326 H. G. Baverty— Reply to ' Histy. and Geogr. of Bengal, No. Ill: [No. 3, 



pages farther on, Mr. Blochmann states that " the Tabaqat is the only 

 authority we possess for this period." 



Now I will give an example of Mr. Thomas' " best authorities." At 

 page 11 of his " Pathan Kings of Dehli," he says : " In 587, in a more 

 extended expedition into Hindustan, Muhammad Ghori was totally routed 

 on the memorable field of Thaneswar * * * After a year's repose * * * 

 on the self-same battle ground, he again encountered his former adver- 

 sary * * * This time fortune favoured the Ghories * * * By this single 

 victory the Muhammadans may be said to have become the virtual masters 

 of Hindustan," &c, &c. 



I will take it for granted that a year after 587 means 588 h., and that 

 Mr. Blochmann will also allow it. 



But now turn to the foot-note at page 23 of the same work. There 

 Mr. Thomas, forgetting, apparently, what he wrote a few pages before, 

 says : — "As regards the historical evidence to the date 587 a. h. for the 

 capture of Dehli by the Muslims, it is complete and consistent with the 

 best authorities !" 



Mr. Thomas adds "and Minhaj-'Ws-Siraj repeats in various forms, 

 while treating of the life of Aibeg, the confirmation of the same date." 

 In this I cannot agree with him. Let us turn to page \f"\ of the Calcutta 

 Printed Text, the foot-note, and also to my Translation, page 515, in both 

 of which it says [leaving out the first defeat by the Hindus, but again 

 referring to Kutb-ud-Din's being taken captive], he " took possession of 

 that place — Mirath — in 587 h. [see note 5, page 515 of my version]. Prom 

 Mirath likewise he issued forth in the year 588 h., aud captured Dihli." 



These are the actual words in the different MSS. collated. It is not 

 actually said that Dihli was taken in 588 h., merely that Kutb-ud-Din, in 

 588 h., marched from Mirath, and it must have been towards the close of 

 that year, as will be shown farther on, according to the Taj-ul-Ma'asir 

 he had to start to relieve Hansi in the ninth month of that year, and 

 only took Mirath after that. It is evident, therefore, that Minhaj-ud-Din 

 did not intend it to be understood that Dihli was taken and made the seat 

 of government in 588 h., unless he stultifies himself by upsetting his 

 previous statements at pages 248, 378, 456, 457, and 464 of my Translation, 

 which can be compared with the same places in the original MSS. 



I will now leave the " best authorities" and go to facts, first mention- 

 ing, however, that, in note 9, page 469 of my Translation, I have quoted 

 several other authors for my dates, which note Mr. Blochmann probably 

 has not read, and, further, that they also " must have had very good MSS. 

 of the Tabaqat-i-Naciri, some of which in all probability were older" than 

 the Calcutta Printed Text. 



Minhaj-ud-Din states [pages 456—477] that troubles arose in Khwa- 



