1895.] A. S. Beveridge —Suggestions for Mr. Blochmann’s Ain. 
163 
A suggestion for the second edition of Mr. Blochmann’s Ain.—By Annette 
S. Beveridge ( Communicated by the Philological Secretary). 
[Read, March 1895.] 
Having had occasion to distinguish amongst the various Miraks of 
Akbar’s time, I have, in Mr. Blochmann’s index, come across emenda?ida 
under the head Mirak , which moreover, for clearness’ sake, render some 
slight modifications in the text desirable. Mr. Beveridge has been so 
kind, by reference to the Persian, as to verify the doubts which I had 
gathered from the translations. 
Amongst the seven entries of Mirak in the index, I find that three 
seem to refer to the same man. One Mirak is omitted and him too, I 
identify with the thrice-entered amir. 
The three first named are :— 
1. Mirak Khan Ar gh un. 475 1 2 (No. 208). 
2. Mirak Khan, 439. 
3. Mirak Khan Bahadur, 532, 
The omission is :— 
4. Mirak Khan Jinkjank (?) 531. 
The first and third of these are separately entered by a mere slip, 
for. they refer, respectively, to the biographical notice of Mirak Arghun 
and to his name in the combined Tabaqdt and Ain lists of the amirs. 
It is equally clear that the second and fourth names denote one in¬ 
dividual. Turning to page 439, we find Mr. Blochmann warning us 
against confounding Rawazi Khan, Mirza Mirak “ with Mirak Khan or 
with Mirak Bahadur (208).” He writes as follows :—(Mirak Kh an) 
“ an old grandee who died in 975.” (Tabaqdt.) 2 
The words quoted are used in the original (Laklinau edition, 385) 
about Mirak Khan Jinkjank (Kinhak or Kinjak). So far as we have 
been able to trace, this is the only mention of Jinkjank or its approximate 
readings. Apparently then, Mr. Blochmann’s Mirak Khan (p. 439) is 
1 All references are to Mr. Blochmann’s Ain, unless otherwise assigned. 
2 The word “ Tabaqat ” is quoted by me from Blochmann. 
