In his article, “ The Manuscripts Collected by William Marsden, with special reference to two copies of Almeida's History of Ethiopia,”1 Sir Denison Ross gives a description of MS. 11966, formerly in King's College, now in the School of Oriental Studies. The bulky volume contains four different works:—

1. The final version of Fr. Manoel d'Almeida's History of Ethiopia.

2. Appendix I, containing a refutation of the chief errors in Urreta's “ Historia ecclesiastica de la Ethiopia ”, Valencia, 1610.

3. Appendix II, containing another refutation by the Patriarch D. Affonso Mendez S.J., under the title: “ Informação em que se mostra, em que tempo se pregou o evangelho em Thiopia e começou a vida monastica, e quaes forão seus instituidores e pregadores.”

4. Appendix III (f. 80r–94v), a treatise about the means of opening Ethiopia to the Gospel, bearing the title, “ Informação succinta sobre a reducção do Imperio Abexino pera Sua Alteza vêr e seus Ministros.” The last date mentioned in this last third Appendix is 1669. About its author Sir Denison Ross writes: “ The authorship of Appendix III remains a mystery, but it is obviously the work of a man intimately acquainted with Ethiopia and with recent happenings in and around the Red Sea.” 2

The long dynasty of the Elamite national kings, who ruled over Elam for nearly 1, 500 years, was, after a long and unequal struggle, brought to a close by the Assyrians under Assurbanipal in about 640 B.C. The Assyrian rule in Elam collapsed soon after the death of this conqueror in 625 B.C. The Elamite kingdom was thereupon divided into two different monarchies, Perso-Anzanite and Susiano-Babylonian. After the defeat of the last Babylonian king Nabunaid in 539 B.C., Cyrus the Great, the fourth Perso-Anzanite king, became the founder of the great Achæmenian dynasty. After the death of his son and successor Cambyses and the suppression of the revolt of Gaumata the Magian, Darius the Great, a descendant of the younger branch of the Achæmenides, became the inheritor of the vast empire of Cyrus in 521 B.C. During the early years of his reign he had to subdue many revolts in different provinces of his empire. It seems that the political troubles ended in about 518 B.C., and the great king began the work of rebuilding and embellishing Susa, which he had made the capital of his empire, as well as Persepolis and Hamadan. This work was carried on with great zeal by his son Xerxes, who was a far greater builder than his father. Owing to the free use of huge blocks of stone in the palatial buildings of Persepolis their ruins have for centuries drawn the attention of travellers by their colossal dimensions and gigantic magnificence. But the memories of the palaces of Susa and Hamadan are preserved only in certain allusions in the Bible and in the works of ancient writers. Their traces were nearly wiped out by time, whose ravages the less durable materials, bricks and wood, of which they were constructed, could hardly resist.

The Arthaśāstra of Kautilya1 in the chapter of the first book dealing with the measures for safety within the royal harem has the following passage (ed. Jolly and Schmidt, vol. i, p. 25, 13 seq.):–

śukaḥ śārikā bhrngarājo vā sarpaviṣaśankāyāṃ krośati krauñco viṣābhyāśe mādyati glāyati jivajivakaḥ mriyate mattakokilaḥ cakorasyākṣiṇī virajyete ‖

“ The parrot, the maina, and the Malabar bird shriek when suspicious of snake poison; the curlew becomes quite tipsy2 in the neighbourhood of poison; the pheasant swoons; the amorous cuckoo dies; the eyes of the cakora partridge change their natural colour (i.e. become red).” 3

Kāmandaki has, of course, copied this as most other passages of the Kauṭilīya, cf. Nītisāra, vii, ll–13a–b:—

—Northern or Western Panjabi is the dialect spoken to the north and west of Amritsar. It is distinct from Lǎhndī, which used to be called Western Panjabi. Southern or Eastern Panjabi is spoken south and east of Amritsar.

† is prefixed to a word to show that it has another form which does not illustrate the rule under consideration.

This form of the genitive occurs in the Nāgava inscription, set forth at pp. 37–42 of Vol. V, Part I, of the School of Oriental Studies Bulletin. Its origin is discussed at pp. 551–2 of Vol. IV, Part III, of the School Bulletin. On a reference to India, to ascertain whether any other instances of the genitive had been noticed, Mr. B. A. Bhide, writing in No. 2 of the Mahārāṣṭra Sāhitya Patrikā, of June, 1928, quotes verse 364 of the sixteenth chapter of his copy of the Sākhare edition of the Jñāaneśvari as follows:—

Svetadvipa, “The White Island,” is the name of an island, situated in the far North, inhabited by Nārāyana and by pious White Men, who worship him. The description of their worship, which can be read in that part of the Śāntiparvan, the twelfth of the Mahābhārata books, devoted to Nārāyana is distinguishable to an obvious degree from the stories of other cults found in the Brahminical literature, and has led researchers of both earlier and more recent date to try certain more or less successful interpretations. The attempt at solving the problem of Śvetadvīpa, which has, during more recent times, attracted the greatest attention, is that of Garbe.

DivÂkara PrakĀŚa BhaṬṬ is said to have been alive during the eight years of the reign of the Hindū king Sukhajīvana Siṁha, of Kashmīr, who came to the throne in A.D. 1786, and to have lived in the Gōjawar (Skt. Gulikāvāṭikā) quarter of the city of Srīnagar. He was the author of a Kāshmīrī version of the Rāmâyana, entitled the Rāmâvtāra-carita. This is a long epic poem of about 1800 verses in various metres, and is divided into two parts. The first part corresponds to the first six cantos of Vālmīki's poem, and ends with the return of Rāma in triumph to Ayōdhyā, after the conquest of Laṅkā.

Dans les sociétés les plus diverses, le regard de l'homme est considéré comme omineux. Il exerce une influence qui, suivant les circonstances, peut être faste ou néfaste. La croyance au “ mauvais œil” a entraîné l'emploi de mesures prophylactiques. Puisque l'œil est le siège d'une force redoutable, il faut neutraliser le maléfice et diriger la force du regard vers des conséquences heureuses'. Ce résultat est souvent obtenu au moyen d'une formule qui peut se réduire à, une simple exclamation. Tel est sans doute le Sanskrit bhadramukha, pali bhaddamukha, dont on se servait pour aborder les personnes. Ce composé signifie “ celui dont le visage (ou la vue) porte bonheur ”. Employé au vocatif, il était destiné à provoquer le fait énoncé, ou du moins à empêcher que le contraire ne se produisît.

The editions of Sanskrit dramas based entirely on manuscripts written in the local vernacular script, called Ārya Euttu, present interesting subjects for linguistic study. The Prakrit of many of these dramas, and especially the dramas wrongly assigned to Bhāsa, has been examined by various scholars, and the general conclusions derived thence have been utilized as one of the arguments in support of the Bhāsa-theory. But careful study of the original texts and the printed edition of them shows that in transforming the original Malayali script into Devanagari print some liberties have been taken by the local editors, including Mm. Dr. T. Ganapati Sastri, the late lamented editor of the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series. The first thing that arrests the attention of the student who examines the manuscripts is the presence of small circles written by the side of the letters, as for instance in: MUHUoTÅ, EoVĀ, etc. The general principle that has guided the editors has been to double the consonant following the small circle, when it stands by the side of the letter, and to treat it as an anusvāra when it stands above the letter. This procedure of giving two different values to the same symbol is, however, very much open to question.

In the preceding survey of Arabic literature during the nineteenth century, special emphasis was deliberately laid on two aspects of the subject, the struggle between the old and the new conceptions and ideals, and the gradual emergence of a. simplified Arabic prose style. If it is asked why a point of view apparently so narrow and exclusive should have been adopted, to the prejudice of a more detailed investigation of the personal and literary characteristics of the individual writers, the answer is twofold.

The Lau language is spoken by the inhabitants of the “ artificial islands ” in the lagoon off the north-east coast of Big Mala, Solomon Islands, and by the people who live on the natural island Ngwalulu (Manoba, of the Admiralty charts) which closes the northern entrance to the lagoon. The southern end of the lagoon is known as Ataa Cove, and the language of the islanders in that part of the lagoon has a closer affinity to the languages of the hill peoples of the mainland than has Lau proper. In Port Adam, Little Mala, there are two villages whose people also talk Lau. they being immigrants from Ataa Cove. The hill languages of the north end of Big Mala use certain sounds which do not appear in Lau. These sounds are ngg, i.e. ng in English “ finger ”, nd instead of pure d, mb instead of pure b. Also the Lau h appears as s or th.

The Material for the study here presented was collected during a short stay at Marau Sound in 1927, in pursuance of my research work. Bishop Patteson, of the Melanesian Mission, published grammatical notes of the language of Marau Sound at Auckland, New Zealand, about 1860, together with a short catechism, a translation of the Apostles´ Creed and the Lord's Prayer, and a list of words. This material was edited by von der Gabelentz, and was published in his Melanesischen Sprachen, Leipzig, 1873. I have worked through the material and corrected it where necessary. The two pieces of translation, Creed and Lord's Prayer, which appear in von der Gabelentz. are too faulty to be inserted here as specimens of the language, and I had not the opporetunity of correcting them.

Bishop Patteson had several men from Marau Sound with him at Auckland, among whom, according to the information given to me, were Tootoo, Waaro mae, Waihunu, Nini pua, Porike, Porasi (who died at Auckland), and also Vouvete of Kaoka, a village on the mainland near by. The large percentage of San Cristoval wordsand grammatical constructions which appear in Bishop Patteson's material, as quoted by von der Gabelentz, is probably due to the influence of Taroaniara, a San Cristoval man, who acted as guide on the visits to Marau Sound, and whose wife was a Marau Sound woman. Taroaniara was with the party at Auckland, and evidently acted as interpreter. He may even have been commissioned by the Bishop to render certain stock pieces, e.g. the Creed, into the language of Marau Sound. This supposition would account for the presence in the translations of words like tahi, to live, tataro (San Cristoval dadaro) for “ cross ”, and for such grammatical constructions as ia, personal article in San Cristoval, instead of a, the Marau Sound usage. Also it would account for the use of ni, demonstrative article, and ia, personal pronoun 3rd singular. However, there is good internal evidence that the work in the main was done by the Bishop.

The following stories are the first two of a Mabale series. Mabale is a Bantu dialect spoken by the Ba–mabale (sing. Wa–mabale; both abbreviations of moto wa Mabale, a Mabale-man and batu ba Mabale, the Mabale people).

The Bamabale live on the right bank of the Congo River, up but especially down Nouvelle–Anvers.1 They also occupy the immediate hinterland and are even found in a few places on the left bank, opposite the same central town.

The Bamabale belong to the group of tribes we usually call Bangala. Amongst them are the Iboko, who also live at Nouvelle–Anvers, and whose ancestor Mata-Boiki (i.e. grandson of Boikr) has become famous, since his encounter with Stanley; further, the Mbenga, Motembo, Losengo and Boloki (between N.A. and the mouth of the Mongala); the Ndobo and Mbundzi (down N.A.), all on the right bank. The BaFәtә (near Lisala) and the εlεku (at Lolanga and near Coquilhatville); the Libinza, Ewaku, and Likoka (in the hinterland, on the Ngiri).