2J2 H. Beveridge —The JDiurshid Johan Numd of [No. 3, 
the following inscription very beautifully written in the Tu gh ra charac¬ 
ter and in one line. 
The text has already been published by Blochmann, J. A. S. B., XLII, 
257. Bat as there is a word near the beginning which Mr. Blochmann left 
doubtful, and as Ilahi Bakhsh reads the date differently from Mr. Blochmann, 
I produce here the former’s copy, and also his note on the doubtful word. 
He thinks it may be A1 jama £ , i.e., the cathedral mosque. 
\ ^3 &A!i &.3 11^. 0.1k ^IkXwJf jjlv# i^wklt }6-vs> 
\ A?l 
It was ordered to build this mosque in the reign of the illustrious 
king, who is most learned, respected, and perfect amongst the kings of 
‘Arabia and ‘Ajarn, who hopes for help from God, Abu-l-majahid 
Sultan Sikandar Shah son of Ilyas Shah Sultan (May God preserve 
his throne till doomsday). Date inscribed to commemorate the building, 
776 A.H.i 
As regards the date, I am unable to come to! any conclusion. Bucha¬ 
nan had it read to him as 704*, and this is no doubt what is on the stone. 
That is, the Arabic word for the numeral is Sab £ a (7) and not Sab £ ain (70) 
as the facsimile in Ravenshaw, p. 70, shows. Ilalii Ba khsh admitted this to 
me when I saw him at Maldah, but remarked with truth that the date 707 
was quite inconsistent with the chronology of Sikandar’s reign. There is 
certainly a six in the inscription, but Blochmann has taken this to refer to 
the month, and in this he seems supported by the words fiu-t-tdrikh, which 
would lead us to expect to find the day, and not merely the month of 
erection. On the other hand Ghulam Husain must have read the six as 
relating to the year, for he gives the date as 766. He was obliged to make 
it 766 instead of 776, because his idea was that Sikandar died in 769. It 
may be remarked, too, that 776 is more consistent with Sikandar *s not having 
been able to complete the mosque than 770, for it seems that he reigned up 
to 792, though his latter years were troubled by his son Ghiyasu-d-din. As 
the word in the inscription is Sab’a, i.e., 7, and not 70, might it not be that 
the engraver wrote six, seven and seven hundred, i.e., 776 ? I suppose it 
would be a grammatical error to write the date in this way, but then Mr. 
Blochmann tells us that there are numerous such errors in the Bengal 
1 Note by Ilahi Ba khsh :— 
The word can read as t, and also may mean ‘to include,’‘ to 
embrace.’ 
