^{page 742 note 1} All such references are to the Haydarāhād MS. and its reproduction.

^{page 743 ntoe 1} “Memoirs of Zehir-ed-din Muhammad Babar, Emperor of Hindustan.” Written by himself in the Jaghatai Turki, and translated, partly by the late John Leyden, Esq., M.D., partly by William Erskine, Esq. London, 1826.

^{page 743 note 2} “Memoires de Babar (Zahir-ed-din Mohammed), traduits pour la première fois sur le texte jagatai,” par de Courteille, A. Pavet. Paris, 1871Google Scholar.

^{page 744 note 1} Cf. index s.n. Muḥ. Sl. Bāyqarā, Qāsim Sl. Bāyqarā, the several sons of the Little Khān, [Aḥmad Chaghatāy] Ahū'l-faṭḥ Turkmān, etc.

^{page 745 note 1} As an example of this, a few words may be quoted from Dr. Reginald Stuart Poole's preface to the Catalogue of the Coins of the Shāhs of Persia (xxix). Dr. Poole, having discussed a gold coin which indicates that Bābar acknowledged the suzerainty of Shāh Ismā‘īl Ṣafawī, adds: “We can now understand the omission in Bābar's ‘Memoirs’ of the occurrences which fell between the beginning of 914 h. and that of 925 h.”

^{page 747 note 1} “History of India—Bābar and Humāyūn.” Erskine, William; London, 1854, vol. i, p. 339Google Scholar.

^{page 747 note 2} I am indebted to my husband for details about this poem. It is the Mubīn, of which half has been published by Professor Bérezine in his Chrestomathie Turque. It has been described by Dr. Sprenger in the Z.D.M.G., xvi (1862), p. 87, and as highly orthodox. It is mentioned by Abūl-faẓl when enumerating the writings of Bābar (Akbar-nāma, H. Beveridge, i, 278), in the “Fragments” (Pavet de Courteille, ii, 461), and by Teufel (Z.D.M.G., 1883, p. 141). It is quoted from by Bābar (f. 351b).

^{page 751 note 1} By the kindness of Professor C. Salemann and Dr. Alexander Kreisberg, Nos. 11 and 12 were lent for my use in the India Office, where I am indebted to Mr. F. W. Thomas for taking them into his charge.

^{page 751 note 2} By ‘complete’ is meant here, with minor omissions but a transcript of the whole book, not a copy of a part.

^{page 752 note 1} The standard taken is the 382 folios of the Haydarābād MS., and by this all others have been approximately estimated.

^{page 753 note 1} The Bukhārā MS. has not these, and thus is excluded from consideration here.

^{page 755 note 1} This note does not appear in the Haydarābād MS. ; its place would be on f. 263, after the topic of Raḥmat piāda. It can be seen in the form given below in the ‘Abdu'r-raḥīm Persian translation. Mr. Erskine does not say in what language it was written in the Elphinstone MS. With slight intervariation, the bare statement of the ceremonial act which Humāyūn enters as for Bābar is given by Ilminsky and by the University MS., and therefore presumably by Kehr. The passage varies much in form from that in the Persian text, is shorter, unattested, and, after the pseudo- Bābar statement, differs widely. It draws an inference as to the year of inscription. It is safer to conclude from it nothing until the Bukhārā or Elphinstone Codex can be seen.

The note in all the ‘Abdu'r-raḥīm translations is as follows. There are slight variations in the scribes’ entries, as they are nearer or further from the ‘blessed handwriting.’

B.M. Add. 26,200, f. 248, 1. 6:

It should be said here that doubt rests upon Mr. Erskine's interpretation in the Memoirs of this note.

^{page 756 note 1} Tūzak-i-jahāngīrī, Aḥmad, Sayyid; Aligarh, 1864, p. 52Google Scholar. Also B.M. Add. 26,215, p. 79. Mr. Erskine has translated the passage (B.M. Add. 26,611, p. 82) with restriction of the word kha to ‘handwriting’ in a way which does not agree with the reading of M. Langles, who based on it a statement that Jahāngīr added to the text of Bābar's book. (Biographie Universelle, art. Babour.)

Reference to M. Langlés' view will be found in the preface of the Memoirs, but it must be remembered that when this reference was made Mr. Erskine did not know the Tūzak-i-jahāngīrī.

^{page 757 note 1} The help of the Elphinstone MS. could not be direct since it had lost all but a short passage of the record of 932 h. before it came into Mr. Erskine's hands, but I have a hint of collateral help in slight marginal notes upon it, of which the handwriting might be decisive.

^{page 758 note 1} B.M. Add. 26,605, p. 88.

^{page 758 note 2} These words are quoted from an unpublished letter, for access to which, as to all others quoted, I am indebted to Mr. William Erskine' grandson, Mr. Lestocq Erskine.

^{page 758 note 3} Dr. Leyden translated (see Haydarābād Codex) as far as f. 180, and a fragment from f. 216b to f. 223b. His share in the Memoirs is small, but with characteristic generosity Mr. Erskine equally divided the honour of its production with him. Dr. Leyden was a man who would have rivalled his friend in generosity; he would have wished posterity to allot to Mr. Erskine the just share of praise. The story of the genesis of the Memoirs, with its pleasant accompaniment of friendly acts and words, is agreeable reading and should be made accessible to a wider public.

^{page 759 note 1} The MS. got mislaid after Leyden's executors had returned it to Elphinstone, and to this circumstance we owe our knowledge that there was a Turkī text in Buaārā at the time, news of which had reached Mr. Elphinstone, for he wrote to Mir ‘Izzatu'l-lah—the author of “Travels in Central Asia in 1812–1813” Calcutta, 1872)—to ask him to procure another copy in Buārā for Mr. Erskine.

^{page 760 note 1} The MS. belonging to Dr. Leyden which is mentioned above is really in the India Office, but was not the one translated from by Leyden, who used the Elphinstone Codex. Davids has, however, not been quite correct in his statement, and there is a MS. which belonged to the College of Fort William—i.e. that of the Asiatic Society of Bengal.

^{page 760 note 2} The above note suggests that Mr. Erskine had the Elphinstone MS. in his hands when writing it. This is not necessarily so, since he was comparing his own MS. (now in the British Museum) with the Memoirs, which is annotated to show the contents of the Elphinstone.

^{page 761 note 1} The original reads tuzuk, but I suggest to read ba turkī, or even bu turk. Cf. the extract of Jahāngīr's own composition, p. 756, note. If this colophon be, as I surmise, a copy or part adaptation of one dated. 937 h., it is unlikely that the Turkī word tūzūk or tūzuk should be whittled down so early. Moreover, there is no apparent reason for calling Babar's book by the inappropriate name, and one of which there is no other known example, i.e. Tuzuk-i-wūqi‘at-i-bābarī.

^{page 761 note 2} The points of this colophon essential here are that a transcript of Babar's book was made by the command of Muḥammad Humāyūn, and completed on the last day of Jumāda II, 937 h., by ‘Alī'u’l-kātib.

^{page 761 note 3} To the incongruities of the Alwār colophon Mr. Beveridge has drawn attention in the Asiatic Quarterly Review of July and October, 1900. The copy of the colophon printed here was made as check upon his own, by a scribe of the Alwār Rāj, Muḥammad Ibrāhīm of Dihlī, in 1900, and agrees with a third copy which we owe to Mr. E. Denison Ross.