1876.1 



325 



A Beply to several passages in Mr. Blochmann's " Contributions to the 

 History and Geography of Bengal," No. III.— By the Translator 

 of the Tabakdt-i-Ndsiri, Major H. G. Baverty, Bombay Army, 

 (Betired). 



It is rarely necessary for either an author or translator to have to de- 

 fend his work before it is complete, but I find I have to do this in the case 

 of my translation of the Tabakat-i-Nasiri ; and, although I have devoted more 

 than four years to the task of collation of MSS. and to that translation, it 

 is likely, to judge from appearances, to turn out a very thankless one after 

 all. 



It was my duty, as a translator, to show that the Calcutta Printed 

 Text is exceedingly incorrect and imperfect. Mr. Blochmann, in note J, 

 page 212 of his " Contributions to the History of Bengal," Part I., J. A. 

 S. B., 1873, said " the printed text is untrustworthy." 



What I refer to more particularly, are certain strictures contained in 

 Hid portion of those same " Contributions", which I have just received ; 

 and, in justice to my translation and to myself, I will reply to them as 

 briefly as possible ; but, at the same time, I would remark that criticisms 

 on the MSS. on which I have been working, might have been deferred, at 

 least, until the translation was complete. 



The first objection on the part of Mr. Blochmann is [page 275 of his 

 " Contributions'''' No. III. in J. A. S. B., for 1875] my spelling of the 

 word J^. I have written Khalj as it is explained and spelt according 

 to the vowel points belonging to it. I also say [in note 3, page 548 of 

 my Translation] that it is written rarely Khalaj [in poetry, for the sake 

 of rhyme] ; but to imagine that I could be led, in a matter of sober 

 history, by the " common Indian pronunciation of the adjective," how 

 to pronounce a Turkish word is preposterous : I might as well turn 

 the Khalj Turks into " Ghiljie Pathans" as some have done. My 

 note to the page in question seems to be unpalatable. I have never 

 said that the yd-i-nisbat could not be added, and have written it with it in 

 several places, when my author used it — as for example — Muhammad-i- 

 Bakht-yar, the Khalj, and Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar, Khalji. I also wrote 

 on simple prose : I did not refer to " rhyme" or poetic license ; but I ap- 

 prehend that Khallaji is required to rhyme with " multaji " rather than 

 Mr. Blochmann's " KhalajV 



With regard to the authorities for Malik Kutb-ud-Din's establishing 

 himself at Dihli, I am told, " Mr. E. Thomas fixes it at 587 h. as consis- 

 tent with the best authorities." But who are these best authorities ? Two 



