Barbary, (alluding, I presume, to South Barbary, where I have resided as Consul) speak the worst Arabic in the world. This is confidently asserted, but this assertion is far from being correct. But the Professor has given something like a proof that he himself is unacquainted with the Arabic2 of Africa, by making this assertion. The Professor attempts to impress on the public mind, that I am extremely deficient in the knowledge of this (which he calls) most corrupt and barbarous dialect of the Arabic; not knowing, nor perhaps imagining, that I have had more opportunities of making myself acquainted with the ancient and correct language of the Koran, than he can ever possibly have had in England, not to mention other dialects of Arabic, with which I am acquainted, and which the Professor cannot know even by name. Every one whose judgment is not warped by prejudice, and who is not deficient in Arabic, will agree with me, that any part of Barbary, even the desert of Barca, is a better school for the ancient Koraish or Korannic Arabic, as well as for the modern Arabic, than Cambridge can possibly be. Moreover, a person, who has never resided in an Arab country, cannot easily be supposed to be able to hold colloquial intercourse with Arabs, and consequently is not competent to determine what is the correct orthography of Arabic words, written in the European character; as there are, in that language, many sounds that all the grammars and dictionaries in Europe cannot teach, sounds that can be learned only by the ear, and by a long practice and diligent and accurate observation, Two dialects of the Arabic prevail in West, as well as in South Barbary, (besides the dialects used by the Bedoween tribes of Sahara, vis. by the Woled Abbusebah, by the Woled Deleim, and by the Mugraffra Arabs, all which resemble the pure and ancient Arabic); one is the vulgar language of common intercourse; the other is a dialect very similar to that of the Koran, which is the language of correspondence, and this language admits of several gradations of refinement, according to the learning and knowledge of the persons corresponding. This is a fact which appears to be unknown to Mr. Lee, as well as to Mr. Salemé! It is, however, not less correct on that account. 2 All the intelligent men in the Empire of Marocco, who have received a tolerable education, understand the ancient pure Korannic Arabic, many of the Bedoween Kabyles in Suse and in Sahara speak the pure Arabic; vide Class. Journal, No. XLVI. p. 289. "I can assure you that the language and the idiom of the Arabic in the letters from the Emperor of Marocco to you, are precisely the same with that which is spoken in the East." Vide Translation of an extract from the Bishop of Jerusalem's letter to Mr. Jackson, in Shabeeny's account of Timbuctoo, &c. p. 473. note. This is a proof that the Professor is incorrect when he asserts, that the dialect of Barbary is the most barbarous and corrupt Arabic: at least, it is here admitted that it is not more corrupt than the language of Palestine, among nations who speak the language: so that I repeat my assertion, and think it not presumptuous to declare, that Mr. Lee is incompetent to give an opinion of my orthography of Arabic words in European characters; although I am far from being so vain as to think myself an infallible orthographist, notwithstanding the flattering approbation that has been publicly expressed of my labors in this respect. We have the Professor's ipse dixit, which, by the way, is but a poor argument for a classical scholar, that I know little or nothing of the Arabic language, that I have committed numerous errors, &c. That no man is infallible in any of the sciences will be readily admitted; but if the Professor attempts to prove that I am so ignorant of the Arabic language, every one who knows me, and has heard me converse with the Arabs, will hold those suggestions in derision, and certainly will not believe that any one who can make the assertion is able to speak the language intelligibly himself. Mr. Lee says, p. 373, that he positively denies that my copy, inserted in No. XLIV. p. 449 of the Classical Journal, is a correct copy of the inscription, but on the contrary, that it is the incorrect copy of an incorrect copy; but, will Mr. Lee presume to say that it is not a correct copy of that inscription which is given by Mr. Belzoni, (as well as by Mr. Walpole) as the original, or rather as a fac-simile or faithful copy of the original, excepting the errors of the Arabic press, which were corrected by an Errata on the back of the title-page of the 45th number of the Classical Journal? I apply the same question to what Mr. Lee calls an incorrect copy of his proposed arrangement, but which his extraordinary candor excuses, because accuracy, he says, is foreign to my habits; and I repeat that the inaccuracy alluded to, is of the press only, and is corrected in the same Errata. The Professor, in his endeavours to undervalue my knowledge of the Arabic, appears altogether to have lost sight of the question to be discussed, which is, not whether I understand the language of the ancient Arabs; not, whether the pyramidical inscription be pure or barbarous language; not, whether it be ancient, pure, Oriental or African Arabic; not, whether a king named Aly Muhamed ever reigned in Egypt, which if it could be proved would be nothing to the purpose, and would only show the nonchalance of Mr. Lee's mode of reasoning-but, whether Mr. Belzoni's drawing or fac-simile of the inscription 1 For which vide Belzoni's Researches and Operations in Egypt, p. 273. (which Mr. Lee says I have been so incorrect as to call the original inscription) be properly rendered into English by Mr. Lee, or not. I have no hesitation in declaring that it is not; and I can assert, without fear of contradiction, that every Arab, that every one conversant with the structure, with the idiom of the Arabic language, will, without hesitation, deprecate the innovation which Mr. Lee has introduced into this inscription. Let the opinion of L'hage Sabat ben Ebrahim, now called Nathaniel Sabat, be taken on this subject. I understand he was a servant of the British government in India in 1814, and most probably is so now. I will abide by his decision in this case, believing him to be Abdelhack ben Ebrahim as well as Sabat ben Ebrahim. It matters little, whether the inscription be called the original or a fac-simile of the original-no one ever imagined that Mr. Belzoni brought the pyramid home with him; therefore, perhaps, it was incorrect to call it the original. But if that intelligent traveller, who has reflected so much honor on his country, does not say it is a fac-simile, he at least assures us that he had it accurately examined with the original before he quitted Egypt, by Arabs competent to give a correct opinion. Mr. Lee says, page 374, "I need not now dwell on Mr. Jackson's proposed emendation V, which he thinks the most probable, as every one must see that he has been unfortunate in this conjecture." In answer to this misconstruction of my words in Classical Journal, No. XLIV. p. 451, I maintain that every one, or at least every unprejudiced reader, will perceive that I did not propose as an emendation, but as a supposition (if any thing,) rather less absurd than Mr. Lee's or Mr. Salemé's V. Mr. Lee says, p. 373, "We are informed in the same contest, that Malam El Hajar (which HE, MR. LEE, supposes ples) signifies one skilled in masonry," but I suppose that the Professor when he wrote this, (considering his extraordinary knowledge of Arabic,) must have perceived these Arabic characters to be what they are, viz. ' an error of the press, and in not discovering them to be such, that he has concealed what he ought to have made known. 1 For which vide Errata in the Classical Journal, No. XLV. back of the title-page. There is such a remarkable incongruity between the English and the Arabic languages, that many difficulties necessarily occur to the translator: if he adheres rigidly to the grammatical interpretation of words, he must sacrifice common sense; if he adheres to the latter, or to the spirit and meaning of the author translated, he must deviate sometimes from the grammatical interpretation or signification of words as given in various dictionaries, and grammars, at least so far as to convert a pronoun into an adverb ; such is the case in translating the word by the word also instead of the word that, which latter word is its meaning according to Richardson's Arabic Grammar. ذلك المعلم عثمان how can I agree, however, with the Professor, that it is a pronoun, but be otherwise translated than as I have translated it, viz. by the adverb also, for then it conveys evidently the sense of the original. But, if translated according to its literal and grammatical signification, viz. by the remote demonstrative pronoun, that, the meaning is lost and the translation becomes obscure and unintelligible! It appears that Mr. Lee is a strong advocate for literal translations, although they be made from an ancient and Oriental 1 This will appear evident from the following idioms, which are used in all the various dialects of the Arabic language with which I am acquainted. 1st. Sultan wa [] delk el Bashaw had'r. 2nd. Imshaw Sultan wa [s] delk Alkaid. []delk These two are complete sentences, which if translated literally, according to Mr. Lee's suggestion, would be incomplete and unintelligible; they would in that case be thus rendered. 1st. The Sultan was present and that the Bashaw. 2nd. The Sultan departed and that the Alkaid, (governor or captain). But if these sentences are translated as I have translated the pyramidical inscription, translating the word delk by also, they will convey the true meaning of these sentences 1st. The Sultan was present and also the Bashaw. 2nd. The Sultan departed and also the Bashaw. Note. The remote pronoun kaddelk is also used in similar sentences as well as delk, and cannot be translated into English, preserving the sense of the original, without using the adverb also, or the words as well as. I have preferred giving these examples in the European character, because my interpretation, which Mr. Lee disputes, will be corroborated by many intelligent gentlemen in London, on the continent, and elsewhere, who are acquainted with the Arabic language orally, and are com petent to decide this question, from having resided among nations who speak the Arabic language. language, into a modern occidental one, whose idioms are remarkably heterogeneous and dissimilar! Mr. Lee further says, "Mr. Jackson, instead of proving that the inscription is not imperfect, has plainly asserted that it is ;" insinuating by these words that I had endeavoured to prove, what I could not substantiate. There is much of sophistry in this kind of argument, which, if allowable in scholastic disputations, is unworthy of the diligent enquirer after truth; for by a reference to my paper (Classical Journal, No. XLIV. p. 448.) it will be evident to every one who may give himself the trouble to investigate my words, that I say, this pyramidical inscription is perfect in its construction, but imperfect in having neither beginning nor end; which latter character entitles it to the denomination which I have given it," an Egyptian fragment." Note. If I were of a disposition to regulate my individual felicity by the opinions of men, how dreadfully would that felicity now be lacerated by Mr. Lee's anathema! One celebrated author tells the public, that my thorough knowledge of the Arabic language gives me a singular advantage over every other traveller, and enables me to enter the arena of African geography with peculiar advantages; some of the most celebrated critics of the age have done me the honor to say, that I am perfect master of, and never fail to do justice to, my subject that I rigidly adhere to it, that I write under the direction of candor and good sense, and that the practical skill that I possess in the Arabic language, has given me extraordinary advantages; another says, that I possess such extensive and minute knowledge of all that is connected with Africa, (in which the knowledge of the language is necessarily included,) that I never fail to communicate instruction as well as amusement. And now all this intelligence, so gratifying to human vanity, is to be wiped off by Professor Lee's anathema, who declares, on his own ipse dixit, 1st. That I have almost every thing to learn respecting the Arabic language. - 2ndly. That the Arabic of the country where I have resided is the most barbarous and corrupt in the world, and that I know no other as if I had not had more advantageous opportunities of studying the ancient and pure Arabic, than the Professor has had. 3rdly. That I have given a false translation of an erroneous inscription, affording unanswerable evidence that I am a mere Tiro in Arabic. If my individual felicity depended on Mr. Lee, how my feelings would have been harrowed up by his anathema! But |