Contemporary sources furnish fairly ample information on the structure of the Mamluk army and the units from which it was composed; but, though some of their definitions and descriptions come near to the truth, the present writer has found none of them to be completely accurate. He is of the opinion that the treatment of this question by modern Orientalists is also in need of some emendation, and he here submits the composition of the Mamluk army which, in his opinion, is the correct one, and the grounds for his suggestion will be presented in the course of the discussion.

The sources of information from which the present collection of Nabataean inscriptions has been compiled are as follows:—

Site 1. About two miles north of Bīr Abu Darag, beside which is the site of a Roman enclosure:—

Wilkinson MSS. (by courtesy of the Griffith Institute, Oxford, on behalf of the owner, Mrs. Godfrey Mosley, Calke Abbey, Derby); Envel. L, a few pages of roughly pencilled field notes relating to his second 1826 journey, the written-up Journal of which is missing: Nos. 22a, 22b, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34. Pp. 11–14; Pls. I–IV.

In the Manuscript Collection of the Cairo Library (Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriya), there is an unpublished and practically unknown manuscript (Kashf al-Asrār al-'Ilmiya bi Dār aḍ-Ḍarb al-Miṣriya), which contains a treatise dealing with problems of the Egyptian mint. It was composed by Manṣūr ibn Ba'ra a-ahabī al-Kāmilī. Although the manuscript is only a late copy of the original work, it constitutes an important source for the study of the monetary system and minting problems of medieval Egypt.

In my edition of the Mawāqif and Mukhāṭabāt of Muḥammad ibn 'Abd al-Jabbār al-Niffarī (Gibb Memorial Series, 1935) I called attention in several places to statements made by the commentator 'Afīf al-Dīn al-Tilimsānī, and the copyist of the fine Gotha manuscript, that the writings of al-Niffarī as we then possessed them were compiled from the author's scattered notes by his son or grandson, the notes themselves, which were dated, being no longer extant. Among the dates mentioned for these original autograph portions were the years 352, 353, 358, 359, 360, and 361 of the Hijra. I was prepared to accept these statements at their face value, and to use them as confirming the authenticity of the works ascribed to al-Niffarī, and his approximate date as given by the biographers. But it certainly never entered my thoughts that I would one day be handling a part of his writings in his own hand.

The Türk ve Islam Müzesi in Istanbul possesses a hitherto unpublished ewer (Inv. No. 217) signed by a Mawṣilī artist (Pl. I). This is an unpretentious vessel, made of beaten brass and sparingly decorated with inlaid designs. It stands 37 cm. high without the lid (which is a later addition) and measures 20 cm. in its widest diameter.

The term ḥalqa, as a name of a military unit, seems to be mentioned for the first time in 1174, when Tūrānshāh set out, under Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn's orders, on his expedition to the Yemen. This unit is also mentioned a few times during the siege of Acre in 587/1191. The sources do not indicate the date of its founding, and no authoritative explanation of the meaning of its name is available. Two opinions as to the latter may be submitted with all due reservations: Quatremere thinks that the halqa was so called because it was a corps which surrounded the sultan and constituted his bodyguard, and indeed the sources' description of its position and part in combat support the impression that it was composed of the élite of Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn's forces; A. N. Poliak disagrees, and holds that the name is derived from the special tactics the Turkish peoples used to employ in attack, i.e. that of surrounding the enemy in the form of a ring (ḥalqa). Poliak supports his view by alluding to the frequent recurrence of these tactics in the combat manoeuvres described in the furūsīya literature and in the hunting expeditions which the Ayyubid and Mamluk sultans frequently organized. In the present state of our knowledge, both explanations must be viewed as hypothetical, since no data are available to support either the one or the other; the writer inclines to favour Quatremere's view.

In the year 577/1181–2, in a letter to the Caliph in Baghdad explaining his activities in Syria, Saladin writes that he is engaged in a struggle for Islam against a three-fold enemy—the infidel Frankish invader, the heretical and murderous Assassins, and the treacherous Zangid rulers of Mosul, whom he accuses of intelligence and even alliance with both Franks and Assassins.

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.

Arabic manuscript no. 4525 in the Istanbul University Library consists of what appears to be the first part of a history of Safed. The manuscript bears no indication either of the title of the work or of the name of its author. The text begins on the second page; the first contains only a brief quotation on Safed from the Mu‘jam al-buldān of Yāqūt.

The significance of Political Philosophy for the philosophy of Islam and A Judaism in the Middle Ages has been recognized in recent years, and the importance of Plato's Republic and Laws together with Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics for the falāsifa is becoming increasingly evident. Attention has been drawn to Alfārabī's political treatises, to Ibn Bājja, to Averroes' Commentaries on Plato's Republic and on Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, to Ibn al-Ṭiqṭaqa and to Ibn Khaldun. The reception of Platonic and Aristotelian political ideas conditions—in varying degrees—the attitude of the falāsifa to the State as such, to the Muslim State in particular, and therefore to the Sharī‘a of Islam and to Greek philosophy, both practical and theoretical. This is already clear from the writings of Alfārābī, but in his attempt at blending and harmonizing Greek-Hellenistic and Islamic conceptions no Alfarabian philosophy proper with distinct features of a definitive, authoritatively formulated synthesis emerges. It was left to Averroes—to use the name by which Ibn Rushd was generally known to the West—to work out a peculiarly Islamic religious philosophy. He establishes in unequivocal terms the supreme authority of the Sharī‘a and its identity of purpose with falsafa, religious philosophy in the Faṣl al-maqāl, the Manāhij, the Tahāfut al-tahāfut and his Commentary on Plato's Republic. The last named forms the main subject of the present article. In an earlier study it was considered in connexion with his Commentary on Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics already, but not with his other treatises just mentioned. This is, however, necessary in order to gain a correct, balanced view of his philosophy, and especially of his political thought. It is equally important to see his political Commentaries against the background of his active life as qāḍī and of contemporary Muslim history in the Maghreb.

The earliest dated signature of a Mawṣilī artist is incised on a small inlaid brass box belonging to the Benaki Museum, Athens (Case 65, No. 17). This is an oblong miniature piece which measures only 6·3 cm. in length and 3·6 cm. in width. It is 2·3 cm. high and provided with an overlapping, bevelled lid (1·1 cm. high) which is fixed by means of two tiny hinges at the back and with a hasp in front. Its shape strongly resembles that of a snuff box and has no known parallel in Islamic metal work. Despite its exiguous dimensions it is decorated with intricate arabesques and inscriptions. The skilfully worked decor was for the most part filled with fine silver inlay, much of which has survived.

A Cylindrical brass box then belonging to the collection of Mme Delort de Gléon (and now in the Louvre, Inv. No. 7438) was shown at the Exhibition of Muslim Art held in Paris in 1903. It was briefly described in the catalogue and the Arabic inscriptions which decorate it were published by M. Sobernheim. But, to the best of my knowledge, no illustrations of this box have so far been reproduced.

Among the most difficult unsolved problems of Indian history and archaeology are the chronology of the dynasties generally called Śaka and Kuṣāṇa and the dating of the art of Gandhāra. Writing of the former in 1919, Dr. Vincent Smith declared: ‘definite progress towards a conclusive solution of the problem based upon solid facts has been made.… and … the uncertainty as to the chronology has been reduced to a period of forty years in round numbers. Or to state it otherwise, the question is, “Did Kanishka come to the throne in A.D. 78, or about forty years later?”’ But Dr. Smith's optimistic faith in progress has not been realized, and the last thirty years have rather added to our uncertainty than lessened it. Confusion was made worse confused by the many theories, continually revised, of the late Professor Konow, who grappled with the problem until the time of his death, but produced no chronology to obtain general assent. A few years ago Dr. Ghirshman devised a new chronological scheme, which had the advantage of simplicity and was widely accepted, especially on the other side of the Channel; but this has not by any means passed unquestioned, and authorities are now perhaps further from unanimity than ever.

The territory of the present-day Soviet republic of Azarbayjan roughly corresponds to the ancient Caucasian Albania (in Armenian Aḷovan-k', or Aḷvan-k', in Arabic Arrān > al-Rān). Twenty-six languages were spoken in Albania and it had its own kings (Strabo, xi, 4). However, during the seven centuries between Pompey's expedition in 66–5 B.C., to which we owe most of our information on the ancient life of the country, and the Arab invasion in the 7th century A.D., great changes had taken place in the area, under the influence of the Persian expansion up to the Caucasian passes, the Khazar and Alān inroads from the north, and the Armenian cultural activities which resulted in the conversion of the surviving Albanians to the Armenian form of Christianity. The Arab geographers refer to the Arrānian language as still spoken in the neighbourhood of Barda'a (Persian: Pērōz-ābādh, Armenian Partav), but now only the two villages inhabited by the Udi are considered as the direct continuators of the Albanian linguistic tradition.

The odes of Hafiz have been for some 600 years a source of delight to Persians, and an object of their serious study. To Europeans they have been known for less than half that time; yet here too, many scholars and poets have laboured to understand and interpret them. Much remains, no doubt, still to be done; but it is unlikely that anyone will now discover in the poems wholly new ranges of meaning, which have been hidden from generations of scholars among the poet's own countrymen. Any claim to such discovery must necessarily be subjected to the strictest scrutiny.

1. That the fifteen or so Dravidian languages are to be considered a family is perhaps as obvious on first inspection as that the Romance languages are one. Phonetic correspondences, however, have with few exceptions not been worked out with any great clarity and exactness during the years since 1856, when Caldwell first published his comparative grammar of the Dravidian languages. The prime reason for this is, of course, the rarity of scholars who have worked or are working in this field; there can be named fewer than a score who have made first-rate contributions. Even so, the failure of scholars to state phonetic correspondences in definitive forms is surprising, since prima facie the material is easy to deal with and etymologically related groups of words leap to the eye. I need only instance the verb meaning ‘come’ which occurs in all the languages and which I have treated in Lg. 21. 184–213; or the noun meaning ‘worm,’ the forms of which are: Ta. puu ‘worm, maggot,’ Ma. puu ‘worm, caterpillar, maggot, grub, moth, mite,’ Kot. pu ‘worm,’ Tod. puf ‘worm, intestinal worm,’ Ka. puu, pua ‘worm, insect in general, snake,’ Koḍ. puḷu ‘worm,’ Tu. puri ‘worm, mite, moth, skin parasite,’ pura, puru ‘snail,’ Te. purugu, puruvu, pruvvu ‘worm, any insect or reptile,’ Kol. purre ‘worm,’ Go. pŭṛī ‘insect, worm,’ Kui pṛiu, pṛīu, piṛu ‘wingless insect, worm, maggot,’ Kur. pocgō ‘worm, caterpillar, fleshy larva, esp. of beetle,’ Malt, pocru ‘worm,’ Br. pū ‘worm, maggot, caterpillar,’ pul-mak(k)ī ‘tape-worm’ (makī ‘intestinal worm’ < Persian).

Stein MS. Ch. xlvi 0012 c contains part of a Vita of the teacher Prajñāttīrṇa of the city of Humädāṃ. The folio is numbered 3 on the margin.

Recto 1 paysānāma kṣamī vajrracchaidikyi prrajñā-pārme nva carya

2 tsūma ttāra tca'ca hīs|ma dharma-mūkha mūkha niṣkalyāme hīya padaja ‖

3 cu prrajñāttīrṇa āśi'rī mi|styau jāyaryau gaṃbhīra jaryau gaṃbhīra Verso 1 jāyaka brraṣṭe humädāṃ kītha ysāyī hāvä bujse | vīra anihvarrda biśä ysirrnai ba'ysna ba'ysūśtä kṣmä ṣi' mī tvaḍa bistä salī garrvā

2 māṃde | vara na śūjye nva dva mārgaupadeśā parāe' parrīyasta cu

3 biśe caignye jana ve vīra kalyīamittra ya hīya biśā'yūṃ jsa tvā gaṃbhīra jāyaka pacaāana ka ba

1. vajrracchaidikyi ‘Vajracchedikā’ exists in a Khotanese version edited in 1916 by Sten Konow. The sutra is preceded by introductory verses which offer an explanation of the name (2 a 4 ff.).

In this study of the population statistics of Ming China I have relied almost exclusively upon figures from contemporary sources: the Veritable Records (Shih-lu) of the dynasty, the Collected Statutes (Ta-Ming Hui-tien), the Imperial Topography (Ta-Ming Yi-t'ung-chih), the Huang-yü K'ao, and a number of provincial and local gazetteers.

The first question that arises in using such works is that of the reliability of their figures and indeed of Chinese statistics in general. A great deal of scepticism has been, and still is, expressed on this point. To take a single example only: everyone who has researched in this field has experienced over and over again that where a Chinese text gives both a global total and an itemized breakdown of that total, the sum of the separate items usually amounts to something more than (or less than) the global figure, and hardly ever agrees exactly with it. A natural reaction from this unsatisfactory state of affairs is to reject all the figures concerned as unreliable. To do this, however, is tantamount to denying the possibility of quantitative investigation in Chinese economic and institutional history. Before coming to such an extreme conclusion it is at least advisable to see whether the figures are capable of rational emendation, and whether figures so emended will show a higher degree of internal consistency.

A. The Story of Su Wuu and Lii Ling

As is well known, the authorship of the Lii Ling/Su Wuu letters is disputed. Before embarking on the re-examination of this question which is the main purpose of the present paper, I wish to recall the story of Su Wuu and Lii Ling as it can be gathered from the relevant material embedded in Ban Guh's Hann Shu, in order to provide appropriate data for comparison with what is stated or implied in the letters. I limit myself to the Hann Shu in preference to either the Shyyjih or the Chyan Hann Jih because the relevant material in the two latter histories is practically identical with the data given in the Hann Shu, whereas a great deal more of such material given in the Hann Shu has not been included in the other two histories. As regards other sources, it is obvious that for the present purpose I must ignore the body of legends which has grown up around the historical figures of Su Wuu, the fearless and faithful envoy of Hann Wuu-dih to the court of the Shiongnu , and the much lamented, hapless general Lii Ling, ever since their exploits in the ‘Far North’ became known to the empire. Su Wuu, the paragon of loyalty and perseverance, whose survival in the inhospitable clime was even attributed to supernatural interference and whose service was later rewarded with great honour and material wealth, formed a contrast to Lii Ling, who was unfortunate enough to be given an almost impossible task for ‘political’ reasons, and subsequently became a victim of professional jealousy and low treachery.

‘Standard Chinese’ is here offered as a translation of Gwoyeu and is defined, for the purpose of this paper, as ‘polite Peking speech’, i.e. the language spoken by a youngish man, born and brought up in Peking, when he avoids any features which he himself would describe as tuuhuah or local—i.e. Peking—dialect. The grammatical features described are based exclusively on the speech system of Mr. James Liou, and may therefore include personal idiosyncrasies which other Gwoyeu speakers would not recognize as ‘standard’. Mr. Liou was born in Peking in 1927 and lived there until 1950. His family come from a village within 30 miles of Peking, and have lived in the capital for the last three generations. He has not therefore been subject to ‘non-Pekinese’ linguistic influences to any great extent.