The Shadharátu'l-Dhahab fi akhbári man dhahab, briefly described in the J.R.A.S. for 1899, p. 911 seq., is a biographical dictionary of persons who died between the years 1 and 1000 A.H., of which, besides the MS. in my possession, the only copy known to me is one belonging to the Khedivial Library in Cairo (Catalogue, vol. v, p. 72). Some idea of its extent may be gathered from the fact that the articles printed below form approximately a 200th part of the whole work. It is unquestionably a compilation of great value, the author, Abu'l-Faláḥ ‘Abdu’l-Ḥayy, having derived his material from many excellent sources which are not easily accessible to the modern Orientalist. When I first described the MS., I hoped that it might be possible to publish one or two of the longer articles by way of specimen. The names of ‘Umar Ibnu’l-Fáriḍ and Muḥiyyu'ddín Ibnu'l-'Arabí, whose lives I have selected for this purpose, are too celebrated to require any further introduction.

It is perhaps difficult to exaggerate the importance from the point of view of the literary history of India of the Bṛhaddevatā attributed to Śaunaka. That this has not hitherto received full recognition is due in part to the fact that it has been held, for example even by Dr. E. Sieg, that the Bṛhaddevatā is later in date than the Mahābhārata. This is, however, certainly not the case, as Professor A. A. Macdonell has shown conclusively in his edition of the former work. About 300 ślokas of the work are devoted to legends, and this must, it seems, be regarded as a conclusive proof that at the date of its composition there existed in Sanskrit an ākhyāna or itihāsa literature. Now the date of the Bṛhaddevatā is fixed by Professor Macdonell, on grounds which appear to me unassailable, at about 400 b.c., perhaps earlier. It follows, therefore, that a Sanskrit itihāsa literature can be proved to have existed in the fifth century b.c.

Some three years ago, I published a note on the above mentioned subject. Since then, I have been able to collect such additional material as to afford conclusive proof of what at first could only be advanced as a hypothesis. In laying my conclusions before the readers of this Journal, I may be excused for first summarizing the contents of my previous paper, which appeared in a publication and in a language accessible only to a limited number of students.

On Suśruta's great textbook on General Medicine (Āyurveda Saṁhitā) we possess at present only one complete commentary. This is Ḍallana's Nibandha Saṁgraha. It was printed by Jīvānanda Vidyāsāgara in Calcutta in 1891, and in the following pages the references are to that edition. Ḍallana's date is somewhere between 1060 and 1260 a.d. The earlier year, as Dr. Cordier has pointed out (Journal Asiatique, 1901, Note Bibliogṛaphique, p. 10), is the date of Cakrapāṇidatta, whom Ḍallana quotes (p. 1245), while he himself is cited by Hemādri at the latter date. Cakrapāṇidatta is known to have written a commentary on Suśruta's textbook, which bears the name of Bhānumatī; but only a small portion of it has survived, viz. that on the first Section, or Sūtra Sthāna. There is a manuscript of this Section in the India Office Library, No. 908 (Cat., No. 2647, p. 928). Nearly the whole of it, also, has been printed in Calcutta by Kavirāj Gangā Prasāda Sen in his edition of “ Suśruta's Saṁhitā with Commentaries ” (cited hereafter).

The nucleus of the present article was meant in the first instance to be added as a note to a chronological list of definitions of the terms ‘Ṣúfí’ and ‘Taṣawwuf’ chiefly compiled from the Risála of Qushayrí (Cairo, 1287 a.h.), the Tadhkiratu'l-Awliyá of Farídu'ddín ‘Aṭṭár (cited as T.A.), and the Nafaḥátu'l-Uns of Jámí (Calcutta, 1859). These works contain about a hundred definitions of ‘Ṣúfí’ and ‘Taṣawwuf,’ none of which exceeds a few lines in length. I thought that it might be interesting, and possibly instructive, to arrange the most important in their chronological sequence, so far as that can be determined, since only in this way are they capable of throwing any light upon the historical development of Ṣúfiism. The result, however, was somewhat meagre. Taken as a whole, those brief sentences which often represent merely a single aspect of the thing defined, a characteristic point of view, or perhaps a momentarily dominant mood, do undoubtedly exhibit the gradual progress of mystical thought in Islam from the beginning of the third to the end of the fourth century after the Hijra, but the evidence which they supply is limited to a vague outline. Accordingly, I resolved to undertake a chronological examination of the doctrine taught by the authors of these definitions and by other distinguished Ṣúfís, and I have here set down the conclusions to which I have come. I do not claim to have exhausted all the available material.

Do the Chinese pilgrims know two cities named Kapilavastu?

Certain discords and bearings in the itineraries of the pilgrims are discussed in the Prefatory Note to Antiquities in the Tarai, Nepal, and from them it is inferred there were two cities named Kapilavastu; one the city visited by Fa-hsien, now represented by the ruins at Piprāhavā; the other that described by Yuan Chwang, of which the “royal precincts” are found in Tilaurā Koṭ, some ten miles to the north-west of Piprāhavā. Paltā Devī is held to mark the site of the town either of the Buddha Krakucandra or of the Buddha Koṇāgamana; or Sisaniā Pānḍe may represent the town of Koṇāgamana. Guṭihavā is believed to represent the site of the famous Nyagrodha grove.

After, Abú Naṣr-i-Fársí had incurred the displeasure of Sulṭán Mas‘úd, his protégés were also arrested, dismissed or cast into prison, and amongst them Mas‘úd-i- Sa‘d-i-Salmán, who was interned in the Castle of Maranj, where he remained a long time in confinement. During this period also he composed in praise of Sulṭán Mas‘úd and his advisers and courtiers poems so touching and full of pathos that, in the words of Niámí-i-‘Arúḍí of Samarqand, to read them “causes the hair to stand on end and tears to well from the eyes.” Yet these availed him nothing, until, after eight years, according to the most probable conjecture, the efforts of Thiqatu’l-Mulk Ṭáhir b. ‘Alí effected his release. I shall now cite verses in proof of the facts summarised above.

I sacrifice to the Water Ardvīsūr, the clear (or pure); [its (i.e. her) pureness is this, that in consequence of her purity her place is on the star track], (2) the full forth-flowing (one), [that is to say, she penetrates to every single place], the healing (one), [that is to say, she thoroughly heals a case (literally ‘a matter’)], the Demonsevered (one), [that is to say, in no connection with her are the Demons], the one of Aūharmazd's Lore, [that is to say, her religious Lore (her Dēnā) is that of Aūharmazd (and not that of the Devas, meaning that her sanctity stands in connection with the Dēn of Ahura)],

The late Mr. Edward Thomas made an examination of the revenues of the Moghal Empire, and, among other things, gave tables for Aurangzeb's revenues for the years 1654–5, 1663–4 (?), 1697, and 1707. But he omitted to notice the statistics given in the Mirātu-l-‘Aālam, and which relate, apparently, to the year 1078 a.h. or 1668 a.d. They are very full, and appear to have been carefully compiled. The author, whether he was Batāwar ān or, as is more likely, Muhammad Baqā, was in Aurangzeb's service and had good opportunities of acquiring information. The paragraphs have been translated by Sir Henry Elliot, and appear in his History, vol. vii, pp. 162 et seq., but his manuscript was probably not perfect, and the translation is not quite correct. Lately I have been reading the paragraphs in the copy of the Mirāt belonging to our Society and described by Mr. Morley, and I have also consulted the MSS. in the British Museum. The account begins in what the writer calls the Third Numāyi of the Seventh Ārāyish, and at p. 252b of the R.A.S. copy. First, the length and breadth of the empire are given both in royal (bādāhī) kos and in ordinary (rasmī) kos, that is, kos commonly used in most parts of India; the writer stating that the royal kos is one of 5,000 cubits (ẕarā’) of the dimension of 42 finger-breadths, and that 2 such kos are equal to 3½ ordinary kos.

The history of the sixth century in Northern India is extremely difficult. As the Gupta empire fell to pieces petty states arose, of which but scanty records are available in the few inscriptions so far discovered. A recent find of coins seems to throw fresh light on the period, and in particular to afford material for fixing dates more exactly than has been possible hitherto.

The Karma doctrine in its Brahmanistic form teaches that every individual in successive existences reaps the fruit of ignorance and desire as these were expressed in action performed in antecedent existences. As a man himself sows, so he himself reaps; no man inherits the good or evil act of another man: nā ’yam parasya sukṛtaṁ duṣkṛtaṁ.cā ’pisevate (Mbh. xii, 291, 22). The fruit is of the same quality with the action, and good or bad there is no destruction of the action:. na tu nāśoya vidyate. The result is exactly as when just retribution follows a wrong; there can be no cessation till the account is squared: ubhayaṁ tat samībhūtam. Whether “with eye or thought or voice or deed, whatever kind of act one performs, one receives that kind of act in return”: kurute (v.l. karoti) yādṛsaṁ karma tādṛśam pratipadyate (ib. 16, 22; cf. 139, 24).

To that Beneficial Farming result (literally ‘to that cattle-culture profit’), (and) to the Praise (i.e. to the Celebrated Service), do I devote my desire (i.e. do I turn my prayers). Which is (i.e. the above means): toward the Praise of the good seed (having the prospect of future beneficial results in cattle-breeding and harvest in view, do I turn my prayers). [It is (above all and as including the above) quite necessary to turn (our desiring prayers) toward the Dēn (possibly meaning ‘in accordance with the Dēn’), and toward the profitable (result). From that on they should make it their own (or meaning ‘do it (?) of themselves’)], (2) [even toward it (the beneficial result; see above), let us devote our desiring prayers] with the concurrence of Aši (as the Consideration of Recompense, and as the representation of wealth for the reward) [of themselves it is necessary so to act (or ‘it is necessary to make that their own’), when they would accomplish the Priestly course of Studies prescribed by Aši (as the Venerating Recognition of the Recompense); also to it, the Profit and the Service, they should offer their desiring prayers] with the concurrence of Perfect Thinking (i.e. with Perfect Reflection and Investigation the above indicated course of action is to be pursued) [when (meaning ‘in case that’) they should completely carry out a course of Priestly Studies (in reference to the duties of the Sanctuary, and to Agriculture as sanctified by the Religion of the State)].

The opinion that a Bābar-nāma exists in Bukhārā rests upon inference and rumour only. It is on record that a copy of the book was made in Bukhārā in 1709 (p. 81), and that in 1824 this copy belonged to a Bukhāriot merchant, named Naẓar Bāy Turkistānī.

In the Journal for October, 1899, there was published a hand-list of the Arabic, Hebrew, and Syriac manuscripts in Dr. Hunter's collection. The following pages contain a list of the Persian and Turkish manuscripts. The late Mr. E. J. W. Gibb visited the library and examined the Turkish manuscripts, leaving in each of them, with the exception of one or two which escaped notice at the time, a slip, with his initials, describing its contents. These slips have been copied down here verbatim, and one or two remarks have been added. A detailed catalogue of the whole of the European manuscripts by the Rev. Patrick H. Aitken, B.D., is now in the press, and will be published by the Messrs. MacLehose in due course. I have to thank Professor Browne for kindly reading the proof of this paper.

The Arabic MS. Add. 7,320, Cat. cccvii, is unidentified. It is a historical fragment beginning with the necrology of the year 58 A.H., and extending to the succession of Ma'mūn in 198 A.H. It contains 162 folios of 23 lines to the page: there is an omission at fol. 49a, 1. 10, where the narrative passes suddenly from the notice of Anas b. Mālik, under 92 A.H., to the killing of the poet Waḍḍāḥ al-Yaman by Walīd (as told in the Kitāb al-Aāni, vi, 39, 1. 9, a.f.), and at fol. 101 comes a gap of 23 years, the text breaking off in the midst of the obituary notice of the Caliph Saffāḥ, and resuming on fol. 102 in that of the poet Ḥammād al-Rāwiya, in a story on him by al-Dāraquṭni (Brockelmann, i, 165) quoted from his Kitāb al - Taṣḥīḥ (Ḥ. Kh., No. 9,975). Thence the text proceeds uninterruptedly to the point where it breaks off early in the year 198 A.H.

Durgā is a mighty Paurāṇic goddess; and of all the forms of Śiva's wife or Śakti she is the most popular and greatly honoured in the province of Bengal. It is in the province of Bengal only that her Pūjā (worship) is celebrated with great pomp and idol-exhibition. By ‘Pūjā’ the Anglo-Indian means now the Durgā-Pūjā festival of Bengal, during which all Government offices remain closed for one month. A new clay image of the goddess is made for the occasion, and it is enthroned on the sixth day of the light fortnight of the month Āśvina. She is worshipped during the three days next following, and is then immersed in water on the Daśamī day. These are all very widely known facts, but I mention them with a distinct purpose in view, as will be shown later on.

Yuan chwang describes a country which he calls Mo-la-p'o, immediately after his account of the kingdom of Broach in the modern Bombay Presidency. Up to lately, this name has (with some hesitation) been considered as equivalent to Mālava, the modern Mālwā. Mr. Vincent Smith, on pp. 279, 280 of his Early History of India, and at greater length in vol. lviii of the Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, has attacked this interpretation, and, with a confidence somewhat strongly contrasted with the diffident opinions of his predecessors, maintains that “ the learned authors who identify Mo-la-p'o with Mālava, meaning by the latter term the kingdom of Ujjayinī, are demonstrably mistaken.” He insists that Yuan Chwang's Mo-la-p'o “ clearly corresponds with the modern Bombay districts of Kaira and Ahmadabad, together with parts of Baroda and some adjoining territory.” In other words, it roughly corresponds with a portion of what is now called North Gujarāt.

In my previous note on page 655 ff. above, I have given the narrative of the Mahāparinibbāna-Sutta about the cremation of the corpse of Buddha and the original distribution and enshrining of his corporeal relics. We come now to the tradition about the subsequent fate of the eight deposits of those relics, which were placed in Stūpas or memorial mounds at the localities shewn in the list given on page 671. And we take this matter in the order, as closely as we can determine it, of the dates of the writings from which we gather the tradition ; which, however, is of course not necessarily the order in which the tradition was developed.

In the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, October, 1894, I showed that the Kelishin inscription (No. lvi) was a bilingual, the Assyrian transcript of it having been discovered by M. de Morgan, and I was thereby enabled to confirm some of my interpretations of Vannic words and grammatical forms and to correct others. My conclusion was disputed by Drs. Belck, Lehmann, and Scheil, but the question has now been decided in my favour. Dr. Leopold Messerschmidt, together with Dr. Belck, has made a careful examination of a cast of M. de Morgan's squeeze in the light of the fresh materials obtained by Drs. Belck and Lehmann in their scientific mission to Armenia, and the result is to prove that the Vannic and Assyrian texts are close representatives one of the other. The revised texts have been published by Drs. Belck and Messerschmidt in Anatole I (1904), and Dr. Lehmann has written upon them in the Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, lvi, 4 (1904), pp. 825–829.

In the Jewish Quarterly Review for April, 1905, Dr. Hirschfeld published a poem discovered by him in the Cambridge Genizah Collection, attributed to Samau’al, and in Hebrew characters. This Samau’al is naturally identified by him with the Jewish hero of Taimā, whose name is commemorated in an Arabic proverb, and to whom certain poems preserved in the Aṣma‘iyyāt and the Ḥamāsah are ascribed. An account of him was given by Nöldeke in his Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Poesie der alten Araber, 1864, pp. 57–64. Verses would naturally be ascribed to such a person, as it is the habit of the Arabs to attribute at least a few to almost every famous man; thus they can recite to us the ode in which Adam bewailed Abel. Samau’al being a person on the confines of myth and history, the supposition that any verses ascribed to him were really by him is extremely hazardous.