The correct Turkish name of the third of the Slave Kings of Delhi, Shams ud-Dīn Iltutmish, so long read as Altmish or Altamsh, has been finally decided as Iltutmish, i.e. one who has seized and holds the country, corresponding more or less to the Persian Jahāngīr. This name was also borne by the Uighur Khan who introduced the Manichæan religion among his people about 760 A.D. (see F. W. K. Müller, Uigurica, ii, p. 95. See also an interesting note by Horovitz, Epigraphia Indo-Moslemica, 1911–12, p. 21). This name occurs on at least one coin in Nagari script, where it seems to read Lititimi (see The Coins of the Sultans of Delhi in the British Museum, 1884, p. 15). This, while disposing of the misreadings Altamsh and Altmish, does not quite suit the reading Iltutmish. The Nagari inscription according to this catalogue reads: Sri Sultā Lititimi, (Samvat) 1283. I have always doubted the correctness of this reading, and recently I asked Mr. Allan, of the British Museum, to look into the matter, and he was good enough to send me the following note: “ I think the form Altamsh owes its origin to a careless reading of a coin like Brit. Mus. Catalogue Sultans of Delhi, pl. ii, No. 37, in which the engraver was a little cramped for space.

(1) Avataṁsaka Sūtra. Nanjio 88. Translated in A.D. 695–9 by Śikshānanda.

“ There is a drug-juice called Hataka. One liang of it will turn a thousand liangs of bronze into pure gold.” Taishō Tripitaka, vol. x, p. 432, col. 2.

(2) Mahāprañāpāramitopadeśa (Chih Tu Lun). Nanjio 1169. Translated by Kumārajīva in A.D. 402–5.

(a) “ By drugs and incantations one can change bronze into gold.” Taishō Trip., vol. xxv, p. 178, col. 1.

(b) “ By skilful use of drugs silver can be changed into gold, and gold into silver.” Ibid., p. 195, col. 3.

(c) “ By spiritual power a man can change pottery or stone into gold.” Ibid., p. 298, col. 2, end.

(d) “ One measure of stone-juice can change a thousand measures of bronze into gold.” Ibid., p. 401, col. 1.

(3) Mahāyāna-samgraha-bhāshya. Nanjio 1171 (4). Translated by Hsüan-tsang, c. 650.

“ They can turn earth into gold or other precious substances just as they please.” Taishō Trip., vol. xxi, p. 358, col. 2.

(4) Abhidharma Mahāvibhāshā. Nanjio 1263. Translated by Hsüantsang, A.D. 656–9.

Al-Kazwīnī, in the Nuzhat, gives sagharjih, , as the “ mongolian ” equivalent of Al-zurzur, the starling: and in the last number of this Bulletin (VI, p. 575), M. Paul Pelliot discusses the Mongolian word. He cites (quoting M. N. N. Poppe) Osm. sqrča, also sīyīrjiq, čuvaš sïngïrč (both ═ “ starling ”), etc., and suggests that Al-Kazwīnī's Mongolian word should read sïyïrča, or siyërja, and be looked on as “ un emprunt au turc ”. To these forms we may add Turki zákarči, which Sir E. Denison Ross mentions in his Polyglot List (Mem. As. Soc. Bengal, 1909, p. 297).

It has sometimes been said that the only correct spelling of the word is Hindostān, and that this is proved by its being made to rhyme with bostān. The fact of its so rhyming can prove only that such a form exists in verse. It does not disprove the correctness of other forms. Some confusion arises from our not knowing exactly which spelling is objected to, whether it is Hindūstān or Hindŭstān or both. There is abundant evidence to show that in Urdū Hindŭstān is well known and correct. The following points should be noted.

(1) The spelling without vāo is both Turkish and Persian. This is not important, for we are concerned with Hindī and Urdū, not with foreign languages. Turkish generally omits the vāo, indeed the word I is usually pronounced hindistān.

The following notice appeared in the Deutsche Wacht, published in Batavia, and has been sent to me by the writer, Herr E. von Zach. Feeling that, in justice to Dr. Edwards, it should be made accessible to readers of the Bulletin, I have translated it from the German and added a few further remarks of my own:—

Arthur Waley, in his Pillow-book of Sei Shōnagon (1928), was the first to draw attention to the Tsa tsuan of Li Shang–yin; and Miss E. D: Edwards afterwards undertook the task of publishing the complete text, with translation, in the above-named periodical (1930, pp. 757–85). Her translation is not wholly irreproachable, and the mistakes are corrected in the article under review. Unfortunately, there are several passages that still remain obscure.