Monserrate worked at his book for eight years and finished it in 1591. He does not tell us much about himself, but there is something touching in his finding consolation for his years in prison from the fact that he had a priest as his companion to whom he could make a full confession (propter exomologesem). Poor man, shut up as he was, he could not have material for a long confession. That he was not all unhappy is shown by his saying of his imprisonment that his lines had fallen in pleasant places.

Selīm, afterwards Jehāngīr, accompanied his father, and so also did Murād, the second son, to whom Monserrate was tutor. Father Rudolf, the Duke's son, remained at Fatḥpūr. His uncle was Claude Acquaviva the General (Praepositus) of the Jesuits order. Rudolf went up-country afterwards to meet Akbar on his way back from Cabul, but fell ill at Sirhind. He afterwards joined Akbar at Lahore, and the two returned together to Agra or Fatḥpūr. He eventually left the Court and went back to Goa in 1583, where he arrived in May. Three months afterwards he was killed by the Hindu villagers of the Goa-Salsette, along with four other Christians at Cunculim. All five were beatified by the Pope as recently as 1893. Rudolf was more brilliant than Monserrate and distinguished himself by the rapidity with which he acquired the Persian language. He was perhaps more ascetic and saint-like than Monserrate, but I doubt if his canonisation was altogether justifiable. Apparently, he had no business to go destroying idols, which was what led to his death. For he was only a private individual and was not supported in his visit to Cun­culim by the Portuguese civil authorities. This point was taken by the Devil's advocate at one of the investigations into his claims as a martyr, but probably it was feebly urged. He himself had a keen desire to become a martyr, and was distressed to find that there was little chance of thus acquiring such a crown as long as he was at Akbar's Court. He had the intolerance and impatience of his youth and upbringing. To me it seems that he committed a great mistake in leaving Fatḥpūr. It is true that there was no likelihood of his converting Akbar, and how could he expect Akbar to repudiate his more than 300 wives, and to confine him­self to the aged lady whom he had married in his childhood. Akbar might have answered as Agrippa did to St. Paul: “With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian.” But he might have exercised a great and beneficial influence over Akbar's wives and children. Akbar allowed the missionaries to talk freely to his children and even to proselytise them.

Monserrate was sent off to Ethiopia after the failure of the embassy to Europe. He was captured at Dhofar or Dofa (afr?) in South Arabia in the end of 1588 or beginning of 1589. From there he was taken to Eynan (Ainad) and then to Sanan. Altogether he was 6 1/2 years a prisoner in Arabia. His imprison­ment does not seem to have been a hard one. He calls it an ergastution and I am not sure if this means that he had to work or that it was confinement only. He was released at last, perhaps in consequence of a ransom, and returned to Goa in the end of 1596. He died at Goa-Salsette in March 1600.

When Monserrate went off with Akbar, his companion and superior Father Rudolf remained alone at Fatḥpūr Sikrī. He was of high rank and of stainless character. But he was young and impetuous and wanting tact and commonsense.

Akbar liked him and regretted his death. But it seems evident that Akbar preferred the quieter Monserrate as a com­panion for he took him with him in his long march to Cabul instead of Rudolf. He, however, left Monserrate at Jalālābād out of consideration for his health.

That Father Rudolf had a ready wit is shown by the dexterity with which he met the outcry of a Parsee at Surat. They were discussing religious topics and the Father, perhaps accidentally, opened a casquet (scriniolum) which contained some relics. They were the bones of St. Stephen, the Protomartyr and other saints. The Parsee was horrified, started back and said “These are the bones of dead men, I cannot wait here and I must rend the clothes I am wearing.” Rudolf pacified him by saying: “We do not carry about with us dead men's bones. These are the bones of living men.” And with that he closed the casquet. A similar remark was made not long ago, though from a different point of view, when there was a question about the proper site for a bridge over the Hooghly. The engineers found that the best site for one end of the bridge was one which was very near some saints' graves. The Muḥammadans objected to these being disturbed. An Englishman replied that the saints were dead and so would not be hurt by the removal of the bones. But the rejoinder was that saints were not dead though no longer on earth, but were still living.

The question arises, what should now be done with Monserrate's autograph Commentary? He wanted to send it to Rome to the general of the Jesuits. But, apparently no autograph or copy was ever sent there. Monserrate died in India in 1600, and his papers seem to have been dispersed. Perhaps, they fell into the hands of that eminent but misguided antiquary and scholar Colonel Wilford who, I believe, was a Hanoverian. It seems to me that the proper thing to do now would be to follow the example of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his gift to America of the Log of the Magbloner and to send the Calcutta Cathedral autograph to the Jesuit College in Rome, or to the Pope.

But I think that another attempt should be made to find another copy, and that before sending the autograph to Italy, it should be submitted to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge and that they be requested to revise the edition published by the Asiatic Society of Bengal. Father Hosten did excellent work in editing the Commentary but it is difficult to edit properly from one copy. Experts too might be asked to examine the MS. and to furnish full notes. Several readings want revision.

H. BEVERIDGE.