190 Defence of W. Hunter, 
his own difcovery at the top of the laft co- 
Jumn_ of his letter. Mr. Malthus exprefsly 
tel's us, that the Tables at pages 238 and 
239, which are copied from Sufmilch, 
were calgulated by Mr. Euler; and he 
might, therefore, have overlooked Dr. 
Price’s theorem for the fame purpofe, 
mentioned by your Correfpondent; who 
fays—<‘* the numbers in the firft are con- 
tained in this very fecond Table.” Whether 
this be true or not, thofe who have Dr. 
Price’s book before them, can eafily deter- 
mine. I hope I have faid enough to fhew, 
that M. N. «is as ill qualified to appre- 
ciate the knowledge and abilities, as he 
has been unjuft in reprefznting the opini- 
ons cf’? Mr. Malthus. And am, 
Crownfir. Wefiminjier, Your’s, &c. 
Sepi. 10, 1804. Joun Farey. 
—S See 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
‘¢ ___— abfentem qui rodit amicum, 
Qui non defendit alic culpante 
niger eft.” Horat. 
SIR, 
HAVE often deplored that propenfity 
in feveral learncd men, which leads 
them to depreciate the works of each 
other. All who are influenced by this 
principle are degraded by it; as it argues 
a Jittlenefs of mind, and ferocity of man- 
ners, which fhould never appear ina {cho- 
jar.—For, 
‘¢ _- ingenuas didiciffe fideliter artes 
Emoliit mores nec finit effe feros.”” Ovin. 
But, perhaps, this maxim is now anti- 
quated. 
The travels and labours of Mr. 4z- 
guetil du Perron to vecover the works at- 
tributed to Zoroa/fer, are well known. In 
the preliminary difcourfe to his tranfla- 
tion of the Zead Avefta, which he print- 
ed at Paris, after his return from the Eaf, 
in 1771, and which he dedicated to the 
French and Englifh Nations, he was far- 
caftically fevere on fome of the Profeffors 
and Doétors of the Univerfity of Oxford, 
whom he accufed of ignorance in thofe 
tongues which they profeffed to teach. 
As he was treated by the members of that 
Jearned feminary with the moft polite at- 
tention, this certainly was a grievous of- 
fence, ‘¢ and grievoudly he fuffered for iat 3”? 
tor fhortly"after came out a moft fevere 
Critique on his work, from the cauitic pen 
of Sir William Jones, entitled “ Lettre 
a@ Monfieur A—— du P——, dans laquelle 
eft compris C Examen de fa Traduction des 
‘Livres atiribués a Zoroafire.’ This, it 
feems, has rendered tne venerable author of 
a@he French Zend Avefia implacable; for 
Efq. againj? Du Perran. [O&. 1, 
in his late work, the OUPNEK’HaT, tran{s 
lated into Latin, and publifhed at Straf= 
burgh, 1800—1s802, in two vols. 4to. 
he has amply repaid Sir Witham Jones 
in his own coin. See OUPNEK’ HATs 
vol. I. page 733, and vol..II. page 846,. 
&c. But really fuch recriminations are a 
difcredit to |hteraturee Mr. du Perroms 
however, does not ttop here. —Every Eng- 
hihman, who profefles to be acquainted 
with Afiatic literature, muft come in for a 
fhare of reproach; for Mr. Du Perran 
takes for motto to his inve&tive againit 
Sir William Jones, *‘ 40 uno difce cmnes 3” 
and, among the ref, he lays unmerciful 
hands on William Hunter, Efq. author of 
an ** Account of the Aftronomical La- 
bours of JayaGaha, Rajah of Ambhere ;”° 
printed in vol. V. of the Afatic Refearches, 
page 177, &c.; in whieh account, Mr. 
Hunter has introduced the Preface to an 
aftronomical work by Jayafioha, entitled 
<< Zeej Mohammed Shabee;” the Perfan 
text of which, with an Enelifh verfion, 
are printed in parallel volumes, ‘ both 
full of miftakes :°—** uirum erroribus fca- 
tens,” fays Mr. Du Perron; and it mult 
be allowed, that oze-half of this cenfure is 
true, for the Perfian text is very incorrect, 
as it ftands in the Englith edition of the 
Afiatic Refearches ; but whether fo in the 
Calcutta edition, I cannot pofitively af- 
fert, as I have it not at hand; but I take 
it for granted that the Calcutta edition is 
correét, for, having had occation to collate 
fome uther volumes of the London edition 
with the correfponding ones printed at 
Calcutta, I have detected feveral errors in 
the former, which did not exift in the Jat- 
ter. Yet on this ground alone, if 1 mif- 
take not, docs Mr. Du Perron charge 
‘Mr. Hanier with a total ignorance of the 
Perfian language; and roundly afferts, 
that he muft have received the tranflation 
from the mouth of an interpreter who, 
while he was traoflating the original, added 
fome words which did not exift in the Per- 
fian text. This.is a heavy charge, but it 
is neceflary to hear it from Mr. Du Pers 
ron’s own pen, and the evidence alfo by 
which he endeavours to fupport it. 
‘< D. Hunter Perficum Anglicé ipfum ver- 
tiffe putares? nihil minus: ex ore interpre- 
tis fimpliciter excepit. Inde, p. 133, in ver- 
fione legitur: ‘ Since the time of the Martyr- 
Prince, whofe fins are forgiven, Mirza Uluga 
Beg, to the frejent. In Perfico, a% zaman 
Schah Mirzse ance (Oulug) beig ta ta zaman, 
"ubi nec Martyr Princeps, nec cujus peccata con= 
donata fuut. Ab interprete verlionem di€tante 
ut mos eft quando de Magnatibus, San@tis, 
Summis, celebribus viris loguuntur ut, /uper 
eum pax, Mifericordia Dei fit, &e quod bonus 
Anglus textum ipfe haud legens, haud intel- 
ligena 
