It is perhaps difficult to exaggerate the importance from the point of view of the literary history of India of the Bṛhaddevatā attributed to Śaunaka. That this has not hitherto received full recognition is due in part to the fact that it has been held, for example even by Dr. E. Sieg, that the Bṛhaddevatā is later in date than the Mahābhārata. This is, however, certainly not the case, as Professor A. A. Macdonell has shown conclusively in his edition of the former work. About 300 ślokas of the work are devoted to legends, and this must, it seems, be regarded as a conclusive proof that at the date of its composition there existed in Sanskrit an ākhyāna or itihāsa literature. Now the date of the Bṛhaddevatā is fixed by Professor Macdonell, on grounds which appear to me unassailable, at about 400 b.c., perhaps earlier. It follows, therefore, that a Sanskrit itihāsa literature can be proved to have existed in the fifth century b.c.

After, Abú Naṣr-i-Fársí had incurred the displeasure of Sulṭán Mas‘úd, his protégés were also arrested, dismissed or cast into prison, and amongst them Mas‘úd-i- Sa‘d-i-Salmán, who was interned in the Castle of Maranj, where he remained a long time in confinement. During this period also he composed in praise of Sulṭán Mas‘úd and his advisers and courtiers poems so touching and full of pathos that, in the words of Niámí-i-‘Arúḍí of Samarqand, to read them “causes the hair to stand on end and tears to well from the eyes.” Yet these availed him nothing, until, after eight years, according to the most probable conjecture, the efforts of Thiqatu’l-Mulk Ṭáhir b. ‘Alí effected his release. I shall now cite verses in proof of the facts summarised above.

To that Beneficial Farming result (literally ‘to that cattle-culture profit’), (and) to the Praise (i.e. to the Celebrated Service), do I devote my desire (i.e. do I turn my prayers). Which is (i.e. the above means): toward the Praise of the good seed (having the prospect of future beneficial results in cattle-breeding and harvest in view, do I turn my prayers). [It is (above all and as including the above) quite necessary to turn (our desiring prayers) toward the Dēn (possibly meaning ‘in accordance with the Dēn’), and toward the profitable (result). From that on they should make it their own (or meaning ‘do it (?) of themselves’)], (2) [even toward it (the beneficial result; see above), let us devote our desiring prayers] with the concurrence of Aši (as the Consideration of Recompense, and as the representation of wealth for the reward) [of themselves it is necessary so to act (or ‘it is necessary to make that their own’), when they would accomplish the Priestly course of Studies prescribed by Aši (as the Venerating Recognition of the Recompense); also to it, the Profit and the Service, they should offer their desiring prayers] with the concurrence of Perfect Thinking (i.e. with Perfect Reflection and Investigation the above indicated course of action is to be pursued) [when (meaning ‘in case that’) they should completely carry out a course of Priestly Studies (in reference to the duties of the Sanctuary, and to Agriculture as sanctified by the Religion of the State)].

The opinion that a Bābar-nāma exists in Bukhārā rests upon inference and rumour only. It is on record that a copy of the book was made in Bukhārā in 1709 (p. 81), and that in 1824 this copy belonged to a Bukhāriot merchant, named Naẓar Bāy Turkistānī.

Yuan chwang describes a country which he calls Mo-la-p'o, immediately after his account of the kingdom of Broach in the modern Bombay Presidency. Up to lately, this name has (with some hesitation) been considered as equivalent to Mālava, the modern Mālwā. Mr. Vincent Smith, on pp. 279, 280 of his Early History of India, and at greater length in vol. lviii of the Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, has attacked this interpretation, and, with a confidence somewhat strongly contrasted with the diffident opinions of his predecessors, maintains that “ the learned authors who identify Mo-la-p'o with Mālava, meaning by the latter term the kingdom of Ujjayinī, are demonstrably mistaken.” He insists that Yuan Chwang's Mo-la-p'o “ clearly corresponds with the modern Bombay districts of Kaira and Ahmadabad, together with parts of Baroda and some adjoining territory.” In other words, it roughly corresponds with a portion of what is now called North Gujarāt.

In his interesting paper on “The Nāgarakretāgama List of Countries on the Indo-Chinese Mainland,” Colonel Gerini objects, reasonably enough, to the claim set up by the Javanese author of the Nāgara Krĕtāgama that the states of Kĕdah, Kĕlantan, Trĕngganu, and Pahang in the Malay Peninsula and the island of Singapore at the south of it were dependencies of the Javanese empire of Majapahit. This alleged Javanese supremacy over the Peninsula cannot, in view of the known facts of Malay history, have been much more than a mere pretension, never substantiated by any real effective occupation. The claim was no doubt made under the influence of the stirring events which in or about the year 1377 a.d. culminated in a great, though transient, expansion of the Javanese sway. Palembang, Jambi, Pasei, and Samudra (in Sumatra), Ujong Tanah (the “Land's End” of the Malay Peninsula, now known as Johor), Bangka, Bĕlitung, Riau, Lingga, Bentan, and a number of other small islands in this region, as well as certain points on the coast of Borneo and other places to the eastward, are in the Pasei Chronicle recorded as having been conquered by Majapahit at this period or as being tributary to it about this time.

These talismans represent the later and more elaborate magic which can be traced to the influence of the Cabala, a theosophical work embodying the Gnostic traditions of past ages. The ideas contained in them are chiefly to be found in the “ Sepher Yetzirah,” or “ Book of Formation,” which is held by some authorities to be the oldest philosophical treatise to be found in the Hebrew language. The same authority tells us it is referred to by both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, and therefore this work or a similar predecessor is at least as old as a.d. 200.

Some remarks made in the Journal des Savants, 1905. 540 ff., by our valued friend and collaborator M. Sylvain Lévi, have given me a clue which enables me to now carry to a final result that which I have to say about the inscription on the steatite or soap-stone Piprāwā relic-vase,—the oldest known Indian record. He has drawn attention to a statement by Hiuen Tsiang (see page 166 below), overlooked by me, which has led me to weigh the wording of the inscription in such a manner that no doubt whatsoever remains as to the real meaning of it, and as to the circumstances connected with it.

The earliest references to the Śakas have been so often discussed that it would seem scarcely worth while to seek for further information in them (see Rawlinson's Herodotus, 1880, iv, pp. 200 sqq.). But the passages in Herodotus and the inscriptions of Darius have suggested to me a doubt which I should like to submit for consideration.