A literary history of Persia

S/R W. JONES AND ANQUETIL 53Sir William Jones then proceeds to make merry at theexpense of Anquetil's translation no difficult feat even witha better rendering of a work containing so much that is to usgrotesque and puerile, as must, in some degree, be the casewith what isproduced by any people in its infancy and thussums up his reasonings :" Ou Zoroastre n'avait pas le sens commun, ou il n'ecrivit pas lelivre que vous lui attribuez ;s'il n'avait pas le sens commun,il fallait lelaisser dans la foule, et dans 1'obscurite ; s'il n'ecrivit pas ce livre, iletait impudent de le publier sous son nom. Ainsi, ou vous avezinsulte le gout du public en lui presentant des sottises, ou vous1'avez trompe en lui debitant des faussetes : et de chaque cote vousmeritez son mepris."Sir William Jones's letter, though it served to mar Anquetiidu Perron's legitimate triumph, and (which was more serious)to blind a certain number of scholars and men ofave^d. letter^ to the real importance of his discoveries,has now only a historic interest. Time, whichhas so fullyvindicated the latter that no competent judge nowfails to recognisethe merit of his work, also took its revengeon the former ;and he who strained at the gnat of the Zenddvesta was destined to swallow the camel of the Desatir one ofthe most impudent forgeries ever perpetrated. With the originalof this egregious work he was, indeed, unacquainted, for the onlyknown manuscript of it, though brought from Persia to Indiaby Mulla Ka'us about the year 1773, was only published by theson of the purchaser, Mulla Firuz, in 1818x his ; knowledge ofIts full title is : The Desath ot Sacred Writings oj the Ancient Persian'Prophets; in the Original Tongue; together with the Ancient PersianVersion and Commentary of the Fifth Sasan ; carefully published by MullaFiruz bin Kaus, who has subjoined a copious Glossary of the Obsolete andTechnical Persian Terms :to which is added an English Translation of theDesatit and Commentary. In two volumes. (Bombay, 1818.) Particularsconcerning the unique manuscript will be found at p. vii of the Preface tothe second volume. The Desdtir was examined, and the futility of its pretensionsexposed, by de Sacy in the Journal des Savants (pp. 16-31 and