Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Thefe enormities take place at Guancavelica, Potoli, and the other confiderable mines, to a greater degree than any other place. The cultom there is to pay all the workmen, except thofe called Mitagos, their week's earnings every Sunday's afternoon at It is fhocking to fee the manner in four or five o'clock. At Guancave which the Sunday is prophaned, in lica, thefe payments amount to about confequence of this propenfity to the fum of ten thoufand pefos: Of drunkenness. Inftead of being a day this fum, four thousand pefos are com- devoted to peace and religious obmonly expended before the next morn- fervances, it is the day, in which all ing, in brandy and other spiritous li- the diforders that human paffions can quors; of confequence, little work produce are feen in their utmost enor is done the fubfeqnent day. It is fel- mity. But though we cannot forbear dom, indeed, that they referve any mo- to lament, it is not easy to devife a reney for the expences of the remaining medy for this abufe. The love of part of the week. fpiritous liquors has become the ruling paffion of all the Indian Nations. In all treaties with them, rum or brandy are the principal objects, without which no negotiation can fucceed. They call them the Milk of their friends.

tial lofs to the kingdom. The unhappy perfons addicted to it, are thofe by whom all the work of the mines muit be performed, all the bufinefs of paf turage, in a word, all the fubordinate employments of life.

It is certainly defirable that fome meafures could be taken to check the progrefs of this deftructive habit. The decreafe of population, which it must inevitably produce, will foon be an effen

A Letter to the Authors of the Journal des Savans, coucerning M. Savary's Letters on Egypt. By M. de S.

Minuled for extent of knowledge, and the genuine fpirit of criticifm, began, feveral years ago, to publih in Germany, a Journal of Oriental learning, under the title of Orientalifche and exegetifche Bibliothek; in which he gave an account of those works which were connected with the study of the Old and New Teftament in their original languages, and of those which ferve to throw light on the hiftory, the manners, the writings, the languages, and, in a word, on the whole learning of the Eaft. The first volume of M. Sawary's Letters on Egypt is announced in the laft Volume of this work publifhed in the year 1786. The opinion of this learned critic deferves to be generally known, as it is widely different from that of many writers both at home and abroad.

R MICHAELIS, equally dif

M. Michaelis obferves, that the letters YOL. VII. No 37.

chiefly from the ufe which the author

of M. Savary detive their importance.

appears to have made of the defcription of Egypt by Abulfeda; for he quotes that work frequently, and, in general, confirms the teftimony of the Arabian traveller. This is a circumftance, however, which makes the work of M. Savary particularly interesting to M. Michaelis; for it plainly appears, that the edition of Aboulfeda's defcription which M. Savary ufes, is the fame which M. Michaelis published at Gottingen in the year 1776, with a Latin verfion and notes: and altho", for obvious reafons, M. Savary is filent on this article, yet he has unawares; in one place, quoted the page in which his authority is to be found; this circumftance, therefore, joined to the comparifon of the edition of M. Michaelis with the paffages quoted by M. Savary, fully demonftrate that he

II

confulted

confulted this edition, and not the manufcripts, which he endeavours to make his readers believe he did.

M. Savary's first letter is dated from Alexandria the 14th of July 1777: M. Michaelis declares he cannot believe that M. Savary, being in Egypt at that time, could poffibly have procured a copy of his Aboulfeda, which was publifhed only in the year 1776. He likewife adds, that if M. Savary had been in poffeffion of this book at that time, he would have turned his attention chiefly towards the Delta, fince he would have difcovered in that ex cellent work, that preceding travellers had thrown leaft light on this part of Egypt, and, of confequence, the novelty of his obfervations would have added greatly to his reputation, of which at all times he feems to be fufficiently

careful.

From this obfervation M. Michae lis concludes that he made no use of Aboulfeda till his return to France, and that he collected the paffages of this author to compare them with his own obfervations; that he did the fame with the Greek and Latin authors, whofe writings feem to have directed the fteps of this traveller, and to have thrown light on his refearches. He agrees with M. Satary that it is of great advantage to a traveller, to have an accurate and compleat knowledge of hiflory, and geography: but he is of opinion, that thefe two lights ought to go before him to direct him in his inquiries; and that when he returns, he ought by no means to hold them up between himself and his reader, in fuch a manner that, dazzled by their fplendor, no perfon can fee the truth of the facts which he relates. M. Michaelis thinks that M. Savary has not been at fufficient pains to avoid this error. The firft letter, fays he, is crouded with ancient hiftory and geography. This is a cumbersome weight to the learned, who perhaps know a great deal more or at leaft more exactly, than the author himfelf.

It is equally difagreeable to the reader of lefs learning, who, in the relation of voyages and travels, fearches after what the author hath feen with his eyes, not the events of former times, mixed with idle declamation, and trivial remarks.

Our critic farther obferves, that when M. Savary fpeaks of an event pofterior to the Chriftian æra, he differs a whole century from other writers on the fame fubject. Thus, according to him, the city of Alexandria was taken by the Saracens in the year 651, Rofetta was built in 870; and the Turks conquered Egypt in the 15th century. M. Michaelis thinks the author ought to have given fome explanation of this fingularity in a note, as the Germans are accustomed to treat thofe with very little refpect who exprefs themfelves

in this manner.

M. Michaelis contents himself with examining the ufe which this traveller makes of the Arabian writers, and efpecially of Aboulfeda. He is furprized at the facility with which be acquired the Arabian language, in fo much, that he was taken for a native by the natives themselves. At the fame time, the manner in which he expreffes his quotations in French cha racters is altogether unlike the vulgar pronunciation of Arabic, and feems rather to have been acquired by a grammatical attention to the first principles of the language. At any rate, fays he, this method of giving the Arabic in French character ferves no ufeful purpofe; for in order to understand his quotations, I have been obliged to have recourse to the original, It gives the whole book an air of pedantry; and is like the artifice of a quack, who would cure his patients by the learned and infignificant terms of his profeffion.

But in what manner, continues he, has M. Savary made ufe of Aboulfeda? It is evidently my translation and my notes which he hath used, without informing the reader that he took ad

vantage

vantage either of the one or the other. In this refpect he is not much to blame; for books published in Geometry are fo little known in France, that he might with great fafety borrow from an Aboulfeda printed at Gottin gen, and be in little danger of detec

tion.

The famous pillar at Alexandria, which is generally known by the name of Pompey's pillar, is called, by Aboulfeda, Amoud alfaivari; which words M. Michaelis tranflated the Pillar of Severus. In his notes he fupported this conjecture by several proofs; and fhewed chiefly, by a paffage in Spartien, that Alexander Severus had granted many privileges to the city of Alexandria; which made it probable, as he thought, that the city had erected this pillar to the memory of that Emperor. The Conjecture, however, has been difputed by many learned men ; and, at this moment, it is problematical with M. Michaelis himself. He is a good deal furprised therefore to find, that M. Savary has expreffed the fame conjecture with more boldness than he had ventured to do, and that he has fupported it by the fame paffage from Spartien. This conformity would appear to him extremely fingular, if he had any reafon to believe that M. Savary had never feen his work. Men of abilities and learning, and even travellers, fays the latter, have made many ineffectual efforts to discover to whofe memory this monument was erected. The wifeft have been of opinion, that it could not be in honour of Pompey, fince Strabo and Diodorus Siculus are filent on this fubject. It appears to me, that Aboulfeda would have extricated them from this difficulty. He calls it exprefsly the pillar of Severus; and history informs us, that this Emperor, &c. Here follows a pretty long extract from M. Michaelis's tranflation. M. Savary feems not only to have been ignorant of the objections made to this part of the tranflation and the notes, but there is anoH

ther circumstance of a fingular kind. In tranflating the defcription of Fortat from Aboulfeda, M. Michaelis left a paffage untranflated, and informed his readers, that he was not able fufficiently to comprehend it. M. Savary hath copied the fame description, hath left out the fame paffage, but hath artfully omitted to inform his readers, that it was above his comprehenfion, by gi ving no hint that there was fuch a paí fage in the original.

M. Michaelis is also of opinion that he hath taken the fame liberty with the works of other travellers; which ought to leffen his credit, and make him be confidered more as a compiler than an eye-witnefs of the facts. He even believes that he did not examine several of thefe productions till his return, which ought farther to diminish the authority of his relation.

M. Michaelis quotes feveral obfervations of this author, which would appear to him worthy of attention, were not their force much weakened by the foregoing remarks. He alfo expofes feveral errors, which we fhall pafs over in filence.

He afterwards proceeds to an explanation of a paffage in Aboulfeda, the whole merit of which belongs to M. Savary. I mention it the more willingly, fays he, because there is nothing in the tranflation of this paffage which I wish to claim, and because I have an opportunity of pointing out M. Savary's manner when he thinks for himfelf. Aboulfeda relates, that in the place where Fortat was built, in the feventh century, there formerly ftood an ancient castle, named Hafralfchama. I ufed the word as a proper name, fays M. Michaelis; and I obferved in a note, that I could with no propriety feek for its fignification in the Arabian language, as M. Reiske had done, because it was given to this caftle before the Arabians had entered Egypt., M. Savary must have read this reflection, but he either has not been convinced that the name, on this

[blocks in formation]

account, muft be derived from the Greek or Coptic languages, or he was not able to refift his inclination for eftablishing facts on mere etymology. He explains the word Schama by the Arabian language, and tranflates this proper name the Caftle of Lights. It was there, fays he, that Cambyfes, when he conquered Egypt, built Babylon, the fituation of which has been the fubject of fo much controverfy among geographers. This then, Sir, (thefe are his own words) is the fortrefs Babylon, which has been an object of inquiry, and of error, to a great number of learned men. The Perfians, worshippers of the Sun, kept a perpetual fire in this place, and therefore the Arabians named this fortress the Cafe of Lights. M. Michaelis does not deny that Babylon stood here, but to admit this application of the word Schama, it is neceffary, first, to fuppofe, that it fignified, at that time, wax tapers; and again, that thefe were ufed by the Perfians in preferving this perpetual fire: both of which fuppofitions are improbable and extravagant. Cambyfes entered Egypt 523 years before the Chriftian aera; and the Arabians, according to M. Savary, penetrated into the fame country 640 years after it. Thus the temple built by Cambyfes continued 1160 years, although no ancient writer, not even Strabo, takes the leaft notice of it; and thus there exifted, at that period, a temple of the worshippers of fire, called, on that account, the Temple of Lights, which had fubfifted under the Grecian Kings, and continued to fubfift under the Chriftian. M. Savary, it is true, mentions a paffage of Strabo; but this author fpeaks not of a temple, but of a fortrefs, called Babylon. He does not fay that it was built by the Perfians and Cambyfes, but by fome fugitive Babylonians, to whom the Kings of Egypt had granted an afylum. M. Savary does not content himfelf with this difcovery. He blames M. Niebuhr for miftaking this for an

[ocr errors]

Arabian citadel, which he himself has difcovered to be a temple of fire, built 2300 years ago by Cambyfes. M. Michaclis concludes this part of his obfervations, by afking, Whether a book that contains fuch mistakes deserves to be read or criticifed?

He proceeds to expofe another error of the author of the Letters on Egypt, to fhew the confidence which ought to be placed in him, when he quotes Arabian writers, or pretends to give fomething new to the learned world. Elmacin, fays M. Michaelis, has the honour very frequently to be quoted by M. Savary, but it is because the Arabian is accompanied with a Latin translation. He endeavours, from the teftimony of this author, to prove that Rofetta was built in the eighth century. Sicard, Pocock, Niebuhr, and other writers, fays he, have not been able to inform us when this city was begun to be built; although Elmacin, (p. 153.) hath exprefsly faid, that it was built under the direction of the Caliph Mutawakkil, from the time. of the patriarch Coimas, to the year 870. M. Michaelis obferves, on the contrary, that Elmacin informs us, that at this time Rofetta, and many other towns, were furrounded with walls, but leaves us altogether in the dark whether it was built then, or many ages before. It is difficult indeed to conceive how Mutawakkil, who died in the year 861, could build or fortify. a city in the year 870. M. Savary was not able to folve this difficulty, because he could not calculate the years of the hegira, and was unacquainted with the books which would have furnished him with the calculation. The only method he takes is to add the years of the hegira to 622 without reducing the lunar into folar years.

There, fays the German critic, in finishing his remarks, there is the man who has been fo much extolled in our news-papers, which indeed are but es choes to thofe of France, and whofe project of a journey into Alia has been reprefented

reprefented as full of great hopes, and worthy of the attention of the learned. Before I conclude, Ithall mention one of M. Savary's errors which has efcaped M. Michaelis. The French traveller, withing to give an idea of the inhabitants in Alexandria, when the Arabians entered Egypt, makes Elmacin fay, that there were 12,000 fellers of freih oil in that city. The fingularity of this expreffion made me have recourfe to Elmacin, and I found, that in this place he neither fpeaks of fresh oil, nor of thofe who fold it, but of those who fold pot-herbs and roots, the word bakkal having this fignification. I was naturally led to inquire into the reafon of this fingular mistake, and in confult

BEING

ing the Latin verfion of Erpinius, I found the words Olitores vendentis olus viride, which have the fame fignification with the Arabic. From this circumftance I discovered, firft, that M. Savary had not confulted the Arabian text; and it is difficult to affign a reafon for his not doing fo. Secondly, that he had not even taken the trouble of looking into a Latin dictionary. He would there have found, that the word olitor does not fignify an oil-merchant; and that oil is called, in Latin, oleum, and not olus.

Several other inftances might be given of fimilar miftakes in his work, but I fhall content myself with those already noticed.

The fort and fimple Annals of the Poor.
A Tale. From the Olla Podrida.

[ocr errors]

GRAY.

EING on a tour to the North, I was temples, whilft the lines of misfortune one evening arrefted in my progrefs were, alas! but too vifible in his counte at the entrance of a small hainlet, by nance. Time had foftened, but could breaking the fore-wheel of my photon. not efface them.-On feeing my broken This accident rendering it impracticable equipage, he addressed me; and when he for me to proceed to the next town, from began to fpeak, his countenance was ilwhich I was now fixteen miles diftant, lumined by a fmile. I prefume, Sir, I directed my fteps to a fmall cottage, at faid he, that the accident you have juft the door of which, in a woodbine arbor, experienced, will render it impoffible fat a man of about fixty, who was fola- for you to proceed. Should that be the cing himfelf with a pipe. In the front cafe, you will be much diftreffed for of his houfe was affixed a fmall board, lodgings, the place affording no accomwhich I conceived to contain an intima-modations for travellers, as my parishtion, that travellers might there be ac-ioners are neither quilling nor able to commodated. Addrefling myfelf there-fupport an alehoufe; and as we have fore to the old man, I requefied his affiftance, which he readily granted; but on my mentioning an intention of remaining at his houfe all night, he regretted that it was not in his power to receive me, and the more fo, as there was no inn in the village. It was not till now that I discovered my error concerning the board over the door, which contained a notification, that there was taught that ufeful art, of which, if we credit Mrs Baddeley's Memoirs, a certain noble Lord was fo grofsly ignorant. In fhort, my friend proved to be the fchoolmafter, and probably the fecretary to the hamlet. Affairs were in this fituation when the Vicar made his appearance. He was one of the moft venerable figures I had ever feen; his time-filvered locks fhaded his

few travellers, we have little need of one; but if you will accept the best ac ⚫commodation my cottage affords, it is much at your fervice.After expreffing the fenie I entertained of his goodnefs, I joyfully accepted so desirable an offer. As we entered the hamlet, the fun was gilding with his departing beams the village fpire, whilft a gentle breeze refreshed the weary hinds, who, feated beneath the venerable oaks that overfhadowed their cottages, were repofing themselves after the labours of the day, and liftening attentively to the tale of an old foldier, who, like myself, had wandered thus far, and was now diftreffed for a lodging. He had been in feveral actions, in one of which he had loft a leg: and was now, like many other brave fellows,

Doom'd

« ZurückWeiter »