this fourth and latest work of the Professor; yet, as we have just heard with surprise, a writer under the signature of Gulchin has published in the Asiatic Journal for September or October last, a criticism on Professor Stewart's translation, presenting at the same time his own; but in what degree he is qualified to censure or correct others, will best appear on reference to an article published in the Asiatic Journal of this month, (November) where an Orientalist, who assumes the title of Musnif, undertakes to prove that in the small space of ten lines, as translated by Gulchin, there are no less than eighteen errors; at which rate his version of the whole chapter would furnish many hundreds.

We shall next proceed to notice the "Rudiments of Bengali Grammar," published in August of the present year, (1821) by another ingenious member of the East India College, near Hertford; Graves Chamney Haughton, M. A. Professor of Sanscrit and Bengali. This work is comprised in a quarto volume of nearly 200 pages, beautifully printed; and on the authority of two or three acquaintances, whom a long residence in Bengal, diligent study, and colloquial practice of the language, have rendered competent judges, we venture to affirm, that Mr. Haughton has executed his task with considerable skill; and the importance of this Grammatical Treatise will be fully manifest, when we consider, (in the words of our author's preface) "that the Bengali is the vernacular dialect of five and twenty millions of British subjects, of whom, perhaps, not above a fourth part is able to speak any other language."

In a future number of this Journal we shall call our readers' attention to the "Specimen Catalogi Codicum Mss. Orientalium Bibliothecæ Academiæ Lugduno-Batavæ," of which, though published in December of the last year, (1820) a copy has only reached us three or four days ago; and we shall therefore content ourselves on the present occasion, with mentioning, that it is the work of Mr. Hamaker, Professor of Oriental Languages in the University of Leyden, where the volume, containing above 270 pages, quarto, was printed. However short the space of time that this work has been in our possession, we are enabled to pronounce it a rich treasure of Eastern Literature-the title above quoted has sufficiently explained the nature of its subject. In this "Specimen" the learned Professor has examined and described twelve of the precious works selected from the numerous Eastern Manuscripts preserved at Leyden. Those twelve are Arabic. The titles and copious extracts are given in the original language, and faithfully translated. Biographical notices of the authors, and a multiplicity of historical, geographical, philological, and critical illustrations, evince how admirably Mr. Hamaker is qualified for the great task which he has undertaken. "Si vita viresque supersint, totum aliquando Codicum Orientalium Catalogum, pari exornatum cura atque expolitum, tibi tradere decrevi," &c. (p. vi.) We learn from the preface, (p. vii.) that under the auspices of Professor Hamaker, a young and highly accomplished Orientalist, one of his pupils, named Uylenbroek, proposed to publish in the year 1821, a description of the province of Irak Agemi, or Parthia, derived from Eastern authors. We shall close this article with the mention of a letter lately received from one of our correspondents in Bengal, who informs us, that a very curious work on the religion and superstitions of those extraordinary Indian sects, called Jeynes and Boodhists, may shortly be expected from the pen of Colonel William Francklin, who has devoted particular research to the subject of serpent worship, which appears to have prevailed in most regions of the world: also to cavern and temple worship. Colonel Francklin has long been known and deservedly esteemed as the ingenious author of "Travels in Persia," the "History of Shah Aulum," and an "Essay on the Plain of Troy." He has also composed a "Dissertation on the ancient city of Palibothra," and other interesting works.

OBSERVATIONS

On some Remarks in the last No. of the MUSEUM CRITICUM.

I BEG leave to offer, through the medium of your publication, a few cursory observations on an article headed E. H. Barker O. T. N., which graces the last Number of that recently resuscitated work, the Museum Criticum, and which, from its dictatorial and arrogant tone, evidently emanates from a junta, in their own opinion at least, præclarorum hominum ac primorum signiferúmque. Its want of modesty, however, though its leading, is not its worst feature. The temper and the feelings, in which it originated, may be clearly deduced from the opening paragraph; which, in itself, independently of the circumstance that this periodical is under the direction of a preux chevalier of criticism, (not to hazard the conjecture that the article in question proceeded from him,) is far more illiberal and ungentlemanly than any thing, which has been laid to the charge of "Messrs. Burges and Barker."

That it may lose none of its force, I quote it at length :"Our attention has been called to the following passage of a popular and entertaining work, called 'Peter's Letters to his Kinsfolk:' the author speaking of the Literature of Edinburgh, says, 'Mr. D-, the Professor of Greek, has published several little things in the Cambridge Classical Researches, and is certainly very much above the common run of scholars.' Vol. I. p. 168. What'the common run of scholars' at Edinburgh may be, we know not; but what Mr. D-is, the world has had some opportunity of learning, from a work, which he calls a continuation of Dalzel's Collectanea Græca. Our only wish is to contradict most positively the assertion, that he has ever been a contributor, small or great, to this publication. How such a strange mistake originated, we cannot form the least conjecture.'

Would any one have expected that so trifling an error in Peter's Letters, of which there can be no doubt Professor Dunbar is wholly innocent, should be seized with such avidity for the unworthy purpose of being rendered subservient to an unhandsome reflection on the work of a contemporary scholar, and this too by men, who appeal to "the uniform tenor of their writings and their lives" in proof of their gentlemanly character? Having occasionally observed this gentleman's name in the Classical Journal, I can readily believe that this circumstance alone would be amply sufficient to provoke the above-cited splenetic effusion. It is scarcely credible that only a single page should intervene before we arrive at professions and protestations, such as the following:-" From all asperity of criticism, and indeed from the censure of contemporaries we have abstained altogether, as not calculated to advance the real purpose of the undertaking. If in any instance we have inadvertently suffered a sentence or a word to escape us, which could give uneasiness to any one, we feel sincere regret. To oppose or discourage the writings of other scholars has been directly the reverse of our intention!!!" If this amiable and inoffensive tone be not the mere pictæ tectoria linguæ, we shall doubtless find in the succeeding Number a suitable apology to Professor Dunbar, for this wanton and unprovoked attack.

Leaving to Mr. Barker the explication of the mysterious initials O. T. N., and to this writer the undisturbed enjoyment of his vapid joke upon the subject, I proceed to notice an assertion equally hasty and positive, and equally unwarranted, with many, that occur in the few pages devoted to this subject in the Mus. Crit. Mr. Barker having been introduced as the author of that "extraordinary" Pamphlet, (a very convenient and ambiguous epithet,) entitled Aristarchus Anti-Blomfieldianus, it is remarked :"But with the bitterness of his wrath, for which he cannot find a semblance of provocation, we have no wish to meddle." That Mr. Barker has found, not indeed "the semblance," but many real causes, of provocation, I am convinced will be readily admitted by all, who have given his book an attentive and unbiassed perusal; and in favor of this opinion a strong presumption may be derived from the confessedly unprecedented circumstance of an elaborate reply having immediately appeared in the Quarterly Review, expressly in vindication of the person, against whom the Aristarchus was directed. It may perhaps be a subject of regret to those, who are disposed to regard Mr. Barker's indefatigable exertions in the cause of literature with the favor and consideration, which they so eminently deserve, that his answer should not have been framed with that attention to politeness and refinement, which characterise the compositions of more designing writers; who thus evade all charges of personal animosity and uncharitable motives, by appealing to their mild and gentlemanly and polished phrases. The facts, however, which Mr. Barker has stated remain unrefuted, and he has merely spared his readers the trouble of affixing the terms of reprobation.

An "extraordinary" exemplification of the figure termed Anacoluthon occurs in the course of this brilliant apostrophe to Mr. Barker and the Aristarchus. We are first told that the extracts given in the Reviews, " have been sufficient to satisfy the world respecting the taste, the feeling, and the scholarship of Aristarchus, and have at once succeeded in procuring him a notoriety, which he had been so many years laboring to achieve in vain." Then comes the finishing stroke to this tirade, as follows:-" And as it concerns the interests of society, that slanders should not be vented with impunity, we have thought fit to hold up these personages for one moment to the public view, and then dismiss them into their natural obscurity for ever." Now, if the Reviews have already succeeded in procuring Mr. Barker a "notoriety," I cannot see on what grounds these gentlemen can be entitled to the merit of introducing him to the public; unless that Mr. Barker's previous "notoriety," being infinitely small compared with that, which the notice of so celebrated a publication as the Mus. Crit. will undoubtedly procure him, may be neglected in the calculation. But a difficulty still remains. By what magic spells is so "notorious" a character to become thus suddenly evanescent, and be lost for ever to the public view? This is truly a dignus vindice nodus.

The slanders alluded to are specified as " charges against us, (that is, against the whole body corporate of contributors to the Mus. Crit.) of wilful plagiarism, of bad faith, and of malignity towards contemporaries." These charges, if I am not mistaken, have been alleged against one individual alone, who, by his insufferable superciliousness, has become deservedly obnoxious to scholars both at home, and abroad : κακὰ δεννάζων ῥήμαθ ̓ ἃ δαίμων, Κοὐδεὶς ἀνδρῶν, ἐδίδαξεν : and of whom it may with truth be said,

ἐντί γε πικρὸς,

Καί οἱ ἀεὶ δριμεῖα χολὴ ποτὶ ῥινὶ κάθηται.

The charge of plagiarism preferred against C. J. B. by Mr. G. Burges, was founded on coincidences equally striking with those, which induced the former to bring forward a similar allegation against Stanley; the only difference in the two cases being this, that C. J. B. is alive to publish his vindication in the pages of the Mus. Crit., while poor Stanley, εἰς ἀνάγκην δαιμόνων ἀφιγμένος, is effectually precluded from uttering a syllable in refutation of his accuser, and therefore "must submit to his fate." (Vide Mus. Crit. No. VII. p. 497.) C. J. B.'s logic with respect to his attack upon Stanley, is perfectly applicable, mutatis mutandis, to Mr. G. Burges:-"The literary property of numerous emendations is a question not unworthy of investigation; and, if it turn out that they do in fact belong to Porson, or Burges,