifted at Babylon from the moft ancient 
times ; and that Afyria- was a kingdom, 
fituated near Egypt, on the way to India 
and Chima; and if not fuperior, certainly: 
not infcrior, in antiquity and culture to 
India, China, and Egypt. 
St. Martin's fireet, 
Sept. 21, 1801. 
4 
P. S. in ANSWER to MR; MONTUCCI’S laf 
PUBLICATION. 
Joseru Hacer, 
Quid dignum tanto feret HIc PROMISSOR 
hiatu ? . 
Parturiunt MONTES—nafcetur ridienlus mus ! 
Hor. A.P, 
IGNORANCE is in itfelf venial, fince it 
falls not to the lot of every one to poffets ta- 
lents or leifure for the acquifition of learning ; 
but ignorance combined with eftrontery and 
ptefumption, is a fitfubje&tof expofure. Of 
this, a moft ftriking inftance occurs in the 
example of Mr. Antonio Montucci, who, 
whilft he, by a moft obflreperous pretence to 
Chinefe learning, boafts on the one hand, 
that he has acquired invaluable articles (page 
8.) and ineftimable treafures of Chinefe literature 
{Page 2.), is, on the uther, reduced to the 
eggarly neceflity of proving the reverfe by 
tranferibing, fromthe Philofopbical Tranfaéions, 
publifhed above thirty years fance, his fpeci- 
mens of Chinefe; and from the AZemoirs of 
the Milfinaries of Peking, his Chinefe motto, 
which he moit modeftly fets forth as his own; 
+ Strabo, lib. xvi. 
_ t Diodor. Sic. lib, lig 
~ § Groberty cit. 
Dr. Hager’s P.S. in Reply ta Mr. Montucei. 
189 
Mr. Montucci, in the beginning of his 
pamphlet, deciarcs himfelf to be a&uated by 
a pure weal for promoting Chinfe literature in En= 
rope ; and this zeal it was that made him run, 
no doubt, through all London, to obtrude his 
title-page on the bookfellers, and fufpend it 
in each of their fhops, ‘They were little aware 
of the libel it contains, indetadation of ano- 
ther who had moft fuccefsfuily preceded him 
in a publication on the fubje&. ) 
Mr. Montucci, at the fame time that he 
dilates with complacence on his being able to 
copy Chincfe charaGers, has the impudent futi-= 
lity to fay of himfelf (page 4.) that ‘ix muft 
be no fmall merit to copy them as he has done ; 
and hints pretty ftrongly, in what light he 
fhould be viewed, by obferving, that the mofe 
feilful in this art is moft certain of promotion, and 
that the CuinEse Emperors are generally 
the moft eminent in it. r 
Does not this tranfcribing Do&or know the 
Latin adage, dauvs in ore proprio vilefcit 2? and 
therefore that he ought to intitle himfelf to 
the applaufe, before he fhould dare to claim 
it, inftead of trumpeting about London, like 
a mountebank, that, as the Chinefe language is 
compofed of charaéters all different from one ano~ 
ther, (what language is not?) and of fuch a pe- 
culiar firu€fureasto RAFFLE THE IMITATION 
of the ABLEST EvROPEAN ARTISTS, there- 
fore, Doctor ANToNIo Montuccy will 
himfelf mount his ftage, to exhibit what no 
other European can perform. Thus much 
for the eflrontery of thisrenowned tranfcriber. 
Let us proceed to fome proufs of ‘his igno- 
rance and prefumption. Don Antonio Mon. 
tucci (as we are told, page 8.) feesa copy of 
Dr. Hager’s Chinefe Keys, and obferves a 
fault in the third chara@er of the title-page, 
This charaéter is of a fize fo large, as that 
every one may judge diftin@tly of its form, 
and was exactly copied by Mr. Coleman, ‘the 
engraver, from one of the fame magnitude, 
fhape, and fignification, brouglst from China 
by an Englifh gentleman of the firf relpec- 
tability, and, with the proprietor’s permiijion, 
may any day be referred to. So faftidious, 
however, is our new Mandarin, that even the 
elegancies of Chinefe calligraphy are too full 
of errors to pleafe him, though exemplified 
by inftances of perpetual recurrence in their 
beft executed writings; and fo far does his igs 
norance extend, as net to know that the fame 
Chinefe charagter is often written with two, 
three, or even more, varieties; and thus rie 
diculous is he made in prefuming to condemn 
altogether what he leaft underftands, 
Such too is the cafe in the inftance of Fy 
(page 7.) it will be proved, he fays, that the 
monofyllable Fu bas zever a fifth tone The 
Don’s qualification for correcting othegs will 
be obvious from the hardinefs of this fimple 
aflertion; fince not only the Chinefe Dice 
tionary of the Propaganda, brought by the 
French from Rome to Paris, and cited by M, 
Langleés, in his printed account of the Chi- 
nefe Dictionaries, but alfo two Di&tionaries of 
the late Mr, Fitz~hugh, one in Latin and the 
I other 
