Van Den Broecke sailed to Surat and Calicut and thence to Bantam, where he landed on 18th November, to find that Reynst had died. Coen considered that the voyage had been successful. On 25th November he informed Hans de Hase on the Coromandel Coast that nearly all the merchandise had been sold at Mocha at very high prices and that the Nassau had brought to Java 23,000 rials in cash: this had been only a trial voyage, but a good cargo would be sent when there was an opportunity. On 10th December Coen reported to Holland that all the goods had been sold satisfactorily at Mocha except for some cloves, nutmegs, mace, and porcelain, which had been taken on to Surat. He described Van den Broecke as having been made very welcome by the “Viceroy of Leamen” at his capital, “Scena,” a “great, beautiful and populous” town, lying ten days’ journey inland from Mocha. He expressed surprise that the Turks should be able to keep their populous Arabian territories peaceful and obedient with such a small number of troops. Before Coen died in 1629 the Imam of San'a was to prove that the Turks were able to do nothing of the kind, even with considerably more troops; even in 1616 their power in the north was not always recognized, but it must be remembered that Van den Broecke had travelled only along one of the principal highways of the country. Of the commerce of the Yemen Coen gave his directors an account resembling that published by Van den Broeckem and discussed it in relation to the Company's interests elsewhere.

To the life and doctrines of the famous founder of the Ḳādirī Order a certain amount of attention has already been devoted in Europe, yet scarcely sufficient to render further investigation of the subject unnecessary.

The circumstances under which these inscriptions were discovered are detailed in my Archæological Report for 1862–3, par. 159–184.

Professor Dowson's translations were handed over to me in the end of April last, and I read them at a meeting of the Royal Asiatic Society on the 5th of July, just four months before the receipt of Bâbu Râjendralâl's translations, which appeared in the Bengal Asiatic Society's Journal for 1870, p. 117–130. But the Bâbu's translations are confined to the inscriptions which I first made known to Mr. E. C. Bayley in November or December, 1860, by the copies which are now engraved in the Bengal Journal. Mr. Bayley visited Mathura early in April, 1861, and made independent copies of most of these inscriptions; and in 1863 a considerable number of the inscribed stones were forwarded to Calcutta, where Bâbu Râjendra had the opportunity of studying them at leisure. The Bâbu mentions that the inscriptions which he has translated are taken from my transcripts, “with such corrections and emendations as a careful examination of the original and comparison with Mr. Bayley's transcripts would warrant.”

Omitting the various other passages in the Mahābhārata which might be cited to support our thesis, and viewing synthetically the results of our study so far, we find that, to use Hopkins's phrase, “the more important building operations” of the epic are of pronouncedly Persian character. In the excavations of Pāṭaliputra we find that the palaces of Chandragupta were of pronouncedly Persian character, as well. The Mahābhārata ascribes its buildings to supernatural agency. The Chinese pilgrims tell us that the Mauryan halls were built by genii. The general attributes, as well as the very name, of the agent, Asura Maya, are found to be directly reminiscent of Ahura Mazda. It was by Ahura Mazda's grace the Achæmenian monarchs reared the palaces of Persepolis, which served as models for the Mauryan king. The epic tells us Maya wrought his works by magic. Pāṭaliputra is “wrought by magic” in the Kathāsaritsāgara. Moreover, the description which the Asura Maya gives us of the palaces he built agrees most strikingly with the account of Chandragupta's palaces recorded by Megasthenes. Both are inferentially confirmed by the stratigraphical evidences in the soil, and by the general topography of the site, at Pāṭaliputra.

The list of eight seasons named in the Gezer Calendar is consecutive and complete, and there is no reason for supposing that the word in that inscription has any other than its normal meaning of “lunation, month”, or that the annual cycle at Gezer in the second half of the tenth century before the common era differed from the twelve-month year found in other parts of the North-West Semitic world as well as in Mesopotamia. It follows that some of the periods named in the Gezer list must extend over more than one month, i.e.—since there is no indication in the text of any fraction of a month—over two months at least. H. L. Ginsberg was the first to see that the solution is to be sought in the differing forms and , each of which occurs four times. Ginsberg proposed to treat the latter form as construct singular and the former as a construct dual with waw as a mater lectionis to represent -ō < -ā in the nominative dual construct.

Henry Miers Elliot's first specifically historical work on India appeared one hundred and forty years ago in 1849. Four years later his small book on the Arabs in Sind was published. Between 1866 and 1877 appeared the magnum opus with which Elliot's name has since become identified, the History of India as told by its own Historians (8 vols.), edited, arranged and completed by John Dowson.

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.

The Nyāya-praveśa by Śaṅkarasvāmin, recently printed in the Gaekwad's Oriental Series of Baroda, is a text of great interest for the study of Indian logic; in fact, in spite of its conciseness it contains an extremely clear exposition of the Buddhist logic as it was taught in India, at least among some particular schools, as those of the Yogācāras and the Sautrāntikas in that lapse of time which separates Diṅnāga from Dharmakīrti. That the book was written after Diṅnāga, but before Dharmakīrti, is proved by its peculiarities, which in many a point differentiate the theories held by the author from those maintained by the other two great logicians already quoted.