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



subsequently, " When" [according to Elliot, page 219], " the chief lumi- 

 nary threw its shade in the sign of Libra, and temperate breezes began to 

 blow, after putting to flight the army of heat, Kutbu-d-Din marched from 

 Kahram and took Mirath," and subsequent to that " he then encamped 

 under the fort of Delhi, which was also captured:' This means 587 h. I 

 suppose ? 



If Mr. Blochmann will look at " that excellent work" the Haft-Iklim, 

 he may see therein stated, that the defeat of Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i- 

 Sam, took place in 587 h., his victory in 588 m, and that Dihli was 

 occupied, as the seat of government, in 589 h. 



The Tabakat-i-Akbari, the author of which " must have had good 

 MSS. older than" mine, also says, " defeated 587 h., victorious 588 h., 

 Dihli occupied and made the seat of government by Kutb-ud-Din, in 589 



H." 



The Tazkarat-ul-Muhik also says, first battle and defeat of Mu'izz-ud- 

 Din, 587 h., his victory 588 h., Dihli taken 589 h., and, next year, 590 h., 

 Mu'izz-ud-Din came again on an expedition to Kinnauj. 



The Tarikh-i-Alfi says that the Sultan gained the victory over Eae 

 Pithora in the year 578 of the rihlat = 588 h. 



The Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh also says that Dihli was made the seat of 

 government in 589 h., and that, in the following year, 590 h., the Sultan 

 returned on the expedition against Kinnauj. 



The Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh likewise says that Dihli was made the 

 seat of government in 589 h. 



Biida'uni and Firishtah also will be found to agree with the Tabakat- 

 i-Akbari ; and, to crown the whole, and put the finishing touch to the 

 picture, Mr. Blochmann's own Ain says that the first battle and defeat 

 of the Sultan took place in 587 h., the second and victory in 588 h., and 

 that in the same year his slave took Dihli, but nothing is said of his making 

 it the seat of government ; and this agrees with the Taj-ul-Ma'asir, where 

 nothing is said of making Dihli the capital in that year ; but that, " from 

 Dihli," after staying some time there, " he marched forth against Kol in 

 590 h." 



I need not say more on this head I think, and do not doubt but that 

 Mr. Thomas is open to conviction. 



The next matter is the conquest of Bihar by Muhammad, bin Bakht- 

 ydr, the Khalj, which Mr. Thomas fixes at 599 h. on the authority, Mr. 

 Blochmann "believes" of the Taj-ul-Ma'asir [Elliot's version probably], 

 which state* that Kutb-ud-Din took Kalimjar in that year; but the MSS. 

 of the Taj-ul-Ma'asir examined by me, unfortunately, have that same 

 stubborn £X*> and what makes the date still more doubtful ^*j^— viz. . 

 AjU^L j e,x*A^ &» &x* which, from the want of diacritical points, may 

 be 577, 579, 597, or 599, just as the reader chooses to render the words. 



