The Khalkha River (Khalkhin Gol), which forms part of the north-east frontier between the Mongolian People–s Republic (MPR) and the People's Republic of China (PRC), is famous in Mongolian history for the 1939 Battle of Khalkhin Gol (Nomonhan), in which joint Mongolian-Soviet forces finally repulsed the attempted invasion of the MPR by the Japanese Army of Manchukuo. Less well known, however, is the existence on the left bank of that river of one of Mongolia's most interesting religious antiquities, the remains of a gigantic Buddhist statue, known as the Great Buddha (Ikh Burkhan).

Depuis qu'en avril 1911, a paru dans ce même journal une note sur la langue et l'écriture des anciens documents sogdiens retrouvés par M. M. A. Stein, dans une tour du vieux limes chinois, il nous a été possible d'étudier de plus près ces textes si curieux. M. M. A. Stein, d'accord avec M. Cowley, qui les avait le premier examinés, a bien voulu mettre à notre disposition les photographies des six “lettres” les mieux conservées. Celles-ci, malgré l'âge, et bien qu'elles soient toutes plus ou moins détériorées, constituent des documents précieux; ce ne sont pas le moins du monde des débris: toutes présentent, malgré leurs lacunes, des morceaux d'un seul tenant, dont la longueur est variable, il est vrai, mais qui fournissent des phrases suivies, des formes nominales et verbales variées, bref de véritables petits textes.

“In the beginning was the Word” is a truth the sublimity of which grows upon us the more we ponder it. And, indeed, the common consciousness of mankind has ascribed to the Logos the supreme act of Creation. Alike in India, China, Egypt, and Mesopotamia, the world is said to exist as the audible thought of the Deity. Moreover, the creative power of the divine Voice is intimately associated with the possession of the sacred Name.

In a recent paper Dr. Bloch has made a valuable contribution to knowledge by publishing an edition and translation of the inscription on the colossal statue found at Sāheṭ-Māheṭ by Sir Alexander Cunningham in 1862–63. When Dr. Bloch published this paper he had not read my essay entitled “Kauśāmbī and Śrāvastī.” I have since sent him a copy of my paper, but he still adheres to the view expressed in his. I may therefore deal with Dr. Bloch's statement of opinion as if he had expressly considered my views and had rejected them. I propose in the following pages to defend my position.

As explained in the note on p. 74, the reading of this name is uncertain, especially with regard to the second element, due, the other transcriptions being ul-e (the ordinary values of the two characters of which it is composed) and rue. I have chosen the transcription in the title because it seems to be the most probable and because, some sort of transcription was a necessity. Other possible transcriptions, due to what seem to be variants, will be found on the page which I have quoted.

The history of Aḥiḳar and his nephew Nadan forms part of Eastern popular literature. When publishing my history of Roumanian popular literature seventeen years ago (Bucureesti, 1883) I devoted a special chapter to the Roumanian versions of this history (pp. 104–114). I was the first to recognize the connection between the Roumanian and Slavonic versions and those contained in the Arabian Nights. I then drew attention to the intimate relation between this legend and that which has entered the Greek life of Æsop. Since that time scholars have paid much attention to this legend, especially as through Meissner's studies it is being considered as one of the lost Apocrypha mentioned already in the Book of Tobit.

According to a tradition it was believed that a Greek, Christodulos by name, was the builder of the old Fatih mosque at Constantinople. Dr. Mehmet Aga-Oglu has explained in his two articles that the ancient belief was without foundation. In the first one he stated that a Turk, Sinan al-'Atīq by name, was the architect of the old mosque; in the second article, he said that the shape of the first, earliest construction of this mosque was in the purely Turkish style, like some of the old buildings of the Seljuq and Ottoman period in Asia Minor, and that it showed no Byzantine influence. The author's knowledge of the special literature on this subject is deep and complete. Nevertheless, our solution of the problem will be dissimilar to that of Dr. Aga-Oglu.

In November of 1952 I received a note from a medical doctor who some two years earlier had returned to Britain from Ch'üanchou, in the province of Fukien. A Chinese acquaintance had given him photographs of carved stones, Buddhist, Muslim, and Christian, collected by him in recent years, with the hope that someone in the West might publish them. At first glance I recognized fifteen undoubtedly Christian crosses, five with figures of angels on either side, and seven with considerable inscriptions. With the photographs came a copy of a Chinese monograph published by the collector, Wu Wen-liang, An Introduction to the Ancient Stone Carving of Ch'uan-chou. I had enlargements of the Christian set of photographs made, as published in plates II to XVII, 2 sent a set to Professor A. C. Moule, and sought his help. That help has been generously given, in translating part of Wu's monograph, in corresponding with other scholars who might decipher the inscriptions, and in assessing the significance of these new finds. It seems more suitable to recognize general indebtedness here than to refer to him by footnote at the end of every paragraph.

The three tablets which follow have been selected on account of their uncommon nature, and because of the unusual words or expressions which they furnish. The collection contains other documents equally interesting, and some of these will probably be placed before scholars from time to time, should their difficulties yield satisfactorily to study and research.

In a former paper in this Journal (1913, p. 885) I set out the kṣatriya ballad, which told of the fortunes of Satyavrata Triśaṅku, prince of Ayodhyā, as affected by the two famous rishis, Vasiṣṭha, the great priest of Ayodhyā, and Viśvaratha, king of Kānyakubja, who relinquished his kṣatriya status and became a brahman with the name Viśvāmitra. This paper carries on their story in connexion with Triśaṅku's successors.

The historical interest presented by Hymn x. 75 of the Ṛgveda, the famous Nadīatuti or “Song of the Rivers”, has been recognized ever since the critical study of Vedic literature began. The numerous ancient river-names of North-Western India therein mentioned furnish an indication more definite than can be found elsewhere of the area once occupied by, or familiar to, the Indo-Aryan people, to whom we owe the oldest literary remains of India as contained in the Vedic Saṁhitās.

By way of explanation, I may be permitted to say that having been for some time engaged on an inquiry into the history of the various kinds of Indian landlord tenure, not as a matter of theory, but on the basis of local facts, it became necessary to consider the origin and distribution of the tribes or clans to which the landlord classes most commonly belong. A number of notes were thus accumulated; and I thought it might be useful to put them together, much more in the hope of receiving correction, and of thus gaining information, than with the design of imparting it. It at once appears, as regards Northern India, that of the superior proprietor class when ‘Hindu,’ or at least originally Hindu, a large proportion belongs to the tribes known as ‘Rājput.’ Some of the higher families, however, now resent being so designated, and call themselves ‘Kshatriya.’ The latter name, again, is usually understood to have reference to the military and ruling caste of ancient times, and to have been comprised in two great groups known as ‘Solar’ and ‘Lunar’ respectively. It was almost inevitable to inquire whether anything could be ascertained about the (probable) real birthplace and connection of the so-called ‘Rājput’ races. So much is clear, that the names of the various clans and septs are not names which occur in any early literature; and they can but rarely be connected, even by any tradition that will stand the slightest analysis, with the Kshatriya races of the Mahābhārata and Purāṇas.

The Yogācāra or Vijñānavāda doctrine, which appeared in such Mahāyāna sūtras as the Sandhinirmocana, has already been expounded by such scholars as Maitreyanātha (c. A.D. 270–350) in his voluminous Yogācārabhūmi, Mahāyānasūtrālaṅkāra, Madhyāntavibhāga, etc., and Asariga (c. A.D. 310–90) in his Mahāyānasaṅgraha, Mahāyānābhidharmasamuccaya, etc. The Triṃśikāvijñaptikārikā of Vasubandhu (c. A.D. 320–400) is a systematic and most concise exposition of this doctrine.