At the conclusion of a paper dealing with the possible identity of the site of Kasiā with Veṭhadīpa, I expressed the hope that a continuation of my explorations on that site would lead to a final solution of the topographical problem. Owing to unforeseen circumstances, this hope has not been fulfilled. Last winter's excavations, however, have had the result of settling another question no less important for the ancient geography of India—that of the position of Śrāvastī.

Few studies in ancient cosmology can more entertain or instruct the investigator of to-day than a careful comparison of the seven diagrams published as correct pictures of the Babylonian universe in the works named below. No two of the seven agree. Moreover, the first represents the Zodiac as at a vast distance above the sphere of the fixed stars, a proceeding which at the start disarranges all ordinary astronomic ideas. Equally unpicturable in my imagination is the seventh of the series, the world sketched by Radau. Again and again have I tried to construct it in thought, but every time have failed. Even Jensen in his great work gives us for “the place of the Convocation of the Gods” (Du-azag), only a pitch-dark cavern in the thin crust of his sea-filled hemispherical earth, and has no place for Hades but another cavern located in the same thin crust and oddly enough far above the cave of the gods. Surely there is a call for new attempts to think the thoughts of these ancient Semites after them.

A Portion of a Hittite cuneiform tablet from Boghaz Keui has come into my possession, which is shown by its contents to belong to the same tablet as that of which I have published another portion in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society for 1907 (pp. 919, 920). The original tablet must have been a very large one, and probably contained a complete list of the oiferings to be made to the various deities in the Hittite pantheon. It thus resembled the great inscription of Meher Kapussi, near Van, in which we find a similar list of the offerings to be made to the Vannic gods (J.R.A.S., New Ser., xiv, 3 (1882), pp. 461 sqq.). As I have already stated in the Journal for last April, p. 548, the new fragment enables me to correct some of the readings in my copy of the first fragment.

The fact of the Caraka Saṁhitā, or the Medical Compendium of Charaka, being a composite work is well known at the present day. The work is the joint production of two medical men, Charaka and Dṛiḍhabala, both natives of Kashmir, and living in that country, probably one in the second, the other in the eighth century of our era. Charaka's share itself claims to be no more than an edition of an earlier work by Agniveśa. This man, being one of the traditional six disciples of Punarvasu, called Ātreya or son of Atri, is said to have reduced to writing the oral teachings of his master, an event which must have occurred at some time in the sixth century before our era. Charaka's edition of Agniveśa's work bears the name of Saṁhitā, or Compendium, while the earlier work of Agniveśa is called a Tantra, or treatise or textbook.

The annexed catalogue relates to a collection acquired by the India Office Library from the late Professor Aufrecht in the year 1904. The collection consists, as will be seen, partly of Sanskrit MSS., in most cases copied by Professor Aufrecht himself from originals in Europe or India, but including a few copies made, or procured from India, by friends (e.g., Professor Kuhn, Professor Bühler, Professor Kielhorn, and Dr. Stein) or otherwise obtained, and a few originals acquired by gift or purchase; partly of glossaries or word-indices; partly of pratīka-indices, i.e., arrangements of initial words, of verses, mantras, or sütras. In several cases we have the full apparatus of MS., glossary, and pratīka-index to the same work. Many of the MSS. are equipped with collations, and miscellaneous notes are appended to a large proportion of them. We may take account also of a few specialities, such as materials for an edition of the Damayantīkāvya or Nalacampū (No. 53).

1. Great was the reputation of Aristotle in the Middle Ages. His sway was undisputed, and whatever bore his name was sure to be treated as the expression of the highest wisdom. But that fame rested mostly on Arabic translations and interpretations of his philosophical writings. Along with the genuine writings, however, also other treatises were circulated which were ascribed to Aristotle, with what justification has not yet been settled, but probably because some of the ideas put into his mouth seem to have been culled from his genuine writings and others reflected, more or less accurately, views and opinions contained in his writings. Among such pseudo-Aristotelian writings, none enjoyed wider circulation than obtained by the treatise which claimed to represent the “Politeia” of Aristotle.

Last winter's campaign of exploration opened in November with a small excavation near the village of Rāmpurvā, in the Champāran District of Bengal, well known for the Aśoka pillar discovered by Mr. Carlleyle in 1877. When Mr. Carlleyle first visited the spot, this pillar was lying in marshy ground, with its top and the bell-shaped capital attached, protruding a few feet above the surface; but the lion crowning the capital had disappeared. Proceeding to excavate around it, Mr. Carlleyle appears to have gone to a depth of some 8 feet, to have exposed most of the shaft, and to have copied the inscription on it. Nothing, however, was done either by him, or by Mr. Garrick who went to Rāmpurvā a year or two later, towards preserving the column, and the site remained undisturbed until last autumn, when I deputed my Personal Assistant, Pandit Daya Ram Sahni, to carry out some trial digging there. I was induced to do this in view of a proposal made by Dr. Bloch to re-erect the pillar; for I was anxious, before the work was taken in hand, to ascertain precisely, if possible, its original position, and also whether any other remains existed round about.