That the Khotanese version of Ravigupta's Siddhasāra was made from the Tibetan translation extant in the Tanjur has been known since H. W. Bailey's convincing demonstration in BSOAS, X, 3, 1940, 599–605. But it is clear that the situation is more complicated than would at first appear. There are very numerous instances where the Khotanese version shows a correct understanding of the original Sanskrit while the Tibetan translation is in error. In fact the translation is at times so good that one wonders why the translator ever let himself be led astray by the Tibetan. There can be little doubt that the translator of the Khotanese knew Sanskrit far better than he knew Tibetan. Nevertheless, the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the Khotanese rendering was based on a combination of the Sanskrit original with the Tibetan version.

L'objet de la prèsente ètude est ľèdition de trois documents relatifs aux rapports èconomiques entre la Moldavie et les Ottomans au temps du sultan SelĪm Ier (1512–1520). Nous les dèsignerons de la manièsignerons de la manière suivante:

Documents no1: Acte adressè par Selīm à Bogdan III de Moldavie le 25 janvier 1512, soit trois trois mois avant son avànemenyt au trône ottoman (24 avril).

Documents no2: Acte adressè par SelĪm au commandant de la fortersse ottomane de Kilia 2 entre le 9 et le 18 fèvrier 1512 (donc antèrieur de plus de deux mois à son avènement).

Documents no3: Deux paragraphes d'un repport adressé le 15 avril 1520 à la porte ottomane par Küčü Pīrī, caid ď; Aqčaqazanliq, et concernant les droits d'explonitation de quinze lacs situès en Moldavie mèridionale.

A few years ago the author's attention was drawn to a signed and dated quadrant which is in a private collection in California. Since the writer cannot claim to know much (let alone to understand the working) of astronomical instruments, it seemed logical to look around and offer its publication to an expert. Unfortunately, no one has so far expressed any enthusiasm or interest. But the quadrant bears the signature of a well-known astrolabist and is dated; its publication, therefore, seems desirable.

This paper is intended first as a tribute to my teacher, and second as a small contribution to the perennial discussion of the place or extent of the tragic in Chinese literature. I shall plead limited space as excuse for refraining from philosophical discussion, definition, or comparison with Classical Greek or Shakespearean manifestations of the tragic. My suggestion will be simply that P'i-p'a chi ‘Lute song’ (hereafter ‘Lute’) may be added to Kuan Han-ch'ing's Ton O yuan and the ‘Red chamber dream ‘on that select list of Chinese works which in the conflicts they present and the resolutions they propose tend towards the tragic.

I. Rarotongan is a Polynesian language spoken on the island of Rarotonga in the Cook Islands. A phonemic analysis yields a nine-term consonant system comprising four voiceless plosives (bilabial, dental, velar, glottal), three nasals (bilabial, alveolar, velar), a bilabial voiced fricative, and an alveolar flapped ‘r’. There is the usual Polynesian five-term vowel system (close front, close back, mid front, mid back, open central). All vowels may be either short (one mora) or long (two morae). Long vowels and short-vowel diphthongs behave phono-logically as dissyllables and are so treated in this paper. Syllable structures are limited to V and CV.

Despite noteworthy critical editions of each having appeared within the last twenty-five years, the textual states of Jubilees, the Testaments of the Three Patriarchs, and the Ascension of Isaiah remain in flux due to the continued discovery of previously unknown exemplars. Nowhere is this more evident than in their Ethiopic versions, as copies of a multitude of manuscripts attesting these pseudepigrapha have become readily accessible in recent years. Consequently, it is now possible to append twenty Ge‘ez manuscripts to the hitherto recognized evidence for Jubilees, and five and two further witnesses to the published lists for the Testaments of the Three Patriarchs and the Ascension of Isaiah respectively.

The important series of pre-Mughal monuments in the Lodi Gardens (the former Lady Willingdon Park), set in the midst of the residential area of New Delhi, is familiar to most visitors to the city. Apart from a handsome Mughal bridge (the Āṭhpula) and some small and insignificant outbuildings, there are five main structures which lie along a south-south-west to north-north-east axis. The most southerly monument is the domed octagonal tomb thought to be of Muhammad Shāh Sayyid (r. 838–49/1435–46): and the most northerly is another domed octagonal tomb in a square fortified enclosure thought to be that of Sikandar Shāh Lōdī (r. 894–923/1489–1517).

Fundamental concepts are often the more difficult to define because of their ubiquitous employment, and though the majority of people are content to do without a definition the lack of one stands as a perpetual challenge to human intelligence. Property is just such a concept, standing upon the frontiers of linguistics, law, and logic without deriving final shape from any of them. Since no legal transaction or dealing could take place without it, and since innumerable events familiar to daily life depend upon it for their effectiveness, it seems strange that it is so little understood.

Mr. Tukumi-Syunsuke, the author of the article of which a translation is here offered, is a member of the Sisoo-no-Kagaku Kenkyuukai, or Institute for the Science of Thought, founded in Tookyoo in 1946. The article appeared in the first number of its journal. ‘Study group’ would be a more exact rendering of kenkyuukai than ‘Institute’, but the English title is that used by the members of the group themselves. A survey of the Institute's work has been published by a colleague of mine.

Rarotongan sentences may be classed broadly as statements, unmarked questions, and marked questions. Statements have an intonation contour characterized by a final fall; unmarked questions are segmentally identical with statements, but have an intonation contour characterized by a final rise-fall and generally require a yes-or-no answer; marked questions contain one of four interrogatives, a?a ‘what ?’, ?ai ‘who ?’, ?ea ‘where ?, when ?’, ?ia ‘how many ?’, are characterized by a final rise in the intonation contour, and cannot be answered by a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’.