The British Museum has a manuscript (Or. 12781), a long pamphlet of 82 folios, octavo size; folio 1r carries the title and 82v is blank. The page has 13 lines of big writing with 10 or 11 words to the line. It is modern with no author's name or indication of source; the title is “The book of refutation of the heretics, entitled al-sawād al-a‘zam according to the doctrine of the most great imām, Abū Ḥanīfa”. The author is Abu'l-Qāsim Isḥāq b. Muḥammad al-Māturīdī († 342). He may have been a brother of the more celebrated al-Māturīdī who was the founder of the school; at any rate, he studied. fiqh including theology under him; he “took taṣawwuf” from Abū Bakr al-Warrāq (Muḥammad b. ‘Umar al-Ḥakīm) and others. It is a popular work addressed to a wide audience; some passages suggest the hedge-preacher rather than the scholar. At the Judgment there will be a bridge in seven divisions, all more slippery than a mirror and darker than night and each with three sections, every one a thousand years long, being climb, descent, and level. On them seven questions will be asked about faith, prayer, fasting, alms, pilgrimage, ablutions, and duty to parents (30r). When Muḥammad went up to heaven God commanded him to fast six months in the year; on the advice of Moses this was cut down to one month (76r). One who has killed 100,000 Muslims and had illicit intercourse with 100,000 Muslim women is still a believer if he repents (1Ov, cf. 80v). The aṣḥāb al-kahf lived 80 years after Jesus (38v); another story is that they met one of His disciples.

In discussing the symbolism of colours and figures Professor Kirfel recalls that Leo Frobenius spricht einmal von dem Sinn der Zahl als symbolischem Ausdruck einer bestimmten Kultur. Nach ihm ist “die Zahl nicht etwas von den Menschen Gefundenes sondern von den Menschen Erreichbares aus der Welt des unsichtbaren Daseins” und insofern “als direkter Beleg” für die Wesensart einer Kultur zu werten … Er betrachtet die Vierzahl “als Ausdruck durch den Horizont begrenzten Raumgefühls aufder Plane”, das das Merkmal der “solaren Kultur” sei, und “Lage, Ruhe” und “bestehende Gestaltung” zum Ausdruck bringe. Fast den gleichen Sinn wie die Vier-hat aber auch die Fünfzahl: zu den vier Kardinalpunkten ist nämlich noch der Zentralpunkt, gewissermaβen der Nullpunkt der Weltkoordinaten, als fünfter hinzugetreten. Without going further into Frobenius' theorizing on a tetradic solar culture, or, in a different direction, into the possible associations of the number 16 with a lunar cult surviving in the pūjā, it is enough to mention the importance which four and its multiples have always enjoyed in India, as until quite recently even the national coinage bore witness.

In some verses from the Manichaean Middle Persian hymn-cycle, the Gōwišn īg grīw zīndag, the Light Self, or sum of the light elements in the world, speaks in the character both of the sacred fire of the Zoroastrians, and of the pure water reverenced by them. The editors of these verses pointed out that the use of certain technical terms shows that the Manichaean author had an intimate knowledge of Zoroastrian ritual. The publication since then of further Zoroastrian works has established this fact even more plainly; for it is now apparent that the term zōhr, which occurs twice in the text, is used in fact for two separate Zoroastrian offerings, the offering to fire, the ātaš-zōhr, as well as that to water, the āb-zōhr.

N. P. Joshi, Curator of the Archaeological Museum at Mathurā, kindly supplied the author with a photograph of a partly damaged inscribed stone relief (Mathurā Museum Accession No. 65.15.4), showing in the centre the dominating figure of a powerful four-armed man— clad in a dhotī, the upper part of his body naked (the “Śrīvatsa” symbol on the chest), with two arms akimbo while the other two are lifted up each holding a round object, the legs planted wide apart, the abnormally broad neck decorated with a beautiful necklace. To the right of the head, which unfortunately is lost, a small female is flying in the air. To the proper left side of the man an adorant stands below a tree whereas to the proper right side two more figures are in front of another tree, one person standing in the background and the other, probably, kneeling (his upper body bent backwards), facing the proper right side of the relief (i.e. in the direction of the beginning of the inscription) where the stone is broken off.

In a fragment of the Sogdian translation of the Antirrheticus of Evagrius Ponticus, we encounter:

mzprt šm'ry ptryt qy 'rdywt 't zwyrtt m'x dbtyq qw γw'n s'

for which the original Syriac has:

luqbal ḥušbā ṭama'ā damšaddel umapne Ian tūb Iwāṯ ḥṭīṯā

Prof. Hansen translates, “Gegen den unreinen Gedanken, der uns verlockt(?) und uns wiederum zur Sünde lenkt”. In view of the one-to-one correspondence of all the other Sogdian words with the Syriac, there should be no reservation in equating the new word 'rdyw- with šaddel “beguile, entice, seduce”, therefore “verlockt” is satisfactory; E. Benveniste affirms the identification and translates “appâter, enjôler, δελεχειν”.

The question of the origins of Chinese civilization has fascinated scholars for a long time, but, in spite of the great advances that have come from recent archaeological discoveries, we still find extreme divergences of opinion on basic issues. The reasons for this are not far to seek. There are still enormous gaps in the evidence, and to fill in the picture at all one must extrapolate beyond what can be definitely proved. In such circumstances subjective considerations are bound to affect the judgment and what seems no more than an obvious inference to one person will seem wildly speculative to someone else. So it is with the question of indigenous development versus outside influence. To some Chinese scholars brought up within the self-sufficient tradition of their own culture it seems natural to assume that unless there is absolutely overwhelming evidence to the contrary, everything essential in Chinese civilization, including the basic inventions of agriculture, metallurgy, etc., developed from its own creative energies without outside influence. Hypotheses of contacts across Central Asia which cannot yet be documented in the absence of archaeological exploration in the intervening regions are stigmatized as far-fetched, whereas theories, as little based on evidence, about as yet unattested earlier stages of culture within China itself are advanced as matters of logical necessity.

To the outside observer the history of Hindu sectarianism often appears as a disorganized tangle, lacking clarity and precision. The whole process is made if anything more complex by the ill-defined relationship of sect and non-sect. As Renou remarks: Though no statistics are available, even for the present day, we have grounds for supposing that the most active sects were themselves only isolated groups within the great body of believers. From another point of view, however, the history is more understandable. A considerable part of sectarian activity during the past 1,500 years has been concerned with the spread and regional development of a single great devotional movement. Seen from this position, the uniformity and theological coherence of the sects, whether they be called Vaiṣṇavite, Śaivite, or by some other name, is remarkable and often overrides the no less real disparities of doctrine or detail at another level. Again, in this process regional variations have arisen in no small measure as a result of the popular character of the writings of particular saints. Thus, for example, Basava or Purandara Dāsa hold pride of place in the Karnāṭka, the one Vīra Śaiva, the other Vaiṣṇava; in Mahārāṣṇra devotion has in no small part been moulded by the thought of Jāân Dev or Tukā Rām; in the Pañjāb by Nānak; and in the Hindī region by Kabīr Dās, Tulsī Dās, and Sūr Dās. Throughout north India the influences which lay behind the movement were largely, but by no means exclusively, Vaiṣṇavite; yet other streams contributed, Śaivite, Buddhist, Tāntrika, Yogī, etc.

The Buddhist kingdom referred to by Hiuan-tsang under the name of T'o-lo-po-ti (Dvāravatī), as situated to the west of Iśanapura (Cambodia) in the middle of the 7th century a.d., was recognized by Professor Cœdès in 1928 as having been peopled by Môns and responsible for the earlier Buddhist remains that have come to light around the head of the Gulf of Siam. As recently as 1963 he had the satisfaction of seeing his identification confirmed by two silver medals, found at Nak'on Pathom. Each was inscribed in Sanskrit of the 7th century: “foundation of the king of Śrī Dvāravatī.”

In pursuit of my research on the development of mosque architecture with special reference to pre-Mughal Bengal, I came across a number of elegantly carved inscriptions on black basalt in the British Museum. Some of them are in an excellent state of preservation, others merely fragmentary. On the basis of their calligraphic style and material contents, the undated as well as the dated inscriptions have been assigned to the Sultanate of Bengal (a.d. 1338–1538). In the following pages two of these inscriptions are republished with facsimiles.

The Burmese king popularly known today as “Kyanzittha”, reigned at Pagán from a.d. 1084 to 1112 or 1113. But his active career started much earlier than that: say from about 1050. The career divides itself sharply into REIGN and PRE-REIGN. He has left a dozen original stone inscriptions in Old Mon, some of great length; and these (thanks to the labours of my teacher, the late Dr. C. O. Blagden) are excellently edited and available in Epigraphia Birmanica. They cover merely the Reign. In them he hardly ever alludes to the Pre-Reign; and never once to the great predecessor whom he served so long, King Aniruddha.—In the late Chronicles, however, e.g. the Glass Palace Chronicle translation, six pages suffice to cover the reign—mostly fables, with slight resemblance to the original inscriptions. As for the Pre-Reign, there are 40 pages, also fabulous, full of mistakes and contradictions, but still of value.

In Ada Orientalia, XXIX, 1–2 (1965), 49–60, J. P. Asmussen has published an excellent photograph, a transliteration, and an annotated glossary (with generous references to Professor W. B. Henning's way-making treatment of the text) of the Jewish-Persian Law Report from Ahwāz, but no consecutive translation.