1876.] H. Gr. Eaverty — Reply to ' Hlsty. and Geogr. of Bengal, No. Ill: 329 



came to the throne, assumed the title of " Ghiyas-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, 

 Muhammad, son of [Baha-ud-Din] Sam, Kasim-i-Amir-ul-Muminin," and 

 that after the successes in Khurasan, in 588 h., the younger brother, 

 Muhammad, who, up to that time, bore the title of Shihab-ud-Din, received 

 the title o/Mu'izz-ud-Din, so, when defeated by Eae Pithora, he bore the 

 title of Shihab-ud-Din, but after, on his return the second time, Mu'izz-ud- 

 Din. This may account for the subsequent Indian Muhammadan writers 

 calling him Shihab and Mu'izz indiscriminately. 



At the period in question, when these inscriptions are said to have 

 been recorded [I fancy they were recorded subsequently. See note 6, page 

 621, of my Translation] , the elder brother and suzerain was still living, 

 and lived for ten years after ; and, I imagine, it will be allowed, that the 

 two sovereigns, and both the brothers, at the same identical time, could not 

 bear the title of Kasim-i-Amir-ul-Muminin, or G-hiyas-ud-Din, and, there- 

 fore, leaving out the additional titles, the work of the artist probably, the 

 title in the said inscription is, — " Sitltais'-us-Salatin, Ghiyas-ud-Dunya 

 wa tjd-Dik, Muhammad, bin" Sam, Kasim-i-Amie-ul-Muminin," and 

 throughout the inscription [given by Thomas] the name of MWizz-ud-Din, 

 or Shihdb-ud-Din even, never once occurs. 



The Taj-ul-Ma'asir is quoted as an authority, and a sufficient authority, 

 to upset the statements of Minhaj -ud-Din, whose father, Saraj -ud-Din, was 

 Kazi of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din's army, and whose kinsman, the Kazi of 

 Ttilak, was present on the spot ; but I do not place trust in the statements 

 contained in that inflated work, unless they are corroborated or confirmed 

 by some other contemporary writer. 



In Elliot [page 211, vol. ii.] it is stated that the Taj-ul-Ma'asir is rare 

 in Europe. I have had/owr copies to compare with the extracts from it 

 given in that work, and I find that the date mentioned there — 587 H. — for 

 the victory Sultan's [it totally ignores his defeat] over Eae Pithora, is 

 written £u» &s*> [which may be either £**» or £*«3] without any points in 

 two copies of the four MSS., in the third with one dot over and one 

 under, and in the fourth £~3. It is, therefore, evident that that date may 

 be either 7 or 9, just as one chooses to read it ; but, as the first battle, 

 according to every other author who has written on the subject, took place 

 in 587 h., the same year, 587 h., cannot, for reasons already stated, be the 

 same in which the Sultan defeated Eae Pithora, and the former's slave 

 occupied Dihli. See note 6, page 521, para. 3 of my Translation. 



If the "best authorities" had looked at the Taj-ul-Ma'asir attentively 

 however [see also Elliot, vol. ii., page 217], they would have found that, 

 even according to that work, in Eamazan, the ninth month of 588 H. — the 

 middle of October [1192 a. d.]— Kutb-ud-Din had to march from Kuhram 

 to relieve Hansi [see also note 2 to page 516 of my Translation], and that, 



— 



