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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Ethe's Catalogue of the Persian Manuscripts in the India Office Library, there is an entry (No. 1778) describing a prose work entitled Anīsu 'l-Murīdīn wa Shamsu 'l-Majālis, which is ascribed in the introduction and colophon to Shaykh 'Abdullāh Anṣārī of Harāt. Ethé, obviously assuming the genuineness of this ascription, states in Geiger und Kuhn's Grundriss (vol. ii, p. 282) that the work is the oldest prose version of the Yūsuf and Zulaikha story, and on this assertion of Ethé's a recent number of Islamica (vol. iii, April, 1927, p. 10) contained a plea from Berthels for fuller information about the work. At the suggestion of Professor Nicholson I undertook the examination of the MS., which the India Office authorities kindly placed at my disposal in the University Library at Cambridge.

This was given some years ago to the University Library at Cambridge by Sir Herbert Thompson, who bought it with other objects from a dealer in London. I have to thank the Librarian for his kind permission to publish it.

In recent years explorations of great importance have been conducted on a Buddhist site in the Pālnād taluk of the Guntur district of the Madras Presidency, lastly under the superintendence of Mr. A. H. Longhurst, of the Archaeological Survey of India. The site in question which comprises several ancient mounds is situated in the midst of wooded hills on the right bank of the river Kistna or Kṛishṇā, the Kaṇṇapeṇṇa or Kaṇṇavaṇṇā (Skt. Kṛishṇavarṇā) of Pali literature, at a distance of some 15 miles from Macherla and on the border of the Nizam's dominions. One of those mounds is known by the name of Nāgārjunikoṇḍa. Mr. Longhurst claims it to be the most important Buddhist site hitherto discovered in Southern India.