<arabic> Both Major Fuller and Mr. Blochmann translate Gao-mesh by cow in­stead of buffalo, but the chief difference appears in the subsequent part of the sentence. My rendering is, “The second related to buffaloes and sheep,* and other animals from which milk is obtained. A tax for pasturage, at a fixed rate, was to be levied, and was to be demanded for every inhabited house, so that no animal, however wretched, could escape the tax.” The last clause is a free rendering of the original words.* Major Fuller's translation, as amended by Mr. Blochmann, runs, “They should levy a grazing tax on every animal that gives milk, from a cow to a she-goat. And this grazing tax was established. Also for every house they should demand a dwell­ing tax, so that no opportunity might be left for evasion or sub­terfuge in levying the tax.” The passage is very obscure, and, as Mr. Blochmann says, the difficult words are, “az pas i har khánah,” etc. I have read the words, “sakúnat garí,” as a compound, meaning “inhabited.” Mr. Blochmann takes the word garí to mean house-tax. This rendering, however, seems to be inadmissible here. The text tells us that two regulations were made, one concerning the land, the other relating to milch animals. A house-tax would make three regulations instead of two, for a house-tax could not be classi­fied as part of a tax on milch animals. The words “az pas,” “in the rear” of every house, probably mean that the back premises were to be searched for the animals. Pasturage in Dehli and Sarhind is scanty, and the practice, as I learn, is to turn the animals out to the common pasturage in the day under the charge of herds­men and boys, and to allow them to come home in the evening. Empty stomachs insure a speedy and certain return, thus affording the inspector an excellent opportunity to count them in the folds and sheds. There is something, however, to be said on the other side. In the following page of the text (288), and in page 323 (Journal pp. 8 and 47), along with the land measurement and pasture tax, there is a tax mentioned called karhí or garhí (masáhat o karhí o charáí), which Mr. Blochmann fairly renders as a “house tax.” Such may be the meaning of the word garí in the passage before us, though I think the context is against it.

P. 182. Sharaf Káí.—Mr. Blochmann says that, according to Major Fuller's MS., the correct reading is Kaíní, from Káín, the well-known town in Persia. This is probably right. I followed the printed text; for my best MS. presented the variants of “Sharaf 'Alí” and “Sharaf Kází,” and the other had “Sharaf Fáí.”

P. 192. Major Fuller and Mr. Blochmann are in difficulties about the pay which 'Aláu-d dín settled for his horse-soldiers. Their trans­lation says, “I will give 234 tankas to a Murattab, and 78 tankas to a do-aspah; from the former I shall require two horses, with their corresponding equipments, and from the latter one with its usual gear.” So the do-aspah, or two-horse man, is made to have only one horse, and Mr. Blochmann admits in his note that, “to call a man a do-aspah because he joins the army only with one horse is extraordi­nary.” The passage is not without its difficulty, and I do not insist upon the exact accuracy of my own rendering; but it is at least con­sistent with the terms of the text and with common sense. Murattab I consider to be the general term for the fully-accoutred horseman, who was to receive 234 tankas per annum, and 78 tankas in addition if he were a do-aspah, with a second horse. So the passage reads, “I would pay them 234 tankas regularly, and I would allow 78 tankas (in addition) to those who keep two horses, requiring, in return, the two horses with all the necessary appointments. So also as regards the men of one horse, I would require the horse and his accoutrements.” In confirmation of this view, a passage, which I have not translated (p. 319 of the text), says, “hashm i murattab ba duwíst sí chahár tankah wa do aspah ba haftád o hasht tankah bisyár shud wa mustakím gasht,” which, as I read it, says, “the allowance of the horseman (mur attab) was fixed at 234 tankas, and that of the do-aspah, or two-horse man, at 78 more (bisyár).” Mr. Blochmann's translation runs, “a Murattab could be enlisted for 234, and a do-aspah for 78 tankas.”

P. 193. In line 9 of “Regulation III.,” for “a time when,’ read “a quarter where.” I gratefully acknowledge this correction, and also one in p. 183. As the latter required a sentence to be re­cast, I have, for the benefit of the reader, cancelled the page.

In p. 97, I have noticed the inaccuracies of the edition printed in the Bibliotheca Indica. Mr. Blochmann makes many corrections, and points out numberless errors; but no doubt, taking into account the imperfect and unsatisfactory MSS. from which it was taken, he says, “the edition is on the whole good.”

Since the printing of p. 468, a friend has taken exception to my suggested rendering of the word jins by the term specie. The citation of the original word jins indicates its employment in an unusual sense, for the ordinary meaning of the word is things, articles, goods, species. So the interpretation suggested in the passage in question can only be justified by the terms of the context. The passage runs thus:—

<arabic> * If this passage is tested logically, the jins of the nakd o jins of the first clause must be something different from the jins which was received in its stead. It must have been something which could be concealed, or payment could not have been evaded; and so it could hardly have been grain, for corn stacks and granaries could not be hidden, and Tímúr's soldiers never showed any scruple in helping themselves to all that was wanted in that way. Lastly, the nakd o jins of the first clause is covered in the last clause by the word zar (gold, money) as an equivalent. In the writer's mind it was evidently associated with nakd (cash), and zar (gold). The loose term “valuables” may, perhaps, represent it more nearly than “specie,” but it is clearly something allied to money.

END OF VOL. III.