FT 



344 H. G. Kaverty— Reply to 'Histy. and Geogr. of Bengal, No. Ill: [No. 3, 



these reasons AEtf-'UMR-i-'UsMAN, who is also called MiNHAj-UD-Dftf, 

 sometimes styles himself in his work— Minhaj-i-Saraj-i-Minhaj— refer- 

 ring to father and grandfather also. Here are two izdfats, and in prose 

 too. See also note 7, page 727 of my Translation. 



I have already shown Mr. Blochmann's theory of " artificial" izafats, 

 as he calls them, to be " ^m-Persian," but, to prove that another statement 

 here made is likewise incorrect, I must prominently notice another izafat. 

 It refers to the article " Who were the ' Patari' or ' Pathan' Sultans of 

 Dihli" — the paper in the Journal A. S. Bengal, for 1875, page 31. 

 Mr, Blochmann says in the same foot-note,;}; page 280, " Contributions" 

 para. 2, " The form of the name of Muhammad-i-Siiri, on whose name 

 Major Baverty has built a hypothesis, is doubtful for this Izafat." 



Mr. Blochmann, apparently, did not notice that the matter of the 

 kasrah of izafat, at page 31 of the Journal, has reference solely to Firish- 

 tah and his translators. If he will take the trouble to refer to my Trans- 

 lation, page 316, and to the corresponding place, page TA — 38 of the 

 Calcutta Printed Text, he will find the heading, Suri, son of 

 Muhammad, showing that here Suri is itself a Ghuri name. Then 

 let him turn to page 320 of the Translation, and he will find the 

 heading " Malik Muhammad bin Suri", but in the corresponding place 

 in the printed text page p* — 40, merely (SJj-^ ^♦■= sX) <£lU. If I chose 

 to be guided by Mr. Blochmann's theory on that heading alone, and did not 

 know that the kasrah of <^J^>> or description was required, and was in 

 any doubts respecting the persons I was writing about, I might have called 

 him, as Mr. Blochmann would, Muhammad Suri, as though the two names 

 belonged to one man, and have turned two men into one accordingly. The 

 printed text also mentions him as <js)y» ^^ twice in the same page, but 

 a third time, in the last line of that page, when speaking of Malik Muham- 

 mad having made over Ghiir to his eldest son, his name is given with his 

 father's and grandfather's name— ^y° ^j &***> ^ ^JLc ^ j^\ viz. : — 

 Amir Bii 'Ali, son of Muhammad, son of Suri. 



Look again at the following heading in the Printed Text— page 

 PI— 41, and there it is again confirmed, and we have isjj~» &■> 43 * HB * cH J^ 

 j»\— Abd-'Ali, «w o/ Muhammad, son of Suri, but in the ninth line, the 

 father is again called isjy ±+^ the izafat being understood. The next 

 heading also refers to Muhammad being Siiri's son, viz. :— 'Abbas, son of 

 Shis, son of Muhammad, son of Suri. 



^ If my long note on this subject, 7, page 321, had been read before 

 taxing me with building up a doubtful "hypothesis," it might have been 

 seen that in the Kitab-i- Yamini, the author of which was contemporary with 

 this very Muhammad, son of Suri, who it is pretended [merely because 

 Dow and Briggs so rendered it and made a Pathan of him], was called 



