IS47.] Account of the Town and Fed ace of Feerozabad. 981 



ties) is that it was built in the year of the Hijra 755, corresponding 

 with the year of our Lord 1354, or in the 3d year of that sovereign's 

 reign, and that it adjoined (comparatively speaking) the city of Dehli, 

 (the old city, the Gheiaspoor above indicated ?) It is probable that 

 up to that time, he occupied one of the Palaces in Dehli-proper, or at 

 least during the periods of his residence at the capital, as it is stated 

 that on the 2d of Rujub, A. H. 752, he entered Dehli, and there as- 

 cended the throne, and that his second son Mahomed, who ultimately 

 succeeded him, was born in that town. This solitary allusion to Fee- 

 rozabad, and the precise date of its foundation therein given, are, how- 

 ever, of material consequence.- We have in the Kalan Musjeed, the 

 date of the completion of which has been accurately verified,* an ex- 

 cellent specimen of the architecture of those days, a fact of great im- 

 portance, as the style of almost every monarch, who had sufficient time 

 to devote to the building of towns or palaces or tombs, is marked in 

 the most striking manner. The materials, the plaster both within the 

 walls and on the outside, the conformation of the domes, the slope of 

 the entrance into the chief apartment, the battlements around the same, 

 the stair cases, the brackets, the eaves, and above all, the massiveness 



* Vide Asiatic Journal, as above quoted. We have, since the publication of that 

 description of the Kalan Musjeed, been favoured with the following- memorandum re- 

 garding- the translation of the inscription from that distinguished Orientalist, Mr. H. M. 

 Elliot, in the correctness of which we entirely concur, after a careful examination of the 

 original : — 



'* Allow me to point out an error into which, I think, you have fallen in your transla- 

 tion of the inscription on the Kalan Musjeed. If on further consideration you and Lieut. 

 Lewis concur with me, you should keep a record of it, as it will be useful, perhaps, on 

 reading other monuments of that period ; you have translated " Mugbool ool Mukhateb" 

 ' exalted with the title.' Now this conjunction of the two words is not good Arabic, and I 

 look upon it that Mugbool is part of Jonah Shah's name :— ' Junah Shah Mugbool, entitled 

 Khan Jehan.' The name was very common at that period, and his father's name also 

 is given by some authors as Mulik Mugbool, and by others as Mulik Kubool. Ferishta, 

 in one part, calls the father Mugbil. At all events there seems enough to show that the 

 son's name was Mukbool, and should be so read in the inscription. Junah Shah was no 

 doubt the name given by the obsequious father, in compliment to Mahomed Togluk, 

 whose name was Jonah Shah, after whom Jonpoor was so named by his nephew Feeroz? 

 We may add, as a ' contribution' to the biography of Khan Jehan the elder, that he is 

 mentioned in Ferishta as the son of Rookun-ood-deen, of Thanesur ; but whether the 

 word Thanesuree means that he and his family were of Thanesur, or that he possessed 

 that place in Jagheer only we cannot say. He is certainly spoken of as one of the most 

 disreputable fellows of the time.— H. C— II. L. 



6 l 2 



