The most exhaustive, if not the best known, source for the history of Shāh Isma'īl the Ṣafavī, is undoubtedly the Ḥabib-us-Siyar of Khwāndamīr. Though this large and important work has been lithographed, both in Ṭihrān and in Bombay, it is but too little known in Europe, where it has generally been regarded as a mere epitome of the Rauzat-uṣ-Ṣafā; whereas, besides being an original source for much valuable biographical and geographical matter, it contains detailed accounts of many little-known dynasties. Khwāndamīr's work is thus in many respects more interesting than the ponderous universal history of his grandfather. Now, there is a work, of which the British Museum possesses one copy, and the Cambridge University Library a second, which is devoted entirely to the biography of Shāh Isma'īl. Neither MS. bears a title nor gives any author's name, and in no part of the work have I been able to find a clue to the author's identity. MS. L bears the title , which is taken from the Epilogue, and in the very last line after we read which, according to Dr. Rieu, is most probably meant for the transcriber and not the author. The work ends with a short account of the accession of Isma'īl's son Ṭahmāsp, and with prayers for the prosperity and long life of the young prince. This would lead one to fix the completion of the history soon after the accession of Ṭahmāsp Mīrzā in a.h. 930. On the other hand, on fol. 277a of MS. L, we are told, in a momentary digression from the main narrative, that Moḥammad Zamān Mīrzā was drowned in the Ganges in the year 947, on the occasion of Humāyūn's retreat from Bengal.

In the July, 1895, number of this Journal I gave a description of the kingdom of Bengala (Bengal) from the pen of a Muhammadan Chinaman named Mahuan, who on account of his knowledge of Arabic was attached as Interpreter to the suite of Chêng Ho, when he made his voyages to India and other places in the Eastern seas at the beginning of the fifteenth century.

The latest researches on the noun in Semitic languages, in particular those of Prof. Barth and the late Prof. Lagarde, have opened up a vast field for discussion. Although starting from quite heterogeneous principles, yet, as they develop, they show many a point in common if examined more closely. The greater or lesser inclination of the student for speculative philology will lead him to devote his main interest to one of the two theories, but it will not absolve him from bestowing full attention on the other also, on account of its numerous important details. It would, however, be a delusion to think that either theory has completely solved the questions of the Semitic noun. No language allows itself to be confined by hard and fast rules, and Hebrew, like others, has developed many words which will not bear uniform treatment. In particular, words which lived in everybody's mouth, and had to undergo constant wear and tear, defy, more or less, violent attempts to force them within concise rules. An instance of those will form the object of the following remarks.