ANQUETIL DU PERRON (Abraham Hyacinth), brother of the subject of the preceding article, was horn at Paris on the 7th of December 1731. Having distinguished himself as a student at the university of that city, and acquired a considerable knowledge of the Hebrew language, he was invited to Auxerre by Μ. de Caylus, then the bishop of that diocese. This prelate made him study theology, first at the academy of his diocese, and afterwards at that of Amersfort, near Utrecht; but Anquetil had no desire to embrace the ecclesiastical vocation, and devoted himself with ardour to the study of the different dialects of the Hebrew, and of the Arabic and Persian. Neither the solicitations of Μ. de Caylus, nor the hopes of rapid preferment, bad the power to detain him at Amersfort after he thought he had acquired every thing that was to be learnt there. He returned to Paris, where his diligent attendance at the Royal Library; and his ardour in the prosecution of his favourite studies, attracted the attention of the Abbé Sallier, keeper of the manuscripts, who introduced him to the acquaintance of his associates and friends, whose united exertions procured for him a small salary, as student of the oriental languages. He had scarcely received this appointment, when, having accidentally laid his hands on some manuscripts in the Zend, he formed the project of a voyage to India, with the view of discovering the works of Zoroaster. At this period an expedition was preparing at the port of L’Orient, which was destined for India. Μ. du Perron, however, applied in vain, through his protectors, for a passage; and seeing no other means of accomplishing his plan, he enlisted as a common soldier, and set out from Paris, with a knapsack on his back, on the 7th of November 1754. His friends procured his discharge; and the minister, affected by this romantic zeal for science, granted him a free passage, a seat at the captain’s table, and a salary, the amount of which was to be fixed by the governor of the French settlements in India. After a passage of nine months, Anquetil landed, on the 10th of August 1755, at Pondicherry. Here he remained no longer than was necessary to make himself master of the modern Persian, and then hastened to Chandernagore, where he thought to acquire the Sanserit. But in this he was deceived; and he was on the point of returning, when a serious complaint threatened his life. He had scarcely escaped from this danger, when war was declared between France and England; Chandernagore was taken; and Anquetil resolved to return to Pondicherry by land. After a journey of one hundred days, in the course of which he encountered many adventures, and suffered many hardships, he arrived at Pondicherry. Here he found one of his brothers who had arrived from France, and embarked with him for Surat; but, with the view of exploring the country, he landed at Mahe, and proceeded on foot. It was at Surat that he succeeded, by perseverance and address in his intercourse with the native priests, in acquiring a sufficient knowledge of the languages to enable him to translate the Ðietibnary called the Vedidad-Sade, and some other works. From thence he proposed going to Benares, to study the languages, 'antiquities, and sacred laws of [7:3:237]Į the Hindoos; but the capture of Pondicherry obliged him ∣∙to return to France. He accordingly embarked on board ʹ an English vessel, and landed at Portsmouth in the month of November 1761. After spending some time in London, and visiting Oxford, he set out for Paris, where he arrived on the 4th of May 1762, without fortune or the desire of acquiring any, but esteeming himself rich in the possession of one hundred and eighty oriental manuscripts, besides other curiosities. The Abbé Barthelemy, and his other friends, procured for him a pension, with the title and appointments of Interpreter for the oriental languages at the royal library. In 1763 the Academy of the Belles Lettres received him among the number of its associates; and from that period he devoted himself to the arrangement and publication of the materials he had collected during his eastern travels. In 1771 he published a work in three volumes 4to, under the title of Zend-Avesta, containing collections from the sacred writings of the Persians, among which are fragments of works ascribed to Zoroaster; and he accompanied this work with an account of the life of that sage. This publication must be considered as constituting a very important accession to our stores of oriental literature. A recent historian, and very competent judge, refers to the Zend-Avesta, as certainly the most authentic source from which we can derive information regarding the religion and institutions of the great Persian legislator. (Sir John Malcolm’s Hist, of Persia, vol. i. p. 193, note.) To the Zend-Avesta Μ. du Perron prefixed a discourse, in which he treated the university of Oxford, and some of its learned members, with ridicule and disrespect. Mr (afterwards Sir William) Jones replied to these invectives in an anonymous letter, addressed to the author, written in French, with uncommon force and correctness of style, but at the same time with a degree of asperity which could only be justified by the petulance of Μ. du Perron. In 1778 he published his Législation Orientale, in 4to, a work in which he controverts the system of Montesquieu, and endeavours to prove that the nature of oriental despotism has been misrepresented by most authors; that in the empires of Turkey, Persia, and Hindostan, there are codes of written law which equally bind the prince and subject; and that in these three empires the inhabitants possess both movable and immovable property, which they enjoy with perfect security. His Recherches Historiques ct Géographiques sur l’lnde appeared in 1786, and formed part of Thieffenthaler’s Geography of India. They were followed in 1789 by his treatise De la Dignité du Commerce et de l’Etat du Commercant. The Revolution seems to have greatly affected him. During that period he abandoned society, shut himself up in his study, and devoted himself entirely to literary seclusion. In 1798 he published L’ Inde en Rapport avec l’Europe, &c. in 2 vols. 8vo; a work which is more remarkable for its virulent invectives against the English, and for its numerous misrepresentations, than for the information which it contains, or the soundness of the reflections which it conveys. The spirit of the work, indeed, may be ascertained from the summary of its contents stated in the title-page, in which the author professes to give a detailed, accurate, and terrific picture of the English Machiavelism in India; and he addresses his work in a ranting bombastic dedication to the Manes of Dupleix and Labonrdonnais. In 1804 he published a Latin translation from the Persian of the OupneKhat or Upa-ηιsehadα, i. e. Secrets which must not be revealed, in 2 vols. 4to. On the re-organization of the Institute, Μ. Anquetil was elected a member, but soon afterwards gave in his resignation. He died at Paris on the 17th of January 1805. 1 , t . ... . √. . . . , u 7 ..,

Besides the works we have already enumerated,] Μ.

Anquetil read to the academy several memoirs on subjects connected with the history and antiquities of the East, At the time of his death he was engaged in revising a translation of the Travels of Father Paulin de St Barthelemy in India, which work was continued by Μ. Silvestre de Sacy, and published in 1808,'in 3 vols. 8vo. He also left behind him a great number of manuscripts, among which his biographers particularly notice the translation of a Latin treatise on the Church, by Doctor Legros, in 4 vols. 4to.

From the preceding narrative our readers will be enabled to form some notion of the character of Anquetil du Perron. Among his countrymen he is regarded as one of the most learned men of the 18th century. He certainly distinguished himself by a very ardent and disinterested zeal in the prosecution of those studies to which he dedicated the labours of a long life; but the lustre of his literary character was obscured by a very‘absurd vanity, and the most inveterate prejudices. In a Discourse addressed to the Asiatic Society at Calcutta, in 1789, Sir William Jones speaks of him as “having had the merit of undertaking a voyage to India, in his earliest youth, with no other view than to recover the writings of Zeratust (Zoroaster), and who would have acquired a brilliant reputation in France, if he had not sullied it by his immoderate vanity and virulence of temper, which alienated the goodwill even of his own countrymen.” In the same Discourse he affirms that Μ. Anquetil most certainly had no knowledge of the Sanscrit.—See Biographie Universelle; Monthly Review, vol. lxi.; Lord Teignmouth’s Life of Sir William Jones. (κ.)