The Purra-poruḷ Veṇbā-Mālai is a very ancient work, professing to be founded upon a still older composition called “The Twelve Chapters,” by one of the twelve disciples of Agastiyar. This points to a mythic origin, but we cannot historically go further than its Tamil author, or compiler, as he would represent himself. It is quite essential for a Tamil writer who would become a classic to cite his original, or the authoritative ‘first-work’ from which he draws (or professes to draw) his materials. (See Nannul, 4–10, and Pope's 3rd Grammar, p. 142.) Where there is no such ‘first-work’ (, Muthanūl), he or his commentators must suppose or invent one, and ascribe it to some venerable personage. The real author here is Aiyanār-Ithan, of whom nothing is known but that he is said to have been a descendant of the old Çēra kings, and the compiler of this very interesting composition. It can hardly be less than ten centuries old.

I Have announced as my subject in these introductory lectures the general relation of the Avesta to other systems of theology and philosophy. And I have especially mentioned its interest for Biblical criticism, because a relation, or a supposed relation, between the Avesta and Exilic and post-Exilic books of the Old Testament has been notorious for half a century.

By way of explanation, I may be permitted to say that having been for some time engaged on an inquiry into the history of the various kinds of Indian landlord tenure, not as a matter of theory, but on the basis of local facts, it became necessary to consider the origin and distribution of the tribes or clans to which the landlord classes most commonly belong. A number of notes were thus accumulated; and I thought it might be useful to put them together, much more in the hope of receiving correction, and of thus gaining information, than with the design of imparting it. It at once appears, as regards Northern India, that of the superior proprietor class when ‘Hindu,’ or at least originally Hindu, a large proportion belongs to the tribes known as ‘Rājput.’ Some of the higher families, however, now resent being so designated, and call themselves ‘Kshatriya.’ The latter name, again, is usually understood to have reference to the military and ruling caste of ancient times, and to have been comprised in two great groups known as ‘Solar’ and ‘Lunar’ respectively. It was almost inevitable to inquire whether anything could be ascertained about the (probable) real birthplace and connection of the so-called ‘Rājput’ races. So much is clear, that the names of the various clans and septs are not names which occur in any early literature; and they can but rarely be connected, even by any tradition that will stand the slightest analysis, with the Kshatriya races of the Mahābhārata and Purāṇas.

In Mr. Baden-Powell's article, No. XXV of the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for July, 1898, on Village Land-Tenures in India, he asks with reference to my letter on the same subject in the Journal of the Society for July, 1897, for further local details on the following points:—

I. As to whether the original matriarchal stage of village life described by me is to be found in the primaeval history of both Kolarian and Dravidian tribes, or whether its institutions were only indigenous among one of these groups.

More than eight years have passed since the publication in this Journal of a posthumous article by Paṇḍit Bhagvānlāl Indrājī on “The Coinage of the Western Kṣatrapas.” With the exception of a chapter in “Coins of Mediaeval India,” by the late General Sir A. Cunningham, little of importance has since been written on the history of this dynasty. The Pandit's article is still the best and fullest account of the subject taken as a whole. So much new information has, however, been obtained from the coins— partly from specimens recently brought to light, and partly from a more minute scrutiny of specimens previously known —that a supplementary account has become necessary. The following notes profess merely to supply addenda et corrigenda to the article in question, and are not intended in any way to supersede it.

As Mr. Beveridge has referred to my criticism (which is in reality not mine, but Professor A. Müller's, cited by Professor Houtsma in a footnote on pp. xiv–xv of his edition of al-Bundāri's History of the Seljūqs) on the now familiar story of ‘Umar's covenant with the Nidhāmu'l-Mulk and Ḥasan-i-Ṣabbāḥ, I should be glad to have an opportunity of stating that my recent reading has shown me that this tale at least reposes on more ancient and respectable authority than either the Rawḍatu-ṣ-Ṣafā or the Tārīkh-i-Alfī, namely, on that of the Jāmi'u't-Tawārīkh of Rashīdu'd-Dīn, who was put to death in a.h. 718. The passage, cited from f. 292b of the British Museum MS., Add. 7,628, runs as follows:—