204 Journ. of the Asiat. Soc. of Bengal. (July & Aug., 1915] 
Afghanistan, and so may not have heard that Akbar dis 
covered that the letters were forgeries. 
Elliot, vol. V, and Badayini (Lowe’s translation of vol. 
II) should ‘be consulted. See also Count von Noer’s Akbar. 
There is a good and fair account of Khwaja Shah Mansir 
in the Maasiru-l-Umara, vol. 1, p. 653. It seems likely from 
what Abul Fazl says that Rajah Todar Mal, who was Shah 
Mansir’s rival, had a hand in the intrigues that led to his 
Shah Mansir, as a Persian anda stranger, had few friends 
and probably he was wanting in bowels of compassion, but he 
was only a too zealous servant of his master. Akbar must 
have felt afterwards, that, in spite of the cage eulou of Abul 
Fazl, it was a disadvantage for a ruler in e days to be 
ignorant of reading and writing, and that ay aaa might have 
been better ban than in discussing theological questions with 
Feringhi priests.! 
tt ut Sh 
Mansir came rom azl him self. Th Te suits had been very inti- 
mate with Abul Fant yeh his father at the bres of Fatehpur Sikri. It 
el 
bul Fazl wh 
study and isa of the hod We ba a xpect that on nthe 
journey to ul Monserrate kept close to Acar Faas ore As my 
es ise rien d aoen eae observes, Monserrate wai in Kabul whea 
Akbar was satisfied that Shah Mansar’s guilt was a ror supported by 
iegery and, as both Akbar and Abul Fazl cannot but have been aware 
1 ate wou e means of making known in Eur 
prowesses in Afghanistan, cf. p. 619 or fol. 87b. 2), it is improbable that 
they confessed their b o him. A ansur’s fa sf 
conduct ; > Mr, moralises, “are striking instances of 
‘ n 
danger o Pret summary Eastern justice which some besotted people % 
much admir If Monserrate’s account is one-sided, it must be becalls® 
he knew n ie het tter. I have often thought. that Monserrate’s gen sf 
faulty etymolo ogy of place-names must be laid at the door of Abul Fadl 
and the wiseacres of his ilk.—H. H. 
AAA 
a aA a tin tn in ce i 
