

838 H. G. Baverty— JRepfy to 6 Sisty. and Geogr. ofBengal^No. Ill: [No. 3, 



In the following page [279] of his " Contributions 1 '' Mr. Blochmann, 

 referring to my mentioning in a note to my Translation, that Aram Shah 9 

 said to be the son of f-bak, and, by some, the adopted son, is called X'-bak's 

 brother by Abii-1-Fazl, says he takes " the opportunity to justify Abul-Fazl, 

 and that, in his [own] Ain text, Abul-Fazl states twice distinctly that 

 Aram Shah was Aibak's son." Mr. Blochmann's Ain may, but in my X.in 



the MS. I quoted, and which is now before me — a " good old copy" — 



has these words, in which may be a clerical error : — 



^Jb&iUji awojj Ijjlj&J/i *^ f'jf !^°l c^^Uj^ ^%**j «**j ^)Ij ^j^ Jd 



At page 279 of his " Contributions 17 Mr. Blochmann considers the 

 word ^T di " a moon" in the word *£Xm\ to occur in other names of Indian 

 History, and in what he calls ".^i-tigin" or j^'tigin [he is not certain 

 which perhaps : t^f can be written jE7, in Tiirani probably], and in " Ai- 

 lititmish, the emperor Altamsh," but unfortunately ^f with madd over the 

 I does not occur in either of those names, nor will Mr. Blochmann show 

 them to me so written even in the Bibl. Indica edition of the " Tabaqat." 



If " Ai-lititmish" be the name of the so-called "emperor" [but why 

 not write also the " emperor" Mahmud, son of Sabuk-Tigin, the " emperor" 

 Mu'izz-ud-Din, and the " emperor" Kutb-ud-Din ? They were Sultans by 

 title as well as "^"-lititmish" was], and if " ^-lititmish" be right, why 

 style him " Altamsh" still? Such must be " behind modern research." 

 If l$1 be contained in the words eH^ui and J&*aJj| — there are no madds 

 here — and is entirely separate from the && and (j*+xf of those words, 

 how does Mr. Blochmann account for the words (J*+±ki Kal-timish, ^j^U^i 

 Tak-timish, and tjSwiL* — Sal-timish ? These are names often occurring as 



well as 4j^^Jj| # — I-yal-timish, elsewhere than in Indian history, because 



they are Turk names, but the last part of these compound words is tj**3 

 sometimes written (Jk±+$ and <j*U£> and the first part <Ji — Jp — cU» and 

 Jj| respectively, and not ^f at all. After this same fragile theory, I-yal- 

 Arsalan — eM**j| Jj| ? I-yal-ka — ^t, and I-yal-diiz — J>j^| which latter the 

 author of the Tabakat-i-Nasiri and some others write jj^i Yal-duz [where 

 is the " (^f di ' a moon' " here ? Jj^l is said to mean a star in Turkish], 

 those names must be written ^U-liarsalan, ^(i-lika, and ^'-lilduz. I should 

 like to know the titles of these " oldest Dictionaries" which give the pronun- 

 ciation " Ji-lititmish." No, no, the " ^f di ' a moon' " in these last names 

 is all moonshine. 



Again Mr. Blochmann makes everything succumb to " metrical pas- 

 sages" and poetry while I treat of prose. 



I have included the name of Jb+^kl* — I-yal-timish, as one of my 



* Major Raverty's original contains sukuns above the Idm^ mim ) and shin. Ed. 



