In preparing a bibliography of the modern South Arabic languages I came across the only document of the dialect of Curia Muria. It is J. G. Hulton's article, “ Notice on the Curia Muria Island,” in the Transactions of the Bombay Geographical Society, 3 (1840), 183–197.2 This article, in which the author gives a detailed description of the island and its inhabitants, contains a list of 103 words in English, Arabic, and in the dialect of Curia Muria.3

Unlike most of the medical works of Maimonides (1135–1204), which enjoyed wide circulation both in their original Arabic form and in Hebrew or Latin translations, his Epitomes of Galen seem never to have become widespread or popular. Whereas his other medical compositions are usually extant in a good number of manuscripts, and in their original language are often available in both Hebrew and Arabic script, the manuscript attestation of Maimonides's Epitomes of Galen is rather meagre. Steinschneider, whose splendid works remain the basic tools of reference for all research in this field, devotes to the Arabic Epitomes a mere three lines and lists only three manuscripts containing them (in fact, containing only a small part of them); Hebrew translations are not known to have been made, and not one of the Epitomes appears to have found its way into Latin. In 1966 two further manuscripts, both of them fragments from the Taylor-Schechter collection in the hand of Maimonides himself, became available when S. M. Stern published his ‘Ten autographs by Maimonides—fragments of medical works, responsa, letters and prescriptions’ in Maimonidis Commentarius in Mischnam … Vol. III, Corpus Codicum Hebraicorum Medii Aevi, ed. R. Edelmann, Pars I (Hafniae, 1966),11–29. The first two of these ten autographs are fragments of the Epitomes of Galen, to the publication of which Stern prefixed a fine discussion of the contents of these Maimonidean Epitomes and a summary of what is known about them.

Bishop caldwell, the founder of the comparative study of the Dravidian languages, was interested not only in the relationship of those languages among themselves, but also in the question of their connection with other families of languages outside India. His investigations in this direction led him to believe that the Dravidian languages are connected with what he called the “Scythian” family of languages. By the term “Scẏthian” Caldwell referred mainly to the Ural-Altaic languages, though occasionally using the word in a rather wider sense than that. Within the “Scythian” family he held that it was possible to define the position of Dravidian even more closely, by attaching it to the Finno-ugrian group in particular. The evidence which Caldwell offered in support of this theory consisted partly of grammatical features which he held to be common to the languages concerned, and partly of comparisons of vocabulary. The former are to be found scattered through the body of his work, and the latter are collected together in an appendix entitled “Glossarial Affinities”. In presenting this theory Caldwell was quite modest in his claims; he admitted the possibility of being misled by accidental assonances, and claimed rather to have pointed the way to the possibilities of future research than to have demonstrated the relationship with any finality.

Warren Hastings resigned the Governor-Generalship of Bengal in February 1785 and arrived in England in the following June. He faced his retirement with a fortune of approximately £75, 000, a total amounting to little more than a third of all the money which he had sent out of India during the 13 years of his administration. Those who knew Hastings well and who were aware that he had found it almost impossible to save anything out of his official salary of more than £30, 000 were pessimistic about his chances of living within the income of £3, 500, which he could anticipate from his capital of £75, 000. Such pessimism was fully justified.

In a paper contributed to the Bhandarkar Commemoration Volume in 1917, Professor S. K. Belvalkar announced the discovery of a new commentary on the Sāṃkhyakārikā by Māṭhara, and identified it with the lost Sanskrit original of the commentary on that work preserved in the Chinese translation of Paramārtha (c. a.d. 550). Commenting on this suggestion in 1918, I observed that derivation of the newly discovered commentary and of Paramārtha from the same source was an alternative possibility. Professor Belvalkar has now, in a paper which was written to form part of the collection presented to Professor Hillebrandt on his 70th birthday, and is pxiblished in the Annals of the Bhandarkar Institue, adduced reasons in support of his original suggestion.

One of the fundamental innovations of the early Church was the abolition of an ancient, venerable institution—divorce, the practice of which was as widespread as marriage itself. The explicit ban on divorce found in the Gospels ran counter to legal systems of the known world, with one notable exception: among the sectarian group whose rules are enshrined in the Dead Sea Scrolls, a stance against divorce can be verified, implying that a legal innovation of early Christianity can be tracked back to its origins in Sectarian Judaism.

By the time Christianity was emerging, marriage and divorce had already co-existed for a long time; in Mesopotamia marriage contracts had for two millennia been anticipating the possibility of divorce, with litigation governing the dissolution of marriage and division of properties. The best evidence, however, for the precursors to late Hellenistic (i.e. pagan, Jewish, and Christian) legal practice derives from a group of Neo-Babylonian marriage contracts dating from the seventh to third centuries B.C.

Marau Sound lies at the south-east end of the island called Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands. There is no native name for the Sound as a whole, and it received its present name owing to the fact that the island which lies at the eastern entrance to the Sound is called Marau, i.e. Island. Other islands in the Sound are named Peura, Sinamairuka (Sinamailuka), Tawaihi, Marapa. The last-named island, Marapa (Malapa), is the “ home of the dead ” for the peoples of the South-East Solomons. The local native name for the hill districts above the Sound is Kera. The name which was given both to the Sound, and to the coastal districts of the mainland near, by the first white visitors in modern days, Bishops G. A. Selwyn and J. C. Patteson, is Gera, which is the name used of the Sound by the people of San Cristoval. The people of the Sound are immigrants from Wairokai, Waisisi, Wairoha, and Uhu on the west coast of Big Mala, and their language is closely allied to that of Oroha, Little Mala, and Areare, the language spoken at Wairokai, etc. It is probable that the first migration from Mala to the Sound settled at Marau, the island at the eastern entrance. There is a ghost called Huu ni nima connected with Marau Island, who is said to have led the migration. War and fighting are said to have been the reasons which led to the migration. The present Mala people were already occupying the islands in the Sound at the time of the visit of the Spanish explorers in 1568, as is shown by the fact that they acted as guides and took the Spaniards to the neighbourhood of Wairokai and Waisisi.

Chinese scholars have lately devoted considerable attention to the history of Logic in their country, more especially to the history of its Buddhist branch.

Hsüen-tsang's school, which was translating and commenting on the Buddhist Canon, drew its attention to the logical literature, issuing a whole series of valuable translations and commentaries. It is to that school, so far as we know, that belongs the first attempt of the Chinese to understand the history of Indian logic. Chinese tradition considersDignāga's system, partly completed by his disciple Śankaraswāmi, to be the final stage in the development of Indian logic. Chinese authors knew nothing of its further development. Logic before Dignaga, according to the Chinese conception of it, was divided into two periods: the first—non-Buddhist period—connected with the name of Akṣapāda, and the second—Buddhist one-connected with that of Vasubandhu.

Emphasizing the importance of balanced geographical and historical knowledge in the late sixteenth century, Richard Hakluyt remarked: ‘Geographie and Chronologie are the sune and moone, the right eye and left eye of all history.’ In current studies of archaeology and history this emphasis remains apt, for to write a proper account of both artifacts and kings, they must be set geographi- cally in space and chronologically in time. The regions south of the River Yamunā, anciently known as Gopakṣetra, Daśārṇa, and Jejākadeśa (Maps 1 and 2), are rich in antiquarian remains, and have played an important role in the history of India, especially from the Gupta period to the time of the Muslim invasion. Their historical geography, however, has been generally ignored, and scholars have been content to describe the area simply as ‘ Central India’. The purpose of the present essay is to give an introduction to the historical geography of these provinces, and as such it can be taken as a foundation for further studies in local history and archaeology.