288 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [N.S., XII, 



had written the history of the Afghan princes who had sat on 

 the throne of Delhi from the time of Amanat Khan (?), and that 

 it would be good if Ahmed Yadgar would undertake such a 

 work. The author adds that as he had long been a servant of 

 the court, he felt bound to comply with the king's request, 

 and so wrote the history of six kings, beginning with Bahlul 

 Ludl. In fact, he has written the history of six Afghan kin<*s 

 viz Bahlul, Sikandar, Ibrahim, Shir Shah, Islam Shah and 

 »Adh, but has interpolated, after the account of Ibrahim, the 

 history of BabUr and Humayun. He writes like a gossiping old 

 man, and does not give the date of his composition, except 

 in one place, p. 89b of MS., and there the text seems to be 

 corrupt. He is describing the destruction of a tribe of 

 Mundahars and of their village in Pargana Kaithael in the 

 year 935 a.h. (1528-29) by Babur's officers, and says the 

 place has remained a desert ever since though 160 years have 



?i?- i£!J Ce then - This WOuld make the y ear of wri tuig 1095 

 (93d + 160) or 1684 a.d. But such a date seems impossible, for 



in describing the reign of Humayun the author says that his 



(own) lather was Mirza 'Askari's vizier in the Gujarat campaign. 



^"mq 94 I" 43 A -f ,° r 1536 " 37 - A - n ' The Passage is at p 99 

 ot the MS. and is as follows: " In Za'if azpidar-i-khud ke daran 

 waqt wazir-i-Mtrza 'Askari bud shunida budam " "(It is worth 

 noting that Professor Dowson never saw the passage in the 

 original, see his note at p. 1 of vol. V, but obtained the 

 reference from Mr. Blochmann.) At this time Ahmad Yadgar's 

 father must have been a man approaching middle life, if 

 not past it, and in all probability he was dead long before the 

 end ot the 16th century. And as Ahmad Yadgar was old 



T£hK ° C °, m his fafcher about fche Gujarat campaign of 



1537 it ls nnpossible that he could have been living and writ- 

 ing history more than a century after his father's death. 



t°c' a L T e said ' h,s fa ther must have died considerablv 



before the end of the 16th century (viz. 1570-80), and the 160 

 years spoken of by Ahmed Yadgar bring the date of writing 



nT i ™ S ?f°/ eo 7 w - Daad Sbfih was put to death in 984 

 (July 1576) and if he be the person who suggested the work, 

 Ahmed could not have been alive and writing history in 1684. 

 Ot course, it would be still more impossible if Ahmed's inter 

 locutor was Humay On, for he was killed in January," 1556. Daud 

 nf a J\ '/f We have seen ' in l576 ' but ^e conversation 

 SafiH wl 6 i SeV6ra1 ' if not man ^ y eara he ^ve and when 

 ^n^X7!i y ° l ^ r 80n of SuI aiman. And it is to be 

 with?™ , Ahmed T Y adgar did not long delay to complv 

 with ajoyal request It will be seen from Professor Dowson's 



\m\,»L V ' a VGl ; V thafc he 8aw t h e difficultv about the 

 comS a /!? ^ arked ' " if this be corr ect. the date of the 



Sk i J* f u 1S W ° rk iS latGr than has been supposed." 

 inere is a difficulty caused by Ahmad Yadgar's reference to the 



