[12] The text has s͟humār wrongly for s͟hiyār, and it seems that the negative of the text is wrong, since it does not occur in the MSS. Abū-l-faẓl gives the number of petals and stamens more correctly than Jahāngīr. [↑]
[13] Az tikka andāzī; perhaps ‘the cast of a javelin.’ [↑]
[14] Lit. ‘have joined hands.’ [↑]
[15] Sih-barga; but this reading seems doubtful; perhaps it is sīr-i-barga, full of leaves. Jahāngīr says that to lay a carpet on the grass would be bī-dardī, unfeeling, unsympathetic, and kam salīqagī. [↑]
[16] The text has naqs͟h bar jāy, but the true reading seems to be nafīẓtar. [↑]
[17] ʿIlm-i-k͟halaʿ-i-badan, ‘withdrawal of the soul from the body’ (Erskine). [↑]
[18] So in text, but the MSS. and Elliot, vi, 307, have “on one of the gates.” [↑]
[19] The figures seem wrong, and the MSS. differ. See Elliot, vi, 307. Apparently the correct sum in rupees is 34 lakhs 25,000. At p. 61 the khani of Turan is reckoned at one-third of a rupee. If the dam be taken at its ordinary value of one-fortieth of a rupee, the number of rupees should be 40 lakhs 25,000, and if the khani of Turan be one-third of a rupee we should read one kror instead of one arb. Probably Jahāngīr has used arb as meaning kror, and not 100 krors. There is a valuable note on his expedition through the Ghakkar country in Blochmann, p. 486. Blochmann takes the figures for the rupees to be four krors, but probably this is due to wrong pointing. [↑]
[20] The MSS. and text have Pila or Pīla. I adopt Tīla from Blochmann, p. 487, note. Elliot has Tillah, vi, 307, and note. [↑]
[21] In Tolbort’s account of Lūdhiyāna, J.A.S.B. for 1869, p. 86, bhakhra is given as the name of a creeping plant (Pedalium murex). [↑]