1. Stems. Besides a few uncommon spellings (as etc., see above, A, 4) nothing particular can be observed with regard to the formation of both verbal stems, present and past. The latter in a few cases appears to be formed from the former in a so-called ‘regular’way, and to be used instead of the original preterite, as in (18) ,(92 v.), etc. The verbal compounds also do not show many peculiarities, and only a few more or less archaic prepositions, as , etc., deserve to be mentioned.

Still more remarkable than all previous results is the exact chronological coincidence of the new epigraphic finds with certain hitherto neglected Alexandrian theories about the date of the legendary “Cadmus” and his expeditions to Thasos, Thrace, Boiotia, etc.

The school of opinion, represented in Poetics by the alaṁkāra-portion of the Agni-purāṇa apparently follows a tradition which departs in many respects from the orthodox systems, and which is further developed in later literature by Bhoja in his Sarasvatī-kaṇṭâbharaṇa.

Although there are several works still extant which are ascribed, correctly or wrongly, to the authorship of the great Sufic saint of Herat, ‘Abdu’l-lah Anṣārī (died a.h. 481/a.d. 1088), his hagiological treatise, dealing with the early period of Sufism, was so far believed to have been lost. It was an enlarged Persian version of Abū ‘Abdi’r-Raḥmān Muḥammad Sulamī's (d. a.h. 412/a.d. 1021) book Ṭabaqātu'ṣ-Ṣūfiyyīn, which was composed in Arabic. All we knew so far about Anṣārī's work was derived almost exclusively from Jami's description given by him in the preface to Nafaḥātu'l-Uns. As it appears now, a copy of that version came to light as early as 1809, when it was purchased for the library of the College of Fort William at Calcutta. It is at present preserved in the library of the Asiatic Society of Bengal and bears the mark D 232 (or old 536).

In his review of my book on the newly deciphered Sinai inscriptions (JRAS., 1920, p. 301) the Rev. Professor A. H. Sayce has already been good enough to mention my recent discovery of some short alphabetic biliteral inscriptions on certain copper ingots, unearthed from the very border-line of the so-called “ Middle Minoan III ” and “ Late Minoan I ” layers of the Hagia Triada palace by the excavation mission in Crete of Messrs. Halbherr, Pernier, Stefani, and Paribeni in 1903 as well as on similar pieces from Tylissos and Mochlos, none being from Phaistos. All of them are at present in the museum of Heraklea, under the care of Professor Josef Hazzidakis, to whose kindness I owe the photographs reproduced in figures 1–8. Similar inscriptions have come from Serra Ilixi (Sardinia), and are now in the royal museum of Cagliari. I have to thank Professor Taramelli, director of this collection, for his kindness in sending me the excellent paper squeezes of these scribings, which the reader will find reproduced in fig. 10.

A rigorous restriction of space in the Journal, which to the editor has all the virtues of necessity, and to the contributor most of the features of calamity, confines me to a few lines of preliminary matter. I should have wished to explain the use in these papers of the words “ ideogram ” and “ ideographic ”, but I cannot. I should also have liked to include entries on the important characters yin and yany of the dualistic system, which occur in my own collection of Honan relics, but are unknown to either Lo Chên-yü or Wang Hsiang, but this too is impossible. Let us therefore proceed to business.

“ Rough list of Dr. Stein's MSS. sent by Dr. Barnett ”—with brief descriptions.

1. (1) “ 9, 1 Brāhmī fol. C.A.,” unknown language, probably a Prajñā-pāramitā.

(2) Inner cover marked C xlvi (Suppl.) Large C.A. leaf 6.vi.07 ; outer cover marked Ch. Large C.A. Brāhmī frgt.; part of the former.

The Fárs-Námeh-i-Náṣirí (lith. Tihrán 1313/1895–6) contains much valuable information regarding the various nomad tribes of the province.

The full story of the Turki book on which, in Kehr's Codex, Ilminski based his Bābur-nāma (1857) is a very comedy of blameless error and mischance, primarily due to textual poverty; it has yet to be told but is too long for admission in the Journal; hence the purpose of this article is restricted to showing, on the evidence of its colophon and contents, that it is not the Bābur-nāma proper it passed for in Europe from 1725 to 1903, but is a work of independent authorship, plan, and date.

The Assyrian and Babylonian copies of the Seventh book of the Epic of Gilgames, which recorded the destruction of the demoniac Khumbaba and the death of Engidu, the companion of Gilgames, have not yet been recovered. It is, therefore, interesting to find that among the Hittite tablets from Boghaz Keui, now in Berlin, there are fragments of two or three different copies of it, not only in Hittite, but also in “ Kharrian ”, that is to say, Mitannian. There was, however, a reason for this. The home of Khumbaba was “ the Cedar forest” of the Amanus region, and the story of the struggle between him and the Babylonian hero possessed a special interest for the people of Asia Minor.

It is not unlikely that the earliest trace of the Kurds is to be found on a Sumerian clay-tablet, of the third millennium B.C., on which “ the land of Kar-da ” or “ Qar-da ” is mentioned. This “ land of Karda ” adjoined that of the people of Su, who dwelt on the south of Lake Wân, and seems in all probability to have been connected with the Qur-ṭi-e, who lived in the mountains to the west of the same lake, and with whom Tiglath-Pileser I fought; the philological identity of these two names is, however, uncertain, owing to the doubt about the precise value of the palatals and dentals in Sumerian.

The following paper is based on notes which I made during my three years of war service in Mesopotamia (1915–18) and a year (1904–5) at Mosul, and I venture to publish them in the hope that such piecemeal may be of use to those interested in comparing ancient Assyria with modern Mesopotamia.

This year witnesses the completion of a task begun soon after the inception of its forty-two years of publishing texts by the Pali Text Society. I refer to the completion of its editions of that third section of the Buddhist canon entitled the Abhidhamma Piṭaka, and of its editions of the Commentaries on that section. In 1883 the fourth of the seven Abhidhamma texts appeared : the Puggala-Paññatti. In the present year the Society brings out the conclusion of the seventh text: the Paṭṭhāna, and the belated Commentary on the second text: the Vibhanga.

The mosque named after the eccentric Khalif al-Ḥākim was commenced, according to Maqrīzī, by the Khalif al-‘Azīz in Ramadān 380 (November–December, 990), and opened for worship in 381 (991–2) before being finished. Al-Ḥākim recommenced the construction in 393 (1002–3), and was still engaged thereon in 401 (1010–11). In 403 (1012–13) he had it furnished and decorated.

A previous article on the same subject appeared in the Journal for 1918, p. 263. Mr. A. F. Kendrick has kindly supplied a photograph, observations, and a description of the following fabric :—

Woven silk textile in the Victoria and Albert Museum, No. T. 122. 1921.

Amongst the dramatic works of the Hindus a peculiar position is occupied by the Mudrā-Rākṣasa, the one work known under the name of Viśākhadatta. Neither the superior genius of Kālidāsa, nor the pathetic sublimity of Bhavabhūti, nor even the versatility and skill of Śrī-Harṣa has been in any way rivalled by this author, nor can he perhaps lay claim to a very high rank as a stylist, although some of his verses are certainly among the loftiest passages in the classical literature of India. But he excels them all in the marvellous power of characterizing his personages ; and, if Rāma, Jīmūtavāhana, and even Śakuntalā often appear to us, with all their praiseworthy qualities, somewhat pale and lifeless, like fair spirits from a wonderland far away from the sin-stained earth, nothing of that sort could ever be said of the figures acting the play of Viśākhadatta. For there is certainly no lack of real life either in the diabolical plotting and unbending energy of Cāṇakya, or in the noble bitterness of Rākṣasa, or the stubborn blockheadedness of Malayaketu. Besides, the whole theme of the play is political intrigue and preparations for war, the hard work of men, and there is nothing at all about love and sentimentality, except the little scene between Candanadása and his family at the beginning of the last act, which is of absolutely no importance for the development of the play. Even religion and pious feelings seem to have been looked upon by the author as rather unimportant things—his interest is politics and nothing but politics.