________________
172
REVIEWS
Iletmish (pp. 11, 15, 78, 86) to the commonly accepted Iltutmish. Also we have such word-forms: Anasagar (pp. 42, 61, 69 ) and Ana Sagar (pp. 20, 58); Abdallah (p. 20 ) and Abd Allah (pp. 21, 36), Mirkhurd (p. 11 ) and Mir Khurd (p. 73), etc. There are a few omissions, e.g. translation of the last couplet (p. 17), one foot-note (p. 49 ), etc. The matter is wrongly punctuated in a considerable number of places, particularly in the foot-notes and translations.
In the reprint of the published material, a few mistakes of the original article could have been corrected: for example, the script described as naskh (p. 51 ) is nastaliq, or the language stated to be Persian verse (p. 52), is prose. On the other hand in some places, changes, mostly in expressions of the original do not indicate improvement. For example, the unwarranted insertion of alif in square brackets in the text on p.41 (cf. Epigraphia Indica Arabic and Persian Supplement, 1957-and-1958, p. 60); handle (p. 47) instead of bundle (p: 65 ); “ he belonged to shiite creed " (p. 54) instead of " he professed the shiite creed ” (EIAPS, 1959-and-1960, p. 42); or “Hindun Bayana" (p. 60) instead of Hindaun near Bayana" (p. 48), or “Walah Jah" (pp. 64-65 -five times) instead of “ Wala Jah” (p. 50 ).
A more disappointing example of such a change is the spelling of Ghalib's work Sabad-Chin. In this book, Shri Tirmizi has reverted to his original spelling Sabad-i-Chin (pp.69 f.n.4, 74), which was corrected by this reviewer as editor of the journal to Sabad-Chin (p. 56 of the original article). Even a more serious lapse or rather reversion to an error which baffles this reviewer, is Shri Tirmizi's repeated reference to Akbar's having presented a brazen cauldron to the shrine of Khwaja Muinud-Din (pp. 17, 21, 80 ), in support of which he also quotes a chronogram of three Persian couplets allegedly commemorating that event and engraved on the vessel and the disappearance of the cauldron and its inscription (p. 17). But Badauni, whose history he quotes for this (Vol. II, text, p. 105, translation, p. 108 ) not only does not make any mention of any such offering, but he does not even refer to the chronogram as being composed for a cauldron. In fact Badauni does not refer to any cauldron at all. Shri Tirmizi has misunderstood--as was pointed out to him by this reviewer at the time of the publication of his article and the passage was at that time omitted-the word Dig' used in the text which means (as correctly understood by Lowe as seen from his translation which has been largely depended upon by Shri Tirmizi) 'a mortar'-retained in his translation by Shri Tirmizi (p. 17). A proper study of the chronogram would have made it clear that it merely seeks to give the year of the manufacture of the 'gun' or' mortar' for the conquest of Chitor. As a matter of fact, while Badauni mentions Akbar's visit to the holy shrine (by way of fulfilment of a vow ) on his return from Chitor, etc., he does make mention of the offering of any cauldron. Also Shri Tirmizi while correctly referring to Lowe's wrong calculation, has himself erred in suggesting 1 to be
