and tenses in both are so few, as to require the frequent substitution of one for another; the Greek, however, which is so redundant in moods and tenses, sometimes does the same; for instance, when it uses the infinitive for the imperative. With respect to the measures used in the two languages, I am of a different opinion, for I consider the metrical art of the Arabs of much later invention, and to have assumed its present form only a short time before Mohammed, there being no trace whatever among them of a more ancient poetry. If the Hebrew poetry had a similar construction, which may indeed be suspected from a similar use of the vowels, we might by this time have traced, without difficulty, the laws of Hebrew metre by the rules of analogy*.

If the text of the ode, which you mention to have read in the miscellaneous works of some anonymous author, had been correct, you would not have wanted my humble assistance: but it is so full of errors, that I must be an Edipus to interpret it. Every one knows, that the mere irregularity of the diacritical points occasions infinite difficulty in the Oriental languages; but this is doubly increased by the casual omission or altera

* The probability that the metrical compositions of the Hebrews and Arabs were founded on the same rules of prosody, is intimated by Sir W. Jones, in his Commentaries on Asiatic poetry, and proposed to the investigation of the learned. This opinion is suggested, by the close affinity of the languages of those ancient people, whence he argues to a presumption that their poets used the same numbers, feet, and measures, in their compositions.

tion of the letters themselves. It is therefore absolutely necessary in my opinion, as it is inpossible. to find manuscripts without errors, to possess two copies of every one which you read, that the faults of the one may be corrected by the other; and this is my method.

I have only to conclude by thanking you for your Italian sonnet, and expressing the commendation to which it is entitled.-Farewel.

of

Mr. JONES to C. REVICZKI.

April 1768.

Nothing can afford a stronger proof your polite attention to me, than your last very friendly letter, which you contrived to write in the midst of city bustle, during the noise of riotous mobs, and the tumult of a parliamentary election, and to accompany it with a most beautiful Persian Ode, and a Latin translation. Our favourite Hafez deserves indeed to be fed with ambrosia, and I daily discover, with increasing delight, new beauties and elegances in him. The principal difficulty attending the translation and publication of his poems as you have begun, consists in giving them a poetical dress: but this will prove easier than you imagine; for there are many of his odes, which I conclude you will not attempt to translate, as containing expressions wholly foreign to our man

Appendix, No. 7.

ners,

ners, lofty and daring figures, or abrupt unconnected lines; and this will in some measure alleviate the Herculean labour of the task.

If I were not a sincere

The

lover of truth, and averse from all dissimulation, I should lament that our capital has fallen under your inspection in these times of turbulence and distraction, when the liberty of my country, so universally celebrated, has degenerated into unbridled licentiousness, not to say outrage. The original form of our constitution is almost divine; -to such a degree, that no state of Rome or Greece could ever boast one superior to it; nor could Plato, Aristotle, nor any legislator, even conceive a more perfect model of a state. three parts which compose it, are so harmoniously blended and incorporated, that neither the flute of Aristoxenus, nor the lyre of Timotheus, ever produced more perfect concord. What can be more difficult than to devise a constitution, which, while it guards the dignity of the sovereign, and liberty of the people, from any encroachment by the influence and power of the nobility, preserves the force and majesty of the laws from violation, by the popular liberty? This was the case formerly in our island, and would be so still, if the folly of some had not prompted them to spur on the populace, instead of holding them in. I cannot therefore restrain my indignation against Wilkes,

a bold

a bold and able, but turbulent man, the very torch and firebrand of sedition: but what can be said in defence of the honour and consistency of some of our nobility, who, after having given him their countenance and support, shamefully deserted and betrayed him?

If you wish to obtain more accurate information respecting our laws and customs, I recommend to your perusal Smith's Treatise on the English Constitution, and the Dialogue of Fortescue in praise of the Laws of England. Thomas Smith was the English ambassador in France in the reign of Elizabeth, and his work is in Latin, and not inelegantly written. To Fortescue's little tract, we may apply the words of Xenophon to the Teleboas; "it is not large, but beautiful." He was Chancellor of England under Henry the Sixth, and was compelled, by the distractions of the times, to take refuge with his pupil Prince Edward in France, where, in an advanced age, he composed his little golden dialogue. These books will convince you, that our laws are framed with the greatest wisdom, and that as Pindar; quoted by Plato in his Gorgias,

says,

Sov'reign o'er all, eternal law,

On Gods and Men imposes awe;

And justice, strengthen'd by her hand,
O'er all exerts supreme command.

When I reflect on our constitution, I seem as it were to contemplate a game at chess, a recreation in which we both delight. For we have a king whose

whose dignity we strenuously defend, but whose power is very limited; the knights, and rooks, and other pieces, have some kind of resemblance to the orders of nobility, who are employed in war, and in the management of public affairs; but the principal strength is in the pawns, or people: if these are firmly united, they are sure of victory, but if divided and separated, the battle is lost. The motions of all, as in the game of chess, are regulated by fixed laws. Lastly, when I consider myself, I seem like a spectator, contemplating for his mere amusement the two parties at the game: but if it ever should be my lot to be concerned in the administration of affairs, I will renounce gain and popularity, and pursue one object, and one only, to preserve our beautiful constitution inviolate.

Contrary to my intention, I find I have been prolix; I will, therefore, turn to another subject. I read your last letter with an apprehension, that it might communicate the intelligence of your speedy departure from England; but as you are silent on this head, as my business here will soon be concluded, and as I know the uncertainty of all human affairs, I am determined to embrace an opportunity, which if I now neglect, may not again occur, of paying you a visit in London about the middle of the month.-Farewel.

Mr.