Of the many questions connected with the history of the Tughluq dynasty of Dihlī which have not been thoroughly investigated or conclusively determined I propose to deal in this paper with five, viz. :—

1. The name of the dynasty.

I am glad my paper in the Journal for April, 1920, on the above subject has drawn from Sir George Grierson and Mr. Sītā Rām their interesting articles in the October and April numbers.

Professor Turner, in his valuable articles on Gujarātī Phonology, refers to what he terms “ Spontaneous Nasalization ”. In regard to Gujarātī he says (JRAS., 1921, p. 344) “ there seems from the earliest times to have been a tendency to pronounce vowels with the velum incompletely raised, which results in the vowel becoming nasalized ”. Similarly, Professor Bloch (La Formation de la Langue Marathe, § 70) says “ Toute voyelle longue tend à développer une résonance nasale ” and he discusses this question at greater length in his article on “ La Nasalité en Indo-Aryan ” on pp. 61 ff. of the Cinquantenaire de l'École Pratique des Hautes Études.

The founder of the third dynasty of Ur has long been known by the name of Ur-Engur. This has been regarded as an improved reading for Ur-Gur, a form which was once generally used by Assyriologists. The change was made when the publication of fresh material revealed that the sign was pronounced engur by the Sumerians. It is not difficult to show that gur is untenable, for this value seems to have been inferred from a fragment of a god-list, K. 4366 (published inCuneiform Texts, pt. xxv, pl. 48, 1. 3), which has:—

The following notes are intended to supplement an article written in 1912 and published in JRAS. for October, 1916, pp. 773–807. The theme then was the tradition of the group as generally accepted at the present day, and limitation of space confined the study to one hero-tale for each of the Eight. The tales were translated intact from an illustrated compilation of Taoist mythology which continues in popular favour and provides a fairly representative treatment of the subject. With a scope so restricted, the former article made but a small contribution towards a better understanding of an important national cult. It is essayed here to probe a little deeper and in more varied places in search of evidence about the origin and evolution of the conception. The writer feels that apologies are due for the scrappy nature of these notes rather than for reverting to the topic ; for surely there is call for much fuller inquiry, considering the ubiquity of the Eight in the folk-lore and folk-art of the Far East during many centuries, and the scant, attention paid them by Western students.