But at the time when I began this trans­lation I was generally confined to the help of Richardson's Arabic and Persian Dictionary, of which it is hardly possible to speak with sufficient contempt. When compared with the correct and erudite productions of foreigners in the same department; with that of Giggeius in Italy, Meninski in Austria, Golius in the Netherlands, &c. it must be regarded as utterly discreditable to our country. Poor Sir John, though he shewed considerable ability in writing rules and dissertations, had not a competent knowledge either of Arabic or Persian, Turkish or Greek, Latin or English; and his compilation consequently became a confused mass, a rudis indigestaque moles, where Turkish is given for Persian, Persian for Arabic, and all of them occasionally in ungrammatical Latin; where not even the orthography of common English words can be depended on. To the great joy of all true friends of solid learning, this disgraceful state of our Orien­tal Literature has been repaired and reme­died by the new edition or rather the new dictionary, presented to the public, under the patronage of the Hon. East India Company, by that accurate and laborious scholar, Mr. Francis Johnson. With the aid of the powerful and well adjusted instrument which this gentleman has provided for the exercise of translation, a masterly operator may approach his task in perfect good humour and confidence, and will find but rarely, for the Persian, any want of other means and appli­ances. It is, however, a pity, that Mr. John­son has retained any of the old leaven; and much to be lamented that he did not com­pletely alter the arrangement of his prede­cessor as to the Arabic language. It would have been better had he begun and finished the work on his own plan, and given us a Dictionary nominally as well as really his own.

To the timely removal of the difficulty with regard to the tools, kind fortune was pleased somewhat later to add also an extension and facilitation of the materials, by leading me to the discovery of Sir William Ouseley's Manuscript, of which that worthy Knight most liberally and readily granted me the use. Without two manuscript copies of his author, as no single copy will ever give him the true readings, no person should ever attempt to translate from an Eastern language.

Having adverted to English Orthography, I will confess my fear, that some readers will be disposed to find fault with that which I have in some words adopted. The readers of the printing-house by their remonstrances and objections have already shewn me the impossibility of pleasing every body on this score. The Dictionary used by mere English scholars is invariably Samuel Johnson's; and few of them are aware that the whim­sical Lexicographer has in some instances wantonly departed from the rules of Ety­mology, in order magisterially to introduce a new spelling of his own. As an instance of this I will mention the verb to shew. Not­withstanding the clearest evidence that its radical vowel is a, as found in its Anglo-Saxon original <Anglo-Saxon>; yet the Doctor chooses to write it with an o. “This word,” says he, “is frequently written shew; but since it is always pronounced, and often written show, which is favoured likewise by the Dutch schouwen, I have adjusted the orthography to the pronunciation.” Whether it is always pronounced so in all parts of England I have not been able to ascertain; but even if it were, the pronunciation is no sure criterion: and as to the Dutch word, it is corrupted from the German schauen, where the a is found as in the Anglo-Saxon. I have there­fore been obstinate in writing shew, accord­ing to ancient practice and the authority of all our Classical Dictionaries.

There are other fashions in orthography to which I have not been induced to con­form; such as that of leaving out the u in honour, the e in judgement, &c. Our lan­guage is confessedly derived in part from the Latin through the French. In the latter language the long o of such Latin words as splendōr, errōr, is marked by the diphthong eu, which in sound is the diphthong o, œ. For this, in English, we were accustomed to use the diphthong ou, and adhered to the rules of Etymology in marking the length of the syllable. With the contrary fashion, whereby the long syllable in honor is not distinguished from the short, I have ven­tured to persevere in refusing my compliance. The other new mode of writing dg for dge is too contemptible to be discoursed on. As well might pq, or st, be used to produce the sound required. Every author, however, being frequently indebted, as he must be, to his friendly printer for the correction of many errors which he is too prone to make in despite of his better judgement, must more or less submit to the controul which is exercised over him by the officers of the press, who will have notions of their own, and obsti­nately carry them into effect like their brethren, the Worshipful Company of Copyists in the Eastern countries. It is related of one of the latter, who, at the same time that he could delineate the exact figure of the Arabic characters to a hair's breadth, was nothing of a scholar, that being employed by a Mohammedan prince to write him out in his beautiful hand a correct copy of the Coran, he was most earnestly and urgently entreated to adhere to the original placed before him, and not to yield, as his compeers so often did, to any fanciful idea of his own in correcting and altering the text. Having made the most solemn promise, that he would obey the prince's commands, he was set with his pen to work and in due time completed the performance of his task. Nothing could exceed the beauty of his penmanship, and the copy of the Coran which he now laid before the prince, was admired as a perfect master-piece by the whole court. Should every word prove to be as correctly as it was beautifully written, all were agreed that the reward of the artist deserved to be raised to the highest valuation. Several learned Mollas were commissioned to examine the work, and declared upon trial that they found no fault in it. The prince now perfectly satisfied was about to confer the reward, when it bethought him, as a last assurance, to question the writer himself; and he put it to him on the word of a Moselmân, and as he hoped to be saved, whether he had in any instance deviated from the conduct enjoined him, to which he had so solemnly engaged himself. The penman submissively answered, but in a manner that betrayed the workings of his inward pride, that he had indeed, but only once, yielded to the dictates of his better judgement in correcting a mis­take, which it was impossible he should allow to remain. He referred to the passage, Sorat 7: 140 where Moses is said to have fallen to the ground in the presence of God.

<Arabic>

By Sale rendered, “But when his Lord appeared with glory in the Mount, he reduced it to dust. And Moses fell down in a swoon.” Reading it as Persian, the only language he knew any thing of, being his mother tongue, he understood <Arabic> to mean the ass of Moses or Môsa, and observed, “I had heard of the staff of Môsa, but I never heard of the ass of Môsa. The ass of Isa every body has heard of; and as I had no doubt that it must be <Arabic> and not <Arabic> I corrected it so.”

There is also a rule of Syntax of the modern English Grammarian, which I have resisted as much as euphony would allow. It is pretended that not only can no verb or participle be qualified with a word, which has not the distinct adverbial termination of ly &c. but that every adjective must be so construed; so that, strictly speaking, it is wrong to say very good. Both words are adjectives, and the one qualifies the other. For my part, I think it more grammatical to say, for instance, exceeding than exceed­ingly, difficult. The rule for adding the troublesome syllable, has been borrowed from the French language, which it no doubt suits: but it never has made its way into the German, and should be regarded as foreign to the English.

There is perhaps no language of any pre­tensions to embellishment which varies so much from the style we are accustomed to in our own, and in the Greek and Latin authors, as the Persian language does. Though Sheikh Hazîn writes most correctly and classically, there is occasionally that want of connexion in his ideas which no Persian prose-writer has, I believe, yet learnt to overcome. In my translation, however, I have allowed myself the use of no supple­mentary phrases, but have followed the original as closely as I could; and since I became blessed with the use of two manu­scripts, have had no hesitation as to the true readings; except in the Arabic poetry, which neither of the copyists had any knowledge of, and have, therefore, both simultaneously made the grossest errors in its transcription. My conjecture as to the true reading of the passage in Chap. 28 p. 160 I have since found to be just, by a perusal of the second MS. lent me by Sir William Ouseley.

The Notes which I have added, more particularly those on the poetical quotations, will, I hope, be deemed of some utility. I might have made them at least interesting, and might have explained many of the author's statements, which are now passed over in silence, had I the common advantage of a small collection of the proper books. But from this I am precluded by the same fate, which attached itself to Sheikh Hazîn, who will be found seldom for any length of time remaining stationary on the same spot.

It has been my plan, in regard to the Ori­ental orthography, to mark the long vowels of almost every word; but not on all occa­sions: and for the consonants I have only to remark, that as far as practicable, I have dis­tinguished the <Arabic> from the <Arabic> by writing K for the former and C for the latter.

It remains for me to return my thanks to my learned and most kind friends Sir William Ouseley, and the Rev. Hen. Geo. Keene, for their great liberality in granting me the use of their valuable manuscripts. The Chairman, Deputy-Chairmen, and Mem­bers of the Oriental Translation Committee will, I trust, vote them thanks more honorary and gratifying than mine, and I humbly beg leave, in the hope of that accomplish­ment, to record, in this place, the benefit by them conferred.