Critical Researches in Philology and Geography, Glasgow, 1824.

THIS work consists of three articles: 1. A Review of Professor Lee's edition of Sir Wm. Jones's Grammar of the Persian language; 2d. “An Examination of the various opinions that in modern times have been held respecting the sources of the Ganges, and the correctness of the Lamas' Map of Thibet ;" 3d. A Review of Noble's Arabic Vocabulary, and Index for Richardson's Arabic Grammar.

Of the first article, there is no occasion for us to take much notice, since the subject of it has already been discussed in our Journal. Of the third article, we shall merely observe that it evinces a considerable portion of learning; but that the style is rather careless, and even incorrect in its structure; and that the author betrays too great a proneness to be severe and caustic. The second article is certainly the best, and cannot be read without interest, although we hope that the perplexities attending the geography of Central Asia, are likely soon to be more effectually removed, than by the ingenious hypotheses of European scholars.

The two great objects of the writer of this article are these:- to demonstrate the comparative accuracy of the statements given by the Thibetian Lamas of the courses of the streams, and situations of the various places in the vicinity of the vast range of elevated land which separate Northern and Southern Asia; and to vindicate the claims of our countrymen to the honour of those discoveries which have been made and are still making in those regions, and which the French literati, actuated by a mean and unworthy jealousy, are labouring to assign to German Jesuits and French antiquaries. As we do not feel it incumbent upon us to retrace the steps we made whilst examining Mr. Frazer's Tour among the Himalaya mountains, especially since a solution of most of the difficulties hitherto met with will be afforded by Mr. Moocroft, we shall merely lay before our readers, an outline of this article.

The injustice with which the Lamas' map has been treated by geographers, is certainly apparent from the details given by the writer. Although it is admitted that the whole of the information obtained by the Lamas was

to several theories and statements.

In Moorcroft's map, no streams are represented as entering the Mansaroar lake from the east, or north, or west, but three streams are delineated as running into it north from the Heemalleh. In his opinion it had no outlet, as he had carefully examined it round from the Lama monastery on the N.W. to the Krishna on the S., and found no outlet. All the maps, on the faith of that of the Lamas', had represented a stream issuing from its western extremity into the Lanken, or Rawanhrad, and the Pundit who accompanied Moorcroft and Hearsay, strenuously asserted the same, which was also corroborated by a Lataki traveller, then upon the spot. A writer in the Quarterly Review, in his examination of Moorcroft's travels, in order to reconcile these jarring accounts, imagines that the outlet of the Mansaroar lake was on the east, and that Moorcroft had inverted the position of these lakes; that, in his opinion, the Rawanhrad is the eastern, and the Mansaroar the western lake, and that in this way Tiefenthaler would be right in making the western river the Setledge, and that consequently the Gogra would be the eastern river, or that which is seen east from the Rawanhrad. If this were really the case, the land between these two lakes would be the connecting ridge between the Hecmalleh and the Caillas, or Kentaisse ranges, and the dividing crest, or elevated ground, sending off the Setledge to the N. W., and the Gogra and Sanpoo to the S. E.; and would, moreover, also in this particular, flatly contradict the Lamas' map, which not only connects the lakes together, by making the eastern send off its surplus waters into the western lake, by the Lank Tchu, but also derives a number of tributary streams from the converging slope of the two chains on the S. E., into the same lake. But, as facts are superior in value to all hypothetical reasoning, both Moorcroft, and his reviewer and commentator, have since been found wrong, and the Lamas' map perfectly correct, respecting the communication of the two lakes.

Mr. Webb, who has since that time so assiduously and meritoriously prosecuted his geographical inquiries and geodesic labours, amidst the stupendous ridges of the Heemalleh, had an interview with the Chief of Takklacote, who informed him that the Mansaroar, or Mapang lake, had a western outlet (frequently dry however),

into the Rawanhrad, or Lanken, and that upwards of 100 streams fall into it from the converging ranges to the S.E.

The importance of Mr. Moorcroft's discoveries in these parts, can be appreciated by observing the following

Elphinstone's do. 37

78.10 do. do. 78.10 do.

Fraser's do.......... 32 do. 76.32 do.

The writer has deemed it necessary to enter upon a serious refutation of the story of the Cow's mouth (Gaomuchi), or subterraneous aperture, through which the Ganges was supposed to rush out of the Himalaya. This is certainly a work of supererogation: no fact is now better established than that this story is a mere invention; though attempted to be bolstered up by the testimony of a learned Pundit who accompanied a modern traveller. The fact, however, is that the Lamas' map contains no authority for this story: they "left the river to find its way, in the usual manner, by a pass, or gap, and never troubled themselves about subterraneous perforation;" which Major Rennel supposed to have been effected by the river through the granite base of the mountains!

Another point incidentally touched upon in this article, is the etymon of the appellation Thibet, applied in Hindoostan to this part of the country. No new light is, however, diffused upon this subject, and perhaps never

will be.

Entering upon the last division, the author quotes an extract from a report made to the Asiatic Society of Paris, by Messrs. Saint Martin and Klaproth, which appeared in the Journal Asiatique for March 1823; wherein it is stated that the source of the Sutluj, in lake Manasarowar, was marked in the chart of Anquetil Duperron, and was Moorcroft's visit; and that the source consequently known long before Mr. of the Ganges in Gangoutri appeared in Tiefenthaler's chart, whilst all the English geographers, till 1812, adopted the error of D'Anville, making the Ganges arise out of lake Lanka, in

western Thibet. It is therefore con

tended, that the honour of making these facts known, "belongs to the Germans and French, not to the English, who appropriate to themselves, at present, the whole merit of the discovery."

The author bestows, and we think justly, some severe remarks upon the illiberal spirit which seems to possess the continental literati; and in opposition to the claim of Tiefenthaler, observes, 1st. That Gangoutri is not the true source of the Ganges, which Fraser and Hodgson (whose account must have been known by the French reporters, though not referred to by them), traced higher. 2d. That the Jesuit has placed Gangoutri more than 140 English miles to the north of its true parallel, and about 100 miles to the west of its true longitude. 3d. That Tiefenthaler, contrary to the inference obviously intended to be furnished by the reporters, never visited Gangoutri at all! for which we have the express authority of his editor, Anquetil Du"D'autant qu'il n'a pas été perron: lui-même à la source du Gange, que présente sa carte"!! The Jesuit, himself, in describing the source of the Ganges, uses the expression, cording to the relation of judicious persons," which clearly implies that his account was not verified by actual observation. It is true he discredits the story of the Cow's mouth; but the Lamas' map is equally free from that adulteration: on the other hand, the Jesuit's description comprehends what certainly does not exist; namely, a cataract, and a rocky cleft.

ac

If, however, the Jesuit was the discoverer of the source of the Gangoutri branch (which it is plain enough he was not), this stream is not the source of the Ganges, which cannot be said to be discovered until the higher branch, called the Jhannevie, be traced. All accounts agree that this is not only the largest, but the most distant stream. But what shall we say to the claim of Anquetil Duperron,

the mere publisher of Tiefenthaler's materials? It is pretty evident that the machinery is put in motion on his account, and that Messrs. Saint Martin and Klaproth would have suffered the Jesuit's discoveries to sink quietly into oblivion, but that there was some prospect, if they could force Tiefenthaler into notice with Duperron fastened to his skirts, that their own country might find a pretext (which would be quite enough), to dispute the title of those indefatigable British travellers, who have ascended heights more elevated than Saussure and Humboldt, and whose services to geographical science are too generally acknowledged to fear the effects of foreign jealousy.

We shall close our review of this article with the following extract, wherein the writer puts home the question to the reporters themselves.

French Government, in India, to have Let us reverse the case, and suppose the enjoyed the same ample means for the extension of geographical science in that extensive region, and to have used them liberally for that very purpose, and to have published a compte rendu of these discoveries; and suppose, further, that an Asiatic Society had existed in London, and to have appointed two of their most concerning the truth and value of these respectable members to draw up a report discoveries, and that these reporters had declared that they were of no value, and that they had been anticipated by some such person as Tiefenthaler, whose materials had been brought up into the form of a memoir by some Englishman. We now ask, what would have been the feelings of Would not every Journal, Review, and the French and Continental Literati? Bibliothèque have been put in requisition,

and enlisted in the service to refute the charge, vindicate their claim, assert their right, to the honour of prior discovery? Would they not have exclaimed cum una et consentiente voce against the injustice, the partiality, and the prejudice of the British? Would they not have said, that, as the British had already monopolized the commerce of the world, they also by such conduct plainly showed their ardent and selfish wish to monopolize its literature and science? If such would have been their feelings, can they blame the expression of similar feelings in us, when they have declared, as from the