It is well known that the Chinese have had a little organ called shêng or yü for many ages, made with bamboo pipes which are fitted with free reeds, and played by suction. The words shêng and huang, the reed, occur in the Odes which date from before 500 b.c., and are traditionally explained as referring to an instrument like that which is still in use. But attention has not, I think, been called to the fact that a reed organ from the West was brought to China in the thirteenth century, and created so much interest at the time that it was reconstructed to play the Chinese scale. Ten or twelve of these instruments seem to have been made and to have been used in the Imperial orchestra during the Yüan dynasty (1280–1368), but I cannot find that they were used after that period. Three descriptions of the Hsing lung shêng, as the organ was named, have been found in books of the fourteenth century, and translations of these are here given, with explanatory notes very kindly contributed by the Reverend Canon F. W. Galpin.

In the course of an article I published in this Journal (October, 1924) entitled ‘ Rūdakī and Pseudo-Rūdakī ’ I referred to a long qaṣīda beginning with the words ‘ mādar-i-may’, which has been commonly attributed to Rūdakī, but could not be definitely assigned to that poet until the identity of the mamdūḥ Abū Ja‘far Aḥmad b. Muḥammad had been established. Moreover, Riẓā Qulī Khān, who quotes a few verses from it, was persuaded that the poem was not the work of Rūdakī but of Qaṭrān. I pointed out that I had not found it anywhere else attributed to Qaṭrān, and that the mamdūḥ was certainly not among the patrons of this poet. Thanks to my learned friend Mīrzā Muḥammad Khān of Qazwīn, the question has now been finally disposed of, and the qaṣīda is proved beyond doubt to be the work of Rūdakī. This discovery is of the highest importance for the history of Persian literature, as the qaṣīda represents the only genuine long poem of the “ Father of Persian Poetry ” which has hitherto been found. I naturally wish to disclaim any credit for the discovery, and the notes I now give and the edition of the poem which I print below are due entirely to the learned Mirza Muhammad.

Whatever the author of The Music of Hindustan has to say about Oriental music, must have a certain interest if not authority, and, for that reason, his passing comments on two points raised by me, prompt me to investigate the validity of his strictures. Whether his first objection is a philological one, or whether it is musical, is not made quite clear. If it is the former, i.e. that my contention is incompetent because the Arabic word qānūn () is derived from the Greek word kanōn (κανών), then one might as reasonably suggest that the Greek word νΦθα did not “ become ” the Latin naphtha, because the ancient Semites had the word (Arabic ) long before. If, however, the objection is directed against the instrument itself, it is evident that we ought to inquire into the precise structure of the Greek instrument called the kanōn.

The great division of the Mongol race which passes under the generic term Kalmuck, is composed of many different tribes and subsections. The name “Kalmuck” is accidental; like many of the terms employed in connexion with Mongolian dialects and tribes, it is a Russian convention. Those Mongols who took up their abode in Europe were of the Khalimak division; this word in Russian mouths soon became Kalmuck.

This book was edited for the first time by Professor Joseph Hell of Erlangen (Leiden, 1916), and since it is one of the oldest extant treatises on the literary history of the Arabs it will always be regarded as an important source of information. Unfortunately the printed text is very incorrect and often quite unintelligible. A large number of valuable emendations have been proposed by the late Professor H. Reckendorf in his review of the book (Orientalistische Literaturzeitung for May, 1917, columns 147–152), by Mr. C. A. Storey in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for April, 1918, pp. 349–355, and by Professor G. Levi della Vida in the Rivista degli Studi Orientali, vol. viii, pp. 611–636 (Rome, 1920). But many passages still remain obscure, and for this reason I venture to offer the following additional suggestions. If some of my remarks have been forestalled by others, I must apologise for my inadvertence. Mere misprints and incorrect vocalisations I have not thought it worth while to mention, except where they are likely to mislead the reader.