“Humāyūn, if he passed through Ūk on his way to Persia, took a route which at the present day lies within the Afghan border, and the reason of his adopting this route would probably have been the ovil reputation for lawlessness earned by the inhabitants of the Kohistān, that is, the country around Neh and Birjand, through which the trade route (now in use) between Seistān and Mashhad passes. This would probably have been the shortest route to Mashhad, had it been safe to use it.”
53. P. 434, n. 3. For Gazargāh read Gāzargāh.
54. P. 439, last line. For Zailāq read Yailāq. Yailāq means summer-quarters, and the translation should apparently be “first stage of the summer-quarters”
55. P. 436, n. 7. For Qadār read Qīdār. See Genesis xxv. 13.
56. P. 440, n. 1. For Bayāzīd 176, read Bayāzīd 17b.
57. P. 442, n. 2. This identification is wrong.
58. P. 443, n. 2. For Ṣāfī read Ṣafī.
59. Do., n. 3. For Saddī read Sadd.
60. P. 445, l. 6. For Paik Muḥammad read Beg Muḥammad.
61. P. 448, last para. It would seem from Gulbadan Begam's Memoirs that either he or his relative Kecak or Kucak wrote an account of Humāyūn's adventures in Sind. Kicak is said to have been a brother of Khwāja Kilān, so that Khwāja Ghāzī was related to him also. Note 5 is not altogether correct. Khwāja Ghāzī and Rustam Koka fell into disgrace in Persia for stealing Humāyūn's jewels, but he got over that and was made accountant when Humāyūn returned to Afghanistan. But there he was dismissed for defalcations, see p. 544. In the passage of the Āīn referred to by me as Blochmann VII, A.F. is represented as saying that the office of Mashrif was higher than that of diwān, but surely there must be some mistake, for at p. VI., last line, Blochmann translates Mashrif as clerk, and at p. 544 we are told that Afẓal was promoted from being Mashrif to being diwān. Perhaps the word at p. VII is not Mashrif, but Masharrif-i-diwān, i.e., the exalter of the diwān or the Diwān par excellence.
61. P. 448, l. 4. Brother (barādar) seems a mistake here for brother's son (barādarzāda), see p. 542, last para., where Kokī is described as the paternal uncle of Ḥājī Muḥammad.
62. P. 448, l. 13. The description here evidently refers to Maḥram and not to Ḥasan.
63. P. 548, near foot. For Bābā Sihrindī read Bābāī Sihrindī.
64. P. 460, near middle. For Muḥammad M. read Muḥammadī M.
65. P. 466, l. 20. For Kot Laka read Kohlakā, and translate “hill-country.” Lakā means country.
66. Do. 7 lines from foot. For “strive” read “strove.”
67. P. 475, n. 3. Nadīm Koka is called Nadīm Beg by Khwandamīr in his Humāyūn-nāma, p. 149b, and is described as a Turk and as in high favour with Humāyūn, and the recipient of a khilat. He calls him janāb amārat sh‘aār farkhanda iwār Nadīm Beg muhrdār (sealer).
68. P. 482, n. 2. For “come back to Humāyūn” read “gone back to Kāmrān.”
69. P. 520, l. 7. Insert marginal number 271, and p. 521, l. 5, from foot insert 272.
70. P. 522, n. 2. A.F. calls him Buyatāt at pp. 543 and 565.
71. P. 526, n. 3. For Gulbān read Gulbār.
72. P. 529, l. 10. The word “jamjhama is used again in text II. 117, and clearly means there a morass or collection of water.
73. P. 530, l. 11. For Bābī read Bāba, and in next line insert “army” after victorious.
74. P. 534, l. 6. For Bārgbegī read Bārbegī.
75. P. 540, n. 1. For tamaatogh read tumāntogh.
76. P. 541. For marginal number 248 read 284.
77. P. 543, last para. This is an interesting paragraph and requires elucidation. It appears from the Āīn, Blochmann VI, that the words Vizier and Diwan are synonymous. The meaning, then, seems to be that Khwāja Qāsim Buyatāt had been made the Vizier or head of the department, and that then Mīrzā Beg had been appointed in his room. He was a poet and apparently inefficient and consequently Khwāja Ghāzī exercised unlimited power. That he was a dishonest man is proved by Gulbadan Begam's Memoirs, where we learn that he stole Humāyūn's jewels. Apparently the investigation was undertaken at the suggestion of Mīr Barka, who belonged to Sabzawār, and is called in the Āīn Sayyid Barka. Ḥusain Qulī was made muḥassil of the affair, i.e., apparently reporter of the findings of the committee. The word mutaghallib is given in Steingass as meaning victorious or powerful, but here it seems to be used in the sense of embezzling, and it is so understood by the Lucknow editor, who says the Khwājas were found guilty of taghallab, i.e., embezzlement. I think we should render the passage here “the fraudulent clerks.”
78. P. 543, l. 4 from foot. For Khawānd read Khāwand.
79. P. 544, n. 1. This note is wrong. The Ḥasan Qulī meant is probably the sealbearer often mentioned by Bayāzīd. See p. 440, n. 1.
80. P. 544, l. 9. For “condemned” read “defaulting.”
81. Do., l. 11. Insert Jahānbānī after “His Majesty.”
82. P. 551, l. 6. Dele stop after Muḥammad.
83. P. 68, l. 16. Insert on margin 303.
84a n. 2. Dele last sentence. The word in the Memoirs is Bakhshi.
84. P. 599, l. 17. Dele word “as.” This last sentence, about Jogī Khān, has no connection with the account of the Gakkars, and should have been put into a separate paragraph and prefaced by the words “In fine.”
85. P. 600, l. 9. Possibly the clause within brackets refers to Kāmrān and not to Salīm Khān. Substitute at l. 11, “assistance for his own ruin” for “auxiliaries for his disloyalty.
86. P. 608, n. 3. For “Newcomb” read Newcome.
86a. P. 612. According to the Darbār Akbarī, p. 312, it was ‘Abdullah Sulānpurī who sent the boots and also a whip.
87. P. 614. For Salīm Shāh read Salīm Khān. A.F. is always careful not to style Sher or his son Salīm, Shāh.
88. P. 623. The list is A.F.'s not Bayāzīd's and should not have appeared as a note.
89. P. 665. Ferishta says that he, after search, found Humāyūn's divān, and he gives extracts from it.