In a previous paper I discussed the typology of two collections of neolithic artifacts from the North Karnataka of India and discovered a close correspondence between them.

The Persian land reform, both in its successes and failures, has lessons for other developing countries, not least Ethiopia. There are many similarities between the two countries. But there are also differences. Both are monarchies, and in both the head of state plays a key role in the government of the country. The Ethiopians and the Persians are both an ancient and proud people. Ethiopia and Iran are both enormous countries with a low population density. Both are characterized by immense variety, climatically, physically, in the different peoples which inhabit the country, and in their social structure. Both have frontier provinces with a population the same on both sides of the border. In both control by the central government of the outlying areas is fairly recent. Their land tenure systems have some resemblances, but that of Ethiopia is much more complex. Farming in both until recent times was mainly subsistence farming. Both have, on the whole, a robust and hard-working peasantry. Both have a large semi-nomadic population as well as a settled population. In both the vast majority of the population derive their livelihood from the land. Both have problems of soil erosion. Drought is common to both. But Ethiopia is much more favourably situated than Iran in these two respects: it has a much higher rainfall over most of the country and, on the whole, better soil conditions. But here perhaps the similarities end.

This article is concerned with the influence of Mesopotamian myths on the Old Testament Book of Esther, with particular reference to the role of the Enūma Elish. The Book of Esther has been the subject of numerous studies, some of which have asked the questions posed in this article. Although full account is taken of these important studies, the present article contends that previous scholars have misguidedly focused their attention on Ishtar-legends to the exclusion of the Marduk-legends that are at least as important in this context. The article is divided into two parts: first, it is argued that the central figure in the Book of Esther is Mordecai (=Marduk) and it is his triumph that is being commemorated in the story. Second, similarities between the Enūma Elish (being the foremost Marduk-legend of Mesopotamian culture) and the Book of Esther are drawn, with the evidence being arranged under three rubrics: ‘the plot’, ‘themes and motifs’ and ‘language’.

§1

A Short account of the Kuvalayamālā was given in “An Unpublished Fragment of Paiśācī”, BSOAS., xii, p. 659 foil. It is dated A.D. 778 and is known from two MSS.—J dated A.D. 1083 and P undated, of which P 2 is a copy. The bulk of the work is written in Pāyaya-bhāsā, i.e. Jaina Maharastri. Other styles are used, one of which is Avabbhamsa, which Uddyotana, the author, describes as Sakkaya-Pāy'ubhaya-suddh'āsuddha-paya-samataramgaramgamta vaggiram “A spoken language rippling with even waves of Sanskrit and Prakrit words correct and incorrect”. It is therefore not the classical Apabhramśa of Hemacandra and others, which does not contain Sanskrit words apart from the tatsamas or words common to Sanskrit and Prakrit.

§2

The first and longest fragment is printed by L. B. Gandhi in GOS. 37 (G.), Intro., p. 109. The spelling is much less regular than in the Prakrit preceding and following it, and cannot be ascribed for the most part to clerical errors. The two MSS. do not differ widely. For reasons into which it is unnecessary to enter here it is clear that J and P were copied from the same MS. and neither is dependent upon the other. P 2, although an inferior MS., often usefully supplements J and in the present extract such aid is particularly welcome, as owing to the habit of readers putting a finger on the text where difficulties occur, much of the J palm-leaf has been smudged and would be almost unreadable without the help of P 2.

The British Museum manuscript Or. 8613 (146 folios, probably 5th–11th century) has lost both its beginning and end. Its subject is the doctrine of the Mu'tazila and it is divided into sections each of which begins with the quotation from a book by Abū 'Alī Muḥammad b. Khallād (Fihrist 174); in one place he is called ṣāḥib al-kitāb. The authorities mostly quoted are the two shaikhs, Abū 'Ahī al-Jubbāī and his son Abū Hāshim, the chief judge 'Abd al-jabbār (†415/1024) and Abū Rashīd Sa'īd b. Muḥammad who died somewhat later. He is the latest authority quoted. It is hard to decide to which of the two men Abū 'Alī refers. The MS. has been collated within the last 200 years but no other copy seems to be recorded unless no. 589 in Landberg (MSS. belonging to Maison Brill), Ziyādāt, by Abū Ṭālib Yaḥyā b. Ḥusain to al-uṣūl of Ibn Khallād, is the same work; but if the description ‘giving much information about the Zaidis’ is right, it is another book. The character of the book will be shown by a summary of its contents followed by an abridged translation of one section.

The body of rules translated below was first discovered by a Park Ranger employed to restore the erstwhile gold-mining town of Barkerville, British Columbia, as an historical monument. Searching for authentic artefacts in an abandoned ‘Chinese Frėemason’ hall in the neighbouring town of Quesnel Forks, he came upon some tattered ceremonial robes, a Chinese book of codes and signs, and a board approximately 10 feet in length inscribed with Chinese characters. These (with some other items) were stored by the ranger at Barkerville, in a box marked ‘unidentified materials’, which was found by the authors in the summer of 1961, while carrying out field research on Chinese social organization in the Cariboo region of British Columbia. Mr. Ho identified the calligraphy on the board as a set of rules of the Chih-kung T'ang.