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.

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.