204 Journal of the Asiatic Soc. of Bengal. [N.S., XVII, 1921.] 
sayings and doings. His book is certainly not entirely a repro- 
duction of Sharafu- d- din since in one place he makes a reference 
ae makes Timur say to Nizam-u-din that God was 
go im in making him the first man to submit! I 
coaeen: it is not quite clear to me that Shah Jahan was 
not in collusion with Abu Talib if indeed the latter person 
be not altogether mythical. In spite of Shah Jahan’ 8 appar- 
e n 
and had Abu Talib’s book sumptuously bound and adorned 
with pictures and red seals. 
nd what Timurid and what Indian Muhammadan 
would not act in the same way? They would all feel bound 
to support the glory of the House of Timur. I therefore 
would pay little attention to the opinion of Muhammadans 
about the authenticity of the Memoirs. Far more value 
is to be attached to the opinions of disinterested scholars 
such as Sachau and Ricu. Sunnis, we are told, even assert 
that Timur was an orthodox Sunni Muhammadan, though he 
really was a 
In conclusion I would point out that there seems to be 
several differences in the manuscripts of Sharafu-d-din’s 
Zafarnima. The Bib. Ind. edition, for example says nothing 
i nd 
a similar hiatus in the manuscripts used by him 
4th August, 1920. 
WONG NN AN a Ree 
