Any complete biography of Qādī an-Nu'mān, the most illustrious of Ismā'īlī jurists, must necessarily be based on two kinds of sources, internal and external. He was a very prolific author, and although not all his works which were extant some 400 years ago have come down to us, a good many of his akhbār and fiqh works are still preserved. It would be necessary to go through all of these and collect all autobiographical information before the definitive biography of the Qāḍī can be attempted. Even purely fiqh works like the Mukhtaṣaru'l-Athār contain occasional references to contemporary events. The brief biography given below does not profess to be exhaustive; it is based in the main on three external sources, which seem to contain all that was definitely known of this great lawyer, the founder and the greatest exponent of Ismā'īlī jurisprudence. The difficulty of writing on Ismā'īlī subjects is well known; it is next to impossible to expect any co-operation from the sectarians themselves. I am trying, however, to obtain information from different sources, and if ever I am able to study all the works extant of the Qāḍī, a more comprehensive biography may be attempted.

An inscription on one of the walls of one of the Koḍumbāḷūr temples in the Pudukkottai State accidentally mentions the Pallavas. This inscription has long been overlooked by the historians of the Pallavas. It is already high time to study this reference in the light of what we now know about the Pallava kingdom.

Dualism is a term introduced into modern theology by the Englishman, Thomas Hyde, in 1700, and was first used to describe sthe fundamental principle of Persian Zoroastrism, namely the independent existence of good and evil. Ormazd the good god and Ahriman the evil god in the theology of the Persians represent an absolute dualism. For them Ahriman, corresponding to Satan of Judaism and Christianity, is entirely independent of the creator god. Good and evil, God and the Devil, are primeval supreme powers. Now I wish to trace the history of Satan or the Devil in Christianity back through Judaism, Hebrew, and Babylonian religion to its origin among the Sumerians. I shall endeavour to prove this Persian dualism, which admits that God did not create the Devil, to be totally foreign to Sumerian, Babylonian, and Hebrew speculation; and I shall then briefly examine the evidence on which modern scholars admit dualism to have been held by the Jews of the Apocalyptic period and by early Christianity as set forth in the New Testament. It is my conviction that Persian religion never had any influence upon Judaism or early Christianity. Satan, the Devil (diabolus), is traceable directly to Babylonian theology; there he is the creation of the gods.

At first sight it must seem strange that words so commonplace and simple, in whatever language, as sons and grandsons, should deserve discussion in the Journal of our Society. But any reader who should endure to the end of the following pages would readily admit that simplicity is the last quality tha emerges from the fog of forms and symbols examined.

In regard to civil conditions in Chinese Turkestan the documents are not much more widely informative than in regard to other matters. The states along the northern trade route, Karashahr, Kuca, Aksu, Kashgar, although from about a.d. 675 they were dominated (not indeed occupied) by the Tibetans, appear to escape all mention; and this is the more regrettable as these states would seem from the culture objects recovered by archæological research to have enjoyed a rather fuller development of material civilization than those south of the desert. Their natural resources were not inferior, they were aligned along a more profitable route of trade and communication, they were less exposed to encroachment of the desert; their archæological remains are more extensive and better preserved. To these states, and to the Wu-sun people of the Tian-shan valleys, we have perhaps—unless the Khu chief (Khu Maṅ-po-rje) of the Tibetan Chronicle is really the Khu ruler of Kao-chang—not a single reference. The twin states of “Anterior” and “Posterior” Chü-shih, i.e. Turfan-Kao-chang and Gu-chen at the extreme east of the Tian-shan, do indeed seem to be indicated as goal of hostile expeditions (1931, pp. 821 sqq.). As has been made clear by Chavannes in Ancient Khotan, pp. 533–6, and Sir Aurel Stein, Innermost Asia, pp. 579–587, they maintained a precarious existence nearly to the end of the eighth century a.d., the Tibetans failing, despite their occupation of Kan-su, to secure possession of them either by diplomatic proposals to China or by force until the year a.d. 790.