1876.] H. G. Baverty— Beply to 'Misty, and Geogr. of Bengal, No. Ill: 333 



I would, however, remark here that I did not profess to translate the 

 Calcutta Printed Text, but to translate the work from MSS., and as adver- 

 tised on the covers of the Society's publications. 



Why the expression " some years before 601 h." can make it clear 

 [« Contributions," page 277] that Niidiah "must have been taken shout 

 594 H. or 595 h., i.e. in a. d. 1198 or 1199," any more than about 591, 2, 3 

 or even 596 or 7, I am at a loss to understand. But one thing, at least, is 

 very clear, that the year 599 h. for the conquest of Bengal, even " as con- 

 sistent with the best authorities," is utterly impossible. 



Another theory is then raised. Although it is clear to Mr. Blochmann 

 that Nudiah " must have been taken in 594 or 595 h.," the statement 

 contained in the Taj-ul-Ma'asir [Mrishtah, who merely copies from his 

 immediate predecessors, more particularly, is a very trustworthy authority 

 to quote !] that Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar waited on Kutb-ud-Din at Mahobah 

 in 599 h. — a doubtful date in that work, as before stated, which may be 

 597 h. a,n& four or Jive years after Mr. Blochmann says Bengal was con- 

 quered — " involves no contradiction as far as chronology is concerned:'' 

 No, not in the least, even though Minhaj-ud-Din states, that Muhammad-i- 

 Bakht-yar waited on Kutb-ud-Din before he surprised Niidiah. With that 

 city Bengal — or rather Lakhanawati — fell. There is no mention of any 

 fighting after; and so, if it is correct, according to the Taj-ul-Ma'asir, that 

 Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar only waited on Kutb-ud-Din at Mahobah, in 599 

 h., not from Awadh and Bihar as incorrectly rendered in Elliott's ver- 



sion, [page 232, vol. ii.], but from jl#J *ijd\ — the points are thus given — 

 according to the text of the Taj-ul-Ma'asir, I now have before me, that 

 city could only have been taken after that time — 599 h. See also foot- 

 note page 276 of the " Contributions,'''' in which it is contended that &ijo] 

 — as Minhaj-ud-Din writes it — cannot be correct because the Calcutta Text 

 has aij|. The author of the Tabakat-i-Akbari, like some others, takes Mu- 

 hammad, son of Bakht-yar, from the presence of Mu'izz-ud-Din direct to 

 Husam-ud-Din, Ughal-Bak, and says, that Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar, when 

 subsequently he came to Kutb's presence, " was deputed to conquer Lakh- 

 anawati." 



The Tazkarat-ul-Muliik also takes Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar direct 

 from Ghaznin to Ughal-Bak, and states that he took Bihar before he went 

 to Kutb-ud-Din]. 



" The time fixed upon by Mr. Thomas for the conquest of Bengal is 

 599 h., that is, /ow or five years after the time assumed by Mr. Bloch- 

 mann, while I have stated, according to my author, the year following 589 

 H., that is 590 h. — but three ox four years before Mr. Blochmann' s chosen 

 time. Mr. Thomas is only " a little too late :" mine is " impossible as 

 being too early." Probably Mr. Blochmann has not noticed that at page 





