1876.] H. G. Baverty— i^/y to ' Kisty. andGeogr. of Bengal, No. IIV 335 



had very good MSS. of tie Tabaqdt-i-Mciri, all have the vert same 

 words, copying one from the other, as are contained in the Haft-Iklim, the 

 Tazkarat-ul-Muliik has the same, and also the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh. 

 Some others say the same, bnt I need not name them here, as those I have 

 mentioned are easily obtained for reference, but all leave out the JU with- 

 out which <2Uj|— finger, is meaningless. Mr. Blochmann quotes the Shams- 

 ul-Lughat : let him look at it for the word c£bj| and he will see these 

 words— c^xJ| ^U+j^xj <*Uj|_ « T-bak with kasr means fltoeb," as well 

 as the other meanings mentioned in the " Contributions." 



The Tarikh-i-Majami'-ul-Khiyar— not the work even of a resident in 



India — has aua^ cU i£Uj| |jj| ^j &ju£& j\ j,&U>. *s*m&\ e^ "As his 



little finger was broken, they called him I'-bak-i-Shil." The Zubdat-ut- 

 Tawarikh, which copies Minhaj-ud-Din, has the same words as given in 

 my Translation ; and it is satisfactory to know that those authors who say 

 his little finger was broken, read the word ii fl«£A as I have read it. Of 

 course, neither Minhaj-ud-Din, nor any other who writes I'-bak-i-Shil 

 which even, on Mr. Blochmann' s own showing, is in the Calcutta Printed 

 Text as in other copies, is right in putting cU whether it be shil or shall 

 last, and it ought, according to Mr. Blochmann, to be inverted into " Shil- 

 Aibak," otherwise it is " un- Persian." None of these authors who write 

 I'-bak-i-Shil therefore, according to this theory, could have known their 

 own language ! He also, in his literal translation, renders the passage 

 " and his little finger [of one hand] possessed an infirmity," and yet he 

 turns him into " Aibak with the paralyzed hand." Because one finger 

 was broken, or "possessed an infirmity," it does not follow that the whole 

 hand was paralyzed. Mr. Blochmann could not have thought of these 

 matters when he proceeded to criticise the correctness of my Translation. 



I have never said that T-bak alone meant T-bak of the broken finger, 

 but, with shil added to it — I'-bak-i-Shil — as I have already stated in note 1, 

 page 513-14 of my Translation, and I have also stated that, in Turkish, 

 I -bak " means finger' ' only : not broken or f ractured-fingered, or the like. 

 Mr. Blochmann could not have read the notes through, or failed to see 

 what I said of I-h&k-i-IJang in the same note. Nor have I said that T-bak 

 was not Turkish, for he was a Turk, and so bore a Turkish name. 



Neither have I ever hinted, much less stated, that his real name was 

 Kutb-ud-Din : to have said so would have been absurd. That is his Musal- 

 man titular name only, as Shams-ud-Din was the Musalman name title of 

 his slave, I-yal-timish. In my note 1, page 513, I have said that Kutb-ud- 

 Din could not have been his real name, nor T-bak either, which I looked 

 upon as a nick-name or by-name. So Mr. Blochmann here, unknown to 

 nimself probably, has come to the same conclusion. I should not write his 

 name however under any circumstance " Qutbuddin," any more than I 



IT TJ 





W^m—mmm 



