During his eventful career in India, lasting from 1799 to 1823, Colonel James Tod collected a large number of manuscripts in Sanskrit, Prakrit, Hindi, and Gujarati. Of these the most valuable were the many historical writings— regular narratives in both prose and verse, panegyrical compositions, pedigrees, and other miscellanea—from which he derived most of the information embodied in his great work, the Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan. Most of them are in Hindi; a very few are in Sanskrit. Another group, which is not much less important, consists of metrical tales in old Hindi and Gujarati dialects, chiefly illustrative of Jain doctrine, together with some prose stories. There are also other Jain writings, viz. a few scriptures in Prakrit, commentaries upon them in Sanskrit and vernaculars, hagiological poems in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and vernaculars, and various doctrinal works. Finally there are many works representing various phases of Indian culture, e.g. Sanskrit classics and books on grammar, lexicography, astronomy, and astrology, vernacular writings on divination and farriery, etc. These manuscripts passed into the possession of the Royal Asiatic Society as a legacy from Colonel Tod, who for several years acted as the Society's librarian, and form the basis of the collection described in the following Catalogue.

All over the Orient dreams have ever been regarded as divine revelations, and the interpretation of them has developed into a distinguished branch of study. Islām, too, has ever attributed a great importance to dreams, especially under Jewish and Stoic influences. Muḥammad's revelation started with visions while he was asleep, and Qur'ān and Ḥadīth contain plenty of allusions to the significance of dreams. Small wonder that the interpretation of dreams ('ilm at-ta'bīr or 'ilm at-ta'wīl) has developed into an important branch of Muslim science, one of the natural sciences together with medicine, physiognomy, alchemy, and astrology, as also with the Greeks. The interpreters of dreams occupied a high rank in society and were reputed to rank with the prophets, whose miraculous qualities they were believed to possess.

Perhaps one of Muḥammad 'Alī's most remarkable achievements was the new direction he gave to the Arabic language and its literature. Until the beginning of the nineteenth century the use of the literary language had been confined to the needs of the mosque and the madrasahs attached thereto and, in a very limited way, to the antiquated scientific pursuits of a few of the 'ulamā' of al-Azhar. The literary language was also used for a certain amount of the popular literature and by the poets. Persian was read by a few, especially those interested in literature. Most educated Turks knew the “three languages”, al-lughāt ath-thalāth as they were called, i.e. Arabic, Turkish, and Persian. The Turk appears to have used Arabic for his faith, Persian for his literary taste, and Turkish for governing. Turkish was used for official purposes and there is ample. evidence in al-Jabartī that there were many in Egypt who knew Turkish, but it was not until the period of Muḥammad 'Alī that Egypt became Ottomanized in spite of the fact that it had been a part of the Turkish Empire for three centuries. One might have supposed that the sudden intensive use of the Turkish language would have ousted Arabic altogether and, normally, this would have occurred but for the scientific needs of the new ruler. Whereas the Turks favoured the purely military achievements of MuḤammad 'Alī, they had very little inclination and no patience for supplying the scientific requirements of a modern army.

In April, 1939, Professor E. H. Johnston published an article in this Journal in which he argued that there never was a Demetrias in Sind, and it is advisable to see what his evidence comes to. The new critical edition of the Mahābhārata which he cites shows that the name Dattāmitra in the epic is not that of the Yavana king, and it seems to follow that the existence of this Demetrias is no longer the certainty which historians have for some time taken it to be. But it is a long step from this to an assertion that Demetrias never existed; between absolute positive and absolute negative in history there often lie various degrees of probability, and in this case they require to be examined.

A Few lines of introduction to the following paper seem advisable before presenting to readers of the Journal a summary of an essay by that ultra-modern Chinese scholar, Mr. Kuo Mo-jo. On the other hand it may be that the limited but steadily growing body of students of Chinese art and archæology in America and Europe will, so to speak, sniff at any “introduction” to Mr. Kuo. However, let it go. In brief the author is deeply versed in the history no less than the writing of ancient China, equally so as these are disclosed on the multitudinous bronze vessels, and on those fragmentary entries on the broken pieces of bone and tortoiseshell which are known as the “oracular sentences”, or pu tz'ῠ by the Chinese epigraphists. Nor is Mr. Kuo unacquainted with (nor, I think, uninfluenced by) Western literature on the subjects relevant to his own researches, as I infer from the several German authors whom he mentions by name.

At the beginning of this century shadow plays were sometimes performed in Egypt, but not very often. They had latterly become chiefly an entertainment for the lower classes, and because of the drastic comedy of these plays the Government took steps to suppress them. But we know that these shadow plays had a long history in Egypt, and have been performed also for the higher and highest classes. It is reported,1 for instance, that the well-known Sultan Saladin (died 1193) with his Wazir al-Qāḍī al-Fāḍil, was present at the performance of those plays; that the Turkish Sultan Selīm I, who in 1517 conquered Egypt, amused himself by seeing a performance of the shadow play. In recent times, the Khedive Taufīq Pasha (1879–1892) liked to see such representations. I myself possess some shadow play figures especially made for performances before him.

The question of aparmānd once more becomes actual with the publication of Professor Herzfeld's Altpersische Inschriften. In that work, p. 247, the author suggests the meaning “Pflicht” or “Privileg” for ZāmN, § 41, differing but slightly from Bartholomae in meaning, but rejecting the latter's etymology apar + mānd, “something left over” in favour of a derivation from an (unattested) OP. loanword *mandā-, “*Dienstpflicht” which he would read in Beh., § 40, in the place of yadā-. The continued existence of this *mandā- must therefore largely depend on the correctness or otherwise of Herzfeld's interpretation of MP. aparmānd. A detailed examination of the evidence would therefore not be out of place.

I am grateful to the Society for letting me see the above paper before publication and giving me space for a few comments. Circumstances at the moment debar me from access to libraries; and, as it is also hard to answer briefly arguments depending on assumptions which appear to me unwarranted by the available evidence, this note may be found incomplete.