NOTES On FATHER MONSERRATE’S MONGOLICAE 
LEGATIONIS COMMENTARIUS. 
Second Instalment. 
By H. BrveripcE and the Rev. H. Hosten, 8J. 
subsequent copie: 
ron 
words of p. 651 of Monserrate, line 7, ‘‘ ut sibi nomen ain 
What the sentence seems to mean is that the Persian *™ 
he wrongly says that Bairaém intrigued with Mubamt 
Hakim, Humayiin’s other son, and wanted to make him 4 
This is quite incorrect! 
tent tE he 
' T agree that the marginal note should have been rath ght 
from Tahmisp ” Probably, when I placed that note at that, was) 
the page, rathe line or two lower, my chief preoccuP top) wit 
insist on Mons rrate’s identifying the Persian of line 9 (from : 
he Persian of line rom top). ly, in tho latter CO* siti 
question of Bairam Khan, and Baira an is, no doubt, 10 en Pathit® 
min ** Persian” who led Humayin’s troops and kept nik 
in check during Humfayin’s lifetime. I understood and still un 
” 
pathit® 
der, and this sole commander would have been the ‘‘ Persiaa 
legions” defeated the 
Khan, the same who with Tahmasp’s ‘ 
