[3] Text wrongly has Qizilbāshes. [↑]
[5] The text has here the word g͟hāyatan, which does not seem to have much meaning. Erskine has ‘without his knowledge,’ so he probably had g͟hāʾībāna in his MS. [↑]
[6] Compare Elliot, vi, 324. [↑]
[7] Sang-i-durus͟htī. Elliot had the name reading and translates ‘a heavy stone.’ But both MSS. have sang u rasanī, ‘a stone and a cord,’ query a sling, and this is certainly the right reading. See Iqbāl-nāma, p. 57. [↑]
[8] Text bar pāy, but the I.O. MS. and Iqbāl-nāma, p. 58, have bar bāzi (‘on the rope’? or perhaps ‘is doing gymnastics’) [↑]
[9] Note of Sayyid Aḥmad (to the fourth compartment).—“Evidently this masterpiece was not the work of a slave in the seal department, for no reason appears why the portrait of Jesus should be introduced into the fourth compartment. Probably this masterpiece was the work of Frank artists and had fallen into the hands of the slave, and he had ascribed it to his own workmanship. (Perhaps the scene depicted was the Transfiguration.)” [↑]
[10] See Blochmann, p. 89, note. It came from Europe. [↑]
[11] In Scinde; it is the same as Sahwan, and is on the Indus. [↑]