Night ganz unähnlich der allgemeinen Achtung vor der Vereinigung der drei Veden (trayī vidyā) geniesst auf medizinischem Gebiet ein hohes Ansehen die alte Trias (vāddha-trayī), welche aus den Ärzten Caraka, Suśruta und Vāgbhaṭa zusammengesetzt ist. Nach der Überlieferung und in dem Gesichtswinkel der Inder erscheinen diese Medizinlehrer der Vorzeit durchaus als gesehichtliche Persönlichkeiten, wie manche ihrer Vorläufer. Einer jener letzten, Hārāta, bezeichnet Caraka, Suśruta und schliesslich Vāgbhaṭa in ihren Sammellehren als Vertreter der drei Welt-Zeitalter (carakaḥ suśrutas caiva vāgbhaṭaś ca tathā 'paraḥ | mukhyās ca saṃhitā vācyās tisra eva yuge yuge). Die Sachlage, welche die apokryphe Hārtā-Saṃhitā in ihrem Anhang (praśiṣṭa) schildert, lässt sich kritisch unschwer überblicken. Das Zitat beleuchtet aber anderseits auch allgemein den Boden, welchem noch heut die gesehichtliche Einstellung der Inder entspringt, in Bindungen zu ihren überkonimenen Weltanschauungen und Religionen, und nicht so selten unter Anerkennung solcher Richtlinien seitens Beobachter eines westlichen Kulturkreises. In derartigen Materialien erscheint die Grenze zwischen Sage und Geschichte sachlich und zeitlich verwaschen und eine kritische Betrachtung bald in mittelalterliche, bald in neuzeitliche Verhältnisse verworfen. Bei der fast sprichwörtlichen Unsicherheit des Zeitmasses indischer Belange wurde daher folgerichtig der entsprechende Schwerpunkt geschichtlicher Forschung der kritischen Beurteilung des Text-Inhaltes eingereiht. In dieser Richtung laufen die bahnbrechenden und grundlegenden Untersuchungen eines Cordier, Hoernle und Jolly. Die stehengebliebenen Unstimmigkeiten weisen aber auch auf die verschiedenen Möglichkeiten in der Auswertung des Textmaterials und des wenig übersichtlichen Geflechtes seiner Kommentare hin. Bei einem Versuch zur Einebnung des sachlichen Zwiespaltes drängt sich aber immer wieder der Mangel zeitlicher Bestimmungen wie eine Sperre auf für einen Fortschritt und zwingt oft zu einem Verzicht, der für einen Erfolg keiner Erwähnung bedarf.

Colonel James Tod has stated in his Annals of Rājasthāna that in V.S. 526 (A.D. 470) Rāṭhōra Nayapāla acquired the kingdom of Kanauj after killing king Ajayapāla. This assertion does not seem to be correct, for, though the Rāshṭrakūṭas had had their sway over Kanauj ere this, yet about this particular period king Skandagupta or his son Kumāragupta of the Imperial Gupta dynasty ruled over Kanauj. After this the Maukharīs occupied it, and their power was set aside, for some time, by the Baisas, who took possession of Kanauj. But after the death of Harsha the Maukharīs again made it their capital. About V.S. 798 (A.D. 741) king Lalitāditya (Muktāpīḍa) of Kāshmīr had invaded Kanauj, then, too, it was the capital of Yashōvarman, the Maukhari ruler. Further it appears from the copper grant of V.S. 1084 (A.D. 1027) of Pratihāra king Trilōchanapāla and from the inscription of V.S. 1093 (A.D. 1036) of Yashahpāla that the Pratihāras ruled over Kanauj about that time.

A Student of Indian History is often surprised to find that what he has been accustomed to look upon from boyhood as sheet anchors of Indian Chronology prove, on closer scrutiny, to be very far from being so. The year 322–321 B.C. for the accession of Candragupta Mauryya is one of such dates.

In the first nine maṇḍalas of the Rigveda there is hardly anything which deals directly with local government or which, even indirectly, could give us an idea of the constitution and working of local government institutions of the period. The only terms which we find used in the sense of a locality of some sort are: (1) Gaya, (2) Gṛha, (3) Pastya, (4) Harmya, (5) Grāma, (6) Pūr, (7) Viś, and (8) Rāṣṭra. Of these the first four are all used in the sense of a house or household. The term Grāma is used both in the sense of a village (that is a locality) and a body of men (that is a division of the Āryan people). The term Pūr, though understood by some to mean a town, is distinctly used in the sense of a fortification.

In 205 B.C., while Hannibal was still standing on Italian soil, the Great Goddess from Pessinus in Phrygia, a town then situated in the land of the Celtic Galatians, was brought to Rome in the shape of a black stone. The Sibylline books are said to have advised this transplantation of Kybele to the banks of the Tiber. These Sibylline books were copies of oracles given by the Sibyl of Cumæ in Campania, where she acted as priestess of Apollo. Now it has been shown that the Sibyl, who is mentioned by Herakleitos, is originally probably identical with the Sipylene, i.e. the Goddess from Mount Sipylos. This is one of the designations of the Great Phrygian Goddess called in Rome Mater deum Magna Idaea, the Great Mother of the Gods from Mount Ida. The origin of the Sibyl is placed in Phrygia by Herakleides of Pontos, and Pausanias mentions Erythrai, near Smyrna, situated not far from the Sipylos range, as well as Marpessos on Mount Ida as birthplaces of the Sibyl. The Sibyl of Cumæ therefore counselled the introduction into Rome of the worship of a goddess with whom she must have been connected since ancient times; Apollo himself comes from Asia Minor.

The Paripāḍal, which belongs to the Eṭṭuttogai collection, is of unique interest in that it enables us to fix the Saṅgham age accurately, by a careful consideration of its astronomical data. The data are contained in the following opening lines of the 11th Paripāḍal of Nallanduvanār:—

virikadir madiyamoḍu viyal viśumbu puṇarppa

veriśaḍaiyeilvēan talaiyenak kīirundu

teruviḍaippaḍutta mūnṟonpadiṟṟirukkaiyu

ḷurukeu veḷḷivandēṟṟiyal śēra

varuḍaiyaip paḍimagan vāyppap poruḍeri

pundi mitunam porundap pular viḍiya

laṅgiyuyar niṟpa vantaṇan paṅguvi

nillattuṇaikkuppāleyda viṟaiyaman

villiṟkaḍai makaramēvap pāmbollai

madiyamaḍaiya varunāḷil vāynda

podiyin munivan puraivaraikkīṟi

mitunamaḍaiya virikadir vēni

ledirvaravu māriyiyaikena vivvāṟṟäṟ

puraikeu śaiyam poimaaitāa.

In an article published in this Journal dated April, 1930, I discussed a tombstone which I considered as the most ancient Islamic monument. This was dated A.H. 31 (A.D. 652).

In Arabic literature there is hardly any separation between works on political history and historical biography. This is due to the two sources from which historical traditions are derived: the sīra-literature dealing with the life of the prophet Muḥammad and the rather legendary traditions on the tribal warfare of the jāhiliyya known as ayyām al-'arab. It was on this double basis that Arabic historiography had gradually been built up. On the one hand, parallel to the sīra-literature, there developed the so-called ṭabaqāt-literature containing biographies first on the companions of Muḥammad ('ilm ar-rijāl), then on all sorts of illustrious men arranged into classes (ṭabaqāt) according to the year of their death. The Kitāb aṭ-ṭabaqāt al-kabīr of Ibn Sa'd az-Zuhrī (died in 230/845) was the first standard work of this kind of literature, which flourished especially in the post-classical period of Arabic literature in the increasing quantity of ṭabaqāt-works on rulers, theologians, jurisconsults, and poets.

The Chandonukramaṇī forms a part of the Vārāhapariśiṣṭas. As is evident from the text given hereunder, it is of immense importance. This little booklet is unknown from any other source. Few scholars know of its existence. The original MS. is in the Baroda library, and was discovered by my friend Mr. R. A. Sastry.

While excavating at the side of the foundations of the Temple of Ishtar in some Parthian houses on Kouyunjik in 1930–1, we found a quantity of black-painted pottery, to all appearances of an early date, of the same kind as appeared in 1927 and 1929, when Mr. Hutchinson was in charge of the pottery. This painted ware, while reminiscent of the well-known ware from Susa and Babylonia, has a distinct type of its own, and we are still in doubt about its exact date, but it is presumably of the Third Millennium. Its presence in Parthian levels led us to assume that some Parthian archaeologist had collected it.

A Letter from a man called Ishkun-Dagan has been published by M. Thureau-Dangin in Revue d'Assyriologie, xxiii, pp. 23 ff. Another letter of this man has recently been presented to the Trustees of the British Museum by Dr. N. L. Corkill, formerly Civil Surgeon, Baghdad, who very kindly allowed me to study and copy it at Baghdad; it is now numbered 121205. The tablet was obtained in Nasiriyah, and though the statement of the fellaḥ to whom it once belonged that it was found at Sinkarah is of no value, it certainly came from a site in the Muntafik area, very possibly from illicit excavations which are known to have been conducted at Warka. The tablet was probably found at the same time and in the same place as the tablet now in the Louvre, so that they were found in the archive of the sender, not of the addressee, a curious circumstance for which many parallels could be cited. The writing is delicate, very accurate, and large. Owing to an accident when I was examining the tablet at Baghdad, after making my copy of the text which was then complete, the tablet was broken and some signs have now been injured in lines 21–4.

The text which is here presented is part of a long mythological poem inscribed in alphabetical cuneiform upon clay tablets found at Ras-Samra. This portion of the text was published by Virolleaud in Syria, October, 1931, together with a transliteration into Latin characters, a French translation, and brief notes. It is here transliterated into square Hebrew characters, translated into English, and furnished with a commentary. Needless to say, this fresh edition owes more than can be adequately expressed to the pioneer work of Virolleaud, whose philological interpretations have been largely adopted. It appeared, however, that there was still room for further interpretation of the text along purely mythological lines, and that several allusions could still be explained. Moreover, there were quite a few passages where philological treatment from a different angle would seem to throw light upon obscurity. In none of these matters can finality be claimed; one can but suggest. And it should especially be remembered that at the moment only one portion of a large text is to hand. One may hope that the great French scholar may see his way to letting us have the remainder without undue delay.

Since my article on the above appeared, additional information has come to hand which appears to be of sufficient merit to be recorded, more especially because this old music of the Moors is gradually disappearing. At the invitation of the Egyptian Government, I attended a Congress of Arabian Music which was held in Cairo during March and April, 1932, where I had the honour to preside over the Commission of History and Manuscripts. During this congress I had the opportunity of studying, at first hand, the practical as well as the theoretical art. The best native orchestras from Arabic speaking lands were in attendance, and among them were three from Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia. These latter included in their répertoires the old Maghriban melodies from the ṭubū', naubāt, or ṣan'āt. At these auditions, and from conversations with the musicians, but more especially through information obtained from Sīdī Ḥasan 'Abd al-Wahhāb the Governor of Mahdia, and Sīdī Muḥammad al-Manūbī al-Sanūsī of Tūnis, I had confirmation by eye and ear of that which hitherto had only been known to me by script.

The two hymns here edited are respectively the first and p the last of the four stavasattributed to Nāgārjuna, and generally known and quoted under the comprehensive name Catuḥ-stava or Catu-stava; the other two stotras, missing in our manuscript, are the Lolātīta-stava and the Citta-vajrastava. As to their authorship, there is but little doubt; the style itself is the same as that of the kārikās of the Mūlamādhyamika-kārikās. Moreover, Candrakīrti in his Prasannapadā quotes from the Catuḥ-stava, attributing one of them, viz. the Lokātīta-stava to the Master, ācārya-pādāḥ (p. 413).

The copper coin (fals) shown in the plate was unearthed recently during work for irrigation on the lesser Zâb. Mr. W. Allard, Director of Irrigation in 'Irâq, has kindly allowed it to be photographed for publication. The inscriptions on the coin are:—

Obverse

Centre

Border

Creed.

K. 4874 is the right half of a square tablet, originally about 5 inches wide and 4½ inches long. Translation by Sayce, but the text has not been published. Owing to its fragmentary condition, the document has value almost exclusively for Sumerian and Semitic philology. It must belong to a series, for part of the Sumerian catch-line is preserved. The only similar tablet, known to me, is the Assyrian copy of a Babylonian bilingual account of the return of the statue of Marduk from Elam to Babylon, K. 3444, with duplicate, K. 3317, published in IV Kaw. 20, No. 1. K. 4874 is not entirely bilingual. Of the 62 lines on this tablet, Obv. 11–12, 17, 22, 25–26–27, 36, have no Sumerian equivalents, unless it be supposed that these lines contained Sumerian translations on the left side of the tablet. Obverse 23 proves that it is a royal inscription and semi-historical.

The unpublished text K. 2505 has been partially utilized by the late Professor Zimmern in a few entries communicated by him to Professor Meissner for the Nachträge to the latter's Seltene Assyrische Ideogramme. It was obvious from the few extracts available in this important book that K. 2505 contains much valuable and new material, and I am grateful to the Keeper of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities of the British Museum, Mr. Sidney Smith, for permission to copy and publish this text. It throws much new light upon the forms and uses of Sumerian verbs. I cannot discover any duplicates in the extensive incantation literature, although the fragment obviously belongs to a long and an important text of the utukkê limnûti series.

Within the last few years, a period which may well be said to have been initiated by the publication of the late Professor Browne's Arabian Medicine in 1921, there has sprung up a new interest in the scientific accomplishments of Islamic Persia. The foundations of this study were laid in the last century by the German publication of certain Arabic texts and historical works and by Leclerc's Histoire de la Médecine arabe. In this first period must be included a short note by Professor Nicholson on the Ḥifẓ-ul-Ṣiḥḥat (or Ḥifẓ-ul-Badan) of Fakhr-ul-Dīn Rāzī, which was published in the Society's Journal for January, 1899.

Among the tablets found by the French excavators at Ras Shamra, south of Antioch, written in the alphabetic cuneiform script and published by M. Virolleaud (Syria, x, 1929), there is one (No. 4) which has been omitted by Père Dhorme in his brilliant article on the transliteration and translation of the texts in the Revue Biblique, xiv, 1 (Jan., 1931). The reason for the omission is that the language of the text is not Phœnician, but an unknown form of speech. The text itself is a fairly long one, and is divided into short paragraphs, the separate words being also divided from one another as in the Phœnician texts.

The Gudea cylinder A, col. iii, 12, contains a crux interpretationis which editors have failed to overcome. Thureau-Dangin's new copy, Les Cylindres de Gudéa, TC. viii, has NE-gi-BAR a-gal-la dū-a-me. That this is the true division of the signs is proved by iv Raw. 29**, 9 = my SBP. 268; á-ma-al dū-a-bi-e-ne = li'at kalama “wise (goddess) in all things”, and by v Raw. 44, B 14, N.Pr. d.Nannar-á-gal-dūa-bi = Sin-li'i-kullati. The passage occurs in an address of Gudea to Gatumdug. The passage was left untranslated by Thureau-Dangin, SAK. p. 93, but P. Maurus Witzel, Keilschriftliche Studien, Heft 3, p. 2, rendered the line, “Thou art she who causes wheat to thrive by the overflow of waters,” without any note on the text. It is obvious that agalla dū-a me means “thou art wise in all things”. For gal var. of gaĺ, see VAT. 10216 in Meissner's Beiträge zum Assyrischen Wörterbuch, p. 81, 40, note 56, and a for á in a-ma-al = le'u, Ebeling, KAR. 44, Rev. 18. á-gal = rabiš, CT. 21, 48, 6 = VS. i, 33; ii, 4; ug-e a-gal, powerful panther, Genouillac, La Trouvaille de Dréhem, No. 1, 3. NE-gi-BAR cannot possibly be a word for wheat, fruit, or some grain in this passage.