Vol. XI, Nos. 7 & 8.] Monserrate’s Mongolicae Legationis. 199 
N.S.] 
P. 672.—I doubt if Father Monserrate mentions the death 
of ‘Abdullah _Khan’s Sikandar. Leaving out of the question 
the improbability that he would refer to an occurrence of 1597 
(it really was January 1598 when the great ‘Abdullah died), 
the Uzbegs. He left no servant in charge there. Nor had any 
Khan-khanan, a son named Babu (or Babur) Sultan, or a grand- 
sonnamed Bosacora. I fancy Bosacora may be a corruption 
‘Abd earlier ‘Abdullah than the great 
wah, or he means Ubaid Ullah, the nephew of Shaibani, 
39, 
I give up the para h hopeless muddle, and as 
: graph as a hope ’ 
Khatence that it refers to Akbar’s contemporary ‘Abdullah 
“n, the ruler of Turan,! 
Humy din Submitted. I do not suppose that Monserrate confuse 
brother. Gar’, the Turk and Akbar’s Vizir, with Bairam, Tahma: 
simpler toc 4° Laet, De Imperio Magni Mogolis, pp- enaiclng MO an 
Khin’s nat uPPose that Monserrate was badly informed about rae 
mt ttionali y and much of his history. Much of what he no 
1 simple h say.— 
| pie hearsay.—H. H. : ‘ 
(Mura . st Monserrate adn ‘« ‘Abdullah Khan sides with og ee 
|, the eee of the Turks, my master, and is aes ei the 
tive 5 : P. 672 or fol. 138a. 1.) This he wrote in 1590-9 
tare, Arabia. Later on, he pe or changed it to: Ab tf as 
ed with Amurath, King of the Turks, as long as he lived, an 
Persia.”’ i ‘. y 
. r ‘* as long as he lived” to Murad or at ee 
158 and at makes little difference, if ‘Abdullah Khan died in Jan 
the Ura. be l 
Cd the . Anywa 
Sentence, r hi <i i — 
ten, © after his return to India. We may t 
Lo we Paragraph has gerat, not gesserit. I must suppose os 
