101. P. 306, n. 2. Dele dīn.
102. P. 307, three lines from foot. Read “Aghazwār,” (like Aghaz or Oghuz'). He was Governor of Herat and also Atāliq.
103. P. 309, three lines from foot. Read “Gawars.”
104. P. 314, 11 lines from foot. For “wrong” read “strong.”
105. Do., n. 1. The page reference is wrong.
106. Do., n. 2. For Monday read Tuesday.
107. P. 316, n. 3. After Narīād insert “and Aḥmadābad.”
108. P. 317, second line and n. 1. We are told in the M. Sikandarī that Humāyūn called him a “black slave” Ghulām-i-sīah. ‘Imād-ul-Mulk is stated, Bayley's Gujrat p. 400, to have been the son of Tawakkal chief of the royal Khāsah Khailān. He was put to death at Surat by Khudawand Khān Rūmī in 1545, l.c, 435 and 436.
109. Do., second last para. For Nansārī read Nausārī.
110. P. 321, n. 1. Ferishta calls it Ghāt Karcī and an article by Mohan Lāl Vishnu Lal Pandia in J.A.S.B. for 1897, p. 167, states that Ghāt Karcī is the name of a town close to the town of Bānswāra.
111. P. 323, 13th line for “reporting” read “repenting.”
112. P. 323, n. 3. Sofar or Sofarus of the Portuguese, probably the epithet refers to Rūmī Khān's complexion as the word means the pale or yellow. Sofar however is a proper name and may have been Rūmī Khān's real name or it may have been given to him on account of his Greek origin, for the Greeks are called the sons of Aṣfar (the superlative of safar. Lane 1699b). According to Damian a Goes, who calls him Khwāja Coffarus, he was born of a Turkish mother and a Christian father in the island of Chios. See Damian's Diensis Oppugnatio, Cologne 1602, published by Birckmann, p. 279.
113. P. 329, n. 2. This genealogy is also given in A.N. II, 64. I am inclined to think that Nūru-d-dīn first married Gul-barg, a daughter of Bābar not named by Gulbadan, and had by her Selīma, and that then in Humāyūn's reign, and probably after the death of her first husband Ishān Taimur, he married Gulrang. It is Pashā, not Pāshā Begum. Nūru-d-dīn belonged to the Naqshbandi order.
114. P. 331, second para. Cf. Jarrett II, 122, where it is said that the Bengalis make boats so high that when attached to the shore they overtop the walls of a fort. Rūmī Khān then seems to have adopted a Bengali stratagem.
115. P. 338, n. 2. Beale, O.B.D., p. 265, of ed. 1894, says that Shaikh Phūl or Bahlūl's tomb is on a hill near the fort of Bīāna. Maḥommed Bakhshī is said to have buried him there. The brothers were descended from Farīdu-d-dīn-‘Aār, and their father's name was Qiyāmu-d-dīn, and he is buried at Ghāzīpūr.
116. P. 341, n. 2, l. 3. For “East” read “West.” Narhan is probably correct for Bayāzīd, 148b, speaks of Narhan as a ferry near Tājpūr where Khwajah Zechariah and others had a Jāgīr. There is a pargana Tájpūr mentioned in the Āīn Jarrett II. 130 as in Sarkār Tāndha. Of course this is not the Darbhanga Tājpūr.
117. P. 344, 5 lines from foot. Dele the word “learned” within brackets.
118. Do. n. 2. For Shihna read Shahna.
118a. Do. n. 4. For Roebach read Roebuck.
119. P. 352, seven lines from foot. For ābrūyān read beābruyārn.
120. P. 357, n. l. A Sārang Khān is mentioned in Taimu's. Institutes, Davy and White, as a brother of Matu Khān and as ruling in the country of Multan.
121. P. 360. There is an obscurity about Ḥamīda Bānu's parentage. In B.M. M.S. Add. 7688, which is a collection of letters, there are three addressed by Nawāb Bilqīs Makānī Miriam Beg to her mother and sister. They also appear in the similar collection, Or. 3842, 147b. Apparently the writer is Ḥamīda Banū, for they belong to her time, viz., the reign of Ṭahmāsp, and they are such as she might write in a foreign country. They also immediately follow the correspondence of her husband, Humāyūn. Bilqīs Makānī is a name given to Ḥamīda in the T. Sindh, and Miriam Beg may be Miriam Makānī. In the first letter the writer calls her mother Sulānam and begs her good offices for one Ṣafī Khān, whom she describes as being the son of her lala or guardian. The second is to her sister, Zainab Begam, and is to the same effect. The third is to her mother and consists of inquiries after her health. It is forwarded by one Khwāja Riẓwān who had come to explain his offences. The compiler of the book describes these letters as addressed to the writer's own mother and sister, and if so, we learn that her mother was called Sulānam and her sister Zainab. But possibly they are addressed to ladies of ahmāsp's family whom she may have adopted as her mother and sister. Ṣafī Khān is described in the letters as a Saiyid of noble family, and he may be the Amír Ṣafī mentioned in Sām Mīrzā's Taḥfat Sāmī B.M. MS. P. 45, as belonging to a noble family of Saiyids and as coming from Nīshāpur. He was a caligraphist. The three letters are written in high-flown Persian. It is, however, possible that the writer was the niece of ahmāsp and daughter of M‘asūm Beg whom Humāyūn is said to have married in Persia. Jauhar 75.
122. P. 360, n. 2. He is also probably the Bāba Dost Bakhshī whom Bayāzīd in his list p. 74c. calls Bābā Dost Cūlī (because he accompanied Humāyūn across the desert) and who, he says, acted as Humāyūn's Bakhshī on the way to Persia. Bayāzīd mentions Bābā Dost Bakhshī and his son, Dost Muhammad, several times in his account of the siege of Kabul by M. Sulaimān. He praises the valour of the son and describes, 85b., how Bāba Dost Bakhshī had the command of a battery during the siege and how he laid a trap for M. Ibrahim. At p. 926 Bāyāzīd tells how when Mun‘im Khān decided that he would not go to India on account of Bairām Khān's being all powerful, he bade Bāyāzīd go back to Kābul. Bazzāid said he could not go back alone, and when Mun‘īm insisted on his return he begged and obtained that Bāba Dost Bakhshī should be sent back with him. This seems to show that Bāba Dōst was a persona grata with the Begams.
123. P. 362, n. 1. The source of the Maair's information (and consequently of Mr. Blochmann's) is the Tabaqāt Akbari Lucknow ed. 339. The presentation of the record is placed there in the end of the 23rd year. ‘Mīr Ali Akbar was afterwards disgraced and imprisoned.
124. P. 364, n. 2. Read Ḥijrī. His poetry is not religious. There were two poets of this name, and the divāns of both of them are in the I.O.
125. P. 369, n. 1. The passage is explained in T. Alfī p. 570a of B. M. MS. Or. 465, where it is stated that ‘Abdu-l-Ghafūr said what he should not have said about the distressed condition of Humāyūn's army. “Sakna cand ke namībāyīst guft az pareshānī lashkarīān Ḥaẓrat guft.”
126. Do. n. 2. The story is also told in the T. Alfī 570a. The unfortunate men took refuge with Humāyūn. Yādgār Nāsir said he wanted to settle revenue accounts with them and induced Humāyūn to send them to him. Humāyūn sent them with a guard, but Yādgār Nāsir got rid of the guard and then sent the zamindars to Shāh Ḥusain. Possibly the story is another version of that told by āhir Nasyānī. See his Tārīkh of which there is a copy in the Rampore Library, and also Elliot I, 253.
127. P. 372, n. 2. The Mirāt-i-‘Aālam B. M. MS., p. 261, says expressly that the diamond was the one obtained by the victory over Ibrāhīm. It also says, later on, that this was the diamond given by Humāyūn to ahmāsp.
128. P. 376, n. For “author's” read “author.”
129. P. 378, n. 3. Another division is noted by Mut‘amid Khān in the preface to his Iqbālnāma. According to it the first volume is an account of Akbar's ancestors, as in Bib. Ind. ed. The second comprised the occurrences of 47 years, and was divided into two parts, viz., the first thirty years, making a qarn, and the second part extending from the 31st to the 47th year and unfinished. See the translation of passage in preface to Gladwin's translation of the Āīn.