'580 Journal of the Astatic Society of Bengal. [August, 1907.] 



These marginal readings vary considerably, but the point with 

 reference to the present article is that they both agree in reading 



J,sUJ| ejlkwl ; and it may be inferred that the Sultan would not 

 twice in one short inscription refer to his justice, and that there- 



fore the c)l!?*^f, which vshould have been read instead of M)^i^\ in the 



inscriptions on No, 567, refers to '^the requiter of good and evil,'' 

 hence "God.'' 



The reading as given in the British .Museum Catalogue 

 No. 567 is more probably correct ; the words are all much of a size 

 and would fit into the marginal spaces if carefully cut. It is 

 impossible to trace Thomas' reading in the illustration he gives 

 to the coin he quotes. His illustration, PI. V, 185, has three 

 faulty margins, but he may have deduced his reading by compari- 

 son with other coins. 



After examining a large number of coins in the British 

 Museum, and comparing also those published in Dr. Hoernle's 



paper in J.A.S.B., Vol. LIX, the reading <^j>/| ^^l^Ji seems the 



usually adopted one. This point is noted because on the coins of 

 Muhammad Shah Bahmani, pictux^ed in Thomas' Chronicles, No. 303, 



p. 342, where the inscription uses both the words ^^^l^Ji and 



-i^Q^t, the laqab is given as e^*iJ j^^y the whole inscription run- 

 ning oUj^f cU^ f^^=^h c^Wl u^<>^j^lM; and this use of i^'^ and 



not i:yi^\ is confirmed by comparison with five of the same Sultan's 

 coins in the British Museu^m collection. 



In Plate III, 13, accompanying Dr. Hoemle*s paper above 



alluded to, the reading ^«vi ^^l:xJ| seems clearly given, but it is 

 the only clear case of this reading. 



The meanings of ^t* and ^^^ are so synonymous that this 

 instance of the expression c^<>^^'^ is quoted. 



