There is something in a name. Properly it ought to comprise all, or at least much of what is contained in the thing named. The name is therefore a very weighty and important word. In dealing with it, we may be struck as the Tartars were, when they first handled iron; for it evidently gave them the impression that it contained some mysterious substance, some kind of stuffing, concealed under its surface; and therefore they called it timur, i.e. ‘a stuffing, a filling, or something filled, stuffed.’ The Turkish language is remarkably transparent in an etymological point of view, most of its names being still easily traceable to their roots and to their original signification.

It is a remarkable circumstance that the Queen of Great Britain rules over two hundred millions of people, who though deeply religious, possess a religion which cannot be designated by any one name. Most of the religions of the world, as, for example, Christianity, Muhammadanism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, are called by the names of their founders, though without the sanction of the founders themselves.

Menuas, to judge from his inscriptions, was preeminently a builder. His name has the form of a perfect pass, participle, but I do not know the meaning of the stem menu. A district of Armenia, north of Lake Van, is still called Manavaz; possibly it derived its name from the old Vannic king. At all events, it has nothing to do with the Mannai of the Assyrian inscriptions, the Mana of the Vannic texts, and the Minni of the Old Testament, called Minyans by Nikolaos of Damascus, who lay between the kingdom of Van and Lake TJrurniyeh (see pp. 389, 400).

Al Bîrûni, in his Vestiges of Ancient Nations, written A.D. 1000 (A.H. 390), while describing the customs of the Sabeans, cites the authority of Ibn Ishâc al Kindy, the Christian, in these words:

“Likewise Abd al Masîh ihn Ishâc al Kindy, the Christian, in his reply to the Epistle of Abdallah ibn Ismaîl al Hâshimy, relates of them (the Sabeans) that they are notorious for Human sacrifice, but that at present they are not able to practise openly the same.”

In the Journal for 1879 I was permitted to insert a notice of the scholars who have contributed to the extension of our knowledge of the Languages of British India during the last thirty years; and upon the occasion of its being read at one of the Society's meetings, considerable interest was shown in the subject. I venture now to intrude upon the Society with a kindred notice upon those great scholars who have devoted their talents, and in many cases their lives, to enlarging our knowledge of the Languages of Africa.

In the works of the poet Pampa, or Hampa as he was called in later times, we have earlier and more definite information than has hitherto been published regarding the period from which the Kannaḍa or Karṇâṭaka (so-called Canarese) language has been used for purposes of literary composition. From his first work, the Âdi Purâṇa, we learn that he was born in Śaka 824. But his second work, called Vikramârjuṇa Vijaya or the Pampa Bhârata, which established his fame, tells us that both were written in the same year—Śaka 863— and adds many particulars full of interest in regard to himself, and the circumstances under which he wrote.

With reference to my paper on the Apology of Al-Kindy, I have received the following letter from Professor Ignatius Guidi, dated Rome, 24th February:—

“You will he glad to hear that in the Propaganda Library (Museo Borgiani) I found a MS. of the Apology of Al-Kindî, together with the letter of his Moslem friend. The amanuensis was, I think, a Jacobite (the MS. is written in Karshuni character), hence he says (page 5, line 18 of the printed text):

The Roman MS. is apparently of the same family with the Paris MS. as described by Zotenberg, Catalogue des MSS. Syriaques de la Biblioth. Nationale, Nos. 204, 205.”

Page 453, line 26. For there read these.

Page 463, line 20. For l. read li.

Page 496, note 1. For lxv. read xlv.

Page 632. For xlvii. read xlviii.

The word consists of three syllables, and must not be tortured into Housa as is frequently done. Ha-ou-sa conveys the correct pronunciation. The meaning of the word itself is not quite certain. From two expressions in the writer's collection it may be inferred that it means ‘language’. The first is, “He speaks another ha-u-sa,”that is, another language; and the second, in answer to the question, “Do many people speak Haúsa?” The reply given was, “How can they be Haúsa unless they speak Ha1sa?” Barth also admits that it means ‘language,’ although it is not confined to that meaning. The word itself was probably unknown to Leo Africanus, who says that Zāria Kano and Katsena speak the language of Gober, instead of Haúsa, Gober being at Leo's time the most prominent and noble among the provinces of the North. Whether the name, Aúsa given to the northern side of “the great river” in contrast to Gurma on the southern side, has anything to do with Haúsa, is left undecided by Barth. Sultan Bello derives the Haúsa from a Bornu slave, named Bāwu. This Bāwu has a real historical existence in the traditions of the Haúsa people, though not as a slave, the Haúsa word for ‘slave’ being Bāwa not Bāwa, a fact of which Sultan Bello could not have been ignorant; and besides this, it must be argued that, if the Haúsa derived their origin from the Bornu or Kanúri, there would exist a greater similarity between these two languages than is found to be the case. Both languages have a few words in common, but the grammars are most distinct.

[The text of the Śikshā-patrī of the modern Vaishṇava Sect, called Svāmi-Nārāyaṇa, was lithographed in Samvat 1928 (A.D. 1872) by order of the Heads of the Sect. It has a Gujarātī Commentary by Nityānanda-muni. So far as I know, this is the only version of the text that has yet appeared. It was given to me by the Wartāl Māharāja on the occasion of my first visit to Wartāl in 1875. It is full of mistakes, and in preparing the following edition of the text I have taken as my guide the far more accurate manuscript and Sanskṛit commentary written by Paṇḍit Śatānanda-muni, and given to me by the Mahārāja on the same occasion.]

In going through the Khyber Pass I saw numerous recesses in the rocks which struck me as places which might have been used by ascetics, but they indicated no signs of having been excavated, hence nothing definite could be assumed regarding them. In the scarp under the Ishpola Tope there is one of these rude niches which would be a very desirable spot for a holy man to retire to, who wished to give up the things of this world, but who at the same time had some intention that his light should not be hid under a bushel, for if an ascetic ever made it his residence, every passer-by must have seen him, high above the road, with little more than a fair allowance of space in which to sit cross-legged. From the immense number of caves I afterwards saw which had been excavated, indicating that a very large monastic population had existed, I have now little doubt that during the fervour of asceticism in the Buddhist period, most of these rocky niches had been thus occupied at one time or another. At Daka there are a few caves which have been excavated, but they are little more than holes.

This coin bears evidence of being genuine. The metal is that mixture of silver and copper which obtained under the Pathâns of the date on the coin, 718 A.H. It is also of the same weight, or nearly so. The dated coins of Ala ud Dîn Muhammad Shâh of this type average, according to Thomas, 55·7. Those of Kutub ud Dîn Mubarak Shâh average 55 grs. The coins of Shahâb ud Dîn Umr are 54·5. The inscriptions, omitting names, are exactly similar to those of Ala ud Dîn's No. 135 of Thomas, Shahâb ud Dîn's Thomas No. 141, and Kutub ud Dîn's Thomas No.147.

The Sculptured Tope in plate xxviii. fig. i. of Tree and Serpent Worship suggested, from its height, to Mr. Fergusson, that it was formed after the Afghanistan models. He also hinted the possibility of the figures, who are performing pujah round it, being a race from the North, and perhaps from the Kábul Valley. The Rev. Mr. Beai has just added some most interesting evidences which tend to confirm the original suggestion. As the point is of great importance in many ways, the following additional evidence may be worth giving:— In the early part of 1879, when General Sir Samuel Browne's column was at Jelalabad, Mr. Jenkyns, who afterwards lost his life in the massacre at Kábul, somehow picked up a man from Kaffiristan. He had been born a Kaffir, but had been caught by the Mahomedans, and converted, — such persons are called “Nimchas.” He lived somewhere close to the borders of Kaffiristan, and Mr. Jenkyns commissioned him to return to his own district and bring back a couple of pure unconverted Kaffirs. Mr. Jenkyns' object in this was to study their language, and learn as much as he could as to their customs and other matters. The man promised to do this, and he was to bring them to Peshawer, or wherever Mr. Jenkyns was quartered. I went by appointment to make a sketch of this man, and I noticed that he did not leave his shoes on the outside of the tent-door; he doubled his legs under him, but after a little I noticed that his shoes were pieces of leather tied about his feet, and bound by thongs round the ankles. This explains why the “jooti dustoor” does not exist in Kaffiristan. Colonel Tanner, who was then on the Survey Department, caught some Chugunis, who belonged to the Northern slopes of the Ram Koond; this tribe is Mahomedan, but their district is not far from Kaffiristan.

A student of Buddhism cannot proceed very far in his inquiry without being confronted with a tremendous contradiction. Perhaps I may be allowed here to speak from personal experience. I read Le Bouddha et sa Religion, by M. Barthélemy St.-Hilaire, and one or two well-known works; and soon learnt that annihilation (sûnyatâ) was the lot of the Saint when he had reached the Bodhi or Highest Wisdom, and freed himself from the cycle of new births. I then came across Schlagintweit's Buddhism in Tibet, which contains a sort of litany called The Buddhas of Confession. In it is the following passage:—

“I adore the Buddha Sa-la'i-rgyal-po. Once uttering this name shall purify from all sins of theft, robbery, and the like.” This puzzled me. This being was a Buddha. In consequence he had suffered, or enjoyed, complete annihilation. Why then should the pronouncing the name Sâ-la'irgyal-po purify from all sins of “theft, robbery, and the like?” Then I remembered that in old religions very holy names like I.A.O., A.U.M., etc., had often got to be thought more potent than the God himself. I mention all this to show that I am not at all surprised at people clinging to the idea that the Bodhi in the earliest Buddhism meant annihilation in spite of the strong evidence that can be brought against it. I myself for some time did the same.

In preparing the eighth volume of the Catalogue of Oriental Coins in the British Museum, which will describe the coins of the Turks, I found myself confronted at the outset with a serious obstacle in the shape of twenty-five coins of various Turkish Amírs of Asia Minor, of whose history and chronology almost nothing appeared to be known, and of whose coinage the only examples hitherto published were five specimens (three varieties) described by Dr. E. von Bergmann and by Prof. J. Karabacek respectively, in the “Berichte” of the Vienna Academy, and in the “Numismatische Zeitschrift.” The twenty-five examples in the British Museum had long remained unnoticed. Some I found in the 'Othmánly series; but most of them were discovered and partly identified by my uncle, the Keeper of Coins. The inscriptions were for the most part clear enough; and the difficulty consisted simply in the fact that the history of the princes who issued them was not generally known or easily accessible. The trouble and research that were necessary before I could arrange and attribute the coins and draw up approximately complete chronological lists of these dynasties and princes, are, I think, a sufficient excuse for the following pages, in which I shall try to smooth the way for my successors.

Dras is a village on the banks of a stream of the same name, about the distance of one march beyond the Bul-tul pass, on the road from Cashmere to Leh. There are two sculptured stones at this place, and as Cunningham has described them in his work on Ladak, I shall quote from him:

“On the side of the road, between the hamlet of Styalbo and the village of Drás, there are two pillars of granitic mica-slate, which the people call Chomo, or ‘The Women,’ but which, I believe, have no connection with Tibetan Buddhism, as the nearly obliterated inscriptions are in Kashmiri Tákri, and not in Tibetan characters. The eastern pillar has one principal figure, a four-armed female, and two attendant females, one on each side, and each with one leg bent. They all wear necklaces, earrings, amulets, and anklets. On the pedestal are several small kneeling figures with their hands raised and joined in attitudes of prayer. This pillar is six feet nine inches high, one foot six inches broad, and one foot thick. The western pillar has the same principal figure, also a four-armed female, with two attendant females on each side. This pillar is six feet high, two feet nine inches broad, and one foot thick. From the style of these figures, as well as from the nature of the alphabetical characters, I have no hesitation in stating my opinion that they are Brahminical statues erected by some Kashmirian Hindus. This opinion is strengthened by the fact that there is a third undoubted Hindu pillar standing close to them, which I believe to be a Sati pillar. On one side is sculptured a horseman, which is the usual emblem, placed on the piUar of a Rajputni Sati, to denote that her husband was a soldier. On the back of the pillar there is an inscription of eight lines in Kashmirian Tákri, which I am. unable to translate satisfactorily.”—pp. 381–82.

I beg leave to call attention to a very curious result, drawn from a comparison of the two versions, viz. that the Vaggi or Vaggians of Vesâlî are the same as the Yue-chi of the Chinese.

Nearly fifty years have elapsed since James Prinsep first announced his discovery of ancient Indian Numerals, and attempted their decipherment. Towards this latter object gradual advance has been made from time to time, and now, thanks to the successive labours of Thomas, Cunningham, Bhao Dáji, Bühler, Bhagwán Lál and others, it is possible to give to each symbol used its proper meaning.

If I faults in friend discover, Find him not in acts the same, I, by friendship moved, pass over What in him provoketh blame. What a friend of evil doeth I to him will never do; Fault which unto him accrueth I with grace indulgent view. To a friend's defects the blindness Of a friend is friendship's part, Friendship this preserves through kindness Worthy of a noble heart.

More than two years ago, the 10th of May, 1880, at a special meeting of the Royal Asiatic Society, I presented a paper on L'Histoire de la Langue Chinoise, in which I communicated my discoveries on the old phonetic laws of the orthography of the Ancient Chinese writing,—the derivation of this writing from the pre-cuneiform characters of Southwestern Asia,—and also the nature and contents of the long-disputed book, the Yh-King. I have delayed the printing of that paper in order to make it more precise and complete, but parts of its contents, as well as several results of my researches, have been published, by my friend Prof. R. K. Douglas and by myself.