contemporary and admirer of Chaucer?

I hope I shall not be deemed presumptuous if I add that I should have
doubted of the _genuineness_ of the poem quoted from, if Sir Harris
Nicolas had not stated that it had been communicated to him by "Thomas
Wright, Esq., who received it from M. Paulin Paris," gentlemen in every
way qualified to decide on this point, and being sanctioned by them, I
have no wish to appeal from their judgment.

J.M.B.


_The Coptic Language._--I read in _The Times_ of this morning the
following:

"The Coptic is an uncultivated and formal tongue, with
monosyllabic roots and _rude inflexions, totally different_ from
the neighbouring languages of Syria and Arabia, _totally
opposite_ to the copious and polished Sanscrit."

Do you think it worth while to try if some Coptic scholar among your
learned correspondents can give us some clearer account of the real
position of that tongue, historically so interesting? {377} The point is
this, Is it _inflected_, or, does it employ _affixes_, or is it
absolutely without inflections and affixes?

If the first, it cannot be "totally opposite" to the Sanscrit: if the
second, it cannot be "totally different" from Syriac and Arabic: if the
third, it cannot have "rude inflections."