In Semitic languages, except Akkadian, the gentilitial adjectives are formed by adding a suffix -ī to the words from which they derive.

Fire and water are natural symbols, individually and in combination, in mythologies throughout the world. They assume a unique meaning in the Indian context, where tradition has attached particular significance to each element. Together, as an apparent conjunction of opposites, fire and water resolve some of the major paradoxes of Indian—especially Śaiva—mythology. The most striking instance of this symbolism is the image of the mare who wanders beneath the ocean, breathing fire.

My subject is the relation between Hindu religion and morality. After some comments on this relation in traditional Indian society, I describe changes in religious thought and practice in a village which has become part of the industrial city of Bangalore; and I use this local example to support general conclusions about the development of values of autonomy in Indian industrial society.

THE EDITORS OF THE version of Aśoka's first Minor Rock Edict discovered at Bahapur deserve our thanks for making this inscription available so quickly.1 It is unfortunate that by some error the conventional symbols for a doubtful reading [ ], e.g. [sā]tileke in line 2, and a suggested emendation ( ), e.g. (ā)hā for ahā in line 1, have all been printed as [ ], but a careful examination of the photographs of the rock and of the estampage enables most ambiguities arising from this error to be eliminated.

There are several points in the Bahapur version which merit attention, (a) By a faulty word-division the editors have printed amha maye in line 3, presumably understanding amha as an ablative form. It is clear from the other versions of the edict that we must have am here, cf. yam in line 2. If we adopt the word-division am hamaye, we obtain a hitherto unattested form of the instrumental of the first person pronoun. In line 2 of the Calcutta-Bairat2 inscription we find hamā as the equivalent of mamā (= genitive), which is found in lines 13 and 16 of RE3 V at Kalsi, lines 5 and 12 of SepE I and line 6 of SepE II at Dhauli, and line 12 of PE IV at Delhi-Topra; in line 3 of the Calcutta-Bairat inscription we find hamiyāye as the equivalent of mamiyāye (= instrumental), which is found in line 6 of SepE II at Jaugada; we now have hamaye as the equivalent of mamaye (= instrumental), which is found in line 4 of SepE II at Dhauli.

THE GALAPĀTA VIHĀRA rock inscription “is engraved on a rock by the side of the flight of steps leading to the shrines and monastic buildings at the Galāpata Vihāra situated about two miles south-west of the Rest-House at Bentoṭa (Bhīmatittha) in the Valallāviṭa Korale of the Southern Province’.1 The date of this inscription is placed by Müller2 and Bell3 in the reign of Parākramabāhu II (A.D. 1236–70), whereas Paranavitana put it back to the reign of Parākramabāhu I (A.D. 1153–87).4 This paper will examine the dates suggested by these earlier writers and interpret from a new point of view the evidence so far adduced, as well as fresh evidence, attempting thereby to establish with slight modifications the date suggested by Müller and Bell.

Although the rāgamāla miniatures are well known among art historians, scholars have hitherto paid little attention to the texts occurring on them. This remarkable fact might be attributed to the indifference of the art historians, for whom the chief interest lay in the paintings themselves. It should, however, be borne in mind that to those scholars who were also interested in the texts—as for instance O. C. Gangoly, who in the second volume of his famous book Rāgas and Rāginīs traced a number of Sanskrit dhyānas and Hindī dohās appearing on the front or reverse of rāga miniatures—the musical treatises to which these texts often refer were almost inaccessible, because most of them existed only in manuscript. Only very recently have a number of saṃgīta texts been edited.