P. 475, the name of the fort is not Kant or Kot. It is Kīnt or Kīt, and is spelt in the P.T. of the Āīn II, 423, as Kōt. See also Jarrett II, 157, and B.'s note 2 to 427. It was a dependency of Rohtās. My note 1 to p. 475 is wrong. The fort is mentioned in the Iqbālnāma under the 24th year of A.'s reign. The reason why 'Arab was so savage against Sa'ādat 'Alī Yār was that the latter was formerly 'Arab's ally. Apparently Sa'ādat 'Alī was Khiẓẓr Khwāja's s., but not Gulbadan B.'s. The Muḥibb 'Alī here mentioned is the Rohtāsī one, and the Rohtās is the Bihārī one. —Do. three lines from foot; insert the word “again” between “was” and “made.”
P. 489, middle of page. The passage about dogs (Yīt) wants correction. The meaning seems to be that in that year they were not to be hunted. Apparently the killing of the pariah dogs was considered a sort of duty, or at least as a sport, for we find a Pāyinda Muḥ. mentioned at p. 29, as having the title of Sagkush, or Canicide. He is also mentioned at pp. 611 and at 512 of P.T.
P. 500, n. 3, insert the word “it” after “for.”
P. 508, line 2, for “that” read “the.” The Persian words are ba dastmāya mālikholiyā shādmānī mī khurd. The passage is highly rhetorical, and seems to mean that the foolish Mīrzā concocted mirth with sorrowful ingredients. The allusion to the learned may mean that this class wished for the Mīrzā's success as he posed as the champion of orthodoxy; but more probably means that they were loyal, but foolish in wishing to go out to fight.
P. 509, n. 1, for Bāgh-i-dilkushā read “Bāghhdilgasha.”
P. 511, and n. 1, for B. 114 read 165.
P. 528, for Gorkhattrī read Gorakhattri. A. F.'s visit to the secret chamber is interesting.
P. 535, n. 1, for “is” read “as.”
P. 572, for error read terror.
P. 578. The tank was a small one. It is a mistake to suppose that the Fatḥpūr lake burst. V. A. Smith's account in his Akbar is an exaggeration. In his note the word Solar should be Lunar. The day was A.'s birthday according to the Hijra Calendar, namely the 5th Rajab 990, and the 27th year of the reign. It corresponded to about 28 July, 1582. Only one person of note —a leopard-keeper—was drowned, the account in the Iqbālnāma is to be found at the end of the record of the 27th year, and almost on the same page there is the notice of the murder by A.'s orders of Ma'ṣūm Farankhūdī, who was attacked by Iskandar Qalmāq in his palanquin. There is also the account of the Dumbhouse.
P. 582, n. 1. Though I have said that I have not found Faiẓābād, it really is the well-known city in Oudh. It is the Fyẓābād of I.G., Vol. XII.
P. 584, delete heading (verse).
P. 636, for 14 February 1548 read 1584.
P. 642, went off with some men on a “roadless” road. Does this mean was killed? The words are sipar-i-berāhī shud, perhaps meaning they were trampled by elephants.
P. 645, Divine era introduced, beginning of 29th year.
P. 650, n. 1, for Banān read Banār. Tok or Thok is in Mymensingh d.
P. 677, n. 1, for doubt-thread read double thread.
P. 693, and n. 3, aznās should be arnās, destroyer of foes.
P. 694, n. 5 col. 2, for “on” read “in.”
P. 705, gardens of Sirhind.
P. 708, for 'Abdu-r-Raḥmān read Raḥīm.
P. 718, n. 2, for A. F.'s son read brother. See B. introduction, p. xxiii.
P. 731-32 and Elphinstone's note 1. Elphinstone's note is unjust to A. F., and is founded on an imperfect understanding of A. F.'s words. The words as they appear in the P.T., p. 485 of Vol. III of the A.N. line 7, are darīn shorish tā pānṣad kasrā rūzgār siprī gasht. Elphinstone has misunderstood the force of the word kas, as used by A. F. Kas does not always mean common people or common soldiers. It has also the secondary meaning of persons of rank or otherwise notable. Thus we have the phrase kas u nākas—persons important, and those of no account. And this phrase has been rightly rendered in Richardson's dictionary by the words “Everybody, noble and plebeian.” So too Vullers II s.v. kas, where two meanings are given, “vir et vir dignus, colendus, meritus.”—That A. F. here means officers and other persons of rank is clear from the fact that Ferishta and others make no comment on A. F.'s mention of 500, which they certainly would have done if they had thought that A. F.'s 500 meant common soldiers. For they all speak of the loss as being of thousands: Badāūnī for instance puts the loss at 8,000. It is true that he uses the words kas in the ordinary sense of common people, but this does not affect the correctness of A. F.'s use of the word in a restricted sense. Blochmann has seen the true sense of A. F.'s expression, for he says, p. 345, 500 officers were killed. See also his p. 204.
Pp. 735 and 760. These are two references to a famous pigeon-expert and to pigeon-flying. They should be compared with pp. 298 and 303 of the Āīn Akbarī of Blochmann's translation. The pigeons had arrived at Khairābād Serāi on the west side of the Indus, and A. was so delighted at the news that he had the pigeons brought to him at Lahore before the Turanian ambassador had had his audience. The passage of A.'s letter at p. 760 is to me a little obscure, and it may be that the text is corrupt. The last sentence of the preceding paragraph, “we now are enabled through his kindness to send him” should, I think, be read, “we now are enabled to take the benefit of his (that is, Ḥakīm Hamām's) companionship, and to send him (Ṣadr Jahān).” Then Akbar speaks of the presents he is sending, and expresses his thanks for 'Abdullah's sending Ḥabīb the pigeon-expert, and the birds who are famous for their dexterity in fluttering and recovering themselves after diving. The words inti'ashu ahitizāz appear to be technical terms of pigeon-experts.
P. 759, n. 1, for m'airate read ma'aratī.
P. 778, for yaṛlīgh read yarlīgh.
P. 810, for Ābīn read Ābān.—Do. last line, for returned read retired.
P. 811, line 11, for convey read convoy.—Do. line 19, for Tamkīn read Namakīn.
P. 812, 7 lines from foot, after instalment add “in Allāhābād.”
P. 815, contains A. F.'s reflections.
P. 818, n. 1, for neared read reared.—Do. for nazidīk read nazdīk, and for shādrawān read shadurwān, i.e. curtain.
P. 819, n. 2, for kājīwār read kājīdār.—Do. n. 4; reference misplaced. It refers to Qāẓī Ḥasan.—Do. n. 6 (unnumbered, col. 2); misplaced. It belongs to p. 820, and the reference is to Salibat.
P. 873, footnote col. 2, for 1950 read 1590.
P. 877, for Lohan read Lohar, and for Major-dorno read majordomo.
P. 884, for Qāin Kokaltēsh read Zain Kokaltāsh.—Do. for Man read Mau.
P. 885, line 11, for Aḥamad read Aḥmad.—Do. for disgusts read disgust.—Do. after Maulavī Ḥusain add “of Khurāsān.”—Do. for “uttered sweets words” read “received soothing expressions.” —Do. n. 2, for Mahani read Makānī.
P. 895, several mistakes on this page. The Shaikh, in line 1, is apparently Shaikh Zāhid, and the spiritual s. is Shaikh Ṣafī of Ardabīl. This Shaikh Ṣafī was not connected with the Safavis, and his name is sometimes spelt Suffī.—Do. n. 4; Ḥalīma in Arabic means gentle, and perhaps was intended as the Arabic synonym of Maras or Martha, which also means the meek. Despina was the Greek name, and meant mistress.
P. 896, in Persian ill (shadow) seems counted as having only one l.
P. 902, n. 2, for Girnān read Girnau.—
P. 914, n. col. 2, for ṣūjiyāna read sufiyana. B. line 1.
P. 915, n. 1, for ban rū read bar rū.—Do. n. 2, perhaps Sāvdā is Sāvlī in Baroda.—Do. 10 lines from foot, Kūlīān may be the wild tribe in W. India called Kolīs.—Do. n. 4, for Raḥim read Raḥīm. As the note says, it seems to be a mistake for zakhmī.