Traditionally, in both East and West, laughter, and in particular its causes, have been studied under the category of humour. However, ideas on and practices of laughter itself have been largely ignored. This paper intends to lead readers beyond the topic of humour and focus on the act of laughter in the Zhuangzi as a starting point for the study of laughter in early China. It examines frequently ignored areas, such as how laughter draws readers into the text; how it functions to exclude people with different social value judgements; how it is used as a tool to challenge political power; how it serves rhetorical functions as a means to construct a conversation among people of different social or political status; and how it is used as an important signal and marker for a change of perspective. By examining questions such as: “What are the types of laughter?”, “What are the functions of laughter?”, and “How does laughter operate in different situations, and between different persons?” we can see a new idea of laughter in the Zhuangzi with multi-layered philosophical significance. Using the Zhuangzi as a case study, we can envision a series of well-crafted, intentional practices of laughter for various purposes throughout early Chinese texts.

Among his many studies of Mawsilī metal work, D.S. Rice focuses on a group of five objects produced by a single workshop, that of Ahmad al-Dhakī al-Mawsilī, between 620/1223 and 640/1242. Among them the Cleveland ewer (620/1223) and the Louvre basin made for the Ayyūbid Sultān al-‘Ādil II (636–8/1238–40). One object, only briefly described by Rice and not studied in detail, for Rice did not have access to it at that time, is the ewer of Ibn Jaldak, the subject of this article. The aim of this paper is to revisit the question of origin of the Mawsilī School of metalwork through the close examination of this single object—the Maxsilī ewer now in the Metropolitan Museum (no. 91.1.586) made by Ibn Jaldak in 623/1226. The ewer represents a turning point in the development of Mawsilī metalwork and a key piece to the puzzle. By tracing its origin the article attempts to shed light on the larger question of the origin of the Mawsilī School and its metalworkers.

The existence at Shīmbār in the Zagros Mountains of ancient sculptures and inscriptions was first reported by A. H. (later Sir Henry) Layard, in his classic study, ‘A description of the province of Khuzistan’. The research of succeeding years has made surprisingly few additions to this account of the archaeological sites of the province, which though nowadays less well known than some of Layard's other archaeological work, is none the less remarkably careful and complete. In a travel narrative published many years later, his Early adventures in Persia, Susiana and Babylonia, Layard gives another short account of his journey to Shīmbār, which helps to fill in the details of his visit. Shīmbār is an enclosed valley with high mountain walls, situated about 35 miles north-east of the oilfields centre of Masjid-i Sulaimān, in the province of Khuzistan. The name is said by the Bakhtiāri to be the equivalent in their Luri dialect of the Persian Shῑrῑn Bahār ‘Sweet Spring’. The valley is celebrated amongst the tribes as a resting-place on their spring migration to the upland pastures. Its regular inhabitants are mostly members of the Mauri clan.

Fundamental concepts are often the more difficult to define because of their ubiquitous employment, and though the majority of people are content to do without a definition the lack of one stands as a perpetual challenge to human intelligence. Property is just such a concept, standing upon the frontiers of linguistics, law, and logic without deriving final shape from any of them. Since no legal transaction or dealing could take place without it, and since innumerable events familiar to daily life depend upon it for their effectiveness, it seems strange that it is so little understood.

This paper is intended first as a tribute to my teacher, and second as a small contribution to the perennial discussion of the place or extent of the tragic in Chinese literature. I shall plead limited space as excuse for refraining from philosophical discussion, definition, or comparison with Classical Greek or Shakespearean manifestations of the tragic. My suggestion will be simply that P'i-p'a chi ‘Lute song’ (hereafter ‘Lute’) may be added to Kuan Han-ch'ing's Ton O yuan and the ‘Red chamber dream ‘on that select list of Chinese works which in the conflicts they present and the resolutions they propose tend towards the tragic.

In 1947 a draft Code of Personal Law was approved by the Committee for Judicial Affairs of the 'Irāqī Chamber of Deputies. In spite, however, of the recommendation of this Committee that it should be enacted by Parliament and promulgated as law, the Code was then shelved—chiefly, no doubt, because of a change of Government and the election of a new Parliament, but partly also on account of the opposition of the more conservative elements in the country, both Sunnī and Ja'farī. With regard to the latter, I was given a copy of a letter addressed in 1948 by the President of the Ja'farī Division of the Court of Cassation to the then Minister of Justice calling attention to certain major objections to the draft Code and adding, ominously, that ‘the Ja'farī Court of Cassation cannot in future apply these provisions, so long as they do not conform to the correct precepts of the arī'a’; while the points most likely to have aroused the opposition of Ḥanafī purists are not hard to guess. There can be no doubt, however, that the real reasons for opposition to the Code are more fundamental than any of these detailed criticisms. The basic objection of the Sunnī conservatives almost certainly lies in their apprehension that once so many of the provisions of the arī'a have been codified the unification of the courts in 'Iraq will be yet further advanced, since any competent civil judge will be able to administer this Code, and even to dispense, in most cases, with expert opinion: so both the prestige and income of the ‘ulamā’, who alone have been trained to refer to the ancient texts, will inevitably decrease. And the still more vehement opposition of the Ja'farīs can be traced to the fact that they regard the Code as a direct infringement upon the prerogatives of those mujtahids whom their school still recognizes, and to whose decision the courts—and, still more, the public —regularly refer not only points of dispute in general but several of the matters covered by this Code in particular. But the Code has recently again been debated in Parliament, and once more referred to a Judicial Committee for further study and reflection: so this may be an appropriate opportunity to examine its scope and contents.

A few years ago the author's attention was drawn to a signed and dated quadrant which is in a private collection in California. Since the writer cannot claim to know much (let alone to understand the working) of astronomical instruments, it seemed logical to look around and offer its publication to an expert. Unfortunately, no one has so far expressed any enthusiasm or interest. But the quadrant bears the signature of a well-known astrolabist and is dated; its publication, therefore, seems desirable.

In the first part of this article we have discussed seven different -*- eras or (to be strictly correct) different kinds of time-reckoning with or without a common era. We are now going to deal with the fourteen remaining sections of our list. But before proceeding to the discussion of the next number, I want to insert here a small note relating to No. 3, i.e. the Kharājī era in Egypt, as a complement to what has already been said in the preceding number of this Bulletin (BSOS., pp. 914–15).

Professor A. S. Tritton called my attention to a few Kharājī dates occurring in an Arabic manuscript in the British Museum (Or. 1338). On examining these dates, which belong to the fifth and early sixth centuries A.H., I find some interesting points which supplement our knowledge about that era as used in that country in the time of the Fāṭimid caliphs. This anonymous book is a history of the Monophysite patriarchs of Alexandria, from St. Mark to Matthew the 87th patriarch who died 31st December, 1408, and it must have been composed by an unknown author soon after the latter date.Some of the Kh. dates in this book are given with their corresponding dates of the Diocletian era (era of the Martyrs). These are as follows:—

Moreover, the date of the death of the Fāṭimid Caliph al-Musta‘lī, which happened in the month of Ṣafar, A.H. 495 (Hilālī) = December, A.D. 1101, is given as 491 Kh. (fol. 284b).

WÖrter vom Stamme kommen mehreremal im Ḳurān vor. So 20, 56: Speiset und weidet euer Vieh. 28, 23: die Hirten. Die Weide heisst: 79, 31.87, 4. Im Sinne von “ hüten, beobachten” 23, 8.70, 32: und die ihre Verpflichtung einhalten, beobachten. 57, 27: aber (das Wohlgefallen Gottes) beachten sie (die Christen) nicht der richtigen Beachtung gemäss. In 2, 98 wird denjenigen, verboten zu sprechen, dafür sollen sie schaue auf uns, beachte uns, behüte uns gebrauchen. In 4, 48 wiederum wird denen der Vorwurf gemacht, dass sie zu sprechen pflegten; besser wäre für sie (v. 49), wenn sie statt dessen sagen würden. Da die beiden verschiedenen Wörter verwandte Bedeutung haben, in fast synonymem Sinne gebraucht werden können, so ist nicht einzusehen, weshalb Muḥammad den einen Ausdruck zu verwenden befahl, den anderen hingegen, der ihm offenbar missfiel, zu verwenden verbot.