and of such vicissitudes as are not uncommon at the courts of oriental sovereigns: yet the work is not entertaining, and does not exhibit a very strong claim to literary distinction; though Maured Allatafet, by whom it was composed, is represented as an Arabian author of some reputation. It is useful, however, to beginners, to whom the extreme boldness and simplicity of the style, render it particularly acceptable. It is accompanied with a Latin translation, and an appendix of explanatory notes, by Mr. Carlyle, of the university of Cambridge. It is comprised in one small quarto volume, in plain Arabic, without points, and is legibly printed; but the Arabic text in the latter part of the book abounds with typographical errors.

Doctrina Christiana.-This is a catechism, published, I believe, in the time of Cardinal Richlieu, under his direction, for the purpose of gratuitous distribution in the East. It contains the Creed, the Paternoster, the Ave Maria, and the Decalogue abridged or altered; the whole explained by question and answer, according to the doctrine of the Catholic church. It is in pointed Arabic, accompanied by the original Latin, and is a valuable little book for learners.

of

Refutations of the Alcoran, by Maraccio, confessor to Pope Innocent the Eleventh: (one large folio volume.)-This is a work of great literary merit, and may be regarded as a treasure by those who would become conversant with the language, laws, legends, traditions, religion, manners, and customs of Mahometan countries. It contains a correct copy the Alcoran in pointed Arabic, with a Latin translation; and commentaries, in the same language, abounding with extracts from various Arabian authors, translated into Latin. The commentaries are placed at the end of each chapter, and are followed by the refutation in Latin; in which the author has treated Mahomet and the moslems with very little ceremony. This book may be safely recommended to students. The language of the Alcoran is supposed to be the purest, the most grammatical, and the most classical, of all the Arabic works that have found their way into countries professing the Christian faith.

History of the Saracens, by Georgius ebn Elmacino: in plain Arabic, with a collateral Latin translation by Erpenius, one vol. folio. This is a valuable work. The style is simple and unadorned, but is free from the extreme conciseness of Maured Allatafet. The events of each reign are narrated

with method and precision; and the lineage, birth, life, death, character, and person of each calif, are noticed in the history of each respective reign with scrupulous accuracy. This work comprehends a part of Allatafet's Annals, to which it is in almost every respect preferable. It is larger; the events it records are more important and interesting; its Latin translation is collateral; and it is written in a more elevated style.

The Bible, in Arabic, with points, accompanied by a collateral Latin translation—is the most valuable to students of the books I have yet named, or that I am able to name, since it contains all the gradations of style from the most simple to the most abstruse: and, so various are the subjects of which it treats, that he must have a most extensive knowledge of Arabic, who is able to understand, in that language, all that is contained in it from Genesis to Maccabees, and from the gospel of St. Matthew to the revelation of St. John. In my own studies, I have confined myself chiefly to the Pentateuch, and the historical books, with the exception of the Psalms, Job, and a few chapters of Proverbs; and am aware that the didactic and prophetic writings present difficulties, which are to be overcome by perseverance and assiduity alone. This Bible is of itself a library, and in the present scarcity of Arabian books, 1 earnestly recommend it to all who are endeavouring to acquire a knowledge of the oriental tongues. The language of husbandry and of common life may be learned from Genesis; that of law and of mechanic arts from Exodus; that of natural history and medicine from Leviticus; that of war and military movements from Numbers; that of paternal exhortation from Deuteronomy; that of geographical delineation from Joshua; that of traditionary narration from Judges and Ruth; that of biography from Samuel; that of history and state affairs from Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, Jeremiah, Judith, and Maccabees; that of astronomy and natural philosophy from Job; that of poetry from the Prophets, Canticles, and Psalms; that of ethics and divinity from Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Ecclesiasticus, and Wisdom. Adding to these the books of the New Testament, which present still further varieties of subject and style; the Arabic student will find abundant scope for the exercise of his talents -an ample field for literary toil.

Account of the War between the French and Austrians, in the latter part of the year 1805.-This is a collection of official papers, translated into Arabic from the original French,

as is supposed, by order of the Emperor Napoleon; in which are recounted the battles of Ulm and Austerlitz, and other memorable events; and in which the military language of France is very successfully translated into that of a remote oriental nation. Most students would be appalled at the sight of a quarto volume, of about 300 pages, in Arabic only, without translation, note, or explanation. But the book is less formidable than it appears to be. I ascertained the meaning of a great part of it by the assistance of Hopkins' Vocabulary; and some passages in it are more easily understood than any Arabian composition I have ever seen. It should however be used at first with the French original, as there are words to be found in it which are not explained in any Arabic lexicon.

To these I may add, a small work by Abu el Faraj, on the manners and customs of the Arabs, given as a specimen of Arabian history, with a Latin translation and notes by Pocock, It contains less than 50 small quarto pages of Arabic, and I gave it but a single perusal. It is proper to be studied by those who have made some proficiency in the Arabic language.

Of Lexicons I can say but little. The only one of which I have made constant use, is entitled, "A Vocabulary of the Arabic and Persian Languages." The definitions are in English, and the pronunciation is given, as far as practicable, in European characters. It is abridged from Richardson's Arabic and Persian Dictionary, which is a great work, and highly serviceable to persons residing where those languages are spoken; but far short of perfection-and the assiduous student will find, on experiment, that if he would translate Arabic correctly, or attain to a critical knowledge of that language, he must seek some better lexicographer than Richardson.--Golius' Arabic Lexicon, with Latin definitions, is the best I have ever seen.

I have thus given an account of most of the books, which have aided me in my attempt to acquire the Arabic language. If the preceding remarks should prove acceptable to the amateurs of oriental literature, I shall less regret my having failed in an undertaking, so arduous and yet so barren of reward. I have, for a time at least, abandoned my Arabian studies, and my resumption of them, is an event concealed by the curtain of fate. In the mean while, I commend to

others, the pursuit of an object which I have highly prized, and hope that their efforts in the attainment of it, may be more successful than my own. R. D.

ART. IV. The Two Noble Kinsmen. Presented at the Blackfriars, by the King's Majesty's Servants, with great Applause. Written by the memorable Worthies of their time, Mr. JOHN FLETCHER, Gent. and Mr. WILLIAM SHAKESPEAR, Gent. London, 1634.

Among other dramas attributed to Shakspeare, or to which he is supposed to have afforded assistance, is that of the Two Noble Kinsmen. The "Biographia Dramatica," in its catalogue of Plays, has the following observations : "The Two Noble Kinsmen. Tragi-Com. by J. Fletcher and William Shakspeare. Acted at the Black Friars4to. 1634. The story of this play is taken from Chaucer's Palamon and Arcite, or The Knight's Tale. The editor of Beaumont and Fletcher's works, in 1778, has taken some pains to prove that Shakspeare had no hand in this work. The scene near Athens." The date here alluded to, it will be remembered, is not that of its first publication, the play having been "written before 1616," as is acknowledged in the very correct copy now before us.

The title-pages of the earliest editions positively ascribe it to Fletcher and Shakspeare; and we confess that we are at a loss to discover any better reasons for denying the participation of the latter, than for admitting the claims of the former. The play-house tradition, too, always concurred in its being the joint production of both. With what success the 'pains' taking editor has laboured to establish the contrary opinion, we are not curious to know; but, believing with Dr. Johnson, as a general maxim, that that may be considered right which requires much to prove it wrong, the editor's efforts have probably only tended to produce a conviction the reverse of the one he desired.

The play of Pericles, Prince of Tyre, although it bore the name of Shakspeare in the imprint of the earliest copies, was never admitted among his acknowledged works, until it was proved, (nearly two centuries after it was written,) that if he did not participate in its formation, he must have copied largely from it; as it contained sentiments and language of

the poet, not to be found, but in this very play, till some years after its appearance. That the drama before us is similarly situated, we shall show by various quotations, corresponding either in ideas, diction, or structure of sentences, with many passages in the works of Shakspeare. And when it is considered that all or most of the extracts are from plays (Macbeth and Othello) which never appeared until some years after the publication of the Two Noble Kinsmen,* the conclusion is irresistible, that the poet either assisted in the construction of the piece, as is asserted in its title, or that he has copied (which will be more reluctantly acknowledged) not only the thoughts, but very words of Fletcher.

The play opens with the intercession of three widowed queens, to Theseus, Duke of Athens, soliciting him to obtain the rights of sepulture for their husbands, who had fallen in a war against Creon, King of Thebes. They urge many inducements, and among others the following:Now you may take him,

2d Queen.

Drunk with his victory.'

3d Queen. And his army full

Of bread and sloth.'-Act i. scene 1.

In Hamlet, we have nearly the same words-" To take him **** when he is drunk, asleep, or in his rage." And in the same scene- "He took my father grossly, full of bread."

Palamon and Arcite, the nephews of Creon, are on a visit at his court, and determine to aid him. The former, moralizing on city manners, has a punning quibble, so much in the style of Shakspeare, that we shall transcribe it, though we are unable to accompany it with any particular reference. 'Why am I bound

By any generous bond to follow him,
Follows his tailor, haply so long, until

The followed make pursuit ?'-Act i. scene 2.

The war is undertaken, and Palamon and Arcite are taken prisoners by Theseus, who declares,

'Rather than have 'em

Freed of this plight, and in their morning state,
Sound and at liberty, I would 'em dead;

But forty thousand fold, we'd rather have 'em
Prisoners to us than death. Bear 'em speedily

* Sixteen (including Macbeth and Othello) of the thirty-six plays of Shakspeare, were not published till the year 1623.