BUT my little exemplification will have this peculiar advantage over the above, that the correfponding modern form will be put to each ftyle of characters, in order that the curious may fee with what care the main compofition of characters has been preserved the fame for fo many ages, and fo wonderfully diverfified by taste and caprice.

To accompany the modern Kiairu with a small character, I have given one of thofe forms, admiffible only in the MS. ftyle, which in my next I fhall prove confiderably different from the printing forms, though fometimes engraven for the prefs. The reader, in the mean time, may refer to Dr. Montucci's obfervations in the Gentleman's Magazine, quoted in my firft Letter.

For the claffical Ko-teu I have felected an infcription of four characters of the dynasty Xam, above 1700 B.C., from pl. XXXVII of Lettre de Pékin; but I have corrected and interpreted it in modern Chinese characters, by the affistance of the often quoted dictionary

斗科

Chuen-çu-lui. It is executed in the ufual ftyle of publishing inscriptions among the Chinese.

To all thefe fpecimens I have added another, in which few Chinefe would find any difficulty; but it is well worth the notice of us Europeans. It is called Siaofie (y), or fmall writing; being an abridged hand of the Kiai-xu, but marking more impreffively the outlines of the component groups than the Cao-çu does. [See Mém. des Miffion., vol. VIII, p. 128; and vol. IX, p. 397.]

All rough sketches are fo written by authors and others in China; and in this ftyle the physician commonly writes his prefcriptions; the botanist the names of his fimples; the naturalift those of his minerals and foffils; and even the feedfman the articles of his flop.

Hence my fpecimens, Mr. Editor, are feven in all, exemplifying four of the inoft ufual antient, and three of the moft ufual modern ftyles already mentioned. Thefe I beg of you to arrange in one page, as directed by references, and with a correfponding Roman figure, as follows.

V.

書楷

VI.

Kiai xu, reprefenting

the character Pao; precious.

寫小

II.

篆大

Ta-chuen, exhibiting

the character Fen; literary composition.

Siao-fe, the character

III.

Lieu; touch-ftone, or Lapis Lydius.

VII.

字草

Ç'ao-çu, the charac

IV.

·篆小

Siao chuen, fhewing

the character Fa; mode, method.

書隸

rafter Liu; or law.

Li-xu, being the cha

fe means alfo to thank, when written with a very different character, hence the wild interpretation given by him of the name of thefe characters, of gratiarum actio! Thes characters, Siao fe, are very common in prefaces. Bayer miftook them for the Cas fu. [See the plate facing page 101 of his Gram. Sin. in Mul. Sin., t. I.]

of this Letter, which the importance

of the fubject neceffarily demand

SINOLOGUS BEROLINENSIS. February 15, 1804.

FIRST ADDITIONAL NOTE TO LETTER II. [See Note* at page 230.]

NOTORIOUS PLAGIARISM IN DR. HAGER'S ANALYSIS.

Dr. Montucci, in his Aufwer to the Reviewers (to be had GRATIS of Melfrs, Cadell and Davies, Strand), charges Dr. Hager, at p. 5, with having taken this fcheme of the hexagrams from the Millionaries works; but Dr. Hager, far from referring to the Miffionaries, prefixes the following words to the hexagrams: "Thefe hexagrams in Chi"nele books are commonly reprefent❝ed by eight circular figures thus."

Now I am free to fay, that this is an abfolute FALSEHOOD. I have infpected a dozen editions of the Ye-kim, and in no one have I found them fo arranged! They are, however, to be fecn in tom. II Des Mémoires des Miffion., facing p. 189; and the Miffionary muft certainly have taken his scheme from an original Chinefe edition of the Ye-kim ; but it must have been far from common, as Dr. Hager infinuates.

The reader will perhaps fay, common or not, has Dr. Hager taken his fcheme of the hexagrams from the Miffionary, or from a Chinese book, no matter how fearce, as he wishes his readers to believe? I politively anfwer, with Dr. Montucci, FROM THE MISSIONARY. Let but the reader follow me through the obfervations which I am about to make, and he will be thoroughly con vinced of it.

I. We have feen in my fecond Let ter, p. 231, that thefe fixty-four heragrams are liable to an infinite variety of fchemes; but when reprefented as at p. xx by Dr. Hager in eight ferics (either circular, as there, or in a ftraight line, as they moftly are), with application to their eight Kua, or trigrams, as their roots, we may remain allured that each hexagram will be compofed of that trigram to which it is attributed

as its root, and of the repetition of the fame, or of one of the other even trigrams. Those who poffefs editions of the Ye-kim may cafily be convinced of this by practical inspection; and those who have none, muft neceffarily remain convinced, unless they be more willing to fuppofe the Chinese to be the moft foolish nation upon earth; for fo they would prove themfelyes, if, applying thete hexagrams to their radical trigrams in as many diftinct feries, they would diftribute them in such an awkward manner as to caufe any of them to be attributed to a root, which is not its own. Men, indeed, of such a way of thinking would not only be unfit to perufe thefe obfervations, but even any of my pages; fince in thefe fheets I with particularly to addrefs myself to men of liberal principles, and who, as fuch, acknowledge the Chinese to be a very ingenious people, and with fome fcientific talents,

From the above principle it follows, that in none of the hexagrams difpofed in eight diftinct feries, as described, neither the leading trigram can be wanting, or any repetition of the fame heragram can ever take place.

Therefore all fuch hexagrams, either repeated, or wanting the leading trigrams, are MANIFEST ERRORS in Dr. Hager's fcheme; and fuch ones, as I obferved in Note*, above quoted, amount to TWENTY-THREE,

II. It is no lefs evident, if we allow the Chinese common fenfe, that whatever be the fignifications they attribute to these hexagrams, either philofophical or fuperftitious, there must be fome connection in thofe ideas, which ought to be supposed linked together, as the trigrams are in the hexagrams; and confequently their feries muft proceed in an order confouapt to the ideas they are meant to fignify. Therefore if fome of the feries of fuch octagonal figures in one fcheme proceed like

thofe of another, the remainder will naturally follow in a fimilar progreflion.

Hence if fome of the octagons of Dr. Hager exhibit their series of hexagrams like thofe of the Millionary, the whole of them will continue in the fame order; and whatever variation is found, must be attributed either to errors of the plagiarift, or to his artful tranfpofition of the octagons.

As to errors, we have feen (Obf. I) the method of afcertaining them, if not credited to be twenty-three in number, as afferted by me: as to artful transpofition, it remains to be demonftrated.

III. That there is a tranfpofition in Dr. Hager's fcheme, it will be evident to any one who compares his page xx with that of the Millionary quoted above: but, fince many may want thefe books, I muft inform the reader, that the trigrams, of which Dr. Hager exhibits the characters in the centers of his octagonal figures, will be found difpofed in that order given by myfelf at p. 230, Letter II, on the authorities of Intorcetta, Couplet, Fourmont, and Vifdelou, if the Arabic figures I have annexed to them be applied to Dr. Hager's fcheme with that Chinese mode of reckoning explained in the fame Note*. But in the Miffionary the trigrams reckoned with the fame method proceed thus: 1, Kien; 2, Chin; 3, Kan; 4, Ken; 5, Kuen; 6, Sun; 7, Li; 8, Tui. Whence we are more and more affured of the fingularity of the Chinese edition from which he took his fcheme.

On collating, therefore, the two fchemes of Dr. Hager and the Miffionary, it will be found that

Dr. H.'s I octagon is the I of the Mif.

II

VIII VII

II

cation of the leading trigram; to this Dr. Hager has fubftituted the Chinete character correfponding to it, which he could get easily enough from any MS. dictionary; from the account of the Ye-kim by F. Vifdelou [fee Le Choukim, par Mr. De Guignes, pl. [V]; or from any edition of the Ye-kim, for in none of them are they want ng. 2dly, The Miffionary has put the pronunciation correfponding to the Chinefe characters attributed to the fixtyfour hexagrams (the fourth octagon only excepted), and this has been totally omitted by Dr. Huger: while the regularity of his plan required to fubfiitute to thefe monofyllables the corre fponding characters, as he had done to thofe in the centers. The molt trifling

edition of the Ye-kim would have been fufficient to accomplish the task, had he been himself equal to it. Sdly, The Miflionary, no doubt, following the ori ginal, has fhewn by Arabic figures round each octagon (the fourth only excepted) the progrefs of each feries of hexagrams. Thefe have been likewife omitted by Dr. Hager.

V. Nevertheless, taking each octagon of the Millionary, and accurately collating it with its correfpondent in Dr. Hager's page xx, we fhall find that the feries of the hexagrams proceed exactly in the fame way in both, in one half of them (the twenty-three blunders above mentioned and the two inverfions thewn in Note* being supposed corrected), while the other half proceed quite the reverfe of thofe of the Miffionary. But it has been thewn (Obf. II), that, if fome of the feries of the hexagrams agree in two original fchemes, the whole of them would agree; and yet, in our cafe, they do not. Therefore Dr. Hager's fcheme is not an original one, but only a copy of that of the Millionary difguised as above defcribed, and ouly BY ARTFUL

TRANSPOSITION MOST WRETCHEDLY DIS

FIGURED.

VI. Should the above proof not be admitted without fome helitation, the following obfervations will finally perfuade the attentive and candid reader.

The Arabic figures, and confequently the feries of the octagons in the Miffionary, proceed all regularly from right to left in the right column, and from left to right in the left column (fuch muft be the Chinese method in iimilar fchemes, fince we cannot doubt

[the Mifiionary

while in Dr. Hager, although the fo

ries of each octagon taken separately (the twenty-three blunders and the two inversions previously corrected) correfpond exactly with those of the Mi fionary; yet, as they ftand arranged in

his scheme, if the feries of the hexagrams were fhewn by Arabic figures, they would proceed partly from right

to left, and partly from left to right, in the fame column, thus:

4005

50 04