' '■«£ 



1876.] H. G. Eaverty— Beply to 'Histy. and Geogr. of Bengal, No. Ill: 339 



three oldest MSS. of the Tabakat-i-Nasiri writes it with tie points, among 

 the Turkish titles or by-names referred to a Turkish scholar. 



In the order of Mr. Blochmann's strictures I come now to " dangerous 

 innovations" in spelling names, but, for convenience, I will notice them last, 

 and proceed to another most important point. He says, page 279 : 



" The only thing we knew hitherto (and I believe it is all we know 

 now) is that the conqueror of Bengal was called 



Muhammad Bakhtyar, 

 and the name of his paternal uncle was 

 Muhammad Mahmiid.* 



" The names of these two persons Major Eaverty breaks up, by intro- 

 ducing an artificial izafat, or sign of the genitive" [see ante on the use of 

 the izafat and the ^-J^p IjuS and any Grammar on the subject], "into 

 four names, viz. Muhammad-i-Bakhtyar, and Muhammad-i-Mahmud * * 



" Major Eaverty says in explanation that " in his older MSS." the word 

 bin, or son, is inserted between the words Muhammad and Bakhtyar in the 

 heading of Chapter V., which contains the biography of the conqueror of 

 Bengal ; hence the conqueror of Bengal was Muhammad, and " the father's 

 name, it appears, was Bakhtyar, the son of Mahmud." It is not stated in 

 how many MSS. this bin occurs ; but, though it occur in the heading, it 

 never occurs in the text. 



" The name of Muhammad Bakhtyar occurs more than thirty times in 

 Major Eaverty's Chapters V. and VI. (pages 548 to 576) ; but in every 

 case Major Eaverty gives Muhammad-i-Bakhtyar, i. e. the Izafat. Hence 

 his MSS. have no bin in the text. In the heading of Chapter VI., there is 

 no bin, though Major Eaverty puts it in ; he tries even to do so in the 

 heading to Chapter VIII., in the name of Husamuddin 'Iwaz, and " one or 

 two authors" get the credit of it." 



My answer is, I "put" nothing "in": "nor does the word bin 

 "occur in the MSS. of the Taj-ul-Maasir, in Firishtah, the Tabaqat-i-Akbari, 

 Badaoni, and later writers, though the authors of these histories must have 

 " had very good MSS. of the Tabaqat-i-Naciri, some of which in all pro- 

 bability were older than those in Major Eaverty's possession. Hence I 

 ' look upon the correctness of the solitary bin in the headings of some of 

 "Major Eaverty's MSS. as doubtful." The Taj-ul-Ma'asir has no Arabic 

 headings like the Tabakat-i-Nasiri, and does not use the word bin, but, 

 that work not being written in the Tiirani idiom, the Kasrah of 

 izafat, where necessary, is understood. The author of the Taj-ul-Ma'asir 

 could not have had a good or an old copy of the " Tabaqat" seeing it was 

 only written thirty years and more after that work. Neither has the 

 labakat-i-Akbari Arabic headings, Buda'uni says he copies from his patron's 



* Where is it so stated before I stated it P 



