From the Rājatarangmī we learn that, when Kāsyapa raised Kāshmir above the waters, Nīla, whose royal canopy was the hood of the serpent, reigned there over the Nāgas.

We all know—for the Bible tells us of it—one of the chief characteristics of the Babylonians and Assyrians, namely, their superstition, as shown by their use of charms and magical formulae. Nahum calls Nineveh “the mistress of witchcraft,” who “selleth nations through her whoredoms, and families through her witchcrafts.” Micah, too, speaks of the witchcrafts and soothsayers of one or both of these countries, and Isaiah mentions the multitude of Babylon's sorceries, and the great abundance of her enchantments, calling upon the multitude of the sorcerers and star-gazers to save her, if they could, from the things which were to come upon her. The great use of charms and magic is, indeed, one of the things which strikes the student who examines the literature of these two remarkable countries; for the number of documents referring to the various branches of this art—the “black art,” in fact—far exceeds that of any other branch of Babylonian or Assyrian literature. Omens, medical formulæ in mystic ideographs, and invocations in Akkadian, in Assyrian, and in the two languages together, abound. Many of these last are very elaborate, and have very interesting introductions, and almost all contain a great deal of information about the mythology and superstitions of the two nations by whom they were used.

We find in the Dīpavamsa (Chapter V. 39–48) a list of the eighteen sects (or schools rather) into which the Buddhists in India had, in the course of the second century of the Buddhist era, been divided. In the Mahāvamsa (Chapter V.) there is a similar list, evidently drawn from the same sources, but omitting (in Tumour's texts) numbers 1–7 of the older list. It is curious that precisely where these names ought to come in (at line 5), the text given by Tumour is evidently corrupt, a half-sloka at least being missing, and probably more.

Though declining to pronounce on the origin and history of the fables of “Barlaam and Joasaph” until the Buddhist Játakas have been translated from the Pali, M. Zotenberg has been at pains to collect these fables and to edit them with a revised Greek text as an appendix to his “Notice sur le livre de Barlaam et Joasaph” (Paris, 1886). A translation of his text is here given; and for the convenience of students of comparative folk-lore, I have added a translation, from Boissonade's text in “Anecdota Græca,” of further passages bearing on the life of Joasaph. The passages in square brackets [ ] are those from Boissonade; the numbers at the head of the remaining sections corresponding to the numbers of the sections of M. Zotenberg's text.

In the last number (vol. v. parts ii.–iv.) of the Zapiski of the Oriental Section of the Russian Archæological Society (St. Petersburg, 1891), we find an account of two stones inscribed with Chinese characters, discovered on the Upper Orkhon, near the ruins of Kara Balgassun, among a quantity of other remains, by M. Yadrintsef, during his expedition last summer in North-eastern Mongolia, and forwarded by him to St. Petersburg. Here they were carefully examined by M. E. Koch, who reports that the stones are unfortunately only fragments of a much larger monument, and that it is impossible to say whether they both formed part of the same though they were found in close juxtaposition and their contents would apparently support such a conjecture. Most of the characters are easily legible, being very similar in style to those in present use in China, but owing to the fact of the stones being of grey granite, much weatherworn in places, and the age of the inscriptions (upwards of one thousand years old), there are difficulties in deciphering them. They refer to the period of the T'ang dynasty, or, to be more precise, to the time when the Uighurs were dominant in Northern Mongolia; The characters differ in some instances from those in general use and a few are quite illegible. Where these occur dots are inserted in the text. All the lines want both beginning and end.

The following inscription is engraved (lines 1 to 49) on the back and (lines 50 to 81) on the left side of a stele of reddish stone brought from Babylon by Mr. Rassam, and now in the British Museum. The stele is rounded at the top, and on the face Aššurbanipal is represented in high relief in his tiara and royal robes, supporting on his head with his two hands an object which looks like a basket of woven reeds. The meaning of this attitude has been discussed in a learned paper by Mr. Evetts, and his conclusion is that the king is represented “in his capacity as priest carrying the instruments of sacrifice” (P.S.B.A. 1891). In the inscription the king, after setting forth his glory and titles, goes on to record how that he completed the work of restoration and adornment, which Esarhaddon his father had begun in Êsagila and the other temples of Babylon, that he brought back the image of Marduk, which in the reign of a former king (Sennacherib) had been carried away to Assyria, that he reorganized the public worship and other internal affairs of Babylon, and established his brother Šamaššumukin on the throne.