IN the Preface a reference has been made to Major Raverty's criti­cisms of a portion of this work. They are here noticed and examined seriatim.

Major Raverty begins the section relating to the Ghaznívides with a note condemning the text printed in the “Bibliotheca Indica” and the MSS. belonging to the India Office and the Royal Asiatic Society. These MSS., according to Major Raverty, “are the most defective and incorrect of any” he has “collated.” The Editor of this work used the MS. of the Asiatic Society and one belonging to Sir H. Elliot, but they were inferior to the printed edition, and so the latter was the text used. Major Raverty has collected thirteen MSS., and they may have all the excellences which he attributes to them, but the fullest MSS. are not always the best. The interpolations of ignorant or half-informed scribes are worse than omissions—for they lead astray and bewilder the reader. These MSS., however, have cleared away some errors in the texts that I used, and I have gladly adopted such new readings as seem to be improvements.

I.—Page 68. The opening of the history of Subuktigin gives Major Raverty occasion for a long and laboured note. The translation he gives of the passage is as follows: “He had heard that his (Subuktigin's) father used to be called by the name of Kará Bah-Kam; and that his (proper) name was Húk; and that Ghar-gháú in the Turkish language is called Bah-Kam; and that the meaning of Kará Bah-Kam would be the Black Tátar Bull.”

Here it is obvious that the sentence about ghar-gháú is altogether superfluous, and it may be blotted out without making any difference in the sense of the passage. This can hardly have been the intention of the author. The original words as given in the printed text are— <arabic>

Major Raverty gives the variants of eleven MSS. The differ­ences are only in the words here given as jauk and ghaughá. He adopts the form Húk in preference to jauk. After running through all the variants of the other word, he comes to the conclusion that “the word must be ghajz-gháo,” although the form ghajz never once occurs, and then, by arbitrarily changing the <arabic> of gháo into <arabic>, he brings forth his “Black Tátar Bull.” Then comes his criticism: “In Elliot (Vol. II. p. 266) the passage in question is thus translated. ‘His (Subuktigin's) father was called Jauk (troop), and in Turki they call a troop bahkam (on whose authority I wonder?), so that the mean­ing of the name Kará-bahkam is black troop.’ From this it will be seen that the translator has discarded altogether both <arabic> of MSS. 10 and 11, and <arabic> of the printed text, and has given the person's Turkish real-name as the equivalent (the Persian equivalent, it must be supposed) of his Turkish nick-name; so according to this theory <arabic> means troop, and <arabic> also means troop, but what becomes of the Persian <arabic> etc., the translator sayeth not! Jauk however is Arabic for a party, a troop, etc., but what <arabic> may mean remains to be proved.” It is unnecessary to follow him through the alterations of letters and the guesses by which he arrives at the conclusion that it means “Black Wolf,” and supposes this to be in some way identical with his “Black Tátar Bull.”

The whole of Major Raverty's censure of the translation in Elliot evidently springs from his ignorance of the meaning of the word ghaughá, which among other meanings has that of “company, assembly, multitude of people.” If he had consulted his dictionary, instead of indulging in guesses and alterations of letters, he would have seen that the printed text has a clear and coherent meaning, and that the translation which he censures is exact and complete, no word is omitted. The unintelligible words of the MS. have certainly been discarded, but in favour of the siyáh ghaughá of the print.

II.—In page 76 Major Raverty begins a long note about Waihind. In this he censures my rendering a passage of Rashídu-d din at p. 47, Vol. I., by “uniting near the fort of Dirúna, (the waters) fall into the Nurokirát.” Reinaud's rendering of the original passage in Bírúní is, “Near the fort of Dirúna it is joined by the waters of Núr and Kirát.” This was unknown to me at the time. I had the Persian version, which might be rendered as “the river Núrokirat,” or “the river of Núr and Kirát.” Curiously enough, Major Raverty cites the Arabic version which decided my reading. The words are <arabic> which he translates “into the river of Un Núr and Kirát.” But if the first letter is the article un, where does he find “into”? The words say simply “into Núrokirát”; the word “river” is Major Raverty's addition. There can be no doubt that the Arabic translator understood his Persian original to mean “the river Núrokirát,” and as the Persian text has that meaning, I made my translation so as to be in accord with both versions. Reinaud's translation of Bírúní, “the waters of Núr and Kirát,” shows that the Arabic translator of Rashídu-d dín took a wrong, though justifiable, view of his text, and led me into error. Major Raverty seems to be so well acquainted with “the darah of Núr” that it is a pity he did not describe it more distinctly. Sir H. M. Elliot's knowledge did not extend beyond what this passage supplies.

III.—Page 80. Major Raverty says: “In Vol. II. page 269 of Elliot a passage is thus translated: ‘On the same night that he (Mahmúd) was born, an idol temple in India, in the vicinity of Par-sháwar, on the banks of the Sind, fell down!!’ There is nothing like giving a bold translation.” The words of the text are— <arabic>

It would be difficult to make a more precise translation of this than the one above given. Major Raverty's translation is, “The idol temple of Wahand or Bihand (it may also be read Wahind or Bahind), which was situated on the confines of Barshábur, on the bank of the Sind, split asunder.” This shows that the fault is in the text, not in the translator. If any MS. gives <arabic> instead of <arabic>, that reading may be readily accepted; but in the absence of such reading, it would have been bold to alter the text.

IV.—Page 90. Major Raverty objects to the rendering of ghárat-kardand by “destroyed” in the passage (Elliot, page 271), “Mas'úd ordered him to be made prisoner and his whole force to be destroyed.” Ghárat means “plunder,” “hostile incursion,” and the word “destroy” is too strong, though it is not to be supposed that the plundering could be effected without killing. Having expressed this censure, Major Raverty should have been careful to be accurate himself, and should not have made one word into two by translating ghárat as “plundered and despoiled.” In the same page he also objects to “killed” as the translation of sáhib-i wáki'ah, and says the phrase does not mean killed. Wáki'ah means both “misfortune” and “death,” so that the words do mean “killed,” and the translation was allowable; but as the man in question is mentioned afterwards, the translation should have been, “When Mas'úd fell into misfortune at Maríkala.”

V.—Page 91. The meaning which Major Raverty assigns to the word bel is probable, and although I can find no other authority for it, I have inserted it among the corrections.

VI.—Page 98. Major Raverty translates the words <arabic> by, “He was a depository of the oral traditions which he was wont to narrate,” and adds a note: “Translated by Mr. Dowson (Elliot, p. 274), ‘used to listen to chronicles and write history.’” As akhbár means “chronicles” and samá' means “hearing,” there is some warrant for the rendering, but how it is twisted into “a depository of the oral traditions,” I am unable to discover. The word riwáyat means “history, narrative, relation, tale,” and any one of these may be added to the verb “he was wont to make.” On reconsideration of the passage, I have come to the conclusion that as samá' means “fame, report,” as well as “hearing,” the phrase may be more accurately rendered by, “He knew many famous stories which he used to tell.”