the targets (the size of which I have not seen specified). There is no doubt of his being able to make rockets that will range 3,000 yards. (I have seen some of Sir W. Congreve's at only 25° elevation make their first graze at two miles); but the extent of range is not the principal point.

of the latter having been established these 20 years, the innovation is attended with inconvenience: for instance, what on Sir W. Congreve's simple plan would be called a five pounder, is designated a 1 pounder by Capt. Parlby. This may accord with the "Liber Ignium," of Marcus Græcus; but cannot now be adopted without confusion.

I am, Sir,
Your obedient Servant,

.BAN بان

SIR: I have the pleasure to annex a copy of General Orders issued by the Bengal Government in 1822; of which many officers of that establishment now in England, may be ignorant; and as it is of importance to them, I tender it for insertion in your useful and interesting compendium of AngloIndian affairs; and if you were, at the same time, to give a transcript of the Honourable Court's Orders at home, on the same subject, the information would, I dare say, be new to many of your readers, who would be glad to get a memorandum of the forms directed to be observed at the India House previous to an officer's leaving England for the purpose of rejoining his regiment.

If he be married, it is said, his wife cannot accompany him without two householders (not in the service) first engaging under a penalty of £200, that she be no charge to the Company. This rule has apparently as little chivalry as utility to recommend it; for I maintain it to be impossible, under any circumstances at the present day, for an officer's wife or widow to become a burthen to the state, or a charge on the local or home Indian Government.

Extract from General Orders by his Excellency the Most Noble the GovernorGeneral in Council.

Fort William, July 5, 1822. Under instructions from the Hon. the Court of Directors, the Governor-General in Council notifies in General Orders, that all officers returning to India from furlough, are to furnish themselves from the Secretary at the India House, with a certificate and shipping order of the following forms: Nos. 1 and 3, before their embarkation, and that no officer will

be permitted to do duty or receive pay until he should produce such certificate.

"These are to certify, that the Court of Directors of the United Company of Merchants of England, trading to the East Indies, have permitted

to return to his duty on their military establishment, at the Presidency of in the East-Indies, without prejudice to his rank. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand at the E. I. H. in London, this day of year of our Lord

"East-India House."

"London the mander of the "It is is ordered that Capt.

in the

Com

receive on board the said ship and carry to India, affording all needful accommodations in the voyage, paying the expense of passage, and the Company being at no charge thereby."

SIR: A review of my edition of Sir William Jones's grammar having appeared in a recent publication,* I trust your goodness will allow me the privilege of replying to some of the criticisms there offered, in your widely circulated Journal. It is not my intention to examine all the statements made by my reviewer; if the major and more important part of them can be shown to be erroneous, I have no doubt your readers will excuse my not troubling myself and them with a refutation of the whole. Nor is it my intention to object to any genuine remark made by my censor, or to conceal any thing which deserves to be mentioned. Those parts, therefore, which will be passed over, I consider as unworthy of notice. The review, in question, is, so far as I can discover from a pretty close examination of its contents and spirit, a determinate personal attack upon myself. Both the author and his motives are, if I am not greatly mistaken, well known to me. But let this pass for the present. I claim no indulgence from the reader on this score, and will be content to be judged by the merits of the question presently to be discussed. A time will probably arrive, when it will be proper to ascribe to my good friend," a local habitation and a name;" and, if I am not much mistaken, that period is not far distant.

The first position, called in question by my reviewer, is a statement found in my advertisement to the grammar, viz. That no considerable progress can be made in the study of the Persian language, until the student should have acquainted himself with the Arabic. This I stated as the opinion of Sir William Jones. Our reviewer observes, "we shall, notwithstanding this assertion, venture to express our doubts as to the accuracy of the position." Whether we are to understand by this, the accuracy of my statement, or of Sir William's opinion, is not very easy to deter. mine: but as both are called in question, it is probable both are here meant. Our

* Critical Researches in Philology and Geography, Glasgow, 1824.

reviewer proceeds, in the first place, to show from some extracts taken from the preface of the Grammar, that it was Sir W. Jones's opinion, that a student may, within the course of a year, learn to translate and even to speak the Persian with accuracy and elegance, without the assistance of Arabic. Hence, I suppose, we are to infer, that it was his opinion, that a knowledge of the Arabic was not necessary; and, consequently, that my statement is

erroneous.

In the very next page, however, Sir William's opinion is thus cited by our reviewer, which will be answer sufficient, as to the accuracy of my statement. "True it is," says he, “that Sir William elsewhere talks of the impossibility of learning the Persian language accurately, without a moderate knowledge of the Arabic. But the assertion," continues he, "is grounded upon the fact, that Meninski's dictionary was the one then in use, whereas the case is now altered."

But how, Mr. Editor, is the case altered? Supposing we were to allow that Meninski's dictionary is not the one now in use, will this alter the case as to Sir William Jones's opinion? If so, then are the opinions of all former writers altered, because, forsooth, the times are changed!

Again, let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that Meninski's dictionary is not the one now in use, but that Richardson's dictionary has taken its place, which every body knows is little more than a translation of Meninski. Will Sir W. Jones's opinion now be altered, because a translation of Meninski's dictionary is the one in use? And further, will the case be altered, as to the accuracy of the general position, that a moderate acquaintance with the Arabic is necessary to a proper understanding of the Persian language? If a knowledge of the Arabic was then necessary, can the circumstance of Meninski's dictionary having been translated, at all affect our question? For my part, I can see no connexion whatever between the necessity of a knowledge of Arabic in this case, and the publication of Richardson's dictionary. Our reviewer has per

den, who must be acknowledged a superior scholar to Dr. Lee, thought it indispensably necessary to detail, before proceeding to the division and classification of Arabic nouns, because there are many Arabic nouns of common occurrence in the Persian language, the formation of which would be truly unintelligible without a reference to these rules.' He ought then," continues my Reviewer, "to have accounted for the peculiarities of the surd verb," &c. It will not be necessary, I presume, to press this point any further; and we may now set down all that our Reviewer has said on this point for nothing.

I am accused, in the next place, of having detracted from the merits of Erpenius, and of having given a false account of Richardson's Arabic grammar. I answer, if any doubt be entertained as to the accuracy of my statement respecting the grammar of Erpenius, let the reader turn to M. de Sacy's Grammaire Arabe, vol 1. p. 212, &c., and, if what is there said fail to justify my assertions, the controversy will be with him and M. de Sacy: but of this, I believe, there cannot be much doubt. With respect to Mr. Richardson's grammar, I had said, that the want of the vowel-points is a great drawback to the beginner our Reviewer replies, " instead of Mr. Richardson's grammar wanting the vowel-points it is pointed throughout, in so far as the grammatical Asiatic Journ.—No. 103.

principles of the language are concerned.” My statement is, therefore, contrary to the truth: but let us go on, and I have no doubt my good friend will justify every word I have said. "The examples," continues he, "given as illustrations, with one or two exceptions, are, however, unpointed.” And, in the very next page," This does certainly present an impediment to the learner, and of a very harassing nature to him who attempts to acquaint himself with the Arabic language." Our third objection, therefore, dies a natural death in the obstetric hand of our kind and consistent censor !

In page 12 I am accused of having called Captain Lockett's work on the Arabic syntax a grammar, when it is only a work on grammar. By this reasoning Mr. Lumsden's Arabic grammar is not a grammar, because it treats on etymology only! Nor is M. de Sacy's, and certainly not Erpenius's and Richardson's, because they do not contain all that may be written on that subject! Glasgow will, no doubt, soon produce wonders in the philological way! and I certainly wish it success. We are told, in the next place, that I have made no use of Mr. Lockett's book (grammar I dare not call it): but our Reviewer's eyes have deceived him. I leave this, however, as a stimulus for his future researches.

The next critique worth remarking occurs at page 15, where I am severely reprehended for not having placed the vowel points before the table of consonants; because, by this method, says our champion for reform, "the vowel-points, so essential in Arabic, would be indelibly imprinted on his (the learner's) memory." But why may they not be indelibly imprinted on his memory after he has learned the conso. nants? Is there any thing of so terrible or magicial a nature in the consonants as to deprive him of his retentive powers? If so, the whole grammar had better be indelibly imprinted on the memory first, and the consonants last, which I will undertake to affirm would be a radical reform in the art of grammar-making! But suppose I had placed the vowels first, who' could then have objected? Every one, I believe, who knew any thing of the subject, and for this reason: The vowels are, according to the Orientals, unutterable without a consonant; and hence they never precede a consonant. Had the vowels been VOL. XVIII. E

'taught without the consonants, I believe we should have had better Reviewers than our Anglo-Scotch friend, protesting in no unintelligible language against this new Anglo-Oriental monster, which had at -length been fathered on the elegant and ingenious production of Sir William Jones. But it is time to leave such trash as this for something more solid, if perchance such matter is to be found.

Let us pass on then to page 15, where I am accused of having laid it down as a rule," that the Arabic article is generally affixed to the last of two nouns in construction, but never to both." But our Reviewer tells us, that if we will turn to the second volume of M. de Sacy's Grammar, page 110, we shall find three examples given of the article affixed to both. Upon turning to M. de Sacy we find three examples given in the notes, as exceptions to the general rule given in the text. They are, therefore, exceptions; and, upon a little reflection, we shall find that they are not nouns in construction. M. de Sacy says, "Je n'ai observé cela que dans les rapports de la chose à la matière dont elle est faite, comme ceux-ci, la boîte d'or, la croix

We then have a sort of algebraic formula given in illustration, which is nothing more than a different way of enouncing the rule which I had given in my abstract. My words are these, "The first and last vowels' in the leading persons of both tenses are always the same, the second vowel is determined by prescription alone, and is always given in the best dictiona ries. It may, therefore, be either zum, kasra, or fathah; and when this is once determined, that vowel remains unchangeable throughout the conjugation, as the fathah in the above table." According to my doctrine, therefore, "the first and last syllables of every triliteral root end in the vowel a. The medial syllable may end in a, i, or u." This new, popular, and easy exhibition of the doctrine of the roots is, therefore, a mere plagiary of the very rule which we shall presently see our Reviewer reprobates in the strongest terms. But my rule goes still farther; it also shews how the aorist is to be pointed. It declares that the first and last vowels in the leading person will always have the same vowels, i. e., with those given in the table; and that the dictionary must be referred to in order to determine the

Our rule is, therefore, easy and comprehensive, and both approved and adopted by our Reviewer, as far as the preterite is concerned.

الخشب .de bois, Exemples

ريب الذهب .ales billots de bois الخراريب خروج الخشب .cles kharonbas d'or بالسروج

de

common to need recitation here. Our Reviewer's remark is, therefore, a mere cavil, founded on his own ignorance of the subject before us.

"Before making any observations upon the Abstract of Arabic Grammar," continues our Reviewer," which commences with page 28, we think it necessary to lay before our readers a short popular view of the grammatical structure of this language, &c. Let it be observed, then, that the first and last syllables of every triliteral verbal root (and there are almost none else in the language) end in the vowel-point corresponding to our letter a. The medial syllable may end either in a, i, or u, &c."

as infinitives. And a little lower down it is said, that the forms of these nouns (for nouns they are) are extremely numerous. Erpenius has given thirty-three, Mr. de Sacy thirty-seven, and Mr. Lumsden sixty. Our Reviewer's popular view is, in the first instance, a mere plagiary, as far as it has been understood; in the second, it is defective; and in the third incorrect. A pretty good specimen this, of the abilities of the gentleman who has the modesty to set up for a public censor.

take the verb he did, as the most convenient, as it is the one generally referred to by the native grammarians." Our Reviewer adds, "Now, if we have spoken intelligibly on what we have advanced upon Arabic grammar, the reader will be unable to perceive any particular conveniency attached to this verb being taken as a paradigm, and he will soon find a very unfortunate inconveniency accom.. panying its use, &c."

From all our Reviewer has advanced, it may be allowed, no conveniency will appear as arising from the adoption of this verb as a measure for the rest; nor, on the other hand, any inconveniency accompanying its use. So far, therefore, the question stands just as we found it. I had stated my reasons, however, for its adoption, which was, its constant use by the native Arabic grammarians, I had, therefore, a reason for preferring it. At page 22 we are informed in what the inconveniency consists: "It must be admitted," says our Reviewer, "that the unfortunate occurrence of the letter ain is a circumstance attended with some inconvenience." But why so? According to my rule for finding the medial vowel of the aorist, the ain introduces no anomaly whatever; for I had said, the dictionary must be consulted. Our Reviewer has adopted a different rule, and one upon which no reliance can be placed, as we shall presently see; and now he says it must be admitted that his opinion is just! Let us now see how his opinions are founded, for upon this the question before us rests. At page 20 he gives M. de Sacy's rules for finding the middle vowel of the aorist, to which he adds that given by Erpenius, and then gravely assures us, that Golius, Schultens, Alting, Pococke, Castel, and others, found no difficulty whatever in adopting it. Perhaps so. I believe, however, that Golius, Schultens,

Pococke, and Castel, referred to much higher authority whenever it was necessary to speak on subjects of this kind; and of this abundant proof is to be found in their works. But as to Alting, it is probable that he knew nothing at all about the matter, having never written one syllable It is true we usually find, concerning it. bound up with the Hebrew and Chaldean grammars of Alting, an abstract of the Arabic, Persic, and other grammars; but these are the productions of Otho, and not of Alting. Would it not have been advisable for our Reviewer to have looked a little further into his authorities before he thus committed himself?

"All Arabic grammarians," continues our Reviewer, speak the same language." Let us now examine the truth of this position, "Cette voyelle," says M. de Sacy, "se change ordinairement à l'aoriste en une dhamma ou en un kesra." All that M. de Sacy says, therefore, is, that his rule commonly holds good, but not universally. Let us now turn to Mr. Lumsden (Arab. Gram. p. 117)," The proper conjugation of every verb is best known by consulting the dictionary, from which it will appear that the same verb often belongs to more than one conjugation. To the dictionary, therefore, I refer the reader for the decision of every question of this nature; for though the Arabs have

offered some useful observations on the subject...yet those observations will be often unintelligible to the learner," &c. Again, at page 119, "I have already stated that the form of the aorist is very generally determined by the arbitrary authority of prescription alone, so, the best rules that can be offered on the subject will be necessarily liable to many exceptions." Erpenius, then, according to our Reviewer's own citation, only says that such or such a vowel plerumque manet; M. de Sacy, that the rule ordinairement holds good; Mr. Lumsden, that the best rules which can be given will be liable to many exceptions, and therefore, that the learner had better have recourse to the dictionary. The grammarians then speak the same language, not with the Reviewer, but with the editor; and consequently his learned remarks must fall to the ground.

But why did he not produce Mr. Lumsden's statements on this point? Because, he will say, as he has already said, that