1876.] H. G. Bavertj—Bephf to'Histy. and Geogr. of Bengal, No. Ill: 341 



The word bin— Mr. Blochmann's " solitary bin"— also occurs in the 

 best Paris copy. So bin— 11 son of"— occurs in four MSS. : in three of the 

 best and oldest copies ; the izafat in a fourth which often uses the izafat for 

 bin in other instances where son of is undoubtedly meant ; and bin in a 

 fifth considered to be a precious " autograph" of the author's. In the 

 other MSS. vowel-points are not marked, but the izafat is, without doubt, 

 meant there, as in other places where not marked. The " one or two 

 authors" seems to be disapproved of— I had an object in not stating all my 

 authors' names at the time. 



I can give hundreds of such like instances of bin and an izafat being 

 used indiscriminately. But just look at the Calcutta Printed Text for 

 example— the first page that meets the eye— page pp 44, the heading is 

 " Al Amir Muhammad, bin 'Abbas," and immediately under, second line, 

 are the words :— &jX» ^Up o+=z»jx*k * # # * # j y> ^Ji^ and? as ren _' 

 dered in my version, page 332, " He made over the kingdom of Ghiir to 

 Amir Muhammad-^-'Abbas," and which Mr. Blochmann, according to his 

 theory, would have written " Amir Muhammad 'Abbas," and so have made 

 one person of the plural There is another good example at pages I ||* and 

 r I a viz. :— fU *+** &i «5j+*'° wWl &k*— Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud bin 

 Muhammad-i-Sam. Here bin is used for one person — the son, and an 

 izafat understood and required for another person — the father : there is no 

 izafat marked, but it must be used, because Muhammad, his father, was not 

 called Sam, but he was the son of Sam — that is Baha-ud-Din, Sam. 

 Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmiid's father's name, is written in full in the headings 

 with bin, but under, fU **** ^J\ d^— Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-*'- 

 Sam, and likewise his brother's, j*U» **s: /0 ^joJ| j,*x> — Mu'izz-ud-Din, Mu- 

 hammad-«-Sam, but, by the theory put forth in the " Contributions;' and 

 the system followed in the translation of the " Ain-i-Akbari," they would 

 both be turned into Sam which alone refers to their father, and not to 

 them, as the headings as well as the text — including the printed text — most 

 undoubtedly show, and many other examples are to be found in the work. 

 Ihe names in the headings are written in Arabic, in every copy, throughout 

 the whole book, and in the body of the work, according to the Persian 

 idiom, the izafat for bin is understood, as is also the case with the name of 

 Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Muhammad, bin Bakht-yar-ud-Din, the Khalj, and others. 

 Another matter tending to prove that Bakht-yar is the father's titular 

 name, is the fact that the author of the Tabakat-i-Akbari— one of those 

 who must have had the old and correct MSS.— styles him, " Malik Muham- 

 mad-i-Bakht-yar-ud-Din." Muhammad could not possibly be called Bakht- 

 yar-ud-Din, and Ikhtiyar-ud-Din too. 



The same author, by the bye, at the head of the chapter, styles the 

 " conqueror" of Bengal Ikhtitae-tjd-Dim-, Muhammad, only. Why ? 

 Because he understood that Bakht-yar-ud-Din was his father's name. 



nffl 



