The text published by Lutz in PBS. i, 2, No. 129, is partially restored by K. 9830 + 11768, published in Gray, The Šamaš Religious Texts, pl. iii. This latter tablet is of great interest as belonging to the series bît rimki (House of Washing). The object of the prayer is to free the suppliant from witchcraft (cf. II. 8 ff.), and the principal act of the ceremony appears to be washing with water (cf. II. 5, 17, and 19) of purification. The prayer has some affinities with maḳlû and šurpu texts and is followed, after a short ritual, by a Sumerian prayer apparently identical with V R. 50, 1 ff. Hence, and for other reasons, it is not improbable that V R. 50–1 contains the text of the ensuing portion of bîtrimki. It is worthy of notice that the catchline of V R. 50–1 is the first line of šurpu, Tablet IX. The Sumerian prayer above referred to is also quoted, along with other bît rimki prayers, in the ritual published by Myhrman, PBS. i, 1, No. 15.

In our days and in our country very little interest is taken in the contents of MSS. of the Hebrew Bible. This statement is supported by the facts of my own experience. For five years, 1917–22, I was working among Bible MSS. in the Library at Trinity College and in the University Library at Cambridge, and for the last seven years I have been working among similar treasures in the British Museum. The Register of MSS., given above in Section I, will shew that at present I have in use what is practically the whole collection of MSS. of ancient date belonging to the Museum which contain the Hebrew Psalms, as well as MS. 42, kindly lent me by the Council of Trinity College, Cambridge, and MS. 20, reproduced as regards Psalms in photograph. And throughout all these years it has always been matter of surprise when, at rare intervals, some other scholar has applied for permission to consult some one of the many MSS. in use by me. So it is that the corner of the field in which I find myself growing old is a very lonely corner; indeed, the whole field, as well as my corner in it, cries aloud for workers, and is unheeded. By the rulers of Biblical studies in our times the field of the Hebrew MSS. of the Bible has been treated as an expanse of desert, wholly unprofitable for working, and rightly condemned to be left severely unvisifeed. As regards my own corner of this field, under date 11th July, 1925, the whole bulk of my own work among the Bible MSS. and Editions, itself in manuscript, was accepted by the Trustees of the British Museum, under the title “Studies in Hebrew Bible”, and with the Press-mark for the whole, Oriental 9624. The number of volumes of notes and texts to be eventually included will be large, but the first seven volumes already catalogued and available for use by scholars are complete in themselves, in so far as they contain the whole of the Text of Psalms in Ginsburg's (1913) edition, with full tables, notes, and a complete Concordance of the accents of every word of Psalms in that edition.

The “Staël-Holstein Scroll” is a convenient name to give to the document on which are inscribed the texts recently published by Professor Thomas and Professor Sten Konow in “Two Mediaeval Documents from Tun Huang”, Oslo Etnografiske Museums Skrifter, Bind 3, Hefte 3 (Oslo, 1929). It bears on one side a Buddhist Sūtra in Chinese and on the other one document in Tibetan and one in the Śaka language (also sometimes called “Khotanese” and “Nord-Arisch”). These latter have no relation to the Chinese text and were written on it when it had become waste paper.

Since the manuscript of The Caliphs and their non-Muslim Subjects was given to the printer further material has accumulated. Most of it, though interesting or amusing, only confirms what was said in the book. The Ecclesiastical History of Bar Hebraeus, however, gives a clearer idea of the relations between the state and the church.

En, 1887, Léon Heuzey consacra au kaunakès une étude fondamentale dont il n'est pas superflu de reproduire ici les passages essentiels, car cet article n'est pas mentionné dans plusieurs travaux récents dont j'aurai ci-après à discuter les conclusions.

Maghribī or Moorish documents on the theory of music are extremely rare. We certainly have the Commentary on Aristotle's De anima by Ibn Rushd (d. 1198), but that deals with the question of the physical basis of sound, and not with practical theory. Probably the latter is treated in the Kitāb al adwār al-mansūb attributed to Ibn Sab'īn (d. 1269), but this is, unfortunately, locked away in a private library in the East. We also have the treatise bearing the name of Al-Shalāḥi (ca. 1301) known as the Kitāb al-imtā' wa'lintifā', and the chapter on music in the mugaddima of the Kitāb al-'ibarof Ibn Khaldūn (d. 1406), but they tell us very little. The former is mainly concerned with the question of the “lawfulness” of music, whilst the latter is too general in its treatment to be of much use, and tells us nothing about practical theory.

Ishme-Dagan, fourth king of the Isin dynasty, reigned twenty years (2237–18), but concerning the history of his reign little is known. He appears in all known references to him as “the god Ishme-Dagan”, in accordance with the prevalent custom of emperor-worship in the periods of the third dynasty of Ur and the succeeding dynasties of Isin and Ellasar. Although all the fifteen kings of Isin and the fourteen kings of Ellasar have Semitic names, and both dynasties are certainly Semitic, their religion was Sumerian; the deification and worship of kings are characteristic of Sumerian religion, and fundamentally opposed to Semitic religious conceptions.

The Nyāya-praveśa by Śaṅkarasvāmin, recently printed in the Gaekwad's Oriental Series of Baroda, is a text of great interest for the study of Indian logic; in fact, in spite of its conciseness it contains an extremely clear exposition of the Buddhist logic as it was taught in India, at least among some particular schools, as those of the Yogācāras and the Sautrāntikas in that lapse of time which separates Diṅnāga from Dharmakīrti. That the book was written after Diṅnāga, but before Dharmakīrti, is proved by its peculiarities, which in many a point differentiate the theories held by the author from those maintained by the other two great logicians already quoted.