I 



342 H. G. Raverty— Beply to 'Histy. andGeogr. of Bengal, M. Ill: [No. 3, 



" Further," says Mr. Blochmann, « supposing bin to be correct, is it 

 "not strange, nay totally un- Persian, to speak continually of Muhammad- 

 " £m-Bakhtyar, or Muhammad-z-Bakhtyar, instead of using the single name 

 " of Muhammad ? This would be Arabic usage. Thirdly, if Mahmiid were 

 " the grandfather, it would, have been extraordinary on the part of the author 

 " to have left out the grandfather in the heading, and in the beginning of 

 " the chapter, when Muhammad Bakhtyar's descent is spoken of, and merely 

 "incidentally to mention it in connexion with the paternal uncle." 



It certainly would be ^-Persian to speak continually of Muhammad- 

 lin Bakht-yar, hence, after the Arabic heading, as in other places through- 

 out the whole work of Minhaj-ud-Din, the Persian izafat is understood. 

 Scores of examples in the text also show that a man's single name, such for 

 example as Muhammad would be here, is unusual except in the case of some 

 slaves whose fathers' names appear to have been unknown. So engrafted is 

 the custom of using the father's name with the son's [but not the grand- 

 father's], that in our Indian Courts we find bin and walad always used, 

 and even in Bombay we find low- caste Hindus, Dehrs, &c, styled, for ex- 

 ample — " Lakhsman, walad Nursia," and " Pandu. bin Santo," &c. A 

 grandfather's name is very seldom put in the headings of the Tabakat-i 

 Nasiri — it is not usual to do so. Had the paternal uncle's name occurred 

 in a heading the word bin would have been written no doubt ; but, as I 

 have before noticed, did any person ever hear one man called Muhammad 

 Mahmiid ? I know, however, that one of the sons of Mahmiid of Ghaznin 

 is styled Muhammad- ^-Mahmiid, and that his uncles are styled, Nasr-i-Sabuk- 

 Tigin, and Yiisuf-^Sabuk-Tigin respectively. What a nice thing for a 

 translator to make one man of them ! 



" Lastly," writes Mr. Blochmann, " the use of the Izafat, instead of 

 " bin or pisar (son), is restricted to poetry, and does not occur in prose [see 

 "note J, page 280]. I see therefore, no reason to change the name of the 

 "conqueror of Bengal, as proposed by Major Eaverty." 



This is a matter of such vital importance that I must give two exam- 

 ples of what may be caused through a translator not knowing where to 

 place the izafat so much objected to, as never occurring in Persian prose, 

 in place of bin, son of, and which is so " «m-Persian." 



A careful and conscientious writer like Elphltststone says, in Book 

 V, Chapter I, of his History of India, that "Mahommed-Casim" invaded 

 Sind ; and, page after page, and paragraph after paragraph, it is said that 

 " Casim" did this, and " Casim" did that, and that " the Mohametan arms 

 ceased with the death of Casim." 



In Elliot also, Vol. I, page 138, the extract from the Chach-namah 

 commences with the death of Rae Dahir " at the hands of Muhammad 

 Kasim Sakifi." These names — for they are used as that of one person— 



