1876.] H. G-. EaTertj— Reply to < Histg. and Geogr. of Bengal, M. Ill: 347 



I am told that Sultan Firiiz Shah4-Abii-1-Muzaffar, SMh-i- Jahan, the 

 Habashi, " has not been included" among the " Pathan" dynasties. ' He 

 will be found in Dow and Briggs, and in the following, respecting some 

 coins found in " Cooch Behar" : « Of the other Bengal Bathans whose 

 coins occur in this trove, I [Kajendralala Mitra] have to notice Fibtjz 

 Shah the Aevssiotaf." See Bengal A. S. Journal, 1864, page 481. 



Page 285, of the "Contributions," Mr. Blochmann says regarding 

 Jaj-nagar, " Major Eaverty has come to the same conclusion as I had." 



This is really too magnanimous on his part, and more than I can ac- 

 cept. I beg leave to state that I had come to the conclusion many years 

 before I offered the Translation, of the Tabakat-i-Nasiri to the Society : 

 in fact, in 1865. 



Mr. Blochmann will find Katasin by and bye : I shall have something 

 to say about it hereafter. 



Page 285, " Contributions," it is said, " Major Kaverty's assertion 

 that ' Lakhnauti' was called by the Emperor Humayun ' Bakhtabad,' is 

 untenable." If Mr. Blochmann thinks Bakhtabad is a copyist's error, he 

 can satisfy himself, for, of course, he had seen and consulted the " Khula- 

 §at uttawarikh," which is " a modern work." It is an excellent one never- 

 theless in many ways. I found the two copies I consulted quite similar, 

 and quoted it accordingly. Page 286 of " Contributions" we have "As 

 the borderland to the west of Jaj-nagar Major Raverty mentions Garha- 

 Katanka, and then says (page 587) quoting the Ma\lan-i-Akhbdr-i-Ahmadi 

 that ' on the north it is close to the Bhatah territory [the Bhati of the Ain- 

 i-Akbari], and, south, is close to the Dak ban. 5 " But this is an extraordina- 

 ry confusion of names, partly due to the author of the Ma'dan, especially 

 " if he wrote Bhatah with a long a. He means Bhath, or Bhat-ghora, the 

 " mountainous tract south of Allahabad, whilst Bhati is the name of the 

 " Sundarban region along the Bay of Bengal," &c. 



Mr. Blochmann has evidently not seen " the Ma'dan," but that Bhati 

 is written, or rather printed, with a long a, is not due to ".the Ma'dan" at 

 all, but to " the Ain" — my MS. original I mean. The Ma'dan has &^j 

 but I, foolishly depending on my Ain-i-Akbari as a better authority, put 

 it in as I found it there J&tf with |. So what is supposed to be an error of 

 " the Ma'dan's" is really mine from being thus led astray. Whether Mr. 

 Blochmann's Ain contains it I cannot say, but the Ain before me has ^ Itf. 

 I see nothing, even according to Mr. Blochmann, particularly wrong even 

 in the Jami'-ut-Tawarikh, although it is styled a " compilation without 

 value," when we consider what natives write imagine regarding the cardi- 

 nal points ; and that work evidently refers to the Bhati Sundar-ban which 

 was S. W. from the place, probably, where the author of it wrote. 



|:V 



^uMMjieaaflMK ■ 



