280 H. Bloclimann — History and Geography of Bengal. — No. III. [No. ■':», 



Major Raverty says in explanation that u in his older MSS." the word 

 bin, or son, is inserted between the words Muhammad and Bakhtyar in the 

 heading of Chapter V, which contains the biography of the conqueror of 

 Bengal ; hence the conqueror of Bengal was Muhammad, and " the father's 

 name, it appears, was Bakhtyar, the son of Mahmud."* It is not stated 

 in how many MSS. this bin occurs ; but though it occur in the heading, it 

 never occurs in the text.t Nor does the word bin occur in the MSS. of the 

 Taj ul- Ma a sir, in Firishtah, the Tabaqdt i Alcbari, Baddoni, and later writers, 

 though the authors of these histories must have had very good MSS, of the 

 Tabaqat i Naciri, some of which in all probability were older than those in 

 Major Raverty's possession. Hence I look upon the correctness of the soli- 

 tary bin in the heading of some of Major Raverty's MSS. as doubtful. Fur- 

 ther, supposing bin to be correct, is it not strange, nay totally un-Persian, 

 to speak continually of Muhaminad-5ira-Bakhtyar, or Muhammad-i- Bakht- 

 yar, instead of using the single name of Muhammad. This would be 

 Arabic usage. Thirdly, if Mahmud were the grandfather, it would have been 

 extraordinary on the part of the author to have left out the grandfather in 

 the heading and in the beginning of the chapter, when Muhammad Bakht- 

 yar's descent is spoken of, and merely incidentally to mention it in connec- 

 tion with the paternal uncle. Lastly, the use of the Izdfat, instead of bin 

 or pisar (son), is restricted to poetry, and does not occur in prose. J I see, 



* Page 539, of his translation. 



f The name of Muhammad Bakhtyar occurs more than thirty times in Major Ba- 

 verty's chapters Y and VI (pp. 548 to 576) ; hut in every case Major Eaverty gives 

 Muhammad-i-Bakhtyar, i. e., the Izdfat. Hence his MSS. have no bin in the text. In 

 the heading of Chapter VI, there is no bin, though Major Eaverty puts it in ; he tries 

 even to do so in the heading to Chapter VIII, in the name of Husamuddin Twaz, and 

 "one or two authors" get the credit of it. 



% In fact, it is rare in poetry, and poets do not even like to use this Izdfat, unless 

 it is long ob metrum, or unless it stand in syllables where it cannot be mistaken for 

 what Prosodians call the nim-fathah. I have also met with it in the prose legends of 

 coins, where ibn was left out to save space. 



Major Eaverty writes several other names in the same chapters with this impossible 

 Izdfat. Thus he gives the murderer of Muhammad Bakhtyar the name of 'Ali-i-Mar- 

 dan, i. e., ' All, the son of Mardan. But Mardan, by itself, is no Muhammadan name, 

 nor is Sheran by itself. We cannot write Muhammad-i-Sheran, Ahniad-i-Sheran, mak- 

 ing Sheran the father. 'Alt Mardan means ' Ali (who is as valiant as) many men ; 

 Muhammad Sheran = Muhammad (who is equal to) many lions. The distinguished 

 'Ali Mardan, for example, under Shahjahan, cannot be called 'Ali-i-Mardan, i. e., 'Ali, 

 son of Mardan, because his father's name was Ganj 'Ali (I have purposely written 

 " Ganj 'Ali " without Izdfat). Would Major Eaverty write the name of Jami's patron 

 Mir 'Alf-i-Sher ; or Muhammad Humayun's name, Muhammad-i-Himi;iyun ; or 

 Muhammad Akbar's name, Muhammad-i-Akbar ? The form of the name of Muhani- 



