L'intérêt historique considérable du texte Istanbul 7608 bis, publié avec une photographie par G. Ryckmans en 1946, a été souligné par les nombreux commentateurs qui ont étudié cette inscription, gravée au champlevé comme presque tous les textes monumentaux de l'époque récente. Sur la photographie publiée par G. Ryckmans, l'eclairage vient d'en bas. Dans les textes en relief de ce genre, l'œil ne perçoit correctement la sensation du relief que sous un éclairage venu d'en haut, comme dans la nature, de sorte que l'impression exacte du relief n'est généralement obtenue qu'en retournant le texte tête en bas, ce qui rend la lecture malaisée. Les planches jointes au présent article répondent au besoin impérieux de photographies correctement éclairées.

It is well known that at the advent of Islam there were three Jewish tribes who lived in Yathrib (later Medina), as well as other Jewish settlements further to the north, the most important of which were Khaybar and Fadak. It is also generally accepted that at first the Prophet Muḥammad hoped that the Jews of Yathrib, as followers of a divine religion, would show understanding of the new monotheistic religion, Islam. However, as soon as these tribes realized that Islam was being firmly established and gaining power, they adopted an actively hostile attitude, and the final result of the struggle was the disappearance of these Jewish communities from Arabia proper.

In examining the religious attitudes visible in Vālmīki's Rāmāyaṇa, perhaps the first thing to recognize is that such an examination in itself tends to distort the picture by focusing attention on an aspect which is, by Indian standards, of comparatively slight significance. For Vālmīki's work is far from being a Vaiṣṇava epic, even a religious epic at all. This point needs to be emphasized, for the epic is still sometimes regarded as a Vaiṣṇava work, but it is far from new, for Hermann Jacobi in particular made it 80 years ago in words which are quite explicit and still worth quoting: “Die Vergöttlichung Râma's, seine Identificirung mit Vishṇu, ist im ersten und dem letzten Buche eine Thatsache, die dem Dichter immer vor Augen steht. In den fünf echten Büchern aber ist diese Idee, von wenigen eingeschobenen Stellen abgesehen, noch nicht nachweisbar; im Gegenteil ist Râma dort immer durchaus Mensch. Es bedurfte gewiss einer längeren Zeit, ehe sich die Umwandlung des Charakters Rama's, wie sie in den beiden zugefügten Büchern zutage tritt, vollzogen hatte.” However, the existence now of the nearly-complete Critical edition of the Rāmāyaṇa, permitting a closer approach to the original state of the work, warrants a fresh look at the evidence.

Thomas R. Trautmann's paper entitled “Licchavi-dauhitra” appears in JRAS, 1972, 2–15. The following are some of our observations on certain points raised in it.

Dynastic changes are not an uncommon feature in history. In the history of Sri Lanka they have been especially common and have sometimes taken place in such a rapid succession that one might form the impression of their being a recurrent feature. One observes the succession of the Moriyas by the Lambakaṇṇas, followed by the Pāṇḍyas and the Kāliṅgas. Usually such changes have been the result of the weakness of the central political authority, internal discord, factional disputes, and other such decisive forces which provided excellent conditions and ideal opportunities for ambitious kings, particularly from the sub-continent, to invade the island. Sometimes they have been caused by less hostile circumstances, at least in their initial stages, such as appeals for intervention by rulers to outside powers. There seem to have been certain special forces and features that marked the changes that occurred in the late medieval period. We shall be concerned here with a discussion of those forces with a view to understanding the special features of the process of change, the manner in which a comparatively insignificant clan of foreign descent acquired power and rose to the highest ranks of the governing élite, and also the forces that brought about its downfall. The question, “Why were the new élite unable to gain sovereign power when it was just within their grasp?” will engage our special attention.