26, 27 and 28. A rural scene between two sea-pieces. On 27 we see a monk in a town fenced all around. Mahâkâtyâyana’s return in _Syrâvastî_. 26 and 28 represent Hiru’s and Bhiru’s disembarkment on the spots where they once will found the towns of _Hiruka_, and _Bhiruka_. The 2 remaining panels, 29 and 30, relate the touching story of the two _kinnaras_ who could never forget that one day, 697 years ago, man and wife had been separated in their millennial life for a whole night because of a swollen river. The king of _Bénarès_, one day hunting for game, surprised and listened to them. In the one relievo we see the prince hewn in a standing—in the other in a sitting posture, for the rest both the representations consecrated to the _kinnara-_ or _Bhalâtya-jâtaka_, have been hewn in the same manner. These mythical beings I always called _gandharvas_ because they always represent birds provided with a human head and bust. I never saw them with a horse’s head like _kinnara’s_ have been described in Dowson’s _Classical Dictionary_. With the exception of the _Maitrakanyakavadâna_, mentioned here-above, Foucher didn’t explain any other _relievo_ of the inferior series of the back wall at the _north-west_ corner, because we haven’t any data. He also had no time necessary for a complete and decisive study of the sculptures we see on the 3 higher galleries. He only acknowledged their less historical or legendary sense but accepted their iconographic character. Some sculptures of the second gallery _I_ thought to be Hindu-gods represented as _Bodhisattvas_, _he_, on the other hand, thought they were _Avalokitésyvara_, and _Manjusyri_. This does correspond at last to my meaning because _Avalokitésyvara_ is nobody else but the deity Shiva, in this case Padmapâni, at the same time the fourth _Dhyâni-Bodhisattva_. IX. A short word about some sculptures we see on the three higher galleries. No double series are to be seen there, but the hewn panels, especially those of the back-walls of the second and fourth gallery, are a little higher, and have been partly modeled in an excellent style. Wilsen’s and Leemans’ engravings are not always true representations of the sculptures themselves, f. i. no: 214 (W. L.) representing the unpardonably bad drawing of _Maitrakanyaka’s_ mother. But for professor Speyer’s acute observation she would have been never recognised perhaps, and this group would then have remained unexplained for ever, if this sculpture, and so many other ones, might happen to be ruined at all. Fortunately enough, I ordered this group to be photographed for about 4 years ago, and these photos can’t possibly lie[59]. The productions, formerly taken by Mr. van Kinsbergen to the cost of the Dutch Government, are beyond my reach, and so I’ve not been able to control whether this sculpture has been photographed or not. I think it was not.[60].