Hymns to Gula are few and scattered. In the present article some of these are brought together. They are treated in the following order:—

(a) King, Bab. Magic and Sorcery, No. 6, 11. 71–95, with the variants there cited and a new variant in Ebeling, KAR. 341. A šu-il-laprayer.

(b) King, ibid., No. 4, 11. 24 ff. A šu-il-laprayer.

(c) Craig, Religious Texts, i, 18 (ed. Martin, Textes Religieux, p. 70), with a variant in KAR. 41. Probably a kišvb. Bilingual.

(d) K. 232 (= Craig, ibid., ii, 16–18). Perhaps a dedication hymn. Semitic.

Turning over the sheets of some of my old books I found a very complicated question in the field of Ottoman poetry which I wish to discuss below.

The late Russian orientalist, V. D. Smirnov, in the second edition of his Turkish Chrestomathy, published a number of extracts from a Turkish (Ottoman) poem mathnawi entitled . In the preface he makes the following explanatory note concerning this poem (the square brackets are mine): “the extracts (pp. 433–437) are from , Budapest manuscript No. 24, dated 928/1522. And in the title of the codex we read, and in the text the author, many times mentioning himself, names himself (f. 13v., 120r., 210r.), (f. 107v.); thus it is certain that this work, written in 829/1425 is by Moḥammad ban Ṣāliḥ Bījān (+1449), the author of the famous Turkish religious poem . But neither in the European catalogues, nor in [the book of] Ḥājjī Khalīfa is there mentioned such a work with the name of Yāzījī Oghlī. The last [Ḥājjī Khalīfa] remarks quite vaguely that is a Turkish work in verses, belonging to Shaikh Zāda, who wrote it in the reign of the Sultan Yildirim (Ḥ.Kh. iv, 412, No. 9007). The poem of Ibn Khaṭīb is extremely interesting because of its archaic language and orthography, as well as because the religious-didactic thoughts of the author, which are contained in it, in the spirit and style of the Mawlawi works, like, for instance, of 'Āshiq, but, perhaps, with a little greater fanatical Moslem passion and enmity towards non-Moslems, especially Christians (for example, f. 128r., 209a–210).”

The introduction to the edition of the fárs-námeh of “Ibn al-Balkhí” by Mr. Le Strange and Professor Nicholson contains a long passage dealing with the end of the Buwayhid or Búyid dynasty. This passage, and particularly its footnotes, show that there are points in this section of history that it would be interesting to clear up. I have attempted to clear them up in what follows. For the purpose I have used a number of Arabic and Persian works, indicated respectively in the footnotes to my account by the letters or words preceding each name in the following list.

“The Genius knows, that companion who controls our natal star, the god of man's nature attached to each human being's head, changeful in aspect, white and black.” With every person, family, and social group and place was connected a tutelary deity who from birth onwards controlled the destinies of the person or thing that lay under his sway, I dispensing either happiness or trouble. The word genius probably means “natal, connected by birth”, γεεθλιος, and to the Italian mind signified “the personality, the character, abstracted from the man and made into a god” (Roscher, Ausf. Lex. d. gr. u. röm. Myth., col. 1615, s.v.). These Genii were regarded as forming the proletariat or commons of the Italian gods (Seneca, Ep. 110), and the month of December was sacred to them (Ovid, Fasti III. 58). There are some traces in Italy of evil genii corresponding to these good spirits; the idea of this dualism is at bottom IE., though the rigid schematic application of it is perhaps due to later developments. In art the Genius was represented as a young man with a snake, or a snake alone. The former combination is really a kind of compound hieroglyph, in which the man's figure signifies youth or vitality and the snake stands for eternity, so that the combination means an eternal divine person, who was the guardian sprit or divine counterpart of a human being or place, quite distinct from the Manes or soul, which never could attain to divinity, and was liable to suffering after death.

In Assam, near Gauhāṭī, on the southern bank of the Brahmaputra, there is one of the most famous places of pilgrimage in India, I mean the temple of Kāmākhyā. Kāmākhyā is one of the names for the Indian devī, Kālī, or Durgā; in fact, Kāmākhyā is the devī herself in one of her most jolly aspects, as may be gathered from the Paurānic and the Tāntric literature connected with her cult, as for instance the Kālikā-purāṇa, the Yoginī-tantra, the Kāmakhyā-tantra, the Kāmarūpa-tantra, etc. The temple and all its neighbourhood for twelve krośas is considered one of the pīṭhas, or holy and consecrated places: the hills and rivers near it have been identified with some of the most renowned tīrtha-sthānas of India, with the purpose of associating with that revered spot some of the most sacred religious traditions of India.

The decorative art of the aborigines of the Malay Peninsula has already been described in some detail by various writers. The best known and most important of these contributions to our knowledge of the subject are those of A. Grünwedel in the Zeitschrift für Ethnohgie, Bd. xxvi, p. 141 (under the title “Die Zaubermuster der Orang-Utan”) and Bd. xxv, p. 71. In Bd. xxxi, p. 137, of the same periodical Th. Preuss enlarged on the same theme. W. W. Skeat also devoted many pages in vol. i of his Pagan Races of the Malay Peninsula to this subject, and J. H. N. Evans has recently expressed his views on it in the Journal of the Federated Malay States Museums, vol. xii, part i.

We must admit that very little is known about the first development of Indian logic and particularly about Buddhist logic before Diṅnāga. If we take the best manuals of Indian logic now available, such as those by Suali, Vidyābhūṣāṇa, Keith, or the most comprehensive Histories of Indian philosophy like those of Dāsgupta and Rādhākrishna we shall easily recognize that the data contained therein are far from being satisfactory; more than that, they are also very often wrong. In fact, almost the only source from which their statements are derived is the book by Sugiura, who certainly had the merit of giving the first account of Indian logic as preserved in Chinese sources, but, being himself absolutely without knowledge of orthodox nyāya and of Sanscrit, is in his statements and in his translations very often misleading.

In his Rechnungen aus der Zeit Setis I, p. 77, Professor Spiegelberg has published, à propos of New Kingdom account papyri in general, a fragment of papyrus, at one time in the Musée Guimet, whose interest lay in the mention of a new place-name in connexion with the well-known town of Nefrusi, , The occurrence of these two names in a hieratic fragment, B.M. Pap. 10447 (acquired by the British Museum fifty-one years ago) suggested the following synthesis.

Akbar Shāh, son of the Mughal emperor Shāh 'Ālam II, was elevated to the throne of Delhi as pretender eighteen years previous to his accession as Akbar II, and money was struck in his name. The addition of another claimant to the dynastic list was communicated in a joint paper by Mr. S. H. Hodivala and myself, which appeared in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for the year 1922, and to which I invite reference. I had found a copper coin of Aḥmadābād mint bearing the name of Akbar Shāh and date A.H. 1203, which made me conjecture whether Ghulām Qādir Khān, the “unspeakable Rohilla”, raised another prince to the Mughal throne after the puppet Bedār Bakht (A.H. 1202–3), who might or might not be identical with the Akbar Shāh, eldest surviving son of Shāh 'Ālam II, who succeeded his father in the regular way as Akbar II in the year A.H.. 1221 (A.D. 1806). I put the matter to Mr. Hodivala, a leading authority on Mughal history, and his reply was that “it has not yet been possible to find an absolutely complete and satisfactory solution of the problem connected with the Akbar Shāh coins of A.H. 1203, but there would seem to be fairly good grounds for answering the question in the affirmative”. The fullest account of the transactions which led to the deposition and blinding of Shāh 'Ālam II is in the 'Ibratnāmah (Book of Warning) of Faqīr Khairu-d-dīn Muḥammad, but this work closes soon after recounting the terrible cruelties practised on the Emperor Shāh 'Ālam and his family by the infamous Ghulām Qādir, whose atrocities the author describes at length.

Among the most interesting exhibits at the Rijks Ethnographisch Museum at Leyden are the Meccan musical instruments presented by the well-known Arabist and traveller, Professor Dr. C. Snouck Hurgronje. They are displayed, in a special case containing other Meccan objects, in the bureau of the Director, Dr. H. H. Juynboll. These instruments, Dr. Snouck Hurgronje informs me, were not collected by himself personally, but by a Jidda friend who, unfortunately, omitted to supply the requisite data for scientific registering. Even their names are denied us. Yet with the help of the donor, both by conversations and correspondence, and the courtesy of the Director of the Museum, the present writer is able to submit an account of these instruments, which comprise a lute, two viols, three rustic reed-pipes, an oboe, a flute, and a tambourine.

Professor Langdon informs me that the prayer (K. 2407) which he edited in ZA. 36, 209 ff., is continued and completed by IV R. 21 c, col. ii, of which the first twelve lines are a duplicate of K. 2407, rev. 2–13. The context of the prayer is, accordingly, a long ritual used in connection with the building of a house. For a full discussion of the magic images mentioned in this ritual see Woolley, “Babylonian Prophylactic Figures,” in JRAS. 1926, 689 ff., where a translation of several similar ritual fragments is given by Sidney Smith.

The substance of the following was given in an address at the Oxford Congress of Orientalists, 1928. It makes no pretensions to do more than put forward a few suggestions concerning the so-called Third Buddhist Council—suggestions which may help when historians are reconsidering the miserably poor materials, which are all we have to throw light on what was the most momentous crisis and decision in the whole history of Buddhism.

Gilgit offers a rich field to the student of Folklore, and one which up to the present has been only partially worked.

Quand on cherche à décomposer les noms des villes indiennes énuméréés dans les Tables de Ptolémée, on constate que plusieurs d'entre eux sont formés d'un nom grec et d'un mot indien signifiant “ville”. Hippokoura (Ptolémée, vii, 1, 83) est un bon exemple de ce type de composés. Ce nom, formé du grec hippos “cheval” et de l'indien kura “ville”, signifie “ville du cheval”. Mais de quel cheval s'agit-il ? Et pourquoi servait-il à désigner la cité?

These prayers, the text and translation of which are given below, are but a few of those I copied some time ago from tablets in the British Museum. Owing to various reasons I have been unable to publish them before.

I have revised the copies and have given full notes and mentioned all other sources dealing with the subject and I hope that my work may be of some use to those interested in that branch of study.

In the India Office Library there exists an extensive and well-written MS. (A) in Tibetan writing and non-Tibetan language, belonging to the collection acquired by Sir A. Stein from the famous hidden library of Tun-huang (Ch'ien-fo-tung); it is described below. In the light of previous experience of such MSS. it was quickly apparent that the language was Chinese; but owing to the known difficulty of restoring Chinese characters from writing representing pronunciation, whether ancient or modern, an interpretation of the text seemed to be for the present practically out of the question.

The text here published occupies part of the Reverse of British Museum tablet Rm. 2,160 and includes part of two prayers, with the accompanying ritual. The first prayer is addressed to some goddess, the second is to the stone ŝadanu. Of the Obverse, only a few signs remain. My thanks are due to the Trustees of the British Museum for their kind permission to publish this text, and I have to acknowledge gratefully the help accorded to me by Professor Langdon in interpreting and restoring it, and by Mr. C. J. Gadd in collating for me some of the lines.

The Moorish traveller Ibn Baṭṭūṭa occupies a peculiar place in medieval geography, not only because his journeys were so extensive, exceeding in length even those of Marco Polo, but because the record of them contains such a fantastic mixture of items of information, some valuable or precise, others worthless or vague in the extreme, regarding the different cities, provinces, and distinguished men that he had seen. Everyone who has traced out his journey step by step must agree that there are serious arguments against the trustworthiness of his statements regarding several of the cities which he claimed to have visited. On the other hand, it is exceedingly difficult to substantiate the suspicions thus aroused. He was a skilful narrator, and did not himself, as is well known, write down the record of his journeys; consequently the existence of one or two errors in his account of a city or a district does not prove anything against him, since it must be allowed that his memory occasionally played him false. Besides, Ibn Battuta was a typical son of the medieval East, a fact which explains certain systematic faults in his narrative. For example, he is very inconsequent; sometimes he speaks at length of a small village, and sometimes devotes no more than one or two words to a celebrated city. Sometimes, but not always, he gives an impression of sincerity, saving frankly that he was badly treated by so-and-so, or that he was told about such and such a city or country, but did not himself visit it. For this reason one is naturally inclined to accept his word when he says that he personally visited a place.

In the various discussions over the date of the Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra no notice appears to have been taken so far of the deductions that can be drawn from Buddhist sources. This is all the more remarkable in that the exact dating of the Chinese translations enables us to determine the lower limits for the dates of a number of Buddhist works, so that we thus have fixed points from which to start. Here I propose to consider the relationship in date of the Arthaśāstrato the works of Aśvaghoṭa, to Āryaśūra's Jātahamālā and to the Lanhdvatdrasutra.

In the Journal for April, 1927, pp. 209–26, I published some notes on the text of the first eight cantos of the Buddhacarita in the light of the old MS. in Nepal and of the Tibetan translation as edited and translated by Dr. Fr. Weller. The second part of the latter work has now appeared, containing the Tibetan text of cantos ix–xvii and the translation of cantos x–xvii, the translation of canto ix, which has gaps in the Sanskrit, being apparently reserved for further consideration. The notes in this part are full and careful and will be found of great help to all interested in the restoration of the Sanskrit text. We have every reason, too, to be grateful to Dr. Weller for undertaking the difficult task of translating the part from xiv, 33, on, for which no Sanskrit text exists, and, though, inevitably, owing to the nature of the Tibetan translation if the Sanskrit text were to be discovered minor details in Dr. Weller's translation would be found to require modification, at least we can now see clearly how Aśvaghoṣa handled the story.