Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile, Volume 2 (of 5): In the years 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772 and 1773Bruce, James
History
Travels to Discover the Source of the Nile, Volume 2 (of 5): In the years 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772 and 1773
Bruce, James
Egypt -- Description and travel; Ethiopia -- Description and travel; Ethiopia -- History; Natural history -- Ethiopia; Nile River
The Franciscan friars, authors of the murder of M. du Roule, enemies to
the mission, as being the work of the Jesuits; M. Piques, member of the
Sorbonne, a body never much distinguished for promoting discoveries,
or encouraging liberal and free inquiry; Abbé Renaudot, M. le Grande,
and some ancient linguists, who, with great difficulty, by the industry
of M. Ludolf, had attained to a very superficial knowledge of the
Abyssinian tongue, all fell furiously upon Poncet’s narrative of his
journey. One found fault with the account he gave of the religion of
the country, because it was not so conformable to the rites of the
church of Rome, as they had from their own imagination and prejudice,
and for their own ends conceived it to be. Others attacked the truth
of the travels, from improbabilities found, or supposed to be found,
in the description of the countries through which he had passed; while
others discovered the forgery of his letters, by faults found in the
orthography of that language, not one book of which, at that day, they
had ever seen.
All these empty criticisms have been kept alive by the merit of the
book, by this alone they have any further chance of reaching posterity;
while, by all candid readers, this itinerary, short and incomplete as
it is, will not fail to be received as a valuable acquisition to the
geography of these unknown countries of which it treats.
I think it but a piece of duty to the memory of a fellow-traveller, to
the lovers of truth and the public in general, to state the principal
objections upon which this outcry against Poncet was raised; that, by
the answers they admit of, the world may judge whether they are or are
not founded in candour, and that before they are utterly swallowed up
in oblivion.
The first is, that of the learned Renaudot, who says he does not
conceive how an Ethiopian could be called by the name of Murat. To
this I answer, Poncet, de Maillet, and the Turkish Basha, say Murat
was an Armenian, a hundred times over; but M. Renaudot, upon his own
authority, makes him an Ethiopian, and then lays the blame upon others,
who are not so ignorant as himself.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account