1921.] Numismatic Supplement No. XXXV. 77 
wezle (59d)!" ‘ Rauzat.,’ 1b., 47, 68, 76,116; ‘ Habib.,’ 20, 
42, 47, 109. 
: Sls! pase ‘Rauzat.,’ Ib., 88, 97. 
JLo Jas} S20 ‘ Habib.,’ 16., 36. 
sit hE Sao ‘ Habtb.,’ 16., 22, 58, 269. 
By RE Sumac ‘Rauzat.,’ [b., 86. 
Erys Rb Sune ‘ Rauzat.,’ VII, 20; * Habib.,’ II, iii, 50. 
yh Csigpd huevo ‘ Rauzat.,’ 1b., 110. 
wylee Sma ‘ Habib.,’ [b., 47, 50, 56, 57, 59. 
ertyd yh oSy0 ‘ Rauzat.,’ 1b., 104; ‘ Habib.,’ £0: 37. 
wylet OS ‘ Rauzat.,’ Ib., 87, 89, 103,205; ‘ Habib.,’ 
Ib., 20, 25, 41, 72, 116. 
A glance at the passages referred to must convince every 
one that the phrase cannot possibly have anything * mystical ’ 
about it. It may or may not be thought easy to say what 
was intended to be conveyed by the word ,* but it is quite 
certain that neither Akbar nor Abul Fazl was responsible for 
coining the expression. I have found it in the Tarikh-1-Fwiaz- 
ahi of Shams-i-Siraj ‘Afif, a contemporary history of Sultan 
Firaz Shah Tughlag. In his account of the “ mistake made 
by Khwaja-i-Jahan Ahmad Ayaz in setting up the son of the 
late Sultan Muhammad Shah,” the writer says :-— 
gpd ble ys ih ylble oJ, LS! Ole detyd eye AF ol Jai 
katy BS ogo) gSd0 Cilio LS] ad 9d #99 9 ayy slay Rod 
edt 90 aS bye Om) chew ylbbe SA oye af Bolo ylys wh» ok 
# Adfoi! oatyd roled Galsric aly yo Hef elt oit cyF #b 
Bibl. Ind. Edition, 53-4. ‘ 
Unfortunately the passage is differently worded in some 
manuscripts, which have 5) instead of oyy3 586 is95)!, and it 
would appear from Dowson’s translation that his copy also had 
S43 (Elliot and Dowson, III, 280). It is possible that the two 
words were interpolated by some copyist, but no such doubts 
can attach to the following quotation from Khwandmir’s 
account of Babur in the ‘ Habibu-s-Siyar.’ 
&aily 3) ary fa a7 jos ag Js! y? doa! wylale yo! pie whe 
wid AB coray! daghe CAS 31 wlblaio 5 5 oF 9 whaly Y yAbas!s Ihre 
: * esl pin} isn blns ja oy ans 
