XXI.—Page 541. In page 304 of Elliot there is the following: “The Fírozí college at Uch was consigned to the care of the author. On the provocation of the army of Bahrám Sháh in … 624, Sultán Sa'íd Shamsu-d dín encamped in sight of Uch.” Major Raverty translates, “The Fírúzí college of Uchchah was committed to the charge of the author, together with the office of Kází of the forces of 'Aláu-d dín Bahrám Sháh.” This is an undoubted improvement, but the words in the printed text (<arabic>) will not allow of it. As, how­ever, Major Raverty makes a note about the “Kází-ship,” it may be assumed that some of his MSS. have <arabic> instead of <arabic>, and the amendment may be admitted.

XXII.—Page 556. Here there is a note about the difference between “consenting” and “making peace,” and another concerning the “leg below the knee” (page 308), in preference to the short word “shins” used in Elliot. These are unworthy of further notice.

XXIII.—Page 559. The correction about the khutba in page 309 of Elliot had been made, upon the suggestion of Mr. Thomas, before Major Raverty's book appeared.—Chronicles of the Pathán Kings, p. 111.

XXIV.—Page 565. Major Raverty here shows that in the last line of page 310 the words “(the author)” should be inserted after “he” to prevent the ambiguity which has arisen from closely following the text.

XXV.—Page 566. In page 153 of the printed text there is the following curious passage— <arabic> Major Raverty says that “the printed text is correct, except that <arabic> is altered to <arabic>, but <arabic>, not <arabic>, is silk.” It is unpleasant to give a flat contradiction, but I am forced to say that the print has <arabic>, not <arabic>. He then gives the translation from Elliot (p. 311) thus italicised: “‘The only weapons of the enemy were bamboo spears; and their armour, shields and helmets consisted only of raw silk strongly fastened and sewed together.’ A ‘shield’ and ‘helmet’ of raw silk would be curiosities certainly.” (Not greater perhaps than the cotton-armour described by the author in p. 352 of Raverty, and 287 of Elliot.) Major Raverty's rendering is, “The whole of the defensive arms of that host were of pieces of the spear-bambu, namely, their cuirasses and body armour, shields and helmets, which were all slips of it, crudely fastened and stitched, overlapping (each other).” This is a paraphrase rather than a translation. Major Raverty is a soldier, still I must assert that siláh means offensive not “defensive arms,” and is rightly translated “weapons.” The other part of the passage is open to doubt. Kita' kita', “bits and bits,” but of what? Formerly I took it to mean bits or hanks of silk, now I believe that the words refer to the bamboo mentioned in the previous sentence, and that the whole should read: “The only weapons of the enemy were bamboo spears, and so their armour and shields and helmets consisted entirely of pieces (of bamboo) strongly bound and sewn together with raw silk.” Major Raverty quotes a letter written by an officer in the Dufflah expedition in December, 1874, which says, “Each man … fastens on his cane-work helmet, a sort of close fitting skull cap… Round his loins over the hips he wears a number of thin bamboo or cane rings unattached to one another.” This seems to make the matter clear.

XXVI.—Page 572. Here Major Raverty gives a local name as Náran-goe (or Náran-koe), and adds this note: “In Elliot, Vol. II. page 314, it is turned into ‘Kúní’ in one place, and sixteen lines under into ‘Nárkotí.’” This should have been stated thus: “The translation in Elliot scrupulously follows the text in reading ‘Kúní,’ and lower down ‘Nárkoti.’” Against the correctness of Náran-goe it would be presumptuous to say anything without seeing the MSS., but Major Raverty from his own showing is not very certain.

XXVII.—Page 574. Major Raverty's rendering is more accurate, and has been placed among the Corrections.

XXVIII.—Page 581. In Elliot (p. 317) there is the following passage: “He had with him some travellers' bread, which he took from a bag on the back of the mule.” Major Raverty gives a para­phrase, not a translation, of the passage, and says: “He had along with him on the ass, a few cakes of bread, with some (little) dainty, by way of provision for the journey, after the manner of travellers.” To the word “dainty” he adds a note: “Meat, fish, vegetables or the like, eaten with bread to give it a savour: in Elliot it is styled ‘travellers' bread,’ and the ass is turned into a mule!” The rendering in Elliot is literal. The words for the food are Nán-i khurish-i safriyána, literally “bread for travelling food.” In the next line it is called sufrah, which the dictionaries explain as “travelling pro­visions.” What ground is there here for animadversion, and why are these few simple words amplified into “a few cakes of bread with some (little) dainty by way of provision for the journey after the manner of travellers”? The word for Major Raverty's “ass” and Elliot's “mule” is daráz-gosh, “long-ear:” an epithet, not a name. I find that the munshí who made the translation first wrote “ass,” and afterwards changed it to “mule.” He may be credited with a reason for doing so.

XXIX.—Page 583. Upon the last line but one in page 317 of Elliot, Major Raverty quotes and says, “‘built a fort for his residence!’ The printed text has ‘fortress of Baskot.’” True, but it would have been candid to say that a note gives ba-sukúnat, which means “for the residence.” Major Raverty adopts “Baskot” or “Basankot,” and his MSS. may justify the reading, but he does not venture upon any explanation of its position.

XXX.—Page 583. In Elliot (p. 318) there are the words “he came with a body of men from his native country.” Major Raverty quotes the text; allows that the word ijmá' means “collection,” and that itbá' means “followers,” “dependents,” and yet expresses his astonishment (!!) at the rendering “body of men.” He finds reason apparently in his MSS. for altering the word itbá' into intijá', and translating “to better his means.” This may be right, but it is not so decidedly preferable as to merit adoption. When Major Raverty says in support of his view that the individual in question “was merely a priest, and did not travel attended by ‘a body of men,’” he forgets that priests and holy men often have many followers and disciples. “A number of followers” is a preferable rendering.

XXXI.—Page 583. I cannot admit Major Raverty's improved rendering of the words <arabic> by: “He was called upon to deliver a discourse in the audience hall,” but I am not satisfied with the munshí's rendering in Elliot (p. 318), “His name was mentioned in the Court.” It says rather, “Having recited a commemorative (speech or ode), he came to Court.” Or perhaps we may express the author's meaning more clearly by saying, “He came to Court and delivered a eulogistic speech.”

XXXII.—Page 587. Here Major Raverty says there is nothing to warrant the translation of Atráf i mamálik i Lakhnautí (the words of the printed text) by “the territories of Lakhnautí.” How came he then, in page 354, to translate atráf i bilád Lakhnautí (text, p. 138) by “the different parts of the territories of Lakhnautí”?

XXXIII.—Page 600. This, the last criticism upon Elliot (p. 320) which I have to review, is a gem of its kind. “The word bázargán does not mean ‘horse-dealer’ any more than ass-dealer, for it signifies a merchant or trader.” True, beyond question. But this particular merchant was at the head of a drove (galah) of horses. If, as it appears, he was one of a party of merchants who sold horses, what was he, if not a horse-dealer?