P. 16 l. 11.—Niz?ami mentions “lover’s marks” where a rebel chieftain commenting on Khusrau’s unfitness to rule by reason of his infatuation for Shirin, says, “Hinoz az‘ashiqbazi garm dagh ast.” (H.B.)

P. 22 n. 2.—Closer acquaintance with related books leads me to delete the words “Chaghatai Mughul” from ?aidar Dughlat’s tribal designations (p. 22, n. 2, l. 1). (1) My “Chaghatai” had warrant (now rejected) in ?aidar’s statement (T.R. trs. p. 3) that the Dughlat amirs were of the same stock (abna‘-i-jins) as the Chaghatai Khaqans. But the Dughlat off-take from the common stem was of earlier date than Chingiz Khan’s, hence, his son’s name “Chaghatai” is a misnomer for Dughlats. (2) As for “Mughul” to designate Dughlat, and also Chaghatai chiefs—guidance for us rests with the chiefs themselves; these certainly (as did also the Begchik chiefs) held themselves apart from “Mughuls of the horde” and begs of the horde—as apart they had become by status as chiefs, by intermarriage, by education, and by observance of the amenities of civilized life. To describe Dughlat, Chaghatai and Begchik chiefs in Babur’s day as Mughuls is against their self-classification and is a discourtesy. A clear instance of need of caution in the use of the word Mughul is that of ‘Ali-sher Nawa’i Chaghatai. (Cf. Abu’l-ghazi’s accounts of the formation of several tribes.) (3) That “Mughul” described for Hindustanis Babur’s invading and conquering armies does not obliterate distinctions in its chiefs. Mughuls of the horde followed Timurids when to do so suited them; there were also in Babur’s armies several chiefs of the ruling Chaghatai family, brothers of The Khan, Sa‘id (see Chin-timur, Aisan-timur, Tukhta-bugha). With these must have been their following of “Mughuls of the horde”.

P. 34 l. 12.—“With the goshawks” translates qirchigha bila of the Elph. MS. (f. 12b) where it is explained marginally by ba bazi, with the falcon or goshawk. The ?ai. MS. however has, in its text, piazi bila which may mean with arrows having points (Sanglakh f. 144b quoting this passage). Ilminski has no answering word (MÉms. i, 19). Mu?. Shirazi [p. 13 l. 11 fr. ft.] writes ba bazi miandakhtan.

P. 39.—The ?abibu’s-siyar (lith. ed. iii, 217 l. 16) writes of Sayyid Murad Aughlaqchi (the father or g.f. of Yusuf) that he (who had, Babur says, come from the Mughul horde) held high rank under Abu-sa‘id Mirza, joined ?usian Bai-qara after the Mirza’s defeat and death (873 A.H.), and (p. 218) was killed in defeat by Amir ‘Ali Jalair who was commanding for Yadgar-i-mu?ammad Shah-rukhi.

P. 49.—An Aimaq is a division of persons and not of territory. In Mongolia under the Chinese Government it answers to khanate. A Khan is at the head of an aimaq. Aimaqs are divided into koshung, i.e. banners (Mongolia, N. Prejevalsky trs. E. Delmar Morgan, ii, 53).

P. 75 and n. 1.—For an explanation, provided in 94 AH., of why Samarkand was called Baldat-i-ma?fu?a, the Guarded-city, see Daulat-shah, Browne’s ed. s.n. Qulaiba p. 443.

P. 85 n. 2.—The reference to the ?abibu’s-siyar confuses two cases of parricide:—‘Abdu’l-lat?if’s of Aulugh Beg (853-1447) to which ?.S. refers [Vol. III, Part 2, p. 163, l. 13 fr. ft.] with (one of 7-628) Shiruya’s of Khusrau Parviz (?.S. Vol. I, Part 2, p. 44, l. 11 fr. ft.) where the parricide’s sister tells him that the murderer of his father (and 15 brothers) would eventually be punished by God, and (a little lower) the couplet Babur quotes (p. 85) is entered (H.B.).

P. 154 n. 3.—The Persian phrase in the Siyasat-nama which describes the numbering of the army (T. dim kurmak) is ba sar-i-taziana shumurdan. Schafer translates taziana by cravache. I have nowhere found how the whip was used; (cf. S.N. Pers. text p. 15 l. 5).

P. 171 n. 1.—Closer acquaintance with Babur’s use of darya, rud, su, the first of which he reserves for a great river, casts doubt on my suggestion that darya may stand for the Kasan-water. But the narrative supports what I have noted. The “upper villages” of Akhsi might be, however, those higher up on the Sai?un-darya (Sir-darya).

P. 189 and n. 1.—A third and perhaps here better rendering of bi baqi is that of p. 662 (s.d. April 10th), “leaving none behind.”

P. 196.—The Habibu’s-siyar (lith. ed. iii, 250 l. 11 fr. ft.) writes of baradaran of Khusrau Shah, Amir Wali and Pir Wali. As it is improbable that two brothers (AnglicÉ) would be called Wali, it may be right to translate baradaran by brethren, and to understand a brother and a cousin. Babur mentions only the brother Wali.

P. 223 ll. 1-3 fr. ft.—The French translation, differing from ‘Abdu’r-rahim’s and Erskine’s, reads Babur as saying of the ranges separating the cultivated lands of Kabul, that they are comme des ponts de trÈfle, but this does not suit the height and sometimes permanent snows of some of the separating ranges.—My bald “(great) dams” should have been expanded to suit the meaning (as I take it to be) of the words Yur-unchaqa pul-dik, like embankments (pul) against going (yur) further; (so far, uncha). Cf. Griffiths’ Journal, p. 431.

P. 251.—Niz?ami expresses the opinion that “Fate is an avenging servitor” but not in the words used by Babur (p. 251). He does this when moralizing on Farhad’s death, brought about by Khusrau’s trick and casting the doer into dread of vengeance (H. B.).

P. 266 n. 7.—On p. 266 Babur allots three daughters to Papa Aghacha and on p. 269 four. Various details make for four. But, if four, the total of eleven (p. 261) is exceeded.

P. 276 para. 3.—Attention is attracted on this page to the unusual circumstance that a parent and child are both called by the same name, Junaid. One other instance is found in the Babur-nama, that of Babur’s wife Ma‘?uma and her daughter. Perhaps “Junaid” like “Ma‘?uma” was the name given to the child because birth closely followed the death of the parent (see s.n. Ma‘?uma).

P. 277.—Concerning Bih-bud Beg the Shaibani-nama gives the following information:—he was in command in Khwarizm and Khiva when Shaibani moved against Chin ?ufi (910 AH.), and spite of his name, was unpopular (VambÉry’s ed. 184, 186). VambÉry’s note 88 says he is mentioned in the (anonymous) prose Shaibani-nama, Russian trs. p. lxi.

P. 372 l. 2 fr. ft.—Where the ?ai. MS. and Kasan Imp. have mu‘ara?, rival, E. and de C. translate by representative, but the following circumstances favour “rival”:—Wais was with Babur (pp. 374-6) and would need no representative. His arrival is not recorded; no introductory particulars are given of him where his name is first found (p. 372); therefore he is likely to have joined Babur in the time of the gap of 924 AH. (p. 366), before the siege of Bajaur-fort and before ‘Ala’u’d-din did so. The two Sawadi chiefs received gifts and left together (p. 376).

P. 393 l. 4.—In this couplet the point lies in the double-meaning of ra‘iyat, subject and peasant.

P. 401.—Under date Thursday 25th Babur mentions an appointment to read fiqah sabaqi to him. Erskine translated this by “Sacred extracts from the Qoran” (I followed this). But “lessons in theology” may be a better rendering—as more literal and as allowing for the use of other writings than the Qoran. A correspondent Mr. G. Yazdani (Gov. Epigraphist for Muslim Inscriptions, Haidarabad) tells us that it is customary amongst Muslims to recite religious books on Thursdays.

P. 404 l. 7 fr. ft.—Baba Qashqa (or Qashqa)’s family-group is somewhat interesting as that of loyal and capable men of Mughul birth who served Babur and Humayun. It must have joined Babur in what is now the gap between 914 and 925 AH. because not mentioned earlier and because he is first mentioned in 925 AH. without introductory particulars. The following details supplement Babur-nama information about the group:—(1) Of Baba Qashqa’s murder by Mu?ammad-i-zaman Bai-qara Gul-hadan (f. 23) makes record, and Badayuni (Bib. Ind. ed. i, 450) says that (cir. 952 AH.) when Baba’s son ?aji Mu?. Khan Kuki had pursued and overtaken the rebel Kamran, the Mirza asked, as though questioning the Khan’s ground of hostility to himself, “But did I kill thy father Baba Qashqa?” (Pidrat Baba Qashqa magar man kushta am?).—(2) Of the death of Baba Qashqa’s brother “Kuki”, Abu’l-fa?l records that he was killed in Hindustan by Mu?ammad Sl. M. Bai-qara (952 AH.), and that Kuki’s nephew Shah Mu?. (see p. 668) retaliated (955 AH.) by arrow-shooting one of Mu?. Sl. Mirza’s sons. This was done when Shah Mu?. was crossing Minar-pass on his return journey from sharing Humayun’s exile in Persia (see Jauhar).—(3) Haji Mu?. Khan Kuki and Shah Mu?ammad Khan appear to have been sons of Baba Qashqa and nephews of “KUKI” (supra). They were devoted servants of Humayun but were put to death by him in 958 AH.-1551 AD. (cf. Erskine’s H. of I. Humayun).—(4) About the word Kuki dictionaries afford no warrant for taking it to mean foster-brother (kokah). Chingiz Khan had a beg known as Kuk or Kouk (or Guk) and one of his own grandsons used the same style. It may link the Baba Qashqa group with the Chingiz Khanid Kuki, either as descendants or as hereditary adherents, or as both. (See Abu’l-ghazi’s Shajarat-i-Turk, trs. DÉsmaisons, Index s.n. Kouk and also its accounts of the origin of several tribal groups.)

P. 416.—The line quoted by ‘Abdu’l-lah is from the Anwar-i-suhaili, Book II, Story i. Eastwick translates it and its immediate context thus:—

“People follow the faith of their kings.
My heart is like a tulip scorched and by sighings flame;
In all thou seest, their hearts are scorched and stained the same.” (H.B.)

The offence of the quotation appears to have been against Khalifa, and might be a suggestion that he followed Babur in breach of Law by using wine.

P. 487 n. 2.—The following passages complete the note on wulsa quoted by Erskine from Col. Mark Wilks’ Historical Sketches and show how the word is used:—“During the absence of Major Lawrence from Trichinopoly, the town had been completely depopulated by the removal of the whole Wulsa to seek for food elsewhere, and the enemy had been earnestly occupied in endeavouring to surprise the garrison.” (Here follows Erskine’s quotation see in loco p. 487). “The people of a district thus deserting their homes are called the Wulsa of that district, a state of utmost misery, involving precaution against incessant war and unpitying depredation—so peculiar a description as to require in any of the languages of Europe a long circumlocution, is expressed in all the languages of Deckan and the south of India by a single word. No proofs can be accumulated from the most profound research which shall describe the immemorial condition of the people of India with more precision than this single word. It is a bright distinction that the Wulsa never departs on the approach of a British army when this is unaccompanied by Indian allies.”—By clerical error in the final para. of my note ulvash is entered for ulvan [Molesworth, any desolating calamity].

P. 540 n. 4.—An explanation of Babur’s use of Shah-zada as T?ahmasp’s title may well be that this title answers to the Timurid one Mir-zada, Mirza. If so, Babur’s change to “SHAH” (p. 635) may recognize supremacy by victory, such as he had claimed for himself in 913 AH. when he changed his Timurid “MIRZA” for “Padshah”.

P. 557.—?usain Kashifi, also, quotes Firdausi’s couplet in the Anwar-i-suhaili (Cap. I, Story XXI), a book dedicated to Shaikh A?mad Suhaili (p. 277) and of earlier date than the Babur-nama. Its author died in 910 AH.-1505 AD.

P. 576 n. 1.—Tod’s statement (quoted in my n. 1) that “the year of Rana Sanga’s defeat (933 AH.) was the last of his existence” cannot be strictly correct because Babur’s statement (p. 598) of intending attack on him in Chitor allows him to have been alive in 934 AH. (1528 AD.). The death occurred, “not without suspicion of poison,” says Tod, when the Rana had moved against Irij then held for Babur; it will have been long enough before the end of 934 AH. to allow an envoy from his son Bikramajit to wait on Babur in that year (pp. 603, 612). Babur’s record of it may safely be inferred lost with the once-existent matter of 934 AH.

P. 631.—My husband has ascertained that the “Sayyid Dakni” of p. 631 is Sayyid Shah T?ahir Dakni (Deccani) the Shiite apostle of Southern India, who in 935 AH. was sent to Babur with a letter from Burhan Niz?am Shah of Ah?adnagar, in which (if there were not two embassies) congratulation was made on the conquest of Dihli and help asked against Bahadur Shah Gujrati. A second but earlier mention of “Sayyid Dakni” (Zakni, Rukni?) Shirazi is on p. 619. Whether the two entries refer to Shah T?ahir nothing makes clear. The cognomen Shirazi disassociates them. It is always to be kept in mind that preliminary events are frequently lost in gaps; one such will be the arrivals of the various envoys, mentioned on p. 630, whose places of honour are specified on p. 631. Much is on record about Sayyid Shah T?ahir Dakni and particulars of his life are available in the histories by Badayuni (Ranking trs.) and (Firishta Nawal Kishor ed. p. 105); B.M. Harleyan MS. No. 199 contains his letters (see Rieu’s Pers. Cat. p. 395).

P. 699 and n. 3.—The particulars given by the T?abaqat-i-akbari about Mult?an at this date (932-4 AH.) are as follows:—After Babur took the Panj-ab, he ordered Shah ?asan Arghun to attempt Mult?an, then held by one Sl. Ma?mud who, dying, was succeeded by an infant son ?usain. Shah ?asan took Mult?an after a 16 (lunar) months’ siege, at the end of 934 AH. (in a B.N. lacuna therefore), looted and slaughtered in it, and then returned to Tatta. On this Langar Khan took possession of it (H.B.). What part ‘Askari (Æt. 12) had in the matter is yet to learn; possibly he was nominated to its command and then recalled as Babur mentions (935 AH.).