106 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. (April, 1911. 
was frequently consulted. It was but natural. He was Mon- 
serrate’s Persian master. Whether Abt-l Faz] has recorded in 
stir even in Firoz Shéh’s time. Was it not altogether 
unprecedented ? It would be strange, therefore, if Firoz 
Shah’s own historians had left the event unrecorded. We 
lost. (Cf. fol. 111b, 4.) This « superstitious ’’ practice, he 
suggests, they had inherited from the Medes and the Persians. 
Daniel, Esdras and the Book of Esther show with what 
religious care their historians chronicled every event. Doubt- 
less, the same practice flourished under Firoz Shah. 
T have taken much pains, though to no purpose, to discover 
later allusions to tbe tunnels by European travellers. Hakluyt, 
Purchas, Coverte, A. Sharpey, R. Rowles, R. Harcourt, 
Methold, Hawkins, Coryate, Roe, Terry, Herbert, Mandelsloe, 
Manrique, Fryer, Bernier, Thevenot, Tavernier, Peter Van den 
Broecke’s travels, Van der Aa’s collection, Van Twist, afford 
no further clue. 
ing upright.” We read also that Firoz Shah connected the 
Sarsuti River with the Salimah by running a tunnel into the hill 
k. - Duncan in his new edition of Keene's Handbook fo, Visitors 
to Dethi, Calcutta, Thacker, 1906, p. 39, refers the text we quoted from 
Carr Stephen to Shams-i Sirdj, a historian of Firoz Shah’s time. 
text could be found, the question under 
, the passage is not in Elliot’sextracts. T hav need,’’ 
wri mpson, *‘ thr the Persian text of Shams-i-Siraj, and 
can find no reference. Nor is there, so far as I have seen, a nce 
in the chapte Barni’s Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi, which al with 
Firoz Shah’s architectural achievements in the early part of his reign; 
but the n lude the a. Again, Taimur does not mention 
them (see the Malfizat and the Zafar-nama in Elliot). ere is no men- 
Th 
, 00, 1m the Futihat Firoz Shahi, though it was hardly 
Sary 
Cf. SatyAp Aumap Kuan it : ; 
Asiat., 5¢ Série, Vol. XVT, 1860,'p. 235.” ee ee 
