VII.—Page 101. “Every copy of the work collated has (with two exceptions, which have <arabic>) the word <arabic> signifying ‘birds,’ etc., as plainly written as it is possible to write; but in the printed text <arabic> has been substituted, and Mr. Dowson of course follows the printed text.” As Mr. Dowson had only two inferior MSS., he certainly followed the intelligible print and gave the translation (Vol. II. p. 276) of “fleet messengers.” He would have hesitated long before he converted murghán “birds,” “fowls,” into “carrier-pigeons,” as Major Raverty has done.

VIII.—Page 102. “The original text is <arabic> (not mútán), which Mr. Dowson renders ‘disease and murrain,’ and adds in a note, ‘The former words (sic) mean literally diseases, but it (sic) is also used for those diseases of the body politic, extraordinary imposts.’ Does múnát also mean ‘murrain’ in the body politic?” The printed text has 'awáriz o mútán, and I translated this (page 276) by “diseases and murrain,” for which the dictionaries give full warrant. The words form one of those reiterative phrases of which the Persians are so fond. I knew nothing of <arabic>, and now that I do, I prefer the text of the print and my own translation to Major Raverty's rendering, “(The levying) of heavy contributions in taxes and supplies.” The two sics which Major Raverty has inserted in his quotation are characteristic. It is easy to be seen that by a printer's accident “word means” has been converted into “words mean.”

IX.—Page 103. “Mr. Dowson translates (page 277): ‘He be­stowed no favours upon any one, and hence apprehensions about his rule took possession of the hearts of the people.’” Major Raverty's rendering is, “Awe of his authority was implanted in the hearts of all people.” The difference is not very great; but I prefer my own rendering, and hold to it. Major Raverty quotes the text— <arabic> and has incorrectly written <arabic> for <arabic>.

X.—Page 104. Major Raverty translates the passage which stands in the print— <arabic> by “he founded several towns.” He adds a note: “In Elliot's India, Vol. II. p. 277, this passage is translated, ‘several fortified places and towns were founded,’” and expatiates upon the fact that “Kasbah does not mean fortified places.” The words are rightly translated, for bárah means “walls, fortifications,” and kasbah means “towns.”

XI.—In the same page 104, Major Raverty translates the words— <arabic> by “illustrious Saiyids and dignified Ulamá.” This had been rendered in Elliot (Vol. II. p. 277) by “illustrious nobles and learned men of re­pute.” The difference is small, and quite unworthy of notice; but as it has been dragged forward, it may be remarked that one translation is partial, the other complete, and that bá-nám means “famous, having a name,” rather than “dignified.”

XII.—Page 106. Here Major Raverty has hit a real, but not an important blot. The sentence (Vol. II. p. 278), “He restored to the nobles,” should read “he confirmed.”

XIII.—Page 107. Major Raverty translates the opening sentence of the reign of Malik Arslán as follows: “Malik Arsalán-i 'Abdu-l Mulúk, son of Sultán Mas'úd, ascended the throne in the year 509 A.H. at Garmsír itself, and assumed the sovereignty of the empire of Ghaznín.” He adds the following note: “The original is <arabic>. The passage is translated in Elliot (Vol. II. p. 278) thus: ‘Malik Arslán Abú-l Malik (sic) ascended the throne A.H. 509 (A.D. 1115), and brought Garmsír and the kingdom of Ghazní under his rule.’ I wonder what throne he ascended if it was not that of the kingdom of Ghaznín?” The words of the text (p. 22) are <arabic> (sic) <arabic> These words will bear no other meaning than that assigned to them in Elliot, and Major Raverty might have seen that they accurately represent the text. Adopting for once his own style of criticism, I may say of his translation I wonder of what empire it was that Malik Arslán assumed the sovereignty of, if it was not that of Ghaznín?

XIV.—In page 318 Major Raverty translates the passage rendered in Elliot (Vol. II. p. 284) “the inaccessibility of the mountains of Rásíát, which are in Ghor,” by “the natural impregnability of the strong mountains which are in Ghor,” and he has a note: “The word rásíát is not a proper name, but the plural of rásiah, which means ‘strong mountains.’” The words of the printed text are <arabic> and here the word is treated more like a proper than a common noun. A few lines lower the order of the words is reversed, and we have “rásíát jibál.” Johnson's definition is “Rásiyat (pl. rawásí), firm (mountain).” He does not give rásíát, but he again explains his plural rawásí by “firm (mountains).” Meninski is fuller. He says Rásiyat is the feminine of Rásí, which he explains: “Firmus ac immotus persistens, uti mons.” The translation in Elliot was made by a munshí, whose rendering was “hills of Rásíát.” The munshí's word “hills” has been changed into “mountains” in Sir Henry Elliot's own hand, so that the translation has the weight of his authority. The word rásíát is used in a curious way, but Major Raverty's explanation is worthy of consideration.

XV.—In page 319 Major Raverty's MSS. enabled him to correct the words Faj Hanisár, which were given from the printed text in Elliot (page 285), into “Faj (defile, pass) of Khaesár.” He adds, “Khaesár is a well-known place, and is mentioned in a number of places throughout the work.” The correction is acceptable, but faults of the text afford no ground for repeated sneers at the translators.

XVI.—Page 351. I willingly accept the rendering “fastened up the skirts of their coats of mail,” or rather “threw back (báz zadand) the skirts of their coats of mail,” instead of the words, “throwing off their coats of mail,” which appear in Elliot, page 287. That the heroes should throw off their armour when about to creep under and rip up two elephants is, however, not so improbable as Major Raverty deems it. The Waterloo Life-Guardsman is said to have told the Prince Regent that he “would have liked fighting in his shirt sleeves better than in a cuirass.”

XVII.—Page 441. In page 291 of Elliot there is a note as follows: “Sang-i Surkh, a strong fort in Ghor, probably near the Hari river.” Major Raverty deems this “impossible.” He says, “It is the name of a pass near the Halmand river about N.N.W. of Ghaznín on the route from that city and also from Kábul into Ghúr.” This is a matter of opinion, and may be left to the reader's judgment; but Major Raverty's local knowledge must be taken into account.

XVIII.—Page 532. In page 302 of Elliot there is the following passage: “He took the city of Multán, and Hindústán, Dewal, etc., and all as far as the sea.” Major Raverty has: “He possessed himself of the city of Multán, and Sindústán and Diwal as far as the sea-coast.” A note to Sindústán adds, “That is, Siwastán, also called Shiw-astán, by some Hindu writers… Siwastán is turned into Hindústán in Elliot's India.” The printed text has “Hindústán,” and again the translator is blamed for being true to his text. I have met with Siwistán in various forms, but I have not seen either “Sindústán” or “Shiw-astán.”

XIX.—Page 534. Here a real error is noted. The words in Elliot (Vol. II. 303): “After the victory of Nandua-tarí, the Mughal prince,” should read, “After the victory of Nandana, Tari (or Tolí), the Mughal prince.” This fault in the punctuation was overlooked by the Editor.

XX.—Page 539. The words <arabic> This is translated in Elliot (p. 303), “The army of Khilj consisting of all the forces of Khwárizm.” Raverty's rendering is, “a body of [the tribe] of Khalj, a part of the Khwarazmí forces.” In this the first lashkar is expunged, and the hypothetical “tribe” is substi­tuted. The words of the text are not precise. Literally they read, “The army of Khilj out of the army of the Khwárizmís.”