The history of the ceramic art of ancient Susa is as interesting as its political history. The earliest history of Susa is shrouded in legends. No authentic theory has been advanced by savants up to date as to the earliest inhabitants of Susa. The Susians or the Elamites, as they are generally called, are mentioned by Greek poets as the Ethiopians of Asia. M. Dieulafoy believes them to be negroids, which term is very vague and hypothetical. It is not proper to discuss the origin of the early Elamites in this paper. I shall pass over this question with the remark that they were most probably rather the natives of the soil than foreigners settled in Elam. At any rate from the results of excavations that are carried on in Susa every year from the time of M. Dieulafoy and M. de Morgan up to date we know that they were greatly advanced in civilization. They must have carried on commerce with neighbouring countries, as is proved by beads of lapis lazuli and of clay glazed like turquoise used in necklaces.

The period 1914–1919, though one of relative quiescence, marks a turning-point in the development of modern Arabic literature, but, in spite of the coincidence of dates, the European war was not responsible, either directly or indirectly, for initiating the change. The new element by which the change was brought about was the rise of a distinctive Egyptian school of writers, which, from small beginnings in the years immediately preceding the war, gathered strength in the interval, and emerged into sudden prominence on the resumption of literary activities. To understand the significance of this movement we must look back for a moment at the situation as it was about 1912. At that time, as has been seen, there was a sharp opposition between two contrasting schools of thought in Arabic letters; on the one hand were the modernists, almost all Syrians, and Christian Syrians at that, headed by the new Syro-American school; on the other were the classicists, who still clung to the medieval Islamic tradition, and who were dominant in Egypt and in Muslim Syria. Between the two extremes were varying intermediate grades, including several writers who individually exercised considerable influence, but did not form a body sufficiently united in method or aim to counterbalance either of the opposing schools.

In his article, “ The Manuscripts Collected by William Marsden, with special reference to two copies of Almeida's History of Ethiopia,”1 Sir Denison Ross gives a description of MS. 11966, formerly in King's College, now in the School of Oriental Studies. The bulky volume contains four different works:—

1. The final version of Fr. Manoel d'Almeida's History of Ethiopia.

2. Appendix I, containing a refutation of the chief errors in Urreta's “ Historia ecclesiastica de la Ethiopia ”, Valencia, 1610.

3. Appendix II, containing another refutation by the Patriarch D. Affonso Mendez S.J., under the title: “ Informação em que se mostra, em que tempo se pregou o evangelho em Thiopia e começou a vida monastica, e quaes forão seus instituidores e pregadores.”

4. Appendix III (f. 80r–94v), a treatise about the means of opening Ethiopia to the Gospel, bearing the title, “ Informação succinta sobre a reducção do Imperio Abexino pera Sua Alteza vêr e seus Ministros.” The last date mentioned in this last third Appendix is 1669. About its author Sir Denison Ross writes: “ The authorship of Appendix III remains a mystery, but it is obviously the work of a man intimately acquainted with Ethiopia and with recent happenings in and around the Red Sea.” 2

Muslim historians have put on record such scanty and insufficient materials for the biographies of painters that any fresh information deserves attention, especially if it is provided by a contemporary of the painters in question. The following extracts from the Ta'rīkh-i- Rashīdī have hitherto escaped notice; the Persian text of this interesting work has not yet been printed, and these passages were not included in the abbreviated translation which Sir E. Denison Ross published in 1895. But he recently drew my attention to them, and kindly placed at my disposal two MSS. of the text in his private possession, and, further, revised and amended my translation; to his erudition are due whatever merits it may possess.

The long dynasty of the Elamite national kings, who ruled over Elam for nearly 1, 500 years, was, after a long and unequal struggle, brought to a close by the Assyrians under Assurbanipal in about 640 B.C. The Assyrian rule in Elam collapsed soon after the death of this conqueror in 625 B.C. The Elamite kingdom was thereupon divided into two different monarchies, Perso-Anzanite and Susiano-Babylonian. After the defeat of the last Babylonian king Nabunaid in 539 B.C., Cyrus the Great, the fourth Perso-Anzanite king, became the founder of the great Achæmenian dynasty. After the death of his son and successor Cambyses and the suppression of the revolt of Gaumata the Magian, Darius the Great, a descendant of the younger branch of the Achæmenides, became the inheritor of the vast empire of Cyrus in 521 B.C. During the early years of his reign he had to subdue many revolts in different provinces of his empire. It seems that the political troubles ended in about 518 B.C., and the great king began the work of rebuilding and embellishing Susa, which he had made the capital of his empire, as well as Persepolis and Hamadan. This work was carried on with great zeal by his son Xerxes, who was a far greater builder than his father. Owing to the free use of huge blocks of stone in the palatial buildings of Persepolis their ruins have for centuries drawn the attention of travellers by their colossal dimensions and gigantic magnificence. But the memories of the palaces of Susa and Hamadan are preserved only in certain allusions in the Bible and in the works of ancient writers. Their traces were nearly wiped out by time, whose ravages the less durable materials, bricks and wood, of which they were constructed, could hardly resist.

A B Abdallh Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Al-Djaihn, the famous tutor, and later vazr, of the Smnid amr, Nasr ibn Ahmad, is one of the most interesting figures in Arabic literature and history. From the scanty information which is to be found in Ibn al-Athr. Yqt, and Mrkhwnd, we can judge that he was an excellent statesman and a good general, whose political and strategic abilities directed the affairs of the Smnids at one of the most critical periods in their history. Nor can it be doubted, from the information supplied by Ibn Hauqal, al-Muqaddas, al-Masd, and the Fihrist, that al-Djaihn was a man of wide learning and a good writer, with an intelligence far above the average of Oriental authors. We know from the Fihrist that he wrote several books on different subjects, but unfortunately all his works are lost.

It has hitherto been supposed that the earliest allusion to ‘Umar Khayyām is that contained in the Chahār Maqāla of Niẓām-i‘ Arūḍī, which was written in A.H. 552, and the second allusion in point of date that contained in the Nuzhat al-Arwāḥ of Muḥammad Shahrazūrī, written about the middle of the seventh century. The latter account was edited, together with a subsidiary Persian version and Russian translation, by Professor Zhukovsky in al-Muzaffariya (St. Petersburg, 1897, pp. 327–31). Now this account of ‘Umar was taken almost verbatim, but with several extensive omissions, from the Ta’rīkh Ḥukamā’ al-Islām of Ẓahir ad-Din al-Bayhaqi, which was composed before A.H. 549, and therefore antedates by some years the noticein the Chahār Maqāla. We are indebted to Professor Weil for the kind loan of the unique manuscript of this work, now in the Berlin University Library (Petermann, ii, 737), from which the following notice has been extracted.

Persia has on many occasions produced remarkable heresiarchs, several of whom have exercised an influence extending far beyond the boundaries of that country. One of the most notable of these heresiarchs is Ḥasan-i-Ṣabbāḥ, the Isma'īlī propagandist and founder and first Grand Master of the Assassins.

Ḥasan-i-Ṣabbāḥ was born at Ray, in Northern Persia; the exact date of his birth is unknown, but, as far as can be gathered, it was in A.D. 1052 or A.D. 1053. Though claiming Ḥimyaritic ancestry, Ḥasan was both by birth and upbringing a Persian, and belonged, during his earlier years, to the Shī'a Sect of the Twelve.

The following is a translation of the preface to the late Professor Zhukovsky's edition of the Persian text of Hujwīrī's Kashf al-Maḥjū b, which was published posthumously in Leningrad in 1926.

Professor Zhukovsky was already at work on this critical edition when Professor R. A. Nicholson brought out his well-known translation (Gibb Memorial Series, vol. xvii, 1911) which was based on the Lahore edition of 1903. This translation was also provided with an admirable introduction, but seeing that it is out of print and that Zhukovsky's work is inaccessible to those who do not know Russian, the editor thinks he will be rendering a service to students of Persian Ṣūfḥsm in publishing an English translation of Zhukovsky's preface. The translation, which has been made by Mr. Sidney Jerrold, contains only the literary portions of the Russian original. A considerable amount of textual criticism and discussion of sources have been omitted as being of no interest to those who have not the text before them.

The importance of dates in Sanskrit literature renders it desirable to examine critically the interesting attempt of Dr. S. K. De to upset the accepted view that the Subhṣitvali of Vallabhadeva, by reason of its reference to Jainollbhadna (i.e. Zain ul-bidn,c. 141767), is not to be dated earlier than the second half of the fifteenth century. The piece of evidence on which Dr. Des theory rests has long been before us in the shape of a reference to verse 726 of the Subhṣitvali in the commentary by Vandyaghaṭya Sarvnanda on the Amarakoa, which, according to a note of the present date given in the comment on verse 21 of the klavarga, was written when the aka year 1081 and the Kali year 4260 had expired.

The little farce entitled Matta-vilāsa derives a peculiar interest from the personality of its author. For Mahendravikrama-varman (or Mahendra-varman, as he is sometimes called for brevity's sake) was a king of the glorious Pallava dynasty, and one of the most brilliant of his great race.

The founders of the Pallava dynasty seem to have been adventurers of Northern origin, who settled in the Dekkan about the beginning of the Christian era. The dissolution of the Sātavāhana or Āndhra empire about the third century gave the family an opportunity to establish themselves as an independent little power, and they rapidly extended their dominions until they ranked among the greatest states of the South, rivalling the mighty neighbouring kingdoms of the Colas, the Ceras, and the Pāṇḍyas. Their chief capital was Kāñcī or Kāñcī-puram, the modern Conjevaram, in which the scene of the present play is laid. To art, literature, and science they extended a generous and cultured patronage, and many of the noblest monuments of architecture and sculpture in Southern India perpetuate the memory of their splendid era.

The Arthaśāstra of Kautilya1 in the chapter of the first book dealing with the measures for safety within the royal harem has the following passage (ed. Jolly and Schmidt, vol. i, p. 25, 13 seq.):–

śukaḥ śārikā bhrngarājo vā sarpaviṣaśankāyāṃ krośati krauñco viṣābhyāśe mādyati glāyati jivajivakaḥ mriyate mattakokilaḥ cakorasyākṣiṇī virajyete ‖

“ The parrot, the maina, and the Malabar bird shriek when suspicious of snake poison; the curlew becomes quite tipsy2 in the neighbourhood of poison; the pheasant swoons; the amorous cuckoo dies; the eyes of the cakora partridge change their natural colour (i.e. become red).” 3

Kāmandaki has, of course, copied this as most other passages of the Kauṭilīya, cf. Nītisāra, vii, ll–13a–b:—

—Northern or Western Panjabi is the dialect spoken to the north and west of Amritsar. It is distinct from Lǎhndī, which used to be called Western Panjabi. Southern or Eastern Panjabi is spoken south and east of Amritsar.

† is prefixed to a word to show that it has another form which does not illustrate the rule under consideration.

The only definite statements as to the authorship of the play occur in the commentaries in two different MSS., and are conflicting; one mentions Bodhayana as the author, while the other mentions the name of Indracarumani. There were several Bdhyanas, two of whom were poets and it is not easy to decide to whom the first of the above statements refers. Several plausible guesses have been made, based on evidence other than the statements in the two commentaries. It has been pointed out that the Bhagavadajjukam, in common with the plays of Bhsa, lacks all reference to the author in the text, begins with a Sthpan instead of the usual Prastavana, and bear some resemblances to them in style and diction. On the other hand, it has been shown that the play shows similarities to the Mttavilasa of Mahendra-vikrama Varman. Both plays ridicule Buddhist doctrines and extol Hindu Dharma. This argument gains strength from the fact that in the stone mscription at Mmundr, which has been proved to be that of Mhendra-vikrama, Bhagavadajjukam and Mattavilasa are mentioned in company. Similarities in diction have also been traced between the two. It will therefore be seen that the authorship of the play is still uncertain, and will continue to engage the attention of scholars for some time to come.

Literary languages of Western Europe are national languages as well; there is no divorce between them and the people; there may be a distance, but no gap between them and the ordinary vernaculars, and their growth and vicissitudes reflect those of the vernaculars. So the historians of the language are able to discover when, where, how they came into existence, and call them to give evidence as to its later destinies. For instance, we know the place where French was born, how it asserted itself against Latin, how it turned out provincial speeches; we can make a fairly good evaluation of the distance between written and spoken French, in the past and now. In India conditions are vastly different; our knowledge of its languages, at least in their most ancient stages, is based only, or nearly so, on literary languages, of which we know neither the local basis, nor the degree of connection with the vernaculars. They do not give expression to the thoughts and feelings of the people; at the most, they give an ideal picture of the culture of a small community.

Quand on lit les Upaniṣad, il arrive qu'on soit choqué par de troublantes inconséquences: à côté de développements où les idùes s'enchaînent avec force, on rencontre soudain des phrases incohérentes. II est difficile d'admettre que les anciens sages, capables de méditation prolongée, aient produit des œuvres si embrouillées. Dans certains cas, les scribes sont responsables du mauvais état des textes. Plus souvent, la pensée des vieux auteurs a été faussée sciemment par des compilateurs soucieux d'orthodoxie. Parmi les precédés qui permettent de restaurer le sens primitif, le calcul des proportions est l'un des plus importants. Examinons à cet égard la Chāndogya–Upaniṣad.

Dans les chapitres où la pensée se développe harmonieusement, on observe généralement une certaine symétrie. Par exemple, à, partir de v, 19, les cinq chapitres consécutifs présentent un exact parallélisme. Certains mots varient de l'un à l'autre, mais le raisonnement ne change pas, non plus que le nombre et la distribution des éléments.

The text of the Ngava inscription, alluded to at page 551 of the School of Oriental Studies Bulletin, Vol. IV, Part III, was communicated to Sir George Grierson through the kindness of the late Professor P. G. Gune. It is given below with the kind permission of the former. The inscription is mentioned at page 351 of the Kolb Gazetteer, is dated in the aka year 1289 (A.D. 1367), and was found engraved on the stone steps of Bhimesvara's temple at Ngava, 3 miles south of Alibg in the Kolb District of the Bombay Presidency. It is described in the Gazetteer as a Sanskrit inscription. But after line 4 the language is clearly archaic Marṭh. Professor Gune stated that the rubbing showed that three letters in the first line and one each in the sixth, sixteenth, and seventeenth lines have become entirely defaced.

“Li Shang-Yin (T. I-shan ) A.D. 813–858. A native of Ho-nei in Honan. Graduated as chin shih in 837. Eose to be a Reader in the Han-lin College, and distinguished himself as a poet and a scholar.” (Giles, Biographical Dictionary, 1188.)

“ Li' Shang-yin. A poet and miscellanist.” (Mayers, Chinese Reader's Manual, 364.)

Wang An-shih (Giles, BD., 2134) (A.D. 1021–1086) is reputed to have said that of all the men of the T'ang period the only one capable of fully appreciating the great Tu Fu was this same Li Shang-yin.

Born in A.D. 813, he lived during the reigns of no fewer than six sovereigns of the T'ang Dynasty and died some ten years after the birth of Alfred the Great. According to the T'ang ts'ai tzŭin his early days he called himself Yü-ch'i Tzŭ or Yü-ch'i Shêng . He wrote in a style of his own which later became known as the hsi-k'un style from the fact that Yang I (Giles, BD., 2387) and others of the Sung Dynasty including Liu Yün-shih made a collection of their poems all in the style of Shang-yin and published it under the title Hsi k'un ch'ang ch'ou chi.

This form of the genitive occurs in the Nāgava inscription, set forth at pp. 37–42 of Vol. V, Part I, of the School of Oriental Studies Bulletin. Its origin is discussed at pp. 551–2 of Vol. IV, Part III, of the School Bulletin. On a reference to India, to ascertain whether any other instances of the genitive had been noticed, Mr. B. A. Bhide, writing in No. 2 of the Mahārāṣṭra Sāhitya Patrikā, of June, 1928, quotes verse 364 of the sixteenth chapter of his copy of the Sākhare edition of the Jñāaneśvari as follows:—

In his very interesting article in BSOS., vol. v, pt. i, pp. 27 f. on my suggested date of the Subhāṣitâvali of Vallabhadeva (JRAS., 1927, pp. 471 f.), Professor Keith tries his best to minimize the importance of the passage in Sarvānanda's commentary, which not only makes a reference to the Kāśmīraka Vallabhadeva but actually cites verse No. 726 from his Subhāṣitârali. Professor Keith expresses his belief that the citation is “ merely an interpolation ”; but as this statement probably appeared too sweeping, he hastens to add that it is rather “ an intelligent addition of some scribe ”. This may, indeed, be a facetious way of solving the problem; but the problem does not appear to be so easy, and the question of interpolation is one on which it does not help to be dogmatic in the absence of definite and fairly conclusive evidence.