The publication of my memoir on the Cuneiform Inscriptions of Van in the pages of this Journal (Vol. XIV. pp. 377–732) gave an impetus to the study of these interesting texts which was not long in bearing fruit. M. Stanislas Guyard, who had already contributed so much to their decipherment, and whose untimely death is still deplored by science, soon afterwards published a detailed criticism of my work (in his Mélanges d'Assyriologie, Paris, 1883), and followed it by papers in the Journal Asiatique (8th series, vol. i. pp. 261, 517; vol. ii. p. 306; vol. iii. p. 499). M. Stanislas Guyard was succeeded by the eminent Semitic scholar of Vienna, Prof. D. H. Müller, who had been independently studying the Vannic inscriptions, and papers upon them from his pen have appeared in the Oesterreichische Monatsschrift für den Orient (Jan. 1885, and Aug. 1886), and in the 36th volume of the Imperial Academy of Vienna (1886, “Die Keil-Inschrift von Aschrut-Darga”). Prof. Patkanoff has, moreover, been kind enough to sepd me copies of Vannic inscriptions found in the Russian province of Georgia, which I have published with translations and notes in the Muséon, vol. ii. pt. 1 (1883); vol. ii. pt. 3 (1883); vol. iii. pt. 2 (1884); vol. v. pt. 3 (1884).

When Mr. Fergusson commenced the study of Indian Architecture, nothing was really known on the subject. He had first to collect the materials, and after years of work he was able at last to leave the Architecture of India in a classified form. This was in itself a great achievement for one man to do. But he did more than this. He traced back the developments of form and construction in many cases to their early beginnings, and thus gave us their origin. It is only when this has been accomplished that we can truly say “we know” any particular style of architecture. We have still some very interesting problems of this kind to work out in regard to India; and suggestions regarding them, even although they should ultimately be found to have pointed in the wrong direction, may yet be useful in many ways; such speculations may call the attention of men in India to the information that is required, and by this means we have the chance of receiving knowledge. I have often discussed some of these questions of origin with Mr. Fergusson, and he used to refer to some of the unexplored parts of India, where he thought some remains of the older forms of Architecture might yet be found, which would throw light on what we wanted. His mode of expressing himself was, “If some man, with the necessary knowledge, and with an eye in his head, could be sent,” he felt certain that there are old temples in many parts not yet discovered that would clear up most of the doubtful points.

Without attempting to go back to the obscure traditions concerning the great nomad confederacy or confederacies that ranged the country north of the desert of Gobi, or to the genealogies of the tribes of Turks, Tārtārs, and Muals, descendants of Yāfi (Japhat) son of Nūḥ, who, after coming out of the Ark with his father, is said to have fixed his yūrat or encampment in the Farther East, and who have furnished subjects for the most copious traditions for native chroniclers, and materials for the most intricate controversies ever since; it may perhaps safely be assumed that Mual was probably in the first instance the name of one tribe among many, a clan among clans, and extended to the whole as its chief acquired an ascendency over the rest. The name is most likely locally much older than the time of engiz, but it was hardly known to more distant nations before the tenth century, and became only widely famous in connection with him.

In the Notes of the Quarter for October last it was stated that, owing to the exceptional character of two recent publications, a critical notice of them would be deferred to the January number of the Royal Asiatic Society's Journal. These were Dr. Sachau's edition of Al Beruni's India in the Arabic original, and the Introduction and second fasciculus, Part I. of Howell's Arabic Grammar. Neither issue could be dismissed with a hasty line of approval, however unqualified, nor were the names of the authors, however distinguished, and abstract of title-pages, sufficient—in respect of the particular volumes under reference—to convey, to the world without, a clear notion of the long and continuous labour the result of which had been placed at the disposal of Orientalists in Europe. Further consideration led to the conclusion that a separate article might with propriety be devoted to the first of the two works named—both important additions to the library of Arabic scholars.