BIBLIOTHECA INDICAr
COLLECTION OF ORIENTAL WORKS,
PUBLISHED BY
THE ASIATIC SOCIETY OF BENGAL.
TRANSLATION
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI
THE MAULANA, MINHAj-I-SARAj,
ABU 'UMAR-I-'USMAN.london
giluekt and rivington, printers,
st. John's square.c
TABAKAT-I-NASIRI:
A GENERAL HISTORY
of the
MUHAMMADAN DYNASTIES OF ASIA,
INCLUDING HINDUSTAN, From A.H. 194 [810 A.D.], to A.H. 658 [1260 A.D.],
and the
IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDEL MUGHALS INTO ISLAM.
by
THE MAULANA, MINHAJ-UD-DIN, ABU-'UMAR-I-'USMAN,
Translatedfrom Original Persian Manuscripts.
BY MAJOR H. G. RAVERTV,
BOMBAY NATIVE INFANTRY (RETIRED),
Author of a Grammar, a Dictionary, and The Gulshan-i'Roh, or Selecti'ons» Prose and Poetical, in the Pu£hto or Afghan Language; The Poetry of the Afghans (English Translation) ; The Fables of ^Esop Al-HakTm in the Afghan Language j The Pu|h,to or Afghan Manual; Notes on Afghanistan, Geographical, Ethnographical* and Historical, etc<.
Ennlfon:
PRINTED BY GILBERT & RlVINGTON.
.831.o
TABAKAT-I-NASIRi
A GENERAL HISTORY
of the
MUHAMMADAN DYNASTIES OF ASIA,
INCLUDING HINDUSTAN, From A.H. 194 [810 A.D.], to A.H. 658 [1260 A.D.],
and the
IRRUPTION OF THE INFIDEL MUGHALS INTO ISLAM.
by
THE MAULANA, MINHAJ-UD-DlN, ABtJ-'UMAR-I-'USMAN.
Translated from Original Persian Manuscripts.
BY MAJOR H. G. RAVERTY,
BOMBAY NATIVE INFANTRY (RETIRED).
Author of a Grammar, a Dictionary, and The Gulshan-i-Roh, or Selections, Prose and Poetical, in the Pu£hto or Afghan Language; The Poetry of the Afghans (English Translation) ; The Fables of ^Esop Al-Haklm in the Afghan Language ; The Puihto or Afghan Manual; Notes on Afghanistan, Geographical, Ethnographical, and Historical, etc.
VOL. I.
ilonUon:
PRINTED BY GILBERT & RIVINGTON. i88r.PREFACE.
In 1865 I was led to read the printed text of the Tabakat-i-Nagiri, published at Calcutta in 1864, in search of materials towards a history of the Afghans and their country, which is very much mixed up with that of India.
Having gone through a great portion of it, and finding it defective in many places, and full of errors, I thought it advisable to examine the India Office Library MS., No. 1952, from which the printed text was said to have been taken, went through the whole of that work, and found that it also was defective, and contained numerous errors. I found nothing, however, respecting the Afghans, except in one place, and there they were briefly mentioned in a few lines, but very characteristically.
I had already discovered, when in search of other materials, what lamentable errors the available Histories of India, so called, in the English language contained, and I now found how they had arisen. With a view of correcting them, I made a translation of those portions of the Tabakat-i-Nasiri which related to India, and the History of the Ghaznawi and Ghurt dynasties : and, when I offered a translation to the Bengal Asiatic Society some twelve years ago, my intention was, as stated in my letter on the subject, merely to have made a fair copy of the translation of those identical portions.
Soon after, I obtained a very old copy of the work ; and, on comparing it with the I. O. L. MS. No. 1952, I found such considerable and important differences to exist, that I determined to begin anew, and translate the whole work.
The Society having accepted my offer, and the defectivevi
PREFACE.
state of the printed text being well known, Mr. Arthur Grote, to whom I am very greatly indebted for assistance in many ways, advised that, in making this translation, I should avail myself of any other copies of the text that might be procurable in Europe. On instituting inquiry the following were found, and have been already referred to in my report to the Society, published in the "Proceedings for February, 1873, and have been used by me in my task. I must here give a brief description of them, and notice and number them according to their apparent age and value, which arrangement, however, will be somewhat different from that in the notes to pages 68 and 77 of the translated text.
1.	A MS. belonging to the St. Petersburg Imperial Public Library.
This, probably, is the most ancient of the copies collated. It is not written in an elegant hand, by any means, although plainly and correctly, but in the style in which Mullas usually write. The dais are marked with diacritical points, and other letters are written in a peculiar manner, denoting considerable antiquity. It is, however, imperfect, and does not comprise much more than half the work.
2.	The British Museum MS. No. Add. 26, 189.
This copy is considered by Doctor Rieu, whose experience is sufficiently great, and authority undoubted, to be a MS. of the fourteenth century. It is clearly written and correct, and has been of the utmost use to me. It wants a few pages at the end, hence the date on which it was completed, and by whom written, which generally are inserted at the end, cannot be discovered.
3.	The old MS. iri my possession.
To judge from the writing and paper, I should suppose it to be about'the same age as No. 2. It is clearly written, but wants several pages at the end, consequently, the date of its completion likewise cannot be discovered. One pretty good proof of its age, however, is that the whole, from beginning to end, has been cut close to the illuminated borders of each leaf, and inlaid on other paper, which also appears to be of considerable age. Whoever did this turned a number of leaves the wrong way, and misplacedPREFACE.
Vll
several pages, which took me some time to put in theix places again.
I imagine that there is very little difference, in point of antiquity, between these three copies.
4.	A MS. belonging to the Imperial Academy of Sciences at St. Petersburg.
This is a well and correctly written MS., which has also been of the greatest use to me in my work. It wants about two leaves at the end, and, consequently, the date on which it was copied does not appear. I should say, comparing it with the others above described, that it is a MS. of the sixteenth century, possibly, still earlier. It has an unreadable name on the last leaf, with 1218 H. [1803 A.D.] upon it.
5.	The India Office Library MS., No. 1952.
This is also a plainly written copy, and, apparently, of considerable age, nearly as old, possibly, as the three copies first named, but it is incorrect in scores of places : one place in particular, where three complete pages of the history of Sultan Mas'ud of Ghaznin occur in the middle of the account of the Saljuks. This is important, although an error, because it shows us how many other copies have been taken from it, or that it, and the other copies hereafter to be named, were all copied from another, still earlier, MS. imperfect in that identical place.
This MS. is, in all probability, that referred to by Stewart, as belonging to Tipu's library, and said to have been "copied by the author himself." The reason why this, too, has been erroneously considered " an autograph of the author's," is simply this—whoever copied it, as in the case of other copies, neither recorded his own name, nor the place where, or date when, it was completed, and so it terminates in the author's own words, hence some people have run away with the idea—and it only shows upon what a shadow they often found their theories—that the author himself must have written it. It ends thus :—" The book of Al-Minhaj bin Saraj, the 5th of Rabi'-ul-Awwal—the third month—in the year fifty and six hundred." The eight, which should have preceded the fifty, has been left out. On the first leaf the following is written : " The Tabakat-i-Na§iri, in the city of Haidar-abad, in the month of Rabi'-viii
PREFACE.
ul-Awwal, 1157 H. [1744 A.D.], was bought of the booksellers in that place."
6 and 7. Two MSS. in the Paris National Library.
These may be classed, at least the best of the two, with the preceding MS., No. 5,in point of date, and want of correctness ; and I believe that they are either copies of No. 5, or, like it and two others—the Bodleian MS., and the Ro. Asiatic Soc. MS.—copies of the same identical MS. They all agree as to errors,1 and they all end in the same way, without the name of the scribe, the date, or place where copied, with the single exception of the Bodleian copy, which has the word " eight" written over the words " fifty and six hundred." For the reasons above-mentioned, both Paris MSS.—not one only, I find—were fondly considered " autographs of the author'sbut M. H. Zotenberg, whose opinion I asked, very justly says, " this is impossible, because the two MS. are not in the same handwriting." He, however, adds, " but to judge from the paper and the writing, I should suppose that they are both MSS. of the fifteenth century. They were both brought from India." They came from the Dakhan, in all probability.
8 and 9. The other copy of the text in the British Museum, No. Add. 25,785, which Doctor Rieu considers may be of the sixteenth century, and another belonging to the Imperial Academy of Sciences of St. Petersburg. These are, comparatively, modern copies, of the first half of the seventeenth century in all likelihood. They are plainly written, but are neither of them very correct. The former is defective to the extent of seven or eight 8vo. pages at the end, and the other also wants a few leaves. They are neither of them of much value.
10. A MS. formerly in the Library of Haileybury College.	s
This is the most complete MS. of the text that I have met with, although it is of comparatively recent date. It is written in a plain, but not elegant hand. It is generally correct, and closely agrees with Nos. 2, 3, and 4; and I have found it exceedingly useful. Indeed without it, and
1 See Notes 9, page 308 ; 3, page 376 ; 2, page 400; page 426 ; 2, page 573 5 7> Pa2e 577 > anc^ particularly page 665, note 8 ; page 684, note note page 692 ; and 9, page 703 ; in which some of these are pointed out.PREFACE.
ix
Nos. 2, 3, and 4, I never could have completed my task satisfactorily. In a few places it supplied what was defective in two of the others. The date of copying is not given, but, from its appearance, I should say it was a MS. of the last half of the seventeenth century. After the author's concluding words the following is written :— " The owner of this MS., in the port [Bandar] of Surat, [is] the Haji, Muhammad Sharif, son of Mulla Muhammad Sharif, son of Mulla Muhammad Tahir ;" after which follow some words not quite intelligible, " on the 8th of Sha'ban— the eighth month—1113 H. [i70i-i702,.A.D.], was recorded." The two last words appear to refer rather to the date the owner wrote his name, than to the date the MS. was completed. It subsequently belonged to some Grandee of the Mughal empire, from the titles given under the above record, namely, " The Mumtaz-ud-Daulah, Mufakhkhar- ul-Mulk, Husam-i-Jang." Who he was I am unable to say.
11. The copy of the text formerly belonging to the late Colonel G. W. Hamilton, C.B., in the collection of the late Earl of Crawfurd and Balcarres. This is, upon the whole, the worst copy I have collated, and contains very numerous errors, although, in point of age, it may be older than Nos. 8,9, and 10. It terminates abruptly at page 462 of the Printed Text, and is thus defective to the extent of about twenty-six pages, but it has the closing page, and when and where written. Before I saw it, I was informed that it was a very valuable copy, and that it had belonged to " the Emperor Shah Jahan, because his seal was stamped on the margin of one of the pages." On examination, I found that the MS. was completed "on Thursday, the 6th of Rajab—the seventh month—of the year 1059 H- [July, 1649], the reign of the Second Sahib-i-Kiran, Abu-l-Muzaffar, Shihab-ud-Din, Muhammad, Shah-i-Jahan, Badshah-i-Gh,azi, in the city of Burhanpur [in Kandes], at the time when hostilities broke out between that monarch and Shah 'Abbas the Second [the Safawi ruler of I-ran], respecting Kandahar [the Kizil-bashis were then actually investing that stronghold]," and that the copyist was the Khanah-zad-i-Dargah [the born slave of the Court or Household], Mu'in-ud-Din, Khwajah-i-Tahan.the Jahan-girt," [of the Household of Jahangtr Badshah], Shah-i-Tahan Badshah's father.X
PREFACE.
Beneath this again is the name of a Maulawi, the son of some " Khan." partly obliterated, with the date 1255 H. [1839 A.D.]. A seal underneath bears the date 1233 H. [1818 A.D.]. The largest seal, supposed to be that of Shah-i-Jahan Badshah, bears the following inscription :— " Mu'in-ud-Dtn, Muhammad [the same person as referred to above], ghulam-i-Shah-i-Jahan," with the figures 24, referring to the year of that monarch's reign, and the year 1061 H. [it began Dec. 14th, 1650, A.D.]. A smaller seal, with an inscription—" Ya Mu'in "—" O Helper ! "—bears date 1058 H. [1648 A.D.]. I could discover nothing to show that the MS. had ever belonged to Shah-i-Jahan Badshah.
12. The MS. belonging to the Royal Asiatic Society. This, as previously mentioned, is. a modern copy, of the latter part of the seventeenth century ^possibly, and is either a copy of No. 5, or copied from the same MS. that that was copied from. It is pretty plainly but carelessly written, in, by no means, a good hand ; but, like the others referred to, is very defective, and the proper names of persons and places are often without any points.
I have already noticed how incorrect the Printed Text is. In the Preface to it, Colonel W. N. Lees, LL.D., says : " When I commenced the work, we had three copies, one belonging to the Ro. Asiastic Soc., one in the India House Library, and one belonging to the High Priest of the Parsi's at Bombay. A little while afterwards, Colonel Hamilton> in reply to a circular of the Society, forwarded a copy from Dehli. These MSS. are all apparently good old copies, and are written in very different hands. It was supposed, then, that we had four distinct copies to collate ; but, before long, it became apparent that the four had been copied from two MSS.,3 so, in reality, we had only two. . . . The Society had issued hundreds of circulars to all parts of India, and had failed to draw out more than two copies ; and the fact, that the four old copies I had had been copied
s In this case, if the Ro. As. Soc's MS. is a copy of the India Office MS., the Hamilton MS., and the High Priest's, must be copies one of the other, or copies from another MS.
Sir Henry Elliot mentions that he found one in the Royal Library at Lakhnao, but most of the MSS. in that collection were, I believe, destroyed during the rebellion of 1857.PREFACE.
xi
from two MSS., seemed to indicate so clearly the great scarcity of MSS. of this work, that I decided to go on."
From these remarks its defectiveness is not to be wondered at, but, at the same time, as I have shown in my notes, there are numerous errors in it which are not to be found in these MSS., and a little historical and geographical discrimination on the part of the editors might have corrected many of them.
The time and labour required for simply translating a book, especially if but one or two copies be used for collation, is not very great; and this translation could have been accomplished in a tithe of the time I have devoted to it. But, as this History is one of the four most important works with respect to the early rulers of India, and that part of Central Asia upon which all eyes have been lately turned, and are likely to be turned in the future, I thought it advisable not to spare any pains on it, although it has occupied some years longer than I anticipated. I have collated nine copies of the text word for word ; and all doubtful passages have been collated for me from the other three. Although this has occupied a great deal of time, and entailed much labour, a still greater amount of both has been expended on the notes, which I deemed necessary to illustrate our author's often brief, sometimes erroneous, but generally valuable, statements, to point out the errors which he has sometimes fallen into, and to point out some of the legion of lamentable mistakes, and misleading statements, contained in compilations purporting to be " Histories of India," " Histories of Afghanistan from the Earliest Times," and similar Histories of other Eastern states and peoples ; and to show the exact value of the compilations, turned out by the yard by raw hands, for the Public of the newspapers and reviews, and the general reader.
These errors in Indian History are solely attributable to the miscalled translations of the comparatively modern chronicle, known as the Tarikh-i-Firishtah by Dow and Briggs, the first of whom could not possibly have understood the words of the writer in scores of places, and in such cases appears to have recorded his own ideas instead of the author's statements. Firishtah's work, too, is not difficult, and the style is simple ; and it is one of a few booksxii
PREFACE.
well adapted for the Lower Standard of Examination in the Persian language. Firishtah's materials were chiefly-taken from the Tabakat-i-Akbari, also known as the Tabakat-i-Akbar Shahi, of the Khwajah. Nizam-ud-Din, Ahmad, who obtained his materials, up to the reign of Ghiyas-ud-Din, Balban, from the work of our author ; and not a single event is recorded in Firishtah that is not recorded in the Tabakat-i-Akbari. This will be quite clear to any one who will take the trouble to compare them. Firishtah, indeed, follows it so closely that, not only are the poetical quotations appropriated, but the errors also, as I have pointed out in my notes, have been faithfully copied by the Dakhani author : where the one errs the other is sure to follow.3
The English version of Briggs, " the admirable version," as a writer, who did not know the contents of Firishtah, calls it, is clearly based upon Dow's, with very slight alterations, and they are chiefly of a verbal kind. I should be sorry to be unjust to any author, but I submit that, where great, misleading, and glaring, historical errors, are as clear as the light of day, it is a duty towards the public, and in the interests of science, that they should be pointed out, even at the risk of " hurting the susceptibilities " of the authors of them or their friends, especially when such pernicious compilations as I have referred to, under the name of history, continue to be used in our colleges and schools, without the nature of them being known in its true light. The writers of them have much to answer for, but those who have adopted them in our public institutions a vast deal more. See, for example, note 4, page 312, and note, page 323-
One of the most glaring of the misstatements I refer to is that wherein the Turk sovereigns of Ghaznin, as well as the Tajzik rulers of Ghur, are turned into " Pathans " or " Afghans," which words are synonymous, and " Pathans " or "Afghdns" into Turks and Tajzik Ghuris. Dow, in the first place, is to blame for this, but Briggs blindly followed him.6 I say this advisedly. The proof is
s A few examples of which may be seen in Note 9, page 441; and 5, page 653 ; last para, of Note 8, page 665 ; 6, page 697; and 4, page 711.
4 Examples of this will be found in Notes 3, page 2045 6, page 312; *,PREFACE.
easy from any MS. of Firisitahs work, but with MSS. alone we need not rest content. We have only to compare Briggs's version with that lithographed edition printed at Bombay, to which Briggs put his name as editor and reviser, to prove my words.
Let us, for example, take any passage in Briggs' account of the Ghuris. or the history of the Turkish slave Sultans of Dihli—those, say, referred to at page 508 of this work —and in the Persian text which, according to the title-page, had the benefit of his editing and revision, not one word will be found respecting their being Afgkdnsy as contained in his " admirable translation :" all comes from Dow.
If this Translation of the TabakAt-i-Nasiri, the original of which was published just six hundred and twenty-one years ago, and the notes accompanying it, disperse to the winds this error-bubble alone, I shall deem my time not lost, and the labour of years not thrown away, because, even since the publication of Sir H. Elliot's extracts from various Histories, which also showed how incorrect this "Pathdn " theory was, Turks, Tajzik Ghuris,Turkish Slaves, Jats, Sayyids, and others, continue to figure under the ridiculous name of " Path&n dynasties," up to this present day.6
I have already remarked that our author has mentioned the Afghans but once in his History, and that very briefly, but, at the same time, most graphically [page 852], a body of them being in the pay of the Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam. The Afghans were by no means unfamiliar to our author, and he certainly knew the Ghuris better than any other author known to us, and he shows on that very page that they were a totally different race. In his account of the Shansabanis of Ghur, and their dynasties, he simply stands unrivalled, and also in his accounts of the first Mughal invasions of the territories between Hirat and Multan. The Afghans appear at this time to have begun to take service under the Muhammadan feudatories of the western border provinces of the Dihli kingdom. They may have been in the
page 320 ; note 7, para. 4, page 321; note 9, page 404; page 431 ; note », page 441 ; note 4, page 514 ; and \ para. 5, page 794.
* See the "Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society," Part I., No. II., pr. l£8o, page 18.xiv
PREFACE.
habit of taking such service previously, but to no great extent I imagine, but, about this period, there was a particular reason for it—the confusion and convulsions caused through-1 out the vast tracts of country which formed the kingdom of the Ghaznawis and their sUbverters the Ghurts, styled Afghanistan by Europeans chiefly, through the irruptions, devastations, massacres, and final subversion of the Musal-man rule by the hordes of infidel Mughals, by whom the country of the Afghans was completely surrounded on the north, south, and west, while the only territory still held by a Musalman sovereign lay on the east—the Panj-ab—the western part of which also subsequently fell under the Mughal yoke. The limits of the true Afghanistan were prescribed by the mountains bounding.the Kurma'h valley and the territory of Kabul on the north, the Koh-i-Surkh on the south, the territories of Ghaznin and Kandahar on the west, and the Sulimani mountains or Koh-i-Siyah on the east.
It will be observed that I have really commenced the Translation from Section VII.; and from that point it embraces the whole work. The first six, with the exception of the History of the early kings of I-ran, are not of much importance by reason of their brevity. The account of the I-rant dynasties, which would require a volume to illustrate them, I have treated as a separate work, which, ere long, may see the light. To make the Translation in effect complete, however, I have given an abstract of the first six Sections.
The adulations addressed to, and constant prayers offered up for, the Sultan to whom the author dedicated, and after whom he named, his History, have been omitted or greatly reduced, and some of the introductions to the Sections also, which are of a similar style, have been cut short, but, in all other cases, I have not "compressed" the Translation in the least degree ; and I may say that I have weighed every word and sentence, and have omitted nothing, not even the poetical quotations, having only rejected some of the longer portions when they have been of no interest, not necessary to the text, or of no particular merit. I have endeavoured to render the translation as nearly as possible in the author's own words, without being slavishly literal. It is however sufficientlyPREFACE.
XV
literal to assist a student, and yet readable by the English reader, though keeping much of a foreign complexion for various reasons. It is possible that in so long a work, published at intervals as completed, and not in a complete form at once, slight inconsistencies in punctuation and English (though not Persian, save through printers' errors) orthography may be here and there observable. Most English punctuation is haphazard, and left to the compositors, who, apparently, sometimes use it to denote breathing pauses; sometimes to help out the grammar. One may point sentences very much or very little, but whatever is done should be upon one system. Accordingly here, for the most part, the minute plan of what may seem to some over-much stopping is adopted, though not always, but no such absurdity is allowed to appear as a divorce of the verb from its subject by a single comma, and other errors of that sort, which come of printers attending entirely to pause and forgetting grammar.
Scholars will understand that there may be much to be said for more ways than one of spelling the same word in such a language as English.
This book, the text and notes together, will be found to be a very thesaurus of the most varied and often recondite historical material for the periods of which it treats, and many time-honoured historical errors have been pointed out and rectified. It wants but one thing to make it still more acceptable to the Student, and that is an Index. The Reviewers are tolerably sure to point this out for fear nobody else should see it. So the Translator begs to say, once for all, that he is too weary, and his time too valuable, to take up any such work. Meanwhile, The Index Society will have here a capital tough subject for their charitable exertions.
Besides the standard Histories mentioned in note page 869, the following, among which are many rare, celebrated, and excellent, works, have been also used ; and some of them have been extensively drawn upon. The majority, but not all, have been mentioned in the notes taken from them. From "the labours of" these authors "my predecessors " I have derived the utmost " assistance," and acknowledge it accordingly.Jtvi
PREFACE.
Tarikh-i-Tabari. Kitab-i-Yaminf, Kitab-i-Masalik-wa-Mama-lik,
Tarikh-i-Abu-l-Fa?l-i-Bai-
haki, Zain-ul-Akhbar. Nizam-ut-Tawarfkh of the Ka?i, Abu-Sald-i-' Abdullah of Baiza, Taj-ul-Ma'a§ir, Kamil-ut-Tawarikh of the Shaikh, Abu-1-Hasan-i-'Ali,surnamed Ibn-ul-Asir, Khulasat - ut - Tawarikh of
Sujan Rae, Khulagat-ul-Akhbar, Mir'at-ul-'Alam, Mir'at-i-Jahan-Numa, Tarikh-i-Firuz-Shahi of Zi-
ya-ud-Dln, Barani, Tarikh-i-Mubarak-Shahi. Tarikh-i-Firuz-Shahi of
Shams-i-Siraj, Zafifar-Namah, Tuzuk-i-Babari, Tarikh-i-Rashidi of the Mir-za, Muhammad Haidar, the Doghlati Mughal, Memoirs of Humayun Bad-shah by Bayazid the Byat, Aln-i-Akbari,
Xabakat-i-Akbari, Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh of
the Buda'uni, Akbar Namah of Faizi the
Sarhindi, Tazkirat-ul-Abrar of the
Akhund. Darwezah, Makhzan-i-Afghani, Tarlkh-i-Khan-i-Jahan, the Ludi,
Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh, Rauzat-ut-Tahirin, Sair-ul-Bilad—-a Persian Translation of the Asar-ul-Bilad, Bahr-ul-Asrar, Tuhfat-ul-Kiram, Chachh Namah, Tarikh-us-Sind of Mir Ma-
'sum, the Bakhari, Tarikh-i-Haft-Iklim, I^bal Namah-i-Jahan-giri, Ma'adan - i - AWibar- i - Ah-madi,
Tazkirat-ul-Muluk of Yahya Khan.
Jami'-ut-Tawarikh of Fakir
Muhammad, Tarlkh-i-Rajahahe Jammu, History of Gaur or Lakhan-awati of Shiam Parshad, and a few others.
The following Pu^hto or Afghan Chronicles have also been used :—The History of the Kha^hi sept of the Afghan nation, and their conquests beyond the river of Kabul, by Khwaju, the Matizi ; the Tarikh-i-Nisbat-i-Afaghinah, by the Shaikh, Abd-ur-Razzak, Matizi; and the Tarikh-i-Murassa' by Muhammad Af^al Khan, Khatak.
I cannot close these remarks without tendering my sincere thanks to Doctor C. Rieu, Keeper of the OrientalPREFACE.
xvii
Manuscripts of the British Museum,, for his kind and efficient assistance at all times, also to Professor Alois Sprenger of Wabern near Bern, and to Monsieur H. Zoten-berg of the French National Library, who very kindly collated numerous passages for me.
The system of transliteration, adopted in the following pages, is that known as the system of Sir William Jones, which, after some thirty years' experience, the Translator conceives to be the easiest, as well as the most natural, and as easy of pronunciation [except, perhaps, the purely 'Arabic gutturals] as the original letters of the 'Arabic alphabet.
The vowels are three short —a, i, u, equivalent to —
»	.	s
— and — ; and three long—a, 1, u, equivalent to I — <5 —j
All consonants, except the following, are pronounced precisely the same as in English : — s, as th in thing, or lisped s ; ^ — ch, as ch in church; ^ — h, strongly aspirated, which occurs only in purely 'Arabic words ; ^— kh, as ch in loch, and as German ch; a — d, pronounced by applying the tip of the tongue inverted to the palate ; j — z, as th in thine, by 'Arabs, dth; J — r, as r uttered by striking the point of the tongue on the palate ; j —jz, as s in pleasure, or soft French j; ,J> — sh, as sh in shell; — s, as ss in dissolve ; — z, as dwd; k — t, as t with a slight aspiration; U — z, as English z with a slight aspiration; ^— a deep guttural without any audible aspiration, and, when initial to a word, the ' is placed before its vowel, as in 'All, and, when not initial, after its preceding vowel, as in Ja'far and Rafi'; ^ gh, a guttural sound like that produced in gargling, or Northumbrian r, and something similar to gh in ghost; j — k, another peculiar 'Arabic sound, produced by pressing back the root of the tongue to the throat, and partaking of the sound of k and q; »— h, slightly aspirated; at the end of a word it is often un-aspirated. When e occurs at the end of a word preceded by a, the former is almost quiescent. The only diphthongs are ai and au.
From the above system the scholar can at once tell the original letters in the names of persons and places. Unless the peculiar letters are marked there is no knowing what they are meant for. For example; if the equivalent of ^
axviii
PREFACE.
is not marked, we cannot tell whether the original was ^ or the two letters isJ" and a. ; and if the roman equivalents of (j-, and are all rendered by simple " s," how are we to know which is the letter meant ?
As the work is rather more bulky than was anticipated at the outset, and may be perhaps more convenient in two volumes than in one, I have provided for binding it up into two volumes by giving two separate title-pages, as it can be conveniently divided at the commencement of Section XXII., page 719.
Rock House,
Milverton, Somerset,
12th January, 1881 a.d. 12th Safar, 1298 h.MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
Few materials exist for a notice of our author, and these are chiefly furnished by himself.
The first mention he makes of his family is to the effect that " the Imam, 'Abd-ul-Khalik, the Jurjani, having, in his early manhood, dreamt a dream on three successive occasions, urging him to proceed to Ghaznm and seek a wife, set out thither ; and, subsequently, obtained, in marriage, one of the forty daughters of Sultan Ibrahim of Ghaznin," who was in the habit of bestowing his daughters, in marriage, upon reverend and pious Sayyids and 'Ulama, like other Musalman rulers have continued to do, down to recent times.
By this wife, 'Abd-ul-Khalik had a son, whom he named Ibrahim, after his maternal grandfather, the Sultan; and he was our author's great-grandfather. He was the father of the Maulana, Minhaj-ud-Din, 'Usman, who was the father of the Maulana, Saraj-ud-Din, Muhammad—who is called Ibrahim by some—who was known by the title of 'Ujubat-uz-Zaman—The Wonder of the Age. He was the father of the Maulana, Minhaj-ud-Din,1 Abu-'Umar-i-'Usman, the author of the following History, who thence often brings in his father's and grandfather's name, styling himself Minhaj-i-Saraj-i-Minhaj, the two izafats being used to signify son of'vsx place of the Arabic bin.
Our author's ancestors, on both sides, for several generations, appear to have been ecclesiastics of repute, and men
1 The title, Saraj-ud-Din, means "The Lamp, or the Luminary of the
Faith," and Minhaj-ud-D!n, " The High-road, or the Way of the Faith." See note 3, page 1295.
a 2XX
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
distinguished for learning. He states that he possessed, among the misal or diplomas granted to his maternal ancestors by the Khalifahs, one from the Khalifah, Mustaz! B'illah, conferring the Kazi-ship of the fortress, or rather, fortified town, of Tulak, described in the following pages, together with that over the Kuhistan, and the Jibal— Highlands—of Hi rat, upon his maternal grandfather, in conformity with the diploma previously held by the latter's father before him. His paternal grandfather also received an honorary dress from the same Pontiff; and our author says that he himself possessed the diploma which was sent along with it.
In the oldest copies of the text, and in several of the more recent, our author almost invariably styles himself' the Jurjani'—J^jj*—as I have from the outset rendered it ; but those MS'S. previously referred to, which appear to have been copied from the same source as that from which the I.O.L. MS. was taken, or from that copy itself, generally have J^jjs?—Juzani—and sometimes Jurjan! as above. If the point of j — z—be left out, as is very liable to be the case, like the points of other letters, by copyists, it is but simple j — r. Words containing long u —3 — are often written with the short vowel zammah or pesh — J —instead
j	m	"	j
of j — and hence, in some few copies, it is —Jurjani, while sometimes it is written both ways in the same MS.
Since writing note7, at page 321, giving an account of the Amir, Mas'ud's inroad into the northern parts of Ghur, when on his way from Ghaznin to Hirat, I have considered that the word given by our author referred to the tract of country described in that note as the Guzganan, or the Guzgans, by Tajziks, but which 'Arabs, and people of 'Arab descent, who use j — ^— for the Tajzik g — — turn into Juzjanan, and that the word he uses in connexion with his own name refers to one of the Guzgans, and that he should be styled 'the Guzgani' or 'Juzjani.' As the most trustworthy copies of the text, the best and most correctly written, had Jurjani, I considered it necessary to follow them as I had begun, and to mention the matter more in detail here in the Memoir of the Author's life.
Guzgan, as the native inhabitants styled it, or Juzjan, is not the name of a single town, village, or fortress,MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
xxi
but one of the small districts or tracts of country among the mountains, on the north-west frontier of the country of Ghur, and north of Hirat, beyond the Murgh-Ab—the Jibal of Hirat, as he himself styles it—but its exact position, and the localities of most of the great fortresses mentioned by our author in the last Section of his work, are at present unknown to us. The Guzganan, or Guzgans were the appanage of the Amir, Muhammad, brother of Mas'ud; and it was from thence that he was brought when he assumed the throne of Ghaznin after the death of his father. Notwithstanding the details which our author gives respecting the great fortresses of Ghur, Ghar-jistan, and other parts, including the fortress of Tulak, which appears to have been his own place of residence at the time, and also the home of his maternal relatives (see. page 1066 and note5), which he helped to defend against the Mughal invaders, and which must have been situated in one of the Guzgans, he never once, throughout his whole work, refers to Guzgan or Juzjan, except in connexion with his own name. See also notes to pages 186 and 232.
After the Ghuris obtained possession of Lahor in 582 H., and they had seized the Sultan ?Khusrau Malik, the last of the Sultans of Ghaznin, our author's father was made Kaz! of the Ghurian army stationed at Lahor, under the Sipah-Salar, 'Ali-i-Kar-makh; and twelve camels were assigned him for the conveyance of the establishment of his office, his tribunal, etc., on the line of march.
Our author was born after this, in the year 589 H., the very year in which Dihli, of which, and of which Musalman kingdom, he was subsequently to become the chief Kazi and Sadr, was made the seat of the Musalman government in Hindustan by the Turk Mamluk, Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, who was, in after-years, to become its first Muhammadan Sultan. That our author was born at Lahor, as the Daghistanf, referred to farther on, asserts, cannot be correct; for, from what he himself states respecting his arrival at Uchchah in 624 H. [see pages 541 and 722], that was the first time he set foot in Hind. Had he been born at Lahor, he would, doubtless, have mentioned it, and he would probably have been styled and known as the Lahori in consequence.
The next mention he makes of his father is, that, whenxxii
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, ruler of Bamian and Tukharis-tan, succeeded his father on the throne, he desired that our author's father, the Maulana, Saraj-ud-Din, Muhammad, should take up his residence in his kingdom, and enter his service. With the sanction of his own sovereign and patron, and Baha-ud-Din, Sam's suzerain, namely, the Sultan of Ghur, Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, the Maulana proceeded to the Court of Baha-ud-Din, Sam, and was made Kazi of the kingdom of Bamian and Tukharistan, with the judicial administration over its forces, was made censor, with full powers as regards ecclesiastical law, and intrusted with the charge of two colleges, and their funds. This happened in 591 H., when our author was in his third year. He states that the diploma conferring these offices upon his father, in the handwriting of the Wazir of the Bamian state, was still contained in the kharltah [a bag of embroidered silk for holding documents] containing his own diplomas, his banner, and turban of honour.
The mother of our author was the foster-sister and school-mate of the Princess, Mah Malik, the daughter of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, mention of which lady will be found in several places in the following pages; and his mother appears to have continued in her service after her marriage. Our author distinctly states that his early years were passed in the Haram of the Princess, until the period of his entering upon adolescence, when, according to Musalman usages, he had to be sent elsewhere. He speaks in terms of much gratitude of the fostering kindness and protection he received while dwelling in that Princess's household. Under these circumstances, Lahor can scarcely have been the place of his birth.
When Sultan Takish, Khwarazm Shah, withdrew his allegiance from the Khalifah, Un-Nasir-ud-Din-Ullah, and the latter's troops had been defeated by him, Ibn-ur-Rabbi', and Ibn-ul-Khatib, on two different occasions, came as envoys to the Courts of the Sultans of Ghur and Ghaznin, to demand aid from these monarchs against Sultan Takish. In consequence, the Imam, Shams-ud-Din, the Turk, and the Maulana, Saraj-ud-Din, Muhammad, the Tajzik, ourMEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
xxiii
author's father, were directed to proceed to Baghdad, to the Khalifah's Court, along with the envoys.3 They set out for Baghdad by way of Mukran ; and, in some affray into which they fell on the road, they were attacked by a band of robbers, and our author's father was killed. Intimation of his death was received in a communication from the Khalifah to the Sultan, Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, in these wordsFurthermore, Saraj-i-Minhaj perished in an affray on the road. The Almighty recompense him ! "
Another of our author's relatives, his mother's brother's son, was Ziya-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of 'Abd-us-Sallam, Kazi of Tulak, who was left in command of the fortress of Tabarhindah, with a force of 1200 Tulakis, by the Sultan, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, when that Sultan was about to retire from Hind before the hot season of 587 H., intending to return after it was over and relieve him. The Kazi of Tulak was to hold the place for seven months ; but, as the Sultan, just after this arrangement was made, was defeated by Rae Pithora, and severely wounded in the battle, and an expedition into Khurasan soon after intervened, he was totally unable to come to the Kazi's relief, as agreed upon, in the following season, and, consequently, after having held out over thirteen months, the Kazi, Ziya-ud-Din, Muhammad, had to capitulate.
At the time Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, son of Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, was assassinated by the Khwarazmi refugees, in Safar, 607 H., our author was dwelling at Firuz-koh, and was then in his eighteenth year.
In 611 H., the year preceding the surrender of his capital, Firuz-koh, by the last of the Sultans of the Ghuri dynasty,
2 He was despatched on this mission by Ghiyas-ud-Dint Muhammad-i-Sam, Sultan of Ghur, the elder brother and suzerain of Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, Sultan of Ghaznin, who, in a paper in the "Journal of the
Asiatic Society of Bengal" Part I., No. I, for 1880, page 28, by Mr. C. R.
Stiipnagel, is styled Mrfaz-ud-din. The writer is at a loss to know why the elder brother's name appears on his younger brother's coins, and informs us that "of Sultan Ghias-ud-din scarcely anything is known." I beg to recommend him to study the twenty-three pages respecting him in the following translation, and to refer to note 6, page 472, and 2, page 489. Here again
" Mu'az" is turned into " the first Pathan king of Dehli !" See also Part
I., No. II., page 84, of the " Journal."xxiv
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
our author proceeded thither. Two years after we find' him in Sijistan, at Zaranj, the capital, where he remained some time. At this period the whole of the territories which had formed the empire of the Ghuris, including^the dominions of Ghaznin, and extending east of the Indus into the upper part of the Sind-Sagar Do-abah of the Panj-ab as far as the Jhilam, had fallen under the sway of the Khwarazmis. ' These events must, in some way, have been the cause of his sojourn in Sijistan for seven months, but he is quite silent on the causes which led him there. See page 195.
In 617 H., during the first inroad of the Mughals into Ghur and Khurasan, before the Chingiz Khan himself crossed the Oxus with his main army, our author was living at Tulak; and, shortly after, in the same year, took part in the defence of that fortified town against the invaders, who kept prowling about it for about eight months. During a period of four years, from the above mentioned year up to the close of 620 H., during which the Mughals made several attempts upon it, he helped to defend it.
In 618 H., the year in which he says the Chingiz Khan crossed the Jihun into Khurasan, and he was in his thirtieth year, he married the daughter of a kinsman of his own; and, in 620 H., he determined, as soon as circumstances permitted, to leave his native country, and proceed into Hindustan, not liking, apparently, to dwell in a country overrun by the Mughal infidels. In 621 H. he was despatched from Tulak, where he was then living, and in the defence of which against the Mughals he had just taken part, by Malik Taj-ud-Din, Hasan-i-Khar-post. to Isfizar, after Khurasan had become clear of Mughals, and from thence into the Kuhistan—the Chingiz Khan had, at that time, returned homewards—to endeavour to arrange for the re-opening of the karwan routes, which, during the Mughal invasion, had been closed, and the traffic suspended.
On a second occasion, in 622 H., he again proceeded from Tulak into the Kuhistan for the same purpose, at the request of Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of 'Usman, the Maraghani, of Khaesar of Ghur, the father ofMEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
XXV
IVIalik Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, the first of the Kurat dynasty, as the Tajzik—not Afghan, I beg leave to say— rulers of the fiefs of Hirat and Ghur and their dependencies, who were the vassals of the Mughals, were styled, i The following year he again set out on a journey into the Kuhistan, on the part of Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Muhammad, that the karwan route might be re-opened. From Khaesar he first went to Farah, and from thence proceeded by way of Sijistan into the territory referred to, and returned to Khaesar again.
In. 623 H., our author, who appears to have left Tulak and was residing at Khaesar, with the permission of Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Muhammad, went to Farah in order to purchase a little silk required by him for his journey into Hindustan. Having arrived in the neighbourhood of Farah, Malik Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin, the Khwarazmi. who then ruled over Sijistan, and was engaged in war with the Mulahidah of the Kuhistan, induced him to undertake a journey into the latter territory, to endeavour to bring about an accommodation between himself and the Mulahidah governor of that part, the Muhtashim, Shams-ud-Din. Our author was accompanied by the son of Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Muhammad, whose name is not mentioned, but, in all probability, it was the identical Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, the founder of the Kurat dynasty. Our author succeeded in effecting an accommodation, but it does not appear to have been on terms acceptable to Malik Taj-ud-Dxn, Binal-Tigin, for he wished him to return to the Muhtashim's presence and declare war again. This he declined to do, as he had several times put off his journey into Hind, and was now desirous of departing without further delay, and before the Mughals should again appear. Malik Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin, was wroth at this refusal, and shut him uj) within the walls of the fortress of Safhed of Sijistan. There he was detained for a period of forty-three days, but, Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Muhammad, having interfered in his behalf, he was set at liberty.
He did not allow the grass to grow under his feet after this ; and in the fifth month of the following year—Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 624 H., [in another place he says it was Rajab, the seventh month, while in another place—page 612—hexxvi
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
says it was in 625 H.], by way of Ghaznin and Banian, he reached Uchchah by boat; and, in the following Zi-Hijjah, Sultan Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, ruler of Uchchah and Multan, placed him in charge of the Firuzi College at Uchchah, and made him Kazi of the forces of his son, 'Ala-ud-Din, Bahram Shah.
Our author could distinguish the winning side, and preferred it; for, no sooner had Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, ruler of Dihli, Kaba-jah's rival, appeared before Uchchah, than he deserted Kaba-jah and the Firuzi College, and went over to his rival. In the first place, our author presented himself before Malik Taj-ud-Din. Sanjar-i-Gajz-lak Khan, who was in command of the van of I-yal-timish's forces ; and, a few days after, I-yal-timish himself having arrived, he waited on him. He was favourably received, and was appointed to officiate, in his priestly capacity, within that Sultan's camp. After the fall of Uchchah, he accompanied I-yal-timish to Dihli; and reached it in Ramazan, 625 H.
He subsequently accompanied the Sultan, in his priestly capacity, to Gwaliyur in 629 H. ; and, in the following year, after that stronghold was taken possession of, was made Kazi, Khatib, and Imam of Gwaliyur and its dependencies, under the governor, Rashid-ud-Din, 'All. In the early part of Sultan Raziyyat's reign he returned to Dihli, but he was not removed from office, neither was he a " forgiven rebel ; "3 and, during his absence from Gwaliyur, his Deputies acted for him. On reaching the capital, in 635 H., that sovereign added to his offices that of Superintendent of the Nasiriah College at Dihli.
In the year 639 H., in the reign of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, our author was made Chief Kazi of the Dihli kingdom, and of the capital as well. In the disturbances which arose between that Sultan and his Amirs, our author, and other ecclesiastics, endeavoured to bring about a peaceful accommodation, but without effect. In Zi-Ka'dah of the same year, the Khwajah, Muhazzab-ud-Din, the Wazir, bribed a number of villains to murder him ; and, after the conclusion of the Friday's prayers, on
3 See page 1285, and Thomas's " Pathdn Kings of Dehli," page 105.MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
xxvii
the 7th of that month, they actually attacked him in the Jami' Masjid, but he escaped without hurt.
Soon after, on the accession of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah, on the Khwajah, Muhazzab-ud-Din, being re-appointed Wazir, our author, in 640 H., resigned the Chief Kazi-ship, and in Rajab of that year left Dihli in order to proceed into the territory of Lakhanawati. There he remained about two years, and there he acquired his information respecting it and its rulers. While residing in that country, he accompanied Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan in his expedition against the Rae of Jaj-Nagar, and was present at the attack on the frontier post of Katasin, in Shawwal, 641 H. On the removal of that Malik from the government of Lakhanawati in 643 H., our author accompanied him on his return to Dihli, and, in Safar of that year, presented himself at Court. Muhazzab-ud-Din had in the meantime been put to death by the Amirs; and, through the interest and efforts of his subsequent munificent patron, Malik Ghivas-ud-Din. Balban (afterwards Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam. and subsequently Sultan of Dihli), who held the office of Amir-i-Hajib, three days after his return, he was put in charge of the Nasiriah College once more, and entrusted with the administration of its endowments, the lecture-ship of the Jami' Masjid, and the Kazi-ship of Gwaliyur, according to the previous grant. Subsequently, in the same year, he accompanied the army which advanced to the banks of the river Biah for the relief of Uchchah when invested by the Mu glials.
In 644 H., at Jalhandar [in the Panj-ab], on the return of the army, on the occasion of performing the services prescribed for the'Id-i-Azha in the hall of the College there, the new Sultan, Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, to whom this History is dedicated, presented our author with a cloak, a turban, and a richly caparisoned horse. In 645 H., he wrote a description, in verse, of the expedition against Talsandah, entitled the " Nasiri Namah." The Sultan rewarded him for this with a yearly stipend, and Malik Ghiyas-ud-Din, Balban, the hero of the poem, and commander of the expedition, gave him the revenues of a village in the Hansi province, which was that Malik's fief at that period. Inxxviii
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
649 H., for the second time, the Chief Kazt-ship of the Dihli kingdom, with jurisdiction over the capital as well, was conferred upon him ; but, when, two years after, in 651 H., the eunuch, 'Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan, succeeded in his conspiracy for the removal from office of our author's patron, who had been raised to the title of Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam in 647 H., and he was banished the Court, our author, like others of the Ulugh Khan's clients and supporters, was removed from the office of Chief Kazi, and it was conferred upon one of the Rayhani's creatures, notwithstanding our author stood so high in the estimation of the weak and puppet Sultan. In 652 H., matters improved a little : a new Wazir succeeded; and, while in the Kol district, whither our author appears to have accompanied the Sultan's Court, the title of Sadr-i-Jahan4 was conferred upon him.
At the close of the following year the Rayhani was ousted from office, the Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam again assumed the direction of affairs, and our author, who, for months past, had been unable, for fear of his life, to leave his dwelling, even to attend the Friday's service in the J ami' Masjid, was, in Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 653 H., for the "third time, made Chief Kazi of the Dihli kingdom, with jurisdiction over the capital as before.
With the exception of his remark at page 715, in winding up the events of the year 658 H., that if his life should be spared—he was then in his seventieth year—and aptitude should remain, whatever events might subsequently occur would be recorded, our author henceforward disappears from the scene, and we hear no more of him. At the end of his account of the Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam farther on, he does not renew that promise, nor does he do so when finally closing his History. The munificent rewards he received on presenting copies of his work to the Sultan and to the latter's father-in-law, the Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam, are mentioned at page 1294. He refers to his family casually, now and then, in the following pages, but, with a single exception, enters into no particulars whatever. At page 820 he says, with reference to the Malik-ul-Hujjab [Head of the Chamberlains],'Ala-ud-Din,the Zinjani, that he is "his son, and the light of his eyes ;" but he could not have been
4 See page 698, and note 8.MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
his son from the fact of his being styled " the Zinjani," that is to say, a native of Zinjan in Khurasan. He may have been his son-in-law, or an adopted son.
When the emissaries from Khurasan were received by the Sultan, Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, as related at page 857, our author composed a poem befitting the occasion, and this, he says, was read before the throne by one of his sons. He also, in one place, refers to a brother.
Between the time when our author closes this History in 658 H., and the Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam succeeded to the throne of Dihli under the title of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, in 664 H.— the date generally accepted, although Fasih-i says it was in 662 H.—is a period of about six years ; and, as no other writer that we know of has recorded the events of that period, it is a complete blank in Indian History, which, I fear, cannot be filled up. Ziya-ud-Din, Barani, in his Tarikh-i-Firuz-Shahi, which is not much to be depended on, says he takes up the relation of events from the time our author left off, but this is not correct, for he begins with the reign of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Balban.
Our author died in his reign, but when cannot be discovered, neither can the place of his burial. Possibly some inscription may hereafter turn up which may tell us, but there is no record available in any of the works I have waded through in .search of the information. Whether his health failed him ; whether he grew out of favour with his old patron, the new Sultan ; or whether circumstances arose which, as regards the Ulugh Khan's conduct towards the weak-minded, but amiable, Sultan, Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, would not bear the light of day—-for there are vague statements of foul play on the part of the Uluglj Khan, but no proofs—who shall say ? Some writers state that the Sultan died a natural death, which is most probable, and some further add that he, having neither offspring nor heir, nominated his father-in-law, the Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam, his successor, which was but natural, seeing that, for nearly twenty years, he had virtually ruled the state. That the Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam poisoned him appears unworthy of credence, since, had he desired to supplant him, or get rid of him, he might have effected either object years before. See note6, page 716.XXX
MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
The only mention I can find, after much search, respecting these years, between the closing of our author's History and the accession of the new Sultan, is the following from Fasih-i. " Sultan Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, died in this year, 662 H., and great anarchy and disorder arose throughout the territory of Hindustan. At last, since among the great Amirs of Hind, for prudence, counsel, wisdom, munificence, dignity, magnificence, and power, the Amir, Ghiyas-ud-Din [the Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam] was preeminently distinguished, and as he had obtained his freedom previously—a matter never alluded to by our author—he, with the unanimous accord of the great nobles and grandees of the kingdom, ascended the throne of Dihli in the beginning of this year, 662 H."
The Daghistani, previously referred to, in his Tazkirah, under the letter ^ —s — has the following :—"Saraj-ud-Din-i-Minhaj is the author of the Tabakat-i-Nasiri, which he completed in the name of the Malik of Hind, Nasir-ud-Din. His birthplace was Lahor, and his origin was from Samr-kand."
This last sentence of the Daghistani's is sufficient to show that he is not entirely to be depended upon, in this instance at least Our author's family was not from Samr-kand. The Daghistani also gives the following as a quatrain of our author's :—
" That heart which, through separation, thou madest sad ;
From every joy that was, which thou madest bare of;
From thy disposition I am aware that, suddenly and unexpectedly,
The rumour may arise that thou hast broken it."
In the " Akhbar-ul-Akhvar "—a Biographical Collection of Notices of Saints—of 'Abd-ul-Hakk [he died 1052 H. = 1642 A.D.], the following will be found respecting our author :—" The Shaikh, Kazi Minhaj, the Jurjani, the author of the Tabakat-i-Nasiri, was a saint, and one of the most learned and excellent of his time, and one of those who would become filled with religious ecstasies on hearing the singing at Zikrs or Tazkirs. When he became Kazi of Hindustan that office assumed integrity and rectitude. The Shaikh, Nizam-ud-Din,3 states :—" I used, every Monday,
5 This, probably, is no other than the celebrated saint of Dihli.MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.
xxxi
to go to his Tazkirs, until, one day, when I was present at one of them, he delivered this quatrain :—
" ' The lip, in the ruby lips of heart-ravishers delighting, And to ruffle the dishevelled tresses essaying, To-day is delightful, but to-morrow it is not— To make one's self like as straw, fuel for the fire.'
"' When I heard this verse,' says the Shaikh. Nizam-ud-Din,' I became as one beside myself; and it was some time before I came to my senses again.'"
Our author appears to have been deeply imbued with the tenets of Sufi-ism, for a brief essay on which, see the Introduction to my " Poetry of the Afghans." Professor Sprenger tells me that he was a notorious Sufi. A good account of these Zikrs, or Tazkirs, will be found in the notes to the Third Chapter of Lane's "Thousand and One Nights."
Before closing this brief memoir of our author, it will be necessary to mention the reasons which led him to write this History. These he gives in the Preface dedicating the work to the Sultan, Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, and this divested of much of its fulsome adulation and redundant expressions, may well appear as the Preface to this translation of his History.THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE 1 AND DEDICATION.
In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate!
Thus sayeth Abu-'Umar-i-'Usman, son of Muhammad-al-Minhaj-al-Jurjani, that, when, through the blessing of Almighty God, the diadem and throne of the dominion of Hindustan became graced by [encircling] the blessed head, and adorned by [being pressed by] the august foot of that Lord of the World, Nasir-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Abu-1-Muzaffar-i-Mahmud Shah, son of the Sultan, I-yal-timish —May his reign long continue!—and the khutbah and coin became embellished with his titles and his name, and, during the reign of which august sovereign, the justice-seat of the Kazi-ship of the empire of Hindustan was consigned to this loyal servant, on a certain occasion, in the tribunal of law and justice, a book came under his observation which the learned and worthy of former times had compiled 2 for the edification of the select and distinguished of posterity. This had been taken from the annals of the Prophets and Khalifahs—On whom be peace !—together with their genealogies, and the histories of the reigns of great Maliks [kings] of bygone times—The splendour of the Almighty illumine their tombs !—and had been written down in tabulated forms, and abbreviated after the manner
1	This Preface varies in some copies, particularly at the commencement, to the extent of a page or more.
2	I do not find any trace in the Preface to either of the copies collated, of the "tabular chronicle compiled by the Imam Mohammad Ali Abu 1-Kasim Imadi, in the time of Nasir ol-dfn Soboktikin," mentioned by Col. Lees, LL.D., in the English Preface to the Calcutta Printed Text, nor is it to be
found in its Persian Preface. The words are .......i-iLi J^Ul
jojj! t^ The Imam's " Tank^-i-Majdul " is mentioned in Section XI.THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE AND DEDICATION. xxxiii
of an epitome, in the time of the Sultans of the dynasty of Nasir-ud-Din, Sabuk-Tigin—The Almighty guard their last resting-place!—from every flower-garden a flower ; from every sea a drop, they had brought together [in this book]. After mentioning the Prophets, and giving their genealogies, and that of the Khalifahs of the Bani-Um-miyah and Bani-'Abbas, the Maliks of 'Ajam, and the Akasirah, they rested content with an account of the family of the august Sultan, Mahmud-i-Sabuk-Tigin-i-Ghazi—On whom be peace !—and abstained from any mention of other great Maliks, or the dynasties or annals of the Sultans of the past.
This frail one desired, therefore, that this meagre History should be filled up from first to last, from beginning to end, with an account of the whole of the Maliks and Sultans of Islam, both of Arab and of 'Ajam, and that a candle out of every dynasty should be enkindled in this assembly, and that, to the head of every race, a cap might be stitched, by the relation of events and occurrences and illustrious actions. Therefore, an account is recorded here, of the Tubba-yawa' of Yaman, and the Himyar Maliks ; and, after mention of the Khalifahs, an account of the Tahiris, Suffarts, Samanis, the dynasty of Buwiah, the Saljuks, Ru-mis, Shansabanis,and the Sultans of that family who were sovereigns of Ghur, Ghazmn, and Hind, the Khwarazm-Shahis, the Kurd Maliks who are Sultans of Sham, and the Mu'izziah Maliks and Sultans, who became Badshahs on the thrones of Ghaznin and of Hind, up to the present time, which is the reign of the heir to the diadem and throne of the dominions of the I-yal-timishi dynasty and house,
Sultan-ul-Mu'azzam, Sultan-us-Salatin Fi-l-'Alamin, NASIR-UD-DUNYA WA-UD-DlN, ABU-L MUZAFFAR-I-MAHMUD SHAH,
Yamin-i-Khalifah U'llah, Kasim-i-Amir-ul-Muminin —Khuld U'llah Saltanatahu !8
3 Signifying, The Supreme Sultan, The Sultan of the Sultans of the World, The Defender of the World and of the Faith, The Victorious (or Accustomed to Conquer), Mahmud Shah, The Right Hand of God's KhalTfah, The Co-Sharer with the Lord of the Faithful—The Almighty perpetuate his Reign !
bxxxiv THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE AND DEDICATION.
and this History is reduced to writing, and adorned with his august titles and name,4 and is entitled the
Tabakat-i-NasirI.
It is his implicit hope, through the perfect grace of the Creator, the Most High and Holy, that, when this book shall be honoured by the blessed sight of this Badshah, the Asylum of the World, it may meet with the felicity of his approbation ; and that from the zenith of the firmament of benefaction, and the summit of the .sphere of favour, a ray of the royal grace may shine upon this frail one; and, after his removal from this temporary dwelling, from its readers may .a kind invocation endure; and, should they become cognizant of any error or omission, may they veil it with the skirt of the robe of forgiveness, since whatever was to be found in trustworthy chronicles is herein recorded.
i In Elliot, vol. II.,' page 261, the editor, Mr. Dowson, tells us that, 1' The eulogistic way in which he [our author] always speaks of the successor of Nasiru-d din would induce the belief that the work appeared in the reign of that Sultan, and the fact is proved by his more than once offering up an ejaculatory prayer for the continuance of his reign." Again, at page 362 of the same work, in a foot-note, we are informed that '' The text says ' the Sultan (may God prolong his reign) plainly showing that this part of the work [the notice of Ulugh Khan—the text at page 807 of this Translation is referred to] was written in the reign of Balban."
What our author says above, as well as his other statements noticed in the body of the work, and up to its very conclusion, are, perhaps, undoubted proofs that this work was neither written, nor appeared, in Balban's reign.CONTENTS.
PAGE
Preface ........	...v
Memoir of the Author......	... xix
Author's Preface and Dedication ....	... xxxi
Contents ........	... xxxv
Additional Notes and Emendations ...	... xlv
Errata.........	... lvii
Introductory, being an Epitome of the First Six Sections	i
SECTION I.
Adam, the Patriarchs and Prophets, and the ancestors of Muhammad . ib. SECTION II.
The Four orthodox Khalifahs, the descendants of 'Alt, and the Com-
panions of the Prophet ......... ib
SECTION III.
«
The Kljalifahs of the house of Ummiyah	. .	ib.
SECTION IV.
The Khalifahs of the house of 'Abbas .	.	ib.
SECTION V.
The Maliks of 'Ajam to the rise of Islam :—
I. The Bastaniah or Pegh-Dadan . .	.2
II. The Kaianian .....	.3
III.	The As^kanfan ....	-4
IV.	The Sasanian .....	. ib. V. The Akasirah...........5
SECTION VI.
The Tubba-yawa', and Maliks of Yaman	6
b 2xxxvi
CONTENTS.
SECTION VII.
PACE
The Dynasty of the Tahiri Muhammadan Maliks in 'Ajam ... 9 I. Tahir-i-Zu-l-Yamanain . . . . . . „ .11 II. Talhah, son of Tahir . . . . . . . .12
III.	'Abd-ullah, son of Tahir . . . . . . .	13
IV.	Tahir, son of'Abd-ullah, son of Tahir ..... 14
V.	Muframmad, son of Tahir, son of 'Abd-ullah .	.	15
SECTION VIII.
The Suffariun Dynasty .	19
I.	Ya'kub, son of Lais, Suffari	20
II.	'Umro, son of Lais, §uffari	23
SECTION IX.
The Dynasty of the Samanis ....	.26
Asad, son of Saman-i-Khaddat .	27
I. Ahmad, son of Asad, son of Saman .	. 28
II.	Nasr, son of Ahmad, Samani ...	29
III.	Isma'il, son of Ahmad, Samani . .	31
IV.	Abu Nasr-i-Ahmad, son of Isma'il . .	-33 V. Nasr, son of Ahmad, son of Isma'il .	-35
VI.	Nuh, son of Nasr, son of Ahmad .	38 VII. 'Abd-ul-Malik, son of Nuh ...	.40
VIII. Mansur, son of Nuh ....	41
IX. Nuh, son of Mansur, son of Nuh .	..44
X. Mansur, son of Nuh, son of Mansur .	48
XI. Abu-l-Faw>aris-i-'Abd-ul-Malik, son of Nuh	5°
• SECTION X.
The Dynasty of the Dialamah Maliks at the Dar-ul-Khilafat of Baghdad,
and in 'Irak ..........	55
I.	Abu-l-Hasan, son of Buwiah, Ud-Dilami .....	58
II.	Al-Hasan, son of Buwiah, Ud-Dilami .....	59
III.	Bakht-var, son of Al-Hasan, son of Buwiah, Ud-DilamT . .	60
IV.	Fana Khusrau, son of Al-Hasan, son of Buwiah, Ud-Dilami .	61 V. Al-Marzaban, son of Fana Khusrau. Ud-Dilami ...	64
VI. Abu-l-Fawaris-i-Makan, son of Fana Khusrau. Ud-Dilami .	65
SECTION XI.
The Dynasty of the Yaminiah, Al-Mahmudiah Sovereigns of the race of
Sabuk-Tigln ......... 67
I. Amir-ul-GhazI, Nasir-ud-Din-U'llah, Sabuk-Tigin ... 70
II.	Sultan-ul-A'zam, Yamin-ud-Daulah, Nizam-ud-Din, Abu-1-
Kasim, Mahmud-i-GliazT, son of Sabuk-Tigin ... 74
III.	Amir Muhammad, son of Mahmud ...... 88CONTENTS.
xxxvii
FACE
IV.	Sultan Nasir-ud-Din-U'llah, Mas'ud, the Martyr . . .91 V. Shihab-ud-Daulah, Maudud, son of Mas'ud . . ' .	95
VI. 'All, son of Mas'ud, and Muhammad, son of Maudud, in
Association ..........	97
VII. 'Abd-ur.Ra5h.1d, son of Mahmud......98
VIII. Tughril, Al-Mal'un, or The Execrated.....99
IX. Farrukh-Zad, son of Mas'ud.......xoo
X. Sultan Ibrahim, Sayyid-us-Salatin......102
XI.	'Ala-ud-Din, Mas'ud-al-Karim, or the Beneficent, son of
Ibrahim ..........	106
XII.	Malik Arsalan, son of Mas'ud.......107
XIII.	Mu'izz-ud-Daulah wa ud-Din, Bahram Shah ....	109
XIV.	Khusrau Shah, son of Bahram Shah.....111
XV. ghusrau Malik, son of Khusrau Shah, the Last of the Mafrmudi-
ah Dynasty . . . . . . . . . .114
SECTION XII.
The Dynasty of the Salju^Iah	.......116
I.	Tughril, son of MTka'il . . . . .	. .122
II.	Malik Da'ud-i-Jaghar Beg, son of Mika'il.....126
III. Sultan Alb-Arsalan-i-Ghazi, son of Da'ud-i-Jaghar Beg . .	132
IV. Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Malik §hah, son of Alb-Arsalan . .	137
V.	Muhammad, son of Malik Shah ......	143
VI.	Sultan-ul-A'gam, Mu'izz-ud-Dunya wa ud-DIn, Sanjar, son of
Malik Shah..........146
Account of the Sultans of Rum of the Saljukiah Dynasty . . . 157 I. Mahmud, son of Malik Shah . . . . . . -159
II.	Mas'ud, son of Mahmud Shah.......ib.
III.	Kizil-Arsalan, son of Mas'ud, son of Mahmud, son of Malik
Shah ........... 160
IV.	Kulij-Arsalan, son of Kizil-Arsalan ... . . .	ib. V. 'Izz-ud-Din, Kai-Ka-us, son of Kizil-Arsalan .... 161
VI. Kai-Kubad, son of Kai-Ka-us ....... ib.
VII.	Kai-KhusrauT son of Kai-Kubad ...... 162
VIII. 'Izz-ud-Din, son of Kai-Khusrau ...... 163
IX. Kutb-ud-Din, Kulij-Arsalan . . . . . . .164 X. Tughril, son of Tughril........165
SECTION XIII.
Account of the Sanjariyah Rulers.	. 168
First Dynasty.
The Sanjariyah Maliks of 'IraV and Azarbaijan :—
I. The Ata-Bak, Ilatt-Giz, Us-Sanjari......170
II. The Ata-Bak, Muhammad, son of Ilatt-Giz . . . .171
III.	The Ata-Bak, Yuz-Bak, son of Muhammad, Us-Sanjari . .172
IV.	The Ata-Bak, Abu-Bikr, son of Muhammad . . . .173xxxviii
CONTENTS.
Second Dynasty.
PAGE
The Sanjariyah Maliks of Fars :—
I. The Ata-Bak Sunkar, Us-Sanjari .	.173
II. The Ata-Bak, ZangT, son of Sunkar i .	175
III.	The Ata-Bak, Duklah, son of Sunkar .	ib.
IV.	The Ata-Bak, Sa'd, son of Zangi .	.176
V.	The Ata-Bak, Abu-Bikr, son of Sa'd .	179
Third Dynasty. The Sanjariyah Maliks of Nishapur :—
I.	Malik Mu-ayyid, Us-Sanjari . .	180
II.	Malik Tughan Shah, son of Mu-ayyid	181 III. Sanjar Shah, son of Tughan Shah .	182
SECTION XIV.
The Maliks of Sijistan and Nimroz . ; . . . . .183
I.	fahir, son of Muhammad . . . . . . .184
II.	Malik Taj-ud-Dln, Abu-l-Fath, son of Tahir . . . .187
III.	Malik-us-Sa'Is, Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Taj-ud-Din	189
IV.	Malik-us-Sa'id, Taj-ud-DTn-i-Harab, son of Muhammad . .	191
V.	Malik Nasir-ud-Din,'Usman-i-Harab, son of Taj-ud-DIn .	193
VI.	Malik ul-Ghazi, Yamin-ud-Daulah vva ud-DIn, Bahram Shah.
son of Taj-ud-Din-i-Harab .......	194
VII.	Malik Nu^rat-ud-Dln, son of Malik Yamtn-ud-Din, Bahram
Shah...........196
VIII. Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Mafcmud, son of Yamin-ud-Din, Bahram
Shah ...........197
IX. Malik Shihab-ud-Din, Mafcmud, son of IJarab . . . .	198
SECTION XV.
The Kurdfah Maliks of gham ..........203
I. Sultan Nur-ud-Dln, Mahmud-i-Zangi.....ib.
II.	Malik-u§-§alih, 'All, son of Mahmud-i-Zangt ....	205 ' III. Malik Aiyub, son of Shad!.......207
IV. Malik Asad-ud-Din, son of Shadi. in Mi$r ....	208
V. Sultan §alah-ud-DIn, Yusuf, son of Aiyub-al-Kurdi . .	214
VI.	Malik-ul-Affal, 'Alt, son of §alah-ud-Dln, Yusuf . . .	222
VII.	Malik-ul-'Azfz, 'UgmSn, son of §alah-ud-DIn, Yusuf .	223
VIII.	Malik-ul-'Adil, Abu-Bikr, son of Aiyub-al-Kurdi . . .	224 IX. Malik-ul-Mu'aggam, Tsa, son of Abu-Bikr, son of Aiyub-al-
Kurdt ...........227
X. Malik-ul-Kamil, son of Abu-Bikr, son of Aiyub-al-Kurdi. .	228 XI. Malik-u§-§aliti, son of Al-Kamil, son of Abu-Bikr, son of Aiyub-
al-Kurdi .....-	229
SECTION XVI.
The Maliks of the Siwarazm-ghahTah Dynasty .	231
I. ]£uit>-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, I-bak, the Turk	ib.CONTENTS.
xxxix
PAGE
II.	Malik Taj-ud-Dfn, Muhammad, son of !-bak ....	234
III.	Malik Jalal-ud-Din, Utsuz, Khwarazm Shah, son of Taj-ud-Din,
Muhammad..........236
IV.	Malik I-yal-Arsalan, son of Jalal-ud-Din, Utsuz . . .	238
V.	Sultan Takish, son of I-yal-Arsalan ......239
VI.	Sultan Jalal-ud-DIn, Mahmud, son of I-yal-Arsalan . . .	245
VII.	Yiinas Khan, son of Takish, Khwarazm Shah ....	249 VIII. Malik Khan, son of Takish, Khwarazm Shah ....	250
IX. 'All Shah, son of Takish, Khwarazm Shah ....	252
X.	Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Takish, Khwarazm
§hah...........253
XI.	]£utb-ud-Din, Arzalu Shah, son of Muhammad, son of Takish,
Khwarazm Shah .........	279
XII.	Sultan Rukn-ud-DIn, G&uri Shanasti. son of Muhammad, Khwa-
razm Shah ......... .	281
XIII.	Malik Ghiyas-ud-Din, At Sultan, son of Muhammad, Khwa-
razm Shah........ . . .282
XIV.	Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Mang-Barnt, son of Suljan Muhammad,
Khwarazm Shah.........285
SECTION XVII.
The Shansabaniah Sultans, and the Maliks of Ghur ....	300 Account of the First [Ancestors] of the Family, their Genealogy, and
their Progenitors, up to £uhak, surnamed TazI . . .	302
Account of Bustam, Malik of Hind and Sind.....305
I. Amir Pulad [or Fulad], Ghur!. Shansablt . . . .3x1 II. Amir Banjt, son of Naharan, Shansabl.....ib.
III.	Suri, son of Muhammad........316
IV.	Malik Muhammad, son of Suri......320
V. Malik Abu-'All, son of Muhammad, son of Surf . . .	325
VI.	Malik 'Abbas, son of Muhammad, son of Suri . . .	330
VII.	Amir Muhammad, son of 'Abbas......332
VIII.	Malik Kutb-ud-Din^ .Al-Hasan, son of Muhammad, son of
'Abbas ...........333
IX. Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain, Abu-us-Salatin, son of Kutb-
ud-DTn, Al-Hasan........335
X. Malik-ul-Jibal, Kutb-ud-DTn, Muframmad, son of ['Izz-ud-Din]
Al-Husain..........338
XI.	Sultan Baha-ud-DIn, Sam, sbn of'Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain .	341
XII.	Malik Shihab-ud-Din, Muhammad [Kharnak], son of Al-
Husain, Malik of Madin of Ghur .....	343
XIII.	Malik Shuja'-ud-Din. Abi-'Ali, son of Al-^tusain [son of Sam],
son of Al-Hasan, Shansabl .......	345
XIV.	Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Al-Husain, son of 'Izz-ud-Din, Al-
Husain, son of Sam, son of Al-Hasan.....347
XV. Malik Na?ir-ud-Din, Al-Husain, son of Muhammad, Madini .	364 XVI. Sultan Saif-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din,
Al-Husain..........365
XVII. SulJan-ul-A'^am, Qhiyas-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Abu-l-Fath, Muhammad, son of Baha-ud-Din, Sam, J£asim-i-Amir-ul-
Muminin ..........	368xl
CONTENTS.
PACE
XVIII. Malik-ul-Haji, 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, soil of Malik Shuja'-ud-Dtn, Abi-'Alf, son of 'Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain, son of Al-Hasan, Shansabi . . . . . . . • 391 XIX. Sultan Ghivas-ud-Din. Mahmud, son of Ghiyas-ucI-Din,
Muhammad, son of Baha-ud-Din, Sam, Shansabi . . 396 XX. Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, son of Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, son of Ghiyas-ud-Din, lYIuhammad, son of Baha-ud-Din, Sam, Shansabi ....... .	408
XXI. Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, son of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Al-
Husain, Jahan-soz . . . . . . . .413 XXII. Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Shuja'-ud-Din, Abu-
'Alt, the Last of the Sultans of Ghiir.....417
SECTION XVIII.
The Shansabani Sultans of Tukharistan and Bamian . . . .421 I. Malik Fakhr-ud-Dln, Mas'ud, son of 'Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain,
Shansabi . . . . -. . . . . . 422 II. Sultan Shams-ud-Din. Muhammad, son of Mas'ud, son of Al-
Husain, Shansabi . .	. . . . . 425
III.	Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, son of Sultan Shams-ud-Din.
Muhammad .......... 428
IV.	Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, 'All, son of Baha-ud-Din, Sam, Bamiani . 432
SECTION XIX.
The Sultans of Ghaznin of the Shansabaniah Dynasty .	. . 438
I.	Sultan Saif-ud-Din, Suri, son of 'Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain . . ib.
II.	Sultan-ul-A'zam, Mu'izz-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Abu-l-Muzaffar,
Muhammad, son of Baha-ud-Din, Sam, Kasim-i-Amir-ul-Muminin .......... 446
III.	Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Baha-ud-Din, Muham-
mad-i-Sam, of Bamian ....... 492
IV.	Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, al-Mu'izzi, us-Sultani . ... 496
V.	Sultan-ul-Karim, Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, al-Mu'izzi, us-Sultani . 506
SECTION XX.
Account of the Mu'izziah Sultans of Hind .....	508 I. Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, al-Mu'izzi, us-Sultani . . .512
II.	Sultan Aram Shah, son of Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak . .	528
III.	Malik [Sultan] Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, al-Mu'izzi, us-Sultani.	531
IV.	Malik [Sultan] Baha-ud-Din, Tughril. al-Mu'izzi, us-Sultani .	544 V. Malik-ul-Ghazi, Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Bakht-
yar, Khalji, in Lakhanawati.......	548
VI.	Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Sheran. Khalji . .	573 VII. Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, 'Ali, son of Mardan, Khalji . . .	576
VIII. Malik [Sultan] Husam-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, son of Husain, Khalji .	580
SECTION XXI.
The Shamsi Sultans of Hind ........ 596
I. Sultan ul-Mu'azzam, Shams-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Abu-l-Muzaf-
far, I-yal-timish, the Sultan ...	.	597CONTENTS.
xli
PACE
II.	Malik-us-Sa'id, Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, son of Sultan
Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish,.......	628
III.	Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Firuz Shah, son of the Sultan [I-yal-
timish] ..........630
IV.	Sultan Ra?iyyat-ud • Dunya wa ud-Din, daughter of Sultan I-yal-
timish, ....."......637
V.	Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Bahram Shah, son of
Sultan I-yal-timish ........	649
VI.	Sultan 'Ala-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah, son of Sultan
Rukn-ud-Din, Firuz Shah.......660
VII.	Us-Sultan-ul-A'zam ul-Mu'azzam, Nasir-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din,
Abu-l-Muzaffar-i-Mahmud Shah, son of the Sultan [I-yal-
timish], Kasim-i-Amir-ul-Muminin . . ' . . .	669
Events of the First Year : 644 H.......675
,, Second ,, 645 H.......679
Third	,, 646 H.......683
„ Fourth ,, 647 H.......685
Fifth	„ 648 H.......687
„ Sixth	„ 649 H.......689
,, Seventh ,, 650 H.......692
Eighth	„ 651 H.......693
,, Ninth ,, 652 H. .......	696
,, Tenth	,, 653 H.......701
,, Eleventh ,, 654 H. .......704
,, Twelfth ,, 655 H.......706
„ Thirteenth ,, 656 H.......711
„ Fourteenth ,, 657 H. ...	712
,, Fifteenth „ 658 H. . . ...	714
SECTION XXII.
Account of the Shamsiah Maliks in Hind . . . . . .719
I. Taj-ud-DIn, Sanjar-i-Gajz-lak Khan .....	722 II. Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Kabir Khan, Ayaz i-Hazar-Mardah, ul-
Mu'izzi ..........	724
III.	Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Ai-Yitim-ul-Baha-i . . .	727
IV.	Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-tTchchah.....729
V. Malik Saif-ud-Din, 1-bak-i-Yughan-Tat . . . .731
VI.	Malik Nusrat-ud-Din Ta-yasa'I [Tal-shi] ....	732
VII.	Malik 'Izz ud-Din, Tughril-i-Tughan Khan . . . .736
VIII.	Malik Kamar-ud-Din, Ki-ran-i-Tamur Khan, us-Sultani .	742 IX. Malik Hindu Khan, Mu-ayyid-ud-Din, Mihtar-i-Mubarak, ul-
Kh,azin, us-Sultani ........	744
X. Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Kara-Kush Kljan-i-Aet-kin . .	746
XI. Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Altuniah, of Tabarhindah . . .	748
XII. Malik I^itiyar-ud-Din, Aet-kin......749
XIII.	Malik Badr-ud-Din, SunVar-i-Rumi.....752
XIV.	Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Ki^-luk.....754
XV. Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Kuret Khan ....	756
XVI. Malik Saif-ud-Din, Bat Shan, i-bak-i-ghita-i . . .757
XVII. Malik Taj-ud-D!n, Sanjar-i-Tez Khan .....	759 XVIII. Malik Ikitiyar-ud-Din, Yuz-bak-i-Tughril Khan . . .761xlii
CONTENTS.
PAG®
XIX. Malik Taj-ud-Din, Arsalan Khan, Sanjar-i-Chast . . .	766
XX. Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlu Khan. us-Sultani, Shams!	775
XXI. Malik Nusrat Khan, Badr-ud-Din, Sunkar-i-Sufi, Rumi .	787
XXII. Az-Kulli Dad-Bak, Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-Shamsi, 'Ajami	788
XXIII.	Malik Nusrat-ud-Din, Sher Khan, Sunkar-i-Saghalsus . .	791
XXIV.	Malik Saif-ud-Din, !-bak-i-Kaslli Ehan, us-Sultani . .	795 XXV. Ul-Khakan-ul-Mu'ajjzam-ul-A'zam, Baha-ul-HaW wa ud-Din,
Ulugh KJian-i-Balban, us-Sultani.....799
SECTION XXIII.
The Affairs of Islam, and Irruption of the Infidels .... 869
First Inroad of the Turks of Karah jKhita......900
I. Account of the Outbreak of the Ch,ingiz Khan, the Mughal . 935 History of the events which happened in Islam . . . 968 Account of the crossing of the river Jifrun by the troops of the
Chingiz Khan towards Khurasan . . . . . .1001 Account of the passage of the river Jihun by the Chingiz Khan. 1008 Account of the coming of Sultan Jalal-ud-DIn, Mang-Barni, son of Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, to Gljaznln, and the events that befell him there . . . . . . .1012 Account of the taking of Walkh of Tuldiaristan . . . 1023 Account of the capture of the cities of Khurasan, and the martyrdom of their inhabitants ....... 1026
Account of the calamities which befell the territory of Khurasan the second time ......... 1042
Account of the capture of the Forts of Kal-yun and Fiwar. . 1051 Account of the events which happened in QJjur, Qljarjistan, and
Firuz-Koh . . . . . . .	. . 1055
Account of the events which took place before the fort of Saif-Rud of Ghur ......... 1062
Fall of the fort of Ashiyar of Gharjistan, and other fortresses . 1071 Account of the return of the Chingiz Khan towards Turkistan, and his departure to hell ....... 1077
II. TushT, son of the Chingiz Khan ...... 1096
III.	Uktae, son of the Chingiz Khan ..... .1104 Account of the nomination of armies from Turkistan to proceed
into the territory of'Irak . . . . . . .1115 Account of the despatching of Mughal armies to proceed towards
Ghaznin and Luhawar . . . . . . . .1126 Account of the death of Uktae, son of the Chingiz Khan . .1136
IV.	Chaghatae. son of the Chingiz Khan—May God's curse be
upon him ! . . . . . . . . . .1144 V. Kyuk, son of Uktae, son of the Chingiz Ehan . . . .1148 Account of a Musalman miracle . . . . . .1157 The decease of Kyuk, the Accursed . . . . . .1160 VI. Batu, son of Tu^hi, son of the Qhingiz Ehan .... 1164
An astonishing anecdote . . ...... 1173
VII. Mangu Khan, son of Tuli Khan, son of the Chingiz Khan . 1176 Account of the fall of the Mulahidahs—on the whole of whom be God's curse ! .......	. 1187CONTENTS.
xliii
PAGE
An account of the misfortune which happened to the Muhtashim,
Shams-ud-Din ....:.... 1212 VIII. Hulaku, son of Tull, son of the Chingiz Khan .... 1225 Account of the fall of the capital of the Khilafat . . . 1228 Account of the martyrdom of the Lord of the Faithful, Al-Musta'-
sim B'illah—the Almighty reward him !	1252
Account of the march of Hulaku towards Halab and Sham . 1262 Account of the miracle [which happened in behalf] of the Musal-
mans of Mayya-farikin ........1270
Another miracle [wrought in behalf] of the Musalmans . . 1279 Account of the conversion of Barka Khan, son of Tush! Khan,
son of the Chingiz Khan, the Mughal.....1283
Anecdote respecting Barka Khan's zeal in the Musalman faith . 1288 First statement ......... 1287
Second statement ....	.... 1290
Conclusion.............. 1293
Appendix A. .... i Appendix B. . . . . . vii Appendix C. . .... xiii Appendix D................ xxiiiADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS.
There is some disadvantage in publishing an extensive History of this kind in parts after each portion is completed, because any extra information obtained during the progress of the work cannot be inserted in its proper place. To remedy this, as much as possible, I have embodied here such further information in the form of Additional Notes and Emendations.
Page 34.—Further research shows that Arg or Ark——is an error of the copyists for Uk — tsljl—the • having been mistaken for j as suggested in note8. The word is correctly given in the last Section. Seepages 1120, 1124, and note, page 1122, para. 5. It was a celebrated fortress of Sijistan, and was still an important place when Amir Tlmur took it.
Page 36.—" Sanjaris," in note 9, taken from Fasih-I, is an error for Sijizis or Sigizis, that is to say Sijistanls or Sigistanis. See note 6, page 34. This error is frequently made by oriental authors as well as scribes.
. Page 52, note 9.—All the copies of the text are wrong with respect to this word, and have <2) for j Uz-kand of Turkistan is meant, not Urganj the capital of Khwarazm. See note 7, page 1097.
Page 68, line 5.—There is no doubt whatever as to the meaning of the text here respecting Sabuk-Tigin's nickname ; and that one man could possibly be nicknamed "black troop" or " black uproar" is very improbable. See note 4, page 852, and Elliot's India, vol. viii., pagexii., where, if not "ghaugha," there is, at least, "ghubdr-angezi." I have not followed the printed text in this Translation, because it is very incorrect as well defective.
The Turk Amlr-ul-Umara of Baghdad, who was accidentally killed by some Kurds in 329 h., bore the name of Buj-kum [^ji^J, as written with the vowel points, which is the same word as I supposed that applied to Sabuk-Tigin to be from the way it was written in one copy of the text, which Turkish word means, in the Tajzik language, ghajz-gbao [3lc. jc]. See the last para, of note and the Bodleian copy of the Kitab-ul-Kamil of 'Izz-ud-Din-i-Ibn-ul-Asir, under the year 329 h. It is therefore quite clear that [not Hul^ (J}*-), which is the same word less the vowel point of ^ left out by the copyists : a similar name occurs at page 477], entitled Sabuk-Tigin, was, by his Turkish comrades, nicknamed "the Kara Buj-kum," the Tajzik translation of which is "the Siyah Ghajz-Ghao," which is the Kutas of Mlrza Haidar, the Doghlati Mughal, who gives a description of that immense and formidable animal. The English translation thereof is "The Black Wild Yak," siyah here signifying furious as well as black, and the Turkish kara will bear the same construction. See note at page 922, and at 948, para. 2.
Page 77, note 2, para. 1.—There is no doubt whatever as to the point of junction of the rivers of Nur and Kirat at Dariinthah, now a well-known place. The words in the original are ol/ j but the printer has carelessly letxlvi	ADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS.
the I drop out after the type was set up, and the proof passed for press. I have described the Darah of Nur, as well as Darunthah, in my "Notes on Afghanistan," page 108, and there they will be found. Mr. Dowson appears to have forgotten what is contained in his second vol., page 465. See also vol. i. page 394, which is certainly amusing.
Page 95.—The fortress of Girl here mentioned, I believe, refers to the fortress of Gibar Kot in Bajawr. See " Notes on Afghanistan," page 117.
The word "Tahkri" in para. 5 should be "Tigharl."
Page 101.—The singular of the word murgkan [o^], which I have rendered "carrier pigeons," "signifies a bird absolutely"	and
not a fowl only, as Mr. Dowson imagined; and as fowls do not carry news, and carrier pigeons are referred to by the same word as is here used in note 5, page 1280, para. 4, I had no hesitation in adopting the rendering I have. Another proof that carrier pigeons were meant is the fact that one day was not sufficient to convey the news from Ghaznin to the fortress of Baz-Ghund, afterwards known as Kiishk-i-Sultan, for that was at Firuz-Koh, a distance of about 240 miles as the crow flies, and a very difficult tract of country to traverse.
Pages 104, 105.—There is an error here respecting our author's ancestors, caused by some confusion in most copies of the text, which have "great-great-grandfather," whereas, from -his statements elsewhere, his third ancestor, or great-grandfather is meant. It should stand " great-grandfather " at page 104, and "That princess bore him a son, whom he named Ibrahim, and he was the father of the Maulana, Minhaj-ud-Dln, 'Usman-i-Ibrahim, upon whom be the mercy of the Almighty ! The Maulana, Minhaj-ud-DTn, was the father of the Maulana, Saraj-ud-Dln," etc., etc.
Page 106.—The text is not i^"5 j	—" chand barah wa kasbah"—as
Mr. Dowson imagined ; and even if it were, although barah means "walls," it does not mean " a fortification," much less fortifications," but the text has 8jIj—parah—not "barah," and noj— and the signification, of the sentence, in the idiom of the East, is as rendered in the Translation. The very same word occurs at page 821—mo of the printed text—but that Mr. Dowson leaves untranslated. See also printed text, page i°»r and page 1294 of this Translation.
Mr. Dowson (Elliot's India, vol. viii., p. xi.) is very wroth with me about my criticisms, to one of the errors in which work the above refers, and says he has "noticed them, and examined them seriatim," but this is a mistake, and the " Cradle of Irak," in note 6, page 107, is one of very many others to which, very wisely, he has not referred.
Page 107.—The words of the text are not ^ji. j jt?~<>j j as Mr. Dowson assumed, except in the printed text, in which, two words have been left out before and the first j is redundant. The reason why Arsalan assumed the throne in the Garmsir, instead of waiting until he reached Ghaznin. the capital, is elsewhere explained.
Page 112, note s, para. 2.—There seems to be an error of ten years here. The writer doubtless meant the year of the Rihlat, instead of the Hijrat, which would make a difference of ten years. Our author distinctly states, at page ill, thai Bahrain Shah was succeeded by his son, Khusrau Shall, in 552 h. See note 5, and note 3, page 347.
Page 115.—Our author has made mistake here, or rather, his copyists for him, of ten years, for, as related at pages 378, 457, and in other places, the campaign against Sultan Shah in Khurasan occurred in 5S7 h. See also Appendix A., page ii.ADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS. xlvii
Page 122, note8.—The proper title and names of this Chief are "Amir 'Imad-ud-Daulah, Da'ud-i-Jaghar Beg, or Jaghari Beg," son of Mika'il [Fasih-i says, son of Tagharl Beg], son of Abu-Suliman, son of Saljuk. The word Mika'il has been left out accidentally after Jaghar Beg.
Page 154, line 6 after poetry.—The word Kabalik, written in the text is an error for Kaialik—jlLs—the 1 was made ; by the' copyists. For the details respecting it see page 900, and note 2. Kara-Khita-i in the same paragraph should be I^ara-Khitae. the latter word, or Kara-Khita, being the proper name, the substantive, applied to the country, and the former, the adjective, applied to the people, as correctly given a few lines under, and farther on.
Pages 159, 160.—Kizil is the more correct mode of writing this Turkish word, signifying "red," and so it should be read in all cases.
Page 162, note 2.—The Nu-In or Nu-yan, Taju, is the same leader as is mentioned at page 1237, and is the Tanju of the Pro-Mughal writers. See note at page 1191, line 10.
Page 163, note s, line 9.—" Abgha " Khan cannot be correct, for the period indicated was the interregnum which occurred between the death of Kyuk 3£han, and the accession of Mangu Ka'an in 648 H. Ab-gha, Ab-ka, Abagha. or Abaka Kh,an, Hulaku's son, appears to be referred to here, and he only succeeded his father in 661 H. See note at page 1287, para. 2.
Page 164, line 15.—The Nu-in, Aljakta, here mentioned, is the Aljaktae, or, more correctly, Iljidae, Ilchikdae, or Ilchiktae, as it is variously written, the desolator of Hirat. Much about the latter Sultans "of Rum will be found in note 7, page 1261.
Page 188.—The campaign against Khita mentioned here refers to the war with the Gur Khan of Kara-Khitae. mentioned at pages 261 and 934.
Page 201.—" Arg of Sistan." This refers, as previously mentioned, to tJk. According to the Pro-Mughal writers, the investment took place in 627 H., but it actually commenced in 625 H., and terminated in 627 H., the place having held out nineteen months. See page 1120.
Page 224 and note 3.—The chroniclers of the Crusades say that "it was proposed that Joan of Sicily, sister of Richard Cceur de Lion, should be given in marriage to Saphaddin," as they write the title, Saif-ud-Din, "and that Jerusalem should be yielded to the parties in this strange alliance." The Princess, however, refused to give her consent, and so the affair came to nothing.
Page 233, line 6.—After Muhammad there should be an izafat, namely, " Muhammad-i-'Usman,'' because 'Usman was his father. See page 1198.
Page 233, line 12, and note —§uhari is the same place as is referred to at page 227, and again at page 237, where it is said to be in Turkistan.
Page 235, line 12.—This well-known place is called Guzarwan, and Juzarwan by 'Arabs, and people of 'Arab descent. Its correct name, according to the pronunciation of the people inhabiting it, was Gujzarwan, as mentioned in the note below. See note 2, pages 257 and 258, and pages 376 and 475.
Page 239, note 1.—There is an error here : it should be sixteen, not "eight" years, for, from 551 H., as mentioned in the preceding note to 567 H., is a period of sixteen years.
Page 254, line 18.—At page 240 the Khan of Kifchak is styled Akran or Ikran. This was his Turkish name, and Kadr, which is 'Arabic—Kadr Khan —his Musalman title only. Our author, to avoid confusion, ought to have given both.xlviii ADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS.
Page 257, note 2, line 7.—Shihab was his first title, by which some Indian Muhammadan writers, who knew not the fact of the change, nearly, if not always, incorrectly style him. His elder brother and sovereign assumed a new title on ascending the throne, and a new one was also assigned to Shihab-ud-Din, his brother, See page 370.
Page 260, and note 7, para. 5.—Kulij Khan cannot refer to the Gur Khan, for his Khita-I name, which is very different, is given at page 928, and Kulij is again mentioned distinct from the Gur Khan.
Page 263, note K—The frontiers of Jund are referred to here; and the correct name of the territory referred to in the following para, is Saghnak, as confirmed by other writers.
Page 267.—The Kadr Khan, son of Yusuf, here mentioned, is the same person as is referred to at page 1097, as son of Safa^tan-i-Yamak. It appeal's, therefore, that, in this instance also, Yusuf is his Musalman name, and Safaktan his Turkish name. The Yighur, or I-ghur, here mentioned, and at page 270, is written Saghar at page 960, which see, also note 6 to that page.
Page 267, note 9, to "this very year " should have been added "according to some," for, as given farther on, the first month of 617 H. was the year of the Sultan's flight. See note 2, para. 2, page 972, and page 274.
Page 268, note 4, line 5.—Takrit is an error of the writer from whose work the extract was taken. It should be Makrit, a well-known tribe ; and Kara-Kuram is an error, often made, for Kara-Kum. These errors have been rectified at page 1097.
Page 270, para. 3, line 6.— "Tingit." The name of this country is written Tingkut by the Pro-Mughal writers.
Page 270, and note 7.—The Sayyid, Baha-ud-Dln, is a totally different person from the Badr-ud-Dm of GuzTtlah, and Ahmad, the Khujandi. The Sayyid was a man of high position and dignity, and is again referred to at page 963, where the subject is more fully detailed.
Page 280, and note 9.—The movements of the Chingiz Khan and his sons are given in greater detail at page 968. Tuli was not sent into Khwarazm. but, when the two eldest sons of the Chingiz Khan began to quarrel at the siege of Gurganj, or Urganj, its capital, Uktae, the youngest of the three there present, was directed to assume the chief command. See note at page 1099, para. 2.
Page 288, note 3, line 5.—Wamlan or Bamian, and Walian, mentioned below, are neither of them correct. Our author, in the text above, did not give the name of the place, but he does so fafther on. It should be Walishtan —jj^lj Some careless copyist of an early copy, probably, writing the J^ long, thus——left out three points of the letter, and thus led others who followed to read the word ^Ulj—Walian—omitting the MS. form of u*—which J^ is without the points, putting two points under instead of over, and thus turning : into -—and causing great confusion and error. Walishtan is the same place as is mentioned at page 319, but, in the same way as in Guzgan and Guzganan, the singular form of the word, and also its plural, as if there was more than one place or district so called. The same mode of expression is used with regard to the Lamghan district, which is also known as the Lamghanat or the Lamghans.
The Chingiz Khan, moreover, was not investing Tae-kan, twenty miles cast from Kundus, as mentioned in the fifth line from the bottom in the same note, but Tal-kan, about three hundred miles west of Kundus, and much the sameADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS.	xlix
distance from the Parwan Pass. His main army was encamped at and around the Pushtah-i-Nu'man, near by. It is a common error for writers to mistake Tal-kan, which is in Khurasan, for Tae-kan, which is in Tukharistan; and these errors are contained in the TarTkh-i-Jahan-Kushae, and other works consulted by me, which led me to suppose that our author's statement at page 290 might possibly be wrong, but he was perfectly correct, and the others wrong. At page 1016, likewise, our author mentions Walishtan as the identical place invested by the Mughals which Sultan Jalal-ud-Din marched to relieve, and there the details will be found.
Page 290, note *.—Tal-kan had fallen after a long siege, and before the Chingiz KJian set out in pursuit of the Sultan. The writers, who mistake that place for Tae-kan, make the Chingiz Khan move towards Ghaznin by way of Andar-ab, Bamian, and Kabul, thus making the geography suit their statements. He reached Ghaznin by a much more direct route ; and such a place as Bamian is not once referred to. See page 1016, and note 6.
Page 318, line 1.—" Aytkin-abad." From the way in which the first part of this word is written elsewhere, and what is stated at pages 350 and 448, and in note fi, this might be more'correctly written Ai-Tigin-abad, and might refer to Tigin-abad, about which so much is said, but the site of which, unless old Kandahar stood on it—which I am sometimes inclined to think, because the latter name begins to be mentioned when the other disappears —has been altogether lost.
Page 319, line 1.—" Tajir-Koh." This I believe to be the Nakhjir of Baihaki, or in some way connected with it.
Page 319, line 11.—It was not my MSS. which " enabled" me " to correct" the words " the fifth mountain is Faj Hanisdr" in Elliot (see vol. viii., p. xviii.), but the knowledge that faj is a common term for a defile or pass, in the same way that I was aware what rasiat meant, and that " the mountains of R&si&t" was, and is, an impossible translation, whether "worthy of consideration " or not. I was also aware that " Sarha-sang" was not a proper name, as supposed, and rendered in Elliot, which Mr. Dowson wisely passes over in his "seriatim examination," but two very simple, everyday words.
Page 341, note 7.—See note at page 348, last para. Bahram Shah is said to have died in 543 H., the year previous to Baha-ud-Din, Sam, the Ghuri, but our author distinctly states at page hi that Bahram Shah was succeeded by his son nine years later, namely, in 552 11. The former date may refer to the Rihlat.
Page 370, line 4 from the bottom.—The meaning usually assigned to Sar-i-Jan-dar, as here given, is not correct, but, at page 603, I have mentioned its correct signification. See also pages 410 and 447.
Page 378, line 8.—Kilaf, or Kilif, is probably the town on the Oxus of that name, only, in our maps, it is placed on the farther (north) bank.
Page 379, note —See page 469, and Appendix A., page ii.
Page 391, note 8.—As subsequently shown, 'Ighrak was the name of a Turk-man tribe, and the territory held by those people was sometimes called after them. See pages 1015 and 1043.
Page 392, last line. —The Urgan here mentioned may possibly refer to Urgun of Ghaznin. See my " Notes on Afghanistan." page £5.
Page 427, last para, of note —"Rasif." The name of this place is also written Arsuf—J^!—in several histories, the first letter being placed second.
Page 429, line 4, and note 4. —Raz is the name of a place near Sabzwar,
C1
ADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS.
but the Imam was probably styled Razi, not as being a native of that place but of Rai, the inhabitants of which are styled Razi.
Page 433.—The Beghu, referred to here, and in note 6, also written Beghun, With the "n" nasal, is the name by which the Karluks or KarlGghs are also known, an account of whom is given in the notice of the Afrasiyabi rulers at page 909. In MS., the letters j and ^ are very liable to be mistaken one for the other, as the point of the latter is often omitted.
Page 435, line 13.—The Hazar-Darakhtan here mentioned is not that northeast of Ghaznin, but more to the west, on the way from that city towards the Bamian district. There are several places so called.
Page 477, note \—I think it probable that all the errors that have been written as to the gates of Ghaznin having been shut against the Sultan by his most trusted slave, and his successor to the throne of Ghaznin, have arisen from the act and name of the slave, mentioned in the text above, Ayyah, Juki (Sabuk-Tigln's Turkish name was Juk. See ante), who seized the bridle of the Sultan's charger, and dragged him out of the fight. The '' king of Multan " is no other than the Khokhar Rae.
Page 482, note, line 18 from bottom.—Amir Muhammad, son of Abi 'All, was the Sultan's kinsman, and also son-in-law to the late Sultan, Ghiyas-ud-Din. He was entitled Ziya-ud-Dln before he succeeded to the throne of Firuz-koh after the death of his father-in-law, upon which he was styled Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din.
Page 488, note —" The year 4 of his rule," mentioned in the second para., cannot refer to his rule in Hind, because 589 H. was the year in which Dihli was made the capital, as mentioned at page 469. Lahor was acquired as early as 582 H., but some say in 583 H.
Page 495, line 9.—It is probable that the name Aetkin would be more correctly Ai-Tigin, for both may be written as one word thus—and as two fjJJ v^l
Page 499, note 3.—This requires a little explanation. The lower road did not lead by the Dara'h of Karman, but the northern or higher routes did; one leading by Kohat to Peshawar, and the other through Bannu. The route by Kabul, and Nangrahar, or Nek-Nihar, or Nek-Anhar, through the Khaibar faj or defile, was rarely used at the period in question. The flourishing province of Karman, so called after the small Dara'h of that name, in those days was of considerable extent, and very populous. In after years, at the period of Akbar Badshah's reign, it constituted the Sarkar of Bangash, but its condition had greatly changed for the worse. The " lower road" into Hind was by the Gumul. See "Notes on Afghanistan," etc., previously referred to, Section Second.
Page 503, note a.—The Jalal-ud-Din, referred to in line 7, cannot, from the dates, refer to the gallant Sultan of Khwarazm, but to Jalal-ud-Din, 'All, son of Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, Ghuri, of Bamian. See page 493, and note at page 527.
Page 5x3, note last line, should be I-bak-i-Shil, as repeated in the second line over leaf, or the nickname would not be complete, for I-bak, alone, does not convey the meaning ascribed to it, from the simple fact that at least half-a-dozen I-baks are mentioned in this work, and the whole of them could not have each had a fractured finger.
Page 525, line 2. — It must not be supposed from our author's mode of narrating events that Malik Kutb-ud-DTn set out from Lahor for the presence of Sultan Matmiud, the late Sultan?s nephew. It is only his way of relatingADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS.	li
events which happened subsequently, before others which happened previously. Malik Kutb-ud-Din had gone to join the late Sultan in the expedition against the Khokhars, as related at page 604, under the reign of I-yal-timish. and had not left the Panj-ab. Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, was assassinated on the 3rd of Sha'ban, the eighth month of 602 H., and Malik Kutb-ud-Din, according to our author, assumed sovereignty at Lahor in Zi-Ka'dah, which is the eleventh month. But there is, I think, no doubt that the correct date of his assuming sovereignty was 605 H., as stated at page 398, for it was only in that year that he received his manumission from Sultan Mahmud ; and it is very certain that an unmanumitted slave could not assume sovereignty. It is very possible, however, that Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, who had been made Sultan of Ghur on the death of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad, may have sent Kutb-ud-Din the investiture of Hindustan when Sultan Mu'izz-ud-DTn was assassinated, and before he was himself ousted by his rival, Mahmud, to whom Kutb-ud-Din, as stated at page 398, sent soliciting his manumission. See also note to page 525, para. 2.
Page 529, note *.—It is barely possible that the words Kutb-ud-Dfn's "brother's son"—ts\j —may have been intended by Abu-I-Fazl and others, and that in some copies the word may have been left out by the scribes, but, whether Abu-1-Fazl says so or not, it is clearly stated that Kutb-ud-Din had no son : still, on the other hand, we are not told that he had a brother. An adopted son is by far the most probable.
Page 531, last line.—This word, like Ai-Tigin, may be, more correctly, Ai-Timur, as no diacritical points are given in the text.
Page 539.—The Khalj, not " Khilj," are by no means "hypothetical," but a well-known tribe, as may be seen from these pages. See Elliot, vol. viii., p. xviii. There was no "army of Khilj," but a contingent from the Khalj tribe served in the army of the Sultan of Khwarazm. A Turk tribe, or part of a tribe, all the males being armed, was a lashkar in itself; and who and what the Khalj were who sought refuge in Sind is explained in the note. That these few formed " all the forces of Khwarizm" is a blunder pure and simple. What the forces of Khwarazm were composed of is mentioned in many places in this work.
Page 551, text, para. 2.—Two or three copies of the Persian text have these additional words at the beginning of the para. : " For one or two years, in this manner, he used," etc.
Page 553, note 5, line 7.—559 H. is a printer's error for 590 H., as the context plainly shows.
Page 562, note, last para., line 4, where "Dinja-pur" occurs, is also a mere press error, unobserved by the printer's reader, for Dmaj-pur. It is correctly given in the preceding note pages 558—559, and Dinaj-pur should be read in all places.
Page 567, line n.— " Nunis " is incorrect : it is an error in the text of 5 for J The Tunis are described farther on, page 1157. The Kar-battan of our author may be Shigatze of the latest maps, or where Shigatze now stands ; and the great river in which the Musalman troops perished is, doubtless, the Sanpo. They must have penetrated to within a few marches of Lhasa. Names of places become changed in the course of six or seven centuries, especially when old dynasties, one after the other, have been overturned, and others have arisen.
Page 581.—See Elliot's India, vol. viii., p. xx. The Editor, Mr, Dowson, does not see the least necessity for my criticism of the incorrect
C 2lii
ADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS.
translation of this sentence in vol. ii. of that work, and says that the words are (in the text) "Nan-i khurish-i safriyana," and that "bread for travelling food" is its literal translation, explained in dictionaries as "travelling provisions," and adds that mine is " a paraphrase, not a translation."
Safar certainly means "journey," "travelling," etc., but " safr" does not. The printed text, which Mr. Dowson says he so implicitly followed, has the words before the " travelling food." What has become of them in the "literal translation"? The words for the food are not " nan-z'-khurish-i safriyana,"—there should be no izafat after nan—but nan-kjiurish-i-safaridnah, nan-k^urish being a well-known compound word, signifying some dainty or savoury morsel to eat along with bread, such as meat, fish, cheese, pickles, or the like, and is equivalent to the 'Arabic word ^jI which word, as well as nan-k&urigh, he will probably find in his dictionary if he refers to it.
Page 582.—There is no necessity to " venture upon any explanation of the position " of Basan-kot, as suggested by Mr. Dowson, because it is sufficiently well known ; but, in Elliot, the proper name has been left out entirely.
Page 583, note 9.—"To better his means." The next page shows how he bettered them. He came, as others still come from the very same parts, to better his means, and the word in the Translation is correct as rendered. He was an eminent ecclesiastic and good preacher, and was, therefore, invited to deliver "a discourse" before the pious and orthodox Sultan and his Court, as I have translated the sentence, and as any one else would do who knew what he was translating.
Mr. Dowson, however (vol. viii., p. xxi.), " cannot admit Major Kaverty's improved rendering of the words," although he is himself " not satisfied with the MunshVs rendering in Elliot 'his name was mentioned at Court,'" and considers '' Having recited a co mm em or a live (speech or ode) he came to Court," would be much better, or, he thinks, " the author's meaning would have been more clearly rendered [mark the words] by He came to Court and delivered an eulogistic speech."
In other places he can admit "preach," "sermon," and even "discourses," which is the same in signification as " discourse" used by me.
At page 615 of this Translation, our author—himself a good preacher and ecclesiastic of repute—says he was called upon, on first entering Hind, to deliver discourses within the audience tent of Sultan I-yal-timish when that Sultan was investing Uchchah. The corresponding place in Elliot is page 326 of vol. ii., but the whole passage has been left out, and so we have no "commemorative speech or ode," nor an " eulogistic speech."
At page 619, our author relates, that, during the time the same Sultan was investing Gwaliyur, he "was commanded to deliver discourses at the private pavilion of the Sultan;" that "three times in each week discourses were fixed ;" that "in Ramazan—the fast month—a discourse used to be delivered daily ;" and that "ninety-five times congregations -were convened at the entrance of the Sultan's pavilion." The words of our author here, as elsewhere, I have rendered literally ; and the printed Persian text agrees with the MSS. I used. See also page 745.
The corresponding place in Elliot is page 379, and there it is stated that the author "was ordered to preach in turns [sic, but not in the original] at the door of the royal tent;" that "Discourses were appointed to be delivered three times every week;" and winds up with " Ninety-five times religious assemblies were convened at the royal tent."
At page 651, our author says "a discourse was delivered" by him in theADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS.	liii
|Casr, named Safed [White Castle], and the same word is again used two lines under.
The corresponding place in Elliot is page 338, and it is rendered, '' there was a sermon in the Palace of the Whitt-roof," and two lines under " sermon " is again used.
At page 656, our author again says, on the news of the Lahor disaster, that —and the rendering is literal—"to the writer of these lines the Sultan gave command to deliver a discourse, and the people pledged their fealty [anew] to the Sultan." In a note I say, "Compare Elliot, vol. ii., p. 340, for, at that page, the corresponding passage of the text is thus rendered, 'The Sultan assembled the people of the city at the White Palace [there is no Whitz-roof here], and the writer of this book received orders to preach and induce the people to support the Sultan.' " This too is literal possibly.
Again, at page 845, our author says—and the translation is literal—that he, on the occasion of the invasion of Sind by the Mughal infidels, '' by command, delivered an exhortation with the object of stimulating to holy warfare, and the merit of fighting against infidels," etc.
The corresponding place in Elliot is page 379, which is there rendered "the author received orders in the royal tent to compose an ode, to stir up the feelings of the Muhammadans and to excite them to warlike fervour for the defence of their religion and the throne." This is certainly very far from literal, even without the " ode."
Which is the most probable, the delivery of an exhortation, lecture, sermon, or discourse, by an eminent preacher and one of the highest ecclesiastics in the kingdom, on such an occasion, or " the composition of an ode" ? and would " odes " be delivered three times a week, and " religious assemblies convened " ninety-five times to "compose" or listen to "odes" or " eulogistic speeches " ? The very idea of such a thing is absurd.
Now I must mention that in every instance here referred to in which I have used "discourse "or " exhortation," the very same word is used in every copy of the Persian text, the printed text included, and that word is jSjj and it was ignorance of the correct signification of this simple word, the idiom of the language, and the usages of the Musalmans, which has given rise to all these blunders, and yet they must not be noticed !
There are several other instances in our author's work of the delivery of discourses, lectures, or exhortations. At page 190 it is stated that his grandfather, an eminent ecclesiastic and preacher, was called upon to deliver a discourse—jSJJ—before the ruler of Sijistan ; and the subject he chose for his discourse or lecture was "on defiling emissions." Mr. Dowson "cannot admit" my "improved rendering" of the word "discourse" forJJ Does he think '' the author's meaning," in this instance, " would have been more clearly rendered" by " He came to Court and delivered a eulogistic speech on defiling emissions," or that he " composed an ode " on the subject ?
Because, in the course of my work, I have had to point out such like errors as these—but this last " is a gem of its kind"—Mr. Dowson, in the Preface to vol. viit. of Elliot's India, must call it " hostile criticism;" and has been so foolish as to dig up "the late Lord Strangford," who, to suit certain purposes, had the assurance to write a criticism on my Pusljto works, without knowing a single word of the language, except " what he read up for the purposes," in the course of a few days, as I was informed on undoubted authority. I could say much more on this subject, but I will only remark here that the writer's object was not attained, and that I hope he possessed a more practicalliv
ADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS.
knowledge on the other subjects upon which he is said to have written. Better Mr. Dowson had admitted the errors, and eschewed "ghaugkd." It seems that a writer must shut his eyes upon, and conceal the most palpable errors in Oriental history and geography for fear of "hurting the susceptibilities of those who made them," and must refrain from correcting them lest he be declared "hostile" and ".offensive." But I undertook this "Translation," and have devoted years to it, to correct errors.
Page 587, note 4.—Mr. Dowson is not altogether disingenuous in his "Examination" of my criticisms, and in this one, xxxiii. of his replies, he would make it appear that I objected to his rendering of the words " territories of Lakhnauti," at page 319 of the volume referred to, but what I say is, that there is nothing, even in the printed text, to warrant such a statement as " that Jaj-nagar ever formed part of the Lakhanawati territory." They were totally different : one was a Muhammadan state, the other Hindu.
Page 600, note 4.—Mr. Dowson appears to have assumed that, because herds or droves of horses are mentioned in the same page with merchants, the latter may be turned into '' a dealer." There is nothing in the original to show that the merchants were horse-dealers, but the contrary ; and the herds of horses— not " a drove," for the plural form is used—evidently belonged to the Ilbari tribe because the pastures are also mentioned. I contend that the bazarganan —here too the plural form is used—were not necessarily horse-dealers any more than ajj-dealers, cow-dealers, or any other dealers. The word bazargan signifies a merchant, but, in the translation in Elliot, the words, '' into the pastures " have been left out.
Mr. Dowson considers this last criticism "a gem of its kind;" and, at the beginning of his "Examination" of my criticisms, says he has noticed and examined them seriatim." He is mistaken: a great many "gems" are passed over unnoticed by him, and not with reference to the Tabakat-i-Nasiri only ; for example, at pages 311, 557, 579, 580, 664, 686, 687, 853, 1023, and several other places.
Page 623, and note 8.—For the identification of Banian see my "Notes on Afghanistan," page 281.
Page 633, note 7.—Further research has shown that this Turkish title should be read Tai-shT. See reference to page 732 farther on.
Page 644, note 4, para. 2. — Balka Kha.11 is referred to at length at page 1283. The name of this monarch is generally written with "r"—Barka—as our author writes it, but in Turkish words "1" and "r" are often interchangeable. See page 617 and note 5.
Page 645.—The Turkish name of Malik IJditiyar-ud-Din is sometimes written Kara-Kash, and sometimes Kara-Kush. and Kara-Kiish. which last two forms are the most correct ones, and signify, literally, "a large black bird," kush or kush signifying a bird in general, but the term Kara-Kush is the name by which the Golden Eagle is known in Turkistan. Such names often occur, as for example Kara-Sunkar, a species of black or dark falcon. Kara-Kush was also the name of the celebrated engineer from Egypt, who built the citadel of Al-Kahirah, and had fortified Acre, and took part in its defence when besieged by the Christians in 1189 A.D., which was considered "one of the mightiest events of the middle ages."
Page 677, note 6.—I have previously referred to the identification of Banian. Instead of "hilly tract west of" read "hilly tract west of the Jhilam," etc. The year 644 refers to the Rilplat, which is equivalent to 654 H. The details will be found at page 1201.ADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS.	lv
Page 716.—As the Ulugh Khan's son, whose Turkish title was Bughra Khan, and his Musalman title Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud—and evidently so named after his father's sovereign and son-in-law—married a daughter of Sultan Nasir-ud-DIn, Mahmud Shah, it is very evident that the idle tales about the latter having only one wife must be incorrect. He must have had more than one, or a concubine at least, since the Bughra Khan could not possibly have married a daughter of his own sister, even though she is the only wife mentioned. As this daughter of the Sultan had children by the Bughra Khan, and a son of hers, Kai-Kubad, succeeded her father, Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Balban, Sultan Nasir-ud-DIn, Mahmud Shah, can scarcely be said to have left no offspring or heir, unless she died shortly before her father, but even then an heir survived.
Page 717, note para 8. The Malik of Kabul is an error on the part of the writer from whom this extract was taken, or the scribe who copied it possibly, for the Malik-i-Kamil, an account of whom is given at page 1274.
Page 732, and note 9.—The title of Malik Nusrat-ud-Din is, correctly, Tai-sii, not Ta-yasa'I. It is a Turkish title. The scribes appear to have read the three diacritical points of £ as s See Additional Note, page 866, para. 7.
Page 901, note, para. 4.—Gardez is not really in Karman,. but, at the period in question, it was included in the province of Karman. See " Notes on Afghanistan," page 75.
Page 932, note, para. 4.—The word I-lash, in the original is possibly an erroi1 for Talash, which would be written u-^j' the two points above instead of below making all the difference. I-lash and Uamish are both plainly written, however, in several works. Talas, also written Talash, is the name of a city of Turkistan. There is also a little district so called immediately north of Lower Suwat.
Page 987, note, para. 1, line 6.—'' Darah of the SarTgh-Kol " [J/]—the latter a Tajzik word—is, literally, Valley of the Yellow Lake, a mistake constantly made. The correct name is "The Lake in, or of, the Sarigh Kol" [Jyj—the last a Turkish word—or Yellow Valley.
Page 1043, note —The most correct mode of writing this word is Gibarl or Gibari, and not "Gabarl." The fort referred to near the Indus is known to the Afghans, and other inhabitants of the locality, as Gafl Kapura'h. See "Notes 011 Afghanistan," page 247.
Page 1201, note, para. 5, line 2 from end. —Can the Ch,ingiz Khan here mentioned be the person referred to whose coin is given by Thomas, in his "Pathan Kings of Dehli," page 91 ? See also pages 711, 784, 792, and 884.
Page 1216, note, para. 3.—Jang, in Turk!, signifies "cold," and, if the word he read Chang, it means "dust" in the same language. We have a tract called Kara-Kum, or Black Sand, and another called Kara-Kuram, or Black Shale, etc., and, therefore, a Kara-Jang, or Black Cold, or a Kara-Chang, or Black Dust, is not improbable after all.
Page 1220, note, last line.—The great river Ka'an-Ling here referred to is evidently "the Kyan-lin" of the Chinese, mentioned six paragraphs farther on.
Page 1229, note 8.—The " Ibn " prefixed to the word would rather indicate that "the 'Alfcami" is the father's name.ERRATA.
Page 9, note for Zu-l-Yamanain read Zu-l-Yamanain in all places.
10,	line 6, ,, A'yan	„ A'yun, also at page 30, line 11. ,, ,,20, „ Ahwaz ,, Ahwaz in all cases.
1, >, 19. >» 'Mf	„ 'Irajr.
11,	,, 3, ,, Talhah	,, Talhah.
12,	„ 12, should be Mawara-un-Nahr in all places where otherwise, not
Mawar, the last syllable of the word having escaped notice for some time. It is correctly written subsequently.
14,	line 17,for Al-Mutasim read Al-Mu'tasim.
15,	,, 3, ,, Zu-l-Hijjah ,, Zu-l-Hijjah always.
,, ,, 16, ,, Muhammad-I-Tahir read Muhammad-i-Tahir. *9> » 3» »» There should be a comma after Saraj.
21,	,, 7 from bottom. After Lais should be a semicolon. ,, ,, 20, for Lais read Lais,
22,	note 8, ,, Shapur, and Ya'kub read Shapur, and Ya'^ub in all cases.
23,	,, 11 Badghais read Badghais.
24,	11 3i 11 Jami'-ut-Tawarikh read Jami'-ut-Tawarikh. „ „ „ NaVib	„ Nal^ib.
25,	line 7, ,, Muhammad Bas^ir ,, Mufcammad-i-Bagliir, that is, son
of Basljir, which he was.	#
„ note2, ,1 Ibrahami	,, Ibrahimi.
27, line 15, „ Khaddat	„ Khaddat.
29, 11 51 n Ifasghar is writen in other places Kashghar. 11 11 7> »> Iran read I-ran always.
32,	note „ Hafc „ Hakk.
33,	line 18, ,, Zakria read Zakaria, also at page 37, note 9.
34,	note 8, ,, Haft Aklim read Haft Ifclim.
35,	,, ,, Dowati and dcrwat read Dawati and dawat. ,, ,, 4, ,, Ibrahami	,, Ibrahimi.
36,	line 9, and page 38, line 16, for Nayab read Na'ib, and in other places.
38,	note for MS.	„ MSS.
39,	line 4, also page 63, for Jibal read the Jibal, and where otherwise.
40,	last line, and note 4, ,, Alb-Tagin read Alb-Tigin, as in other places. 44, line 2 from bottom „ Hisam ,, Husam in all cases.
45i ». 25, for I-lak _	„ I-lak.
46, ,, 15.—Abi 'Ali is often written Abu 'All, and both are of the same
meaning, and sometimes Bu is written for Abu. ,, note *, third line from bottom, should be "from Kashghar to Chin, not, the Jlhun."
52,	lines 3 and 10, and note *,for ZI-Ka'dah read Zl-Ka'dah. ,, note 8, for Ibrahim	,, Ibrahim.
,, ,, 8, line 13 from bottom, for Abu Isma'Il read Abu Ibrahim.
53,	last line of text,	,, Ilyas	,, Ilyas.Iviii
ERRATA.
Page 58, line 2, the comma after " he " is redundant. ,, ,,2 from bottom for " Tabri" read Tabari.
59, ,, 10, for " Musil" read Mausil, as correctly written in other places. 61, ,, 18, ,, "diffe-rent" read differ-ent, the printer has incorrectly
divided the word. 64, note para. 2, for Burhan Kati read Burhan-i-Kati' always. 70, ,, 2, for " Ghazi "	,, Ghazi.
72, ,, 6, para. 3, line 2, should be " Amir Mansur, son of Nuh, son of Nasr.'
77, ,, , first line after the Persian, for " Tawarikh " read " Tawarikh."
80,	,, 5, line 2, for "Mahmud " read " Mahmud." ,, ,, 5, ,, 2, ,, "overcome" ,, "overcame."
81,	,, 4, ,, 4, ,, " different place to " read " different place from."
86,	,, , ,,28, ,, " Al-Zawzani " read " Az-Zawzani " in all places.
87,	„ , para. I, „ "'Amid"	„ "'Amid."
,, ,, , ,, 2, line 6.—The words "works of" have been left out after "in."
88,	„ 5, for " Jalal-ul-Millat" read " Jamal-ul-Millat."
,, ,, 6, line 6,for "Mamluks" read "Mamluks," and next line, after " contrary to" a comma is required.
89,	,, 8, line 9, for " Iyaz " read " Ayaz," also at page 102, note 4. go, line 14, " Mawdud " should be "Maudud" in all cases.
97t >> T-Z,for " Sullman " read " Suliman."
101,	,, 23, the date should be 443 H., as in note 9, page 102, not 344 h. ,, „ 3, and note 1, for Bar-Ghund and Buz-Ghund read Baz-Ghund.
102,	,, 10, for Razzi-ud-Din read Razi-ud-Din. 107, note 6, line 5, for Baihaki ,, Baihaki.
109,	line 15, therg should be a comma after "the Martyr." ,, note 9, last linz,for "Taimur" read "Tfmur."
110,	,, first line.—The year 548 H. is an error for 514 H., as the
context shows, and as given immediately under.
112,	,, 1, line 6,for " western " read " eastern," the present Panj-ab is
referred to.
113,	,, , line 13, ,, "Badauni" ,, "Buda'uni."
,, ,, , para. 4, line II, for " Seyr " read " Siyar;" and after "others"
there should be a comma. ,, ,, , first line, for "Sankaran" read " Sankuran also on page
115, note 3, as at pages 450 and 498. 117, ,, , para. 3, line 2, for " Tughril" read " Taghari." 123, ,, , line 6 from bottom, for " Saljuks " read Saljuks " as before. 128, ,, , ,, 2, after " p. 142 " there should be a full stop. 134, >> B, » hfor " Gur IGian " read " the Gur Khan." ,, ,, 9, ,, last, for "early" read "yearly," the letter "y" has been allowed to fall out. 140, ,, s, line 3 from bottom, for " Khata-i " read " Khitae." 145, ,, 4, ,, 4 ,, ,, "Almut" ,, " Alamut," as at page
363 and other places. I "J I, ,, 6, line 11 from bottom, for " Ibn-i-Khalkan " read " Ibn Ehalli-kan," as in note, page 1278. ,, ,, 6, last line, for " Mughis" read " Mugh,is." 152. line 4 of the poetry.—There should be a colon after the word "field," instead of a comma.ERRATA.
lix
Page 154, line 6 of the poetry.—The note refers to "white steed's," and not to girths, therefore, the figure 9 should be over the former. ,, line 2 of text under poetry, for " Khata-i" read " Khitae." and in all other places. Khita or Khitae is the name of the country, and Khita-i is the adjective derived from it. 161, note, line 14 from bottom, for "fifth" read "fourth." 167, ,, 8, line 8,for " Yafa'i " read " Yafa'i," as in other places. I7°> >> 8> >1 10 from bottom, for " Shirwan" read " Shirwan." I7I> >> Xi for " Muhammad, Jahan Pahlawan," read "Jahan Pahlawan,
Muhammad," as in the note above. 172, ,, , line 14,for " Buwiah" read " Buwiah." 180, ,, 5,for " Changiz " read " Chingiz," as in other places. 183, line 9, after " himself seen" there should be a comma. 185, note, line 5, para. 2, and para. 3, line 4, for "Husain 'All" read " Husain-i-'AlI," with an izafat, for Husain was 'All's son according to other writers who have bin. 190, line 10 from bottom, after "learning" a comma is required.
199,	note 7, last line.—" Kurt." This name is more correctly written
" Kurat." See note page 1198.
200,	line 6, for " Mangabarni " read " Mang-barni." 202, note', „ "Sufed"	„ "Safed."
,, ,, 6, ,, " walls of his fortress," read "walls of this fortress :" the printer, after revision, let the " t " drop out.
204,	line 4, for " Lakhnauti" read " Lakhanawati," also in note 1 of
preceding page.
205,	note 4, for " Ibn-i-Khalkan," read " Ibn Kh,allikan," as in note,
page 1278.
208, ,, l.—After " Zangi" there should be a comma..
211, line 3.—There should be a comma after "Rum," and another after
"other" in line 10. 217, note, line 5 from bottom.—There should be a comma after " Vertot."
220,	„ 8.—After " force " in line 2, after " Jerusalem " and " Nov." in
the next line, and after "knights" in the next, there should be commas.
221,	,, s, line 5, for "different to " read " different from."
222,	line 11, - ,, "Aziz"	,, "Afzal."
225, note 4, next to last line of para. 1, also at page 226, note 6,for "Mia-
farkin " read " Miyya-farikin," as at page 1268, and note 229, ,, s, last para., line 1, for " Mansurah " read " Mansuriyah • and
" Kaif or Kayif" appears to be meant for " Katif." 235.—There should be no comma between " Abl " and " Muhammad " in lines 16 and 19; and for " Kutlagh," in the latter read " Ku tlagh," and in all cases.
242, note 6, para. 1, for " Dajlah" read " Dijlah," as in other places.
246,	,, 7, three lines from the bottom, instead of "that man," the
sense requires "that that man," etc., the other that has been left out.
247,	„ , para. 2, line 10 from bottom, after "his brother" a comma is
required.
250, ,, «, line 4, for " Sultan Shah " read " Malik Shah," as above.
252,	,, 3, ,, 3, after " brother " should be a comma.
253,	para. 4, line 7,/«?r "Garmsir" read"the Garmsir."Ix
ERRATA.
Page 271, note, para. 1, line 2 from bottom, for " Tatar " read " Mughal."
272,	fourth line from bottom of text, and next page, line 8, and in first
line of note J, add Ehan after Ciingiz, for alone, without the Khan, the word Chingiz, which only means "the great," etc., is meaningless.
273,	note s, line 5, the number should be 5000, as at page 970, not 50,000.
Karajah and Karachah are often written the one for the other.
276,	,, , line 20, for " Kalat " read " Kal'at."
277,	line 12,for " Tamishah," read " Timmlshiah."
282,	note 5, line 10, for "Tatar" read " Mughal," also in note 9, line 3
from bottom, page 283.
283,	,, D, line 11 from bottom, for "Jlrfat" read "Jiraft," as in other
places :" the letters have been misplaced.
285,	line 2 from bottom, for " Karrman " read " Karman."
286,	,, 2, an izafat is required between Muhammad and 'All—Muham-
mad-i-'AlT—for 'All was Muhammad's father's name, as mentioned elsewhere.
>> >j ?»for " Changiz " read " Chingiz," as before.
287,	note 1, last line, for " AmTn-ul-Mulk," the more correct name is
" YamTn-ul-Mulk." See note 2, para. 3, page 1014. He is sometimes called Yamin Malik.
288,	,, 3, see under Emendations.
29°> >1 4» para. 2, line 4 from bottom, there should be a bracket after
" Ghuri," thus "Ghuri]." 292, ,, , line 5, for " "Khurdabih " read " Khurdadbih." as in other places.
295> j» > para. 1, line 3, para. 2, line 5, for "Hukal " read "Haukal,"
as correctly rendered in other places. 298j m , para. 2, line 2, read " 'Ala-ud-DIn, Kai-Kubad," not " son of Kai-Kubad."
301, ,, 2, last line, not "Saiyid" but " Sayjnd," as before. 305, line 4 from bottom, for " Dimawand " read " Damawand." 319, ,, ll, for "3£haesar" read "Ehaesar."
322, note, para. 5, line 7 from bottom, there should be a bracket before
" This seems," etc. 332, line 2, for " Razzi" read " Razi," as corectly rendered in other places.
341,	note 6, line 8, and note 7, last line,>r "'Utba " read "'Utba'."
342,	line 7 from bottom, for " Kazil " read " Kizil."
346, note 9, for " Pathora," read " Pithora," as correctly rendered at page 458. The reference, "page 125," is incorrect: it should be 391.
383, line 7, for " Saraj-ud-Dln, son of Minhaj-i-Saraj," read " Saraj-ud-
Din, son of Minhaj-ud-Din." 405, note 4, line next to last, for " different place to" read " different place from."
408, line 17, for " Iran " read " I-ran," and for " Malik " in the following
line read "Malik." 4l3i >> i3j for " cholic" read " colic." 415, note the reference should be " page 489," not " 205." 420, line 12,for " 'Arifain" read " 'Arifm."
423, note 8, para. 3, for "Nusherwan" read " Nus^irwan," or, as it is also written, "Noshirwan."ERRATA„
lxi
Page 426, note line 16, for " Tal-kan " read " Tae-kan," and see notes, 1008.
435» »» 4> line last,/or " See his reign," read, " See his brother's reign," etc., and see pages 495, 496.
464, ,, 7, next to last line, for "pears " read "spears," and in the following line for "voir" read " awir:" the "s" in the first line and the " a " in the latter, were carelessly allowed to fall out, and were not detected by the printer's reader.
470, ,, , para. 1, last line, for "Changiz" read "the Ch,ingiz," and for " Ung " read " the Awang," as in note at page 940.
484, ,, , para. 4, "posaession" is the printer's devil's mode of spelling "possession," and passed by the printer's reader.
489, last line of text and under, for " Lakhanawati " read always "Lakhanawati " if "n " and " t " are not marked correctly.
491, line 3 from bottom, for " Janabad " read "Junabad." It is also called Gunabad by Tajziks, and is in the Kuhistan.
496, note 9, line 8, for "firs" read "first;" line 12, for "mounta" read "mountain;" line 16, for "wi" read "with;" in the next for "o" read "or;" and in the'next note, line 1, for "tha" read " that;" and in next line from bottom, for " othe " read " other." The printer has very carelessly allowed six letters to fall out from the ends of as many lines.
499, ,, , para. 2, line 7,for "Toris" read " Turis."
504, ,, *, last line, for " etrms " read " terms." Through some mystery connected with the printer's art, proofs after being read over and corrected time after time, get changed again, and the printer's reader passes them a§ "read for press."
521, „ , para. 3, line 10, after Taj-ul-Ma'asir there should be a bracket and a comma, not a full stop, for the sentence is unfinished. It should stand thus " Taj-ul-Ma'asir]," etc.
530, last line of text, for " Malik " read " Malik." ,, note, line 2, the 'Arabic J1 has, through the printer's error, beeii turned into Y=H a mistake liable to occur, but the signification is evident from the interpretation.
532, „ *,for " Inda-khud " read " Indda-Miud."
535, „ , para. 5, line 2, and page 540, note, para. 3, line next to last, for " Changiz" read " Ch,ingiz."
543> u > sixth line from the bottom. Here again, through carelessness in printing, three letters have been let drop out, and have been unnoticed—" n e "for " on the."
548, ,, s, line $,for " wati " and "watt" read "wati" and "wati" with " t," as in the word immediately above.
550,	,, 5, line 4, for " Karmah-nasah " read Karam-Nasah, or Karam-
Nasa.
551,	,, 5, next to last line, for " Hizabar" read "Hizabr," as at page
549, line 11 of text.
556, line 9, after "kingdom " there should be a comma.
559, note 2, line 3,for" Nudia" read " NudJa." ,, ,, 8, para. 2, line 6, the comma after " Lakhanawati " is redundant.
564, ,, 2, line 7 from bottom, should be " Qhingiz " not " Changiz."
585,	,, 7» » I, and line $,for " Barinda " read " Barindah."
586,	,, », „ 4, for " Dhakali " read " Dhakah."
594, ,, the reference "page 219," should be 319.Ixii
ERRATA.
Page 595, note 2, line 5, for " Nasir-ud-DTn, 'Iwaz," read " Nasir-ud-Din-i-'Iwaz," with an izafat, that is, son of 'Iwaz, for Ghiyas-ud-Din. 'Iwaz, was his father. 597, ,, 3, line 3, for " very different to " read " very different from." 602, ,, 3, ,, 2, ,, "Nasir"	,, "Nasir."
610, ,, , para. 2, line 1, for " D'Ahsson " read " D'Ohsson." 615, last para, of note next to last line, for "page 389 " read "page 398."
621,	note line 12,for "minarah " read "manarah " as before.
622,	,, , ,, 5 from bottom of last para., for "Afaghinah" read
" Afaghinah." 627, line 9, after " Yal-duz " there should be a comma. » „ 15. for " Gujah " and " Kujah " read " Gujah " and " Kujah," as at page 750. , 637, ,, 11, after " justice " there should be a comma. 642, ,, 12, " Aet-kin." See " Additions," reference to page 318.
650,	note "line 2, for "and to the office" read "and refers to the
office," etc.
651,	„ 7, para. 2, line 3, for " different statement to" read "different
statement from." 662, ,, line 3,for " 'Abbasis " read " 'Abbasis." 680, ,, 6, para. 3, line 3, for " Kinnanj " read " Kinnauj." 690, end of note a,for " page 694" read "page 695." ,, note 1, end of para. I, the printer has again carelessly let the letter ^ fall out.
694, ,, 4, para. 2, line 3, for "Nayab" read "Na'ib." 7°S> 7» » S» m 3j »» "ma-was" „ " mdwds." 706, line 3 under the Twelfth Year, for " Ban " read "Bat. Bat Khan is
No. xvi. among the Maliks of Hind. 712, text, last line, for " Balaram " read "Balaram," and also in note 9,
three lines from the bottom. 716, note 5, para. 2, line 12., for " Ziya" read "Ziya." 720, text, line II, for " ft ul-'Alamln " read " fi'l-'Alamin." 726, note 4, the printer has put "See the reign under" instead of "See
under the reign," and the printer's reader has passed it over. 749, line l$,for " Awwal" read " Awwal." 759, note 6. for " Shart-badar " read " Shart-bardar." 75tj >t 6 from bottom, after "which" there should be a comma. 752, ,, s,for "ee" read "See." Here also a letter has fallen out. 761, line 11, for " Shahnagi " read " Shahnagl."
764, ,, 16, for " Lakhanawati" read " Lakhanawati," as in tenth line above.
775, note, para. 4, line next to last, for " stated above " read "as stated above."
778, ,, 5 para. 5, line first, for "as far it goes" read "as far as it goes."
780, ,, ",for " page 650" read " 660." 784, line 12, "Kurt." See page 1198.
809,	note 2, line 5, for " Tukharistan" read " Khurasan."
810,	,, ,, 2, "664 H." is an error for " 646 H."
820, line 6 from the botttom, "-i-," after Kashli Khan is a printer's blunder: it should be " Kashli.Khan, I-bak-us-Sultani."ERRATA.
Ixiii
Page 822, line 10, for " Zf-Ka'-dah " read " Zi-Ka'dah."
824, ,, 16, and next page, line 9, as before noticed, instead of " Ta-
yasa'I," the correct title is " Tai-shi." See note, page 866. 838, ,, 15, after " Kasmandah " there should be a comma. 867, note, line 13 from bottom, for "Balaban'" read " Balban." 872, „ , para. I, line 8,for " Sa^labs " read " Saklabs." ,, ,, , ,, 8, ,, next to last, for " different to " read "different from."
875, ,, , ,, 8, ,,	,, , after the words "vowel points,"
the comma is redundant. 877, ,, , para. 3, third line from bottom. "Kafchak," etc., may be also written '' Kifchak " and " Khifchak." as at pages 254, 796, and 914 : with " i " in the first syllable is, perhaps, the most correct. 890, ,, , line 2, " Irdlsh" is also written with "a"—Ardigh, as in note at page 950, para. 3. ,, ,, , para. 1, line 5 from bottom, for "Kol or Lake Bae-Kol," read " Kol or Lake, the Bae-Kol," etc. 892, ,, , para. 6, line 5,for " ocasion " read " occasion."
899.	»» . » 2> >» 4, » " Taijiut" „ "Tanijut,"asatpage938.
900,	,,. , ,, 2, ,, 4, ,, "Mughuls" ,, " Mughals." 908, „ , „ 2, „ 7, „ "Itsiz" „ "Itsuz."
913, „ , „ 3, „ 5, „ "Taya-ghu",, "Taya-ghu." 920, ,, , last line in page, ,, " Muran " ,, " Mur-an." 936» » 4, para. 2, line 3, ,, " Timur-chi," ,, " Tamur-cht."
956,	„ , „ 2, „ 5, „ "Jabbah" „ "Jabah."
957.	>> » »» 3» >» next to last, for "Ja'fir" read "Ja'far."
968,	text, line 2, after "sovereignty" there should be a comma.
969,	note 9, for "shrab" read "shardb." 973, „ , line rj,for "Juji" read " Juji."
979,	line for "jazbi " read i(juzbi."
980,	note 7, para. 2, line 2, for " Ghu-?»al!gh " read " Ghu-Baligh."
981,	„ , ,, 4, ». 3. »» "Guzidah" ,, "Guzfdah." 983, „ , ,, S, „ 2,,, "GurKhun" „ " Gur Khan."
985,	,, , ,, 2, „ II, ,, "sAujd"	„ "sAuja'."
„ ,, , ,, 5, „ 2, ,, " Kankuli" ,, " Jfankuli."
986,	,, , ,, 1, ,,6 from bottom, after the bracket and before
" gave him " there should be a comma. ,, „ last, line 3, for " Mughal" read " Mughal."
988,	,, , para, last, line next to last,for " Jihun " read "Jihun."
,, ,, , ,, 2, line 13, for " Bafsut" read " Baisut," as at page 1094.
989,	„ , „ 2, „ 14, „ "Tukajar" „ " Tukachar, as in the
preceding page. ,, ,, , para. 4, line 3, ,, "Fushang" ,, "Fushanj." 991. »i line 3, for " to-vedal" read "to-yedal" part of the " y " has
been broken in printing. 1002, ,, 6, line for " was styled" read "was also styled." 1010, ,, , para. 2, line 1, for " Ibn-Khalkan " read " Ibn Ehallikan," as at page 1278.
ion, 1, , para. 2, line 7 from bottom, for " Tal-kan " read " Tal-^an," and the comma after the word is redundant.
1014,	,, 2, para. 4, line 7, for " Umra" read " Umara."
1015,	,, , ,, 3. »» '2, ,, "Aghrak" ,, " Ighra^," as in other places.Ixiv
ERRATA.
Page 1020, note, para. 4, line 9, the full stop after 30,000 men is a printer's error, and is redundant.
1025, ,, , para. 4, line 1 ,for "Mamalik" read " Mamalik."
1027, ,, s, para 2, next to last linear "Taghachar" read "Taghachar," also in para. 3, line 3.
1029, note, para. 4, line 2, for " Baha-ud-Mulk " read " Baha-ul-Mulk."
1032, ,, , ,, 2, ,, 5, after " Jahan" the comma is redundant.
1046, ,, 3, line for " Al-Biruni " read " Al-Biruni."
1048, text, last line, ,, " Hirat"	,, " Hirat " as in other places.
1073,	note 4, para. 4, line 7, for " Turan " read " Turan."
1074,	,, , five lines from bottom of page, for " Shiwstan" read
" Shiwistan."
1095, ,, , line 3, for " Mughal" read " Mughal " as in line 2 above.
io99j ,, , para. 2, line 17, for " the two" read "the other two."
1116, „ , „ 3, „ 4, „ " Itmas" „ "Itimas."
1119, text, line 7 from bottom, " Ta-Ir " may also be written " Ta'ir " as in note 2, para. 3, next page.
1126, note 6, para. 2, lines 2 and 3, for " Mukanu " and "Mukatu" read " Mukanu " and " Mukatu," and also in next two paragraphs.
1132, ,, , para. 2, line 2, before " Humayun " there is an empty space for the word "to," which, through carelessness, the printer has allowed to fall out after revise, and a letter in the next to get out of its place.
1135) >> 3> Para- 2> next to ^t line, for " eve " read " even," a letter has fallen out here too.
1137, ,, , para. 4, line J,, for " tumans " read "tomans."
1161, line 15, after the words " inclined to it" there should be a comma.
1164, ,, 6,for " Chingiz " read " Chingiz." as it has been printed scores of times before.
1166, note, para. 2, line 3,for " BashghTrd" read " Bashghird."
1180, „ , „ 1, „ 4, „ "Ughul" „ " Ughul." „ „ , „ last, next to last linear " Zi-Kadah " read " 2i-Ka'dah."
1183, ,, , para. 2, line 2, for " Shiramun " read " Shiramun."
1188, end of note T, for "hat" read "that," a letter has been allowed to fall out again.
1194, note, para. 2, line 6, for " Jam!' " read " Jami' " as in fourth line above.
1196,	,) 2, line 1, here again, through carelessness, the " g" of excepting
has fallen out unnoticed.
1197,	text, line 14, and 1198, line 1 for "Isfirar" read "Isfizar." „ ,, ,, 15, " Ka-In" may also be written " Ka'In."
I20I, ,, ,, I, for '' karwans" read " karwans."
1203, ,, ,, 3, the "b " in Tabas " should be doubled thus—" Tabbas."
1220, note, second line from bottom, and next page, line 7 of note, for " Taghachar" read " Taghachar."
1234, ,, line 4, for " 'Usmanli" read "'Usmanli."
1239, ,, para. 3, line 7, for " Ilkae, or Ilka, or Ilkan," read "I-yalkae, or I-yalka, or I-yalkan."
1255, ,, , para. I, last linft, for " Ibn 'Umran" read " Ibn 'Amran."
1260, „ 6, line 3, for " Ilka " read " I-yalka."
1267, ,, e, para. 3, line for " Kurdiah " read " Kurdiah."
1276, ,, , ,, I, „ 2 from end, for " Umra " read " Umara." ,, ,, , ,, 3, ,1 10, for " Kaimiri" read "Kaimiri."THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI:
INTRODUCTORY,
being an epitome of the first six sections.
The following is a brief summary of the contents of the first six Sections of the work as an Introduction to the Seventh with which my translation begins.
section I. Account of Adam, the Patriarchs and Prophets, the ancestors of Muhammad, and the latter's history to the date of his decease.
section II. The four orthodox Khalifahs, the descendants of 'All, and the 'Asharah-i-Mubashirah, or Ten Companions or Apostles of Muhammad.
section III. and IV. The Khalifahs of the house of Ummiyah and 'Abbas, to the downfall of the latter.
Section V. The Maliks [Kings] of 'Ajam to the rise of Islam, consisting of five dynasties:—I. The Bastaniah or Pesh-Dadan. II. The Kai-anian. III. The Ashkaman. IV. The Sasanian. V. The Akasirah.
The author, quoting the Tawarikh-i-'Ajam from which he says the Shah-Namah of Firdaus! was taken, and the statements of the Fire-Worshippers, and other authentic information, states that, when Kabil slew his brother Habtl, Adam had another son born to him who was named Shis, which signifies "given by God." He was inspired, and became ruler over Adam's descendants. The Persians say this [Shis] was Gaiu-mart, son of Adam; but the Musal-mans say that it is Unnush, son of Shis, who is here referred to. In Unnush's time a son of Adam named Nabati, with his children, retired to the mountains of Jarmun, and devoted themselves to religion, and many others joined them. From the death of Adam to this period, according to Abu-1-Ma'shar-i-Munajjim, in the Kanun-i-Mas'udi, was 432 years. After some time elapsed, Nabati and his descendants came down from the mountains, and joined the
d2
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
descendants of Kabil, who had taken possession of the hills of Sham, and parts around, and who had increased beyond computation. Iblis [the Devil] had taught them the worship of fire; and drunkenness, and all sorts of other grievous sins prevailed among them. A thousand years had elapsed since Adam's death, and the rebellious sons of Kabil and Nabati began to act tyrannically. They chose one of their number to rule over them, who was named Samiarush,; and between them and the other descendants of Adam, who were just persons, hostility and enmity arose.
The sons of Shis, and others of Adam's descendants who acknowledged Shis' authority, assembled, and chose one of the Karanian Maliks, who are styled the Bastanian Maliks, to defend them from the wickedness of the sons of Kabil and Nabati; and this, the first person among the upright and just kings whom they set up, is styled Ilu-rus in the Yunani language ; and the Yunanis say, that he is the same as he whom the 'Ajamis call by the name of Gaiu-mart. He was entitled Gil-Shah, and was the first king of the Gil-wanxan dynasty, which is also named the Pesh-Dadian, and Bastanian dynasty. When this Ilu-rus became king, 1024 years had passed from the fall of Adam, and the land of Babil became the seat of his government, and the just sons of Shis, and other just descendants of Adam obeyed him. When 1162 years had passed away, the countries of 'Arab, 'Ajam, Sham, and Maghrab became settled ; and, according to the Kanun-i-Mas'udi, previous to Nuh's flood, eleven kings of the Gil-wanian dynasty had reigned.
FIRST DYNASTY : THE BASTANlAH.
I. Gaiu-mart, or Gil-Shah, surnamed Pesh-Dad, or I-ran Shah. Reigned 30 years. II. HOSHANG, who was born 223 years after Gaiu-inart's death, reigned, according to different accounts, 1400, or 400, or 40 years. III. Tha-MURAS-I-DIw-Band, great grandson of the preceding. Reigned 30 years : some say 1030. IV. JAMSHED, grandson of Hoshang, but Tabari says brother of Thamuras. Reigned 700 years. V. BlWAR-ASP, the infidel, who dethroned Jamshed, and was swallowed up in the Flood. For 1000 years after the death of Nuh there was no kingintroductory.
3
on earth, but, after that, one arose of the seed of Ham, son of Nuh, named Zuhak. VI. Zuhak, the TazI [i. e. 'Arab], He was a great sorcerer, and reigned iooo years. VII. AfrIDUN, entitled Mihr-gan. Ibrahim, the Patriarch, Tabari says, lived in his reign, which was 500 years, but Ibrahim lived in Zuhak's reign, when Nimrud reigned over Babil. VIII. I-raj, son of Afridun, reigned 40 years.
IX.	Nimrud, the Tyrant. He was great grandson of Nuh, and the first to assume sovereignty after the Flood. He perished after reigning 400 years. A son of his, Kubt, an idol-worshipper, succeeded, and reigned 100 years. After him, a son of his reigned 80 years, when the sovereignty'again passed to the former kings of 'Ajam.
X.	Manu-CHIHR, son of I-raj. Reigned 120 years, in the 60th year of which the Patriarch Musa appeared. XI. Afrasiyab, THE turk, who invaded I-ran and overthrew the dynasty. XII. Zau, son of Thamasib, son of Manu-chihr, who reigned 30 years.
second dynasty : the kai-Aniah.
I. kai-kubad, sixteenth in descent from Manu-chihr. Reigned 100 or 120 years. II. Kai-Ka-US, his son, reigned 150 years. Mihtar Sullman lived at this period. III. Kai-Khusrau, grandson of Kai-Ka-us. Died aged 150, but the years of his reign are not given. One of his champions was Rustam. IV. Kai-Luhrasib, the Tyrant. Reigned 120 years and abdicated. The Prophet Asha'ya [Isaiah] lived at this time, and Bukht-un-Nassar was leader of the forces of Sanjarib, Malik of Babil. V. Gushtasib, son of Luhrasib. Zartusht arose in this reign, Rustam died, Bukht-un-Nassar became Malik of Babil, and Jerusalem was sacked. Reigned 120 years. VI. Bahman, son of Isfandiyar, son of Gushtasib, surnarned Arda-Sher-i-Diraz-Dast [Artaxerxes Longimanus of the Greeks]. The Bani-Israil carried into captivity. Bahman marries an Isra'ili woman, who bore him a son. The Bani-Isra'il set free. Reign 22 years. VII. Huma-I [also Humae], daughter of Bahman. Married by her father and bore him Dara. She abdicated after reigning 30 years. VIII. Dara [or Darab]:i-Aicbar [Great or Elder]. He made captive the king of Rum, and imposed tribute of 100,000 eggs of
d 24	the tabakat-i-nasirl.
gold/each as large as an ostrich egg. Failakus, Iskandar's father, was king of Yunan. Dara reigned 12 years. IX. Dara-i-Asghar [Less or Younger]. Iskandar, son of Failakus, brought all Rum under subjection. Invaded and subdued I-ran. Length of reign not given. X. Is-kandar, son of Failakus, who is said to have been the son of Dara's sister married to Failakus. Iskandar died in I-ran after 12 years' reign.
third dynasty : the ashkanian.
I. Ashk [Ushk = Hushka?], styled Arfa'wA, ninth in descent from Dara-i-Akbar. Ashk reigned 10 years.
II.	Ashkan, his son, reigned 10 years. III. ShApur, his son, who totally destroyed Jerusalem. In his reign Mihtar 'IsA [Jesus Christ] was born. Shapur reigned 60 years.
IV.	Gudarz-I-Aicbar, son of Shapur. Reigned 10 years.
V.	'Gudarz-I-Asghar, his son, reigned 21 years. VI. Narsi-UL-AshghanI, who reigned 40 years. VII. klsra-UL-AshghanI, son of Narsl. He is styled also, ArdawAN-I-Akbar, and reigned 44 years. VIII. balas-ul-ash-GhAnI, who reigned 24 years. IX. Ardawan-i-Asghar, who reigned 13 years.
fourth dynasty : the sasanian.
I. Arda-Sher-UL-Tami' or BAbakAN, son of Babak, son of Sasan, descended from Kai-Luhrasib. He rose to power 266 years after Iskandar, some say 270, but the Christians, 550 years after. He reigned 14 [40?] years and 6 months. II. shapur, his son, reigned 30 years.
III.	hurmuz [Hurmaz or aormazd], who reigned 1 year and 10 months. IV. BahrAM, his son, reigned 3 years. V. Bai-IRAm, son of Bahram, who assumed the title of Shah-an-Shah [King of Kings]. He reigned 4 months : Tabari says, 4 years. VI. Narsi, son of the elder Bahramj succeeded his brother, and reigned 9 years. VII. hurmuz, son of Narsi, who reigned 7 years and 5 months. He left one of his wives pregnant, who, after six months, gave birth to Shapur. VIII. ShApur-I-Zu-L-AktAf, so called because, when at war with the 'Arabs, he had the shoulder-blades of all those who fell into his hands removed. He defeated and took prisoner the Kaisar of Rum. Shapurintroductory.
5
reigned 72 years. IX. Arda-Sher, son of Hurmuz, Shapur's brother, a great tyrant; and after 4 years he was dethroned. X. Shapur, son of Shapur-i-Zu-l-Aktaf, who was put to death by his troops after reigning 5 years and 2 months. XI. Bahram, son of Shapur, styled Kirman-Shah before his accession. He was slain by his troops after reigning 11 years, but Tabari says 15 years. XII. Yazdajird-ul-Asim [Evil-doer], also styled Kaw-khash [morose]. Killed, after reigning 21 years, by the kick of a mysterious horse, which suddenly appeared, and as quickly vanished again. XIII. Bahram, his son, styled Bahram-I-Gor, so called from having, when hunting, discharged an arrow at a lion which was about to tear a wild ass, and pierced both through. He reigned 60 years. XIV. Yazdajird, his son, who reigned 18 years, 4 months, and 18 days. XV. flruz, son of Yazdajird, who reigned 27 years. XVI. BALASH, son of Firuz, reigned 4 years. XVII. KIjbad, his son, was dethroned by his brother, Jamasib, but recovered the sovereignty again. Reigned 42 years.
fifth dynasty: the'akasirah.
I. NOSHIrwan, son of Kubad, famous for his justice and equity. Reigned 47 years, in the 40th year of which the Prophet, Muhammad, was born. II. Hurmuz, his son, reigned 11 years and 7 months, and was deposed. III. khusrau ParwIZ, son of Hurmuz, was one of the most magnificent monarchs of I-ran, and reigned 38 years, when he was put to death by his son. In the 20th year of his reign, Muhammad began to propagate his religion, and, in the 30th, fled from Makkah to Madinah, which year is called the Hijrah or Flight. IV. sherwaiah, son of Khusrau Parwiz, who died of poison 6 months after putting his father to death. V. Arda-Sher, his son, a mere child, succeeded, who was put to death by his Wazir, Shahr-arae, after he had been 1 year and 6 months on the throne. VI. shahr-arae [or Shahr-yar] usurped the throne, but was assassinated after 1 month. VII. Turan-Dukht, daughter of Khusrau Parwiz, was raised to the throne. She sent back to Rum the Cross, which her father had6
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IR|.
carried away. She died after reigning I year and 6 months. VIII. Arzumand-Dukht, another daughter of Khusrau Parwiz, succeeded, but was cruelly murdered after reigning 6 months. IX. KlSRA, son of MlHR-jalsh, a descendant of Arda-Sher, Babakan, was then set up, but was soon after dethroned and put to death. X. junaid, a descendant of Nushirwan's, was then raised to the throne, but immediately after dethroned. XI. Farrukh-zad, son of Khusrau Parwiz, who was deposed and put to death after 6 months' reign. XII. Yazdajird-I-Shahr-yar, son of IQiusrau Parwiz, who, after a nominal reign of 20 years, was assassinated by a peasant of Marw, in the 21st year of the Hijrah [a.d. 642]. In his reign the Musalmans overthrew the I-rani empire, and with Yazdajird the dynasty terminated.
SECTION Yl.
the tubba-yawa', and maliks of yaman.
The author states that he copies the account of the kings contained in this Section from the Tarikh-i-Mukaddasi, and from Tabari.
After Kahtan, son of 'Abir, son of Shalikh, son of Ar-fakhshad, son of Sam, son of Nuh, came into Yaman, Y'rab, his son, became king ; and he was the first who used the 'Arabic language. Fifteen kings are said to have reigned for a great number of years, up to the time of Haris-ur-Rayish, who is the first of the Tubba-yawa' dynasty.
I.	Haris-ur-Rayish. He was contemporary with Manu-chihr, sovereign of 'Ajam, and was subject to him. He reigned 120 years.
II.	Abrahah-i-Zu-L-Manar, son of Haris. He was subject to Manu-chihr, and reigned 180 years.
III.	AfrIKIS, son of Abrahah. He also was subject to Manu-chihr, and reigned 164 years.
IV.	Mundaz, styled Zu-L-Adghar, son of Abrahah. He was subject to Manu-chihr, and reigned 25 years.
V.	Hailad, son of Sarakhil, grandson of Haris. He was cousin of Mundaz, and son of Balkis [Queen of Saba], butintroductory.
7
by some he is said to have espoused the daughter of the king of the Jinn, and that Balkis was their daughter.
VI.	BalkIs, daughter of Hailad, became sovereign of Yaman and Maghrab. She reigned 40 years.
VII.	Un-Nashir-UN-Na'am, son of'Umaro, son of Sara-khil. He reigned 75 years.
VIII.	Shamar, son of Afrikis, son of Abrahah, styled Ra'ash—the Palsied. He was a great king, contemporary with Gushtasib and Bahman. He reigned 137 years.
IX.	Akran, son of Shamar. He reigned 53 years.
X.	Tubba', son of Akran, or Tubba'-i-Akbar. He reigned 160 years.
XI.	MALKIRAB, son of Tubba'. He reigned 35 years.
XII.	TUBBA'-UL-AUSAT [the Medium]. He was put to death by his soldiery after reigning 160 years.
XIII.	Hassan, son of Tubba,' surnamed Zu-Hassan. He was put to death by his brother 'Umaro after a reign of 5 years.
XIV.	'Umaro, son of Tubba'. He reigned 23 years.
XV.	'ABD-UL-KULAL, son of Marsad. In his reign 'ISA [Jesus Christ] lived, and 'Abd-ul-Kulal believed in him. He reigned 74 years.
XVI.	Tubba'-UL-Asghar [the Younger], son of Hassan. He made great slaughter among the Bani-Israil of Ma-dinah on account of their crimes, and slew fifty of their Mihtars. He reigned 78 years.
XVII.	Marsad, son of 'Abd-ul-Kulal. He reigned 41 years; and, after him, the dominions of Himyar and the Tubba-yawa' became restricted to Yaman.
XVIII.	Walta'ab, son of Marsad. He reigned 37 years.
XIX.	Hassan, son of Hassan. He reigned justly for 70 years.
XX.	Zu-Shanatar. He did not belong to the family of the Tubba-yawa'. How long he reigned is unknown.
XXI.	Zu-L-Nawash,1 son of Hassan, son of Hassan. Tabari calls him Zar'ab. With him the Tubba-yawa' dynasty ended, which from the time of Haris up to this period lasted 1360 years.
XXII.	Abrahah-ul-Ashram [The Scarred in the Lip],
1 Tabari calls him Zu-l-Nawas. He was a Jew.8
the tabakat-i-nasirl
Sahib-ul-Fil, son of Hasan-us-Sabbah. He endeavoured to destroy the kci'bah of Makkah, but perished with his whole army. The period of his reign and the reigns of his two sons, Yagsum [Bagsum] and Masruk, when this Habashah dynasty terminated, was 73 years, and in the last year the Prophet, Muhammad, was born.
XXIII.	Yagsum, son of Abrahah, who reigned 4 years.
XXIV.	Masruk, son of Abrahah. He was dethroned by Saif, the son of his mother by an 'Arab husband, aided by some criminals set at liberty for the purpose by command of Nushirwan, to whom Saif had complained.
XXV.	Saif, son of Zi-Yazan. He reigned a considerable time, and was subsequently slain by a Habashi left behind, who had entered his service.
XXVI.	Hariz [or Dahriz], the 'Ajami, who had accompanied Saif, son of Zi-Yazan, from 'Ajam, by command of Nushirwan, became ruler. He reigned 4 years.
XXVII.	The Marzaban, son of Hariz [or Dahriz], the 'Ajami. He succeeded his father by Nushirwan's command, and reigned over Yaman a long time. At his death his son, Sajan [Abu-Shajan ?], succeeded, and, at his death, Khur-Khusrau became king of Yaman. The reign of Nushirwan had terminated, and Hurmuz had succeeded ; and Khur-Khusrau, having rebelled, was removed.
XXVIII.	Bazan, the Muslim Malik. He became king and ruled over Yaman up to the rise of Muhammad, the Prophet. He embraced the new faith, and Yaman passed under the rule of the Musalmans.@gp- The present portion of this translation commences with Section VIT. of the original.
The first six Sections are meagre, and the first eight pages will contain a resuvii of their contents, which will be given on the completion of the work, with Title-page, and Table of Contents.
^ SYSTEM OF PRONUNCIATION.
The system of transliteration adopted in the following pages, is that known as the system of Sir William Jones, which, after some thirty years' experience, the translator conceives to be the easiest, as well as the most natural, and as easy of pronunciation [except, perhaps, the purely 'Arabic gutturals] as the original letters of the 'Arabic alphabet. Some of the new systems proposed are difficult and complicated, and, in the translator's opinion [as far as he can understand them], in many instances entirely incorrect.
/	9
The vowels are three short—a, i, u, equivalent to — — and —; and three long—a, l, u, equivalent to I — <j — j
All consonants, except the following, are pronounced precisely the same as in English :—cj—s, as th in thing, or lisped s ; ^—ch, as ch in church ; ^—strongly aspirated, and occurs only in purely 'Arabic words ; £—as ch in loch, and as German ch ; *—d, pronounced by applying the tip of the tongue inverted to the palate ; i—z, as th in thine, by 'Arabs, dth ; j—t, as r uttered by striking the point of the tongue on the palate; j—jz, as j in pleasure, or soft French j ; <J>—gh, as sh in shell; w—§, as ss in dissolve ; ,J>—z, as dwdj 1»—t, as t with a slight aspiration; Is—as English z with slight aspiration; ^—', a deep guttural without any audible aspiration, and when initial to a word the ' is placed before its vowel, as in 'All, and when not initial, after its preceding vowel, as in Mas'ud and Rafi' ; gh, a guttural sound like that produced in gargling, or Northumbrian r, and something similar to gh in ghost; j—another peculiar 'Arabic sound, produced by pressing back the root of the tongue to the throat, and partaking of the sound of k and q ; i—h, slightly aspirated ; at the end of a word it is often unaspirated. When e occurs at the end of a word preceded by a, the former is almost quiescent. The only diphthongs are ai and au.
From the above system the scholar can at once tell the origirial letters in the names of persons and places.
H. G. R.TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS REQUIRING CORRECTION.
II, note 3, for Talhah, read Talhah. 21 ,for Lais, read Lais. 23, for Al-Mawaffik, read Al-Muwafik. 23, note 1, for Badghais, read Badghais.
25, note 2, and notes 4 and 5, page 35, for Ibraham!,. read Ibrahim!. ,, for Tahir, read Tahir in all cases; and for Nizam, read Nizam. 36, note 9,for Sanjaiis, read Sijizis.
40,	last line, and note 4, for Tagin, read Tigln.
41,	note 5, for Fanakatx, read Fanakati.
58,	next to last line, for Tabri, read Tabari.
59,	line 10, and in all cases, for Musil, read Mausil. 69, paragraph 2 of note 4, line 15, for \£fread jtffi'
75, line 19, for SULTAN-UL-'AZAM, read SULTAN-UL-'AZAM. 80, note 2, for overcome, read overcame.
86, note, line 28, for Al-Zawzani, read Az-Zawzani, and in all cases. 90, line 14, and notes 4 and 5, for Mawdud, read Maudud in all cases. 97, line 13, for Suliman, read Sullman. 101, line 23, for 344 H., read 443 H.
109, line IS, for the martyr Sultan, &c., read the martyr, Sultan, &c. no, note I, line 1, for 548 H., read 514 H., and note 5,for 521 H., and 522 H., read 541 H., and 542 H.
112,	note 5, for year 523 H., read 543 H.
113,	note, line n from bottom,^;' Seyr, read Siyar.
115, line 1, and line 12, for Muhammad, Sam, read Muhammad-i-Sam
and in all cases. 137, note 3, for 555 h., read 455 h. 140, note 5, for Khata-i, read Khita-i, and in all cases.
145,	note 4, line 4 from bottom, for Almut, read Alamut.
146,	line 1, for A'ZAM, read 'AZAM. 167, note 8, line 8, for Yafa'-i, read Yafa-i.
172, note 3, paragraph 2, line 15, for up to this time, even, read up to this time even, &c., &c.
176,	note I, line 6, for Istakh,ur, read Istakhur.
177,	note 6, for 603 H., read 613 H.
184, note, line 4 from bottom, for Bamm, read Bam.THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
SECTION VII.
THE DYNASTY OF THE TAHIRI MUHAMMADAN MALIKS IN 'AJAM.
Minhaj-I-Saraj, Jurjani, the humblest of the servants of the Almighty's Court, gives, in the following pages, an account of the Tahiri Maliks [kings], whose descent, in some histories, is traced to Manuchihr Al-Malik, sovereign of 'Ajam ; and, according to which, the first of them who rose to power, was Tahir son of Al-Husain, son of Mus-'ab, son of Zarnik, son of As'ad, son of Badan, son of Mae Khusrau, son of Bahram. Mae "Khusrau was the first who embraced the faith of Islam, having been converted by 'All—May God reward him !—and received the name of As'ad. TJjis Bahram was son of Razan Murit, son of Rustam, son of As-Saddid, son of Dostan, son of Barsan, son of Jurak, son of Gusht-asp, son of Ash rat, son of Is-ham, son of Turak, son of Anshar, son of Shaid-asp, son of Azar-sab, son of Tuh, son of Ru-shed, son of Manuchihr Al'-Malik.
The Tahiri Maliks were remarkable for their virtues and equity ; and they first rose to power in Khurasan, in the time of the Amir-ul-Mumimn [Commander of the Faithful], Mamun, and in the following manner. Between the Khalifah, Muharnmad Amin, who was at
1 The Tarikh-i-Yafa'I, which is a rare and most valuable work, and highly esteemed by the early chroniclers, gives a different account. According to it the following is the genealogy of the family :—" Abu-Taiyib-i-Tahir, called Zu-l-Yamanain, son of Husain, son of Ruzaik [giving the vowel points], son of Mahan-i-Khaza'i, son of As'ad, son of Radwiah ; and, according to another tradition, As'ad, son of Radan ; and, according to another, Mus'ab, son of Talljah. Taliir's ancestor, Ruzaik, was a servant of Talhah-i-Talaliat, who was renowned for his generosity and beneficence."
B10
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
Baghdad, and his brother Mamun, who was in Khurasan, ill-feeling arose. Upon this, Amin despatched 'All 'Isa-i-Mahan2 from Baghdad into Khurasan to reduce Mamun to obedience ; and, in one of the months of the year 195 of the Hijrah, he reached Hamadan with a warlike army. Mamun appointed Harsamah3, son of A'yan, to the command of a force to oppose 'All 'Isa ; and Tahir, son of Husain, was nominated to command the van of Harsa-mah's army.
By the advice of Fazl4, son of Sahl, who was Mamun's Wazir, Mamun bestowed a standard upon Tahir, saying unto 'him at the same time, that he had bent for him a standard whieh for thirty years should lead to victory; and so it turned out, for the sway of the Tahiris lasted for upwards of thirty odd years5. Within two leagues of Rai, with 14 or 15,000 horse6, he encountered 'All, son of 'Isa, son of Mahan, who had brought 50,000 horse with him, defeated, and slew him 7, and sent his head to Mamun. He then subdued the whole of the mountain tracts of'Irak, and took Wasit and Ahwaz, and appeared before the gates of Baghdad.
After carrying on hostilities for the space of a year, Tahir captured Muhammad Amin, put him to death 8, and despatched his head to Mamun, his brother,
2	His right name is Abu Yahya-i-'AlT, son of 'Isa, son of Mahan. His two sons were also sent to serve under him ; and his army amounted to 50,000 men.
3	Tabari says Tahir was alone appointed, but, subsequently, when he asked for reinforcements, on marching from the Hulwan Pass to Baghdad, then Harsamah was sent with another army.
4	Other chroniclers of undoubted authority state that 'All, son of Abi Khalid, was the minister in question.
5	Most writers give a greater number of years than this. Their dynasty is said to have continued nearly fifty-four years. One of the poets has brought together the names of the Tahirian rulers in these two couplets :—
'' In Khurasan, of the race of Mus'ab Shah. Were Tahir, and Talhah, and 'Abd-ullah: Then a second Tahir, and a Muhammad, who, Gave up unto Ya'kub, the throne and crown."
fi Tabari says 20,000 men.
" 'All, son of 'Isa, was slain, it is said, by Da'ikl-i-Siyah, or the Black. Most writers state that Tahir himself slew him.
8 The author of the Mujmal-i-Fasih-I states, that a slave of Tahir's, Firdaus by name, slew Muhammad Amin on the 5th of Muharram, 198 H. The author of the TariJch-i-Yafa'i gives the 6th of Safar as the date.THE TAHIRI DYNASTY.
ll
together with his mantle, his rod of office, and his seal, by the hand of his uncle's son, Muhammad, son of Al-Hasan, son of Mus'ab. This event happened, and this victory was gained, on the 25th of the month Muharram, in the year 198 H.
I. TAHIR-I-ZU-L-YAMANAIN 9.
Ibn Haisam.the chronicler, and author of the work entitled " Kasas-i-Sani," whose patronymic appellation was Abu-1-Hasan, and his name Haisam, son of Muhammad, Al-Baki [Nabi ?] states, that, when the Commander of the Faithful, Mamun, removed Ghassanson of 'Ubbad, from the government of Khurasan, he conferred it, together with the government of 'Ajam, upon Amir Tahir; and that As'ad, the grandfather 2 of Tahir, before his conversion to the Muhammadan religion, bore the name of Farrukh. He was converted to the faith by Talhah 3, who gave him the name of As'ad ; and he had a son whom he named Mus'ab ; and he, Mus'ab, became resident at Fushanj4.
When the claims of the family of 'Abbas to the Khilafat were put forward, this same Mus'ab became one of the principal men and partisan leaders of that dynasty. Mus'ab had a son, Husain by name, which Husairi, for a considerable time, administered the affairs of Fushanj, and was its Wall [governor] 5; and Tahir [Zu-l-Yamanain] was his son; and these successes, which have been mentioned, were gained by this same Tahir.
When Mamun came to Baghdad, to assume the Khilafat.
- 9 Of the two right hands. Tahir had also lost an eye, which our author does not seem to have known. The reasons why he obtained the name of Zu-l-Yamanain are differently related. One is, that, when engaged in battle against 'All, son of 'Isa, he struck another antagonist with his left hand, with the other sword he carried, with such force as to cleave him in twain. The other, that, when about to give his hand in token of allegiance to the Imam Riza, at Mamun's command, he gave the left. Riza asked the reason. Tahir replied, "I swore fealty to Mamun with my right hand." Riza replied " Your left will do just the same."
1	Only one copy of the different MSS. collated contains this name correctly.
2	J^. means ancestor also. According to the genealogical tree previously given, Tahir was third in descent from As'ad.
3	Talhah, son of 'Abd-ullah, one of the Prophet's companions.
4	According to the Tarikh-i-Yafa'I, above quoted, the grandfather of Tahir held the government of Fushanj and Hirat. Fushanj or Bushanj (it is written both ways) "is the name of a city of Kh,urasan near Hirat."
6 As considerable difference exists in some of these terms, I have thought it best to add, occasionally, the signification which the author means to convey.
B 212
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
he despatched Tahir to Rakk'ah 6, to carry on hostilities against Nasr-i-Shis1. Subsequently to this he came into Khurasan ; and, in 207 II.8, he died, having nominated his son Talhah, son of Tahir, his Khallfah or successor.
The chronicler relates, that on the Friday he read the Khutbah9, and either forgot to mention the name of Mamun, or omitted it purposely. After he had returned to his residence at night, and had retired to rest, at daybreak of Saturday morning he was found in his bed asleep in death ; and it was never known how \ or from what, his death originated2.
II. TALHAH, SON OF TAHIR-I-ZtJ-L-YAMANAIN.
When the Khalifah. Mamun, became aware of the death of Tahir, he sent letters patent to Talhah, confirming him in the government of Khurasan, together with a robe of honour3. He held the government until 213 H.4; and, when the end of his life drew near, he bequeathed the government of Khurasan to Muhammad, son of Al-Hasan, son of Mus'ab, At-Tahiri, who was Talhah's paternal uncle, and soon after died.
During his [Talhah's] lifetime, the Khariji or heretic, Hamzah, broke out into rebellion in Sijistan 5, and Talhah
6 In two MSS. written Rakah, which is not correct. Tahir's father, Husain, son of Mus'ab, son of Ruzaik, died at Hirat of Khurasan in 199 H. At this time Tahir was at Rakk'ah, and the Khalifah, Mamun, was present at his funeral, and prayed over him, and the Wazir Fazl, son of Sahl, placed the body in the grave.
' Abu Nasr-i-Shis, son of Rabi'i (^j,) the Khariji. or Schismatic.
8	He died at Marw, according to Yafa'i, 23rd of Jamadi-ul-AJchir, 207 H., or, according to the computation of the Musalmans, the night being reckoned before the day, on the night of the 24th.
9	As the word Khutbah will occur frequently in these pages, it will be well to explain, that it is an oration delivered after the service on the Muftammadan Sabbath, in which the deliverer of it—the ruler or governor of the province properly—blesses Muhammad, his successors, and the reigning Khallfah or the Sovereign. In ancient times, the Khallfah, or his heir apparent, pronounced it, at the capital, in the principal Mosque.
1 He is said to have been poisoned. The account is to be found in detail in several histories.
1 His death took place in the month of Jamadi-ul-Awwal.
3	The Mujmal-i-Fasih-I states, that, in 210 H., the Khalifah, Mamun, despatched 'Abd-ullah, son of Tahir, to the assistance of his brother Talhah, that, in concert, they might proceed into Mawar-un-Nahr to carry on hostilities against Rafi', son of Hasham.
4	He died at the end of 212 H.	5 Also called Nim-roz.THE TAHIRl DYNASTY.
*3
carried on hostilities against him for a considerable period ; and what he did in Khurasan, during the Khilafat of Mamun, was the cause of his name being remembered with gratitude in that country, where numerous proofs of his goodness remained.
III. 'ABD-ULLAII, SON OF TAHIR.
On the decease of Talhah, the Commander of the Faithful, Mamun, summoned to his presence Abdullah, the son of Tahir, who had become Amir [governor] of Misr6. 'Abd-ullah had been brought up at the Court of the Khilafat, and under the patronage, and under the eye, of the Khalifah himself, and had become greatly accomplished. In his seventeenth year, Mamun had entrusted him with the command of his forces; and he had so conducted himself, that, in his twenty-seventh year7, ,'Abd-ullah had become renowned among men for his manliness, his vigour, his intrepidity, and his virtues and talents. At this period the Khaltfah appointed him to the government of Khurasan, and directed that 'All8, son of Tahir, brother of'Abd-ullah, should act as his brother's Khaltfah, or Lieutenant, in the command of the troops of the Dar-ul-Khilafat [the capital], in repressing the seditious and rebellious, and in the extermination of heretic Kharijis, and, likewise, in carrying out the affairs of state, and all such other duties as appertained unto 'Abdullah to perform and attend to.
At the time the Khalifah's mandate to proceed into Khurasan and assume the government reached him, 'Abdullah 9 was at Dinawr engaged in suppressing Babak-i-Khurrami. When he reached Nishapur, rain, which had not fallen for a considerable time, began to descend and
6 Any large city : Egypt, and its capital.
" Some copies of the original mention "his twentieth year," but I prefer the other reading.
8	Other writers state, that 'All succeeded his father in the government of Khurasan, and that he was killed in battle fighting against the Kharijis, in the vicinity of Nishapur ; and, that 'Abd-ullah was at Abiward when he received the intelligence of his brother's death.
9	Tabarl makes no mention of 'Abd-ullah, son of Tahir, as having been employed against Babak, but says that Is-hak, son of Ibrahim, son of Mu'sab —who would be thus cousin of 'Abd-ullah's father—was. That author states, that 'Abd-ullah seized Babak's brother in Khurasan, and, that he sent that herctic to Is-ha^, at Baghdad, to be dealt with as Babak had already been.14
THE TABA£AT-I-NA§IRI.
to refresh the parched ground on the very same day, and the people took' it as a good omen. He founded palaces for himself, and his followers and dependents, at Shad-yakh1 of Nishapur. He suppressed the Kharijis, and punished them with severity ; and ruled with the utmost equity and justice, and introduced many good and wise regulations.
He was also a great patron of learning, and to such a degree, that he requested the Imam 'Abd-ul-Kasimson of Sallam, to write a commentary for him on the work entitled " Gharib-ul-Hadis," and, in recompense for so doing, sent him a present of 100,000 silver dirams, and a valuable dress of honour.
The Lord of the Faithful, Al-Mamun, had entrusted 'Abd-ullah with the government of the whole of the territory of 'Ajam 3; and, when that Khalifah died, his successor, Al-Mutasim B'illah, confirmed him, as his father had done before, in the government of the whole of the territory of 'Ajam, which 'Abd-ullah retained until the year 230 H., in the reign of Al-Wasik B'illah, when he died. He had exercised sovereignty over the territories of 'Ajam for a period of seventeen years ; and, when he died, he had attained the age of forty-eight, the same age as his father. When his death drew near, he nominated his son Tahir as his successor over Khurasan \
IV. TAHIR, SON OF 'ABD-ULLAH.
When the account of the decease of 'Abd-ullah reached the Khalifah, Al-Wasik, he despatched, from the Dar-ul-Khilafat of Baghdad, letters patent and a standard, confirming him as his father's successor.
His brothers6 solicited from Tahir the grant of the pro-
1 In the Persian translation of the Arabic work entitled Asar-ul-Bilad, by Muhammad Murad, son of 'Abd-ur-Rahman, Shad-yakh, is described as "a city of Khurasan near unto Nishapur ;" but it appears to have been a fortified suburb, where the royal palace, arsenal, and gardens were situated. The Habib-us-Siyar states that the capital of the Tahins was called Kar-shakh. !
J Some copies have Abu-l-Kasim. 3 'Ajam—countries not Arabian : Persia.
4	'Abd-ullah, son of Tahir, had a son called 'Abd-ullah, who was born 223 H,; and another son, Muhammad, who was his father's deputy at Baghdad, died in 226 H.
5	In all the copies of the original the word brothers is used, but only one brother is mentioned afterwards.THE TAHIRI DYNASTY.
15
vince of Khurasan, and its government; and he bestowed on his brother, Amir Mus'ab, the government of Nishapur6. The Khalifah. Al-Wasik, died in the month Zu-l-Hijjah, 232 H., and Al-Mutawakkil assumed the Khilafat.
He confirmed Tahir in the government of 'Ajam. After a period of fourteen years and nine months, at which time the Khalifah, Al-Mutawakkil, was martyred7 by the Turks, he was succeeded by Al-Mustansir.
Six months subsequently to that event, in the year 248 H.8, Al-Musta'in succeeded him. He sent letters patent and a standard, and confirmed Tahir, son of 'Abdullah, in his government, as before ; and, m that same year, Amir Tahir died, having previously nominated his son Muhammad as his successor over Khurasan9.
V. MUHAMMAD, SON OF TAHIR.
Amir Muhammad-i-Tahir1 was endowed with good breeding, the gift of poetry, and many other accomplishments ; but was greatly addicted to pleasure and amusement.
He had entrusted the government of Tabaristan to his uncle Suliman, son of 'Abd-ullah-i-Tahir; but, in 251 H., Amir Hasan, son of Zaid-ul-'Alawi, broke out into rebellion in that country. He was a Sayyid, and a well-bred and learned person, and a poet. He subdued the territories of Dilam, and Gilan, which were in the possession of infidels ; and the people of those parts were converted to the Muhammadan faith by him. From thence he entered Tabaristan with a large army ; and Suliman, son of 'Abd-ullah-i-Tahir, uncle of Amir Muhammad, was defeated by him, and retreated
6	In 231 H., Hasan, son of Al-Husain, brother of Tahir-i-Zii-l-Yumanain, died in Tabaristan ; and, in 235 H. Is-hak, son of Ibrahim, son of Zu-l-Ya-manain's brother, Hasan, died at Baghdad. He had held the Shart, or district of Baghdad, under three Khalifahs.
7	Middle of the month of Shawwal. 247 H.
8	According to our author, in his account of the Khalifahs, on the 4th of Rabf'-ul-Awwal, 248 H.
9	Succession to the government of Khurasan seems to have been considered hereditary, but to that of 'Ajam, at the pleasure of the Khalifah.
1 His name is given differently by Hamd-ullah-i-Mustaufi in his history. He styles him Muhammad, son of Ahmad, son of Tahir, son of 'Abd-ullah, son of Tahir-i-Zu-l-Yamanain. In the Mujmal-i-Fasih-i he is called Muhammad, son of Tahir-i-Zu-l-Yamanain.i6
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IR|.
to Rai2, and subsequently retired to Baghdad. On his arrival at the latter place, he was made Ka id [governor] of the district of Baghdad.
At this period, Ya'kub, son of Lais, had risen in rebellion in Sistan, and had subdued some portion of Jarum3, and. of Zawulistan, and had acquired considerable power in Khurasan. In 259 H., Ya'kub determined to attack Amir Muhammad. The reason of this was, that his enemies, Ahmad and Fazl, the brothers of 'Abd-ullah-i-Salih, Sijizi, had fled from the territory of Nim-roz, and had sought the protection of Muhammad, son of Tahir. Ya'kub continued repeatedly to demand them at the hands of Amir Muham-mad-i-Tahir, but he had always refused to give them up. On this Ya'kub determined to march against Nishapur1; and, when he had arrived within a short distance of it, Ahmad and Fazl came to the entrance of the palace, where Amir Muhammad was at the time, to acquaint him with the news of Ya'kub's approach. The Hajib [chamberlain] of the Amir told them that his master was asleep, and that he had no leisure to receive them. They observed to each other that it was necessary that some one should awaken the Amir; and, thus saying, they retired and went to their brother 'Abd-ullah-i-Salih, Sijizi, and told him what had occurred. He was well aware that Amir Mifhammad was entirely sunk in carelessness, and that his dynasty was near its fall; so he retired to Rai, and sent his brothers, Ahmad and Fazl, to the Wali [governor] of Rai, but went himself into Tabaristan to Amir Hasan, son of Zaid-ul-'Alawi.
When Ya'kub, son of Lais, reached a place called Farhad-gurd5, a short distance from Nishapur, Amir Muhammad despatched an agent to Ya'kub, named Ibrahim-i-Salih,
3 Re is not the correct pronunciation for the name of this city, but Rai. It is written thus in the original Persian—^
3	Jarum is described as being the district of. Garmsir, which latter word is written in various ways by those who fancy that Oriental proper names, as well as other words, may be written according to their fancy, such as Gurmsehl, Gurmseer, and the like.
4	The capital of Khurasan. As stated, previously, the Tahiri rulers held their court at Shad-yakh, a short distance from that city.
5	The name of this place is not quite certain : it is written—
and even	in the different copies of the MSS. collated. The above name
is the most probable one.THE TAHIRI DYNASTY.
17
Marwazi [or native of Marw], with a message demanding whither he was going without the command of the Lord of the Faithful, and that, in case he had a commission, he should show it, in order that he, Muhammad, might obey it, and observe its provisions. When the agent reached Ya'kub's presence, and delivered his message, Ya'kub put his hand under his prayer-carpet and drew forth his sword, and, placing it before the envoy, said : " This is my pass and authority."
When the envoy, Ibrahim-i-Salih, returned with this reply, all the people of Nishapur entered into communication with Ya'kub ; and they delivered Muhammad-i-Tahir into his hands, and the dynasty of the Tahiris came to an end6. This event happened on Sunday, the 3rd of the month of Shawwal, 259 H. Respecting the generosity and munificence of Muhammad-i-Tahir, one of the learned, whose statement may be depended on, relates the following
ANECDOTE.
There was a person dwelling at Nishapur. one of the most excellent men of his day, named Mahmud-i-Warrak7. He possessed a female slave, who played exceedingly well upon the barbat—a kind of lute—and of such grace and beauty as cannot be described.
The fame of the loveliness of this slave-girl, and of her amiability and accomplishments, having reached the ear of Muhammad-i-Tahir, to the effect that she improvised ghazals, or odes, sang them, and accompanied them on the barbat, the heart of Muhammad-i-Tahir desired, beyond measure, to obtain possession of her. He had repeatedly asked Mahmud-i-Warrak to part with her, and had offered to give a very high price for her ; but all his offers were rejected, and he could not obtain possession of her, for her master himself was deeply enamoured of his beautiful slave, Ratibah, as she was named.
After some time had elapsed, however, and Mahmud-i-Warrak had expended all his property and possessions in pleasure and expense on her account, and nothing remained to him, he despatched a person with a message to the
6	These events are fully detailed in the Jami'-ut-Tawarikh, and several other histories. See note 7, page 22.
7	WarraV means a writer, a cutter and folder of paper, also a monied man.is
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
presence of Muhammad-i-Tahir soliciting that the Amir would honour him with a visit, in order that he might dispose of his beautiful slave to him.
When Muhammad-i-Tahir received this message he was delighted beyond measure, and directed that four badrahs8 of silver should be brought and handed over to the domestic who brought the message, while the Amir arose, and proceeded, by way of his own private residence to that of Mahmud-i-Warrak. When the Amir had sat down, and the silver was placed before the eyes of Mahmud-i-Warrak, he, seeing the state of affairs, went out, and directed Ratibah, saying: " Don your best apparel, Ratibah, and prepare to present yourself before the Amir, as I am going to sell you to him." When the slave-girl heard these words she burst into a flood of tears, and, such was the paroxysm of her grief, that the sounds reached the ears of the Amir, who was in another apartment. He heard Mahmud say to her: " Wherefore all this grief and lamentation, O Ratibah?" to which she replied: "O my master! is this the end of our connexion, that at last you separate me from you?" Mahmud replied: "All this I do out of love and affection for you, now that I possess nothing, and am a beggar; and, that you may continue to live in ease and affluence for the rest of your life, I send you to the haram of the Amir." Ratibah replied : " If you merely act thus on my account, refrain from doing so, for I undertake to work for the rest of my days, and, by industry befitting a woman, by weaving coifs and mantles, earn sufficient means for your subsistence and my own, but do not separate me from you." Mahmud-i-Warrak rejoined : " If such be the case, O Ratibah, I now pronounce you free, and fix your dowry at nineteen dinars and a half, and make you my wife."
Muhammad-i-Tahir, hearing this loving and affectionate dialogue between Mahmud-i-Warrak and his slave, arose, and, gathering his garments about him, said to Mahmud : " The whole of the four badrahs of silver are thine ; I make thee a present of it: pass the rest of thy life in ease and affluence!" Thus saying, he went his way ; and the fame of his generosity still remains.
8 A weight equal to 10,000 dirams, also a bag made of leather or lamb's-skin.SECTION VIII.
THE §UFFARIUN DYNASTY.
The author, Minhaj-i-Saraj Jurjani, makes a short extract from the Tarikh or chronicle of Ibn Hai§am-i-Sani, respecting the dynasty of the .Suffariun. That chronicler and annalist relates, that Ya'kub-i-Lais, and 'Umro, 'All, and Mu'addil-i-Lais, were four brothers, sons of Lais, the Sufifar or worker in brass, who was head of the braziers of Sijistan1. [At this time] Ibrahim, son of Al-Husain2, was the Wali [governor] of Sijistan on the part of Muhammad, son of Tahir, the last of the Tahiris, who was the Amir of Khurasan. This Ibrahim had appointed a deputy or lieutenant of his own to govern in Sijistan in his name, who was called Salih, son of Un-Nasr. This Lais the brazier was a restless and refractory fellow, and had a great number of assistants, servants, and followers.
1	Other historians greatly differ here, as to the origin and rise of the Suffarian. One says that Lais, the brazier, was in the service of Salih, son of Nasr, Kananl; and another, quoting the History of Khurasan of Moulana Mu'in-ud-Dln, Sabzwari, states, that the latter author had traced the descent of this family to Nushirwan the Just, the celebrated ruler of Iran. Again, another author states, that Ya'kub, son of Lais, after the death of Darhim [sic], son of Un-Nasr, revolted against his sons Salih and Nasr, in 237 H., and managed to gain possession of some portion of the territory of Sijistan. His affairs prospered, and, the principal men among the partisans of Darhim's family having combined with him from time to time, in 253 H., he acquired the whole of Sijistan. Darhim's sons fled to the king of Kabul.
2	In three copies of the MSS. compared, and also in the Tankh-i-Fanakatl, this name is written " Hasin," [^-0=-] which signifies a fortification. A few words, respecting the Tarikh-i-Fanakati, may not be amiss here. Abu Sultman-i-Da'ud, the author of that work, sumamed FaWir-ud-din, was a native of Fanakat—also written Banakat, according to the rule by which 'Arabs change Persian f into b—in Mawar-un-Nahr ; hence he is known as Al-Fanakati, and Al-Banakati, and his work as the Tankh-i-Fanakati or Banakatt; but not by the absurd name that some persons have bestowed upon it, apparently through ignorance of the existence of this place, such as " Bina-Gety," and " Bina-i-Geti." They probably supposed the meaning to be a "History of the Foundation of the World," which Bina-i-Geti would signify.20
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
I. YA'KUB, SON OF LAIS, SUFFARf.
The author of these pages, in the year 613 H,, arrived in Sijistan, during the rule of the Malik of Nim-roz, Shah-i-Ghazi. Yamin-ud-din, Bahram Shah, son of Malik-i-Kabir, Taj-ud-din, Harab, son of I'zz-ul-Muluk, Muhammad. There I noticed a place3, on the south of the city of Sijistan, which they call by the name of Dar-i-Ta'am, outside the city, at a spot called Reg-i-Gunjan. In the .vicinity of'this latter place, on a height or rising ground, there is a palace in ruins ; and a number of trustworthy persons informed me, that Ya'kub, son of Lais, and his brothers, with their dependents and servants, were in the habit of coming thither one day in each week, as is the custom among young men, to divert themselves by sports and.fun.
They used on these occasions to choose an Amir, or king of the sports, and a Wazir, or minister. One day, according to their usual custom, they had come to the wonted place of meeting, and Ya'kub had been chosen Amir for the day's sports ; and, to each and every one of his brothers, his kinsmen, and dependents, he had assigned
3 "There I noticed a place," &c. This sudden change to the first person is found in the original, and is not unusual in Oriental works. The whole of the MSS. compared here appear hopelessly corrupt, the place to the south of Sijistan having, apparently, two names, and yet either of them is named, as though it were a principal distinguishing designation. But, as the Bodleian and some other MSS. omit the relative in the last clause, it has been adopted in the text of the translation. Since the above has been in type I find, from "Masalik wa Mamalik"—the original MS., not a translation—that Dar-i Ta'am was the name of one of the thirteen gates of the suburbs of the then extensive city of Zaranj, the capital of Sijistan, founded after the city of Ram Shahr became uninhabitable. The city was surrounded by a high wall and a ditch, and had five gates, which were of iron. The walls of the suburbs were probably not so strong, and the gates seem to have been of wood. The author says: "The palace of Ya'kub, son of Lais, is situated between the gates called Dar-i-Ta'am, and Darwazah-i-Bars [Fars] ; and the palace of 'Umro, son of Lais, is the residence of the ruler." The copy of the above work which I have used is, from the style of writing, very ancient; and, from various events mentioned in it, appears to have been compiled previous to the time of Mahmud of Ghaznin. I have translated a considerable portion of it. Our author's journey to Sijistan took place some centuries after this work was written, at which period, from his remarks, the extensive suburbs had almost disappeared, and the names only of some of the gates appear to have survived. From the mention of the Reg [sand] of Gunjan, the suburbs had evidently been partially, if not altogether, buried in the sands, which, in after-times, reduced a once well-cultivated tract into a desert. See Section XIV. on the Kings of Nim-roz and Sijistan.THE SUFFARlON DYNASTY.
21
the name of some one of the nobles and grandees of the country. Unexpectedly, the deputy of the Amir of Sijis-tan, Salih, son of Nasr, himself, on his return home from the chase, arrived at this place, attended by his usual small suite. Perceiving this assemblage of people collected on the mound in question, he directed one of his attendants to go and make inquiry who they were.
When the man sent reached the party, and noticed what was going on, he was much astonished; and, a bevy of youths having come forward to receive him, the messenger was forced to dismount from his horse, because it was necessary to present himself before the Amir of the sports on foot. The servant of Salih, accordingly, was under the necessity of complying; and he made his obeisance, and returned, and related to his master, Salih, son of Nasr, what had passed and what he had seen.
Salih, whose disposition was inclined to pleasantry, said, " We will go and see what this party of youths are about," and rode up and came to the spot where they were. Ya'kub-i-Lais never moved from his seat, and he directed, that Amir Salih should be brought forward to pay his obeisance. The youths, as commanded, advanced to meet him, and they made Salih dismount from his horse, and compelled him to make his obeisance to Ya'kub.
As the day of his fortune and the period of his age had reached the evening of their termination, and the morning of the prosperity of the Sufifariun had dawned, Ya'kub made a sign to the effect that it was necessary to put an end to Amir Salih's career, and forthwith they put him to death. Ya'kub, without delay, mounted a horse, and the party with him armed themselves, and, with the utmost expedition, they set out for the city, and proceeded to the palace of the ruler, and there Ya'kub took up his quarters.
This event took place at the time of early forenoon, and by the time of meridian prayer the territory of Sijistan was in the hands of Ya'kub-i-Lais, and all the people submitted to his rule, like as if the Almighty God had pre-ordained that he should follow his own way. Ya'kub directed that the Khutbah should be read for him ; and these events, and this success, took place in the year 251 H.
After this, Ya'kub led an army towards Bust and Zawulistan, and the territory of Dawar [Zamin-i-Dawar]22
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
and Ghaznin. and subdued the whole of -them. From thence he advanced into Tukharistan4 and Balkh, and subdued them ; and then returned and marched towards Kabul®. This success took place in 256 H., and, subsequently, he returned to Sijistan, and afterwards advanced to Hirat, which, after much fighting, he gained possession of: After this he took Badghais, Bushanj [or Fushanj], Jam, and Bakhurz, and returned to Sijistan again.
After a short time Ya'kub again put his forces in motion, and marched against Nishapur, which he gained possession of without' opposition in 259 H., and seized upon Muhammad-i-Tahir, son of Husain6, together with his treasures, and his dependents, and followers. He then marched towards Gurgan and Tabaristan, and, after having extorted tribute, again retired. He made his brother, U'mro-i-Lais, Wall [governor] of Hirat : and, in 261 H., a person—one of the Amirs of Muhammad-i-Tahir—revolted, and set Muhammad-i-Tahir at liberty 7, who retired to the Court of the Khalifah, Al-Wasik B'illah. Ya'kub-i-Lais again marched an army into 'Irak, and, on his return from thence, he reached a place which was called Khandah-i-Shapur8, and there he departed this life, in the year 265 H., of colic, after a reign of fourteen years.
4	The ancient name of one of the districts of the territory of Balkh, and of which Tae-kan —Tal-kan by modems, but not correct, I think—is the largest town, the authority of "Hwen [Houen ?] Thsang," and its extent of " ten day1 sjourney by thirty days," and "twenty-seven states," notwithstanding. See J. Ro. As. Soc., vol. vi. p. 94.
5	As .stated in a former note, the sons of Darhim, Nasr and Salih, had fled to Kabul, and had sought shelter with the " Shah," as he is styled, of that territory, whose name was Ratbel or Rantbel ; but this seems to have been a surname merely, for the opponent of the first Mussalmans bore this very title.
6	The name here is not correct: the last of the Tahiris is Muhammad, son of Tahir, son of 'Abd-ullah, son of Tahir-i-Zu-l-Yamanain. See page 15.
7	The author says not one word respecting Ya'kub's overthrow near Hulwan by Muwaffik, the brother of the Khalifah Mu'tamid, in 262 H. On that occasion the baggage and effects of Ya'kub fell into the hands of the victors, among which were the chests containing his treasures, clothes, &c. On opening one of the chests, they found reclining therein the Amir Muhammad, son of Ut-Tahir, whom Ya'kub had made captive, when he gained possession of Nishapur, and overthrew the Tahiii dynasty. Muwaffik set him at liberty, and sent him to Baghdad. He died there in 266 H., and, at that time, and with him, other authors consider the Tahiri dynasty to have ended.
8	The Muntakh,ab-ut-Tawarikh, calls this place by the name of "Jand-i-Shapur, a town of Ahwaz," and states that the date of his death was the 14th of Shawwal, 265 H. It is also called "Jande-Shapur." Ya'kub was buried there.THE SUFFARIUN DYNASTY.
23
II. 'UMRO, SON OF LAIS, §UFFARI.
When Ya'kub-i-Lais was removed from this transitory life, his brother, 'Umro, Suffari, sent a written petition to the Lord of the Faithful, the Khalifah, Al-Muwaffik B'illah9, tendering his obedience and submission, and soliciting that he should be confirmed in the possession of the greater part of Fars, Gurgan, Sijistan, and Khurasan. His request was acceded to by the Khalifah. and 'Umro retired from the mountain tracts of 'Irak with his own forces and those of his brother, and returned towards Sijistan again. From thence he moved towards Hirat, and arrived there in the year 266 H. From Hirat he marched to Nishapur ; and Khujistan1. who was one of the Amirs of Muhammad, son of Tahir [the last of the Tahiri dynasty], who had released his master from the hands of the Suffaris, and who was at this period in Gurgan, marched to Nishapur against 'Umro, and there he was joined by Rafi', son of Harsamah, from Marw.
They fought a battle with 'Umro before the gate of Nishapur, and 'Umro was defeated and put to the rout. He retreated to Hirat, and the Khalifah. Al-Mawaffik B'illah2, deposed
9 There was no Khalifah of this name. The author must refer to the Khalifah Mu'tamid's brother, Muwaffik, who was made Wall over the eastern parts of Islam, and declared heir, after the death of Mu'tamid's son Ja'far, but he did not succeed to the Khilafat. Mu'tazid, son of Muwaffik, who died before his brother, Mu'tamid, succeeded his father, Al-Muwaffik, in his capacity as ruler of the eastern parts of the Khilafat; and he conferred the investiture of Khurasan, Fars, Isfahan, Sijistan, Kirman, and Sind, upon'Umro in 265 H., after the death of Ya'kub ; and, in 266 H., 'Umro appointed 'Ubaid-ullah, the son of Tahir, to the district of Baghdad, as his deputy. Mu'tamid was the Khalifah who excommunicated 'Umro, son of Lais, from the pulpit, at Baghdad, in 265 H. 'Umro had despatched an agent to offer his submission and obedience, which the Khalifah refused to accept, and he cursed him.
Under the events of the year 278 H., the Mujmal-i-Fasih-I also mentions, that " Amir Isma'il, SamanT, overcame 'Umro, son of Lais, the Suffar ;" and, under the events of the following year, 279 H., I find the Khalifah, Al-Mu'tazid, presenting a standard to 'Umro, with the government of Khurasan, at 'Umro's request, and that "Umro hoisted the standard over his Sarae or palace, and kept it flying there for three days. The Khalifah also conferred upon ' Umro's envoy, who brought the request for a standard, a dress of honour, and a present." Our author sadly confounds the dates of events, and jumbles them into a very short space.
1	This is an error, although seven copies of the text give the same name. Other authors state, that Ya'kub was defeated by Ahmad, son of 'Abd-ullah, Khujistani. i.e. a native of Khujistan. which, the author of the Mujmal-i-Fasih-i says, is a dependency of Badghais, in the highlands of Hirat.
2	See preceding note9, on this subjcct.24
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
'Umro-i-Lais from the government of Khurasan in the year 271 H., and the whole of the territories and places which had been annexed by him were given [back] to Muhammad, son of Tahir, son of ' Abd-ullah.
Muhammad was, at that time, at the Dar-ul-Khilafat of Baghdad, and Rah', son of Harsamah, was directed to act as his deputy and lieutenant in the government of Khurasan. The government of Mawar-un-Nahr — the territory trans Jihun—was conferred upon Ahmad, Samani, as the deputy likewise of Muhammad, son of Tahir. Between 'Umro-i-Lais and Rafi', son of Harsamah, many battles and conflicts took place up to the period that Rafi'-i-Harsamah himself rebelled against the authority of the Khalifah.
In the year 284 H., in an encounter which took place between him and 'Umro-i-Lais, Rafi' was slain 3. 'Umro sent the head of Rafi' to the Court of Baghdad, at which time the masnad [throne] of the Khilafat had devolved upon Al-Mu'tazid B'illah, and 'Umro-i-Lais made a request to him that the government of Mawar-un-Nahr, Khurasan, Nim-roz *, Fars,. Kirman, and Ahwaz, together with the Nakabats, or guardianship of the entrance to the palace of the Khalifah, and of the district of Baghdad, should be made over to him. More than this, he solicited that the name 'Umro should be inscribed on the canopies 6 which every chief had in his residence [which would signify that he was above them all], and that his name should be mentioned in the Khutbah, and on the coins of Makkah and Madinah and of Hijaz. All his demands were acceded to by the Khalifah's Court, and were duly carried out, and numerous dresses of honour, and countless marks of favour and distinction, were conferred upon him.
The letters patent, acceding to his demands, having reached 'Umro from his Majesty the Khalifah, he made
3	Other authors state that Rafi' was taken prisoner by 'Umro, and sent to Baghdad, where he died in confinement, which former proceeding so pleased the Khalifah that he restored 'Umro to the government of Khurasan, Mawar-un-Nahr, Kirman, &c., again. The Jami'-ut-Tawarikh, and Tarikh-i-Guzidah, however, state that Rafi' sought shelter with the ruler of Khwarazm, who put him to death, and sent his head to 'Umro. The latter's report to the Khalifah, in the Mujmal-i-Fasih-I, confirms this.
4	Sijistan.	5 Nakabat, the office of a Na^ib, a leader, See.
0 The word is rather doubtful—One MS. has	another o"'^-1THE SUFFARiUN DYNASTY.
25
preparation for proceeding and taking possession of Mawar-un-Nahr; and Muhammad Bashir, who was his Hajib [chamberlain], was despatched with a force from 'Umro's army in advance.
Amir Ismail-i-Ahmad7, Samani, marched from Bukhara, towards Khurasan, crossed the river Jihun 8, and defeated the [advanced] force of 'Umro under Muhammad Bashir,. who was slain in the engagement, together with a great number of his troops. Upon this 'Umro-i-Lais proceeded towards Mawar-un-Nahr with a numerous army, for it included 70,000 horsemen armed with spears, besides other troops. Amir Isma'il-i-Ahmad crossed9 the Jihun, and fought a battle with 'Umro-i-Lais before the walls of Balkh, defeated him, and took him prisoner, and sent him to the court of Baghdad \ and then Isma'il returned to Bukhara. In the year 288 H., the Khalifah. Al-Mu'tazid, directed that 'Umro should be cast into prison, and in it he died ; and the "dynasty of the Suffariun terminated 2.
7	Isma'il's army is said to have consisted of 12,000 horse, but the accounts of other writers differ considerably in their statements from this one.
8	The Oxus, also called BaJdjtrus, and Amulah.
9	According to the author's own statement above, Isma-il with his army was already across.
1	See note5, page 31, for a full account of'Umro's fate.
2	The Tavikh-i-Ibrahami, and others, state, that after the downfall of'Umro his descendants contented themselves with the sovereignty of Sijistan, subject, however, to the Samanis. This is also proved from the subsequent accounts given by our author himself. When the people of Sijistan became aware of 'Umro's capture they set up Tahir, who, according to the Tarikh-i-Guzidah, Nizam-ut-Tawarikh, Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, and other works, was not 'Umro's brother, but his grandson, Tahir, son of Muhammad, son of'Umro. Isma'il, Samanx, overcame him ; but after a time conferred the government of Sijistan upon Nasr, son, of Ahmad, Tahir's son. His descendants continued to possess it until the year 643 H. 'Umro, son of Lais, founded the 'Ati^c Masjid at Shlraz.
CSECTION IX.
THE DYNASTY OF THE SAMANIS.
The humblest of the servants of the Almighty, Minhaj-i-Saraj, Jurjani, states that, after the mention of the Maliks of Yaman, and the Suffariun Amirs, he has considered it preferable to insert here the. section in which it is proposed to give an account of the race of Saman, and the Maliks of that dynasty, and therefore this portion of the work was made, in its arrangements, antecedent to that treating of the genealogy of the Mahmudi, and Nasiri Maliks1. Although the history of the Maliks of Yaman ought, properly, to have been first in the arrangement of the book, still, as they were not among the number of Maliks of Islam, he did not consider it right to place them before the Khalifahs, and therefore they have received this much precedence2.
This section has been taken from the Tarikh or Chronicle of Ibn Haisam, in order that those under whose inspection it falls may place perfect confidence in its correctness.
The chronicler relates that the ancestor of the Samanis was named Saman ; but, according to some others, his name was different from this ; and, moreover, that Saman is the name of one of the districts of the Sughd. of Sam'r-kand, and that the ancestor of the Samanis was the Ra'is [chief] of that place, and that he used to be styled Saman-i-Khaddat3; but, for sake of brevity, the name of Saman was
1	The Ghaznawl dynasty, and the Turkish Slave dynasty (not Patdns), of which Nasir-ud-dln, the ruler of Dihli, to whom the author dedicated his work, was one.
2	These remarks would have been better prefixed to the notice of the kings of Yaman, or the Tahirls, and are rather out of place here.
3	The Tarikh-i-Jahan-Ara states that he was chiefly known by the name of Saman-i-Khadah, which signifies the master or possessor of saman or effects, chattels, &c. Saman likewise, quoting the " Muajjam-ul-Baladan," is the name of a village of Mawar-un-Nahr, but others consider it to be the name of a place in the territory of Balkh- The Muntakhab-ut-TawartJch also agrees with this statement.THE SAMANi DYNASTY.
27
adopted, and it became the name by which he was generally-known. He was of the posterity of Bahram Shubln*.
This Saman-i-Khaddat had a son who was named Asad, who had four sons—named, respectively, Nuh, Yahya, IlyaS, and Ahmad. They became Princes and Lords of great dignity and power, able, and experienced, and endowed with considerable promptness and vigour. At length, when their family had attained the pinnacle of greatness and power, Alb-Tigin5, the Amir of Ghaznin, and Sabuk-Tigin, were among the slaves and servants of their descendants. All the Samanis left numerous proofs of their goodness in Khurasan and Mawar-un-Nahr; and may the Almighty reward them by bestowing upon them exalted stations in the courts of Paradise.
ASAD, SON OF SAMAN-I-KHADDAT.
He had four sons, Yahya, who held the territory of Shash and Isfanjab, and their dependencies; Ilyas, who held the government of the province of Hirat and parts adjacent; Ahmad, the third son, who held Samrkand and Farghanah, and their dependencies ; and Nuh, the fourth, who at first held the government of Samrkand, which, however, was subsequently conferred upon Ahmad.
The Lord of the Faithful, Mamun, when he came to Marw, remarked the talents and capabilities, bravery, and innate nobility of mind of the sons of Asad, son of Saman, and he treated them with great distinction, and conferred great favours upon them, and raised them to high rank and position.
When the Khalifah, Mamun, returned to Baghdad,, his capital, he directed Ghassan6, the son of ' Ubbad, to
4	The noble, who, in the reign of Hurmuz, son of Nughirwan, overthrew the son of the Khakan of Turkistan, with an immense army, before the walls of Bal!di,but was insulted by Hurmuz, and he rebelled and dethroned him, and set up another in his stead. The word is sometimes written Chubin, sometimes Shubin.
5	See note 2, page 37.
6	In the year 204 H., Ghassan. son of 'Ubbad, was appointed to the govern-ment of Khurasan. He conferred Samrkand upon Nuh, son of Asad, Samanl. Ahmad, Ilyas, and Yahya, the other sons of Asad, received, respectively, the investiture of Farghanah, Shash. Isrushtah, or Sirushtah, and Hirat. Soon after, Tahir i-Zu-l-Yamanain became Wall of Khurasan. Nuh died, and the former bestowed the territory held by Nuh on his brothers, Yahya and Ahmad. When Ilyas, another brother, died, Tahir gave his territory of Hirat to his own son, 'Abd-ullah. After this the family of the Samanis rose to great power in Khurasan and Mawar-un-Nahr. See note page 11 ; i;otc 8, page 28.
C 228
THE TABAKAT-1-NASIRI.
assume the government of Khurasan, and added thereunto the whole of it as far as Mawar-un-Nahr. Ghassan, son of ' Ubbad, made each of the sons of Asad the Amir [ruler] of a territory, and conferred certain cities upon them, as the table given at the end of this Section shows. These governments were first conferred upon them in the year 204 H.; and, when his Majesty, the Khalifah, nominated Amir Tahir-i-Zu-l-Yamanain, son of Al-Husain, to the government of Khurasan, the whole four Samani Amirs, who [as already stated] were four brothers, were confirmed by him in the territories and cities they were then holding.
When the sovereignty passed from Amir Tahir to his son, 'Abd-ullah-i-Tahir7, he confirmed the Samanis in their governments as his father had done, and made no change writh respect to them.
I. AHMAD, SON OF ASAD, SON OF SAMAN.
Each of the sons of Saman-i-Khaddat rose to great rank and power, and they each held a tract of territory in Mawar-un-Nahr, Farghanah. or Khurasan, as will be mentioned in the succeeding pages.
Nuh, son of Asad, who was a person of excellent qualities and disposition, and of great energy and high courage, was invested with the government of the territory of Samrkand. Yahya, another son, held the territory of Shash, and Isfanjabs, and their dependencies. He was a man of undaunted spirit and energy, and possessed great talent for government, and left many proofs of his goodness in those parts. Ilyas held the government of the province of Hirat and its dependencies, and the parts adjacent. He also was a person of energy and great experience; but Ahmad was the greatest, the most intrepid, energetic, and sagacious of
7	It passed to his son, Talhah. first, and afterwards to 'Abd-ullah, and also by the author's own account.
8	Shash is the name of a territory, river, and city of Mawar-un-Nahr, on the Sihun or Jaxartes, on the frontier of the Turks. It was also called Fanakat, and is now known as Tashkand. According to the Asar-ul-Bilad, and Masalik wa Mamalik, it was also called Chaj and Jaj. Ibn Haukal [the translation] first states that Seket is the capital, and immediately after says Chaj is. Its inhabitants were Musalmans of the tribes of Ghuzz and Khalj. Isfanjab, also written Sfanjab, is a town or city of Mawar-un-Nahr, towards Turkistan. These names are generally carelessly written in the various copies of the text.THE SAMANl DYNASTY.
29
the whole of the brothers, and held charge of the territory of Samrkand.
Nuh, at first, was placed in charge of the affairs of Far-ghanah, but, subsequently, it came into the hands of Ahmad, with the whole of Kasghar, and Turkistan, to the frontier of Chin. He was renowned for his courage, and valour, and experience, which were celebrated throughout Iran and Turan ; and his descendants, one after the other, occupied the throne, and governed God's people liberally and beneficently. Of those of his descendants who attained to sovereignty, one of the learned men has spoken, in verse, in the following quatrain :—
" Nine persons there were of the race of Saman, renowned, Who as rulers became famous in Khurasan, A Isma'il, a Ahmad, and a Nasr, Two Nuhs, two 'Abd-ul-Maliks, two Mansurs."
Amir Ahmad had nine sons: Nasr, Isma'il, Is-hak, Mansur, Asad, Ya'kub, Hamid, Yahya, and Ibrahim. The mention of their descent was found, as has been entered herein—Saman, son of J ashman, son of Tamghan, son of Nosher, son of Noshed, son of Bahram, son of Shubin [Chubin],
II. NASR, SON OF AHMAD, SAMAN!.
When Ahmad, son of Asad, son of Saman, died at Samrkand, he nomiuated his son, Nasr9, as his successor; and, during the sway of the Tahiris, the territory, which Nasr's father had held, was confirmed to him, and his brother Isma'il served under him, and acknowledged in him, as his suzerain, his superiority.
In 261 H. Nasr conferred the government of the territory of Bukhara upon Isma'il, who established himself therein. Nasr performed great deeds, and was endowed with many virtues. He governed with strict regard to the rules of equity and justice until the end of his days, when death overtook him in the month of Jamadi-ul-Akhir, in the year 279 H.1
9 The Tarikh-i-Guzidah and others state, that, after the death of Ahmad in 261 H., the Khalifah. Al-Mu'tamid B'illah, placed the whole of those territories under the government of one person—Nasr, son of Ahmad, the most upright and best prince of the Samani dynasty.
1 According to the I. O. L. MS., No. 1952, and the R.A.S. MS., which3°
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIR!.
When his brother, Isma'il, had become established in the government of the Bukhara territory, several designing and evil-intentioned persons managed to come between him and his brother Nasr, his sovereign, and began to resort to calumny and falsehood [to effect their designs], until the disposition of Nasr became completely changed towards his brother, and he determined to reduce Isma il by force, and overthrow him entirely.
Amir Nasr accordingly moved from Samrkand towards Bukhara with a large army. Amir Isma'il despatched a trusty agent to Rafi', son of Harsamah, son of A'yan, who was Amir of Khurasan2, and acquainted him with the state of affairs between himself and his bi other, Amir Nasr, and solicited assistance from that ruler.
Rafi', son of Harsamah assembled a warlike army, numerous and well-equipped in every way, and marched towards the scene of expected hostility; but he,, out of benevolence, kindness, and humanity, interposed between the brothers, and brought about an accommodation between them, and retired into his own territory again.
Amir Nasr returned to Samrkand, and Amir Isma'il proceeded to Bukhara. As soon as Nasr heard of this, still nourishing that antagonism against his brother which had taken possession of his heart, he advanced towards Bukhara with a warlike army. Isma'il came out of the city to encounter him ; and a fierce and obstinate battle took place between them, attended with great carnage, in the year 275 H. Isma'il was victorious over his brother, whose forces were defeated and put to the rout, and Amir Nasr was himself taken prisoner. He was taken to the presence of Isma'il, who, seeing that he was being brought forward, immediately dismounted from his horse, and rendered homage to his captive brother, and kissed him on the breast, and paid him the utmost honour and respect. He then induced Amir Nasr to return to Samrkand, and returned himself to Bukhara, which he continued to retain as the lieutenant of his brother. Nasr, son of Ahmad, ruled for a period of eighteen years.
of course agrees, Nasr assumed the government in 269 H., and reigned eighteen years. This is quite wrong. The correct date is 261 H., as in the other MSS., which date other histories confirm.
2 Subordinate to the Khalifahs.THE SAMANI DYNASTY.
3i
III. ISMA'IL3, SON OF AHMAD, SAMANI.
On the death of Amir Nasr, the Khalifah. Al-Mu'tazid B'illah, conferred upon Amir Isma'il the government of the territory of Mawar-un-Nahr, and also all the territory which his brother, Nasr, had held, and sent him a commission and a standard. He became a great and powerful ruler, and the whole of those territories submitted to his sway4; and all men, chiefs, and grandees, and the common people, became obedient to his authority.
He was a just man, and endowed with wisdom ; and many great deeds were performed by him, for when 'Umro, son of Lais, determined to make war upon Isma'il, and set out with a vast army to attack him—according to the author of the Tarikh of Ibn Haisam—on the day that 'Umro, son of Lais, set out to enter upon hostilities with Amir Isma'il, he had seventy thousand horsemen armed with spears under his standard, without counting archers, swordsmen, and other armed men besides. Amir Isma'il crossed the river Jihun, and encountered 'Umro, son of Lais, at Balkh; and the Almighty bestowed the victory upon Isma'il. The army of 'Umro was defeated ancf put to the rout, and ' Umro was himself taken prisoner. Isma'il sent his captive to the Lord of the Faithful, Al-Mu'tazid-B'illah, to dispose of as he might deem fit5. •
3	Abu Suliman-i-Da'ud, author of the Tarj!ch,-i-Fanakati, considers Isma'il, SamanI, very properly, as the first of the dynasty who is entitled to be considered a sovereign prince. The Tarikh-i-IbrahTmi, Jahan-Ara, and several other histories, also confirm it, as does Ibn-Haukal likewise. The Mujmal-i-Fasih-I also agrees in this. Under the events of the year 287 H. it is stated, that from that year commenced the sovereignty of the Samanian, who were nine persons, who reigned 103 years, 9 months, and 11 days; and, that Isma'il, SamanI, had risen, and had subdued, during that same year, Mawar-un-Nahr, Khurasan, Fars, Kirman, 'Irak, Sijistan, and some parts of Hindustan. At this period, it must be remembered, the territory of Kabul was considered a part of " Hind ;" and this, doubtless, is what is referred to here. In the same year, the Khalifah, Al-Mu'tazid B'illah, sent Isma'il the investiture of Khurasan, Tabaristan, and Jurjan, together with a rich dress of honour, and the sum of " ten times a thousand thousand dirams" [ten millions of dirams f]; and the affairs of Isma'il began to prosper greatly.
4	In 280 H., Isma'il made an expedition into the territory of the Turks, and made holy war upon them. The chief town was taken, and booty and captives beyond compute carried off, together with their Malik [king] and his wife. Each horseman present on this expedition received a thousand dirams for his share of the booty.
5	Respecting the subsequent fate of 'Umro, son of Lai?, it appears, on32
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRL
The Khalifah bestowed a commission on Amir Isma'il, with the investiture of the territory of Khurasan, together with the whole of 'Ajam ; and Amir Isma'il's power and grandeur increased accordingly.
Subsequently, the Lord of the Faithful, Al-Mu'tazid, despatched a commission to him, with directions to free the countries of Tabaristan and Gurgan from the sway of Amir Muhammad-i-Zaid-ul-'Alawi6, who had possessed himself of them. Amir Isma'il appointed Ahmad-i-Harun7 to the command of the van of his armyA and sent him on in advance with that portion of his forces; and, between Amir Muhammad-i-Zaid-ul-'Alawi and Amir Isma'il, very severe fighting took place, and the Amir Muhammad-i-Zaid was slain. His son, Zaid,-also, was taken prisoner and brought before Amir Isma'il, who sent him to Bukhara, with orders that, on the way thither, due respect should be paid to him, and that he should be provided with suitable accommodation; and he treated him with such honour and attention as kindness and magnanimity could devise. +
trustworthy authority, that Amir Isma'il sent 'Umro to Baghdad, at his ['Umro's] own request. Arrived there, he was, by the Khalifah's orders, paraded on a camel's back through the streets of Baghdad, and afterwards thrown into prison. This was in 287 H. In the year 289 'Umro died in confinement. It is said that the Khalifah, Mu'tazid, whilst in his last struggles, expressed a desire that 'Umro should be put to death ; but, that he was entirely forgotten in his prison, and neither food nor drink was brought to him, and he died of starvation and thirst. Another account is, that Mu'tazid gave orders to SafI to put him to death, and that he delayed carrying the sentence into execution. When Al-Muktafi succeeded to the Khilafat, he inquired of §afl respecting 'Umro, whether he was still alive. He replied that he was. Muktafi said : " I will act generously towards him ; for, during the time of Mu'tazid, he conHnually sent me presents, and was always very attentive to me." Kasim, son of'Abd-ullah, however, feared-'Umro ; and, when he heard this speech of the Khalifah's. he gave directions to put 'Umro to dealh in his prison. More respecting the Suffarls will be found at page 183. I hope, very shortly, however, to give a detailed account of the rise of the different Muham-madan dynasties to the public.
6	In the Mir'at-ul-'Alam and other works, he is styled " Muhammad, son of Zaid-ul-'Alawi, who bore the surname of Ud-Dai'-ala-l-Hak." In the Tarik^-i-Guzidah, he if styled " Al-Bakiri," instead of'Alawi; but the meaning of these two titles is much the same. He was a descendant of the Khalifah, 'All, and Bakir was the surname of Abu Ja'far-i-Muhammad, son of 'AH, son of Husain, son of 'All, the fourth Khalifah.
7	Muhammad, son of Harun, seems to be the correct name of this officer. He had been deputy to Rafi', and had entered the service of Amir Isma'il.THE SAMANI DYNASTY.
33
At this time, the Khalifah Al-Mu'tazid B'illah died, and his son, Al-Muktafi B'illah, succeeded to the throne of the Khilafat. He despatched a commission and a standard to Amir Ismail, and conferred upon him the territories of 'Irak, Rai, and Safahan8, and the provinces of Tabaristan, and Gurgan, the whole of which were incorporated with" Khurasan. Amir Isma'il gave the government of Rai to his nephew, named Abu Salih, son of Mansur, son of Is-hak9, Samani, and to his own son, Ahmad by name, that of Gurgan.
On the night of Tuesday, the 14th of the month Safar, in the year 295 H., he died, and his title became Amir-i-Mazi, or the Past or Late Amir1. He had reigned for a period of eight years2.
IV. ABU NA§R-I-AHMAD3, SON OF ISMA'IL.
This ruler had four sons, named Nasr, Man§ur, Ibrahim, and Yahya, whose surnames were, respectively, Abu Salih, Abu Muhammad, Abu Is-hak, and Abu Zakria.
Abu Nasr-i-Ahmad was a severe and energetic ruler, and put to death several of his slaves for some misconduct. The rest of the slaves, who were their comrades, sought opportunity to revenge them, and to assassinate Amir Ahmad ; but he had a lion4, which had been trained, and he was in the habit of securing the animal near his sleeping-apartment, in the night-time, in order that, through fear of this creature, no one should approach his place of repose.
This animal used to keep guard over his master at night, until, on one occasion, when the Amir had gone on a hunting excursion, and set out, on his return from thence, at an untimely hour. The halting-place was at a considerable distance, and he was unable to reach the station fixed upon, and had to stop at another place for the night. The slaves
8 Isfahan.	9 A son of Ahmad is so named. See page 29.
1 Amir Isma'il made the celebrated Abu-1-Fa?l, Al-BaFami, his Wazir. He continued to act in that office up to the time of Amir Nuh, son of Mansur, by whose command he translated the Tarikh-i-Taban from 'Arabic into Persian.
3 Computing from the commencement of his reign in 287 H.
3	Abu Nasr-i-Ahmad signifies Ahmad, the father of Na§r.
4	The word j^i is used both for lion and tiger.34
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
now found the opportunity they had been seeking, and they assassinated Amir Ahmad. This event happened on the night of Thursday, the 23rd of the month Jamadi-ul-Akhir, 301 H.5 They then took his body, and conveyed it to Bukhara; and, after this occurrence, Amir Ahmad was designated the Amir-i-Shahid, or the Martyred Amir.
In the outset of his career, after his father had departed this life, and an assemblage of the heads of the army, the grandees, and principal men of the country had pledged their allegiance to him, Abu Nasr-i-Ahmad, son of Isma'il, he sent a distinguished person, as envoy to the Court of the Khalifah, and from thence, the Lord of the Faithful, Al-Muktafi B'illah, sent him a commission and a standard ; and his reign gave regularity and order to the affairs of the Empire. In Sijistan6, however, Mu'addil, son of'Alt, son of Lais, Suffari, brother's son of Ya'kub and 'Umro, had broken out into rebellion, and caused great disturbance and disorder. An army had been appointed to proceed into that quarter, and Mu'addil had been reduced, and rendered powerless; and he was made captive, and put in durance.
The government of Sijistan was then conferred by Amir Ahmad upon his uncle's son7, in whom he placed confidence, Abu Salih-i-Mansur, son of Is-hak, son of Ahmad, Samani. Subsequently the people of Sijistan revolted, and seized the person of Abu Salih, and confined him in the fortress of Arks, and gave their allegiance to'Umro, son'of Ya'kub-
5	Taiikh-i-Guzidah, KJiula.sat-ul-Akb.bar, Mujmal-i-Fasih-I, and other works, say this event occurred 23rd Jamadi-ul-Akh,ir, 300 h. Fasih-i gives his reign as 5 years and 3 months.
6	Our author seems to have had a very imperfect and confused idea of the state of Sijistan at this period. He makes no mention of the doings of Sijizi, the slave—the SigizI [^.sL], or Sijizi [u^/?""] slave probably—of 'Umro, son of Lais ; his having, at last, taken to the fortress of Bam, in Kirman, and his subsequent flight into the desert of Khurasan; nor of Tahir and Ya'kub, 'Umro's sons, nor of Lais, son of'All, of the same family, all three of whom were, at different times, taken captive and sent to Baghdad. In 297 h. Muhammad, son of 'All, brother of Ya'kub and 'Umro, sons of Lais, Suffari, was made prisoner along with SigizI, by Amir Ahmad, Samani, who subdued Sijistan. He sent them to Baghdad, at the Khalifah's request. In 299 h., Lais, son of 'All, died in Fars ; and Mu'addil, his son, died the same year.
7	The same Abu-Salih, who was son of Mansur, son of Is-hak, mentioned towards the close of the last reign, which see.
8	All the copies of the MSS. compared, except one, which has djl 'akIj have the words	" fortress of Ark or Arg ;" but I think it might be djl [Uk], which is the name of a buried town of Sijistan, and, from its ruins, Afghans andTHE SAMANl DYNASTY.
35
i-Lais V On this, Amir Abu Nasr-i-Ahmad, son of Isma'il, nominated a well appointed' army [well equipped in all things] to march into Sijistan for the second time, and Husain 'All Marw-ar-Rudi2, was made Amir [commander] of that force. This army had entered Sijistan in the year 300 H.,and had invested'Umro [son of Muhammad], son of Ya'kub, for a period of seven months 3, when he begged for quarter, and came out and surrendered. Sijistan was then made over to the charge of Simjur-i-Dowati4.
It was at this period that the Amir, having been unable to reach his appointed place of rest before nightfall, as already related, was assassinated, after having reigned for a period of six years and three months.
V. NA§R«, SON OF AHMAD, SON OF ISMA'IL.
On the decease of the Amir-i Shahid, Ahmad, son of Isma'il, the whole of the Amirs, and commanders of the troops, and the principal men of the country, in concert with the 'Ulama—the learned in law and religion—of that period, set up his son, Nasr, as his successor 6.
Amir Nasr at this time was but eight years of age, and according to the statement of the chronicler, at the very
Hindus of Kandahar have brought me coins. The fact of being given as well seems to throw a doubt upon it, for both Arg and Kala' are just the same in meaning, and would have to be read "the fort or castle of [the] citadel," unless Ark be a proper name—" the castle of Ark." Perhaps j has been written by mistake for j The Tarikh-i-Haft Akllm says there is "a place called Uk [jjl], in Sijistan, near which is a Reg-i-Rawan [running or flowing sand] situated near Kala'-i-K^h, or Gah, in which vicinity are several holy tombs."
9 'Umro, son of Muhammad, son of Ya'kub-i-Lais, is correct.
1	Other writers say Husain, son of 'All.
2	That is, he was a native of Marw-ar-Rud.
3	Others give nine months as the period.
* Tarikh-i-Ibrahami says Ahmad-i-Simjur—also written Slmjur-i-Dowatl. Dowatl is from dowat, a pen-case, or ink-holder.
5	His proper designation, according to the Mujmal-i-Fasih-I, Tankh-i-Jahan-Ara, the Tarikh-i-Ibrahaml, and Tarik^-i-Fanakatl, is Abu-l-Hasan-i-Nasr, &c.
6	Among the events of the year 301 h., the Mujmal-i-Fasih-i mentions, the " arrival of the news at Baghdad, that the slaves of Amir Ahmad, son of Isma'il, son of Ahmad, Samani, had put him to death, on the banks of the Jihun of Balkh, [referring to what was mentioned under 300 h.] and that his son, Abu-l-Hasan-i-Nasr, had succeeded him. Upon this, the Khalifah, Muktadir, despatched to him a commission confirming him in the government of Mawar-un-Nahr, and added thereunto that of Khurasan."36
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
time that they brought him forth from the Haram to place him upon the throne, being of such tender years, he was completely overcome with fear and" began to cry, and was saying, " Where are you taking me to ? Do you desire to put me to death, in the same way as you put my father ? Let me alone, I beg of you !"
After they had placed him on the throne, Abu 'Abd-ullah Muhammad, son of Ahmad, Al-Jihani, was appointed his Nayab [lieutenant]. He was a man of sagacity, and wise in counsel, and he entered upon the administration of the government in accordance with the rules of strict justice, and with a firm hand, but based upon moderation and beneficence ; but, as the Amir was himself so young in years, the governors and great nobles on the confines showed a refractory spirit.
The first to revolt against his authority was his father's uncle, Is-hak, son of Ahmad, Samani, and his son Ilyas, at Samrkand. They made ready their forces, and marched towards Bukhara. Hamzah, son of 'All, who was one of the chiefs of Amir Nasr's forces, pushed forward to meet them with a large following, put them to the rout, and pursued them as far as the gates of Samrkand. Amir Is-hak sought for mercy, and became ashamed of his conduct, and he was forgiven.
Subsequently to this, Amir Nasr's uncle's son, Mansur, son of Is-hak, revolted against him in 30a H. in Khurasan and Nishapur; and Husain 'Alt7, who was Wall [governor] of Hirat, joined him in his rebellion. The Sipah-salar, [general-in-chief] of Amir Nasr's forces, Hamawiyah 8, marched against them from Bukhara, but, before he came up with them, Mansur had died at Nishapur, and Husain 'Ali returned to Hirat, but still continued in a state of revolt. He engaged in many conflicts, and gave battle on several occasions, until, at length, he was taken prisoner He likewise, being clothed in a dress of
7 Husain, son of 'All.	8
9 In 309 H. Abu Mansur-i-Jihani, was appointed to the government of Hirat, Fushanj. and Badghais, and arrived at the former city to take up his appointment. In 311 H. Shah-Malik, son of Ya'kiib, son of Lais, the Suffarl, and a body of Sanjarls appeared before Hirat. Slmjur was at Hirat at this time; and Shah-Malik and his party invested Hirat four months, but could effect nothing, and had to retire. Changes continually took place there forTHE SAMANI DYNASTY.
37
pardon1, was forgiven, through the intercession of Muhammad, son of Ahmad, Al-Jihani, the Nayab of the Empire ; indeed, during the reign of Amir Nasr, whoever revolted against his authority, was either put to death, or, on expressing penitence for his conduct, was pardoned.
His sovereignty continued during the reigns of the Khali-fahs; Al-Muktadir B'illah, Al-Kahir B'illah, Ar-RazI B'illah, up to that of Al-Muttaki B'illah, and he continued to pay fealty to them, and to render them submission and obedience ; and, from each of those Khalifahs likewise, he received a commission and a standard. He continued to reign, until the month of Rajab, in the year 331 H.2, when he died3. He was spoken of by the title, or surname, of the Amir-i-Sa'id, or the August Amir, and his reign extended to a period of thirty years. He had three sons,
some years. In 319 H. Abu ZakrTa-i-Yahya, son of Ahmad, son of Isma'il, Samani, appeared before Hirat, ousted Shabasi, who had seized the government, burnt some of the gates, and threw down-part of the walls, and left Kara-Tigln, a slave of Abu Ibrahim, Samani, in possession. He then departed towards Samrkand, but, the following day, Amir Nasr himself reached Hirat, stayed one day, and set out by way of Karukh. after Abu Zakria, leaving Simjur again governor of the province. In 321 H., Mansur, son of 'All, was appointed. He died there in 324 H., having been Wall [governor] for three years. The appointment was then conferred, upon Muhammad, son of Hasan, son of Is-hak. Soon after, in the same year, Ab,u-1-'Abbas, Muhammad, son of Al-Jarrah, marched against Hirat, took Muhammad, son of Hasan, captive, and sent him, in bonds, to Jurjan to Balka-Tigin. In 326 H. the office of Wazir was conferred upon Muhammad, son of Muhammad, Al-Jihanf, by Amir Nasr.
Our author generally leaves out the principal events, or most of them, so does not say anything of Makan, son of Kaki, Dilami, his attempt on Khurasan, or the events which led to his death. He was slain by Amir 'All, son of Ilyas, who was one of the Umra-i-Juyiish [Commanders of the Forces] of Amir Nasr. Amir Nasr sent a Dabir [Secretary] along with Amir 'Alt, with directions to transmit him a brief account of what took place, and send it by a carrier-pigeon. He did so in the following words—-u—lf jL>	LI
containing a play upon the first part of his name, Makan [^l^L] " was not," which interpreted is—" ' Was not' has become like his name."
In this same year, 329 H., Balka-Tigin was removed from the government of Hirat, and it was again conferred upon Abu Mansur-i-Kara-Tigin.
1	A winding-sheet, with a sword hung round his neck, probably, as was the custom until very lately.
2	It was in Amir Nasr's reign that Alb-Tigin is first mentioned as being one of his mamluks or slaves, but it was only in the subsequent reign that he rose to the rank of Amir [lord]. See page 40, and note 4.
3	The Tarlki-i-Guzidah, Tarikk-i-Fasih-i, Tarikh-i-Ibrahimt, and other histories, state that Amir-Nasr was slain by his own slaves, 12th of Ramazan, 330 H., but some say it took place in 331 Ii.38
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
Nuh, Isma'il, and Muhammad, and the first succeeded him.
VI. NUH, SON OF NASR, SON OF AHMAD, SAMANI.
Amir Nuh, son of the Amir-i-Sa'id, ascended the throne of the dominion of 'Ajam, on the 5 th of the month of Sha'ban, in the year 331 H."1, and he reigned for a period of twelve years and three months. He had two sons, 'Abd-ul-Malik and Mansur. The Lord of the Faithful, Al-Muttaki B'illah, sent Amir Nuh a standard, with the deed of investiture, confirming him in the government of the whole of the territories of 'Ajam and Khurasan, which had been held by his father. He appointed the Imam, Shams-ul-A'immah, Abi-ul-Fazl, Muhammad, son of Al-Hakim, Sarakhsi. the author of the work entitled " Mukh-ta§ar-i-Kafi," to the office of Wazir, and made him his Nayab, and entrusted to him the administration of his affairs5.
Having entered upon his office, the Imam began to conduct the affairs of the country according to the precepts of wisdom and knowledge, the rules of justice, and the canons of the orthodox law and usage, and, in such a manner, that he left not the least thing neglected. Matters went on in this way until Amir Nuh, through the rebellion of 'Abd-ullah, son of Ashkan6, Khwarazm Shah, proceeded to Marw7 in 332 H., and brought that important matter to a successful issue. In the year 335 H., his
1 In 330 H., according to others, as stated previously.
5	Nuh first appointed Hakim Abu-1-Fazl, Ahmad, son of Muhammad, to the office of Wazir in 330 H., when he succeeded his father. In the same year I find Amir Nuh giving orders to put the Wazir Abu-1-Fazl, Al-Bal'ami, to death. This is not the Wazir, Al-Bal'ami, who translated the Tarikh-i-Tabarf, but of the same family.
6	The Mujmal-i-Fasih-I mentions among the events of the year 332 H., that 'Abd-ullah, son of Ashkam, manifested hostility towards Amir Nuh, but where, is not stated. The Khwarazm Shahls are not mentioned by our author until a long period after this time. The name of this person is written Ashkan, Ashkab, and Askab, in as many different copies of the MS. In 331 H. Kara-Tigin had been removed from the government of Hirat, and it was conferred upon Ibrahim, son of Simjur, who, in the following year, sent thither Abu-1-Fazl-i-'Aziz, son of Muhammad, the Sijizi, to act as his deputy, until he came himself, and directed that the gateways should be destroyed and the walls of the city thrown down.
7	Neither " Meru" nor " Mervc" is the correct pronunciation.THE SAMANi DYNASTY.
39
uncle, Is-hak8, who had fled to Baghdad, had managed to obtain from the Khalifah, Al-Muktafi B'illah, the investiture of Khurasan. He, accordingly, entered those parts, and seized upon the territory of Jibal9 and Khurasan.
Amir Nuh had proceeded to Marw to expel him, but the whole of his nobles, his retinue, and the soldiery were disaffected. They had become annoyed and irritated at the enlightenment displayed, and the just administration of Shams-ul-A'immah, and had become quite sated with his ministry, because he had entirely fettered the hands of tyrants and oppressors, and restrained their extortionate demands and exactions, so that that party were unable to succeed in acquiring what their ambition and tyranny suggested.
Amir Nuh, was in urgent need of his army's services, to enable him to oppose his uncle, Amir Is-frak, whilst the troops began to show a rebellious spirit towards him, and an inclination to take the side of his uncle. A party of the officers of his army, tyrants and enemies to progress and good government, proceeded to the presence of Amir Nuh, and stated that all the dissatisfaction and discontent among his retinue and troops, the confusion in the country, and division in the state, was caused by the Wazir, Shams-ul-A'immah \ " Give him," they demanded, " over into our hands, or otherwise we will all join your uncle." Amir Nuh was constrained by necessity to deliver the Imam into the hands of those tyrants, and they brought him forth. At the entrance of the royal residence there stood two tall white poplar-trees. These they bent downwards, and, fastening each of that unfortunate minister's feet to a branch of either tree which was nearest it, let the trees spring back again into their upright
8	Other authors mention hostilities between Amir Nuh and his uncle Ibrahim.
9	Jibal, or the Highlands of 'Irak, is meant here.
1 Fasih-T, under the events of the year 335 H., mentions that Abu 'Ali-i-Simjur became hostile towards Amir Nuh, son of Nasr, and that the troops demanded of him the Wazir, Hakim Abu-1-Fazl, ^on of Muhammad, and that the Amir had to comply, whether he liked it or not, and that they put the Wazir to death, after he had held that office four years. After his being thus put to death, Amir NQh conferred the office of Wazir upon Shams-ul-A'immah ; so it seems from this, that our author has confused the two ministers into one.40
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
position, and that great man was thus torn asunder. This occurrence took place in the year 335 H.
Amir Nuh, son of Nasr, died in 343 H., and he was styled by the title of Amir-i-Hamid, or the Laudable Amir.
VII. 'ABD'-UL-MALIK, SON OF NUH, SAMANI.
On the decease of Amir Nuh, the son of Nasr, the whole of the great nobles and principal commanders of the troops agreed together to give their allegiance to his son, Abu-1-Fawaris-i-'Abd-ul-Malik, and they accordingly placed him on the throne. The Wazir's office was given to Abu Mansur, Muhammad, son of Al-'Aziz2, and the commander over the Amir's troops was Abu Sa'id-i-Bakir, son of Al-Malik, Al-Farghani.
Amir 'Abd-ul-Malik based the administration of the government of his dominions upon the rules of justice and rigour, and placed Walis [governors] in different parts, while others of the great nobles were retained by him in authority near his own person. An arrangement was entered into with Abu-l-Hasan, son of Buwiah respecting his territory, for the sum of 200,000 ruknl dirams3. This treaty was concluded, in accordance with the mandate of the Amir 'Abd-ul-Malik, by Abu Sa'id-i-Bakir, son of Al-Malik, Al-Farghani, before mentioned, who was the general of his troops; but Abu Sa'id being suspected of partiality in this matter towards the Dilaman and the family of Buwiah, Amir 'Abd-ul-Malik put him to death. He also imprisoned the Wazir, and subsequently put him to death likewise, as both he and Abu Sa'id had become tainted with the doctrine of the Karamitah sect of heretics. The command of his troops was entrusted to Alb-Tagin 4, the Hajib [chamberlain],
3 Amir 'Abd-ul-Malik made Abu Ja'far, ul-'Utba, his Wazir, according to other authors.
3	See the dynasty of the Dialamah, page 55.
4	In Fasili-i, Alb-Tagin is first mentioned in the year 267 h. in the following words :—"Birth of Alb-Tagin, the freed man ( of Nasr, son of Ahmad, Samani." According to the same excellent authority, in 346 h., Abu Mansur, son of'Abd-ur-Razzak, who had been made Wall [ruler] of Hirat [which appears to have always formed a province of itself, from its constant separate mention], that same year left it, and retired to Tus, thus throwing up his command.THE SAMANi DYNASTY.
until the year 350 H.5, when Amir 'Abd-ul-Malik, having gone one evening to the Maidan or Course to amuse himself in playing Chaugan6. fell from his horse and was killedT, after having reigned for a period of little over seven years.
VIII. MANSUR, SON OF NUH", SAMANi,
On the decease of Amir 'Abd-ul-Malik, the commanders of the troops, and the heads and elders of the religious bodies and the law, at the capital [Bukhara], met together,
Great agitation and commotion took place at Hirat in consequence, and the government was bestowed upon the Hajib, or chamberlain, Alb-Tigin. The latter sent his deputy, Abu Is-hak-i-Tahiri, thither ; but in the same year Abu Is-ha^ was seized and bound and removed, and Husain, son of Ribal, came to Hirat as Alb-Tigin's deputy. * * * In 350 H, Hirat was given to Abu-l-Hasan-i-SImjur. This Alb-Tigin is the Turkish slave who was master of Sabuk-Tigin, who was also a Turkish slave, and father of Mahmud of Ghaznln^ Some persons, who appear to have been unable to read Persian for themselves* have called him by all sorts of names in their so-called " Histories of India," and in professed translations, such as " Alputtekeln," " Abistageen," "Abistagy," " Abistagi," " Alepteggin," and the like, from Dow down to Marshman, and his "Samanides" and " Aluptiigeen/' who "rose through the gradations of office to the government of Candahar [which is never once mentioned by any writer of that-period] or Ghuzni "—:he is not quite sure which.
8 Abu Suliman-i-Da'ud, Al-FanakatI, says in 351 H. Mansur succeeded in 349 H,
8 Chaugan is a ganie sorrteWhat resembling tennis, but played on horseback, and with a stick with one end bent, instead of a bat. The Turks were passionately fond of it. Amir 'Abd-ul-Malik, Samani, was riding at full speed after the ball, when he fell from his horse, and was so injured thereby that he died. Kutb-ud-din, I-bak, the first df the Turkish slave-kings of Dihll was also killed from a fall while playing at this same game.
7	Fasilj-i says, " This occurred in the year 348 H., although some say in 351 H.," and, that "it happened either whilst playing at Chaugan, or whilst hunting." He had reigned seven years, six months, and eleven days.
8	There is great discrepancy here between our author and others. The Tarikh-i-Guzidah, Nusakh-i-Jahart-Ara, Lubb-ut-Tawarikh, Tarikh-i-Ibra-himi, Muntakhab-ut-Tawarlkh, Khulasat-ul-Akhbar. Tarikh-i-Yafa'i. and last, and not the least trustworthy history, the Mujmal-i-Fasih-i', all say that Abu-Salih, son of 'Abd-ul-Malik, son of Niih, surnamed Us-Sadid, the soji, not the brother of the late Amir 'Abd-ul-Malik, succeeded his father. The first event mentioned in the latter work, under the year 349 H., is "Accession to the throne of Mansur, son of 'Abd-ul-Malik, son of Niih, son of Nasr, son of Ahmad, son of Isma'il, SamanL" What is most strange in our author's statement is that he only mentions one name of the two ; and therefore I suspect he has confused them. All the copies of the MS., however, are alike on this point.
D42
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
and held consultation whether they should raise to the throne Abu Salih-i-Mansur, son of Nuh, the late Amir's brother, or the latter's son.
At this juncture Alb-Tigin, the Amir-i-Hajib [Lord-Chamberlain], was absent in Khurasan, and the Waztr of the late Amir was 'All Al-Bal'aryi9, between whom and the Amir-i-Hajib great unanimity and concord existed. The Wazir wrote to Alb-Tigin to consultwith him on this matter, and have his advice, to which Amir Alb-Tigin wrote in reply that the son's right to succeed his father to the throne was greater than that of the father's brother1 ; but, before Alb-Tigin's reply had time to arrive, the whole of the soldiery, the great nobles, and the heads of religion and law, had agreed to place Amir Mansur, son of • Nuh, on the throne, and had already installed him thereon. When the news reached Alb-Tigin respecting Amir Mansur's elevation to the sovereignty, he despatched messengers and agents in order to stop by the way, those bearing his letter of reply, and to bring it back, but they did not succeed in finding the kasids, or couriers, who bore it.
Amir Alb-Tigin [at this period] held the government of the province of Nishapur from the Samani Court2, but it was [now] conferred upon Ibn 'Abd-ur-Razzak3.
9 His name is not correctly given by our author. His-right name is Abu 'All, son of'Abd-ullah, Muhammad, Al-Bal'ami ; and on the authority of the Asar-ul-Nuzara, Tarlkli-i-Yafa'i, and other works, Abu 'All was the translator of the Tarlkh of Imam Muhammad Jarir-ut-Tabarl, as stated in the preface to that translation. See note 4, page 44.
1	Other writers state quite contrary to this, and say that Alb-Tigin, having risen so as to be considered one of the greatest Amirs, was written to, and asked which of the two named he preferred being raised to the throne. He wrote in reply that the uncle was the best of the two ; but, before his reply came, the nobles and great men had raised Mansur, son of the late 'Abd-ul-Malik, to the throne. On this account Mansur cherished enmity towards him, or at least Alb-Tigin thought so. Fasih-I says nothing whatever respecting the letter to the Wazir, or his advice as to the succession. Had Alb-Tigin written what our author states he did, it was entirely in favour of the son, and therefore if Mansur was the son he could have no cause to entertain enmity against him ; but, if the uncle, the case would be different. I have been very careful to give the exact words here.
2	See note 4, page 40.
8 It was conferred upon Abu-l-Hasan-i-Simjur in 351 H., he having become Sahib-ul-Jaisli, or commander of the troops, and proceeded to Nishapur ; and the government of Hirat was confened upon Abu-l-Hasan, son of 'Umro Al-Faryabi. After four months it was bestowed upon Talhah, son of Muhammad, Un-Nisa'i. In 352 H. Alb-Tigin died.THE SAMANI DYNASTY.
43
Alb-Tigin was filled with wonder and astonishment, and he determined to proceed from Nishapur to the court of Bukhara 4; but, when he had reached Balkh, on the way thither, having been informed respecting the change in the. heart of Amir Mansur towards him, on account of the letter he_had despatched [which had fallen into Mansufs hands], on reaching Balkh, he turned aside, and proceeded towards Ghaznin. Amir Mansur despatched a commission after him, and pacified his mind 0 [by assuring him of his favour].
In this reign, Hasan, son of Buwiah, died 6 ; and his son, Fana Khusrau, removed his father's treasures, and proceeded to Baghdad, overcame his uncle, Bakhtyar, and possessed himself of 'Irak. The 'Ulama and the Kazis he now put forward, and solicited an accommodation from Amir Mansur, under the agreement that he, Fana Khusrau. should retain possession of the territories of 'Irak, Rai, Gurgan, and Tabaristan, in fief, on payment of a tribute, at the rate of one thousand gold dinars daily 7.
During the reign of Amir Mansur, in Farghanah. Sijistan, and 'Irak, the whole of thfe great nobles were continually revolting from his authority; but the Almighty was pleased to bestow victory upon the Amir's nobles and
4	This too is quite contrary to other writers, who give much greater details of these matters. An army was sent by Mansur against Alb-Tigin, who defeated it, and then marched against Ghaznin, and gained possession of it. Upon this Mansur proposed to move against him in person, but instead, he sent a still larger force than before against him, but did not succeed in reducing him. The details of these events are far too long for insertion here. I ,may mention, however, that "when Alb-Tigin appeared before Ghaznin, the Sahib, or lord of Ghaznin. refused to admit him, on which he invested it until it was reduced to such straits that the city was surrendered to him, and he put the Badshah of Ghazmn to death." On this Amir Mansur sent 30,000 horse against him, but he suddenly fell upon them with a for«e of 6000, and defeated them. On this Mansur gave up the contest. Our author says nothing more respecting Alb-Tigin until the middle of the next reign, and then, that he "had died at Ghaznin." The Mujmal-i-Fasih-i, which is quite silent on the hostility between Mansur and his slave, and the cause of it, states, under the year 352 H., that "Alb-Tigin, Turk, died at Ghaznin in this year," and that " Is-hak, son of Alb-Tigin, assumed the government." See note on this subject at page 71. Our author is entirely silent on the affairs of Khalaf, son of Ahmad, in Sijistan, and of his proceeding to the court of Bukhara to obtain aid from Mansur. See notes to Sectfbn XIV.
5	The investiture of Ghaznin he means, no doubt.
6	See account of the Buwiahs farther on, and note 8 to page 63.
7	The I. O. L. MS., the Bod. MS., and the R.'A. S. MS., say "three thousand gold dinars but the other MSS. give the amount as above.
D 244
THE TABA?AT-I-NA§IRI.
troops, until the whole of the rebels were reduced to submission.
Amir Mansur died on Tuesday, the nth of the month of Shawwal. 365 H.8, after a reign of seventeen years, six months, and eleven days. He went by the surname of the Amir-i-Sadtd, or the Steadfast Amir.
IX. Nt)H, SON OF MAN§UR, SON OF NUH, SAMANI.
His sons were Mansur, 'Abd-ul-Malik, and Muhammad9.
On the departure from this world of Amir Mansur, son of Nuh, they [the people] gave their allegiance to his son, Amir Abu-l-Kasim-i-Nuh, and raised him to his father's throne. The Lord of the Faithful, Ut-Ta'i'u-L'illah, sent him a patent of investiture and a standard.
The new ruler directed Fayik-i-Khasah \ and Tash2, the Hajib [chamberlain], to assume the command of his troops and the direction of military affairs. Abu-l-Hasan-i-Simjur, who was the son of a slave of this dynasty, and ruled, in the name of Amir Nuh, over parts of Khurasan, such as Hirat and Nishapur, and over the territory of Mawar-un-Nahr3, received the title of Na§ir-ud-Daulah from the Amir, and the territory of Tus was added to the territories already held by him.
The office of Wazir was conferred upon Abi-ul-Hasan-i-'Abd-ullah, son of Ahmad Al-'Utba4; and Tash, the Hajib, was made head of the army, or commander-in-chief, with the title of Hisam-ud-Daulah. Kabus, son of Washm-gir, was made Wali [ governor] of Gurgan,
8	Five years previous to this event, in 360 H., Mahmtid, son of Sabuk-Tigin, was born.
9	The author's arrangement of his work is by no means uniform ; he sometimes mentions the sons of rulers, and at times leaves them out altogether. This too is often the case with respect to their titles. The title of Nuh was Ar-Riza, and other authors style him Nub, son of Mansur, son of'Abd-ul-Malikson of Nuh, son of Nasr, &c.
1 From one meaning" of this word, Fayik appears to have been a secretary. The Tarikh-i-Ibrahimi calls him Fayik-i-Bak-Tuzun.
3	His right name is Abu-l-'Abbas-i-Tash. 3 So in all copies of the text.
4	The author of the Tarikh,-i»Yamini was of this family. The name has been sometimes written 'Utbi. Guzidah, and other most trustworthy works state that Abu 'Alt, son of 'Abd-ullah-i-Muhammad, son of Bal'ami, translator of the Taiikli-i-Tabari, was his Wazir. In the preface to that translation Mansur is styled son of Nuh.HE SAMANl DYNASTY.
45
and he and other nobles were despatched along with Tash into 'Irak, in order to carry..on hostilities against Buwiah5, son of Al-Hasan, son of B.uwiah. They fought a battle before the gate of Gurgan and were defeated, and Tash, the Hajib, was overthrown, and had to retreat.
After some time Tash and Abu-l-Hasan-i-Simjur, both of them, revolted ; but, after some struggles, and victory 6 over the Dialamah of the family of Buwiah, they both returned to their allegiance 7; and the command of Amir Nuh's forces, after some time, fell to Abt 'All, son of Simjur, and Nishapur was made over to him, and he received the title of 'Imad-ud-Daulah.
In this reign likewise, Amir Abu Musa-i-Harun, I-lak 8 Khan, determined to attack Bukhara, and Amir Nuh fled to Amul9, and kept in retirement. Abi 'Ali, son of Simjur, now began to act in a rebellious manner. I-lak Khan, after having succeeded in gaining possession of the country [Bukhara] and overthrowing the government, became greatly afflicted with haemorrhoids, and determined to retire into his own territory again. He sent for Amir 'Abd-ul-'Aziz, son of Nuh, son of Nasr, who was an uncle of Amir Nuh's, and presented him with a robe of honour, and made over the territory to him, after which he retired towards Turkistan. Amir Nuh, son of Mansur, brought assistance from the Turkmans, and set out in pursuit of I-lak Khan until he came up with him ; but I'lak Khan faced about, and inflicted a defeat upon his pursuers before the gate of Samrkand; and on his way back to Turkistan the Khan died.
Amir Nuh returned again to Bukhara, and once more
s So in the original; but it was against the forces of'Uzd-ud-Daulah, Abu Shuja'-i-Fana Khusrau, the Dilami, that Amir Nuh's forces were'sent. The details are very long.
6	Our author's account here is very confused. The details would occupy more space than I can spare.
7	Abu-l-'Abbas-i-Tash, surnamed Hisam-ud-Daulah, died in 379 H., at Jurjan. Some copies of the text have for
8	This is incorrect; it was Bughra Khan, ruler of Turkistan, not I-lak, who was his son and successor, as mentioned farther on by our author himself. According to Guzidah and other histories, Abu 'AlT-i-Simjur contemplated assuming independent sovereignty, and sought support from Bughra Khan to aid him in doing so. Bughra Khan's coming was after Nuh and Sabuk-Tigin proceeded to Hirat to attack Abu 'Ali-i-Simjur. See note 4 to page 46.
9	In Mazandaran.46
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
acquired strength ; but, through the rebellion of Abu 'Ali-i-Simjur, the affairs of Khurasan had fallen into great disorder, and [to make matters worse] Amir Alb-Tigin had likewise died at Ghaznin. and Sabuk-Tigin 1 had succeeded him 2 there, and become very powerful.
The people of Balkh, on account of the , weak state of the Samanl ruler's power, implored aid from Amir Sabuk-Tigin from the tyranny of Fayik1i-Khasah. and he had marched thither. Amir Nuh sent a sagacious person to him, and great graciousness and courtesy passed between them, and compacts were entered into. Amir Sabuk-Tigin came to Kash3 and Nakhshab. and Amir Nuh came out of Bukhara [to meet him], and they united [their forces], and afterwards marched into Khurasan to crush Abi 'Ali-i-Simjur4. When they reached the confines of Tal-kan, the agents and instigators of the Karamitah and Mulahidah schismatics had arrived in that territory, and a great number of the people of those parts had listened to and accepted their doctrine. Amir Sabuk-Tigin laid hands upon the whole of them, and made holy war, as by orthodox institutes prescribed, [upon them], and obtained the title of Nasir-ud-din.
When Bu 'Ali-i-Simjur became aware that Amir Nuh and Sabuk-Tigin had set out towards Hirat, he left Nisha-
1	The only correct way of spelling his name as given with the vowel points— s followed by the short vowel a, silent b followed by the short vowel ti, and silent k = Sabuk ; t with the short vowel i, and silent g, the long vowel i, and silent 11 = Tight——(Sabuk-Tigin). Neither " Sebektekein," nor " Sabak Tagln," " Subuktugeen," " Sebekteghin," "Subuktagi," &c.
2	Sabuk-Tigin had certainly succeeded ; but between his accession and Alb-Tigin's death sixteen years had intervened, and three other persons had administered the government.
3	" Kesh," as this place has been styled in some works, is an impossible word. The Persian is J& and by any change of the vowel points it cannot be made Kesh,. It must be either Kash, Kish, or Kush ; but the first is correct.
* Fasih-i says, under 382 h., " Amir Nuh, son of Mansur, Samanl, and Amir Nasir-ud-din, Sabuk-Tigin along with him, came to Hirat, and fought a battle with Abu 'Ali-i-Simjur, and overthrew him." It was in the following year, 383 H., that Bughra Khan advanced against Bukhara. Our author has put this event previously to Nuh and Sabuk-Tigin joining against Abu 'Ali-i-Simjiir, not only confusing the order of events, but also giving Bughra Khan a wrong name. His title and name was Shihab-ud-Daulah, Harun, son of Suliman, son of I-lak Khan, surnamed Bughra Khan, the Turk, and he held the tract of territorv tn.m Kashghar to the Jihun. . His son, I-lak Khan, succeeded him. In 384 H. Amir Nuh gave the government of Khurasan to Sabuk-Tigin.THE SAMAN! DYNASTY.
47
pur and proceeded thither. Amir Nuh, on the day of the engagement between the two armies, gave up the command of the troops to Amir Sabuk-Tigin. When their forces encountered each other before the gate of Hirat, and, during the engagement, Dara, son of Kabus, son of Washm-gir, who was on the side of Abu All, deserted5, and went over to the other side ; and Abu 'All was overthrown, through the misfortune of his having acceded, as well as most of the chief men of that territory, and his army also, to the exhortations of the Karamitahs, and having become contaminated with that heresy. He had founded a Masjid-i-Jami'6, or great masjid, at Nishapur, intending, when it should be completely finished, that the Khutbah should be read there for Mustansir-i-Misri7. This victory was gained by Amir Nuh, son of Mansur, in the middle of the month of Ramazan, in the year 384 H.8; and, after this success, the affairs of the province of Hirat were arranged by Amir Nuh, and he proceeded to the territory of Nishapur.
Abu'Ali-i-Simjur nowsoughtfor peace; but, on his request not being acceded to, he left Nishapur, and set out towards Rai, and sent his son to Abu-l-Hasan, son of Buwiah. Amir Nuh was now left to return [to his capital]; and Sabuk-Tigin and his son, Amir9 Mahmud, were stationed at Nishapur ; but, as Amir Nuh paused at Tus, Sabuk-Tigin despatched his son, Amir Mahmud, to the Court; and he was nominated to the command of the troops, and the title of Saif-ud-Daulah was conferred upon him, together with the government of Nishapur. Subsequently to this, Amir Nuh, son of Mansur, returned to Bukhara, leaving Balkh, Hirat, Nishapur, and the territory of Khurasanunder the care of Amir Sabuk-Tigin and his son, Amir Mahmud, the latter of whom took up his quarters at Nishapur.
5	With a body of troops.
6	The great masjid, in which the Khutbah is read on Fridays, is called by this name.
7	The rival Khaltfah, whose seat was in Misr, and who was head of the
Karamitah sect at this period, was Ul-'AzIz B'illah, Mansur-i-Nizar, who died in 386 h.	v
9 Fasih-i says Nuh defeated Abu 'Ali-i-Simjur at Nishapur, and that Abu 'All fled.'
9 He was not "Amir" Mahmud then, and the author's intention here is merely to call him by the title he subsequently acquired.
1 So in the original.48
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
In the month of Rabl'-ul-awwal, 385 H., Abu 'All-i-Simjur came out of Gurgan, and advanced to Nishapur. with the intention of compelling Mahmud to relinquish it, and the people of the city espoused his cause. Mahmud, after much opposition and hard fighting, was defeated, for he had but a small force with him, and retired again to Hirat. Abu 'Ail-i-Simjur again gained possession of Nishapur, and continued there until Sabuk-Tigln, with a large army, advanced towards that place, Abu 'Ali moved forward towards Tus to oppose his advance, and there they encountered each other, and a severe and sanguinary battle ensued. Amir Mahmud made an attack upon the rear of Abu 'All's army, and broke through his ranks, and overthrew Fayik, who was with him, and completed the defeat of Abu 'All's army. Fayik retired to Bukhara, and there was thrown into confinement, and died?. Amir Sabuk-Tigln proceeded to Balkh, and took up his quarters there3; and Amir Mahmud returned again to Nishapur.
At length, on Friday, the 13th of the month of Rajab, 387 H., Amir Nuh, son of Mangur, departed.this life'*. His reign extended over a period of twenty-one years and nine months ; and in this same year Amir Sabuk-Tigln also died.
X. MANStJR, SON OF Nt)H, SON OF MANSUR.
The late Amir Nuh had nominated his son, Amir Mansur, as his heir and successor; and, when the former died, his son ascended his father's throne. He entrusted the command of his forces to Fayik-i-Khasah ; and Abu Mangur-i-'Azlz5, who, through fear of Amir Mahmud, son
2	Other writers say that Fayik, after this defeat, separated from Abu 'All, and feared to return to Amir Nuh, although he had permission to do so. He went, therefore, and joined I-lak Khan, son of Bughra Khan, and obtained high rank in his service.
3	Hostility arose between Amjr Nuh and Sabuk-Tigin in 386 h.
* Some state that Abu 'All and Fayik sent a force of slaves and had him put to death ; others, that it was supposed he was assassinated at the instigation of the §aljib, Ibnri-'Ubbad, the Wazir of Fakh,r-ud-Daulah, Abu-l-Hasan-i-Buwiah, by the Karamitah schismatics. Fasih-1 says, "Amir Ar-Raz!-i-Nuh', died at Nishapur, 13th of Rajab, 387 h.; ant}, in the same year, Sabuk-Tigin, the slave of the house of Samani, also died."
5 He has not been mentioned before, and who or what he was, the author does not say ; but Fasih-i mentions" that the Wazir, Abu Mansur-i-'Aziz, was removed froiji that office in 388 H., on account of disagreement with Fayik, the JIijibTTHE SAMANi DYNASTY.
49
of Sabuk-Tigin, had fled, and retired to Isfanjab6, was brought back again. At the time of returning he had implored help from I-lak Khan, soliciting that he would take vengeance upon the enemies and opponents of Amir Mansur. When Abu Mansur, son of 'Aziz, reached the gate of Samrkand he seized him ; and at this period Fayik-i-Khasah was at Samrkand. I-lak Khan summoned Fayik to his presence, and despatched him to Bukhara with an army ; and, on Amir Mansur becoming aware of it, he left Bukhara, and retired to Amul.
When Fayik reached Bukhara, and approached the gate of the palace of the Samani princes, he showed great emotion, and became greatly agitated, and went and joined Mansur [Amir Mansur, son of Nuh], and asked of him why he had left the government, and abandoned the capital. Mansur, on this, returned to Bukhara again, and left the office of commander of the troops [there, as previously stated,] to Fayik, and in Khurasan the command over the troops was given to Bak-Tuzun7, as Amir Mahmud had proceeded to Ghaznin, in order to take possession of the territory of his father, Sabuk Tigin [who was now dead], and he left Bak-Tuzun the command over the forces in -Khurasan8.
At this period Bak-Tuzun slew Abu-l-Kasim-i-Simjur, and took up his residence at Nishapur ; and, on this, Amir Mahmud marched an army from Ghaznin towards Khurasan9.
6	Also written Sifanjab.
7	In every copy of our author which I have compared, except one, the first letter of this word is m, and the other letters also differ; but from other histories it is fully proved that the name of this personage is Bak-Tuzun. A similar name occurs in the history of the DIalamah : and sometimes the Bak is omitted, as in the Jami'-ut-Tawarlki. Guzidah also has Bak-Tuzun. The word, Bak, (el;) is quite a distinct word from Beg (isL)- The Shams-ul-Lughat describes it as written with Arabic leaf [i. e. not gdf], and short a —Bak, signifying "a lord," "a great man." It is a title or surname, like Bak in Bak-Taghdi, Alb in Alb-Tigln, and Balka in Balka-Tigin, &c. The Tarikh-i-Ibrahimi calls him Fayik-i-Bak-Tuzun.
8	The command of the troops, and the government which he had held, when the late Amir died. Other authors state that Mansur would not confirm Mahmud in that appointment, and that he became hostile in consequence.
9	A great deal of detail is wanted here to elucidate these transactions. In the month of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 388 H., Abu-l-Kasim, the commander of the Simjuri forces, was defeated by Bak-Tuzun, on which he retired to Fushanj. Bak-Tuzun again assembled a force, and advanced to Fushanj against Abu-l-Kasim ; but an agreement was arrived at between them. I have not space to give further details.5°
THE TABAXAT-I-NASIRI.
Bak-Tuzun, being aware that he could not cope with Mahmud, evacuated Nishapur, and set off for the presence of Amir Mansur. The latter had' left Bukhara, and had arrived at Marw, and Fayik was with him ; but, when Bak-Tuzun joined him, Amir Mansur had reached Sarakhs. Favik-i-Khasah and Bak-Tuzun now conspired together to dethrone Amir Mansur; and, on the night of the 12th of the month of Safar1, 389 H., they removed him from the sovereignty, after which they left Sarakhs. and went back to Marw again. There they agreed together to place Abu-l-Fawaris-i-'Abd-ul-Malik, son of Nuh, on his brother's throne. This they carried out, and they deprived Amir Abu-l-Hirs2-i-Mansur, son of Nuh, of his sight, after he had reigned one year and eight months.
XI. ABU-L-FAWARIS-I-'ABD-UL-MALIK, SON OF NUH.
By the time that Favik-i-Khasah and Bak-Tuzun had placed Amir'Abd-ul-Malik upon the throne, Amir Mahmud3 had arrived at Balkh ; and, on being made acquainted with this occurrence, he advanced to the gates of Marw in order to revenge the treatment which Amir Mansur had suffered at their hands4. They, however, sent an agent to negotiate with ^Mahmud; and an arrangement was entered into between them and him, whereby it was agreed that Hirat and Balkh should be held by Mahmud, and Marw and Nishapur by them. Amir Mahmud, after this arrangement, again retired, and this was on Tuesday, the 26th of the month of Jamadi-ul-awwal, in the year 389 H.
1	Fasih-I says, on the 8th of Safar, and that they then deprived Amir Mansur of his sight. His reign, according to the same authority, was one year and nine months.
2	According to some, Abu-l-Haris was his title, but Abu-l-Hirs is correct. The whole of the Samani rulers had titles of this kind, but the author does not always give them. I have supplied them.
3	He had dethroned his own brother Isma'il, and had assumed the Ghaznin throne, a short time previous to the accession of Abu-l-FawcLris-i-'-Abcl-ul-Malik.
4	Mahmud fought a battle against 'Abd-ul-Malik, son of Nuh, who fled, along with Fayik and Bak-Tuzun; the two former retired to Bukhara, and the latter to Nishapur. Abu-l-Kasim-i-Simjur retired toKuhistan, and Khurasan was left in Mahmud's possession. About this time, Mahmud gave the command of his troops to his brother Nasr, and made Balki the capital of his dominions. See notes to Mahmud's reign.THE SAMANI DYNASTY.
At this period, Dara, son of Kabus-i-Washm-gir, was Wall [governor] of Gurgan,and incited a party of the slavess, of the Samant kings [who appear to have taken refuge with him], to follow the forces of Amir Mahmud, with the object of plundering his retinue ; and they set out in pursuit of them6. Amir Nasr, son of Sabuk-Tigin, the brother of Mahmud, had charge of the rear [column] of his brother's forces, and joined battle with the body of pursuers, and also despatched a messenger to Mahmud to inform him of the state of affairs. Amir Mahmud turned back, and proceeded to the scene of action ; but, previously to his reaching it, Amir Nasr had already defeated the assailants, and put them to the rout.
When the party of nobles, at Marw, became aware that' Mahmud had Mnade a retrograde movement in that direction, they evacuated it, and retired to Bukhara. Fayik, shortly after these events took place, died in the month of Sha'ban, of this same year. He had deeply regretted, and heartily repented of the acts he had committed, but all was now of no avail, and his contrition came too late; and all the adherents of the Samani dynasty became separated and dispersed.
After the death of Fayik, Amir Abu-l-Hasan, I-lakr-i-
5	Styled nobles in following paragraph, and refer to slaves such as Alb-Tigln and Sabuk-Tigin, who were some of the chief men in the state.
6	Mahmud having succeeded his father in 389 H., by the dethronement of his brother Isma'il, appointed his brother Nasr commaiider of his army in Khurasan, and made Balkh, the capital of his dominions. At this period, Amir Abu Ibrahim-i-Isma'il, son of Nuh, the last of the Samanis, was struggling to recover the dominions of his ancestors, after having escaped from Bukhara when I-lak-i-Nasr, son of Bughra Khan, entered it, and.had, just before this period, succeeded in reaching Kh,warazm. At this time he had come to Bukhara again, from whence he went to AbTward, and from thence to Nishapur. Nasr, brother of Mahmud, on this, evacuated Nishapur with all despatch, and retreated precipitately towards Hirat. Subsequently, Mahmud advanced to Nishapur, upon which Abu Ibrahim fled therefrom, and took shelter with Shams-ul-Ma'ali. Kabus, son of Washm-gir. This must have been the time, when, according to our author, Amir Nasr had charge of the rear [column] of his brother's army, but he has related these events in his usual confused manner, and has not mentioned even the name of Abu Ibrahim-i-Isma'il. See note page 52.
7	Other authors state that Amir Mahmud, son of Sabuk-Tigin, marched against Bak-Tuzun and Fayik, who had conspired against their sovereign, dethroned him, and deprived him of his sight, drove them out of Khurasan, and possessed himself of thai territory ; and that Bak-Tuzun and P'ayijc fled52
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
Nasr, son of 'All, brother of the Khan-i-Buzurg, or the Great Khan, advanced from Farghanah, and appeared before the gates of Bukhara, in the month of Zi-Ka'dah, in the year 389 H. He pretended to the people that he had come to render aid to Amir Abu-l-Fawaris-i-'Abd-ul-Malik, son of Nuh. Amir 'Abd-ul-Malik despatched the nobles and principal officers still remaining in his service to receive hiai; but, as soon as they approached, he gave orders to seize the whole of them ; and, on the 10th of Zi-Ka'dah of that same year, he entered Bukhara. Amir 'Abd-ul-Malik concealed himself; but I-lak-i-Nasr asked him to return, and succeeded in getting the Samani prince into his power8; after which he sent him to Urjand9, and the dominion of the Samanis terminated1. The dynasty,
into Mawar-un-Nahr, and once more conspired with I-lak Khan, who, under pretence of aiding Amir 'Abd-ul-Malik, whom they had set up, marched out of Kashghar, and appeared before Bukhara.
8	I-lak, son of Bughra Khan, took Bukhara, ioth of Zi-Ka'dah, 389 H. The blind Amir Mansur, 'Abd-ul-Malik, Ibrahim, and Ya'kiib, the four sons of Nuh, were made captive at the same time.
9	One copy has Uzjand, but other writers give Uzgand, and the fortress of Uzgand; and state that there he was confined till his death, which took place in 389 h. It was the capital of Khwarazm, and the name of a province : the 'Arabs called it Jurjanlah. It is the present Urganj.
1 Other most trustworthy historians, some of whose works I have been quoting from, give an account of the reign, or rather struggles, of another prince of this dynasty, brother of Mansur and 'Abd-ul-Malik, which, in a condensed form, is as follows:—
"ABU IBRAHIM-I-ISMA'iL, SON OF NUH.
" He was known by the title of Muntasir, one of the significations of which word is ' extricating one's self from any calamity or misfortune,' which may have reference to the following circumstances. During the uproar and confusion which ensued upon the seizure of 'Abd-ul-Malik by I-lak-i-Nasr, Abu Isma'il, having covered himself with the mantle of a slave-girl, succeeded, by means of that disguise, in getting out of the throng. For three days he lay concealed in the dwelling of an old woman, after which time he managed to effect his escape from the place in the dress of a common soldier, and reached the territory of Khwarazm. Some of the nobles and soldiery of the Samani dynasty, on becoming aware of his escape, hastened there to join him. Muntasir by this means acquired some strength ; and he began to prepare his followers to make an effort to regain the territory of his ancestors. For several years he carried on a desultory warfare on the confines of Khurasan and Mawar-un-Nahr. He encountered the troops of I-lak Khan [I-lak-i-Nasr], and the governor of Khurasan, on several occasions, with various success. At length, in the month of Rabi'-ul-Awwal 395 H., while in the encampment of aTHE SAMANi DYNASTY.
53
from the commencement of the reign of Isma'il upv to this time, had continued for a period of one hundred and eight years3.
The following table gives the genealogical tree of the race and dynasty of the Samanis3
MI-dAd [.>}Lo], father of
KAR-KIN4 c^^T[t^and t/vTand {juJ}], father of
BAHRAM JASH-NASH	^ and and
father of -
/
bahrAm chubin	[^ji], father of
N0SHAD s^y [j^lyi and Lijj and J^jj], father of nushir4^3 [i^i and J-iji], father of TAMGHAn uli^ [ctAiJ* and JiJe and jUW], father of jashmAn jjUjIa. [uU» and ^L-^ and ^jU-^.], father of s Am AN-I-KH add At 8 ilji. J^L,	father of
ASAD, who had four sons, Nuh, Ahmad, Yahya, Ilyas,
nomad tribe, in whose tents he had sought shelter, in the neighbourhood of Bukhara, he was put to death by Mah-Rue [moon-faced], the chief of the tribe. The Mujmal-i-Fasih-i states that Mah-Rue was 'Amil or subordinate governor of the district in the vicinity of Uzgand, on the part of Sultan Mahmud, and that Mahmud put Mah-RQe to death for his treatment of Amir Abu Ibrahim. Thus ended the dynasty of the Samanis, none of the race being left, after having lasted one hundred and three years, nine months, and eleven days." The account given by Abu-Suliman-i-Da'ud, Al-Fanakati, is slightly different from this.
2	The I. O. L. MS., No. 1952, and its prototype the R. A. S. MS., for they seem, as far as errors go, to be copies of each other, give one hundred and eighty years as the period during which this dynasty continued. GuzTdah says one hundred and two years, six months, and twenty days.
3	To make it more intelligible I have reversed it, as the author begins with the last ruler. It must be also borne in mind that, as ifuch great difference exists in all the MSS. as to the names before Saman, and that no vowel points are given, they cannot be absolutely depended upon. I give the variations within brackets, and also mention the result of my comparison with other writers.
* This word of course may possibly be read GargJn, &c., as in Persian, 12J may be k or g.
9 No doubt Nushir is correct. . 8 Fasiji-i gives the following names :—Saman-i-Khaddat, son of ^L^. son of son of son of Bahrain Chubin, son of Bahram HashnusJi, who is said to have been stationed at Rai and Ahwaz, as Wall of Ajarbaijan on the part of Hurmuz, son of Nusliirwan.54
THE TABAKAT-INASIRI.
NAMES OF RULERS.	PERIOD. OF REIGN.		SONS.
AHMAD, son of Asad, NASR, son of Ahmad, ISMA'IL, son of Ahmad,	Eighteen years. Eighteen years. Eight years7.		Nasr, Isma'il, Is-hak, Mansur, Asad, Ya'-kub, Hamid, Yahya, Ibrahim. Ahmad, Nuh, Ilyas, Yahya. Nasr, Mansur, Ibrahim, Yahya.
ABU NASR - I - AHMAD, son of Isma'il,	Six years and months.	three	Ya'kub, Asad.
NASR, son of Ahmad,	Thirty years.		Nuh, Isma'il, Mansur.
NUH, son of Nasr, 'ABD-UL-MALIIC, son of Nuh,	Twelve years and three months8. Little over eight years9.		'Abd-ul-Malik, Abu Sa-lih-i-Mansur.
ABU SALIH-I-MAN-SUR, son of Nuh, NUH, son of Abu Salih-i-Mansur,	Seventeen years, six months, and eleven days Twenty-one years and nine months.		Mansur, 'Abd-ul-Malik, Muhammad2.
MANSUR, son of Nuh,	One year and six months.		
'ABD-UL-MALIK, son of Nuh,	Between nine and ten months.		
" From the period he acquired sole rule. Tarik^-i-Guzidah gives seven
years and ten months.
8	One MS. gives twelve years and nine months, another eleven years and nine months. *
9	Two copies have eight years.
1	One MS. has seventeen years; another seventeen years, six months, and eleven days ; two others, eighteen ; but, as he assumed power in 350 II., and died in Shawwal. 365 H., the above is correct.
2	There were other sons besides these. See note 3 page 52.SECTION X.
THE DYNASTY OF THE DlALAMAH MALIICS AT THE DAR-UL-KHILAFAT OF BAGHDAD, AND IN 'IRAK.
The first person of the family of the Dialamah, who rose to power, was Makan, son of Kaki, Dilaml who was
1 Makan, son of Kaki, was certainly a native of DTlam, but he was not of the same family as the Buwlahs, and belonged to an entirely different dynasty, called the Al-i-Ziyar.
According to the most trustworthy writers, the first of the family of Buwiah, who attained to sovereign power, was 'Imad-ud-Daulah, Abu-l-Hasan-i-'Alj, who afterwards received the title of'Imad-ud-DauIah, the son of Buwiah, son of Fana Khusrau, Dilami. 'Imad-ud-Daulah's father is said to have been a fisherman. Abu-lHasan-i-'AlT was an officer in the service of Mardawanj, as he had previously been in that of Makan, son of Kaki, whom Mardawanj had succeeded, when Makan retired, and entered the service of the Samanians. Mardawanj had conferred some territory upon Abu-l-Hasan, who, in 321 h., considered himself sufficiently powerful to endeavour to gain possession of Isfahan and the territory of 'Irak for himself. Abu-l-Hasan accordingly marched against Isfahan, and defeated Mugaffar, son of Yakut, a slave of the 'Abbasi dynasty, who was governor of Fare-for the Khalifah.. Muzaffar was defeated, and retired to Shlraz, which was his father's head-quarters. Mardawanj did not approve of this movement on the part of Abu-1 Hasan, and he determined to march to Isfahan and oust him. Abu-l-Hasan was not sufficiently strong to oppose Mardawanj, and was advised to turn his arms against Fars. This he acted upon ; and Yakut, who came out of Shlraz, the capital of Fars, to oppose him, was overthrown. Abu-l-Hasan took possession of it, and made it his capital. This was in 321 H.; and he now assumed sovereignty, and read the Khutbah for himself, and coined money. In 323 H., on • the death of Mardawanj, at Isfahan, he determined to extend his conquests; and he gained possession of Isfahan, Rai, Hulwan, and other territories: He now made his eldest brother, Abu 'AlI-i-Hasan, afterwards entitled Rukn-ud-Daulah, ruler of 'Irak, and sent the youngest, Abu-l-Husain-i-Ahmad, afterwards Mu'izz-ud-Daulah, to Kirman. In 326 H., 'Imad-ud-Daulah, Abu-l-Hasan-i-Ali, sent an envoy to Baghdad to the Khalifah-Ar-Razi B'illah, and asked to be confirmed in the possession of his territory, which was granted ; and, in the same year, 'Imad-ud-Daulah left his brother, Mu'izz-ud-Daulah, as his representative at Baghdad. In 330 H. 'Imad-ud-Daulah died, after a reign of nearly seventeen years, leaving no sons. Rukn-ud-Daulah, his eldest brother, succeeded him at Shiraz. while Mu'izz-ud-Daulah, the youngest, remained at Baghdad as previously ; but, in the course of that same year, Mu'izz-ud-Daulah set out on an expedition towards Misr and Sham. In 333 H. the TChnlifnli. Al-Muttakl B'illah, was blinded by Tuzun, son of Abu-1-Wafa,THE TABAKAT^I-NASIRL
Wall [sovereign] of Gurgan until the reign of Abu 'All2, Samani, who succeeded in wresting Gurgan from him, after considerable fighting. Makan retired towards Rai, and sought shelter from Sham*gir [Washm-gir], son of Ayaz. Abu 'All went in pursuit of him, and fought an engagement with both of them, slew Makan, son of Kaki, and became powerful in that part.
Amir Buwiah, Dilami, was with Makan's force ; and he had a great number of followers and dependents, and grown-up sons, who were endowed with wisdom and valour, and great talent and ability. All of them, rose to greatness and renown, and became sovereign princes ; and for a considerable time they held the supreme authority and dominion at the Dar-ul-Khilafat of Baghdad.
Notwithstanding the author made much search for information on this subject in the Tarikh-i-Ibn Haigam-i-Sani but little was to be found respecting them and their actions in those chronicles, on account of some confusion as to which preceded, which followed the other. The author, therefore, has written a short account, of them, somewhat based on supposition and conjecture 4. If any errors have been made, he hopes he may be excused, since it is known that no mention is made of them in the histories of 'Ajam and Khurasan, except very briefly.
a Turk, the Amir-uI-Umra [see note page 58], who set up his son, Al-Mustakfi. We now come to the first ruler mentioned by our author, who, certainly appears to have had a very superficial knowledge of this dynasty. He takes little or no notice of the other two dynasties of Fars and 'Irak, and confines his account to those who ruled at Baghdad. It is the most meagre and incorrect notice of these princes, that I am acquainted with ; and, although the dynasty only terminated in 459 H., he ends his history of them in 388 H. Ample materials for a history of this dynasty are available ; and I have been obliged to burden the translation with this long note to make the author's account intelligible.
3 So stated in all the copies of the work examined, but erroneously; for it refers to Abu 'All, son of Ilyas, Sipah-salar, or general of the forces of Amir Nasr, son of Ahmad, Samani, who overthrew Makan, son of Kaki, as subsequently shown. See latter part of note 9, pages 36, 37.
3	The I. O. L. MS., No. 1952, and of course the R. A. S. MS;, have "and in Yamlnl" after the word SanI, but not the other MSS. The word Sam at this place, in four of them, is doubtful; and, in two, another word follows. I think " Ibn Haisam-i-Faryabi" [native of Faryab] is the correct name of this author.
4	A novel way of writing history, and our author's account of this and other dynasties shows what such history is.THE DlALAMAH DYNASTY.
57
P g
S3
C
ii—i
£ m
tJH
o >
w
£
P W
B E-
fe O
w W u
a
t—I
c*
CM
a
c %
<
iJ
W
a
H fn
c
w w
Oi
H
iJ <
O
>—4
O
C ■J
<
w fc
w o
P
-T3 'ii . ? <
a -
^ 13 3
f* <J
Q.CT
£ ^
"-1_Jg
5 W* p 2
T3 Id 3 XI
r*5l
P 5 ^
I
5) >5) n-
„ id J3
cd id
^ J)
-T) "C
3 led ^ *
cS d >-c ri.
COl 13
X> <
<5 13
"3-is P ^
-•o E3 ? fe
inl 2,
pq
a
a
.e 6
-P J-
■P »
3 .J. 2 13 XI
C
I
«

P S o
0 ».
a ^
O 4> rt C .tS
« 2 sit!58
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
I. ABU-L-HASAN, SON OF BUWIAH, UD-DILAMI.
He bore the title of Fakhr-ud-Daulah9; and he, first rose to power and dominion, from the time that he was Amir [lord] of Ahwaz, when the Turks of Baghdad, whose chief and commander was Tuzun, seized the person of the Lord of the Faithful, Al-Muttaki B'illah, and deprived him of his sight, set him aside, and fixed a stipend for his support. Having done this, Tuzun set up the dethroned Khalifah's son, Al-Mustakfi B'illah, in his stead, while Tuzun himself became Amlr-ul-Umra \ and assumed the direction of the whole of the affairs of the Khilafat.
Abu-l-Hasan, son of Buwiah, assembled the troops of Dilam, and marched towards Baghdad ; and for a period of four months carried on hostilities with the Turks, at the expiration of which time the Turks were defeated, and put to flight. Abu-l-Hasan took possession of Baghdad, and his commands were obeyed in all matters respecting the government of the territory, and the Khilafat. A party of spies informed him, howev,er, that the Khalifah, Al-Mustakfi, meditated treachery towards him, in order to get him into his power, and intended to put him to death if he succeeded in doing so, Abu-l-Hasan, however, determined to be beforehand and to anticipate his intention, and seized the person of the Lord of the Faithful, Al-Mustakfi B'illah, blinded him, and set up the Khalifah. Al-Muti'u-L'illah3, in his stead. According to the historian Ut-Tabri3, he gave himself the title of Mu'izz-ud-Daulah, and took the whole power in the State into his own hands, so
* He bore no such title : it was Mu'izz-ud-Daulah. His name also, as given by our author, is not correct. It was Abu-l-Husain-i-Ahmad. For his first rise to power see note page 55. His elder brother, 'Imad-ud-Daulah, ought to have been the first mentioned here.
1	Lord of Lords: a title adopted by the ministers, or rather tyrants, of the T\halifahs. in the decline of their power. This title was also often conferred upon the chief commander of an army—a captain-general.
2	Fasih-i, among the events of the year 334 h., mentions the succession of Al-Muti'u-L'illah, and that he had no territory, and was agreeable to a stipend being allowed him.
3	As these events occurred in 334 H., and Muhammad, son of Jarir-ut-Tabari, died at Baghdad, in 310 H., although some say in 311 H., our author must refer to the continuation of Tabarl's Chronicle by the Wazir, Al-Bal'ami.THE DIALAMAH DYNASTY.
59
that Al-Muti'u-L'illah was Khalifah only in name, while he ruled the' country, issued his mandates, and exercised the supreme authority over the Khilafat.
Abu-l-Hasan, son of Buwiah, instituted nrany excellent regulations which he carried out ; and he caused the whole of the depopulated and dilapidated parts of Baghdad to be restored and rendered habitable. He also abolished a custom whereby each quarter of the city possessed a separate prison of its own, and had them all demolished. On the son of Abu-l-Hayja4 he conferred the fief of Musil, and to his brother, 'All, son of Buwiah, he gave the title of 'Imad-ud-Daulah, and to another brother, Hasan, that of Rukn-ud-DauIah ; and day by day the sovereignty of the family of Buwiah began to prosper uninterruptedly.
II. AL-HASAN6, SON OF BUWIAH, UD-DILAMI.
He was Amir of Hamadan and Rai, and was a person, of great manliness and generosity ; and he entertained a large number of troops in his pay, and possessed great military resources. The whole of the men of Dilam, both high and low, were obedient to his authority. He had several6 talented and warlike sons grown up, the name of one of whom was Fakhr-ud-Daulah. 'Ali, son of A1-Hasan, and of the second, Muayyid-ud-Daulah, Buwiah. Fakhr-ud-Daulah, 'Ali, was Amir of 'Irak, to whom Shams-ul-Ma'ali. Kabus-i-Washm-gir. went for protection, and sought his assistance, and Fakhr-ud-Daulah accordingly marched to Nishapur for that purpose, and Muayyid-ud-Daulah had
4 Only two copies of the MSS. collated are altogether free from a great
blunder, contained in the text here. 'Imad-ud-Daulah whom our author
styles FaJshr-ud-Daulah, the first sovereign prince of the dynasty, had no off-
spring, hence he could not have conferred the government of Musil on "his" son, Abu-l-Hayja," as the R. A. S. MS. and I. O. L. MS. No. 1952 have. Other writers, very properly, state that these titles were conferred by the Khalifah s. Abu-l-IIayja is a totally distinct person.
8 His correct name is Abu-l-Husain-i-Ahmad, and his title was Mu'izz-ud-Daulah. His elder brother was called Abu-l-Hasan-i-'Ali, as previously stated.
8 Only two sons are mentioned by our author. The I. O. L. MS. No. 1952, and the R. A. S. MS. also, contains but one name. 'U?d-ud-Daulah, Abu Shuja'-i-Fana Khusrau, the eldest of the sons, who was accounted "the cream" of the Buwiah family, is not mentioned here. An account of his reign, however, is given at page 61.
E 26o
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRL
several engagements with them, the events of which Sabi7 has mentioned in his History.
iii. bakhtyAr, son of al-hasan8, son of buwIah, dilaml
On the death of his father he took possession of Baghdad, and directed the affairs of government after the manner of his father, and acquired great power and dominion.
As soon as he had become firmly established in his authority, the Khalifah, Al-Muti'u-L'illah, preferred a request to him respecting the sedition and discord caused by the Karamitah sect of schismatics, which had assumed great proportions throughout the empire of Islam, and urged him to assemble forces and suppress them, and uproot them utterly. Bakhtyar, however, did not pay attention to the solicitations of the Khalifah, and, consequently, enmity arose between them. Matters assumed such an aspect that Bakhtyar was not safe from the designs of Al-Muti'u-L'illah ; and the informers of Bakhtyar warned him that the Khalifah meditated treachery towards him. Bakhtyar sought his opportunity, according to the statement contained in the History of Ibn-Haisam, and assembled together all the Kazis and 'Ulama—judges,
1 The oldest MS. has Zxa-yi; but one of the others has Sabi, and another
Safi, which is one and the same thing, and I also find Guzldah quotes, as one
of its authorities, the Kitab-i-Naji of Sabi-i-Dablr, or Sabi, the secretary ; and,
among the events recorded in Fasih-I in the year 365 H., is the death of Sabit,
son of Sinan, son of Sabit, son of Kurrah, surnamed Abu Kurrah, us-Sabl, in
the month of zt-Ka'dah, the author of the Sannafah-ut-Tarlkh, containing a
history of events between the years 195 H., and 343 H. This, no doubt, is the author referred to by the Tankh-i-GuzTdah. and our author.
8 As before stated, the father of Bakhtyar was named Abu-l-Husain-i-Ahmad, son of BuwIah, and his title was Mu'izz-ud-Daulah. Bakhtvar's title was 'Izz-ud-Daulah, Abu Mansur-i-BaMltyar. Mu'izz-ud-Daulah, the father of Bakhtyar, died at Baghdad, of which he was ruler on the part of his nephew, Amir 'Uzd-ud-Daulah, the head of the dynasty, on the 1st of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 356 H., but, according to other writers, 011 the 16th of that month. He was known by the name of Ikta', having lost his left hand, and the fingers of his right, in an affair with the Kurds of Kirman according to the Tariklj-i-Yafa'i, but other writers say, with the Kuch and Baluch, a nomad tribe [two tribes] then inhabiting a portion of Kirman, according to the Burhan Kati', and from whom the present BaluchTs are descended. Kuch in Persian, among other meanings, signifies a nomad, and in the Afghan language, Kochaey, which some persons, who know no better, imagine to be the name of an Afghan tribe, signifies "pastoral" or "nomad."THE DlALAMAH DYNASTY.
61
lawyers, and ecclesiastics—and transferred the office of Khalifah9 to the son of Al-Muti'u-L'illah whose name was Abu-Bikr-i-A.bd-ul-K.arim, and gave him the title of Ut-Ta-i'u-Lc'illah. As soon as he was installed in the Khilafat. he gave his daughter 1 in marriage to Bakhtyar, Buwiah, and he became the chamberlain and lieutenant of the Khilafat.
Soon after this dignity was conferred upon Bakhtyar. he set out for Ahwaz in order to levy the revenues and taxes. Sabuk-Tigin, Chashni-gir, [cup-bearer or taster] who was Bakhtyar's deputy, began to act insubordinately towards his master, and took the power out of his hands2.
IV. FANA KHUSRAU * SON OF AL-HASAN, SON OF BUWIAH,
DlLAMI.
The title borne by Fana Khusrau was 'Uzd-ud-Daulah *, and he was a proud and haughty prince, but was, at the same time, endowed with great intellect and valour.
The direction of the affairs of the country, and the different forces were left under his control ; and the whole of the property and treasure of the dependencies of the Dar-
9 The author himself states, in his account of the Khalifahs. Section IV., that Al-Muti'u-L'illah abdicated in favour of his son, in 363 H., on account of his infirmities. Other historians confirm it ; but, in Fasih-I, it is said that he abdicated at the end of Muharram, 364 H., having previously been stricken with palsy, and died two months afterwards. It must also be remembered that the Buwiah rulers were Shi'ahs, hence probably their severity towards the Khalifahs.
1 Her name was Shah-i-Zaman. and she had a dowry of 100,000 dinars.
3 See note 8, at page 63.
3	Al-Fanakati considers Fana Khusrau third prince of the dynasty.
4	In 366 H., Rukn-ud-Daulah, Abu 'AlT-i-Hasan, son of Buwiah, brother of 'Imad-ud-Daulah, the founder of the dynasty, died. Some say he died in 365 H. He had succeeded his elder brother, 'Imad-ud-Daulah, who died without issue, in the sovereignty of Fars, the sovereign of which was, in that family, considered suzerain over the other two branches, who ruled in 'IraV, and at Baghdad. Rukn-ud-Daulah bequeathed his dominions in the following manner:—To his youngest brother, Mu'izz-ud-Daulah, Ahmad, he left Kirman. He afterwards became Amir-ul-Umra at Baghdad. He was the father of Bakhtyar ; and our author calls him Al-Hasan, and says he was the second prince of the dynasty. To 'U?d-ud-Daulah, Abu Shuja-'i-Fana Khusrau, his eldest son, he left the sovereignty of Fars; and he became the head of the family, and suzerain over all. To his second son, Muayyid-ud-Daulah, Abu Na$r, he left 'Irak and its dependencies; and to his youngest son, Fakhr-ud-Daulah, 'All, he bequeathed Rai, Hamadan, Kazwin, and other territory in A?arbaljan.	_	,62
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
ul-Khilafat came into his possession. The reason of this was, that, when Bakhtyar set out for Ahwaz, to collect the revenue due to the Bait-ul-Mal, or Khalifah's treasury s, Sabuk-Tigin, the Chashni-gir [cup-bearer], who was his deputy at Baghdad, assembled the Turks together, and opposed the authority of Bakhtyar, drove out the Dilamis, broke out into open revolt, and began to act in an overbearing and tyrannical manner. They [the Turks and Sabuk-Tigin] commenced shedding the blood of Musal-mans, and carrying off their females. 'Izz-ud-Daulah, Bakhtyar, sent to acquaint his uncle Abu-l-Hasan 6, son of Buwiah, who was ruler of Rai, with what had occurred ; and to his first cousin, Fana Khusrau-i-Abu Shuja, who held the government of Fars, he also gave information ; and solicited'assistance from both of them. A large army was assembled, and Fana Khusrau came to his aid with the troops of Fars ; and Abu-l-Hasan, his uncle, despatched his forces to co-operate with them.
The combined troops marched towards Baghdad ; and Sabuk-Tigin, with the Turks and other forces, moved out of Baghdad, and advanced to meet them. When Sabuk-Tigin and his adherents reached the village of 'Akul1, he was taken ill, and died after four days. The Turks were defeated ; and they took along with them from Baghdad, the Lord of the Faithful, Ut-Ta-i'u-L'illah, and marched towards Nahrwan, in order again to encounter Fana Khusrau. They were defeated a second time, however, and retired towards Musil.
Fana Khusrau entered Baghdad, and found with respect to the affairs of his cousin, Bakhtyar. that he was in the habit of passing his time in gaiety and pleasure, and that he was no longer fit for and capable of directing the affairs of government. He therefore seized Bakhtyar, and put him in durance. The latter sent a letter of complaint to his uncle, Abu-l-Hasan, son of Buwiah, the father of Fana Khusrau. ruler of Rai, saying: "Your son, Fana Khusrau, has seized me without cause or reason, and has imprisoned me."
5 Intended, according to the Kur'an, " For God, His Apostle, his kindred, the orphan, the poor, and travellers."
9 As before stated, the name of Rukn-ud-Daulah, the uncle of Bakhtyar, was Abu 'AlT-i-Hasan.
1 A small town or village in the Musil [not Mosal] territory.THE DIALAMAH DYNASTY.
63
The father of Fana Khusrau issued a mandate to his son, directing him to set Bakhtyar at liberty. This he did, and he [Fana Khusrau] returned to Fars; but, when his father died, Fana Khusrau proceeded to Baghdad, again seized Bakhtyar. and put him to death, after which he took possession of the territory of Baghdad, and the control of the affairs of the Khilafat8.
He entered into a compact with the Samani Amirs for the mountain tracts, or Highlands of 'Irak, as far as Tabar-istan, of which he received the tenure from them, at the rate of one thousand dinars per day.
Fana Khusrau ruled with vigour and energy ; and, as before stated, was excessively proud, but of great spirit and resolution. ' He had, however, great dread of death, so much so that not a soul dared to mention before his throne, in any way, the name of the Gor-i-Dashti, or Wild Ass, because Gor also signifies a grave ; and it is stated that he commanded that all graveyards should be enclosed with lofty walls, so that his eyes might not behold a grave. Of his pride and grandeur the following is a specimen. After his decease, eight thousand napkins and handkerchiefs, of great price and fineness of fabric, befitting a king, were found, belonging to him, of brocade, linen, and Egyptian tuzle, threaded and embroidered -with gold, and ornamented with jewels, with which he was wont to wipe his mouth and nose, and which fetched the price of 50,000 dinars of gold.
When his end drew near, he affixed his seal to mandates and decrees, which he gave into the hands of his secretary, directing him to fill them up according to the best of his own ability and judgment, and to issue, and carry them into execution, and not to let people know of his death. For a period of four months his decease was kept con-
• 'Izz-ud-Daulah, Abu Mansur-i-Bakhtyar, issaid,bythe author of the Mujmal-i-Fasih-i, to have ended his days at Baghdad, in 367 H., having been put to death by his nephew, 'U?d-ud-Daulah, Abu Shuja-'i-Fana Khusrau, after he had ruled there for a period of eleven years and some months, at the age of thirty-six, and Baha ud-Daulah, Khusrau Firuz, son of 'U?d-ud-Daulah, his nephew, succeeded him as ruler of Baghdad.
9 The name of an expensive and fine fabric so called from being the peculiar manufacture of a town or city of that name, now in ruins. It is said to have been manufactured from flax ; but tuz is also the name of the bark of a tree like the papyrus.H
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
cealed, and they continued to place his corpse upon the throne, so that people, from a distance, could see him, as they supposed, as usual. When his end drew near, he directed that ashes should be spread upon the floor, in which he rolled about, exclaiming, " What advantageth all my wealth and my sovereignty, since death has overcome me !" until he ceased to be.
His death took place in the month of Ramazan, in the year 372 11.1 The Almighty alone is eternal.
V. AL-MARZABAN, SON OF FANA KHUSRAU, DILAMI.
On the decease of his father 'Uzd-ud-Daulah, the Khalifah, Ut-Ta-i'u-L'illah, conferred upon him the title of Samsam-ud-Daulah, and raised him to his father's office2.
The Khalifah treated him with great esteem and distinction. He embarked on board a vessel on the river Dijlah [Tigris] and proceeded to the palace of Fana Khusrau, and paid a visit of consolation and condolence to his son, Mar-zaban, and conferred considerable honours and dignities upon him. The Khalifah left the administration of affairs in his hands, and showed great respect and honour towards
1 'Uzd-ud-Daulah died, it is said, at Shlraz, his capital, although GuzTdah says, at Baghdad, which is not probable, 15th of Ramazan, 372 H. He was buried in the Mashad, or sepulchre, [especially for those killed fighting for their religion] of the Khalifah 'All, and his son Imam Husain, which was one of the buildings founded by him. The same illustri'ous prince also founded the great hospital at Baghdad, and liberally endowed it ; and the great embankment over [as the historian from whom I quote says] the river Kur, the like of which there is not in the world, called the Band-i-Amir. This is the same structure that Mac D. Kinneir refers to in his " Geographical Memoir of the Persian Empire." He says, "The river Bund-Emeer [sic] takes its name from a dyke [in Persian a buud\ erected by the celebrated Ameer Azad-a-Daulah, Delemi"[!].
Among other great works carried out by him were a town founded opposite Shiraz, named Suk-i-Amir [plural of Sak, a market, &c.], the walls of Madinah, and a splendid Sarae or palace, at Baghdad, called the Sarae-i-Sultan. He was succeeded, in the government of Baghdad, by his son, Samsam-ud-Daulah, Al-Marzaban, which latter word is derived from marz, a boundary, border, &c., and signifies the governor of a frontier, and the like. He is also called Abu-Kalinjar, and sometimes Kanjar, the meaning or derivation of which, the Burhan Rati', the Farang-i-Jahangiri, and other works, do not give. Kaljar, in Persian, signifies war, battle, &c.
1 This is absurd, for the Khalifahs had long before been stripped of all power, and were mere shadows of sovereignty.THE DIALAMAH DYNASTY.
65
him. He [Marzaban] exercised the authority at Baghdad until his brother, Abu-l-Fawaris, rose against him3.
VI. ABU-L-FAWARIS, MAKAN «, SON OF FANA KHUSRAU.
DILAMI.
He was ruler of Kirman; and, when he became aware of the death of his father, and heard of the exalted position of his brother at the Dar-ul-Khilafat. he assembled troops in Kirman, and entered Fars, and seized upon that territory. He then advanced to Ahwaz, and possessed himself of that likewise, having expelled from thence his brother Abt-ul-Hasan-i-Abl Shuja', son of Fana Khusrau, and then he pushed on to Basrah. Having gained possession of that place he marched towards Baghdad.
When the news of his approach, and his designs, reached Baghdad, his brother, Samsam-ud-Daulah, Marzaban, son of Fana Khusrau. came out and waited on him, in order to show his submission and pay him homage. Abu-l-Fawaris-i-Makan seized his brother, and deprived him of his sights.
Enmity and hostility now arose between the Turks and Dllamls; and the Turks of Baghdad overcame their opponents, and of the Dilamis about 4000 men were slain by them. After a short time, however, Abu-l-Fawaris overthrew them, and entered Baghdad, and assumed the administration of the affairs of the Dar-ul-Khilafat. The Khalifah. Ut-Ta-i'u-L'illah, conferred upon him the title of Sharaf-ud-Daulah 6.
After him, the author has not found any annals respecting the Dialamah such as he could write down. What
3	In the year 375 H.
4	His correct titles and name are, Sharaf-ud-Daulah, Abu-l-Fawaris-i-Shir Zail, son of 'Uzd-ud-Daulah. All the copies of the work have "Makan," but it is not mentioned by any other writer that I am acquainted with.
5	He was imprisoned in the fortress of 'Ummanafter being blinded in 375 H.; and on the death of Sharaf-ud-Daulah, who had dethroned him, he was again brought forth, blind as he was, and reinstated. After about nine months, Shams-ud-Daulah, 'Alt, soh of Sharaf-ud-Daulah. rose against him, whom he defeated in 379 H.; but Baha-ud-Daulah now rose against him, and civil contention continued for some time, till, in 380 H., the sons of 'Izz-ud-Daulah, Bak^tyar, put him to death.
8 Sharaf-ud-Daulah. and Zain-ul-Millat, in 377 h. He died in the month of Jamadi-ul-Akhir, 379 h., after reigning seven years over Kirman, and six months at Baghdad.66
THE TABAI£AT-I-NASIR!.
was contained in histories, and what came to his hearing1, has been entered herein, so that this work may not be without mention of those princes ; and he hopes that those who may peruse it will extend pardon and indulgence to the author for any shortcomings 1.
7 The dynasty of the Buwiahs did not terminate until 459 H., or eighty two years after the date of our author's account of them, when it fell before the power of the Saljuks. His great mistake throughout has been in not keeping the rulers of Fars, 'Irak, and Kirman, separate from those who ruled at Baghdad. Al-Fanakati gives a more accurate account of this dynasty, although a very abridged one. The last of the family was Abu 'All-i-Kai-kiusrau, son of 'Izz-ul-Muluk, who died in 487 H., and who submitted to Alb-Arsalan, and had a small tract of territory assigned to him.SECTION XI.
THE DYNASTY OF THE YAMINIAHAL-MAHMUDIAH SOVEREIGNS OF THE RACE OF SABUK-TIGIN.
The pages of this section2 are devoted to the mention of the Maliks and Sultans of the dynasty of Nasir-ud-Din, Sabuk-Tigin, and of Sultan Yamin-ud-Daulah, Nizam-ud-Din, Abu-l-Kasim, Mahmud, the Conqueror, and to the description of the events in their lives ; to an account of their lineage ; to the record of their justice and equity, and the incidents in their , reigns; to the vicissitudes and changes in the fortunes, and the dominion of the sovereigns of that family of exalted power and might, from the outset of the career of the Amlr-i-Ghazi. Sabuk-Tigin, to the end of the reign of Khusrau Malik, the last of that dynasty of kings, in an abridged and concise form, in order that this Tabakat of kings and nobles may be illumined by the mention of their lineage and their titles, and the pages of this history be adorned and ennobled by the relation of the deeds of those sovereigns of Islam, whom may the light of Almighty God illumine !
Imam Abu-1-Fazl, Al-Hasan-i-Baihaki3, in his chronicle
1 So called from Mahmud's title of Yamin-ud-Daulah.
3 The printed edition of the TABAKAT-I-NASIRI, edited by Lieut. -Colonel W. N. Lees, LL. D., and his Maulawis, commences from this Section. It forms No. 42—50 of the Bibliotheca Indica, New Series. I have been unable to make any use of it for a very cogent reason, that not a page of it is correct. Whole sentences are often wanting, and, at times, much more ; and the names of persons and places are frequently wrongly spelt. The work, however, appears to have been printed from the text of the MS. No. 1952 of the India Office Library, and the Royal Asiatic Society's MS., to which I have before alluded, both of which are the most defective and incorrect of any I have collated. The same errors occur in each, in nearly every instance. To restore the text would be impossible without entirely reprinting the work. I may say, however, that the state of most of the MSS. I have collated is such that it would be impossible to give any thing like a correct version without examining the number of copies which I have been so fortunate as to find in different Libraries, and others which have been placed at my disposal through the kindness of their owners, and of the Imperial Russian Government in particular.
3 So called from Baihak, the name of his native town, which is also called Mu^ir, in Zawulistan. His correct name will be found in note page 87. The passage above quoted may have been contained in the first portion of his work ; but is not to be found in what has been preserved, as far as we know.68
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
entitled " Tarikh-i-Nasiri," relates the following tradition told him by the august Sultan Mahmud himself, which the latter had heard from his father, the Amir Sabuk-Tigin, [namely] that his [Sabuk-Tigin's] father used to be called by the name of Kara Bah-kam; and that his [proper] name was Huk ; and that Ghar-ghau in the Turkish language is called Bah-kam; and that the meaning of Kara Bah-kam would be the Black Tatar Bull4 ; and every where that the
4 In eight copies of the text the words	occur, and of this number
one MS. says, that these Turkish words mean jlc jts- but all the other copies differ. In the very old MS. previously referred to, which copy I shall I MS., the passage stands as follows:—
here call No s
\
•A
\
"d
•u
uT

sJi ■
A
4>
4
k

i
A.
i V5
CJt

£ #
£
3
j. J.
a
i \ \
J.
3 3 J-
•3 "A
iy i9
isj ^

o
i °
• i> O -a
<1J
rC CS
H _
k


1) g ' "S 3
tC CO

—>
^ ■
1
D
3 3
2	R
|\JL «
o D
J
>o \
A
J. J-
'3
:4
jj	w	-s
"S	s
m	.	<s
c	P4	«,
'•C 'I
y-nTHE YAMlNlAH DYNASTY.
69
Turks, in Turkistan, heard his name mentioned, they fled before him on account of his energy and valour.'
Imam Muhammad 'All, Abu-l-Kasim, 'Imadis, in his work, the " Tarikh-i-Majdul." states, that Amir Sabuk-
It will be noticed that four copies say his name was J,*- [Hark, or Hurk], which might possibly be read Jy- [Huk, or Hauk], as in the two best copies, whilst in two other copies the word is J>=- [Juk, or Jauk], and in another [Jim]. Then comes the signification of the Turkish word, as it is called, In five copies, it is said to mean in one f^i. in another j^jZ* in a third jltjc in three others	and in one jlc tjts. The printed text has The
Arabic words j\J contained in two copies of the text—in one of the best and one of the most modern—would be intelligible enough, but we are told that the words, whether j]/ or ly are Turkish, and that they signify jle^c—^U^c— jlc jti—Icji [of the printed text], jU jts-—jlc js and ^ tjZt- whichever we choose to select," and we must presume that these words are intended for the Persian equivalents of the Turkish. The word must be jlyc—Ghajz-ghao— also written —Ghajz-gha, and, at times, jlcjc—Ghaz-ghao ; and as ^ in the Persian language is permutable to e) the words are, and may be respectively written, jUj5—L^f— or IfjT signifying a Khita'I bull—the Yak [Bos Grun-niens], found in the vast mountain tracts of Central Asia, north of Hindustan, the tail of which is fastened to the manes and necks of horses, and as an ornament to Tartar and Turkish standards [hence "a Pachah" of so many "tails"]. The author from whom I take this says, " Its real name is Gao-i-Khita'I, the Khita'I bull, and is called ktjtos by the Rumls [Greeks], who say it is a ' seahorse. ' It is also called the 'Silk Bull,'asjc andji also signify silk." The word Jj> or, more correctly, «,» is, of course, the Turkish for black, in Persian «le-i In Elliott's India, vol. ii., p. 266, the passage in question is thus translated: "His [Subuktigm'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 Kard-bahkam is black-troop."
From this it will be seen that the translator^ has discarded altogether, both ^le jLz of MSS. 10 and 11, and of the printed text, and has given the person's Turkish real name as the equivalent [the Persian equivalent, it must be sup-posed] of his Turkish «zV£-name; so according to this theory means troop, and also means troop, but what becomes of the Persian translation Ic^i iL_ &c., the translator sayeth not! Jau^, however, is Arabic for a party, a troop, &c., but what may mean, remains to be proved. I have an idea, however, from the manner in which the word is written, in one place, in one of the MSS., viz. ^k—Baj-kam, that ^ — Bah-kam—is an error of some early copyist [but ^ and ^ are interchangeable] for —Bach-kam, "a wolf" which word is used, but not commonly, in Persian, and probably is Turkish ; and it is not impossible that the author quoted may have been under the impression that a Khita'I bull was the same beast asdj— Gurg, a wolf, and, therefore, I am inclined to think that the correct interpretation is, that Sabuk-Tigln's father was called in Turkish, the Black Wolf, meaning a soldier of [black being expressive of excess, &c.] excessive fierceness and daring. This reading, as I have said before, is not certain ; but I do not think any thing more intelligible can be made of it without Baiha^I's work to refer to ; but that portion does not appear to be in existence.
4 A few copies have	[HamadI], which is incorrect.7o
THE TABAIfAT-I-NASIRI.
Tigin was a descendant of Yazdijurd-i-Shahryar—the last of the sovereigns of Persia—and, that, at the time that Yaz-dijurd was murdered in the mill in the territory of Marw, which was during the Khilafat of the Lord of the Faithful, 'Usman, the family and dependents of Yazdijurd fled before the troops of Islam into Turkistan, and reached the frontier district of Nakhistan 6 in that territory, and there took up their residence, and intermarried with the people. After two or three generations had passed away, they 7 became Turks; and their palaces are still standing in that country 8.
The pedigree of Sabuk-Tigin is given in the above history after the manner in which it is here entered, in order that it may come under the notice of the king of the world 9—May the Almighty perpetuate his sovereignty ! —and of such others as may peruse this work, viz. :—Sabuk-Tigin, son of Huk-i-Kara Bah-kam, son of Karah [Kara ?] Arsalan, son of Karah [Kara ?] Mallat [or Millat], son of Kara Na'man, son of Firuz-i-Bam-sinjan [?], or Barsin-jan [?]', son of Yazdijurd-i-Shahryar, or Yazdijurd, the king.
I. AMIR-UL-GHAZl NASIR-UD-DIN-ULLAH, SABUK-TIGIN.
Imam Abu-l-Fazl-i-Baihaki states that, during the reign of Abd-ul-Malik-i-Nuh, the Samani, there was a merchant named Nasr, the Haji [pilgrim], who purchased Sabuk-
6	but in three copies jt-la and in one	I am not satisfied that this name is correct, still five copies of the work agree in the reading above. Both the I. O. L. MS. No. 1952, the R. A. S. MS., and the Petersburg copy 572 Abb. are minus another nine words here, and the printed text is the same. The place is not mentioned in Masalik wa Mamalik or Asar-ul-Bilad.
7	Their descendants doubtless.
8	Another writer states that Kara Firiiz, the fifth ancestor of Sabuk-Tigin, who was son of Yazdijurd, became ruined during the Khilafat of'Usman, left his country, and retired into Turkistan; and there his descendants continued to dwell until 335 H., when Alb-Tigin made an incursion .into that country. He carried off _from thence three thousand captives, and among them was Sabuk-Tigin. Another author states that Alb-Tigin purchased Sabuk-Tigin at Nishapur, when stationed there in command of the Samani forces.
9	"The king of the world," here referred to by the author, is that shadow of a monarch to whom he dedicated his work. It is a very slight specimen of his slavish flattery of him, and of others.
1 This name occurs in eight MSS., but none of them are very distinct : one has Bar-sinja, son of ParwTz, son of Yazdijurd.
3 Qhazi signifies a conqueror, one who makes war upon infidels.THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY.
7i
Tigin and brought him to Bukhara. Perceiving in his countenance evident signs of capacity and energy, the Amir-i-Hajib [Lord Chamberlain], Alb-Tigin, purchased him3. He accompanied his master into Tukharistan, when the government of that territory was entrusted to him ; and subsequently, when the government of Khurasan 4 was made over to Amir Alb-Tigin, Sabuk-Tigin attended him thither also. After some time had passed away, Alb-Tigin, through the vicissitudes of fortune, retired towards Ghaznin, and subdued the territory of Zawulistan, and wrested Ghaznin out of the hands of Amir Abu-Bikr-i-Lawik s.
Eight years subsequently to these events Amir Alb-Tigin died, and his son, Is-hak, succeeded to his father's authority. He entered into hostilities against Lawik, but was defeated, and retired to Bukhara, to the court of Amir Mansur, son of Nuh, Samani, and there continued until
*	See note 8, page 70. •	v
*	See under the reign of Mansur, son of Nuji, the eighth sovereign of the Samani dynasty.
6 "In the year 322 h., Alb-Tigin, the Turk, the slave of the Samani dynasty, took Ghaznin, and Lawik, the Wall [the word here signifies a chief or sovereign, as he does not appear to have been subject to the Samanis] of that territory, fled." Nothing more is mentioned respecting Alb-Tigin, in the work from which I have extracted these occurrences, until 346 h. There had been repeated changes in the government of Hirat for some time past, and considerable disorder had arisen therein. " In 346 h.," I find that "Abu Mansur, son of 'Abd-ur-Razzak, the Wall of Hirat and its dependencies, gave up his appointment, and withdrew to Tus again, in consequence of which great agitation and commotion arose at Hirat." On this becoming known to the Samani court, the Hajib, Alb-Tigin, who appears from this to have administered the affairs of Ghaznin since 322 h., was entrusted with the government. He sent to Hirat, as his deputy, Is-hak-i-Tahiri ; but he was very shortly removed, and Hasan, son of RIbal, was sent to replace him. In 350 h. Abu-l-Hasan-i-Stmjur was sent to govern Hirat ; and, in the following year, having been promoted to the rank of Sahib-ul-Jaish [Commander-in-Chief of an army], he proceeded to Nlshapur, and was succeeded, at Hirat, by Abu-l-Hasan, son of 'Umro, Faryabl. After he had held it four months the government was bestowed upon Taljiah, son of Muhammad, Nisa'I. In the following year, "352 h., Alb-Tigin, the Turk, died at Ghaznin, and was succeeded in the government by his son, Is-hak," subordinate, of course, to the Samani sovereigns, although Mr. E.Thomas, in his paper "On the Coins of the Kings of Ghazni," in Ro. As. Soc. Journal for 1859, styles them kings and speaks of their reigns, when they were merely subordinate governors. The most astonishing thing, however, is, how our author makes out that Alb-Tigin died eight years after his seizure of Ghaznin. From 322 to 352 h. is a period of thirty years; but then he generally eschews dates. According to Fasih-I and others, Alb-Tigin was born in 267 h., and died in the year above-mentioned.72
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
that ruler directed that aid should be afforded to him, when Is-hak came back again to Ghaznin. and regained possession of it After a year Is-hak died 6, when Balka-
6 Is-hak succeeded his father in the government in 352 H., and died in 355 H., and so ruled for about four years. Among the events of the year 353 H., Fasih-x mentions that "Amir Is-hak, son of Alb-Tigin, attended by Sabuk-Tigin, his father's slave—who is mentioned for the first time in that work— fled from Ghaznin, and proceeded to Bukhara, and obtained the investiture of the government of that province from the Samani sovereign." In the following year, 354 H., the same work states that "Is-hak, son of Alb-Tigin, the Turk, the slave of the house of Samani, returned to Ghaznin again, and fought against Lawik [this name is also confirmed by other writers, and there is no doubt of its correctness], who, previously, had been Wall [sovereign or chief]» of Ghaznin. and had been ousted.by Alb-Tigin. "When Is-ha^: retired to Samrkand, Lawik returned to Ghaznin, but now that Is-hak had come back again, Lawik again fled."
Mr. Thomas, in his paper just referred to, trusting implicitly, it would seem, to the I. O. L. MS. No. 1952, and the R. A. S. copy of our author's work, calls Amir, Abu Bikr-i-Lawik, "the Anuk." In those two MSS. Amir, Abu Bikr, is left out altogether, but occurs in the other MSS., although some have is)yl i^l and instead of ekj) yet in a note Mr. Thomas says,— " I propose with but slight hesitation a rectification of the orthography to isM or ' Ltimgh&nJ the Lampagce of classical writers," from a. personal to a local name! Into what mazes of error do not the "classical writers" draw their disciples as regards Oriental history ! See note E., Elliott's India, vol. ii., last par., which is quite to the point.
On the death of Is-hak, Balka-Tigin, the slave of Alb-Tigin, succeeded to the government of Ghaznin, by order of Amir Nuh, son of Nasr, the Samani sovereign. Balka-Tigin died in 362 H., after being governor eight years. Mr. Thomas, on this passage in our author, in which the latter says Balka-Tigin ruled ten years, remarks: "Two copies [of the work], out of the three I have at this moment the opportunity of consulting, give ten instead of two [years]; the former, however, is a palpable error.", I wonder on which side the error lies really? This is not all. In his remarks on the "coin of Mansur, son of Nuh, with the name of Balka-Tigin under the symbol, on the obverse," Mr. Thomas gives a translation of his Excellency, State Counsellor Von Dorn's description, and a woodcut of it, contained in the St. Petersburg Journal. If the translation is correct, of which there can be but little doubt, his Excellency must have been somewhat in the dark respecting the Samanls, and their connexion with GJiaznln, which formed part of their dominions. What I refer to is this: "History mentions only the conquest of Alp-Tigln, but is silent in regard to the rule of the Sdmdnis in GJiazna. We see from our coin that Balka, or Bulka-Tagin, in the year a.h. 359 was chief of the Samani party in this city. His name appears already on the Balkh coins of A.H. 324. Subsequently he passed over to Alptegiris cause [!] became chamberlain under Abu Ishak, and is said to have ascended the throne after the death of the latter in a.h. 365." This is absurd. What sort of history can it be that is silent in regard to the rule of " the Samanls in Ghaznin," when it formed an integral part of their empire ? Balka-Tigin, in 324 H., was governor of the province of which BalJsJi was the seat of government', hence his name on the'coin referred lo.THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY.
73
Tigin, who was the chief or commander of the Turkish troops, was raised to the government. He was a just and pious man, and one of the greatest warriors of his time. He exercised the authority for a period of ten years, and died. Sabuk-Tigin was in his service.
After the death of Amir Balka-Tigin, Pirey succeeded to the authority7. He was a great villain ; and a body of people wrote from Ghaznin to Abu 'Ali-i-Lawik, and invited him to come there. Abu 'Ali-i-Lawik acceded to their request, and brought along with him the son of the Shah, or king, of Kabul to assist him. When they reached the vicinity of Charkh8. Sabuk-Tigin, with a body of five hundred Turks, suddenly fell upon them, and defeated them, killed a great number of their followers, took them captive also, and slew them. He also captured ten elephants, and brought them to Ghaznin.
Such a great success having been gained by Sabuk-Tigin, and all having become quite sated with the villainies and misdeeds of Pirey, with one accord, they raised Sabuk-Tigin to the direction of affairs. On Friday, the 37th of the month of Sha'ban, 366 H.9, Amir
7	Our author is quite correct as to Pirey, but gives no details or dates. I will furnish them. "On the death of Balka-Tigin, in 362 H., Pirey, the slave of Alb-Tigln [as was his predecessor and successor also], obtained the government. In the following year, 363 H., Pirey, the Wall of Ghaznin, with the help of Sabuk-Tigin, fought a battle with a body of infidels who had advanced out of Hind for the purpose of seizing Ghaznin, overthrew them, and despoiled them. This event is confirmed from other annals. In the year 367 H. Pirey was deposed from the government [as our author records], and the government passed to Sabuk-Tigin." He was confirmed by the Samani ruler, but soon after, on the decline of their power, became independent in all things, except, perhaps, in name.
The "Kitab," or '' Tarfkh- i-Yamini," which is considered to be a very trustworthy and authentic history, contains, judging from Reynold's version, not one word about Sabuk-Tigin having been Alb-Tigin's slave, although probably transferred as such to Balka-Tigin, and his son Is-hak ; and makes no mention of the government of Amir Pirey, although he ruled over the province of Ghaznin for just five years.
8	A well known place situated a few miles from the right or east bank of the Lohgar river on one of the routes between Kabul and Ghaznin. Abu-1-Fa?l, the secretary, mentions in the A'in-i-Akbari, that Charkh is so called after a pious man, one Maulana-i-CharkhT.
9	Fasih-j says this took place in 367 H., the same year that 'Izz-ud-Daulah, Abu Mansur-i-Bakhtyar, Buwiah, was put to death at Baghdad. See page 63. In the same year Sabuk-Tigin appointed Abu-1-'Abbas, Al-Fajl-i-Afcmad, son of Muhammad, Al-Isfaraini, his Wazir. He had acted
F74
THE TABAKAT-I-NA$IR1.
Sabuk-Tigin, with a scarlet canopy held over him, and attended by a large following with standards, came down from the citadel, and proceeded to the Jami' Masjid, or Great Mosque, and the administration of the government and the sovereignty of that province was settled upon him.
Soon after, he put his forces in motion and marched from Ghaznin towards the adjacent parts, and took possession of the districts of Bust, Zamin [district] of Dawar, the Zamin of Kusdar, and Bamian, all Tukharistan, and Ghur \
On the side of Hind, he overthrew Jai-pal2, with numerous elephants and a host of troops, and he rid the Samani family of Bughra Khan of Kashghar, and marched to Balkh. and sent back the Amir of Bukhara to take repossession of his throne.
During the time that Amir Sabuk-Tigin held the government, great deeds were performed'; and he completely put an end to the iniquitous heresy of the Batiniah schismatics in Khurasan 3.
in the same office to Fayik-i-Khasah, and, after the latter's defeat, Amir Sabuk-Tigin took him under his patronage. Wazir does not necessarily mean the minister of a sovereign prince only; and Sabuk-Tigin was not yet independent.
1	The mode of spelling the word by its people, and on the authority of the Burhan-i-Kati' and other works.
2	"In 369 h., Jai-pal, ' Badshah' of Hind, as he is termed, marched an army towards Ghaznin to attack Amir Nasir-ud-Din, Sabuk-Tigin; but an accommodation was come to, and Jai-pal again retired." This is quite a different affair from that in which Sabuk-Tigin assisted Amir Pirey, mentioned in a previous note. It must be remembered too, that, at this time, the country west of the Indus, between Safid-Koh west, and the Salt-Range on the east; and Hindu-Kush, extending as far west as Kabul, was still under Hindu rule. The Afghans had not extended northward of the river Kurmah [erroneously called the Kurum and Koorum] at this time.
3	Our author says nothing about the affair of Bust in 370 h., or of Sabuk-Tigin's raid on the frontier districts of Hind in 376 H., when he carried off many captives and much booty. In the same year he took possession of the territory of Kusdar. In 378 h., Sabuk-Tigin again encountered Jai-pal, king of Hind, who was routed, and pursued by him. A peace was afterwards concluded, the terms being that "Jai-pal should cede unto Sabuk-Tigin four of the fortresses of Hind on the side of Ghaznin. and one hundred elephants." In 380 h., an occurrence took place, which few writers have noticed, namely, the imprisonment of Mahmud in the fortress of Ghaznin. by his father's orders, where he remained until the following year. In 382 h. Amir Nuh, son of Mansur, Samani, reached Hirat, attended by Sabuk-Tigin, and marched against Abu 'Ali-i-Simjur, whom they defeated. See page 46, and note. In 384 h. Amir Nuh conferred the government of Khurasan upon Sabuk-Tigin ; and in the same year Amir Nuh defeated Abu-'Ali-i-Simjur at Nighapur. Inthe yaminiah dynasty.
75
In the month of Shawwal, 384 h., his son, Amir Mahmud, was made captain-general of the forces of Khurasan, and received the title of Saif-ud-Daulah, while Amir Sabuk-Tigin himself received that of Nasir-ud-Din-ullah \ Abu-l-Hasan-i-Simjur they defeated and repulsed, and Khurasan became cleared of their enemies.
Amir Sabuk-Tigin was a man of great valour and intrepidity, just and pious, faithful, true to his word, not avaricious of other men's goods, kind and compassionate to his people, and a discerner between right and wrong; and, in fact, every sign and indication of all such virtues and accomplishments as are desirable in kings and nobles, the Almighty had amply endowed him with. He ruled for a period of twenty years ; and was fifty-six years old when he died. His decease took place on the frontier of Balkh. at the village of Madru-mue8, in the year 387 h.
His sons were Isma'il6, Nasr, Mahmud, Husain, Hasan, and Yusuf.
ii. sultan-ul-a'zam, yamin-ud-daulah, nizAm-ud-din,
abu-l-kAsim, mahmud-i-ghAzi. son of sabuk-tigin
Sultan Mahmud-i-Ghazi was a great monarch, and was the first among the sovereigns of Islam, who was styled
385 H. Sabuk-Tigin defeated Abu 'Ali-i-Slmjur, and Fayi£ at Tus. Among the events of the year 387 H. recorded in Fasih-S, are the deaths of Amir Nuji, son of Mansur, Samani, and Na§ir-ud-din, Sabuk-Tigin, the Mawla, or manumitted slave of the house of Samani.
4 From the Samani sovereigns, see page 47. Abu 'Alt, the son of Abu Hasan-i-Simjur was the person who was defeated : Abu-l-Hasan, the father, had died previously. See pages 45 and 48.
8 This name is written in various ways :—Barmal-Madrue, Madrue, Madriwi, and, in one MS., Tirmaz. In the translation of Yamini, p. 201, it is said that a palace [!] was erected at the place where he died, and that it was named Sahl-abid. Baiha^i says his tomb is at Afghan- shal. a place mentioned by Babar.
6	Isma'il succeeded his father ; but our author ignores him as a sovereign, which is not correct, for Isma'il was only dethroned in 389 H., two years after the decease of his father, by Mahmud, who sent him to the fortress of Kalinjar, "now known as Talwarah," according to Fasih-i. The same authority states: " some say Isma'il was confined in the fortress of Juzjanan." Fana-kati states that Mahmud succeeded in 388 H., and that Isma'il was sent to a fortress in 389 H.
7	Baifawi considers Mahmud to be the first sovereign of this- dynasty.
F 276
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Sultan5 by the Court of the Khalifahs of Baghdad. He was born on the night of 'Ashura, the 10th of the month Muharram, in the year 361 H.9, in the seventh year of the government of Amir Balka-Tigin, at Ghaznin.
About one hour before his being ushered into the world, Sabuk-Tigin, his father, saw in a dream, that there began to issue from the chafing-dish [used in those countries instead of having fire-places in the wall, and placed in the centre of the apartment] in his room, a tree, which began to grow to such a height that the whole world began to be overshadowed by it. When he awoke from his sleep, he began to ponder in his mind what the interpretation of this dream could be, when a bearer of good news presented himself, bringing intelligence that the Almighty had been pleased to give him a son. At this joyful announcement Sabuk-Tigin became overjoyed, and said to the messenger : " I have given him the name of Mahmud 1."
The same night also upon which Mahmud was born, the idol-temple of Wahand or Bihand [it may also be read Wahind, or Bahind], which was situated on the confines of Barshabur2, on the bank of the river Sind, split asunder.
8 There is a different version given as to how and when Mahmud became styled Sultan. When Mahmud took the fortress of Tab in Sijistan, by assault, and Khalaf was brought before him, the latter addressed Mahmud by the title of Sultan. This pleased Mahmud so much that he gave Khalaf his life. The titles bestowed upon Mahmud by the Khalifah, and also bestowed, according to Baihaki, upon Mas'ud, were as follow : " The right hand of the empire, defender of orthodoxy, the guardian of the true religion and of the true believers, the regulator of the faith, the friend of the Lord of the Faithful." See note6, page 80.
9. Fasih-I say$ he was born on that date in 360 h.
1	The past. part, of the Arabic verb used as an adjective, signifying— laudable, praised, worthy, &c.
2	Out of the thirteen MSS. collated, four agree respecting the word Barshabur, and three have Parshawar. These are meant, probably, for the present Peshawar. Six copies have Nishabur ; and six copies say that the idol-temple in question was situated on the bank of the Sudarah [Sudharah
is an old name of the C&inab, see the Sadhura—farther on], and a fifth copy has, the bank of the Ab-i-Shudah [«>xi]. 'Utbi ['Utba] quoted in Elliot's India, vol. ii. pp. 27 and 41, makes the " Si'hun " the Indus; and in Reynolds' version of the same work, the Indus is called the " Ji'hun !" I need scarcely mention that the first is the Jaxartes, and the last the Oxus. In the last named version, also, we have " Wamund " for " Waihind." The name of the idol-temple is written in three different ways in the various copies of the original collated : J-^jj—which may be either Wabhind or Wabhand, in six MSS, ; —Bahind, or Bahand, or Bihand, in two; and —THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY.
77
He was endowed with great virtues and vast abili-
Wahand, or Wahind, in two. In seven copies, the relative J follows this name, but in three others we have instead of ^ which I have certainly seen used for tf but very rarely. The following will show at a glance what I mean. The original sentence, in the very old MSS. in my possession [which I call No. I.], stands thus :—
I.					(sic) jf
2.	»	Jim	1)	jy^j. »	iTV^JJ
3-	JJ	tjX*>	JJ	j „	JJ
4-	JJ	ftjjyy	JJ	» >»	JJ
5-	JJ		JJ		JJ
6.	JJ	IjS—i	JJ	Jjjlii „	jfx^ij
7-	JJ	tX^*	JJ	JJ	&
8.	JJ	>V'mi»	>»	»	
9-	JJ		M		S
10.	JJ	sjui.	J\ eJ	J. Jj?^ >»	£X^Jj
11.	JJ		J\ ^J	J- Jj^jf »	J^j
12.	»	ijX*			^JSfJj
*3-	It	JJ	J»	JJ ' JJ	JJ
The author of the Jami'-ut-Tawanklli in his account of the river of Kabul and its tributaries, taken from Abu Rihan, Al-Biruni, says, that, having passed by Lamghan, the united streams "join near the fort of Darunah, or Daruntah [the only place that can possibly be meant here is Daruntha—	and fall
into the river of Un-Nur and Kirat, or Karat [o1/ } ], after which the united waters meet together opposite the town [city] of Barshawar [one MS. compared has \-j> or	and become a mighty river called by the name
of La'ir-wal. The village of Manharah [5,1^-.] lies on the east bank of the united waters [another MS. has, instead of this sentence, the following :— ' called by the name of Ma! bar, signifying a ford or crossing place,'] which fall into the Ab-i-Sind in front of [or near] the fort of YitQr, or Yatur [one MS. has Shetab—v^ei], belonging to the town [or city] of Gandhar [how Gandhar—J*xS can ever be mistaken for Kandahar—is inexplicable to me], which place	is called Wahind [or may be Dahind]."
This place—Wahind, or Dahind, or whatever it may be proved to be—is that which our author refers to, no doubt, and is the same place, probably, as mentioned by BaihaVl in one or two places in his History, although he does not mention it as being on the bank of the river Sindh. I have never seen it written ey The printed text, edited by Morley, has s-aj and a MS. in my possession has s^ j Some three years since I carefully compared the whole passage in the Jami'-ut-Tawarikh, with the work of Al-Fanakati, the Arabic copy of a portion of the former work, in the R. A. S. Library, and other works ; and I am unable to agree either with Sir H. Elliot's first reading of it, in his Appendix p. 30, or Mr. Dowson's new reading, in Elliot's78
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
ties; and the same predominant star was in the as-
History of India, edited by him, vol. i. pp. 47 and 48, both of which differ widely from each other. Neither do I agree in the theory that Uhand [joftjl not Ohind] so many miles above the junction of the Nil-ab, or river of Kabul with the Aba-Sind, or Indus, is the place indicated, in face of the statement of Abu Rihan, which is perfectly plain in the passage referred to, namely, that the river in question falls into the Aba-Sind, '' in front of" or opposite the fort of Yitur or Wahind.
If the western bank of the Indus were the right place to search for this spot, so difficult to trace, there is Mahaban l^-.—not much unlike J^ and 5 to look at] together with Oong, Behoh, and Ram-takht, mentioned by Abbott —although, from his mode of rendering Oriental words, it is impossible to tell what the originals maybe—in his " Gradus ad Aornon," in the Ben. As. Journal for 1854, and Rajah Hodaey's castle, as well as " Ohind." There are also extensive ruins of a temple on a hill called Takht-i-Bihf, about fifteen miles north-east of the Kabul river's junction with the Landaey Sind, and some thirty miles north-east of Peshawar, which I visited in 1849 [see my account of Peshawar, Bom. Geogr. Journal, vol. x., for 1851-2]. Can this be the idol-temple which fell when Mahmud was ushered into the world ? In the same vicinity, and within a few miles of each other, are '' Kapir di Girl"— the Infidel's Mount, and " Pratah Minarah"—the Fallen Minar, in Pushto, which names bear a striking resemblance to Baihaki's fortress of " Girl" or " Gin," and " Man-Minarah but both the places I have mentioned are on the western, not the eastern bank, and the iast lies above Uhand, which latter name, in all probability, is not ancient, but one of the many new designations given to places in that vicinity by the Yiisufzi Afghans, when they first conquered those tracts' on the Indus. I have made the early history of the Afghans my especial study for a particular purpose, and I have never met with the name of Wabhand, Wahind, Bahind, or Wahband in the histories containing the account of their conquests in those parts.
Since the above was written, I have looked over vol. ii. of Elliot's India, and find that the author, at page 465, when referring to Mahmud's fourteenth expedition into India, says that Farishtah in his work, as well as the '' Taba-kat-i-Akbari," and " Kanzu-l-Mahpur," which latter I have not examined, mention '' the waters of Niir and Kirat" as falling into the Kabul river, precisely as I had read the same words in the passage from Al-BIruni; but the editor, Mr. Dowson, still persists, as he says in a note to the same page, in reading them '' Nurokirat." Did he not consider that the second j in the words olj5 jjj might be and ? The dor ah of Nur is mentioned by Babar, and is well known still.
To return to the subject of Wahind. From the passage in the Jami'-ut-Tawarjkh, and our author, "the fort belonging to the town or city of Gand-har, which place is called Wahind or Bahind, on the banks of the Sind, facing the junction of the Nll-Ab with the Aba-Sind," must be looked for east of the Indus, near Attak-Banaras, in the vicinity of which extensive ruins of an ancient city are mentioned in the account of the building of the former fortress in Akbar's reign. Apollonius of Tyana, in his "Travels," mentions a lofty temple as situated outside the walls of Taxilas, a few miles east of the Indus. [See Jour. R. A. S., vol. xvii. .p. 76.] These ruins were again noticed in the writings of a Muhammadan traveller towards the close of the last century. However, under any circumstances, and in whatever manner we may read these names, which want the vowel-points, and are probably incor-THE YAMlNIAH DYNASTY.
79
cendant at his birth as appeared at the dawn of Islam
rectly copied, the situation of the rivers, and the number mentioned, will not agree with actual facts. The Muhammadan traveller I refer to, states, from actual observation : " The Kabul river, after flowing through the darah of Mandror—called by the same name as the chief town of Lamghan—is joined, to the north of that place, by the Tahkri [ijjQ], generally known as the river of Lamghan ; "and near the koh or mountain of Duruntha [l^ii^-i] those streams are joined by the Surkh-rud [Red-River], which then flow past Jalalabad on the east, and near the town of Kamah are joined by the Ch,itrar or Chitral [also called the Kamah], and thus united flow on towards Peshawar. On issuing from the Khaibar mountains at Michani [not Michni], the united streams again separate into three branches, and thus [not united] pass by Peshawar— which is some distance from the nearest branch—for some miles, and do not unite again until just after receiving the Landaey Sind and its tributaries at Nisatah, after which the united waters fall into the Indus a little above, and opposite Attak." The courses of rivers may alter in the lapse of centuries, in a flat country, as they have in the Punjab, in some instances, but not in such a mountainous tract as the Kabul and its tributaries flow through, on their way to the Indus. I cannot but coincide with Abu-1-Fazl, the secretary [but never "minister"] of Akbar, in his remarks upon the accounts of India, written by early travellers, such as Al-Birunl and others, He says, in the A'ln-i-Akbari [I give the pith of his remarks merely], that '1 Fanakati, Hafiz-Abru, and others, wrote down all the nonsense that was palmed off upon them; and, therefore, what they state is contrary to facts, and not to be depended upon, while other writers have wilfully perverted them. How could it be otherwise, when such persons knew nothing of the languages of India, of of ifs people, or their customs ? They could neither make investigations themselves, nor could they obtain efficient interpreters, or reliable information." See R. A. Sr's Journal, vol. iv. p. 356.
Farther investigation, since the above remarks were written, has, I think, enabled me to throw some light upon the situation of what is called Wahind and Bahind, and as to its correct name. The Tarlkl-i-Mir'at-i-Jahan Numa, a general history by Muhammad Baka, contains the following respecting Mahmud's two first expeditions against Hindustan. "In 390 H., Mahmud set out for Hindustan and captured the fortress of Barjanid or Barjunid [<V?yi possibly	but this word is not quite certain], and again retired. In
Shawwal, 391 H., he again set out towards Hindustan, and reached Peshawar with 10,000 horse, and defeated Jai-pal, who, with fifteen brothers and sons, was taken captive. This took place on Saturday, 8th Muharram, 392 H. From thence, Mafcmud advanced to the fortress of [Bahindah], which was the residence of Jai-pal; and he subdued that territory." In a history of the Rajahs of Jamu, said by its author, a Hindu, to have been compiled from Hindu annals,	[Bathindah] is said to have been Jai-pal's capital and
place of residence, which Mahmud captured. Mlrza Mughal Beg, who, about eighty-three years since, made a survey- of great part of the North-West Provinces between Dihli and the Sutlaj, the Punjab, and great part of Afghanistan, and the countries on the northern slopes of Hindu-Kush, in his account of the Lakht jungle, says: "Bhatindah [ijLl^], which is also called What-indah [»£:»•] is the name of a territory, with a very ancient stronghold bearing the same name, which was the capital of the Qhahil [J»U.] tribe. Lakh!, son of Jundharah, of the Bhati tribe, having been converted to the Muhammadan faith, during an invasion by Sultan, Mafcmud of Sljaznin,8o
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
itself3. In the year 387 H.4, Mahmud proceeded to Balkhs, and
received the title of Rana Lakhi, and he and his tribe were removed thither. They found there some three hundred and fifty or sixty towns and villages of considerable size, some with large and fine buildings; and began to make inroads into the tracts adjacent, against the infidels." According to traditions quoted by this author, which are also to be found in other works, there were formerly two or three considerable rivers in this now sandy tract of country. In ancient times the Ghaghar flowed past Bhatnir, and "fell into the Sind [Indus] on the confines of Jasalmir. One of these rivers is called the Sadhura [see the various readings of the original at the beginning of this note], which falls into the Ghaghar, and in its neighbourhood, at about five miles west, is a sacred pond or small lake, visited by hundreds of thousands of persons, and there is no other place accounted like unto it in sanctity." There is a great deal more about this district, but I have no space for it here. I think it very probable that what has been called Wahind or Bahind is no other than Bhatindah or Whatindah, which, written without the points—jor	are much
the same in appearance as the words in the various MSS. of our author's text — and i J..^)
As to some confusion in the arrangement of Elliot's India, tending to distract, which I have referred to above, I would mention, with respect to the name " Wahind," that at p. 63, vol. i., " Wahind " is said to be the capital of Kandahar [d stands for g as well as k, and Kandahar in Afghanistan is always with j] ; in a note at p. 397, the "river of Wahand or Wahind-Sagar" is mentioned ; in vol. ii. p. 28, in the extract from Yamini, " Waihind " is said to be a country; at p. 33, and other places, it is again called '' the river of Wahind; and at p. 444, "the river of Waihind or the Indus." Notwithstanding all this, this identical passage in our author, after having been "revised and sundry long gaps filled up by the Editor," is thus translated [vol. ii. p. 269] :—" On the same night that he [Mahmud] was born, an idol-temple in India, in the vicinity of Parshawar, on the banks of the Sind, fell down !!" There is nothing like giving a bold translation.
3	This last sentence is somewhat obscure in all the copies. It may be understood also to mean that his appearance was propitious to the ascendancy of Islam : does not mean "the greatest champion."
4	See note 6, page 75, for date of accession.
6 Balkh, has been mentioned by more than one author, as the capital of Sabuk-Tigin's and Mahmud's dominions. In the same year wherein he overcome his brother (389 h.), Mahmud, according to Fasih-I, fought a battle against 'Abd-ul-Malik, son of Niih, Samani, and the Samani dynasty terminated. See page 52. His independency may be dated from that time. In the same year, Arsalan-i-Jazib fought an engagement with Abu-l-Kasim-i-Simjur, and compelled him to retire to Tabas ; and Mahmud made his brother, Amir Nasr, the commander of his army (see page 51, note r'). In that same year, likewise, he made Balkh, the capital of his dominions ; and the Khalifah. Al-Kadir B'illah, sent him a robe of honour, with the titles of Yamin-ud-Daulah, and Amin-ul-Millat. Mahmud also received the submission of the Shar, as was the style of the rulers of Gharjistan [called by some Gharishtan], Abu Nasr, son of the Shar, Rashid, and of his son, Shar. Abu Muhammad ; and the Khutbah was read for Mahmud in that territory, and the coin impressed with his name and titles. In 390 h. Mahmud made a dash upon Nishapur, which he took possession of, and Bak-Tuzun, the slave of the Samani dynasty, fled ; and in the same year Bughrajak, the uncle of Mahmud,THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY.
81
ascended the throne of sovereignty, and donned the robe of honour which had been sent to him from the Dar-ul-Khilafat. At this time the throne of the Khalifahs was adorned by the Lord of the Faithful, Al-Kadir-B'illah.
When Sultan Mahmud ascended the throne of sovereignty, his illustrious deeds became manifest unto all man-
was slain by Tahir, son of Khalaf, son of Ahmad, at Fushanj. Mahmud marched into Sijistan against Khalaf, who fled before him, and took shelter within the walls of the fortress of Tak, which Mahmud directed should be invested. This is a different place to Uk. For farther particulars respecti»g Khalaf, whose doings appear so obscure [Jour. R. A. S., vol. xvii. p. 147], see notes to Section XIV. Mahmud does not appear to have established his power in Khurasan, for in 391 H., Amir Abu Ibrahim Al-Muntasir—the last of the Samanis, who is not even mentioned by our author—aided by Shams-ul-Ma'ali Kabus, son of Washmgir, who sent his sons Dara [see page 51] and Manuchihr, advanced with an army to recover Rai; but, having altered his plans, Abu Ibrahim, and his adherents, faced about, and marched on Nisha-pur, from which Nasr, Mahmud's brother, again fled, and Abu Ibrahim once more gained possession of Nishapur. Nasr, who had retired to Hirat, again moved to recover it, aided by Arsalan-i-Ja?ib from Tus. Abu Ibrahim despatched his forces under Arsalan-i-Balu and Abu-l-Kasim-i-Simjur to oppose them ; but they were overthrown, and Abu Ibrahim again retired from Nishapur, and took refuge, in Jurjan, with Kabus. Eventually he reached Sarak&s, and Amir Nasr marched against him and defeated him ; and he fled for refuge to the tribe of Ghuzz. Nasr made prisoners of Abu-l-Kasim-i-Simjur, and Yuz-Tash, the Hajib of Abu Ibrahim, who had previously put Arsalan-i-Balu to death for flying from Amir Nasr. In the following year, 392 H., Jai-pal, [which appears to be the title, not the actual name, of two or more princes], Bad-g^ah of Hind, as he is called, was made captive by Mahmud. " He was sold for," as the chronicler states, whose words I quote, or rather his ransom was fixed at " 200,000 golden dinars, and 150 elephants; and the necklace taken from Jai-pal was valued at another 200,000 golden dinars. This battle took place on Thursday, 8th of Muharram, 392 H., in sight of Burshor of Hind." Here we might have expected to find " Wahind" or " Waband" mentioned. Whether this is what is now called Peshawar is somewhat doubtful, for up to the time of Babar and Akbar, the latter city was called generally Bagram, and is seldom mentioned, except by more modern writers of the Farishtah class. The chronicler adds : "Jai-pal, the Hindu, subsequently shaved his head, and "mounted a funeral pyre, and died ; for it is customary with Hindus, that any Bad shah of theirs, who becomes a captive to Musalmans, should abdicate in favour of another ruler. His son Tand-Pal [MS.	but probably Jl^uil—
Anand-pal—is meant], succeeded him as ruler of Hind." In 393 H. the Khut-bah was read for Mahmud in Sijistan, by Khalaf's own nobles, and his titles were impressed upon the coins. In the following year the fortress of Ta^ was captured, and Khalaf was made prisoner. The Sultan kept the territory of Sijistan entirely for himself, but gave the district of Juzjanan to Khalaf, who, taking his family with him, left Sijistan altogether. Afterwards, however, Sultan Mahmud gave the government of Sijistan to his own brother, Nasr ; and the government of that province was joined to the appointment of commander of the forces [of Khurasan].82
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
kind within the pale of Islam, when he converted so many thousands [J] of idol-temples into masjids, and captured so many of the cities of Hindustan, and overthrew and subdued its Raes. Jai-pal, who was the greatest of the Raes of Hind, he made captive, and kept him [a prisoner] at Man-Yazid6, in Khurasan, and commanded that he might be ransomed for the sum of eighty dirams7. He led an army to Nahrwalah of Gujarat, and brought away Manat8, the idol, from Somnath, and had it broken into four parts, one of which was cast before the entrance of the great masjid at Ghaznin, the second before the "gateway of the Sultan's palace9, and the third and fourth were sent to Makkah and Madinah respectively.
Concerning this victorious expedition the poet 'Unsuri composed a Kastdah1, or poem, two couplets of which are here inserted :—
" When the potent sovereign made the expedition to Somnath, He made the working of miracles his occupation. He staked the Chess of dominion wilh a thousand kings : Each king he check-mated, in a separate game. "
Out of the different occasions in which the Sultan's greatness showed itself pre-eminent, one occurred during this expedition. When he retired from Somnath, and desired to lead back the army of Islam by way of the desert2, to Sindh and Mansurah, out of Gujarat, he directed that guides should be procured. A Hindu presented himself,
6	Nearly every copy agrees in the name Man-Yazid	" Yazd " is not meant. One copy has <±ij> ^
7	Sic in MSS., but I fancy the word " thousand " must have bSen left out. If not, Mahmud did not set much value on his captive. See amount mentioned in note s, preceding page.
8	One of three chief idols of the pagans of Makkah was named Manat.
9	Some fragments of idols might still have been seen lying near the entrance to the Sultan's tomb a few years ago, and probably they are still there.
1	The first two lines are corrected from 'Abd-ul-Kadir-i-Budauni. The point of these lines lies principally on the play upon the terms in chess, lost in translation.
2	The Rinn or desert of Kachh. An - author, quoting from the Tankh-i-Nasirl of Baihakj, relates a remarkable circumstance, which occurred upon this occasion : "On the Sultan's return from Somnath, one of his huntsmen killed an enormous serpent or boa-canstrictor, which was skinned, and found to be thirty ells (gaz) in length and four in breadth. Baihaki adds, ' Whoever doubts the correctness of this statement, let him go to the citadel of Ghaznin, and see for himself the skin in question, which is hung up like a canopy.'"THE YAMlNIAH DYNASTY.
83
and offered to act as guide, and that sovereign, with the army of Islam, proceeded on his way. After the army had marched all night and next day, and the time had come round for the troops to halt, although search was made for water, none was any where to be found. The Sultan directed that the Hindu guide should be brought before him, and inquiries made from him. This was done, when the Hindu guide replied to the Sultan, saying : " I have devoted my life for the idol Somnath, and I have led you and your army into this desert, in any part of which water is not to be found, in order«that you may all perish." The Sultan commanded that the Hindu should be despatched to hell, and that the troops should halt and take up their quarters for the night. He then waited until night had set in, after which he left the camp, and proceeded to some distance from it, aside. Then, kneeling down, and with his forehead to the ground, he prayed devoutly and fervently unto the Most High for deliverance. After a watch3 of the night had passed, a mysterious light appeared in the horizon, and the Sultan gave orders for the troops to be put in motion, and to follow him in the direction of the light. When the day broke, the Almighty God had conducted the army of Islam to a place where there was water, and all the Musalmans were delivered safely out of this impending danger.
The Almighty had endowed that ruler with great power of performing many miraculous and wondrous acts, such as He has not bestowed since upon any other sovereign, nor such vast military resources, so large a number of troops, and unbounded wealth. • Sultan Mahmud possessed two thousand five hundred elephants ; and his court was guarded by four thousand Turkish slave-youths4, who, on days of public audience, were stationed on the right and left of the throne, —two thousand of them with caps6 ornamented with four feathers, bearing golden maces, on the right hand, and the
3	A period of three hours.
4	The words used are j'-i-j	Washalf signifies a good-looking slave, and a beardless youth ; and has sometimes been used to signify a slave-girl. As these youths attained unto man's estate and their beards began to grow, they were attached to a separate corps, and placed occasionally under the command of rulers of provinces.
8 «^signifying a Tartar cap, a sort of mitre or tiara made from leather or cloth or such like fabric, and covered with brocade or cloth of gold.84
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
other two thousand, with caps adorned with two feathers, bearing silver maces, on the left.
This monarch, by his manliness, his bravery and intrepidity, his wisdom and foresight, and his prudent counsels and wise measures, considerably extended the Muham-madan conquests in the east, and greatly increased the dominion of Islam in that quarter. The whole of 'Ajam6, Khurasan and Khwarazm, Tabaristan, 'Irak, the territory of Nimroz, Fars, the mountain districts of Ghur7, Tukhar-istan—all came under the control of his officers. The Maliks, or rulers, of Turkistan paid him obedience and acknowledged his superiority8. He threw a bridge over the Jihun, and marched his forces into Turan, and Kadr Khan had an interview with him, as had the Khans of the Turks likewise; and the Khakans of Turkistan came and presented themselves before him, and tendered him their allegiance9.
6	That Mahmud ruled "the whole" of'Ajam, and Tabaristan, is an exaggeration. Not one word is mentioned, by other writers of any authority, as to his holding any part of Fars, and in 'Irak his sway was but partial over a portion.
7	The only notice of this contained in Fasih-I, during the whole period of Mahmud's reign, is in the following words:—"400H. Death of the son of Suri, Malik of Ghur, who was taken prisoner in an encounter fought by Sultan Mahmud, in Ghur. He sucked poison from a ring he had, and destroyed himself. Some say it occurred in 401 h."
8	In the year 387 h., the same in which Sabuk-Tigin died, and two years before Mahmud became ruler, Mamun, son of Muhammad Al-Farighuni, the Wall, or ruler, of Jurjaniah [also written Gurganiah], of Khwarazm died, and ■was succeeded by his son 'All; and, in this same year, 'All was married to a daughter of Mahmud. 'All, however, died in 390 h., and was succeeded by his brother, Abu-1-'Abbas, son of Mamun. He, in the following year, sent an envoy—supposed to be the author so much depended upon by Sir H. Elliot, and others, for his geographical knowledge of India—Abu Rihan, Al-Blrunf, to Mahmud, asking permission to marry the lady, his brother's widow. This was sanctioned by Mahmud, and Abu-l-'Abbas married her.
9	In 396 I-I., Sultan Mahmud sent an envoy to I-lak Khan, the Turk, son of Bughra Khan [for now the last of the Samanis had been put to death, as already related], proposing that they should enter into an alliance, and that all the territory this side [on the left bank] of the Amuiah [Oxus] should belong to him, Mahmud, together with Khwarazm, and that all on the other side should appertain to I-lak Khan, and that they should not interfere with or molest each other's territories. Baihaki says, writing in 451 h., that Kadr Khan at that period was called Bughra Khan. It was in this same year that Mahmud undertook the expedition into Hindustan, against Bhlfa Rae [also written I^—Bajira in Fasih-I, Bihrae ^st—in Mirat-i-Jahan-numa, I^ —Bihra by Yahya Khan in his History, and ^jJCi^j Rajah Bahlrae byTHE YAMINIAH DYNASTY.
85
At their request, the son of Saljuk, through whose activity, and boldness, too, the whole of the Khakans of the Turks were reduced to a state of helplessness, was permitted to
Sanjan Rae in his work. He was doubtless chief of the tribe of Blrar —J'jt> See also Elliot, Appendix to vol. ii., pages 34 and 439, wherein great confusion appears to exist]. Bhira Rae was slain, and the fortress of Bhatiah near [i. e. not far distant from] Multan was taken. After this, the Sultan returned to Ghaznln, but in the same year he undertook an expedition against the Wall of Multan, Abu-l-Fath, who fled from that territory. Whilst Mahmud was absent in Hindustan, in 397 H., I-lak Khan broke the newly made treaty of alliance, and invaded Khurasan. This made Mahmud return to Ghaznin to make arrangements for marching against him, for I-lak Khan had penetrated as far as Hirat, which he took ; but, in the following year, Mahmud encountered him at Balkh, and compelled him to retire. Khalaf. the late ruler of Sijistan, it was found, had been intriguing with him during Mahmud's absence, and had advised this invasion. On this account Khalaf was immured in the fortress of Juzdez of Kuhistan. In 401 H., Mahmud again advanced into Hindustan against the fortress of Bhim [also called Bhim-nagar], the chief of which was Bhim Narayan. There is no mention of any expedition undertaken in that quarter in Fasih-i, as contained in the Jami'-ut-Tawarikh, against Nardin ; but, in some works, an expedition against Nandanah, in 404 H., is mentioned. In 407 H., Mahmud's son-in-law, Abu-l-'Abbas-i-Mamun, Farighuni, ruler of Jurjanlah of Khwarazm, was murdered by some of his troops. Mahmud went in person into Khwarazm, defeated the insurgents, and put Nial-Tigin [called Alb-Tigin by Baiha^i], the ringleader, and the murderers, to the sword, reduced that territory under his sway, and Altun-Tash, the great chamberlain, was entrusted with its government. I-lak Khan had died in Mawar-un-Nahr, in 403 H.; and in 408 H. Mahmud sought from her uncle, Tughan Khan, who had succeeded him, the hand of I-lak's daughter in marriage for his son Mas'ud, whom he nominated as his heir and successor. Tughan Khan himself died in the same year, and was succeeded by his brother, Bughra Tigin, entitled Arsalan Khan. On that lady's arrival shortly after at Baikal the capital was illuminated ; and soon after Mahmud made over the government of Khurasan to Mas'ud, with Hirat as the seat of government, having previously assembled the whole of his Ulus, or tribe, together, to take oath of fealty to his son. [According to Baihajd, however, this lady had been betrothed to Muhammad, Mas'ud's brother, but the former, having been immured in a fortress by the latter, when he ascended the throne, Muhammad could not marry her, and Mas'ud did, with the consent of her brother; but this was several years subsequent to the events above-mentioned.]
After having disposed of these affairs, Mahmud had leisure again to turb his attention to Hindustan ; and I will here mention, as briefly as possible, his next expedition into that country, because the narrative will greatly differ from the accounts of other writers. In the year 409 H. [see Elliot, vol. ii. p. 460], Sultan Mahmud undertook another expedition against the infidels of Hind, and overcame Hardab	—the " Hardat " of 'Abd-ul-Kadir-i-
Budauni, the " Hirdat of Matharah" of the Tami'-ut-Tawarilrh] in that region, at which place—[my authority so styles Hardab, but must mean his capital, Mathurah]—there were nearly a thousand palaces of stone, and an idol-temple of "Such extent and size, that "if a thousand times a thousand thousand dinars should be expended, and builders and workmen of the greatest86
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
pass the Jihun with all his kindred and dependents, and cross over into Khurasan. The wisest and most sagacious men of that .time considered the granting of this permission
activity and energy should be employed for two hundred years, they could not complete the like." Within this great temple were five idols of gold, fivegaz or ells in height, and the eyes of one of them were formed of two rubies [Jami'-ut-Tawa-rikh—"of a dark red colour"], which were valued at 50,000 'dinars of gold. The eyes of another were formed of two sapphires, of the weight of four hundred miskals ! [600 miskals — 1 ser — 1 lb. 13 oz.] the immense value of which could not be computed. From the lower extremities of one of the idols, pure gold of the weight of 4400 ?niskals was obtained. Besides these great idols, there were two hundred others of silver, in the temple, the whole of which were broken up ; and the temple itself was overthrown, and set on fire. [Compare with Elliot, vol. ii. pp. 44, 45.] After this Kinnauj on the Gang, and other places, were captured, the details of which events are too long for insertion here ; but among them is mentioned Nardln, the fortress of " Bramah" [perhaps the place called Bhawan or Bahawan by some authors] called Manj, Asi, and other places. From the idol-temple of the first named, a stone tablet was brought, on which was written that the temple had been founded forty thousand years before. Jai-pal of Kinnauj fled across the Gang, on the bank of which were ten thousand idol-temples in seven fortresses. At the capture of Asi, Chand-pal Bhud, the sovereign of that part, was slain. In 410 H. Mahmud again entered Hindustan, '' and was engaged [detained] therein for a period of four years" [>xi c-J^ JL. jl^] during which time many conquests were made. In 411 H. Mahmud became greatly incensed against his brother Amir Nasi-, who had been acting improperly and carelessly in his duty in command of his troops, being constantly engaged in wine-bibbing and pleasure, and, by his conduct, causing relaxation in discipline, " for, when the forces were about to march, his followers were generally found to be in the bazars, instead of present at their posts ; and great excesses were committed by them." Mahmud sent Khwajah-i-'Amid. Abu Nasr-i-Mishkan, Al-ZawzanI, to him about this misconduct. Nasr's reply was so becoming that Mahmud passed it over, at the same time saying to the Khwajah: "My brother Nasr is a very prudent and sagacious man." In 412 H., Tasdar jJ—J [Naro jy] Jai-pal, ruler of Hind [see Elliot, vol. ii. p. 12], was slain, and Bhim-pal, his son, succeeded to his sovereignty. In 414 H., Sultan Mahmud came to an accommodation, in a distant part [^ J of Hind with Beda [Nanda, in other works], on the latter's presenting 150 elephants, after which he returned to Ghaznin, and in the same year made a raid into the mountains inhabited by the Afghan Ian [sic in MS.], plundered them, and carried off much booty. This is the first time they are mentioned in the history from which I have taken these accounts. In 416 H. Mahmud made another raid upon them from Balkh, and fell upon them at night. In this same year, Jaghar Beg-i-Abu Suliman-i-Da'ud, son of Tughril Beg, son of Mika'Il, the Saljuk, rose, and entered Khwarazm; and Bhim-pal also died. In 417 H. the expedition against Somnath was undertaken, and a farther portion of Hind was subdued ; some by treaty and agreement to pay the jazTah or capitation tax, some by force of arms and plunder of the country, and making captives of the people, ahd some by the people becoming converts to Islam. In 419 H. Mahmud proceeded into Mawar-un-Nahr, and had an interview with Kadr Khan, sovereign of Turkistan, and the treaty formerly'existing between them was renewed and confirmed, on the agreementTHE YAMlNIAH DYNASTY.
87
a grave error in the Sultan's policy; for they perceived therein danger to the empire of his sons and descendants.
Sultan Mafrmud entered 'Irak and subdued that territory, and purposed proceeding to the Court of Baghdad to pay his respects 1; but, on the receipt of a mandate to the contrary from the Lord of the Faithful, he retired, and
that a portion of Mawar-un-Nahr should be held by Mahmud, and some be incorporated with Kadr Khan's dominions ; and a fresh treaty was written out upon these terms, and duly signed. On his way back, Mahmud granted an audience unto Isra'il, son of Beghu, son of Salju^, son of Lukman, and brought him along with him. After a time Isra'il was immured within the fortress of Kalinjar, also called Talwarah, where he died. In 420 H. Mahmud slew [slain in battle with Mahmud] Majd-ud-Daulah, Buwiah, and acquired sway over 'Irak [a portion], and overthrew that branch of the Buwiah dynasty ; and 'Ira^ was added to the dominions previously conferred upon Mas'ud. " On Thursday, the 14th of Rabl'-us-sanl, 421 h. [a.d. 1030, about the middle of April], Sultan Mahmud died, and was buried in the Flruzi Bagh, or garden, of Ghaznin. after he had reigned thirty-three years. Some say he died in 420 H." These extracts were taken originally from the work entitled " Makamat of the 'Amid Abu Nasr," written by the 'Amid [j***—not Ahmad] Abu-1-Fazl, Al-Baihakl, so called from Baihak his birth-place, a small town in Zawulistan, also called Mu^ir.
There are many materials for a complete history of this reign which, as regards India, is the most important one. Our author's account is, to use the words of Sir H. Elliot, "too curt;" and I have been compelled to make these notes much longer than I liked. Another reason, for my comparative minuteness, was, that the accounts of this reign, in most authors, are confused and erroneous, particularly in writers of modern times. As in other cases, the "classical" writers, and the old geographers, referred to by Abu-1-Fazl, appear to have led their votaries astray ; and the names of persons and places are as diverse and different as the authors and translators themselves. Elliot's work contains a large amount of most valuable materials, but the mode of arrangement tends rather to confuse, as I have previously pointed out. Names of persons and places have been introduced from modern translations of works, instead of from the originals, where possible. Who would think of appealing to Dow or the like for the correct reading of proper names ? For example : in note at page 19, vol. ii., wherein S. de Sacy is quoted, who says that Dow has "Abistagi, and Subuktagi for Alpteghin and Sibekteghin," his own blunder is far worse than Dow's, for neither of the words contains any gh, in it. See note l, page 58. In the extract from 'Utbi, page 20, where mention is made of the "fountain in one of the ravines of a very lofty mountain called the 'Ukba Ghuzak ['Ufcbah——means a pass\ into which if any filth is thrown storms arise," which is quite correct, Dow, in his "Hindostan," page 27, interprets it, " if a small quantity of a certain drug should be thrown," &c. Reynolds, in his version of the Kitab-i-Yamini, has made terrible work of the proper names, which are written all sorts of .ways. He has Simjourf, Sinjur, and Simjur for one person; Basti and Bostf; Muwid-Addowlat and Muwayyad-Addowlat, and the like, in scores of places.
1 Not mentioned in other authors, and very doubtful.88
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
returned to Ghaznin, where he died at the age of sixty-one, after a reign of thirty-three years, in 421 H.2
His sons were Muhammad, Nasr, Mas'ud, Suliman3, Ismail, 'Abd-ur-Rashid, styled 'Izz-ud-Daulah, Amir of Ghaznin, and Ibrahim, which latter had a son named Suliman.
III. AMIR MUHAMMAD1, SON OF MAHMUD.
Jalal-ud-Daulah wa-ud-Din5, Muhammad, was a learned and virtuous-minded prince ; and they recite [upon his authority 6] a great number of poems in the Arabic language.
When his father, Sultan Mahmud, died, his brother, Mas'ud, was in 'Irak 7; and the great nobles and chiefs of
2	For the precise date of his decease, see note 9, preceding page. Among the different coins struck in Mahmud's reign one bore the following inscription :— "The right hand of the empire, Mahmud Sultan, son of Nasir-ud-Dln, Sabuk-Tigin, Breaker of Idols." This coin appears to have been struck at Lahor, in the seventh year of his reign. The fallowing territories are said to have been included in his empire :—Ghaznin, Zabulistan, Khurasan, Khwarazm, Chaghanian Tabaristan, Sipahan [Isfahan], Kabul as far as Kinnauj [sic in MSS.], the country around Kalinjar, Multan as far as Nahrwalah of Gujarat, Somnath, the territory lying on the sea-coast of 'Umman, Kusdar, Sind as far as Siwastan bordering on Kirman, Kij, and Makran. His authority in a good many of these must have been very nominal.
3	In two MSS. the name of Mahmud occurs in place of Suliman, but the latter seems to be correct.
4	Most authors place Mas'ud before his brother Muhammad, and only consider the latter's reign to have commenced after Mas'ud had been dethroned and imprisoned in 432 H.
5	Other writers state that his title was Jalal-ud-Daulah and Jalal-ul-Millat. Guzidah says 'Imad-ud-Daulah was his title. His coins have Jalal-ud-Daulah, and Jamal-ul-Millat.
6	He was an authority with respect to the text of several Arabic poems. In poems like the Mu'allakat, for example, the texts furnished by various philologists differ considerably from each other. The original words are
>—•>[);	lsj jl
7	Mas'ud was, of course, in 'Irak, as he held the government of all the western parts of his father's empire. He appears to have been at Hamadan— but one author, at least, says at Isfahan—when his father's death took place. See note 9 at page 87. Immediately on the decease of Mahmud, the Hajib, 'Alt Khweshawand. who was a relative of the late Sultan, and the Hajib, Bak-Taghdl, who was commander of the Mamluks of the palace, entered into a compact "that they would act in concert with, and do nothing contrary to each other, but act in harmony in whatever might occur, and carefully hold the dargak or palace until such time as one of the late Sultan's sons should ascendTHE YAMlNlAH DYNASTY.
89
the late Saltan's court, by mutual accord, raised Sultan Muhammad to' the throne of Ghaznin in the year 431 H. He was, however, a man of mild and unaspiring temperament, and possessed neither sufficient resolution of heart, nor decision of character, to govern the kingdom. A party, who were favourably inclined towards Mas'ud, sent communications to him in 'Irak8, upon which he assembled the troops of 'Irak and Khurasan, with the determination of proceeding to Ghaznin ; and he marched from 'Irak in that direction.
When the news of his coming, and his intentions, reached Ghaznin, Muhammad caused his forces to be got in readiness, and set out with the purpose of resisting his brother; and 'All Kurbat9 was the Hajib-i-Buzurg [Great Chamberlain], and the commander of his army.
When the forces reached Tigin-abad, information of the advance of Mas'ud having reached the camp of Muhammad,
the throne, when they would deliver it up, with the country [sic], into his hands." This compact was entered into by those officers, in the presence of, and with the advice, approval," and concurrence of the 'Amid [not "Ahmad "] Abu Nasr-i-Mishkan, the minister of the late Sultan.
8	Fasih-i says, that in the same year, 421 H., through the endeavours and efforts of the Hajib, 'Ali Khweshawand. and Yusuf, son of Sabuk-Tigin, brother of the late Sultan, Muhammad was confined within the walls of the citadel of Tigin-abad, and they awaited the arrival of Sultan Mas'ud, The Tazkirat-ul-Muluk calls the first mentioned person 'All, son"of I-yal-Arsalan, a relative of the late Sultan Mahmud ; and says that Muhammad made his uncle [cousin ?] Ya'^ub, son of Yusuf, commander of- his forces, and Khwajah Abu Sahl [not " Suhal"], his minister ; but, that a strong party were inclined to his brother Mas'ud. Accordingly, Amir Iyaz, with the Ghulams, or slaves—the regular troops or guards as they may be termed—combined to espouse his cause, entered the royal stables, mounted the best horses therein, and set out to join Mas'ud, who was then at Isfahan. They joined him at Nishapur on his advance towards Ghaznin by way of Hirat. On this Muhammad, with all his followers, set out towards Hirat in order to submit to his brother. Other writers differ greatly from our author, on very good grounds, in their accounts of his reign. Mas'ud is said to have written to his brother to say that he had no intention or desire to interfere with his sovereignty over the dominions—the eastern parts of the empire—left him by their father's will, but that it was absolutely necessary that his, Mas'ud's, name should be first in the Kh,utbah. Muhammad replied in a surly manner. Mas'ud's partisans then seized Muhammad, as above related ; and it is farther asserted that Muhammad had not, as yet, been blinded by them, but that he was deprived of his sight by order of Mas'ud.
9	'Ali Kurbat and 'Ali Khweshawand refer to one and the same person. Kurbat signifies "kindred," "affinity," and Khweshawand, "a kinsman,' " a relative." This is the 'Ali Karlb of BaihaVi.
G9°
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
they seized his person, deprived him of his sight, and placed him in confinement. After this act 'All Kurbat marched the troops towards Hirat, in order to meet Sultan Mas'ud ; and, having arrived within one stage of that place, he proceeded to present himself before the Sultan. Mas'ud gave orders to seize him, and Muhammad's whole army was plundered1 and despoiled.
On this occasion his reign extended to a period of seven months. Subsequently, when Sultan Mas'ud, the Martyr, became the victim of misfortune at Marlgalah2, Sultan Muhammad, although he had been deprived of his sight, was brought forth and placed upon the throne, and he brought the army from thence back towards Ghaznin.
Sultan Mawdud, the son of Mas'ud, marched out of Ghaznin 3, with the determination to take revenge upon his uncle for his father's death, overthrew him in the battle [which ensued], and put to death his uncle Muhammad with all his offspring4. Muhammad, on the second occasion, exercised sovereignty for a period of four months. His martyrdom5 took place in the year 432 H. ; and his age was forty-five years.
1	In Elliot's " History of India," edited by Professor Dowson of the Staff College, the latter is rather bitter [vol. ii„ pref. ix], against the bad translation of extracts from our author, made for Sir H. Elliot, for his work, and, in several places, cries out against this kind of assistance. I doubt very much, however, whether any "officer," with even a practical smattering of Persian or 'Urdu, would have translated jJj/-cjjlc 1} ^dj — "Ordered his whole force to be destroyed." ^jjTisij'Jt does not mean "to destroy." Mr. Dowson also translates this passage	il^LjjL jj	^UJ-.—"When Mas'ud was killed at Marikala ;" but, as in the case above, does not mean "killed." His own words disprove his own translation, for, two pages farther on, comes the passage, " but in Marikala his Turki and Hindi' slaves revolted, took him prisoner," &c.
2	See note 4 at page 95.
3	See note 2 at page 96.
4	The Tazkirat-ul-Muluk states that all were put to death by Mawdud, except one son, 'Abd-ur-Rahim by name. " Amir Mawdud forbade that he should be injured, because he had been informed that, at the time of the murder of his father, Mas'ud, one of 'Abd-ur-Rahim's brothers, out of insolence, had plucked the diadem which Mas'ud wore from that gallant prince's head, but' Abd-ur-Rahim took it from his brother, and replaced it on the brow of Mas'iid again, and severely rebuked his brother for what he had done."
s For particulars see reign of Mawdud, and notes. His reign is said to have extended over a period of nine months. The word J^-i signifying martyr, also means one who dies for a cause which he thinks just; and any Muham-madan killed in battle is so called.THE YAMINlAH DYNASTY.	91
His sons were 'Abd-ur-Rahman, 'Abd-ur-Rahim, and Ahmad.
IV. SULTAN NA§1R-UD-D!N U'LLAH6, MAS'UD, THE MARTYR.
Sultan Mas'ud, the Martyr, bore the title of Nasir-ud-Din U'llah, and his surname was Abu Mas'ud. His birth, and that of his brother, Sultan Muhammad, took place on the same day7. Sultan Mas'ud assumed the sovereignty in the year 422 H.8 He was generous and munificent to so great a degree that they called him a second Khalifah 'All —may God reward him!—and in valour and prowess he was a second Rustam. No man could lift his mace 9 with one hand from the ground ; and no iron target used to stay his arrow1. His father, the Sultan, used to be enyious of him, and constantly treated him with harshness and severity/, to such degree that he preferred a request to the court of Baghdad, that the name and title of Muhammad should have precedence in the Khutbah over those of his brother Mas'ud.
6	Other writers style him Nasir-ud-Daulah, and Nasir-ud-Din. The Jami'-ut-Tawarlkh gives him the title of Nasir-ud-dln U'llah, wa Mu'in-i-Khalifah U'llah; but Baihaki, his biographer, styles him " Shihab-ud-Daulah, and Kutb-ul-Millat Abi Sa'Jd-i-Mas'ud."
7	It does not follow that they were twins.
8	He ascended the throne of Ghaznfn, at Hirat, on the 1st of Jamadl-ul-Awwal, 422 H., >soon after which he gave orders to put the Hajib, 'All Khweshawand, and his brother Mangirak, to death, and confiscated all their property. The Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh agrees in this statement, and adds farther, that,'All Khweshawand. the Hajib, had taken an active part in raising Muhammad to the throne, and had subsequently acted perfidiously towards him.
9	Mr. E. Thomas, in his numismatic " Chronicles of the Pathan kings of Delhi," asserts [p. 79], with respect to a coin of the Turkish slave-king, I-yal-timish, that the mace is "the special weapon of the great Mahmud." The statement is erroneous, as shown in the text. The mace was, by no means, an uncommon weapon in those days. See also under reign of Sultan Tughril, son of Arsalan Shah, last reign of Section XII.
1	Mr. Dowson translates this passage [in the original—J-?	j ^jliJ —" and even an elephant could not stand before him." The word here used signifies a plate of iron placed on a post used for tilting at, and as a butt for arrow's.
2	Mas'ud, on one occasion, when writing to his envoy in Turkistan, mentions his father's having once ordered him back from Hirat, when there as governor, and sent him to Multan, -where he was kept in durance, but that he was never considered in any other light than his father's heir.
G 292
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
Khwajah Abu Na§r-i-Mishkan3 says : " When the [Kha-lifah's] letters patent were being read out in the audience hall of Sultan Mahmud, a weight came over the hearts of the great nobles and chiefs, as well as my own, because the marks of majesty and nobility of mind were more prominently impressed upon the brow of Mas'ud. When Sultan Mas'ud came out from his father's presence, I, Abu Nasr-i-Mishkan, went out after him, and I said : ' O Prince, a heavy load has overcome the hearts of us, your servants, on account of the reversal of your august title in the mandate of the Khalifah.' Mas'ud replied : ' Do not you be grieved. Have you not heard that "the sword is a truer authority than any writing ?"' and commanded me to go back again.
By the time that I returned to the audience-chamber informants had already, without loss of time, acquainted the Sultan of this obsequiousness of mine, and he summoned me before him. When I came into the presence of Sultan Mahmud, he demanded, saying, ' Wherefore didst thou go out after Mas'ud, and what wast thou speaking about ?' I related all that occurred without withholding any thing, for, had I concealed any thing*, my life would have been in danger. The Sultan said : ' I am aware that, in every respect, Mas'ud excels Muhammad, and that after my time the sovereignty will fall into the possession of Mas'ud 4; and I use so much ceremony now that this poor Muhammad may, during my lifetime, experience a little honour and
3	Mas'ud, as soon as he assumed the sovereignty, appointed this same person—whose proper name is Khwajah-i-'Amid, Abu Nasr-i-Mishkan. Al-Zawzani—his confidant and secretary, which was the same office as he had held under the late Sultan Mahmud ; and Tahir, the Dabir [secretary], who had previously held that office, was removed. In 423 h., Hasnak, who bore the title of Shaikh-ul-ELhatir [great, honourable, &c.], who had been Wazlr to Sultan Mahmud, and had also held the same office under Muhammad, was gibbeted by order of Mas'ud, because he had been the most active in depriving him of the throne. He had, in all probability, influenced Mahmud in his harsh treatment of Mas'ud. In 426 h. Mas'ud ordered Khwajah-i-Fazil, Ahmad, son of Hasan, Al-Maimandi [from his native place, Maimand, a small town of Ghazninl, who had been long kept in prison by his late father, to be set at liberty, after which Mas'ud made him his Wazir. It was on this occasion that he drew up his celebrated Muasafat, or stipulations on his duties, to be observed between his sovereign and himself, and which each of them swore to observe.
4	Our author does not appear to have known that Mahmud, his father, had
declared Mas'ud his heir, and made the whole of his ulus or tribe swear
allegiance to him in 408 h. See note 9, p. 85.THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY.
93
gratification, which, after I am gone, will not be left to him. The mercy of God be upon them !' "
Khwajah Abu Nasr-i-Mishkan says, " In this occurrence two things astonished me: one was the answer of Mas'ud to me, spoken with such wisdom and discernment, and the second, the greatness of mind and the perfect supervision of Mahmud, that such a trivial act of attachment could not escape him."
When Mahmud subdued 'Irak he bestowed the throne of that territory upon Mas'ud ; and, previous to that event, the city of Hirat, and Khurasan, had been ruled in Mas'ud's name 8. When he ascended the throne of Safahan 6, he seized the territory of Rai, Kazwin, and Hamadan, and the country of Taram7, all which he conquered, and he likewise overcame the Dilaman8. On several occasions he donned robes of honour conferred upon him by the court of the Khalifahs. After the decease of his father Mahmud, he came to Ghaznin, and took the government of his father's dominions into his own hands. Several times he led armies into Hindustan9, and carried on holy wars as by law enjoined. On another occasion1 he marched into Tabaristan
5 See note *, p. 85.
fl Isfahan or §afahan.
7	Taram is in Lar, or Laristan, a province of Persia.
8	Mas'ud, in 424 H., wrested Kirman from the Buwiah dynasty, who had long since declined ; and sent Ahmad, son of 'Alt, son of Nush-Tigln, thither as governor. This, however, could have been temporary only, for in 433 H., after Mas'ud's death, Kara-Arsalan Beg, son of Jaghar Beg, wrested Kirman out of the hands of Bahram, son of 'All, the governor on the part of the Dialamah sovereign, Abu Kalinjar, son of Sultan-ud-Daulah, son of Baha-ud-Daulah, son of 'Izz-ud-Daulah, son of Rukn-ud-Daulah. See note 7 to page 66. After this, eleven princes of the race of Saljufc reigned in Kirman.
9	In the year 772 H. Sultan Firuz, Tughlak, was encamped near a place named Zafarabad, on his return from Bangal. This was before he gave orders to found Junpur [vol. Jounpoor]. "At this place were the ruins of several idol-temples, destroyed by Sultan Mas'ud the Victorious, during one of his campaigns in Hindustan. A fort there still retains [i.e. when the author, from whom the extract is taken, wrote] the name of Karar-kot, from Karar-Blr, a demon killed by Rajah Ram Ghand, in the Treta Jug." If it had not been stated that Mas'ud destroyed these temples, I should be inclined to think this must refer to Mus'ud-i-Karlm, only he sent his Hajib, and did not make a campaign in India in person, that I am aware of. Baihaki mentions nothing more than the expedition against Hansi, in his work. Our author does not mention his authority for the statement that Mas'ud led armies into India upon several occasions.	.
1 Not "twice."94
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
and Mazandaran; and, at the end of his reign, the Sal-juks rose against him2. On three several occasions he overthrew them in battle within the confines of Marw and Sarakhs ; but, in the end, since it was the Divine will that the country of Khurasan should pass unto the race of Saljuk, he encountered them in battle at Dae-kan3, and for
2	Isra'il-i-Beghu, son of Sullman, son of Saljuk, who had been immured within the walls of the fortress of Kalinjar, died therein 426 H. In the same year Jaghar Beg, or Jaghari Beg, as he is also called vj.,*?-]—a name which most oriental writers, and all English writers but one, have, most erroneously, supposed to be "Ja'far" Beg—(-son of Abu Suliman-i-Da'ud, son ofMika'il, son of Saljuk, sonofLukman, rose, and took up his quarters at Marw. ^ In the following year, Mas'ud made all those persons who had received grants or presents from his brother Muhammad refund them. This was done quite against the urgent remonstrances of his Wazir. The sum produced is said to have amounted to eighty times a thousand thousand of dirams. In 429 H., Tughril Beg, son of Mika'Il, son of Saljuk, assumed sovereignty at Nishapur, and from that date their dynasty commenced.
3	This encounter took place in 431 H.—although some authors differ as to 430, 431, and even 432—in the desert tract between Marw and Sarakhs, at three marches from the former, near a fort named '' Dandankad of Marw," also written Dandankan and Dae-kan, as'our author states in the very old MS., and other copies equally reliable, from which this translation has been made. Baihaki also mentions it in two places in his history, as does Mas'ud likewise in his despatch to Arsalan Khan, ruler of Turkistan ; and they call it by the same name precisely. It is hard, when an author is correct, that he should be made wrong; but Mr. Dowson [Elliot's India, vol. ii. p. 273], who appears to have implicitly followed the printed text, which is as incorrect and defective as the I. H. L. copy, No. 1952, and the R. A. S. MS., has Talikan, a name equally as impossible as " Takarharud " for Nangnihar ; yet he puts a piece upon it, by adding, in a note, that '' Istakhri [the geographer, having been a native of Istakhur, would be called Istakhun] and Ibn Haukal call it the largest city in Khurasan [!] and say it was three days' journey from Merv." Ibn Haukal is not quoted correctly. In Ouseley's translation there are three Tal-kans [l3l«llJ» possibly Tali-kan]—one in Dilam, one in Bust, and one between Marw and Balli—and Tae-^an [^lilt] between Balkh and Badakhshan, which Ibn Haukal says "is the largest city of Tukh,aristan." The original of Ibn Haukal, the work entitled " Masalik wa Mamalik," confirms the correctness of Ouseley's translation, with the exception that one, in a few places, contains some additional matter. Again : " Firishtah states that the battle was fought at Dandankan, a town ten parasangs [farsangs ?] from Merv-i-Shah-Tahan." Firishtah is quite correct. If any proof were wanting, I may mention that the name of the place is confirmed by Baihaki, Yafa'I, Guzidah, Jami'-ut-Tawarikh, Lubb-ut-Tawarikh, and several other works equally trustworthy ; the only difference in writing being jUjljj^ ^liujj^ and J substituted in one or two for 0 which, in writing, without the dot, is easily mistaken for the former letter, and lb being written, with the mere addition of an extra 1 close upon the J for ^tab as our author correctly writes it, may be mistaken fork I may also mention that it is the "Dandanekan" of Abu-l-Fida [Geo. Reiske, p. 345], who describes it as a small town of KJjurasao celebrated for its cotton manufactures.THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY.
95
three successive days he assailed and struggled with them ; and on the third day, which was' Friday, the Sultan was defeated, and retreated to Ghaznin by the way of Gharjistan.
Through the great dread which had now overcome him, he collected his treasures together, and came towards Hindustan ; and at Marigalah4, his Turkish and Hindu slaves revolted against him, seized his person, and [again] set up his brother, Muhammad, upon the throne, and sent Mas'ud to the fortress of Giri5; and, in 432 H., he was martyred6. His age was forty-five years; and the period of his reign was nine years, and a little over. His sons were Maudud, Majdud7, Muhammad, Ibrahim, Izld-yar, Farrukh-zad, SJiuja', Mardan Shah, and 'All.
V. SHIHAB-UD-DAULAH, MAUDUD, SON OF MAS'UD.
Shihab-ud-Daulah, Abu Sa'd-i-Maudud8, son of Nasir-ud-din U'llah, Mas'ud, when the tidings of his father's murder reached him9, ascended the throne of his father's dominions.
*	A pass, in ancient times somewhat difficult, situated between Rawal Pindi and Attak, a few miles east of Hasan Abdal. The hills around used to be infested with robbers, who generally chose this pass for attacking travellers and karwans of traders, hence the name " Marl-galah." The emperor Akbar had a good road carried through the pass for about two miles. I have noticed it in my paper—" Diary of a March with the Bombay Column of the Army of the Panjab,"—contained in the Transactions of the Bombay Geographical Society for 1850-51.
s Baihaki writes it Girl \_~jjS] and others write it Giri [j/] and Glra
VJl
•	He was not murdered until the nth of Jamadl-ul-Awwal of the following year, 433 H., at which time, his nephew, Ahmad, son of the blind Muhammad, pretending it was his father's command, put Mas'Gd to death, after a reign of a few days over eleven years, not nine as our author states, because he ascended the throne on the 1st of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 422 H., and was murdered in the very same month of the year 433 H. ; but he had certainly beei) in confinement since the previous year. Muhammad is said to have lamented this act, and greatly reproached the murderers.
7	Appointed governor of the territory east of the Indus, with his headquarters at Lahor, in Zi-Ka'dah, 427 H. Baihaki mentions two others, but merely gives the title of one—Amir-i-Sa'Id—to whom Mas'ud was much attached, and whom he proposed to make his heir, but he died at Ghaznin in 429 H. The other was named Abd-ur-RazzaJc.
8	Styled by some authors Shihab-ud-Daulah. and Kutb-ul-Millat, 'Abd-ul-Fath-i-Maudud, and Maudud-i-Ghazi. According to Baihaki, Mas'ud's title was Shihab-ud-Daulah and Kutb-ul-Millat.
9	Maudud was at Balkh, when the tidings of his father's imprisonment and murder reached him. He set out for Ghazrijn without delay. See note p. 96,96
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
At the period that Sultan Mas'ud was about to proceed into Hindustan, he had established Maudud as his lieutenant over the territory of Ghaznin, and its dependencies. Maudud assumed the throne in 433 H., and assembled an army, in order to revenge his father, and commenced his march towards Hindustan
Sultan Muhammad, son of Mahmud, who was Maudud's uncle, had been brought forth from his place of confinement, by the rebellious retinue [of Mas'ud], and had been raised to the throne by them, who, with their loins girded, stood before him [to do his behests]. The great nobles of Hindustan submitted to him ; and the Turkish slaves of Mahmud and of Mas'ud, who had acted so perfidiously and with such hostility towards the latter, all had gone over to Muhammad, and espoused his cause. After he had been made sovereign by them four months, an encounter took place between Maudud and his uncle; and, by the will of the Most High, the victory was bestowed upon Maudud, within the limits of Nagrahar [Nangrahar2], and Muham-
1	GuzTdah differs in the account of this affair. " When hostilities arose between Mas'ud, and the Saljuks, and Mas'ud had been defeated, he had to retreat to Ghaznin. He then determined to retire into Hindustan [which in nearly every case should be understood to mean the Panjab, except in the case of occasional expeditions beyond]. After Mas'ud had passed the Jilam [fW] his troops mutinied against him, and carried away the blind Muhammad from him, after which they placed a throne upon the back of an elephant, and seated Muhammad thereon. They then conducted him through the whole army ; and Mas'ud was seized and brought before his sightless brother." The Tarikh,-i-Ibrahimi, while confirming this, with the exception of mentioning the Ab-i-Sind, instead of the Jilam, adds that Muhammad gave up the direction of the affairs of government to his son, Ahmad, and that Muhammad only imprisoned his brother Mas'ud ; but Ahmad directed that he should be put to death. This statement is confirmed by most other historians. Mas'ud's object in proceeding into India, or rather his territory on the Indus and in the Panjab, was to raise a fresh army in order :to take vengeance upon the Saljuks.
2	Maudud, on hearing of his father's murder, advanced with his troops towards Ghaznin to secure the capital; and Muhammad, who was on the confines of Sind [i. e. on the Indus, in the Sind Sagar Do-ab], also hastened towards Ghaznin for a similar purpose. Every copy of the work I have seen has the name Nagrahar as plainly written as it is possible to write, yet Mr. Dowson translates it by the impossible name of " Takarhari'td" and makes the error worse, by adding, in a note [Elliot, vol. ii. p. 274]—"or 'Bakarha,' perhaps Bakhrala [Firishta's text says ' Depur,' not ' Duntoor,' as in Briggs' translation]." Why " Bakhrala" is fixed upon thus at hap-hazard, it would be highly interesting to know. Was it because there is a place east of the Margalah Pass called —Bak-ralah, which happened to be not far offTHE YAMINIAH DYNASTY.
97
mad was taken prisoner, together with his-children and dependents. Sultan Maudud wreaked vengeance upon him for his father's fall; and the murderers of his father, both Turk and Tazik, he put to death, and thereby gained fame and great distinction. Whoever were implicated in the shedding of his father's blood, the whole of them he put to death.
He returned again to Ghaznin, and took possession of the different parts of his father's dominions. He reigned for a period of nine years, and died ; and his age was thirty-nine years3.
His sons were Mansur, Muhammad, and Mahmud ; and the latter had a son named Suliman.
VI. 'ALI, SON OF MAS'UD, AND MUHAMMAD, SON OF MAUDUD, IN ASSOCIATION4.
These two princes, uncle and nephew, were raised to the
towards the Jihlam [j.1^]? Which is the most natural—one force marching from Ghaznin, and another marching towards it from the Margalah Pass— that they should meet about half-way, or at Bak-j-alah ? A glance at a map would show at once where those places lie. Maudud founded a Bazar or. emporium, at the place where he gained this victory, which Baihakl calls Dlnur, and named it Fath-abad, which, in the advance to Kabul, in 1842, was occupied by the troops under the command of Gen. Sir R. Sale, G.C.B. The name has been incorrectly spelt, as usual, Futtehabad. Maudud gained this battle 434 h.
3	Our author has omitted to mention some of the chief events of his reign, as well as the date of his death. Both Guzldah and Fasih-i, as well as several other writers, state that Maudud died in the month of Rajab, 441 h., of colic, when on his way to meet Jaghar Beg, his father's old foe, whose daughter he had married. The capital of Jaghar Beg, at this time, was Marw.
4	A very unlikely arrangement, to say the least of it. Our author, here, is at variance with all works of undoubted authority. Yafa'I, Fasih-i, the Nigam-ut-Tawariki of Bai^awl, Guzfdah, Jahan-Ara, Lubb-ut-Tawarikll, Fanakati, and several others state, generally, that on the death of Maudud, his son Mas'ud, in accordance with his father's will, was raised to the throne, and that his mother, the daughter of Jaghar Beg, Saljukl, began to administer the government in his name, he being a child of three years of age. After he had been one month on the throne—some say ten days—with his mother's consent and approbation, the great nobles and grandees, by mutual agreement, set the child aside, and raised his uncle, Baha-ud-Dln, 'All, to the throne. No writer that I am acquainted with says one word about two rulers in joint occupation of the throne, except our author, who also makes a great blunder in calling.Maudud's infant son, Mas'ud, by the name of "Muhammad." A very good reason is given in Guzidah for the child's being set aside. Baha-ud-Daulah, 'All, married his brother Maudud's widow, on which she, probably, did not much mind her infant son being set aside for her new husband.	•98
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
throne by the Turks and the chief men of the kingdom. Each and every person took possession of some office or other. As the two princes possessed neither capacity nor ability, and neither authority nor control, the utmost disorder and detriment continued to arise in the affairs of the country, the condition of the soldiery, and of the people in general. After two months5 they raised Sultan 'Abd-ur-Rashid to the throne, and sent the two princes back to a fortress again.
VII. 'ABD-UR-RASHID, SON OF MAHMUD.
Sultan Tzz-ud-Daulah-i-'Abd-ur-Rashid ascended the throne in 441 H.6. He was an enlightened and intelligent man, and was a depository of the oral traditions, which he was wont to narrate7; but he did not possess much strength of mind or intrepidity.
Seeing the repeated and successive changes and revolutions in the sovereignty, the Saljuks on the side of Khurasan coveted the throne of Ghaznin 8. The sovereignty of
5	Fanakati and Tarikh-i-Ibrahimi say 'All reigned two years, after which, on 'Abd-ur-Rashid rebelling, he fled from Ghaznin. Guzidah agrees as to the number of years that 'All reigned, but says that his reign terminated in 443 H., and calls 'Abd-ur-Rashid his uncle.
6	Under the events of the year 443 H., Fasih-i notices —"a battle between Majd-ud-Daulah, Abu Mansur-i-'Abd-ur-RashTd, son of Mahmud-i-Ghazi, and Baha-ud-Daulah, 'All, son of Mas'ud, and the overthrow of 'All after a reign, at Ghaznin, of one year, and the accession of Majd-ud-Daulah before mentioned." Other authors also call him Majd-ud-Daulah. Yafa'i says that 'Abd-ur-Rashid, who had for years been imprisoned in a fortress, escaped, raised forces, overthrew 'Ali, and ascended the throne.
7	Translated by Mr. Dowson—" used to listen to chronicles and write his-lory ! " The original is ^j^jT^A^j j	jLi 1
8	A much more probable cause is given for the advance of the Saljuks in other histories, which is as follows :—" After 'Abd-ur-Rashid had reigned one year, the daughter of Jaghar Beg, in order to revenge the loss of her second husband, 'All, brought an army of Saljuks against him." It is farther stated that among the slaves of the Mahmudi dynasty was one named Tughril, who was Amir-ul-Umra, who went and joined the Saljuks, conspired with them, fought a battle against 'Abd-ur-Rashid, and took him prisoner. The daughter of Jaghar Beg, widow of Maudud and 'All, made 'Abd-ur-RashTd over to Tughril, and returned herself to Khurasan. Tughril imprisoned him in a fortress in the district of Maidan [near Kabul], 'Abd-ur-Rashid was of such weak intellect that on one occasion, when Tughril was playing at Chaugan there, 'Abd-ur-Rashid came forth to see the sport, and applauded Tughril. After a time 'Abd-ur-Rashid was put to death, at which period nine of theTHE YAMINIAH DYNASTY.
99
Khurasan had passed to Da'ud ; and Alb-Arsalan, his son, having become the commander of his forces, they determined to advance against Ghaznln. Alb-Arsalan entered [the country] by way of Tukharistan, with a numerous army ; and his father, Da'ud, advanced upon Bust, by way of Sistan.
Sultan 'Abd-ur-Rashid caused his forces to be got ready, and made Tughril, who was one of the slaves of Mahmud, and a man of consummate valour, general over them, and sent him against Alb-Arsalan. In front of the darah9 of Khumar he inflicted a defeat upon Alb-Arsalan, and from thence pushed on towards Bust, and arrived there with the utmost expedition. When he came up with Da'ud, the latter retired before him, and Tughril pursued him into Sistan, and overthrew Beghu, the uncle of Da'ud.
Tughril having gained two or three such like successes, returned to Ghaznln, seized Sultan 'Abd-ur-Rashid, and put him to death, after which he ascended the throne himself.
'Abd-ur-Rashid's reign was two years and a half, and his age was thirty years \
VIIL TUGHRIL, AL-MAL'UN, OR THE EXECRATED2.
Tughril was one of Mahmud's slaves, and was endowed
grandsons of Mahmud were still living. . Yafa'i states that 'Abd-ur-Rashid reigned nearly seven years, and died 450 h. No mention of Tughril is made ; and the author passes immediately on to Ibrahim, without any notice of Far-rukh-zad ; but that work only contains a brief notice of the Ghaznawi rulers after Mas'ud the Martyr. The Tazkirat-ul-Muluk states that he reigned four years. Fasih-I states, and the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh agrees, that 'Abd-ur-Rashid succeeded in 443 h., was imprisoned in 444 h., by Tughril, who was put to death the same year, and that Farrukh-zad succeeded ; but makes no mention of 'Abd-ur-Rashid's death. Fanakati says he died 450 h., and then makes a sudden jump from 'Abd-ur-Rashid to Sultan Ibrahim. Baizawi, in the Nigam-ut-Tawarikh, makes no mention of Tughril or the reign of Farrukh-zad, and says that ' Abd-ur-Rashid reigned seven years, and died in 445 h., and yet states that his successor, Ibrahim, reigned from 450 h. to 492 h.
9 A "Darah" signifies a valley between two hills, through which a stream flows, and a pass between two ipountains.
1 'Abd-ur-Rashid was present with his brother Mas'ud at the battle of Dan-dankad, or Dae-l^an..
1 Authors of any authority do not give Tughril a place among the sovereigns, because he was an usurper of forty days.100
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
with great intrepidity and valour. During the reign of Sultan Maudud, he left Ghaznin, and went into Khurasan, and entered the service of the Saljuks. He remained there for a considerable time, and made himself acquainted with their mode of warfare; and returned to Ghaznin again in the reign of 'Abd-ur-Rashid. He seized 'Abd-ur-Rashid, and slew him, along with eleven other princes, and usurped the throne of Ghaznin. and reigned.over the country for a period of forty days, during which he practised great injustice and tyranny.
They inquired of him, saying: " Whence didst thou acquire ambition to reign?" He replied : "At the time that 'Abd-ur-Rashid was sending me forth to do battle against Alb-Arsalan and Da'ud, and was giving me my instructions, and had placed his hand in mine3, terror had overcome him to that degree, that I could hear his very bones rattling from the state of trembling he was in. I knew that this pusillanimous man was incapable of sovereignty, and the ambition of reigning entered my heart."
After forty days of his rule had expired, a Turk named Nush-Tigin, a Silah-dar, or armour-bearer, who happened to be standing behind Tughril, entered into an agreement with another, his friend, and they slew Tughril upon the throne itself; after which they brought out his head, and fixed it upon a pole, and had it paraded round the city; so that the people became free from anxiety and care 4.
IX. FARRUKH-ZAD, SON OF MAS'UD5.
At the time that Almighty God brought down upon Tughril the just reward of his crimes, and delivered the
3	The mode of making a compact—giving one's right hand.
4	After Tughril had put all the princes he could lay his hands on to death, he compelled a daughter of the late Sultan Mas'ud to become his wife. Soon after he made a great entertainment, when a number of champions, filled with loyalty to the MahmudI dynasty, attacked him, and cut him to pieces.
5	Guzidah, Fasih-i, and Tariki-i-Ibrahimi, strange to say, call Farrukh-zad son of 'Abd-ur-Rashid. His title was Jamal-ud-Daulah, but, in the Muntakli-ab-ut-Tawarikh,, he is styled 'Imad-ud-Daulah, son of Mas'ud. BaihakI, in commencing one of the chapters of his work, states that he '' began it in ZI-Hijjah, 450 H., in the reign of the_Sultan-i-Mua?gam, Abu Shuja'-i-Farrukh-zad."THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY.
101
people from his unbearable tyranny, and unlimited oppression, two6 princes of the Mas'udi family remained alive immured within the fortress of Bar-ghund7—one Ibrahim, the other Farrukh-zad.
The accursed Tughril had despatched a party to that fortress for the purpose of putting them to death ; but the seneschal, who was stationed therein, had taken one day to consider the matter, and had kept the party in question without the gates, under the agreement that they should be admitted on the following day, to carry out that wicked mandate. Suddenly, carrier pigeons8 arrived there, bearing the news of Tughril the Accursed having been killed.
After that execrable [man] was slain at Ghaznfn, by the hand of Nush-Tigin. the chief men of the empire, and the Maliks, and Hajibs, sought for a sovereign. It was found that two princes still remained, immured within the walls of the fortress of Bar-ghund; so all of them set out towards that fortress, and desired to raise Ibrahim to the throne: but his august frame had become overpowered by infirmity, and, as delay was impossible, they brought forth Farrukh-zad, and congratulated him on his accession to the sovereignty, on Saturday, the 9th of the month Zi-l-Ka'dah, 344 H.
Sultan Farrukh-zad was a man of mild and amiable disposition, and just. As soon as he ascended the throne, he
6	Guzidah says three—Ibrahim, Farrukh-zad, and Shuja'.
7	The same fortress is mentioned in Baihaki. Guzidah says Ghund [J^]. Bar [,>] in the Afghan language signifies "on," "upon," &c., and ghund [aii] "round," "circular," and the like, 33 "a mound, a bluff, a detached hill," &c. A few copies have Buz-Ghund.
8	Every copyoi the work collated has [with two exceptions, which have ^U,*] the word ^le,* signifying "birds," &c., as plainly written as it is possible to write; but in the printed text • has been substituted, and Mr. Dowson, of course, follows the printed text. That carrier pigeons, or rather doves, were in use long before, for transmitting news speedily, see note 9 at p 37. When the Crusaders under Godfrey were passing through the narrow defiles of Judea, a white done, with a letter tied under its wing, from one Musalman Amir to his superior, gave information to the Crusaders of the foe's designs. This was but a short time previous to Farrukh-zad's reign. Salah-ud-Din, subsequently to this, also established " pigeon posts" for the conveyance of news ; and, in the latter part of A.D. 1179, when defeated by the Crusaders under Baldwin IV., the Count of Tripoli, the Grand Master of the Hospitallers, and the Templars, near Jerusalem, " a victory was proclaimed at Cairo [Kahirah], and pigeons spread the "triumphant news over Egypt, to quiet the spirits of the
public," by Salafc-ud-Din's clesire.102
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
remitted the revenue of the territory of Zawulistan, which had become ruined through [the levying of] heavy contributions in taxes and supplies9, so that it became prosperous again \ He brought under his control the frontier provinces of the empire, and governed his people with benevolence. He reigned seven years 2, when, suddenly, he was carried off by colic3, in the year 451 H., at the age of thirty-four years \
X. SULTAN IBRAHIM, SAYYID-US-SALATIN s. Sultan Zahir-ud-Daulah, Nasir-ul-Millat, Razzi-ud-Din,
9 The original text is	j —'Awariz-wa-munat [not "mutan"]
which Mr. Dowson renders —''disease and murrain," and adds, in a note— " Awariz-o-mutdn. The former words [sic] mean literally diseases, but it [sic] is also used for those diseases of the body politic, extraordinary imposts." Does " miindt" also mean " murrain " in the body politic ?
1	The Tazkirat-ul-Mululc mentions that, soon after the accession of Farrukh-zad, the Saljuks advanced towards Ghaznin in great force, and were encountered by Farrukh-zad and his forces. The Saljuks were defeated and numbers slain, and some made prisoners. Subsequently, Alb-Arsalan advanced against Ghaznin, fought a battle, and gained a victory, in which most of the Mahmudt chiefs were made captive, and carried away into Khurasan. At last an accommodation was come to, and some of the captives were set free.
2	Farrukh-zad, according to Guzidah, reigned six years, in which several other authors agree ; but the former gives the year 450 h., as that of his death, and says he bequeathed his sovereignty to his cousin, Ibrahim. Fasib-i agrees in this, and also as to the year ; but states that he reigned seven years, which is apparently correct, he having ascended the throne in the eleventh month of the year 443 h., and died in 450 h. According to Baihaki, just quoted, we find he was alive in the last month of 450 h., but, as he died suddenly, he might have died in that same month. The Muntakh,ab-ut-Tawarikk, however, says he began to reign Saturday, 9th of Zi-Ka'dah, 444 h., and died, in Safar, 451 h. Yafa'j agrees with Fasih-i, and states that Ibrahim succeeded in 450 h. In the latter part of the year preceding Farrukh-zad's death, Alb-Arsalan, who had succeeded his father, Jaghar Beg, over the territory of Khurasan, ousted his great uncle, Beghu, from Hirat, and had the Khutbah read there for himself.
3	The word used for colic is ^ly and described as a pain in the bowels and in the side, but I suspect it must be some type of cholera or inflammation, as it seems to have carried off several of this dynasty.
* Among the WazTrs or Ministers of Farrukh-zad was Khwajah Abu Bikr-i-Salih, who had. previously held the government of Hindustan. Among the celebrated personages who died during his reign was Abu-Najm-i-Iyaz, Ui-mak or I-mak, the slave of Sultan Mahmud, famous under the name of Iyaz. He died in the month of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 449 h.
5 Sayyid here means "lord," "prince," "chief of," &c. His correct title, as given by most authors, is Zahir-ud-Daulah, Abu Mugaffar-i-Ibrahim. TheTHE YAMINIAH DYNASTY.
163
Ibrahim, son of Mas'ud, the Martyr, was a great and illustrious monarch, learned and accomplished, just and Godfearing, benevolent and compassionate, the friend of the learned, and supporter of religion.
After Farrukh-zad had ascended the throne, Ibrahim had been removed from the fortress of Bar-ghund to the fortress of Nae 6; and, when Farrukh-zad died, all hearts decided upon the sovereignty of Ibrahim. The Sarhang 7, Hasan, proceeded to his presence, and, accompanied by the chief persons in the state, conducted him from the fortress; and, on a Monday, at an auspicious conjunction of the planets in the high vault above, he ascended the throne. The day after he performed the customary mourning ceremonies for the Amir-i-Hamid—the Laudable Amir—Farrukh-zad, his brother, and paid a visit to his tomb, and to the tombs of his ancestors; and all the great nobles, ministers, and mosf distinguished personages accompanied him on foot, for he did not show [particular] favour or familiarity towards any person soever, and, on this account, awe of his authority was implanted in the hearts of all people8.
When the intelligence of his accession to the throne reached Dayd, the Saljuk9, he sent an embassy into Khurasan ; and entered into a treaty of peace with him. After Da ud [died] his son, Alb-Arsalan, continued to abide by it ; and Ibrahim brought under his entire control the
other titles, given by our author, are not mentioned by other writers. He was abstemious and continent, and renowned for his tact and excellent judgment. He wrote a beautiful hand, and every year sent a copy of the Kur'an, written by himself, to Makkah, with other valuable offerings. Guzidah says the SaljuVi monarchs used to style him "father;" and, when they addressed a communication to him, used to write his titles at the top of it.
0 This fortress was situated in the district of Wajlristan.
7	The meaning assigned to this word generally is—"A commissary, a Serjeant, a commander, a superior officer," &c. ; but, in the Burhan-Kati', and other works of authority in these matters, it seems, more correctly, an officer who marched in front of the troops bearing the standard—equivalent to the Italian gonfalonier.
8	Mr. Dovvson translates this : " He bestowed no favours upon any one, and hence apprehensions alout his rule took possession of the hearts of the people." The original is Ji jU- JjjJ jl ^lol- jl
9	Da'ud died, according to most authorities, in Rajab, 451 H., though one says it took place in 452 H., and another in 453 H. Fas ih-I says, "In the year succeeding that in which Ibrahim ascended the throne, Jaghar Beg died." At all events he died a considerable time before Tughril, his brother.104
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
dominions of his ancestors The troubles and disorders which had fallen upon that empire, through the vicissitudes of the times, and continual warfare, were all, during his reign, remedied and rectified, and the affairs of the empire of the great Mahmud assumed fresh vigour. The ruinous places in the country were again repaired and restored, and he founded several towns2, such as Jatr-abad (?) Khair-abad, Aimin-abad, and others in different parts.
During his reign many astonishing and uncommon occurrences took place ; and Da'ud, the Saljuk, whose ravages, inroads, conflicts, and conquests might vie with the flashing lightning, died.
The birth of Ibrahim took place in the year of the conquest of Gurgan, in 424 H., in the province of Hirat, and that monarch had forty daughters and thirty-six sons. All the daughters were given in marriage to illustrious Sayyids, and dignified 'Ulama3; and one of those princesses was married to the great-great-grandfather of [the author] Min-haj-i-Saraj, and this was the cause of the removal of the writer's ancestors from Jurjan. Imam 'Abd-ul-Khalik, Jurjani, who lies asleep within the Sarae of Tahir-abad of Ghaznin, saw in a dream, whilst dwelling in Jurjan, in his youthful years, that an angel said unto him in the vision : "Arise, and proceed to Ghaznin. and seek a wife." When he awoke, he imagined that this dream might have been prompted by the devil; but, having dreamt the same dream three times successively, as therein commanded, he came to Ghaznin. and one of those daughters was bestowed in marriage upon him \ That princess bore him a son, whom he named
1	This is not correct, because the Saljuks' held a very considerable portion of them.
2	In Elliot's India, vol. ii. p. 277, this passage is translated—" Several fortified places and towns were founded," &c., but kasbah does not mean fortified places ; and, even were "kasr" read for it by mistake, it would not mean "fortified places." All authors agree that Ibrahim, during his reign, founded naught but masjids, colleges, buildings for the accommodation of travellers, and works of public utility ; and that he built nothing for himself.
3	Here Sayyid is the title of the chiefs of the family of Muhammad, descended from 'All, and his daughter Fatimah. 'Ulama signifies the learned— theologians, ecclesiastics, doctors of law. Mr. Dovvson translates the^entence, "nobles or learned men of repute."
4	Our author is so much taken up with his ancestor's grand alliance that he leaves out most of the principal events of the reign of Ibrahim. After heTHE YAMlNlAH DYNASTY.
Ibrahim — Maulana, Minhaj-ud-Din, 'Usman-i-.Ibrahim— upon whom be the mercy of the Almighty! He was the father of Maulana Minhaj-ud-Din, who was the father of Maulana Saraj-ud-Din, 'Ujubah-uz-zaman [the Wonder of his Age!], and he was the father of [the author] Minhaj-i-Saraj.
Sultan Ibrahim was a monarch of felicitous and prosperous career, and his reign extended over a period of forty-two years, and his age [at his death] was sixty years. He died in the year 492 H.s
His sons were Mahmud6, Is-hak, Yusuf, Nasr, 'All, Bihzad, Khurshed Malik7, Khub-chihr, Azad Malik, Malik-Chihr8, Tughan Shah, Azad-Mihr, Daulat Shah, Azad-Chihr, Amir Shah, Nih-Firuzah9 Tahamtan Shah, Turan Shah, Malik-Zad, Malik-Dad, Shams-ul-Mulk, Malik Sher, Sher Malik, Mas'ud, Iran-Malik, Kaihan Shah,
arranged matters with the Saljuks, by marrying his son, Mas'ud, to a Saljuk princess, daughter of Malik Shah, and sister of Sultan Sanjar, and had no cause for farther anxiety respecting them, he carried his arms into Hind upon several occasions, and reduced many strongholds, and other places, among which is said to have been a populous city, inhabited by Khurasanis. whose ancestors had been expelled from their native country by Afrasiyab. There was a large haw?, or reservoir, there, said to have been half a league in diameter ; 100,000 persons were made captive, and taken away to Ghaznin, and booty, in proportion, was captured. During the reign of Ibrahim, in 470 h., Abu-Fazl-i-Muhammad, son of Husain [not Hasain], Al-Baihalu, who had been secretary in the "Dlwan-i-Insha," of Sultan Mahmud, son of Sabuk-Tigin, but, as the Deputy of the Khwajah-i-'Amid, Abu Na§r-i-Mishkan, Al-Zawzanl, and a pupil and disciple of that great man, died. Abu-1-Fazl was the author of the work entitled the " Makamat-ul-'Amid-i-Abu Nasr-i-MisJi-kan," and the " Tarikh-i-Al-i-Sabuk-Tigin," in twelve books or volumes, [called by our author the Tarfkh-i-Nasiri], entitled Tarikh-i-Yamini. The first portion of the work, containing the reigns of Sabuk-Tigin and Mahmud, does not exist, and appears to have been lost for some centuries.
s On the 5th of the month of Shawwal. One author says in Rajab, but gives no date. Fa?ih-I mentions the taking of Jerusalem by the Christians [August 15th, but some say 15th July, a.d. 1099] in this same year, and the slaughter of 80,000 Musalmans. The year 492 h. began 27th of November, a.d. 1098.
• In 471 h. Sultan Ibrahim was apprized that his son, Saif-ud-Daulah, Mahmud, meditated flying to Sultan Malik Shah, the Salju^ ; and accordingly confined him within the citadel of Ghaznin, and his partisans were sent to other fortresses.
7	One MS. has Munawwar Shah.
8	Malik Mihr.
9	So in two MSS., but doubtful. The whole number forty. I expect the text should be, " He had forty sons and thirty-six daughters."
Hio6
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Jahan Shah, Firuz Shah, Miran Shah, Yaghan1 Shah, Turkan Shah, Arsalan Shah, Tughril Shah, Kutlugh Shah, Muayyid Shah, Sultan Shah, Malik Shah, Khusrau Shah, Farrukh Shah, and Bahram Shah.
XI. 'ALA-UD-DIN 2 MAS'UD, AL-KARIM, OR THE BENEFICENT, SON OF IBRAHIM.
Mas'ud, son of Ibrahim, who bore the title of Karim, or the Beneficent, was a monarch of excellent disposition [and temperament], blessed with many virtues, just and equitable, and of auspicious reign.
He ascended the throne during the Khilafat of the Lord of the Faithful, Al-Mustazhar B'illah [Abu-1-'Abbas], i-Ah-mad, son of Al-Muktadi3 Bi-amr-ullah. He was endowed with humility and beneficence to an extraordinary degree, and he suppressed all the oppressive usages which, before his time, had been established. The contingent taxes, which were exorbitant, he abolished throughout the Mah-mudi dominions and in Zawulistan ; and likewise remitted all tolls and imposts throughout the whole empire.
All the great chiefs and nobles and grandees of the country were left in undisturbed .possession of the [offices and possessions] which they had held during the reign of Sultan Ibrahim 4; and he adopted the most beneficial regulations for the government of his dominions. Amir ' Uzd-ud-Daulah wa ud-Din5 was continued in the government of Hindustan
1 Tughan, in one copy.
3 The proper title o'this monarch appears to be 'Ala-ud-Daulah.
3	Every copy of the work [and the printed text also], with one exception, perpetrates the great blunder of calling this Khalifah "son of Muktadir," instead of Muktadi In Section IV., on the Khallfahs, our author gives the correct name.
Under the occurrences of the year 493 H., Fa$ih-I mentions an important matter, from which it would appear that the chiefs of Ghur were not, at the time in question, such great or powerful personages as Minhaj-i-Saraj would lead us to believe. It says : " Iiusain, son of Sam, by command of 'Ala-ucl-Daulah, Mas'ud, son of Ibrahim, obtained the government of Ghur." I shall have more remarks to offer on this subject when I reach Section XVII.
4	Mr. Dowson renders this passage in the following manner: "He restored to the princes, nobles, and grandees, their possessions," &c. They must have been dispossessed of them in order to have them restored; but	—(jjJj> does not happen to mean "restored."
5	From the word "Amir" I should imagine this personage must have been either a brother or uncle of Mas'ud's.THE YAMINlAH DYNASTY.	107
[as before] ; and, during Mas'ud's reign, the Hajib-i-Buzarg [Great Chamberlain] died, and the Hajib, Tugha-Tigin, crossed the river Gang, in order to carry on holy war in Hindustan, and penetrated to a place where, except Sultan Mahmud, no one had reached so far with an army before.
During the sovereignty of Mas'ud all the affairs of the state were conducted with perfect order and regularity, and no heart had any cause of care from any quarter. He was born at Ghaznin in 453 H., reigned seventeen years, and died in 509 H., at the age of fifty-seven. The sister of Sultan Sanjar, Saljuki, who was styled the Mahd-i-'Irak 6 [or the 'Iraki spouse], was wedded to him.
His sons were Baha-ud-Dtn, Muhammad, who had a son namedKhatir-ud-Din, Muhammad; Sher-zad7, Malik Arsalan, Farrukh-zad. who had three sons, 'All, Iran Malik, and Shah-zad ; 'All, Bahrarn Shah, Malik-Chihr, Malik-zad, Mahmud, Sultan Malik, who had three sons, Arsalan Malik, Al-Hasan, and Mir-Nuk; ancl Jamshed Malik, who had two sons, Khurshed, and Turan Malik.
XII. MALIK ARSALAN, SON OF MAS'UD.
Malik Arsalan-i-'Abd-ul-Muluk 8, son of Sultan Mas'ud, ascended the throne in the year 509-11. at Garmsir itself9,
6	In Elliot's India, vol. ii. p. 278, "Mahd-i-'Irak" is translated "Cradle of Irak." One of the meanings of mahd [->(•<] is certainly a cradle, and also a seat for the back of an elephant or camel; but another is " making a bed," and here mahd has the metaphorical meaning of a wife, hence the meaning is the 'Ira^i wife. Baihakl, in his History, makes constant use of the word in this sense.
7	Our author, like some others, has left out one sovereign. Fasih-i says that 'Ala-ud-Daulah, Mas'ud, son of Ibrahim, died in 508 h., after a reign of sixteen years; and that he was succeeded by KAMAL-UD-DAULAH, SHER-ZAD, his son, in the same year ; ancl in the following year Sherzad died, after reigning about one year, when Arsalan Shah succeeded. GuzTdah confirms this succession of Kamal-ud-Daulah, Sherzad, but says that he succeeded to the throne according to his father's will, and ruled for about a year, when his brother, Arsalan Shah, rose against him, and put him to death, in 509 h. Other writers of authority likewise confirm the accession of Sherzad. who was the second son of Mas'ud, while Arsalan was the third. Yafa'i and Fanakatl also state that Mas'ud reigned sixteen years, and Bai?awi confirms it.
8	His correct title is Sultan ud-Daulah, Arsalan Shah, son of Mas'ud, son of Ibrahim ; and, according to the Tarilti-i-Yafa'i, he succeeded to the throne in accordance with his father's will. Some call him Abu-l-Muliik.
• The original istji. j> The passage is translated in Elliot's India, vol. ii. p. 278, thus: "Malik Arslan Abu-l malik [sic] ascendcd the throne
II 2io8
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
and assumed the sovereignty of tlje empire of Ghaznin. Bahram Shah, his brother fled from him, and proceeded into Khurasan, to the court of Sultan Sanjar.
During the reign of Malik Arsalan some remarkable events occurred, one-of which was that fire, accompanied by a thunderbolt, fell from the heavens, so that by that fire all the bazars of Ghaznin were consumed 2. Other untoward events and occurrences likewise' took place during his sovereignty, so that people held his rule in detestation3. He was possessed of great nobility of mind, energy, courage, and valour.
When he came to the throne he treated his step-mother who was [styled] Mahd-i-'Irak, with indignity 5, and on that
A. H. 509 [a.D. 1115]. and brought Garmsir and the kingdom of Ghaznt tinder his rule." I wonder what throne he ascended if it was not that of the kingdom of Ghaznin?
1	Some copies say "his uncle," but this is an error, for Bahram was his brother, as the names of the sons of Mas'ud confirm.
2	The I. H.L. MS., No. 1952, and R. A. S. MS. are both very defective with regard to this reign. In those copies Bahram is said to be uncle of Arsalan; and in the sentence referring to the destruction of the bazars of Ghaznin they have the word j-i—people—which is totally meaningless.
1 These matters are not alluded to in the works I have been quoting, and seem to have been taken from our author by more modern writers.
4 ^t- means a step-mother.
s He is said to have requested her to dance before him, for his amusement. This may have been one reason why Sultan Sanjar took up the insult to his sister, and the cause of his nephew, Bahram. When Arsalan came to the throne, he imprisoned the whole of his brothers except Bahram, who succeeded in reaching his uncle's court. Fanakati makes a mistake in this matter. He says Sanjar was the son of Bahrain's tnalernal uncle; but, as Mas'ud, Bahrain's father, married the daughter of Malik Shah, she was Sanjar's sister [as our author also states], he being Malik Shah's son. According to Guzidah, Fasih-I, and others, in 509 H., Sultan Sanjar, finding Arsalan Shah deaf to all the expostulations which he had made in behalf of Bahram, set out along with, the latter for Gh,aznin, attended by a numerous army. Arsalan came forth to meet them with 30,000 horse, but, after an obstinate engagement, was defeated and retired to Lahor. Having placed Bahram on the throne, and fixed a yearly tribute, Sanjar returned to his own dominions; but, in the same year [509 H.], Arsalan returned with an army, and defeated Bahram, who again took shelter in Sanjar's dominions. It was only in the following year that Sanjar became sole monarch of the Saljuks, after the death of his brother Muhammad, and had only a few months before acquired sway over 'Irak and Khurasan, his dominions before that having been but a portion of the latter territory. It was only in 511 H., that Bahram, having obtained the aid of an army from his uncle, who did not accompany him the second time, was able to move agair.st his brother Arsalan again. In the encounter which ensued, Arsalan was taken prisoner, and thrown into confinement. Bahrain's reign really commcnced inTHE YAMlNlAH DYNASTY.
109
account Sanjar became his foe, and gave assistance to Bahram Shah. Sanjar came against Ghaznin, and Malik Arsalan fought a battle with him, and was defeated, and retired towards Hindustan, where he fell into misery and wretchedness. He died 6 in the year 511 H., after a reign of two years, at the age of thirty-five years.
XIII. MU'IZZ-UD-DAULAH WA UD-DIN 1, BAHRAM SHAH.
Mu'izz-ud-Daulah, Bahram Shah, was a person of handsome exterior, manly, munificent, just, and thesustainer and protector of his subjects. At the outset of his career, when Malik Arsalan ascended the throne, after the decease of their father, Sultan Mas'ud, the Beneficent, Bahram Shah proceeded into Khurasan, the throne of which country was adorned by the great and inestimable sovereign, the august8, the martyr Sultan Sanjar; and Bahram Shah resided at his court for a considerable time. Sultan Sanjar led an army towards Ghaznin, and Malik Arsalan, after an engagement, was defeated, and Bahram Shah ascended the throne. Sanjar treated him with great honour, and Sayyid Hasan, a celebrated poet of Ghaznin. recited this ode [on that occasion] in the Audience Hall, inthe presenceof Sultan Sanjar, on whom be the mercy and the pardon of the Almighty ! One quatrain9 of the ode in question is here inserted :—
'' Of the eloquent of the world what is the strain, That shall ever on earth be proclaimed ?— ' A shout emanated from the seven heavens, That Bahram Shah is of the universe king.' "
511 H. In the following year Arsalan was released, but, being again found
plotting, was put to death.
0 At Shah-abad, in Shawwal, 511 H.
" Fasifc-i states that his title was Yamin-ud-Daulah, in which Guzidah ana
other writers agree ; but there are others also, but chiefly modem authors, who
agree with the title in the text.
8 The word Sa'id—august—is not a proper name here. As Sanjar died a natural death it is difficult to conceive how he was a " martyr."
8 It is the commencement of the poem. As Bahram was a patron of learning and literature, a number of authors flourished in his reign, and numerous works, both poetry and prose, were written. The celebrated work, known as "Kall-lah and Damnah," was translated from the Arabic	into Persian by
Nasr-ullah, son of Muhammad, son of'Abd-ul-Majid, [called "Hamid" by Eastwick], in his reign, and was dedicated to Bahram Shah. Subsequently, the same work was translated in the reign of Sultan Husain, of the race of Taimur, by Mulla Hasan-i-Wa'i?-ul-Kaghifi, and entitled Anwar-i-Suhaill.no
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Sultan Sanjar returned to Khurasan again, and Bahram Shah assumed the government of the countryHe carried on holy wars in the direction of Hindustan ; and, on the 28th of Ramazan, in the year 512 H., he took Muhammad Bahlim prisoner, and put him into confinement; but at last released him, and made over the whole of Hindustan to him. Again he rebelled, and founded the fortress of Naghawr, in the territory of Siwalikh, in the neighbourhood of Birah ; and he had likewise numerous sons and followers and dependents. Bahram Shah, with the determination of extirpating him, advanced into Hindustan against his stronghold, and Bahlim 2 moved forward towards the confines of Multan, and fought an engagement with Bahram Shah. The Almighty rewarded Muhammad Bahlim for his base ingratitude, and he, with his ten sons 3, together with their horses and arms, on the day of the battle, sank in a morass 4, so that no trace of him and them remained. r Bahram Shah returned to Ghaznin again, and between him and the Maliks, or chiefs of Ghur, hostilities arose ; and an engagement took place between them, in which Daulat Shah, a son of Bahram, was slain 5. During that one campaign Bahram Shah sustained three defeats from Sultan
1	One of Bahrain's coins struck at Lahor in 548 H., contained in a work on the subject, bears the following inscription. Obverse—"Coin of the Dar-us-Sultanat-i-Lahor, in the fifth year of his prosperous and happy reign." Reverse—" ' A proclamation issued fro no the seven heavens, that Bahram Shah is of the universe king.' Anno 514." This inscription, it will be noticed, constitutes the two last lines of the quatrain given by our author, who, in another place, states that the coin of Bahram was stamped in Sanjar's name. See under his reign, next Section.
2	Two MSS. have and ^ in place of J.-UI; but either of them is a strange name for a Musalman.
3	A few copies have "two" sons; but, as he is said before to have had "numerous" sons, ten is the more probable number.
4	Mr. Dowson, Elliot's India, vol. ii. p. 280, says, with reference to this passage, "The text has some unintelligible words, which vary in different MSS.," and then quotes "Briggs." The words are	or	^ and are quite plain and intelligible. 0>j> which is also sometimes written
o'j? signifies a ditch, a marsh, a place where water stagnates ; and j-ij> is the adjective derived from it.
6 Among the events of 521 H. Fasih-i mentions that " a battle took place between the troops of Ghaznin, and 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, son of Hasan, Ghun, at Tigm-abad. Hostility had arisen between them on account of that place, which was a city situated between Ghaznin and Ghur. The city was taken, and Bahram fled. In 522 H. 'Ala-ud-Din took Ghazi in, and made it over to his brother. See Section XVII.THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY.
Ill
'Ala-ud-Din, Ghuri, and Ghaznin fell into the hands of the Ghurians. They set fire to it, and destroyed the whole [!] city. Bahram Shah retired into Hindustan at this time, but, on the withdrawal of the Ghuri forces, he returned to Ghaznin again, and there died after a reign of forty-one years 6.
His sons were Jalal-ud-Daulah, Daulat Shah, slain in battle with the Ghurians ; 'Ala-ud-Daulah, Da'ud 7 Shah ; Baha-ud-Daulah, Sultan Shah; Fakhr-ud-Daulah, 'All Shah ; 'Izz-ud-Daulah, Muhammad Shah ; Sama-ud-Daulah, Mas'ud Shah ; Shihab-ud-Daulah, Mansur Shah ; Mu'ayyan-ud-Daulah, Shahan-Shah ; Mu'izz-ud-Daulah, Khusrau Shah; and Sayyid-ud-Daulah, Farrukh Shah.
XIV. KHUSRAU SHAH, SON OF BAHRAM SHAH.
Sultan Mu'ayyan-ud-Daulah-wa ud-Din 8, but, according to some statements, Taj-ud-Daulah,Khusrau Shah,ascended the throne in the year 552 H.
As the Maliks and Sultans 9 of Ghur had shaken the empire of the house of Mahmud to its very foundations, and had wrested Ghaznin, Bust, Zamin-i-Dawar, and Tigin-abad out of their hands, and had ravaged and desolated them, feebleness had come upon its government, and its glory and splendour had passed away. When Khusrau Shah ascended the throne he was weak and powerless, and was unable to maintain his rule over the country.
A horde of the tribe of Ghuzzwho had acquired dominion and power in Khurasan, in the reign of the august Sultan, Sanjar, who had now passed away 2, marched an army against Ghaznin. Khusrau Shah was unable to resist
6	Great discrepancy exists with respect to the dates of Bahram Shah's death, and the accession and death of his son Khusrau Shah, and also of Khusrau Malik, the last of the dynasty. For farther notice of this, see note 6, next page.
7	In one copy Zawul Shah.
8	In a few copies he is styled " Yamin-ud-Daulah " only; but the title above agrees with the statements of several other authors.
9	That is, "who were Maliks and also Sultans " from the text.
1 Some lexicographers spell the word Ghazz, and some Ghuz.
! Sultan Sanjar died on the 16th of Rabi'-ul-awwul, 552 H., but a few writers say in 553 11. The former is correct.112
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRL
them, and he accordingly retired into Hindustan3, and Ghaznin was lost to him, and fell into the hands of the Ghuzz. They retained possession of that territory for a period of twelve years, until the august Sultan, Ghivas-ud-Din Muhammad, Sam, led an army from Ghur to Ghaznin, overthrew Burak4, the Ghuzz chief, retook Ghaznin, and established [his brother] Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din Muhammad, Sam, the martyr, upon the Ghaznin throne. Khusrau Shah had retired to Lahor, of Hindustan. His reign extended to a period of seven years, after which he died 5.
3	The' Tazkirat-ul-Muluk contains a very good account of the reign of Khusrau Shah, which I here make an extract from. " He succeeded his father, and as 'Ala-ud-DTn, Husain, son of Hasan, GhurT, was in full march upon Ghaznin, he, being unable to resist him with hopes of success, retired into Hindustan [here signifying the Panjab] and took up his residence at Lahor. He turned his attention to the government of the western portion of his father's dominions, which were now left to him ; but, when 'Ala-ud-DTn retired, after the plunder of Ghaznin, Khusrau Shah returned to Ghaznin, and again took up his quarters there. Soon after, when the Ghuzz tribe took Sultan Sanjar, his great uncle, captive, and were advancing towards Ghaznin. JOlusrau Shah, who, probably, while Sultan Sanjar was in power, might have expected aid from him in some shape or other, now that lie was a prisoner, was totally unable to resist them, and he again retired to Lahor, and died there in 555 H., after reigning eight years."
4	In one copy Turak.
6 Great discrepancy prevails among authors respecting the latter part of Bahram Shah's reign, and the reigns of Khusrau Shah, and Khusrau Malik, which I will notice as briefly as pcfcsible.
The .first events noticed in Fasih-T, under the year 523 H., are, " the return of Bahram Shah to Ghaznin, his encountering Saif-ud-din, GhurT, and the capture of the latter." He was placed upon a bullock—not "a cow1'— and paraded through the streets of that city, and afterwards put to death. 'Ala-ud-Din, his brother, determined to revenge him, and marched towards Ghaznin with a numerous army ; but Bahram died before his arrival, in that same year [523 H.]." An account of the plunder of the city, and massacre of the people then follows ; and it is farther stated therein, that ' Ala-ud-Din, Jahan-soz, made over the sovereignty of Ghaznin to his nephews, the brothers Ghiyas-ud-Din, and Mu'izz-ud-Din, and that '' Khusrau Shah, who succeeded his father, Bahram, was inveigled by them, that same year, and immured within the citadel of Ghaznin, and the dynasty of the race of Mahmiid, son of Sabuk-Tigln, ended:"—that is, terminated over the Ghaznin territory.
Yafa'i, Kazi Baizawi, Guzidah, Tarik^-i-Alfi, and some others agree with •the above statement, except as to the year of Bahrain's death, and the termination of the dynasty. These four works also mention 'Ala-ud-Din as the first of the Maliks—here, doubtless, signifying independent rulers— of Ghur ; and they, correctly, it appears to me, account those previous to him to have been mere subordinate chieftains, for, if we consider the small extent of territory they could only have possibly possessed, their statements are to be relied upon.THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY.
"3
His sons were Mahmud, Khusrau Malik, and" Kai-Khusrau.
Guzidah says Bahram died in 544 H. after a reign of thirty-two years, while Fanakati asserts that he reigned twenty years, and died in 532 H. The Mun-takhab-ut-Tawarikh, which is generally most particular and correct as regards dates, agrees with Guzidah as to the year, but confirms the statement of Yafa'i, Fasih-I, and the Nigam-ut-Tawarikh, as to Khusrau Shah having reigned but one year, after which the tribe of Ghuzz came against Ghaznin, and he, being unable to cope with them, retired into Hind, and took up his residence at Lahor, where he died in 545 H. The Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh however adds, that, in the Raujat-us-Safa, the year 555 H. is given., Guzidah also says this event occurred in 555 H., and in this Kazi Baizawi agrees. Among more modern works, the Tazkirat-ul-Muluk and Tarikh-i-Alfi state that Bahram died in 547 H., after reigning thirty-five years, and Khusrau Shah in 555 H., and in this the Tabakat-i-Akbari, Badauni, and Firishtah, and other modern writers agree.
Our author stales that Bahram ascended the throne in 511 H., and died in 552 H.. after a reign of forty-one years ; and that khusrau Shah, his son, succeeded, and reigned seven years, but does not give the date of his decease ; but, by his statement, it would have been in 559 H., after which date his son, JDjusrau Malik, succeeded. Their coins, mentioned farther on, tend to show the contrary.
As to'Ala-ud-Din's making over the government of Ghaznin to his nephews, there is not so much discrepancy- in the earlier writers, with the exception of our author, who expressly states that they were detained within the walls of a fortress by him, and were only set at liberty by his son and successor, as mentioned in Section XVII., which see. This was the year after Saif-ud-DIn's death, who, according to Fasih-i, was slain in a battle with the Qhuzz near Balkh, in which same year his nephew, Qhiyas-ud-Din, succeeded him, and inflicted a defeat upon the £rhuzz, with considerable slaughter, and imposed tribute on them.	•
After Khusrau Sliah comes his son Khusrau Malik, or Malik Khusrau, as he is also styled. Yafa'i, Baizawi, Guzidah, and Fanakati say the dynasty terminated with Ehusrau §hah, and make no mention of his son, as his successor. Perhaps they considered him as ruler of the Panjab only. The Ta?kirat-ul-Muluk states that Khusrau Malik succeeded his father as ruler of the Panjab in 555 H., and was put to death in 583 H., after reigning twenty-eight years, while the Muntakliab-ut-TawarlkL, which agrees in the date of his accession, says that he was immured in a fortress in Gharjistan in 583 H., and in 588 H. was murdered along with his son Bahram Shah, and the whole of the remainder of the Ghaznawi family then left. Rau?at-us-Safa, Habib-us-Seyr, Firishtah, and others say this occurred in 582 H., and Budauni, who merely gives this ruler a place '' because the author of the Tabakat-i-Akbari does so," as he remarks, says 583 H. Our author states that the Ghuris first appeared before Lahor in 577 H., and gained possession of it in 583 H., thus agreeing with some of the above statements, but mentions the year 598 H., as the year in which Khusrau Malik and all his family were murdered.
Fasih-i mentions the Qhurians as powerful in Qhaznin and Hind in 566 H., that Ghiyas-ud-Din took that capital from the Ghuzz tribe [What an excellent opportunity this would be, to the " comparative " or rather superlative " philologists," to have derived the name of Ghaznin from the Ghuzz tribe !] in 569 H., and made it over to his brother, Mu'izz, as Wali. After referring toH4
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
XV. KHUSRAU MALIK, SON OF KHUSRAU SHAH, THE LAST OF THE MAHMUDI DYNASTY.
Taj-ud-Daulah, Sultan-i-Halim, or the Mild Sultan, Khusrau Malik, ascended the throne at Lahor.
He was a monarch of excessive mildness and beneficence, unassuming-, and endowed with many good qualities, but addicted to pleasure. As he came at the close of the sovereignty of his family, no prepossessing memento of him has survived, and the sovereignty of that dynasty terminated in him. Anarchy and disorder at last showed itself in the affairs of his government, and all the Amirs and lesser officials of the country, both the Turks and the free-born [natives], all became too powerful for him to deal with, and the servants of the state and governors of provinces and districts exercised independent power, whilst their sovereign abandoned himself wholly to pleasure.
the defeat, by him, of a horde of the Sankaran, a sept of the Ghuzz tribe [not "a mountain" or "a town"] in 571 H., and his expedition against Nahr-walah in 575 H., the same work states, under the occurrences of the year
581	H. — "In this year an engagement took place between Sultan Mu'izz-ud-DTn Muhammad, son of Sam, son of Husain, son of Sam, the Wall of Ghaznin, and Khusrau Malik, at Lohor, in Hind. Khusrau was taken captive by stratagem ; and the Sipah-salar, 'Alt Karmakh,, who was Wall of Multan previously, was left at Lohor as Wall, but some writers say this took place in
582	H."
In Mr. Thomas's paper on the Ghazni Coins there is, unfortunately, no notice of the last two monarchs of the house of Sabuk-Tigin, and there are no coins of theirs, or the dates above referred to might have been tested ; but a work I have by me supplies some information on the subject, and confirms the statements of Fasih-i, and the older writers. A coin of Khusrau Shah's therein noticed, contains the following inscription, which I translate literally :—
Obverse—"Stamped coin in the universe, with magnificence and grandeur, the great Badshah Khusrau Shah."
Reverse—"Struck in the city of Lohor, A. H. 552, the first of his reign."
Another coin of his son, Khusrau Malik, also struck in the Panjab, contains the following inscription :—
Obverse—" Zahir-ud-Daulah wa ud-Din, Sultan Khusrau Malik."
Reverse—"Struck in the city of Lohor, A. H. 555, the first of the reign."
All writers agree as to the deceitful and treacherous conduct of Mu'izz-ud-Din, Ghuri, towards Khusrau Malik. After he had inveigled that unfortunate prince by his oaths and"promises, he broke them, and sent him and the whole of the family then remaining to his brother Ghiyas-ud-Din, to be immured in a fortress in Ghiir. Subsequently, when these very pious and model Sultans, as our author considers them, found those unfortunates in the way, they massacred the whole of them.THE YAMlNlAH DYNASTY.
"5
Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din Muhammad, Sam, used to advance every year from Ghaznin, and to possess himself of portions of Hind and Sind, until in the year 577 H., when he appeared before the gate of Lahor, and extorted a son and an elephant from Khusrau Malik, and then retired. Thus matters went on until the year 583 H., when he brought an army against Lahor and reduced it. Khusrau Malik was induced, under the faith of a treaty, to come out, upon which he was taken and sent off to Ghaznin. and 'from thence was removed to the capital, Flruz-koh, which was the seat of government of the elder Sultan, Ghiyas-ud-Din Muhammad, Sam. That sovereign gave orders that Khusrau Malik should be immured within the fortress of Balarwan6, in Gharjistan.
When the affair 7 of Sultan Shah occurred in Khurasan, and the two Sultans turned their attention to that important enterprize, they put Sultan Khusrau Malik to death in the year 598 H., and the latter's son, Bahram Shah, who was confined within the fortress of Saifrud of Ghur. was also murdered, and the dominion and dynasty of Nasir-ud-Din, Sabuk-Tigin, became obliterated, and the sovereignty of Iran, the throne of Hindustan, and the territory of Khu-rasan came under the sway of the -Maliks and Sultans of the house of Shansabani.
Khusrau Malik's sons were Bahram Shah, Mahmud Shah, Jahan Shah, Mas'ud Shah, Malik Shah, and Khusrau Shah.
6	In the greater number of places where this name occurs in the different MSS., o^.ij-'- given; but it is also written Yalarwan, Badwan, and in various other ways. Saifrud is also written San^aran in some copies. See note to Mu'izz-ud-Din's reign, Section XIX.
7	See under Section XVII.SECTION XII.
THE DYNASTY OF THE SALJUKIAIL
The author of the Tarlkh-i-Sant who was Ibn Haisam, has thus related : that when the victorious Sultan, Mahmud-i-Sabuk-Tigin, crossed the Jihun, and the territory of Mawar-un-Nahr was left clear in his hands, Kadr Khan, who was the brother of the late I-lak [Khan], and of the Afrasiyabi dynasty, entered into negotiation with the Sultan. Between the two potentates treaties of alliance and amity were entered into, and confirmed and cemented, and an interview took place between them 2.
After Kadr Khan had been received by the Sultan, the latter commanded, after the public reception, that the privy apartment should be cleared ; and they held private conference together, and consulted confidentially on all the affairs of Iran and Turan. Kadr Khan preferred many requests to the Sultan, one of which was that he would remove the son of Saljuk3, the Turkman, with his followers
1	At Section VII. page il, the author calls the work Kasas-i-Sani, but the signification is the same. See also note 3, page 56.
2	This interview took place in 419 H. They entered into a treaty of friendship and alliance, the principal stipulation in which was, that a portion of Mawar-un-Nahr should remain in the possession of the Sultan, and that some should belong to Kadr Khan, who is styled Bad shah of Ma war un-Nahr. The Khwajah-i-'Amid, Abu Nasr-i-Mishkan, AL-Zawzani, relates that at that time the forces along with Sultan Mahmud were so numerous, that no monarch had ever so many under his standard before.
3	With respect to the Saljiiks and their rise to power, Oriental historians differ considerably ; but space will not permit my noticing their discrepancies, except very briefly. Several authors altogether deny that Sultan Mahmud suffered the Saljuks to enter Khurasan, and assigned them lands therein—among whom is the author of the Rau?at-us-Safa—and contend that the two brothers, Da'ud-i-Jaghar Beg and Tughril Beg [but our author states they were altogether separate from those under Yagh-mu or Yagh-inur; still his statement is so confused as to be scarcely reliable], with their dependents, did not cross the Jihun into Khurasan, until the reign of Mas'ud, when they appropriated Nisa and Abiward, but, at the same time, sent to tender their allegiance to that monarch. See note 3, p. 120. In the Tarijch of Abu-l-'Ala-i-Al?wal, or the "Squinter,"THE SALjtfipAH DYNASTY.
117
and dependents, from the country of Mawar-un-Nahr and Turkistan into Khurasan. These followers and dependents
Saljuk is said to have been a descendant of Afrasiyab, and had four sons— Isra'il, Mlka'il, Musa-i-Beghu [i. e. son of BegJju], and Yunas. The Jami'-ut-Tawarikh says he had five; and that the name of the fourth son was Yusuf, and the fifth Yunas. Finding the lands they occupied too circumscribed, they were compelled, in 375 H., to leave their native pastures in Turkistan—one author says the Dasht-i-IOiurz—and entered Mawar-un-Nahr, and took up their quarters in the Nur of Bukhara, and the Sughd of Samr^and, making the former their winter, and the latter their summer quarters. Mahmud, according to the " Squinter," was on friendly terms with them [see under his reign], and Isra'il came and waited upon him, when that monarch entered Mawar-un-Nahr, and was treated with great distinction. This was the occasion when Isra'il told the Sultan the effect which the sending of his two arrows and his bow would have, so well known as not to require relation here. [Gibbon incorrectly calls him Ismael /J The Sultan, it is stated, became suspicious of the Saljuks on this, and had Isra'il seized, when in a state of intoxication, and sent to the fortress of Kalinjar in Hind ; but a few authors, including our own, say " to the fortress of Multan." The former statement I think the most reliable. Isra'il remained in durance till his decease seven years after ; but, previous to his death, he sent messengers to his brothers, sons, and kinsmen, and incited them to rebel. They sent to ask Mahmud's leave to cross over the Jihun into Khurasan ; but Arsalan the Hajib, who was governor of that province, refused to grant it, and strongly advised the Sultan to refuse permission. Contrary to Arsalan's advice, he gave them permission ; and they passed the Jihun, and took up their quarters in the pasture-lands about Nisa and Abiward. Mlka'il had two sons, Tughril, and Da'ud-i-Jaghar Beg, who, from their talents and superior accomplishments, became the leaders of the tribe.
Other writers, however, say that Saljuk had four sons, Isra'il, Mlka'il, Musa, and Yunas ; and that Beghu was the son of Musa. Mlka'il having been slain in one of the battles' of that period, leaving two sons, Salju^ named those two grandsons, Da'ud-i Jaghar Beg and Tughril Beg, rulers of the tribe after his decease. When Mahmud of Ghaznin subdued the territories of Mawar-un-Nahr, among other chiefs, Da'ud and Tughril, who had fought several battles with the rulers of Turkistan, and had acquired fame for valour, waited on Mahmud, and solicited that some portion of territory should be assigned to their tribe, as grazing-grounds for their flocks and herds.
Fasih-i states that, previous to Mahmud's crossing the Jihun and entering Mawar-un-Nahr, as early as 416 H., Da'ud-i-Jaghar Beg, son qf Tughril Beg, son of Mlka'il, son of Salju^c—by this account Da'ud-i-Jaghar Beg was Mika'il's grandson—had risen and entered into the Kh,warazm territory, thus, in a measure, confirming a part of our author's statement. The same authority mentions that it was in 419 H., on the Sultan's return from Mawar-un-Nahr, that Isra'il, son of Beghu, son of SaljuV, son of Lufcman, had the interview with the Sultan, who brought him along with him ; but soon after, on some account or other, Isra'il was seized and sent to the fortress of Kalinjar. For Fanakati's statement on this subject, see note 2, p. 126.
The above notice of the Saljuks has been taken from the Tarikh-i-Abu-1-'Ala, Guzidah, the Lubb-ut-Tawarikh, Jami'-ut-Tawarlkh, Abu-l-Fazl-i-BaihakT, Tarikh-i-AIf 1, Mujami'-ul-Khiyar, Jahan-Ara, and the Muntakhab-ut Tawarikh, and others. Yafa'I differs considerably from these works and118	THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
of Saljuk and his son were a tribe whose dwelling-place was the Nur 4 of Bukhara, and they were all subject and obedient to the Samani dynasty.
At the period in question the son of Saljuk had attained to man's estate, and, on account of his prowess and valour, his arrow and his sword, all the Maliks of Turkistan and the Afrasiyabl rulers were continually in fear. Not a bird in the air nor a deer of the plain escaped his arrow ; and, like a whirlwind and a thunder-cloud, he was wont to enter the chase or the conflict, and used to vanquish every man who entered into a personal contest with him. Upon this occasion when Kadr Khan joined and accompanied Sultan Mahmud, "and all were in attendance at his stirrup, and proceeding towards the Sultan's own tents, the son of Saljuk con tinued to ride on before them all, a Turkman cap placed jauntily on one side of his head, and bestriding a horse like the spur of a mountain, galloping about like a roaring lion, or the flickering lightning, in such wise that the forces of Turan and Iran were amazed at his agility and horsemanship.
As Kadr Khan had requested of the Sultan, so it was carried out; and, at the very time that Kadr Khan set out on his return [to his own territory], they brought a mandate [from the Sultan] to the son of Saljuk to remain in his tent,and gave orders that his followers, with his and their effects, should cross the river Jihun into the confines of Khurasan in company with the Mahmud! forces. Agents were directed to take care of them, and look after them ; and, when they reached the bank of the Jihun, they crossed the river along with servants of the Sultan.
At the time the command was issued that the son of Saljuk, along with his followers and dependents, should embark on boats, and pass over the Jthun with their property and effects, the Hajib, Arsalan Khan5, who was
authors, but least from Guzidah. I have not completed the translation of that portion of Yafa'i as yet, therefore cannot make much use of it at present.
It will be noticed that our author repeatedly quotes " the son of Saljuk," but gives no name ; and, moreover, Isra'Tl, to whom he must refer, was, by some accounts, Saljuk's son, and by others, his grandson.
4 A district of the territory of Bukhara so called.
6 His correct name is Arsalan Khan. Jajib [v-iW-] seems to have been an error on the part of some early copyist for Hajib [^.^.L], and copicd accordingly by Firightah, and other modern authors.THE SALJUKIAH DYNASTY.
U9
the Amir [Governor] of Khurasan, and the greatest of the retainers of Sultan Mahmud, made a representation to that monarch, saying: " This which your Majesty has commanded is far from the cautious counsel of your servant, for, with your own hand, you have placed power in the hands of the enemies of your country, over the dominion of your descendants; and, in the end, by this tribe, disorder and tumult will be brought upon the empire." The Sultan, in reply, said: "What is your opinion in this matter?" The Hajib, Arsalan, answered: "My advice is this, that the whole of them be commanded to re-embark on board the boats, and then to sink them in the river; or otherwise to have their thumbs cut off6, so as to render them incapable of discharging arrows in future." Sultan Mahmud answered : "Arsalan, thou art a hard-hearted man, indeed ! To break one's promise, and slay the helpless, are not acts becoming a sovereign who possesses any feelings of honour, or a man who has any magnanimity in his nature ; and, moreover, destiny cannot be averted by perfidy any more than by valour." However, after the son of Saljuk had been conveyed across the Jihun, it was commanded that he should be brought to Multan, while his kinsmen, and his other followers and dependents were assigned pasture-lands for their flocks and cattle in the territory of Khurasan, such as Nisa, Nishapur, Baward 7, and other tracts in Upper Khurasan.
As the Almighty had willed that, subsequently, this race should become great and powerful, and that from their posterity should spring puissant and mighty monarchs and rulers, notwithstanding Sultan Mahmud afterwards regretted what he had done, still regret was-of no avail, for regret cannot avert destiny.
Imam Abu-l-Fazl-i-Baihaki states in his Tarikh-i-Nasiri8,
4 So in the text ; but it must be presumed that the author meant the thumb of the right hand of all the males.
7 Also called Abiward ; but, correctly speaking, Abiward is the name of the town, and Baward the name of the district. Guzidah states that the people of Khurasan, in the parts where the Saljuks were located, became attached to the brothers Tughril Beg. and Jaghar Beg.
• This portion of Baihaki's work has not come down to us. He mentions the names of these chiefs in one or two places in the part relating to the life of
Mas'iid, and says that the people who entered Khurasan under Yagh-mur and other chiefs were Turkmans ; and he always makes a difference between- them
and the Saljuks.120
THE TABA?AT-I-NA?IR!.
that, at the time that Sultan Mahmud carried across the Jihun four thousand Saljuk families, their Mihtars, or chiefs, were four persons, Yagh-mur9, Bukah, Kuk-tash, and Kazil, and in different parts of Khurasan pasture-lands were assigned to them, and they were made over to [the guardianship of] the great nobles of Khurasan, and instructions were given to them that the Saljuks should, in no way, and on no account, be permitted to carry arms. Their chief1, who was the eldest son of Saljuk, and famous for his manhood, was sent to Multan, along with two of his sons 2 likewise ; and at Multan, after some time had passed away, they also died 3. The remainder of the Saljuk tribe, who had re-mained^ behind in Mawar-un-Nahr, were in the habit every year of migrating from Nur of Bukhara to Darghan 4 of Khwarazm. to the pasture-lands therein. They entertained innate enmity towards the Malik [chief] of Jund, whose name was Shah ; and, in the reign of Sultan Mas'ud, the Martyr, the Amir [Governor] of Khwarazm, the son of Altun-Tashrebelled against the Sultan's authority. The
9 Also written Yagh-mur.
1	It will be doubtless noticed here that our author stated just a few lines above, quoting BaihakT, as he says, that the Saljuks, who crossed the Jihun into Khurasan, had four chiefs, and immediately after says, " their chief, who was Saljuk's son," died at Multan. He evidently confounds those of the tribe who entered Khurasan with the remainder who stayed behind. See p. 121. Yafa'i states that their place of abode was twenty farsakhs, or leagues, distant from Bukhara.
2	All the copies of the work do not contain this last sentence about the sons.
3	Fasih-i, Baizawl, and other authorities, mention the death of Isra'Tl, son of Beghu, son of Suliman, son of Saljuk, at Kalinjir, in 426 H. His son had come with a party of followers from Mawar-un-Nahr to effect his release and carry him off. They had succeeded in getting him out of the fortress, but missed the road, were pursued, and overtaken. When his pursuers were in the act of securing him, he cried out to his son : " I shall never be released ; do you seek to acquire territory." That same year Da'ud-i-Jaghar Beg broke out into open rebellion; and took up his quarters at Marw.
* Considered generally as belonging to Samrkand.
i Altun-Tasi, the Hajib, was appointed viceroy of Khwarazm by Sultan Mahmud in 407 H., after he [Mahmud] had proceeded thither in person, and had defeated the rebels, who had slain his son-in-law, Mamun, son of Mamun, and had put Nial-Tigln to death, as related in the events of Mahmud's reign. "When the Sultan returned to Balkh, after his raid upon the Afghans, Altun-Tash-i-Khwarazm Shah, as he is styled, was sent for. He came and remained at Court three months. He then obtained permission to return ; and, in the presence of Khwajah Ahmad-i-Hasan, Maimandi, the >Vazir, and the Khwajah -i-'Amid, Abu Nasr-i-Mishkan, gave his word, and swore, that he would neverTHE SALJUKJAH DYNASTY.
121
Saljuks joined him in that outbreak; and, in the year 425 H., he bestowed upon them a tract of country belonging to the territory of Khwarazm. which they call Rabat-i-Masah, as grazing ground for their flocks and herds. The chief of Jund, having received information as to their situation, made a raid upon them, and slew about eight thousand of the males, and but few of them remained, and they became^totally at a loss as to what they should do in this state of affairs.
The Governor of Khwarazm, Harun, the rebel, the son of Altun-Tash [with whom the Saljuks had sided, as before stated] had [lately] been killed, and they found it impossible to continue to dwell in the territory of Khwarazm; and, through fear of the sons of 'All Tigin, the late ruler of Bukhara, who was one of the Afrasiyabi Khans, or chieftains, they were unable to enter that territory. Out of necessity, therefore, they moved towards Nisa and Marw —in all about seven hundred horsemen—with their property, and their families and dependents.
Yagh-mur, who was one of their chiefs, had died previously to this, and a son of his remained ; and, when that portion of the tribe [who had escaped the sword of the Malik of Jund] came towards Nisa and Marw from Khwarazm, the son of Yagh-mur5 was unable to cope with them, for, although they were weak in numbers themselves, other tribes, such as the Nialis7, and others, had joined them. The son of Yagh-mur [with his tribe, who had first crossed the Jihun] retired before them, and entered 'Irak, and seized upon Rai; and the Saljuks took up their residence in the
act contrary to the Sultan's wishes and commands ; and he left two sons, Saibi [?] and Yusuf, at Court. ' In 422 H., after the accession of .Mas'ud, the Martyr, Altun-Tash presented himself at Court, and was soon allowed to return. After he had departed, a number of the Sultan's advisers worked on the mind of the Sultan so much about it, that he regretted he had allowed him to leave. A message was sent for him to return, but he made excuses,and did not do so. • It was thought he had penetrated into the design against him ; but subsequently he became satisfied, after receiving kind messages from the Sultan. No mention is made in Fasifr-I respecting this grant of lands by the " son of Altun-Tash," to the Saljuks.
8 Here again our author says the son of Yagh-mur, but does not give any name. This is his constant failing.
7 The Nialis refer to the adherents of Nlal-Tigin, viceroy of the Panjab, who had rebelled, and had been removed. See Baihaki.
I122
THE TABAKAT-!-NASIRI.
grazing lands on the border of the desert [in the districts of Nisa and Marw].
The Almighty gave them strength and power, so that they possessed themselves of the territories of Khurasan ; and the east, and the west, and whatever the dominions of Islam were, wholly and completely came under the sway of their descendants, in such wise that their fame will remain upon the records of time unto the judgment day 8.
I. TUGHRIL, SON OF MIKA'IL».
The author of the Tarikh-i-NasirlImam Abu-l-Fazl-i-Baihaki, relates after this manner : that, at this period when the Saljuks entered the skirt of the desert of Khurasan, and the son of Yagh-mur retired discomfited » before them, their Mihtars [chiefs] were three persons—Tughril and Da'ud, two brothers, the sons of Mika'il, and their uncle Beghu; and all three in accord determined to tender their services to Sultan Mas'ud, and despatched a confidential agent to the Sultan's presence—he, at that time, having come to Nishapur from Gurgan—and solicited that the districts of Nisa, Farawah, and certain places at the head of the desert might be assigned to them in fief3. In the missive
8	The commencement of the outbreak of the Saljuks was in 423 H.; and, in the same year, Kadr "Khan, the Turk, ruler of Mawar-un-Nahr, died. Jaghar Beg, son of Abu Suliman, seized Marw, and took up his quarters there in 426 H. The Saljuks made an attempt upon Hirat in 428 H., but were repulsed, and forced to retire. They returned however in the following year, and compelled the place to capitulate, and the territory was annexed in the name of Sultan Tughril Beg ; but Sultan Mas'ud subsequently gained repossession of Hirat, and severely punished those who had, as he considered, so tamely capitulated to the Saljuks. See note 3, p. 129.
9	His correct name is Abu Talib, Muhammad, and his title, Rukn-ud-din, Tughril Beg, Yamin-i-Amir-ul-Muminin, or "The Right Hand of the Lord of the Faithful."
1 This work is styled Tariki-i-Mukaddasi-i-Nasiri in two copies of the ;text at this place.
3 The word here used is " munhazim" signifying routed, put to flight, discomfited in battle, dispersed, &c.
3 As from other writers, our author has not quoted Baihaki correctly. The text states that they sent a trustworthy agent to the Sultan. The following is condensed from what Baihaki says in this matter. Soon after Mas'ud arrived at Gurgan, a despatch reached his minister from Bu-Fazl, Sun, Dlwan of Nishapur, which had been brought by horsemen in two days and a half from that city, intimating an irruption of Saljuks and Nlalis from Marw, who hadTHE SALJU£IAH DYNASTY.
123
in question they had written their own names in the following manner:—" Tughril, and Beghu. and Da'ud, who
proceeded to Nisa, where they had joined the Turkmans [see note 8, page 1 rt)] there, and that they had been reinforced by other Saljuks and Khwarazm is ; and further, that he, Bu-Fajl, enclosed therewith a communication addressed to him by Beghu, Tughril, and Da'ud, in order that the Sultan might give such orders upon it as he might deem fit. The communication began thus: "To his Excellency the Shaikh, the Illustrious Lord, the Sayyid Maulana Abi-ul-Fazl-i-Suri, from his servants, Beghu [it will be noticed that the uncle here takes precedence of the nephews], Tughril, and Da'ud, the Muwali or lieges of the Amir-ul-Muminin ;" and began, "We, your servants." They went on to state that they found it impossible to dwell in Mawar-un-Nahr and Bukhara since the death of Ali-Tigin, who had been kind and friendly towards them, as his affairs were now administered by his two sons, inexperienced boys, who were hostile towards them. On account of the distracted state of Khwarazm, through Harun, its ruler, having being killed, they found it impossible likewise to remove thither; and therefore they had come to put themselves under the protection of the Sovereign of the World and Lord of Beneficence, the great Sultan. They hoped the Khwajah [Abi-ul-Fazl] would aid them at this juncture, and write on their behalf to the Khwajah, 'Abu Nasr [the Wazir], and advocate their cause as they were known to him- They farther solicited that, as through that minister's good offices [Khwajah Abu Nasr-i-Ahmad had previously been Wazir to "Harun and his father], the late Harun, Kh.wa.razm Shah, used to allow them to remove with their families and flocks into his territory in winter, he would assist them now. If the Sultan, they said, would accept their vassalage, one of them would constantly attend at Court [as a pledge of good faith], and the other two would serve him in such manner as he might command ; and they woidd rest under his great shadow. They asked that the territories of Nisa and Farawah, which lay on the edge of the Desert [between the mountains bounding Khurasan on the north-east, and the Jil?un or Oxus], should be conferred upon them, in return for which they promised they would undertake to prevent any rebel from raising his head in Balkhan Koh, Dihistan, the direction of Khwarazm, or the Jihun ; and would assail the 'Irakis [the Turk-mans under Yagh-mur's son are here referred to] and drive them out. Their request was couched in civil words, to all appearance, but concluded as follows : " but if, which God forbid, the Sultan would not grant their request, and should refuse his permission, they did not know what the state of affairs might become, because they had no place on earth, and none remained to them. Not having the boldness to venture to address such an august person [as the Sultan's Wazir], they had addressed the Kh,wajah [Abi-ul-Fa?l] to solicit him, Please God ! to bring their request to a favourable issue."
Sultan Mas'ud wished to move at once against them, so wrath was he at this insolent demand ; and bitterly complained of the injury and trouble his father had entailed upon the empire and upon him, through allowing any of those "camel-drivers," as he styled the Saljuks, to pass the Ji^iun, in the first instance. The Wazir and some others counselled the acceptance of the allegiance of the SaljuV chiefs ; but another party at the Court advised the Sultan not to think of marching against them himself, or at the present time, as they would have it that the cattle of his army, after the late expedition, required rest. They advised that a reply should be sent to Abi-ul-Fazl, telling
I 2124
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRL
are the .Mawali [lieges] of the Lord of the Faithful, represent unto your presence," &c. The Almighty had been pleased to fill their hearts with much arrogance and contumacy; and, when the purport of their request was made known to the Sultan, he at once commanded that they should have a reply couched in courteous words, but a force of about 15,000 horse, under the command of the Salar [general], Bak-Taghdi, was told off in the year 430 H.4, to proceed against them.
When that force reached the Saljuks, it fought a stubborn battle with them, and the Sultan's army sustained a defeat, and the Sultan, out of necessity, had to come to
him to acquaint the Saljuk chiefs, in reply to their demand, "to be under no concern, as they had come to their own homes [as it were], and that they were in his dominions, and under his protection and to pretend that he was going to march to Rai, but instead to proceed to Nishapur, and get a force ready to send against them unawares. The Sultan was induced to follow this advice; and the upshot was the despatch of 15,000 horse to Nisa, under the Hajib, Bak-Taghdi. He, on first coming upon the Saljuks near Sarakhs. defeated and routed them; but, soon after, his troops, who were already encumbered with baggage and women, having taken to plunder, he was himself overthrown, by the Saljuks, who had again rallied and attacked him. This took place in Sha'ban, 427 H., not in 420 H., as our author relates, and as is written in the ten copies of his work collated. After this affair, Mas'ud had to agree to their demands, they being the first however to open negotiations, and Farawah was given to Beghu, Nisa to Tughril, and Dihistan to Da'ud. Having obtained their demands, they became more insolent than ever.
4 Several other writers differ here, not only from our author, but also from BaihakT, who is very particular respecting dates. In the beginning of 426 H., the Khasah Khadim. Nush-Tigin, routed a body of Turkmans near Marw ; and in the same year, a force of 17,000 horse, under the Salar, Bak-Taghdi, was sent against them. He was at first successful ; but, the enemy having drawn him into the desert, where water was not procurable, and his troops being careless and over confident, he sustained a complete defeat in the eighth month of that year. In the following year, a force of 10,000 horse and 5000 foot was prepared to operate against the Saljuks, under the command of the Hajib-i-Buzarg, Subashi. In the first month of 429 H., in fulfilment of a vow made during illness, Mas'ud undertook an expedition against Hans!, captured it in the third month of that year, and in the fourth returned to Ghaznin. In the same year, Mas'ud, being unable from the state of affairs to proceed against the Saljuks as he was desirous of doing, despatched orders to the Hajib to expel them from Khurasan. Subashi sent a reply to the effect that they were far more than he could cope with. Mas'ud imagined the Hajib was enhancing, or desirous of enhancing, his services, and sent him orders to march against them without farther delay. He did so, and his meeting them, and his defeat followed. The Hajib is styled Surbashi, and Surpaghl by Guzidah, Sanbashi in the Tarikh-i-Alfi. and SubasI by our author. The name mentioned by Baihaki is no doubt correct.THE SALjtJKIAH DYNASTY.
125
an accommodation with them. He bestowed Nisa upon Tughril. and the Dihistan on Da'ud, and gave Farawah to Beghu. The Sultan then proceeded towards Balkh. and conferred the government of Hindustan upon his son Maudud5.
In 429 H., the Saljuks possessed themselves of the towns on the skirt of the desert, such as Marw, Sarakhs, and other places besides, and solicited that Khurasan should be made over to them. The Sultan thereupon despatched the Hajib, Subast, with a large army to expel them. An engagement took place between the Sultan's forces and the Saljuks, and the Sultan's troops were defeated 6, and the Saljuks acquired power over the territory of Khurasan. They sent Ibrahim, Nialiah7, to seize upon Nishapur, and, subsequently, Tughril himself followed him thither. At Nishapur he ascended the throne, and became a sovereign; and the Khutbah was read in his name 8. He despatched Da'ud to Sarakhs. and nominated Beghu to proceed to Marw; and they took possession of Khurasan, and one-half9 of that territory passed from the sway of the servants of the Mas'udi dynasty \
s Not so : Majdud was viceroy of the Indian provinces, Maudud was left at the capital; and subsequently, when Mas'ud retired into the Panjab, the latter was sent to Balkli, and he was with his father in the battle of Dandan^ad.
6	Farther on, our author, when mentioning the council held by the Saljuks when they thought of leaving Mas'ud's dominions, says, " They are said to have been defeated by the Sultan's troops several times." See p. 130.
7	Ibrahim, son of Nl'al, was Tughril's mother's brother.
8	Tughril Beg assumed sovereignty over a portion of Khurasan, and ascended the throne at Nlghapur in 429 H. ; and the Saljuki dynasty is considered by several authors to have commenced from that year. Others, however, with very good reason, say that the Saljuks only assumed independent sovereignty after the defeat of Sultan Mas'ud at Dae-kan or Dandankan [Dan-dankad], as stated by our author farther on. He acquired sway over a large portion of Western Asia, Kh,warazm, Dihistan, Tabbas, Rai, Kazwin, &c., in 447 11., in which same year the Khalifah, Al-Ka'im, summoned Tughril to Baghdad, and ordered his name to be entered in the Khutbah, and impressed upon the coin. Fanakati states that the Kh,alifah sent a commission with a robe of honour to Tughril.
9	A paradox of our author's.
1 Tughril Beg died at Turusht	near Rai, Friday, 8th of Ramazan,
455 II., at the age of seventy. His reign is variously computed: Fanakati states that he died in 442 H., after a reign of ten years ! From 429 H. to 455 11.', however, is a period of twenty-six.126
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IkT.
II, MALIK DA'OD-I-TAGHAR BEG2, SON OF MiKA'lL.
When Da'ud, after leaving the presence of his brother Tughril, came for the purpose of taking possession of Marw and Sarakhs. Sultan Mas'ud was at Balkh, and he sent an agent to him [Da'ud] to see whether or not an accommodation could be brought about3.
At that time Da'ud was in the neighbourhood of Marw, with his forces, and it was he who was the mover in all this boldness and audacity. He advanced to the gate of Marw. It was at the dawn of the morning, and the Mu'azzin from the top of a Minarah was proclaiming this verse :— " O Da'ud, verily we have made thee a sovereign prince on earth: judge therefore between men with truth4." Da'ud, hearing his own name, inquired of a learned person what was the meaning of this. The signification was explained to him, upon which he again drew his sword, and pressed forward after the troops of the Sultan, which were in Marw, and put the whole of them to the sword5.
At this period, when the Sultan's envoy from Balkh presented himself before him, a Mu'azzin at Marw was repeating this verse :—" Thou givest dominion unto whom Thou wilt, and Thou takest away dominion from whom Thou wilt V
2 Also written Jaghari Beg. GuzTdah has both Jaghar and Chaghar Beg. His title is Amir 'Imad-ud-Daulah, Abu Sutlman-i-Da'ud-i-Jaghar Beg. Guzidah, Fasih-i, Fanakati, and several others, do not consider Da'ud as a sovereign, and Alb-Arsalan is, by them, very properly, accounted the second monarch of the Saljuki dynasty, having succeeded his uncle Tughril. Da'ud had died some years before. Fanakati likewise says that on the death of Isra'Il, at Kalinjar, his son, Tughril, broke out into rebellion in 432 H., in the reign of Sultan Mas'ud. This would imply that Tughril and the Saljiiks had been quiet up to this time, but such is not the case ; and Isra'Il died in 426 H. See note 3, p. 120.
s This is not correct. A person was sent, according to Baihaki, to sound the Saljuks, and, as if coming as a friend to them, to induce them to open negotiations. They appeared quite willing to do so, and at once sent an agent to the Wazlr. It was on this occasion that Mas'ud gave them the territory mentioned in note 3, page 122-3. The author makes great repetition through mixing up the events of Tughril's reign with Da'ud's affairs.
4	Kur'an, chap, xxxviii.
5	The above sounds all very well, and may be true ; but it is not contained in Baihaki or any other historian with whom I am acquainted. The last sentence here, it would require the author himself to explain.
6	A portion of the 25th verse of chap. iii. of the Kur'an,THE SALjC?lA-H DYNASTY.
127
The envoy of Sultan Mas'ud perceived Da'ud, who had spread his felt saddle-cloth under him, seated on the ground, with his saddle placed on one side of him. Sometimes he would rest his head upon the saddle, and stretch himself out [on the felt] on the ground, and then again he would sit up, and support himself resting on his elbow. His quiver of arrows was placed near him, and at times he would draw forth an arrow from the quiver, and he would sharpen the head of the arrow, and then again he would smooth out the feathers of it. The envoy of the Sultan, having concluded his message, asked for an answer. Da'ud replied :—" What was this Mu'azzin calling out about 'Thou givest,' .'Thou givest'? Write that down." A scribe accordingly wrote down this verse on paper :—" Possessor of all power, Thou givest dominion unto whom Thou wilt, and Thou takest away dominion from whom Thou wilt; Thou exaltest whom Thou wilt, and Thou humblest whom Thou wilt," &c., and gave it to the envoy7. When the envoy reached the presence of Sultan Mas'ud, and made known to him the condition and mode of life of Da'ud, and placed before him the verse in reply to his message, he understood that the period of the sovereignty of the Mahmudi dynasty over the territory of Khurasaft had come to an end, and, in his heart, he relinquished all hope of holding it8.
The Saljuks having acquired Sarakhs and Marw, and being left in undisturbed possession of the whole of those districts, Da'ud determined to attack Upper Khurasan. Manifesting the utmost daring and boldness on that occasion, he again assembled together a force of 11,000 horse9, and pushed on to the gates of Balkh, where the Sultan was at the time, with all his great nobles and his forces. An elephant was tied up in a place in the outskirts of the city, and an elephant-driver had fallen asleep upon the animal's back. Da'ud 1 came during the night, unfastened
7	It is strange that'all this is neither to be found in Baihaki nor in the other authors I have been quoting.
8	The author here contradicts himself, as is not unusual; for the battle of Dae-l|Can [Dandankad] had not yet been fought, even by his own account.
9	Most copies of the work have " he came with eleven horsemen," which is absurd.
1 Our author does not quote Baihaki correctly here, as the following extract, which I have made from the original, a good MS. copy in my posses-128
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
the elephant, and drove it off, and, by the time the driver had awakened from his slumbers, the elephant had been
sion, and the printed edition of his work edited by Morley, will show. It will be found rather different to the translation given in Elliot, vol. ii. p. 142, "The Amir halted to celebrate the festival of No-roz, on Wednesday, the 8th of Jamadi-ul-Akhir. On Friday, the 10th of the same month, other news arrived [the sentence following and part of riext is not in my MS.] that Da'ud had come to Tae-kan [Morley has Tal-kan] with.a strong force, and well prepared. On Thursday, the 16th of the month, farther information was received that he had reached Par-yab [Far-yab is equally correct—-p and f are interchangeable], and that from thence he would speedily advance to Shiwar-kan [Shaburghan of course is meant—the name is spelt both ways : and our author, as well as Baihaki, is perfectly correct as to the name, notwithstanding the efforts of editors to make out otherwise. In the Persian, b is often interchanged for f, and k for gh, and so, in reality, both ways of writing may be, and were adopted ; but never with s for sji, except through an error of a copyist. The Burhan-i-Kata' says, Shaburghan, in ancient times, was the name of the city of Balkh, but now it is the name of a kasbah near it. Compare Elliot's India, vol. ii. p. 142], and that wherever they appeared [Da'ud and his troops] there plunder and slaughter followed. On Saturday [here the quotation which our author states he had taken from Baihaki follows], the 18th of this month, at night, ten Turkman [no such mode of spelling as Turkoman will be found in any lexicographical work : the derivation is from Turk, and manind —Turk-like = Turk-man] horsemen came by stealth, close to the Bagh-i-Sultan [the Sultan's garden—the garden in which the Sultan's palace was situated], and slew four Hindu foot soldiers. From thence they pushed on near the Kuhandujz [citadel], and there the elephants were kept. They espied one elephant, and on it a youth who had fallen asleep behind the neck of the animal [any one who has seen elephants and their drivers will know what is meant by this]. These Turkmans came up and began to drive the elephant, the youth being [still] asleep. The Turkmans passed on a farsang [or league] from the city, and then they awoke the youth, and said, ' Drive the elephant faster, otherwise we will kill thee.' He replied, ' I am obedient to your commandsand began to urge the animal on, the horsemen following close behind, urging it onwards, and goading it with their lances. By the time day broke, they had gone a considerable distance; and they brought the elephant to Shaburghan. Da'ud gave a present to the horsemen, and directed them to take it to Nishapur. From this the troops [of Mas'ud] acquired a very bad name, for people said, ' Among these men such neglect exists, that enemies are able to cany off an elephant from them.' The next day the Amir heard of it, and became very much irritated thereat, and reproved the elephant-drivers severely, and commanded that 100,000 dirams should be deducted from them, for the price of the elephant, and several of them were castigated. [There is no mention of 'Hindu elephant-riders' in the MS., although Hindu Filbans are mentioned in the printed text, but even then it would not follow that they were Hindus in faith.]
"On Monday, the 20th of this month, Alt! Sakman, the Hajib [Chamberlain] of Da'ud, with 2000 horse, came up to the [very] gate of Balki, and took up a position at a place called the Band-i-Kafiran, or the Infidels' Dyke, and plundered two villages. When the news reached the city, the Amir became very angry because the horses were in the Darah-i-Gaz, &c. There is not one wordTHE SALjttKIAH DYNASTY.
129
taken away some five leagues, and the driver dared not utter a word.
Da'ud [then] advanced with his forces from Shafurkan to 'Ali-abad of Balkh, and fought an engagement with the Sultan, but, notwithstanding all the efforts and endeavours of Da'ud, he was defeated.
In the month of Shawwal of the year 429 H. the whole of the Saljuks assembled together, Tughril, Beghu, and Da'ud, and also the Nialis, and the Mas'udi and Mahmudi Turks 2, some of whom had joined the Saljuks. The Sultan marched from Balkh with his forces, and led them towards Marw and Sarakhs3; and in the desert of Sarakhs an engagement ensued, which was contested from day-dawn until the time of afternoon prayer, when the Saljuks were overthrown4.
about Da'ud's coming up to the gates of Balkh, for Sakman was driven off in the afternoon by one of the Hajibs with a small body of troops, and some under the Sipah-salar; and the Turkmans retired to 'Ali-abad again, where they remained that night. He reported what had happened to Da'ud, who then advanced to 'Ali-abad from Shaburghan. As soon as Amir Mas'ud heard of his movements, he moved out to the Pul-i-Karwan until troops arrived ; and, on the 9th of Rajab, routed Da'ud and his troops as soon as they reached 'Ali-abad from the direction of the desert."
Several partial engagements took place up to the 5th of Shawwal; and, whenever the Sultan's troops could get at the Turkmans, they overthrew them, and scattered them "like thin clouds before a Biscay gale," but the difficulty was to bring them to close quarters : they would not stand. At last, the Wazir contrived to come to an accommodation with the Saljuks, who appeared as willing as he was for that course, and tracts about Nisa, Baward, and Farawah, were assigned to them ; but Mas'ud agreed to it, fully determined to attack them next year. He then returned to Hirat. Our author, as on many other occasions, has misplaced events, putting those first which happened last, and vice versd, as Baihaki's history shows ; and in some cases, as in the following page, has mentioned the same events twice over.
2 The Turkish slaves who had been first entertained by Mahmud and others, and since taken into pay by Mas'ud, are here referred to. They may have been in some way kinsmen of the Saljuks. Some of them had deserted some time previously.
8 The Sultan marched against them by way of Hirat, because the Saljuks, after having been compelled to withdraw from that place in 428 H., as already stated, had returned in the following year, and had compelled the defenders to surrender it, and the Khutbah had been read there for Tughril. Sultan Mas'ud took the opportunity, on this occasion, when marching against the Saljuks, to punish the Hiratis for surrendering so easily. He reached Hirat in Zi-Ka'dah, 430 H., and proceeded by way of Mihanah	or ^ it is
spelt both ways : European writers have transformed it into Maimanah].
* The author here is quite confused : he makes out a second engagement, but no other engagement took place than is mentioned in the preceding not*130
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRl.
The Sultan, after this, returned to Hirat ; and the Sal-juks, becoming aware of it, again sought an accommodation ; and, as a matter of necessity [on the part of the Sultan], once more a -peace was concluded. However, Sultan Mas'ud summoned troops, with all requisite stores and war-material, from Ghaznin ; but, when those reinforcements reached him, famine prevailed in Khurasan, and there was a great scarcity of forage. The forces of the Sultan had become quite powerless and ineffective, and the horses and camels had grown weak and emaciated.^ The Sultan, with his whole army, advanced towards Tus ; and Tughril retired from Nishapur, and fell back upon Sarakhs.
All the Saljuks now met together, and came to the unanimous conclusion, that they had no longer any power to oppose Sultan Mas'ud and his forces ; and, as they had been defeated several times, that it was advisable to make terms with the Sultan, or otherwise to move towards the territory of 'Irak, and abandon Khurasan altogether. The lion-hearted Amir Da'ud, who had no compeer in loftiness of spirit and energy, said :—" Confidence is necessary in making conquests6, even though it were necessary to devote [one's] life a thousand times over. I. have no means or appliances to depend upon save war ; so—Sovereignty or destruction!—Victory or death 6!" When the Saljuk chieftains beheld this bold and intrepid bearing on the part of Da'ud, they coincided with him with one accord. Having come to this determination, they sent away all their families, and dependents, and effects, into the desert; while the horsemen, alone and unincumbered, took up a position on the skirt of the desert, at Dae-kan, prepared for war and conflict.
in which also the accommodation is also referred to, but it took place before the Sultan's return to Hirat.
From the description here, the reader would scarcely understand that the Sultan had advanced in the meantime from Hirat to Nishapur. See note next page.
5	Nearly all copies of the text have the words—" should not have confidence of heartbut I read it as above, and the context proves the correctness of that reading.
6	There is nothing of this kind in Baihaki. What Da'ud said was to the effect, that the heads of the tribe made a great mistake in imagining that they would be able to obtain territory so easily in 'Irak and farther west; and, that if they should move one step out of Khurasan, Sultan Mas'ud would not allow them to rest upon the face of the earth, and would raise up powerful enemies against them every where. He ended by saying that, at least, they should try the upshot of another engagement before deciding upon abandoning ghurasan.THE SALjtJKIAH DYNASTY.
When the Sultan reached the spot, the battle commenced ; and for three, days, from morning's dawn to the setting of the sun,, the conflict went on, until, on Friday, the 9th of the month of Ramazan, in the year 431 H., the troops of Sultan Mas'ud became hard pressed, and his own Turkish troops even began to give way legion after legion. Sultan Mas'ud was defeated7; and the Saljuks gained the victory, and assumed independent sovereignty.
' This* was Mas'ud's second expedition in person against the Saljuks, although his officers had previously encountered them upon several occasions. He had passed the winter of 430-31 h. at Nlshapur, with his forces encamped in and about Baihak [not Baihakl's native place], Khowaf, Bakhurz, Isfand, Tus, and other places facing the desert. The utmost scarcity prevailed, and grain had to be brought from a great distance. On the 28th of Jamadl-ul-Akhir of 431 h. was the vernal equinox [about the end of March, 1039 a.d.], and Mas'ud prepared for a fresh campaign. He had really made no preparation for it ; but the Saljuks had issued from the Balkhan mountains and the desert, and were assembled around Sarakhs. The scarcity was so great that the force could hardly be prevented from melting away ; yet the Sultan determined to advance to Marw, notwithstanding his Wazir and nobles advised him against it [but Abu Nasr-i-Mishkan, the only one who could venture to speak his mind and expostulate effectually, was dead], as the greater part of his men had lost their horses, and had to march on foot. The animals that remained also were nearly useless, whilst the Saljuks were in possession of Marw, and were well supplied with all things. He moved from Sarakhs on the 19th of Sha'ban towards Marw. The Turkmans soon appeared, and" among them were many rebels who had deserted from the Turkish troops in India, and others ; and, according to their usual mode of fighting, continued to harass Mas'ud's troops, who wanted for every thing. The details are far too long for insertion ; but I may mention that Mas'ud and his troops fought under the greatest disadvantages, for the enemy had either emptied or filled up the few wells which the desert tract contained, while they themselves wetted their clothes beforehand, and carried water along with them. Mas'ud's men and their cattle suffered from heat and extreme thirst; and some of his Ghulams [Turkish slaves], who, on the march, had been obliged to ride on camels, in the confusion that ensued, made all the Tazik horsemen they met dismount and give up their horses to them, after which a large body of them deserted to the enemy. Mas'ud's forces became separated and confused ; order was at an end ; and leaders became separated from their men. "The Turkish troops," says BaihaVl, who was present, "went one way, and the Hindu [i. e. natives of Hind, whatever their creed] another, and neither Kurds nor 'Arabs could be distinguished. A few Ehowasis or bodyguards, who remained near the Sultan, made several and repeated charges jupon the enemy ; and Mas'ud himself, who carried a poisoned halberd or short spear in his hand, slew every one that came within arm's length of him— man and horse. I saw Mawdud [the son of Mas'ud} myself, who was galloping his horse here and there endeavouring to rally men around "him, but no one gave ear to him, for every one was for himself." This occurred on the 9th of Ramadan, 431 h., beyond.the river Marw-ar-Rud, two stages from Marw-i-Sbah-i-Jah in.132
the tabakat-i-nasirl
After the battle was over, a throne8 was set up upon the battle-field itself, and Tughril became sovereign9. Beghu proceeded to Marw, and Amir Da'ud led a force towards Tukharistan and Balkh, and subdued the territories of that region. ' Subsequently, Tughril and Da'ud marched into Khwarazm. and secured that country ; and some time after they had brought those countries-under subjection, Tughril died, and Da'ud entered into a treaty with the Mahmudis and the Sultans of Ghaznin, and became sovereign of Khurasan and the territories of 'Ajam, and the universe was given up to him \
He reigned for-a period of above twenty years, and died in the year 451 h., and the throne of sovereignty became adorned by the victorious Sultan, Alb-Arsalan.
hi. sultAn alb-arsalan-i-ghAzi, son of da'ud-i-
JAGHAR BEG.
He ascended the throne of Khurasan after Da'ud, in the year 451 h.2, and the territories of Khurasan, 'Ajam, with
8	Baihaki does not say any thing about a throne.
9	Yafa'i says that great discrepancy exists among chroniclers respecting the date of the first assumption of sovereignty by the Saljuks, and differs much from them. Guzidah, Fasih-1, and other writers of authority, state that Tughril Beg assumed independent sovereignty over the greater part of Khurasan, at Nishapiir, in 428 h., while some few writers say, in 429 h. In 431 h., after the defeat of Sultan Mas'ud, and his retreat to Ghaznin, all Khurasan fell into the hands of the Saljuks ; and the two brothers, and Beghu, their uncle, divided the territory between them. In 432 h., Tughril, who had acquired territory farther west, in 'Irak-i-'Ajam, obtained the Khalifah's consent to his assuming sovereignty, and the title of Sultan. He made Rai his capital, and chose 'Irak-i-Ajam, with its dependencies, as his portion. Khurasan was reserved for the elder brother, Jaghar Beg-i-Da'ud, who made Marw [some say Balkh] his capital ; and Beghu, the uncle, obtained Kirman, Tabas, Hari [Hirat], Bust, and as much of the territory of Hind as he could lay hands upon and filch from the Ghaznin rulers. [See page 99, in which his and Da'ud's defeat by Tughril, the slave of 'ABD-UR-RASHID, is mentioned by our author only.~\ He has made a complete muddle of Tughril's reign, as well as Da'ud's proceedings, and it is difficult to separate them, without a much longer note than space will permit.
1	This is a good specimen of our author's random mode of writing history. Tughril, who was considered the head of the family, survived Da'ud some years, and died in 455 H., as previously stated. Guzidah says he died in 453 h., Fasih-i 451 h., and some say 452 h. In nearly every copy of the text he is styled Alb-Arsalan-i-Tughril Beg, a blunder sufficiently apparent. His name was not Tughril.
2	Alb-Arsalan ascended the throne of 'Irak and Khurasan in Ramazan 455 11.,THE SALJCKIAH DYNASTY.
133
the whole of 'Irak, Khwarazm. Tabaristan, Kirman, Fars, and Sistan he brought under his sway3. He also led an army into Turkistan and Turan, and the Maliks of Turkistan, and the Afrasiyabi Amirs, submitted to his authority.
The vastness of his forces, the immensity of his war-material, and the military resources of his empire, attained to such extent, that the intellect of the geometrician would remain in the labyrinth of helplessness, in an attempt to compute the quantity : as a poet—in all probability the Hakim Sana'i—who, after Alb-Arsalan's decease, composed a dirge, says of him, in the following strophe :—
"Thou sawest the head of Alb-Arsalan elevated to the sublimity of the seventh heaven :
Come to Marw that thou mayest see the body of Alb-Arsalan buried in the dust.
Attended neither by train or guards, nor the moon-faced, dimple-chinn'd;
Nor the steed press'd by his thighs, nor the reins within his grasp V'
When Alb-Arsalan ascended the throne, he despatched ambassadors to the Court of Ghaznin. and entered into the strongest terms of friendship and amity with Sultan Ibrahim B, and did not interfere with the Ghaznin dominions. He occupied himself in holy wars against Turkistan and Rum, and in securing possession of the territories of Hijaz
not before ; but he succeeded to his father's dominions in Khurasan, at his father's death in 451 H., subject to Tughril of course. His correct name and title is 'U?d-ud-Daulah, Abu Shuja'-i-Muhammad, Alb-Arsalan.
3	Our author forgets to state, or did not know, that, by the will of Tughril Beg, Suliman, son of Jaghar Beg-i-Da'ud, succeeded; but Kal-timish [also written Katl-mish], son of Isra'Il, Tugh,ril's uncle, with the aid of the Turkmans, fought a battle with Suliman, at Damghan, and overthrew him. On this Alb-Arsalan came against Kal-timish, and in the action which ensued, near Damghan, Kal-timish was killed by a fall from his horse, and Alb-Arsalan was left without a rival. The Khallfah, Al-Ka'im Bi-amr-ullah, conferred upon Ijim the title of Burhan-ul-Muminin. Yafa'I, however, says that as no successor had been named by the will of Tughril, Suliman, half-brother of Alb-Arsalan, ascended the throne, and that ^al-timish joined Alb-Arsalan against him.
4	This verse, minus the last half, is what Gibbon would lead us to believe was the inscription on Alb-Arsalan's tomb. The third line is different in some copies, and might be rendered:—" Neither with the glittering blade at his side," &c., or, "Neither attended by his train with the star [one of the emblems of royalty], nor the moon-faced," &c.
6 See page 103, and note 9.134
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRL
and Misr; and, influenced by the sense of pure faith and belief, he began to render services to the Court of the Lord of the Faithful, Al-Ka im. He was distinguished upon several occasions with honorary dresses from the Khali-fah's Court, and the lieutenancy of the capital, Baghdad, was conferred upon him.
The writer and author of this Tabakat, Minhaj-i-Saraj, Al-Jurjani, intimates that, in the year 613 H., he was at the Court of Sijistan, and in that capital there was an Imam 6 [Patriarch], the teacher of the doctors in wisdom and philosophy, and the asylum of the learned of the time7, whom they called Imam Rashid-ud-Din-i-'Abd-ul-Majid. I heard him, when speaking of the .magnificence and majesty of Alb-Arsalan, state, that that monarch, in the year 453 or 454 H., had undertaken the subjugation of the territory of Turkistan. When he reached the. frontiers of Kash-ghar and Balasaghun8, messengers followed him thither, bringing intelligence that the Lord of the Faithful, the Khalifah, Al-Ka im B'illah 9, had sustained a great mis-
6 It will,, doubtless, be noticed that our author seldom quotes the writings of others, and that most of his information is hearsay. The value, or otherwise, of his statements may be judged of accordingly. How he had been deceived by his "asylum of the learned of the time," maybe seen from note2, page 135. He only quotes Abu-l-Fazl-i-Baihaki for the Saljuk dynasty, a very good and trustworthy authority, but often quotes him incorrectly, as shown in the preceding notes.
" The meaning of which is, that he was, by our author's account, one of the most learned men of his time.
8	A city of Mawar-un-Nahr, near Kashghar, and the capital of Afrasiyab, which continued the seat of government of his descendants until the time of Gur Khan [not Kor Khan, as Europeans generally write it], e) stands for g as well as k in Persian, unless explained to the contrary.
9	Al-Ka'imBi-amr-'ullah. TheKaisarof Rum, Armanus [Romanus], entered the dominions of Alb-Arsalan with the intention of invading Iran, but the greater part of his army perished through the excessive heat, and the Kaisar retired. Subsequently, Armanus again invaded Alb-Arsalan's dominions, and the latter, with 12,000 horse—a rather improbable number—marched to encounter him. They met at a place named Malazah-gird [the ancient Mauro—Castrum], in Azarbaijan, in the vicinity of Akh,lat, in which action the Kaisar was taken captive by a Rumi [Roman] slave in Alb-Arsalan's army, whose person was so weak and so contemptible, that at the time of mustering the army the 'Ariz [muster-master, not a "general"] refused to take his name down, when Sa'ad-ud-Daulah, the Shahnah or agent of Alb-Arsalan, at Baghdad, said :—u Write down his name ; who knows but that he might take the Kaisar prisoner !" Guzidah states that Alb-Arsalan himself ordered that his name should be taken down. The emperor Armanus [Romanus] was defeated and taken prisoner in 459 H. [after the death of Al-Ka'Im], but was set at liberty the same year, on undertaking to pay "a
early tribute at the rate of 1000 dinars a-day, or 360,000 dinars every year."THE SALJOKIAH DYNASTY.
135
fortune—that an action had taken place between him and the Christians of Rum, and that the troops of Islam had been overthrown; and further, that the Khalifah himself had been taken prisoner, and had been immured within the walls of a fortress, situated in the lofty mountains of the territory of Anbar1 and the Jazirah [Mesopotamia] on the frontiers of the empire of Rum. The fortress in question is situated on a high hill, or mountain, on the bank of the river Furat [Euphrates].
Alb-Arsalan, with a force of i8q,ooo horse, all brave and veteran soldiers, returned with the utmost expedition, in order to release the Lord of the Faithful, and revenge the defeat of the army of Islam. He pushed on with such speed, and made such long marches, that in the space of sixteen or seventeen days—God knows the truth of the statement—he appeared at the foot of the walls of that fortress, which was situated on the bank of the Furat, from Balasaghun. Adopting such means of procedure as the occasion demanded, he called upon the governor of that fortress to embrace the Muhammadan faith, and caused him to be ennobled with the robe of Islam; and, with the aid of Almighty God, he released the Khalifah from confinement 2. He accompanied the Khalifah's sacred caval-
1 There is a place of this name on the Euphrates, Felugia or Anbar, mentioned in Julian's campaigns as Pirisabur, and called the second city in Assyria. The Khalifah was confined at 'Anah. See next note over leaf. A copyist might write jtil for
3 Our author has made a muddle of the reigns of these Saljuk monarchs, and betrays such complete ignorance here, that we may doubt his correctness in many other cases after, and before. Both in the text above, as rendered faithfully, and word for word, and in the six lines devoted to the history of Al-Ka'im's Khilafat, in Section IV., our author plainly asserts that the Khalifah's troops were defeated by the Nasaranis or Christians, and that the Khalifah was made prisoner by them, and confined in a fortress on the frontier until released by Alb-Arsalan. The author, apparently, had either no written authorities to refer to, or did not trouble himself to do so, and composed his work chiefly on hearsay, hence the woful blunder he has herein made. The Lubb-ut-Tawarikh, strange to say, has made the same error. The Khalifah Al-Ka'im never fell into the hands of the Romans, and was never confined in a fortress by them.
Our author has confounded the events of Tughril Beg's reign with those of Alb-Arsalan's. In 448 H. [Muntakhab-ut-Tawarijch says in 447 H.] Al-Ka'im summoned Tughril Beg to Baghdad, and directed that his name should be read in the Khutbah after his own, and also be impressed upon the coin ; while the name of the Malik-ur-Rafcim-i-Abu Nasr, son of 'Imad-ud-din, son of Sultan-ud-Daulah, Buwlah, was to come in after Tughril's. Tughril finding his oppor-THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
cade to the precincts of the capital of Islam, and then solicited permission to return [to his own dominions]. Having obtained it, at the time of taking leave, Alb-Arsa-lan dismounted from his horse, and honoured his imperial lips by placing them to the hoof of the animal which bore the Lord of the Faithful, and kissed it. On this occasion, in return for these signal services rendered by .him, during all this time, to the Court of Islam, he received this much commendation and esteem, that the "Lord of the-Faithful, Al-Ka'im Bi-amr-'ullah, thus expressed himself:—"Thou hast saved the servants of God from slaughter, and the country from destruction." Let those who read these words calmly ponder in their minds between the extent of the services of Alb-Arsalan-i-Ghazi, and on the sublime fortitude and high resolve expressed in the words of the
tunity, after pretending friendship towards, and alliance with, the Buwiah ruler of Baghdad, seized and imprisoned him. In 448 H. Al-Ka'im espoused the daughter of Tughril's brother [daughter of Da'ud-i-Jaghar Beg], Khadijah by name. In 450 H. Basasiri rose against the Khalifah, and put him in confinement in the fortress of 'Anah, a town of Diyar-i-Bakr, or Mesopotamia, on the east bank of the Furat, four miles from Rawa, and seven days'journey from Baghdad by karwan route. The Khalifah appealed to Tughril Beg, not to Alb-Arsalan, who did not come to the throne until nearly five years after. Tughril reached Baghdad in 451 H., Basasirl fled, the Khalifah was set at liberty, and Tughril went to meet him, and walked, on foot, at the head of the Khallfah's horse. On that occasion Al-Ka'im hailed him—" Ya Rukn-ud-din !"—"O Pillar of the Faith!"—and his title, which had been Rukn-ud-Daulah, or Pillar of the State, was changed to Rukn-ud-din. Tugh,ril entered Baghdad on the 14th of the month of Safar ; and in that same year also Da'ud-i-Jaghar Beg, his elder brother, died. Some few authors say these events happened in 452 H. Basasiri was soon after captured and put to death, but Fasih-i says he was captured before the Khallfah's release. In 455 H. Tughril espoused a daughter of the Khallfah's. The betrothal took place at Tabriz, but Tughril was desirous that the marriage should be consummated at his capital, which was Rai, and he set out for that city ; but before he reached his palace, having halted a short distance from the city, to enjoy the cool air, haemorrhage came on [not " dysentery"] and could not be stopped. He died 8th of Ramazan ; and the Khallfah's daughter hearing of his decease, when on the way to join him, returned, a virgin bride, to her father at Baghdad.
I may mention that the TarIkh,-i-Yafa'T, which is generally so very correct and minute in the description of important events, says not a word respecting any hostilities between Alb-Arsalan and the Romans, and nothing whatever about Armanus [Romanus] having been captured.
The Khulasat-ul-Akhbar turns the two expeditions of the Romans, in the last of which Romanus was taken captive, into one, and again makes the same Romanus a prisoner in Malik Shah's reign. There is much similar discrepancy in some other authors, which I have not space to notice here.THE SALJUKIAH DYNASTY.
137
Lord of the Faithful, and what amount of eulogium everyone of them conveyed.
Alb-Arsalan's reign extended over a period of fourteen years 3. He ascended the throne in the year 451 H., and in the month of Safar, 465 H., he was martyred4. May the Almighty again raise up their pure souls with like glory, and reserve them to Himself in Paradise above !
IV. SULTAN JALAL-UD-D!N, MALIK SHAH 5, SON OF ALB-ARSALAN.
Sultan Malik Shah ascended the throne at Marw, after the death of his father, and took possession of the whole of the territories of I-ran, Turan, the Jibal [Highlands of 'Irak], 'Irak, Dilam, Tabaristan, Rum, Migr, and Sham, besides Diyar-i-Bakr, Arman, Sistan, and Fars ; and in all the pulpits of Islam the Khutbah was read in his name, and the coin, both diram and dinar, became ennobled by his titles.
He was, himself, a victorious and a conquering monarch, and governed with a firm hand ; and was sagacious, brave, and just, and endowed with all the accomplishments befitting a sovereign and empire. He brought under his sway the whole of the countries of Turkistan6, and sub-
3	The length of his reign depends upon how it is computed. If his accession to his father's territory be reckoned, of course it is considerably longer ; but he succeeded as an independent sovereign in the tenth month of 555 H.
4	Our author does not say how his martyrdom took place. Perhaps his authority for the Khallfah's captivity in the Roman territory did not inform
him. It is very interesting, but much too long for insertion here ; but his assassinator was Yiisuf, a native of Khwarazm, the governor of the fortress of Uarzam [on the Jlhun], which Alb-Arsalan had taken. The murderer was nearly escaping, when a Farrash, or tent-pitcher, beat in his head with a wooclen mallet, used for driving tent-pegs. This took place in Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 465 H. Other authors state that the name of' the fortress in question was Firbad, or Firbaz.
6 His title, according to most writers, was Mu'izz-ud-Din, and his patronymic, Abu-l-Fath. The Nizam-ut-Tawarikli and Jahan-Ara say his title was Jalal-ud-Daulah. The correct titles appear to have been Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Mu'izz-ud-Daulah, Malik Shah, Yamin [some say KasIm]-i-Amir-uI-Muminin.
6 In 468 H. Malik Shah entered Mawar-un-Nahr, and subdued that territory, and took the Khan of Samrkand captive. He was taken all the way from Samrjcand to Isfahan on foot; but, subsequently, he was taught better beha viour, and restored. In 471 h. Malik Shah again entered Mawar-un-Nahr, and
K138
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
dued the territory of Rum ; and the vice-royalty and sovereignty of Baghdad, subordinate to the Dar-ul-Khilafat. were conferred upon him. In Makkah and Madinah, and in Yaman and the country of Hijaz, in the whole of the pulpits of Islam, the Khutbah was read in his name.
He carried On various hostilities, and undertook many holy wars in various parts of the. country of the Turks and the territory of Rum ; and, on every side of the territories of the east and of the west, he acquired a kingdom, and placed viceroys of his own therein. He conferred the kingdom of Rum upon one of his brothers, and, after him, he gave it to his own son, Mahmud7; and, up to this period, that territory is still in the possession of his descendants, a*s will, hereafter, please God, be mentioned8.
removed, for the second time,' Suliman Khan from the government. He was subsequently sent to the fortress of Uz-gand [Ur-ganj of the present day], and there immured. This is, no doubt, the same event as is referred to in the Jami'ut-Tawarikh,. and in AlfT, but under a wrong year. In those works it is stated that Malik Shah, in 482 H., annexed the territory of Samrkand, taking it from Ahmad Khan, son of Ja'far Khan, who was a great tyrant. He was the brother of Turkan Khatun, the consort of Malik Shah, who was mother of Sultan Sanjar.
7	This is totally incorrect: Mahmud, son of Malik Shah, was never ruler of the territory of Ruin. See note 4. page 157.
8	Our author's account of this reign is much the same as the tragedy of "Hamlet" would be with the part of the Prince of Denmark left out. I must give a brief outline of the chief events that occurred to make it intelligible :—
The year following his accession, 466 II., his brother, Takish [Tughan Shah], rebelled at Hirat. He was taken and imprisoned at Isfahan, the capital. Then followed the rebellion of his uncle, Kawurd, according to Guzklah ; but he was the founder of the Kirman dynasty of the Saljiiks, which our author says not one word about. They met in battle at Karkh,, near Baghdad, and Kawurd was defeated and slain ; but his son succeeded him in Kirman, and was allowed to hold that territory. In 467 H. [Jami'-ut-Tawarik^ and Alfi, mistaking the dates, or wrongly written in the copies of those works, say in 473 H.] his brother, Takish [this name is written by our author Takigh ; in the Shams-ul-Lughat, Tagish [Takish ?] ; and in the BurMn-i-Kati', Takash] rebelled, and seized several districts in northern Khurasan, and shut himself up in Nishapur. Malik Shah sent an army against him [Jami'-ut-Tawarikh, and Alfi say he went in person, and that it was in 476 H.]. In 468 H. he subdued Mawar-un-Nahr for the first time, previously mentioned. In the following year Antaklah [Antioch] was taken, and the territory as far as the sea-coast. In 47.1 H. Samrkand was taken, and Suliman Khan, the ruler, again deposed, and confined in the fortress of Uz-gand. On this occasion, Malik Shah demanded the hand of Turkan Khatun. daughter of Tumghash [also written Tughmakh] Khan, a descendant of Bughra Khan. In 475 H. Khwarazm was subdued, and conferred upon Nush-Tigin, who founded the Khwarazm-Shah 1 dynasty. [See note page 169.] The follow-THE SALJUKIAH DYNASTY.
139
In the Muntakhab-i-Tarikh-i-Nasirl. which work was composed by one of the great men of the Court1 of Ghaznin, I read that, upon a certain occasion, Sultan Malik Shah requested his Wazir, Nizam-ul-Mulk, to make ready his forces, as he had resolved upon proceeding into the territory of Mi§r [Egypt]. The Wazir, Nizam-ul-Mulk, represented, saying :—" It is right for the Sultan to ponder well over this undertaking, because that country contains the Karamitah sect, and other heretics, and something of the profanities of their creed might come to the hearing of an orthodox monarch like his Majesty ; and I do not consider it right that such depravity should find access to the royal mind." Sultan Malik Shah enjoined that they should be diligent in making due preparation for the expedition, as for him to repudiate that determination of his was impossible. Nizam-ul-Mulk [consequently] made great preparations, and got all things in readiness ; and the Sultan, with -a numerous army, set out in the direction of Misr.
When he arrived in the vicinity of it, the people of Misr hastened forth to perform the duty of receiving the Sultan ; but he paid no regard to any one, neither did he turn his eyes towards any thing, until he arrived before the gate of
ing year saw the rise of Hasan-i-Sabbah, and the heretic sect of Mulahidahs'. In 480 H. Malik Shah gave the territory of Rum to Suliman, son of Kal-timish, which his descendants held for a long period of years. Sham lie bestowed upon his brother, Tutash [,_£:» not "Tunish"], who gained successes over the 'Arabs, RumTs, and Farangs. Other territories were conferred upon some of his Mamluks or slaves, as will be mentioned hereafter. In 482 H. [the period assigned in. Jami'-ut-Tawarikh and Alfl for the expedition into Mawar-un-Nahr, just referred to,] Malik Shah undertook a campaign against the Kaisar, as the Greek emperors of Constantinople are termed by Muhammadan writers; upon which occasion, as related by all authors of repute, Sultan Malik Shah fell into the hands of a party of the Kaisar's soldiers ; but, not having been recognized by any one, he was released through the great tact of his minister, Nigam-ul-Mulk. Next day, a battle took place between them, when the Kaisar was taken prisoner, on which occasion Malik Shah set him at liberty. In 481 H., as has been mentioned farther on, Malik Shah went on a pilgrimage to Makkah. In 484 H., Nigam-ul-Mulk was deprived of the Wazlrship through the intrigues of Turkan Khatun. In 485 H., Malik Shah sent a force against the Mulahidahs, but it was defeated by those schismatics ; and, in that same year, Nigam-ul-Mulk was assassinated by them. He was the first that fell beneath the daggers of that sect ; and, within a few days over a month, Malik Shah himself departed this life at Baghdad.
1 Ha?rat, signifying the Court, the presence of the sovereign.
K 2140
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
the city of Misr2. When he had passed over the ferry of Misr, aijd the river Nil, he inquired which was the palace of Fir'awn [Pharaoh].
On being told where it was situated, he turned towards that direction, and ordered his army to halt on the spot where it then was. Sultan Malik Shah, attended only by a single stirrup-holder, set out- alone towards the place indicated. He then dismounted from his horse, and, at the place where was the palace3 of Fir'awn, performed a prayer of two genuflections. He then laid his forehead in the dust, and lifted up his voice in supplication, saying :—" Oh God, Thou didst bestow the dominion of Misr upon one, Thy servant, and he proclaimed, saying:—' I am your most supreme Lord4;' but this Thy erring servant, having been exalted [by Thee] to the sovereignty of the countries of the east and the west, has come hither, and, bowing his forehead in the dust, says :—' Great God ! O Lord most High! be pleased of Thy grace and goodness to have mercy upon this Thy servant.'"
Then, raising his head from his posture of adoration, he came back, and, without entering the city of Misr [at all], returned to Khurasan. This anecdote is related to show the exalted nature of the faith of that just and victorious sovereign6.
2	Al-Misr—The City—Old Cairo, as it is called by the Chroniclers of the Crusades. Its inhabitants, in ancient times, were rated at two millions ; and those of New Cairo [Kahirah] at four millions. The old city stood on the east bank of the Nile, and was some twenty-two miles in extent. Some say its extent was thirty miles. Old Cairo, or The Misr, was, perhaps, deducting exaggerations, the largest and most densely populated city the world ever contained, after Kahirah, ancient Thebes, and Babylon on the Euphrates. The name Misr is generally applied at present to the whole of Egypt, but should be Diyar-ul-Misiiah, as in ancient 'Arab writings.
3	Lit. "Where was the place of Fir'awn's throne," signifying his Court, residence, &c.
4	Kur'an, chap, lxxix.
* Whatever the author of the Muntakh,ab-i-Tarikh,-i-Nasiri may have said on the subject, I may here mention that this statement of Malik Shah's having made a journey, accompanied by a "large army," into Egypt and crossed the Nile, is not confirmed, in fact, is not recorded in any history with which I am acquainted. Malik Shah certainly made a tour throughout his dominions,
"from AntakTah of Sham and Ladakiah of Rum to Mawar-un-Nahr, the frontiers of Khata-i and Khutan ; and from the Bahr-i-Khurz [the Caspian] to Yaman and Tayif." He also performed the pilgrimage to Makkah and Madinah ; but there is no mention of Misr or the Nile. Some of the story-THE SALJUKIAH DYNASTY.
141
Another anecdote, respecting the same monarch, is narrated in the Muntakhab-i-Tarikh-i-Nasiri; that some persons in Kuhistan sent in a memorial to the Wazir, Nizam-ul-Mulk, to the effect that a wealthy person had died, leaving no other heir behind him than a sister's child, and that he had left great wealth, and further that it ought to go to the Bait-ul-Mal6 [the royal treasury]. Nizam-ul-Mulk, at a convenient opportunity, represented the matter to Malik Shah, but he obtained no answer, and did not receive one, until after mentioning it three times. Malik Shah said he would give him a reply respecting it on the following day ; but, when it came, he set out for the chase.
Nizam-ul-Mulk, in his eagerness to augment the royal treasury, followed after the Sultan [to obtain the promised reply]. Malik Shah had to pass the camp bazar on his way; and," when he returned from the hunting-ground, gave directions to one of his attendants, saying:—" I am hungry; and in the bazar I saw some wheaten cakes7, and my appetite has a mind for some. Go and purchase as many as you can procure, and bring them hither."
When Malik Shah approached the precincts of the camp, he ascended a rising ground, and sat down, until such time as they brought the wheaten cakes. He then made all the nobles with him sit down to partake of the cakes. There was one very large dish full8, which sufficed for more than fifty Maliks and Amirs, with their attendants. After he had eaten, Malik Shah arose and inquired of his attendant: —" For how much didst thou purchase these ?" The man, with eyes bent on the ground, replied :—" For four and a half dangs9 [little pieces] of coin." The Sultan then asked the whole of those present, whether they had had sufficient, to which they replied, that through the Sultan's liberality they had eaten all that they desired. Malik Shah, on
books mention it, but the account is evidently copied from our author. The Isma'IlT Khalifahs were independent of Malik Shah.
6	See note 6, p. 62.
7	Thin cakes of paste called "tutmaj."
8	All the copies of the work but two say there were ten large dishes full. One copy says two ; but, as one large dish is mentioned in another work, which gives this same anecdote, I have adopted that reading.
9	A dang signifies a grain in general, either of wheat, barley, or the like, and is used to signify the fourth part of a dram. It is also used to signify the sixth part of a city, and the like.142
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
hearing the price, defrayed the amount out of his own private purse; and, turning towards Nizam-ul-Mulk, he said :—" A poor frail creature like Malik Shah, and a minister such as Nizam-ul-Mulk, and so considerable a number of followers, have eaten their fill at the cost of four and a half little pieces of coin ; therefore it would be the height of inhumanity to covet the property of orphans. Whosoever hath amassed wealth, and hath accumulated both lawful and unlawful gains, did so in order that, after his decease, his property should go to his progeny and his dependents, and not that I should take possession of it arbitrarily. Therefore give up the matter, and say no more on the subject." The mercy of the Almighty be upon him ! and may those, who read this, utter a benediction to his memory and to mine.
Many monuments of the goodness and wisdom of that excellent monarch remain in the world, among which one is, that the astronomical calculations were, during his reign, tested anew, and the calendar reformed ; and it was after the following manner:—It had been discovered from observations, that, from the want of an intercalation, very great confusion existed with regard to the lunar months, and that calculations had fallen into disorder, and that the zodiacal signs in the almanac had become involved in error. Sultan Malik Shah commanded that the most learned men in the science of astronomy, and the most profound arithmeticians, should make fresh observations, and that the seasons and months should be again tested and adjusted ; and the first day of spring, which is the first degree of the sign Aries, became named, after that monarch, the No-roz-i-Jalali.
Nizam-ul-Mulk, Tusi, who has left in the world so many proofs of his goodness ahd nobleness, was his Wazir ; and Shaikh Abu Sa'id-i-Abu-l-Khayr, and Imam Ghazzali lived in his reign. Sultan Malik Shah's reign extended over a period of twenty-six years, and, in the year 491 H.1, he died. God alone is immortal.
1 Sic in all copies of the work. Our author is greatly out of his reckoning here. According to the Jami'-iit-Tawarikh, GuzTdah, Alfi, Fasih-i, Lubb-ut-Tawarikh, and all others of authority, Malik Shah died at Baghdad in the month of Shasvwal, 485 H., six years before the date our author gives; and, according to the Nigam-ut-Tavvarikh and others, in 471 H.THE SALJUKIAH DYNASTY.
143
V. MUHAMMAD a, SON OF MALIK SHAH.
When Sultan Malik Shah took his departure from this world, three sons survived him. Muhammad, -the elder,
3 Here we have a specimen of our author's mode of writing history ; arid, if we may judge of the rest of his work from this part, but little dependence can be placed in him. He leaves out the reigns of MAHMUD and BARKIARUK, the successors of Malik Shah, entirely, a period of thirteen years ! Space will only permit ijie to give a brief summary of those events.
After Malik Shah's death, at Baghdad, his consort; Turkan Khatun, who had previously been plotting to secure the succession of her son, Mughis-ud-Din, Mahijiud, set him up at Baghdad, and had the Khutbah read for him. She sent off swift messengers to Isfahan to secure the person of Barkiaruk, the eldest son, who had been nominated heir and successor by his father. Having succeeded in securing him, Turkan Khatun, with her son Mahmud, advanced towards Isfahan, the capital. Barkiaruk, aided by the slaves and partisans of the late Wazir, Nizam-ul-Mulk, who had been removed from office at Turkan Khatun's instigation, because he opposed her views, succeeded in escaping from Isfahan to Rai, where forces flocked around him from all parts. He defeated bodies of troops sent against him upon two occasions, but was not powerful enough, as yet, to attempt to regain Isfahan, and so he remained at Rai. Turkan Khatun having died in Ramazan, 487 H., he moved against the capital, and Mahmud, his brother and rival, came forth to submit to him, and the brothers embraced each other. Some of Mahmud's partisans, however, succeeded in seizing Barkiaruk, arf& were going to deprive him of his sight, when Mahmud was seized with small-pox, and died on the third day. There is some discrepancy here, among a few authors of authority, who state that Barkiaruk's escape took place in 488 H., and that he again retired to Rai, where he was crowned and enthroned, and that he was again seized and im-prisoned in 489 H., at which time his brother Malimud died, as above related. However, on the death of his brother, Barkiaruk was brought forth from his prison, and raised to the throne ; and, from this date, his reign properly commences. The Khallfah acknowledged him, and the titles he conferred upon him were, according to Yafa'i, Guzldah, and others, RUKN-UD-DIN, ABU-L-MUZAFFAR, BARKIARUK:; but Fasih-i and others say, RUKN-UD-DIN, ABU-L-FAWAR1S, were his titles. There was no peace for him still, and he had constantly to take the field. In 488 H. his uncle, Takigh, revolted, but he was defeated ; and, in the following year, he was moving against another uncle, Arsalan-i-Arghu, when a slave of the latter put his master to death, before Barkiarujc arrived. On the death of Arsalan-i-Arghu, who had held the greater part of Khurasan, in 489 H., Sanjar, the third1 son of Malik Shah, and full brother of Muhammad, was set up in Khurasan ; and, in 490 H., when in his eleventh year, his brother, Sultan Barkiaruk, nominated him to the government of Khurasan as his deputy. In 492 H., the year in which Jerusalem was taken by the Crusaders, and Sultan Ibrahim of Ghaznin died, Barkiaruk's troops revolted against him, and he retired into Khuzistan. On this, his other brother, Muhammad, who appears to have been in revolt since 489 H. [some say 490 H.], moved from Arran of Azarbaijan to Hamadan, during Barkiarfik's absence, and assumed the throne. In Rajab of the following year, Barkiaruk marched against him, but was defeated, and had to retire into IQiuzistan again.144
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
they called by the name of Tir, and the second son was named Sanjar, and the youngest, Mahmud3.
Muhammad Tir, the eldest, ascended the imperial throne,
He, however, regained sufficient strength during the next year to be able to march against Muhammad again ; and, in Jamadi-ul-Akhir, he defeated him in 'Irak, and Muhammad fled to Rai, at .which time, according to Fasih-i, Sanjar joined him from Khurasan. In 493 h., according to Fasih-i, Barkiaruk was again defeated by Muhammad ; and, in the same year, the former had to encounter Sanjar in Khurasan, but he was again unsuccessful, and had to fly. Barkiaruk, notwithstanding he was exceedingly weak from severe illness, set out from Baghdad to oppose Muhammad ; but the great nobles on either side succeeded in effecting an accommodation between the brothers, and Muhammad returned to Kazwin, of which part he had held the government previously. Muhammad, however, soon regretted what he had done, and further hostilities arose. Barkiaruk again marched against him, and, in Rabi'-uI-Akhir, 495 h., a battle took place between them near Sawah, in which Muhammad was defeated and routed, and he fled to Isfahan, followed by Barkiaruk, who invested him therein. Muhammad ventured out to try and raise the investment, but was again overthrown, and fled towards Khue. Barkiaruk followed, and came up with him near Ganjah, and again defeated him. In Jamadi-ul-Akhir. 496 h., a peace was brought about, on the agreement that Muhammad should have the western parts of the empire, Azarbaijan, Sham. Arman, Gurjistan, and a part of 'Irak, and Barkiaruk the remainder of the empire. This having been agreed upon, Barkiaruk set out on his return to Baghdad ; but his illness assumed a more dangerous form on the way thither, and he died on the 12th of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 498 h., after a stormy reign of twelve years, having nominated his son, Malik Shah, his successor. This is a mere outline of the events entirely left out by our author; and, in the account which he gives of Muhammad's reign, he makes still more serious errors than before. Gibbon [chap, lvii.] destroys the empire of the Saljuks in a few words. He asserts that "The greatness and unity of the Turkish empire expired in the person of Malek Shah," and of course never mentions his successors, Mahmud, Barkiaruk, or Muhammad. A little farther on he does say that " Sangiar, the last hero of their race," was unknown to the Franks, and that he " might have been made prisoner by the Franks, as well as by the Uzes." He means the Ghuzz tribe probably; but he omitted to state that the first Crusaders were opposed, really, by about the least powerful of the Satraps of the Saljuk empire. The eight successors of this "the last of lys race," as well as himself, will bp mentioned farther on.
3 Our author is totally incorrect here again. Muhammad did not succeed his father, as already shown, neither did three sons [most of the copies of the work say "two"] only survive Malik Shah. There were four, the eldest of whom was Barkiaruk ; the youngest, Mahmud, an account of whom I have just given. The other two sons were Muhammad and Sanjar, who were full brothers : an adopted son is also mentioned. The name Tir [J=J] and Tabr [jj], for some copies say one, and some the other, given to Muhammad by our author, is not mentioned in any other work, and the significations of either do not appear applicable, I am inclined to consider that he has confounded the name of Muhammad with that of his uncle Tutish [u^], the progenitor of the SaljuV dynasty of Sham, out of whose hands the Franks wrested Antioch, in the first Crusade.THE SALJUKIAH DYNASTY.
145
and all the Maliks and great nobles, with their loins girded, stood before him ready to do his bidding. The Wazirs, or ministers of the east and the west, by their tact and experience, succeeded in securing possession of the whole of the territories of the empire ; and the Sultans of the neighbouring countries submitted to his suzerainty.
Sultan Muhammad Tir, however, was a person wholly given to pleasure ; and, having found his dominions tranquil and undisturbed, he was in the habit of abandoning himself wholly to wine. He never led his forces in person towards any part of the frontiers of his empire, neither did he nominate any forces [under others for that service] ; consequently, no event worthy of record took place during his reign, nor did his territories acquire any-extension. His life of pleasure soon terminated ; and, after passing two years in gaiety and jollity, he died; and the sovereignty passed to Sultan Sanjar4.
4 Muhammad, born 474 H., whose correct titles, are Qhiyas-ud-Dln, Abu Shuja'. Muhammad, Kasim-i-Amir-ul-Muminin, whom our author calls a wine-bibber, and wholly addicted to pleasure, and who, according to his account, but on what authority he does not mention, never led his troops or despatched any under his nobles upon any expedition whatever, was, on the testimony of authors of undoubted authority, one of the most intrepid of the Saljuk sovereigns, of high principle, faithful to his engagements, truthful, just, a cherisher of his subjects, and moreover pious and temperate. See Rauzat-us-Safa for his character. At the very outset of his reign, having claimed the whole empire as his right, he moved to Baghdad, against the adherents of Malik Shah, son of BarkiaruV, who had been set up as successor to his father's dominions, according to the terms arranged between Barkiaru^ and Muhammad already explained. Sadakah and Ayaz were defeated, Sadakah slain [Fasih-i, however, says he was put to death in 501 H.], Ayaz taken prisoner, and Malik Shah was seized and kept in confinement. In 504 H. Muhammad defeated the Mulahidahs, who had acquired great strength during the stormy period of Barkiaruk's reign, and had occupied a strong fortress of Isfahan, named Kala'-i-Shah. The place was reduced, and the leader put to death. After this, an expedition into Hindustan—the western frontier must be referred to—the destruction of a famous idol-temple, and the removal of the idol to Isfahan, is mentioned in some authors of authority. It seems improbable, but is distinctly mentioned, and further research may throw some light upon it. Fasih-i, however, does not mention it. Subsequently Muhammad despatched an army, under the command of one of his great nobles, against Almiit, the stronghold of Hasan-i-Sabbab, the head of the sect of Mulahidahs, but the Sultan's death happening soon after prevented the expedition succeeding. Muhammad died in 510 H., but some authors say in 511 11., so that he reigned tivelve years and nine months.146
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
VI. SULTAN-UL-A'ZAM, MU'IZZ-UD-DUNYA-WA-UD-DIN5, SANJAR, SON OF MALIK SHAH.
Sultan Sanjar was a great, dignified, and mighty-monarch. His birth took place in the country of Sanjar, in the year 479 H., at the time when his father, Malik Shah, was engaged in the service of the Court of the Khilafat. and occupied in the disposal of the affairs of the Lord of the Faithful.
When his father died, Sultan Sanjar was in his tenth year, and his brother Muhammad ascended the throne6. After his brother's death, Sanjar was raised to the sovereignty ; and was distinguished by the Court of Baghdad with a dress of honour, a standard, and a commission of investiture. At the capital, Marw of Shah-i-Jahan, and throughout the whole of the territories of Islam, over which his father and grandfather had held sway, the Khutbah was read for him, and his name was impressed upon the coin.
When he attained unto years of discretion, the flower of youth, and the bloom of manhood, the dominions of the east and of the west came under the control and administration of the slaves and vassals of his empire7. His first
5	Yafa'i says his titles were Sultan-ul-A'zam, Mu'izz-ud-Dln, and his patronymic Abu Haris-i-Sanjar. Fanakati calls him Mu'izz-ud-Daulah ; Fasih-i, Saif-ud-Daulah ; Mirat-i-Jahan Numa styles him Sultar.-us-SalatTn, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Abu-Haris, &c. ; and Nizam-ut-TawarTkh. and Muntakh,ab say his patronymic was Abu-l-Haris-i-Ahmad.
6	On the death of Muhammad, Sanjar, then the only surviving son of Malik Shah, who had held the government of Khurasan since his brother, BarkTariik, conferred it upon him, assumed sovereignty over the whole empire, notwithstanding Muhammad had bequeathed the sovereignty over 'Irak to his son Mahmud. An engagement took place between Sanjar and his nephew, in which the latter was defeated; but Sanjar allowed him to retain the sovereignty, subject to himself. Mahmud did not enjoy it long, for he died the same year, and his son, Tughril, succeeded ; but he too died the same year, and Mas'iid, another son of Sultan Muhammad, succeeded. There having been two Mas'ud's and three Tughril's, several authors, one of whom is generally so correct as to dates—the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh—have confounded them. See note 6, p. 151, and note 5, p. 173.
7	Sanjar did not succeed to the sovereignty over the whole empire until the death of his elder brother, Muhammad, in 511 h. [Fasih-I says in 510 n.], although he had held great part of Khurasan, almost independent, for some time previously. In 511 h., he was just thirty-one years old, and he then assumed the title of Sultan.THE SALJUKIAH DYNASTY.
147
hostile operations were directed against Muhammad, Khan8 of Samrkand, whom he defeated; and, subsequently, Sultan Sanjar fought sixteen different engagements on different frontiers of his territories, and came forth victorious from the whole of them.
His reign extended over a long period of time ; and public affairs went on in the highway of legality, and on the beaten track of equity and justice. The ordinances of the sacred law of Muhammad, and the canons of the faith of Islam, conformable with the Divine commands, acquired fresh vigour and newness.
The countries of Khurasan. 'Irak, and Mawar-un-Nahr, became exceedingly populous and flourishing; and, at Baghdad, royal palaces were erected in his name. The viceroyalty, and the command of the troops of Baghdad, under the same conditions and provisions as those under which his forefathers had held these offices, indeed upon even more favourable terms, came into the possession of him, and of his representatives.
He installed his slaves in the government, and administration of every country9. Arran, 'Irak, and Azarbaijan he conferred upon Iladd-giz1, who was his slave; and he
8	Sanjar fought several battles before he became supreme ruler, on the death of his brother, Muhammad. His first was with Daulat Shah, Wall of Balkh, who was his cousin-german. This took place in 491 H., but, as Sanjar was only then in his twelfth year, he could not have taken part in it. He may have been present with the army. The second encounter was with his elder brother, Barklaruk [who had nominated him to the government of Khurasan in 490 H.], in 493 H. The third was with Kunduz Khan, near Tirmiz, in 495 H. The fourth with Arsalan Shah. Ghaznawi, in 511 H. The first battle fought, after he became supreme sovereign in 511 H., was against his nephew, Mahmud, in the neighbourhood of Sawah, in 513 H., which appears to be that said to have been fought with Mas'ud. See page 151, and note 6. Sultan Sanjar fought nine battles, in the whole of which he was victorious ; and was defeated in two, as our author himself allows a few pages farther on. The expedition against Ahmad [also called Muhammad] Khan, son of Sull-man Khan, styled " Badghah " of Mawar-un-Nahr, took place in 524 H. The Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh mentions an expedition against "Muhammad Khan, Wall of Samrkand," in 514 H. It appears to be the same which Fasih-I, Guzidah, and Jahan-Ara place ten years after. Afcmad Khan was taken prisoner, but he was restored to his sovereignty in 530 H.
9	Our author's statements here are contrary to facts. See note 2 at page 168.
1 This name is wrongly given here in all the copies of the work but one, although, subsequently, when giving an account of him, the author calls him by his right name. As d is interchangeable with t, it can be, and sometimes is,148
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
was the father of the Ata-bak, Muhammad ; and the Ata-bak, Uz-bak, and the Ata-bak, Akhtan2. are both descendants of his. The territory of Fars was given to Sankur, who was the ancestor of the Ata-baks of Fars ; and the Ata-bak, Zangi,the Ata-bak, Duklah, and the Ata-bak, Sa'd, and his sons, are all his [Sankur's] descendants. The country of Khwarazm he conferred upon the son of Khwarazm Shah, who was one of his [the Sultan's] servants, who was the father of I-yal-Arsalan, who was the father of Takish, Khwarazm Shah, father of Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah.
The Sultan of Ghaznin. Mas'ud-i-Karim [the Beneficent], son of Sultan Razzi-ud-Din, Ibrahim,—May the light of the Almighty illumine their resting place ! — took the sister of Sultan Sanjar to wife. During the reign of the last, through the death of Sultan Mas'ud-i-Karim, it is said that dissension arose between the Sultans of Ghaznin. Malik Arsalan, son of Sultan Mas'ud, ascended the throne at Ghaznin, and Bahram Shah, another son of Mas'ud, was with his father, in the district of Tigin-abad of Garmsir3, at the time of his father's decease; and, from that place, Bahram Shah proceeded to the presence of Sultan Sanjar4 [his maternal uncle], and for a considerable period continued in attendance at his Court.
After some time had elapsed, Sultan Sanjar came to Ghaznin to the aid of Bahram Shah, and set Bahram upon the throne of Ghaznin; and in that territory, and in Hindustan likewise, the Khutbah was read and the coin stamped, in Sultan Sanjar's name5.
This dominion and power which Sanjar possessed was more extensive than had been possessed by any of his ancestors6. He conferred the territory of Mausil upon one
written Ilatt-giz. This person's name has been incorrectly written "Atlakin," and " Ildekuz," in many translations. See page 170, and note 8.
2	No Ata-bak of this name occurs elsewhere.
3	See note 9, p. 107.
4	At this period Sanjar was merely ruler of Khurasan, subordinate to his brother, although he succeeded to the whole empire shortly after.
5	Sanjar imposed a tribute of one thousand dinars per day upon Bahram Shah ; and, in 530 H., had to march to Ghaznin to enforce payment, and reduce him to submission.
6	It is beyond a doubt that the Saljuk empire was of the greatest extent in Malik Shah's reign. See latter part of note 5, page 140.THE SALJUKIAH DYNASTY.
149
of his slaves7,—and the Ata-baks of Mausil, who have been up to nearly this present time, are the descendants of this slave of his, who was a Turk 6i Khita-i.—and the whole of the territories of Sham were held by his slaves. Sultan Nur-ud-Din, of Sham, likewise, was one of the descendants of the Ata-baks of Mausil, as will, please God, be hereafter mentioned. The Maliks of Ghur, and the Sultans of the Jibal8, were all subject to Sultan Sanjar.
During his reign hostility arose between the Sultans9 of Ghaznin and the Maliks of Ghur, and the latter were overcome. When, however, th'e territory of Ghur came under the rule of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, he refused to pay submission to the Sultan; and an engagement took place between him and Sultan Sanjar in the neighbourhood of the mountain tracts of Hirat, at a place named Sih Goshah-nab1, and the forces of Ghur were routed, and Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din was taken prisoner2. After some time he obtained his release, and became one of the especial confidants and intimate companions of Sultan Sanjar.
About the time of the troubles consequent on the outbreak of the Ghuzz tribe, when 'Ala-ud-Din was in company one day with Sultan Sanjar, and engaged in a carousal, Sanjar, who was seated upon the throne, thrust out one of his august legs, and let the foot, on the sole of which there was a black mole, dangle over the throne3. On 'Ala-ud-
7	See note 2, page 168.
8	Jibal here signifies the northern parts of Ghur, Bamlan, &c., not of 'Irak.
9	Petty chieftains at this time, and holding but a very small tract of country. See note 3, page 106.
1	This encounter took place before the gate of Aobah.
2	Our author, being such a warm partisan of the Ghuris and their Turk successors, would not probably mention, if he knew of it, the circumstance of Bahram of Ghaznin sending the head of Saif-ud-Din, Surl, son of Husain, son of Sam, to his uncle. Sultan Sanjar encountered the Ghurians upon two occasions. The first time, in 501 H., in which affair Husain, son of Sam, was made captive, and Sanjar gave orders to put him to death, but he was saved at the intercession of Shaikh. Ahmad, Ghazzali ; and, it is stated, ,that for two years Husain used to light the fires for the cooks of the Sultan's army, to such misery was he reduced. For further details see Section XVIII. The second occasion, when, according to our author, " 'Ala-ud-DIn Husain, refused to pay submission to the Sultan," was in 547 H., just before Sanjar moved against the Ghuzz tribe, in which affair he was taken prisoner, and at the time when the Sultan's power was almost at the lowest ebb. See note 3, page 155-
3	This statement is much more probable than that of the E.au?at-us-Safa,THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Din's noticing this mole, he stood up and solicited that he might be allowed the honour of kissing it; and repeated these lines suitable to the occasion :—
'' Verily the dust at the gate of thy palace is [my] diadem, [And] this, the collar of thy service, is my adornment. In the same manner as I kiss the mole on the sole of thy foot, Even so good fortune [likewise] salutes my head4."
Sultan Sanjar acceded to his request; and, when 'Ala-ud-Din knelt down and kissed the mole, the Sultan contrived to twist his toes in the hair, about the face of 'Ala-ud-Din, and to keep him on the floor. 'Ala-ud-Din desired to raise his head from the ground, but was held down by his hair. Those present laughed, and 'Ala-ud-Din became disturbed, and his countenance changed. Sultan Sanjar, noticing his mortification, out of his princely beneficence and sympathy, said:—" 'Ala-ud-Din, this jesting hath hurt thy feelings ; let the dominion of Ghur be [my] amends to thee. I congratulate thee ! Return again to thy capital and throne: thou art my brother ! Now that the troubles with the Ghuzz tribe have arisen, take along with thee all the flocks of sheep and herds of horses and camels belonging to me, my own private property. If victory aid my efforts against them, and the outbreak of this tribe should be quelled, send them back to me again ; but, if not, let them be. It is far better that they should remain with thee, than that they should fall into the hands of such ingrate rebels."
Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din returned to Ghur. and through the magnanimity and generosity of Sultan Sanjar regained his throne. This was a tradition of Sanjar's beneficence and kindliness ; but the author of this Tabakat will here relate that which sets forth his sovereignty. I, Minhaj-i-Saraj, in the year 6n H., when at Firuz-koh, which was the capital and seat of government of the Sultans of Ghur, heard [the following] from Amir 'Ali, the Cha-ush [pursuivant], who said that his grandfather was the Marshal of the retinue5 of Sultan Sanjar: and that his grandfather stated, that, when Sultan Mas'ud of 'Irak, who was one of Sultan Sanjar's
and far more cleanly. The throne of state is not meant, but a chair or raised seat used on ordinary occasions. Sec Dorn's " Afghans," part ii, p. 85.
The point of the original, of course, is partially lost in translation.
5 This seems to be about the only meaning applicable to the term ^iJlTHE SALJUKIAH DYNASTY.
brothers' sons6, broke out into rebellion, and Karajah, the Saki [cup-bearer], who was one of Sanjar's slaves, became his supporter in that revolt, the Sultan marched an army from Marw, with the object of falling upon the rebels unawares.
He reached the summit of tlie Sawah Pass, at the foot of which, on the 'Irak side, the rebels were encamped, and issued from it with a few followers; but, when his eye caught sight of the forces of , the enemy, he reined in his horse, and came to a halt. A party of nobles, who had reached the spot where he was, he summoned to his side, and said to them :—" We have come upon this gathering,
6 Some discrepancy exists among historians respecting the sons of Muhammad, son of Malik Shah, the nephews of Sultan Sanjar. Guzidah and others mention an encounter between Sanjar and his nephew, Mahmud, in 513 H., in 'Irak, who was defeated and fled to Sawah, but mention no revolt on the part of Mas'ud, who only succeeded to the subordinate sovereignty over 'Irak-i-'Ajam, on the death of his brother Tughril, in 529 H., who' succeeded Mahmud, the other brother. In the enumeration of the different victories obtained by Sultan Sanjar during his reign, the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh mentions one gained over his nephew, Mahmud, in the neighbourhood of Sawah, in 513 H., and a second gained over another nephew [?], Mas'ud, near Dinawr, in 526 H. ; but Mas'ud only succeeded his brother in 529 H. He may have been, however, rebellious before he succeeded. The cause for such discrepancy appears to have arisen from there having been two Mas'uds and three Tughrils, who held 'Irak-i-'Ajam under Sanjar, on the authority of Fasih-I, who gives the events of each year in chronological order. That work states, that "Mahmud, son of Muhammad, Sanjar's brother, at his father's death in 510 H. [some say it took place in 511 H.], notwithstanding he had opposed his uncle in battle, was allowed to retain the government of Trak[-i-'Ajam]," but that he died in that same year. Tughril, his brother, succeeded him, but in that same year Tughril likewise died. On this, Mas'ud, the third brother, succeeded, and he became disaffected towards his uncle, who marched against him, and defeated him in 513 H. in sight of Hamadan [a long way from Sawah]. Mas'ud fled to Jurjin ; but he was permitted, shortly after, to resume his government, but under supervision. There is no mention of his having been taken prisoner, yet this is the account which agrees best with the statement of our author. This Mas'ud died in 525 H. The Jahan-Ara, and Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh state, that Mahmud died in that year [Ibn-i-Khalkan says in 524 H.], and was succeeded by his brother, Tughril, who died in 529 H., and was succeeded by Mas'ud; but, if. Mas'ud only succeeded in 529 H., how could he, according to the same authors, have been defeated by his uncle in 526 H. ? According to Fasifo-I, Mas'ud was succeeded by Tughril, his brother, but probably his son, as the same author states that his brother Tughril died in the same year as Mahmud, who died in 525 H. [this date agrees with Jahan-Ara and the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh above quoted], when Mas'ud, son of Mahmud [son of Muhammad], Sanjar's nephew, succeeded. He died in 547 11., and is said to have always been loyal to Sanjar. He was succeeded by his brother, Mughis-ud-Din, Malik Shah.52
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
but we have but a weak following, while the enemy are very numerous : what is it advisable to do ?" Some among the nobles replied, that whatsoever, in accordance with his Majesty's opinion, he might be pleased to command would be most advisable ; but, if his Majesty would defer any movement until such time as the whole of the force should come up, and then dash upon them, it would be still more advisable. Others of the nobles said :—" These people too are his Majesty's servants: it is necessary that he should be pleased to show clemency towards, and have compassion on them, and give them intimation of the arrival of the imperial standards, so that the whole of them may be able to come and tender their services, and rest in safety under the shadow of the imperial protection and pardon." In short, each one of the great lords and nobles made representation of such opinions as entered their minds.
Sultan Sanjar [then] turned his face towards the Amir-i-Cha-ush, who was also Marshal of his retinue, and said : —" Cha-ush, what is it advisable to do ?" The Cha-ush dismounted from his horse, and, bowing his head to the ground, repeated the following lines :—■
'' Great monarch ! we ought to give battle : We should close with the foe. All the fierce lions of the forest Must be. brought into the field, All the huge elephants of war Should doubtless be brought into the fray. It is the day of battle : it is meet to engage. It is the hour for action : it is well to be doing. If thou wouldst render the kingdom stable, It is essential that the sword should be plied."
The Sultan replied :—" It is necessary to act as the Cha-ush advises ;" and at once, without any further delay, with as many cavalry as had come up, Sultan Sanjar dashed upon the rebel forces. Karajah, the cup-bearer, and Mas'ud of 'Irak were both taken prisoners, and the forces of this gathering were defeated and put to the rout, and the countries of 'Irak and Azarbaijan were recovered anew.
The Sultan returned to Khurasan; and it was a constant practice with him to pass the hot season at Bukhara, and the winter at Marw of Shah-i-Jahan. It so happened, one year, that he remained longer than was his wont at Marw.THE SALJUKIAH DYNASTY.
153
The temperature began to rise, and not one of his Court had the courage to represent that it would be well to return to the land of Bukhara. The climate of Bukhara agreed with a number of the nobles and great men. They urged Amir-i-Mu'azzi that he should, by means of verse, bring the charms and beauties of the villas and gardens of the city of Bukhara to the imperial hearing, so that Kamal-uz-Zaman might, at an opportune time, sing it, accompanied with lutes.
Amir Mu'azzi, who was the Chief of Poets, or Poet-Laureate, and who, along with forty other adepts [in the art], was in the habit, on days of entertainment and at banquets, of recounting the deeds of the Sultan, and [of v/hom] it is related, that the whole of these [poets] were of his clan and followers, accordingly composed the following strophe7: and the Minstrel, Kamal-uz-Zaman, early one morning, when the Sultan had taken his morning draught of wine, played8 it with such feeling and touching effect, that the Sultan, half-dressed as he was and in his slippers, came forth, mounted on horseback, and took neither
7	Our author is unfortunate with regard to his quotations very often. These lines were neither composed by the poet Mu'azzi, nor were they composed to influence Sultan Sanjar to return to Bukhara. It was neither his capital, nor did he "use" to pass the hot seasons there. The lines were composed more than two hundred years before Sanjar was born, with the title "Mir" instead of " Shah." by Farld-ud-Din, Abu 'Abd-ullah, Muhammad, born at Rudak of Samrkand, and hence known as Rudaki, a famous poet, blind from his birth, but endowed with a very melodious voice, and he played enchant-ingly on the barbat, a kind of lute. He was also the first native of 'Ajam who composed a Dlwan. The lines in question were composed to try and influence the Amir, Abu-l-Hasan-i-Nasr, son of Ahmad, Samani, to return to his capital, which was Bukhara. One author states that he went to Hirat, and was so delighted with the place that he remained a long time, and even thought of taking up his residence there. His ministers, nobles, and troops, who longed to return to Bukhara, were much put out at this, so much so that they, finding all remonstrance useless, even contemplated rebelling. Another writer, who gives a biography of Rudaki, states that the place was Marw with which Nasr was so much taken up. But, be this as it may, the poet, Rudaki, was induced to use his efforts upon the Amir. He accordingly composed these lines, and in the Sarae or villa, in which Nasr had taken his morning collation, the poet sang them accompanied by his lute. Nasr became so enchanted on hearing some of the lines, that he did not stay to hear all ; but, without either turban or shoes, he at once mounted and rode off the first stage on the way to Bukhara.
8	" Lutes" are mentioned above in all the copies ; whilst here, it appears, the minstrel sang it, accompanying it with his lute.
L154
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
rest nor repose until he reached the appointed destination :—
"The breeze from Mullan's rivulet reacheth me the same, Even as cometh the fragrance of a loving friend. The gravel of the Amu, and the roughness thereof, Appeareth like as the softest silk beneath my feet. The river Jihun, with its wide-spread surface, Reacheth, even now, to my white steed's very girths9. O Bukhara ! rejoice, and be thou glad once more, For the Shah even now cometh a guest1 unto thee. The Shah is a moon, and Bukhara a firmament; The moon likewise riseth the celestial vault within. The Shah is a cypress, and Bukhara is a garden ; The cypress also cometh unto the garden now."
After a great part of his reign had elapsed, a body of people from Kara-Khata-i. from Tamghaj, and the dependencies of Chin, entered the confines of Kara Kuram of Turkistan, and solicited Sultan Sanjar to assign them grazing-lands ; and, with the Sultan's permission, they took up their quarters on those confines, in Bilasaghun, Kabalik, and Almalik, and made those parts their grazing-grounds.
When their progeny became very numerous, during the Sultan's reign, they rebelled against his authority, and fought a battle against him. Taniko of Taraz, at the nomination of Sunkam and I-ma, was at the head of the Khata'is. The Sultan's forces, from a long period of inaction, and enervated by protracted ease and luxury, were unable to cope with or stand before the enemy, and were overthrown ; and they took Turkan Khatun, who was the Malikah-i-Jahan [Queen of the Universe], and consort of Sultan Sanjar, captive2.
9 The only other signification the word used will admit of is a boat, which does seem more appropriate,, for I do not think the Jihun can be forded on horseback. I have doubts whether the word is correct in the original.
1	Sic in MSS.
2	In 534 H. Sanjar marched to Samrkand, and fought a battle with At Khan ; but he was defeated, and had to retreat to the fortress of Tirmiz, or Tirmid, as it is also called. Turkan Khatun, and the Malik of Nimroz, and many other great men, were left in the hands of the enemy. These infidels of Khata-I, and Mughals likewise, overran Mawar-un-Nahr, slaying, devastating, and making the people captives ; and, included in the numbers put to the sword by the invaders, were many great and learned men. The Khata-T's and Mugh,als remained in Mawar-un-Nahr until driven out by Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah. Guzidah and Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh state that this reverse took place in 535 H.
As soon as this disaster befell Sanjar, his vassal, Utsuz [it is written "Itsiz"THE SALJU^IAH DYNASTY.
This was the first reverse the Sultan had ever sustained ; and, subsequently, he concluded a peace with them, and the pasture-lands of Turkistan and Bilasaghun, along with the cities and towns included in those frontier tracts, were left in the hands of the Khata-i invaders. After the peace was concluded they sent back Turkan Khatun to the Sultan again. The Hakim [philosopher] Koshaki has written much satire upon this unfortunate event, which is contained in Diwans and [other] books.
When this reverse became public, the affairs of the empire began to decline, and to grow weak3; and, of the reign of Sanjar, sixty years4 had passed away. A body of the Ghuzz tribe, from Khandan5, now rose in revolt against the Sultan's authority6, and withheld the yearly tribute which had been previously fixed. The Sultan marched an army against them, and the Ghuzz were willing to pay a kaldh [ingot] of silver7 for each family, but the Sultan would not
in Burhan-i-Kata', and in the Tarikh-i-IbrahTmi, " Utsiz," and by our author, "Utsuz"], son of Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Nush-Tigln, upon whom Sanjar's father conferred the rule over Khwarazm, threw off his allegiance. Sanjar invested him in Hazar-asp in 535 H., which was taken ; but he treated the rebel leniently, and still allowed him to retain that territory. In 537 H. [Guzidah says in 535 H., while the Muntakhab-ut-Tawankh says it happened in 536 H.] Gur Khan, who, in concert with At Khan, defeated Sanjar in the Dasht, or Desert of Katran [^y^S], on the frontier of Samrkand, died ; and, after this happened, Muhammad Khwarazm Shah expelled the infidels from Mawar-un-Nahr.
3	It was, according to Guzidah and others, after Sanjar's defeat by the Khata-i's and Mughals that 'Ala-ud-Dln, chief of Ghur, ventured to show hostility towards him. Sanjar defeated him before Aobah in 547 H., and 'Ala-ud-Din was taken prisoner, but was subsequently released. Our author has mentioned this as about the first "event of Sanjar's reign.
4	See note page 157.
6 A tract of territory on the frontier of Chin. A few MSS. have Khutlan.
6	Fanakati says that, when the Ghuzz tribe crossed the Jihun, Badr-ul-Mulk, 'Ajaml, the Sultan's Wazir, advised Sultan Sanjar to attack them. This he did, and was overthrown and taken prisoner, and Khurasan, Kirman, and Fars were seized by them !
The Sultan marched against the Ghuzz in 548 H. The details are far too long for insertion here. Upwards of a hundred thousand persons, not including women and children, were afterwards massacred by the Ghuzz, and the territory of Khurasan was devastated. In the following year was born Tamuchin, afterwards known by the name of Ch,ingiz Kh,an.
7	Guzidah says "a maun [which signifies two pounds of twelve ounces each] of silver." Price, quoting the Ehula§at-ul-A]£libar, says "a quarter of a hundredweight of gold, besides 100,000 dinars," which is ridiculous. Our author's account is the most probable one.
L 2i56
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
agree to it, and, on this account, gave battle to them, and was defeated and taken prisoner.
On the Sultan falling into their hands, the whole of the Ghuzz dismounted before his stirrup, and saluted him, and tendered their services. The Ghuzz chieftains, such as Tuti, Kurgharat, Malik Dinar, Ibrahim, and Khutali. besides others, girded up their loins before the Sultan's throne [to serve him], and began themselves to issue mandates [in his name]; and they divided Khurasan among themselves. Whatever it was requisite to do they did, and they used to state, " The Sultan commands this and that." The slaves and servants of the Sanjari dynasty became dispersed and separated ; and the affairs of the country became disorganized, and the thread of sovereignty snapped asunder.
After some time had passed—about a year, more or less8 —one of the slaves, who was one of the Sultan's nobles, proceeded to the Sultan Sanjar's presence, and presented himself, and, as if going out on a hunting excursion, mounted the Sultan on horseback, and brought him away [out of the hands of the Ghuzz], and restored him to liberty once more. He conducted the Sultan to Marw9, and placed him on the throne again, and some of the still remaining adherents of the dynasty collected around him ; but the Sultan's days had now drawn towards their close, and the sovereignty had grown antiquated and gone to decay. On Monday, the 34th of the month Rabi'-ul-Awwal, in the year 553 H., Sultan Sanjar died at Marw, and was there buried. His age was seventy-three years
8	Our author generally eschews dates. Here again we have a specimen of his mode of writing history, when he asserts that Sanjar remained in captivity "about a year, more or less." Sanjar remained nearly four years in the hands of the Ghuzz, and, during this period, no efforts were made to effect his escape, lest his consort, Turkan Khatun, who appears to have again fallen into captivity, might remain in their hands. She having died, however, in 551 h., Sultan Sanjar succeeded in gaining over the Ghuzz chief who had charge of him, so far as to get him to take him out on a hunting excursion to the banks of the jihtin. Arrangements had been made for the occasion, and Amir Ahmad-i-Kamaj, governor of Tirmiz, was awaiting him on the bank, where he had got boats in readiness. The Sultan succeeded in throwing himself into one, and his people got into others, and then made their escape. In Ramazan of th$t year, the Sultan succeeded in assembling a force at Tirmiz, and he then set out, under its escort, to Marw.
9	See latter part of preceding note.THE SALJUKIAH DYNASTY.
157
and a little over, and his reign lasted sixty-two \ The
mercy of the Almighty be upon him !
-♦-
ACCOUNT OF THE SULTANS OF RUM 2, OF THE SALJUKIAH
DYNASTY.
The Sultans of Rum were of the race of Saljuk, and were great and powerful monarchs; and, in the territories of Rum and the country of Afranj3, numerous signs and marks of their goodness and benevolence, their expeditions and holy wars, their conflicts with unbelievers, buildings of public utility and charity, in the shape of colleges, mosques, monasteries for darweshis, karwansaraes, bridges, and charitable and pious foundations, remain to this day ; and the accounts of their descendants, their Maliks, and their Amirs, and of their heroic achievements in that country, are recorded in trustworthy books.
When the Sultan of Sultans, Sanjar, on whom be the mercy of the Almighty, ascended the throne of his father, and became established in the sovereignty of the world, and, when the territories of Islam, both east and west, were taken possession of by his servants, and the Khutbah was read for him from all the pulpits of Islam, and the money of the world became adorned with his name and titles, he conferred the kingdom of Rum upon his brother, Mahmud, son of Malik Shah4. The whole of the Sultans [of that country]
1 GuzTdah says Sanjar died of grief on the 16th of Rabi'-ul-Awwal 552 H., aged seventy-two years. The length of his reign must be calculated from the death of his brother Muhammad in 510 H., at which period he was thirty-one years old. Previous to this he was but subordinate ruler of Khurasan ; and historians calculate his reign from the date above mentioned. Other authors state that he reigned forty-one years.
3 Our author completed his work in 658 H., and Sanjar died in 552 H.; and, although the Saljulf dynasty existed for thirty-two years after Sanjar's death, and had terminated ninety-eight years before our author closed his history, he says nothing about Sanjar's successors.
3	Europe, the countries of the Christians, and the Roman empire of the east.
4	All the copies of the text are alike here. Our author has made a precious hash of this Section of the Rum! dynasty of the Saljuks. Sanjar did not, as he states, first establish that dynasty, neither was Sanjar's brother, Mahmud, the first subordinate sovereign of Rum, nor was his son, Mas'ud, the second, nor were they ever its rulers. He has confounded the Sultans of 'Irak and those of Rum together. Sanjar's brother, Majimud, moreover, died when in
[hisi58
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
are his [Mahmud's] descendants, an account of every one of whom is recorded in this Tabakat, in order that its readers may call to remembrance, with a blessing, those who have passed away, and acquire some' information respecting that dynasty*.
* I will now demonstrate what I have referred to by giving a brief account of the rulers of Rum, of the Saljuk dynasty..
Kil-timish [^ji*^—written likewise Kil-timish ui-^M and Kat-limish — but the last syllable is evidently the same as occurs in the name of the Turkish slave-sovereign of Dihll, " I-yal-timish,"] son of Isra'Il, son of Saljuk, Alb-Arsalan's great uncle's son, according to the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarlkh, rebelled against him [Alb-Arsalan]; but, in an action near Damghan in Muharram, 456 H., Kil-timish was defeated, and was found dead on the field. Alb-Arsalan desired to put Kil-timish's sons to death, but was dissuaded from doing so by his Wazir, and was induced to make Suliman, son of Kil-timish, viceroy of certain territories of Sham, and he was the founder of the Saljuk Sultans of Rum. Guzidah states that Kil-timish received the investiture of the government of Damashk, from Malik Shah, at the time when he conferred so many territories upon others. See note 2, page 168. Suliman, who was employed against the Christians in 467 h. [a. d. 1074-5]—but Fasih-i and a few others say in 469 h.—succeeded by stratagem in wresting Antakiah out of the hands of Firdaus [Philaretus], RumT, after it had been in the hands of the Christians
his tenth year, in 489 h., only twenty-one years before Sanjar succeeded to the throne, and when Sanjar was about the same age. The first two sovereigns here mentioned as rulers of Rum, who undertook expeditions against '' the infidel Afranj," were the first two rulers of'Irak, subordinate to Sanjar, as will be seen on reference to the second Rumi sovereign, so called, and Sanjar's reign where Karajah, the cup-bearer, is referred to, page 151. From the third to the ninth, the rulers mentioned in this Section are correctly given as far as their names and a very meagre account of their reigns go ; but the tenth ruler, again, was the last ruler of 'Irak, not of Rum. I noticed, when reading the work, that, at the latter part of the reign of Mas'ud, all the copies of the original contained matter totally unintelligible with regard to that sovereign. It is strange too that all the copies of the work should be the same, for some of the MSS. I have collated, one in particular, are certainly five or six hundred years old. Still more strange is it, however, that, not only should the author in his preliminary notice of the Sultans of Rum mention Mahmiid, brother of Sanjar, as the first, but, that he should subsequently mention his undertaking expeditions against the Christians; and, with reference to the second ruler, Mas'ud, Mahmud's son, he says that Sanjar, at first, conferred the throne of'Irak upon him [Mas'ud], thus inferring that, subsequently, that of Rum was given to him. The heading of a chapter or paragraph might be put in incorrectly by a copyist, but the sense of the matter cannot be, nor could Rum have been inserted for 'Irak. It is therefore evident that our author himself made a muddle of his work, and confounded the rulers of 'Irak with those of Rum, which, from other errors he has made, is not improbable. It will also be noticed that he makes no mention whatever of the Saljuks of Kirman, consisting of eleven sovereigns, whose dynasty outlasted all the others—but he has also left out all the other 'Iraki rulers, except the two first and the last, who do duty for the Rumis—neither has he given any account whatever of Sanjar's successors, nor does he notice at all other less powerful dynasties.THE SALJC?:!AH DYNASTY.
159
I. MAHMUD, SON OF MALIK SHAH.
On the throne of the territory of Rum having been conferred upon him by Sultan Sanjar, his brother, he undertook many holy wars in that region, and on the frontiers of Islam. He marched armies against the infidel Afranj, and carried on holy war according to the canons and ordinances of the sacred law. He captured fortresses and cities, and ruled over the servants of Almighty God with justice and beneficence. After he had reigned for a considerable time he died.
II. MAS'UD, SON OF MAHMUD SHAH.
Sultan Mas'ud was the son of Mahmud, son of Malik Shah. At first, Sultan Sanjar conferred the throne of 'Irak upon him; and, on one occasion, through the power and authority which he had acquired in that territory, he combined with Karajah, the Saki [cup-bearer], and they rebelled against the Sultan.
The Sultan came upon them suddenly, and attacked them5, and took both Mas'ud and Karajah, the cupbearer, prisoners. After that occurrence the affairs of Mas'ud went to ruin, and he never ascended the throne again ; but, in the person of his son, Kazil-Arsalan by name, he acquired considerable power, and became sovereign, and
carried on the government6.
* * * * » * * *
[Twelve-copies of the original are all hopelessly defective here, and no two copies are alike. No break occurs in either MS. to indicate that any portion whatever has been lost or misplaced, or that any omission has been made in copying7.
since 358 h. This was effected during the reign of the Greek emperor, Alexius Comnenus. I. SULIMAN [the Solyman of Tasso] acquired great renown by this, and, in 480 h., Malik Shah [not Sanjar, as our author states, for he was then only an infant in his first year], conferred the sovereignty on him. He reigned twenty years, and was succeeded by his son, II- DA'UD, who
9 See the particulars, at page 151!
• This is the only sense that is to be gathered from the original, and the statement is incorrect. See note4, page 157.
7 Not even in the precious Paris copy, which M. Tascherau so fondly imagines to be in our author's own handwriting.i6o
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
The context, in fact, proves that Minhaj-i-Saraj considered Kazil-Arsalan to be the son and successor of Mas'ud ; and, such being the case, the extent of our author's knowledge of history is impressively indicated.]
III. KAZIL-ARSALAN8, SON OF MAS'UD, SON OF MAHMUD, SON OF MALIK SHAH.
After the decease of his father, Kazil-Arsalan acquired some little power, and possessed himself of some of the frontier -districts of the territory of Rum. He ruled for a short period and died.
IV. KULIJ-ARSALAN, SON OF KAZIL-ARSALAN.
Kullj-Arsalan was the son of Kazil-Arsalan, who was the son of Mas'ud, son of Mahmud, son of Malik Shah. He assumed the sovereignty of Rum after the death of his father, and became a very great and powerful monarch. He possessed himself of the territories upon the confines of Rum, captured many fortresses and strongholds, performed many heroic exploits, and acquired a great name on account of the infidel Afranj having been often worsted and overthrown by him.
All the Sultans of Rum glory in their connexion with him ; and he obtained the felicity of martyrdqm. He was interred at Kuniah9, which is a large city in Rum.
ascended the throne at Kuniah. He gained some successes over the Christians, and, after a reign of eighteen years, died in 518 H. His brother, III. KULIJ-ARSALAN, succeeded, who is said by one author to have fought a naval battle with the Christians, and, after an arduous struggle, to have been ■victorious ; but there is some discrepancy with respect to the date, and the story may refer to the previous reign. He reigned until 539 H., but some say until 537 H. ; but, having been defeated in a battle with the 'Iraki Saljuks, he was drowned whilst crossing a river, when retreating before them. His son, IV. SULTAN MAS'UD, succeeded, who, after a reign of nineteen years, died in
8	Mas'ud, brother of Mahmud, son of Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad, Sanjar's brother, had no son so named. The lines which follow are meaningless, but are alike in all the copies.
9	Called Koniah by Europeans.THE SALJ0£IAH DYNASTY.
161
V. 'IZZ-UD-DIN, KAI-KA-US, SON OF KULIJ-ARSALAN.
Sultan 'Izz-ud-Din, Kai-Ka-us, ascended the throne after his father's death, and brought the country under his rule. He carried on holy war against the infidels of Afranj, and fought several battles with them in that country. He founded colleges and masjids, and left many monuments of his goodness and bounty behind. He was interred by the side of his father in the city of Kuniah.
VI. KAI-KUBAD, SON OF KAI-KA-US.
Sultan ' Ala-ud-Din, Kai-Kubad, ascended the throne on the decease of his father, Kai-Ka-us, and brought under his sway the territories of Rum, and parts adjacent.
558 H. He was succeeded by his son, V. 'IZZ-UD-DIN, KULIJ-ARSALAN, who ascended the throne at Kuniah. He annexed some of the territories of the Christians, and, after a reign of twenty years, died in 578 H. After him came his son, VI. RUKN-UD-DIN, SULIMAN SHAH, the eldest, and, between him and his brother Ghiyas-ud-Din, Kai-Khusrau, who had been nominated successor by his father, hostilities arose, which went on till 588 H. Kai-Khusrau fled to the Christians. Suliman annexed Arz-i-Rum and Kars [Kars], with their dependencies. He reigned twenty-four years, and died "in 602 H. His son, VIX. 'IZZ-UD-DIN, KULIJ-ARSALAN II., son of Suliman, succeeded. He was an infant, and his uncle, Kai-Khusrau, having been recalled from the Farang, in 603 h. , succeeded, after a year, in depriving him of the sovereignty, and Kulij-Arsalan was shut up in a fortress, where he died in 609 H. VIII. GHIYAS-UD-DIN, KAI-KHUSRAU. after dethroning his young nephew in 603 h., assumed the sovereignty. He took Antakiah from the Christians, into whose hands it had again fallen, in 603 H., and was himself killed in a battle with the ruler of Istanbul [Constantinople], after a reign of six years, in 609 H., but some authors say in the preceding year, and some, 610 H. This probably is the fifth monarch referred to by our author, under the name of Kulij-Arsalan, as he is the only one mentioned who attained the felicity of martyrdom in having been slain by the Christians. His brother, 'Ala-ud-Din, Kai-Kubad, rose against him, but had to submit, and was confined in a fortress.
Qtiyas-ud-Din, Kai-Khusrau, having been slain in battle with the Christians, was succeeded by his son, IX. 'IZZ-UD-DlN, KAI-KA-US, but he difed after a short reign of about a year. Most authors do not mention this prince at all. He was succeeded by his uncle, ' Ala-ud-Din, Kai-Kubad, who is about the first of the sovereigns of this dynasty that can be traced by his correct name and title, from our author's account of them. X. 'ALA-UD-DIN, KAI-KUBAD, who had been immured in a fortress, succeeded his nephew, 'Izz-ud-Din, Kai-Ka-us, in 610 H., and is accounted one of the greatest sovereigns of the dynasty. Hostilities arose between him and the162
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
He fought battles with the infidels of Afranj; and many-indications of his goodness exist to this day.
He had sons, who acquired great renown, and became great men. He died on the 5th of the month Shawwal, in the year 633 H., and he, likewise, was buried at'Kuniah.
VII. KAI-KHUSRAU, SON OF KAI-KUBAD.
Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Kai-Khusrau1, was a great monarch of noble disposition and excellent qualities, just and impartial. Having ascended the throne after the death of his father, he took possession of the territories of Rum, and assumed the government of them.
In this reign, the disturbance and disorder consequent upon the irruption of the army of infidel Mughals had reached the frontiers of Rum2. The Sultan, in such manner as he was able, entered into friendly relations with the Farang 3. He was assembling an army upon the frontiers bordering upon the territory of Islam, when, suddenly,
unfortunate but gallant Jalal-ud-Din, the last of the Khwarazm Shahis. They fought a battle, in Ramazan, 627 H., in which Kai-Kubad was victorious. The Mughal, Uktae Ka'an, sent him a YarlTgh [diploma] congratulating him, and the Ehallfah [for overthrowing a good Musalman perhaps] conferred upon him the title of Sultan-i-A'zam, wa KasTm-i-Mu'azzam. He reigned twenty-six years, and died in 634 H., having been poisoned, by mistake some authors say, by his son, Ghiyas-ud-Din, Kai-Khusrau, who assumed the throne.
1	Our author is correct here as to the name and title. GHIYAS-UD-DIN, KAI-KHUSRAU, the eleventh of the dynasty, is the man who poisoned his own father, of whom our author gives such a glowing account.
2	An army of Mughals marched against him, under Taju, Niiyan, and the Mughals obtained sway over the territory of Rum, after an engagement at Koshah-dagh, in 641 H. Kai-Khusrau died in 642 H., but Guzidah says in 644 H., and Jahan-Ara and Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh. say in 643 H., but Rauzat-us-Safa says in 640 H., which is certainly incorrect. His son SulTman succeeded.
3	The word "Farang" is used here in all the copies, but Afranj is the word previously used. This, doubtless, is what Gibbon refers to in grandiloquent style, which often covers great errors :—"Flying from the arms of the Moguls, those shepherds of the Caspian [whom he styles ' the strange and savage hordes of Cariz-mians,' thus indicating the extent of his knowledge of the matter] rolled headlong on Syria ; and the union of the Franks with the Sultans of Aleppo, Hems, and Damascus, was insufficient to stem the violence of the torrent." The "torrent" of course signifies the fugitive Sultan Jalal-ud-Din flying from the Mughals, who was defeated by Ala-ud-Din, Kai-Kubad, as related in a previous note.the saljukiah dynasty.
he was deserted and left alone by his troops. The Mughal forces made an inroad into that territory; and, after they again retired, Kai-Khusrau died in the beginning of Muharram, 643 H.4
He reigned for a period of eleven years, and named his son, 'Izz-ud-Din, Kai-Ka-us, his heir and successor.
* viii. 'izz-ud-din; kai-kA-us, son of kai-khusrau.
According to his father's nomination as successor to the sovereignty, Sultan 'Izz-ud-Din, Kai-Ka-us, ascended the throne of Rum in the beginning of the year 643 H., and the Maliks and other great nobles submitted to his authority s.
As he was celebrated for his energy, his warlike accomplishments, and his nobility of mind, he strengthened his frontiers on the side of Afranj ; and, as a matter of necessity,
4	Died in 644 H. according to Guzidah and Fasih-i, and in 642 H. according to the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh.
5	As is often the case towards the termination of a dynasty, authors here are at variance one with another respecting the succession. Some say that Ghiyas-ud-Dtn, Kai-Khusrau, was succeeded by his son, 'Izz-ud-Din, Kai-Ka-us, and that he, as our author states, despatched his brother Rukn-ud-Din, Kulij-Arsalan [called by others Rukn-ud-Din, Suliman], to the camp of the Mughal Ka'an. The facts, however, appear to be as follow. On the death of Ghiyas-ud-Din, Kai-Khusrau, in 642 H., his son, XII. RUKN-UD-DIN, SULIMAN, succeeded. It was he who despatched his brother, 'Ala-ud-Din, Kai-Kubad, to the Court of Ab-gha [called also Ab-ka] Khan, where he continued for a considerable time in distress and trouble. Having at length succeeded in his mission, he set out on his return, but Rukn-ud-Din, Suliman, suspecting he was coming with designs against him, had him put to death as soon as he entered his territory ; and another brother, 'Izz ud-Din, Kai-Ka-us, fled to the camp of Bark a Khan. After a reign, so called, of twenty years, Suliman was himself put to death, by order of Ab-gha Khan, in 664 H.
Others, on the contrary, say that Rukn-ud-Din, having succeeded in obtaining from the Mughal Ka'an, a grant of investiture for himself, on his return into Rum, was the cause of great disorders; and that'Izz-ud-Din, Kai-Khusrau, fled to Istanbul, and was proceeding to the Dasht-i-Kabchak to lay his case before the Ka'an, but died on the way, Rukn-ud-Din having in the meantime, with Mughal aid, assumed the sovereignty; but, after a short time had elapsed, Rukn-ud-Din [called Kulij-Arsalan by some and Suliman by others] was found to have been intriguing with the ruler of Misr, and was put to death in 664 H.
As our author finished his history in 658 H. I have no occasion to say more than that he records events respecting the Mughals which, evidently, belong to the reign of Ghiyas-ud-Din. Kai-Khusrau. the seventh ruler, by his account, and has confused the events of the following ones.164
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
consequent upon the power and predominance of the infidel Mughals over the dominions of Islam, he, in order to ward off [the inroads of] that race, despatched his younger brother into Turkistan to the Court of Mangu Khan, the Mughal, so that he might, under terms of peace, be left in possessfon of his dominions.
On Rukn-ud-Din, Kulij-Arsalan, the envoy and brother of Sultan Kai-Ka-us, reaching the presence of Mangu Khan, the Mughal, he preferred requests, and made solicitations contrary to the mandate of his brother. He sought from Mangu Khan the territory of Rum for himself, and likewise assistance from him to enable him to liberate that country from the hands of his brother. Mangu Khan gave him the daughter of the Nu-in6 [a Prince, or a great noble,] Aljakta,the Mughal, and despatched Aljakta, with his troops, to aid Rukn-ud-Din, Kulij-Arsalan [against his brother].
When they reached the Rum! territory, 'Izz-ud-Din, Kai-Ka-us, retired before them ; and Kulij-Arsalan and the Mughals became dominant over Rum. Kai-Ka-us went to Aor Khan of Rum, and, having obtained aid from him, came and suddenly attacked the Mughals. and overthrew them7. He captured his brother, and immured him in a fortress.
After some time, he, Kulij-Arsalan, succeeded in escaping, and went to the Mughals ; and, as what has happened since has not become known to the author, this [notice of him] has been thus much abridged.
IX. KUTB-UD-DIN8, KULIJ-ARSALAN.
Trustworthy persons call him Rukn-ud-Din, Kulij-Arsalan, and say that he is among the Mughals. along with Hulau, the Accursed, in the direction of the territory of Azarbaijan. What the upshot of his affairs may be no one can say ; but, please God, may they end well0!
6	Also written Nuyan.
7	Who Aor [in one copy Uz] Khan of Rum might have been, it wouJd require our author to explain. No overthrow of the Mughals by the Saljuks of Rum is mentioned by other writers.
8	One copy has Rukn-ud-Din.
9	This short account varies, and is somewhat less in some of the copies ot the work. Hulau is also styled Hulaku.THE SALJUKIAH DYNASTY.	165
[The author now returns to the last of the Saljuks of 'Irak1. All the MSS. are alike here.]
X. TUGHRIL, SON OF TUGHRIL.
Respecting the descent of this Prince two different accounts have been given. Some relate that he is Tughril, the son of Tughril, son of Kazil Arsalan 2.
Sultan Tughril was a sovereign, and the son of a sovereign, and a person of great magnificence ; and his reign was contemporary with that of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Takish, Khwarazm Shah3.
His strength was so very great, that not a warrior of his day could lift his mace 4 from the ground, and he was a man of great stature and of awe-striking presence' Persons of credit relate, that the hair on his upper lip was so long, that he used to draw his moustaches back, and put them behind his ears.
He was one of the brother's sons of Sultan Sanjar6, and was [left] very young in years on the decease of his father. The sons of the Ata-bak Iladd-giz—who was one of Sanjar's slaves, and had, previously, been ruler of that territory, and had espoused Tughril's mother [grandmother of Tughril. widow of Arsalan, Tughril's father], after his father's death —had acquired power over 'Irak ; and, when their father died, they immured Sultan Tughril in one of the fortresses of 'Irak, and took the country into their own possession6.
1	All the copies are alike in this respect, and no hiatus whatever occurs in the different MSS. to show it. I merely discovewd it from the names and events mentioned.
2	Not so : Tughril, the last of the dynasty, was son of Arsalan Shah, and his title was Rukn-ud-Din. There are no contrary accounts that I know of. One copy has Tughril, son of Arsalan, son of Kulij-Arsalan.
3	In some copies this paragraph is placed at the end of his reign.
4	See note page 91.
5	He was Sanjar's brother's great-grandson, if not one generation farther removed.
6	I have been obliged to take a little liberty with the text of this paragraph, which, in all twelve copies, is in a hopeless state of muddle. No two copies are alike ; and, as the text now stands, it is a mere jumble of words without any observance of grammatical rules. The literal translation of this passage, as it now stands, is as follows:—"He was one of the brother's sons of SultanTHE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
When Sultan Tughril reached man's estate, and became famous for his vast strength, his great bodily vigour, his nobility of mind, and his warlike accomplishments, a party [of adherents] rendered him aid, and set him at liberty from imprisonment. He came forth, and great numbers of the servants of his father and grandfather flocked around him. He assumed the Chatr [canopy of royalty], and became Sultan. The folfowing are two lines from a poem composed on his escape fromconfinement, and his rise to dominion and power7:—
" The tidings reach'd Rai—' The Sultan is come !'— And that august canopy of his is to Hamadan come."
After Sultan Tughril had acquired supremacy over the territory of 'Irak, and had reigned for a considerable period, a number of his servants despatched letters to Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Takish, Khwarazm Shah, and invited him to come into that country. In accordance with that request, Sultan Takish invaded 'Irak with a large army. When the two armies came into proximity with each other, one or two ingrate slaves acted treacherously towards Sultan Tughril, and came up behind his august back and martyred him.
At this period his other followers were engaged in front, at the head of a pass, fighting bravely, and did not become aware of this piece of treachery, until those treacherous ingrates brought the august head of their sovereign to Sultan Takish, Khwarazm Shah, who despatched it to that staunch and steadfast band of Tughril's followers.
Sanjar, and had been left, after his father ['s death] very young [in years]. The sons of the Ata-b^c Iladd-giz, who was a slave of Sanjar's, having acquired power over 'Irak, because his [sic] father was ruler of 'Irak ; [and], when he died, they imprisoned Sultan Tughril in one of the fortresses of 'Irak, took his mother to wife [sic], and possessed themselves of the country." For a correct account of these matters see the following note, and note page 169.
7 Jahan-Pahlawan, the Ata-bak, on the death of his half-brother [see under Ata-baks of Azarbaijan and 'Irak, page 171, and note9] Arsalan Shah, set up the latter's son, Tughril. as sovereign of 'Irak, who was then seven years old. While his maternal uncle, Jahan-Pahlawan, lived, Tughril's affairs prospered, and he reigned in some splendour. Jahan-Pahlawan, however, died in 582 H., and Kazil-Arsalan, his full brother, desired to take his place as Ata-bak to Tughril. The latter, being impatient of restraint, would not brook it, and, accordingly enmity arose between them. For further particulars respecting Tughril and Kazil-Arsalan, see note9, page 171, and note5 page 172.THE SALJU£IAH DYNASTY.
167
When they found what had happened, they declared that they would not cease fighting and using the sword, until he, Sultan Takish, should deliver up to them the murderers of their sovereign, whereupon they would yield to him. Sultan Takish complied,' and delivered up the murderers, whom they sent to the infernal regions. Then, taking along with them the head of Sultan Tughril, they proceeded to the presence of Sultan Takish, and submitted to him. He took the head in his arms, and, along with them, performed the customary mourning [for the deceased] ; and Sultan Takish, Khwarazm Shah, took possession of 'Irak8.
8 Tughril's death occurred in the following manner:—Takish of Khwarazm, having invaded 'Iralj: at the instigation of Kutlagh Inanaj, encountered Tughril's forces within three farsakhs of Rai, where Tughril had pitched his camp. According to several authors Tughril and Kutlagh Inanaj were engaged hand to hand, when Tughril struck his own horse a blow with his mace, which was intended for his opponent, and^the horse fell with him, and Tughril was slain by Kutlagh Inanaj. I prefer, however, the circumstantial account of Yafa'T, who says that whilst Tughril was leading his troops in a charge, his horse stumbled, and Tughril was thrown to the ground. At this moment Kutlagh Inanaj reached the spot, and desired to give Tughril a finishing blow, and slay him before he was recognized. This he accomplished, and the body was then placed upon a camel and taken to the presence of Takish, "who, on seeing his enemy in this condition, knelt down and gave thanks to the Almighty for the mercy vouchsafed to him." His head was sent, as an insult, to the Khalifah at Baghdad, and his body was exposed upon a gibbet in the bazar of Rai, on Thursday, the 29th of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 590 h. Thus ended the first dynasty of the Saljuks, who ruled over Khurasan and 'IraV for a period of 161 years. This account of Tughril and his death is widely different from our author's. The IQjalifah Was hostile to Takish. See under his reign, Section XVI.
Our author does not give any account of the Saljufc dynasty of Sham, or of that which ruled so long in Kirman.SECTION XIII.
ACCOUNT OF THE SANJARIYAH RULERS.
The humblest of the servants of the Almighty's Court, Minhaj-i-Saraj, Jurjani, states, that, when the period of the dynasty of the Sanjariyah expired, and no son remained unto Sultan Sanjar, nor brother's sons1 [likewise], everyone of his slaves held some territory among the dominions of Islam. These slaves assumed the title of Ata-baks [guardians and preceptors], and, to the brother's sons of Sultan Sanjar, they accorded the title of Sovereign, whilst they possessed themselves of the different territories of the empire2.
These Ata-baks were of different races. One was the descendant of the Ata-bak, Ilatt-giz, to whom Sultan Sanjar had given the territories of 'Irak and Azarbaijan ; the second, the Ata-bak, Sankur, to whom he had given
1	So in all the copies, but a few lines under our author contradicts himself.
2	Our author appears quite as much in the dark with respect to the Ata-baks, if not more so than he is with regard to the Sultans of Rum. It was Sultan Malik Shah, the father of Sultan Sanjar—not Sanjar himself—who made several of his Mamluks or slaves, as well as some of his relatives and nobles, rulers over different parts of his vast empire [see page 138], as the dates which I shall give will prove, and on the authority of authors of undoubted authority, such as have been already mentioned. For the information of the general reader uninitiated in Oriental lore, I would mention that the words Mamluk and Ghulam. signifying "slave," must not be understood in the sense " slave " conveys in our language. These slaves were sometimes captives, but more often boys of Turkish origin, purchased by kings and their great nobles of traders—slave-dealers—and trained for the highest offices. They were sometimes adopted by their masters, and were frequently made governors of provinces, and leaders of armies. Numbers of these Turkish slaves possessed the throne of Dihli, as will hereafter be mentioned in these pages.
The Ata-baks, it must be remembered, notwithstanding our author's assertions, were, at the outset, more or less, subject to the sovereigns of the house of Saljuk, and acted as tutors and guardians of various young princes, which the word Ata-bak means, from the Turkish at a, father, and bak, a lord, a great man. Sanjar himself was put in charge of Khurasan in the thirteenth year of his age, which signifies that the government was administered in his name, and that his Ata-bak carried on the administration.THE SANJARIYAH DYNASTIES.
169
the territory of Fars; and, third, the Ata-baks of Mau§il, and the Maliks of Sham3. Trustworthy authorities have related some little respecting the events [in the lives] of two of these dynasties, as has been [herein] recorded ; and, with regard to the Ata-baks of Mausil, as much as has been written respecting the affairs of Sultan Nur-ud-Din of Sham is all the information that has been obtained, with the exception of that of which the Khudawand-Zadah [son of a lord or great man] of Mausil informed me, which was this much, that his eighth ancestor was a Turk of Khata-i. and the slave of Sultan Sanjar4. Such being the case, this dynasty [of Ata-baks] has been classified into three sections6.
FIRST DYNASTY.
THE SANJARIYAH MALIKS OF 'IRAK AND AZARBAljAN.
Be it known that one night, at a convivial entertainment, Sultan Sanjar conferred sovereignty upon three persons^-to Malik Utsuz6 he gave the throne of Khwarazm ; to the Ata-bak, Ilatt-giz, the throne of Azarbaljan; and the throne of Fars to the Ata-bak, Sankur7.
3	Respecting both of which dynasties he gives no account. From the remarks which follow, our author seems to have been at a loss for materials, and his statements fully prove it.
4	A vast deal of information, certainly.
5	It will be noticed that our author, who generally eschews dates, never gives a single date throughout his account of the three following dynasties, so called.
0 Also written Utsiz, and in the Burhan-i-Kata', Itsiz.
7 Sanjar's father, Malik Shah, who certainly held a greater extent of territory than any other of the Salju^ sovereigns, bestowed territories, that is the viceroyalty over them, upon his Mamluks and officers. Khwarazm he gave to Niish-Tigin-i-Gharjah, who was also a slave, on his conquest of that territory, in 475 h. [He was the progenitor of that dynasty], and this happened five years before Sanjar was born. The latter, during his reign, in 535 h., endeavoured to reduce Itsiz, the grandson of Nush-Tigin, who died when Sanjar was in his twelfth year, but was unable, and Itsiz became an independent sovereign. On A^-Sankur, the progenitor of the Ata-baks of Fars and of Diyar-i-Bakr, Muhammad, Sanjar's predecessor, bestowed the government of Halab, in 487 h., upwards offive years before Sanjar came to the throne of the empire : he had only held Khurasan before. It was Mahmud, nephew of Sanjar, who gave Iladd-giz the widow of his brother in marriage, and the government of A?arbaljan, as mentioned farther on. I have been thus particular here in order to show the value of our author's statements with respect
M170
tiie tabakAt-i-nasiri.
When the next day came round, a number of his Wazirs, confidants, and advisers, represented to the Sultan, that, on the previous night, his Majesty had given thrones away to three different persons, out of whose hands he would not, hereafter, be able to disengage them. He inquired what three persons they were, and, when they informed him, he confirmed the appointments, saying :—" Those two first mentioned are my slaves, and the other is in my service. As there is no son to interpose, who would be heir to the sovereignty, it is better that my slaves should be paramount."
I. THE ATA-BAK, ILATT-GIZ8, US-SANJARI.
The Ata-bak, Ilatt-giz, was a slave of Sultan Sanjar's, and he was possessed of great strength and nobility of mind.
Having brought the territory of Azarbaijan under his sway, he performed many great acts; and many monuments of his goodness still remain in that country.
to the Ata-baks, whatever may be the value of what he says about Hindustan. As the other slaves, who were appointed rulers at the same time, are not mentioned by our author, I need not refer to them here.
8 The Ata-bak, Iladd-giz [or Ilatt-giz, t and d being interchangeable], was the slave of Kamal-ud-Din, 'All, SamairamT, the Wazir of Sultan Mahmud, son of Sultan Muhammad, son of Sultan Malik Shah. [See note 6, page 146. As the author leaves out Mahmud's reign, it is not surprising that he makes errors with respect to Iladd-giz.] Samairam is one of the dependencies of Isfahan, and is said to have been founded by Sam, the son of Null [Noah], who gave it the name of Sam-Aram—Sam's resting-place [or place of rest]— but, from constant use, in course of time, the name got corrupted into Samairam. After the Wazir, Kamal-ud-Din, was put to death, in the month of Safar, 516 H., Iladd-giz became the servant of Sultan Mahmud, during whose reign he rose to the highest rank and dignity, and great power. Mahmud gave the widow of his brother Tughril, the mother of Arsalan Shah [see page 165, where the author falls into utter confusion : this note tends to throw some light upon his statements there], in marriage to Iladd-giz, and bestowed upon him the government of Azarbaijan. He became very powerful, and annexed Ganjah and Shirwan to his territory. He set up Arsalan Shah, son of Tughril, his wife's son, as sovereign, and, at once, assumed the entire direction of affairs, and all the power, Arsalan possessing nothing of sovereignty except the bare name. Iladd-giz died at Hamadan, according to Fasih-i, in 567 H., but some say in 569 H. In 557 H., an army of 30,000 Gurjis [Georgians] invaded Azarbaijan, destroyed the city of Dti-In, and slew 10,000 Musalmans, carried off a number of captives, and burnt the great Masjid. Shams-ud-Din. Iladd-giz, took the field with so.ooo'horse, at Tabriz, in order to aid the ruler of Akilat and the lord of Maraghah, and to revenge this invasion, which he effected in the following year.THE SANJARIYAH DYNASTIES.
171
The Almighty gave him worthy and accomplished sons ; and he carried on wars with the infidels of Afranj and Karkh. and reduced the country, as far as the frontiers of Rum, under his subjection, and conquered a great part of 'Irak. He died after reigning a considerable time.
II. THE ATA-BAK, MUHAMMAD, SON OF ILATT-GlZ.
The Ata-bak, Muhammad, was a great monarch, and succeeded his father on the throne9. He took possession of the territories of 'Irak and Azarbaijan, and performed many illustrious deeds. He was just and of implicit faith, he founded colleges and masjids, and undertook many expeditions against the unbelievers. He likewise performed many gallant exploits in the direction of Karkh. and reduced the territory, as far as the frontiers of Rum and Sham, under his sway.
He reigned for a considerable period, and had slaves who attained great eminence and grandeur, who, after him, took possession of the territories of 'Irak1, such as I-tagh-mish, and Ada-mish, and others besides them, the whole of which they held up to the time of Khwarazm Shah, when the territories of 'Irak passed out of their hands, and they died.
In the length of his reign2, his justice, and his beneficence, the Ata-bak, Muhammad, was a second Sanjar.
9 Iladd-gizwas succeeded as Ata-bak by his son, Jahan Pahlawan, Muhammad, by the widow of Sultan Tugkril, and half-brother of Arsalan Shah. The latter having died in 571 H., the Ata-bak set Arsalan's son, Tughril, a child in his seventh year, upon the throne of 'Irak ; but he was a mere puppet, and, except in ijame, the Ata-bak was sovereign. Jahan Pahlawan then despatched his full brother, Kazil-Arsalan, as his deputy, to A?arbaljan. Jahan Pahlawan died at Rai in 582 H. There is a good deal of discrepancy among authors as to the dates of the deaths of these two Ata-baks.
1	As the Ata-bak, Muhammad, Jahan Pahlawan, had several sons, who succeeded to his territories, the mention of his " slaves," who held them "up to the time of Khwarazm Shah." is, like many other statements of our author, inexplicable. No other writer makes such a statement.
2	The Ata-bak, Iladd-giz, died in 567 H., some say in 568 H., and others, 569 H. He held sway about 35 years. The Ata-bak, Muhammad, who, our author says, was "a second Sanjar in length of reign," only held power from the date of his father's death, until 582 H., just 15 years. He has confounded the father with the son.
M 2172
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
III. THE ATA-BAK, YUZ-BAK, SON QF MUHAMMAD, US-SANJARL
The Ata-bak, Yuz-bak, was sovereign of Azarbaijan. Some have said3 that he was the brother of the Ata-bak, Muhammad, son of the Ata-bak, Ilatt-giz, the San-jari.
Yuz-bak was a man of energy and experience, and reigned over the territory of Azarbaijan for a considerable time.
3 An absurd way of writing history, when he is not even certain of the names and descent of the people he pretends to write about, who flourished only a short time before he compiled his work. The Ata-bak, Jahan Pahlawan, Muhammad, was succeeded by his brother, Kazil-Arsalan, not by Yuz-bak. At the decease of the former, Kazil presented himself before Sultan Tughril, in expectation that he would permit him to act as his Ata-bak ; but he, having experienced severity from Jahan Pahlawan, and having now grown older, was not inclined to have another master, and would not consent. Kazil, becoming hopeless of gaining his object, retired into Azarbaijan, and rebelled ; but was defeated in an engagement with Tughril's partisans. In 583 H., Kazil had gained sufficient strength to be able to renew hostilities ; and, in 586 H., he made Tughril prisoner, with his son, named Malik Shah, and immured them in a strong fortress in Azarbaijan, and Kazil-Arsalan assumed independent sovereignty. Kazil-Arsalan was assassinated by the disciples of the Mulahidah in 587 H., after reigning five years. See pages 165 and 166.
He was succeeded by his nephew, Nusrat-ud-DIn, Abu-Bikr, the son of Jahan Pahlawan, in the territory of Azarbaijan only, and 'Ira^ passed to his brother, Kutlagh Inanaj. In 587 H., the year after Abu-Bikr's death, Sultan Tughril effected his escape from imprisonment, and succeeded in reaching 'Irak. Kutlagh Inanaj, after marrying his mother to Tughril, combined with her to administer poison to Tugh,ril in his food ; but, having received a warning, Tughril compelled his wife to take it, upon which she almost immediately died. Kutlagh Inanaj was imprisoned for a time, but was subsequently set at liberty. He went to the Court of Takish, Sultan of Khwarazm, and brought him with an army upon Tughril, and, in a battle which took place between them, Tughril was slain, and the first dynasty of the Saljuks terminated. This will throw some light upon the almost unintelligible and confused account given by our author respecting the reign of Sultan Tughril, at page 166, and the very romantic, but not very authentic account of his death. It will be noticed that, up to this time, even the Ata-baks were nominally but the ministers of the Saljuk sovereigns, and not "great monarchs" who ascended "thrones," as our author asserts.
The Ata-bak, Uz-bak, or Yuz-bak [the name is written both ways], son ot Jahan Pahlawan, was the last of the Ata-baks of Azarbaijan, and succeeded Nusrat-ud-DIn, Abu-Bikr, in the government ,of that territory. He was the Ata-bak whose city of Tabriz, Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, the last of the Khwarazm! Sultans, invested. Yuz-bak had left it, and had placed his consort in charge ; and she, having fallen in love with Jalal-ud-Din, became his wife, and surrendered the city to him. Yuz-bak died of grief and chagrin. For an account of this circumstance, see the reign of Jalal-ucl-Din, Section XVI.THE SANJARIYAH DYNASTIES.
173
He continued in possession of it until the reign of Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah. Upon several occasions the forces of Khwarazm Shah were appointed to act against him, but he did not fall into their hands, until he advanced into 'Irak, being eager for the possession of Isfahan, and hostilities were going on between him and the Ata-bak of Fars, Sa'd [son of Zangi].
Unexpectedly, Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, came upon them. The Ata-bak, Yuz-bak, was defeated and completely overthrown, and Azarbaijan passed out of his possession, and he died.
IV. THE ATA-BAK, ABU-BIKR, SON OF MUHAMMAD.
The Ata-bak, Abu-Bikr, was a great monarch; and the territory of'Irak, and the Jibal [the mountain tracts of'Irak] came into his possession. He ruled his subjects justly and beneficently,and cleared the frontiers of his territory of enemies.
He founded colleges and masjids in 'Irak, Arran, and Azarbaijan, and a very large college at Maraghah ; and was the patron of ecclesiastics and learned men. He had numerous slaves, both of his father's and of his own, each of whom was Malik [ruler] in one of the cities of 'Irak. He was the elder brother of the Ata-bak, Yuz-bak, and he reigned for a considerable time, and died, leaving no children behind him.
SECOND DYNASTY.
THE SANJARIYAH MALIKS OF FARS.
I. THE ATA-BAK, SANKUR4, US-SANJARI.
As soon as the throne of Fars5 was conferred upon the Ata-bak, Sankur, by Sultan Sanjar, Sankur brought that
4 Guzidah says that Ak-San}rur [turned into " Ascansar" by Gibbon], who held Halab of Sultan Malik Shah, is the progenitor of these Ata-baks of Fars.
' We now come to the Ata-baks of Fars, whom our author continually styles "great monarchs," who ascended thrones, although, at the very outset, he says the brothers' sons of Sanjar retained the title of BadsJiah. He begins with the Ata-bak, Sankur, and would lead his readers to imagine that he was the first of the rulers of Fars who bore that title, apd that Sultan Sanjar bestowed the174
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
territory under subjection6, and acted with justice and beneficence to the people under his sway.
On the death of Sultan" Sanjar, some of the brothers' sons of that monarch came into the territory of„Fars from 'Irak. Sankur sent them to Istakhur. in that territory,
sovereignty of that territory upon him, as he did upon others of his slaves. Such, however, is not the case. The Ata-baks of Fars were of the race of Salghur, a Turkman chief, who, about the time of the great movement of.the Saljiiks towards Khurasan, made raids into that territory, and committed great ravages, until the Saljuks became complete masters of it, when that chieftain is said to have taken service under Sultan Tughril Beg, and Salghur and his tribe took up their quarters in Fars, Khuzistan, Luristan, and parts adjacent. From the downfall of the Dialamah dynasty to the rise to independent sovereignty of the Sankuriah, of whom our author's Sankur is the first, seven persons ruled over Fars, six of whom were governors on the part of the Saljult sovereigns. The first of these was Fazl, son of Hasan, who in 459 H., after Alb-Arsalan, the previous year, had inflicted chastisement upon the Shaban-karah, seized Mansur-i-Fulad Sutun [Pillar of Steel], the last of the DTlami sovereigns of the family of Buwiah, and imprisoned him. He then seized upon Fars, which he appears to have been allowed to retain ; but, subsequently, having "become disaffected, he was replaced by the Amir Khumar-Tigin. To him succeeded the Ata-bak, Jawll [also written Chawli], who reduced the power of the Shabankarah. He was succeeded in the government by the Ata-bak, Karajah, who was slain at Hamadan [Guzidah says in Fars]. He was followed by the Ata-bak, Mangu [also called Mangus], his son. Subsequently, the Ata-bak, Buzabah [also written Fuzabah,/being interchangeable with i], Was made governor by Sultan Mas'ud, son of Muhammad, son of Malik Shah, Saljuki. He rebelled against Mas'ud, son of Mahmud, and was taken in an engagement with him, and put to death in 542 H. After this, Sultan Mas'ud made his brother's son, Malik Shah [Guzidah says, Muhammad], ruler of Fars. He was a youth wholly given to pleasure; and, after a time, he put to death, without cause, the Ata-bak [his own Ata-bak in all probability], Salghur. On this, Sankur-Tigln, son of Maudud, son of Zangi, son of Ak-San^ur, son of Salghur, rose against Malik Shah, and expelled him from the territory of Fars. Malik Shah went to his uncle's court, obtained assistance, and again entered Fars, but was unable to effect any thing; and, in 543 H., Sankur assumed independent sovereignty. The account given in Guzidah is somewhat different, but to .the same purpose. It says, "Buzabah, having rebelled against Sultan Mas'ud in 541 H., was defeated before Hamadan, taken prisoner, and put to death in 543 H. The brother's son of Buzabah, Sankur, son of Maudud, in revenge for his uncle's death, seized upon the territory of Fars." All these events took place in Sanjar's lifetime. Sankur assumed the title of Muzaffar-ud-Din, and ruled for a period of thirteen years, and died in 556 H. He was succeeded, not by his son, but by his brother, Tuklah. It must be borne in mind that all these Ata-baks .were, more or less, subject to the successors of Sultan Sanjar, while the dynasty lasted. Mas'ud died in 547 H., and Malik Shah succeeded. See latter part of previous note, and note 6 page 146, and note 6, page 151.
6 The constant recurrence, throughout the work, of this stock phrase of our author's, may be partly accounted for from the fact that confusion, more or less, arose on the death of each ruler.THE SANJARIYAH DYNASTIES.
175
and assigned a stipend, and furnished them with all things necessary for their support. . Those princes were allowed to retain the empty title of Badshah, whilst Sankur, under the name of Ata-bak [guardian and preceptor], ruled over the territory of Fars. He reigned for a lengthened period, and died.
II. THE ATA-BAK, ZANGI7, SON OF SANKUR.
The Ata-bak, Zangi, ascended the throne of Fars after the death of his father. He was a great monarch, and was just, and ruled with a firm hand ; and he brought the dominions of his father under his control and government.
With respect to the rulers of the countries around, he guided his policy as the circumstances of the times rendered feasible ; and he held the sovereignty of Fars for a long period, and died8.
III. THE ATA-BAK, DUKLAH, SON OF SANKUR.
The Ata-bak, Duklah, after the decease of his brother, ascended the throne of Fars. He was an energetic and rigorous monarch, and brought the territory of Fars under his control.
Hostilities broke out between him and the Maliks of 'Irak ; and he collected together, from all parts of the country, a vast quantity of material and munitions, the like of which, to such an amount of wealth and treasure, none of his predecessors in the rule of Fars had ever possessed.
He reigned for a long time, and died9.
' Our author here again has made a great blunder. There were two Zangis and two Tuklahs [or Duklahs, d being interchangeable with t~\. The first, according to the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, San^ur's brother, Tuklah, having become suspicious of his brother's intentions, retired among the Fazla-wiahs. The chief rendered Tuklah assistance, and he, one night, suddenly fell upon Sankur by surprise, seized him, and immured him in the Kala'-i-Safid. Tuklah then assumed the authority, and held it four years. He died in 553 H.; after which Sankur again obtained power, and in 556 H. he died. He was succeeded by his brother, ZangT, son of Maudud.
8	Zangi, son of Maudud, only reigned for a short period, and died in the following year, 557 h. He was succeeded by his son [not his brother : our author confounds the two Tuklahs into one], Tuklah, or Duklah, as our author now states. He was confirmed in possession of Fars by Sultan Arsalan, son of Tughril, son of Muhammad, son of Malik Shah.
9	Tuklah died in 590 H., but the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarlkh says in 591 H.176
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
IV. THE ATA-BAK,~ SA'D, SON OF ZANGl
The Ata-bak, Sa'd, was a great monarch, and ascended the throne of Fars after the decease of his ancle [the Ata-bak, Duklah], and brought the different parts of that country under his rule, in the manner which has been described2.
He was a most just and intrepid sovereign; and trustworthy authorities have related this, that the weight of his arms and armour was so great, that a powerful man could not lift from the ground the armour he used to wear.
He led armies against 'Irak upon several occasions, and in some engagements he was victorious; but, in others again, he was defeated, as happened when a battle took place between him and Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, undesignedly, and in the following manner. The Ata-bak, Sa'd, was marching an army into 'Irak, with the object of capturing Isfahan; and the Ata-bak, Yuz-bak, son of the Ata-bak, Muhammad, had come out of Azar-baijan also, with the object of gaining possession of that city.
The two armies, of Fars and of Azarbaijan, were marching towards the same point from opposite directions, when Sultan Muhammad3, Khwarazm Shah, arrived [with an army] upon the frontier of 'Irak. He obtained information that the Ata-bak, Sa'd, was marching an army from Fars, towards the gate of Isfahan, in order to give battle to the Ata-bak, Yuz-bak, and he [Sultan Muhammad] advanced with his troops towards the Ata-bak, Sa'd.
When the troops of Khwarazm Shah came in sight4, the Ata-bak, Sa'd, imagined that this was the army of the Ata-
1	Duklah was succeeded by his cousin, the Ata-bak, Tughril, brother of Zangl, and son of Sankur, son of Maudud, son of Zangi, son of Ak-Sankur, the other brother of the first ruler ; and hostilities went on between him and Sa'd, son of Zangl', for a considerable time, during which Fars suffered great desolation. At length Tughril was taken captive by Sa'd, who deprived him of his sight, and immured him within the walls of the fortress of Istakhur, where he died, 599 H. He was succeeded by Sa'd, son of Zangi, son of Maudud, who is fourth according to our author.
2	Not mentioned in any other place in the work.
3	Sultan 'Ala-ud-DIn, Muhammad.
4	The Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh and Jahan-Ara say this affair took place on the confines of Rai.THE SANJARIYAH DYNASTIES.
*77
bak, Yuz-bak, and at once marshalled his ranks in order, and attacked the Sultan's army, and threw it into confusion. Suddenly, one of the champions of Khwarazm Shah's army joined spears with him ; and the name of that champion was Kashkah5, who was the [Sultan's] Amir-i-Akhur [lord of the stables]. The champion hurled the horse of Sa'd to the ground, and wanted to slay him ; but the Ata-bak cried out to him :—" I am the Ata-bak, Sa'd ; do not slay me. Say, Whose army is yours?" The champion replied :—" The army of Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah." The Ata-bak rejoined :— " Take me to the Sultan's presence."
On reaching the Sultan's presence, Sa'd kissed the ground, and said :—" King of the Universe, by the great God, this your servant knew not that this was the king's army, otherwise he would never have drawn his sword." The Sultan comforted and encouraged him, and forthwith had him remounted ; and, on account of what had reached the ears of the Sultan respecting the great energy, manliness, and intrepidity, of the Ata-bak, Sa'd, he treated him with honour and reverence, and restored to him the dominion of Fars, upon this stipulation—that one half of that territory should be held by the Maliks, or great nobles, and trusty retainers of the Khwarazm Shahl dynasty, and the other half should belong to the Ata-bak®.
The Sultan likewise appointed a force to accompany him, for this reason, that, on the Ata-bak, Sa'd, having been taken prisoner, his son, the Ata-bak, Abu-Bikr, had taken possession of the territory of Fars, and had read the Khut-bah in his own name.
When the Ata-bak, Sa'd, with the forces of Khwarazm Shah, and the Sahib [lord] Ikhtiyar-ul-Mulk, Amir-i-Haji, who was despatched along with Sa'd by Khwarazm Shah.
6 In some few copies Kashilf, in others Kashjkl.
8 In the year 603 h., Sa'd was taken prisoner on the confines of Rai by the troops of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah. He was released on the stipulation "that he should pay four dangs [a dang is the fourth part of a dram, and the meaning here signifies a fourth part of any thing : some writers say a third] of the revenue of Fars and 'Ira^, which he appears to have then held, into the Sultan's treasury," and, upon these terms, he was allowed to retain these territories. The Muntakhab-ut-Tawarlkh calls the Sultan by the title of Kutb-ud-Din, and says that Sa'd was released on the intercession of the Malik of Zawzan.i78
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
reached the frontier of Fars, the Ata-bak, Abu-Bikr, advanced to oppose them, and the father and son came to blows. The Ata-bak, Sa'd, wounded his son, Abu-Bikr, in the face with his sword, and the ranks of the Fars! army-became disorganized.
The Ata-bak, Sa'd, again ascended'the throne of Fars, and imprisoned his son. After this, Sa'd reigned for a considerable period over [half of ?] that territory, and died after the misfortunes attending the irruption of the infidel Mughals7.
The Ata-bak, Sa'd, was endowed with many distinguished virtues, and excellent qualities. In the first place, the flag, which, every year, he used to send along with the caravan of pilgrims on the journey to the Ka'bah [at Makkah], when the pilgrims returned, he used to have kept constantly set up before the entrance of his palace or pavilion ; and, every time he came to the hall of audience, or his private apartments, he used to perform a prayer of two genuflexions under the flag in question, after which he would mount his throne. This circumstance indicates how excellent was his faith ; but, respecting his ostentation and pomp, a trustworthy person has related, that the revenues of one of the provinces of the territory of Fars was set apart for the expenses of his own wardrobe. The revenue of the province in question amounted, every year, to three hundred and sixty thousand golden dinars8, and, every day, one thousand dinars of red gold used to be expended upon his attire, in the shape of head-dresses, tunics, mantles, robes, and expensive fabrics, girdles, jewel-studded collars, and the like.
If any surplus remained over and above the necessary expenses of his wardrobe, he would purchase therewith
7	Sa'd died at Baiza in 625 h., but the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh. says his death happened in 628 h., which is evidently incorrect. His Wazir, Khwa-jah Ghiyas-ud-DTn, kept his death secret, and sent Sa'd's signet-ring to the Kala'-i-Safid, and released Sa'd's son, Abu Bikr, who had been confined in that fortress for a considerable time, had him brought into the pavilion, and then said, as though Sa'd were still alive, "The Ata-bak is pleased to command ' the Ata-bak, Abu Bikr, is his heir,"' and he succeeded accordingly. The Muntakh.ab-ut-Tawa.rikh, says that Abu-Bikr was confined in the fortress of Istakhur. Guzldah, on the other hand, says that, when Sultan Jalal-ud-Dm, the last of the Khwarazm ShahTs, entered Fars, on his return from Hind, he set Abu-Bikr at liberty. Yafa-I says much the same.
8	I rather expect this is much more than all the revenues of Fars at present.THE SANJARIYAH DYNASTIES.
179
valuable gems and jewels, which used to be arranged about his head-dress, his tunic, and girdle. He never wore a suit but one day; the next day he would invest one of his nobles or grandees with it. May the Almighty have mercy upon him, and pardon his sins !
V.» THE ATA-BAK, ABtj-BIKR, SON OF SA'D.
The Ata-bak, Abu-Bikr1, is a great monarch, and he has brought under his sway the territories of Fars.
When the Ata-bak, Sa'd, was sent back again to ascend the throne of Fars by Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, under the agreement that one half the territory of Fars should remain in the possession of Sa'd, and the other half be held by the Sultan, the latter despatched [a body of troops] along with the Ata-bak, Sa'd, under the Amir-i-Haji, Ikhtiyar-ul-Mulk, Nishapuri, to enable Sa'd to re-possess himself of that half.
The Ata-bak, Abu-Bikr, and his two brothers, Tahamtan and Sankur Shah, with the troops of Fars, advanced against their father, determined that they would not give up their dominions into the hands of their enemies2. When the battle on both sides had been duly ordered, the Ata-bak, Sa'd, issued from the ranks of his forces, while his son, the Ata-bak, Abu-Bikr, came forth from the ranks of the troops of Fars to encounter his father. Sa'd struck and wounded his son in the face with his sword, [and, seeing this,] the ranks of the Fars! army gave way. Sa'd took his son, Abu-Bikr, prisoner, and put him in confinement.
When Sa'd departed this life, they brought forth Abu-Bikr from his place of confinement, and raised him to the throne of Fars ; and he brought under his rule the territories of his father, and his grandfather, and chastised his enemies.
After some time, he sent an army towards the sea [of Fars3], and took the Capital of the country of Ktsh4,
9 Tie is the eighth, not the fifth, of the Ata-baks of Fars.
1 Shavkh Sa'di dedicated his Gulistan and Bostan to this prince.
1 See page 178, and note 7.
a lie annexed the greater part of the tracts lying on the side of the Gulf of Persia, such as Hurmiiz, Katlf, Bahrain, 'Umman, and Lafc-§a [LaL], the Al-Hasa [l-J] seemingly of Ibn-i-Batutah, which he says was previously called Hajar. The Khwarazm Shah! dynasty, at this time, had fallen.
* Kish is described in old geographical works as a city, on a hill, on ani8Q
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRL
[together with] Bahrain and Hurmuz. He also despatched one of his brothers to the infidel Mughals, and entered into a treaty of peace with that race. He engaged to pay tribute and revenue to them, and brought reproach and dishonour upon himself by becoming a tributary of the infidels of Chin5, and became hostile to the Dar-ul-Khilafat.
Up to the time this history was "written, affairs are in this state6. May the Almighty God continue the Sultan of the Sultans of Islam, and the great nobles and lords of his Court, in sovereignty, and in rendering bounden duty to the Dar-ul-Khilafat. and the house of 'Abbas, for the sake of Muhammad, his family, and the whole of his companions and friends !
THIRD DYNASTY. th£ sanjariyah maliks of nishapur.
I. MALIK MU-AYYID, US-SANJARI.
Malik Mu-ayyid was a slave of Sultan Sanjar's, and a Turk1. He held the government of the territory of
island, in the sea of Fars, called Hurmuz ; and is said to be so called from its resemblance, when viewed from the hills, to a quiver for arrows, which KTsh, signifies. The word is sometimes spelt Kish, and sometimes Kesh,. See note 3, p. 46.
5	At the time of the interregnum after the death of Changiz Khan, Abu-Bikr sent his brother, Tahamtan, to the presence of Uktae Ka-an with rich presents, and received from him a charter, and the title of Kutlagh Khan. He likewise obtained a charter from Hulaku Khan, and reigned for a period of thirty-three years.
6	The Ata-bak, Abu-Bikr, died in 558 H., the very year in which our author completed his History. The dynasty did not terminate for several years after ; and three persons, including a female, ruled over the territory remaining to them, tributary to the Mughals, until 685 H.
7	The first of the Mu-ayyidlah dynasty was Mu-ayyid-ud-DTn, who was one of the slaves of Sultan Sanjar. As he was the A'lnah-dar, or mirror-bearer, to that monarch, he became known by the name of Mu-ayyid-i-A'Tnah. After Sultan Sanjar's death, he for a short time pretended to be obedient to Rukn-ud-DIfi, Mahmud, the son of Muhammad Kh,an, son ofBughra Khan, who had married Sanjar's sister, who, when Sanjar fell into the hands of the Ghuzz tribe, was raised to sovereignty in Kh,urasan ; but he soon threw off his disguise, and, having seized Mahmud, in the fifth year of his sovereignty, deprived him of his sight, and assumed the sovereignty over the tract of territory extending from Hirat to Rai. In 569 H., he undertook an expedition against Mazan-daran, and made great bloodshed and devastation therein. He subsequentlyTHE SANJARlYAH" DYNASTIES.
181
Nishapur, and the parts adjacent, such as Jam, Bakhurz, Shangan, Sabras", Ja-jurm, Sharistanah. Khujan. and other cities and towns which are dependencies of Nishapur.
He was a Malik of good disposition ; and, when the San-jarl dynasty passed away, Malik Mu-ayyid, the sovereign of Khwarazm, the Maliks of 'Irak, and the Sultans of Ghur, entered into terms of friendship and amity together for mutual support and security. Under the shelter and support of this arrangement, Malik Mu-ayyid continued for some years, and died.
II. MALIK TUGHAN SHAH, SON OF MU-AYYID.
Malik Tughan Shah was a monarch of blooming prospects, and of handsome person, and greatly addicted to pleasure and gaiety. He used to spend his days in pleasure, in singing, and convivial meetings, along with his confidants and favourites, minstrels and singers and boon companions9.
When the territory of Nishapur passed from his father under his own control, he entered into relations of amity and dependence towards the neighbouring Maliks and Sultans, and rendered homage unto them ; and, as he was incapable of injuring or molesting them, they all refrained from troubling him.
He passed his whole time in pleasure and jollity, dancing
[but, according to Fasih-T, in the same year], in concert with Sultan Shah, Khwarazml, the rival of Sultan Takish, encountered the latter in battle, was taken prisoner, and put to death by Takish. A portion of the territory of Sanjar's nephew, on the usurpation of Mu-ayyid, had passed into the possession of the Khwarazm! sovereign. See reign of Takish, V. of the Khwarazm Shahis.
8	Some of these names are rather doubtful. Some copies have Sangan, and Shagan, and Sabrash, Bihras, Slran, and Shiran. Possibly, Sunkhas and Samnakan are meant.
9	The accounts of other writers differ considerably from our author's as to this prince and his doings. Tughan Shah, in 576 H., fought a battle with Sultan Shah, the Khwarazmi. and rival of' Ala-ud-DIn, Takish, near Sarakhs, after Sultan Shah had returned from Gur Khan's territory, whither he had fled after his previous defeat in which Tughan's father was made prisoner. _ Tughan was routed, and sought protection from Sultan Takish, and also from the sovereign of Ghur, but without avail ; and Sultan Shah possessed himself of Tus and Sarakhs. fughan died in 581 H.f 82
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
and wine-drinking ; and, for the sake of his own pleasure and merriment, he had the sleeves of his vest made each about ten ells in length, to which small golden bells were fastened, and he would himself join in the dance. He soon took his departure from this world.
III. SANJAR SHAH, SON OF TUGHAN SHAH.
When Tughan Shah ascended the throne of Nishapur, he entered into connexion with the Maliks of Ghur, and despatched a confidential agent, and demanded the hand of the daughter of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad Sam, for his son, Sanjar Shah. The chief men among the ecclesiastics and theologians of Nishapur accordingly came [into Ghur], and the knot of that marriage contract was tied.
When Tughan Shah died, Takish, Khwarazm Shah, marched an army from Khwarazm. and advanced to Nishapur, and "possessed himself of that city and territory, seized Sanjar Shah, and carried him away to Khwarazm1.
Sultan Ghivas-ud-Din released his daughter, Malikah-i-Jalali2, from her betrothal; and, according to the statement of Imam Shafi'i, he gave her in marriage, in Ghur, to Malik 'Ala-ud-Dtn3. Sanjar Shah died in Khwarazm.
1	Sanjar Shah succeeded to his father's territory ; and Manguli Beg, a slave of his grandfather's, through the youthfulness of Sanjar, acquired the whole power,, and was in consequence put to death by Sultan Takish,. After this, Takish married Sanjar's mother, and gave a daughter of his own to Sanjar in marriage. In 591 H., Sanjar was accused of meditating rebellion, and was deprived of his sight. He died in 595 H., and his territory was taken possession of by the Khwarazm Shah! sovereign.
2	A title, not her name.
3	In three copies Ziya-ud-DIn.SECTION XIV.
THE MALIKS OF SIJISTAN AND NIMROZ.
As this Tabakat1 is being written in the name of the great Sultan, the king of kings [over] both Turk and \Ajam, Nasir-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Abu-l-Muz'affar, Mahmud, son of Sultan I-yal-timish—May his sovereignty endure !— and, as an account of all rulers and their Tabakat is being penned, the author, Minhaj-i-Saraj, Jurjanl, would state that he desires, to the extent of his capability, to commit to writing what has come to his hearing, and what he Jias himself seen respecting the Maliks of Nimroz.
They were able and just monarchs, virtuous, and- cherishers of the indigent, whose country, from the Saitjari era up to this time, when the territories of Iran have, through the cruelty and rapine of the infidels of Chin, become ruined, was adorned by the grandeur, the justice, the munificence, and the nobility of mind of those monarchs, and, therefore, the author desires that he himself, and those Maliks, may continue to call forth the favourable mention of those under whose notice this [account] may come, and, that a benediction may be offered for the sovereign of the present time.
The origin and lineage of these rulers from the previous Amirs, did not seem clearly deducible in History2.
1 The word Tabakat being a portion of the title of the original work, it has been used here, for convenience,- in the singular form, although really the plural of
3 As in scores of other places, our author is also very incorrect here. He .has already given us a Section on the Suffarians of Sijistan or Nimroz, and has mentioned the names of the other sons of Lais, the Brazier ; but he does not appear to have known that the descendants of 'Umro, son of Lais, subsequent to his captivity, ruled over Fars [for a time] and Sijistan, although these events took place some three centuries before our author composed his work. There is consequently an hiatus of the reigns and struggles of no less than six princes of this family, and the events of just one century are entirely passed over ; and two Sections are given, and two dynasties made, of one and the same family, whatever claims Khalaf may have had to descent from the Kai-THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
I. TAHIR, SON OF MUHAMMAD.
Trustworthy persons have related, that, when the dominion and sovereignty of the Mahmudi dynasty passed
anians. Our author appears here to greater disadvantage, as an historian, than even in his accounts of the Saljuks and the Kurds, which are sufficiently incorrect.
I will here briefly supply an account of the Suffarians, passed over by our author, in order to make the subject intelligible to the reader.
When 'Umro, son of Lais, was defeated under the walls of Balkh by Isma'il, Samani, in 287 H., as related at page 25, his grandson, TAHIR, son of Muhammad, son of 'Umro, was set up as his successor. His career was a chequered one. He at first possessed himself of Fars, and drove out the Khaltfah's officers, but was subsequently obliged to relinquish it. Subsequently, however, the administration of the affairs of Fars was conferred upon him by the Court of Baghdad ; but, shortly after, a slave of his grandfather's rose against him, in that territory.
[In nearly every history in which this "slave is referred to, his name is said to be Saikzi, Sabkrx, Sankri, and the like ; but further research, since note 6, page 34, was written^ tends to show that this could not have been intended for the najne of the slave, but of his race. He was a SigizI, one of a people often mentioned in the following pages. "Sigiz, and Sigizi, is the name of a lofty mountain [range of hills ?] in Zabulistan, and the people dwelling thereabout are called after that mountain, Sigizis and Sigizian. Rustam-i-Zal is also called Sigizi on the same account. Some consider, however, that the meaning of Sigizi is Sistani, because the 'Arabs change the g into/, and call Sigistan, which is the proper name of that country, Sijistan, and Sigizi, by the same fashion, Sijizi." The Sigizis are not Afghans, so must not be turned into Patans, but there is a small tribe of that people called Sekari.]
A battle took place between Tahir and the Sigizi slave, and Tahir was worsted, and fell into the hands of the rebel, who sent him, together with his brother' Ya'kiib, to Baghdad, through which city they were paraded on a camel [one author says on two elephants]. This happened in the year 293 H., and Tahir died after having ruled for a period of six years. Some say he died in 296 H.
On this, in the same year, LAIS, son of 'All, entered Fars [from Sijistan], and the rebel Sigizi slave fled ; but, being supported by an army sent by the Khalifah under his general, Munis-i-Khadim, he was enabled to march against Lais. Although Lais made a gallant and vigorous dash upon their forces near Ujan, he was unsuccessful, and fell a captive into their hands, and the Sigizi again acquired possession of Fars. Soon after, however, the Khalifah had to despatch Munis into Fars again, as the Sigizi withheld the revenue [the Khalifah's share], which amounted to 400,000 dirams. The Sigizi now offered to pay 1,000,000 dirams, but this offer was not accepted, and, after several encounters with Muhammad, son of Ja'far, the Khalifah's general, the Sigizi fled to the fortress of Bamm, in Kirman^ but, as he was followed by that officer, he fled from Bamm, and retired into the wilds of Khurasan ; and Muhammad was entrusted with the administration of the affairs of Fars and Kirman.TH.E MALIKS OF SIJISTAN AND NIMROZ.	185
over to the family of Saljuk, the nobles who were exercising authority in the country of Sijistan acquired power, and,
I11 that same year, Abu Nasr-i-iAhmad, Samani, took possession of Sijistan, and, as he had succeeded in making prisoner of Muhammad, son of 'All, brother of Ya'lfiib, 'Umro, and Mu'addil, sons of Lais, and the Sigizi also, they were despatched to Baghdad, by the KhalTfah's directions, ancl entered it paraded on elephants ; and rich presents were sent by the Khalifah to the Samani prince, in return for this service.
In 299 h. [some say in 298 H.], Lais, son of;All, died in Fars, arid his brother, MU'ADDIL, assumed the sovereignty over Sijistan, and drove out the Samani governor, Abu Salih-i-Mansur, Samani, cousin of Amir Abu Nasr-i-. Ahmad,, on which, the latter despatched a large army under some of his greatest nobles, such as Husain 'Ali, Marw-ar-Rudl, Ahmad, son of Sahl, Muhammad, son of Muzaffar, Simjur-i-Dowati, &c. Mu'addil, on becoming apprized of this, sent his brother Muhammad for supplies, to enable him to stand a siege, into Zamin-i-Dawar; but, as he happened to fall into the hands of the Samani forces, Mu'addil, on receipt of the news of this disaster, came and surrendered on terms to those leaders, and was taken to Bukhara, from whence he was sent to Baghdad. See page 34.
In the year 300 H., 'UMRO, son of Ya'kub, son of Muhammad, son of 'Umro, son of Lais-i-Si^ffar, rose in Sijistan, and assumed the sovereignty. Amir Abu Nasr-i-Ahmad, Samani, again despatched a force under Husain 'Ali, Marw-ar-Rudi, against him. After defending the capital for a period of nine months, 'Umro surrendered on terms of capitulation, and the territory of Nimroz received a Samani governor.
In the year 309 H., AHMAD, said by Guzidah to have been the grandson of Tahir, but by others to have been the son of Muhammad, son of Khalaf. son of Abu Ja'far, son of Lais [which Lais is not mentioned, but, if the Brazier be meant, Abu Ja'far must have been a fifth son, but no doubt he was a grandson], who was living in great distress and misery at Hirat, chanced to come under the notice of Amir Abu-l-Hasan-i-Nasr, son of Ahmad, the fifth of the Samani rulers, who bestowed upon Afcmad-i-Suffar the government of his native country, Sijistan.
Fasik-i, among the occurrences of the year 310 H., says, that by command of the Khalifah, Al-Muktadir, honorary dresses were bestowed upon Tahir and Ya'Vub, ^ons of 'Umro, Lais ^ but this must refer to Lais, son of 'Ali, son of Lais the Brazier, as Tahir, son of 'Umro, the second of the dynasty, died at Baghdad many years previous to this. In 311 H., according to Fasih-i, Shah Malik, son of Ya'kub-i-Lais, Suffari, with a body of Sigizis, attempted to gain possession of Hirat, but after a time left, and proceeded to Fushanj. He returned to the Dasht of Malan of Hirat again, and invested Hirat for four months, but had to abandon it, and he and his party retired discomfited. Simjur held Hirat on that occasion.
Afcmad was succeeded as ruler of Sijistan by his son, KHALAF, but the date of the former's death or the latter's accession is not mentioned—it was probably in 331 h.—but, in 353 h., Khalaf set out on a pilgrimage to Makkah, leaving as his deputy, his son-in-law, Tahir, son of Al-Husain, to administer the government of Sijistan. Tahir coveted his dominions, and, when Khalaf returned from the pilgrimage, he would not allow him to resume his authority. Khalaf proceeded to the Court of Mansiir, son of Nu^, Samani, the eighth of that dynasty, who sent a force with Khalaf, which, after ousting Tahir and reinstating Khalaf, returned to Bukhara.
NTHE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
having tendered their allegiance to the Sultans, Alb-Arsalan and Malik Shah, the states of Nimroz came under their sway, and they took possession of tho'se territories.
Tahir now returned, and again dispossessed Khalaf. who, a second time, received aid from Mansur, Samani; but, by the time the Samani forces reached Sistan, Tahir was dead, and Husain,. his son, had succeeded to the authority. After considerable fighting, Husain retired to one of the fortresses of that territory, and was therein invested. He despatched an envoy to Amir Mansur's presence, who sent a mandate directing him to appear before him, and so Husain was allowed to proceed to Bukhara. -This was at a period wh^n the Samani power was much weakened, and in the same year that Is-hak, son of Alb-Tigin, the Turk, encountered Abu-AH-i-Lawik, previously ruler of Ghaznin.
Nothing more is mentioned about Khalaf except his rebellion against Nuh, Samani, and the seven years' investment of his capital, until the year 390 H., in which year, Bughrajak, the uncle of Mahmud of Ghaznin, was slain by Khalaf's son, Tahir, at Fushanj. On this, Mahmud marched against Khalaf, who retired for shelter within the walls of the fortress of Tak, and he was invested therein. In 393 H., Khalaf again withdrew from public life, and gave up. the government of Sijistan to his son Tahir, but, soon after, he regretted what he had done, resumed the authority, and put his son Tahir to death. Some say he put two sons, Tahir and 'Umro, to death with his own hand. This ruined Khalaf's affairs, and his nobles rose against him on account of this abominable conduct ; and they invested him in the city which he had made his capital, and read the Khutbah. and coined money in the name of Sultan Mahmud of Ghaznin.
Mahmud, on account of-this last act of Khalaf, again entered Sijistan, and Khalaf was defeated and retired once more to the fortress of Tak, but it was taken by assault and Khalaf was captured. It was on this occasion that Khalaf, when brought before Mahmud, addressed him by the name of "Sultan" [see note8, page 76], and his life was spared. The district of Juzjanan was assigned for his future residence, and, with his family and dependents, he left Sijistan for ever and proceeded thither. Sijistan was conferred by Mahmud upon his brother Nasr, and that territory continued for a considerable time in the possession of the Ghaznawls.
In 398 H. Khalaf was found to have been intriguing against Mahmud with I-lak Khan, ruler of Turkistan, and was, in consequence, confined within the walls of the fortress of Juzdez. He died in the following year ; and Mahmud directed that his property and effects should be made over to his son, Abu-1-Hifs. Khalaf was a learned and intelligent man, and, by his command, the learned men of his time compiled a commentary on the Kur'an in one hundred volumes, and at the expense of 100,000 dinars : yet, with all this, he committed the cruel act of slaying his own sons. See also note8, p. 76.
The sovereignty of Sijistan, or Nimroz, having been taken from Khalaf, remained in the possession of the kings of Ghaznin for a considerable time. At length, by the support of the Sultans, Alb-Arsalan, and Malik Shah, a great grandson of Khalaf. TAHIR, son of Muhammad, son of Tahir, son of Khalaf, obtained the government of his native country ; and the ruler's palace in Sistan is called the Sarae-i-Tahirl after him. This is the first of the rulers of Nimroz by our author's account, but the sixth of chroniclers of authority, after Ya'kub and 'Umro, the founders of the Suffarlan dynasty. A few authorsTHE MALIKS OF SIJISTAN AND NIMROZ.
187
When the throne of sovereignty became adorned by the phoenix-like splendour of Sanjar, the territories of Nimroz passed to Amir Tahrr ; and, in the service of that monarch, he gave proofs of his loyalty and good faith. The Sarae-i-Tahiri, or Tahirl Palace, in Sistan, which was the seat of government, was founded by him. He instituted regulations and precepts of government, brought under his control the different districts and dependencies of the country of Nimroz, reigned for a considerable time, and died. These Maliks claimed descent from the race of Kai-Ka'us. May the Almighty reward them !
Trustworthy persons have related that Sijistan is called Nimroz for the reason that, in ancient times, the whole of that tract was a sea ; and, when Mihtar5 Suliman, reclining on the couch which the winds used to bear, had to pass over that country on his way from Fars to the mountains of Suliman, which are opposite Multan, he commanded that that sea should be filled with sand. The Diws, in the space of half a day, completed the task, and the sea became dry land ; and the name by which it was called was Nim-roz, signifying mid-day, and that designation continued to be applied to that country. God alone is eternal, and His kingdom only is eternal, without intermission and without wane.
II. MALIK TAj-UD-DlN, ABU-L-FATH 4, SON OF TAHIR.
Taj-ud-Din was a great and a just monarch, and, when his father departed this life, in conformity with the mandate of Sultan Sanjar, Saljuki, he assumed authority over the territory of Nimroz, and brought it under his sway. He spread the carpet of justice, and the people became obedient to his authority; and, both in the city and round about Sijistan, numerous monuments of his goodness remained.
mention that some writers consider Khalaf to have been a descendant of the ancient kings of Iran.
*	See the short account of the descent of the Afghans in the Introduction to my Afghan Grammar, last edition, page 7, respecting Mihtar Suliman and the Suliman mountains.
*	Styled Taj-ud-Dfn, Abu-l-Fazl-i-Na§r, son of Tahir, by others. He succeeded to the sovereignty in 480 H. He was just, valiant, and beneficent; and was loyal to the utmost degree towards Sultan Sanjar.
N 2THE' TABAKAT-I-NAS1RI.
He accompanied Sultan Sanjar in the campaign against Khita, and took along with him the troops of Sijistan ; and, when Sultan Sanjar's army was defeated, Malik Taj-ud-Din, Abu-l-Fath, was taken prisoner. When they had taken him to the place where the camp of the Khita-is was situated, his feet were confined in a pair of wooden stocks5 and secured with a heavy chain, and"he was kept in imprisonment.
A number of trustworthy persons6 have related, that one of the ladies of the Great Khan [of Khita] got a sight of Malik Taj-ud-Din, and, secretly, used to entertain great affection for him, and to have all his wants, and even more, liberally supplied, and have great care and attention paid to him. That lady left not the least thing undone, or a moment to be lost, until, by her endeavours also, Malik Taj-ud-Din was suddenly set at liberty, and was enabled to fly from the camp of the Khita-is; and he brought back his chain and the stocks along with him to Sistan.
The territory of Nimroz, which, during his captivity, had been deprived of his comeliness and munificence, now began to acquire fresh grace and elegance. The stocks and chain, which he had brought away with him [when he escaped], were, by his orders, hung up in the most sacred place in the great mosque [where the Imam stands during the prayers]; and Minhaj-i-Saraj, the writer of this Tabakat, in the year 613 H., arrived in the city of Sistan7, and, in
5	This battle having taken place in 534 h. [some say in 536 h.], and Taj-ucl-Din being above a hundred when he died in 559 H., he must have been about eighty years of age when taken prisoner.
6	" Trustworthy persons " are constantly mentioned by our author, but it is strange that they are nameless.
.7 I have constantly noticed, in several authors, that, when mentioning the country, the names Nimroz and Sijistan are applied ; and that Sistan almost invariably signifies the city, the capital of the country ; but I have also noticed that the latter name is sometimes, but not often, applied to the country also. There is one rather astonishing thing, however. Our author invariably says the city of Sistan was the capital ; while travellers, such as Pottinger and Christie, and other European authors also, say that Dooshak, or Jalalabad, is the capital. "Who shall decide when doctors disagree?" The author of the Masalik wa Mamai.ik, who visited it before our author wrote, says that Zarcinj is the capital, and that there is no city in the territory of Nimroz so large ; and, further, describes the buildings and gates and other matters in such manner, that there can be no doubt whatever but that Zaranj was the name of the capital of Sijistan, or Nimroz; and no such city as Sistan is ever mentioned in that work.THE MALIKS OF SIJISTAN AND NIMROZ.	189
the great mosque there, saw that chain and stocks; and whoever may have reached that great city, will also have seen them.
Malik Taj-ud-Din, Abu-l-Fath, was a learned and enlightened sovereign ; and thej? relate that, sometimes, he would himself read the Friday's Khutbah; and this fact is an indication of the extent of his wisdom and knowledge.
He reigned for a considerable time8, and died ; and his mausoleum is at Sistan.
III. MALIK-US-S A'lS 9, SHAMS-UD-DlN MUHAMMAD, SON OF TAJ-UD-DIN.
When Malik Taj-ud-Din, Abu-l-Fath1, passed away, several sons survived him, and the eldest of them was Malik Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad. He succeeded to the sovereignty, and brought the territory of Nimroz under his sway. He deprived one of his brothers, 'Izz-ul-Muluk, of his sight, and put the rest of them to death ; and he caused a great number of the Amirs and Maliks of Nimroz and Sistan to be executed.
He was a sanguinary man, and it is related of him, that, at the outset of his reign, he killed eighteen of his brothers in one day. The royal palace, which he founded in Sistan, is [on this account] called by the name of Sarae-i-Siasati, or Palace of Slaughter ; and, through his excessive murders and executions, the people's hearts became filled with terror.
At the time when the reign of Sultan Sanjar came to a termination, and the territories of Khurasan, Ghaznin, and Kirman fell into the hands of the tyrannical tribe of Ghuzz. Malik Shams-ud-Din had already established his authority over Nimroz. On several occasions the Ghuzz forces resolved to subvert his rule, but they did not succeed in their design.
The grandfather of the author of this work, Maulana
8	He died in 559 H., after having reigned over Nimroz, subordinate to the Saljujt Sultans, for just eighty years, and his age was above a hundred. It seems strange our author did not know the year of his de.Uh.
9	Torturer, executioner.
1 It was with this ruler that Mu'izz-ud-DIn, Ghurf. the conqueror of Hindustan, passed one cold season, after he and his brother, Ghivas-ud-Dln. had been released from confinement.THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Minhaj-ud-Din, 'Usman, Jurjant, who was on his way to Ghaznin and Lohor, on his return from the pilgrimage to Hijaz and the sacred Ka'bah [at Makkah], reached Sistan during the reign of Malik Shams-ud-Din. At that time there was residing there one of the great theologians, whom they called Imam Awhad-ud-Din, Bukhari, one of the most eminent men of Khurasan. He was also one of the incomparable ones of the world, and one of the colleagues of the Khwajah—a second Imam Nu'man2—Abu-1-Fazl, Kirmani. There was likewise there another man of learning, who went by the name of Imam, Kawam-ud-Din, Zawzani, a talkative, open-mouthed, staring-eyed fellow, who was in the constant habit of annoying Imam Awhad-ud-Din, and of behaving insolently towards him in public.
Imam Sharaf-ud-Din, 'Attar, related this anecdote, which was told to him, respecting this man : that, when Maulana Minhaj-ud-Din arrived at Sistan, it was customary with the rulers of Nimroz to treat strange 'Ulama with respect and kindness ; and they used to command them to deliver a discourse, and expound some religious dogma, in their presence, at the Court. Malik Shams-ud-Din. accordingly, commanded that Maulana Minhaj-ud-Din should expound a dogma at the Court.
The 'Ulama of that city having presented themselves there, Maulana Minhaj-ud-Din expounded the dogma of defiling emissions3. When the exposition was concluded, Kawam-ud-Din, Zawzani, wishing, by his insolence, to annoy and mortify Maulana Minhaj-ud-Din, and to clash with him, said :—" We had heard great report of thy eminence, of thy learning and thy reputation ; but this much was incumbent on thee, that, in the presence of such a great monarch, thou shouldst not have mentioned the precept of defiling emissions." When Maulana Minhaj-ud-Din perceived that he intended insolence and rudeness, he replied, saying :—" Maulana Kawam-ud-Din,- it is not necessary to make a long story of it; thou art filthiness itself. I beheld thee, and that precept came to my recollection."
At this rejoinder, Maulana Kawam-ud-Din was com-
2 The celebrated Imam, Aba Hamfah of Kufah, was called Nu'man.
a Emissions in sledp, &c., requiring ablution afterwards.THE MA'LIKS OF SIJISTAN AND NIMROZ.
191
pletely silenced, and Malik Shams-ud-Din was so overcome with laughing, that he rolled over and over, almost beside himself, on his couch4. That day Imam Awhad-ud-Din was made himself again by this rejoinder-of Maulana Minhaj-ud-Din, who also gave eclat to that dogma likewise; and that monarch showed abundant kindness and consideration towards Maulana Minhaj-ud-Dln.
Malik Shams-ud-Din reigned for a considerable time, and was put to death, and passed aways.
IV. MALIK-US-SA'lD-, TAJ-UD-DIN-I-HARAB, SON OF MUHAMMAD8.
Malik Taj-ud-Din was a great, learned, and just sovereign, and a cherisher of his subjects. He had a number of children, and, during his lifetime, two of his sons succeeded to the throne of Nimroz, as will, please God, be hereafter mentioned7.
The first incidents in his career were these. When Malik Shams-ud-Din, his uncle, came to the throne, he deprived his, Taj-ud-Din's, father of his sight, and put the rest of his brothers to death. Malik Shams-ud-Din had a sister, who was aunt to Malik Taj-ud-Din-i-Harab, who possessed great influence ; and, when the tyranny and oppression of Shams-ud-Din became unbearable, the people became quite sated of his rule, and prayed the Almighty to grant them redress.
A party of the nobles and chief men of the country of Nimroz sought the aid and assistance of that Malikah, the aunt of Malik Taj-ud-Din-i-Harab ; and they held counsel
4 A couch or sort of throne or seat spread with four cushions.
* Our author, who has a peculiar way of his own for relating important events, says this ruler was martyred. He was such a blood-shedder and tyrant that his troops rose against him, attached themselves to his sister, and put him to death. Our author relates it among the events of the following reign instead of here.
6	Styled Taj-ud-Din, Hasan, son of 'Izz-ul-Muluk by Fasit-x, and Malik Taj-ud-Din-i-Harab, son of 'Izz-ul-Muluk, by others. Why he and some others are styled Harab [in the very old MS. I have previously referred to the vowel points are given], and what the real signification of the word may be, it is difficult to tell ; but some of the Mughal officers—not Mughals probably—are designated by this same appellation.
7	How could they possibly "attain the throne during his lifetime," unless
they previously dethroned him ?THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
together, and made arrangements for a change [of rulers], and fixed upon Malik Taj-ud-Din by general consent. At that time he was sixty years of age, and none else remained of the descendants of the Maliks who was eligible for the sovereignty.
There is a place, outside the city of Sistan, where, in ancient times, there was an old city, which place they call Hashnue8. At night, all the populace of Sistan and the soldiery assembled there, and, in the morning they rose against Malik Shams-ud-Din, and put him to death with eighteen of his sons; and Malik Taj-ud-Din-i-Harab was raised to the throne. His father, Tzz-ul-Muluk, was still living, but deprived of the blessing of sight9.
When Malik Taj-ud-Din ascended the throne, he governed the people with equity and justice, and all submitted to his authority. He entered into communication with the Sultans of Ghur and Khurasan, and became feudatory to them, and read the Khutbah1 in the name of the Sultans of Ghur. He used his utmost endeavours in the support and encouragement of ecclesiastics and learned men2, and in securing the rights of the weak and helpless ; and it was a rule with that family to show great honour and respect to strangers and travellers. Malik Taj-ud-Din, in this respect, greatly surpassed his ancestors. He commanded, likewise, that for every mosque of Bukhara a prayer-carpet should be woven, according to the size of each, and despatched to that city; and for the sacred mosque at Makkah, and the holy Ka'bah, he despatched carpets, mats, and the like, as well as vessels of different kinds, in great quantity.
During the reign of Malik Taj-ud-Din, the father of the author of this volume, Maulana Saraj-ud-Din-i-Minhaj3
8	Rather doubtful, as the MSS. are all at variance here. Some have Hashue, others Khushudi and HushnudT, some Hasue and Hashnue. I do not find either of these names in the ancient accounts of Sijistan.
9	Therefore he was precluded from the succession.
1	The coin also was stamped with the titles and name of the Sultan of Ghur.
2	It must have been in this reign, not during that of tke Blood-Shedder, that our author's grandfather met with such a good reception at the capital of Sijistan, as blood-thirsty tyrants are not generally those who patronize priests and learned men. This seems confirmed by the author's own remarks a little farther on.
3	Sometimes he writes Minhaj-i-Saraj, and at others Saraj-i-Minhaj.THE MA LI ICS OF SIJISTAN AND NIMROZ.
193
came to Sistan on two occasions. The first time, he went there on a mission from the august Sultan, Ghiyas-ud-Din. Muhammad-i-Sam ; and on the second occasion4, when he was proceeding from the presence of that monarch to present himself at the Court of the Khalifah, Un-Nasir-ud-Din 'Ullah, by way of Mukran, he likewise passed by way of Sistan, and received great kindness and benevolence at the hands of Malik Taj-ud-Din-i-Harab.
During his own lifetime, Malik Taj-ud-Din made his eldest son, Nasir-ud-Dtn, 'Usman, his heir-apparent; and, subsequently, when Nasir-ud-Din died, he nominated another son, Yamin-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, as his heir and successor.
Towards the end of his reign, Malik Taj-ud-Din became totally blind. He had reigned for a period of sixty years, and his age was a hundred and twenty. He died in the year 612 H.
V. MALIK NASIR-UD-DIN, 'USMAN-I-HARAB, SON OF MALIK TAJ-UD-DIN.
Malik Nasir-ud-Din was a just monarch5, and 'Ayishah Khatun, the daughter of the Malik of Khurasan. 'Umr-i-Maraghani, was married to him. He had good and worthy sons ; and, upon several occasions, he marched from Sistan with numerous forces, and joined the Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din9, Muhammad-i-Sam, in Khurasan. At the time of the success at Nishapur, he was present with that monarch's Court.
He was a Malik of good disposition, and the patron of learned men, and passed his life among men in [the exercise of] justice, beneficence, and humanity.
During the reign of his father, Malik Taj-ud-Din, he acted as his representative and lieutenant, in the adminis-
4	See page 244. This was the occasion when the author's father, whilst proceeding by way of Mukran to Baghdad, lost his life.
5	He died during his father's lifetime ; consequently, he is not entitled to be
considered as one of the sovereigns of Sijistan, and he is not accounted such by
other writers. He was a regent or lieutenant only; and, on account of the extreme age of his father, at his [Nasir's] death, his son, Yamin-ud-Din,
Bahram Shah, became regent.
® His suzerain. See account of Ghiyas-ud-Din in Scction XVII.194
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
tration of the government of the territory of Nimroz ; and, outside the city of Sistan, on the bank of the river Hirmand, he founded a large and noble palace.
He ruled the country for a considerable period, and likewise died during his father's lifetime.
VI. MALIK-UL-GHAZl, YAMIN-UD-DAULAH WA UD-DIN BAHRAM SHAH, SON7 OF TAj-UD-DIN-I-HARAB.
Ya.min-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, was a firm and stern ruler, very severe but strictly just; and he continued to observe the rule established by his ancestors, of treating learned men and strangers and travellers with respect and reverence.
During the lifetime of Malik Taj-ud-Din, his father, he became greatly distinguished, and was famous for his valour, sagacity, activity, and magnanimity. He ruled over the territory of Nimroz for a considerable time during the lifetime of his father; and, when his father died, the sovereignty passed to him.
Both Bahram himself and two other brothers were borne by a Turkish slave-girl; and, previous to his time, all the sovereigns and nobles, according to ancient custom, allowed their hair to hang loosely, and used to wear conical caps on their heads, with two or three fillets wound round them, with a black fillet over the others ; but, when Malik Yamin-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, came to the throne, his mother being of the Turkish race, he assumed the cap of sable, and camlet garments, and curling ringlets like the Turks ; and both his brothers, one, Malik Shihab-ud-Din, 'All, and the other, Malik Shah, likewise adopted similar costume.
The author of this work, in the year 613 H., set out from the city of Bust for the purpose of proceeding to Sistan. When he arrived within a short distance of that capital, where there is a place which they call by the name of Gumbaz-i-Baluch—the Cupola of the Baluch3—on the east side [of Sistan], at this place, a deputation received him, and
7 The grajidson, not the son of Taj-ud-DIn. Bahram Shah was the son of Nasir-ud-DTn. See note s, preceding page.
3 One copy has Balut, but the rest have Baluj and Baluch. The place is not mentioned in the ancient accounts of the country. Balut means an oak.THE MALIKS OF SIJISTAN AND NIMROZ.
195
brought him to the city; and9 there, at a place which is named the Madrasah-i-sar-i-Hawz—the College at the head of the Reservoir—to the south of the city, which they call Dar-i-Ta'am1 and Bazar-i-Farod, he alighted and took up his quarters2.
The author delivered a discourse in the private audience hall of that dignified sovereign, within the Sarae-i-Siasati; and, upon two occasions, he was honoured with robes of distinction from that beneficent monarch, consisting, each time, of three dresses; and, as long as the author remained at Sistan, every month, Malik Yamin-ud-Din sent him a liberal allowance in money and grain, and treated him with the utmost kindness and respect. After sojourning there for a period of seven months, the author returned again to Khurasan.
Malik Yamin-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, ruled with great firmness and sagacity. It had been a practice of old, in the territory of Nimroz, among the tribes [therein], to be constantly quarrelling and fighting among themselves; and no person entered a city or town without being fully armed. When the sovereignty devolved upon Bahram Shah, he made every tribe give hostages, and kept them shut up in different fortresses, so that, in whatever tribe blood might be shed unjustly, the chiefs and head men of the tribe were held responsible for the crime. Through this stringent order such acts of bloodshed decreased.
Yamin-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, on two occasions waged holy war against the heretics of Kuhistan3, and carried on hostilities against them for a long time. Imam Sharaf-ud-Din, Ahmad4 of Farah, who was the most eloquent man of his time, composed these lines on those successes, and in praise of them :—
9 One or two copies omit the "and."
1 See page 20, and note 3.
* The places noticed here , were at Zaranj, and their mention proves the statements of the author of the Masalik vva Mamalik to be correct. See also note p. 188.
3	The chief place of which is Ka'In, formerly of considerable importance. He led troops against those heretics upon several occasions.
4	Several other authors, and among them the author of the Nusakh-i-Jahan-Ara, say, that Abu Nasr, Farahi, was the composer of these lines. He was the author of the celebrated lexicographical work entitled " Nisib-i-Nisabian."196
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRl.
" August and auspicious unto the world's people Is the revered countenance of the Shah of exalted descent. At this warfare, which thou didst in Kuhistan wage, The globe is with justice, with equity, and requital, full. Thou art the king of mid-day 5, and of thy clay's reign 'Tis as yet but the propitious early dawn thereof. Like as the warriors of Muhammad exult in thee, In such wise the soul of Muhammad in thee rejoiceth. Continue in the world whilst the world hath freshness From water and from fire, from earth and from air. From the remembrance of the great king will not be obliterated The encomiums of the Farah-I, if aught of memory remain 6."
After Yamin-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, had reigned for a considerable time, the calamities attending the irruption of the infidel Mughals arose, and Khurasan became desolated by them, and the kingdoms of Islam fell.
There is a fortress on the confines of Neh, in the territory of Nimroz, which they call the castle of Shahanshahi; and the nephew of Bahram Shah, the son of Nasir-ud-Dtn, 'Usman, had sold the fortress of Shahanshahi to the heretics of Kuhistan, and it was in their possession. Yamin-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, at this time, despatched an agent to demand the restoration of that fortress, and further, to intimate that, in case any difficulty should arise, a force would be speedily brought against it.
On this account, disciples were nominated by the heretics of Kuhistan to remove him ; and, in the year 618 H., on a Friday, when proceeding -on his way to the mosque to perform his devotions, in the middle of the bazar, four fida'is, or disciples, surrounded him and martyred him.
VII. MALIK NUSRAT-UD-DlN, SON OF MALIK YAMIN-UD-DIN, BAHRAM SHAH.
On the death of Malik Yamin-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, the great nobles and chief men of Nimroz agreed together and raised to the throne Nusrat-ud-Din, the middle son of the late ruler. This caused agitation and commotion to
5	A play upon the word Nimroz, signifying mid-day. See p. rS/.
6	Like all translated poetry, these lines, which are fine enough in the original, lose by translation, and the play upon words is generally lost. Two copies of the text contain one distich more, but the second line is precisely the same as the sixth line above, and therefore it must be an interpolation, or the first line has been lost.THE MALIKS OF SIJISTAN AND NIMROZ.
197
arise in the country of Nimroz, and, in every direction, disorder and confusion occurred.
The eldest son of Bahram Shah, named Rukn-ud-Din, was detained in confinement7 [as a state prisoner]. The orthodox people of both parties were all partisans, well-wishers, and under allegiance to Amir Nusrat-ud-Din, while the whole of the heretics of the districts of Nimroz were friendly towards, and submissive to Rukn-ud-Din8. After some months had passed away from the accession of Amir Nusrat-ud-Din, the heretics broke out into rebellion and brought forth Rukn-ud-Din ; and, between Amir Nusrat-ud-Din and his brother, Rukn-ud-Din, an encounter ensued, in which Nusrat-ud-Din was defeated, and he retired into Khurasan and Ghur.
He returned a second time to Sistan, and liberated the country from the hands of Rukn-ud-Din ; but, at last, as a body of troops of the infidels of Chin and Mughals9 advanced against Sistan, it fell into the hands of those infidels, and Nusrat-ud-Din obtained martyrdom, and died1.
VIII. MALIK RUKN-UD-DIN, MAHMUD, SON OF YAMIN-UD-DIN, BAHRAM SHAH.
Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Mahmud, was a prince harsh, sanguinary, and cruel. The author of this work saw him, during the lifetime of his father, in attendance upon that sovereign. Rukn-ud-Din was a person of middle height, ruddy, and fair ; and his mother was a Rtimi slave-girl. During the lifetime of his father he had been guilty of several perverse and contumacious acts ; and his father, Malik Yamin-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, on two occasions, had imprisoned him on account of his misdeeds.
Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, sent a mandate from Khwarazm to Bahram Shah, requesting him to despatch a force from Nimroz to join him. In conformity
7	Rukn-ud-Din had been kept in confinement by his father, and was still imprisoned when his brother succeeded, for reasons afterwards explained. He soon after made his escape.
8	This accounts partly for his being kept imprisoned in his father's reign.
9	Sic in MSS., and this difference between Mughals and infidels of Chin often occurs in the text.
1 Nusrat-ud-Din was slain early in the Mughal troubles by those infidels.198
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
with this command, Malik Yamin-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, nominated his son, Rukn-ud-Din, Mahmud, to proceed with this army, and despatched it towards the confines of Khurasan along with the applicant for assistance, who had come from Khwarazm Shah, to the presence of that Sultan [Bahram Shah],
When he had reached the limits of Fushanj, and arrived near Hirat, Malik Rukn-ufl-Din, while engaged in- a drinking bout, slew the applicant in question, who was a Turk of distinction, and, out of fear for what he had done, returned towards Sistan again. Malik Yamin-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, on account of this misconduct, put him in durance, and despatched a numerous force under Amir Shams-ud-Din, together with presents of silks and fine linen, and numerous expressions of obligation, with many-apologies, to the presence of Khwarazm Shah.
In that same year the calamities caused by the infidel Mughals happened, and those troops of Nimroz were ordered to the [frontier] fortress of Tirmiz2. Chingiz3 Khan, the Accursed, advanced with his forces against it in person, and took Tirmiz ; and the whole of the troops of Nimroz were martyred therein.
When Malik Rukn-ud-Din, after overcoming his brother, assumed the sovereignty over Sijistan, he began to tyrannize, and stretched out the hand of violence and oppression; upon which, at the solicitations of the inhabitants of Sistan, his brother, Amir Nusrat, returned from Khurasan, and between the brothers contention again ensued.
At this crisis an army of Mughals unexpectedly reached Sistan, and the whole were either slaughtered, exterminated, made captive, or martyred. The city of Sistan became desolate, and its inhabitants obtained martyrdom4.
IX. MALIK SHIHAB-UD-DIN, MAHMUD, SON OF HARAB s.
When the army of infidels, after having reduced it to desolation, turned their backs upon Sistan, Malik Shihab-
2	Sometimes spelt Tarmaz, but incorrectly.
3	Chingiz and also Chingiz. The word is spelt both ways; the latter appears to be the most correct.
4	Killed in battle with the Mughals, or slaughtered afterwards.
4 He is said to have been the son of Malik Nasir-ud-Dln, 'Usman, brotherTHE MALIKS OF SIJISTAN AND NfMROZ.
199
ud-Din, who had kept in concealment, came forth and took possession of Sistan ; but, as it was in a very ruinous state, and no inhabitants remained, he did not acquire much strength or power.
A party of heretics gathered together in some force, and besought Shah 'Usman, the grandson of Nasir-ud-Din, 'Usman6, Taj-ud-Din-i-Harab, to come from the city of Neh, and occupy Sistan. He called in the aid of a force of Khwarazm-Shahi troops, from the Malik of Kirman, whom they styled Burak, the Hajib [chamberlain]. When that body of troops, from Kirman, joined Shah 'Usman and came to Sistan, Shihab-ud-Din, Mahmud, was martyred, and his brother, Amir 'Ali-i-Zahid7 [a recluse, a holy man], ascended the throne. Still the government did not acquire stability, and he died.
X. MALIK TAJ-UD-DIN, BINAL-TIGIN«, KHWARAZMI.
Malik Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin, was of the same family as the Maliks [sovereigns] of Khwarazm, and was a son of one of the maternal uncles of Sultan, Khwarazm Shah9; and, at the period that the Sultans of Ghur took Nishapur1, Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin, with his cousin, Malik Firuz-i-I-yal-timish, came into Hindustan.
At the time of the irruption of the infidels of Chin, and consequent calamities, this Taj-ud-Din was in the service
of Bahram Shah. In some copies of the text he is styled son of Harab, and simply Mahmud-i-Harab in others.
6	See page 196.
7	Neither of these persons is mentioned in Jahan-Ara as ruler in Sijistan, but Binal-Tigin is. Rauzat-us-Safa, copying from our author, of course mentions the two first, but .not the last. Shihab-ud-Din, Mahmud, encountered Shah 'Usman and Binal-Tigin, and was slain in battle'; but Fasih-T, under the events of the year 646 h. , mentions a Malik 'Alj, ruler of Nimroz, having been put to death by Malik Shams-ud-Dln, Muhammad, the Kurt.
8	Nial-Tigin, in some copies and in some other works, is totally incorrect. The name, as above, is corroborated by other writers ; and, in the old copy of the text, the vowel points are also given. It appears to be an error of copyists writing JLi for
9	Which is not said. Some copies have Sultans. Rauzat-us-Safa says Sultan Muhammad. lie certainly was of the same tribe as the Khwarazm Shahi rulers.
1 See under reign of Qhiyris-ud-Din, Ghurl, Section XVII.200
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
of Malik Karim-ud-Din, Hamzah, at Nag-awr2 ofSiwalikh. All at once he sought an opportunity, slew Khwajah Najib-ud-Din ; and an elephant, which was there, he sent on in advance3, and then set out towards Uchchah4, and joined Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Kubajah5. When Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Mangabarni, Khwarazm Shah, reached the territory of Sind, Taj-ud-Dln, Binal-Tigin, left Uchchah and went and joined Sultan Jalal-ud^Din. He accompanied him into the territory of Kirman ; and, in that country, the district of Khuk and Luk6 was entrusted to his charge.
As the rival Maliks of Nimroz were struggling against each other, the grandson of Nasir-ud-Din, 'Usman, whom they styled by the name of Shah, sought assistance from the Malik7 of Kirman, who was the chamberlain, Burak, Khita'i. He despatched Malik Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin, to Neh, to his aid, in the year 622 H., and, when he reached that place, he rendered him assistance, and assumed th£ authority himself, and took possession of the territory and city of Neh on his own account8.
A body of people from the city of Sistan presented themselves before him, and sought his help and assistance, saying that, as they had killed9 Malik Shihab-ud-Dfn, and
2	The proper mode of spelling this word, on the authority of the Shams-ul-Lughat and others, is !•—Nag-awr ; and Siwalikh is said to have been the name applied to the territory. Karim-ud-Din was the governor of the province.
3	This sentence is the same in all the copies of the text on which dependence can be placed. He slew Karim-ud-Din, and carried off a number of horses and several elephants.
4	Written —Uchchah. and at times — Uchchah. according to native authorities ; but which English writers have turned into Uch and Ooch.
5	See Section XX., the third ruler.
6	In the majority of copies these words are thus written, but in some copies they are Juk and Kuk, Juk and Luk, and Hiik and Kurk or Kark, and Khuk and Kuk. These places are not mentioned in Masalik wa Mamalik. The Go-ok of modern maps probably.
' Styled Burak Khan in one or two copies of the text. He was the brother of Tanlko of Taraz, the Amir-ul-Umra of Gur Khan, who was defeated in battle and taken prisoner by Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah. See under the tenth sovereign, Section XVI.
8	All the copies of the text, with two exceptions, say lie did render assistance to Shah 'Usman ; but the only assistance he appears to have afforded was in joining Shah 'Usman to overcome his rival, Shah Mabmud ; and, after the latter's defeat and death, Binal-Tigin showed no further regard or respect to 'Usman, but took possession of the country for himself.
9	See note p. 199.THE MALIKS OF SIJISTAN AND NIMROZ.
201
Sistan remained without a ruler, he should take Shah 'Usman to Sistan and set him up there. Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin, accordingly moved to ' Sistan, took possession of the city, and' brought the territory of Nimroz under his own sway.
At this juncture, Malik Rukn-ud-Din, of Khaesar1 of Ghur, despatched this, his dependent, Minhaj-i-Saraj, from Ghur, on a mission to Malik Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin. The author found him at the city of Farah, in Dawari2, and waited on him ; and a firm compact was concluded.
After returning from thence, and reaching Ghur again, between Malik Taj-ud-Din and the Mulahidah heretics hostility arose, and an engagement ensued between them, and he was defeated. After this, he returned1 to Sistan again, and overthrew a body of Khariji schismatics who had revolted against him.
*	In the year 623 H., the author of this work was despatched a second time3, and he proceeded again to his presence ; and, after that, Taj-ud-Din came himself into Ghur. and took possession of the fortresses of Tulak and Isfirar; and, in this same year, after his return from Nimroz, the author had occasion to undertake a journey into Hind.
In the year 625 H., an army of Mughals advanced into the territory of Nimroz a second time ; and Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin, was invested within the walls of the fortress of Arg4 of Sistan. For a period of nineteen months he
1 This journey is again referred to by our author towards the end of his work, under the heading "Downfall of the Mulahidahs," Section XXIII. ; and this place is again mentioned, but is there written in two different ways—JDiaesar and Khaisar.
' This word is used in all the copies of the text, with one exception, which has [darue or daru-i]. This can scarcely refer to the district of Dawar [not Dawari], which lies more to the east. In the Masalik wa Mamalik the ^lj [wad! is a valley, low-lying ground, &c.] of Farah is mentioned ; but this is an Arabic term, not a proper name. The " compact" here referred to could not have been very "firm," as may be seen from a more detailed account of these journeys of the author, under the head of "Downfall of the Mulahidahs," towards the end of the Section above mentioned.
3 The author contradicts himself, not an unusual thing, in the Section referred to in the previous note, which see.
*	The Burhan-i-J£a-ti' says, one of the meanings of the word Arg is " a citadel," but that it is also the name of a fortress in the territory, not the city, of Sistan. See note 8, p. 34, and the account of the investment of Sistan [as our author calls it] by the Mughals in Section XXIII., where the situation of this fortress is mentioned.
O202
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
defended the place; and the whole of his followers with him in that stronghold, consisting of Ghuris, Tulakis, Sigizis5, and Turks, all perished. Taj-ud-Din himself received an arrow in one of his eyes, and he straightway fell from the battlements to the ground, and became a captive to the Mughals.
The fortress was taken, and the remainder of the people within the walls were martyred ; 'and Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin, was brought from Sistan to the fortress of Safhed Koh6, and at the foot of the walls of that castle they martyred him. The mercy of the Almighty be upon him !
8 See fourth paragraph to note 2, pp. 183-4.
6 Also called Sufed-Koh. Our author was once detained within the walls of his fortress by Binal-Tigln.SECTION XV.
THE KURDlAH MALIKS OF SHAM.
Minhaj-I-Saraj, Jurjani, the humblest of the servants of the threshold of the Most High, begs to mention, that, as an account of the Maliks of the East and West, both infidel and of the true faith, has been detailed and recorded, to the best of his ability and power, and a small portion, in a condensed form, has also been related from the annals of the Maliks of 'Ajam and the East, this work has been embellished [!] with a description of the Maliks of Sham, Migr, Hijaz, and Yaman, who were Sultans in Islam, and Maliks and warriors of the true faith, of great renown, and who, subsequent to the Sanjarl and Saljukl dynasties, held sway over those countries. He has done so in order that the readers of this Tabakat, when these pages come under their observation, may remember the author with a pious benediction, and the Sultan of the Musalmans with a prayer for the stability and permanency of his sovereignty and dominion, and the increase of his conscientiousness and beneficence.
I., SULTAN NUR-UD-DlN, MAHMtJD-I-ZANGI ».
Sultan Nur-ud-Din, Mahmud-i-Zangi, was one of the Ata-baks of Mausil; and the Ata-baks of Mausil were
1 Sultan Nur-ud-Din was not the first of this dynasty, neither was he a Kurd, nor one of the Ata-baks of Mausil, but, by our author's own account, "the descendant of a Turk of Khita ;" and yet he places him at the head of the dynasty which he calls the Kurdiah Maliks of Sham ! In this Section, above all the others in his work, and that is saying a good deal, he has greatly exposed his ignorance ; and appears to have concocted, out of his own fertile imagination, the greater part of what he has here adduced, beyond what he heard of the rulers of Mausil and Sham from a fugitive at Lakhnauti, in Bengal, who called himself one of their descendants.
The first of this dynasty was " ABU SA'ID-I-AK-SANKUR [turned into ASCANSAR by Gibbon], son of 'Abd-ullah, styled the Hajib, and Ibn-i-
O 22C>4
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
descendants of slaves of Sultan Sanjar; and this bondman of Sanjar, who was the first Malik of Mausil, was a Turk of Khita.
This relation the author heard, in the city of Lakhnauti, from one of the descendants of that family, and the son of one of the Lords of Mausil himself. In the country of Hindustan, and at the capital, Dihli, he was known as the Khudawand-Zadah of Mausil. He was of the same progenitors1 as the august Sultan, Shams-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din. [I-yal-timish]3.
Hajib, according to some. In 478 H., the year before Sanjar was born, Taj-ud-Daulah, Abu Sa'id, surnamed Tutish, son of Alb-Arsalan, the Saljuk, gained possession of Halab and its dependencies. Ak-Sankur, who was one of his brother's slaves, in whom he placed great dependence, he made his Deputy there. Taj-ud-Daulah-i-Tutish at this time resided at Damashk. Ak-Sankur became disaffected, and Tutish marched against him ; and, in a battle which took place between them, near Halab, in 487 H., Ak-Sankur was slain.
tie was succeeded by his son, 'IMAD-UD-DIN, ZANGI, who had previously held the government of Baghdad under Sultan Mahmud, son of Muhammad, son of Malik Shah, Saljuki ; but, in 521 H. [some say 522 h.], through the efforts of the KhalTfah of Baghdad, Mustarshid, 'Imad-ud-Din, ZangI, was appointed to tAe government of 'Irak-i-'Arab, the capital of which was Mausil—so called from being situated between 'Irak and the Jazlrah [Mesopotamia], and derived from the 'Arabic —and Sultan Mahmud sent two of his sons, Alb-Arsalan and Farrukh Shah, to Zangi to be brought up; hence he was styled Ata-bak or Preceptor. In the same year he took Halab, and, in 523 H., the fortress of Himar, in Kurdistan, which he razed, and erected a fortress in place of it, which he named after himself, and it is still known as 'Imadiah. He acquired sway over the greater part of Sham. Diyar-i-Bakr, the Jaza'Tr, and Mausil. Zangi was slain while besieging the fortress of Ja'bar. He was killed, some say, by his own slaves, in Muharram [Yafa'I says in Rabi'-ul-Akljir], 541 H. We now come to Nur-ud-DIn, whom our author places as first of the Kurdish sovereigns of Sham.
On the death of Zangi, his two sons, Saif-ud-DTn-i-GhazT, and ABU-L-KASIM, NUR-UD-DIN, MAHMUD, styled AL-MALIK-UL-'ADIL [the Just Malik], divided their father's dominions among them. The former took Mausil and its dependencies, and the latter Sham and its dependencies. Nur-ud-Din proceeded to Halab, and began to extend his authority. In 549 H. he gained possession of Damashk. and his power and dominions were greatly extended. He also gained possession of Hims, Hamah, Manbij, Ba'albak, and other fortresses in the territory of Rum, and numerous strongholds in the country of the Farangs [the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem], more than fifty in number in all. He sent the	Asad-ud-Dln, Sher-i-Koh, on three dif-
ferent occasions into Misr ; and, on the third occasion, Salah-ud-Din, Yusuf, became the Deputy of Nur-ud-Din in that country. See under Salah-ud-Din, p. 214.
2 The word used is ^ another signification of which, but not applicable here I think, is the affinity between two men who have married two sisters.
8 And so the first—the Turk of Khita—is here made "a Kurd" while hisTHE KURDIAH MALIKS OF SHAM.
205
This Khudawand-Zadah stated to the author, that the whole of his ancestors were descendants of a slave of Sanjar Shah; and, that he himself was the eighth in descent from that Turk of Khita previously mentioned.
In short, Sultan Nur-ud-Din, who was Malik of Sham, was a just and conscientious monarch, and did a great deal of good. He undertook many expeditions against the infidels, and engaged in many conflicts with them. A number of Maliks [chieftains], Kurds, Turks, Ajamis, and 'Arabs were in his service.
Sultan Nur-ud-Din left numerous marks of his goodness behind him in the territory of Sham4, and reigned for very many years5.
At the time of his death he left one son, named All, who succeeded him.
II. MALIK-US-SALIH, 'ALl®, SON OF MAHMUD-I-ZANGI. '
Malik-us-Salih, All, ascended the throne of Sham at the city of Damashk ; and the great nobles and chieftains paid
brother Turk— the slave king of Dihli—is turned into "a Patan," i. e. an Afghan, by Dow and his copyists.
. 4 Nur-ud-Din reigned for a considerable time in great grandeur and glory, and the laudable course of his life, and his conduct'towards his people,- were such that he was accounted, by them, as one of the saints ; and it is said, that prayers, offered up before his tomb, are effectual. He founded a great hospital at Damash^, and a university or college, and died in the month of Shawwal. 569 H., but some say in 568 H. , when leading an army towards Misr against Salah-ud-Din, who had become disaffected. Ibn-i-Khalkan says he died in the citadel of Damaglk.
* His descendant, apparently, did not know how long his ancestor reigned.
4 Nur-ud-Din does not appear to have had any son called 'All; but certain it is that he was not succeeded by one of that name, as our author states, but by his son ISMA'IL, entitled MALIK-US-§ALIH, then a mere child, being only in his eleventh year. §alah-ud-Din, at first, read the Khutbah for him, and coined the money in his name, as he had done for his father previously ; but in 570 H., the year after his accession, when in his twelfth year, Salati-ud-Dln, taking advantage of his extreme youth, brought an army before Damashk, and seized upon it and the greater part of Sham, leaving nothing to his benefactor's son but the city of Halab and its environs, to which place Malik-us-Salih retired. He dwelt there till 577 H., when he died in his nineteenth year, much regretted by the people for his virtues j and, with him, this branch terminated.
If this account be compared with our author's, the absurdity and incorrectness of his statements will be sufficiently apparent, more particularly those contained in the last paragraph of his account of them. Of the Ata-baks of Mausil and several other dynasties, he gives no account.206
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
allegiance and submission to him ; and the districts around Sham, and Halab, and Diyar-i-Bakr, came under his sway.
When intimation of the decease of Sultan Nur-ud-Din reached Misr—and at this time the sovereignty of Misr had passed to Sultan Salah-ud-Din, Yusuf—as he owed a heavy debt of gratitude for favours conferred, Sultan Salah-ud-Din determined to proceed from Misr to the presence of Malik-us-Salih, pay his obeisance to him, and perform the forms of condolence, and congratulate Malik-us-Salih on his succession to the dominion of Sham, and then return again.
He set out from Misr [accordingly] with a body of troops and conducted it to Sham7; and, as soon as he reached the frontier of that territory, information of his arrival was brought to Damashk. The heart of Malik-us-Salih was filled with affright and consternation, and he asked advice of everybody as to what he ought to do. There was a servant of Malik-us-Salih, who had also been an old follower of his father, Sultan Nur-ud-Din, who was named Aymin, and he said to Malik-us-Salih :—" It is advisable, when Salah-ud-Din comes, to turn your face towards Halab and proceed thither, and relinquish Damashk and Sham to him, since fear of him has taken root in people's hearts.
7 A novel mode of expressing his gratitude. A traitor in Damashk, who had been gained over by Salah-ud-Din, gave out that Salah-ud-Din was coming merely to adjust the affairs of the child. Our author either forgets to allude to, or did not know of, the hostilities that took place between §alah-ud-Din and Saif-ud-Din-i-Ghazt, the latter of whom sent his troops to aid his brother 'Izz-ud-Din, Mas'ud [they were sons of Maudud, sons of Zangi, cousins of Malik-us-Salih], who advanced to Halab, and, taking his cousin Malik-us-Salih and the latter's troops with him, marched to give battle to §alah-ud-Din. The latter offered peace, which 'Izz-ud-Din refused ; and, in Ramazan of 570 H., a battle took place near Hamah, in which Salah-ud-Din was victorious. After this, Malik-us-Salih entered into terms with him for Halab and some other places. Further hostilities took place between Saif-ud-Din-i-Ghazi, supported by his brother, and—but I might fill a volume by merely naming our author's misstatements, and other important matters which he has left out, without giving any details of the facts. He omits nothing that is childish and ridiculous ; the ball, for example, overshadowing the sun [p. 215], the rings for the Christian captives [p. 221], and such like nonsense : it is the important events only that he eschews. Salah-ud-Din subsequently endeavoured further to "express his gratitude," by attempting, in 571 H.,to gain possession of Halab. He remained a long time before it, without being able to take it. At last, a daughter of the late Sultan Nur-ud-Din was made over to him, and, for her sake, he left Malik-us-§aliti unmolested.THE KURDlAH MALIKS OF SHAM.
207
He has great resources and a large army, and he is able to reduce the territories under his sway. He is likewise legitimately born, and has a well-disposed mind, and will respect your rights and the gratitude he owes to your father. If you should enter into hostilities with him, you have neither the means nor the power to oppose nor to resist him." The opinion of Malik-us-Salih was in accord with this fact; and he left Damashk, and retired to Halab, and consigned the territory of Sham into the hands of Salah-ud-Din.
Malik-us-Salih passed the remainder of his lifetime at Halab ; and Salah-ud-Dln served him in all honour and reverence, guarded his rights, and, in the observance of the laws of good faith, and the fulfilment of his engagements, he failed neither to observe nor to neglect the most minute thing.
III. MALIK AIYOB, SON OF SHAD!8.
This Malik Aiyub, son of Shadi, and his brother, Malik Asad-ud-Din, were two brothers, and sons of one of the
8 The correct titles and name of §alah-ud-Din's father were Malik-ul-Af?al, Najm-ud-Din, Abu-Lashkar-i-Aiyub.
Shadi, their father, son of Mavdan, was born in a village of Azarbaijan, and belonged to a Kurdish tribe, which he left and proceeded to Baghdad, with his two sons, Asad-ud-Din, Sher-i-Koh. and Najm-ud-Din, Aiyub. The sons entered the service of Bahruz, the prefect of Baghdad, and were entrusted by him with the charge of the fortress of Takrit, and there Shadi died. His tomb was still to be seen there when Yafa'i wrote ; and within the walls of that stronghold Salah-ud-Din was bom. The brothers continued there for a considerable period ; and, at the time when 'Imad-ud-Din, Zangi, in 526 H., came to the aid of Sultan Mas'ud, Saljuki, and his brother Saljuk Shah, and his Ata-bak, Karajah, the cup-bearer, were routed, Zangi passed the Tigris near the fort of Takrit, by means of boats provided by the) brothers. Subsequently, Asad-ud-Din having slain a person, they had to leave the fortress of Takrit, and they proceeded to Mausil, and presented themselves at the Court of Zangi. He received them with great favour, and bestowed fiefs upon each of them.
Subsequently, when Zangi was assassinated, and his son, Saif-ud-Din-i-Qhazi, succeeded him as ruler over Mausil, Najm-ud-Din-i-Aiyub, who had been assigned the territory of Ba'albak by Zangi, finding Saif-ud-Din-i-Ghazj unable to protect him, had to give it up, and went and entered the service of the then ruler of Damash^i named Majir-ud-Din, Artu^ [Artu^iah], who gave him a fief. Asad-ud-Din, Sher-i-Koh. Aiyub's brother, went to Halab and took service under Nur-ud-Din, Mahmiid, 'Saif-ud-Dio's brother, who had seen the honour with which he had been treated in his father's time, and he raised Asad-ud-Din to the highest position among fiis nobles; and, al thezo8
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Kurdish chieftains in the territory of Sham ; and they passed a number of years in the service of Sultan Nur-ud-Din. They performed great deeds, and on the confines of Maghrab and of Sham, with numerous forces, they waged holy war, and fought engagements against unbelievers.
When Malik Aiyub, son of Shadi, departed this life, he left four sons behind him: first, Malik Salah-ud-Dln, Yusuf; second, Malik 'Adil-i-Abu-Bikr ; third, Shahan-shah ; and fourth, Saif-ul-Islam9: and Malik Asad-ud-Din, son of Shadi, as before stated, was the brother of Malik Aiyub1.
When the latter died, his sons were in the service of their uncle, Malik Asad-ud-Din ; and the first person among them {sic in MSS.] who became sovereign of Misr was this same Asad-ud-Din ; and the first one who acquired sovereignty in Sham was Salah-ud-Din, Yusuf, son of Aiyub, as will, please God, be hereafter recorded 2.
IV. MALIK ASAD-UD-DIN3, SON OF SHADI, IN MISR.'
Trustworthy persons have related after this manner : that a body of Maghrabi 'Alawis laid claim to the Khilafat4,
taking of Damashk, Asad-ud-DTri, Sher-i-Koh, and Salah-ud-DIn, were in Nur-ud-DIn's service ; and the former held the government of Hims.
9 Abu Lashkar-i-Aiyub had six renowned sons, the titles and names of whom, according to the years of their birth, are as follow :—I. Amir-Nur-ud-Daulah, Shahan-Shah. 2. Malik-ul-Muazzam, Shams-ud-Daulah. Turan Shah. 3. Malik-un-Nasir, Salah-ud Din, Yiisuf. 4. Malik-ul-'Adil, Saif-ud-Din [Daulah], Abu Bikr,''Muhammad. 5. Malik-ul-'Aziz, Zahlr-ud-Din, Abu Faras-i-Tugh-Tigin, Sa'if-ul-Islanj. 6. Taj-ul-Muluk, Majd-ud-Din— the least in years, the greatest in learning and accomplishments.
1	Any one reading this would imagine that Aiyub had been an independent ruler in Sham, and one of the dynasty, and that he had died before Asad-nd-Din, and before Salah-ud-Din rose to power ; but neither of these is the fact. Aiyub merely held Ba'albak of ZangI and another fief under his son. See note page 215.
2	Here is another specimen of an author who "narrates his facts in a plain, straightforward manner, which induces a confidence in the sincerity of his statements, and the accuracy of his knowledge." He begins this Section with an account of the Kurdish rulers of Sham and Misr, the two first of whom were Turks, and the third never reigned at all; while he himself states, subsequently, that the fourth was the first Kurd that ruled in Misr, and the fifth, the first Kurdish ruler of Sham !
3	His correct name and titles are Abu-l-Haris, Sher-i Koh [the Lion of the Mountains], Asad-ud-Din, surnamed Al-Malik-ul-Man;ur.
4	Nearly three hundred years before Nur-ud-Dln despatched Asad-ud-THE KURDIAH MALIKS OF SHAM.
209
and brought an army from 'Maghrab into Misr, and wrested it out of the hands of the governors and nobles of the 'Abbasi Khalifahs.
The chief of them was named Al-Muntasir5; and some theologians regard them as Karamitahs. The territory of Misr had continued in the possession of his descendants up to the period that an army of Afranj set out towards Misr, and plundered and sacked the country. The 'Alawls of Misr had not the power to resist them, nor to drive out that host of infidels ; so they solicited aid from Sultan Nur-ud-Din of Sham. He nominated Malik Asad-ud-Din, son of Shadi, to proceed into Misr, and expel the Afranj infidels from that country6.
Din into Misr, viz. in 296 h. In 351 h. they removed from the territory styled Maghrab, and took up their abode in the former country.
5	Abu-Tamim-i-Sa'd, Al-Mustansir B'illah, was the eighth of the Isma-'llians or Fatimites. They had been in Egypt, and had founded Kahirah upwards of sixty years before Al-Mustansir succeeded to the Khilafat. All the copies of the text have " Muntasij-."
6	Our author's statements here are totally incorrect. Asad-ud-Din, Sher-i-Koh, was despatched into Misr—or more correctly Diyar-i-Misriah, for Misr is the name of the ancient capital of Egypt, and Yafa'i and others make this distinction—upon three different occasions. The first occasion was in this wise : Sha'ur. the Wazir of Misr, who held'the chief power, for the Isma'ilian Khalifahs appear to have possessed little authority, had been ousted from office by a powerful rival, Zir-ghamby name, who obtained the chief authority, and put Sha'ur's son, Tae, to death. On this, Sha'ur came to the presence of Nur-ud-Din to solicit his aid in restoring him to power; and, in Ramazan, 558 h. [according to some in 559 h.], Nur-ud-Din despatched a numerous army into Misriah for the purpose, under Asad-ud-Din, Sher-i-Koh. and §alah-ud-Din, his nephew, accompanied him.
The objects of Nur-ud-Din, in sending this expedition, were twofold. One was to aid Sha'ur. and the second was his desire to know the exact state of the affairs of that country, as he had been informed that there was really no ruler in it, and that it might be easily annexed. Asad was therefore selected to command, as Nur-ud-Din had implicit confidence in him. He accordingly entered the Misriah territory in Jamadi-ul-Akliir, 559 h. [some say in 558 h.], and Zir-gham was puL to death, his head placed on a spear, and his body left to the dogs and jackals ; but his remains were subsequently buried. Sha'ur again assumed the Wazir-ship, but, finding the presence of Asad and his army irksome, and fearing treachery on Asad's part, he sought an alliance with the Farangs [Latin Christians of Jerusalem] to counteract it. Asad in consequence was unable to hold his own in the Misriah territory, and he accordingly retired into Sham again and returned to Damashk, and entered it in Zi-Hijjah, 559 h. [some.say in 558 h.] Asad-ud-Din's thoughts, however, were concentrated on Misriah, and he was constantly pondering the subject. Sha'ur. becoming aware of his ambition and covetous designs, entered into a treaty with the Farangs to aid him, in case of need, against the ruler of Sham.
On the news of these negotiations reaching the ears of Nur-ud-Din and2IO
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Malik Asad-ud-Din preferred a request to the Sultan that he would appoint Salah-ud-Din, Yusuf, his nephew, to accompany him on the expedition. This was granted ; and Malik Asad-ud-Din, along with Salah-ud-Din, set out from Sham towards Misr.
When they reached the frontier of that country, the infidel Afranj, having gained information of the arrival of the troops of Sham, reined in the bridle of their audacity, and they halted in that part of the country which they had then reached.
The troops of Sham entered the territory of Misr, and acquired predominance over it; and, as they possessed great power and magnificence, the 'Alawis of Misr became timid of them, and repented of ever having sought their assistance, as they were not sufficiently strong to hinder them [the Shamis] from the usurpation of power and authority over the country.
The Sayyid, who filled the masnad of the Khilafat in Misr, had a Wazir, who bore the name of Sha-ur, and he summoned him privily, and commanded that he should write a letter, secretly, to the infidel Farangs,. and tell them " neither we nor our troops will render any help to the Shamis, and we will not send them sufficient succour. It behoveth you to advance upon them : put forth your strength, and drive them out of this country, and all the
Asad, they consulted together, and the former, fearing lest the Farangs might gain a footing in Misriah, and thereby acquire dominion over the whole of the parts adjacent, determined to despatch Asad with a large army against Sha'ur. which commenced its march in Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 562 H., and Salah-ud-Din attended him, being in his service.
Sha'ur, on this movement, called in the Farangs ; and, with those allies, encountered Asad and his forces in several engagements, but without decisive advantage on either side. Nur-ud-Dln now created a diversion by sending a force against the Farangi territory, and succeeded in taking Montreal [? The news of this having reached Almeric [jj^c], king of Jerusalem, an accommodation was entered into by the contending parties, under the agreement that not a man of either the Shamis or Farangs should remain in the Misriah territory, and that both armies should retire into their respective countries.
Asad-ud-Din, Sher-i-Koh, in 564 H., again advanced into the Misriah territory, accompanied by his nephew, Salah-ud-Din, and a large army, and sought to subdue it. Salah-ud-Din succeeded in getting possession of Iskan-daiiah, but Sha'ur invested him therein with the forces of Misr, and Asad had to evacuate Sa'id and march to his succour. At last a peace was come to, and Asad and Salah-ud-Din returned to Sham again. For an account of the third expedition see note page 212.THE KURDIAH MALIKS OF SHAM.	211
spoil taken from them shall be yours." In short, the Misris sought, by such like treachery, to betray the army of Sham into the hands of the troops of the infidels of Rum7 and the Farangs8.
In accordance with the solicitation contained in the letter referred to, the Farang infidels advanced upon the forces of Sham to give them battle, and drive them out of Misr. The army of the infidel Farangs amounted to 80,000 men, and that of Sham numbered 700 horse9.
When the two armies came into contact with each other and the conflict and struggle began, the troops of Sham, on account of the smallness of their numbers, were unable to withstand their opponents ; and, as a matter of necessity, they were discomfited, and fled, fighting, from the gate of Misr until they reached a place which is called Talbis. This place had a fortified wall all round it, and a citadel; and, in it, they sought shelter, and they shut themselves up within the walls. The troops of the infidel Farangs completely surrounded it, pitched their camp, and commenced their preparations for taking the place.
When the Sham! forces perceived the extreme danger they were in, and that they were completely invested, besides the treachery of the 'Alawls of Misr, they all, of one accord, deliberated together, and discussed a plan of escape. Malik Asad-ud-Din and Salah-ud-Din told them, saying: —" The plan of saving yourselves consists in staking your ljyes; in victory or death." They all, accordingly, agreed together; and, placing their hands within the open grasp of confidence, and with full trust in the Most High and Holy God, they, having quite resigned themselves to sacrifice sweet life if necessary, suddenly and unawares, issued from the place and commenced fighting the infidels, as by orthodox law prescribed: and heavenly succour came to their aid; and, according to the promise of Him who promised victory to
7	No troops whatever of the Greek empire were employed on the occasion; but, the fact is, our author was not acquainted with his subject at all, and has concocted much nonsense.
8	The words Afranj and Farang are often used here indiscriminately.
9	On the preceding page he says Asad-ud-Din's troops " acquired predominance over the territory of Misr," and Sha'ur had to call in the Christians to expel them, and immediately after tells this impudent falsehood. A very trustworthy writer certainly !212
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
the true believers, He sent succour, and the army of the infidels was put to the rout, and the defenders of the truth gained the victory ; and from that place to the gate of Misr1, and in the vicinity, and in the parts round about,
1 The cause of the third expedition was that, in 564 H., the Farangs [King Almeric and the Hospitallers, a.d. 1168] invaded the Misriah territory, intending to seize it for themselves. They inarched to Balbis [the ancient Pelusium], took it, and put the inhabitants to the sword. Again Sha'ur sought aid from Nur-ud-Din, who, fearing the Farangs and their designs, and possessing vast resources, sent a countless army [not 700 horse probably] thither under Asad-ud-Din, who, on this occasion, took with him his brethren [sic in MS.] and kinsmen, including Salah-ud-Dm. The account of the advance of this host having been conveyed to the Farangs, they desisted from further operations, evacuated Balbis, and retired from the country, pressed hard in their retreat by Nur-ud-Din's Turkmans. The author, from whom I have been taking these extracts chiefly, says, " Salah-ud-Din told me himself that he [Salah-ud-DIn] did not accompany his uncle of his own choice; and further, that Sha'ur used to promise to defray all the expenses of this expedition, undertaken on his account; but he did not fulfil his promises, and sometimes he would be with the Farangs, and- at times he would be with the Amir [Asad-ud^Din], Fearing the perfidy and double-dealing of Sha'ur. Amir Asad resolved to seize him; and, one day, when Sha'ur, attended with drums and trumpets and banners, as is the custom with the Wazirs of Misr, mounted and set out with a cavalcade to visit Asad-ud-Din, -the latter also mounted and rode forth to receive him ; but, when they met, he seized Sha'ur by the collar, and gave a sign to his own followers to secure him. This was done, and Sha'ur was detained as a prisoner in a tent. Shortly after, a body-servant arrived from the sovereign of Misriah [Abu Muhammad-i-'Abd-ullah, entitled 'Azid, the last of the Isma'ills of Egypt] signifying his desire that the head of Sha'ur should be sent to him. This was in accordance with the custom of the country, that any one who, by force, seized the Wazir's person, and cut off his head and sent it to the ruler, should have the robe of Wazir-ship forthwith brought to him ; and, according to that custom, Asad cut off the head of Sha'ur [had it cut off] and sent it, and on the same day he assumed the robe of Wazir-ship, and the supreme direction of the affairs of the country." This occurred 17th of Rabi'-ul-Akhir. 564 H.
Another account of the events- ending in the death of Sha'ur, quoted in Yafa'i, is not unworthy of a brief record here, and, in all probability, is the most correct. When Asad-ud-Din reached the Misriah territory, and entered Kahirah on the 17th of Rabi'-ul-Akh,ir, 564 H., 'Azid-i-'Abd-ullah, the last of the Isma'ili Khalifahs. on the Friday following, came forth and held an interview with Asad, and had him arrayed in a dress of honour, and treated him with great distinction. Asad now requested Sha'ur to disburse the expenses incurred on his account, which he had agreed to defray ; but Sha'ur delayed. Asad sent a person to him with a message, saying, " My troops, through want of their pay, are much incensed against you; therefore be careful." Sha'ur evinced no fear, and resolved to invite Asad to an entertainment in order to seize his person. This design having come to Asad's knowledge, Amir 'Izz-ud-Din, one of Nur-ud-Din's nobles, and Salah-ud-Din, agreed together to kill Sha'ur, and communicated the design to Asad, who forbade them to do so. Sha'ur. subsequently, in order to visit Asad, without anyTHE KURDlAH MALIKS OF SHAM.
213
they made heaps of the slain. Praise be unto God ! May victory ever be theirs !
The troops of Islam having gained such a victory, at once appeared before the gate of Misr. The Wazir of Misr, who was named Sha-ur, performed the ceremonies of going to receive them ; but, as soon as the sight of that victorious Sultan3, Salah-ud-Din, fell "upon him, he, in the presence of Malik Asad-ud-Din, with his own august hand, struck off with his sword the wretched head from that accursed one's body.
The whole of the people of Misr and the forces of Sham agreed together, with oneN accord, to raise Malik Asad-ud-Din to the sovereignty; and he became sovereign of Misr accordingly, and obtained the throne of that country 3.
The 'Alawis of Misr, without molestation or impediment, were placed in seclusion, and the Khutbah was read for them in the same manner as before4.
The news of this success was despatched to Sham ; and the territory of Misr, together with its coasts and confines, was taken possession of by Malik Asad-ud-Din, who resided there for a considerable time ; and he died5.
suspicion, came to the bank of the Nil, where his [Asad's] tents were pitched to enable his followers to visit conveniently the tomb of Imam Shafi'i. Amir 'Izz-ud-DIn and Salah-ud-Din, after they had received Sha ur, and the usual salutation of "Peace be unto thee," &c., had passed—Asad was not present at the time—dragged him from his horse, upon which his followers fled. They then handcuffed him, and kept him a prisoner in one of the tents, but did not dare to put him to death without the permission of Nur-ud-Din [Asad ?]. In the meantime, 'Azid, the Isma'ili, sent an order to put Sha'ur to death [according to the custom before mentioned], on which his head was cut off [by two slaves of Nur-ud-Din] and sent to 'Azid on a spear. After this, 'Azid summoned Asad-ud-Din to his presence, who went ; and the Wazir's robe was conferred upon him, with the title of Al-Malik-ul-Mansur, Amir-ul-Juyush.
2	At this time this "victorious Sultan" was serving under his uncle, who was himself serving Nur-ud-Din.
3	Asad-ud-Din was not raised to the sovereignty, and never occupied the throne of Misr. For the refutation of this absurd and untrue statement, see preceding note
4	At page 215 our author contradicts his own statement.
8 Asad did not enjoy his Wazir-ship very long, for on the 22nd [some say 26th] of Jamadi-ul-Akhir of the same year, two months and five days after he obtained it—a " considerable time" truly—he died suddenly at Kahirah. He was first buried there, but subsequently, according to his last wishes, his remains were removed to Madinah. The "Lion of the Mountains" left a son, Nasir-ud-Dln, Muhammad, Sher-i-Koh. entitled Al-Malik-ul-Kahirah. When his father died, Sultan Nur-ud-Din of Sham, deprived him of the fief of214
the tabakat-i-na§iri.
v. sultAn salAh-ud-din, yOsuf, son of aiyCb-al-
kurdi.
Sultan Salah-ud-Din was a great and illustrious monarch, and he waged holy wars and undertook many religious expeditions; and the Kaisar of Rum and the infidel Farangs, he encountered in many conflicts. It was most probable, that in all his doings, and throughout the whole of his career, the sword of heavenly success and divine victory attended him. The territories of Sham, Kudsi [the Holy Land], Misr, Hijaz, and Yaman6, all came under his rule.
As the Most High God willed that, at this, the end of time7, His true religion should be manifested, and that the empire of Islam should be victorious, from every illustrious family He made choice of one sovereign, His servant, and, by means of the key of holy war waged by him, caused the gates of conquest of the countries of the infidels to be thrown open. In the same manner as in the countries of the East He distinguished Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Mu-hammad-i-Sam, Shansabi [Shansabani], Ghuri, by great victories in the country of Hindustan, as far as the boundaries of Chin ; in the .territories of the West, and in the country of Sham, He made Sultan Salah-ud-Din, Yusuf, the Kurd, exalted by the conquests of the territories of Maghrab, and of the Afranj8, so that great victories were achieved by him.
He brought back again the realm of Misr from the hands
Hims ; but, when Salah-ud-Din, his cousin, gained possession of Sham, he restored Hims to him, and there he died in 581 H.
8 Salah-ud-Din had an elder brother named Malik-ul-Muazzam, Shams-ud-Daulah, Turan Shah, and greatly esteemed by that Sultan. He employed him in an expedition into Yaman, and subsequently sent him into Nubah [Nubia of Europeans], and he was afterwards placed in charge of Damashk. He died in §afar, 576 H., and was buried in the Madrasah in sight of Damashk, which he had himself founded.
7	Our author has been as unsuccessful in foretelling the end of the world, as some others, his successors, who pretend to know the secrets of futurity and the will of Providence.
8	It is somewhat new to find that Salah-ud-DIn made conquests in Europe. He does not mean conquests in Palestine or the Greek empire, for he mentions them a little farther on. This is merely another of his audacious falsehoods. The words he uses are,	j Wj**j^i-5 ^yk l>	e/1^THE KURDIAH MALIKS OF SHAM.
215
of the Misr! 'Alawis, who were the chiefs and heads of the Batinah and Karamitah heretics, under the sway of the Khalifahs of the house of 'Abbas; and Kuds [the Holy-City], 'Akkah [Acre], and a great portion of the territories of Rum, and Filistin, he liberated from the hands of the infidel Farangs.
Th© beginning of his career was this. When his father, Malik Aiyub, son of Shadi, departed this life9, he was in the service of his uncle, Malik Asad-ud-Din, as has been already stated in what has been previously recorded, and used to be constant in his attendance at the Court of Sultan Nur-ud-Din. He had acquired great fame for his manhood, his activity, and his sagacity. He had also become an associate with Sultan Nur-ud-Din in the game of Chaugan, and playing at ball on the course1.
One of the trustworthy has related after the following manner :—One day Salah-ud-Din was engaged with Sultan Nur-ud-Din in the game at ball, and the ball fell between him and the Sultan. By his strength and agility, Salah-ud-Din, with one blow, bore away the ball from the Sultan in such a way, that, from the immense force with which his Chaugan struck it, the ball flew into the air so far that it became immersed in the light of the sun, and the shadow of it fell upon Nur-ud-Din.2. When the Sultan noticed this circumstance, his heart became so overpowered with wrath, that he threw down his Chaugan in a rage and left the course. This circumstance filled Salah-ud-Din with fear and apprehension, and he began to conceal himself from
9 Here is another specimen of the false statements of our author, so " trustworthy." Asad died in 564 H., and §alah-ud-Din's father, Abu-Lashkar-i-Aiyub, joined his son in Egypt in the following year, when" Salah-ud-Din had succeeded to the Wazir-ship held previously by his uncle. §alah-ud-Din wished his father to accept the office, but Aiyub refused, saying, " The Almighty hath chosen thee, my son, for this office, and consequently no one else is worthy of it." Aiyub was killed from injuries sustained by a fall from his horse, which threw him when he was viewing §alah-ud-DIn's troops file past before the Bab-un-Nasr [the Nasr Gate] of I£ahirah, on an expedition against Karak, in Zi-Hijjah, 567 H., about three years after Asad's death. Aiyub entered gahirahi in Rajab, 565 H., and 'A?id, the Isma'illan Khalifah, in order to gratify Salah-ud-Din, came forth to receive his father, whom he treated with great reverence and distinction.
1	Sic in MSS.
2	Our author must have been a very simple-minded man indeed if he believed this ; but many of his statements are equally childish and absurd. •2l6
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
the Sultan's sight, and seldom used to present himself to the Sultan's observation.
The author heard from Khwajah Muzhir, a merchant, that, at the period in question, one night Sultan Salah-ud-Din saw, in a dream, that he was in Misr, and that, at night, some people seized him, and took him away to the palace of the sovereign, and, having placed a tent-rope around his neck, they hung him up from the battlements of the palace. The terror which this produced awoke him from his sleep, and his apprehension became still greater than before, and he was constantly overwhelmed with anxiety3. Unexpectedly, the envoy from the 'Alawis of Misr arrived to solicit aid from Sultan Nur-ud-Din, as has been related previously. Th« Sultan appointed Salah-ud-Din's uncle, Malik Asad-ud-Din, to proceed thither, and he solicited that his nephew, Salah-ud-Din, should be allowed to accompany him.
The latter was so overcome with fear, caused by this dream, that he went to an interpreter of dreams, and related the dream .to him. The interpreter said :—" May the sovereignty of Misr be propitious ! Allow no anxiety to find a way into thy mind, for the Almighty God will make thee a great king." On the strength of that interpretation, with a buoyant heart and with expanded hope, he reached Misr, where all those circumstances happened to him and to his uncle, as already stated.
When his uncle died, the people of Misr and the troops of Sham were agreeable to his assuming the sovereignty, but he would not in any way assent to it4. When the
3	These are the exact words of our author ; but the story is related somewhat differently. " One night, before he had gone to Misr, he saw in a dream that a party of people, having put a tent-rope about his neck, drew him up to the battlements of the metropolis of Misr by the neck. When Asad-ud-Din was about to proceed into that country, he used to endeavour to persuade Salah-ud-Din to accompany him ; but the latter, on account of this dream, which he kept secret, used to manifest great disinclination to accede. At length, having communicated the dream to an interpreter of dreams, he was told that it signified he should become ruler of that country, and after this he was quite willing to go."
4	Another of our author's absurdities or wilful perversions of facts. After the death of Asad-ud-Din, his nephew, Salah-ud-Din, was chosen Wazir, from among several candidates, by the Isma'ili Khallfah, 'Azid, as he considered Salah-ud-Din rather weak in intellect, and less to be feared than the others, in which he greatly deceived himself. Instead of seizing people'sTHE KURDIAH MALIKS OF SHAM.
217
importunity of people, however, exceeded all bounds, Sultan Salah-ud-Din commanded, saying:—" I will comply
property and effects, §alah-ud-DTn began to appropriate their hearts, by making them his own ; and he likewise resolved to lead a new life, and renounced wine and women, riotous living and amusements, and other vicious practices. Having obtained the direction of the affairs of the country, Salah-ud-Din issued commands to read the Khutbah for Nur-ud-Din ; and the latter addressed him in all his communications as the AmTr-i-Sipah-salar ['Azid having previously given him the title of Malik-un-Nasir]. As Salah-ud-Din acquired the attachment of the people, 'Azid lost it ; and he now sent for his brothers, who were in the service of Nur-ud-DTn, who would not allow them to go, mentioning, as his reason, his fear lest either of them should become hostile to his brother Salah-ud-Din, but the truth was Nur-ud-Din suspected his motives. However, when Nur-ud-Din subsequently despatched his troops to operate against the Farangs, who had invaded the Misriah territory, he entrusted Salah-ud-Din's elder brother, Shams-ud-Daulah, Turan Shah, with a command in that army, but with orders that he was not to consider Yusuf [Salah-ud-Din] as his younger brother, but as the lord of Misr, and his [Nur-ud-Din's] lieutenant and representative; and this order Turan Shah agreed to obey.
Ibn Asir says, that, when Salah-ud-Din had become firmly established, Nur-ud-Din sent to command him to give up reading the Khutbah for 'Azid, and to read it for the 'Abbasi Khalifahs. Salah-ud-Din excused himself by saying that the people were well-inclined towards the present family, and he feared, if he obeyed, that an insurrection would take place. Nur-ud-Din, however, wrote the secoqd and the third time to order him to do so, and Salah-ud-DTn, not daring to disobey the reiterated commands of his suzerain, was in a dilemma, but it so happened that 'A?id was about this time taken ill. §alah-ud-Din now consulted with the chiefs and nobles as to what should be done ; but some said one thing and some another, and the difficulty was as great as before. At this juncture, a person of some note, named Amir-i-'Alim [Guzi-dah calls- him Najm-ud-Din], an 'Ajaml, who had come to Misr, offered to take the initiative, if permitted ; and, on the first Friday in the month of Muharram, before the Khatib [the preacher who pronounces the Khutbah] entered the pulpit, this 'Ajami got into it, and prayed for the 'Abbasi Khali-fah, Imam Mustazi B'nur-Ullah. The Misris who were present made no objection, and the next Friday Salah-ud-DTn directed that the Khutbah for 'Azid should be discontinued at Kahirah and at Misr [the old capital],.and that for Mustazi B'nur-Ullah adopted, and also in other parts of the Diyar-i-Misriah. The disorder of'Azid had increased, and this matter was, in consequence, not communicated to him, because, in case he ever arose from his bed again, he would soon hear of it, and if not, of what use was it to afflict him ? Salah-ud-Din took care, however, to separate the family, slaves, and dependents of'Azid from each other, and to provide for the security of the dying man's wealth and effects. Before his death, 'Azid sent for him ; but, fearing treachery, as he pretended, Salah-ud-Din did not go, and regretted it afterwards. 'Azid died loth of Mufcarram, 567 H. [Fasih-i says 565 H.], and the 'Ubaidi Isma'Ili dynasty terminated. [According to Vertot vol. ii. p. 209, §alah-ud-Din had the Khalifah murdered in or out of his bath, and says it was narrated freely by the Christians, but that the Moslems were silent on the matter.] When the Abbasi Kh,alifah, Al-MustazT B'nur-Ullah, received information that the jKhutbah had been read for him in Mi§rlah, he despatched 'Imad-ud-DIn, a
P218
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRl.
with your solicitations, on the stipulation that you attend to a request of mine." To this demand of his they signified their assent. Sultan Salah-ud-Din commanded that they should assemble, on the morrow, in the great mosque, at which time he would make his request known to them, and accept the sovereignty of Mi§r. To this all pledged their faith ; and the next day they all assembled in the great mosque of Misr, and solicited that he would mention his request.
Salah-ud-Din demanded that they should give their allegiance to the Khalifahs of the house of 'Abbas as the successors of the Prophet and chief patriarchs. The people all agreed to pledge their fealty to the house of 'Abbas ; and, at that time, the Lord of the Faithful, Al-Mustazi B'amr-Ullah5, filled the office of Khalifah, and the Khutbah was pronounced in the name of the 'Abbasi family. A despatch announcing this triumph was forwarded to Baghdad, the capital of the Khalifahs, together with the standard of the Farangs, inverted, and the flags of the Karamitah heretics, to the presence of the Khalifah. Al-Mustazi B'amr-Ullah.
From the capital of Islam, Salah-ud-Din received the title of Malik-un-Nasir6, and he became sovereign of Misr;
venerable and illustrious dependent of the 'Abbasi dynasty, to Sham, with rich dresses of honour for Nur-ud-Din—to the sovereign, not to his lieutenant, §alah ud-Din,—but robesiof honour were also despatched to §alah-ud-Din, together with black hangings for the pulpits of Misriah, as the Isma'ili colour was green.
In 569 H. Nur-ud-Din directed §alah-ud-Din to assemble the forces of Misriah, and march against the Christian territory, and invest Karak, and promised to come himself likewise. Salah-ud-Din reported his departure 20th of Muharram, from Kahirah ; and Nur-ud-Din, on receipt of his despatch at Damashk, marched towards Karak, and, having reached it, fully expected the arrival of §alah-ud-Din and his forces. He was, however, too cunning to trust himself in the power of his master, and wrote excusing himself on account of pretended disaffection in Misriah. Nur-ud-Din repeated his commands without avail, and had serious intentions of marching into the country and removing his disobedient lieutenant. Ibn-i-Shadad gives a different account of this circumstance, which is too long for insertion here, and says it happened in 568 H. Nur-ud-Din died in 569 H.
5	Fasih-i says that, the first time the Khutbah was read in the Diyar-i-Misriah, it was read for Al-Mustanjicl, who died in the beginning of the month of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 566 H., but, subsequently, the news of his death, and the accession of his son Al-Mustazi B'nur-Ullah [not B'amr-Ullah] was received.
6	This statement is totally incorrect: the title was conferred upon him by 'Azid, the Isma'ili Khalifah. when Salah-ud-Din became his Wazir.THE KURDIAH MALIKS OF SHAM.
219
and, at this time also, Sultan Nur-ud-Din died7. Sultan Salah-ud-Din marched into Sham, and assumed the throne of sovereignty, as has been previously stated. He conferred the [government of the] territory of Migr upon one of his sons, Malik-ul-'Aziz, and another son, Malik-ul-Afzal, he nominated to be his heir; and upon his brother, Malik-ul-'Adil, he conferred the province of Diyar-i-Bakr.
One of the most distinguished [persons] of the trustworthy has related, that, when the news of the accession of Sultan Salah-ud-Din reached the territories of Rum and the Kaisars8 of the Farangs, a countless army came from the country of the infidels, and advanced into Sham, and fought a battle with Sultan Salah-ud-Din before the gate of Damashk9. The army of Islam was defeated and overthrown. and the Sultan, flying before them, retired within the walls of the city of Damashk. The infidels pitched their camp before the gates of the place, and the Musal-mans sustained great calamity and misery.
Sultan Salah-ud-Din assembled the inhabitants of Damashk in a certain place, in order to induce them to pledge themselves to make holy war upon the infidels, and to attack them and drive them away. He deputed one of the godly 'Ulama to ascend the pulpit, to speak a few words in order to incite the people to holy warfare, and urge them
7	Nur-ud-Din did not die until 569 H., and the Khutbah was read for the 'Abbasts in 567 H.
8	The plural form is used in all the copies of the text collated.
9	This assertion is totally false : during the whole of the reign of §alah-ud-Din, and the numerous battles that took place therein, no battle was ever fought before Dama^ between him and the Farangs. The rest of our author's statement may he depended upon accordingly. It is something like 7°° horse routing 80,000 Crusaders, and their dead lying in heaps for miles. Our worthy author probably considered, when he wrote this, that, as Hindustan was such a far-off country, he might make any statement for the glorification of the Mus-salman faith with impunity. The great battles that took place during the reign 0/ Salah-ud-Din, of course, are not mentioned, and were probably unknown to Minhaj-i-Saraj, who was " so industrious in collecting information from ' trustworthy persons,' and who often [very !] mentions his authority for the facts he records "—of which, probably, the matter of the rings for the ears of the Crusaders farther on is one. Our author has evidently been confused about the investment of Damashk in the year 543 H., some years before Sultan Nur-ud-Din obtained possession of it, when §alah-ud-Din was in his eleventh year, and in the defence of which city his eldest brother, Amir Nur-ud-Daulah Shahan Shah, so greatly distinguished himself, and died of the wounds he received on that occasion.
P 2220
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
to enter into conflict with the infidels1. The godly ecclesiastic, with all sincerity of heart, turned his face towards Salah-ud-Din, and said:—" Oh, Salah-ud-Din, from thy mouth, thy tongue, and thy person, emanateth the effluvium of Satan's urine ! How canst thou expect that the Most High God will ratify thy vow ? how can it be regarded as real and sincere ?"
This reproof, by the grace of God, took effect upon the august heart of Salah-ud-Din. He got up, and on the hand of that godly ecclesiastic he expressed contrition, and renounced wine and all other sins2. The people, with sincere eagerness and willingness, renewed to him their vows to undertake holy war; and from that very spot they turned their faces in the direction of the scene of holy warfare. The whole of the people issued from the city, and they fell upon the army of the infidels. The Most High God sent them heavenly assistance, and the enemies of the faith were defeated and overthrown, and such a vast number of them were sent to Hell by the stroke of the sword of the defenders of the true faith, as cannot be numbered or computed3. The whole of the Maliks4 [princes], and
1	§alah-ud-DIn was too wise to trust to "the people " to make holy war and defend his cities. He depended more upon his hardy troops, well knowing that rabble cannot be turned into soldiers at a nod of the head.
2	See beginning of note4, p. 216. Our author confounds both times as well as events.
3	§alah-ud-DIn's total overthrow, near 'Askalan, at the head of an immense force by the sick king Baldwin IV.—at the time that Salah-ud-Din marched against Jerusalem in Nov. 1179 A.D. = 575 H., when Odo de St. Amand, the Master of the Temple, at the head of eighty of his knights rode through Salah-ud-Din's Mamluk body-guard of a thousand picked men, in coats of mail and saffron coloured mantles, and penetrated to Salah-ud-Din's own tent, from which he with difficulty escaped almost naked, and had scarcely time to scramble up the back of a fleet dromedary and make for the desert—is an event which our author would scorn to chronicle. On this occasion, pigeons spread over Egypt the triumphant news of a victory, in order, as the Arab chroniclers say, "to quiet the minds of the people," although scarcely one of the Egyptian army ever got back to Egypt again. Neither would our author condescend to chronicle the crushing defeat, inflicted upon Salah-ud-Din and his immense host, by Richard Cceur-de-Lion, and his French and Burgundian allies, near Arsuf, in 1191 a.d. —- 587 11., nor the alacrity with which, soon after, he agreed to enter into a treaty with Richard [who had rebellion at home to crush], when his forces were in such a woeful plight, but the real state of his affairs unknown to the Christians.
4	The word Malik may mean king here ; and our author might have desired his readers to believe that all the kings of the Franks were made captive.THE KURDIAH MALIKS OF SHAM.
221
nobles, and chief personages among the Farangs were made captives.
The Islamis having become victorious and triumphant, Sultan Salah-ud-Din directed every one to devise [means] for the disposal of the Farang captives. At last the Sultan determined to set the whole of them at liberty, and they were set free accordingly; and he made them signify their repentance, and conferred gifts upon them. After they had departed to the distance of a day's journey, they sent a representation to the Sultan, saying:—" We are all your servants, set at liberty by you : send to each of us a ring that we may insert it in our ears6, and then we will depart." The Sultan commanded that a sufficient number of rings should be prepared, of pure gold, sufficient to supply every one of them with one of the weight of one miskal8; and they were sent to them, and the whole of the liberated captives inserted the rings in their ears, and they went a^vay; and of that host not one person ever again came to fight against the Sultan's troops.
Sultan Salah-ud-Din became firmly established, and his illustrious deeds in Islam will endure. He reigned for a very long period, and died. He had six sons, whose titles were as follows7:—Malik-uz-Zahir, Malik-ul-Afzal,
Probably he heard something about §alah:ud-Din's encounters with the Latin Christians and the battle of Tiberias, just before the capitulation of Jerusalem in 583 H., and has confounded them with the investment of Damashk by the Emperor Conrad and Louis VII. in 541 H., some years before the death of Zangi, Nur-ud-Din's father, when Salah-ud-Din was about nine years old. He has made a precious hash of the account of the Kurdish rulers, and of §alah-ud-Din's reign in particular.
5	Rings in the ears are emblems of slavery. Bigoted Mullas, like our author, stick at no falsehoods in their endeavours to enhance the deeds of their coreligionists ; but the 'Arab chroniclers of the Crusades are very different, and their writings, generally, bear the stamp of truth. I need scarcely say that their accounts are very different to our author's, and that such an absurd statement will not be found in any of their writings.
6	He knows all about the rings and their weight, but he does not know how long Salah-ud-Din ruled, or when he died. All his sovereigns reign "for a' long period, and die ;" and the same stereotyped expression answers for Asad-ud-Dln, Salah-ud-Din's uncle, who never reigned at all, but was the Wazir of Egypt for sixty-five days, and for §alah-ud-Din, who reigned [after Nur-ud-Din's death] from 569 to 589 H.
7	Salah-ud-Din had a number of sons, but the names of six only have been recorded ; the others may have died very young. The correct titles and name* of the six referred to are as follows :—
I. Abu-l-Hasan-i-'Ali, Malik-ul-Afzal, Nur-ud-DIn, who was the eldest222
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
Malik-ul-'Aziz, Malik-ul-Mufcsin, Malik-ul-Mushtammir and Malik-us-Salih.
VI. MALIK-UL-AFZALs, 'ALI, SON OF §ALAH-UD-DlN, YUSUF, SON OF AIYOB, AL-KURDI.
Malik-ul-Afzal, 'All, was the heir of Sultan Salah-ud-Din, Yusuf; and on the death of the Sultan he ascended the throne of the territories of Damashk and Sham9.
All presented themselves before him, and paid him homage, and submitted to him, with the exception of Malik-ul-'Aziz, his brother, who was ruler of Misr. He led an army into Sham in order to claim the sovereignty from 'Aziz; and Malik-ul-'Adil, Abu-Bikr, son of Aiyub, the brother of [the late] Salah-ud-Din, and who held the territory of Diyar-i-Bakr, took part with [his nephew] Malik-ul-'Aziz. They invested Malik-ul-Afzal within the walls of Damashk, and for a considerable time contention continued between them. At length it was agreed that Damashk should be given up to Malik-ul-'Aziz, and .peace was effected. The territory of Sar-hadd1, which is a tract of country in Sham, was assigned to Malik-ul-Afzal.
son, and the heir-apparent. 2. Malik-ul-'Aziz, 'Imad-ud-Din, Abu-l-Fath, 'Usman, who was the favourite son. 3. Malik-ut-Tahir, Ghiyas-ud-Din, Abu-Mansur-i-Ghazi. 4. Malik-uz-Zafir, Al-Mughtammir, Muzaffar-ud-Din, Abu-l-Kasim, Abu-l-'Abbas-i-Huzr, full brother of Zafir. 5. Malik-uz-Zahir, the remainder of whose titles and names are not mentioned, neither are the titles "Malik-ul-Muhsin," nor "Malik-us-Salih" mentioned except by our author. 6. Malik-uz-Zahid, Majir-ud-DIn, Abu-Suliman-i-Da'ud. He was the twelfth son of §alah-ud-Din, and full brother of Zahir.
8	For his correct name and titles see note 7 above. He was the eldest son of Sultan §alah-ud-Din, and his father's heir-apparent. On the death of his father, at Damaghk, where Afzal then was, and which he held the government of, he assumed the sovereignty over that territory, whilst his brother, 'Aziz, assumed sovereignty over the Diyar-i-Misriah, of which he held charge. Another brother, Malik-uz-Zahir, held Halab. Contention went on between the brothers, Afzal and 'Aziz, the latter supported by his uncle 'Adil, for a considerable time, the details of which are too long for insertion here. At last, Afzal was invested in Damashk and made prisoner, and a portion of territory on the frontier was assigned to him.
9	Other writers place Malik-ul-'Aziz next after his father, as he assumed the sovereignty over the territory of Misriah, and overcame his brother, Malik-ul-Afzal, who held Sham.
1 The word here used is unintelligible. It is written in different ways in nearly every copy is-a^-* ci-s^-* and also	Yafa'I says, (.liu which
means "a place on the frontier." There is a place called " §ar-]chad."THE KURDIAH MALIKS OF SHAM.
223
He was a learned and very enlightened man2, and composed beautiful poetry. The situation in which he was [now] placed, together with the condition of his brother, who was named 'Usman [Malik-ul-'Aziz], and their uncle, Abu-Bikr [Malik-ul-'Adil], he depicted in the two following couplets, and sent them to the Court of Baghdad, to the Khalifah, Un-Nasir-ud-Din-Ullah ; for the office of Khalifah had fallen to Imam, Un-Nasir. The two couplets are as follows :—
" My lord ! Abu-Bikr and his companion, 'Usman, Have, by the sword, deprived 'All of his right. Remark the fatality of the name; how it suffers, from the last, The same wrong as from the first [generation] it endured3."
After some time expired, Malik-ul-'Aziz died, and Malik ul-Afzal was entreated to come into4 Misr. He proceeded thither, and from thence he brought an army into Sham. Malik-ul-'Aziz had made over Sham to his uncle, Malik-ul-'Adil, and he and Malik-ul-Afzal came to a battle, and the latter was defeated®. At length, however, Malik-ul-Afzal chanced to have a meeting with his uncle, who gave him Samisat6. He remained there for a long time, and he died7.
VII. MALIK-UL-'AZtZ, 'USMAN, SON OF §ALAH-UD-DIN, YUSUF, SON OF AIY0B, AL-KURDI.
The name of Malik-ul-'Aziz was 'Usman; and, when Sultan Salah-ud-Din came to the throne of Sham, and the
Other writers say Afzal was a state prisoner when his brother died, and that he was invited to Misr to act as Ata-bak to 'Aziz's son, Malik-ul-Mansur.
• The celebrated historian, the learned Abu-l-Fath-i-Nasr-ullah, son of Ziya-ud-Din, Muhammad, ShibanT, surnamed Ibn Asir, was Malik-ul-Af?al's Wazir.
3	.Yafa'i has four lines more. The reference of course is to the Khalifah 'All and the two first Khalifahs.
4	All the copies of the text are alike here ; but, as 'Aziz died in Misr, Afzal was invited to come to Misr. See last paragraph of the next reign, page 224.
8 After assuming the throne of Misr after 'Aziz's death, Afzal invested his uncle, 'Adil, within the walls of Damashk, and reduced him to great straits ; but his son, Kamil, having advanced from the eastern parts with an army, raised the investment, and the father and son overcame Afzal, and deprived him of Misr, and he was fain to content himself with Samisat.
6	Some write this name Samisat, others, Shamisat. and some, Samisat. The last, however, seems most correct.
7	In 622 H.224
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
dominions of Sham and the territories of Misr, Diyar-i-Bakr, Filistin, and Sikandariah came under his sway, he conferred the throne of Misr upon his eldest son8, who bore the title of Malik-ul-'Aziz. He brought that country under subjection, and was a man of tact and capacity, and in the guardianship of that country, he showed many laudable dispositions.
When his father, Sultan Salah-ud-Din, died, Malik-ul-'Aziz led an army from Misr and appeared before Damashk ; and his uncle, Malik-ul-'Adil, joined him. He wrested the territories of Diyar-i-Bakr and Damashk 9 out of the hands of his brother, Malik-ul-Afzal, and gave up to his uncle, Malik-ul-'Adil, Sham and Damashk and the whole of that region, and returned again to Misr.
A short time afterwards the decree of destiny overtook him, and he sustained a fall from his horse, and broke his neck, and he died. After this occurrence, Malik-ul-Afzal came into Mi§r, and took possession of that country1.
VIII. MALIK-UL-'ADIL, ABU-BIKR2, SON OF AIYUB, SON OF SHAD!, AL-KURDI.
Some time subsequent to Malik-ul-'Adil's having ascended the throne of the kingdom of Sham, and after he had defeated Malik-ul-Afzal, who had brought an army from the side of Misr, and he ['Adil] had reduced the various provinces of the territory [entrusted to him] under his sway, the daughter of a Kaisar of the Farangs3 entered
8	'Aziz was the second, not the eldest son. Afzal was the eldest of §alah-ud-Din's sons, according to Yafa't and other chroniclers. See note ' p. 221. 'Aziz was merely his father's lieutenant in Misr.
9	The first attempt on the part of 'Aziz to deprive his brother of Damashfc did not succeed ; but on the second occasion he succeeded.
1	See page 223, and note 4.
2	His correct titles and name are, Malik-ul-'Adil, Saif-ud-Din, Abu-Bikr-i-Muhammad.
s Our author has neglected—for a very good reason, doubtless—to name his "trustworthy" authority for this statement, of a piece with the "rings," and the like. There is nothing whatever contained in any of the authorities I have consulted to warrant such an assertion, not even that a Christian female had had the misfortune to be his captive, and was immured in his haram, much less a Christian princess. Such a circumstance, if true, was not likely to have been passed over in silence.THE KURDlAH MALIKS OF SHAM.
225
his haram, and he married her, and that daughter bore him several children.
This Malik-ul-'Adil was a sagacious, discerning, competent, experienced, and crafty man, and he ruled for a great number of years. He held possession of the different parts [of his territory], to the best of his judgment and ability; and his adversaries kept quietly and peaceably each within his own dominions, and hence he had but seldom to carry on hostilities4.
He had several distinguished sons, who acquired great
4 Malik-ul-'Adil accompanied his uncle, Asad-ud-DIn, when the latter was despatched into Misr by Nur-ud-DIn, at which time Salah-ud-Din also went, as previously related. When Salah-ud-Din acquired power in that country, he sent his brother, 'Adil, as his representative into Sham ; and, when Salah-ud-DIn marched against Karak, in Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 579 H., 'Adil was left in Misr, but he was summoned from thence, with all the available troops, to join Salah-ud-Din, as the Christians had assembled in strong force with hostile intent against the Musalmans. 'Adil joined him there accordingly, with an immense army, in Sha'ban of the same year. When §alah-ud-Din gained possession of Halab, in the same year, he bestowed it upon 'Adil, having taken it from his own son Malik-ut-Tahir, to whom he had just before entrusted it. Salalp-ud-Din was in the habit of placing his strongholds in charge of his brothers and nephews and other kinsmen, and not of entrusting them to his sons. At last, Suliman, one of the Amirs [nobles] of Halab, an old friend of §alah-ud-Din, expostulated with him on the subject and it took effect, and he at once gave back Halab to Tahir. When Sultan Salah-ud-Din went against Mausil, in Sha'ban, 581 H., and was taken ill, and a peace was concluded between him and 'Izz-ud-Din Mas'ud, of Mausil, he was joined af Harran, by his brother 'Adil, on whom he had conferred the fiefs of Harran, Ruha [Edessa], and Mlafarkin [Martyropolis], after which the Sultan returned to Damashk.
After the Cmsaders, under Richard Coeur-de-Lion and Philip Augustus, took 'Aka [Acre], in Jamadi-ul-Akhir, 587 H., when "the Musalmans sustained such a great calamity," and the Christians were preparing to march against 'Askalan [Ascalon], Salah-ud-Din, in consultation with the chiefs of his forces, determined to entrust his brother 'Adil with a portion of his army, to hold the Christians in check, whilst he himself, with the remainder, proceeded to 'Askalan to raze it, in order to deter the enemy from marching thither. Whilst engaged in this operation, during the same night, a. messenger arrived from Malik-ul-'Adil, saying that the Christians were willing to make peace, if the coast towns were ceded to them. §alah-ud-Din, finding his troops so disorganized and dispirited, was under the necessity of agreeing, and he wrote to 'Adil to make an accommodation on the best terms he could. The authorities, from which these details are taken, agree generally with European chroniclers of the Crusades at this period, and their writings are free from such nonsense as our author writes.
'Adil did not succeed to the sovereignty of Egypt and Damashk until after the death of his nephew 'Aziz, and ousting the latter's son, Malik-ul-Mansur, under pretence of serving whom he came into Misr, from the former country. The Khutbah was read for him there in Shawwal. 596 H., and at Halab, in 598 H., when he obtained sway over it and other parts of Sham and the eastern provinces.226
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
renown, such as Malik-ul-Kamil, Malik-ul-Muazzam-i-'Isa, Malik-ul-Ashraf, Malik-ul-Fa'iz5, Malik-ul-Ghazi6, Malik-ul-Awhad, Malik-ul-Mamdud, Malik-ul-Amjad, and Malik-us-Salih-i-Ismail. Each one of them was a sovereign1 over a different tract of territory comprised within his dominions ; and the annals of the good works, and the circumstances of the sovereignty of his sons, will remain [inscribed] on the pages of time, in the countries of Hijaz, Sham, and Yaman, until the resurrection at the last day.
Each of the different portions of his dominions Malik-ul-'Adil conferred upon one of his sons, whilst he himself continually moved about from one part to another with his forces, and, with equity and sagacity, guarded and watched over them.
He always had a bow at his side, and such was his great strength, that no one in that part, or at that time, could bend his bow on account of its great tallness. He was noted, both by friend and foe, for his truthfulness of word. The whole of the enemies of his country, who were the infidels of Rum and the Farangs, placed implicit trust in his word ; for the dust of falsehood had never soiled the skirts of the robe of his word and his promise. Throughout his dominions no human being suffered from tyranny or oppression.
He reigned in tranquillity and affluence for a period of thirty odd years, and died8.
* 'Abid, in one copy.	6 GhanT, in two copies.
7	The word used by our author is " Badshahs," but his sons were only his lieutenants charged with the administration, subject to his control. When he became firmly established in his dominions, he divided them among his sons, giving each of them charge of one or more provinces. To Malik-ul-Kamil he assigned the Diyar-i-Misiiah, to Malik-ul-Muazzam the territory of Shamiah, to Malik-ul-Ag^raf the Sharkiah [the eastern parts], and to Malik-ul-Awhad the territory of Miafarkin ; and, in 6io H., after he had established his authority over Yaman, and Awhad had been sent to Miafarkin, another son, Malik-ul-Mas'ud, was sent to Yaman.
8	Malik-ul-'Adil died in Jamadi-ul-AJdiir, 615 H., near the village, of 'Alfin, in sight of Damashk, when moving against the Christians, who had entered the coasts of Sham. Hearing of his death, they gave up their designs on Sham, and turned their thoughts towards Egypt, and appeared before Dimyat [Damietta]. He was a man of great wisdom and intellect, of considerable judgment and conception, of good disposition and temperament, constant to his religious duties and attendance at public worship, a follower of the orthodox, inclined to learned men, and, altogether, a fortunate and august personage. He was alike abstemious in his food, and moderate in his passions.THE KURDlAII MALIKS OF SHAM.
227
IX. MALIK-UL-MUAZZAM 9, ISA, SON OF ABU-BIKR, SON OF AIYUB, SON OF SHADI, AL-KURDI.
Malik-ul-Muazzam was a learned monarch, and endowed with great accomplishments, and Almighty God had dignified him with great attainments.
Among the sons of Malik-ul-'Adil, who observed the ordinances of the followers of the traditions of the sect of Shafi'i, Malik-ul-Muazzam1 was the only one who was of the sect of the great Imam, Abu Hanifah-i-Nu'man, son of Sabit, Al-Kufi.
During the troubles in the territories of 'Ajam, when the 'Ulama of Khurasan, and Mawar-un-Nahr, became dispersed at the period of the inroad of the infidels of Chin, Imam Sharaf-ud-Din, Adlmi, who was a prodigy in the science of theology and religious jurisprudence, and Imam Jamal-ud-Din,Hasir!2, who was a master in the science of physiognomy, came and presented themselves at his Court. Malik-ul-Muazzam became the disciple of these two great Imams, and other eminent 'Ulama,—the mercy of the Almighty be upon the whole of them!—and assigned them emoluments and rewards, and fixed places for their abode. He, however, sought mostly to secure the presence of Muhammad Husain3, Shlbani.
The brother of Malik-ul-Muazzam, Malik-ul-'Adil, was by the same mother as himself, and for a long time was
9 Most other writers place Malik-ul-Kamil, the other son of 'Adil, next after his father as ruler of Misr; but our author has reversed them. Malik-ul-Muazzam's proper titles and name are, Al-Malik-ul-Muazzam, Sharaf-ud-Din, 'Isa. To read our author's account of him, one would imagine that he reigned over the whole of his father's territories, but such was not the case. He held a large portion of Sham, but never reigned in Misr at all; and, at his death, at Damashk, in 624 H., his son, Malik-un-Nasir, Salah-ud-Dln-i-Da'ud, succeeded him as ruler of that territory. The latter died in 650 H.
1	One author says of him :—"He was a man of great firmness and resolution, bold and intrepid, of great stateliness and gravity, high-minded and endowed with many virtues and excellencies, the friend and patron of ecclesiastics and learned men, strongly attached to the doctrines of the Hanifah sect, in fact, the only one of the race of Aiyub who was a follower of Abu Hanifah. He had performed the pilgrimage to Malckah and Madinah, and was, altogether, one of the best and the most inestimable of men."
2	Also written, Hasiri.
3	In two copies, Hasan.228
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRl
his brother's associate and lieutenant in the territory of Damashk [?].
Malik-ul-Muazzam reigned for a considerable period, and died.
X. MALIK-UL-KAMIL4, SON OF ABU-BIKR, SON OF AIYUB, SON OF SHADI, AL-KURDl-.
Malik-ul-Kamil was his father's heir, and ascended the throne of Misr after his father's death. On the decease of his brother, Malik-ul-Muazzam, he brought the territories of Sham under his jurisdiction. He conferred the sovereignty of the territory of Yaman upon his son, who was named Malik Mas'ud, and also brought Hijaz under his sway.
4 His names are Abu-l-Ma'alT, Muhammad, entitled Al-Malik-ul-Kamil, Nasir-ud-DIn. He was about the greatest of his family, and, of course, our author has said the least about him. He held the government of the territory of Misr during his father's lifetime, and at his death assumed the sovereignty over it. It Will be remembered that his father, Malik-ul-'Adil, died when on his way to oppose the Christians, who, on hearing of his death, turned their arms against Misr. They had now reached Dimyat. Malik-ul-Kamil assembled a large force to repel them, and was joined by his brother, Malik-ul-Muazzam, Lord of Damashk, who by his tact prevented Kamil's being dethroned by his own nobles, and his brother Malik-ul-Fa'Iz, Sabik-ud-Din, Ibrahim. After the Christians had taken Dimyat, they determined to advance to Kahirah and Misr ; but the Almighty gave Kamil success, and the Christians abandoned the strong position they had taken up in the prosecution of their design, and an accommodation was come to nth of Rajab, 618 H., and the Christians returned to their own territories, after they had remained between Sham and Misr for forty months [four ?] and seventeen days.
Malik-ul-Kamil raised a dome over the tomb of Imam Shafi'i. on the banks of the Nil; and, when his brother, Malik-ul-Muazzam of Sham, died, and the latter's son, Malik-un-Nasir, succeeded him, Kamil marched from Misr to deprive him of his territory. He was joined by another brother, Malik-ul-Ashraf, Muzaffar-ud-Dln, Musa ; and, having subdued Sham in 625 H., he bestowed it upon Ashraf instead of the eastern provinces, which he resumed, and set out for those parts. It was at this time that Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Khwarazm Shah, invested Khalat [also called Akhlat], Kamil subsequently made his son, Najm-ud-Dln, Abu-l-Muzaffar, Aiyub, his lieutenant over the eastern parts, and his youngest son, Saif-ud-Din, Abu-Bikr, lieutenant in the Misriah territory, and another son, Mas'ud, he sent into Yaman. The latter annexed Makkah, and the Hijaz territory ; and the empire of Kamil became of vast extent. When the Khatib of Makkah, on Fridays, prayed for him, he styled him, "Lord of Makkah, 'Ubaidian, Yaman, Baidan, Misr, Sa'Idan, Sham, Sanadian, the Jazirah, and Walidan, Sultan-ul-Kabilatain wa Rabb-ul-'Alamatain-ush-Sharif, Abu-l-Ma'ali, Muhammad, Al-Malik-ul-Kamil, Nasir-ud-Dln, Kh,alll-i-Amir-ul-Muminin." I have not space to say more. He died at Damaghk in Rajab, 635 H.THE KURDiAH MALIKS OF SHAM.
229
In the direction of RQm and 'Arab, he undertook numerous expeditions against infidels, and waged holy war as by orthodox law required ; and, after having ruled over the kingdom for some time, he died.
XI. MALIK-US-SALIH, SON OF AL-KAMIL, SON OF ABU-BIKR, SON OF AIYUB, SON OF SHADI, AL-KURDI.
Malik-us-Salih was his father's heir, and, when Malik-ul-Kamil departed this life, Malik-us-Salifr5 ascended the
s The nearer he approaches his own time*, the more our author blunders, and the shorter and more confused his accounts become. Here, the ruler of Misr is said to be ruler of Sham, and vice versd. After the death of Malik-ul-Kamil, his empire soon fell into utter disorder and confusion. His son, Malik-ul-'Adil, Abu-Bikr, who was quite a youth, succeeded ; and his cousin, Malik-ul-Jawad, Muzaffar-ud-Din, Yunas, son of Shams-ud-Din, Maudud, son of 'Adil [Salah-ud-DIn's brother, and father of Malik-ul-Kamil], became his deputy with the accord of the nobles of Kamil. Malik-ul-'Adil exercised the sovereignty, or held the name of sovereign rather, for about two years, when his nobles assembled together at Balbis, seized him, and sent for his brother, MALIK-US-SALIH, NAJM-UD-DIN, AIYUB, who was at Damashk, which he had promised to give up to Malik-ul-Jawad for other territory. On this, Salih's uncle, also called Malik-us-Salili, 'Imad-ud-Din, Lord of Ba'albak, being supported by Mujahid-ud-Dln, Asad-i-Sher-i-Koh, Lord of Him?, when Salih [son of Kamil] set out towards Misriah, and remained encamped at Balbis for some time, made a dash upon Damashk and gained possession of it. Malik-us-Salih's [son of Kamil] adherents, fearing for the safety of their families and homes at Damashk, deserted him, and left him nearly alone in his camp at Balbis, and went over to Salih, the uncle. The younger Salih, before he could fly to some place of safety, was pounced upon by Malik-un-Nasir, son of Malik-ul-Muazgam [son of the first 'Adil], Lord of Karak, who carried him off to that stronghold ; but he set him at liberty again the same year, 637 H., and at the request of'Adil's nobles, and attended by the same Nasir and his forces, Malik-us-Salih [son of Kamil] entered Kahirah in ZI-Ka'dah of the same year. The author from whose work most of these extracts have been taken, says, '' I was present there at the time, and Malik-ul-'Adil was brought forth seated in a covered litter, and under an scort, and immured in the fortress of Sultaniah."
Malik-us-Salih regained possession of Damashk in 643 H., and proceeded thither, and, when on his way back to Misriah, was taken dangerously ill, and had to remain at Shamum. The. Christians had resolved to attack his territory, and they reached Dimyat on Friday, 20th of §afar, 647 H. The city was totally abandoned by its inhabitants, who fled. They gained possession of the place on the following Sunday. Malik-us-Salih was removed from Shamum to Mansurah, and had to be kept there, so ill was he, until the night of 14th of Sha'ban. when he died. His remains were deposited in the Jadidah MasJ-id, and for near three months his death was concealed, until his son, Malik-ul-Muazgam, Turan Shah, arrived there from his fief of Kaif [or Kayif J when the Khutbah was read for him, and the father's death was made known.230
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
throne of Misr, and took possession of the dominions of his father and his grandfather.
According to the best of his capability, he provided for and advanced the sons of his uncles, and his own brothers, and took measures for the safety of his dominions ; but his life was a brief one, and, after a short time, he died, leaving young children behind him.
Trustworthy persons have related, that, during the calamities and troubles which happened in Iran, when the irruption of Chingiz Khan took place, a body of Turks of Khwarazm. and [several] nobles of the Khwarazm-Shahl dynasty, retiring before the infidels of Chin, after the defeat of Sultan Jalal-ud-Dtn, Mang-barni, son of Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, reached the territories of Sham and Misr, and possessed themselves of the dominions of the 'Adill dynasty. Some they slew, some passed away, and some remained. May the Almighty have mercy upon the whole of them !
Turan Shah did not get on with his father's slaves [nobles and chiefs], and, after he had put some of them to death for their rebellious conduct, the remainder combined against him, and put him to death in Muharram, 648 H.
Malik-ul-'Adil died in confinement in 646 H., and left a young son named Mughis-ud-Din, 'Umr. He subsequently had possession of Karak and its dependencies, but was invested therein by the rebel slaves, and capitulated on terms in 662 H., but was put to death by the usurper of the Misrlah throne. Most authors consider the Aiyub dynasty to have ended with Malik-ul-Muaz-zam, Turan Shah. There were other branches of the same family, who ruled in different parts until the irruption of the Mu glials, but I have not space to mention them here.SECTION XVI.
THE MALIKS OF THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY.
Respecting this notice of the Maliks of the Turks, and the Sultans of Khwarazm. the Almighty's humble servant, Minhaj-i-Saraj, Jurjanl, states, that, as the account of the rulers of the different nations, from first to last, is now being compiled in the name of his Majesty, the Sultan of Sultans of both Turk and 'Ajam, Nasir-ud-Dunya wa ud-Dtn, Abu4-Muzaffar-i-Mahmud, son of the Sultan I-yal-timish—May the Almighty perpetuate his dominion and his sovereignty!—he thinks it expedient to enter here the account of the dynasty of the Sultans and Maliks of Khwarazm, the standards of whose sovereignty, after the decline of the Sanjari dynasty, began to float on high ; into whose possession the whole of the territories of Iran came, after the extinction of the dominion of the Maliks of Ghur and Ghaznin ; who undertook numerous expeditions against infidels, and waged many holy wars; the monuments of the goodness of whom abound in the land of Iran ; and, who, in fact, were the last of the Sultans of Islam1.
I. KUTB-UD-DUNYA WA UD-DIN, I-BAK, THE TURK2.
The ancestry of these Maliks was related by Malik
1 What of the slave who reigned at Dihli, who refused shelter to Sultan Jalal-ud-Din—he who is, and whose descendants are, so often styled " Sultan over both Turk and 'Ajam," and " Sultan of Sultans of Islam" ?
* Our author, in his account of the first two personages of this dynasty, differs wholly from other writers; and, as he has constantly made great blunders respecting other dynasties, and at times quoted authors incorrectly, his statements here, although obtained, as he asserts, from a descendant of those rulers, must be received at their worth.
BaihaVi, quoting from Bu-Rihan, mentions that the territory of Khwarazm always formed a separate sovereignty from the period when a kinsman of Bahram-Gur, the famous monarch of 'Ajam, acquired power over it, and also after its conquest by the 'Arabs; and further, that even after the 'Arab conquest it was not considered as a dependency of Kfrurasan, like Khutlan and232
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
Taj-yd-Din, Binal-Tigin, who came from the border of Kir-
Chaghanian were, even in the time of the Tahiris. Rulers bearing the* title of Khwarazm Shah are mentioned upwards of a century and a half previous to the dynasty now under notice, which I must briefly refer to. Our author himself adverts [page 38] to 'Abd-ullah, son of Ashkan, Khwarazm Shah, as early as 332 H. ; and in the present Section farther on [page 233] again refers to them. In 386 H., mention is made of another 'Abd-ullah, styled Khwarazm Shah, who in that year was made prisoner by the forces of Mamun, -son of Muhammad, Lord of Jurjaniah of Khwarazm. 'Abd-ullah was taken in fetters to Jurjaniah, and subsequently beheaded ; and the whole of Khwarazm passed under the rule of Mamun, son of Muhammad. The territories of Khwarazm and Jurjaniah, had, for a considerable time, been in the possession of this family, who are styled Farighuni, subordinate to the Samani sovereigns. In 387 H., the same year in which Nuh, son of Mansur, Samani, Amir Sabulc-Tigin, and Fakhr-ud-Daulah, DilamT, died, Mamun, Farighuni, died also, and was succeeded by his son, Abu 'All, who was married to a sister of Mahmud of Ghaznin. 'All died in 390 11., and was succeeded by his brother, Abii-1-'Abbas-i-Mamun [son of Mamun]. He despatched an envoy to Mahmud, asking the latter's consent to his [Abu-l-'Abbas] espousing his brother's widow, the sister of Mahmud, which request was acquiesced in. This Abu-l-'Abbas was the patron of Bu-Rlhan, who passed seven years in his service. The Khalifah, Kadir B'illah, sent him a dress of honour, a title, and addressed him as Khwarazm Shah; but, such was 'Abbas' attachment to [or fear of?] Mahmud, that he did not make this matter known. In 407 H. his nobles and troops rose against him, because he meditated acknowledging the suzerainty of Mahmud, put him to death, and set up his nephew in his stead. Mahmud marched into Khwarazm. to revenge his brother-in-law, slew Alb-Tigin [some call him Nial-Tigln] 'Abbas' chamberlain, and other ringleaders,, and the murderers of 'Abbas, annexed the territory, and conferred the government of it upon his [own] Great Chamberlain, Altun-Tagh, with the designation of Khwarazm Shah. Abu Nasr, son of'Abd-ul-Hirs, Farighuni, Wali of Jurjanan and the territory of Jawzjanan, of the same family, had died in 402 H., upon which Mahmud had annexed that territory, and had sent a Divvan of his own to administer its affairs.
Altun-Tash, Khwarazm Shah, presented himself at the court of his sovereign, Sultan Mas'ud, in 422 H., and died from the effects of a wound received in battle in 424 H. His son Harun, who succeeded, became disaffected towards Sultan Mas'ud, in 425 H., assumed independence, and intrigued with the Turkmans and Saljuks. This fact our author alludes to at pages 120 and 121, but says nothing further. Harun was killed in 426 H., and was succeeded by his brother, Isma'il, who held Khwarazm for a short time; but he was soon after ousted by Shah Malik, a neighbouring chief, upon whom Sultan Mas'ud conferred it, provided he could drive out Isma'il. Isma'Il, accordingly, having been driven out, took shelter with the Saljuks in Khurasan. In 434 H. Sultan Tughril annexed Khwarazm to his dominions ; and but little is said about it afterwards until 475 H., when Malik Shah. SaljukT, conferred the Intendancy of Khwarazm upon the slave, Nush-Tigin-i-Gharjah, the father of Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad, the first ruler of the dynasty mentioned by our author.
Balka-Tigin [Guzidah and Jahan-Ara style him Malka-Tigin, but it is an ■error], one of the slaves and grandees of the court of Malik Shah, who held the office of Tasht-dar, or Purveyor, purchased Nush-Tigin, much in the same manner as Alb-Tigin, the slave of the Samanis, purchased- Sabuk-TiginTIIE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY.
man, in the year 622 H.3, to the aid of the sons4 of the Maliks of Nimroz, and arrived in that country, and the territories of Nimroz were left in his possession.
The author of this book came from Khaesar of Gliur, on a mission from the august Malik, Rukn-ud-Din, Muhammad, 'Usman, Maraghani, in order to secure a compact, and arrived at Farah of Sistan, and proceeded to the presence of Malik Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin.
During the conversation at the interview, Malik Taj-ud-Din mentioned that Malik Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, the Turk, came, with his tribe and kindred, towards Jund and Khwa-razm, from the side of Suhari5 [or Sahari], and from among the tribes of Kifchak8 and Kankult, and, for a considerable period, dwelt .in those tracts, subject to the Khwarazm-Shahi rulers, Abu Ja'far and Mamun7, and their posterity, and used to subsist in the wilds and pasture-lands.
upwards of a century before, at Gharjah of Samrkand. Some Consider he was of I-ghiir descent, and that he was of the Bekdali [or Begdall] tribe. After the decease of Balka-Tigln, his slave, Nush-Tigin, who through lis talents and sagacity had risei} to distinction, succeeded to the office of Taght-dar ; and as the revenues of the Khwarazm territory were assigned to defray the expenses of the Purveyorship, in the same manner as those of Khiizistan were assigned for the expenses of the wardrobe, the government of the territory whence the expenses of the Purveyorship were drawn was conferred upon Nush-Tigin, with the title of KJjwarazm Shah.
He placed his eldest son, Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad, with a preceptor at Marw, to be educated in a manner becoming his station, and on the death of Nush-Tigin, his father, in 490 h. [some writers say in 491 h.]r the lieutenant of Sultan Barkiaruk, in Khurasan, at the recommendation of Sanjar, Bar-kiaruk's brother—for Sanjar did not obtain the sovereignty until many years after—appointed Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad, Nush-Tigin's son, after the removal of Alanji, son of Taghdar [some call him Fahkar] to the government of Khwarazm ; and the title which his father had held was also conferred upon him. See page 169, and note 6.
3	See page 199.
4	To the aid of one only ; but all the copies have "sons of the Maliks," as above. See page 200.
s One copy has Hisarl [^L^] which may be the most correct; but the majority of copies of the text have Suhari, or Safari [l^I*""]. Neither of these names occurs in the Masalik-wa-Mamalik. The latter word, if not a proper name, may be the plural of 'Arabic signifying " extending, wide [as plains], wild, desert," in which case the broad and extensive deserts of Turkistan would be meant. Yafa-i mentions Sulpara in one or two places.
6	In some few copies of the original, and in Yafa-i, this name is written with kh—Khifchak. If is the name of a tribe of Turks, and of a desert of Turkistan, commonly called Dasht-i-Kipchak.
7	These were of the FarlghunT family mentioned in note 2, preceding page.
Q234
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIR!.
As Kutb-ud-Din was a spirited, enterprising, and high-minded chief, and of admirable temperament, the leadership of the forces of the Maliks of Khwarazm was entrusted to him, until, as Providence had decreed, the ruler of Khwarazm at that period died, and no son of his survived who could take his place, and his dominions were left without a sovereign. A daughter, however, survived him ; and the whole of the great nobles of Khwarazm agreed among themselves, and gave that daughter in marriage to Malik Kutb-ud-Din. The espousals having been concluded, the name of sovereign was assigned to that daughter, and the viceroyalty was conferred upon Malik Kutb-ud-Din, the Turk, her husband.
He brought the whole of the territory of Khwarazm under his jurisdiction, and the tracts on the confines under subjection8; and by his alertness, and his sagacity, restrained enemies and tyrants from violence and sedition. He also guarded the frontiers of Khwarazm Shah from the infidels of Saksin, Bulghar, and Kifchak.
The Almighty so decreed that Malik Kutb-ud-Din had a son born to him by that lady [the daughter of the late ruler], and they gave him the name of Muhammad ; and, after the termination of the lives of his mother and father, the sovereignty of Khwarazm devolved upon him.
II. MALIK TAJ-UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD9, SON OF I-BAK.
"When the mother of Taj-ud-Din, Muhammad, passed away, and his father died, he became ruler of the kingdom
8	From what our author says, the reader would imagine that Kutb-ud-Din was an independent ruler, but such was not the case. He was ever loyal to his Saljuki suzerain, and was in the constant habit of attending the court of Sultan Sanjar every other year. When he returned to Khwarazm, his son, who succeeded him, Itsiz - called Utsuz by our author, and, by his account, Kutb-ud-Din's grandson—took his father's place at court, nominally as his representative, but in reality as security for his father's good faith. Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad, died in 521 h. [some say in 522 H.], and was succeeded by Itsiz. By no other writer is Kutb-ud-Din styled I-bak. Our author's account of him is confused, and he has evidently lost himself here again. At page 148 he says Sanjar "conferred" Khwarazm "upon the son of Khwarazm Shah, who was one of his servants, who was the father of I-yal-Arsalan, who was the father of Takigi, father of Muhammad;" and, at page 169, states that he gave the throne of JOiwarazm to Malik Utsuz.
9	The father of Itsiz [Utsuz of our author], according to all authors ofTHK KHWARAZM-SHAHiAH DYNASTY.	235
of Khwarazm in succession to them. He^also had a brother, and of his own father and mother, younger than himself; and upon him he conferred the government of the tribes of Kankuli and Kifchak, from which their own race had sprung, his brother having solicited it, and Malik Taj-ud-Din-acceded to his request.
That same brother had sons1 who acquired great distinction, and became powerful Maliks in Khurasan and 'Irak. During the time of Sultan Takish-i-Khwarazm Shah, and his son, Sultan Muhammad, they were Maliks of Khurasan, like as was Ulugh Khan-i-Abi. Muhammad, Khan of Guzarwan2. Subsequently he became Khan of 'Irak under the name of Ata-bak, or preceptor, of the great Sultan, Rukn-ud-Din, Ghuri Shanasti. son of Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah.
Ulugh Khan-i-Abi, Muhammad, had two sons, the eldest, Taj-ud-Din, Azabar3 Shah, and the younger, Nusrat-ud-Din, Kutlagh Shah ; and there were likewise brothers' sons of Ulugh Khan-i-Abi, Muhammad, in Hindustan, such as Malik Firuz-i-I-yal-timish, son of Salar, and Malik Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin, who left Hindustan, and became Malik of Sistan ; and whose narrative this is.
This Malik Taj-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of I-bak, was an intrepid, just, and resolute sovereign ; and he came to the Court of the Saljuk sovereigns, and paid homage to
authority—in fact, acc rding to all writers but our author—was Kutb-ud-Dfn, Muhammad, son of Nush-Tigin-i-Gharjah, the first of the dynasty ; and no person of the above name and title is mentioned by any other writer among the rulers of Khwarazm. I suspect our author has done much the same here as he has in his account of the Saljuks of Rum—mixed up the affairs of two dynasties.
1 As other authors do not mention the name of any such ruler as Malik Taj-ud-Din, Itsiz being the second of the dynasty, and as our author himself gives no name to this said brother, although he gives names to his sons, it will be easily imagined that other authors do not name either the brother or his sons.
3 This name is somewhat doubtful, but the majority of copies have it as above written ; and, in all probability, it is the place referred to by Yafa-i, up the valley of the Murgh-ab river, which he writes Juzarwan. The other copies of the text have Gurdwan, Gurzawan, and Gurwan ; and one, which is generally pretty correct, has Gujzarwan—g and j are interchangeably and jz is often used for z.
' This name too is doubtful : there are scarcely two copies alike. One has Urzulu, which is a proper name, as well as Hijzabr.
Q 2236
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
them. He performed great deeds, and ruled the people with equity and beneficence.
He reigned for a long time, subordinate to the Saljuks, and died.
III. MALIK JALAL-UD-DlN, UTSUZ4, KHWARAZM SHAH.
SON OF TAj-UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD.
Utsuz-i-Khwarazm Shah, after the death of his fathers, Muhammad, brought the dominions of Khwarazm under his authority, and ruled over its people with uprightness, justice, and beneficence.
On several occasions he had to move6 from Khwarazm,
4 Written Itsiz and Itsiz by others [and Atsiz by Guzidah], signifying in Turk! "lean, fleshless, thin." His title was Muzaffar-ud-Din, but some writers say it was Abu-l-Muzaffar, 'Ala-ud-Dln. He succeeded his father by farman of Sultan Sanjar, his suzerain.
s Kutb-ud-Dln, Muhammad, son of Nush-Tigin. and father of Itsiz, died in 521 h. [some say in 522 h.], after a reign of thirty years, and was noted for "his loyalty to Sultan Sanjar.
6 He had really to fly, but our author softens it down. In the beginning of his career and government of Khwarazm, no one could have been more loyal towards Sultan Sanjar than Itsiz was, and Sanjar was also much attached to him, more particularly because Itsiz had once saved his life. This moved the envious to sow the seeds of distrust and suspicion between them. In 527 h. [some say when Sanjar marched against Bahram Shah of Ghaznln, but this can scarcely be, as that event occurred three years after], Itsiz obtained permission to proceed to his government, although Sanjar suspected his loyalty ; and in a short time after he openly showed his disaffection. Sultan Sanjar marched against him in 533 h., and invested Hazar-Asp, which was taken. Itsiz was totally defeated, and fled; and the Sultan installed his nephew, Sullman Shah, son of Muhammad, as ruler of Khwarazm. As soon, however, as Sanjar returned to Khurasan. Itsiz again appeared ; and Sullman Shah, not being sufficiently powerful to oppose him, evacuated Khwarazm, and returned to his uncle's court.
Itsiz now [535 h.] assumed independence and the title of Badshah, and coined money in his own name ; and this may be partly, if not altogether, accounted for by the fact that Sanjar had sustained a defeat at the hands of the infidels of Kara-Khita only the previous year. Some authors contend that Sanjar's defeat took place in 536 h., and that Itsiz assumed independence in 537 11. The Sultan again determined to attempt to reduce him in 538 n., on which Itsiz sought" with entreaties, prayers, and costly presents, to propitiate the Sultan's anger, and was forgiven ; but soon after he again showed disaffection, treated the Sultan's farman with contempt, and subsequently, in 541 n., despatched two criminals, released from prison for the purpose, to assassinate his benefactor, to show his gratitude, perhaps, for "the confidence and goodwill " of the Sultan towards him, as our author s^ys, and for pardoning his past offences. Again [in 542 h., or, according to Yafa-I, in 541 h.] SanjarTHE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAII DYNASTY.	237
sometimes out of necessity, and at others of his own free will. He marched forces against Jund, Turkistan, and Kifchak ; and through his wisdom, abilities, and skill, he was exceedingly fortunate in all his affairs. The Court of Khwarazm. through his enlightened policy and beneficence, became the resort of the most learned men.
After obligations and stipulations had been entered into, he presented himself at the Court of Sultan Sanjar, and for some time, in conformity with his commands, Malik Jalal-ud-Din, Utsuz, continued in attendance at the Court of that Sultan until he gained the confidence and good-will of Sanjar Shah [Sultan Sanjar], who gave him back the throne of Khwarazm7.
After some period of time had elapsed, through the conduct of Malik 'All, Chatri8, who was governor of Hirat, with respect to Malik Utsuz, he [Utsuz] rebelled, and declined any longer to submit to the yoke, or to attend the Sultan's presence 9. When the dominion of the house of Sanjar came to an end, the sovereignty of Khwarazm, and the whole of the territory of Suharl1 [or Sahart] of Turkistan, and Jund, fell into his hands, and were left in his possession2.
marched against him, and invested Hazar-Asp a second time. After taking it, the Sultan was about to invest the capital, when, at the intercession of a holy man, namely, the Zahid-i-Ahu-posh, and the Sayyids and heads of the religious bodies, Itsiz again succeeded in propitiating the Sultan, and solicited permission to present himself before him, and sue for forgiveness. This he did, after a fashion : he came forth, and appeared before the Sultan, and from his horse bowed his head and retired. This took place Monday, 12th Muharrawi, 543 H. Sanjar was not in a position to renew hostilities, so he passed his rebel vassal's conduct over, and allowed, or rather was obliged to allow him to continue in possession of the territory of Khwarazm. Soon after Sanjar became a captive to the Ghuzz tribe. See Sanjar's reign, page 154.
7	See page 169, where our author says that Sanjar bestowed the sovereignty upon " Utsuz"; but in this Section he has said that the throne descended to him from his ancestors.
8	This person, and what he did, are not mentioned by other authors that have come under my notice, with a solitary exception. Fasih-I refers to it, under the year 542 H., in these exact words :—" Rebellion of 'All Jatrl, Wall of Hirat, during the absence of Sultan Sanjar, and his copibining with 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, Malik of Ghur :" nothing more. See reign of 'Ala-ud-DIii.
9	This is utter nonsense. See note 6 page 236. Itsiz merely acted according to the world's ways. When he found his suzerain weak and in difficulties he took advantage of it.
1	This name is plainly written in nearly every copy. See note 5, page 233.
2	Fasih-t says that Gur Khan, who, in concert with At Khan, defeated238
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
The greater number of the most learned men of the Court3 had previously attached themselves to his service ; and Imam Rash!d-ud-Din, Watwat4, wrote, and dedicated to him, the work entitled " Hadayik-us-Sahr ft Dakayik-ush-Shi'r" ["Gardens of Enchantment in the Subtilties of Poesy "]. At the time, likewise, that Malik Utsuz was in attendance at the Court of Sultan Sanjar, he became greatly attached to Sultan 'Ala ud-Din, Husain, Ghuri, Jahan-soz 6, on account of his learning and talents, to such a degree, that when Sultan Ala-ud-Din, - Husain, returned again to assume the throne of Ghur, the Almighty blessed him with a son, and he gave him the name of Utsuz.
Malik Utsuz reigned over Kh.wa.razm for a long period 6 and died.
IV. MALIK 7, I-YAL-ARSALAN, SON OF JALAL-UD-DIN, UTSUZ.
Malik I-yal-Arsalan ascended the throne of Khwarazm after the decease of his father, and assumed authority over the whole of his late father's dominions. He ruled his people with justice and benevolence8, and concluded a
Sultan Sanjar a few years before, died in 537 H., after which Sultan Itsiz reduced Mawar-un-Nahr, which Sanjar had lost, under his sway.
3	What court is not stated, but Sultan Sanjar's court, it is to be presumed. Courtier-like, finding Sanjar in difficulties, they sought a more powerful master.
4	This Ragiid-ud-DIn, Watwat, was a lineal descendant of the Khallfah 'Umr.
5	Al-Husain ['Izz-ud-Din], son of Sam, Ghuri, it is said, was made prisoner by Sanjar in 501 H. ; but the person here referred to is his son, Jahan-soz, ' Ala-ud-Din, Husain, son of Husain, son of Sam, taken prisoner in 547 H. See note 2, page 149, note 3, page 155, and account of'Ala-ud-Din.
6	As usual, he reigned for a long period and died, according to our author, "who rarely indulges in high-flown eulogy, but narrates his facts in a plain, straightforward manner, which induces a confidence in the sincerity of his statements and the accuracy of his knowledge." Itsiz ruled over Khwarazm for a period of twenty-nine years, sixteen of which were independent, and died in 551 H. ; and in the same year Turkan Khatun also died.
7	Styled Sultan by others.
8	How good all our author's rulers are ! all so just and beneficent: never were the like known before or since. Immediately on assuming the throne, suspecting his younger brother, SulTman Shah, he seized and imprisoned him, and put a number of nobles, Suliman's adherents, to death. I-yal-Arsalan was engaged in hostilities with the ruler of Samrkand, and subsequently, in 55S H., marched against SJiad-yakt of Niskapur— Sanjar had lately died—andTHE KHWARAZM-SHAHlAH DYNASTY.	239
treaty with the infidels of Kara Khita. whereby he stipulated to pay a certain fixed tribute yearly9.
He contracted an alliance with the Khans of Kifchak, and guarded his dominions to the best of his power and ability. He became involved in disagreements and hostilities with some of the slaves of Sultan Sanjar who were rulers of Khurasan, and peace was brought afiout in the manner he could best effect.
He reigned for a long time1, and died leaving sons behind him, such as 'Ala-ud-Din, Takish, and Sultan Shah, Mahmud.
V. SULTAN TAKISHSON OF I-YAL-ARS ALAN.
Sultan Takish was a very great monarch, and was endowed with considerable attainments, capacity, and
engaged in hostilities with Rukn-ud-Din, Mahmud Khan, a grandson of Bughra Khan on the father's side, and a nephew of Sanjar on his mother's ; and, after an engagement with Mu-ayyid-i-A'inah-dar [see note6 to page 180], returned into his own territory after effecting an accommodation. Subsequently, having, in the seventh year of his reign, neglected to pay the tribute to the ruler of Kara-Khita-i, the former sent a force against I-yal-Arsalan, and the latter's troops, which moved to oppose them, were routed. I-yal-Arsalan died from the effects of a disorder contracted during the war with the Kara-
Slita-is.
9 If the Ata-bak, Abu-Bikr [see p. 179], by becoming tributary to the Mughals, "brought reproach and dishonour upon himself," by bowing his head to circumstances which he could not remedy nor control, and when he was well aware that, at the nod of the Khan of the Mughals, his territory could be subdued and desolated; what is the conduct of I-yal-Arsalan here, and what that of the KhalTfah, Un-Nasir, when he, some years before Abu Bikr's day, sent an agent to the infidel Chingiz, and incited him to invade the territory of Islam out of hostility to the Khwarazm Sultan, because he would not give him, Un-Nasir, a slice of 'Irak? Our author was too pious a Musalman to name such a disgraceful act as this. See note 5, page 242, and page 265.
1 In this instance the "long time" was only eight years. I-yal-Arsalan died, according to most authors, in 567 H.; but one or two say it occurred in 568. As Takish rose against his brother, Sultan Shah, in the former year, it is natural to conclude that he could have had no occasion to do so in his father's lifetime.
3 Styled 'Imad-ud-Din, Takish Khan. Some call him 'Ala-ud-Din! Other authors generally, with the exception of Yafa-T, place Sultan Shah. Mahmud, next after his father, Itsiz, and before Takish ; and do not bring in Takish at all until after Sultan Shah's death in 589 H. Sultan Shah succeeded to the throne according to the will of his father ; and, as he was a mere boy, his mother, Malikah Turkan, conducted his affairs. She sent an agent to summon Takisfc, the eldest son by a different mother, who held the govern-240
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
understanding, and was a proficient in the science of music.
When he ascended the throne he brought under his sway the different tracts of the territory of Khwarazm, and likewise some parts of Khurasan, either by force of arms or by peaceful means.
He entered into union with the Khan of Kifchak, who was named Akran [or Ikran], and married the daughter of that ruler. That lady acquired great celebrity in the world, and rose to great eminence, more particularly during the reign of her son, Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah. She was a woman of great firmness of character,
ment of Jund [some say he retired thither] to Khwarazm. As he refused to obey, an army was sent against him. Guzidah and Yafa-i state that Takish demanded a portion of his father's dominions, and was refused ; on which he, in 567 H., rebelled, and determined to seek aid from the Khan-i-Khanan, or Great Khan of Kara-Khita-I. The latter's wife, at that time, held the sovereignty, and Takish entered into an alliance with her;*but no mention whatever is made by these or other authors as to Takish having taken either her or her daughter to wife, as they, no doubt, would have done, had such an alliance as our author refers to taken place. Takigl, having reached her territory, agreed to make over to her the treasures and revenues of Khwarazm, as soon as he, by her aid, should obtain possession of it, and afterwards to pay a yearly tribute. A numerous army was accordingly sent along with Takish to put him in possession. Sultan Shah and his mother, as soon as they became aware of the combination against them, evacuated Khwarazm, and joined Malik Mu-ayyid-i-A'Inah-dar, Wall of Khurasan [Nishapiir. See page 180, and note 7], and Takish obtained possession of the Khwarazm territory. These events took place in 568 H.
Sultan Shah, however, acquired power over a considerable portion of Khurasan, and hostilities went on between the rival brothers up to the end of Sultan Shah's life. He lived twenty-one years after these events. In 569 H. Malik Mu-ayyid-i-A'inah-dar, in order to aid Sultan Shah, marched in concert with him against Takish, and gave him battle ; but they were defeated, and Mu-ayyid was taken and cut in two by order of Takish. Sultan Shah and his mother fled to Dihistan, followed by Takish and his troops. The mother of Sultan Shah was killed, after which Takish marched against Nishapur, the capital of Mu-ayyid's territory. Hostilities having afterwards arisen between Takish and his former ally, Sultan Shah sought aid from the female ruler of Kara Khita-f, and she and Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Ghuri, both rendered him aid. The details are far too voluminous for insertion here : suffice it to say that an accommodation subsequently took place between the brothers in 585 H.; but hostilities were again renewed in 589 H., in which year Sultan Shah died. After his death Takish acquired the whole power ; and, according to Guzidah, he now for the first time assumed the title of Sultan, being without a rival. These events are referred to by our author in his accounts of Khusrau Malik, the last of the Ghaznawids, and in his account of the Sultans of Ghur, which set;.THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY.	241
very impetuous, and of imperious temperament; and, during the reign of her son, she had the title of Khuda-wandah-i-Jahan [Princess of the Universe]. So great was her spirit,, her haughtiness, and her resentment, when roused, that, on one occasion, she became enraged with her husband, Sultan Takish, on account of a female slave with whom he had formed a connexion, and followed him to the bath, and closed the door of the hot bath upon him, so that the Sultan very nearly perished. Information of the circumstance was conveyed to a party of the great nobles, and a number of lords and chiefs arrived, broke open the door of the hot bath, and took Sultan Takish out. He had been reduced to a state of lividness, and one of his eyes had been nearly destroyed.
Sultan Takish was a wise and sagacious monarch ; and, with respect to his witticisms, they relate that on a certain occasion a necessitous person wrote to him a statement of his affairs, saying:—" If thou givest me one hundred dinars, what difference will it make to the amount of thy treasures ?" The Sultan, with his own hand, wrote at the head3 of the statement, "one hundred dinars;" and this reply, in the opinion of men of learning and talent, was exceedingly clever. On another occasion a person wrote to him, saying :—" In being a Musalman I am thy brother : give me a portion of thy treasures." The Sultan commanded that ten dinars of gold should be presented to him. When that gift reached the indigent person, he wrote another communication to the Sultan, saying :—" I am thy brother; and yet, with all the treasures that thou possessest, not more than ten dinars of gold do I obtain4." The Sultan wrote in reply :—" If the rest of my brethren should demand their shares also, thou wouldst not have received even this much." May the Almighty have mercy on him !
Sultan Takish reduced a half of Khurasan under his sway by force, and the Maliks [kings] of Mazandaran acknowledged his superiority. He also subdued a part of
3	It is customary, in the East, to write orders, decrees, &c., at the head of documents.
4	This anecdote, or one very similar, is related of another before the time of Sultan Takish.342
THE TABAKAT-I.NA§IRl.
the territory of 'Irak; and Sultan Tughril. of 'Irak, who was the nephew of Sultan Sanjar, fell a captive into his hands5.
Hostilities arose between him and the Court of the Khalifah on account of some of the territories of 'Irak8,
s At page 165, which see, our author was in doubt as to who Tughril was. In 558 H. Kutlagh Inanaj, son of the Ata-bak, Jahan Pahlawan, Muhammad, sent envoys, one after the other, to Sultan Takish informing him of the escape of Sultan Tughril, Saljuki, from the fortress in which he had been immured, and inviting him to invadc'Irak, promising to support him. For further particulars of these events, see note 8, page 167, and note 3, page 172, where our author entirely contradicts this statement respecting Sultan Tughril.
8 The Khalifah, Un-Nasir, on Takish overrunning 'Irak, and possessing himself of the strong places, was desirous that Takish should let him have some share of that territory, and make over some portion of it to his Dlwans. Envoys came and went between them ; but, as Takish in the end refused to give up any portion, Un-Nasir, in 590 H., despatched Mu-ayyid-ud-Din, Ibn-ul-Kassab, or the Butcher's Son, with robes of honour, valuable presents, and the like, in hopes that on his appearance at Hamadan he would be favourably received, and that Takish would come out to receive him, and do him honour as the Khallfah's envoy, and humble himself before him ; but, on his reaching Asad-abad, the Sultan despatched a force to compel him to retire. Mu-ayyid-ud-Din fled, and speedily placed the river Dajlah between himself and Takish's troops. After this, Takish pushed on to Dlnawr, and plundered the place and country round, and returned to Hamadan laden with dirams and dinars, and other booty beyond compute.
In 593 H., shortly after his son, Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad, had been entrusted with the government of Khurasan, after the death of his elder brother, he was recalled to proceed at the head of an army against Gha-Ir Buka Khan, the I-ghur ruler. He conducted the campaign successfully, and Gha-Ir Buka was made prisoner, and brought to Khwarazm, in Rabi'-ul-Awwal of the following year. Another expedition was undertaken shortly after against the successor of Gha-Ir Buka, which Takish conducted in person.
At the end of the year 594 H. Takish marched into Khurasan again. After three months' halt at Shad-yakh, he proceeded into 'Irak against Mianjuk, the Ata-bak of his son, Yunas Khan, who was disaffected. He passed the cold season in Mazandaran, and in the following spring pursued Mianjuk from one end of 'Irak to the other. Mianjuk and his party were pounced upon and most of them put to the sword, and the rebel took shelter in Firuz-koh, from which stronghold he had ousted the Sultan's seneschal some time before. It was invested and taken, and Mianjuk was placed on a camel and brought to Kazwin. He was imprisoned for a year, and subsequently exiled for life on the hostile frontier of Jund. After this Sultan Takish is said to have received a dress of honour from the Khalifah, with the investiture [which he could neither give nor withhold] of'Irak, Khurasan, and Turkistan !
In the following year, 595 H., the Wazir of the Khalifah, who was at Hamadan with an army, drove out the Khwarazm! troops, upon which Takish again entered 'Irak from Khwarazm. and hostilities were renewed. The Wazir, however, who commanded the Khallfah's troops, had died a few days before the forces came into contact; but the fact was kept concealed, and was notTHE KHWARAZM-SHAHJAH DYNASTY.	243
and Ibn-ul-Kassab, who was the Wazir of the Dar-ul-Khilafat. entered 'Irak [with an army] to repel Sultan Takish ; but he was defeated, and retired to Baghdad again.
This disloyalty towards the Khalifah was a disaster7 to the empire of Takish, as Maulana Zahlr-ud-Din, Faryabl8, says in the following strophe :—
" Oh, Shah ! since 'Ajam, by the sword, to thee has been consign'd, Towards Mustafa's place of repose, an army send. Then lay the Ka'bah desolate, and a fan bring,
And like unto useless atoms, to the winds the dust of the Haram send. Within the Ka'bah the drapery crumbleth away : place it in thy treasury, And, for the Prophet's tomb, two or three ells of matting send. When thou shalt have a perfect infidel become, rush on Karki, And, then, the Khalifah's head to Khita send."
Although Sultan Takish had entered into a treaty with the Sultans of Ghur9, nevertheless, through the hostility of [the Court of] Baghdad. Ibn-ur-Rabbi' came from Baghdad into the territories of Ghur and Ghaznin ; and, on another occasion, Ibn-ul-Khatib came to the Court of Firuz-koh, and one Friday read the Khutbah, and, whilst reading it, he made use of these words in the presence of Sultan Ghiyas-ua-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam :—" Ayyahu-l-Ghivas al-Mustaghas min ul Takish ut-taghi ul-baghi." "Hail! prop of defence against Takish the traitor and the rebel!"
At the time of Ibn-ul-Khatib's returning to Baghdad*,
made known until after the Khalifah's troops had been defeated and put to the rout. The body of the Wazir was exhumed, and the head cut off, and sent to Khwarazm. Fasih-i mentions this affair, but places it several years earlier, and calls the Wazir, Abu-l-Fazl-i-Muhammad, son of 'All, styled Ibri-ul-Baiza ; and further states that, Takish being absent from 'Irak at the time, the Wazir, with the aid of Kutlagk Inanaj, drove out the Khwarazm! troops, and pursued them as far as Bustam. After this Takish again entered 'Irak, and overthrew the Khalifah's troops.
7	The ascendency and power which Takish acquired by this success, instead of being a blow to the prosperity of his rule, had quite a contrary effect. It became noised abroad throughout both 'Iraks, and thereby his affairs attained a greater grandeur than before. Possibly our author may refer to the inveterate hostility of the Khalifah towards his son and grandson, and his refusing aid to the laiter when hard pressed by the infidel Mughals.	'
8	The Malik-ush-Shu'ara [Prince of Poets], Khwajah Zahir-ud-Din of Faryab, who died in 598 H.
9	A treaty with the Sultans of Ghur is out of the question ; in fact the author's own words disprove it. See also following note, and note page 265.
I A correspondence found when the son of Takish acquired possession of244
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
the father of the author, Maulana Saraj-ud-Din-i-Minhaj, was despatched to the Court of Baghdad along with him, and, on the confines of Mukran, the Maulana was martyred2. This intimation arrived from the Court of the Khalifah, Un-Nasir-~ud-Din Ullah, about -it, saying :— "Furthermore, Saraj-i-Minhaj perished in an affray on the road : the Almighty recompense him !"
Sultan Takish-i-Khwarazm Shah was in firm alliance with Khita ; and trustworthy persons have stated that Sultan Takish had enjoined his son, Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, never to quarrel or embroil himself with Khita, if he desired to preserve the safety of his dominions3; and it turned out as this wise monarch had said. They also relate, with respect to this subject, that the Sultan often used to say that there would be two judgment-days —one, that time which Almighty God has ordained ; and the other, that which would happen when he should be removed from this world, through his son's bad faith towards the infidels [of Chin].
Sultan Takish reigned for many years, and died4.
Ghaznin confirms these hostile intentions. See note page 265. In his account of the Khalifah. Un-Nasir, our author states that three envoys arrived from the Khalifah's court to solicit aid from the two brothers, Ghiyas-ud-Din of Ghur, and Mu'izz-ud-DTn of Ghaznin ; and that they were named respectively, Imam Shams-ud-Din, Turk, Ibn-ur-Rabbl', and Ibn-ul-Khatib ; and that his father was sent along with them when they returned to Baghdad.
2	Some copies merely mention that he died.
3	Yafa-i says that Takish's last request was that his son should neither clash with, nor show resistance against, Gur Khan, nor depart from the agreement previously settled [the tribute], because Gur Khan was as a bulwark of defence in his rear against enemies in that quarter which he should not break down.
* During his reign Takish became involved, upon more than one occasion, in hostilities with the Khita-is and the rulers of Turkistan ; and, towards the close of his reign, waged war upon the Mulahidah heretics in 'Irak and Kuhis-tan. He gained possession of their stronghold of Arsalan-Kushae, the strongest fortress in Asia, it is said. He then left his son, Taj-ud-Dln, 'All Shah, in 'Irak, with Isfahan as his place of residence, and set out on his return to Kh.wa.razm, and reached it in Jamadi-ul-Akhir, 596 H.' The heretics supposed the Wazir, Nizam-ul-Mulk, to have been the author of their disasters; so they assassinated him. Sultan Takish resolved to avenge him. An army was despatched against them under his son, Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad, who laid siege to TurshiZr. Our author chronicles his own father's death, but says nothing of the time or place of the decease of the sovereign whose reign he is supposed to be giving an account of; and, although Takish reigned so near his own time, our author does not appear to have known that he reigned for twenty-five years and six months, the last six and a half years being over 'Ira^the kkwarazm-shahiah dynasty.	245
vi. sultan jalal-ud-din, mahmud5, son of i-yal-
arsalAn.
M&hmud, son of I-yal-Arsalan, Sultan Shah-i-Jalal-ud-Din, was a rash and impetuous monarch. When his brother, Takish, assumed the throne of Khwarazm. dissension arose between them, and he [Sultan Shah] went from Khwarazm towards Khurasan, and from thence came into the states of Ghur, and presented himself at the Court of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam. Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, and his Maliks6, treated him with honour and deference.
Between the Sultans of Ghur and Sultan Takish a firm compact existed ; and some parts of Khurasan had fallen into the possession of the Amirs of the Ghuzz tribe, and some to the slaves of the Sanjari dynasty, whilst others had become dependencies of the Court of Ghur and Firuz-koh, and of Bamian.
Sultan Shah solicited assistance from the Ghurian Sultans to enable him to liberate Khurasan from the hands of his brother and the Ghuzz Amirs. They assigned him a fief for the present, and he was furnished with all things necessary as a guest; but they continued to observe the treaty between themselves and his brother, Sultan Takish. and hesitated to furnish him with the aid he sought1.
also. Having despatched his son against the Mulahidahs, Sultan Takish was organizing forces at Khwarazm to follow, when he was suddenly taken ill. He recovered, and was advised nqf to undertake so long a journey, but he would proceed. He was taken ill again, and died on the way, in Ramazan, 596 H. See note 4, page 254. Many eminent and learned men flourished during his reign, and numerous works on poetry, medicine, and other sciences, were written and dedicated to him.
5	Styled Sultan Shah. Mahmud, by others.
6	In a few copies there is a slight difference in this clause of the sentence, which, in them, is—"and the Maliks of Ghur."
7	Alter his defeat along with Mu-ayyid-i-A'inah-dar, and the latter had been cut in two [see note 6, page 180], and Sultan Sliah's mother had also been put to death by Takish, Sultan Shah went to Shad-yakh, to Mu-ayyid's son, Tughan Shah, who had succeeded his father, and took up his quarters in the territory of Nishapur. As Tughan, however, had not power to help him, he left his territory and went to the Sultans of Ghur [after obtaining written promises of favourable treatment], who received him well. Hostility having arisen shortly after between his brother Takish and the Kara Khita-i ruler, Sultan Shah was delighted, and entered into negotiation with that sovereign,246
THE JABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
Sultan Shah [consequently] left the territory of Ghur, and proceeded to Mawar-un-Nahr and Turkistan, and sought assistance from the Great Khan of Khita ; and brought an army, and freed Khurasan from the oppressive grasp and possession of the Ghuzz chiefs, and their tyranny8. He made Marw his capital, and marched an
who, to spite Takish, invited Jiim to his Court. On leaving the Ghurian territory he observed to the nobles of his party that it occurred to him, although he had had to put up with some annoyance and mortification from him, that man [Ghiyas-ud-Dln, Ghuri] would cause much sedition in Khurasan ; and so it turned out.
8 He stated to the Khita-i ruler that the KhwarazmTs and the troops generally were well inclined towards him, and thereby induced the Khan to send forces along with him to reinstate him. On their arrival before Khwarazm, the Khita-Ts were undeceived, and, finding that no advantage was likely to accrue by investing it, determined to retire again. Sultan Shah now solicited that a portion of the Khita-i army might be sent along with him into Khurasan, against Sarakhs. This was assented to, and Sultan Shah and his allies suddenly appeared before it. Malik Dinar, one of the Ghuzz chiefs, held it at that, time ; and most of his followers were put to the sword, and Malik Dinar himself was dragged out of the ditch of that fortress, by the hair of his head. The rest of his followers sought shelter within the walls. After this, Sultan Shah marched to Marw and there took up his quarters, and dismissed the Khita.-! troops to their own territory. He continued after that to make constant incursions against Sarakhs, until most of the Ghuzz were dispersed and driven from it, but Tughan Shah got possession of it. In ZI-Hijjah, 576 H., hostilities arose between Sultan Shah and Tughan Shah about the possession of Sarakhs ; and an engagement was fought between them, in which the former was victorious and obtained possession of that place, and Tus likewise. From this success Sultan Shah acquired considerable power, because he, contrary to Tughan Shah, was not taken up with cymbals and lutes, and such like frivolous pursuits. He made constant raids upon Tughan's territory, until his nobles and troops became greatly harassed and distressed ; and they had mostly gone over to Sultan Shah, and no power was left to Tughan. He applied for aid both to Takish and to the Sultan of Ghur, and once went to Hirat, in person, to solicit assistance from Ghiyas-ud-Dln, Ghuri ; but all was of no avail. Disappointed and depressed, he lived on miserably till Muharram, 581 H., when he died. See our author's account of him at page 181, where he says "all rulers refrained from molesting him." The same night in which Tughan Shah died, his son, Sanjar Shah, was raised to his father's masnad, and Mangull Beg, his slave, was made his Ata-bak. The latter afterwards went over to Sultan Shah, who acquired sway over the greater part of Tughan's territory. Malik Dinar, the Ghuzz chief, went off to Kirman, and established himself as ruler therein ; and everywhere the Ghuzz Turks were reduced to subjection, or rooted out. See page 182, note1.
In the beginning of 582 H., Takish having entered Khurasan, Sultan Shah marched against Khwarazm with a large army, in hopes of seizing it; but Takigh, in return, marched to Marw, Sultan Shah's capital, and sat down before it. As Sultan Shah found he could not gain admittance into Khwa-THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY.	247
army against Hirat, and invested Fushanj ; and made raids
razm, and that Marw was in danger, he abandoned the attempt ; and, on reaching Amulah, left his army, and takirg fifty picked men with him, made for Marw, passed through Takish's army, and succeeded in throwing himself into Marw. Next day, on hearing of this feat, Takish marched away to Shad-vakh. and, in Rabi'-ul Awwal, 582 H., invested Sanjar Shah, and his Ata-bak, Mangull Beg, therein. After two months an accommodation was entered into, and several men of rank were left there by Takish to carry out the terms, and he departed for Khwarazm. Mangull Beg, as soon as Takish had marched away, seized his officers and delivered them over to Sultan Shah ; and they were kept in durance for a long time by him, until a truce was brought about between the brothers, which, however, was but of short duration.
After the truce, Takigh again moved against Shad-vakh. secured Mangull Beg, and then returned to his capital, Khwarazm. Sultan Shah, being ambitious of possessing Shad-yakh, now seized the opportunity and marched against it. He invested it for a time, but, finding the defenders had the best of it, he raised the investment and set out for Sabzwar, and.invested that place. It capitulated on terms on the intercession of a holy man, and Sultan Shah, in conformity vith those terms, entered it, remained an hour, and departed for Marw again. In Muharram, 583 H., Takish again appeared before Shad-yakh, and it was forced to submit, and Mangull Beg came forth and capitulated. Sultan Takish entered it in Rabi'-ul-Awwal of that year. Mangull was compelled to disgorge the wealth he had deprived others of, and was afterwards delivered over to the son of an Imam, whose father ^he had put to death unjustly, to suffer death according to the law of kisas or retribution. Three months afterwards, Takish having set out for Khwarazm, Sultan Shah, finding the coast clear, made another effort to get possession of Shad -yakh ; but, although the walls were for the most part destroyed, the place was obstinately defended. Takish marched into Khurasan again on becoming aware of this movement on Sultan Shah's part, and the latter, hearing of Takish's entering Khurasan, burnt his battering-rams and made off. Takish remained all the cold season in Khurasan, preparing for a campaign in Azarbaijan, and nearly all the Amirs of Khurasan, who had hitherto not presented themselves, now joined him. In the spring he returned from Azarbaijan, and encamped in the plain of Radakan of Tus, an accommodation having been come to between the brothers in 585 H., whereby Sultan Shah was left in possession of considerable territory in Khurasan, such as Jam, Bakhurz, and other districts. Takish ascended the throne at Radakan of Tus [but not before], and soon after set out for Khwarazm. Peace continued between them until after the affair at Marw-ar-Rud with the Ghurls, with whom Sultan Shah had previously been on the most brotherly terms, in which Sultan Shah was compelled to retire, and his power became much, broken, when, having infringed some of the stipulations with his brother in 586 H., Takish again marched to Sarakhs, which Sultan Shah had made the depository of his treasures and military material. It was taken; but, subsequently, another accommodation having been arranged, it was restored to Sultan Shah, who again repaired it. In 588 H., Takish having entered 'Irak at the solicitation of Kutlagh Inanaj [see page 167, and note 8], against Sultan Tughril, Saljuki, Sultan Shah seized the opportunity, marched with his forces against Khwarazm, and invested it; but, hearing of the return <jf his brother from the 'Ira\c expedition, he abandoned the investment, and retired into his own territory. Takish, having passed the winter at Khwarazm, marched against his brother, Sultan §]iah, in the follow-248	THE TABAKAT-I.NA§IRL
upon the frontiers of the territory of Ghur, and created tumult and disorder.
Some of the nobles and slaves of the Sanjari dynasty joined him—such as Baha-ud-Din, Tughril, who was governor of Hirat, and used constantly to harass and afflict the frontiers of the kingdom of Ghur. Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, gave instructions so that his Sultans9, namely, Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muham-mad-i-Sam, from Ghaznin. Sultan Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, from Bamian, and Malik Taj-ud-Din-i-Harab, from Sistan, all assembled, marched, and joined Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, after which they set out for the purpose of repelling Sultan Shah.
They advanced into the valley of-the river of Marw, and pitched their camp between Dazak [Dajzak ?] and Marw-ar-Rud, while Sultan Shah moved his forces from Marw farther up ; and, for a period of six months, the two armies, Ghuris and Turks, were arrayed confronting each other. Sultan Shah used to display great audacity and boldness, and was in the constant habit of cutting off the foragers [of the Ghurian army], whence it .arose that Malik Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, the Turk, of Hindustan, who, at that time, was Amir-i-Akhur [lord of the stables—master of the horse] of the Ghaznin1 [ruler], was taken prisoner by the troops of Sultan Shah.
Matters went on in this manner, until, at the expiration of six months, an engagement took place, and Sultan Shah had not the power to resist his opponents, for the troops of Ghaznin crossed the river Murgh-ab and attacked the army2 of Sultan Shah, who, unable to repel them, or make a stand
ing spring. As soon as Takish reached Ablward, negotiations for a peaceable settlement of their differences were entered into, and letters passed between the brothers ; but, through the folly and precipitancy of Sultan Shah, the negotiations were in' abeyance, when he was betrayed by Badr-ud-Dln, Ja'far, an officer in his service, who held Sarak^s for him. Ja'far delivered up the fortress to Takish. together with his master's treasures ; and two days after, at the end of Ramazan, 589 H., Sultan Shah died. He had reigned for twenty-two years.
9 His brother, his kinsman, and his vassal.
1	To Mu'izz-ud-Din, Sultan of Ghaznin, whose slave he was, and subsequently ruler of Dihli.
2	Five copies have "attacked the camp." Yafa-i barely alludes to this affair on the Murgli-ab.THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY.	249
before them, was defeated-; and, perplexed and distracted, he retired towards Marw again.	„
Malik Baha-ud-Din, Tughril, of Hirat, who was with Sultan Shah's army, fell into the hands of the troops of Bamian ; and they brought his head to the presence of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din. and he commanded them to take it to Hirat. Sultan Shams-ud-Din of Bamian [likewise], on that day, was assigned a chatr [canopy] ; and he was honoured with the title of Sultan.
When they brought the head of Tughril to Hirat, a Poet repeated these lines :—
" The head of Tughril, which he carried higher than the altitude of the heavens,
And which possessed the jewel and diadem of haughtiness and pride,
Without a body, hath to Harl, a spectacle come,
For this reason, that he had an inclination for Haii in his head."
Sultan Shah, having been thus defeated, and his army routed and dispersed, retired to Marw; and this affair and this victory took place in the year 588 H.
Sultan Shah was [it appears] troubled with a complaint, for which every year he used to take a small quantity of a certain poison, in order to cure it; and, in that same year, the complaint increased, and as a remedy against it he took somewhat more of the antidote, and it killed him, and he died.
VII. YtJNAS KHAN, SON OF TAKISH. KHWARAZM SHAH».
Yunas Khan was the son of Sultan Takish ; and, when Sultan Takish subdued the territory of 'Irak, and wrested it out of the hands of the Ata-bak, Abu-Bikr, the son of
3 The seventh ruler and successor of Takish was his son Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad ; and neither Yunas Khan. Malik Khan, nor 'Alt Shah, were ever rulers of Khvvarazm, but merely held subordinate governments under their father. When Sultan Takisi entered 'Irak in the beginning of 590 H., and Sultan Tughril was slain in battle [see page 167, and note 8], Takish, after securing 'Irak, conferred Isfahan on Kutlagh, Inanaj, son of the Ata-bak Jahan Pahlawan, leaving the Amirs of 'Irak wifh him , and the territory of Rai and its dependencies was conferred upon Takisi's son, Yunas Kh,an, with Mianjuk as his Ata-bak and the commander of his troops. The whole of 'Irak he never held. Takisi did not take 'Irak from the Ata-bak Abu-Bikr, son of Muhammad, for a very good reason that no such Ata-bak ever held it in the reign of Takish.
R250
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
the Ata-bak, Muhammad, and a second time caused its deliverance from Sultan Tughril, he conferred it upon his son, Yunas Khan.
He was a monarch of good disposition, and used to live on good terms among his people, and brought 'Irak under his subjection. He began to enter into contention with the troops of the Court of the Khalifah, and that untoward circumstance became a source of misfortune to the sovereignty of his father, and to their dynasty4.
He reigned for a considerable time over 'Irak, and died.
VIII. MALIK KHAN®, SON OF TAKIgH, KHWARAZM SHAH.
Malik Khan was the eldest son of Sultan Takish, and was a mighty and arrogant monarch6. He was endowed with great sagacity, wisdom, knowledge, and understanding, nobleness of mind, and intrepidity.
When his father wrested Nishapur and other- parts of that territory out of the hands of the Sanjari slaves, such as the descendants of Malik Mu-ayyid were, Sanjar Shah, who was the son of Tughan Shah, the son of Malik Mu-ayyid, he induced, by treaty, to come out of Nishapur7, and gave the throne of Nishapur to his son, Malik Khan.
When he assumed the throne of that territory, he brought under his sway the tracts of country around as far as the
4	Whilst his father was absent on the expedition against Gha-Ir Biika Khan, the I-ghiir, in 591 H., Yunas Khan turned his arms [or rather his Ata-bak for him] against the Khalifah's troops in 'Irak. Yunas sought help to carry out this hostile purpose, from his brother Malik Shah, who held the government of Marw and its dependencies. Yunas, however, before being joined by his brother, had defeated the troops of Baghdad, and had acquired great booty. The brothers met at Hamadan, where they made some stay ; and, after they had passed a jovial time together, Malik Kh,an—or Shah, as he is also styled— set out on his return to Khurasan.
5	His title was Nasir-ud-Din.
6	When Sultan Takisli entered Khurasan in 590 H. on his way back from 'Irak, he heard of the illness of his son Malik Shah, who held at that time the government of Marw. Takish directed that his son should be brought to him ; and, when they reached Tus, Sultan Shah recovered. His father transferred him to the government of Nishapur, which he had previously held, with Shad-yakh as his residence in place of Marw, from the unwholesome climate of which his health had suffered ; and an appanage was conferred upon his other son, Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad, in Khurasan ; and he was made his father's companion and favourite.
' For thz facts, see note 8 to Sultan Shah's reign, page 246.THE KHWARAZM.SIiAHlAH DYNASTY.
gate8 of'Irak ; and a great number of eminent men assembled at his Court. He reigned for a considerable time, and died9, leaving a son najned Hindu Khan.
He [Hindu Khan] was an exceedingly intrepid, high-minded prince, and was endowed with a poetical genius. After the decease of his father and his grandfather, he began to collect forces, in Khurasan, and, in consequence, his uncle, Sultan Muhammad, son of Takish, reprehended him1. Hindu Khan composed a few elegant lines, and sent them to his uncle :—
" A hundred treasure-hoards be thine : the keen poniard mine. The palace thine : the steed and the battle-field be mine. Shouldst thou desire that hostility cease between us, Be Kh,warazm thine, King ! the country of Khurasan mine V
8	Alike in all the copies. The Hulwan Pass may be called the "gate" of 'Irak.
9	Malik Shah having returned from Hamadan, as related in note *, preceding page, as soon as he entered Khurasan, despatched Arsalan Shah, one of the nobles, to act for him at Shad-yakh, and set out himself for Khwarazm. During his absence great disorder and sedition arose in the Nishapur territory in consequence of disaffected persons inciting Sanjar Shah, son of Tughan {Shah, who had previously been relieved of the cares of independent sovereignty, to rebel against Sultan Takish. He had been treated with the utmost kindness, the Sultan had married his mother, and after his daughter's decease, who had been espoused by Sanjar, he had also given him his sister in marriage, and was regarded as a son. He. was accordingly summoned to Khwarazm and deprived of his sight, and his fief was taken from him. This was in 591 H., and in 595 H. -he died. After Sanjar Shah's threatened outbreak, Sultan Takish had to march into 'Irajc against the 'Ira^i nobles, in consequence of his son Yunas Khan's acts. It was on this occasion that the Khalifah's troops, after the death of their leader, the Wazir, were defeated. Takish returned into Kh,warazm by way of Isfahan, and conferred the government of Khurasan upon Malik Shah, with directions not to go to Marw because of its unhealthiness. His partiality for it, however, was so great, that it drew him there. He was taken ill soon after, and returned to NisJjapur ; but his illness increased, and he died at the close of the year 593 H.
1	Yafa-I, which contains so much information respecting this dynasty, merely states that Sultan Takish had to delay his departure on an expedition against infidels [heretics], fearing an outbreak on the part of Malik Shah's sons. Accordingly, the Wazir, Sadr-ud-Dm, Mas'ud, Harawi, was despatched to Shad-yakh to assume charge of affairs. He contrived to prevent any tumult, and sent the eldest son, Hindu Khan, to Khwarazm. Subsequently Sultan Takish conferred the government of Khurasan upon his son, Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad, who proceeded thither ; and, two days after he reached Shad-yakh, the Wazir set out to join the Sultan, in Zi-Hijjah, 593 H. Hindu Hian subsequently took service with his country's enemies, the Gljuris. See note page 255.
2	This line, according to two copies of the original, might be read :—"Be Hiwarazm thine : mine alone the realm of Haurasan."
R 2252
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Sultan Muhammad-i-Takish wrote the following lines in reply :—
" Soul of thine uncle ! this ambition takes the path of insanity : This monition will take effect neither on thee nor on me, 'Till blood, to the hilt, shall the sword's blade smear : 'Till, of one of us two, triumph's fire shall the highest blaze."
Hindu Khan was not powerful enough to offer opposition to his uncle and his armies, and he came to the territories of Ghur, and sought assistance; but he was unable to obtain it, and he pressed onwards for Khita. He possessed mettle, but he was not favoured by fortune; and he was martyred on the confines of Bamian.
.IX. 'ALI SHAH 3, SON OF TAKISH. KHWARAZM SHAH.
Sultan 'All Shah was a very great and illustrious prince ; and, when the period came for his brother to assume the sovereignty, he made 'All Shah ruler of Nishapur. When the Sultans of Ghur conquered4 Nishapur, Malik5 'All Shah, with other Maliks of Khwarazm, under terms of treaty, came out of that city, and presented themselves before Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, and the victorious Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din ; and they brought Sultan 'All Shah [with them] to Ghaznin. When Sultan Muhammad [of Khwarazm] appeared, the second time, before the gate of Nishapur, and Malik Ziya-ud-Din6, under terms of convention, came out [and surrendered the city], the Sultan sent him back to Ghur7, and the Sultans of Ghur sent back Malik 'All Shah also, to his brother, Sultan Muhammad.
3	His title was Taj-ud-Din. He had been placed in charge of a part of 'Irak, with Isfahan as the seat of government, some time before the accession of his brother Kutb-ud-Din, and when the Ghur! Sultans appeared before Shad-yakli, in Rajab, 597 1-1.—particulars of which are given under his brother's reign - Taj-ud-Din, 'Ail Shah, who had recently left 'Irak, chanced to be there, together with a number of his other brothers' nobles and officers.
4	Nishapur capitulated on terms only. They were not observed fairly ; and 'All Shah and the Khwarazm! nobles and officers with him were treated with great indignity by the Ghuris. See note7, page 255.
5	The titles Sultan and Malik are used here indiscriminately.
6	A kinsman of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din and his brother.
7	Together with his garrison ; and they had dresses of honour given to them, and were treated with the utmost consideration, in order to show the Ghuris how .to Jbehave to fallen foes.THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY.
253
The latter bestowed the throne of Safahan and 'Irak upon his brother, 'All Shah, and, for a considerable period, he continued in that country ; when, suddenly, he became overcome with fear and apprehension from some cause or other, and left it, and came into the territories of Ghur. and presented himself at the Court of Firuz-koh.
At that period, the throne of Firuz-koh had passed to Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, son of Muhammad-i-Sam; and Sultan Muhammad despatched envoys from Khwarazm to the presence of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din. Mahmud, so that 'All Shah was seized and placed in durance. At length, a party of 'All Shah's followers devoted themselves to the cause of their master, and martyred Sultan Mahmud, son of Muhammad-i-Sam.
"When the throne of the kingdom of Ghur had passed to the sons of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, son of [Mu-hammad-i-]Sam, an army from Khurasan8 arrived there in order to take possession of Ghur, as will subsequently be related ; and the Ghurians caused 'All Shah to be set at liberty, on the day that the Khwarazm! forces gained possession of Firuz-koh.
'Ali Shah proceeded to Ghaznin. and there he continued as Malik for a considerable time9. Subsequently, Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, despatched persons who entered into engagements with him on favourable terms; so much so that 'Ali Shah, placing faith therein, was induced to leave Ghaznin, and join the Khwarazm! army and reached "Tigin-abad of Garmsir. A party was [subsequently] appointed and despatched from Khwarazm, and in the year 609 H., they martyred 'Ali Shah.
X. SULTAN 'ALA-UD.DlNi, MUHAMMAD, SON OF TAKISH.
KHWARAZM £HAH.
Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, had five sons; the
8 Khwarazm! troops, though no doubt chiefly natives of Khurasan—the Khurasan! contingent.
® One copy alone of the original contains the word " Malik." For a correct account of these matters, see the reign of Mahn»ud, in Section XVII., for our author seems to have been determined not to relate anything not tending to the glorification of the Ghurls, and often distorts facts to suit his purpose.
1 Before he came to the throne his title was Kutb-ud-Din, but on his accession he assumed that of 'Ala-ud-Din, the title borne by his father.254
THE TABA£AT-I-NA§IRl.
first, Har-roz Shah ; the second, Ghuri Shanasti2; the third, Jalal-ud-Din, Mang-barni; the fourth, Arzalu Shah ; and the fifth, Ak Sultan3.
He was a great and potent monarch, wise, valiant, munificent, a patron of the learned, a conqueror, and impetuous; and, whatever qualifications it was desirable a great sovereign and just ruler should possess, the Almighty had endowed him with.
During the lifetime of his father, he bore the title of Kutb-ud-Din ; and, when his brother, Malik Khan, died, his father conferred upon him the throne of Nishapur, and Malik Sharaf-ud-Din, Mas'ud-i-Hasan, was appointed to be his Ata-bak or governor; and, after some time, the command of the forces of Khwarazm was conferred upon him.
On the side of his mother, likewise, he was a prince of [the house of] Kifchak and very great, his mother being the daughter of Kadr Khan of Kifchak; and, from the days of his boyhood, the marks of intelligence and cleverness shone clearly and conspicuously on his brow. Every expedition on which his father sent him, in the direction of Jund and Turkistan, he brought to such a successful issue as was desirable, in fact even a better than could have been anticipated,
At the period when death overtook his father, Sultan Takish, Muhammad was absent in the direction of Jund and Turkistan4, and, when he obtained information of that
* This name is very doubtful. Three copies of the text, in two or more places, agree in the above reading; but others, again, have Nashanasti, Bashanasti, Bashastl, and Shansabi, all of which are unintelligible ; whilst other authors, such as Guzidah, Jahan-Ara, and others, have Ghuri Sanji, which, they say, signifies "the Ghuri fled."
8 The name of the first son here mentioned varies considerably in different copies. The majority have Har-roz Shah, but the St. Petersburg copies have Biruz [Firuz?], Nimroz, and Pir Shah, respectively. This last name is confirmed by other authors, as will be mentioned farther on. The name of the fourth also is written Azarlu, Arzalu, and Uzurlu. The whole of these names are omitted altogether in most copies of the text. Other writers say he had seven sons, three only of whom attained sovereign power. Guzidah mentions their names as follows:—Ak-Sultan, Azlak [one copy, Uzlak], Kurja [one copy, Buja; Yafa-I has Kujae], Tigin [?], Ughul Malik, Jalal-ud-DIn, Ghivas-ud-Din [Pir Shah], and Rukn-ud-Din, Ghuri Shanasti. See note 3 above. Yafa-i mentions another, Timur Malik. See note 3, page 285.
4 Nothing of the kind : our author commences this reign with a totally incorrect statement. He was engaged in the siege of Turshlz when the news ofTHE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY.
circumstance, he returned to Khwarazm. and assumed the throne ; and, in the year 595 H.5, he brought the dominions of his father under his own jurisdiction.
He conferred the throne of Nishapur upon his brother, 'All Shah6, as has been already stated ; and despatched an envoy to the Courts of Ghur and Ghaznin, and sought for peace; and I, Minhaj-i-Saraj, heard from one of the trustworthy [persons] of the Maliks of Qhur the statement, that one of the messages and requests of Sultan Muhammad was this7:—"I, Muhammad-i-Takish, who am their ser-
his father's death was received, and another week would have been sufficient to have taken it. His father's ministers kept the matter secret, and sent off to acquaint Sultan Muhammad of it. He concealed the matter from his army, and, feigning illness, prepared to retire. The Mulahidahs sent him valuable presents, and offered an additional sum of 100,000 dinars as tribute. The Sultan proceeded to Sharistanah, performed the funeral ceremonies of his father, and set out with all haste for Khwarazm. This is" a most important reign, and such events as our author has related—a number of most important ones have been passed over—are either incorrectly stated, or moulded to the glorification of the Ghuris : hence the notes here will be found, I fear, voluminous, and, were I to notice every thing, I might almost fill a volume.
5	Not so: his father died in Ramazan, 596 h., and Sultan Muhammad ascended the throne in Shawwal of that year.
6	See note 2, page 251.
1 This statement is ridiculous, and totally unworthy of credit; moreover, the events which follow prove the contrary. No sooner had the Sultans of Ghur and Ghaznin obtained information of the death of Sultan Takigh, " than the devil," as one of the authors from whom this extract is taken says, "excited their envy and ambition j and they, without loss of time, despatched a force to Marw under Muhammad-i-£harnak, whilst they followed at the head of an immense force, including ninety great elephants like mountains in appearance." On reaching Tus they plundered and devasted the country, and slaughtered the people, and then marched to Shad-vakh. The Sultan's brother, Taj-ud-Din, 'All Shah, who had lately returned from 'Irak, happened to be there, and the Ghurians obtained possession of the place by capitulation, a tower having fallen from the number of spectators in it, which they took as- a good omen. This our author turns into a miracle in the account of Ghiyas-ud-Din, who, by his account, was a miracle-worker. This was in Rajab, 597 h. The place was given up to plunder, and 'All Shah, the Sultan's officials, and the chief men of the place, were inhumanly treated and sent off with the garrison to the capital of Ghur. By the fall of this place the Ghuris acquired temporary possession of the whole country, as far as Bustam and Jurjan. This effected, the brothers left a strong force at Nishapur fShad-yakh was a portion of that city, or rather a fortified suburb] under Malik Ziya-ud-Din ; and Ghiyas-ud-DIn repaired to Hirat, and Shihab-ud-Din into the Kuhistan against the Mulahidahs of that part, and afterwards returned to Hirat likewise. As soon as Sultan Muhammad heard of these troubles in Khurasan, he, in Z1-Hijjah of the same'year [597 h.], set out at the head of his troops, and early in 598 h. encamped before Shad-yakh. After some skirmishing outside, the256
THE TABA^AT-I-NASIRI.
vant, make this request, that the Sultans would be pleased to accept my services ; and, although I am not possessed of the worthiness of being a son, it behoveth that the Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, should take to wife my mother, Khudawandah-i-Jahan. and that he should accept me, Muhammad-i-Takish, as his son and servant, in order also that I, his servant, may, by the name on the coin 8 of that august monarch, and the Khutbah of that sovereign of exalted dignity, conquer the whole world ; and, for the servants of the Court of the Sultans—the asylum of the world—draw the sword, and become one of those servants."
When this overture had been delivered, the purport coincided with the inclinations of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, but did not accord with the sentiments of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din [the person chiefly interested], and he declined to ratify it9. The latter Sultan assembled his troops, and marched into Khurasan, and subdued the whole of that territory ; but, when he subsequently set out on his return, Sultan Muhammad brought an army, and again recovered Khurasan.
Whenever the Sultans of Ghur [and Ghaznin] used to march into Khurasan, Sultan Muhammad used to retire [as they advanced] to the distance of two or three marches before them ; and when they fell back he would follow them up at the distance of two or three marches'. In
Ghuris retired within the walls "like mice to their holes," and the battering-rams were placed in position, and the ditch filled, when the Ghuris capitulated. They were treated honourably, and sent back to Ghur "with dresses of honour, in order to show the Ghuris how to treat fallen foes." The Sultan, after this affair, directed that the walls of Shad-yakh should be razed. All these events certainly look as though Sultan Muhammad had solicited the Sultans of Ghur to accept his vassalage. After this the Sultan proceeded to Marw and Sarakhs, which last mentioned place was held by his nephew, Hindu Khan, and held by him for the Sultans of Ghur and Ghaznin. On the approach of his uncle Hindu Khan fled to Ghur; but, as the governor in charge of Sarakhs refused to open the gates, Sultan Muhammad left a force to take it, and continued his march to Khwarazm by way of Marw to prepare for a campaign against Hirat. lit Zi-Hijjah of that year he encamped'in the plain of Radakan ; and having mustered his forces, both Turk and Tajzik, he commenced his march, and in due tiijie his tents were pitched in sight of Hirat.
8	The text differs here in some copies. Some have "by the name and coin," o'hers "by the name of the coin," &c., both of which are meaningless.
9	Not desiring to be roasted in a bath. His first title was Shihab-ud-Din.
1 The leader would imagine, from the above, that the Ghurian Sultans wereTHE EHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY.	25?
short, he never sustained a complete overthrow, and he used to give proofs of his skill and bravery; but, as those Sultans were monarchs of great power and magnificence, he was unable to cope with them effectually.
When the Sultans of Ghur died, Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, appeared before the gates of Hirat2, and
in the constant habit of invading Khurasan ; but the facts are mentioned in the preceding note page 255.
* Any one reading the above would imagine that Hirat sustained one siege only by the Kh,warazm! forces during this reign, and that one after Shihab-ud-Din's decease ; and our author, whose idea of epitomizing events appears to have been to leave out three out of four, or combine three into one, has done the latter here. Hirat sustained no less than three sieges, and one of these occurred before the death of Ghiyas-ud-Din, and the second long before the death of Shihab-ud-Din. The first occurred at the close of 598 H., upon which occasion, the Khwarazm 1 army having invested it, after the battering-rams had been freely plied on either side, the governor, 'Izz-ud-Dln, 'Umr, Maraghani, a man of experience^- saw no other remedy than to submit. He sent his son to the Sultan's presence, and the terms were agreed upon, and a large sum of money was paid as ransom.
Hearing of the investment of Hirat, the Sultans of Ghur and Ghaznin made all haste to endeavour to relieve it, and recover what they had lost in western Khurasan ; and Shihab-ud-Din, at the head of a large army, advanced by way of Tal-kan for that purpose. Sultan Muhammad thought it advisable to retire, which he did, and proceeded towards Marw by way of Marw-ar-Rud. When he reached Sarakhs he halted, and negotiations went on between him and the" Ghuris, who sought the cession of some portion of Khurasan, the details of which are too long for insertion here. These events took place in 599 H.
Shihab-ud-Din, shortly after, however, heard of the death of his brother, and he hastily withdrew from Khurasan, leaving Muhammad Kharnak, the greatest of the Ghur! nobles, and the champion of Ghur, to hold Marw. The latter, however, having been overthrown by a body of Khwarazm! troops, threw himself into that place, but it was captured, and his head was struck off and sent to the Sultan at Khwarazm.
This success so greatly elated the Khwarazmi nobles and ministers that they advised the Sultan to march again against Hirat, and to take possession of it, whilst the Ghuris were fighting among themselves about the late Sultan's inheritance, as the Hiratis would receive him with open arms. In the month of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 600 H.—Ghiyas-ud-Din had died in the previous year [some say he died in 598 H., and others in 597 H.] —the Sultan appeared before Hirat for the second time ; and, after immense stones had been poured into the bazars and streets of the place, negotiations for surrender were again opened by Alb-i-Ghazi, the governor, sister's son of the two Ghurian Sultans ; and after stipulations had been entered into for the safety of life and property, and the payment of a large sum of money, the place was given up.
Some years passed between this affair and the next investment of Hirat, during which time Shihab-ud-Din invaded Khwarazm, and had to beat a precipitate retreat, particulars of which will be found under his reign farther 011. Shihab-ud-DIn had subsequently entered into a treaty of peace with Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, and had been assassinated, Khwarazm Shah had258
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Malik 'Izz-u'd-Din, Husain-i-Kharmil. Ghuri, came out and paid homage to him; and the Sultan brought all Khurasan under his sway. When, by his command, Husain-i-Kharmil was seized by his troops, a Khwajah of Hirat, named Sa'd-ud-Din, a native of Tirmiz, succeeded in getting away from the [Khwarazmi] army, and threw himself into
annexed the Ghaznin territory, and the successor of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-DTn had acknowledged Sultan Muhammad's suzerainty before the next investment of Hirat took place, on which occasion the waters of the Hari-rud were dammed up ; and 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain-i-Kharmil, one of the Ghiirian nobles, had in the meanwhile become Wall of Hirat and its dependencies, which he held of Sultan Mahmud, son of the late Ghiyas-ud-DTn. Kharmil, being suspicious of the upshot of the affairs of Ghur, sent to the Sultan repeatedly tendering his allegiance to him. The Sultan was occupied with the affairs of Khita-i at the time, and could not proceed to Hirat, as KJjarmil solicited him to do, and to take possession of it and its dependencies. At length the Sultan set out for Khurasan, and, having taken possession of Balkh, by the way, he marched by way of Jazuran to Hirat. He entered it in Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 607 H. After this Mahmud of Ghur acknowledged his suzerainty, and read the Khutbah, and coined money in the Sultan's name, and sent him costly presents, including a white elephant. Kharmil was continued in the government of Hirat with a salary of 250,000 gold dinars yearly out of the revenues of Khurasan.
After the Sultan returned to Khwarazm, and became occupied in the affairs of Khita-i, and a rumour had spread abroad that the Sultan had been taken prisoner by the Khita-is, Kharmil became disaffected, and began intriguing with the Ghuri ruler, and again coined money in his name [from this it would appear that the governor of every province had a mint, or rather coined money, at the provincial capital], and apologized for the past; but the Ghuris, being enraged at his past conduct, resolved upon hostility, and determined to try and oust him from Hirat, and advanced with an army towards it. Kharmil, who in the meantime had heard of the Sultan's safety, fearing the consequences of his acts, and in order to palliate them, called upon the Khwarazmi nobles stationed in eastern Khurasan to aid him in resisting the Ghuris. They came to his assistance with a body of troops, and, after oaths and stipulations of safe-conduct, Kharmil came out, and in combination they routed the forces of Ghur; and this blow quite broke the little power still possessed by them. The Khwarazmi nobles now wrote to Sultan Muhammad, saying that Hirat was like a forest, and Kharmil like a lion within it, and thought the time propitious for getting rid of him. They kept on good terms with him until the Sultan's reply reached them, after which they invited him to a consultation. When the council broke up, the Malik of Zawzan, Kawam-ud-DIn, invited Kharmil to his quarters to a feast and drinking bout. He excused himself under plea of want of leisure. Kawam-ud-Dtn seized his bridle as though determined to take no denial, and gave a sign to the rest of the nobles and chiefs along with him, who drew their swords, dispersed Kharmil's followers, and dragged him on foot to their tents. He was sent away a prisoner to the fortress of Salomad of Khowaf [another historian says "of Zawzan :" it is probably the Sala-Mihr of our author ; see page 283], and his effects were seized, and a short time afterwards his head was sent to Khwarazm.THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY.	259
the city, and, for a period of eleven months, he continued to hold the place3.
The Khwarazm! army, by a contrivance devised by Husain-i-Kharmil, dammed up the water of the river of Hirat above the city, and all round became like unto a sea ; and matters assumed such an aspect, that, if the city had not been entirely surrounded by walls, the water, which rose higher than the housetops, would have overwhelmed it. As it was, upon one or two occasions the ground opened in the middle of the city, and water issued forth from the midst, but it was diverted [and the danger obviated].
For a period of eight months hostilities continued between the defenders of the city and the Khwarazm! forces in boats4; and, when eleven months of the investment had passed, Sultan Muhammad-i-Takish arrived5 from Khwarazm, and gave directions that the dyke [which kept the water in] should be opened ; and, when the water flowed out, it carried along with it about three hundred
1 The steward or deputy in Kharmil's employ, Zaydi by name, a man of acuteness and cunning, managed to throw himself into the fortress, seeing the state of affairs, and shut himself up there. He was joined by JOiarmil's followers and all the vagabonds and rascals of the city, among whom he distributed the wealth in Kharmil's treasury, and defied the Khwarazm! forces. It so happened that the Sultan, on account of the disaffection of a relative of his mother, who held the government of Shad-vakh. had come into Kh,urasan at this juncture, and had reached Sarakhs on his return. Zaydi now began to fear the consequences of his temerity" and to plead as an excuse that he could not place any confidence in the Khwarazm! nobles for his safety, and that he was merely awaiting the arrival of the Sultan at Hirat to give it up. This the nobles communicated to the Sultan, and solicited him to come. He did so, and,, on being made acquainted with Zaydi's doings, his anger was so much kindled, that he ordered that the waters should be dammed up. When the waters had accumulated sufficiently the dam was opened, the waters rushed in, and one of the principal bastions fell. The ditch near was filled up with trees and rubbish, and rendered practicable for the troops ; and one day, whilst Zaydi was entertaining his vagabond followers, the Khwarazm! soldiers planted the Sultan's standards on the walls, rushed in, slew them, and carried the place. Zaydi sought to get away unnoticed, but was seized, and dragged before the Sultan by the hair of his head. After this the Sultan directed that plunder should cease, and the shops were again opened; and thus was Hirat freed from the tyranny of Zaydi and his gang. As Kharmil had been put to death some time before, his having advised the damming up of the Hari-Rud is, like many other of our author's statements, purely imaginary.
4 Boats are not mentioned in all the copies.
s Two paragraphs before this our author states that Sultan Muhammad appeared before the gates of Hirat and invested it, but now says quite differently.260
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
ells of the walls of the city, and a breach was thereby effected ; and, after fifteen days' fighting, the city was taken by assault.
After this success the Sultan marched to Balkh, and gained possession of that place likewise ; and Malik 'Imad-ud-Dln, 'Umr, Fiwari6 [native of Fiwar], who was governor of the province of Balkh, on the part of the Sultans of Bamian, was sent away [as a prisoner] to Khwarazm. From thence the Sultan set out towards Mawar-un-Nahr and Turkistan ; and the whole of the Maliks and Sultans of the Afrasiyabi dynasty, who held territory in the countries of Mawar-un-Nahr and Fargha-nah, presented themselves before him.
He then turned his face towards Kulij7 Khan of Khita-1.
6	In some copies he is called Malik Imad-ul-Mulk, Ahwazi; and in some it is stated that he went, in others that he was sent, and in others that he was taken. Balkli was surrendered before the last investment of Hirat, as mentioned in the preceding note. Imad-ud-DTn, having been found acting perfidiously, instead of being put to death, was removed from the government of Balkh and sent to Khwarazm. and was employed elsewhere.
7	Our author has misplaced the order of these events and related them incorrectly, as well as confounded one with another. After the death of Sultan Shihab-ud-Din, Ghuii, in 602 H., Sultan Muhammad, having no cause for anxiety respecting the safety of his dominions in Khurasan, turned his attention to Mawar-un-Nahr, which had remained in subjection to the infidels of Khita-i since the defeat of Sultan Sanjar. The chiefs of that territory had repeatedly solicited him to deliver them from the yoke of those infidels, and, being quite wearied and disgusted with the constant arrivals of agents from Gur Khan demanding payment of the tribute, which he had purposely kept in arrears, and which his father, Takish, had agreed to pay to the sovereigns of Khita-i for assistance rendered to him against his brother, Sultan Shah, he now readily acceded to these requests, considering himself powerful enough to ignore all future payments, which he had long considered dishonourable to his sovereignty.
Bukhara at this time was held by a mean upstart named Sanjar Malik. It was annexed, and the upstart met with his deserts. The Sultan then despatched an agent to 'Usman, Sultan of Samrkand, of the race of Afrasiyab, and of the family of Bughra Khan, the antagonist of the latter Samanian princes. He was already disaffected towards Gur Khan, for he had solicited the hand of a daughter of the latter, and had been refused ; so he became secretly a zealous ally of the Sultan. This was in 606 H. ; and, after consulting with the Sultan of Sultans—as 'Usman had been hitherto styled—and his chiefs, Sultan Muhammad returned to Khwarazm to prepare for the campaign.
In the eastern parts of Gur Khan's dominions, his great vassals at this period began to act rebelliously ; and Kojlak [called Koshlak and Kushlak by some writers, but not Kashlu, as our author writes it], son of Tae-nak [also written Taya-nak] Khari, the Naeman ruler, who had fled from the power of Chingiz Khan, and had sought Gur Khan's protection, was at his court, and ready to take advantage of any outbreak against his protector.THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAII DYNASTY.	261
and, throughout the territories of Khita-i and the -country of Turkistan, as far as Bilasa-ghun and Kashghar, the Khutbah was read for him, and the coin was impressed with his name. The forces of Khita-i, which, in point of numbers, were beyond account and computation, advanced to encounter him. At the head of these forces was Baniko of Taraz, a Turk of great age and wisdom, but victorious in battle. He had fought forty-five engagements,' in the whole of which he had been victorious ; and he had defeated Sultan Sanjar, son of Malik Shah, and overthrown Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, before Andkhud ; and, at this time, he was at the head of that army.
When the battle ensued, Sultan Muhammad received divine succour and heavenly assistance, "and overthrew the host of Khita-i, and took Baniko of Taraz prisoner, and he was converted to the true faith by means of the Sultan himself, and was treated with respect and honour8.
Sultan Muhammad thought this opportunity propitious, and such as he had long sought. He accordingly marched to Samrkand, and, being joined by 'Usman and other vassals, set out to invade Gur Khan's dominions, reached the Jihiin of Fanakat, and crossed. Having advanced into the territory of Taraz, the Khwarazmi forces found Baniko [several writers call him Taniko], of Taraz—famous as Jai-timur, son of Kalduz, elder brother of Burak, the Chamberlain, who subsequently usurped the government of Kirman—the commander-in-chief of Gur Khan's troops, at the head of a numerous, brave, and well-equipped army, drawn up to receive them. An obstinate and bloody battle ensued, in Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 607 H., which terminated in the complete overthrow of the Khita-i forces. Baniko, of Taraz, was wounded and taken, as related on the next page, and booty to a vast a!mount fell into the hands of the victors. This victory filled all the neighbouring rulers with fear and awe of Sultan Muhammad's power, and he now assumed the title of "The Second Alexander."
In the previous year Mazandaran had been annexed, and in this same year [607 H.] Kirman was also added to his dominions. "Who Kulij Khan was it would be difficult to tell; he is a totally different person to Kojlak [Koshlak], by our author's own account, and cannot be intended for Gur Khan, as he mentions that ruler subsequently. Kashlu is evidently mistaken for Kojlak. Baniko, of Taraz, was Gur Khan's general, as stated above.
8 How absurd, or rather deceptive, our author's statements are, compared with the accounts of writers who state facts, or who, at least, knew what they were writing about ! Baniko was wounded in this severe encounter, and was left on the field with only a slave-girl standing over him. A Khwarazmi soldier coming up was about to cut off his head, when the girl cried out to him not to slay him, for it was Baniko. He was taken accordingly to the Sultan's presence, and afterwards sent to Khwarazm as a trophy with the bulletin announcing the victory. "When Sultan Muhammad returned to Khwarazm, on the termination of this campaign, he ordered Baniko to be put to death, and262
the taba?:At-i-nA§irI.
A reliable person among the trustworthy has related, that, when Baniko of Taraz became a Musalman, Sultan Muhammad was wont to show him great deference and respect, and used constantly to send for him, and was in the habit of questioning him respecting the past events [in the history] of Khita-i, and the previous Maliks [kings] who had fought with him in the forty-five encounters he had been engaged in, the whole of which the Sultan made inquiry about of him. Upon one occasion, when engaged in such conversation, the Sultan inquired of him, saying :— " In all these battles which you have fought, and amid the monarchs you have defeated, which among the whole of them was the most valiant and the sturdiest in battle?" Baniko replied :—" I found none more valiant, more impetuous in battle, or more intrepid than the Ghuri9 ; and, if he had had an army along with him refreshed and not worn out, I should never have been able to beat him ; but, he had retreated before the army of Khwarazm, and but a small number of cavalry remained with him, and their horses had become thin and weak." Sultan Muhammad replied :—" You speak truly." The mercy of God be upon them !
Sultan Muhammad having gained such a great success, the second year after, again assembled an army, and led a force of 400,000 effective cavalry, both horses and riders arrayed in defensive armour1, into Khita-i, and completely
his body was cast into the river. There is riot a word as to his having been converted to Islam. This was the "deference and respect" he received. What follows, as to the conversations about the Gh,uris, must be taken at its true value. See also note 9, page 283.
9 Here again we see the determination to glorify all things Ghurian. One of the oldest copies has "if his army and himself had been refreshed," &c. For a correct account of this affair, see the reign of Mu'izz-ud-Din, otherwise ghihab-ud-Din, Ghuri, Section XVII.
1 After the victory gained over Baniko, the Sultan marched against the Malik of Utrar, who, notwithstanding the Sultan had invited him to sever his connexion with Giir Khan, refused. His chiefs, however, on the approach of the Khwarazm-Shahi troops, forced him to submit. He came out clothed in a winding sheet, and with a sword hanging about his neck, but was pardoned on the understanding that he should be removed together with his family, kinsmen, and dependents to Nisa, in Upper Khurasan, and Sultan Muhammad placed a governor of his own in Utrar. After this, the Sultan returned to Samrkand, and bestowed a daughter in marriage upon Sultan 'Usman, and leaving an intendant of his own at Samrkand, returned to Khwarazm. It was at this time that he gave orders to put Baniko to death ; and ambassadorsTHE KHWARAZM-SIlAHiAII DYNASTY.	263
overthrew Gur Khan, who was the Great Khan of [Kara] Khita-i. The whole of the horses, camels, and other
from all parts hastened to tender their masters' submission ; and it was at this period that disaffection showed itself at Jund among the remaining vassals of Kadir Khan [called Kadr Khan by our author, and some few other writers, who appear to have copied from him], and therefore Sultan Muhammad did not rest long at his capital, but put his forces in motion and marched to Jund. After exterminating those rebels, Sultan 'Usman and his family took up their residence in Kh.warazm ; and some authors state that he was soon after, in the year 609 h. , put to death. Having disposed of the affairs of Jund, information reached the Sultan that 30,000 of Gur Khan's troops had appeared before Samr^cand, and invested the city.
The Khita-i forces used their utmost endeavours to take it, but their incessant attacks were of no avail. The Sultan was hastening his preparations to relieve it, when the Khita-i forces were Recalled to act against Kojlak, the Naeman, who was now making head again. The Sultan marched to Samr-Vand, aijd, having been joined by additional forces from various parts, set out from Samr^and against A'naV [or I'nak, or Ighnak?], the ruler of which was in alliance with Gur Khan. He had been summoned to submit to the Sultan upon very favourable terms, but, trusting to the strength of his fortress, refused. A force was detached against him, and he was compelled to submit.
The Sultan, who had heard of Kojlak's successes, became more ambitious than ever, and Kojlak entered into secret negotiations with him, and incited him to another invasion of Gur Khan's territory. The agreement was, that whoever could first dispossess Gur Khan of the territories of Kashghar and Khutan as far as the Ji^un should have them j and, in case the Sultan did so, Kojlak was to have the remainder. Gur Khan, having obtained information respecting the Sultan's movements, also prepared to oppose him.
The Sultan had traitors also in his camp. Two of his great vassals, the governor of Samrkand, and the Asfahed [also written Asfahed, the title borne by the Maliks of Tabaristan and Rustamdar], despatched agents to Gur Khan secretly, and offered to desert the Sultan with their troops on the day of battle, if, in case of success, the former should have Khwarazm and the latter Khurasan assigned to him as the price of his treachery. This was guaranteed : and on the day of the engagement, when the ranks of the two armies were drawn up in array, the left wing of the KTiita- is attacked the right of the Khwarazm is ; and, as agreed upon, the two nobles v, ith their troops, who appear to have been stationed in the right wing, retired from the field, and the Sultan's right wing was forced back and broken. In the meantime, the latter's left wing broke the right of the Khita-is and routed them, and the centres of both armies fell upon each other. The wings on either side began to plunder, and neither party knew whether they were the conquerors or conquered. It was usual with the Sultan to disguise himself on the day of battle, by dressing in the costume of the enemy : and on this occasion, in the utter confusion which ensued, the centres of both armies having become disengaged from each other, the Sultan got mixed up with the enemy's troops, and not being recognized ty his attendants, for some days he was in the greatest danger in the very camp of the enemy. Finding an opportunity, however, he succeeded in getting away, reached the river of Fanakat, and restored fresh life to his troops. The news of the Sultan's disappearance, however, had spread into all parts of his dominions. Some said he had been killed, some that he had been264
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
cattle, baggage, and^ followers of the army of Khita-i were captured, and the Great Khan retreated discomfited before him. Suddenly Kashlu Khan, the Tatar, who had come from Turkistan, fell upon Gur Khan, attacked him, and made him captive ; and the whole of the dominions of Khita2 were left in the possession of Sultan Muhammad-i-
made prisoner ; for no authentic account had been received, and the ambitious were ready to take advantage of it.
As soon as he joined his army, messengers were sent out into all parts to intimate his safety ; and the Sultan returned to Khwarazm to prepare for a fresh campaign. It was on the occasion of the Sultan's disappearance, that Kharmil of Hirat became disaffected, and began intriguing with the Ghiiris.
The Khita-i troops on their retreat through their own territory slew and plundered their own people, and devastated the whole country until they reached Bilasa-ghun, called Ghu-baligh, by the Mughals. On reaching that city they found the gates closed against them, for the inhabitants made sure that Sultan Muhammad would annex that part, and that he must be following Gur Khan's troops with his army, and therefore refused to admit them. All the promises and oaths of Gur Khan and his Wazir were of no avail; and the place was attacked and defended for sixteen days, in expectation of the arrival of the Khwarazmi troops. At last it was taken and given up to plunder and massacre, which went on for three days and nights, and a vast amount of booty was taken by the troops.
Two or three writers mention these occurrences immediately after the first defeat of Gur Khan's troops, when Banlko was taken ; but this is impossible, as, very shortly after the sacking of Bilasaghun, Gur Khan was seized by Kojlak, and his dynasty terminated after it had lasted ninety-five years. The cause of it was this :—Gur Khan II.—for he was the second of the name—was desirous of enriching himself and replenishing his coffers, by making his nobles and chiefs disgorge the booty they had acquired by the sacking of Bilasa-ghun and country round. . This caused great disorders, which Kojlak becoming aware of, and finding that Gur Khan had been almost deserted by his troops, suddenly surrounded his camp. Kojlak treated him with respect, but possessed himself of great part of his territory. This took place in 610 H., and two years after Gur Khan was put to death—some say he died.
Most works are, more or less, defective with respect to the Sultan's campaigns against Gur Khan, and elates are not often mentioned. The Rauzat-us-Safa only mentions one battle, others mention two ; but Guzidah says there were three battles in all, but gives no details. Here, I regret to say, my excellent guide, Yafa-i, which gives full details of two battles, already mentioned, becomes somewhat abrupL with respect to the affairs of Gur Khan, and, possibly, there may be an hiatus in the MS., as, from the context, a third and more decisive battle is implied ; and it must have been after a third encounter that Bilasa-ghun was sacked, and Kojlak was enabled to seize the person of Gur Khan. The second encounter took place in 610 h. , and Fasih-i, under the events of 612 H., mentions that, in that year, Sultan Muhammad acquired sway over the whole of Mawar-un-Nahr, which had continued in the possession of the infidels of Kara-Khita-1, -and the Mughals. since Sultan Sanjar's defeat. On the other hand, however, most writers state that Gur Ehan was taken prisoner in 610 H., and died in 612 H.
2 Gross exaggeration, as shown by the notes.THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY.	265
Takish. The Sultan of Samrkand, and the Afrasiyabi Sultans, he directed should be removed from Samrkand3, and some of them were martyred.
From thence [Samrkand ?] Sultan Muhammad advanced into'Irak, and the territories of'Irak, Azarbaijan, and Fars fell into his hands. He took the Ata-bak Sa'd captive in battle, as has already been stated, and the Ata-bak Yuz-bak was likewise put to flight4. He placed his son, Sultan
3	All the copies, except one of the oldest, are minus the words "from Samrkand." Our author inverts the order of most of the events of this reign, as the previous notes show.
4	Our author, on a previous page, has mentioned the hostility existing between the 'Abbas! Khalifahs and Sultan Takish, Muhammad's father; and the arrival in Ghur of ambassadors from Baghdad to negotiate with the brothers, Sultans Ghiyas-ud-Din and Shihab-ud-Din, and his own father's return to Baghdad along with them ; and, likewise, the Khalifah's continued enmity towards the son of Takish also. No sooner had Sultan Takish died, than the Sultans of Ghur and Ghaznin hastened to take advantage of the Khalifah's recommendation, notwithstanding our author's absurd statement at page 255. He was too orthodox a Musalman, of course, to mention such a horrid circumstance as the Khalifah, Un-Nasir's, despatching an agent to the infidel Chingiz Khan, prior to the period of this expedition into 'Irak, inciting him to make war upon Sultan Muhammad—a Musalman, and of .which faith he [Un-Nasir] was himself the patriarch and head ! It was upon this occasion that, fearing to send a letter, the communication addressed to the traitor Muhammad, Yalwaj, the minister of Chingiz, was written or rather tattooed [there is a precisely similar story in Herodotus] on the agent's shaven head. The hair was left to grow over it before he was despatched, lest even that mode of communication might be discovered. Among other causes of hostility was this :—The Sultan's flag, borne by the karwan of pilgrims to Makkah, was placed behind that of Jalal-ud-Dln, Hasan, of Alamut, the Mulahidah heretic, lately turned orthodox; and another was that the Khalifah borrowed, so to speak, several Fida-is [volunteers, or disciples rather, of the head of the Mulahidahs are so called] from the former, intending to despatch them to assassinate the Sultan; and had sent some of these disciples to murder the Sharif of Makkah, but, instead, they assassinated his brother. Further, when Sultan Muhammad acquired possession of Ghaznin, after the death of Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz [styled Yal-duz, and Yal-duz by some], in 611-12 H., and gained possession of the treasury of the late Sultan Shihab-ud-Din, Ghuri, a document was found therein, from the Khalifah to the Ghiirian Sultans, urging them to hostility against him [Muhammad], which accounted for the persistent hostility of the brothers towards him, notwithstanding our author's ridiculous statement referred to above. At length, in 613 H., the Sultan, having sufficient excuse, obtained the necessary decree from the chief ecclesiastic of his dominions, issued a proclamation to the effect that as long as a descendant of Fatimah lived the Abbasis had no right to the Khilafat, and that the then Khalifah was to be considered dethroned. His name was omitted from the Ktutbah and the coin, and the name of Sayyid 'Ala-ul-Mulk [some few call him 'Ala-ud-Din] of Tirmid, a lineal descendant of Imam Husain, was inserted instead, and he was to be considered as the rightful Khalifah.
S266
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
Rukn-ud-Din, styled Ghuri Shanasti, on the throne of 'Irak, and appointed Ulugh Khan-i-Abi Muhammad, his Ata-bak and Lieutenant; and the Maliks of Ghur were directed to proceed into that territory5.
Sultan Muhammad now left 'Irak, and set out on his return to Mawar-un-Nahr; but, turning suddenly off from
The Sultan assembled an army accordingly for the purpose of proceeding to Baghdad, ousting Un-Nasir, and placing Sayyid 'Ala-ul-Mulk in his place.
On reaching Damghan, Sultan Muhammad found that the Ata-bak Sa'd, ruler of Fars, with an army, had reached Rai with hostile designs against the territory of 'Irak. He pushed on without delay, and at once attacked him. The troops of Shlraz were broken and overthrown at the first onset, and Sa'd was taken prisoner. The Sultan was for putting him to death, but Sa'd, having made interest with the Malik of Zauzan, was admitted, through him, to the Sultan's presence. Sa'd was released on the agreement to give up two of the strongest fortresses of Fars, one of which was Istakhur, and to pay one-fourth of the revenues as tribute. Fasih-I states that this took place in 603 H.; but Yafa-I and Guzidah say it happened in 613 H. ; while Rauzat-us-Safa, KhuIasat-ul-Akhbar. and some others, say in 614 H. It is somewhat strange that Sa'd did not attempt to shake off the yoke and break the treaty after the disasters which befell the Sultan soon after, if the two latter dates be the more correct. Sa'd made over his son Zangi as a hostage and was allowed to depart, as already related ; see page 176 and page 177, note 2.
At this same time the Ata-bak Yuz-bak, ruler of Azarbaijan, had also marched from that territory with the object of invading 'Irak, and had reached Hamadan. The Khwarazmj forces advanced against him, but, on their reaching Hamadan, Yuz-bak decamped. The Sultan's nobles urged pursuit, but that monarch refused his sanction, saying that it would be a bad omen to take two kings in one year \ so Yuz-bak got safely back to his own territory. As soon as he did so, however, he sent envoys with rich presents to the Sultan, and acknowledged his sovereignty.
In the meantime, the advance of the Sultan into 'Irak had filled Un-Nasir and his people with terror. Un-Nasir despatched an agent to Hamadan to endeavour to deter him by remonstrances and threats, but found them of no use with the Sultan with 300,000 horse at his back, who was resolved to persist. When he reached the Hulwan Pass [the town of Asad-abad] it was autumn, and, whilst there encamped, he encountered a heavy fall of snow, which rose even higher than the tent walls ; and nearly the whole of the cattle of his army, and a great number of men, perished. This was the first disaster he had ever met with, and he had to abandon the expedition and return to Hamadan. When the cold season drew towards a close, he thought it advisable to retrace his steps. He returned to Rai, and remained in that part for a little while to repair his losses and reorganize his forces, and arrange the affairs of that territory. He was on his return from thence, where he had left his son, Rukn-ud-Din, in charge of the government, when a messenger reached him from the governor of Utrar, intimating the arrival there of a number of Tatar spies, as he termed them, with a large amount of valuable property: For details see farther on.
5 To serve with their contingents. They were subordinate then.THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY.	267
the banks of the river Jazar6, he pushed on towards Bamian, and, suddenly and unawares, pounced upon Sultan Jalal-ud-Din 'All, son of Sam, ruler of Bamian, seized him, and martyred him, and then returned [to Khwarazm].
In the year 612 H., Sultan Muhammad advanced from Mawar-un-Nahr and came to Ghaznin, and suddenly and unexpectedly possessed himself of the Ghaznin territories likewise. Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, retired towards Hindustan7 by the way of Sang-i-Surakh ; and the countries of Ghaznin, Zawulistan, and Kabul, as far as the banks of the Sind, came under the jurisdiction of the Khwarazm! nobles. The Kh'an-salar [the Sewer of the imperial household], Kuriz8, was stationed at Ghaznin; and the countries of Ghur, Ghaznin, the Bilad-i-Dawar [Zamin-i-Dawar], Jarum, and the throne of the two Sultans, Ghiyas-ud-Dln, and Mu'izz-ud-Din, sons of Muhammad-i-Sam, was conferred, by the Sultan, upon his eldest son, Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Mang-barni, after which he himself returned to Mawar-un-Nahr.
In the year 615 H., he pushed on towards Turkistan in pursuit of Kadr Khan9, who was the son of Yusuf the Tatar, and penetrated as far as Yighur1 [I-ghur] of Turkistan, so far to the north, that he came under the North Pole, and reached a tract where the light of twilight did not disappear at all -from the sight; and, to the vision, in the direction of the north, the glow seemed merely to inclina [change over] from the west to the east, and the light of dawn appeared and the day broke.
The matter was accordingly referred to the 'Ulama and Muftis of Bukhara respecting the obligation to repeat the last prayer at night2, [question being asked] to this effect:—
6	In most copies this part of the sentence is left out altogether. The riajne is also written Jowar.
7	I-yal-duz [or Yal-duz] was taken prisoner and put to death by I-yal-timish in 611 H., before the Sultan entered the Ghaznin territory.
8	This name differs considerably in some copies of the text.
0	There is no expedition against any ruler styled Kadr Khan mentioned by other writers at this period, for it was in this very year that the Sultan fled from the Mughal invaders. Our author has evidently lost himself again. At page 254, he says the Sultan's mother was the daughter of Kadr Khan of Kifchak, and he, incorrectly, styles the governor of Utrar by the same name ; and thus no less than three Kadr Khans are mentioned.
1	All the copies of the text are somewhat at variance here with respect to this name; but it is mentioned again farther on, and is quite plain in several copies,
2	Prayer before retiring to rest, repeated some two or three hours after sunset,
S 2268
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
As the light of twilight did not disappear at all, whether the prayer before sleep was necessary or not ? They, with one accord, wrote a reply, that the prayer before sleep was not necessary, when the prescribed time for it could not be found with the people inhabiting such region3.
Kadr Khan, the Tatar, having in this expedition been overcome, the calamity of the infidels of Chin arose, and the darkness of the night of sedition and tumult showed its head from the mantle-collar of actuality, and was the beginning of dire misfortunes to the true faith, and the commencement of calamities and afflictions upon the Muhammadan people. That circumstance occurred after this manner:—Chingiz Khan, the Mughal, had a son, the eldest of all his sons, Tushi4 by name. At this time, this
3	Having noticed in the month of June at St. Petersburg that the light did not leave the sky during the whole night, and being desirous of discovering as nearly as possible how far north of the Sihun the Sultan may really have penetrated, as the territory of Taraz is the most northern tract reached by the Sultan, according to Yafa-i, I referred the paragraph to the Rev. Robert Main, M.A., Radcliffe Observer, at Oxford; and to the kindness of that gentleman I am much indebted for the following explanation :—
"It is usually considered that twilight exists as long as the "sun is not more than l8° below the horizon, and hence we shall readily find that the lonvest latitude which will have twilight all night, at midsummer, will be 48° 30' (= sun's solstitial N. P. D. — 180 = 66° 30'—18°). As we go northwards, of course the twilight will continue longer, till, at the Arctic circle, the sun does not set on midsummer-day.
"I presume, therefore, that the Sultan's expedition was towards the north, and the time not far from midsummer; and, from the expressions used, he must have been getting into rather high latitudes, where the sun, after dipping for a little while, would soon transfer the twilight glow from the west to the east. It would appear also that the Sultan and his army had never seen this phenomenon before, by their apparent surprise at it, and by his sending for advice concerning the evening prayer."
From the above remarks it would also further appear, that Sultan Muhammad could not have had any people in his army who had ever been so far north before, and he and they were so much surprised that they concluded [or, rather, our author concluded] that they must be " under the North Pole." It also seems strange that he should see the necessity of writing to Bukhara for advice, since we might suppose that the people of Khwarazm would have been aware of the fact of this phenomenon.
The territory of Taraz lies between 46° and 490 N. lat.
4	Also called Juji. This affair took place a considerable time after the merchants had been put to death, and subsequent to the Sultan's return from 'Irak, and, of course, our author has put it before. See note2, page 272. Whilst delaying at Samrkand, intimation was brought to Sultan Muhammad that Tuk-Tughan, one of the chiefs of Turkistan, of the tribe of Takrlt, was retreating before the Mughals towards Kara-Kuram, the locale of the KankulT tribe, and that he,THE EHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY.	269
Tushi, by command of Chingiz Khan, his father, had come out of the territory of Chin, in pursuit of an army of Tatars, and Sultan Muhammad, from Mawar-un-Nahr and Khurasan, had likewise pushed on in the same direction ; and the two armies fell in with each other.
A battle ensued between them, and the fighting, slaughter, struggle, and conflict, continued and was maintained from the beginning of the day until the time of
with some troops, had turned his steps in the direction of Jund. The Sultan now moved from Samrkand towards Jund, by way of Bukhara, to guard his own territory, and prevent their entering it; but, hearing that they were pursued by a numerous army of Chingiz Khan's, under the leadership of his son, Juji or Tushi, the Sultan again returned to Samrkand, and taking with him the remainder of his forces, previously left there, advanced with great pomp at the head of a large force to Jund, thinking, as the author from whom a portion of these extracts are taken says, '' to bring down two birds with one arrow." [In the meantime, in 615 H., Kojlak had been overthrown by Chjngiz, and slain.] He pushed on [from Jund] until he reached a place in Kashghar, lying between two small rivers, where evidences of a late conflict, in the shape of fresh blood and numerous dead bodies, were discovered. Search was made, and one among those who had fallen was discovered to be still alive. From information gained from the wounded man, it was found that Chingiz Khan's troops had there overtaken Tuk-Tughan and his followers, who had been defeated and put to the sword, after which Juji and his Mughals had set" out to rejoin his father. Hearing'also that the Mughals had only marched that very day, the Sultan pushed on, and by dawn the next morning came up with them, and at once prepared to engage them. The Mughal leaders were not willing to fight, saying that they had been sent in pursuit of prey, which they had already entrapped, and had not permission from Chingiz Khan, but that they could not retire if the Sultan should attack them ; and, at the same time, advised that he should not make matters worse than they were already between himself and Ch,ingiz Khan, by any fresh act of hostility. Sultan Muhammad's good star was on the wane, and he attacked the Mughals, who stood their ground manfully. The right wings of either army, as is often the case in eastern as it has frequently been in western battles,' broke their respective opponents, and the Mughals at last attacked the Sultan's centre, and forced it back some distance. The Sultan was in some danger, when his gallant son, Jalal-ud-Din, who had been victorious on the right, charged the Mughals in flank, and saved the centre from defeat. The fight was maintained with great obstinacy until night came, when each army retired to a short distance, confronting each other. The Mughals lighted an immense number of fires to deceive the Khwarazmis, and decamped quietly during the night, and set out to join the camp of Chingiz, who was hastening his preparations for the invasion of the Sultan's territories. The Sultan halted on the field for a few days, and, after this occurrence, his mind, already much changed, appears to have given way entirely ; and, having with his own eyes witnessed the vigour and tenacity of the Mughals, he became filled with apprehensions and. misgivings, and retreated to Samrkand without attempting anything more. Irresolution and bewilderment now marked all his proceedings. For further particulars, see page 274 and note270
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
evening prayer, and the ranks of both the armies assumed the form of a circle. The right wing of the Musalman forces routed the left wing of the infidels, and pursued after them ; while the right wing of the Mughal infidels routed the left wing of the army of Islam and pursued it, and, in this manner, the armies assumed the form of a circle. This battle was maintained from the dawn of day; and, when night came, the two armies separated from each other, and withdrew to a short distance. There was a small stream of water between them; and the two armies halted^ facing each other, on the banks of that stream and bivouacked. When the morning broke [it was found] that the Mughal army had marched away. They had lighted great fires, and had decamped, and left them burning.
Sultan Muhammad having thus witnessed and beheld with his own eyes, in this encounter, the warlike feats, the activity, and the efforts of the Mughal forces, the next day retired from that place; and fear and dread of them took possession of his heart and mind, and he never again came against them. This was one of the causes of the miseries and troubles which befell the people of Islam.
The second reason was this. When Chingiz Khan broke out into revolt in the land of Chin, and Tamghaj, and the Greater5 Turkistan, and Altun Khan of Tamghaj. who was sovereign of Upper Turkistan, and the lineal monarch of Kara Khita-i5, was overcome by him, and the territories of Tamghaj. Tingit, and Yighur [I-ghur], and Tatar, all fell into his hands ; the news pf these successes having come to the hearing of Sultan Muhammad, his mind became filled with ambition [for the possession] of Chin, and he became desirous of obtaining authentic information respecting the forces of the Mughals, and the condition of Qiingiz Khan. Accordingly, the most excellent Sayyid, Baha-ud-Din, Razi7, with a party of other persons, were despatched on a
5	Or, Upper Turkistan : the original word will serve for either.
6	For our author's further and more detailed account of Chjngiz Khan's proceedings, see last Section of this work.
7	Probably Ahmad, Khujandf, is the person whom our author has mistaken here ; but I am rather inclined to think that this "excellent Sayyid" can be no other than the Badr-ud-Din referred to by Guzidah, who was the chief Dlwan in Sultan Muhammad's service, and who ■ became suspicious and disaffected on some account or other, and fled and took service with Chingiz. For account of further proceedings of this arch-traitor, see note page 274.THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY.	271
mission to Chin6; and, when these agents reached that country, Chingiz Khan sent trustworthy and confidential persons of his own, bearing numerous rarities as presents to Sultan Muhammad.
I heard from the Sayyid Baha-ud-Din—the mercy of the Almighty be upon him 1—[who said :-—] " When we reached the presence of Chingiz Khan, the accursed, the Wazir of Tamghaj, and the son and the uncle of Altun Khan, were brought in, and we were summoned. Then, turning his face towards them, Chingiz said :—' Behold, my affairs and my sovereignty have attained to such a pitch of grandeur,
Be this as it may, our author differs wholly from other writers here. I have only space for a few details. A person named Ahmad, a merchant of Khu-jand, and two others, with a considerable quantity of merchandize suitable for the purpose, set out for the great camp of Ch,ingiz Khan. At this time he had reduced under his yoke most of the nomad tribes of Mughalistan and Turkistan —Tatars, Mughals, I-ghurs, and others—and a portion of Chin and Ma-chin. The merchants were well received and liberally treated. Subsequently, Chingiz directed his sons, the great nobles, and others, to despatch servants of their own with merchandize into the territory of Sultan Muhammad, to accompany Alhmad of Khujand and the others on their return journey. A large party of merchants, numbering about 450, Musalmans it is stated, left Chingiz Khan's territory with property of immense value, and set out, accordingly, for the Sultan's dominions. At the same time, Chingiz Khan sent three agents of his own to the Sultan, intimating the despatch of these traders with the object of purchasing merchandize suitable for his camp ; and, further, to state that he had reduced the refractory around him to subjection and considerable tracts under his sway, and that, in place of estrangement and distrust, intercourse and confidence might arise between them ; that merchants and traders might be free to go and come ; that their subjects and dominions might be secure and open to each other's people; and that they might aid and assist each other under any circumstances that might arise. When they reached Utrar on the Siljun, the frontier capital of the Sultan's dominions in that direction, the governor, Anial-juk by name, a kinsman of the Sultan's mother, who bore the title of Gha-Ir Khan [not Kadr Khan, as our author states], being offended at the impertinence of one of Ahmad Khujandl's party,—said to have been a Hindu—who addressed him in too familiar a style ; and his cupidity likewise being excited by the arrival of all this treasure and valuable property brought by the merchants, sent off a messenger to the Sultan, announcing the arrival of a number of spies of the Tatar, Chingiz, on their way into Iran, and asked permission to put them to death and confiscate their property.
The Sultan, whose mind was already disquieted at the successes of Chingiz, deceived by the perfidious message of Gha-ir Khan, and his temper still ruffled at the disaster he had so lately sustained, without thought or consideration most unfortunately gave his consent. The merchants, numbering about 450 Musalmans, including Chingiz's messengers, were put to death, with the exception of one person, who eventually escaped, and told the tale to Qiingiz; and the whole of their property was confiscated.
8 Most of the MSS. are defective here, and do not contain the last sentence.272
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
that the monarch of the [empire of the] setting sun has sent envoys unto me.' In short," said the Sayyid, " when he sent us away, he requested that envoys on both sides, and merchants, and karwans, should constantly come and go, and bring and take away with them choice descriptions of arms, cloths, and stuffs, and other articles of value and elegance of both empires ; and that between the two monarchs a permanent treaty should be maintained."
He despatched merchants along with the envoys of Sultan Muhammad, with about five hundred camel-loads of gold, silver, silks, and targhu [a description of woven silk of a red colour], together with other precious and valuable commodities, that they might trade with them. They entered the territory of Islam by way of Utrar.
At that place, there was a governor named Kadr Khan9, and he sent an account to Sultan Muhammad respecting the importance and value of the merchandize ; and solicited permission from him, in a perfidious manner, to stop the party of merchants. Having obtained permission to do so, he seized the envoys and the whole of the merchants, and slew them, and took possession of all their property, and sent it to the Sultan's presence. Of that party, there was one person, a camel-driver, who had gone to one of the [public] hot baths, and he succeeded in makin'g his escape by way of the fire place. He, having taken to the wilds, returned back to Chin, and made Chingiz acquainted with the perfidious conduct of Kadr Khan of Utrar and the slaughter of the party1.
Chingiz Khan prepared to take revenge2; and he caused
' 9 For his correct name and title, see preceding note". At page 254, Kadr Khan is said, by our author, to have been the name of the ruler of Kifchak, and, at page 267, we have another Kadr Khan, son of Yusuf the Tatar. This is a third.
1 From our author's account of the putting the merchants to death, one would iitiagine that Chingiz Khan marched -without the least delay, but a considerable time elapsed between that unfortunate act and the appearance of the Mughals before Utrar. The first took place in 614 H., and the second in 616 11.
a As soon as Chingiz became aware of this outrage, he despatched an envoy [some say, envoys] calling for redress for Gha-ir Khan's perfidy, and demanding that the latter should be delivered over to him, to punish according to the Muhammadan law of kisas ; but, as Gha-ir Khan was related to many of the chief officers of his troops, the Sultan was powerless to comply, even had he so desired, and, in an evil hour, gave orders to put the envoy to death likewise. The rage of Chingiz knew no bounds : he collected his troops toTHE KHWARAZM-SHAHlAH DYNASTY.	273
the forces of Chin and Turkistan to be got ready for that purpose. Trustworthy persons have related, that, at the place where he then was, seven3 hundred banners were brought forth, and under every banner one thousand horsemen were arrayed. Every ten horsemen were directed to take with them three dried4 Mughal! sheep, and an iron cauldron ; and he set out on his way.
From the place where Chingiz was at this period, to the boundary of Utrar, was a three months' journey through the wilderness; and, along with his hosts, he despatched horses, mares, and geldings, without number, to supply them with milk, and for riding. The journey through the wilds was got over in a short time5, and he issued forth on the Utrar frontier ; and that fortress and city was taken, and
take revenge, and, according to a few authors, even despatched another envoy to announce his coming; but he took care in the first place to quell all disorders in his own dominions.
The Sultan having disposed of the affairs of 'Irak, and having left his son, Rukn-ud-Din, in charge of the government of the province—nominally, it must be understood, for Rukn-ud-Din was only in his fifteenth year—set out for the purpose of proceeding into Mawar-un-Nahr. On reaching Nishapur, on the 8th of Shawwal. 614 H., contrary to his wont, he gave himself up to wine and women. - After delaying there more than a month, on the loth of Shaban, he marched to Bukhara ; and, it being spring, pitched his tents in the pleasant meads near that city. Having given himself up to pleasure there also for some time, he assembled the troops of that part, and determined to move against Kojlak, who had been extending his dominions to the territories towards the head of the Sihun, and marched to Samrkand, after reaching which the same infatuated course of pleasure was followed. It was at this time that, hearing of the movement of Tuk-Tughan [the Takna Khan of some European authors and translators] of the tribe of Makrit, the Sultan advanced towards Jund, and the engagement with the troops of Chingiz took place, which our author has related, out of its proper order, at page 268. For a correct account of that battle see note 4 to thepage referred to.
3	In two or threecopies "three," but seven hundred is the more correct number.
4	Sheep's or goat's flesh salted and dried in the sun, called " landaey" by the Afghans.
s One or two copies of the text have "in three months," but the majority have "in a short time." Utrar was, however, taken after five months. When the Sultan retired to Samrkand, after the encounter with Tush!, he had a force of 400,000, men. The greater part of these was left in Mawar-un-Nahr and Turkistan ; 50,000 men were detached to Utrar to join Gha-ir Khan ; and when report followed report of the advance of Chingiz, 10,000 more were sent to reinforce Gha-Ir Khan, under the Hajib, Karajah. On reaching Utrar, Chingiz pushed on to Bukhara, after leaving a force to invest the former place, which was not the first that was captured, as our author makes it appear. Fasijb-i says he reached it on the last day of Zi-^ijjah, 616 H., and entered it the following day.274
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRL
the whole of the inhabitants were martyred. From thence Chingiz Khan marched towards Bukhara ; and, on the day of the Festival of the Sacrifice6, ioth of the month Zi-Hijjah, in the year 616 H., he captured the city, and martyred the whole of the inhabitants, put the 'Ulama to the sword, and gave the libraries of books to the flames. They have related that the Imam-zadah, Rukn-ud-Din—the mercy of the Almighty be upon him !—when they were martyring him, repeated the following lines :—
" I said, that my heart said, ' It is murder committed by us 7.'
I said, my soul said, that ' It is the carrier away of us.'
I said, that ' Thy powerful dog has fallen on me.'
It [my soul ?] said, ' Thou shouldst not draw breath, for it is brought upon ourselves 8.'"
Chingiz Khan, after the catastrophe of- the city of Bukhara, marched towards Samrkand, in which city Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, had stationed 60,000 horse, fully equipped and furnished 9, consisting of different races of Turks, Ghuris. and Khurasanis, together with the Maliks and troops of Ghur. who were all included among that body of troops. After a few days, on the ioth of the month of Muharram, 617 H., Samrkand was also captured, and the whole of the inhabitants were martyred1.
6	Abraham's offering up of his son Isaac.
7	That is " it [viz. this fact] is murder committed by us," in the sense, as it were, "we have done for ourselves."
8	These four lines are with difficulty translatable or intelligible, nor do the various texts enlighten us. Generally it seems a mere amplification of "we're undone," or " I'm undone." The first two lines are apparently the expression of the inner consciousness. The third line is the man's summary judgment. The fourth line is the reproof "of conscience again, that he should spare his words. The latter part of the second line might be translated '' the tearer of our curtain [honour]."
9	Yafa-I says the Sultan only left 30,000 men to garrison Bukhara, and that 110,000, among whom were some of the greatest of his nobles and leaders, were left at Samrkand ; and that 60,000 Tajiks [the forces of Ghur]. each of them a Rustam in valour, were stationed in other fortresses.
1 When the Sultan left Samrkand, dispirited and hopeless, he set out, by way of Nakhshab. towards Khurasan. As he proceeded, he told the people of the places he passed by the way, to shift for themselves and provide for their own safety. Swift messengers were also despatched to Khwarazm, to tell his mother, to take with her all his family and effects, and proceed towards Mazan-daran. Before doing so she caused all the state prisoners there, and such as were supposed ambitious of sovereignty, to be cast into the Jihun. See page 279.
The Sultan's apprehensions and irresolution caused the utmost confusion in all state affairs ; and, as if this was not enough, some astrologers began toTHE EHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY.	275
When the accounts of these disasters came to the hearing of Sultan Muhammad, the forces, then along with him before the gates of Balkh, consisted almost entirely of Tatar and Khita-i troops, whilst his own old soldiers and vassals had been left behind by him in Mawar-un-Nahr; and those people, on whom the most implicit trust and confidence could be placed, were also all away in those parts. The troops who were along with him [now] conspired together to seize him, and to make that act of perfidy and treachery the means of their own deliverance ; and, having seized the Sultan, to take him and deliver him over as an offering to Chingiz Khan2.
declare that the stars prognosticated his downfall, and that he would be unable to apply himself to any measures for effective opposition to the enemy. His chief men and his sagest ministers were paralyzed at all these misfortunes. The most experienced among them in the world's affairs urged that it was hopeless to attempt to preserve any hold over Mawar-un-Nahr, but that the utmost efforts should be directed to the preservation of Khurasan and 'Irak; to concentrate all his available forces, and raise the whole people to arms ; to make the Jihun their ditch, and defend the line of that river. Others, craven-hearted, advised his going to Ghaznin, there to raise troops and make a stand, and, if unsuccessful, make Hindustan his rampart. The latter advice the Sultan proposed to follow, and he came as far as Balkh with this object, when 'Imad-ul-Mulk, who had great influence over him, arrived from 'Irak, from Rukn-ud-DIn, the Sultan's son. 'Imad-ul-Mulk, who was a native of that part, advised the Sultan to retire into 'Irak, and assemble the forces of that country to oppose the Mughals. The Sultan's eldest son, Jalal-ud-Din, who had often before entreated his father to adopt vigorous measures, now again protested, and entreated his father to concentrate his troops, as far as lay in his power, and advance to meet the enemy ; but, if his heart would not permit him to do so, to proceed into 'Irak, and leave the troops with him, that he might hasten to the frontier and attack the invading hordes, and see what Providence willed, that he himself, at least, might be exonerated before__men. " If fortune favour me," he said, "I will carry off the ball of desire with the Chaugan of Divine aid ; but, if fortune favours me not, neither will the finger of reproach be pointed at us, nor the tongue of malediction curse; and the world will not be able to say :—' They have collected taxes and tribute from us for so long, and at a time like this they renounce our affairs, and abandon us to be captive to infidels.' " This counsel he continued to urge, and burned to receive his father's consent. All was of no avail: the Sultan's panic was so great that the sage advice of his son was considered the mere lispings of an infant.
3 The Sultan left Balkh with the object of retiring into 'Irak ; and with this intention was encamped on the bank of the Tirmid river [the Jihun], when news of the fall of Bukhara reached him, and, very soon after, that of Samrkand also. He now gave up all hopes of preserving his dominions. The majority of the troops with him then—and they were not numerous, and were in a disorganized state—were Turks of the tribe of his mother and her kinsmen, called Uranian ; and, during the confusion and distraction which had now arisen,276
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
One of the party, however, presented himself before Sultan Muhammad, and told him all about the plot. The Sultan kept his own counsel ; and, at night, he left the camp, in order to test beyond a doubt the perfidy of the conspirators. At midnight the party drew near to the imperial pavilion, formed a cordon about it, and completely surrounded it. Not finding him within the tent, they came upon the camp at that untimely hour3, and the whole army fell into utter disorder and confusion. Sultan Muhammad was forced to fly, and set out towards Nishapur, and wrote mandates to the Amirs and Maliks in every part of his dominions, commanding them to put the fortresses of Khwarazm. Ghur, Khurasan, and 'Irak in a posture of
they conspired against him. One of the Sultan's own ministers, the Diwan, Badr-ud-Din, previous to this, had fled, and had entered the service of Chingiz. Not satisfied with this, he had forged letters, as though the Sultan's nobles had written, tendering their services to the Mughal chief, and urging him to hostility against their sovereign ; and also forged replies, as coming from Chingiz, promising them aid and assistance. These letters were made over to a spy, with instructions to let them fall into the hands of the Sultan's trusted followers. This caused suspicion to arise between the Sultan and his nobles ; and, having been warned by one of them of the meditated treachery of the troops, he left his pavilion that very night, and changed his place of repose. The mutinous troops, in the night, took to their bows, and the next morning the pavilion was found like a sieve from the holes made by the volleys of arrows discharged into it. Finding, however, that the Sultan was safe, and their object discovered, these disaffected troops dispersed, and finally joined Chingiz. The Sultan now began to suspect his nobles, along with him, and they were mostly sent away, on some duty or other ; and he then set out for Nishapur with all haste, and the greater part of his forces dispersed. On the way, he urged the people of the places he passed through, to see to their fortifications and means of defence, which filled them with perplexity and fear, and rendered easy matters difficult. On reaching Kalat, near Tus, he was induced to consent to make a stand there—it is a place of great strength, the upper part of which was said to be seven leagues round, and capable of an energetic defence [it is a valley, so to say, enclosed within lofty hills ; Nadir considered the position so strong that he deposited his treasures there]—and to erect fortifications there. Some of the Sultan's effects were removed thither accordingly, and provisions were collected* This, however, was also abandoned ; and, on the 12th of Safar, 617 H., the Sultan reached Nishapur, where he abandoned himself to pleasure —if such can be so called—more than ever, for he considered that fate was against him, and all state affairs were abandoned. Whilst thus occupied news reached him, in the following Rabi'-ul-Akh,ir, that an army of Mughals under Yamah Nu-yan, Sabtae, and Taghajar [some authors say Jabah Nu-yan, Swidae Bahadur, and Tukjar; the first some European authors call "Hubbe"], and other leaders, had, after the fall of Bukhara, crossed the Jihun at Tirmiz, in Rabi'-ul-Awwal, in pursuit of him. He left Nishapur without delay, and fled by way of Isfaraln to Rai.
3 The words "at that untimely hour " are contained in one.-MS. only.THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY.	277
defence; and throughout the empire of Islam disorder and tumult arose.
Chingiz Khan, having received information of the disorganization and dissolution of the army of Sultan Muhammad, after the capture of Samrkand, nominated a force of 60,000 Mughal horse, which was placed under the command of two Mughals. chiefs of high rank, one of whom was Yamah Nu-in, and the other Sahudah Bahadur, to proceed in pursuit of the Sultan. When this force had passed over the river [Jihun], the Sultan retired from Nishapur, and set out towards Mazandaran, and his camp was pitched at the top of the Darah or Pass of Tamishah4, when the Mughal troops came upon him. The Sultan was obliged to fly from thence, and entered the hills on foot, and got away; and, going from one range of hills to another, entered Mazandaran5. The son of the chief of Mazandaran,
4 Only a single copy of the texts collated gives thts name correctly.
6 Any one reading the above would imagine that the Sultan proceeded direct from Nishapur into Mazandaran, but such was not the case ; he took a much longer circuit, as already shown. When he reached Rai news came to him from Khurasan that a strange army had reached it, which report made him regret the haste he had shown in coming into 'Irak. He left Rai accordingly, and proceeded to the fortress of Kazwln [some say Karun], at the foot of which his son, Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, was encamped, with an army of 30,000 'Irakis. The Sultan sent his other son, Ghiyas-ud-Din, and his mother, and some of the ladies of his family, to the fortress of Karun-dujz for safety, and his own mother and the rest of the family to I-lal, a fortress of Mazandaran. He was advised by the Amirs of'Irak to take shelter at Shiran-koh, and there concert measures and assemble troops, and oppose the Mughal army which was in pursuit of him. Again he declined, saying that it was not safe, and could not be defended against the Mughals ; and this disheartened his followers still more. He was advised by some to start that very hour. Between Luristan and Fars, they said, was a range of mountains, called Tang-Talu, after they had passed which they would enter a rich country, and could take shelter there, collect troops, and, in case the Mughals should arrive, be ready to encounter them. Whilst considering this advice, which he thought good, news arrived from Rai of the Mughals having reached it; and now his followers began to desert him, as is the nature of the world, and to seek their own safety and interests. Almost deserted, the unfortunate monarch set out with his son, Jalal-ud-Din, and with scarcely any followers, for the fortress of Karun-dujz, whither he had previously sent Ghiyas-ud-Din and his mother and the ladies of his family. On the way he was actually overtaken by the Mughal advance ; but the smallness of his party led to their not recognizing him. They gave them, however, a volley of arrows, which wounded the Sultan's horse, but it brought him safely to Karun. He only stayed one day, and, after providing a fresh horsef made off in the direction of Baghdad. The Mughals appeared before Karun, which they attacked, and fighting went on as long as they thought the Sultan was there ; but, finding this was not the case, and that he278
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
who had joined him, was in attendance on the Sultan, and his own son, Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Mang-barm, was also with him. Sultan Muhammad embarked on the Sea of Khurz [the Caspian], and for a considerable time he continued on an island therein, in distress and affliction.
had set out towards Baghdad, they followed on his tracks. They came up with a small body of his party, who acted as a rear-guard, and slew them ; but the Sultan having changed his route—he had found shelter in a fortress—they missed him, and at last gave up the pursuit. Having remained a few days at the latter place, the Sultan set out towards Gllan, and then on to Asdar, where what remained of his treasures was lost. He then entered the district of Amul. His family had reached that part, and had taken shelter in its strongholds. The Mughals were in pursuit, however; and he, having consulted with the chief men of those parts, it was determined that the Sultan should seek refuge for a time in one of the islands of the Sea of Khurz, named Ab-i-Sugun.
[A few words may not be out of place here respecting this island and its name. An old writer states that it was the name of an island [one of several], and of a small town of Tabaristan, in the district of Astarabad, three days' journey from Gurgan or Gurgan, called Jurjan and Jurjan by Muhammadans, who change the g's to j's according to the 'Arabic custom; and that it was also the name of a considerable river, which formerly came from Khwarazm [the Oxus ; but more probably the river of Gurgan or Jurjan], and fell into the Sea of Khurz—the Caspian. When this river approaches the sea, it flows very slowly and quietly ; hence its name, Ab-i-Sugun, the tranquil or quiet river. Some, however, say the place where the river enters the sea was called by this name. The islands in question, for there were several, were situated near the river's mouth. That on which the Sultan took refuge, and where he died, has long since been swallowed up by the sea. The Introduction of the Zafar-Namahsays the sea is called Ab-i-Sugun, and the island on which the Sultan took shelter, Ab-gun].
The Sultan, having taken shelter on one of them, moved occasionally, for safety's sake ; and well he did, for a party of Mughals did actually come to the first island in search of him after he had left it. The army of Mughals'under Yamah Nu-yan and-others, who had reached Rai in pursuit of him, had returned on not finding him there, and invested the fortresses of Kariin and I-lal, in which his mother and wives and children had taken refuge, and soon took them. The males were all slaughtered, even the infants, and the females were sent to Chingiz's camp. The thoughts of the dishonour of the females of his family, the slaughter of his children and his servants, and the miseries of his country, afflicted him to such a degree that he died of a broken heart, and in great misery, in one of the islands above mentioned, and was there buried. So great was the distress of the party, that his son, Jalal-ud-Din, could not procure even a winding-sheet to bury him in, and he had to be consigned to the grave in part of the apparel which he had on at the time of his death. Subsequently, however, Jalal-ud-Din removed his father's remains from the island to the fortress of Ardas [?]. The Mughals, some time after, gained possession of this place likewise, and they exhumed his remains, and burnt them. That the Sultan died on his way to Khwarazm is like many other of our author's statements. He never left the island alive. His death filled Islam with distress ; and this event took place in Shawwal, 617 H.THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY.	279
The Mughal troops, not finding the Sultan in the province of Mazandaran, passed out of it, and entered 'Irak, on which Sultan Muhammad, with the few horsemen who still continued with him, left the island; but he was prostrated with disease of the bowels, and melancholy-supervened, a*nd he became quite out of his mind. He urged his son, Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Mang-barni, saying :—" Endeavour to take me to Khwarazm ; for from thence was the commencement of our dominion.'' These lines, also, he often repeated :—
" When men become distracted about their own affairs, Than that, it will be better that the thread of life were sever'd."
When his disease increased, he was totally unable to ride on horseback, and camels were procured for him; and he was placed in a camel-litter, and they sent .him off towards Khwarazm. He died on the road, in the year 617 H.: and Sultan Jalal-ud-Din brought his father's remains to Khwarazm, and buried them by the side of Sultan Takish, his father. Sultan Muhammad's reign extended over a period of twenty-one years. May the mercy of God and His pardon be on him !
XI. KUTB-UD.DIN ARZALU SHAH, SON OF MUHAMMAD, SON OF TAKISH, KHWARAZM SHAH.
Kutb-ud-Din, was the son of Sultan Muhammad, and his mother was a kinswoman of his father's mother, and of the family of Kadr Khan of Kifchak; and he was the heir-apparent to the throne of Khwarazm6.
When the calamities consequent on the irruption of
6 The name of this young prince is written in various ways—not only in our author's text, but also by other writers—Azilak, ArzaV, Uzlak, Arzalu, and Arzalak; the last seems the most correct. Certain it is that he was not heir-apparent to the Khwarazm! empire. The word Shah or Sultan affixed to his other name signifies that it was not his title as sovereign, but merely one of his names. Other writers, with whom I am acquainted, do not account him as a ruler at all. It was through the influence of Turkan Khatun, Sultan Muhammad's mother, that this boy, of very ordinary intellect, was set up at Khwarazm, during Jalal-ud-Din's absence with his father. Arzalak's supporters imagined, that, in case Jalal-ud-Din should ascend the throne and establish his power, they would not be permitted to do as they liked, as was likely to be the case with Arzalak Sultan as sovereign ; and, as long as their objects were gained, they cared nothing for their country. Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that the Mughals met with little or no opposition.28O
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
Chingiz Khan arose, and Sultan Muhammad was obliged to fly from the banks of the Jihun and the vicinity of Balkh, and retired to Nishapur, the grandmother of Arzalu Shah, the mother of Sultan Muhammad7, and the people of Khwarazm, the Maliks, and the Amirs, concerted together, and raised Kutb-ud-Din, Arzalu Shah, to the throne of Khwarazm, and the whole of them applied themselves to his service.
The Sultans and Maliks, from both the east and west, and of the countries of Iran and Turan, who were imprisoned at Khwarazm, were all drowned in the Jihun ; and not one of them was left alive, by the time that one of the sons of Chingiz Khan, Tushi by name, with a numerous army, from8 Mawar-un-Nahr, was nominated to march into Turkistan and Khwarazm9 and arrived before the gates of the latter-named city.
As Arzalu Shah did not possess the power to oppose him, he took along with him1 his dependents, his sisters, and mothers2, the ladies of the Haram of Sultan Muhammad, his father, together with the Khudawandah-i-Jahan. his father's mother, and brought them into Tabaristan and Mazandaran, and threw himself into the fortress of Lai in Tabaristan3.
7	Turkan Khatun. the consort of Takish, the strong-minded woman, who roasted her husband.
8	All the copies of the text collated, with one exception, are defective here.
9	When Chingiz arrived at Utrar, he left a force to invest it, but pushed on with the bulk of his forces to Bukhara; and it was only after the fall of Samrkand that troops were sent against Khwarazm. In the first place, he despatched his three sons, Tushi [JujT], Uktae, and Chaghatae, with several tumans or hordes thither; but, having quarrelled on the road, they came to blows, and a number of the Mughal troops were slain by each other. Chingiz then recalled them, and Tuli, his other son, was sent in command in their stead.
1	Other writers state, that after Jalal-ud-Din left Khwarazm for Khurasan, as mentioned in note 6, page 286, which see, his brothers, Arzalak Sultan, Ak Sultan, and two others, followed after him, escorted by a body of troops, to endeavour to induce him to return. They did not overtake him, but encountered on their way the same body of Mu glials their brother had so recently opposed and escaped from. They were all taken and, with their followers, put to the sword.
2	The mothers of the different brothers of Arzalu [Arzalak Sultan] —the other wives of his father, Sultan Muhammad, and his grandmother are meant here.
3	See latter part of note 5, page 277. Alfi calls it the fortress of Lar-jar.the khwarazm-shahlah dynasty.	281
When Tusht, son of Chingiz Khan, appeared with his troops before the gates of Khwarazm, the people of the city [the troops quartered there] came forward to resist them, and fighting commenced ; but, in the course of a very-few days, Khwarazm was taken, and the inhabitants were martyred, and the whole city was razed to the ground, with the exception of the Kushk-i-Akhjuk. which was the ancient palace, and the sepulchral vault of Sultan Takish, Khwarazm Shah, which was allowed to stand ; but all else was overthrown.
After this, Tush! pushed on in pursuit of the dependents and ladies of Arzalu Shah's family, captured them all, and martyred the whole of them. The mercy of the Almighty be upon them4!
xii. sultAn rukn-ud-dIn, ghuri shAnasti, son of muhammad, khwarazm £]3ah.
Sultan Rukn-ud-Din was another of Sultan Muhammad's sons, and his birth took place on the night preceding the day on which Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din Muhammad-i-Sam, Ghuri, retreated from before the gates of Khwarazm in the year 601 h.; and, on that account, he was named Ghuri Shanasti, that is to say, " The Ghuri Breaker."
When the territory of 'Irak fell under the sway of Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, he conferred the throne of that country upon Rukn-ud-Din5. The daughter of Malik Ulugh Khan-i-Abi Muhammad, who was
4 Most of the copies of the text are defective here : only three have the last paragraph, and, of these, but two appear correctly written.
4 Rukn-ud-Din was younger than his brothers, Jalal-ud-Din, and Ghivas-ud-Dln; but, having acquired greater ascendency, the government of 'Irak was conferred upon him, when his father left 'Iral; on his last expedition into Mawar-un-Nahr. Yafa-I says he gave himself up to excess—he was only fifteen—and his father had just become aware of his misconduct, when the Mughal troubles began. On the death of his father, the Amirs of that territory became disaffected. He moved against them, reduced them, and gave them their lives, and overlooked their misdeeds, thinking kindness would be returned with gratitude. But, after a short time, finding he could not hold his own, he retired, after his father's death, accompanied by only a few followers, towards Kirman. He reached Gawashir, and was subsequently joined by the chiefs and partisans of the Malik of Zawzan [Kawam-ud-Din, Mu-ayyid-ul-Mulk, Abi-Bikr, son of 'All, Az-ZawzanT. His son, 'Izz-ud-Dln, held Kirman and its dependencies after his father's death but he was removed,
T282
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRl.
a descendant of one of the paternal uncles of the Khwarazm Shahs, was given him in marriage, and the father-in-law was made the Lieutenant of Sultan Rukn-ud-Dm, by Sultan Muhammad; and the whole of the Maliks of Ghur, and the troops of the Jibal [of Khurasan], were left to serve under him. When [his father], Sultan Muhammad, retired from the territory of 'Irak, the Turks of 'Irak, who were slaves of the Ata-baks, assembled [their troops] together, and gave him battle, but the Khwarazm Shahis gained the victory, in the year 614 H.
Rukn-ud-Din reigned in 'Irak for a considerable period ; and, when the Mughal troops reached that country, and tribulation befell the Musalmans, the whole of the Khwarazm Shahis fell into captivity, in the year 617 H., and were, in all probability, martyred6.
XIII. MALIK GHIYAS-UD-DIN, AK SULTAN 7, SON OF MUHAMMAD, KHWARAZM SHAH.
Ak Sultan was another of the sons of Sultan Muhammad; and, when the latter obtained possession of the throne of
and the government was conferred upon Rukn-ud-Din.], who were in those parts. He divided the treasure, accumulated by the Malik referred to, among his followers, and advanced to Isfahan to endeavour to gain a footing in 'Irak again. When he entered it, the Kazi kept aloof, and Rukn-ud-DTn thought it advisable to leave the city, and pitch his tents outside. He was soon attacked by the Kazi's adherents, on a hint from their master, who slew iooo of Rukn-ud-Din's followers, and lost many themselves. When the Mughals had disposed of other matters in Khurasan, a force was sent against Rukn-ud-DIn. He had given up all hope of acquiring possession of 'Irak, and had retired to Firuz-koh, and the Tatar forces invested him therein. He held out for six months, at the end of which period he had to come down and yield. All the threats of the infidels could not induce him to bend the knee to their leader, and he was put to the sword, along with his followers and dependents, and the people of the fortress. This took place in 619 H.; but some writers say it happened in 618 H., and others, in 620 H.
6 Here, also, considerable difference occurs in the various copies of the text, and the style is different, as in several other places. Some have, " and the whole of them were martyred."
1 Pir Shah bore the title of Ghiyas-ud-Din, and he was ruler [nominally] of Kirman, after the Malik of Zawzan, and his son. Ak Sultan was never put in charge of any territory whatever. Our author has perpetrated another gTeat blunder here. Ak-Sultan was killed at the same time that Sultan Arzalak and two other younger brothers were massacred by the Mughals. See note 6, page 286.THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY.	283
Kirmanj and the tuasnad of Gawashir, he placed the Khwajah of Zawzan upon the throne8 of Kirman. After some years, the Khwajah of Zawzan died. He was an excellent man, and founded colleges of great repute, and rabats [hostels for travellers], and erected the fortress of Sala-Mihr of Zawzan.
When he died, Sultan Muhammad had conferred the throne of Kirman upon his own son, Ak Sultan ; and he proceeded into Kirman, and brought under his jurisdiction that territory as far as the sea-shore, and the frontiers of Mukran9. When the calamities caused by the Mughal
8	Utter nonsense : the Malik of Zawzan was merely governor on the part of the Sultan, and never ascended a "throne."
9	Ghivas-ud-Din. Pir Shah, had been named ruler of Kirman by his father; "but what help is there, when man's proposals chime not with destiny's disposals?" When the convulsions arose at the outset of the Mughal troubles, Ghiyas-ud-Din determined to proceed into Kirman. At this time, Shuja'-ud-Din, Abu-l-Kasim, who had held the government on the part of the son of the Malik of Zawzan, was acting as the Prince's deputy. The "world being filled with tumult and sedition," he would not receive him, and the Prince was compelled to retire into 'Irak, where he stayed a short time. A party of his father's troops, which had remained in concealment, now joined him, and Burak, who was a native of Kara-Khita-T, also became his adherent. He was a relative—some say a younger brother, some the son—of BanTko of Taraz, and had been converted to Islam, and had risen in Sultan Muhammad's service to the rank of Hajib ; and some writers state tbat he had been nominated preceptor to the young Prince. Be this as it may, on being joined by Burak and his followers, Ghiyas-ud-Din marched into Fars against the Ata-bak Sa'd [see note 4, page 266], who was routed. Ghiyas-ud-Din and his forces committed great devastation in Fars, after which he retired. Burak, however, being aggrieved with him for some reason, deserted Ghivas-ud-Din one night, and set out with his adherents, intending to proceed by way of Kich and Mukran into Hindustan, "to take service with I-yal-timish, ruler of Dihli, who was also a native of Kara-Khita-j." On reaching the frontier of Kirman, Shuja'-ud-Din. Abu-l-Kasim, who had been made governor of Gawashir for Ghiyas-ud-Din, but who had refused to receive him, was induced by some of the youths among his followers, who sought to plunder Burak's party and carry off the "moon-faced Khita-i damsels" among them, to intercept Burak by the way. They came into contact at Rudbar of Jirfat, and, during the fight which ensued, a party of Turks, serving with Shuja'-ud-Din. went over to Burak. Shuja'-ud-Din was taken and put to death, and Burak acquired power over Kirman. This was in the year 621 H. Shuja'-ud-Din's son continued to hold the citadel until Jalal-ud-Din arrived. After his separation from Burak, Ghiyas-ud-Din had taken up his quarters atRai; and, when his brother, Jalal-ud-Din, reached 'Irak, after his return from Sindh, Ghiyas-ud-Din had joined him, had misconducted himself, and, finally, deserted his brother in an engagement with the Tatars, and finally retired into Khuzistan.-See note- 9, page 297. He then sent an agent to Burak to tell him of hi& arrival there. Burak pretended to be overjoyed ; and, after oaths and pro-
T 2284
THE TABAKAT.I'NASIRL
irruption befell the empire of Islam, and Chingiz Khan became triumphant over Iran, a body of Khita-is. and some troops of Sultan Muhammad, along with Burak, the Chamberlain, a native of Khita. a newly converted Musal-man, proceeded into Kirman, and contention and strife arose between them and Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din-i-Ak Sultan. The latter, not being powerful enough to repel the Khita-is. out of necessity, left Kirman and proceeded into 'Irak to his brother, Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, leaving the Amir, Shuja'-ud-Din, Abu-l-Kasim, in the city of Gawashir, which was the seat of government and capital of Kirman, with the name of Deputy and Seneschal of the city.
Burak, Khita-i, the Chamberlain, with a numerous army, appeared before the gates of Gawashir. and took up his position there; and contention went on between them, which continued for a considerable length of time, until the period when Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Mang-barni, marched from the land of Sind, by way of Mukran, into Kirman. As soon as he arrived in the vicinity of the latter territory, Burak, Khita-i. the Chamberlain, having obtained news of the coming of Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, proceeded to wait upon him, and pay him homage; and Shuja'-ud-Din, Abu-l-Kasim, likewise, came out of the city of Gawashir to pay homage to the Sultan1.
When Sultan Jalal-ud-Din reached the city, he had but a small following with him, and, therefore, he became anxious with respect to Burak, the Chamberlain, and made over the country of Kirman to him as governor, and proceeded into 'Irak himself. After Burak, the Chamberlain, had acquired possession of Kirman, Ak Sultan, having
mises had been entered into by both parties, Ghiyas-ud-Din set out for Kirman with about 500 followers, and Burak came forth to receive him with a large following. They got on well together for some time, until Burak began to treat the Prince with great arrogance, and finally demanded his mother in marriage. She gave a reluctant consent for the sake of her son. Two kinsmen of Burak's now became partisans of the Prince, warned him of Burak's designs against him, and asked his permission to kill him. Ghiyas-ud-DIn, remembering his promises and oaths, refused. A few days after, Burak became aware of all this; his two kinsmen were cut to pieces, Ghiyas-ud-Din strangled, and his mother and all their followers and dependents were put to death, every soul, even to the infant at the breast. Burak sent the head of Ghiyas-ud-Din to Uktae, son of Chingiz, and obtained from the Mughal the investiture of Kirman, which he held for eleven years, when it passed to his descendants.
1 His son came out and presented the keys of Gawashir to the Sultan.THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY.	285
quarrelled with his brothers, in 'Irak, returned again into Kirman, and obtained martyrdom at the hand of Burak, Khita-1. the Chamberlain, and died2.
XIV. SULTAN JALAL-UD-DIN, MANG-BARNl3, SON OF SULTAN MUHAMMAD, KHWARAZM SHAH.
Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Mang-barni, was the eldest son of Sultan Muhammad, and was endowed with great heroism, valour, and high talents and accomplishments.
When his father, Sultan Muhammad, acquired possession of the territories of Ghur and Ghaznin, he conferred them on Jalal-ud-Din, and made over both those kingdoms to his charge ; and deputies of his were placed in those countries. Ghaznin was given to Malik Kuriz4 ; Firuz-koh was entrusted to Mubariz-ud-Din, Sabzwart ; and the Wazarat was entrusted to Shihab-ud-Din-i-Alb. Sarakhsl. Karrman was given to the Malik-ul-Umra [Chief, or Noble of Nobles], Burshor5 [Peshawar ?] and Bu-bikrpur [or, Abu-
2	Ghivas-ud-Din was murdered in the fortress of Gawashir in 627 h. There is some discrepancy as to dates, which I have not space to discuss, but the former appears the most correct, as Burak evidently took advantage of Jalal-ud-Din's defeat, mentioned in note 9, page 297, to make himself independent, and would scarcely have dared to put his brother to death while Jalal-ud-Din had the power to chastise him.
3	In one of the oldest copies of the text where the vowel-points are given, he is called Mang-barni, and was so styled from having a mole on his nose. He was, according to Yafa-i, and other trustworthy writers, the greatest, the most noble-minded, the most warlike, and the most devout of the sons of his father, and most worthy of the diadem of sovereignty. His valour rivalled that of Rustam and Isfandiyar, and he was able, skilful, and sagacious. If there was any man in those days capable of coping with Chingiz successfully, it was he ; and, from his subsequent heroic actions, there can be little doubt but that his efforts would have been crowned with success, if his advice had been acted upon, or he had had the direction of affairs, and had been seconded by his brothers, nobles, and subjects, with that unity of purpose so essential in the hour of danger. His brothers, however, were selfish beyond measure, and cared for naught but their own interests and worldly pleasures and excesses, whilst Jalal-ud-Din was kept in constant attendance upon his father, contrary to his own inclinations.
4	Possibly, Kurbuz. The majority of copies are as above, but others have
and /jS [ ? ] all of which seem meaningless.
5	This may refer to Peshawar, which was called Bagram up to Babar's time, but there is a place named Burshor [}^ ], much farther south, between Kandahar and the Indus ; and our author, in his account of Mahmfid of Ghaznin, when referring to the idol-temple which fell at his birth, says it was near BarsJjabur	—quite a different mode of spelling. See page 76.286
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Bikrpur] were conferred upon Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Muhammad Ali-i-Khar-post.
When the irruption of Changiz Khan occurred, Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Mang-barni, was in attendance upon his father, as has been previously recorded ; and, when he brought his father's remains to Khwarazm and interred them, his brother [Arzalu Shah] was seated on the throne of Khwarazm. although he was a [much] younger brother; and both the brothers were apprehensive of each other6. Kutb-ud-Din, Arzalu Shah, conspired against Jalal-ud-Din, who, having obtained information of his design, came out of Khwarazm, and departed by the route of the wilds of Sharistan. From thence he proceeded to the westward of Nishapur, and entered the desert between Khurasan and Kirman, with the determination of proceeding to Ghaznin7.
6	After his father had breathed his last and had been buried, Jalal-ud-Din left the island of Ab-i-Sugun with a few followers, and set out for Khwarazm, where were his younger brothers, Arzalak Sultan, Ak Sultan, Timur Malik, Aghul Sahib, and Kajae Tigin, with 90,000 Kankulis. He had vast difficulties to encounter from the confused state of affairs at that time, the successes of Chingiz and his sons, and from his own countrymen, who considered that the glory of the house of Takish had departed. It may be as well to mention, that the following notes give a consecutive account of Jalal-ud-Din's life.
All men of experience, and the soldiery generally, were desirous of the sovereignty of Jalal-ud-Din, and, although the most solemn agreement had been entered into by the two brothers not to injure or molest each other, the ill-disposed Amirs of Arzalak's party, who desired a weak and inexperienced Prince at the head of affairs for their own selfish purposes, combined to fall suddenly upon Jalal-ud-Din and slay him. He, finding such acts could be contemplated at such a time, and knowing the state of utter misery in which the country was now overwhelmed, considered it advisable to leave Khwarazm in the hands of his brother and his party, rather than weaken the little power still remaining by civil strife. He determined to proceed, attended only by a small following, by way of Nisa to Shad-yakh, [of Nishapur]. As it was, an army of Mughals had already reached the Khwarazm territory, and Jalal-ud-Din was closely pursued [near Astawah, according to AlfT,] by a portion of that horde, on his way to Shad-yakh, and had great difficulty in effecting his escape. His brothers—four in all—who had followed after him to try and induce him to return, or, more probably, because they could not stay any longer, fell into the hands of this band, and were all put to the sword. See note page 280.
7	Sultan Jalal-ud-Din only remained two or three days at Shad-yakh, in order to get together as many men as possible ; and, on the 12th of Zi-Hijjah, he set out quietly at night, by way of Zawzan, towards Ghaznin, to the government of which part he had been nominated by his father. The Mughals were close at hand, and he had not left more than an hour before they appeared before the place. As soon as they found he was not there they set out in pursuit, and pushed on until they came to a place where two roads branched off. AtTHE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY.
287
Trustworthy persons have related, that Jalal-ud-Din, in that desert, saw Mihtar Khizr8. who foretold his sovereignty, but, under this compact, that the blood of no Musalman should be shed by his hand. From thence, Jalal-ud-Din proceeded into the territories of Nimroz, Bust, and Dawar, and came to Ghaznin9.
Malik Khan of Hirat, who formerly bore the name of Amin-i-Hajib [Amin-ul-Mulk ?] \ and had killed Muhammad Kharnak, Ghuri, and who had, before the arrival of Jalal-ud-Din, set out towards Hindustan, at this time, that the Sultan came to Ghaznin, likewise, joined him. Chingiz Khan detached an army, from his Mughal following, in search of Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, towards Ghaznin, and Fiku2 Nu-yan,
this place the Sultan had left a small party of his followers, under an Amir, with directions, in case of his being pursued, to resist the Mughals for a short period, to give him time, and then to take the other road. This was done ; and the Mughals, thinking they were on the Sultan's track, took the wrong road. The Sultan on this occasion is said to have made a march of forty farsakhs without a halt.
On reaching Zawzan he wished to enter and take some repose, and give rest to his horses ; but admittance was refused, the excuse being, that, in case of attack by the Mughals, the people could not hold out the place for an hour, and that any attempt at opposition would bring vengeance upon them. He, therefore, continued his route as far as Mabarn-abad [?]. He left that place at midnight, and at dawn the next morning the Mughals reached it. They followed in the track of the Sultan as far almost as Yazdawlah [also called ZaudTah—Jezdoun of the maps ?], a dependency of Hirat [about seventy-five miles s. w. of that city], and then abandoned the pursuit.
8	Another of our author's childish tales, certified by " trustworthy authorities."
9	The Sultan, without further trouble, reached Ghaznin, on the 17th of Zi-Hijjah, 617 H. Amin Malik, called also Amin-ul-Mulk [he is styled Yamin-ul-Mulk in Rauzat-us-Safa and Habib-us-Siyar, and Yanrin Malik by Alfj], the governor, who had 50,000 men with him, came out to receive th Sultan, and both the troops and people rejoiced at his arrival, for the govern-ment of the territory formerly possessed by the Sultans of Ghur had been previously assigned to him by his father. He encamped on the Maidan-i-Sabz of Ghaznin ; and, as soon as the news of his arrival spread abroad, chieftains and troops [who were in those parts previously, no doubt] began to flock to his standard from all parts around, and among the number was Saif-ud-Din, Ighrafc, with 40,000 men, Kankulls, Khalj, and Turkmans ; and the Amirs of Ghur also joined him from the parts adjacent. His affairs now assumed considerable grandeur andmagnificence, and a large army assembled around him.
1 Some copies of the text, but they are those least to be depended upon, differ considerably here. They have, — " Malik Khan of Hirat, who was named Amin-i-Hajib, at the outset of the events respecting Muhammad Kharnak, Ghuri, before Jalal-ud-Din had come into Hindustan," &c. The correct name of this chief was'Amin Malik, and he is also called Amin-ul-Mulk.
8 In some copies Fitku.288
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
who was Chingiz IQian's son-in-law, was the commander of that force.
Sultan Jalal-ud-Din advanced against the Mughal army as far as the limits of Barwan3, and overthrew the Mughal
3 Early in the spring of 618 H. he put his forces in motion, and advanced to Barwan. Having encamped there, he received intimation that a Mughal army, under Bak-chak and Yam-ghur [these leaders are somewhat differently called by some writers—Kam-chak, and Yighur, Tamghur, and even Balghur], was pressing the siege of Wamian [Bamian, w and b being interchangeable]; and that it was in danger of falling into their hands, if not speedily relieved.
[With regard to these places—the town and fortress referred to—I must here make a few remarks. The town, or position, of Barwan, is likewise called Parwan, Farwan, Baran, and Barwan on the Ab-i-Barani, by as many different writers. The letters b, p, and f are interchangeable. The two first are undoubtedly incorrect. Babar and Abu-1-Fazl call the upper portion of the Kabul river the "Ab-i-Barani," and, in my humble opinion, this proves the correctness of the situation of this place, as given by Baihaki, Yafa-i, and Jami'-ut-Tawankh,—which latter work also states that it lies on the "banks of the Ab-i-Barani"—as situated between Ghaznln and Wamian, but nearer Ghaznln. What modem writers and travellers in Afghanistan call the Logurh [the Lohgar] river, the historians above quoted, and many others, call the Ab-i-Barani, and consider it, very properly, as the main stream of the upper portion of that river which, ultimately, enters the Indus above Atak. Barwan is also to be found in many maps, although the position may not be quite correct, at about five or six stages north of Ghaznln. With respect to the fortress invested by the Mughals, the Introduction to the Zafar-Namah, an excellent and trustworthy authority, says it was "Bamian, also called Wamiap ;" and this last seems to be the name which some writers have mistaken for Walian. Certainly there is a place mentioned in the Masalik-wa-Mamalik named Walin, but one syllable less than Walian and Wamian, as being "the same distance from Khulum as the latter is from Balk^." There is also a Parwan or Farwan, on the Panj-hlr river ; but those who have seen the Parwan valley, north of Kabul, describe it as very tortuous, and, in many places, a mere rocky defile ; and there is also the pass of the same name over Hindu-Kush, not the easiest -by far. If Barwan, or Parwan, north of Kabul,
could possibly be the place referred to, and Walian-the Walin ofMASALiK-
wa-Mamalik, and which Mr. Thomas, R. A. S. J., vol. xvii. p. 86, calls " Wawalin," and considers to have been situated near the "modern Kunduz" [Kundus, by 'Arabs, Kunduz, is described as a very ancient place, by oriental writers, who say the correct name was Kuhandujz, signifying a fortress, but by constant use shortened into Kundus. Baihaki repeatedly refers to Kuhandujz,
but neither " Wawalin" nor
Din would have had to cross and re-cross the Hindu-Kush on this occasion, a rather difficult matter at any time, even for travellers, much more for an army of about 100,000 horsemen, in early spring, and a dangerous one too, considering that Chingiz, with his main force, was before Tae-kan, only about tiventy miles from Kundus, while the Parwan Pass, and Sar-i-Ulang Pass, connected with it, and the other passes of Hindu-Kush, were no less than eighty miles off, or more. Jalal-ud-Din might have been cut off from the passes easily by a force from Qiingiz's army whilst he was engaged with the
were laying siege, Jalal-ud-THE KHWARAZM SHAHlAH DYNASTY.	289
infidels. He encountered them upon three different times in that quarter, and on all three occasions success and victory
Mughal forces before Wamlan, or Walian so called. Besides, we are plainly told that Barwan, on the banks of the Ab-i-Barani, was a town or city between Ghaznin and Balkh. Chingiz himself came in pursuit of the Sultan, by way of Andar-ab, Kabul, and Bam Jan.]
Leaving his heavy material and baggage at Barwan, Sultan Jalal-ud-Dln marched to the relief of the fortress ; and, having come upon the advanced force of the Mughals in that direction, made a dash upon them, and inflicted a loss of 1000 men. The Sultan's troops being the most numerous, the Mughals retired across the river, destroying the bridge after them [this shows the river, whatever it was, was not fordable], and took up a position on the opposite side. Vollies of arrows were discharged on either side until night closed, and during the darkness the Mughals, according to their favourite manoeuvre, seemingly, decamped. [If Walian lay where kundus does now, a messenger would have brought Chingiz with his whole army, or a large portion of it, from Tae-kan before night.] The Sultan now caused a great quantity of food and other necessaries [scarcely brought over the Parwan Pass] to be sent to the fortress of Wamian, after which he returned to his camp at Barwan.
Chingiz, having heard before Tae-kan of this reverse, despatched another force of 30,000 picked troops, under Shabkl Kotu [according to Yafa-i, but by our author and some others, Fikvi Nu-yan; by the Zafar-Namah, Kankud and other leaders ; and by others, Kubur] to take revenge, and prepared to follow in person ; and one morning, in the early forenoon, about a week after his return to Barwan, intimation readied the Sultan that the Mughals were approaching. He at once put his troops in motion, and advanced about a league to meet them, and drew up his ranks in readiness to receive them. [If the modern Parwan be the place, a position they were not likely to venture into with such a large force able to attack them within it, and a strong fortress in their rear, the Mughals must have been about, to issue from the pass, and the Sultan must have advanced towards its entrance to receive them ; but I doubt very much whether those who have seen those passes would consider such to be probable or possible.] Amin Malik had the right' wing, and Saif-ud-Din, Ighrak, the left, while the Sultan took post in the centre. He gave orders for the troops to dismount, and hold their horses' bridles in hand. [Thrown over the arm probably, but scarcely to '' bind the reins of their horses round their waists." What if the horses had taken fright? Even with the reins thrown over their arms, the men would have had to fight in a single rank—a strange mode of fighting. The probability is that the bridles of the horses were fastened at the saddle, to, or round, the horses' waists, which would enable a few men comparatively to look after them.] This they obeyed, determined to do or die. The right wing, under Amin Malik, being the strongest division of the Sultan's army, the Mughals directed their chief efforts against it, and it was forced back ; but, prompt aid being afforded from the left and centre, the Mughals, in their turn, were compelled to give way. Not a man on either side turned his back : great valour was shown on both sides, and the fighting only ceased with the light.
Next morning preparations were made to renew the engagement, but the Sultan's troops, having noticed the ranks of another division [the "wood and felt" ranks of the Rauzat-us-Safa], apparently drawn up in rear of the Mughal ranks, conceived that reinforcements must have reached them during the night, and they seemed disinclined to encounter them. Counsel Was taken as to the290
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
rewarded him; but, on the news of these successes of his reaching Chingiz Khan, he, being at Tal-kan of Khurasan [Tae-kan of Tukharistan ?] at the time, marched his armies towards Ghaznin4. Sultan Jalal-ud-Dinwas unable to offer
advisability of falling back to and taking shelter near the foot of the hills, and retiring to the high ground and spurs ; but the Sultan would not hear of such a prejudicial movement. The troops were directed to dismount as on the previous day [ordering them to dismount would indicate ground impracticable for cavalry, but dismounting to fight also indicates.a determination to conquer or die]; and, on this occasion, the enemy's efforts were directed against the left wing under Saif-ud-Din, Ighrak, the valour and spirit of whose men they had had such recent proof of, and their best men were pitted against it. The troops of the left wing, however, stood their ground so determinedly, and plied their arrows with such effect, that the Mughals were hurled back. They having turned their backs without venturing to renew the attack, the Sultan directed that the tymbals should sound the charge, upon which the whole force mounted and charged the Mughals [I fancy the Parwan Pass is not a nice place for a general charge by a numerous army of cavalry], who turned their backs and made off. Again ihey rallied, charged the Sultan's advanced troops, and inflicted a loss of 500 warriors ; but the Sultan flew to the rescue, and again charged the Mughals and put them to final rout, making great slaughter among them. The two leaders returned with the remnant of their forces to Chingiz's camp at Tae-kan.
The Sultan's troops, having defeated the Mughals, took to plunder; and, most unfortunately, a dispute arose between Amm Malik and Saif-ud-Din, Ighrak, about a horse, and Amln Malik, in the heat of the dispute, struck the latter over the head with his whip. The Sultan was unable [not "unwilling"] to investigate the matter, because he doubted whether the Kankulis [Amln Malik's followers] would submit to any decision. In consequence of this untoward event, Saif-ud-Din, Ighrak, smarting under the insult, stayed with the Sultan but for the day; and, when night set in, "with the instinct [and cunning] of the wild beasts," he marched away with his whole force towards the mountains of Karrman and Sankuran [some say, Shanuzan],
This event completely broke the power of Jalal-ud-Dln, having deprived him of nearly half his army ; and, -under the circumstances, he thought it advisable to retire to Ghaznin.
4 Chingiz Khan, who had now disposed of Tae-kan, having become aware of this division among, and partial dispersion of, the Sultan's army, hastened to take revenge. Leaving his heavy material behind at Buklan, he advanced with his whole available force^ by way of Andar-ab, it is said, against WamTan or Bamian. [This certainly must be the Walian, as he would scarcely have left it unmolested. ] He was detained a month before it, and, having taken it, he put every soul to the sword, and then set out against Sultan Jalal-ud-Dln.
The Sultan, on becoming aware of Chingiz's intentions, being far too weak to make a stand against such forces, which no ruler of that time could outnumber, resolved to cross the Sindh, and retire into Hindustan [the reason probably was, that he claimed the western parts of the Panjab, and also of Sindh, as successor to the dominions of Mu'izz [Shihab]-ud-DTn, Ghuri.- and, leaving a garrison at Ghaznin, he set out. Uz Khan was left at Kajlah [W Kajla, probably, the name of a place on the route to the Indus by the Paiwar Pass], with the .rear-guard of the Sultan's small force, to endeavour toTHE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY.	'291
resistance to these forces, and retired towards Burshor [Pesha-
hold Chingiz's advance at bay, and give him time to send his family and effects across, and to get his followers across also, on the appearance of the Mughals, but Uz Khan was defeated and forced back. Chingiz, who saw through the Sultan's object, and knew that he had left Ghaznin fifteen days before his reaching it, pushed on with all possible celerity, and, after crushing the Sultan's rear-guard, made a forced march during the night. It was in the month of Rajab, 618 h. [corresponding to September, 1221 a.d., although a few writers mention Shawwal—December]; and, when the morning dawned, the Sultan, who was encamped near the bank of the river nearly opposite the Nll-ab ferry [the place where Timur is said, subsequently, to have passed the Indus, but he crossed at Dinkot], and who had along with him his family, dependents, and treasures, found the Mughals on three sides of him—they were in his front and on both flanks, and the river was in his rear. Notwithstanding the extreme danger of his situation, he was not to be daunted, and determined to stand his ground. The Mughals began by attacking his right wing [the odds were more than fifty to one], under Amln Malik, a body of them having advanced alonjr the river's bank to take him in flank ; and they overpowered him, and most of his party were slaughtered. Amin Malik, with the few men remaining of the right wing, made for Barshawar ; but, as the Mughals had occupied the route, he and they were all slaughtered by the way. The left wing, under Khan Malik, was likewise [overwhelmed. The Sultan had kept up this unequal combat from dawn to noon, and was now left with the remains of his centre reduced by this time to about 700 men [some say 100 only]. He flew from the flank to the centre, and centre to flank of the enemy, and fought like a lion at bay, charged them repeatedly [the Mughals were commanded not to kill him, but to take him alive if possible], overthrowing numbers, and clearing a space around him at every onset, and filling them with amazement at his valour. All was of no avail; it was like attempting to stay the ocean's billows, for the Mughal forces increased every moment by the arrival of fresh troops, and pressed forward, every instant contracting the area round the gallant Sultan. [If the reader will examine one of the Panjab survey maps of this part, he will find that the nature of the ground was of some advantage to Sultan Jalal-ud-DIn, by rendering it difficult for the Mughals to show an extended front.]
When he perceived that his situation was become desperate, and had gone beyond name and fame, he surveyed the scene with tearful eyes and fevered lip. At this crisis Ujash, Malik [also Akhas], son of Khan Malik, his maternal uncle, seized the bridle of his horse, and dragged him away. With weeping eyes, and his heart filled with a thousand pangs, he bade adieu to his wives and children, his mother, and other relations and dependents, called for his state charger to be saddled and brought forth, and, having mounted him, once more, like the crocodile, he plunged into the sea of conflict, and, having forced back the foremost of the enemy for a short distance, turned round, divested himself of his armour, slung his shield at his back, and, seizing his canopy without its staff, and urging his charger with his whip [spurs not used], he plunged into the Sindh, although the water was at a distance of eight or ten yards below the bank; and, armed with his sword, spear, shield, and quiver of arrows, "like unto a fearless lion rushing along a plain, he passed the Jihun, and reached the opposite bank in safety, after having been carried down some distance by the force of the current, and before reaching a spot favourable for landing." [A camel does not look very " proud" when crossing a river, much less the Indus, even in a boat. See Elliott vol. ii., note 2, page 552'.292
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
war ?]; and, on the banks of the river Sind, an encounter
Between a lion and a camel there is a vast difference, although they are but two points—and y-L—but who could mistake them, the camel being a very model of awkwardness? The word " JThiin," used by one of the authors from which this is taken, seems to signify any mighty river, as the Jihun of Sindh ; and, in this sense, Ibn Kh,urdabih appears to use it. There is a place, on the west bank of the Indus, a little below Nil-ab, called Ghora-Trap, or the "Horse's Leap," and very probably the name is derived from the Sultan's feat above recorded. Chingiz Khan caused a monument [«->] to be erected where the battle took place. It has been said [Elliot, vol ii., App. page 571], that "the passage of the river [Indus] would have been no such very gallant feat [Columbus and the egg to wit : nothing is after it has been accomplished !] in that month [December] when the river was at its lowest," and reference is made to " Altamsh" [I-yal-timish] and old Ranjit Singh ; but where did they cross ? Where the river was broad and shallow, and the current not rapid ; but where Jalal-ud-Din is said to have plunged in from the overhanging bank, some 25 to 30 feet above the water, was at a place a few miles below Nil-ab, where the river is about 180 feet deep, 250 yards wide, and running at the rapid rate of nine or ten miles an hour. The whole distance between Nil-ab and this place maybe described as one immense and irresistible rapid. See Wood : " Oxus."] Chingiz, seeing the Sultan in the act of crossing, galloped to the bank ; and some of his Mughals would have thrown themselves in after him, but Chingiz forbade them, and they took to their bows. A group, who witnessed the scene, relate that, as far as their arrows could reach, the water was red with blood, for several of his followers followed his example. Some idea may be formed, from what has been noticed above, of the value of the " Universal History," the best authority for the English reader to consult, when it is therein stated, that Jalal-ud-Din, when in the middle of the river— running about nine miles an hour—"stopped to insult Jenghiz Khan, who was come to the bank to admire his courage, and emptied his quiver of arrows against him" !!
Having reached the opposite side, the Sultan, slowly and sorrowfully, rode upwards along the bank until he reached a spot facing his own camp, and beheld the plunder of his family, kinsmen, dependents, his treasures, and all his belongings, without being able to render them succour, while Chingiz continued astride his horse on the opposite side, pointing out the Sultan to his sons. The Sultan now dismounted from his charger, loosened the girths, took off the felt saddle-cloth, together with his own tunic and cloak, and his arrows, and laid them in the sun to dry, and spread his canopy on the head of his spear, which he stuck into the ground to shade him from the sun. He remained all alone until the time of afternoon prayer, when about seven of his followers joined him, and a small tent was pitched for his convenience. Whilst the light permitted, he watched the proceedings of the Mughals, "whilst the heavens above looked down upon him with wonder and amazement, as though they said,—
' Never hath the world beheld a man like this, Nor heard of one among the heroes of ancient times.' "
Ch,ingiz Kh,an and the whole of the Mughals, who witnessed this wonderful feat, placed their hands to their mouths [denoting amazement]; and Chingiz himself, when he beheld the Sultan's lofty bearing, turned his face towards his sons, and said, — "Such a son as this is worthy to survive his father ! Since he has escaped the vortex of fire and water, and reached the shore of escape,THE KHWARAZM-SHAHlAH DYNASTY.	293
took place between them. Sultan Jalal-ud-Din was defeated and overthrown, and he threw himself into the river, and retired, discomfited, into Hindustan.
The august Sultan, Shams-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, despatched a force from his armies against him, upon which Sultan Jalal-ud-Din turned aside, and proceeded towards Uchchah and Multan\ From thence he entered the
countless deeds will be achieved by him, and vast trouble caused ; and, as long as he lives, it is fallacious for us to entertain the hope of dominion and empire, and how then is it possible for any prudent man to be heedless of his actions !"
Several historians say, that this event occurred in the "vicinity"	of
Barshawar; and, from this, we may judge how far Waihind or Bahind, mentioned under Mahmud of Ghaznin [page 76], may have been distant from that place. See also note 5, page 285.
5 Here we have a good specimen of our author's wilful concealment and distortion of facts : he could not have been ignorant of these events, which happened during his own lifetime, in the country in which he was residing, and at Court, where all these matters were perfectly well known. He came first into Sindh in 624 H., not long after they happened. I must only give a brief summary of the principal events to elucidate Jalal-ud-Din's Indian career, and correct our author's blunders and misstatements. The Sultan, having crossed the Indus in safety, as soon as night came on, entered the Chul [uncultivated or desert tract] of Jaruk—called to this day, the Chul-i-Jalali—with his few followers, and was joined, by degrees, by stragglers from his army, until they numbered about 50 or 100 men, some badly armed. With this handful of followers he attacked a town, where there was a considerable force of HindQs, defeated them, and captured the place, and in it obtained some horses and arms. Shortly after, others of his men, who had escaped from the banks of the Indus, also joined him. He sent a force of 500 horse against another place in that vicinity, and again defeated the people of those parts, who showed hostility towards him. By degrees his force increased to between 4000 and 5000 men ; and Chingiz, who was still in the vicinity of the Indus, on hearing of it, and fearing the energy of Jalal-ud-Din, despatched a force against him under a leader named Turtae. The Sultan, not being strong enough to oppose the Mughals, retired through a part of the Panjab towards the frontier of the kingdom of Dihli. On this the Mughal leader again retired, after plundering the neighbourhood of Malkapur. The Sultan despatched an envoy to I-yal-timish, the slave-king of Dihli, on arriving near his frontier, requesting that the latter would assign a place for his residence for a short time, and urged this request upon the previous good understanding, which had existed between them as neighbours [his father's officials and the ruler of Dihli probably], and further urged the great advantage of mutual support, and that, even for humanity's sake, he would grant this favour of an asylum. " The base nature of the slave, however, was," as one author says, "unchanged in the king; and, sprinkling his head with the dust of churlishness and ill-nature, he, after taking a long time to consider on the subject, put the Sultan's envoy to death [some say he had him poisoned], under pretence that the envoy had been conspiring against him, but, in reality, fearing the effect upon his own Turkish followers, and probably the Sultan's superiority over himself, his warlike character, his nobility of mind, and great energy. The manumitted slave294
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
territory of Kirman, and afterwards Fars. The Ata-bak,
excused himself by saying, that the climate of the country would not agree with the Sultan's health, but that, if he would accept a place in the environs of Pihll, one should be assigned to him. This, of course, was to get him into his power, if possible. As to I-yal-timish sending " an army" against the Sultan, it is absurd : he knew better than to do that. He did send a great man as envoy, with rich presents and supplies, and false excuses, for the murder of the Sultan's envoy. The Sultan, having returned to Balalah and Nikalah, near Lahor, and his forces having now increased, by the arrival of many of his old soldiers, to the number of about 10,000, but by no means sufficient to bring the ruler of Dihli to account, despatched a portion of his army against the Hills of Jud. That force defeated the Khokar [or more correctly, Khokhar] chief, erroneously styled Rae Kokar and Kokar by most writers [the Ghakhars are quite a distinct race], and returned with great booty. The Sultan demanded the chief's daughter in marriage, which was readily acceded to; and, moreover, the Rae sent his son at the head of a considerable body of his tribe, to join the Sultan's troops, and the title of Kutlagh [some say Kullj] Khan was bestowed upon the latter.
Hostility of long standing existed between the Khokhar chief and Kubachah, governor of Sindh [the whole valley of the Indus, below the Salt Range, was called Sindh in those days], who had now begun to consider himself an independent sovereign. He was encamped near Uchchah with 20,000 men, and a force of 7000 was despatched against him, by the Sultan, under Jahan Pahlawan, guided by the chief's son. They "made a forced march, and, falling suddenly upon Kubachah, in the night, totally overthrew him. Kubachah got on board a vessel, and made for his stronghold of Akar and Bakar [Sakar and Bhakar? Jami'-ut-Tawarikh says, "two fortresses on one island"], "which are two islands in the river Sindh" [more on this subject anon], and the Sultan came to Uchchah. Kubachah now managed to get back to Multan, after having, on the Sultan's demand, paid him a considerable sum of money as tribute. The hot season coming on, the Sultan returned to the Salt Range hills again, and, on the way, took a fortress called Bisiram or Bisram [Bisram-pur?], where he was wounded in the hand by an arrow.
Chingiz had despatched another army against him, and the Sultan was obliged to move towards Lower Sindh. On. his arrival in sight of Multan, he sent an agent to Kubachah and demanded a contribution ; but he, knowing the Mughals were on the move, refused, and showed determined hostility. The Sultan did not tarry in the vicinity, but proceeded to Uchchah, which, proving hostile also, he remained before two days, and set fire to. From thence he advanced to Sindustan [the. name given by the generality of historians is Slwastan—Alft says, " Sadusan, which is Siwastan"]—the present European-ized Sehwan. The city and fortress were held by a deputy of Kubachah's, Fakhr-ud-Din, SalarT. A force sent out by him, under Lachin, a native of Khita, having been overthrown by the Sultan's vanguard under Uz Khan, Fakhr-ud-Din, on the Sultan's arrival, came forth, and delivered up the place. Jalal-ud-Dln entered the city, and remained there a month, after which he conferred a dress of honour upon Fakfa,r-ud-Din, left him in charge as his lieutenant in Sindustan, and marched to Dibal and Damrilah. A Habash [Ab) ssinian or negro], who was ruler of that part, fled, got on ship-board, and escaped. The Sultan encamped near those places ; and, from thence, detached a force, under Khas Khan towards Nahrwalah, from which he returned with immense booty. Sultan Jalal-ud-Din founded a Jami' Masjid at Diwal or Dibal, as itTHE ffHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY.	295
Abu-Bikr, ruler of Fars8, gave the Sultan his sister in
is also called, on the ruins of an idol-temple. [The situation of this place seems to have puzzled many. Istakhurl says it lies west of the river Mihran; AbT-l-Kasim, Ibn Hukal, says, in one place, that it lies on'the sea-coast on the eastern bank of the Mihran ; while, in another place, he says the waters of the Mihran fall into the sea east of Dibal. Abu-l-Kasim-i-'Abd-ullah, son of Khurdad, Khurasani, author of the Masalik-wa-Mama-lik, also says the Mihran passes Dibal on the east; but Abu-1-Fa?l says, plainly, that Brahmanabad was subsequently styled Dibal or Diwal and Thathah, and so does the Jami'-ut-Tawarikh and others also. Extensive ruins exist for miles around Thathah ; and, in endeavouring to fix the site of Dibal, which the ancient geographers say was situated on the coast, and modern writers expect to find there still, the latter do not make allowance for alterations and changes in the course, and for the deposits at the mouth of the Indus, which, during the lapse of many centuries, have increased the distance of the present Thathah from the sea many miles. The mouth [or mouths] of the Indus must have changed considerably within the last 250 years, if Thathah and Diwal be one and the same place; for Paynton, in his account of the voyage of Captain Christopher Newport, who took out Sir Robert Shirley as envoy to Persia in 1613, says Sir Robert was landed there. He remarks,—"We came to an anchor near the city of Diul, in the mouth of the river Sinde, in 240 30' N. Lat., and our varying at the same place 160 45'." Thathah is in Lat. 240 44', and Karachi, which is also supposed by some to be the site of Dibal, lies in 240 51'.]
Whilst in Lower Sindh, information reached the Sultan, that his brother, Ghiyas-ud-Din, Pir Shah, was established in 'Irak; but that the troops, generally, desired his [Jalal-ud-Din's], presence, and were calling for him to head them ; and further, that Burak, the Hajib, was in Kirman, and was then investing the town [city] of Bardasir. [Ibn Hukal says—" Bardasir, which is to say, Gawashir.] These things, together with information respecting the movements of a large Mughal force [the one previously alluded to, which was despatched into the Mukranat—the Mukrans], and the return of Chingiz to his own country again, determined the Sultan to set out for 'Irak by way of Mukran, which he did in 621 H. ; and, like Alexander before him, lost a number of his followers from the unhealthiness of the climate.
From this point, in order to save space, I must greatly curtail the notes I had written, although the remaining events in the career of Jalal-ud-Din are very interesting. The Sultan entered Kirman, and Shuja'-ud-Din, Abu-l-Kasim's son, who held out Gawashir [also called Bardasir] for Ghiyas-ud-Din, the Sultan's brother, and who was then holding it against Burak, the Hajib, came out and presented the keys to the Sultan. Burak pretended to submit and to be most loyal, and gave his daughter to the Sultan, but, subsequently, shut him out of the capital, and sent out his followers, although he pretended merely to hold it, and the territory of Kirman, as the Sultan's deputy. Jalal-ud-Din had matters of greater importance to engage his attention at that time, and he accordingly set out for 'Irak by way of Shiraz, and sent an envoy to the Ata-bak Sa'd to announce his coming.
6 Not so : the Ata-bak Sa'd still ruled in Fars, and Abu-Bikr did not succeed him until 628 H.—seven years subsequently. How different was the behaviour of Sa'd to that of the "august Sultan" of our author ! As soon as the Sultan's agent came, he despatched his son, Salghur Shah, with 500 horse,, to do him honour, and to apologize for not coming himself, because, some time296
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
marriage, and entertained him as a guest. From Fars, Jalal-ud-Din entered the country of Azarbaijan, and defeated the infidels of Gurj7 [Georgia], and reduced that country under his jurisdiction.
previously, he had taken an oath which he could not break, that he would never more go forth to receive any one soever. Jalal-ud-Din accepted his apology, received his son with great favour, and conferred the title of Farzand JOjan upon him. On the Sultan reaching the neighbourhood of Sa'd's capital, he supplied him with every sort of thing that could be desired—clothes, arms, horses, supplies of all descriptions, and even Habashi. Hindi, and Turkish slaves to serve him. After certain agreements and stipulations had been concluded between them, the Ata-bak Sa'd gave a daughter of his own in marriage to the Sultan, the ceremonies of which were duly celebrated, and a thoroughly good understanding was established between them, and Sa'd was confirmed in his possessions. On his departure for Isfahan, the Sultan induced Sa'd to release his son Abu-Bikr, who had long been imprisoned for hostility towards his father [see page 1^8], and Abu-Bikr was released and allowed to follow in the train of the Sultan.
Having entered 'Irak, the Sultan proceeded to Rai; and his brother, Ghiyas-ud-Din, Pir Shah, pretended to submit to his brother's authority. On the way to Isfahan, the Sultan was joined by the venerable 'Ala-ud-Daulah, who bore the title of Ata-bak, and, for the last sixty years, had held the government of Yazd. He was the lineal descendant of the last of the Dlalamah rulers of the family of Buwiah. See page 66, and note 7.
Jalal-ud-Din's affairs n ,\v began to acquire some stability. He determined to proceed to Shustar for the winter of 621 H., and afterwards, having previously despatched an envoy, to proceed to Baghdad and endeavour to establish friendly relations with the Khalifah, and solicit his aid and support against the common enemy of their faith, or at least to obtain the countenance and sanction of the Khalifah for his own efforts against them. All was to no purpose : the hostility of Un-Nasir towards the father was continued towards the son, although the common enemy of their faith was, so to speak, at his own gates. He not only refused to hold any communication with him, but sent two armies to expel him from his territory; but the Sultan, who was compelled to fight in his own defence, defeated and routed both armies in detail, with much inferior numbers. Un-Nasir died in the following year, 622 H.
The Sultan, unsuccessful at the court of Baghdad, determined to bring under his jurisdiction the subject province of Azarbaijan, in which the Ata-bak, Yuz-bak, the son of the Ata-bak, Jahan Pahlawan, ruled. Yuz-bak fled from his capital, Tabriz, on the Sultan's approach, and retired to his stronghold of Alanjuk, leaving his consort, the daughter of Sultan Tughril [not Sanjar], Saljuki, in charge of the capital. She was aggrieved with Yuz-bak on some account, and stated that he had divorced her; and, having obtained a dispensation from the chief Kazi to that effect, she, after consulting with and obtaining the sanction of the chiefs and great men, agreed to deliver up Tabriz to the Sultan, if he would, after the prescribed period, marry her. The Sultan agreed, and the capital was delivered up to him, and he entered it in 622 H. Subsequently, he went to Nakhjuan, and espoused Shams Malikah Khatun, as agreed; and, a few days after the news reached her former husband, the Ata-bak Yuz-bak, he died of grief and chagrin.
' Soon after Jalal-ud-Din engaged in hostilities with the Gurj is, and wasTHE KHWARAZM-SHAHlAH DYNASTY.	297
He also fought engagements with the armies of Rum and of Sham, and was defeated and overcome; but, at length, peace was concluded between him and the army of Sham. Turti, the Mughal, who had invested Multan8, left Chingiz Khan, and came and joined Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, and became a convert to the Muhammadan faith.
The Mughal forces, upon several occasions, went in pursuit of Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, but victory always attended him9. At last, in the year 628, or 629 H., the Sultan was
successful against them ; but was impeded in his operations by Burak, the Hajib, throwing off his allegiance. He determined to move against the rebel at once, and acted with such celerity, that on the eighteenth day he reached Kirman from Tiflls, only 300 horse having kept up with him. Burak hastened to make submission, by sending apologies, rich and costly presents, and protestations of loyalty for the future, but did not, of course, venture into the Sultan's presence.. The latter could do nought else than accept his submission, for during his absence, Malik-ul-Ashraf, ruler of Sham, instigated by Burak to create a diversion in his own favour, sent an army into the Sultan's territory, under the governor of Akhlat, who carried off Shams Malikah Khatun from Khue. and dishonoured her [Jami'-ut-Tawarikh says, Malik-ul-Ashraf dishonoured her, and Rauzat-us-Saia says, it was the Hajib, 'Ali]; and the Gurjis also rose. The Sultan lost no time in taking revenge, and carried slaughter and devastation up to the very gates of Akhlat. He had, however, to abandon his operations against it, from intimation that two Mughal armies had entered 'Irak. One of these supposed armies turned out to be Jahan Pahlawan, Ir-bak [Thus in one copy of Guzidah, with the diacritical points; in others, Ir-lak and Ir-lik ; and in other writers, Uz-bak and Uz-bak and Uz-bak Khan, but I do not account the last three correct], and his followers, who had been left by the Sultan as governor of his conquests in the valley of the Indus. Jalal-ud-Din, however, broke up his camp before Akhlat. and retired into 'Irak to oppose the Mughals. Nearly every copy of the text has Karkh, instead of Gurj.
8	This statement is not mentioned by other authors quoted herein, and is very doubtful.
9	In Ramazan 624 H. [Jami'-ut-Tawarlkli and some others say, in 626 H., and others, 625 H., but the first, from other circumstances and data, is correct], he encountered the enemy between Isfahan and Rai. The right wing of the Sultan's army, led by Uz Khan, overthrew the opposing force of Mughals, when the Sultan's brother, Ghiyas-ud-Din, who had charge of the other wing, deserted during the action, with all his adherents, and fled into Luristan. [It was subsequent to this that he was put to death by Bura^. See page 285, and note2.] This dastardly act on the part of his brother caused the Sultan's overthrow, and he had to cut his way out of the fight. He succeeded in reaching the neighbouring hills, and, after some days, reached Isfahan, to the joy and surprise of the troops and people, who feared he must have perished. The Mughals, after this, retired into Kh,urasan again. Their object, at this period, seems to have been to prevent the Sultan's government from acquiring^ any stability, to ravage the country they passed through, and to endeavour to surprise him. In consequence of their retreat, the Sultan had time to renew
U298
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
encamped on the confines of Azarbaijan, on the side of Sham and Diyar-i-Bakr, when an army of Mughals came unexpectedly upon him, and he was obliged to fly1.
his operations in Gurjistan and Arman. He marched from Isfahan, in 625 H., and, having succeeded against the Gurjls, marched to Akhlat once more, took it by storm, captured the governor's [Hajib 'All's] wife, whom he made his slave, and amply revengfed the outrage Shams Malikah Khatun had suffered at her husband's hands.
Jalal-ud-Din now turned his arms against the Sultan of Rum, 'Ala-ud-Din, son of Kai-Kubad, Saljuki [see bottom of page 162], and Malik-ul-Ashraf, ruler of Sham, who had combined against him [all the Muhammadan rulers at this time, with few exceptions, seem bent on their own destruction, and played into the hands of the Mughals], and had been joined by forces from Arman, Gurjistan, and Kifchak [Krim?]. In the first action, the Sultan overthrew a portion of them ; but in a second engagement, having to dismount from his horse through illness, his troops, thinking he had retired from the field, became dispirited and gave way. They were not pursued, because the enemy considered their flight a mere stratagem of the Sultan's to draw them into an ambuscade. This is said to have taken place in 627 H. Jalal-ud-Din had endeavoured [in 627-8 H.] to induce the rulers of Rum and Sham to join him against the common enemy, but jealousy and suspicion on their part prevented so advantageous an alliance.
1 The end of the gallant Sultan's eventful career, however, was approaching. He had passed the winter of 628 H. in the neighbourhood of Irmaniah, when intimation reached him of the despatch of a fresh and numerous army of Mughals. under Jarmaghun, and of their early approach. He despatched Uz Khan, with a strong patrol, to make inquiries. He proceeded as far as Tabriz, where he was told that they had retired from the country again, and, without satisfying himself as to the truth of this report, he returned to the Sultan's camp with it. Thrown off his guard by this false report, the Sultan and his troops gave themselves up to festivity and carousal. After some time had elapsed, one night, in the month of Shawwal of the above year, the Mughals came suddenly upon him. The Sultan, who was sound asleep at the time from the effects of his potations, was aroused by Uz Khan, who urged him to fly. The Mughals had already got into his camp, and were slaying all Who came in their way. Uz Khan kept them at bay for a short time, during which the Sultan was able to mount his horse, and fly towards the hills of the Kurds. He wandered about for some time, when sleep overcame him ; he lay down, and fell fast asleep. A Kurd, attracted by the richness of his dress, seized him. The Sultan made himself known to him, and requested the man to conduct him to Malik Muzaffar, the then governor of Akhlat. The Kurd conducted him first to his dwelling, and then went back to the place where he had found the Sultan asleep to search for his horse, which had strayed whilst his master slept. Another Kurd, whose brother had been killed in the storming of Akhlat—some say by the Sultan's own hand—having heard where he was, came, during the absence of his clansman, and slew him in revenge for his brother's death.
With Jalal-ud-Din, the Khwarazm Shah! dynasty terminated. Some authors relate that he was not slain on the above occasion, but that he changed clothes with the Kurd, and turned devotee, and wandered about the world. Curiously enough, I have accidentally met with a confirmation of this. It isTHE KHWARAZM-SHAHlAH DYNASTY.	299
He succeeded in reaching a place in the territory of Akhlat, and halted to rest near a village, the chief of which recognized him. In a battle, which had taken place between the Sultan and the troops of Sham, he had slain the brother2 of that chief. Having the Sultan thus in his power, that chieftain martyred him. The next day, information was conveyed to the sovereign of Sham, who was greatly grieved [at his fate] ; and he commanded that the murderer should suffer condign punishment.
On the occurrence of this misfortune, the sister of the Ata-bak, Abu-Bikr, ruler of Fars [Jalal-ud-Din's consort], reached Sham. She was treated with honour and reverence, and was conducted back to Fars.
Thus the dominion of the Khwarazm Shahs terminated ; and their remaining Maliks, and their followers, took up their residence in Sham and in Misr.
most interesting, and from one who attended him in his last moments. Shaikh. 'Ala-ud-Daiilah, Al-ByabankT, us-Simnani relates as follows:—"When at Baghdad, I used daily, at noon, to wait upon the pious and venerable Shaikh. Nur-ul-Ha.VV wa ud-Din, 'Abd-ur-Rahman-i-Isfaraini—may his tomb be sanctified ! I happened to go upon one occasion, at the usual hour, and found him absent from his abode, a rather unusual occurrence at that time of the day. I went again on the following morning to wait upon him, and inquired as to the cause of his absence on the previous day. He replied, ' My absence was caused through Sultan Jalal-ud-Dln, Mang-bami, having been received into the Almighty's mercy.' I inquired, ' What, had he been living all this time ?' He answered, ' You may have noticed a certain aged man, with a mole upon his nose, who was wont to stay at a certain place,' which he named. I had often remarked the venerable devotee in question and that was the heroic, but unfortunate Sultan, Jalal-ud-Dln. According to this account, Jalal-ud-Din could not have died until 688 H., above sixty years after the period above mentioned.
2 The most reliable copies have "brother;" others, " brothers and sons and some again, "sons" only.SECTION XVII.
the shansabanlah sultans, and the maliks of 'ghur.
Minhaj-I-Saraj, Jurjani, the servant hopeful of the Divine mercy—the Almighty guard him from negligence and inadvertency !—says, with respect to this account of the Shansabaniah Maliks of Ghur, after this manner:—That the following pages are illumined with the sun of the illustrious race of the Sultans of Ghur. together with that of the offset of the fragrant tree of the Maliks of Ghur—may the Almighty God render their dust fragrant, and assign to them a habitation in Paradise !—in the manner of a record, from the dawn of the morning of their dominion, and the noon-day splendour of their sovereignty, together with the genealogy of their family, until the expiration of the empire of that princely house, and the last of the Maliks of that kingly dynasty—the mercy of the Almighty be upon those among them who have passed away1!—in such wise as masters have, in histories, made mention of them, in order that the robe of this chronicle may be adorned with an account of them, and also, in order that this [their] servant, and his priestly family, may acquit themselves of some portion of the debt of gratitude for benefits received, due unto those Sultans—the light of the Almighty illumine their tombs !—and, in order that such as may inspect these pages may, please God, derive profit and instruction.
Be it known, that that master of eloquence, Maulana Fakhr-ud-Din, Mubarak Shah, of Marw-ar-rud—the light of the Almighty illumine his tomb !—has strung the genealogical pearls of the Sultans of this dynasty on the thread of poetry, and, having arranged those pearls in perfect
1 When this flourish was penned they had ceased to hold any territory for nearly half a century.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHUR. 301
order, has affixed the head pearl of that string to the oyster-shell of the illustrious dynasty of Zuhak, the Tazi ; and, from the time of those Sultans up to the first commencement of the sovereignty of Zuhak, he has mentioned the whole of them, father by father.
This book2 their servant, Minhaj-i-Saraj, inspected in the year 602 H., before the exalted throne in the sacred haram [private dwelling] of that lady, the Princess of the Universe, and the most excellent of her day and of the age, the glory of the world and of the faith, the sovereign of all good qualities among the race of mankind, Mah Malik, daughter of the august Sultan, Ghivas-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Abi-ul-Fath, Muhammad, son of Sam, Kaslm-i-Amir-ul-Muminin—may the light of the Almighty illumine them! This Queen of the Universe used to bestow her fostering care and protection upon this frail creature [Min-haj-i-Saraj], and, in her own princely hall, as though he had been a child of her own, he was brought up ; and, in his younger years, he used, day and night, to dwell within her haram, and, under her blessed sight, he used to receive instruction.
That princess was possessed of many virtues and endowments. First: she departed from this transitory sphere, and passed to the eternal mansion, within the veil of maidenhood. Second : she knew the whole of God's word [the Kur'an] by heart. Third : she was a depository of all the traditions of martyrdom. Fourth: she used, once a year, to devote a certain period to religious exercises, and would repeat the whole Kur'an in two genuflexions of prayer. Fifth : when her father, Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, went to the mercy of the Almighty, for a period of seven years the light of the sun and of day never shone upon her, and she continued in constant and solitary prayer. The mercy of the Almighty be upon her, and may her happiness and her reward be ample in heaven !
In short, that master of eloquence, Maulana Fakhr-ud-Din, Mubarak Shah, has composed that genealogical list in verse, in the name of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, Jahan-soz ; and, at the outset, I heard from the sacred lips of that
' One historian quotes a portion of Fakhr-ud-Din's work, but it is too long for insertion here. He was a Saiyid, hence he is styled Shah.3°2
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
most excellent of her time, and Khadijah3 of the age, the Malikah-i-Jalali4, that, when some portion of the book and chronicle in question had been composed in verse, through a change which had showed itself in the temperament of Fakhr-ud-Din, Mubarak Shah, this poem was neglected by him until the time when the throne of the kingdom became adorned and beautified with the majesty and august splendour of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din5, Muhammad-i-Sam, when this chronicle became graced with his name and titles, and was brought to completion.
The Chronicler relates after this manner:—The Almighty knoweth the truth !—that this dynasty are called Shansa-banian with reference to their paternal ancestor [Shansab by name], who, after the removal of the sons of Zuhak, grew up in the country of Ghur. and attained great authority, power, and superiority, and acquired a name. The great probability is, that this personage lived in the time of the Khilafat of the Lord of the Faithful, 'All—may God reward him !—and that he received conversion to the faith at the hand of'All himself6, and that he took, from that Khalifah, a mandate and a standard; and to every one of that family, who used to sit upon the throne, that covenant which the Lord of the Faithful, 'All, had written, used to be presented to him, and he would agree to abide by it, after which he would become [legally] king. The family likewise were among the clients of the Khalifah 'All; and affection towards the High Priests of the family of the Chosen One used to be a firm tenet in their creed.
ACCOUNT OF THE FIRST [ANCESTORS] OF THE FAMILY, THEIR GENEALOGY, AND THEIR PROGENITORS, UP TO ZUHAK, SURNAMED TAZI.
Zuhak has been mentioned in the section on the ancient kings of Iran; and the duration of his reign was a thousand years less one day and a half.
3	Muhammad's first wife.
4	The same lady he previously referred to under the name of Mah-Malik.
5	One of the oldest MSS. has Mu'izz-ud-Din, the younger of the two brothers.
6	Jahan-Ara, and some other histories distinctly state that Shansab, son of Kharnak, was contemporary with the Khalifah 'All, and that he was converted to the Muhammadan faith by him. Compare our author's statement above with that at page 312.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF QHUR.	303
The learned in chronology differ considerably with respect to his ancestry and his forefathers, from Mihtar Adam down to Mihtar Nuh, on account of the great lapse of time7. The fraternity, who account Zuhak among the descendants of Sam, son of Mihtar Nuh, relate as follows :—Zuhak8, son of 'Anwan ['Ulwan], son of 'Amlak ['Amlat and 'Alak], son of 'Ad, son of 'As ['Awas and 'Awaz], son of Iram, son of Sam, son of Nuh, son of Lamak ; while others again have related that his [Zuhak's] name was Biwar-asp, son of Arwand-asp, son of Tuh, or Tawah [Tarh], son of Kabah [Kayah ?], son of Nuh.
Some, on the other hand, have stated :—Biwar-asp, or Biwar-asp, son of Arwand-asp9, son of Zankaba [Ranbaka], son of Tazio-barsed [Tazio-barsid, Tazio-barshed, Tazio-
7	The Muhammadan historians are at variance respecting the descent of Zuhak. Our author, in his account of him in Section V., says he was called Biwar-asp, and that God sent Nuh to him to exhort him to repent of his misdeeds, and that Nuh continued for ages to do so. He would not repent, and the Flood followed. Our author then copies Tabari [tolerably correct], and says that that author [the most trustworthy perhaps of any] states that Biwar-asp lived before the Flood, in which he perished ; and, one thousand years after the death of Nuh [compare with his statement here and at page 312], a king arose of the seed of Sam, son of Nuh, named Zuhak, who was a sorcerer.
Immediately after quoting Tabari, our author again says that Pesh-dad, son of Hoshang, had a son, Tazio by name, who is the father of all the 'Arabs. He had a son Zankaba, who had a son Arwand-asp, who was father of Zuhak. The Tarikh-i-MukaddasI, there quoted by him, says Zuhak's name is Biwar-asp, son of Arwand-asp, son of Tarah, son of Kayah, son of Nuh.
The Jami'-ut-Tawarikh, Tarlkh-i-Ibrahimi, and some others, say the 'Ajamis call Zuhak, Biwar-asp, and that the Patriarch Ibrahim lived during his reign ; but further state that great discrepancy exists among authors as to his descent. The 'Arabs say he was brother's son of Shadad-i-'Ad, and trace his descent to Iram, son of Sam, brother of Arfakhshad, while the Iranis say his name is Arwand-asp, son of Rinkawar [Zankaba ?], son of Sahirah, son of Tujz, son of Farawal, and- that Tujz was Hoshang's brother. Guzidah and others trace his descent from Jamshed, and say he was his sister's son ; but the greater number of chroniclers agree that he was sixth in descent from Kaiumurt, also written Kaiumurs. The people of Yaman, again, say Zuhak was of Yaman, of the tribe of Tubba' [the royal tribe of Arabia Felix, of whom Balkis, Queen of Sheba [Saba], was one], and that he was the first of the Fir'awns of Misr.
8	It will be well to mention here that the first name given in the following pages is the one considered most trustworthy from comparison, and in which the greater number and best copies of the text agree ; and that those within brackets are less so according to position.
9	Alwand-asp and Arwand-asp are also the names of the father of Luhr-asp, also called Arwand Shah.304
THE TABAKAT-I-NA$IRL
narsad, Tabur, Tazbu, and Tazbur], son of Farawwal [Farawal, Karawal?], son of Sia-mak, son of Mubshi [Mushbi], son of Kaiu-murs, son of Adam—peace be unto him !—while others again say :—Kaiu-murs, son of Lawad, son of Sam, son of Nuh.
The writers of chronicles [other than those above ?] relate after this manner, that Arwand-asp was the father of Zuhak1, and son of the son of Tazio-barsed [Tazio, Tazbu, and Tazbur] ; and, with the concurrence of historians, Tazio-barsed, likewise, was the father of all the 'Arabs, and brother of Hoshang Malik*; and the'Arabs are called Tazi3 through affinity to him. He held dominion and sovereignty over the nomad tribes of 'Arabs, as did his descendants after him. From him the authority passed to his son, Zanbaka [Zankaba ?], and from him to the latter's son, Arwand-asp [Arwan-asp],who was a just, wise, and Godfearing man. He had a son, Zuhak by name, who was exceedingly malicious and factious, a blood-shedder, and a great tyrant, and a cruel mail, whom Shaitan [Satan] had led astray from the right way4. He dug a well in the
1	According to Tabarl he [Zuhak] was a descendant of Ham, son of Nuh, and after the Flood there was no king upon the earth for a thousand years, until Zuhak, the sorcerer, arose ; but there are different accounts of him, and great discrepancies exist among authors concerning him. There are the remains of an immense fortress .near Bamian, still known as the castle of Zuhak-i-Marcin, or Zuhak of the Snakes.
2	Hoshang is considered the fourth in descent from Adam, and was the son of Sia-mak, who was son of Kaiumurt. Some consider him to be ArfakJisiad, son of Sam, who composed the Jawidan-Khirad. He is said to have founded Istakhur—Istaklur is the 'Arab form of writing rt— of Fars, Babal, and Sus.
3	Called also Taji by 'A-jamis, and hence the name Tajik \k added to 'Ajami names forms a diminutive], by which the descendants of 'Arabs were styled who were born in and had grown up in 'Ajam. At present the term is used with respect to Persian-speaking people who are neither Turks nor 'Arabs, and of which race the inhabitants generally of towns and cities in Afghanistan, and several districts likewise under Afghan sway, and also of several independent states to the north, consist. The Afghans often style them " Tajik-Majik." Numbers of'Arab tribes, or parts of tribes settled in different parts of 'Ajam, after its conquest by the first Musalman invaders, and several tribes dwelling among the Afghans, and often confounded with them, claim 'Arab descent. In my proposed history of the Afghan tribes, I shall be able to enter into more detail on this subject. Modern philosophers, however, are, as a matter of course, divided in opinion about the derivation of the name, and also as to the descent of the people ; but why should we begrudge them the infinite pleasure of still speculating upon the matter, and trying to make every other account fit that of certain Greeks? See page 309.
4	A few copies have "from the right way, so that he dug a well," &c.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR.	305
path which his father was wont to pass, and Arwand-asp, who had become old and infirm, fell into it, and was killed5.
Zuhak now became sovereign over the 'Arabs, and, after Jamshed [Jamshed's time ?] conquered the whole world, and by sorcery and tyranny, brought the whole of it under his sway. The author of the Tarikh-i-Mukaddasi states, that Zuhak possessed a cylinder, made of gold, in which were seven apertures, each of which was named after one of the seven climes of the four quarters of the earth. When the inhabitants of either of these climates happened to rebel against his authority, he would raise incantations in the aperture named after such climate, and breathe into it, and famine, pestilence, and calamity would arise in it.
After a thousand years of his sovereignty passed away6, Almighty God was pleased to release the world from his tyranny and oppression, and the kingdom came to Faridun. He seized Zuhak, and confined him in a pit on mount Dimawand, in 'Irak.
ACCOUNT OF BUSTAM, MALIK OF HIND AND OF SIND?.
This Bustam Malik held the dominion of Hindustan8 at the hand of Zuhak, and he was one of Zuhak's descendants,
s According to trustworthy authorities, this Biwar-asp became styled Zuhak, from the old Persian words e>l u dah-ak, signifying "ten vices and defects ;" and the 'Arabs, in copying the name, used <J> for 3 or and transformed it into ciJU^ by changing the « also into ^ With this change of letters, the original meaning of the word became changed, for [ZuhSLk] signifies " a mocker," " laughing."
His vices and defects were hideousness, dwarfishness, excessive arrogance and pride, shamelessness, audacity, gluttony and voracity, a foul tongue, recklessness, lying, injustice, ferocity and tyranny, depravity of heart, and stolidity. These are rather more than ten however. Rauzat-us-Safa says Biwar is from the Pahlawi, and in Dari means ten thousand ; and, therefore, Dah-ak received the name of Biwar-asp because he had always ten thousand 'Arab horses in his stables.
6	Tabari says his age was a thousand years, while other writers state that he reigned for that period of time.
7	Nine copies of the text have "Malik of Hind and of Sind," and others have " Hind and GJjur." In the map, if such may be so called, accompanying the account of Sijistan and adjacent parts, in the " Masalik-WA-Mamalik," the river of Hind and Sind adjoins Gljur on the north-east.
8	Sic in all copies of the text.3° 6
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
namely9:—Bustam, son of Mihshad [Mishhad, Mamshad, Shamad, Shad, Shihad, and Shihadan], son of Nariman [also called Nadiman], son of Afridun [or Faridun], son of Sahind [Samind and Samid], son of Sifand-asp [or Isfand-asp], son of Zuhak, son of Suhrab1, son of Shaid-asp, son of Sia-mak, son of Marnias [Marsas and Marnas], son of Zuhak the Malik.
When Zuhak was made captive, Afridun despatched an army to take possession of Hindustan; and Bustam, who did not possess the power to .oppose the forces of Afridun, retired towards the mountain tracts of Shaknan2 [Shaghnan] and Bamian, and therein took up his residence. On a second occasion the forces of Afridun were directed to proceed in search of him ; and Bustam had several times, for the purpose of hunting and in his rambles, come from the mountains of Shaknan and Tukharistan3 into the mountain tracts of Ghur. That district was called Hazar-Chashmah [the thousand springs] on account of the number of rivulets in it; and Bustam, at this time, retiring before the army of Afridun, came into Ghur, and at the foot of the mountain of Zar-i-Margh" [the place where Margh grows] he fixed his residence6.
9 Other writers say that Bustam was one of the descendants, not sons, of Zuhak, and that his progeny increased in Ghur up to the time of Shansab. who was contemporary with the Khalifah, 'All. Shansab was the son of Khamak. and from him descended Bustam, as well as Pulad. See page 311.
1	Jahan-Ara has Shahran.
2	The letters k and gh are interchangeable. A few copies have ^Uii for
3	Not Hwen Thsang's " Tokharistan," extending "ten days' journey by thirty," but a much smaller Tukh,aristan is meant here.
4	Zar signifies a place of growth, and " margh" is the name of a species of verdure called also farez, which any browsing animals feed on with great avidity. It is odoriferous, the reed scoenanthemum.
5	Other authorities state that when Faridun overcame Zuhak, a number of his descendants fled, and took shelter in the mountains of Ghur ; and that Bustam, who was one of his progeny, and who held Hindustan, being unable to cope with the forces of Faridun, he [Bustam] also took shelter in Ghur. The place he took up his residence at was, from the number of its springs and rivulets, called Hazar-Chashmah. and was an exceedingly pleasant and strong spot, and therefore he chose it, saying to himself " baro ; ma-andesk !"—" Go to; don't be concerned !" and that spot was subsequently called Mandesh. Bustam prospered there, and his descendants multiplied, and they were rulers, one generation after the other. Other writers say he first fled for shelter "to the mountain tracts of Bamian, which lie between Balkh and Kabul, and from thence entered the difficult country of Ghur, in which he founded several strong fortresses. He had wandered about in several parts previously before reachingTHE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHUR.	307
At this point in the account of Bustam, the masters of history have two traditions, one of which is that just related. The other tradition is from the Muntakhab-i-Tarikh-i-Na§iri, which one of the great men of Ghaznin composed in the time of the Sultan- i-Ghazi. Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Sam—the Almighty illumine his tomb !—which is as follows:—
" When Afridun overcame Zuhak, and took the dominion from him, two brothers, his sons, reached Nihawand. The elder brother bore the name of Suz6, and the younger was called Sam. The elder brother, Suz, became Amir [chief or ruler], and the younger, who was named Sam, became the Sipah-salar [leader or commander of his forces]7.
"Amir Suz had a daughter, and the Sipah-salar, SiLiV), a son; and these two cousins had, in early childhood, been betrothed to each other, and they had fixed their hearts upon each other. The Sipah-salar, Sam, died; and his son had become valiant and a great warrior, so much so, that in that day he had no equal in manliness and valour. After the decease of his father, certain envious and malicious persons arose, who slandered him to his uncle, Amir Suz, in consequence of which his uncle became irritated against him, and he determined to bestow his daughter upon the son of some one of the Maliks of the parts round about.
" When his daughter became aware of this, she made her cousin acquainted with it, so that, one night, he came and unfastened the gate of the fortress, and, having loosed and brought out ten chosen horses8 from the stables of Amir
Ghur ; and, as soon as Faridun became aware of his whereabouts, he despatched large forces against him, but, after protracted hostilities, the forces of Faridun were glad to accept terms, on account of the difficult nature of the country, and the strength of Bustam's castles. Tribute and taxes were imposed upon him [Bustam], and he had to content himself with Ghur. and not to molest other parts of the country. His descendants increased and multiplied up to the time of Shansab. who is said to have been converted by 'Ali. The Jami'-ut-Tawarikh states that the Ghuris are styled Ban! Rasib, otherwise famous under the name of Ug-Zuhak.
6	Some copies have Sur, but the oldest have as above. One has Sawar !
7	Such being the case, wherefore any cause of dispute afterwards, and appeal to the Khalifah, as to who should be ruler and who commander of the troops? See page 313.
8	Two copies of the text, which are reliable, have " ten chosen horses of his father, from the stables of Amir Suz."3O8
THE TABAKAT-I.NA§IRi.
Suz, he set the damsel and her servants upon them and made off, taking away as much coin as he was able to remove. With all diligence possible he made for the foot of the mountains of Ghur, and there he took up his quarters. The girl and her cousin said [to each other],' Za-o \i. e. Az-o] ma-andesh'—be not afraid of him—and the name of that place became Mandesh9; and there their affairs assumed stability1."
According to the first tradition, however, when Amir Bustam, with his followers, took up his residence in that locality, information was conveyed to Afridun. He was desirous of sending forces, for the third time, for the purpose of destroying and exterminating Bustam and his followers, or to take him [alive] if possible. The sons of Afridun, Tujz and Salm, by means of treachery, killed their brother, I-raj, who was on the throne of Iran2; and,
9 '' Lamandesh " in most copies of the text, but impossible from what he has just stated. Some copies are very different here, in style as well as words, and have, " They said that the name of that place was Du-mandesh, and at this time, on account of that great personage's coming thither, the name became Bulandesh." The I. O. L. MS., and R. A. S. MS., both agree that the name was " Roz-mandesh, and the name became Bulandesh," but omit the first clause of the last sentence. Mandesh is mentioned by some old writers as the name of a stronghold in Khurasan. Desh must not be confounded with the Sanskrit word Des—a country, &c. See note 6, page 306.
1	i. e. There they settled down permanently.
2	In his account of Faridun in Section V., our author says I-raj, the youngest son, held the countries of 'Irak-i-'Arab, and 'Irak-i-'Ajam, and Hind and Sind. Salm signifies peace, Tujz [also Tuj], boldness, daring, and I-raj, wisdom, with tact. The Rauzat-ut-Tahirin states that-he held Khurasan, and only a portion of Hind and Sind.
The Rauzat-us-Safa and some others say that a sept of the descendants of Zuhak, not the sons of Zuhak, finally took up their residence in the mountain tracts of Ghur. and that they were hard pressed for some time by the forces of Faridun, and became as desirous of accommodation as Farldun's general was of granting it; and the Zuhakis agreed to pay taxes and tribute, and not to encroach on other territory. £ee note 5, page 306-7.
In the account of the ancient kings of Asia, contained in the Rauzat-ut-Tahirin, taken from the work compiled from ancient records in the Pahlawi language in 259 H., and which work, subsequently, was partly put into verse by the poet, Dakiki, in Isma'Tl Samani's reign, and afterwards resumed by Ansari, and completed by Firdausi, in Mahmud of Ghaznin's time, but of course greatly embellished by the poets ; and also in Tabari, and Jami'-ut-Tawarikh, there are detailed accounts of the reign of Faridun; but although the death of I-raj is given therein, and agrees with what our author says [he doubtless took his short notice from Tabari], of course, nothing whatever is mentioned about Bustam. Karsh-asp, ancestor of Rustam, held Kabul,THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF ggUR. 309
on that account, Shah Afridun was greatly afflicted in heart, and distressed in mind, and he did not obtain3 his revenge upon Bustam. The latter, having found time and opportunity, turned his attention to peopling and rendering habitable the mountain districts of Ghur, and parts adjacent.
He despatched trustworthy agents to the presence of Shah Afridun, and sought for peace. Afridun complied with the request of Bustam, and, as he had now obtained security and safety, the followers, dependents, and partisans, and the 'Arab tribes akin or related to Zuhak, from all parts around, turned their faces towards the mountain district of Ghur. and took up their residence in that country, and the number of those tribes became very great.
As Almighty God had willed that from that race pious kings and potent sovereigns should arise, He prospered and blessed those tribes so that they attained unto the faith and covenant of Islam ; and from the mine of the seed of
Zabul, and Sijistan for Faridun, and any petty chief would naturally have been tributary to the former. The nephew of Karsh-asp, Nariman, had a son named Sam, who was father of Zal, father of Rustam. Sam is said to have held Zabul, and Kabul, as far as Hind, in feudal sovereignty from the rulers of Iran. What I wish here to draw attention to, however, is the following: "Zal, having succeeded to his father's fief, went to Kabul [Zabul?] from Zaranj [founded by Karsh-asp], and Mihrab Shah, of the race of Zuhak, the Tazi, the tributary ruler, came forth to receive him, and acknowledged his supremacy. Mihrab Shah gave his daughter to Zal, and she was Rustam's mother." Subsequently, this same Mihrab Shah is said to have led the right wing of the army of Kai-Kubad, the first of the Kaianian dynasty, in the expedition against Afrasiyab, the Turk. The Jami'-ut-Tawarikh also states that, when Afrasiyab crossed the Jihun into Khurasan, he detached a force to intercept Sam, or keep him in check ; and, when the force reached the Hlr-mand, Mihrab Shah, who held the city and fortress of Zabul, as deputy of Zal, sent a message, as a ruse only, to its commander, saying, " I am neither Zabuli nor Irani, but of the race of Zuhak ; and am loyally inclined to Afrasiyab." These accounts are, at least, equally as trustworthy as the legends of Greeks about themselves, and perhaps more so. I hope very shortly to give them in detail. I am one of those [weak-minded persons perhaps] who consider the historians of a country best qualified to write its history—its early history at least—and prefer the accounts of ancient Persia, given by the old Irani and 'Arab writers after the time of its conquest, to those of Greeks who do not even know the names correctly, just as I should esteem the history of England, from the pen of a Hume or a Lingard, superior to one written by a native of India who had sojourned three months in London, or by a Chinaman who had never visited it.
8 One copy has, "and he did not give his mind to taking revenge on Bustam."THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
them the gems of sovereignty were arranged upon the thread of dominion. Some thousands of mosques were founded in place of ancient idol-temples ; and the laws and canons of Islam were promulgated to the very extremity of the region of Hindustan which adjoins that of Chin— the mercy of the Almighty be upon them ! These Sultans likewise acquired slaves, every one of whom spread the carpet of justice upon the surface of the world, and raised palaces of beneficence and munificence; and, up to this present time, the heir of that sovereignty and successor to the functions of that empire, is the pearl of the oyster-shell of ascendency, out of the ocean of dominion, the Great Sultan, Nasir-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Abi-l-Muzaffar, Mah-mud, son of the Sultan, Kasim-i-Amir-ul-Muminin4—the Almighty perpetuate his sovereignty and dominion, and may he long reign !
The Sultans of the Shansabi dynasty have been divided into four groups :—I., that class, the mention of which will now be recorded, of which Sultans Firuz-koh was the seat of government; II., the dynasty of the Sultans of Bamian, who were a branch from this great tree of sovereignty ; III., the dynasty of the Sultans of Ghaznin, which was the capital of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Ghazi. son of Sam, and his own particular slaves, every one of whom, after him, ascended the throne ; and IV., the dynasty of the Sultans of Hindustan, the heritage of which dominion, and the sovereignty of which monarchy passed to them, and after whom the race of Shams!5 became established upon the throne of royalty. May the Almighty purify the tombs of those who have passed away, and prolong the sovereignty of those remaining to the judgment day !
As much as was discoverable respecting this race in chronicles has been recorded [here], although, in the com-
4	Some of the best copies of the text have, " son of the Sultan of Sultans," and omit the KasTm altogether. If the Shansabani Sultans had any right to assume such a title [explained farther on], neither the slave, nor the slave's son, this "pearl of the oyster-shell of ascendency," the poor puppet to whom our author dedicated his work, had the most remote right to assume it.
5	Only a single copy has this passage correct. The slaves here referred to were not relatives nor kinsmen of each other. Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, however, married a daughter of Kutb-ud-Din, 1-bak, his owner, who ruled in Hindustan ; and the dynasty of the former, from his name, Shams-ud-Din. is styled the Shams! or Shamsiah dynasty.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF £HUR. 311
pilation of it, there was not an uninterrupted succession to be set forth6.
I.	AMIR PULAD [OR FULAD], GHURI, SHANSABI.
Amir Pulad, Ghuri. was one of the sons of Malik Shan-sab', son of Kharnak ; and he brought8 under his jurisdiction the districts of the mountain tracts of Ghur. He rendered the names of his fathers immortal; and, when the advocate9 [of the cause] of the house of 'Abbas, Abu-Mus-lim-i-Marwazi1, arose, and considered it expedient to oust and to expel the Amir of the family of 'Ummiah from the territory of Khurasan, Amir Pulad led the forces of Ghur to the aid of Abu-Muslim-i-Marwazi3, and greatly distinguished himself in supporting and assisting the house of 'Abbas and the family of the Prophet.
For a long period the dominion over Mandesh3, and the authority over the mountain tracts of Ghur was exercised by him. He died ; and his dominions remained in the possession of the sons of his brother4, and, subsequently, their affairs [and proceedings] were not to be discovered, up to the time of Amir Banji, the son of Naharan.
II.	AMIR BANJI, SON OF NAHARAN, SHANSABI.
Amir Banji, son of Naharan, was a great lord, and, in Ghur, his memory is undying; and he is accounted among the greatest and most famous of the Maliks of that country.
6	At this place, in some copies, a totally distinct idiom is used to express the same sense.
7	See note 9, page 306.
8	Some copies have "came" under his jurisdiction, and others "were" under, &c.
9	It is something new, certainly, to find that " Sahib-i-Da'wat" means " a founder."
1	That is, a native of Marw.
2	In the accounts of Abu-Muslim, the quondam "founder" of this house of 'Abbas, and in the accounts of those transactions in the history of the Khali-fahs, there is no mention, of course, of the great support they received from Pulad the Ghuri. Some writers say that the fief of Ghur was conferred upon Amir Pulad and his descendants on account of the services rendered by him, and that he added to it by annexing other tracts of country.
3	All the copies of the text here, with few exceptions, write this name differently as well as incorrectly. There is no doubt that Mandesh is the correct name. See note 6, page 306, and note 9, page 308.
4	Which brother is, of course, nameless.312
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
The whole of the Sultans were descended from his sons5; and his genealogy has been thus made out:—Banji, son of Naharan, son of War-mesh6, son of War-mesh an [War-masan, Dar-manshan, War-mashan, and War-heshan], son of Parwez, son of Parwez7, son of Shansab, son of Kharnak8. son of Bain or Bayyin, son of Munshi9, son of Wajzan [Wazn, Wazan, and Warat, or Darrat, or Dirat?], son of Hain [Hin, or Hunain ?], son of Bahram, son of Hajash. or Khajash, [Jahs, or Jahsh ?], son of Ibrahim, son of Mu'ddil [Ma'add, or Ma'id], son of Asad [Nasad ?], son of Shad ad, son of Zuhak.
Amir Banji was excessively handsome, and of excellent disposition, and endowed with all good qualities and natural gifts. When the dominion of the house of 'Abbas acquired stability 1, and the empire of Islam came under the sway of the Khalifahs of that family, he presented himself at the Court of the 'Abbas! Khalifahs ; and the first person of the Ghurian race who proceeded to the Khalifah's Court2, and brought [back] a covenant and a standard, was Amir Banji, son of Naharan.
The cause of his proceeding to the presence of the Lord of the Faithful, Harun-ar-Rashid, was this:—In the territory of Ghur there was a tribe who are called Shisanian3,
5	And from him, too, we may suppose.
6	Jahan Ara has Nahawan [and Nahadan], son of Wir-mesh [and War-mesh], son of War-manshan ; and Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh has Nahawan, son of War-mesh, son of War-mashan. Firishtah [Muhammad Kasim, not " Briggs;" who turns Shansab l into Shisty /], to judge from three or four copies of the text, has made a terrible hash of these names; and, of course, Dow scarcely ventures to meddle with them, but those he does interfere with he succeeds, as with others in every place in his volumes, in making so ridiculous that their own mothers could not distinguish them. But what can be expected of a translator who does not appear to have known what J^-ji' [mu'arrikhan, signifying "annalists, historians"] meant, which he, in his innocence, styles "Mor Chan, the historian" [vol. i. p. 131],'andyet his work is the great cabbage-garden for modern historians of India for the million !
7	One copy alone of the text has " Parwez, son of Parwez," but it is one of the best copies I have.
R Respecting this name there is not the least doubt : '' Harnak " is not correct.
9 Another name for Utarid [Mercury] is Munshi.
1	Harun-ar-Rashid, to whose court Amir Banji went, was the fifth 'Abbas! Khalifah.
2	See page 302, where Shansab is said to have been converted by the Khalifah, 'All, and to have brought back with him a covenant and a standard.
3	That is to say, the name of the tribe was Shis, and, when speaking of its people, Shisan or §h Iranian.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GH^R-	313
and they assert that, in the first place, their ancestor embraced the true faith, and then the Shansabanian did ; and Muhammad, in the dialect of Ghiir, they call Hamad [Ahmad ?], and, after they had embraced Islam, they became styled Hamadi [Ahmadi ?], that is to say, Muhammad!4. In the time of Amir Banji, the Mihtar [chief] of the tribe of Shisanian was an Amir named Shis, son of Bahram ; and, in the language of the Ghuris, Shis they call Shis5, and this tribe they call Shisanian. after the name of this Amir. Now between Amir Shis and Amir Banji, son of Naharan, dissension arose about the lordship of Ghur ; and [in consequence] disturbance ensued among the people of that territory. The whole agreed together, on either side, that both the Amirs, Banji and Shis, should proceed to the presence of the Khalifah. and whichever should bring back from the Court of the Khilafat a covenant and a standard should be accounted Amir. Both disputants made their arrangements with the determination of undertaking their journey, and setting out towards the Dar-ul-Khilafat. The throne of the Khilafat. at this time, was adorned by the radiance of the Lord of the Faithful, Harun-ar-Rashid.
The chronicler relates that, in that country [Ghur] there was a merchant, a Yahudi [Jew], [a follower] of the religion
* By nearly every other writer of authority they are said not to have embraced Islam up to the time of Husain, son of Sam, son of Hasan, who was made ruler of Ghur by Mas'ud-i-Karlm, Sultan of Ghaznin. See page 321 and note 7.
I have several times mentioned that the various copies of the text collated may be divided into two sets, which, in many places, differ considerably in idiom. At this place, the oldest and best copies have Khamad Khamadi [^j^i-], and Akhmadi	and also at page 369, whilst the more
modem copies have Hamad, and Hamadi, with the exception of the I. O. L. MS. No. 1952, which, at page 369, has Khamadi also. The points of letters are often omitted in writing, and ^ might be written for but that £ should be written for although possible, is not so probable. Still I do not consider myself quite justified in adopting the reading of the older copies, although the Ghurfan tribes may have given ^ the harsher sound of I certainly have never met with a similar instance of the kind. We may suppose, with some certainty, that the Ghurians merely adopted the other name of Muhammad, derived from the same root, namely AJt>mad, by which the prophet is mentioned in the Kur'an [a matter which has been much discussed], and hence they used Afcmadi in preference to Muhammad!. See page 369.
s That is to say, the Ghuris did not correctly pronounce the 55, lisped s of the 'Arabs, but pronounced it as common s.
X314
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
of Mihtar Musa [Moses], on whom be peace ! This merchant entertained a friendship for Amir Banji. He had travelled a great deal, and had acquired great experience in the ways of the world, and had frequented the capitals of the rulers of the countries around, and had become acquainted with the usages and forms of etiquette of the Courts of Sultans and Princes ; and he set out in company with Amir Banji.
He was acquainted with the objects and intentions of Amir Banji, and he said to him :—" If I should instruct thee in etiquette, and make thee acquainted with the usages of decorum and politeness, and give thee proper knowledge of the forms and ceremonies observed at the Court of the Khilafat, and in the presence of sovereigns, so that on that account the authority and government of the territory of Ghur shall be conferred upon thee, do thou enter into a covenant with me, that, in every tract that I may desire, throughout the whole of thy territory, thou shalt assign a locality to, and cause to settle therein, a number of the Bani-Isra'il [children of Israel], followers of the faith of Mihtar Musa, in order that under the shadow of thy protection, and beneath the guardianship of thy Maliks and thy offspring, they may "dwell in peace and tranquillity6." Amir Banji, son of Naharan, entered into a covenant with that merchant of the Bani-Isra'il, and said :—" When thou teachest me the usages of politeness, and instructest me in the rules of conduct and demeanour necessary to be observed before princes, and in paying homage at the Court of the Khilafat. I will fulfil the whole of thy requests, and fully satisfy thy desires."
This covenant having been duly settled on both sides, the merchant of the Bani-Isra'il commenced to instruct Amir Banji in the polite usages necessary to be observed before princes, and at the Courts of sovereigns, and the requisite forms of respect and reverence needed at the
6 I would here call the reader's particular attention to the universal tradition of the Afghans, recorded in all'histories of them, respecting their claim to Israelitish descent. But they consider it an insult to he called Yahudis or Jews, and declare that they are Bani-Isra'il. Many European writers declare most energetically that such a descent is impossible. Perhaps if it had been recorded in Greek, or merely mentioned by one of that nation, they would have been equally energetic in the other way.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHftR.	315
Khalifah's Court. The merchant likewise began to put in order and make ready a dress for him, consisting of a tunic, a cap, boots, and breeches, and to perfect him in riding and in the mode of wearing his arms, in such wise, that his rival, Shis, son of Bahram, knew nothing whatever of all this [preparation] until they arrived at the Khalifah's capital.'
Shis, son of Bahram, proceeded tjiither just as he was, in the short Ghurian garments which he was accustomed to wear at home, whilst Amir Banji, son of Naharan, entered the Khalifah's capital in address befitting an Amir, and becoming a great personage.
After they had been permitted to make their obeisances before the Khalifah's Court, when a convenient opportunity arose, each of the disputants represented what were his objects and wishes, in a respectful manner, and with many expressions of his devotion and loyalty, and stated to the Wazir and the Ustad-ur-Raz-ban7 the matter of the dispute between them, and made fully known what were their desires and requirements. The Lord of the Faithful, Harun-ar-Rashid, after he had been pleased to peruse their statements, and his august consideration and attention had been drawn to their case, was pleased to regard Amir Banji, son of Naharan, with favour.
As Amir Banji was blessed with great good fortune, combined with a most felicitous destiny, and his good nature was adorned with gracefulness of manners, the Lord of the Faithful was pleased to remark :—" Haza Kasim," that is to say, " This Banji is good looking, has a noble bearing, and appears endowed with the necessary qualifications of government and sovereignty, combined with good looks and artlessness of nature. Let the whole of the territory of Ghur be made over to him, and let the championship of the forces of the country of Ghur be entrusted to Shis, son of Bahram." Both of them were invested with a robe of honour of the Dar-ul-Khilafat. and these titles were bestowed upon them, and they took their departure, and returned to Ghur again, according to the command of the Khalifah's Court8.
7	The Ustad-i-Raz-ban was an officer who represented to sovereigns the statements of persons who desired that their cases should be investigated by the monarch himself.
8	Another author, who says nothing whatever about any Jew merchant,
X 2316
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
From that time forward, the title of the Shansabanian Sultans, according to the august words of the Lord of the Faithful, Harun-ar-Rashid9, became Kasim-i-Amir-ul-Mu-minin—the Lord of the Faithful's handsome [one].
When these two personages returned to Ghur again, the government of the territory [was assumed] by the Shansab-anis, and the championship of the forces by the Shisanis, and that' arrangement continued up to the present age according to this settlement. The Sultans were all Shan-sabanis, and the Champions, such as Mu-ayyid-ud-Din, Fath-i-Karmakh1, Abu-l-'Abbas-i-Shis, and Suliman-i-Shis, were all Shisanis—the mercy of the Almighty be upon the whole of them !
III. SURl, SON OF. MUHAMMAD.
From the time of the government of Amir Banji up to the present period2 [of Surfs rule], nothing was found in
relates that Amir Banji, having added considerably to his previous territory by seizing other tracts, became one of the most powerful of the Maliks around. He was famed for his noble qualities and disposition ; and, during the Khila-fat of Harun-ar-Rashid, he proceeded to the Dar-ul-Khilafat. He was treated with great favour on account of the successes which had been gained, by his efforts, in the arrangement of the important affairs of the house of 'Abbas; and, on beholding him, the Khallfah uttered these words : " Haza-Kasim," which is to say "good looking;" and, consequently, he obtained the title of Kasim-i-Amir-ul-Muminin. He returned to Ghur again, with a robe of honour and a patent of investiture. The dominion over those parts continued in the possession of himself and his descendants until the time of Suri, the son of Muhammad, who was one of BanjVs descendants, and lived in the time of Mahmud of Ghaznin.
9 No other Khallfah confirmed it, I fancy, if Hariin bestowed it. By our author's own account, they did not even assume the title of Sultan up to Saif-ud-Din, Surf's time. He was seventh after this Surf.
1	Some copies have ^ and one has but Karmakh is correct.
2	Jahan-Ara and Muntakhab-ut-Tawanklj, differ from our author considerably here [he certainly acknowledges his want of materials] :—Surf, son of Muhammad, was the grandson [farzand-zadah] of Amir Banji, and he flourished, not in the time of Mahmud of Ghaznin, but in the time of the Suffarfan. Surf's son, Muhammad, was a contemporary of Mahmud's. The Rauzat-us-§afa, Fasih-i, and others also, state that Muhammad, son of Surf, was a contemporary of Mahmud; but that, when Sultan Mahmud got rid of Muhammad, son of Surf, ruler of Ghur, his grandson, Hasan by name, through fear of the Sultan, retired into Hindustan, with his family, and took up his residence in that country. What reason there could have been for this, when the father could stay, is not given. Some others, again, say that sometimes Muhammad, son of Surf, would be obedient to Sultan Mahmud, and, at others, in open revolt, as circumstances permitted, until, after some years,THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF SH^R. 317
chronicles respecting the state of the country of Ghur that could be particularly enlarged upon; and, as the compilation of this Tabakat was completed at the sublime capital, Dihli—may its pre-eminence never decline !—and the kingdoms of Islam were thrown into convulsion through the irruption of the Mughal infidels—the Almighty confuse them !—and the country had become isolated, and the extreme parts disturbed and unsettled, it was impossible to copy from the history which the author had examined in the territory of Ghur3. As a matter of necessity that which has been obtained from the Tarikh-i-Nasiri, and the Tarikh of Ibn-Haisam-i-Sani, together with some traditions from the priesthood of Ghur, have been [therefore] recorded; and the author hopes that he may be forgiven by those who look into the work [for any errors or shortcoming that may be found in it].
They thus state, that Amir Suri was a great Malik, and that most part of the territory of Ghur was under his jurisdiction ; and, as in some parts of that country, such as Zawulistan4, the people, both high and low, noble and ignoble, were not [yet] exalted to the excellence of Islam, they were, at that time, at continual feud one with another. When the Suffarian came out of the territory of Nimroz, and advanced to Bust and the district of Dawar, and Ya'kub, son of Lais, attacked Lakan the Lak6, Amir of
partly by stratagem and partly by peaceful means, the Sultan succeeded in securing Muhammad, son of Sun, whom he took along with him towards Ghaznin, but that he died by the way, at Kidan. The Tarikh-i-Ibrahimi gives a more trustworthy account, and which, if dates are examined, certainly seems correct. For further particulars see note page 321.
3	The history in verse composed by Faklu>ud-Din, Mubarak Shah, mentioned at page 300.
4	Great discrepancy exists in most of the copies of the text with respect to this name. Some have Walishtan, Waeshan, and Walshian ; but two good copies have Zawulistan very plainly written, and that may be considered the correct reading.
5	Ya'fciib-i-Lais reduced Bust, Zamin-i-Dawar, Ghaznin. Tukharistan, and other tracts in 256 H., and, in the previous year, fought an action with Tujc, son of Muklas, in Kirman; but who Lakan the Lak [some copies have Lak-Lak] was it is difficult to say. There is no mention of this matter in any author with whom I am acquainted ; but Lak is the name of a sept of nomad Kurds, of which people there seems to have been a considerable number in those parts at that time. There are some tribes dwelling among the Afghans to this day, erroneously supposed by Englishmen to be Afghans, who claim to-be Kurds.318
THE TABA£AT-I-NASIRT.
Aytkin-abad6, which is the district of Rukhaj. the tribes of the Ghuris fortified themselves on the summits of the rocks, and remained in safety; but they used to be at constant enmity with each other—the followers of Islam and the unbelievers7—so that they were in the habit of keeping up a war from kushk to kushk8, and lived in a constant state of contention and strife.
Through the natural impregnability of the strong mountains which are in Ghur9. others [foreigners] used not to subject them to their power; and the head of the whole of the Shansabanis of Mandesh was Amir Suri1.
There are five great and lofty mountains2 in Ghur. respecting which the people of Ghur are agreed that they are the strongest mountains in the world. One of these is Zar-i-Margh of Mandesh, at the foot of which mountain is the kushk and capital of the Shansabanis, and they [the people of Ghur] contend that the Simurgh nourished Zal-i-Zar [Zal, the ruddy-faced], who was the father of Rustam, in that mountain. Some of the dwellers at the skirt thereof maintain, that it was in one of the years between 500 H. and 600 H., when the sound of lamentation and regret issued from that mountain, " Zal-i-Zar hath passed away." The second mountain [range] has the name of Surkh-Ghar3, and that also is in the Mandesh district,
6	Some copies have Latkin-abad, but the above is the correct reading ; but Rukhaj— —which is said to have been a district of the territory of Bust, might be read Zaranj—gjj—and I am almost inclined to consider the last reading correct. All the copies of the text are more or less imperfect here. One copy also says plainly that "the tribes of Ghuris sought shelter on the borders of Sind," and this seems the preferable reading, but the majority of copies are as above.
7	That is, those not yet converted to the Muhammadan faith, and, probably, some of fhe Bani-Isra'Il before referred to, and such tribes as have since retired northwards towards Hindu-Kush, or have now nearly disappeared.
8	A kushk here means a fortified village, and also a castle, &c. See note 2, page 331.
9	There would be considerable difficulty in finding " the mountains of Rasiat, which are in Ghor," for a very good reason—that they do not exist. The word "rasiat " is not a proper name, but the plural of " raslah," which means " strong mountains." See Elliot's India, vol. ii. p. 284.
1	From this statement it is plain, as in Baihaki's account farther on, that Ghur was under several petty chiefs. Suri was chief of Mandesh only.
2	The word koh, here used, may signify a mountain range, or a single mountain.
3	It is impossible to fix the names of two of these five ranges with any degree of certainty, for there are scarcely two copies alike out of the twelveTHE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF £Ht)R.
in the limits of Tajir-Koh4. The third mountain is Ashuk, in the district of Timran, the size and altitude of which is greater than that of any other part of the territory of Ghur ; and the district of Timran is [situated] in its hollows and [on] its sides. The fourth is the mountain range of Warani, in the valleys and on the skirts of which are the territories of Dawar and Walisht*, and the kasr8 of Kajuran. The fifth is the mountain of Ro'en, in the central part of Ghur, of immense strength and altitude; and they have stated7 that the fifth mountain [range] is the Faj [defile, pass] of Khaesar6, the length, extent, and loftiness of which vis beyond the bounds of conjecture, conception, and understanding. In the year 590 H., one half9 of the trunk of an ebony tree was found at the summit of it, more than one thousand mans1 in weight; and no one was able to conceive how, or in what manner, it could have been brought, or have fallen there.
collated. One, the very old copy I have often referred to, has jH-j- — Surkh-Ghar. as above, which means the red mountain, and the next oldest copy j*.between which two words there is but a very slight difference. The remaining copies have j^j-—ya.^—^v——and the like.
4	As many other copies have ————— — ^ —
5	It is impossible to fix some of these names satisfactorily. Some copies of the text have m-Dlj j jjb Dawar and Walisht, while others again leave out the and altogether. The very old copy I have often referred to has as written above ; but another very old copy, one of the St. Petersburg MSS., has iz-Dlj j jji- "Ghur and Walisht." This is somewhat remarkable, as Baihaki mentions a	jf Gur-i-Walisht, as lying in the route between Ghaznin and the fortress of Mandesh, in which stronghold Mas'ud of Ghaznln confined his brother Muhammad; and he also mentions	Walistan, in connexion with Bust and Kusdar. One of the Paris copies here has " the district of Zarlstan," and leaves out Dawar. Although so many copies have Walisht, I am half inclined to read this part of the sentence thus— i=—j j)^ ^Uj ^ "which are the territories of Dawar and Zawul."
6	Kasr and Kushk have both one meaning : the first is 'Arabic and the last Persian. See note 2, page 331.
7	From this remark it is evident our author does not describe these mountain ranges from his own knowledge.
8	Faj is not a proper name: it means a wide and open route or road between two mountain ranges ; a pass. Khaesar is a well-known place, and is mentioned in a number of places throughout the work, and therefore the " Faj Hanisar" is as much a myth as the "mountains of Rasiat."
9	The printed text, the I. O. L. MS. and the R. A. S. MS., have "a fcasr [see meaning of kasr, note 2, page 331] of the trunk of an ebony tree "!!
1 The man varies from forty to eighty pounds in different parts. The former probably is meant here.320
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
IV. MALIK MUHAMMAD, SON OF S0RI.
Abu-l-Hasan-ul-Haisam, son of Muhammad-i-Nabi2, the historian, relates in this wise :—that, after the sovereignty of Khurasan and Zawulistan passed from the Samanis and Sufifaris, and devolved upon Amir Sabuk-Tigin3, he had, upon several occasions, marched forces from Bust towards the mountain [tracts] of Ghur, and had put numbers to the sword ; and, when the throne fell to Amir Mahmud-i-Sabuk-Tigin, the sovereignty of Ghur had passed into the hands of Amir Muhammad, son of Sun4, and he, having brought the territories of Ghur under his sway, sometimes would pay obedience to the Court of Sultan Mahmud-i-Ghazi, and at other times would act in a rebellious manner, and manifest a refractory spirit, and would withhold the amount of tribute and arms5 stipulated ; and, relying on the faith of his strong fortresses, his power, and the ample number [of his people], he used continually to show hostility.
The heart of Sultan Mahmud, for this reason, was ever
3 Every copy of the text, with one exception, says " Nabi " here, instead of Sani, and therefore, as I previously conjectured, the correct name of the history so often quoted must be the Tarikh. of Ibn Haisam-i-Nabi, entitled the Kisas-i-Sani.
3	See page 74, where our author says that Sabuk-Tigin took possession of Ghur. together with Bust, Zamin-i-Dawar, Bamian, and all Tukharistan. Here we might have expected to have heard something of Alb-Tigin, Balka-Tigin, Abu 'AlT-i-Lawik, and.Pirey. See note5, page 71.
4	Our author is quite correct here [and Ara and some others agree] with regard to Muhammad, son of Suri, having been contemporary with Mahmud. The reason why the great blunder has arisen that it was Suri who lived in Mahmud's time, is, that some authors and translators, in their simplicity, thought the words " Muhammad-i-Suri " signified one man, instead of which they mean Muhammad, son of Suri. Another matter I would also remark upon :—Sultan Mahmud made raids upon the Afghans in 411 h., and again in 416 h., but they are never mentioned in connexion with the Ghuris by Baihaki and such like trustworthy authors, a pretty good proof, were any wanting, that, although the Afghans are Patans, the Ghuris are not, and never were so accounted by any historian, nor by the Afghans nor Ghuris themselves. It does not follow that, because a Tajik is called Suri, he should be of the Afghan clan of Sur, of the tribe of Liidi, so styled from their progenitor named Sur, but not Suri. It is a curious fact that the Afghans are not mentioned by our author but once, towards the end of the work.
5	Ghur appears to have been famous in those days for the manufacture of warlike weapons.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF QHtJR.	321
on the watch, and, on account of his [Muhammad's, son of Suri,] numbers, his power and dignity, and the fact of the great [natural] strength and altitude of the mountains of Ghur, the Sultan used well to consider in his mind, until, with a large army, he came into Ghur, and he [Muhammad, son of Suri,] was invested within the fortress of Ahangaran6. Muhammad, son of Suri, held out the fortress for a considerable period, and defended it energetically ; but, after some time, the stronghold was gained possession of by his descending from it, on terms of accommodation, and presenting himself before Sultan Mahmud.
The Sultan took him, together with his youngest son, who was named Shis, away to Ghaznin. because Amir Muhammad-i-Suri entertained the greatest affection for his youngest son, Shis. When they reached the precincts of Kidan, Amir Muhammad-i-Suri died. Some relate after this manner:—that, when he became a prisoner, through the proud spirit within him, he was unable to brook disgrace. He had a signet-ring, beneath the stone of which some poison had been set; and, at this time, he availed himself of it, and died7.
8 Not mentioned in his account of the strong fortresses of Ghur, but there was a place called Dih [village] of Ahangaran [Ahangaran is the plural of Ahangar, a blacksmith], near Ghaznin, and the river of Ahang, which flowed past that city. 'Utba' also mentions it. See following note.
' Before giving the accounts of other authors, I will first give an extract from the Kitab-i-Yamini of 'Utba', as he was a contemporary of Mahmud, but he seldom mentions dates.
He says, Mahmud became greatly incensed against the tribes of Ghur, who were unbelievers, on account of their waylaying caravans and levying blackmail, thinking their hills and defiles impregnable. An army, consisting of horse and foot, was assembled to punish them, ] and Altun-Tash, the Hajib, and Arsalan-i-Jazib [called a Multani, but it appears he had only held the government of Multan] were appointed to the command. They set out, but had such hard fighting with the Ghuris that Mahmud, finding they made little progress, resolved to proceed in person, attended by a body of his Ghulams. He succeeded in defeating them, and, after penetrating narrow passes and defiles, made a road which enabled him to reach Ahangaran, the stronghold of their Malik, who was called Ibn-i-Surl [i. e. " Sun's son" and thus he agrees with our author, and others I have quoted, to the effect that the correct name of this chief is Muhammad, son of Suri, son of Muhammad. See also Bai-haki's account farther on]. Surl's son, with a force of 10,000 men, came out of his stronghold, and, being intrenched behind walls [breastworks?], and availing himself of the ravines, hills, and broken ground, succeeded for half a day in resisting all efforts to dislodge him. Mahmud had recourse to a322
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
Sultan Mahmud sent his [Muhammad's] son, .Shis, back
stratagem. He directed his troops to face about, as though about to- give up the contest and retire. This had the desired effect; and Siiri's son, the Hindu [as 'Utba' calls him], came forth from his strong position to follow in pursuit. The Sultan faced about, and defeated him. Suri's son was taken, together with great booty, consisting of arms and other war material. Suri's son subsequently poisoned himself by means of his ring, which contained poison.
'Utba' also makes a difference, as do all writers of any knowledge of their subject, between Ghuris and Afghans, and never confounds them.
Other writers contend that Muhammad and his son, Hasan byname, not Shts, were made captive by Mahmud, and imprisoned. Their place of confinement was the upper story of a tower, thirty ells from the ground, an aperture of which faced the open country. Muhammad gave himself up for lost, but, not wishing that his family should be ruined, desired Hasan to make for Ghur. He contrived to effect the escape of his son by tearing up the blanket given him to lie upon, to make it into a rope, by means of which he lowered Hasan to the ground, who escaped to Ghur. As soon as the Sultan became aware of Hasan's escape, he put Muhammad, the father, to death. Hasan obtained the rule over Ghur, and had a son, Husain by name, who had seven sons. This is the 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, the IXth chief of our author.
Jahan Ara, Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, and some others agree as to Muhammad, Suri's son, having been made captive by Mahmud, but, like our author, contend that he [Muhammad] was succeeded by his son Abu-'All, who had always been obedient to Mahmud, and that he was appointed to the chieftainship of Ghur by that Sultan ; and that afterwards Abu-'Ali was ousted by his nephew, 'Abbas, son of Shis [who had been taken captive with his father]. The chieftainship then passed into the hands of Muhammad, son of 'Abbas, then to Kutb-ud-Din, Hasan, his son, and then to the latter's son, Husain, the 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain of our author. He, as well as other writers, does not make any remark whatever upon Abu-'All's having been deprived of the chieftainship by 'Abbas, son of Shis. In this case the line terminated in Abu-'All's family, and passed to the younger branch, and thus the Ghurian Sultans are not descended from him at all, but from Shis.
The Rauzat-us-Safa considers this statement weak, and quotes, as does also the Habib-us-Siyar and the Mir'at-i-Jahan-Numa, another tradition to the effect that when Mahmud marched an army into Ghur, and took Suri [Muhammad, son of Suri—Rauzat-us-Safa makes this blunder here, after having previously called him by his correct name] captive, and put him to death, his grandson [if such be correct, what became of the son ?] Hasan, with his family, through fear of Mahmud, fled into Hind ; and, as they had not yet been converted to the Muhammadan faith, they took up their residence in an idol temple [in a Dharm-sala perhaps]. This Hasan had a son named Sam, who, after his father's decease, was converted to Islam. He proceeded to Dihli, and followed the occupation of a trader [and, according to the Rauzat-us-Safa only, used to carry goods from Hindustan to Ghur, and bring other commodities back from thence. This seems strange however, since, if he could have gone back to Ghur in this way, his father surely need not have left it, unless he liked]. He had a son named Husain, who was endowed with many excellent qualities. After some years had passed away, and Sam had acquired considerable wealth, the desire of returning to his native mountains induced him to set out for Ghur. He embarked on one of the seas [the word used also signifies a large river, which is probably meant here] of Hind, together with his-THE SHANSABANlAH DYNASTY OF QHt)R. 323
to Ghur again. He had [already] conferred the govern-
family and effects, on board a vessel which met with a contrary wind, which raised a violent storm. The vessel and all on board, with the exception of Husain, son of Sam, went to the bottom. Husain, when the ship was sinking, succeeded in getting upon a plank or log of wood, and, at the very same time, a lion [Dow calls the lion " his father," mistaking ^ for or jS[, which was being conveyed upon the vessel's deck, also sprang upon it, and for three days and nights Husain and his strange companion remained in this state upon the log, at the end of which period they were wafted to the shore. The lion made for a neighbouring forest, and Husain for a town near by. Being a stranger and not knowing any one, and the time night, he went and lay down upon one of the benches or platforms, which are to be found in front of almost all shops in India, and fell fast asleep. The watch on going their rounds perceiving him there, and, not knowing who he was, took him for a thief, and dragged him away to prison, where he remained for about seven years. The governor of that place having been attacked with a dangerous disorder, by way of atonement, ordered all the prisoners to be set at liberty. Husain, "son of Sam, by this means 'obtained his freedom, and set out for Ghaznin. On the road thither he fell in with a band of robbers, who, finding him a powerful and intelligent youth, induced him to join them, and he was provided with a horse and arms. It so happened, however, not long after, that a band of troops in the service of Sultan Ibrahim of Ghaznin, which had been for some time on the look out for the robbers, came upon them unawares, and made the whole gang captive. They were brought bound into the presence of Sultan Ibrahim, who directed that they should suffer death. One after the other several underwent their sentence, until it came to the turn of Husain, son of Sam. While the executioner was blindfolding him, he exclaimed, '' O God! I know that error is not agreeable to Thee, why then is it that I, although innocent, am thus to suffer death ?" These words affected the executioner, and the matter was represented, through one of the Court, to the Sultan, who directed that Husain should be brought before him. He stated his pitiful case to Ibrahim, who, on hearing it, took compassion on him, pardoned him, and enrolled him, in a subordinate office at first, among his chamberlains. When Sultan Mas'ud, sumamed the Beneficent, succeeded his father, Ibrahim, he conferred upon Husain, son of Sam, son of Muhammad, [grand(?)]son of Suri, the government of the district of Ghur, and the title of 'Izz-ud-Din. Some say Ibrahim gave Husain a kinswoman of his own in marriage [our author states, at page 105, that one of his own ancestors married a daughter of Sultan Ibrahim]. After Husain's death, enmity arose between his descendants and Bahram1 Shah, Mas'ud's son, as mentioned by our author farther on, and as will be hereafter noticed. Many authors very properly consider 'Ala-ud-Din to be the first of the dynasty, and the dynasty to consist of five persons only, whose dominion lasted sixty-four years, the others being merely accounted petty chieftains.
(There can be no doubt whatever that the Gh,uris were merely petty mountain-chiefs up to the time of Sultan Mahmud of Ghaznin, and the extent of country they dwelt in proves it; but, as the Ghaznawid dynasty declined, the Ghuris waxed stronger and more independent after the decease of Mas'ud-i-Karim [the Beneficent], who gave the government of his native country to Husain, son of Sam, when the Ghaznawid empire began rapidly to decay. Our author's desire at all times appears to be to glorify the Ghuris, and, therefore, the fact of their having been merely petty tributary chiefs did not chime in with his wishes. We find MaKmud and his son Mas'ud continually passing324
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IR!.
ment of Ghur upon Muhammad-i-Suri's eldest son, Amir Abu-'All, as will, subsequently, be recorded.
from Ghaznin to Balkh and Kabul, Ghaznin to Hindustan, Ghaznin to Sijistan, and from Ghaznin to Hirat, and thence up the valley of the Murgh-ab ; and Mas'ud appears to have passed through Ghur to Ghaznin, when he had to fly, after his defeat by the Saljiiks, and yet we hear not a word about these powerful rulers of our author, although the Sultans must have passed through the mountain tracts of Ghur constantly—in fact the Sultans of Ghaznin held several fortresses in Ghur; and Tigin-abad was in that very part, and Muhammad, brother of Mas'ud, was confined in the fortress of Nae in Wajiristan, one of the very districts mentioned by our author as forming part of the Ghurian dominions. I think 'Utba' and Baihaki were more than likely to have had thorough knowledge of these potent Maliks and sovereigns so called, yet Baihaki and 'Utba' treat them as very petty chieftains, although they held some strong fortresses. Our author quotes Baihaki constantly about other matters, but not here in regard to what happened under his [Baihaki's] own observation as it were; and this looks suspicious. I will now give an abridged account of what he does say respecting Sultan Mahmud's proceedings with respect to Ghur, and of the expedition undertaken by his gallant son, Mas'ud, against some of its petty chiefs, during the time he held the government of Kh,urasan, before he succeeded to the throne of Ghaznin.
"In the year 401 H., Sultan Mahmud went on an expedition into Ghur against the infidels of that part, by way of Zamin-i-Dawar, taking along with him his two sons, Mas'ud and Muhammad, both at that time in their fourteenth year [they were not twins], and also their uncle [Mahmud's youngest brother], Yusuf, then seventeen.
"These three young Princes were left in Zamin-i-Dawar, with the heavy materiel and baggage, and Mahmud left them there because he considered that district auspicious, it having been the first territory entrusted to him by his father, Amir Sabuk-Tigin. The narrator of the preceding and following events, 'Abd-ul-Ghaffar, says, ' my grandfather, who related this, was at that time in the service of Batikln, the Zamin-Dawari [i. e. of Zamin-i-Dawar], who was governor of that district on the part of Sultan Mahmud, and he [my grandfather] was directed to remain in attendance on the Princes.' [There is not the slightest allusion, either to Sun or his son here, although it is the year in whi-ch his son Muhammad is said to have been made captive by Mahmud] * * * * In 405 H., Mahmud began to make raids upon Khawanin, which is a tract of Ghur. adjoining Bust and Zamin-i-Dawar, in which were infidels exceedingly tall and strong, and they held many passes and strong fortresses. On this occasion the Sultan had taken along with him his son Mas'ud, and he then greatly distinguished himself, and showed many proofs of his manhood and valour. When a body of them [the infidels] retired for refuge to their stronghold, one of their chiefs was standing on a tower of the fort, and was acting with great insolence and audacity, and galling the Musalmans, when Mas'ud, who was fighting on horseback, hit him in the throat with an arrow, and he fell dead from the tower. The chief's companions became heart-broken at this, and surrendered the fortress ; and all this was accomplished by one wound dealt by a brave hand. Amir Mahmud was delighted with his lion-like son, and, whilst he was yet in his youth, made him his heir, for he knew that after his own death there was no one able to maintain the dynasty but he. [See note 4, page 92.] * * * * In 411 H., Mas'ud [he had been declared heir-apparent, and appointed governor of Ehurasan, with Hirat as the seat ofTHE SHANSABANlAH DYNASTY OF GHUR.
32 s
V. MALIK ABU-'ALI, SON OF MUHAMMAD, SON OF SURI. Amir Abu-'All, son of Muhammad-i-Suri, was a man of
government] proceeded to Hirat, and determined to undertake an expedition into Ghur.
" He set out from Hirat, in Jamadi-ul-Awwal, with a strong force of horse and foot, and five light elephants. The first march was to Badshan [one MS. has Badshahan], and the next to Khusan [one MS. Chashan or Chusfaan ; but several of these names cannot be considered certaiji, although all available MSS. have been compared, and the printed text of Morley, which has been carefully edited], and then to Barian [MS. Parayan], There a halt took place to allow all the troops to come up, after which Prince Mas'ud marched to Par [MS. Bar], and from thence, after two days, to Nakhshab [MS. Nahshab or Nihshab], and then to Bagh-i-Wazir. outside; and that Ribat [public edifice, a karwansarae] is the commencement of the frontier of Ghur.
" When the Ghuris became aware of this movement of Amir Mas'ud, they retired to their strongholds and deliberated about making resistance. Before he set out on this expedition, Mas'ud had conciliated Bu-l-Hasan-i-Khalaf [Bu or Abu-l-Hasan-i-Khalaf would signify the father of Hasan, and son of Khalaf. According to some authors already quoted the son of Muhammad, son of Suri, was named Hasan. See para. 2, page 321], one of the most notable of the chieftains of Ghur, and had induced him [Bu-l-Hasan] to submit to his authority ; and it had been agreed, that, on the Amir's troops reaching that Ribat, Bu-l-Hasan should present himself there with his forces fully equipped. On the day Mas'ud reached that place, Bu-l-Hasan joined him with a considerable force, amounting to 3000 horse and foot, and brought along with him numerous offerings and contributions in the shape of shields, armour, and whatever was most esteemed of the produce of Ghur. Mas'ud treated him with favour, and he was followed by Sher-wan. This was another of the chiefs on the frontier of Ghur and Guzganan [pronounced and written Juzjanan by 'Arabs], and he too came attended by numerous forces, horse and foot. He likewise had been conciliated by Amir Mas'ud, and he brought along with him offerings beyond compute. Amir Muhammad [Mas'ud's brother] had used the utmost endeavours and contrivances to induce this chieftain to come and attach himself to him, because his territory adjoined Muhammad's appanage, which was Guzganan, but he had declined because people were more inclined towards Mas'ud.
" Having been joined by these chiefs, Mas'ud resumed his march, but went on in advance himself, slightly attended by about fifty of sixty ghulams, and 200 foot, selected from each dastah or band. He reached a fortress which they called Bar-tar, an exceedingly strong place, and garrisoned by a numerous and well-armed force. He prepared to attack it, his party not being patient enough to wait for the arrival of the army. He led the way himself, •followed by his ghulams and the foot, and they shouted the takbir, on which the accursed unbelievers [these Ghuris were not Muhammadans] of this fortress of Ghur sprung up infuriated, and set up a yell sufficient to rend the ground. Mas'ud ordered his ghulams to take to their bows; and they kept up such an effectual fire of arrows, that not a Ghur! dared show his head above the walls, and this enabled the foot, by means of lassos [used up to a recent326
THE XABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
good disposition and excellent qualities, and was highly-commended for the excellency of his faith.
period] to assault one of the bastions. They effected an entrance, and,drove the Ghuris before them, and, being joined by the ghulams, completely cleared the walls and bastions, making great slaughter among the unbelievers, and taking a great number of captives and a considerable amount of booty of all descriptions. After the fortress had been captured, the main body of the troops arrived, and many were their praises and congratulations, that such a strong fortress had been taken by such a mere handful of men.
"From thence Mas'ud marched towards the tract of Zaran [in one copy of the original, Razan, but the first is the mpst probable], the people of which agreed to pay taxes and tribute, and presented contributions in gold, silver, and arms. From that part to the district called Jariis [also Kharus and Harus] where War-mesh-i-Bat dwelt, was a distance of ten farsakhs [leagues]. The Amir did not commence hostilities against this chief, War-mesh-i-Bat, because he had sent an agent to the young Amir tendering submission and allegiance, and had promised that, when Mas'ud should return to Hirat, he would present himself before him, and enter into stipulations respecting tribute. That district, and the place where this chieftain dwelt, were excessively strong, and the most difficult portion of the whole territory of Ghur, its people the most warlike and the strongest men in that part. It had been the capital of the Ghuris in bygone times ; and, whatever ruler held that tract, the whole of the rest of the territory used to submit to him, up to the time that Amir Mas'ud marched into that part of the country."
[There can be no doubt but that Baihaki, who was a native of the Ghaznin district, and who wrote his work at Ghaznin upwards of a century before our author composed his history, must have had a much greater knowledge of Ghiir and its people ; yet this extract makes the accounts of Ghur and of the Ghuris more puzzling than ever. That the latter were not all converted—if any were—to the Muhammadan faith is clear, and it is also clear that up to this time they were under several petty chiefs, independent of each other, though perhaps nominally acknowledging the supremacy of the chief of Zaran, whose place of residence had been the (apital of Ghur in bygone times. But the name of this chief is the most perplexing. In Morley's edition of the text of Baihaki he is called Rp.'is-i-Bat, or Tab [>_-) or u-4j], and, in a note, Ramish [(jj^,], and in another place u-'j3 A MS. in my possession has War-mesh [i^fjj], but, the passage being so important, I sent it to Professor Rieu, of the British Museum, who has been so very kind as to compare my translation with another copy of Baihaki in the British Museum, and, from what the Professor says, there is no doubt that the first name is War-mesh, and this is remarkable, because this very name occurs among the names of the ancestors of Amir Banji [see page 312], and occurs again at page 366. What Bat or Tab may mean it is impossible to say. It might be part of but-parast idol-worshipper, infidel; but that all the known copies of the original should have left part of the name out [Morley collated his edition of the text with four or five copies] is improbable. The word is not Pus'hto, and there is no Afghan tribe or clan of this name. Had the Ghuris been Hindus instead of Tajiks, we might suppose it was a corruption of Sanskrit Bhat, a hero, a warrior. I dare say, however, that some one will be able to account for the name, and perhaps show to his own satisfaction that this chief •must have been one of the Bhat! tribe of Jats now in the Panjab. We might as well have Ehatis in Ghur as 11 a fugitive band of Crusaders" from PalestineTHE SHANSABANlAH DYNASTY OF GHHR. 327
At the time when his father held the sovereignty of
in the army of Ghuris who conquered the upper provinces of India, according to the interpreters of the poem of the Bard Chand—but I have forgotten myself. Bat might be Pat, and that will be surely founded upon and shown to be part of the word Patan, and can be made " Pathan," " Patan," or " Pahtan," with the greatest ease. If it were not a dangerous practice to tamper with proper names, I should be inclined to read, Shis."]
" The Amir ncrw despatched an intelligent person to this chief, and two men of Ghur of the followers of Bu-l-Hasan-i-Khalaf and Sher-wan were sent along with him to act as interpreters, with a message combining threats and hopes, as is usual on such occasions. The agent departed, and the Amir followed in his steps. The former, and the others with him, reached the place in question, and he delivered his message to those arrogant fellows [sic], who manifested great fierceness and defiance, and said that the Amir had made a great mistake in imagining that either the people of that part or that district were similar to those he had met with and had passed through ; that he had better come there, and he would find sword, spear, and stone [rock] ready for him. This insolent message roused the ire of Mas'ud. He halted his troops for the night at the foot of the mountain, arms were distributed, and, at dawn, the force moved forward. The drums and trumpets sounded, and the soldiers began to ascend the heights, on which the Ghuris showed themselves like so many ants or locusts on the tracts above them, horse and foot, all well armed, and occupying all the paths and defiles leading to it, who raised shouts and yells, and began casting stones with their slings, at Mas'ud's force.
"The best of it was, that that mountain was somewhat depressed, and partly composed of earth [not very rocky ?] and accessible in every direction. The troops were told off in parties, to advance by the different practicable paths, and Mas'ud himself kept parallel to them, for the fighting there was likely to be severe. Bu-l-Hasan-i-Khalaf, and his men, were sent to the right,, and Sher-wan. with his contingent, to the left. The accursed ones evinced the utmost daring, and pressed forward with impetuosity, particularly in front of the Amir, and they disputed the greater part of the ground with determination. The troops were hard pressed, and the enemy crowded towards the standards of the Amir, and the fighting became desperate. [This reads something like an U^beylah expedition.] Three mounted warriors of the enemy succeeded in getting close up to the Amir, who, perceiving them, smote one of them full on the breast with his mace of twenty mans in weight [the man varies from forty to eighty pounds], which laid him sprawling on his back, and prevented his rising again ; and the ghulams attacked the other two, and hurled them from their horses. This was enough for the Ghuris, who gave way ; but they continued, now and again, to face about and dispute the ground, until a village [town] was reached at the foot of the mountain [on the other 'side], and, on the way thither, numbers were slain and made captive. The fugitives threw themselves into this place, which was of vast strength, and contained numerous kushks [here kushk seems to mean a castle or fortified house], after the manner of the Ghuris, and sent away to a stronghold, at a distance in the rear, their women, children, and everything they could remove. The unbelievers resisted obstinately up to the time of evening prayer, and great numbers of them were killed, and numbers of Musalmans were martyred [Mas'ud's troops are referred to here]. When the night closed in, the unbelievers decamped, and the village [or town],was taken possession of by the troops, whq occupied themselves, throughout the night, in plundering it.
["At328	THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
Ghur, and the mountain tracts of Mandesh8, the whole of
8 This tends to show that Ghur and Mandesh were separate tracts.
"At dawn next day, the Amir again moved forward towards their [other] stronghold, two leagues distant. He had to pass through a constant succession of defiles and passes, and did not reach it till the time of afternoon prayer. They found a fortress, as they had been informed, stronger than any other in the whole of Ghur, and no one recollected hearing that it had ever been taken by force of arms. Mas'ud, having reached it, disposed his forces around this stronghold, and, during the whole night, preparations were made for attacking it, and the battering rams were placed in favourable positions."
I must here still further curtail this interesting account of the expedition for want of space. Suffice it to say that breaches were made and bravely assaulted and as bravely defended, the Amir being ever in front, and thereby inspiring his men with strong hearts. After four days' very severe fighting, each day increasing in severity, it was carried, at last, sword in hand, the Ghuris defending every inch of the breach. Great numbers of them were slain and taken prisoners, but the latter were protected on making their submission, while slaves and booty to a vast amount were captured. Mas'ud had it proclaimed that he gave up all gold, silver, slaves, and other booty.to the troops, but that all arms and war materiel taken was to be brought to him. A great quantity was accordingly brought and laid before his tent, and such as was most valuable or rare he selected, and divided the rest among his soldiers. Of the prisoners, one half was made over to Bu-l-Hasan-i-Khalaf, and the other half to Sher-wan, for them to take to their own territories. Orders were also given to raze that stronghold, so that, from thenceforth, no rebel might takS shelter therein. When the rest of the Ghuris found what had happened to the fortified town and the other stronghold, they began to fear, and became submissive and willing to pay tribute and obedience ; and even War-mesh-i-Bat began to quake. He made intercession through Bu-l-Hasan-i-Khalaf and Sher-wan, and sent an envoy, tendered his submission, and increased the amount of tribute and contributions. His offers were accepted on the stipulation that every castle he [War-mesh] had taken on the side of Gharjistan should be given up. Although War-mesh ground his teeth at this, he could do nothing else than agree, and those fortresses were given up to governors of the Amir. Whilst the latter was still in Ghur, that chief sent in his contributions and offerings ; and, subsequently, when Mas'ud reached Hirat, War-mesh-i-Bat presented himself at the Court, was well received, had a dress of honour conferred upon him, and returned to his country along with the two other friendly chieftains.
After the capture and destruction of the fortress above referred to, Amir Mas'ud advanced against another, a famous place, and of vast strength, named Tur [this name is doubtful, the variants are Bur and Nur], It was carried by storm after a week's fighting and great slaughter, and the two friendly chiefs took part in it. Mas'ud placed a governor of his own in the place, after which he set out on his return to Hirat. At Mar-abad, ten farsakhs [leagues] from that city, large quantities of arms and war materiel, as stipulated for by others of the Ghuris to avert molestation, were found already collected, together with what War-mes^-i-Bat had despatched.
The narrator, 'Abd-ul-QhafFar, then adds, that " no sovereign ever acquired such power over Ghur as the martyr, Mas'ud, did; for, although the firstTHE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHUR.	329
the people had their eyes upon him, and affection towards him was instilled into their minds. Notwithstanding that his father used to act in a rebellious and contumacious manner towards Amir Sabuk-Tigtn, and his son, Sultan Mahmud, Amir Abu-'All at all times used to manifest his fidelity and allegiance towards the Sultan ; and he was in the habit of writing letters containing the expression of his fealty and his affection, and despatching them to Ghaznin, the capital.
When the contumacy and defection of his father went beyond the bounds of forbearance, Sultan Mahmud brought an army against him from Ghaznin ; and, after considerable effort, the Sultan succeeded in securing the person of Amir Muhammad-i-Suri, and took him away along with him towards Ghaznin, and bestowed the governments Ghur upon Arrfir Abu-'Ali, his son.
As soon as Amir Abu-'Ali became installed in th§ government of Ghur, he conferred great benefits upon the people, and directed the erection of many buildings of public utility. Masjids and colleges were founded in Ghur, and he also built a J ami' Masjid, and liberally endowed the whole of them. He held priests and ecclesiastics in great respect, and considered it incumbent on himself to venerate hermits and recluses.
During his time, the people of the territories of Ghur dwelt in tranquillity and repose, and his brother, Shis, son of Muhammad, passed his days under his protection.
When the appointed period of Amir Abu-'Ali's dominion came to an end, and the empire of Ghaznin [also] reverted from Mahmud to his son, [Sultan] Mas'ud, a son of Amir Shis, 'Abbas by name, having attained great dignity and power, broke out into rebellion, seized his uncle, Amir Abu-'Ali, and reduced the whole of the country of Ghur under his own sway ; and the reign of Amir Abu-'Ali came to a termination, and he died.
Musalmans [the 'Arabs] conquered 'Ajam and Khurasan, they found it impossible to enter Ghur; and, although Sultan Mahmud, on three separate occasions, by the same route of Zamin-i-Dawar, attacked different frontier tracts of Ghur, yet he did not penetrate into the defiles and more difficult parts ; still, it was not through inability to do so, for his designs and objects were different to those of his successor."
Y33°
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
VI. MALIK9 'ABBAS, SON OF SHIS, SON OF MUHAMMAD, SON OF SURI.
Amir 'Abbas was a warlike, intrepid, and pitiless man, and endowed with great manliness, strength, and activity. When he attained the full vigour of youth, and his whole strength, he entered secretly into a compact with a party of adherents and young men, and gained them over to his own rebellious views. He then suddenly rose, and seized his uncle, Amir Abu-'All, ruler of Ghur, and imprisoned him, and appropriated the whole of his uncle's property, his treasures and his hoards, to himself. He was exceedingly determined, cruel, and tyrannical; and lawlessness and injustice were engrafted in his nature.
He commenced to act illegally, and began to seize people's possessions and property, so much so that the commonalty, and his own immediate followers, were quite miserable, and became perfectly helpless in his hands, and to such degree, that, for a period of seven years during his reign, no animal—such as the horse, camel, cow, or sheep—brought forth young, and the rain from the heavens ceased to fall ; and, according to one story, women also did not bear children, through the ill-luck consequent on his tyranny.
The chronicler thus states, that he possessed two fine [and powerful] dogs, which were constantly kept fastened by heavy chains, and iron collars round their necks. One of these dogs had been named Ibrahim of Ghaznin, and the other, 'Abbas of Ghur. These animals used constantly to be brought before him, and the chains to be removed from them, and they were set to fight together. Whenever the dog bearing his own name overcame the other, that day Amir 'Abbas would make great rejoicings, and bestow liberal presents ; but, on days when the dog named Ibrahim of Ghaznin gained the advantage [over his antagonist], he would become infuriated, and greatly ill-treat and torment people, and not a single person among his favourites and attendants dared to say anything to him.
With all this tyranny and oppression, however, he was
9 Two copies of the text style him Amir-ul-Kamil—the perfect or thorough Amir.THE SHANSABANlAH DYNASTY OF QH0R. 331
gifted with a profound knowledge of astrology. He had taken great pains with respect to that science, and had shown vast perseverance and assiduity in its acquirement, and had gained a deep knowledge of it. In the country of Mandesh, in the Khittah [district] of Sangah, the original fortress which Bustam-i-Zuhak had founded, he [Amir 'Abbas] directed should be entirely reconstructed ; and skilful artisans were obtained from parts around [for the purpose]. The walls, after the manner of a parapet, were carried from that castle, on two sides, to the strong ground on the summit of the mountain of Zar-i-Margh ; and, at the foot of that mountain, on a knoll, a lofty Kasr [castle] was directed to be raised, with twelve towers ; and in every tower, in likeness to the zodiacal circles in the firmament, there were thirty openings—there were six towers towards the east and north, and six others towards the west and south—marked out; and these were so arranged that, every day, the sun would shine through one of those openings approximate to the position of its rise1. By this means he used to know in what degree of what sign of the zodiac the sun was on that particular day ; and this performance indicates the proficiency and knowledge which Amir 'Abbas had attained in the science of astrology.
During his reign, likewise, the Kasrs of Ghur were constructed9, and plenty reigned throughout the country ; but, as people now abominated him for his excessive tyranny,
1	See the view of the Castle of Zuhak in Sale's " Defence of Jalalabad," and also in Hart's "Character and Costume of Afghanistan." The view in the first-mentioned work answers tolerably well to this description. It is much to be regretted that no effort was made to explore £xhur, even by means of natives, or gain some information about it, during our occupation of Afghanistan. What a field it must be for archaeological research !
2	The Persian word "kughk," and its'Arabic equivalent, "kasr," signify a palace, a large and lofty stone or brick building, a castle ; but here "kasr " means one of those fort-like villages, many of which, though on a smaller scale than in past ages, probably, may still be seen in scores in the tracts west of Kandahar and Ghaznin. as well as in other parts of Afghanistan. Our author says above, that these structures "were constructed" in the time of 'Abbas, but of course many must have existed before, and his own statements confirm it. He must mean that many, more were constructed during the chieftainship of 'Abbas. Sometimes he uses the 'Arabic, at others the Persian word. There are several places which were once fortified after the above fashion still remaining in Afghanistan, such as Kushk-i-Safed, Ku§hk-i-Na-khud, and others, but not "Khushk," as written by recent travellers. Khushk signifies "dry."
Y 2332
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
oppression, and injustice, and the empire of Ghaznin, and throne of sovereignty, had passed to Sultan Razzi-ud-Din, Ibrahim, son of Mas'ud, a party of the most powerful and eminent men, and the nobles of Ghur, despatched letters to Ghaznin, imploring the Sultan's assistance.
In conformity with these solicitations, Sultan Ibrahim marched a large army into Ghur; and, when he reached it, the whole of the forces of Ghur went over to that monarch, and they delivered Amir 'Abbas into the Sultan's hands3. He commanded that Amir 'Abbas should be placed in confinement, and he took him away to Ghaznin. and conferred the territory of Ghur upon his [Amir 'Abbas'] son, Amir Muhammad4.
VII. AMlR MUHAMMAD, SON OF 'ABBAS.
When Sultan Ibrahim, son - of Mas'ud, seized Amir 'Abbas, and sent him away to Ghaznin. at the solicitations of the chief personages and eminent men of Ghur, he made over the country to Amir Muhammad-i-'Abbas5.
He was endowed with great good nature, was of exceeding amiability of heart, and of excellent disposition, most just, conscientious, and merciful, a patron of the learned, an impartial judge, and a cherisher of the weak and helpless. In the place of every one of the odious and hateful proclivities towards inhumanity and tyranny which were in his father, the disposition of the son was implanted with a thousand amiable and admirable qualities.
3	These operations are not mentioned by other authors ; but a few notice, very briefly, that Amir 'Abbas carried on hostilities with Sultan Ibrahim.
4	This too is pretty good proof, by our author's own account, that the Ghuris were subject to the Sultans of Ghaznin; but, as the power of the latter declined, consequent on the rise of the SaljuVs, and after Mas'ud-i-Karim's death, the Ghuris acquired more power. See top of next page.
s Which is impossible, if what other writers state as to Husain, son ot Sam, having been saved from shipwreck, and Ibrahim's son, Mas'ud-i-Karim, having conferred the chieftainship on him, be taken into consideration. Muhammad, son of Sun, was taken prisoner in 400 H., or, according to some accounts, in 401 H. From that time, up to 493 H., when Mas'iid-i-Karim conferred the fief of the tributary province of Ghur upon Husain, son of Sam, son of Hasan, son of Muhammad, son of SurT, none of this family held independent sway over Ghur. As already shown from the account of Mas'ud the Martyr's expedition into it, it was held by several petty chiefs independent of each other. See note 7, page 321.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF £HtJR. 333
When the territory of Ghur was assigned to Amir Muhammad, the whole of the grandees, the chiefs, and most distinguished personages of the country, submitted to his authority; and, to the best of his ability and power, he began to labour and study to revive and restore the observances of goodness and utility, and the laws and usages of benevolence, beneficence, and justice. He used to render homage to the Sultans of Ghaznin with heartiness and loyalty, and pay them submission and vassalage, and used to despatch the fixed tribute regularly.
During his reign the gates of repose and tranquillity were opened to the people of Ghur. and they all passed their days in the enjoyment of peace and security ; happiness and plenty reigned ; and his country, his people, and his retainers dwelt for a long while in the enjoyment of competency and affluence, up to the period when he passed away and was received into the mercy of God.
VIII. MALIK KUTB-UD-DIN, AL-HASAN, SON OF MUHAMMAD, SON OF 'ABBAS.
Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Hasan, the grandfather of the great Sultans of Ghur6, was a just Amir, high-principled, and of handsome countenance. The proofs of his goodness, equity, clemency, and beneficence were sufficiently obvious and manifest to the inhabitants of Ghur.
Such factions as were in the habit of acting contumaciously he used to occupy himself in chastizing and overthrowing, and considered it incumbent on himself to punish severely the disaffected and seditious. The tribes of the territory of Ghur, having sprung from families of 'Arabs7, and having been nurtured, and grown up, in a
6 According to the statements of other authors given in note page 321, the grandfather of the Sultans of Ghur, that is to say, of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, and his brothers, was Hasan, son of Muhammad, son of Suri, who was let down from the tower by his father, and who had a son, Husain, the IXth chief mentioned by our author. But, according to the other tradition quoted by Rauzat-us-Safa, Habib-us-Siyar, and other histories, in the same note, their grandfather would be Sam, son of Hasan, grandson of Suri, who was drowned. See note page 335, in which it is stated that " Husain, son of Sam, of the race of Suri," was taken captive by Sultan Sanjar in 501 H.
" See note 4, page 320. The Afghans have, certainly, as well as other mountain tribes, behaved at all times in the manner mentioned here, but so334
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRL
mountainous tract of country, obstinacy, turbulence, and contumacy were implanted in the constitutions and characters of the whole of the Ghurian tribes. Feuds and contentions would continually arise of one tribe against another, and conflicts constantly ensue. Every year one district or another of the territory of Ghur would manifest antagonism [to the constituted authority] and withhold the payment of the regulated amount of revenue; and up to [near] this present time, when the dominion of the Ghurian Sultans came to its termination, the state of these peoples continued to be seen and witnessed [after the same fashion].
Upon one occasion, during the time of Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Hasan, a tribe who dwelt in Tak-ab 8 of the territory of Wajiristan, rose in rebellion. Malik Kutb-ud-Din, with his followers and the chiefs of Ghur. appeared at the foot of that Kushk and the stronghold of that faction, and summoned them to surrender. They refused to submit, and commenced hostilities. Unexpectedly, by destiny's decree, an arrow from the bow of fate came from the rebels and struck Malik Kutb-ud-Din in the eye, and, as it had wounded a mortal part, he died from the injury. His retainers and followers, immediately on seeing the effect of that arrow's wound, with the utmost daring, and putting forth all their energy, attacked and carried the Kushk and stronghold by storm, and put the whole of the rebels to the sword, and that place was completely destroyed. Up
have the people styled KohistanTs, who inhabit the valleys immediately north of Kabul, and also the BaluchTs, and they [the latter] have not yet, I believe, been quite made Patans of, although some progress has been made towards it. Such conduct seems inherent in all mountain races, whether in the east or in the west.
8 There is a river and valley of Tag-ao, or Tag-ab, in Afghanistan, but to them cannot possibly be referred the locality indicated here, for they are some sixty miles to the eastward of Kabul. I think the translation of this compound word may throw some light on its whereabouts. The word "Tak-ab," or ' \Tag-ab," both of which forms are correct, also the forms in use among natives of those parts—Tak-ao and Tag-ao, and Ab-i-Tang—are described by an old author as "ground furrowed by water [a ravine or series of ravines], a defile, a valley between two mountains, and ground, whether in a valley or not, in which, here and there, water collects and remains, and in some places flows, and in which there is pasture and much verdure. They are also used for the name of a territory, and there is a small district so named." I think the place alluded to by our author is not far from Ab-Istadah, but more to the west. Wajiristan has been often mentioned in the account of the GhaznawTds.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF QHOR.	335
to the time of the last of the Sultans of Ghur. and the termination of the sovereignty of the Shansabanis, no king would grant permission for the restoration of that Ktishk, its equipments, and the suburbs of that place, with the exception of the Ktishk of Amir Kharnak, which was in that Ab-i-Tang, for his ancestors had always been obedient9.
When Kutb-ud-Din, Hasan, departed this life, his son, Amir Husain, succeeded him.
IX. MALIK 'IZZ-UD-DIN, AL-HUSAIN, ABU-US-§ALATAINl, SON OF KUTB-UD-DiN AL-HASAN.
Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, was a sovereign2 upright, of handsome countenance, devout, and endowed with all good qualities, and distinguished for his many virtues. During the period of his rule, the territory of Ghur and the Bilad-i-Jibal3 [mountain country] were populous and prosperous ; and the tribes and inhabitants of those tracts enjoyed ease and content, and, under his protection, lived in safety and security. Priests, recluses, and holy men, and the whole of the people, without interruption, attained the fulfilment of their requirements and desires in an abundant degree.
The Almighty God blessed his devoutness and good disposition by bestowing upon him seven sons, the fame of whose sovereignty and dominion became published throughout the seven climates of the world. Of these sons four attained unto empire and dominion ; and from them descended sons of renown in the world, who became
9 Discrepancy more or less exists among all the copies of the original here. The oldest and most trustworthy are as above. The Paris copies too are defective, and in one copy the last part of this sentence runs :—"No sovereign set about the restoration of that Kushk, except Amir Kharnak, who was in the neighbourhood of that Ab-i-Tang, and those parts were obedient to him."
1	One of the oldest copies has " Abu-I-Muluk " here, instead of Abu-us-§alatain.
2	See note *, page 320, and note 5, page 332. 'Izz-ud-Din, the title, signifies "Glory, &c., of the Faith," but "'A'iz-ud-Din" nothing, for it is meaningless. Husain also is his correct name, confirmed by numerous other authors, and Hasan was his father's name, as our author states.
3	Ghur is mountainous enough, surely, as well as the Bilad-i-Jibal. From ■our author's statement, however, they are separate tracts of country.336
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
sovereign princes, as will be subsequently narrated and recorded.
This Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, was firmly attached to and in amity 4 with, the Sanjari dynasty and the Saljuki sovereignty ; and every year he used to despatch to the court of Sultan Sanjar such things as had been customary and established, such as armour, coats of mail, steel caps, and other equipments, and war material5. There is also
4 His "attachment to the Sanjari dynasty" may also easily be accounted for. In 501 H., Sultan Sanjar, whilst in charge of Khurasan, nine years before he became supreme ruler of the Saljuk empire, fought a battle with the Maliks [here a further proof that there were several petty chiefs] of Ghur, who were of the race of Surt, and Husain ['Izz-ud-Din, Husain, of our author], son of Sam, was made prisoner. Sultan Sanjar ordered him to be put to death ; but, at the intercession of the celebrated Shaikh Ahmad, Ghazzali, the Sultan of Masha'ikh, as he is styled, he was spared, and set free. For two years he used to light the fires of the cooks of the Sultan's army, until, one day, the Amir of the troops of Khurasan, 'Imad-ud-Daulah, Kimaj, chanced to meet with him. He took compassion on Husain, and represented his case to the Sultan, who directed that Husain should be brought to his presence. When he was admitted, he kissed the ground of the Sultan's court. Sanjar said to him :—"I understand that thou hast neither wealth nor power left to thee, notwithstanding thou wast a chief and leader. Has neither kindliness nor sympathy been left to thee?" Husain replied:—"When this head was my own head, I had the good fortune to be attended by a thousand servants, but now that it belongs to thee, thou lceepest me thus wretched and abject."
Rashid-ud-Din, who also relates this anecdote [but, strange to say, under the account of his son, 'Ala-ud-Din, although he calls him Husain too, and leaves out all mention of the first part of the name, ' Ala-ud-Din], says that Husain wandered about the Sultan's camp for two years as a mendicant [our author would scorn to relate this, as it did not tend to the glorification of the Ghuris, and their slaves, his patrons], when " one day Amir Kimaj was passing the shop of a cook, he chanced to notice Husain, who was attending the fire, and watching the cook's pot." When admitted to the presence of the Sultan, Rashid-ud-Din says the Sultan thus addressed Husain:—"I gatherthat thou hast neither wealth nor power left to thee : hast thou not the means and the power of keeping one head and face clean ?" The rest of the anecdote agrees with Fasih-i, related above.
Sultan Sanjar was touched, took pity on him, pardoned him, and sent him back to his native country attended by a large following; and to the end of his days Husain paid obedience to that monarch.
Fasih-i further states that "Husain, son of Sam, who escaped drowning, and the sword of the executioner," only died in 545 H. He ruled that territory justly; and, up to his time even, great numbers of the inhabitants of the mountain tracts of Ghur had not been converted to Islam, but were made converts of by him. This Husain, the same chronicler states, was succeeded by his son, 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, in that same year. For further particulars, see under 'Ala-ud-Din, note 2, pages 347 to 350.
8 Ghur, and mountain tracts around, appear to have been famous for the manufacture offfims and armour ; and iron mines must have been worked therein.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF QHUR. 337
a remarkably fine breed of dogs in Ghur, so powerful that, in frame and strength, every one of them is a match for a lion6. A number of this breed of dogs, with valuable collars round their necks, Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, was in the habit of sending to the Sultan's [Sanjar's] presence ; and he used to receive in return dresses of honour and many valuable presents.
Malik 'Izz-ud-Din likewise was wont to keep on terms of amity and friendship with the Sultans of Ghaznin7; and for a considerable length of time the government of the territory of Ghur was held by him up to the period when he died.
He had [as before stated] seven sons, the eldest of whom was Malik Fakhr-ud-Din. Mas'ud, of Bamian, but an account of whom will be contained in another chapter on the Sultans of Bamian, which will commence with a mention of him, and be therein recorded.
The names of his sons are as follow :—Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, Amir of Bamian and Tukharistan; Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, Amir of Ghur and Firuz-koh; Malik-ul-Jibal, Kutb-ud-D,in, Muhammad, Amir of Ghur, and Firuz-koh ; Sultan Saif-ud-Din, Suri, sovereign of Ghur and Ghaznin ; Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain8, sovereign of Ghur. Ghaznin, and Bamian; Malik Shihab-ud-Din,
6	This fine breed of dogs, or rather one very similar, still exists among the Ghalzi tribe of Afghans, who trace their descent on the father's side only from the son of a chief of Ghur, whom their traditions style Shah Husain ; but he fled from Ghur, and took shelter among the Afghans at a much earlier period, in the time of the Khallfah, 'Abd-ul-Malik, son of Mirwan, who reigned from 66 H. to 86 H. He was adopted by an Afghan Shaikh ; but the names of his ancestry, as mentioned by the Afghan historians, do not agree with those mentioned by our author. This Shah Husain's grandfather, according to them, was forty-ninth in descent from Zuhak. Had not the names and the dates been so very different, I should have been inclined to consider Shah Husain of the Ghalzis, and the Husain of others, who was saved from shipwreck, and received the fief of Ghur from Mas'ud-i-Karim, as one an5 the same person.
7	Sultan Mas'ud conferred the sovereignty upon [Tzz-ud-Din] Husain in 493 H., the year after the decease of his own father, Sultan Ibrahim. It is no wonder he kept on good terms with his suzerains. Fasih-i says he died in 545 H., and that this was the same Husain, son of Sam, and one of the kindred of Muhammad, son of Suri. See preceding page, note It is strange, but several of the best copies of the text have " Sultans of Ghur and Ghaznin " here.
8	In two copies he is here styled Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din-i-Sanf*338
THE TABAKAT.I.NA§IRL
Muhammad, Kharnak. Malik of Madin of Ghur ; and Malik Shuja'-ud-Din, 'All, Amir of Jarmas9 of Ghur.
X. MALIK-UL-JIBAL, KUTB-UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD, SON OF ['IZZ-UD-DIN] AL-HUSAIN.
Of the seven sons of Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, the eldest among them all was Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, of Bamian, mention of whom will be made in the other chapter [referred to previously], the foundation of the dynasty of the Sultans of Bamian dating from the rise of his power1. His mother was a Turki handmaid ; and after him, in succession [in age], came the Malik-ul-Jibal [the Lord of the Mountains], Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad2. His mother was a woman who was of no high descent, and was the Hajibah [Chamberlain] and attendant of the mother of the other
9 Some copies have Harmas, and some Barmas.
1	This was the proper place to have separated these dynasties, as this chief was the first of the rulers of Ghur and Firuz-koh after the patrimony had been divided. This has been done by other writers, but they make Kutb-ud-Din the first of the dynasty of Ghur and Ghaznin, and his brother, Saif-ud-Din, Sun, second. Had our author given an account of Saif-ud-Din second, as in the order of the events, instead of last, he would have saved his readers some perplexity and trouble.
2	So far, other writers agree pretty well with our author, but here considerable difference arises. The Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, quoting other authors, says, that Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad, who is known as the Malik-ul-Jibal [Lord of the Mountains], was sent for by Bahram Shah of Ghaznin—after he had made an accommodation with the sons of 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain—and that he made him his son-in-law ; but, through his having been suspected of a crime, he was removed by poison. This is said to have been the first enmity that arose between the GhaznawTcls and the Ghuris, but such is not correct, as already shown. Jahan-Ara agrees with the above, however, with this exception, that, in the latter, it is stated that he, the Malik-ul-Jibal, came from Ghur and presented himself at the Court of Bahram Shah. The Tarikh-i-Ibrahimi, and some others, however, agree more with our author's statement, and say, that Malik Saif-ud-DIn, Suri, on the death of his father, Tzz-ud-Din, Husain, succeeded to the dominion of Ghur, and divided the patrimony among his brothers, one of whom [Kutb-ud-DTn, Muhammad] became irritated with his brothers, and went to the Court of Bahram Shah, who put him to death for some reason ; and this caused enmity between the two houses. The Rauzat-us-Safa and some others, however, consider this statement very weak, and quote the tradition which I have already given at, page 321, note 7, and state, that, after the death of Husain, enmity arose between his descendants and Bahram Shah of Ghaznin, and hostilities took place between them upon several occasions, which will be subsequently referred to.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF QHtJR.
sons, the Sultans, namely, Sultan Suri ; Sultan 3 Baha-ud-Din, Sam ; Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain; Amir [Shihab-ud-Din] Muhammad; and Amir [Shuja'-ud-Dln] 'All4, the other sons of Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain.
When Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, who was the father of the Sultans, departed this life, Sultan [Saif-ud-Din] Suri, in succession to his father, ascended the throne6 and divided his father's dominions among his brothers. An account of Sultan Suri will, please God, be given in the chapter on the Sultans of Ghaznin.
In this division, the territory of Warshadah6 was assigned to the Malik-ul-Jibal, Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad, and there he fixed his seat of government. Subsequently, it so happened, that he had to seek for a [suitable] place in which to found a strong fortress and a handsome city, such as would be suitable to his dignity. He despatched persons on whom he could depend into the parts adjacent, until [at length] his opinion led him to fix upon the position of Firuz-koh, and he founded the fortress and city of Firuz-koh7.
Sultan Suri made the fortress and town of Istiah ® his capital, and to Malik Nasir 9-ud-Din, Muhammad, Madin
3	Styled Sultan without reason : Malik is his correct title, as given at the head of this notice in the copies of the text.
4	These two last, here styled Amirs, are the sixth and seventh sons mentioned over leaf, viz. Malik Shihah-ud-Din [called Nasir-ud-Din subsequently], Muhammad, and Malik Shuja'-ud-Din,'All, the Xllth and XHIth of the family.
5	See note *, page 336.
6	Some few copies have Warshad, and Warshar.
1 In several other places our author mentions '' the territory of Ghur and the Bilad-ul-Jibal," thus indicating that they were separate ; and yet Firuz-koh was the capital of the Bilad-ul-Jibal, and in his account of the division of their father, 'Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain's, territory, and the names of the districts, the •whole appear included in Ghur, of which Firuz-koh was the capital! The mention of the places shows the extent of the territory held by these chiefs—the mighty monarchs of our author. It is a curious fact, and a very important one, that the name of Kandahar never once occurs in our author's work. It is not strange, however, because Kandahar is a comparatively modem place, and is not mentioned by contemporary writers, under that name at least, until very many years after our author's time. Tradition says that Kandahar stands a few miles east of an ancient city named Waihind ; and Masson also refers to it, but calls it Vaihund. Can this be the place the idol-temple of which fell on the night of Mahmud of Ghaznln's birth ?
8	Other old writers call this place " Istia, which is the name of one of the mountains of the range between Ghaznin and Hirat," and give the vowel points. The Burhan-i-Kati' also confirms it.
9	There is no son of this name among those previously mentioned. Pro-34°
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRl.
was given. Baha-ud-Din, Sam, had the district of Sangah, which was the capital of Mandesh, assigned to him ; and the district and castle of Wajiah1 were made over to Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din ; and the probability is that the territory of Kashi [or Kasha] was fixed upon for Malik Fakhr-ud-Din.
By heaven's decree, however, contention arose between the Malik-ul-Jibal [Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad], who was at Firuz-koh, and the other brothers ; and the Malik-ul-Jibal became indignant with his brothers, and withdrew to Ghaznin ; and it was [at this time] the reign of Bahrain Shah. This Malik-ul-Jibal was endowed with great beauty and comeliness, and urbanity to perfection. When he reached Ghaznin he opened the hand of munificence and liberality ; and affection .for him, according to the saying, " Man is the servant of kindliness," began to take root in people's hearts, and became firmly established. The inhabitants of Ghaznin entertained a great liking for him, but a number of envious persons "set upon him, and had it represented to Bahram Shah that he [the Malik-ul-Jibal] was, with treacherous eyes, regarding that sovereign's karam [some female or females of his family], and was expending his property liberally, with the object of rising against him [Bahram Shah], The latter issued commands to administer to him, secretly, poisoned sharbat [which was done], and he died; and they, moreover, buried him at Ghaznin. On this account, enmity and hatred arose between the Mahmudi family2, and the family of Shansabi, and the race of Zuhak 3.
When the account of what had befallen Kutb-ud-Din reached4 Sultan Suri's hearing, he marched an army to Ghaznin and took that country, as will be hereafter recorded, since, although this was the place for mentioning
bably, Shihab-ud-Din is meant, or, otherwise, Shihab is a mistake for Nasir ; but there is a Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Husain, son of Muhammad, mentioned immediately after Baha-ud-DTn, Sam, at page 343, which see.
1	One of the Paris copies has	— the Maiden's Castle—but the majority, including the oldest copies, have and some have J-^u which a copyist may have read J One copy has
2	Their enmity, according to other authors, appears to have had a different origin. See under ' Ala-ud-Din, Husain, page 347.
3	All the copies collated agree with regard to this part of the sentence—"the race of Shansabi and the race of Zuhak."
* Four different verbs are used in the different copies of the text in this sentence) although the signification conveyed is much the same.THE SSANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF QHUR. 341
and recording the proceedings of Sultan Suri, still, as Sultan Suri was the first person of this family who assumed the name of Sultan, and the first to ascend the throne of Ghaznin. an account of him will, please God, be given in another chapter, at the beginning of the history of the Sultans of Ghaznin.
XI. SULTAN BAHA-UD-DIN, SAM, SON OF 'IZZ-UD-DIN, AL-HUSAIN5.
When the Malik-ul-Jibal retired to Ghaznin [as previously related], and left the buildings of the city of Firuz-koh in an unfinished state, Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, came from [the territory of] Sangah to Firuz-koh, and went on with the building of the city and fortification, and brought to completion those edifices and the royal palaces. He also commanded the erection of the fortresses of Ghur, and contracted alliance and entered into amity with the Shars of Gharjistan 6. He ascended the throne of Firuz-koh in the year 544 H.7 When the construction of the capital of Firuz-koh was completed through his propitious auspices, he gave directions for the construction of four strong fortresses on the confines of the territory of Ghur. Garmsir, Gharjistan, and the mountain tract of Hirat, and the Kasr
5	In some copies the names of his children follow immediately after his name and title.
6	The Shars of Gharjistan, who had for many years acknowledged the suzerainty of the Samanis, had submitted to the suzerainty of Sultan Mahmud as early as 389 H. The Shar, Abu Nasr, son of the Shar. Raghid, and Abu-Nasr's son, the Shar. Abu Muhammad, acknowledged the Sultan's suzerainty in that year, and read the khutbah for him, and impressed his name and titles upon their coin. In 405 H. the Shar. Abu Nasr, who had become disaffected, was seized and imprisoned by Mahmud's command—his father, Rashid, is said to have solicited protection some time before, and it was granted ['Utba' agrees, and says '' he went into retirement"]; and he had presented himself at Court. The Sultan purchased from him [the Shar] his possessions in Gharjistan, and had made over the price in money to him. This was one hundred and forty-six years before the time our author says Baha ud-DIn, Sam, became ruler. The Shar. Abu Nasr, died in prison, at Hirat, in 406 H., after which the Shars are not mentioned by other writers.
" Baha-ud-Din died in 544 H., the same year in which he succeeded. His brother, Suri, had been put to death, and Bahram Shah of Ghaznin had died the previous year. Our author's mode of arrangement here causes confusion. Baha-ud-Din is the third of the dynasty of Ghur and Ghaznin, and only succeeded after Saif-ud-Din had been put to death. See also the Kitab-al-Yaminl of Al-'Utba'.342
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
of Kajuran in the district of Garmsir and Ghur. the fortress of Sher-Sang in the mountains of Hirat, and that of Bindar [or Pindar], in the hills of Gharjistan. and Fiwar, between Gharjistan and Faras [or Baras].
After the martyrdom of [Saif-ud-Dtn], Suri [yet to be mentioned], as Sultan Baha-ud-Din was the eldest of the five brothers [styled Sultans], the sovereignty of the kingdom of Ghur devolved upon him. The Malikah of Kidan, who was also of Shansabani lineage, the daughter of Malik Badr-ud-Din of Kidan, was married to him, and Almighty God blessed him with two sons and three daughters by that Malikah of high descent. The sons were Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam8, and Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam—the Almighty illumine them !—the amplitude of whose dominions comprehended the eastern quarter of the world, and the fame of whose expeditions against infidels, whose holy wars, the energy and vigour of whose rule, justice, and beneficence will continue imperishable and manifest on the outspread world until the latest revolutions of time. Some of those glorious actions and annals in the account of each of them, by way of ensample, will, please God, be subsequently recorded.
Of the daughters, one was the Malikah-i-Jahan 9, mother of Malik Taj-ud-Din, Zangi; the second, the Hurrah-i-Jalali, mother of Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, son of Sultan Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Malik Fakhr-ud-Din. Mas'ud, of Bamian; and the third daughter was the Malikah-i-Khu-rasan, the mother of Alb-Arsalan-i- Ghazison of Malik Kazil-Arsalan, Saljuki, the brother's son of Sultan Sanjar.
When the account of the affliction and degradation which had befallen Sultan Suri at Ghaznin. through the hostility and perfidy of the retainers of the Mahmudi dynasty, reached the hearing of Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, he came to the determination of wreaking vengeance upon the inhabitants of Ghaznin, and, without occupying himself
8	Sam was not his name, nor the name of his brother ; neither does our author mean that such should be supposed ; but some translators have supposed it was the son's name instead of the father's.
9	Malikah-i-Jibal in nearly every copy, but the above is correct.
1 Other authors style him Alb-i-Ghazi only. He held the fief of Iiirat subject to the Ghuri Sultan upon one of the occasions when Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, invested it. See note 2, page 257.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHCR.	343
in mourning ceremonies for his brothers2, he assembled the forces of Ghur. and of the parts and tracts around, and on the confines of it, and of the hill-tracts of Jarum and Ghar jistan ; and, having arranged and ordered them, he turned his face towards Ghaznin in order to accomplish that important matter. After great preparation, and being fully equipped, he moved forward, and a large army-marched under his standards. When he reached the district of Kidan, excessive anxiety and grief for the death of his brothers, and the strength of his feelings, brought on an attack of illness, and there [at Kidan] he died 3.
In the same manner as Sultan Suri, at the time of his proceeding against and capturing Ghaznin. had entrusted the capital of the kingdom of Ghur, and had made over the government of that territory to him, Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, the latter, at this time, when about to march an army himself against Ghaznin. assigned the capital of Ghur, and the rule over the territory of the Jibal [mountain tracts] to Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain-i-Jahan-soz [his brother], and consigned to him his children, dependents, Amirs, property, and effects.
When Baha-ud-Din died at Kidan, and that circumstance came to the hearing of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, he, likewise, without occupying himself in mourning ceremonies, assembled 4 together the forces with all celerity, and set out towards Ghaznin.
XII. MALIK SHIHAB-UD-DlN s, MUHAMMAD, [KHARNAK,] SON OF AL-HUSAIN, MALIK OF MADIN OF GHUR.
Malik Shihab-ud-Din, Muhammad, Kharnak, was the brother of the Sultans; and the district of Madin, which
2	His two brothers, Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad, and Saif-ucT-Din, Surf.
3	He is said to have died of small-pox, but the word used also signifies a tumour, and the like. Rauzat-us-Safa and some others say Baha-ud-Din, Sam, died of phrensy, or inflammation of the brain, on the way back to Ghur. after the taking of Ghaznin by ' Ala-ud-Din, and his brother, Saif-ud-Din, Suri, who was left there as ruler ! See note 2, page 347.
4	Here again some copies of the text use different verbs to express the same meaning.
* He is called Nasir-ud-DIn repeatedly in most of the copies of the text, and in some, although the heading is written Shihab-ud-Din. he is styled344
THE TABAKAT-I.NA§IRL
was his territory, and is a tract of country on one of the confines of Ghur, had been assigned to. him by the mutual consent of his brothers, after the decease of their father.
He had two sons, one of whom was Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Husain, whom they placed upon the throne, at the capital, Firuz-koh, during the absence of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, in Khurasan, and his attendance6 at the Court of Sultan Sanjar, an account of whom will be hereafter recorded. The second son was Malik Saif-ud-Din, Suri7, who, after his father's death, succeeded him in the possession of the district of Madin. This Malik Saif-ud-Din, Suri, had three children, one a daughter, and two sons, and the daughter was older than the sons. She was married to the holy warrior and' martyr, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam ; and by her that conquering Sultan likewise had a daughter who died a maid8, and whose tomb is at the capital city, Ghaznin.
Of those two sons of Malik Saif-ud-Din, Suri, one was Malik Shihab-ud-Din, 'Ali, of Madin, who was martyred by the Turks of Khwarazm9 during the period of their domination. The second son was Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Abu-Bikr; and the writer of this book, in the year 618 H., waited upon him in the territory of Kaziw [or Gaziw]1 and Timran, and witnessed numerous marks of urbanity and generosity from him. At that period the author had espoused2 a daughter of one of the great men and a kinsman of his own. That was in the period of his first manhood, and in that same year in which Chingiz Khan, the
Nasir-ud-Din in the account of him. As 'Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain, had no son of this name, and as all the copies agree in the lis' of the seven sons, as to Shihab, I have adopted that reading here, which is certainly correct. This Shihab-ud-Din had a son named Nasir-ud-Din, and hence the mistake may have arisen.
6 His captivity in fact, but this our author did not consider necessary to mention. See note 3, page 358.
" Not to be confounded with 'Ala-ud-Din, Jahan-soz's son, nor 'Ala-ud-Din's brother. There are three of his title in all.
8	Several copies have "died in her infancy." This can scarcely be correct, as it may be doubted whether the tomb of an infant would have been mentioned.
9	See note \ page 274.
1 A few copies have [Kariw or Gariw], and others ^-T and «>jf
1 " Was about to espouse " in a few copies ; but if he had not espoused this wife he would not probably have required a horse.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHUR. 345
accursed, crossed the Jihun into Khurasan, and was bent upon marching to Ghaznin. In short, the author memorialized Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Abu-Bikr, for a horse, and, in verse, represented the matter of his marriage with one of his own kinswomen for that Malik's information. In reply to that versified narrative, he composed this quatrain, and with his own august hand wrote it on the back of the story, and put it into the author's hands :—
" God willing, affliction will have departed from thy heart, And that pearl of great price will have been by thee bored 3. The horse thou hast solicited of me requires no apology. With the horse, much more apology might be made "
Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Abu-Bikr, sent his humble servant a dun-coloured horse of three years' old, ready saddled and caparisoned—the Almighty reward him for it!
That Malik-zadah, after the calamities which befell Ghaznin and Ghur6, came to the city of Dihli, and presented himself at the Court of the august Sultan, Shams-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din [I-yal-timish], and was received by him with honour and kindness, and, from the Maliks and other nobles, he received deference and respect.
Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Abu-Bikr, died at the city of Dihli in the year 620 H.
XIII. MALIK SHUJA'-UD-DIN, ABl-'ALI, SON OF AL-HUSAIN, [SON OF SAM], SON OF AL-HASAN, SHANSABl.
Malik Shuja'-ud-Din. Abi-'Ali, son of Al-Husain, son of Al-Hasan, was removed from this world in his early manhood, and his existence terminated whilst he was yet in the flower of his youth6. A son survived him, Malik 'Ala-ud-Din,
3	A virgin is styled an "unbored pearl."
4	This somewhat obscure line may imply that the donor might have made apologies because the present was not more valuable.
1 At the hands of the Mughals.
8 From the heading the reader would suppose this article to have contained an account of Shuja'-ud-DTn ; but he is finished in two or three lines, and the article contains an account of his son and grandson. Neither of these two brothers, Shihab-ud-Din, nor Shuja'-ud-Din, can be considered as belonging to the dynasty any more than the whole of the race, as they never held overeign power. They are not named even, separately, by other writers.
Z346
THE TABA^AT-I-NASIRI.
Abu-'All; and the brothers [of Shuja'-ud-Dtn, Abi 'Ali7] with one accord, when dividing the dominions of Ghur, had invested him [Shuja'-ud-Din] with the district of Jarmas. When he died, they conferred the district of Jarmas upon his son, 'Ala-ud-Din, Abu-'All.
The Malik-ul-Jibal, Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad, who had been martyred at Ghaznin, had left a daughter, and she was given to 'Ala-ud-Din, Abu-'Ali, in marriage8; and, after that noble lady was espoused by him, the Almighty blessed them with a son, who had the good fortune of becoming both a Haji [a pilgrim] and a holy warrior9, namely, Malik Ziya-ud-Din, Muhammad, the Pearl of Ghur1, and it happened in this wise:—When [his father] Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Abu-'Ali, died, and his son grew up, the Almighty bestowed such grace upon his mother that she decided upon undertaking a journey to the Kiblah, and up to that period not one of the Maliks of Ghur had attained that felicity.
Malik Ziya-ud-Din, in attendance upon his mother, was proceeding on the journey to the holy places by way of Hirat, Khurasan, and Nishapur. At that time Sultan Takish, Khwarazm Shah, was at Nishapur, and Malik Ziya-ud-Din, in the habit of a Sayyid, with his hair twisted into two long ringlets, presented himself at the Court of that Sultan, and had the happiness of being permitted to kiss Sultan Takish's hand.
Malik Ziya-ud-Din [in the company of his mother] had the happiness of performing the orthodox pilgrimage with great reverence, and with the observance of all the rites and ceremonies. He gave directions to build a Khan-kah [chapel] at Makkah, and provided all the necessary funds for raising the structure, and left trustworthy persons of his own to see it carried out.
He also returned, along with his mother, to the territory
7 Abu, or Abi-'Ali : either is correct.
• Our author's mode of narration tends to confuse. This 'Ala-ud-Din, Abu-'Ali, is the father of Ziya-ud-Din, afterwards styled ' Ala-ud-Din. See note 2, page 391, and note 9, page 394.
9 He accompanied his second cousin, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Dln, on his campaign against Rae Pathora of Ajmir. See page 125.
1 These words J}i ^ Durr-i-Ghur, occur again in the list of Maliks at the end of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din's reign, and in some other places.THE S2ANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF QHtJR. 347
of Ghur ; and sh£ acquired the name of the Malikah-i-Hajl [the Pilgrim Princess], and founded a great number of masjids, pulpits, and colleges in the Ghurian country. May they both become acceptable in the sight of Almighty God!
XIV. SULTAN 'ALA-UD-DlN, AL-HUSAIN, SON OF ['IZZ-UD-DIN,] AL-HUSAIN, SON OF SAM, SON OF AL-HASANa.
When Sultan Baha-ud-Dtn, Sam, son of ['Izz-ud-Din,] Al-Husain, who was marching an army against Ghaznin.
2 Of all the persons mentioned in Oriental history, greater discrepancy occurs with respect to 'Ala-ud-Din, Jahan-soz's name and proceedings, probably, than regarding any other man.
Some authors call him Hasan, son of Husain ; some [but these authors are but two] Husain, son of Hasan ; some, Husain, son of Husain, son of Hasan, son of Sam ; others copy our author, while others again, and they seem most correct—they certainly are as to his own and his father's name—style him ' Ala-ud-DTn, Husain, son of ['Izz-ud-Din], Al-Husain, son of Sam, son of Hasan [Surfs grandson], son of Muhammad, son of Surt.
With respect to his rise to power, the different accounts [I quote here from sixteen authors] may be classed under no less than five heads.
The first is, that, after Sultan Bahram of Ghaznin had been put in possession of the throne by his maternal uncle, Sultan Sanjar, distrust arose between them [Sanjar marched to Ghaznin to bring Bahram to submission in 530 H., according to Fasih-I], and, on this, Bahram began to enter into friendly negotiations with the sons of 'Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain, and invitedjpie. of them to his capital, and expressed a wish to take him into his sefvice, in order to strengthen the bonds of friendship between the two families. Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad [the Malik-ul-Jibal of our author], the eldest of the sons, proceeded to Ghaznin, and for some time he was treated with great distinction, but was subsequently guilty [or suspected ?] of some crime, and was put to death by Bahram Shah's orders.	a
Enmity now arose between Bahram and the sons of Al-Husain, and they began to attack each other's territory, and several encounters took place between them [Fasih-i says they fought about Tigin-abad as early as 521 H., but this may be an error for 541 H.], and our author himself in his account of Sanjar's reign, page 149, says that hostilities arose in that reign "between the Sultans of Ghaznin and the Maliks of Ghur, and the latter were overcome," and, subsequently, refers to the time when "the territory of Ghur came under the rule of'Ala-ud-Din, Husain," and, on the death of Al-Husain, their father [in 545 H., according to Fasih-i, but it must have been five years earlier, at least], hostility, which hitherto had been concealed, was openly shown by 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, and his brothers, and they rose against Bahram Shah, and he set out on an expedition against Ghaznin, accompanied by Saif-ud-Din, Surf, and Baha-ud-Din, Sam ['Ala's full brothers]. They were opposed by Bahram Shah, who was defeated, and retired into Hind.
Having obtained possession of Ghaznin. 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, left his brother, Surf, as ruler there, and returned to Ghur. [This event is said to
. Z 2348
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
in order to take revenge for [the slaying of his brothers], Sultan Suri and the Malik-ul-Jibal, died on the way thither,
have occurred in the fifth month of the year 543 H. [October, 1052 A.D.], and by Fasih-i in 542 H. [October, 1051 A. D.], but, as the father only died it i said in 545 H., both cannot be correct.] On the way back his brother, Sam, died of inflammation of the brain [phrensy, according to some, a tumour, or small-pox, according to others].
In the following winter Bahram returned from Hind with a numerous army and several elephants, and appeared before Ghaznin. Surf came out with 300 Ghuris and 1000 Ghuzz Turks, and endeavoured to reach Ghur, but the Ghuzz deserted to Bahram, and Suri was taken, paraded on a bullock through the city, and hung along with his Wazlr. This occurred in 543 H. according to Fasih-I, but in 544 H. according to several other trustworthy authors. 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, again marched to Ghaznin to avenge Suii, again took the city, plundered, and fired it, then abandoned it, and returned to Firiiz-koh, destroying all the buildings raised by the Mahmudi family, on his way back. This is said to have taken place in 547 H., but such cannot have been the case : it must have been towards the end of 544 H., or early in 545 H., at the latest. Alfi says in 547 of the " Rililat" [death of Muhammad, not the Hijrah], which would make it as late as 558 H.!
Most of the authors from which the above is taken contend that 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, was the first of the family who attained to independent sovereignty, that the dynasty consisted of five sovereigns, and continued for a period of sixty-four years. It terminated in 607 h., so must have commenced in 543 h.
'All, Jatrl, and ' Ala-ud-Din, Husain, were defeated by Sultan Sanjar in 545 H. [some say in 544 H.], but Fasih-I says in 547 H., just before he [Sanjar] marched against the Ghuzz, in 548 H., which will be referred to farther on.
Fanakati says, and somewhat astonishing it is, that Husain, brother of Sam, was put to death by Bahram Shah's orders, and he [Husain] went to Sultan Sanjar and solicited aid. Sanjar assisted him with an army! and he then fought a battle with Bahrain Shah, who was defeated and retreated into Hindustan. After this, the same author states—and the Tami'-ut-Tawankh agrees—that Husain ['Ala-ud-Din] left his brother Sam in charge of Ghaznin, a:nd returned himself to Ghur. He then agrees with the statements of other writers as to the hanging of 'Ala-ud-Dln's brother, but says it was Sam [Baha-ud-Din], not Suri, that Bahram Shah took and hung after his return from Hindustan. Husain returned, made a general massacre, and devastated the place, and 70,000 persons were slain. On this Sultan Sanjar resolved to proceed against him, and, in a battle, Husain was taken prisoner. For further particulars regarding this see page 357, and notes 2 and 3 page 358.
The second account is, that Husain ['Izz-ud-Din], the father of the seven sons, raised to the rulership of Ghur by Mas'iid-i-Karlm, having died in 545 H. [540 H. ?] was succeeded by the most prominent of his sons, 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, who rebelled against Bahram Shah, marched against Ghaznin, took it, during Bahrain's absence, and set his brother, Suri, upon the throne of the Mahmudi's. Soon after Bahram returned, and hung Suri. The remainder of the account agrees pretty well with the first.
The third is, that Bahram Shah was dead before 'Ala-ud-Din reached Ghaznin the second time, and in this statement a number of the most trustworthy authorities agree, and further that Khusrau Shah, his son, had succeeded just before 'Ala-ud-Din's advance, and, on his approach, Khusrau ShahTHE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF £HUR. 349
at Kidan, Sultan ' Ala-ud-Din ascended the throne of the dominion of Ghur, and assembled the forces of Ghur, of
abandoned Ghaznin and fled to Lahor [Bai^awl states that it happened in 550 h. ; but this is the only authority for that date, which cannot be correct ; and if Surl, according to the other statement, was put to death in 544 h., 'Ala-ud-Din would scarcely allow six years to elapse before avenging him]. On 'Ala-ud-Din's departure, Khusrau Shah returned to his devastated and ruined capital, and continued thei'e until the Ghuzz Turks, who had defeated and made captive Sultan Sanjar, Khusrau's maternal great uncle, invaded Khurasan, and appeared before Hirat, and from thence advanced towards Ghaznin.
Sanjar had marched against the Ghuzz in 548 h.—some few authors say in 547 h.—and was taken prisoner in the first month of the former year [March, 1056 a.d.]; they had invested Hirat in 549 h., and gave up the attempt early in 550, and then appear to have advanced towards Ghaznin, and this must have been the year in which Khusrau Shah finally abandoned Ghaznin, and not that in which 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, devastated it.
Some writers, who agree generally with this last account, say that Khusrau Shah had reigned about a year when 'Ala-ud-Din arrived in the neighbourhood of his capital, and that he [Khusrau Shah] was taken, and confined within the walls of the citadel, and 'Ala-ud-DIn set up his two nephews, Ghiyas-ud-Din, and Mu'izz-ud-Din, at Ghaznin. Most authors say Khusrau Shah died in 555 h., but others again state that his death took place in 544 h., and according to our author, who says he succeeded in 552 h., and reigned seven years, it would be in 559 h. See note 5, page 112.
The fourth account is, that, on the death of the father, [Tzz-ud-Din], Al-Husain, Saif-ud-Din, Sun, succeeded him, and that he seized upon Ghaznin, while his other brother, 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, seized upon Ghur. This is said to have taken place in 543 h., and it is further said that, after Sun had been hanged, Baha-ud-Din, Sam, set out to avenge him, and died on the way [in 544 h.].
The fifth account agrees pretty well with our author, and may have been partly copied from his work, although such a fact is not mentioned. It is to the effect, that Suri took Ghaznin to avenge the death of his brother, Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad, put to death by Bahram Shah, and that, after Sun's death along with his Wazir, Baha-ud-Din, Sam, set out to avenge him, and died on the road. 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, followed, on which Bahram Shah fled, and the city was taken. The date of the first capture of Ghaznin is said to have been 542 h., or 543 h. [Our author says that Baha-ud-Din, Sam, succeeded to the sovereignty of Firuz-koh and Ghur, when Saif-ud-Din, Surl, his brother, set out on his expedition against Ghaznin, in 544 h.—the first date he gives in the whole Section—and tends to show that Ghaznin must have been taken in 543 h.]
It is absurd to suppose that Ghaznin was taken by 'Ala-ud-Din in 550 h., and still more so to suppose that 547 of the Rihlat could be the possible date; and, although the exact date is not to be found in authors generally, it is quite clear that Saif-ud-Din, Suri, took it first in the fifth month of 543 h. [middle of October, 1051 a.D.]. Bahram returned in the depth of winter [probably in January, 1052 a.i).], and hung him. Baha-ud-Din, Sam, his brother, succeeded him as ruler of Ghur in 544 h., and died soon after, in the same year ; on which 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, who was not one to allow five or six years to elapse, aL35°
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
the capital, Firuz-koh, and of Gharjistan. and determined to march against Ghaznin.
When Sultan Yamin-ud-D!n3, Bahram Shah, became aware of this matter, and of his ['Ala-ud-Din's] intention, he caused the troops of Ghaznin and of Hindustan to be got ready and organized, and led them from Rukhaj4 and Tigin-abad, in the district of Garmsir, towards Zamin-i-Dawar. As Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, with his forces, had [already] reached Zamin-i-Dawar, Sultan Bahram Shah despatched envoys to him, saying, " Return again to Ghur, and in thy ancestral possession remain in quietness, for thou wilt not be able to resist my forces, for I bring elephants [along with me]." The envoys having delivered the message with which they were entrusted to Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, he replied, saying, "If thou bringest elephants6, I will bring the Kharmil; but, God knows, indeed, thou fallest into error, that thou hast put my brothers to death, and I have not slain any person belonging to thee. But hast thou not heard what Almighty God says6 ?—" Whosoever is
once marched against Ghaznin, and took it towards the close of the same year, 544 H,, the same in which Guzidah and a few others say Bahram died. What tends to prove all this is, that in 545 h, 'Ala-ud-Din was taken captive by Sultan Sanjar, after the former had sacked Ghaznin, and was detained in captivity some two years, during which time another ruler was set up in Ghur, and 'Ala-ud'Dln only obtained his release just before Sultan Sanjar set out on his unfortunate expedition against the Ghuzz, which was in 547 h., for Sanjar was defeated by them and taken prisoner, on the first day of the first month, Muharram, 548 h. [20th March, 1056 a.d.]. See also page 358, and notes 2 and 3.
'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, made no attempt to retain possession of Ghaznin, and he abandoned it, and retired into Ghur, but destroyed every building pertaining to the Mahmudl sovereigns, on his way back. The reason why he abandoned it must have been his fear of Sultan Sanjar, or of Bahrain's or Khusrau's return, as the case may be, and of meeting a fate similar to his brother Suri's.
* In three copies of the text at this place he is called Yamin-ud-Z>rt«/«/^. In his account of Bahram Shah's reign our author styles him Mu'izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, and says Khusrau Shah's title was Mu'ayyan-ud-Din. See pages 109 and III, and note
4	A small tract of country in the district of Bust.
5	The word J^ an elephant, is used in most copies of the text, but to make sense of the passage I have been obliged to make it a plural. The context shows there must have been more than one elephant. Some other authors have Je» which certainly agrees better with J--^- and might be translated the chief, head, or leader of the elephants, alluding to some famous war-elephant he may have had.
5 On the Kur'an's authority only. It is rather strange that in his accountTHE SSANSABANlAH DYNASTY OF GHPR
351
slain unjustly, we have given his heir, or next of kin, power [to avenge him] ; but let him not exceed bounds in putting the slayer to death, because he likewise will be assisted and avenged7."
When the envoys returned, both armies were marshalled in ranks and made ready for the conflict. Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din called unto him two Pahlawans [champions] of his own, who were the leaders of the army, and famous warriors of the kingdom of Ghur, and both of them were named Kharmil. One was Kharmil-i-Sam. Husain, father of Nasir-ud-Din, Husain-i-Kharmil; and the other Khar-mil-i-Sam, Banji; and both of them were famed in their day for their valour and prowess. He said unto them:— " Bahram Shah has sent a message, saying, ' I bring elephants [against thee] and I have sent a reply, ' If thou bringest elephants, I bring the Kharmil.' This day it behoveth that each one of you champions should overthrow and bring an elephant to the ground." They both kissed the ground and retired [to their posts] ; and, at a place which they call Kotah-baz8, the two armies came to an encounter. When the battle commenced, both these champions dismounted, fastened up the skirts of their coats of mail9, and entered the fight. When the elephants of Bahram Shah made a charge1, each of those champions attacked an elephant, and got beneath the armour of the animals, and, with their poniards, ripped open the bellies of the elephants. Kharmil-i-Sam. Banji, remained under his elephant, and it fell upon him, and he and the elephant perished together. Kharmil-i-Sam. Husain, brought his
of Bahram Shah's reign, pages 109—ill, our author does not even mention Surf's name, although he. refers to 'Ala-ud-Dln, Husain, the brother, and the capture of Ghaznin.
7 Ku'ran: S. 17, 35.
B One copy has Kunah[or Gunah]-waz, and two copies have Kotah-baz-bab. This last appears incorrect, and bab seems merely baz repeated in error by the copyist. Katah-waz cannot be meant, although w and b are interchangeable : Katah-waz is much too far to the east. One copy has Goshah-i-nab. A place of this name, or Sih Goshah-i-nab, has been mentioned at page 149, but this again is too far to the west. See also page 358.
9 The word used signifies to fasten up or back. " Throauing off their coats of mail" would scarcely have been likely at a time like this, and the text contains the word "skirts" moreover. See Elliot, India, vol. ii. page 287.
1 Both the British Museum copies have, "when the elephants of Bahram Shah charged the elephants, each of the champions," &c.352
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
elephant to the ground, and got away in safety, and mounted [his horse] again.
When the battle was duly ordered, Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, after he had arrayed himself in all his panoply, commanded that a surcoat of crimson-coloured satin should be brought to him, and he put it on over all his armour. His kinsfolk and his intimates inquired:—" What device is this of the king's, that he covers his armour with a crimson surcoat ?" He answered:—" For this reason, that, in case my body should be wounded by arrow, lance, or sword, the redness of my blood, by means of the crimson surcoat, will not show upon my armour, so that the hearts of my followers may not become dejected." The jnercy of the Almighty be upon him !
The troops of Ghur have a method, in the practise of fighting on foot, of making a certain article of one fold of raw bullock-hide, over both sides of which they lay cotton, and over all dralw figured coarse cotton cloth2, after the form of a screen [or breast-work], and the name of that article of defence is kdrwah. When the foot-soldiers of Ghur place this ^[screen] upon their shoulders, they are completely covered from head to foot by it; and, when they close their ranks, they appear like unto a wall, and no missile or arms can take any effect on it, on account of the quantity of cotton with which it is stuffed3.
When the engagement was fairly begun, Daulat Shah, son of Bahram Shah, with a body of cavalry and an
2	Called karbas.
3	Our author has described this instrument of defence tolerably well, but not exactly. The word karWah is contained in PusMito, and this means of protection was used by some of the Afghans in former times, before fire-arms came into use. The karwah was made from a raw bullock, cow, or buffalo hide stuffed with straw or hay [cotton would be too expensive], and rolled along before troops on foot, when advancing, to defend them from the arrows of their opponents. In the battles between the Yiisufzi and Dilazak tribes of Afghans, in the fifteenth century, of which before long I hope to be able to give an account, the Utman Khel, one of the lesser and of the many still independent Afghan tribes [who never paid allegiance to DurranTs or Barakzis] who accompanied the Yiisufzis when the latter first appeared east of the Khaibar Pass, on one occasion formed the advance of the allied forces, and used these stuffed hides above described. They are said to have been very expert in their construction ; but I do not think this mode of fighting will be sufficient to prove that the Ghur is were " Patans," or Patans GhurTs.' Compare Elliot, India, vol. ii. pages 287-8. See my Afghan Dictionary, second edition, p. 1x51. London: 1867.THE SHANSABANlAH DYNASTY OF QHCR. 353
elephant4, made a charge. Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din directed that the foot-soldiers should open their rank of karwahs, in order to allow Daulat Shah to enter with his whole division. They opened their ranks accordingly. When Daulat Shah, with his body of horse and the elephant, entered, the infantry closed the breach in their ranks again, and completely surrounded that Prince on all sides ; and he, with the whole of that body of horse, were martyred, and the elephant was brought to the ground, and also killed.
When the troops of Bahram Shah witnessed that disaster and slaughter, they fell into disorder and gave way. Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din followed in pursuit, from stage to stage, as far as a place which they call Josh-i-Ab-i-Garm [the jet of hot-water], near to Tigin-abad, where Sultan Bahram Shah faced about, and a second time prepared to renew the engagement; and the whole of the forces then assembled under him again gave battle, but were defeated and put to the rout, and only stopped at the gate of Ghaznin. Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din followed in fierce pursuit, so that Bahram Shah, for the third time, assembled the troqps of Ghaznin, the men of the city, and a large levy of footmen, and gave battle for the third time; but he was unable to overcome [the enemy], and was again defeated. Ala-ud-Din took the city of Ghaznin by storm, and, during seven nights and days, fired the place, and burnt it with obstinacy and wantonness5.
The chronicler states that, during these seven days, the air, from the blackness of the smoke, continued as black as night; and those nights, from the flames raging in the burning city, were lighted up as light as day. During these seven days, likewise, rapine, plunder, and massacre were carried on with the utmost pertinacity and vindictive-ness. All the men that were found were killed, and the women and children were made captive. Ala-ud-Din
4	One elephant only is mentioned, and it is not stated that Daulat Shah was mounted on it. It appears to have been intended to break the rank of karwas with it.
5	Our author himself says that Saif-ud-DIn, Suit, was the first of the brothers who came into contact with Bahram Shah, and 'Ala-ud-D!n, Husain, the last ; but he has so arranged his work that his account of Sun comes last. The reader will perhaps find it less perplexing if he should read the account of Sfiri, at Scction XIX., first, then that of Baha-ud-DIn, Sam, at page 341, and this nulicc of'Ala-ud-Din last.354
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
commanded that the whole of the [remains of the] Mah-mudi Sultans should be exhumed from their graves and burnt, except those of Sultan Mahmud, the Ghazi, Sultan Mas'ud, and Sultan Ibrahim6; and, during the whole of these seven days, 'Ala-ud-Din gave himself up to wine and carousal within the palaces of the Sultans of Ghaznin. During this time he gave directions so that the tomb of Sultan Saif-ud-Din, Suri, and the mausoleum of the Malik-ul-Jibal [Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad], were sought out, and coffins prepared; and caused preparations to be made for putting his whole army into mourning7. When the eighth night came round, and the city had become entirely desolated and consumed, and its inhabitants massacred, Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, on that night, improvised8 several strophes eulogistic of himself, and gave them to the minstrels, with directions to sing them accompanied by their changs and chighanahs9 before him ; and the lines, which are appropriate, are as follows :—
"The world knoweth that I of the universe am king1. The lamp of the family of the 'Abbasls am I. ' Ala-ud-Din, Husain, son of Husain, am I, Whose house's sovereignty be ever enduring! When on the bright bay steed of my dominion I sit, One, to me, will be both the heavens and the earth. Death sports around the point of my spear : Hope follows [as goad] the dust of my troops2. I should roam the world through, like unto Sikandar : I should in every city another sovereign place. I was determined on this, that of the vagabonds of Ghaznin I would set a river of blood running like unto the Nil. But they are maudlin old dotards and infants, And my blooming fortune maketh intercession for them. For their own sakes I have granted them their lives, That the granting of their lives may of mine be the bond3."
5 Other writers state that the bones of the whole of the Mahmudi sovereigns
were exhumed and burnt, with the sole exception of those of SultSn Maljmud.
7	The greater number of copies of the original leave out the words
— mourning—entirely ; whilst the Bodleian MS., the R. A. S. MS., and one of the Paris copies have food ! The other Paris copy has jjc—fighting, making war, &c. !!
8	He was gifted with a poetical genius.
9	The first is a kind of guitar, or harp, and the latter a kind of violin.
1	'Ala-ud-Din had evidently an exalted opinion of himself, or had imbibed more strong drink than was good for him.
2	Several other works which give this poem leave out these two lines.
3	As far as can be judged from all the exaggeration contained in theseTHE SHANSABANlAH DYNASTY OF QHttR. 355
He then commanded, saying, " I have spared the remainder of the people of Ghaznin." and he arose from the assembly, and went to the hot-bath; and, on the eighth day of these proceedings, he got up at day-dawn, and, accompanied by the whole of the troops of Ghur, and the Maliks [chiefs], came to the mausoleum of his brothers. He then donned mourning garments, together with his whole army, and, for [another] seven nights and days, he remained at the mausoleum observing funeral ceremonies.
During this period the whole Kur'an was read through several times, and alms were there distributed ; and the coffins of his brothers were placed on biers4, and he ['Ala-ud-Din] marched from Ghaznin towards the districts of Dawar and Bust. On reaching the city of Bust, he entirely destroyed the palaces and other edifices5 of the Mahmudi dynasty, the like of which were not to be found in the regions of the world6; and the whole territory, which appertained to the Mahmudi sovereigns, he directed should be ravaged and desolated7.
He returned to Ghur, and, by his command, the corpses8 of his brothers were deposited by the side of their an'cestors. He had ordered that several Sayyids of Ghaznin should be seized, according to the law of retaliation, in the place of Sayyid Majd-ud-Din, Musawi, who was Sultan Surf's Wazir, and who, along with Sultan Suri, they had hung up from one of the arches9 [of the bridge ?] of Ghaznin,
boastful effusions of 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, he seems to have imagined that his own life might be lengthened in proportion to the lives he spared, after he had caused almost the whole of the inhabitants of Ghaznin to be massacred !
4	The word has other meanings besides "cradle." Elliot: India, vol. ii. p. 289.
5	Such as mosques, colleges, fortifications, &c.
6	Some ruins of those edifices still remain. An intelligent man, a native of Kandahar, and an Afghan, says these ruins are of immense size and height, particularly one arch, which was standing some few years since, said to have been one of the great mosque. There was also a stone bridge across the river Hirmand, near this arch, called the Pul-i-'A§h,ikan—the Lovers' Bridge-remains of which may still be seen.
7	The whole of the district of Zamin-i-Dawar, I presume. The territory of the Mahmudi sovereigns, even at that time, was of great extent, and Ghur formed only a very small portion of it.
8	The word used by our author signifies tombs, sepulchres, and the like, which, of course, would scarcely be interred. The coffins and their contents were interred.
9	The word used here is Tafc, signifying an arch, among other meanings,356
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
and they were brought before the Sultan. Bags were filled with the earth1 of Ghaznln, and placed upon their backs, and [they were] brought along with him to Firuz-koh, the capital ; and, on reaching that city, the Sayyids were put to death, and their blood was mixed with the earth which had been brought from Ghaznln, and from it several towers2 were erected on the hills of Firuz-koh, which towers, moreover, were still remaining up to this present time. The Almighty pardon him !
After he had wreaked such vengeance as this, and returned to the capital again, 'Ala-ud-Din desired to devote himself to pleasure and revelry; and he gathered around him minstrels and boon companions, betook himself to conviviality and carousal, and improvised lines which he directed the minstrels to sing, and accompany on their harps and violins3. These are the lines:—
" I am [lie] in whose justice the world hath exultation ; And I am [he] through whose munificence the treasury sustaineth injustice. The finger of his hand, to his teeth, the enemy placeth4, When, to the string of the bow, I the tliimble apply®.
and it is also a proper name ; but no word signifying a bridge is wed in any copy of the text c-ollated, but some other writers say it was the Tak Bridge—the bridge leading to Tak, in Zabulistan, probably. Another writer, however, says, Surl and his Wazir were hung at the head of "the Bridge of Two Arches"—Jij->—and this is probably correct. In his account of Siiri, farther on, .our author says it was the Bridge of One Arch. See the first of the Ghaznln dynasty, Section XIX.
1	Khak signifies earth, not "dirt." The context shows what this earth was intended for, but dirt would scarcely have answered for making mortar.
2	Another author states that it was the remainder of the people of Ghaznin — not Sayyids only—that ' Ala-ud-Din removed, and that they were laden with sacks of earth from that city, and on their arrival at Firuz-koh they were slaughtered, and a building was raised from the earth which was mixed with their blood. The word used by our author signifies a tower, bastion, &c. The probability is that they were small towers, such as are raised for landmarks, and that the earth brought from Ghaznin, mixed with the blood of the Sayyids, and amalgamated with the mortar, was used for these buildings.
3	Here again the idiom of the different copies of the original varies so much that it would lead one to imagine tliat the work of our author must, originally, have been written in a different language. One set of copies has
j X' jji iiU^. j	li jjwhilst another set of copies has
Jwilo^T j j^iL-j j	jj \s jj^ii \j ^li^k. and throughout the work the
two sets agree word for word almost. The latter set is the least trustworthy.
* In token of astonishment.
5 A sort of thimble used by archers to protect the left thumb from the bow-slrimj.THE SHANSABANlAH DYNASTY OF GHtJR.
357
When my bay steed leap'd a square within the ranks,
The adversary no longer knew ball from square6.
When, out of hatred towards me, Bahram Shah" bent the bow,
I pluck'd, with my lance, the quiver from his waist.
The support of my foe, although they were all Raes [and] Ranahs,
I reduced, with my mace, to atoms, both Rae's and Ranah's head8.
To draw forth vengeance by the sword, I have indeed taught
The sovereigns of the time, and the kings of the age.
Ah, ravishing Minstrel ! since I am released from war,
Sing that strain indeed, and that melody enkindle.
When fortune hath been grasp'd, it is not right to renounce
The singers' melody, nor the fire-worshippers' pure wine."
Trustworthy persons have related after this wise, that, when Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din ascended the throne of Firuz-koh, he ordered his nephews, Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam9, and Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, sons of Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Muhammad Sam, to be imprisoned, and they were confined in the fortress of Wajiristan1, and an allowance was fixed for their support.
He ['Ala-ud-Din] also began to show a contumacious spirit towards Sultan Sanjar, and manifested open hostility
8 These two lines evidently refer to the game of Chaugan, from which the lately introduced game of Pola is derived. The text of these lines varies considerably in different copies of the original, but I have rendered the translation as close as possible; still the meaning is not clear. Probably horse and rider bore everything before them, and spread terror among the foe, and struck Bahram Shah with amazement.
" From this line, if correctly quoted, it was Bahram Shah who encountered 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain ; but other authors, as already noticed in note 2, page 347, distinctly state that he was dead before the second expedition against Ghaznin; but whether Bahram or Khusrau Shah—the measure would not be lost if " Khusrau " were substituted for Bahram—it would appear that Rajput and other Hindu princes and chiefs were in the Ghaznawid army on this occasion. See account of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, the second of the Ghaznin dynasty. In his account of Bahram Shah's reign, pages 109 to 111, our author says that he returned to Ghaznin after 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, withdrew, and died there. Those authors who contend that Bahram Shah had died a short time before ' Ala-ud-Din, Husain, appeared before Ghaznin, state that it was his son, Khusrau Shah, who left it on his approach, and who returned to it after the departure of the Ghurians, and finally relinquished it on the advance of the Ghuzz Turks, in 548 or 549 H., after the defeat of Sultan Sanjar, and his falling a captive into their hands in that year, two years only before the death of 'Ala-ud-Din.
8	The word is used in all but one copy of the text, which has signifying "a ball," and may even be the most applicable meaning after all.
9	Sam [Baha-ucl-Din] was the name of the father only.
1 The fortress of Nae probably, which stronghold was used as a state prison by the Ghaznawid Sultans.358
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
towards him3. What the Sultans of Ghur had stipulated for, and which used to reach the Sanjar! Court every year, such as arms and armour, rarities, and offerings, 'Ala-ud-Din withheld; and matters reached such a pass, that Sultan Sanjar assembled a numerousarmy, and determined to march into the territory of Ghur.
Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din collected the forces of Ghur. and advanced to meet the Sultan as far as the limits of the town of Nab, between Firuz-koh and Hirat, in the valley of the Hariw-ar-Rud. There is water there, and a delightful and extensive plain3, which they call Sih-goshah-i-Nab ;
2	This seems to confirm the statement of Fasih-i [note 4, page 336], that Husain ['Izz-ud-Din], son of Sam, 'Ala-ud-DTn, Husain's father, had also been made captive by Sultan Sanjar, some years before, and made tributary. Under the reign of Sanjar also, our author states, page 149, "The Maliks of Ghur and Sultans of the Jibal were all subject to Sultan Sanjar. It is probable that, as Sultan Sanjar had dethroned Sultan Arsalan, and had set up Bahrain Shah on the throne of Ghaznin. he [Sanjar] received, as lord-paramount over Ghaznin also, the tribute formerly paid by the chiefs of Ghur to the Sultans of the Mahmudi dynasty. When Bahram executed Saif-ud-DTn, Suri, 'Ala-ud-Din's brother, he sent his head to his uncle, Sultan Sanjar. See also Fanakati's statement, para. 10 to note 2, page 348.
3	Two copies have, " There there is a delightful river and an extensive plain ;" but of course the Hariw or Han-rud, as the river of Hirat is named, was there, and the extra river appears redundant.
Fasih-i states that the battle took place before Aobah, near Hirat [Aobah is Pus'hto for "water "], and in thisJahan-Ara agrees, but theTaiikh-i-Ibrahfmj says it took place at Maran-zad, but both places are in the Hirat district, and not far from each other.
In the year 544 H. [Fasih-i says as early as 542 H.], 'All, Jatri, [called Chatri by our author] who held the fief of Hirat, during Sultan Sanjar's absence, had become disaffected towards the Sultan, in what way is hot mentioned, for but little is said about him in history. [See note 8, page 237.] He concerted with 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, "Malik of Ghur," in this hostility, and Sanjar marched against them. They were defeated and overthrown in 545 H.—some say in 544 H., and Fasih-i 547 H.—and 'All, Jatri, 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, Ghun. and the Malik-zadah, Shams-ud-DTn, Muhammad [son of Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, ofBamian, elder brother of'Ala-ud-Din], were taken prisoners, the last by the hand of the Sipah-salar, Barankagh. Orders were given to put 'All, Jatri, to death at once, and ' Ala-ud-Din was thrown into prison; but Shams-ud-Din. Muhammad, having obtained 50,000 dinars from Barman, the sum demanded for his ransom, that sum was paid to Barankash, and he was set free. After some time, Sultan Sanjar took compassion on 'Ala-ud-DTn, set him at liberty, and made him one of his boon companions.
Fanakati here relates the story respecting ['Ala-ud-Din] Husain, which Fasih-i, and some others relate of his father, Husain, already recorded in note 4, page 336; but, although Fasih-i relates matters entirely different here respecting 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, and gives such circumstantial details, I still cannot but consider Rashid-ud-Din's account correct notwithstanding, who,THE SHANSABANlAH DYNASTY OF GHtfR. 359
and at that place an engagement took place between the two armies. Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, a day before the battle was fought, had directed so that the ground in rear of the forces of Ghur had been entirely laid under water; and he had caused it to be proclaimed that the ground in the rear had become quite flooded, and that whoever should attempt to fly to the rear would get into the mud, and stick there.
When the battle was arranged, and the two armies came in contact, a body of about 6000 Ghuzz, Turk, and Khalj horse, which was stationed on the right of the army of Ghur, deserted, and went over to Sultan Sanjar, and submitted to him, and the troops of Ghur were defeated and overthrown. The whole of the Amirs and warriors, and
however, styles both of them Husain, without giving their titles. The anecdote is much the same in both authors.
Fasih-i says, "When Husain ['Izz-ud-Din, Husain, of our author], son of Sam, was taken prisoner, [the Sultan commanded that he should be put to death, but, at the intercession of Shaikh Ahmad [the Imam-i-Rabbani of Rashid-ud-Din], Ghazzalt, he was spared, and set at liberty. This was in the year 545 H. For two years he used to light the fires of the cooks of the Sultan's army [our author would scorn to relate this, as it did not tend to the glorification of his patrons], until one day, the Amir [commander] of the troops of Khurasan. 'Imad-ud-Daulah, Kimaj, chanced to meet with him." FanakatT says, for two years ['Ala-ud-Din] Husain wandered about the bazars of Sanjar's camp [or capital] as a mendicant, when one day as Kimaj was passing the shop of a cook he noticed Husain, who was attending the fire and watching the cook's pot.
Kimaj took compassion on Husain and made known his case to the Sultan, who directed that he should be brought to his presence. When admitted, he kissed the ground before the Sultan, who said to him :—" I understand thou hast neither wealth nor effects left unto thee. Hast thou no sense of cleanliness left thee either?" [Rashid-ud-Din says, " Hast thou not the means and power of keeping one head and face clean ?"] Husain replied :—"In the days when this head was mine own head I had the good fortune to be attended by a thousand servants, but, now that it belongs to thee, thou keepest it thus wretched and abject." The Sultan was touched ; he pardoned him, treated him with honour, and sent him back to his native country attended by a large retinue; and to the end of his days Husain paid obedience to that monarch.
' Ala-ud-Din, Husain, was restored to the sovereignty of Ghur in 547 H., just before Sultan Sanjar moved against the Ghuzz. He was defeated and made captive in the first month of 548 H., and, when released in 551 H., no power was left to him. ' Ala-ud-Din died a month before Sanjar's release. Several authors mention Sanjar's having bestowed a casket of gems, one night at a convivial meeting, upon ' Ala-ud-Din, Husain, but treasure, flocks, and herds are not referred to. See page 238, and note 5.360
THE TABAKAT-I-NA$IRI.
distinguished men of the Ghurian army, got entangled in that swampy ground and morass. Some of them obtained martyrdom, and some were made captive, and Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din himself was taken prisoner.
Sultan Sanjar commanded that he should be put in confinement, and they brought gyves of iron to place on his legs. He urged that it was requisite they should fnake a representation [from him] to the Sultan, saying:—"Do unto me as I intended to have done unto thee, for I obtained gyves of gold, in order that, thereby, reverence for thy sovereignty might be so much the more preserved." When this request was made known, those identical gyves were called for, and, when they were obtained, those very same gyves were placed upon 'Ala-ud-Din's legs, and they mounted him upon a camel, and Sultan Sanjar returned [to his own territory].
As the report of Ala-ud-Din's wittiness of temperament, and quickness of intellect, was much talked about at that period, and had become famous, and Sultan Sanjar had heard a great deal about it, either the next day, or a few days after, he sent for him, treated him with honour, and set him at liberty [from his gyves]. A salver of precious gems had been placed near the masnad of the imperial throne, and that was bestowed upon 'Ala-ud-Din, who arose and made his obeisance, and spoke these lines, befitting the circumstance. The following is the quatrain :—
"In the rank of battle the Shah took me, but did not kill, Notwithstanding, of a verity, I was full worthy of being slain. A casket of precious gems he bestow'd upon me : In such wise his mercy [was], and his bounty such4."
Sultan Sanjar made him one of his associates and boon companions, and there was no pleasure-party without the presence of 'Ala-ud-Din, until one day, during a banquet, the sight of 'Ala-ud-Din fell upon the sole of Sultan San-jar's foot, who, seated on his throne, had extended one of his legs, upon the sole of the foot of which there was a large mole. He arose, kissed the mole, and improvised the following lines :—
4 Some other authors quote these lines differently, particularly the two last.THE SHANSABANlAH DYNASTY OF GHUR.	361
" Verily the dust at the gate of thy palace is [my] diadem sf And [this], the collar of thy service, is my adornment. In the same manner as I kiss the mole on the sole of thy foot, Even so good fortune [likewise] salutes my head."
This anecdote has been already related in the account of Sultan Sanjar's reign. The latter gave him back again the throne v of Ghur8. and he commanded that stores, treasure, all his herds of horses and camels and cattle, and flocks of sheep, his own personal property, should be made over to 'Ala-ud-Din; and Sultan Sanjar said:—"'Ala-ud-Din, thou art in the condition of a brother to me. Return, and take all these things—cattle and treasure— along with thee, and remove them to the country of Ghur. If the divine decree should in such wise will, that this host of Ghuzz sheuld be overcome, and we should obtain the victory, when these things shall be demanded of thee, send them back to me; but otherwise, if it should turn out that my dominion shall have come to an end, and the thread of the empire's regularity shall have been severed, it is far better that these things should remain with thee than that they should fall into the hands of the Ghuzz7."
During this period of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din's absence8 from the capital of the kingdom of Ghur, a number of the Amirs, Maliks, and the great men and judges of the Jibal [mountain tracts] and of the territory of Ghur, had agreed together to bring Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Husain9, son of Muhammad, of Madin, who was the brother's son of 'Ala-ud-Din, and place him upon the throne of Firuz-koh. A body of disobedient persons of the territory of Kashi1, who excel all the rest of the people of Ghur in arrogance and obstinacy, had committed great violence, and by their turbulence and clamour, under pretence of grants, gifts,
5 The first line here is slightly different in some few copies, and varies a little from what was given at page 150, and reads, "Verily the dust of thy steecPs hoo/\s my diadem," but the rest agrees with the former version. Other authors quote the line as given in the text above.
^ The Tari!vh,-i-Ibrahimi says "both Ghur and Ghaznin."
7	Another author says that Sultan Sanjar bestowed a standard and kettle drums upon 'Ala-ud-Din, and restored him to the rulership of G2iur.
8	Captivity did not sound well in Minhaj-i-Saraj's ears apparently.
9	Some have Hasan.
1 This word is written " Kasi " in several copies.
A a362
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
alms, and robes of distinction, had appropriated the royal treasure and property.
When Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din came towards Ghur from Khurasan with all that treasure, cattle, and wealth [conferred upon him by Sultan Sanjar], he first proceeded in the direction of the territory of Kashi, destroyed the whole of their Kushks [fortified villages], which exceeded a thousand Kasrs in number, and every one of which, in strength and height, was such, that the decision of conjecture and conception could not admit a plan of it.
After having taken vengeance upon the rebels of the Kashi territory and other mountain tracts, he ['Ala-ud-Din] returned to the capital Firuz-koh, and, before his reaching it, they had killed Malik Nasir-ud-Din-i-Muhammad, as will, subsequently, be recorded. When Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din arrived at Firuz-koh, and [again] seated himself on the throne of his ancestors, he turned his attention to the making of fresh conquests. He brought under his sway the districts of Bamian and Tukharistan2, and seized the districts of Dawar, J arum, and Bust also; and, of Khurasan, took the fortress of Tulak, which is situated in the mountains in the vicinity of Hirat, after a period of six years3.
There was a poet within the fortress of Tulak, whom they called by the name of'Umr-i-Saraj ; and, when hostij lities were about to come to an end, and the fortress of Tulak was about to be gained possession of by terms of accommodation, he composed some verses, two lines of which, which were deserving [of insertion], are here brought in:—
" Seated on horseback, galloping up-hill and down, Thy object is Tulak : lo ! there is Tulak."
In their language, galloping up-hill and down-dale is called "Wurlak-Fulak4." "The mercy of God be upon them!"
2	See the Tukharistan dynasty farther on.
3	According to this statement, 'Ala-ud-Din must have been investing this place during the whole of his reign, for he only ruled six years.
* These words vary in most of the copies of the text, but the best copies have as above written. Some have " Urlak-Fulak," " Warlak-Tulak," and " Wurkal-Tukal." The words are unintelligible, and are certainly not Pus'hto.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHUR. 363
From that place 'Ala-ud-Din turned his face to the conquest of Gharjistan; and took to wife the lady Hur Malikah, who was the daughter of the Shar, Shah [byname], son of Ibrahim, Shar, son of Ardshir, one of the Maliks of Gharjistan5; and the valley of the Murghab, river and [its] fortresses came into his possession. The fortress of Sabekji6 [or Sabegji], however, held out, and carried on hostilities [against him] for six years' ; and of this time, for a period of three years, he sat down continually before it, until it was given up to him.
Towards the end of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din's life, Mula-hidah emissaries came to him from Alamut8, and he treated them with great reverence; and in every place in Ghur they sought, secretly, to make proselytes. The Mulahidcih [heretic] of Alamut had set his ambition on subjecting the people of Ghur [to his heresy], and making them submissive. This fact became defilement which adhered to the train of the 'Ala-i robe of sovereignty. Of his life, however, but a short period remained, and he died, and they buried him by the side of his ancestors and his brethren9. The Almighty forgive him !
6 See note 6, page 341.
6	The name of this place is doubtful. The majority of copies have as written above ^X^- but other copies have ^jf^ — —jf**" —t/^*1 ~
and	Of Ghur we have no knowledge whatever, and the Politicals,
who were stationed in Afghanistan previous to the outbreak in 1841, although they did gain a little knowledge of the eastern parts of Afghanistan, appear almost to have neglected the western parts.
7	See note 3, preceding page.
8	Alamut, from ill and — the eagle's [not vulture's] nest—the name of the stronghold of Hasan-i-Sabbah, the S^aykh-ul-Jibal, or the Old Man of the Mountain, or Chief of the Assassins, as the chief of this sect used to be called. The person here referred to, however, is MUHAMMAD, son of BUZURG-UMID, the third of the Alamutiahs, who died in 557 h. In Elliot, India, vol. ii. pages 289-90, he is turned into " the Mulahi-datu-1-maut" ! See page 365, and note 3.
' Ala-ud-Din, Husain, died at Hirat in 551 h., the same year in which Sultan Sanjar escaped from the Ghuzz, and Itsiz, KJjwarazm Shah, died, according to Fasih-i, Lubb-ut-Tawarikh, Habfb-us-Siyar, Haft-Iklim, Mir'at-i-Jahan Numa, and several others, but, according to Jahan Ara and Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, in 556 h., but this is incorrect. Jannabl says in 566 h. ! Our author, although brought up in the residence of his niece, and the glorifier of all things Ghtirian. appears neither to have known the year of 'Ala-ud-DIn's death nor the extent of his reign. He reigned six years.
9	How many sons he had our author did not appear to consider necessary
A a 2364
the tabakat-i-nasirl
xv. malik nasir-ud-dln, al-husain, son of muhammad,
mAdini.
When Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, was made captive in the engagement with Sultan Sanjar, the [affairs of the] territories of Ghur and the Jibal [mountain tracts] became weak and disordered. The refractory and disobedient of Ghur began to show contumacy, and each tribe fortified itself in the hills and defiles in which it dwelt, and commenced carrying on strife and hostility one against the other.
A party of the great Amirs who still remained [for a great number had been slain or made captive in the battle against Sultan Sanjar] brought Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Husain, son of Muhammad, Madini, from Madin, and placed him on the throne of Firuz-koh1. The treasures of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, and the treasures of his son, Sultan Saif-ud-Din, he took into his own possession ; and the whole of the precious things, treasures, and valuable property, and other effects stored up, he expended upon those Amirs, and great men, and on mean persons, and seized upon the dominions of Ghur. His strength lay in the support of the rebels of the Kashi country.
This Malik, Na§ir-ud-Din, had a great passion for women and virgins, and he had taken a number of the handmaids and slave girls of the haram of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din under his own control, and used to have recourse to them. When Sultan Ala-ud-Din, having been dismissed with great honour and respect from the presence of Sultan Sanjar, set out towards the dominions of Ghur, and reached the hill country of Hirat, and the news of the advent of his exalted banners was brought to Firuz-koh, terror, and fright, and the fear of retribution, threw all hearts into dread.
A party, who were loyally devoted to the 'Ala-i dynasty, secretly instigated and incited those slave girls of 'Ala-ud-Din's haram, who had been taken into Malik Nasir-ud-Din's haram, so that they sought an opportunity; and, at
to state here ; but we shall find that he had two at least, both of whom succeeded to the sovereignty.
1 He is not mentioned as a ruler by other authors, who pass at once from ' Ala-ud-Din, Husain, to his son ; but there is no doubt about Nasir-ud-Di^ Husain, having seized the sovereignty and held it during the former's captivity.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHUR. 365
a time when Malik Nasir-ud-Din was lying asleep on his couch, they placed the pillow of the couch over his face, and, with all their force, held dowji the four corners of the pillow until they suffocated him, and he died.
XVI. SULTAN » SAIF-UD-DlN, MUHAMMAD, SON OF SULTAN 'ALA-UD-DiN, AL-HUSAIN.
When Sultan 'Ala-ud-D!n departed from this world, his son, Sultan Saif-ud-Din, Muhammad, with the concurrence of the whole of the Maliks, Amirs, and chief men of Ghur. ascended the throne of Firuz-koh.
He was a youthful ai)d good-looking sovereign, and was beneficent in disposition, just, the cherisher of his subjects, and patronizer of his servants, bountiful, munificent, open-hearted, and liberal, humble, conciliating, pious, orthodox, and steadfast the faith of Islam. When he ascended the throne, he, at the outset, repudiated acts of tyranny and injustice ; and for all the injustice, oppression, and violence which his father had committed, he commanded that restitution should be made ; and he carried out his purpose according to the institutes of justice, and the ways of rectitude.
Those emissaries who had come from the Mulahidah [heretic] of Alamut [towards the close of his father's reign], and who, secretly, had exhorted every person to the vanities of heresy and schism, he directed should be brought to task, and the whole of thepi, by his orders, were put to the sword. In every place wherein the odour of their impure usages was perceived, throughout the territory of Ghur, slaughter of all heretics was commanded. The whole of them were sent to Hell, and the area of the country of Ghur, which was a mine of religion and orthodoxy, was purified from the infernal impurity of Karamitah3 depravity by the sword. By this orthodox war upon infidels, love for him became rooted in the hearts of the people of Ghur and of the territory of the Jibal ; and the
a Styled Malik by several authors.
3 Our author makes no difference between Mulahidahs and Karamitahs, but they are different sects. See Sale, Ku'ran, Preliminary Discourse, pages 130-31.366
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
whole of them bound the girdle of his service round their loins, and placed the collar of obedience to him about the neck of sincerity.
One of the proofs of his equity, and of the goodness of his rule, was this, that he gave orders for the release from the fortress of Wajiristan of both his uncle's sons, Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad, and Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, the sons of Sam, and he cherished and caressed them, and allowed them perfect liberty of action.
During his reign people, both comers and goers, enjoyed plenty, repose, and security beyond compute ; but that youthful monarch of excellent disposition had but a short life, and his reign only extended to the space of one year and little more. The mercy of God be upon him !
The cause of his loss of life was this ;—One day, seated in his pavilion, he was discharging arrows at a butt; and the Amirs of Ghur had been directed to be present, and were in attendance. The Sipah-salar [commander of the troops], War-mesh, son of Shis, who was the brother of Abu-1-'Abbas, son of Shis, and the brother of Suliman, son of Shis, was also in attendance on him. It was the custom with the Amirs of Ghur, and the Maliks of the Jibal, at that period, that upon whomsoever they would confer honour, him they should present with a golden gauntlet studded with jewels, after the same manner as, in these days, they bestow a girdle ; and on the hand[s] of this commander, War-mesh, son of Shis, were two gem-studded gauntlets4, which Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Husain, Madini, had honoured him with ; and both those gauntlets were from the treasury of Sultan Saif-ud-Din's own haram. When he perceived those two gauntlets belonging to his own haram upon the hand of War-mesh, the honour of manhood, and the dignity of sovereignty, began to flame up within his heart, and the fire of wrath burst forth, and he said:—" Run, War-mesh, and bring back my arrow from the butt." When War-mesh turned his face towards the
4 The word used is	a glove or gauntlet; a bracelet may have
been what our author intended, as it is difficult, I should imagine, to wear two gauntlets on 07ie hand, but he says " on the hand," not the hands. The word for bracelet, however, is	Other writers say, a bracelet, which Nasir-
ud-Din, Husain,. had taken from one of'Ala-ud-Din's wives, and presented to War-mesh. It is the father's haram at page 364.THE SHANSABANiAH DYNASTY OF QHtfR. 367
butt, in order to carry out this command, and his back was turned towards the Sultan, he, Sultan Saif-ud-Din, fitted a broad steel-headed arrow5 to his bow, and drew the bow-string to his ear, and discharged the arrow with such force into the back of War-mesh, that the feathers of the arrow passed out through his breast, and he fell down dead on the spot8.
As the empire of the Sanjari dynasty had come to an end, the Amirs of the tribe of Ghuzz had acquired power, and had taken possession of the different parts of the territory of Khurasan, and their violence and depredations had extended in all directions; and the disquietude and affliction consequent upon these depredations used to reach the frontier districts of the kingdom of Ghur, and the borders of the hill tracts of Gharjistan.
When Sultan Saif-ud-Din brought the dominions of his father under his jurisdiction, he assembled his forces, and set out for the purpose of restraining the aggressions of the Ghuzz, and reached the confines of Gharjistan, and the district of Madin7. From thence he advanced to Rud-bar8 of Marw, and passed beyond Dajzak, which is a large city [town ?], and came to a battle with the Ghuzz.
The Sipah-salar, Abu-1-'Abbas, son of Shis, who was the champion of Ghur, of the family of the Shisanis, and who nourished revenge in his heart on account of War-mesh, son of Shis [his own brother], and waited his opportunity, on the day of the encounter with the Ghuzz, came behind the back of the Sultan, Saif-ud-Din, and thrust his spear into his side, and hurled him from his horse, and exclaimed [at the same time], " Men are not killed with their faces to the butt, as thou didst kill my brother, otherwise they [themselves] get killed at such a place as this9."
5 The arrow-head called bel-ak, formed in the shape of a shovel; hence its name—a little shovel. It is also called the "huntsman's arrow-head," and a double-pointed arrow-head also.
0 The "meek, conciliating, and pious" youth did not hesitate to shoot an enemy in the back !
7	Some copies of the text have l*anis, which is sometimes written Kadus, instead of Madin. See page 374, and note 6.
8	Rud-bar also means "a river in a valley," but here refers to a place so called.
9	Some writers mention that he was '' killed in battle with the Ghuzz of UalM}," and that it happened in 558 H. ; but he is said to have reigned some-368
THE TABAKAT-I-N'ASIRI.
When the Sultan fell, the troops of Ghur were defeated and routed, and they likewise left the [wounded] Sultan on the field. A Ghuzz [soldier] came upon him, and, as yet, the Sultan was still alive. The Ghuzz, when he noticed the princely vest and girdle, was desirous of despoiling him of them.' The fastening of the Sultan's girdle would not come open quickly, on which the Ghuzz applied his knife to the fastening, and divided it. The point of the knife entered the stomach of Sul£an Saif-ud-Din with force, and from that wound he obtained martyrdom.
XVII. SULTAN 1-UL-A'ZAM, eHIYAS-UD-DUNYA WA UD-DIN,
ABU-L-FATH, MUHAMMAD, SON OF BAHA.UD-DIN, SAM, KASIM-I-AMIR-UL-MUMININ 2.
Trustworthy persons have stated, after the following manner, that Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, and his brother, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, were both born of one mother ; and that Ghiyas-ud-Din was the elder of Mu'izz-ud-Din by three years and a little more. Their mother was the daughter of Malik Badr-ud-Din, Kidani, both of the lineage of Banji, son of Naharan, and also of the seed of the Shansabanis. The Malikah, their mother, used to call Gliiyas-ud-Din [by the name of] Habashi ; and Mu'izz-ud-Din, Zangi3; but, originally, the august name of Ghiyas-ud-Din was Muhammad, and the name of Mu'izz-ud-Din was
thing less than two years, and, in this case, if his father died in 551 H., there are three or four years unaccounted for, and, if the former date is correct, 'Ala must have died in 556 II., or his son must have reigned about seven years ; but, as our author says that Ghiyas-ud-Din, who succeeded him, died in 599 Hafter a reign of forty-three years, Saif-ud-Din, 'Ala's son, must have been killed in 556 H. Some other authors, however, say Ghiyas-ud-Din only reigned forty-one years, which would make 558 H. as the year of Saif-ud-Din's death correct. The Mir'at-i-Jahan Numa says that his father died in 551 H., and Saif-ud-Din reigned one year and a half, and by some accounts seven years, and that he was killed in a battle with the Ghuzz of Balled. In all probability he was killed in 558 H.
1	Styled " Malik" by many authors, like the whole dynasty.
2	The legendary etymology of this assumed title has already been given at page 315; but its real meaning was, probably, co-sharer, or the like, from
a share, portion, &c. See also page 316, and note 9.
3	Why their mother called them by these '' pet" names does not appear. We must suppose that they were both very dark indeed, as both words signify Abyssinian, Ethiop, negro, &c.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 369
also Muhammad. In the dialect of Ghur they call Muhammad, Ahmad4.
When Malik Baha-ud-Din, Sam, died within the limits of Kidan, and Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, ascended the throne of Firuz-koh, he commanded that his,two nephews, Ghiyas-ud-Din and Mu'izz-ud-Dln, should be imprisoned in the fortress of Wajiristan5, and fixed but a small allowance for the supply of their wants6. When Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din departed from this world, Sultan Saif-ud-Din directed that they should be released from that fortress, and he allowed them entire liberty of action. Ghiyas-ud-Din took up his residence at the Court of Firuz-koh in amity with Sultan Saif-ud-Din, and Mu'izz-ud-Din, his brother, proceeded to Bamian to the presence of his paternal uncle, Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud.
Ghiyas-ud-Din accompanied Sultan Saif-ud-Din, serving along with the army, on the expedition against the Ghuzz tribe ; but he had, however, but a small following through want of means and scantiness of resources ; but every one, among the old servants of his father and of his mother, used clandestinely to afford him some little help.
Ghiyas-ud-Din continued always in the service of Sultan Saif-ud-Din up to the time when the heavenly decree arrived, and Sultan Saif-ud-Din was removed from the throne of life imperial to the bier of premature death1; and the army of Ghur, discomfited, came out of the district of Rtid-bar and the borders of Dajzak towards Gharjistan by way of Asir Darah and La-wir [or Lu-ir ?], and passed beyond Afshin, which was the capital of the Shars of Gharjistan; and, when they reached the town of Wad-a-wajzd8, the Sipah-salar, Abu-1-'Abbas, son of Shis, who
* See note 4, page 313.
5	A few authors have stated that the two brothers were placed in charge of Ghaznln [not a province of Ghur] by their uncle, 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, but such is not correct, and our author's statements here and at pages 357 and 366 are quite correct, and are confirmed by many authors of undoubted authority. See also Thomas : The Pathan Kings of Dehli, page 10.
6	See paragraph 14, note 2, page 347.
7	For shooting the greatest of his chiefs in the back, in a cowardly manner, in a fit of jealousy.
8	The text here in all the copies is more or less exceedingly defective, and it would be almost impossible to make anything of this passage without collating the number of copies I have seen. As it is there is some doubt about two or three of the proper names. Some copies have Abar [y1] and Asir37°
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
had unhorsed Sultan Saif-ud-Dtn with his spear, there presented himself in the presence of Ghiyas-ud-Din; and such of the most powerful and illustrious personages, and the Amirs and Maliks of the troops of Ghur and Gharjistan as were present, he assembled and brought together, and they all gave their allegiance to the sovereignty and dominion of Ghiyas-ud-Din, and they raised him to the throne, and congratulated him on his accession to the supreme power. Command was given to erect a castle there [where this occurred], and up to this time, wherein the calamity of the infidel Mughals arose, that town and castle was inhabited. From thence they conducted him to the city of Firuz-koh, and, when they reached the city, they placed Ghiyas-ud-Din on the throne.
Previously to this, his title was Shams-ud-Din ; and his brother's, Shihab-ud-Din ; but, "after he had been on the throne some time, his own title was changed to Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din ; and, after the successes in Khurasan, his brother Malik Shihab-ud-Din's title became Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din9.
When his brother, Mu'izz-ud-Din1, became cognizant of his brother Ghiyas-ud-Din's situation, he proceeded to the presence of his uncle, Malik Fakhr-ud-Din. Mas'ud, and asked his permission, and came to Firuz-koh, and he was invested with the office of Sar-i-Jandar [or chief armour-bearer], and he used to be always in attendance on his brother, Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din. The territory of Istiah2 and Kajuran were entrusted to his charge.
[,J] for Asir [,-"']> and Wajzaward [	for Wadawajzd [•^•j'J;] Some
copies may be read any way, and have no diacritical points. The name of the capital of Gharjistan, which is also called Gharchistan, is also written in various ways, and, in some copies, is unintelligible ; but the above reading is confirmed by Yafa-T, who gives a detailed account of the Shars ; but Fasih-I calls the town Afshinah. Ibn-Hukal says, the two [chief] towns of Gharjistan are not and	The first is evidently an error of the copyist for and so confirms Yafa-i's statement.
9 Several years after his brother's accession. Modern writers of Indian history generally, and European writers, English in particular, put the cart before the horse in this respect, but the latest version of his name, in this way, occurs in The Student's Manual of Indian History, where he appears as " Shahab ood Deen, Mahmood Ghoory "! Shihab has a meaning, but " Shahab " none : moreover his name was not Mahmud.
1	The writer does not mean that he was then Mu'izz-ud-Din, but subsequently.
2	Written by some other authors, Istiya. It is the name of a small district and range of hills between Ghaznln and Hirat.THE SHANSABANlAH DYNASTY OF QHUR.	371
When the [Sultan's] pavilion was brought out of the city of Firuz-koh, and conveyed towards Ghur3, the contumacious of Ghur began to manifest opposition. The Sipah-salar, Abu-1-'Abbas, son of Shis, who had raised him to the throne, possessed great authority and influence, and the refractory of Ghur used to shelter themselves under his protection. Both the brothers continued to nourish revenge in their hearts against him [Abu-1-'Abbas], on account of his having killed their cousin, Sultan Saif-ud-Din, and they both concerted a design [against him]. It was determined between them, that one of their own immediate Turkish followers should carry it out [in the following manner] :—When Abu-1-'Abbas should enter the audience-hall, and should stand up in the assembly to make his obeisance, and Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din should raise his hand to his cap4, the Turk should strike off Abu-1-'Abbas' head; and such was done.
After Abu-1-'Abbas had been put to death, Ghiyas-ud-Din acquired strength, and the grandeur of the realm increased. The uncle of the brothers, Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, of Bamian, being the eldest of the seven Sultan brothers5, and there being neither one of them remaining [but himself], he became ambitious of acquiring the territory of Ghur and the throne of Firuz-koh. Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Kimaj [a noble] of the Sanjari dynasty, who was Malik [ruler] of Balkh, he sought aid from, and despatched envoys to Malik Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz6, of Hirat, and asked assistance from him also. Subsequently, the
3	From the manner in which our author here expresses himself [and the sentence is the same in all the copies collated], Ghur must have been the name of a town as well as of the whole country. From many of his expressions, however, in other places, Firuz-koh would seem to refer to one district or territory, Ghur to another, and the Jibal to a third.
4	The word here used signifies not a cap exactly, but a head-dress made from the fur or skin of an animal, of cloth or other texture, or of cloth of gold, and the like, made into a head-dress, a tiara, diadem, &c., but not a turban. Ghiyas-ud-Din, the elder brother, engaged Abu-1-'Abbas in conversation, whilst the other brother gave the sign for his assassination. Abu-l-'Abbas appears to have suspected treachery, for he had half drawn his dagger from its sheath when he was cut down. This is a specimen of the noble qualities of those amiable and pious sovereigns of our author, and is quite in keeping with their treachery, or at least with Mu'izz-ud-D!n's towards Khusrau Malik. See note s, pages 112-13.
4 They were not all styled " Sultan," even by his own account.
6 I-yal-duz of others.372
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
troops of Bamian and the forces of Balkh and of Hirat advanced from different directions towards Firuz-koh.
Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, of Bamian, being the uncle of the Sultans, and there being a great number of the Amirs of Ghur in his service, and he claiming the territory of Ghur by right of heritage, set out at first, and Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Kimaj, the Amir [ruler] of Balkh, began to follow after him, at the distance of some leagues, by the route of Upper Gharjistan, while Malik Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, marched to Firuz-koh with his army from Hirat, it being the nearest route by way of the Hariw-ar-Rud \ or valley of the Hart river.
Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din and Mu'izz-ud-Din came out of Firuz-koh, and proceeded to a place which is called Ragh-i-Zarirs [the Zarir plain] and the forces of Ghur there assembled around them. Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, of Hirat, used the utmost expedition, being ambitious of this, that perhaps the capture of Firuz-koh and the destruction of the Ghurian army might be achieved by him.
When he arrived near to the position of the Ghurian forces, and both armies confronted each other, and preparations were being made for coming to action, so that only about the distance of half-a-league intervened between them, and the ranks of either army could be seen by the other, two Ghurian warriors from the midst of the army formed a compact, and came to the front of the [marshalled] ranks, and presented themselves before the Sultan, dismounted from their horses, and, bowing their faces to the ground, said, "We two your servants will disperse the army of Hirat;" so by command they mounted, and, rousing both their horses, they drew their swords, and, like the fierce bla'st, and the flying cloud, they approached towards the ranks of the Turks of Hirat, crying out, "Where is Malik Yal-duz ? We seek Malik Yal-duz !"
Malik Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, was standing beneath his canopy, and his t troops all pointed towards him, so that those Ghurian warriors knew which was Yal-duz ; and both
7	This clause of the sentence is only contained in the best copies of the text.
8	In some copies " Ragh-i-Zar," which is much the same, zar signifying golden or yellow, and Zarir the name of a grass yielding a yellow dye. One old copy has Wejz, which signifies pure.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF QHUR. 373
of them like hungry lions and rampant elephants fell upon Yal-duz, and brought him from his horse to the ground by the wounds inflicted by their swords. When the troops of Hirat beheld this heroism, boldness, and intrepidity, they gave way and took to flight. As Almighty God had brought those two Sultans, Ghiyas-ud-Din and Mu'izz-ud-Din, beneath the shadow of His kindness, He made such a victory and triumph as this a miracle of theirs9.
The next day a body of horse \ lightly equipped and ruthless, was nominated to proceed against the force of Kimaj of Balkh. They fell upon his army unawares, put it to flight, took Kimaj, and slew him, and brought his head to the pres^ice of the Sultans together with his standard. Then the head of Kimaj was placed in a bag, and entrusted to a horseman's charge, and they sent him to meet their uncle, Malik Fakhr-ud-Din. Mas'ud. The latter had arrived near at hand ; and, when they [the Sultans] had despatched the head of Kimaj, they put their forces in motion to follow, and pushed on towards their uncle, Malik Fakhr-ud-Din.
When that horseman brought the head of Kimaj to the presence of Malik Fakhr-ud-Din he determined upon returning, and made his troops mount ; and, by the time they had become ready prepared to begin their retreat, the two Sultans had come up [with their forces] and had occupied all the parts around. On reaching the place where their uncle was, Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din and Mu'izz-ud-Din at once dismounted from their horses, and proceeded to receive him, and paid him great attention and consideration, and said, " It is necessary that your lordship should return;" and they conducted him to their camp and seated
9 This "miracle" is not mentioned by other authors, with the exception of a very few who copy from our author. The Rauzat-us-Safa says that the brothers despatched two bodies of troops to oppose the advance of two of the confederates, the ruler of Hirat, whose name is not given, and Kimaj of Balkh ; and that the Ghurian forces slew both of them, and returned triumphant to the presence of Ghiyas-ud-Din, who despatched the head of the son of Kimaj of Balkh to his uncle, who repented of his expedition, and sought to retire. Troops had been despatched, however, to surround him, and the brothers followed ; and, when they found Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, their uncle, had been intercepted, they went to him. Then follows much copied almost word for word from our author.
1 Three copies of the text have "several thousand horse," &c.374
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRl.
him on a throne, and both those sovereigns2 stood up before him with their hands stuck in their girdles [in token of servitude]. From this Malik Fakhr-ud-Dln became filled with shame and compunction, and, overcome with humiliation, he spoke to them some words of rebuke, arose, and said, " You mock me ! " They mollified him by many apologies and excuses, and accompanied him one stage, and sent him on his return back to Bamian ; and the territory of Ghur was left vacant to Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din.
After that event he proceeded into Garmsir and Zamin-i-Dawar, and that tract was liberated3; and, as Malik Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, of Hirat, had been slain, and the army of Hirat had returned thither discomfited, Badr-ud-Din, Tughril, who was one of [Sultan] Sanjar's slaves 4, took Hirat into his own jurisdiction, and held possession of it for a considerable time, until the inhabitants of Hirat despatched petitions to Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din inviting him [thither], and that success 5 was also achieved.
2	Mu'izz-ud-Din was not then a sovereign prince, and did not become so nominally until after the talcing of GhaznTn from the Ghuzz.
3	He obtained possession of Badghais at the same period, and is said to have entered into a connexion with the chiefs of Gharjistan, and established his sway also over that tract of country. From whose possession Garmsir and Zamin-i-Dawar were "liberated" our author does not state. Fasih-i, however, mentions that in the same year in which he succeeded his cousin, 558 H., Ghiyas-ud-Din fought an engagement with the Ghuzz, vanquished them, and imposed tribute on them. The Ghuzz were doubtless in possession of the districts mentioned above.
4	See note s, page 379.
? This "success" could have been but a very temporary one, for, by our author's own account, Tughril was in possession of Hirat up to the year when Sultan Shah. Khwarazmi, was defeated by the Ghuris, which event took place in 588 H. In another place, our author, referring to this "taking" of Hirat, says it happened in 571 H., yet seventeen years after Tughril still, by his own account, held Hirat. Seepage 249, and note s, page 379.
During the Khilafat of the 'Abbas! Khalifah, Mihdl, the Ghuzz entered Mawar-un-Nahr from the north, and became converts to Islam ; but Mukanna'-i-Miti [the " great Mokanna" of Moore's poem of "Lalla Rookh"], the false prophet, reduced them under his sway. When the 'Abbasls set about putting down Mukanna', the Ghuzz deserted him, and retired to the more southern parts of Mawar-un-Nahr. They were constantly engaged in hostilities with the Karlughiah Turk-mans, who were generally victorious over them. The Ghuzz were in the habit of paying tribute to the sovereign of the period, and, when Sultan Sanjar ascended the throne of the Saljuks, 40,000 Ghuzz families entered the territory of Khutlan and Chaghanian, and paid a tribute of 24,000 sheep to the royal kitchen. In 545 H., according to Alfi, when Amir Kimaj [the Kimaj mentioned above, and in note 4, page 336, also probably] was Wall ofTHE SHANSABANfAH DYNASTY OF £tHOR.	375
After some years Faras and the territory of Kaliyun [or Kal-yun], and Fiwar and Baghshor9, came into his posses-
Balkh, the Ghuzz became disaffected about the collection of the tribute. Kimaj was at enmity with Amir Zangi, son of Khalifah, Shaibani, the Wall of Tnkhari starr [this was a short time before Fakhr-ud-Din. Mas'ud, Ghuri. became ruler of Tulcharistan and Bamian], who, seizing the opportunity of Kimaj's absence at the court of Sultan Sanjar, and fearing lest the Ghuzz, who had lately been worsted by the Karlughs, and had abandoned Mawar-un-Nahr, and contemplated migration into Khurasan, might be induced to join his enemy, Amir Kimaj, he invited them to take up their quarters in Tukharistan, wherein he assigned them lands. In a dispute about the revenue, brought about by Kimaj out of enmity to Zangi, the Ghuzz slew him and one of his sons, and, at last, Sultan Sanjar moved against them, and he fell captive into their hands. Sanjar returned from captivity in 551 h., having effected his escape by the aid of Ahmad, son of Kimaj, governor of Tirmid [see page 155, and note a, and note 8, page 156], and died in 552 h. In 553 h. the Ghuzz poured forth from Balkli [the province of?], and moved towards Sarakhs. Mu'ayyid-i-'A-inah-dar, the slave of Mahmud, Sanjar's nephew, and, afterwards, ruler of Nlshapur [se£ note 7, page 180], and other parts of Upper Khurasan, made a night attack upon them, and overthrew them with great slaughter. He encountered them again, two months after, in sight of Marw, whither they had moved, when the Ghuzz were victorious, and they carried on great depredations in Khurasan. Other events followed, which are too long to be related here ; but, subsequently, Mu'ayyid became independent, and acquired power over greater part of Khurasan. The Ghuzz were in possession, however, of Marw, Sarahs, Balkh, and some other tracts; and some parts were under the sway of the Kh,warazmis. Hirat was held by a chief named Malik Aetkin, who, in 559 h., marched into Ghur with a considerable army ; but, the Ghuris being prepared to receive him, Aetkin was slain in the battle which ensued. This in all probability is the Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, of our author. He was succeeded at Hirat by one of his own officers, styled Babar-ud-Din in Alf i, and he must be our author's Baha-ud-Dln, Tughril. This chief, not considering himself safe from the power of Amir Mu'ayyid, and having some previous acquaintance with the Ghuzz chiefs, called upon them to help him, intending to give up Hirat to them. On the appearance of the Ghuzz, however, the people of Hirat rose against Babar-ud-Din, and put him to death in the same year. [See note 2, page 239.] Mu'ayyid was himself put to death in 569 h. Saif-ud-DIn, Muhammad of Ghur, was slain when engaging the Ghuzz of Balkh in 558 h., and in the same year his successor, Ghivas-ud-Din, defeated them with great slaughter, and imposed tribute on [some portion ?] of them, and in 571 h. his brother, Mu'izz-ud-Dtn, encountered a tribe of them, as will be mentioned under his reign. Ghivas-ud-Din, Ghuri, gained possession of Hirat [temporarily ?] in 571 h. These events appear to be identical with what our author relates above. See also second paragraph to note at page 349, page 367, and note 5, page 379.
6 With respect to these proper names there is great discrepancy in the different copies of the text. The majority of the best and oldest copies are as above ; but in place of Faras, some have Fadas and Kadas, and one Kadusli, which place is mentioned, in several places, written in the samp manner. In place of Baghshor, contained in one set of copies, Saif-rud is contained in the other set. I have before alluded to this curious fact that the twelve copies collated appear, in several places, to be two distinct sets of the original. In376
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
sion ; and, when these parts came under his Jurisdiction, he took to wife the daughter of his uncle, the Malikah, Taj-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Gohar Malik [Malikah ?] the daughter of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain. The whole of Gha'rjistan, and Tal-kan 7, and Juzarwan 8, devolved upon him ; and Tigin-abad, out of the district of Jarum 9, Ghiyas-ud-Din made over to his brother, Mu'izz-ud-Din, after he had returned from Sijistan \ He [now] began to despatch [bodies of] horse towards Ghaznin, and the district of Zabul, and parts adjacent thereunto; and, at that period, the territory of Kabul, Zabul, and Ghaznin were in the hands of the tribes of the' Ghuzz, who had wrested them out of the possession of Khusrau. Shah2. The reign of Khusrau Shah had terminated, and his son, Khusrau Malik, had made Lohor his capital.
The Amirs of the Ghuzz- [tribe] who were in Ghaznin. not being able to oppose the forces of Ghur [in the field] threw up intrenchments, and, from the excessive firmness of the Ghuzz, the Ghurian army very nearly sustained an overthrow. Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din retired, and despatched a body of Ghurians to the aid of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din 3. Suddenly a body of Ghuzz warriors attacked [the army of Ghur], and captured the royal standard of the Ghurians. and carried it away within their own intrenchments. The Ghurian forces in the right and left wings imagined that
the list of places and territories acquired at the end of Ghiyas-ud-Din's reign farther on, the name of Baghshor is not mentioned. It is probable that Fiwar and Baghshor are correct, and that one has been omitted by different copyists.
7	A different place to Tae-kan.
8	This is the place referred to fifth paragraph of note 2, pages 257-8.
9	In a few copies "and the district of Jarum and TigTn-abad," &c.
1	See page 184.
2	This remark confirms the statements of those authors who state that Khusrau Shah returned to his sacked and devastated capital after ' Ala-ud-Din, Husain, had abandoned it, and also tends to show that it must have been the same monarch, and not his father, who fled from Ghaznin when ' Ala-ud-Din, Husain, appeared before it. See para. 10 to note 2, p. 347, and note3, p. 350.
3	The whole of this sentence, and the first word of the next, are neither contained in either of the Paris copies, nor in the Bodleian MS., the I.O.L. MS., 1952, or the R. A.S. MS.; and, certainly, the passage is somewhat obscure. It would appear that Ghiyas-ud-Din retired to obtain reinforcements, and also that he subsequently returned [as mentioned a few sentences after], which latter statement is contained in those very copies which omit the former. The Sultan, however, could not have retired to any very great distance, otherwise he would not have been in time to take part in the closing scene of the battle.THE SHANSABANiAH DYNASTY OF GHUR.
377
the royal standard had accompanied their own centre into the intrenchments of the enemy, and they advanced to the attack in all directions, broke through the intrenchments of the Ghuzz, and carried them, and put the Ghuzz to the rout. The news reached Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, who returned ; and the troops of Ghur commenced slaughtering the Ghuzz, and laid the greater number of that race on the earth, and Ghaznin was left in the possession of the Ghuris. This victory was gained in the year 569 H.4
When Ghaznin was conquered, Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din placed his brother, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, upon the throne of the Mahmudis and returned himself to Firuz-koh.
After two years, he [Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din] summoned his troops [again], and the armies of Ghur and Ghaznin. were got ready, and he advanced to the gates of the city of Hirat. The people of that place had been manifesting signs of duty and desire [to place themselves under his rule]. When Baha-ud-Din, Tughril, became aware of this [latter] fact, he evacuated the city of Hirat, and retired to the Khwarazm-Shahis6; and, in the year 671 H.7, the city of Hirat was taken possession of. Two years subsequent to this, Fushanj was taken; and, after these successes, the
4	This is the second date given by our author throughout the whole of this Section. At page 112 he says the Ghuzz held possession of Ghaznin twelve years, and here says Ghiyas-ud-DIn took it from them in 569 H., by which account they must have got possession of it in 557 H. Khusrau Shah died in 555 H. ; so, if the above dates are correct, they could not have wrested Ghaznin out of his hands. I think our author is pretty correct as to the period the Ghuzz held Ghaznin, and they appear to have obtained possession of it in 557 H., or 558 H,, probably after the death of Saif-ud*Din, Surl, 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain's son, and defeat of the Ghurians by the Ghuzz.
5	From which time only he is entitled to be styled Sultan. Fasih-i says that as early as 566 H, the Maliks of Qhur had acquired power in the Ghaznin territory and in part of Hind, and the Khwarazm Shahis in 'Irak and Khurasan ; but agrees with our author as to the date of the acquirement of the city of Ghaznin, but some other authors state that it was taken in 568 H, It was in 569 H. that Malik Mu-ayyid i-A'Inah-dar, in concert with Sultan Shah, fought an engagement with Sultan 'Imad-ud-Din, Takislj,. See note page 180, and note page 245.
6	Fasih-i does not mention the acquirement of Hirat among the events of 571 H., but states that in that year Mu'izz-ud-Din, Wall of Ghaznin,, encountered the Sankuran, a sept of the Ghuzz tribe, and slew many of them. Some other authors, who say that Ghaznin was taken in 568 H., state that Hirat was acquired two years after—in 570 H. The particulars of Tughril's death will be found at page 379.
" See note s, page 379.
B b378
THI-: tabakAt-i-nasiri.
Malik of Nimroz and Sijistan despatched envoys, and he enrolled himself among the vassals of that Sultan.
Subsequently to these events, the Ghuzz Maliks who were in Kirman8 paid submission to him; and different parts of the territpry of Khurasan, which were dependent upon Hirat and Balkh. such as Tal-kan, Andkhud. Maimand9 Faryab, Panj-dih, Marw-ar-Rud, Dajzak, Kilaf1, the whole of those towns came into the possession of the Ghiyasi officers, and the Khutbah and the coin became adorned by the august name of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din.
After some time, Sultan Shah, Jalal-ud-Din, Mahmud, son of I-yal-Arsalan, Khwarazm Shah, was ousted by his brother, Takish, Khwarazm Shah, and presented himself at the Court of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din2. After a time he became seditious, as has been previously recorded, and departed for Khita. and from thence brought aid, and took Marw, and began to ravage the frontier districts of the territories of Ghur, and commenced harrying and plundering them, until, in the year 588 H., Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din commanded, so that Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din from Ghaznin, Malik Shams-ud-Din3 of Bamian, and Malik Taj-ud-Din-i-Harab, from Sijistan, with their forces, assembled at Rudbar of Marw, and they came and confronted the forces of Sultan Shah, who, with his troops, marched out of Marw, and proceeded up [the river]; and, in opposing the Sultan, used to make irregular and sudden attacks, and to continually harass the foragers of the Sultan's army. For a period of six months
8	Malik 'Imad-ud-DTn, Dinar, the Ghuzz chief, driven out of the territory of Sarakhs by Sultan Shah, Khwarazmi [see note 8, page 246], retired towards Kirman in 581 H. ; and, taking advantage of the distracted state of that kingdom, succeeded in establishing himself therein in Rajab, 583 H., and reigned over it for a period of eight years, and his son succeeded him. The subjection of the Ghuzz rulers of Kirman to Ghiyas-ud-Din is not confirmed by other authors.
9	Called also Maihand by some other writers. " Meemuna" and "Meimuna " are mere Anglicised forms, according to the rule of writing Oriental names contrary to the mode of the inhabitants of places, and also contrary to the way in which they are spelt.
1	This name is somewhat doubtful. Some have Kasjiif, but the majority of copies have utS the t-i-jf probably of Ibn-i-Hukal.
2	See page 239 and note 2.
3	The same that was taken prisoner in the battle with Sultan Sanjar, along with 'Ala-ud-DIn, Husain, and 'All, JatrT, and ransomed for 50,000 dinars. See note 3, p. 358.THE SHANSABANlAH DYNASTY OF GHPR.
this harassing warfare went on ; and the two armies continued in proximity to each other until Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din commanded that a ferry over the river Murgh-ab should be sought for, and he crossed it [with his own forces], and the other troops crossed over after him ; and Sultan Shah was defeated and put to the rout.
This success was gained in the year 588 H.4; and Malik Baha-ud-Din, Tughril. the Sanjart, in that encounter, fell into the hands of the Bamian troops, and they brought his head to the. presence of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Dln5. On that day, likewise, Malik Shams-ud-Din of Bamian, son of Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, who was the Sultans' uncle, obtained [the honour of] a canopy of state, and they gave him the title of Sultan.
In this same year likewise, previous to the time that the forces of Ghur, Ghaznin. and Bamian were about to assemble at Rudbar of Marw, for the purpose of restraining Sultan Shah, commands had been issued for the martyrdom of the gentle and beneficent Sultan, Khusrau Malik6. The mercy of the Almighty be upon him!
Every year fresh successes were taking place in different directions of the territories of Ghur7, until, in the year
4 This was the year in which, according to most writers, and also our author himself, Mu'-izz-ud-DIn of Ghaznin defeated the Rae of Dihli.
8 Our author, in another place, page 377, says Ghaznin was taken in 569 h. [others say, in 568 h.], and that in 571 h. Hirat was taken, and Baha-ud-Din, Tughril, evacuated the city on the approach of the Ghurls, and joined the Khwarazmis. The Ghuris could not have held Hirat very long, for this affair with Sultan Shah, in which Tughril was taken, took place, by our author's own account, in 588 h., seventeen years after that evacuation of Hirat by Tughril, and he is even then styled " Tughril of Hirat " by our author, and so he styles him in his account of Tughril and his death, at page 249. From this it is obvious that the Ghurls could only have held Hirat for a very short time after 569 h., and Tughril must have regained possession of it soon after, and only finally left it, on the advance of the Ghiiris against Sultan Shah, in this year, 588 h.t or, more correctly, in 587 h. See note 3, page 374.
8 One of these pious brothers and model Sultans-.of our author, Mu'izz-ud-Din, having deceitfully inveigled this amiable monarch into his power, broke his promises, and sent him and his family away into Ghur to his other worthy brother who immured him in a fortress. At the time in question, finding Khusrau Malik an obstacle in their way, they had him put to death, and also his son, Bahram Shah. Here our author says it took place in 588 h., and 587 h., in his account of Mu'izz-ud-Din, but, in his account of Khusrau Malik, he says it happened in 598 h.! See pages 114 and 115, and note 4 to-page 112, para. 10.
7 Sic in all the copies.
B b 23So
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
596 H., Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din'-i-Takish, Khwarazm Shah, died. Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din and Mu'izz-ud-Din moved into Khurasan with the armies of Ghur and Ghaznin. and advanced to the gate of Nishapur. While the forces occupied a position in the vicinity of Nishapur, and hostilities commenced, trustworthy persons have, among the miracles of the victorious Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, related on this wise, that one day he mounted, in order to reconnoitre a place from which to attack the city, and rode round the edge of the ditch, and reached a spot from whence, in his august opinion, he determined to make the attack, as being the point where the capture of that city was likely to be effected9. He made a sign with his whip, saying :—" It is necessary that the battering-rams should be planted from this tower to that tower, in order to make a breach, and enable a general assault to be made, so that the capture of this city may be effected, and this victory achieved." At the very time that he made this indication [with his whip] towards those towers, the very portion of the walls of the city which he had pointed out, and the [two] towers, with everything near them, gave way, and. the whole fell down, and became destroyed in such wise that not one brick remained upon another, and Nishapur was taken. Malik 'All Shah1, son of Sultan 'Imad-ud-Din, Takish, Khwarazm
8	At page 255, in our author's account of his succession, he says, "'Ala-ud-Dln, Muhammad, son of Takish, brought his father's dominions under his own jurisdiction in 595 H."
9	If we choose, to be guided by what English and some other European writers of Histories of India say, on the authority of translations of Firish-tah's work, from which their inspirations are drawn, Ghiyas-ud-Din was either a mere imbecile or a puppet, for he is said by several of them to have '' retained nothing of the empire but the name," whilst others, including Elphinstone, of whom I expected something better, rush into the almost opposite extreme and say, that "he appears to have resumed his activity before his death, and to have been present in person in all the ca?npaigns in Khordsdn except the last but they forget, or, more likely, are unable to, mention, when all these campaigns took place, and against whom. The fact is that none of these statements are correct. Ghiyas-ud-Din reigned in glory to the end of his days, and his brother, Mu'izz-ud-Din, held the sovereignty of Ghaznin subject to him, and undertook the conquest of Upper India by his commands. His last campaign, according to Yafa-i, was in 597-8 H., only a few months before his death. See the specimens of translations under his brother's reign, Section XIX., and note 7, page 255, and note 2, next page.
1 He is styled "Sultan 'All Shah." and "a very great and illustrious prince," at page 252, and also "Malik " in some places.THE SHANSABANlAH DYNASTY OF GHOR.
Shah, together with the Khwarazmi Maliks who were there, and chiefs, and other persons of distinction, such as Sur-tash and Gaz-lak Khan, and a considerable body of others, fell into their hands2.
To Malik Ziya-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Abu 'All, Shansabi, who was the uncle's son3 of both the [Ghurian] Sultans, and the son-in-law of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din. they gave the government and throne4 of Nishapur, and returned [to their own dominions] that same year. The next year [597 H.] they advanced to Marw-i-Shah-i-Jahan, and took it; and Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Khar-nak. they installed at Marw; and conferred the government of Sarakhs upon their uncle's son, Malik Taj-ud-Din, Zangi, who was the son of Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, Bamiani. Malik Taj-ud-Din acquired jurisdiction over the whole of that territory, and Khurasan became clear5.
Malik6 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, used great endeavours that they [the Sultans] might perhaps
2	Yafa-i gives the following account of this "miracle" which our author makes so much of. '' In the month of Rajab, 597 H., the Ghuris with an immense army, and ninety great elephants, each of which was like a mountain in size, advanced against Shad-yakh [of Nlshapur] where was, at that time, 'All Shah, Sultan Muhammad's brother, who had very recently arrived there on his return from 'Irak, and several men of distinction in the service of his other brothers. The Ghurian Sultans [the two brothers], in order to reconnoitre the place, were making a circuit around it, and came to a stand opposite the city [Nlshapur]. A vast crowd of people, from within Shad-yakh,, in order to gaze upon the Ghurian army, flocked to one of the towers facing it. Suddenly the tower gave way, from the crowd within it [the fortifications at the time were not in good repair], and fell down. This the Ghuris took as a good omen, and, during the same day [through this accident], took possession of the place." Another author states that the place was at once assaulted, captured, and plundered, and the date given is Rajab, 597 H., not 596 H., as our author states. Nlshapur was retaken from the Ghuris five months after. See Page 393> note 8-
3	This is incorrect. See page 346, and note 8 and note 2, page 391.
4	Malik Ziya-ud-Din was merely left in charge as governor. The "throne of Nlshapur," is one of our author's absurdities.
6 After getting possession of Nlshapur Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din returned to Hirat, and his brother, Mu'izz-ud-Din, marched into Kuhistan for the purpose of destroying the strongholds of the Mulahidah heretics of that part, and, after several [minor] encounters with them, an accommodation was brought about, and Junabad was occupied, and the KazI of Tulak [the same who was previously left- as governor of Tabarhindah. See the reign of Mu'izz-ud-DTn, Section XIX.] was left there in charge.
6 Sultan, by his own account, and a much greater one than either of the Ghuris in many rcspects, and the ruler of a far greater extent of territory.382
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
consent to accept his services [as their vassal], and relinquish Khurasan to him again ; but it was not given up to him. Trustworthy persons' have related after this manner, that, when Takish, Khwarazm Shah [the father], died, Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah [the son], sent envoys to the presence of Sultan Ghivas-ud-Din, the purport of their embassy being to the effect, that, between the Sultans of Ghur and his father, a compact of friendship and unanimity was firmly established. He, their servant, desired that, according to that same compact, he might be [accounted] in the series of their other servants. If his exalted opinion thought well of it, the Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu'izz-ud-Dln, should take his [servant's] mother to wife, and consider him, his very humble servant, as a son ; that from the Ghivasiah Court he, his [Sultan Ghivas-ud-Dln's] servant, might receive an honorary robe, and a patent of investiture for Khurasan and Khwarazm3, and his servant would set free all the territory of 'Irak and MaWar-un-Nahr from the hands of enemies.
When they [the envoys] had discharged the purport of their mission, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Dtn did not become agreeable to the proposed union, and hostility arose. As the Almighty God had ordained that the whole of the dominions of Iran should fall under the sway of Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah9, he, upon several occasions, towards the close of Ghiyas-ud-Din's life, retired discomfited before the forces of Ghur and Ghaznin.' and, at last, those Sultans died before him.
Upon several occasions rich dresses of honour from the Court of the Khilafat. from the Lord of the Faithful, Al-
Here again our author brings forward his absurd statement as to this mighty monarch's seeking to become the vassal and servant of the Ghuris, which is not worthy of the least credit whatever.
' Who, as usual, are nameless.
8	Very probable, seeing that his ancestors ruled over it for more than a century previously, and over all Ehurasan and greater part of'Irak, by our author's own accounts, for many years. See the reign of Mahmud, son of Qhiyas-ud-DTn, Muhammad, farther on, where a treaty with the Khwarazmis is mentioned.
9	Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm §hah, recovered most of his Khurasan possessions, which the Ghuris had overrun the previous year, in 598 H. See previous note, and our author's own account of Sultan Takish's conquests at pages 241-2, and note 8, page 393, and his account of the Khwarazm! SultiTns generally.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF QHUR.	383
Mustaz! B'illah1, and from the Lord of the Faithful, Un-Nasir-ud-Din Ullah, reached the Court of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din. On the first occasion, Ibn-ur-Rabbi' came; and the Kazi, Majd-ud-Din, [styled] the Model, went along with him to the Court of the Khilafat. and, on the second occasion, Ibn-ul-Khatib came ; and the father of this their servant, Maulana Saraj-ud-Din, son of Minhaj-i-Saraj, he [the Sultan] nominated to proceed along with him to the Court of the Khilafat2. On the arrival of the honorary dress from the Court of Un-Nasir-ud-Din Ullah, the imperial nanbat3 five times a day was assumed by the Sultan.
His dominions became wide and extended, and from the east [eastern extremity] of Hindustan, from the frontier of Chin and Ma-Chin, as far as 'Irak, and from the river Jihun and Khurasan to the sea-shore of Hurmuz, the Khutbah was adorned by his auspicious name. He reigned for a period of forty-three years.
His bounty and benefactions, bestowed upon the meritorious, the learned, the recluse, and the devout, reached to the extremes of the empire of Islam, from the east to the west, to 'Arab and to 'Ajam, to Turkistan and to Hind ; and the names of all those meriting his bounty and charity were recorded in his civil courts and record offices. His life extended to a period of sixty-three years; and the removal of this great monarch from this transitory sphere to the eternal habitation took place at the city of Hirat, on Wednesday, the 27th of the sacred month of Jamadi-ul-Awwal4, 599 H. His mausoleum was raised by the side of the Jami' Masjid of Hirat. The mere}'- of the Almighty be upon him !
The Most High God had adorned the incomparable nature of the victorious Sultan, Ghiyas-ud-Dln, Muham-
1 The Khalifah's proper name and title is Al-Musta?i Bi-Nur Ullah. He
died 575 H.
3 The Khalifah was stimulating the Ghurian Sultans to hostility against Sultan Muhammad's father, Sultan Takigi, and afterwards did the same with respect to himself. See page 243, and note
3 Kettledrums and other instruments sounded, at stated periods, before the gate of sovereigns and great men.
* Some copies have the 7th, but the 27th of the month is confirmed by other authors. His tomb was on the north side of the Jami' Masjid which he had himself founded. Some authors state that 597 H. was the year of his decease, and others again, 598 H.3»4
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
mad-i-Sam, with divers virtues and endowments, both outward and inward ; and his Court was graced with learned doctors of religion and law ecclesiastical, accomplished scholars, illustrious philosophers, and the celebrated in eloquence; and his magnificent Court had become the asylum of the world, and the retreat of the worthy and laudable persons of the earth. Chiefs of the [holders of] religious tenets of every sect were there gathered together, incomparable poets were there present, and masters in the art of poetry and prose were entertained in the service of his sublime Court.
At the outset of the career of those sovereigns [Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din and Mu'izz-ud-Din], both the brothers followed the tenets of the Kirami sect5, in imitation of their ancestors and [the people of] their dominions ; but Sultan Mu'izz-ud^Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, the younger brother, when he ascended the Ghaznin throne, the people of that city and territory being followers of the tenets of the Great Imam, Abu Hanifah of Kufa, in conformity with them, adopted the doctrines of Abu Hanifah. Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, however, saw, whilst in a dream, that he was used to be in the same masjid along with the illustrious Kazi, Wahid-ud-Din, Marwazi, who followed the religious doctrines of the Traditionists6, and who was one of the leaders of the ■ Shaft sect. Unexpectedly, Imam Shaft himself enters, and proceeds to the Mihrab7, and begins to repeat the prayers ; and Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din. and Kazi Wahid-ud-Din, both of thetn- follow Imam Shaft in so doing.
On awakening from his dream, the Sultan commanded, so that, at break of day, Kazi Wahid-ud-Din was requested to deliver a discourse. When he occupied the seat of the pulpit, he remarked, during the discourse8, saying,
5	The Kiramls, also called Mujassamian—Corporealists—the folio-wets of Muhammad, son of Kiram, are one of the subdivisions of the Sifati sect who follow the tenets of Muhammad, son of Idrls, Ush-Shaf'j. Ghiyas-ud-Din being of that sect, the offices of Imam and Khatib of the great masjid of Hirat, and other minor offices, were conferred on its ecclesiastics.
6	The fout orthodox sects of Muhammadans are Traditionists.
7	The chief place in a masjid where the priest prays with his face turned towards Makkah.
/ s The different copies of the text express this clause of the sentence in three different ways, and use three different verbs although their meanings are similar.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF QHUR.	385
"Sovereign of Islam! this your servant hath during the past night dreamt a dream," and he related the very same dream that the Sultan had hiimself dreamt, for he had had one like it; whereupon, when the Kazi descended from the chair, and went up to make his obeisance to the Sultan, the latter seized the blessed hand of Kazi, Wahid-ud-Din,? and adopted the tenets of Imam Shaf'i9.
When the withdrawal of the Sultan to the sect of the Traditionists became divulged, a load came upon the hearts of the 'Ulama of the sect of Muhammad-i-Kiram [the Kiramis]. Of this body, the great ecclesiastics were numerous ; but, at that time, the most eloquent among them all was Imam, Sadr-ud-Din, 'All, Haisam, the Nishapuri, who was resident at, and the head of the college of the city of Afshin of Gharjistan. He composed a strophe on the Sultan, and in it censured his withdrawal from the sect ; and, when that strophe came to the Sultan's knowledge, his sacred mind became much irritated with him, and Imam Sadr-ud-Din found it impossible to continue to dwell within the dominions of Ghur. The strophe is this :—
[This polemical squib is of some length, and varies more or less in almost every copy, is of no particular interest, and need scarcely be translated.]
Imam Sadr-ud-Din, on this account, removed out of the territory of Ghur, and proceeded to Nishapur, and there he remained for the space of a year; after which he despatched [another] strophe to the presence of the Sultan, so that he was sent for to come back again, and a robe of honour was despatched ; and he returned to the Court from Nishapur again. Strophe :—
[These lines have also been left out for the reasons previously given. As may be imagined, they are as full of fulsome adulation as the first were of aspersion.]
Trustworthy persons have thus related, that Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, in his early youth, was greatly addicted to conviviality, and fond of the sports of the field; and from
9 The Asar-ul-Bilad states that Ghiyas-ud-Din used to copy Kur'ans with his own hand, and sell them, and give the money they were sold for in alms to the poor. The celebrated Imam, Fakhr-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of 'Umr of Raz, wrote ancl dedicated to him a work entitled Lataif-i-Ghiyasi. See under the reign of Mu'izz-ud-Din, Section XIX.386
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
the capital city, Firuz-koh, which was the seat of government, as far as the Zamin [district] and town of Dawar, which was the winter capital, not a human being dared to pursue the chase. Between these two cities [towns] is a distance of forty leagues, and he [the Sultan] had commanded that a pillar should be erected at each league of distance ; and in Zamin-i-Dawar he had laid out a garden, and he had given it the name of Garden of Iram1, and •certainly, for pleasantness and freshness, no such garden had ever been seen in the whole world, nor did any monarch possess the like of it. The length of this garden was more than sufficient for two courses of a horse, and the whole of its glades were adorned with pine and juniper-trees, and various sorts of shrubs and odoriferous herbs ; and the Sultan had commanded, so that, adjoining the wall of that garden, a plain had been cleared corresponding in length and breadth with the garden itself.
Once every year he used to give directions, so that for a distance of fifty or sixty leagues or more, a nargah2 [semicircle] of huntsmen would be drawn out; and it would require the space of a whole month for the two extremities of this semicircle of huntsmen to close up. More than ten thousand wild beasts and animals of the chase, of all species and descriptions, used to be driven into that plain ; and, on the days of chase3, the Sultan was in the habit of coming out on the pavilion of the garden, and holding a convivial entertainment; and his slaves, his Maliks, and the servants of the Court, one by one, with the royal permission, would mount on horseback and enter the plain, and chase and kill the game in the Sultan's august sight.
Upon one occasion he was desirous of entering the plain and enjoying the sport, upon which Fakhr-ud-Din, Mubarak Shah4, got upon his feet, and repeated a quatrain. The Sultan retracted his intention, and devoted himself
1	The famous garden of Shadad, son of 'Ad, described by the eastern poets as a perfect model of the promised Muhammadan Paradise.
2	One set of copies of the original use the word sky and the other ty. They are both of much the same signification.
3	If such can be called "the chase."
4	The same who composed the History of the Shansabanis in verse, referred to by our author at page 300. Other writers state that he was one of the most learned of his time in the science of astrology.THE SHANSAEANIAH DYNASTY OF QHOR.	387
to enjoyment. The following is the quatrain in question :—
" To follow the wine, the beloved, and enjoyment, Will be better than that thou shouldst pursue the chase. When the gazelle of paradise is within thy net, Of what use that thou shouldst follow the mountain goat ? "
Trustworthy persons have related that, when Sultan Ghivas-ud-Din forswore wine, and devoted himself to rectitude and goodness, at the period that Sultan Shah, Khwarazm Shah®, brought the forces of Khita against Khurasan, and made Marw his capital, the latter began to harry the border-tracts of the territory of Ghur. and brought his troops to the Dahanah-i-Sher—the Lion's Jaws—[Pass] of Sarakhs, and despatched an emissary to the presence of the Sultan, Ghivas-ud-Din. and preferred certain requests of his own to him. The Sultan commanded that an entertainment should be prepared to do honour to the envoy, and a gay party was brought together. Wine was circulated among the Maliks and Amirs of Ghur, and the envoy was treated with great honour; and he was plied with wine, in order that, when in a state of inebriety, the disposition of Sultan Shah might be discovered from his emissary.
For the Sultan's own drinking, sweet pomegranate juice was poured into a flask, and, when it came to the Sultan's turn to pledge, they would fill his goblet with that pomegranate juice, and would present it to him. When the envoy of Sultan Shah became excited from the effects of the wine, he rose to his knees, and requested a minstrel to sing the following quatrain, which he accordingly did:—
" Of that lion whose abode is within the Lion's Jaws,6 The lions of the universe are in great affright. Thou shouldst, O lion, from ' The Jaws' show thy teeth, Since these are [as though] in ' The Lion's Jaws' from terror."
When the envoy'called for this verse, and the minstrel sang it, Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din's colour changed, and the
fi See page 246 and note s.
8 The point of these lines depends upon the play on the word Dahanah. It signifies the jaws, the mouth of a pass, yawning, and the like.388
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
Maliks of Ghur became much agitated. Khwajah Safi-ud-Din, Mahmud, one of the most distinguished of the Wazirs of his Court, and who was a miracle of wit and address, and endowed with a forcible poetic genius, and composed excellent poetry, arose to his feet, and, looking on the ground, in reply to the envoy, called on the minstrel for this verse :—
"On that day when we shall raise the standard of hostility, And shall take in hand the enemy of the territory of the world, Should any lion from ' The Jaws' [dare] show his teeth, We, with our mace, will crush his teeth within 'The Jaws.' "
Sultan Ghivas-ud-Din was greatly pleased at this, and bestowed a liberal present upon the Khwajah, and honoured him with honorary dresses of great value ; and the whole of the Maliks commended him. The Almighty have mercy upon the whole of them ! and may He keep the Sultan of Islam, the sovereign of the seven climes, the great king of kings, the lord over all the rulers of Turk, 'Arab, and 'Ajam, the defender of the world and of the faith, the glory of Islam and of the Faithful, the aider of kings and emperors, the protector of the dominions of the Almighty, the pastor of the servants of God, the aided by Heaven, the victorious over the greatest of all species, the place of safety to the orthodox, the heir of the dominions of Suliman, Abu-L-Muzaffar-i-Mahmud, son of the Sultan [I-yal-timish], the Kasim [the co-sharer] of the Lord of the Faithful, in sovereignty and dominion for years unending, permanent and lasting, for the sake of His Prophet Muhammad, on whom be peace abundantly abundant7.
7 I have generally abstained from giving our author's fulsome and unctuous prayers for his patron, the puppet and recluse, who nominally ruled at Dihli ; but this was such a curious specimen that I could not leave it out. It shows that our author did not stick at any exaggeration—and the above contains many—and is a convincing proof that he "rarely indulges in high-flown eulogy, but relates his facts in a plain straightforward manner," &c. We must not imagine that all the epithets bestowed upon these rulers by their parasites were the titles they assumed.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHUR.	389
Titles and Names of the Sultan 8:—
Offspring.
Sultan-ul-A'zam, Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud. Malikah-ul-Mu'azzamah, Jalal-ud-Dunya wa-ud-Din.
Length of his reign :—Forty-three1 years. Summer capital:—The City of Firuz-koh of Ghur. Winter capital:—The district of Dawar.
Kazis of his Court.
Kazi-ul-Kuzat [Chief Kazi], Mu'izz-ud-Din, Harawa. Kazi Shihab-ud-Dtn, Harmawadi2.
Wazlrs of the Kingdom.
Shams-ul-Mulk, 'Abd-ul-Jabbar, Kidani. Fakhr-ul-Mulk, Sharaf-ud-Din3, Wadari4.
8	From the way in which his titles and names are here written in the very old copy of the text, within a circular area, it is evident that this was the inscription on his coins.
9	A few copies have " Mu'aggam," but it is incorrect. 1 Forty-one in a few copies.
? Also written Harmabadi in one or two copies : probably Jarmabadi or Jarmawadi may be more correct.
3 Sharaf-ul-Ashraf.	4 In one copy Fardari.39°
THE TABAI£AT-I-NA$IRL
'Ain-ul-Mulk, Surani [or Suriani].
Zahir-ul-Mulk, 'Abd-ullah, Sanjari.
Jalal-ud-Din, Diw-Shar! [or Diw-Shahi].
Majd-ul-Mulk, Khwajah Safi-ud-Din.
Standards.
On the right, Black ; on the left, Red.
Motto on his august Signet.
" For me God alone is sufficient."
His Sultans and Maliks.
Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Dtn, Muhammad-i-Sam, his brother, ruler over Ghaznin.
Sultan Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Mas'ud, Bamiani.
Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Muhammad Sam, Bamiant.
Malik Taj-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Harab, Sijistani.
Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Alb-i-Ghazi, son of Kazil Arsalan.
Malik Taj-ud-Din, Muhammad, Timrani.
Malik Taj-ud-Din, Zangi, son of Mas'ud, Bamiani.
Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Yusuf, Timrani.
Malik Ziya-ud-Din, Muhammad, Durr-i-Ghur [the Pearl of Ghur]5!
Malik Nasir-ud-Dtn, son of Suri, Madini.
Malik Badr-ud-Din, 'All, Kidani.
Malik Shah, Wakhshi [of Wakhsh of Badakhshan].
Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Timrani.
Malik Taj-ud-Din of Mukran.
Malik Mu-ayyid-ud-Din, Mas'ud, Timrani.
Victories and Conquests
The territory of Hirat, [defeat of] Kimaj, Dawar, Faras7 Kaliyun, Fiwar, Saif-rud, Gharjistan, Tal-kan, Juzarwan,
1 See page 346, and next page.
6	The list of these victories and conquests is only contained in three copies of the original. Even if a place was evacuated before the arrival of the
Ghuris, it is styled a "conquest" on their reaching it. What the "conquest"
of Nimroz and Sijistan was may be seen from what our author himself
says at page 378. The Malik of Sijistan merely acknowledged his
suzerainty.
7	Also written Baras. See page 375 and note B.THE SHANSABANlAH DYNASTY OF £HOR.	391
Jarum, Tigin-abad, Kabul, 'Ighrak9, victory over Baha-ud-Din, Tughril, of Hirat, Ghaznin, Fushanj, Sijistan, Nimrozr Maimand [cr Maihand], Faryab, Panj-dih, Marw-ar-Rud,. victory over Sultan Shah, Lohor9 and Maro Malkahf?]1 Nishapur, and Nisa.
XVIII. MALIK-UL-HAjI, 'ALA-UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD, SON OF
MALIK SHUjA'-UD-DlN, ABI-'ALI, SON OF ['IZZ-UD-DIN],
AL-HUSAIN, SON OF AL-HASAN, SHANSABI.
Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, was the son of Malik Shuja'-ud-Din, Abi-'Ali2, and he was the uncle's son of both the Sultans, Ghiyas-ud-Din and Mu'izz-ud-Din, and was older than either of the brothers. He had performed the pilgrimage, as well as fought against infidels; and, in addressing him, they [the Sultans] used to style him Khudawand [my Lord]. The daughter of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, who was named Mah Malik [Malikah], and styled by the title of Jalal-ud-Dunya wa-ud-Din, whose mother was the daughter of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Jahan-soz, was married to Malik 'Ala-ud-Din*.
That daughter was a highly dignified princess, and knew the sacred Kur'an by heart, and she had also committed to memory the Akhbar-i-Shihabi [the Shihabi traditions4],
8	In some copies jl^ but it is evidently the tract from whence Saif-ud-Dln, who joined Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Khwarazm Shah, at Ghaznin [see note 9, page 287,] against the Mughals, took his name.
9	Lohor will, of course, be repeated as one of Mu'izz-ud-Din's victories, as Ghiyas-ud-Din never passed the Indus.	i
1	This name is doubtful, and is not very plain in either copy of the text. It might be, Mar and Malkah. No such place is mentioned in the account of his reign, and some of the places here recorded as conquests were derived by marriage, or their rulers, as in the cases of Sijistan and Nimroz, merely acknowledged his suzerainty.
2	See page 346, para, second. This Malik-ul-Haji, or the Pilgrim Malik, was, by our author's own account, the son of Abu-'Ali, son of Shuja'-ud-Din, Abi-'Ali, and therefore he was not the uncle's son of the two Sultan brothers, but the son of their uncle's son—a second cousin.
To save perplexity to the reader, I must mention that this personage is the same as was mentioned at page 346 by the .name of Ziya-ud-Din, Muhammad, the Pearl of Ghur. See also page 393, and note 9.
3	She was first betrothed to Sanjar Shah, son of Tughan Shah, son of Mu-ayyid-i-A'inah-dar, Malik of Nishapur ; and, after his, Sanjar Shah's* captivity, betrothed to Ziya-ud-Din, Muhammad. See page 182.
* At page 301, our author states that this princess was the depositary of the traditions of viartyrdom [o-il^i]; but, it is evident, from what he says here,39 2
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
and her handwriting was as pearls befitting a king. Once every year she was in the habit of performing a prayer of two genuflexions, during which she would repeat the whole Kur!an from beginning to end. The cause of her passing from the world a maid was this, that, before he was joined in wedlock to her, Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, possessed a Turkish hand-maid, who was the mother of his son [Rukn-ud-Din]; but he had contracted marriage with her, and was not capable of consummating his marriage with this princess. In beauty, purity, and self-restraint, she had no equal in the whole world.
The mother of the writer of these pages was the foster-sister and school-companion of this princess; and this devotee [himself] was brought up in the princess's own hall of favour and her liar am of chastity, up to the period of his entering upon the bounds of adolescence, in the service of her royal dwelling, and her private apartments. The maternal uncles5 of this devotee, and his maternal ancestors, were all attached to the service of that princess's Court, and to the Court of her father; and this poor individual [himself] received many proofs of that lady's favour and bounty : God reward her! At last her martyrdom and death took place in the territory of 'Irak during the calamities which arose on the irruption of the infidels [the Mughals]. The mercy of the Almighty be upon her !
During the lifetime of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Malik 'Ala-ud-Din held in fief, belonging to Ghur. the district of Bust, and Wajiah [or Wejah] of the territory of Garmsir [of Ghur], and Urgan [or Urkan] of Ghaznin6. In the battle
and from what other writers state, that the book in question was the work entitled '' Akhbar-i-Shihabi" [^j l^i], the Shihabi Traditions, so called from the author's name, or the person to whom he dedicated his work.
5	A few copies have —brothers, instead of J'y-I—maternal uncles.
6	The text is hopelessly defective here, and of the whole of the twelve copies collated no two agree, except the I. O. L. copy and the Ro. As. Soc. copy, but they agree in leaving out several words. The two oldest copies agree as above given, with the exception that one has Wurmashan [^Li'j;] or Durmashan [ jlioj-i] which last word also occurs in the defective passage in the two first-named copies. Wajiah [j.^], which here, in several copies, seems written A=i_) and i^j was referred to at page 340. Some copies have and ^J and even o^'jj in place of Urgan [j^y] of Ghaznin, whilst the third best copy of the text omits these two words ^jl and	altogether. It is tiresome not to be able to fix this passage of the text for certain.ggT This portion of the translation contains an extra sheet of letterpress, in order that the history of the Khalj rulers in Lakhanawati may not be broken. The next part of this work will, consequently, contain one sheet less.
*** A trifling, but, at the same time, an absurd typographical error has been noticed in note 6, page 357 where Polrt has been substituted for POLO,THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF QHOR.	393
which the Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, fought against Pithora Rae of Ajmir7, and in which the Sultan was defeated,'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, accompanied the Sultan-i-Ghazi, and, during that expedition, did good service. When the Sultans of Ghur proceeded into Khurasan, and Nishapur was taken, 'Ala-ud-Din was installed in the territory of Nishapur, and, for a considerable period8, he remained at the city of Nishapur, and acted towards its people with justice and beneficence.
When Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, arrived from Khwarazm before the gate of Nishapur, 'Ala-ud-Din defended the place for some time. At last he entered into a convention, and surrendered the city to Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, and returned again into Ghur.
When Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din was removed to the Almighty's mercy, the Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, conferred the throne of Firuz-koh, and the territories of Ghur. Gharjistan, and Zamin-i-Dawar, upon him ; and, in the Khutbah, his title became Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad. Previous to this they used to style him Malik Ziya-ud-Din®, the Pearl of Ghur.
7	The I. O. L. copy, and also the Ro. As. Soc. MS., and one of the others, have—" In the battle which Sultan Ghiyas and Mu'izz-ud-Din fought," &c. See under Mu'izz-ud-Din, Section XIX.
8	Nishapur [Shad-yakh] was taken in Rajab 597 H. Five months afterwards—in Zl-Ka'dah—Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, appeared before it. Malik Ziya-ud-Din had been left there, in command, at the head of a large force; and the walls [which, like the walls of Jericho, had fallen when Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din performed the miracle of pointing his riding whip at them, as related by our author at page 380] had been put into thorough repair. The Ghuris came out to fight, but, finding what the Sultan's army was, "they retired," says Yafa-i, "like so many mice into their holes." The walls were pounded to dust and the ditch filled, when Malik Ziya-ud-Din sent out the chiefs of the 'Ulama to solicit quarter for himself and troops. The Sultan acceded to his request, and he and his troops were treated with honour, and sent back to Ghur. So the Ghuris only held Nishapur about five months. It must have been on this occasion that Ziya-ud-Din stipulated never again to draw his sword against the Sultan, referred to at page 418. After retaking Nishapur, the Sultan advanced to Marw and Sarakhs, which latter place was held by his own nephew, Hindu Khan [see page 252], on the part of the Ghuris. He fled to Qhur on the approach of his uncle, but, the officer he left in charge not presenting himself, Sultan Muhammad left a force to invest it, and set out, vid Marw, for Khwarazm to prepare for an advance upon Hirat.
9	Our author has a peculiar way of his own for distracting his readers very often. After giving an account of Malik Ziya-ud-DTn, under the heading of his grandfather, Shuja'-ud-Din, at page 345-6, and calling him there by the title of Ziya-ud-Din, he is here introduced again under a totally different394
THE XABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
He held possession of Firuz-koh and the territories of Ghur and Gharjistan for a period of four years; and in the year 601 H., when the Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, proceeded towards Khwarazm, and took [with him] the armies of Ghur and Ghaznin, Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, the Pearl of Ghur, conducted sundry of the troops of Ghur into Mul-hidistan1 and I£uhistan, and advanced to the gate of the city of Ka-in, and [from thence] pushed on to Junabad of Kuhistan2, and captured the castle of Kakh of Junabad ; and, after having performed numerous feats of arms and holy warfare, he returned into Ghur again.
When the Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, attained martyrdom, Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, son of [Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din] Muhammad, son of Sam, advanced out of Bust, which was one of his fiefs, into Zamin-i-Dawar; and the Maliks and Amirs of Ghur joined Sultan Mahmud, and he set out towards the capital city, Firuz-koh.
Malik 'Ala-ud-Din came from Firuz-koh into Gharjistan, and, when he reached the head of the bridge over the Murgh-ab river, the Sipah-salar, Hasan-i-Abd-ul-Malik, came up after him, and caused him to turn back ; and, by command of Mahmud, he was confined in the castle of Ashiyar of Gharjistan3.
name ; and it is only now, after three or four pages, that he tells us that 'Ala-ucl-DIn is the same person as figured before, in another place, under the title of Ziya-ud-Din. The fact is, that his correct title, up to this time, was Ziya-ud-Din ; and, when Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din conferred the throne of Firuz-koh and other tracts upon him, his title was then changed to 'Ala-ud-Din. Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din held him in great estimation, and he appears to have deserved it; and this fact, taken in connexion with Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud's real character, noticed farther on, will account for the Sultan's making him sovereign over Ghur in preference to Mahmud, and also for Mahmud's enmity towards him, and the murder of his son, Mahmud-i-iran Shah.
1	Not the name of a territory. It is derived from mulhid—heretic, &c. The Kuhistan of Khurasan was full of these schismatics. All the copies of the text have the conjunction and between Mulhidistan and Kuhistan ; but it reads redundant, and '' the heretical country of Kuhistan" appears to be the more correct rendering.
2	Junabad, also called Gunabad, is situated between Tabas and Hirat. Kakh itself means a castle, a lofty building, and the like ; but here refers to a small town of that name, a dependency of Junabad,—the "Goonabad" of Frazer and the maps.
3	Our author takes a most round-about way of relating ordinary events, and seems desirous of making a mystery of them. Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, unable to resist the combination against him, retired from Firuz-koh, was pursued, and imprisoned.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR.	395
When Sultan Mahmud was assassinated, and the sove-reigntyof Ghur fell to Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz-i-Husain4, he caused Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, to be released from the fortress of Ashiyar, brought him to Firuz-koh, and treated him with honour and respect, until he slew the Sipah-salar, 'Umr-i-Shalmati. for murdering his son, Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Mahmud-i-Iran Shah. The cause of it was this, that, when Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, in the reign of Sultan [Ghiyas-ud-Din], Mahmud, son of Muhammad-i-Sams, was seized [as just previously related], his son, Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Mahmud-i-Iran Shah, retired to Ghaznin. He was a prince of sufficient greatness, and endowed with perfect wisdom, knowledge, and understanding, and famed for his lofty-mindedness and activity. From Ghaznin he proceeded into Garmsir, and from thence came into Ghur; and the Kashi people, who were the [most] refractory of Ghur. to the number of about 50,000 men6, joined him. Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, son of Muhammad-i-Sam, with about 500 horse, of the main portion of his army, and some 2000 or 3000 foot, came forth from Firuz-koh, and a fight took place between them, and defeat befell the Ghurians7; and Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Mahmud-i-Iran Shah, discomfited, retired to Ghaznin. and again came into Garmsir. He was seized by the Khudawand-zadah SF Saif-ud-Din, Timrani, and he brought him to the presence of Sultan Ghivas-ud-Din. Mahmud, who directed that he should be imprisoned in the residence of the Amir-i-Hajib, 'Umr-i-Shalmati.
On the day that Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, was assassinated, the Turkish slaves of Mahmud raised a tumult, and despatched one, who was named Amir Mang-baras-i-Zard9, to put Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Mahmud-i-
4	Another son of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, Jahan-soz. He was named Utsuz after the third monarch of the Khwarazmt dynasty. See page 238.
5	That is to say, Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, son of Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Baha-ud-DIn, Sam.
6	Five thousand more likely. Our author grossly exaggerates the numbers here. See page 399.
7	From this it is evident that the Kaghis were Qhurians.
8	The son of a lord or great man.
9	There is some discrepancy with regard to this person's name. Some copies of the text have	—loj^-—lA^"0 anc^ second word, Zard, signifying pale, sallow, and the like, is written in some copies Zud, swift, quick; and in one
C C 2396
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Iran Shah, to death. The writer of these words, Saraj-i-Minhaj, states on this wise :—I was in my eighteenth year in the year 607 H.1, and was present at the entrance [gateway] of the Sultan's palace, in the capital city of Firuz-koh, standing looking on, as is the custom among youths, when this Amir Mangbaras-i-Zard came riding up with a wallet, with blood dropping from it, hanging from his arm. The head of Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Mahmud-i-Iran Shah— may he rest in peace !—he had placed in that wallet, and he entered into the Sultan's palace2 with it.
I now return to my relation again :—In the reign of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz-i-Husain, when Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, obtained an opportunity, he seized Amir 'Umr-i-Shalmati, saying, "Thou hast used thy endeavours in bringing about the murder of my son ;" and at night he slew him. Early the next morning, when .[Sultan] 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, became aware of it, and the Amirs of Ghur demanded redress, 'Ala-ud-Din, -Utsuz, issued commands for Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, to be imprisoned the second time in the fortress of Balarwan of Gharjistan. The remaining account of him, respecting what befell him when he ascended the throne of Firuz-koh the second time, will be related at the end of this Section.
XIX. SULTAN GHIYAS-UD-DIN. MAHMUD, SON OF GHIYAS-
UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD, SON OF BAHA-UD-DlN, SAM, SHAN-
SABI.
Sultan Ghivas-ud-Din. Mahmud, son of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, was a sovereign of good qualities, and conviviality, pleasure, and jollity were dominant in his disposition3.
When Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, his father, died4, Mahmud was desirous that his uncle, the Sultan-i-Ghazi. Mu'izz-ud-Din, should assign to him the
Zal, which means old, decrepit, &c. One copy has Manguras-i-Zud suwar, which would signify Manguras, the swift or quick horseman.
1 Our author, being in his eighteenth year in 607 H., would have been in his sixty-ninth year when he composed this work.
* The palace or residence of the Sultans.
3	See note3, para. 3, page 400, and page 405.
4	The I. O. L. MS.,	52, is minus a leaf here.THE SHANSABANIAII DYNASTY OF £Ht)R.	397
throne of his father. But that expectation was not fulfilled, and the throne of Firuz-koh was conferred upon Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad5, the Pearl of Ghur, to whom the daughter of Sultan Ghivas-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, was betrothed6; and the territory of Bust, Isfizar7, and Farah, were given to Sultan Mahmud8.
In the year in which [his uncle] the Sultan-i-Ghazi led an army into Khwarazm, Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, marched the troops of Bust, Farah, and Isfizar, into Khurasan, and proceeded to the gate of Marw-i-Shah-i-Jahan ; and in that expedition he manifested many marks of skill and activity9. When the Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, was assassinated, Mahmud determined to proceed from Bust to Firuz-koh, and, when he reached Zamin-i-Dawar, the Khalj1 Amirs of Garmsir, with a numerous following, joined him. The Amirs and Maliks of Ghur all came forth to receive him; and, in the year 602 H.2, he reached Firuz-koh, and the throne of Ghur came into his possession, and he brought the territories of his father under his jurisdiction3.
Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, retired from Firuz-koh into Gharjistan, and therein he was taken prisoner, and
5	Styled Ziya-ud-Din before he was raised to the throne of Firuz-koh.
6	She was either the full or half-sister of Mahmud.
7	In some copies written Isfirar—the present Sabzwar.
8	Not styled Sultan until he gained the throne after the death of his uncle. His title had been Malik hitherto.
9	The compact which our author states to have existed previously between Mahmud and Sultan ' Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, at page 400, may have been entered into at this period. See also note s, page 400. The object he had in marching to Marw-i-Shah-i-Jahan does not appear, neither in the account of his uncle's reign is it referred to.
1	The Khalj tribe, I beg to remark, are neither Afghans nor Patans, although some persons have made such an absurd assertion. I shall have more to say about them as I proceed.
2	In this same year Fakhr-ud-Din, Mubarak Shah, the author of the history of the Ghiiris in verse, referred to at page 300, died.
3	When information reached Mahmud of the assassination of his uncle, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, he, in the first place, sent intimation to his brother-in-law, 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad [the Pearl of Ghur], son of AbT-'AlI, and called upon him to acknowledge his authority. Mahmud also communicated the tidings to 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil. Wall of Hirat. Both of them, however, declined to acknowledge his authority, on which Mahmud advanced to Firuz-koh with a large army. On this the generality of the Qhunan Amirs deserted the cause of 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, and went over to Mahmud, and he gained possession of Firuz-koh, and threw ' Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, into confinement. See also note 3, page 400.398
TIIE tabakAt-i-nAsirI.
was confined in the castle of Ashiyar, as has been previously recorded ; and when the whole of the various parts of the dominions of Ghur, and Gharjistan, Tal-kan, and Guzar-wan4, and the district of Faras5, and Garmsir, came under the sway and jurisdiction of his Slaves, such as Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, and Sultan Kutb-ud-Din I-bak, and other Turk6 Maliks and Amirs, who were Slaves of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, each of them despatched a person of rank to the presence of his Court, and solicited from Sultan Mahmud letters of manumission, and the investitures of the territories of Ghaznin and of Hindustan respectively7.
He despatched a deed of investiture of the territory of Ghaznin and a canopy of state to Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal~ duz8; and, when Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, advanced to Ghaznin, he despatched Nizam-ud-Din, Muhammad, to Firuz-koh, in the year 605 H.9; and Sultan Mahmud directed that a scarlet canopy of state and a deed of investiture of the government of the dominion of Hindustan should be sent to him.
Throughout the whole of the territories of Ghur. Ghaznin, and Hindustan, the Khutbah was read for Sultan Mahmud, and the coin was stamped with his name 1; and, as he was
4	Also with j, as at page 376; and in the same way as Sijistan for Sigistan, the one being the Arab mode of writing the word, and the latter the local.
5	This name also is written Baras; and in some few copies Kadus. See page 342.
6	All these Slares were of Turkish parentage. Mahmud having succeeded to the sovereignty of the dominions of his late uncle, the latter's slaves became his slaves also, according to Muhammadan law, by succession. It is not to be supposed that either Yal-duz [I-yal-duz] or I-bak were then styled Sultans, or that our author means it to be so-understood. They were styled so ultimately. See note 9, page 496, and page 502.
7	Just above he says, "Yal-duz, I-bak, and other Turk Maliks and Amirs;" but all could not have demanded the investitures of Ghaznin and Hindustan. Yal-duz [I-yal-diiz] and Lbak sent agents to Sultan Mahmud expressing their loyalty, submission, and obedience to him ; and in the whole of the empire the Khutbah was read for him and the money stamped with his name and titles.
3 Two copies of the text add here, "in order that he might assume jurisdiction over the Ghaznin territories."
9 See the reign of Kutb-ud-Din, Lbak, beginning of next Section. There our author contradicts this statement entirely, and says Kutb-ud-Din received the investiture in 602 H., and that he went to Lohor to receive it.
1 These events occurred, as our author here states, in 605 H.; but Taj-ud, Din, I-yal-duz, appears to have received the investiture of Ghaznin some time previous to this, and it is somewhat strange that he should have continued to coin money in the name of the late ruler, Mu'izz-ud-Din, after what our authorTHE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF QHUR. 399
the heir of the kingdom of his father and his uncle, all the Maliks and Sultans paid reverence to his dignity, and showed the obedience of vassals unto him2.
When one year of his sovereignty had passed, Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Mahmud-i-Iran Shah, son of Malik 'Ala-ud-Din3, Muhammad, advanced from Ghaznin towards Flruz-koh, as has been previously recorded4, and Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, marched from Firuz-koh, and put him to the rout, and about 5000 Ghuris [in that affair] bit the dust.
After a period of two years and a half, Sultan* 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, son of ['Ala-ud-D!n] Husain, who was his [Mahmud's] father's uncle's son, proceeded from the country of Barman into Khwarazm. and sought assistance from Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, to enable him to seize the dominions of Ghur. The Malik-ul-Jibal, Ulugh Khan-i-Abi-Muhammad6, and Malik Shams-ud-Din, Utsuz, the Hajib, who were two of the greatest of the Turkish Maliks of the Khwarazm Shahs, with the troops of Marw and Balkh, Sarakhs and Rudbar, were nominated to give him assistance, and he ['Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz] proceeded by way of Tal-kan towards Ghur.
Sultan Ghivas-ud-Din. Mahmud, brought out his forces from Firuz-koh, and on the limits of Maimand and Far-yab7,
here states, and even after Sultan Mahmud, the former's successor, had given Taj-ud-DIn his freedom with the investiture of Ghaznin, much more up to the year 610 h., when even Mafcmud had been killed in 607 h. But see page 497, and 500—505 ; and Thomas: Coins of the Pathan Kings of Delhi, page 30.
2	He was heir certainly in name at least; but the two favourite slaves of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-DIn already possessed the greater portion of their master's dominions, from which Mahmud would have, in all probability, been unable to oust them. Mu'izz-ud-Din had, on more than one occasion, expressed a desire that these slaves, especially I-yal-duz, should succeed to his dominions. See page 500.
3	Styled Ziya-ud-Dln, the Pearl of Ghur, before he came to the throne from which Mahmud deposed him. See page 393, and note 9, and page 408.
4	Page 395.
5	Our author styles him "Sultan," as well as many others, before their attaining sovereignty.
0 Referred to in the account of the Khwarazm Shahis. He subsequently became the father-in-law of Rukn-ud-Din, son of Sultan Muhammad, Ehwarazm Shah. See page 235.
7 Also called Far-ab, Far-aw, Bar-ab, and Bar-yab. This battle and victory of Mahmud is not mentioned by other authors. See also pages 409 and 414.400
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
at a place which they call [by the name of] Salurah8, a battle took place between the two armies. The Almighty bestowed the victory upon Sultan Mahmud, and 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, and the Khwarazm Shahl Maliks, and the troops of Khurasan were overthrown9.
When four years of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud's reign had expired, Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, 'All Shah \ son of Sultan Takish. Khwarazm Shah, sought refuge from his brother's [Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah] presence with Sultan Mahmud. On the Khwarazm! Sultan2 becoming aware of this, he despatched distinguished personages [as envoys] to Firuz-koh. During the lifetime of the Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, a firm compact existed between Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud3, son of [Ghivas-ud-D!n]. Muhammad-i-Sam, and
8	A few copies have Aslurah.
9	See note 3, below.
1	His title was Taj-ud-Din, not 'Ala-ud-Din. See the account of him, page 252-3. He had been a prisoner in Ghur some few years previously, and was known to the Ghurlan Princes.
2	The I. O. L. MS. No. 1952, and R. A. Soc. MS. both have—"when Sultan Takish became aware of it." Takish had been dead many years. The printed text, of course, is the same.
3	By this statement our author entirely contradicts that made at pages 256 and 382, and the present statement is certainly one more likely to be correct. It tends to confirm what Yafa-i and some other works say, and which I shall presently refer to.
Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, after the death of his father, expected that his uncle, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, would have placed him, the son, on his late father's throne of Firuz-koh and the kingdom of Ghur ; instead of which, knowing Mahmud's love of wine and other sensual pleasures, he bestowed it upon the son-in-law of the late Sultan, Malik Ziya-ud-Dln, the Pearl of Ghur, and gave the western districts of the empire to Mahmud as his appanage, as stated by our author at page 472. On this account Mahmud entertained no very good feeling towards his uncle, and he may have entered into communication secretly with the Sultan of Khwarazm, who was naturally hostile to Mu'izz-ud-Din; and such an understanding as our author mentions may have been entered into at the time Mahmud went on the expedition to Marw, mentioned at page 397, when Mu'izz-ud-Din invaded Khwarazm.
I rather expect, however, that our author, who rarely indulges in dates, has confused the events of this period, as Mahmud, previous to the assassination of his uncle, was not in a position to enter into "a firm compact" with Sultan Mufcammad, unless secretly. Yafa-i says [and Jami'-ut-Tawarikh agrees] that when Mahmud seized the throne of Ghur, shortly after his uncle's death, "he gave himself up to drinking and riotous pleasures, as was the habit of the Amirs of Ghur, and attended to singing and jollity, whilst he neglected the affairs of the kingdom, and could not endure the fatigues of war. His great chiefs and nobles, perceiving his weakness of character, began toTHE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF .QHUR. 401
Muhammad-i-Takish4, Khwarazm Shah, that friendship and concord should exist between them, and that the
4 Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Takish. Before he succeeded his father, his titlewas Kutb-ud-Din. See notex, page 253.
grow disaffected; and 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil, the Wall of Hirat, who was the greatest prop of the Ghurian empire, took precedence of all the other chiefs in tendering allegiance to the Sultan of Khwarazm, and despatched agents repeatedly soliciting that the Sultan would annex Hirat. Although that monarch had other important matters to attend to, still, fearing lest a portion of the Ghurian dominions, such as Balkh and districts around, might offer allegiance to the ruler of Kara-Khita, and that that city might fall into his hands, he determined to move towards Balkh."
" The Wali of that part, styled 'Imad-ud-Din, the chief of the Namian [Bamian] Amirs [called by our author, at page 260,'Imad-ud-Din,'Umr, FTwarT], at first was most warm in his professions of loyalty and fidelity, and Balkh was made over to the Sultan, who continued the government, as heretofore, in the Wall's hands ; but, being afterwards detected in acts of treachery, and an intercepted letter having been placed in his hands, he threw himself at the Sultan's feet. His life was spared, but he was sent away to Khwarazm, after being allowed to take what treasure and other valuables he desired with him. His son [name not given] was also removed from the charge of the fortress of Tirmid, and that important post was made over to the guardianship of Sultan 'Usman ofSamrkand."
The Tarikh-i-Alfi differs considerably on these matters. It is stated therein, that, on the death of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din becoming known to Sultan Muhammad, he assembled a large army for the purpose of attacking Balkh, then held by the officers and troops of Malik ' Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of the late Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, of Bamian and Tukharistan, and invested that stronghold. At this crisis, Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, had led an army against Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, ruler of GhaznTn. On this account Sultan Ghiya§-ud-Din, Mahmud, who had intended to march his forces against Hirat, to reduce 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil, to obedience, paused in order to see what the upshot of the other two affairs would be.
Taj-ud-Din, 'All Shah [Sultan Muhammad's brother, who subsequently took refuge with Mahmud], who commanded the forces investing Balkh, being unable to take it, Sultan Muhammad proceeded thither in person, and summoned the governor to submit. All was of no avail, and the Sultan determined to proceed without further loss of time to Hirat, when news reached him that Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, and his brother, Jalal-ud-Dln, 'Ali, had been defeated by Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, taken prisoners, and thrown into confinement. This happened, according to Fasih-I, in 605 H. On this, 'Imad-ud-Din ['Umr], Governor of Balkh, hopeless of succour, surrendered the place. He was treated with honour and kindness, and continued in charge of Balkh, as before. After this, Sultan Muhammad advanced to Bakhurz, got possession of that place, then proceeded to Tirmid, and obtained possession of that stronghold likewise, and then he returned to Khwarazm.
This latter statement is incorrrect. The Sultan proceeded to Hirat before returning to Khwarazm, as will be presently stated.
The Ghurian Amirs and Chiefs, who were in accord with Amir Mahmud, were preparing forces, says Yafa-i, to attack Sultan Muhammad's forccs then402
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
enemy of one should be the enemy of the other ; and, on this occasion, Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, sent
before Balkh ; but the Sultan's troops made a swoop upon them, like a falcon on a covey of partridges, and routed and dispersed them before they had had time to complete their preparations. This must have been the affair called a victory of Mahmud's by our author. The territory of Balkh was now entrusted to the charge of Badr-ud-Dln, Ja'lish [?], with a strong force to support him ; and, after having disposed of the affairs of Balki, the Sultan proceeded by way of Juzarwan [or Guzarwan] to Hirat, which he entered in the middle of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 605 H., to the great joy of its people. [Yafa-i is, as well as other writers, somewhat confused as to the dates here, and says this took place in 607 H., and so it is stated in note 2, page 257-258, taken from that work ; but it is evidently an error for 605 H., as it was only in the third month of 607 H.— some say in 606 H.—that the Sultan first defeated the forces of Kara-Khita under Baniko of Taraz, and a month after Mahmud Ghurl's death, if he died in Safar 607 H., as our author and some others say, and not in 609 H.]
Rulers and chieftains from the adjacent parts now hastened to tender submission and allegiance to the Sultan, and to present themselves; and among these was the Malik of Sijistan [Yamin-ud-DIn, Bahram Shah ?], who was received with great honour. 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil, was continued in the government of Hirat and its dependencies, as previously related ; and the Sultan, having disposed of these matters, despatched several ecclesiastics of the KiramI sect [Yafa-I says in 606 H.] with proposals to Amir Mahmud, ruler of Flruz-koh and Ghtir. Mahmud accepted those proposals, which were, that he should acknowledge the suzerainty of Sultan Muhammad. He despatched valuable presents to the Sultan from the hoards accumulated by his ancestors and his uncle, and, among other rarities, a white elephant. [A white elephant is said to have been captured in the battle in which Jai Chandra, Rajah of Kinnauj, was defeated by Mu'izz-ud-Dln. See page 470.] Amir Mahmud was named Nayab or Deputy of the Sultan, for whom he read the Khutbah, and stamped the coin with his name. This must be the treaty our author refers to, but he has confused the events. This acknowledgment of the superiority of the Sultan is evidently what Taj-ud-Dln, I-yal-duz, took umbrage at, as mentioned in Alfl, in notepage 433, when he set at liberty Jalal-ud-Dln, 'All, of Bamian, who, in 605 H., along with his brother, was taken prisoner in a battle against him [I-yal-duz], and sent him back to recover the throne of Bamian, which probably was early in 606 H.
Sultan Muhammad, leaving 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil, as Walt of Hirat, returned to Khwarazm, and subsequently entered on the campaign against Gur Khan of Kara-Khita. 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mTl, hearing the report of the Sultan having been killed or taken captive in the second engagement with Gur Khan's troops [see page 258, and last para, of note2], began to pave the way to make his peace with his former sovereign, and he again read the Khutbah for the ruler of Ghiir, and substituted his name on the coin. This must refer to Mahmud, as his young son, three months after his father's death, was taken away to Khwarazm, and 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, had been set up by the Khwarazm! Sultan as ruler of Ghiir ; and, such being the case, Mahmud could not have been assassinated in Safar, 607 H., for this reason, that these events took place in the latter part of that year, or even in 608 H. ; but if Safar, 607 H., is correct, then Mahmud was dead one month before the first battle between the Sultan and Baniko of Taraz.
'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil, finding almost immediately after thatTHE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF QHUR. 403
Mahmud a copy of that treaty, with a request, saying, "As 'All Shah is the enemy of my dominion, it is necessary that he should be seized." In compliance with the terms of that compact, Sultan Mahmud seized 'All Shah, and imprisoned him in the Kasr, which they call the Baz* Kushk-i-Sultan. at Firuz-koh.
That Kasr6 is an edifice the like of which is not to be found in any country or in any capital—a Kasr in height and area, and with buttresses, balconies, and turrets, and of
the Sultan was safe, to get himself out of this scrape, sent a requisition to the Khwarazmi nobles located in Eastern Khurasan for aid against the Ghuris, who, on account of 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain's perfidy, were marching against him. This evidently is the matter referred to by our author at page 503, where he says I-yal-duz aided Mahmud against 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil, but distorts the facts to suit his own purposes and inclinations, about the Sultan of Khwarazm "flying before the forces of Ghur and Ghaznin;" and what Alfi refers to, namely, that Amir Isma'Il, Ma^imud's general, sent against 'Izz-ud-Din, was defeated and taken prisoner, and the remnant of his army returned to Firuz-koh. See note 2, page 504.
With the aid of the Khwarazmi nobles of Khurasan the Ghuris were overthrown, and this affair broke their power entirely, and their party dispersed ; and 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, was also seized and put to death, as related at page 258, last para., note2.
The Habib-us-Siyar states that Sultan Muhammad demanded that Mahmud, Ghuri, should seize the former's brother, Taj-ud-Din, 'All Shah, and send him back in conformity with the terms of treaty previously existing "between himself and the late Sultan, Mu'izz-ud-Din" [see note8, page 481], but says nothing about a previous treaty between him and Mahmud. This event, our author says, happened in the fourth year of Mahmud's reign, which, by his own account, would be towards the close of 606 H. The treaty thus referred to is doubtless the treaty mentioned by Fasih-I and others, which took place between Sultan Muhammad and Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, after the latter's disastrous campaign against Khwarazm.
I have burthened the text with this lengthy note in order to show what discrepancy exists with regard to the events in the history of the Ghuris about this time, and to show the impossibility of the correctness of the dates given by several authors. Yafa-i and Fasih-i and several others [see note 5, page 407] also say that Mahmud was assassinated in 609 H., and the Mir'at-i-Jahan-Numa confirms it. It is also certain, from our author's statements, as well as from the statements of others, that Mahmud was assassinated in the same year as Taj-ud-Din, 'All Shah was ; and that event, even our author says, happened in 609 H. See also page 253.
It is moreover proved beyond a doubt, that, soon after the decease of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, the Ghiirian rulers became mere vassals of the Khwarazmi sovereigns, who, at last, annexed the whole of their extensive territory as far as the Indus, or even to the Jihlam.
6 The word baz [;>], which is doubtless correct, signifies a mound, the spur of a mountain or hill, high ground. Some of the more modern copies have abaz [;>'], and some leave out the word altogether.
6 The signification of Kushk and Kasr ha:> been given in note 3, at page 331.THE XABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
such configuration as no geometrician hath made manifest. Over that Kasr are placed five pinnacles inlaid with gold, each of them three ells and a little over in height, and in breadth two ells; and also two gold humae1, each of about the size of a large camel. Those golden pinnacles and thosehumas, the Sultan-i-Ghazi. Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, after the capture of Ajmir8, had sent in token" of service, and as valuable presents, to [his brother] Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, with many other articles of rarity, such as a ring of gold, with a chain of gold attached, the dimension of which was five ells by five ells, and two great kos [kettle-drums] of gold, which were carried on carriages. Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din directed that the ring and chain, and those kharbuzah9 [kettle-drums], should be suspended before the portico of the Jami' Masjid at Firuz-koh; and, when the Jami' Masjid was destroyed by a flood, the ring, chain, and those kharbuzah [kettle-drums], the Sultan sent to the city of Hirat, so that after the Jami' Masjid of that city had been destroyed by fire, they rebuilt it by means of those gifts1.
Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, son of [Ghiyas-ud-Din], Muhammad-i-Sam, was a sovereign very great, beneficent,
7	A fabulous bird peculiar to the East. It is considered to be a bird of happy omen, and that every head it overshadows will, in time, wear a crown. See also G. P. R. James's Attila, chap. vi.
8	The word used is signifying small turrets in the wall, and also sometimes used for battlements, cornices, pinnacles, &c. The last is the most probable meaning here, or possibly small open domes, such as we see in some old Hindu buildings.
9	The text here again is very defective in all but the three oldest copies. Some of the more modern copies have "one kos," and state that the ring was "five ells by five ells" and instead of Kharbuzah have jazirah, which signifies an island. The same word occurs in Firishtah—the original text I mean—who says two were presented to Kutb-ud-Din by the ruler of Ajmir, which Dow, very correctly, translates " two melons of gold." without apparently knowing what they were ; but Briggs, by way. of improving on Dow, turns them into '' two tents of gold tissue" I! See his translation, vol. I, p. 194-5. The word
or iji/* which signifies a musk melon, suggests the shape of these drums.
1 I do not find any notice of this fire in other works, not even in Fasih-i which generally contains minute particulars of every event occurring at Hirat, as the author was a native of that city. Rauzat-us-Safa merely mentions that Mahmud finished the Masjid of Hirat which had been left unfinished at his father's death, and this statement is confirmed by the Khulasat-ul-Akhbar and some other histories. I do not find any account of a flood. Amir 'All Sher, the celebrated Wazlr of Sultan Husain, Bahadur Khan, subsequently rebuilt this masjid in 905 h., just a year before his death.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHUR.	405
humane, munificent, and just. When he ascended the throne he opened the door of the treasury of his father. That treasury remained untouched as before, and Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din had not appropriated any portion of it; and they have related, that of pure gold there were four hundred camel loads, which are eight hundred chests—but God knows best—and rich garments, vessels, pearls, and jewels in proportion, together with other valuable property of every description, the whole of which he disposed of.
During his reign gold, apparel, perfumed leather2, and other things, through his munificence and his presents, became very cheap. He also purchased a number of Turkish slaves, and greatly valued them all, and raised them to competence and wealth ; and his presents, gifts, and donations were constantly reaching people, until one day, during the second year of his sovereignty, the son of his aunt,. the sister's son of the Sultans [Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad, and Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad], Malik Taj-ud-Din, died3, and no heir survived him, and his effects and treasures, consisting of ready money, gold and silver vessels, a vast quantity of wealth, were brought to the presence of Sultan Mahmud. He commanded that a banquet and festal entertainment should be arranged beneath [the walls] of the Kushk. which is situated in the middle of [the city of] Firuz-koh4.
He spread the carpet of pleasure, and directed that festivity and gaiety should be the order of the day ; and, from the time of meridian prayer to the period of evening prayer, the whole of that money, consisting of darhams and dinars, contained in leathern bags and in scrips, was poured out of the windows of the Kasr. As it was a
2	Perfumed leather t^1] must have been extremely valuable in those days.
3	Malik Taj-ud-Din, Zangf, son of Sultan Shams-ud-Dln, Muhammad, sovereign of Bamian and Tukharistan. He was taken prisoner in battle with a body of KhwarazmT troops in the vicinity of Marw-ar-Rud, at a time when peace existed between the Sultan of Khwarazm and Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, of Ghazntn, and sent to Kljwarazm with other chiefs taken at the same time, and their heads were struck off. See page 425, and page 481, note 8.
4	The text varies here again. The oldest copies are plainly written as above ; but, according to some, the sentence may be read : "in the Kasr of Nar Kushk which is [situated] in the midst of [the city of] Firuz-koh," and, according to others, merely "in the Kasr which is [situated] in" &c. It is quite a different place to the KasrofBaz Kushk, The Europeanized kiosk is derived from this latter word.406
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
public banquet and a largess to both high and low, great and small, every description of the different classes of the people of the city of Firuz-koh were arriving in crowds at the foot of the Kushk, and kept themselves under the Sultan's observation. To each class of persons he was giving a liberal share of dishes, long-necked flasks, lamps, ewers, cups, platters, bowls, goblets, and other vessels of different descriptions, all of gold and of silver, and, among other presents, above a thousand slaves of his own, both male and female, which he repurchased again from their [new] owners. The whole city, from those largesses, became [so to speak] filled with gold.
Sultan Mahmud was a sovereign of very great good qualities, and his alms, donations, and honorary robes, to a large amount, were received by all classes of the people ; but, as the decree of fate had [now] come, the motives of its advent began to appear. Having, at the request of Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, seized the latter's brother, 'All Shah, and imprisoned him, 'All Shah's servants, followers, and dependents, consisting of 'Irakis, Khurasanis, Khwarazmis, and Turks, in great numbers, together with his mother, his son, and his women, along with him, the whole of them agreed together with one accord, and several times, by means of each of the most notable among them, sent messages, secretly, to Sultan Mahmud, saying: " The reliance we have in the Sultan is, that as we have all come and sought refuge with his Highness, in the service of our master, 'All Shah, and have thrown ourselves under the shadow of the Sultan's power and protection, it behoveth he should not deliver us up into the hands of the enemy, for to seize and make captive of those who have sought one's protection will not turn out fortunate, otherwise we will make sacrifice of ourselves, and let it not be that the Sultan should be in dread of his life from us."
As the decree of destiny had gone forth, this communication, which they continued to represent to the Sultan, was without any effect whatever, and a party of 'All Shah's dependents used, at night, to ascend to the summit of the hill, called Koh-i-Azad, which was facing the Kasr, and the sleeping apartment of Sultan Mahmud, and there they sat concealed, and examined the Kasr and noticed the Sultan's sleeping apartment, and marked the way to theTHE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF QiiCR. 407
place. All this they had done, until on the night of Tuesday, the 7th of the month of Safar, in the year 607 H.s, four individuals of the party referred to climbed up on the roof of the Sultan's Kasr, and assassinated him, and got away again by the same road as they had got up. They then crossed the river of Firuz-koh6, which flows in front of the Kasr, and also climbed to the top of that high hill [the Koh-i-Azad], and cried out with a loud voice : " O foes of our Malik! we have killed the Sultan : arise, and search for your Malik7! " When the day broke, the whole city became agitated ; and they buried the Sultan in the Kasr itself, and subsequently the body was removed to Hirat, and finally interred in the Gazar-gah8 [catacombs] of Hirat.
The eldest son of the Sultan, namely Baha-ud-Din, Sam, was raised to the throne.
s There is considerable discrepancy among authors respecting the year of Mahmud's assassination. Yafa-T, Jami'-ut-Tawarikh, Fasih-1, Alfi, Lubb-ut-Tawankh, GuzTdah, Mir'at-i-Jahan-Numa [which says " after reigning nearly eight years "], and some others say it happened in 609 h., while Jahan-Ara, Rau?at-us-Safa, .Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, and a few others agree with our author's statement here as to the year 607 H. The former says it took place on the 7th of Safar, whilst the latter, Rauzat-us-Safa, and some others say, on the 3rd of §afar. Habib-us-Siyar, on the other hand, affirms that it happened in 606 H., Khulasat-ul-Akhbar, 607 H., and the Tarikh-i-Ibrahimi, that it happened on the 3rd Safar, 597, but this must mean the year of the Rihlat [death of Muhammad], not the Hijrah [Flight], between which two eras a period of about eleven years intervenes ; and 597 of the former is about equal to 608 of the latter. There is no doubt but that Mahmud was assassinated in the same year in which Firuz-koh was taken by the Khwarazmis, and Taj-ud-Din, 'All Shah, put to death ; and this last event our author himself states, at page 253, took place in 609 H. The words and without the diacritical points, may be easily mistaken by a copyist. See note 6, page 410.
8 A feeder of the Hari Rud probably, if not the main stream, which rises in Ghur.
1 It is not certain who killed Mahmud, and authors are at variance on this point. Rauzat-us-Safa agrees with our author, but merely copies his statements. Habib-us-Siyar of course agrees with Rauzat-us-Saia. Yafa-i, Fasih-i, Tarikh-i-Ibrahimi, and a few others, state that he was found dead on the roof of his palace, and that his slayer was not known, and Jahan-Ara, and Mun-takhab-ut-Tawarikh, agree with our author. Another writer says 'Al! Shah slew him with his own hand.
8 Sometimes written Gazar-gah as above, and also Gazar-gah. It signifies the place of eaves or hollows, a grave yard, catacombs. There is one at Shiraz in which the Poet Sa'di was buried, and the one near Hirat in which the venerated Khwajah 'Abd-ullah, Ansari, was buried. The meaning of gazar is certainly a bleacher or washer, and gah a place, but the above term does not refer to any " bleaching ground," as a modern writer terms it, except that it is the bleaching ground for dead men's bones.408
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
XX. SULTAN BAHA-UD-DIN, SAM, SON OF GHIYAS-UD-DIN.
MAHMUD, SON OF GHIYAS-UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD, SON OF
BAHA-UD-DIN, SAM, SHANSABI.
Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, son of Sultan Mahmud [at this time] was about fourteen years of age, and his brother, Malik Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, about ten. Their mother was the daughter of Malik Taj-ud-Din, of Timran ; and in the haram likewise were two daughters by this Malikah.
When Sultan Mahmud was martyred, the next morning, all the Amirs of Ghur and the Turk Amirs assembled together, and raised Baha-ud-Din, Sam, to the throne of Firuz-koh; and the Malikah-i-Mu'izziah9, who was the mother of Baha-ud-Din, and the other children of Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, incited the Turkish slaves 1 to slay the competitors for the sovereignty2. Of that party one was Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Mahmud-i-Iran Shah, the son of Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Abi-Ali, and they martyred him, as has been previously recorded.3 Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Timrani, was imprisoned, as was Malik Shihab-ud-Din, 'All, Madini, likewise, who was the son of the uncle of the Sultans [Ghiyas-ud-Din, and Mu'izz-ud-Din] ; and the Ghur! and Turk Amirs, in concert, stood, around the throne with girded loins.
The followers of 'All Shah, after five days, when they found the city had" become tranquil, and that'All Shah still remained in durance, contrived to get up another tumult. They placed a number of men in chests, and pretended that they were going to bring treasure4 into the city from without, such was the plan they chose to enable them to enter the city and create another disturbance ; but, unexpectedly, one among them who had conceived the idea of this wicked action came and gave information about
9 Her title, not her name.
1	In some of the more modern copies this is reversed, and they have "the Turkish slaves incited her," &c.
2	Several Princes of the family who were supposed likely to cause trouble, and interfere with this arrangement, were put to death by his supporters.
3	See pages 394, and 396. At page 399 this is differently related.
4	Other writers say, "cases of merchandize;" and that forty-five persons were made to come out of these chests, and were, at once, put to the sword.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHUR.
it. The chests were seized at the gate of the city, and about eighty men came out of the chests, of whom three were of those who had killed Sultan Mahmud*. All three were made a public example of and put to death, two others were cast headlong from the hill [of Azad], and seventy-five were thrown at the feet of the elephants and killed, amid the clamours and reprobation of the crowd.
Subsequent to this, Malik Husam-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Abi-'Ali, Jahan Pahlawan, from Fiwar and Kal-yun presented himself [at the court] ; and, when three months of the sovereignty of Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, had passed away, Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz [son of 'Ala-ud-Din], Husain [Jahan-soz], who was in attendance on Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, solicited aid from that monarch to enable him to possess himself of the dominions of Ghur. Malik Khan [governor] of Hirat, who at the commencement of the reign of the Khwarazm! Sultan bore the title of Amir-i-Hajib, and who was an 'Ajami Turk 6 of great intrepidity, and the slayer of Muhammad-i-Khar-nak7. was nominated to proceed from Khurasan to render assistance to 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, son of ['Ala-ud-Din], Husain.
Malik Khan, with the forces of Khurasan, set out accordingly to assist Sultan8 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz-i-Husain, in possessing himself of Firuz-koh. When they arrived in the vicinity of Firuz-koh, the Maliks and Amirs of Ghur took counsel together, and came to the conclusion9 that it was advisable to release Malik 'Ali Shah from confine-
6	If it was so well known that 'All Shah's followers had done the deed, it seems strange that they should have been allowed even to approach the gate, and that they should have come near the place and thus thrust their heads into danger.
11 That is a Turk born in 'Ajam. This personage is mentioned in a number of places. He is the chief who joined Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Khwarazmi, in after years, with 50,000 men, was present in the battle of Barwan, and was the unfortunate cause of Saif-ud Din, Ighrak's desertion. Our author styles him Malik Khan, Amln-i-Hajib, at page 287, but more correctly, Amir-i-Hajib, at pages 415, 416, and the last Section on the invasion of the Mughals. His correct name appears to be Malik Khan, entitled Amin-ul-Mulk, the AmTr-i-Hajib. See notes to pages 287-291. The Jami'-ut-TawariMi styles him " Amln Malik of Hirat."
7	See noie9, page 287, and note5, page 471.
s Subsequently perhaps styled Sultan, after he had been set up as a vassal of the Khwarazmis, but Malik is more correct.
9 Some copies are much more curt with the following passage.
D dTHE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
ment, and treat him with great honour and reverence, so that, on his account, some of the Khurasan! forces might evince an inclination towards that Prince, and, as he was also the adversary of his brother [Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah], he might, in concert with this sovereignty, oppose in battle the forces of Khurasan. Malik 'All Shah they accordingly set at liberty, and they appointed Amirs to the [defence of] different sides around the city1.
Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, son of 'All, son of 'Abi-'Ali, and Amir 'Usman-i-Khar-fash2, and other Amirs, with troops, were appointed to occupy the summit of the Koh-i-Maidan, and Amir 'Usman-i-Maraghani, who was the Sar-i-Jandar [the Chief Armour-Bearer], with a body of forces, was named to occupy the upper part of the Koh-i-Azad3. Other Amirs, such as Muhammad-i-'Abd-ullah, andGhuri, Shalmati, and 'Umr, Shalmati4. were nominated to the Zar-Margh gate5; and on a Thursday, during the whole day, round about the city and on the hills constant fighting went on. On a Friday, in the middle of the month of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, in the year 607 II.6, the city [of
1	After strengthening the defences as well as they were able.
2	This is evidently a nickname or byname [like Khar-mil, Khar-nak, &c.] of no very complimentary nature—Ass-like. "Fash" has, however, other significations, which see. Two good copies have	and jterespectively, but no doubt u^* is intended.
3	This was the hill the followers of 'All Shah used to climb to reconnoitre the palace of Sultan Mahmud.
4	Some copies have "Salman! " and " Suliman," but the above is correct.
5	Some few copies of the text, the best Paris copy included, name it the Tara'in gate. It is possible a gate might subsequently have been so named in remembrance of the victory over Pithora Rae, but the other best and oldest copies are as above.
6	Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, having delivered Hirat from 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil, did not interfere in any way with Sultan Mahmud, Ghuri. who had previously acknowledged his suzerainty, as already Stated in note 3, para. 10, page 402. While, however, Sultan Muhammad was engaged in a campaign beyond the Jihun, his brother, Taj-ud-Dln, 'All Shah, having become dissatisfied with his brother, the Sultan, left his dominions and sought the Court of Mahmud, who received him honourably and with distinction, and supplied all his requirements. After some time had passed 'All Shah [and some of his adherents probably], managed to effect an entrance, secretly, into the Sarae-i-Haram [private apartments] in the middle of the day, where he found Mahmud asleep on the throne, and slew him, and no one knew who had done the' deed. It however became noised abroad, that Taj-ud-DIn, 'All Shah, had conspired against him, in order to obtain the throne of Ghiir for himself.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHUR.
411
Firuz-koh] was taken [by the Khwarazmi forces], and the dominion of the family of [Ghiyas-ud-Din] Muhammad, son of Baha-ud-Din, Sam, passed away.
I have already pointed out [note 5, page 407] what discrepancy exists between authors as to the year of Mahmud's assassination, and that, in all probability, 609 H. is the correct date, and not 607 H. Our author himself says, in his account of Taj-ud-Din, 'All Shah [page 253], that he was put to death in 609 H. and every copy of the text available agrees, and Yafa-i, and Fasih-i, and Jami'-ut-Tawarikh confirm it; and, from the various accounts of these events, it is beyond a doubt, that both Mahmud and Taj-ud-Din, 'All Shah, were put to death in the same year, probably within a few months of each other, and before 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, ascended the throne, subject to the Khwarazmis.
Our author here says it happened in the fourth year of Mahmud's reign, and, as he ascended the throne about the middle of 602 H., this would make it before the middle of the year 606 H. ; and, in this case, the date given by most authors for the battle between Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, and Baniko of Taraz, namely Rabi'-ul-Awwal 607 H., cannot be correct, as it is certain that the Sultan entered Hirat, after 'lzz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil, had been put to death, in Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 607 H., three months after the date of Mahmud's assassination given by our author and several others. See note 7, pages 260-261.
Fasih-I distinctly states, that, after Mahmud had been killed in 609 H., as no one remained of the descendants of the Sultans of Ghur worthy of the wand of sovereignty, the chief personages of Firuz-koh concerted together [our author's own statement above tends to confirm this, although probably he did not like to acknowledge that the Ghurian Amirs had set up a Kh,warazmi as ruler], and raised Taj-ud-Din, 'Ali Shah, to the throne. They then despatched an emissary to the presence of Sultan Muhammad, to represent to him the facts of the case, and to solicit him to confirm 'All Shah in the sovereignty. The Sultan [seemingly] acceded to their request, and despatched Muhammad-i-Basjiir [one of his chamberlains] with a robe of honour for 'Ali Shah. After Muhammad-i-Bashir arrived and began to congratulate 'All Shah with the usual ceremonies, 'All Shah proceeded towards an inner apartment and commenced arraying himself in the robe, when Muhammad-i-Bashir drew his sword, and with one blow struck off his head ; and congratulation was turned into condolement.
After this event no other could be found capable of the sovereignty, and Firuz-koh and Qhur, and parts adjacent, were left in the possession of the Khwarazmi Sultan.
Habib-us-Siyar says that Khwarazm Shah, unable to secure his brother's person, advanced upon Ghur with a numerous army. The Ghurian nobles released 'All Shah to create a diversion, but it was of no avail, and Firuz-koh was taken in 607 H. Rauzat-us-Safa states, that, after two or three days fighting in the hills and around the city, it was taken, as our author mentions, in the middle of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 607 H., and in this Jahan-Ara, Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, and others agree, the latter giving the 15th of that month as the exact date, which was just three months and seven days after the death of Mahmud, if he died in that year.
The statement of Yafa-i is different from those of other authors, who probably copied from our author's work, but as the former work gives far more details
D d 2412
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
The Amirs, who had been despatched to occupy the hill-tops around, all escaped in safety, and 'All Shah, and Malik Husam-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Abi-'Ali7 of Kal-yun, went out by the gate of the Reg Pul of Bust8, and each and every one of them betook himself to some part or other. Malik Husam-ud-Din betook himself to Kal-yun, and 'All Shah set out towards Ghaznin. Sultan A'la-ud-Din, Utsuz, was placed on the throne, and Malik Khan of Hirat returned thither.
Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, with his brother [Malik Shams-ud-Dm, Muhammad], his sisters, and his mother, together with the treasure then ready at hand, and their aunt the Malikah-i-Jalali, the daughter of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, who was betrothed to Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, and the whole, with the bier of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, were conducted towards Khurasan. The bier of Sultan Mahmud was deposited in the Gazar-gah [catacombs] of Hirat. The dependents, the married and the younger ladies of the family, and their property were removed to Khwarazm ; and, up to the time of the troubles caused by the irruption of the infidels of Chin, they continued in Khwarazm. and were treated with esteem and honour.
Chroniclers have related in this wise, that, when the Mughal troubles arose, the mother of Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, had those two Princes [Baha-ud-Din, Sam, and Malik Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad] drowned in the Jihun of Khwarazm9—the Almighty have mercy upon them and forgive them !
Two daughters of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, up to the date of the composition of this History [are still living]—one is at Bukhara, and the other is at Balkh,
respecting the Khwarazmls than any other writer with whom I am acquainted, its statement, taken in consideration of what our author mentions, appears worthy of credit. Jahan-Ara, another good authority, states that it was 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, with an army sent along with him by Khwarazm Shah, who invested Firuz-koh, and took the city in the year and date above-mentioned, when Baha-ud-Din, Sam, and his brother were sent away to Khwarazm and met the fate mentioned by our author, at the time of the irruption of the Mughals.
' Styled Jahan Pahlawan at page 409.
8 The "sand" or "gravel gate" leading to Bust. The text is very defective here, in nearly every copy.
3 See page 280.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHUR. 413
married to the M^lik-zadah of Balkh, the son of Al-mas, the Hajib.
XXI. SULTAN 'ALA-UD-DIN, UTSUZ, SON OF SULTAN 'ALA-UD-DIN, AL-HUSAIN, JAHAN-SOZ.
Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz1, was the son of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, Jahan-soz, and was left by his father [at his death] very young in years ; and he had grown up in the service of the two Sultans, Ghiyas-ud-Din. and Mu'izz-ud-Din, but served the greater portion of his service at the court of Ghaznin with Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din.
The chronicler relates after this manner, that, upon one occasion, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din was attacked by the cholic, to such degree that people had given up all hope of his recovery. The Amirs of Ghur agreed together, in secret, on this matter, that, if the Sultan should unfortunately die, they would raise Sultan2 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, to the throne of Ghaznin. Almighty God sent the draught of health from that dispensary, whence " indeed, when 1 am sick He healeth me3," to Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, and he recovered.
Certain informers4 made the Sultan acquainted with this circumstance, and this compact; and he commanded that it was necessary that 'Ala-ud-Din should be removed from the court of Ghaznin lest, through the wrath of humanity, odium might chance to touch him. 'Ala-ud-Din proceeded to the court of Ba.mian.to his uncle's sons ; and [at that time] the throne of Bamian had passed to Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sams, son of Sultan Shams-ud-Din, son of Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud. After he [Utsuz] had pro-
1	Habib-us-Siyar, and some others likewise agree with our author, and say that 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, was set up by Khwarazm Shah after the dethronement of Baha-ud-Din, Sam; and that 'All Shah fled to Ghaznin after the capture of Firuz-koh. The reason why this Khwarazmi, or rather Turkish name, was given to 'Ala-ud-DIn is mentioned at page 238. He was, no doubt, set aside by Abu-l-'Ahbas-i-Shis who slew Utsuz's brother, Saif-ud-Din, Muhammad, for killing his brother, War-mesh, otherwise he was the next heir to the throne after his brother Sultan Saif-ud-Din, Muhammad.
2	Not Sultan at that time, for he had not then come to the throne.
3	Kur'an : chap. 26, verse 80.
* It appears that all rulers had these news-givers or informers in their employ.
5 See page 428 for the account of him.4M
THE TABAKAT-1-NASIKI.
ceeded thither, they treated him with reverence, and the district of Nae6 of Bamian was assigned to his charge.
After some time his [Utsuz's] daughter was given [in marriage] to his [Sultan, Baha-ud-Din's] eldest son, Malik ' Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad', as will subsequently be, please God, recorded in the Section on the Maliks of Bamian.
The course of the days allotted to the extent of the dominion of the Sultans, Ghiyas-ud-Din and Mu'izz-ud-Din, having run their course, and Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, having likewise died8, Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, proceeded from the court of Bamian to the presence of Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah9, to solicit assistance to enable him to obtain possession of the dominion of Ghur and the throne of Firuz-koh. He was treated with great honour there, and received the most princely usage, and the Amirs of Khurasan, such as Ulugh Khan-i-'Abl-Muhammadl, Malik Shams-ud-Din, Utsuz [the Hajib], and the Majd-ul-Mulk, Wazir of Marw, with the whole of the troops of Upper Khurasan were directed to afford assistance to Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, in possessing himself of the territories of Ghur2.
Sultan Mahmud advanced out of Firuz-koh to meet them and overthrow their forces, as has been previously recorded3; and they [the Khwarazmi nobles] retired, and again resumed their duties in the service of Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah.
6 This place is often mentioned in Baihaki.
' See account of him, No. III. of Section XIX.
8	Baha-ud-DIn of Bamian must be meant. Mahmud's son, Baha-ud-Din, Sam, only reigned three, months, but he did not die until cast into the Jihun between ten and eleven years after these events, and after the slaves of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-DTn had succeeded to the whole of his dominions. See page 409.
9	The reader will not fail to observe that this mighty sovereign to whom the latter Ghuris appealed when they wanted help, and whose suzerainty the nephew of Mu'izz-ud-DIn acknowledged, is the same that our author would make us believe sent such abject petitions to Ghiyas-ud-DTn and his brother, Mu'izz-ud-Din, mentioned at page 381-2.
1	Styled Malik-ul-Jibal at page 399.
2	Scarcely probable, even by our author's own account, if the " firm compact " mentioned at page 400 is correct; but, as mentioned in note 3, page 400, the " treaty" must, really, mean Mahmud's acknowledgment of Sultan Muhammad's supremacy, which took place after the affair here alluded to. The defeat of the Khwarazmi troops is not mentioned by the various authors I have quoted, but quite the contrary.
3	At page 400.THE SHANSABANlAH DYNASTY OK GHUR.	415
Matters continued in this wise until after the assassination of Sultan Mahmud, when Malik Khan of Hirat, the Amir-i-Hajib, and [Malik] Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, from Bust, and the forces of Khurasan, advanced towards Firuz-koh4; and they placed 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, on the throne of Ghur, and Malik Khan of Hirat again retired.
The Maliks and Amirs of Ghur submitted to Sultan Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz; but hostility showed itself between him and the Turk Amirs of Ghaznin. and Malik Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, and Mu'ayyid-ul-Mulk, Muhammad-i-'Abdullah, Sistani6, who was the Wazir of Ghaznin, and in pomp like a sovereign, encountered Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, in the limits of Kidan and the Margh-i-Nulah, in battle, and the army of Ghaznin was defeated and overthrown.
Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, was a just monarch, learned, and a patron of learned men ; and the Kitab-i-Mas'udi, on ecclesiastical jurisprudence, he knew by heart. In the promotion of 'Ulama [theologians], and the bringing up of the families of .men of learning, he used to do his utmost^ and every one among the sons of'Ulama, whom he continued to find diligent and persevering, he was accustomed to honour with his benevolent regard.
When he ascended the throne he set at liberty Malik 6 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, from the fortress of Ashiyar of Gharjistan ; but, on account of his killing 'Umr-i-Shalmati, the Sultan again shut him up within the walls of the fortress of Balarwan.
Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, reigned 7 for a period of four years, until Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Husain, the Amir-i-Shikar [Chief-Huntsman], brought an army from Ghaznin against him 8, and a battle took place between them in the
4 Compare the account at page 409, and on the preceding page. In a few copies of the text the words "and [Malik] 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz," are left out.
s Styled Sanjari in the list of Mu'izz-ud-DIn's ministers and nobles, at page 205
6 Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, the last of the dynasty. See page 417.
' Subject to Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah.
8 Any one reading this would imagine that this Nasir-ud-Din, Husain, was some independent chief who had made war upon ' Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz. He was sent by Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, against 'Ala-ud-Din, who, being a vassal of the Khwarazmis, was naturally inimical to I-yal-duz, the trusted Slave of the late Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, and on whose side most if not all, of the416
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
centre of Ghur. within the limits of Jarmas. The right wing of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz's, army was commanded by Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, son of 'All, son of Abi-'Ali9, who attacked the left wing of Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Husain's, troops, and overthrew and routed [that portion of] the Ghaznin forces, and pursued the fugitives [off the field]. Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Husain, [with his centre] charged the centre of the Sultan's army, and wounded him with his spear, and a Turk among the troops of Ghaznin smote the Sultan on the head with his mace in such wise that both his august eyes exuded from their sockets \ and he fell down from his horse. Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Husain, remained on horseback over the head of the Sultan, when Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, returned from the pursuit of the routed left wing of the Ghaznin army, and charged Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Husain, and again recovered the [wounded] Sultan, and conveyed him towards the district of Sangah, and on the way the Sultan was received into the Almighty's mercy2. They buried him by the side of his kindred, the Maliks of the family of the Shansabanis.
Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, reigned for a period of four years and a little over; and, after his death, his sons became dispersed. One of them, Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, went into Gharjistan to the castle of Siya-Khanah 3, and
Turkish Amirs were ranged, whilst the Ghuri Amirs were on the opposite side.
9 This chief is again mentioned by our author in his account of the Mughal invasion of these parts. Malik Kutb-ud-Din was directed by Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, under whose rule the Ghurian empire west of the Indus had fallen, to put all the fortresses of Ghur into a state of efficiency for defence against the Mughals. Malik Kutb-ud-Din, at last, succeeded in reaching Hindustan after a narrow escape of falling into the hands of those infidels.
1	The idiom here, as in many other places, differs considerably, for example one set of copies has &}j<r>—f—e- j-5 y and the other set <.s-.iU.jj ^U-j'—
2	This event happened, near Ghaznin, in 6n H. 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, ruled over Ghur for about four years ; and most authors state that he was the last of the race of Shansabani who held sovereign power, and, with him, the dynasty terminated. This must have happened very shortly before the death of I-yal-duz, who was put to death in the tenth month of this year, according to some, and in 612 H. according to others ; but it is very probable that I-yal-duz did set up the favourite and trusted kinsman of his late master. See page 418.
3	Several of the more modern copies of the text have Sata-Khanah for Siya-Khanah. This fortress is again referred to in the last Section containing the account of the Mughal invasion.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHUR. 417
there he remained for some time ; another, Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Muhammad, went to the fortress of Bindar [or Pindar], in Upper Gharjistan, and long continued there. The youngest son, Jamshed by name, during the troubles of the infidel Mughals, entered into the district of Hariw-ar-Rud, and, in the Darah of Khisht-Ab 4, he was martyred [by Mughals]. Those two elder sons of the Sultan, through the calumny of Malik Khan of Hirat, received martyrdom at the hands of the slaves of Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah. They strove greatly, and strained every nerve ; but, as it was not the Divine will, neither one of them attained unto sovereignty.
XXII. SULTAN 'ALA-UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD, SON OF SHUJA'-
UD-DIN-I-ABU-'ALIs, THE LAST OF THE SULTANS OF
GHUR 6.
Previous to this, in several places, 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, has been made mention of, that, at the outset of his career, he used to be styled Malik Ziya-ud-Din, the Pearl of Ghur. and when, after Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of [Baha-ud-Din] Sam, he ascended the throne of Firuz-koh, his title became Malik [Sultan] 'Ala-ud-Din 1.
Since Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Husain8, at this time martyred Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, Firuz-koh, and the dominion of Ghur came under the control of the Amirs and troops of Ghaznin, and of Ghur. They, in concert, set up Malik Husam-ud-Din, Husain-i-'Abd-ul-Malik, Sar-i-Zarrad9, over Firuz-koh, and they repaired the fort of Firuz-koh, and, in the midst of the city, and on the hill of
4	Khisht and Khusht. in Pu_to, signify damp, wet, humid, dank, soaked,
&c., and ab is Persian for water. The Push to equivalent for water is ao-bah.
5	Our author makes the same blunder here as at page 391. Shuja'-ud-Din, Abu-'AlI, was 'Ala-ud-DIn, Muhammad's, grandfather. See page 346.
6	This should be, Sultan ' Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, restored. See page 391.
7	See note 8, page 393.
3 Previously mentioned as Amir-i-Shikar. or Chief Huntsman. The idiom here varies considerably.
9 One copy of the text has " Sih-Zarrad," and another Sx-Zad. He was set up as temporary ruler perhaps. He is, no doubt, the same person who is referred to by our author in his account of the Mughal invasion, and who, at that time, held the fortress of Sangah of Ghur for Sultan Muhammad Khwarazm Shah, and his son Sultan Jalal-ud-DIn.4i8
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
the fortress of Baz Kushk, they placed a barrier of iron, and raised a rampart, and commenced hostilities They brought Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, out of the castle of Ashiyar [of Gharjistan] and carried him away to Ghaznin. These events happened in the year 610 or 611 H.2
When Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, reached Ghaznin, Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, treated him with great honour and reverence, and commanded so that they took the canopy of State of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din from the head of that monarch's mausoleum, and they raised it over the head of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, and he [Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz] gave him the title of Sultan, and sent him to the capital, Firuz-koh.
He returned to Ghur again ; and, when he had ruled for a period of one year and a little more, and the Khutbah was read, and the money was coined in his name 3, and his title of Sultan was made universally [public] in the Khutbah. Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, sent him the treaty which the Sultan had, at Nishapur, taken from him, to the effect that he ['Ala-ud-Din Muhammad] should never, at any time soever, draw sword against him [Sultan Muhammad]. Accordingly, in the year 612 H., Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, delivered up the city of Firuz-koh to the trusty officers of Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm
1	The text here is very "defective in most copies, and varies considerably both in words and idiom. Whom hostilities were carried on with does not appear.
2	Sultan Mahmud was killed, according to our author and some other writers [see note s, page 407 and 410], in the second month of the year 607 H. ; and 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, was killed after a reign, by our author's account, of four years and a little over, which, supposing the "little over" to have been one month only, would bring us to the third month of the year 611 H. ; and, according to several authors, on the 3rd of the tenth month of that same year, Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-diiz, was himself put to death at Buda'un by I-bak's son-in-law, Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, who then ruled at Dihli. If these dates be correct, ' Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, could not have reigned more than six months, which is evidently incorrect. Jahan-Ara says he vacated the throne, and retired to the court of Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, leaving him to take possession of the country, after he had reigned one year and a little over. This would bring us to about the fourth month of 612 H.; and the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarlkh, states that I-yal-duz was defeated and put to death in this year, not in 611 H. The period assigned for Utsuz's reign is probably too great. See under Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, No. IV., Section XIX.
3	I do not think any of his coins have been found.
4	At that time styled Ziya-ud-Din, Muhammad. See note 8, page 393.THE SH ANSAE AN I AH DYNASTY OF GHUR.
419
Shah, and was himself conducted to Khwarazm, and was treated with great honour and veneration 5.
He took up his residence near to the Malikah-i-Jalali, the daughter of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, who was joined in wedlock to him. They dwelt together6 in the Khwarazmi dominions for a considerable time, and [at length] death's decree arrived, and he was received into the Almighty's mercy. During the period of his own dominion and sovereignty, he had despatched trusty and confidential persons, and had acquired a place adjacent to [the tomb of] Shaikh Abu-Yazid, Bustami, and had caused the position of his tomb to be fixed upon ; and, at the time of his decease, he had made it his last request that his body should be removed from Khwarazm to Bustam.
5	Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, being dead at this time, Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, was deprived of his support; and this may have been another reason for his abdicating. Several other authors agree with respect to this year, but others again distinctly state that Sultan Muhammad obtained possession of Firuz-koh and Ghur, and also of Ghaznin. in 611 H. Ghur, as previously stated, had been subject to him in the time of Utsuz. Yafa-I says : " After these events [before related], in 611 H., [the Jami'-ut-TawarTki agrees,] news reached the Sultan [Khwarazm Shah] that Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, had died at Ghaznin [our author and several others state that he was put to death at Buda'un], leaving no heir who was capable of succeeding him [he left no son], and that one of his slaves had assumed his place. This determined the Sultan to devote his energies to the annexation of that territory, together with other extensive provinces. Having effected his purpose, Hirat, Ghur, Gharjis-tan, and Sijistan, and the territory as far as the frontier of Hind, an extensive empire, and containing many flourishing cities and towns, previously ruled by Sultan Mahmud-i-Sabuk-Tigin and his descendants, up to the period of the rise of the Sultans of Ghur, fell under his sway, and he nominated his eldest son, Jalal-ud-Din, to the government of it," and a Khwarazmi Amir [seepage 2J7] was appointed to rule it as his deputy or lieutenant. See the reign of Yal-duz further on.
In the treasury, at Ghaznin, where Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din had placed them, were found, at this time that Sultan Muhammad obtained possession of Ghaznin, several documents from the Khalifah's Court to the Ghurian Sultans, inciting them to hostility against him, and vilifying and maligning him and his acts. The finding of these documents proved to him that the hostility of the Ghuris towards him proceeded, from the instigation contained in them. He did not make known the contents of these documents at this time, intending to do so after sufficient time had elapsed for him to free the countries of the East. See note 4, page 265.
6	How was it possible for them to have dwelt together, when, as our author himself states at pages 301 and 392, the marriage was never consummated, and the princess died a maid ? They may have resided near each other. She had been betrothed to Tughan Shah, grandson of Malik Mu-ayyid-i-A-inah-dar, before she was betrothed to Ziya-ud-Din. See page 182.420
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
When, in accordance with his last will, they conveyed his remains to Bustam, the attendant at the Khankah [monastery] of Bustam, the night previously, saw Shaikh Abu-Yazid in a dream, who said to him, " To-morrow a traveller and guest arrives : it behoveth that thou shouldst perform the rite of going forth to receive him." At the dawn of the morning the attendant of the Khankah set out from Bustam ; and, at about the first watch of the day, the bier of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, arrived from the direction of Khwarazm. It was conducted with all reverence and veneration into Bustam, and they buried him likewise adjoining the Shaikh-ul-'Arifain, Abu-Yazid —the mercy of the Almighty be upon them !—and the Maliks of Ghur, and the Sultans of the Shansabi race, by the extinction of his dominion, came to a termination.SECTION XVIII.
THE SHANSABANIAH SULTANS OF TUKHARISTAN AND
bAmIAn.
MinhaJ-I-SarAJ, Jurjani, the humblest of the servants of the Almighty's threshold, thus states, that, as Almighty-God raised up great and powerful Sultans from the race of the Shansabanis, who were Maliks over the mountain tracts of Ghur, and brought within the grasp of their jurisdiction, and under their subjection, sundry territories of the countries of 'Ajam and of Hind, one of those territories was Tukharistan and the mountain tracts of Bamian, the rulers of which part have been famous and celebrated upon all occasions, from the most remote ages, for the grandeur of their station, the abundance of their riches, the vastness of their treasures, the number of their mines, and their buried wealth; and, on sundry occasions, the sovereigns of 'Ajam, such as Kubad and Firuzthese rulers have vanquished and overcome. That tract of country has also been famed and celebrated, to the uttermost parts of the countries of the world, for its mines of gold, silver, rubies, and crystal, bejadah* [jade], and other [precious] things.
When the sun of the prosperity of the Maliks and Sultans of Ghur ascended from the eastern parts of eminence, and Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, Jahan-soz, had wreaked vengeance upon the people of Ghaznin, he had leisure to turn his attention to the subjugation of that territory. After having subdued it, he installed therein his eldest brother, Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, and from him descended an illustrious posterity, and Maliks of grandeur and dignity, the marks of whose equity and beneficence,
1	See note 8, page 423.
2	The name of a gem, by some said to be a species of ruby, and by others a species of sapphire ; but jade is no doubt meant. Goez refers to a species of jasper found in these parts.422
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
and the fame of whose munificence and obligations conferred, became published throughout the four quarters of the world3. The mercy of the Almighty be upon the whole of them !
I. MALIK FAKHR-UD-DIN. MAS'-UD, SON OF 'IZZ-UD-DIN, AL HUSAIN, SHANSABI.
Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, son of Al-Husain, was older than his other six brothers; and his mother was a Turkiah *. He was a sufficiently great monarch ; but, as he was not by the same mother as [his brothers] the Sultans6, they did not permit him to occupy the throne of the dominions of Ghur, for this reason, that five other brothers fi, both on the side of the father and mother, were Shansabanis, while the Malik-ul-Jibal, Muhammad, who attained martyrdom at Ghaznin. was by another mother, who was the attendant of the mother of the Sultans, and Malik Fakhr-ud-Din. Mas'ud, was by a Turkish bondwoman, as has been previously stated.
After Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain [Jahan-soz], became disengaged from taking revenge upon the inhabitants of Ghaznin. and had demolished the Kasrs of Bust, which was the place of residence of the house of Mahmud, he caused an army to be got ready from the capital of Ghur, and marched towards Tukharistan, and, in the subjugation of that territory, and the strongholds thereof, manifested great alertness and dexterity; and the Amirs of Ghur, in that army, displayed such valour and martial heroism, that, if Rustam-i-Dastan7 had been present, he would have recited the story of their valour.
When those tracts were taken possession of,' Ala-ud-Din, Husain, placed Malik Fakhr-ud-Din. Mas'ud [his brother], upon the throne of Bamian, and that territory was com-
3	A term constantly quoted by Eastern authors before the time of Columbus.
4	The feminine of Turk.
5	They only assumed the title of Sultan some time subsequent to this period, and, of course, were not all Sultans at once.
6	Here our author refers over again to the "Sultans" just mentioned. There is no improving his style without taking great liberty with the original.
7	Dastan, a name of Zal-i-Zar [Zal of the Golden Locks], the father of Rustam.THE SHANSABANIAII DYNASTY OF TUKHARISTAN. 423
mitted to his charge8. Malik Fakhr-ud-Din. Mas'ud, having ascended the throne, the adjacent hill territories, [namely] the mountain tract of Shaknan 9, Tukharistan. as far as Dar-gunand Bilaur, and the tracts towards Turkistan
8	Here, again, our author contradicts his own previous statements. At page 339 he says that, on the death of Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain [the father of Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, and others], Saif-ud-Din, Surf, the eldest legitimate son, who succeeded to his father's authority, divided the dominions among his six brothers and himself, and that, in that division, Bamian was assigned to the eldest brother, Fakhr-ud-Pin. Mas'ud. Now he states that 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, conquered this territory several years subsequently, after he had destroyed the city of Ghaznin. Jahan-Ara also states that, in the division of the father's hereditary patrimony among the brothers, Bamian went to the eldest son by a Turkish bond-woman, Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud.
The older Chroniclers contain a great deal respecting the affairs of Tukharistan and the Hayatilah, whatever "the clay-stamped annals of Senaccherib" [Sennacherib ?] may say. Ibn-i-Khurdad-bih, in his account of the Turks, also refers to them. Haytal [J'-v], according to the ancient dialect of Bukhara, is said to signify a man of great strength and size ; the 'Arabs made it Haytal [JUxj»]—the plural form of the word, applied to the people generally, being Hayatilah [«U]. One writer states that Haytal was the name of the territory of Khutlan, a dependency of Badakhshan, also called Kol-ab [Kol-i-Ab, which signifies a lake]; but this is contrary to the Masalik wa Mamalik, and to our author's account.
Firuz, son of Yazdijurd, son of Bahram-i-Gur, when his brother Hurmuz ascended the throne, fled from his fief of Sijistan, by way of Gharjistan and Tukharistan, and sought shelter and aid from Khush-nawaz. the king of the Hayatilah. According to the Rauzat-ut-Tahirin, the name of the ruler he sought aid from was Faghani, the Chaghani. or Shah of the Chaghanians. He espoused the cause of Firuz, and agreed to aid him with 30,000 men if P'iruz would cede to him Tirmid and Wesah. Another author calls the people of Tukharistan itself Hayatilah likewise. By Faghani's aid Firuz gained the throne of Iran ; and for many years subsequent to this, and during several succeeding reigns, there was alternate peace and war between the sovereigns of Iran and the Hayatilah rulers. In the time of Nusherwan, the Hayatilah, being without a ruler, are said to have chosen Faghani [this would seem, from what was stated above from another author, to be the name of the family, not the person's name], the Chaghanian ruler of Tukharistan. I have neither space nor time to say more at present ; but will merely observe, that, by some modern writers, Tukharistan and Turkistan are often confused, one for the other.
9	Shaghnan and Shaknan are synonymous: "Shighnan" is not correct, but such as one would adopt who could not read the original for himself, atid depended entirely on the statements and translations of others.
1 Considerable discrepancy exists here, in some copies of the text, with respect to these names. The best copies have as above, although the oldest leaves out the and, which makes it Dar-gun ^/"Bilaur. The next best has Dar-gut [or Dar-kot or kut], which, if the ^ of the original MS. was written rather long drawn out, as is often done, might be mistaken for The next best copies, which are comparatively modern, have Dar-gur [or Dar-gor], and one Dar-bur424
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
to the boundary of Wakhsh 2 and Badakhshan, the whole came under his jurisdiction
Malik Fakhr-ud-Din. Mas'ud, had able and accomplished sons; and, when Kimaj4, from Balkh, and Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duzs, from Hirat, who were slaves of the Sanjari dynasty, conspired to eject Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mu-hammad-i-Sam, in order to take possession [of the country] as far as Firuz-koh, and the Ghiyasiah sovereignty was, as yet, in the morning of Its ascendancy, Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, rendered assistance to them, under the stipulation that whatever pertained to Khurasan should go to them, and what belonged to Ghur to [him] Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud6.
When Almighty God bestowed victory upon Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din. and Malik Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, of Hirat, was slain, he despatched the head of Yal-duz 7 to his uncle, Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, "whose forces had arrived near at hand. Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din followed in pursuit of them, and Malik Fakhr-ud-Din was put to the rout. Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din discerned him, and caused him to turn back again, and conducted him to his camp, and there placed him on the throne 8 ; and Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, and Mu'izz-ud-Din, both of them, stood before the
[or Dar-bor], The printed text, and one of the most recent copies, have Dar-kufah ; and the former, in a note, Bur-Bilaur ; and, in brackets, as the probable reading, " Darivaz and Bilaur;" but the different copies of the text collated do not show that this is at all the correct reading.
2	Also called Khutlan.
3	The dominions of the Sultans of Bamian and Tukharistan, according to Jahan Ara and several other works, extended north to the territory of Kash-ghar; south as far as Gharjistan and Ghur ; east to Kashmir ; and west as far as Tirmid. See note6, page 426.
4	This appears to be the same Amir Kimaj referred to in note 3, page 358 ; and he is probably the same as mentioned in note5, page 374; and this Yal-duz [I-yal-duz] must be the same who is mentioned in the same note, which see.
3 See pages 371-4.
6	Mr. E. Thomas, in his paper on the " Coins of the Kings of Ghazni," Ro. As. Journal, vol. xvii., in a note, page 199, erroneously states that, "On the first rise of Ghias-ud-din, Fakr[Fakh.r ?]-ud-din aids him, under the condition that all the conquests in Khorasan should pertain to the former, while the acquisitions in Ghor should fall to his own share." The conditions were between Kimaj and Yal-duz and Faklu-ud-Din, not Ghiyas-ud-Din.
7	See the account given in Ghiyas-ud-Dln's reign, where our author says that Kimaj's head was sent, page 373, and note 9.
8	A round-about way of stating that they took him prisoner.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF TUKHARISTAN. 425
throne in attendance on him. Chroniclers state that Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, became enraged [at this], and that he reproached both of them unjustly, saying that they mocked him. His words were these : " You two rascally boys laugh at me!" The Almighty's mercy be upon them !
This exclamation of his has been mentioned here for this reason, that the beholders and readers of these pages may know the laudable qualities of these two monarchs, the extent of their compassion and clemency, to what degree they guarded the honour and respect [due] towards their uncle, and to what extremity they bore his injustice 9.
When the two Sultans1 became disengaged from this audience, they caused complete arrangement to be made for the return of their uncle, and conferred honorary dresses upon the whole of his Amirs and Slaves, and caused them to return. Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, retired towards Bamian again ; and there he acquired great power, and the Sultans and Maliks of Ghur used constantly to pay him homage.
His career came to an -end in [the enjoyment of] sovereignty2, and he ruled for a long period and died. He had several worthy and deserving sons. Sultan Shams-ud-Din was the eldest, and Malik Taj-ud-Din, Zangi3, and Malik Husam-ud-Din, 'All.
II. SULTAN SHAMS-UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD, SON OF MAS'UD, SON OF AL-HUSAIN, SHANSABI.
When Malik Fakhr-ud-Din. Mas'ud, of Bamian, was
9 We have ample proofs of their amiability and long-suffering, from our author's point of view, in the fate of Sultan Khusrau Malik and his family, and 'Abbas-i-Shis.
1 Mu'izz-ud-Din, the younger brother, only received the title of Sultan some time after this occurrence.
3 Such are the words in the original : it seems a truism if the passage is not corrupt.
3 This is the Taj-ud-Din, Zangi, who had his head struck off at Khwarazm. mentioned in note 8, page 481. He can scarcely be the same person as mentioned at page 342, because the latter's mother was one of the sisters of the two Sultans, Ghiyas-ud-Din, and Mu'izz-ud-Din. If he is, his father, Fakhr-ud-Dln, Mas'ud, must have married his own niece ; while his son, Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, must have married her sister, a most unlikely alliance, illegal according to Muhammadan law. There must have therefore been two persons named Taj-ud-Din, Zangi, but of the same race.
E e426
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
taken to the Almighty's mercy, his eldest son was Sultan Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad 4, and they raised him to the throne of Bamian ; and the sister of the Sultans Ghiyas-ud-Din and Mu'izz-ud-Din was married to him, which princess's title was Hurrah-i-Jalali. She was older than either of the Sultans, and was the mother of Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, the son of [Shams-ud-Din] Muhammad.
When Sultan Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, ascended the throne of Bamian, in accordance with the last will of his father, and with the concurrence of the Amirs, Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din sent him a robe of honour, and paid him abundant deference and respect. He brought the whole of the territory of Tukharistan under his sway, and, subsequently, the city of Balkh. Chaghanian6, Wakhsh, Jarum, Badakhshan, and the hill tracts of Shaknan 6, came under
4	This is the Malik's son, Shams-ud-Pin. Muhammad, who was taken prisoner by the Sipah-salar, Barankash, along with 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain [Jahan-soz], and 'All, Jatri, in the engagement with Sultan Sanjar before Aobah in 547 h. Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, obtained 50,000 dinars from Bamian for his ransom, which sum was paid over to Barankash. Our author, had-he known this, is not likely to have related it.
5	The best Paris copy, the I. O. L. MS., and the Ro. As. Soc. MS., have Isfahan ! !
6	Others say Balkh,, Bughlan or Buklan [both are correct], Chaghanian, and some part of Baclakh,shan. According to our author, his father, Fakhr-ud-DIn, Mas'ud, held sway over some of these very tracts, now mentioned as "subsequently" coming under the sway of the son. However, it is clear, whatever '' Hzven Thsahg " may say to the contrary, that Tukharistan was but a district or province of Balkh,, and not a vast tract of country '' reachingfrom the frontiers of Persia'''1 [wherever that might mean in those days] "to the Thsung-ling or Mountains of Pamir /' and that " the great Po-chu or Oxus " did not " run throiigh the middle " of the Tukharistan here referred to, for the very good reason that it lies south of the Jihun, Amu, or Oxus. The Masalik wa Mamalik plainly states, that of Balkh. there are a number of divisions and districts, such as Tukharistan, Khulum. Samnagan, Bughlan, ZawalTn [this, in all probability, is Mr. Thomas's "Warwalfn" [^'jji]—the first j is the copulative conjunction, and the j wants the point to make it)]; and Baihakis, Walwalij— —may be traced to the same source. Of this Tukharistan, Tal-kan was the chief and largest town. Had such a place as Walwalij been capital of Tukharistan, our author would, without doubt, have known of it, and have mentioned it here. Chaghanian and Wakhsh, lie to the northward of this Tukharistan, and are accounted in Mawar-un-Nahr, as this latter term signifies, viz. beyond the river. " The Walchsh-Ab—river of Wakhsh— issues out of Turkistan into the territory of Wakhsh. runs onward towards Balkh, and falls into the JUmn, near Tirmid." In his account of the Mughal invasion, our author mentions Balkh and Walkh L^j] sometimes as one and the same place, and, at others, as separate places.
While on this subject, I must now mention another matter. In the M-asalikTHE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF TUKHARISTAN. 427
his jurisdiction. He marched forces in every direction, and throughout the whole of those parts his mandates were obeyed.
In the year in which the Sultans of Ghur and Ghaznin led an army into the territory of Rud-bar of Marw, to repel Sultan Shah, the Khwarazmi7, Sultan Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, by command of the Sultans, brought the forces of Bamian and Tukharistan and joined them. On the occasion of Sultan Shah's overthrow, Malik Baha-ud-Din, Tughril, of Hirat, who had been a slave of Sultan Sanjar, and who, obliged to evacuate Hirat, had joined Sultan Shah, in this engagement fell into the hands of the troops of Bamian. They slew him, and brought his head to the presence of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din. The Sultan [in consequence] became very cordial towards Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, and upon this very occasion his advancement8 took place, and he received the title of Sultan Shams-ud-Din, and a black canopy of state was assigned to him.
Previous to this, neither Malik Fakhr-ud-Din. Mas'ud, nor he had any canopy of state, and his designation was Malik Shams-ud-Din ; but, when he acquired a canopy of state, he obtained the title of Sultan 9; and by Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din. and Mu'izz-ud-Din, who were his uncle's sons, he was treated with great honour and reverence.
wa Mamalik, Bamian is described as "a town about half the extent of Balkh [in those days Balkh, was a very extensive city], situated on a hill, and in front of it flows the river which runs through Gharjistan." The Tarikh-i-Alfi, a work of great authority, Jahan-Ara, the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarlkh, and some others, distinctly aver that there was no town whatever called Bamian, which is the name of the country, and that Rasif	Rasif
was the name of its chief town, which place was totally destroyed by Chingiz Khan on his advance towards Ghaznin. The Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh says Bamian is also called Tukharistan ! Rasif is probably the place called "Gulgulih" by Masson, but such name is not to be found in any Persian history that I know of. The Mughals styled it Maubalig—the unfortunate city—after its ruin.
7	See pages 249, 378, and note5, page 379.
8	The printed text and I. O. L. MS. 1952, and two others, have ^—to repulse, drive away; and, in the R. A. Soc. MS.	repulsing, driving away !
9	The text here exhibits considerable variations, and great differences of idiom express the same signification. Some authors state that, on this occasion, Mu'izz-ud-Din also received the title of Sultan, and that before his title was only Malik.
E e 2428
the tabakat-i-nasiri.
The Almighty bestowed upon him worthy and excellent offspring, and blessed him with six sons 1 ; and for a considerable time the country of Tukharistan continued under the jurisdiction of his officers. He patronized learned men of distinction, and they took up their residence in his dominions ; and acted with equity and beneficence towards his subjects, and died renowned and popular; and, after him, the sovereignty came to Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam.
iii. sultAn bahA-ud-din, sAm, son of sultan shams-
UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD.
Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, was a very great and august monarch, and was just and enlightened. He was the patronizer of learned men, and the dispenser of equity ; and, in his day, the whole of the learned 'Ulama were unanimous, that there was no' Musalman sovereign who was a greater cherisher of learned men, for this reason, that his intercourse, his communion, and his converse, were exclusively with 'Ulama of judgment and discrimination.
He was, on both sides, a Shansabani2, and his mother was the Hurrah-i-Jalali, the daughter of Sultan Baha-ud-Dln, Sam, the sister of the two Sultans, and older than either of them. Kazi Taj-ud-Din, Zawzani, who was the most eloquent man of his day, [upon one occasion] was delivering a discourse within his [Baha-ud-Din's] palace, and, during the invocation, the Sultan said : "What adornment can I give to the bride of the realm upon the face of whose empire two such moles exist, one Ghiyas-ud-Din, and the other Mu'izz-ud-Din 3!" The Almighty's mercy be upon them all!
1	Our author, like others, does not even give the names of these sons. Baha-ud-DIn, Sam, however, was not the eldest of the sons of Shams-ud-DIn, Muhammad. When the latter died, the Bamian nobles raised his eldest son, 'Abbas, by a Turkish wife, to the throne. The two brothers, Ghivas-ud-Din and Mu'izz-ud-Din, were angry at this, and they deposed 'Abbas, and set up their sister's son, Sam, and he received the title of Baha-ud-Din. 'Abbas might have been here entered among the rulers of Tukh,aristan and Bamian as well as Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, among the sovereigns of Ghaznin.
2	The mother of his grandfather, Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, was a Turkish bond-maid.
3	These are our author's exact words, but what the "invocation" was our chronicler does not say ; but it is a way he has of mystifying his own statements. The fact is, as related by another author, that the I£a?T, mentionedTHE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF TUKHARISTAN. 429
In short, the admirable benevolence of that monarch towards the 'Ulama of Islam was more than can be contained within the compass of writing. That Miracle of the World, Fakhr-ud-Din, Muhammad, Razi4, composed the Risalah-i-Bahaiah in that Sultan's name; and for a considerable period he continued under the shadow of that sovereign's favour and protection. That Chief of learned Doctors, Jalal-ud-Din, Warsak 5, during the Sultan's reign, attained the office of Shaikh-ul-Islam of the district of Balkh ; and Maulana Saraj-i-Minhaj6, that Most Eloquent of 'Ajam, and the Wonder of his Age, was sent for, secretly, by Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, from the Court of Firuz-koh, who despatched a seal-ring of turquoise stone with the name of Sam engraved upon it, and with great respect and reverence invited the Maulana to his Court. When this circumstance occurred, the writer of this History, Minhaj-i-Saraj, was in the third year of his age.
The requests and solicitations of Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, were continuous and unremitting- The reason of this was, that, during the time of [his father] Malik7 Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, the Maulana proceeded from Ghaznin towards Bamian, and, at that period, Baha-ud-Din, Sam, held charge of the district of Balarwan 8. He paid his respects to the Maulana, and sought to retain
above, began one day from the pulpit to eulogize Baha-ud-Din, and was extolling the flourishing state his dominions were in, when that monarch exclaimed : " What adornment can I give unto the kingdom's bride, when on the cheek of her sovereignty are already two such moles?" The word khal signifies a mole, and also a maternal uncle; and the moles here referred to are his two maternal uncles, Ghivas-ud-Din and Mu'izz-ud-Dln.
4 Jahan-Ara and Muntakhab-ut-Tawaiikh. say that Baha-ud-Din, Sam, was a learned monarch, and a friend of learned men ; as an example of which he entertained, near his person, the Imam Fakhr-ud-Din, of Raz, and treated him with great favour and consideration. They do not, however, mention "that Most Eloquent of 'Ajam, and the Wonder of his Age," our author's father ; in fact, I have never noticed his name mentioned in any other work. This same Imam was subsequently accused, by some parties, of having brought about the assassination of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Dln. See note 3, page 485, and note 9, page 385.
s In some copies Warsal and Kadsak. The above seems the most correct.
6 Our author's father.
' Sultan Shams-ud-Din, whose reign has just been given.
8 The majority of the best copies are as above, but two others have "Bal-wan," and three others "Barwan," and one "Balarwan of Bamian;" but at page 115 our author says Balarwan is in Gharjislan.43°
the tabakat-i-nasiri.
him, and showed him great respect and veneration ; and he had both seen and heard his soul-inspiring discourse, and his heart-expanding conversation, and the pleasure he had derived therefrom remained impressed upon his royal mind, and he was desirous of enjoying all the delicacies of the benefits of the Maulana's conversation 9. When Baha-ud-Din, Sam, reached the throne of sovereignty of Bamian, he sent for the Maulana repeatedly, and charged him with the administration of all the offices connected with the law, and sent him his private signet-ring.
The Maulana proceeded to the Court of Bamian from the Court of Firuz-koh without the permission of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din ; and, when he arrived in that part, he was treated with great respect and honour, and the whole of the [legal] functions of that kingdom, such as the Chief Kazi-ship of the realm and other parts, the judicial administration of the triumphant forces, the chaplaincy of the State together with the office of censor 2, with full power of the ecclesiastical law, the charge of two colleges, with assigned lands and benefactions abundant, all these offices the Maulana was entrusted with. The diploma conferring the whole of these offices, in the handwriting of the Sahib3, who was the Wazir of the kingdom of Bamian, up to the present time that this TabakAT was put in writing in the sublime name of the great Sultan, Nasir-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Abu-l-Muzaffar-i-Mahmud, son of Sultan I-yal-timish, Kasim-i-Amir-ul-Mumminin4—whose monarchy may the Almighty perpetuate !—still exists in the Kharitah [a bag of embroidered silk] containing the author's diplomas, along with his banner and his turban of honour. The mercy of
9 Allowance must be made for a little family blarney.
1	Here, too, the text varies much. One set of copies—the oldest—has as above—j	^jUs	^ILsl j	— whilst the other— comprising the more modern copies—^Iki j ^Uj ^UmJ! s isUU-. 'Us — "the Chief Kazi-ship of the country, and settlement of the requests of the triumphant forces or retinue."
2	An official who examines the weights and measures, and has a supervision over merchants and shop-keepers, superintends the markets, and fixes the price of grain, &c. He can whip those found wine-bibbing, and interfere in other matters relating to public morality.
3	The title given to a minister.
4	This title is totally incorrect. See reign of Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timisJi, Section XXI.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF TUKHARISTAN. 431
the Almighty be upon them! This fact is recorded in the narrative to show the admirable faith of that pious ruler.
In short, he was a great monarch; and his dominions assumed great amplitude and expansion, and comprised the whole of the country of Tukharistan and its dependencies, together with other territories, namely, in the east5, as far as the frontier of Kashmir, and, in the west, as far as the boundary of Tirmid and Balkh; north, as far as the bounds of Kashghar; and south, as far as Ghur and Ghar-jistan, in the whole of which the Khutbah was read for him and the money impressed with his name6. The whole of the Maliks and Amirs of each of the three kingdoms, namely, Ghur, Ghaznin, and Bamian, after [the decease of] both the Sultans [Ghiyas-ud-Din, and Mu'izz-ud-Din], turned their eyes on him ; and, when Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, was martyred, the Maliks and Amirs of Ghaznin. both Ghuris and Turks, with one consent, requested him to come [and assume the sovereignty]7. Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, accordingly, determined to proceed from Bamian to Ghaznin. and set out in that direction with a numerous army.
5	At this period there were powerful sovereigns ruling over Kashmir and its dependencies, also the Jahanginah rulers of Suwat, who held sway over a large portion of the mountain districts to the west, and the Sultans of Pich, of whom more anon.
6	How much of this tract never yet heard the Khutbah ?
7	Firishtah's History, or rather the translation of Firishtah's History, which supplies the chief materials for the Histories of India, so called, here says [that is the text]:—"The inclination of the Khwajah. Mu-ayyid-ul-Mulk [a title given to Waztrs], and the Turk Amirs, was towards the sovereignty of Ghivas-ud-Dln, Mahmud ; and the Ghuri Amirs, in secret, entertained the idea of the sovereignty of Baha-ud-Din, Sam." This is nearly in the words of our author, whom he quotes; but Dow, vol. i. pp. 149-50, translates this passage thus : "The Omrahs of Ghor, insisting upon Baha-ul-dien, the King's cousin, Governor of Bamia, and one of the seven sons of Hussein ; and the Vizier [Chaja-ul-Muluck ! !], and the officers of the Turkish mercenaries, on Mamood, son of the former Emperor, the brother of Mahommed Ghori." Briggs, vol. i., page 186, renders it: "The chiefs of Ghoor claimed it for Baha-ood-Deen, the King's cousin, Governor of Bamyan, and one of the seven sons of Eiz-ood-Deen Hoossein ; while the Vizier and the officers of the Toorky mercenaries espoused the cause of Mahmood," &c.
This is faithfully rendering the text, certainly ; but it so happens that Baha-ud-Dln, SSm, was neither Governor of Bamyan, nor was he one of Eiz-ood-Deen Hoossein's ['Izz-ud-DTn, Husain's] sons, but certainly his grandfather, Fakir-ud-DIn, Mas'ud, was 'Izz-ud-Din, Al-^usain's, son.432
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
When he reached the district of Kidan8, he was attacked with diarrhoea, and, only nineteen days after the martyrdom of the victorious Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, died. His reign was fourteen years 9.
IV. SULTAN JALAL-UD-DIN, 'ALI >, SON OF BAHA-UD-DIN, SAM, BAMIANI.
When the victorious Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, obtained martyrdom, and Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, departed this life on the way [to Ghaznin], the heirs to the sovereignty, then remaining, were of two branches of the Shansabaniah race—one, the family of the Sultans of Bamian, and the second, the family of the Sultans of Ghur. When they conveyed the bier of the victorious Sultan from Dam-yakthe Turkish Slaves of the [late] Sultan, the great Maliks and Amirs, took the Sultan's bier, together with vast treasures, and the magazines of military stores, from the Amirs of Ghur. Those Ghurian Amirs, who were in the army of Hindustan, were inclined towards the sons of Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, and the Turk Amirs were inclined to Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, son of [Ghiyas-ud-Din,] Muhammad-i-Sam, the [late] Sultan's nephew 3.
8	It seems somewhat remarkable that Kidan proved fatal, according to our author, to so many of the Shansabani chiefs. Muhammad, son of Siiri, and Baha-ud-Din, Sam, son of 'Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain, also both died at Kidan. See pages 321 and 343.
9	He died in Sha'ban, 602 H., and reigned fourteen years. He must therefore have succeeded to the throne about the middle of the year 588 H., which was the year in which Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din defeated Rae Pithora at Tara'111.
1 Nearly every copy of the text is incorrect here in giving the name of 'Ala-ud Din, Muhammad, instead of his brother's, Jalal-ud-Din, 'All; and 'Ala-ud-DIn is again mentioned in them as the last of the Shansabi rulers of Ghaznin, and he never ruled over Tukljaristan. The best Paris copy, however, contrary to all the others examined, has both brothers here. Jahan-Ara and some others have the same; but, in them, the brothers are not mentioned again, and the dynasty of Tukh,aristan terminates with them. Rauzatus-Safa agrees with the above, and mentions 'Ala-ud-Dln among the Ghaznin rulers, his proper place.
3 See note5, page 486.
3 Our author here contradicts the statement made in the preceding page. The fact was that all the Amirs, both Turks and Ghurls, seemed desirous that Baha-ud-Din, Sam, should succeed to the supreme authority ; but after his death they became divided, when the choice lay between his son, 'Ala-ud-Din,THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF TUKHARISTAN. 433
The Ghurian Amirs, such as were at Ghaznin, namely, the Sipah-Salar [the Commander of Troops] Kharoshti4, Suliman-i-Shis, and others besides them, wrote letters to 'Ala-ud-Din, and Jalal-ud-Din [sons of Baha-ud-Din, Sam], and prayed them to come to Ghaznin, and they came thither, as will be subsequently recorded, please God, in the Section on the Sultans of Ghaznin.
When Jalal-ud-Din had seated his brother on the throne of Ghaznin, he returned himself, and ascended the throne of Bamian. A trustworthy chronicler5 related that they [the brothers] divided the treasures at Ghaznin. and that the share of Jalal-ud-Din amounted to two hundred and fifty camel-loads of pure gold and of jewel-studded articles of gold and silver, which he conveyed along with him to Bamian.
A second time he assembled an army against Ghaznin. and drew together forces from every part of his dominions, consisting of Ghuris, Ghuzz, and Beghu 6, and proceeded to Ghaznin. and was taken prisoner7, and was subsequently
Muhammad, and Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmiid, the late Sultan's brother's son ; notwithstanding that Baha-ud-Din, Sam, at the time of his death, had expressed a wish that his two sons should proceed to Ghaznin, and endeavour, by conciliation, to gain over the Wazlr, the Turkish Slaves, and the Ghurian Amirs, and take possession of Ghaznin ; after which 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, the eldest, was to have Ghaznin, and Jalal-ud-Din, 'All, the youngest, Bamian. See the reign of the III. ruler, Sultan 'Ala-ud-DIn, Muhammad, farther on. Several authors consider the dynasty to have ended with Baha-ud-DIn, Sam.
4 There is some doubt with regard to this probably by-name: some have Kharosh, KharoshnI, Haroshtl and Harosh, and Harosti and Harosi. The majority of the most generally correct copies are as above. See Section xxiii.
4 Nameless, of course.
6	This name is uncertain. The majority of copies have Beghu. as above ; whilst the oldest copy has Beghur [not I-ghur]; whilst the best Paris copy, and the three which generally agree—the I. O. L. copy, the Ro. As. Soc. MS., and the Bodleian copy—have Sakrar [/_/>-']. There is a tribe of the Ghuzz mentioned at page 377, note 6, under the name of Sankuran. Perhaps Beghu may be another tribe of the Ghuzz also, and the Sankuran may also have been included in this levy of troops. See under the reign of I-yal-duz.
7	After Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, reached Ilirat [in Jamadl-ul-Awwal, 605 H.], he sent agents to Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Dln, Mahmiid [see note3, page 400] ; and, among other matters, interceded for Malik 'Izz-ud-Dln, Husain, son of Khar-roll. Mahmiid accepted the terms offered by Sultan Muhammad, and an accommodation took place between them. This evidently refers to the acknowledgment of Sultan Muhammad's suzerainty by Mahmiid, mentioned in the note just referred to. Another author, however, states, that, after disposing of the affairs of Balkh, Sultan Muhammad proceeded to Guzarwan, which was the ancient fief of 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of434
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
released, and returned to Bamian again. During his absence, his uncle, Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din8, Mas'ud, had seized the throne of Bamian. Jalal-ud-Din cdme back with but a few men, and one morning, at dawn, attacked his uncle unawares, took him prisoner, and put him to death, and the Sahib who had been his father's Wazir he caused to be flayed alive; and he brought the country [again] under his jurisdiction.
He reigned for a period of seven years, when Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, made a forced march against him from the banks of the river Jadarah, and suddenly fell upon him9, and took him prisoner; and the whole of that treasure which he had brought from Ghaznin, together with the treasures of Bamian, Sultan Muhammad appropriated, put Jalal-ud-Din to death, and retired \
Khar-mil [see pages 474, 475], and was then being invested by Abu-'All [an officer and probably a kinsman of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud], and that this same Abu-'Ali was made the means of communication, in behalf of the son of Khar-mil, with Mahmud.
Be this, however, as it may, when Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, became aware of the accommodation between Mahmud and Sultan Muhammad, he demanded of Mahmud why he had made friends with the enemy of the Ghuris. He received, in reply, the answer, that his, I-yal-duz's, bad conduct had been the cause of it. When this message was delivered to him, I-yal-duz released Jalal-ud-Din, 'All, brother of 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, gave him one of his own daughters in marriage, and sent him, with a considerable army, to Bamian, where Jalal-ud-Dm's uncle, 'Abbas by name, had assumed the sovereignty after the imprisonment of himself and brother. One of I-yal-duz's chiefs, AbT-Dakur [Zakur ?] by name, then accompanying him, advised Jalal-ud-Din, 'All, to face about, and march back against Ghaznin itself, so that they might put an end to the career of that slave, referring to I-yal-duz, whose servant he was. This Jalal-ud-Din, 'All, declined to do ; upon which Abi-Dakur separated from him, and retired to Kabul, which was his fief. Jalal-ud-Din, 'All, continued his march to Bamian, the capital of which was Rasif [or Rasif], and recovered the sovereignty from his uncle 'Abbas. See next page, and latter part of note6, page 426, and account of the III. ruler, 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, and I-yal-duz, IV. ruler, farther on.
8	One of the oldest copies has Sultan Fakhr-ud-Dln, Mas'ud, son of Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad ; but all the others have ' Ala-ud-Din, Mas'ud. See note s, page 436. Alfi, Jahan-Ara, and Muntakhab-ut-Tawankh, call him 'Abbas. Rauzat-us-Safa, Mas'ud.
9	This is the circumstance referred to at page 267. There the name of the river, in the majority of the best copies, was Jazar [ ; but it appears that Jadarah [ijlj^] or Jadar [ is the correct name. See page 267. Some copies of the text make a great hash of this name, and have	-jj-—
—and even ^^
1 Rauzat-us-Safa says, but follows our author generally, "when Khwarazm Shah came into Mawar-un-Nahr [the southern part of it], he made a forcedTHE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF TUKHARISTAN. 435
Jalal-ud-Din was a very great monarch, and of great intrepidity, alertness, and gallantry, an ascetic, devout and continent, so that during the whole of his lifetime no inebriating liquor had ever passed his blessed lips, and the cincture of his garment had never been undone to any unlawfulness. Manliness he possessed to that degree, that no prince of the Shansabanian race came up to him in vigour, in valour, and in arms. He was wont, in battle, to discharge two arrows at one aim, and neither of his arrows would miss the mark, and neither animal of the chase nor antagonist ever rose again from the wound of his arrow. At the time when the Turks of Ghaznin followed in pursuit of him, at the Hazar Darakhtan2 [place of the Thousand Trees] of Ghaznin, he had struck the trunk of a tree with an arrow, and had overturned it [!] ; and every Turkish warrior who reached the tree would make obeisance to the arrow, and would turn back again ; and [the tree of] this arrow became [subsequently] a place of pilgrimage.
With all this strength and valour Jalal-ud-Din was mild 3 and beneficent; but manliness availeth nothing against destiny, and, as his time was come, he died 4.
V. SULTAN 'ALA-UD-DIN, MAS'UD, SON OF SULTAN SHAMS-UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD.
At the time that the sons of Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, namely, 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, and Jalal-ud-Din, 'Ali, were both made prisoners at Ghaznin. 'Ala-ud-Din,
march, and, quite unexpectedly and unawares, appeared before Bamian [Rasif?] seized Jalal-ud-Din, 'All, killed him, gained possession of his treasures, and carried them off. The Afghans will have to keep a sharp look out now, or they may be served in the same fashion, and find a foreign force from " the intermediate zone " pounce suddenly on Bamian some fine morning.
3 In some modern copies of the text Hazar-Darakht. There are several places of this name. It may be that on the route between Ghaznin and Gardaiz.
3	The flaying alive of the Wazlr, for example. See page 437.
4	Other authors state that, after a nominal reign of seven years, Jalal-ud-Din, 'Alt, fell into the hands of the Khwarazmls, and that he was the last of the race that attained power ; but what his subsequent fate was is not stated. Our author says he was put to death by the Khwarazmls, but when or where is not mentioned. See his reign, farther on.436
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Mas'ud5, son of Shams-ud-Din, ascended the throne of Bamian, and took to wife the daughter of Malik Shah of Wakhsh. who had been married to [and left a widow by] his brother, Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam. He conferred the Wazir-ship upon the Sahib, the Wazir of Bamian, and assumed sway over the dominions of Tukharistan.
When Jalal-ud-Din was released from Ghaznin, he turned his face towards Bamian. In the fortress of Kawik6 was a person, one of the godly ecclesiastics, a holy man, whom they called Imam Shams-ud-Din-i-Arshad [the most upright]. Jalal-ud-Din came to pay him a visit of reverence, to obtain a good omen from his words, and his benediction. This personage was a holy sage, who, after the acquirement of all the knowledge and science pertaining to the [written] law, had withdrawn from the world, and devoted himself to the worship of Almighty God, and who, having turned his face towards the Court of the Most High, had became a worker of miracles and the foreteller of the future.
When Jalal-ud-Din paid him a visit, and sought the assistance of this Imam's blessed spirit, he enjoined him, saying: " Certainly, repossess thyself of the throne of Bamian ; but take care that thou slayest not thine uncle, for, if thou slayest him, they will also slay thee."
Having performed his visit to the holy man, Jalal-ud-Din retired and went away; and, when he had turned his back, that holy Imam predicted, saying: " The hapless Jalal-ud-Din will kill his uncle, and they will kill him also ;" and, in the end, so it turned out, as that unique one of the world had foretold. Jalal-ud-Din moved onward from that place where he then was, with his followers, and,
5	The Rauzat-us-Safa, which appears to have blindly followed our author, here calls this ruler Mas'ud only, and, of course, agrees with our author's statement respecting his usurpation of the government and his subsequent fate. Other writers, however, including Jahan-Ara, Muntakhab-ut-Tawaiikh,, and Tariki-i-Alfi, state that the news of the defeat of the two brothers, and their having fallen prisoners into the hands of I-yal-duz, having suddenly reached Bamian, there being no one else to undertake the government, their uncle, 'Abbas, whose mother was a Turkish bond-maid, naturally assumed it; but when they, having been set at liberty, returned in safety, he gave up to them the authority again. See note page 428, and page 433, and note 7.
6	The name of a pass and fortress, now in ruins, in the range of Hindu-kush, called Kawak by modern travellers. Some of the copies of the text have dtJC and djjLTTHE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF TUKHARISTAN. 437
at the dawn of the morning, fell upon his uncle, took him prisoner, and put him to death, and flayed alive the Sahib, his Wazir, as has been previously recorded 7.
7 Our author has not yet finished his account of Jalal-ud-Din, 'All; he merely leaves it for another dynasty, and relates his farther proceedings, in the account of his brother, 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, which see.SECTION XIX.
account of the sultans of ghaznin of the shansab-aniah dynasty.
The frail and humble author [of these pages], Minhaj-i-Saraj-i-Din-i-Minhaj1—the Almighty shield his deformity! —thus states, that this Section is confined to the mention of the Shansabani Sultans from whose majesty the throne of the court of Ghaznin acquired splendour and magnificence, and from whose sovereignty the countries of Hind and Khurasan became glorious, the first of whom, of the Shansabi race, was Sultan Saif-ud-Din, Suri, and, after that, Sultan' Ala-ud-Din, Al-Husain took Ghaznin, but did not rule there. After that, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Sam, captured it2; and, when he attained martyrdom, he devised that throne to his own slave, Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, and with him that sovereignty terminated. The mercy and pardon of the Almighty be on the whole of them !
I. SULTAN SAIF-UD-DIN, SURI, SON OF 'IZZ-UD-DIN, AL-HUSAIN.
Sultan Saif-ud-Din, Suri, was a great monarch, and was greatly endowed with valour, vigour, clemency, decision,
1	A title he sometimes gives himself which will be explained in the Prefatory Remarks. The 'deformity' was not bodily.
2	I fear our author had a very bad memory. At page 377, and 449, he says his elder brother, Ghiyas-ud-Din, took it, and conferred the government of it on Mu'izz-ud-Din, as his lieutenant. Here it is contradicted, and the copies of the text agree as to this name. Here too he says that Mu'izz-ud-Din "devised" the throne of Ghaznin to his slave, Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, and, in his account of the latter, that he desired to bequeath it to him. The idiom of the text here again differs, but only the idiom, in the two different sets of copies.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 439
justice, beneficence, a graceful presence, and kingly-grandeur. He was the first person of this race to whom they accorded the title of Sultan3.
When the news of the misfortune which had befallen his elder brother, the Malik-ul-Jibal4, was brought to his [Saif-ud-Din, Suri's] hearing, he set about taking revenge upon Sultan Bahram Shah, and caused a numerous army to be got in readiness from the different tracts of Ghur, and set out towards Ghaznin, overthrew Bahram Shah, and took Ghaznin. Bahram Shah fled from before him, and retired
3	This personage should have been mentioned first after the death of his father, whose successor he was, and when the dominions were divided, and separate petty dynasties formed. Who "they "were who accorded him the title of Sultan the chronicler does not say.
4	Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad, Malik-ul-Jibal. Jibal signifies mountains: " yabbdl" nothing. At page 339 our author states that Saif-ud-Din, Sun, in succession to his father, ascended the throne of Ghur, and divided the territory among his brothers.
Alft says that Bahram Shah put Kutb-ud-Din, Ghurl, the Malik-ul-Jibal, to death in 536 of the Rifclat [547 h.], on which 'Ala-ud-Din, Al-Husain, [Guzidah and Khulasat-ul-Akhbar. and Hablb-us-Siyar also agree] advanced against Ghaznin for the purpose of avenging him. Bahram Shah fled to Karman, situated in a strong country surrounded by hills, where cavalry could not act, and made it his residence. 'Ala-ud-Din, having gained possession of Ghaznin, left his brother, Saif-ud-Din, Suri, there, and returned himself to Ghur. Suri, placing dependence on the Amirs and troops' of Ghaznin to support him, remained there with but a few of the Ghiirian troops. When winter arrived, Bahram Shah advanced from Kaj-man with an army of Afghans and Khaljis, which he had raised, on which the Amirs seized Suri. This, took place in Muharram 537 of the Rihlat [548 h.], but Guzidah and Jami'-ut-Tawarikh say in 544 h., and both Guzidah, Habib-us-Siyar, and Fanakatl state, that Bahram Shah was dead before 'Ala-ud-Din [who is said to have been known as A'raj, or the lame from birth] reached Ghaznin the second time.
Since writing note 3, page 347, I find that, in 543 h., some time after Sultan Sanjar's defeat by the Kara-Khita-is [authors disagree as to the date of his overthrow. See note 3, page 154], and when he had retired into 'Ira^, Sultan Bahram Shah, his sister's son, sent him a despatch intimating his recovery of Ghaznin, and the death of Sam and Suri, the Ghuris [namely, Baha-ud-Din, Sam, and Saif-ud-Din, Suri. See pages 340—343,] who had previously acquired power over that territory, on which Fakhr-ud-Din, Kh,alid, Fusianji, a poet of the Court of Sanjar, composed the following lines :—
" They, who in thy service falsehood brought, The capital-stock of their heads in jeopardy placed. Far remote from thee, Sam's head, in frenzy sank, And now the head of Suri they've to 'Irak brought."
This tends to confirm the date mentioned by Guzidah and others, and to show that the Ghuris had been guilty of hypocrisy, as many authors state, towards Bahrain Shah, as well as-Sultan Sanjar. See page 343.44°
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
towards Hind, and Saif-ud-Din, Suri, ascended the throne of Ghaznin, and made over the dominions of Ghur to his brother, Baha-ud-Din, Sam, the father of [the Sultans] Ghiyas-ud-Din, and Mu'izz-ud-Din.
Having brought Ghaznin under his sway, the whole of the Amirs 5 and soldiery, the notables and great men of Ghaznin and of the adjacent parts submitted to him ; and he bestowed upon those classes ample gifts and favours, so much so, that the soldiery and Amirs of Bahram Shah became overwhelmed in the benefits he bestowed upon them.
When the winter season came round, he commanded that the forces of Ghur should have permission granted them to return to their own country, and entertained the followers, soldiery, and petty officials of Bahram Shah in his own service, and placed confidence in them. The Sultan and his Wazir, Sayyid Majd-ud-Din, Musawi, along with a small number of persons from among his old retainers, were all that remained with him, and the rest [both] at the court, and [stationed] in the Ghaznin territory, were all the soldiery of Ghaznin.
When storms of snow and excessive cold set in, and the roads and passes of Ghur became closed from the excessive snow, and the people of Ghaznin became aware that it was impossible that troops or succour could reach Ghaznin from the side of Ghur, they despatched letters, secretly, to the presence of Bahram Shah, saying, " throughout the entire city and parts around, only a small number of persons have remained with Sultan Suri of the forces of Ghur, the whole of the remainder are the servants of the Mahmudi dynasty. It behoveth [the Sultan] not to let the opportunity slip through his hands, and he should repair to Ghaznin with all possible haste." In accordance with those letters and solicitations, Bahram Shah, from the side of Hindustan, advanced unexpectedly and reached Ghaznin, and made a night attack upon Sultan Suri. He came out of Ghaznin with his own particular followers who were from Ghur, and along with his Wazir, Sayyid Majd-ud-Din, Musawi, took the road to Ghur 6.
5	Some copies have, rfaya,—the people, the peasantry, &c.
6	It would have been just as difficult for him to reach Ghur from Ghaznin, as it was impracticable for troops from Qhur joining him at Ghaznin.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 441
Bahram Shah's horsemen set out in pursuit of him, until they discovered him in the precincts of Sang-i-Surakh7 [the Perforated Rock or Stone]. Sultan Suri, with the few followers that were along with him, joined battle with Bahram Shah's cavalry, and fought and opposed them as long as it was possible so to do ; and, when compelled to fight on foot, they took shelter on the hill [side]. It was impossible to surround the Sultan, his Wazir, and his own followers, whilst an arrow remained in their quivers. When not an arrow remained in their quivers, Bahram Shah's troops, by [entering into] stipulation, and pledging the right hand, seized them, and secured them8.
When they reached the gate [one of the gates ?] of the city [of Ghaznin], two camels9 were brought, and Sultan
' There are three or four places bearing this name, the correctness of which there is no doubt of. It is the name of a kolal or pass near the Halmand river, about N. N. W. of Ghaznin, on the route from that city, and also from Kabul into Ghur; but '' Sang-i-Surkh, a strong fort in Ghor, probably near the Hari river" is as impossible as "the mountains of Faj Hanisar" and "the Rasiat mountainsi"
8	If a little liberty were taken with the text, then it might be " by promise [of safety], and their [Bahrain's officers] pledging their right hands, they were captured and secured," &c.; but, seeing that they were at the mercy of Bahrain's troops, I do not see what stipulations were necessary. Our author, as usual, wishes to soften it down.
9	According to others, he was not so much honoured as to be placed on a camel, but was seated, with his face blackened, on an emaciated bullock, and paraded through the capital. From statements noticed in Dow's and Briggs' translations of Firishtah's History, to which all modern compilers of Histories of India resort, as authorities not to be doubted, but which statements, I was convinced, could not be correct, I have taken the trouble to examine Firishtah's text, more particularly, because that writer quotes our author as one of his principal authorities, and often quotes him verbatim. I have also used in this examination the lithographed text which Briggs himself edited, or, rather, which was edited under his superintendence ; and, as I expected, particularly in the passages now to be pointed out, I have found Firisitah generally correct, and his translators wholly wrong. I am not the first, however, who has noticed them, and I beg leave to observe that I have no desire whatever to take, from Dow or Briggs, any credit that may be due to them, although I dare say there are some who will view what I have done in quite another light; but if truth in history be desirable, and correct translations of native historians wanted, it is time that these grave errors were pointed out and corrected, however distasteful it may be to those who have written their histories, fancying these versions reliable, and disgusting to those who, not even knowing a letter of any Oriental alphabet themselves, have presumed to declare such Histories compiled from such incorrect translations, " -works of undoubted authority." To expose and correct such errors is a duty, when it is taken into consideration that such incorrect statements, which are not con-
F f442
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Suri was seated upon one, and hisWazir, Sayyid Majd-ud-Din, Musawi, was placed on the other, and they were both
tained in the original work, have been, and are still being taught in our colleges and schools. A careful writer like Elpi-iinstone, by the translations above referred to, has been betrayed into terrible errors, and others have repeated and re-echoed them down to the present day.
To those conversant with the Persian language and who can read for themselves, I say: do not fail to see for yourselves, for the lithographed text of Firishtah is as easy as possible. It does not matter if, in translating, the literal words are not given; but facts must not be distorted, or made to appear what they are not.
Dow.
"He \Byram, which is the name he gives to Bahram] soon after publicly executed Mahommed Prince of 67/or, who was son-in-law to the rebel Balin. . . . Seif ul dien, sur-namecl Souri, Prince of Ghor, brother to the deceased, raised a great army to revenge his death. . . . The Prince of Ghor, without further opposition, entered the capital, where he established himself, by the consent of the people, sending Alia, his brother, to rule his native principality of Ghor.
. . . It was now winter, and most of the followers of the Prince of Ghor had returned, upon leave, to their families, when Byram, unexpectedly, appeared before Ghizni, with a great army. Seif ul dien being then in no condition to engage him with his own troops, and having little dependence upon those of Ghizni, was preparing to retreat to Ghor, when the Ghizjiians entreated him to engage Byram, and that they would exert themselves to the utmost in his service. This was only a trick for an opportunity to put their design in execution. As the unfortunate prince was advancing to engage Byram he was surrounded by the troops of Ghizni, and taken prisoner, while Byram in person put the forces of Ghor to flight. The unhappy captive was inhumanly ordered to have his forehead made black, and then to be put astride a sorry bullock, with his face turned towards the tail. When this news was carried to the
Briggs.
'' He [Beiram] soon after publicly executed Kootb-ood-Dien Mahomed Ghoory affghan [this last word is not contained in Firishtah at all, and is the translator's own. Malcolm too, Persia: Vol. i., note*, page 344, quotes Price—Vol. ii. page 309 — as an authority for " Syfudeeit Souri" [Saif-ud-DIn, Suri?] being "an Aff-gha?i prince of Ghour." I felt convinced that Price would never have said so, and, on reference to the page, find he makes no such statement. It must be Briggs to whom Malcolm referred], to whom he had given his daughter in marriage. . . . Seif ood-Deen-Soory, Prince of Ghoor, brother of the deceased, raised a great army to revenge his death. . Stifood-Deen Ghoory, without further opposition, entered Ghizny, where, having established himself with the consent of the people, he sent his brother, Alla-ood-Deen Soor (sic) to rule his native principality of Ghoor.
. It was now winter, and most of the followers of the Prince of Ghoor had returned to their families, when Sooltan Beiram unexpectedly appeared before Ghizny with a considerable army. Seifood-Deen being in no condition to oppose him with his own troops, and placing little reliance on those of Ghizny, was preparing to retreat to Ghoor, when the Ghiznevides entreated him to engage Beiram, promising to exert themselves to the utmost. This was done only to enable them to put their design ofTHE" SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 443
publicly exposed about the streets of Ghaznin, and, from the house-tops, dust, ashes, and excrement were launched
ears of his brother Alia, he burnt with rage, and, resolving upon revenge, with all his united powers, invaded Ghizny." — Vol. i. pages 124-5.
seizing him into execution. The Ghoory Prince advanced, but was instantly surrounded by the troops of Ghizny, and taken prisoner, while Beiram in person put the forces of Ghoor to flight. The unhappy captive had his forehead blackened, and was seated astride on a bullock, with his face towards the tail. . . . When this news reached the ears of his brother Alla-ood-Deen, he burnt with fury, and, having determined to take revenge, invaded Ghizny. "—Vol. i. pages 151-2.
But what says Firishtah"?—"In the latter part of his [Bahrain's] sovereignty, Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad, Ghuri, Suri [this is incorrect: he was not named Suri, Saif-ud-Din was so named. I also beg to remark that this is the name of a man, not of a race or tribe\, who was his spn-in-law, was put to death at Ghaznin by command of Bahram Shah. Saif-ud-Din, Suri, in order to avenge his brother's blood, set out towards Ghaznin. . . . Saif-ud-Din, having entered Ghaznin and become possessed of it, and, placing faith in the Ghazna-wxs, was there located. He sent back his brother, 'Ala-ud-Din, along with the whole of the old Amirs, to Ghur; and, notwithstanding that Saif-ud-Din, Suri, used to treat the people of Ghaznin with lenience, and that the Ghurians did not dare to oppress them, the Ghaznawis wished for Bahram §hah ; and, although the.y used, outwardly, to show amity towards Saif-ud-Din, Suri, secretly, they used to carry on a correspondence with Bahram Shah, until the winter set in, and the roads into G^ur were closed by snow, and people were unable to pass to and fro. At this time Bahram Shah unexpectedly reached Ghaznin with a large army of Afghans [he does not say they were Surls or Ghuris], Khalj, and other dwellers in the wilds. At this time when not more than ten leagues intervened between them, Saif-ud-Din, Suri, having received information of it, held consultation with the Ghaznawis—who had been talking of their friendship and attachment—as to fighting, or retreating towards Ghur. They, making hypocrisy their garment, did not give him just counsel, and excited and stimulated him to fight. Saif-ud-Din, Suri, placing faith in the counsel given by them, issued from the city with a body of the men of Ghaznin, and a few of the men of Ghur, and marshalled his ranks opposite [those of] Bahram Shah. As yet the preparations for battle were not completed, when the Ghaznawis seized Saif-ud-Din, Suri, and, in high spirits, delivered him over to Bahram Shah. He commanded that t\izface of Saif-ud-Din, Suri, should be blackened; and,having placed him on an emaciated and weak bullock, which put one foot before the other with a hundred thousand shakings, they paraded him throughout the whole city. [There is not a word about with his face to the tail— which is an Indian bazar term. ] . . . When this terror-striking news came to the hearing of ' Ala-ud-Din, the fervour of his nature burst out, and, with the determination of avenging his brother, with a furious and relentless army, he set out towards Ghaznin." This is a literal translation of Fifishtah's words.
Then follow, in the two translations, things respecting 'AJa-ud-Dln and his
F f 2444
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRL
upon their sacred heads until they reached the head of the
doings, still more absurd and incorrect, which had better have been noticed in the account of ' Ala-ud-Din, but, at that time, I had not the least conception that Briggs and Dow were so much alike, and had not compared their statements with the original. Both translators leave out Firishtah's statement, that, "before the arrival of 'Ala-ud-Din, Bahrain Shah had died, and his son, Khusrau Shah, had succeeded to the throne, and was made captive by means of treachery," and they merely give what Firishtah says was the comipon tradition that Bahrain encountered ' Ala-ud-Din, as our author states. "Alia" is supposed by the translators to have replied to "a letter" written by Bahrain Shah, in these terms:—
Dow.
'' Alia replied, ' That his threats were as impotent as his arms. That it was no new thing for kings to make war upon their neighbours; but that barbarity like his was unknown to the brave, and what he had never heard to have been exercised upon princes. That he might be assured that God had forsaken Byram, and ordained Alia to be the instrument of that just vengeance which was denounced against him for putting to death the representative of the long-independent and very ancient family of Ghor.'"—Page 126.
Briggs.
" Alla-ood-Deen replied, ' That his threats were as i7npotent as his arms; that it was no new thing for kings to make war on their neighbours, but that barbarity like his was unknown to the brave, and such as he had never heard of being exercised towards princes ; that he might be assured that God had forsaken him, and had ordained that he {Alla-ood-Deen) should be the instrument of that just revenge denounced against him for putting to death the representative of the independent and very ancient family of Ghoor.'"—Page 152.
There is nothing of this kind in the original. Firishtah says: " Bahram Shah despatched an ■ emissary with a message. 'Ala-ud-DTn replied : ' This act which Bahram Shah has perpetrated is a sign of the wane of the dominion of the Ghaznawis. because, although sovereigns are used to lead armies against the dominions of each other, and, having overcome each other, are in the habit of depriving each other of their precious lives, still not with this disgrace and ignominy; and it is certain that heaven will take vengeance upon thee as a retribution and exemplary punishment, and will give me triumph over thee ! " There is nothing more than this in the original. Compare these passages in Price's Mahomtnedan History, vol. ii. pages 309—311. He translates it from Firishtah correctly although he does not profess to do so literally.
One more specimen here and I have done with this reign:— Dow.	Briggs.
"At first the troops of Ghizni, by "At first the troops of Ghizny, by their superior numbers, bore down their superior numbers, bore down
those of Ghor; till Alia, seeing his affairs almost desperate, called out to two gigantic brothers, whose name was Chirmil, the greater and the less, whom he saw in the front, like two rocks bearing against the torrent. . . Byram fled, with the scattered remains of his army, towards Hindostan; but he was overwhelmed with his mis-
those of Ghoor; till Alla-ood-Deen, seeing his affairs desperate, called out to two gigantic brothers, denominated the greater or lesser Khun nil [In a note, he says, he doubts whether this word should not be Firmil, and says there is a tribe so called ! ! ! Elliot: Index, page 157, note, writes their name irfll, and says Briggs [whoTHE SHANSABANlAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 445
Pul-i-Yak Tak 1 [the One-arch Bridge] of the city. When they reached that place, Sultan Suri, and his Wazir, Sayyid Majd-ud-Din, Musawi, were gibbeted, and they were both hung from the bridge. Such was the cruelty and igflominy with which they treated that handsome, just, intrepid, and laudable monarch. The Almighty bestowed victory upon Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, Jahan-soz, the brother of Sultan Suri, so that he took revenge for this barbarous deed and this dishonour, as has been previously recorded 2.
fortunes, and sunk under the hand of death, in the year five hundred and forty-seven, after a reign ol thirty-five years."—Page 127.
read it correctly, but spoilt it after] "is wrong" ! ! See pages 350 and 351], whom he saw in the front standing like trwo rocks, and bearing the brunt of the action, to support him. . . . Beiram fled with the scattered remains of his army towards Hindustan, but overwhelmed with his misfortunes, sunk under the hand of death in the year A. H. 547, after a reign of thirty-five years."
The above is copied by Maurice, and by Elphinstone, although not quite in the same words; and is re-echoed by Marshman in his History of India, "written at the request of the University of Calcuttaand Meadows Taylor, in the Student's Manual of Indian History, who improves it, by inserting in the margin of page 89—" Ghuzny plundered by Alia ood Deen, Seljuk " / I! Firishtah's account is as follows:—
"When the two armies came in contact, and the noise of the clashing of swords, and the whiz of arrows reached the vengeance-pursuing heavens, Kliar-mil the greater [older], and Khar-mil the lesser [younger], entered the field like unto two rampant elephants. Khar-mil the greater with a poniard ripped up the belly of a famous elephant," &c. [There is not a word about " rocks," torrents," or anything approaching it.] . . . " Bahram Shah, being without heart or strength in every way, fled towards the country of Hind, and, in a very short time, through grief and affliction at the loss of his son, and other matters, fell sick, and was removed from this hostel of mortality to the gardens of eternity. According to the authentic account, his death took place in 547 h., after thirty-five years' reign."
Firishtah himself is not an author on whom implicit reliance can be placed, even though he quotes from the works of others, for he often mis-quotes them. This is particularly apparent from his account of these events under the reign of Bahram Shah, and that of the same events in the chapter on the Ghuris. which is very different, and utterly contradictory, in many things, of his previous statements given above.
1	See page 355, and note 9.
2	Everything is barbarous, cruel, savage, and the like that others do to Ghuris; but inducing a sovereign to come out of and abandon his capital and surrender after pledging to him the most solemn oaths, and then imprisoning him, and afterwards murdering him, and the rest of his race ; inducing a noble to turn his back before shooting him in a cowardly manner; inviting his brother to446	THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
II. SULTAN-UL-A'ZAM3, MU'lZZ-UD-DUNYA WA UD-DlN, ABU-L-MUZAFFAR, MUHAMMAD, SON OF BAHA-UD-DlN, SAM, KASlM-I-AMlR-UL-MUMINlN.
Trustworthy narrators have related after this manner, that, when Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, Jahan-soz, was removed from the habitation of the world, and Sultan Saif-ud-Din, Muhammad, his son, ascended the throne of Ghur. he commanded, that both the Sultans *, Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad, and Mu'izz-ud-Din5, Muhammad, sons
an audience, and having him basely assassinated ; flaying a minister alive ; digging up the bones of the dead ; massacring women and children, and burning a city in a drunken fit, and mixing the blood of Sayyids with earth to make mortar, all these, on the part of a Qhuri, are mildness, amiability, beneficence, greatness, and the like. FanakatI says no less than 70,000 persons were massacred, on this occasion, in Ghaznln alone.
3	Some copies of the text, the idiom of which differs considerably here, have Sultan-i-Ghazi; and most copies leave out the KasTm, &c. His titles given at the end of his reign [which see] are altogether different.
Between the putting to death of Saif-ud-Din, SurT, and the establishment of Mu'izz-ud-Din at Qhaznin as his elder brother and sovereign's lieutenant, a period of no less than twenty-six years elapsed , but, as our author gives no dates, the uninitiated reader would imagine that Mu'izz-ud-Din succeeded close upon Saif-ud-Dln, Suri. In reality, Mu'izz-ud-Din is the first of the Ghurian dynasty of Ghaznln.
4	Sultans subsequently.
B This personage is incorrectly styled by the impossible title of Shahdbu-d-din, Shahab-ood-Dee?i, and even Shabudin. Shihab-ud-Din, which is Arabic, was certainly his title ^^r^'his brother succeeded to the sovereignty of Ghur, and his brother's was Shams-ud-Dln; but soon after the accession of the latter both their titles were changed, as mentioned at page 370. Many authors, either not noticing this fact, or ignorant of it, continued to style the former by his first title of Shihab-ud-Din. and some have reversed the order of things, and appear to have imagined that Mu'izz-ud-Din was his first title, which was changed to Shihab-ud-Din; but no such title will be found on his coins. I have, myself, been led into the error of occasionally styling him Shihab-ud-Din in my notes to the Khwarazml dynasty, page 255-260, an oversight I now correct. Firishtah calls him sometimes Shihab-ud-Din, Muhammad, the Ghui'i. and at others Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, the Ghurj. Dow, in his translation of Firishtah, chose to style him Mahommed Ghori, as though the last word was part of his proper name, instead of that of his country, and overlooked the fact of the at the end of Ghur! [^y], being the ya-i-nisbat, expressing relation or connexion, as Hind and Hindi, Kabul, Kabul!, &c., and so compilers of Histories of India have re-echoed the name of Mahommed Ghori down to the present day, although some follow Briggs, who sometimes styles him by the impossible titles of Shahab-ood-Deen, and Moyiz-ood-Dcen ; but he too generally follows Dow, and calls him Mahomed Ghoory. See also Elliot, India : vol 2, page 292.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNlN.
447
of Sam, who were imprisoned within the fortress of Wajir-istan, should be released, as has been stated previously in the account of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din 6.
Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din abode at the court of Firuz-koh in the service of Sultan Saif-ud-Din [his cousin], and Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din proceeded to the court of Bamian to the presence of his uncle, Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud-i-Husain7, Bamiani.
When Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din ascended [the throne of] the dominion of Ghur, after the catastrophe8 of Sultan Saif-ud-Din, Muhammad, and the news of it reached Bamian, Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas'ud, turned his face towards Mu'izz-ud-Din and said : " Thy brother hath distinguished himself; when wilt thou do9 the like, and bestir thyself?" Mu'izz-ud-Din hung his head in the presence of his uncle, and left the audience hall, and set out then and there for the Court of Firuz-koh. When he reached the presence of Ghiyas-ud-Din [his brother], he became Sar-i-Jandar [Chief Armour-Bearer], and he continued to serve his brother, and served him with assiduity, as has been previously recorded.
He continued in his brother's service for the period of one year, when some cause of umbrage1 arose in his august mind, and he proceeded towards Sijistan, to [the Court of] Malik Shams-ud-Din, Sijistani2, and there he remained one cold season. Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din despatched a distin-
6	Guzidah, and some other works, mention that 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, made Hari his capital, and conferred the sovereignty of Ghaznin upon his nephew, Ghiyas-ud-Din. as his deputy [The others say "his nephews, Ghiyas-ud-Din, and Mu'izz-ud-Din "], and that he [others "they "] succeeded, by treachery, in securing the person of Khusrau Shah, in 555 H. ; but from this statement, and what those writers immediately after state, it is evident, beyond a doubt, that they have confused Ghiyas with Mu'izz, and Khusrau Shah with Khusrau Malik his son.
7	Eldest son of 'Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain, and first of the Ghurlan rulers of Bamian.
8	He was mortally wounded and left for dead in the action with the Ghuzz. by Abu-l-'Abbas-i-Shls, brother of the noble he had so treacherously shot with an arrow when his back was turned. See page 367.
9	The words sjT^j* in Persia, and in the Persian of the East, signify " -wilt thou donot '' thou art doing."
1	Because his brother Ghiyas-ud-Din had not conferred a separate appanage on him.
2	The Malik-us-Sa'Is [the Sanguinary], Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, who bucceeded his father Taj-ud-DIn, Abu-l-Fath, in 559 H. See page 189.448
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
guished person and brought him back again, and committed to his charge the territory of Ka§r-i-Kajuran and Istiah. After he had brought the whole of the district of Garmsir under his authority, Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din entrusted to him the city of Tigin-abad, which was one of the largest cities of Garmsir3. This Tigin-abad is the place about which, and the possession of it by the Sultans ofGhur, the downfall of the dynasty of Mahmud-i-Ghazi. son of Sabuk-Tigin, has been caused, and about which Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain, had improvised and sent to Khusrau Shah, son of Bahram Shah, the quatrain, which is as follows :—
"Thy father first laid the foundation of enmity, Hence the world's people all under oppression fell. Have a care, lest for one Tigin-abad 4 thou dost not give, From, end to. end, the kingdom of Mahmiid's dynasty to the wind."
The Almighty's mercy be upon the Sultans of both dynasties !
When Sultan 5 Mu'izz-ud-Din acquired the territory of Tigin-abad, the Ghuzz tribe6, and the chieftains of that sept, who, retiring defeated from before the forces of Khita7. had moved towards Ghaznin, during a period of twelve
3	Dow says, in his translation of Firishtah : " Mahommed Ghori was left by his brother [Yeas ul dien I] when he acceded {sit:) to the throne of Ghor, in command at Tungctnabad, in the province of Chorassan." Briggs has : " On the accession of Gheias-ood-Deen to the throne of Ghizny and Ghor, he appointed his brother, Moyiz-ood-Deen Mahomed [not called '' Mahomed Ghoory" here], governor of Tiikeeabad"!! Firishtah, who quotes our author, says: "Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muha.mmad-i-Sam, on attaining the sovereignty of Ghur. left his full brother, Mu'izz-ud-Din, who is renowned as Shihab-ud-Din. at Tigin-abad, which belongs to the territory of Garmsir." He was only "renowned as Shihab-ud-Din" by Firishtah, and a few other comparatively modern writers who, perhaps, knew not of the passage in our author where he mentions the change of title by both brothers. The Taj-ul-Ma'asir written, or, at least, begun before the Sultan's death, does not mention the word Shihab any more than our author.
4	The citadel of this place is situated on the Koh-i-Sher, and is sometimes called the fortress of Koh-i-Sher, and is mentioned by BaihakI; but, in the MS. copies of Baihaki, is called AytkTn-abad. This remark above would indicate that Khusrau Shah, not Bahram, was 'Ala-ud-Din's antagonist. See note 2, page 347.
s Not Sultan then but Malik. The title was conferred after this.
® The word used signifies an army [not "armies"], but, as all the able men of the tribe carried arms, I have not used the word in its literal sense.
7 Before the Karlughlah Turk-mans. See note b, para. 2, page 374.THE SHANSABANiAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN.
years had taken the Ghaznin territory out of the hands of Khusrau Shah and of Khusrau Malik, and had brought it under their own sway. Mu'izz-ud-Din was in the constant habit of making raids upon the Ghuzz from Tigin-abad, and assailing them, and continued to harass that territory until the year 569 H.8, when Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din subdued Ghaznin. and placed Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din upon the throne [of that territory] and returned to Ghur again, as has been previously recorded.
The second year after this, [namely] in 570 H., Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din brought the districts of Ghaznin under his sway, and acquired Gardaiz9; and, in the third year [571 H.J1, he marched an army towards Multan and delivered it frojn the hands of the Karamitah 2, and, in this year, 571 H., the
8	There is some discrepancy among authors with respect to the date of the capture of Ghaznin. Jahan-Ara, and Haft Iklim say, Ghiyas-ud-Din acquired possession of Ghaznin in 570 H., after which he conferred the government of it upon his brother, Mu'izz-ud-Din, as Wali [Haft Iklim says, deputy or lieutenant]; Fasih-I says Ghaznin was taken in 569 ; the Zubdat-ut-Tawankh, which copies our author, also says 569; Tabakat-i-Akbarl agrees with Rauzat-us-Safa, and Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, that Ghiyas-ud-Din took Ghaznin from the Ghuzz, in 569, and conferred it on his brother, Mu'izz-ud-Din, in 570 ; the Tazkirat-ul-Muluk of Yafrya Khan, Mir'at-i-Jahan-Numa, and the Khulasat-ut-Tawarikh say 569; the Lubb-ut-Tawarikh-i-Hind says Ghaznin was given to Mu'izz-ud-Din in 567 ; and states that the Mahmudis had regained possession of it, and that Ghiyas-ud-Din took it from the Amirs of Khusrau Malik (sic!). Buda'uni states that some say Ghiyas-ud-Din took it from the Ghuzz in 569 H., and others, that he took it from Khusrau Malik who had re-taken it from the Ghuzz. Alfi states that Khusrau Shah himself returned to Ghaznin after the withdrawal of 'Ala-ud-Din, but the Ghuzz, who had defeated Sultan Sanjar [his great uncle], were perpetually making raids upon the Ghaznin territory, and he, Khusrau Shah [not his son, Khusrau Malik], again returned to Lahor, and the Ghuzz, taking possession of Ghaznin, retained possession of it for ten years. Firishtah, who does not always copy his authorities correctly, says Ghaznin was taken by Ghiyas-ud-Din in 567 H., and that the Ghuzz only held it two years !
9	Gardaiz is the name of a large darah of the Tajiks, or Taziks, for both are correct [The Ghuris were themselves Tajiks], with lofty hills on either side, well watered, and once very populous and well cultivated. To the east and south-east are Afghans. In Akbar's reign there was a strong castle here named Gardaiz also. See note 7, page 498.
1	Three of the works just quoted state that Multan was taken in 570 H. ; but Firishtah, who is evidently wrong, has 572 H.
2	Who had regained possession of it some years previously. He does not mention the capture of Uchchah, which immediately followed that of Multan. An account of the capture of Uchchah and the conduct of Mu'izz-ud-Din has been given by Firishtah, which has not been correctly rendered by his translators, and makes the conduct of Mu'izz-ud-Din appear in a light contrary toTHE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Sankuran tribe 3 broke out into rebellion, and committed great violence, until, in the year 572 H., he marched an
3 Fasih-I is the only work, among those previously quoted, which mentions this affair. Therein it is stated that the Sankuran were a tribe of the Ghuzz. They are referred to in the second paragraph of the note at the foot of page 290. This name, in some copies of the text, is written Sankurian and Sufran ; and, in one of the oldest copies, Shanfuzan. Shaluzan appears to be the present name of the locale of this tribe, which is also mentioned in the history of Timur. See note7, page 498. Some call it Shanuzan.
facts ; and these mis-statements, to which I draw attention, have been re-echoed by all the Indian History writers.
Dow, vol. i. page 136.
"The prince of that place [Adja, this is intended to represent Uchchah] shut himself up in a strong fort. Mahommed began to besiege the place ; but, finding it would be a difficult task to reduce it, he sent a private message to the Rajah's wife, promising to marry her if she would make away with her hushand.
"The base woman returned for answer that she was rather too old herself to" think of matrimony, but that she had a beautiful young daughter, whom, if he would promise to espouse, and leave her in free possession of the country and its wealth, she would, in a few days, remove the Rajah. Mahommed basely accepted of the proposal, and the wicked woman accordingly, in a few clays, found means to assassinate her husband, and to open the gates to the enemy. Mahommed confirmed his promise by marrying the daughter upon acknowledging the true faith, but made no scruple to deviate from what respected the mother ; for, instead of trusting her with the country, he sent her off to Ghizni, where she soon died of grief and resentment. Nor did her daughter relish her situation better; for, in the space of two years, she also fell a victim to grief."
Firishtah's account is as follows :—
"The Rajah of that country took refuge therein [in Uchchah], and Sultan Shihab-ud-Din pitched his tents and pavilion around the fort, and set about preparations for investing it. As he knew that to overcome that Rajah in battle and capture the fort would be arduous, he dcspatchcd a person to the
Briggs, vol. i. page 169.
"The Raja was besieged in his fort (of Oocha); but Mahomed Ghoory, finding it would be difficult to reduce the place, sent a private message to the Raja's wife, promising to marry her if she would deliver up her husband.
""The base woman returned for answer that she was rather too old herself to think of matrimony, but that she had a beautful and young daughter, whom, if he would promise to espouse, and leave her in free possession of her wealth, she would, in a few days, remove the Raja. Mahomed Ghoory accepted the proposal ; and this Princess, in a few days, found means to assassinate her husband, and open the gates to the enemy.
"Mahomed only partly performed his promise, by marrying the daughter, upon her embracing the true faith [he could not many her legally unless she did so]; but he made 710 scruple to depart from his engagements with the mother; for, instead of trusting her with the country, he sent her to Ghizny, where she afterwards died of sorrow and disappointment. Nor did the daughter long survive, for in the space of two years she also fell a victim to grief."THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 451
army against them, and fell upon that people, and put the greater number of them to the sword. They have related that most of the Sankuran tribe were manifestly confessors of the Kur'an creed 4, who, on this occasion, obtained martyrdom ; but, as they had stirred up rebellion, they were put to death, as a matter of exigency, according to sovereign prerogative.
In the following year 5 after this event, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din marched an army towards Nahrwalah by way of Uchchah and Multan. The Rae of Nahrwalah, Bhim Diw9, was young in years, but he had numerous forces and many elephants ; and, when a battle took place, the army of Islam was defeated and put to the rout, and the Sultan-
wife of the Rajah, who was despotic over her husband, and cajoled her, and promised, saying : ' If, by your endeavours, this city shall be taken, having contracted marriage with you, I will make you the Malikah-i-Jahan [Queen of the Universe, i.e. his consort; but there is not a word about "making away with," or "delivering up her husband :" the offer is her own]. The Rajah's wife, frightened of or at the power and grandeur of the Sultan, and knowing that he would be victorious [over her husband, and capture the place], sent a reply, saying : ' No worthiness remains to me, but I have a daughter possessed of beauty to perfection, and grace. If the Malik consents, he may take her into the bonds of marriage ; but, after taking the city, if he will not evince any avarice towards my own peculiar property and effects [not a word about entrusting the country to her], I will remove the Rajah.' The Sultan agreed, and in a short time that woman caused her husband to be put to death, and delivered up the city. Sultan Shihab-ud-Din, having fulfilled his promise, made the Rajah's daughter a Musalman according to the rites of the sublime law of Muhammad, contracted marriage with her, and -both of them, mother and daughter, were sent to Ghaznln, that they might learn the duties respecti7ig fasting and prayer, and to read the sacred pages [the Kur'an], The mother, whom her daughter held in abhorrence on account of her abominable act, and placed no faith in, shortly after died ; and the daughter herself, after two years, from not having obtained the enjoyment of the Sultan's society [the marriage was never consummated], through grief and mortification, followed her mother."
The Rajah above referred to, according to the Mir'at-i-Jahan-Numa, was chief of the Bhatl tribe, which previously held a large part of Sind. The same work states that Uchchah was taken by assault. The name is differently written by different authors——and —while some have and i^J Compare Abu-Rihan-al-Biruni, and see translation in Elliot's India, vol. i. page 61, and page 154.
4	If so, it is somewhat strange that such an orthodox champion of the faith should have massacred them.
5	" The following" year after 572 h. is 573 h. ; but, just under, our author says 574 h., which is the year which most authors mention, but Fasih-i has 575
6	This is the correct name, confirmed by several other writers ; but some copies of the text differ. One has	—another	—and-three y.^a The Rauzat-ut-Tahirin styles him Bhoj [^j4>]-DIw.452
TIIE tabakat-i-nAsiri.
i-Ghazi returned again without having- accomplished his designs. This event took place in the year 574 H.7
In the year 575 H., Mu'izz-ud-Din led an army to Furshor8, and subdued it; and, in another two years subsequent to that, he marched an army towards Lohor. As the affairs of the Mahmudi empire had now approached their termination, and the administration of that government had grown weak, Khusrau Malik, by way of compromise, despatched one of his sons, and one elephant0, to the presence of the Sultan-i-Ghazi. This circumstance happened in the year 577 H.1
The following year, 578 H., the Sultan led an army towards Diwal2 [or Dibal] and possessed himself of the
7	Our author slurs over this affair because it was a reverse, but it was not dishonour. Mu'izz-ud-Din's forces were completely worn out with their long march, the latter portion of it through the sandy desert, and suffering from thirst and want of forage for their cattle. The forces of Bhim-DIw were numerous, fresh, and well supplied. Numbers of the Musalman forces perished in the obstinate battle which took place, and the retreat was effected with great difficulty,
8	Previously spelt Purshor and Burshor, and in some copies of the text here Burshor likewise—the letters p and f and b and w are interchangeable. In the passage at page 76, where mention is made of the idol temple which fell on the night of Mahmud's birth, the place supposed to be Peshawar is written in every copy of the text with an extra letter. Nearly every author I have quoted mentions that, in ancient books, this place was known as Bagram. See my account of it in Journal of Bombay Geographical Society, vol. x.
9	Our author should have added, "a renowned elephant, and the finest that Khusrau Malik posssessed." His son is called Malik Shah by some writers, including FiriShtah; but one of his translators turns it into Mullik.
1	As to this date there is considerable discrepancy. Of the different works previously quoted, the majority state that the first expedition against Lahor took place in 577 h., as our author has it; but two others mention 576 as the year, and three others that it took place in 575. Buda'iini says 580 h. ; but he has omitted the first expedition, and mistaken the second for it. I do not quote BaizawT or Guzidah, for they are both at sea with respect to the two last Mahmudi sovereigns, and make one of them.
2	In the same manner, there is much discrepancy with regard to the invasion of Diwal. Five authors give 577 h. as the year, one 578, one 576, one 575, and Buda'uni 581 ! Of these, some say the expedition against Purshor and Diwal took place in the same year; others that it took place the year after Purshor was annexed, and the year before the first expedition against Lahor; whilst others state that Diwal was taken the year after ; and some omit all mention of it. Ahmad, son of Muhammad, Kazwini, the author of the Jahan-Ara, which I have often quoted, on his way to visit Hindustan, died at this place in 975 h.—1567 a.d. It is not the same place as Thathah, but in the Thathah province between Thathah and Karachi. See note 5, p. 295.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 453
whole of that territory [lying] on the sea-coast, and acquired much wealth, and returned.
In the year 581 H., he [again] led an army towards Lohor 3, and ravaged and pillaged the whole of the districts of that territory ; and, on his return homewards, directed that the Hisar [fortress] of Sial-kot should be re-' stored4. Husain son of Khar-mil was installed therein, and
3	The name of this city—which is a very ancient one—is also written Lah-nor [^V], as well as Loha-war
The TabaVat-i-Akbari, Mii'at-i-Jahan-Numa, and Firishtah say that this second expedition took place in 580 H., and the Khulasat-ut-Tawarikh says it was in 579; but the others agree with our author as above. The astonishing thing, however, is, that our^author himself, in his account of Khusrau Malik's reign, at page 115, which see, only mentions two expeditions to Lahor—one in 577 H., and the other, when it was taken, in 583 !
4	Most authors, including Firishtah, make a great error in asserting that Mu'izz-ud-DIn founded the fortress of Sial-kot. Such is not the case, and some of the authors I have been quoting very correctly state that it is a very ancient place, founded by one of the early Hindu rulers. Mu'izz-ud-Din found it in a dilapidated condition on the occasion of his retirement from the Panjab, and unsuccessful attempt to take Lahor; and, considering its situation a good one for his purposes, he put it in a-state of efficiency, and garrisoned it at the suggestion of the Rajah of Jamun. I extract this statement from a History of the Rajahs of Jamun [the n is nasal], which the author states to be composed from Hindu annals; and in no other writer have I seen the same details, although another confirms a portion of it, which I shall subsequently refer to.
"In the year 1151 of Bikramaditya, Rajah Jakr [or Chakr] Diw succeeded his father as ruler of Jamun; and, in the middle of his reign, in 555 H., Khusrau Malik, the descendant of Mahmud, GhaznawT, abandoned Ghaznin, and assumed the throne of Lah-nor. The Jamun Rajahs continued to entertain their natural hatred towards his dynasty, but without effect; and Khusrau Malik, by degrees, brought under his rule the northern parts of the Panjab, as far as the foot of the mountains [the Alpine Panjab]. The tribe of Khokhar, who dwelt round about Manglan [Malchialah ?], at the foot of the hills, who were subject to the Jamun-wal [the Jamun dynasty], having received encouragement from the Lah-nor ruler, and sure of his support, refused any longer to pay tax and tribute to Jamun, and threw off its yoke.
" At this time, the year 579 H., Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, the Ghuri, who had taken possession of Ghaznin, raised the standard of conquest; and Rajah Jakr [Ch,akr] Diw despatched his full brother, Ram Diw, with presents to the Sultan's presence, representing to him the state of affairs, and inciting him to invade Khusrau's territory, assuring him that, on his appearance, the territory of Lah-nor would pass from his grasp. The Sultan, who received the emissary with favour, replied in writing to the Rajah, that ' his Mian-ji [agent] had made known the Rajah's object, and that the time was at hand for the appearance of his standards in that part ;' and in that same year the Sultan made a raid on, and possessed himself of, the Purshor territory and Multan, and invested Lah-nor, which Khusrau Malik defended.
" The Sultan, finding he could not gain possession of it easily, devastated and ravaged the country about Lah-nor, and retired by the northern part of the454
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRl.
the Sultan again retired. After his departure, Khusrau
Panjab; and, at the suggestion and representation of the Rajah of Jamun, repaired anew the fort of Sial-kot [Sial is the name of a tribe of Jats, since displaced, and dwelling much farther south, at and around Jang-i-Sial], which was then in a ruinous and dilapidated state, and left there Husain-i-Khar-mil [turned into Hussein Churmili by Dow, and Hoossein Firmully by Briggs !] as governor, with a garrison. The Mian-ji, of Jamun, was then dismissed, with a request to inform the Rajah that next year his wishes would be fulfilled.
'' Khusrau Malik, after the Sultan's departure, aided by the tribe of Khok-har, invested Sial-kot ; but, as Rajah Jakr [Chakr] Diw, assisted and supported the defenders, Khusrau Malik was unable to take it. At this period the Rajah, who had attained to nearly his eightieth year, died, and was succeeded by his son, Rajah Bij, who is also called Bijayi [f^HTft]	in 1221 of Bikramaditya; and in that year, which corresponds with 582 h., the Sultan [Mu'izz-ud-Din] crossed the Sind at the Nilab ferry, where the Rajah's Mian-ji went to receive him ; and on the banks of the Bihat [the Jhilam] the Rajah's son, Nar-singh Diw, joined him with a considerable force. He was presented to the Sultan through Husain-i-Khar-mil, and received with honour. He accompanied the Sultan to Lah-nor, which was taken, and made over to the charge of Kar-makh, ['Ali-i-Kar-makh, who is turned into Ally Kirmany by Briggs !], governor of Multan. The Rajah's son and his agent were dismissed with honorary robes, and the town of Sial-kot, together with the fort, was entrusted to the care of the Rajah. Khusrau was taken to Gjiaznin, and was subsequently put to death. From the circumstance of the Sultan, in his communications, styling the Rajah's agents by the term Mian-ji, according to the custom of Iran, instead of Wakil, the whole family of the Jamun-wal [not ike present dynasty'], considering this title great honour, adopted it; and from it the abridged term Mian, used by their descendants, is derived."
Dow, in his translation of Firishtah, states, under the reign of Khusrau Malik [page 129], that "the Emperor Chusero [Khusrau would not have known his own name thus written], in alliance with the Ghickers, besieged the fort of Salcot, but, their endeavours proving unsuccessful, they were obliged to desist." Briggs, in his version, repeats this in the same words, with the exception of styling Khusrau, Khoosrow Mullik; and the Khokhars, Gukkurs; and that Khusrau had to abandon the investment ; but under the reign of Mu'izz-ud-Din, Dow [page 137] states: "This fort [Salcot], as we have before related, was effectually besieged by Chusero, in the absence of Ma/iornmed/' and Briggs also [page 176] says: "This fort, as we have before related, being successfully besieged and taken by Khoosrow Mullik," &c.; and thus both translators totally contradict their own previous statements. Firishtah, whom they translate, of course, states, as other writers do, that Khusrau Malik was unable to take it. Led away, I imagine, by this statement, and placing reliance on its correctness, Elphinstone has repeated [page 311] this absurdity. He says *' Khusru Malik, taking courage from despair, made an alliance with the Gakkars [Dow, Gickers; Briggs, Gukkurs; Elphinstone, Gakkars!!], captur£d one of Shahab u din's strongest forts, and obliged him to call in the aid of stratagem," &c. Thus a totally incorrect translation of a native historian's words, and a statement respecting which the translators themselves contradict their own previous translation, is handed down from one writer to the other. This is writing history with a vengeance.
The stratagem referred to above is related in Firishtah, which see but itTHE SHANSABANlAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNlN.
455
Malik assembled the forces of Hindustan 5, and a levy of the [different] Khokhar tribes, and appeared before the gates of Sial-kot, and sat down before it for a considerable time, and again retired without being able to effect his object. After that, in the year 582 H., the Sultan-i-Ghazi [Mu'izz-ud-Din] appeared [again] before the gates of Lohor. As the Mahmudi sovereignty had reached its termination, and the sun of the empire of Sabuk-Tigin had reached its setting, and the Recorder of Destiny had inscribed the decree of Khusrau Malik's dethronement, that monarch was not possessed of the power to resist, and he entered into negotiations for peace ; and, for the purpose of having an interview with the Sultan [Mu'izz-ud-Din], Khusrau Malik came out [of Lohor]6. He was seized, and imprisoned, and Lohor passed into the possession of the Sultan-i-Ghazi, and the kingdom of Hindustan 7 came under his sway.
is not related by any of the authors I have quoted, from some of whom he derived his own information.
The account contained in the Hindu history of Jamun previously quoted, of Khusrau Malik's attempt to take Sial-kot, which was a standing menace to his rule, agrees with the account given by our author and some others, with the exception that other tribes of unbelievers besides the Khokhars were engaged in it ; and, although Khusrau Malik had got together a large following, he was unable to keep the field against the superior and more efficient forces of the Ghuris.
The Khokhars t^/] are a totally distinct race from the Gakhars [jiCS]. The name of the former is sometimes written [^H Khukhar, but the first mode is the most correct. Abu-1-Fazl, in the A'-in-i-Akban, constantly mentions them, and he writes the two names very differently. There are still numbers of Khokhars in the Panjab, some 20,000 families, and I have met with them constantly in the Multan district, and districts further to the north-west, towards the Indus, in the Sind-Sagar Do-abah. Their chief locale is about Barih, Ahmad-abad, find Khush-ab. They still style their chief Sultan as well as Rae, and will not give their daughters in marriage to other tribes, or, at least, used not to. The Ghakars are still further northwards. Our author does not mention a word about these transactions with the Khokhars in his account of Khusrau Malik's reign, and only mentions two expeditions against Lahor, and therein states that Khusrau Malik delivered it up to Mu'izz-ud-Din in 583 H.; but here he says in 582 H. Some of the works I have been quoting say Mu'izz-ud-Din obtained possession of Lahor in 582 H., while others say it happened in 583 H.
5	This is the same person who subsequently gave his adherence to Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, and then acted treacherously, and was ousted from Hirat, and put to death. See note2, page 257. His correct name is 'Izz-ud-Dfn, Husain. His father's name was Khar-mil.
6	See page 115, where our author states that Khusrau Malik, under the faith of a treaty, was induced to come out.
7	That portion only over which Khusrau Malik ruled; but subsequently he conquered more.456
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
The Sipah-Salar, 'Ali-i-Kar-makh, who was the Wall [Governor] of Multan, was located at Lohor, and the father of the author of this work, Maulana Saraj-ud-Din-i-Minhaj, the Wonder of his Age, and Most Eloquent of 'Ajam, became the Kazi of the forces of Hindustan, and, dressed in an honorary robe, conferred upon him by Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, in the audience hall [or tent] of the camp8 he established his Court of Judicature. Twelve camels were assigned to convey his tribunal9 [on the march]. The mercy of the Almighty be upon him, and upon the orthodox Sultans of the past, and the Musalman Maliks of the present!
After these events the Sultan-i-Ghazi set out on his return to Ghaznin, taking along with him Khusrau Malik ; and from the court of Ghaznin sent him to the court of Firuz-koh, to the presence of the Sultan-ul-A'zam, Ghiyas-ud-Din. From thence Khusrau Malik was sent into Gharjistan and imprisoned within the castle of Balarwan, and it was commanded that his son, Bahram Shah1 [by name], should be detained within the walls of the fortress of Saif-rud of Ghur ; and, when the outbreak and sedition of Sultan Shah2, Khwarazm-Shahi, arose in the year
8	Where public business was usually transacted.
9	For himself and the Muftis. He did not continue at Bamian long then. See pages 431 and 433.
1	This, probably, is the son who had been given up as a hostage to Mu'izz-ud-DIn. Firightah, but on whose authority he does not mention, styles him Malik Shah. There is not the slightest doubt as to who put them to death, and the text very plainly indicates who did, both here and at page 115. Compare Elliot: India, vol. ii., note 2, page 295.
2	Not " Khwarazm Shah" but his brother. He was not a Sultan; this is part of his title merely. See page 245. The error of calling him Sultan or King of Khwarazm is of common occurrence. Elphinstone, misled by translators or translations, calls him " King of Kharizm." His name was Mahmiid, and his title, Sultan Shah-i-Jalal-ud-Din. At page 115, our author says Khusrau Malik and his son, Bahram Shah, were put to death when the affair of Sultan Shah occurred in 598 h., and here says, 587 h., while twice, in his account of Ghiyas-ud-Din's reign [see pages 378 and 379], he distinctly states that the engagement with Sultan Shah, in which Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, then only Lord of the Stables, was taken prisoner, took place in 588 h. [Jahan-Ara, 588 h.]. The year 587 h. is that in which the first battle took place with Rae Pithora, according to the whole of the authors I have been quoting, as well as several others, including our author himself, and the second battle, in which Rae Pithora was defeated and [according to Musalman accounts] slain, took place beyond a doubt [see page 468], in 588 H. There is no doubt whatever as to the dates our author gives, for they are as plainly written as itTHE SHANSABANlAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 457
5 87 H., they martyred Khusrau Malik and his son [Bahram Shah]. The mercy of the Almighty be upon them all!
Subsequent to these events, the Sultan-i-Ghazi caused the forces of Islam to be organized, and advanced against the fortress of Tabarhindah3, and took that stronghold, and
is possible to write, and all the copies of the lexl collated agree; but neither of these three dates can be corrrect. The campaign against Sultan Shah. Khwarazm!, which lasted over six months, took place in 586 H., or early in 587 H., and in 589 H. he died. What tends to prove this to be correct, even from our author's own statements, is the fact, that, between the acquirement of Lahor, and the first battle of Tara'in, no operations were undertaken east of the Indus by Mu'izz-ud-Din, because occupied elsewhere. See also next page where it is said that the Ka?I of Tulak was to hold Tabarhindah for the period of eight months, thus showing that the Sultan intended to come again the next cold season and relieve it. The Kazi however held out for five months longer, and, the Sultan not having arrived, was obliged to capitulate. Here is further proof. Alfi and Jami'-ut-Tawarikh say Sultan Shah sent a message to Ghiyas-ud-Din [after Sultan Shah revolted against his brother's authority. See also page 246 and note 8], after he had gained possession of several places in Khurasan with the aid of the Kara-Khita'Is, that he, Ghiyas-ud-Din, should give up to him the places belonging to his [Sultan Shah's] father, otherwise to prepare for hostilities. Ghiyas-ud-Din summoned his brother, Mu'izz-ud-Din, from Hind to join him. Some writers affirm that up to this time the latter was styled Malik only, and that after that campaign the title of Sultan was conferred upon him, as well as on his cousin, Shams-ud-Din of Bamian, from which period, and not before, the name and title will be found on his coins. ' In the neighbourhood of the Murgh-ab, in the valley of Marw-ar-Rud, the two brothers, Ghiyas-ud-Din, and Mu'izz-ud-Din, Shams-ud-Din of Bamian, and Taj-ud-Din, ruler of Sijistan, being also present, after several months, encountered Sultan Shah, who was defeated, and reached Marw with only forty followers. This is said to have taken place in 586 H. Sultan Takish, Khwarazm Shah, hearing of this reverse his rebellious brother had sustained, advanced from Khwarazm against him by forced marches; and Sultan Shah again sought protection from the Ghuris. who, some time after, aided him with a numerous force, and despatched him towards Kh,warazm. This was in 588 H., for, his brother Takish having marched into 'Irak at the request of Kutlagh, Inanaj [see page 167, note 8] in that year, Sultan Shah made a dash against Khwarazm, the capital of his brother.
Alfi further states, but it is somewhat contrary to other accounts, that, on the way, Sultan Shah was taken ill, and died at the end of Ramazan, 589 H. When the news of this event reached Ghiyas-ud-Din, he despatched orders for his troops to march back again.
Another reason why I consider 586 H. correct is, that all authors of any authority, as well as our author himself, say that the second battle of Tara'in took place in 588 H., after which Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, was left to carry on operations in Hindustan, and, if the campaign against Sultan Shah took place in that year, and the two armies were six months in sight of each other, Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, could not have been present there to be taken prisoner, and be at Kuhfam in Hindustan at the same time. See page 515.
3 All the copies of the text collated, both here, and elsewhere in the work, as well as many other authors, say Tabarhindah [or Tabarhindh]. The
G g458
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
made it over [to the charge of] Malik Ziya-ud-Din, the Kazi Muhammad-i-'Abd-us-Sallam, Nisawi, Tulaki4. This Kazi, Ziya-ud-Din, was the son of the uncle of the maternal grandfather of the writer of this History, [namely] Kazi Majd-ud-Din, Tulaki. At his [Kazi Ziya-ud-Din's]6 request, they selected twelve hundred horse from the forces of Hindustan and of Ghaznin, all men of Tulak, and the whole of them were ordered to join his Khavl [band or division], and were located within that fortress, under the stipulation that they should hold it for the period of eight months, until the Sultan-i- Ghazi should return again from Ghaznin ; but the Rae Kolah 6 Pithora, however, had arrived
printed text has Sirhind, and many authors of comparatively modern date, including the Tabakat-i-Akbari, Mir'at-i-Jahan-Numa, and Khulasat-ut-Ta-warikh,, also have Sirhind. The Tarikh-i-Alfl. and Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh say Tarhindah, Buda'uni also has the same in one copy, and Tarhindah [the Persian b might have been left out by the copyist] in another; and, in another place, says it was Jai-pal's capital. The Lubb-ut-Tawarikh-i-Hind says Tabarhindah now known by the name of Bithandah. Firishtah has Pathindah	in the
latest lithographed copy of the Persian text which was so carefully collated, it is said, with several copies of the original, by Briggs himself, and Bathindah in other MS. copies I have examined, but, in his translation, Briggs has Bituhnda, and Dow calls it "The capital of Tiberhind." I may mention that Bathindah, which is the place Briggs probably means, is some hundred miles west of Thani-sar. See also note 2, page 76, next to last para.
4	That is to say, he or his family came originally from Nisa, and he was Kazi of Tulak, which was a considerable place mentioned by our author in several places. We might as well say Chief Justice Supreme Court, as '' Kazi Tolak." Instead of Nisawi, some copies of the text have Bushari, and Bushai. but the majority of the best copies have Nisawi. Briggs turns him into " Mullik Zeea-ood-Deen Toozuky," and Dow into " Maileek Zea " !
5	Compare Elliot: India, vol. ii. page 295.
• The right word may be Golah, as both would be written AjT In Sanskrit	—golak signifies the offspring by illegitimate connexion with
a widow; but we hear nothing of such a connexion on the part of Prithi Raj's father. Tod, in his usual highly imaginative way, however, considers Gola [Golah] to mean a slave :—"In Persian Gholam, literally 'a slave,' evidently a word of the same origin as the Hindu gola." In another place, he asserts that Golah refers to the natural brother of Prithi Raj. Vol i. page 179. Had Prithi Raj been a golak, I do not think he would have been eligible to succeed his grandfather. The Taj-ul-Ma'asir, referring to the second battle between the Hindus and Muhammadans, calls Kolah [or the Kolah] the son of the Rae of Ajmir; and all authors with whom I am acquainted state, that Kolah or Golah, the son of Pithora or Prithi Raj, after his father was put to death, was made tributary ruler of AjmTr by Mu'izz-ud-Din, as do all the authors I have been quoting; and no other writer that I know of pretends that Pithora was a natural son of his father or adds Kolah or Golah to his name. Our author has apparently confused the two names, and this seems the more likely, because heTHE SSANSABANJAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN.
near at hand, and the Sultan marched to Tara'ln7 to meet him. The whole of the Ranas 8 of Hind were along with the Rae Kolah.
When the ranks were duly marshalled, the Sultan seized a lance and attacked the elephant on which Gobind Rae 9,
has not said a single word about Pithora's son having been set up by the Musal-mans, although they had to support him subsequently by force of arms.
7	This name is plainly and correctly written, in the different copies of our author's text, and all the authors I have quoted previously, as well as many others, call this place by the same name. Compilers of Histories of India, led astray by the translations of Firishtah [not by Firishtah himself] which supplied them with their materials, have turned this name into Narain. Dow has " Sirauri upon the banks of the Sirsutty," and Briggs, " Narain, now called Tiroury, on the banks of the Soorsutty." Elphinstone, following Briggs, no doubt, calls it " Tiroury, between Tanisar and Carn&l," and Dowson [Elliot: India, vol. ii. page 295], in the translation of this passage of our author's text, evidently trusting to Briggs's translation rather than to -the original text, is led to believe our author wrong; but acknowledges, in a foot note, that "the text [our author's] has Tarai'n," and adds " but Firishta gives the name as Narain, and says it was afterwards called Tirauri. He places it on the banks of the Sarsuti fourteen miles from Thanisar and eighty from Dehli." Now all this is incorrect as far as Firishtah is concerned, even to the lithographed text of Briggs's own revision, for the former has Tara'ln toi'yl like other authors, not Nara'-in [^i\j~\. Mirza Mughal Beg, who, about eighty years since, made a personal survey of these parts, and the territories further west, says that "on the Shah-Rah [Royal Route] from Kamal to Thani-sar is A'zim-abad-i-Talawarl [uyj^], where there is a large and lofty Rabat of great strength and solidity which can be seen for miles round. Seven miles from this place, to the north, is Amln-ghar, a large village with a large and lofty Rabat likewise. About two miles from the village of Ghatang is a small river, filled in the rainy season only, running from right to left, which joins the river Sursuti. Six miles from Amin-ghar, still going northerly, is the city of Thani-sar."
This is within a mile or two of the distance given by many other writers as well as Firishtah. There are several places called Talwandi,and one,on theroad from Dihli to Bhatnir, called Talwafah [ij'^b], but no other Talawaji. For an account of the engagement, as given in the Jamun History, see next page.
8	In some copies Raes : other writers say, a number of Rajput princes.
9	Thus styled [J^jS] and also Gobindah [»a:>jT] in the oldest copies of the text. Some have s-S and both of which modes of writing the name confirm the correctness of the above, which is a common Hindu name ; but some more modem copies of the text have Kand [J^f], Khand [-^>1/], and Khandl JJ1^]. Most other authors, including Firishtah, have this latter name also ; but the Hindu bard, Chand, calls him Rae Gobind, like our author in the oldest copies. He led the van of the Hindus on an elephant. Translators of Firishtah make him commander of the whole ; but Rae Pithora was himself an experienced leader : the other led ,the van. ToD (vol. i. p. 119), says Chaond Rae, which the historians of " Shabudin " style '' Khan-dirai, was not brother of Pirt'hwiraja" ! ! He states that he was of the Dahima race of Rajputs, one of three brothers, the eldest of whom, Kaimas, was lord of Biana [Bianah], and minister of Pirt'hwiraja ; the second wa»
G g 2460
the tai;akAt-i-nasir!.
Rae [Rajah] of Dihli, was mounted, and on which elephant he moved about in front of the battle. The Sultan-i-Ghazi, who was the Haidar of the time, and a second Rustam, charged and struck Gobind Rae on the mouth with his lance with such effect that two of that accursed one's teeth fell into his mouth. He launched a javelin at the Sultan of Islam and struck him in the upper part of the arm and inflicted a very severe wound \ The Sultan turned his charger's head round and receded, and from the agony of the wound he was unable to continue on horseback any longer. Defeat befell the army of Islam so that it was irretrievably routed, and the Sultan was very nearly falling from his horse. Seeing which, a lion [hearted] warrior, a Khalj2 stripling, recognized the Sultan, and sprang up behind him, and, supporting him in his arms, urged the horse with his voice, and brought him out of the field of battle3.
" Poondir, who commanded the frontier at Lahore " [the utter absurdity of this assertion I have already shown, I think, in note page 466] ; and the third brother, Chaond Rae, was the principal leader in the last battle in which Pirt'hwiraja fell." All the Muhammadan historians and three Hindu chroniclers agree in the statement that this person, styled Gobind by some, and Khandl by others, was Pithora's brother, and that he was present in both battles, and was killed in the last.
1	These are the author's exact words : there is nothing in the text about " on th e other hand, returned the blow, &c." The J.i or ^L- signifies not a blow here* but a small spear or javelin, an Indian weapon, the point of which is sometimes barbed, and sometimes made with three barbs. From five to ten were taken in the hand [the left] at once, and launched at an enemy singly with the right.
2	Not a Ghalzi Afghan, I beg leave to notice, but a Turk.
3	Various are the different accounts given by authors respecting the incidents of this battle, and very erroneous and incorrect are the versions translated from Firishtah which, as authentic statements are to be desired in all matters of history, ought to be corrected, and more particularly respecting this important period of Indian history.
The History of the Rajahs of Jamun states that " Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, in 587 H., determined to undertake an expedition against the fortress of Tabarhind, which was the strongest place belonging to the great Rajahs of Hind. Rae Pithora, the Chohan, sovereign [Farman-rawa] of Hindustan, and eighth in descent from Bal-Diw, Chohan, advanced to give battle to the Sultan. They met at Tara'in-ghar, fourteen miles from Thani-sar. During the engagement, Rae Khan! [sic in MS.] Rae, ruler of Dihl! on the part of his brother, from the back of an elephant on which he was mounted, with a long spear wounded the Sultan in the upper part of the arm. He would have fallen from his horse from the agony of the wound, had not some of his slaves come to him at the moment, and borne him out of the fight. The Sultan, having sustained this defeat, retired towards Ghaznin, and, near the banks of the Raw!, a deputation from the Rajah of Jamun presented themselves."THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 461
On the Musalman forces not seeing the Sultan, lamentation broke from them, until they reached a place where
Another history, written by a Hindu, says Kid!	Rae commanded his
brother's army, and that, after the Sultan had wounded him in the mouth, he wounded the Sultan in the head with his spear, and the Sultan received another wound in the side [by whom inflicted is not said], and he fell from his horse, when a Khalj youth took him on his own horse,. p id, placing him before him, carried him safely out of the fight. Buda'uni lso says the Sultla fell from his horse, and agrees with the above in the last? ause of the sentence.
Other authors, including the Tabakat-i-Akbari, anc^ Tazkarat-ul-Muluk, state that Khani Rae commanded the van, and was leading on the enemy when the Sultan attacked him. They state that the Kha1]' youth was on foot at the time, and, seeing the state of the Sultan, he sprat'g up behind him, and carried him out of the meUe to his own camp, whither his own troops had retired ; and that the panic and anxiety which had arisen on its being found that the Sultan had not come out of the fight with the rest of his army subsided.
One of the oldest copies of our author's text here differs from the others collated to a considerable degree. It says that "the Khalj youth recognized the Sultan [in the melee and confusion], joined him, and replaced him on the horse's back [thus implying that he had fallen or had to dismount], cried out with his voice to urge the horse, and brought the Sultan out of the battle." This is the literal translation of the passage in that copy ; and, in it, there is no mention of the youth having mounted the horse also.
The Sultan remained at Lahor until his wound was healed before he returned to Ghaznin.
But what say Firishtah and his translators on this subject ?
Dow, vol. i. page 138-9.
"In the year 587, he [Mahommed] marched again towards Hindostan, and, proceeding to Ajmere, took the capital of Tiberhind, where he left Malleek Zia, with above a thousand chosen horse, and some foot, to garrison the place. He himself was upon his way back, when he heard that nttu Ra, the prince of Ajmire, with his brother Candi Ra, king of Delhi, in alliance with some other Indian princes, were marching towards Tiberhind, with two hundred thousand horse, and three thousand elephants. Mahommed determined to return to the relief of the garrison. He met the enemy at the village of Sirauri, upon the banks of the Sirsutti, fourteen miles from Tannassar, and eighty from Delhi, and gave them battle. Upon the first onset his right and left wings retired, being outflanked by the enemy, till, joining in the rear, his
Briggs, vol. i. p. 171—173.
"In the year 587, he [Mahomed Ghoory\ marched again to Hindustan, and, proceeding towards Ajmere, he took the t07V11 of Bituhnda, where he left MtdlikZeea-ood-Deen Toozuky with above a thousand chosen horse, and some foot to form its garrison. While on his return, he heard that Pithow Rae, Raja of Ajmeer, with his brother Chawand Rae, the Raja of Dehly, in alliance with other Indian princes, were marching towards Bituhnda with 200,000 horse, and 3000 elephants. Mahomed Ghoory marched to the relief of his garrison ; but, passing beyond Bituhnda, he encountered the enemy at the village of Narain, now called Tirowry, on the banks of the Soorsutty, fourteen miles from Thani-sar, and seventy from Delhy. At the first onset his right and left wings, being outflanked, fell back, till, joining in the rear, his army formed a462
THE TABAKAT-I-NA$IRL
the defeated army was safe from pursuit by the infidels.
army was formed into a circle. Ma-hommed, who was in person in the center (sic) of the line when first formed, was told that his right and left wings were defeated, and advised to provide for his own safety. Enraged at this counsel he smote the imprudent adviser, nd rushed on towards the enemy, among whom he co7nmenced, with a few followers, a great slaughter. The eyes of Candi Ra, king of Delhi, fell upon him. He drove the elephant, upon which he was mounted, directly against him. Mahommed, rising from his horse, .threw his lance with such foj-ce at the elephant, that he- drove out three of his tack teeth [the elephant's ! !]. In the meantime the Ki?ig of Delhi, from above, pierced the Sultan through the right arm, and had almost thrown him to the ground ; when some of his chiefs advanced to his rescue. This gave an opportunity, to one of his faithful servants, to leap behind him as he was sinking from his horse, and, supporting him in his arms, he carried him from the field, which, by this time, was deserted almost by his whole army. The enemy pursued them near forty miles."
Maurice, Murray, Elphinstone, Marshman, and Meadows Taylor, and probably others, such as Mill and Thornton, take their accounts from the above versions of Dow and Briggs. Marshman adds, " He was pursued for forty miles by the victorious Hindoos, and was happy to escape across the Indus," perhaps unaware that he remained at Lahor till his wound was healed [as Dow states] and that there was no pursuit at all.
Firishtah, from the revised text of Briggs has as follows:—
"In 587 H., he [Shihab-ud-Din] determined to enter Hindustan, and he took the fort of Pathindah	but the MSS. I have examined have
Bathindah «J^>], which, in that day, had become the capital of Rajahs of great dignity, out of the hands of the men of the Rajah of Ajmir. He left Malik Ziya-ud-Din, Tulaki, in that fortress, with 1200 horsemen, each and every one of whom was selected and a picked man ; and was desirous of returning. Suddenly, information reached him, that Pitho Rae, Wall [a ruler, a prince, the governor of a province] of Ajmir, in concert with his brother, KhandT Rae, Wall of Dihlx, and bringing along with them several Rajput Rajahs, were advancing, by regular marches, with an army of 200,000 horse, and 3000 elephants, with the determination of retaking the fort of Pathindah [Bathindah ?]. Sultan Shihab-ud-DIn, abandoning his intention of returning [to Ghaznin], advanced to meet them, and at the mouja' [place,
circle. Maho7ned Ghoory was in person in the centre of his line, and, being informed that both wings were defeated, was advised to provide for his own safety. Enraged at this counsel, he cut down the messenger, and, rushing on towards the enemy, with a few followers, committed terrible slaughter. The eyes of Chawand Rae falling on him, he drove his elephant directly against Mahomed Ghoory, who, perceiving his intention, charged and delivered his lance full into the Raja's viouth, by which many of his teeth were knocked out. In the meantime, the Raja of Dehly pierced the king through the right arm, with an arrow [ ! !]. He had almost fallen, when some of his chiefs advanced to his rescue. This effort to save him gave an opportunity to one of his faithful servants to leap up behind Mahomed Ghoory, who, faint from loss of blood, had nearly fallen from his horse, but was carried triimiphantly off the field, although almost wholly deserted by his army, which was pursued by the enemy nearly forty miles," &c.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF QHAZNIN. 463
Suddenly the Sul£an arrived. A number of Amirs4,
district, village] of Tara'tn, on the banks of the Sursutl, seven kuroh [a distance of rather less than fourteen miles] from Thani-sar, now known as Tarawarl [but in several MSS. of Firishtah. which I have seen, it is \Jjyk> not	and forty kuroh from Dihli, an encounter and conflict took place.
The right and left wings of Sultan Shihab-ud-Din having broke and faced about [it does not say that they were actually brokenby the Hindus, and it appears to mean that they declined the onset, or recoiled], and not a great number remained in the centre either. [There is not a word about his army forming "a circle."] At this juncture one of the Sultan's confidential attendants represented [saying] " the Amirs of the right and left [wings] who were nourished by the beneficence and favours of your Court [or dynasty] not keeping their ground resolutely, have taken to flight, and the Afghan [Firish-tah does not appear to have had authority for introducing Afghans here, from the statements of the contemporary writers of these times] and Khalj Amirs, who were the commanders of the advance, who continually boasted of their valour and prowess, are not to be found [seen], and, should you promptly [I give the exact words, except adopting the second person plural for the third] turn the reins of retrocession towards Lahor, it seems expedient [so to do]." This speech not agreeing with the Sultan's temperament, he drew his sword from its sheath, and, with the troops [remaining] of the centre, charged the enemy's forces and commenced the conflict. [Firishtah then quotes some lines to the effect that both friend and foe lauded his prowess. ] Suddenly the eye of Khandl Rae, the Sipah-Salar [commander of the army] of Dihli, falling on the Sultan, he urged the mountain-like elephant on which he was mounted towards the Sultan, who at once seized his spear and made towards him, and smote him in the mouth with such effect, that many of his teeth fell out [jUsLj]. Khandi Rae likewise [i.e. yj—which Briggs has read for —arrow] showed the greatest audacity and agility, and, from the top of his elephant, inflicted such a wound [with what weapon not said] on the upper part of the arm [}jli] of the Sultan that he was nearly falling from his horse. A Khalj youth on foot [there is not a word about his chiefs coming to his rescue] discovered it, jumped up behind him on the horse, and, taking the Sultan in his arms, bore him out of the battle-field, and conveyed him to the forces of the runaway nobles which were twenty kuroh off; and the tumult and disquiet which had arisen, consequent on the defeat of the army of Islam, and not finding the Sultan, subsided." . . . There is not a word about pursuit.
According to the Zain-ul-Ma'asir, quoted by Firishtah immediately after the above, " Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, having become faint from the effects of the wound, fell from his horse. This not being noticed [in the m$l$e\, no one came to his aid. Night intervened, and, when one watch of the night had passed, a party of his Turkish slaves came to seek him, and went into the battle-field and began searching among the slain. The Sultan [who appears to have revived], recognizing the voices of his faithful slaves, acquainted them with his situation. His slaves gave thanks for his safety, and, taking him on their shoulders, in turns, proceeded along throughout the night, and by day-dawn reached their own people."
This battle is said to have taken place in the fifteenth year of the reign of Rae Pithora, and the Hindu writers state that this was the seventh time the Suljan had invaded Hind, in all of which he had been defeated !
* The Malik-ul-HajT, Ziya-ud-Din [subsequently 'Ala-ud-D!n], Muhammad, the Sultan's niece's husband, was present in this battle. See page 393.464
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Ghuri youths, and other distinguished men, had noticed the Sultan, along with that lion-like Khalji. had recognized him, and had gathered round him, and broke spears and made a litter and a stretcher, and had borne him to that halting-place. The people [now] became composed, and once more, through [the safety of] his life, the true faith acquired vigour, and the dispersed army, on the strength of the safety of the life of that Sultan-i-Ghazl, again came together 5, and retired, and turned their faces towards the Musalman dominions.
The Kazi of Tulak 6 was left [in charge of] the fortress of Tabarhindah, and Rae Pithora appeared before the walls of that stronghold, and fighting commenced. For a period of thirteen months and a little over the place was defended. The following year the Sultan-i-Ghazi assembled the troops of Islam, and commenced-his march towards Hindustan, to avenge the [disaster of the] previous year
4 The idiom varies considerably here in nearly every copy. Some have— "On the strength of the safety of that Badshah-i-Ghazj, the army came together again [or rallied]," &c.
6	The same as mentioned at page 458.
7	I have here also to notice, and enter my protest against, a statement respecting the character of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, which Firightah's translators have incorrectly given, and which neither Firishtah nor any other author asserts. In this instance the character of this Prince has been unjustly assailed, held up in a wrong light, and things are asserted which never happened at all.
Dow, vol. i. page 139.	Briggs, vol. i. page 173.
"Mahommed remained a few months " Mahomed remained a few months with his brother at Ghor, who still with his brother at Ghoor, who still kept the imperial title, and then, re- retained the title of King [he never lost turning to Ghizni, spent the ensuing the title of Sultan], and then, retum-ytar in indolence and festivity. But, ing to Ghizny, spent the ensuing year ambition again fermenting in his in pleasure and festivity. At length, mind, he recruited a noble army," &c. having recruited an army," &c.
Firishtah says : " Sultan Shihab-ud-Dln, having taken leave of his brother [at FTruz-koh], proceeded to Ghazntn ; and, with the determination of taking revenge [on Pithora], having made sleep and rest unlawful to himself [I give the words literally], in a short time assembled troops, brave and ruthless," &c. This is a specimen of '■'■pleasure and festivity," certainly !
Here is another specimen of the same kind, and it is repeated by one writer after another as undoubtedly true and correct.
Dow, page 140.	Briggs, page 174.
"When his [Mahommed's] victorious " When he had advanced as far as pears had advanced as far as Pesh- Pishawur, an old sage of Ghoor, wir, an old sage of Ghor, prostrating prostrating himself before him, said,THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN 465
The author heard from a trustworthy person, a distinguished man of the highland district of Tulak, whom they used to style by the title of Mu'in-ud-Din, Ushi*, who said : " I was in that army along with the Sultan-i-Ghazi, and the number of cavalry composing the army of Islam that year was one hundred and twenty thousand arrayed
himself before him, said, ' O King, we trust to thy conduct and wisdom ; but as yet thy design has been a subject of much dispute and speculation among us.' Mahommed replied, * Know, old man, that since the time of my defeat in Hindostan, notwithstanding external appearances, I have never slumbered in ease, or waked but in sorrow and anxiety. I have therefore determined, with this army, to recover my lost honour from those idolaters, or die in the noble attempt,'" &c.
' O King, we trust in thy conduct and wisdom ; but as yet thy design has been subject of much speculation among us.' Mahomed Ghoory replied, ' Know, old man, that since the time of my defeat in Hindustan, notwithstanding external appearances, I have never slumbered in ease, or waked but in sorrow and anxiety. I have therefore determined, with this army, to recover my lost honour from those idolaters, or die in the attempt," &c.
Here, again, Elphinstone has been deceived, and, quoting Briggs, further disseminates a wrong translation. Marshman says [vol. i. p. 44] that "he [Shahab] stated" this " in one of his letters;" but, unfortunately, Firightah himself says nothing of the kind! His words are :—"When his [the Sultan's] standards, the emblems of victory, reached the Peshawar territory, one of the PIrs [a holy man, a saint] of Ghur. who was [sufficiently] bold, bowing his forehead to the ground [only Pirs are not wont to do so], represented [saying], 'It is not understood at all whither the Sultan goeth, nor what his object is.' Sultan Shihab-ud-Din replied : ' O such an one [iiik] ! know for certain that, from the time I have been defeated by the Rajahs of Hind, I have abstained from my wife's bed [I do not give the literal words to this part of the sentence, but it tends to show that he had but one wife, and his having but one child appears to prove it], and have not changed the clothes on my body; and, having passed this year in grief, sorrow, and sadness, I have not permitted the Amirs of Ghur, of the KJjalj, and of Khurasan, who, notwithstanding their ancient servitude, abandoned me in the battle and fled, to present themselves in my presence, nor have I seen their faces during this period. Now, placing dependence on the goodness of God, I am proceeding towards the country of Hind ; and I have no expectation of the services of those old [ancient] Amirs, who, from their cradles to this time, have been nourished by the favours of this [my] family.' The Plr, hearing this statement, kissed the ground of service, and said, ' Victory and success attend the followers at the sovereign's stirrup,"' &c. This is rather different to the statements above.
8 The name of a town of Farghanah, and also of a place near Baghdad. The person here referred to is no other than the celebrated Mu'in-ud-Din, Chisti, whose tomb is at Ajmir, and so much frequented. The Emperor Akbar paid several visits to it. Some writers say that he only came into India towards the close of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Dln's career, and stayed to propagate the Musalman faith.466
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
in defensive armour V When the Sultan-i-Ghazi with suchlike organization and such a force arrived near unto Rae Kolah Pithora, he had gained possession of the fortress of Tabarhindah by capitulation, and had pitched his camp in the neighbourhood of Tara'in \ The Sultan [now] made
9 It does not appear to have been steel armour. The meaning of the word used is, "a covering, a garment, vestment worn in battle, and also put oil horses —defensive armour of some sort, some of steel, perhaps, and some of leather. This is what Firishtah appears to have turned into '' helmets inlaid with jewels, and armour inlaid with silver and gold."
1 See notepage 459. Hasan Nizaml, in the Taj-ul-Ma'asir, a contemporary writer, who began his work the year before Sultan Mu'izz-ud-DIn's assassination, and who begins with this expedition, does not mention where this battle took place, but mentions that Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, on reaching Lahor, despatched the Sadr-i-Kabir, Kiwam-ul-Mulk [these are his titles, not his name], Rukn [Ruhu is a mistake]-ud-Din, Hamzah, to Ajmir to offer his ultimatum to Pithora Rae ; but his inflated style greatly obscures the details. Some writers state that two emissaries were sent. The Sultan called upon Pithora Rae to embrace the Musalman faith and acknowledge his supremacy. The Chohan prince sent an indignant reply; and, having received aid from most of the Rajahs of Hind, with 300,000 horse—Rajputs, and some Afghans, one author says—advanced to meet him, and they again met on the former battle-field. Pithora Rae sent a message to the Sultan, saying, "It is advisable thou shouldst retire to thine own territory, and-we will not follow thee." The Sultan, in order to deceive him, and throw him off his guard, replied : " It is by command of my brother, my sovereign, that I come here and endure trouble and pain : give me sufficient time that I may despatch an intelligent person to my brother, to represent to him an account of thy power, and that I may obtain his permission to conclude a peace with thee under the terms that Tarhind [Tabarhindah], the Panjab, and Multan shall be ours, and the rest of the country of Hind thine." The leaders of the infidel forces, from this reply, accounted the army of Islam as of little consequence, and, without any care or concern, fell into the slumber of remissness. That same night the Sultan made his preparations for battle, and, after the dawn of the morning, when the Rajputs had left their camp for the purpose of obeying the calls of nature, and for the purpose of performing their ablutions, he entered the plain with his ranks marshalled. Although the unbelievers were amazed and confounded, still, in the best manner they could, they stood to fight, and sustained a complete overthrow. Khandt Rae [the Gobind Rae of our author], and a great number besides of the Raes of Hind, were killed, and Pithora Rae was taken prisoner within the limits of Sursuti, and put to death."
There are, however, other versions of these events which, although partly traditionary,, bear some measure of truth, and it will be well to notice them. The History of Jamun, which agrees in some measure with the Rajput traditions, states that Pithora Rae, having been apprised by certain informers of the part the Rajah Bij, or Bijayi Dlw, had taken in aiding the Musalmans, proposed to march against him, and chastise him. At this juncture, hostility arose between Pithora Rae and Rajah Jai Chandra, ruler of Kinnauj [the details of which are too long for insertion here], respecting his daughter. In 588 H., Sultan Shihab-ud-Din. having learned the state of Pithora Rae's rffairs, prepared to avenge his previous defeat; and Bijayi Dlw, Rajah ofTHE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 467
disposition of his forces. The centre division of the army, the baggage, the standards and banners, his canopy of
Jamun, despatched his son, Nar-singh Diw, with a body of his forces to join him, and Rajah Jai Chandra of Kinnauj, who had been in communication with the Sultan [Tod also says "thePrinces of Kanouj and Putun invited Shabudin [Shihab-ud-Din ?] to aid their designs of humiliating the Chohan [Rae Pithora]. . . . The envoy was Chand Poondir, the vassal chief of Lahore, and guardian of that frontier, speedily joined his camp with his available forces"! vol. i. page 256.] Perhaps the writer was unaware that Lahor had been in the possession of the Ghaznawids for more than a century, and that Shabudin, so called, had only taken it from the last of that dynasty five or six years before, and since that time his own governor had held it. The Sultan came in contact with Rae Pithora on that same field of Talawari, and formed his forces into two divisions. The troops of Jamun and Kinnauj were to oppose Khandi Rae of Dihli, while the Sultan, with his own forces, encountered Rae Pithora. The battle was obstinately maintained, and it is related that Khandi Rae fell by the sword of Nar-singh Diw of Jamun, and the Sultan himself slew several of the enemy. Rae Pithora was captured alive and taken to Ghaznin, where he was deprived of his sight. For further details on this subject, see page 485, note 3.
Alft gives another version of this battle, which is certainly curious. It states that the Sultan, having taken the route by Purshor, arrived within the limits of Dihli [the territory of ?]. Pitho Rae and Kandi [sic] Rae prepared to oppose him, on which Mu'izz-ud-Dln made a precipitate retreat. Rae Pitho was following in pursuit of him until they had passed beyond Lahor, and had reached the mouza' [village or district] called Shihab-ud-Din [Shihab-ud-Din-pur?], when the Sultan came to a stand. His object in retiring had been to separate Rae Pitho from his own territory; and, at the place above mentioned, a battle took place, in which Rae Pitho was defeated and taken prisoner. After this the Sultan advanced upon Ajmir. He subdued that territory, and put Rae Pitho to death; after which he made Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, governor of it, and returned to Ghaznin.
Another writer states that "Pithora Rae was killed in the battle, and Khandi Rae, the leader, escaped in safety;" whilst another says that "both were captured and slain."
The statements of both Dow and Briggs are equally imaginary with respect to the battle, where they say:—
Dow, vol. i. page 142.	Briggs, vol. i. page 177.
" The Mussulman troops, as if now	-"The Moslems, as if they now had
only serious in fight, made such dread-	only began to be in earnest, corn-fill slaughter, that this prodigious mitted such havoc, that this pro-
army, once shaken, like a great build-	digious army, once shaken, like a
ing was lost in its own ruins."	great building tottered to its fall, and
was lost in its mvn ruins"
This last sentence is quoted by several writers, including Maurice, Elphinstone and Marshman ; and Meadows Taylor says [" The Student's Manual of Indian History," page 92], " 'Like a great building,' writesFerishtah, •it tottered to its fall,'" &c.; but, unfortunately, Firishtah never wrote anything of the kind. His language here is particularly simple. Referring to the final charge by the Sultan, he says: " The dust of the battle-field was drenched with the blood of the brave ; and, in the twinkling of an eye, he threw the ranks of468
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
state, and the elephants, were left several miles in the rear. He marshalled his ranks, and was advancing leisurely. The light-armed and unincumbered horsemen he had directed should be divided into four divisions, and had appointed them to act against the infidels on four sides; and the Sultan had commanded, saying : " It is necesssary that, on the right and left, and front and rear, 10,000 mounted archers should keep the infidel host in play ; and, when their elephants, horsemen, and foot advance to the attack, you are to face about and keep the distance of a horse's course in front of them2." The Musalman troops acted according to these instructions, and, having exhausted and wearied the unbelievers, Almighty God gave the victory to Islam, and the infidel host was overthrown.
Rae Pithora, who was riding an elephant, dismounted and got upon a horse and fled [from the field], until, in the neighbourhood of [the] Sursuti3, he was taken prisoner, and they despatched him to hell; and Gobind Rae of Dihli was slain in the engagement. The Sultan recognized his head through those two teeth which had been broken. The seat of government, Ajmir, with the whole of the Siwalikh4 [territory], such as Hansi, Sursuti, and other
the enemy into commotion. At this crisis Khar-mil ['Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Kh,ar-mil] and other Amirs, from different directions, charged, and overthrew the Hindu troops." This is all: he then mentions the fall of Khandi Rae and other chiefs.
2	The object was to harass, and to induce them to break their order. The Sultan's tactics, from our author's description, as well as that of others, are not very clear. One writer, however, throws a little more light upon the matter ; and from that it appears that the Sultan, leaving the central portion of his army— about half his entire force—some miles in the rear, with the baggage and other matiriel, divided the remainder into five divisions, four of which, each of 10,000 light-armed horse—mounted archers—were to attack the enemy right and left, and front and rear, and retire, pretending flight. This mode of fighting having been carried on from about 9 A.M. to the time of afternoon prayer, the Sultan, considering that the enemy had been sufficiently wearied, with the remainder—his fifth division, the flower of his troops, consisting of some 12,000 horse—made a final charge, and put the Hindu army to a complete rout.
3	The ancient Saraswati. Probably our author means in the tract near the Sursuti: the word is	Ibn-i-Batutah calls Sursuti a great city. In Akbar's time Sursuti was one of the Mahalls of Sirkar Sanbhal.
4	Like some other historians, our author calls that tract of country, lying south of the Himalayah, between the Sutlaj and the Ganges, and extending as far south as Hansi, by the name of Siwalikh ; but some other native writers, including the author of the History of Jamun, include the whole of the AlpineTHE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 469
tracts, were subjugated. These events took place, and this victory was achieved, in the year 588 H.® ; and the Sultan placed Malik Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak6, in the fort of Kuhram7, and returned [home again]3.
Malik Kutb-ud-Din advanced from Kuhram to Mirath, and took that city and fortress, and, in the following year, he possessed himself of the capital city, Dihli9. In this same
tracts below the higher range, from the Ganges to Kashmir, that is to say, the extreme northern boundary of India-under the name of Koh-i-Siwalikh. Another writer says Siwalikh is the ancient name of the territory of Nag-awr. See page 200 also. The Sultan returned to Ghaznln along the skirts of the hills of the northern Panjab.
5	Authors generally agree respecting this date ; but, as already noticed, our author, in another place, states this was the year in which the campaign against Sultan Shah took place. See note 2, page 456.
6	For the meaning of I-bak, see under his reign, next Section.
7	As written with the vowel points—not Kahram.
8	Our author leaves out entirely all mention of the son of Rae Pithora having been set up at Ajmir as a subject and tributary ruler, as mentioned in the Taj-ul-Ma'asir and subsequent histories; and hence his name, together with the Sultan's also, was impressed on the coins issued by him during the short period he ruled at Ajmir.
9	Mr. E. Thomas [Coins of the Pathan Kin^s of DehlI], page 22, note says " The historical evidence as to the capture of Dehli by the Moslems, in 587 h., is complete and consistent with the best authorities," &c. He is mistaken, however, even on his own authorities. • Hasan Nizami, in the Taj-ul-Ma'asir [Elliot, vol. ii. page 216], gives no date at all; but, in the following page, says, " in the month of Ramazan [which is the ninth month], 588 h.t" Kutb-ud-Din '' marched against Jatwdn" to relieve Hansi. After this he marched against Mirath and took it; and, after that again, marched towards Dihli, and invested and took it [page 219]. I have compared the text of the Taj-ul-Ma'asir, and find the above date quite correct. Our author, Minhaj-i-Saraj [the version given at page 300 of Elliot, which is evidently translated from the printed text, is incorrect and imperfect], who often contradicts his own statements and dates, after saying here that the overthrow of Rae Pithora took place in 588 h., in his account of Kutb-ud-Din, farther on, says that Kutb-ud-Din took possession of Mirath in 587 h.; but immediately endeavours to correct himself, and says : "From Mirath he issued forth, in the year 588 h., and captured Dihli ; and, in the year 590 h.," accompanied the Sultan against Jai-Chand, &c. The fact is that the Hindus, having been overthrown in 588 h., in the battle of Tara'in, Kutb-ud-Din was left at Kuhram, from which, towards the close of the same year, he moved against Jatwan, and relieved Hansi, and then proceeded against Mirath. These movements must have occupied some three months, and, in the last days of 588 h., or early in 589 h., he invested Dihli, and gained possession of it. Some works, however, such as the TabaVat-i-Akbari, Haft-IklTm, Khula?at-ut-Tawarikh. and Firishtah, say Dihli was taken in 588 h. The Lubb-ut-Tawarikh-i-Hind says, " Mu'izz-ud-Din advanced against Dihli, after taking. Ajmir, and, on the kinsman of Rae Pithora and Khandi [Gobind ?] Rae, who then held possession of it, tendering tribute and submission, he was allowed to retain it; and the next47°
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
year likewise—589H.—he [Kutb-ud-Din] took the fort of Kol. In the year 590 H., the Sultan [again] marched from Ghazntn and advanced towards Kinnauj and Banaras, and, in the vicinity of Chandwarl, he overthrew Rae Jai-Chand 2, and by that victory three hundred and odd elephants fell into his hands.
Under the shadow of the ascendancy and auspices of that victorious and just monarch, victory was conferred upon his slave, the Malik-i-Karim [the Beneficent Malik], Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, so that he continued to subdue the territory of Hindustan and parts adjacent, namely, the state of Nahrwalah, and Thankir3, the fort of Gwaliyur,
year, 589 H., Kutb-ud-DIn, who had been left at Kuhram, took it, and made it the seat of government;" and, in this, the works quoted above agree. The statement of our author, backed by the statement of Fasih-I, and the Taj-ul-Ma'asir, and some others, is to be depended upon; but 587 H. is out of the question altogether, although that year is given in the Khulasat-ul-Akhbar, and one or two others. If 587 H. is correct, in what year was Rae Pithora defeated the first time ? See also note 2, page 456. The year 589 H. is a somewhat remarkable one:—Dihli was made the capital of Muhammadan India; Richard Coeur de Lion fought in Palestine; Salah-ud-Din, Yusuf, Sultan of Misr, died; and Changiz Khan entered into friendly relations with Ung Khan.
1	In some copies Chandwal and Jandwal, and in some other authors Chandwar and Chandawar. The only place bearing a similar name at this time, and in the direction indicated, is what is styled Ch,andpur and Chandanpur, in the district of Farrukhabad, on the route from Bareili to Fath-ghar, Lat. 270 27', Long. 790 42'.
2	That is, he turned his arms against Kinnauj and Banaras. The Rajah of Kinnauj and Banaras, his former ally, according to the Hindu accounts, against Rae Pithora, had assembled numerous forces, in consequence of Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak's, aggressive policy, and was about to march against him. It was to support Kutb-ud-Din that the Sultan again came into India, and an encounter [the Hindu writers say "several" encounters] took place between them on the Jun [Jamna], in which the Rajah [Jai Chandra] was slain. Some say as many as 600 and 640 elephants, one of which was a white one, were captured, besides a vast amount of other booty. The white elephant is probably the same as was presented subsequently by Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, the Sultan's nephew, to Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah. Firishtah says the white elephant, which was taken on this occasion, soon after died. Jai-Chandra was killed in this action, and his body could not be recognized. At lenglh, after much search, a body was found, but was so disfigured with wounds that it could not be distinguished for certain by his people ; but, on examining the mouth, it was found to be the body of the Rajah, from the fact of his teeth being fastened in with pegs of gold signifies a peg, pin, &c., not a plate], he being an old man. The probability" is they were false teeth, or a set not his own, fastened by gold pins or wires. His stronghold, Asm, was also taken.
3	Here our author seems confused. In his account of Kutb-ud-Din, he does not say that Kutb-ud-Din took Thankir, quite the contrary; and, in hisTHE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF QHAZNlN. 471
and Buda'un, the whole of which he took, the dates of every one of which will, please God, be subsequently-recorded in the [account of the] Kutb! victories 4.
When the august Sultan, Gliiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of [Baha-ud-Din] Sam, departed this life in the city of Hirat, the victorious Sultan, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Sam, was on the frontiers of Tus, and Sarakhs, of Khurasan6, and, with the purpose of performing the
account of Baha-ud-Din, Tughril [Section XX.], says that Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din himself took it, and afterwards made it over to Tughril, which is correct. There is great discrepancy here, too, among authors. The Taj-ul-Ma'asir, Alfi, and others, say the Sultan marched against it, and then marched on Gwaliyur, the Rajah of which agreed to pay tribute, and paid a large sum down. He was allowed to retain his territory, on these terms, for a time ; and the Sultan returned to GhaznTn. Alfi says he took Thanklr, the present Bianah, in 590 h. ; Buda'un! says 591 h. ; and Taj-ul-Ma'asir says in 592 h. See account of Kutb-ud-Din, next Section.
4	That is to say, the victories gained by Kutb-ud-DTn, I-bak.
5	We now come to "Proceedings West of the Indus" [See Elliot, India, vol. ii. page 297], and very important proceedings they are; and most of the proceedings hitherto related by our author have occurred west of the Indus. Ghaznin, as well as Ghur, is west of the Indus. Our author takes good care to trumpet the successes of the Ghurls, but conceals their reverses. He appears to have forgotten that, when Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din left Tus, and abandoned the expedition against Khurasan, on receiving intimation of the death of his elder brother at Hirat, he left, in command of a large force at Tus, and parts around, Muhammad-i-Khar-nak, the chief of the Amirs of Ghur, and of the Ghurian champions, a second Rustam in valour. He began carrying his depredations as far as Abiward, made some of the Khwarazml nobles captive, and slew a great number of men. Subsequently, he pushed on as far as Trak against Taj-ud-DTn, Khalj, a Khwarazml officer. The latter sent his son to Muhammad-i-Khar-nak as a hostage for himself; and, on the return of the latter towards Tus again, the Amir of Maraghah sent his son to him also. Muhammad-i-Khar-nak, becoming arrogant at this success, turned his face towards Marw. News now reached him that a force from Khwarazm had arrived near Marw by way of the desert. He advanced to meet it by way of Rue. When the two armies came in contact, good fortune smiled upon the Khwarazmi forces ; and, although Muhammad-i-Kh,ar-nak's troops were twice as numerous, the Khwarazmls charged them, and overthrew them. Muhammad-i-Khar-nak, by a thousand contrivances, succeeded in throwing himself into Tus. The Khwarazmi troops followed, made breaches in the walls, and took him captive; and, fearing his fury likewise, one of the Amirs—Amin Malik [styled, by our author, Malik Khan, of Hirat, the Amin-i-Hajib, at page 415, and see page 287, note 9]—struck off his head, and despatched it to JDjwarazm to the Sultan. He greatly disapproved of this act, but it filled Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din with amazement and anxiety, for Muhammad-i-Khar-nak was the most valiant of his champions, and the pillar of his army. Such was his intrepidity, and the strength of his arm, that the Sultans frequently pitted him in combat against the lion and the elephant, and he could overcome both, and could break the leg of a three-year old horse with his hands. This472
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
mourning ceremonies for his brother, he came to Badghais of Hirat. Having performed the mourning rites, he nominated different Maliks to the several fiefs of the kingdom of Ghur 6. He gave the city of Bust, and the districts of Farah and Isfizar to his late brother's son, Sultan Ghivas-ud-Dtn, Mahmud, son of Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, and to Malik Ziya-ud-Din 7, the Pearl of Ghur, who was uncle's son of both the Sultans, and the son-in-law of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, the territory of Ghur and Garmsir, namely, the throne of Firuz-koh, and the town and territory of Dawar8, and also presented him with two elephants. To Malik Na§ir-ud-Din, Alb-[Ar-salan]-i-Ghazi, son of Kazil Arsalan, Saljuki, who was the son of a sister9 of the two Sultans, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din gave the city of Hirat [and its dependencies], after which
is the person styled Mahomed Zeeruk, Prince of Murv, by Briggs ; apd Zireek, Prince of Murve, by Dow. In the revised text of Firishtah, his name is turned into bLj*4- [Khair Beg] !
It was after this defeat of Muhammad-i-Khar-nak that Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, was urged by his ministers and nobles to advance against Hirat, as the sons [son and son-in-law] of the late Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, were quarrelling about the inheritance, and their nobles were inclined to join his service. Consequently, in Jamadl-ul-Awwal, 600 H., the Sultan marched towards Hirat for the second time, and Alb-i-GhazT, the sister's son of the two Sultan brothers, surrendered that stronghold to him, as already related in note 2, page 257. Muhammad-i-Khar-nak must be the same person as is referred to at page 344, the son of Malik Saif-ud-Dtn, Siiri, son of Malik Shihab-ud-Din, Khar-nak [son of'Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain], the uncle of the Sultans Ghiyas-ud-Din and Mu'izz-ud-DIn; and the former's full name would be Shihab-ud-Din, Muhammad 'Ali-i-Khar-nak, and he was second cousin of Mu'izz-ud-Din and his brother.
My note2, page 257, will show why and with what object the Sultan was between Tus and Sarakhs, where he heard of his brother's death.
6 He divided the ancestral dominions amongst the family of Sam. His brother had died in the fifth month of 599 H., and, from this date only, authors state, "he assumed the title of Sultan;" but this must mean, that from that date lie assumed the title of Sultan-ul-A'zam—the greatest Sultan—which had been his brother and sovereign's title ; his own, previous to his brother's death, being only Sultan-ul-Mu'afzam—the gr-eat Sultan—as shown by his coins.
» This is the Malik-ul-Hajl, who, after he received the investiture of Ghur and Firuz-koh, received the title of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din. See pages 391, 397, and 417.
8	Here, too, the idiom differs in the copies of the text in the same manner as previously alluded to.
9	One sister, the elder, married Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, of Bamian ; another married Alb-Arsalan-i-Ghazi. son of Kazil Arsalan, Saljuki; and the third was the mother of Taj-ud-Din, Zangi ; but the father is not mentioned. See page 342, and note 3, page 425.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF QHAZNIN. 473
he returned again to Ghaznin, and brought along with him to that city some of the Amirs and Maliks of Ghur to serve under him, and commenced his preparations for an expedition against Khwarazm \
In the year 601 H., he marched his forces into the Khwarazm territory ; and Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, fell back discomfited2 before the Ghaznin forces and
1 This expedition was undertaken to recover what had been lost, and avenge the defeat and death of Muhammad-i-Khar-nak. See note2, page 257.
3 Sultan Muhammad's "falling backdiscomfitted " appears from the sequel. The Sultan's object was to defend his capital. No action whatever took place between them until the Gljurls appeared in the neighbourhood of the city, and took up a position east of the Shatt mentioned under.
Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, having become aware of Mu'izz-ud-Din's designs of carrying war into his enemy's country, and hi» vast preparations, hastened back from Khurasan, by way of the desert, to Khwarazm; and his people prepared to give the Ghuris a warm reception. The Sultan asked for aid from Kh,urasan, both in shape of horse and foot, and Gur Khan of Kara-Kh.ita was also asked for assistance. Sultan Muhammad's camp was fixed on the western bank of the Shatt-i-Nudwar or Nudawar [ jVy] —our author's Kara-Su, no doubt, but another work says the bank of the Nur—and, in a short space of time, 70,000 men assembled. "The Ghurian forces were vast in numbers, and contained so many elephants," says Yafa-I, "that, had they desired, they might have drained the Jihun." But, setting aside all exaggeration, the number is said to have been 140,000 men, and about 300 or 400 great elephants. The Jami'-ut-Tawarikh, which constantly copies Yafa-i, says 70,000 warriors, and elephants [besides followers ?]. Arrived on the banks of the Jihun, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Ghuri, took up a position on the east side of the Shatt, and pitched his camp, and gave orders to search for a ferry in order to cross over next day, and attack the Khwarazm! forces.
Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din was engaged in arranging his elephants, and making his preparations for crossing next morning at dawn, when news, suddenly and unexpectedly, reached him that Sultan Muhammad had arrived, and along with him Sultan 'Usman of Samrkand [his son-in-law subsequently] and that the Khita-i forces were pushing on. Mu'izz-ud-Din, finding that he was much in the same position as the " Lords of the Elephant"—" Hast thou not beheld how the Lord of Lords dealt with the Lords of the Elephant ? Did He not make their evil design the means of drawing them into error, and sent against them flocks of birds, which cast upon them lumps of burnt clay which rendered the perfidious like unto the corn that has been reaped ?" [Kur'an : Chap. c. 5]—and that destruction awaited him if he remained, resolved to retire. He directed that the whole of the heavy material should be burnt during the night, and his army began to retire along the banks of the Jihun, but they were pursued by the Khwarazmis next day at dawn, and, at Hazar-Asp [afterwards destroyed by the Mughals. Guzldah and Jami'-ut-Tawankh call it Hazar-§af], the Ghuris faced about and came to a stand, and drew up to fight. Sultan Muhammad, with his forces, fell upon the right wing of the Ghuris, and overthrew it, and the rest gave way, pursued by the Khwarazmis. In this affair several of the Amirs of Ghur, and a great number of men were
H h474
THE TABA^AT-I-NASIRI.
retired to Khwarazm. When the Sultan-i-Ghazi appeared before the gates of Khwarazm, and carried on hostilities for some days, the people of Khwarazm commenced engaging the Ghuris on the bank 3 of the aqueduct which had been drawn from the river Jihun towards the east of the city, and the name of which place and water is Kara-Su 4 [the Black Water], and of the Amirs of Ghur several persons were slain and taken prisoners in that engagement
As the capture of [the city of] Khwarazm was not accomplished on account of the scarcity of the appliances of the Ghazntn forces, the length of the campaign, and the lack of forage, the Sultan withdrew his troops from the gates of Khwarazm 5 and retired along the banks of the Jihun, and towards Balkh. The forces of Khita, and the Maliks and Amirs of Turkistan had arrived on the banks of the Jihun, and had possessed themselves of the route of the army of Islam. When the Sultan-i-Ghazi reached Andkhud G, on a Tuesday, at the time of evening prayer 7, the van of the infidels of Turkistan reached the Sultan's position, and set to to fight. The commander of the van of the army of Islam was the Salar [chief, leader, &c.], Husain-i-Khar-mil, and he put the infidels to the rout. He was one of the Maliks of
taken prisoners. After a time the Kh,warazm!s gave up the pursuit, and Sultan Muhammad returned to Kh,warazm, where he gave a great banquet, and made great rejoicing. -
In this action the Ghuris lost still more of their war material and elephants, and they continued their retreat towards Andkhud [Guzidah says, within the limits of Tal-kan] and, on reaching it, found that the troops of Gur Khan of Kara-ELhita. under Baniko of Taraz, were there posted to bar their retreat, and appeared on all sides of them. The Ghuris fought with great bravery from dawn to the setting of the sun, and darkness put an end to the fray, in which, according to Yafa-T, the GJiuris lost 50,000 men. Jami'-ut-Tawarikh says the Ghuris were broken on the first charge of the Khita-Is. See following page for a specimen of our author's exaggeration.
' Some copies have "on the hither side or bank of the aqueduct " !
4	The Kara-Su is some eight or nine miles from the city—or rather the city here referred to.
5	Almost as absurd a reason as our Central Asian oracles pronounced would render the success of the Russians against the same territory " utterly impossible," a few months ago. Mu'izz-ud-DTn was only five days before the place. The preceding note 2 shows why the GhiirTs had to retire.
• Not Andkhod. See note on this in the account of Kaba-jah farther on.
7 He is particular about the day of the week and time of day, but not the day of the month.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF QHAZNIN. 475
Juzarwan8. He at once represented to the Sultan-i-Ghazi the fact of the success of the Islam! forces and the repulse [!] of the infidel troops. "It is advisable," he said, "that the sovereign of Islam should command that the army of Islam should mount at once and pursue the routed infidels, and fall upon them unexpectedly, whereby a great victory may be achieved9."
The Sultan-i-Ghazi replied: " For years past I have been seeking such an encounter as this. I shall not be found to hold back : to-morrow, at dawn, by the guidance of the Most High, we will do battle face to face, and see unto whom Almighty God will bestow the victory. I shall at least have acquired the merit of having fought for the faith as by creed enjoined." Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-milperceiving that the mind of the Sultan-i-Ghazi was imbued with this intention, was convinced that the Sultan gave vent to these words by virtue of unbounded reliance in the true faith, and the ardour of piety; [for regard had to be given to the fact] on the other hand, that the host of the infidels which had come upon them was countless, and all fresh and calm, while the Musalman army was wearied by the march from Khwarazm, and the horses were emaciated, and would not be strong enough to withstand the enemy ; and he withdrew from the service of the Sultan, and, with the whole of his retinue and followers, to the number of five thousand horse, set out, at night, towards Juzarwan8, and almost all the troops [also] whose horses were weak and emaciated departed.
8	This place has been often mentioned as Guzarwan and as above : g and j are interchangeable.
9	In the next paragraph our author contradicts this absurd statement.
1 The same who after this was Wall of Hirat. His conduct here was in keeping with his doings there. See note 2, page 257.
3 One copy only has "the town of Juzarwan," but it is a comparatively modern copy. There was a town, probably, as well as a district so called.
This desertion of the Sultan by 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil, appears to have given rise to the improbable story related by Firishtah and some others, and repeated by Briggs in his translation of Firishtah, but Dow does not give the whole. This story is repeated and re-echoed by Briggs' copyists, and people are led to imagine that Sultan Mu'izz-ud-DIn's most trusted, most devoted, and loyal slave, whom he delighted to honour, and whom he intended as his successor, had refused to admit his master and sovereign into Ghaznln. of which he is styled governor, after the Sultan's defeat and accommodation with the allied forces of Khita and Sultan 'Usmao. We know that Taj-ud-DTn,
H h 2476
THE TABAKAT-1-NA§IRI.
In the morning, notwithstanding that only a few horsemen of the centre division and his own slaves remained
I-yal-duz, held the government of Karman, but where is it stated that he held Ghaznin at all at that time ? It appears that he had not been removed from Karman up to the period of the Sultan's death, and the honour shown to him by Mu'izz-ud-Dln, only a few months after his return from Khwarazm. when marching against the Khokhars, precludes the possibility of I-yal-duz's having acted in the way asserted by Firishtah ; and it was only when Ghivas-ud-Din, Mahmud, conferred on him the investiture of Ghaznin, with a deed of manumission, and the title of Sultan, that he proceeded thither from his government of Karman. See page 500, note 3. It is also stated that another of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din's chiefs " went straight" from the field of battle at Andkhud to " Mooltan," and seized it. Where Andkhiid ? Where Multan ? This story, absurd though it seems, appears to have emanated from the Taj-ul-Ma'asir, and something similar is related in Guzidah, the Jami'-ut-Tawarlkh, and in Alfi, noticed farther on ; but no mention ivhatever is made in these works about closing the gates of Ghaznin by I-yal-duz [Iladd-giz, in Guzidah] or any other person ; and it appears to have received great amplification from Firishtah himself, for the Tabakat-i-Akbarl, a work of authority, written a few years before, says not one word about anything of the kind. See also note page 481. The Taj-ul-Ma'asir has the name of this rebel written in four different ways, in as many copies of the text, namely, I-bak-i-Bak [«sll» el-j1], I-bak-i-Na-pak [ tslbls eL>'], and the unintelligible names of Jl> aCu! or iC', but in a fourth Jl» tAJ without points. [It is evidently the same name as occurs in Jami'-ut-Tawarikh.—Lik-Tal [Jli' clJ. Guzidah styles him I-bak, Badshah of Multan ! !] "a Turk! slave—one of the most trusted servants of the kingdom fled from the field of battle with the Khwarazmis, thinking that the Sultan had been killed, and some calamity had befallen the state, and made for Multan with all possible despatch. Arrived there, he stated to the Amir-i-Dad [chief justice], Hasan, that he had important matters to communicate to him in private within the Kasr, by the royal command, and which it was by no means advisable should become known to others." Having succeeded in getting a private audience, he gave a sign "to a mean Turk " who assassinated the Amir-i-Dad, who appears to have held the chief authority there under the governor of the province of Lahor and Multan, Amir Muhammad, son of Abi 'All. For some time this affair remained secret, and it was thought that Hasan had been imprisoned by the Sultan's commands; but, at length, it became noised abroad, far and near, through Hind and Sind. See note page 481. The Taj-ul-Ma'asir then passes, at once, to the outbreak of the Kokars [Khokhars—natives of Khurasan and Europeans generally leave out the h in pronunciation of the Hindi while Firishtah gives a long account of the slave's reduction and punishment. He says, "the Sultan, unable to enter Ghaznin, proceeded towards Multan, encountered I-bak-i-Na-pak [otherwise Yal-bur, &c.], took him captive, and marched towards Ghaznin with the frontier troops of Hind." At Ghaznin, the Sultan, through the intercession of the great men of that city, overlooked the conduct of Iladd-giz [this is the name Guzidah and Firishtah use for this personage, and Yal-duz, for Taj-ud-Dln, I-yal-duz], and, having disposed of that matter, entered into a treaty of peace with Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, and, after that, made preparations for his expedition against the Khokhars. Firishtah, like some other more modern writers.THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 477
with him, the Sultan drew out his ranks and commenced the engagement. The army of the unbelievers, having formed a circle round about the troops of Islam, came on, and, in despite of the remonstrance his slaves were using that of the army of Islam only a small number of men remained, and that it was advisable to retreat, the Sultan-i-Ghazi still continued to maintain his position, until, of cavalry and his own personal slaves3, only about one hundred horsemen remained, who, with a few elephants, the Turkish slaves, and the Ghurian leaders, who were the Sultan's grandees, in front of his charger's head, were hurling back the infidels, devoting their lives, and obtaining martyrdom.
Trustworthy persons have related on this wise, that the Sultan-i-Ghazi stood his ground so persistently that his august state canopy, from the wounds of the arrows of the infidel Mughals4 [and the arrows remaining sticking fast], became like unto a porcupine, and he would not turn his head round in any direction, until one of his Turkish slaves, whose name was Ayyah 6, Juki, came up, seized the Sultan's bridle, and dragged him away towards the fortress of And-
styles them Ghakars—J^S—hut he could scarcely have been expected to know the difference, and even Elliot, in his Index [page 160, note*], after writing the word properly, supposes Gakhar	and Khokhar
one and the same race, but there is as much difference between them as between an Afghan, and a Khar'l Jat, as those who have served in the Panjab well know. The Tabakat-i-Akbari, a work of greater authority than Firishtah [whom I do not consider an authority in these matters any more than respecting the presence of cannoniers [^Jjy] at the battle of Tara'Tn], says nothing of the kind; and, had I-yal-duz, I-bak-i-Na-pak, Lik-Tal, or any other person, been guilty of the acts mentioned, there is no doubt our author would, at least, have referred to them. He might smooth or slur over a defeat, but not circumstances of this kind. See Alfi's account of the expedition against the Khokhars in note page 481, which I think tends to disprove much of the improbable story under discussion, more particularly when the Taj-ul-Ma'asir says not one word about either Iladd-giz or Yal-duz, nor about the Sultan's coming to Multan against I-bak-i-Na-pak, whose name is not again mentioned in the entire volume. The account given by our author farther on in his account of 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, at page 492, and of Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, page 496, also tends to disprove this story.
3 This description of troops has already been mentioned in note 2, page 168.
* The KJjita-is he means.
8 In two of the best copies, I-bah or Ai-bah, and in one good old copy Abfah or Abiyah, but in the oldest the name is plainly written as above. Juki in all probability is the name of his tribe. Some other authors style him a Khalj. but it is one and the same thing—Turk and Khalj.478
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
khud, and conducted him thither, and brought him within the walls of that fortress6.
6 Sultan Mu'izz-ud-DTn, with the few men remaining of the centre division of his army, as soon as the sun rose, succeeded, by stratagem, in throwing himself within the walls of the Hisar of And khud [Guzidah says, Taiwan] ; but the Khita-i troops invested it, perforated the walls, and Mu'izz-ud-DTn would have been captured, when Sultan 'Usman of Samrkand, who was now with the Khita-i forces, sent him a message saying: "For the honour of the true faith I do not desire that a Sultan of Islam should fall into the hands of those of another belief, and be put to death by them : therefore it is advisable that you should agree to sacrifice for your own safety what remains of your elephants and other animals, your valuables, treasures, arms and armour, and other war material, that I may make these things the means, with these people, of obtaining your escape in safety." This he agreed to do, and Sultan 'Usman, by a thousand efforts and contrivances, succeeded in securing the Sultan's escape, and he reached his own territory in safety. There can be no doubt whatever as to the Sultan's gallantry, but our author's statements are rather highly coloured. The Tabakat -i-Akbarl, contrary to others, states that the Sultan defended Andkhud for some time, and then surrendered on terms, but it is not correct.
The following is another specimen of the translations from which Indian history is written, referring to this campaign :—
Dow, vol. i. page 145.
"News was then brought to him \Mahommed\ of the death of his brother Yeas ul dien, ,who retained nothing of the empire but the name [this is totally incorrect, and is the translator's own]. Mahommed, upon this, succeeded to the empire. He turned by the way of Budyeish, and subdued the country of Chorassan, recovering it out of the hand of the Siljoki, and he divided it among the family of Sam, giving the government of Ferose Ko and Ghor to Malleck Zea, who was son-in-law to his brother, Yeas ul dien, the deceased Emperor, Bust, Ferra, and Isphorar he gave to Mamood, his brother's son; and the government of Herat and its districts to Nasir, his nephew by a sister.
" Mahommed, after these transactions, returned to Ghizni, where, according to the will of the deceased Emperor, he was crowned in form ; and mounted the imperial throne. In the same year, he heard of the death of Zireek, prince of Murve, and, in the beginning of the next, marched to the conquest of that country, ad-
Briggs, vol. i. page 180-181.
'' On hearing of the death of his brother, he \_Mahomed Ghoory] now returned towards Ghizny, by the route of Budghees, and, subduing part of the country of Khwaruzm, recovered it out of the hands of the Suljooks. He divided this new conquest [! ! !] among several members of his own family [see our author, page 472], giving the government of Feroozkooh and Ghoor [Are these in Khwaruzm recovered from the Suljooks ?] to his nephew Zeea-ood-Deen, son-in-law of his late brother, Gheias-ood-Deen. He also gave Boost, Furrih, and Isfurar [All in Khwaruzm perhaps ?] to the Prince Mahomed, his brother's son, and the government of Hirat and its dependencies to Nasir-ood-Deen, his nephew by a sister.
" On his arrival at Ghizny, according to the will of his deceased brother, he was crowned in form [Student's Manual of Indian History—"he was crowned Sultan without opposition "] ; and ascended the throne. In the same year he heard of the death of Mahomed Zee>'uk, Prince ofTHE SgANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF QHAZNIN. 479
The following day, Sultan 'Usman of Samrkand, who
vancing by way of Charizm [! ! !], and Tacash, the King of that country, not able to oppose him in the field, shut himself up in the city. The King pitched his camp on the banks of the great canal, which the Chilligies had formerly dug to the westioard of that city. He forthwith attacked the place, and in a few days lost many brave nobles in the pursuit of glory. In the mean-time, news arrived, that Aibeck, the general of the King of Chitta, in Tartary, and Osman, King of Saviarcand, were advancing with great armies, to the relief of Charizm. Mahommed was so unwilling to abandon his hopes of taking the city, that he delayed till the allied armies advanced so near, that he was under the necessity of burning all his baggage, and to retreat with the utmost expedition to Ckorassan [! !]. But an army from the city pressed so close upon his heels, that he was obliged to give them battle. He was totally defeated, losing all his elephants and treasure.
" In the meantime the confederate Kings, who had taken a circuit, to cut off" Mahommed's retreat, met him full in the face, as he was flying from the King of Charizm."
Murv, and in the beginning of the next year marched to complete the conquest of Khwaruzm [! ! !] [This is what is styled '' his western campaign against the King of Kharlzm" in the Student's Manual, but I think Khwarazm lies north of Ghaz-nin]. Mahomed Ghoory, having encamped on the banks of the great canal, which had formerly been dug to the westward of the city, forthwith attacked the place, but lost many brave officers and men in an attempt to escalade it [! ! !]. Meanwhile news arrived that Kurra Beg, the general of Ghoorkhan, King of Khutta, and Othman Khan Samar-kandy, were advancing with armies to the relief of Khwaruzm Shah. Mahomed Ghoory, unwilling to abandon his hopes of taking the city, delayed his retreat till the allied armies advanced so near, that he was compelled to burn his baggage, and to retire with the utmost precipitation towards Khorassan. His army was pressed so closely by troops from that province, that he was compelled to give battle, and was wholly defeated, losing all his elephants and treasure, while the confederate Kings [see page 473, and note 2] who had taken a circuit to cut off his retreat towards Ghuzny, intercepted him."
This may truly be called the Romance of History. Deceived, apparently, by this translation, Elphinstone [page 316] has fallen into great error. He says : " He [Shdhab u din] gained a great victory over the king of that country [Kharizm], besieged him in his capital, and soon reduced him to such straits as to constrain him to sue \f\for aid to the Khitan Tartars&c. Never was a statement more erroneous. Marshman too, possibly quoting from the same, says "Mahomed led his troops against Takash," as he styles Sultan 'Ala-ud-Dtn, Muhammad, the son of Sultan Takigh.
The following is Firishtah's account:—"Sultan Shihab-ud-Din was between Tus and Sarahs when the account of the decease of his brother, Ghiyas-ud-Din, reached him, and in whose name the kingdom was [i. e. in whom the sovereignty rested. This is the passage misinterpreted by Dow— "who retained nothing of the empire but the name.'" The original is jl j ^li-it *J]. From thence he set out for Badghais, performed the mourning ceremonies there, and, in this year, he divided the whole of the states of Khurasan [Firigitah here shows that he is himself no authority as to the geography of480
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRL
was a second Yusuf [in beauty], and the Afrasiyabi Maliks of Turkistan, who were Musalmans7, interposed and
these parts, any more than he is an authority as to the history] among the family of Sam [i. e. the descendants of Sam, his father, only Ziya-ud-Dtn now to be mentioned was not of the family of Sam except as a son-in-law—■ the revised text of Briggs has—Al-i-Saman—^UL. Ji] in this manner. He gave the throne of Firuz-koh and Ghur to his uncle's son, Malik Ziya-ud-Din, who was Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din's son-in-law; Bust, Farah, and Isfara'in [Isfizar?] to Sultan Mahmud, son of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din; and Hirat and its dependencies to his sister's son, Nasir-ud-Din. He himself returned from Badghais to Ghaznin, and, in accordance with the will of his brother, having placed the crown of empire upon his head, he became established on the exalted throne of sovereignty. [This is the literal translation of the sentence which has been twisted into crowned in form, &c.] At this time intimation reached him of the slaying of Muhammad-i-Khar-nak [in the revised text Kh.air Beg—12L-) governor of Marw ; and, in the year 600 h., he set out, with numerous forces to subdue Khwarazm. Khwarazm Shah, unable to oppose him [in the field], entered the fortress of Khwarazm.
" When the Sultan reached Khwarazm, he took up a position on the water [canal, river, and the like] which they have (sic) dug and set flowing from the Jihun to the east of the city [the word .JU. here used with reference to this water-cut has been mistaken by Dow for~ the Turkish tribe, Khalj, which he styles Chilligies\ For some days fighting went on, and several of the Ghurian Amirs were killed. At this juncture news arrived that Kara Beg, the general of Gur Khan. Bad shah of Khita [this is enough to show of what value Firishtah's authority is for these matters. See page 261, for the name of the general of the Khita-1 forces on this occasion. Hitherto, Firishtah has copied our author, whom he quotes as one of his authorities, tolerably correct], and Sultan 'Usman, sovereign of Samrkand, were marching to the aid of Khwarazm Shah. On receiving this information, such alarm was felt by the Sultan that he set fire to the surplus baggage and equipage, and set out towards Khurasan [he means Ghaznin], Khwarazm Shah followed in pursuit, and Sultan Shihab-ud-Din faced about and gave battle, and was defeated, and lost his treasure, his horses, and elephants. Having proceeded on his way, unexpectedly, the army of Kara Beg, Kh,ita-T, and Sultan 'Usman seized the route in advance," &c. The rest agrees with our author ; and there is not a -word, in the whole account, about escalade or anything approaching it, and, moreover, the canal, which he had not crossed, was some miles from the city. Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, in order tof celebrate the flight of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, bestowed the nick-name "Ghuri Breaker" upon a son born to him the night before the enemy retired. See page 281.
The Taj-ul-Ma'asir, which pours out page after page of rhapsodical nonsense upon the most trivial matters, merely mentions, with respect to this disaster, that the Sultan sustained "a slight misfortune and reverse	j (jr»ij e) j.;'],"
gives the year 600 h. as the date, and does not mention [in the three MSS. I have read] anything whatever about the Sultan having been wounded. The word mentioned above may have been mistaken for such meaning. I should be sorry to place implicit faith on any statements in the above work, unless corroborated by some other work by a contemporary writer.
7 Our author calls the whole of those opposed to Mu'izz-ud-Din, "infidels "THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF QHAZNIN. 481
brought about an accommodation, and the infidel forces drew back again, and the Sultan returned to Ghazntn. and commanded that forces should be organized for a three years' campaign in Turkistan, and determined to march into Khita8.
At that period, an assemblage of contumacious persons, [consisting] of Khokhars, and other rebels of the tribes of the hills of Lohor9 and Jud hills had broken out into revolt1,
several times before this ; but the fact is all are infidels who are opposed to Ghuris. Mu'izz-ud-Din was saved from captivity or death through the good offices of Sultan 'Usman, a Musalman like himself.
8 When Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, overcome with grief and chagrin, reached his own territory in safety, Sultan Muhammad despatched one of his Chamberlains to him, saying : '' You are aware that you yourself are the cause of this hostility and distrust. Perhaps you may now be inclined to give up your hostile intentions against my dominions and be desirous of peace." Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din was agreeable, and he bound himself by the most solemn promises to abide by the terms, and, further, to aid and assist Sultan Muhammad whenever requested. Perhaps the latter may, in doing this, have had a foreboding, that he might want support against Chingiz Khan, who had acquired vast power at that time, and whose doings caused anxiety to the Khwarazm! Sultan.
After this accommodation had been concluded, a body of insurgents assembled together at Tal-kan, and Taj-ud-Din, Zangi [brother of Shams-ud-Dln, Muhammad, of Tukharistan], who was Wall of Balkh at that time, was the chief mover in this outbreak. He made a raid upon Marw-ar-Rud, and slew the intendant stationed there, and sought to plunder the place. Sultan Muhammad, on becoming aware of this raid, nominated Badr-ud-Din-i-Khizr [^ii.—probably Khazr—from Marw, and Taj-ud-Din, 'All, from Abi-ward, with their troops, to march against him. After coming up with them, Zangi, together with ten Amirs, were taken in the encounter which ensued, and were sent off prisoners to Khwarazm, where they met with their deserts, and their heads were struck off. Notwithstanding this affair, the peace was faithfully observed between the two Sultans and their Amirs. Still, the remembrance of past events rankled in the heart of Mu'izz-ud-Din; and, in order to prepare for any eventuality that might offer to enable him to avenge his defeat, "under pretence of holy war, he was in the habit of organizing his troops, and manufactured arms in great quantities, until, in 602 h., he became bent on undertaking an expedition into Hindustan against the infidels, in order to improve the finances of himself and officers, and also of his men, all of whom, during the last few years, and, in the Khwarazm expedition, had sustained great losses."
9 "Of the hills of Lohor" is contained in two copies only. The hills to the north of Lahor, of course, are meant.
1 The following is the description of this affair contained in the Tankh-i-Alft, which compare with Elliot's extract from the original in his Index, page n, and his translation, pages 158—160:—
Transactions of the year 592 of the Rihlat.
"In trustworthy histories it is stated, that, at the time that Shihab-ud-Dln482
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
and, in the cold season of that year, the Sultan came into Hindustan, and sent that refractory race to hell, and
[see remarks as to his correct title and name, as shown by his coins, note5, page 446] was defeated by the Turks and Khita-Is. as already noticed, it became noised abroad throughout his territories that the Sultan, Shihab-ud-Dln, had disappeared in that battle, and it was unknown what had happened to him—whether he had been killed, or whether he was still living, and had gone into any foreign part. Consequently, the seditious in his territory—in all parts—raised their heads, and each stretched forth his hand towards some tract of the territory. Among the seditious was one, Rae Sal by name, who was [dwelling] in the hilly country, between the city of Luhawar [ jjW] and Ghaznah ; and, in concert with a body of Kokars, in the [same] tract [of country], and who always used to pay revenue to the treasury of Shihab-ud-Dln, having revolted from authority and obedience, he commenced plundering and harrying that district, and completely closed the route between Luhawar and Ghaznah [Ghaznin]. and in such wise that not a soul could pass along it." [ He is called " Re-bal" [JL;>1] and "Ran-bal" [JLiJ in Jami'-ut-Tawarikh,; but both names are doubtful, and are, probably, meant for Rae-Sal, "the ruler of the Koh-i-Jiid [the Salt Range], at which the frontier of Hind commences, who had turned Musalman, and subsequently relapsed ; and the Khokhars, who also used to pay tribute to the Sultan, in consequence of these reports, also rose." Taj-ul-Ma'asir, after stating that the proceedings of Lik-Tal [Jo aU], and the rumoured death of the Sultan, was the cause of great confusion and disturbance, says, "the Kokar tribe, rising in rebellion, entertained the idea of becoming independent, and obtaining dominion. The sons of Kokar, Bakait and Sarkah [Firishtah has but one, whom he calls ' the chief of the Khokhars, who bore the name of Sarkah'], also entertained the desire of acquiring sovereign power." Then there is an account of their taking Lohor, and of their defeating the feudatories of the Multan province, Baha-ud-DTn and his brother, and others, and that the Sipah-Salar, Suliman, had to fly before them.] Alfi continues:—"When Shihab-ud-DTn reached Ghaznah in safety, in the manner previously described, and this matter came to his knowledge, he determined to proceed into Hindustan, and thoroughly chastise the rebels of that part. Therefore he first directed Amir Muhammad, son of Abi 'All [this must be his kinsman, the son-in-law of Ghivas-ud-Din, the late Sultan], who was his lieutenant over Luhawar and Multan [the Amir-i-Dad, Hasan, was probably subordinate to him], to remit with all possible celerity the revenue of the year 601 H. [and yet the Taj-ul-Ma'asir gives the year 600 H. as that of his return from Khwarazm. and his expedition against the Khokhars], as it was required in the preparations making for the invasion of Khita. [Jami'-ut-Tawarikh says, 11 after the Sultan had taken his slave Lek-Tal [or Lik-Tal], who had taken possession of Multan, and had put him to death, and disposed of that affair, he despatched Muhammad, son of Abi 'All, to Lahor and Multan as governor, in order that he should send the tribute of those territories, which for the last two years were in arrears, to provide him with funds for his campaign against Khita. ] Amir Muhammad wrote, in reply, that the revenue of the years (sic) mentioned was ready, but that the Kokars [Khokhars], and Rae Sal, the chief of the Jibal-i-JudI [the Jud Hills] [Taj-ul-Ma'asir does not make the distinction between two different tribes, but says the sons of Kokar, Bakan and Sarkah— in another MS. Jj-j had so closed the lower route to Gljaznah [neither theTHE SHANSABANlAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 483
carried on holy war as prescribed by the canons of Islam, and set a river of the blood of those people flowing. When
Bolan nor the Khaibar, the two by some supposed sole routes into Afghanistan, are referred to], that not a person could proceed by it.
" On hearing this, Shihab-ud-DIn wrote [he sent the Amlr-i-Hajib, Saraj-ud-Din-i-Abi Bikr] to his slave, Kutb-ud-Din, who was the commander of the forces of Hind, [to the effect] that ' having despatched a person to the Kokars to forbid them against committing these odious acts, he should call upon them to repent of their doings and return to obedience, on which he would pass over their misconduct.' Kutb-ud-Din despatched a person to them, in conformity with this command, and urged them to submit. The son of Kokar [not mentioned before] replied : ' This is not your affair : it was necessary for Sultan Shihab-ud-DIn to send a person of his own, if he were alive ; wherefore, then, did he not send to us, that we also might have sent the taxes for him ?' That emissary, in reply, said : ' Consider this great regard towards you, that he hath sent me, who am his slave, to you.' Again, the son of Kokar said, in answer : ' All this is mere talk : Shihab-ud-DIn is not forthcoming.' The emissary replied: 'The verification of this matter is easy: send one of your own confidential people to Ghaznah, that he may, with his own eyes, see, and come and say whether Shihab-ud-DIn is living or net.' In short, the son of Kokar did not give ear to the emissary's words, and still continued firm, as before, in his sedition and rebellion ; and, when the person sent by Kutb-ud-Din related to him the state of affairs, he represented it to the Court of Shihab-ud-DIn. The Sultan directed Kutb-ud-Din to assemble the [available] troops of Hindustan and march against the Kokars, and to annihilate and eradicate, beyond ought that could be conceived, that seditious and contumacious race.
"When the command reached Kutb-ud-Din, he assembled and made ready his forces, and was about to move against that tribe, when Sultan Shihab-ud-Din himself was on the point of marching his troops towards Khita. but, successive complaints of the violence and outrages committed by the Kokars reached him, and his people represented to that Sultan such numbers of things [respecting them], that it became incumbent on him to quell them and restrain their sedition first, and then to proceed in the other direction. Consequent upon this he gave up his determination of invading Khita, and pitched his [advanced] tent in the direction of Luhawar, and, on the 5th of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, of this same year [602 H.], he set out from Ghaznah towards Hindustan. When Shihab-ud-Dm reached Purghawar, he found that the Kokars, in large numbers, had taken up a position between the Jilam [Jhilam] and the Sudarah [Sudhara]. On hearing- this news, Shihab-ud-Din made a forced march from Purshawar on Thursday, the 25th of the same month, and fell upon them unawares [Jami'-ut-Tawarlkh says he attacked them on the 25 th]; and from break of day till the time of afternoon prayers he kept up the flame of battle and conflict; and the Kokars fought in such wise that, with all that grandeur and power, the Sultan had nearly been forced back from his position, when, unexpectedly, at that juncture, Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, with the forces of Hindustan, arrived [upon the scene], and commenced slaughtering the Kokars. As Kutb-ud-DIn's troops were fresh and vigorous, the Kokars were unable to resist them, and they took to flight. The soldiers of Islam, pursuing them, inflicted such havoc upon them as cannot be conceived. Those that escaped the sword fled to the dense depths of the jangal and the Musalmans set fire to484
THE TABAKAT-I.NASIRL
he set out on his return towards Ghaznin, in the year 602 H., at the halting-place of Dam-yak, he attained mar-
it on all sides. Qami'-ut-Tawarikh. states that the Hindus [the Khokhars] fled to the highest ranges of the Koh-i-Jud, and, on being pursued, lighted a great fire, and threw themselves into it, and perished. Great plunder was taken and many captives, so that five Hindu [Khokhar] captives could be bought for a dinar. The son of Re-bal, chief of the Koh-i-Jud, sought the protection of Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and made great supplication to him. Kutb-ud-DTn made intercession for him with the Sultan, who pardoned him, while the Taj-ul-Ma'asir says one of Kokar's sons was among the slain [Sar-kah], and the other, Bakan, made for a fortress in the Jud Hills, in which he was invested; and, after holding out some time, being hard pressed, made intercession through Kutb-ud-Din, and surrendered the place, and was forgiven.] At that time those infidels agreed together not to surrender to the Musalmans, and they threw themselves into the jangal, and were consumed.
"The Sultan, having disposed of that affair to his satisfaction, advanced to Luhawar Qami'-ut-Tawarikh, says he arrived there on the 15th of Rajab], and gave his troops permission to return to their own homes [quarters ?], where, having rested some days [some time], they might set out on their invasion of Khita."
The authors of the Tarikh-i-Alfi availed themselves of the best authorities in the compilation of their great work, and there is scarcely any celebrated work, whether Arabic or Persian, that they did not use and quote from. They also appear to have often used such Hindu historical works as were available ; and yet there is no mention of the story of the Yal-duz or Iladd-giz rebellion, nor of Lek-Tal, nor of I-bak-i-Na-pak, nor I-bak-i-Bak. It seems rather significant that the author or authors of this story should have selected names similar to those of the two most trusted, loyal, and favourite slaves of the Sultan, and who succeeded him in the sovereignty of Ghaznin and Hindustan respectively— I-yal-duz and I-bak—for their story; but it is certain that the Taj-ul-Ma'asir is accountable for the latter part of it, in which I-balt-i-Na-pak is mentioned.
The Khokhars were not annihilated in this affair by any means, and gave great trouble in after years, and gained posaession of Lahor.
Briggs says, page 201, vol. i. : " In the latter end of the King's reign [Mu'izz-ud-Dln's], their chieftain [of the Gnkkurs] was converted to the true faith -when a captive. After becoming a proselyte he procured his release from the King, who endeavoured to persuade him to convert his followers," &c. This is totally contrary to the original. A Musalman became captive to the Khokhars, and whilst among them he explained to them the tenets and usages of the Muhammadan faith. The chieftain asked the Musalman how the Sultan would treat him if he should embrace the Muhammadan faith, to which the Musalman replied that he would undertake to say that the Sultan would treat him with royal favour, and would confer on him the authority over those mountain tracts. This circumstance was duly represented to the Sultan in writing by the captive Musalman, and the Sultan at once despatched a rich dress of honour for the chief of the Khokhars; and he came and presented himself before the Sultan, was treated with great honour, was made a Musalman, returned home with a farman investing him with the government of those parts, and he made most of the Khokhars converts. Dow, in this instance, has translated the passage correctly; but, unfortunately for Firishtah's authority, this tale does not tally with the last events in the Sultan's life, and it, in a measure, contradicts his own statements respecting them.THE SHANSABANlAH DYNASTY OF QHAZNlN. 485
tyrdom2 at the hand of a disciple of the Mtilahidah, and died3. One of the learned men of that period has com-
2	The idiom differs here in one of the oldest copies, which has, "he was killed," &c.
3	Yafa-I says that one successful expedition gained in Hindustan at this time was sufficient to repair the Sultan's finances, and to set right the affairs of his troops ; and, on his return to his capital, after having crossed the Jill [JL*.] ferry—the ferry over the Jhilam probably—Jami'-ut-Tawarikh has Hanli—
—[Ben. As. Soc. MS. ^J^- and Jahan-Kusha-T J-=»] ford, and says he crossed over on the 1st of Sha'ban—his royal tent was pitched on the banks of the Jihun [of Hind?], i. e. the Sind or Indus, so that one-half of it reached near to the water, and hence it was not deemed necessary to guard that side ; and that, at the time of taking his noon-day nap, two or three Fida-Ts [disciples] suddenly issued from the water and assassinated him, and in this most authors agree. Guzidah, however, says he was then on his way to Turkistan to wreak vengeance on Sultan 'Usman of Samrkand ! The term Fida-I is particularly applied to the disciples of the chief of the Mulahidah heretics, and our author plainly states that it was from the daggers of the disciples of this sect that Mu'izz-ud-Din met his death, and not from the Khokhar tribe ; and, when we consider that he had undertaken an expedition against them only two or three years before [see note 5, page 381], it is by no means improbable that they caused him to be assassinated. The Jami'-ut-Tawarlldx says the assassins were Khokhars, but almost immediately contradicts the statement, and says that Imam Fakhr-ud-Din was suspected of having brought it about. " Some malignant Muhammadan 'Ulama, on account of the great friendship that existed between the Sultan of Khwarazm and the eminent Imam Fakh,r-ud-Din, RazI [see page 429, and page 492], accused hiin of having conspired against the life of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, and asserted that Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, had sent some person, who, after consultation with the Imam, had assassinated the Sultan; but it is considered by some writers that these very people who had accused the Imam had themselves caused the deed to be done. The Imam, as the late Sultan's slaves were bent upon avenging him, threw himself on the protection of the Wazir, Mu-ayyid-ul-Mulk, until such time as the Wazir contrived to secure him from their vengeance, and sent him to a place of safety. Imam Fakh,r-ud-Din used to accompany Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din in his expeditions, and he states that Sultan Mu'izz-ud-DTn invaded India nine times : twice he was defeated, and seven times victorious." The statement above mentioned is confirmed, with but slight variation, by the author of the Taj-ul-Ma'asir, a contemporary writer, and corroborated by our author's very meagre account. Taj-ul-Ma'afir says, that the Sultan's tents were pitched in a delightfully verdant mead on the bank of a clear stream [water]. At this time some heretics [Mulahidahs—>a>-!lL], who had been following him for soma time, awaiting an opportunity to assassinate him, at the time of evening prayer, and whilst the Sultan was in the act of bowing his head to the ground in prayer, and was uttering the praises of his Creator, the impure and obscene sect chose for the execution of their design. They slew a Salah-dar [armour-bearer] and two Farrashes [carpet-spreaders] in attendance, and then went round towards the Sultan's Khargah [pavilion or tent], and occupied it [to "surround" it would have required a large number. The words used are	—seized, took
possession. Compare Elliot, India, vol. ii. page 236]; and one or two among those three or four assassins rushed upon the Sultan, and inflicted five or six486
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
posed a verse on this occurrence. It is here recorded that it may come under the observation of the sovereign of the Musalmans, and that verse is as follows :—
"The martyrdom of the sovereign of sea and land, Mu'izz-ud-Dln, From the beginning of the world the like of whom no monarch arose, On the third 4 of the month Sha'ban in the year six hundred and two, Happened on the road to Ghaznln at the halting-place of Dam-yak 6."
deep wounds, of which he immediately died." I have merely given an abstract of the author's rhapsodical narration.
Alfi says they were Khokhars who had lost relatives killed in the late operations:—" One man among them came upon a door-keeper, and wounded him, on which the wounded man began to cry out. On this, the rest of the people about rushed up to the wounded man to see what was the matter, and were collected around him. The Khokhars seized this opportunity, and succeeded in reaching the Sultan, whom they despatched with many severe wounds."
Some other authors say it was one Khokhar only who murdered the Sultan, and that he had attached himself to him, and followed him for the purpose.
The Hindus give a different account, which is also related by Abu-1-Fazl and in the Jamun History with a slight difference :—"Although the Persian Chroniclers state that Rae Pithora fell on the field of Talawari [Tara'in], and that Mu'izz-ud-Din fell at Dam-yak by the hand of a Khokhar who had devoted himself to the deed, and that such statement has been followed by the author of the Tabakat-i-Akbari and by Firishtah, nevertheless, from the mouth of the Hindi bards, the depositaries of the traditions of every celebrated event, and which is handed down orally from generation to generation, it is stated that, after Rae Pithora was made captive and taken to Ghaznln, one Chanda, some write Ch,anda, the confidential follower and eulogist of Rae Pithora, styled by some authors his Court poet, proceeded to Ghaznln to endeavour to gain information respecting his unfortunate master. By his good contrivances he managed to get entertained in Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Dln's service, and succeeded in holding communication with Rae Pithora in his prison. They agreed together on a mode of procedure, and one day Chanda succeeded by his cunning in awakening the Sultan's curiosity about Rae Pithora's skill in archery, which Chanda extolled to such a degree that the Sultan could not restrain his desire to witness it, and the captive Rajah was brought out and requested to show his skill. A bow and arrows were put into his hands, and, as agreed upon, instead of discharging his arrow at the mark, he transfixed the Sultan, and he died on the spot, and Rae Pithora and Chanda were cut to pieces then and there by the Sultan's attendants.
The Jamun History states that Rae Pithora had been blinded [see note page 466], and that, when brought forth, and his own bow and arrows given him, notwithstanding his blindness, having fitted an arrow, and tried the temper of the bow, guided by the sound of the Sultan's voice, and the indications of Chanda, he discharged the arrow in the right direction, and transfixed him. The rest agrees.
4	Jahan-Ara and some others say the 1st of Sha'ban, 602 H.
5	As the second line of this quatrain ends in yak, it is wholly impossible that the last work can be Damik. Dam-yak is the correct name of the place. Authors differ considerably about its situation : some say it was a little west of the Jhilam, some on the Nil-ab, and others that it was a village beyond the Indus, on the route to Ghaznln; but the first seems most probable. To proveTHE SHANSABANlAH DYNASTY OF OHAZNlN. 487
May the Most High King encompass that Sultan-i-Ghazi with his mercy and forgiveness, and preserve the sovereign of the age !
With respect to the equity and justice of this monarch in the world, the mention of them could not be contained in the capacity of writing ; and the observance of the law of the Chosen One, and the preservation of the system of holy warfare likewise, according to the tenets of the Mu-hammadan faith, was accomplished in that sovereign6. According to the traditions which they have related concerning the Prophet—on whom be peace !—they say, that he, having been asked respecting the general resurrection, affirmed that it would take place six hundred and odd years after him ; and the martyrdom of this sovereign occurred in the year 602 H., and, in this same year, likewise, indications of the last judgment appeared, and they were the irruption of Chingiz Khan, the Mughal, and the outbreak of the Turk. Therefore it is evident that that monarch was the strong barrier of Islam in the world, and, when he attained martyrdom, the gate of the final judgment opened7.
The amount of wealth acquired in holy wars, accumulated in the treasury at Ghaznin. was so great that the indication of the like has not been noticed with regard to the treasury of any -sovereign, and Khwajah Isma'il, the Treasurer, stated at the Court of Firuz-koh, at the time of bringing an honorary robe to the Malikah-i-Jalali, the daughter of the august Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam
how little trust is to be placed in Firishtah's statements, as shown in Briggs's " Revised Text," the Persian scholar will there find this place styled Ramhek— eLf*,—in the prose; and a few lines under, in his version of the same quatrain quoted by our author, translated above, it is turned into Rhutak— tsLfjj—and Briggs translates it Rohtuk, which mistake is re-echoed by his copyists; and so the blunder gets handed down.
6 Other authors, too, fully appreciate the character of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Dln, and say that "he was a God-fearing and just sovereign, compassionate towards his people, liberal to his servants, honoured and reverenced learned and good men, and treated them with distinction." His deeds prove that he was faithful to his brother; but if his "exploits" are not more substantial than the mythical relationship to his "great ancestor Sooltan Mahmood I." [who has been lately declared illegitimate in the "Student's Manual of Indian History "], they need not have been ever recorded.
" Notwithstanding which, our author, who appears to have had as keen an appreciation of the mammon of unrighteousness as others who croak about the end of the world, took care to accept villages and money presents, and even slaves to send to his " dear sister" to sell in Khurasan, not long after.483
THE TABAKAT-I.NA§IRL
[Mu'izz-ud-Din's niece and Ziya-ud-Din's betrothed wife], that of jewels contained in the Ghaznin treasury, of diamonds alone, which are the most precious of gems, there were actually fifteen hundred mans8. The amount of other jewels and money may be judged of accordingly.
Titles and names of the Sultan.
8	It depends upon what man is meant. Our author must refer to the man of Tabriz, which is much smaller than that of Hindustan, the former being somewhat less than 2 lbs., whilst the latter varies from 40 to 80 lbs. The Tabriz man is thus described :—6 habbah [habbah signifies, a seed, a grain, &c., and is equal to a barley-corn] = 1 dang, 6 dangs = 1 miskal 15 miskals = 1 astar, 40 astars = I man.
I fear the Kh,wajah was as great an exaggerator as our author himself. Other authors however mention the quantity as 500 ma?is. Even the latter number is too incredible almost for belief.
9	After his brother's death, on becoming supreme ruler, he took the title of Sultan-ul-A'zam.
1 How he obtained the title of Nasir-i-Amir-ul-Muminin, and when, the chronicler does not say. It may have been conferred upon him by the Ehalifah of Baghdad for being with his brother, Ghiyas-ud-DIn, a tool in the Khalifah's hands against the Sultan of Khwarazm. I imagine it is this title on his coins which Mr. E. Thomas reads as the name of the Khalifah. Un-Nasfr-ud-DIn'Ullah was certainly Khalifah at this period. See Chronicles of Pathan Kings of Dehli, page 12.
The Sultan is styled " Us-Sultan Nasir-ud-Dunya wa ud-Dtn, Abu-1-Muzaffar," &c., on a coin said to have been struck at Dihli, 589 h., in the year 4 [of his rule in Hind ?].TIIE SHANSABANlAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN.
489
Length of his reign: Thirty-two years and eight months2.
Seat of government in the summer season:—Ghaznin and Khurasan.
Seat of government in the winter season :—Lohor and Hind.
Kazls of his Court.
Kazi of the kingdom, the Sadr-i-Shahld, Kutb-ud-Din, Abu Bikr, subsequently, the Sadr-i-Sa'id, Sharaf-ud-Din. Abu Bikr, son of the Sadr-i-Shahid, Nizam [ud-Din ?] at Ghaznin.
Kazi of the army3 and other territory—Shams-ud-Din, Balkhi, and his son.
Wazirs.
Ziya-ul-Mulk, Durmashani 4; Mu-ayyid-ul-Mulk, Mu-hammad-i-'Abd-ullah, Sanjari ; Shams-ul-Mulk, 'Abd-ul-Jabbar, Kidani.
Standards.
On the right, Black, with the Turk Maliks and Amirs.
On the left, Red, with the Maliks and Amirs of Ghur.
The Sultan* s august motto.
" Victory through God5."
The Sultaris Dependents who attained unto Sovereignty.
Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, at Ghaznin.
Sultan Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah in Multan and Uchchah.
Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, at Lohor®.
Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, the Khalj, over the territory of Lakhanawati7.
3 Three years and three months exactly as an independent sovereign, from the 27th of Jamadl-ul-Awwal, 599 H., to 3rd of Sha'ban. 602 H. He was subordinate to his elder brother as shown by his coins ; but as a dependent ruler he of course ruled over Ghaznin from the time that sovereignty was bestowed upon him.
3 Our author's father does not figure here among the Kazls. See page 456, nor is mention made of the Sadr-i-Kablr, Kiwam-ul-Mulk, Rukn-ud-Din, Hamzah, who was sent to offer terms to Rae Pithora.
* In one copy DurmashT, in a second Durmanghi, and in a third Durshi or Dursi. See page 392, note
5 One good copy of the text has, simply Jj^ Justice, or Rectitude.
8 Not Dihli ! See the reign of Kutb-ud-Din, next Section.
7 Fourth Khalj ruler of Lakhanawati. It is strange that neither Muhammad, son of BaJdit-yar, nor his two immediate successors in the government of Lakhanawati, are mentioned here. It was Muhammad, son of Bakit-yar, the Khalj, who reduced Bihar and Lakhanawati during Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Dln's own lifetime, and their reduction is mentioned among the victories and successes of
I i49°
THE TABA$AT.I-NA$IR!.
The Sultan's Kinsmen and his Maliks. Malik Ziya-ud-Din, Muhammad9, Durr-i-Ghur [The Pearl of Ghur], in Ghur.
Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, in Bamian.
Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din. Mahmud, in Firuz-koh.
Maiik Badr-ud-Din, of Kidan9.
Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Timrani.
Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Alb-i-Ghazi, son of Kazil Arsalan Saljuki.
Malik Taj-ud-Din-i-Harab, of Sijistan.
Malik Taj-ud-Din, Zangiof Bamian.
Malik Mubariz-ud-Din, Muhammad 'Ali-i-Utsuz.
Malik Nasir-ud-Din, [Husain], Madini.
Malik Nasir-ud-Din, of Timran.
Malik Mu-ayyid-ud-Din, Masud.
Malik Shihab2-ud-Din, Madini3.
Malik Shams-ud-Din, Kidani.
Malik Taj-ud-Din, [of] Mukran.
Malik Shah, of Wakhsh.
Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz-i-Husain.
Malik Husam-ud-Din, 'Ali-i-Kar-makh.
Malik Zahtr-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Kar-makh.
Malik Zahir-ud-Din, Fath-i-Kar-makh.
Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil.
Malik Husam-ud-Din, son of Khar-mil.
Malik Nasir4-ud-Din, Husain, Amir-i-Shikar [Chief Huntsman].
the Sultan at page 491. Husam-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, does not appear to have ever been in the immediate service of Mu'izz ud-Din, and did not acquire sovereignty until nearly ten years after Mu'izz-ud-Din's death, whilst Muhammad, son of Bakh t-yar, was assassinated towards the end of the same year in which the Sultan was himself assassinated. See the account of the Khalj rulers farther on.
Strange to say, some of the copies have Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timis]i in this list also ; but such is not correct. He was the slave of the Sultan's slave, Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and did not acquire sovereignty until after I-bak's death, and long after the Sultan's decease.
8	Here again the author puzzles his readers. After Ziya-ud-Din became ruler of Ghur, as our author himself says at page 393, his name was changed to 'Ala-ud-Din.
9	Maternal grandfather of the two Sultans.
1 This is the person referred to in note 3, page 425, and note B, page 481.
- See pages 344 and 497.
3	He is the father of Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Madini, and was surnamed Khar-nak.
4	In .some copies Nasr.THE SHANSABANlAH DYNASTY OF QHAZNIN.
Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Khar'-war.
Malik Asad-ud-Din, Sher Malik, Wajiri9 [of Wajiristan?].
Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Sur, of Kidan7.
Amir Sullman-i-Shis, Amir-i-Dad [Chief Justice ?].
Amir-i-Hajib, Muhammad 'Alt, Ghazi.
Amir-i-Hajib, Khan Malik [?].
Amir-i-Hajib, Husain-i-Muhammad Hasan [?]8.
Malik Mu-ayyid-ud-Din, Mas ud.
Amir-i-Hajib, Husain-i-Surkh9.
Victories, Successes, and Holy-wars.
Gardaiz, Sankuran [now Shaluzan], holy-war against the Karamitah of Multan and Uchchah. holy-war of Nahr-walah, Burshor [or Purshor], Sial-kot, Lohor, Tabar-hindah1, Pithora [at] Tara'in, Ajmir, Hansi, Sursuti, Kuhram, Mirath, Kol, Dihli, Thankir, holy-war of Buda'un, Gwaliyur, Bhirah2, Jai Chand of Banaras, Banaras, Kinnauj, Kalinjar, territory of Awadh, Malwah, A-dwand3 Bihar, Lakhanawati, Marw4-ar-Rud, Nishapur, Tus, Marw, Baward, Nisa, Sharistanah, Sabzwar, Janabad, Khwarazm, Andkhud, holy-war of Khita. and Koh-i-Jud [and] the Khokhars5.
* This name is doubtful. It might be Haz-war, but the above is most probable, and may be a nick-name. In modern copies of the text it is written J5U—Jjp.—and J.j*
6	In two copies, Ahmad!, and in one copy Ahmari.
7	Very doubtful. The best and oldest copy has ^'J^ jj^* which is unintelligible.
8	In some Habashi, and in others Husaini.
9	In one Surkhi or Sarkhi, and in another Sarjf or Surji, but these are doubtful. Only five copies of the text contain these names at all, and three of these are very defective. The Amir-i-Hajib, Saraj-ud-DIn, Abl Bikr, and Baha-ud-Din, Muhammad, are likewise mentioned in Alfi.
1 One copy has Bathindah.
3 Very doubtful. It is written sos!—»,*-—and even ^Vin the best Paris copy.
3	Probably	quiet, tranquil, &c. See reign ofKutb-ud-DIn, next Section.
4	Mashrik-ar- Rud in one copy.
s It will be remarked that there is no reference made here to the expedition against Diwal or Dibalj and the sea-coast of Sind. I have endeavoured to put these "victories, conquests, and holy-wars " in chronological order as near as possible ; but many are mentioned with which Mu'izz-ud-Din, personally, had nothing to do, three in which he was defeated, one a complete overthrow, the loss of everything, and a narrow escape from captivity, and the "holy-war" of Khita was never undertaken. The successes in Awadh were gained by others, and A-dwand Bihar and Lakhanawati were acquired by Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Muhammad, the Khalj.
I i 2492
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
III. SULTAN 'ALA-UD-D!N, MUHAMMAD, SON OF BAHA-UD.
DIN, MUHAMMAD, SAM, OF BAMlAN.
When the Sultan-i-Ghazi. Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, was martyred at Dam-yak, and Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Muhammad, Sam, son of Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, died on his way to Ghaznin6, as has been previously recorded, the competitors for the dominion of Ghur. Ghaznin, Bamian, and Hind, of the race of the Shan-sabanis, consisted of two lines—one, the [descendants of the] Sultans of Ghur, and the other, of the Sultans of Bamian.
When they despatched the bier of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din from the halting-place of Dam-yak towards Ghaznin, the Turk Maliks and Amirs, who were the slaves of that Sultan-i-Ghazi, deprived the Amirs and Maliks of Ghur, by force, ,of the bier of the late Sultan, together with precious treasures, and took possession of them7. When
8 Within two days' journey of the capital. See page 432.
7 One author says, that "the Maliks and Chiefs, on finding the Sultan lifeless, rallied round the Wazir, Mu-ayyid-ul-Mulk, and pledged themselves to defend the treasure and dominions until such time as a successor should be nominated to succeed him. The Sultan's wounds were sewn up [after his death], and the body was placed in a sort of covered litter, and, pretending that he was ill, they escorted it to Ghaznah, and the fact of his death was kept a profound secret. The treasures, amounting to 2000 kh,ar-wars [lit. ass-loads, one kharwar = about 100 mans of Tabriz] were conveyed to the capital at the same time."
The bier of the late Sultan having been taken up, and being conveyed towards Ghaznin. on the way quarrels ensued between Mu-ayyid-ul-Mulk, the Wazir, and the Ghurian Amirs. The Wazir wished to proceed by way of Karman, in order that, through the assistance of Taj-ud-DTn, I-yal-duz, who held the government of that district, the late Sultan's treasures might be conveyed to Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, his nephew, who held the government of Bust and Zamin-i-Dawar, to whose succession he was inclined, while the Amirs of Ghur desired to proceed by the route of Gum-rahan [jU^.j"] which was nearer to Bamian, in order that the sister's son of the late monarch, Baha-ud-Din, Sam, Sultan of Bamian [who was advancing towards Ghaznin when death overtook him] should obtain possession of these treasures. As the Wazir was supported by the Slaves of the late Sultan, he was more powerful, and he separated from the Ghurian Amirs, and, taking along with him the bier of the late Sultan and his treasures, proceeded by way of Shaluzan [In those days called Sankuran, and, subsequently, Shanuzan. See note p. 498] towards Ghaznin. When they reached Karman, Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, came forth to receive them, and, when he beheld the bier, he dismounted from his horse, and received it with the utmost veneration, and he wept to such degree, that the others were quite overcome and wept also. The bier wasTHE SSANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF QIJAZNIN.
they reached Karman, the Wazir, Mu-ayyid-ul-Mulk, Muhammad-i-'Abd-ullah, the Sanjari, with several other persons distinguished among the Turk Amirs, were appointed to escort the late Sultan's bier to Ghaznin, in company with other Turk Maliks ; and Malik Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, who was the Mihtar [or chief] of the Turk Maliks, and the greatest and most distinguished of the Sultan's Slaves, held post in Karman.
When the Sultan's bier reached Ghaznin, two days after, the Sultans of Bamian, 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, and Jalal-ud-Din, 'All, sons of Baha-ud-Din, Sam, of Bamian, in conformity with the solicitations of the Ghuri Amirs, such as the Sipah-salar the [Commander of Troops], Suli-man-i-Shis8, and the Sipah-salar, Kharoshi, and other
then conveyed to Ghaznin, and the corpse of the Sultan was interred in the Madrasah [college] which he had founded in the name of his daughter,'and his only child. Firishtah's account of this affair has not been correctly rendered by his translators.
After the funeral, Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, set out from Bamian for Qhaznin, and on the road was seized with a violent headache which was the messenger of his death. There being no hopes of his recovery, he made his last request to his two sons, 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, and Jalal-ud-Din, 'All, that they should proceed to Ghaznin, and endeavour, by conciliation, to gain over the Wazir, Mu-ayyid-ul-Mulk, the Slaves, and the Amirs of Ghur, and take possession of Ghaznin, after which, 'Ala-ud-Din, who was the eldest son, was to be sovereign of Ghaznin. and Jalal-ud-Din, the younger, sovereign of Bamian.
The Jami'-ut-Tawarikh confirms this generally, but states that Baha-ud-Din requested them to come to an accommodation with Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, if he would agree to content himself with Ghur and Khurasan, and leave Ghaznah and Hind to 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, the eldest son.
They came to Ghaznin accordingly, and, although the Ghurian nobles were inclined to offer opposition to this, the Wazir persuaded them that as Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, was then wholly occupied in Khurasan, and had proceeded, at the head of an army, towards Hirat against 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil, to oppose 'Ala-ud-Din's intentions would be useless and uncalled for, since they required a ruler over them, and, that, whenever Mahmud should have gained possession of Hirat and subdued Khurasan, it would be easy to get rid of 'Ala-ud-Din. So he was allowed to assume the throne.
When Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, became aware of this in Karman, in compliance with the request of Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, conveyed to him from Zamin-i-Dawar, he marched from Karman with a large army upon Ghaznin, wrested it by force of arms from 'Ala-ud-Din and his brother, Jalal-ud-Din, 'Ali, who retired to Bamian. Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, however proceeded to read the Khutbah for himself and to coin money in his own name ; and, after some time, 'Ala-ud-Din, and his brother, Jalal-ud-Din, invaded Karman and Shaluzan. and devastated the whole of those districts. See page 398.
* Styled Amir-i-Dad in the list of Maliks.494
THE TABA£AT-I-NASIRL
distinguished personages of the capital city of Ghaznin, arrived there from Bamian, and entered the city. 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, Bamiani, who was the eldest of the sons of [Sultan] Baha-ud-Din, Sam, ascended the throne, and brought the Amirs present there, both Ghuri and Turk, under fealty to him ; and the Ghaznin treasury, which, from the immensity of its wealth and precious treasures, would have [so to speak] considered the hoard of Karun but a tithe, was all divided into two equal portions. Trustworthy persons have related that the portion of Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, 'Ali, Bamiani, who was the youngest of the two brothers, amounted to two hundred and fifty camel loads of pure red gold, jewel-studded articles, and vessels of gold and silver, which was removed to Bamian.
After a period of some days had elapsed, Mu-ayyid-ul-Mulk, the Wazir, and the Turk Amirs, who were at the capital, Ghaznin, wrote letters to Malik Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, soliciting him to come thither, and despatched them to Karman. He determined to proceed from Karman to Ghaznin ; and, when he arrived in the vicinity of the city, Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, made ready to fight, and marched out to encounter him ; and Jalal-ud-Din [his brother], who also came out of the city, retired in the direction of Bamian.
When the ranks of 'Ala-ud-Din were marshalled against Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, the Turk Amirs on either side united together, and Malik9 'Ala-ud-Din was vanquished, and he, along with all the Shansabani Maliks who sided with him, was taken prisoner. Malik Taj-ud-.Din, Yal-duz, entered Ghaznin, and gave permission to the Shansabani Maliks, so that they returned to Bamian again.
A second time Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, in order to aid his brother, 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, assembled the forces of the territory of Bamian1, and bodies of the troops of [the] Beghu2 from Walchsh and Badakhshan, and brought them,
9 Styled Malik and Sultan indiscriminately.
1	Two copies of the text have '' the forces of the kingdom of Ghiir and of Bamian," but I do not think such can possibly have been meant. The whole of the Shansabani Maliks were not subjects of the Bamian state. Ghivas-ud-Din, Mahmud, the direct heir to the empire of his father and uncle, was still ruling over Ghur, and he appears to have favoured Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, and not to have been particularly friendly towards his kinsmen of Bamian.
2	One copy of the text, and also the printed text, have instead ofTHE SHANSABANlAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNlN. 495
and again appeared before Ghaznin, and possessed himself of the Ghaznin territory, and re-placed 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, upon the throne, after which, Jalal-ud-Din returned again towards Bamian.
Malik Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, a second time, advanced with his troops from Karman towards Ghaznin ; and 'Ala-ud-Din deputed the Ghuri Maliks and Amirs from Ghaznin to repel them. On the part of Malik Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, Aetkin, the Tatar, was nominated to proceed in advance to meet them. He came upon them at the Ribat3 of Sankuran, and seized the whole of them drunk and out of their senses, and the Ghuri Maliks and the great Amirs were there put to death. From thence Malik Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, appeared before the walls of Ghaznin. and 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, was invested within the citadel. For a period of four months Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, continued to invest it, until Jalal-ud-Din, 'Ali, arrived from the territory of Bamian to the assistance of his brother, Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, and to drive away the Turk forces.
When he reached the neighbourhood of Ghaznin, the Turk Amirs moved out to encounter him, and Jalal-ud-Din, 'Ali, was overthrown, and was taken prisoner. He was brought to the foot of the walls of the fortress of Ghaznin4, and that fort was taken. When the two brothers fell into his hands, after a short time, Malik Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, entered into a stipulation5 with them, and caused them to return to Bamian. After a little while, difference of interests arose between the two brothers6. Jalal-ud-Din, 'Ali, was a lion-hearted monarch, an ascetic, and a firm ruler; and 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, did not agree with him, and he left Bamian, and proceeded to the presence of Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah. The assistance it was his object there to obtain was not advanced, and his good fortune did not again favour him, and luck did not aid
yuj in eleven other copies. The latter is evidently the name of one of the Ghuzz tribes.
8 A Karwan-Sarae, also a station on an enemy's frontier.
4 This was done to induce ' Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, to give up Ghaznin.
s This evidently refers to the occasion when I-yal-duz gave one of his daughters in marriage to Jalal-ud-Din, 'All. See para, second, note7, page 433-
6 Our author says nothing of these disagreements in his account of Jalal-ud-Din, 'Alt, at page 432.496
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIR!.
him ; and, after Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, took possession of the territory of Bamian, 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, died7.
He had the daughter of 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, son of 'Ala-ud-Din, Husain [Jahan-soz], to wife8, and by that Princess lie had a son. When the writer of these words, Minhaj-i-Saraj, in the year 621 H., had to undertake a journey into the Kuhistan from the territory of Ghur, on an embassy, it was intimated to him that that Princess and her son were then in the district of Khush-ab, on the borders of Tabas, into which part they had come during the misfortunes attending the irruption of the accursed ones of Chin.
IV. SULTAN TAJ-UD-DIN, YAL-DUZ, AL-MU'IZZ! US-SULTANI*.
Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Sam, was a mighty monarch, just, a champion of the Faith, lion-hearted, and in valour a second 'Ali-i-Abu-Talib—may God reward him!—but he was wanting in childrenand one daughter was all he had by [his wife] the daughter of
' See page 266—267.
8	See page 414.
9	So called from having been one of the Slaves of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, and who, if the latter had been so "renowned in history" as " Shahab-ood-Deen Mahomed Ghoory," we might have expected to have been styled Shihabt instead. Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and others are called Mu'izzi for the same reason. It would be difficult to decide what is the real meaning here of the word Yal-duz. In the different copies of the text it is written as above, and in the three oldest copies the vowel points are also given ; but in other works, including Yafa-i and Fasih-t, the word is written more correctly I-yal-duz, the firs word of which is the same as occurs in I-yal-Arsalan, I-yal-timish, &c. In one lexicographical work jol* without any vowels being mentioned, is said to be Turkl [of which there is no doubt], and to be the name of a man and a star, not a star only. I-yal [J>1]> among other meanings, signifies a mounta bull; 1-1 [J*'], which is not the word here meant, means friendly, obedient, tame, familiar; and Yal [Ji], brave, valiant, intrepid. Duz means flat, level, smooth, even; and [_;•>] dijz and diz [j->] mean a fort, a hill, and also rough, austere; anger, fury, rage, and the like. Among the Turks, as wi other Oriental people, the name of a child is often derived from some object o incident, trifling or otherwise, which may have struck the mother's fancy, or that of any of the women present at the child's birth ; and the name I-yal-duz, Yal-duz, or Yal-duz is doubtless something of the same kind.
1 From the accounts given by some other authors, it would appear tha Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din had had several children born to him, but only one daughter survived him. The others may have died in childhood. At page 344, which see, he is said to have married the daughter of Malik Saif-ud-Din, Surj son of his paternal uncle, Shihab-ud-Dm, Muhammad, Khar-nak, whose othe son was named Nasir-ud-DTn, Muhammad [Husain].THE SHANSABANlAH DYNASTY OF QHAZNlN. 497
his uncle, Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Muhammad, Madlni; and he had a great fancy for purchasing Turkish slaves, and he bought a great number of slaves of that race. Everyone of them acquired renown throughout the whole of the countries of the East for activity, warlike accomplishments, and expertness; and the names of his slaves became published in the four quarters of the world, and duiing the Sultan's lifetime every one of them became famous.
Trustworthy persons have related on this wise, that one of the confidential favourites of the Sultan's Court made bold to represent to him, saying : " To a monarch like unto thee, the like of whom in height of dignity and grandeur the whole expanse of the empire of Islam does not contain, sons were necessary to thy empire, in order that every one of them might be the inheritor of a kingdom of the empire of the universe, so that, after the expiration of the period of this [present] reign, the sovereignty might continue permanent in this family." That victorious Sultan [in reply] uttered these august words:—" Other monarchs may have one son, or two sons : I have so many thousand sons, namely, my Turk slaves2, who will be the heirs of my dominions, and who, after me, will take care to preserve my name in the Khutbah throughout those territories3." And so it happened as declared in the
2	And yet the very first Turk slave who acquired the sovereignty after the Sultan's death is turned into a Pathan, i. e. an Afghan, and even the Sultan himself, and without any authority for such a statement
3	This may explain [for our author's statements, in different places, make the above one very doubtful] why Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, is supposed to have issued coins in the sole name of his deceased master and sovereign, and why he styles himself "the servant and slave" of the "martyred Sultan, Muhammad-i-Sam." See the notice of his coins in Thomas, "Pathan Kings of Dehli," pages 25—31. It is quite a mistake to suppose that I-yal-duz ever styled himself " Sultan-i-Mu'azzam"—he is styled, at the head of this Chapter, Mu'izzi—and it is probable the titles on the different coins, especially those bearing " Sultan-ul-Mashrik," from our author's statement here, apply to the late Sultan, or, more probably, to his successor, Mahmud, who is styled b authors Sultan-i-Mashri^ain wa Shahanshah-i-Maghrabain :—
ICutb-ud-Din probably did the same, although we have no proof; but, whatever may have been done in our author's time, Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timigh, the Kutbi slave and son-in-law, does not appear to have followed the same example, from the evidence on the coins given by Thomas at pages 52 and 78. See however our author's statement at page 398, where he says the Kh,utbah498
THE TABA£AT-I-NA§IRL
hallowed words of that victorious Sultan—on whom be the Almighty's mercy !—which, throughout the whole dominion of Hindustan4, up to the period when this book was written, namely, the year 657 s IL, they observed, and are still observing ; and it is to be sincerely implored that, by the grace of Almighty God, these dominions may continue, in this same manner, under their sway to the uttermost end of the existence of the race of Adam.
I now reach my own discourse, which is the account of Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz.
He was a great monarch, of excellent faith, mild, beneficent, of good disposition, and very handsome. The Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, purchased him when he was young in years, and, from the outset of his career, appointed him to an office, and subsequently, step by step, advanced him to a high position, and made him head and chief over the other Turkish slaves6. When he grew up he attained authority and power, and the Sultan conferred upon him the government of the district of Sankuran and Karman7 in feudal fief; and every year that the Sultan
was read for Sultan Mahmud, and that the coin was stamped with his na?ne throughout the whole of the territories of Ghur, Ghaznin, and Hindustan.
4 That portion of Hindustan which our author's patron ruled over probably.
6	In three copies 568 h.
8 Jahan-Ara, Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, and others, state that the Sultan used to treat these Turkish Mamluks like sons, and bestowed the government of provinces and countries upon them. He esteemed the most, and placed the greatest confidence in, Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, and showed him the greatest honour; and the Sultan's followers used to pay him great homage, and attention, and go in his train. During the lifetime of the Sultan, Taj-ud-Din became Wall of Karman ; and, from the great honour and respect in which he was held, he subsequently acquired dominion over the kingdom of Ghaznin. Compare this with Firishtah's idle tales, both, in his text and in Dow and Briggs.
7	The province which Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, held, included the tract of country, containing several darahs—long valleys with hills on two sides, and rivers running through them—extending from the southern slopes of SpTn-ghar, the White Mountain, in Pushto, and the south-westerly slopes of the Salt Range, on the north ; towards the Gumal on the south ; from the range of hills separating the district of Gardaiz on the west; and to the Sind-Sagar or Sind or Indus on the east;—a large tract of country watered by the Kurmah [vulg. Kurram] river and its tributaries, which province, in ancient times, must have been exceedingly populous and flourishing, to judge from the remains of several cities still to be seen in it, and which is still very fruitful. The upper portion of this tract is called the darah of Kurmah, and, lower down, towards the Sind, are Banu and Marwat.
The Kurmah darah is about 40 kuroh in length [each kuroh, in this part,THE SHANSABANlAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNlN.
499
would make a halt in Karman, on his expeditions into Hindustan8, Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, used to feast the whole
being 2000 paces], and having little level ground. On either side of this great darah are smaller ones, running in nearly transverse directions; but those I would more particularly refer to here, as forming an important portion of I-yal-duz's fief, and giving name to the province, are those springing, so. to speak, from Spin-ghar.
One of these is the darah of ShalOzan [also written in the account of Amir Tlmur, Shanuzan\ and which our author refers to [see page 450] as sankuran, which name appears to have been derived from a tribe of the Ghuzz. so named, who held it before, and in the time of Sultan Ghivas-ud-Din, and his brother, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din. It is seven kuroh in length from north to south, and through it flows a stream which issues from Spin-ghar, and joins the river from the Paiwar valley. Its inhabitants are Tons, who are reckoned among the Afghans, but they claim other descent, and some Awan-kars, a tribe of Jats, which appears to have been, for the most part, displaced by the easterly migrations of the Afghan tribes, and are now chiefly located on the other side of the Sind-Sagar or Indus.
Karman is another darah somewhat smaller, with a stream running through it which also joins the Shaluzan and other streams which fall into the Kurmah. I find no mention, in any author, of any ancient town of Karman, but the governor of the province was located in the darah, and there may have been a considerable town so called, or, at least, a permanent encampment.
East of Shaluzan is the Zeran darah, running in a south-westerly direction from Spin-ghar, and eight kuroh in length. A stream issuing from Spin-ghar flows through it, which, having joined the Shaluzan river, enters the Kurmah west of the town or large village of Uji Khel. The people are Dzazis [turned into Jajees by travellers], who also are reckoned among the Afghans but claim other descent, and some Awan-kars.
Another large darah, and the most westerly one, is Iri-ab [vulg. Harriab], twenty kuroh in length, running south-west from Spin-ghar, very mountainous, but very fruitful. Out of this darah likewise a stream issues, which, flowing east of Baghzan, the chief town of the Dzazis, enters the Kurmah district, and receives the name of Kurmah.
Another darah is Paiwar [not Pi-war], which also has its river, which joins the others before mentioned, flowing from the northwards.
The chief towns and large villages of this tract, at present, are Astiya [this is not the place referred to at page 339], Paiwar, Balut, Zumisht. Saida, Uji Khel. Buland Khel, Balimin [vulg. Balameen], Iri-ab, Baghzan, and the cluster of villages called by the name of the darah, Shaluzan, with many of smaller size. Kurmah, called' by travellers Kurram, where is a fort, and the residence of the local governor, is not situated in the Karman darah, so is not to be confounded with any place of that name. This name, Karman, which is spelt as the natives spell it, has caused some absurd blunders among writers and translators, who have supposed it referred to the Persian province of Kirman.
The darahs south of the Kurmah darah include those of Khost, Dawar, Maidan, and Bakr Khel, each with its stream which falls into the Kurmah; but the whole of those mentioned, in the summer, decrease very much in volume.
• It was through this province of Karman—the government of which was a most important post—that the lower route from Ghaznin to Lahor lay, which is referred to in note 1, page 481. The route by Karman was the "lower route " referred to in Alfi in the same note.500
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
of the Amirs, the Maliks, and the suite, and was in the habit of presenting a thousand honorary head-dresses and quilted tunics, and would command liberal largess to be given to the whole retinue.
By command of the Sultan-i-Ghazi, a daughter of Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, was given in marriage to Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak ; and another daughter9 was married to Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah1. Sultan1 Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, had likewise two sons, one of whom he had placed with a preceptor. One day that preceptor, by way of chastisement and discipline, struck the boy over the head with an earthen water-flask'. The decree of destiny had come, and the water-flask struck him in a mortal place, and the boy died. Information was conveyed to Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, who forthwith, out of his excessive clemency and exemplary piety, sent funds to the preceptor for his expenses, with directions that "he should get out of the way, and undertake a journey, before the boy's mother became aware of her son's fate, lest she might cause any injury to be done him, in anguish for the loss of her son." This anecdote is a proof of the goodness of disposition and the purity of faith of that amiable Sultan.
In the last year of the reign of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, when that monarch [on his last expedition into Hind] came into Karman and halted there, Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, presented those yearly stipulated thousand tunics and head-dresses. The Sultan, out of the whole of them, selected one tunic and one head-dress, and honoured his slave by presenting him with his own princely robe; and the Sultan conferred upon him a black banner, and it was the desire of his august mind that Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, after himself, should succeed to the throne of Ghaznin3. When the
9 One daughter was given in marriage to Jalal-ud-Din, 'All, of Bamlan, hence there must have been three, or more daughters. See note page 433.
1 Our author styles him Malik and Sultan indiscriminately.
3 Firishtah has [ijy], a whip ; but all the copies of our author's text have «jj5~ The Taba^at-i-Akbarl too says : "he took up a gugglet and struck him over the head with it," &c. A whipping was not likely to cause death, but the other mode of chastisement was.
3 Here again is a specimen of the manner in which Firightah has been translated, and whose translated work hitherto has furnished the sole materials for writers of Indian Histories for our Colleges and Schools:—
Dow says that " Mahommed, in his last expedition, favoured Eldoze soTHE SSANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF QIJAZNlN. 501
Sultan-i-Ghazi attained martyrdom, it was the desire and disposition of the Turk Maliks and Amirs that Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, son of [Ghiyas-ud-Din] Muhammad, son of Sam, should come from the confines of Garmsir to Ghazntn, and ascend his uncle's throne, and that they all should gird up their loins in his service. To this effect they wrote to the Court of Firuz-koh, and represented, saying : " The Sultans4 of Bamian are acting oppressively, and are ambitious of obtaining possession of Ghaznin. Thou art the heir to the dominion, and we are thy slaves6."
much that he bestowed upon him the black standard of the kingdom of Ghizni, by this intimating his will, that he should succeed to the throne," &c. Briggs has "Mahomed Ghoory, in his last expedition to India, conferred on Taj-ood-Deen the privilege of carrying the black standard of Ghizny, an honour which -was usually confined to the heir-apparent." Any one reading this last version could only conclude that Taj-ud-Din carried this "black standard " in the last expedition, but such was not the case. Firishtah copies almost the very words of our author: these are his words—"Sultan Mu'izz-ud-DIn [he calls him Mu'izz and Shihab indiscriminately] in the latter part of his reign, when he came into Karman, dignified him by presenting him with one of his own dresses, and specially conferred upon him a black banner [for his own use that is], and it was the Sultan's desire that, after" his own decease, the Ghaznin territory should be his."
* He refers to Baha-ud-Din, Sam's, sons here.
5 Our author contradicts himself twice, and makes three different statements on this subject. At page 431 he says the general desire, both of the Turk and Ghurl Amirs, was that Baha-ud-Din, Sam, of Bamian, should succeed to the sovereignty ; and at page 432 he contradicts himself, and states that they were all inclined to his sons obtaining it. Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, was the chief of them, and the principal mover in this matter. From this statement of our author, and his accounts given elsewhere, as well as from the statements of other authors, it is clear that Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, up to this time, had not been removed from the government of this province, and therefore did not shut his sovereign and master out of Ghaznin after his defeat at Andkhud ; and, further, that it was not until he and the other Mamluks of the late Sultan had called upon his nephew, Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, to assume the sovereignty over Ghaznin and Hind that he, I-yal-duz, left Karman, on being nominated to the sovereignty of the kingdom of Ghaznin, and receiving his freedom from Mahmud himself.
Alfi says, however, that, "when Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, gained a firm hold of the authority at Ghaznin, Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, sent him a message from Firuz-koh, requesting him to coin the money in his name, and read the Khutbah for him. Taj-ud-Din sent a reply, saying, that, when Mahmud should send him a deed of manumission, he would do so ; otherwise he would give his allegiance to whomsoever he chose. As Mahmud was not safe from being assailed by Khwarazm Shah, and fearing lest Taj-ud-Din should go over to him [as 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Ehar-mil, had done], he sent the required deed of manumission to Taj-ud-Din, and another to Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, together with deeds of investiture for the governments of ghaznin and Hindustan respectively. Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, at this time was at Purgior,THE TABA$AT-I-NA$IRi.
Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, replied, saying : " To me the throne of my father, which is the capital, Firuz-koh, and the kingdom of Gliur, is the most desirable. I confer the territory [of Ghaznin] on you ;" and he despatched a robe of honour to Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, and presented him with a letter of manumission, and assigned the throne of Ghaznin unto him.
By virtue of this mandate Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, came to Ghaznin. and seized the Maliks of Bamian6, and ascended the throne of Ghaznin, and brought that territory under his jurisdiction. After a time he was excluded from Ghaznin. and again returned to it, and again brought it
whither he had come to guard one of the routes into Hind, and was well pleased with what was conferred upon him."
Other writers state that I-yal-duz sent an agent to Mahmud and tendered his allegiance, and confirm what our author states ; but they probably copied their account from his.
6 Called "Sultans" in the preceding paragraph, and in his previous account of them. Alfl says I-yal-duz, subsequent to sending Jalal-ud-Din, 'All, back to Bamian, as stated in note 7, page 433, assembled his forces, and carried his inroads as far as Bust; and that, when Abl-Dakur [Zakur ?] reached Kabul, after his desertion of Jalal-ud-DIn, 'All, an emissary reached him on the part of Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, which emissary he had first despatched to Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, reproaching him for his conduct towards his benefactor, Sultan ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, and exhorting him to discontinue it. This emissary was directed to ask Abl-Dakur to co-operate with him [I-bak]; and, in case I-yal-duz did not hold his hand and repent of his acts, that Abl-Dakur should assemble his troops and assail Ghaznin, and wrest it from I-yal-duz, who appears to have been then absent in Bust; and, in case he [Abl-Dakur] did not find himself powerful enough for the purpose of taking it, not to be deterred, as he was following to support him. Abi-Dakur complied with the request, and invested Mu-ayyid-ul-Mulk, the Wazir, whom I-yal-duz had left there as his lieutenant, and a portion of the suburbs of Ghaznin was taken and occupied by his men. On becoming aware of this movement, I-yal-duz returned from Bust by forced marches, and reached Ghaznin, on which Abi-Dakur precipitately withdrew, and joined Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, who gave him his manumission, and conferred upon him the title of Malik-ul-Umra [Chief of Nobles].
At this time Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, advanced from Hirat [on his way to Hirat?], and took the town and fortress of Tal-kan from the Ghuris, and then marched to Kal-yush. [Kal-yun ?] and Fiwar, and encountered several times Amir Husam-ud-Dm, the governor of those parts, for Mahmud ; but he did not succeed in his design, as they were very strong places, and Sultan Muhammad retired to Hirat again. Arrived there, he acquainted the ruler of Sijistan of it, and Malik Taj-ud-DTn-i-Harab acknowledged his suzerainty, and read the Khutbah and coined money in Khwarazm Shah's name. These are the events of the year 594 from the Prophet's death [604 h.]. The difference between the two eras h. and Rihlat is ten years less twenty or twenty-one days.THE SHANSABANlAII DYNASTY OF GHAZNlN.
S°3
under his sway. A second time the same thing happened, until, after some time, a battle took place between him and Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, on the confines of the Panj-ab7; and Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, was defeated, and Sultan Kutb-ud-Din advanced to Ghaznin8, and remained there for a period of forty days, during which time he gave himself up to pleasure and revelry. A third time Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, marched from Karman towards Ghaznin, and Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, retired again towards Hindustan by the route of Sang-i-Surakh, and once more Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, brought Ghaznin under his rule9.
He sent armies upon several occasions towards Ghur, Khurasan, and Sijistan, and nominated Maliks [to command them]. On one occasion he despatched a force to aid Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, as far as the gates of Hirat, on account of the treason of 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil, who was the Malik of Hirat, and who had conspired with Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, and had gone over to him, and who fled before the forces of Ghur and Ghaznin1.
On another occasion Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, led an army towards Sijistan, and remained away on that expedition for a considerable time, and advanced as far as
7	Some copies have "on the confines of the Panj-ab-i-Sind"—the five rivers of Sind.
8	" I-yal-duz having sent the Wazir of Ghaznin against Kaba-jah and ousted liim from Lahor [see reign of Kaba-jah, next Section], Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, advanced into the Panj-ab against I-yal-diiz in 603 H., and, I-yal-duz having encountered him, was defeated, and retreated to Karman and Shaluzan, which districts had been his charge in Mu'izz-ud-Din's reign. Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, pushed on to Ghaznin [by another route], and drove out the governor, on the part of Jalal-ud-Din, Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah's son, and then gave himself up to wine and debauchery. The people of Ghaznin sent to I-yal-duz and solicited him to return; and, when he arrived in the neighbourhood, at the head of a numerous force, Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, was quite unprepared to resist him, and he made the best of his way towards Hind by the route of Sang-i-Surakh, and reached Lohor." On this occasion Tzz-ud-DIn, 'Ali-i-Mardan, the Khalj, who assassinated Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar, ruler of Lakhanawati, and afterwards obtained from Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, the government of that territory, was taken prisoner. See his reign, next Section. " As Kutb-ud-Din did not consider himself safe from the designs of I-yal-duz, he continued at Lohor until 607 H., when he met with the accident which caused his death."
9	On the death of Kutb-ud-Din, and dethronement of Aram Shah, his adopted son, Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, sent a canopy of state and other insignia of royalty to Shams-ud-Din. I-yal-timigi. See his reign, Section XXI.
. 1 See note 2, page 257 ; and note3, page 400.504
THE TABA" AT-I-NA§IRI.
the gates of the city of Sistan2. At length peace was concluded between him and Malik Taj-ud-Din-i-Harab, who was the king of Sijistan. When Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, set out on his return [to Ghaznin], on his way thither, Malik Nasir3-ud-Din, Husain, the Amir-i-Shikar [Chief Huntsman] showed disaffection towards him, and engagements took place between them. Malik Nastr-ud-Din was overthrown, and retired towards Khwarazm [the Khwarazm territory ?], and after a time returned, until, on the expedition [of Taj-ud-Din] into Hindustan4, the Turkish Maliks and Amirs of
2	Other authors do not mention any cause why I-yal-diiz should have marched against Sistan, and do not give any details respecting this affair. It may have been caused through the niler of Sijistan proposing to acknowledge the suzerainty of Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah ; but our author does not say a word about any expedition of this kind in his account of the rulers of Sijistan.
Here, again, is a specimen of history-writing. Dow says : " Jildoze, in conjunction with the Emperor Mamood of Ghor, sent an army to Hirat, which they conquered, as also a great part of Seistan ; but, making a peace with the prince of that country, they returned." Then Briggs says: "At length, in conjunction with the King, Mahmood of Ghoor, he (Yeldooz) sent an army to Herat, which he reduced, as also great part of Sees tan" &c. Firishtah, however, says : " Once, to support Sultan Mahmud, he despatched an army against Hirat, and overcame the Malik of Hirat, 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain-i-Khar-mil. On another occasion he marched an army against Sistan, and invested it, and [then] made a peace with the Malik of Sistan, and returned." Firishtah, however, is no authority whatever for Western affairs; and as to overcoming 'Izz-ud-Dln, son of Husain-i-Khar-mil, see last para, to note2, page 258. For further details respecting the reign of I-yal-duz not mentioned here, see pages 417 and 420.
3	Nasir-ud-Din in two copies, and Nasr in another. He held the office of Chief Huntsman under the late Sultan.
4	Among the events of the year Rihlat 603, according to Alfi [Hijrah 613], Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, acquired possession of Ghaznin. After that monarch had possessed himself of the territory of Bamian and Khurasan from the Ghurian nobles, he despatched an agent to Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, intimating that if he, Taj-ud-Din, would acknowledge his suzerainty, and stamp the coin with his name, and pay him a yearly tribute, he should be left in quiet possession of Ghaznin ; otherwise he must be prepared to see his troops speedily appear before it. Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, called a council of his Amirs ; and Kutlagh, Tigin, his Amir-ul-Umra [Jami'-ut-Tawariklt says his Nayab or Lieutenant at Ghaznin], who was another of the late Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din's slaves, advised that the Sultan's demands should be acceded to, as it was impossible for them to resist Khwarazm Shah. Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, complied, and despatched befitLing offerings and presents, and accepted the Sultan's etrms.
Not long after these events, Taj ud-Din went out on a hunting excursion, and Kutlagh Tigin sent information to the Sultan [who was then on the northern frontier of I-yal-duz's territory], saying, that GJjaznin was now freed from Taj-ud-Dln's presence, and urged him to come thither that he might deliver up the place to him. Khwarazm Shah acceded to the request, andTHE SHANSABANlAH DYNASTY OF QHAZNlN. 50$
Ghaznin conspired together and put to death the Khwajah. Mu-ayyid-ul-Mulk, Muhammad-i-'Abd-ullah, Sanjari, who held the office of Wazir, and likewise Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Husain, the Amir-i-Shikar.
After a period of forty days Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, marched an army from the side of Tukharistan, and advanced towards Ghaznin; and his troops suddenly and unexpectedly seized the frontier route leading into Hindustan, towards Gardaiz and the Karahah* Darah [Pass]. Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, took the route towards Hindustan, by way of Sang-i-Surakh6. and reached Lohor. An engagement took place between him [Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz] and the august Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish7, in the vicinity of Tara'in8, and Sultan
obtained possession of Ghaznin ; and Taj-ud-Din, finding what had happened [Taj-ul-Ma'asir says in 612 H.], retired towards Hind. The Jami'-ut-Tawarikli states that this took place in 611 H., and that all the dominions of the Ghuris fell under his sway.
Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, having obtained possession of Ghaznin, as above related, Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, continued his retreat towards Hind. On reaching the neighbourhood of Lahor, he fought a battle with Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, who was governor of that province on the part of Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, defeated him, took possession of Lahor for himself, and soon appropriated the whole of the Panjab. [See the account of Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, page 532.]
Khwarazm Shah, according to the statement of Alft, on taking possession of Ghaznin, put to death all the Ghurian nobles and chiefs [which is very improbable], made over the city and territory to his son, Jalal-ud-Din [he nominated him to the rulership of those parts, but left an officer there as his son's deputy], and returned to Khwarazm.
6 In some copies Karasah [ ], but the best have A»]/"as above. It is one of the Passes on the route from Ghaznin towards Lahor, the name of which has been changed with the change in the inhabitants of those parts.
6	There are three or four places so called, signifying the " Perforated Stone." The route here seems to refer to a more southerly route than that by the Pass above mentioned. It is a totally different route to that mentioned at page 441.
7	Four good copies, two of which are old ones, write this name here, and in some other places, with two ts—I-yal-titmish, and some othei writers do the same.
8	The engagement between Sultan Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, and this "august Sultan"—the slave of the slave, Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, his own son-in-law-took place, by some accounts, on Saturday, the 20th of Shawwal. 611 H.p and, according to others, on Monday, the 3rd of Shawwal. 612 H., at Tara'in, now Talawari, near PanTpat, in the neighbourhood of which the fate of India has so often been decided. Taj-ud-Din was put to death soon after, in the citadel of Buda'un, by his rival, I-yal-timish, on whom he had himself conferred the insignia of royalty after I-yal-timish's usurpation of the sovereignty
K k506
THE TABA$AT-I-NA$IRL
Taj-ud-Dm, Yal-duz, was [defeated and] taken prisoner, and sent to the district of Buda'un ; and there he was martyred, and there his mausoleum is situated, and has become a place of pilgrimage, and is visited by suppliants.
His reign extended over a period of nine years. The Almighty's mercy be upon him! God alone is immortal and eternal!
V. SULTAN-UL-KARIM [THE BENEFICENT], KUTB-UD-DIN, I-BAK, AL-MU'IZZI US-SULTANL
The beneficent and just Sultan, Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, who was a second Hatim, seized the throne of Ghaznin, and took it out of the hands of Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, who was his father-in-law. He occupied the throne for a period of forty days, and, during this space of time, he was wholly engaged in revelry, and in bestowing largess ; and the affairs of the country through this constant festivity were neglected. The Turks of Ghaznin, and the Maliks ©f the Mu'izzt [dynasty], wrote letters secretly to Sultan Taj-ud-Dm, Yal-duz, and entreated him to return. Sultan Taj-ud-Din determined to march thither from Karman, and, as the distance was short, he reached Ghaznin unexpectedly. Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, when he became aware of this, retired from Ghaznin towards Hindustan again, by the way of Sang-i-Surakh9; and, as both of them, in the position of father-in-law and son-in-law, were in the relation of father and son, they did not cause any injury to be done to each other. Subsequently to that, the territory of Ghaznin came into the possession of Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, and under the authority of the Khwarazmi Maliks, as has been previously recorded.
This Section, on the Shansabanis and their Slaves, is
of Dihll, and dethronement of Kutb-ud-Din's son [according to our author, but his adopted son, according to others], and putting him to death.
9 A very stable government, certainly—forty days ! Our author has made Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, one of the Sultans of Ghaznin, as though he wanted to make up the number as much as possible, and he is introduced here without any cause whatever. Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, took Lahor, and ousted its governor, and held it a much longer time, and he, under the same system, should have been entered among the Sultans of Hindustan.THE SSANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF QHAZNIN. 507
concluded ; and, after this, I come to the Section on the Sultans of Hindustan, the first of whom to be mentioned is Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and his illustrious actions1, which, please God, will be recorded as fully as the limits of this book will permit.
1 The more modern copies of the text differ here somewhat.
K k 2SECTION XX.
ACCOUNT OF THE MU'IZZlAH SULTANS OF HIND.
THUS saith the feeble servant of the Almighty, Abu 'Umr-i-'Usman, Minhaj-i-Saraj, Jurjani—the Almighty God preserve him from indiscretion !—that this Tabakat is devoted to the mention of those Sultans, who were the Slaves of the Court, and servants of the Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Sam l— on whom be peace !—and
1 English writers on Indian History, with scarcely an exception, begin, from this point, their—I say their, because no native historian does so for obvious reasons—"Afghan or Patan Dynasty of Dehli," with the first Turkish slave king, Kutb-ud-Din, of the Powerless Finger,—although one or two of them commence with his Tajik master, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Sam, Ghuri.—as its founder.
This monstrous error, which has been handed down from one writer to another for more than a century, no doubt, originated with Dow, who, in 1768, published a version of Firishtah's History, the commonest Persian historical work that is to be met with in India, and the one1 which is generally known to most educated Musalmans. The work, in itself, which is a compilation from other works, and largely copies the histories composed in the reign of Akbar, is not very often incorrect; but, consequently, Firishtah is not a very great authority, and, as regards non-Indian history, no authority at all.
Dow professes, in his Preface [which teems with monstrous errors, but which I must pass over here, as I have referred to it in another place. See Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society for the present year, 1875], to have entered into " more detail"—to have '' clipped the wings of Firishta!s turgid expressions, and rendered his metaphors into common language;" and further states [p. ix] that he has "given as few as possible of the faults [!] of the author ; but has been cautious enough, not wittingly at least, to sub-stitute any of his own in their place " [!!].
Notwithstanding all this, the work was so translated, that Gibbon suspected "that, through some odd fatality, the style of Firishtah had been improved by that of Ossian;" and, as it caused the late Sir H. Elliot, in his Biographical Index [p. 317], to say "his [Dow's] own remarks are so interwoven as to convey an entirely different meaning from that which Firishtah intendedand "some of the commonest sentences are misunderstood, and the florid diction was occasionally used to gloss and embellish an imperfect comprehension of the original."
This is, by no means, an exaggerated picture of the translation, but, on theTHE MU'IZZlAH SULTANS OF HIND.
who, in the empire of Hindustan, sat upon the throne of sovereignty ; to whom the throne of the kingdom of that
contrary, a very sober one, as I shall show in as brief a manner as possible, with regard to those passages only which have led some conscientious writers to turn Turkish slaves, Khalj Turks, the descendants of Jats, low caste Hindus, and Sayyids, into Afghans or Patans.
Passing over the numerous errors in the Preface of Dow's translation to save space, I begin with his Introduction, which is taken from Firishtah's, but a vast deal of the original is left crut, for obvious reasons, and what has been retained is full of ridiculous mistakes. In the account of a Hindu king styled Kid Raj [page 8], he has : " The mountaineers of Cabul and Candahar, who are called Afgans [sic] or Patans, advanced against Keda-raja." The words in italics are not in Firishtah.
At page 50, vol. i. Dow has : "In the following' year, Mamood [Mahmud of Ghaznin is. meant, but the translator ignores the letter r —h—in his name] led his army towards Ghor. One native prince of that country, Mahommed of the Soor tribe of Afgans [sic], a principality in the mountains famous for giving birth to the Ghorian dynasty&c. Briggs, too, follows Dow closely, and often verbatim, in his version of Firishtah. This identical passage in his translation (vol. i. page 49) runs thus:—"In the following year Mahmood led an army into Ghoor. The native prince of that country, Mahomed of the Afghan tribe of Soor {the same race which gave birth to the dynasty that eventually succeeded in subverting the family of Subooktugeen)," &c.
There is not a word in Firishtah about "the Afghan tribe of Soor:" the whole of the passages in italics, in both translations, are not in Firishtah. From this particular passage it is, I suspect, that the monstrous error of making Patans or Afghans of all the rulers of Dihli, Turk, Khalj, Jat, or Sayyid, has arisen. Compilers of Indian History, no doubt, felt assured that this statement, from its being repeated by both translators, must be in Firig^tah, and, being in Firishtah, that it must be true ; but it is not in Firishtah, neither is such a statement correct, nor is such to be found in any Muhammadan history.
A few lines under the passage in question, thus incorrectly translated, added to, and altered from the original, Firishtah refers to the Kitab-i-Yamini, and quotes our author's work as his authority with reference to the conversion of the Ghurians to Islam, and says : " but the author of the Tabakat-i-Nasiri, and Fakhr-ud-Din, Mubarak Shah. Marw-ar-Rudi—i. e. of the town of Marw-ar-Rud—who composed a history," &c. [which Firishtah never saw, but learnt of it from our author. See page 300]. Dow leaves this passage out entirely: but Briggs, who appears to have been equally smitten with " Afgan or Patan" monomania, translates [page 50], the last part of the sentence, " Fakhr-ood Deen Mubarick Lody who wrote a history," &c. He read Jl jj* — Marw-ar-Rudt—as ijjjJ Lody [Ludl], and so made a " Patan " of him too ! !
At page 132, Dow has : " The generality of the kings of Ghor, according to the most authentic historians, could be traced up, by the names, for three• atid-twenty, and downwards nine generations, from Ali to MAMOOD, the son of Subuctagi," 8cc.
There is not one word of this in Firishtah. He gives the names of their ancestors as our author [from whose work he copied them] and a few others give them, name by name, down to 2ul?ak the TazI ; but not understanding, apparently, what followed in the original, Dow concocted—drew on his ownTHE TABAKAT-J-NASIRL
monarch passed—in the same manner as his own august
fertile imagination—the '' nine generations down to Mamood " of Ghaznin, to whom the Ghuris were no more related than they were to Dow himself.
I have not a copy of Briggs's version by me now, that I might compare it with Dow's, but I should not be surprised if, in this instance also, he had drawn his inspiration from Dow. It was from this identical passage, probably, that the author of a '' Student's Manual of Indian History" was led to imagine that Mahmud of Ghaznin was "the great ancestor of Shahab-ood-Deen."
As Sam was the name of Rustam's family, the Tazlk Gh,uris might have been, with equal plausibility, made descendants of Rustam, son of Zal, the SigizI, and moreover Sigistan or Sijistan is close to Ghur, and several of the Ghuri chiefs were called Sam.
I now pass from the " Ghuzni Patans"and the Turkish slave "Patans" to the Tughlak dynasty or "Tuglick Patans."
Dow has, at page 295, vol. i. : " We have 110 true account of the pedigree of Tuglick. It is generally believed that his father, whose name was Tuglick, had been, in his youth, brought up as an imperial slave, by Balin. His mother was one of the tribe of Jits. But indeed the pedigrees of the Kings of the Patan empire make such a wretched figure in history," &c.
Not one of the words in italics is in Firigh,tah : the whole sentence is his own concoction. Compare Briggs also.
Under the reign of the Afghan ruler whom Dow styles "Shere"[vol. i. page 159], being more correct in his translation, he consequently contradicts some of his former assertions. He then describes Roh from Firishtah [" The Student's Manual of Indian History'" however assures us that it is only "a town, in the province of Peshawur"!!!], but makes several mistakes in doing so ; but Firishtah himself blundered greatly when he said that the son of the Ghuri chief who took up his abode among the Afghans was called Muhammad-i-Suri, and that his posterity are known as the Sur Afghans. The Afghan tradition is very different. According to it, the chief's son was named Shah Husain, he was said to have been descended from the younger branch of the Ghurtan race, while Muhammad-i-Suri, said to be the great-great grandfather of the two Sultans, Ghiya§-ud-Din and Mu'izz-ud-Dln, was descended from the elder branch with whom the sovereignty lay. This Shah Husain, by one of his Afghan wives, had three sons, Ghalzi, Ibrahim, surnamed LodI and Ludi—but properly, Loe-daey—and Sarwani. Ludi had two sons, one of whom was named Slant, who had two sons, Pranki and Isma'il. Pranki is the ancestor in the eighth degree of the first Afghan or Patan that attained the sovereignty of Dihli, namely, Sultan Bah-lul, of the Shahu Khel tribe of Ludi, and founder of the Ludiah dynasty. He is the thirtieth ruler of Dihli counting from Kutb-ud-Din, the Turkish slave of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, Ghuri ; but, according to Mr. E. Thomas : " Chronicles of the Pathan Kings of Dehli,'' he, under the name of "Buhlol Lodi," is the thirty-second Patan ruler.
The other sons, of whom Shah Husain is said to have been the father, formed separate tribes, one of which, the Ghalzis, I shall have to make a few remarks about, shortly.
Isma'il, brother of Pranki, and son of Siani, son of Ludi, had two sons, one of whom was named Sur, who is the founder,—not Muhammad, son of Siiri, the Qhurian—of the Afghan tribe, not of Siiri, which here is a proper name, but of Sur. Sur, great grandson of Ludi, had four sons, from one of whom,THE MU'IZZlAH SULTANS OF HIND.
5"
words had pronounced, and which have been previously
in the ninth degree, sprung Farid, afterwards Sher Shah, and therefore, according to the Afghan mode of describing their peoples' descent, he would be styled, Sher Khan, of the Shera Khel, of the Sur subdivision of the Ludi tribe of the BatanI Afghans or Patans. The name of Surl occurring among the Ghuri Taziks, and Sur among the Afghans, immediately struck Firishtah probably, and he, at once, jumped at the conclusion that they were one and the same, and that the Ghuris were Afghans, and Afghans Gh,uris. But, although Firishtah made this mistake—for he is the first who made it— he never turns Turkish slaves, Khalj Turks, Sayyids, and others into Patans, for, according to Firishtah's statements also, Bah-lul, Ludi, is the first Patan sovereign of Dihli, as stated by other authors who preceded him.
Under the reign of Sallm [Islam] Shah, Sur, Dow has [at page 191, vol. ii.], when mentioning his death, "In this same year, Mahmood, the Patan King of Guzerat, and the Nizam of the Decan, who was of the same nation, died."
Here we have the descendant of a converted Rajput of the Tak sept, on the one hand, and the descendant of a Brahman of Bija-nagar [Bi-jaya-nagar], on the other, turned into Afghans ; but I need scarcely add that the words in italics are not contained in Firishtah. Compare Briggs also here.
One example more and I have done with these monstrous blunders; but there are scores unnoticed still. At page 197, vol. ii. Dow, under the reign of Ibrahim, Sur, has: "In the meantime, Mahommed of the Afghan family of Ghor, govemour of Bengal, rebelled against Mahommed." The words in italics are not contained in Firishtah's text ; and what that author does state is perfectly correct. What Briggs has I am not aware.
The last of the eight Afghan or Patan sovereigns of Dihli, as Bah-lul was the first, was Ahmad Khan, who, on ascending the throne, adopted the title of Sultan Sikandar.
The renowned Afghan chief, the warrior and poet, Khush-ha.1 Khan of the JDiatak tribe, who was well versed in the history of his people, mentions the only two Patan dynasties—Ludiah and Sur, in one of his poems [See my " Poetry of the Afghans," page 197] in these words :—
" The whole of the deeds of the Patans are better than those of the Mughals;
But they have no unity among them, and a great pity it is.
The fame of Bah-lul, and Sher Shah too, resoundeth in my ears—
Afghan emperors of India who swayed the sceptre effectually and well.
For six or seven generations did they govern so wisely,
That all their people were filled with admiration of them."
He does not claim the Tazik Ghuris, Turks, Paranchahs, and Sayyids however.
I must mention before finishing this, I fear, tiresome note, that Elphin-stone does not perpetrate the monstrous blunder I have been dilating on. He very properly calls the Turkish slaves, the " Slave Dynastyand the others under their proper designations. I do not say slaves in a contemptuous sense, far from it, for they were most able rulers, and many of them were of as good descent as their master; but they were not Patans nor did they belong to a Patan dynasty. It was however left for the President of the Archaeological Section, at the late Oriental Congress [on the authority of Major-Gen. A. Cunningham probably] to crown this edifice of errors with "Ghori Pathans," "Khilji Pathans," "Tughlak Pathans,"and "Afghans''512
THE TABA£AT-I.NA§IRI.
recordeda—who became the heirs of his dominion, and the august brows of whom became encircled with the imperial diadem of that sovereign ; and through whose sway the signs of the lights of the Muhammadan faith remained on the records of the different parts and tracts of the territories of Hindustan : and may such evermore continue! The Almighty's mercy be on those passed away, and may He prolong the empire of the remainder !
I. SULTAN KUTB-UD-DlN, ilBAK, AL-MU'IZZI US-SULTAN! =>.
The beneficent Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, the second Hatim, was a high-spirited and open-handed monarch. The Almighty God had endowed him with intrepidity and beneficence, the like of which, in his day, no sovereign of the world, either in the east or west, possessed ; and, when the Most High God desireth to make manifest a servant of His in magnificence and glory in the hearts of mankind, He endows him with these attributes of intrepidity and beneficence, and makes him especially distinguished, both by friend and foe, for bounteousness of generosity and the display of martial prowess, like as this beneficent and victorious monarch was, so that, by the liberality and the enterprise of him, the region of Hindustan became full of friends and empty of enemies. His gifts were bestowed by hundreds of thousands4, and his slaughters likewise were by hundreds of thousands, like as that master of eloquence, the Imam, Baha-ud-Din, Ushis, observes in praise of this beneficent sovereign :—
"Truly, the bestowal of laks thou in the world didst bring : Thy hand brought the mine's affairs to a desperate state. The blood-filled mine's heart, through envy of thy hand, Therefore produced the ruby as a pretext [within it] 6."
[Afghans are not "Pathans" here!], "Bengali Pathans," and "Juanpuri
Pathans." After this we may shortly expect Hindu Pathans and Pars! Pathans, or even English, Irish, and Scotch Pathans.
3 See page 497.
3	That is the slave of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din.
4	Hence he is also called " Lak Balthsh "—the giver of laks. See page 555, where. Rae Lakhmaniah, his contemporary, is also said to have been a Lak Bakhsh.
s He passed the greater part of his life in Hindustan, and was one of the most distinguished men of Kutb-ud-Din's assembly.
The liberality of ^utb-ud-DIn became a proverb in Hindustan, and stillTHE MU'IZZlAH SULTANS OF HIND.
At the outset of his career, when they brought him from Turkistan, Kutb-ud-Din reached the city of Nishapur. The Kazi-ul-Kuzat [Chief Kazi], Fakhr-ud-Din. 'Abd-ul-'Aziz-i-Kufi, who was a descendant of the Imam-i-A'zam, Abu Hanifah of Kufa7, the governor of the province of Nishapur and its dependencies, purchased him ; and, in attendance on, and along with his sons, he read the Word of God, and acquired instruction in horsemanship, and shooting with the bow and arrow, so that, in a short time, he became commended and favourably spoken of for his manly bearing. When he attained unto the period of adolescence8, certain merchants brought him to the Court of Ghaznin; and the Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Sam, purchased him from those traders. He was endowed with all laudable qualities and admirable impressions, but he possessed no outward comeliness ; and the little finger [of one hand ?] had a fracture9, and on that account he used to be styled I-bak-i-Shil [The powerless-fingered] \
continues to be so. "The people of Hind, when they praise any one for liberality and generosity, say he is the ' Kutb-ud-Din-i-kal,' that is, the Kutb-ud-Din of the age, kal signifying the age, the time, &c." Blood is a play on the ruby's colour.
7	See page 384, and note 5.
8	Some say the Kazi sold Kutb-ud-Din to a merchant, but others, that, after the Kazi's death, a merchant purchased Kutb-ud-Din from his sons, and took him, as something choice, to Ghaznin, hearing of Mu'izz-ud-Din's [then styled Shihab-ud-Dln] predilection for the purchase of slaves, and that he purchased Kutb-ud-Din of the merchant at a very high price. Another work states, that the merchant presented him to Mu'izz-ud-Din as an offering, but received a large sum of money in return.
Firishtah quotes from our author here correctly, but his translators manage to distort his statements, and Kutb-ud-Din is made out a proficient in Arabic and Persian, indeed, a ripe scholar. " He made a wonderful progress in the Persian and Arabic languages, and all the polite arts and sciences " says Dow ; and Briggs repeats it; but Firishtah's statement was respecting his talent for government, and his accomplishments in the art of war. Elphinstone and others, led astray by the translators, copy their incorrect statements.
9	The printed text here has the words is—jl which are not correct, and spoil the sense.
1 I-bak—eL»1—alone is clearly not the real name of Kutb-ud-din, for, if it were, then the word shal—Jl—added to it would make it I-bak of the withered or paralyzed hand or limb; and, even if the word shil were used for shal, it would make no material difference. Now we know that Kutb-ud-din was a very active and energetic man, and not at all paralyzed in his limbs; but, in every work in which he is mentioned, it is distinctly stated that he was called I-bak because one of his little fingers was broken or5H
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
At that period, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, now and then was wont to give himself up to pleasure and jollity. One night he had given directions for an entertainment and conviviality, and, during the entertainment, he commanded a gift to be bestowed upon each of the slaves present, consisting of sums of ready money, and gold and silver, both wrought and unwrought. As to the portion of these gifts which came to Kutb-ub-Din's share, he came forth [with] from the jovial party, and bestowed the whole of the wealth upon the Turks2, and janitors, and other attendants, so that nothing whatever, little or much, remained to him.
Next day, this story was conveyed to the royal hearing, and the Sultan distinguished Kutb-ud-Din by his favour and intimacy, and assigned to him an honourable post among the important offices before the throne and the royal audience hall3, and he became the leader of a body of men, and a great official. Every day his affairs attained a high degree of importance, and, under the shadow of the patronage of the Sultan, used to go on increasing, until he became Amir-i-Akhur [Lord of the Stables]. In that office, when the Sultans of Ghur, Ghaznin. and Bamian, advanced towards Khurasan to repel and contend against Sultan Shah, the Khwarazmi. Kutb-ud-Din was at the head of the escort of the foragers of the stable [department], and used, every day, to move out in quest of forage \
injured, and one author distinctly states that on this account the nick-name of I-bak-i-Shil was given to him. Some even state that Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din gave him the name of Kutb-ud-din, while another author states that it was the Sultan who gave him the by-name of I-bak-i-Shil. It may also be remarked that there are a great many others mentioned in this work who are also styled I-bak. Fanakati, and the author of the Jami'-ut-Tawan kh, both style him I-bak-i-Lang—and lang means maimed, injured, defective, &c., as well as lame.
I-bak, in the Turkish language, means finger only, and Ji according to the vowel points, may be 'Arabic or Persian ; but the 'Arabic shal, which means having the hand {or part) withered, is not meant here, but Persian ski I, signifying, "soft, limp, weak, powerless, impotent, paralyzed," thus I-bak-i-Shil—the w:ak fingered. See Thomas : Pathan Kings of dehlf, page 32.
2	Turkish guards, the slaves of the household.
3	The text is defective here in nearly every copy, but comparison makes the passage correct. The idiom also varies considerably for several lines, as in numerous other places, already referred to.
4	Others say Kutb-ud-Din, with the patrol under his command, had pushed up the river bank of the Murgh-ab, towards Marw, when he unexpectedly fell in with the army of Sultan Shah. All his endeavours to effect his retreat,THE MU'IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
Unexpectedly [upon one occasion], the horsemen of Sultan Shah came upon them and attacked them". Kutb-ud-Dln displayed great energy ; but, as the horsemen [with him] were few in numbers, he was taken prisoner; and, by Sultan Shah's commands, was put under restraint.
When a battle took place between Sultan Shah and the Sultans of Ghur and Ghaznin, and the former was put to the rout, the Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din's men brought Kutb-ud-Din, placed on a camel, in gyves of iron, as they found him, into the victorious Sultan's presence. The Sultan commended and encouraged him 6; and, after he returned to the seat of government, Ghaznin, the fief of Kuhram was committed to Kutb-ud-Din's charge 1. From thence he advanced towards Mirath, and took possession of that place in the year 587 H8. From Mirath likewise he issued forth in the year 588 H. and captured Dihli; and, in the
and all the intrepidity he displayed, were futile, as his party was small He was taken prisoner, and conducted to Sultan Shah's presence, and, by that prince's orders, was put in durance. Firishtah, copying from our author, and from others who also agree, states, that, when Mu'izz-ud-Din's men found Kutb-ud-Din, in his place of confinement in Sultan Shah's camp, they placed him on a camel, with his feet still in fetters [as they had no means then of unfastening them], just as he was, and conducted him to the presence of his master, the Sultan. Dow and Briggs however improve upon it, and assert that '' Eibuk was discovered sitting on a camel on the field," and earned to his " old' master," &c. Such is not contained in Firishtah. Both translators fall into the same error of calling Sultan Shah—this is his name, not his title : [see page 245]—"king of Charizm and Khwaruzm," and into this error Elphinstone likewise falls. Seepage 248, and note a, page 456.
5 As a specimen of difference of idiom in the different copies of the text collated I may mention that one set—the oldest—has j'^ijlcl j whilst the more modem set has st,	cJU» ^Liol^f
This important expedition, in which three sovereigns were engaged, is what Elphinstone [page 319, third edition] refers to as "some border warfare with the Kharizmians," in which "he was taken prisoner."
a He was treated with great honour and much favour, and gifts were conferred upon him.
7	As the Sultan's deputy or lieutenant: but this, by his own account, could not have been immediately on returning from that campaign, for as yet the battle of Tara'In was not gained. See page 469. Both Dow and Briggs state that, at this time, the title of Kutb-ud-DIn—which the former correctly translates "the pole-star of religion," and the latter incorrectly, "pole-star of the faitlyW," was conferred upon him ; but Firishtah does not say so, nor any other writer that I am aware of. He had been so named long before this period.
8	This is the year in which Kutb-ud-DIn, as Lord of the Stables only, was taken prisoner in Khurasan, and is impossible. Our author constantly contradicts his own dates. See pages 379 and 469.5i6
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
year 590 H., Kutb-ud-Din proceeded, at the august stirrup of the victorious Sultan, along with the Sipah-Salar, 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil, both of them being the leaders of the van of the army, and fell upon the Rae of Banaras, Jai-Chand, on the confines of Chand-wal9 and overthrew him.
Subsequently, in the year 591 II., Thankir was taken; and, in 593 H., Kutb-ud-Din marched towards Nahrwalah, and attacked Rae Bhim Diwand took vengeance upon that tribe [of people] for the Sultan-i-Ghaz~i['s previous defeat]. He likewise subdued other territories of Hindustan as far [south ?] east as the frontier of the territory of
9 See following note 2, last para., page 518.
1	The best St. Petersburgh MS. has Thinur Diw [	here J but the majority, including the two other oldest copies of the text, are as above.
2	Our author omits mentioning many important events which are not touched upon in Mu'izz-ud-Din's reign, although, at page 507, he says he intends giving a detailed account of the Kutbi victories under Kutb-ud-Din's reign. As this is one of the most important periods of Indian history, I am obliged, in order to give some connexion to the events of the Muhammadan conquest, to burden this translation with an abstract of - them, more particularly as they are not given, in any detail, except in two histories, and, even in them, the chronological order of events has not been strictly observed. The Taj-ul-Ma'asir states that, after taking Ajmir, subsequent to the overthrow and death of Rae Pithora and the installation of his son as tributary ruler of that state, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-DIn proceeded towards Dihll, which was then held by a kinsman of Khandi [Gobind of our author] Rae, tbe brother of Rae Pithora ; but, on his tendering submission, and payment of a large sum as tribute, he was left unmolested, under the same terms as Ajmir had been left in possession of Rae Pithora's son, but some say his brother. Kuhram and Samanah were left in Kutb-ud-Din's charge, and he was left at the former place as the Sultan's deputy or lieutenant, and Mu'izz-ud-Din himself returned to Ghaznin. Elphinstone says, page 314, on the authority of Firisljtah's translators, I suppose, that, when " Shahab u din" returned to Ghaznin, he left 11 his former slave, Kutb u din Eibak," as his representative in India; and yet " his former slave " did not get his manumission until upwards of twelve years afterwards, as all native authors, including Firishtah himself, state : and such is history !
Another account is, that, after being installed at Kuhram, Kutb-ud-Din marched from thence against Mirath, and gained possession of it, after which he moved against Dihll and invested it. The kinsman of Khandi Rae appealed to his Rajput countrymen for aid, and an army of Rajputs, in concert with the garrison, endeavoured to raise the investment by attacking Malik Kutb-ud-Din and his forces in the plain before the city. The Hindus, however, were overthrown, and the defenders, being reduced to straits, called for quarter, and surrendered the place.
In Ramazan, 588 H., according to the Taj-ul-Ma'asir [Firishtah, who often quotes it, says Ramazan, 589 H.], news reached Kutb-ud-Din that an army of Jats [Firishtah says "under a leader named Jatwan, a dependent of the Rae ofTHE MU'IZZlAIi SULTANS OF HIND.
517
Ujjain3; and Malik 'Izz-ud-Din \ Muhammad, son of Bakht-
s Ujjain is as plainly written as it is possible to write, and the £ has the tashdid mark over it in the two oldest and best copies of the text. Other copies have but it is evidently owing, in the first place, to a copyist or copyists dropping the I that the error arose—thus ^ and ^ for Ujjain is the more probable, and certainly the more correct, if the map of India be consulted, and the account of his campaigns, in the abstract I have given, read. It is confirmed also by some other authors; but the generality of histories, which are comparatively modern, with the exception of Mir'at-i-Jahan-Numa, which has Ujjain, have Chin. The only reason that will account for such an idea having arisen respecting Chin must have been the raid of Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar, the Khalj. into Tibbat, mentioned at page 564, which ended so disastrously.
4 Ikhtivar-ud-Dln. Muhammad, is his correct name, as our author himself states in his account of him. See page 548.
Nahrwalah "] had appeared before Hansf. The governor of that tract, Nus-rat-ud-Din, Salari, had been obliged to shut himself up within the walls, and to send to Kutb-ud-Dln for aid. He flew to his assistance, marching the same night the news reached him twelve leagues. The enemy, hearing of his approach, decamped; but, being closely pursued, faced about, and were overthrown. Their leader was slain [Firishtah says he retired to Nahrwalah of Gujarat], and Kutb-ud-Din, having again placed Hans! in an efficient state, returned to Kuhfam, and soon after made Dihli his head-quarters and the seat of government; but some authors state that he did not make it the capital until the following year, after taking Kol.
Kutb-ud-Din had soon to take the field again to support the son of Rae Pithora, who had been installed tributary ruler of Ajmir. The Sadr-i-'Ala, Ifiwam-ul-Mulk, Rukn-ud-DIn, Hamzah, who held the fief of Rantabhur, sent information that Bhiraj	also written Bhuraj [^ly*-], who is called
Hiraj [^-j/*] in some imperfect copies of the Taj-ul-Ma'asir, Hemraj by Firishtah. and Hamir by some others, brother of the late Rae Pithora, had broken out into rebellion; that the son of Rae Pithora, who is sometimes called [the?] Golah, but generally styled merely "the son," was in great danger; and that the rebel was advancing against Rantabhur itself. Kutb-ud-Din marched from Dihli against him; but Bhiraj [or Hamir], on hearing of his coming, made off and took to the hills. Rae Pithora's son [see Tod, who says his only son, Rainsi, did not survive him ! He further states that Dow, mistaking the appellation of Pirt'hwiraja's natural brother for a proper name, calls him Golah. The error is Firishtah's, however, not Dow's, in this instance], ruler of Ajmir, was, upon this occasion, invested with an honorary robe ; in return he presented valuable offerings, among which were three golden melons [kettledrums, in the shape of melons], and, in all probability, the very same as mentioned at page 404.
About this time, also, while Kutb-ud-Din was still absent from Dihli, its former Rae raised an army to make an effort against the Musalmans. He was pursued and defeated by Kutb-ud-Din, taken prisoner, and his head struck off and sent to Dihli.
According to the Taj-ul-Ma'asir, Kutb-ud-Din, at this time, sent an account of his proceedings to his master, and was summoned to Ghaznin. As it was then the hot season, he waited until the beginning of the rains to set out for the capital. Having reached Qbaznin, and having been received with great honour518	THE TABA5AT.I.NA§IRl.
yar, the Khalj. in his [Malik Kutb-ud-Din's] time, and
and favour by the Sultan, he fell dangerously sick; but subsequently recovered, and " was permitted to return to Hindustan again, and the government was again conferred upon him."
Our author, under the reign of I-yal-timish [see next Section], also refers to this journey, but he says it took place after the expedition against Nahrwalah. It must have occupied some months; but, in the meantime, who acted as the Sultan's lieutenant at Dihli ? It would almost seem as though Kutb-ud-Din had been suspected of being too powerful, and that this summons to Ghaznin was to test his obedience and loyalty. One thing, however, is certain, from the account of Malik Baha-ud-Din, Tugh,ril [page 544], and the mention of Malik Husam-ud-Din, Aghul-Bak, and others [page 549], that there were powerful chiefs left by the Sultan in Hindustan who held fiefs independent of Kutb-ud-Din. It was on this occasion, on his return to Dihll by way of Gar-daiz and Karman [which Dow, translating Firishtah, who is perfectly correct, renders " Persian Kirman," and adds, in a note, that it is " the ancient Car-mania" !], that Kutb-ud-Din espoused the daughter of Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz. This journey Firishtah, who constantly quotes the Taj-ul-Ma'asir, mentions as taking place in 592 h.
After remaining a short time at Dihli, Kutb-ud-Din marched from it in 590 h., crossed the Jun, and took the strong fortress of Kol after an obstinate resistance, and acquired great booty. It was after this, according to some histories, including the Tabakat-i-Akbari,—a work compiled from the best authorities,—that Kutb-ud-Din made Dihli the seat of his government; but the Taj-ul-Ma'asir seems to imply, but not exactly expressing it, that Dihli was made the seat of government in 588 h., although, by its own account, the Hindu ruler "was allowed [in that year] to hold it upon the same terms as Ajmir was held," already mentioned.
Kutb-ud-Din now [590 h., but same say in 589 h., the same year in which Dihll was made the seat of government] received intimation of the Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din's having marched from Ghaznin on an expedition against Jai Chand [Jai Ch,andra], Rajah of Kinnauj and Banaras, his former ally, against Rae Pithora, according to the Hindu Chroniclers, who, it is said, meditated an attack upon Kutb-ud-Din. On hearing of the Sultan's having crossed the Sutlaj, Kutb-ud-Din proceeded some stages in advance to receive him and do him honour, bearing along with him rich offerings. [Firishtah, who gives an account of this matter, uses the word peshwa'i— i_s — which signifies meeting and conducting a superior or a guest; but his translators, Dow and Briggs, mistaking, say respectively that Kutb-ud-Din "proceeded as far as Peshawir" and "Pishawur" to meet him ! ! Where Dihli ? where Peshawar ? where Kinnauj ? Fancy his marching from Dihli with 50,000 horse at his heels, and crossing the five great rivers of the Panjab, merely to meet his master marching to Kinnauj !!]
Kutb-ud-Din's following, upon this occasion, amounted to 50,000 horse [the Muhammadan forces of Hindustan]; and, having joined the Sultan's army, he, in concert with 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil [the same who afterwards turned traitor, and played such a false part towards Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, mentioned in note3, page 257], led the vanguard [the principal division unencumbered with heavy baggage, not "a small detachment of 1000 horse"] of the Sultan's army. The Musalmans came in contact with Jai Chand's forces in the environs of Chand-war and Itawah [another author says C^anda-war. It is probably Ch,and-wal of Itawah, a place a few miles S.E.THE MU'IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND.	519
during his government, subdued the cities of Bihar and
of the latter town. See page 470], and compelled them to give way. Jai Chand. in person, then led on his forces to renew the action, in the heat of which an arrow struck him in one of his eyes, and he fell dead from his elephant. See also note 2, page 470, and compare the absurd statement of the Kamil-ut-Tawarikh in Elliot : India, vol. ii., page 250-251.
It is truly amusing to compare Firishtah's account of this affair with the versions of his translators. He, quoting the Taj-ul-Ma'asir, says—I give his own words—"At last Jai Chand, in person, appeared in the field against Kutb-ud-Din, and, during the very heat of the fight, a life-taking arrow j.J] efitered the pupil of the Rajah's eye, and he fell from his elephant into the dust of contempt." Dow renders this: " But Cuttub, who excelled in archery, sunk an arrow in the ball of his eye and Briggs has : 41 Kootb ood Deent who excelled in arihery, came in contact with Raja Jye Chund, and with his own hand shot the arrow which, piercing his eye, cost the Rajah his life"!!!
The Musalman troops, having overthrown Jai Chand's army, and taken possession of the fortress of Asi, where his treasures were kept, pushed on to Banaras, "one of the most central and considerable cities of Hindand scores of idol temples were destroyed, and a vast amount of booty acquired, including a large number of elephants, among which was a white one. [Firishtah says this white elephant, a most rare animal, was presented by the Sultan to Kutb-ud-Din, who used to ride it up to the time of his death, and that it died of grief the day after. This, however, is mere supposition, for it appears that this same white elephant was taken to Ghaznin, and from thence to Ghur. to Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mu'izz-ud-Din's elder brother and sovereign; and it was afterwards presented by Mahmud, the former's son, to Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, when he became subject to that monarch. See note 3, para. 9, page 402]. Elphinstone says this victory over Jai-Chand "extended the Mussulman dominion unto Behar !" but this is not correct. Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar, it was who, shortly after these events, took the city of that name by surprise.
After these successes Sultan Mu'izz-ud Din returned to Ghaznin, and Malik Husam-ud-Din, Aghul-Bak [the same who took Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar, the Khalj, into his service, see page 549],- was installed at Kol. [Firishtah, in his work, gives his account of the expedition against Bhiraj —para. 4 of this note—in this place. ]
Kutb-ud-Din soon had to take the field again against Bhiraj [or Hamir], who had issued from the hills of Alwur, whither he had fled, first fought an engagement with his nephew of Ajmir, defeated him, compelled him to fly for shelter to Rantabhur, and took possession of Ajmir, and despatched a force under a leadfer named Jhat Rae towards Dihli; but Kutb-ud-Din, having speedily selected a force of 20,000 horse, marched to encounter him. Jhat Rae faced about, and was pursued by the Musalmans to Ajmir. Bhiraj [or Hamir] then drew out his forces to give battle, but he was defeated, and retired within the walls; and then, finding resistance fruitless, ascended a funeral pyre and perished. After this a Muhammadan governor was left in charge of Ajmir, but what became of Rae Pithora's son has not transpired.
After this, on disposing of the affairs of Ajmir, Kutb-ud-Din is said to have led his forces, in 591 H., towards Nahrwalah of Gujarat, and encountered the general of Bhim Diw [according to Tod, Komar-pal was his name], Rae of Nahrwalah, who is styled by the name of Jatwan, and who was encamped with520	THE TABA£AT-I-NA§IRL
Nudfah, and that country [Bihar], as will be hereafter recorded.
his army under the walls of the place. On the appearance of Kutb-ud-Din he retired, but was pursued, and, being hard pressed, faced about, made a stand, was defeated and slain. Bhiin Diw fled from his capital to the farthest quarter of his dominions; and, Kutb-ud-Din, having acquired enormous booty in that territory, returned by way of Hans! to Dihli.
In the year 592 h., the Jami' Masjid [now known as the Kutbi Masjid] at Dihli, which Kutb-ud-Din is said to have founded in 589 h., and on which the most skilful Musalman artizans had been employed [not Hindus solely, Mr. Grant Duff and General Cunningham notwithstanding], and no expense spared, is said to have been completed. [See note on the Minar, styled the Minar of Kutb Sahib, under the reign of I-yal-timish.] The date of its foundation, as given by Thomas, " Path an Kings of Dehli," page 22, c, note1, is erroneous, as Dehli was not acquired, as I have shown [note 9, page 46Q], until subsequent to that date, in 589 h. It is evident that —seven—has been read instead of £—7—nine, the two words, without the points, on which all depends, being exactly alike; and, in writing such as the inscription is in, may be easily mistaken.
In this same year, 592 h., according to the Taj-ul-Ma'asir, but 591 h., according to our author, and 590 h., according to Alft, Kutb-ud-Din was preparing an expedition against Thankir or Thangir—also written Thankir or Thangir—the modern Bhianah [a further notice of which will be found at page S4S]> when intimation reached him of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din's moving from Ghaznin for the same purpose. He went as far as Hansi to meet his sovereign, and they marched in concert thither; and Kutb-ud-Din brought about the surrender of that stronghold, which was made over to Malik Baha-ud-Din, Tughril. After this the royal forces advanced to Gwaliyur, the Rajah of which agreed to pay tribute, and he was left unmolested. For further particulars, see page 546, and note 7. After this event, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din returned again to Ghaznin.
While Kutb-ud-Din was at Ajmir, according to the Taj-ul-Ma'asir [Firish-tah has, at Dihli, in 592 h. The former work has 591 h., which cannot be correct, from the date it subsequently gives], information was brought to him that a body of rebel Mers or Mairs [not Mhers, for there is no h in the word. Firishtah says—J^j —probably "the Tunur Rajahs"—and adds, "that is to say, Rajputs." Dow translates the passage, "many Indian independent princes," which is pretty near Firisitah's meaning ; but Briggs has : "The Raja of Nagoor and many other Hindoo Rajas "], having gathered together, sent emissaries to the Rae of Nahrwalah, asking him to aid them in attacking the Musalmans, who were but few in number. On becoming aware of this intention, Kutb-ud-Din resolved to be beforehand with them ■ and, although it was the height of the hot season, early one morning fell upon the rebels, and kept up a conflict with them the whole of that day. Next morning the army of Nahrwalah appeared upon the scene, and handled the Musalmans very roughly. Kutb-ud-Din's horse received a wound which brought it to the ground, and his troops, greatly disheartened, with much difficulty managed to mount him upon another horse, and carried him off to Ajmir.
Tod, referring to this affair, in his Rajasthan, vol. i., page 259, remarks, that " Samarsi [Prince of Cheetore] had several sons; but Kurna was his heir, and, during his minority, his mother, Korumdevi, a princess of Putun, noblyTHE MU'IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND.	521
When the Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhimmad-i-
maintained what his father left. She headed her Rajpoots, and gave battle to Kootub-o-din, near Amber, where the viceroy was wounded." In k note he adds: "This must be [of course I] the battle referred to by Ferishta. See Dow, p. 169, vol. ii." The "wound or wounds" must also have come from Dow or Briggs, for it is not in Firisht^h. This statement of the translators, not Firishtah's, must have led Elphinstone astray, when he says [page 315 of third ed ]: " Kutb u Din was overpowered on this occasion, and had difficulty in making his way, covered with wounds, to Ajmir," &c. The statement 'of Firishtah's is this :—" But his horse, having received a wound, came to the ground. The army of Islam became heart-broken, and they, having by main force—[J-Sj	plated him on another horse, took him to Ajmir" This is
all; but his translators certainly display much fertility of imagination in their rendering of Firishtah's words. Dow has : "But he was defeated, received six wounds, and was often dismounted; yet he fought like a man who had made death his companion. Forced, at last, by his own friends, to abandon the field, he was carried in a litter to Ajmere." Briggs has : " But he was defeated. After being frequently dismounted in the action, and having received six wounds, he still fought with his wonted courage, till, being forced at length by his attendants off the field, he was carried in a litter to Ajmeer." 111
Emboldened by this success, the rebel Hindus [the of Firightah], with the troops of Nahrwalah, followed Kutb-ud-Din and his force, pursued them to Ajmir, and took up a position a short distance from it; and for several months they shut up Kutb-ud-Din within the walls, and carried on hostilities against the place. On intimation of the state of affairs having reached Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, he despatched a large force from Ghaznin, under several of the great Amirs, to succour Kutb-ud-Din; but the infidels thought fit to retire before it arrived.
From 591 h. the Taj-ul-Ma'asir jumps at once to 593 h., although immediately before giving an account of the expedition against Thanklr or Thangir and Gwaliyur in 592 h., thus showing that 591 h. cannot be correct. The correct date of this reverse must be the ninth or tenth month of 592 H., as Firigh,tah states. To return, however, to the narrative. Kutb-ud-Din, finding himself thus supported, resolved upon taking vengeance on the Rae of Gujarat, and, in the middle-otSafar—the second month of the year—593 H., which year is confirme^by our author and several others, he began his march towards Nahri walah/ When he reached the bounds of Pali and Nadul [these names are not certain, but such they appear in the Taj -ul-Ma'asir. In proceeding from Ajmir to^ahrwalah, Kutb-ud-Din had the choice of two routes, that on the eastern slopes of the Arawali mountains, by Udipur and Idur, or that on the western or Mafwar side, clear of the mountains; and this last he would in all probability have chosen by the direct route of Pali and Sirhoi, keeping Abu on his left. Nadul, where, as at Pali, are the remains of ancient forts, lies about twenty-five miles or more south of Pali, but off the direct line of route by Sir-hot ; but it must also be mentioned that there are places named Palri and Birgoni close to the hills nearer to Sirhoi,' and a Ruira still nearer Abu. Firishtah does not appear to have taken his account from the Taj-ul-Ma'asir in this instance, as the two names he gives may be either Hutali or Dhutali and Bazul or Barul, or Rahi and Bartuki and Nuzul or Nadul, as above] he found those places abandoned—thus tending to show that they were in the lower and less tenable parts—and the enemy under two leaders, one of whorri is styled Rae Karan [Kumah, probably] in the Taj-ul-Ma'a§ir, and Ursi [_,-j ]
L 1522
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
Sam, attained martyrdom5, Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mah-
* Fanakati makes a nice hash of this event. He says "after Shihab-ud-Din, his slave, Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, became the great Sultan [^UxL. JjI], and paid homage to Shihab-ud-Din's son, Mahmud by name, who was Wall of Ghaznin." and that writer makes out that Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din was the younger [/-/] brother, and Shihab-ud-Din the elder. He has substituted Shihab for Ghivas ; and the same is stated in several copies of his work.
The Taj-ul-Ma'asir states, "when the mournful news reached Kutb ud-Din, and the period of mourning had expired, he sent out notifications to all parts of Hind and Sind, intimating his assumption of the sovereignty, which notifications were attended to by the chief rulers [feudatories?] in those territories; and, after the defeat of I-yal-duz, the whole tract, from Ghaznin [he should have added, as far as concerns Ghaznin and its territory, for forty days and nights only] to the extremity of Hindustan, came under his jurisdiction," and a great deal of such like exaggeration.
With respect to this matter, and the date, there is very great discrepancy
in Firishtah ; and the other, Rarabars or Darabars in the former, and Walan [o'b] in Ae latter, were posted at the base of the hills of Abu-gadh [this word is written without points ["J^jH], and maybe either Alu-gadh [ *i> jM] or Abu-gadh [.®!LT	Elphinstone has: "Two great feudatories of
Guzerat strongly posted on the mountain of A'bu." If he had ever seen Abu, he would have understood that they might as well have been posted on the Himalayah as there, since the Musalmans would not pass over or through it. Firishtah says: "At the foot of the fort .of Abu or Alu-gadh "], at the entrance to a pass where the Musalmans did not dare to attack them, as it was the very spot where Sultan Muhammad-i-Sam, Ghuri, had been previously wounded, and it was deemed unpropitious to bring on an action there lest the same might happen. [Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din is here referred to, and this statement does not tend to increase our confidence in what the Taj-ul-Ma'asir says, and it is quite certain that Mu'izz-ud-DIn was never wounded but once, and then not near Ajmir. Tod asserts [vol. i., page 696], upon Rajput authority, no doubt, and therefore we must make every allowance, that it was at this very place [Nadole] that '' Mahmoud's [Mahmud's ?] arms were disgraced, the invader wounded, and forced to relinquish his enterprise." But in another place [page 249] he says "Nadole is mentioned in Ferishfah as falling a prey to one of Mahmood's invasions, who destroyed its ancient temples." Both the statements are much of a piece.] " Seeing their hesitation," sajrs the Taj-ul-Ma'asir, "the Hindus advanced to encounter them [Firishtah, on the other hand, says " Kutb-ud-Din entered those defiles, and broken ground, and, defeated them "] ; and, after facing them for some time, on Sunday, 13th of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 593 h. [about the 5th of January, 1197 a.d., the year 593 h. having commenced on the 23rd of November, 1196], a battle took place, which was obstinately contested from dawn to mid-day, and ended in the complete overthrow of the infidels, who are said to have lost nearly 50,000 [!] killed. [Firishtah says "nearly 15,000 killed and 20,000 captives, thus avenging his former defeat."] Rae Karan escaped, leaving twenty elephants, and 20,000 captives, besides booty to a great amount. Nahrwalah was taken possession of, and a Musalman Amir was located there [?], after which Kutb-ud-Din returned to Dihli by way of Ajmir; and offerings of jewels, and handsome male and female captives, were despatched to Ghvir [to Sultan Qhiyas-ud-Din] and to Qljaznin. [Gujarat could not have been retained for any time, as it was notTHE MU'IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND,
523
mud, son of [Ghiyas-ud-Din] Muhammad, son of Sam,
among historians. . In the first place, however, I must mention, that our author himself states, at page 398, that, "when Kutb-ud-Din came to Ghaznln [for the forty days after which he ran away. See note 8, page 503], he despatched Ni?am-ud-Dln, Muhammad, to Firuz-koh to the presence of Sultan Mahmud;" and in 605 H. [much the most probable date, for reasons to be mentioned subsequently] he, Mahmud, sent him a canopy of state, &c., thus contradicting his own statement here. See also page 398, and note 3, page 500, para. 2.
Several histories and authors, including Tarikh-i-Ibrahimi, Tabakat-i- Akbarl, Lubb-ut-Tawarik^-i-Hind, Tagkirat-ul-Muluk, Buda'uni, &c., state that Kutb-ud-Din assumed sovereignty, at Lahor, on Tuesday [one has Sunday, the 17th, another Wednesday], the 18th of Zi-Ka'dah, 602 H., which is much the same as our author says here, and just two months and a^ialf from the date of the Sultan's decease. One of these works states that " Kutb-ud-Din had gone to Lahor in order to receive the canopy of state, a standard, the deed of manumission, the title of Sultan—as he was styled Malik mostly up to this time and
permanently acquired by thq Musalmans until long after. ] Promotions and favours were conferred upon the Muhammadan chiefs, and even the poor and needy [Musalmans] of Dihli shared in Kutb-ud-Din's bounty and munificence.
No other operation is mentioned from this time to-the year 599 H., a period of nearly six years ; and it is somewhat surprising to find the Musalmans in India so quiet for such a length of time. It may be partly accounted for, especially the last three years, through the Sultans—Ghiyas-ud-Din and Mu'izz-ud-Din—being occupied with the affairs of Khurasan since the accession of their powerful rival, Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, the events of whose reign will throw some light upon this period.
In the year 599 H., the same in which Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din died, and his brother, Mu'izz-ud-DIn, became supreme sovereign, Kutb-ud-Din undertook an expedition against Kalinjar. The Rae of Kalinjar of the Pramarah race made a desperate resistance in the field, according to the Taj-ul-Ma'asir, before retiring within the walls ; but Firishtah asserts that, in "the twinkling of an eye, he faced about and fled for shelter to the fortress." He was invested therein, and shortly after he made terms, and agreed to submit to Kutb-ud-Din on terms the same as those upon which his ancestors had paid obedience to Sultan Mahmud, Ghaznawld ; and stipulated for the presentation of a large amount in jewels and other precious things, and a number of horses and elephants. It so happened that, next day, while engaged in collecting together this tribute, he was cut off by the hand of death. His Wakil or minister, Ajah DIw [in Firishtah, Jadah Diw], bethinking himself of a never-failing spring of water in the upper part of the place, determined to resist the Musalmans instead of agreeing to the terms; but, as fortune had turned its face from him, and adversity had come, the spring within a few days dried up, and the people within the walls, being helpless, were compelled to call for quarter ; and they came out, and gave up the place. Vast booty in jewels, arms, elephants, and other property fell into the hands of the Musalmans, who became rich from the spoils; and 50,000 captives, male and female, were taken, and were, according to Firishtah, "exalted to the excellence of Islam," and the idol temples were converted into masjids.
It is amusing here also to find how Firishtah, whose account is substantially the same as the preceding, has been translated. Dow says: "In the year 599 he mustered his forces, and marched to the siege of Calinger, where he was
L 1 2524
THE TABA^AT-I-NASIRI.
who was Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din's brother's son, despatched
was still a slave—and the government of Hindustan, which. Mahmud had conferred upon him, or rather, confirmed him in, and was greatly exalted and honoured thereby." Our author, and some who copy him, state, that Kutb-ud-DIn returned to Dihli after the expedition against the Khokhars ; but it must be remembered that Kutb-ud-DIn accompanied his master, Mu'izz-ud-Din, to Lahor after that affair, and, as only two months and sixteen days elapsed between the assassination of the Sultan and Kutb-ud-Din's assumption of the sovereignty at Lahor, it is therefore probable that, on hearing of the assassination of the Sultan, which took place only fifteen days after the latter left Lahor, he returned to it at once, and possibly had not even left it when the news reached him. After a time, he returned to Dihli again. The Taj-ul-Ma'asir says he made Luhawar his capital, "the place where the throne of Sultans had been established," but the reason, why he eventually returned to Lahor, and continued there to the day of his death, has been stated already in another place. See note 8, page 503.
It is stated in another work, the .Khulasat-ut-Tawarikh, that Kutb-ud-DIn
met by Gola, the tributary prince of that country, whom he defeated; and, dismounting his cavalry [!], began to besiege him in the fort." All this is pure invention : there is nothing of the kind in Firishtah. Brjggs has : " In the year 599 he mustered his forces, and marched against Kalunjur, where he was opposed by the Raja of that country, whom he defeated ; then, dismounting his cavalry, he laid siege to the fort." A siege and an investment are far different things. All about " the Hindoo flag being again hoisted on the fort" is also purely imaginary, and is not contained in Firishtah's text.
Here is another choice specimen of how Indian history is written. Its source, of course, is Dow and Briggs, not Firightah. In Marshman's " History of India," vol. i., page 197, is the following : "In the year 599 he mustered his forces, and marched against Kulunjur, where he was opposed by the Raja of that country, whom he defeated ; then, dismountifig his cavalry, he laid siege to the fort. The Raja, seeing himself hard pressed, offered Kootb-ood-Deen Eibulc the same tribute and presents which his ancestors had formerly paid to Sooltan Mahmood. The proposal was accepted ; but the Raja's minister, who resolved to hold out without coming to terms, caused his master to be assassinated, while the presents were preparing. The Hindoo flag was again hoisted on the fort, the siege recommenced, but the place was eventually reduced, owing to the drying up of a spring upon the hill which supplied the garrison with water."
From Kalinjar Kutb-ud-DIn marched to the city of Mahobah, the capital of the territory of Kalbl, which he took possession of, and returned to Dihli by way of Buda'un, one of the chief cities of Hind, which he also occupied. [It is not Firightah who places "Bada'un between the Ganges and the Jamna" (see Elliot, India, vol. ii., page 232, note b'ut Dow and Briggs, who misinterpret him.] It was whilst in this part that Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar, the Khalj. is said to have presented himself in Kutb-ud-Din's presence, —not from Awadh and Bihar, but from A-dwand-Bihar, noticed in the account of that chief farther on—bearing rich presents in jewels and coin of various descriptions ; but this certainly took place ten years before 599 h. He was received with great distinction, as his fame had extended over Hind and Sind. When he was admitted to an audience to take leave, he received a robe of honour, a standard, and other insignia, as will be found mentioned in the account of him at page 548.THE MU'IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
S25
a canopy of state to Malik Kutb-ud-Din, and conferred on him the title of Sultan6 ; and, in the year 602 H., he determined to proceed from Dihli to the royal presence in Lohor7; and, on Tuesday, the 17th of the month, Zi-
ascended the throne, at Lahor, on the nth of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 603 h., and that he read the Khutbah for himself, and coined money in his own name, and yet, although the coins of others are, comparatively, so plentiful, it is stated that not one bearing the name of Kutb-ud-Din has ever been found. A work in my possession, however, which contains specimens of the different coins of the Sultans of Hind, with the inscriptions they are said to have borne, gives the following as a specimen of Kutb ud-Dln's coins :—
i.r *:«, ^ aL>l (^jJI i^Jj (jUaL* j	nSZ,
which may be thus rendered :—" Coin of the inheritor of the kingdom and signet of Sultan, Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, in the year 603 h.," and on the reverse :—" Stmck at the Dar-ul-Khilafat, Dihli, in the first [year] of [his] accession."
I rather doubt the possibility of Malik [which was his only title up to his ascending the throne at Lahor] Kutb-ud-Din's having received the title of Sultan and the investiture of the sovereignty of Hindustan as early as Zi-Ka'dah, 602 h., because Ghiyas-ud-DIn. Mahmud, did not at once obtain the supreme [nominal only] authority after the assassination of his uncle. His kinsman, 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, previously called by the name of Ziya-ud-Din [See page 394] was, at that time, ruler of Ghur and Firuz-koh, and Mahmud was at Bust, and it must have taken him some few months, at the very least, to dispossess'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, and acquire possession of the sovereignty; and this would bring us to 603 h., as on the coin given above. One author, in fact, states, and it is not improbable, that 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, who then held Ghur, after the Sultan's assassination—in which case, 602 h. would be correct—sent Kutb-ud-Din a canopy of state, and conferred on him the sovereignty of Hind, and that Mahmud, subsequently, did the same ; and one of the authors previously referred to says Kutb-ud-Din was at Purghor, when Mahmud's communication, conferring this dignity, reached him, and further states that he had gone there to guard the route into India.
Another thing to be remembered is, that, by our author's account, the statements of the Taj-ul-Ma'asir, and the greater number of other histories, Kutb-ud-Din died in 607—although some say in 609, and 610 h.—in what month is not stated, after a reign of little over four years ; but, if we consider a little, four years from Zi-Ka'dah, 602 h., only brings us to the same month of 606 h. Strange to say, Fasih-i, although mentioning the assassination of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din in 602 h., does not mention Kutb-ud-Din's acquirement of power as Sultan until 608H.—"when the title of Sultan was conferred and he was manumitted "—one year before Mahmud's assassination, which he says occurred in 609 h., and states that Kutb-ud-DIn was killed by a fall from his horse in 610 h. See note page 528.
• See note 3, page 500.
7 The text in most copies, including the printed text, is slightly defective here, causing a meaning contrary to what our author would convey. It is evident, from various events, that Kutb-ud-Din did not "determine to go to the526
THE TABAKAT-1-NA§IRI.
Ka'dah, of that same year, he ascended the throne in the royal Kasr of Lohor.
After some time, hostility arose between him and Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, respecting Lohor, so much so, that that hostility led to an engagement; and, in that affair, the victory was with Sultan Kutb-ud-Din. Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, was defeated, and retreated before him ;8 and
capital, Lohor," as the words	alone mean j and, farther,
Lahor was not the capital. The correct reading is as above, namely— j**.}I. v^oa. sty	and this refers, not to his going to the city of Lahor
merely, but into the Lahor territory to join his master the Sultan against the Khokhars ; he only relates it in the wrong place. After their overthrow, the Sultan came to Lahor, accompanied by Kutb-ud-Din; and, subsequently, after the Sultan's assassination, the latter assumed sovereignty there. Zi-Ka'dah is the eleventh month. This is evidently our author's meaning. Kutb-ud-Din had no reason to " attack Lohor," as in Elliot, India : vol. ii. page 300, and the imperfect passage in the printed text even will not bear such a rendering.
8 I have, in a previous place [see page 502, note fl], referred to the proceedings of Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, towards Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, and Kutb-ud-Din's jealousy of I-yal-duz, and his offer of aid to Abi-Dakur against him.
In the year 603 h , shortly after Kutb-ud-Din is said, by some, to have received his freedom,, and the title of Sultan from Sultan Mahmud, I-yal-duz, who considered the Panjab part of the dominion of Ghaznin to which he had succeeded, and which had neither been assigned, by Mahmud, to Kutb-ud-Din, nor to the other slave, Kaba-jah, Kutb-ud-Din's son-in-law, despatched the Khwajah, the Mu-ayyid-ul-Mullc, Sanjari, the Wazir of Ghaznin, against Lahor [but a few authors say he went himself], and ousted Kaba-jah, who held it, nominally, for Kutb-ud-Din. Kutb-ud-Din, soon after, marched against I-yal-duz with all the available troops of Hindustan, and a battle took place between them, in the Panjab, and I-yal-duz was worsted, and retreated into the strong country of Karman and Shaluzan. Kutb-ud-Din now pushed on to Ghaznin, which having obtained possession of, he gave himself up to wine and riot; and this, according to our author, at page 398, happened in 605 h., which is a more probable date than 603 h.
There are great discrepancies; however, in several works of authority, which are difficult to reconcile with the above in many respects, in Alfi, Yafa-i, and the Jami'-ut-Tawarikh, which must be briefly alluded to.
It is said in the first-mentioned work that, soon after the death of Mu'izz-ud-Din, I-yal-duz had to abandon the Ghaznin territory, because, through the treachery of Kutlagh,-Tigin, a former slave of the late Sultan [can this be the slave who shut the gates upon his master mentioned in note 2, page 475 ?], and who, since his death, had been in Sultan Mahmud's service, but was now one of I-yal-duz's principal Amirs and held Ghaznin for him, during a short absence, seized this opportunity of instigating Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, to seize it. I-yal-duz, previous to this, had agreed to acknowledge the suzerainty of that monarch, and had despatched befitting presents ; but the Sultan at once acted on the suggestion of Kutlagh-Tigin, and seized Ghaznin.
This event, according to Alfi, took place in 603 of the Rihlat, and Yafa-I, Jami'-ut-Tawarikh, and some others say in 611 h., and, according to thoseTHE MU'IZZlAH SULTANS OF HIND.
527
Sultan Kutb-ud-Din proceeded towards the seat of government, the city of Ghaznin, and possessed himself of that kingdom likewise ; and, during a period of forty days that he sat upon the throne of Ghaznin, he bestowed upon God's
works, Sultan Mahmud did not die until 609 H. [see also last para, of note 3, page 400], and Fasih-i states that Kutb-ud-DTn obtained sovereignty over Hindustan in 608 H., and places his death as late as 610 H. These dates do not agree with those given by the Muhammadan Historians of India, but they are not the most reliable authorities for events which happened out of that country.
In the state of affairs in which I-yal-duz found himself, for Sultan Mahmud was now but a mere vassal of the Khwarazmis [See note 3, page 400], he was under the necessity of retiring towards Hind [the Panjab], which he considered a portion of his own dominions. He reached Lahor, encountered Kaba-jah, and took possession of that capital and the whole Panjab. See our author's account of Kaba-jah, page 531, and early part of the reign of I-yal-timish.
On Sultan Muhammad, Kh,warazm Shah, getting possession of Ghaznin, he put to death several of the Ghurlan Amirs, and made over his new acquisition to his son, Jalal-ud-Din, Mang-barnT ; and a Khwarazmi noble was installed at Ghaznin as his deputy [This accounts, no doubt, for the reference made by Jalal-ud-Din, when soliciting a temporary asylum from I-yal-timish some years subsequently, to their having been " good neighbours previously." See note *, para. 7, page 290], and the Sultan returned to Khwarazm. Kutb-ud-Din now marched into the Panjab against I-yal-duz [603 Rihlat, 612 H.], who was defeated by him, and retired into Karman and Shaluzan. Kutb-ud-Din marched to Ghaznin, drove out the governor on Jalal-ud-Din?s part, and gave himself up to wine and pleasure.
Now we come to that part of the subject in which all agree; but it is amusing to notice how our author slurs over these doings. Kutb-ud-Din now giving himself up to amusement and debauchery, the people of Ghaznin. disgusted with his remissness and laxity, and the disordered state of affairs, sent a person, secretly, to I-yal-duz, to whom they seem to have been much attached, and solicited him to return to the capital. He did so with promptness ; and, as his appearance on the scene was quite unexpected by Kutb-ud-Din, he was unable to resist him, and he abandoned Ghaznin precipitately, and fled by way of Sang-i-Surakh, [one of the routes between Ghaznin and the Panjab, for he did not dare to take that through Karman], to Lahor. This was the occasion of his " filling the throne of Ghaznin for forty days," for which our author considered it to be necessary to mention him [page 506], not only among the Sultans of Hindustan, but, separately, of Ghaznin likewise.
I cannot refrain from inserting here a specimen of history-writing, which will only be found in the writer's imagination. Mr. Marshman, in his " History of India," written for the University of Calcutta, states at page 47, vol. i., that " Kootub followed up the victory [over " Eldoze"] and recovered Ghuzni [which he never before possessed], where he assumed the crown [not at Lahor then ?], but was soon after expelled by his rival, and driven back to India. . . . The establishment of the Mahomedan empire in India is, therefore, considered to date from this event," &c. This is rich indeed.
Kutb-ud-Din does not appear to have returned to Dihli any more ; and, through fear of I-yal-duz, continued at Lahor until he met with the accident which ended his days.5a8
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
people abundant benefactions, and innumerable favours, and returned again to Hindustan, the account of which has been previously related. As the decree of fate supervened, in the year 607 H., he fell from his horse whilst engaged in playing ball9 on the course, and the horse came down upon him, in such wise that the prominent part * of the front of the saddle came upon his blessed breast, and he died 2.
The period of his rule, from the first taking of Dihl! up to this time, was twenty years; and the stretch of his sovereignty, with a canopy of state, the Khutbah. and coin [in his own name and titles], was four years and a little over \
II. SULTAN ArAM SHAH, SON OF SULTAN KUTB-UD-DIN,
I-BAK.
When Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, died, the Amirs and Maliks of Hindustan at once considered it advisable for
? Chaugan, something similar to modern Polo.
1 The eastern saddle is vastly different from ours, and those who have seen it in use in the East will easily conceive the effect of the high-pointed front coming in contact with the breast.
3 The generality of authors place his death in the year 607 H., but the month and date is not mentioned, and some place his death much later. One. \york, the Tarikh i-IbrahimT, however, gives a little more detail than others, and enables us to fix the month, at least, tolerably correctly. It is stated in that work that, having ascended the throne at Lahor, in Zi-Ka'dah, 602 H., he died in 607 H., having ruled nineteen years, fourteen as the Sultan's [Mu'izz-ud-Din's] lieutenant, and five and a half years as absolute sovereign. From 588 H., the year in which he was first made the Sultan's lieutenant, to the 2nd o,f Sha'ban, 602 H., the date of the Sultan's death, is fourteen years and a month, calculating from about the middle of the former year, if Mu'izz-ud-Din returned to Ghaznjn before the rainy season of 588 H., which, in all probability, hp did ; and five years and six months from the middle of ZT-Ka'dah, 602 H., would bring us to the middle of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, the fifth month of 607 H., which will therefore be about the period at which Kutb-ud-Din is said to have died, and a little more than three months, by this calculation, after the death of Sultan fylahmud, if 607 H. be the correct year of the latter's assassination. Fasih-i says Kutb-ud-Din died in 610H., and the Mir'at-i-Jahan-Numa and Lubb-ut-Tawarikh say in 609 H. He was buried at Lahor, and, for centuries after, his tomb continued to be a place of pilgrimage. It may now possibly be turned into a reading-room, a residence, or even a place of Christian worship, purposes for which many buildings of this kind are now used at Lahor, without its being known whose dust they were built to cover.
3 It seems strange that our author should give detailed lists of the offspring, kinsmen, KazTs, nobles, and victories of his former slave and son-in-law, Shams-ud-Din. I-yal-timish, and not of Sultan ]£utb-ud-Dln, Lbak, himself, the pseudo-founder of the '' Patau or Afghan " dynasty.THE MU'IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
529
the sake of restraining tumult, for the tranquillity of the commonalty, and the content of the hearts of the soldiery, to place Aram Shah upon the throne *.
Sultan Kutb-ud-Din had three daughters, of whom two,
4 Although a number of authors agree in the statement that Aram Shah was Kutb-ud-Din's son, it nevertheless appears, from the statements of others, that Kutb-ud-Din had no son; and it is stated, more than once, by our author likewise, that three daughters were his only offspring. Some of these authors, moreover, who call Aram Shah his son, afterwards add, "than whom he had no other heirbut, if he was really his son, what better heir could be desired ? Abu-1-Fazl makes the astonishing statement that Aram Shah was Kutb-ud-Dln's brother !
On the sudden removal of Kutb-ud-Din from the scene, at Lahor, the nobles and chief men, who were with him there, in order to preserve tranquillity, set up, at Lahor, Aram Bakhsh, the adopted son of Kutb-ud-Din, and hailed him by the title of Sultan Aram Shah. What his real pedigree was is not mentioned, and he may have been a Turk. Mandates and decrees were now issued in his name, and the good news of justice and glad tidings of impartiality towards the people reached them. This was, it is said, in 607 H.
At this juncture, Amir 'All-i-Isma'Il, the Sipah-Salar, and governor of the city and province of Dihli, the Amlr-i-Dad [called Amir Da'ud, by some], and other chief men in that part, conspired together, and sent off to Buda'un and invited Malik I-yal-timish, the feoffee of that part, Kutb-ud-Din's former slave and son-in-law, and invited him to come thither and assume the sovereignty. He came with all his followers, and possessed himself of the city and fort and country round. At the same time, Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, who had married two daughters of Kutb-ud-Din [in succession], appropriated Sind and Multan, Bhakar and Siwastan, and, subsequently, the territory to the N. E., as far as SursutI and Kuhram ; the Khalj chiefs in Bangalah assumed independency there, and the Rajahs and Raes on the frontiers [of the Musalman dominions] began to show a rebellious and contumacious spirit.
Aram Shah, on first becoming aware of these acts of I-yal-timish, at the advice of his supporters, summoned to his aid the old Amirs and soldiers of his adopted father, and they, having rallied round him in considerable numbers from Amrohah, and other parts, and he having inspirited them, advanced with a strong force towards Dihli. Malik I-yal-timish, having gained possession of the capital, issued from it with his forces ; and, in the plain of Jud before Dihli, the rival forces encountered each other. After a feeble effort on the part of Aram Shah's troops, he was defeated and disappeared, and what became of him is not quite certain; but our author is probably correct in saying that he was put to death by his rival. After this, Malik I-yal-timish became independent ruler of Dihli, and the other great chiefs were left, for q while, in the possession of the territories they before held or had since appropriated. The reign of Aram Shah, if such can be properly so called, is said by some to have terminated within the year ; but others contend that it continued for three years. The work I have before alluded to gives the following inscriptions on a coin of Aram Shah, and the date on another, given as I-yal-timish's, corroborates the statement of those who say Aram Shah's reign extended over three years.530
THE TABAKAT-I-NA?IRI.
one after the [death of the] other, were wedded to Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, and the third was married 8 to Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish. At this time that Sultan Kutb-ud-Din died, and Aram Shah was raised to the throne, Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah proceeded 6 to Uchchah and Multan. Kutb-ud-Din had contemplated Sultan Shams-ud-Din's acquiring dominion, and he had called him son, and had conferred upon him the fief of Buda'un. The Maliks, in concert, brought him from Buda'un, and raised him to the throne of Dihli ; and the daughter of Sultan Kutb-ud-Din was espoused by him ; and they martyred Aram Shah 7.
Hindustan became subdivided into four portions : the territory of Sind Malik [Sultan] Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah took possession of, the dominion of Dihli pertained to Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, the territory of Lakh-anawati was appropriated by the Khalj Maliks and Sultans, and the state of Lohor, according to alteration of circumstances, used to be seized upon, sometimes by Malik [Sultan] Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, sometimes by Malik [Sultan]
The following are the inscriptions on this coin :—
j li-i «li illl Jk el!«J I	'j*.
j^i*H hjJj iiWLJljio
which may be thus rendered:—"This diram [is] stamped with the name of the Malik, the shadow of the Almighty, Aram Shah, in the year 607," and on the reverse :—"Struck in the Dar-us-Saltanat, the city of Lahor." The date given on the coin of I-yal-timish, which see farther on, Section XXI., is "612, the first of his reign."
Those authors, who say Aram Shah was Kutb-ud-Din's son, for the most part make a great blunder in stating that he was raised to the throne at Dihli, and that those, who had set him up, repenting of having done so, through his incapacity—his incapacity "seems to have been his incapacity to enforce obedience—invited I-yal-timish to assume authority, and that Aram Shah, becoming aware of their sedition, ca7ne out of Dihli, and called on his father's old followers to aid him, after which I-yal-timish secured it, and subsequently defeated Aram Shah.
5	From what our author states, a few lines under, it would appear that I-yal-timish only espoused Kutb-ud-Din's daughter when he assumed the throne, at Dihli.
6	In other words, he appropriated those places and their dependencies in the confusion consequent on I-yal-timish's usurpation, and assumed the title of Sultan.
7	The idiom varies here. All the modern copies of the text, and one of the oldest also, have, instead of this sentence, the words—"and the decree of destiny reached Aram Shah," and the sentence ends. Compare Elliot: India, vol. ii. page 301.THE MU'IZZlAH SULTANS OF HIND.
531
Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, and sometimes by Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, as will, subsequently, be recorded, please God! in the account of each of those personages.
III. MALIK [SULTAN] NASIR-UD-DIN, KABA-JAH, AL-MU'IZZl-US-SULTANI 8.
Malik [Sultan] Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, was a great monarch, and the slave of the Sultan-i-Ghazf, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam.
He was endowed with very great intellect, sagacity, discretion, skill, wisdom, and experience, and had served Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Dtn many years in various departments of every sort of political employment, both important and subordinate, about the Court, in military affairs, and the administration of civil duties, and had acquired great influence.
Malik Nasir-ud-Din-i-Aetamur, the feudatory of Uch-
8 Sultan, on his coins, the title he assumed, and to which he was equally as much entitled as the "august" Sultan I-yal-timish.
Some authors—but they are mostly those either natives of or resident in India, and of comparatively modern days—write this name Kuba-chah. with ch. The Rauzat-us-Safa writes it Kabaj merely. Our author, however, invariably writes it Kaba-jah, and I have therefore followed him. The letter ^ in writing, is constantly used for ^ sometimes from ignorance, sometimes by mistake, and the two letters are very often interchangable, and j J and ,J> are substituted for them ; but, in this particular case, the name of this ruler occurs time after time in the same line with Uchchah, but the J of Kaba-jah and the ch of Uchchah are distinctly marked in the oldest copies of the text, and, in one, the vowel points are also given. Uchchah will be found constantly written with j which is intended for ch, in several copies of the text as well as in many other works, but we never find Kaba-jah written with ch in the text.
The idea appears to have prevailed that this probable nickname is derived from W5—kaba, an 'Arabic word signifying a quilted jacket with short •sleeves, or a tunic open in front, and that —chah is the Persian affixed particle of diminution — kaba-chah, a short jacket or tunic, and thus his name would be Nasir-ud-DIn of the short tunic or jacket; but, in this case, Kuba-chah with u is impossible, because there is no u in the 'Arabic word kaba.
The letter j never occurs in a purely Persian word, nor does it ever occur in Hindi; and £ is often substituted for it, and vice versa. There are other meanings attached to a precisely similar word used in Persian, which is probably Turkish, like the nick-names, I-bak, I-yal-duz, I-yat-timish, and the like. This kaba means, rending, tearing, cutting, paring, scraping, shaving, &c., while, in another form of it, the b is doubled = kabba signifying slender about the middle. To this last the Persian diminutive particle, chah, is of course applicable ; but, besides this, chah signifies, much, great, abundance, and the like, and also fifteen, or, literally, three fives. Under these circumstances this nickname might mean " very slender waisted." See also Elliot : India, vol i, page 131.532
THE TADAKAT-I-NASIRI.
chah, in the engagement at Andkhud 9—which took place between the Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, and the forces of Khita, and the Maliks of Turkistan—displayed great valour before the stirrup of the Sultan, and fought against the infidels as by orthodox law enjoined, and despatched great numbers of them to hell. The Maliks of the army of Khita became dejected through the amount of slaughter inflicted [upon them] by Nasir-ud-Din-i-Aetamur, and they simultaneously came upon him, and he attained martyrdom. The Sultan-i-Ghazi reached his capital and the throne of Ghaznin in safety,from that disaster; and the government of Uchchah1 was entrusted to Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah.
He was son-in-law to Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, through two daughters 2 ; and, by the elder daughter, he had a son—Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Bahram Shah. He [Bahrain Shah] was of handsome exterior and of good disposition, but addicted to pleasure; and, according to the way of youth, he had an excessive predilection for vice.
In short, when Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, after the catastrophe of Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, proceeded to Uchchah. he possessed himself of the city of Multan, and Sindustan 3, and Diwal, as far as the sea-coast. The whole he brought under his sway, and subjected the fortresses, cities, and towns of the territory of Sind, assumed two canopies of state, and annexed [the country to the eastward] as far as the limits of Tabarhindah, Kuhram, and Sursuti \ He also took Lohor several times ; and
9 This word is written, in one of the oldest copies of the text, with the vowel points. Inda-khud—jj.i-a-ji—and, from further research, I find it is the proper mode of spelling the name of this place. In the present day the people of that part call it Ind-kliud and Ind-kh,u. I have retained the modern mode of spelling.
1 The printed text and two MS. copies of the text have Uchchah and Multan, but the ten best copies omit Multan.
3 One having previously died. Kaba-jah was likewise son-in-law of Taj-ud-Dln, I-yal-duz, and, consequently, by the alliance with Kutb-ud-Din's daughters, he married the daughters of his wife's sister's husband.
The Taj-ul-Ma'asir calls him 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, but I look upon our author as a better authority than the Taj-ul-Ma'asir for the events of this reign. What became of Kaba-jah's son our author and others do not state.
3 That is, Slwastan, also called Shiw-astan. by some Hindu writers. The remarks which follow seem to indicate that all these were separate provinces or territories. Slwastan is turned into Hindustati in Elliot's India, page 302.
* Yafa-i says each of the slaves seized upon the territory he held the govern-THE MU'IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
533
fought an engagement with the troops of Ghaznin which used to come [intathe Panjab] on the part of Sultan Taj-
ment of at the time of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din's assassination, and that Kaba-jah appropriated Uchchah, Multan, Luhawar, and Purshawar, which territories, for the most part, Sultan Jalal-ud-Din afterwards subjected.
Immediately after the decease of Kutb-ud-DIn, the so-called establisher of 1' the Pathan or Afghan dynasty," Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, foreseeing a struggle for power, or, at least, a weak government, appropriated all the forts and towns in the territories of Lahor, Tabarjiindah [some authors say Bathindah, some Sirhind], and Kuhjam as far as Sursuti, he holding, at the time of Kutb-ud« Din's death, the fiefs of Uchchah and Multan, having previously held Lahor for him. He was subsequently ousted from Lahor, Multan, and Uchchah by the forces of Sultan Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, as our author mentions ; but, after the defeat of I-yal-duz, and he had been put to death in captivity by I-yal-timish, Kaba-jah got possession of these territories again, and apparently as a tributary of I-yal-timish, or in some way subject.
Our author leaves out here, but mentions in two lines, and under a wrong date, the first hostilities \vhich arose between Kaba-jah and I-yal-timish under the latter's reign. These hostilities arose in 613 h., many years before the defeat of Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Khwarazm Shah, by the Mughals. According to the Taj-ul-Ma'asir, Kaba-jah was tributary to I-yal-timish, and the tribute was in arrears. At the advice of his Wazir, I-yal timish marched from Dihli towards Lahor to enforce payment; others say, and more probably, that it was for the possession of the province of Lahor—in Jamadl-ul-Awwal, 613 h. [The Tabakat-i-Akbarl, Buda'uni, and some others, make a great blunder here. They state correctly enough that war arose between these two rulers about Lahor, and that Shams-ud-Din. I-yal-timish, was always victorious; but add that, on the last occasion, in 614 h., Shams-ud-Din moved against him in person, and invested Uchchah, and then proceed to mention Kaba-jah's death, which happened ten years or viore after, thus confounding or mixing up the two events. Firishtah is completely at sea about these events in Kaba-jah's life.]
Kaba-jah with his forces was encamped on the Blah [the Bias of Europeans] to defend its passage. Arrived on its banks, I-yal-timish, on the 14th of Shawwal, began to cross with his army, without the aid of boats [this in Elliot, vol. ii. page 571, is called crossing the Indus !], at the ford near a village named Chambah [?] ; but we must remember that the present course of the Biah is not what it was then. In those days it separated into two branches at a village named Lowah-wal, one branch flowing by Kusur, Kabulah, Kha-e, and Hujrah-i-Shah Mukim, passed about a mile and a half n.w. of the fort of Dibal-pur, and fell into the river Ghara. This branch was called Blah and Nalah-i-Biah ; whilst the other branch, flowing southwards, fell into the Sutlaj, as the Ghara, above its present confluence with the Biah, is called. One author, copied by Firishtah, states that this affair between Kaba-jah and I-yal-timish took place between Mansuriah and the banks of the Chinab, which seems very unlikely, being too far west. Kaba-jah, on witnessing this daring deed, according to the Taj-ul-Ma'asir, abandoned his position and fled towards "Luhawar," whither he was pursued. His standard, kettle-drums, war material, and other booty to a vast amount, fell into the hands of his rival. After this disaster, Kaba-jah fled towards Uchchah, whither I-yal-timish appears not to have been then prepared to follow him.
I-yal-timish remained some time at Lahor to arrange its affairs ; and, having published the news of his success in all parts, conferred the government of that534
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
ud-Din, Yal-duz, and was overthrown by the Khwajah. the Mu-ayyid-ul-Mulk, Muhammad-i-'Abd-ullah, the Sanjari, who was the Wazir of the kingdom of Ghaznin s.
When [Sultan] Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, became quietly established in the territory of Sind 6, during the calamities [attending the inroads] of the infidels of Chin, a great number of the chief men of Khurasan. Ghur. and Ghaznin presented themselves before him, and he bestowed upon the whole of them ample presents, and provided liberally for them7. There used to be constant contention8 between him and the august9 Sultan, Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, up to the time of the battle on the banks of the Sind, which was fought between Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, son of Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, and Chmgiz Khan, after which, Jalal-ud-Din, Khwarazm Shah, came into the land of Sind, and proceeded towards Diwal and Mukran.
After the taking of Nandanah1 by the forces of the infidel
territory upon his eldest son, Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, and then returned to Dihli. It was after these events that Kaba-jah's territory was invaded by Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Khwarazm Shah, as already mentioned in note5, page 293. The extent of the province of Lahor may be judged of from what is mentioned in that note, and note below.
5	This happened in 612 h., according to the Taj-ul-Ma'asir, but it cannot be correct. That is the year in which I-yal-duz in person overthrew him : the Wazir of Ghaznin defeated Kaba-jah soon after the death of Kutb-ud-Din. The Mir'at-i-Jahan-Numa states that engagements were fought between I-yal-duz and Kaba-jah several times in the neighbourhood of Lahor for the possession of that province. See under the reign of I-yal-duz, pages 496—506.
6	Having been deprived of the province of Lahor, Kaba-jah retired into Sind, and, devoting his energies to the consolidation of his rule therein, acquired great power.
7	See page 200.
8	Truly ; and at page 294 he says that Kaba-jah was defeated by I-yal-timish in person in 614 h., which refers to the same events as related in the Taj-ul-Ma'asir in note 4, page 532.
9	Sa'id here means august, and not that his name was "Sa'id," which it was not, nor was it " Sultin Sa'id Shams."
1 Sultan Jalal-ud-Din's defeat happened in the seventh month of the year 618 h. Compare Elliot's India here, and throughout this Section, as the Calcutta printed text happens to be pretty correct in this identical portion of it. In the translation in Elliot, vol. ii., page 303, this passage is thus rendered : — " When the battle between Jalalu din Khwarizm Shah and Changiz Khan was fought on the banks of the Indus, Jalalu di'n came into Sind, and went towards Dewal and Makran. After thes victory of Nandua-tari the Moghal prince came with a large army, &c." Here it will be perceived that Nandanah, the name of the fort which was taken and the district in which it lay, and Turti, the name of the Mughal who led the troops engaged in it, have been veryTHE MU'IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
535
Mughals, Turti, the Mughal Nu-in, with a large army, appeared at the foot [of the walls] of the city of Multan,
cleverly made into one name, and Chingiz Khan is brought to Multan, who was never east of the Indus in his life !
This passage cannot fail to be unintelligible to the reader without giving some explanation, and some details respecting the events to which it refers. Our author, no doubt, could have given more particulars, but here, as elsewhere, he has, for reasons of his own, concealed a great deal.
There are many discrepancies likewise in the generality of Muhammadan authors about the investment of Multan. Some works, including Jahan-Kusha, and Tami'-ul-Tawarikh, agree with our author, and some others state that Multan was taken by the Mughals, while Fasih-i, and others, which give such detailed accounts of the Mughal invasions and Sultan Jalal-ud-DTn's career, say nothing about Nandanah, and do not refer to this expedition against Multan ; and Fasih-I farther states, what is rather improbable, that Chingiz Khan himself gave Sultan Jalal-ud-Din to understand, that, "as long as he did not re-cross the Sind, he would not interfere with him." The A'ln-i-Akbari says the Mughals subdued Multan, and that Kaba-jah again repulsed them, but the first statement is not correct.
European writers also differ considerably—I need not quote the absurd nonsense contained in D'Ohsson [iii. p. 4] and in Rampoldi, in his "Annali MusalmanV—in their accounts, extracted from the Muhammadan writers, respecting the advance of the Mughals upon Multan. In the "History of the Tartars," translated from the work of Abu-l-Ghazi, Bahadur Kh,an, it is stated that Chingiz "despatched Dubay, Noyan, and Bala, Noyan, in pursuit of the Sultan, but they, having followed him in vain as far as the frontiers of India, were obliged to return without being able to give any tidings respecting him." Petit de la Croix, on the other hand, quoting Fazl-ullah, says, "Bela, Noyan, with 20,000 men," was sent "to resist" the Sultan, " if he appeared in the country of Multan," and again, quoting Abu-l-Fida, says " Multan fell into the hands of the Mughals." Jahan-Kusha, Jami'-ut-Tawarikh, and Alfi are, however, greater authorities than those quoted by Petit de la Croix for these events.
After his defeat of Sultan Jalal-ud-Din on the west bank of the Sind or Indus, Changiz Khan, with the main body of his forces, halted in the country near the Kabul river and the Sind—in the plain of Peshawar, or the Hasht-nagar Do-abah, probably—pending negotiations with Sultan I-yal-timish,—as stated by our author also farther on, only the negotiations of Chingiz were usually conducted upon quite a different plan : with the sword, not the pen— for permission to pass through upper Hindustan and enter Chin by way of Lakhanawatf and Kamrud. Whilst there encamped, Chingiz. hearing of the progress of Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, and the strength he was acquiring, detached the Nu-in, Turti or Turtae—both names are correct, and he is by some writers called Turmati [not "Tulf," as stated in Thomas, "Pathan Kings of Dehli " —Tulx was the son of Changiz, and was elsewhere employed at this time. Firish-tah, on the other hand, says it was Chaghatae, another of the sons, which is equally incorrect]—with two tumans—20,000 men—in pursuit of him.
Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, then in the western part of the Sind-Sagar Do-abah, being much too weak in point of numbers to face this Mughal army sent after him, retired farther into the Panjab, after he had, with 150 men, attacked and routed some 2000 or 3000 of the troops of Hindustan stationed in that part, beyond the river Bihat, Wihat, or Jhilam, into the Chinhatah Do-abah [The536
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
and, for a period of forty-two days, closely invested that strong fortress.
name of this Do-abah is derived by combining the two first letters of the word —Chinab—with the three last letters of —Bihatah or — Wihatah, b and w being interchangable—the Do-abah of Chinhatah lying between those two rivers], where there were numbers of Khokhars at that period ; and one writer states that the Sultan did actually invest Lahor itself;
TurtT, having crossed the Sind, " pushed on until he reached the boundary of the district or tract of country belonging to Hindustan which Kamr-ud-Din, Karmani, had held, but had been dispossessed of it by one of the Sultan's [Jalal-ud-Din's] Amirs. This evidently refers to the tract of country which will be subsequently referred to in several places—Banban or Banian. In it was the strong fort of Nandanah [aij^i—in two copies of Alfi it is written .»and clerical errors probably, but the locality cannot be mistaken, and Nandanah is evidently meant] which he took, and inflicted great slaughter upon its inhabitants." From whom this fort was taken is not mentioned, but it could scarcely have been then in the possession of Jalal-ud-Din's vassals. After this feat, Turd set out towards Multan, keeping along the western bank of the Jhilam. "On arriving opposite Multan he found the river unfordable, and directed his followers to construct a bridge, which they did by means of rafts of wood—a floating bridge." He then crossed, and invested the place ; but, after he had placed his catapults, and had discharged them a great number of times with much effect, and the fortress was about to fall, he had to abandon the siege on account of the excessive heat [It. was the height of the hot season, and the heat of Multan is truly excessive]. He plundered the provinces of Multan and Lohawar, re-crossed the Sind, and proceeded towards Ghaznin." Jami'-ut-Tawarikh and Alfi say he plundered the clL—the country of Fur of Porus—which is the same probably as the Malik-pur and Malka-pTir of other writers, the meaning of the former not having been recognized, perhaps, from the two words being written as one—^a^J* and J- See also Elliot, India : vol. ii., page 559.
Our author, however, makes the matter of the investment of Multan by TurtT very confused, for, in a previous page [297], he states that "TurtT, the Mughal, who had invested- Multan, left Chingiz Khan, and came and joined Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, and became converted to the Muhammadan faith." -
To return, however, to Nandanah. This name is first mentioned in the reign of Mahmud of Ghaznln-by 'Utba' in the Kitab-i-Yamlnl, and then by Abu-Sa'id, son of Haiyah, a native of Gardaiz in the Ghaznin territory [probably an earlier writer even than Abu-l-Fazl-i-Baihakl, though not much], in his Zain-ul-Akhbar, who says that Mahmud, towards the end of 404 h., determined to attack that fort, and that Naro Jai-pal, on becoming aware of it, placed a strong garrison therein and retired himself towards the valley of Kashmir. Mines were sprung, and the Turks kept up -such a fire of arrows against those who showed themselves upon the walls that the place surrendered in 405 h. This very rare and important work I have commenced translating.
The next mention of Nandanah occurs in Abu-l-Fazl-i-Baihaki's work, wherein it is said it was "impossible to leave that saghar——a narrow pass between hills bordering upon a hostile country—where was the fort of Nandanah, without being properly taken care of." Our author also mentions it in several places, and it is mentioned in some other works, including the Tabakat-i-Akbari [It appears to have been copied from Zain-ul Akilbar],THE MU'IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND.	537
During that contest Malik [Sultan] Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, opened the door of his treasury, and conferred nume-
Khulasat-ut-Tawankh, and Firishtah, both under Mahmud's reign, and in many other places, as well as by 'Abbas, Sarwarni, the Afghan historian, and other writers; yet, by some means or other, it has been turned into "Nardhi" by a few Muhammadan writers—or rather copyists—and by almost all European translators, after the same fashion as Tara'in—the present Talawari— has been turned into "A'drain." No such places as "Nanlin" and "Narain" ever existed. See also Elliot, India : vol. ii., pages 448 to 450. Firishtah's mode of spelling it is Nandunah, and, in this instance, Dow spells it tolerably correct, and is followed by Briggs.
Although it is declared [Elliot, India : vol. ii. page 451] that "the name of Ninduua cannot be restored," I shall make an effort to restore that of Nan-danah, and, I think, not unsuccessfully.
Nandanah, as late as the latter part of tHe last century at least, was the name of a district, and formerly of a considerable tract of country, and a fortress, in the Sind-Sagar Do-abah of the Panjab—but the name, to judge from the Panjab Survey Maps, appears to have been dropped in recent times— lying on the west bank of the Bihat, Wihat, or Jhilam. It contained within it part of the hill country, including the tallah or hill of the Jogi, Bala-nath, a sacred place of the Hindus, which hill country was known to the Muhammadan writers as the Koh-i-Jud, Koh-i-Bala-nath, and to the people dwelling therein as the Makhialah, Janjhui, or Jud Mountains, which we style the Salt Range, from the number of mines of rock salt contained within them, and lay between Pind-i-Dadan Khan [so called after a former Khokhar chief named Dadan Khan] and Khush-ab, and now composes part of the Shah-pur [Pur or Fur. i. e. Porus] District of the present Rawal Pindi Division under the Panjab Government. There was also another separate and smaller district named Nandan-pur, a little farther north, and there is a small river named Nandanah in the present district of Fath-i-Jang, in the Rawal Pindi District, also to the north. There is also, in this district, a Malik-pur, in ancient days, the residence of the provincial governors, which lies in the direct line of route from the Nandanah district on the Jhilam to the locality in which Chingiz Kljan had pitched his camp, previously alluded to.
It is not impossible that the name of Nandanah was, previous to the reign of Akbar, applied to the eastern half of the hill tract between Khush-ab, Rawal-Pindl, and the Jhilam, including the northern part of the Chul-i-Jalalt —so called after Jalal-ud-Din—in the midst of the Sind-Sagar Do-abah, which formed, during the rule of the Ghuris and the Turkish Slave Kings of Dihli, the north-western province of Hind and Sind. The authority of the last-named rulers does not seem to have extended to the eastern bank of the Sind, except on the advance of an army to enforce it, nor northwards over the mountain tracts ; and the Khokhars, along with the Awan-kars, Kathars, Ghakars, and other less numerous tribes, and, like them, still inhabiting that strong country —the ancient Gandharah of the Hindus—were not reduced to the subjection of the rulers of Hindustan till the time of Akbar.	,
In the reign of Sultan Mu'izzud-DTn, Muhammad-i-Sam, his rule, which extended from Ghaznin to Lahor and Dihli, did not extend, save very nominally, over this hilly country ; and it was because -the Khokhars, and others, in alliance with them, closed the route between Ghaznin and Lahor, as referred to in note page 481, that he had to march into this very frontier district of Nandanah to coerce them. The fortress of that name seems to have been
M m538
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRL
rous benefits upon the people, and showed such proofs of boldness, ability, expertness, and courage that the men-
for the same object as that for which Sher Shah. Afghan, founded the fort of Ruhtas in after years. Whether it was founded on the site of the fort of Nandanah it is difficult to say, but is more than probable, for Abu-1-Fazl does not mention it in the list of forts in that sarkar, which may account for the name being less used in later times, but, at a place on the route between Khush-ab and Makhad on the Sind, named at present Pakka-kot, there are the remains of a very strong fortress of ancient times, which may be those of Nandanah.
In the tract south of the Makhialah Mountains or Koh-i-Jud, as far as the Sind, and to the north among the hills likewise, and beyond the Sind towards Karman and Ghaznin, are the remains of several large towns or cities, and substantial buildings, including the ruins of a considerable city, on the east side of the river, named Kahlur	which were noticed in the latter part
of the last century, built in th'e strongest and most substantial manner, and still to be seen, and which would be delightfully interesting to explore. The country between the Jhilam and the Sind, in the direction I have been referring to, teems with ruins of this kind, and the remains of numerous great wells, with stone steps to descend into them, named wan — the present termination of many village names—in the Panjabi dialect, baoli in Hindi, and sard-ahah in Persian. There are also the extensive ruins of the ancient city of Akarrah, and some others, in the Banii district, the whole of which give undoubted evidence of this tract south of the Makhialah or Jud Mountains having been the chief route between Hind and Ghaznin by Karman and Gardaiz. The more northern route by Jhilam, Rawal Pindi, Atak, and Peshawar was seldom, if ever used, for the Khaibar route was not under the control of the Dihli kings, nor was it so good and practicable as the other. [I notice that the periodical ravings about the " only tivo routes " from Afghanistan into India have not yet ceased.] This may be gathered from the account of Sultan Nasir-ud-Din, Majimud's reign farther on, where he marches his forces as far as the Sudharah and then sends Ulugh Khan with his best troops to endeavour to expel the Mughals from this very tract, and also from the account of Ulugh, Khan in the following Section. The country on the west of the Sind and on the Kabul river nearest to it, on the decline of the Ghurian. KhwarazmT, and Mughal powers, was occupied by confederacies of powerful tribes, among whom were Afghans, and on the east side, in the hills, by the tribes before alluded to, some of whom, the Awan-kars and a few others, also held lands on the west side near the river Sind, and some even farther west.
It was from this frontier province of Nandanah that Sultan Jalal-ud-Din sent an envoy to I-yal-timish—who was made away with by him—with whom Ciingiz is said by our author to have been at the same time negotiating [!]. I-yal-timish had, at this time, ousted his rival Kaba-jah from this portion of the Lahor territory, and had compelled him to content himself with Multan, fichchah, and Sind, although, from what subsequently occurred, the hold of either of the rivals upon the frontier district of Nandanah could not have been very firm or very secure. At page 293, our author says, that I-yal-timigh, on hearing of Sultan Jalal-ud-Din's overthrow by the Mughals on the Sind and retreat towards the frontiers of the Dihli kingdom, " despatched"— in his account of I-yal-timish farther on, he says he lt marched"—" the troops of Dihli towards Lahor [into the province of Lahor ?] against the Sultan, who thereupon " turned aside, and proceeded towards Sind and Slwastan." They were in great terror of the JQiwarazmis' at Dihli ; but Sultan Jalal-ud-DTn,THE MU'IZZlAH SULTANS OF HIND.
539
tion thereof will endure upon the pages of time until the judgment day.
This affair of the fortress [of Multan] happened in the year 621 H.; and, one year and a half subsequently, the Maliks of Ghura, through the ravages of the Mughal infidels, joined Malik [Sultan] Na?ir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah ; and, in the latter part of the year 623 H., a body of [the tribe of] Khalj. a part3 of the Khwarazmi forces, acquired supremacy over the district of Man§urah \ which is [one] of the cities of Siwastan, and their head was Malik fehan, the Khalj5.
who had no more than about 10,000 men with him, was unable to face the immense forces of the Dihll kingdom, and therefore he contented himself, for the time, with the Sind-Sagar Do-abah and part of Sind. Had he appeared on the scene a few years earlier, before the Turk chiefs of the Mu'izzT and Kutbi dynasties had been overpowered and slaughtered by I-yal-timish, he might easily have maintained a permanent footing in India.
From the fact of Nandanah being contained in the List of I-yal-timish's victories, although no mention even of such an expedition is given under his reign, he may have endeavoured to gain possession of it; and he certainly was advancing towards that part when attacked by the illness which compelled him to return, and which shortly after caused his death. This frontier tract must have been held by the Mughals after taking the fort of Nandanah, for the very first act of his son Nasir-ud-DTn, Mahmucl, when he came to the throne, eleven years after, was to march into the Panjab and despatch Ulugh. Khan from the banks of the Sudharah with his forces " to ravage the Koh-i-Jud and the parts about Nandanah," and to check the inroads of the Mughals, who, in the preceding reign of Mu'izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, had taken Lahor and attacked Ochchah.
3	Who the "Maliks" of Qiur were at this period will be found in the account of the Mughal invasion in the last Section. The ravages of the Mughal here referred to have nothing whatever to do with " this invasion " or irruption of Turti the Mughal. See Elliot, vol. ii. page 303.
® Not even the printed text will admit of this sentence being rendered : " The army of Khalj, consisting of all the forces of Khwarizm," &c. Elliot, vol. ii. page 303.
4	The word used is of Man§urah, and signifies literally depressed or low land ; also a portion of land, country, region, tract, &c. With Siwastan the word is used, which is the plural of jAj—a district, province, country, as well as town, city, inhabited place.
5	It is possible that this may be our author's version of Sultan Jalal-ud-Din's operations against Kaba-jah ; but it is evident, from the fact that neither here nor in his account of Jalal-ud-Din, Mang-barnl, does our author, any more than Hasan, Nizanil, the author of the Taj-ul-Ma'asir, give a correct account of Sultan Jalal-ud-DIn's subjugation of the Khokhars, and the defeat and reduction of Kaba-jah, and occupation of Siwastan, that both writers studiously conceal as much as possible what must have been perfectly well known to both of them. Other Indian writers who came after them, probably considering that contemporary writers might be depended upon, have been led into the
M m 254°
THE TABAKAT-I-NASiRI.
Malik [Sultan] Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, moved on to re£el them, and a battle took place between the two
error of not mentioning those matters, if they were aware of them. The Khwarazmi Sultans were very obnoxious to the Ghuris and their parasites; and, as the Khwarazmi sovereigns were not on good terms with the Khalifahs of that day, our author's bigotry doubtless led him, as well as Hasan, Nizami, to conceal all that might tend to the honour and glory of those whom our author and his sect considered no better than heretics, as well as to pander to the vanity of his patrons. See page 609.
Eighteen months after the appearance of the Mughals on the Sind or Indus, and the investment of Multan by Tiirti or Turtae some time in 623 h., a chief, named Malik Khan by several writers, and styled "of Hirat," with his followers and the Khalj tribe, or rather the remnant of the Khalj tribe [a portion of this great tribe was settled in Garmsir, and some held lanas in Nangrahar, north of the Karman district, centuries before the Afghans came into it. It is included by some in Shanuzan or Sankuran, or rather the latter is included in Nangrahar], the remnant of the Khwarazmi forces in these parts, pressed by the Mughal invaders, arrived on the n.w. frontier of Sind. This person, however, cannot be the great chief referred to at pages 287, 409, &c.—nor does our author say he is, but styles him "the Khaljbut some other writers endeavour to make out that he is—for, according to Yafa-i, Jahan-Kusha, and other works, he was slain when endeavouring to reach Parshor or Barshawar, when the right wing of Sultan Jalal-ud-Din's small force which he commanded was defeated on the banks of the Indus. He was the son of Jalal-ud-Din's maternal uncle, and is styled by different names and titles in different histories. In Alfi he is called, Yamin Malik, in Jami'-ut-Tawarikh. Amin Malik, and in Rauzat-us-Sata, and Habib-us-Siyar, Yamin-ul-Mulk. It is apparent, however, that his correct name and titles were Malik Khan, Yamin-ul-Mulk. See page 287.
Abu-l-Ghazi, Bahadur Khan, in his history styles the person last referred to Khan Malik, Saif-ud-Din, 'Ighrak, Malik of the hills of Karman—the Sankuran or Shanuzan hills. This however is not correct, for that chief, together with others, 'Azam Malik and Nuh, the Jan-dar, after their desertion of Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, began to fall out and fight among themselves,, so that within three months of their desertion all three were killed, and their followers dispersed ; and, what with those killed by each other and those slain by Changiz Khan's forces, after a short time no traces of them were left.
A Malik Khan commanded the left wing of Jalal-ud-Din's force in the battle on the Indus, and his fate is not recorded. He probably is the person meant by our author, and the remains of the deserters from Jalal-ud-Din's army after the victory at Barwan may have been his followers.
Our author does not appear to have known much more about the situation of Mansurah and the district of which it was the chief place than Abu-1-Fazl did. It was on the east side of the Indus, and nearly fifty miles from the present main stream, and was situated between forty-five and fifty miles n. e. of Haidar-abad. The Khalj fugitives appeared on the N.w. frontier of Sind, of which Siwastan [which gave name to the province] or Sadiisan, the present Sihwan, was the chief city, and included that district and what we at present call Upper Sind. Kaba-jah moved against them and defeated them, and Malik Khan is said to have been killed in the engagement. Tlie remaining Khalj and others of his followers sought the protection of Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, Kaba-THE MU'IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
541
armies, and the Khalj force was overthrown, and the Khan [Chief] of the Khalj was slain; and Malik [Sultan] Nasir ud-Din, Kaba-jah, returned again to Uchchah and Multan.
In this same year likewise, the writer of this work, Minhaj-i-Saraj, reached the city of Uchchah 6 from Khurasan by way of Ghaznln and Banian7, by boat, on Tuesday, the 27th of the month Jamadi-ul-Awwal, in the year 624 H. In the month of Zi-Hijjah of the same year, the Firuzi College of Uchchah was committed to the charge of the author, together with the office of Kazi of the forces 8 of
jah's rival and enemy, who took them under his protection, and subsequently marched against Kaba-jah, supported by these fugitives.
Firishtah, copying some other modern author, places this event in 615 H., but it is totally incorrect. He says they came from the outskirts of Ghaznin. The Tabakat-i-Akbarl copies from our author.
6	Uchchah, also called Uchchah-i-JalalT, the Europeanized Uch, Ooch, and Ouche, on the Ghara, consisted — I refer to it as it was a century ago—of seven villages of large size. That in which is the tomb of Sayyid Jamal, Bukhari, is called Uchchah-i-Sharif. or the Holy; and that in which another Muham-madan saint—Makhdum-i-Jahanan-i-Jahan—is buried is styled Uchchah-i-Makbdum. The part in which the Mughal governors used to dwell is named Uchchah-i-Mughal, and so on, all seven villages having separate names; but they may be considered as portions, although somewhat apart from each other, of one large town. Six or seven kuroh [each kuroh 1000 paces] to the northward of Uchchah, the rivers Ghara, Chinab, and their tributaries fall into the Sind, Ab-i-Sind, or Sind-Sagar.
7	The Calcutta text has Mathan or Mithan——here, but there is no such word in any copy of the text collated. The editor or editors, knowing probably that there was a place somewhere on the Indus called Mithan-kot— not Mithan with long a—jumped at the conclusion that that must be the place referred to. The name contained in every copy of the text is written generally
—Banian, but occasionally —Banban. See note f, page 536, and note 8, page 623. The same name occurs in the reign of I-yal-timi§h, and in many other places ; and, in the printed text, the name is, generally, correctly written. In a note, however, it is turned into o but in two of the most modern copies of the text it is turned into and respectively ! In Elliot's India the printed text is implicitly followed. There is no doubt whatever that Multan is not meant, and that it refers to some place between Ghaznin, Karman, and the tract north or west of the Salt Range, perhaps Banu or near it ; and further mention of it in the following pages of this work tends to confirm this supposition, but its precise position is difficult to fix. Mithan-kot is a long distance beltnv Uchchah, and would have taken our author much out of his way in coming from Ghaznin to that city.
8	Compare Elliot, India, vol. ii. page 304, where the Kazi-ship, or office of Kazi, is turned into "provocation" ! The passage is thus rendered :—"In the month of Zi-1 hijja of the same year the Firozf college at Uch was consigned to the care of the author. On the provocation of the army of 'Alau-d din Bahram Shah, in the month of Rabi'u-1 awwal, A. H. 624, Sultan Sa'i'd Shamsu-d din encamped in sight of Uch" !542
THE XABA^AT-I-NA^IRI.
'AlS-ud-Dln, BahrSm Shah [the son of SultcLn Na?ir-ud-Dtn, Kaba-jah] ; and, in the month of Rabi'-ul-Awwal of the same year9, 624 H., the august Sultan, Shams-ud-
® There are numerous discrepancies among authors with respect to these events ; and our author himself, who was present at Hch.ch.ah, makes a different statement here from that given by him under the reign of I-yal-timigi, page 611 ; and there says these events happened in 625 h.
The Taj-ul-Ma'asir, after stating that the fortress of " Ochchah-i-Multan " was "taken,"—i.e. Ochchah of Multan, or belonging to Multan, not " Och Multan,"—and without mentioning that I-yal-timigi, was at Ochchah in person, says that I-yal-timisi, hearing of I£aba-jah's pride and arrogance, and that he had strongly fortified himself within the fort of Bhakar, despatched his Wazir against him with a large army. See also Elliot, India, vol. ii. page 242.
Other writers again state that, on the flight of I£aba-jah from Ochchah, I-yal-timigh "left his Wazir to carry on the investment of Ochchah, and returned himself to Dihli;" and that " the Wazir took that place alter two months, and then marched against Bhakar."
Another work has that " I-yal-timig^'s Wazir marched an army against ]£aba-jah, and invested him within the walls of Ochchah in 624 h." that "it was taken after two months, on the 22nd of Jamadl-ul-Alchir," and that, '' after it was taken, Kaba-jah got on board a boat—not what we call boats in this country, but vessels of considerable size, with flat bottoms—in order to get to Bhakar, and was drowned."
The favourite author of Indian History writers [because translated probably], Firigitah [not his translators], places this event " between 618 h. and 623 h. but, as he gives no authority for so doing, and no dates between, there is no knowing what year he means. He places it before the expedition against Rantabhur, whereas it took place after; and in the lithographed text "revised" by Briggs, and also in the Calcutta text of our author, Bhakar is turned into ThankTr, which is Bhianah. The Tabakat-i-Akbari also places these events in 614 h. some ten years too soon : that was ]£aba-jah's first defeat by I-yal-timigh. See page 294.
The real events appear to be as follow. Soon after the Khalj and Khwarazmi fugitives threw themselves on the protection of I-yal-timisfi, lie, jealous of the power of Kaba-jah, and his overthrow of that remnant of the Khwarazmi forces, moved with an army from DihlT, by way of Tabarhindah towards Ochchah. whilst the governor of the Lahor province, with another force, to create a diversion, marched against Multan. I-yal-timish reached Ochchah on the 1st of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 625 h. [February, 1227 a. d.], having sent on the principal part of his army, under the Wazir, the Nizam-ul-Mulk, the Khwajah. Muhammad, son of Abii-Sa'id, Junaidi, a few days in advance. He, I-yal-timish, sat down before the place and invested it, and detached his Wazir, with a large force, against the fortress of Bhakar, whither Kaba-jah, on becoming aware of I-yal-timish's coming against him, had withdrawn with most of his forces and his treasures. These events happened during the hot season of 625 h., and part of the Wazir's force dropped down to Bhakar by water, and part went by land, and had to march through dense jangal.
It is remarkable that neither Lliuri [now often pronounced Rohrl] nor Sakar are mentioned here where we might naturally have expected to have heard something about them, especially of Luhri, for on the plain immediately north of it the troops of 1-yal-timigh probably encamped. I say probably.THE MU'IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
543
Dunya wa ud-Din [I-yal-timish] pitched his camp in sight
because there can be no doubt but that the course of the Indus, at this part, has greatly altered during the lapse of upward of six centuries, and with respect to the fortress of Bhakar in particular, and its connexion with Sakar.
To return to Uchchah however : some say it held out vigorously for a period of two months and twenty days ; but, as it capitulated—some say it was taken—on Tuesday, the 29th—one author says the 22nd—of Jamadi-ul-Akhir—this must be incorrect, as, between the two dates given for the arrival of I-yal-timish and the fall of Uchchah, is a period of exactly four months. Our author, although present, can scarcely be depended upon, for here he says it occurred in 624 H., and under I-yal-timish's reign says 625 H.
The author of the Tarikh-i-Sind, Mir Ma'sum, says that I-yal-timish marched an army against Kaba-jah in 624 H., but that the Wazir was left to carry out the investment, and I-yal-timish returned to Dihli ; and that the place capitulated 28th of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 625 H.
On becoming aware of the fall of Uchchah, Kaba-jah despatched his son, 'Ala-ud-DIn, Muhammad, Bahram Shah, to treat for an accommodation ; but, although he was received with all outward marks of kindness, and matters had been discussed, he was not permitted to depart. As the WazTr was close at hand to invest Bhakar, Kaba-jah was alarmed ; and, with the fate of Taj -ud-Din, I-yal-duz, before his eyes, threw himself on board a boat in order to escape, and was drowned by the sinking of the vessel on the 22nd of Jamadl-ul-Akhir, 625 H.
According to the Taj-ul-Ma'asir, Kaba-jah, having been invested in Bhakar by the Wazir, and the place reduced to extremity, then despatched his son to I-yal-timish, with an offering of 100 laks of Dihli-wals [a coin so called], and 1000 dresses of different kinds; but, being alarmed at the detention of his son, shortly after, died of grief ! He left treasures to the amount of 500 laks of Dihli-wals, 1000 large river boats, jewels and valuable pearls, inlaid vessels of silver and gold, costly garments and other valuable property, the whole of which was appropriated by I-yal-timish. What became of Muhammad, Bahram Shah. Kaba-jah's son, is not known.
The Jami'-ul-Hikayat, a book of anecdotes, written about this period, and dedicated to. the Wazir of I-yal-timish, states —but the statements contained in such works must be received with due caution—that " I-yal-timish sent an army to repress the encroachments of Kaba-jah," but does not mention Uchchah expressly, and adds, that "he, being unable to cope with this army, sent his forces to Bhakar in boats. The troops of Dihli reached Bhakar on the 10th of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 625 H., and preparations for attack were made. It was, however, not made until near seven 'weeks after, on 1st of Jamadi-ul-Awwal; but Kaba-jah, driven from the outer walls, lost the town and had to retire to the fort." This description, however, is not applicable to the island of Bhakar in its present extent. Kaba-jah is then said to have offered to capitulate, if he were allowed to send away his sons and his treasure. This was refused; and he, placing no faith in his conqueror [rival ?], preferring death to surrender and captivity, cast himself from the walls into the water, n e night of Thursday, the 19th of Jamadi-ul-Akhir— one month and nineteen days after the first investment of the place.
As a specimen of the random manner in which history is often written,. Buda'uni says that the Mughals invested Multan in 611 H , and that, in 624 n., Kaba-jah was made captive by Sultan Shams-ud-Din, "and took the road of the other world."544
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRT.
of Uchchah. Malik [Sultan] Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, discomfited, embarked on boats [with his troops and followers ?] and retired towards Bhakar ; and [a body of?] the Sultan's forces, along with the Wazir of the State, the Nizam-ul-Mulk, set out in pursuit of him, and invested him within the fortress of Bhakar \
Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, remained encamped before the gate of the fortress of Uchchah for a period of two months and twenty-seven days. On Saturday, the 27th of the month, Jamadi-ul-Awwal \ the citadel of Uchchah was given u.p. When the news of the capture of the place reached Malik [Sultan] Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, he sent his son. 'Ala-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, to the presence of the Sultan. Subsequent to his reaching the camp of the Sultan, on the 22nd of the month, Jamadi-ul-Akhir, information arrived of the taking of Bhakar ; and that Malik [Sultan] Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, had drowned himself in the river Sind, and the term of his existence was severed \
The period of his rule in the land of Sind, and Uchchah. and Multan, was twenty-two years.
IV. MALIK BAHA-UD-DlN, TUGHRIL", UL-MU'IZZI-US-
sultAni.
Malik Baha-ud-Din, Tughril. was a Malik of excellent disposition, scrupulously impartial, just, kind to the poor and strangers, and adorned with humility. He was one of the slaves of the early part of the reign of the Sultan-i-Ghazi. Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, and the latter had raised him likewise to a high degree of rank; and,
1	The printed text [and Firishtah in his work] turns this name into ThankTr, which is Bhianah, although Bhakar is mentioned correctly immediately after!
2	Impossible, considering that Zi-Hijjah is the last month of the year, and Rabi'-ul-Awwal the third. He must either mean that he reached Uchchah in 623 H., or that it was surrendered in 625 h. See page 296, where he contradicts both the date of his own arrival at Uchchah and also the year in which it was taken.
3	Compare Elliot here, vol. ii. page 304.
4	"Jughrul, with short it before the final I, is the name of a bird ; but the name of this chief, like that of several, of the Saljiik rulers, is spelt Tughril. All writers agree that Baha-ud-Din, Tughril, was one of the greatest, most amiable, and most accomplished of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din's mamluks.THE MU'IZZlAH SULTANS OF HIND.
545
when the fortress of Thangir5, [or Thankir], which is [in ?] the territory of Bhianah, with the Rae of which warfare was being carried on, was taken, it was made over to Baha-ud-Din, Tughril's charge, and that part became flourishing and prosperous through his means. From different parts of Hindustan and Khurasan merchants and men of repute had joined him, and to the whole of them he was in the habit of presenting houses and goods which used to become their property, so that, on this account, they would dwell near him.
As the fortress of Thankir was not suitable as a place of residence for him and his following, Malik -Baha-ud-Din, Tughril, founded, in the territory of Bhianah, the city of Sultan-kot, and therein took up his abode, and used continually to despatch [bodies of] cavalry towards Gwaliyur. When the Sultan-i-Ghazi [Mu'izz-ud-Din] retired from the foot [of the walls] of the fort of Gwaliyur, he said to Baha-
i The discrepancies of authors with regard to the taking of this fortress, and the operations against Gwaliyur are great.
Our author himself, under the reign of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, states that Kutb-ud-Din subdued Nahrwalah, Thangir, Gwaliyur, and Buda'un, and here contradicts himself.
The Taj-ul-Ma'asir says Thangir was taken in 592 h., and that Kutb-ud-Din, having joined the Sultan's forces, the royal army moved against Gwaliyur, and invested it in that same year. Rae Solankh Pal sued for peace, became tributary, and was allowed to retain his possessions.
The Tabakat-i-Akbarl says Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din made the expedition to Kinnauj and Banaras in 589 h., and, leaving Kutb-ud-Din as his representative in Hind, returned to GhaznTn. Immediately after, that work states, "Kutb-ud-DIn subdued Thangir, Gwaliyur, and Buda'un, and then invaded Nahrwalah," but gives no dates ; and then adds, without mentioning any other event between, that, " when between Tus and Sarakhs, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din heard of the death of his brother," which happened in 599 h., according to our author.
The Mir'at-i-Jahan-Numa also says that Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, after the conquest of Kinnauj and Banaras, left Kutb-ud-Din, as his deputy in India, and that the latter took Gwaliyur, Buda'un, and other places, but Thangir is not mentioned, and, in this statement, Haft Iklim and Buda'uni agree.
Alft, which is the most correct apparently, has, "Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, again entered Hind in 590 h., and took Thangir [or Thankir], which was an exceedingly strong place, and then marched against Gwaliyur," about which more will be mentioned in the following note.
It is amusing to compare Firishtah here—the text I mean—his account of these events, first, under the reign of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, and, subsequently, in his account of Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and Baha-ud-Din, Tughril. They are related in three different ways, and neither in details nor in dates do they agree !546
THE TABAKAT.I-NA§IRl.
-ud-Din, Tughril: "I must leave this stronghold to thee [to take]." In concurrence with this hint, Malik Baha-ud-Din, Tughril, stationed a body of forces from his own troops at the foot of the fort of Gwaliyur, and near by, at the distance of one league, he erected a fortification, in order that the. Musalman horsemen might remain within it at night, and, when the day should break, push on to the foot of the fort" [walls].
They were occupied in this manner for the period of a year ; and, when the defenders of Gwaliyur became reduced to straits, they sent emissaries to the Sultan- [Malik at that period] i-Karim, Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and gave up the fort to him7; and [consequently] between Malik Baha-ud-Din,
6 The more recent copies of the text differ somewhat from this ; but the oldest and best copies are as above.
1 Neither here, nor under the reign of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, does our author give us the details in consecutive order, his constant failing. The Sultan, having gained possession of Thanglr, moved against Gwaliyur. Arrived there, he found it would be impossible to take it by a coup de main, and that the only way to reduce it would be by a regular investment, and reduction of the defenders to straits, which would occupy a considerable time. The Rae of Gwaliyur, becoming aware of the Sultan's deliberations on the matter, hastened to present himself before him, with rich presents and offerings, and conciliated him, and, for a time, he was enabled to preserve his territory.
Elphinstone, led away by the translations of Firishtah—Briggs's version of which he constantly quotes—and other histories probably, easily, but incorrectly, disposes of these affairs. He says, page 315, "next year, Shahab u din came back to India, took Biana, west of Agra, and laid siege [!] to the strong fort of Gwalior, in Bundelkand. It is probable [!] that he was recalled by some attack or alarm in Khorasan, for he left the conduct of the siege of Gwdlidr to his generals, and returned, vvithout having performed anything of consequence [!], to Ghazni."
At the time of withdrawing from bafore the fort, the Sultan remarked to Tughril, that, if the fort should be taken [hereafter by his means], it should be made over to him. On this account, after the Sultan's departure, Tughril founded the strong fortress of Sultan-kot in the Bhlanah territory and there took up his residence, and from thence made constant raids into the Gwaliyur territory ; but, finding this of no avail, he founded a strong fortification within two leagues [some say much nearer] of it, and made it his headquarters, and virtually blockaded Gwaliyur. By making incessant raids upon the country round, he sought to reduce the place to extremity. After about a year, the defenders, being reduced to great straits, sent agents, with presents and rarities, not to Tughril, but to his rival, Malik Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and delivered up the fortress of Gwaliyur to him. Kutb-ud-Dln's having accepted this offer was the cause of enmity between the two Turk mamluks, and, had not Tughril been suddenly removed from the scene by the hand of death, hostilities would have arisen between them. The Tazkirat-ul-Muluk says Tughril died whilst the operations were being carried on.the mu'izzlah sultans of hind.
547
Tughril, and [Malik] Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, there used to exist a little of the leaven of vexation.
Malik Baha-ud-Din, Tughril, was a man of exemplary faith, and, in the district of Bhianah, numerous proofs of his goodness remained; and he died, and was received into the Almighty's mercy.
After this, an account will likewise be given in this Tabakat of the Khalj Maliks who were [among] those of the reign of the beneficent Sultan8 Kutb-ud-Din, and accounted among the servants of the Sultan-i-GhazI, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, in order that, when the readers [of this work] acquire knowledge respecting all the Maliks and Amirs of Hindustan, they may utter a benediction upon the author, and pray unto the Omnipotent for the eternal dominion and perpetual sovereignty of Sultan Nasir-ud-Dunya wa ud-DIn, Abu-l-Muzaffar-i-Mahmud, the son of the Sultan, the Kasim [co-sharer] of the Lord of the Faithful9: and may Almighty God perpetuate the dynasty, Amin !
There i3 no date given of the surrender of Gwaliyur to Kutb-ud-Din, but, from what our author states about the "leaven of vexation" between Kutb-ud-Din and Tughril, and what other writers say respecting Tughril's determination of appealing to arms on account of Kutb-ud-DIn's interference with respect to this fortress, we may conclude that its surrender must have taken place just before or immediately after the death of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, who would probably, had he lived longer, have interfered in this matter out of his great regard for Tughril, his ancient slave. Kutb-ud-Dln, after the Sultan's death, would scarcely have kept himself entirely at Lahor out of fear of Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, with another rival like Baha-ud-Din, Tughril, in his rear, lest they might act in concert.
Firishtah mentions these events in his account of Tughril as though they had happened in 607 h. ! See also note 2, page 516.
Gwaliyur did not long remain in Musalman possession however, and it was recovered shortly after by the Hindus, during the confusion which arose on the death of Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and the accession of his adopted son ; and, it was not until many years after—in 630 H.— that I-yal-timish could gain possession of it. See under his reign farther on.
8 Not so : Malik Kutb-ud-Din was a slave at this time, and continued a slave till after Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din's assassination ; and the first of the Khalj rulers of LakhanawatI died before Kutb-ud-Din received his manumission.
,J See note pages 310, 315, and 388, and note 7. On his later coins the title is Nasir-i-Amir-ul-Muminin, and as our author himself states in his account of Nasir-ud-Din Mahmud's reign farther on.548
Tl-Ili TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
V. MALIK-UL-GHAZi. IKHTIYAR-UD-DIN. MUHAMMAD, SON OF BAKHT-YARi, KHALTI. IN THE ' TERRITORY OF LAKHANAWATI2.
Trustworthy persons have related on this wise, that this Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar, belonged to the Khalj [tribe] of Ghur, and the territory of Garmsir3; and that he was a man impetuous, enterprising, intrepid, bold, sagacious, and expert. He came from his tribes to the court of Ghaznin, and [to] the Audience Hall of dominion of the Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam. In the Dlwan-i-'Ariz
1	In the more recent copies of the text, the word ^— "son of" has been left out, but the izafat—the kasrah or i, governing-the genitive, even in them is understood, if not written ; and thus, with European and some local Indian Muhammadan writers, the father has had the credit for what the son performed. The same error, of omitting the kasrah or not understanding the grammatical structure, has caused the ancestor of the Ghurian Sultans, Muhammad, son of Sun, noticed at page 320, to be made Muhammad Suri—one person—instead of two. The father's name it appears was Bakht-yar [i. e. the Fortunate or Lucky], the son of Mahmud.
At page 517, in every copy of the text, our author styles him 'Izz-ud-Din, instead of Ikh,tiyar-ud-Din.
2	My oldest copy of the text gives the vowel points as above. There is no doubt but that the correct name is Lakhmana-wati, or Lakshmana-wati from Lakhmana or Lakshmana, the son of Dasarata, and half-brother of Ram Chandra, and watT, the contraction of vvati—habitation, dwelling, home—the country of Lakhmana.
8 The most absurd statements have been made with respect to the people named Khaljr the plural of which, according to the 'Arab mode of writing, is Akhlaj. It is also written, but rarely, Khalaj; but some few Muhammadan Indian authors write it Khilj and Kh,iljl, and most European writers have followed them [Dow, however, makes " Chilligies" of them, although Firishtah writes the word like other Muhammadan authors] ; but, according to the fertile imaginations of Europeans, the Kh,alj—^—tribe and Ghalzi ——tribe are one people—in fact, some roundly assert that the Khalj art one and the same race as the Afghan tribe of Ghalzi, without there being a shadow of authority for such an assertion in any Muhammadan writer whatever. Because the Khalj happened, in the days of the Ghurian Sultans [and long prior], to have been located in that part of Khurasan now included in what in the present day is styled by the general name of Afghanistan—a comparatively modern designation—such writers, in their innocency, jumped at the conclusion that they were Afghans, and, more than that, that the Khalj and Ghalzi must be one and the same people.
The Khalj are a Turkish tribe, an account of whom will be found in all the histories of that race—the Shajirah-ul-Atrak, Jami'-ut-Tawarik^, Introduction to the Zafar Namah, &c. ; and a portion of them had settled in Garmsir long prior to the period under discussion, from whence they came into Hindustan and entered the service of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-DIn. See also note 6, page 550.THE MU'IZZlAII SULTANS OF HIND.
549
[department of the Muster-Master], because, in the sight of the head of that office, his outward appearance was humble and unprepossessing, but a small stipend was assigned him. This he rejected, and he left Ghaznin and came into Hindustan. Arrived at the capital, Dihli [there likewise], by reason of his humble condition, not finding favour in the sight of the [head of the] Muster-Master's department, he was also rejected.
Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar then left Dihli and proceeded to Buda tin, to the presence of the holder of that fief, the Sipah-Salar [Commander or Leader of troops], Hizabr-ud-Din, Hasan-i-Adib, and he fixed a certain salary for him.
The paternal uncle of Muhammad-i-Bakht- var—Muhammad, son of Mahmud—was in [the army of~\ Ghaznin [and his nephew joined hiin\; and, when the battle was fought at Tara'in in which the Golah [Rae Pithora] was defeated, 'All, [styled] Nag-awri, entertained Muhammad-i-Mahmud [the uncle] in his own service. When he ['All] became feudatory of Nag-awr, he stood up among his brethren [sic\, and conferred a kettle-drum and banner upon Muhammad-i-Mahmud, and made over to him the fief of Kashmandi [or Kashtmandi]; and, after his [Muhammad-i-Mahmud's] death, Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar became feudatory in his place4.
After some time he proceeded into Awadh to the presence of Malik Husam-ud-Din, Aghul-Bak. As he had acquired a horse and efficient arms, and in several places had shown activity and gallantry, Bhagwat or Bhugwat
4 This passage is defective more or less in every copy of the text collated, and most of them are—the most modern copies—hopelessly so. To make sense of it I have been obliged to add a few words, but they are those only which are in italics within brackets. The greater part of what is stated there, however, is corroborated by others ; and the only parts which are doubtful are those respecting the nephew joining the uncle, and 'All, Nag-awn's "standing up among his brethren." The latter was probably a Khalj.
The three chiefs here mentioned appear to have been quite independent, or very nearly so, of Malik Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak's authority; and this, seemingly, was why Muhammad, son of Bakht-var, entered their service. The very fact of these Khalj rulers being put in the same Section with Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, Nasir-ud-DTn, Kaba-jah, and Baha-ud-Din, Tughril, and numbered consecutively, shows that Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar, was not an officer of Kutb-ud-Din, but only partially dependent on him as the Sultan's representative at Dihli; and, in the same manner, his successors were to all intents independent until the last was overcome by I-yal-timish.THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
[ojl^j], and Bhiuli or Bhiwali	were conferred
upon him in fief; and, being a man of valour and intrepidity, he was in the habit of making incursions into the territory of Muner and Bihar0, and used to obtain booty
5	These names are thus written in the oldest copies and are confirmed by the best of the modern copies of the text, and, as they are important, I give the original Persian. These fiefs were situated between the Ganges and the Karmah-nasah, to the eastward of and adjoining Chunar-garh, and two par-ganahs still bear the same names. The town of Bhiuli [anglicized Bhoelee] is still the chief town of the latter, but there is a difficulty with respect to the name of the principal place of the Bhagwat or Bhugwat parganah in those days, and it is most probable that the hill and fortress of Chunar-garh was included in it. See Indian Atlas, sheet 88. That the places mentioned in the text were in the part named is singularly corroborated by what others say were the names of Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar's fiefs, mentioned in the following note ; for the places referred to are evidently the modern anglicized Pateetah and Kuntil [Kuntilah ?], the former being only two miles north and nine west, and the latter one mile north ; and twenty-eight miles west of Bhuili, All these three places moreover are immediately west of the Karmah-nasah, which river was the boundary of the Bihar territory. In the printed text these places are turned into Sahlat	or Sahla§t [^.....lo..] and Sahili [JU-] or Sihwali [Jj4-]—in fact, anything but what is correct. See Elliot: India, vol. ii., page 305.
6	There is considerable difference between our author and some other writers here, and also in other places; and, as" I proceed I will give a short abstract of what they say.
Ik^tiyar-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Bakit-yar—as I shall in future style him—that is son of Bakht-var, the Khalj, who was never a slave [the "History of India" written for the Calcutta University notwithstanding], was one of the headmen of the Khalj tribe dwelling in and on the south-west border of Ghur. He was endowed with great valour, wisdom, and liberality, was of robust and powerful form, with immensely long arms—as described by our author. During the reign of Sultan Mu'izr-ud-Din he came to Ghaznin in search of service during those stirring times, and, subsequently, not obtaining employment such as he desired, he came into Hind, and proceeded to Lahor. There he did not get on with Kutb-ud-Din, it is said, so he proceeded farther eastward, and joined the Malik-ul-Mu'aggam [the great Malik], Husam-ud-Dln, Oghul-Bak [see note 2, page 516, para. 11], who held in fief a considerable tract of country in the Do-ab, and on the east side of the river Gang, independent of Kutb-ud-DIn's authority. According to another author, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Dln conferred on Ughul-Bak the fortress of Kol and its dependencies, which is in the Do-ab. Muhammad-i-Bakh,t-yar was taken into that Malik's service, arid, soon after, was despatched with some forces into Awadh [Compare Thomas, " Pathan Kings of Dehl!," page 110, who makes him " Sipah-sdldr of Oude" and note page 558, farther on]; and, on several occasions, he gave proofs of his valour and prowess against his Hindu opponents.
After this, Husam-ud-Din, tJghul-Bak. conferred upon him the fiefs of Patitah—x.'i [Lat. 250, Long. 82° 54'], and Kuntilah—[Lat. 250 7', Long. 82° 35'], the Kuntil of the Indian Atlas.
[From a similarity in the names, some comparatively modern MuhammadanTHE MU'IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
5Si
from it, until he acquired ample resources in the shape of horses, arms, and men; and the fame of his alertness and bravery, and the booty [he had acquired], became noised abroad. Bodies of Akhlaj7, from different parts of Hindustan, turned their faces towards him ; and his reputation reached Sultan [Malik] Kutb-ud-Din, who despatched a robe of distinction to him, and showed him honour. Having been honoured with such notice and favour, he led a force towards Bihar, and ravaged that territory.
He used to carry his depredations into those parts and that country until he organized an attack upon the fortified city of Bihar. Trustworthy persons have related on this wise, that he advanced to the gateway of the fortress of Bihar
authors of Akbar's time, and some European translators and writers, have been led to suppose that these places referred to Patiali—[Lat. 27°4i', Long. 79°. 40'], and Kanpilah	Lat. 270 37', Long. 79" 21', lying on the
southern bank of the Ganges a few miles N. N. W. of Buda'un, but no less than three degrees west, and about the same distance north, of the places referred to by our author above ; whilst Patitah and Kuntilah are within a few miles of Bhugwat and Bhiuli, and situated in the same tract of country immediately west of the Karmah-nasah. They are equally convenient for Muner—a very old place at the confluence of the Soaaie [Son] with the Ganges, on the right bank of the former—and Bihar, as well as Awadh. The town of Patitah lies about five miles south of the fort of Chunar-garh, and had a rampart and a fort when Cljait Singh, the rebel Zamindar of Banaras, garrisoned it in 1781 ; but it is not entered in the Indian Atlas, and may have since gone to comparative decay. ]
Mufcammad-i-Bakht-yar now began to carry his depredations into Bihar and Muner as well as into Awadh, on his own account, and acquired great booty. Hearing of his valour and prowess, Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, sent him [from Lahor according to Buda'uni] a dress of honour of great value, for, at this period, Husam-ud-DIn, Oghul-Bak, is no more mentioned.
It will be seen from these statements, as well as from the statement of our author, that Muljammad-i-Bak&t-yar was never Sipah-Salar in Awadh. The mistake appears to have arisen from his having entered the service of Husam-ud-Din, tJghul-Bak, who was a Sipah-Salar and held the fief of Awadh, or by confounding Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar's name with that of the Sipah-Salar, Ilizabar-ud-Din, mentioned above by our author. See Thomas : "Pathan Kings of DehlI," page no.
7 This favour, on the part of Kutb-ud-Din, as well as Mufcammad-i-Bak&t-yar's valour and generosity becoming noised abroad, bodies of Akhlaj from the Sultan's forces in Hindustan from all parts began to flock around him, and he became very powerful. He subdued the territory of Bihar, after making great slaughter among the infidels of that part, and booty to a vast amount fell into his hands. After these successes he presented himself before Kutb-ud-Din, who had, at that time, taken up his residence at Dihlj, but he was not " Sultan " Kutb-ud-Din, for his master was still alive and he himself was still <1 slave.552
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
with two hundred horsemen in defensive armour, and suddenly attacked the place. There were two brothers of Farghanah, men of learning, one Nizam-ud-Din, the other Samsam-ud-Din [by name], in the service of Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar ; and the author of this book met with8 Sam-sam-ud Din at Lakhanawati in the year 641 H., and this account is from him. These two wise brothers were soldiers9 among that band of holy warriors when they reached the gateway of the fortress and began the attack, at which time Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar, by the force of his intrepidity, threw himself into the postern of the gateway of the place, and they captured the fortress, and acquired great booty. The greater number of the inhabitants of that place were Brahmans, and the whole of those Brahmans had their heads shaven; and they were all slain. There were a great number of books1 there ; and, when all these books came under the observation of the Musalmans, they summoned a number of Hindus that they might give them information respecting the import of those books ; but the whole of the Hindus had been killed2. On becoming acquainted [with the contents of those books], it was found that the whole of that fortress and city was a college, and in the Hindu! tongue, they call a college [a^j.*] Bihar3.
When that victory was effected, Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar returned with great booty, and came to the presence of the beneficent Sultan4, Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and received great honour and distinction. A party of Amirs at the capital [Dihli], through the noising abroad of Muham-
8	A few modern copies say, "he, Samsam-ud-Din, discovered the author," &c.
9	Jan-baz, which does not mean '' active."
1	Books on the religion of the Hindus.
2	The Zubdat-ut-Tawarikli, which quotes our author verbatim on most occasions, says they sent for a number of Hindus, who made them acquainted with the contents of the books, and in them it was written that that fortress and city was called a college, but, correctly, a Budhist monastery.
3	In Persian words derived or borrowed from the Sanskrit the letter b is often substituted for Nagan	—thus, Bihar or Wihar, but there is no e in the word : hence Behar is impossible.
4	He was not Lhen Sultan, and his master, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, was still alive, and was assassinated thirteen years afterwards, and, some time even after that event, Malik Kutb-ud-Din received his manumission and the title of .Sultan from the nephew of Mu'izz-ud-Din. Our author does not mean that Kutb-ud-Din was Sultan at that very time. He was not Sultan, in fact, during the lifetime of Muliammad-i-Bakh,t-yar.THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKH AN AW ATI.
553
mad-i-Bakht-yar's praises®, and, at beholding the honour
8 After having gained possession of Bihar, Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar, taking along with him valuable presents, part of the spoils, proceeded to wait upon Malik Kutb-ud-Din, at this time the representative of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-DIn in Hindustan. By the generality of authors he is said, more probably, to have gone to Dihli for the purpose ; but, as previously stated in next to last para, of note3, page 516, it was whilst Kutb-ud-Din was at Mahobah, in the KalbT territory, in 599 H.—which should be 589 H.—after taking Kalinjar, that Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar presented himself, for it was in 589 H. that he moved from Bihar to invade Lakhanawati. See note page 558. He was received with such distinction, and so many marks of favour were shown him, that the chiefs and ministers of Kutb-ud-Din's vice-regal court became filled with envy and hatred of Muhammad-i-Bakht-j ar, and they began to calumniate him to Kutb-ud-Din, and to report expressions of a scornful nature towards himself on the part of Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar which he had never used. It happened, upon the occasion of Kutb-ud-Din's holding a public audience in the Kasr-i-Safed [White Castle], that a rampant elephant was brought forward for inspection, and these envious persons began saying, in a disdainful and contemptuous manner, that there was no one who would venture to stand before that elephant, the like of which was not to be found in Hind. Kutb-ud-Din, in whose mind they had succeeded in creating an unfriendly feeling towards Muhammad-i-Baklit-yar, proposed to him an encounter with the elephant. He agreed at once, and, with the mace he held in his hand, dealt it one blow, but that blow was so effectual that the elephant made off.
This anecdote is somewhat differently related by another writer, who says that these malignants stated to Kutb-ud-DTn that Muhammad i-Bakht-yar was desirous of encountering an elephant, and that Kutb-ud-Din had a white one, which was rampant, and so violent that the drivers were afraid of it, and which he directed should be brought on the course for Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar to encounter. He approached it near enough to deal it such a blow on the trunk with his mace as at once put it to flight.
After his performing this feat, Kutb-ud-Din distinguished him with still greater favour. He conferred upon him a special dress of honour of great value and a large sum of money ; and Muhammad-i-Bakl,t-yar, having donned the robe, added money of his own to Kutb-ud-DIn's gift, and distributed the whole among those present, and left the assembly with increased renown and honour. Kutb-ud-DTn further distinguished him by giving him a standard and other insignia, and confirmed him, on the part of his master, the Sultan, in the government of the tracts he had subdued, and such further conquests as he might make in the Lakhanawati territory; and Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar returned to Bihar.
Here is a rich specimen of the history taught at present, at least, in the University of Calcutta, as it is from the "History of India" by Mr. Marshman : — "Kootub lost no time in despatching one of his slaves, Bukhtiyar Ghii.jie, who had risen to command, by his native genius, to conquer Behar. The capital was sacked, and the country subdued, and the army returned within two years to Delhi, bending beneath the weight of plunder. An attempt was soon after made to supplant Bukhtiyar in his master,s favour, but it was defeated by the prowess he exhibited in a single combat with a LION, which his enemies at court had forced on him. This event established him still more firmly in the confidence of Kootub, who sent him, in 1203, to reduce Bengal."
Now, in the whole of this statement, there is not one atom of truth, and in 110 author, Muframmadan or Hindu, will such a statement be found.
N n554
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
he received, and the gifts bestowed upon him by Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, became envious of Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar. and, at a convivial banquet, they treated him in a reproachful and supercilious manner, and were deriding him and uttering inuendoes ; and matters reached such a pitch that he was directed to combat with an elephant at the Kasr-i-Safed [White Castle]. With one blow, which he dealt the elephant on the trunk with his mace6, the elephant fled discomfited.
When Muhammad-i-Bakht-var gained that distinction, Sultan Kutb-ud-Din ordered him a rich robe of honour from his own special wardrobe, and conferred considerable presents upon him. The Sultan [likewise] commanded the Amirs to make him presents, and he received such a number of gifts as could not be contained within the limits of writing. Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar moreover, in that same assembly, dispersed the whole of those presents and bestowed them upon the people ; and, with the special imperial7 honorary robe, he departed, and set out towards Bihar.
Fear of him 8 operated exceedingly in the hearts of the unbelievers of the different parts of the territories of Lakh-anawati and Bihar, and the countries of Bang and Kam-rud. Trustworthy persons have related after this manner, that the fame of the intrepidity, gallantry, and victories of Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar had [also] reached Rae Lakhman-iah 9, whose seat of government was the city of Nudlah, and who was a very great Rae, and had been on the throne for a period of eighty years.
At this place, an ANECDOTE respecting the circumstances of that Rae, which had been heard [by the writer], is here recorded ; and it is this, that, when his father was
8 See Elliot: India, vol. ii. page 306. Gurz signifies a mace, not a "battle-axe." In some modern copies of the text the words "fled discomfited" are left out, and we have instead "Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar pursued the elephant :" no more.
7	One of the robes probably which Kutb-ud-Din had himself received from his master, hence it is called a "Sultan!" robe.
8	His intrepidity and valour.
* Another writer styles him Rae Lakhmiah [i^^J], intended, no doubt, for the Sanskrit c;5 son of Rae Lakhman [^^J], See list of kings of Bangalah in Abu-l-Fazl's A'in-i-Akbari, and Dr. Blochmann's translation, and note2, page 559.THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATI.
555
removed from this world, Rae Lakhmaniah was in his mother's womb. The crown was placed on the belly of his mother, and all girded up their loins in her service. The Raes of Hind used to hold their family in great importance, and were wont to consider them in the position of Khalifah1 by descent.
When the birth of Lakhmaniah drew near, and the signs of giving birth became manifest to his mother, she assembled the astrologers together2, and they made observation whether the horoscope was auspicious. With one accord they represented : "If this child should be born at this hour, it will be unfortunate exceedingly, and will never attain unto sovereignty ; but, if it should be born two hours subsequent to this time, it will reign for eighty years." When his mother heard this conclusion from the astrologers, she commanded that she should be suspended with her head downwards, with her two legs bound together ; and the astrologers were placed in order that they might continue to observe the horoscope. When the time came, they agreed that the [auspicious] hour of birth was now arrived. She directed that she should be taken down, and forthwith Lakhmaniah was born 3. On reaching the ground, his mother, unable any longer to endure the agony of labour, died, and Lakhmaniah was placed upon the throne 4.
He reigned for a period of eighty years, and trustworthy persons have related to this effect, that, little or much, never did any tyranny proceed from his hand ; and whosoever preferred a request to him for anything, other than one lak [one hundred thousand] he did not bestow, after the manner of the beneficent Sultan, Kutb-ud-Din, the Hatim of his time. It has been narrated on this wise, that,
1	The words "Khalifah by descent"	li^*], here used by our author, and Peshwa, by others, plainly indicate that his family was looked upon in the light of heads or supreme leaders in spiritual, not temporal matters, and Rae Lakhmaniah, not as a "powerful monarch" and "lord paramount," for power of that kind he evidently did not possess. Compare Elliot: India, vol. ii. page 307.
2	There is not a word about " Brahmans" in the best copies of the text.
3	Here is a specimen of the difference in idiom in the text, which I have before referred to. The oldest set of MSS. have w>i jJji'	and the more modern J-l ojYj \j
4	His nobles, or rather the chief men of his kingdom—his late father's ministers probably—carried on the government until such time as Rae Lakhmaniah was able to assume the direction of affairs.
N n 2556
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
as in that country, the kauri [shell] is current in place of silver 5, the least gift he used to bestow was a lak of kauris. The Almighty mitigate his punishment [in hell]!
I now return to the history of Muhammad-i-Bakht-y^r. When he returned from the presence of Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, and subdued Bihar6, his fame had reached the hearing of Rae Lakhmaniah, and the different parts of his dominions likewise. A number of astrologers, wise men, and counsellors of his kingdom presented themselves before the Rae, and represented, saying : " In our books of the ancient Brahmans' they have foretold that this country will fall into the hands of the Turks7, and the time of its fulfilment has drawn near. The Turks have subjugated Bihar 8, and next year they will surely come into this country. It is expedient, for us that the Rae should consent9 so that he, along with the whole people, should be removed from the country in order that we may be safe from the molestation of the Turks."
The Rae replied, saying : " Is there any token given in your books with respect to this man who is to subdue our country?" They replied : "The indication of him is this, that, when he stands upright on his two feet, and lets down his two hands, his hands will reach beyond the point of his knees in such wise that the fingers will touch the calves of his legs V The Rae answered : " It is advisable that
5	In every copy of the text collated, with the exception of two, which have jital, the word silver is used. In 1845 the rvipi was equivalent to 6500 kauris, and a lak would be equal to a fraction over fifteen rupls. In ancient times they may have been estimated at a higher rate, but a lak of kauris could not have been a very desirable present to obtain, or a very convenient one. See note 2, page 583.
6	Our author must mean when M uhammad-i-Bakht-yar returned from the presence of Malik Kutb-ud-Din, whither he had gone after he subdued Bihar, because he did not go to Kutb-ud-Dm before, even by his own account. All the copies of the text, however, are as above.
7	But their predictions did not go so far as to foretell that the Calcutta University "History of India" would turn the Turks into Ghalzi Afghans.
8	"Have this year subjugated Bihar, and next year will come into this country," according to the Zubdat-ut-Tawankh.
9	Compare Elliot: India, vol. ii. page 308, where this sentence is translated : "It was therefore advisable that the Rae should make peace with them"!
li-i'.il^ does not signify to make peace with the Turks, but to consent, approve, agree to, judge expedient, &c., their proposal.
1 Lit. "legs," i.e. the leg in its true sense, the part below the knee. In Elliot the words ^ jl- have been translated " shins."THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKIIANAWATI.
557
trustworthy persons should be despatched in order that they may, in a proper manner, investigate those peculiar characteristics." In accordance with the Rae's command, they sent trustworthy persons, and they made investigation respecting this matter, and, in the external form and figure of Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar. those characteristics they found.
When they became assured of these peculiarities, most of the Brahmans and inhabitants2 of that place left, and retired into the province of Sankanat3, the cities and towns of Bang, and towards Kamrud; but to begin to abandon his country was not agreeable to Rae Lakhmaniah. The following year after that, Muhammad-i-Bakht-var caused a force to be prepared, pressed on from Bihar, and suddenly appeared before the city of Nudiah4, in such wise that no more than eighteen horsemen could keep up with him, and the other troops followed after him. On reaching the gate of the city, Muhammad-i-Bakht-var did not molest any one, and proceeded onwards steadily and sedately, in such manner that the people of the place imagined that mayhap his party were merchants and had brought horses for sale and did not imagine that it was Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar, until he reached the entrance to the palace of Rae Lakhmaniah, when he drew his sword, and commenced an onslaught on the unbelievers.
At this time Rae Lakhmaniah was seated at the head of his table 8, and dishes of gold and silver, full of victuals, were placed according to his accustomed routine, when a cry arose from the gateway of the Rae's palace and the interior of the city. By the time he became certain what
3 All but the two oldest copies have Sahan [from ^TV], which signifies merchants, shopkeepers, and the like—inoffensive people, not "chiefs."
3	In the best and oldest copies of the text, Sanknat——is plainly written, with the exception of two, which have Saknat—oLd The Zubdat-ut-Tawankh also has Saknat; but other works, including the Tabakat-i-Akbari and the Tazkarat-uI-Muluk, say Jagnath. The part meant by our author more probably refers to a province of eastern Bang.
4	The more modern copies of the text have *>•>/>—one even has j^y— instead of and U-iy
5	The text varies in different copies here. It appears from the above remark,
that traders were in the habit of bringing horses from Bihar into the Rae's
territory, and such is stated by some other more modem writers.
9 Not "at dinner" necessarily : it might have been the morning meal.558
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
was the state of affairs, Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar had dashed forwards through the gateway into the palace, and had put several persons to the sword. The Rae fled barefooted by the back part of his palace ; and the whole of his treasures, his wives, and [other] females, his domestics and servants, his particular attendants, were taken, and the Musalmans captured a number of elephants, and such a vast amount of booty fell to their lot, as cannot be recorded 7. When the whole of Muhammad-i-Bakht-var's army arrived, and the city and round about had been taken possession of, he there took up his quarters; and Rae Lakhmaniah got away towards Sankanat8 and Bang, and there the period of his reign 9 shortly afterwards came to a termination. His descendants, up to this time, are rulers in the country of Bang
7	The Rae, on hearing of the arrival of Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar, was dumbfounded. He fled alone and unattended, and succeeded in reaching a boat, and escaped. His boundless treasures, the accumulations of eighty years, fell into the possession of the Musalmans ; and a large portion of them, the greatest rarities, were transmitted to Malik Kutb-ud-DTn, for the Sultan.
According to Munshi Shiam Parshad, "who wrote an account of Gaur [Gaudah—] for Major William Franklin [In referring to this work I shall call it the Gaur MS.], Rae Lakhmaniah ruled from 510 to 590 H., which is correct. It was in the early part of the last-mentioned year that Muhammad-i-Bakh,t-yar took Nudlah.
His rule extended over a period of twelve years, and he was assassinated in the middle of the year 602 H.
Mr. Thomas, however, in his " Pathan Kings of Dehli," page no, says Muhammad-i-Bakh,t-yar, whom he erroneously makes " Sipah salar" of Awadh, "in A.H. 599, pushed his forces southward, and expelled, with but little effort, the ancient Hindu dynasty of Nuddeah." Here is an error of ten years: Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar moved from Bihar in 589 H., and in the following year took Nudlah by surprise. Were 599 H. correct, his sway over Lakhanawati would have been less than three years, as he was assassinated about the middle of 602 H. See note 2, page 516, para, next to last, and note 9, page 572.
8	Here, as previously, some copies have Saknat, and the other authors, previously referred, to, Jagnath and Kamrud.
9	In some copies, the period of his life, &c.
1 The Rajah, it is said, escaped in a boat to Bikram-pur or Wikram-pur. We shall also find that Sunarganw, near Bikram-pur, continued to be a place of refuge for those who were discontented at Gaur, and was not finally reduced for a long time after the overthrow of Rae Lakhmaniah, who had a son, Madhob Sen, who had a son, Su Sen, who by Hindus is considered the last ruler. Bikram-pur is about eight miles south-east, from Dhakah, and is said to have been the principal residence of Balal Sen, the predecessor of Adisur, who preceded Lakhman Sen, the predecessor of our author's Lakhmaniah, but he sometimes resided at Gaur, which did not become theTHE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATI.
559
After Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar possessed himself of that territory [Rae Lakhmaniah's], he left the city of Nudiah in desolation, and the place which is [now] Lakhanawati2 he made the seat of government. He brought the different parts of that territory under his sway, and instituted therein, in every part, the reading of the Khutbah. and the coining of money3; and, through his praiseworthy endea-
capital of Bangalah until immediately before the Muhammadan conquest. Nudiah was called Nobo-dwip. See " Account of Zila Dinajpur," Calcutta: 1832.
Wilford says the conquest of Bengal took place in 1207 A.D., which is equivalent to 603-604 H., the latter year having commenced 27th July, 1207 A.D.; and according to this theory Bengal was conquered a year or more after its conqueror's death! Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din was assassinated in Sha'ban 602 H. = March 1206 A.D., in which same year Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar died or was assassinated, and which, from 590 H. =1 1194 A.D., is just twelve years.
2	The name of Rae Lakhmaniah's capital was spelt Nudiah until the time of Aurangzeb, when words ending in «—ha-i-mukhtafj —were ordered to be written with 1—as Nudla.
Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar destroyed Nudiah, and, leaving it in desolation, passed onwards [Rauzat-u§-Safa says "he passed beyond the territory of the Rae"], and, in place of that capital, founded another city [or town] at the place, according to the Tabakat-i-AkbarT, where Lakhanawati has been [islJ «J}>], and which, at this time [reign of Akbar], they call Gaur. The Gaur MS. says he made the viouzc1' [place, village, district] of Lakhanawati, his capital, now twelve miles from the Gang. The Mir'at-i-Jahan-Numa says "he founded a city as his capital in the territory of Lakhanawati," which signifies Gaur of Bangalah, "at the place where Lakhanawati was." Buda'uni says Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar "destroyed the idol temples of the infidels and erected masjids and (Jther buildings, and built a capital in his cnvn name [!] which is now called Gaur." Gaur or Gaudah was the name of a division of the present country or tract styled Bangalah as well as of its ancient capital, and its inhabitants were Gaujiya or Gaudhiya. According to Abu-1-Fazl, the fort of Gaur was founded by Balal Sen, the second of the Sen dynasty, one of eight [in some copies, seven] kings who reigned 106 years, out of which Balal Sen reigned fifty years. According to the same author, the last of this dynasty was Rajah [or	It would seem,
from this, that the most ancient name of the city was Gaur, afterwards changed to Lakhanawati, and subsequently styled Gaur again. The emperor Ilumayun named it Bakht-abad. Bangalah itself is sometimes styled Jannat-ul-Bilad. See note 6, page 584.
3	There is not a word in the text about causing '' his name to be read in the Khutbah and struck on the coins." See note 9, page 572. According to the Zubdat-ut-Tawariki he established "the Kljutbah and money of Islam," and its author copies our author almost verbatim. Other writers, on the contrary, state that, having brought all the surrounding territory under his sway after the capture of Nudiah, he assumed a canopy of state, read the Khutbah for himself and issued coin in his own name, which is not correct. He would naturally have issued coin in the name of the Sultan, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muham-560
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
vours, and those of his Amirs, masjids, colleges, and monasteries [for Darweshes], were founded in those parts. Of the booty and wealth [taken] he despatched a large portion to the presence of Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak.
After some years had passed away4, and he had ascertained the state of the different mountain tracts of Turkistan and Tibbat to the eastward of Lakhanawati5, the ambition of seizing the country'of Turkistan and Tibbat began to torment his brain ; and he had an army got ready, and about 10,000 horse were organized. In the different parts of those mountains which lie between Tibbat and the country of. Lakhanawati are three races of people, one called the Kunch0, the second the Mej [Meg], and the third the Tiharu ; and all have Turk countenances. They have a different idiom too, between the language of Hind and Turk7. One of the chiefs of the tribes of Kunch and Mej, whom they were wont to call 'All, the Mej, fell into the hands of Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar, the Khalj, and, at his hand also, the former adopted the Muhammadan faith.
mad-i-Sam, to whom he appears to have been most loyal [see page 571]. He had no occasion whatever to issue money in the name of Malik Kutb-ud-Din, who was still a slave ; and Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar only died the same year in which Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din was himself assassinated. See Thomas : "Pathan Kings of Dehli," page no, and note and Elliot : India, vol. ii. page 309.
4	This expedition must have been undertaken towards the close of the year 601 h. After Muhammad-i-Bakh,t-yar had acquired great power and grandeur, he turned his thoughts to the acquirement of further territory in Tibbat and Turkistan without probably being aware of the distance to be traversed, and the difficulties to be surmounted. He set out with a force of about 12,000 horse according to the generality of accounts, but the Rauzat-us-§afa has " 10,000 horse, and 30,000 foot!" which is certainly incorrect.
Tibbat was a well-known' name in our author's time even, and yet Hamilton in his "Description of Hindostan," vol. ii. page 566, makes the rash statement that it does not appear that the name Tibet is anywhere in general use to designate the province according to the European acceptation of the word ! This may be true as to Tibet, for the country here referred to is written and called Tibbat.
The " Tharoo" [Tiharu] caste, according to Buchanan, composes the greatest portion of the population that are dwellers in the plain of "Saptari," in Makwanpur adjoining the Murang on the north-west; and the inhabitants of the Miirang to the east of Bijaipur [Wijayapur] are chiefly Konch, and on the lower hills are many of the Megh, Mej, or Mesh tribe.
5	Our author's ideas of east and west are rather obscure, as may be noticed at page 431. In this instance he means to the north and north-east.
1 In some copies the nasal n is left out—Kuch.
7 In some of the more modern copies of the text, " Hind and Tibbat."THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATI.
561
He agreed to conduct Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar into those hills, and act as guide ; and he brought the latter to a place where there is a city, the name of which is Burdhan [kot]8. They relate, after this manner, that, in ancient times, Shah Gushtasib9 returned from the country of Chin, and came towards Kamrud, and, by that route, got into Hindustan, and founded that city [Burdhan-kot]. A river flows in front of that place, of vast magnitude, the name of which is Beg-mat!1; and, when it enters the country of Hindustan, they style it, in the Hindu! dialect, Samund 2 [ocean] ; and, in magnitude, breadth, and depth, it is three times more than the river Gang.
To the banks of this river Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar came; and 'All, the Mej, joined the army of Islam; and, for a period of ten days, he took the army up the river among the mountains, until he brought it to a place where, from remote times, they had built a bridge of hewn stone, and consisting of upwards of twenty arches3. After the army
9 The oldest and best copies generally have as above, but two add kot, and one copy gives the vowel points. The Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh also has Burdhan twice. The other copies collated have Murdhan and Murdhan-kot, and the printed text, in a note, has Durdhan [Wurdhan ?] as well as Burdhan.
9 Some copies have Gushtasib and some Garshasib. and one has Gudarz. In the Iranian records Garshasib, son of Zau, is not mentioned as having had aught to do with Hind or Chin. The wars of Gushtasib with Arjasib, son of Afrasiyab, King of Turan, are narrated, but there is no mention of Gushtasib's going into Turan or Ciin; but his son, Isfandiyar, according to the tradition, reduced the sovereign of Hind to submission, and also invaded Chin. In the account of the reign of Kai-Khusrau. Gudarz, with Rustam and Giw, invaded Turkistan to revenge a previous defeat sustained from Afrasiyab who was aided on this occasion by the troops of Suklab and Chin, and Shankal. sovereign of Hind, was slain by the hand of Rustam. Our author, in another place, states that Gushtasib, who had gone into Chin by that route, returned into Hind by way of the city of Kamrud, and that up to the period of the invasion of Kamrud by Ikhtivar-ud-Dm, Yuz-Bak-i-Tughril Khan, governor of Lakhanawati—some years after Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar's expedition—twelve hundred "hoards" of treasure, all still sealed as when left there by Gushtasib, fell into the hands of the Musalmans !
1 The name of this river in the best and oldest copies is as above, but some others, the next best copies, have Beg-hatT, Bak-matT, or Bag-mati, and others have Bang-mati, Mag-madT, and Nang-matT, or Nag-mati. Bag-mati is not an uncommon name for a river, and is applied to more than one. The river of Nlpal, which lower down is called the Grandhak, is called Bag-mati.
3 Samund or Samudr or Samudra, the ocean. One of the best copies of the text has "when it enters the ocean or sea [l^-i] of Hindustan," &c.
* The reader cannot fail to notice that considerable discrepancy exists here in our author's statements respecting this river and bridge. From what he562
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
of Islam passed over that bridge, he [Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar] installed there, at the head of the bridge, two of his
says about the size we are led to conclude that this river, Beg-matT or Bek-mati, must be the Brahma-putr; but what part of it is the question to be solved. When he adds that it is more than three times broader and deeper than the Gang—and, of course, equally liable to inundation—the idea of its being spanned by a stone bridge of above twenty [i. e. between twenty and twenty-five] arches, shows that the narrator, or his informant, must have grossly exaggerated. We may suppose our author's idea of the size of the Gang was derived from what he had seen of that river on his journey from Dihl! to Lakhanawati; but, if we only take its average breadth at Banaras during the height of the hot season, -viz. 1500 feet, our author's river will be a mile or more in breadth ; and, if we believe that this bridge consisted of even twenty-five arches, each of them would be above seventy yards in the span. Is this at all probable ?
At page 561, our author says 'All, the Mej, brought them to a place where stood the town of Burdhan or Aburdhan-kot, in front of which flows the mighty river Beg-matT, which, on entering Hindustan, they call the Samund, but the great bridge is not mentioned in connexion with it. He then says that 'All, the Mej, joined the Musalman forces on the banks of this river, and then conducted them " up the river for a period of ten days' journey" [some 200 miles or more, even at the low computation of twenty miles a day for cavalry without incumbrance, would have brought them near to the Sanpii or upper part of the Brahma-putr in Tibbat], and then, not before, they reached this great bridge, but no river is mentioned. At page 565, it is said that after passing this great river the forces pushed on for a further period of fifteen days [200 or 250 miles, even allowing for the extra difficulty of the country] when the open country of Tibbat was reached. Here it would appear that 'All, the Mej, joined them, beyond the territory of the Rajah of Kamrud, and the latter's message to Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar, confirms it; but, farther on [page 569], this great bridge is said to be in [but probably adjoining] the Kamrud territory, or words to that effect.
The boundaries of Kamrud are very loosely described by Musalman authors, and they apply the name to all the country between the northern frontiers of Muhammadan Bangalah and the hills of Bhutan, its southern boundary being where the Lakhiyah river separates from the Brahma-putr.
From the distinct mention -of Tibbat and Turkistan, by others as well as by our author, together with other observations made by him, it is evident that Muhammad, son of Bakht-var—and his forces—marched from Diw-kot, or Dib-kot, in Dinja-pur district, the most important post on the northern frontier of his territory, keeping the country of the Rajah of Kamrud on his right hand, and proceeding along the bank of the river Tistah, through Sikhirn, the tracts inhabited by the Kunch, Mej, and Tiharu, to Burdhan-kot. They were not in the territory of the Rajah of Kamrud, as his message shows ; yet, when the retreat is mentioned, the Musalmans were, invested in the idol-temple by his people, but no reference is made to this temple's being near the bridge in the account of their advance. Pushing onwards from Burdhan-kot, which may have been situated on a river, on the tenth day the Musalmans reached the bank of the great river where was the bridge of stone '' of above twenty arches." If the town of Burdhan or Aburdhan-kot was situated on the farther side of the great bridge, it is strange Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar,THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATl.	563
own Amirs, one a Turk slave, and the other a Khalj, with troops, in order to guard it until his return. Then Muham-
did not occupy it, when he left a detachment behind to guard the bridge, and still more strange that, when he, on his retreat, reached the bridge and found two arches broken, he did not occupy that town, and compel its inhabitants to repair it or furnish him with all he required, and the means of crossing. If its gates had been closed against him, we can easily imagine why he would have had to take shelter in the great idol-temple, or that even with the town open to him, why he would prefer a strong post such as this was ; but the town is never again mentioned by our author, although we might suppose this the place for obtaining boats or wood and other materials for rafts, and people to construct them. If the distance between this river and Diw-kot was only ten days' journey, it was not impossible to have obtained aid from thence. All the Muhammadan histories with which I am acquainted state that the Musalmans entered Tibbat. In my humble opinion, therefore, this great river here referred to is no other than the TTstah, which contains a vast body of water, and, in Sikhim, has a bed of some 800 yards in breadth, containing, at all seasons, a good deal of water, with a swift stream broken by stones and rapids. The territory of the Raes of Kamrud, in ancient times, extended as far east as this; and the fact of the Rae of Kamrud having promised Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar to precede the Musalman forces the following year, shows that the country indicated was to the north." The route taken by the Musalmans, therefore, was, I am inclined to think, much the same as that followed by Turner and Pemberton for part the way, and that the Musalman army then turned more to the east, in the direction taken by Pemberton, for it is plainly indicated by our author, at page 568, that the tract entered lay between Kamrud and Tirhut. The Sanpu, as the crow flies, is not more than 160 or 170 miles from Dinja-pur, and it may have been reached; but it is rather doubtful perhaps, whether cavalry could reach that river from the frontier of Bengal in ten days.
In the Twentieth Volume of the Bengal Asiatic Journal, page 291, is a drawing by Dalton of the bridge of Sil Hako, described by Hannay. " It is situated," he says "on the high alley [one of Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz's causeways probably] which, no d&ubt, formed at one time the principal line of land communication with ancient Gowahatty (Pragjyotisha) in Western Kamrup [Kamrud]." He also considers that "it is not improbable that this is the stone bridge over which Bactyar Khilji [Muhammad, son of Bakh,t-yar] and his Tartar cavalry passed previous to entering the outworks of the ancient city of Gowahatty, the bridge being but a short distance from the line of hills bounding Gowahatty on the N.N.W. and W., on which are still visible its line of defences extending for many miles on each side from the N. W. gate of entrance or pass through the hills. The Mohammedan general is said to have been obliged to retreat from an advanced position (perhaps Chardoar), hearing [?] that the Raja of Kamrup had dismantled the stone bridge in his rear ; now it is quite evident from the marks on the stones of the platform, that they had been taken off and replaced somewhat irregularly."
The fact of the existence of this stone bridge is certainly curious, but I think it utterly impossible that it can be the bridge our author refers to. In all probability it is one of the bridges connecting " the high alley " or causeway above referred to, and there must have been very many of a similar description at one time. It is but 140 feet long and 8 feet broad, and has no regular arches—this last fact, however, is not material, as the partitions or divisions might be so564
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
mad-i-Bakht-var. with the whole of the rest of his forces, passed over that bridge ; and, when the Rae of Kamrud became aware of the passage [over the bridge] by the conquering troops, he despatched trustworthy persons [say-ing] :—" It is not proper, at this time, to march into the country of Tibbat, and it is necessary to return, and to make ample.preparations, when, in the coming year, I, who am the Rae of Kamrud, agree that I will embody my own forces, and will precede the Muhammadan troops, and will cause that territory to be acquired." Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar did not, in any way, accept this counsel, and he turned his face towards the mountains of Tibbat.
described by a person who had never seen the bridge—and consists of slabs of stone only 6 feet 9 inches long, and built, not over a mighty river three times broader and deeper than the Ganges, but across " what may have been a former bed of the Bar Nadf, or at one particular season a branch of the Brahmaputra, now indicating a well defined water-course through which, judging from the marks at the bridge, a considerable body of water must pass in the rams, and, at that season, from native accounts, the waters of the Brahmaputra still find access to it."
The chief reasons why the bridge of Sil HAlCO could not have been that over which Muhammad, son of Bakh,t-yar, crossed with his army may be summed up as follow :—
I.	Muhammad-i-Bakh,t-yar marched through the tract between Kamrud and Tirhut into Tibbat in a totally different direction to GowahatI, through defiles and passes over lofty mountains, while between Gaur, Dlw-kot, and GowahatI not a single pass or hill of any consequence is to be found.
II.	In no place is it stated in this history, which is, I believe, the sole authority for the account of this expedition, that the Musalmans entered "the outworks " of any city, much less those of GowahatI.
III.	If the great river in question was the Brahma-putr, and the small branch of it which the Sil Hako bridge spanned were too deep to be crossed by the Musalman cavalry, how could they have crossed the mighty Brahma-putr itself? They would not have been able to do so even had this bridge been intact.
IV.	Our author states, that, after passing the great river and bridge, they pushed on for fifteen days—some 200 or 300 miles at least—and that, from the farthest point they reached, the great city, garrisoned by Turks, was five leagues distant This description will not suit the situation of GowahatI, which is quite close to the Brahma-putr.
V.	The table-land of Tibbat is distinctly stated as the point reached, and it is subsequently mentioned that Changiz Khan wished to proceed from the vicinity of the Kabul river, through northern India, and get into China by the same route through Tibbat as Muhammad, son of Bakh,t-yar, took, but GowahatI would have led him much away from the part of China he wished to reach.
VI.	The disaster which befell the Musalmans was owing, not only to two arches of the great bridge being destroyed, but to some of the horsemen of the force riding into the river and succeeding in fording it for the distance 0/ a boiv-shot,THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATl.
565
One night, in the year 642 H.4, the author was sojourning, as a guest, at the dwelling of the Mu'tamad-ud-Daulah, a trusted vassal of Muhammad^i-Bakht-yar, at a place, in the territory of Lakhanawati, between Diw-kot and Bekanwah5, at which place his host was residing, and heard from him the whole of this account. He related on this wise, that, after passing that river, for a period of fifteen days, the troops wended their way, stages and journeys, through defiles and passes, ascending and descending among lofty mountains. On the sixteenth day the open country of Tibbat was reached. The whole of that tract was under cultivation, garnished with tribes of people and populous villages. They reached a place where there was a fort of
which alone would be at least as many yards as the bridge is feet broad, and even then they had gone but a small part of the distance ; and rafts and floats were being constructed to enable the army to cross.
VII.	We are not told that this disaster took place in the rainy season, and few would attempt an expedition into Asham at that period of the year. At all other times the water-course in question would have been fordable to cavalry.
VIII.	And lastly, can any one imagine that two gaps of 6 feet 9 inches each— equal to 13 feet and 6 inches in all, would have deterred the Musalman cavalry from crossing ? The very bambus, or brushwood, growing near would have enabled them to have, at once, repaired two such gaps, even if a tree or two could not have been found. A door from the idol temple would have been sufficient to have spanned the gap, of 13 feet 6 inches, or rather two gaps of 6 feet 9 inches, even if the materials which they had obtained to make rafts and floats had not been available for that purpose.
One reason why it might seem that Gowahati is referred to is, the fact of there being a famous idol temple near it, or close to the Brahma-putr; but there is no mention whatever that such was the case with regard to the great idol temple near the bridge and scene of Muhammad-i-BaJdit-yar's disaster. Moreover, the city of Gowahati is close by the river, while the Musalmans after reaching Burdhan[kot] marched upwards 10 days until the great bridge was reached, and then pushed on from this bridge for 15 days more before they reached the fort, which even then was 5 leagues distant from the city of Kar-battan—the march from Burdhanfkot] to the fort 5 leagues from Kar-battan occupying in all 26 days. Can any argument be more conclusive than this ?
4 In a few copies 641 h. Mu'tamad-ud-Daulah is but a title. In Elliot, instead of our author, Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar, who had been dead forty years, is made to halt at the place in question.
6 The oldest copies have Bekanwah or Beganwah and one Bekawan or Begawan—as plainly written as it is possible to write, while two more modern copies have Satgawn [Satgawn ?]. The remainder have Bangawn and Sagawn. See Blochmann's "Contributions to the Geography and History of Bengal," note f, to page 9. It is somewhat remarkable that this place also should be confounded with Satgawn ; but in the copies of the A'i n-i-Akbar! I have examined I find Baklanah—ai^—instead of Bakla—but this can scarcely be the place referred to by our author.566
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
great strength, and the Musalman army commenced plundering the country around6. The people of that fort and town and the parts adjacent advanced to repel the Muham-madan army, and they came to a battle7. From daybreak to the time of evening prayer a fierce encounter was carried on, and a great number of the Musalman army were killed and wounded. The whole of the defensive arms of that host were of pieces of the spear bambu8, namely, their cuirasses and body armour, shields and helmets, which were all slips of it, crudely fastened and stitched, overlapping [each other] ; and all the people were Turks, archers, and [furnished with] long bows9.
When night came, and the Musalman force encamped, a number [of the enemy], who had been made prisoners, were brought forward, and they [the Musalmans] made inquiry of them. They stated on this wise, that, five leagues' distance from that place, there was a city which they called
6 The text varies considerably here.
' Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh says the Musalmans began to attack the fort.
8 There is nothing here, even in the printed text, which is correct [with the exception of (—i. e. ^ —being altered to but ^j not ^ is silk'], which warrants the reading of this passage as in Elliot [India : vol. ii. page 311]— '' The only weapons of the enemy were bamboo spears, and their armour, shields, and helmets, consisted only of raw silk strongly fastened and sewed together." A "shield" and "helmet" of raw silk would be curiosities certainly.
The bambu referred to in the text is the male bambu—the young shoots, probably, used for spear shafts—for which the hollow bambu is not adapted. Had the spear bambu not been so plainly indicated in the text, we might suppose the armour to have been something after the manner of that worn by the Dufflahs, and to have been formed of sections of the hollow bambu laid overlapping each other as the rings of a coat of mail, but the male bambu could not be used in this manner, and, therefore, their armour, shields, &c., must have been of pieces of the male bambii overlapping each other, as in the literal translation above. An officer with the Dufflah expedition, writing on December 8, 1874, says: " Each man has over his forehead a top-knot of his own hair, and now and then a bit of bear's fur in addition. Through this he runs a skewer of metal— silver if he can afford it—and by means of the top-knot and skewer he fastens on his cane-work helmet, a sort of close-fitting skull-cap worn 011 the back of the head. This helmet is usually ornamented with the upper portion of the hornbill's beak to save the head from sword cuts. Round his loins over the hips he wears a number of thin bambu or cane rings, unattached to one another." See also Dalton: Ethnology of Bengal, page 32.
0 Buda'uni says the people of this place were of the lineage [!] of Gushtasib [Gurshasib ?], and that the fortress had been founded by him. That author docs not give his authority for this statement. Our author says, at page 561, that Gushtasib founded Burdhan[kot]. The Khalj were a Turkish tribe certainly, but they had emigrated from northern Turkistan ages before this period.THE KIJALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATI.
567
Kar-battan [or Kar-pattan \ or Karar-pattan], and [that] in that place would be about 50,000 valiant Turk horsemen, archers2; and that, immediately upon the arrival of the Musalman cavalry before the fort, messengers with a complaint had gone off to the city to give information, and that, at dawn next morning, those horsemen would arrive.
The author, when he was in the territory of Lakh-anawati, made inquiry respecting that [before] mentioned city. It is a city of great size, and the whole of its walls are of hewn stone, and [its inhabitants] are an assemblage of Brahmans and Nunis3, and that city is under the authority of their Mihtar [chief or lord], and they hold the pagan faith4; and every day, at daybreak, in the cattle-market5 of that city, about one thousand five hundred horses are sold ; and all the tangaha,7i6 horses which reach the Lakh-
1	The text varies considerably here, and great discrepancy exists with respect to the name of this important place. The oldest copy has ^J—Kar-battan, possibly Kar-pattan, the next two oldest and best have ^s? jf— Karar-battan or pattan, but what seems the second j in this word may be ^—thus Karan-pattan. All the other copies have ^^S^Karam-battan or Karam-pattan. Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh has which might be read Karshin, or Karan-tan ; and some other histories have	Karam-sin.
Bhati-ghun, the Banaras of the Gurkah dominions, and once a large place, in Makwanpiir, in which part the inhabitants are chiefly Tiharus, was anciently called JiJ —Dharam-pattan, and another place, once the principal city in the Nipal valley, and, like the former, in ancient times, the seat of an independent ruler, is named Lalitah-pattan, and lies near the Bag-madi river ; but both these places are too far south and west for either to be the city here indicated, for Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar, must have penetrated much farther to the north, as already noticed.
2	The best Paris copy—fondly imagined to be an " autograph " of our author's, but containing as many errors as the most modern copies generally, has 350,000 !
3	In the oldest copies Niinian, and in the more modern ones Tunian. One copy of the text however has '' but-parastan " idol-worshippers.
4	The original is " din-i-tarsa-i." The word tarsa is very widely applied, to signify a Christian, also a worshipper of fire or gabr, a pagan, an infidel, and an unbeliever, and not to "any established religion" other than that of Islam. Here our author, I think, refers to Christians—Manichseans—the whole of Tartary and other northern parts of Asia contained a vast number of Christians. See Travels of Father Avril and others in Tartary. Christians are constantly referred to in the annals of the Mughals.
5	The word used is "nakhkhas," which signifies a seller of captives, cattle, or booty of any kind, and is used to signify a place where cattle and slaves are bought and sold.
6	The printed text, and that only, has tdJ —asp-i-tang bastah. Where the editor or editors got this from it would be difficult to conceive, but they could scarcely have intended to convey the meaning of horses brought down with saddles on their backs ready to be mounted. The words in the copies of568
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
anawati country they bring from that place. The route by which they come is the Mahamha-i [or Mahanmha-i] Darah7 [Pass], and this road in that country is well known; for example, from the territory of Kamrud to that of Tir-hut are thirty-five mountain passes, by which they bring the tangahan horses into the territory of Lakhanawati.
In short, when Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar found out the nature of that tract—the Musalman troops being fatigued and knocked up by the march, and a large number having been martyred and disabled on the first day—he held consultation with his Amirs. They came to the conclusion that it was necessary to retreat, in order that, next year, after making ample arrangements, they might return again into that country5. W.hen they retreated, throughout the whole route, not a blade of grass nor a stick of firewood remained, as they [th'e inhabitants] had set fire to the whole of it, and burnt it; and all the inhabitants of those defiles and passes had moved off from the line of route. During these fifteen days9 not a pound of food nor a blade of grass did the cattle and horses obtain 1; and all
our author's text are— a-O' —asp-i tanganah—they are still well known. Stewart, who had no printed text to go by, read the name pretty correctly— " Tanghan." Hamilton says these horses are called Tanyan or Taugitn "from Tangusthan the general appellation of that assemblage of mountains which constitutes the territory of Bootan," &c. He must mean Tangistan, the region of tangs or defiles. Abu-1-Fazl also mentions these horses in his A'In-i-Akbari—" In the lower parts [j^'j] of Bangalah near unto Kuj [Kiich], a [species] of horse between the gut [gunth] and the Turk [breed] is produced, called Tangahan," which is also written Tangahan, and gives the spelling of the word, but they are not born " ready saddled." Compare Elliott: India, vol. ii. page 311, and note 4, and see Dr. Blochmann's translation of the A'Tn.
" Some copies —the more modern—and the best Paris copy, leave out the name of this pass, and make passes—of it; and, while all the oldest copies [and Zubdat] have Tirhut, the more modern ones have Tibbat.
3 Although the Musalman troops were, at length, victorious, their victory cost them so many lives, and so many men were disabled, that, on hearing of a force of 50,000 valiant Turks being stationed so near at hand, Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar, held counsel with his chiefs, and it was determined to retreat next clay. Our author appears totally unable to tell the truth respecting a Musalman reverse, even though such reverse may be far from dishonour, and may have been sustained under great difficulties or through their being greatly outnumbered.
9 The fifteen days which the retreat occupied he seems to mean, as the same route in going took that number of days. Zubdat-ut-Tavvarlkh says that the inhabitants also destroyed the roads^obstructed them, cut them up in some way.
1 They must have brought some provisions and forage along with them, orTHE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKH ANA W ATI.
569
[the men] were killing their horses and eating them, until they issued from the mountains into the country of Kamrud, and reached the head of that bridge. They found two arches of the bridge destroyed2, on this account, that enmity had arisen between both those Amirs [left to guard it], and, in their discord, they had neglected to secure the bridge and protect the road, and had gone off3, and the Hindus of the Kamrud country had come4 and destroyed the bridge.
On the arrival at that place of Muhammad-i-Bakht-var with his forces he found no way of crossing, and boats were not procurable. He was lost in surprise and bewilderment5. They agreed that it was necessary to halt in some place6, and contrive [about constructing] boats and floats, in order that they might be enabled to pass over the river. They pointed out an idol temple in the vicinity of that place [where they then were] of exceeding height, strength, and sublimity, and very handsome, and in it numerous idols both of gold and silver were deposited, and one great idol so [large] that its weight was by conjecture upwards of two or three thousand mans1 of beaten gold. Muhammad-i-Bakht-var and the remainder of his followers sought shelter within that idol-temple8, and began to devise means for
obtained some food, or must have eaten each other. Perhaps our author means that many perished for want of sufficient food.
2 Two arches of any possible" span—but not over seventy yards—would not have been such a difficult matter to repair, so near primeval forests, and with a town or city, as previously stated, close to the bridge. The town, however, is not once mentioned on their return.
1 The Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh, states that the two Amirs, to spite each other, abandoned guarding the bridge, and each went his own way. Buda'unI says they first fought, and afterwards abandoned the bridge.
4 This remark, and what follows at page 571 again, tends to show that the bridge in question was beyond the Kamrud territory, although, a line or two before, it is stated that they came into Kamrud and reached the head of the bridge. See also page 561 and note3.
* Where was 'All, the Mej, all this time ? He is not again mentioned; but his kinsmen are ; and the country people are not even referred to, although the Hindus of Kamrud are, see page 571.
6	Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh says "necessary to occupy some place until boats and floats could be constructed."
7	The more modem copies have missals.
8	According to other authors, when the Musalmans reached the bridge, they were filled with amazement and horror at finding two of its arches broken. The two Amirs, who had been left to guard it, had not been on good terms for some time prior to' being stationed there ; and, as soon as their
O O57°
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
obtaining wood and rope for the construction of rafts and crossing the river, in such wise that the Rae of Kamrud became aware of the reverses and helplessness of the Musal-man army. He issued commands fo the whole of the Hindus of the country, so that they came pouring in in crowds, and round about the idol-temple were planting spiked bambus in the ground, and were weaving them together, so that it [their work] was appearing like unto walls9.
When the Musalman troops beheld that state of affairs, they represented to Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar. [saying] :— " If we remain like this, we shall, all have fallen into the trap of these infidels: it behoveth to adopt some means
chief had left, their hostility broke out afresh, and such was their enmity that, rather than not prosecute their own designs against each other, they abandoned it. After they had departed, the Rae of Kamrud, on becoming aware of it, sent his men, and destroyed the two arches. It is strange the names of these two Amirs are not given by our author, as his informant, previously mentioned, must have known who they were.
Finding the bridge thus impassable, Muhammad-i-Bakh,t-yar determined to occupy some strong place until such time as materials could be obtained to enable them to effect the passage of the river. Here also we might expect to hear something of the town and its people, but, as I have mentioned in note3, page 561, it is doubtful whether our author meant it to be understood that Burdhan-kot was on the banks of the Bag-mad! river, where this bridge was.
Spies brought information that there was an immense and exceedingly strong idol-temple near by, and that was occupied by the Musalmans accordingly. Another writer states that they were ignorant, when they advanced, of the existence of this temple.
Buda'unT states that the Musalmans only passed the night in the idol-temple, but this statement is absurd. Where were materials to be obtained from, during the night, to make rafts ?
9 Tishu Lambu or Digarchah, the seat of a Lama in Lat. 290 7' N., Long. 89° 2' E., a great monastery only 180 miles from Rang-pur of Bengal [said to have been founded by Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar], answers nearly to the description of the idol-temple referred to, but it is on the southern not the northern bank of the Sanpu river, and a few miles distant, and our author says it was a Hindu temple. Perhaps, in his ideas, Hindus and Buddhists were much the same. From this point are roads leading into Bhutan and Bengal.
As soon as the Rae of Kamrud became aware of the helpless state of the Musalmans, and that they had sought shelter in the great idol temple, he gave orders for his people to assemble. They came in hosts, and began to form a stockade all round it, by planting, at a certain distance, not their "bamboo spears" as in Elliot [India, vol ii. page 317], but bambus spiked at both ends [the mode of making stockades in that country], and afterwards woven strongly together, which forms a strong defence. Ralph Fitch says, respecting Kuch "all the country is set with bamboos or canes made sharp at both ends and stuck into the earth," &c.THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATl.
57i
whereby to effect extrication." With one accorcf the} made a rush, and all at once issued from the idol-temple, attacked one point [in the stockade], and made a way for themselves, and reached the open plain, and the Hindus after themWhen they reached the river bank the Musal-mans halted2, and each one, to the best of his ability, sought means of crossing over. Suddenly some few of the soldiers3 urged their horses into the river^ and, for the distance of about an arrow flight, the water was fordable. A cry arose in the force that they had found a ford, and the whole threw themselves into the water, and the Hindus following them occupied the river's bank. When the Musal-mans reached mid-stream, [where] was deep water, they all perished, [with the exception of] Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar, who, with a few horsemen, a hundred more or less, succeeded, by great artifice, in effecting the passage of the river; and all the rest were drowned.
After Muhammad-i-Bakht-var emerged from the water, information reached a body of the Kunch and Mej. The guide, 'All, the Mej, had kinsmen at the passage, and they
1	Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar, seeing through the object of the Hindus, issued from the idol-temple at the head of his troops, and, with considerable difficulty, made a road for himself and followers. Having done this, he took up a position and halted on the bank of the river Bag-mad 1. Here he appears to have remained some days, while efforts were then made to construct rafts, the Hindus not venturing to attack them in the open.
2	This is related differently by others. The Musalmans were occupied in crossing, it is said, or, perhaps, more correctly, about to make the attempt with such means as they had procured, when a trooper [some say, a few troopers] rode his horse into the river to try the depth probably, and he succeeded in fording it for the distance of a bow-shot. Seeing this, the troops imagined that the river, after all, was fordable, and, anxious to escape the privations they had endured, and the danger they were in, as with the means at hand great time would have been occupied in crossing, without more ado, rushed in; but, as the greater part of the river was unfordable, they were carried out of their depth, and were drowned.
After his troops had been overwhelmed in the Bag-madi or Bak-mati, Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar, with the few followers remaining with him, by means of what they had prepared [a raft or two probably], succeeded, with considerable difficulty, in reaching the opposite bank in safety, and, ultimately reached Diw-kot again. Apparently, this river was close to the Mej frontier.
Buda'iini states that those wh i remained behind [on the river bank] fell martyrs to the infidels ; and, that of the whole of that army but 300 or 400 reached Diw-kot. He does not give his authority however, and generally copies verbatim from the work of hi« patron—the TabaVat-i-Akbari—but such is not stated therein.
3	In some copies of the text, "one of the soldiers."
0 0 2572	THE TABAKAT-1-NASIRL
•
came forward to receive him [Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar], and rendered him great succour until he reached Diw-kot.
Through excessive grief sickness now overcame him, and mostly out of shame at the women and children of those of the Khalj who had perished ; and whenever he rode forth all the people, from the house-tops and the streets, [consisting] of women and children, would wail and utter imprecations against him and revile him, so that from henceforth he did not ride forth again4. During that adversity he would be constantly saying: " Can any calamity have befallen the Sultan-i-Ghazi that my good fortune hath deserted me6!" and such was the case, for at that time the Sultan-i-Ghazi. Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, had attained martyrdom. In that state of anguish Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar became ill, and took to his bed, and died.
Some have related that there was an Amir6 of his, 'All i-Mardan, a Khalj of great intrepidity and temerity, to whose charge the fief of Naran-go-e [or Naran-ko-e7] was made over. When he obtained information of this disaster he came to Diw-kot, and Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar was confined to his bed through sickness, and three days had passed since any person was able to see him8. 'Ali-i-Mardan in some way went in unto him, drew the sheet
4	Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh says "by the time he reached Diw-kot, through excessive grief and vexation, illness overcame him ; and, whenever he rode forth, the women of those Khalj who had perished stood on the house-tops and reviled him as he passed. This dishonour and reproach added to his illness," &c.
Rauzat-us-Safa says his mind gave way under his misfortunes, and the sense of the disaster he had brought about resulted in hopeless melancholy.
5	This was certainly just about the time of that Sultan's assassination.
6	Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh, has " one of the great Amirs," &c. The izafat, in 'Ali-i-Mardan, signifies 'All, son of Mardan. See page 576.
7	The name of this fief or district is mentioned twice or three times, and the three oldest copies, and one of the best copies next in age, and the most perfect of all the MSS., have ^C^li as above in all cases ; and one—the best Petersburg copy—has a jazm over the last letter in addition, but all four have the hamzah. The Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh also has	—Naran-goe or Naran-koe. The next best copies of the text have —in which, in all probability, the ! has been mistaken for > The I. O. L. MS. 1952, the R. A. S. MS., and the printed text, have jfj^i*—whilst the best Paris copy has this latter word, in one place, and ^'jV' in other places; and another copy has
In Elliot, vol. ii. page 314, it is turned into "Kunf" in one place, and, sixteen lines under, into "Narkotf."
8	Zubdat-ut-TawarTkh says "no one used to go near him"—the way of the world to desert one in misfortune.THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATl.
573
from his face, and with a dagger assassinated him. These events and calamities happened in the year 602 H.9
VI. MALIK 'IZZ-UD-DlN, MUHAMMAD, SON OF SHERAN \ KHALJ I, IN LAKHANAWATl.
Trustworthy persons have related after this manner, that Muhammad-i-Sheran and Ahmad-i-Sheran were two brothers, two among the Khalj Amirs in the service of Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar; and, when the latter led his troops towards the mountains of Kamrud and Tibbat, he [Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar] had despatched Muhammad-i-Sheran, and his brother, with a portion of his forces, towards Lakhan-or and Jaj-nagar2. When the news of these events [related above] reached Muhammad-i-Sheran, he came
9 This date shows that the territory of Lakhanawati was taken possession of in 590 h., the year in which Malik Kutb-ud-DIn, I-bak, took up his quarters at Dihli. The conquest of Lakhanawati is accounted among the victories of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-DTn, because it took place in his reign. Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, was at this time still a slave, and neither attained his manumission nor the title of Sultan until some time after the death of Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar. See note page 558.
Some authors consider him an independent sovereign, and say that he "reigned" for twelve years. He certainly ruled in quasi independence for that period ; but, from the expressions made use of by him in his last sickness, he evidently was loyal to Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, and he probably paid some nominal obedience to Malik Kutb-ud-DIn, I-bak, as the Sultan's Deputy at Dihli. It is not to be wondered at that Muhammad, son of Bakh,t-yar, neither issued coin in his own name, nor in the name of his sovereign's slave : whilst that sovereign was alive—the latter would have been an impossible act. See Thomas, Pathan Kings, note ', page m ; and note3, page 559.
1	Also styled, by some other authors, Sher-wan. Sher-an. the plural of sher, lion, tiger, like Mard-an, the plural of mard, man, is intended to express the superlative degree. The izafat here— Muhammad-i- Sheran—signifies son of Sheran, as proved beyond a doubt by what follows, as two brothers woulcf not be so entitled.
2	Compare Elliot, vol. ii. page 314. The Paris copy of the text, the I. O. L. MS., the R. A. S. MS., and the printed text, have "to Lakhanawati and Jaj-nagar but the rest have Lakhan-or or Lakh-or, and Jaj-nagar. No doubt Lakhan-or is meant in the copies first mentioned, and probably ^J substituted for j by ignorant copyists.
Some writers state that Muhammad-i-Sheran was "Hakim of Jaj-nagar" on the part of Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar, but such cannot be. Jaj-nagar was an independent Hindu territory [see note 4, page 587]; but most authors agree with ours that Muhammad-i-Sheran was despatched against —or probably to hold in check—Jaj-nagar during Muhammad-i-Bakht-var's absence on the expedition into Tibbat; and he was, doubtless, feudatory of Lakhan or [see note 6, page 584], which lay in the direction of the Jaj-nagar territory.574
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
back from that quarter, and returned again to Diw-kot, performed the mourning ceremonies [for Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar] , and from thence [Diw-kot] proceeded towards Naran-go-e3, which was 'Ali-i-Mardan's fief, seized 'Ali-i-Mardan, and, in retaliation for the act he had committed, imprisoned him, and made him over to the charge of the Kot-wal [Seneschal] of that place, whose name was Baba"1, Kot-wal, the Safahani [Isfahani]. He then returned to Diw-kot again, and assembled the Amirs together.
This Muhammad-i-Sheran was a man of great intrepidity and energy, and of exemplary conduct and qualities5; and, at the time when Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar sacked the city of Nudiah, and Rae Lakhmaniah took to flight, and his followers, servants, and elephants became scattered, 'and the Musalman forces proceeded in pursuit of spoil, this Muhammad-i-Sheran, for the space of three days, was absent from the army, so that all the Amirs became anxious on his account. After three days they brought information that Muhammad-i-Sheran had taken eighteen elephants along with their drivers in a certain jangal [forest], and was retaining them there, and that he was alone6. Horsemen were told off, and the whole of these elephants were brought before Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar. In fact, Muhammad-i-Sheran was a man of energy [combined] with sagacity7.
3	Other writers state that Muhammad-i-Sheran. on hearing of the fate of their chief, Muhammad-i-Bakht-var, returned at once from Jaj-nagar [from Jaj-nagar towards Lakhan-or] with his force, proceeded to Diw-kot, and performed the funeral ceremonies ; and then marched from Diw-kot to Bar-sfil— J.^l; — and secured the assassin, 'Ali-i-Mardan, and threw him into prison. After performing this act, he returned to Diw-kot again. See note7, next page. In Elliot this is turned into "they returned from their stations, and came dutifully to Deokot;" but	as in the printed text, does not mean "dutifully," but "mourning ceremonies."
4	Familiarly so styled perhaps.
s The Jahan-Ara, which does not mention 'All, son of Mardan, at all, calls Muhammad-i-Sheran bloodthirsty, and greatly wanting in understanding, thus confounding him with 'Ali-i-Mardan.
8 He had managed to take these elephants and their drivers on the clay ol the surprise of Nudiah, but, being quite alone, he was unable to secure them, and had to remain to guard them until such time as aid should reach him. Information of his whereabouts having reached Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar, he sent out a detachment of horse to bring him in with his spoil.
7 Muhammad, son of Sheran, was an intrepid, high-minded, and encrgetic man, and, being the chief of the Khalj Amirs, on their return to Diw-kot, theT1IE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATI.	575
When he imprisoned 'Ali-i-Mardan, and again departed [from Diw-kot], being the head of the Khalj Amirs, they all paid him homage8, and each Amir continued in his own fief. 'Ali-i-Mardan, however, adopted some means and entered into a compact with the Kot-wal [before mentioned], got out of prison, and went off to the Court of Dihli9. He preferred a petition to Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, that Kae-maz, the Rumi1 [native of Rumilia], should be commanded to proceed from Awadh towards the territory of Lakhanawati, and, in conformity with that command, [suitably] locate the Khalj Amirs.
Malik Husam-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, the Khalj. at the hand of Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar, was the feudatory of Ganguri [or Kankuri ?]and he went forth to receive Kae-maz the
principal Amirs were assembled in council together, and they chose Muham-mad-i-Sheran as their ruler and sovereign ; and they continued to pay homage to him. It seems strange that the city of Lakhanawati is seldom mentioned, while Diw-kot is constantly referred to by various authors; and, from what pur author himself says at page 578, it would appear to have been the capital at this period.
8	Some copies have "they all paid him homage," &c., and, after the word fief, insert "until."
9	'Ali-i-Mardan managed to gain over the Kot-wal, and was allowed to escape. He succeeded in reaching Dihli, and presented himself before [the then] Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, who received the ingrate and assassin with favour. Both our author and other writers, in mentioning his escape in their account of Muhammad-i-Sheran's reign, make it appear that 'All, son of Mardan, at once succeeded in inciting Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, against Muham-mad-i-Sheran. and inducing him to despatch Kae-maz to Lakhanawati ; but this is not correct. 'All, son of Mardan, accompanied Kutb-ud-Din to Ghaznin [where he reigned—in riot—forty days], and was taken captive by the troops of I-yal-duz, and released or escaped again before these events happened, as will be mentioned farther on.
1	The text differs here. Some copies have : " So that Kae-maz, the Riiml, received orders, on which he proceeded from Awadh to Lakhanawatibut the majority are as above. The Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh. however, clears up the meaning of the last clause of the sentence :—" That he, Kae-maz, should proceed into Lakhanawati, in order that each of the Khalj Amirs, who were in that part, might be located in a suitable place, and to make certain districts their fiefs." That work, however, immediately after, states that the lOialj Amirs, having shown hostility towards him [Kae-maz], opposed him in battle, and were defeated, and that, in that engagement, Muhammad, son of SJieran, was slain. Compare Elliot, too, here.
2	Of the four best and oldest copies of the text, two have Ganguri or Kankuri— ^jj^CS'— and two, Gasguri or Kaskurl — —but this latter appears very doubtful. Five other good copies agree with the first two, but three others liave respectively ^ySS— ^jjjZS— and ^jj^S Some other works, including the Tabai;at-i-Akbari, state that Husam-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, was the feudatory576
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Rumi, and, along with him, proceeded to Diw-kot; and, at the suggestion of Kae-maz, the Rumi, he became the feoffee of Diw-kot. Kae-maz, the Rum!, set out on his return [into Awadh], and Muhammad-i-Sheran, and other Khalj Amirs, assembled together, and determined upon marching to Diw-kot3. Kae-maz, whilst on his way back [hearing of this], returned again, and an encounter took place between the Khali Amirs and him, and Muhammad-i-Sheran and the Khalj Amirs were defeated. Subsequently, disagreement arose among themselves, in the direction of Maksadah and Santus4, and Muhammad-i-Sheran was slain5; and there his tomb is.
VII. MALIK 'ALA-UD-DIN, 'ALI, SON OF MARDAN, KHALJI.
'Ali-i-Mardan6, the Khalj. was a man of vast energy, vehement, intrepid, and daring. Having obtained release
of Kalwa-i or Galwa-i—J> I JC-—or Kalwa-in or Galwa-In—^'the n of the latter word is probably nasal.
3	No sooner had Kae-maz turned his back upon the scene than Muhammad, son of Sheran, and the rest of the Khalj Amirs, determined to recover Diw-kot out of the hands of Husam-ud-Din, 'Iwaz.
4	These two names are most plainly and clearly writen in four of the best and oldest copies of the text, with a slight variation in one of Maksidah for Maksidah [the Maxadabad probably of the old maps and old travellers]—u-^w and ij™-^ and tr^ki-. for u'j^-' Of the remaining copies collated, one has jjand	two others	and	and the rest	and «J--C The Tabakat-i-Akbari has u-only.
5	The Gaur MS. says he was killed in action after a reign of eight months, and, in this latter statement, the Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh and some other works agree ; but the period seems much too short from the assassination of Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar. to his death for reasons mentioned in the following note, or the country must have remained some time without a ruler before 'Ali-i-Mardan succeeded. Rauzat-us-Safa makes a grand mistake here. It says that Muhammad-i-Sheran, after having ruled for a short period, became involved in hostilities with a Hindu ruler in that part, and was killed in one of the conflicts which took place between them.
6	'Ali-i-Mardan, that is to say, 'All, the son of Mardan, was energetic and impetuous ; but he was not endowed with sense or judgment, and was notorious for boldness and audacity, for self-importance, haughtiness, excessive vanity and gasconade, and was cruel and sanguinary. After he escaped from confinement for assassinating his benefactor, Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar, when lying helpless on his death-bed, he proceeded to Dihli and presented himself before Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, who, at that time, had acquired the sovereignty of Dihli, and was well received. He accompanied Kutb ud-Dtn to Ghaznin at the time that he filled the throne of Ghaznin, as our author says, "for a period of forty days," in carousal and debauchery. There 'AltTHE EHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATI.
577
from imprisonment at Naran-go-e [or Naran-ko-e], he came to the presence of Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and accompanied him towards Ghaznin; and he became a captive in the hands of the Turks of Ghaznfn. A chronicler has related in this manner7, that one day, when he was out hunting along with Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, he began saying to one of the Khalj Amirs, whom they used to style Salar [a leader, chief] Zaffir8: "What sayest thou if, with one arrow, I should slay Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, within this shikar-gah [chase] and make thee a sovereign?" The Salar, Zaffir, the Khalj. was a very sagacious person, and he was shocked at this speech, and prohibited him from
fell a captive into the hands of the Turks of Ghaznin, the partizans of Sultan Taj-ud-DIn, I-yal-duz, at the time of Kutb-ud-Din's precipitate retreat probably. Some authors, however, state, and among them the authors of the Tabakat-i-Akban, and Zubdat-ut-TawarTkh, that in one of the conflicts of that time he was taken prisoner by the Turks—Tabakat-i-Akbari says, the Turk-mans—and was carried off into Kashghar, where he remained for some time. He, at length, managed to reach Hindustan again, and proceeded to Dihli, and presented himself at the Court of Kutb-ud-Din, who received him with great favour and distinction. The fact of his having been a captive in the hands of his rival's—I-yal-duz's—partizans was enough to insure him a favourable reception. Kutb-ud-Din conferred upon him the territory of Lakhanawati in fief, and he proceeded thither and assumed the government. It must have been just prior to this, and not immediately after the escape of 'Ali-i-Mardan, that Kae-maz was sent from Awadh to Lakhanawati, or, otherwise, between the defeat of Muhammad, son of Sheran. by the latter, and Sheran's death, and the nomination of 'AH-i-Mardan by Kutb-ud-Din, Lakhanawati would have been without a ruler during the time that Kutb-ud-Din took to proceed from Dihli to Ghaznin, where he remained forty days, and back to Dihli again, and eight months, which is said to have been the extent of Muhammad-i- Sheran's reign, seems much too short a space of time for this expedition, and 'Ali-i-Mardan's captivity in Kashghar and his escape and return. The accounts of this period are not satisfactorily given in any work. [See page 526, and para, two of note 8 for the year in which Kutb-ud-Dln had to make such a precipitous retreat from Ghaznin]; and, moreover, it appears that Kutb-ud-Din did not return to Dihli again, but continued at Lahor up to the time of his death.
7	Here is another specimen of difference of idiom, though not so great as in some places, occurring in different copies of the text. This sentence is thus expressed in one set of copies :—^^ —in another—o/eiolj^
—in another—^jTv^jj	ii>'ii-Jjl—and, in another Jj' «j.f ir-J1^ ejliu
8	Compare Elliot, vol. ii. page 315. If we are to translate the name of the Salar, Zaffir [not Zafar, which signifies victory], why not translate the name of Husam-ud-Dln, 'Iwaz, in fact, all the 'Arabic names in the book? It does not follow that this person was a " victorious general," but he was a'chief whose name was Zaffir, signifying, in 'Arabic, overcoming all difficulties, successful, triumphant, victorious, &c.578
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRL
[the committal of] such a deed. When 'Ali-i-Mardan returned from thence, the Salar, Zaffir, presented him with two horses and sent him away9.
When 'Ali-i-Mardan came back again into Hindustan, he presented himself before Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and received an honorary robe, and was treated with great favour, and the territory of Lakhanawati was assigned to him. He proceeded towards Lakhanawati, and, when he passed the river Kons1, Husam-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, the Khalj, [feudatory] of Diw-kot, went forth to receive him, and 'Ali-i-Mardan proceeded to Diw-kot2 and assumed the government, and brought the whole of the country of Lakhanawati under his sway.
When Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, passed to the Almighty's mercy, 'Ali-i-Mardan assumed a canopy of state, and read the Khutbah in his own name3; and they styled him by the title of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din. He was a bloodthirsty and sanguinary man. He sent armies in different directions, and put the greater number of the Khalj Amirs to death. The Raes of the adjace-nt parts became awed of him, and sent him wealth and tribute. He began granting investitures of different parts of the realm of Hindustan, and the [most] futile bombast began to escape his lips. Both in the assembly, and in the audience-hall, he would declaim about the country of Khurasan, of 'Irak, of Ghaz-nin, and of Ghur, and idle nonsense he began to give tongue to, to such degree, that they used [in jest] to solicit from him grants of investiture of Ghaznin and of Khurasan,
9 Another writer relates this somewhat differently. He says that 'Ali-i-Mardan, one day, accompanied the suite of Sultan, Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-dtiz, when he went to the chase—but this is scarcely compatible with his being a captive—on which occasion he said to the Salar Zaffir : "What sayest thou to my finishing the career of the Sultan with one thrust of a spear, and making thee a sovereign?" Zaffir, however, was a man of prudence and integrity, and had no ambition of gaining a throne by assassinating his benefactor. He therefore gave him a couple of horses and dismissed him, and he returned to Hindustan.
1	In some copies Kons as above, and in others Kos, withodt the nasal n. Some other writers call this river the Kons! and Kosi.
2	In some copies "from Diw-kot." Husam-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, appears to have been a kind of Vicar of Bray, from what is stated previously, and here.
3	He also coined in his own name, according to the Tabakat-i-Akban and Buda'uni.THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKH AN AW ATI.
579
and he would issue commands accordingly [as though they were his own]4.
Trustworthy persons have narrated after this manner, that there was, in that territory [Lakhanawati], a merchant who had become indigent, and his estate was dissipated. He solicited from 'Ali-i-Mardan some favour. 'Ali-i-Mardan inquired [from those around]: " From whence is that man?" They replied: "From Safahan [Isfahan]." He commanded, saying: "Write out the investiture® of Safahan as his fief," and no one could dare, on account of his great ferocity and unscrupulousness, to say: " Safahan is not in our possession." Whatever investitures he conferred in this way, if they would represent: " It is not under our control," he would reply: " I will reduce it."
So that investiture was ordered to be given to the merchant of Safahan—that indigent wretch, who lacked even a morsel and a garment of rags. The chief personages and intelligent men, there present, in behalf of that destitute man, represented, saying: " The feudatory of Safahan is in want of resources for the expenses of the road, and for the preparation of equipage, to enable him to take possession of that city and territory ;" and he ['Ali-i-Mardan] commanded a large sum of money to be given to that person for his necessary expenses6. The nature of 'Ali-i-Mardan's presumption, cruelty, and hypocrisy
4	Our author's mode of relation is not over plain. " His vanity and bom-bast," says another writer, "was such that he fancied Iran and Turan belonged to him, and he began to assign their different kingdoms and provinces amongst his Amirs." The fact is that he was mad ; and it is somewhat remarkable that a subsequent Sultan of Dihli, who was mad after the same fashion, should also have been of the Khalj tribe. Compare Elliot, vol. ii. page 316. The author of the Gaur MS. in his innocency says that after his [Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak's] death, for two years and some months, the sway of this same 'Ala-ud-din was acknowleged. as far as Khurasan and Isfahan, &c. ! ! ! Where Lakhanawati ? where Khurasan and Isfahan?
5	The word used in the text is misal [J--»] : such a term as "jagir" is not used once in the whole work, because it is a comparatively modern term.
6	Our author relates this anecdote differently from others. The destitute merchant, who wanted something that would furnish him with food and raiment, refused to accept the investiture of Isfahan ; and the Wazirs, who out of terror of 'All were afraid to tell him so, represented that the Hakim of Isfahan was in want of funds for the expenses of his journey thither, and to enable him to assemble troops in order lo secure possession of his fief. This had the desired effect.580
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
amounted to this degree; and, together with such conduct, he was [moreover] a tyrant and a homicide. The weak and indigent [people] and his own followers were reduced to a [perfect] state of misery through his oppression, tyranny, and bloodthirstiness; and they found no other means of escape save in rising against him. A party of the Khalj Amirs conspired together, and slew 'Ali-i-Mardan, and placed Malik Husam-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, upon the throne.
The reign of 'Ali-i-Mardan was two years, or more or less than that'.
VIII.—MALIK [SULTAN] HUSAM-UD-DIN, 'IWAZ8, SON OF HUSAIN, KHALJI.
Malik [Sultan] Husam-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, the Khalj, was a man of exemplary disposition, and came of the Khalj of Garmsir of Ghur.
They have narrated on this wise, that, upon a certain occasion, he was conducting a laden ass towards the eminence which they call Pushtah Afroz9 [the Burning Mound],
" Two years and some months was the extent of his reign, but most authors say two years. I do not know whether all the copies of Buda'uni's work are alike, but in two copies now before me he says plainly, that 'Ali-i-Mardan reigned two and thirty years. Perhaps he meant two or three years, but it is not usual to write three before two in such cases. The Gaur MS. states that he reigned from the beginning of the year 604 h. to 605 h., and yet says that Kutb-ud-DIn, I-bak, died in his reign !
8	Compare Thomas, " Pathan Kings of Dehli," pages 8 and 112, and Elliot, India, vol. ii., page 317. The Arabic word 'Iwaz [i>.je] has a meaning, but il,Auz" and "Awz" none whatever. One or two other authors state that he was the son of Iwaz ; but this is doubtful : there is no doubt, however, of his father's name being Husain. His correct title is Sultan Ghiyas-ud-DIn. Malik Husam-ud-Din was his name before he was raised to the sovereignty.
9	Two of the oldest copies of the text, and some of the more modern ones, are as above, and some other works confirm this reading ; but one of the oldest and best copies, and the Zubdat-ut-TawarTkh, have Pusht for Pushtah. Both words are much the same in signification, however, as explained in the text itself, namely, " an ascent, a bluff, steep, eminence, hill, hummock, mound," &c. ; but Paghah [See Elliot: India, vol. ii. page 317] signifying a flea, a gnat, &c., is impossible. Pusht is the name of a dependency of Bad-ghais, and is very probably the tract here meant. Afroz is the active participle, used as an adjective, of cr^yl to inflame, to set on fire, to burn, to light up, to enkindle, &c., the literal translation of which is '' the burning hill, or mound," and may refer to a volcano even at that time extinguished.THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKH ANA WATI.
581
to a place within the limits of Walishtan on the borders of the mountain tracts of Ghur. Two Darweshes1, clothed in ragged cloaks, joined him ; and said to him : " Hast thou any victuals with thee?" 'Iwaz, the Khalj. replied: "I have." He had, along with him on the ass, a few cakes of bread, with some [little] dainty2, by way of provision for the journey, after the manner of travellers. He removed the load from the ass, spread his garments [on the ground], and set those provisions before the Darweshes. After they had eaten, he took water, which he had among his baggage, in his hand, and stood up in attendance on them. After those Darweshes had made use of the victuals and the drink, thus hastily produced, they remarked to each other, saying: " This excellent man has ministered unto us: it behoveth his act should not be thrown away." They then turned their faces towards 'Iwaz, the Khalj. and said : " Husam-ud-Din! go thou to Hindustan, for that place, which is the extreme [point] of Muhammadanism, we have given unto thee3." In accord with the intimation of those two Darweshes, he returned again from that place [where he then was], and, placing his family4 on the ass, came towards Hindustan. He joined Muhammad-i-Bakht-var. and his affairs reached such a point that the coin of the territory of Lakhanawati was stamped, and the Khutbah thereof read, in his name, and they styled him by the title of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din5. He made the city of Lakhana-
Walishtan is evidently the same tract as is referred to at page 319, which see. The oldest and best copies of the text, and some modern copies, are as above, but some of the latter have ^Ulj and ^li^b and three others, including the best Paris copy, have ^Jjlj
1 They are thus styled in the original : there is not a word about "fakirs" in any copy of the text.
8 Meat, fish, vegetables, or the like, eaten with bread to give it a savour: in Elliot : India, vol. ii., page 317, it is styled "traveller's bread" and the ass is turned into a mule !
• In some copies, and in some other works, Khwajah. equivalent here to "Master," in others Salar—head-man, leader or chief. Another author says the Darweshes said : " Go thou, O Khwajah, into Hind, for they have assigned unto thee one of the kingdoms of the region of Hind."
4	The text varies a little here. The oldest copy has "his family " as above, whilst, of the other copies, some have "his children," some "his wife," and some "his wife and children."
5	After the chief men had put the tyrant, 'All, son of Mardan, to death, they, with one accord, set up Husam-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, son of Husain, who, originally, was one of the petty chiefs of the Khalj country on the borders ofTHE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
wati the seat of government, and founded the fortress of Basan-kot, and people from all directions turned their faces towards him6.
Ghiir. a man of virtuous mind and high principles, and endowed with many excellent qualities, both of mind and body. He is said, by several authors, to have been very handsome, and they confirm all our author says about him in this respect.
6 In Elliot, vol. ii. page 317, " He made the city of Lakhnauti the seat of his government, and built a fort for his residence I" The printed text has c-> ) —fortress of Bas-kot.
From our author's remark here, it would appear as though Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, had been the first to make the city of Gaur or LakhanawatI his capital. Akdalah can scarcely have been built at this period or it would no doubt have been mentioned from its importance.
Abu-l-Fazl states, in the A'in-i-Akbari, that LakhanawatI, which some style Gaur, is named Jannat-abad, but this is an error from what is stated below by others, and was the name applied to the Sarkar or district, not to the city. He continues : "To the east of it is a great kol-db [lake] in which is an island. To the north, at the distance of.a kuroh, is a building and a reservoir, the monument of ancient times, which is called Sarahae-man ^U^L.]. Criminals used to be confined in the building, and a gootl many died from the effects of the water which is very noxious."
The Haft-Iklim, says Gaur, in the olden time, was the capital-of Bangalah, and that the fortress of Gaur was amongst the most reliable strongholds of Hindustan. "The river Gang lies to the west of it; and, on the N.E. W. and S. sides, it has seven [sic in MS.] ditdies, and a citadel on the side ot the Gang. The distance between [each] two ditches is half a kuroh, each ditch being about three tanab [= 120 gaz or ells] broad, and so deep that an elephant would be unable to cross it. Jannat-abad is the name of the tumdn [district] in which Gaur is situated."
The Khulasat-ut-Tawarlkh. states that LakhanawatI" or Gaur is a very ancient city and the first capital of the country. To the east of it is a kol-db [lake] of great size, and, should the dyke [confining it ?] burst, the city would be overwhelmed. The emperor Humayun, when in that part, took a great liking to LakhanawatI, and gave it the name of Bakht-abad.
Many fine buildings were erected in and around the city by Sultan FIruz Shah-i-Abu-l-Muzaffav, Shah-i-Jahan, the HabashI [Abyssinian, yet he is included among the so-called " Pathans "], one of which was the Chand gateway of the citadel near the palace, a hnuz [reservoir], and the famous lat or mandrah. Musalmans' do not erect "Jaya Sthambas." The Chand gateway was still standing some fifty years since, but hidden by the dense jangal, and is probably standing still. There were several masjids, one of which was founded by Sultan Yusuf Shah.
According to the Portuguese writers who "aided Mohammed [Mahmud] against Sher Khan a Mogol general [!] then in rebellion," .... the capital city Gouro extended three leagues in length along the Ganges and contained one million, two hundred thousand families [one million of people or two hundred thousand families, probably]. " Voyages and Transactions of the Portuguese : Castanneda, de Barros, de Faryia y Souza, Antonio da Silva Meneses, &c."
The Tarikh,-i-Flruz-Shahi says "LakhanawatI acquired the by-name of Uulgliak-pur—place of great sedition—from j'a'. signifying much noise, tumult,THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATI.	583
He was a man of pleasing mien, of exceeding handsome appearance, and both his exterior and interior were [adorned] by the perfection of mercy; and he was magnanimous, just, and munificent. During his reign the troops and inhabitants of that country enjoyed comfort and tranquillity ; and, through his liberality and favour, all7 acquired great benefits and reaped numerous blessings. In that country many marks of his goodness remained. He founded jamz' [general] and other masjids, and conferred salaries and stipends upon good men among theologians, the priesthood, and descendants of the Prophet ; and other people acquired, from his bounty and munificence, much riches. For example, there was an Imam-zadah8 of the capital city, Firuz-koh, whom they used to style Jalal-ud-Din, the son of Jamal-ud-Din, the Ghaznawi, who, to better his means9, left his native country and came into the territory of Hindustan in the year 608 H. After some years, he returned again to the capital city, Firuz-koh, and brought back with him abundant wealth and riches. Inquiry was made of him respecting the means of his acquisition of wealth. He related that, after he had come into Hindustan, and determined to proceed from Dihli to Lakhanawati, when he reached that capital, Almighty God predisposed things so that he [the Imam, and Imam's son] was called upon to deliver a discourse in the audience-hall of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, the Khalj1. That
sedition, &c.—because, from ancient times, from the period that Sultan Mu'izz ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, of Dihli, conquered it [Ziya-ud-Din, Barani, is rather incorrect here however], almost every Wall to whom the sovereigns of Dihli gave the government of Lakhanawati,. because of its distance from Dihli, its extent, and the number of passes intervening, if he had not rebelled himself, others have rebelled against him, and killed or dethroned him."
7	There is not a word about "his nobles."
8	An not " the " Imam-zadah : there were .scores of Imam-zadahs probably at Firuz-koh. Imam signifies a leader in religion, a prelate, a priest.
9	Some copies have	collection, amount, &c., and the more modem copies and the printed text ^V'1—signifying family, followers, dependents, &c., instead of —seeking benefit, and the like. In Elliot, vol. ii. page 318, it is rendered a body of men—" He came with a body of men from his native country," &c. ! ! He was merely a priest, and did not travel attended by " a body of men."
1 Compare Elliot, vol. ii. page 318; where this passage is translated : "the Almighty so favoured him that his name was mentioned in the Court of Ghiyasu-d-din " ! !S84
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
sovereign, of benevolent disposition, brought forth from his treasury a large chalice full of gold and silver tangahs, and bestowed upon him a present of about two thousand tangahs"; and gave commands to his own Maliks and Amirs, Grandees and Ministers of State, so that each one presented, on his behalf, liberal presents. About three thousand gold and silver tangahs more were obtained. At the period of his return home [from Lakhanawati] an additional five thousand tangahs were acquired in gifts, so that the sum of ten thousand tangahs was amassed by that Imam, and Imam's son, through the exemplary piety of that renowned monarch of benevolent disposition. When the writer of these words, in the year 641 H.3, reached the territory of Lakhanawati, the good works of that sovereign, in different parts of that territory, were beheld [by him].
The territory of Lakhanawati4 has two wings on either
2	The Haft-Iklim states that the money of Bangalah was confined to the jital [always written with j—J~=-] according to the following table :—
4 Jitals I Gandah, 20 Gandahs 1 Anah, 16 Anahs 1 Rupi.
"Whatever the rupi might be, whether 10 tangahs or 100 tangahs, it was reckoned as 16 anahs, and there was no change whatever in the jltal and the gandah." From what our author has stated in several places in this work, however, it is evident that the jital was current in the kingdom of Dihll, and Muhammadan India, as well as in Bangalah. See page 603.
Firishtah [copying the Tankh-i-Firuz-Shahi] states with respect to the tangah that "it is the name given to a tolah of gold stamped, and that a tangah of silver was 50 puis, each pul [i. e. a piece of anything orbicular] of copper [bronze ?] was called a jital, the weight of which is not known exactly, but I have heard that it was one tolah and three-quarters of copper [bronze ?]." Another writer states that there were 25 jitals to 1 dam.
The word tangah—with g not with k—signifies a thin plate, leaf, or slice of gold or silver, and appears to be an old Persian word. See Thomas : Pathan Kings of Dehli; pages 37, 49, 115, 219, and 230.
According to some other writers, however, the following table is [also] used :—
4 Jitals I Gandah, 20 Gandah I Pan, 16 Pan I Kahawan, 16 Kahawan [some call 20 a Riddha Kahawait\ 1 Rupi.
According to the same account, 20 kandTs made a jital.
Price, in his "Retrospect of Mahommedan History," in reference to the revenue of Hindustan, says the "Tungah," as far as he recollects, was considerably higher than the "Daum," and "conceives it was the jifth of a rupee " !
3	Two copies have 644 h., which can scarcely be correct, and the remainder 641 h. Farther on he says he was in that part in 642 h. Our author appears to have set out from Dihll for Lakhanawati in 640 h., reached it in 641 h., and returned to Dihll again in the second month of 643 h.
4	Of course Bang is not included, and our author mentions it separately.THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKH ANA W ATI.
585
side of the river Gang. The western side they call Ral [Rarh6], and the city of Lakhan-or" lies on that side ; and the eastern side they call Barind7 [Barindah], and the city
s I can easily fancy a foreigner writing Ral—J'j—or Rad—^—from hearing a Hindu pronounce the Sanskrit TT<J"—^Jj—Rarh, containing, as it does, the letter which few but natives of the country can properly utter.
6	The printed text followed in Elliot has "Lakhnauti," but that is totally impossible, since it lay east, not west of the Ganges; its right pronunciation is, no doubt, Lakhan-or.
Most of the best copies of the text have Lakhan-or, both here and in other places where the same town or city is referred to ; but two of the oldest and best copies have both Lakhan-or and Lakh-or both here as well as elsewhere. It appears evident to me that the « in the first word is nasal, and that its derivation is similar to that of Lakhanawati, from the name of Dasarata's son, Lakh-mana, with the Hindi word ^T^T—or, affixed, signifying limit, boundary, side, &c. = Lakhmama's limit or frontier. In this case it is not surprising that some copyists left out the nasal n, and wrote Lakh-or, having probably the name read out to them. From the description of the dykes farther on in Section XXII., in the account of the different Maliks of the dynasty where the invasion of Jaj-nagar by the Musalmans is mentioned, and the invasion of the Musalman territory by the Rae of Jaj-nagar, Lakhan-or lay in the direct route between Lakhanawati and Katasiri, the nearest frontier town or post of the Jaj-nagar territory; and therefore I think Stewart was tolerably correct in his supposition, that what he called and considered "Nagor," instead of Lakhan-or, was situated in, or farther south even than Birbhum. It is by no means impossible that Dr. Blochmann's supposition may be correct, that Lakarkundhah [the Lacara-coonda of Rennell] is the place in question. It is in the right direction, but seems not far enough south ; and, if any indication of the great dyke or causeway can be traced in that direction, it will tend to clear up* the point Lakarkundhah lies about eighty-five miles as the crow flies from Gaur or Lakhanawati, "right away from the river," but this Mr. Dowson, in Elliot, appears to think a proof of its being the wrong way, and he probably fancies that it should follow the Ganges. "Right away from the river," too, in the opposite direction, distant about eighty miles, lay Diw-kot—Diw and Dib are the same in Sanskrit and Hindu-!—the total length from place to place, allowing for deviations, being a very moderate "ten days'journey." There is no doubt whatever as to the correct direction of Jaj-nagar and its situation with regard to Lakhan-or and Lakhanawati, as mentioned in note 4, page 587.
7	In some copies Barbind, but Barind or Barinda is correct In one copy of the text the vowel points are given. I do not know the derivation of the Sanskrit word—TT<d Rarh, but Blind or Wrind, signifies a heap [high ?], and it is possible that the former may signify low, depressed.', being subject to inundation; and Brinda [the Barinda and Barind of the Musalman writers], high, elevated, not being subject to inundation. Hamilton says the part liable to inundation is called Bang, and the other Barendra. See also the account of Malik Tamur Khan-i-Ki-ran in Section XXII., where Lakhan-or is styled Lakhanawati Lakhan-or.
Barind, under the name of " the Burin," is well known to sportsmen, I am told, in the present day, who apply it to the high tract of country N.W. of Ram-pur, in the Raj-Shahi district.
Teriy says, alluding to the "two wings," "Bengala, a most spacious and
P p586
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
of Diw-kot is on that side. From Lakhanawati to the gate of the city of Lakhan-or, on the one side, and, as far as Diw-kot, on the other side, he, Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, [caused] an embankment [to be] constructed, extending about ten days' journey, for this reason, that, in the rainy season, the whole of that tract becomes inundated, and that route is filled with mud-swamps and morasss; and, if it were not for these dykes, it would be impossible [for people] to carry out their intentions, or reach various structures and inhabited places except by means of boats. From his time, through the construction of those embankments, the route was opened up to the people at large9.
It was heard [by the author] on this wise, that, when the august Sultan, Shams-ud-Din [I-yal-timish], after the decease of Malik Nasir-ud-Dln, Mahmud Shah [his eldest son], came into the territory of Lakhanawati to suppress the sedition of Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din-i-Balka, the Khalj1, and beheld the good works of Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, the
fruitful Province, but more properly to be called a Kingdom, which hath two very large Provinces within it, Purb [Purab] and Patau [Pachcham]; the one lying on the East, the other on the West side of the River Ganges. * * * The chief Cities are Rangamahat and Dekaka."
8	Compare Elliot, vol. ii. page 319.
9	These embankments, according to other writers likewise, were constructed through the perseverance and forethought of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Dln, 'Iwaz. Another author states that the "former ancient rulers of Bang, the present capital of which is Dhakah, on account of the vast quantity of water which accumulates throughout the province in the rainy season, caused causeways to be constructed twenty cubits wide and ten high, termed al [Jl], and, from the proximity of these dls, the people styled the province Bang-al. Rain falls without ceasing during one-half of the year in the rainy season, and, at this period, these als appear above the flooded country."
A European writer, writing on the province "as at present constituted," says: '' There are several remarkable military causeways which intersect the whole country, and must have been constructed with great labour; but it is not known at what period. One of these extends from Cooch Bahar [Kuch Bihar] through Rangamatty [Rangamati] to the extreme limits of Assam [Asham], and was found when the Mahommedans first penetrated into that remote quarter." He, of course, must mean the Muhammadans of Aurangzeb's reign.
Hamilton states that one of these causeways extended from the Diwah to the Brahma-putr.
1 In the list of Maliks at the end of Shams-ud-Din. I-yal-timish's reign, farther on, he is styled Malik Ikh,tiyar-ud-DIn, Daulat Shah-i-Balka, and, by some, is said to be the son of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din. 'Iwaz, and, by others, a kinsman. Another author distinctly states that the son of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, was named Nasir-ud-Din-i-'Iwaz, and that he reigned for a short time. See also page 617.THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATI.
587
Khalj. whenever mention of Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz's name chanced to arise, he would style him by the t^tle of " Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Khalji." and from his sacred lips he would pronounce that there could be no reluctance in styling a man Sultan who had done so much good2. The Almighty's mercy be upon them ! In short, Ghiyas-ud-Din,, 'Iwaz, the Khalj, was a monarch worthy, just, and benevolent. The parts around about the state of Lakhanawati3, such as Jaj-nagar4, the countries of Bang, Kamrud, and
2	What extreme magnanimity ! Reluctance or not, Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, had as good a title to be called Sultan as Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timisi, or any other who preceded or followed him; and, moreover, he had never been a slave, nor the slave of a slave. I-yal-timish was not his suzerain until he gained the upper hand. It was only 'AlI-i-Mardan who was subject to Kutb-ud-Dln, I-bak.
3	Compare Dowson's Elliot, vol. ii. page 319, where Jaj-nagar is made to appear as being part of the Lakhanawati territory : there is nothing even in the printed text to warrant such a statement.
4	Dr. Blochmann's surmises [Contributions to the Geography and History of Bengal, page 29] are quite correct with respect to Jaj-nagar. It appears to have been named after a town or city of that name, subsequently changed in more recent times to Jaj-pur, the meaning of nagar and pur being the same; and in the days when our author wrote, and for many years subsequently, it continued to be a kingdom of considerable power.
Before attempting to describe the boundaries of Jaj-nagar, and generally to elucidate the subject, it will be well to describe the territory of Kadhah-Katan-kah, or Gadhah-Katankah—for it is written both ways—which lay between it and the Muhammadan provinces to the north.
The best account of it I find in the Ma'dan-i-Akhbar-i-Ahmadi, of which the following is an abstract:—"The country of Kadhah-Katankah they call Gondwanah, because the Gonds, a countless race, dwell in the jangals of it. On the E., by Ratan-pur, it reaches the territory of Chhar Kund ; on the W. it adjoins the fort of Rasin of Malwah. It is 150 kuroh in length, and 80 in breadth. On the N. it is close to the Bhatah territory [the Bhati of the A'In-i-Akbari], and S. is close to the Dakhan; and this tract of country they call Kadhah-Katankah. It is very mountainous, and has many difficult passes and defiles, but is exceedingly fruitful, and yields a large revenue. It has forts and kasbahs [towns], so much so that trustworthy narrators say that it has 70,000 [the MS. has 7000 in figures and seventy thousand in words] inhabited karyahs [mJ—lit. a concourse of people, a village. It does not mean a city\ Kad-hah or Gadhah is a great city, and Katankah is the name of a mouza? [district, place, village], and by these two names this territory is known. [Katankah, however, must have been remarkable for something or other for the country to be called after it.] The seat of government of this region is Q£,ura-gajh, and there are several Rajahs and Raes in it."
Fai?i, Sarhindi, in his History, calls the country Jhay-Kundah instead of Chhar Kund; and both he and the Khulasat-ut-Tawarlkh say that it had 70,000 or 80,000 inhabited karyahs, and they both agree generally with the above as far as they go; but they state that Amudah [Amudah ?] is the name of
P p 2588
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Tirhut, all sent tribute to him; and the whole of that territory named Gaur passed under his control5. He acquired
5 In Elliot, vol, ii. page 319, this passage is translated from the printed text :—"The district of Lakhnaur submitted to him;" but the text is as above.
one of the principal towns of Kadhah Katankah, and the first of importance reached by Asif Khan when he invaded it in Akbar's reign. The Rani, Dur-gawatT, issued from her capital", Chura-garh, to meet the Musalmans, who had never before ventured into those parts. They halted at Damuh	Lat. 230
50' N., Long. 790 30' E., between the capital and Amudah.
From the above statements, as given in the works just quoted, the tract of country adjoining Bihar on the S. and Bangalah on the W. is Bhatah or Bhati, which probably included Palamao, Chhotah Nag-pur, and Gang-pur, on the W.; and the tract adjoining Bhatah on the W., and immediately joining the district of Ruhtas-garh on the N., was Chhar-Kund or Jhar-Kundah, lying on the right bank and upper part of the Son, and stretching towards Ratan-pur. Still farther W., between Ratan-pur and the Narbadah, but running in a S.W. direction, and stretching from the left bank of the Son, on the one side, to Rasin of Malwah, on the other, and S. to the hills, the northern boundary of Birar, was Kadhah-Katankah.
Terry, in his Voyage, says that the chief city of Kanduana [Gondwanah] is called Karhakatenka [iC^f ijf], and that the river Sersily parts it [Kanduana] from Pitan. More respecting the capital of Jaj-nagar will be found farther on.
Jaj-nagar appears, therefore, to have been bounded on the E. by the range of hills forming the present W. boundary of UdTsah-Jag-nathh, Katasin, on the Maha-nadi, being the nearest frontier "town or post towards the Lakhan-or portion of the LakhanawatT territory. Farther N. it was bounded towards the E. by the river called the Braminy by some English writers, and Soank by Rennell [I always adopt the native mode of spelling if I can find it, the fanciful transliteration of Gazetteer writers ignorant of the vernacular spelling notwithstanding] , running to the W. of Gang-pur. Its northern boundary is not very clearly indicated [but see Sultan Flruz Shah's excursion farther on], but it evidently included Ratan-pur and Sanbhal-pur. On the W. it does not seem to have extended beyond the Wana-Ganga, and its feeder the Kahan; but its southern boundary was the Giidawuri, and S.W. lay Talinganah.
I am surprised to find that there is any difficulty with regard to the identification of Katasin, also called, and more correctly, Katasinghah. Our author, farther on, says he himself went thither along with the Musalman forces, arid distinctly states that, "at Katasin, the frontier of the Jaj-nagar territory commences." This place is situated on the northern or left bank of the Maha-nadi, which river may have altered its course in some degree during the lapse of nearly seven centuries, some thirty miles E. of Boada, in about Lat. 20° 32', Long. 84° 50'; and some extensive ruins are to be found in its neighbourhood. The capita] of the Jaj-nagar state, our author distinctly states, was named Umurdan or Umardan — —according to the oldest and best copies of the text; and Urmurdan or Armardan——and Uzmurdan or Azmurdan —o^jv^—more modern copies ; and, in one, Uzmurdan or Azmardan— ^.l^.-jl The wilayat—country or district—of Umurdan or tJmardan is mentioned, as well as the capital, town, or city of that name. There is a place named Amar-kantak, or Amar-kantaka——in Lat. 22°40', Long. 810 50', where are the remains of a famous temple of Bhawani or Parwati, which may be the site of our author'sTHE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATI.	589
possession of elephants, wealth, and treasures, to a great amount.
It seems most strange that those who have run away with the idea that Jaj-nagar lay east of the Ganges and the Megnah, in south-eastern Bengal—in Tiparah of all places—never considered how it was possible for Ulugh Khan, son of Sultan Ghivas-ud-Din. Tughlak—not that monarch himself—to invade Taling [Talinganah] and Tiparah, if the latter were Jaj-nagar, in one and the same short campaign, or that Hoshang, Sultan of Malwah, during a short ex-pedition or raid rather, could have reached south-eastern Bengal in search of elephants. To have done so, he would have had to pass right through, and return again through, the extensive territory of an independent sovereign equally powerful with himself [he had only 1000 horse with him on the occasion in question], and to have crossed and recrossed two or three mighty rivers, besides many others of considerable size, or he forded the Bay of Bengal perhaps to reach the supposed Jaj-nagar.
Elphinstone, too, on the authority of Hamilton [Hindostan, vol. i. page 178], who says that " Tiperah," by Mahommedan historians, is called " Jage-nagurhas fallen into the same error ; and, not content with this, even the map accompanying his History has " Jaj nagur" in large letters in a part of India where no such territory ever existed ! Hamilton would have had some difficulty, I think, in naming the '' Mahommedan Historians" who made such assertions. The name of one would much surprise me.
The way in which Jaj-nagar is mentioned in different places, by different writers, and under different reigns, clearly indicates its situation. Ulugh Khan, son of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-DIn, Tughlak, on his second campaign into the Dak-han, having reached Dlw-glr [Dharagarh], advanced into Taling [Talinganah], took Bidr, and invested Arangul [jCi^l], now Warangul. Having captured it, and given it the name of Sultan-pur, before returning to Dihll, he went for amusement or diversion [j--] into Jaj-nagar. He merely crossed the frontier of Talinganah.
Hoghang, Sultan of Malwah, taking with him 1000 picked horsemen disguised as horse-dealers, set out from Mandhu or Mandhun, and entered the Jaj-nagar territory in quest of elephants. He managed to seize the Rae of Jaj-nagar by stratagem, obtained a number of elephants, and brought him along with him, partly for his own security, on his way back to Malwah ; and, on reaching the frontier of the Jaj-nagar state [on the side of Malwah], he set the Rae at liberty.
The Lubb-ut-Tawarikh-i-Hind states that Jaj-nagar is a month's journey from Malwah, but from what part of Malwah is not said.
The first ruler of the Shar^i dynasty of Junpur—the eunuch who is turned into a " Pathan " by the archaeologists— extended his sway as far as the territory of Kol to the south ; and, on the east, as far as Bihar; and compelled the rulers of LakhanawatI and Jaj-nagar to pay him tribute.
In 680 h. Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din. Balban, set out towards LakhanawatI to reduce Tughril, his rebellious governor of Bangalah, who had defeated two armies sent against him. On the approach of the Sultan and his army, Tughril, who had been making preparations for retreat, retired towards the territory of Jaj-nagar. On the Sultan's arrival at LakhanawatI, no trace of the rebel could be found; but, discovering subsequently whither he had gone, he set out in pursuit in the direction of Jaj-nagar, until he arrived at a place some seventy kos from that territory, when a patrol from the advanced guard of his59°
THE TABAKAT-I,NA§IRL
The august Sultan, Shams-ud-Din wa ud-Dunya [I-yal-timish], on several occasions, sent forces from the capital,
army, having gained information of his whereabouts, surprised Tughril encamped with his forces on the banks of a river, at and around a large stone reservoir, and slew him. The next march would have brought him to the Jaj-nagar territory. The river, no doubt, was the boundary.
The Tarikh-i-Firuz-Shahi of Ziya-ud-Din, Barani, differs from this account, and says—according to the Calcutta printed text—that Tughril fled to Hajl-nagar——and, in some places, Jaji-nagar—but there is no yj in Jaj-nagar, and, if Ziya-ud-DIn's text is correct, it is a different place altogether. "The Sultan, following in pursuit by successive marches, in a certain number of days, arrived on the frontier of Sunar-ganw [or kingdom of Bang], the Rae of which—Dinwaj by name [sic]—paid homage to the Sultan, and stipulated that, in case Tughril evinced a desire to fly towards the sea [l^ also means river], he should prevent his doing so. Proceeding by successive marches, the Sultan had reached within 60 or 70 kos of Jaj-nagar, when information of Tughril's whereabouts was obtained," &c. From this statement it would seem that the place in question, whether Haji-nagar or Jaji-nagar, was beyond Sunar-ganw ; but it is not said whether any great river was crossed, neither is it stated that the Sultan marched eastwards, and he might—and, in case Jaj-nagar is correct, as stated in the extract above, he must—have turned to the south-west on reaching the frontier of Sunar-ganw. I am inclined, however, to think that Sangarah, mentioned in the fourth para, below, is correct, and not Sunar-ganw. Where the Sunar-ganw frontier commenced we know not; but it must have been a territory of some extent, as it was ruled, subsequently, by a " Sultan." A district of this name is also mentioned by Ziya-ud-Dln as lying near Tcilinganah.
Be this as it may, however, the following extract, taken from the Tarikh-i-Flruz-Shahi of Shams-i-Saraj, Alfl, Tabakat-i-AkbarT, and others, will, I think, tend to settle the question respecting the situation of the Jaj-nagar [*TT3T TTC] territory :—
In 754 h. [Alft, 755 h.] Sultan Firuz Shah set out for Bangalah to reduce its ruler, Ilyas, Hajl [Sultan Shams-ud-Din], to subjection. On Sultan Firuz Shah's reaching the vicinity of Panduah, Ilyas evacuated it, and threw himself into Akdalah [also written Akdalah], '' a mouza'" near Panduah, on one side of which is the water [a river?], and on the other an impenetrable jangal, and considered one of the strongest fortifications of Bangalah [Westmacott, in the Calcutta Review for July, 1874, places Ekdala [Akdalah] some forty-two miles on the Maldah side of the river Tangan, and north of Gaur or Lakhana-wati—"the later city of Gour," as he styles it], and so situated that, in the rainy season, the whole country would become flooded, and not a piece of elevated ground would be left for the Sultan even to pitch his tent on. Another writer calls it an island or insular fortress. He came and encamped, according to one of these works, on the bank on the other side of the water facing it; but the others state that he encamped his forces near the place on the same side. As he had to change the position of his encampment after a short time, this movement led Ilyas to imagine that the Sultan was about to retire ; and he sallied forth with his troops and attacked the forces of Firuz Shah, but sustained a complete overthrow, and had to retire into his stronghold again. The rains having commenced, Firnz Shah had to abandon the investment, came to terms with Ilyas, and retired towards his own dominions by the Manik-pur ferry.THE EHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATI.
591
Dihli, towards Lakhanawati, and acquired possession of Bihar, and installed his own Amirs therein. In the year
On several occasions Ilyas sent presents to the Sultan, and others were forwarded to him in return, until, in the year 759 h., when, Ilyas having despatched his offerings, Sultan Firuz Shah sent him presents in return ; but, information having reached him from Bihar of Ilyas's death, and of his son, Sikandar's succession, Firuz Shah ordered his presents to be stopped; and, in 760 h., he set out for Bangalah with an army of 80,000 horse and 470 elephants. The rains coming on, he passed the rainy season at Zafar-abad, and founded the city of Jim-pur. Sikandar, on his approach, retired to the fortress of Akdalah, before which Sultan Firuz Shah sat down; but, after a few days, an accommodation was come to, and the territory of Sunar-gapw was given up to Sikandar, and Firuz Shah retired towards Jun-pur. On the Sultan's reaching Panduah [this shows that Akdalah was northward or eastward of it, and beyond it], seven elephants and other valuable property, sent by Sikandar as part of his tribute, reached his camp.
I notice in the Indian Atlas, sheet No. 119, in the parganah of "Debekote," as it is styled—of course Diw-kot or Dib-kot is meant—between Lakhanawati and Dinja-pur, a place named Damduma, and near it an old fort, and, to the east of it, three large tanks. The name is evidently a corruption of damdamah— a cavalier, a mound, &c. ; and it strikes me, since the name of Akdalah is not mentioned in history for some time after the Khalj dynasty passed away, that the name of Diw-kot was changed to Akdalah in after yearsr Dr. Blochmanh, I believe, identifies Diw-kot—probably on good grounds—with Gungaram-pur, which I do not find in the Atlas sheet referred to ; but, I should think, from the description given of the great causeway, at the northernmost extremity of which Diw-kot is said, at page 586, to have been situated, that Diw-kot must have lain north instead of south of Dinja-pur.
[Since this note was written, I find the last number of the Bengal Asiatic Journal, No. III. 1874, contains an account of the site of Akdalah and a map showing its situation, as promised by Westmacott, in a previous number ; and, I believe, the situation to be very nearly identical with the " Damduma" I have referred to, but have not examined the map in question. ]
On his reaching Jun-pur the rains again set in [760 h.], and he stayed there during the rainy season, and, in ZI-Hijjah of that year, set out by way of Bihar towards Jaj-nagar, which was at the extremity of the territory of Gadhah-Katankah	When the Sultan reached Karah —opposite Manik-
pur ?], Malik Kutb-ud-Din, brother of Zaffir Khan, was left behind with the troops and the heavy equipage, and he advanced with celerity through Bihar towards Jaj-nagar. On his reaching Sangarah or Sankrah—j^CL. [Buda'uni, who copies wholesale from the Tabakat-i-Akbari, has, in my copy of the text, —meant probably for i^Ci—but Firishtah, who also copies from the former, has	See Blochmann, page 30. Can it be the present Sir-
goojah, so called?], Rae Saras —Firishtah ^J—], Rajah of Sankarah, fled, and his daughter fell into the Sultan's hands, and he called her daughter [adopted her ?], and protected her. Firishtah styles her Shakar Khatun, an impossible name for a Hindu, unless she became a convert to Islam, and was afterwards so named. [I do not know what Briggs's version may contain, but Dow has left out a great deal here.] Ahmad Khan, who had fled from Lakhanawati, and had reached the fort of Rantabhur—[Ratan-pur in Jhaf-kundah ?—Lat.° 22 14', Long. 82° 8'—is probably meant, not the celebrated stronghold of Rantabhur] on the way, presented himself before Sultan592
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
622 H. he [I-yal-timish] resolved upon marching into Lakh-anawati; and Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, moved his
Firuz Shah. Having passed the river Maha-nadri, Mahan-darT, or Mahan-adri [^ail^—sic in MSS.—Buda'uni ^^—Firishtah 1jj^*—the river which falls into the Son doubtless is meant], he reached the city or town of Banarsi [^Uj—Shams-i-Saraj and Alfi have Banaras——and Buda'uni Barani—-^ijl.], which is the capital and abode of the Rae of Jaj-nagar [Shams-i-Saraj has Rae of Jaj-nagar-Udisah]. The Rae fled towards Taling [Talinganah], and, the Sultan not pursuing him [Firishtah says pursuing], proceeded to hunt elephants in the vicinity [Shams-i-Saraj says the Sulfan remained some time at Banaras, and the Rae took shelter in one of the islands of the, or on a, river]. [See the Asiatic Journal, vol. xiv., July to December 1822, page 438, in which is a good account of this tract of country, entitled "Notes on Birar"], during which time the Rae despatched emissaries and sought for peace, sending at the same time three elephants, besides rarities and precious things [Shams-i-Saraj says after his return from Padmawati]. Hunting as he went along,, the Sultan reached the territory of Rae Bhanu Diw [Shams-i-Sarai, Blr-bhan Diw——Alfi, Pir-mahi Diw—— perhaps Bir-Mahi], who sent him some elephants. He then returned from thence with the object of hunting, came to Padmawati—South Bihar probably—which is a part abounding with elephants, captured thirty-three, and •killed two which could not be secured.
The Tabakat-i-Akbari, Firishtah, and Buda'uni, quote a verse composed on the occasion by Malik Ziya-ud-Din, thus showing to what extent the two latter —particularly Firishtah—copied from the former; but Firishtah appears somewhat confused in the latter part of his account, or has made considerable verbal alterations for some purpose; whilst Buda'uni [MS.] says the Sultan left Barani [<j —Banarsi?], and proceeded from thence to Badwati—— [Padmawati] and Bram-Tala [Ui' ^y] to hunt elephants.
From Padmawati Sultan Firiiz Shah returned to Karah in Rajab, 762 h.
Jaj-nagar is mentioned on several other occasions in the history of the Dakhan, and its whereabouts distinctly indicated. Sultan Firuz, Bahm&ni, entered it in 815 h., and carried off a number of elephants. In the account of Nizam Shah, of the same dynasty, Jaj-nagar and UdIsah are mentioned as totally separate territories. In the reign of Muhammad Shah, son of Huma-yun, a famine having arisen in his dominions, people migrated in order to obtain food into Malwah, Jaj-nagar, and Gujarat ; and, shortly after, the Rae of Udisah, aided by the Rae of Jaj-nagar, invaded Talinganah by way of the Raj-mandri district.
Now, if any one will look at the map, and take what has been mentioned into consideration, where else can Jaj-nagar possibly lie than in the tract I have indicated ? Certainly not on the east side of the Bay of Bengal.
It may not be amiss here to say a few words respecting the ancient boundaries of Bangalah as described by different authors, although little remains to be said after Dr. Blochmann's elaborate paper on the subject before referred to.
The Tami'-ut-Tawarlkh of Fakir Muhammad says that the territory which in after times was styled Bangalah, according to such writers as have written about it, consisted of Bihar, Gaudha or Gaur or Lakhanawati, Bang, and Jaj-nagar. During the campaign in Bangalah, in Aurangzeb's time, against his brother Shah Shuja', the Afghan Zamindar of Birbhum and Jat-nagar is said to have joined him. According to the A'in-i-Akban, the Subah of Bangalah from Gadhi to the port of Chatganw [Chittagong] is 400 kuroh in breadth ; and, from the mountains bounding it on the north to the uncultivated tract [^^W]THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATI.
593
vessels [war-boats ?] up the river6. A treaty of peace was concluded between them, and the Sultan [I-yal-timish] extorted thirty-eight elephants and eighty laks of treasure, and the Khutbah was read for him, and the coin stamped in his name7. When the Sultan [I-yal-timish] withdrew,
6	Another writer says he had all the boats on the river removed and secured, in order to prevent Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, from crossing with his forces to the Lakhanawati side of the Gang.
7	Some histories, including the Tabafcat-i-AkbarT, say the two Sultans did encounter each other in battle in 622 H. ; but, as no details are given, it could have been but a skirmish. A peace was entered into, and Sultan Ghivas-ud-Dtn, 'Iwa?, gave, as an acknowledgment of suzerainty, for the sake of peace which he himself soon after broke, 38 elephants and 80 laks of silver tangahs. Another writer says Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, despatched forces upon several occasions to carry on war against Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish [the latter's officers or his governors of Awadh probably] ; but at length peace was concluded on the terms above stated.
The Tazkarat-ul-Muluk states that this sum was in silver tangahs; and
of sarkar Madaran [also written Madaran—cil/^L 200 breadth; but, as the country of Udlsah was annexed to it on the settlement of the province in Akbar's reign, and its formation into a Subah, its length became increased 43 kuroh, and its breadth 20. The tract of country to the W. of Bangalah is named Bhatah or Bhati, which is accounted as belonging to this country [Bangalah], and Manik is the surname of its rulers. To the north is a territory called Kuj [Kuch ?] and Kamrud, also called Kanwru. At the side of this is the territory of the Rajah of A sham, and adjoining it is Tibbat, and to the left of it Khita. To the E. and S. of Bangalah is an extensive country named Arkhnak [turned into Arracan by Europeans], and the port of Chatganw belongs to it. In the sarkar of Mangir, from the river Gang to the Koh-i-Sangin [the Stony Mountains], they have drawn [jJI »J-r^O a wall, and account it the boundary of Bangalah.
The Haft-Ifclim says Bangalah is 300 kuroh in length and 270 in breadth, each kuroh being one mil [! ]. On the E. it is bounded by. the sea, on the W. it has the parganah of Suraj-gajh, which adjoins the Subah of Bihar, on the N. it is bounded by Kuch, and on the S. by the parganah of Jasudah [turned into Jessore by Europeans], which lies between Udlsah and Bangalah.
The Khulasat-ut-Tawartkh. agrees generally with the other two works, but states that Bangalah is 400 kuroh from E. to W.—from Chatganw to Gadhi— and 200 from N. to S. ; that it has the Subah of Bihar on the W., on the S. the high hills of sarkar Mandhu— [in two other MSS. sjA and and the sea on the E.
The A'ln says it was divided [in Akbar's reign] into 24 sarkars, and yielded a revenue of 52 kurors, 4 laks, and 59,319 daifis.
The Haft-Iklim states that it was divided [in Jahanglr's reign] into 22 tumans [or sarkars], and its revenue amounted to 5 laks, 97,570 rvipis, which, at 40 dams the rupi, are equivalent to 23 kurors, 9 laks, and 2800 dams. There must be a mistake somewhere, as this artiount of Jahanglr's revenue is not half that of Aurangzib's time, while Akbar's revenue greatly exceeds Aurangzib's.
According to the Khulasat-ut-TawarikhT it was divided [in Aurangzib's reign] into 27 sarkars, and yielded 46 kurors and 29 laks of dams.594
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
he conferred Bihar upon Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Jam; and Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din. 'Iwaz, marched into Bihar from Lakhanawati, and [again] took possession of it, and treated it with severity, until, in the year 62411., the august8 Malik, Na§ir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, son of Sultan Shams-ud-Din [I-yal-timish], at the instigation9 of Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Jani1, assembled the forces of Hindustan, and marched from Awadh and proceeded into Lakhanawati. At this time Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz-i-Husain, the Khalj, had led an army from Lakhanawati towards the territory of Kamrud and Bang, and had left the city of Lakhanawati
further—in which the Tabakat-i-Akbarl and some others agree—that I-yal-timish conferred a canopy of state and a dur-bash [see note 5, page 607] upon his eldest son, Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, declared him heir-apparent, bestowed Lakhanawati upon him, and left him in Awadh with jurisdiction over those parts. Mahmud Shah may have been left in Awadh with charge of that part, but not of Lakhanawati certainly; for Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, ruled over his own territory up to the time of his death. The son of I-yal-timish was probably left in Awadh to watch for a favourable time for invading or seizing the Khalj dominions, which he soon found an opportunity of doing.
8	He is styled J^i in several copies, but it cannot be correct, considering, he died a natural death, according to our author's own account, as given at page 630. The word no doubt, is an error for —august, &c.
9	Compare Elliot, India, vol. ii. page 219.
1 In the account of Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, page 629, and here also, in some copies of the text, and in some other works, he is styled 'Ala-ud-Din, Jani. He is, no doubt, the personage referred to in the list of relatives and chiefs at the end of Shams-ud-Din. I-yal-timish's reign, under the title of Shah-zadah, or Prince of Turkistan; but he only served I-yal-timigh : he was no relative. Soon after Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, returned to Dihll, Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, marched into Bihar, and regained possession of it, compelling Malik Jani to fly into Awadh. The Khalj ruler held possession of it for some time, until the year 624 h., when Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, I-yal-timish's eldest son, who held the government of Awadh, incited by Malik Jani and some other chiefs, and taking advantage of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz's absence on an expedition against the infidels on his eastern frontier in Bang and Kamrud, with the greater part of his forces, suddenly and without any previous intimation, invaded his dominions with a great army, including forces sent by his father for the same purpose. As soon as Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, received information of it, he made all haste back to defend his kingdom ; but whether part of or all his army returned with him is doubtful, and no aid from without could reach him, except through Hindustan. The enemy had already taken the capital, and, in a great battle subsequently fought between him and the invaders, Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, with most of his chiefs, were taken captive and afterwards put to death. Some state that he was slain in the battle. A son of his [by some accounts a kinsman]—Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Daulat Shah-i-Balka—subsequently regained and held sway over the territory for a time, and Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, had to proceed in person against him with a great army.THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATI.
595
unprotected. Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, took possession of it; and Ghiyas-ud-Din. 'Iwaz-i-Husain, the Khali, on account of that disaster, returned from that force [which he had led into Kamrud and Bang?], and fought an engagement with Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah. Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz-i-Husain, and the whole of the Khalj Amirs, were taken prisoners, and Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, was martyred. His reign extended over a period of twelve years2.
2 According to our author, Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, the Khalj, was the last of the Mu'izzi Sultans of Hind; and he is the person respecting whom Elphinstone has been betrayed into such mistakes noticed in note page 610. According to the Gaur MS. he reigned twelve years, from 606 h. to 617 h., and was succeeded by his son, Nasir-ud-Din, 'Iwa?, who reigned for a short time, and whose name has been already mentioned in note1, page 586. See also pages 617 and 626. The events which happened after the decease of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, are involved in great obscurity ; but the above dates are not correct.
In concluding this portion of the Section on the Khalj dynasty of Lakhanawati, I would mention that I am not personally acquainted with Bengal; but I venture to hope that these notes, imperfect as they are, will aid in further research. The district officers will be able to follow up the inquiry with facility.SECTION XXI.
ACCOUNT OF THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS IN HIND.
The frailest of the servants of the Divine threshold, Minhaj-i-Saraj, Jurjani—God grant him the attainment of his wishes! states that, when the eternal will of God, the Most High and Holy, has willed to imprint on the forehead of a servant the signs of dominion and the light of power, and the mother of time becomes pregnant with an embryo of such a character, the gleam [characteristic] of such a burden will shine upon her brow \
When the time of her delivery arrives, and that lord of felicity becomes enveloped in the swaddling of his birthplace 2, joy, at the sight of that birth, becomes manifest in all things ; and, from the period of his nativity to the time of his removal from this abode of service to the mansion of bliss, whether in activity or in repose, all his actions will be a source of gladness unto mankind, and of honour to both high and low. If his neck should be placed in the collar of servitude, his master becomes the possessor of affluence; and, if his footsteps venture upon journeys and in travelling stages, he will cause his companions to become the masters of prosperity, as in the case of the Patriarch Yusuf. When Yusuf was sold to Malik the son of Du'ar, at his
1 Our author here follows the life of men destined for sovereignty from the conception, and applies to- them, somewhat blasphemously, the theory of the nur [light, &c.] of Muhammad. The theologians assert that the first thing created was the light of Muhammad. It shone forth from Adam's forehead until Eve became pregnant by him of a son, when it was transferred to her. When she gave birth to the son [which ? Cain or Abel ?], it, of course, dwelt in him, and thus it was transferred, as the theologians aver, from the foreheads of the fathers to the wombs of the mothers, until it assumed flesh in Muhammad. Our author has altered the theory in applying it to kings, in as far as the ray of light, which emanates from the child [J^*^], shines forth from the Id row of " the mother of time."
- In other words, when the child is born.THE SHAMSlAH SULTANS OF HIND.
597
invocation, twenty [sons like] pearls3 befitting a king were strung upon the thread of his line ; and, notwithstanding he came [as a slave] into the dwelling of 'Aziz, he made, in the end, his ['Aziz's] spouse Queen of Misr; and, forasmuch as the infant in the cradle bore testimony to the purity of his garment's skirt—"a witness of the family bore testimony "—at length, in his ['Aziz's] service, Yusuf became the Wazir of that kingdom.
I. SULTAN-UL-MU'AZZAM, SHAMS-UD-DUNYA WA UD-DIN, ABU-L-MUZAFFAR, I-YAL-TIMISH4, THE SULTAN.
Since the Most High and Holy God, from all eternity, had predestined that the states of Hindustan should come under the shadow of the guardianship of the great Sultan, the supreme monarch, Shams-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, the shadow of God in the worlds, Abu-l-Muzafifar, I-yal-timish, the Sultan, the right arm of the Vicegerent of God, the aider of the Lord of the Faithful5—God illumine his convictions and weight the balance with the effects of his equity and beneficence, and preserve the dynasty of his descendants, on whom, of those who have passed away, be peace! and may the Nasiriah Mahmudiah sovereignty6 perpetually continue in security and safety from the troubles of the end of time, and from the accidents and vicissitudes of the world !—that just and munificent Sultan, upright, benefi-
* I do not know what account of Yusuf our author may have read, bxlt this is different to what is contained in Tabari and other writers of authority, and very different to the account given in the Kur'an [Chap. xiL], and to his own account of Yusuf in the first Section of this work. Yusuf was sold for twenty pieces of silver.
4 Written in some few copies of the text and by some other historians ui-^LJ— I-yal-timish, and JU^—I-yal-titmish in some works ; but the above appears the correct mode of spelling. My oldest MS. gives the diacritical points. The first part of this compound word, which it evidently is, is the same as in I-yal-Arsalan, I-yal-duz, &c. ; and the latter part of it is the same as occurs in Kal-timisi and the like. See note2, page 133. Buda'uni says he was so called from having been born on a night during an eclipse of the moon, and that the Turks call a child born on such an occasion I-yal-timish. I doubt this, how-ever, for the reasons just mentioned in the beginning of this note.
s Yamin-i-K^alifah U'llah, Nasir-i-Amlr-ul-Muminin. See pages 617 and 624.
6 The sovereignty of his son, our author's patron—Na?ir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah.598
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRL
cent, a zealous and steadfast warrior against infidels, the patronizer of the learned, the dispenser of justice, in pomp like Faridun, in disposition like Kubad, in fame like Ka-us, in empire like Sikandar, and in majesty like Bahram, was, Yusuf like, from out of the Ilbari [or Albart] tribes of Turkistan, delivered over to merchants, until, from one degree to another, he was raised to the throne of empire and seat of dominion, so that the back of the Muhammadan religion, through his sovereignty, waxed strong, and the development of the Ahmadi faith, through his valour, acquired pre-eminence. In intrepidity he turned out another impetuous 'All, and, in liberality, a second Hatim-i-Ta-t. Although the beneficent Sultan, Kutb-ud-Dtn—on whom be peace! displayed to the world the bestowal of hundreds of thousands, the august and beneficent Sultan, Shams-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din—may he rest in peace!—in place of every hundred thousand of his, used to bestow a hundred [times a] hundred thousand, both in capacity and in computation, as, both in this world and in the next, may be accounted [in his favour].
Towards men of various sorts and degrees, Kazis, Imams, Muftts, and the like, and to darweshes and monks, landowners and farmers, traders, strangers and travellers from great cities, his benefactions were universal. From the very outset of his reign, and the dawn of the morning of his sovereignty, in the congregating of eminent doctors of religion and law, venerable Sayyids, Maliks, Amirs, Sadrs, and [other] great men, the Sultan used, yearly, to expend about ten millions7; and people from various parts of the world he gathered together at the capital city of Dihlt8, which is
1 What coin, whether tangah or jital, is not stated—there is a vast difference between them.
8 An author, describing Dihll, states that, in the year 440 of Bikramajit, Rajah Anang-pal Tun or Tunar—the n is nasal [This is the word which, written in some works, instead of and and jyy, has been mistaken for pur and pier a—jSee note9, page 84, para. 2 ; and Elliot, vol. ii., pages 47, 426, and 427 ; and Thomas : Pathan Kings of Dehli, page 57]—founded the city of Dihll, near to Indra-prastha. Subsequently, in the year 1200, or a little later, of the same era, Rae Pithora founded a city and fortress which were named after himself. Outside this fort, to the east, he raised a lofty structure which is still1styled the Mahall of Rae Pithora. In the fortress Sultan Kutb-ud-Dln, I-bak, and Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, dwelt. The Shahr-i-Zaghan [?] or Ghiyas-pur was founded in 666 h.; and Gilii-Khari [t£j<f ^S— not " Kila Gar hi," as Cunningham calls it] in 686 H.;THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
599
the seat of government of Hindustan, and the centre of the circle of Islam, the sanctuary of the mandates and inhibitions of the law, the kernel of the Muhammad! religion, the marrow of the Ahmadi belief, and the tabernacle of the eastern parts of the universe—Guard it, O God, from calamities, and molestation ! This city, through the number of the grants, and unbounded munificence of that pious monarch, became the retreat and resting-place for the learned, the virtuous, and the excellent of the various parts of the world ; and those who, by the mercy of God, the most High, escaped from the toils of the calamities sustained by the provinces and cities of 'Ajam, and the misfortunes caused by the [irruption of the] infidel Mughals, made the capital—the asylum of the universe—of that sovereign their asylum, refuge, resting-place, and point of safety ; and, up to the present day, those same rules are observed and remain unchanged, and such may they ever*continue !
From a number of credible persons9 it has been heard narrated after this manner, that, when the beneficent Sultan, Shams-ud-Din, was young in years, and was called, by command of the Most High, from the territory of Turkistan and the families of the Ilbari [tribe] to the empire of Islam and dominion of Hindustan, it so happened that his father, who was named I-lam Khan10, had numerous kindred, relations, dependents, and followers; and [that] this [future] sovereign, from his earliest years, was endowed with comeliness, intelligence, and goodness of disposition to a great degree, so much so that his brothers began to grow envious of these endowments. They therefore brought him away from his mother and father under the pretence that he should get sight of a herd of horses1. Like as in the case of Yusuf, they said,
but it must have been begun or have been a suburb long before, as it is mentioned certainly over fifty years before by our author. Tughlak-abad, the Kushk-i-La'l, and Flriiz-abad, now called the Kotilah of Ffruz Shah, were founded subsequently, besides many other additions of minor extent ijiade. I have not space to say more.
9	Often referred to, but their names never mentioned.
10	Others say his father was the head or chief of a small community among the divisions or clans of the Ilbari tribe in Turkistan. His name is written Yilam—^>—Khan by some writers, and I-yal—JJ—Khan by others.
1 Some say he was taken by his brothers to some garden, under pretence of going thither for recreation and diversion.6oo
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
' Why, O father, dost thou not intrust Yusuf to us, seeing-that we are true friends of his ? Send him along with us to-morrow into the pastures that he may divert himself, and we will be his protectors2;' and, when they brought him where the herds of horses were, they sold him to certain merchants; and some say that his uncle's sons were among the party that sold him3. The merchants brought him towards Bukhara, and sold him to one of the kinsmen of the Sadr-i-Jahan* [the chief ecclesiastic] of Bukhara, and, for some time, in that family of eminence and sanctity, he remained. The most beneficent of that family used to nourish him in the hall of his kindness, like his own children in infancy.
One of the trustworthy has related5, saying: "'I heard from the blessed lips of that monarch himself, who said, " On a certain occasion, one of the [above-mentioned] family gave me a small piece of money, saying: 'Go into the market and buy some grapes and bring them.' When I set out for the market, I lost by the way that bit of money ; and through my youthful age, out of fear at what had happened, I fell a crying. Whilst "thus lamenting, I was joined by a good Darwesh who took me by the hand, and purchased for me some grapes which he gave me; and he made me promise [saying]: 'When thou attainest unto power and dominion thou wilt ever regard devotees and ascetics with reverence, and watch over their weal.' I gave him my promise ; and all the prosperity and blessings, which I acquired, I acquired through the compassionate regard of that Darwesh.' " The probability is that never
2	Kur'an, Chap. xii.
3	Others say that his brothers and brothers' sons were concerned in this affair, and that the merchants were of Bukhara.
4	See Dowson, in Elliot: India, vol. ii. page 320-1, who says—"When they brought him to the drove of horses they sold him to the dealer. . . . The horse-dealers took him to Bukhara, and sold him to one of the relations of the chief judge of that city " &c. The printed text here is perfectly correct and as rendered above, with the exception of merchant for merchants in the first sentence. The word bazargati does not mean "horse-dealer" any more than ass-dealer, for it signifies a merchant or trader.
Sadr also does not mean judge only: it has other meanings.
5	Being himself in this Sultan's service, our author might have made himself acquainted with the events of his early days, instead of trusting to "one ■of the trustworthy," and particularly as he stood so high in the monarch's favour.lE-^T This portion of the Translation contains one sheet less than it ought to be, but it will be made up with an extra one in the next portion.
*** The Translator deems it necessary to mention that four months since he despatched to the Secretary of the Bengal Asiatic Society, a categorical " Reply " to Mr. W. H. Blochmann's " Contributions to the History and Geography of Bengal," criticising the account of the Rulers of Lakhana-vvati in the last two Fasicula of this Translation, which appeared in the Society's JOURNAL, Part I., No. III., of 1875, pages 275—286. Justice and fair play alike call for the early insertion of that Reply.THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.	601
was a sovereign of such exemplary faith, and of such kind-heartedness6 and reverence towards recluses, devotees, divines, and doctors of religion and law, from the mother of creation ever enwrapped in the swaddling bands of dominion7.
From that priestly and saintly family a merchant, whom they used to call the Bukhara Haji, purchased Shams-ud-Din8. Subsequently, another merchant, whom they were wont to style Jamal-ud-Din, Muhammad, of the Tight Tunic, purchased him of the Bukhara Haji, and brought him to the city of Ghaznfn. At that period, no Turk superior to him in comeliness, commendable qualities, agreeable manners, and of such indications of intelligence and sagacity, had they brought to that capital. He was mentioned in terms of commendation to the Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Sam, and command was given [by the Sultan] that they should name his price. He, along with another Turk, was in one team, and the latter Turk they were in the habit of calling I-bak. The sum of a thousand dinars of pure Rukni gold was specified for the two9.
6	The following curious anecdote is related of Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, by some authors. Sultan 1-yal-timish, was greatly enamoured of a Turkish slave-girl in his haram, whom he had purchased, and sought her caresses, but was always unable, from some latent cause, to effect his object. This happened upon several occasions. One day he was seated, having his head {uiointed with some perfumed oil by the hands of that same slave-girl, when he felt some tears fall on his head from above. On looking up, he found that she was weeping. He inquired of her the cause. She replied "Once I had a brother who had just such a bald place on his head as you have, and it reminds me of him." On making further inquiries it was found that the slave-girl was his own sister. They had both been sold as slaves, in their early childhood, by their inhuman half-brothers; and thus had Almighty God saved him from committing a great crime. Buda'uni states in his work, "I heard this story myself, from the Emperor Akbar's own lips, and the monarch stated that this anecdote had been orally traced to Sultan Ghiyas-ud-DIn, Balban himself."
7	Compare Eliott, vol. ii. page 321. Our author must certainly have had a recent birth in his family about the time he penned this account, or have been expecting one, since he uses so many "swaddling bands."
8	The Muntakhab-ut-Tawankh states that, by some accounts, the kinsman of the Sadr-i-Jahan of Bukhara sold Shams-ud-Din to Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, and that some say Kutb-ud-Din purchased him, and took him to Hind.
9	A few copies have two thousand, but one seems to be correct. Another author says the sum was 1000 Kabki dinars, a second that it was 1000 for each, and Buda'uni says I lak of tangahs. It is not to be supposed that the Sultan fixed the price. There were brokers whose business it was to value
q q6o2
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
The Khwajah [merchant or master], Jamal-ud-Din, Muhammad, of the Tight Tunic, declined sellinghim[Shams-ud-Din] for that amount; and the Sultan commanded that no one should purchase him, and that [the sale] should be prohibited.
The Khwajah, Jamal-ud-Din, Muhammad, after that he had stayed at Ghaznin a year, determined to proceed to Bukhara, and he took Shams-ud-Din along with him thither, and, for another three years, he remained in Bukhara. After that he was brought to Ghaznin a second time, and continued there for the period of another year, because it was not permitted that any one should purchase him, until Sultan 1 Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, after the holy war of Nahrwalah and the conquest2 of Gujarat, along with Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Husain-i-Khar-Mil3. proceeded to Ghaznin, and heard his story. Kutb-ud-Din solicited permission from Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, to purchase him. The Sultan replied : " Since a command has been issued that he should not be purchased at Ghaznin, let them take him to the city of Dihli and there he -can be purchased V
Kutb-ud-Din gave directions to Nizam-ud-Din, Muhammad 5, to remain behind at Ghaznin. for the purpose of transacting some affairs of his, and, after his own determination of returning to Hindustan, requested him, on his return, to bring along with him to Dihli, Jamal-ud-Din of the Tight Tunic, in order that the purchase of Shams-ud-Din might be there effected. According to Kutb-ud-Din's command, Nizam-ud-Din, Muhammad, on his return, brought them [the two slaves] along with him to the capital, Dihli; and Malik Kutb-ud-Din purchased both
slaves, and another writer says " the brokers fixed the price of the two as our author states."
1	Malik Kutb-ud-Din then, and still a mamliik or slave.
2	For the events of this so called conquest, see the notes to the account of Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak. The word used signifies victory, taking a city, &c., as well as conquest. The Mir'at-i-Jahan-Numa more correctly says, after taking Nahrwalah and chastisement of Bhlm Dlw. See notes 1 and 2, p. 516.
3	'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil probably, although he may have had a brother named Nasir-ud-Din. See page 516.
4	The idiom varies considerably here in the different sets of copies of the text. Another writer says "buying or selling him in Ghaznin is not proper, after commands to the contrary: let them take him into the Dihli territory and there sell him."
5	See note 2, page 516, paragraphs 6 and 7.THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
603
the Turks for the sum of a hundred thousand jitalsG. The other Turk, named I-bak, received the name of Tam-ghaj, and was made Amir of Tabarhindah ; and, subsequently, in the engagement which took place between Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, and that beneficent of his time—Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, he was killed. Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, was made Sar-i-Jan-dar [chief of the Jan-dars or Guards7] to Kutb-ud-Din, who styled him son, and retained him near himself, and he continued to rise in office and in dignity daily; and Kutb-ud-Din, discerning within him proofs of rectitude and integrity, both in movement and at rest, outwardly as well as inwardly, by the light thereof, advanced him from one position to another until he raised him to the office of Amir-i-Shikar [Chief-
6	This sum is mentioned by several authors, but they probably copy our author's words. Respecting the jital see note page 5,84. If this is correct it is evident that the jital must have been of a far higher value than there mentioned, and much more than that assigned to it by Thomas in his "Pathan Kings of Delhi," page 160 = of a silver tatigak—about 2s. or a rupl, or 100,000 jitals — 1562^ rupis. As his Khwajah had refused the sum of 1000 rukni dinars for the two slaves, it is natural to suppose that he would not have sold them for less than that to Kutb-ud-Din, yet, at the value assigned to the jital by the Haft-Iklim—1280 to the rupi—Kutb-ud-Din would have purchased them for little over 78 rupis and 8 anahs, an impossible sum. Another work, the Tagkarat-ul-Muluk, says 50 laks of jitals, but even this would be but little over 3900 rupis. The sum mentioned by Buda'uni is far more probable, namely a lak of tangahs. I have given elsewhere the meaning of rukni. See Blochmann's translation of the A-in, page 31.
The name of the other Mamluk, I-bak, is turned into Taghakh, instead of Tamghaj, in the revised text of Firishtah, and instead of Tabarhindah it has Pathindah—s-u^j Firishtah also asserts that Malik Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, gave the other slave, who bore another name, that of I-yal-timish, but the opposite is the fact. The same writer also states that I-yal-timish accompanied his master in the expedition against Kalinjar in 599 h. Tamghaj must have been superior in every way, at that time, to have been, at once, made Amir of Tabarhindah.
7	The signification assigned by lexicographers to this word is armour-bearer, but Jan-dar also signifies a guardian, custodian, conservator, and the like. Under the Sultans of Egypt it was the title of a class of officers, whose duty was to guard the door of the Sultan, to convey and enforce his orders with respect to Amirs, and guard the prison styled the Zardah-k^anah [Zard or Zarad ?], in which persons of rank were confined. The Amir-i-Jan-dar— equivalent to Sar-i-Jan-dar here—was the chief of these officers. This is the title, which, in Elliot, is turned into Sirj&nd&r Turki referred to in note 8,' page 608. See also Lane's Arabian Nights, note 91 to Chap. x. Firishtah says the Jandars were the J^ which means slaves ; but such cannot be correct, for Sultan Mu'izz-ud-DIn himself was Sar-i-Jan-dar to his brother Ghiyas-ud-Din. The Jan-dars were generally slaves, as most trustworthy, 110 doubt.
Q q 2THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRl.
Huntsman]. Subsequently, when Gwaliyur was taken8, he lpecame Amir of Gwaliyur; and, after that, he acquired the fief of the town of Baran and its dependencies. Some time after this, as proofs of tact, energy, valour, and high-mindedness were unmistakeably displayed by him, and the beneficent Sultan, Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, noticed and marked all these [accomplishments] in him, he conferred upon Shams-ud-Din the fief of the territory of Buda'un9.
When the Sultan-i-Ghazi. Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Sam, returned from his campaign against Khwarazm, and when, in the engagement at And-khud, a reverse befell the troops of Khita and the Khokhar 2 tribes had begun to rebel and manifest contumacy, he moved from Ghaznin for the purpose of making war on that unbelieving people 3. Malik Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, in conformity with the Sultan's orders, led the [available] forces of Hindustan to the scene of action4; and Shams-ud-Din, with the contingent troops of Buda un, accompanied him s.
During the engagement [which ensued], in the height of the conflict, Shams-ud-Din, in all his panoply, rode right into the water of the river Jilam [Jhilam] in which those active rascals6 had made their place of shelter, and displayed great valour, and by the wounds inflicted by [his men's ?7] arrows discomfited them ; and his warlike feats,
8	After it was surrendered rather. See page 546. Another writer states that Baran and its dependencies were added to his fief of Gwaliyur.
9	At this time, and for some time after, the fief of the territory of Buda'un was the highest in the Dihli kingdom.
1	Our author in all the copies of the-text, and the printed text likewise, both here, as well as under the reign of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, makes the false statement, which his own words prove untrue, that the forces of Khita were defeated, when Mu'izz-ud-Din was so utterly overthrown with the loss of his whole army before Andkh,ud [Inddakhud]. and would have been taken captive but for the intervention of Sultan 'Usman of Samrkand. Compare Elliot, vol. ii. page 322.
2	See note page 481.
3	These people were converted to Muhammadanism, according to Firisitah, who perhaps had no authority for so stating, previous to this. See same note, last para., page 484.
4	See note l, page 481, para. 4.
5	Shams-ud-Din. according to another writer, having assembled together a considerable force from Buda'un and the Koh-payah, joined his master, Malik Kutb-ud-Din.
6	In some copies " rabble rout" or " set of vagabonds," &c. They appear to have taken shelter in one of the islands of the Jhilam.
' The original merely mentions that "by arrow wounds he caused thoseTHE SHAMSlAH SULTANS OF HIND.	605
whilst in that water, reached such a pitch, that he was despatching those infidels from the height of the waters to the lowest depths8 of Hell:—" They were drowned, and cast into the fire [of hell] V'
During that feat of agility and gallant exploit, the eye of the Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Sam, fell on these proofs of boldness and valour, and he directed inquiry to be made respecting his quality. When the royal mind became enlightened on the subject of who he was, he sent for Shams-ud-Din, and distinguished him by conferring a special dress of honour upon him ; and commanded Malik Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, saying : " Treat I-yal-timish well, for he will distinguish himself." The Sultan further directed that they should draw up the deed of his freedom, and regarded him with his royal countenance, and conferred upon him the felicity of the free.
When Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, died at Lohor, the Sipah-Salar1 [Commander of Troops] 'Ali-i-Isma'il, who was the Amir-i-Dad [Lord Justice] of the capital city, Dihli, in concert with other Amirs and high officials, wrote letters
infidels discomfiture," but it can scarcely refer to the arrows he alone may have discharged. Firishtah asserts that "he defeated the Khokhars, and killed [his followers did?] 10,000 or 12,000 of them, and was subsequently made Amir-ul-Umra ;" but, unfortunately for this statement of the Dakhani historian, no such office or title existed in those days.
8	Two different words of the same signification are here used in the two sets of copies which agree with each other, some have j** and the others
The different copyists could scarcely have been the cause of these differences in the idiom which are very numerous throughout our author's work.
9	Kur'an, chap. lxxi. verse 25.
1 There was no such Europeanized term in those days as "commander-in-chief," and, if there were, there would have been a great number of commanders, for the term Sipah-Salar is applied to several persons often at one and the same time. One of the oldest copies of the text calls 'Ali-i-Isma'il [i. e. 'All, son of Isma'il] " Amir-Zadah," an Amir's son. The best Paris copy leaves out the word Sipah-Salar altogether, and that reading would remove all difficulty, but it is a solitary instance, for all the others have Amir-i-Dad. Dad certainly means justice, equity, &c., and perhaps the person in question may have heard complaints and disposed of them with the aid of Muftis and Kazis; but the command of troops seems incompatible with the office of judge. Some other authors say the Sipah-Salar 'Ali-i-Isma'il, and the Amir-i-Dad, and other grandees and officials, invited him to come to Dihli, and assume the sovereignty, and some say 'Ali-i-Isma'il was governor of Dihli, and they style the other Amir Da'iid. Another writer says "Amir of Dihli," whidi is more probable. Firishtah. according to the revised text, has "Amir Da'ud, the Dilrimi." The latter word is absurd here. See note 4, page 529.6o6
the taba$At-i-nAsir!.
to Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, at Buda un, and besought him [to come thither and assume authority]. Having come, he ascended the throne of the kingdom of Dihli in the year 607 H., and took possession of it. As the Turks and Kutbi Amirs from different parts had gathered together before Dihli, and some of the Turks and Mu'izzi Amirs had also united with them, and were intent upon resistance 2 [to this usurpation of authority on the part of I-yal-timish], they left Dihli, and came out, and they [all] combined in the immediate neighbourhood, and broke out into sedition and rebellion3. The august Sultan, Shams-ud-Din, with the cavalry of the centre [contingents forming the centre division of the Dihli troops] and his own immediate followers, issued from the city of Dihli, and, in front of the plain of Jud, overthrew them, and put most of the leaders [of the party] to the sword \
2	Compare Elliot, vol. ii., page 323.
3	The Taj-ul-Ma'asir says, in its usual inflated style, that "the Sar-i-Jan-dar, who was a Turk [he was not named ' Sirjdndar Turki,' as in Elliot, vol. ii,, page 237—for Sar-i-Jan-dar is the office this Turk held, see note page 603], who was the head of all sedition, and who put forth his arm' to shed Musalman blood, with a body of sanguinary Turks [the Turks in the service of the Ghiirian Sultans were Musalmans], broke out into rebellion. Although the Sultan had been often urged to repress their outbreak, he refrained, for some time, from doing so. At length he resolved to reduce them, and with a considerable army," &c.
This is no other than the affair mentioned under the account of Sultan Aram Shah, which see. What our author here means to say is, that those Turks and Mu'izzi and Kutbi Amirs, and men of note, then in Dihli, did not join the Shams! party, and they left the city and joined the partizans of the late Sultan's son, or, rather, adopted son, Aram Shah. The Amirs and Turks, however, were not finally reduced till some time after. See next page.
Another writer states that most of the Kutbi Amirs submitted, but that some of them, in concert with several Mu'izzi Amirs who were in Dihli and parts around, rose, collected together, and came to an engagement with Shams-ud-DTn and his party; but their efforts were without avail, and they were defeated and put to the sword.
The Taj-ul-Ma'asir states that the battle was fought close to the Bagh-i-Jiin [Jud ?] near the capital, but other authors I have been quoting from time to time agree with the more modem copies of the text, and say it occurred in the Jim plain [^s" waste plain, &c.]; but all the oldest copies have as above. The Bagh-i-Jud, not Jun, is often mentioned by our author.
The Zubclat-ut-Tawarikh, says the defeated Amirs were put to death at different times. See page 529, and note 4.
4	Some few modern copies and the printed text have " and directed that their heads should be brought under the sword," but there is not a word about their "horsemen.'''' Firishtah says two of the principal Amirs, AV-SunkarTHE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
607
Subsequently to this, Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, from Lohor and Ghaznin entered into a compact with him, and sent him a canopy of state and a Dur-bash5. Between Sultan Shams-ud-Din and Malik [Sultan] Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, contention used continually to arise for the possession of Lohor, Tabarhindah, and Kuhram ; and, in the year 614 H., the former inflicted a defeat upon Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah.
Upon several other occasions, in different parts of the territories of Hindustan6, hostilities arose between him [Shams-ud-Din] and the Amirs and Turks; but, as the favour of the Most High was his aider and defender, He used to award victory to him, and all those who used to revolt against him, or rebel against his authority, used to be reduced. The Divine assistance and protection having, for a considerable time, been extended towards him, Sultan
and Farrukh Shah, were killed, and that the Sar-i-Jan-dar fled with some others. The same author also states, contrary to his predecessors, that in 608 h. I-yal-timish marched against the ruler of the Kasbah [!] of Jalor— —who bore the name of Udfsah [Udi Sah?], reduced him and extorted tribute ! His authority for this is not given. At this period I-yal-timish was scarcely master of the Dihli kingdom.
6 This passage is thus rendered in Elliot, vol. ii. page 323. '' Sultan Taju-d din made a treaty with him from Lahore and Ghaznf and sent him some insignia of royalty."
The Dur-bash here referred to, which literally signifies "stand aside!" and does not mean '' baton," was a kind of spear with two homs or branches, the wood of the staff of which used to be studded with jewels and ornamented with gold and silver. This used to be carried before the sovereign when he issued forth, in order that people, perceiving it from a distance, might know that the king was coming, and that they might make way for him by standing on one side. In battle also it was carried, so that, in case any one should cast a lasso—which was made of leather, and continued in use down to nearly recent times—in the direction of the king, it might, by the Dur-bash, be turned aside. Some others say, a canopy of state and other emblems of royalty were sent to I-yal-timish.
Firishtah states that I-yal-timish accepted a canopy of state and a standard from the Hakim of Ghaznin for the latter's honour's sake ! The Dakhani historian truly is a vei-y great authority !
Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, was strong and powerful at this time, and the probability is that Shams-ud-Din, I-jal-timish, sought to be recognized by him as ruler of Ghaznin in succession to Sultan Mu'izz-ud-DTn, thinking that such recognition would tend to make the Mu'izzi chiefs and Turks more compliant to his rule. Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmud, Mu'izz-ud-Dm's nephew, at this time was either dead—for there is great discrepancy as to dates—or he was powerless. See note 8, page 526, para. 5.
0 Hindustan refers here to the country immediately east of Dihli", the Do-ab of Anlarbcd, &c.6oS
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
Shams-ud-Din brought under his jurisdiction all the different parts of the kingdom, and the dependencies of the capital, Dihli, together with Buda'un, Awadh, Banaras, and the Siwalikh.
Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, being obliged to evacuate [his territory] before the Khwarazmi army, retired towards Lohor 7; and between him and Sultan Shams-ud-Din, hostilities arose about the boundaries [of their dominions], and an engagement took place between their respective armies at Tara'in8, in the year 612 H., and Sultan Shams-ud-Din was victorious. Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, was-taken prisoner, and, in accordance with his [Shams-ud-Din's] command, they brought Yal-duz to Dihli, and sent him [from thence] to Buda'un, and there he was buried9.
7	Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, came into the Lahor province and took possession of it and its capital, and ousted the followers of Kaba-jah. See page 505.
8	This engagement took place in the neighbourhood of Tara'in, the scene of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-DTn's defeat and subsequent victoiy over Rae Pithora. The Taj-ul-Ma'asir says, at this time, Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timi§h, was about to undertake an expedition against some part of the Hindu territories as yet unsubdued, or some Hindu chief, who, during the late disturbances consequent on the death of Kutb-ud-Dln, I-bak, and the dethronement of his son [adopted son], by Shams-ud-Din, had freed himself from the Musalman yoke. See Elliot, vol. ii. page 239, note where these Turks—Turkish slaves or Turkish chiefs, such as are referred to under Aram Shah's reign—are turned into unconverted [for which there is not a shadow of authority] Turks, and are made out to have caused a revival of Hindu power, because, in the flatulent words of the Taj-ul-Ma'asir, one, who is styled [not in the original however] Sirjandar Turki, "opened his hand to shed the blood of Musalmans." In the meantime, Sultan Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, in 611 h., made some demands upon Shams-ud-Din, who, from the fact of his accepting the diir-bas]i and canopy of state, had acknowledged his superiority. Shams-ud-Din, being unwilling to accept these demands, whatever they were—for they are not specified in any author—I-yal-duz, who had possessed himself of the Panjab, advanced as far as Thanlsar, resolved to enforce them, and was moving upon Dihli, when Shams-ud-Din, now sufficiently powerful to resist them, resolved to oppose him, and advanced to Samand [Samanah?], and the troops of the two kingdoms encountered near Tara'in on the 3rd of Shawwal, 612 h. I-yal-diiz's troops fell suddenly upon the left wing of the Dihli troops during the engagement [they did so probably at the outset], but I-yal-duz was wounded by an arrow aimed at him by the Mu-ayyid-ul-Mulk [this is his title only—the name is wanting. I-yal-duz's own Wazir bore that title, which is one given to Wazlrs], and I-yal-duz's forces were defeated, and he was himself taken prisoner.
9	Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-duz, was taken to Dihli to be paraded, and was sent away to the fortress of Buda'un. Why he was sent there—the fief of Buda'un had been so long Shams-ud-Din's—is obvious enough. Our author tooTHE SHAMSIAH SULJANS OF HIND.	609
Subsequently, in the year 614 H., Shams-ud-Dfn fought an engagement with Malik [Sultan] Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah1, and the latter was overthrown; and, when the calamities, consequent upon the appearance of Chingiz Khan, the Mughal, fell upon Khurasap. in the year 618 H.2, Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Khwarazm Shah, defeated by the army of infidels, retired in the direction of Hindustan. The sedition of the Khwarazm Shahis reached the limits of [the province of] Lohor3; and Sultan Shams-ud-Din marched from Dihli towards Lohor4 with the forces of Hindustan, and Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Khwarazm Shah, having turned aside6
buries him silently without mentioning his death. The Tabakat-i-Akbari and a few others say that he was kept at Buda'un until he died, but others state that he was put to death there in the same year. The Taj-ul-Ma'asir which was written at that period, at Dihli, of course, is silent on this part of the subject. See page 505, note *, and page 506.
1	Buda'unt makes a great blunder about this affair: he says this was the third time Shams-ud-Din had marched against Kaba-jah, in 614 H., and that the latter was drowned in the Panj-ab [the five rivers] in 615 H. ! The Tazkarat-ul-Muluk says the first notice Kaba-jah had of Shams-ud-Din's hostility was his appearance on the frontier of his province of Uchchah in 614 H. See note 8, page 534.
2	Fasih-i says in 617 H., but that some say 618 H. The best St. Petersburg copy of the text has 620 H.
3	At this period, and for sometime after, the frontier of the Dihli kingdom only extended to the Makhialah Hills or Salt Range. See note page 534.
4	In his account of Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, page 293, our author says, Shams-ud-Din " despatched a force from his armies " against him. In the former place the words used are oU-yi^li—here
s The words used here in all the copies, and in the printed text also, are which mean "turned aside," and '' fled before" \s incorrect, and the text says nothing whatever about "some fighting followed on the frontiers of Lahore": the words are ^l^Ll-ylji. '-uii Compare Elliot, vol. ii. page 324.
Sultan Jalal-ud-DIn had only about 10,000 men with him : otherwise, from the easy way in which he overthrew Kaba-jah, there is great probability that, being of Turkish lineage himself, on his mother's side, the Turks jn Hindustan might have gone over to him, and he would have overturned the kingdom of Dihli. All that the " august" Sultan appears to have done was to have Jalal-ud-Din's envoy put to death—some say he had him poisoned—under pretence that he was plotting against him, then, in order to gain time, sending an emissary with rich presents to mollify the Sultan, and, in order to try and get him into his power, offering him an asylum near Dihli—an asylum possibly like I-yal-duz met with at Buda'un—a tomb. No doubt Shams-ud-Din got troops ready, and no doubt despatched some towards the Panjab, but he did not go himself to face Jalal-ud-Din. See note 5, page 293. The Khulasat-ut-Tawarikh states that Jalal-ud-Din did actually invest Lahor for a time.
The Tagkarat of Daulat Shah, quoted by Elliot, says Sultan Jalal-ud-Din was joined whilst in the Sind-Sagar Do-abah by the Lakhia Hazarahs,6io
THE TABA£AT-I-NASIRI.
from the host of Hindustan, marched away towards Sind and Siwastan 6.
After these events, in the year 622 H., Sultan Shams-ud-Din marched an army towards the territory of Lakhana-wati, and [Sultan] Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz.JKhalji1, placed the neck of service within the yoke of subjection, and presented thirty elephants and eighty laks of treasure 8, and read the Khutbah, and stamped the coin, in the sacred name of the august Sultan, Shams-ud-Din.
In the year 623 H., the Sultan determined to take the fort of Rantabhur, which, for its exceeding strength, solidity, and impregnability, is famous and notorious throughout all
numbering 700 men, from the neighbourhood of Balkh, and that the ruler of Multan [Kaba-jah] made peace with Jalal-ud-Din; and, what is more astonishing, that 'Ala-ud-DTn, Kai-Kubad, the son of the king of Hind, gave Jalal-ud-DIn his daughter in marriage, and the latter maintained power in Hind for three years and seven months. Here is a perfect jumble of events, and the Khokhar chief has been mistaken for the " King of Hind."
A European writer however [D'Ahsson] makes still greater blunders. He says that, when Jalal-ud-Din heard that Shams-ud-Din. I-yal-timish, was moving " to the assistance of Kubacha," he went to meet him, but, instead of fighting, I-yal-timish proposed peace and the hand of his daughter, which were both accepted by the Sultan! See note B, para. 2, page 293. Here Burak, the Hajib, governor of Kirman, is mistaken for I-yal-timislj!
6	One would scarcely conceive, from this, that Sultan Jalal-ud-DIn annexed great part of the Panjab and Sind, and that he remained nearly three years in those parts, and only left them, on the despatch of a great army of Mughals against him, and the fact of his presence being much required in 'Irak. See the reign of Jalal-ud-DIn, pages 285—299.
7	Elphinstone, led astray by some translation probably, for no History makes such a statement, makes several terrible errors here. He has: "In the same year with this expedition to Sind [it took place two years after the LakhanawatI affair, in 624-5 h-1 Altamsh marched against Bakhtiar Khilji [Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar, who is here referred to, had been then dead twenty years], who looked upon Behar and Bengal as his own conquest; and, though he professed obedience to Kutbu dm {to whose daughter he was married), openly disclaimed all dependence on his successor. [It was I-yal-timish—his Altamsh —not Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar, who married Kutb-ud-Din's daughter.] Altamsh was successful in this undertaking; he deprived Bakhtiar of Behar, (the government of which he conferred on his own son,) and obliged him to hold Bengal under the crown of Dehli. Bakhtiar made a subsequent attempt to retrieve his losses, was defeated by the prince who governed Behar, and lost his life in the conflict." Thus Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar, Muhammad, son of Sheran, 'All, son of Mardan, and Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz— four different rulers are made one. This truly is pretty history " to teach the young idea" ! See pages 574 and 594, and note 2.
8	There is not a word about " current coin" in the text, but the Tabakal-i-Akbari and some authors who copy from it say, 80,000 silver tan-ahs. See note 2, page 584.THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
611
Hindustan. They have narrated in the Chronicles of the people of Hind after this manner, that seventy kings and more had appeared [at various times] at the foot of its walls, and not one of them had been able to reduce it9. After some time however, in the year 623 H., it was taken by the hands of the Sultan's servants2, through the favour of the Creator. A year subsequent to this, in 624 H., he marched against the fort of Mandawar3 within the limits of the Siwalikh [terfitory], and its capture, likewise, the Almighty God facilitated for him, and he came back, and much booty fell into the hands of the servants of his dynasty.
Subsequently, in 625 H., the august Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, came with an army from the capital city, Dihli, into the territories of Uchchah and Multan ; and the writer of these words, the Maulana Minhaj-i-Saraj, in the
9 According to the Taj-ul-Ma'asir, Rantabhur was in the possession of the Musalmans in the time of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din. See Elliot : vol. ii. page 219, and note a, page 516, para. 4.
1	Months in some copies of the text.
2	This remark shows that he was not himself present there.
3	The oldest copies are as above^jJ^—but some others have — Mandud, and jsu—Mandu. The Tabakat-i-Akbari has Mandawar ; while Buda'uni, who copies from it, has Mandu in some copies, and Mandawar in others ; and adds that I-yal-timish annexed, with that stronghold, the Koh-i-Siwalikh. Mir'at-i-Jahan-Numa says, "Mandawar with all the forts and kasbahs of the Siwalikh." Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh has "Mandawar— Firishtah has " Mandu—[which is totally incorrect]—and all Siwalikh."
Our author, at page 468, mentions " the seat of government, Ajmlr, with the whole of the Siwalikh [territory], such as Hansi, SursutT," &c. ; and includes the whole tract of country south of the Himalayah, between the Ganges and the Sutlaj, and extending as far south as Hans! in the Siwalikh or Koh-i-Siwalikh; and at page 200 he states that Nag-awr is in the Siwalikh also. Some writers state that the Siwalikh extends as far west as the borders of Kashmir. See note4, page 468 ; and Elliot, vol. ii. page 325, note Tod says "Mundore [Mandawar] was the capital of the Purihars," and capital of Marwar, "live miles N. of Jodpur." There is no doubt but that this is the place, the ruins of which indicate what its immense strength must have been at the time in question. It is described in Tod, vol. i. page 721; and in another place he says it was taken from " Mokul," the Purihar prince, by " Rahup," who "obtained Cheetore in s. 1257 (a.D. 1201), and shortly after sustained the attack of Shemsudin [Sultan Shams-ud-Din is referred to], whom he [Rahup] met and overcame in battle at Nagore." Of course ! who could defeat Rajputs? Shams-ud-Din did not come to the throne for nine years after the above date. There is a Mandawar——even now, a large kasbah, with extensive buildings of burnt brick, and several great masjids, the remains of former days, on the route between Dara-nagar and Saharan-pur, included in the Siwalikh as above mentioned, but not the place here referred to.612
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
month of Rajab, in the year 624 H.4, had reached the territories of Sind, Uchchah, and Multan, from the side of Ghur and Khurasan 5. On the 1st of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 625 H.s, the august Sultan, Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish. reached the foot of the walls of the fort of Uchchah. Malik [Sultan] Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, had his camp pitched before the gate of the kasbah [town] of Ahrawat7, and the whole of his fleet and boats, on board of which the baggage and followers of his army were embarked, were moored in the river in front8 of the camp, when, on a Friday, after [noon-day] prayers, swift messengers arrived from the direction of Multan and gave information that Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Ai-yitim9, the feudatory of Lohor, had appeared before the walls of Multan
The august Sultan, Shams-ud-Dln, having set out by way of Tabarhindah towards Uchchah. the capital of Malik [Sultan] Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, he fled to his fleet, and, taking along with him all his forces, retired towards
4	See note 2, page 544, where he contradicts this statement, and mentions other dates. Chingiz Khan died in 624 h. ' Several authors, including that of the Tabakat-i-Akbari and his protige,, Buda'unT, leave out this expedition of I-yal-timish against Kaba-jah ; but drown the latter in 614 h.,having confounded the first hostilities between them with the last. See note4, page 532.
5	At page 541 he says 'he came "from Khurasan by way of Ghaznin and Banian."
6	In his notice of Malik Nasfr-ud-Din, Ai-yitim, in Section XXII., our author also says 625 h., but at page 541 he says 624 h. Under the account of Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-gazlak Khan, in the same Section, our author contradicts his statement here made, and says that this Malik was the first of the nobles of the Dihll dynasty with whom he came into contact, and that he arrived before Uchchah with troops fifteen days before Sultan Shams-ud-Din's arrival, and that he—the author—came out of Uchchah and went to his camp to obtain an interview with 'Malik Taj-ud-DIn on the 16th of Safar, 625 h. At the bottom of the same page, however, he makes another statement, and gives 628 h. as the date, and, over leaf, a different statement.
7	This place is not now known,' and the correct pronunciation may be Ihrawat. In some copies it is written Ahrawat, in others Ahurat, and in one Harawat ; but it is evidently the same word, with the first letter left out by the copyist. The courses of the rivers in this tract have greatly altered since these days.
8	This is the meaning of the word here used, but facing or opposite would be more appropriate ; as, wherever the camp might have been pitched, it would have its front, not its rear, to the land.
9	In the account given of this chief, in the next Section, the vowel points are given with the word ^al Some few copies have what appears like — but what is supposed to be^ is but the end of the letter ^ carelcssly written.
1 He succeeded in getting possession of that stronghold by capitulation, and the dependencies at once followed.THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
613
Bhakar, with orders to his Wazir, the 'Ain-ul-Mulk, Husain-i-Asha'ri*, to convey the treasure contained within the fort of Uchchah towards the fort of Bhakar. Sultan Shams-ud-Din pushed forward the van of his forces to the foot of the walls of Uchchah, under the [two] great Maliks at the head of those troops, one [of whom] was Malik 'Izz-ud-D!n, Mu-hammad-i-Salari, who was the Amir-i-Hajib [Lord Chamberlain] of the Court, and the other, Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i- Gazlak Khan3, Sultan! Shams!4, who was the Malik of Tabarhindah. Four days after this, the Sultan himself, with the rest of the army, the elephants, baggage, and followers, arrived before the walls of Uchchah. and the camp was pitcheds. The Wazir of his kingdom, the Nizam-ul-Mulk, Muhammad, Junaidi, and other Maliks, were then despatched towards the fort of Bhakar in pursuit of Malik [Sultan] Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah.
For a period of three months, hostilities went on at the foot of the fortress of Uchchah ; and, on Tuesday, the 28th 8 of the sacred month, Jamadi-ul-Awwal, in the year 625 H.7, that fort surrendered on terms of capitulation. Malik [Sultan] Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, in that same month,
3 The Tarikh-i-Ma'sumi of Mir Ma"sum-i-Bhakhari [of Bhakar or Bhakhar: it is written both ways] incorrectly styles him the Nizam-ul-Mulk, Muhammad, son of As'ad. 'Ain-ul-Mulk, signifying the Eye of the State—like Nizam-ul-Mulk—is not a name, but a title given to Waziirs. Asha'r is the name of an 'Arab tribe of the tribes of Saba, of which came the celebrated Musalman doctors Abu Musa and Abu Hasan. Their followers are styled Asha'riun. The Wazir came doubtless of that family. "Ashghari" is not correct. Compare Elliot here, vol. ii. page 325.
3	Or Gajzlak : it is written both ways.
4	"Sultan! Shamsi" signifies that he was the Mamluk of Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, and rose to rank in his service. A notice of him and others will be found in Section XXII.
5	The arrival of the Sultan upon the scene has been already mentioned above.
6	Some copies of the text have "one month," but it is, no doubt, incorrect; and in some the date is the 27th of the month ; but in no copy is it the 29th, although some modem copies have Jamadi-uI-Akhir.
7	The Tabakat-i-Akbari, Buda'unT, Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, and some others, all mention these events as taking place in 614 h. ; and they are all wrong. In this case it is hardly probable that the copyists of all these works could have written 614 for 624, although one might have done so.
The Tagkarat-ul-Muluk states that Kaba-jah's son, Malik 'Ala-ud-DIn, Bahram Shah, had concluded a peace on behalf of his father with I-yal-timigh, and, after some days, Kaba-jah himself left Bhakhar to return to tjghchah, when he was [accidentally] drowned.614
the taba?:at-i-nA§iri.
of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, in the same year, threw himself from the walls of the fortress of Bhakar into the Panj-ab, and drowned himself. Some time previous to this, he had despatched his son, Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Bahram Sh,ah, to the presence of Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish ; and, subsequently to that, the treasures and the remainder of the followers of Malik [Sultan] Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, reached the presence of the Court, the Asylum of the World.
That country [Sind], as far as the shore of the ocean, was acquired, and Malik Sinan-ud-Din, Chati-sar [or Jati-sar],8
8 The three oldest and best copies of the text have Chatlsar-^—-s^—and Jatisar——respectively. Of the other copies, taking the best in rotation, one has —which is evidently intended for one of the two former, because the three points, which look like that of lj—are intended to mark — thus —in distinction to ^—arid to prevent it being mistaken for the latter letter ; another —a third ^--i-—and the rest J^^—which has been read as Habash, which means an Abyssinian. The Sumrahs were, however, not ' Africans, but of Raj-put descent. Alft has —but not very distinct, and Jami'-ut-Tawarikh ^ without points.
The historians of Sind state that that territory, up to the year 583 H., acknowledged the sway of the Ghaznawlds, and that, on the downfall of the last of that dynasty, his dominions fell to Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad, Ghuri [Mu'izz-ud-Din's elder brother], and Sind was then included in the Multan province; but all Sind cannot be meant here—not what we understand by Sind. Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, brother of Ghiyas-ud-Din. as early as 578 H. [see note2, page 452], had reduced the territory of Diwal or Dibal. Mir Ma'sum says that, after Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din's assassination, Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, possessed himself of Hind and Sind, and held sway over them, and the Khutbah was read for him, fourteen years [four, no doubt, is meant], after which his son, Aram Shah, succeeded him, but he was dethroned from incapacity, and Shams-ud-Din. I-yal-timish, raised to the sovereignty. "At this period," he continues, " the territory of Hindustan was divided into four states [that portion of Hindustan under Musalman sway rather]—DihlT, which pertained to Shams-ud-Din; Multan, Uchchah, and Sind, to Kaba-jah; Lahor, to the officers of I-yal-duz, Sultan of Ghaznin ; and Lakhanawati, to the Khalj." He then passes on to the Khalj in Siwastan, and Shams-ud-Din's invasion of Kaba-jah's dominions. See note 9, page 542, para. 6.
Previous to this time, however, Dibal, or Lower Sind [Thathah was not even founded at this period], had fallen into the hands of the Siimrah tribe, which paid, nominally at least, allegiance to the Ghaznawlds. Before the downfall of that dynasty, Mu'izz-ud-Dln, Ghuri, subdued that territory; but still the Ghurian hold upon it was nominal almost.
Of the Sumrah dynasty no less than seventeen chiefs ruled in Lower Sind, according to the Muntakhab-ut-Tawaiikh of Muhammad Yusuf; and, as near as can be computed, from the years they are said to have reigned, the eleventh of that dynasty, who lived at the time Shams-ud-Din ruled at Dihli, was named Chanisar——but this might be, and in all probability is meant for there being but the difference of the dot of o between them. It is,THE SHAMSlAH SULTANS OF HIND.	615
who was Wall [ruler] of Diwal, presented himself at the Shamsi Court; and, when the blessed mind of that monarch became disengaged through the successes [gained] in that territory, he turned his face towards the sublime seat of government, the city of Dihli.
The author of this book, and writer of these pages, gained the presence of the sublime Court of that monarch of the orthodox, on the first day that the royal camp was pitched before the walls of the fort of Uchchah9; and, having found favour in his sacred sight, when the royal camp moved back again from before the walls of Uchchah. the author was directed to deliver discourses within the enclosure of the sublime tents; and, in association with the victorious retinue of that beneficent sovereign, he arrived at
the city of Dihli in the month of Ramazan, 625 H.1
•
therefore, perfectly clear, that the name given by our author refers to the eleventh of the Sumrah rulers, but the fourteenth according to the Tuhfat-ul-Kiram. Habash, of course, is totally out of the question. See also Elliot, vol." i. page 485 ; and vol. ii. note 2, page 389 ; and Thomas : Pathan Kings, page 99, note4.
9 To pay court to the winning side, and, afterwards, as far as our pious author was concerned, the son of Kaba-jah, and the FIruzi College too, might follow Kaba-jah to the bottom of the Indus.
1 It has already been mentioned [note 9, para. 6, page 542] that one reason— or, at least, the plea—why I-yal-timish attacked Kaba-jah again, and marched against Uchchah. was, that the Khalj fugitives, after their defeat by Kaba-jah, and their chief had fallen in the battle, threw themselves upon his protection. This happened towards the end of 623 h., and, early in 625 h., I-yal-timish appeared before Kaba-jah's capital.
If our author is correct as to the Sultan's leaving Uchchah for Dihli, the Taj-ul-Ma'asir [and Rauzat-us-Safa, which copies it probably] is very much out; for that work states that I-yal-timish left the Wazir to carry on the operations, and reached Dihli again on the 14th of Rabi'-ul-Awwal [the third month] of 624 h. ; whilst our author says he reached the capital in Ramazan [the ninth month] of 625 h., a difference of eighteen months. One of the oldest copies of the text, however, has 626 h., while the other two oldest leave out the rest of the sentence after the word "Dihli," thus giving no date.
Mir Ma'sum, in his History, says:—" I-yal-timish left his Wazir to carry on operations against Uchchah, and returned to his capita^ thus agreeing with Taj-ul-Ma'asir, and that it capitulated, and was taken possession of on the 28th of Jamadi-ul-Awwal [fifth month] of 625 h." It was the Wazir who advanced against Bhakar and penetrated into Lower Sind, and, therefore, it is impossible that Sinan-ud-Din, Chatisar or Jatisar, the Sumrah chief of Dibal, could have presented himself at the Shamsi Court, when the Sultan did not go farther south than Uchchah. He did so to the Wazir probably, or to the subsequent governor of the new conquest.
The Taj-ul-Ma'asir further states that, at this time [of the Wazir's invasion of Lower Sind], twelve celebrated forts, which had never before been acquired,6i6
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
At this time, emissaries from the Khalifah's Court, bearing honours rich and ample, had reached the limits of Nag-awr; and, on Monday, the 22nd of the month of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 626 H., they reached the Capital2. The city was decorated [for the occasion] 3 and this sovereign, and the Maliks, his sons—may they rest in peace !—and other Maliks, his suite, and Slaves likewise, were honoured through this act of policy [on the part] of the Khalifah's Court.
After so much festivity and rejoicing, in the month of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, of the before-mentioned? year [626 H.]4,
were taken possession of with Slwastan and Liik, as far as the shores of the ocean ; and that the Khutbah was read for the Sultan, and the coin was stamped with his titles and name through all the countries of Hindustan [!], and in the territories of Ifusdar and Mukran ! The Wazir, according to Mir Ma'sum, was left in charge of the government of Sind, and remained in that country up to the year 630 h., when he returned to Court, leaving Nur-ud-Din, Muhammad, in charge of Sind.
Our author, however, in his notice of Malik Taj-ud-Dln, Sanjar-i-Gazlak Khan, who accompanied the WazTr in his advance upon Bhakar, states that he, not the Wazir, was left in charge of the newly-acquired territory ; and he is, doubtless, correct. The Wazir had other duties to perform, and Mir Ma'sum has evidently mistaken the one for the other.
No doubt the new governor extended the Shams! authority in those parts, but it was very temporary, and ceased almost with the reign of I-yal-timish. Luk is the place referred to at page 200, and has no connexion either with the town, district, or mountains of Lakki in Sind. There is, I think, some connexion between the Lak tribe of Kurds, at that time, and subsequently, located in the southern part of Sijistan, and Kirman, mentioned at page 317, note5.
3 Buda'unl, who differs from all other writers, here, and contrary to the work of his patron, says these were 'Arab envoys from Misr, bearing with them a dress of honour and honorary titles [a diploma conveying them], but the 'Abbas! Khalifah of Baghdad, not of Misr, was the sender—the Khalifah, Abu Ja'far-i-Mansur, entitled Al-Mustansir B'illah, the 36th 'Abbasi—the Ubaidi Isma'ilT Khilafat of Misr terminated in 567 h.
3	When the inhabitants of eastern cities are ordered to decorate their houses on the occasion of rejoicings such as above indicated, the tradespeople, in particular, deck out their shops by hanging out rich shawls, brocades, fine dresses, all kinds of costly articles of merchandize, and even the ornaments and trinkets of their women. Lamps and flags, attached to cords, are drawn across the streets, and the doors and lower parts of private dwellings painted in the gayest colours procurable. The Tabakat-i-AkbarT, followed by Firishtah and others, says Kubbahs—arches, domes, &c.—were erected on this joyful occasion.
According to the translation of this passage in our author in Elliot, vol. ii. page 326, the city was only "adorned with their presencebut the printed text, in this instance, is quite correct, and, like the other copies of the text, has ^f which means " to prepare," " to adorn," and the like.
4	Several copies of the text, including the printed text, with but two exceptions, have isjtli.—dress of honour—for ii~oJ.i — service, also action, pro-THE SEAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
617
information arrived of the decease of the august Malik, Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, [the eldest son of Sultan Shams-ud-Din]; and Balka Malik-i-Husam-ud-Din, 'Iwaz5,
cedure, policy, &c. It is ridiculous to imagine that honorary dresses would have been sent by the Khalifah for all the Princes, Maliks, the Sultan's suite, and his Slaves. Conferring such honours broadcast would have lessened the honour. Dresses might have been sent for the Sultan's sons, but even this was unusual. The Taj-ul-Ma'asir's statement about this event is the most reliable. It says that the Imam, Mustansir B'illah, sent I-yal-timish a dress of honour, and a diploma confirming him in the sovereignty of Hindustan, with the title of "Great Sultan, which was received with much veneration. Next day, 23rd of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 626 H., was fixed for a general reception, at which the Khalifah's diploma was read in the presence of the Sultan, his sons, and great nobles. In this diploma it was declared that I-yal-timish, was thereby confirmed in the possession of all the territory which he had subdued. Great joy was manifested on this auspicious occasion, and the Sultan conferred robes of honour upon the Khalifah's envoys, and his own chiefs and nobles."
What led to the arrival of these agents is not stated by historians, but it is probable that I-yal-timish sought this investiture from the Khali fab, and a title, considering his dynasty sufficiently established to warrant it, when he, some years before, despatched an agent to the Court of Baghdad, or that the Ehalifah had some policy of his own to serve in sending it. We may presume that the title bestowed was that mentioned by our author at page 624 ; but that is the same as bestowed by Mustansir's predecessor, Un-Nasir, upon Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, Towards the end of the reign of I-yal-timish, the Wazlr-ship is said to have been conferred upon the Fakhr-ul-Mulk, 'Isami, who for thirty years had been Wazir of Baghdad. He became irritated through some cause or other, left the Kh,allfah's court, and came to DihlT, which was not quite such an Ultima Thule as one modern writer supposes, the Khutbah being read weekly for the Khalifah.
5 That is to say, Balka Malik, son of Husam-ud-Din, 'Iwaz [Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz], the Khalj. In some copies of the text the date is 627 H., but, in the oldest, and, in the majority, it is 628 H.
The hold, acquired over the territory of Lakhanawati by I-yal-timisi, appears to have been of a very partial and temporary character ; and the events, which happened subsequently to his accommodation with Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, after he extorted tribute, as mentioned on a previous page, are involved in much obscurity for many years subsequently. In the first place, there is some discrepancy with respect to the year of Ghiyas-ud-D!n, 'Iwaz's, death, which, according to some accounts, including that of the Gaur MS., took place as early as 617 H., after a reign of twelve years, namely, from 606 H. to 617 H.
I had better first mention, very briefly, what our author states, in his account of the different Maliks, with reference to the occurrences following the defeat of Ghiyas ud-Din, 'Iwaz, by Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah. I-yal-timish's son, and Ghiyas-ud-DIn's being put to death by that prince, and then give the accounts of others, as our author has either suppressed some things, or his ideas of them were confused ; and he does not [like other writers] even mention ■where Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, died, and we must suppose it was in Awadh, not in Lakhanawati.
Our author says, in his account of Malik Saif-ud-Din, j-bak-i-Uchchah. but without giving any dates, that, when Sultan I-yal-timish led his forces into the territory of Lakhanawati, and they had overthrown Balka the Khalj—who, in
R r6i8
THE TABA?AT-I-NASIRI.
the Khalj, rebelled in the territory of Lakhanawati. Sultan Shams-ud-Din led the contingents of Hindustan into that country ; and, in the year 628 H., that rebel was secured. The Sultan conferred the throne of Lakhanawati upon Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Jani,—on whom be peace!—and, in the month
the list at the end of this reign, is styled Malik Ikh,tiyar-ud-Din, Daulat Shah-i-Balka, Malik of Lakhanawati—he set out on his return to the capital, Dihll, and, on the way, received intimation that, through the decease of Malik Taj-ud-DIn, Sanjar-i-GAZ-LAK Khan,at Uchchah, that province and its dependencies had been conferred upon him. Then he says, that, after the decease of the son of I-yal-timish, and that sovereign's proceeding himself into Lakhanawati to suppress the outbreak of Balka, the Khalj, he conferred the throne of Lakhanawati upon Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Jani [the same who is styled, in the list at the end of this reign, " Shah-zadah of Turkistan"], and that, on his removal from or loss of that dignity—but no date is given—Malik Saif-ud-Dln, I-bak-i-Yughan-Tat, got it. He greatly distinguished himself in those parts, and, on one occasion, captured a number of elephants in the territory of Bang, which he despatched to Dihli. For this affair he received the title of Yughan-Tat. He held the government until 631 H., when he died in Lakhanawati. On his death, Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Tughril-i-Tughan Khan, was made governor of Lakhanawati, and there he was at the time of I-yal-timish's death, after which events arose which I shall have to refer to subsequently ; but, I may mention that, up to this time, the territory on both sides the Gang was not under his authority, and that he only held the Barindah side.
I will now state what other writers say on this subject. After Sultan Ghiyas-ud-DIn, 'Iwaz, was put to death by Nasir-ud-Dm, Mahmiid Shah, son of I-yal-timish, the former's son, styled Nasir-ud-DTn-i-'Iwaz, by some, and Husam-ud-Din-i-'Iwa?, by others, but these latter no doubt mean Balka Malik, the son of Husam-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, which was the father's name before he took the title of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-DIn [see page 580], assumed the sovereignty over his father's dominions, and held it some time; and, after the death of Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, who held mere nominal authority over Lakhanawati for one year, and, according to the Gaur MS., and Jami'-ut-Tawarikh [not RashTd-ud-Din's], from 618 H. to 619 H., although both those works state that he died in 626 H., affairs assumed such an aspect that I-yal-timigh had to march into that country with the forces of Hindustan '' to quell the sedition." No particulars are given respecting these operations, nor is the fate of Balka Malik mentioned; but, as most writers state that he fell into the power of I-yal-timish, his fate may well be supposed.
Zubdat-ut-TawarTkh, in one place, says I-yal-timish entered the Lakhanawati territory in 627 H., and, in another place, that, in 628 H., he succeeded in taking the son of Husam-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, after which he gave the throne to 'Izz-ul-Muluk, Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Jani; and, in this, other writers agree.
The Jami'-ut-Tawarikli, as well as Zubdat, says that ' Ala-ud-Din, Jani, reigned for three years and some months, but the former and the Gaur MS. have "from 620 H. to 623 H." Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-Yughan-Tat, succeeded, on the removal of 'Ala-ud-Din, Jani, and ruled up to the time of his death, which happened in 631 H. ; but the Gaur MS. says he ruled nine years—from 624 H. to 632 H.—till he died. Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Tughril-i-Tughan Khan, succeeded, and held the government for nearly fourteen years. Further mention of the feudatories of this province will be found in the next Section.THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
619
of Rajab of the same year, he returned again to the illustrious capital, Dihli.
In the year 629 H., the Sultan came to the determination of undertaking the reduction of the fort of Gwaliyur6; and, when the pavilion of his dominion was set up at the foot of that stronghold, Mangal Diw 7, the accursed, the son of the accursed Mai Diw, commenced hostilities. The Sultan continued before that fortress for a period of eleven months; and the writer of these words, in the month of Sha'ban of the same year, set out from Dihli, and turned his face towards the threshold of sovereignty, and attained that felicity. The author, at certain stated periods, was commanded to deliver discourses at the private pavilion. Three times in each week discourses were fixed ; and, when the month of Ramazan came round, a discourse used to be delivered daily. During the whole ten days of Z'i-Hijjah, and ten days of Muharrafti, discourses were delivered daily ; but, during the other months, those same three stated periods were observed weekly, so that ninety^ five times congregations were convened at the entrance of the sublime pavilion8. On both days of the respective festivals, Fitr and Uzha9, in three different places, the
6	After the decease of Kutb-ud-Din, I-'bak, during the convulsion that theii ensued, the Hindus recovered this fortress, which had been surrendered to Kiitb* ud-Din, after Baha-ud-Dln,Tughril, had reduced it to extremity, as mentioned at page 546. Up to this time the Musalmans had no opportunity of recovering it<
7	The name of this Rae is Very plainly written in several copies of the text$ including two of the three oldest and best copies, but the third— the best Sti Petersburg copy—has—^ JC°—Migal [evidently intended for —Mangal] Bhawa Diw—being thus different to all the other copies of the text. The other copies have i^L* and J^*—Milag or Milak, and Migal or Mikal.
There is equal, if not more, discrepancy with respect to the father's name also; but, while the St. Petersburg MS. has Mai Diw plainly written, the other two oldest copies have J—> and J—j which may be Basil Diw. The remaining copies of the text collated have what appeal1 to be J-——JJu [I think this may be meant for Maha-pala h^tHqJ]—Jr» and the like, which are unintelligible.
The Zubdat-ut-TawarTkh has Mangal Diw, son of Birbal of Barbal Diw, Tabakat-i-Akbari J-	Mir'at-i-Jahan-Numa JI^j the TaJkarat-uU
Muluk J- }i^ ell- and Firishtah J?	All these latter works, however,
do not mention the father's name. At page 545, note3, the ruler of Gwaliyur is styled Rae Solank Pal, according to the Taj-ul-Ma'asir.
8	In his notice of Malik Hindu Khan, in Section XXII., our author relates these matters in quite a different manner, contradicting a good deal of what he here mentions.
9	The festival, on breaking1 fast after the Muhammadan fast month, is called
R r 2620
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
prayers, prescribed for the festivals, were said, in which number of places, on the greater festival of Uzha, this servant of the state, who is Minhaj-i-Saraj, was commanded to read the Khutbah for the Uzha festival, and the appointed prayers, at a spot opposite the northern face of the fortress of Gwaliyur1, on which side the town is ; and he was honoured with the presentation of a valuable dress of honour.
The fortress was kept under investment, until Tuesday, the 26th of the month Safar, 630 II., when the stronghold of Gwaliyur was acquired. During the night, the accursed Mangal Diw evacuated the fort and fled ; and about seven hundred Gabrs2 were directed to be brought to public execution before the entrance of the sublime pavilion. After that, Amirs and eminent men were appointed [to different offices]. To the Majd-ul-Umra, Ziya-ud-Din, Junaidi, the Sultan gave the office of Amir-i-Dad, the Sipah-Salar [Commander of Troops], Rashld-ud-Din, 'All, was directed to assume the office of Seneschal, and the Maulana, the writer of this book, Minhaj-i-Saraj, was nominated to the offices of Kazi, Khatib. and Imam, and appointed to preside over all matters of the law, and a rich dress of honour, and an ample present, were conferred upon him3. May the Most High God become the sustainer of the purified soul and fragrant body of that victorious, beneficent, and just sovereign, and patron of the enlightened! On the 2nd of the month, Rabl'-ul-Akhir, of this same year4, the Sultan withdrew from before the fortress of Gwaliyur, and placed the camp at about the distance of a league from the foot of the walls in the direction of Dihli, the capital; and, at that
'Id-i-Fitr ; and the Uzha is on the tenth day of the last month of the Muham-madan year, in commemoration of Ibrahim's offering up his son Isma'II, who, according to their creed, was offered and not Ishak.
1 Compare Elliot, vol. ii. page 327. Our author, as there stated, could scarcely have repeated prayers '' at the fort of Gwalior on the northern side" before the fort was taken. The town is situated to the N. W. of the fortress.
3 The word used is Gabrs, not "personsand does not necessarily refer to ParsTs, but is here applied to infidels or pagans, and, therefore, an essay on " Fire-Worship " in these parts is wholly unnecessary. Some writers say 300 Gabrs, but the printed text has 800.
3	Compare Elliot.
4	In this year, 630 H., I-yal-timish purchased Ghiyas-ud-Din, Balban, who, subsequently, in the year 664 H., succeeded this Sultan's son on the throne of Dihli.THE SHAMSlAH SULTANS OF HIND.
621
halting ground, the imperial naubat* five times daily was assumed.
After he returned to the capital, in the year 6328 H., the
6 The imperial naubat, which has been already explained at page 383, note3, is turned into " a halt of five days" in Elliot, which see.
® In some copies the date is left out altogether, and, in others, the year 631 h. is given, and, in this, several other writers agree, but Alfi has 630 h. Bhilsan, also, is not mentioned at all in some works ; and, moreover, our author has confused matters here. There were not two great idol temples destroyed, and it was the great temple dedicated to Maha-kal at Ujjain which was three hundred years in building, not at Bhilsan—the town and fortress of that name was destroyed. It is amusing to hear a Hindu relate that "the idol was carried off to Dihli, and cast down before the gateway of the jami' masjid [not the present one, which was built by Shah-i-Jahan] for people to kick and trample upon."
It may interest the archseologist to know that the idol is stated, by several writers, to have been buried just beneath the surface " close to the minarah of red sandstone, which is of great height and solidity, one of the many buildings founded by Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, as is mentioned in two inscriptions in the second and third stories," but the numerous titles given to that Sultan are the mere fancy of the artist. Another writer who wrote in JahangJr's time states that '' in old Dihli is the great Masjid, outside of which is a minarah of immmense height, to ascend to the top of which is impossible. Those who have measured it say it is 80 paces round at the base, and its height 130 [?] cubits	A third author, who wrote an account of DihlT from a
personal survey nearly a century since, confirms the above statements generally, and gives some further particulars. He says:—"In the mahall of Rae Pithora are two minarahs, one of red sandstone, which consisted of seven [eight?] stories or divisions, and about 200 yards [cubits] in height, and 15 in thickness [sic in MSS. ]. Two of the stories have fallen from the effects of lightning, and, from the building, thousands of mans of lead have been taken. The erection of this minarah is, among many other buildings, attributed to Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, as inscribed thereon in two or three places, and close to it, on the west side, is the sepulchre of that great man. This minarah is known by the name of the Lath of Kutb Sahib "—neither the minar nor the lath of Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, sovereign of Dihli, the authority for assigning it to whom it would be curious to trace. '' On the north side is an obelisk of brass	about 10 cubits in height and 2 thick, of very great antiquity ;
and upon it is a vast deal of writing, both in the Hindu-i and Persian character. In the Kotilah of Firuz Shah is another minarah of considerable height. It is said to have been constructed of corundum stone [kurand], ground, and mixed with lac," &c. The other work previously quoted says with respect to this second minarah: "Within a structure called the Shikar-gah of Sultan Firuz Shah is a column in height about 30 cubits	and about 3 in
thickness, which is supposed to be of one piece of stone, and that an equal length lies buried among the bricks and rubbish around it. This would make it, in all, a single stone of 60 cubits in total length, which it would have been impossible to have set upright," &c.
The Kutb minarah is supposed by European writers and archaeologists— misled, probably, by some incorrect translation of Persian works—to have been not only named after Sultan Kutb-ud-DIn, I-bak, the first Turk Sultan622
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
Sultan led the hosts of Islam towards Malwah, and took the fortress and town [or city] of Bhilsan, and demolished the idol-temple which took three hundred years in building, and which, in altitude, was about one hundred ells. From thence he advanced to Ujjain-Nagari, and destroyed the idol-temple of Maha-kal Diw. The effigy of Bikramajit who was sovereign of Ujjain-Nagari, and from whose reign to the present time one thousand, three hundred7, and sixteen years have elapsed, and from whose reign they date the Hindu-i era, together with other effigies besides his,
of Dihli, but to have been founded by him also. The word Kutb was quite sufficient proof in their imaginations ; but it is totally incorrect. The minarah is styled the Lath of Kutb Sahib, after a celebrated Muhammadan saint, Khwajah Kutb-ud-Din,Bakh,t-yar, Kaki,theUshi [native of U sh near Baghdad], whom the Afghans claim as their peculiar saint by the title of "the Afghan Kutb or Pole," the reason for which does not appear, but he probably resided for a time in the Afghan country. He came into Hind, and, first, proceeded to Multan during the reign of Sultan Nasir-ud-DIn, Kaba-jah. Subsequently, he went to Dihli. Such was his sanctity and the veneration in which he was held, that Sultan Shams-ud-Dln. I-yal-timish, himself, came forth from the city to receive him and do him reverence, and accompanied him into Dihli. The KJjwajah, however, took up his residence at Gilu-khari on account of the scarcity of water in the city. When Shaikh. Jalal-ud-Dln, the BustamI, who was the Shaikh-ul-Islam. died, I-yal-timish, wished him to take that office, but the Kutb-i-Afghan declined it. He died on the 24th of the month of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 633 h. See the Mir'at-ul-Afaghinah, Makhzan Afghani and Tarikh-i-Murassa' [Pushto] of Afzal Khan, Khatak. Dom, in his translation of Ni'mat-Ullah's work [Part II., pages 2—57], gives 603 h. as the date of his death, but, in a note, says he thinks the number ten has been left out, but it was thirty, not ten. The correct date is 633 h.
It maybe asked, How is it that the name of Kutb-ud-Din, I-bale, is inscribed on the minarah, and certain dates recorded ? to which the very natural reply may be given, that gratitude led I-yal-timish to record, on the monument of his erection, the name of his own master, benefactor, and father-in-law. The first date, 589 H. refers to the occupation of Dihli as the Muhammadan capital, the second, 592 h., to the foundation, probably, of the Kutbi masjid, the third date, 594 h., to its completion, and the fourth, 629 h., evidently refers to the year in which I-yal-timish founded the Minarah of Kutb Sahib.
The insertion of the name of Sulfen Ghiyas-ud-Dln, Muhammad-i-Sam, as the Sultan-us-Salatfn or Lord Paramount at the time of the conquest, is also natural, but it is passing strange—if the copy of the inscription as given by Thomas [Pathan Kings, pages 21-22] is correct—that the name of his brother—Mu'izz-ud-Dln—the conqueror of Rae Pithora, and establisher of the Muhammadan rule at Dihli, should be left out. I cannot but think that the inscription is not correctly given. See also Appendix A., pages iv. and v.
A writer in the Bengal Asiatic Journal, vol. xx., page 353, many years back, endeavoured to correct the great error I have referred to. He says :—■ "The Qotb Minar has not its name from Qotb(aldyn) Aybak as Ritter supposes, but from the Saint—Qotb aldyn Baktyar Kaky who is buried not far from it." See also note page 658.
7 In some copies two hundred.THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
623
which were formed of molten brass, together with the stone [idol] of Maha-kal, were carried away to Dihli, the capital.
In the year 633 H., the Sultan led the forces of Hindustan towards Banian [or Banyan8], and, during that march, weakness subdued his blessed person ; and, when, through bodily affliction, he came back from thence, on Wednesday, the first of the month, Sha'ban, early in the forenoon, the time chosen by the Astrologers, seated in a covered litter9, he entered the capital of his kingdom, the illustrious city of Dihli. After nineteen days, his illness having increased, on Monday, the 20th of Sha'ban in the year 633 H., he was removed from the abode of mortality to the everlasting mansion2. His reign extended to a period of twenty-six years. God enlighten his understanding!
8	This is precisely the same tract that is mentioned at page 541, and which has been turned inco "Mithan" in Elliot, vol. ii. page 303, and is referred to in several places in connexion with coming from Ghaznin, Karman and Nan-danah into Sind and Multan. In all the best copies It is written —Banian —generally, but sometimes jLj—Banban. Further research may tend to throw some light upon its exact situation, but it evidently lies in the hill tracts of the Sind-Sagar Do-abah, or the opposite side of the Sind adjoining that part of the Do-abah in question—the country immediately west of the Salt Range. It will be referred to again farther on. Nizam-ud-Dln, Ahmad, and Buda'iini, and Firishtah—the two latter copy the former—all have Multan, and are totally incorrect in this instance.
9	Turned into "a howda on the back of an elephant" in Elliot, but there is not a word about an elephant in the original or in the printed text either.
Elphinstone [page 323] makes very short work of the events of the last eight years of this reign. After incorrectly stating that Kaba-jah was drowned in 622 H. and "Bakkar" taken, he says "Altamsh" was occupied for upwards of six years in "reducing the part of Hindostan which had remained independent. He began by taking Rintambor. . . . He next took Mandu [see page 611] in Malwa ; Gwalior, which had revolted, was recovered ; Bilsa was likewise taken; and the occupation of the ancient capital Ujen, with the destruction of its celebrated temple, completed the conquest of Malwa." All this is supposed to have taken place between ^623 h., and 630 h., and yet Ujjain-Nagari was not taken till two years after this !
1	There is some discrepancy respecting the date of I-yal-timish,'s death. The oldest copy of the text says the 26th, and, in this, two other copies agree, but some have Saturday, the 20th. Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh. has Monday, the 26th of Sha'ban. Tabakat-i-Akbari, the 20th, Tazkarat-ul-Muluk, the 8th of Sha'ban. and so has the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh. Mir Ma'sum in one MS. says the 23rd, and, in two others, the 26th ; and Fasih-i says the 2lst of Sha'ban, 634 h., and that he was buried in the old jam.? masjid. Firishtah follows the Tabakat-i-Akbari; but neither Buda'iini, the Haft I^lim, Khulasat-ut-Tawarikh, Rauzat-us-Safa, nor Lubb-ut-Tawarikh-i-Hind, give the day of the month, and some merely mention the year 633 h.
2	Our author having given an account of the attack by the Mulahidah624	THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
Titles and names of the Sultan.
heretics on the congregation in the great masjid in the year 634 H. under the reign of Raziyyat, it is strange that he is silent about the attack by the same heretics on Sultan I-yal-timigh, which is related by other writers. I-yal-timish, who was considered a pattern of orthodoxy, and a most pious and God-fearing ruler, was in the habit of going, without any ostentation, to the great masjid on the Musalman sabbath to say his prayers along with the congregation, and to listen to the Imam's discourse. The Mulhids of DihlT, aware of his custom, plotted to take his life; and a body of them armed, whilst the people of the congregation were occupied in their own devotions, flocked into the masjid, drew their swords, and attempted to reach the place where the Sultan was, and martyred several persons in so doing. The Sultan, however, succeeded in getting safely away, although the Mulhids endeavoured to follow him. The people now crowded the roofs and walls and gate-ways of the masjid, and with arrows, bricks, and stones, annihilated the heretics. I-yal-timish is said to have afterwards put a number of this sect to the sword in revenge for this attempt upon his life.
3 In the work I have before referred to the following is said to have been the inscription on one of I-yal-timish's early coins,
Reverse—^If-i j jts- UJ]	uy^iai ^jJI
Obverse—e*^' ^UaL. ^iLJI j II
according to which 612 H. was the first of his reign. The inscriptions may be thus rendered:—Reverse:—"This Dinar [was] struck in the capital [city] Dihli, in the year 612." Obverse:—"The Destroyer of paganism and error, Sultan Shams-ud-Din. in the first [year] of his reign." Buda'uni says his title was Yamin-i-Amir-ul-Muminin, but this is only one of the many titles given him by our author. See note page 597, and note 8, page 614.THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
625
Offspring.
Sultan Raziyyat.
Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah. [Malik] Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad. Malik Ja"lal-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah. Malik Shihab-ud-Din, Muhammad. Sultan Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah of Lakhnawati. Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Firuz Shah. Sultan Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah. Malik [Sultan] Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad Shah. Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah, son of Rukn-ud-Din, Firuz Shah.
Length of his reign:— Twenty-six years.
Kazis of his Court. Kazi Sa'd-ud-Din, Gardaizi. Kazi Jalal-ud-Din, Ghaznawi. Kazi Nasir-ud-Din, Kasili. Kazi Kabir-ud-Din, Kazi of the Army.
Wazlr of the Kingdom. The Nizam-ul-Mulk, Kamal-ud-Din, [Muhammad ?] -i-Abu-Sa'id, Junaidi.
Standards.
On the right, Black:	On the left, Red.
Motto on his august signet. " Greatness appertaineth unto God alone V
Capital of his Kingdom. The city of Dihli.
His Malikss.
Malik Firuz, I-yal-timish, the Salar, Shah-zadah [Prince] of Khwarazm
4 Or "Greatness belongs to God" [is exclusively His attribute]. Kur'an: chap. 45, verse 36.
6 These names are only contained in a few copies of the text, and do not agree in all points. The above are contained in the two oldest copies, and the others agree except where otherwise mentioned-.
6 This is the person mentioned at page 199, but he should be more correctly styled Malik-zadah as he was not a Prince, but merely connected, on the mother's side, with the Ehwarazmi Sultan, Muhammad, father of Jalal-ud-626
THB TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Jani, Shah-zadah [Prince] of Tur-kistan.
Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, son of 'All, son of Abi 'All, Malik of Ghur7.
Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Kabir Khan-i-Avaz8.
Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Husain.
Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Gajz-lak Khan.
Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Daulat Shah-i-Balka, son of Husam-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, Khalj i, Malik of Lakhnawati9.
Malik-ul-Umra, Iftikhar-ud-Din, Amir of Karah.
Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Hamzah-i-'Abd-ul-Malik.
Malik Baha-ud-Din, Bulad [Pulad]-i-Nasiri.
The Malik of Ghur, Nasir-ud-Din, Madini, Shansabani.
Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Mardan Shah, Muhammad-i-Cha-ush [the Pursuivant1].
Malik Nasir-ud-Din of Bindar [or Pindar], the Cha-ush.
Malik Nasir-ud-Din-i-Tughan. Feoffee of Budaun2.
Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Tughril, Kutbi [Baha-i].
Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Bakht-yar, the Khalj3.
Din. After the Ghuris took Nishapur in 596 H. [see page 380], he came into Hindustan with his cousin, Taj-ud-DTn, Binal-Tigin, afterwards ruler of Nimroz of Sijistan. See pages 199—202.
"1 The same who commanded the right wing of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz's, army when that ruler of Ghur lost his life. See page 416. He is called Hasan in some copies of the text in this place. He was not Malik of Ghur but one of the Ghiirlan Maliks. He is mentioned many times in this work.
The best Paris copy and the I. O. L. MS. No. 1952, which generally agree, have, after the above, Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, Salar-i-Harabi Mihdi, which name is again mentioned in the List preceding the reign of Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, farther on.
8	Instead of this name, in the Paris copy, comes Malik 'Izz-ud-Din-i-'Abd-ul-Jalil, brother's son of Malik Ikhtiyar ud-Dm. Amir-i-Koh [Karah ?], while the I. O. L. MS. has Malik Ikh,tiyar-ud-Din, Muhammad, brother's son of the Malik-ul-Umra, Iftikh,ar-ud-Dln, Amfr-i-Koh.
9	In two copies styled I-ran Shah-i-Balka, the Khalj.
1	In one copy, Nasir-ud-DIn, Muhammad, Haris-i-Mardan Shah, and Miran Shah, and, in another, as two different persons. Cha-ush has probably been read by the copyist as Haiis, but, in another, Nasir-ud-Din, Miran Shah. son of Muhammad-i-Cha-ush, Khalj 1.
2	This must be meant for Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Tughril-i-Tughan Khan, who held the fief of Buda'un in 630 H.
3	This is a specimen of the dependence we can place on our author's names and statements. If he refers here to the conqueror of Bihar and Lakhanawati, he was dead five years before I-yal-timish was raised to the throne, in fact, before I-yal-timi§h,'s former master received his manumission. The word Khalj occurs in every copy containing these, names, with the exception of one, whichTHE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.	627
Malik Kara Sunkar-i-Nasiri.
Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Ai-yitim-i-Baha-i4.
Malik Asad-ud-Din, Tez Khan-i-Kutbi.
Malik Husam-ud-Din, Aghtil-Bak, Malik of Awadh5.
Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, 'All, Nagawri, Siwalikhi.
Victories and Conquests.
Buda'un, Banaras and defeat of Rae Man6, fortress of Rantabhur [or Ranthabhur], Jalor, victory over Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz and taking him prisoner, occupation of Lohor, victory over the hostile Amirs in front of the Bagh-i-Jud [the Jud Garden], Tabarhindah, Sursuti, Kuhram, victory over Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah7, subjugation of Lakhanawati and its territory, taking of Kinnauj-i-Sher-garh, Lalehr or Alehr8[?], Tirhut, Gwaliyur, Nan-danah, Gujah [or Kujah], and9 Sial-kot, Janjer[?], and Mundudah or Mudah^?], Ajmir, Bihar, occupation of the fortress of Lakhanawati a second time, fortress of Mandawar,
has Ghurl. If this last name be correct, of course, the conqueror of Lakhanawati is not referred to.
The I. O. L. MS. has Malik Sheran, the Khalj. after this; but he was no more one of I-yal-timish's Maliks than Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar, was.
4 So styled from having been, at first, the slave of Malik Baha-ud-DIn, Tughril, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-D!n, Muhammad-i-Sam's slave.
8 These two last-named personages were Maliks of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din's reign, and were but nominally dependent on Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, whilst he was the Sultan's Deputy in Hind. They are the same as those referred to at page 548, and were the entertainers and patrons of Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar, the Khalj. after he had been refused service at Ghaznin, and also at Dihli.
Of the twenty-five Maliks, most of whom were the slaves of I-yal-timish, separate accounts of whom are given in the next Section, but three can be recognized among the twenty-one here recorded ; but several are mentioned here, as well as in the account of his reign, who are not mentioned in that Section; while some others, mentioned under his reign, are not mentioned here.
6 In one copy for	is ^LjIs—and in anotherjUjli—another JY1
The last three are wholly unintelligible.
? Two of the oldest copies have—"and taking him prisoner," but he was not taken.
8	This is wholly unintelligible. It is written ^JJ and^Jl and ^Jl Probably or —Kathehr or Kather—is meant.
9	This place or tract is constantly mentioned in connexion with Nandanah, and lies in that direction, without the shadow of doubt. In two copies of the text, however—one the best Paris copy—it is cj^^r and ol^Trespectively. It cannot be intended for	Koh-i-Jud, for it is clearly written several times in the text. In one place—in one of the oldest copies—it is written to-^Tbut in several places it is 4»j$"as above.
1 ijty and and628
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
fort of Bhakar, Uchchah and Multan, Siwastan, Dibal, fort of Thanktr, fort of Bhilsan, Malwah and the expedition against the unbelievers and extortion of tribute, fort of Ujjain-Nagari and bringing away of the idol of Maha-kal, which they have planted before the gateway of the y<xmi Masjid at the capital city of Dihli in order that all true believers might tread upon it2.
II. MALIK-US-SA'ID, NASIR-UD-DIN, MAHMOD SHAH, SON OF SULTAN SHAMS-UD-DIN, I-YAL-TIMISIJ.
Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, was the eldest son of Sultan Shams-ud-Din ; and he was a beneficent, intelligent, sensible, and sagacious Prince3, and was endowed with great energy and gallantry, and was munificent, and benevolent.
The first fief which the Sultan conferred upon him was the district of Hans!4; and, after a considerable time, in the year 623 H., the territory of Awadh was entrusted to his charge. In that country that Prince performed numerous commendable actions, and carried on holy war, as by the tenets of the faith enjoined, so that his praise for manliness and boldness became diffused throughout the area of Hindustan.
The accursed Bartu [or Britu], beneath whose sword above a hundred and twenty thousand Musalmans had
2	One copy of the text, not one of the oldest three, but a good copy, has Jaj-nagar here entered as one of the victories or conquests !
The greater number of the above so-called victories and conquests are not even mentioned in the reign of I-yal-timish, and several of those that are were effected by his Maliks ; but neither these nor the remainder are all mentioned in the account given of their lives. What our author often calls a victory may be judged of from the mention of Kuhram, Buda'un [which I-yal-timish held the fief of], Kinnauj, and several other places, which were taken in Sultan Mu izz-ud-Din's reign either by himself, or Malik Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak.
3	Our author styles him "Badshah," which signifies a prince, as well as a king. If he had any claims to be accounted a "sovereign," beyond the assignment to him of a canopy of state by his father, he should have been included among the kings of Lakhanawati, or styled sovereign of Awadh; for he never reigned at the capital, Dihli. His "reigning" over Lakhanawati may be judged of from note 5, page 617. He never coined money in his own name.
4	The Taj-ul-Ma'asir says Lahor was his first fief. See also note 4,
page 532.THE gHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.	629
attained martyrdom5, he overthrew and sent to Hell; and the refractory infidels, who were in different parts of the country of Awadh, he reduced and overcame, and brought a considerable number under obedience.
From Awadh he resolved to march into Lakhanawati, and the forces of Hindustan6, by command of the Sultan, his father, were nominated to serve under him, and Maliks of renown, such as Pulan7, and Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Jani, all of them proceeded towards Lakhanawati in attendance on him. Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, the Khalj. had marched forces from Lakhanawati with the intention of [entering] the territory of Bang, and had left his head-quarters empty [of defenders]. When the august Malik, Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, reached that territory with his forces, the fortress of Basan-kot and the city of Lakhanawati fell into his hands.
When the news reached Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din. 'Iwaz, the Khalj. he set out for Lakhanawati from the place where he then was. Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, with his forces, proceeded against him and defeated him, and captured Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, with all his kinsmen and the Khalj Amirs, his treasures, and elephants8. He had Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, 'Iwaz, put to death, and appropriated his treasures. From Lakhanawati Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, sent sums of money in the shape of presents to all the 'Ulama, the Sayyids, devotees, recluses, and pious men of the capital, Dihli, and other cities and towns. When the dresses of distinction from Baghdad, the capital of the Khilafat, reached the presence
6 Who this Hindu chief was we have no means of discovering, I fear, as other subsequent writers do not notice these events at all.' He is styled in some of the best copies as above, which is probably meant for Prithu—tl^T— but, in others, the word is written ij>j>.—which may be Bartuh, Birtuh, or Bartuah, &c., but v is often written for i_> by copyists.
6	By the " forces of Hindustan" are meant the contingents of the feudatories east of the Jun and Gang. The word Hindustan is used by our author with reference to the Antarbed Do-abah generally, but, sometimes, to the tracts east of the Gang as well.
7	In some copies of the text ^ty. JHy and ^Yjl The best copies are as above, but no such person is mentioned anywhere in the whole work, and I think it may be the nick-name of some chief, who might be recognized under his right name, unless it refers to the tenth in the List, page 626.
8	These events, and those which followed, have been detailed at length in note 5, page 6x7.630
THE TABA?AT-I-NASIRI.
of Sultan Shams-ud-Din, from among them he selected one dress of great value and despatched it to Lakhanawati along with a red canopy of state ; and Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, became exalted by [the bestowal of] that canopy of state, the dress of honour, and great distinction.
All the Maliks and grandees of the kingdom of Hind had their eyes upon him, that he would be the heir to the Shamsi dominions, but the decree of destiny, according to [the saying]—" Man proposes, but God disposes " 9—harmonizes not with human conceptions ! A year and a half afterwards, his sacred person became afflicted with disease and weakness, and he died \ When the news of his decease reached the capital [city of] Dihli, all the people manifested great grief thereat. May Almighty God make the Sultan of Islam, Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, as he is the heir to his name and title, the heir, during his lifetime, of the whole of the Maliks and Sultans of that dynasty, for the sake of His prophet and the whole of his posterity!
III. SULTAN RUKN-UD-DIN, FIRUZ SHAH2, SON OF THE SULTAN [I-YAL-TIMISH].
Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Firuz Shah, was a beneficent sovereign, of handsome exterior, was endowed with gentleness and humanity to perfection, and in bountifulness and liberality he was a second Hatim.
His mother, Shah Turkan3, was a Turkish hand-maid, and the head [woman] of all the Sultan's haram, and
9 "L'homme propose, mais Dieu dispose."
1	He died in 626 H. Our author, subsequently, refers to him as the " martyred " Malik, [j-^-i dll-o an error, probably, for elL.—august Malik], at least such are the words in the various copies of the text, but why he does not say, neither does he state how or where he died. Subsequent writers who depended upon our author for information dismiss this Prince in a few words ; but Firishtah states that he died in or at Lakhanawati, but this, like a good many more of his statements, requires confirmation.
2	In the work I have previously referred to, the following is given as the inscription on the first coins of this monarch :—
Reverse—^.oJI j^i ^	^^ ^oi^ \>
Obverse—irr j^lk* i^yL	u-jW-
which may be thus rendered:—Reverse:—"The throne when left by Shams-ud-Din, his foot thereon placed Rukn-ud-Din." Obverse:—" Coined at Dihli in the first year of his reign with prosperity associated, 633 H."
3	In some copies styled " Khudawandah-i-Jahan, Shah Turkan."THE gHAMSlAH SULTANS OF HIND.	631
great was the bounty, benevolence, and charity, of that Malikah4, towards 'Ulama, Sayyids, priests, and recluses.
In the year 625 H.6, Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Firuz Shah, obtained the fief of Buda'un, and a green canopy of state, and the 'Ain-ul-Mulk, Husain-i-Ash'arf, who was [had been ?] Wazir of Malik [Sultan] Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, at this time, became the Wazlr6 of Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Firuz Shah.
When Sultan Shams-ud-Din returned to the capital, Dihli, from Gwaliyur, after the capture of that fortress and country, the territory of Lohor, which had been the seat of government of the Khusrau Maliki7 [dynasty], was conferred upon Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Firuz Shah; and, on Sultan Shams-ud-Din's return from his last expedition, from the river Sind and Banians, he brought along with him, to the capital, his son Rukn-ud-Din, Firuz Shah, for the people had their eyes upon him, since, after [the late] Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, he was the eldest of Sultan Shams-ud-Din's sons9.
When that august Sultan passed from the kingdom of this world to the throne of the world to come, the Maliks and grandees of the kingdom, by agreement, seated Rukn-
4 At page 638, our author himself states that the mother of Raziyyat was the chief of all the ladies—head wife—of the late Sultan's haram.
The word here used signifies that she was the first concubine the late Sultan possessed, not the chief wife of His haram, nor is she entitled to be styled Malikah, for the married women are the first in rank, and, of these, one was Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak's, daughter.
4 Tabakat-i-Akbari, and several others, have, like our author, who was their chief authority for these events, 625 H., but Firishtah has 626 H. His authority, however, is of no importance whatever for the events of this early period—even less than I was inclined to give him credit for—for I find, on examination of his history for this and the five following reigns, that he has bodily appropriated the text, in many places verbatim, of the Tabakat-i-Akbari, even to the poetical quotations. The only difference is occasional verbal alterations, and that, in most instances in which the former disposes of an event in a few words, Firightah, by exaggeration and hyperbole, manages to lengthen out his own account.
6	Or, in other words, his governor or tutor. Our author, however, does not mean to say that he was styled Sultan at this period. See page 613.
7	The last of the Ghaznin dynasty—Sultan Khusrau Malik.
8	The Tabakat-i-Akbari [and Firishtah, of course] has Siwastan, which is a mistake for Banian, which is never mentioned in the former.
9	The people may have had their eyes upon him, but I-yal-timisi had already named his talented daughter, Raziyyat Khatun, as his successor. See pages 638, 639.632
THE TABAKAT-I.NASIRL
ud-Din upon the throne, on Tuesday, the 21st of the month Sha'ban. 633 H.1, and the diadem and throne acquired beauty and splendour from his dignity2, and excellence, and elegance; and all rejoiced at his accession, and donned honorary dresses [to testify their joy].
When the different Maliks returned3 from the capital [to their various posts], Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Firuz Shah, opened the door of his treasuries, and gave himself up to pleasure, and began to expend, in the most profuse fashion, the funds of the Bait-ul-Mal4 in an improper manner. Such was his excessive appetite for pleasure and sensual enjoyments, that the business of the country, the concerns of the state; and the regulation of the affairs of the kingdom fell into a state of disorder and confusion ; and his mother, Shah Turkan, began to assume the decision and disposal of state affairs, and used to issue [her] commands. Perhaps it was by reason of this, that, during the lifetime of the august Sultan, Shams-ud-Din, she had experienced envy and jealousy on the part of [some of the] other ladies of the haram \ that she [now] brought misfortune upon that party among the inmates of the haram, and, by tyranny and cruelty, destroyed several of them. The minds of men in authority became troubled at their [the mother's
1 Two copies of the text, one an old one, have Tuesday, the 29th of Sha'ban. Tabakat-i-Akbari has Saturday, 633 h., without date or month, and, of course, Firishtah has the same.
3 Their joy was soon turned into grief. His dignified behaviour, and the "adornment and splendour" the crown and throne derived from him is related farther on.
3	When they "returned home" Elliot: vol. ii. page 330. The original is Jj^j^j	there is not a word of home—a word unknown in the East.
4	See note 5, page 62.
6 She, on the contrary, envied and was jealous of the others through their having taken her place. No sooner did she obtain an opportunity than she had the noble women—free-born women—who had been married to the late Sultan, put to death with much degradation, and the other Turkish concubines ■—women held in esteem by I-yal-timish—she treated with great ignominy, and wreaked upon them retribution for many years of envy and jealousy which she had nourished towards them. Our author's own words respecting her, farther on, contradict this statement as to her benevolence, unless charity towards recluses and the like —in his opinion—covered the multitude of her sins.
There is no authority whatever beyond what our author says here for styling this concubine "Queen Mother," and, at page 638, he himself says, Raziyyat's mother was the chitf wife of I-yal-timish. See Thomas : Pathan Kings, page 105, and Elliot: India, vol. ii. page 330.THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
633
and son's] conduct; and, in the face of all these acts, they caused a son of the [late] Sultan, who was styled Kutb-ud-Din 6, and a youth of great worth and promise, by their directions, to be deprived of the sight of both eyes, and afterwards had him put to death. From these causes, the hostility of the Maliks, in different parts, began to be manifested.
Malik Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad Shah7, son of Sultan Shams-ud-Din, who was younger in years than Rukn-ud-Din, Firuz Shah, displayed his hostility in Awadh, and took possession of the whole of the treasure of Lakhana-wati which was being conveyed to the capital, and, after that, sacked and plundered several of the towns of Hindustan. Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, Salari, who was the feudatory of Buda'un, broke out into rebellion ; and, in another direction, Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Kabir Khan-i-Ayaz8. feoffee of Multan, Malik Saif-ud-Din, Kuji, who was feu-
8 The youngest of Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish's sons, quite a child, by another concubine. Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-Uchchah, was feudatory of Uchchah when Sultan I-yal-timish died, and, soon after, whilst Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Firuz Shah, and his Maliks were squabbling together, Malik Saif-ud-DTn, Hasan, the Karlugh, from the direction of Banian, advanced into the Panjab, and appeared before Multan. Saif-ud-Din, I-bak, marched out of Uchchah with his forces, and gave him battle, and overthrew him. This was a great success, as, since the death of I-yal-timish, enemies had sprung up on all sides. Our author does not give the date of this success ; but it must have been about the end of 633 H., or early in 634 H. In the former year Malik Hasan, the Karlugh, coined money : he then held Ghaznin, Karman, and Banian.
7	What became of him is not known. He was probably put to death. Malik Nusrat-ud-Din, Ta-yasa'i, was put in charge of the fief of Awadh by Sultan Raziyyat.
At this period likewise, the feudatories of Lakhanawati and Lakhan-or were contending together," and the latter was defeated and slain by the former, and his fief seized. See next Section.
8	In the account of him, in next Section, our author says he was removed from Multan by Sultan Rukn-ud-DIn, Firuz Shah, and the fief of Sunam was conferred upon him instead of Multan.
Firishtah,accordingtothe "revised text" byBriggs, and "MunshiMirKheirat Ali Khan," makes a terrible mess of the names of persons here [Dow, of course, is sufficiently ridiculous in this matter, and makes them totally uniiitelligible], although he had the Tabakat-i-AkbarT, in which they are pretty correct, to copy from. He could not have taken them from our author's work. For example; Salari is turned into Salar, 'Ala-ud-Din, Jam, is turned into Sher Khani, and Kabir KMn into Kabir Khan!—with ^—the ya-i-nisbat, signifying "of, or relating to a Khan," Khan-ship, &c., as if they were merely officers or slaves of a Sher Khan and a Kabir Khan, instead of the words being their own titles ; and, in the same work, the word jc as in 'Izz-ud-Din, is invariably turned intoje1, ! !
S S634
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
datory of Hans!, and Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Jani, who held the fief of Lohor, united together, and began to act with hostility and contumacy9. Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Firuz Shah, with the determination of coercing them, moved an army from the capital. The Wazir of the kingdom, the Nizam-ul-Mulk, Muhammad, Junaidibecame frightened, and fled from Gilu-khari2, and retired towards Kol, and from thence joined Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, Salari; and both of them joined Malik Jani and Malik Kuji.
Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Firuz Shah, led his army towards Kuhram. The Turk Amirs and the slaves of the household, who were serving with the centre [the contingents forming the centre] 3, followed the example; and, in the
9 Another writer says, that 'Izz-ud-DTn, Kabir Khan-i-Ayaz, feudatory of Multan, was incited to usurp the sovereignty of Dihli, and was advancing for the purpose, but, before he could reach Kuhram, the other nobles seized Rukn-ud-Din, and set up his sister. Malik Ikh,tiyar-ud-Din, Yuz-Bak-i-Tughril Khan, who then held the office of Amir-i-Majlis, was also concerned in this outbreak, but the ringleader appears to have been Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlu Khan, whose contumacy was continual. -
1	Styled Kamal-ud-Din, [Muhammad]-i-Abu-Sa'Id, Junaidi, in the list at the end of Sultan Shams-ud-Din's reign, page 625.	'
2	Firishtah's text makes him "advance" to Gilu-khari, as if it were a place many miles away, instead of being a suburb of the capital, Dihli.
One of the many new "cities," so called, adjoining and included in the name of Dihli, but more correctly a new suburb. It has been generally stated by Muhaminadan writers, that it was founded by Sultan Mu'izz-ud-DIn Kai-Kubad, in 686 H., but that cannot be correct from what our author says in his account of Ulugh Khan farther on, where he styles it " the Shahr-i-Nau of Gilii-khan." When it was founded " the river Jun or Jaman flowed close under its walls ; but now the river is some two kuroh to the east of it. The tomb of the venerated Musalman saint, Shah Nizam-ud-Dln, the Buda'unI, is situated in Gilu-khari."
3	Compare Elliot : vol. ii. page 331. We have so little information respecting the organization of the Dihli armies before the time of the Mughal emperors that it is difficult to understand what is really meant here, as well as in several other places, by the mere word " kalb." All the Musalman armies appear to have been arranged in the field, after one and the same fashion—a centre, which was the king's post, a right and left wing, an advance guard or van, supports, &c. The 'Arabic word kalb signifies "heart, soul, kernel, marrow, middle," &c., and, with respect to an army, the "centre," which, according to the arrangement above-mentioned, would be perfectly intelligible with regard to an army in the field, but here might be understood, by the reader, as if the centre division of a corps d'armee, under a regular military organization, was stationed at Dihli, which is not the case ; but, from what I gather from the Tarikh-i-Firuz Shahi, and other works, it evidently refers to the contingents which formed the kalb or centre of the Dihli forces when in the field. These contingents were furnished by numerous feudatories,THE SHAMSlAH SULTANS OF HIND.
635
vicinity of Mansur-pur and Tara'in4, they martyred the Taj-ul-Mulk, Mahmud, the Dabir [Secretary]s, the son of the Mushrif-i-Mamalik6, and Baha-ud-Din, Hasan [Husain ?]-i-Ash'ari, Karim-ud-Din-i-Zahid [the Recluse], Ziya-ul-Mulk [ud-Din ?], the son of the Nizam-ul-Mulk, Muhammad, Junaidi, Nizam-ud-Din, Shafurkani7, the Khwajah Rashid-ud-Din, Maikani8, Amir Fakhr-ud-D!n. the Dabir [Secretary], and a number of other Tajzik officials9; and, in the month of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, in the year 634 H., Sultan Raziyyat, who was the eldest daughter1 of Sultan Shams-ud-Din, entered upon open hostility with the mother of Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Firuz Shah, at Dihli, and he, as a matter of necessity, returned again towards the capital. His mother had conspired against Sultan Raziyyat to put
great and small, whose fiefs lay in the immediate vicinity of the capital, and whose contingents could be summoned to the king's standard at a very short notice. The Turk ghulams also formed part of the kalb, and they served wherever the Sultan happened to be.
4	Tara'in, the place of Rae Pithora's overthrow, so often mentioned, the modem Talawari. There would be some difficulty in finding "Narain" I expect.
5	This is the person who wrote a congratulatory poem on the debauchee's accession.
6	A number of titles and names of offices occur in the following pages, many of which, being pure old Turkish, it is impossible to fix exactly without a knowledge of the Turkish language ; and, although, as far as similar names go, some few of the offices in question existed in Akbar's time, still there is much doubt whether such offices under the Mughal dynasty were equivalent to those of a similar designation during the reigns of the Turkish Slave dynasty, and would require some years of study fully to elucidate. See the note on this subject under the eighth year of Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah's reign farther on.
1 Shafurkani or Shaburghani—a native of Shafiirkan or Shaburghan. In some copies, SharVanI and Sarkanl. See note 1, page 127.
8 In the best copies of the text this word is written as above, but in some others it is Maikani, Balkan!, and Mankani or Manganl.
tt The Tabakat-i-Akbari makes a terrible blunder here, and Firishtah, as a matter of course, follows, as well as Buda'uni. The former work states that all these persons, who were put to death, "separated from the Sultan's army, went o(T to Dihli, and pledged their allegiance to Ra?iyyat Khatun, eldest daughter of the late Sultan, and raised her to the throne " ! ! Several other authors who copy from the former work all fall into the same error without mentioning the names. Compare Elliot, vol. ii. page 331, where this very plain and easy passage, which is perfectly correct in the printed text, is construed so as to make all these Tajik officials, who were killed, the killers of "the Tazik," and Firishtah [Briggs?] is quoted to prove that they deserted Rukn-ud-Din, Firuz Shah.
1 I-yal-timish had, himself, declared her his heir and successor, as stated farther on. She was not his only daughter it is said.
S S 2636
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
her to death. The people of the city, upon this, rose, and attacked the royal Kasr [Castle], and seized the mother of Rukn-ud-Din, Firuz Shah.
When Rukn-ud-Din, Firuz Shah, reached the city2, insurrection had [already] broken out therein, and his mother had been made prisoner. The centre contingents [of the Dihli forces] and the Turk Amirs all entered Dihli and joined Sultan Raziyyat, pledged their allegiance to her, and placed her on the throne. Having ascended the throne, she despatched a force consisting of the Turkish slaves and Amirs to Gilu-khari, so that they made prisoner of Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Firuz Shah, and brought him into the city3. He was imprisoned and confined, and, in that prison, he was received into the Almighty's mercy. This circumstance of his seizure, imprisonment, and death4 occurred on Sunday, the 18th of the month Rabi'-ul-Awwal, in the year 634 H.; and his reign was six months and twenty-six days5.
Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Firuz Shah, in munificence and liberality, was a second Hatim, and what he did, in expending wealth, in conferring so many honorary dresses, and the superfluity of presents, no king, at any time, or in any reign, had done the like of; but his misfortune was this, that his inclinations were wholly towards buffoonery, sensuality, and diversion, and that he was entirely enslaved by dissipation and debauchery; and most of his honorary dresses and his presents were made to such people as musicians and singers, buffoons and Ganymedes6. His excessive waste of money was to such degree, that, while
2 Two modern copies of the text have Gilu-khari.
s Whilst all this was going on at Dihli, the feudatories of Lakhanawati and Lakhan-or were having a private war of their own. See account of Malik No. VII., in the next Section.
4	If all this happened in one day, it is very certain that he must have been put to death. Some copies have instead of J..5
5	Some copies have " twenty-eight days:" from the 20th of-Sha'ban, 633 H.,
the date of I-yal-timish's decease, to the 18th of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 634 H., is
exactly six months and twenty-seven days.
8 This is the person from whose dignity and elegance "the crown and throne acquired adornment and splendour" ! One author states, that, during the short time he reigned, he and his mother managed to empty the treasury, and to spend all the wealth accumulated during the reign of Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and Shams-ud-Dln, I-yal-timigh.THE SHAMS I AH SULTANS OF HIND.
637
in a state of intoxication, seated on the back of an elephant, he would drive through the bazar of the city, scattering tangahs of red gold which the people in the street used to pick up; and gain advantage by. He had a passion for frolic, and for riding elephants7, and the whole class of elephant drivers derived immense benefit from his riches and good-nature. It was not in his nature and disposition to injure a human being, and this fact was the cause of the wane of his dominion.
It is essential above all things, that sovereigns should have justice in order that their subjects should dwell in tranquillity and repose, and that they possess beneficence so that their followers may be satisfied and contented ; and revelry and merriment, and companionship with the base and ignoble, becomes the means of an empire's ruin. The Almighty pardon him!
IV. SULTAN 8 RAZIYYAT.UD-DUNYA WA UD-DIN, DAUGHTER OF SULTAN I-YAL-TIMISH.
Sultan Raziyyat—may she rest in peace!—was a great sovereign, and sagacious, just, beneficent, the patron of the learned, a dispenser of justice, the cherisher of her subjects, and of warlike talent9, and was endowed with all the admirable attributes and qualifications necessary for kings ;
7	Elliot: vol. ii. page 332—"He was very fond of playing with and riding upon elephants." Rather rough play.
8	Raziyyat has a meaning, but " Raziya" and " Riziah " mean nothing. Sultan, from U-, signifies to have or possess power, to nde, &c.—a sovereign —and is therefore as equally applicable to a female as a male, and does not appear tcrtj^e had anything to do with "affectation of the superior sex," nor her ^^^kption, subsequently, of male attire when she rode forth. Her name or^^Klike that of most other Muhammadans in these pages, is pure 'Arabic,feminine form of the by no means uncommon name of Razi-ud-DIn. We Thomas: Pathan Kings, page 108.
The fallowing is said to have been the inscription on the first coins of this queen regnant, in which she is styled ' Umdat-un-Niswan—the great, or illustrious among women :—
Obverse—1	^kl-j ^Lj '^lj—Jl ij^c
Reverse—(j1*-3 '*<&> which may be translated:—Reverse:—"The illustrious among women, the Queen of the Age, Sultan Raziyyat, daughter of Shams-ud-Din. I-yal-timisli." Obverse:—"Coined at the city of Dihll, 643 H., the first of the reign."
9	Compare Elliot : vol. ii. page 332.638
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
but, as she did not attain the destiny, in her creation, of being computed among men, of what advantage were all these excellent qualifications unto her ?
During the lifetime of the august Sultan, her father, she exercised authority, and possessed great grandeur, on this account, that her mother, Turkan Khatun, was the greatest [of the ladies] of the sublime haramand her place of residence was the royal palace, the Kushk-i-Ftruzi [Firuzx Castle]2. As the august Sultan Shams-ud-Din used to notice in her indications of sovereignty and high spirit, although she was a daughter, and [consequently] veiled from public gaze, when he returned after acquiring possession of Gwaliyur, he commanded the Taj-ul-Mulk, Mahmud, the secretary—on whom be peace !—who was the Mushrif-i-Mamalik3 [Secretary of the State], to write out a decree, naming his daughter as his heir-apparent, and she was made his heir [accordingly] .
Whilst this decree was being written out, those servants of the state, who had access to.the presence of the Sultan, made representation, saying : " Inasmuch as he has grownup sons who are eligible for the sovereignty, what scheme and what object has the Sultan of Islam in view in making a daughter sovereign and heir-apparent ? Be pleased to
1	This proves what our author meant by the word with respect to Rukn-ud-Din, Firuz Shah's mother, namely, that, in point of time or age, she was the oldest of I-yal-timish's concubines. Raziyyat Khatun was his eldest child and, in all probability, her mother was Kutb-ud-Dln, I-bak's daughter.
Our author is about the only authority available for the events of this period —all other works, since written, merely copy from him and add from their own fertile imaginations—a.nd there is no authority for stating [Thomas : Pathan Kings, page 104] that Raziyyat was "brought up under a greater degree of freedom from the seclusion enjoined for females by the more severe custom of ordering Muslim households," for our author here st^A she was '' veiled from public gaze;" and it was only just before the en^^Rher reign that she assumed the dress of a male, which, really, is not very^^Rent from that of a female—the addition of a head dress and tunic —as our au^v states. Dow, as usual, misinterpreting Firishtah, who copies from the jBbakat-i-Akbari, which copies our author, incorrectly states that 11 on her accession, changing her apparel, she assumed the imperial robes." The '' imperial robes " equally with the rest are all his own.
2	In Elliot, it is made "the chief royal palace in the Kushk-firozi!"
3	Tzyul-Mulk signifies the crown of the state: " Tk)\i-\-Malik" nothing. The word —vmsjirif-—signifies an examiner or authenticator of records and other writings, but not a wazir certainly. —dabir—a secretary, a clerk, a scribe. j\ J-—mudabbir— an administrator, director, counsellor, &c. Com-pare Elliot : vol. ii. page 333.THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
639
remove this difficulty from our minds, as this deed does not seem advisable to your humble servants." The Sultan replied : " My sons are engrossed in the pleasures of youth, and none of them possesses the capability of managing the affairs of the country, and by them the government of the kingdom will not be carried out. After my death it will be seen that not one of them will be found to be more worthy of the heir-apparentship4 than she, my daughter." The case turned out as that august monarch had predicted?
When Sultan Raziyyat ascended the throne of the kingdom, all things returned to their usual rules and customs; but the Wazir of the kingdom, the Nizam-ul-Mulk, Muhammad, Junaidi5, did not acknowledge her; and Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Jam, Malik Saif-ud-Din, Kuji, Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Kabtr Khan-i-Ayaz. Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, Salart, and the Nizam-ul-Mulk, Muhammad, Junaidi6, assembled from different parts before the gate of the city of Dihli, and commenced hostilities against Sultan Raziyyat, and this opposition continued for a considerable time. At this period Malik Nusrat-ud-Din, Ta-yasa'i7, the Mu'izzi, who was feoffee of Awadh, marched with his forces from that province, for the purpose of rendering aid to Sultan Raziyyat, in conformity with [her] commands, towards Dihli, the capital8. After he had crossed the river Gang,
4 The Tagkarat-ul-Muluk says "one reason why I-yal-timislj named her as his successor was, that his son, Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah—the second son of that name—was so young in years; and the Sultan remarked to his minister, at the time, that, although in the form, of a woman, she was in
reality a man."
6 He is styled, by some more modern writers, Chandm, as if he were a native of Chandiri or that that was a by-name of his, but it is incorrect. He had been I-yal-timish's wazir for a considerable time.
6	These are the same who, as stated in Elliot, killed the Tazi'k."
7	He had been made feudatory of Awadh by Raziyyat after Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad Shah's rebellion. See page 633.
8	Previous to these events, the feudatory of Kinnauj, Malik Tamur Khan-i-Kiran, was despatched by Sultan Raziyyat into the Gwaliyur territory and Malwah in command of a force, and the expedition was successful, but no particulars are given. The same Malik, when feudatory of Awadh, penetrated as far as the Tirhut territory, and compelled the Raes and Ranahs, and independent Hindu tribes in that part to pay tribute. He plundered the territory of Bhatl-ghun [anglicised Bhatgong] in Nipal on several occasions, but neither particulars nor dates are given, but they all happened before this period.640
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRT.
the hostile Maliks9 who were before the city of Dihli unexpectedly advanced to meet him, and took him prisoner, and affliction overcame him, and he died \ The stay of the hostile Maliks before the gate of Dihli was prolonged for a considerable time; but, as the good fortune of Sultan Raziyyat was at the point of ascendancy, the Sultan issued from the city, and directed her sublime tent to be pitched at a place on the bank of the river Jun ; and, between the Turk Amirs who served at the stirrup of sovereignty, and the hostile Maliks, conflicts took- place upon several occasions. At last, an accommodation was arranged, but in a deceptive manner, and by the subtile contrivance of Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, Salari2, and Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Kabir Khan-i-Ayaz. who, secretly, went over to the Sultan's side, and, one night, met before the entrance to the royal tent, with this stipulation, that Malik Jani, Malik Saif-ud-Din, Kuji, and the Nizam-ul-Mulk, Muhammad, Junaidi, should be summoned, and be taken into custody and imprisoned, in order that the sedition might be quelled.
When these Maliks became aware that the state of affairs was on this wise, they left their camp and fled. The Sultan's horsemen followed in pursuit, and Malik Saif-ud-Din, Kuji, and his brother, Fakhr-ud-Din, fell into their hands, and, subsequently to that, they were put to death in prison. Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Jani, was killed within the limits of Payal3, at a village named Nakawan4, and his
9 There is nothing about " hostile generals " in the whole passage.
1 He appears to have been suffering from illness when Sultan Raziyyat summoned him to her aid.
Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kaghlu Khan, who was so ambitious, and, afterwards, gave so much trouble, was taken prisoner by the hostile Maliks upon this occasion, but was subsequently released by them. He was treated with great honour by Sultan Raziyyat, Compare Elliot here also.
s The Tabakat-i-Akbari, which copies so much from our author, asserts, however, that it was Sultan Raziyyat, who, by her able contrivance, succeeded in upsetting and confounding the disaffected Amirs. Firishtah, of course, agrees.
3	Elliot, Babul; Briggs, from Firishtah, Babool, Firishtah, text, Babal —JA—and Dow, omitted altogether. Payal, or Payil, is the name of a very old place, giving name to the district, with a very lofty brick fort visible from a great distance—I mention it as it appeared about a century since—on one of the routes from Dihli to Ludianah. The Tabakat-i-Akbari gives the name of the district correctly, but leaves out the name of the place. It is in Long, 76° 5', Lat. 30° 40'.
4	In some copies Nakawan or Nagawan [^j'jKj], but the majority of the bestTHE gHAMSlAH SULTANS OF HIND.
641
head was brought to the capital; and the Nizam-ul-Mulk, Muhammad, J unaidi, retired to the hills of Sir-mur Bardar5, and there, after some time, he died.
Now that the affairs of Sultan Raziyyat's government became arranged, she gave the office of Wazir to the Khwajah. Muhazzab6, who was the deputy of the Nizam-ul-Mulk, and he likewise received the title , of Nizam-ul-Mulk. The charge of the army, as her lieutenant, was conferred upon Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-Bihak7, who received the title of Kutlugh Khan ; and Malik 'Izz-ud-Dtn, Kabir Khan-i-Ayaz. received the fief of Lohor, and the kingdom became pacified, and the power of the state widely extended. From the territory of Lakhanawati to Dlwal and Damrilah, all the Maliks and Amirs manifested their obedience and submission8. Suddenly, Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-Bihak, died, and the charge of the army was
copies of the text are as above. The I. O. L. MS. No. 1952 and that of the R. A. S. MS. have both ^jC
6 See farther on, under the reign of Nasir-ud-DTn, respecting this tract of country.
6	He is turned into Muhazzab, Ghaznawi, by Firishtah, and by his translators, Dow and Briggs, respectively, " Chaja Ghiznavi" and " Mihdy Ghiznivy."
Muhaggab, but not Mahzab—which is meaningless—certainly does mean "good, sincere," &c., but in Elliot, vol. ii. page 334, this passage is rendered '' she conferred the office of wazir on an upright officer who had been the deputy of Nizamu-l-Mulk, and he likewise received the title of Nizamu-1-Mulk;" but Khwajah does not mean officer, and Muhazzab—i. e. Muhazzab-ud-DIn—is a proper name. Why not translate k always, and also translate Nizam-ul-Mulk, which means regulator of the state, &c., and all other proper names in the book after the same fashion ? They all have meanings, the same as Muhazzab has. The amusing part of it is that four pages farther on, page 338, he is styled "the wazir Mahzabu-d din Muhammad 'Auz Mustaufi, and so on until that "upright officer," than whom no greater rascal is mentioned in this work, met his reward in the "plain Hauz-ram." See pages 651—653, 658, and 662, for the doings of that " upright officer."
7	This word is written j{.> and and is doubtful.
8	The Tabakat-i-Akbari here copies our author nearly word for word, and Firishtah copies the former in the same way. The Tazkarat-ul-Muluk says, " through God's assistance she reduced the disaffected Maliks to submission and even the Malik of Lakhanawati became obedient to her authority."
Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Tughril-i-Tughan Khan, on her accession, despatched emissaries to the capital, and, to testify his homage, was continually sending offerings of great value from Lakhanawati. On this account Sultan Raziyyat conferred upon him a canopy of state, and standards, and great honour. At this period Malik Mu-ayyid-ud-DIn, Hindu Khan, held the fief of Uchchah, which was conferred upon him by Sultan Rajiyyat.642
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
bestowed upon Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, son of 'All, Ghuri9, and he was appointed to [march and relieve] the fortress of Rantabhur, because the Hindus, after the decease of the august Sultan, Shams-ud-D!n, I-yal-timish, had, for a considerable time, invested that preserved town and stronghold \ Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, conducted the forces to that part, withdrew the Musalman Amirs [and their troops?] out of that fortification, destroyed the works, and retired, and returned to the capital again.
At this time, the Malik-i-Kabir [Great Malik] Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Aet-kin2, became Amir-i-Hajib, and Malik Jamal-ud-Din, Ya-kut, the Habashi [Abyssinian or Ethiopian], who was Lord of the Stables, acquired favour3 in attendance upon the Sultan, so that the Turk Amirs and
9 This great noble, whose name will be found in the list at the end of I-yal-timish's reign, is styled Husain as well as Hasan in several copies indiscriminately, but the first appears correct. Much more about him will be found in the last Section. He was forced to leave Ghur through the power of the Mu glials.
1	After he had raised the investment and relieved the place, the garrison was withdrawn, and no effort made to hold the place. The reason does not appear, and their giving up a strong place like this which had defied the efforts of the Hindus so long seems strange. It was soon restored, however, by the Hindus. What a flourish might have been made of this affair in the Rajput annals ! It is mentioned in several places farther on.
2	Firishtah has not copied the Tabakat-i-Akbari correctly here, and turns him into Alb-Tigin in the "revised text," and Jamal-ud-Din, Ya-kut, is turned into a Amir-ul-Umra, which, although such a title did exist from Akbar's time downwards, was entirely unknown in these days.
3	I think the character of this Princess has been assailed without just cause. Thomas says [Pathan Kings, page 106] :—"It was not that a virgin Queen was forbidden to love—she might have indulged herself in a submissive Prince Consort, or revelled almost unchecked in the dark recesses of the Palace Harem—but wayward fancy pointed in a wrong direction, and led her to prefer a person employed about her Court [he was AmIr-i-Akh,ur, or Lord of the Stables—Master of the Horse—a high office only conferred upon distinguished persons], an Abyssinian moreover, the favours extended to whom the Turla' nobles resented with one accord."
Elphinstone, who draws his inspiration from Briggs, is more correct in his estimation of her character [and both Dow and Briggs are more correct than usual in their rendering of Firishtah's words here] and says [page 324, Third ed.]:—" But her talents and virtues were insufficient to protect her from a single weakness. It was shown in the extraordinary [?] marks of favour which she showered [?] on her Master' of the Horse ; who, to make her partiality more degrading, was an Abyssinian slave [Who says he was a slave? If he was, he was only a slave like most of her other Maliks and Amirs]. It does not appear that her fondness [?] was criminal, since theTHE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
643
Maliks began to be envious thereat; and it so chanced to happen that Sultan Raziyyat laid aside the female dress and issued from [her] seclusion, and donned the tunic, and assumed the head-dress [of a man], and appeared among the people; and, when she rode out on an elephant, at the time of mounting it, all people used, openly, to see her.
At this period she issued commands for her troops to proceed to Gwaliyur, and bestowed rich and valuable presents. As disobedience was out of the question4, this servant
greatest breach of decorum alleged against her is her allowing the Abyssinian to lift her on her horse [a. horse she never rode—always an elephant]."
Here is a proof of what a deal may be made out of a little. Our author is the sole authority for these statements in the Tabakat-i-AkbarT, Firishtah, and Buda'uni, each of whom, in rotation, enlarge upon, and exaggerate our author's words—the last reverses them by saying that when she mounted an elephant or horse she leant upon him, Jamal-ud-DIn, Ya-kut, the Abyssinian. He was Amir-i-Akhur before she came to the throne apparently, for she does not seem to have raised him to that office ; and it was only in the last year of her reign that she assumed male attire, when she appeared in public. Our author does not say so, but all the Tabakat-i-Akbari mentions is, that Jamal-ud-Dln, Ya-kut, was treated with favour, a mere transliteration of our author's words—Jl^l j^J—the same term as he uses with respect to Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Dln's favour towards his slave, Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak—and that the Turk Maliks and Amirs were envious in consequence. All that that work states, in addition to our author's words—for he does not say so—is, that when she mounted to ride forth, the Master of the Horse, who had become Amir-ul-Umra [such an office did not exist in those days, and our author never mentions such an office], used to aid her to mount by taking her under the arm-pit [ J»]— but leaning on his arm or shoulder, in mounting, would seem to be nearer the intended meaning. Now it is very possible that it was part of the duty of the Lord of the Stables, or his privilege, to assist his sovereign to mount when he or she rode forth, and that such an act might not have been occasioned through any undue familiarity; only what was applicable to a male sovereign, according to Musalman ideas, was not so to a female. However, the Lord of the Stables being an Abyssinian, this was, with her assumption of male attire, plea sufficient to the rebellious Turk Maliks—the remainder of the " Chihil-ganl Mamluks," of whom more hereafter—to rebel against a sovereign too energetic for them in their ambitious designs. The Zubdat-ut-Tav/arikh makes no reference to the Abyssinian whatever:
4 I cannot conceive why our author should be styled a rebel—"a forgiven rebel"—because of this sentence in the text. Gwaliyur had a governor or seneschal placed therein by Sultan Raziyyat's father in 630 H., and our author was Kazi there. When Raziyyat came to the throne, she sent a force under Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar [No. XIV. in the next Section], and relieved the garrison, and, as the governor—Rashid-ud-Din, 'All—from our author's invocation respecting him, appears to have died there, a new feudatory was despatched, at the same time probably, although he is not mentioned, as, after the death of Rashid-ud-Din, 'All, the next official in authority was the Amlr-i-Dad, Ziya-ud-DIn, Junaidl, who, being a kinsman of644
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
of the victorious kingdom, Minhaj-i-Saraj, in conjunction with the Malik 5-ul-Umra [the chief of Amirs] Ziya-ud-Din, Junaidi, who was the Amir-i-Dad [chief magistrate] of Gwaliyur, and with other persons of note, came out of the preserved fortress of Gwaliyur on the ist of the month Sha'ban, 635 II., and returned to Dihli, the capital; and, in this same month, Sultan Raziyyat committed to the charge of this servant [the author] the Nasiriah College at the capital, to which was added the Kazi-ship of Gwaliyur6.
In the year 637 H. Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Kabir Khan-i-Ayaz, who was the feudatory of Lohor, began to show a rebellious spirit7. Sultan Raziyyat led an army towards
the rebel Wazir, who refused to acknowledge Sultan Raziyyat, may have been suspected of disaffection. No cause for rebellion appears, neither is any rebellion mentioned ; and, on our author's' arrival at Dihli, another office was bestowed upon him, in addition to his Kazi-ship of Gwaliyur, which he still held. See Thomas : Pathan Kings, page 105.
"In 631 H. some emissaries from Balka Khan, son of Tush! [Juji], son of Chingiz Khan, arrived at the Court of Sultan I-yal-timish from Kifchak, bringing presents for him, but, as that Sultan had refrained from holding any intercourse whatever with the Mughal Khans, and was wont to send their agents out of his territory when they came, he would not put these emissaries to death, and desired to dismiss them kindly. They were sent to Gwaliyur, however, [this was one way of dismissing them kindly], and the party, being all Musalmans, used to present themselves in the Masjid there every Friday, and said their prayers behind the author of this book [he acting as Imam], until the reign of Sultan Raziyyat, when the author, after six years' absence, returned to Dihli from Gwaliyur, and was promoted, by the favour of that sovereign. At this time directions were given for these emissaries of Balka Khan to be removed to Kinnauj, and there detained; and there they were kept until they died."
5	In some copies, Majd-ul-Umra, but the above seems the correct title. Majd signifies glory, grandeur—the glory or grandeur of Amirs does not sound very correct. It was an honorary title merely.
6	In this case he—" the. pardoned " rebel—must have performed one of these two offices by deputy.
7	In the account of this Malik our author states that Kabir Khan-i-Ayaz began to act contumaciously in 636 H., in which year Sultan Raziyyat advanced at the head of her troops into the Panjab against him. He retired before her towards the Indus, until he reached the neighbourhood of the Sudharah [he could not go much farther, for immediately to the west he would have fallen into hostile hands]. When the royal troops crossed the Rawi, Kabir KLan-i-Ayaz made his submission, but he was removed from the fief of Lahor, and Multan was placed in his charge, and the feudatory of the latter—Malik Kara-Kush Khan—sent to Lahor.
In this year, 636 H., Malik Saif-ud-Din, Hasan, the Karlugh, hard pressed by the Mughals, had to abandon his territories, and he retired towards the territory of Multan and Sind, in hope, probably, of being more successsful onTHE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
645
that part from Dihli, and followed in pursuit of him. At last an accommodation took place, and he presented himself; and the province of Multan, which Malik Ikhtivar-ud-Din, Kara-Kush Khan-i-Aet-kin. held, was made over to the charge of Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Kabir Khan-i-Avaz. Sultan Raziyyat returned again to the capital on Thursday, the 19th of the month of Sha'ban8, 637 H.
Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din. Altuniah, who held the fief of Tabarhindah9, broke out into rebellion, and, secretly, some of the Amirs of the Court abetted him in this treason. Sultan Raziyyat, on Wednesday, the 9th of the sacred month Ramazan of this same year [637 H.], set out from the capital, with numerous forcesx, for the purpose of putting down Malik Altuniah's rebellion. When she reached that place [Tabarhindah] 2, through circumstances which supervened, the Turk Amirs rose against her, and put to death3 Amir Jamal-ud-Din, Ya-kut, the Habashi, seized Sultan Raziyyat and put her in durance, and sent her to the fortress of Tabarhindah4.
this than on the former occasion. Hasan's eldest son, whose name has not transpired, taking advantage of Raziyyat's presence in the Panjab, presented himself before her, was well received, and the fief of Baran, east of Dihli, was conferred upon him. Soon after, however, he left, without leave and without the cause being known, and rejoined his father, who still was able to hold Banian, and, soon after, the Karlughs gained possession of Multan. At this period Malik Mu-ayyid-ud-Dln, Hindu Khan, held the fief of Uchchah:
8	Ramazan, in some copies of the text.
9	Altuniah was only lately made feudatory of Tabarhindah, for, when Raziyyat came to the throne, she gave him his first fief, that of Baran. Briggs styles him "of the Toorky tribe of Chelgany"—a nice blunder, but Dow leaves this part of the sentence out. See last para, of note 3, page 643, and the meaning of Chihil-gani in next Section.
1 In some copies of the text, "with the forces composing the kalb" or centre, the signification of which has been given in note 3, page 634.
3 But not " on the way" thither as in Tabakat-i-Akbari and Firightah.
' Our author says " martyred," here equivalent to his being put to death unjustly. Rauzat-us-Safa says, Ya-^ut commanded her troops, a very unlikely thing, when the Turk Maliks and Amirs hated him so greatly. He mcty have commanded Raziyyat's own personal followers. Rauzat-us-Safa, indeed, says so. For the detail of these events see the account of Malik Altuniah in the next Section.
* Tabakat-i-Akbari and Buda'un! have Tarhindah——in alL cases, and Firishtah ["revised text"], wherever this place is mentioned, under whatever reign it may be, has Pathindah—Pathadah—jj^sj and Bathindah—646
THE XABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Among the events which happened in the beginning of Sultan Raziyyat's reign, the greatest was that the Ki-ramitah and Mulahidah heretics of Hindustan, incited by a person, a sort of learned man, named Nur-ud-Din, a Turk5, whom they used to style Nur, the Turk, collected together at Dihli, from different parts of the territory of Hind, such as Gujarat, and the country of Sind, and the parts round about the capital, Dihli, and the banks of the rivers Jiin and Gang. In secret they pledged themselves to be faithful to each other, and, at the instigation of Nur, the Turk, they conspired against Islam. This Nur, the Turk, used to harangue, and the mob would collect around him. He used to call the 'Ulama of the orthodox people6 Ndsibi [setters-up], and to style them MurjV [procrasti-nators], and used to incite the common people to animosity against the orders of 'Ulama of the sects of Abu-Hanifah and Shaf'i until a day was fixed upon. The whole of the fraternities of the Mulahidah and Kiramitah entered the Jami' Masjid of the city of Dihli, on Friday, the 6th of the month of Rajab, in the year 634 H., to the number of about one thousand persons, armed with swords and shields. Having divided into two bodies, one body, from the side of the Hisar-i-Nau [the new Citadel], entered the gateway of the Jami' Masjid on the northern side, and the second body, passing through the Bazar-i-Bazazan [the Bazar of the Cloth-Merchants], entered the gateway of the Mu'izzi College under the supposition that it was the Jam2' Masjid, and, on both sides, fell upon the Musalmans with [their] swords. A great number of people, some by the swords of those heretics, and some [trodden] under people's feet, attained martyrdom.
On an outcry having arisen from the city on account of
5	He was not called "Nur Turk," but he was a Turk, and his name was Nur-ud-Din.
6	That is the Sunms, in contradistinction to the SAi'as and other schismatics. Neither Tabakat-i-Akbari, Buda'uni, nor Firightah, refer to this "outbreak," but other writers do. The fact of Firishtah's being a Shi'a may account for his eschewing the matter.
7	The name of one of the heretical sects among the Muhammadans, who procrastinate, and consider good works unnecessary, and faith sufficient, and that ail Musalmans will be saved, as hell is only reserved for infidels. See Sale : Kur'an, Preliminary Discourse, for an account of these different sects of schismatics, pages 122, 130, and 131.THE SEAMSlAlI SULTANS OF HIND.
this outbreak, the warriors of the city, such as Na?ir-ud-Din, Ai-yitim, the Balarami, and Amir, Imam-i-Nasiri, the Poet, and other armed men, from different directions, rode fully equipped [as they were] with cuirass, and other defensive armour, steel cap, spear, and shield, into the Jdmi' Masjid, by the minarah entrance8, and plied their swords upon the Mulahidah and Kiramitah heretics; and the Musalmans, who were on the roof of the Jdmi Masjid, poured down stones and bricks upon them, and sent the whole of the Mulahidahs and Kiramitahs to hell, and quelled that outbreak. Thanks be to God for the blessing of safety and the honour of religion!
When they imprisoned Sultan Raziyyat within the stronghold of Tabarhindah, Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Al-tuniah, entered into a matrimonial contract with her, and espoused her9, and marched an army towards Dihli, in order to take possession of the kingdom a second time. Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, Salari, and Malik Kara-Kush rebelled and quitted the capital, Dihli, and went and joined them.
Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah [Raziyyat's brother1], was [at this time] seated on the throne ; and Ikhti-
8	Compare Elliot, vol. ii. page 336.
9	The Tazkarat-ul-Muluk and some other works state that Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Altuniah, contracted marriage with Sultan Raziyyat, nolens volens. He then took up her cause. He was no longer a rebel, because he imagined he would get the upper hand of his brother rebels ; and Raziyyat now managed to raise a considerable force consisting of Khokhars [this large tribe appear to have extended, at that period, a considerable distance east of the Biah, and the good horses to be obtained in the TalwandhTs of the Khokhars are often mentioned], Jats, and others of the tribes about Tabarhindah, and some Amirs likewise, from the adjoining fiefs, went over to her. The Tabakat-i-Akbari, and Zubdat-ut-Tawarlkh,, also mention Khokhars, but Firishtah, here, as well as elsewhere,'not knowing the difference between jfyf and j^'turns the former into Ghakars, a people, in his time, in some repute, and when a chief or two of the tribe were serving the Mughal emperors.
Elphinstone states that " Rezia "—he refers to Ra?iyyat—"when force failed her had recourse to art, and she so far gained, over Altunia by the influence of love or ambition, that he agreed to marry her," &c. I wonder what "authentic history" that is recorded in, or how proved? The reason of the change in Malik Altuniah's policy is apparent, as shown by a Muhammadan writer in a following note. Others had obtained power at Dilhi and he had been left out in the cold after being made a tool of, and now, therefore, he who formerly rebelled against Sultan Rajiyyat became, out of revenge, her champion.
1 Half-brother apparently.648
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
yar-ud-Din, Aet-kin, the Amir-i-Hajib, having been assassinated, Badr-ud-Din, Sunkar, the Rumi, had become Amir-i-Hajib. In the month of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, in the year 638 H., Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, led 2 an army out of Dihli for the purpose of resisting Sultan Raziyyat and Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Altuniah, and they were routed, and, having reached Kaithal, the troops along with them all abandoned them3, and Sultan Raziyyat and Malik Altuniah fell captive into the hands of Hindus, and attained martyrdom.
Their defeat took place on the 24th of the month, Rabi'-ul-Awwal; and the martyrdom of Sultan Raziyyat took place on Tuesday, the 25th of Rabl'-ul-Awwal4, in the year 638 II. Her reign extended over a period of three years, six months, and six days 5.
2	The author of the Tabakat-i-Akbari, who seems to know—without naming any authority—better than those persons who were eye-witnesses of what they relate, and other authors who preceded him, asserts that Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, sent an army against Raziyyat under Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Balban [in some copies TigTn], who afterwards attained the title of Ulugh, Khan, and Firishtah, of course, follows. The amusing part of it is that our author's patron was neither styled 'Izz-ud-Din, at this time, nor at any other ; and he had not attained such a high position at that period as to be put in the command of an army, as may be gathered from the account of him in the next Section. He was, at first, Khasah-dar to Sultan Raziyyat, and, afterwards, during her reign, became Amlr-i-Shikar. The above-mentioned work also places this defeat and death of Raziyyat in 637 h.—a year too soon.
3	The Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh, as well as the Tabakat-i-Akbari, makes two affairs of this, and says that it was after the first defeat, but gives no date for it, that Raziyyat raised a force of Khokhars and other tribes, and that the second defeat took place near Kaithal, on the 4th of Rabl'-ul-Awwal, 638 h., after which the Khokhars and others abandoned her, and she and her husband fell into the hands of the Hindus, who put them to death on the 25th of the same month. See further details of these transactions in the account of Malik Altuniah in the next Section.
4	In come copies, Saturday, the 29th of Rabi'-ul-Akhir, but the date cannot be correct. See also the account of Malik Altuniah in the next Section, where the 25th of Rabi'-ul-Akh,ir is given as the date.
5	Ibn-Batutah, who is sometimes quoted as an authority on Indian history, says [Lee's translation] that Raziyyat's brother, having "polluted his reign by killing his brothers, was, therefore, killed himself. Upon this, the army agreed to place his sister, El Malika Razla, upon the throne, who reigned four years. This woman usually rode about among the army, just as men do. She, however, gave up the government, on account of some circumstances that presented themselves. After this, her younger brother, Nasir Oddin, became possessed of the government, which he held for twenty years" !! So much for Ibn-Batutah's authority on Indian history.THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
649
V. SULTAN MU'IZZ-UD-DUNYA WA UD-DlN, BAHRAM SHAH®, SON OF THE SULTAN [I-YAL-TIMISH].
Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah—on whom be peace!—was a conquering monarch, fearless and full of courage, and sanguinary; but he was endowed with some laudable attributes and excellent qualities. He was in nature unassuming and frank ; and never had about his person jewelry and finery after the custom of the kings of this world, nor did he ever evince any desire for girdles, silken garments, decoration, banners, or display.
When they imprisoned Sultan Raziyyat in the preserved city of Tabarhindah, the Maliks and Amirs, in accord, despatched letters to the capital city of Dihli, and Mu'izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, on Monday, the 28th of the month Ramazan, in the year 637 H., they raised to the throne of sovereignty. When, on Sunday, the nth of the month of Shawwal of that same year, the Maliks and Amirs and the rest of the forces returned to the city again, they publicly pledged their allegiance to his sovereignty within the Daulat Khanah [Royal residence] on the stipulation of the Deputy-ship being conferred upon Malik Ilchtiyar-ud-Din, Aet-kin"; and, on that day, after [pledging] allegiance, the writer of these words, by way of benediction, in order to congratulate him [on his accession], recited this strophe:—
'' Well done, on thy account, the uprearing of the emblems of sovereignty !
Bravo to thy good fortune, heaped up, the ensigns of dominion!
Mu'izz-ud-Dunya wa ud-Dln, Mughis-ul-Khalk bi'l hakk,
Of dignity like Suliman: under thy command are both jinn [genii] and mankind.
Though the sovereignty of Hind be the heritage of the Shams! family,
Praise be to God, a second I-yal-timisJi, of its sons art thou.
When the whole world saw thee, that, by right, thou art the kingdom's heir,
They made thy diadem their kiblah-gah, for thou art all-powerful and wise.
6	The inscription given as that of his first coining is as follows:—
Obverse—j j	«Li ^j)
Reverse—I	J**
which may be thus translated :—Obverse—"The name of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, conferreth glory on dinar and diram. "tfear 637." Reverse—" Struck at the seat of empire, Dihli, in the first year [of the reign]."
7	He was to act as Deputy or Regent for one year. See the account of this Malik in the next Section. Firisfctah turns this name into " Alp-Tigin," but Dow leaves out the titles altogether, and makes Tiggi of him.
T t650
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
Like as Minhaj-i-Saraj's, for thee the creation's prayer is this :—
' O God! mayest thou on the kingdom's throne to eternity continue :
Straight like the spear may the universe during thy reign become,
So that, save in the hair-tuft of thy standard, no one may disorder behold8.'"
When Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Aet-kin, became Deputy 9, by virtue of his deputy-ship, he took the affairs of the kingdom into his own hands, and, in conjunction with the Wazir, the Nizam-ul-Mulk, the Khwajah, Muhazzab-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-'Iwaz, the Mustaufi \ assumed control over the disposal of state affairs2.
After a month or two had passed away, this fact began to press heavily upon the noble mind of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din ; and a sister of the Sultan, who had been married to the son of the Kazi, Nasir-ud-D!n 3, and had, at her own request, been repudiated4 by him, the Deputy [Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Aet-kin], having taken to wife, assumed the triple naubat, and stationed an elephant at the entrance of his own residence5 [out of parade], and the grandeur of his
8	I have translated and inserted this strophe here, not for any particular merit it possesses, but to show the style of our author's unctuous and flatulent poetical effusions. Although his work was completed twenty-one years after this event, and the true character of the Prince he composed those lines upon was then known to him, whatever good opinion he may have had of him at the time of his accession, he did not think it necessary to omit this piece of fulsome adulation to this "Sullman in dignity," this "second I-yal-timish." This translation will not be again burdened with any more of our author's own poetry.
9	On account of Mu'izz-ud-DTn, Bahram Shah's youth, as was determined when the Maliks agreed to raise him to the throne. He was to act as Deputy one year.
1	Mustaufi is not a proper name. It signifies the head clerk of a department, an auditor, &c., and to the office previously held by " the upright officer," as Muhazzab has been translated, or by his father or ancestors. See Blochmann's translation of the A'in for the meanings of such words, and compare Elliot: India, vol. ii. page 338.
2	That is, he, in concert with the Wazir, ruled the country, whilst the "Sullman," whose commands swayed "the jinn and mankind," was king in name merely.
3	Turned into Ikh,tiyar-ud-Din by Firishtah —in the "revised text"—who turns the Malik of that name into Alb-Tigin !
4	She had been repudiated by her own desire from aversion to her husband. In such cases the wife resigns the dowry and all presents made to her, &c.
s In the account of this Malik in the next Section, our author states that he applied for permission to use the naubat—already described in note 3, page 383 —on becoming Deputy. At this period kings only were allowed to have elephants in this way, unless specially granted, as in Malik 'Izz-ud-Dln, Balban-i-Kagilu JLhan's case, mentioned in the account of him in the next Section.TIIE SHAMSlAH SULTANS OF HIND.
6SI
affairs and the execution of his mandates lasted until the month of Muharram of the year 638 H., when, unexpectedly, on Monday, the 8th of that month, by command of the Sultan, a disccurse was delivered within the Kasr named Safed 6 [the White Castle], After the termination of the discourse, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, from the upper part of the palace, despatched two reckless Turks, after the manner of Fida-is, so that, in front of the dais, in the royal Audience Hall of the Kasr-i-Safed, they martyred Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Dxn, Aet-kin, by the wound of a knife7. They inflicted on the Wazir, the Nizam-ul-Mulk, Muhazzab-ud-Din, two wounds in the side ; but, as his appointed time was not come, he got away from them and escaped outside. Malik Badr-ud-Din, Sunkar, the Rumi, became Amir-i-Hajib. and assumed the direction of
8 The printed text has j.1? J-S- j^o instead of	as above, and so
the former is rendered in Elliot, vol. ii. page 338, "the Palace of the White-raj/I" I hope the Archaeologists will not search for it under the latter name. The 'Arabic word kasr, and its Persian equivalent kushk, does not mean a palace exactly, but, more strictly speaking, a castle—a fortified residence. Windsor Castle, for example, in the feudal times, was a kasr. See also note 2, page 331.
. ' Our author makes a totally different statement in his. account of this Malik in the next Section. There he says that the Salar, the late Ahmad-i-Sa'd, came secretly to the Sultan and instigated him to this act.
The Tabakat-i-Akbari cuts this matter very short, and Buda'uni perpetrates the blunder of killing Aet-kin and the Wazir both at one time. Firishtah here makes an altogether different statement to our author's, but does not quote his authority, and, as our author is about the only one for the reigns of the Shamst dynasty, the Dakhani historian's statement may be valued accordingly. He says Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, instigated two Turks among his confidants to feign drunkenness, and to assassinate Alb-Tigin [Aet-kin] and the Wazir. They entered the royal Audience Hall of the Kasr-i-Safed for this purpose, and Alb-Tigin [Aet-kin], who was standing up in the row of Amirs before the Sultan—who is made out to have been present by Firishtah —moved to stop them and prohibit their approach [seeing the condition they pretended to be in, as if the guards were not enough for the purpose], when, having the opportunity they wanted, they slew him with their " life-taking daggers," and then attacked the Wazir, Muhazzab-ud-Din, and inflicted two wounds on him. The other nobles present now making a rush, Muhagzab-ud-Din managed to escape. The Sultan, that day, ordered the two Turks to be imprisoned for their act, but very soon released them. The Lubb-i-Tawankh i-Hind gives a similar account, but the names are,correctly given.
Fida-i is the name applied to the agents of the Chief of the Assassins, or Shaikh-ul-Jibal, who carried out his decrees against people's lives. Fida means a sacrifice, one who is devoted to carry out any deed.
It was Malik Iklltiyar-ud-Din, Aet-kin, who incited Malik Altuniah to revolt against Sultan Ra?iyyat, and so he met his deserts.
T t 2652
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
state affairs ; and, when Sultan Raziyyat, along with Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Altuniah, from Tabarhindah, determined to move towards Dihli, and revoked that intention, and withdrew, and Sultan Raziyyat and Altuniah attained martyrdom at the hands of the Hindus, as has previously been recorded, the affairs of Malik Badr-ud-Din, Sunkar8, took a new turn. Moreover, because, in the execution of his own mandates, and the administration of the affairs of the kingdom, he did not possess the authority of the Sultan of Islam, and used to seek to acquire superiority over the Wazir, the Nizam-ul-Mulk, Muhazzab-ud-Din, and used to issue his own orders, the Wazir, secretly, was in the habit of influencing the Sultan's disposition against Malik Badr-ud-Din, Sunkar, to such degree, that the Sultan's temper became quite changed towards him.
When Malik Badr-ud-Din, Sunkar, discovered this fact, he grew apprehensive of the Sultan. He was desirous by some suitable means of removing the Sultan and placing one of the latter's brothers upon the throne. On Monday, the 17th 9 of the month of Safar, 639 H., at the residence of the Sadr-ul-Mulk \ the Sayyid, Taj-ud-Din, 'Ali, Musawi, who was the Mushrif-i-Mamalik [Secretary of the Kingdom], Badr-ud-Din, Sunkar, convened a party of the Sadrs and chief men of the capital, such as the Kazi-i-Mamalik [Kazi of the Kingdom], Jalal-ud-Din, the Kasani2, Kazi Kabir-ud-Din, Shaikh Muhammad-i-Shami [the Syrian], and other Amirs3 and important personages. When they had assembled, and deliberated respecting the change of government, they despatched the Sadr-ul-Mulk [Sadr of the State—Chief Sadr], to the presence of the Wazir, the Nizam-ul-Mulk, Muhazzab-ud-Din, in order that he
8	This Malik was the patron of Ghiyas-ud-DTn, Balban, subsequently, Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam ; and, when the former became Amir-i-Hajib, through his patronage, Ghiyas-ud-Din, Balban, who, up to this time, had not attained a higher office than that of Chief Huntsman, was promoted to the dignity of Amir i-Akhur [Lord of the Stables].
9	In other places, the date of this event, in some copies, is the 14th, and in others the loth.
1	Sadr-ul-Mullc signifies Judge or Administrator of the State, but here it is only his title or degree, as his office is Mushrif-i-Mamalik.
2	A native of Kasan.—Kazan of modern maps.
3	The word Amir here, it will be seen, is applied to Kiizis and ecclesiastics.THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
653
might be present [with them], and that, in accord with him, they might carry out their object effectively.
One of the Sultan's favourites and confidants was at the Wazir's side when the Sadr-ul-Mulk reached his residence; and when the Waztr, the Nizam-ul-Mulk, Mu-hazzab-ud-Din, heard the announcement of the Sadr-ul-Mulk's coming, he concealed that confidential person of the Sultan in a place where he might hear their conversation. The Sadr-ul-Mulk entered, and stated to him all about the [proposed] change in the state of the highest personages of the sublime Court, and craved the Khwajah, Muhazzab-ud-Din, the Wazir's attendance. The Khwajah, Muhazzab-ud-Din, replied : " It. behoveth that you should return again, so that I may perform afresh the ablution of purification, and follow [you] to the presence of the grandees." When the Sadr-ul-Mulk retired, Muhazzab-ud-Din brought forth the Sultan's confidant, and said to him : u Didst thou hear what the Sadr-ul-Mulk said 4 ? Proceed quickly to the royal presence and represent that it is advisable that the Sultan should mount and come upon that seditious party so that they may not have dispersed
* The difference of idioms in the text, so often mentioned, is considerable here also.
6 The Dakhant historian—who has made "'such conscientious and excellent use of his predecessors," and whose works he has '' so entirely exhausted of all prominent facts mentioned by them," as to have rendered their works "almost useless"—Firishtah, by his wholesale appropriations of the text of the Tabakat-i-Akbari—in many places verbatim, although he pretends, now and then, to differ from it, whilst copying the identical statement at the same time —has, in this instance, " exhausted" that work so faithfully and conscientiously that he betrays himself, and endorses the same great blunder that the author of the Tabakat-i-Akbari perpetrates here, even to the incorrect name given to one of the parties, which is totally contrary to our author's account, and which the other's own -words subsequently co7itradict, and then his statement agrees with our author, from whose work he took it, for there is no other contemporary writer to recur to. The Tabakat-i-Akbari says, after Aet-kin had been assassinated and Muhazzab wounded, that "Malik Badr-ud-Din, Sunkar, the RumI, became Amir-i-Hajib, and he administered the affairs according to the old laws and usages. It so happened, that, at the instigation of a clique of the seditious, he took counsel with the Sadrs and conspicuous persons respecting a change of sovereignty. On Monday, the 18th of Safar, all the chief men assembled at the abode of the Sadr-ul-Mulk, Taj-ud-Din, who was-the Mushrif-i-Mamalik, and there held counsel respecting the proposed change in the government. They despatched the Sadr-ul-Mulk [Taj-ud-Din] to the presence of the Nizam-ul-Mulk, Muhasgab-ud-DIn, the Wazir, in order that654
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
When they stated this matter to the Sultan, he, at once, mounted, and that disaffected party became struck with amazement, and Badr-ud-Din, Sunkar, joined the Sultan, who returned, and held a council in his own royal residence, and forthwith a mandate was issued that Badr-ud-Din, Sunkar, should proceed to Buda'un, and that district was made his fief. Kazi Jalal-ud-Din, Kasani, was removed from the chief Kazi-ship, and Kazi Kabir-ud-Din, and Shaikh Muhammad-i-Shami, together with him, became apprehensive, and left the city.
After a period of four months, Malik Badr-ud-Din, Sunkar, returned to the capital6, and, as the Sultan was incensed against him, he ordered him to be imprisoned ; and the Sayyid, Taj-ud-Din, 'All, Musawi7, was also ordered to be imprisoned, and, at last, both of them were martyred 8. This occurrence totally changed the disposition of the Amirs, and all of them became frightened and apprehensive of the Sultan, and not one among them
he also might attend the meeting and take part in the consultation. At once, the Sadr-ul-Mulk gave intimation to Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Dm, Bahrain Shah, and, having placed a confidential follower of the Sultan's in a place of concealment, [where ? in another man's house to betray himself 1] ivent to the Nizam-ud-Mulk's [Muhazzab, the Wazir's] abode and informed him of the presence \at his own house!] of KazT-Jalal-ud-DTn, the Kasani, KaziKabir-ud-DTn, Shaikh Muhammad, and other personages there assembled [and asked him to come along with him], but Muhazzab-ud-DTn put off his coming to the time of afternoon prayers. The Sadr-ul-Mulk represented what was doing by means of the Sultan's servant, whom he had concealed, and apprised that monarch of the state of affairs, who, that very hour, set out, and came upon them," &c. &c. The Sadr-ul-Mulk, Taj-ud-DTn, as mentioned in the next page, was imprisoned and put to death for his share in this affair. Some others of the smaller fry of historians copy this blunder from the Tabakat-i-Akbari as well as Firishtah, and, from the fact of the latter making the very same blunder as the former—he, indeed, uses his very words—I am much inclined to doubt whether Firishtah ever saw our author's work, and I think that nothing will be found in Firishtah, taken from our author's history, but such as is contained in the Tabakat-i-Akbari. Compare Elliot here also.
6	He took up his residence in the dwelling of Malik Kutb-ud-DTn. This is the illustrious Ghuri chief, Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, son of 'All, whose execution is recorded at page 702. He is again mentioned in the last Section.
7	See note 5, preceding page.
3 "Whether in prison or out is not said. Compare Elliot here. In the next Section it is said to have taken place on Wednesday, the 14th of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 639 h., but in some copies Rabi'-ul-Awwal is stated to have been the month, but this is impossible as Rabi'-ul-Awwal follows next to the month Safar, and Jamadi-ul-Awwal is only the third month after Safar, and from what is stated just before Jamadi-ul-Akhir would be most correct.THE SHAMSlAH SULTANS OF HIND.
655
placed any further confidence in him. The Wazir, too, in order to avenge the wounds he had received, desired that all the Amirs, the Maliks, and the Turks should rebel against the Sultan9. He continued to raise the Sultan's apprehensions against the Amirs and Turks, and was exciting the fears of the Amirs against the Sultan, until, at last, this fact spread abroad like a pestilence, and was the cause of the dethronement of the Sultan, and rebellion among the people.
Among the calamities which happened during the reign of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, was the matter of the city of Lohor, when an army of the infidel Mughals from the direction of Khurasan and Ghaznin appeared before that city, and, for a considerable time, carried on hostilities. The feudatory of Lohor was Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Kara-Kash1, and he, by nature, was very warlike, energetic, intrepid, and fearless, but the inhabitants of Lohor did not act as the conditions of union demanded, and in fighting, and in keeping guard at night, showed much neglect. When that disposition became evident to Malik Kara-Kash, he put his retainers in motion, and, at night, evacuated the city, and set out towards the capital, Dihli. The infidel Mughals pursued him, but the Most High God preserved him under His own guardianship, and he escaped in safety from them. As no ruler remained within the city of Lohor, on Monday, the 16th of the month of Jamadi-ul-Akhir, 639 H., the infidel Mughals obtained possession of that city2, martyred the Musalmans, and made captive their dependents.
9 Compare Elliot, vol. ii. page 339.
1 Dow turns him into " Malleek," as if that was his-name, and Briggs always into " Mullik Kurragooz"! !
3 As usual with our author, instead of giving the details of this affair here, he postpones it, gives a few additional particulars in his account of Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Kara-Kash Khan, in the next Sfection in his account of the various Maliks, but leaves the details for the last Section. Alfi says it was in 638 h.
The Mughals, at first, intended to attack Multan—which was still held by Malik Kabir Khan-i-Ayaz—but, finding they were likely to meet with a warm reception, turned their faces towards Lahor, at that time, totally unprepared to offer an efficient defence, being without stores of provisions or munitions of war. Many of the principal inhabitants of Lahor at this period were merchants, who had travelled into Upper Khurasan and Turkistan with656
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
When the dreadful intelligence of this calamity reached the capital, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, assembled the people of the city of Dihll in the Kasr-i-Safed [White Castle], and to the author, the writer of these lines, he gave command to deliver a discourse, and the people pledged their fealty [anew] to the Sultan3.
their merchandize, and had provided themselves with letters of protection from the Mughal rulers, and they seemed not to care what happened, and the remainder of the chief inhabitants were also remiss. Seeing this, Malik Kara-Kash determined to leave them, more particularly as there was but little chance of being succoured from DihlT. The Turk and Ghiin Maliks, being disaffected towards Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, were not very active in obeying his summons to assemble their followers, and the " upright officer "—the arch rebel - [referred to in note 6, page 641], Muhajzab-ud-Dln, the WazTr—even after the army had reached the Blah, instead of pushing on to Lahor, was occupied' in plotting the destruction of his master. Finding resistance hopeless, Malik Kara-Kash, under pretence of making a night attack upon the Mughal camp, assembled his family and followers, cut his way out, and made towards DihlL After he had left, when too late, the inhabitants made some effort to defend the place, under the guidance of the Kot-wal [Seneschal], Ak-Sunkar, and a few others. During the fighting that went on in the streets of the city, after the Mughals effected a lodgment, the Bahadur, Ta-ir, the Mughal commander, according to our author, was encountered, lance to lance, by Ak-Sunkar, and each wounded the other so severely that both died of their wounds.
There is considerable discrepancy here between our author and Fasih-i and others which will be noticed in the last Sectionr and as to the Bahadur, Ta-ir, being killed, according to Fasih-I and others, he was alive in 644 H., and, moreover, the Nu-yin, Mangutah, was the commander of the Mughals, and the Bahadur, Ta-ir; was under him. After the departure of the Mughals, the Khokhars, and other Hindu Gabrs, seized upon Lahor; and, after this, we no more hear of a feudatory of Lahor in the whole work.
Briggs, in his version of Firishtah's history, but not on his authority, assures us that the Mughal in question was "a famous Toorley leader named Toor-mooshreeji [sic] Khan"! ! Dow, however, turns Malik Kara-Kash into " Malleck, the viceroy," but leaves out this "famous Toorky leader."
Lahor was sacked, numbers of its people were massacred and carried away into captivity.
At the time of this invasion, Kablr Khan-i-Avaz, whom Sultan Raziyyat had removed from the fief of Lahor' to that of Multan, assumed a canopy of state and independence, and took possession of Uchchah and its dependencies. He however died shortly after this act of disloyalty, in 639 h. His son, Taj-ud-Dm, Abu-Bikr, brought Sind under his authority, and several times attacked the Karlughs before the gate of Multan. More respecting these events will be found in the next two Sections.
3 Compare Elliot, ii. 340.
Elliot—"He had l'ived for some time quietly in the Sultan's water palace.'1'' The Kasr or castle here mentioned had been erected on the edge, or, more probably, in the midst of the Hauz which I-yal-timish made, which was named the Hauz-i-Sultan, and Hauz-i-ShamsT. It is often mentioned ; and,THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
657
There was a Darwesh, a Turk-man, who was named Aiyub, a hermit clothed in garb of hair-cloth, who, for some time, dwelt, engaged in his devotions, at the Hauz [reservoir] of the Kasr-i-Sultan [the Sultan's Castle], and there he acquired intimacy with Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, and the Sultan manifested a partiality for him. This Darwesh began to interfere in state affairs. Before this the Darwesh in question had dwelt at the town of Mihir, and had been persecuted by Kazi Shams-ud-Din of Mihir. At this time, that the Darwesh's words were revered by, and he had acquired ascendancy over, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, he used his endeavours until the Sultan had Kazi Shams-ud-Din of Mihir thrown before the feet of an elephant4.
As soon as this catastrophe became known, the people again became wholly afraid of the Sultan. In order to repel the infidel Mughals who were then before the gates of the city of Lohor, the Sultan nominated Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, son of 'Alis, the Ghuri, along with the Wazir" [the Khwajah, Muhazzab-ud-Din], and several Amirs and Maliks, with the forces of Hindustan to advance towards Lohor, for the purpose of guarding the frontiers7. At this period, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, on
in after times, Sultan Flrtiz Shah repaired it, as well a3 many other buildings,. masjids, tombs, &c.
Darweshes of this kind, however, do not live in palaces, they would not be Darweshes if they did : this one took up his residence near the building, in* some small masjid or other religious building.
4 Here likewise, because' the Tabakat-i-Akbari makes a mistake in including Kazi Shams-ud-Din among those connected with the plot mentioned in note page 653, and throws him at the elephant's feet then, Firishtah, of course, does precisely the same ; but this Darwesh is not mentioned in either work. The Kazi's death does not appear to have been connected, in any way, with the plot in question.
6 The " Student's Manual of Indian History," however, assures us, contrary to the Muhammadan historians, that his name was " Yekhtar ood Deen, the vizier," whilst Dow, on the other hand, is more correct, according to Firishtah, and calls him " Hassen Ghori," but puts an additional piece upon it, and says he was " chief secretary of the empire " !
6	Kutb ud-Dln, Husain, commanded this force, the Wazir merely accompanied him in a civil capacity. Compare Thomas: "Pathan Kings," page 118.
7	Above, our author states it was to repel the Mughals, but here, from what he says, the relief of Lahor was not the object, but merely the guarding of the frontiers. The Mughals took the city on the 16th of-Jamadi-ul-AkJiirr 639 h.658
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
Saturday, the loth of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, in the year 639 H., entrusted this author with the Kazi-ship of the empire, together with the Kazi-ship of the capital, and conferred upon him a robe of honour and liberal presents. After this, the troops received orders [to move].
When the forces assembled on the bank of the Biah8, the Khwajah. Muhazzab-ud-Din, the Wazir, in order to take vengeance upon the Sultan, so that, by some means or other, he might oust him from the throne, indited a representation secretly to the Sultan from the camp, saying: "These Amirs9 and Turks will never become obedient. It is advisable that an edict should be issued by His Majesty1, that I, and Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, should destroy all the Amirs and Turks, by such means as may be attainable, in order that the country may be clear [of them]." When that representation reached the Sultan, he, according to the way of precipitancy and youthfulness, did not take this order into consideration nor deliberate upon it, and commanded so that an edict of the desired form was written out and despatched to the camp.
As soon as the edict reached the camp, Muhazzab-ud-Din showed the very edict itself to the Amirs and Turks, saying: "The Sultan writes and commands respecting you on this subject." All of them became excessively incensed against the Sultan, and, at the suggestion of the Khwajah. Muhazzab-ud-Din, the Wazir, they pledged themselves to effect the expulsion and dethronement of the Sultan. When the news of this disaffection on the part of those Amirs and troops reached the capital, the Shaikh-ul-Islam2
8	Tabakat-i-Akbari says "when the army reached the banks of the river Blah, near which, at this period, the town of Sultan-pur has been founded." Firishtah has precisely the same words.
9	Compare Elliot. " Amirs " does not mean "generals."
1	Tabakat-i-Akbari says that Muhazzab—the "upright officer" of Elliot [vol. ii. page 334]—requested the Sultan to come himself, or permit him," &c. Firishtah follows. "The Rauzat-us-Safa says, contrary to others, that Muhazzab ud-Din included Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Hasan [Husain], among the number he asked leave to put to death, but this is not correct.
2	The Tabakat-i-AkbarT says the Sultan despatched Shaikh Kutb-ud-Din, Bakh,t-yar, Ushl [i. e. of Ush near Baghdad] to the insurgents, and Firishtah adds a little and makes him the Shaikh-ul-Islam besides. Dow, translating Firishtah, calls him [vol. i. page 177] " Islaam, a venerable and learned Omrah ". I wonder what " Omrah " can mean. I have heard of Umra, but that is the plural of Amir. This first statement, however, is an error, and he isTHE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
659
[the Muhammadan Patriarch] of the capital was Sayyid Kutb-ud-Din, and him the Sultan despatched to the army for the purpose of allaying that sedition. He proceeded to the camp, and used his endeavours in stirring up and augmenting that sedition, and came back again, and the army followed after him, and arrived before the gates of Dihli, and fighting was commenced.
This servant of the state, Minhaj-i-Saraj, and [several] priests of eminence of the city, used the utmost endeavours to make peace and allay the disaffection, but in no manner could an agreement be effected. The arrival of the f6rces before the gate of the cityjDf Dihli happened on Saturday3, the 19th of the month of Sha'ban, 639 H., and, until the month of Zi-Ka'dah, hostilities were carried on against the fortress, and, on both sides, a great number of people perished and others were disabled4. All the environs of the city were destroyed ; and the cause of the prolongation of this sedition was this. There was a head Farrash5 in the Sultan's service whom they used to style Fakhr-ud-Din. Mubarak Shah, Farrukhi, who, in the employ of the Sultan, had found favour, and had acquired complete ascendancy over his mind, and whatever he said to the Sultan that the Sultan would do, and this Farrash .would, in no way, assent to an accommodation6.
On Friday, the 7th7 of the month Zi-Ka'dah, the depen-
a different person from the Sayyid Kutb-ud-Din here referred to by our author. The former, whose full names are, Khwajah—not Sayyid—KuJb-ud-Dira, Bakit-yar, Kakt, Ushi, after whom the Kutb minarah at Dihli is named. He died six years previous to this time. See note 6, page 621, para. 3.
3	In some copies, Monday.
4	Among those of the great Maliks who supported Sultan Mu'izz-ud-DTn, Bahram Shah, was Malik Kara-Kash, feudatory of Bhianah, and Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Yuz-Bak-i-Tughril Khan. They were both imprisoned however, on the 9th of Ramazan, at the instigation of the Fanash, Fakhr-ud-Din, Mubarak Shah, and only obtained their release when Dihli was taken by the confederate Maliks.
5	Farrashls are servants of the houses of great men who spread the carpets, make the beds, anr! pitch the tents on journeys. This head Farrash is styled Mihtar Mubarak in the next Section.
6	Nothing of this affair of the head farrash is mentioned in Rau?at-us-Safa, or in the Tabakat-i-Akbari, and, consequently, not in Firishtah either; but the Zubdat-ut-Tawarlkli and some others refer to it. See the account of Malik Yuz-Bak-i-Tughril Khan in the next Section. Our author was so intent upon his own tale here that he has left out most of the particulars.
7	In some copies the 17th of 2i-?a'dah,66o
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
dents of the Khwajah, Muhazzab-ud-Din, gave 3000 jltals to a boc}y of stupid fellows, and stirred up some of the same cloth as the author, who were persons of position at the capital, and, after the conclusion of the Friday prayers, they rose in the JamV Masjid, and drew swords upon the author. By the favour of the Most High God, he had with him a staff containing a knife, and drew it, and was accompanied by a few armed slaves, and succeeded in getting out of the tumult. On the following night the Amirs and the Turks took the fortress, and, next day, Saturday8, the 8th of Zi-Ka'dah, 639 H., they gained possession of the whole city, and imprisoned the Sultan. Mubarak Shah, the Farrash, who used to endeavour to stimulate the rebellion, they made a public example of and executed; and, on the night of Tuesday, the 13th of the month before-mentioned, Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, attained martyrdom —may he rest in peace!—and the period of his reign was two years,, one month, and a half.
VI. SULTAN 'ALA-UD^DUNYA WA UD-DlN, MAS'UD SHAH9.
SON OF SULTAN RUKN-UD-DIN, FIRUZ SHAH.
Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah, was the son of Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Firuz Shah, and was a beneficent Prince and of good disposition, and was endowed with all noble qualities.
On Saturday, the 8th of Zi-Ka'dah, 639 H., when the city of Dihli passed out of the possession of Sultan Mu'izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, the Maliks and Amirs, with one consent, brought forth, from confinement1, all three Princes
8	I'n another place, in the next Section, it is said, Tuesday, the 8th, but neither of these days can be correct, if the 13th was Tuesday. In this case, the 8th would be Thursday; and, if Saturday was the 8th, the 13th-would be Friday. A few lines farther down Saturday is again said to be the 8th.
9	The following is given, in the work previously quoted, as the inscription on the- coins first struck in 'Ala-ud-Dln's reign :
Obverse—»li ^jJU^U ^IU-j ^ijie ^ dUI ^Ikij jijl Reverse—-v^l u-jl?	} er*!;' Jt*-^	jJ>
which may be thus rendered :—Obverse — "The prosperity of the government of the state through God. Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din^ Mas'ud Shah." Reverse — " Struck at the city of Dihli [in the] year six hundred and forty, the first of the reign,"
1 Malik 'Izz-ud-DTn, Balban-i-Kashlu Khan, was also one of the ringleaders in this outbreak against Mu'izz-ud-DIn. Early in the day on whichTHE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
[the sons and grandsons of Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish], namely, Sultan [subsequently] Nasir ud-Din, Malik Jalal-ud-Din, and Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah, and conducted them from the Kasr-i-Safed [White Castle] to the Kasr-i-Firuzl-i-Daulat-Khanah [the Firuzi Castle, the royal residence], and agreed to the sovereignty of 'Ala-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah, after that Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlu Khan, had assumed the throne within the royal residence, and after he had been proclaimed outside the Kasr, and a proclamation, in his name, respecting his [assumption] of the sovereignty, had been once published about the city. In that matter the other Maliks, not having agreed, placed Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah, upon the throne, and administered a public pledge of fealty to the people. Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, son of 'All, the Ghuri, became Deputy of the kingdom, the Khwajah, Mu-hazzab-ud-Din, the Nizam-ul-Mulk, was [again] madeWazir, and Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Kara-Kash, became Amir-i-Hajib [Lord Chamberlain]. The provinces of Nag-awr, Mandaur, and Ajmir2, were made over to Malik 'Izz-ud-
the Turk Amirs took the city—our. author says in another place—Malik Balban entered it, and proceeded to the royal Kasr, and issued a proclamation intimating his assumption of the sovereignty; but, immediately on this becoming known, Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-DIn, Aet-kln, and Malik Taj-ud Din, San-jar-i-Kik-luk, and others, assembled at the mausoleum of Sultan I-yal-timish, and repudiated that proclamation, and, in concert, went, and brought forth from their confinement in the Kasr-i-Safed, which appears to have been used as a state prison, the princes in durance there, the sons and grandson of I-yal-timish, and set up 'Ala-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah. When Malik Balban became aware of this, he joined them, and acted in concert with them. This can scarcely be called " the elevation of twj kings in one day " [Thomas : Pathan Kings, page 120]. The new Sultan conferred the fief of Nag-awr upon Malik Balban-i-Kashlu Kh,an, together with permission to have an elephant, which was equivalent to his being considered as belonging to the royal family, and the first Malik of the kingdom ; and it is he who must have been I-yal-timish's son-in-law—if either of the two Balbans were—or the husband of his sister —for ji^b means both—and not Ghiyas-ud-Dln, Balban, afterwards Ulugh Khan, which latter, the Tabakat-i-Akbari—and Firishtah likewise, as a matter of course—invariably confuse with 'Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlu Khan. In neither of these works is he called by his correct name. The first calls him 'Izz-ud-Din, 7>^f«-i-Buzarg, and gives the same title of 'Tsz-ud-Dln to Balban-i-Khurd [i. e. Ulugh Khan] whose title was Ghiyas-ud-Dln, and never 'Izz-ud-Din. The Tabakat-i-Akbari confuses one with the other. Firishtah [revised text however], as previously mentioned, uses the word
for jc in both their titles.
2 Tabakat-i-Akbaii says Nag-awr, Sine/, and Ajmir, and Firishtah copies662
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Din, Balban-i-Kashlu Khan, and the territory of Buda'un was given to Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Kik-luk. The writer of these words, on the fourth day from the capture of Dihli, requested permission to resign the Kazi-ship, and, for a period of twenty-six days, the office was in abeyance until the 4th of the month of Zi-Hijjah, when the office of Kazi was entrusted to Kazi 'Imad-ud-Din, Muhammad, the Shafurkani3.
The Khwajah, Muhazzab-ud-Dln, the Nizam-ul-Mulk, acquired complete power over the kingdom, and appropriated [the district of] Kol as his own fief. Previous to this he had established the naubatK, and stationed an elephant at the gate of his own residence. He took all functions out of the hands of the Turk Amirs, so that their hearts became greatly irritated [against him], and those Amirs, in concert together, put him to death, within the camp before the city [of Dihli], in the plain of the Rani's Reservoir5, on Wednesday, the 2nd of the month of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 640 H.6
At this period, the author determined to undertake a proposed journey to Lakhanawati, and, on Friday, the 9th of the month of Rajab7, 640 H., he quitted Dihli. In the territory of. Buda'un, Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Kik-luk, and, in Awadh, Malik Kamr-ud-Din, Kir-an-i-Tamur Khan, showed him abundant kindness—Almighty God immerse the both of them in forgiveness ! At this time, Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Tughril-i-Tughan Khan, the feudatory
its text verbatim here, as in most other places, with but very slight verbal alterations.
3	See note at foot of page 128.
4	Described in note 3, page 383. See Elliot also : India, vol. ii. page 343 —" Previous to this he had caused music to play," &c. The translator 1 trow never heard such music himself—music not capable of "charming the savage breast," but of making any breast, however charming, savage.
s I wonder what " Hauz-rdni" may be, but Hauz-i-Rani signifies the Reservoir of the Rani or Queen—Rani being the feminine form of Rana and Rajah. See Elliot, ibid. A little before, the Kasr-i Hauz-i-Sultan is rendered " the Sultan's water palace."
fi See the account of Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Kik-luk, and Malik Badr-ud-Dln, Sunkar, the RumI, in the next Section.
" The month previous to this, in Jamadi-ul-Akhir, 640 h., the Khalifah Abu-Ja'far-i-Mansur, styled Al-Mustansir B'illah, died, and was succeeded by his son, the last of the 'Abbasis of Baghdad—Abu-A hmad-i-'Abdullah, entitled Al-Musta'sim B'illah.THE SHAMSlAH SULTANS OF HIND.
663
of Lakhanawati, advanced to the frontiers of Karah with troops and vessels, and the author joined him from Awadh8. Malik 'Izz-ud-Din returned again to Lakhanawati, and the writer went along with him thither, and, on Sunday, the 17th of the month of Zi-Hijjah, reached the Lakhanawati territory. The writer left all his children, family, and dependents, in Awadh, and, subsequently, confidential persons were sent, and his family [and children] were removed to Lakhanawati. From Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan the author experienced the utmost generosity, and received innumerable gifts—the Almighty reward him !—and he remained in the territory of Lakhanawati for a period of two years.
During those two years Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah, effected, in different parts of the kingdom, many victories9; and, after the Khwajah. Muhazzab-ud-Din, was put to death1, the office of Wazir passed to the Sadr-ul-
8	It was at this time that Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan, the feudatory of Lakhanawati, instigated by his adviser, Baha-ud-Din, Hilal, attempted fo take possession of the territories of Awadh, Karah, and Manikpur, and Upper An-des. See next Section.
9	It is strange that these " many victories " are not named by our author. They must refer to some minor affairs which he refers to in the next Section, and which iflay be summed up in a few words. In 640 H. Malik Taj-ud-DTn, Sanjar-i-Kik-luk, the feudatory of Buda'un, overthrew the infidels of Kathehr, and a namesake of his, Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Gurait Khan, gained some successes over the Hindus in Awadh, and, subsequently, is said to "have "entered Bihar and plundered that territory, and was killed before the fortified city of Bihar." In this case it is evident that the Hindus had regained possession of it from the Musalmans immediately after the death of Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, or, possibly, only after the decease of I-yal-timish. See note page 633.
About the same period, the son of Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Kablr Khan-i-Ayaz, feudatory of Multan, who had thrown off his allegiance on the invasion of the Panjab by the Mughals in 639 H.—Malik Taj-ud-Din, Abu-Bikr—who remained in possession of his father's fief after his decease, several times attacked and defeated the Karlughs who had advanced to the very gates of Multan. In 642 H. the infidels of Jaj-nagar were defeated, and the author was present. This is the affair which the I. O. L. copy of the text, No. 1952, and the R. A. S. MS., through the carelessness or ignorance of their copyists, turn into " Mughals of Changiz Khan," referred to farther on.
In the account of Ulugh Khan, in the next Section, some successes are said to have been gained over the independent tribes in the Do-ab in 642 H.
These are the only successes which appear to have been gained during this period, as a set off to so many disasters and disturbances.
1 One of the best and oldest copies of the text, as well as the more modern ones, have "/we? years after the Khwajah. Muhazzab-ud-Din, was put- to death," but this can scarcely be correct, as, in such case, the WazTr-ship must have been in abeyance.664
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
Mulk, Najm-ud-Dtn, Abu-Bikr', and the office of Amir-i-Hajib of the capital was entrusted to Ulugh Khan'-i-Mu'azzam :—may his good fortune continue3!—and the fief of Hans! was assigned to him ; and, at this time, many holy expeditions, as by creed enjoined, were undertaken, and much wealth came in from all parts.
When Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Tughril-i-Tughan Khan, returned from Karah towards Lakhanawati, he despatched the Sharf-ul-Mulk, the Asha'ri4, to the capital to the presence of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah ; and, from the capital, Kazi Jalal-ud-Din, the Kasani, who was the Kazi5 of Awadh at this period, was nominated to proceed to Lakhanawati with a red canopy of state, and an honorary robe. On Sunday, the nth of the month of Rabi'-ul-Akhir. 641 H.6, the envoy's party reached Lakhanawati, and Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan was honoured by being invested with that honorary robe.
At this time, among the praiseworthy incidents which
2	In Elliot, vol. ii. page 343, he is turned into Daru-1 Mulk Baligh Khan! Dar-ul-Mulk signifies "the seat of government," "capital," &c. Ulugh in Turk! signifies "great," "the greater,-" what "Baligh" may be intended for who knows ?
3	In some of the more modern copies of the text, the invocation, here used for Ulugh Khan's prosperity or good fortune, varies, through carelessness or ignorance on the part of copyists, and in place of they have,Ai=Ju and occasionally .uiL. and, in consequence of this last blunder, some modern writers on Oriental subjects jump at the conclusion that the whole work " must have been written" after. Uluglj Khan ascended the throne; but, had those writers gone a little farther on, they would have found, in several places, both at the end of this Section, and in the next, that our author distinctly states that Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, was reigning when he finished his work ; aud he continued to reign for nearly six years more. See Elliot : India : vol. ii. note 2, page 362.
4	The Tabakat-i-Akbari gives this name, as it does most names, correctly— Asha'ri—but Firishtah turns it into SankurT, Dow leaves it out and a great deal more of the reign, and Briggs turns it into Shunkry, thus making a Hindu of him, and he invariably turns 'Izz-ud-Din into Eiz-ood-Deen.
5	The Tabakat-i-Akbari quotes our author very correctly here, with the exception of turning the Kazi into a Hakim, but the Tabakat-i-Akbari's shadow—Firishtah— although using nearly the same words, makes a terrible hash of the names.
6	See the account of Tughril-i-Tughan Khan in the next Section. There it is stated that lie despatched his agent, the Sharf-ul-Mulk, to the Court for aid, after having been repulsed before Katasin, the frontier post of Jaj-nagar, and that happened on the 6th of ZT-Ka'dah—the eleventh month—of 641 h., whilst Rabi'-ul-Awwal is the third month. 642 h. must be meant.THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.	665
happily occurred during Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah's reign was this, that, in concurrence with the Maliks and Amirs of the Court, he commanded both his uncles to be released, and they were brought forth accordingly. Malik Jalal-ud-DIn was given the province of Kinnauj, and the preserved city of Bhara'ij with its dependencies was conferred upon Sultan7 Nasir-ud-Din, Mafrmud; after which, both of them, in their respective districts, in carrying on holy war, as by creed enjoined, and in [attending to] the prosperity of the peasants, exhibited commendable examples.
In the year 642 H. the infidels of Jaj-nagar appeared before the gate of Lakhanawatis; and, on the 1st of the
7 Subsequently, when he succeeded to the throne. This uncle had then attained the mature age of fifteen, the other was younger still.
B Most authors, with the exception of the one who was living at the time, and even staying in the Lakhanawatl territory, and along with the Musalman army—our author—and a few others, such as the authors of Tan kh.-1 - M ubarak -Shahi, Rauzat-us-Safa, and Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh, who could discriminate, and did so, before they entered events in their writings, and did not jump at conclusions—have perpetrated a ridiculous blunder here, which has been handed down by those Musalman writers vvho copied the events in their histories from the Tabakat-i-Akban, like Buda'urii, and Firishtah in particular. From the version of this last-named writer the blunder, like the " Path&n Dynasty," has been made over to English writers by its translators, and, in all the Histories of India, and Manuals of Indian History, up to this 1iour, the blunder is duly recorded.
There was no invasion of Bangalah nor of Lakhanawa.i by the Mughals of Chingiz Khan—who died eighteen years before—in fact, no invasion of the kind ever occurred.
Some careless copyist of the identical copy of the text of our author's work [such an imperfect copy for example as the I. O. L. MS. 1952, or the R. A. S. MS., on which first-mentioned copy the Calcutta printed text is chiefly based] •which fell under the notice of Nizam-ud-Din,. Ahmad, the author of the Tabakat-i-Akbari, when compiling his work—instead of copying our author's words which occur in every other copy of the text, which are as follow:— jJa-I	jU —did not think it fit or advisable to read it the right
way but in the wrong—like the editors of the Calcutta printed text, although the right reading was before them, in at least one MS. copy they had to refer to, namely :—jiy^ ^li.^^'o^^leaving I?- for a note !
It is hardly correct to say that Niza.m-ud-Din, Ahmad "reproduces it" for it will not be found in, any prior history; still, if the author of the Tabakat-i-Akbari, Abu-l-Fazl, and the rest of those who copy the blunder, and if the editors of the Calcutta printed text likewise, had used a little discrimination, they might have seen that, in the two separate accounts of Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan, and Malik Ki-ran-i-Tamur Khan, the correct reading is given, as both the I. O. L. MS., the R. A. S. MS., and the Calcutta printed text also have it in the accounts of those Maliks. The
U U666
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
month of Zi-Hijjah, Malik Kamar-ud-Din, Ki-ran-i-Tamur Khan9, with troops and Amirs, in conformity with the commands of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah, arrived at
Muhammadan writers who lighted upon this incorrect passage also speculate upon the route by which Chingiz [his ghost ?] came ; and they—one following the other : the blind leading the blind—come to the conclusion that it must have been by the same route as that by which Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar, the Khalj, penetrated into Tibbat!! Firishtah also enters upon—or rather copies—the same speculations; and this fact tends to confirm me in my suspicions that he never saw our author's work, but merely " exhausts " him from his predecessors, including the Tabakat-i-Akbari.
Stewart, in his History of Bengal, noticed [page 97] that Firishtah was wrong, but did not know that the Tabakat-i-Akbarl was his source of information, and Thomas [Pathan Kings, page 121], very properly, totally discredits the statement as rendered from the printed text, in Elliot [India, vol. ii. pages 264 and 344]. This invasion, I expect, took place much about the same time that Changiz struck that very rare coin given in Thomas [page 91], styling himself by an Arabic title, and acknowledging the Khalifah of Baghdad— '' Nasir-ud-Dln Uttah, Amir-ul-Muminln"! More on this head in last Section.
Elphinstone, however, boldly asserts on the faith of the translations of Firishtah—for there is no doubt expressed about it—that the Mughals penetrated "through Tibet into Bengal"
The facts are that the Rae of Jaj-nagar, in 641 h., began to molest the Lakhanawati territory, and, in Shawwal of that year, Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan marched towards Jaj-nagar to avenge this hostility, and our author accompanied him. An engagement took place on the frontier of the Jaj-nagar state, in the following month. After the infidels were routed they rallied on finding the Musalmans off their guard, and victory was turned into a reverse. Malik Tughril sent to Dihli for aid, and Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah, sent it, but, with the object of ousting Malik Tughril, who, it appears, was too strong to be ousted except by treachery: so, immediately after defeating the infidels of Jaj-nagar [the Mughals of Chingiz Khan of the Calcutta text, and I. O. L. MS., No. 1952, and R. A. S. MS., and Elliot], who had advanced opposite to the city of Lakhanawati itself, and fled on the approach of the forces under Tamur Khan-i-Ki-ran from Awadh, he possessed himself of Lakhanawati, by treachery, and Malik Tughril had to relinquish the city and territory and return to the capital. This last event happened in the last month of 642 h. See next Section. Malik Tughril, shortly after, was appointed to the fief of Awadh and proceeded into that territory, but died in Shawwal. 644 h. His rival, Tamur Khan, died the very same night in Lakhanawati. See Maliks VII. and VIII. in next Section.
9 The Tabakat-i-Akbarl turns him into 'Izz-ud-Dln, Tughan Timur Khan Kara-Beg, and makes him quarrel with himself under the name of Malik Ki-ran, by confusing and incorrectly copying his names and titles ; but Firishtah, copying from that work, adds from his imagination, and states that the Sultan despatched Malik Kara-Beg, Timur Khan, who was one of the Khwajah-Tash slaves [see note 8, page 665], and that between him and jb-\ [ .c ?] ud-Dln, Tughan, and Malik Kara-Beg hostilities arose : he does not mention the name Kir-an at all! ! The correct details will be found in the account of Malik Tugljril-i-Tughan Khan in the next Section.THE SHAMSlAH SULTANS OF HIND.	667
j^akhanawati. Between him and Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan distrust showed itself, and, on Wednesday, the 6th of the month of Zi-Ka'dah of the same year, an accommodation took place, and he [Malik Tu ghril-i-Tu gh an Khan] relinquished Lakhanawati to Malik Ki-ran-i-Tamur Khan, and determined to proceed to Dihli. The writer of this book, in his company, reached the capital on Monday, the 14th of the month of Safar, 643 H., and permission to pay homage at the sublime Court was obtained. On Thursday, the 17th of the month of Safar, through the patronage of Ulugh Khan-i-Mu'azzam1—the Almighty perpetuate his vicegerency!—the Na§ariah College, together with the superintendence of its endowments, the Kazi-ship of Gwaliyur, and the lecture-ship of the Jam? Masjid, all these, were confirmed to the author, according to former grant, and that Malik [Ulugh Khan-i-Mu'azzam] conferred upon the author a special honorary robe, and a caparisoned horse, such as no other among his brethren of the same profession2 had ever obtained. God reward him for it!
In the.month of Rajab3 of this same year, news was received, from the upper provinces, of an army 'of infidel Mughals which had advanced towards Uchchah, and of which force the accursed Mangutah was the leader. Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah, for the purpose of repelling the Mughal forces, assembled the troops of Islam from various parts4. On their arrival on the banks of the" Biah, the
1	In the year 642 H., Ghiyas-ud-Dln, Balban, who, up to that time, was Amir-i-Akhur, became Amlr-i-Hajib. The Tabakat-i-Akbarl, however, assures us that Malik Balban [in some MSS. TigIn]-i-Khurd, who then held the title of Ulugh Khan, became Amir-i-Hajib. Ghiyas-ud-DIn, Balban, did not obtain that title until five years after this, in 647 H. Our author does not mean that he was styled Ulugh Khan at this time, although he calls him so : he was Ulugh Khan when our author wrote his book.
2	The word here used does not mean "family." Elliot: vol. ii. page 344.
3	Previous to this the royal forces went on an expedition in the Do-ab of the Jun and Gang, the particulars of which, or rather some meagre particulars, will be found in the account of Ulugh Khan in the next Section.
* The particulars of these events which happened in 643 H.—not 642 H.— will be found in the last Section of this work, and referred to in the next. Mangutah, the Nu-yin—whom the translator of this passage of our author's work, in Elliot [page 344], has been pleased to turn into Mangu Khan here, but leaves him under the name of Manhiti farther on [page 364], not being aware, seemingly, that they were one and the same person—was one of Cljingiz Khan's own immediate followers and confidants, now grown old. He was very thin, tall, and blind of an eye. Mangu Ka'an, the grandson of
U U 2668
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
infidels withdrew from before Uchchah, and that success was gained. The writer of this work was in attendance on the sublime Court on that expedition, and persons of understanding and men of judgment agreed, that no one could point out to view anything of an army like that host and gathering in years gone by. When information of the number and efficiency of the victorious forces of Islam reached the infidels, they decamped and retired towards Khurasan again5.
A number of very worthless persons in that army had clandestinely gained access to the presence of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah, and used to influence him in the committal of unworthy acts and habits, so much so that
Chingiz, did not succeed to his father's sovereignty until some time after this event, and was never east -of the Indus in his life. It is strange how people will jump at impossible conclusions ; and, because one of the Mughal sovereigns was called immediately they see	they at once assume that the
former must be meant, just in the same way as the Khalj Turks have been turned into Ghalzi Afghans.
Uchchah was invested for some time, and therefore the Mughals did not retire without fighting as in Thomas [Pathan Kings, page 121], and they made several unsuccessful attempts to storm it after they had reached the walls, in the last of which, at night, the greatest champion of the Mughal army, in attempting to descend from the breach into the interior of the place, fell into a ditch filled with mud, which the defenders had made in rear of the breach, and was smothered. Soon after this unsuccessful attempt, hearing of the flank m vement of the Dihli army, and its advance along the banks of the Blah, the Mughals raised the investment and retired ; and, subsequently, the Dihli army advanced as far as the banks of the Siidliarah. In the account of Ghiyas-ud-Din, Balban, afterwards Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam, and in the last Section, the prompt advance of the Dihli army is ascribed entirely to the energy of that Malik ; but, under this reign, in which these events happened, our author does not mention even his name ! See the notice of him in next Section, under this date.
Taj-ud-Din, Abu-Bikr, the son of Malik Kablr Khan-i-Ayaz, was now dead, and Uchchah was in the hands of a slave of his father's, an eunuch named Mukh,lis-ud-D!n, and gallantly he defended it. Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlu Khan, at this time, held the fief of Nag-awr, and he joined the Sultan's army, with his contingent, upon this occasion.
At this period, Lahor was in ruins, and Malik Saif-ud-Din, Hasan, the Karlugh, who, on.account of the pressure of the Mughals, had been obliged to leave his own territories, was in possession of Multan ; and, on the Mughal invaders approaching the Indus, by our author's account, he embarked, with his family, dependents, and effects, on board of boats and dropped down the river towards STwastan and Diwal. See also next Section, Malik, No. XX., and the last Section, where a different statement is made.
5 The Tabakat-i-Akbarl copies our author verbatim here, and Firishtah, of course, agrees.THE SHAMS!AH ■ SULTANS OF HIND.	669
[the custom of] killing and seizing his Maliks.was gaining a place in his nature, and he was steadfast in resolve [in that habit]. All his good qualities turned away from the laudable path and inclined towards sensuality, pleasure, drinking, and the chase, to such a degree of excess, that disaffection began to spread through the country, and the affairs of the kingdom to be neglected. The Maliks and Amirs agreed together, and despatched letters secretly to Sultan Na§ir-ud-Din—the Almighty perpetuate his kingdom and sovereignty !—and prayed for the appearance of his auspicious retinue, as will, subsequently, be recorded, please God ! On Sunday, the 23rd of the month of Mu-Harram6, 644 H., Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah, was imprisoned, and during that confinement he was received into the Almighty's mercy.
His reign extended to a period of four years, one month, and one day.
VII. US-SULTAN-UL-A'ZAM UL-MU'AZZAM, NASIR-UD-DUNYA WA UD-DIN, ABU-L-MUZAFFAR-I-MAHMUD SHAH. SON OF THE SULTAN, KASIM-I-AMIR-UL-MUMININ
The birth of the Sultan-i-Mu'azzam, Nasir-ud-Din, MahmCid Shah9, took place at the Kasr-Bagh [the Garden Castle9] of Dihli, in the year 626 II., and, as his birth took
6	Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh states that he died on the 23rd of the month of Mu-harram, and, if this be correct, he must have been put to death on the same day as he was imprisoned, but no other writer gives the precise date of his death. A single copy of our author's text, not a very old one, has—"after a month he was received," &c.
7	In the following pages, a totally different title is given to him. This is a title given to his father at page 624. According to the Khulasat-ul-Akhbar, Sultan Barkiaruk, the Saljuk [see note 2, page 143] also held the title of Kasim-i-Amir-ul-Muminin previous to the Shansabani Sultans. See page 316, and page 368, note 2.
8	Elphinstone turns him into "a grandson of Altamshand Marsh-man, following him in that also, turns his name into AfaztV-ood-Deen. These are some of "the facts" in his "History" probably, of which he is- "prepared to vouch for the accuracy."
Ibn -Batutah, who is quoted by some as an authority on the history of India, and makes I-yal-timis]i Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak's son, says Nasir-ud-Din succeeded his sister Raziyyat. He is the ninth of Thomas's Pathan Kings.
9	The garden with the ?a§r or Castle in it.670
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIR1.
place after the decease of the august Malik, Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah1—on whom be peace!—at the seat of government of the august Sultan Shams-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, I-yal-timish—The Almighty illumine his tomb !— this sovereign [Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah]—May his sovereignty long continue!—was distinguished by the title and name of the [late] eldest son [of the Sultan]. His mother [with her infant] was sent to the Kasr [Castle] at the town of Luni2, so that there he was brought up in the hall of dominion and the lap of sovereignty, and, thank God ! the foster-mother of the Most High Creator's grace nourished him in such wise that he became endowed with all laudable qualities, and from the breasts of humanity he imbibed the milk of benevolence to such degree that all his affairs and all his deeds became the means of the stability of his kingdom, and the glory of his sovereignty3.
In every matter which becomes unfolded to illustrious monarchs in their old age, after the experiences and incidents of time, all such matters—indeed, twice as much— became realized and conceived in the auspicious constitution and august soul of this monarch of blooming prospects, of Saturn [-like] throne4, in excellence a Jupiter, in sternness a Mars, in mien a Sun, in beauty a Venus, in intelligence a Mercury, in majesty a Moon in the outset of its youth and the morning of its existence, in firmness, steadfastness, and sedateness, like Bu-Kais and Hiras, and in liberality and beneficence [he] became the envied of 'Umman's [pearl-giving] sea ; and the most excellent service is 'that of that sublime Court—May it never experience wane, and may its grandeur ever increase!
Every one of the learned [personages] of the realm, and eminent men of the kingdom, have composed benedictions and panegyrics [in his praise], and particles of those odours they have threaded on the string of recital and writing ; and
1 Firightah asserts that "N|sir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah," was the youngest
son of I-yal-timish : he was the youngest of that name and title, but Kutb-ud-Dxn, the child put to death by Shah Turkan, mother of Rukn-ud-Din, Flruz §hah, was the youngest of all the sons.
3 A well-known place a few miles north of Dihll. It is sometimes called Lonf.
3	Compare Ell^t : vol. ii. page 345.
4	That is, in the seventh heaven.	s In Arabia.THE SHAMSiAH SULTANS OP HIND.	671
this frail one, who is the servant of this court of glory and altar of felicity, by way of felicitation, has composed some poetry and prose. Of these poetical [compositions], one, after the manner of a KasTdah6, and the other, in the manner of a mulamma!7 strophe, have been inscribed in these pages, in order that, when the notice of observers may glance over them, they may utter a prayer for the sovereign of Islam, and invoke a blessing on the author of them8.
[These fulsome poems may be judged of from what is foregoing, and still more so from what follows, and need scarcely be inserted here9].
Titles and Names of the Sultan.
/ us-sultan-ul-a'zam- \ ul-mu'azzam, nasir-ud-dunya wa ud-din, abu-l-muzaffar-i-mahmud shah son of the sultan, i-yal-timish,
YAMiN-i-khallfah ullah, s, nasir-i-amir-ul.muminin >. /
6 A poem, a eulogium, a long ode.
1 Mulammd means "of different colours," but, in poetry, it is applied to verses alternately 'Arabic and Persian, but our author's strophe is not exactly in accord with that description.
8	The text varies here, and, in some copies, there is a longer prayer for the Sultan.
9	If anything were wanting to convince me that Firishtah's knowledge of our author's work was derived solely from what he copied out of the Tabakat-i-Akbarl, it would be found with respect to these poems. The Tabakat-i-Akbart copies the first four lines of the kasidah, and Firishtah has precisely the same and no more; and this plainly shows whence he obtained them.
1 The I. O. L. MS. No. 1952, instead of this last title, has Kasim-i-AmTr-ul-Mumintn. See note *, page 310.672
THE TABV4!>AT-I-NASIRL
Offspring :
Rukn-ud-Din, Firuz Shah, the late2. Taj-ud-Din, Ibrahim Shah, the late. Mu'izz-ud-Din,, Bahram Shah, the late. Shihab-ud-Din, Muhammad3 Shah, the late..
Length of his reign : Twenty-two years.
Motto on the Royal Signet: " Greatness belongeth unto God alone4."
Standards: On the right, Black. On the left, Red.
The following is given as the inscription" on two of his first coins, a dirham and dinar:—
Obverse—^jjJl^U JilJl JjUI ^ILLi Ij djC-e ^jJI ljj> Reverse—J^l lt^?- 1|4|<> ^J*^ "J*!? '■Jr®
which may be thus translated:—Obverse—"This diram [is] stamped with the name of the Just and Beneficent Sultan, Nasir-ud-Din,. Mahmud Shah." Reverse—"Struck at the city of Dihli, in the year 644 H., the first of the reign."
The other runs thus :—
Obverse—I u^jW-	^Ibl-i ^U js?	^KL-V Dl
Reverse—j j ^ o^^s: jLjjJI 1 jjt i—^.
which may be rendered thus :—Obverse—"The defender of the ordinances of the Law for the sake of the true [faith], Sultan Nasir-ud-Din. The first year of the reign." Reverse—"This coin, a dinar, [was struck] at the capital, Dihli, in the year six hundred and forty-four."
2	The oldest copies have -^jl—offspring—and not —kinsmen, kindred, relations—as in some modem copies of the text, and the printed text. After each name the invocation—"on whom be mercy or compassion"—equivalent to "the late"—occurs, thus showing that they were dead when our author wrote, but this is left! out in the best Paris MS. In- the account of the Sultan's reign, the birth of a son is recorded in the fourteenth year, but no- more. Two of the above names are certainly similar to those of i1vo of his brothers— the first and third—but the other two are not the names of any of his other brothers, whoi, in' all, were six. Had six been mentioned here, and all the names agreed, we might suppose that the brothers were referred to, but, such not being the case, we can only suppose that these are the names of sons born to Sultan Nasir-ud-Din, and that they died young, but it is remarkable that our author is silent as to their births after mentioning Iheir names.
3	In orie copy of the text, Mahmud,
* Just the same as his father's.
Malik Malik Malik MalikTHE SHAMSlAH SULTANS OF HIND.	673
His Maliks5.
On the right:—
Malik-al-Kabir, Jalal-ud-Din, Kulich 6 Khan, son of [the lat ] Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Tani-i-Ghazi. Malik of Lakhanawati and Karah.
Malik-al-Kabir, Nusrat-ud-Din, Sher Khan. Sunkar-i-Saghalsus, Malik of Sind and of Hind1.
Malik Saif-ud-Din, Bat8 Khan -i- I-bak, the Khita-i, Malik of Kuhram.
Malik Ikhtivar-ud-Din. Buktam-i-Aor Khan.
Malik Nasir-ud-Din [Taj-ud-Din ?], Arsalan Khan, Sanjar-i-Chast9, Malik of Awadh.
Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-Balka Khan, Sana'! \
Malik Tamur Khan-i-Sunkar. the 'Ajami, Malik of Kuhram.
Malik Ikhtivar-ud-Din. Yuz-Bak-i-Tughril Khan, the late, Malik of Lakhanawati.
Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud2, Tughril-i-Alb Khan.
On the left
Malik-al-Kabir-ul-Mu'azzam, Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, son of 'All, the Ghuri.
Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Salari, Mahdi.
Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Tughril-i-Tughan Khan. Malik of Lakhanawati.
Malik-al-Karim, Kamar-ud-Din, Tamur Khan-i-Ki-ran, Malik of Awadh and Lakhanawati.
5 This list is evidently defective. . No Wazirs or Kazis are given, and several eminent Maliks, mentioned in the following account of the reign, such as No. XXI. in the next Section—Malik Nusrat Khan, Badr-ud-Din, Sunkar-i-Sufl, the Rumi ; No. XXII.—Malik Saif-ud-Din, !-bak, the Shamsi, the chief Dad-Bak , the son of Kashli Khan. Ulugh Khan's nephew; and several others, and no list of victories is given in any copy of the text. All this shows, I think, that our author intended to continue his work as he afterwards states.
« In some copies, Tughril and Khalj, but these can scarcely be correct, and Tughril is most likely the name of the third Malik below, which, from the names being sometimes copied in a circle, or one after the other, have got mixed up one with the other.
7 In nearly every copy of the text containing this List.
H This word is doubtful. See Malik No. XVI. in the next Section.
9 This word is doubtful also. See Malik No. XIX.
1	Sana'i—doubtful: in one copy jU-. and in another ^iL
2	In one or two copies, Na§r-ud-Dln, Muhammad, &c.674
THE XABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Malik-al-Kabir, Tzz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlu Khan. Malik of Sind and of Hind3.
Malik Kara-Kush Khan-i-Aet-kin. Malik of Lohor.
Malik-al-Kabir-ul-Mu'azzam, Baha-ul-Hakk wa ud-Din, Ghiyas-ud-Din, Balban-i-Ulugh Khan4, Malik of the Siwalikh and Hansi.
Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-Kashli Khan. Mubarak-i-Bar-Bak, the late.
Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Kuret Khan. Malik of Awadh.
Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Tez Khan. Malik of Awadh.
Such attributes of the saints, and endowments of the prophets, which the Most High God hath implanted in the great soul of this monarch and son of a monarch, and instilled into his august nature—piety, faith, probity, abstinence, compassion, clemency, mercy, beneficence, impartiality, bounty, generosity, humility, purity, constancy, steadfastness, fasting and prayer, the perusal of the Holy Word, forbearance, gentleness, benevolence, harmlessness, justness, the love of the learned and of learning, regard for ecclesiastics, along with other admirable principles and inestimable qualities which are the requirements of sovereignty and principles of government, such as vigour, dignity, manliness, ardour, spirit, impartiality, kindness, liberality, and the conferring of obligations, with the concurrence of the people of the time—will not be found united in the person of any of the monarchs among the Sultans of by-gone days, or of the Maliks of past ages—The Almighty sanctify their tombs!—and the purity of the garment, and [other] admirable qualities, both external and internal, of this Sultan, and son of the Sultan—The Almighty exalt his dignity and enlighten his understanding!—are so abundant that they cannot be comprised
3	Nusrat-ud-Din, Sher Khan-i-Sunkar, as well as Balban-i-Kashlu Khan, is called Malik of Sind and Hind. This may be in some way connected with the terms applied to the country east of the Sind or Indus, in the map of Sind in the Masalik wa Mamalik, in which the country S.E. of Mansurah is called Bilad-us-Sind, and that immediately north of it, Bilad-ul-Hind.
4	The best Paris MS.—the "autograph" probably—and two or three others which are also comparatively modern, invariably make the great blunder of styling Ulugk Ehan—^lijl—"Ulu K^an"—^ ^u ,the shamslah sultans of hind.
675
within record or recital. The Almighty God preserve him on the throne of his dominion continual and perpetual6!
Inasmuch as the accession of this Sultan, the son of the Sultan, to the throne of dominion took place in the beginning of the year 644 h.,—the Almighty perpetuate his sovereignty !—and that up to the period of this Chronicle will be fifteen years, each year thereof has been separated, in order that the events may be more accessible to the understanding.
First Year: 644 h.
The Sultan-i-Mu'azzam, Nasir-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, under a happy conjunction of the planets, with auspicious fortune, at a propitious time, and, with daily-increasing prosperity, ascended the throne of sovereignty within the Kasr-i-Sabz [Green Castle] in the capital city of Dihli, on Sunday, the 23rd of the month of Mu-harram fl, in the year 644 h.; and the Maliks and Amirs, the Sadrs and Grandees, and the Sayyids and 'Ulama, hastened to present themselves7 at the sublime Court— may its sublimity never decrease!—and performed the ceremony of kissing the blessed hands of this king of kings
5 Several of the words used by our author to express all these perfections, the like of which no other son of Adam ever possessed, are of the same signification ; and, therefore, I have not repeated their meanings again; but the context shows, that, however amiable and harmless he may have been, he was by no means fitted for his position, and was a mere tool or puppet. Our author's flattering account of him must have been intended for Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah's own perusal. Compare Elliot here.
The Tabakat-i-Akbari states that he copied Kur'ans, and completed two in each year—not excessive work—which were sold, and the proceeds he subsisted on. The author then goes on to say that he had but one wife, and no servant or slave girl, and that she used to cook his victuals and do all the work. This story, however, is very stale indeed—as stale as the days of one of the early Khalifahs. It is not likely that Ulugh Khan would have allowed his daughter to be treated after that fashion ; but the account of the brilliancy of the Court of Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, which may be gathered from the account given by our author at the end of the next Section, belies such a statement. The Sultan was God-fearing and pious—in the Musalman sense of the word—and no doubt copied Kur'ans, but that he lived on the price they fetched, and that he could not afford to purchase a slave woman to do the household duties is absurd, when he could present forty head of slaves to our author to send to his "dear sister" in Khurasan. See page 686, and the account of Ulugh, ]£han in the next Section.
9 The first month of the Muhammadan year.
7 Compare Elliot : vol. ii. page 346.676
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
of august footstep ; and all of them, each in a manner befitting his own position, tendered the homage of congratulation on his accession to the throne. On Tuesday, the 25th of this same month, the Sultan held a public reception in the audience-hall of the Kushk-i-Firuzi [the Firuzi Castle]—the royal residence; and all the peoples made public pledge of allegiance to the sovereignty and of submission to the mandates, of the beneficent monarch of excellent disposition and kingly countenance. All were rejoiced at the reconstitution of this dynasty, and all parts of the territory of Hindustan were pleased at this prosperous 9 reign ; and may it be prolonged to the utmost limits of possibility!
' When the Sultan of Islam* Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, set out from Dihli towards Bhara'ij on that fief being assigned to him [by his nephew, Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah1], his mother, the Malikah-i-Jahan, Jalal-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din—may her prosperity endure;!—accompanied him. He undertook many expeditions against the infidels3 in that territory and the mountains [adjacent]; and the province of Bhara'ij, through his auspicious arrival there, assumed a most flourishing condition.
When, on account of those holy expeditions, and the flourishing condition [of the province], the fame of his government became diffused through the different parts of Hindustan, the Maliks and Amirs of the kingdom, having become apprehensive of Sultan 'Ala-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah, secretly despatched, to his presence, a written petition [to the effect] that, if the sacred footstep should turn towards the capital, Dihli, it would be a source of congratulation \
8	The "approval" of "the people" was neither asked nor required ; in those days- there was not so much fuss made about " the people " as at present.
9	This prosperous reign may be judged of from the following pages—constant outbreaks, and continual inroads on the part of the Mughals, andSind, Multan, and Lahor lost, or very nearly so, and not recovered for a long period.
1	See page 665.
2	Who his mother was- is not known, but it does not follow that she was a "princess" as in Elliot: in all probability she was a concubine. She caused trouble enough afterwards.
3	This maker of holy war upon the infidels was then fifteen years old—a very experienced warrior doubtless.
4	A few copies have " and solicited his auspicious departure towards the capital."THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
677
The Malikah-i-Jahan, his mother, adopting a good expedient, represented to the people to the effect that her son was going to the city of Dihli for the purpose of obtaining medicine and remedy for sickness; and she placed the Sultan in a litter ; and the Malikah, his mother, taking him along with her, and, attended by a great number of domestics on foot and on horseback, set out from Bharaij towards the capital, Dihli. When night came on, they covered the blessed face of the Sultan with a woman's veil and placed him on horseback, and, proceeding with the utmost expedition, in a short space of time they reached Dihli on such wise that not a living being had information of the arrival of the august cavalcade of this monarch of felicitous reign until the day that he ascended the throne.
After the seat of dominion became beautified and ornamented by the grace and splendour of his person, in the month of Rajab, in the year 644 H., he raised his imperial standards and brought out his forces for the purpose of marching t<? the banks of the river Sind, and Banians, and the destruction of the infidels of Chin [the Mughals], and moved by successive marches®. On Sunday, the 1st of
5 The T. O. L. MS., No. 1952, and R. A. S. MS. have Multan !
8 This passage plainly indicates that Banian must be the hilly, tract west of the upper part of the Sind-Sagar Do-abah. It is not known by that name now. For the events of the Shams! dynasty, after I-yal-timish himself, as I have before stated, the only contemporary authority then living in the kingdom of Dihli was our author ; but, for reasons we are not cognizant of, scarcely from want of information, he has not given many details respecting the different Mughal invasions and other events which took place in these reigns, and above we have a specimen of his concealment of facts. He gives some details, however, in the last Section in his account of the Mughals, for which place I shall reserve my remarks, merely mentioning here that, in the beginning of this year, 644 h., the Mughals extorted 100,000 diravis from Multan, then moved on to Lahor, and extorted 30,000 dirams, 30 kharwars of soft goods [cloths], and 100 head of captives. Our author must have passed all this over, as well as much more, to feed the vanity of his patrons. See also his accouut of Ulugh Khan for a few more details. In Elliot's India, all the important events in our author's work concerning the Mughal raids on the frontiers of India have been ignored.
The Tarikh-i-Firuz-Shahi, copied in the Tabakat-i-Akbari, and its followers, would make us believe, contrary to our author, that, at the very outset of his reign, Sultan Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, assigned a canopy of state, a dfir-bdsji, and the dignity of Khan to Ulugh Khan, but this is incorrect. Had the two former been allowed him, our author was not one to conceal such honour towards his great patron.
In this part of Na§ir-ud-Din's reign, the Dakhanl historian, in his678
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IRI.
the month of Zi-Ka'dah, 644 H., he crossed the river of Lohor [Rawi], and issued commands to the forces of Islam to ravage the Jud Hills and around Nandanah7. Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam8—may his good fortune9 continue !—who held the office of Amir-i Hajib, was nominated to the head of that army, and the Sultan with the camp, the followers, heavy material, and the elephants, encamped on the bank of the Sudharah
Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam took that army, and, by the favour and aid of the Creator, he ravaged the Jud Hills and Jilam [Jhilam], and the Khokhars, and other con-
endeavours to spin out his tale, inserts the nonsense about the removal of the feudatories of the Panjab, and with it quotes the stale story about Alexander's message to Aristotle for advice, which is related in Guzidah and others long before Firishtah wrote, respecting a king of Khwarazm.
7	See Elliot here also [India : vol. ii. page 346], where the editor, in a note, says "the text \printed text?] has aiJ^i nandna, but it is evidently a mistake for '' Sindh," or the river Indus, which agrees with what follows, and with Firishtcts statement." When Nandanah, in some places, is turned into " Ndrdin," and in one place is made " a fortified village near Kanauj," we can scarcely expect to find it in its right place. The Tabakat-i-Akbari copies our author quite correctly and has Nandanah likewise, and Firishtah— the MSS. copies of the work—follows the former likewise, with some additions of his own concoction; but in the "revised text" of Briggs Nandanah is turned into Multan, and that text has neither "Nandna" nor "Sindh," and both Dow and Briggs, in their versions of Firishtah, have "territories near the Indus," and "provinces on the Indus," respectively. The words in our author's text are jU iij-j j njTSee also the account of Ulugh Khan in the next Section for further particulars.
8	J.'*"" Mu'azzam signifies great ^e—A'zam is the comparative of — 'AzTm, and signifies greatest, and Ulugh is Turkish, and signifies great, being equivalent to the Persian buzurg. Dow, referring to his appointment as Wazir—as Firishtah styles him Balban-i-Khurd, copying the Tabakat-i-Akbarl, to distinguish him from Ba'lban-i-Buzurg, as 'Izz-ud-DIn, Balban-i-Kashlu, Khan is styled in the Tarikh.-i-Firuz-Slia.hi—calls him "young Balin " ! Ulugh Khan, or Balban the Lesser or Minor, as the term signifies, was then only past forty I This however is not so absurd as Lee, who, in his translation of Ibn Batuta [Ibn Batutah], [page 114] quoting the Tabakat-i-Akbarl, to prove Dow wrong in calling him Balin, says that he was called Balaban the Dwarf, and actually gives the words ^ to prove his words,
being a dwarf in his vocabulary !!
9	The printed text has fckL, here for eJjJ and constantly makes the same mistake.
1 Or Sudhara——"is a town two and a half kuroh to the north-west of Wazirabad. In former times, the river C^inab—which, at this place, is also called the Sudhara—flowed close to the place, on the northern side, but now it is a kuroh to the north of it. There is no river " Sodra." See the account of Ulugh Khan in the next Section.the shamsiah sultans of hind.
679
tumacious infidels2 in great numbers he sent to hell. He pushed on as far as the bank of the river Sind and ravaged and plundered those parts, and returned again from thence on account of the difficulty of obtaining subsistence and necessaries for his troops. When he presented himself at the sublime Court after such success, and such a great renown, on Thursday, the 25th of Zi-Ka'dah of this same year, the auspicious standards moved from the bank of the river Sudharah, and the force set out on its return towards the illustrious capital, the city of Dihli. The prayers for the Td-i-Azha were said in the karah3 [the hall of a Karwan Sarae or of a College] of Jalandar [Jalhandar], and from thence, stage by stage, the capital was reached.
On this day, likewise, this servant of the state, Minhaj-i-Saraj, who is the writer of this [work], was presented [by order of the Sultan] with a cloak4, a turban, and a horse, with ornamented stirrups and bridle befitting a king5.
Second Year: 645 h.
The capital city Dihlt was reached on the 2nd of Mu-harram, 645 h., and the Sultan remained at Dihli on account of the abundance of rain and severity of the rainy season. In the month of Jamadi-ul-Akhir of this same year, the camp and the royal pavilion were pitched in the direction of Pani-pat, and, in Sha'ban, [the Sultan] returned again [to Dihli] ; and the sublime standards moved towards the part of Hindustan situated in the Do-ab. Within the limits of [the district] of Kinriauj there was a fortified place and strong fort, the name of which was Talsandah
2	And yet the Dakhan! historian, Firightah, in his account of Mu'izz-ud-DTn, Ghuri's reign, says the Khokhars were converted to Islam at that time.
3	The printed text has «mountain, range of hills or mountains, instead of •yf"as above, and, consequently, in Elliot, the Sultan "offered up his prayers on the hills of Jalandar," which lies in a perfectly level tract of country, with no hill whatever within some forty miles of it. Karah and hujrah are of very nearly the same signification.
4	Such as Sufis and Darweshes wear.
5	In this year Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Kara-Kush Khan-i-Aet-kfn, the feudatory of Karah, was killed in that territory, but how, or by whom, is not said.
6	This place which is plainly written »Ji-)J—Talsandah in all the copies of the text—with two exceptions, where it is «J^lj' — Talandah — and « j^Ii— Talbandah—is turned into Nandana in the printed text and in Elliot, and Thomas follows the incorrect reading [Pathan Kings, page 125], and although Nandanah, which is not only impossible, but does not occur in any copy of68o
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
which was reported to be as stout as the wall of Sikandar7. In that fort a body of infidel Hindus sought a place of security, and washed their hands of their lives. For a period of ten days, the troops of Islam in attendance at the august stirrup carried on the conflict against that place with the Hindus until they despatched the whole of those rebels to hell, and the place was taken.
[An account of] this holy war, as by the faith prescribed, this servant of the realm has composed in poetry on five or six sheets8 of paper; and all that happened on this expedition—the ravages by the way, the onslaughts and the slaughtering of the contumacious infidels, and taking of that stronghold, the successes which attended Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam in the slaying [of infidels] and taking Dalki and Malki9, are, in those sections [of paper], fully
the text, Gen. Cunningham [see Tho-MAS: ibid.] identifies it "as Deo-kali or No-Po-Tf-Po-KIN-Lo of Huen Thsang, i. e. Nava deva kala, close to Rajgir, the fort of Alha and Udal, about four miles S.E. of Kanauj." I, however, fail to find the latter places even in the Indian Atlas.
The Tabakat-i-Akbari does not mention the name of this place, but Firishtah [Briggs " revised text"] has which may be anything almost ; but Dow, in this instance, is much more correct here, and has Tilsindah, thus showing that the MSS. of Firishtah used by him, although not "revised," were correct; whilst Briggs, in his version of Firishtah, styles it " Bitiinda " and identifies it with Bulandshahr [Anglicized into Booloondslmhur\ the former name of which was Baran. The latter place is some forty miles S.E. of Dihli, while Bithandah is about 200 miles to the N.W. of it!
There is Tilsurra—what the vernacular form of it is I do not know— about twelve miles S.S.W. of Kinnauj, but off the present high road, and Thuttea, about eight miles S., and Tirooa about ten miles S.W. of Kinnanj. The first mentioned place if written in the vernacular with j = ^—which, in all probability, it is, might, by a foreigner, be written «jll-Ij for «See also the account of Ulugh Khan in the next Section.
7	The Sadd-i-Sikandar, Sadd-i-Yajuj Majuj [wall of Gog and Magog], or Bab-ul-Abwab, the bulwark built to restrain the incursions of the northern barbarians into the Persian empire, and attributed to an ancient king, Alexander, not Alexander of Macedon.
8	A sheet of paper folded to make a juz or eight pages.
5 Every copy of the text here has j between the words	and .C.L,
which seems meant for the copulative conjunction; but, farther on, under this reign, and also in the account of Ulugh Khan, there is no } If 5 is correct, and is intended for and, " Dalki and Malki" cannot possibly be the name of one person, and we are plainly told that a Ranah is referred to. Without the » the passage could be read Dalki of Malki, the latter would then refer to his stronghold or territory, the former being the most probable, or Dalki tlie Malki, and the last word would then refer to some office or title of the Ranah in question. The best St. Petersburgthe shamslah sultans of hind.
and completely described in verse, and, after the name of the Sultan, it was entitled the NASIRl Namah. In satisfaction thereof the author received from his Majesty the Sultan-i-Mu'azzam—may his sovereignty continue !—a permanent grant which should be received yearly ; and, from the Khakan-i-Mu'azzam 10. Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam— the Almighty prolong his power!—he obtained the grant of a village within the Hans! province—may the Most High God preserve and continue the both of them on the seat of sovereignty and cushion of vicegerency ! I now return to my Chronicle again.
On Thursday, the 24th of the month of Shawwal, 645 h., that fort, after much fighting and great slaughter, was capturedand, after that, on Tuesday2, the 12 th of the month of Zl-Ka'dah of the same year, the territory of Karah was reached. Thirty3 days previous to that, Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam. with the whole of the Maliks and Amirs and forces appointed to serve under him, had been despatched on an expedition; and that lion-hearted Khan, of Rustam-like nature, like Suhrab in battle, and of elephant-like person4, during that movement, showed such proofs of spirit and skill, as cannot be sufficiently praised, in important battles, the capture of strongholds and forts,
MS.j however, has only tie following words here: "the slaughtering of the contumaciam, and the taking of Dalki and Malhl," respecting, which passage see note 8, page 682.	>
10 Because our author, in his usual fulsome manner, styles him Kh2.kan-i-Mu'az-gam, signifying great king or emperor, it does net follow, nor does it mean, that he was king when this was written. Our author generally uses the word kiJjJ with respect to Ulugh Khan, which lias many significations ; and, as he ruled Nasir-ud-Din as well as the country, it would not be a matter of surprise to find '' rule "or " power " used here, without its being turned into a proof that lie must have been on the throne when the identical passage was written.
1 In the account of Ulugh Khan it is stated that he rejoined the Sultan, with his force, on his return from this expedition, on the last day—the 29th— of the month Shawwal. and that, after the festival of the Azha—10th of Zi-Hijjah, the last month of the year—the forces set out towards the capital, which was reached on the 24th of the first month of the following year— 646 H. See page 683.
• Some copies of the text have Monday. Taba^at-i- Akbari says the Sultan moved towards Karah on the 10th of that month.
3	In some copies of the text three days, but that is evidently too short a time, as the context proves.
4	Strong like an elephant he probably means. See Ibn Batutah's account of Ulugh Khan in a note to the account of that Malik in the next Section.
X X682
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
making way through forests and wilds, the slaughter of obdurate infidels, the acquirement of booty and captives, together with making prisoners of the dependents of great Raes and Ranahs such as cannot be fully contained in the writing of the scribe nor the narrative of the detailer: a little has been rendered into verse in the book [entitled] the NasirI Namah.
There was a Ranah in those mountains and that tract [of country] which they were wont to call Dalki and Malki
6 Here, contrary to the preceding passage just noticed, no • is used in the majority of the copies of the text, including the oldest and best ones ; and in the account of Ulugh Khan also, in the next Section, no j is used. There our author says that	was a Ranah in the vicinity of the river Jun which
is between Kalinjar and Karah," and evidently referring to the country, not the Ranah. He then says that: "this stronghold was taken, together with the whole of the Ranah's family, kinsmen, and children, &c." Ropes and ladders had to be used in gaining access " to the place." It is scarcely probable that our author would write two or three different versions of this affair—he wrote one in verse, as mentioned above—without referring to the name of the country or the place taken, and this tends to prove that one of these names at least, if not both, refers to the Ranah's country or fortress. They cannot possibly both refer to the name of one man : that is simply impossible, as " a Ranah" is plainly indicated both here and farther on. Without the ? the words would form a very improbable Hindu proper name, but they might then be read Dalki of Mallei, the last word being the name of his stronghold or country, which is possible, or Dalki the Mallei, when the last word would refer to some title or office, which seems improbable. As no vowel points are given, and as e) may stand for g as well as for k, the words may be Dulki, Dalaki, Mulki, and Malki, or Dulgl and Mulgi or Dalagi and Malagi, and the like. The more correct spelling may be	—Dhalki or Dhulki, and
Mhalk! or Mahalkl, as foreigners are very apt to leave out tire r»—h—in Hindi words, and to write ->—d—for 3-d. There is a place similarly named	in the Antarbed Do-abah, thus showing that it is not uncommon.
See the note to this passage in the account of Ulugh Khan in the following Section.
In the best St. Petersburg copy of the text, which I have found particularly correct in most instances where others have been most defective, and also in the best British Museum copy, this passage is different from that in all the other copies of the text collated, and throws quite a different light upon the matter by the mere difference of the pronoun, they having —that instead of y—he% &c., and I have, consequently, taking the reasons above stated with this rendering of the passage in those two first-named copies, no hesitation in adopting this solution of this very tedious passage, which is as follows:—
yjXJl*^ [j^J J^^ O^ jSJ.	\j j ^ J»\y J	j jS 'iij, ,
and as I have-rendered it above. The only doubt remaining is, whether the word u^'-3 may refer to the Ranah or not, as with, or without the j both words might refer to the country.
The Tabakat-i-AkbarT copies from our author here, but merely says that ''the Ranah's [district, placc, town, &c.] of	j	was taken."THE SHAMSlAH SULTANS OF HIND.
683
with numerous dependents, and fighting men beyond compute, and possessing dominions and wealth unlimited, and strong places, and defiles and passes of excessive strength, the whole of which he [Ulugh Khan] devastated, and captured all the dependents, together with the women and children of that accursed one, and obtained great booty. Of one description of horses alone, fifteen hundred head fell into the hands of the Musalman forces, and, from this, one may infer the extent of other booty. After he [Ulugh Khan] thus felicitously had rejoined the sublime Court, all expressed exultation at these successes; and the imperial standards, on Thursday, the 12th of the month of Zi-Hijjah, 645 h., returned from that territory [Karah6].
On this march, Malik Jalal-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah, who was the feudatory of Kinnauj, and the Sultan's brother, presented himself at the Court. He accomplished [the ceremony of] kissing the sublime hand, and returned ; and the army of Islam and the imperial standards, by regular marches, continued moving towards the illustrious capital, Dihli, until the
Third Year : 646 h.,
When, on Wednesday, the 24th of the month of Mu-harram, 646 h., the Sultan [with his forces] reached the seat of empire again on his return from this expedition. The city was decorated for the occasion, and with felicity and majesty he took his place in the seat of sovereignty 7. At this period, Malik Jalal-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah [the
Firishtah copies from it in the same manner nearly, with some additions of his own ; but he does not mention anything whatever of two rajahs, as rendered by Briggs, " the Rajahs Dulky and Mulky," but, on the other hand, " a rajah."
The situation of this Ranah's country is plainly indicated in the passage in the account of Ulugi Khan, and refers to the tract immediately west of the S.W. Tons river. I think " Garwa near Sheorajpur [Shiw-raj-pur ?] in Parganah Barah of Allahabad," referred to by Mr. T. E. Atkinson in the proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for June, 1874, pages 123-4, is too far east to have been one of the places destroyed by Ulugh, Khan.
6	Compare Elliot heie.
7	In Elliot this sentence is rendered,On Wednesday, &c., the Sultan reached Dehli', and took his seat upon the throne with great state." I have already mentioned how oriental cities are decorated, note 3, page 616.
x x 2684
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Sultan's brother], who, when he presented himself to the Sultan [on his march back from Karah], had been nominated to the fiefs of Sanbhal and Buda'un, became suddenly-filled with fear and terror, and from Sanbhal and Buda'un proceeded towards Lohor8, by way of the hills of Sihnur.
The Sultan-i-Mu'azzam continued at the capital for a period of seven months, until the month of Sha'ban. 646
H.,	when the sublime standards moved out of Dihli, and [the Sultan] gave directions for undertaking expeditions against the infidels in different parts of the hills and plains, and, having nominated Amirs to proceed to different parts, he returned to the capital; and, on this expedition, the Sultan did not happen to proceed a greater distance. On Wednesday, the 9th of the sacred month of Zt-Hijjah, in felicity and power, he reached the capital9.
The forces of Islam pushed on towards the Koh-payah [skirts of the hills—of Mewat] and Rantabhur. On this
h Rendered in Elliot, "When Malik Jalalu-d-dm waited upon the king as he was returning, he was appointed governor of Sambal and Badaun, but he all at once took alarm aboitt these two districts and came to the capital." The
I.	O. L. MS, the R. A. S. MS., the best Paris MS., and the Calcutta printed text, are minus one line or more here. There was no cause of alarm about those districts, and the capital was the place, above all others, that he would avoid. Our author makes a mystery of this affair. In his account of Ulugh Khan, he says, the Dihli troops marched to the banks of the Blah and back again in 646 h., but no reason is given; and this movement was evidently connected, in some way, with the Prince's flight. In the account of 'Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i- Kashlu Khan, and Nusrat-ud-Din, Sher Ehan-i-Sunkar, in the next Section, and in the last Section, some farther references will be found to this matter. It is said he fled to the Mughals.
9 Compare Elliot, vol. ii. page 349. This passage is certainly imperfect, for, on turning to the corresponding month and year, in the account of Ulugh Khan, it is in a manner explained. It was in Sha'ban, 646 h., that Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, moved towards the upper provinces, referred to in the preceding note, which evidently was connected with the flight of his brother to Lahor. The paragraph mentioning this circumstance might almost be inserted above, and it would make the matter clear. It is as follows:—"In the month of Sha'ban. 646 h., the royal standards moved towards the upper provinces, as far as the extreme frontiers, and the bank of the river Blah, and from thence returned to the capital." It was after this that Amirs were sent on the expeditions against the infidels, it not being considered advisable, seemingly, to pass beyond the Blah, and therefore Nasir-ud-Dln, Mahmud Shall, returned to the capital again, after appointing some of his Amirs to move against some of his contumacious Hindu subjects.
It is remarkable that, since the year 639 h., after the sack of Lahor by the Mughals, we do not find it again mentioned as a province of the Dehli kingdom, and this passage confirms it.THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
685
expedition, and during the stay of the Sultan at the capital, two events occurred. The one was this, that Kazi Jamal-ud-Din, the Shafurkani [i. e. Shaburghani] was accused, and, from Friday, the 9th of the month of Zi-Hijjah, in the Kasr-i-Safed [the White Castle], was removed from his Kazi-ship, and, by command, left the city and departed towards Buda'un; and, on the 12th of Zi-Hijjah, by the endeavour, of 'Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan, he was put to death1: the other was that Malik Baha-ud-Din, I-bak, the Khwajah, in the vicinity of the fortress of Ran-tabhur2, attained martydom at the hands of the infidel Hindus, on Sunday, the nth of the month of Zi-Hijjah— may he receive grace and forgiveness!
Fourth Year: 647 h.
On Monday, the 3rd of the month of Safar, 647 h., Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam, with the forces of Islam, and the sublime standards, returned in triumph to the capital again3. As Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam was the asylum of the Sultan's dynasty, the prop of the army, and the strength of the kingdom, with the concurrence of all the Grandees and Maliks of the realm, it was his daughter's good fortune to become the Malikah-i-Jahan * [Queen of the Universe —the Royal consort], and this marriage took place on
1	Compare Elliot, vol. ii. page 349. 'Imad-ud-DIn did not kill him.
2	For further particulars of this expedition, meagre as they are, see the account of Ulugh Khan in the next Section.
3	This is the first occasion that the "sublime standards" are said to have accompanied Ulugh Khan.
4	This passage is inverted altogether in Elliot [page 349]. The printed text is perfectly correct here, and has, like the MSS. copies of the work, the words—^Ifj. ' jl X)jji—which have been rendered totally contrary to their meaning, viz. t—the Sultan "gave his daughter to the son of the Khan"\ Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, was, at this time, in the 2ist year of his age. Thomas [Pathan Kings, page 125], led astray by the above translation probably, falls into the same error.
Our author has forgottan to state here, although he has remembered it in his account of him, that it was shortly after this event that Malik Ghiya§-ud-Din, Balban, was dignified with the title of Ulugh, Khan, the Deputy-ship of the kingdom, and leadership of the troops, and that his brother, Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-KashlT Khan, was made Amlr-i-Hajib, and, on Nag-awr being taken from Malik Balban-i-Kashlu Khan, that fief was made over to the new Amir-i-Hajib. See the account of him in next Section.686
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Monday, the 20th of Rabi'-ul-Akhir5, 647 PI. May the Most High God preserve all three, the protection and prop of the Muhammadan faith, in sovereignty, honour, and prosperity !
In this year likewise, on the 10th of Jamadi-ul-Akhir. Kazi Jalal-ud-Din, Kasani, arrived from Awadh, and became Kazi of the realm. On Monday, the 22nd of the month of Sha'ban 6, the1 imperial standards moved out of the capital, Dihli, and, on Sunday, the 4th of the month of Shawwal of this same year, crossed the Jun, for the purpose of undertaking a holy expedition against the Hindus; and forces were told off to operate in that tract.
Letters from the sister of this frail individual [the author] arrived from Khurasan, and they were represented to the sublime consideration, and the Sultan—Long may his Khilafat continue ! through the recommendation of Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam—may Almighty God long preserve and prolong both their lives !—conferred an honorary robe, a miscil [royal grant] for forty head of captivesJ, and a hundred khar-wars weight of gifts.
5	Some copies have the 6th of Jamadi-ul-Akhir, but the date and month above is confirmed in the. account of Ulugh Khan.
6	Farther on, in the next Section, our author says that Ulugh Khan moved from the capital on Monday, the 9th of Shaman, and the. camp was pitched at the ford over the Jun, and hostilities at once commenced against the infidels.
7	The translator of this passage in Elliot [vol. ii. page 350] turns 40 captives into 100 beasts of burden! The words in the text, the Calcutta printed text included, are perfectly plain, and to make it unmistakeably so, the word —11afar, applied solely to human beings, is used. The passage is thus rendered in Elliot:—'' he [the Sultan] was pleased to give her one hundred beasts of burden, and one hundred ass-loads of presents." In a foot note, the Editor states "the word used is for which the dictionaries give the meaning [it is an every-day word almost in the Persian of the East] of ' captive, slave, servant.' It can hardly bear this meaning here,, and in other places it is connected with [?] asp (horse) so / have translated it ' beast of burden,' from the verb burdan to carry" !•!
If bardah cannot bear this meaning here, how is it that, at page 371 of the same work, the Editor does not translate the same word, printed in italics, beast of burden? Why cannot it bear this meaning? Was it too shocking to think that captives should thus be sent away to be ^old ? It was a common practice nevertheless, and the meaning is captives who had been made slaves of. Our author, in the next Section, gives the particulars of his proceeding to Multan with his slaves, to despatch them to his '1 dear sister" in Khurasan, and there he uses the word —ghulaman, an 'Arabic word, whilst tfy — bardah is pure Persian ; and, in his account of Ulugh Khan, in the next Section, but which identical part has been omitted in Elliot [page 368] asTHE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
687
On Wednesday, the 24th of the month of Zi-Hijjah, the august standards returned to the capital ; and, on Monday, the 29th of the same month, the author set out from Dihli for the purpose of proceeding to Multan, in order to despatch the captives to Khurasan. When he reached the Hansi district, by the sublime command of the Khan-i-Mu'azzam, Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam, the author took possession of the village conferred on him by Ulugh Khan8, and opportunity offered of proceeding to Multan by way of Abuhar 9; and, in the
Fifth Year: 648 11.,
On Sunday, the nth of the month of Safar, 648 H., an interview was obtained with Malik Sher Khan-i-Sunkar, on the bank of the Biahand from thence, proceeding
" matters personal of the author "—but not more so than a vast deal more in this work, and as personal here as there—our author again mentions forty head of captives, &c. Khar-war, although literally an ass-load, is here used to signify the weight of an ass-load, but it does not follow that the loads were carried by asses.
8	Further details respecting these matters will be found in the account of Ulugk Khan in the next Section.
9	Ibn Batutah, who proceeded "from Multan, the principal city of Sind," towards Dihli, says, "the first city [town?] we reached appertaining to Hindustan, and the first in this direction, was Abuhar. It is of small size and closely built, and has much water and cultivation."
This statement of our author respecting this interview proves beyond a doubt, thai, at this period, the Biah flowed in its old bed, between the present Sutlaj and the Ch,inab, as it would have been impossible, in proceeding direct from Abuhar to Multan, to have otherwise met Sher Khan on the Biah. See remarks on "The Lost River" in last Section.
1 The I. O. L. MS. No. 1952, and R. A. S. MS., and Calcutta printed text, here have »L> j vl —the bank of the water [river] Sindh and Biah—and the words are thus translated in Elliot [vol. ii. page 35^1 "on the banks of the river Sind and Biyah," but for two persons to hold an interview on these two rivers at the same time is rather difficult from three other rivers and vast tracts of country—in fact the whole Panjab—intervening between them. Our author's words are perfectly clear and intelligible, but the words j —"Sindh and"—are not contained in the text. One modern copy has «L-> <_J—the bank of the Sind-i-Biah [i.e. the river of Biah], which probably the editors oi the Calcutta text took for the Indus, as the term is used—in a proper sense of course:—both to signify the Indus, and also any river, its proper Sanskrit meaning.
In a note to the above passage in Elliot, the Editor says, with reference to the words—"mulakat-i-Sher Khanhasil shud"—"our text has no nominative in this sentence," and, that "the words show that the person who had the interview was not superior in rank to Sher Khan." As the subject is688
THE TABAKAT-1-NASIRI.
onwards towards Multan, the author, on Wednesday, the 6th of Rabi'-ul-Awwal of that year, reached it. Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlu' Khan, arrived that same day from Uchchah for the purpose of taking Multan, and there was an opportunity of an interview with him.. The author continued to remain there- up to the 26th of the month of Rabl'-ul-Akhir, and the capture of Multan, which was in- the hafnds of a retainer of Malik Sher Khan, was not effected. The author, set out to' return to the capital, and Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlu Khan, retired towards Uchchah, The author returned by the route of the fort of Marut3 to Sursuti and Hansir and reached Dihli again on the 22nd of Jamadi-ul-Akhir.
In the month of Shawwal of this same year, IHitiyar-utk-Dfn-i-Kurez, from Multan, made a great number of Mughals captive,, and sent them to* the capital.; and the city of Dihli was decorated for this- success of the Nasiri dynasty * In this year likewise,, on Friday, the 1.7th of
a mere continuation of the- sentence above there can be no doubt as to who is referred to, and, as the nominative to a passive verb is never expressed in the Persian language, it is not astonishing that our author does not use it here. The word's above are '' the interview with Sher Khan [lit. of Sher Khan] was attained or acquired," not "liad an interview ;?' but! what proves—except the previous sentence, which is clear enough—the superiority or inferiority of the two persons, I am at a loss to discern.
It is the Taba^at-i-Akbari, not Firishtah—for he is a mere copyist of the former work, as I have often shown here already—who takes the Sultan, who never left Dihli that year, to the Blah, and says that Sher Khan joined him there, but does not mention anything about 2o;ooo horse. The same work takes the Sultan to Multan and tJchchah. the former of which places he is therein stated to have reached on the 6t<h of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 648 h. In this case cur author has only' been mistaken for the Sultan I See the account of Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlu Khan',, im the next Section.
The printed text turns Kashlu Khan-i-Balban into Lashkar Khan, and in Elliot [vol. ii. page 350] it is so translated, and Thomas [PathAn Kings, page 125] turns Sher Khan into the brother of Ulugh Khan'! He was his uncle's son—his cousin merely.
31 Marut is a; well known- place on the route from Dihli to Uchchah. "Mirat" is utterly impossible. One is W. of Dihli, and the other E. A person would go a little out of his way to go to Multan from Dihli by way of "Mlrat." See the account of Ulugh Khan, and Elliot, vol. ii. page 350. Our author went as far as the river Jhilam to see the captives off.
41 It i3> strange that no particulars are given respecting the capture of these Mughal prisonars by Ikhtiyar-ud-Din-i-Kurez from, not at, Multan, which caused Dihli to be decorated. It is not even referred to in the account of Ulugh Khan. It was quite time to gain some success—although this is a very doubtful one—over the Mughals, for they were continually encroachingTHE SHAMSlAH sultans OF HIND.	689
the month of Zi-Ka'dah, Kazi Jalal-ud-Din, Kasani, resigned his existence to the most sublime dynasty—the immaculate Ruler of the Universe.
Sixth Year : 649 h.
Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlu Khan, having commenced to act in a refractory manner at Nag-awr, in this year the august standards moved towards that place, upon which Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlu Khan, presented himself and made his submission, and the sublime standards returned [to the capital5].
Subsequently to this, Malik Sher Khan marched from Multan6 against Uchchah. and Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlu Khan, pressed on from Nag-awr towards Uchchah, and went to Malik Sher Khan [in his camp] and was detained, and relinquished the fort of Uchchah to him7, and, leaving it, turned his face towards the capital.
upon the Panjab, and by and by we shall find them permanently located on> the banks of the Blah. This- is the affair out of which Firishtah, but not the Tabakat-i-Akbari, makes Sher Khan take Ghaznin from the Mughals referred, in note 8, page 690, and in the account of Sher Khan in the next Section.
Some time previous to this, in 647 h., Malik Saif-ud-Din, Hasan, the. Karlugh, who was able to hold his territory of Banian notwithstanding the Mughals, advanced from that tract to attack Multan, which fief Malik Balban-i-Kashlu Khan then held, together with Uchchah. He advanced from Uchchah to drive away the Karlugh army. An engagement ensued near Multan, Hasan, the Karlugh, was slain, but his people kept his death secret— although a party of horsemen, in Malik Balban's army, devoted themselves to-kill the Karlugh chief— and Malik Balban was under the necessity of delivering up Multan, which he had entered after the engagement. We must suppose that Hasan's eldest son—the Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Muhammad—hereafter to be mentioned, took the command of the Karlugh armyy to whom Malik Balban had to surrender Multan, which Malik Sher Khan shortly after recovered from them, when he installed there his own retainer—Ikhtiyar-ud-Dm^i-Kurez, above alluded to. See the account of Sher Khan in the next Section.
I have already mentioned how eastern cities are decorated. Compare Elliot also here.
5	Ulugh Khan's brother was put in charge of Nag-awr.
6	In his account of Malik Balban, in the next Section, our author says Sher Khan advanced from Tabarhindah and Lahor upon Uchchah.
7	In Elliot, vol. ii. page 351, this is rendered "but he was captured in his encounter with Sher Khan and quietly surrendered the fort." No encounter whatever took place between them, and the event happened precisely as our author relates above. The details of it will be found in the account of Balban-i-Kashlu Khan and of Sher Khan in the next Section, which sec-690
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
On Sunday, the 17th of the month of Rabi'-ul-Akhir. 649 H., he presented himself at the sublime Court, and the fief of the district and city of Buda'un8 was assigned to him.
In this year, likewise, on Sunday, the 10th of the month of Jamadi ul-Awwal, for the second time, the Kazi-ship of the realm, together with the jurisdiction of the capital9, was entrusted to this servant of the state, Minhaj-i-Saraj, by the sublime command ; and, on Tuesday, the 25th of the month of Sha'ban, the sublime standards moved towards Gwaliyur, Chandiri, Nurwul1 [Nurwur], . and
The Tabakat-i-Akbari places this event immediately after the taking of the stronghold of Nurwur, instead of before, although our author says that the Sultan set out for Chandiri and Malwah in Sha'ban. which is the eighth month of the year.
8 One of the two most important fiefs of the kingdom of Dihli in those days.
That exceedingly trustworthy historian, Firishtah, perpetrates a nice blunder here. He states immediately after the Nurwur affair, that " Sher Khan took Ghaznin from the Mughals, and, for some time, read the Khutbah and coined the money there in the name of Sultan Nasir-ud-Dln " ! ! All this ridiculous nonsense is concocted from the affair of Ikhtiyar-ud-DTn-i-Kurez and the Mughals mentioned previously by our author. Elphinstone is also led away by this nonsense, through the translations of that writer's work, and Marshman and some others of the compilers of Indian history follow suit of course. The last-named writer adds that it is the only irruption recorded from that quarter during the period of '' authentic history." So much for the authentic history. See page 694, and account. of Sher Khan in the next Section.
9' This refers to his duties as Kazi no doubt, but the word used in the text is —jurisdiction, authority, sway, &c., and does not mean magistrate, although it might, in a proper place, mean magistracy.
1 There is no doubt respecting the name of this place: Nurwul and Nurwur, or Nirwul and Nirwur, are one and the same thing, the letters j and J in Hindi being interchangeable. It is no doubtful place, and lies some 40 miles east of Bhiipal, in Lat. 23° 18', Long. 78° The other places mentioned with it indicate its whereabouts. The majority of the best copies of the text have jUl ;»U Chahar-i-Ajar, and one but in 2WSS. j and ° are often confounded. It is probably the manner in which a Musalman, and a foreigner, would write [^"I"?"?]—Chahadah—by putting } to represent the sound of Sanskrit ^ The word here written —ajar or achdr, in one copy of the text, in the account of Nusrat-ud-Din, Ta-yasa'T, in the next Section, has aijU.1—ajarnah, which may be meant for —acharyah, j standing for_.
This Rajah is, probably, " Chahada Diwa," as referred to by Thomas [Pathan Kings : pages 69-70], but it seems very doubtful whether he was ever tributary to I-yal-timish. The second word is, probably, meant for ^TT^T—Acharya—spiritual guide, or teacher, &c., only, in other places farther on, he is styled	—Ranah of Ajar, and	—
Hindu fellow, the Ajari, or, of AjarT, and (^M '-"ii—Ranah of Ajari, andTHE SHAMSlAH SULTANS OF HIND.
691
Malwah, and, on this expedition, they reached near unto Malwah. Chahar, the Ajar, who was the greatest of all the Raes of that tract of country, who had about 5000 horsemen well trained to arms, and 200,000 footmen, was routed; and the fortress which had been constructed by him, among defiles and passes, was taken and plundered, and booty and captives fell into the hands of the Musal-man army. During this expedition the Khan-i-Mu'azzam. Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam, displayed proofs of much energy and skill; and, in safety, and under the protection of God,
(jCjU.1 andChahir and Jahir the Ajari, who was a Ranahr &c., all of which various designations make the identification difficult.
In Sanskrit, Achari means strict in the observance of religious ceremonies, and Acharaj and Acharya mean a spiritual guide or preceptor. Hodgson,- in his "Sketch of Buddhism" contained in Part I., Vol. 2nd, of the "Transactions of the Ro. As. Soc. for 1829," pages 231 and 245, mentions the Vajra Acharyas. He says " The Bandyas are divided into two classes; those who follow the Vdhya-charya, arid those who adopt the Abhyantara-charya— words equivalent to the GrihasHia dsram and Vairdgi dsram of the Brdhmanas. The first class is denominated Bhikshu; the second, Vajra Acharya." This last term is evidently similar in some way to the same name applied to this great "Rae." See also the account of this affair, in the notice of Ulughi Khan in the next Section, and compare Elliot, vol. ii. page 351.
The Tarikh-i-Mubarak-Shahi styles him yJ —Harja Diw, and the Tazkarat-ul-Muluk y.J _/>>U. — Hahir Diw—but in all probability the ^ is merely ^ or ^ with the points omitted, as no Hindu name would have the peculiar 'Arabic ^—and says he had 60,000 horse and 200,000 foot, but these latter would be mere rabble in any case, that he- was one of the Rajahs of Chandiri and Malwah, and that, on the way back from this expedition, the fortress of Nurwur or Nirwur was taken.
The Tabakat-i-Akbari states that the Sultan marched against jL.1— Achar Diw, with a large army, on the 6th of Sha'ban of this year, mentions the number of the hostile troops as given by our author, and that a great battle took place in which Achar Diw was overthrown, after which his stronghold was taken by assault, and the Sultan returned to Dihli.
Firishtah copies the above, but styles him	[the MS. used by Dow
however appears to have had j*——Sahir Diw] and adds that he had very recently built this stronghold of Nurwur or Nirwur, which, in Briggs' revised text, is turned into y—Tirur, which, of course, is totally incorrect..
According to Tod [vol. i. page 89], this stronghold was erected by a branch of the Cushwaha [he probably means the fjJj&f— Kachwahah—Rajputs] and was "a celebrated fortress" and "the abode of the celebrated Raja Nala, whose descendants continued to hold possession throughout all the vicissitudes of the Tatar and Moghal dominion, when deprived of it by the Mahrattas," &c. Of course : who ever heard of Rajputs being overcome by Musalmans except by accident or mistake or some black treachery, according to the Rajput romances? Our author, consequently, must be wrong, and the Rajputs right. It seems strange that such a great Ranah as this was is not mentioned by the Rajput annalists.692
the tabakat-i-nasiri.
the sublime standards moved back again towards the capital.
Seventh Year : 650 h.
The sublime standards returned to Dihli on Monday, the 23rd of the month of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 650 h., after which, for a period of seven months, attended by auspicious fortune and increasing felicity2, the Sultan continued at the illustrious seat of government, and, during this period, was engaged in the diffusion of goodness and establishing usages of justice and equity.
On Monday, the 22nd of the month of Shawwal of this year, the Sultan departed in the direction of Lohor with the intention of marching to Uchchah and Multan3, and at the time of bidding farewell, in the vicinity of Kaithal, the Sultan bestowed upon the author a special honorary robe, together with a horse with complete furniture and trappings ornamented with gold, and a saddle.
During this march all the Khans. Malilcs, and Amirs of the adjacent parts, assembled and attended the sublime stirrup; and Kutlugh Khan from the territory of Bhianah4,
J Rendered in Elliot, "in great comfort and splendour." The original
is:—lzJo^j tsuyi	I;
3	The I. O. L. MS., R. A. S. MS., the best Paris MS., and printed text here, have "the Sultan departed towards Lohor and GhaznIn by the way of Uchchah and Muitan" !! The Editors of the printed text must have had peculiar ideas of their own on geographical matters not to have detected this blunder of the copyists. Where GhaznIn ? where Lohor ? The word jjc in the original text has been turned into ^jjc by the copyists of the three former, but a very little discrimination would have convinced any one of the utter impossibility of its being correct. The Calcutta text, however, is faithfully followed in Elliot. See vol. ii. page 352.
What was the object of proceeding in the direction of Lahor with the intention of marching to Multan and Uchchah does not appear, unless it was to deprive Sher Khan, Ulugh Khan's kinsman, of those places and their dependencies, and restore them to Malik Balban-i-Kashlu Khan [which was clone], and that this was the first move in the Rayhani plot, which the latter Malik supported against Ulugh Khan; for, as yet, Malik Sher Khan had not left the country, and Malik Balban was feudatory of Buda'un. The Mughal raids may possibly have been the cause ; but, whatever it may have been, the Biah was the farthest point reached upon this occasion. See the account of Balban-i-Kashlu Khan in next Section.
4	Turned into "Sihwan" and "Sihwan" respectively in the Tabakat-i-Akbari and Firishtah, and the latter has the impossible for in the Sitle of 'Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-KajUilu Khan.THE £HAMSlAH SULTANS OF HIND.
693
and 'Izz-ud-D!n, Balban-i-Kashlu 6 Khan, from Buda'un, with their respective fallowings, accompanied the sublime standards to the boundary of the river Biah. 'Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan [at this time] secretly subverted the mind of the Sultan and the Maliks towards Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam, and their minds were greatly changed.
Eighth Year : 1 h.
When the new year came round, on Tuesday, the 1st6-of the month of Muharram, 651 h., command was given to Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam, from the encampment at Hasirah7, to proceed to his fiefs8, the territory of Siwalikh and Hansi. When the Khan-i-Mu'azzam. in conformity with that command, reached Hansi, the Sultan, with his forces, in the beginning of the month of Rabt'-ul-Awwal of this same year, returned to the capital, and changed the feelings of the grandees [as well as] the offices [they held9].
In the month of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, the masnad of the Wazir-ship was transferred to the Ayn-ul-Mulkthe Nizam-ul-Mulk, Muhammad, Junaidi2, and to Malik
s The Calcutta text turns him into Lashkar Shan, but such a name does not occur throughout the whole of our author's work.
6	In the next Section, the last day of Muharram.
7	This name is doubtful, and I fail to recognize the place. It is scarcely written twice exactly alike in any of the copies of the text collated, but it certainly is not " Rohtak." In the different copies of the text it is —
—/—J—o^.i—or and eLi! or isbl and the like.
8	Both here and in the account of Ulugh Khan in the next Section, in Elliot [vol. ii. pages 352 and 370], this is translated "his estates in the Siwalik hills;'''' but they were exceedingly extensive estates. Ulugh Khan held the province of Hansi and the Siwalikh in fief, which then appears to have been the peculiar appanage of the Amir-i-Hajib.
9	In Elliot, "directed his attention to the nobles and public affairs, "but the context plainly shows what is meant, and it is to be presumed that the Sultan, during Ulugh Khan's tenure of office, directed his attention to public affairs and to the great also.
1	This title, signifying the eye of the state, like the following, signifying the regulator of the country, &c., is a mere title peculiar to Wazirs. Muhammad was the name of the person in question.
2	Firishtah asserts that 'Imad-ud-DIn-i-Rayhan was a protege of Ulugh Khan's, but, as this is not contained in the Tabakat-i-Akbari, and is not referred to by our author, I am inclined to doubt its correctness.' The Dakhani historian also refers to the 'Ayn-ul-Mulk, as if he were a foreigner whom chance had brought to Dihli.694
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-Kashli Khan, the Amir-i-Hajib and Ulugh Bar-Bak [the Lord Chamberlain and Chief Master of the Ceremonies3], who was the brother of the Khan-i-Mu'azzam, Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam. the fief of Karah was given, and he was sent thither. In Jamadi-ul-Awwal likewise, 'Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan became Wakil-i-Dar4 [Representative in Dar-bar], and the Sultan [and his forces], with the object of removing Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam—may his power endure !—moved from the capital towards Hans!5. 'Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan brought Kazi Shams-ud-Dtn, of Bhara'ij [to the capital], and on the 27th of the month of Rajab, 651 H., transferred to him the Kazi-ship of the realm6. Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam moved from Hans! and
3	Compare Elliot here, where Malik Kishli Khan is divided into tzvo, and one half of him is made "lord chamberlain," instead of his being deprived of the office because of his relationship to Ulugh Khan, and his other half, as "Ulugh Mubarak Aibak," is sent to Karra! ! Bar-Bak is an officer, equivalent to the Bar-Beg! of the Persian Court.
4	Briggs is perfectly correct in reading Walul-i-Dar, since " wakildar" is meaningless ; but he is wrong in translating it " officer of the door," one "who superintends the ceremonies of presentation," for the meaning assigned to the words by Vullers is correct—procurator palatii regii, i. e. vicarius. Wazir no doubt means Prime Minister from the time of the first Khalifahs down to the present time, as in Turkey and Persia at this moment. Blochmann, in his translation of the A'in-i-Akbari [vol. i. page 527], translates " Vakil" [Wakil] as "prime minister," and " Vaztr" [Wazir] as "minister of finances." I refer to the pre-Mughal period ; but even as regards the reign of Akbar, who, being half a Hindu, and not half a Musalman, and who, hating the very name of Muhammad and Ahmad, delighted in making innovations contrary to Muliammadan usages, this rendering would furnish matter for much argument; but what I refer to in this place is WakIl-i-Dar, or Wakil-i-Dar-bar—for the two are equivalent—to which the Musalman writers assign the following significations :—sA- 3	^ JS^
A Wakil is, essentially, a person entrusted to act in the absence of another— a substitute, alter ego, locum tenens; but, at the same time, it must be remembered, that the office of Wakil-i-Dar is different from that of Nayab-i-Mamlikat—Deputy or Lieutenant of the kingdom—as shown distinctly at page 702. Ulugh Khan was made Nayab-i Mamlikat in 647 11., and not Wakil-i-Dar, which office 'Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan obtained after Ulugh Khan was sent to his fief; but 'Imacl-ud-Din did not become Wazir, for the first line of this paragraph of the text above shows, that Muhammad, Junaidi, was the Wazir. The term, Rayhan, is applied to a slave or eunuch generally. See also note 6, page 635.
This is related differently in the account of Ulugh Khan in the next Section, which see.
6 Our author's own office. See also the account of Ulugh Khan farther on. It was in this year, 651 H., that he gained great successes over the Rajputs.THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
695
retired to Nag-awr, and the fief of Hansi, together with the office7 of Amir-i-Hajib, was entrusted to Prince Rukn-ud-Din [Firuz Shah8], and in the month of Sha'ban [on the 17th] the Sultan [with his forces] returned to the capital.
In the beginning of Shawwal- of this year, the Sultan marched from Dihli for the purpose of securing9 Uchchah and Multan. On arriving in the vicinity of the river Biah, a force was despatched towards Tabarhindah.
Previous to this, Malik Sher Khan-i-Sunkar had withdrawn from an engagement on the banks of the Sind and had retired towards Turkistan ; and Uchchah, Multan, and Tabarhindah, had been left in the hands of his dependents. On Monday, the 26th of the month of Zi-Hijjah of this year, they were gained possession of, and were made over to the charge of Arsalan Khan. Sanjar-i-Qiast2, and the
7	The word here used—J*i—does not mean " interest."
8	Among the names of Nasir-ud-DIn's offspring in the list, at page 672, this name is given, together with the names of three others. These must have been mere children, as Nasir-ud-DIn, Mahmud Shah, himself, was only born in 626 H., and now only in his twenty-sixth year. The fief as well as the office of Amir-i-Hajib must have been held by Deputy in this case, by some creature of 'Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan's clique, but only for a very short time. The mention of Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah's offspring fully disproves the statement of the Tabakat-i-Akbari, and some other works, as to his having had but one wife—he may have had only one at a time—for, as yet, Ulugk Khan's daughter had borne him no offspring. See page 714.
9	The word is here used, which has different meanings. "Subduing" is rather too strong, as the object was merely to obtain possession of those places from Malik Sher Khan's dependents, and to place them under the charge of Malik Taj-ud-Din, Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar, as will be detailed in the account of him farther on. Malik Kurez, Sher Khan's deputy at Multan, had, only two or three years before [in 648 H.], sent Mughal captives to Dihli, which caused such rejoicing.
The Tabakat-i-Akbari says "Sher Khan sustained a defeat at the hands of the Sindian," and Firishtah copies with some blunders of his own; but, as the first mentioned work agrees in every other respect with our author's statements here, "the banks of the Sind" have, evidently, been mistaken for Sindian.
1	A few copies of the text, but of the more modern ones, including the best Paris MS., have " Sher Khan had retired from an engagement with the infidels of Sind "—jo- jUT—but those words appear to be a mistake for Ji-i
as in the translation above.
2	Our author, in the next Section, says nothing about this movement towards Uchchah and Multan, merely that the fief of Tabarhindah was assigned to him, and that previously [subsequently ?] he held the office of Wakil-i-Dar. He joined Ulugh, Khan from Tabarhindah, when the latter marched from Nag-awr to oust 'Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan from power.
In the account of Malik Balban it is stated that he, having been ousted from696
the tabakat-i-nasiri.
Sultan [with his forces] retired from the banks of the Biah3, and, in the same manner, returned to the capital.
Ninth Year: 652 h.
When the year 652 h. commenced, the river Jun was passed, and, in the vicinity of the Koh-payah [skirt of the mountains] of Bardar and Bijnor4 many successes were gained, and vast booty acquired.
Uchchah by Sh,er Khan, who had previously obtained possession of Multan, went to Court and was made feudatory of Buda'un, and that, subsequent to this, hostility having arisen between Sher Khan and the Maliks of the Court, Sher Khan left the country and retired into Turkistan, but no battle whatever is referred to. Subsequently—previous to the year 655 H., in 653 H. or 654 1-1. —Malik Balban had been again put in charge of Uchchah and Multan, and had made overtures to Hulaku Khan, the Mughal, who ruled over I-ran on the part of his brother, the Great Ka'an, Mangu, and had asked for a Mughal Shahnah. or Commissioner.
In the account of Malik Sher Khan on the other hand, our author states that the reason, why Sher Khan retired towards Upper Turkistan to proceed to the urdii of Mangu Ka'an, was, that, when his cousin, Ulugh Khan, was banished from the Court through 'Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan's intrigues, and proceeded to Nag-awr, strife went on between the cousins on the banks of the Sind.
In the account of Ulugh Khan, the march towards the upper provinces in 650 H. is mentioned when the Rayhani plot took place, but no reference whatever is made to Sher Khan's retirement, nor to any fighting. Under any circumstances Sher Khan could not have remained long absent from Hind, as he joined the Sultan's brother, Malik Jalal-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah, in 652 H., at Lahor, which territory, a fact to which I have before drawn attention, appears to have been then severed from the sovereignty of Dihli. There is a great deal of mystery about Jalal-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah's movements, but further mention of him, with reference to the Mughals, in the last Section, will throw some more light upon them.
3	It must be borne in mind that all the references in these pages to the Blah, and the banks of the Blah, refer to that river when it flowed in its own bed which ran about midway through the Bar! Do-ab, and Shamali Kachhi Do-ab, and joined the other rivers of the Panjab ten miles north of Uchchah : otherwise, to advance to the Biah as it now flows, to operate against Multan and Uchchah, would be of no more effect than advancing to the Gang or Jun for the purpose. I shall have to refer to its change of bed farther on.
4	As in all the copies of the text-^,^. Bijnor andj^—Bijnor [the Bijnour of the Indian Atlas]. It is a place of considerable antiquity, with many ruins still to be seen.
The very "candid" writer, our author, makes no other mention of this affair in the account of Ulugh Khan—in fact, it is not even alluded to. The Tabakat-i-Akbari, however, refers to it, but is evidently quite at sea as to the geography, as I shall clearly prove. That work states, that, in 652 H., the Sultan "marched an army into the boundaries of the Koh-payah [skirt of theTHE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
697
On Thursday, the 13th of the month of Muharram of this year, the river Gang was crossed [by the Sultan and his troops] in front of Mia-pur, and in the same manner, keeping along the skirt of the mountains, the force proceeded as far as the banks of the river Rahab. During these holy expeditions, on Sunday, the 15th of the month of Safar, at Tiklah-Banl \ Malik Razi-ul-Mulk, 'Izz-ud-Din, Durmashi® [Durmashani ?], attained martyrdom. On
mountains] of Bijnor, and, having obtained great booty, crossed the river Gang at the Mia-pur [another MS. Maha-pur] ferry, and, keeping along the skirt of the mountains, reached ihe river Bihat [which is the Jhilam];" and that, " at Talkah-mani—jU —[another MS. JL aKj], on Sunday, the 15th of Safar, of that year [652 H.], Malik 'Izz-ud-DIn, Razi-ul-Mulk, whilst in a state of intoxication [/] was martyred by the Zamindars of Kaithal and Kuhram. The Sultan, to avenge his blood, having gone to Kaithal and Kuhram, inflicted chastisement upon the contumacious of that part, and then proceeded towards Buda'un," &.c. If any one will take the trouble to look at a map, it will be at once seen what utter absurdity this is, and what ignorance it displays. The author of that work evidently wrote without attending to the geography, and has mistaken Katheher for Kaithal—had he not added Kuhram by way of riveting his blunder, I should have imagined Kaithal an error of the copyist— and so made a precious hash of the two expeditions, and made one of them, as well as mistaking a place situated in Lat. 290 49^ Long. 76° 28', for another—a tract of country—more than three degrees farther east. Firishtah follows, implicitly, thus proving that, in this instance certainly, he did not see our author's work. He, however, leaves out the name of Tiklah-Bain altogether. The simple mention of Buda'un should have been sufficient to have guided the author of the first work to —Katheher, or —Katheher, as it is also written.
5	In the original jl? a&j' In some copies Tiklah-Mani'[^L Tilkah or Talkah-Bani [JU JO], Tiklah-Bami [^l. JCV], Tanklah-Bani [jl. Tanklah-Pani [jlj aldi], and also Sakah-Manl [,jL aC]. The first mentioned is contained in the majority of the best copies. The identification of places is very difficult in the Indian Atlas sheets, as well as in other less valuable maps, from the manner in which the names of places are -written. For example, in Sheet No. 67, the word Tilak, in the name Tllak-piir, is written 7i7fo£-poor, 77M-poor, Tittock--poox, and the like, just according to the fancy of the different surveyors or engravers. In my humble opinion, in the case of survey maps, at least, the local name, written in the vernacular, should be first obtained, and then, after transliteration, inserted in the map, the long and short vowels being properly marked, as well as guttural, nasal, aspirated, and other peculiar, letters, and then the public would not be at the mercy of Gazetteer writers and their crude theories. A recent article in the Bengal Asiatic Journal, No. iv. of 1874, by Mr. F. L. Growse, is very much to the point.
There is" a place called Tigree Barehuee in the sheet referr-ed to in Lat. 290, Long. 790 40'; what the vernacular may be I cannot tell.
6	That most absurd blunder, whereby an innocent man is turned into a drunkard, occurs in the above passage. The author of the Tabakat-i-Akbari read the word —Durmashi [which signifies that he was a native of yi-^J
Y y698
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
the following day, the 16th of Safar, the Sultan of Islam, in order to avenge that act, inflicted such a chastisement upon the infidels of Katheher as [the people of] that territory will remember for the rest of their lifetime, and [afterwards] departed towards Buda'un ; and, on Thursday, the 19th of the month of Safar, the district of Buda'un became adorned with the magnificence and dignity of his auspicious canopy of state and sublime standards. The Sultan halted there for nine days, and, after that, decided upon a return to the capital.
On Sunday, the 6th of the month of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, the Wazarat-i-Mamalik 7 [Wazir-ship of the realm] fell to the charge, for the second time, of the Sadr-ul-Mulk, Najm-ud-Din, Abu-Bikr; and, on Sunday, the 20th of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, within the limits of Kol, the Sultan honoured this vassal of the dynasty [the author] with the title of Sadr-i-Jahan8—the Almighty long preserve him in the sovereignty !—and, on Saturday 9, the 26th of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, the capital, Dihli, was reached.
The Sultan continued at Dihli for a period of five
—Darmash, or that his family, originally, came from a place so called. The same name has already occurred. See page 489, and note 4], as	—
'' in intoxication" whilst Firishtah, byway of clenching the absurdity, and showing plainly whence he obtained his information^ puts an additional word i. e. eJU jc—"in a state of intoxication "!!
I had some faith in the Tabakat-i-Akbari before I compared its statements with respect to this Shams! dynasty. I found it a mere transcript, with verbal alterations, of our author's statements, plus the geographical and other blunders referred to. All this shows what errors may be made even by native Muhammadan compilers of Indian history: what then may we not expect from European compilers who are wholly dependent on translations for their materials ?
7 At page 352 of Elliot, vol. ii., "wazir" is not translated at all, and, a few lines under, '' wakildar" is translated " prime minister," but here Wazir-i-Mamalik is rendered "minister." Now it is clear, from our author's statements, that Wakil-i-Dar and Wazir are totally distinct offices, and, therefore, the former office, as described by the Muhammadan authors, is no doubt correct. 'Imad-ud-D!n-i-Rayhan was still Wakil-i-Dar at this period.
No mention of Abu-Bikr's ["Abu Bakr" must be "Turanf"] obtaining the Wazir-ship is made in the account of Ulugh, Khan, although it enters into much more detail of these events.
3 Compare Elliot : vol. ii. page 353. In Akbar's reign, the Sadr-i-Jahan was the Chief Justice and Administrator of the Empire. See Blochmann's translation of the A'in-i-Akbari.
9 Saturday, not Tuesday, is correct, for, if Sunday is the 20th, how is it possible for the 26th to be Tuesday ?THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
699
months when information arrived respecting the assemblage of the Maliks who had gathered about Malik Jalal-ud-Dtn, Mas'ud Shah [the Sultan's brother] 2. The sublime standards [accordingly], in the month of Sha'ban. moved towards Sunam and Tabarhindah, and the 'Id-i-Fitr [the festival at the end of the Fast Month—Ramazan] was celebrated at Sunam. The forces of the Maliks, namely, Malik Taj-ud-Dtn, Arsalan Khan. Sanjar-i-Chast3, of Tabarhindah, Malik Saif-ud-Din, Bat Khan*, I-bak, the Khita-i. and Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam from Nag-awr, were along with Malik Jalal-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah, in the neighbourhood of Tabarhindah. The Sultan [with the forces of his party] left Sunam and retired to Hansi, and those Maliks moved towards Kuhram and Kaithal *. The Sultan [on this] marched from Hansi [8th of Shawwal] in the same direc-
1	The inscription over the entrance of the minarah at 'Ali-garh [Anglicized, Allygurh] is dated roth of Rajab of this same year, and in it is said to occur the name of Malik-ul-Kablr-ul-Mu'aggam, Kutlugh Khan. Balban-ush-Shamsi. which has been ascribed, by Thomas [Pathan Kings, pages 129-30], to Ulugh Khan, but " the amiable king " never bestowed upon Ulugh Khan the title of Kutlugh Khan according to the records in this work. Our author says this was the title by which Nasir-ud-Din's step-father was known, and by no other name is he mentioned in these pages, and he bore that title for a long time after. See under the events of the next year. The name probably refers to the person who held the fief when the minarah was erected.
2	Further details of this outbreak will be found in the account of Ulugh Khan in the next Section. It was the occasion upon which the Sultan's brother, Jalal-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah, is said to have gone'to the camp of Mangu Ka'an, son of Tuli, son of Chingiz, but our author makes a mystery of it. More about this will be mentioned farther on.
Firishtah, in his utter ignorance, turns the Sultan's brother into Malik Jalal-ud-Din KhanI [I have already referred to this blunder of turning Khan into Khanf, at page 633, note 8], and says he was one of the " Turkan-i-Khwajah-Tash." referred to in note 5, para. 6, page 717. He seems totally unaware that Malik Jalal-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah, was the Sultan's own brother. Sher Khan, after the same fashion, is turned into Sher Khan, Rayhanl, in the " revised" text of Briggs !!
3	See the Malik No. XIX. in the next Section.
4	The Malik No. XVI. in the following Section is referred to. This title or by-name is often mentioned in the accounts of the Tiftrks.
6 This affair probably led the author of the Tabakat-i-Akbarl astray, and to mistake Kaithal, when Katheher was meant. See Elliot: vol. ii. page 354. A slight skirmish did actually take place, and the greatest confusion arose in the Sultan's camp. The particulars of this affair will be found in the account of Ulugh Khan farther on, under its proper date. Firish,tah, but not the Tabakat-i-Akbari, brings Malik Sher Khan upon the scene here. Sher Khan does not appear to have had anything to clo with this matter. See the account of him in next Section.
Y y 2700
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
tion. A party of Amirs now interposed between the two personages 6 [the Sultan and Jalal-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah], and spoke words of peace, and 'Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan was the cause of discord o,n both sides, until, on Saturday7, the 22nd of Shawwal of this same year, the Sultan of Islam commanded that 'Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan should be sent to Buda'un, and that that territory should be his fief; and that accommodation was effected.
On Tuesday, the 17th of the-month of Zi-Ka'dah, after vows, pledges, and stipulations, Malik Jalal-ud-Din, Mas'tid Shah, and- the whole of the Amirs and Maliks presented themselves, and [the province of] Lohor became the fief of Malik Jalal-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah8; and, attended by security and felicity, the Sultan and his forces entered the capital city of Dihli, under a fortunate star, on Tuesday, the gth of the month of Zi-Hijjah—May Almighty God ever adorn the
6 The original—& y u^-5 as above. The persons referred to are the Sultan and his brother, but Ulugh Khan was also concerned. Compare Elliot also here.
' " Wednesday" is utterly impossible, if Tuesday is the 17th of Zi-Ka'dah. In the account of Ulugh, Khan it is said the 22nd of Shawwal was Saturday.
8 This is the first time Lahor has been referred to as a fief since it was taken by the Mughals in 639 h. It was still in ruins, and was not rebuilt until some time after. Some authors state that Jalal-ud-Din, Mas'ud Shah, held Lahor independent of the Dihli kingdom, and that he was countenanced by the Mughals. More on this subject will be found in the last Section. Even above it is not said that Lahor was conferred upon him; merely that it becanie his fief.
In the account of Sher Khan in the next Section, it is stated that, on his return with honour from the urdu of the Great Ka'an, Mangu Khan, in Turan [this shows the state of the Dihli kingdom, when even Ulugh Khan's own cousin went to the Mughal Court], he, Sher Khan, joined Malik Jalal-ud-Din ; but there it is stated that contention arose between the latter and Sher Khan at last, that Jalal-ud-Din retired in disappointment, and that his dependents and followers fell into the hands of Sher Khan's followers. This however, it must be borne in mind, had nothing whatever to do with these events, and happened a year or two afterwards. Sher Khan then endeavoured to recover Tabarhindah from the feudatory, Malik Taj-ud-Din, Arsalan Kh,an, but he, having sallied out to encounter him, Sher Khan had to withdraw. Swift messengers were sent after him from Dihli, and pledges were entered into [to induce him not to retire to the Mughals probably], and he was induced to proceed to Dihli, whither the feudatory of Tabarhindah was'also summoned. The latter was sent to govern the fief of Awadh, and Sher Khan received back all the frontier fiefs he had previously held. Contention, however, again went on between him and Malik Balban-i-Kashlu Khan as before, Tabarhindah and its dependencies were conferred upon another Malik, Nusrat Khan. Badr-ud-Din-i-Sunkar, and Sher Khan obtained another fief, as stated in note 2, page 713, and note 8, page 714, which see.the ghamsiah sultans of hind.
701
sublime standards of the Sultan with the emblems of victory for the sake of his illustrious Prophet!
Tenth Year.: 653 h.
When the new year of 653 h. came round, an uncommon thing happened, and it was on this wise, that the decrees of destiny suffered the blessed heart of th£ Sultan to change towards his mother, the Malikah-i-Jahan ; and, as she was married [a second time] 9 to Kutlugh Khan, command was given to both of them that Awadh should be their fief, and that they should proceed to it \ In conformity with this command, they repaired to their fief; and this circumstance happened on Tuesday, the 6th of the month of Muharram of this year.
When the 'month of Rabi'-ul-Awwal came round, on Sunday, the 23rd of the same month, the Sultan of Islam:, —May his sovereignty continue!—entrusted to the charge of this servant of the state, Minhaj-i-Saraj, under the same covenant as on a previous occasion, the Kazi-ship of the realm and jurisdiction over the capital city, Dihli.
s There appears to have been some secrecy with respect to this match, and it is on account of the proceedings of the Sultan's mother and her second husband that he is excluded from the account of the great Maliks. Compare Elliot here also.
1 Some time previous to this period, but when- or in what year is not stated —more than between the beginning of Nasii>ud-DTn, Mahmud Shah's reign, and the putting to death of Malik Kutb-ud-DTn, Husain, the Ghurl, in the. middle of 653 h.—Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Yuz-Bak-i-Tughril Khan, who had previously held the fief of Kinnauj, having showed a rebellious spirit, Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, the Ghurl, was sent against him, and he succeeded in bringing Malik Yuz-Bak to the capital. The latter was then, appointed to the charge of the fief of Awadh, and, subsequently, that of Lakhanawati was conferred upon him. Hostility arose between him and the infidels of Jaj-nagar who renewed their attempts against the Lakhanawati territory. Malik Yuz-Bak was at first unsuccessful against them, but, at last,, he penetrated into their country, and' appeared before its capital. After this success, Malik Yuz-Bak, who was continually acting contumaciously towards the Court, assumed three canopies of state, invaded Awadh, and assumed the title of Sultan Mughis-ud-Din. The kingdom of Dihli appears to have been in such a state of disorder that its ruler was powerless to oust him from Lakhanawati; and, subsequently, Malik Yuz-Bak invaded Kam-rud, but was defeated and taken prisoner, and died. Further particulars will be found in the next Section, but our author gives not a single dkte, and his accounts differ considerably.702
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
In the month of Rabl'-ul-Akhir, they conveyed to the hearing of the Sultan a remark from Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, son of 'All, the Ghuri, who was Nayab [Lieutenant] of the kingdom, which was contrary to the sublime opinion, and, on Tuesday, the 23rd of Rabl'-ul-Akhir, he cited Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain and ordered him to be arrested and imprisoned ; and that Malik obtained martyrdom3— Almighty God long preserve the monarch of Islam !
On Monday, the 7th of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, the fief of Mirath was assigned to Malik Kashli Khan, Saif-ud-Din, I-bak, the Sultani Shamsi, Ulugh Kutlugh-i-A'zam, the Bar-Bak [the full brother of Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam], after he had presented himself at court4 subsequent to his return from Karah—The Almighty's mercy be upon him®! OnTuesday, the 13th of the sacred month of Rajab of this same year, the office of Shaikh-ul-Islam [patriarch] of the capital was consigned to that Bayizid of the age, the
Shaikh-ul-Islam, Jamal-ud-Din, the Bustam!6; and, in this •
2	See the List at page 673 for his full titles.
3	This is another of our author's mysteries and suppressions of facts. In his account of Ulugh Khan in the next Section, he says Ulugh Khan was made Nayab or Deputy of the kingdom, in 647 H., soon after his daughter was espoused by the Sultan. On the banishment of Ulugh Khan to his fief of Nag-awr in 650-51 H., through 'Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan's machinations, he was, of course, deprived of his office ; but, neither under this reign, nor in the account of Ulugh Khan, is it stated whom Ulugh Khan succeeded in that office, or who succeeded him ; but, from the statement above, it is evident that Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, was made Nayab when Ulugh Khan was sent to Nag-awr, and that he held the office up to this time. From what is mentioned about Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, in the account of Ulugh Khan, where the latter's return to Court is detailed, and Tmad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan's banishment, at the end of the year 652 H., it is also evident that the former— he was no slave either, but a free-born Ghuri noble of royal descent—held a high position in the state, second only to the Sultan himself. His fate evidently was connected, in some way, with the Kutlugh or Ray ham factions, from what is mentioned respecting the occurrences of this year, in the account of Ulugh Kh,an : or, he may have merely been in the way of Ulugh Khan's ambition, for, immediately after he was got rid of, his extensive fief of Mirath was given to Ulugh Khan's brother.
4	" Upon his coming from Karra to pay his respects to the Sultan." Elliot : vol. ii. page 354.
5	He died in 657 KT.
8 Bustam is the name of a celebrated town in Khurasan, of which Jamal-nd-Din was a native, hence he is styled BustamT, and Shaikh Abu-Yazid or Bayaztd is the name of the saint who has made Bustam so famous among Musalmans. Some write the word Bastam. Sed page 419. tTHE gHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.	703
month likewise, Malik Taj-ud-Din-i-Sanjar, the Sihwastani7, managed to get out of Awadh, and ousted 'Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan from Bhara'ij, and he departed on a journey from this world. In the month of Shawwal of this year likewise, the Sultan with his forces departed from the capital towards Hindustan [i. e. east of the Jun]; and, on Sunday, the 17th of the month of Zi-Ka'dah, Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam set out for Hans! for the purpose of organizing the affairs of the Siwalikh contingent, and, having got those troops ready, returned to the capital, Dihli, with them8; and, on Wednesday, the 19th of the month of Zi-Hijjah, at the close of this year, he joined the royal camp [with his contingent].
Previous to this a peremptory command had been issued that Malik Kutlugh Khan [the Sultan's step-father] should leave the province of Awadh, and proceed to the fief of Bhara'ij, and he had not obeyed that mandate ; and Malik Bak-Tamur9, the Rukni, was directed to proceed from the capital with a force and expel him [from Awadh]. The forces on either side came in contact in the neighbourhood of Buda'-un l, and Malik fiak-Tamur was martyred. On this, the Sultan with his forces set out towards Awadh for the purpose of remedying this mishap ; and, on his arrival in that part, Malik Kutlugh Khan retired before him, and the
7	There are three Maliks mentioned in the next Section -bearing a similar name and title, one Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Kuret Khan, another, Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Tez Khan, who lived in this reign, and, at this period, held the fief of Buda'un, and a third, Taj-ird-Dfn, Arsalan Khan-i-Sanjar. but the Taj-ud-Din-i-Sanjar, here referred to, must be a totally different person, and is not mentioned among those in the next Section. See also note 4, page 704.
In the account of Ulugh Khan he is styled Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Mah-pesh,am [of the moon-like brow]. "Out of the city of Awadh"—the ancient capital—is here meant, where he was confined. Further particulars will be found under Ulugh Khan, which see. Firishtah, who certainly did not obtain the names of persons from our author, turns him into Taj-ud-Dfn, the Turk.
8	On the 3rd of the month, Zi-Hijjah. In Muharrarr^ the first month of the year 654 H., the army reached the frontier of Awadh.
9	In some copies this name appears Bak-tam——but it is an error. What appears the long stroke of ^ is merely the way in which some writers, writing quickly, would write —Bak-Tamur ; but the I. H. L. MS., R. A. S. MS., and Paris MS., have ^ or	Rukni refers to Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Firuz Shah, in whose reign this Malik was raised to that dignity, probably. He is styled Malik Bak-Tamur-i-Aor Khan in the next Section.
1 It is said,.in the next Scction, that they met at Samra-mu.704
the tabakat-i-nasiri.
Sultan moved towards Kalair2. Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam [with a part of the army], followed in pursuit of Malik Kutlugh Khan, but did not meet with him, and, with great booty, he rejoined the Sultan's [camp]3.
Eleventh Year : 654 h.
When the new year, 654 h., came round, the Sultan's forces, ki the month of Muharram, 654 h., having achieved that success 4, attended with felicity and victory, and aided by the protection of the Creator Most High, the Sultan turned his face towards Dihli, and, on Tuesday, the 4th of Rabl'-ul-Akhir, 654 H., the capital was reached.
When Malik Kutlugh Khan became aware that the Sultan's forces had retired towards the capital, he began to appropriate the territories of Karah and Manikpur, and between him and [the feudatory] Arsalan Khan, Sanjar-i-Chast, a conflict took place, but the victory remained with Arsalan Khans. As it became impracticable for Malik Kutlugh Khan to- make further resistance in Hindustan, he determined to move upwards [towards the Biah and Lahor] through the border tracts, and proceeded in the direction of
8 The name of this place is doubtful in all copies of the text, but is written Kaler or Kalair—jM—in the most trustworthy copies. The probability is that it refers to—-jjf Kaliyar—a few miles north-east of Rurki. It is the remains of an ancient city. In some copies of the text the word is — Kalinjar, but, of course, the celebrated stronghold of that name is not, and cannot be, referred to. In the account of Ulugh Khan, in the next Section, the scene of these events is said to have been near the frontier of Tirhut.
3	Near Kasmandah, or Kasmandi, for it is written in both ways, on the 16th of Rabi'-ul-Awwal.
4	It was a great success, certainly, not to catch a rebel.
4 Two Maliks living at this time, whose names and titles are somewhat similar, and are thereby liable to be mistaken one for the other—one, Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Tez Khan ; the other, Taj-ud-Din, Arsalan Khan. Sanjar-i-Chast. The first-mentioned became Wakil-i-Dar and feudatory of Buda'un in 654 H. He was, subsequently, sent against Kutlugh Khan, but had to retreat; and, some time after, the fief of Awadh was conferred upon him. The latter had married the daughter of Sultan Baha-ud-DTn, Tughril, the Mu'izzI [see page 544], and had great interest. When Malik Sher Khan retired from Sindh and Tabarhindah, Arsalan Khan was sent to Tabarhindah. He was afterwards sent against Kutlugh Khan, when feudatory of Awadh, and was more successful, and compelled Kutlugh Khan's faction to disperse. This is what is referred to above. See Maliks, Nos. XVII. and XIX., next Section.THE SHAMStAH SULTANS OF HIND.	705
Santur*, and sought shelter among the independent [Hindu] tribes7. The Suftan with his forces moved from the capital, Dihli, on Monday, the 20th of Zi-Hijjah, to quell this sedition of his; and, as the new year, 655 H.8, came round, the army, in that year, marched towards Santur,
* See the account of Ulugh Khan, in the next Section, respecting Santur.
1 There is not a word about " the highlands " here, as given in Elliot [vol. ii. page 355]* The word is made ci tract of country in that work ! The words are—^VIj	^L. ^—as above.
The editor of the above-mentioned work adds, in a foot-note, that " These two names are written and (var. jy->). The former is probably Mewar, and the hills the AravalK mountains. Briggs says there is a town called Santpur, near Abu. Thornton has a "Santoo, eighty-four miles S.S. W. from Jodhpur" ! ! Where will they lead us next ? They are entirely out, however, both in their latitude and longitude here, only about five degrees too far W. and S. !! Where "Mewar ?" where the Himalayah mountains? Perhaps "Bahi-dick" is near "Jodhpur" also. Firishtah turns into j^a—JItur—and —Jit-pur —or, rather, the "revised text" of Briggs does. Dow has Sitnoor, as in the Tabakat-i-Akbari, which proves that the MS. of Firightah used by him was correct, ioxjy^ in a MS. might be read, by a person not knowing what place was referred to, j.-:- The "revised" text of Firishtah might be revised from other MSS. of that work with much advantage.
There is some difficulty with respect to the exact meaning which our author desired to convey by the word —ma-was—here, and caLI^—mawasat used elsewhere. The latter word seems as if intended for the plural form of it, according to 'Arabic ideas or, otherwise, for the 'Arabic word signifying "society," "neighbourhood," " fellowship," &c. There is also a Hindi word written in the same way—u-y—meaning "refuge," "protection," "retreat," "asylum," and the like, which might be used here : but, from the way in which the second form of the word, viz. oLy is used in the account of Ulugh Khan, and in other places farther on, respecting these events, both words evidently refer to neighbouring independent Hindu tribes and the tracts they dwelt in, adjoining the Dihli territory, but not under the sway of the Dihli kings, and as such I shall use the word here.
The country of the Mews or Mewras is certainly not meant, for Mew at is too far south-west. The events here recorded happened in and around the Upper Do-ab, in and near the lower ranges of the Himalayah mountains, as far east as the district of Tirhut, and as far as the Brah on the west.
I have in my possession detailed geographical accounts of these tracts, but neither of the words used in the text is mentioned. There is a possibility that the name mawas is local, but, at the same time, there seems but little doubt of their being the same, or one among the aboriginal Hindu tribes, referred to in Dalton's Ethnology [pages 154, 221, 230, 231, 280], and in the Bom. Geogr. Journal, II. of 1855, under the name of Muasis, which is used like the term j\$—gawar—^u-.j-a .j ^l.ii ^ j^il—by some native writers, applied to a nomad people of Hindustan.
8 These are the events of the next year, not of 654 h. In the account of Ulugh Khan it is stated that the Sultan's troops only began their march in the third month of 655 ii.706
the tabakat-i-nasiri.
and hostilities were commenced between the forces of Islam and the Hindus of the Koh-payah [skirt of the hills]9. Kutlugh Khan was among that people; and a party among the Musalman Amirs, who were apprehensive, through being falsely accused, joined him but, as they had not the power to withstand [the Sultan's troops], they consequently turned their backs [and retired], and Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam, by stroke of sword, turned that mountain tract upside down, and pushed on through passes and defiles to Silmur [i. e. Sirmur], and devastated the Koh a-i-Silmur [the hill tract of Sirmur], and waged holy war as by the faith enjoined, over which tract no sovereign had acquired power, and which no Musalman army had ever before reached, and caused such a number of villainous Hindu rebels to be slain as cannot be defined nor numbered, nor be contained in record nor in narration3.
Twelfth Year: 655 h.
After withdrawing from thence [the hill tract of Silmur], on Sunday, the 6th of Rabi'-ul-Awwalr 655 h., Malik Saif-ud-Din, Ban Khan, I-bak, the Khita-i. sustained a fall from his horse and died from the effects of the injuries he sustained, and the Sultan's forces turned their faces towards the capital, and, on Sunday, the 26th4 of the month of Rabi-ul-Akhir, he reached the illustrious seat of government, Dihli.
B The Sub-Himalayah is here meant, not the hills of Mewat.
1	This is rendered in Elliot [vol. ii. page 356] ."a party of nobles in the royal army, &c., went and joined them," as if they deserted from the Sultan's army. The text, however, will not admit of this rendering, and the words are jijy jj'i-	ls^j 5 The Musalman Amirs were not with the royal forces at this time. See under Ulugh Khan.
2	In a few of the more modern copies of the text Kabbah—town is used instead of Koh —mountain, hill-tract, &c. Silmur and Sirmur is one and the same thing. The chief town bore that name as well as the tract of country. For further particulars respecting this part, see the account of Ulugh Khan in the next Section. There the Hisar—fortress, or fortified, town—of Silmur is mentioned.
3	It was on the last day of Shawwal of this year, although some say the following day—the 1st of of Zi-Ka'dah—that Rukn-ud-Din, Kh,ur Shah, the last of the Mulahidah rulers of Alamut, came down from his stronghold of Maimun-Dujz and presented himself before Hulaku Kh,an, the Mughal.
4	It was the 25th according to the statement in the account of Ulugh Khan, which see.THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
707
On the return of the victorious forces, Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlu Khan, who, with the troops of Uchchah and Multan, was [then] in the neighbourhood of the banks of the river Blah s, advanced still farther [north-eastwards], and Malik Kutlugh Khan, and those Amirs who were in combination with him, joined Malik Balban-i-Kashlu Khan, and advanced to the limits of Mansur-pur and Samanah 6. When information of the movement of this faction came to the sublime hearing, Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam with the troops was appointed [to march against them], and, on Thursday, the 15th of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 655 H., he moved from the capital7.
When Ulugh Khan 8-i-A'zam, with the forces under him, arrived near unto the army of the faction, so that between the two armies about ten kuroh [about 18 miles] distance remained, a party at the capital, such as the Shaikh-ul-Islam [patriarch], Jamal-ud-Din, the Sayyid, Kutb-ud-Din, and Kazi Shams-ud-Din, the Bhara'iji, wrote letters secretly, and despatched them to Malik Kutlugh Khan and Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlu Khan [urging them] to come to the capital, and that they would give up the gates [of the city] to them ; and every one within the city they were getting to pledge their support to this movement,
5	This advance was made with an object, as will appear in the account of Ulugh Kh,an.
6	Kutlugh Khan and his faction, skirting the lower range of the Himalayah, advanced towards the Biah, keeping north of Sirhind, and Balban-i-Kashlu Khan moved up from the Multan district to meet him, along the banks of the Blah—which, at that period, from our author's remark in his account of Balban-i-Kashlu Khan, was the boundary of the Dihli kingdom. It flowed in its old bed at this period. See remarks on the "Lost River" in last Section.
7	Our author's account here differs considerably from that given in his notice of Ulugh Khan, and that again differs, in a great measure, from the other two in his notice of Balban-i-Ka§hlu Khan. Under Ulugh Khan, our- author stales that, when he, with his troops, drew near to the rebels in the vicinity of Kaithal, on the 15th of Jamadx-ul-Awwal, certain persons at the capital wrote letters, &c.
8	He is again turned into his namesake, Balban, by Firishtah, who styles him ^.jJl jel The title of his namesake, however, was 'Izz[jc]-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlu Khan. Ulugh Kh,an never went by the title of 'Izz-ud-Din. The Tabafcat-i-Akban, which copies from our author, is perfectly correct, but Firisb.tah imagines that "Kashlu [not Kashli] Khan, Hakim of Sind" and 'Izz-ud-Din, Balban, was another person altogether, and makes two persons of him in nearly every instance throughout his account of this reign.708
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
and were entering into compacts, and making stipulations with them. Certain loyal informants [however] wrote intimation of this sedition to Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam who, in consequence of this treason, from his camp, imparted information to the sublime Court respecting the fact of this disaffection on the part of a party of turban-wearers9 [priest-hood], and requested, in the event of its being expedient in the sublime opinion, that a royal mandate should be issued by his Majesty unto them to the effect that those [among them] who held fiefs in the neighbourhood of the capital should repair to their respective fiefs, and that their return to the city again should be prohibited, by his Majesty's command, until that sedition should be quelled.
On Sunday, the 2nd of Jamadi-ul-Akhir. 655 H., the mandate was issued that the Sayyid Kutb-ub-Din, the Shaikh-ul-Islam, Jamal-ud-Dm, and Kazi Shams-ud-Din, Bhara'-iji, should proceed to their fiefs.
On their letters from the capital having reached Malik Kutlugh Khan and Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlu Khan, they, at once, without the least delay, marched from their position, with the whole of their forces, and pushed on towards Dihli. This forced march of theirs upon the capital, from their camp near Samanah, was begun on Monday, the 3rd of the month of Jamadi-ul-Akhir \ and they pushed on with such celerity that they marched a distance of one hundred kuroh [about 180 miles] in two days and a half; and, on Thursday, the 6th of Jamadi-ul-Akhir, they alighted at the Bagh-i-Jud [the Jud Garden]2. The next morning,, at dawn, after morning
9 Compare Elliot [vol. ii. pages 356, 357] here	does not mean
"nobles."
1	How is it possible that the hostile Maliks could have started on the 3rd of Jamadi-ul-Akh,ir, even if the information sent by the loyal party arrived the same day as that in which the letters of the turban-wearers reached the hostile camp ? Ulugh Khan had to despatch the news to the Sultan, at Dihli, and he had to issue his mandate to expel them ; and this, our author says, he did on the 2nd of Jamadi-ul-Akh,ir— the day before the letters from the different partisans reached the respective camps ! These two dates cannot both be correct.
2	The printed text here has a typographical error of	for	which is immediately after printed correctly, and the name occurs in a number of places in this Section and the next. In consequence of this slight mistake, this sentence is rendered in Elliot [vol. ii. page 35.7]—"they alighted at theirTHE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
prayers, they made for the city gate, and made a circuit in the vicinity of the capital3, and, at night, pitched their camp in the suburbs of Dihli, between the Bagh-i-Jud, and Gilu-khari, and the city.
When those Maliks and [their] forces, in expectation of the fulfilment of the promise [contained] in those letters, reached the Bagh-i-Jud, the favour of Almighty God was such that, two days previous to their arrival, the party disaffected had been sent away from the city ; and, when those [hostile] Maliks became aware of their story, their proceedings became suspended and a command had issued from the Sultan's court, so that they [the authorities] secured the city gates; and, as the [royal] troops were absent from it, they made dispositions for defence. The Amir-ul-Hujjab [Lord or Head of the Chamberlains] 'Ala-ud-Din, son of Ayazthe Zinjani, and the Deputy Amir-i-Hajib, and the Ulugh Kotwal-Bak [the great Lord, the Seneschal], Jamal-ud-Din, the Nishapuri, with the Diwan-i-'Ariz-i-Mamalik [Muster-Master of the Kingdom], that same night, in organizing the fighting men for the defence of the city6, greatly distinguished themselves, and Amirs, heads of families, and respectable persons, were appointed to the ramparts.
gardens [plural] (outside the city)," &c. Immediately under, the same is repeated in the text, but printed correctly—^—but, in Elliot, Bagh-i-Jud is discarded altogether, and the words "gardens on the Jamna" are substituted, and the editor adds, in a note :—" the text has ' Jiid,' which I take to be a mistake For Jiin — Jumna ! " When our author is perfectly correct he is, in this manner, made out to be wrong.
From its situation, the Jud Bagh is probably that which now goes by the name of the Bagh-i-Shalimar, some distance W. of the old city of Dihli.
This affair will be found much more detailed in the account of Malik Balban-i-KasJjlu Khan, and of Ulugh Khan, farther on, and the Jud Garden is again referred to.
3 There is nothing about walls in this part of the sentence.
14 In Elliot [vdl. ii. page 357] — "they became very cautious in their proceedings," &c. The original word ul^here signifies delaying, suspending, retarding, &c.
5	He had succeeded, as Deputy of Ulugh Khan's brother, Malik Saif-ud-Dfn, I-bak-i-Kashli Khan, who had been sent to the fief of Mirath after Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, the Ghuri, had been got rid of.
6	Malik Badr-ud-Dln-i-Sunkar, the Rum!, feudatory of Bhfanah, also rcached the capital with a body of troops, and this timely aid tended to the security of the city. As usual with our author, he gives part of the details here, but retains the greater part of the particulars for his account of Balban-i-Kashlii Khan, and Ulugh Khan, which see.7io
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
When the morning of Friday [the 7th of Jamadi-ul-Akhir] dawned, God Almighty prepared a pleasure [for them], and Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlu Khan, proposed to retire. The other Maliks along with the Sultan's mother, the Malikah-i-Jahan, when they perceived that his intention was to be abandoned, all concurred in retiring. The greater portion of their following [however] did not accompany them at the time of their withdrawal, and took up their quarters in the vicinity of the city, and many of the great and notable persons among them sought to be admitted to terms, and presented themselves before the sublime court7.; and those [disaffected] Maliks retired towards the Siwalikh 8 [territory] foiled in their objects.
When information of their intention [to march against Dihli, previously related] reached Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam. and the [other] Maliks and Amirs of the royal army, they moved from the position they were then in, and pressed forward towards the capital, until, when they arrived near unto it, the state of ..affairs became manifest to Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam, and he reached the capital again, safely, prosperously, victoriously, and triumphantly, on the 14th9 of Jamadi-ul-Akhir—May Almighty God perpetuate the sovereignty of this dynasty, and make lasting the fortune and power of this Khan-ship, and preserve the people of Islam, through His illustrious Prophet Muhammad 1!
Subsequently to these events, on Wednesday, the 8th of the blessed month of Ramazan of this year, the masnad of the Wazir-ship was entrusted to the Ziya-ul-Mulk, Taj-ud-Din, with the title of Nizam-ul-Mulk, and the masnad of the [office of] Ashraf-i-Mamalik2 was committed to the
7 That is, they presented themselves to make their submission, after terms were entered into, and do homage to the Sultan. In the account of Malik Balban-i-ICashlu Khan, in the next Section, it is said that only 200 or 300 followers accompanied him on his retreat.
d The. Siwalikh has been previously described.
9 Without even a skirmish having taken place between them ! So much for our "candid and conscientious narrator."
In the account of Ulugh Kh,an the date is the 10th of Jamadi-ul-Akhir.
1	No further notice of Kutlugh Khan and his wife, the Sultan's mother, occurs throughout this Work, although our author, no doubt, was well aware of their fate ; and it is not recorded anywhere else. They probably retired within the Mughal dominions, or remained with Kashlu Khan in Sind.
2	See note 6, page 635, respecting these titles.THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
711
Sadr-ul-Mulk ; and, at the end of this year3, an army of infidel Mughals from Khurasan reached the territory of Uchchah and Multan, and Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlu Khan, entered into a compact with them, and joined the camp of their leader, the Nu-yin, Salin 4, the Mughal.
Thirteenth Year : 656 h.
When the new year came round, and the month of Mu-harram, 656 H., was entered upon, on Sunday, the 6th of Muharram, the sublime standards moved from the capital for the purpose of making holy war upon and repelling the Mughal infidels, and a camp was formed in sight of the city of Dihli.
Trustworthy persons have related on this wise, that on Wednesday, the 9th of this same month, Hulau [or Hulaku], who was the head of the Mughal infidels [in 'Irak], fled discomfited before the troops of the Lord of the Faithful, Musta'sim B'illah, from the gate of Baghdads.
3	In Zi-Hijjah, the last month of the year.
4	Elliot [vol. ii. page 358]—"at the camp of Sdltn-nawln" ! This leader is styled Sari by our author in the account of Ulugh Khan, and Sail— r and I being interchangeable—in other places, and by other authors.
The Tabakat-i-Akbari dismisses this invasion in a few words, and has : '' At the end of this year an army of Mughals came into' the territories of Uchchah and Multan, and the Sultan marched to repel them, and the Mughal army retired without fighting, and the Sultan also returned."
The " revised "text of Firishtah has J-l ^Uu, j ^ly j ^L-i Jj*. fli which, if correct, shows that writer knew not what he was writing about, for it can only be rendered—"an army of Mughals came to Sari and the territories of Uchchah and Multan." The name of the leader has been mistaken for a place, and his rank seemingly for a territory also. He adds, what is neither contained in our author nor in the Tabakat-i-Akbari—"the Sultan brought forth his red tent [pavilion] and pitched it, and after four months, when his forces had assembled, he set out by continuous marches, and, as the Mughals retired without fighting, the Sultan also retired," all of which is totally incorrect, and his own concoction. The Sultan never moved from his capital, nor did the troops either, and there they remained. The Mughals did just what they liked, and ravaged the frontiers of the Dihli kingdom ; and Malik 'Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kas£lu Khan, who was independent, all but in name, of the Dihli government, had lately returned from a visit to Hulau [or Hulaku, both being correct] Khan's camp, and was saddled with the presence of a Mughal intendant or commissioner in his territory. See the account of Balban-i-Kashlu Khan and Ulugh Khan farther on.
5	The editors of the Calcutta text add a note here to the effect that this712	the tabakat-i-nasirl
When the Sultan's troops issued forth for the purpose of carrying on war against the infidels, Maliks and Amirs, with bodies of troops, were appointed to all parts 8 ; and the centre [division] of the Sultan's [own] troops returned to the capital on the ist of the month of Ramazan, where the Sultan continued for a period of five [seven ?]7 months. On the i8th of the month of Zi-Hijjah 8 of this same year, the kingdom of Lakhanawati was conferred upon Jalal-ud-Din, Mas'ud9, son of [the late] Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Jam.
Fourteenth Year : 637 h.
The new year having come round, on Thursday, the 13th of Muharram, 657 h.1, the Sultan's forces moved for the purpose of carrying on war against the infidels ; and , on Sunday, the 21st of the month of Safar, the territories of Bhianah, Kol, Balaram, and Gwaliyur were placed in Malik
statement is contained "in all four MSS. used by them," and that it is '' contrary to the truth." I can assure them that it is contained in eleven MSS., and more, that, wherever a MS. of the text is found, therein will this statement be found also, and still more, that the statement is perfectly true that the Mughals—the van of Hulau's army, amounting to 30,000 horse—on approaching the gates of Baghdad on the west side of the Dijlah, were encountered by the Khalifah's troops under his general Suliman Shah, and other leaders, and repulsed. This was but a temporary success however. Al-Musta'sim B'illah,Abu Ahmad-i-'Abd-ullah, was martyred by the Mughals,. together with four of his sons and other members of his family, on the 6th of Safar, 656 h.
6 Where these bodies of troops were sent may be seen in the account of Ulugh Khan, and may partly account for the forces of DihlT, concentrated at the capital, being unable to move against the Mughals.
' All the copies of the text have five months, but, from the 6th of Muharram —the first month of the year—mentioned above, to the 1st of Ramazan, is exactly eight months less five days.
8	In some copies ZI-Ka'dah.
9	He is styled '' Shah " in some of the best copies of the text, which is certainly redundant, for we nowhere meet with it except for the princes of this dynasty. In the List at the commencement of this reign he is called Jalal-ud-DTn, Kulich. Khan, son of the late Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Jam, who is certainly, at page 625, styled Shah-zadah of Turkistan. In other places the son is called Malik Kut-lugh, Mas'ud, son of Jani, and also Kulij and Kullj, Mas'ud, son of Jam. See the account of Ulugh Khan for notice of other discrepancies respecting Lakhanawati and its governors.
1 No movement was made, according to this, for a period of four months and twelve days, from the ist of Ramazan, 656 h. to the 13th of Muharram, 657 H. The infidels referred to were Hindus, as will appear.THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
713
Nusrat-ud-Din, SherKhan-i-Sunkar's charge2, and the Malik-un-Nawwab, I-bak, was nominated to proceed with a force against the infidels of Rantabhur, and the Sultan's forces returned to the illustrious seat of the kingdom's glory again.
On Wednesday, the 4th of the month of Jamadi-ul-Akhir of this year, two elephants and some treasure from the territory of Lakhanawati reached the sublime Court3; and, on the 6th [26th ?] of the aforesaid month, the Shaikh-ul-Islam [Patriarch] of the capital, Jamal-ud-Din, the Bustami died, and on the 24th of the month Kazi Kabir-ud-Din departed this life—the Almighty's mercy be upon them!—and their offices were conferred, with king-like benevolence, upon their sons. In the month of Rajab of this same year, Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak, Kashli Khan 4-i-A'zam, the Bar-Bak, passed to the eternal mansion of the Most Compassionate, and the office of Amir-i-Hajib was assigned to his son, Malik 'Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad \ On the 1st of Ramazan, the Imam, Hamid-ud-Din of Mari-galahfl, died likewise, and his grants, by the royal favour, were confirmed to his sons.
2	In the account of Malik Sher Khan, and of Ulugh Khan, besides these fiefs, Baltarah, Baltadah, or Paltarah—for the word is written thus in the best copies of the text—and Mihir and Mahawan, are also said to have been conferred upon him. See note 9, last para, page 714.
Firishtah, who, of course, knows more than any one else, and is always so correct as I have shown, says, immediately after mentioning the "Sultan's return from marching against the Mughals "—which was not correct, as shown in the previous note 7—that the Panjab was entrusted to Sher Kjjan's charge, and that Kashli Khan. Ulugh Khan's brother, got Bhianah, Kol, Jalisar, and Gwaliyur, which is equally fallacious. The Sultan did not possess the Panjab to give him : the Mughals had overran that part, as will be found farther on. The frontier territory possessed by the Sultan at this period—657 H. [when all Indian Histories suddenly cease from giving any further accounts of the reign, because dependent on our author for them]—was made over to the charge of Malik Nusrat Khan, Badr-ud-Din, Sunkar, the Ruml, as mentioned in a following note, and he was still stationed in that part, with a considerable body of forces, when o.ur author ended his history.
3	See the account of Malik Taj-ud-Din, Arsalan Khan, in next Section.
4	Firishtah, of course, kills the wrong person. He records the death of
Malik je1 [for jc]-ud-Din, Kashlu Khan, who was still living when our author finished his work.
i This nephew of Ulugh Khan rose to high rank in his reign, and held the offices his father had held; and his title was 'Ala-ud-Din, Kasjili Khan,
Ulugh Kutlugh-i-Mu'azzam, the Bar-Bak. He was very munificent, a great archer and hunter, and very skilful in the game of Chaugan.
• Of Miir-galah in the Tanjab.
Z Z714
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
After such turmoil, when the prosperity of the state, and the dominion of the great Sultan's kingdom, had its face turned to extension, and all fractures were set and all wounds were alleviated, on the branch of continuity on the stately tree of monarchy, a new flower bloomed, and a tender bud opened, and the ripening fruit grew; and, on the 29th of the month of Ramazan, the abundant grace of the Creator of the Sultani [imperial] stem, from the illustrious shell of Khan! [the daughter of Ulugh Khan], bestowed a son7; and such an amount of favours and benefactions reached both gentle and simple—noble and plebeian—[in gratitude] for these blessings, as the pen of the record-writer cannot record, nor the breath of the narrator be sufficiently capable of narrating8—May the Almighty God ever keep the parterre of sovereignty and garden of dominion adorned with the trees and fruits of continuation!
At the end of the month of Shawwal of this same year, Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Tez Khan, with a force duly organized and equipped, in accordance with the sublime mandate, reached 8 the capital.
Fifteenth Year: 658 h.
When the new year of 658 h. came in, the sun of sovereignty rose from the horizon of prosperity, and the
f This son was by Ulugh Khan's daughter, but he did not live long.
8	Our '' author's flourishes " seem to have been '' greatly compressed " here, in Elliot, as well as in the account of the following year.
9	The word here used signifies—reached, arrived—not returned. He came from Awadh in order to accompany Ulugh Khan in his expedition into the Koh-payah; but, in the account of him in the next Section, it is said he arrived at the capital in 658 h., when our author finished his history.
In this year "when all fractures were set," and the Mughals harassing the frontier, Malik Badr-ud-Dln, Sunkar, the Rumi, on account of the implicit faith placed in him by the Court, and on account of the continual hostility between Malik Sher Khan, who held Tabarhindah and its dependencies, and Malik Balban-i-Kashlu Khan of Multan and Uchchah, was made feudatory of Tabarhindah, Sunam, Jhajhar, Lakhwal, and as far as the ferries of the Biah, and despatched there with a large force. On this occasion, the title of Nusrat Khan was conferred upon him. Sher Khan received the fiefs of Kol and Bhlanah, Bilaram, Jalisar, Baltarah, Mihar, and Mahawan, and the fortress of Gwaliyur—a very considerable tract of territory. Both Maliks held these fiefs when our author closed his history.THE SHAMS I AH SULTANS OF HIND.
7iS
moon of dominion shone forth from the zodiac of happiness,
On the 13th of the month of Safar, the Khan-i-Mu'-azzam, Ulugh Khan-i-A'zam. marched towards the Koh-payah of Dihli, to put down the violence of the contumacious Mew 1, of whom a demon would be horrified, and about 10,000 horsemen in defensive armour, warlike and relentless warriors, followed his august stirrup2. The next day vast booty, and cattle in great numbers, arrived. He [the Khan] plundered and devastated difficult passes, and attacked strong mountain tracts3, and Hindus beyond computation fell beneath the unsparing swords of the holy-warriors \
Since the accomplishment of this History has reached this place, with this holy-warfare, and victory and success conferred by God, it is concluded. Should life be prolonged, and eternity extend the time, and aptitude remain, whatever events may hereafter occur will be recorded.
The hope and reliance [of the author] on such persons as may look into this Tabakat and into these Annals, and take into consideration these Chronicles and Narrations, or if an atom of these accounts or a hint of these statements should come to their hearing, is, that, if an er-or, mistake, inadvertency, or omission should enter their
1	Mew, Mewra, or Mewrah, or Mewatis, a most contumacious race down even to modern times. In Akbar's time they were employed as spies, and Dak runners. The words Mew and Mewra or Mewrah are both singular and plural.
2	Ther£ is nothing whatever in the text about '' their Deo," nor about '' and a large army," as in Elliot [vol. ii. page 359], which compare here. The force consisted of about 10,000 cavalry only.
3	The words	^U/ — kohaha-i-hagln — do not signify "strong forts."
4	The details of these operations, but related in quite a different manner, will be found in the account of Ulugh, Khan, in the next Section, together with the account of the reception of the emissaries from Khurasan, and the circumstances which led to their coming. These persons certainly came from—or rather returned from—the camp of Hulaku Khan, but they were not envoys from him, nor from the Mughals. Ulugh Khan returned from this expedition on the 24th of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, 658 h., the emissaries from Khurasan were received in the middle of the following month, Rabi'-ul-Akhir, and, on the 24th of Rajab, the seventh month of the year, Ulugh Khan again moved towards the hill tracts—Koh-payah. His return is not mentioned, but he had returned again, no doubt, when our author finally ended his history, in the tenth month of the year—Sliawwal—658 h.
Z z 2716
THE TABAKAT-I-NA§IR!.
generous minds or reach their recipient ears, they will veil it with the garment of forgiveness, and endeavour to correct and rectify it, since whatever had been read in previous histories from the narrations and chronicles of Prophets, Maliks, and Sultans, has been copied, and whatever the eye has beheld has been recorded5.
8 It is remarkable, but nevertheless true, and I do not think the fact has been particularly noticed before, that all the Muhammadan Indian histories of this dynasty suddenly end where oui1 author terminates his account of it, and that no farther account of Nasir-ud-DTn, Mahmud Shah's, reign is contained in any of them.
The Tabakat-i-Akbari relates but two events in the year 657 H., and then suddenly comes to a conclusion with a short account of that Sultan's mode of life, and his death, and no other event is mentioned. Buda'uni goes on a little farther, and gives a few lines more, but only as far as our author goes in his account of Ulugh, Khan in the next Section, and then gives several Kasldahs, of many pages, by way of lengthening the account. Firishtah also manages to spin out his tale to the same date, but relates nothing farther than is contained in Buda'uni and our author, whose last date here mentioned is 13th of Safar—the second month of the year 658 H. ; and, in the account of Ulugh, Khan, the last date given is Shawwal—the tenth month of that yeai' and all after is a perfect blank in Indian history, until the reign of UlugU Khan, — Sultan Ghivas-ud-Din, Balban—with which Ziya-i-Barani commences his history, the Tankh-i-Firuz-Shahi; but he relates nothing respecting the events of the period in question, although he says he commenced his history where "the §adr-i-Jahan, Minhaj-i-Saraj, JurjanT, left off."
Most writers agree that Nasir-ud-DTn, Mahmud Shah, was taken ill in 663 H., and died on the Iith of JamadT-ul-Awwal, 664 H. His reign was exactly twenty years, three months, and seventeen days, and yet, with the dates before them, the authors of the Tarikh-i-FIruz-Shahi. the Tarildi-i-Mubarak-Shahi, Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh, Tabakat-i-Akbari, and several others, make it one year less !
One reason of this significant silence on the part of our author [who died in the next reign] for a period of nearly six years, is, probably, that the Mughals, being so powerful in the Panjab, harassed the western frontier of the DihlT terru>ry, and occasioned considerable confusion therein ; and, not being able to chronicle victories, he refrained from continuing his history. Our author's health does not seem to have hindered him, as he continued for some time in employment in Balban's reign. There may have been another reason for his silence, as some -authors attribute the death of Nasir-ud-Din to poiSon administered by Ulugh, Khan, although this is extremely doubtful, and some say he was starved to death whilst confined by Balban's orders. Be this as it may, the silence is ominous.
Na§ir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, left neither offspring nor heir, but, before his death, he had nominated Ulugh, Khan as his successor. This was natural, as Ulugh Khan was his own father-in-law; that the latter was son-in-law to Na§ir's father, I-yal-timish, is a mistake of the Tabakat-i-Akbari and its copyists who confound him with Balban-i-Kashlu Khan; but I know of no proof that he even was son-in-law of thatSultan. Ulugh, Khan's own son, Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud, surnamed Bughra Khan, had mai'ried a daughter of Sultan Nasir-ud-THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND.
717
May the Most High God preserve and continue the dynasty of the Sultan-i-Mu'azzam, the great king of kings, Nasir-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Abu-l-Muzaffar-i-Mahmud Shah, son of the Sultan I-yal-timish, on the throne of sovereignty and the couch of dominion to the utmost bounds of possibility, and may He grant His forgiveness to the compiler of this Tabakat, for the sake of the illustrious Prophet Muhammad !
Din, Mahmud Shah, who was the mother of Ulugh Kuan's [Sultan Ghivas-ud-Din, Balban's] snccessor, Kai-Kubad; and, therefore, it is not surprising that, on the death of Sultan Nasir-ud-DIn, Mahmud Shah. Ulugh, Khan, who had, in reality, governed the kingdom since the fall of 'Imad-ud-DIn-i-Rayhan, with the accord of all the great Maliks, was raised to the throne.
Sultan Firuz Shah, whenever he had occasion to mention the name of Sultan Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, used, always, to style him, in a contemptuous manner, by the name of "the Khwajah-Tash slave"—Khwajah-Tash signifying one of a number of slaves of one master, and, also, servants of one lord.
It is related that Nasir's humility was so great that he requested, that, when he
ed, his face should be blackened, a rope tied to his feet, and his body drawn uiong the ground and thrown into a cavern. When his death took place, and consultation was held as to the carrying out of his wishes, " some wise persons among the Maliks and 'Ulama advised that the face of the corpse should be covered with a piece of the [old] drapery of the mosque at Makkah, which is black, his bier so constructed with long legs that it might be drawn along the ground by a rope to a cavern prepared for it. This was done, and over that cavern his sepulchre still stands, which since that time has become a place of pilgrimage."
Among some of the events of the year 658 H., the Malik of Kabul, whose name is not mentioned, after he had carried on war against the Mughals for nearly two years, was taken by Prince Yush-mut and I-yal-ka, the Nuyin. He was brought to the presence of Halaku Khan, who ordered his flesh to be cut from his body, and he was compelled to eat it until he died.
In the year 663 H., on the 9th of Rabi'-ul-Awwal, Hulaku died in Azar-baijan, aged forty-eight, after ruling, over Iran, nine years and three months.
In 664 h., the Imam, Baha-ud-Dln, Zakariya, the Multani, died, leaving seven sons.
Fa?ih-I—like Ziya-ud-DIn, Baranl—says Ghiyas-ud-Din, Balban-i-Ulugfc Elan, ascended the throne of Dihli in 662 H.7i8
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Additional Note.—At page 525, where I have given what is said to have been the inscription on the coins of Sultan Kutb-ud-DIn, I-bak, I have staled, as will be observed, that the inscription is given as "contained in a work in my possession, and which the coins are said to have borne." I did not vouch for its accuracy; and this refers equally to the inscriptions subsequently given up to the reign just concluded.	^
I am under the necessity of burdening this translation with these additional remarks because Mr. H. Blochmann, M.A., imagines he has made an important discovery. He says ['' Contributions to the History and Geography of Bengal" No. III., page 136, last p^ra.], "I, too, have a work in my possession on the 'Coins of the Salatin i Hind,' a modern demi-quarto Dihli lithograph, based on Sayyid Ahmad's Asdr uffanddid, and I dare say I have discovered the source of Major Raverty's information." In this, as in some other matters, however, he is totally mistaken. I do not know of, nor have I seen, any Asar-us-Sanadid, by Sayyid Ahmad— although I dare say anything from the Sayyid's pen is valuable. The work I refer to is a MS., of which I had a copy taken by my Afghan Maulawl of Kandahar—a real Patan—some ten years since, and, from what I can discover, it had been used by, or belonged to, the late W. Marsden. I can put Mr. Blochmann in the way of finding the MS., should he ever come to England.