211°।||०।॥। [~ 9:
| 9 [19

Asiatic Society
(Calcutta, India),
Asiatic Society ...

a

BIBLIOTHECA INDICA:
; 1
COLLECTION OF ORIENTAL WORKS,

THE ASIATIC SOCIETY OF BENGAL.

TRANSLATION
THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI

THE MAULANA, MINHAJ-I-SARAJ,

ABU ‘UMAR-I-’USMAN.

LONDON

GILBEKT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTERS,

ST. JORN’S SQUARE.

TABAKAT-I-NASIRI:

` ^ GENERAL HISTOR

. e
+ ®

OF THE > y

MUHAMMADAN DYNASTIES ‘OF ASIA

INCLUDING HINDUSTAN,

s .

o* = = =
[थि श क
छ क = ^

From A.H. 194 [8० 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.
Translated from Original Perstan 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, inthe Pughto or Afgban Language ; The Poetry
of the Afghans (English Translation) ; The Fables of A:sop
Al-Hakim in the Afghan Language ; The Pushto or
Afgban Manual; Notes on Atghanistan,
Geographical, Ethnographical,
and Llistorical, etc.

VOL. I.

London:
PRINTED BY GILBERT & RIVINGTON.
1881.

च =
|
° e
. eo
# eee
« Pa
» wv r
#@ ® ७ ॐ e,
e
e@ere
|) weote
॥ 1 @
# @ @ ५ e
@ @ ॐ @ = @ # क
9 eee
“6 ee
— °
~ 9 नकि ह)
e e o
Yee
क # # @
e e
oe”,
os.
e 4 Bees
> e
a ee
= क @e 9 @ >
® 4
ॐ @ $
र ।॥
क ॐ
॥ .

CARPENTIER

PREFACE.

Iy 1865 I was led to read the printed text of the Tabakat-
i-NAsiri, 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 mate-
rials, 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 correct-
ing them, I made a translation of those portions of the
Tabakat-i-Nasiri which related to India, and the History
of the Ghaznawi and Ghiiri 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. ©. L. 47S. 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 defective

818698

vi 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 Saciety, 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 col-
lated. 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 25 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 /S, No, Add. 26, 189.

This copy is considered: by Doctor Rieu, whose expe-
rience 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 tame. It wantsa
few pages at the end, hence the date on which it was com-
pleted, and by whom written, which generally are inserted
at the end, cannot be discovered.

3. The old 9. in 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 misplaced

PREFACE. vit

several pages, which took me some time to put in their
places again

I imagine that there is very little difference, in point of
antiquity, between these three copies

4. AMS. 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 5. 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. 1982.

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’iid of Ghaznin occur in the middle of.the ac-
count of the Saljiiks. 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, 5.
imperfect in that identical place.

This MS. is, in all probability, that referred to by
Stewart, as belonging to Tipii’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 ter-
minates 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-Nasiri, in the city of Haidar-abad, in the month of Rabi’-

viii PREFACE.

ul-Awwal, 1157 प, [744 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 WS.,No. 5,in point of date,and want of correct-
ness ; and J believe that they are either copies of No. 5, or,
like it and two others—the Bodleian WS., and the Ro.
Asiatic Soc. MS.—copies of the same identical 17S. They
all agree as to errors,’ 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 14S S.—not one only, I find—were fondly considered
“autographs of the author's ;” but M. H. Zotenberg, whose
opinion I asked, very justly says, ^ this is impossible, because
the two 7S. are not in the same handwriting.” He, how-
ever, adds, “ but to judge from the paper and the writing,
I should suppose that they are both 1/7SS. of the fifteenth
century. They were both brought from India.” They
came from the Dakhan, in all probability.

8 and g. 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 7.9. formerly in the Library of Haileybury
College.

This is the most complete J/S. 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 ®, page 308; >, page 376 ; १, page 400; 5, page 426; >, page

573 ; 7, page 577 ; and particularly page 665, note® ; page 684, note ®; note
page 692; and °, 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 7S., in the port [Bandar] of Sirat,
[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.[1701-1702, 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 17S. was com-
pleted. 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, Husdm-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], in the
reign of the Second Sahib-i-Kiran, Abu-l-Muzaffar, Shihab-
ud-Din, Muhammad, Shah-i-Jahan, Badshah-i-Ghazi, in
the city of Burhanpir [in Kandes], at the time when hosti-
lities broke out between that monarch and Shah ’Abbas
the Second [the Safawi ruler of I-rain], respecting Kanda-
har [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-Jahan,the Jahan-giri,” [of the Household
of Jahangir Badshah], Shah-i-Jahan 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 प्त.
[1818 A.D.]. The largest seal, supposed to be that of
Shah-i-Jahan 23405020), bears the following inscription :—
“ Mu’in-ud-Din, 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”—“Q Helper !”—bears
date 1058 प्र. [1648 A.D.]. I could discover nothing to show
that the 47S. had ever belonged to Shah-i-Jahan Baadshah.

12. The JZS. 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 J/S. 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 Parsis
at Bombay. A little while afterwards, Calonel Hamilton,
in reply to a circular of the Society, forwarded a copy from
Dehli. These J7SS. 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 9.9. 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

2 In this case, if the Ro. As. Soc’s MS. is a copy of the India Office 4/S.,
the Hamilton 4/S., and the High Priest’s, must be copies one of the other, or
copies from another J/S.

Sir Henry Elliot mentions that he found one in the Royal Library at
Lakhnio, 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 won-
dered 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 47 SS., and a little historical and geographi-
cal 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 colla-
tion, is not very great ; and this translation could have been
accomplished in a tithe of the time I have devoted to it.
एप, 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 Afghanist4n 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 news-
papers 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 Tartkh-i-Firishtah by Dow and
Briggs, the ‘first of whom could not possibly have under-
stood 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 books

xii 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, Nizim-ud-Din,
Ahmad, who obtained his materials, up to the reign of
Ghiy4s-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.’

The English version of Briggs, “the admirable verston,”
as a writer, who did not know the contents of Firishtah,
calls it, is clearly based upon Dow’s, with very slight altera-
tions, 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 per-
nicious 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 ‘, 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 Ghiir, are turned into “ Pathdns”
or “ Afghans,” which words are synonymous, and “ Pa-
thans” or “Afghans” into Turks and Tajzik Ghiris.
Dow, in the first place, is to blame for this, but Briggs
blindly followed him’ I say this advisedly. The proof is

ॐ A few examples of which may be seen in Note » page 441; and 5, page

653; last para. of Note 8, page 665; ° page 697; and +, page 711.
4 Examples of this will be found in Notes > page 204; °, page 312; र,

PREFACE. xili

easy from any MS. of Firishtah’s 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 Ghiris, 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, xot one
word will be found vespecting their being Afghans, as con-
tained in hus “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
“Pathan ” theory was, Turks, Tajzik Ghiris, Turkish Slaves,
Jats, Sayyids, and others, continue to figure under the ridi-
culous name of “ Pathan dynasties,” up to this present day.*

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 Khian-i-A’zam.
The Afghans were by no means unfamiliar to our author,
and he certainly knew the Ghiiris 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 Ghir, and their dynasties, he simply stands
unrivalled, and also in his accounts of the first Mughal inva-
sions of the territories between Hirat and Multan. The Af-
ghans appear at this timeto have begun to take service under
the Muhammadan feudatories of the western border pro-
vinces of the Dihli kingdom. They may have been in the

page 320; note 7, para. 4, page 321; note ®, page 404; 7, page 431 ; note
१, page 441 ; note ‘, page 514; and 2, para. 5, page 794.

$ See the ‘‘Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society,” Part I., No. II., pr.
5880, page 18,

xiv PREFACE.

habit of taking such service previously, but to no great ex«
tent I imagine, but, about this period, there was a particular
reason forit—the confusion and convulsions caused through-
out the vast tracts of country which formed the kingdom
of the GBaznawis and their subverters the Ghiiris, 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 pre-
scribed 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 GRaznin 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 em-
braces 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-rani 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 Trans-
lation 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 trans-
lation as nearly as possible in the author’s own words,
without being slavishly literal. It is however sufficiently

PREFACE. KY

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 com-
plete 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 attend-
ing 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 his-
torical 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 accept-
‘able 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, cele-
brated, 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 prede-
cessors” I have derived the utmost “assistance,” and
acknowledge it accordingly

xvi

Tarikh-i-Tabari,
Kitab-i-Yamini,
Kitab-i-Masalik-wa-Mama-
lik,
Tarikh-i-Abi-l-Fagl-i-Bai-
haki,
Zain-ul-Akhbar,
Nizam-ut-Tawarikh of the
Kazi, Abi-Sa’id-i-’Abd-
ullah of Baiza,
Taj-ul-Ma asir,
Kamil-ut-Tawarikh of the
Shaikh, Abi-1-Hasan-i-
’Ali,surnamed Ibn-ul-Asir,
Khulagat - ut- Tawarikh of
Sujan Rie,
Khulasat-ul-Akhbar,
Mirat-ul-’Alam,
Mir at-i-Jahan-Numa,
Tarikh-i-Firaz-Shahi of Zi-
ya-ud-Din, Baran,
Tarikh-i-Mubarak-Shahi,
Tarikh-i-Firiiz-Shahi of
Shams-i-Sira),
Zaffar- Namah,
Tuzik-i-Babari,
Tarikh-i-Rashidi of the Mir-
za, Muhammad Haidar,
the Doghlati Mughal,
Memoirs of Humayin Bad-
shah by Bayazid the Byat,
A’in-i-Akbari,

PREFACE.

Tabakat-i- Akbari,

Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh of
the Buda’ini,

Akbar Namah of Faizi the
Sarhindi, |

Tagkirat-ul-Abrar of the
Akhiind, Darwezah,

Makhzan-i-Afghani,

Tarikh-i-Khan-i-Jahan, the
Lidi,

Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh,

Rauzat-ut-Tahirin,

Sair-ul-Bilad - 2 Persian
Translation of the Asar-
ul-Bilad,

Bahr-ul-Asrar,

Tuhfat-ul-Kiram,

Chachh Namah,

Tarikh-us-Sind of Mir Ma-
ऽपर), the Bakhari,

Tarikh-i-Haft-Iklim,

Ikbal Namah-i-Jahan-giri,

Ma’adan -i-Akhbar-i- Ah-
madi,

Tazkirat-ul-Mulik of Yahya
Khan,

Jami’-ut-Tawarikh of Fakir
Muhammad,

Tarikh-i-Rajahahe Jammi,

History of Gaur or Lakhan-
awati of Shiam 22151120,

and a few others.

The following Pughto or Afghan Chronicles have also
been used :—The History of the Khaghi sept of the Afghan
nation, and their conquests beyond the river of Kabul, by
Khwajii, the Matizi; the Tarikh-i-Nisbat-i-Afaghinah, by
the Shaikh, ’Abd-ur-Razzak, Matizi; and the Tarikh-i-
Muragsa’ by Muhammad Afzal Khan, Kbatak.

I cannot close these remarks without tendering my
sincere thanks to Doctor C. Rieu, Keeper of the Oriental

PREFACE. evi

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 =

I
— and —; and three /ong—, i, i, equivalent to | — ७ — a

44४ consonants, except the following, are pronounced

precisely the same as in English: — w sg, as 2 in thing, or
lisped s — ch, as chin church; , — h, strongly aspi-
rated, which occurs only in purely Arabic words; + — kh,

as ch in loch, and as German ch, ° —d, pronounced by
applying the tip of the tongue inverted to the palate; 5 —
z, as ¢ in thine, by ’Arabs, d/h; 3 — 7, as 2 uttered by
striking the point of the tongue on the palate ; ; —jz, as s
in pleasure, or soft French 7; > — sh, as 5/ in shell ; ८ - ॐ
as ssin dissolve ; (> — z,as dwd,; ४ —t, as £ witha slight
aspiration; & — z,as English 2 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 ’’Ali, and, when not initial, after its preceding vowel,
as in Jafar and Raf’; € gh, a guttural sound like that
produced in gargling, or Northumbrian ~,and something
similar to gk in ghost; ५ — k, another peculiar “Arabic
sound, produced by pressing back the root of the tongue
to the throat, and partaking of the sound of £and क, s— h,
slightly aspirated; at the end of a word it is often un-
aspirated. When ८ occurs at the end of a word preceded .
by 2, the former is almost quiescent. The only diphthongs
are az 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 ह्‌

a

xviii PREFACE.

is not marked, we cannot tell whether the original was . or
the two letters o& and »; and if the roman equivalents ~ of
&, yy», 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
श. page 719.

Rock Housg,
Milverton, Somerset,
y2th 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-Khialik, the Jirjant, having, in his
early manhood, dreamt a dream on three successive occa-
sions, urging him to proceed to Ghaznin 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 mar-
riage, 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 ’Ujibat-
uz-Zaman—The Wonder of the Age. He was the father
of the Maulana, Minhaj-ud-Din,’ Abi-’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 zzéfats being used to signify soz
of in place of the Arabic dzn.

Our author’s ancestors, on both sides, for several gene-
rations, appear to have been ecclesiastics of repute,and men

॥ The title, Saraj-ud-Din, means ‘‘The Lamp, or the Luminary of the
Faith,” and Minhaj-ud-Din, ‘‘ The High-road, or the Way of the Faith.” See
note 3, page 1295.

23 2

XX MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.

distinguished for learning. He states that he possessed,
among the mzsa/ or diplomas granted to his maternal
ancestors by the Khalifahs, one from the Khalifah, Mustazi
Billah, conferring the Kazi-ship of the fortress, or rather,
fortified town, of Tilak, described in the following pages,
together with that over the Kuhistan, and the Jibal—
Highlands—of Hirat, 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
[पादां ’—, j\>,y-—as I have from the outset rendered it ; but
those 47S. previously referred to, which appear to have
been copied from the same source as that from which
the I.O.L. 47S. was taken, or from that copy itself, gene-
rally have ह) | iizini—and sometimes Jirjani as above.
If the point of ,—z—be left out, as is very liable to be
the case, like the points of other letters, by copyists, it is
but simple r. Words containing long i —,— are often
written with the short vowel zammah or pesh —~ —instead
of [षे and hence, in some few copies, it is glee—Jurjani,
while sometimes it is written both ways in the same 1S.

Since writing note’, at page 321, giving an account of
the Amir, Mas’id’s inroad into the northern parts of Ghiir,
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 Gizg4nan, or the
Giizgans, by Tajziks, but which Arabs, and people of ’Arab
descent, who use j — ह —for the Tajzik g— o/— turn into
Jiizjanan, and that the word he uses in connexion with his
own name refers to one of the Giizgans, and that he should
be styled ‘the Giizgani’ or ‘Jizjani.’ As the most trust-
worthy copies of the text, the best and most correctly
written, had Jirjani, 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 Jizjan,
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 Ghir, and north of Hirat, beyond the Murgh-Ab—the
Jibal of Hirat,as he himself styles it—but its exact posi-
tion, 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. - € Gizganan, or
Giizgans were the appanage of the Amir, Muhammad,
brother of 025 तत ; 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 Ghir, Ghar-
jistan, and other parts, including the fortress of Tilak,
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 note‘), which he helped to defend against
the Mughal invaders, and which must have been situated
in one of the Giizgans, he never once, throughout his whole
work, refers to Giizgan or Jiizjan, except in connexion with
his own name. See also notes to pages 186 and 232.

After the Ghiris 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 Kazi
of the Ghirian 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
Hindistan by the Turk Mamlik, 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 Daghistani, re-
ferred to farther on, asserts, cannot be correct; for, from
what he himself states respecting his arrival at Ochchah 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, when

xxii MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.

Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, ruler of Bamian and Tukhiris-
tan, succeeded his father on the throne, he desired that
our author’s father, the Maulana, Saraj-ud-Din, Muham-
mad, should take up his residence in his kingdom, and
enter his service. With the sanction of his own sove-
reign and patron, and Baha-ud-Din, Sam's suzerain,
namely, the Sultan of Ghir, 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 eccle-
siastical 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
kharitah [3 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 Ghiyds-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sém, mention of
which lady will be found in several places in the follow-
ing 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 dwell-
ing in that Princess’s household. Under these circum-
stances, Lahor can scarcely have been the place of his
birth.

When 51) Takish, Khwarazm Shih, 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 Ghir 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, our

MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. xxiii

author’s father, were directed to proceed to Baghdad, to
the Khalifah’s Court, along with the envoys.’ 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. Intima-
tion of his death was received in a communication from the
Khalifah to the Sultan, Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam,
in these words: “ Furthermore, 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 Tilak, who was left in command of the fortress of
Tabarhindah, with a force of 1200 Tilakis, 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 Tilak 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 Khurdsan soon after inter-
vened, he was totally unable to come to the K4zi’s relief,
as agreed upon, in the following season, and, consequently,
after having held out over thirteen months, the K4z1, Ziya-
ud-Din, Muhammad, had to capitulate.

At the time Sultan Ghiyads-ud-Din, Mahmid, son of
Ghiyads-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, was assassinated by
the Khwarazmi refugees, in Safar, 607 H., our author was
dwelling at Firiiz-koh, and was then in his eighteenth
year.

In 611 H., the year preceding the surrender of his capital,
Firiiz-koh, by the last of the Sultans of the Ghiri dynasty,

? He was despatched on this mission by Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-
Sam, Sultin of Ghir, the elder brother and suzerain of Mu’izz-ud-Din,
Mubammad, Sultan of Ghaznin, who, in a paper in the ^" fournal of the
Asiatic Society of Bengal,” Part I., No. I, for 1880, page 28, by Mr. €. R.
Stiipnagel, is styled A/u’as-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 Ghids-ud-din scarcely anything is known.” I beg to recom-
mend him to study the twenty-three pages respecting him in the following
translation, and to refer to note ०, page 472, and >, page 489. Here again
° ° Mwaz” is turned into ^^ the first Pathdn 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 Ghiris, 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
Ghir and Khurasan, before the Chingiz Khan himself
crossed the Oxus with his main army, our author was
living at Tilak; 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 Jihiin into Khurasan, and he was in his thir-
tieth year, he married the daughter of a kinsman of his
own; and, in 620 H., he determined, as soon as circum-
stances permitted, to leave his native country, and proceed
into Hindistan, not liking, apparently, to dwell in a coun-
try overrun by the Mughal infidels. In 621 H. he was des-
patched from Tilak, 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 Khuradsan 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 kérwan routes, which, during the
Mughal invasion, had been closed, and the _ traffic
suspended.

On a second occasion, in 622 H., he again proceeded
from Tilak into the Kuhistan for the same purpose, at
the request of Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of
"Usman, the Maraghani, of Khaesar of Ghirr, the father of

MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. XXV

Malik 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 Ghir and their depen-
dencies, who were the vassals of the Mughals, were styled.
The following year he again set out on a journey into
the Kuhistan, on the part of Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Mu-
hammad, that the kdrwda@n route might be re-opened.
From Khiaesar he first went to Farah, and from thence
and returned to Khaesar again

In 623 H., our author, who appears to have left Tilak 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 accommo-
dation 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, Mu-
hammad, whose name is not mentioned, but, in all pro-
bability, 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-Din, Binal-
Tigin, for he wished him to return to the Muhtashim’s pre-
sence 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 up
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—he

xxvi 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 Firiizi College at
Uchchah, and made him K§4zi of the forces of his son,
’Ala-ud-Din, Bahram Shah.

Our author could distinguish the winning side, and pre-
ferred 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 Firizi Col-
lege, 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 offitiate, 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 Gwaliyiir in 629 H.; and, in the following year,
after that stronghold was taken possession of, was made
Kazi, Khatib, and Imam of Gwaliyiir and its dependencies,
under the governor, Rashid-ud-Din, ’Ali. In the early
part of Sultan Raziyyat’s reign he returned to Dihli, but
he was not removed from office, neither was he a “ for-
given rebel ;”* and, during his absence from Gwéaliyir, his
Deputies acted for him. On reaching the capital, in 635 H.,
that sovereign added to his offices that of Superinten-
dent 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 K4zi 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’iid 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 subse-
quent munificent patron, Malik Ghiyds-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 K4zi-ship of Gwa4liyir, 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 Ochchah when invested by the
Mughals. |

In 644 H., at Jalhandar [in the Panj-ab], on the return of
the army, on the occasion of performing the services pre-
scribed for the’Id-i-Azha in the hall of the College there, the
new Sultan, Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmid 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 “Ndasiri Namah.” The Sultan rewarded him
for this with a yearly stipend, and Malik Ghiyds-ud-Din,
Balban, the hero of the poem, and commander of the ex-
pedition, gave him the revenues of a village in the Hansi
province, which was that Malik’s fief at that period. In

XXVili MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.

649 H., for the second time, the Chief K4zi-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 con-
spiracy 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 Khin’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-Jahan‘ was conferred upon him.

At the close of the following year the Rayhani was ousted
from office, the Ulugh Khian-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 Jami’ 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 men-
tioned at page 1294. He refers to his family casually,
now and then, in the following pages, but, with a single ex-
ception, 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. अशपं

his son from the fact of his being styled “ the Zinjani,” that
15 to say, a native of Zinjan in Khurdsan. He may have
been his son-in-law, or an adopted son.

When the emissaries from Khuradsan were received by
the Sultan, Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah, as related at
page 857, our author composed a poem befitting the occa-
sion, 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
658H., and the Ulugh Khian-i-A’zam succeeded to the
throne of Dihli under the title of Sultan Ghiyds-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-Firiiz-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 Ghiyads-ud-Din, Balban.

Our author died in his reign, but when cannot be dis-
covered, 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, Mah-
miid Shah, would not bear the light of day—for there are
vague statements of foul play on the part of the Ulugh
Khan, but no proofs—who shall say? Some writers state
_that the Sultan died a natural death, which is most pro-
bable, and some further add that he, having neither off-
spring 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 ap-
pears unworthy of credence, since, had he desired to sup-
plant him, or get rid of him, he might have effected cither
object years before. See note’, page 716.

XXX MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR.

The only mention I can find, after much search, respect-
ing these years, between the closing of our author’s History
and the accession of the new Sultan, is the following from
Fasib-i. “Sultan Niasir-ud-Din, Mahmid Shah, died in
this year, 662 H., and great anarchy and disorder arose
throughout the territory of Hindiistan. 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 pre-
eminently 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 gran-
dees 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-Akhyar”—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 Tagkirs. When he became K4zi of
Hindistan that office assumed integrity and rectitude. The
Shaikh, Nizam-ud-Din,’ states :—“I used, every Monday,

$ This, probably, is no other than the celebrated saint of Dihli.

MEMOIR OF THE AUTHOR. XXX

to go to his Tazkirs, until, one day, when I was present at
one of them, he delivered this quatrain :—

५५ ¢ 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, Nizim-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 Siifi-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 Sifi. 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, Mahmid 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! AND
DEDICATION.

IN the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate!

Thus sayeth Abi-’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
Hindiistan 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, Abi-l-
Muzaffar-i-Mahmiid 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 Hindiistan was con-
signed to this loyal servant, on a certain occasion, in the
tribunal of law and justice, a book came under his obser-
vation which the learned and worthy of former times had
compiled ? 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.

3 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 N§sir ol-din 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 aoe. ...... wth, ols! asco
५०9१ 528 The Imaim's ^^ Tarikh-i-Majdil ” is mentioned in Section XI.

THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE AND DEDICATION. 2१३९111

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, Mahmid-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,
Suffaris, Sam4nis, the dynasty of Buwiah, the Saljiiks, Ri-
mis, Shansabanis,and the Sultans of that family who were
sovereigns of Ghir, Ghaznin, 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-1-’Alamin,
NASIR-UD-DUNYA WA-UD-DIN,
ABU-L-MUZAFFAR-I-MAHMUD SHAH,
Yamin-i-Khalifah U’llah, Kasim-i-Amir-ul-Miaminin
—Khuld U’llah Saltanatahu !*

3 Signifying, The Supreme Sultan, The Sultan of the Sultans of the Wor'd,
The Defender of the World and of the Faith, The Victorious (or Accustomed
to Conquer), MAHMUD SHAH, The Right Hand of God’s Khalifah, The Co-
Sharer with the Lord of the Faithful—The Almighty perpetuate his Rein !

: b

XXXiv THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE AND DEDICATION.

and this History is reduced to writing, and adorned with
his august titles and name,‘ 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 firma-
ment 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 omis-
sion, may they veil it with the skirt of the robe of for-
giveness, since whatever was to be found in trustworthy
chronicles is herein recorded.

+ In ELLiot, vol. II., page 261, the editor, Mr. Dowson, tells us that,
‘*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, sdoudbted
proofs that this work was neither written, nor appeared, in Balban’s reign.

CONTENTS.

Preface

Memoir of the Author (
Author’s Preface and Dedication .
Contents |

Additional Notes and Emendations
Errata .

Introductory, being an Epitome of the First Six Sections

SECTION I.

Adam, the Patriarchs and Prophets, and the ancestors of Muhammad

SECTION II.

The Four orthodox Khalifahs, the descendants of ’Ali, and the Com-

panions of the Prophet

SECTION III.

The Khalifahs of the house of Ummiyah

SECTION IV.

The Khalifahs of the house of Abbas .

SECTION V.

The Maliks of ’Ajam to the rise of Islam -—
I. The Bastaniah or Pesh-Dadan .
II. The Kaiantan . :
III. The Ashkanian
IV. The Sasanian .
V. The Akasirah .

SECTION VI.

The Tubba-yawa’, and Maliks of Yaman
b 2

ib.

ib.

w

ib.

XXXVI CONTENTS.

SECTION VII.

The Dynasty of the Tahir! Muhammadan Maliks in ’Ajam
I. Tahir-i-Zi-l-Yamanain
II. Talhah, son of Tahir
III. ’Abd-ullah, son of Tahir .
IV. Tahir, son of ’Abd-ullah, son of Tahir
V. Muhammad, son of Tahir, son of ’Abd-ullah

SECTION VIII.

The Suffarfiin Dynasty :
I. Ya’kib, son of Lais, Suffart
II. ’Umro, son of Lais, Suffari

SECTION IX.

The Dynasty of the Samanis 4
Asad, son of Saman-i-Khaddat
I. Ahmad, son of Asad, son of Saman
II. Nasr, son of Ahmad, Samini .
1. Isma’il, son of Ahmad, Samani
IV. Abi Nasr-i-Ahmad, son of Isma’il .
V. Nasr, son of Ahmad, son of Isma’il
VI. Nib, son of Nasr, son of Ahmad
VII. ’Abd-ul-Malik, son of Nub
VIII. Mansir, son of Nuh
IX. Nib, son of Mansiir, son of Nih
X. Mansiir, son of पिपत], son of Mansiir
XI. Abii-l-Fawiris-i-’ Abd-ul-Malik, son of Nih

SECTION X.

The Dynasty of the Diadlamah Maliks at the Dar-ul-Khilafat of Baghdad

and in ’Irak :
I, Abii-l-Hasan, son of Buwiah, Ud-Dilam! .
II. Al-Hasan, son of Buwiah, Ud-Dilami ह

III. Bakht-yar, son of Al-Hasan, son of Buwiah, Ud-Dilami
IV. Fana Khusrau, son of Al-Hasan, son of Buwiah, Ud-Dilami

V. Al-Marzaban, son of Fani Khusrau, Ud-Dilami

VI. Abi-l-Fawaris-i-Makan, son of Fana Khusrau, Ud-Dilami

SECTION XI.

The Dynasty of the Yaminiah, Al- Mahmiidiah Sovereigns of the race of

Sabuk-Tigin

I. Amir-ul-Ghazi, Nasir-ud-Din-U’llah, Sabuk-Tigin .
If. Sultan-ul-A’zam, Yamin-ud-Daulah, Nizaim-ud-Din, Abi-1-

Kasim, Mahmiid-i-Ghizi, son of Sabuk-Tigin
III. Amir Muhammad, son of Mahmid .

0

74

CONTENTS. अजश)

PAGE
IV. Sultan Nasir-ud-Din-U’llah, Mas’iid, the Martyr... . . gt
V. Shihib-ud-Daulah, Maudiid, son of Mas’iid =. 95

VI. 41, son of Mas’tid, and Muhammad, son of Maudid, in
Association . ; । ‘ ¢ : - 97
VII. ’Abd-ur-Rashid, son of Mabmiid . 4 , ४ ४ „ 98
VIII. Tughril, Al-Malitn, or The Execrated. र - 99
IX. Farrukh-Zad, son of Mas’iid . : 6 : ? । „ 100
X. Sultan Ibrahim, Sayyid-us-Salatin . र ६ - 102

XI. ’Ala-ud-Din, Mas’itid-al-Karim, or the Beneficent, son of
Ibrahim ४ : ‘ ¢ ४ $ „ 106
XII. Malik Arsalan, son of Mas’tid ‘ ‘ ; 4 „ 107
>. Mu’izz-ud-Daulah wa ud-Din, Bahram अद्रा . : ; . 109
XIV. Khusrau Shah, son of Bahram Shah , AMI

XV. Khusrau Malik, son of Khusrau Shah, the Last of the Mahmidi-
ah Dynasty : < . 14

SECTION XII.

The Dynasty of the Saljikiah re ee ee ee ¬ ^ 70
I. Tughril, son of Mika’il ,. of ४. @ 22
II. Malik Da’td-i-Jaghar Beg, son of Mika’fl + „= ee 1:26
III. Sultdn Alb-Arsalan-i-Ghazi, son of Da’iid-i-Jaghar Beg . „ 132
IV. Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Malik Shah, son of Alb-Arsalin . . 13
V. Muhammad, son of Malik Shah 5 143

VI. Sultan-ul-A’gam, Mu’izz-udeDunya wa ud-Din, Sanjar, son of
Malik Shah ध ४ ‘ ; : : : ह ~ 146
Account of the Sultans of Riim of the Saljikiah Dynasty. ; . 157
1. Mahmiid, son of Malik Shah . ‘ ह ध . 59
II. Mas’iid, son of Mahmiid Shah । ib.

III. Kizil-Arsalan, son of Mas’iid, sun of Mahmid, son of Malik
Shah . व 160
IV. Kulij-Arsalan, son of Kizil-Arsalan त } ‘ . ib.
V. ’Izz-ud-Din, Kai-Ka-iis, son of Kizil-Arsalan . : : . 61
VI. Kai-Kubad, son of Kai-Ka-iis . : : ४ ई . ib.
VII. Kai-Khusrau, son of Kai-Kubad : : ‘ : . 162
VIII. "Izz-ud-Din, son of Kai-Khusrau .. रैः ~. . 163
IX. Kutb-ud-Din, Kulij-Arsalin . . , + ~ a. 101
X. Tughril, son of Tughril . : र : 9 । ~ 165

SECTION XIII.
Account of the Sanjariyah Rulers. : $ : 8 ; . 168
First Dynasty.
The Sanjariyah Maliks of "Irak and Azarbaijan :-—

I. The Ata- Bak, Ilatt-Giz, Us-Sanjari . = om. - ॐ oe. ~+. 40
Il. The ^{३-ए83]त Muhammad, son of [latt-Giz ४ ६ „ वरा
III. The Ata-Bak, Yiz-Bak, son of Muhammad, Us-Sanjar1_ . „+ %172

IV. The Ata-Bak, Abi-Bikr, son of Mubammad ह : eo 43

XXXViii CONTENTS.

Second Dynasty.

PAGE
The Sanjariyah Maliks of Fars :—
I. The Ata-Bak Sunkar, Us-Sanjari_. ४ ‘ $ , . 173
II. The Ata-Bak, Zangi, son of Sunkar . ; : . . „ 175
III. The Ata-Bak, Duklah, son of Sunkar ड ; ह . ib.
IV. The Ata-Bak, Sa’d, son of Zangi.. ' ४ £ : . 176
V. The Até-Bak, Abi-Bikr, son of Sa’d ¢ : ; : - {79
Third Dynasty.

The Sanjariyah Maliks of Nishapir :—
1. Malik Mu-ayyid, Us-Sanjart . : ; : ; . 180
II. Malik Tughan Shah, son of Mu-ayyid ; ‘ : ~ 81
III. Sanjar Shah, son of Tughan Shah . : 5 ६ . 182

SECTION XIV.

The Maliks of 51115050 and Nimroz . ss. ze + < sao Se “883
I. Tahir, son of Muhammad : ह : $ . 184
II. Malik Taj-ud-Din, Abi-l-Path, son of Tahir . $ 187

III. Malik-us-Sa’1s, Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Taj-ud-Din 189
IV. Malik-us-Sa’id, Taj-ud-Din-i-Harab, son of Muhammad . 19!

V. Malik Nasir-ud-Din, ’Usm4n-i-Harab, son of Taj-ud-Din . 193
VI. Malik ul-Ghizi, Yamin-ud-Daulah wa ud-Din, Bahram Shah,

son of Taj-ud-Din-i-Harab . ‘ 194

VII. Malik Nusrat-ud-Din, son of Malik Yamin-ud-Din, Bahram
Shah 196

VIII. Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Mabmid, son of Yamin-ud-Din, Bahram
Shah . * ‘ . 197
IX. Malik Qhihab-ud-Din, Mabmid, son of Harab . ¢ . 198

SECTION XV.

The Kurdfah Maliks of Shims. च i oe fe + 20
I. Sultan Nir-ud-Din, Mahmiid-i-Zangt . S ow. 2 ab
II. Malik-us-Salih, 41, son of Mabmid-i-Zangt 5 ; „ 205
III. Malik ^ री) son of Shadi. : ‘ ; ~ 207
IV. Malik Asad-ud-Din, son of Shadi, in Misr ; . 208
V. Sultan Salab-ud-Din, Yiisuf, son of Aiyib-al-Kurdi ~ « 24
VI. Malik-ul-Afgal, ’Ali, son of Salab-ud-Din, Yiisuf २ ‘ . 222
VII. Malik-ul-’Aziz, 'Usm4n, son of Salah-ud-Din, Yisuf |. „ 223
VIII. Malik-ul-’Adil, Abi-Bikr, son of Aiyib.al-Kurdi. 224

IX. Malik-ul-Mu’azgam, ‘Isa, son of Abi-Bikr, son of Aiyib-al
Kurdf : . „ 227

X. Malik-ul-Kamil, son of Abi-Bikr, son of Aiyib-al-Kurdi . 228
XI. Malik-ug-$alib, son of Al-Kamil, son of Abi-Bikr, son of Aiyiib-
al-Kurdf . ४ oh . 229

SECTION XVI.

The Maliks of the Khwararm-Shahiah Dynasty . . , । . 231
I. Kutb-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, I-bak, the Turk . . . ib.

XIII.

XIV.

CONTENTS.

. Malik Taj-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of I-bak ॥
° Malik Jalal-ud-Din, Utsuz, Khwarazm Shah, son of Taj-ud-Din,

Mubammad

- Malik I-yal-Arsalan, son of Jalal-ud-Din, Utsuz

+ Sultin Takish, son of I-yal-Arsalan ह

. Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Mahmii, son of I-yal-Arsalan

. Yinas Khan, son of Takish, Khwarazm Shah

~ Malik Khan, son of Takish, Khwarazm Shih .

. ’Ali Shah, son of Takish, Khwarazm Shah .

. Sultin ’Ald-ud-Din, Mubammad, son of Takish, Khwarazm

Shah -

. Kutb-ud-Din, Arzalii Shah, son of Muhammad, son of Takigh,

Khwarazm Shah

. Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Ghiri 31020250, son of Muhammad, Khwa-

razm Shah . ;

Malik Ghiyas-ud-Din, Ak Sultan, son of Muhammad, Khwa-
razm Shah .

Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Mang-Barnf, son of Sultin Mubammad
Khwarazm Shih $ ् ; ‘ :

SECTION XVII

The Shansabaniah Sultans, and the Maliks of Ghir 5
Account of the First [Ancestors] of the Family, their Genealogy, and

their Progenitors, up to Zuhak, surnamed Tazi

Account of Bustam, Malik of Hind and Sind

Amir एता for Filid], Ghiri, Shansabf

I. ; $ ह
II. Amir Banji, son of Naharan, Shansabi . : , :
III. Siri, sonofMuhammad = . . . . . «uw .
1४. Malik Muhammad, son of Sirf . & ..
$. Malik Abi-’Ali, son of Muhammad, son of Sirt
VI. Malik ’Abbas, son of Muhammad, son of S ;
VII. Amir Muhammad, son of ’Abbas
VIII. Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Al-Hasan, sun of Muhammad, son of
"Abbas é ध
IX. Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain, Abi-us-Salatin, son of Kutb-

ud-Din, Al-Hasan

° Malik-ul-Jibal, Kutb-ud-Din, Mubammad, son of [’Izz-ud-Din]

Al-Husain . ध .

. Sultan Baha-ud-Dim, Sam, son of ’Tzz-ud-Din, Al-Husain
. Malik Shihab-ud-Din, Muhammad [Kharnak], son of Al-

Husain, Malik of Madin of Ghir

. Malik Shuja’-ud-Din, Abi-’Alj, son of Al-Husain [son of Sim],

son of Al-Hasan, Shansab

~ Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Al-Husain, son of ’Izz-ud-Din, Al-

Husain, son of Sam, son of Al-Hasan .

. Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Al-Husain, son of Muhammad, Madint
~ Sultin Saif-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din,

Al-Husain . ‘ ‘

. Sultan-ul-A’gam, Ghiyas-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Abi-l-Fath,

Muhammad, son of Baha-ud-Din, Sim, Kasim-i-Amir-ul-
Miminin ४ .

368

xl CONTENTS.

XVIII. Malik-ul-Haji, ’Ali-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Malik Shuja’-
ud-Din, Abi-’Ali, son of ’Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain, son of Al-
Hasan, Shansabi 4 ; 4 ४ ‘ र .
XIX. Sultan Ghiyds-ud-Din, Mahmiid, son of Ghiyds-ud-Din,
Muhammad, son of Baha-ud-Din, Sam, Shansabi
XX. Sultan Bahi-ud-Din, Sim, son of Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmid,
son of Ghiyds-ud-Din, Mubammad, son of Baha-ud-Din,
Sam, Shansabi . र
XI. Sultan ’Ald-ad-Din, Utsuz, son of Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Al-
Husain, Jahan-soz
XXII. Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Shuja’-ud-Din, Abi-
All, the Last of the Sultans of Ghir ; ध

SECTION XVIII.

The Shansabani Sultans of Tukharistan and Bamian
I. Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas’iid, son of ’Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain,
Shansabi
II. Sultan Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Mas’iid, son of Al-
Husain, Shansabi ६
III. Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, son of Sultan Shams-ud-Din,
Muhammad :
IV. Sultan Jalal-ud- Din, ’Ali, son of Baha-ud-Din, Sam, Bamian

SECTION XIX.

The Sultans of Ghaznin of the Shansabiniah Dynasty ;
I. Sultan Saif-ud-Din, Siri, son of ’Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain .
II, Sultan-ul-A’zam, Mu’izz-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Abit-l-Mugaffar,
Muhammad, son of Baha-ud-Din, Sam, Kasim-i-Amir-ul-
Miuminin
III. Sultan ’Alé-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Baha-ud-Din, Muham.-
mad-i-Sam, of Bamian $ ४
IV. Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-diiz, al-Mu’izzi, us-Sultini ,
ए. Sultan-ul-Karim, Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, al-Mu’izzi, us-Sultani

SECTION XX.

Account of the Mu’izziah Sultans of Hind ‘
I. Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, al-Mw’izzi, us-Sultani .
II. Sultan Aram Shah, son of Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak . ‘
III. Malik [Sultan] Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, al-Mu’izzi, us-Sultani.
IV. Malik [Sultin] Baha-ud-Din, Tughril, al-Mu’izzi, us-Sultini
V. Malik-ul-Ghazi, Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Bakht-
yar, Khalji, in Lakhanawati
VI. Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Sherin, Khalji
VIT. Malik ’Ala-ud-Din, ’Ali, son of Mardan, Khalji_.
४111. Malik [Sultan] Husim-ud-Din, ’Iwaz, son of Husain, Khalji

SECTION XXI.

The Shams Sultans of Hind

1. Sultan ul-Mu’azzam, Shams-ud- Dunya wa ud- Din, Abi-1-Mugaf-
far, I-yal-timish, the Sultan : ; € j

PAGE

39!

597

CONTENTS.

II. Malik-us-Sa’id, Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, son of Sultan
Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish ;
III. Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Firitiz Shah, son of the Sultan [I-yal-
timish ] 4
IV. Sultan Raziyyat-ud Dunya wa ud-Din, daughter of Sultan I-yal-
timish
V. Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Dunyé wa ud-Din, Bahram Shah, son of
Sultan I-yal-timish
VI. Sultan ’Ala-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Mas’iid Shah, son of Sultan
Rukn-ud-Din, पट Shah j
VII. Us-Sultan-ul-A’zam ul-Mu'aggam, Nasir-ud Dunya wa ud-Din,
Abii-l-Muzaffar-i-Mahmtid Shah, son of the Sultan [I-yal-
timish], Kasim-i-Amir-ul-Miiminin
Events of the First Year: 644 H.
Ks Second » 645 H.
sg Third » 646 प्र.
Fourth » 647 H.
ro Fifth » 648 प.
क Sixth » 649 प्त.
ey Seventh » 650H.
a Eighth » OSI प्त,
C Ninth » 6४2 प.
ॐ Tenth », 653 H.

Eleventh » 654 H.
Twelfth »» 655 H.
Thirteenth ,, 656 H.
Fourteenth ,, 657 H.
Fifteenth » 658 प.

SECTION XXII.

Account of the Shamsiah Maliks in Hind

I
II

III
IV

V.

VI

Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Gajz-lak Khan

Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Kabir Khan, Ayaz i-Hazir-Mardah, ul
Muw’izz1 ह ६ ‘ र :

Mahk Nasir-ud-Din, Ai-Yitim-ul-Bah3-i

Malik Saif-ud- Din, I-bak-i- Uchchah

Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-Yughin-Tat

Malik Nusrat-ud-Din Ta-yasa’i [Tai-shi]

Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Tughril-i-Tughin Khan .

Malik Kamar-ud-Din, Ki-ran-i-Tamur Khin, us-Sultani

. Malik Hindti Khan, Mu-ayyid-ud-Din, Mihtar-i-Mubarak, ul-

Khazin, us-Sultani

+ Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Kara-Kush Khin-i-Aet-kin
» Malik Ikhtiyadr-ud-Din, Altiiniah, of Tabarhindah .
. Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Act-kin ;

. Malik Badr-ud-Din, Sunkar-i-Rimi

. Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Kik-luk

. Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Kuret Khan

. Malik Saif-ud-Din, Bat Khan, I-bak-i-Khit

- Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Tez Khan . :

. Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Yiiz-bak-i-Tughril Khan

xli

PAGE

628
630

637

xii CONTENTS.

XIX. Malik Taj-ud-Din, Arsalan Khan, Sanjar-i-Chast 4 766
XX. Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlii Khan, us-Sultani, Shamsi 775
XXI. Malik Nusrat Khan, Badr-ud-Din, Sunkar-i-Siff, Rim? . 787
XXII. Az-Kulli Dad-Bak, Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-Shamsi, ’Ajami 788
XXIII. Malik Nugrat-ud-Din, Sher Khan, Sunkar-i-Saghalsus . . 791

XXIV. Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-Kashlt Khan, us-Sultant : 795
XXV. UIl-Khakain-ul-Mu’azgam-ul-A’gam, Baha-ul-Hakk wa ud-Din,
Ulugh Khan-i-Balban, us-Sultani ६ ४ 799

SECTION XXIII.

The Affairs of Islam, and Irruption of the Infidels ह ५ ; ~ 869
First Inroad of the Turks of Karah Khita . ‘ - goo
I. Account of the Outbreak of the Chingiz Khan, the Mughal . 935
History of the events which happened in Islam é 968

Account of the crossing of the river Jihiin by the troops of the
Chingiz Khan towards Khurasan ध 1001

Account of the passage of the river Jihiin by the Chingiz Khan. 1008
Account of the coming of Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Mang-Barni, son
of Sultan Mubammad, Khwdrazm Shah, to Ghaznin, and the

events that befell him there . ; . 7012
Account of the taking of Walkh of Tukhiristan ; 1023
Account of the capture of the cities of Khurasan, and the mar-

tyrdom of their inhabitants . : 1026
Account of the calamities which befell the territory of Khuradsin

the second time . . 1042
Account of the capture of the Forts of Kal-yiin and Fiwar ~ 105!
Account of the events which happened in Ghir, Gharjistan, and

Firtz-Koh . 1055
Account of the events which took place before the fort of Saif-

Rid of Ghiir : - 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 ६ : ; ५ : 4 . 1077
II. Taishi, son ofthe Chingiz Khan . . . . = . . 1096
III. Uktae, son of the Chingiz Khan $ : 1104
Account of the nomination of armies from Turkistin to proceed
into the territory of ’Irak : IIIS
Account of the despatching of Mughal armies to proceed towards
Ghaznin and Luhawar ६ : . 1126
Account of the death of तातल, 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 Khan $ : . 1148
Account of a Musalman miracle : $ $ ४ . 1157
The decease of Kyuk, the Accursed . . : ; : . 1160
VI. Bati, son of Tiishi, son of the Chingiz Khan . : : . 1164
An astonishing anecdote . : . 1173
VII. Mangt Khan, son of पी Khan, son of the Chingiz Khan . 1176

Account of the fall of the Mulahidahs—on the whole of whom
be God’s curse! . ४ ६ : : . 4187

CONTENTS.

An account of the misfortune which happened to the Muhtashim,

Shams-ud-Din |. +
VIII. Hulaki, son of दत्ता, son of the Chingiz Khan .

Account of the fall of the capital of the Khilafat $ ;

Account of the martyrdom of the Lord of the Faithful, Al-Musta’-
sim B’illah—the Almighty reward him !

Account of the march of Hulakii towards Halab and Sham :

Account of the miracle [which happened in behalf] of the Musal
mans of Mayya-farikin . :

Another miracle [wrought in behalf] of the Musalmans

Account of the conversion of Barka Khan, son of Tiishi Khan,
son of the Chingiz Khan, the Mughal $

Anecdote respecting Barka Khan’s zeal in the Musalman faith .

First statement + ‘ ८ 8 : ¢ ;

Second statement

Conclusion

Appendix A.

Appendix B. . ५ : < ; : । ६

Appendix €, . ‘ : : , se fs ; .¢

Appendix D. .

ADDITIONAL 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 inits proper place.
To remedy this, as much as possible, I have embodied here such further infor-
mation in the form of Additional Notes and Emendations.

Page 34.—Further research shows that Arg or Ark—e,!—is an error of the
copyists for Uk—o,l—the « having been mistaken for , as suggested in
note ४, The word is correctly given in the last Section. See pages 1120,
1124, and note, page 1122, para. 5. It was a celebrated fortress of Sijistan,
and was still an important place when Amir Timi took it.

Page 36.—“ Sanjaris,” in note 9, taken from Fagib-i, is an error for Sijizts
or Sigizis, that is to say Sijistinis or Sigistanis. See note 5, page 34. This
error is frequently made by oriental authors as well as scribes.

Page &2, note *,—All the copies of the text are wrong with respect to this
word, and have @ for ७ Uz-kand of Turkistin is meant, not Urginj 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 ^ dlack troop,” or ‘‘ black uproar,” isveryimprobable. See note 4,
page 852, and Elliot’s India, vol. viii., page xii., where, if not (र ghaughd,”
there is, at least, ‘‘ ghubar-angesi.”” I have not followed the printed text in
this Translation, because it is very incorrect as well defective.

The Turk Amir-ul-Umara of Baghdad, who was accidentally killed by

some Kurds in 329 H., bore the name of Buj-kum [<x], 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-ghio [१४ +]. See the
last para. of note 4, 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 Jik
[१०१ Hik (5,2), which is the same word less the vowel point of ह ली 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 Tajztk trans-
Jation of which is ‘‘the Siyah Ghajz-Ghao,”’ which is the Kutas of Mirza
Haidar, the Doghlatt 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 (५7
will bear the same construction. See note at page 922, and at 948, para. 2.
Page 77, note >, para. 1.—There is no doubt whatever as to the point of
junction of the rivers of Niir and Kirait at Dariinthah, now a well-known place.
The words in the original are <= 4 j5“\ but the printer has carelessly let

xlvi ADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS.

the 1 drop out after the type was set up, and the proof passed for press. I
have described the Darah of Nur, as well as Darinthah, 10 my न NoTEs on
AFGHANISTAN,” page 108, and there they will be found. Mr. Dowson ap-
pears 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 Giri here mentioned, I believe, refers to the
fortress of Gibar Kot in Bajawy. See ‘‘ Notes on Afghanistan,” page 117.

The word ‘‘ Tahkri” in para. 5 should be “ Tighari.”’

Page 101.—The singular of the word murghdn [yl], which I have
rendered ‘‘carrier pigeons,” ‘‘signifies a bird absolutely” [०५३६ Glo], and
not a fowl only, as Mr. Dowson imagined; and as fow/s do not carry news,
and carrier pigeons are referred to by the same word as is here used in note $,
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-Ghiind, after-
wards known as Kishk-i-Sultan, for that was at Firiiz-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-Din, ’Usman-i-Ibrahim, upon whom be
the mercy of the Almighty! The Maulana, Minhaj-ud-Din, was the father of
the Maulana, Saraj-ud-Din,” etc., etc.

Page 106.—The text is not aa 5 yh ५-क§-- ^“ chand barah wa kasbah”—as
Mr. Dowson imagined ; and even if it were, although édra4 means ‘‘ walls,”
it does not mean ‘‘ a fortification,’’ much less ** fortifications,”’ but the text has
s\—pdrakh—not ‘‘barah,” and no »—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—rtc of the printed text—but that Mr. Dowson
leaves untranslated. See also printed text, page “er 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 °, 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 छन cle y jes: 9 as Mr.
Dowson assumed, except in the printed text, in which, ‘wo words have been
left out before jeep and the first $ 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 5, 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 111, that Bahram Shah was succeeded by his son, Khusrau $hiah, in
552 ए. See note 5, and note >, page 347.

Page 115.—Our author has made a 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 Khurdsan occurred in 587 प्र. See also
Appendix A., page ii.

ADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS. xlvii

Page 122, note §.—The proper title and names of this Chief are ™ Amir
*Imad-ud-Daulah, Da’iid-i-Jaghar Beg, or Jaghari Beg,” son of Mika’il
[2511-7 says, son of Taghari Beg], son of Abii-Sulimian, 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 pls
is an error for Kaialik— j)\3—the २ was made ; by the copyists. For the
details respecting it see page goo, and note % MKara-Khita-i in the same
paragraph should be Kara-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 ?,—The Ni-in or Ni-yan, Taji, is the same leader as is
mentioned at page 1237, and is the Tanjii of the Pro-Mughal writers. See
note at page 1191, line Io.

Page 163, note °, line 9.—‘‘ Abgha’’ Khan cannot be correct, for the period
indicated was the interregnum which occurred between the death of Kyik
Khan, and the accession of Mangii Ka’an in 648 पत. Ab-gha, Ab-ka, Abagha,
or Abaka Khan, Hulakii’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 Ni-in, Aljakta, here mentioned, is the Aljaktae,
or, more correctly, Iljidie, [¢hikdae, or Ilchiktae, as it is variously written,
the desolator of Hirat. Much about the latter Sultans of Riim will be found
in note 7, page 1261.

Page 188.—The campaign against Khita mentioned here refers to the war
with the Gir Khan of Kara-Khitae, mentioned at pages 261 and 934.

Page 201.—‘‘ Arg of Sistan.” This refers, as previously mentioned, to Uk.
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 *.—The chroniclers of the Crusades say that ‘‘it was
proposed that Joan of Sicily, sister of Richard Coeur 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 izé/at, namely,
‘* Muhammad-i-’ Usman,” because "Usman was his father. See page 1198.

Page 233, line 12, and note *,—Suhari 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 Guzarw4n, 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 >, pages 257 and 258, and pages 376 and 475.

Page 239, note '.—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.

xl viii ADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS.

Page 257, note >, line 7.—§hihab 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 Gir Khan,
for his Khita-1 name, which is very different, is given at page 928, and Kulij
is again mentioned distinct from the Gir Khan.

Page 263, note !.—The frontiers of पात्‌ 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 Yisuf, here mentioned, is the same
person as is referred to at page 1097, as son of Safaktan-i-Yamak. It
appears, therefore, that, in this instance also, Yiisuf is his Musalman name,
and Safaktan his Turkish name. The Yighur, or I-ghiir, 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 >, 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 Kari-
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-Din, is a totally different
person from the Badr-ud-Din of Guzidah, 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 °.—The movements of the Chingiz Khan and his sons
are given in greater detail at page 968. Tili was not sent into Khwarazm,
but, when the two eldest sons of the Chingiz Khan began to quarrel at the
siege of Gurganj, or Urginj, its capital, Uktade, 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.—Wamian or Bamian, and Wa4lidn, 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 farther on. It should be Walishtan
७५9 Some careless copyist of an early copy, probably, writing the .
long, thus—,k*!|)—left out the three points of the letter, and thus led
others who followed to read the word y\Jl;—Walian—omitting the AZS.
form of U«—which ,.» 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 Giizgan and Giizganin, 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, Aventy miles east
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 same

ADDITIONAL 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 Khurdsan, for Tae-kan, which is in Tukharistan ; and
these errors are contained in the Tarikh-i-Jahan-Kushiae, 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 iden-
tical place invested by the Mughals which Sultan Jalal-ud-Din marched ‘to
relieve, and there the details will be found

Page 290, note *.—Tal-kin had fallen after a long siege, and ८८2८ the
Chingiz Khan 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 state-
ments. 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 $.

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 +, this #ighf 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 Kandahir 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 Nakhjfr of
Baihaki, or in some way connected with it

Page 319, line 11.—It was not my A/SS. which ^" enabled” me (१८० correct”
the words ‘‘the fifth mountain ts Faj Hanisdr” in Elliot (see vol. viii.
p. xviii.), but the knowledge that /a/ 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 Rdstdt’”? was, and is, an impossible translation, whether ‘‘worthy of
consideration” or not. I was also aware that “ Sarka-sane” 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, every-
day words.

Page 341, note ’.—See note at page 348, last para. Bahram Shah 15 said
to have died in 543 H., the year previous to Bahai-ud-Din, Sim, the Ghiiri,
but our author distinctly states at page 111 that Bahram Shah was succeeded
by his son nine years later, namely, in 552 H. The former date may refer to
the Riblat.

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 °.—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 Organ here mentioned may possibly refer to Urgiin
of Ghaznin. See my ^^ Notes on Afghanistan,” page 85.

Page 427, last para. of note °.—‘‘ Ragif.” The name of this place is also
written Arsuf—se,'—in several histories, the first letter being placed second.

Page 429, line 4, and note *. —Riz is the name of a place near Sabzwiar,

€

1 ADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS.

but the Imam was probably styled Razif, not as being a native of that place but
of Rai, the inhabitants of which are styled Razi.

_ Page 433.—The Beghi, referred to here, and in note °, also written Beghiin,
with the ‘‘n” nasal, is the name by which the Karliks or Karltighs are 8150
known, an account of whom is given in the notice of the Afrasiyabi rulers at
page 909. In MS., the letters , and y 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-Darakht4n here mentioned is not that north-
east 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-Tigin’s Turkish name was Jiik. 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 ’Ali,
was the Sultan’s kinsman, and also son-in-law to the late Sultan, Ghiyag-ud-
Din. He was entitled Ziya-ud-Din before he succeeded to the throne of
Firiiz-koh after the death of his father-in-law, upon which he was styled
Sultan ’Ald-ud-Din. .

Page 483, 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— ८1 - and as
two ७ sl

Page 499, note *.—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 Peghawar, and the other through Bannii. The route by
Kabul, and Nangrahar,or Nek-Nihar, or Nek-Anhar, through the Khaibar /ay
or defile, was rarely used at the period in question. The flourishing province
of Karman, so called after the small Darah 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 con-
dition 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 §.—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, ’Ali, son
of Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, Ghiri, of Bamian. See page 493, and note at
page 527. ध

Page 513, 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 §25, line 2.—It must not be supposed from our author’s mode of
narrating events that Malik Kutb-ud-Din set out from Lahor for the presence
of Sulfan Mahmid, the late Sultan’s nephew. It is only his way of relating

ADDITIONAL 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-timigh, and had
not left the Panj-Aab. 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 Mahmid ; and it is very
certain that an unmanumitted slave could not assume sovereignty. It is very
possible, however, that Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Mubammad, who had been made
Sultan of Ghir on the death of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad, may
have sent Kutb-ud-Din the investiture of Hindiistin when Sultan Mu’izz-ud-
Din was assassinated, and before he was himself ousted by his rival, Mabmiid,
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 «.- 1६ is barely possible that the words Kutb-ud-Din’s
**brother’s son ”—sol; ,s|,—may have been intended by Abi-l-Fagl and
others, and that in some copies the word so\; may have been left out by the
scribes, but, whether Abii-l-Fazl says so or not, it is clearly stated that Kutb-
ud-Din had x0 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-Timir, 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 /ashéar in itself;
and who and what the Khalj were who sought refuge in Sind is explained in
the note. That these few formed ‘‘a// the forces of Khwarizm” is a blunder
pure and simple. What the forces of Khwarazm were composed of is men-
tioned im 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-pir” occurs, is also a mere
press error, unobserved by the printer’s reader, for Dinaj-pir. It is correctly
given in the preceding note !, pages 558—559, and Dinaj-pir should be read
in all places.

Page 567, line 11.—‘‘ Ninis” is incorrect : it isan error in the text of 3
for’ The Timnis 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 Lhas&é. 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.—Seeé Elliot’s India, vol. viii, p. xx. The Editor, Mr.
Dowson, does not see the least necessity for my criticism of the incorrect

< 2

lii 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 ‘‘ dread 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 ‘‘ sa/r” does not.
The printed text, which Mr. Dowson says he so implicitly followed, has the
words ५९७ before the ‘‘ travelling food.” What has become of them in the
‘‘literal translation”? The words for the food are not ^^ nén-s-khurish-i
safriy4na,”—there should be no izd/at after nan—but nan-khurish-i-safarianah,
nan-khurish 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 pol which word, as well as
nan-khurish, he will probably find in his dictionary if he refers to it.

Page 582.—There is no necessity to ‘‘ vexture 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:, ए. xxi.), ‘‘ cannot admit Major Raverty's
improved rendering of the words,” although he is himself ‘‘ not satisfied with
the Munshi's rendering in Elliot ‘his name was mentioned at Court,’ and
considers ‘‘ Having recited a commemorative (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 Ochchah. The corresponding place in Elliot is page
326 of vol. ii., but she 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 Gwaliyir, he ‘‘ was commanded to deliver discourses at the private
pavilion of the Sultan ;” that ‘‘three times in each week discourses were
fixed ;” that ‘‘in Ramagin—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 A/SS. 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 religions
assemblies were convened at the royal tent.”

At page 651, our author says ‘‘a discourse was delivered” by him in the

ADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS. liii

Kasr, 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 White-roof,” and two lines under
** sermon’? is again used.

At page 656, our a&thor 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 {0 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
White-roof here], and the writer of this book received orders to preack 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 com-
mand, 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 29 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 ,5d 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 grand-
father, an eminent ecclesiastic and preacher, was called upon to deliver a
discourse—,S3i—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” for 543 Does
he think १" the author's meaning,” in this instance, ‘‘ would have been more clearly
rendered" by ^" पि came to Court and delivered a exlogistic 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. viii. 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 Pusghto works, without
knowing a single word of the language, except ^" what he read up for the pur-
poses,” 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 practical

liv 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 “ghaughd.” 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
‘¢Fxamination” of my criticisms, and in this one, xxxiii. of his replies, he
would make it appear that I objected to his reridering 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
Fbj-nagar ever formed part of the Lakhanawati territory.” They were totally
different : one was 2 Muhammadan state, the other Hindi.

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 Ilbarf
tribe because the pastures are also mentioned. I contend that the dézarpindn
—here too the plural form is used—were not necessarily horse-dealers any
more than ass-dealers, cow-dealers, or any other dealers. The word ddzargan
signifies a merchant, but, in the translation in Elliot, the words, ^^ 292 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-Nasirl
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-shi. See reference to page 732 farther on.

Page 644, note ‘4, para. 2.—Balka Khan is referred to at length at page
1283. The name of this monarch is generally written with ‘‘r ”’—Barki—as
our author writes it, but in Turkish words ‘‘1” and ‘‘r” are often interchange.
able. See page 617 and note §,

Page 645.—The Turkish name of Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din is sometimes
written Kara-Kash, and sometimes Kara-Kush, and Kara-Kisgh, which last two
forms are the most correct ones, and signify, literally, ‘‘a large black bird,”
kiigh or kush signifying a bird in general, but the term Kara-Kish 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-Kiish
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 Riblat, which is equivalent to 654 घ. The details
will be found at page 1201.

ADDITIONAL NOTES AND EMENDATIONS. lv

Page 716.—As the Ulugh Khin’s son, whose Turkish title was Bughra
Khan, and his Musalman title Nagsir-ud-Din, Mahmiid—and evidently so
named after his father’s sovereign and son-in-law—married a daughter of
Sultan Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmid 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 pos-
sibly 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 Bugbra
Khan, and a son of hers, Kai-Kubad, succeeded her father, Sultan Ghiyag-
ud-Din, Balban, Sultan Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmid 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 ®. 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 *.—The title of Malik Nugrat-ud-Din is, correctly,
Tat-shi, not Ta-yasa’i. It isa 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 2# Kaymin, but, at the period
in question, it was included in the province of Kayman. See ^" Notes on
Afghanistan,” page 75.

Page 932, note, para. 4.—The word I-lagh, in the original 9 is possibly
an error for Talash, which would be written (>> the two points above instead
of below making all the difference. I-lash and Ilamish are both plainly
written, however, in several works. Talas, also written Talagh, is the name
of a city of Turkistaén. There is also a little district so called immediately
north of Lower Suwat.

Page 987, note, para. 1, line 6.-—‘‘ Darah of the Sarigh-Kol ” (J j—the
latter a Tajzik word—is, literally, Valley of the Yellow Lake, a mistake con-
stantly made. The correct name is ‘‘The Lake in, or of, the Sarigh Kol”
(J 93 J—the last a Turkish word—or Yellow Valley.

Page 1043, note '.—The most correct mode of writing this word is Gibart
or Gibari, and not ‘‘Gabari.” The fort referred to near the Indus is known
to the Afghans, and other inhabitants ef the locality, as Gazi Kapiira’h, See
“ Notes on Afghanistan,” page 247.

Page 1201, note, para. 5, line 2 from end.—Can the Chingiz 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 Turki, signifies ‘‘cold,” and, if the
word be read Chang, it means ‘‘dust” in the same language. We havea
tract called Kara-Kum, or Black Sand, and another called Kard-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 ’Alkami” is the father’s name.

ERRATA.

॥
Page 9, note 1, for Zii-l-Yamanain read Zi-1-Yamanain in all places.

10, line 6, ,, A’yan 9१ A’yun, also at page 30, line 11.
99 +) 20, +; Ahwaz १9 Ahwéz in all cases.

o> +» 19) ,, “Trak १» “Trak.

II, 5) ॐ +, Zalhah १ ब्भ.

12, 5, 12, should be Maward-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 ,, Zi-l-Hijjah always.

9 +> 6, 5, Mubammad-i-Tahir read Muhammad-i-Tihir.

19, ++ 3, +, here should be a comma after Saraj.

21, ,, 7 from bottom. After Laig should be a semicolon.

»» 99-20, for Lais read Lais,

22, note *, ,, Shapiir, and Ya’kub read Shiapir, and Ya’kib in all cases.

23, »» 2, + Badghais read Badghais.

24, ,, 3, 5, Jami’-ut-Tawarikh read Jami’-ut-Tawarikh.

99 ॐ१ 8) . 99 Nakib 99 Nakib.

2s, line 7, +, Muhammad Bashir ,, Mubammad-i-Bashir, that is, son
of Bashir, which he was.

+» note 2, ,, Ibrahamf »» Ibrahim.

27, line 15, ,, Khaddat » 02021.

29, »» 5; +, MKagghar is writen in other places Kaghghar.

yy» +» 7p +) rain read I-ran always.

32, note 9» 55 Hak ,, Hakk

33, line 18, ,, Zakria read Zakaria, also at page 37, note ®

34, note *, ,, Haft Aklim read Haft Iklim

35. +» ५) +) Dowati and dowdét read Dawatt and dawdt

99 99 ae Ibrahami 99 Ibrahimi
36, line 9, and page 38, line 16, for Nayab read Na’ fb, and in other places
38, note 9, for MS. MSS

39, line 4, also page 63, for Jibal read the Jibal, and where otherwise
40, last line, and note ५, ,, Alb-Tagin read Alb-Tigin, as in other places
44, line 2 from bottom Hisam ५ Husam in all cases.
45, »» 25, for I-lak 9 I-lak.
46, +» 15.—Abi ’Alf is often written Abi ’Alf, and both are of the same
meaning, and sometimes Bi is written for Abi.
99 note 4, third line from bottom, should be “from Kashghar to Chin,
not, the Jihin.”
६2, lines 3 and 10, and note 8, for Zi-Ka’dah read Zi-Ka’dah.
»» note 8, for Ibrahim +, Ibrahim.
+» +, 8, line 13 from bottom, for Abii Isma’tl read Abii Ibrahim.
53, last line of text, »y llyas »» Ilyas.

viii

ERRATA.

Page 58, line 2, the comma after “ he” is redundant.

595
61,

89,
90,
97;
107;

29
102,

», 2 from bottom for “ Tabri” read Tabari.

9» 10, for ** Misil” read Mausil, as correctly written in other places.

», 18, +) ‘‘diffe-rent” read differ-ent, the printer has incorrectly
divided the word

note !, para. 2, for Burhan Kati read Burhan-i-Kat always.

ॐ jor ९८ Ghazi ” ५; Ghazi
»» 6, para, 3, line 2, should be “ Amir Mangir, son of Nik, son of
Nasr
9 + first line after the Persian, for “ Tawarikh”’ read “ Tawarikh.”
»» 8, line 2, for ‘‘Mabmud ” read ‘‘ Mabmid.”
» 8, 99 2; 59, *fovercome” ,, «^ overcame.”
99 4) 99 4 9, ‘‘different place to” read ^^ different place from.
9 9 99 28, 4, ‘© Al-Zawzani ” read ‘* Az-Zawzani " in all places.
99 » para.I,,, ^^ णात्‌ »» «५१.710.
99 + 99 2, line 6.-{196€ words ‘‘ works of” have been left out
after ‘‘in.”
» 5, for ‘*Jalal-ul-Millat” read ^" Jamal-ul-Millat.”
» 9, line 6, for ^^ Mamliks”’ vead <" Mamiiks,’’ and next line, after
‘“contrary to” a comma is required.
99 8, line 9, for ^^ lyaz” read ^ Ayaz,” also at page 102, note 4,

line 14, ^" Mawdiid = should be *‘ Maudiid ”’ in all cases.

» 13, for ^" Stliman” read < Suliman.”

99 23, the date should be 443 H., as in note ¥, page 102, not 344 H.
9» 3, and note >, for Bar-Ghiind and Buz-Ghiind read Baz-Ghiind.
> 10, for Raggi-ud-Din read Razi-ud-Din.

107, note 8, line 5, for Baihaki ,, Baihaki.
109, line 15, there should be a comma after ‘‘ the Martyr.”

ॐ ॐ
| 8 (०

112,

113,
33

99

note 9, last line, for ‘‘ Taimir” read ^^ Timi.”

99 |, first line. —The year 548 H. is an error for 514 H., as the
context shows, and as given immediately under.

99 }, line 6, for ^^ western ” read ‘‘ eastern,” the present Panj-ab is
referred to.

» »ydine 13, +, “Badaini” ,, ‘* Buda’ini.”

» » para. 4, line 11, for ^^ Seyr” vead *‘Siyar;” and after “others”
there should be a comma.

99 » first line, for ^ Sankaran” read “ Sankurdn ;” also on page
115, note > as at pages 450 and 498.

9 + para. 3, line 2, for *‘ Tughril” read "^ Tagharf.”

»» » line 6 from bottom, for ‘‘ Saljiiks ” read Saljiiks” as before.

99 9 99 2, after ९८. 142” there should be a full stop.

» 8, 99 3.90 *§ Gir Khan” read ‘the Gir Khan.”

99 9, 3) last, for ‘‘early” read ‘‘yearly,” the letter ‘‘y” has been
allowed to fall out

9» 5, line 3 from bottom, for "^ Khata-1” read ^" Khitae.”

» ‘ys ॐ, 4 99 ११ “‘Almit” +, ^^ Alamit,” as at page
363 and other places.

9१ 6; line 11 from bottom, for ‘‘ Ibn-i-Khalkan” read ‘‘ Ibn Khalli-
kan,” as in note, page 1278.

9१ °, last line, for *‘ Mughis” read ^^ Mughis.”

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
Khiti-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't,” as in other places.

170, ,, 8, ,, 10 from bottom, /or “^ Shirwan” read ^ Shirwan.”

171, 5, ), for “Muhammad, Jahan Pahlawan,” read “Jahan Pahlawan,
Muhammad,” as in the note above.

172, 5, , line 14, for ^ Biwiah” 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 ’Ali” read
‘‘ Husain-i-’All,” with an 2a/@t, for Husain was ’Ali’s son accord-
ing to other writers who have dz.

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 8, ,, °*Sufed” , 99 ** Safed.”

99 99 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 ! of
preceding page.

205, note 4, for ° Ibn-i-Khalkan,” read ‘‘Ibn Khallikan,” as in note,
page 1278.

208, ,, '.—After ‘‘ Zangi” there should be a comma.

211, line 3.—There should be a comma after ‘‘ Rim,” and another after
‘© other ” in line Io.

217, note, line & from bottom.— There should be a comma after ‘‘ Vertot.””

220, ,, %—After «^ force” in line 2, after ^“ Jerusalem ” and “ Nov.” in
the next line, and after ‘“‘knights” in the next, there should be

commas.
221, ;, 5, line 5, for ‘different to” vead «८ different from.”
222, line 11, »» ** Ariz” +, Afgal.”

225, note ५, next to last line of para. 1, also at page 226, note 6, for ‘““Mia-
farkin” read ‘* Miyy4-farikin,” as at page 1268, and note °.

229, ,, ॐ, last para., line 7, for ‘‘ Mansiirah” read “ Mansiriyah ; and
८५ Kaif or Kayif” appears to be meant for ^" Katif.”

235.—There should be no comma between ‘‘ Abi” and ‘* Mubammad ” in
lines 16 and 19; and for ‘‘ Kutlagh”’ in the latter read ^^ Kutlugh,”
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, 59 » 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, »5 >, +, 3, after ^^ brother” should be a comma.

253, para. 4, line 7, for ‘‘Garmsir” read ‘‘the Garmsir.”’

Ixii ERRATA.

Page 595, note >, line 5, for «° Nagir-ud-Din, "Iwaz,” read ‘‘ Nasir-ud-Din-i-
*Iwaz,” with an #sd/at, that is, son of ’Iwag, for Ghiyas-ud-Din,
*Iwaz, was his father.
597, = 9 >, line 3, for ^^ very different to” read ^^ very different from.”
602, 55 ॐ 5, 2) + ‘* Nasir” eo Nasir.”
610, 4, + para. 2, line 1, for ^" D’Ahsson” vead ^ D’Ohsson.”
615, last para. of note 9, next to last line, for “page 389 ” read ^^ page
398. ”?
621, note °, line 12, for ‘‘minarah ” read ‘‘ manarah ” as before.
622, ,, ; + § from bottom of last para., for ‘‘ Afaghinah” read
“ Afaghinah.”
627, line 9, after ‘‘ Yal-diz ” there should be a comma.
9# 9) 5, for "^ दुध) ` and ^ Kijah ” read ‘‘Gijah” and ‘‘ Kijah,” as
at page 750.
637, 5, U1, after ^" justice” there should be a comma.
642, ,, 12, ^° Aet-kin.” See ‘‘ Additions,” reference to page 318.
650, note ४, ‘‘line 2, for ‘Sand to the office” read ‘‘and refers to the
office,’ etc.
651, 5, 7, para. 2, line 3, for ^^ different statement to” read “different
statement from.”
662, ,, 7, line 3, for ^^ १003518 ” read ^ ’Abbiasis.”
680, ,, ९, para. 3, line 3, for ^^ Kinnanj”’ read ‘* Kinnauj.”
690, end of note ४, for ‘‘ page 694” read ^^ page 695.”
»» note ', end of para. 1, the printer has again carelessly let the letter ¢
fall out.
694, ,, ५, para. 2, line 3, for ‘‘ Nayab” read ‘‘ Na’ib.”
705, १, 7 99 5S» 0» ॐ 99 ^" mawas” ५९ mawas.”
706, line 3 under the Twelfth Year, for “‘ Ban” vead ‘‘Bat. Bat Khan is
No. xvi. among the Maliks of Hind.
712, text, last line, for ‘* Balaram”’ read “ Balaram,” and also in note ®,
three lines from the bottom.
716, note 5, para. 2, line 12, for ^" Ziya” read “ Ziya.”
720, text, line 11, for ‘fi ul-’Alamin ” read “ fi’]-’Alamin.”
726, note ५, 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 15, for ^" Awwal” read ^ Awwal.”
759, note §, for “^ Shart-badar ” read ‘‘ Shart-bardar.”
751, 5) ° from bottom, after ‘‘ which” there should be a comma.
752, +$ 8, for “See” read ‘‘See.” Here also a letter has fallen out.
761, line 11, for ‘* Shabnagi ” read ‘“‘ Shahnagi.”
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, 39 » para. 5, line first, for “‘as far it goes” read ‘‘as far as it
5,”

780, +» 7, for ‘‘page 650” read ^^ 660,”’

784, line 12, “Kurt.” See page 1198.

809, note >, line 5, for ‘‘ Tukharistan ” vead ‘‘ Khurasan.”

S10, ,, 4, 59 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. laiii

Page 822, line 10, for ‘‘ Zi-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-ghi.”” 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. 1, line 8, for ^^ Saklabs”’ read ^^ Saklabs.”

» 99 9 99 8 + next to last, for ‘different to” read <^ different

from.”

879; ag क 99 8, 3 क , 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, ‘‘Irdish” is also written with ‘‘a ”’—Ardisgh, as in note
at page 950, para. 3.

» 99» para. 1, line § from bottom, for ^^ Kol or Lake Bae-Kol,” read

५‹ Kol or Lake, the Bae-Kol,”’ etc.

892, ,, , para. 6, line 5, for ^ ocasion” read ‘‘ occasion.”

899, +$ » 2 2, 99 4; 99 °* Taijiut »» ^° Tanijit,” as at pageg38.

9 » 99 25 3 4 +» ‘*Mughuls” ,, ‘* Mughals.”

9०8, 29 ॐ 3 2) 99 7, 99 = Itsiz क 99 ध Itsuz. as
9735 » 3> 39 59 3) ‘“TAYA-GHUO | = TAyYA-GHO,.”
920, +$ , lastlinein page, +, ‘‘ Muran » ^^ Mur-an.”

936, +» + para. 2, line 3, ,, ‘‘ Timur-chi,” ,, ‘ Tamur-chi.”
956, » 9 ॐ 25 99 59 59 *¢ Jabbah + 99 J bah.”

957; +; » + 3s +, 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 ^^ sharab.”

973. + » line 27, for “प्प read “ [प

979, line 3, for ‘‘jazbi” read ‘* fusbi.”

980, note 7, para. 2, line 2, for "° Ghii-Raligh” read ‘* Ghii-Baligh.”
981, 99 9» 4, 99 3 9 “ Gizidah” 99 ^^ Guzidah.”

9
983, »5 » » 5S» +» 2,5, “Gir Khin” ,, ‘Gir Khan.”
985 +» » + 2 + IT, +> “Sshuza” 99 ^ shuja’.”
(| 9 9 > 99 ॐ 2 3) ५ Kankuli” 99 ^ Kankuli.

986, 5, » » I, », 6 from bottom, after the bracket and before
‘* save him ” there should be a comma.
» 99 last, line 3, for ^ Mughal” read ‘‘ Mughal.”
988, +» , para, last, line next to last, for “‘Jihun ” read ^° वप्या.
»» 99 9 +» 2, line 13, for "^ Baisut”’ read ^ Baisiit,” as at page 1004.
989, 9 9 9 2 ॐ Gy 9) ^° प्ल] 9 “4 Tikachar, as in the
preceding page.
9 9 » para. 4, line 3 ,, ‘‘Fughang”,, ‘* Fiighanj.”’
991, 3) ५, line 3, for (^ to-vedal” read ‘‘to-yedal,” part of the “y” has
been broken in printing.
1002, ,, °, line 2, for ‘‘ was styled” read ^^ was also styled.”
IOIO, ,, + para. 2, line I, for «^ Ibn-Khalkan” read ‘Ibn Khallikan,”
as at page 1278.
IOII, ,, + para. 2, line 7 from bottom, for “ Tal-kan” vead ^^ Tal-kan,”
and the comma after the word is redundant.
1014, ५ para. 4, line 7, for ^^ Umra”’ read ^^ Umara.”
IOIS, 95 » 99 ॐ +» 12,5, ““Aghrak”,, ^ Ighrak,” as in other places.

lxiv 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 ‘* Mamilik.”
1027, ,, °, para 2, next to last line, for ‘‘ Taghachar” read ‘‘ Taghachar,”’
also in para. 3, line 3.
1029, note, para. 4, line 2, for ^" Bahd-ud-Mulk ” read ^ Baha-ul-Mulk.”
1032, 39 » 99 2) 3; 5, after "^ Jahan” the comma is redundant.
1046, ,, >, line 6, for «^ AL-BIRUNI” read ‘* AL-BiRUNT.”
1048, text, last line, ,, ‘* Hirat” 99 ‘** Hirt’? as in other places.
1073, note 4, para. 4, line 7, for ९. Turan” read ^" Turan.”
(1074, 5, , five lines from bottom of page, for ‘‘ Shiwstin”’ read
«^ Shiwistan.”’
1095, 39 =; line 3, for *‘ Mughal” read ‘* Mughal 7 as in line 2 above.
1099, 5, , para. 2, line 17, for ^^ the two” read “the other two.”
1716) 55 3 9 3 9) 45 +>» ५ Itmas”’ » ५५ Itimas.”
I11g, text, line 7 from bottom, "^ Ta-ir” may also be written ^^ Ta’ir” as in
note >, para. 3, next page
11426, note ०, para. 2, lines 2 and 3, for “‘Mukani” and «^ Mukatii” read
‘© Mukanii ” and ‘* Mukati,” and also in next two paragraphs.
1132, 5, 3 para. 2, line 2, before ‘‘ Huméayiin ” 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 last line, for ‘‘eve’’ read ^" even,” a letter has
fallen out here too.
1137, 5) » para. 4, line 3, 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 ^^ Bashghird” read ^^ Bashghird.”
1180; 55 5 99 Ty 33 4 99 ^ Ughil” 0 Ugh 1”
»» 99 + 99 last, next to last line, for ^ Zi-Kadah” read ‘* Zi-Ka’dah.”
1183, 3, , para. 2, line 2, for ^“ Shiramun” read ^^ Shiramin.”
1188, end of note 7, for ^^ hat” read “‘that,” a letter has been allowed to
fall out again ।
1194, note, para. 2, line 6, for ‘‘ Jami’ ” read ^^ Jami’ ” as in fourth line above.
1196, ,, >, line 1, here again, through carelessness, the ‘‘g” of excepting
has fallen out unnoticed.
1197, text, line 14, and 1198, line 17, for ‘‘Ishrar” read ^ Isfizar.”
9 99 + 15, ^^ KKG-in’? may also be written ^^ म.
20, 5) 99 I, for ^ karwans” read (^ karwans.”
1203, 53 99 3,the ‘‘b’’ in Tabas ” should be doubled thus—‘* Tabbas.”
1220, note, second line from bottom, and next page, line 7 of note, for
५५ Taghachar” read ^" Taghachar.”
1234, 5, ‘, line 4, for ‘*’Usmanli” read “’Usmianli.”
1239, + para. 3, line 7, for ‘‘Ilkae, or Ilka, or Ikan,” read ‘‘I-yalkie,
or I-yalka, or I-yalkan.”
1255, +» » para. 1, last line, for ^^ Ibn ’Umran” read “Ibn ’Amran,.”
1260, ,, 6, line 3, for Ilka” read “‘I-yalka.”
1267, ,, °, para. 3, line 4, for "न Kirdiah”’ read ^^ Kurdiah.”
1276, 55 5 +, I, ++ 2 from end, for ^ Umra” read "^ (पाका.
99 99 9 ॐ ॐ 9 10, for si Kaimirl ” read 4 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 descend-
ants of ’Ali, and the ’Asharah-i-Mubashirah, or Ten Com-
panions 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 Ashkanian.
IV. The Sasanian. V. The Akasirah.

The author, quoting the Tawarikh-i-’Ajam from which
he says the Shah-Namah of Firdausi was taken, and the
statements ofthe Fire-Worshippers, and other authenti¢ in-
formation, states that, when Kabil slew his brother Habil,
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 Gaiii-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 Jarmin, and devoted
themselves to religion, and many others joined them. From
the death of Adam to this period, according to Abi-l-
Ma’shar-i-Munajjim, in the Kanin-i-Mas’idi, was 432
years. After some time clapsed, Nabati and his descend-
ants came down from the mountains, and joined the

d

go: „ :.~. 0° 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 -eyears 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
Samiadrush ; 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 Ili-riis in the
Yinani language ; and the Yindanis say, that he isthe same
as he whom the ’Ajamis call by the name of Gaiii-mart.
He was entitled Gil-Shah, and was the first king of the
Gil-wanian dynasty, which is also named the Pesh-Dadian,
and Bastanian dynasty. When this Ili-riis 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 Kaniin-i-Mas'idi, previous to Nih’s flood,
eleven kings of the Gil-wanian dynasty had reigned.

FIRST DYNASTY: THE BASTANIAH.

1. GAIO-MART, or Gil-Shah, surnamed Pesh-Dad, or
I-rin Shah. Reigned 30 years. II. HOSHANG, who was
born 223 years after Gaiti-mart’s death, reigned, according
to different accounts, 1400, or 400, or 40 years. III. THa-
MORAS-I-DIW-BAND, great grandson of the prcceding.
Reigned 30 years: some say 1030. IV. JAMSHED, grand-
son of Hoshang, but Tabari says brother of Thamiras.
Reigned 700 years. V. BIwar-asp, the infidel, who
dethroned Jamshed, and was swallowed up in the Flood.
For 1000 years after the death of Nuh there was no king

INTRODUCTORY. 3

on earth, but, after that, one arose of the seed of Ham, son
of Nih, named Zuhak. VI. ZUHAK, THE TAZI [i. €
"Arab]. He was a great sorcerer, and reigned 1000 years.
VII. AFRIDON, entitled Mihr-gan. Ibrahim, the Patriarch,
Tabari says, lived in his reign, which was 500 years, but
Ibrahim lived in Zuhak’s reign, when Nimriid reigned over
Babil. VIII. I-raj, son of Afridiin, reigned 40 years.
IX. NIMROD, 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 sove-
reignty again passed to the former kings of ’Ajam.
X. MANO-CHIHR, son of I-raj. Reigned 120 years, in the
Goth year of which the Patriarch 15३ appeared. XI.
AFRASIYAB, THE TURK, who invaded I-ran and overthrew
the dynasty. XII. ZAU, son of Tham§sib, son of Mani-
chihr, who reigned 30 years.

SECOND DYNASTY : THE KAI-ANIAH. ॥

I. KaI-KUBAD, sixteenth in descent from Mani-chihr.
Reigned 100 or 120years. II. KAI-KA-0S, his son, reigned
150 years. Mihtar Suliman lived at this period. III. <^
KHUSRAU, grandson of Kai-Ka-iis. 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-DastT [Artaxerxes Longimanus of the Greeks].
The Bani-Isra’'il carried into captivity. Bahman marries
an Isra’ili woman, who bore himason. The Bani-Isra'll
set free. Reign 22 years. VII. HUMA-I [also Hume],
daughter of Bahman. Married by her father and bore him
Dara. She abdicated after reigning 30 years. WIII. DARA
{or DARAB]-I-AKBAR [Great or Elder]. He made captive
the king of Rim, and imposed tribute of 100,000 eggs of

d 2

4 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

gold, each as large as an ostrich egg. Failakiis, Iskandar’s
father, was king of Yutnan. Dara reigned 12 years.
IX. DARA-I-ASGHAR [Less or Younger]. Iskandar, son
of Failakiis, brought all Rim under subjection. Invaded
and subdued I-ran. Length of reign not given. X. Is-
KANDAR, son of Failakiis, who is said to have been the son
of Dara’s sister married to Failakis. Iskandar died in
I-ran after 12 years’ reign.

THIRD DYNASTY : THE ASHKANIAN.

1. 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. SHAPOR, his
son, who totally destroyed Jerusalem. In his reign Mihtar
"ISA [Jesus Christ] was born. Shapir reigned 60 years.
IV. GUDARZ-I-AKBAR, son of Shapiir. Reigned 10 years.
V. GUDARZ-I-ASGHAR, his son, reigned 21 years. VI.
NARSI-UL-ASHGHANT, who reigned 40 years. VII. KISRA-
UL-ASHGHANI, son of Narsi. 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.

1. ARDA-SHER-UL-JAMI’ 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. SHAPOR, his son, reigned 30 years.
III. HURMUZ [HURMAZ or AORMAZD], who reigned !
year and 10 months. IV. BAHRAM, his son, reigned 3
years. V. BAHRAM, 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 Bahram,
succeeded his brother, and reigned 9 years. VII. HURMUZ,
son of Narsi, who reigned 7 years and ऽ months. He left
one of his wives pregnant, who, after six months, gave
birth to Shapir. 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. अतपा

INTRODUCTORY. 5

reigned 72 years. IX. ARDA-SHER, son of Hurmuz,
Shapir’s brother, a great tyrant; and after 4 years he was
dethroned. X. SHAPOR, son of Shapir-i-Za-l-Aktaf, who
was put to death by his troops after reigning 5 years and
2 months. XI. BAHRAM, son of Shapir, styled Kirman-
Shah before his accession. He was slain by his troops
after reigning 11 years, but Tabari says I§ 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 hunt-
ing, 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. FIROZ, son of Yazdajird, who
reigned 27 years. XVI. BALASH, son of Firiiz, reigned 4
years, XVII. KUBAD, his son, was dethroned by his
brother, Jamasib, but recovered the sovereignty again.
Reigned 42 years.

FIFTH DYNASTY: THE AKASIRAH.

1. NOSHIRWAN, son of Kubad, famous for his justice and
equity. Reigned 47 years, in the 4oth year of which the
Prophet, Muhammad, was born. II. HURMUzZ, his son,
reigned II 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. Inthe 2oth 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 Rim ८ Cross, which her father had

6 | THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

carried away. She died after reigning I year and 6
months. VIII. ARZOMAND-DUKHT, another daughter of
Khusrau Parwiz, succeeded, but was cruelly murdered after
reigning 6 months. IX. KISRA, son of MIHR-JAISH, a
descendant of Arda-Sher, Babakan, was then set up, but
was soon after dethroned and put to death. X. JUNAID,
a descendant of NOSHIRWAN’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 Khusrau Parwiz, who, after a nominal reign of
20 years, was assassinated by a peasant of Marw, in the
215 year of the Hijrah [A.D. 642]. In his reign the
Musalmans overthrew the I-rani empire, and with Yazdajird
the dynasty terminated.

SECTION VI.
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 Nih, 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
Hiris-ur-Rayish, who is the first of the Tubbad-yawa’
dynasty.

I, HARIS-UR-RAYISH. He was contemporary with
Mani-chihr, sovereign of ’Ajam, and was subject to him.
He reigned 120 years.

II, ABRAHAH-I-Z0-L-MANAR, son of Haris. He was
subject to Mani-chihr, and reigned 180 years.

III. AFRIKIS, son of Abrahah. He also was subject
to Mani-chihr, and reigned 164 years.

IV. MuUNDAZ, styled ZO-L-ADGHAR, son of Abrahah.
He was subject to Mani-chihr, and reigned 25 years.

श. HAILAD, son of Sarakhil, grandson of Haris. He was
cousin of Mundaz, and son of Balkis [Queen of Saba], but

INTRODUCTORY. 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. HaAssANn, son of Tubba,’ surnamed Zi-Hassan.
He was put to death by his brother ’Umaro aftera reign of
5 years.

XIV. ’UMARO, son of Tubba’. He reigned 23 years.

XV. ’ABD-UL-KULAL, son of Marsad. In his reign "152
[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-Isra’1l 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. ZUO-SHANATAR. He did not belong to the family
of the Tubba-yawa’. How long he reigned is unknown.

XXI. Z0O-L-NAWASH,' 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 Zi-l-Nawas. He was a Jew.

8 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Sahib-ul-Fil, son of Hasan-us-Sabbah. He endeavoured to
destroy the £a’bah of Makkah, but perished with his whole
army. The period of his reign and the reigns of his two
sons, Yagsiim [Bagstim] and Masriik, when this Habashah
dynasty terminated, was 73 years, and in the last year the
Prophet, Muhammad, was born.

XXIII. YaGsOmM, son of Abrahah, who reigned 4 years.

AXIV. MASROK, 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 com-
mand of Nishirwan, to whom Saif had complained.

XXV. SAIF, son of Zi-Yazan. He reigned a consider-
able time, and was subsequently slain by a Habashi left
behind, who had entered his service.

XXXVI. HARIZ[or DAHRIZ], the ’Ajami, who had accom-
panied Saif, son of Zi-Yazan, from ’Ajam, by command of
Nishirwan, became ruler. He reigned 4 years.

XXVII. THE MARZABAN, son of Hariz [or Dahriz], the
"Ajami. He succeeded his father by Nishirwan’s com-
mand, and reigned over Yaman a long time. At his death
his son, Sajan [Abi-Shajan ?], succeeded, and, at his death,
Khur-Khusrau became king of Yaman. The reign of
Nishirwan 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.

THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

SECTION VII.

THE DYNASTY OF THE TAHIRI MUHAMMADAN
MALIKS IN ’AJAM.

MINHAJ-I-SARAJ, JORJANI, 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 Manichihr 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
’Ali—May God reward him !—and received the name of
As’ad. This Bahram was son of Razan Mirit, son of
Rustam, son of As-Saddid, son of Dostan, son of Barsan,
son of Jirak, son of Gusht-asp, son of Ashrat, son of Is-
ham, son of Tiirak, son of Anshar, son of Shaid-asp, son of
Azar-sab, son of Tih, son of Rii-shed, son of Maniichihr
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-Miminin [Commander
of the Faithful], Mamiin, and in the following manner.
Between the Khalifah, Muhammad Amin, who was at

1 The Tarikh-i-Yafa’l, which is a rare and most valuable work, and highly
esteemed by the early chroniclers, gives @ different account. According to it
the following is the genealogy of the family :—‘* Abu-Tatyib-i-Tahir, called
Zi-1-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 Talhah. Tahir’s ancestor, Ruzaik, was a servant of Talhah-i-Talahat,
who was renowned for his generosity and beneficence.”

B

10 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Baghdad, and his brother Mamin, who was in Khurdsan,
ill-feeling arose. Upon this, Amin despatched ’Ali ’Tsa-
i-Mahan? from Baghdad into Khurasan to reduce Mamin
to obedience ; and, in one of the months of the year 195
of the Hijrah, he reached Hamadan with a warlike army.
Mamiin appointed Harsamah’, son of A’yan, to the com-
mand of a force to oppose ’Ali "Isa; and Tahir, son of
Husain, was nominated to command the van of Harsa-
mah’s army.

By the advice of Fazl‘, son of Sahl, who was Mamiin’s
Wazir, Mami bestowed a standard upon Tahir, saying
unto him at the same time, that he had bent for him a
standard which for thirty years should lead to victory;
and so it turned out, for the sway of the Tahiris lasted for
upwards of thirty odd years*®. Within two leagues of
Rai, with 14 or 15,000 horse’, he encountered ’Ali, son
of "52, son of Mahan, who had brought 50,000 horse with
him, defeated, and slew him’, and sent his head to Mamin.
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 °, and despatched his head to Mamin, his brother,

2 His right name is Abii Yahya-i-’Ali, son of "Isa, son of Mah@n. His two
sons were also sent to serve under him ; and his army amounted to 50,000
men.

$ Tabari says Tahir was alone appointed, but, subsequently, when he asked
for reinforcements, on marching from the Hulwan Pass to Baghdad, then
Warsamah was sent with another army.

4 Other chroniclers of undoubted authority state that’Ali, 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’kib, the throne and crown.”

6 Tabart says 20,000 men.

7 ’Alf, son of "इ, was slain, it is said, by Da’td-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 Tarikh-i-Yafa't gives the 6th of Safar as the date.

1

THE TAHIRI DYNASTY. rr

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-Z0-L-YAMANAIN 9,

Ibn Haisam,the chronicler, and author of the work entitled
^ Kasag-i-Sani,” whose patronymic appellation was Abi-l-
Hasan, and his name Haisam, son of Muhammad, AI-Baki
[Nabi ?] states, that, when the Commander of the Faithful,
Mamin, removed Ghassan’, son 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 ° of Tahir, before his conversion to
the Muhammadan religion, bore the name of Farrukh.
He was converted to the faith by Talhah > 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 Fiishanj ^.

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 Husain, for a
considerable time, administered the affairs of Fishanj,
and was its Wali [governor]*; and Tahir [Zi-l-Yamanain]
was his son; and these successes, which have been men-
tioned, were gained by this same Tahir.

When Mamin 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
Zi-1-Yamanain are differently related. One is, that, when engaged in battle
against ’Ali, son of ’Isa, he struck another antagonist with his leftShand, 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 Mamiin’s command, he gave the left. Rizi asked the reason. Tahir
replied, ‘‘I swore fealty to Mamiin with my right hand.” Riga replied,
«५ Your left will do just the same.”

1 Only one copy of the different MSS. collated contains this name correctly.

> J means ancestor also. According to the genealogical tree previously
given, Tahir was third in descent from As’ad.

ॐ Talhah, son of ’Abd-ullah, one of the Prophet’s companions.

+ According to the Tarikh-i-Yafa’i, above quoted, the grandfather of Tahir
held the government of ए पचता] and Hirat. Fiishanj or Biishanj (it is written
both ways) ‘‘is the name of a city of Khuradsan near Hirat.”

® 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 2

12 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

he despatched Tahir to Rakk’ah 9, to carry on hostilities
against Nasr-i-Shis’. Subsequently to this he came into
Khurasan ; and, in 207 H.°, he died, having nominated his
son Talhah, son of Tahir, his Khalifah or successor.

The chronicler relates, that on the Friday he read the
Khutbah’, and either forgot to mention the name of
Mamin, or omitted it purposely. After he had returned
to his residence at night, and had retired to rest, at day-
break of Saturday morning he was found in his bed asleep
in death ; and it was never known how’, or from what, his
death originated ?.

Il. TALHAH, SON OF TAHIR-I-Z0-L-VAMANAIN.

When the Khalifah, Mamiin, 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
honour®. He held the government until 213 H.‘; 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 Khiariji or heretic,
Hamzah, broke out into rebellion in Sijistan *, and Talhah

6 In two MSS. written Rakah, which is not correct. Tahir’s father,
Husain, son of Musg’ab, son of Ruzaik, died at Hirat of Khurasan in 199 त्त.
At this time Tahir was at Rakk’ah, and the Khalifah, Mamiin, was present at
his funeral, and prayed over him, and the Wazir Fazl, son of Sahl, placed the
body in the grave.

7 Abu Nasr-i-Shis, son of Rabi'l (_ae,) the Khariji, or Schismatic.

8 He died at Marw, according to Yafa’i, 23rd of Jamadi-ul-Akhir, 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 Muhammadan
Sabbath, in which the deliverer of it—the ruler or governor of the province
properly—blesses Muhammad, his successors, and the reigning Khalifah or
the Sovereign. In ancient times, the Khalifah, or his heir apparent, pro-
nounced 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.

3 His death took place in the month of Jamadi-ul-Awwal.

3 The Mujmal-i-Fasih-1 states, that, in 210 H., the Khalifah, Mamin,
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 प. ४ Also called Nim-roz.

THE TAHIRI DYNASTY. 13

carried on hostilities against him for a considerable period ;
and what he did in Khurasan, during the Khilafat of
Mamiin, was the cause of his name being remembered
with gratitude in that country, where numerous proofs of
his goodness remained. ?

Ill. "ABD-ULLAH, SON OF TAHIR.

` On the decease of Talhah, the Commander of the
Faithful, Mamiin, summoned to his presence Abd-
ullah, the son of Tahir, who had become Amir
[governor] of Misr®. ’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,
Mamin had entrusted him with the command of his forces;
and he had so conducted himself, that, in his twenty-
seventh year’, ’Abd-ullah had become renowned among
men for his manliness, his vigour, his intrepidity, and his
virtues and talents. At this period the Khalifah appointed
him to the government of Khurasan, and directed that
१८१1१ ९, son of Tahir, brother of ’Abd-ullah, should act as his
brother’s Khalifah, 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 1511115, and, likewise, in carrying out the affairs of
state, and all such other duties as appertained unto ’Abd-
ullah to perform and attend to.

At the time the Khalifah’s mandate to proceed into
Khurasan and assume the government reached him, ’Abd-
ullah® was at Dinawr engaged in suppressing Babak-i-
Khurrami. When he reached Nishapir, rain, which had
not fallen for a considerable time, began to descend and

6 Any large city: Egypt, and its capital.

7 Some copies of the original mention ‘‘his twentieth year,” but I prefer
the other reading.

8 Other writers state, that ’Ali succeeded his father in the government of
Khurasan, and that he was killed in battle fighting against the Kharijis, in the
vicinity of Nishapir ; and, that ’Abd-ullah was at Abiward when he received
the intelligence of his brother’s death.

® Tabari makes no mention of ’Abd-ullah, son of Tahir, as having been
employed against Babak, but says that Is-bak, 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 Khurdsan, and, that he sent that
heretic to Is-hak, at Baghdad, to be dealt with as Babak had already been.

14 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

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-
yakh' of Nishaptr. 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-Kasim >, son
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 divams, and a
valuable dress of honour.

The Lord of the Faithful, Al-Mamin, had entrusted
’Abd-ullah with the government of the whole of the
territory of ’Ajam*; 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-WaAsik B’illah, when he died. He
had exercised sovereignty over the terfitories of ’Ajaim fora
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 ५.

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, con-
firming him as his father’s successor.

His brothers’ solicited from Tahir the grant of the pro-

1 In the Persian translation of the Arabic work entitled Agar-ul-Bilad, by
Muhammad Murad, son of ’Abd-ur-Rahman, Shad-yakh is described as ‘‘a
city of Khurasan near unto Nighapir ;” 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 Tabirfs was called Kar-shakh !

2 Some copies have Abii-l-Kasim. 3 ’Ajam—countries not Arabian : Persia

+ *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.

$ In all the copies of the original the word brothers is used, but only one
brother is mentioned afterwards.

THE TAHIRI DYNASTY. 1§

vince of Khurasan, and its government; and he bestowed
on his brother, Amir Mus’ab, the government of Nishapiur*.
The Khalifah, Al-Wasik, died in the month Zi-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 martyred’ by the
Turks, he was succeeded by Al-Mustansir.

Six months subsequently to that event, in the year
248 प. Al-Musta’in succeeded him. He sent letters
patent and a standard, and confirmed Tahir, son of ’Abd-
ullah, in his government, as before; and, in that same year,
Amir Tahir died, having previously nominated his son
Muhammad as his successor over Khurasan 9,

V. MUHAMMAD, SON OF TAHIR.

Amir Muhammad-i-Tahir" was endowed with good
breeding, the gift of poetry, and many other accom-
plishments; 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 प. 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-Zi-l-Yumanain,
died in Tabaristin ; and, in 235 प्र, Is-bak, son of Ibrahim, son of Zi-l-Ya-
manain’s brother, Hasan, died at Baghdad. He had held the Sharf, or district
of Baghdad, under three Khalifahs.

7 Middle of the month of Shawwéal, 247 H.

® According to our author, in his account of the Khalifahs, on the 4th of
Rabi’-ul-Awwal, 248 H.

9 Succession to the government of Khurdsan 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 ^ प्रात्‌, son of Tahir, son of ’Abd-ullah,
son of Tahir-i-Zii-l-Yamanain. In the Mujmal-i-Fasib-i he is called Muham-
mad, son of Tahir-i-Zii-l-Yamanain.

16 THE TABAKAT-.I-NASIRI.

to Rai’, and subsequently retired to Baghdad. On his
arrival at the latter place, he was made {214 [governor]
of the district of Baghdad.

At this period, Ya’kib, son of Lais, had risen in rebellion
in 5151211, and had subdued some portion of Jariim’, and
of Zawulistan, and had acquired considerable power in
Khurasan. In 259 H., Ya’kiib 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’kib continued
repeatedly to demand them at the hands of Amir Muham-
mad-i-Tahir, but he had always refused to givethem up. On
this Ya’kiib determined to march against Nishapir‘; 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’kiib’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 Muhammad
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’kib, son of Lais, reached a place called Farhad-
gurd’, a short distance from Nishapir, Amir Muhammad
despatched an agent to Ya'’kib, named Ibrahim-i-Salih,

2 Re is not the correct pronunciation for the name of this city, but Jus.
It is written thus in the original Persian— ,,

9 Jariim 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 shar fancy, such as
Gurmsehl, Gurmseer, and the like

4 The capital of Khurasin. As stated, previously, the Tahiri rulers held
their court at Shad-yakh, a short distance from that city

° The name of this place is not quite certain : it is written - 99314 3° ८1
and even 2S (+) in the different copies of the MSS. collated. The above name
js 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’kib’s presence, and delivered his message, Ya’kiib 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 Nishapir entered into communica-
tion with Ya’kiib; and they delivered Muhammad-i-Tahir
into his hands, and the dynasty of the Tahiris came to an
€ 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 Nishapir, one of the most
excellent men of his day, named Mahmiid-i-Warrak’. He
possessed a female slave, who played exceedingly well upon
the darbat—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 Jdarbat, the heart of Muhammad-i-Tahir desired,
beyond measure, to obtain possession of her. He had
repeatedly asked Mahmiid-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 posses-
sion 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 Mahmid-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

५ These events are fully detailed in the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh, and several other

histories. See note 7, page 22.
7 Warrak means a writer, a cutter and folder of paper, also a monied man.

18 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

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 dadrahs*®
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 Mahmiid-i-Warrak. When the Amir had sat
down, and the silver was placed before the eyes of Mah-
miid-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 Mahmid 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?” Mahmid 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.” Mahmiad-i-Warrak
rejoined : “If such be the case, O Ratibah, I now pro-
nounce 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 Mahmiid-i-Warrak and his slave, arose,
and, gathering his garments about him, said to Mahmid:
“ The whole of the four dadrahs 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, alsoa bag made of leather or lamb’s-skin.

SECTION VIII.
THE SUFFARION DYNASTY.

THE author, Minhaj-i-Saraj Jirjani, makes a short extract

from the Tarikh or chronicle of Ibn Haisam-i-Sani, respect-
ing the dynasty of the Suffariiin. That chronicler and
annalist relates, that Ya’kiib-i-Lais, and ’"Umro, ’Ali, and
Mu’addil-i-Laig, were four brothers, sons of Lais, the Suffar
or worker in brass, who was head of the braziers of Sijis-
tan’. [At this time] Ibrahim, son of Al-Husain’, 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 Laig 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 Laig, the brazier, was in the service of Salib, son of
Nasr, Kanani ; and another, quoting the History of Khurasan of Moulana
Mu’in-ud-Din, Sabzwiari, states, that the latter author had traced the descent of
this family to Nishirwan the Just, the celebrated ruler of Iran. Again, another
author states, that Ya’kiib, son of Laig, 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 gortion 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 Sijistin. Darhim’s sons fled to the king of Kabul.

3 In three copies of the MSS. compared, and also in the Tarfkh-i-Fanakatf,
this name is written ^ Hasin,” [७] which signifies a fortification. A
few words, respecting the Tarikh-i-Fanakati, may not be amiss here. Abi
Suliman-i-Da’ud, the author of that work, surnamed Fakhr-ud-din, was a
native of Fanakat—also written Banakat, according to the rule by which
*Arabs change Persian / into 6—in Mawar-un-Nahr ; hence he is known as
Al-Fanakati, and Al-Banakatf, and his work as the Tarikh-i-Fanakati or
Banikati; but not by the absurd name that some persons have bestowed
upon it, apparently through ignorance of the existence of this place, such as
५५ Bina-Gety,” and ‘‘ Bina-i-Geti.” They probably supposed the meaning to
be a ^^ History of the Foundation of the World,” which Bind-i-Gai would
signify. |

20 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

I. YA’KUB, SON OF LAIS, SUFFARI.

The author of these pages, in the year 613 प्र
arrived in Sijistan, during the rule of the Malik of Nim-
702, Shah-i-Ghazi, Yamin-ud-din, Bahram Shah, son of
Malik-i-Kabir, Taj-ud-din, Harab, son of I’zz-ul-Muliik,
Muhammad. There I noticed a place’®, on the south
of the city of Sijistén, 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’kiib, 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’kiib 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 Sijistin 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'kiib, son of Laig, is situated between the
gates called Dar-i-Ta’dm, 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 Mahmiid 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 SUFFARION 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.

Sali, 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’kiib-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’kib.

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 Suffariiin had dawned, Ya’kiib 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’kib, without delay, mounted a horse, and the party
with him armed themselves, and, with the utmost expedi-
tion, they set out for the city, and proceeded to the palace
of the ruler, and there Ya’kib 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’kiib-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’kib 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’kib 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 Tukhiristan‘* and Balkh, and
subdued them; and then returned and marched towards
Kabul*®. This success took place in 256 प्र, and, subse-
quently, he returned to Sijistan, and afterwards advanced
to Hirat, which, after much fighting, he gained possession
of. After this he took Badghais, Bishanj [or Fishanj],
Jam, and Bakhurz, and returned to Sijistan again

After a short time Ya’kiib again put his forces in motion,
and marched against Nishapir, which he gained possession
of without opposition in 259 H., and seized upon Muhammad-
i-Tahir, son of Husain‘, 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, Wali
[governor] of Hirat: and, in 261 H.,a person—one of the
Amirs of Muhammad-i-Tahir—revolted, and set Muham-
mad-i-Tahir at liberty’, who retired to the Court of the
Khalifah, Al-Wasik B’illah. Ya’kib-i-Lais again marched
an army into ’Irak, and, on his return from thence, he
reached a place which was called Khandah-i-Shapir’°®, and
there he departed this life, in the year 265 पः, 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-kian—Tal-kan by moderns, but not correct, I think—is the largest
town, the authority of ‘‘ Hwen [Houen ?] Thsang,” and its extent of ‘‘ ten
day's journey by thirly 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 Tahirls is Muhammad, son
of Tahir, son of ’Abd-ullah, son of Tahir-i-Zi-l-Yamanain. Sée page 15.

7 The author says not one word respecting Ya’kiib’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’kiib 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 Mukam-
mad, son of Ut-Tahir, whom Ya’kiib had made captive, when he gained pos-
session of Nishapir, and overthrew the Tahiri dynasty. Muwaffk 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 Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh calls this place by the name of “Jand-i-
Shapiir, a town of Ahwiz,” and states that the date of his death was the 14th
of Shawwal, 265 H. It isalso called ‘‘Jande-Shapir.” Ya’kub was buried there,

THE SUFFARION DYNASTY. 23

II, °>UMRO, SON OF LAIS, SUFFARI.

When Ya’kib-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’illah’, 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 7Irak 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 Nishapir ; and Khujistan’, 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 Nishapir against ’Umro, and there he
was joined by 1२207, son of Hargsamah, from Marw.

They foughta battle with’ Umrobefore the gateof Nishapur,
and ’Umro was defeated and put to the rout. He retreated
to Hirat, and the Khalifah, Al-Mawaffik B’illah’, deposed

® There was no Khalifah of thisname. The author must refer to the Khalifah
Mu’tamid’s brother, Muwaffik, who was made Wali over the eastern parts
of Islim, and declared heir, after the death of Mu’tamid’s son Ja’far, but he did
not succeed to the Khilaifat. Mu’tazid, son of Muwafhk, who died before his
brother, Mu’tamid, succeeded his father, Al-Muwaffk, in his capacity as ruler of
the eastern parts of the Khilafat ; and he conferred the investiture of Khurasan,
Fars, Isfahan, Sijistin, Kirman, and Sé#d, upon ’Umro in 265 H., after the death
oi Ya’kub ; and, in 266 H., षाण appointed ’Ubaid-ullah, the son of Tahir, to
the district of Baghdad, ashisdeputy. Mu’tamid was the Khalifah who excom-
raunicated ’Umro, son of Laig, 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, Simani, 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 Khurdsin, at ’Umro’s
request, and that ‘‘ Umro hoisted the standard over his Sarde 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 pre-
sent.” 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’kiib 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 १०९१, on this subject.

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 Rafi’, 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 Jihin—was conferred upon Ahmad, Samiani,
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 51270 > ’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-Laig made a request
to him that the government of Mawar-un-Nahr, Khurdasan,
Nim-roz‘, Fars, Kirmain, and Ahwaz, together with the
Nakabat *, 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 ° which
every chief had in his residence [which would signify that
he was above them all], and that his name should be mens
tioned 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 Khurasaén, Mawar-un-
Nahr, Kirmin, &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 hishead to ’Umro. The latter’s report to the Khalifah,
in the Mujmal-i-Fasib-i, confirms this.

4 Sijistan 5 Nakabat, the office of a Nakib, a leader, &c.

6 The word is rather doubtful—_jj. One MS. has jb. another y's

THE SUFFARION 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 Ismia’il-i-Ahmad’, 53715111, marched from Bukhara
towards Khurasan, crossed the river Jihiin °, 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 crossed’ the Jihiin, 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 [7211] returned to
Bukhara. Inthe year 288 1, the Khalifah, Al-Mu’tazid,
directed that ’Umro should be cast into prison, and in it he
died ; and the dynasty of the Suffariiin terminated *.

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.

® The Oxus, also called Bakhtrus, and Amiiah.

9 According to the author’s own statement above, Isma-il with his army was
already across.

1 See note $, page 31, for a full account of ’Umro’s fate.

ॐ The Tarikh-i-Ibrahami, andothers, 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 Sijistén became aware of
’Umro’s capture they set up Tabir, who, according to the Tarikh-i-Guzidah,
Nizgam-ut-Tawarikh, Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, and other works, was not
’Umro’s brother, but his grandson, Tahir, son of Muhammad, son of ’Umro.
Isma’jl, Samani, 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 ’Atik
Masjid at Shiraz.

SECTION IX.
THE DYNASTY OF THE SAMANIS.

THE humblest of the servants of the ‘Almighty, Minhaj-i-
Saraj, Jirjani, states that, after the mention of the Maliks
of Yaman, and the Suffariiin 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 Mahmiidi, and Nasiri Maliks'. 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 precedence’.

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 Samr-
kand, and that the ancestor of the SAmanis was the २२१७
[chief] of that place, and that he used to be styled Saman-
i-Khaddat? ; but, for sake of brevity, the name of 5271231 was

॥ The Ghaznawi dynasty, and the Turkish Slave dynasty (not Pasdms), of
which Nasir-ud-din, the ruler of Dihli, to whom the author dedicated his work,
was one.

3 These remarks would have been better prefixed to the notice of the kings
of Yaman, or the Tahiris, and are rather out of place here.

8 The Tarfkh-i-Jahan-Ara states that he was chiefly known by the name
of Siman-i-Khadah, which signifies the master or possessor of sdémdn or effects,
chattels, &c. Saman likewise, quoting the ‘*‘ Muajjam-ul-Baladan,” 15 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-Tawarikh 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 Shibin‘.

This Saman-i-Khaddat had a son who was named Asad,
who had four sons—named, respectively, Nah, Yahya,
Ilyas, and Ahmad. They became Princes and Lords of
great dignity and power, able, and experienced, and en-
dowed with considerable promptness and vigour. At
length, when their family had attained the pinnacle of
greatness and_ power, Alb-Tigin’, 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
31251} 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 Nih, the fourth,
who at first held the government of Samrkand, which,
however, was subsequently conferred upon Ahmad.

The Lord of the Faithful, Mamin, 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, Mamin, returned to Baghdad,
his capital, he directed Ghassan‘, the son of ’Ubbad, to

4 The noble, who, in the reign of Hurmuz, son of Niishirwan, overthrew
the son of the Khakan of Turkistin, with an immense army, before the walls of
Balkh, but was insulted by Hurmuz, and herebelled and dethroned him, and setup
another in his stead. The word is sometimes written Chibin, sometimes Shibin.

§ See note >, page 37.

6 In the year 204 H., Ghassan, son of ’Ubbad, was appointed to the govern-
ment of Khurasan. He conferred Samrkand upon Nib, son of Asad, Samini.
Ahmad, Ilyas, and Yahya, the other sons of Asad, received, respectively, the
investiture of Farghanah, Shash, Isrushtah, or Sfrushtah, and Hirat. Soon
after, Tahir i-Zi-l-Yamanain became Wali of Khurasin, Nih died, and the
former bestowed the territory held by Nith 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
Kihurasan and Mawar-un-Nahr, See note !, page 11; 1:ote ४, page 28.

C.2

28 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

assume the government of Khuradsan, 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-Zi-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 territdries and cities they were then holding.

When the sovereignty passed from Amir Tahir to his
son, ’Abd-ullah-i-Tahir’, he confirmed the Sam{nis in their
governments as his father had done, and made no change
with respect to them.

I. AHMAD, SON OF ASAD, SON OF SAMAN.

Each of the sons of Sam&n-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 men-
tioned in the succeeding pages.

Nih, 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 31251, and
Isfanjab*®, 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 Shiash is the name of a territory, river, and city of Mawar-un-Nahr, onthe
Sibiin 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 Seée 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 SAMANI DYNASTY 29

the whole of the brothers, and held charge of the territory
of Samrkand

Nah, at first, was placed in charge of the affairs of Far-
ghanhah, 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
Tiiran ; and his descendants, one after the other, occupied
the throne, and governed God’s people liberally and bene-
ficently. Of those of his descendants who attained to
sovereignty, one of the learned men has spoken, in verse, in
the following quatrain :— -

५‹ 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 Nibs, two ’Abd-ul-Maliks, two Mansirs.”

Amir Ahmad had nine sons: Nasr, 1510511, Is-hak,
Mansir, Asad, Ya’kib, Hamid, Yahya, and Ibrahim.
The mention of their descent was found, as has been
entered herein—Saman, son of Jashm4an, son of Tamghan
son of Nosher, son of Noshed, son of Bahram, son of Shubin

[1 पा].
II. NASR, SON OF AHMAD, SAMANi.

When Ahmad, son of Asad, son of Samian, died at
Samrkand, he nominated his son, Nasr’, 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 [5712141 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 15211, 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 Jamdadi-ul-Akhir, in the
year 279 प्र.

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 terri-
tories under the government of one person—Nasgr, son of Ahmad, the most
upright and best prince of the Samini dynasty.

2 According to the I. 0. L. MS., No. 1952, and the R.A.S. MS., which

~

30 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

When his brother, 19712111, 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 calumry and falsehood [to effect their designs],
until the disposition of Nasr became completely changed
towards his brother, and he determined to reduce 1571311
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 Raf’, son of Harsamah, son of A’yan, who
was Amir of Khurasan’, and acquainted him with the state
of affairs between himself and his biother, 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 be-
tween 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. 1511211] came out of the
city to efcounter him; and a fierce and obstinate battle
took place between them, attended with great carnage,
in the year 275 H. Ismail 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 [57127], 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 con-
tinued 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. 31

Ill. ISMA’IL3, SON OF AHMAD, SAMANI.

On the death of Amir Nasr, the Khalifah, Al-Mu’tazid
28111197, 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 commis-
sion and a standard. He became a great and powerful
ruler, and the whole of those territories submitted to his
sway‘; 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 [5211], 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 upen 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 [5170211 crossed the river
Jihiin, and encountered ’Umro, son of Lais, at Balkh; and
the Almighty bestowed the victory upon [1211]. The
army of ’Umro was defeated and 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 ४५

ॐ Abi Suliman-i-Da’iid, author of the Tarikh-i-Fanakatf, considers Isma’il,
Samini, very properly, as the first of the dynasty who is entitled to be con-
sidered a sovereign prince. The Tarikh-i-Ibrahimi, Jahin-Ara, and several
other histories, also confirm it, as does Ibn-Haukal likewise. The Mujmal-
i-Fasib-f 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 II days; and,
that Isma’il, Saimani, had risen, and had subdued, during that same year, Mawar-
un-Nahr, Khurasan, Fars, Kirman, ’Irak, Sijistan, and some parts of Hindi-
stan. 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 investi-
ture of Khurasan, Tabaristan, and Jurjan, together with a rich dress of honour,
and the sum of ‘‘ten times a thousand thousand d/rams" [ten millions of
dtrams !|; and the affairs of [sma’il began to prosper greatly.

4 In 280 H., 97०३१ 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.
* Respecting the subsequent fate of "Umro, son of Lais, it appears, on

32 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL.

The Khalifah bestowed a commission on Amir Isma'll,
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 Tabaristén and Gurgan from the sway of
Amir Muhammad-i-Zaid-ul-’Alawi‘’, who had possessed
himself of them. Amir Isma’il appointed Ahmad-i-Harin’
to the command of the van of his army, and sent him on
in advance with that portion of his forces; and, between

= 92

Amir Muhammad-i-Zaid-ul-’Alawi and Amir Isma’'ll, very
severe fighting took place, and the Amir Muhammad-i-
Zaid was slain. His son, Zaid, also, was taken prisoner
and brought before Amir [57121], 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 Ismail 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 प्र. In the year 289 ’Umro died in con-
finement. 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’tagid gave orders
to Saft to put him to death, and that he delayed carrying the sentence into exe-
cution. When Al.Muktafi succeeded to the Khilafat, he inquired of Saft `
respecting ’Umro, whether he was still alive. He replied that he was.
Muktafi said : “1 will act generously towards him ; for, during the time of
Mu’tazid, he continually 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 death in his
prison. More respecting the Suffaris will be found at page 183. I hope, very
shortly, however, to give a detailed account of the rise of the different Mubam-
madan dynasties to the public. ध

6 In the Mir’at-ul-’Alam and other works, he is styled ‘‘ Mubammad, son of
Zaid-ul-’Alawi, who bore the surname of Ud- Dai’-ala-]-Hak.” In the Tarikh-
i-Guzidah, he is styled ‘* Al-Bakiri,” instead of ’Alawi; but the meaning of
these two titles is much the same. He was a descendant of the Khalifah, १५1,
and Bakir was the surname of Abii Ja’far-i-Muhammad, son of 'Ali, son of
Husain, son of ’Ali, the fourth Khalifah.

7 Muhammad, son of Hariin, seems to be the correct name of this officer.
He had heen deputy to Rafi’, and had entered the service of Amir Isma’il.

THE SAMANI DYNASTY. 33

At this time, the Khalifah Al-Mu’tazid Brillah died,
and his son, Al-Muktafi 2311121, succeeded to the throne
of the Khilafat. He despatched a commission and a
standard to Amir Isma’il, and conferred upon him the
territories of ’Irak, Rai, and Safahan’, and the provinces
of Tabaristan, and Gurgan, the whole of which were
incorporated with Khurasin. Amir [57211 gave the
government of Rai to his nephew, named Abi Salih, son
of Mansir, son of Is-hak’, Sdmani, and to his own son,
Ahmad by name, that of Gurg4n.

On the night of Tuesday, the 14th of the month Safar,
in the year 295 H., he died, and his title became Amir-i-
M4zi, or the Past or Late Amir’. He had reigned fora
period of eight years’.

IV. ABU NASR-I-AHMAD?, SON OF ISMA’IL.

This ruler had four sons, named Nasr, Mansir, Ibrahim,
and Yahya, whose surnames were, respectively, Abi Salih,
Abi Muhammad, Abi Is-hak, and Abi Zakria.

Abi 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 lion‘, 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 ona 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

ॐ Isfahan. 9 A son of Ahmad is so named. See page 29.

1 Amir Isma’il made the celebrated Abi-l-Fazl, Al-Bal’ami, his Wazir.
He continued to act in that office up to the time of Amir Nuh, son of Mansi,
by whose command he translated the Tarikh-i-Tabari from Arabic into
Persian.

2°Computing from the commencement of his reign in 287 प्त.

ॐ Abu Nasr-i-Ahmad signifies Ahmad, the futher of Nasr.

« The word += 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 प्त. 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, Abi. Nasr-i-Ahmad, son of Isma'll,.
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 Sijistan*, however, Mu’addil, son of ’Ali, son
of Lais, Suffari, brother's son of Ya’kiib 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 son’, in whom he placed confidence,
Abi Salih-i-Mansir, son of Is-hak, son of Ahmad, Samani.
Subsequently the people of Sijistan revolted, and seized
the person of Abi Salih, and confined him in the fortress of
Ark’®, and gave their allegiance to "Umro, son of Ya’kib-

5 Tarikh-i-Guzidah, Khulagat-ul-Akhbar, Mujmal-i-Fasib-i, and other
works, say this event occurred 23rd Jamadi-ul-Akhir, 300 H. Fagih-i gives
his reign as § 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—¢he Sigizi [. 5], or Sijizi [५75] slave probably—of ’Umro,
son of Laig ; his having, at last, taken to the fortress of Bam, in Kirmin, and
his subsequent flight into the desert of Khurdsdn ; nor of Tahir and Ya’kub,
’Umro’s sons, nor of Lais, son of ’Ali, of the same family, all three of whom
were, at different times, taken captive and sent to Baghdad. In 297 H.
Muhammad, son of ’Ali, brother of Ya’kiib and ’Umro, sons of Lais, Suffari,
was made prisoner along with Sigizi, by Amir Ahmad, Samani, who subdued
Sijistin. He sent them to Baghdad, at the Khalifah’s request. In 299 H.,
1.21, son of ’Ali, died in Fars; and Mu’addil, his son, died the same year.

7 The same Abi-Salih, who was son of Mansiir, 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 9;! ’as have

the words o),! als ‘‘ fortress of Ark or Arg ;’”” but I think it might be oy! [Ok].
which is the name of a buried town of Sijistan, and, from its ruins, Afghans and

THE SAMANI DYNASTY. 35

i-Lais*. On this, Amir Abii 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 ’Ali', Marw-ar-Ridi’, was made Amir [com-
mander] of that force. This army had entered Sijistan in
the year 300 H.,and had invested’Umro [son of Muhammad],
son of Ya’kib, for a period of seven months’, when he
begged for quarter, and came out and surrendered. Sijistan
was then made over to the charge of Simjir-i-Dowati*.

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.

भ, NASR5, 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 ^.

Amir Nasr at this time was but eight years of age, and
according to the statement of the chronicler, at the very

Hindiis of Kandahar have brought me coins. The fact of al 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 , has been written by
mistake for » The Tarikh-i-Haft Aklim says there is “a place called Uk
[७59], in Sijistan, near which is a Reg-i-Rawan [running or flowing sand]
situated near Kala’-i-Kah, or Gah, in which vicinity are several holy tombs.”

9 ’Umro, son of Muhammad, son of Ya’kiib-i-Laigs, is correct.

1 Other writers say Husain, son of ’Ali.

2 That is, he was a native of Marw-ar-Riid.

ॐ Others give nine months as the period.

५ Tarikh-i-Ibrahami says Ahmad-i-Simjir—also written Simjir-i-Dowatt.
Dowiti is from dowdt, a pen-case, or ink-holder.

5 His proper designation, according to the Mujmal-i-Fasih-i, Tarikb-i-
Jahan-Ara, the Tarikh-i-Ibrahami, and Tarikh-i-Fanakati, is Abi-l-Hasan-i-
Nasr, &c.

¢ Among the events of the year 301 H., the Mujmal-i-Fasib-i mentions,
the ‘arrival of the news at Baghdad, that the slaves of Amir Ahmad, son of
Isma’il, son of Ahmad, Samini, had put him to death, on the banks of the
Jibiin of Balkh, [referring to what was mentioned under 300 प्र. ] and that his
son, Abii-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-NASIRI

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, Abii '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 bene-
ficence ; 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 ’Ali, 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 con-
duct, and he was forgiven.

Subsequently to this, Amir Nasr’s uncle’s son, Mansiir,
son of Is-hak, revolted against him in 302 H. in Khurasan
and Nishapir; and Husain ’Ali’, who was Wali [go-
vernor}] of Hirat, joined him in his rebellion. The
Sipah-salar, {[general-in-chief] of Amir Nasr’s forces,
Hamawiyah ° marched against them from Bukhara, but,
before he came up with them, Mansir had died at Nisha-
pir, 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 ’Alf. 8 a2 yom

9 In 309 H. Abi Mansgiir-i-Jihant, was appointed to the government of
Hirat, Fishanj, and Badghais, and arrived at the former city to take up his
appointment. In311 प्र. Shah-Malik, son of Ya’kiib, son of Laigs, the Suffari,
and a body of Sanjaris appeared before Hirat. Simjir 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 for

THE SAMANI DYNASTY. 37

pardon’, was forgiven, through the intercession of Muham-
mad, 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 23111121, Al-Kahir B’illah, Ar-Razi 21111210,
up to that of Al-Muttaki B'illah, and he continued to pay
fealty to them, and to render them submission and obedi-
ence; and, from each of those Khalifahs likewise, he re-
ceived a commission and a standard. He continued to
reign, until the month of Rajab, in the year 331 प. when
he died*. He was spoken of by the title, or surname,
of the Amir-i-Svid, or the August Amir, and his reign
extended to a period of thirty years. He had three sons

some years. ˆ In 319 H. Abii Zakrfa-i-Yahya, son of Ahmad, son of Isma’il
Sam4nj, appeared before Hirat, ousted Shabasi, who had seized the govern-
ment, burnt some of the gates, and threw down part of the walls, and left
Kara-Tigin, aslave of Abii Ibrahim, Samani, in possession. He then departed
towards Samrkand, but, the following day, Amir Nasgr himself reached Hirat,
stayed one day, and set out by way of Karikh, after Abi Zakria, leaving
Simjir again governor of the province. In 321 H., Mansi, son of ’Ali, was
appointed. He died there in 324 H., having been Wali [governor] for three
years. The appointment was then conferred upon Muhammad, son of Hasan,
son of Is-hak. Soon after, in the same year, Abi-l-’Abbas, Muhammad,
son of Al-Jarrah, marched against Hirat, took Muhammad, son of Hasan,
captive, and sent him, in bonds, to Jurjin to Balka-Tigin. In 326 प्र. the
office of Wazir was conferred upon Muhammad, son of Muhammad, Al-Jihani,
by Amir Nasr.

Our author generally leaves out the principal events, or most of them, so
dves 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 ’Ali,
son of Ilyas, who was one of the Umra-i-Juytsh [Commanders of the Forces]
of Amir Nasr. Amir Nasr sent a Dabir [Secretary] along with Amir ’Ali,
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—s¥ „~ ८७ LI
containing a play upon the first part of his name, Makan [,,'«=l.] ‘‘ was not,”
which interpreted is—‘‘ ‘ Was not’ has become like his nanie.”

In this same year, 329 H., Balka-Tigin was removed from the government
of Hirat, and it was again conferred upon Abi Mansir-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 mamlitks or slaves, but it was only in the subsequent reign that he
rose to the rank of Amir [lord]. See page 40, and note +.

ॐ The Tarikh-i-Guzidah, Tarikh-i-Fasih-i, Tarikh-i-Ibrahimi, and other
histories, state that Amir-Nasgr was slain by his own slaves, 12th of Ramazan,
330 H., but some say it took place in 331 H.

38 | , THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Nih, Ismail, and Muhammad, and the first succeeded
him.

VI. NUH, SON OF NASR, SON OF AHMAD, SAMANI.

Amir Nah, son of the Amir-i-Sa’id, ascended the throne
of the dominion of ’Ajam, on the 5th of the month of
Sha’ban, in the year 331 H.*, and he reigned for a period
of twelve years and three months. He had two sons,
’Abd-ul-Malik and Mansir. The Lord of the Faithful,
Al-Muttaki Billah, sent Amir Nih a standard, with the
deed of investiture, confirming him in the government of
the whole of the territories of ’Ajam and Khurdasan, which
had been held by his father. He appointed the Imam,
Shams-ul-A’immah, Abi-ul-Fazl, Muhammad, son of AI-
Hakim, Sarakhsi, the author of the work entitled ““Mukh-
tasar-i-Kafi,” to the office of Wazir, and made him his
Nayab, and entrusted to him the administration of his
20291154. ।

Having entered upon his office, the Imam began to
conduct the affairs of the country according to the pre-
cepts 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 Nih, through the
rebellion of ’Abd-ullah, son of Ashkan*, Khwarazm Shah,
proceeded to Marw’ in 332 H., and brought that impor-
tant matter to a successful issue. In the year 335 H., his

« In 330 प्र.) according to others, as stated previously.

$ Nih first appointed Hakim Abi-l-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 Nih giving orders to put the Wazir Abi-l-Fazl, Al-Bal’ami, to
death. This is not the Wazir, Al-Bal’ami, who translated the Tarikb-i-
Tabari, 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 Nik, but where,
is not stated. The Khwarazm Shahis 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 घ. Kara-
Tigin had been removed from the government of Hir&t, and it was conferred
upon Ibrahim, son of Simjir, who, in the following year, sent thither Abi-I-
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 ^ Merve” is the correct pronunciation.

THE SAMANI DYNASTY. 39

uncle, Is-hak*, who had fled to Baghdad, had managed to
obtain from the Khalifah, Al-Muktafi B’illah, the investi-
ture of Khuradsan. He, accordingly, entered those parts,
and seized upon the territory of Jibal’ and Khurasan.

Amir Nih 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 sug-
gested.

Amir Nih, was in urgent need of his army’s ser-
vices, to enable him to oppose his uncle, Amir Is-hak,
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 Nik, and stated that all the dissatis-
faction 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 पाणि
tunate 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 Nih and his uncle
Ibrahim.

9 Jibal, or the Highlands of ’Irak, is meant here.

1 Fagib-i, under the events of the year 335 H., mentions that Abii ’All-i-
Simjir became hostile towards Amir Nik, son of Nasr, and that the troops
demanded of him the Wazir, Hakim Abi-l-Fazl, son 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 Nib 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-NASIKI.

position, and that great man was thus torn asunder. This
occurrence took place in the year 335 H

Amir Nih, 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 NOH, SAMANI.

On the decease of Amir Nih, 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, Abi-l-
Fawaris-i-’ Abd-ul-Malik, and they accordingly placed him
on the throne. The Wazir’s office was given to Abi
Mansir, Muhammad, son of Al-’Aziz?, and the commander
over the Amir’s troops was Abii 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 W4Alis [governors] in different
parts, while others of the great nobles were retained
by him in authority near his own person. An arrange-
ment was entered into with Abi-l-Hasan, son of Buwiah
respecting his territory, for the sum of 200,000 rukni
divams*, This treaty was concluded, in accordance
with the mandate of the Amir ’Abd-ul-Malik, by Abi
Sa’id-i-Bakir, son of Al-Malik, Al-Farghani, before men-
tioned, who was the general of his troops; but Abi
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 Abi Sa’id had become tainted with the doctrine of the
Karamitah sect of heretics. The command of his troops
was entrusted to Alb-Tagin‘, the Hajib [chamberlain],

3 Amir ’Abd-ul-Malik made Abi Ja’far, ul-’Utba, his Wazir, according to
other authors.

3 See the dynasty of the Dialamah, page 55

4 In Fasih-i, Alb-Tagin is first mentioned in the year 267 H. in the following
words :—‘* Birth of Alb-Tagin, the freedman ( 49.) of Nasr, son of Abmad
Samani.” According to the same excellent authority, in 346 H., Abu Mansiir, son
of ’Abd-ur-Razzak, who had been made Walf [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 Tiis, thus throwing up his command.

THE SAMANI DYNASTY. 41

until the year 350 H.’, when Amir ’Abd-ul-Malik, having
goné one evening to the Maidan or Course to amuse him-
self in playing Chaugan’, fell from his horse and was
killed’, after having reigned for a period of little over
seven years.

VIII. MANSUR, SON OF NUH4, SAMANIL.

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, Abii Is-hak-i-Tahiri, thither ; but in the same year Abii
Is-hak was seized and bound and removed, and Husain, son of Ribal, came to
Hirat as Alb-Tigin’s deputy. * # * In 350H. Hirat was given to Abi-l-Hasan-
i-Simjir. This Alb-Tigin is the Turkish slave who was master of Sabuk-
Tigin, who was also a Turkish slave, and father of Mahmiid of Ghaznin.
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 ‘‘ Alputtekein,” ^" Abistageen,””
‘* Abistagy,”” ‘‘ Abistagi,” ‘* Alepteggin,” and the like, from Dow down to
Marshman, and his ‘‘Samanides”’ and ‘‘ Aluptugeen,” who ‘‘ rose through the
gradations of office to the government of Candahar [which is never once men-
tioned by any writer of that period] ov Ghuzni ”—he is not quite sure which.

® Abi Sulimin-i-Da’id, Al-Fanakati, says in 351 H. Mansi succeeded in
349 घ.

५ Chaugin is a game somewhat 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 of the Turkish slave-kings of Dihli
was also killed from a fall while playing at this same game.

? Fasib-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-Jahan-Ara, Lubb-ut-Tawarikh, Tarikh-i-Ibra-
himi, Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, Khulasat-ul-Akbbar, Tarikh-i-Yafa’i, and
last, and not the least trustworthy history, the Mujmal-i-Fasih-y, all say that
Abi-Salih, son of ’Abd-ul-Malik, son of Nib, surnamed Us-Sadid, the sox,
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 Mansiir, son of ’Abd-ul-Malik, son of Niih, son of Nasr, son
of Ahmad, son of Isma’il, Samani.” What is most strange in our author's
statement is that he only mentions ०८ name of the two; and therefore I
suspect he has confused them. All the copies of the MS., however, are alike
on this point.

b

42 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

and held consultation whether they should raise to the
throne Abi .Salih-i-Mansir, son of Nih, 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 Wazir of
the late Amir was ’Ali Al-Bal’ami °, between whom and the

Amir-i-Hajib great unanimity and concord existed. The
` Wazir wrote to Alb-Tigin to consult with 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 brother’ ; but, before Alb-
Tigin’s reply had time to arrive, the wholeof the soldiery, the
great nobles, and the heads of religion and law, had agreed
to place Amir Mansir, son of Nih, on the throne, and
had already installed himthereon. When the news reached
Alb-Tigin respecting Amir Mansir’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 Nishapir from the Samani Court’,
but it was [now] conferred upon Ibn ’Abd-ur-Razzak’*.

9 His name is not correctly given by our author. His right name is Abi
*Ali, son of ’Abd-ullah, Muhammad, Al-Bal’ami ; and on the authority of the
Agar-ul-Nuzara, Tarikh-i-Yafa’i, and other works, Abi ’Ali was the translator
of the Tarikh of Imam Muhammad Jarir-ut-Tabari, 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 Mansi, son of the late ’Abd-ul-
Malik, to the throne. On this account Mansi 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 Mansiir 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 ‘, page 40.

8 It was conferred upon Abi-l-Hasan-i-Simjir in 351 प्त.) he having become
Sahib-ul-Jaigh, or commander of the troops, and proceeded to Nishapiir ; and
the government of Hirat was conferred upon Abi-l-Hasan, son of ’Umro
Al-Faryabi. After four months it was bestowed upon Talhah, son of. Mu-
hammad, Un-Nisa’I. In 352 प्त. Alb-Tigin died.

THE SAMANI DYNASTY. 43

Alb-Tigin was filled with wonder and astonishment, and
he determined to proceed from Nishapiir to the court of
Bukhara ‘; but, when he had reached Balkh, on the way
thither, having been informed respecting the change in the
heart of Amir Mansir towards him, on account of the letter
he had despatched [which had fallen into Mansir’s hands],
on reaching Balkh, he turned aside, and proceeded towards
Ghaznin. Amir Mansiir despatched a commission after
him, and pacified his mind ° [by assuring him of his favour].

In this reign, Hasan, son of Buwiah, died ° ; and his son,
Fana Khusrau, removed his father’s treasures, and pro-
ceeded to Baghdad, overcame his uncle, Bakhtyar, and pos-
sessed himself गर. The ’Ulama and the Kazis he
‘now put forward, and solicited an accommodation from
Amir Mansir, under the agreement that he, Fana Khusrau,
should retain possession of the territories of ‘Trak, Rai,
(पाटा), and Tabaristan, in fief, on payment of a tribute,
at the rate of one thousand gold dinars daily 7.

During the reign of Amir Mansir, in Farghanah, Sijistan,
and ‘Irak, the whole of the great nobles were continually
revolting from his authority; but the Almighty was
pleased to bestow victory upon the Amir’s nobles and

+ This too is quite contrary to other writers, who give much greater details
of these matters. An army was sent by Mansi against Alb-Tigin, who
defeated it, and then marched against Ghaznin, and gained possession of it.
Upon this Mansi 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 /e put the
Badshih of Ghaznin to death.” On this Amir Mansiir sent 30,000 horse
against him, but he suddenly fell upon them with a force of 6000, and defeated
them. On this Mangir 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 Mansiir 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 Abmad, in Sijistin, and of his proceeding to the court of Bukhara to
obtain aid from Mansiir. See notes to Section XIV.

४ The investiture of Ghaznin he means, no doubt.

५ See account of the Buwiahs farther on, and note ® to page 63.

7 The I. 0. 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.

D2

44 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

troops, until the whole of the rebels were reduced to sub-
mission.

Amir Mansir died on Tuesday, the 11th of the month of
Shawwal, 365 H.°, after a reign of seventeen years, six
months, and eleven days. He went by the surname of
the Amir-i-Sadid, or the Steadfast Amir

IX. NUH, SON OF MANSUR, SON OF NUH, SAMANL

His sons were Mansir, ’Abd-ul-Malik, and Muhammad’.

On the departure from this world of Amir Mansir, son
of Nth, they [the people] gave their allegiance to his son,
Amir Abi-l-Kasim-i-Nih, and raised him to his father’s
throne. The Lord of the Faithful, Ut-Ta’1u-Lillah, sent
him a patent of investiture and a standard.

The new ruler directed Fayik-i-Khasah', and Tash >,
the Hajib [chamberlain], to assume the command of his
troops and the direction of military affairs. Abi-l-Hasan-i-
Simjir, who was the son of a slave of this dynasty, and
ruled, in the name of Amir Nah, over parts of Khurdsan,
such as Hirat and Nishapir, and over the territory of
Mawar-un-Nahr’, received the title of Nasir-ud-Daulah
from the Amir, and the territory of Tiis was added to the
territories already held by him.

The office of Wazir was conferred upon Abi-ul-Hasan-
i-- Abd-ullan, son of Ahmad Al-’Utba*; and Tash, the
Hajib, was made head of the army, or commander-in-
chief, with the title of Hisaim-ud-Daulah. Kabis,. son
of Washm-gir, was made Wali [ governor] of Gurgan,

8 Five years previous to this event, in 360 H., Mahmid, sun of Sabuk-
Tigin, was born.

® The author’s arrangement of his work is by no means uniform ; he some-
times 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 Nik, son of Mangir, son of ’Adbd-ul-
Malik, son of Nib, 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-Tizin.

3 His right name 15 Abii-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 Abii ’Ali, son of ’Abd-ullah-i-Muhammad, son of Bal’ami, trans-
lator of the Tarikh-i-Tabari, was his Wazir. In the preface to that translation
Mansiir is styled son of Nuh.

HE SAMANI DYNASTY. 45

and he and other nobles were despatched along with Tash
into ‘Irak, in order to carry on hostilities against Buwiah १,
son of Al-Hasan, son of Buwiah. They fought a battle
before the gate of Gurgin and were defeated, and Tash,
the Hajib, was overthrown and had to retreat.

After some time Tash and: Abi-l-Hasan-i-Simjir, both
of them, revolted ; but, after some struggles, and victory °
over the Didlamah of the family of Buwiah, they both
returned to their allegiance’; and the command of Amir
Nuh’s forces, after some time, fell to Abi ’Ali, son of
Simjiir, and Nishapir was made over to him, and he re-
ceived the title of ’Imad-ud-Daulah.

In this reign likewise, Amir Aba Misa-i-H4rin, I-lak®
Khan, determined to attack Bukhara, and Amir Nih fled to
Amul १, and kept in retirement. Abi ’Ali, son of Simjir,
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 hemorrhoids, and determined to retire into his
own territory again. He sent for Amir ’Abd-ul-’Aziz, son of
Nah, son of Nasr, who was an uncle of Amir Nih’s, and pre-
sented him with a’ robe of honour, and made over the ter-
ritory to him, after which he retired towards Turkistan. Amir
Nih, son of Mansir, brought assistance from the Turk-
7112715, 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 Nib returned again to Bukhara, and once more

४ So in the original; but it was against the forces of ’Uzd-ud-Daulah, Abu
Shuja’-i-Fani Khusrau, the Dilami, that Amir Nih’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 Abi-l-’Abbias-i-Tash, surnamed Hisam-ud-Daulah, died in 379 H., at
पठ. Some copies of the text have oly for ७१

8 This is incorrect ; it was Bughra Khan, ruler of Turkistan, of I-lak, who
was his son and successor, as mentioned farther on by our author himself.
According to Guzidah and other histories, Abi ’Ali-i-Simjir contemplated
assuming independent sovereignty, and sought support from Bughra Khan
to aid him in doing so. Bughra Khan’s coming was afer Nuh and Sabuk-
Tigin proceeded to Hlirit to attack Abu ’All-i-Simjiir. See note 4 to
page 46

* In Mazandaran. -

46 THE TABAKAT.-I-NASIRE.

acquired strength ; but, through the rebellion of Abia ’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’ had suc-
ceeded him ° there, and become very powerful.

The people of Balkh, on account of the weak state of
the Sam4ani ruler’s power, implored aid from Amir Sabuk-
Tigin from the tyranny of Fayik-i-Khasah, and he had
marched thither. Amir Nih sent a sagacious person
to him, and great graciousness and courtesy passed between
them, and compacts were entered into. Amir Sabuk-
Tigin came to Kash’ and Nakhshab, and Amir Nih
came out of Bukhara [to meet him], and they united
[their forces], and afterwards marched into Khurasan
to crush Abi ’Ali-i-Simjir*. 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 cf 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 Bi ’Alt-i-Simjir became aware that Amir Nik
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 6 followed by the short vowel , and
silent 4 = Saéuk + ¢ with the short vowel ४, and silent g, the long vowel 7, and
silent = 7747 — ७4५. — (Sabuk-7Tigin). Neither ‘‘Sebektekein,” nor
‘* Sabak Tagin,” ‘‘ Subuktugeen,” ‘‘Sébekteghin,” ‘‘ Subuktagi,” &c.

2 Sabuk-Tigin had certainly succeeded ; but between his accession and Alb-
Tigin’s death sixteen years had irtervened, and three other persons had ad-
ministered the government.

3 +, Kesh,” as this place has been styled in some works, 15 an impossible
word. The Persian is (८ 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.

4 Fasih-I says, under 382 H., °" Amir Nih, son of Mansir, Samanf, and
Amir Nasir-ud-din, Sabuk-Tigin along with him, came to Hirat, and fought
a battle with Abii ’All-i-Simjir, 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 Nih and Sabuk-Tigin joining against Abii ’All-i-
Simjir, not only confusing the order of events, but also giving Bughra Khan
a wrong name. His title and name was Shihab-ud-Daulah, Hari, son of
Suliman, son of I-lak Khan, surnamed Bughra Khan, the Turk, and he held
the tract of territorv ftom Kash ghar to the Jihiin. His son, I-lak Khan, suc-
ceeded him. In 384 +, Amir Nih gave the government of Khu:asin to
Sabuk-Tigin.

THE SAMANI DYNASTY. 47

pir and proceeded thither. Amir Nih, on the day of
the engagement between the two armies, gave up the com-
mand 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 Kabiis, son of
Washm-gir, who was on the side of Abi ’Ali, deserted,
and went over to the other side; and Abi ’Ali was over-
thrown, 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 withthat heresy. He had founded a Masjid-i-
Jami’’, or great masjid, at Nishapiir, intending, when it
should be completely finished, that the Khutbah should be
read there for Mustansir-i-Misri’. This victory was gained
by Amir Nih, son of Mansijr, in the middle of the month
of Ramazan, in the year 384 H.°; and, after this success, the
affairs of the province of Hirat were arranged by Amir
Nah, and he proceeded to the territory of Nishapir.

Abi’ Ali-i-Simjiir nowsought for peace; but, on his request
not being acceded to, he left Nishapir, and set out towards
Rai, and sent his son to Abi-l-Hagan, son of Buwiah.
Amir Nih was now left to return [to his capital]; and
Sabuk-Tigin and his son, Amir? Mahmid, were stationed
at Nishapur; but, as Amir Nih paused at Tiis, Sabuk-
Tigin despatched his son, Amir Mahmid, 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 governmentof Nishapir. Subsequentlyto this, Amir
पिप], son of Mansir, returned to Bukhara, leaving Balkh,
Hirat, Nishapiir, and the territory of Khurasan', under the
care of Amir Sabuk-Tigin and his son, Amir Mahmid,
the latter of whom took up his quarters at Nishapir.

§ With a body of troops.
५ The great masjid, in which the Khutbah is read on Fridays, is called by

this name.

7 The rival Khalffah, whose seat was in Migr, and who was head of the
Karimitah sect at this period, was Ul-’Aziz B’illah, Mangiir-i-Nizar, who died
in 386 H.

9 Fasib-f says Nih defeated Abi ’Ali-i-Simjir at Nishapir, and that Abi
Ali fled. ;

9 He was not “Amir” Mabmid then, and the author's intention here is
merely to call him by ‘he title he subsequently acquired.

1 So in the original.

48 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

In the month of Rabi’-ul-awwal, 385 प. Aba ’Ali-i-
Simjir came out of Gurgan, and advanced ta Nishapir,
with the intention of compelling Mahmid to relinquish it,
and the people of the city espoused his cause, Mahmid,
after much opposition and hard fighting, was defeated, for
he had but a small force with him, and retired again to Hirat.
Abi ’A:i-i-Simjir again gained possession of Nishapir, and
continued there until Sabuk-Tigin, with a large army, ad-
vanced towards that place. Abii ’Ali moved forward towards
Tiis to oppose his advance, and there they encountered each
other, and a severe and sanguinary battle ensued. Amir
Mahmiid made an attack upon the rear of Abii ’Ali’s army,
and broke through his ranks, and overthrew Fayik, who
was with him, and completed the defeat of Abi ’Ali’s army.
Fayik retired to Bukhara, and there was thrown into con-
finement, and died*. Amir Sabuk-Tigin proceeded to
Balkh, and took up his quarters there*; and Amir Mahmud
returned again to Nishapir.

At length, on Friday, the 13th of the month of Rajab,
387 H., Amir Niih, son of Mansi, departed this life‘. His
reign extended aver a period of twenty-one years and nine
months ; and in this same year Amir Sabuk-Tigin also died.

X. MANSUR, SON OF NOH, SON OF MANSOR.

The late Amir Nth had nominated his son, Amir
Mansir, 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 Abi
Mansir-i-’Aziz*, who, through fear of Amir Mahmid, son

2 Other writers say that Fayik, after this defeat, separated from Abii ’Ali,
and feared to return to Amir Nith, 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.

> Hostility arose between Amir Niih and Sabuk-Tigin in 386 H.

$ Some state that Abii ’Alf 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 Sahib, Ibn-i-’Ubbad, the Wazir of Fakhr-ud-Daulah, Abi-l-Hasan-i:
Buwiah, by the Karamitah schismatics. Fasih-i says, ‘Amir Ar-Ragi-i-Nuh,
died at Nishapiir, 13th of Rajab, 387 H.; and, in the same year, Sabuk-Tigin,
the slave of the house of Samant, also died.”

५ He has not been mentioned before, and who or what he was, the author
does not say ; but Fasib-1 mentions that the Wazir, Abii Mansiir-i-’Aziz, was

removed from that office in 388 H., on account of disagreement with Fayik, the
Hajib.

THE SAMANI DYNASTY. 49

of Sabuk-Tigin, had fled, and retired to Isfanjab*, 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
Mangir. When Abi Mansir, 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 tq Bukhara with an
army ; and, on Amir Mansir becoming aware of it, he left
Bukhara, and retired to Amul.

When Fayik reached Bukhara, and approached the gate of
the palace of the S4m4ni princes, he showed great emotion,
and became greatly agitated, and went and joined Mansir
[Amir Mansir, son of Nih],and asked of him why he had
left the government,and abandoned the capital. Mansir, on
this, returned to Bukhara again, and left the office of com-
mander of the troaps [there, as previously stated,] to Fayik,
and in Khurasan the command over the troops was given
to Bak-Tiziin’, as Amir Mahmid 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-
Tuzin the command over the forces in Khurasan®.

At this period Bak-Tiiziin slew Abi-l-Kasim-i-Simjir, and
took up his residence at Nishapir ; and, on this, Amir Mah-
प्राप्तं marched an army from Ghaznin towards Khurasan’,

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-Tiziin. A
similar name occurs in the history of the Diailamah: and sometimes the Bak
is omitted, as in the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh. Guzidah also has Bak-Tiziin. The
word, Bak, (९७५) is quite a distinct word from Beg (#&:). The Shams-
ul-Lughat describes it as written with Arabic ka/ [i. €. not ga@/], and short a
—Bak, signifying ‘‘a lord,” ‘‘a great man,” It is a title or surname, like Bak
in Bak-Taghdi, Alb in Alb-Tigin, and Balka in Balka-Tigin, &c. The

Tarikh-i-Ibrahimi calls him Fayik-i-Bak-Tizin.

8 The command of the troops, and the government which he had held, when
the late Amir died. Other authors state that Mansir would not confirm
Mahmid 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., Abi-l-Kasim, the commander of the
Simjiri forces, was defeated by Bak-Tiziin, on which he retired to Fishanj.
Bak-Tiiziin again assembled a force, and advanced -to Fughanj against Abi-l-
Kasim ; but an agreement was arrived at Rctween them. I have not space to
give further details.

50 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Bak-Tiiziin, being aware that he could not cope with
Mahmiid, evacuated Nishapir, and set off for the pre-
sence of Amir Mansir. The latter had left .Bukhara,
and had arrived at Marw, and Fayik was with him; but,
when Bak-Tiziin joined him, Amir Mansur had reached
Sarakhs. Fayik-i-Khasah and Bak-Tuzin now con-
spired together to dethrone Amir Mansir; and, on the
night of the 12th of the month of Safar’, 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 Abi-l-Fawaris-i-’Abd-ul-Malik, son of
Nah, on his brother’s throne. This they carried out, and
they deprived Amir Ab#-l-Hirs’-i-Mansiir, son of Nih, 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 Fayik-i-Khasah and Bak-Tiizin had
placed Amir’ Abd-ul-Malik upon the throne, Amir Mahmid?®
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 Mansi had suffered
at their hands‘. They, however, sent an agent to negotiate
with Mahmid; and an arrangement was entered into
between them and him, whereby it was agreed that Hirat
and Balkh should be held by Mahmid, and Marw and
Nishapir by them. Amir Mahmid, after this arrangement,
again retired, and this was on Tuesday, the 26th of the
month of Jamadi-ul-awwal, in the year 389 प.

1 Fasib-i says, on the 8th of Safar, and that they then deprived Amir
Mansir of his sight. His reign, according to the same authority, was one year
and nine months.

2 According to some, Abi-l-Harig was his title, but Abi-l-Hirg is correct.
The whole of the Samanf rulers had titles of this kind, but the author does not
always give them. I have supplied them.

ॐ He had dethroned his own brother Isma’il, and had assumed the
Ghaznin throne, a short time previous to the accession of Abi-l- Fawaris-i-’ Abd-
ul-Malik.

+ Mahmiid fought a battle against Abd-ul-Malik, son of Nith, who fled,
along with Fayik and Bak-Tiziin; the two former retired to Bukhara, and the
latter to Nishapir. Abi-l-Kasim-i-Simjiir retired to Kuhistain, and Khuradsan
was left in Mahmiid’s possession. About this time, Mahmiid gave the com-
_mand of his troops to his brother Nasr, and made Balkh the capital of his
dominions. See notes to Mahmud’s reign.

THE SAMANI DYNASTY. 51

At this period, Dara, son of Kabiis-i-Washm-gir, was
Wali [governor] of Gurgan,and incited a party of theslaves १,
of the Samani kings [who appear to have taken refuge
with him], to follow the forces of Amir Mahmid, with the
object of plundering his retinue; and they set out in
pursuit of them®. Amir Nasr, son of Sabuk-Tigin, the
brother of Mahmiid, 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 Mahmid
to inform him of the state of affairs. Amir Mahmid
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
Mahmid had made a retrograde movement in that direc-
tion, 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
21] . ५25 now of no avail, and his contrition came too late ;
and all the adherents of the Samani dynasty became
scparated and dispersed.

After the death of Fayik, Amir Abi-l-Hasan, I-lak’-i-

$ Styled nobles in following paragraph, and refer to slaves such as Alb-
Tigin and Sabuk-Tigin, who were some of the chief men in the state.

® Mahmiid having succeeded his father in 389 H., by the dethronement of
his brother Isma’il, appointed his brother Nasr commander of his army in
Khurasin, and made Balkh the capital of his dominions. At this period
Amir Abi Ibrahim-i-Isma’il, son of Nih, the last of the Samanis, was strug-
gling 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 Khwarazm. At this time he had
come to Bukhara again, from whence he went to Abiward, and from thence to
Nishapir. Nasr, brother of Mahmid, on this, evacuated Nishapir with all
despatch, and retreated precipitately towards Hlirat. Subsequently, Mahmid
a:lvanced to Nishapir, upon which Abi Ibrahim fled therefrom, and took
shelter with Shams-ul-Ma’ali, Kabiis, 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 Abi Ibrahim.i-
Ismail. See note +, page 52.

7 Other authors state that Amir Mahmid, son of Sabuk-Tigin, marched
against Bak-Tiziin and Fayik, who had conspired against their sovereign,
cethroned him, and deprived him of his sight, drove them out of Khurasan,
and possessed himself of that territory ; and that Bak-Tiziin and Fayik fled

52 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

Nasr, son of ’Ali, brother of the Khan-i-Buzurg, or the
Great Khan, adyanced from Farghanah, and appeared
before the gates of Bukhara, in the month of Zi-Ka’dah
in the year 389 प्र. He pretended to the people that he
had come to render gid to Amir Abi-!-Fawaris-i-’Abd-ul-
Malik, son of Nib. Amir ’Abd-ul-Malik despatched the
nobles and principa] officers still remaining in his service to
receive him; but, as soon as they approached, he gave
orders to seize the whole of them; and, on the roth of
Zi-Ka’dah of that same year, he entered Bukhara. Amir
’Abd-ul-Malik concealed himself} but J-lak-i-Nasr asked
him to return, and succeeded in getting the Sam4ni prince
into his power’; after which he sent him to Urjand’, and
the dominion of the Samanis terminated’, 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 ]-lak, son of Bughra Khan, took Bukhara, roth of Zi-Ka’dah, 389 प.
The blind Amir Mansi, ’Abd-ul-Malik, Ibrahim, and Ya’kiib, the four sons
of Nik, were*made captive at the same time

® 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 प्र. Jt was the capital of Khwarazm, and the name of a province: the
Arabs called it Jurjiniah. 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 Mansiir and ’Abd-ul-Malik, which, in acon-
densed form, is as follows;

‘‘ABU IBRAHIM-I-ISMA’IL, SON OF NUH.

५५ 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, Abi
Isma’1l, 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 o]d 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 Samanf
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 a

THE SAMANI DYNASTY. $3

from the commencement of the reign of Isma’il up to this
time, had continued for a period of one hundred and eight
years’.

The following table gives the genealogical tree of the
race and dynasty of the Samanis* :—

MI-DAD olive [०१], father of

KAR-KIN ‘ 14 च and oS: and (1 father of

BAHRAM JASH-NASH (र ole [Lae and >> 210 >]
` father of

BAHRAM CHUBIN une ale [yes], father of

NUSHAD 343 [= and ७49 and a4], father of
NUSHIR* ,23 [3,55 and ०49], father of

TAMGHAN lash [ज and yb and oleh], father of
JASHMAN ७५८ [yle and yle and yl], father of
SAMAN-I-KHADDAT® ३45 ll. [sls], father of
ASAD, who had four sons, Nih, Ahmad, Yahya, Ilyas.

nomad tribe, in whose tents he had sought shelter, in the neighbourhood of
Bukhara, he was put to death by Mah-Riie [moon-faced], the chief of the
tribe. The Mujmal-i-Fasih-i states that Mah- Rie was ’Amil or subordinate
governor of the district in the vicinity of Uzgand, on the part of Sultan
Mahmid, and that Mahmid put Mah-Rie to death for his treatment of Amir
Abi Ibrahim. Thus ended the dynasty of the Samanfs, none of the race
being left, after having lasted one hundred and three years, nine months, and
eleven days.” The account given by Abi-Sulimin-i-Da’td, Al-Fanakati, is
slightly different from this. |

2 The I. 0. L. MS., No. 1952, and its prototype the R.A. 5. 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. Guzidah 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 /asf ruler. It must be also bore in mind that, as such great difference
exists in all the MSS. as to the names before Saman, and that no vowel points
are given, they cannot be aésolutely 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 Gargin, &c., as in Persian, ७
may be € or g. ४

४ No doubt Nishir is correct.

6 Fasih-i gives the following names :—Samian-i-Khaddat, son of yl
son of Sleb son of 3,49) son of Bahram Chubin, son of Bahram Hashnush,
who is said to have been stationed at Rai and Ahwaz, as Wali of Azarbaijin
on the part of Hurmuz, son of Niishirwan,

54

: OF RULERS.

er ED

PERIOD OF RBIGN.

THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

SONS.

AHMAD, son of Asad,

NASR, son of Ahmad,

ISMA’IL, son of Ah-
‘mad,

ABU NASR - 1 - AH-
MAD, son of Ismail,

NASR, son of Ahmad,
NOH, son of Nagr,

"ABD-UL-MALIK, son
of Nuh,

ABO SALIH-I-MAN-
SUR, son of Nik,

NUH, son of Abi Salih-
i-Mangir,

MANSOUR, son of Nih,

7’ABD-UL-MALIK, son
of Nuh,

Eighteen years.

Eighteen years.

Eight years?.

Six years and three

months.
Thirty years.

Twelve years and three
months 8.
Little over eight years 9.

Seventeen years, six
months, and_ eleven
days'.

Twenty-one years and
nine months.

One year and six months.

Between nine and ten
months.

Nasr, Isma’il, Is-hak,

Mansiir, Asad, Ya’-
kiib, Hamid, Yahya,
Ibrahim.
Ahmad, Nib,
Yahya.
Nasr, Mansir, Ibrahim,
Yahya.

Ilyas,

Ya’kiib, Asad.

Nih, 1517१], Mansi.

’Abd-ul-Malik, Abi Sa-
lih-i-Mansiir.

Mansi, ’Abd-ul- Malik,
Muhammad.

7 From the period he acquired sole rule.

years and ten months.

Tarikh-i-Guzidah gives seven

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 H., and
died in Shawwal, 365 H., the above is correct.

3 There were other sons besides these. See note 8 page 52.

SECTION X.

THE DYNASTY OF THE DIALAMAH MALIKS 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, Dilami’, who was

॥ Makan, son of Kaki, was certainly a native of Dilam, but he was not of
the same family as the Buwiahs, 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, AbG-l-Hasan-i-’ Ali,
who afterwards received the title of "Imad-ud-Daulah, the son of Buwiah, son of
Fana Khusrau, Dilam}. ’Imad-ud-Daulah’s father is said to have been a
fisherman, Abi-l-Hasan-i-’Ali was an officer in the service of Mardiwanj,
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 Abii-l-Hasan, who, in 321 H.,
considered himself sufficiently powerful to endeavour to gain possession of
Isfahan and the territory of "Irak for himself. Abi-l-Hasan accordingly
marched against Isfahan, and defeated Mugaffar, son of Yakit, a slave of the
*Abbasi dynasty, wko was governor of Fars for the Khalifah. Mugaffar was
defeated, and retired to Shiraz, which was his father’s head-quarters, Marda-
wanj did not approve of this movement on the part of प] Hasan, and he
determined to march to Isfahan and oust him. Abii-l-Hasan was not suffi-
ciently strong to oppose Mardawanj, and was advised to turn his arms against

“ars. This he acted upon; and Yakiit, who came out of Shiraz, the capital
of Fars, to oppose him, was overthrown. Abi-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 Mardaiwanj, 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, Abi ’Ali-i-Hasan, afterwards entitled Rukn-ud-Daulah, ruler of
"Irak, and sent the youngest, Abi-l-Husain-i-Ahmad, afterwards Mu’izz-ud-
Daulah, to Kirman. In 326 H., ’Imad-ud-Daulah, Abi-]-Hasan-i-Ali, sent
an envoy to Baghdad to the Khalifah-Ar-Ragf B’illah, and asked to be con-
firmed 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 representa-
tive 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
Khalifah, Al-Muttaki B’illah, was blinded by Tiiziin, son of Abi-l-Wafa,

66 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

Wali [sovereign] of Gurgan until the reign of Abi ">,
92111211, 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.
Abi ’Ali went in pursuit of him, and fought an engage-
ment 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 great-
ness 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 infor-
mation on this subject in the Tarikh-i-Ibn Haisam-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 + 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 historics of ’Ajam and
Khurasan, except very briefly.

a Turk, the Amir-ul‘Umra [see note 1, 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 cf Fars and Irak, and con-
fines his account to those who ruled at Baghdad. It is the most meagre and
incorrect notice of these princes, that 1 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.

2 So stated in all the copies of the work examined, but erroneously; for it
refers to Abii Ali, 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 ®, pages 36, 37.

3 The I. 0. L. MS., No. 1952, and of course the R. A. S. MS., have
‘and in Yamini” after the word Sani, but not the other MSS. The
word Sani at this place, in four of them, is doubtful; and, in two, another
word follows. I think ‘‘Ibn Haigam-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
dynastics shows what such history is.

57

THE DIALAMAH DYNASTY.

‘PEZ-ALYS-1-Yeneq-pn-yereYS sem सप्पा एष्ट गा 3००० नव ¢
"YB[NE-pn-peuUy, se गग STH y 3291402 SI UIESNFT-]-NGV 9

[० x45 Jo JuNOIIE Ue 52^18 pus ‘suosiod Uda;4S19 Jo JRO Ud} JO SOUTEU JY) SUOTJUSU JOYING गपत्‌, “PIppe sary

1 .S}@yOVUq पपु sauivU उप्‌, “WoLIODUT णर्‌ septseq ०५ ay} Jo Apoq ay} UI sadULId उपमया प्‌ 0} VOUaIIJOA JNOYM IIQLAITPaquIUN ysou]e
aq 0} Se -र्प्प्ट्य ह YONS Ul posueeE st आ GI णण Op उप्‌) VSOy) ए ‘puB 33, शप्‌ UTeWUOD Jou Op poredUIOD ‘SSJ_ गप) JO गम्प्‌+ 34) ¢

"UBqEZIEW "ग पटना 1५ य्य -1-एपषर ‘(mur y neisnqy]
‘qe[neq-pn-urgsures “qupneq-pn-yereys ‘yejneq-pn-eyeg

- | |
A a eS SS

"एवश्च euey “qeiang
"णुद -एण ४५५ YBpneq-pn-p2/), ‘yeyneq-pn-pifsenpw ‘Yrpned -pn-1qyey
^ । ----------। ‘reAyyyeg (णत -एण-म्य
"णष्ण्टात्‌ 7, वन्न LuV cr] ण्य --एवन्‌ "एष्प्णपैर -1-9 UBseyy-[-NQy
— “,UId-pn Bm yes ‘ye[neq-pn-2zz1,nW

HVIMNG

Ss INVIIG ‘HVIMNE JO ALSVNAC AHL JO SAONINd पशरशत AHL JO WAAL TVIISOTVANAD

ax

६8 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

I. ABO-L-HASAN, SON OF BUWIAH, UD-DILAML

He bore the title of Fakhr-ud-Daulah ° ; 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 Tizin, 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, Tiziin set up the dethroned Khalifah’s
son, Al-Mustakfi B’illah, in his stead, while Tiziin himself
became Amir-ul-Umra’, and assumed the direction of the
whole of the affairs of the Khilafat.

Abi-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. Abi-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, however, that the Khalifah, Al-Mus-
takfi, meditated treachery towards him, in order to get him
into his power, and intended to put him to death if he suc-
ceeded in doing so. Abi-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-
Liillah’, in his stead. According to the historian Ut-
Tabri’, he gave himself the title of Mu’izz-ud-Daulah, and
took the whole power in the State into his'own hands, so

9 He bore no such title: it was Mu’izz-ud-Daulah. His name also, as given
by our author, is not correct. It was Abi-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: atitle adopted by the ministers, or rather tyrants, of the
Khalifahs, in the decline of their power. This title was also often conferred upon
the chief commander of an army—a captain- general.

3 Fasih-1, 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.

2 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 Tabari’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. .
Abi-l-Hasan, son of Buwiah, instituted many 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 sepa-
rate prison of its own, and had them all demolished. On
the son of Abi-l-Hayja‘ he conferred the fief of Misil,
and to his brother, ’Ali, son of Buwiah, he gave the title
of ’Imad-ud-Daulah, and to another brother, Hasan, that
of Rukn-ud-Daulah; and day by day the sovereignty of
the family of Buwiah began to prosper uninterruptedly.

II. AL-HASAN5, SON OF BUWIAH, UD-DILAMTI.

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 several °
talented and warlike sons grown up, the name of one of
whom was Fakhr-ud-Daulah, ’Ali, son of Al-Hasan, and of
the second, Muayyid-ud-Daulah, Buwiah. Fakhr-ud-Dau-
lah, ’Ali, was Amir of Irak, to whom Shams-ul-Ma’ali,
Kabis-i-Washm-gir, went for protection, and sought his
assistance, and Fakhr-ud-Daulah accordingly marched to
Nishapir 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 Fakhr-ud-Daulah, the first sovereign prince of the dynasty, had no off-
spring, hence he could not have conferred the government of Misil on ‘‘ Ais”
son, Abii-l-Hayja,” as the R. A.S. MS. and I. 0. L. MS. No. 1952 have.
Other writers, very properly, state that these titles were conferred by the Khallt-
fahs. Abii-l-Hayja is a totally distinct person.

® His correct name is Abii-l-Husain-i-Ahmad, and his title was Mu’izz-ud-
Daulah. His elder brother was called Abi-l-Hasan-i-’All, as previously stated.

6 Only two sons are mentioned by our author. The I. O. L. MS. No, 1952,
and the R. A. S. MS. also, contains but ove name. ’Uzd-ud-Daulah, Abii
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 2

60 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

several engagements with them, the events of which Sabi’
has mentioned in his History.

711. BAKHTYAR, SON OF AL-HASAN®, 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 ha@ become firmly established in his
authority, the Khalifah, Al-Muti’u-L’illah, preferred a re-
quest 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, conse-
quently, enmity arose between them. Matters assumed
such an aspect that Bakhtyar was not safe from the designs
of Al-Mutiu-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,

7 The oldest MS. has Zia-yi; but one of the others has Sabi, and another
Safi, which is one and the same thing, and I also find Guzidah quotes, as one
of its authorities, the Kitab-i-Naji of Sabi-i-Dabir, 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 Abi Kurrah, ws-.S@éi, in
the month of Zi-Ka’dah, the axthor of the Sannafah-ut-Tarikh, containing a
history of events between the years 195 H., and 343 H. This, no doubt, is the
author referred to by the Tarikh-i-Guzidah, and our author.

® As before stated, the father of Bakhtyar was named Abi-l-Husain-i-A hmad,
son of Buwiah, and his title was Mu’izz-ud-Daulah. Bakhtyar’s title was Izz-
ud-Daulah, Abi Mansir-i-Bakhtyar. Mu’izz-ud-Daulah, the father of Bakht-
yar, died at Baghdad, of which he was ruler on the part of his nephew,
Amir ’Uzgd-ud-Daulah, the head of the dynasty, on the ist of Rabi’-ul-
Awwal, 356 H., but, according to other writers, on the 16thof 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 Tarikh-i-
Yafa’i, but other writers say, with the Kiic¢h and Baluch, a nomad tribe [two
tribes} then inhabiting a portion of Kirman, according to the Burhan Kati’,
and fromm-whom the present Baliichis aredescended. Kich 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 DIALAMAH DYNASTY. 61

lawyers, and ecclesiastics—and transferred the office of
Khalifah® to the son of Al-Muti’u-L’illah whose name
was Abi-Bikr-i--Abd-ul-Karim, and gave him the title
of Ut-Ta-i’u-L’illah. As soon as he was installed in the
Khilafat, he gave his daughter’ 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 hands’.

IV. FANA KHUSRAU, SON OF AL-HASAN, SON OF BUWIAH,
DILAMI.

The title borne by 2217 Khusrau was ’Uzd-ud-Daulah ५,
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 diffe-
rent 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.

2 See note 8, at page 63.

8 Al-Fanakati considers Fana Khusrau third prince of the dynasty.

+ In 366 H., Rukn-ud-Daulah, Abi ’Ali-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, ig the sovereignty of Fars, the sovereign of which was, in that
family, considered suzerain over the other two branches, who ruled in Irak,
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 ’Uzd-ud-Daulah, Abi 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, Abi
Nasr, he left Irak and its dependencies ; and to his youngest son, Fakbr-ud-
Daulah, ’Ali, he bequeathed Rai, Hamadan, Kazwin, and other territory in
Agarbaijan.

62 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

ul-Khilafat came into his possession. The reason of this
was, that, when Bakhty4r set out for Ahwaz, to collect the
revenue due to the Bait-ul-Mal, or Khalifah’s treasury ९,
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 over-
bearing 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 Abi-l-Hasan °, son of
Buwiah, who was ruler of Rai, with what had occurred ;
and to his first cousin, Fanad Khusrau-i-Abi 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 Abi-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 ’Akil’, 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 Khus-
rau. They were defeated a second time, however, and
retired towards Misil.

Fana Khusrau entered Baghdad, and foand with respect
to the affairs of his cousin, Bakhtyar, that he was in the
habit of passing nis 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, Abi-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.”

§ Intended, according to the Kur’an, ‘‘ For God, His Apostle, his kindred,
the orphan, the poor, and travellers.”

¢ As before stated, the name of Rukn-ud-Daulah, the uncle of Bakhtyar,
was Abii ’Ali-i-Hasan.

7 A small town or village in the Misgil [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 pos-
session of the territory of Baghdad, and the control of the
affairs of the Khilafat °.

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
tuzi*®, threaded and embroidered with gold, and orna-
mented 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-

9 "Izz-ud-Daulah, Abi Mansir-i-Bakhtyar, issaid, by the author of the Mujmal-
i-Fasib-f, to have ended his days at Baghdad, in 367 H., having been put to
death by his nephew, ’Uzd-ud-Daulah, Abt 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 Bahad-ud-Daulah, Khusrau Firiiz, son of ’Uzd-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
heen manufactured from flax ; but क्छ is also the name of the bark ofa tree
like the papyrus.

64 _ 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 H.’ The Almighty alone is eternal.

$. AL-MARZABAN, SON OF FANA KHUSRAU, DILAMI.

On the decease of his father ’Uzd-ud-Daulah, the
Khalifah, Ut-Ta-i’u-Liillah, conferred upon him the title
of Samsaim-ud-Daulah, and raised him to his father’s
office ’.

The Khalifah treated him with great esteem and distinc-
tion. He embarked on board a vessel on the river Dijtah
{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 Shiraz, his capital, although Guzidah
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 ’Ali, and his son Imam Husain, which was
one of the buildings founded by him. Thesame illustrious 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 dund] erected by the celebrated Ameer Azad-a-
Daulah, Delemi” [!].

Among other great works carried out by him were a town founded opposite
Shiraz, named Sik-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 marx, a
boundary, border, &c., and signifies the governor of a frontier, and the like.
He is also called Abu-K4linjar, and sometimes K4njar, the meaning or deri-
vation of which, the Burhan Kati’, the Farang-i-Jahangiri, and other works,
do not give. Kaljar, in Persian, signifies war, battle, &c.

? This is absurd, for the Khalifahs had long before been stripped of all
power, and were mere shadows of sovereignty.

THE DIALAMAH DYNASTY. 6

him. He [Marzaban] exercised the authority at Baghdad
until his brother, Abi-l-Fawaris, rose against him म.

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
Kirmian, 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 Abi-ul-
Hasan-i-Abi 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. Abi-l-Fawiris-
i- Makan seized his brother, and deprived him of his sight °.

Enmity and hostility now arose between the Turks and
Dilamis ; and the Turks of Baghdad overcame their oppo-
nents, and of the Dilamis about 4000 men were slain by
them. After a short time, however, Abi-l-Fawaris over-
threw them, and entered Baghdad, and assumed the
administration of the affairs of the Dar-ul-Khilafat. The
Khalifah, Ut-T4-i'u-L illah, conferred upon him the title of
Sharaf-ud-Daulah °.

After him, the author has not found any annals respect-
ing the Diadlamah such as-he could write down. What

3 In the year 375 H.

4 His correct titles and name are, Sharaf-ud-Daulah, Abi-l-Fawéaris-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 ’Umméan after 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, ’Ali, son of Sharaf-ud-Daulah, fose against him, whom he defeated
in 379 H.; but Bahd-ud-Daulah now rose against him, and civil contention
continued for some time, till, in 380 H., the sons of ’Izz-ud-Daulah, Bakhtydar,
put him to death.

© Sharaf-ud-Daulah, and Zain-ul-Millat, in 377 प, He died in the month
of Jamadi-ul- Akhir, 379 H., after reigning seven years over Kirman, and six
months at Baghdad.

66 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

was contained in histories, and what came to his hearing,
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’. ©

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 Saljiiks. 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 Abii "~
Kai-khusrau, son of ’Izz-ul-Muliik, 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 YAMINIAH!, AL-MAHMODIAH
SOVEREIGNS OF THE RACE OF SABUK-TIGIN.

THE pages of this section’ 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, Abi-l-Kasim, Mahmiid, 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 Amir-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 Abi-l-Fazl, Al-Hasan-i-Baihaki’, in his chronicle

? So called from Mahmiid's title of Yamfn-ud-Daulah. _

2 The printed edition of the TABAKAT-I-NASIRI, edited by Lieut.-
Colonel श. ` प्रि. 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.

? So called from Baihak, the name of his native town, which ‘is also called
Mukir, 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-NASIRi.

entitled “ Tarikh-i-Nasiri,” relates the following tradition
told him by the august Sultan Mahmid 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 nameof Kara Bah-kam; and that his[proper] name was
Hik ; and that Ghar-ghaii in the Turkish language is called
Bah-kam; and that the meaning of Kara Bah-kam would
be the Black Tatar Bull‘; and every where that the

५ In eight copies of the text the words (नज 13 occur, and of this number
one MS. says, that these Zurkish words mean + „~ slo but all the other
copies differ. In the very old MS. previously referred to, which copy I shall
here call No. 1 MS., the passage stands as follows :—

8 x 9 fin 2 a

“ a“ क a n ५ un
sy [4 nw a a n nr aN “a

a a a a a ५4. a
wn a a a a a
eo

e

99
99

१ # Se

The I. O. L. MS. No

=
P
5 ।
g , | 3
9) 1.61
= is ‘4 |.
N = e ° ~ = ५ * (>| wa
eS. 28 : a bd ् | ,5
> | ar
2 4 & £ > bad | a a ~ =
No... ibe a ee . ५ | 2
2 eee a ऊः त << £ 4, = - 8
So aye naga $ 25 (८
+ 4 3 = gg 3 ५ 8 , छ [9 ९ ~ € छ
aa =>) NN ५ € 5 - > >: < | 4
-> -4 -&, 42 8 | +
च; 9 ee = 4: 2 4५ = yy es
४, . ` ` eae ५4 > ~
a’ *. ५ : वः ४.
~ >
4 । YS ६.४8 -> zt J) ४ ra
rr |
~ ° “ rn sg ‘t £ A < | 8
4, © e e e cea ge &
“¬ 9 = €
=) SS R & ४ = NN 3६ 4, „ ~ 8
५१. & FS & & fk ५4. > द. = &
as § | eg es ;
3: छ, छ । J J - 3 je a = ८ 3 ९2
॥ व 8s. ee 2 x OR य :
Pe Gs Gi Gea ६ | £
> i ५ `> >) ~ a9 Bus ९ | „8
4-4 7 £3 ठ | 9
Fan a2 & Aa
j > & & & € &F& > £ ५5 टै
> ~ त > t+ MO KN 0 „ 6४. > € च
य * च 7 + = 9 € न = 3

THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY. 69

Turks, in Turkistan, heard his name mentioned, they fled
before him on account of his energy and valour.

Imam Muhammad ’Ali, Abi-l-Kasim, ’Imadi1'‘, in his
work, the “ Tarikh-i-Majdil,” states, that Amir Sabuk-

It will be noticed that four copies say his name was ५,» [Hark, or Hurk],
which might possibly be read ५9 [Hik, or Hauk], as in the two best copies,
whilst in two other copies the word is Gs» [Jik, or Jauk], and in another ७१
[Jin]. Then comes the signification of the Turkish word, as it is called, (अ
In five copies, it is said to mean 314% in one +. in another १८६८ in a third
g\é » in three others 9७ ^~ and in one + se The printed text has $ The
Arabic words (न ,!5 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 ,!5 or = 15 are Turkish, and that they signify 54 4—,es—
git ,~i—'é¢ [of the printed text], 9४ -c—,le » and gle ste 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 ,\6—Ghajz-ghao—
also written \¢—QGhajz-gha, and, at times, ,##—Ghaz-ghao ; and as € in
the Persian 8 e is permutable to d the words are, and may be respectively
written, »&S—\5$— 2S or SY signifying a Khita’l 40//—the Yak [Bos Grun-
niens], found in the vast mountain tracts of Central Asia, north of Hindistan, 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’l, the
Khita’i bull, and is called «fjros by the Rimis [Greeks], who say it is a ‘ sea-
horse.’ It is also called the ‘Silk Bull,’ as # and $ also signify silk.” The
word 1 or, more correctly, #5 is, of course, the Turkish for ८८2८6) in
Persian s|~ In Elliott’s INDIA, vol. ii, p. 266, the passage in question
is thus translated: ‘‘His [Subuktigin’s] father was called ५६ [troop],
and in Turki they call a troop dakkam [on whose authority, I wonder ?] so that
the meaning of the name Kard-bahkkam is black-troop.”

From this it will be seen that the translator has discarded altogether, both
ge + of MSS. 10 and 11, and \é,¢ of the printed text, and has given the per-
son’s Turkish rea/ name as the equivalent [the Persian equivalent, it must be sup-
posed] of his Turkish #ck-name; so according to this theory Ge means troop,
and (न a/so means troop, but what becomes of the Persian translation lé,é sl.
&c., the translator sayeth not! Jauk, however, is Avadic for a party, a troop,
&c., but what (न 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, <<—Baj-kam, that .<<¢—Bah-kam—is an error of some early
copyist [but ¢ and ¢ are interchangeable] for e<s—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’l bull was the same beast 259 j= Gurg, a wolf, and,
therefore, I am inclined to think that the correct interpretation is, that Sabuk-
Tigin’s father was called in Turkish, the Black Wolf, meaning a soldier
of [८८५८-८ 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 Baihaki’s work to refer to; but
that portion does not appear to be in existence.

* A few copies have ८१० +> [Hamadi], which is incorrect.

70 THE TABAKAT-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 ° in that territory, and there took up
their residence, and intermarried with the people. After
two or three generations had passed away, they’ became
Turks; and their palaces are still standing in that coun-
try °. |

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 °—May the Almighty perpetuate his sovereignty !
—and of such others as may peruse this work, viz. :—Sabuk-
Tigin, son of Hik-i-Kara Bah-kam, son of Karah [Kara ?]
Arsalan, son of Karah [Kara ?] Mallat [or Millat], son of
Kara Na’mian, son of Firiz-i-Bam-sinjan [?], or Barsin-
jan [?]', son of Yazdijurd-i-Shahryar, or Yazdijurd, the king.

I. AMIR-UL-GHAZI 2, NASIR-UD-DIN-ULLAH, SABUK-TIGIN.

- Imam Abi-I-Fazl-i-Baihaki states that, during the reign
of Abd-ul-Malik-i-Nih, the SAmani, there was a merchant
named Nasr, the Haji [pilgrim], who purchased Sabuk-

6 k# but in three copies ०८७ and in one ,&~st I am not satisfied that
this name is currect, 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 zine words here, and the printed text is the
same. The place is not mentioned in Masalik wa Mamialik or Asa@r-ul-Bilad.

7 Their descendants doubtless.

8 Another writer states that Kara Firiz, the fifth ancestor of Sabuk-Tigin,
who was son of Yazdijurd, became ruined during the Khilafat of 7Usman, 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 Nigshapir, 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 Parwiz, son of Yazdijurd.

2 Ghaaft signifies a conqueror, one who makes war upon infidels.

THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY. 71

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
him’. Heaccompanied his master into Tukhiaristan, when
the government of that territory was entrusted to him;
and subsequently, when the government of Khurasan * 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 Abi-Bikr-i-Lawik ५.
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
Mansir, son of Nih, Samani, and there continued until

ॐ See note 3, page 70.

4 See under the reign of Mansiir, son of Nib, the eighth sovereign of the
Saméani dynasty.

8 ‘In the year 322 H., Alb-Tigin, the Turk, the slave of the Samani
dynasty, took Ghaznin, and Lawik, the Wali [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 ^ Abii Mansi, son of
? Abd-ur-Kazzak, the Wali of Hirat and its dependencies, gave up his appoint-
ment, and withdrew to Tiis 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. Abii-l-Hasan-i-
Simjir was sent to govern Hirat ; and, in the following year, having been
promoted to the rank of $ahib-ul-Jaish [Commander-in-Chief of an army],
he proceeded to Nishapiir, and was succeejed, at Hirat, by Abi-l-Hasan,
son of ’Umro, Faryabi. After he had held it four months the government
was bestowed upon Talhah, son of Mubammad, Nisa’1. 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
Kincs oF GAAzN1,” in Ro. As. Soc. Journal for 1859, styles them Aings 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 ¢hirty years; but then he generally eschews dates. According tu 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*, when Balka-

6 Is-hak succeeded his father in the government in 352 H., and died in 355 RH.
and so ruled for about four years. Among the events of the year 353 H.,
Fasih-i mentions that ‘‘ Amir Is-bak, 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 Samant sovereign.” In the follow-
ing year, 354 H., the same work states that ‘‘Is-hak, son of Alb-Tigin, the
Turk, the slave of the house of Sam4nf, 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 Wali [sovereign or chief],
of Ghaznin, and had been ousted by Alb-Tigin. When Is-hak 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, Abii Bikr-i-Lawik, ‘the Anwk.” In those two MSS. Amir, Abi
Bikr, is left out altogether, but occurs in the other MSS., although some
have ७51 Wy! and &+11 instead of es) yet in a note Mr. Thomas says,—
०५.८ propose with but slight hesitation a rectification of the orthography to 33
or ‘Lumghén,’ the Lampage of classical writers,” from a personal toa local
name! Into what mazes of error do not the ‘‘classical writers” draw their
disciples as regards Oriental history! See note £., Elliott’s INDIA, vol. ii,
125६ 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 Nik, 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 fe instead of fwo [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 Mansiir, 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
Saminis, and their connexion with Ghaznin, which formed part of their
dominions. What I refer to is this: ‘‘ History mentions only the conquest
of Alp-Tigin, but is silent in regard to the rule of the Sdmdnis in Ghaana.
We see from our coin that Balka, or Bulka-Tagin, in the year A.H. 359 was
chief of the Sdmdni party in this city. His name appears already on the
Balkh coins of ^. प्र. 324. Subsequently he passed over to Alptegin’s cause [']
became chamberlain under Abt 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
Aistory can it be that is silent in regard to the rule of ‘‘ the Samanis in Ghaz-
nin,” when it formed an integral part of their empire ? Balka-Tigin, in
324 H., was governor of the province of which Balkh was the seat of govern-
ment, hence his name on the coin referred to. *

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 authority’. He was a great villain ; and a body of people
wrote from Ghaznin to Abi ’Ali-i-Lawik, and invited him
to come there. Abii ’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 Charkh*, 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 27th of the month of Sha’ban, 366 त. Amir

7 Our author is quite correct as to Pirey, but gives no details or dates. I will .
furnish them. ‘‘On the death of Balk4-Tigin, in 362 H., Pirey, the slave of
Alb-Tigin [as was his predecessor and successor also], ubtained the govern-
ment. In the following year, 363 H., Pirey, the Wali 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 ‘Tarikh-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 s/ave, 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 /ve 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. Abi-l-
Fazl, the secretary, mentions in the A’in-i-Akbari, that Charkh is so called
after a pious man, one Maulana-i-Charkhi.

9 Fasib-f says this took place in 367 H., the same year that ’Izz-ud-
Daulah, Abii Mangiir-i-Bakhtyar, Buwiah, was put to death at Baghdad.
See page 63. In the same year Sabuk-Tigin appointed Abi-l-’Abbas, Al-
Fazl-i-Abmad, son of Mubammad, Al-Isfarainf, his Wazir. He had acted

F

74 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

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 posses-
sion of the districts of Bust, Zamin [district] of Dawar, the
Zamin of Kusdar, and Bamian, all Tukhiristan, and (गप्र.

On the side of Hind, he overthrew Jai-pal?, 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 re-
possession of his throne.

During the time that Amir Sabuk-Tigin held the
government, great deeds were performed; and he com-
pletely put an end to the iniquitous heresy of the Batiniah
schismatics in Khurasan ग.

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 inde-
pendent

1 The mode of spelling the word by its people, and on the authority of the
Burhan-i-Kati’ and other works

a “In 369 H., Jai-pal, ‘ Badshah’ of Hind, as he 15 termed, marched an army
towards Ghaznin to attack Amir Nagir-ud-Din, Sabuk-Tigin ; but an accom-
modation 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 Hindii-Kugh,
extending as far west as Kabul, was still under Hindii rule. The Afghans
had not extended northward of the river Kurmah [erroneously called the
Kurum and Koorum] at this time.

ॐ 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 प्र. Sabuk-Tigin again encountered Jai-pal, king
of Hind, who was routed, and pursued by him. A peace was afterwards con-
cluded, the terms being that ‘‘Jai-pal should cede unto Sabuk-Tigin four of
the fartresses of Hind on the side of Ghasnin, and one hundred elephants.” In
380 H., an occurrence took place, which few writers have noticed, namely,
the imprisonment of Mahmid in the fortress of Ghaznin, by his father’s orders,
where he remained until the following year. In 382 H. Amir Nib, son of
Mangiir, Samanf, reached Hirat, attended by Sabuk-Tigin, and marched
against Abii ’Alf-i-Simjiir, whom they defeated. See page 46, and note. In
384 H. Amir Nib conferred the government of Khurasin upon Sabuk-Tigin ;
and in the same year Amir Nuh defeated Abi-’Alf-i-Simjir at Nishapur. In

THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY. । 75

In the month of Shawwil, 384 H., his son, Amir
Mahmiid, was made captain-general of the forces of Khura-
san, and received the title of Saif-ud-Daulah, while Amir
Sabuk-Tigin himself received that of Nasir-ud-Din-ullah ‘.
Abi-l-Hasan-i-Simjir they defeated and repulsed, and
Khurasan became cleared of their enemies.

Amir Sabuk-Tigin was a man of great valour and intre-
pidity, 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 fora
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 Madri-miie’, in the year 387 H.

His sons were [5707१] *, Nasr, Mahmiid, Husain, Hasan,
and Yusuf. |

II. SULTAN-UL-A’ZAM, YAMIN-UD-DAULAH, NIZAM-UD-DIN,
ABU-L-KASIM, MAHMUD-I-GHAZI, SON OF SABUK-TIGIN7?.

Sultan Mahmiid-i-Ghazi was a great monarch, and was
the first among the sovereigns of Islam, who was styled

385 H. Sabuk-Tigin defeated Aba ’Alf-i-Sfmjir, and Fayik at Tis. Among
the events of the year 387 H. recorded in Fagib-f, are the deaths of Amfr Nuh,
son of Mangiir, Samant, and Nasir-ud-din, Sabuk-Tigin, the Mawla, or manu-
mitted slave of the house of Samant.

4 From the Samanf sovereigns, see page 47. Abi ’Alf, the son of Abi.
Hasan-i-Simjiir was the person who was defeated : Abi-l-Hasan, the father,
had died previously. See pages 45 and 48.

5 This name is written in various ways :—Barmal-Madrie, Madriie, 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-abad. Baihaki says his tomb is at Afghan-Shal, a place mentioned by
Babar.

® 1571231 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 Mahmiid, who sent him to the fortress of Kalinjar,
‘‘now known as Talwarah,” according to Fagib-f. The same authority
states: ‘‘some say Isma’il was confined in the fortress of Jizjinain.” Fana-
kati states that Mabmiid succeeded in 388 H., and that Isma’il was sent to a
fortress in 389 H.

7 Baizawi considers Mahmiid to be the first sovereign of this dynasty.

F 2

76 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

Sultan® by the Court of the Khalifahs of Baghdad. He
was born on the night of ’Ashira, the 1oth of the month
Muharram, in the year 361 H.’, 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 over-
shadowed 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 ason. At this joyful announcement
‘Sabuk-Tigin became overjoyed, and said to the mes-
senger: “I have given him the name of Mahmid’.” |

The same night also upon which Mahmid was born, the
idol-temple of Wahand or Bihand [it may also be read
Wahind, or Bahind], which was situated on the cohfines of
Barshabir?, on the bank of the river Sind, split asunder.

8 There is a different version given as to how and when Mahmiid became
styled Sultan. When Mahmiid took the fortress of Tak in Sijistan, by assault,
and Khalaf was brought before him, the latter addressed Mahmid by the title
of Sultin. This pleased Mahmiid so much that he gave Khalaf his life. The
titles bestowed upon Mabmid by the Khalifah, and also bestowed, according
to Baihaki, upon Mas’iid, 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 note’,
page 8o.

9 Fasib-i says he was born on that date in 360 H

1 The past. part. of the Arabic verb Jee used as an adjective, signifying—
Jaudable, praised, worthy, &c

2 Out of the thirteen MSS. collated, four agree respecting the word
Barghabir, and ८7८८ have Parghawar. These are meant, probably, for the
present Peghawar. Six copies have Nighabir ; and séx copies say that the
idol-temple in question was situated on the bank of the Sudarah [Sudharah
sas» is an old name of the Chinab, see the Sadhtira—l|,». farther onl,
and a fifth copy has, the bank of the Ab-i-Shudah [sus}. "णं [Utba]
quoted in Elliot’s INDIA, vol. ii. pp. 27 and 41, makes the ‘‘ Sihun”’ the Indus;
and in Reynolds’ version of the same work, the Indus is called the ‘‘ Jihun !”
1 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 : s+~;—which may be either Wabhind or Wabhand,
in six MSS. ; =+ एनाव्‌, or Bahand, or Bihand, in fo; and ००) -

THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY. 77

He was endowed with great virtues and vast abili-

Wahand, or Wahind, in ५८. In seven copies, the relative 4 follows this
name, but in /éree others we have (5 instead of ई which I have certainly
seen used for sf 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. 1.], stands thus :—

I. eK | Saw wit » 2» py SS ee ad (sic) ८ + als?

2. “ys ५... 3 alty ॐ 44. Spy »
ॐ a bon ” ^< २ ” 2
4 ॐ By daw 99 ” 99 99 9
5 yw PA gp ‘5 5 न
6. ॐ ४) ” 2 lt 9 5. dap? 9 ॐ)
7 #» भ~ # 9५५2 5 Srp»
8. ॐ es ०» ` yylhy + a on
9. 99 +~ ५, ary ” J: oon oo,
100 yy लन ज + ppl ११ 4. + »

ए. 9 sw «< 1 ^ 9 9 Pes ”
32. 9 By daw VT J pts ” 4 =) ”

13. क 99 | 99 99 9 ”

The author of the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh, in his account of the river of Kabul and
its tributaries, taken from Abii Rihan, Al-Birini, says, that, having passed by
Lamghan, the united streams ‘‘ join near the fort of Darinah, or Darintah [the
only place that can possibly be meant here is Darintha— 5,,-]}, and fall
into the river of Un-Nir and Kirat, or Karat [= 3 ,,J ] after which the
united waters meet together offosite the town [city] of Barshawar [one MS.
compared has ly or ८७], and become a mighty river called by the name
of La’ir-wal. The village of Manharah [२] 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 /vont of [or near] the fort of Yitir, or Yatiir [one MS.
has Shetab— ५५८५८], belonging to the town [or city] of GANDHAR [how
Gandhar— ,lasS can ever be mistaken for Kandahair— ,les:5 is inexplicable
to me], which place [@s,-] is called WAHIND [or may be DAHIND].”

This place—Wahind, or Dahind, or whatever it may be sroved to be—is
that which our author refers to, no doubt, aud is the same place, probably, as
mentioned by Baihaki 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 J: ७9 The printed text, edited by Morley, has ~$ and a MS. in
my possession has X¢:y3 Some three years since I carefifily compared the
whole passage in the Jami’-ut-Tawarfkh, with the work of Al-Fanakati, the
Arabic copy of a portion of the former work, in the R. A. S.’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's

98 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

ties; and the same predominant star was in the as-

History OF [प्रणा ^, 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
[42,| not Osind] 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 Abii Rihan, which is perfectly plain in the passage referred to,
namely, that the river in question falls into the Aba-Sind, ‘‘ zw sront of”
opposite the fort of Yitiir 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 [,\-—not much unlike wp and =)
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 may be—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-Bihi, 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 Mahbmid was ushered into the world ? In
the same vicinity, and within a few miles of each other, are ^" Kapir di Giri ”—
the Infidel’s Mount, and ^“ Pratah Minarah”—the Fallen Minar, in Pughto,
which names bear a striking resemblance to Baihaki’s fortress of ‘*‘ Giri” or
«५ Giri,” and ‘* Man-Minarah $” but both the places I have mentioned are on
the western, not the eastern bank, and the last 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 con-
quered 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 Inp1a,
and find that the author, at page 465, when referring to Mahmid’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 Vir and Kird¢” as falling into the Kabil river, pre-
cisely as I had read the same words in the passage from Al-Birini; 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 5 in the
words 15 5,5 might be and? The darak of Nir is mentioned by Babar,
and is well known still.

To return to the subject of Wahind. From the passage in the Jami’-nt-
Tawarikh, 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 Nil-Ab with the Aba-Sind,” must be looked for
east of the Indus, near Attak-Banjras, 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,” men-
tions a lofty temple as situated outside the walls of Taxilas, a few miles easé¢ of the
Indus. [See Jour. R. A. ऽ. 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 YAMINIAH 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
Mandroy—called by the same name as the chief town of Lamghan—is joined,
to the north of that place, by the Tahkri [ज], generally known as the river
of Lamghan ; and near the 40% or mountain of Durintha [ १०] those streams
are joined by the Surkh-riid [Red-River], which then flow past Jalalabad on
the east, and near the town of Kamah are joined by the Chitrar 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 [sof 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 Abi-l-Fazl, the secretary [but never
‘* minister] of Akbar, in his remarks upon the accounts of India, written by
early travellers, such as Al-Birini and others. He says, in the A’in-i-
Akbari [I give the pith of his remarks merely], that ‘‘ Fanakati, Hafis-Abri,
and others, wrote down all the nonsense that was palmed off upon them;
and, therefore, what they state 25 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, or of its people, or
their customst They could neither make investigations themselves, nor could they
obtain efficient interpreters, or reliable information.” See R. A. S.’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 Tarikh-i-Mir’at-i-Jahian Numa,
a general history by Muhammad Baka, contains the following respecting
Mabhbmid’s two first expeditions against Hindiistin. ‘‘In 390 H., Mahmiid
set out for Hindiistan and captured the fortress of Barjanid or Barjunid [ucey
possibly J+¢, but this word is not quite certain], and again retired. In
Shawwil, 391 H., he again set out towards Hindistain, 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, Mahmiid advanced to the fortress of tJ [Bahindah], which
was the residence of Jai-pal ; and he subdued that territory.” Ina history of
the Rajahs of Jamil, said by its author, a Hindi, to have been compiled from
Hindi annals, ०५२ [Bathindah] 1s said to have been Jai-pal’s capital and
place of residence, which Mahmiid captured. Mirzi 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 Afghan-
istin, and the countries on the northern slopes of Hindii-Kush, in his account
of the Lakhi jungle, says: ‘‘Bhatindah [524], which is also called What-
indah [sSze,] is the name of a territory, with a very ancient stronghold
bearing the same name, which was the capital of the Chahil [Jel] tribe.
Lakhi, son of Jiindharah, of the Bhati tribe, having been converted to the
Muhammadan faith, during an invasion by Sultan Mabmiid of Ghaznin,

89 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
itself*. Inthe year 387 H.‘, Mahmid proceeded to Balkh‘,and

received the title of Rind Lakhi, and he and his tribe were removed thither.
They found there some three hundred and fifty or sixty towns and villages of con-
siderable 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 Sadhira [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—st1.. or sie) are much
the same in appearance as the words in the various MSS. of our author's text
~ sp and the

As to some confusion in the arrangement of Elliot’s IND1a, tending to dis-
tract, which I have referred to above, I would mention, with respect to the
name ^ Wahind,” that at p. 63, vol. L, ^" Wahind ” is said to be the capztal of
Kandahar [अ stands for € as well as &, and Kandahar in Afghanistan is aways
with G]; in a note at p. 397, the ‘‘rizer of Wahand or Wahind-Sagar” is
mentioned ; in vol. ii. p. 28, in the extract from Yamini, न 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 /ndus.” Notwith-
standing 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 [Mahmiid] was born, an
idol-temple 1N INDIA, in the vicinity of Parshawar, on the banks of the Sind,
fell down !!” There is nothing like giving a o/d translation.

3 This last sentence is somewhat obscure in all the copies. It may be under-
stood also to mean that his appearance was propitious to the ascendancy of
Islam : @& ए does not mean ‘‘the greatest champion.”

4 See note §, page 75, for date of accession.

$ Balkh has been mentioned by more than one author, as the capital of
Sabuk-Tigin’s and Mabmud’s dominions. In the same year wherein he over-
come his brother (389 H.), Mahmiid, according to Fagik-i, fought a battle
against ’Abd-ul-Malik, son of Nik, Simani, and the Samani dynasty termi-
nated. See page 52. His independency may be dated from that time.
In the same year, Arsalin-i-Jazib fought an engagement with Abi-l-Kasim-i-
Simjir, and compelled him to retire to Tabas ; and Mahmiid made his brother,
Amir Nasr, the commander of his army (see page 51, note °). 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. Mahmiid also received the submission of the
Shar, as was the style of the rulers of Gharjistan [called by some Gharishtan},
Abii Nasr, son of the Shar, Rashid, and of his son, Shir, Abi Muhammad ;
and the Khutbah was read for Mahmid in that territory, and the coin im-
pressed with his name and titles. In 390 H. Mahmiid made a dash upon
Nishapir, which he took possession of, and Bak-Tiiziin, the slave of the
Samani dynasty, fled ; and in the same year Bughrajak, the uncle of Mahmid,

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 Mahmiid ascended the throne of sove-
reignty, his illustrious deeds became manifest unto all man-

was slain by Tahir, son of Khalaf, son of Ahmad, at Fiishanj. Mahmiid
marched into Sijistan against Khalaf, who fled before him, and took shelter
within the walls of the fortress of Tak, which Mahmiid directed should be
invested. This is a different place to Uk. For farther particulars respecting
Khalaf, whose doings appear so obscure [Jour. R. A. S., vol. xvii. p. 147],
see notes to Section XIV. Mahmiid does not appear to have established his
power in Khurasan, for in 391 H., Amir Abi Ibrahim Al-Muntasir—the last
of the Samanis, who is not even mentioned by our author—aided by Shams-
ul-Mv’4li Kabiis, son of Washmgir, who sent his sons Dara [see page 51] and
Manichihr, advanced with an army to recover Rai; but, having altered his
plans, Abii Ibrahim, and his adherents, faced about, and marched on Nisha-
pir, from which Nasr, Mahmiid’s brother, again fled, and Abii Ibrahim once
more gained possession of Nighipiir. Nasr, who had retired to Hirat, again
moved to recover it, aided by Arsalin-i-Jazib from Tis. Abt Ibrahim
despatched his forces under Arsalin-i-Bali and Abii-1-Kasim-i-Simjir to oppose
them ; but they were overthrown, and Abi Ibrahim again retired from Nisba-
piir, and took refuge, in Jurjan, with Kabiis. “Eventually he reached Sarakhs,
and Amir Nasr marched against him and defeated him ; and he fled for refuge
to the tribe of Ghuzz. Nasr made prisoners of Abii-]-Kasim-i-Simjiir, and
Yiiz-Tash, the Hajib of Abi Ibrahim, who had previously put Arsalan-i- Bali
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-
shah of Hind, as he is called, was made captive by Mahmiid. ‘‘ 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 “‘ Wakind” 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 Hindi, subsequently shaved his head, and
mounted a funeral pyre, and died ; for it is customary with Hindiis, that any
Badshah of theirs, who becomes a captive to Musalmans, should abdicate in
favour of another ruler. His son Tand-Pal [MS. Jks5 but probably Jas'!—
Anand-pal—is meant], succeeded him as ruler of Hind.” In 393 H. the Khut-
bah was read for Mahbmiid in Sijistan, by Khalaf’s own nobles, and his titles
were impressed upon the coins. In the following year the fortress of Tak was
captured, and Khalaf was made prisoner. The Sultan kept the territory of
Sijistan entirely for himself, but gave the district of Jiizjinan to Khalaf, who,
taking his family with him, left Sijistan altogether. Afterwards, however,
Sultan Mahmiid gave the government of Sijistaén to his own brother, Nasr ;
and the government of that province was joined to the appointment of com-
mander of the forces [of Khurasan].

82 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

kind within the pale of Islam, when he converted so many
thousands [!] of idol-temples into masjids, and captured so
many of the cities of Hindistan, and overthrew and sub-
duedits Raes. Jai-pal, who was the greatest of the Raes of
Hind, he made captive, and kept him [a prisoner] at Man-
Yazid’, in Khurasan, and commanded that he might be
ransomed for the sum of eighty dirams’. He led an army
to Nahrwalah of Gujarat, and brought away Manat*, 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
palace’, and the third and fourth were sent to Makkah and
Madinah respectively.

Concerning this victorious expedition the poet ’Unsiri
composed a Kasidah', 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 with 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 de-
sired to lead back the army of Islam by way of the desert ?,
to Sindh and Mansirah, out of Gujarat, he directed that
guides should be procured. A Hindi presented himself,

6 Nearly every copy agrees in the name Man-Yazid [22 ७]. ‘‘ Yazd” is
not meant. One copy has dy ye

7 Sic in MSS., but I fancy the word ^ thousand ” must have been left out.
If not, Mahmiid did not set much value on his captive. See amount men-
tioned in note’, preceding page.

8 One of three chief idols of the pagans of Makkah was named Manit.

® 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-Budaini. 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 Tarikh-i-
Nasgiri of Baihaki, 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-constrictor, 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 YAMINIAH 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 Hindi guide should be brought before
him, and inquiries made from him. This was done, when
the Hindi 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 Hindi 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 watch’ 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 con-
ducted 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 un-
bounded wealth. Sultan Mahmiid possessed two thousand
five hundred elephants ; and his court was guarded by four
thousand Turkish slave-youths‘, who, on days of public
audience, were stationed on the right and left of the throne,
—two thousand. of them with caps* ornamented with four
feathers, bearing golden maces, on the right hand, and the

3 A period of three hours.

+ The words used are ७८) OF (+ Washik 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.

५ s¥ 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 intre-
pidity, 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 ’Ajam‘,
Khurasan and Khwarazm, Tabaristan, ‘Irak, the territory
of Nimroz, Fars, the mountain districts of Ghir’, Tukhar-
istan—all came under the control of his officers. The
Maliks, or rulers, of Turkistan paid him obedience and
acknowledged his superiority®. He threw a bridge over
the Jihiin, and marched his forces into Tiiran, and Kadr
Khan had an interview with him, as had the Khans of the
Turks likewise; and the 14112215 of Turkistan came and
presented themselves before him, and tendered him their
allegiance’.

6 That Mahmiid ruled ‘‘the whole” of ’Ajam, and Tabaristan, is an exay-
geration, 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
Mahmiid’s reign, is in the following words :—‘‘ 400 H. Death of the son of
Siri, Malik of Ghiir, who was taken prisoner in an encounter fought by Sultan
Mahmid, in Ghir. 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 Mahmiid became ruler, Mamiin, son of Muhammad AI-Farighini, the
Waili, or ruler, of Jurjiniah [also written Gurganiah], of Khwarazm died, and
was succeeded by his son ’Ali; and, in this same year, ’Alf was married to a
daughter of Mahmiid. ’Ali, however, died in 390 H., and was succeeded by
his brother, Abii-l-’Abbas, son of Mamiin. He, in the following year, sent an
envoy—supposed to be the author so much depended upon by Sir H. Eliot
and others, for his geographical knowledge of India—Abit Rihan, Al-Birini,
to Mahmiid, asking permission to marry the lady, his brother’s widow. This
was sanctioned by Mahmiid, and Abi-]l-’Abbas married her

9 In 396 H., Sultan Mahmid 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 Amifah [Oxus] should belong
to him, Mahmiid, 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
Mahmiid undertook the expedition into Hindiistin, against Bhiya Rie [also
written \~#—Bajira in Fasih-i, Bibrae 4l<—in Mirat-i-Jahin-numa, 1,
—Bibra by Yabya Khan in his History, and «y!,#se', Rajah Bahtrae by

THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY. 85

At their request, the son of Saljik, 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 Biyar—,'tz
See also Elliot, APPENDIX to-vol. ii., pages 34 and 439, wherein great con-
fusion 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 Ghaznin, but in the same year he undertook an expedition against
the Wali of Multan, Abi-l-Fath, who fled from that territory. Whilst Mah-
miid was absent in Hindiistan, in 397 H., I-lak Khan broke the newly made
treaty of alliance, and invaded Khurasan. This made Mabmid 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 Mahmiid’s
absence, and had advised this invasion. On this account Khalaf was immured
in the fortress of Juzdez of Kuhistan. In 401 H., Mahmiid again advanced
into Hindistin against the fortress of Bhim [also called Bhim-nagar], the chief
of which was Bhim Narayan. There is no mention of any expedition undey-
taken in that quarter in Fasib-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., Mahmid’s son-in-law, Abi-l-’ Abbas-i-
Mamin, Farighiini, ruler of Jurjaniah of Khwarazm, was murdered by some
of his troops. Mahmiid went in person into Khwarazm, defeated the insur-
gents, and put Nial-Tigin [called Alb-Tigin by Baihaki], the ringleader, and
the murderers, to the sword, reduced that territory under his sway, and Altiin-
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. Mahmiid sought from
her uncle, Tighan Khan, who had succeeded him, the hand of I-lak’s daughter in
marriage for his son Mas’iid, whom he nominated as his heir and successor.
Tiighan Khan himself died in the same year, and was succeeded by his
brother, Bughra Tigin, entitled Arsalan Khan. On thatlady’sarrival shortly after
at Balkh, the capital was illuminated ; and soon after Mabmiid made over the
government of Khurasdin to Mas’id, with Hirat as the seat of government,
having previously assembled the whole of his ताञ, or tribe, together, to take
oath of-fealty to his son. [According to Baihaki, however, this lady had been
betrothed to Muhammad, Mas’iid’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’iid did, with the consent of her brother; but
this was several years subsequent to the events above-mentioned. }

After having disposed of these affairs, Mahmiid had leisure again to turn
his attention to Hindiistan ; 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.
ए. 460], Sultan Mabmiid undertook another expedition against the infidels of
Hind, and overcame Hardab [Ww s,»—the ‘‘ Hardat” of ’Abd-ul-Kadir-i-
Budainf, the ‘‘ Hirdat of Matharah” of the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh] in that
region, at which s/ace—[my authority so styles Hardab, but must mean his
capital, Mathurah]—there were nearly a thousand palaces [ _,«3] 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 greatest

86 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

pass the Jihiin 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 com-
plete the like.” Within this great temple were five idols of gold, five gas 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 dindrs 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 ०८.] 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 miskals 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 inser-
tion here ; but among them is mentioned Nardin, the fortress of ‘‘ Bramah °` [per-
haps 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 Bhiid, the sovereign of that part, was slain. In 410 H. Mahmiid
again entered Hindistan, ‘‘ and was engaged [detained] theran for a period of
four years” [=> of 9 GS JL jhe] during which time many conquests were
made. In 411 H. Mahmid became greatly incensed against his brother Amir
Nasr, who had been acting improperly and carelessly in his duty in com-
mand 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.” Mah-
miid sent Khwajah-i-’-Amid, Abi Nasr-i-Mishkan, Al-Zawzanf, to him about
this misconduct. Nasgr’s reply was so becoming that Mahmiid 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 j,i [Naro +] 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., Sulfan Mahmiid came to an accommodation,
in a distant part [0] of Hind with Beda [Nanda, in other works], on the
latter’s presenting 150 elephants, after which he returned to Ghaznfn, and in
the same year made a raid into the mountains inhabited by the Afghanian
[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. Mahmid made another raid upon them from Balkh, and fell upon
them at night. In this same year, Jaghar Beg-i-Abi Suliman-i-Da’iid, son of
Tughril Beg, son of Mika’il, the Saljiik, 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 jaziak or capitation tax, some by force of arms and plunder of the
country, and making captives of the people, and some by the people becoming
converts to Islam. [In 419 H. Mahmiid proceeded into Mawar-un-Nahr, and
had an interview with Kadr Khan, sovereign of Turkistan, and the treaty for-
merly existing between them was renewed and confirmed, on the agreement

THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY. 87

a grave error in the Sultan’s policy; for they perceived
therein danger to the empire of his sons and descendants.
Sultan Mahmiid entered Irak and subdued that terri-
tory, and purposed proceeding to the Court of Baghdad
to pay his respects’; 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 Mahmiid, 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, Mahmiid granted an
audience unto Isra’il, son of Beght, son of Saljik, 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. Mahmiid
slew [slain in battle with Mabmiid] Majd-ud-Daulah, Buwiah, and acquired
sway over Irak [a portion], and overthrew that branch of the Buwiah dynasty ;
and ’Irak was added to the dominions previously conferred upon Mas’tid. ^^ On
Thursday, the 14th of Rabi’-us-sani, 421.H. [A.D. 1030, about the middle of
April], Sultan Mabmid died, and was buried in the Firizt 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
५८ Makamat of the’Amid Abii Nasr,” written by the ’Amid [J..e—sof Ahmad]
Abi-l-Fazl, Al-Baihaki, so called from Baihak his birth-place, a small town in
Zawulistan, also called Mukir

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 Abi-l-Fagl, 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 arrange-
ment 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 S&eckteghin,” his own
blunder is far worse than Dow’s, for neither of the words contains any gh in
it. See note!, page 58. Inthe extract from ’Utbi, page 20, where men-
tion is made of the ‘‘fountain in one of the ravines of a very lofty mountain
called the ’Ukba Ghuzak (’Ukbah—ase—means a ass], 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 Simjouri,
Sinjur, and Simjur for ०४८ person; Basti and Bosti ; Muwid-Addow:at 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.?

His sons were Muhammad, Nasr, Mas’iid, Suliman’,
Ismail, ’Abd-ur-Rashid, styled ’Izz-ud-Daulah, Amir of
Ghaznin, and Ibrahim, which latter had a son named
Suliman.

Ill. AMIR MUHAMMAD‘, SON OF MAHMUD.

Jalal-ud-Daulah wa-ud-Din*, Muhammad, was a learned
and virtuous-minded prince; and they recite [upon his
authority °] a great number of poems in the Arabic lan-

guage.
When his father, Sultan Mahmid, died, his brother,
Mas’iid, was in Irak’; and the great nobles and chiefs of

2 For the precise date of his decease, see note ®, preceding page. Among the
different coins struck in Mahmiid’s reign one bore the following inscription :—
‘‘The right hand of the empire, Mahmiid Sultan, son of Nagir-ud-Din, Sabuk-
Tigin, Breaker of Idols.” This coin appears to have been struck at Lahor,
in the seventh year of his reign. The following territories are said to have
been included in his empire :—Ghaznin, Zabulistan, Khurasin, Khwarazm,.
Chaghanian Tabaristan, Sipahan [Isfahan], Kabul as far as Kinnayj [sic in
MSS.], the country around K4linjar, Multan as far as Nahrwalah of Gujarat,
Somnath, the territory lying on the sea-coast of "Ummian, 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 Mahmiid occurs in place of Suliman, but the
latter seems to be correct.

4 Most authors place Mas’iid before his brother Muhammad, and only con-
sider the latter’s reign to have commenced a/ter Mas’iid had been dethroned and
imprisoned in 432 प्र. `

5 Other writers state that his title was Jalal-ud-Daulah and Jalal-ul-Millat.
Guzidah says ’Imaid-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
aes i) rly, ere ५५५८1 ८१ jh

7 Mas'iid 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 Hamadin—

“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 Mahmid, the Hajib,
’Ali Khweshawand, who was a relative -of the late Sultan, and the Hajib,
Bak-Taghdi, who was commander of the Mamliiks 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
dargah or palace until such time as one of the late Sultan’s sons should ascend

THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY. 89

the late Sultadn’s court, by mutual accord, raised Sultan
Muhammad to the throne of Ghaznin in the year 421 H.
He was, however, a man of mild and unaspiring tempera-
ment, and possessed neither sufficient resolution of heart,
nor decision of character, to govern the kingdom. A party,
who were favourably inclined towards Mas’iid, sent com-
munications to him in ’Irak*®, upon which he assembled the
troops of ’Irak and Khurdsan, 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 readi-
ness, and set out with the purpose of resisting his brother ;
and ’Ali Kurbat® was the Hajib-i-Buzurg [Great Cham-
berlain], and the commander of his army.

When the forces reached Tigin-abad, information of the
advance of Mas’iid 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 [sof ‘‘ Ahmad ”’]
Abi Nasr-i-Mishkan, the minister of the late Sultan.

® Fasib-i says, that in the same year, 421 H., through the endeavours and
efforts of the Hajib, ’Ali Khweshawand, and Yisuf, son of Sabuk-Tigin, brother
of the late Sultan, Muhammad was confined within the walls of the citadel of

igin-abad, and they awaited the arrival of Sultan Mas’iid, The Tazkirat-ul-

Mulik calls the first mentioned person ’Ali, son of I-yal-Arsalin, a relative of
the late Sultan Mahmid ; and says that Muhammad made his uncle [cousin ?]
Ya’kib, son of Yiisuf, commander of his forces, and Khwajah Abi Sahl [not
५८ Suhal ”}, his minister ; but, that a strong party were inclined to his brother
Mas’id. Accordingly, Amir Iyaz, with the Ghulims, 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’id, who was then at Isfahan. They joined him at Nighapir 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’iid 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’iid’s, name should be first in the Khutbah.
Muhammad replied in a surly manner. Mas’tid’s partisans then seized Mu-
hbammad, 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’id.

® ’Ali Kurbat and ’Ali Khweshawand refer to one and the same person.
Kurbat signifies ‘‘kindred,” ‘‘affinity,” and Khweshawand, ‘‘a kinsman,’
८५ ३ relative.” This is the ’Ali Karib of Baihaki.

G

9० THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

they seized his person, deprived him of his sight, and placed
him in confinement. After this act ’Ali Kurbat marched
the troops towards Hirat, in order to meet Sultan Mas’id ;
and, having arrived within one stage of that.place, he pro-
ceeded to present himself before the Sultan. 250 gave
orders to seize him, and Muhammad’s whole army was
plundered ' and despoiled.

On this occasion his reign extended to a period of seven
months. Subsequently, when Sultan Mas’iid, the Martyr,
became the victim of misfortune at Miarigalah’*, 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 Mawdiid, the son of Mas’tid, marched out of
Ghaznin >, 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 offspring‘. Muhammad, on the second occasion,
exercised sovereignty for a period of four months. His
martyrdom * took place in the year 432 H.; and his age
was forty-five years.

1 In Elliot’s “‘ History oF Inp1A,” edited by Professor Dowson of the Staff
College, the latter is rather bitter [vol. ii., pref. ix], against the Jad 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
"एप्त, would have translated JioS w,lé |, 91 4) ++" Ordered his whole
force to be destroyed.” = ७० «७४ does not mean ‘‘to destroy.” Mr. Dowson
also translates this passage J «19 Gamble ५1 le 9 Spd ०५०, ylhl.—‘* When
Mas’iid was &illed at Marikala ;” but, as in the case above, as3ly y's does not
mean °^ हद्व. His own words disprove his own translation, for, two pages
farther on, comes the passage, ‘‘ but 2 Marikala his Turki and Hindi slaves
revolted, ‘ook Aim prisoner,” &c.

2 See note 4 at page 95

3 See note 2 at page 96.

+ The Tazkirat-ul-Muliik states that all were put to death by Mawdid,
except.one son, ’Abd-ur-Rahim by name. ‘‘ Amfr Mawdiid forbade that he
should be injured, because he had been informed that, at the time of the
murder of his father, Mas’iid, one of ’Abd-ur-Rahim’s brothers, out of inso- ,
lence, had plucked the diadem which Mas’iid 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.”

$ For particulars see reign of Mawdiid, and notes. His reign is said to have
extended over a period of sine months. The word ~न signifying martyr,
also means one who dies for a cause which he thinks just; and any Mubam
madan killed in battle is so called.

THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY. g!

His sons were ’Abd-ur-Rahman, ’Abd-ur-Rahim, and
Ahmad.

IV. SULTAN NASIR-UD-DIN U’LLAH$’, MAS’UD, THE MARTYR.

Sultan Mas’iid, the Martyr, bore the title of Nasir-ud-Din
U'llah, and his surname was Abii Mas’id. His birth, and
that of his brother, Sultan Muhammad, took place on the
same day’. Sultan Mas’iid assumed the sovereignty in
the year 422 H.° He was generous and munificent to so
great a degree that they called him a second Khalifah ’Ali
—may God reward him!—and in valour and prowess he
was a second Rustam. No man could lift his mace * with
one hand from the ground ; and no iron target used to stay
his arrow’. His father, the Sultan, used to be envious 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’iid. |

© Other writers style him Nasir-ud-Daulah, and Nasir-ud-Din. The Jamt’-
ut-Tawarikh gives him the title of Nagir-ud-din U’lah, wa Mu’in-i-Khalifah
गाश्च ; but Baihaki, his biographer, styles him ‘‘ Shihab-ud-Daulah, and
Kutb-ul-Millat Abi Sa’fd-i-Mas’iid.”

7 It does not follow that they were ‘wins. |

8 He ascended the throne of Ghaznin, at Hirat, on the 1st of Jamadi-ul-
Awwal, 422 H., soon after which he gave orders to put the Hajib, ’Alf
Khweshawand, and his brother Mangiraik, to death, and confiscated all their
property. The Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh agrees in this statement, and adds
farther, that,’Alf Khweshawand, the Hajib, had taken an active part in raising
Mubammad to the throne, and had subsequently acted perfidiously towards
him.

9 Mr. E. Thomas, in his numismatic ^" Chronicles of the Pathan kings of
Dethi,” asserts [p. 79], with respect to a coin of the Turkish. slave-king, I-yal-
timigh, that the mace is ‘‘the spectral 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 §hah, last reign of Section XII.

1 Mr. Dowson translates this passage [in the original—_ zal ५९ et 3 3
esolie! ^ ]- ^° 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 arrows. J

2 Mas’iid, on one occasion, when writing to his envoy in Turkistan, men-
tions his father’s having once ordered him back from Hirat, when there as
govemor, 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 2

92 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Khwajah Abi Nasr-i-Mishkan’ says: ^ When the [Kha-
lifah’s] letters patent were being read out in the audience
hall of Sultan Mahmid, 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 promi-
nently impressed upon the brow of Mas’iid. When Sultan
Mas’iid came out from his father’s presence, I, Abi 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’iid 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
Mahmid, he demanded, saying, ‘Wherefore didst thou go
out after Mas’id, 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’iid excels Muhammad, and that after my time
the sovereignty will fall into the possession of Mas’id +;
and I use so much ceremony now that this poor Muhammad
may, during my lifetime, experience a little honour and

3 Mas’iid, as soon as he assumed the sovereignty, appointed this same
person—whose proper name is Khwajah-i--Amid, Abi Nasr-i-Mishkan, Al-
Zawzanit—his confidant and secretary, which was the same office as he had
held under the late Sultan Mahmiid ; and Tahir, the Dabir [secretary], who
had previously held that office, was removed. In 423 H., Hasnak, who bore
the title of Shaikh-ul-Khatir [great, honourable, &c.], who had been Wazir
to Sultan Mahmid, and had also held the same office under Muhammad, was
gibbeted by order of Mas’iid, because he had been the most active in depriving
him of the throne. He had, in all probability, influenced Mahmiid in his
harsh treatment of Mas’iid. In 426 प. Mas’iid ordered Khwajah-i-Fagil,
Ahmad, son of Hasan, Al-Maimandf [from his native place, Maimand, a
small town of Ghaznin], who had been long kept in prison by his late father,
to be set at liberty, after which Mas’iid made him his Wazir. It was on this
occasion that he drew up his celebrated Miiasafat, 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 Mahmiid, his father, had
declared Mas’tid his heir, and made the whole of his s/s or tribe swear
allegiance to him in 408 H. See note ¥, 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!”

The Khwajah, Abi Nasr-i- Mishkan, says, “In this occur-
rence two things astonished me: one was the answer of
Mas’iid to me, spoken with such wisdom and discern-
ment, and the second, the greatness of mind, and the
perfect supervision of Mahmiid, that such a trivial act of
attachment could not escape him.”

When Mahmiid subdued ’Irak he bestowed the throne of
that territory upon Mas’id ; and, previous to that event, the
city of Hirat, and Khurasan, had been ruled in Mas’iid’s
name*, When he ascended the throne of Safahan‘, he
seized the territory of Rai, Kazwin, and Hamadan, and the
country of Taram’, all which he conquered, and he likewise
overcame the Dilaman*®. On several occasions he donned
robes of honour conferred upon him by the Court of the
Khalifahs. After the decease of his father, Mahmid, he
came to Ghaznin, and took the government of his father’s
dominions into his own hands. Several times he led armies
into Hindiistan’, and carried on holy wars as by law en-
joined. On another occasion’ he marched into Tabaristan

® See note 9, p. 85.

५ Isfahan or Safahan.

? Taram is in Lar, or Laristan, a province of Persia. ॥

® Mas’iid, in 424 H., wrested Kirman from the Buwiah dynasty, who had
long since declined ; and sent Ahmad, son of ’Alf, son of Niish-Tigin, thither
as governor. This, however, could have been temporary only, for in 433 H.,
after Mas'iid’s death, Kara-Arsalin Beg, son of Jaghar Beg, wrested Kirman
out of the hands of Bahram, son of ’Ali, the governor on the part of the
Dialamah sovereign, Abii Kalinjar, son of Sultan-ud-Daulah, son of Baha-ud-
Daulah, sen of ’Izz-ud-Daulah, son of Rukn-ud-Daulah. See note? to page
66. After this, eleven princes of the race of ऽ भपप reigned in Kirman.

9 Inthe year 772 H., Sultan Firiz, Tughluk, was encamped near a place
named Zafar-abad, on his return from Bangal. This was before he gave orders
to found [प्ण [vul. Jounpoor]. ^ At this place were the ruins of several
idol-temples, destroyed by Sultan Mas’iid, the Victorious, during one of his
campaigns in Hindiistin. A fort there still retains [i. €, when the author, from
whom the extract is taken, wrote] the name of Karar-kot, from Karar-Bir, a
demon killed by Rajah Ram Chand, in the Treta Jug.” If it had not been
stated that Mas’iid destroyed these temples, I should be inclined to think this
must refer to Mus’iid-i-Karim, 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’iid led armies into India
upon several occasions.

1 Not ‘‘ twice.”

न~

af

94 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

and Mazandaran ; and, at the end of his reign, the Saljiiks
rose against him*. 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 Saljik, he
encountered them in battle in Dae-kan [Tal-kan]*, and for

* Isra’fl-i-Beghii, son of Suliman, son of Saljik, who had been immured
within the walls of the fortress of Kalinjar, died there in 426 H. In the same
year, Jaghar Beg, or Jaghari Beg, as he is also called [अन .s,teJ]—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‘iid, son
of Mika’il, son of ऽ गु, son of Lukmin, rose, and took up his quarters at
Marw. In the following year, Mas'iid 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 pro-
duced is said to have amounted to eighty times a thousand thousand of divans.
In 429 H., Tughril Beg, son of Mika’il, son of Saljuk, assumed sovereignty at
Nishapi, and from that date their dynasty commenced.

3 This battle was fought in 431 H., but some writers differ as to 430, 431,
and 432 H. The scene of the encounter is said to have been ‘‘ the desert tract
between Marw and Sarakhs, three marches from the former, near the fort of
Dandankad of Marw,” which name is sometimes written Dandankan, Didan-
kan, and in other ways. It occurs, with a slight variation, in the Masalik wa
Mamilik in one place, but it is correctly called Tal-kan in another ; and also
occurs in Ibn Haukal, in Baihakf, Yafa’i, Guzidah, Jami’-ut-Tawarikh, Lubb-
ut-Tawarikh, and the works of some other writers who copy from them, the
only difference in writing the words being ७५००-७ ०५१०-० ५141-० ५15 --
yiailo—and the like. It is the ^ Dandanekan” of Abi-l-Fida (Geo. Reiske,
7. 345], who describes it as a small town of Khuradsin celebrated for its cotton
manufactures.

These names are however mere errors for Tal-kin, which famous place,
and Tae-kan of Tukharistin, are commonly mistaken the one for the other, as
done by our author in the text above, or rather some scribe for him, because,
at page 46, and other places, and in the last Section, the name is correctly
given, and also an account of the siege of Nasir Koh of Tal-kan by the Chingiz
Khan. In carelessly written J/SS., scribes make very little difference between
the letter: [८ here] without the points, and !)—/—thus ५७७ and ५७७ The
way in which the error of Dae-kan arose can thus be accounted for. Some
early scribe read the letter b—/—as the two letters 15-42-६० the ) was
mistaken for» [:]. The other words mentioned above evidently arose in the
same way, through some scribe, writing carelessly or quickly, prefixing two
letters—os—one without points, which was subsequently read by some for :—
e—and by others for ;—n—or through writing d@—the first syllable of ७५1५
twice over, or putting one letter before the other.

Mr. Dowson [Elliot’s INDIA, Vol. [I., page 273], who appears to have
implicitly followed the printed text, has ^" दृ क्षारिका.” This incorrect name,
sometimes varied to ‘‘ Talikhaén,” is generally applied by European writers to
Tae-kan of Tukhiristin, without being aware of the existence of Tal-kan of
- Khurdsan, or at least, without being aware of the difference between the names
of the two places.

THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY. 9४

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 Hin-
diistan ; and at Marigalah + his Turkish and Hindi slaves
revolted against him, seized his person, and [again] set
up his brother, Muhammad, upon the throne, and sent
Mas’iid to the fortress of (मप °; and, in 432 प, he was
martyred®. His age was forty-five years; and the period
of his reign was nine years, and a little over. His sons
were Maudiid, Majdid’, Muhammad, Ibrahim, Izid-yar,
Farrukh-zad, Shuja’, Mardan Shah, and ’Ali.

V. SHIHAB-UD-DAULAH, MAUDUD, SON OF MAS’UD.

Shihab-ud-Daulah, Abii Sa’d-i-Maudiid *, son of Nasir-
ud-din U’llah, Mas’itid, when the tidings of his father’s
murder reached him’, ascended the throne of his father’s
dominions. ।

_ ५ A pass, in ancient times somewhat difficult, situated between Rawal Pindt
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 ^ Mari-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 Geogra-
phical Society for 1850-51.

5 Baihaki writes it Girt [5] and others write it Girf [४1 and Gira
11]. |

५ He was not murdered until the 11th of Jamadi-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’iid 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 Ist of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 422 H., and was mur.
dered in the very same month of the year 433 H. ; but he had certainly been
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 head-
quarters at Lahor, in Zi-Ka’dah, 427 H. Baihaki mentions two others, but
merely gives the title of one—Anir-i-Sa’id—to whom Mas’id was much
attached, and whom he proposed to make his heir, but he died at Ghaznfn in
429 H. The other was named Abd-ur-Razzak.

8 Styled by some authors Shihab-ud-Daulah, and Kutb-ul-Millat, ’Abd-ul-
Fath-i-Maudiid, and Maudiid-i-Ghazi. According to Baihakf, Mas’iid’s title
was Shibab-ud-Daulah and Kutb-ul-Millat.

# Maudiid was at Balkh, when the tidings of his father’s imprisonment and

murder reached him. He set out for Ghaznjn without delay. See note », p. 96,

96 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

At the period that Sultan Mas’iid was about to proceed
into Hindistan, he had established Maudid as his lieu-
tenant over the territory of Ghaznin, and its dependencies.
Maudiid assumed the throne in 432 H., and assembled an
army, in order to revenge his father, and commenced his
march towards Hindiistan *.

Sultan Muhammad, son of Mahmid, who was Maudiid’s
uncle, had been brought forth from his place of confine-
ment, by the rebellious retinue [of Mas'’iid], 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
, Hindiistan submitted to him; and the Turkish slaves of
Mahmid and of Mas’iid, 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 Maudiid and his uncle; and, by the will of
the Most High, the victory was bestowed upon Maudid,
within the limits of Nagrahar [Nangrahar*], and Muham-

1 Guzidah differs in the account of this affair. ‘‘ When hostilities arose
between Mas’iid, and:the Saljiiks, and Mas’iid had been defeated, he had to
retreat to Ghaznin. He then determined to retire into Hindistan [which in
nearly every case should be understood to mean the Panjab, except in the case
of occasional expeditions beyond]. After Mas’iid had passed the Jilam [^+]
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’iid 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 im-
prisoned his brother Mas’tid ; but Ahmad directed that he should be put to
death. This statement is confirmed by most other historians. Mas’iid’s object
in proceeding into India, or rather his territory on the Indus and in the Panjab,
was to rdise a fresh army in order to take vengeance upon the Saljiiks.

2 Maudiid, on hearing of his father’s murder, advanced with his troops
towards Ghaznin to secure the capital ; and Muhammad, who was on the con-
fines 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 Nagrahiar as plainly written as it is possible to write, yet Mr.
Dowson translates it by the impossible name of ^ Zakarhdriid,” 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 4l*{—Bak-yalah, which happened to be not far off

THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY. 97

mad was taken prisoner, together with his children and
dependents. Sultan Maudiid 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 years °.

His sons were Mansir, Muhammad, and Mahmiid; and
the latter had a son named Silliman.

VI. ’ALI, SON OF MAS’UD, AND MUHAMMAD, SON OF
MAUDUD, IN ASSOCIATION‘.

These two princes, uncle and nephew, were raised to the

towards the Jihlam [ple]? 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-yalah? A glance at a map
would show at once where those places lie. Maudiid founded a Bazar or
emporium, at the place where he gained this victory, which Baihaki calls
Dinir, 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. Maudiid gained
this battle 434 H.

ॐ Our author has omitted to mention some of the chief events of his reign,
as well as the date of his death. Both Guzfdah and Fasib-i, as well as several
other writers, state that Maudiid 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. ४291, Fasib-i, the
Nigam-ut-Tawarlkh of Baizgawi, Guzidah, Jahin-Ara, Lubb-ut-Tawarikh,
Fanakati, and several others state, generally, that on the death of Mau-
diid, his son Mas’tid, in accordance with his father’s will, was raised to
the throne, and that his mother, the daughter of Jaghar Beg, Saljiiki, 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-Din,
Ali, 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 Maudiid’s infant son, Mas’iid, by the name of
‘*Mubammad.” A very good reason is given in Guzidah for the child’s being
set aside. Bahi-ud-Daulah, ’Ali, married his brother Maudiid’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 dis-
order and detriment continued to arise in the affairs of the
country, the condition of the soldiery, and of the people in
general. After two months® they raised Sultan ’Abd-ur-
Rashid to the throne, and sent the two princes back toa
fortress again. |

VII. ’ABD-UR-RASHID, SON OF MAHMUD.

Sultan ’Izz-ud-Daulah-i-’Abd-ur-Rashid ascended the
throne in 441 H.*. He was an enlightened and intelligent
man, and was a depository of the oral traditions, which he
was wont to narrate’; but he did not possess much
strength of mind or intrepidity.

Seeing the repeated and successive changes and revolu-
tions in the sovereignty, the Saljiiks on the side of Khura-
sin coveted the throne of Ghaznin*. The sovereignty of

५ Fanakati and Tarikh-i-Ibrahimi say ’Ali reigned two years, after which,
on ’Abd-ur-Raghid rebelling, he fled from Ghaznin. Guzidah agrees as to
the number of years that ’Ali reigned, but says that his reign terminated in
443 H., and calls ’Abd-ur-Rashid Ais uncle. =

6 Under the events of the year 443 H., Fasib-i notices—‘‘a battle between
Majd-ud-Daulah, Abi: Mansgiir-i-’ Abd-ur-Raghid, son of Mahmiid-i-Ghazi, and
Baha-ud-Daulah, ’Ali, son of Mas’iid, and the overthrow of ^ after a reign,
at Ghaznin, of one year, and the accession of Majd-ud-Daulah before men-
tioned.” 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-
tory!” The original 15 GoS cily, 5 ५19 €~ bel

® A much more probable cause is given for the advance of the Saljiiks 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, ’Ali, brought an army of Saljiiks against him.” It is farther stated
that among the slaves of the Mahmiidi dynasty was one named Tugbhril, who
was Amir-ul-Umra, who went and joined the Saljiiks, conspired with them,
fought a battle against ’Abd-ur-Rashid, and took him prisoner. The daughter
of Jaghar Beg, widow of Maudiid and ’Ali, made ’Abd-ur-Rashid over to
Tughril, and returned herself to Khurasin. Tughril imprisoned him in a
fortress in the district of Maidan [near Kabul]. ’Abd-ur-Raghid was of such
weak intellect that on one occasion, when Tughril was playing at Chaugin
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 the

THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY. 99

Khurasan had passed to Da’iid ; and Alb-Arsalan, his son,
having become the commander of his forces, they deter-
mined to advance against Ghaznin. Alb-Arsalan entered
[the country] by way of Tukhiristan, with a numerous
army ; and his father, Da’tid, 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 Mahmid,
and a man of consummate valour, general over them, and
sent him against Alb-Arsalan. In front of the darah’ of-
Khumir 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 Dad, the
latter retired before him, and Tughril pursued him into
Sistan, and overthrew Beghi, the uncle of Da’iid.

Tughril having gained two or three such like successes,
returned to Ghaznin, 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’.

VIII. TUGHRIL, AL-MAL’UN, OR THE EXECRATED?.

Tughril was one of Mahmiid’s slaves, and was endowed

grandsons of Mahmid 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’iid the Martyr. The Tazkirat-ul-Mulik states that he reigned four
years. Fasib-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-Raghid’s death. Fanakatf 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 Far-
rukh-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 fass between two mountains

’Abd-ur-Raghid was present with his brother Mas’iid at the battle of Dan-

dankad, or Dae-kan..

> Authors of any authority do not give Tughril a place among the sove-
reigns, because he was an usurper of forty days.

100 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIKI.

with great intrepidity and valour. During the reign of
Sultan Maudid, he left Ghaznin, and went into Khurasan,
and entered the service of the Saljiks. 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 in-
justice 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’iid, and was giving me my
instructions, and had placed his hand in mine’, 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 sove-
reignty, and the ambition of reigning entered my heart.”

After forty days of his rule had expired, a Turk named
Nish-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 ^.

IX. FARRUKH-ZAD, SON OF MAS’UD§.

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’iid to become his wife. Soon
after he made a great entertainment, when a number of champions, filled with
loyalty to the Mahmiidi dynasty, attacked him, and cut him to pieces.

§ Guzidah, Fasib-i, and Tarikh-i-Ibrahimi, strange to say, call Farrukh-zad
son of ’Abd-ur-Rasghid. His title was Jamal-ud-Daulah, but, in the Muntakh-
ab-ut-Tawarikh, he is styled ’Imad-ud-Daulah, son of Mas’iid. 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-Muaggam, Abii Shuja’-i-Farrukh-
zad.”

THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY. `. °°" ror

people from his unbearable tyranny, and unlimited oppres-
sion, two* princes of the Mas’iidi family remained alive
immured within the fortress of Bar-ghund’—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 pigeons’ arrived there, bearing
the news of Tughril the Accursed having been killed.

After that execrable [man] was slain at Ghaznin, by the
hand of Niish-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 sove-
reignty, on Saturday, the gth of the month Zi-l-Ka’dah,
344 घ.

Sultan Farrukh-zid was a man of mild and amiable dis-
position, and just. As soon as he ascended the throne, he

6 Guzidah says three—Ibrahim, Farrukh-z4d, and Shuja’. |

7 The same fortress is mentioned in Baihaki. Guzidah says Ghiind [५.५].
Bar [,] in the Afghan language signifies ‘‘on,” ‘‘upon,” &c., and ghund
[=] ‘‘round,” ‘‘ circular,” and the like, as ‘‘a mound, a bluff, a detached
hill,” &c. A few copies have Buz-Ghund.

8 Every copy of the work collated has [with two exceptions, which have ,\,.]
the word ,|«,. signifying ‘‘ birds,” &c., as plainly written as it is possible to
write ; but in the printed text ७८, has been substituted, and Mr. Dowson,
of course, follows the grated text. That carrier pigeons, or rather doves, were
in use long before, for transmitting news speedily, see note » at p 37. When
the Crusaders under Godfrey were passing through the narrow defiles of Judea,
a white dove, 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 Salih-ud-Din’s desire.

102 ` * ` ~ “4 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

remitted the revenue of the territory of Zawulistan, which
had become ruined through [the levying of] heavy contri-
butions in taxes and supplies’, so that it became pros-
perous again’. He brought under his control the frontier
provinces of the empire, and governed his people with
benevolence: He reigned seven years’, when, suddenly, he
was carried off by colic *, in the year 451 प्र. at the age of
thirty-four years +.

X. SULTAN IBRAHIM, SAYYID-US-SALATIN §,
Sultan Zahir-ud-Daulah, Nasir-ul-Millat, Razzi-ud-Din,

9 The original text is bse 9 s\ye—Awariz-wa-mindt [not ‘“miutan >]
which Mr. Dowson renders—‘‘ disease and mxrrain,” and adds, in a note—
(१ Awdris-o-mitén. 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 Tagkirat-ul-Muliik mentions that, soon after the accession of Farrukh-
zad, the Saljiks advanced towards Ghaznin in great force, and were
encountered by Farrukh-zad and his forces. The Saljiiks 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
Mahmidi 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. Fasih-f 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 Baihakf, 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 Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, however,
says he began to reign Saturday, 9th of Zi-Ka’dah, 444 H., and died, in Safar,
451 प्र. Yafa’t agrees with Fagih-i, and states that Ibrahim succeeded in
450 H. Inthe latter part of the year preceding Farrukh-zid’s death, Alb-
Arsalan, who had succeeded his father, Jaghar Beg, over the territory of
Khurasin, ousted his great uncle, Beghi, from Hirat, and had the Khutbah
read there for himself.

ॐ The word used for colic is 9 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 Wazirs or Ministers of Farrukh-zid was Khwajah Abi Bikr-
i-Salih, who had previously held the government of Hindistan. Among the
celebrated personages who died during his reign was Abi-Najm-i-lyaz, Ui-
mak or I-mak, the slave of Sultin Mahmid, famous under the name of lyaz.
He died in the month of Rabi’-ul-Awwal, 449 प.

० Sayyid here means “lord,” ‘* prince,” ‘chief of,” &c. His correct title,
as given by most authors, is Zahir-ud-Daulah, Abii Mugaffar-i-Ibrahtm. The

THE YAMINiAH DYNASTY. 103

Ibrahim, son of Mas’iid, the Martyr, was a great and illus-
trious monarch, learned and accomplished, just and God-
fearing, 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*; and, when Farrukh-zad died, all hearts
decided upon the sovereignty of Ibrahim. The Sarhang’,
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 cere-
monies for the Amir-i-Hamid—the Laudable Amir—Far-
rukh-zad, his brother, and paid a visit to his tomb, and to
the tombs of his ancestors; and all the great nobles,
ministers, and most 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
people *.

When the intelligence of his accession to the throne
reached Da’iid, the Saljik’, he sent an embassy into Khu-
rasan; and entered into atreaty of peace withhim. After
Da’iid [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
Saljiiki monarchs used to style him ‘‘father ;” and, when they addressed a
communication to him, used to write his titles at the top of it.

9 This fortress was situated in the district of Wajiristan.

7 The meaning assigned to this word generally is—‘‘ A commissary, a ser-
jeant, a commander, a superior officer,” &c. ; but, in the Burhin-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 gon/falonier.

8 Mr. Dowson translates this: ‘‘ € bestowed no favours upon any one, and
hence apprehensions about his rule took possession of the hearts of the people.”
The original is 35 Ser gle Jo 49 9) ७५1 11 (> (~ ८१५

9 Da’id died, according to most authorities, in Rajab, 451 H., though one
says it took place in 452 H., and another in 453 H. Fasgib-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 vicissi-
tudes of the times, and continual warfare, were all, during
his reign, remedied and rectified, and the affairs of the
empire of the great Mahmiid assumed fresh vigour. The
ruinous places in the country were again repaired and
restored, and he founded several towns’, such as Jatr-
abad (?) Khair-abad, Aimin-abad, and others in different
parts.

During his reign many astonishing and uncommon occur-
rences took place; and Da’id, the Saljik, whose ravages,
inroads, conflicts, and conquests might vie with the flashing
lightning, died.

The birth of Ibrahim took place in the year of the con-
quest 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 "Ulama*; 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 Jirjan. Imam ’Abd-ul-Khilik,
Jirjani, who lies asleep within the Sarde of Tahir-abad of
Ghaznin, saw in a dream, whilst dwelling in Jirjan, 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
Ghagnin, and one ofthose daughters was bestowed in marriage
upon [पी ^ That princess bore him a son, whom he named

1 This is not correct, because the र 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 4assak does not mean for-
tified 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.
` 8 Here Sayyid is the title of the chiefs of the family of Muhammad, de-
scended from ’Ali, and his daughter Fatimah. ’Ulami signifies the learned —
theologians, ecclesiastics, doctors of law. Mr. Dowson translates the sentence,
‘“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 he

THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY. 105

Ibrahim — Maulana, Minhaj-ud-Din, ’Usman-i-]brahim—
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, "Ujibah-uz-zaman [the Wonder of
his Age!], and he was the father of [the author] Minhaj-i-
Saraj.

Sultan Ibrahimwas 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 प्त.

His sons were 21210717 ° Is-hak, Yiisuf, Nasr, ’Ali
Bihzad, Khirshed Malik’, Khib-chihr, Azad Malik,
Malik-Chihr®, Tughan Shah, Azad-Mihr, Daulat Shah,
Azad-Chihr, Amir Shah, Nih-Firizah® Tahamtan Shah,
Turan Shah, Malik-Zad, Malik-Dad, Shams-ul-Mulk,
Malik Sher, Sher Malik, Mas’id, Iran-Malik, Kaihan Shah,

arranged matters with the Saljiiks, by marrying his son, Mas’iid, toa Saljiik
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 Khurdsanis, whose
ancestors had been expelled from their native country by Afrasiyab. There
was a large hawz, 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., Abi-Fazl-i-Muhammad, son of Husain [not Hasain], Al-Baihaki, who
had been secretary in the ‘‘ Diwan-i-Insha,” of Sultan Mahmiid, son of Sabuk-
Tigin, but, asthe Deputy of the Khwajah-i-’-Amid, Abi Nasr-i-Mishkan, Al-
Zawzani, and a pupil and disciple of that great man, died. Abi-l-Fazl was
the author of the work entitled the ‘‘ Makamat-ul-’Amid-i-Abi Nasr-i-Mish-
kan,” and the ‘ Tarikh-i-Al-i-Sabuk-Tigin,” in twelve books or volumes
{called by our author the Tarikh-i-Nasirf], entitled Tarfkh-i-VYamini. The
first portion of the work, containing the reigns of Sabuk-Tigin and Mabmid,
does not exist, and appears to have been lost for some centuries.

5 On the Sth of the month of Shawwal. Oneauthorsays in Rajab, but gives
no date. Fagih-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 प. began 27th of November, A.p.
1098

© In 471 H. Sultan [brahim was apprized that his son, Saif-ud-Daulah
Mahmid, meditated flying to Sultin Malik Shah, the Saljuk ; and accordingly
confined him within the citadel of Ghaznin, and his partisans were sent ta
other fortresses.

7 One MS. has Munawwar Shah.

8 Malik Mihr.

® So in two MSS., but doubtful. The whole number forty. I expect the
text should be, ‘‘ He had forty sons and thirty-six daughters.”

H

106 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Jahan Shah, नित Shah, Miran Shah, Yaghan’ 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’iid, 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 equi-
table, and of auspicious reign.

He ascended the throne during the Khilafat of the Lord
of the Faithful, Al-Mustazhar B'illah [Abi-l~ Abbas], i-Ah-
mad, son of Al-Muktadi® 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 taxés,
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 +; and he adopted the most beneficial regulations
for the government of his dominions. Amir ’Uzd-ud-Daulah
wa ud-Din* was continued in the government of Hindistan

1 Tughan, in one copy.

2 The proper title of 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 Khalifahs, our author gives
the correct name.

Under the occurrences of the year 493 H., Fasih-i mentions an important
matter, from which it would appear that the chiefs of Ghir were not, at the
time in question, such great or powerful personages as Minhaj-i-Saraj would
lead us to believe. It says: ‘‘ Husain, son of Sam, ¢ command of ’ Ala-ud-
Daulah, Mas'tid, son of Ibrahim, obtained the government of दता. 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 220 — 5,'5
does not happen to mean ‘‘ restored.” |

$ From the word ‘* Amir” I should imagine this personage must have been
either a brother or uncle of Mas’iid’s.

THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY. 107

[as before] ; and, during Mas’iid’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
Hindistan, and penetrated to a place where, except Sultan
Mahmid, no one had reached so far with an army before.

During the sovereignty of Mas’id allthe 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, Saljiki, who was styled the Mahd-i-’Irak °
[or the ’Iraki spouse], was wedded to him.

His sons were Baha-ud-Din, Muhammad, who had a son
named Khatir-ud-Din, Muhammad; Sher-zad’, Malik Arsa-
lan, Farrukh-zad, who had three sons, ’Ali, Iran Malik,
and Shah-zad ; `^ 1, Bahram Shah, Malik-Chihr, Malik-zad,
Mahmid, Sultan Malik, who had three sons, Arsalan
Malik, Al-Hasan, and Mir-Nik; and Jamshed Malik, who
had two sons, Khirshed, and Turan Malik.

XIL MALIK ARSALAN, SON OF MAS’OD.

Malik Arsalan-i-’Abd-ul-Mulik *, son of Sultan Mas’id,
ascended the throne in the year 509 H. at Garmsir itself’,

6 In Elliot’s INDIA, vol. ii. p. 278, ‘‘ Mahd-i-’Irak”’ is translated ‘‘Cradle
of Irak.” One of the meanings of mahd [६] 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
*Traki wife. Baibaki, in his History, makes constant use of the word in this
sense.

7 Our author, like some others, has left out one sovereign. Fagih-i says that
?Ala-ud-Daulah, Mas’iid, 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 ; and in the following year Sherzad died, after reigning
about one year, when Arsalan Shah succeeded. Guzfdah confirms this succes-
sion 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 todeath, in 509 H. Other writers
of authority likewise confirm the accession of Sherzid, who was the second
son of Mas’iid, while Arsalan was the third. Yafa’i and Fanakati also state
that Mas’id reigned sixteen years, and Baizawi confirms it.

ॐ His correct title is Sultan ud-Daulah, Arsalan Shah, son of Mas’id, son
of Ibrahim ; and, according-to the Tarikh-i- Yafa’l, he succeeded to the throne
in accordance with his father’s will. Some call him Abi-l-Mulik.

9 The original is «5 59+ , The passage is translated in Elliot’s INDIA,
vol. ii. p. 278, thus: «^ Malik Arslan Abu-]-malik [sic] ascended the throne

HI 2

108 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL.

and assumed the sovereignty of the 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 >» Other untoward
events and occurrences likewise took place during his
sovereignty, so that people held his rule in detestation *.
He was possessed of great nobility of mind, energy, courage,
and valour.

When he came to the throne he treated his step-mother ५
who was [styled] Mahd-i-’Irak, with indignity *, and on that

^. प. §09 [A.D. 1115], aad brought Garmsir and the kingdom of Ghiznl under
his rule.” 1 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 Bahrain was his
brother, as the names of the sons of Mas’iid 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 sacle of
Arsalin; and in the sentence referring to the destruction of the bazirs of Ghaz-
nin they have the word 5:s—people—which is totally meaningless.

ॐ 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 gs ol. means a step-mother.

§ 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, Bahrim. When Arsalancame 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 Bahram’s maternal uncle; but, as Mas’iid, Bah-
ram’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 Arsalin Shah deaf to all
the expostulations which he had made in behalf of Bahram, set out along with the
latter for Ghaznin, 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 Saljiiks, 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 against
his brother Arsalan again. In the encounter which ensued, Arsalan was taken
prisoner, and thrown into confinement. Bahram’s reign really commenced in

THE YAMINIAH 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 Hindistan, where he fell into misery and
wretchedness. He died ° inthe year 511 H., aftera reign of
two years, at the age of thirty-five years.

XIII. MU’IZZ-UD-DAULAH WA UD-DIN?, BAHRAM SHAH.

Mu’izz-ud-Daulah, Bahram Shah, was a person of hand-
some exterior, manly, munificent, just, and the sustainer 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’td, the Beneficent, Bahram Shah
proceeded into Khurasan, the throne of which countfy was
adorned by the great and inestimable sovereign, the august’,
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 San-
jar, on whom be the mercy and the pardon of the Almighty !
One quatrain’ 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.

८ At Shah-abad, in Shawwéal, हा H.

7 Fasib-i states that his title was Yamin-ud-Daulah, in which Guzidah ana
other writers agree ; but there are others also, but chiefly modern 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.”

9 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 ‘‘ Kali-
Jah and Damnah,’’ was translated from the Arabic [sb] 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
Taimir, by Mulla Hasan-i-Wa’iz-ul-Kashifi, and entitled Anwar-i-Suhailf.

7110 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Sultan Sanjar returned to Khurdsan again, and Bahram
Shah assumed the government of the country’. He carried
on holy wars in the direction of Hindistan ; 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 Hindiistan 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 depen-
dents. Bahram Shah, with the determination of extir-
pating him, advanced into Hindistan against his strong-
hold, and Bahlim ` moved forward towards the confines
of Multan, and fought an engagement with Bahram
Shih. The Almighty rewarded Muhammad Bahlim for

ककर

his base ingratitude, and he, with his ten sons *, together
with their horses and arms, on the day of the battle, sank
in a morass ^, so that no trace of him and them remained.
Bahram Shah returned to Ghaznin again, and between
him and the Maliks, or chiefs of Ghir, hostilities arose ; and
an engagement took place between them, in which Daulat
Shah, a son of Bahram, was slain®. During that one cam-
paign Bahram Shah sustained three defeats from Sultan

1 One of Bahram’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 from 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
ancther place, states that the coin of Bahram was stamped in Sanjar’s name.
See under his reign, next Section.

2 Two MSS. have (+ and ede in place of ela 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.

+ Mr. Dowson, Elliot’s INDIA, vol. ii. p. 280, says, with reference to this
passage, ‘The text has some wxintelligible words, which vary in different
MSS.,” and then quotes ‘‘ Briggs.” The words are (09 or 2) yeti 09
and are quite plain and intelligible. ७ which is also sometimes written
८29 Signifies a ditch, a marsh, a place where water stagnates ; and 41» is the
adjective derived from it.

¢ Among the events of 521 प्र. Fagih-i mentions that ‘‘a battle took place
between the troops of Ghaznin, and ’Ald-ud-Din, Husain, son of Hasan,
Ghiri, at Tigin-abad. Hostility had arisen between them on account of that
place, which was a city situated between Ghaznin and Ghiir. The city was
taken, and Bahram fied. In 522 H. ’Ala-ud-Din took Ghaz) in, and made it
over to his brother. See Secticn XVII.

THE YAMINIAH DYNASTY. 1711

०३-४५-11, Ghiiri, and Ghaznin fell into the hands of the
Ghirians. They set fire to it, and destroyed the whole [!]
city. Bahram Shah retired into Hindistan at this time,
but, on the withdrawal of the Ghiiri forces, he returned
to Ghaznin again, and there died after a reign of forty-
one years ^.

His sons were Jalal-ud-Daulah, Daulat Shah, slain in
battle with the Ghirians ; ’Ala-ud-Daulah, Da’iid? Shah ;
Baha-ud-Daulah, Sultan Shah; Fakhr-ud-Daulah, ’Ali
Shah; ‘Izz-ud-Daulah, Muhammad Shah; Sama-ud-
Daulah, Mas’tid Shah ; Shihab-ud-Daulah, Mansir Shah ;
Mu’ayyan-ud-Daulah, Shahan-Shah; Mv’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 °, but, according
to some statements, Taj-ud-Daulah, Khusrau Shah, ascended
the throne in the year 552 H.

As the Maliks and Sultans*® of Ghir had shaken the
empire of the house of Mahmid 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 Ghuzz', who had acquired
dominion and power in Khurdsan, in the reign of the august
Sultan, Sanjar, who had now passed away’, marched an
army against Ghaznin. Khusrau Shah was unable to resist

€ Great discrepancy exists with respect to the dates of Bahram Shiah’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 5,
next page.

7 In one copy Zawul Shah.

® In a few copies he is styled <^ Yamin-ud-Daulah” only ; but the title
above agrees with the statements of several other authors.

® That is, ‘‘who were Maliks and also Sultans” from the text.

) Some lexicographers spell the word Ghazz, and some Ghuz.

ॐ Sultan Sanjar died on the 16th of Rabi’-ul-awwul, 552 H., but a few
writers say in 553 H. The former is correct.

112 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

them, and he accordingly retired into Hindistan’, 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, Ghi}as-ud-
Din Muhammad, Sam, led an army from Ghir to Ghaznin,
overthrew Burak‘, 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 ^

3 The Tazkirat-ul-Mulik 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-Din, Husain, son of Hasan, Ghiiri, was in full march
upon Ghaznin, he, being unable to resist him with hopes of success, retired
into Hindiistan [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-Din
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,
Khusrau Shah, who, probably, while Sultan Sanjar was in power, might have
expected aid from him in sorge shape or other, now that he 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.”

+ In one copy Turak

४ Great discrepancy prevails among authors respecting the latter part of
Bahram Shiah’s reign, and the reigns of Khusrau Shah, and Khusrau Malik
which I will notice as briefly as possible.

The first events noticed in Fasih-i, under the year 523 H., are, ‘the return
of Bahram Shah to Ghaznin, his encountering Saif-ud-din, Ghirf, and the
capture of the latter.’ He was placed upon a bullock—not “ta cow”—
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 Mahmid, son of
Sabuk-Tigin, ended :”—that is, terminated over the Ghaznin territory.

Yafa’i, Kazi Baizawi, Guzidah, Tarikh-i-Alfi, and some others agree with
the above statement, except as to the year of Bahram’s death, and the termina-
tion of the dynasty. These four works 2150 mention ’Ala-ud-Din as the frst of
the Maliks—here, doubtless, signifying tudependent rulers—of Ghir; 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. 113

His sons were Mahmid, 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-Tawiarikh, which is generally most particular and correct as regards
dates, agrees with Guzidah as to the year, but confirms the statement of Yafa’i,
Fasib-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 Raugat-us-Safa, the year 555 H. is given. Guzidah also says this
event occurred in 555 H., and in this Kazi Baizgawi agrees. Among more
modem works, the Tagkirat-ul-Mulik and Tarikh-i-Alfi state that Bahram
died in 547 H., after reigning thirty-five years, and Khusrau Shah in §55 H.,
and in this the Tabakat-i-Akbari, Badaiini, and Firishtah, and other modem
writers agree.

Our author states that Bahram ascended the throne in §11 H., and died in
552 H.. after a reign of forty-one years ; and that Khusrau Shah, his son, suc-
cceded, 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,
Kobusrau 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 men-
tioned in Section XVII., which see. This was the year after Saif-ud-Din’s
death, who, according to Fasib-i, was slain in a battle with the Ghuzz near
Balkh, in which same year his nephew, Ghiyas-ud-Din, succeeded him, and
inflicted a defeat upon the Ghuzz, with considerable slaughter, and imposed
tribute on them

After Khusrau Shah comes his son Khusrau Malik, or Malik Khusrau, as
he is also styled Yafa’i, Baizawi, Guzidah, and Fanakati say the dynasty
terminated with Khusrau Shah, and make no mention of his son, as his
successor. Perhaps they considered him as ruler of the Panjab only. The
Tazkirat-ul-Mulik 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 Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, 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. Rauzat-ug-Safa, Habib-us-
Seyr, Firishtah, and others say this occurred in 582 H., and Budaini, 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 Ghiris 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

Fasib-1 mentions the Ghirians as powerful in Ghaznin 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 sufer(atrve ^ philo-
logists,” to have derived the name of Ghaznin from the Ghuzz tribe !] in
569 41., and made it over to his brother, Mu’izz, as Wali. After referring to

114 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

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 2 monarch of excessive mildness and benefi-
cence, 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 termi-
nated 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
‘6a mountain” or ५८९ 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-
Din Muhammad, son of Sam, son of Husain, son of Sam, the Wali of Ghaznin,
and Khusrau Malik, at Lohor, in Hind. Khusrau was taken captive by
stratagem ; and the Sipah-salar, ’Ali Karmakh, who was Wali of Multan
previously, was left at Lohor as Wali, but some writers say this took place in
82 H.”

° In Mr. Thomas's paper on the Ghaznf 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 Bidshah 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 - ° Zahfr-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, Ghirf, 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 YAMINIAH DYNASTY. 7115

Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din Muhammad, Sam, used to advance
every year from Ghaznin, and to possess himself of por-
tions 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, Firiiz-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
Balarwan र, in Gharjistan.

When the affair’ 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 Saifrid of Ghir, was also
murdered, and the dominion and dynasty of Nasir-ud-Din,
Sabuk-Tigin, became obliterated, and the sovereignty of
. Tran, the throne of Hindistan, 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, Mahmid
Shah, Jahan Shah, Mas’itid Shah, Malik Shah, and Khusrau
Shah.

* In the greater number of places where this name occurs in the different
MSS., ७१५ is given; but it is also written Yalarwan, Badwan, and in
various other ways. Saifriid is also written Sankaran 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 SALJOKIAIH.

THE author of the Tarikh-i-Sani', who was Ibn Haisam,
has thus related : that when the victorious Sultan, Mahmiid-
i-Sabuk-Tigin, crossed the Jihiin, 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 >

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 con-
ference together, and consulted confidentially on all the
affairs of Iran and Tiiran. Kadr Khan preferred many
requests to the Sultan, one of which was that he would
remove the son of Saljik®, the Turkman, with his followers

1 At Section VII. page 11, the author calls the work Kasag-i-Sani, but the
signification is the same. See also note >, page 56.

* This interview took place in 419 H. They entered into a treaty of friend-
ship 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 Badghah of Mawar un-Nahr.
The Khwajah-i-’ Amid, Abii Nagr-i-Mishkan, Al-Zawzani, relates that at thaf
time the forces along with Sultin Mahmiid 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 Mabmiid
suffered the Saljiiks to enter Khurasan, and assigned them lands therein—among
whom is the author of the Rauzat-us-Safa—and contend that the two brothers,
Da’iid-i-Jaghar Beg and Tughril Beg [but our author states they were altogether
separate from those under Yagh-mii or Yagh-iniir ; still his statement is so con-
fused as to be scarcely reliable], with their dependents, did not cross the Jibin
into Khurasan, until the reign of Mas’iid, when they appropriated Nisa and
Abiward, but, at the same time, sent to tender their allegiance to that monarch.
See note 8, p.120. In the Tarikh of Abii-l-’Ala-i-Ahwal, or the ‘‘ Squinter,”

THE SALJOKIAH DYNASTY. - 7

and dependents, from the country of Mawar-un-Nahr and
Turkistan into Khurasan. These followers and dependents

Saljiik is said to have been a descendant of Afrasiyab, and had four sons—
Isra’tl, Mika’il, Misd-i-Beghii [i.e. son of Beghii], and Yiinas. The Jami’-
ut-Tawarikh says he had fwe; and that the name of the fourth son was Yisuf,
and the fifth Yiinas. 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-Khurz—and entered Mawar-un-Nahr, and took up
their quarters in the Nir of Bukhara, and the Sughd of Samrkand, making
the former their winter, and the latter their summer quarters. Mahmiid,
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 occa-
sion 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 Jsmae/ !] The Sultan, it is stated, became sus-
picious of the Saljiiks on this, and had Isra’fl 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 Mahmiid’s
leave to cross over the Jihiin 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 Arsalin’s advice, he gave them permission ;
- and they passed the Jihiin, and took up their quarters in the pasture-lands
about Nisa and Abiward. Mika’il had two sons, Tughril, and Da’id-i-
Jaghar Beg, who, from their talents and superior accomplishments, became the
leaders of the tribe. ।

Other writers, however, say that Saljiik had four sons, Isra’il, Mika’il, Miisa,
and Yiinas ; and that Beghii was the son of Misa. Mika’il having been slain in
one of the battles of that period, leaving two sons, Saljik named those two
grandsons, Da’iid-i Jaghar Beg and Tughril Beg, rulers of the tribe after his
decease. When Mabmiid of Ghaznin subdued the territories of Mawar-un-
Nahr, among other chiefs, [रत्‌ and Tughril, who had fought several battles
with the rulers of Turkistan, and had acquired fame for valour, waited on
Mahmiid, and solicited that some portion of territory should be assigned to
their tribe, as grazing-grounds for their flocks and herds.

Fasib-i states that, previous to Mahmiid’s crossing the Jihiin and entering
Mawar-un-Nahr, as early as 416 H., Da’iid-i-Jaghar Beg, son of Tughril Beg,
son of न्रा], son of Saljiik—by this account Da’id-i-Jaghar Beg was
Mika’il’s grandson—had risen and entered into the Khwarazm 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 Beghii, son of Saljik, son of Lukman, 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 K4linjar.
For Fanakati’s statement on this subject, see note 2, p. 126.

The above notice of the Saljiiks has been taken from the Tarikhb-i-Abi-l-
१.१.1३, Guzidah, the Lubb-ut-Tawaikh, Jami’-ut-Tawarikh, Abi-1l-Faz)-i-
Baihaki, Tarikh-i-Alfi, Mujami’-ul-Khiyar, Jahan-Ara, and the Muntakbab-
ut-Tawarikh, and others. Yafa’i differs considerably from these works and

118 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

of Saljik and his son were a tribe whose dwelling-place
was the Nir* of Bukbara, and they were all subject and
obedient to the Samani dynasty.

At the period in question the son of Saljik 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 Afrasiyabi rulers were continually in fear. Nota 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
Mahmid, and all were in attendance at his stirrup, and pro-
ceeding towards the Sultan’s own tents, the sonof Saljiik con~
tinued to ride on before them all,a Turkm4an cap placed jaun-
tily 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 man-
date [from the Sultan] to the son of Saljik to remain in
his tent,and gave orders that his followers, with his and
their effects, should cross the river Jihiin into the confines
of Khuradsan in company with the Mahmidi forces. Agents
were directed to take care of them, and look after them ;
and, when they reached the bank of the Jihiin, they crossed
the river along with servants of the Sultan.

At the time the command was issued that the son of
Saljik, along with his followers and dependents, should
embark on boats, and pass over the Jihiin with their pro-
perty and effects, the Hajib, Arsalan Khan*, who was

authors, but least from Guzidah. I have not completed the translation of that
portion of Yafa’f as yet, therefore cannot make much use of it at present.

It will be noticed that our author repeatedly quotes ‘‘ the son of Saljiik,” but
gives no name ; and, moreuver, Isra’fl, to whom he must refer, was, by some
accounts, Saljiik’s son, and by others, his grandson.

4 A district of the territory of Bukhara so called.

$ His correct name is Arsalan Khan. Jagib [5] seems to have been an
error on the part of some early copyist for Hajib [~»'-], and copied accord-
ingly by Firishtah, and other modern authors.

THE SALJOUKIAH DYNASTY. 119

the Amir [Governor] of Khurasan, and the greatest of the
retainers of Sultan Mahmid, made a representation to that
monarch, saying: “This which your Majesty has com-
manded 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
12110, 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 off’, so as to render them incapable
of discharging arrows in future.” Sultan Mahmid 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 Saljik had been con-
veyed across the Jihin, it was commanded that he should
be brought to Multan, while his kinsmen, and his other fol-
lowers and dependents were assigned pasture-lands for their
flocks and cattle in the territory of Khuradsan, such as Nisa,
Nishapur, Baward’, 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 Mahmiid afterwards re-
gretted what he had done, still regret was of no avail, for
regret cannot avert destiny.

Imam Abi-l-Fazl-i-Baihgjki states in his Tarikh-i-Nasiri®,

6 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 Saljiiks 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’id, and says that the people who entered Khurasin under Yagh-miir and
other chiefs were Turkmans ; and he always makes a difference between them
and the Saljiiks.

120 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

that, at the time that Sultan Mahmid carried across the
Jihiin four thousand Saljiik families, their Mihtars, or chiefs,
were four persons, Yagh-miir’, Bikah, Kik-tash, and Kazil,
and in different parts of Khurasdn pasture-lands were
assigned to them, and they were made over to [the guar-
dianship of] the great nobles of Khuras4n, and instructions
were given to them that the Saljiiks should, in no way, and
on no account, be permitted to carryarms, Their chief',; who
was the eldest son of Saljiik, and famous for his manhood,
was sent to Multan, along with two of his sons? likewise ;
and at Multan, after some time had passed away, they
also died*. The remainder of the Saljik tribe, who had re-
mained behind‘in Mawar-un-Nahr, were in the habit every
year of migrating from Nir of Bukhara to Darghan‘ 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’iid, the
Martyr, the Amir [Governor] of Khwarazm, the son of
Altiin-Tash *, rebelled 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 Baihaki, as he says, that the Saljiiks, who crossed the Jibin
into Khurasin, had four chiefs, and immediately after says, ^^ their chief, who
was Saljiik’s son,” died at Multan. He evidently confounds those of the tribe
who entered Khurasdn 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. .
8 Fasih-i, Baizawi, and other authorities, mention the death of Isra’il, son
of Beghii, son of Suliman, son of Saljiik, at K4linjar, 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 ib aie When his pursuers were in
the act of securing him, he cried out ta his son: ‘‘I shall never be released ;
do you seek to acquire territory.” That same year Da’tid-i-Jaghar Beg broke
out into open rebellion, and took up his quarters at Marw.

4 Considered generally as belonging to Samrkand.

8 Altin-Tash, the Hajib, was appointed viceroy of Khwarazm by Sultan
Mahmid in 407 H., after he [Mahmiid] had proceeded thither in person, and
had defeated the rebels, who had slain his son-in-law, Mamiin, son of Mamin,
and had put Nial-Tigin to death, as related in the events of Mahmiid’s reign.
When the Sultan returned to Balkh, after his raid upon the Afghans, Altiin-
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 Wazir, and the Khwajah
-i- Amid, Abi Nasr-i-Mishkan, gave his word, and swore, that he would never

THE SALJUKIAH DYNASTY. 121

Saljiks joined him in that outbreak; and, in the year
425 H., he bestowed upon them a tract of country belong-
ing 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 situa-
tion, made a raid upon them, and slew about eight thou-
sand 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, Hari, the rebel, the son of
Altin-Tash [with whom the Saljiiks had sided, as before
stated] had [lately] been killed, and they found it impos-
sible to continue to dwell in the territory of Khwarazm;
and, through fear of the sons of ’Ali Tigin, the late ruler of
Bukhara, who was one of the Afrasiyabi 11815, or chief-
tains, 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 pro-
perty, and their families and dependents.

Yagh-miir, who was one of their chiefs, had died pre-
viously to this, and a son of his remained ; and, when that
portion of the tribe [who had escaped the sword of the
Malik of [पात्‌] came towards Nisa and Marw from Khwa-
razm, the son of Yagh-mir® was unable to cope with them,
for, although they were weak in numbers themselves, other
tribes, such as the Nialis 7, and others, had joined them. The
son of Yagh-mir [with his tribe, who had first crossed the
Jihiin] retired before them, and entered Irak, and seized
upon Rai; and the Saljiiks took up their residence in the

act contrary to the Sultan’s wishes and commands ; and he left two sons,
Saibi [?] and Yisuf, at Court. In 422 H., after the accession of Mas’iid, the
Martyr, Altiin-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 Fasih-i respecting this grant of lands by the
५ son of Altin-Tash,” to the Saljuks

€ Here again our author says the son of Yagh-miirr, but does not give any
name. This is his constant failing.

7 The Nialis refer to the adherents of Nial-Tigin, viceroy of the Panjab,
who had rebelled, and had been removed. See Baihaki.

I

122 THE TABAKAT-I-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 Khuradsan ;
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 र.

I. TUGHRIL, SON OF MIKA’IL®.

The author of the Tarikh-i-Nasiri',; Imam Abi-l-Fazl-1-
Baihaki, relates after this manner: that, at this period when
the Saljiiks entered the skirt of the desert of Khurasan,
and the son of Yagh-mir retired discomfited * before them,
their Mihtars [chiefs] were three persons—Tughril and
Da’iid, two brothers, the sons of Mika’ll, and their uncle
Beghi; and all three in accord determined to tender their
services to Sultan Mas’iid, and despatched a confidential
agent to the Sultan’s presence—he, at that time, having
come to Nishapir from Gurgan—and solicited that the dis-
tricts of Nisa, Farawah, and certain places at the head of the
desert might be assigned tothem in रा ~ In the missive

8 The commencement of the outbreak: of the Saljiks was in 423 H.; and,
in the same year, Kadr Khan, the Turk, ruler of Mawar-un-Nahr, died.
Jaghar Beg, son of Abii Sulfmin, seized Marw, and took up his quarters there
in 426 H. The Saljiiks made an attempt upon Hirat in 428 H., but were re-
pulsed, 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 Sultaén Mas’iid subsequently gained re-
possession of Hirat, and severely punished those who had, as he considered,
so tamely capitulated to the Saljiiks. See note >, p. 129.

9 His correct name is Abi Talib, Muhammad, and his title, Rukn-ud-din,
Tughril Beg, Yamin-i-Amir-ul-Miminin, or ‘‘The Right Hand of the Lord
of the Faithful.”

1 This work is styled Tarikh-i-Mukaddasi-i-Nasiri in two copies of the
text at this place.

2 The word here used is ^" munhazim,’
discomfited in battle, dispersed, &c. $

3 As from other writers, our author has not quoted Baihakf correctly. The
text states that ‘hey sen? a trustworthy agent fo the Sultan. The following is
condensed from what Baihaki says in this matter. Soon after Mas’id arrived
at Gurgan, a despatch reached his minister from Bi-Fazgl, Sirf, Diwan of
Nishapir, which had been brought by horsemen jn two days and a half from
that city, intimating an irruption of Saljiiks and Nialis from Marw, who had

signifying routed, put to flight,

THE SALJUKIAH DYNASTY. 123

im question they had written their own names in the fol-
lowing manner :—“Tughril, and Beghi, and Da’iid, who

proceeded to Nisa, where they had joined the Turkmans [see note ®, page 119]
there, and that they had been reinforced by other Saljiiks and Khwarazmis
and further, that he, Bi-Fazl, enclosed therewith a communication addressed to
him by Beghu, Tughril, and Da’id, 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-Siri, from his servants, Beghii [it will be noticed that the uncle here
takes precedence of the nephews], Tughril, and Da’iid, the Muwali or lieges
of the Amir-ul-Miminin ;” 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 Hariin, 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
Eehwajah [Abi-ul-Fagl] would aid them at this juncture, and write on
their behalf to the Khwajah, "Abi Nagr [the Wazir], and advocate their
cause as they were known to him. They farther solicited that, as through that
minister’s good offices [Khwajah Abii Nasr-i-Ahmad had previously been Wazir
to Hiri and his father], the late Hariin, Khwarazm Shih, 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 would rest under his great shadow. They asked that the territories of
Nisa and Farawah, which lay on the edge of the Desert [between the moun-
tains bounding Khuriasin on the north-east, and the Jibiin 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 Jibiin ; and would assail the "Irakis [the Turk-
mans under Yagh-miir’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 Sulfin’s Wazir], they had addressed the Khwajah [Abi-ul-Fazl] to
solicit him, Please God ! to bring their request to a favourable issue.”

Sultan Mas’iid 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 Saljiiks, to pass the Jibiin, in the first
instance. The Wazir and some others counselled the acceptance of the
allegiance of the Saljik 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, teliing

12

124 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRIL.

are the Mawali [lieges] of the Lord of the Faithful, repre-
sent unto your presence,” &c. The Almighty had been
pleased to fill their hearts with much arrogance and con-
tumacy ; 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
420 प. to proceed against them.

When that force reached the Saljiiks, it fought a stub-
born 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 Saljiik 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 Nighapir, 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 Saljaks
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 Saljiiks, who had again rallied and
attacked him. This took place in §ha’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’iid had to agree to their demands, they being the first
however to open negotiations, and Farawah was given to Beghi, Nisa to
Tughril, and Dihistan to Da’id. Having obtained their demands, they
became more insolent than ever.

५ Several other writers differ here, not only from our author, but also from
Baihaki, who is very particular respecting dates. In the beginning of 426 H.,
the Khasah Khadim, Niish-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 Saljiiks, under the command of the Hajib-i-Buzarg,
Subashf. In the first month of 429 H., in fulfilment of a vow made during
illness, Mas'tid undertook an expedition against Hansi, captured it in the third
month of that year, and in the fourth returned to Ghaznin. In the same year,
Mas’tid, being unable from the state of affairs to proceed against the Saljiks
as he was desirous of doing, despatched orders to the Hajib to expel them from
Khurasin. Subishi sent a reply to the effect that they were far more than he
could cope with. Mas’tid 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 Surpishi by Guzidah, Sanbaghi in the

Tarikh-i-Alfi, an@ Subiasi by our author. The name mentioned by Baihaki
is no doubt correct.

THE SALJOKIAH DYNASTY. 125

an accommodation with them. He bestowed Nisa upon
Tughril, and the Dihistan on Da’iid, and gave Farawah to
Beghi. The Sultan then proceeded towards Balkh, and
conferred the government of Hindistan upon his son
Maudid*.

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, Subasi, with a large army to expel them.
Ain engagement took place between the Sultan’s forces and
the Saljiiks, and the Sultan’s troops were defeated °, and
the Saljiiks acquired power over the territory of Khurasan.
They sent Ibrahim, Nialiah’, to seize upon Nishapir, and,
subsequently, Tughril himself followed him thither. At
Nishapir he ascended the throne, and became a sovereign;
and the Khutbah was read in his name*. .He despatched
Da’iid to Sarakhs, and nominated Beghii to proceed to
Marw ; and they took possession of Khurasan, and one-
121 ° of that territory passed from the sway of the servants
of the Mas’iidi dynasty’.

5 Not so: Majdiid was viceroy of the Indian provinces, Maudiid wa¢
left at the capital; and subsequently, when Mas’iid retired into the Panjab,
the latter was sent to Balkh, and he was with his father in the battle of
Dandankad.

6 Farther on, our author, when mentioning the council held by the Saljiiks
when they thought of leaving Mas’iid’s dominions, says, ‘‘ They are said to have
been defeated by the Sultan’s troops several times.” See p. 130.

7 Ibrahim, son of Ni’al, was Tughril’s mother’s brother.

3 Tughril Beg assumed sovereignty over a portion of Khurasan, and
ascended the throne at Nishapiir in 429 H. ; and the Saljiki dynasty is con-
sidered by several authors to have commenced from that year. Others,
however, with very good reason, say that the Saljiiks only assumed independent
sovereignty after the defeat of Sultan Mas’iid at Dae-kan or Dandankan [Dan-
dankad], as stated by our author farther on. He acquired sway over a large
portion of Western Asia, Khwarazm, Dihistan, Tabbas, Rai, Kazwin, &c., in
447 H., 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 Khalifah sent a commission with a
robe of honour to Tughnil.

9 A paradox of our author’s.

1 Tughril Beg died at Turught [<b] near Rai, Friday, 8th of Ramazan,
455 H., atthe age of seventy. His reign is variously computed: Fanakati
states that he died in 442H., after a reign of “ex years! From 429 H. to
455 H., however, is a period of twenty-six.

126 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

II. MALIK DA’OD-I-JAGHAR BEG!, SON OF MIKA‘IL.

When Da'id, after leaving the presence of his brother
Tughril, came for the purpose of taking possession of

Marw and Sarakhs, Sultan Mas’iid was at Balkh, and he
sent an agent to him [Da’iid] to see whether or not an
accommodation could be brought about®.

At that time Da’iid 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 22१५, verily we have made thee a sovereign prince on

earth:, judge therefore between men with प्रपपौ < Da’id,
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 sword *.

At this period, when the Sultan’s envoy from Balkh pre-
sented 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 °.”

2 Also written Jaghari Beg. Guzidah has both Jaghar and Chaghar Beg.
His title is Amir ’Imad-ud-Daulah, Abi Suliman-i-Da’iid-i-Jaghar Beg.
Guzidah, Fasih-i, Fanakati, and several others, do not consider Da’iid as a.
sovereign, and Alb-Arsalan is, by them, very properly, accounted the second
monarch of the Saljiki dynasty, having succeeded his uncle Tughril. Da’td
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’iid. This would imply that Tugbril 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.

3 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 Wazir. It was on this occasion that Mas’id gave them thé territory
mentioned in note >, page 122-3. The author makes great repetition through
mixing up the events of Tughril’s reign with Da’iid’s affairs.

4 Kuran, chap. xxxviii.

$ 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 sen-
tence here, it would require the author himself to explain.

6 A portion of the 25th verse of chap. iti. of the Kur’an.

THE SALJOKIAH DYNASTY. 127

Theenvoy of Sultan Mas’iid perceived Da’iid, 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. 8.7१ 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 envoy’. ‘When the envoy reached
the presence of Sultan Mas’iid, and made known to him
the condition and mode of life of Da’tid, and placed before
him the verse in reply to his message, he understood that
the period of the sovereignty of the Mahmidi dynasty over
the territory of Khuradsan had come to an end, and, in his
heart, he relinquished all hope of holding 1६२.

The Saljiks having acquired Sarakhs and Marw, and
being left in undisturbed possession of the whole of those
districts, Da’tid determined to attack Upper Khurdsan.
Manifesting the utmost daring and boldness on that occa-
sion, he again assembled together a force of 11,000 horse’,
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

— 9 =

animal’s back. 227५ ' came during the night, unfastened

7 It is strange that all this is neither to be found in Baihakf nor in the other
authors I have been quoting.

ॐ The author here contradicts himself, as is not unusual ; for the battle of
Dae-kin [Dandankad] had not yet been fought, even by his own account.

9 Most copies of the work have ‘‘4e came with e/even horsemen,” which is
absurd. ।

1 Our author does not quote Baihakf 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 roth of the same month, other news
arrived [the sentence following and part of next is not in my MS.] that Da’ud
had come to Tae-kan [Morley has Tal-kan] with a strong force, and well pre-
pared. On Thursday, the 16th of the month, farther information was received
that he had reached Par-yab [Far-yab is equally correct—p and // are inter-
changeable], 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, js perfectly correct as to the name, notwithstanding the
efforts of editors to make out otherwise. In the Persian, ¢ is often inter-
changed for /, and & for g4, and so, in reality, both ways of writing may be, and
were adopted ; but never with s for 36 , 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 4asdah near it. Compare Elliot’s
INDIA, vol. ii. p. 142], and that wherever they appeared [Da’tid 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-main] 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 Hindt 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 /arsang [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 commands ;’ and 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 Shabirghan. Da’iid gave a present to the horsemen, and directed
them to take it to Nishapiir. From this the troops [of Mas’iid] acquired a very
bad name, for people said, ‘ Among these men such neglect exists, that enemies
are able to carry 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 dirvams should be deducted
from them, for the price of the elephant, and several of them were castigated.
[There is no mention of ‘ Hindi elephant-riders’ in the MS., although Hindi
Filbans are mentioned in the printed text, but even then it would not follow
that they were Hindiis in faith. ]

‘On Monday, the 2oth of this month, Alti Sakmin, the Hajib [Chamber-
lain] of Da’tid, with 2000 horse, came up to the [very] gate of Balkh, 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 ome word

THE SALJUOKIAH DYNASTY. 129

taken away some five leagues, and the driver dared not
utter a word. |

Da’iid [then] advanced with his forces from Shafirkan
to 'Ali-abad of Balkh, and fought an engagement with the
Sultan, but, notwithstanding all the efforts and endeavours
of Da’id, he was defeated.

In the month of Shawwal of the year 429 H. the whole
of the Saljiiks assembled together, Tughril, Beghi, and
Da’iid, and also the Nialis, and the Mas’idi and Mahmidi
Turks >, some of whom had joined the Saljiks. The Sul-
tan marched from Balkh with his forces, and led them
towards Marw and Sarakhs’*; and in the desert of Sarakhs
an engagement ensued, which was contested from day-
dawn until the time of afternoon prayer, when the Saljiiks
were overthrown‘.

about Da’iid’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’iid, who
then advanced to ’Ali-abad from Shaburghin. As soon as Amir Mas’ad
heard of his movements, he moved out to the Pul-i-Karwan until troops
arrived ; and, on the 9th of Rajab, routed Da’id and his troops as soon as they
reached ’Ali-abad from the direction of the desert.”

Several partial engagements took place upto the sth of Shawwal; and,
whenever the Sultan’s troops could ge¢ a¢ the Turkmfns, 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 Saljiiks, who appeared as
willing as he was for that course, and tracts about Nisa, Baward, and Farawah,
were assigned to them ; but Mas’iid 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 versh, 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 Mahmiid and others,
and since taken into pay by Mas’iid, are here referred to. They may have been
in some way kinsmen of the Saljiiks. Some of them had deserted some time
previously.

3 The Sultan marched against them by way of Hirat, because the Saljiks,
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
Saljiiks, to punish the Hiratis for surrendering so easily. He reached Hirat in
Zi-Ka’dah, 430H., and proceeded by way of Mihanah [००५ or ay it is
spelt both ways: European writers have transformed it into Maimanah].

4 The author here is quite confused : he makes out a second engagement,
but no other engagement took place than is mentioned in the preceding note ',

130 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

The Sultan, after this, returned to Hirat ; and the Sal-
jiks, becoming aware of it, again sought an accommoda-
tion; and, as a matter of necessity [on the part of the
Sultan], once more a peace was concluded. However,
Sultan Mas’tid summoned troops, with all requisite stores
and war-material, from Ghaznin ; but, when those reinforce-
ments reached him, famine prevailed in Khuradsan, 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 Tiis; and
Tughril retired from Nishapir, and fell back upon Sarakhs.

All the Saljiks now met together, and came to the
unanimous conclusion, that they had no longer any power
to oppose Sultan Mas’iid 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 Khurdsan altogether. The
lion-hearted Amir Da’id, who had no compeer in loftiness
of spirit and energy, said :—“ Confidence is necessary in
making conquests*, 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 °] When the Saljiik chief-
tains beheld this bold and intrepid bearing on.the part of
Da’iid, they coincided with him with one accord. Having
come to this determination, they sent away all their fami-
lies, 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 defore
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 Nishapiir. See note 7, next page.

5 Nearly all copies of the text have the words—‘‘should ऋ have confi-
dence of heart ;” but I read it as above, and the context proves the correctness
of that reading.

५ There is nothing of this kind in Baihaki. What Da’iid 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 Khurasain, Sultin Mas’tid 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 Khurasan.

THE SALJOKIAH DYNASTY. 131

When the Sultan reached the spot, the battle com-
menced ; and for three days, from morning’s dawn to the
setting of the sun, the conflict went on, until, on Friday,
the gth of the month of Ramazan, in the year 431 H., the
troops of Sultan Mas’iid became hard pressed, and his own’
Turkish troops even began to give way legion after legion.
Sultan Mas’iid was defeated’; and the Saljaiks gained the
victory, and assumed independent sovereignty.

7 This was Mas’iid’s second expedition in person against the Saljiiks,
although his officers had previously encountered them upon several occasions.
He had passed the winter of 430-31 H. at Nishapiir, with his forces encamped
in and about Baihak [not Baihaki’s native place], Khowaf, Bakhurz, Isfand,
Tis, and other places facing the desert. The utmost scarcity prevailed, and
grain had to be brought from a great distance. On the 28th of Jamadi-ul-
Akhir of 431 H. was the vernal equinox [about the end of March, 1039 A.D.],
and Mas'td prepared for a fresh campaign. He had really made no prepara-
tion for it ; but the Saljiiks 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 deter-
mined to advance to Marw, notwithstanding his Wazir and nobles advised
him against it [but Abi 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 1051 their horses, and had to march on foot. The animals
that remained also were nearly useless, whilst the Saljiks were in pos-
session 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’iid’s troops, who wanted for every thing.
The details are far too long far insertion ; but I may mention that Mas’iid 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’iid’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’iid’s forces became separated
and confused ; order was at an end; and leaders became separated from their
men. ‘‘The Turkish troops,” says Baihaki, who was present, ‘‘went one
way, and the Hindii [i.e. xatives of Hind, whatever their creed] another, and
neither Kurds nor ’Arabs could be distinguished. A few Khowasis or body-
guards, who remained near the Sultan, made several and repeated charges
upon the enemy; and Mas’iid 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 Mawdiid [the son of Mas’iid] myself, who was gallop-
ing 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 gth of
Ramazan, 431 H., beyond the river Marw-ar-Riid, two stages from Marw-i-
Shah-i-Jah:n.

132 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

After the battle was over, a throne ° was set up upon the
battle-field itself, and Tughril became sovereign’. Beghi

proceeded to Marw, and Amir Da’iid led a force towards
Tukharistan and Balkh, and subdued the territories of that
region. Subsequently, Tughril and Da’tid marched into
Khwarazm, and secured that country ; and some time after
they had brought those countries under subjection, Tughril
died, and Da’id entered into a treaty with the Mahmidis
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.

III. SULTAN ALB-ARSALAN-I-GHAZi, SON OF DA’UD-I-
JAGHAR BEG.

He ascended the throne of Khurasan after Da’id, in the
year 451 प्त." 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 ऽ शाप, and differs much
from them. Guzidah, Fasih-i, and other writers of authority, state that
Tughril Beg assumed independent sovereignty over the greater part of
Khurasin, at Nishapir, in 428 प्त, while some few writers say, in 429 H.
In 431 H., after the defeat of Sultan Mas’iid, and.his retreat to Ghaznin, all
Khurdsan fell into the hands of the Saljiiks ; and the two brothers, and Beghi,
their uncle, divided the terntory 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’tid, who made
Marw [some say Balkh] his capital ; and Beghii, 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’iid’s defeat by Tughril, the slave of "ABD-UR-RASHID, is mentioned
by our author on/y.] He has made a complete muddle of Tughril’s reign, as
well as Da’iid’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, ssrvived 2 त 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 Khurdsan in Ramagan 455 u.,

THE SALJUKIAH DYNASTY. 133

the whole of 'Irak, Khwarazm, Tabaristan, Kirman, Fars,
and Sistéan he brought under his sway*. He also led
an army into Turkistan and Tian, 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, com-
posed a dirge, says of him, in the following strophe :—

** Thou sawest the head of Alb-Arsalin 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 4.”

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 Ibra-
him‘, and did not interfere with the Ghaznin dominions.
He occupied himself in holy wars against Turkistan and
Rim, 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 Tughnil of course. His correct name and
title is ’Uzd-ud-Daulah, Abit Shuja’-i-Muhammad, Alb-Arsalin.

3 Our author forgets to state, or did not know, that, by the will of
Tughril Beg, Suliman, son of Jaghar Beg-i-Da’iid, succeeded; but Kal-
timish [also written Katl-mish], son of Isra’il, Tughril’s uncle, with the
aid of the Turkmins, fought a battle with Suliman, at Damgbin, and
overthrew him. On this Alb-Arsalan came against Kal-timigsh, and in
the action which ensued, near Damgban, Kal-timish was killed by a fall
from his horse, and Alb-Arsalan was left without a rival. The Khalifah,
Al-Kia’im Bi-amr-ullah, conferred upon him the title of Burhan-ul-Miminin.
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
Kal-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.

* See page 103, and note ५,

134 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

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-Jirjani, intimates that, in the year 613 H., he was
at the Court of Sijistan, and in that capital there was an
Imam ° [Patriarch], the teacher of the doctors in wisdom
and philosophy, and the asylum of the learned of the
time’, 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 Balasaghiin*, messengers followed him
thither, bringing intelligence that the Lord of the Faithful,
the Khalifah, Al-Ka’im B’illah’, had sustained a great mis-

€ 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,” may be seen from note?, page 135. He only
quotes Abii-l-Fazl-i-Baihaki for the Saljiik dynasty, a very good and trustworthy
authority, but often quotes him incorrectly, as shown in the preceding notes.

* 7 The meaning of which is, that he was, by our author’s account, one of the
most learned men of his time.

$ 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
Gir Khan [not Kor Khan, as Europeans generally write it}. 8 stands for
gas well as € in Persian, unless explained to the contrary.

9 Al-Ka’im Bi-amr-’ullah. The Kaisarof Rim, Arminiis [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. Sub-
sequently, Armanis again invaded Alb-Arsalin’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 Agarbaijan,
in the vicinity of Akhlat, in which action the Kaisar was taken captive by a Rimi
[Roman] slave in Alb-Arsalin’s army, whose person was so weak and so con-
temptible, 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 :—‘‘ 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
Arminiis [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 Riim, 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 Anbar' and the Jazirah [Mesopotamia] on the
frontiers of the empire of Rim. 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 180,000 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
Balasaghiin. 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 con-
finement?. He accompanied the Khalifah’s sacred caval-

1 There is a place of this name on the Euphrates, Felugia or Anbar, men-
tioned in Julian’s campaigns as Pirisabur, and called the second city in Assyria.
The Khalifah was confined at ’Anah. See next ndte over leaf. A copyist
weight write , ७1 for ale

ॐ Our author has made a muddle of the reigns of these Saljiik monarchs,
and betrays such complete ignorance here, that we may doubt his correctness
im 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
Bihalifah’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
ssntil 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-Ki’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-
Arsalin’s. In 448 प. [Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh 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-Rahim-i-Abi Nasr, son of ’Imad-ud-din, son of Sultan-
ud-Daulah, Buwiah, was to come inafter Tughril’s. Tughril finding his oppor-

136 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-Arsalin-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 पर. Al-Ka’im espoused the
daughter of Tughril’s brother [daughter of Da’tid-i-Jaghar Beg], Khadijah by
name. In.450 H. Basiasiri rose against the Khalifah, and put him in confine-
ment 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, of to Alb-
Arsalan, who did not come to the throne until nearly five years after. Tughril
reached Baghdad in 451 H., Basasiri fled, the Khalifah was set at liberty, and
Tughril went to meet him, and walked, on foot, at the head of the Khalifah’s
horse. On that occasion Al-Ka’im hailed him—‘‘ Ya Rukn-ud-din !”—‘* 0
Pillar of the Faith !”—and his title, which had been Rukn-ud-Daulah, or
Pillar of the State, was changed to Rukn-ud-din. Tughril entered Baghdad
on the 14th of the month of Safar ; and in that same year also Da’iid-i-Jaghar
Beg, his elder brother, died. Some few authors say these events happened in
452 H. Basdsirl was soon after captured and put to death, but Fasih-i says
he was captured before the Khalifah’s release. In 455 प. Tughril espoused a
daughter of the Khalifah’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, hemorrhage came
on [not ‘‘ dysentery 7] and could not be stopped. He died 8th of Ramazan ;
and the Khalifah’s daughter hearing of his decease, when on the way to join
him, returned, a virgix bride, to her father at Baghdad.

I may mention that the Tarikh-i-Yafa’i, 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 Armaniis [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 discre-
pancy in some other authors, which I have not space to notice here.

THE SALJOKIAH DYNASTY. 137

Lord of the Faithful, and what amount of eulogium every
one of them conveyed.

Alb-Arsalan’s reign extended over a period of fourteen
years*®. Heascended the throne in the year 451 H., and
in the month of Safar, 465 H., he was martyred‘. May the
Almighty again raise up their pure souls with like glory,
and reserve them to Himself in Paradise above !

IV. SULTAN JALAL.UD-DIN, MALIK SHAH§, 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, Tiran, the Jibal [Highlands of
"Irak], ‘Irak, Dilam, Tabaristan, Rim, Misr, 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 dzvam 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: Turkistan’, and sub-

ॐ The length of his reign depends upon how it is computed. If his acces-
sion 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 प.

५ Our author does not say how his martyrdom took place. Perhaps his
authority for the Khalifah’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
Barzam [on the प्ण], which Alb-Arsalin had taken. The murderer was
nearly escaping, when a Farrash, or tent-pitcher, beat in his head with a
wooden 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.

$ [115 title, according to most writers, was Mu’izz-ud-Din, and his patro-
nymic, Abi-l-Fath, The Nigam-ut-Tawarikh 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-ul-
Miminin.

¢ 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
Samrkand 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

K

138 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

dued the territory of Rim; 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 Riim; 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 Rim upon one of his brothers, and, after him,
he gave it to his own son, Mahmid’; and, up to this
period, that territory is still in the possession of his
descendants, as will, hereafter, please God, be mentioned °.

removed, for the second time, Suliman Khan from the government. He was
subsequently sent to the fortress of Oz-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 Alfi, 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 Khatiin, the consort of Malik Shah, who was mother
of Sultan Sanjar.

7 This is totally incorrect : Mahmiid, son of Malik Shah, was never ruler of
the territory of Rim. See note + 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 H., 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 Guzidah ; 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 Kirmian, and
was allowed to hold that territory. In 467 H. [Jami’-ut-Tawarikh and
Alfi, mistaking the dates, or wrongly written in the copies of those works, say
in 473 H.] his brother, Takigh [this name is written by our author Takish ;
in the Shams-ul-Lughat, Tagish [Takish?]; and in the Burhin-i-Kati’,
Takagh] rebelled, and seized several districts in northern Khurasan, and shut
himself up in Nishapir. Malik Shah sent an army against him [Jami’-ut-
Tawarikh and Alfi say he went in person, and that it was in 476H.}. In
468 H. he subdued Mawar-un-Nahr for the first time, previously mentioned.
In the following year Antakiah [Antioch] was taken, and the territory as far
as the sea-coast. In 471 H. Samrkand was taken, and Sulimin Khan, the
ruler, again deposed, and confined in the fortress of Uz-gand. On this
occasion, Malik Shah demanded the hand of Turkan द्ध्य), daughter of
Tumghiash [also written Tughmakh] Khan, a descendant of Bughra Khan.
In 475 H. Khwarazm was subdued, and conferred upon Niish- Tigin, who
founded the Khwarazm-Shahi dynasty. [See note’, page 169.] The follow-

THE SALJUKIAH DYNASTY. 139

In the Muntakhab-i-Tarikh-i-Nasiri, which work was
composed by one of the great men of the Court’ 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 Misr [Egypt]. The Wazir, Nizam-ul-
Mulk, represented, saying :—“ It is right for the Sultan to
ponder well over this undertaking, because that country con-
tains 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 प्त. Malik Shah gave the territory of Rim to Suliman, son of Kal-
timish, which his descendants held for a long period of years. Sham he
bestowed upon his brother, Tutash [जन्य not ‘‘Tunish”], who gained
successes over the ’Arabs, Riimis, and Farangs. Other territories were con-
ferred upon some of his Mamliks or slaves, as will be mentioned hereafter.
In 482 H. [the period assigned in Jami’-ut-Tawarikh and Alfi for the ex-
pedition into Mawar-un-Nahr, just referred to,] Malik Shah undertook a cam-
paign against the Kaisar, as the Greek emperors of Constantinople are termed
by Mubammadan writers; upon which occasion, as related by all authors of
repute, Sulfin Malik §$hah fell into the hands of a party of the Kaigar’s
soldiers ; but, not having been recognized by any one, he was released through
the great tact of his minister, Nigim-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 11., as has been mentioned farthér on, Malik
Shah went on a pilgrimage to Makkah. In 484 H., Nigim-ul-Mulk was
-deprived of the Wazirship through the intrigues of Turkan Khatiin. In 485 u.,
Malik Shah sent a force against the Mulahidahs, but it was defeated by those
schismatics ; and, in that same year, Nigim-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 Hagrat, signifying the Cuurt, the presence of the sovereign.
K 2

140 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

the city of Misr®. When he had passed over the ferry of
Misr, and 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 {०212661 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 Lord*;’ 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 Khuradsan. This anecdote is related to show
the exalted nature of the faith of that just and victorious
sovereign °,

2 Al-Misr— 77८ 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 Zhe Misr, was, perhaps, deducting
exaggerations, the largest and most densely populated city the world ever con-
tained, 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-Misriah, as in ancient ’Arab writings.

3 Lit. ^“ Where was the place of Fir’awn’s throne,” signifying his Court,
residence, &c.

+ Kur’an, chap. Ixxix.

४ Whatever the author of the Muntakhab-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 Antakiah of Sham and Ladakiah of Rim to Mawar-un-Nahr, the
frontiers of Khata-1 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 Migr 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-Mal° [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 threetimes. 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 cakes’pand
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 full®, which sufficed for more than
fifty Maliks and Amirs, with their attendants. Aftcr he
had eaten, Malik Shah arose and inquired of his attendant :
—‘ For how much didst thou purchase these?” The man,
with cyes bent on the ground, replicd :—“ For four anda
half dangs’ [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

buoks mention it, but the account is evidently copicd from our author. The
Ismaili Khalifahs were independent of Malik Shih.

€ See note 5, p. 62.

7 Thin cakes of paste called ^ tutmaj.”

8 Allthe 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, cither of wheat, barley, or the like,
and is used to signify the fourth part of adram. It is also used to signify the
sixth part of a city, and the like.

142 | THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

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 Nizgam-ul-Mulk, and 50 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 benedic-
tion 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 _ inter-
calation, 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 degrce of the sign Aries, became named,
after that monarch, the No-roz-i-Jalal1.

Nizam-ul-Mulk, Tiisi, who has left in the world so many
proofs of his goodness and nobleness, was his Wazir ; and
Shaikh Abi Sa’id-i-Abi-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.’, 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’-ut-Tawarikh, Guzidah, Alfi, Fasih-f, Lubb-ut-
Tawarikh, and all others of authority, Malik Shah died at Baghdad in the
month of Shawwal, 485 H., six years before the date our author gives ; and,
according to the Nizam-ut-Tawarikh and others, in 471 H.

THE SALJUKIAH DYNASTY. , 143

V. MUHAMMAD 32, 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 ; and,
if we may judge of the rest of his work from this part, but little dependence can
be placed inhim. He leaves out the reigns of MAHMUD and BARKIAROK,
the successors of Malik Shah, entirely, a period of thirteen,years! Space will
only permit me to give a brief summary of those events.

After Malik Shah’s death, at Baghdad, his consort, Turkan Khatiin, who
had previously been plotting to secure the succession uf her son, Mughig-ud-
Din, Mahbmiid, set him up at Baghdad, and had the Khutbah read for him.
She sent off swift messengers to Isfahan to secure the person of Barkiarik,
the eldest son, who had been nominated heir and successor by his father.
Having succeeded in securing him, Turkan Khatiin, with her son Mahmid,
advanced towards Isfahan, the capital. Barkiarik, aided by the slaves and
partisans of the late Wazir, Nigam-ul-Mulk, who had been removed from office
at Turkin Khiatiin’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 Khatiin having died in Ramazan, 487 H., he moved against the
capital, and Mahmiid, his brother and rival, came forth to submit to him,
and the brothers embraced each other. Some of Mahmid’s partisans, however,
succeeded in seizing Barkiarik, and were going to deprive him of his sight,
when Mabmid 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
Barkiarik’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 Mahmid died, as above related.
However, on the death of his brother, Barkiarik was brought forth from his
prison, and raised to the throne ; and, from this date, his reiga properly com-
mences. The Khalifah acknowledged him, and the titles he conferred upon him
were, according to Yafa’i, Guzidah, and others, RUKN-UD-DIN, ABU-L-
MUZAFFAR, BARKIARUK;; but Fasih-iand others say, RUKN-UD-DIN
ABU-L-FAWARIS, were his titles. There was no peace for him still, and he
had constantly to take the field. In 488 प्र, his uncle, Takish, revolted, but he
was defeated ; and, inthe following year, he was moving against another uncle,
Arsalan-i-Arghi, when a slave of the latter put his master to death, before
Barkiaruk arrived. On the death of Arsalin-i-Arghi, who had held the
greater part of Khurisan, in 489 H., Sanjar, the third son of Malik Shah, and
full brother of Muhammad, was set up in Khurasin ; and, in 490 H., when in
his eleventh year, his brother, Sultin Barkiaruk, nominated him to the govern-
ment of Khurasan as his deputy. In 492 H., the year in which Jerusalem was
taken by the Crusaders, and Sultin Ibrahim of Ghaznin died, Barkiariik’s
troops revolted against him, and he retired into Khiizistan. On this, his other
brother, Mubammad, who appears to have been in revolt since 489 H. [some
say 490 H.}], moved. from Arran of Azgarbaijin to Hamadan, during Barkiairik’s
absence, and assumed the throne. In Rajab of the following year, Barkiariik
marched against him, but was defeated, and had toretire into Khiizistan again.

144 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

they called by the name of Tir, and the second son was
named Sanjar, and the youngest, Mahmid’.
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 Fasib-i,
Sanjar joined him from Khurasdn. In 493 ., according to Fasih-1, Bark iarik
was again defeated by Muhammad ; and, in the same year, the former had to
encounter Sanjar in Khurisin, but he was aguin unsuccessful, and had to fly.
Barkiariik, 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. Barkiariik again marched against him, and, in Rabj’-ul-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 Barkiarik, who in-
vested him therein. Muhammad ventured out to try and raise the investment,
but was again overthrown, and fled towards Khite. Barkiarik 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, Azarbaijin, Sham, Arman, Gurjistan,
and 2 part of Irak, and Barkiarik the remainder of the empire. This having
been agreed upon, Barkiarik 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 nomi-
nated 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 Mu-
hammad’s reign, he makes still more serious errors than before. Gibbon
[chap. lvii.] destroys the empire of the Saljiiks 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, Mabmiid, Barkia-
ruk, 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 Saljik empire. The
eight successors of this ‘‘the last of his race,” as well as himself, will be
mentioned farther on.

3 Our author is totally incorrect here again. Muhammad did not succeed
his father, as already shown, neither did ¢#ree sons [most of the copies of the
work say ‘‘two”’J only survive Malik Shah. There were four, the eldest of whom
was Barkiarik ; the youngest, Mahmiid, 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 [,5] and Tabr
[,3], for some copies say one, and some the other, given to Muhammad by our
author, is nof 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 Mubammad with that of his uncle Tutish [+], the progenitor of
the Saljiik 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 neigh-
bouring 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] ; con-
sequently, 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 Sanjar‘.

५ Mubammad, born 474 H., whose correct titles are Ghiyads-ud-Din, Abi
Shuja’, Muhammad, Kasim-i-Amir-ul-Miminin, 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
Saljiik sovereigns, of high principle, faithful to his engagements, truthful, just,
a cherisher of his subjects, and moreover pious and temperate. See Raugzat-
us-S$afa 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 Barkiarik, who had been set up as successor to his
father’s dominions, according to the terms arranged between Barkiadrik and
Muhammad already explained. Sadakah and Ayaz werg 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 Mulaihidahs, who had acquired great strength during
the stormy period of Barkiariik’s reign, and had occupied a strong fortress of
-Igsfahin, named Kala’-i-Shah. The place was reduced, and the leader put
to death. After this, an expedition into Hinditistan—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 im-
probable, but is distinctly mentioned, and further research may throw same
light upon it. Fasik-i, however, does not mention it. Subsequently Mu-
bammad despatched an army, under the command of one of his great nobles,
against Almiit, the stronghold of Hasan-i-Sabbah, 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 H., so that he reigned Ave/ve years and nine months.

146 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

VI. SULTAN-UL-A’ZAM, MU’IZZ-UD-DUNYA-WA-UD.-DINS,
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 throne‘.
After his brother’s death, Sanjar was raised to the
sovereignty ; and was distinguished by the Court of Bagh-
dad 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 adminis-
tration of the slaves and vassals of his empire’. His first

5 Yafa’l says his titles were Sultan-ul-A’gam, Mu’izz-ud-Din, and his patro-
nymic Abii Hiarig-i-Sanjar. Fanakati calls him Mu’izz-ud-Daulah ; Fasib-i,
Saif-ud-Daulah ; Mirat-i-Jahan Numa styles him Sultar-1s-Salatin, Mu’izz-ud-
Din, Abi-Haris, &c.; and Nigim-ut-Tawarikh and Muntakhab say his
patronymic was Abi-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, Barkiarik,
conferred it upon him, assumed sovereignty over the whole empire, notwith-
` standing Muhammad had bequeathed the sovereignty over Irak to his son
Mahmid. An engagement took place between Sanjar and his nephew, in
which the latter was defeated ; but Sanjar allowed him to retain the sove-
reignty, subject to himself. Mahmiid 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’iid’s and three Tughril’s, several authors, one of whom is gene-
rally 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. [Fasib-i says in 510 11.],
although he had held great part of Khurisin, 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 SALJOKIAH DYNASTY. 147

hostile operations were directed against Muhammad, Khan®
of Samrkand, whom he defeated; and, subsequently,
Sultan Sanjar fought sixteen different engagements on
different frontiers of his territories, and came forth vic-
torious 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 adminis-
tration of every country’. Arran, ’Irak, and Azarbaijan
he conferred upon Iladd-giz’, 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, Wailf of Balkh,
who was his cousin-german. This took place in 491 H., but, as Sanjar was
only then in his ‘welfthk year, he could not have taken part init. He may
have been present with the army. The second encounter was with his elder
brother, Barkiarik [who had nominated him to the government of Kburasin
in 490 H.], in 493 H. The third was with Kundiiz Khan, near Tirmiz, in
495 H. The fourth with Arsalan Shih, Ghaznawi, in 511 H. The first
battle fought, after he became supreme sovereign in 511 H., was against his
nephew, Mahmid, in the neighbourhood of Sadwah, in 513 H., which appears
to be that said to have been fought with Mas’iid. See page 151, and note ९.
Sultan Sanjar fought ne 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 Suli-
man Khan, styled ‘‘ Badshah” of Mawar-un-Nahr, took place in524 H. The
Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh mentions an expedition against ‘‘ Muhammad Khan,
Wali of Samrkand,” in 514. It appears to be the same which Fasib-i,
Guzidah, and Jahan-Ara place ten years after. Abmad Khin 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 > 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 rightname. As d is interchangeable with 4 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, Akhtan?, are both descend-
ants of his. The territory of Fars was given to Sankur,
who was the ancestor of the Atd-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] ser-
vants, 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’id-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’id-i-Karim, it is
said that dissension arose betwecn the Sultans of Ghaznin.
Malik Arsalan, son of Sultan Mas’iid, ascended the throne
at Ghaznin, and Bahram Shah, ancther son of Mas’id, was
with his father, in the district of Tigin-abad of Garmsir‘,
at the time of his father’s decease; and, from that place,’
Bahram Shah proceeded to the presence of Sultan Sanjar ^
[his maternal uncle], and for a considerable period con-
tinued 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 name’.

This dominion and power which Sanjar possessed was
more extensive than had bcen possessed by any of his
ancestors’. He conferred the territory of Mausil upon one

written Tlatt-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 ¥, p. 107.

+ At this period Sanjar was merely ruler of Khurasin, subordinate to his
brother, although he succeeded to the whole empire shortly after. |

5 Sanjar imposed a tribute of one thousand dizars per day upon Bahram
Shih ; 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 Saljtik empire was of the greatest extent in
Malik Shah’s reign. Sce latter part of note 5, page 140

°

THE SALJUKIAH DYNASTY. 149

of his slaves’,—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 of Khita-i,—and the whole of
the territories of Sham were held by his slaves. Sultan
Nir-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 (गप्रा, and the Sultans of the
108] *, were all subject to Sultan Sanjar.

During his reign hostility arose between the Sultans® of
Ghaznin and the Maliks of (प्ता, and the latter were
overcome. When, however, the territory of Ghir 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-nab', and the forces of Ghiir were routed, and
Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din was taken prisoner?.. 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 out-
break of the Ghuzz tribe, when ’Ala-ud-Din was in company
one day with Sultan Sanjar, and engaged in a carousal, San-
jar, 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 throne®. On ’Ala-ud-

7 See note >, page 168. `

8 Jibal here signifies the northern parts of Ghiir, Bamian, &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 Ghiiris 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, Siri, son of Husain, son
of Sam, to his uncle. Sultan Sanjar encountered the Ghirians 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, ‘‘’Ald-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 Rauzat-us-Safa,

150 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 head 4.”

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 Ghir be [my] amends to thee. I con-
gratulate 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 Ghir, 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 611 H., when at Firiiz-koh, which was the capital
and seat of government of the Sultans of Ghiir, heard [the `
following] from Amir ’Ali, the Ch4-iish [pursuivant], who
said that his grandfather was the Marshal of the retinue‘ of
Sultan Sanjar: and that his grandfather stated, that, when
Sultan Mas’iid 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. See Dorn’s “ Afghans,” part ii, p. 85.
4 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 + et

THE SALJUKIAH DYNASTY. 181

brothers’ sons’, 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 the Sawah Pass, at the foot of
which, on the ‘Irak side, the rebels weré 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 men-
tion an encounter between Sanjar and his nephew, Mahmid, in 513 H., in
"Irak, who was defeated and fled to Sawah, but mention no revolt on the part
of Mas’iid, who only succeeded to the subordinate sovereignty over ’Irak-i-
?Ajam, on the death of his brother Tughril, in 529 H., who succeeded
Mahmid, the other brother. In the enumeration of the different victories
obtained by Sultan Sanjar during his reign, the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh men-
tions one gained over his nephew, Mahmid, in the neighbourhood of Sawah,
in 513 H., and a second gained over another nephew [?], Mas’iid, near Dinawr,
in 526 H.; but Mas’iid 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’iids and three
Tughrils, who held ’Irak-i-’Ajam under Sanjar, on the authority of Fasib-f,
who gives the events of each year in chronological order. That work states,
that ‘‘ Mabmiid, 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 ’Irak[-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’iid, 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’iid fled to Jurjan ; 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’iid died in 525 H. The Jahan-Ard, and Muntakhab-
ut-Tawarikh state, that Mahmiid 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’iid; but, if Mas’tid only succeeded in 529 H., how
could he, according to the same authors, have been defeated by his uncle in
526 H.? According to Fasih-f, Mas’tid 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 Mahmid, who died in 525 H. [this date agrees with Jahan-
Ara and the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh above quoted], when Mas’ad, son of
Makmid [son of Muhammad], Sanjar’s nephew, succeeded. He died in
547 H., and is said to have always been loyal to Sanjar. He was succeeded
by his brother, Mughis-ud-Din, Malik रत).

52 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

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 compas-
sion 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 repre-
sentation of such opinions as entered their minds.

Sultan Sanjar [then] turned his face towards the Amir-i-
Cha-ish, who was also Marshal of his retinue, and said:
—‘ Chi-iish, what is it advisable to do?” The Cha-ish
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-
tish 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’iid
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
ycar, that he remained longer than was his wont at Marw.

THE SALJOKIAH 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 witha
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 Bu-
khara 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
whom] it is related, that the whole of these [poets] were of
his clan and followers, accordingly composed the following
strophe’: and the Minstrel, Kamal-uz-Zaman, early one
morning, when the Sultan had taken his morning draught
of wine, played® 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

a

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 Farid-ud-Din, Abii ’Abd-ullah, Muhammad, born at
Riidak of Samrkand, and hence known as Riidaki, a famous poet, blind from
his birth, but endowed with a very melodious voice, and he played enchant-
ingly on the ०८१८८ a kind of lute. He was also the first native of ’Ajam who
composed a Diwan. The lines in question were composed to try and influence
the Amir, Abi-l-Hasan-i-Nagr, son of Ahmad, Samini, 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 Ridaki, states that the place was Marw with
which Nasr was so much taken up. But, be this as it may, the poet, Ridaki,
was induced to use his efforts upon the Amir. He accordingly composed
these lines, and in the Sarde or villa, in which Nasr had taken his morning
collation, the poet sang them accompanied by his lute. Nagr 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 frst stage
on the way to Bukhara.

8 “JT utes” are mentioned above in all the copies ; whilst here, it appears,
the minstrel sang it, accompanying it with his lute. ।

L

154 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

rest nor repose until he reached the appointed destina-
tion :—
‘‘ The breeze from Mulian’s rivulet reacheth me the same,

Even as cometh the fragrance of a loving friend.

The gravel of the Ami, and the roughness thereof,

Appeareth like as the softest silk beneath my feet.

The river Jibiin, with its wide-spread surface,

Reacheth, even now, to my white steed’s very girths®.

O Bukhara ! rejoice, and be thou glad once more,

For the Shah even now cometh a guest?! 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-Khati-i, from Tamghaj, and the depen-
dencies 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 Bilasighiin, 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 inac-
tion, and enervated by protracted ease and luxury, were
unable to cope with or stand before the enemy, and were
overthrown ; and they took Turkan Khatiin, who was the
Malikah-i-Jahan [Queen of the Universe], and consort of
Sultan Sanjar, captive’.

® The only other signification the word used will admit of is a boat, which
does seem more appropriate, for I do not think the Jihiin can be forded on
horseback. I have doubts whether the word is correct in the original.

1 Sic in MSS.

2 In 534 घ. 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 Khatiin, 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-f’s and
Mughals remained in Mawar-un-Nahr until driven out by Sultan Mubammad,
Khwirazm Shah. Guzfdah 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 SALJOKIAH DYNASTY. 155

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 Bilasaghiin, 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 Khiatiin 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 weak’; and, of the reign of
Sanjar, sixty years‘ had passed away. <A body of the
Ghuzz tribe, from Khandan ०, now rose in revolt against the
Sultan’s authority*, 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 alah
[ingot] of silver’ for each family, but the Sultan would not

in Burhan-i-Kata’, and in the Tarfkh-i-Ibrahimi, ‘‘ Utsiz,” and by our author,
** Utsuz”], son of Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Nish-Tigin, 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 म.
{Guzidah says in 535 प, while the Muntakhab-ut-Tawartkh says it hap-
pened in 536 प्र] Gir Khan, who, in concert with At Khan, defeated Sanjar in
the Dasht, or Desert of Katran [७1४५], on the frontier of Samrkand, died
and, after this happened, ‘Muhammad Khwdrazm Shah expelled the infidels
from Mawar-un-Nahr.

3 It was, according to Guzidah and others, after Sanjar’s defeat by the
Khafi-i’s and Mughals that ’Ald-ud-Din, chief of Ghir, 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.

# See note ', page 157.

8 A tract of territory on the frontier of Chin. A few MSS. have Khutlin.

¢ Fanikatf says that, when the Ghuzz tribe crossed the Jihiin, Badr-ul-
Mulk, ’Ajami, the Sulfan’s Wazir, advised Sultan Sanjar to attack them.
This he did, and was overthrown and taken prisoner, and Khuradsin, Kirman,
and Fars were seized by them !

The Sultan marched against the Ghuzz in 548 प, 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 terri-
tory of Khurasan was devastated. In the following year was born Tamiichin,
afterwards known by the name of Chingiz Khan,

7 Guzidah says ‘‘a maun [which signifies two pounds of twelve ounces
each] of silver.” Price, quoting the Khulasat-ul-Akhbar, says ‘‘a quarter of
a hundredweight of gold, besides 109,000 dinars,” which is ridiculous. Our
author’s account is the most prabable one.

L 2:

156 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 Titi,
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 Khuradsin 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 [655
—one of the slaves, who was one of the Sultin’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 Marw’,
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 24th of the month Rab’-ul-
Awwal, in the year 552 H., Sultan Sanjar died at Marv,
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, Turkin Khatiin, 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 Jikiin. 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 that year, the Sulfan 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!

0 ~=

ACCOUNT OF THE SULTANS OF RUM2, OF THE SALJOKIAH
DYNASTY.

THE Sultans of Riim were of the race of Saljik, and were
great and powerful monarchs; and, in the territories of Rim
and the country of ^ गिण] > numerous signs and marks
of their goodness and benevolence, their expeditions and
holy wars, their conflicts with unbelievers, buildingsof public
utility and charity, in the shape of colleges, mosques, monas-
teries for darweshis, karwansardes, 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
arid 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 Riim upon his brother, Mahmiid, son of
Malik Shah*. The whole of the Sultans [of that country]

1 Guzidah 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 Mubammad 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.

४ Our author completed his work in 658 H., and Sanjar died in 552 H.;
and, although the Saljik 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.

ॐ 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 Riimi dynasty of the Saljiiks. Sanjar did not, as
he states, first establish that dynasty, neither was Sanjar’s brother, Mahmid,
the first subordinate sovereign of Riim, nor was his son, Mas’id, the second,
nor were they ever its rulers. He has confounded the Sultans of Irak and
those of Riim together. Sanjar’s brother, Mahmiid, moreover, died when in

[his

158 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

are his [Mahmiid’s] descendants, an account of every pne 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 Riim, of the Saljtik dynasty.

Kil-timish [_*«J5—written likewise Kil-timigh (+3 and Kat-limish .+3—
but the last syllable is evidently the same as occurs in the name of the Turkish
slave-sovereign of Dihli, ‘‘I-yal-timish,”] son of Isra’il, son of Saljiik, Alb-
Arsalin’s great uncle’s son, according to the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, rebelled
against him [Alb-Arsalan] ; but, in an action near Damghan in Muharram,
456 ., Kil-timigsh 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 Saljiik Sultans of
Riim. Guzfdah states that Kil-timish received the investiture of the govern-
ment of Damashk, from Malik Shah, at the time when he conferred so many
territories upon others. See note 3, page 168. Suliman, who was employed
against the Christians in 467 H. [A.D. 1074-5]}—but Fasib-f and a few others say
in 469 H.—succeeded by stratagem in wresting Antakfah out of the hands of
Firdaus [Philaretus], Riimf, after it had been in the hands of the Christians

his tenth year, in 489 H., only twenty-one years Je/ore Sanjar succeeded to the
throne, and when Sanjar was about the same age. The first two sovereigns
here mentioned as rulers of Riim, 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 Rimi 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 3s
their names and a very meagre account of their reigns go ; but the tenth ruler,
again, was the last ruler of ’Irak, not of Riim. I noticed, when’ reading the
work, that, at the latter part of the reign of Mas’iid, 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 Rim mention Mabmid, brother of
Sanjar, as the first, but, that he should subsequently mention his undertaking ex-
peditions against the Christians ; and, with reference to the second ruler, Mas'id,
Mabmiid’s son, he says that Sanjar, af first, conferred the throne of ’Irak upon
him [Mas’iid], thus inferring that, subsequently, that of Riim was given to
him. The heading of a chapter or paragraph might be put in incorrectly by 8
copyist, but the sense of the matter cannot be, nor could Riim 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 Rim,
which, from other errors he has made, is not improbable. It will also be
noticed that he makes no mention whatever of the Saljiiks of Kirman, consist-
ing 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
gluty for the Rimfs—neither has he given any account whatever of Sanjar’s
successors, nor does he notice at all other less powerful dynasties.

THE SALJOKIAH DYNASTY. 159

I. MAHMUD, SON OF MALIK SHAH.

On the throne of the territory of Riim having been con-
ferred 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’iid was the son of Mahmiid, 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 com-
bined with Karajah, the Saki [cup-bearer], and they rebelled
against the Sultan.

The Sultan came upon them suddenly, and attacked
them’, and took both Mas’iid and Karajah, the cup-
bearer, prisoners. After that occurrence the affairs of
Mas’iid 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 government’. |

ॐ * भैः * * गैः *

[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 copying’.
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 aythor states, for he
was then only an, infant in his frs¢ 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 tb be gathered from the original, and the
statement is incorrect. See note +, page 157.

7 Not even in the precious Paris copy, which M. Tascherau so fondly
imagines to be in our author’s own handwriting.

^

e
160 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

The context, in fact, proves that Minhaj-i-Saraj considered
Kazil-Arsalin to be the son and successor of Mas’iid ; and,
such being the case, the extent of our author’s knowledge
of history is impressively indicated.]

* * * * * नैः *

III. KAZIL-ARSALAN 8, 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 Rim. He ruled fora
short period and died.

IV. KULIJ-ARSALAN, SON OF KAZIL-ARSALAN.

Kulij-Arsalan was the son of Kazil-Arsalan, who was
the son of Mas’iid, son of Mahmid, 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
Rim, captured many fortresses and strongholds, performed
many heroic exploits, and acquired a great name on ac-
count of the infidel Afranj having been often worsted and
overthrown by him.

All the Sultans of Rim glory in their connexion with
him ; and he obtained the felicity of martyrdom. He was
interred at Kiiniah’, which is a large city in Rim.

ascended the throne at Kiiniah. He gained some successes over the Christians,
and, after a reign of eighteen years, died in 518H. 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 गातं Saljiiks, 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’iid, brother of Mahmiid, 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.

® Called Koniah by Europeans.

THE SALJOKIAH DYNASTY. 161

ए. *IZZ-UD-DIN, KAI-KA-0S, SON 07 KULIJ-ARSALAN.

Sultan ’Izz-ud-Din, Kai-K4-iis, 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 Kiiniah.

VI. KAI-KUBAD, SON OF KAI-KA-US,

Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Kai-Kubad, ascended the throne on
the decease of his father, Kai-K4-iis, and brought under his
sway the territories of Rim, and parts adjacent.

६६8 प्र. He wassucceeded by his son, V. "IZZ-UD-DIN, KULIJ-ARSALAN,
who ascended the throne at Kiniah. He annexed some of the terri-
tories of the Christians, and, after a reign of twenty years, died m 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 xz. Kai-Khusrau fled to the Christians. Suliman annexed Arz-i-Riim
and Kars [Kars], with their dependencies. He reigned twenty-four years, and
died in 602 प्र. His son, VIL. °IZZ-UD-DIN, KULIJ-ARSALAN IL,
son of Suliman, succeeded. He was an infant, and his uncle, Kai-Khusrav,
having been recalled from the Farang, in 603 H., succeeded, after a year, in
depriving him of the sovereignty, and Kulij-Arsalin 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 Istanbil [Constan-
tinople], after a reign of six years, in 609 H., but some authors say in the pre-
ceding year, and some, 610 H. This probably is the fifth monarch referred to
by our author, under the name of Kulij-Arsalin, as he is the only one
mentioned who attained the felicity of martyrdom in having been slain by the
Christians. His brother, ’Ald-ud-Din, Kai-Kubad, rose against him, but had
to submit, and was confined in a fortress.

Ghiyas-ud-Din, Kai-Khusrau, having been slain in battle with the Chris-
tians, was succeeded by his son, 1X. ’IZZ-UD-DIN, KAI-KA-US, but he
died 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-K4-iis, in 610 H., and is accounted one of the
greatest sovereigns of the dynasty. Hostilities arose between him and the

162 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

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 Shawwéil, in
the year 633 H., and he, likewise, was buried at Kiiniah.

VII. KAI-KHUSRAU, SON OF KAI-KUBAD.

Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Kai-Khusrau', ५252 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 Riim, 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 रिप्णा The Sultan, in such
manner as he was able, entered into friendly relations with
the Farang*. He was assembling an army upon the fron-
tiers 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 Yarligh [diploma] congratulating him,
and the Khalifah [for overthrowing a good Musalman perhaps] conferred upon
him the title of Sultin-i-A’gam, wa Kasim-i-Mu’aggam. He reigned twenty-
six years, and died in 634 प्र.) having been poisoned, dy 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-KHUSRAJU, the eleventh of the dynasty, is the man who poisoned his
own father, of whom our author gives such a glowing account.

ॐ An army of Mughals marched against him, under Taji, Niiyan, and the
Mughals obtained sway over the territory of Riim, 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 Suliman
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 Caris-
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 Ald-ud-Din, Kai-Kubad, as related in a
previous note.

THE SALJOKIAH DYNASTY. 163

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.*

He reigned for a period of eleven years, and named his
son, ’Izz-ud-Din, Kai-Ka-is, his heir and successor.

VIII. °IZZ-UD-DIN, KAI-KA-0S, SON OF KAI-KHUSRAU.

According to his father’s nomination as successor to the
sovereignty, Sultan ’Izz-ud-Din, Kai-K4a-iis, ascended the
throne of Riim in the beginning of the year 643 H., and
the Maliks and other great nobles submitted to his autho-
rity °.

As he was celebrated for his energy, his warlike accom-
plishments, and his nobility of mind, he strengthened his
frontiers on the side of Afranj ; and, asa matter of necessity,

+ Died in 644 H. according to Guzidah and Fasih-i, and in 642 H. accord-
ing 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-Din, Kai-Khusrau, was succeeded by his son, ’Izz-ud-Din, Kai-Ki-iis, 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, suc-
ceeded. It was he who despatched his brother, ’Ald-ud-Din, Kai-Kubad, to the
Court of Ab-gha [called also Ab-ka] Khan, where he continued for a consider-
able 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 terri-
tory ; and another brother, ’Izz-ud-Din, Kai-Ki-iis, fled to the camp of Barka
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-Dfn, having succeeded in obtain-
ing from the Mughal Ka’an, a grant of investiture for himself, on his return
into Rim, was the cause of great disorders ; and that ’Izz-ud-Din, Kai-Khusrau,
fled to Istanbil, 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 mean-
time, 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 Ghiyag-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 Mangii Khan, the
Mughal, so that he might, under terms of peace, be left in
possession of his dominions,

On Rukn-ud-Din, Kulij-Arsalan, the envoy and brother
of Sultan Kai-Ka-is, reaching the presence of Mangi
Khan, the Mughal, he preferred requests, and made solici-
tations contrary to the mandate of his brother. He sought
from Mangi Khan the territory of Riim for himself, and
likewise assistance from him to enable him to liberate that
country from the hands of his brother. Mangi Khan gave
him the daughter of the Ni-in* [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 Rimi territory, ’Izz-ud-Din,
Kai-Ka-iis, retired before them; and Kulij-Arsalan and
the Mughals became dominant over Riim. Kai-Ka-is
went to Aor Khan of Rim, and, having obtained aid frem
him, came and suddenly attacked the Mughals, and over-
threw them’. He captured his brother, and immured him
in a fortress.

After some time, he, Kulij-Arsalan, succeeded in escap-
ing, 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-DIN*, KULIJ-ARSALAN.

Trustworthy persons call him Rukn-ud-Din, Kulij-
Arsalan, and say that he is among the Mughals, along
with Hulai, the Accursed, in the direction of the terri-
tory of Azarbaijan. What the upshot of his affairs
may be no one can say; but, please God, may they end
well’!

6 Also written Niyan.

7 Who Aor [in one copy Uz] Khin of Riim might have been, it would
require our author to explain. No overthrow of the Mughals by the Saljiiks
of Rim is mentioned by other writers.

® One copy has Rukn-ud-Din.

9 This short account varies, and is somewhat less in some of the copies ot
the work. Hulaii is also styled Hulaki.

THE SALJUKIAH DYNASTY. 165

> नैः * नैः मैः * *

[The author now returns to the last of the Saljiks of
Irak’. All the MSS. are alike here.]

* नैः * * गैः * *

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 *.

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 Shah >.

His strength was so very great, that not a warrior of his
day could lift his mace * from the ground, and he was a
man of great stature and of awe-striking presence. Per-
sons 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 Sanjar*, 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 possession *.

1 All the copies are alike in this respect, and no hiatus whatever occurs in
the different MSS. to show it. I merely discovered it from the names and
events mentioned.

2 Not so: Tugbhril, 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-Arsalin.

3 In some copies this paragraph is placed at the end of his reign.

* See note ®, page 91.

5 He was Sanjar’s brother’s great-grandson, if not one generation farther
removed.

¢ 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 Sultan

166 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

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 following are two lines from a poem composed
on his escape fromconfine ment, and his rise to dominion and
power 7 :—

** The tidings reach’d Rai—‘ The Sultan is come !’—
And that august canopy of his is to Hamadan come.”

After Sultén 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 ofa 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-bak Iladd-giz, who was a slave of Sanjar’s, having
acquired power over "Irak, because és {sic] father was ruler of "Irak ; [and],
when he died, ‘hey 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 7, 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 note®] 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-Arsalin, his full brother, desired to take his place as Ata-bak to
Fughril. 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 note ®, page 171, and note® page 172.

THE SALJOKIAH DYNASTY. ग्ल

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 sub-
mitted to him. He took the head in his arms, and, along
with them, performed the customary mourning [for the de-

ceased]; and Sultan Takish, Khwarazm Shah, took pos-
session of ’Irak’®,

ठ Tughril’s death occurred in the following manner :-—Takish of Khwarazm,
having invaded ’Irak 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 Ininaj 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’i, 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 गण्य) 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 Saljiiks, who ruled over Khurasan and
Irak for a period of 161 years. This account of Tughril and his death is
widely different from our author’s. The Khalifah was hostile to Takish. See
under his reign, Section XVI

Our author does not give any account of the Saljiik dynasty ot Sham, or
of that which ruled so long in Kirmin

ˆ SECTION XIII.
ACCOUNT OF THE SANJARIYAH RULERS.

THE humblest of the servants of the Almighty’s Court,
Minhaj-i-Saraj, Jiirjani, states, that, when the period of
the dynasty of the Sanjariyah expired, and no son remained
unto Sultan Sanjar, nor brother’s sons’ [likewise], every one
of his slaves held some territory among the dominions of
Islam. These slaves assumed the title of Ata-baks [guar-
dians 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
empire *.

These Ata-baks were of different races. One was the
descendant of the Ata-bak, [latt-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 Rim. It was Sultan
Malik Shah, the father of Sultan Sanjar—not Sanjar himself—who made
several of his Mamliks 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 Mamlik
and Ghulan, 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 some-
times adopted by their masters, and were frequently made governors of pro-
vinces, 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 Saljiik, and acted as tutors and guardians of various young princes,
which the word Atad-bak means, from the Turkish a@/d, father, and daé, a lord,
a great man. Sanjar himself was put in charge of Khurasin in the thirteenth
year of his age, which signifies that the government was administered in his
name, and that his Ataé-bak carried on the administration.

THE SANJARIYAH DYNASTIES. 169

the territory of Fars; and, third, the Ata-baks of Mausil,
and the Maliks of Shim’. 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 Nar-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 Sanjar*. Such being the case, this
dynasty [of Ata-baks] has been classified into three
sections’.

FIRST DYNASTY.
THE SANJARIYAH MALIKS OF ’IRAK AND AZARBAJJAN.

Be it known that one night, at a convivial entertainment,
Sultan Sanjar conferred sovereignty upon three persons—
to Malik Utsuz* he gave the throne of Khwarazm ; to the
Ata-bak, Ilatt-giz, the throne of Azarbaijan; and the
throne of Fars to the Ata-bak, Sankir’.

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.

‘ A vast deal of information, certainly.

$ 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.

® Also written Utsiz, and in the Burhan-i-Kata’, Itsiz.

7 Sanjar’s father, Malik Shah, who certainly held a greater extent of terri-
tory than any other of the Saljiik sovereigns, bestowed territories, that is the
viceroyalty over them, upon his Mamliiks and officers. Khwirazm he gave to
Nish-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 2८
years before Sanjar was born. The latter, during his reign, in 535 H., endea-
voured to reduce Itsiz, the grandson of Niish-Tigin, who died when Sanjar
was in his twelfth year, but was unable, and Itsiz became an independent
sovereign. On Ak-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 of five years before Sanjar came to the throne of the
empire: he had only held Khurasan before. It was Mahmiid, nephew of
Sanjar, who gave Iladd-giz the widow of his brother in marriage, and the
government of Azarbaijan, as mentioned farther on. I have been thus par-
ticular here in order to show the value of our author's statements with respect

M

170 THE 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, Iatt-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 monu-
ments of his goodness still remain in that country.

to the Ata-baks, whatever may be the value of what he says about Hindiistan.
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, ¢ and क being interchangeable], was
the slave of Kamal-ud-Din, ’Ali, Samairam], the Wazir of Sultin Mabmiid,
son of Sultan Muhammad, son of Sultan Malik Shah. [See note 6, page 146.
As the author leaves out Mahmiid’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 Nih [Noah],
who gave it the name of Sim-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., I[ladd-giz became the servant of Sultin Mahmiid, during
whose reign he rose to the highest rank and dignity, and great power. Mab-
miid 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 sove-
reignty 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 Di-fn, and slew
10,000 Musalmins, carried off a number of captives, and burt the great
Masjid. Shams-ud-Din, Iladd-giz, took the field with 50,000 horse, at Tabriz,
in order to aid the ruler of Akhlat and the lord of Maraghah, and to revenge.
this invasion, which he effected in the following year.

THE SANJARIYAH DYNASTIES. 17I

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
Rim, under his subjection, and conquered a great part of
"Irak. He died after reigning a considerable time.

Il. THE ATA-BAK, MUHAMMAD, SON OF LLATT-GIZ.

The Ata-bak, Muhammad, was a great monarch, and
succeeded his father on the throne®. 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 per-
formed many gallant exploits in the direction of Karkh,
and reduced the territory, as far as the frontiers of Rim

nd 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 ’Irak', such as I-tagh-
mish, and Ada-mish, and others besides them, the whole
of which they held up tothe time of Khwarazm Shah, when
the territories of Irak passed out of their hands, and they
died.

In the length of his reign’, his justice, and his bene-
ficence, the Ata-bak, Muhammad, was a second Sanjar.

9 Iladd-giz was succeeded as Ata-bak by his son, Jahan Pahlawan, Mubam-
mad, by the widow of Sultan Tughril, 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 name, the Ata-bak was sovereign. Jahan Pahlawan then despatched
his full brother, Kazil-Arsalin, as his deputy, to Agarbaijan. 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.

॥ As the Ata-bak, Muhammad, Jahan Pahlawin, 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 statentents 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 2

1y2 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

III]. THE ATA-BAK, YOZ-BAK, SON OF MUHAMMAD, US-
SANJARI.

The Atd-bak, Viiz-bak, was sovereign of Azarbaijan.
Some have said’ that he was the brother of the Ata-
bak, Muhammad, son of the Ata-bak, [latt-giz, the San-
jari. |

Yiiz-bak wasa man of energy and experience, and reigned

over the territory of Azarbdijin for a considerable time.

8 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 bis brother, Kazil-Arsalin, not by Yiiz-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, Abi-Bikr, the son of
Jahan Pahlawé4n, in the territory of Agarbaijan only, and ’Irak passed to his
brother, Kutlagh Inanaj. In 587 H., the year after Abi-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 Tughril in his food ; but, having received a wam-
ing, 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 aa army upon Tugbril, and, in a battle which took place between
them, Tughril was slain, and the first dynasty of the Saljiiks 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 Saljiik sovereigns, and not ‘‘great monarchs” who ascended “thrones,”
as our author asserts.

The Ata-bak, Oz-hak, or Yiiz-bak [the name is written both ways], son ot
Jahan Pahlawan, was the /as¢ of the Ata-baks of Azarbaijan, and succeeded
Nusrat-ud-Din, Abi-Bikr, in the government of that terntory. He was the
Ata-bak whose city of Tabriz, Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, the last of the Khwarazmi
Sultans, invested. Yuiiz-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 sur-
rendered the city to him. Yiiz-bak died of grief and chagrin. For an account
of this circumstance, see the reign of Jalal-ud-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, Yiiz-bak, was defeated
and completely overthrown, and Azarbiaijan passed out of
his possession, and he died.

IV. THE ATA-BAK, ABU-BIKR, SON OF MUHAMMAD.

The Ata-bak, Abi-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 be-
neficently ,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 Atad-bak, Yiiz-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, SANKUK ‘4, US-SANJARI.

As soon as the throne of Fars* was conferred upon the
Ata-bak, Sankur, by Sultan Sanjar, Sankur brought that

+ Guzfdah says that Ak-Sankur [turned into ‘‘ Ascansar” by Gibbon], who
held Halab of Sultan Malik Shah, is the progenitor of these Ata-baks of Fars.

5 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 Badshah. 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, and that Sultan Sanjar bestowed the

`

174 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

territory under subjection’, 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 Khurasin, made raids into that territory, and committed
great ravages, until the Saljiiks 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, Khiizistan, Luristan, and parts
adjacent. From the downfall of the Dialamah dynasty to the rise to indepen-
dent 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
Saljik sovereigns. The first of these was Fazl, son of Hasan, who in 459 प.
after Alb-Arsalan, the previous year, had inflicted chastisement upon the Shaban-
karah, seized Mansiir-i-Filad Sutin [Pillar of Steel], the last of the Dilami
sovereigns of the family of Biiwiah, 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 Khumir-Tigin. To
him succeeded the Ata-bak, Jawli [also written Chawli], who reduced the
power ofthe 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, Mangiti [also called Mangiis], hisson. Subsequently,
the Ata-bak, Biizibah [also written Fiizabah, / being interchangeable with 4],
was made governor by Sultan Mas’iid, son of Muhammad, sor of Malik Shah,
Saljiki. He rebelled against Mas’iid, son of Mabmiid, and was taken in an
engagement with him, and put to death in 542 H. After this, Sultan Mas’id
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-Tigin, son of Maudiid, son of Zangi, son of Ak-Sankur, 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 some-
what different, but to the same purpose. It says, ‘‘ Biizabah, having rebelled
against Sultan Mas’iid in 541 H., was defeated before Hamadan, taken
prisoner, and put to death in §43 H. The brother’s son of Bizabah, Sankur,
son of Maudiid, in revenge for his uncle’s death, seized upon the territory of
Fars.” All these events took place in Sanjar’s difetime. Sankur assumed the
title of Mugaffar-ud-Din, and ruled for a period of thirteen years, and died in
556 प्र. 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’iid died in
547 H., and Malik Shah succeeded. See latter part of previous note, and
note © page 146, and note 5, 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. Hereigned for a lengthened period,and
died.

II. THE ATA-BAK, ZANGI?7, 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 do-
minions 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 ren-
dered feasible ; and he held. the sovereignty of Fars for a
long period, and died’.

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 arid 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 died’.

7 Our author here again has made a great blunder. There were two
Zangis and two Tuklahs [or Duklahs, क being interchangeable with 4. The
first, according to the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, Sankur’s brother, Tuklah,
having become suspicious of his brother’s intentions, retired among the Fagla-
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 §53 H.; after which Sankur again obtained power, and in 556 प्र. he died.
He was succeeded by his brother, Zangt, son of Maudid.

8 Zangi, son of Maudiid, only reigned for a short period, and died in the
following year, §57 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 Arsalin, son
of Tughril, son of Muhammad, son of Malik Shah.

9 Tuklah died in 590 H., but the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh says in 591 H.

176 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

IV. THE ATA-BAK, SA’D, SON OF ZANGI}.

The At&-bak, Sa’d, was a great monarch, and ascended
the throne of Fars after the decease of his uncle [the Ata-
bak, Duklah], and brought the different parts of that
country under his rule, in the manner which has been
described’. ।

He was a most just and intrepid sovereign ; and trust-
worthy 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, Yiiz-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 march-
ing towards the same point from opposite directions, when
Sultan Muhammad*, Khwarazm Shah, arrived [with an
army] upon the frontier of "Irak. He obtained informa-
tion 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, Yiiz-bak, and he [Sultan Muhammad] ad-
vanced with his troops towards the Ata-bak, Sad.

When the troops of Khwarazm Shah came in sight‘, 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
Zangi, and son of Sankur, son of Maudiid, 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 Zangi, 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 .
Maudiid, who is fourth according to our author.

2 Not mentioned in any other place in the work.

$ Sultan ’Ald-ud-Din, Muhammad.

‘ The Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh and Jahan-Ara say this affair took place on
the confines of Rai.

THE SANJARIYAH DYNASTIES. 177

bak, Yiiz-bak, and at once marshalled his ranks in order,
and attacked the Sultan’s army, and threw it into confu-
sion. Suddenly, one of the champions of Khwarazm Shah's
army joined spears with him ; and the name of that cham-
pion was Kashkah‘, who was the [Sultan's] Amir-i-Akhir
[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, man-
liness, and intrepidity, of the Atad-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 Shahi 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, Abi-Bikr, had taken
possession of the territory of Fars, and had read the Khut-
bah in his own 72106. `

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,

5 In some few copies Kashili, in others Kashfki.

6 In the year 603 H., Sa’d was taken prisoner on the confines of Rai by the
troops of Sultan ’Ald-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 ’Irak, 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-Tawarikh 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.

178 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL.

reached .the frontier of Fars, the Atad-bak, Abi-Bikr, ad-
vanced to oppose them, and the father and son came to
blows. The Ata-bak, Sa’d, wounded his son, Abi-Bikr, in
the face with his sword, and the ranks of the Farsi 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
Mughals’.

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 apart-
ments, 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 trust-
worthy 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 pro-
vince in question amounted, every year, to three hundred
and sixty thousand golden dinars*, 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 Ghiyag-ud-Din, kept his death secret, and sent Sa’d’s signet-ring to the
Kala’-i-Safid, and released Sa’d’s son, Abii 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 com-
mand ‘the Ata-bak, Abi Bikr, is his heir,’” and he succeeded accordingly.
The Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh says that Abii-Bikr was confined in the fortress
of Istakhur. Guzidah, on the other hand, says that, when Sultan Jalal-ud-
Din, the last of the Khwarazm Shahis, entered Fars, on his return from Hind,
he set Abi-Bikr at liberty. Ydafa-i says much the same.

8 I rather expect this is much more than af/ 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!

४.१ THE ATA-BAK, ABU-BIKR, SON OF SA’D.

The Ata-bak, Abi-Bikr’, 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 apreement 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, Nishapiri, to enable Sa’d to re-possess
himself of that half. |

The Ata-bak, Abi-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 enemies. 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, Abi-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 Farsi army gave way. Sa’d took his son, Abi-
Bikr, prisoner, and put him in confinement.

‘When Sa’d departed this life, they brought forth Abi-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
Fars*], and took the capital of the country of Kish‘,

9 He is the eighth, not the fifth, of the Ata-baks of Fars.

1 Shaykh Sa'di dedicated his Gulistin and Bostan to this prince.

ॐ See page 178, and note 7.

* He annexed the greater part of the tracts Iying on the side of the Gulf of
Persia, such as Hurmiiz, Katif, Bahrain, "Umman, and Lab-s4 [ib], the
Al-Hasa [1.4] seemingly of Ibn-i-Batiitah, which he says was previously
called Hajar. The Khwirazm Shahi dynasty, at this time, had fallen.

‘ Kish is described in old geographical works as a city, ona hill, on an

180 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

[together with] Bahrain and Hurmiiz. 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 tn-
bute and revenue to them, and brought reproach and dis-
honour upon himself by becoming a tributary of the infidels
of Chin‘, and became hostile to the Dar-ul-Khilafat.

Up to the time this history was written, affairs are in
this state’. 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
Dir-ul-Khilafat, and the house of ’Abbas, for the sake of
Muhammad, his family, and the whole of his companions
and friends !

THIRD DYNASTY.
THE SANJARIYAH MALIKS OF NISHAPOR.
I. MALIK MU-AYYID, US-SANJARI.

Malik Mu-ayyid was a slave of Sultan Sanjar’s, and a
Turk’. He held the government of the territory of

island, in the sea of Fars, called Hurmiz ; and is said to be so called from its
resemblance, when viewed from the hills, to a quiver for arrows, which Kish
signifies. The word is sometimes spelt Kish, and sometimes Kesh. See note 3,
7. 46.

5 At the time of the interregnum after the death of Changiz Khan, Abi-
Bikr sent his brother, Tahamtan, to the presence of ताल Ka-an with rich
presents, and received from him a charter, and the title of Kudlagl Khan.
He likewise obtained a charter from Hulakii Khan, and reigned for a period
of thirty-three years.

6 The Ata-bak, Abi-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-ayyidiah dynasty was Mu-ayyid-ud-Din, who was one
of the slaves of Sultan Sanjar. As he was the A’fnah-dar, or mirror-bearer,
to that monarch, he became known by the name of Mu-ayyid-i-A’inah. After
Sultan Sanjar’s death, he for a short time pretended tou be obedient to Rukn-
ud-Din, Mahmiid, the son of Muhammad Khan, son of Bughra Khan, who had
married Sanjar’s sister, who, when Sanjar fell into the hands of the Ghuzz tribe,
was raised to sovereignty in Khurasan ; but he soon threw off his disguise, and,
having seized Mahmiid, 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 subsequently

THE SANJARIYAH DYNASTIES. 181

Nishapir, and the parts adjacent, such as Jam, Bakghurz,
Shangan, Sabras*, Ja-jurm, Shiristanah, Khijan, and
other cities and towns which are dependencies of
Nishapir.

He was a Malik of good disposition ; and, when the San-
jari dynasty passed away, Malik Mu-ayyid, the sovereign
of Khwirazm, the Maliks of Irak, and the Sultans of
(गपा, 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.

17. MALIK TUGHAN SHAH, SON OF MU-AYYID.

Malik Tughan Shah was a monarch of blooming pro-
spects, 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
companions’, |

When the territory of Nishapir 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’

एप, according to Fagib-i, in the same year], in concert with Sultan Shah,
Khwirazmi, the rival of Sultan Takigh, 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 Khwarazmi sovereign. See reign of Takigh, V. of the Khwarazm
Shihis.

8 Some of these names are rather doubtful. Some copies have Sangan, and
Shagan, and Sabragh, Bihras, Siran, 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 ’Ald-ud-Din, Takish, near Sarakhs,
after Sultin Shah had returned from Gir 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 Takigh, and also from the sove-
reign of Ghir, but without avail ; and Sultan Shah possessed himself of Tis
and Sarakhs. TJughan died in 581 H.

182 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.

Ill. SANJAR SHAH, SON OF TUGHAN SHAH.

When Tughan Shah ascended the throne of Nishapir,
he entered into connexion with the Maliks of (गुप्ता, 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 Nishapiir accordingly came
{into Ghir], and the knot of that marriage contract was
tied.

When Tughian Shah died, Takish, Khwarazm Shih,
marched an army from Khwarazm, and advanced to Nisha-
pur, and possessed himself of that city and territory,
seized Sanjar Shah, and carried him away to Khwarazm'.

Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din released his daughter, Malikah-i-
Jalali’, from her betrothal; and, according to the statement
of Imam 3170", he gave her in marriage, in (ता, to
Malik ’Ala-ud-Din®, Sanjar Shah died in Khwarazm.

४ 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,
Takigh 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 posses-
sion of by the Khwarazm Shahi sovereign.

2 A title, not her name.

ॐ In three copies Ziya-ud-Din. `

SECTION XIV.
THE MALIKS OF SIJISTAN AND NIMROZ.

AS this Tabakat’ is being written in the name of the great
Sultan, the king of kings [over] both Turk and ’Ajam,
Nasir-ud-Duny4 wa ud-Din, Abi-l-Muzaffar, Mahmiid, 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, Jirjani, would state
that he desires, to the extent of his capability, to commit
to writing what has come to his hearing, and what he has
himself seen respecting the Maliks of Nimroz.

They were able and just monarchs, virtuous, and cherishers
of the indigent, whose country, from the Sanjari 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 bene-
diction 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 History’.

1 The word Tabak4t 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 ~~

2 As in scores of other places, our author is also very incorrect here. He
has already given usa Section on the Suffariins 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 Laig, subse-
quent to his captivity, ruled over Fars [for a time] and Sijistan, although these
events took place some ¢hree 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 ome and the
same family, whatever claims Khalaf may have had to descent from the Kai-

184 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

I. TAHIR, SON OF MUHAMMAD.

Trustworthy persons have related, that, when the
dominion and sovereignty of the Mahmidi dynasty passed

anians. Our author appears here to greater disadvantage, as an historian,
than even in his accounts of the Saljiiks 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 Laig, was defeated under the walls of Balkh by Ismail,
Samanf, in 287 H., as related at page 25, his grandson, TAHIR, son of Mu-
hammad, 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
Khalifah’s officers, but was subsequently obliged to relinquish it. Subse-
quently, 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 xame is said to
be Saikzi, Sabkri, Sankrf, and the like ; but further research, since note §,
page 34, was written, tends to show that this could not have been intended for
the same of the slave, but of his race. He was a Sigizi, one of a people often
mentioned in the following pages. ‘‘Sigiz, and Sigizt, is the name of a lofty
mountain [range of hills ?] in Zabulistan, and the people dwelling thereabout
are called after that mountain, Sigizis and Sigizfan. 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 7, 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
Paftins, 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 ’Ali, entered Fars [from Sijistan],
and the rebel Sigizi slave fled ; but, being supported by an army sent by the
Khalifah under his general, Minis-i-Khadim, he was enabled to march against
Lais. Although Laigs made a gallant and vigorous dash upon their forces near
Ujan, he was unsuccessful, and fell a captive into their hands, and the Sigizf
again acquired possession of Fars. Soon after, however, the Khalifah had to
despatch Miinis into Fars again, as the Sigizf 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 Khurasadn ; and
Muhammad was entrusted with the administration of the affairs of Fars and
Kirman,

THE MALIKS OF SIJISTAN AND NIMROZ. 185

over to the family of Saljik, the nobles who were exercising
authority in the country of Sijistan acquired power, and,

and, as he had succeeded in making prisoner of Muhammad, son of ’Alj,
brother of Ya’kiib, ’Umro, and Mu’addil, sons of: Lais, and the Sigizi also,
they were despatched to Baghdad, by the Khalifah’s directions, and entered
it paraded on elephants ; and rich presents were sent by the Khalifah to the
Samani prince, in return for this service.

In 299 प्त. [some say in 298 H.], Lais, son of ’Ali, died in Fars, and his
brother, MU’ADDIL, assumed the sovereignty over Sijistin, and drove out the
Samini governor, Abii Salih-i-Manstir, Samani, cousin of Amir Abi Nasr-i-
Abmad, on which, the latter despatched a large army under some of his
greatest nobles, such as Husain ’Ali, Marw-ar-Riidi, Ahmad, son of Sahl,
Muhammad, son of Mugaflar, Simjiir-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’kiib, son of Muhammad, son of
?Umro, son of Lais-i-Suffar, rose in Sijistan, and assumed the sovereignty.
Amir Abii Nasr-i-Abmad, Samani, again despatched a force under Husain
” Ali, Marw-ar-Ridi, 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 teen the son of Muhammad, son of Khalaf,
son of Abii Ja’far, son of Lais [which Lais is not mentioned, but, if the
Brazier be meant, Abit Ja’far must have been a f/t/ son, but no doubt he was
2 grandson], who was living in great distress and misery at Hirat, chanced to
come under the notice of Amir Abi-l-Hasan-i-Nasr, son of Ahmad, the fifth
of the Sam4ni rulers, who bestowed upon Ahmad-i-Suffar the government of

Fasih-1, 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’kib, sons 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-1, Shah
Malik, son of Ya’kiib-i-Lais, Suffari, with a body of Sigizis, attempted to
gain possession of Hirat, but after a time left, and proceeded to Fiishanj. IIe
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.
Simjir held Hirat on that occasion.

Ahmad was succeeded as ruler of Sijistin 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
retumed from the pilgrimage, he would not allow him to resume his authority.
Khalaf proceeded to the Court of Mansiir, son of Nib, Samani, the cighth of
that dynasty, who sent a force with Khalaf, which, after ousting Tahir and
reinstating Khalaf, returned to Bukhara.

N

186 THE 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 those territories.

Tahir now returned, and again dispossessed Khalaf, who, a second time,
received aid from Mansir, Samini; 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
Mansiir’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
when the Samani power was much weakened, and in the same year that
Is-hak, son of Alb-Tigin, the Turk, encountered Abi-Ali-i-Lawik, previously
ruler of Ghaznin.

Nothing more is mentioned about Khalaf except his rebellion against Nih,
Sam§ni, and the seven years’ investment of his capital, until the year 390 प्र.)
in which year, Bughrajak, the uncle of Mahmiid of Ghaznin, was slain by
Khalaf’s son, Tahir, at Fiishanj. On this, Mahmiid 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 Sijistin 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
Mahmiid of Ghaznin.

Mahmid, 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 Mahmiid, addressed him by the name of
५१ Sultan” [see note 5, page 76], and his life was spared. The district of
Jiizjanan was assigned for his future residence, and, with his family and
dependents, he left Sijistin for ever and proceeded thither. Sijistin was
conferred by Mahmiid upon his brother Nasr, and that territory continued for
a considerable time in the possession of the Ghaznawis

In 398 H. Khalaf was found to have been intriguing against Mahmiid 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 Mahmiid
directed that his property and effects should be made over to his son, Abi-]-
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 note§8, 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 Sistin is called the Sarie-i-Tahiri after him. This is the first of the rulers
of Nimroz by our author's account, but the séxé# of chroniclers of authority,
after Ya’kitb an.l’Umro, the founders of the Suffarian dynasty. A few authors

THE 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 Tahir; and, in the service of that monarch,
he gave proofs of his loyalty and good faith. The Sarae-
i-Tahin, or Tahiri Palace, in Sistan, which was the seat
of government, was founded by him. He instituted regu-
lations 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’ts. 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 Mihtar*® 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 intermis-
sion and without wane.

II. MALIK TAJ-UD-DIN, ABU-L-FATH + 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, Saljiki, 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.

3 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-Din, Abi-l-Fazl-i-Nagr, son of Tahir, by others. He suc-
ceeded to the sovereignty in 480 H. He was just, valiant, and beneficent ; and
was loyal to the utmost degree towards Sultan Sanjar.

N 2

188 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

He accompanied Sultan Sanjar in the campaign
against Khitaé, and took along with him the troops of
Sijistan ; and, when Sultan Sanjar’s army was defeated,
Malik Taj-ud-Din, Abi-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 stocks* and secured with a heavy chain, and he
was kept in imprisonment.

A number of trustworthy persons* 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 प्र. arrived in the city of Sistan’, and, in

§ This battle having taken place in 534 H. [some say in 536 H.], and Taj-ud-
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 zameless.

7 I have constantly noticed, in several authors, that, when mentioning the
country, the names Nimroz and Sijistin 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 Sistfn was the capital ; while travellers, such as Pottinger and Christie,
. and other European authors also, say that Dooghak, or Jalalabad, is the
capital. ‘‘ Who shall decide when doctors disagree?” The author of the
MASALIK WA MAMALIK, who visited it before our author wrote, says that
Zaranj 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

Siji

tioned in that work.

THE MALIKS OF SIJISTAN AND NIMROZ. 189

the great mosque there, saw that chain and stoeks; and
whoever may have reached that great city, will also have
seen them.

Malik Taj-ud-Din, Abi-l-Fath, was a learned and en-
lightened sovereign ; and they 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 time’, and died ; and his
mausoleum is at Sistan.

III. MALIK-US-SA°IS®, SHAMS-UD-DIN MUHAMMAD, SON OF
TAJ-UD-DIN.

When Malik Taj-ud-Din, Abi-I-Fath', 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 Sarde-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 toa
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
Saljik 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..th,

9 Torturer, executioner.

1 It was with this ruler that Mu’izz-ud-Din, Ghiiri, the conqueror of Hin.
distin, passed one cold season, after he and his brother, Ghiyas-ud-Din, bad
been yeleased from confinement.

190 THE TABAKAT.I.NASIRI.

Minhaj-ud-Din, "Usman, Jurjani, 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 [द्वा Awhad-ud-Din, Bukhari, one of
the most eminent men of Khurasan. He was also one of
thé incomparable ones of the world, and one of the col-
leagues of the Khwajah—a second Imam Nu’man’*—Abi-
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 emissions*. 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 emi-
nence, 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 recol-
lection.”

At this rejoinder, Maulana Kawam-ud-Din was com-

2 The celebrated Imam, Abii Hanifah of Kiifah, was called Nu’man.
ञ Emissions in slecp, &c., requiring ablution afterwards.

THE MALIKS 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 hiscouch*. That day Imam Awhad-ud-Din was
made himself again by this rejoinder of Maulana Minhaj-
ud-Din, who also gave &/at to that dogma likewise; and
that monarch showed abundant kindness and consideration
towards Maulana Minhaj-ud-Din.

Malik Shams-ud-Din reigned for a considerable time,
and was put to death, and passed away +.

IV. MALIK-US-SA’ID, TAJ-UD-DIN-I-HARAB, SON OF
MUHAMMAD 9.

Malik Taj-ud-Din was a great, learned, and just sovereign,
and a cherisher of his subjects. He had a number of chil-
dren, and, during his lifetime, two of his sons succeeded to
the throne of Nimroz, as will, please God, be hereafter
mentioned 7. |

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 pos-
sessed great influence ; and, when the tyranny and oppres-
sion 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-Mulik by Fasit-1, and Malik
Taj-ud-Din-i-Harab, son of ’Izz-ul-Mulik, 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 ?

192 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
Hashnie®. 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, ’Izz-ul-Mulik, was still
living, but deprived of the blessing of sight’.

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 Ghir and Khurasan, and became feudatory to them,
and read the Khutbah' in the name of the Sultans of
Ghir. He used his utmost endeavours in the support and
encouragement of ecclesiastics and learned men’, 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-Minhaj°

8 Rather doubtful, as the MSS. are 21] at variance here. Some have Hashiie,
others Khushiidi and Hushniidi, some Hasiie and Haghniie. 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
Ghir.

2 * [६ must have been in this reign, not during that of the Blood-Shedder, that
our author’s grandfather met with such a good reception at the capital of
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-Minhij.

THE MALIKS 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,
Muhammag-i-Sam ; and on the second occasion‘, when he
was proceeding from the presence of that monarch to
present himself at the Court of the Khalifah, Un-N§sir-
ud-Din ’Ullah, by way of Mukr§an, 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-Din, ’Ugm4n, his heir-apparent ; and,
subsequently, when Nasir-ud-Din died, he nominated an-
other 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

$. MALIK NASIR-UD-DIN, ’USMAN-I-HARAB, SON OF MALIK
TAJ-UD-DIN.

Malik Nasir-ud-Din was a just monarch‘, and ’Ayishah
Khiatin, the daughter of the Malik of Khuradsan, ’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-
Din‘, Muhammad-i-Sam, in Khuradsan. At the time of the
success at Nishapir, 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.

ॐ He died during his father’s lifetime ; consequently, he is not entitled to be

8111

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.

6 His suzerain. See account of Ghiyas-ud-Din in Section XVII.

194 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

6
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-GHAZI, YAMIN-UD-DAULAH WA UD-DIN
BAHRAM SHAH, SON? OF TAJ-UD-DIN-I-HARAB.

Yamin-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,
"Ali, 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-Balich—the Cupola of the Baliich*—on the east
side [of Sistan], at this place, a deputation received him, and

7 The grandson, not the son of Taj-ud-Din. Bahram Shah was the son of
Nasir-ud-Din. See note 5, preceding page.

3 One copy has Balit, but the rest have Baliijand Baliich. The place is not
mentioned in the ancient accounts of the country. Baliit means an oak.

THE MALIKS OF SIJISTAN AND NIMROZ. 195

brought him to the city ; and’ 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’im’ and Bazar-i-Farod, he alighted and took up
his quarters’.

The author delivered a discourse in the private audience
hall of that dignified sovereign, within the Sarde-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 Kuhistan*, and carried on
hostilities against them for a long time. Imam Sharaf-ud-
Din, Ahmad‘ 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 WA MAMALIK to be correct. See
also note 7, p. 188.

3 The chief place of which is Ka’in, formerly of considerable importance.
He led troops against those heretics upon several occasions.

+ Several other authors, and among them the author of the Nusakb-i-
Jahan-Ari, say, that Abi 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-NASIRI.
५‹ 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 Kuhistin wage,
The globe is with justice, with equity, and requital, full.
Thou art the king of mid-day ४, and of thy day’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 6.72

After Yamin-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, had reigned for a
considerable time, the calamities attending the irruption of
the infidel Mughals arose, and Khurdsan became desolated
by them, and the kingdoms of {slam fell.

There is a fortress on the confines of Neh, in the terri-
tory of Nimroz, which they call the castle of Shahanshahi ;
and the nephew of Bahram Shah, the son of Nasir-ud-Din,
’Usman, had sold the fortress of Shahanshahi to the here-
tics of Kuhistan, and it’ was in their possession. Yamin-
ud-Din, Bahram!$hih, 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.,ona
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.

Vil. MALIK NUSRAT-UD-DIN, 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. 187.

6 Like all translated poetry, these lines, which are fine enough in the on-
ginal, 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 confinement’ [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-Din*.
‘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 Nus-
rat-ud-Din and his brother, Rukn-ud-Din, an encounter
ensued, in which Nusrat-ud-Din was defeated, and he
retired into Khurasan and Ghir.

He returned a second time to Sistan, and liberated the
country from the hands of Rukn-ud-Din; but, at last, as
2 body of troops of the infidels of Chin and Mughals?
advanced against Sistan, it fell into the hands of those

infidels, and Nusrat-ud-Din obtained martyrdom, and
died’,

VIN. MALIK RUKN-.UD-DIN, MAHMUD, SON OF YAMIN-UD-
DIN, BAHRAM SHAH.

Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Mahmid, was a prince harsh, san-
guinary, 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 Rimi 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 Shih, rcquesting him to des-
Patch 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.

१ 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, Mahmid, 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 Fiishanj, and arrived
near Hirat, Malik Rukn-ud-Din, while engaged in a drink-
ing 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 Tirmiz?. Chingiz’
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 martyrdom‘.

IX. MALIK SHIHAB-UD-DIN, MAHMUD, SON OF HARAB‘*.

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.

$ Ile is said to have been the son of Malik Nasir-ud-Din, ’Usman, brother

THE MALIKS OF SIJISTAN AND NIMROZ. 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,
"151021५, 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, Mahmiid, was mar-
tyred, and his brother, Amir ’Ali-i-Zahid’ [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 4, 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 Shah’? ;
and, at the period that the Sultans of Ghir took Nishapir',
Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin, with his cousin, Malik Firiz-i-
I-yal-timish, came into Hindistan.

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 Mahmid-i-Harab in others.

५ See page 196.

7 Neither of these persons is mentioned in Jahan-Ara as ruler in Sijistin,
but Binal-Tigin is. Rauzat-us-Safa, copying from our author, of course men-
tions the two first, but not the last. Shihib-ud-Din, Mahmiid, encountered
Shah ’Usmin and Binal-Tigin, and was slain in battle ; but Fasih-i, under
the events of the year 646 H., mentions a Malik ’Ali, ruler of Nimroz, having
been put to death by Malik Shams-ud-Din, 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 JW for ५५

9 Which is not said. Some copies have Sultans. Rauzat-us-Safa says
Sultin Muhammad. He certainly was of the same tribe as the Khwarazm
Shahi rulers.

+ See under reign of Ghiyis-ud-Din, Ghiiri, Section XVH.

200 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

of Malik Karim-ud-Din, Hamzah, at Nag-awr? of Siwalikh.
All at once he sought an opportunity, slew Khwajah
Najib-ud-Din ; and an elephant, which was there, he sent
on*{n advance’, and then set out towards (वालो) + and
joined Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Kubajah®, When Sultan
Jalal-ud-Din, Mangabarni, Khwarazm Shah, reached the
territory of Sind, Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin, left Ochchah
and went and joined Sultan Jalal-ud-Din. He accompanied
him into the territory of Kirman; and, in that country,
the district of Khik and Lik® was entrusted to his charge.

As the rival Maliks of Nimroz were struggling against
each other, the grandson of Nagir-ud-Din, Usman, whom
they styled by the name of Shah, sought assistance from
the Malik’ of Kirman, who was the chamberlain, Burak,
Khita’. 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 the
authority himself, and took possession of the territory and
city of Neh on his own account’.

A body of people from the city of Sistin presented
themselves before him, and sought his help and assistance,
saying that, as they had killed’ Malik Shihab-ud-Din, and

2 The proper mode of spelling this word, on the authority of the Shams-ul-
Lughat and others, is po |—Nag-awr ; and Siwalikh is said to have been the
name applied to the territory. Karim-ud-Din was the governor of the pro-
vince.

$ 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 tz :1—Uchchah, and at times t= —Uchchah, according to native
authorities ; but which English writers have turaed 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 [पोर and Kiik, Jik and Lik, and Hiik and Kurk or Kark,
and Khitk and Kik. These places are not mentioned in MASALIK WA
MAMALIK. The Gowk of modern maps probably.

7 Styled Burak Ahan in one or two copies of the text. He was the brother
of Taniko of Taraz, the Amir-ul-Umra of Gir Khan, who was defeated in
battle and taken prisoner by Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah. See under
the tenth sovereign, Section XVI.

४ All the copies of the text, with two exceptions, say Ae did render assistance
to Shah "Usman ; but the only assistance he appears to have afforded was in
joining Shah ’Usmian to overcome his rival, Shah Makmid ; 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 7, 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 Khiaesar' of
Ghiir, despatched this, his dependent, Minhaj-i-Saraj, from
(प्रा, on a mission to Malik Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin. The
author found him at the city of Farah, in Dawari’, and
waited,on him ; and a firm compact was concluded.

After returning from thence, and reaching Ghir 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 returned to Sistan
again, and overthrew a body of Khiriji schismatics who
had revolted against him.

In the year 623 H., the author of this work was des-
patched a second time’, and he proceeded again to his pre-
sence; and, after that, Taj-ud-Din came himself into Ghir,
and took possession of the fortresses of Tilak 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 Arg‘ of Sistin. 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—Khaesar
and Khaisar.

2 This word is used in all the copies of the text, with one exception,
which has (५१19 [dariie or dari-i]. This can scarcely refer to the district of
Dawar [not Dawari], which lies more to the east. In the MASALIK WA
MAMALIK the ७०, [wadI 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 Mulabidahs,” towards the end of the Section above mentioned.

ॐ The author contradicts himself, not an unusual thing, in the Section referred
to in the previous note, which see.

* The Burhan-i-Ka-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 ferritory, not the city,
of Sistin. See note 8, p. 34, and the account of the investment of Sistan
[as our author calls it] by the Mughals in Section X XIII., where the situation
of this fortress is mentioned. ।

0

202 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

defended the place ; and the whole of his followers with him
in that stronghold, consisting of Ghiris, Tilakis, Sigizis’,
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
९011५, and at the foot of the walls of that castle they mar-
tyred him. The mercy ofthe Almighty be upon him!

* See fourth paragraph to note > pp. 183-4.
6 Also called Sufed-Koh. Our author was once detained within the walls of
his fortress by Binal-Tigin.

SECTION XV.
THE KURDIAH MALIKS OF SHAM.

MINHAJ-I-SARAJ, Jirjani, the humblest of the servarts 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,
Misr, Hijaz, and Yaman, who were Sultans in Islam, and
Maliks and warriors of the true faith, of great renown, and
who, subsequent to the Sanjari and Saljiki 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 NOR-UD-DIN, MAHMUD-I-ZANGI}

Sultan Nir-ud-Din, Mahmid-i-Zangi, was one of the
Ata-baks of Mausil; and the Ata-baks of Mausil were

1 Sultan Nir-ud-Din was not the first of this dynasty, neither was he a Kurd,
hor one of the Atd-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 ex-
posed 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 2

204 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

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
Hindistan, and at the capital, Dihli, he was known as the
Khudawand-Zadah of Mausil. He was of the same pro-
genitors’ as the august Sultan, Shams-ud-Dunya wa ud-
Din [J-yal-timish]’.

Hajib, according to some. In 478 H., the vear before Sanjar was born, Taj-ud-
Daulah, Abi Sa’id, surnamed Tutish, son of Alb-Arsalan, the Saljiik, 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 प्र. Ak-Sankur was slain.

He was succeeded by his son, "IMAD-UD-DIN, ZANGI, who had
previously held the government of Baghdad under Sultin Mabmiid, son of
Muhammad, son of Malik Shah, Saljiki; but, in 521 H. [some say 522 H.],
through the efforts of the Khalifah of Baghdad, Mustarshid, ’Imad-ud-Din,
Zangi, was appointed to the government of ’Irak-i-’Arab, the capital of which
was Mausil—so called from being situated between ’Irak and the Jazirah
[Mesopotamia], and derived from the ’Arabic Jo; —and Sultan Mahmiid
sent two of 1015015, Alb-Arsalan and Farrukh Shah, to Zangtf to be brought
up; hence he was styled Atad-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’ir, and Mausil. Zangi was slain while besieging the
fortress of Ja’bar. He was killed, some say, by his own slaves, in Muharram
[Yafa’f says in Rabf’-ul-Akhir], 541 H. We now come to Nir-ud-Din, whom
our author places as first of the Kurdish sovereigns of Sham.

On the death of Zangi, his two sons, Saif-ud-Din-i-Ghazi, and ABU-L-
KASIM, NUR-UD-DIN, MAHMOD, 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. Nir-
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 Riim, and numerous strongholds in the
country of the Farangs [the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem], more than fifty in
number in all. He sent the Amir, Asad-ud-Din, Sher-i-Koh, on ८4८ dif-
ferent occasions into Misr ; and, on the third occasion, Salah-ud-Din, Yisuf,
became the Deputy of Niir-ud-Din in that country. See under Salah-ud-Din,
p. 214.

> The word used is Ui, ७ another signification of which, but not applicable
here I think, is the affinity between two men who have married two sisters.

$ And so, the first-—the 7urk of Khiti—is here made “a Kurd,” while his

THE 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
Shih; and, that he himself was the eighth in descent from
that Turk of Khita previously mentioned.

In short, Sultan Nir-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 Niir-ud-Din left numerous marks of his goodness
behind him in the territory of Sham‘, and reigned for
very many years‘,

At the time of his death he left one son, named ’Ali,
who succeeded him.

II. MALIK-US-SALIH, ’ALI*, SON OF MAHMOD.-I-ZANGI.

Malik-us-Salih, ’Ali, ascended the throne of Sham at the
city of Damashk ; and the great nobles and chieftains paid

brother Zurs—the slave king of Dihli—is turned into ‘‘a Patan,” i.e. an
Afghan, by Dow and his copyists.

4 Niir-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 Damasbk, 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 Damagbk.

$ His descendant, apparently, did not know how long his ancestor reigned.

6 Nir-ud-Din does not appear to have had any son called ? $ 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-SALIH, then a mere child, being
only in his eleventh year. Salah-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 accessiun, when in his twelfth year, Salah-ud-
Din, 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 benee
factor’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 ; and, with him, this branch
terminated. :

If this account be compared with our author's, the absurdity and incorrect-
ness 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
Mausgil and several other dynasties, he gives no account.

206 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

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 Nir-ud-Din
reached Misr—and at this time the sovereignty of Misr
had passed to Sultan Salah-ud-Din, Yisuf—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 Sham’; 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-ugs-Salih, who had also been an old follower
of his father, Sultan Nir-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 Salah-ud-Din and
Saif-ud-Din-i-Ghiazi, the latter of whom sent his troops to aid his brother
’Izz-ud-Din, Mas’iid [they were sons of Maudiid, sons of Zangi, cousins of
Malik-us-Salih], who advanced to Halab, and, taking his cousin Malik-ug-
Salih and the latter’s troops with him, marched to give battle to Salaih-ud-
Din. The latter offered peace, which ’Izz-ud-Din refused ; and, in Ramagan
of 570 H., a battle took place near Hamah, in which Salaih-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. Salih-ud-Din subsequently endeavoured
further to ‘‘express his gratitude,” by attempting, in §71 H., to gain posses-
sion of Halab. He remained a long time before it, without being able to
take it. At last, a daughter of the late Sultin Niir-ud-Din was made over to

him, and, for her sake, he left Malik-ug-Salib unmolested. :

THE KURDIAH MALIKS OF SHAM. - ग्ण

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-ugs-Salih passed the remainder of his lifetime at
Halab ; and Salah-ud-Din 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 SHADI®.

This Malik Aiyib, 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 Salih-ud-Din’s father were Malik-ul-Afgal,
Najm-ud-Din, Abii-Lashkar-i-Aiyub.

Shadi, their father, son of Mardin, 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, Aiyiib. The
sons entered the service of Bahriiz, the prefect of Baghdad, and were entrusted
by him with the charge of the fortress of Takrit, and there Shadt died. His
tomb was still to be seen there when Yafa’i wrote ; and within the walls of
that stronghold Salah-ud-Din was born. The brothers continued there for a
considerable period ; and, at the time when ’Imad-ud-Din, Zangf, in 526 H.,
came to the aid of Sultan Mas’iid, Saljiki, 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. Subse-
quently, 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 Cuurt
of Zangi. He received them with great favour, and bestowed fiefs upon each
of them.

Subsequently, when Zangf was assassinated, and his son, Saif-ud-Din-i-
Ghazi, succeeded him as ruler over Mausil, Najm-ud-Din-i-Aiyib, who had
been assigned the territory of Ba’albak by Zangi, finding Saif-ud-Din-i-Ghazf
unable to protect him, had to give it up, and went and entered the service of
the then ruler of Damashk, named Majir-ud-Din, Artik [Artikiah], who gave
him a fief. Asad-ud-Din, Sher-i-Koh, ^ पऽ brother, went to Halab and
took service under Nir-ud-Din, Mabmid, Saif-ud-Din’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 his nobles; and, at the

208 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Kurdish chieftains in the ‘territory of Sham; and they
passed a number of years in the service of Sultan Nir-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 ^, son of Shadi, departed this life, he
left four sons behind him: first, Malik Salah-ud-Din,
पर्णा; second, Malik ’Adil-i-Abié-Bikr ; third, Shahan-
shah ; and fourth, Saif-ul-Islim®: and Malik Asad-ud-Din,
son of Shadi, as before stated, was the brother of Malik
Aiyib’.

When the latter died, his sons were in the service of their
uncle, Malik Asad-ud-Din; and the first person among
them [szc in MSS.] who became sovereign of Misr was this
same Asad-ud-Din; and the first one who acquired sove-
reignty in Sham was Salah-ud-Din, Yisuf, son of Aiyub,
as will, please God, be hereafter recorded >

IV. MALIK ASAD-UD-DIN >, SON OF SHADI, IN MISR.t

‘Trustworthy persons have related after this manner: that
2 body of Maghrabi ’Alawis laid claim to the Khilafat’,

taking of Damashk, Asad-ud-Din, Sher-i-Koh, and Salah-ud-Din, were in
Niir-ud-Din’s service ; and the former held the government of Hims.

® Abu Lashkar-i-Aiyiib had six renowned sons, the titles and names of
whom, according to the years of their birth, are as follow :—1. Amir-Nir-ud-
Daulah, Shahan-Shah. 2. Malik-ul-Muagzam, Shams-ud-Daulah, Tian
Shah. 3. Malik-un-Nasir, Salah-ud Din, Yisuf. 4. Malik-ul-’Adil, Saif-
ud-Din [Daulah], ALi Bikr, Mufammad. 5. Malik-ul-’Aziz, Zahir-ud-Din,
Abi Faras-i-Tugh-Tigin, Saif-ul-Islim. 6. Taj-ul-Mulik, Majd-ud-Din—
the least in years, the greatest in learning and accomplishments.

1 Any one reading this would imagine that कप had been an independent
ruler in Sham, and one of the dynasty, and that he had died before Asad-ud-
Din, and before Salah-ud-Din rose to power ; but neither of these is the fact
Aiyiib merely held Ba’albak of Zangi and another fief under his son. See
note »» page 215

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, subse-
quently, that the fourth was the first Kurd that ruled in Misr, and the fifth, the
first Kurdish ruler of Sham !

ॐ His correct name and titles are Abi-l-Haris, Sher-i. Koh [the Lion of the
Mountains], Asad-ud-Din, surnamed Al-Malik-ul-Mansir.

4 Nearly three hundred years before Nir-ud-Din 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-Muntasir’; 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 ’Alawis
of Misr had not the power to resist them, nor to drive out
that host of infidels; so they solicited aid from Sultan
Nir-ud-Din of Sham. He nominated Malik Asad-ud-Din,
son of Shadi, to proceed into Misr, and expel the Afranj
infidels from that country *.

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.

$ Abi-Tamim-i-Sa’d, Al-Mustansir B’illah, was the eighth of the Isma-
‘ilians 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 ‘* Muntasir.”

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 ४29१ and others make this
distinction—upon three different occasions. The first occasion was in this
wise: Gha’iir, 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-gham by name, who obtained the chief authority,
and put Sha’ir’s son, Tae, to death. On this, Sha’iir came to the presence of
Nir-ud-Din to solicit his aid in restoring him to power; and, in Ramazan,
558 H. [according to some in 559 H.], Nir-ud-Din despatched a numerous
army into Misriah for the purpose, under Asad-ud-Din, Sher-i-Koh, and
Salih-ud-Din, his nephew, accompanied him.

The objects of Nir-ud-Din, in sending this expedition, were twofold. One
was to aid Sha’iir, 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, 25 Niir-ud-Din had implicit confidence in him. He accordingly
entered the Misriah territory in Jamadi-ul-Akhir, 559 H. [some say in 558 H.],
and Zir-gham was put to death, his head placed on a spear, and his body left
to the dogs and jackals ; but his remains were subsequently buried. Sha’tr
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’iir, 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 Shim.

On the news of these negotiations reaching the ears of Nir-ud-Din and

210 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Malik Asad-ud-Din preferred a request to the Sultan
that he would appoint Salah-ud-Din, Yisuf, 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-ir, 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’ir,
which commenced its march in Rabi’-ul-Awwal, 562 प्र, and Salab-ud-Din
attended him, being in his service.

Sha’tr, 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. Nir-ud-Din now created a diversion by sending ४
force against the Farangi territory, and succeeded in taking Montreal [? +].
The news of this having reached Almeric [७८], king of Jerusalem, an accommo-
dation 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. Salab-ud-Din succeeded in getting possession of Iskan-
dariah, but Sha’ir invested him therein with the forces of Misr, and Asad had
to evacuate ऽ and march to his succour. At last a peace was come to, and
Asad and Salih-ud-Din returned to Sham again. For an actount 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 Rim’
and the Farangs’.

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 horse’.

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 cailed 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 com-
pletely surrounded it, pitched their camp, and commenced
their preparations for taking the place.

When the Shami forces perceived the extreme danger
they were in, and that they were completely invested,
besides the treachery of the ’Alawis 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
lives ; 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.

® The words Afranj and Farang are often used here indiscriminately.

9 On the preceding page he says Asad-ud-Din’s troops ‘‘acquired predo-
minance over the territory of Misr,” and Sha’ir had to call in the Christians
to expel them, and immediately after tells this impudent falsehood. A very.
trustworthy writer certainly !

212 2 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
Misr’, and in the vicinity, and in the parts round about,

1 The cause of the third expedition was that, in 564 प.) the Farangs [King
Almeric and the Hospitallers, a.p. 1168] invaded the Misrfah territory,
intending to seize it for themselves. They marched to Balbis [the ancient
Pelusium], took it, and put the inhabitants to the sword. Again अवण
sought aid from Niir-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 [ssc in
MS.] and kinsmen, including Salah-ud-Din. 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 Niir-ud-Din’s Turkmans. The author, from whom I have been
taking these extracts chiefly, says, ‘‘Salah-ud-Din sold me himself that he
[Salah-ud-Din] did not accompany his uncle of his own choice; and further,
that Sha’iir used to promise to defray all the expenses of this expedition, under-
taken 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’iir, Amir Asad
resolved to seize him ; and, one day, when Sha’ir, 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'iir by the collar,
and gave a sign to his own followers to secure him. This was done, and
Sha’iir was detained as a prisoner in a tent. Shortly after, a body-servant
arrived from the sovereign of Misriah [Abi Muhammad-i-’Abd-ullah, entitled
’Azid, the last of the Isma’ilis of Egypt] signifying his desire that the head of
Sha’iir 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’ir [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 Shia’ir, 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-Akhir, 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’tir to disburse the
expenses incurred on his account, which he had agreed to defray; but Sha’tr
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’iir evinced no fear, and resolved to invite Asad to an entertain-
ment in order to seize his person. This design having come to Asad’s know-
ledge, Amir 'Izz-ud-Din, one of Nir-ud-Din’s nobles, and Salah-ud-Din,
agreed together to kill Sha’ir, and communicated the design to Asad, who णि.
bade them todo so. §ha’ir, subsequently, in order to visit Asad, without any

THE KURDIAH 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 Shi-ir, performed the ceremonies of
going to receive them; but, as soon as the sight of that
victorious Sultan’, 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 one accord, to raise Malik Asad-ud-
Din to the sovereignty ; and he became sovereign of Misr
accordingly, and obtained the throne of that country’.

The ’Alawis of Misr, without molestation or impediment,
were placed in seclusion, and the Khutbah was read for
them in the same manner as before‘.

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 died’.

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. Amir
"22-४८-79 and Salab-ud-Din, after they had received Sha’iir, 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 folldwers 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 Nir-ud-Din [Asad ?]. In
the meantime, ’Azid, the Isma’ili, sent an order to put Sha’ir to death
[according to the custom before mentioned], on which his head was cut off [by `
two slaves of Nir-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-Mansir, Amir-ul-Juyiish.

2 At this time this ^" victorious Sultan” was serving under his uncle, who
was himself serving Niir-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 1.

4 At page 215 our author contradicts his own statement.

$ 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-Din, Muhammad, Sher-i-Koh, entitled Al-Malik-ul-Kahirah. When
his father died, Sultan Nir-ud-Din of Sham, deprived him of the fief of

ए

214 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

भर. SULTAN SALAH-UD-DIN, YOSUF, SON OF AIYOB-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 Riim 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 Yaman‘, all came under
his rule.

As the Most High God willed that, at this, the end
of time’, His true religion should be manifested, and that
the empire of Islam should be victorious, from every illus-
trious 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, Mv-
hammad-i-Sam, Shansabi [91120520 71], Ghiiri, by great
victories in the country of Hindistan, as far as the boun-
daries of Chin; in the territories of the West, and in the
country of Sham, He made Sultan Salah-ud-Din, Yisuf,
the Kurd, exalted by the conquests of the territories of
Maghrab, and of the Afranj’, so that great victories were
achieved by him. —

He brought back again the realm of Misr from the hands

Hims ; but, when Salah-ud-Dfn, his cousin, gained possession of Shim, he
restored Hims to him, and there he died in 581 H.

6 Salah-ud-Din had an elder brother named Malik-ul-Muaggam, Shams-ud-
Daulah, Tian Shah, and greatly esteemed by that Sultan. He employed
him in an expedition into Yaman, and subsequently sent him into Nibah
[Nubia of Europeans], and he was afterwards placed in charge of Damashk.
He died in Safar, 576 प्र.) 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 fartheron. This is merely another of his audacious falsehoods. The
words he uses are, laf eyes yi! 9 ७५.०५० ५ (63 49 vial! 9 ०५

THE KURDIAH MALIKS OF SHAM. 215

of the Misri ’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 Rim, and Filistin, he liberated from the hands of the
infidel Farangs.

The beginning of his career was this. When his father,
Malik ^ {$ प), son of Shadi, departed this life’, 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
Nir-ud-Din. He had acquired great fame for his manhood,
his activity, and his sagacity. He had also become an
associate with Sultan Nir-ud-Din in the game of Chaugan,
and playing at ball on the course’.

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 Chaug§4n 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 Niir-ud-Din*®. 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 “ trust-
worthy.” Asad died in 564 H., and Salah-ud-Din’s father, Abi-Lashkar-i-
Aiyib, joined his son in Egypt in the following year, when Salah-ud-Din had
succeeded to the Wazir-ship held previously by his uncle. Salah-ud-Din
wished his father to accept the office, but Aiyiib refused, saying, ‘‘ The
Almighty hath chosen thee, my son, for this office, and consequently no one
else is worthy of it.” Aiytib was killed from injuries sustained by a fall from
his horse, which threw him when he was viewing Salah-ud-Din’s troops file
past before the Bab-un-Nasr [the Nasr Gate] of Kahirah, on an expedition
against Karak, in Zi-Hijjah, 567 H., about three years a/#r Asad’s death
Aiytb entered Kahirah in Rajab, 565 4., and ’Azid, the Isma’1lian 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.

216 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

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
anxiety*, Unexpectedly, the envoy from the ’Alawis of
Misr arrived to solicit aid from Sultan Nir-ud-Din, as has
been related previously. The 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 sove-
reignty 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 assumting the sovereignty,
but he would not in any way assent to 1६९५ When the

8 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 Salab-
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 sig-
nified 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 Khalifah, ’Azid, as he con-
sidered Salih-ud-Din rather weak in intellect, and less to be feared than the -
others, in which he greatly deceived himself. Instead of seizing people's

THE KURDIAH MALIKS OF SHAM. 217

importunity of people, however, exceeded all bounds,
Sultan Salah-ud-Din commanded, saying :—“ I will comply

property and effects, Salih-ud-Din 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, Salab-
ud-Din issued commands to read the Khutbah for Niir-ud-Din ; and the latter
addressed him in all his communications as the Amir-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 Niir-ud-Din, 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 Niir-ud-Din suspected his motives.
However, when Nir-ud-Din subsequently despatched his troops to operate
against the Farangs, who had invaded the Misriah territory, he entrusted
Salab-ud-Din’s elder brother, Shams-ud-Daulah, Tiiran Shah, with a com-
mand in that army, but with orders that he was not to consider Yiisuf [Salib-
ud-Dinj as his younger brother, but as the lord of Misr, and his, [Nir-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, Nir-
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. Niir-ud-Din, however,
wrote the second and-the third time to order him to do so, and Salah-ud-Din, not
daring to disobey the reiterated commands of his suzerain, was in a dilemma,
but it so happened that ’Azid was about this time taken ill, Salih-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 cals him Najm-ud-Din], an ’Ajami, 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’nir-Ullah. The Misris who were present made no
objection, and the next Friday Salah-ud-Din directed that the Khutbah for
"Azid should be discontinued at Kahirah and at Misr [the old capital], and that
for Mustazi B’niir- 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 pre-
tended, Salah-ud-Din did not go, and regretted, it afterwards. ’Aziddied 1oth
of Muharram, 567 स. [Fasib-i says 565 .], and the ’Ubaidi Isma’ili dynasty
terminated. [According to VERTOT vol. ii. p. 209, Salah-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 en the matter.] When the
Abbasi Khalifah, Al-Mustazi B’nir-Ullah, received information that the
Khutbah had been read for him in Misriah, he despatched ’Imid-id-Din, a

P

218 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

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 Misr. 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 alle-
giance 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-Ullah*®, 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 Bagh-
dad, 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-Mustazt
B’amr- Ullah.

From the capital of Islam, Salah-ud-Din received the
title of Malik-un-Nasir®, and he became sovereign of Misr;

venerable and illustrious dependent of the ’Abbast dynasty, to Sham, with
rich dresses of honour for Niir-ud-Din—to the sovereign, not to his lieutenant,
Salah ud-Din,—but robes of honour were also despatched to Salah-ud-Din,
together with black hangings for the pulpits of Misriah, as the Ismia’ili
colour was green.

In 569 प्र. Niir-ud-Din directed Salih-ud-Din to assemble the forces of
Misriah, and march against the Christian territory, and invest Karak, and pro-
mised to come himself likewise. Salih-ud-Din reported his departure 2oth of
Muharram, from Kahirah ; and Nir-ud-Din, on receipt of his despatch at
Damashk, marched towards Karak, and, having reached it, fully expected the
arrival of Salah-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 disatfection in Misriah. Nir-ud-Din repeated his com-
mands 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. Niir-ud-Din died in 569 प.

५ Fasih-i says that, the first time the Khutbah was read in the Diyar-i-
Misriah, it was read for Al-Mustanjid, 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-Mustagzi B’niir- Ullah [not B’amr-Ullah] was received.

* This statement is totally incorrect : the title was conferred upon him by
१९.६११, the Isma’ili Khalifah, when Salah-ud-Din became his Wazir.

THE KURDIAH MALIKS OF SHAM. 219

and, at this time also, Sultan Nir-ud-Din died’. Sultan
Salah-ud-Din marched into Sham, and assumed the throne
of sovereignty, as has been previously stated. He con-
ferred the [government of the] territory of Misr 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 trust-
worthy has related, that, when the news of the accession of
Sultan Salab-ud-Din reached the territories of Rim and
the Kaigars® 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 Damashk’. The army of Islim was defeated and over-
thrown, 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 Dam-
ashk 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 Nir-ud-Dfn did not die until ६69 H., and the Khutbah was read for the
’Abbasis 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 Salah-ud-
Din, and the numerous battles that took place therein, no battle was ever fought
before Damaghk between him and the Farangs. The rest of our author's state-
ment may be depended upon accordingly. It is something like 700 horse
routing 80,000 Crusaders, and their dead lying in heaps for miles. Our worthy
author probably considered, when he wrote this, that, as Hindiistan 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 of 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
Nir-ud-Din obtained possession of it, when Salab-ud-Din was in his edeventh
year, and in the defence of which city his e/dest brother, Amfr Niir-ud-Daulah
Shihan Shah, so greatly distinguished himself, and died of the wounds he
Teceived on that occasion.

“P2

220 ` THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

to enter into conflict with the infidels’. The godly eccle-
siastic, 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 efluvium
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 sins?; The people, with sin-
cere 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 num-
ber of them were sent to Hell by the stroke of the sword
of the defenders of the true faith, as cannot be numbered
or computed*. The whole of the Maliks* [princes], and

1 Salah-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 note *, p. 216. Our author confounds both times as
well as events.

8 Salah-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 Salab-ud-
Din’s Mamlik body-guard of a thousand picked men, in coats of mail and saffron
coloured mantles, and penetrated to Salih-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. Onthis occasion, pigeons spread over Egypt
the triumphant news of a victory, in order, as the Arab chroniclers say, ‘‘¢oguiet
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 Arsiif, in 119 A.D,
= 587 H., 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 @// 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 uponthem. 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 ears‘, 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 migka4l*; and they
were sent to them, and the whole of the liberated captives
inserted the rings in their ears, and they went away; 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
avery long period, and died. He had six sons, whose
titles were as follows’ :—Malik-uz-Zahir, Malik-ul-Afzal

Probably he heard something about Salah-td-Din’s encounters with the Latin
Christians and the battle of Tiberias, just before the capitulation of Jerusalem in
§83 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, Nir-ud-Din’s father, when Salab-ud-Din was about mine years old.
He has made a precious hash of the account of the Kurdish rulers, and of
Salah-ud-Din’s reign in particular.

‘6 Rings in the ears are emblems of slavery. Bigoted Mullas, like our author,
stick at no falsehoods in their endeavours to enbance the deeds of their co-
religionists ; 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 state-
ment will not be found in any of their writings.

¢ 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-Din, Salah-ud-Din’s uncle, who never reigned at all, but was the Wazir of
Egypt for sixty-five days, and for Salah-ud-Din, who reigned [after Nir-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 names
of the six referred to are as follows :—

1. Abi-l-Hasan-i-’Ali, Malik-ul-Afgal, Niir-ud-Din, who was the eldest

222 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

‘Malik-nl-’Aziz, Malik-ul-Muhsin, Malik-ul-Mushtammir,
and Malik-us-Salih.

VI. MALIK-UL-AFZAL4, ’ALI, SON OF SALAH-UD-DIN, YUSUF,
SON GF AIYUB, AL-KURDL

Malik-ul-Afzal, Ali, was the heir of Sultan Salah-ud-Din,
Yiisuf; and on the death of the Sultan he ascended the
throne of the territories of Damashk and Sham’.

All presented themselves before him, and paid him hom-
age, 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, Abi-Bikr, son of Aiyib, 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-hadd’, which is a tract of country in
Sham, was assigned to Malik-ul-Afzal.

son, and the heir-apparent. 2. Malik-ul-’Aziz, "Imaid-ud-Din, Abi-1-Fatb,
’Usman, who was the favourite son. 3. Malik-ut-Tahir, Ghiyds-ud-Dia,
Abi-Mansir-i-Ghazi. 4. Malik-ug-Zafir, Al-Mughtammir, Mugaffar-ud-Din,
Abi-l-Kasim, Abi-l-’Abbas-i-Hugr, full brother of Zafir, 5. Malik-ug-Zahir,
the remainder of whose titles and names are not mentioned, neither are the titles
«° Malik-ul-Mubsin,” nor ‘‘ Malik-ug-Salik”” mentioned except by our author.
6. Malik-uz-Zahid, Majir-ud-Din, Abi-Suliman-i-Da’iid. He was the द्वि
son of Salah-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 Salah-ud-Din, and his father’s heir-apparent. On the death of his
father, at Damashk, 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-ug-Zahir, held Halab. Contention went on between
the brothers, Afgal 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-’Azfz next after his father, as he assumed
the sovereignty over the territory of Misriah, and overcame his brother, Malik
ul-Afgal, who held Sham

1 The word here used is unintelligible. It is written in different ways in
nearly every copy oe oe (+ and ६150 =+ ४६४१ SAYS, Jaye lis which
means ‘‘a place on the frontier.” There is a place called ‘‘ Sar-khad.”

THE KURDIAH MALIKS OF SHAM. 223

` He was a learned and very enlightened man?, and com-
posed 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,
Abi-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-N§asir. The two couplets are as
follows :—

** My lord ! Abi-Bikr and his companion, ’Usmin,
Have, by the sword, deprived ’Alf of his right.
Remark the fatality of the name; how it suffers, from the last,
The same wrong as from the first [generation] it endured 3.”

After some time expired, Malik-ul-’Aziz died, and Malik
ul-Afzal was entreated to come into‘ 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

Samisat®. He remained there for a long time, and he
died’,

VII. MALIK-UL.’AZIZ, ’USMAN, SON OF SALAH-UD-DIN,
YUSUF, SON OF AIYOB, AL-KURDL

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-Mansiir.

2 The celebrated historian, the learned Abi-l-Fath-i-Nagr-ullah, son of
Ziya-ud-Din, Mubammad, Shibani, surnamed Ibn Agir, was Malik-ul-Afzal’s
Wazir.

ॐ Yafa’i has four Jines more. The reference of course is to the Khalifah
Ali 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 ८ Misr. See last paragraph of the next reign,
page 224.

५ 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, Samisit.
The last, however, seems most correct.

7 In 622 प,

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 500 °, who bore
the title of Matik-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, Maltik-ul-
"Aziz led an army ‘from Misr and appeared before
Damashk ; and his uncle, Malik-ul-’Adil, joined him. He
wrested the territories of Diy&ar-i-Bakr and Damashk’® 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 destity 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 Misr, and took possession of that country’.

VIII. MALIK-UL-’ADIL, ABOU-BIKR?2, SON OF AIYOB, SON OF
SHADI, AL-KURDI

Some time subsequent to Malik-ul-’Adil’s having as-
cended 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 Farangs® entered

8 ’Aziz was the second, not the eldest son. Afzal was the eldest of
Salih-ud-Din’s sons, according to Yafa’i 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 depriye his brother of Damashk
did not succeed ; but on the second occasion he succeeded.

1 See page 223, and note

2 His correct titles and name are, Malik-ul-’Adil, Saif-ud-Din, Abi-Bikr-i
Muhammad

® 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 KURDIAH MALIKS OF SHAM. ` 225

his (2८, and he married her, and that daughter bore him
several children

This Malik-ul-’Adil was a sagacious, discerning, compe-
tent, 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 hostilities‘.

He had several distinguished sons, who acquired great

+ Malik-nl-’Adil accompanied his uncle, Asad-ud-Din, when the latter was
despatched into Misr by Nir-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 Salab-
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 Salah-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. Salih-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 Salah-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 con-
cluded between him and ’Izz-ud-Din Mas’tid, of Mausil, he was joined at Harran,
by his brother ’Adil, on whom he had conferred the fiefs of Harran, Ruha

[Edessa], and Miafarkin [Martyropolis], after which the Sultan returned to

Damashk

After the Crusaders, under Richard Coeur-de-Lion and Philip Augustus, took
7Aka [Acre], in Jamadi-ul-Akhir, 587 H., when ‘‘ the Musalmans sustained such
a great calamity,’ and the Christians were preparing to march against ’Askalin
[Ascalon], Salah-ud-Din, in consultation with the chiefs of his forces, deter-
mined 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. Salab-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-Mansgir,
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 प्र.
when he obtained sway over it and other parts of Sham and the eastern provinces.

226 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

renown, such as Malik-ul-Kamil, Malik-ul-Muazzam-i-'1sa,
Malik-ul-Ashraf, Malik-ul-Fa’iz’, Malik-ul-Ghazi‘’, Malik-
ul-Awhad, Malik-ul-Mamdid, Malik-ul-Amjad, and Malik-
us-Salih-i-Isma'il. Each one of them was a sovereign’ over
a different tract of territory comprised within his do-
minions; and the annals of the good works, and the cir-
cumstances of the sovereignty of his sons, will remain
[inscribed] on the pages of time, in the countries of Hijaz,
3112170, 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 Riim 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 died *.

ॐ ’Abid, in one copy. 6 Ghani, in two copies.

7 The word used by our author is “ Badshiahs,” 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-Misriah, to Malik-ul-Muaggam the territory of
Shimiah, to Malik-ul-Aghraf the Sharkiah [the eastern parts], and to Malik-ul-
Awhad the territory of Miafarkin ; and, in 610 H., after he had established his
authority over Yaman, and Awhad had been sent to Miafarkin, another son,
Malik-ul-Mas’iid, was sent to Yaman.

® Malik-ul-’Adil died in Jamiadi-ul-Akhir, 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]. Hewas a man of great wisdom and intellect, of considerable judg-
ment and conception, of good disposition and temperament, constant to his re-
ligious duties and attendanceat 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. KURDIAII MALIKS OF SHAM. ` 227

॥

IX. MALIK-UL-MUAZZAM®, ‘ISA, SON OF ABU-BIKR, SON OF
AIYCUB, 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-Muazzam' was the only one who was of
the sect of the great Imam, Abi Hanifah-i-Nu’man, son of
Sabit, Al-Kifi.

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, Adimi, who wasa prodigy in the science of
theology and religious jurisprudence, and Imam Jamal-ud-
Din, Hasiri?, whowas a master inthe 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 emolu-
ments and rewards, and fixed places for their abode. He,
however, sought mostly to secure the presence of Muham-
mad Husain*®, Shibani.

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
Damashbk, in 624 H., hisson, Malik-un-Nasir, Salah-ud-Din-i-Da’ad, 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 Aiyib who was a follower of Abi Hanifah. He had
performed the pilgrimage to Makkah 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-NASIRI.

his brother’s associate and lieutenant in the territory of
Damashk [?]

Malik-ul-Muazzam reigned for a considerable period, and
died. |

X. MALIK-UL-KAMIL‘, SON OF ABU-BIKR, SON OF AIYOB,
SON OF SHADI, AL-KURDI.

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 sove-
reignty of the territory of Yaman upon his son, who was
named Malik Mas’id, and also brought Hijaz under his
sway.

+ His names are Abii-l-Ma’ali, 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-
Muazzgam, 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 iIth 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’l, on the banks
_of the ‘Nil ; and, when his brother, Malik-ul-Muaggam 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, Mugaffar-ud-Din, Miisa ; and, having subdued Sham in 625 n., 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,
Khwirazm Shah, invested Khalat [also called Akhlat]. Kamil subsequently
made his son, N ajm-ud-Din, Abi-l-Mugaffar, Aiyiib, his lieutenant over the
eastern parts, and his youngest son, Saif-ud-Din, Abi-Bikr, lieutenant in the
Misriah territory, and another son, Mas’tid, he sent into Yaman. The latter
annexed Makkah, and the Hijiz 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, Migr, Sa’idan,
Shim, Sanadian, the Jazirah, and Walidan, Sultin-ul-Kabilatain wa Rabb-ul-
A lamatain-ugh-Sharif, Abi-l-Ma’ali, Muhammad, Al-Malik-ul-Kamil, Nasir-
ud-Din, Khalil-i-Amir-ul-Miminin.” I have not space to say more. He
died at Damashk in Rajab, 635 H.

THE KURDIAH MALIKS OF SHAM. 229

In the direction of Riim 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 AIYOB, SON OF SHADI, AL-KURDI.

Malik-ug-Salih was his father’s heir, and, when Malik-ul-
Kamil departed this life, Malik-us-Salih® ascended the

5 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 2८८ versd. After the death of Malik-
ul-Kimil, his empire soon fell into utter disorder and confusion. His son,
Malik-ul-’Adil, Abi-Bikr, who was quite a youth, succeeded ; and his cousin,
Malik-ul-Jawad, Mugzaffar-ud-Din, Yiinas, son of Shams-ud-Din, Maudid,
son of ’Adil [Salab-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, AIYOB, 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-ugs-Salih, "Imad-ud-Din,
Lord of Ba’albak, being supported by Mujahid-ud-Din, Asad-i-Sher-i-Koh,
Lord of Hims, 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-S$alih’s [son of Kamil] adherents, fearing
for the safety of their families and homes at Damasghk, 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-Nagir, son of Malik-ul-Muagzam [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 Nagir and his forces, Malik-ug-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, ‘‘ ८ 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 Migriah, was taken dangerously ill, and
had to remain at Shamiim. The Christians had resolved to attack his terri-
tory, and they reached Dimyat on Friday, 20th of Safar, 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
Shamiim to Mansirah, 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
Masjid, and for near three months his death was concealed, until his son,
Malik-ul-Muazgam, Tiran Shah, arrived there from his fief of Kaif [or Kayif |
when the Khutbah was read for him, and the father’s death was made known.

230 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

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 Khwiarazm, and [several] nobles of the Khwarazm-Shahi
dynasty, retiring before the infidels of Chin, after the defeat
of Sultan Jalal-ud-Din,, Mang-barni, son of Muhammad,
Khwarazm Shih, reached the territories of Sham and Misr,
and possessed themselves of the dominions of the ’Adili
dynasty. Some they slew, some passed away, and some
remained. May the Almighty have mercy upon the whole
of them |

Tirin 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 Misriah throne.
Most authors consider the Aiyiib dynasty to have ended with Malik-ul-Muag-
gam, Tiiran Shah. There were other branches of the same family, who mled
in different parts until the irruption of the Mughals, 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, Jurjani, 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, N§asir-ud-Dunya wa ud-
Din, Abi-l-Muzaffar-i-Mahmid, 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 (गीता
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 Islam".

I. KUTB-UD-DUNYA WA UD.-DIN, 1-BAK, THE TURK?
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” ?

2 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.

Baihaki, quoting from Bi-Rihan, mentions that the territory of Khwarazm
always formed a separate sovereignty from the period when a kinsman of
Bahram-Gir, the famous monarch of ’Ajam, acquired power over it, and also
after its conquest by the ’Arabs ; and further, that even after the ’Arab con-
quest it was not considered as a dependency of Khurasan, like Khutlin and

232 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin, who came from the border of Kir-

Chaghanian were, even in the time of the Tahiris. Rulers bearing the title
of Khwadrazm 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 Mamiin, son of
Muhammad, Lord of Jirjaniah of Khwarazm. ’Abd-ullah was taken in fetters
to Jiirjiniah, and subsequently beheaded ; and the whole of Khwarazm passed
under the rule of Mamiin, son of Muhammad. The territories of Khwarazm
and Jirjaniah, had, fora considerable time, been in the possession of this family,
who are styled एर्व छप, subordinate to the Sdmani sovereigns. In 387 H.,
the same year in which Nik, son of Mansiir, Simani, Amir Sabuk-Tigin, and
Fakbr-ud-Daulah, Dilami, died, Mamiin, Farighitni, died also, and was
succeeded by his son, Abii Ali, who was married to a sister of Mahmiid of
Ghaznin. ’Ali died in 390 H., and was succeeded by his brother, Abi-1-
’Abbas-i-Mamiin [son of Mamiin]. He despatched an envoy to Mahmid,
asking the latter’s consent to his [Abi-l-’Abbas] espousing his brother’s widow,
the sister of Mahmiid, which request was acquiesced in. This Abiu-l-’Abbas
was the patron of Bi-Riban, who passed seven years in his service. The
Khalifah, Kadir B'illah, sent him a dress of honour, a title, and addressed
him as Khwiarazm Shah; but, such was ’Abbas’ attachment to [or fear of?]
Mahmiid, that he did not make this matter known. In 407 Hn. his nobles and
treops rose against him, because he meditated acknowledging the suzerainty
of Mahmid, put him to death, and set up his nephew in his stead. Mahmid
marched into Khwarazm, to revenge his brother-in-law, slew Alb-Tigin [some
call him Nial-Tigin] ’Abbas’ chamberlain, and other ringleaders, and the
murderers of ’Abbas, annexed the territory, and conferred the government of it
upon his [own] Great Chamberlain, Altiin-Tash, with the designation of Khwa-
razm Shih. Abii Nasr, son of ’Abd-ul-Hirs, Farighini, Wali of Jirjanan and
the territory of Jawzjanin, of the same family, had died in 402 H., upon which
Mahmud had annexed that territory, and had sent a Diwan of his own to
administer its affairs.

Altin-Tash, Khwarazm Shah, presented himself at the court of his sove-
reign, Sultan Mas’iid, in 422 H., and died from the effects of a wound received
in battle in 424 H. His son Hariin, who succeeded, became disaffected towards
Sultan Mas’iid, in 425 H., assumed independence, and intrigued with the Turk-
mins and Saljiiks. This fact our author alludes to at pages 120 and 121, but
says nothing further. Hariin 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’iid con-
ferred it, provided he could drive out Isma’fl. Isma’il, accordingly, having

~ been driven out, took shelter with the Saljiiks in Khurasin. In 434 H. Sultan
Tughril annexed Khwarazm to his dominions ; and but little is said about it
afterwards until 475 H., when Malik Shah, Saljiiki, conferred the Intendancy
of Khwarazm upon the slave, Nish-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 prandees of the court of Malik Shah, who held
the office of Tasht-dar, or Purveyor, purchased Niish-Tigin, much in the same
manner as Alb-Tigin, the slave of the Saminis, purchased Sabuk-Tigin

TUE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY. 233

min, in the year 622 H.”, to the aid of the sons * of the Maliks
of Nimroz, and arrived in that country, and the territories
of Nimroz were left in his possession.

The aathor of this book came from Khaesar of Ghir, on
a mission from the august Malik, Rukn-ud-Din, Muham-
mad, ’Usm4n, 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 [पातं and Khwa-
razm, from the side of Suhari’ [or Sahari], and from among
the tribes of Kifchak® and Kankuli, and, for a consider-
able period, dwelt in those tracts, subject to the Khwarazm-
Shihi rulers, Abi Ja’far and Mamiin’, 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 [-ghiir descent, and that he was of the Bekdalf [or Begdalf] tribe.
After the decease of Balka-Tigin, his slave, Nish-Tigin, who through 1.is
talents and sagacity had risen 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 Khivistan
were assigned for the expenses of the wardrobe, the government of the territory
whence the expenses of the Purveyorship were drawn was conferred upon
Nish-Tigin, with the title of Khwirazm Shah.

_ He placed his eldest son, Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad, with a preceptor at
Mrarw, to be educated in a manner becoming his station, and on the death of
Nish-Tigin, his father, in 490 H. [some writers say in 491 H.], the lieutenant
of Sultin Barkiarik, 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, Nish-Tigin’s son, after the
removal of Alanji, son of Taghdar [some call him Fahkar] to the government
of Khwirazm ; and the title which hjs father had held was also conferred upon
him. See page 169, and note ^.

3 See page 199.

4 To the aid of one only; but all the copics have ‘‘sons of the Maliks,” as
above. See page 200.

9 One copy has Hisarf [se] which may be the most correct ;" but the
majority of copies of the text have Subari, or Sahari [+]. Neither of
these names occurs in the MASALIK-WA-MAMALIK. The latter word, if not a
proper name, may be the plural of ’Arabic j= signifying ‘‘ extending,
wide [as plains], wild, desert,” in which case the broad and extensive deserts
of Turkistan would be meant. Yafa-i mentions Subara in one or two places.

® In some few copies of the original, and in Yafa-i, this name is written with
kh—Khifchak. lt is the name of a tribe of Turks, and of a desert of
Turkistan, commonly called Dasht-i-Kinchak.

7 These were of the Farighiini family mentioned in note 2, preceding page.

५

234 ४ THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRL

As Kutb-ud-Din was a spirited, enterprising, and high-
minded chief, and of admirable temperament, the leader-
ship 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
subjection®; 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.

Il. MALIK TAJ-UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD, 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 Saljiki 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,
Kuytb-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 succecded 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 Takish, father of Mukammad ;” and, at page 169, states that he gave
the throne of Khwarazm to Malik Utsuz.

9५ The father of Itsiz [Utsuz of our author], according to all authors of

THE 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 sons’ who acquired great dis-
tinction, and became powerful Maliks in Khuradsan 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 Guzarwan?. Subsequently he became Khan of
‘Trak under the name of Ata-bak, or preceptor, of the great
Sultan, Rukn-ud-Din, Ghiri Shanasti, son of Muhammad
Khwarazm Shah

Ulugh Khin-i-Abi, Muhammad, had two sons, the
eldest, Taj-ud-Din, Azabar* Shah, and the younger,
Nusrat-ud-Din, Kutlagh Shah; and there were likewise
brothers’ sons of Ulugh Khan-i-Abi, Muhammad, in Hin-
distan, such as Malik Firiz-i-I-yal-timish, son of Salar,
and Malik Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin, who left Hindistan,
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 Saljik sovereigns, and paid homage to

authority—in fact, acc rding to all writers but our author—was Kutb-ud-Din,
Muhammad, son of Nigh-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 Khwirazm. I suspect our author has done much the same here
as he has in his account of the Saljiiks of Rim—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.

? 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-adb river, which he writes Juzarwan. The other copies
of the text have Gurdwan, Gurzawan, and Giirwan ; and one, which is genc-
rally pretty correct, has Gujzarwin—g and j are interchangeable, and jz is
often used for z.

> This name too is doubtful : there are scarcely two copies alike. One has
Urauli, which is a proper name, as well as Hijzabr.

Q 2

अ

236 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

them. He performed great deeds, and ruled the people
with equity and beneficence.

He reigned for a long time, subordinate to the Saljiks,
and died.

III. MALIK JALAL-UD-DIN, UTSUZ4, KHWARAZM SHAH,
SON OF TAJ-UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD.

Utsuz-i-Khwarazm Shah, after the death of his father’,
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 move‘ from Khwarazm,

4 Written Itsiz and Itsiz by others [and Atsiz by Guzidah], signifying in
Turki ‘lean, fleshless, thin.” His title was Mugaffar-ud-Din, but some writers
say it was Abii-]-Muzaffar, ’Al4-ud-Din. He succeeded his father by farman
of Sultin Sanjar, his suzerain.

5 Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Niish-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 Ghaznin, but this can
scarcely be, as that event occurred three years मल], Itsiz obtained per-
mission 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 Sultin installed his nephew,
Suliman Shah, son of Muhammad, as ruler of Khwiarazm. As soon, however,
as Sanjar returned to Khurasan, Itsiz again appeared ; and Suliman Shih, 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 Karai-Khita only the previous year. Some authors contend that
Sanjar’s defeat touk place in 536 H., and that Itsiz assumed independence in
537 u. The Sultan again determined to attempt to reduce him in 538 H., on
which Itsiz sought with entreaties, prayers, and costly presents, to propitiate
the Sultin’s anger, and was forgiven ; but soon after he again showed disaffec-
tion, treated the Sultan’s farman with contempt, and subsequently, in 541 H.,
despatched two criminals, released from prison for the purpose, to assassinate
his benefactor, to show his gratitude, perhaps, for ‘‘the confidence and good-
will” of the Sultan towards him, as our author says, and for pardoning his
past offences. Again [in 542 H., or, according to Yafa-i, in 541 H.] Sanjar

THE 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 Khwarazm 1.

After some period of time had elapsed, through the
conduct of Malik ’Ah, Chatri*®, 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 १ When the dominion of the house of
Sanjar came to an end, the sovereignty of Khwarazm,
and the whole of the territory of Suhari’ [or Sahari] of
Turkistan, and Jund, fell into his hands, and were left in his
possession >.

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-Ahi-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
Muharram, 543 पत, 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. ५

8 This person, and what he did, are not mentioned by other authors that
have come under my notice, with a solitary exception. Fagih-1 refers to it,
under the year 542 H., in these exact words :—‘‘ Rebellion of ’Ali Jatri, Wali
of Hirat, during the absence of Sultan Sanjar, and his combining with ’Ala-
ud-Din, Husain, Malik of Ghiir :” nothing more. See reign of ’Ala-ud-Din.

9 This is utter nonsense. See note ° 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-i says that Gir Khan, who, in concert with At Khan, defeated

238 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

The greater number of the most learned men of the
Court ° had previously attached themselves to his service;
and Imam Rashid-ud-Din, Watwat‘, wrote, and dedicated
to him, the work entitled ^ Hadayik-us-Sahr fi 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, Ghiri, Jahan-soz’*,
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 Ghir, the Almighty blessed him with
a son, and he gave him the name of Utsuz.

Malik Utsuz reigned over Khwarazm for a long period‘
and died. |

IV. MALIK?, 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 benevolence’, and concluded a

Sultan Sanjar a few years before, died im 537 H., after which Sulfan Its
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.

+ This Rashid-ud-Din, Watwat, was a lineal descendant of the Khalifah
"वाणा. :

¢ Al-Husain [’Izz-ud-Din], son of Sim, Ghiri, it is said, was made prisoner
by Sanjar in 501 H.; but the person here referred to is his son, Jahin-soz,
’Ald-ud-Din, Husain, son of Husain, son of Sam, taken prisoner in 547 ४.
See note 2, page 149, note 8, 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 §51 H. ; and in the same year Turkan Khatiin 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, Suliman Shah, he seized and imprisoned him,-
and put a number of nobles, Suliman’s adherents, to death. ]-yal- Arsalan
was engaged in hostilities with the ruler of Samrkand, and subsequently, in
558 H., marched against Shad-yah of Nighapiir—Sanjar had lately dicd—and

THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY. 239

treaty with the infidels of Kara Khita, whereby he stipu-
lated to pay a certain fixed tribute yearly’. |

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 hosti-
lities with some of the slaves of Sultan Sanjar who were
rulers of Khurasin, and peace was brought about in the
manner he could best effect.

He reigned for a long time’, and died leaving sons
behind him, such as ’Al4-ud-Din, Takish, and Sultan Shah,
Mahmid.

”

V. SULTAN TAKISH?, SON OF I-YAL-ARSALAN.

Sultan Takish was a very great monarch, and was
endowed with considerable attainments, capacity, and

engaged in hostilities with Rukn-ud-Din, Mahmiid 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 note ® 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-Arsalin, and the
latter’s troops, which moved to oppose them, were routed. I-yal-Arsalin
died from the effects of a disorder contracted during the war with the Kara-
Khita-is

9 If the Ata-bak, Abi-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 cenduct of I-yal-Arsalan here, and what
that of the Khalifah, Un-Nasir, when he, some years before Abii Bikr’s day,
sent an agent to the infidel Chingiz, and incited him to invade the territory of
Islim 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 Musalmin 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. :

2 Styled "Imad-ud-Din, Takish Khan. Some call him ?Ald-ud-Din.
Other authors generally, with the exception of Yafa-f, place Sultan Shah,
Mahmiid, 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 Turkin, conducted his affairs. She sent an agent to
Summon Takish, the eldest son by a different mother, who held the govern-

240 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

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, Sultin 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 tu
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-Khanin, 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 dauzhter to wife, as they, no doubt, would have done, had such an
alliance as our author refers to taken place. Takigh, 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 Khwdrazm, and joined
Malik Mu-ayyid-i-A’inah-dar, Wali of Khurasin [Nishapir. See page 180,
‘and note 7], and Takigh 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.
Mal.k 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
Sultin Shah was killed, after which Takigh marched against Nighapir, the
capital of Mu-ayyid’s territory. Hlostilities having afterwards arisen between
Takish and his former ally, Sultan Shah sought aid from the female ruler of
Kara Khita-i, and she and Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Ghiiri, 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 §85 H. ;
but hostilities were again renewed in 589 H., in which year Sultan Shah died.
After his death Takigh 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 Ghir, which
sce.

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
head’ 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 com-
manded 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 dindrs of gold do I obtain*.” 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 Khuradsan 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.

* This anecdote, or one very similar, is related of another before the time of
Sultan Takish.

242 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRL

the territory of "Irak; and Sultan Tughril, of ’Irak, who
was the nephew of Sultan Sanjar, fell a captive into his
112105५.

Hostilities arose between him and the Court of the
Khalifah on account of some of the territories of Irak‘,

9 At page 165, which see, our author was in doubt 25 to who Tughril was.
In 558 H. Kutlagh Ininaj, son of the Ata-bak, Jahin Pahlawan, Muhammad,
sent envoys, one after the other, to Sultan Takish informing him of the escape
of Sultan Tughril, Saljiki, from the fortress in which he had been immured,
and inviting him to invade Irak, promising to support him. For further par-
ticulars of these events, see note 8, page 167, and note 3, page 172, where our
author entirely contradicts this statement respecting Sultan Tughril.

° The Khalifah, Un-Nagir, on Takish overrunning कु 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 Diwans.
Envoys came and went between them ; but, as Takigh in the end refused to
give up any portion, Un-Nasir, in 590 H., despatched Mu-ayyid-ud-Din,
Ibn-ul-Kassib, or the Butcher’s Son, with robes of honour, valuable presents,
and the like, in hopes that on his appearance at Hamadin he would be favour-
ably received, and that Takish would come out to receive him, and do him
honour as the Khalifah’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, Takigh pushed on to Dinawr, and plundered
the place and country round, and returned to Hamadan laden with arams 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 Ghi-ir
एणा Khan, the I-ghir ruler. He conducted the campaign successfully,
and Gha-ir एष 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-yikh he proceeded into ’Irak against Mianjuk, the
Ata-bak of his son, Yiinas 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 Firiz-koh, from
which stronghold he had ousted the Sultin’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
ncither 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 Khwarazmi troops, upon which Takish
again entered Irak from Khwadrazm, and hostilities were renewed. The Wazir,
however, who commanded the Khalifah’s troops, had died a few days before
the forces came into contact ; but the fact was kept concealed, and was not

THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH 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 disaster’ to
the empire of Takish, as Maulana Zahir-ud-Din, Faryabi",
says in the following strophe :

**Oh, Shih ! 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 Karkh,
And, then, the Khalifah’s head to Khita send.”

Although Sultan Takish had entered into a treaty with
the Sultans of Ghir’, nevertheless, through the hostility of
[the Court of] Baghdad, Ibn-ur-Rabbi’ came from Bagh-
dad into the territories of Ghir and Ghaznin; and, on
another occasion, Ibn-ul-Khatib came to the Court of Firiz-
koh, and one Friday read the Khutbah, and, whilst reading
it, he made use of these words in the presence of Sultan
` Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam :—“ Ayyahu-l-Ghiyas
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, Abi-l-Fazl-i-Muhammad, son of ’Ali, styled Ibn-ul-
Baiza ; and further states that, Takish being absent from "Irak at the time,
the Wazir, with the aid of Kutlagh Inanaj, drove out the Khwarazmi troops,
and pursued them as far as Bustam. After this Takigh 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 latter 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 प

9 A treaty with the Sultans of Ghiir is out of the questiun ; in fact the
author's own words disprove it. See also following note, and note ‘, page 265.

1 A correspondence found when the son of Takish acquired possession of

244 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

the father of the author, Maulana Saraj-ud-Din-i-Minhij,
was despatched to the Court of Baghdad along with
him, and, on the confines of Mukran, the Maulana was
-martyred*, 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 dominions’;
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 to-
wards the infidels [of Chin].

Sultan Takish reigned for many years, and died‘,

Ghaznin confirms these hostile intentions. See note 4, 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 Ghiir, and Mu’izz-ud-Din of Ghaznin ; and that they were named respec-
tively, Imam Shams-ud-Din, Turk, Ibn-ur-Rabbi’, 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 Yifa-i says that Takigh’s last request was that his son should neither clash
with, nor show resistance against, Gir Khan, nor depart from the agreement
previously settled [the tribute], because Gir Khan was as a bulwark of defence
in his rear against enemies in that quarter which he should not break down.

4 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 Mulaihidah heretics in ’Irak and Kuhis-
tan. He gained possession of their stronghold of Arsalin-Kushae, the strongest
fortress in Asia, it is said. He then left his son, Taj-ud-Din, ’Ali Shah, in
"Irak, with Isfahan ag his place of residence, and set out on his returm to
Khwarazm, and reached itin Jamadi-ul-Akhir, 596 H. The heretics supposed
the Wazir, Nizgam-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 T urshiz. 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 Irak

THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY. 245

VI. SULTAN JALAL-UD-DIN, MAHMUD, SON OF I-YAL.
ARSALAN

Mahmid, 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, dis-
sension arose between them, and he [Sultan Shah] went
from Khwarazm towards Khurasan, and from thence came
into the states of Ghir, and presented himself at the Court
of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam. Sultan
Ghiyas-ud-Din, and his Maliks‘, treated him with honour
and deference.

Between the Sultans of Ghiir 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 Ghir and Firiz-
koh, and of Bamian.

Sultan Shah solicited assistance from the Ghirian Sul-
tans to enable him to liberate Khuradsan 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 sought’.

also. Having despatched his son against the Mulahidahs, Sultan Takigh was
organizing forces at Khwarazm to follow, when he was suddenly taken ill. He
recovered, and was advised not 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.

§ Styled Sultan Shah, Mahmiid, by others.

6 In afew copies there is a slight difference in this clause of the sentence,
which, in them, is—‘‘and the Maliks of Ghiir.”

7 After his defeat along with Mu-ayyid-i-A’Inah-dar, and the latter had been
cut in two [see.note 5, page 180], and Sultan Shah’s mother had also been put |
to death by Takish, Sultan Shah went to Shad-yakh to Mu-ayyid’s son,
Tughan Shah, wko had succeeded his father, and took up his quarters in the
territory of Nishapir. As Tughan, however, had not power to help him, he
left his territory and went to the Sultans of Ghiir [after obtaining written
promises of favoura ble treatment], who received him well. Hostility having
arisen shortly after between his brother Takigh and the Kara Khita-i ruler,
Sultan Shah was delighted, and entered into negotiation with that sovercign,

246 | THE JABAKAT-I-NASIRL `

Sultan Shah [consequently] left the territory of Ghir,
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
tyranny ®. He made Marw his capital, and marched an

who, to spite Takish, invited him to his Court. On leaving the Ghirian 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-Din, Ghiri] would cause much sedition in Khurasan ; and so it
turned out.

8 He stated to the Khita-i ruler that the Khwarazmis and the troops gene-
rally 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 Khifi-is 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
Khurisan, 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 dis-
missed the Khiti-i 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 Tughin Shah got possession of it. In Zi-
Hijjah, 576 ., 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
Tis likewise. From this success Sultin Shah acquired considerable power,
because he, contrary to Tughan Shih, 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 wgs left to
Tughin. ‘He applied for aid both to Takish and to the Sultan of Ghiir, and
once went to Hirat, in person, to solicit assistance from Ghiyas-ud-Din,
(गाप ; but all was of no avail. Disappointed and depressed, he lived on
miserably till Muharram, $81 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 Tughian Shah died, his son, Sanjar Shah, was
raised to his father’s masnad, and Manguli Beg, his slave, was made his 4४.
bak. The latter afterwards went over to Sultin 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,
70161.

In the beginning of 582 H., Takish having entered Khurasin, Sultin Shah
marched against Khwarazm with a large army, in hopes of seizing it ; but
Takish, 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 Fiishanj ; and made raids

razm, and that Marw was in danger, he abandoned the attempt; and, on
reaching Amitiah, 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, Takigsh marched away to
Shid-yikh, and, in Rabi’-ul Awwal, 582 H., invested Sanjar Shih, and his
Ata-bak, Manguli 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. Manguli Beg, as soon as Takish
had marche 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, Takish again moved against Shad-yakh, secured Manguli
Beg, and then returned to his capital, Khwarazm. Sulfin 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 with those terms, entered it, remained a7 hour, and departed for
Marw again. In Muharram, 583 H., Takish again appeared before Shad-
yakh, and it was forced to submit, and Mangulf Beg came forth and capitu-
lated. Sultan Takish entered it in Rabi’-ul-Awwal of that year. Mangulf
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 er retribution.
Three months afterwards, Takish having set out for Khwarazm, Sultan Shih,
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 obsti-
nately defended. Takish marched into Khurasin again on becoming aware of
this movement on Sultin 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 Agarbaijan, and
nearly all the Amirs of Khurasin, who had hitherto not presented themselves,
now joined him. In the spring he returned from Azarhaijan, and encamped
in the plain of Radakan of Tis, 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 Jim, Bakhurz, and other districts.
Takish ascended the throne at Radakan of Tis [but not before], and soon after
set out for Khwirazm. Peace continued between them until after the affair at
Marw-ar-Riid with the Ghiris, with whom Sultin Shah had previously been
on the most brotherly terms, in which Sultin Shah was compelled to retire,
and his power became much broken, when, having infringed some of the stipu-
lations with his brother in 586 H., Tukigh again marched to Sarakhs, which
Sultan Shah had made the depository of his treasures and military material.
It was taken; bat, 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, Saljiiki, Sultin Shih seized the
opportunity, marched with his forces against Khwarazm, and invested it ; but,
hearing of the return of his brother from the Irak expedition, he abandoned
the investment, and retired into his own territory. Takish, having passed the
winter at Khwarazm, marched against his brother, Sultan Shah, in the fullow-

248 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

upon the frontiers of the territory of Ghiir, 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 Ghir. Sultan Ghiyds-ud-
Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, gave instructions so that his
Sultans*®, namely, Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu’izz-ud-Din, Muham-
mad-i-Sam, from Ghaznin, Sultan Shams-ud-Din, Muham-
mad, from Bamian, and Malik Taj-ud-Din-i-Harab, from
Sistan, all assembled, marched, and joined Sultan Ghiyds-
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-Riid, while Sultan Shah moved his forces from Marw
farther up ; and, for a period of six months, the two armies,
Ghiris 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 Ghirian army], whence it arose that Malik Kutb-ud-
Din, I-bak, the Turk, of Hindiistan, who, at that time, was
Amir-i-Akhir [lord of the stables—master of the horse] of
the Ghaznin' [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 army’
of Sultan Shah, who, unable to repel them, or make a stand

ing spring. As soon 25 Takish reached Abiward, 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 negotia-
tions were in abeyance, when he was betrayed by Badr-ud-Din, Ja’far, an
officer in his service, who held Sarakhs for him. Ja’far delivered up the fortress
to Takigh, together with his master’s treasures ; and two days after, at the end
of Ramazan, 589 H., Sultin 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 ०५९८
guently ruler'of Dihli.

2 Five copies have ‘‘attacked the camp.” Yafa-i barely alludes to this
affair on the Murgh-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 Ghiyads-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 Hari, a spectacle come,
For this reason, that he had an inclination for Hart 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. YONAS KHAN, SON OF TAKISH, KHWARAZM ऽपर

Yiinas 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, Abi-Bikr, the son of

ॐ The seventh ruler and successor of Takish was his son Sultan ’Ala-ud-
Din, Mubammad ; and neither Yinas Khan, Malik Khan, nor ’Alf Shah,
were ever rulers of Khwarazm, but merely held subordinate governments
under their father. When Sultan Takish entered "Irak in the beginning of
§90 H., and Sultin Tughril was slain in battle [see page 167, and note §],
Takish, after securing Irak, conferred Isfahan on Kutlagh Inanaj, son of the
Ata-bak Jahin Pahlawin, leaving the Amfrs of ‘Irak with him , and the terri-
tory of Rai and its dependencies was conferred upon Takigh’s son, Yiinas
Khan, with Mfanjuk as his Ata-bak and the commander of his troops. The
whole of "Irak he never held. Takigh did not take Irak from the Ata-bak
Abi-Bikr, son of Mubammad, for a very good reason. that no such Ata-bak
ever held it in the reign of Takish.

R

250 | THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

the Ata-bak, Muhammad, and a second time caused its
deliverance from Sultan Tughril, he conferred it upon his
son, Yiinas 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 sove-
reignty of his father, and to their dynasty“.

He reigned for a considerable time over Irak, and died.

VIII. MALIK KHAN §, SON OF TAKISH, KHWARAZM SHAH.

Malik Khan was the eldest son of Sultan Takish, and
was a mighty and arrogant monarch*. He was endowed
with great sagacity, wisdom, knowledge, and understanding,
nobleness of mind, and intrepidity.

When his father wrested Nishapir 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 Nishapir’,
and gave the throne of Nishapir 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

५ Whilst his father was absent on the expedition against Gha-ir Bika Khan,
the I-ghiir, in 591 प्र. Yiinas Khan turned his arms [or rather his Ata-bak for
him] against the Khalifah’s troops in Irak. Yiinas sought help to carry out
this hostile purpose, from his brother Malik Shah, who held the government of
Marw and its dependencies. Yiinas, 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 Khan —or Shah, as he is also styled—
set out on his return to Khurasan

$ His title was Nasir-ud-Din

५ When Sultan Takish entered Khurdsdn in ६90 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 Tis, Sultan Shah recovered. His father transferred
him to the government of Nishapiir, which he had previously held, with Shid-
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 fathers
companion and favourite

7 For the facts, see note 5 to Sultan Shah's reizn, page 246.

THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY. 25!

gate® of "Irak ; and a great number of eminent men assem-
bled at his Court. He reigned for a considerable time, and
died’, leaving a son named Hindi Khan.

He [Hindi 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 Khurdsan, and, in consequence,
his uncle, Sultan Muhammad, son of Takish, reprehended
him’. Hindi 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 hustility cease between us,
Be Khwarazm thine, King ! the country of Khurasan mine 3.”

° Alike in all the copies. The Hulwan Pass may be called the ‘‘ gate” of
"Trak.

* Malik Shah having returned from Hamadan, as related in note +, pre-
ceding 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 Nfshapii territory `
in consequence of disaffected persons inciting Sanja¥ Shah, son of Tughan
Shah, who had previously been relieved of the cares of independent sove-
reignty, to rebel against Sultan Takigh. 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 ’Irak against the "पं nobles, in conse-
quence of his son Yiinas Khan’s acts. It was on this occasion that the
Khalifah’s troops, after the death of their leader, the Wazfr, were defeated.
Takish returned into Khwiarazm by way of Isfahan, and conferred the
government of Khurasdén 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 Nighapir ;
but his illness increased, and he died at the close of the year 593 H.

+ Yifa-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-Din, Mas’iid, Harawi, was despatched
to Shad-yakh to assume charge of affairs. He contrived to prevent any
tumult, and sent the eldest son, Hindi: Khan, to Khwarazm. Subsequently
Sultan Takish conferred the government of Khurasan upon his son, Kutb-ud-
Din, Mubammad, who proceeded thither ; and, two days after he reached
Shad-yakh, the Wazir set out to join the Sultan, in Zi-Hijjah, 593 H. Hindi
Khin subsequently took service with his country’s enemies, the GBiris. See
Note 7, page 255.

2 This line, according to two copies of the original, might be read :—‘‘ Be
Khwarazm thine : mine alone the realm of Khuriasin.”

R 2

252 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Sultan Muhammad-i-Takish wrote the following lines in
reply :—
५ 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.”

Hindi Khan was not powerful enough to offer opposition
to his uncle and his armies, and he came to the territories
of Ghiir, 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 SHAH3, SON OF TAKISH, KHWARAZM SHAH.

Sultan ’Ali Shah was a very great and illustrious prince ;
and, when the period came for his brother to assume the
sovereignty, he made ’Ali Shah ruler of Nishapir. When
the Sultans of Ghiir conquered‘ Nishapir, Malik® ’Ali
Shah, with other Maliks of Khwarazm, under terms of
treaty, came out of that city, and presented themselves
before Sultan Ghiy&s-ud-Din, and the victorious Sultan
Mu’izz-ud-Din ; and they brought Sultan ’Ali Shah [with
them]to Ghaznin. When Sultan Muhammad [of Khwarazm]
appeared, the second time, before the gate of Nishapir,
and Malik Ziya-ud-Din*, under terms of convention, came
out [and surrendercd the city], the Sultan sent him back
to Ghir’, and the Sultans of Ghir sent back Malik ’Ali
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 Kuth-ud-Din, and when the Ghiri Sultins appeared before
Shad-yakh, in Rajab, 597 H.—particulars of which are given under his brother's
reign — Taj-ud-Din, Ali Shah, who had recently Jeft शष्ठ, chanced to be
there, together with a number of his other brothers’ nobles and officers.

+ Nishapir capitulated on terms only. They were not observed fairly ; and
?Ali Shah and the Khwarazmi nobles and officers with him were treated with
great indignity by the Ghiris. See note’, 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 Ghiris
how to behave to fallen foes.

THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY. 253

The latter bestowed the throne of Safahan and ‘Irak
upon his brother, ’Ali 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 Ghir, and
presented himself at the Court of Firiiz-koh.

At that period, the throne of Firiiz-koh had passed to
Sultan Ghiyads-ud-Din, Mahmiid, son of Muhammad-i-
Sim; and Sultan Muhammad despatched envoys from
Khwarazm to the presence of Sultan Ghiyads-ud-Din,
Mahmid, so that ’Ali Shah was seized and placed in
durance. At length, a party of ’Ali Shah’s followers de-
voted themselves to the cause of their master, and martyred
Sultan Mahmid, son of Muhammad-i-Sam.

When the throne of the kingdom of Ghir had passed to
the sons of Sultan Ghiyads-ud-Din, Mahmid, son of [Mu-
hammad-i-]S4m, an army from Khurasan® arrived there in
order to take possession of Ghiir, as will subsequently be
related ; and the Ghirians caused ’Ali Shah to be set at `
liberty, on the day that the Khwdrazmi forces gained
` possession of Firtiz-koh.

"Ali Shah proceeded to Ghaznin, and there he continued
as Malik for a considerable time’. Subsequently, Sultan
Muhammad, Khwdarazm Shah, despatched persons who
entered into engagements with him on favourable terms;
, 50 much so that ’Ali Shah, placing faith therein, was
induced to leave Ghaznin, and join the Khwarazmi army
and reached Tigin-abad of Garmsir. A party was [subse-
quently] appointed and despatched from Khwarazm, and
in the year 609 H., they martyred ’Ali Shah.

X. SULTAN ’ALA-UD-DIN!, MUHAMMAD, SON OF TAKISH,
KHWARAZM SHAH.

Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, had five sons; the

8 Khwirazmf troops, though no doubt chiefly natives of Khurasin—the
Khurasanf contingent.

® One copy alone of the original contains the word ‘‘ Malik.” For a correct
account of these matters, see the reign of Mabmiid, in Section XVII., for our
author seems to have been determined not to relate anything not tending to
the glorification of the Ghiris, 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 ’Ald-ud-Din, the title borne by his father.

254 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

first, Har-roz Shah; the second, Ghiri Shanasti?; the
third, Jalal-ud-Din, Mang-barni ; the fourth, Arzalii Shah ;
and the fifth, Ak Sultan’.

He was a great and potent monarch, wise, valiant,
munificent, a patron of the learned, a conqueror, and im-
petuous; 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 Nishapir, and
Malik Sharaf-ud-Din, Mas’iid-i-Hasan, was appointed to
be his At&-bak or governor; and, after some time, the
comimand 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 clever-
ness 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 Turkistan’, 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 Naghanasti,
Bashanastf, Bashastf, and Shansabi, all of which are unintelligible ; whilst
other authors, such as Guzidah, Jahan-Ara, and others, have Ghiri Sanji,
which, they say, signifies ‘‘ the Ghiri fled.”

3 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
Biriz [Firiz?], Nimroz, and Pir Shah, respectively. This last name is con-
firmed by other authors, as will be mentioned farther on. The name of the
fourth also is written Azarli, Arzalii, and Uzurli. 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, गड], Kurja (one copy,
Baja; Yafa-f has Kijae] Tigin[?], Ughil Malik, Jalal-ud-Din, Ghiyas-ud-
Din [Pir Shah], and Rukn-ud-Din, ततं 51181950. See note 2 above.
४209-1 mentions another, Timiir Malik. See note 3, page 285.

¢ Nothing of the kind: our author commences this reign with a totally in-
correct statement. He was engaged in the siege of (णश्च when the news of

THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY. 258

circumstance, he returned to Khwiarazm, and assumed the
throne ; and, in the year 595 H.’, he brought the dominions
of his father under his own jurisdiction.

He conferred the throne of Nishapir upon his brother,”
"Ali Shah °, as has been already stated ; and despatched an
envoy to the Courts of Ghir and Ghaznin, and sougkt for
peace; and IJ, Minhaj-i-Saraj, heard from one of the trust-
worthy [persons] of the Maliks of Ghir the statement, that
one of the messages and requests of Sultan Muhammad
was this’ :—“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 Mubammad 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 aindrs 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
Teign, and such events as our author has related—a number of most important
ohes have been passed over—are either incorrectly stated, or moulded to the
glorification of the Ghiris : hence the notes here will be found, I fear, volu-
minous, and, were I to notice every thing, I might almost fill a volume.

® Not so: his father died in Ramazan, 596 H., and Sultin Mubammad
ascended the throne in Shawwal of that year.

¢ See note 2, page 251.

¶ This statement is ridiculous, and totally unworthy of credit ; moreover,
the events which follow prove the contrary. No sooner had the Sultans of
Ghir 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, ‘‘ ex-
cited their envy and ambition ; and they, without loss of time, despatched a
force to Marw under Muhammad-i-Khamak, whilst they followed at the head
of an immense force, including ninety great elephants like mountains in appear-
ance.”” On reaching Tiis they plundered and devasted the country, and
slaughtered the people, and then marched to Shad-yakh. The Sultan’s
brother, Taj-ud-Din, ’Ali Shah, who had lately returned from Irak, happened
to be there, and the Ghirians obtained possession of the place by capitulation,
a tower having fallen from the number of spectators in it, which they took a: a
good omen. This our author turns into a miracle in the account of Ghiyadg-ud-
Din, who, by his account, was a miracle-worker. This was in Rajab, 597 H.
The place was given up to plunder, and °^ 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 Ghiir. By the fall of this place the Ghiiris acquired
temporary possession of the whole country, as far as Bustam and Jiirjan. This
effected, the brothers left a strong force at Nishapiir [Shad-yakh was a portion
of that city, or rather a fortified suburb] under Malik Ziya-ud-Dfn; 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 Mubammad heard of these troubles in Khurasin, he, in Zi-
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 sume skirmishing outside, the

256 THE TABAKAT.-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-Ghizi, 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
ort the coin” 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 it’, 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 Ghir [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

Ghiris retired within the walls ‘‘like mice to their holes,” and the battering-
rams were placed in position, and the ditch filled, when the Ghiris capitulated.
They were treated honourably, and sent back to Ghiir ‘‘ with dresses of honour,
in order to show the Ghiiris 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 Sultin Muhammad had solicited the Sultans of Ghir
to accept his vassalage. After this the Sultan proceeded to Marw and Sarakhs,
which last mentioned place was held by his nephew, Hindi Khan, and held by
hin for the Sultans of Ghiir and Ghaznin. On the approach of his uncle
Hindi Khan fled to Ghiir; but, as the governor in charge of Sarakhs refused
to open the gates, Sultin Mukammad left a force to take it, and continued his
march to Khwarazm by way of Marw to prepare for a campaign against Hirat.
In 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 time his tents were pitched in sight of Hirat.

8 The text differs here in some copies. Some have ‘‘ by the name ard coin,”
o‘hers ‘‘ by the name of ¢he coin,” &c., both of which are meaningless.

® Not desiring to be roasted in a bath. 1115 first title was Shihab-ud-Dfn.

) The icader would imagine, from the above, that the Ghiriin Sultans were

THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY. 257.

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 (गुप्ताः died, Sultan Muhammad,
Khwarazm Shih, appeared before the gates of Hirat’, and

in the constant habit of invading Khurasan ; but the facts are mentioned in the
preceding note 7, page 255.

2 Any one reading the above would imagine that Hirat sustained one siege
only by the Khwdrazmi 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. Hirdt sustained no less than three sieges, and one of these occurred
before the death of Ghiyds-ud-Din, and the second long before the death of
Shihab-ud-Din. The first occurred at the close of 598 H., upou which occa-
sion, the Khwarazmf army having invested it, after the battering-rams had been
freely plied on either side, the governor, ’Izz-ud-Din, ’Umr, Maraghanf, a
man of experience, saw no other remedy than to submit. He serit 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 Ghiir and Ghaznfn 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-Riid. When
he reached Sarakhs he halted, and negotiations went on between him and the
Ghiris, who sought the cession of some portion of Khurasan, the details of
which are too long ior 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 Khurasin, leaving Muhammad Kharnak, the
greatest of the Ghiri nobles, and the champion of Ghiir, to hold Marw. The
latter, however, having been overthrown by a body of Khwarazmi 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 Hiradt, and to take possession of it,
whilst the Ghiirfs were fighting among themselves about the late Sulfan’s
inheritance, as the Hiratis would receive him with openarms. 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
bazirs and streets of the place, negotiations for surrender were again opened by
Alb-i-Ghazi, the governor, sister’s son of the two Ghiiriin 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 on.
shihab-ud-Din had subsequently entered into a treaty of peace with Sultan
Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, and had been assassinated, Khwarazm Shah had

258 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Husain-i-Kharmil, Ghiri, came out and
paid homage to him; and the Sultan brought all Khurdasan
under his sway. When, by his command, Husain-i-Khar-
mil 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 Ghiyags-ud-Din had
acknowledged Sultan Mubammad’s suzerainty 5427८ the next investment of
Hirat took place, on which occasion the waters of the Hari-rid were dammed
up ; and ’Izz-ud-Din, Husain-i-Kharmil, one of the Ghirian nobles, had in the
meanwhile become Wali of Hirat and its dependencies, which he held of
Sultan Mahmiid, son of the late Ghiyas-ud-Din. Kharmil, being suspicious of
the upshot of the affairs of Ghiir, 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 Kharmil solicited him to do, and to
take possession of it and its dependencies. At length the Sultan set out for
Khurdsan, and, having taken possession of Balkh by the way, he marched by
way of Jaziiran to Hirat. He entered it in Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 607 H. After
this Mabmid of Ghir acknowledged his suzerainty, and read the Khutbah,
and coined money in the Sultain’s name, and sent him costly presents,
including च 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 (एतं 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 Ghiris, 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 Sultin’s safety, fearing the consequences of
his acts, and in order to palliate them, called upon the Khwarazmtf nobles
stationed in eastern Khurdsan to aid him in resisting the Ghiris. 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 Ghir;

and this blow quite broke the ‘little power still possessed by them. The
Khwirazmi nobles now wrote to Sultin 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-Din 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. Ie was sent away a prisoner to the fortress of Salomad of
Khowif (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 after-
wards 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 place’.

The Khwarazmi 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 Khwarazmi
forces in boats‘; and, when eleven months of the invest-
ment had passed, Sultan Muhammad-i-Takish arrived‘
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

3 The steward or deputy in Kharmifl’s employ, Zaydi by name, a man of
acuteness and cunning, managed to throw himself into the fortress, seemg the
state of affairs, and shut himself up there. He was joined by Kharmil’s fol-
lowers and all the vagabonds and rascals of the city, among whom he distributed
the wealth in Kharmil’s treasury, and defied the Khwarazmf forces. It so
happened that the Sultan, on account of the disaffection of a relative of his
mother, who held the government of Shad-yakh, had come into Khurdsan 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 Khwarazmi 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 4¢ 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 Khwarazmf 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-Riid is, like many
other of our author’s statements, purely imaginary.

* Boats are not mentioned in all the copies.

* Two paragraphs before this our author states that Sultan Mubammad

appeared before the gates of Hirat and invested it, but now says quite dif-
ferently.

260 ` THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

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-Din, (पा, Fiwari® [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 Kulij’ Khan of Khita-i,

6 In some copies he is called Malik Imad-ul-Mulk, Ahwazi ; and in some
it is stated that he wes, in others that he was sent, and in others that he was
taken. Balkh was surrendered 4c/ore the last investment of Hirat, as mentioned
in the preceding note. Imadd-ud-Din, 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
Shihib-ud-Din, Ghiri, 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 Gir Khin
demanding payment of the tribute, which he had purposely kept in arrears,
and whictrhis 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 Sultana 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 Saminian princes. He
was already disaffected towards Giir 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 प्र. ; 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 Giir Khan’s dominions, his great vassals at this period
began to act rebelliously ; and Kojlak [called Koshlak and Kighlak by some
writers, but not Kaghli, as our author writes it], son of Tae-nak [also written
Taya-nak) Khan, the Naeman ruler, who had fled from the power of Chingiz
Khin, and had sought Gir Khan’s protection, was at his court, and ready to
take advantage of any outbreak against his protector.

THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY. 26%

and, throughout the territories of Khita-i and the country
of Turkistan, as far as Bilasa-ghiin 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 Andkhid ; 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 honour’.

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 Giir Khan’s dominions, reached the
Jibiin 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-timiir, son of Kaldiiz, elder brother of Burak, the Cham- +
berlain, who subsequently usurped the government of Kirman—the commander-
in-chief of Gir 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 over-
throw of the Khiti-i forces. Baniko, of Taraz, was wounded and taken, as
related on the next page, and booty to a vast amount 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 Gir Khan, as he
mentions that ruler subsequently. Kagshlu is evidently mistaken for Kojlak.
Baniko, of Taraz, was Gir Khian’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 Khwarazmf
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 Khwiarazm,
on the termination of this campaign, he ordered Baniko to be puf to death, and

262 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIKI.

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 im-
petuous in battle, or more intrepid than the Ghiiri’ ; 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 leda
force of 400,009 effective cavalry, both horses and riders
arrayed in defensive armour’, into Khita-i, and completely
his body was cast into the river. There is not 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 Ghiiris, must be taken at its true
value. See also note », page 283.

9 Here again we see the determination to glorify all things Ghirian. 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
Shihab-ud-Din, Ghiri, Section XVII.

॥ 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 Gir 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 ’Ugman, 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 ambassadors

THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAII DYNASTY. 263

overthrew Gir 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 Sultin Muhammad did
not rest long at his capital, but put his forces in motion and marched to Jund.
After exterminating those rebels, Sultin "Usman and his family took up their
residence in Khwarazm ; 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 Gir Khian’s troops had appeared before
Samrkand, and invested the city.

The Khita-i forces used their utmost endeavours to take it, but their inces-
sant 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
Nieman, who was now making head again. The Sultan marched to Samr-
kand, and, having been joined by additional forces from various parts, set out
from Samrkand against A’nak [or I’nak, or Ighnak ?], the ruler of which was
in alliance with Gir Khan. He had been summoned to submit to the Sultin
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 Gir Khan’s territory. The agreement was, that
whoever could first dispossess Giir Khan of the territories of Kashghar and
Khutan as far as the Jihiin should have them ; and, in case the Sultan did so,
_ Kojlak was to have the remainder. Gir 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 Tabaristin and Rustamdar], despatched agents to Gir 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 Khita-is attacked the right
of the Khwarazmis ; and, as agreed upon, the two nobles with 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 con-
quered. 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 by 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 Sultin’s disappearance, however, had spread into all
parts of his dominions. Some said he had been killed, some that he had been

264 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI

_ cattle; baggage, and followers of the army of Khiti-i were
captured, and the Great Khan retreated discomfited before
him. Suddenly Kashli Khan, the Tatar, who had come
from Turkistan, fell upon Gir Khan, attacked him, and
made him captive; and the whole of the dominions of
Khita ° 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. [६ was on the occasion of the Sultan’s disappearance, that
Kharmil of Hirat became disaffected, and began intriguing with the Ghiris.

The Khita-f troops on their retreat through their own territory slew and
plundered their own people, and devastated the whole country until they
reached 81253. ghin, called Ghii-baligh, by the Mughals. On reaching that
city they found the gates closed against them, for the inhabitants made sure
that Sultin Muhammad would annex that part, and that he must be following
Gir Khan’s troops with his army, and therefore refused to admit them. All
the promises and oaths of Gir Khin and his Wazir were of no avail ; and the
place was attacked and defended for sixteen days, in expectation of the arrival
of the Khw4razmi 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 Gir Khin’s troops, when Bantko was’ taken ; but this is impossible,
as, very shortly after the sacking of Bilasighiin, Giir Khan was seized by
Kojlak, and his dynasty terminated after it had lasted ninety-five years. The
cause of it was this :—Giir 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-ghin
and country round. This caused great disorders, which Kojlak becoming
aware of, and finding that Gir Khan had been almost deserted by his troops,
suddenly surrounded his camp. Kojlak treated him with respect, but pos-
sessed himself of great part of his territory. This took place in 610 H., and
two years after Gir Khan was put to death—some say he died.

Most works are, more or less, defective with respect to the Sultan’s cam-
paigns against Gir Khan, and dates are not often mentioned. The Raugat-
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 men-
tioned, becomes somewhat abrupt with respect to the affairs of Gir 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 Bildsi-ghiin was sacked, and Kojlak was enabled to seize the person of
Gir Khan. The second encounter took place in 610 H., and Fasib-i, under
the events of 612 H., mentions that, in that year, Sultin Muhammad acquired
sway over the whole of Mawar-un-Nahr, which had continued in the possession
of the infidels of Kara-Khita-i, and the Mughals, since Sultan Sanjar’s defeat
On the other hand, however, most writers state that Gir Khan 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 Samrkand?,
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 Yiiz-bak
was likewise put to flight‘. He placed his son, Sultan

* All the copies, except one of the oldest, are minus the words ‘‘ from Samr-
kand.”’ Our author inverts the order of most of the events of this reign, as
the previous notes show. .

‘ Our author, on a previous page, has mentioned the hostility existing
between the ’Abbasi Khalifahs and Sultan Takish, Muhammad's father ; and
the arrival in Ghir of ambassadors from Baghdad to negotiate with the
brothers, Sultans Ghiyads-ud-Din and Shihab-ud-Din, and his own father’s
retum 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 Ghir 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-Din, Hasan, of Alamit, the Mulahidah heretic,
lately tuned orthodox ; and another was that the Khalifah borrowed, so to
speak, several Fida-is [volunteers, or disciples rather, of the head of the
Mulibidahs 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-diiz [styled Yal-diiz, and Yal-duz by some], in 611-12 H., and
gained possession of the treasury of the late Sultan Shihab-ud-Din, Ghiri, a
document was found therein, from the Khalifah to the Ghirian 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 toabove. 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 Khilifat, and that the then
Khalifah was to be considered dethroned. His name was omitted from the
Khutbah and the coin, and the name of Sayyid ’Ald-ul-Mulk [some few call
him ’Ali-ud- Din] of Tirmid, a lineal descendant of Imam Husain, was inserted

instead, and he was to be considered as the rightful Khalifah.
9

266 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Rukn-ud-Din, styled Ghiri Shanasti, on the throne of
Irak, and appointed Ulugh Khan-i-Abi Muhammad, his
Ata-bak and Lieutenant; and the Maliks of Ghir were
directed to proceed into that territory’:

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, Sultin 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 Shiraz 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-} and Guzidah say it happened in 613 H.; while Raugat-us-Safa,
Ehulasat-ul-Akhbar, and some others, say in 614 प्र. 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 Zangf as a hostage and was allowed to
depart, as already related ; see page 176 and page 177, note 9.

At this same time the Ati-bak Yiz-bak, ruler of Agarbaijan, had also
marched from that territory with the object of invading "Irak, and had reached
Hamadan. The Khwirazmi forces advanced against him, but, on their reach-
ing Hamadan, Yiz-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 Yiiz-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-Nagir 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 retum 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, ang 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.

_ ५ To serve with their contingents. They were subordinate then.

THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY. 267

the banks of the river [22275 he pushed on towards Bamian,
and, suddenly and unawares, pounced upon Sultan Jalal-ud-
Din ’Ali, son of Sam, ruler of Bamian, seized him, and mar-
tyred 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
Hindiistan’ by the way of Sang-i-Sirakh ; and the countries
of Ghaznin, Zawulistan, and Kabul, as far as the banks of
the Sind, came under the jurisdiction of the Khwarazmi
nobles. The Kh’an-salar [the Sewer of the imperial house-
hold], Kuriz’, was stationed at Ghaznin; and the countries of
Ghir, Ghaanin, the Bilad-i-Dawar [Zamin-i-Dawar], Jarim,
and the throne of the two Sultans, Ghiyas-ud-Din, and
Mv’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 Khan’, who was the son of Yisuf the
Tatar, and penetrated as far as Yighur' [I-ghir] of Tur-
kistan, 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 incline
[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 night’, [question being asked] to this effect :—

¢ In most copies this part of the sentence is left out altogether. The name
is also written Jowar.

7 I-yal-diiz [or Yal-diiz] was taken prisoner and put to death by I-yal-timigh
in 611 H., befare the Sultan entered the Ghaznin territory.

8 This name differs considerably in some copies of the text.

® 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 “Aree 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.

5 2

268 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

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 region’*.

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, Tishi* 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 Sihiin the Sultin 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 18° below the horizon, and hence we shall readily find that the /owest
latitude which will have twilight all night, at midsummer, will be 48° 30
(= sun's solstitial N. P. D. — 18° = 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.

९५ व 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 tothe 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 con-
cerning the evening prayer.”

From the above remarks it would also further appear, that Sultan Muham-
mad 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 49° N. lat

* Also called Jiji. This affair took place a considerable time after the mer-
chants had been put to death, and swdbseguent to the Sultin’s return from "Irak,
and, of course, our author has put it ०८2८. See note 2, page 272. Whilst delaying
at Samrkand, intimation was brought to Sultin Muhammad that Tik-Tughban,
one of the chicfs of Turkistan, of the tribe of Takrit, was retreating before the
Mughals towards Kara-Kuram, the (०८८८८ of the Kankuli tribe, and that he,

THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY. 269

Tishi, 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 direc-
tion ; and the two armies fell in with each other.

A battle ensued between them, and the fighting,
slaughter, struggle, and conflict, continued and was main-
tained 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 puard his
own territory, and prevent their entering it; but, hearing that they were pur-
sued by a numerous army of Chingiz Khan’s, under the leadership of his son,
Juji or Tiishi, 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 Chingiz, and slain. ]
He pushed on [from Jund] until he reached a place in Kaghghar, 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 Tiik-Tughan and his followers, who had been
defeated and put to the sword, after which Jiji 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 Sultin should attack them ; and, at the same time,
advised that he should not make matters worse than they were already between
himself and Chingiz Khin, 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
€astern as it has frequently been in western battles, broke their respective
Opponents, and the Mughals at last attacked the Sultin’s centre, and forced it
back some distance. The Sultin 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, con-
fronting 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 Sultin 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 note

270. THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

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
Greater® Turkistan, and Altin Khan of Tamghaj, who was
sovereign of Upper Turkistan, and the lineal monarch of
Kara Khita-1°, was overcome by him, and the territories of
Tamghaj, Tingit, and Yighur [I-ghir], and Tatar, all fell
into his hands; the news of 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 Chingiz Khan.
Accordingly, the most excellent Sayyid, Baha-ud-Din,
R4zi’, with a party of other persons, were despatched ona

$ Or, Upper Turkistan ; the original word will serve for either

6 For our author's further and more detailed account of Chingiz Khin’s
proceedings, see last Section of this work

7 Probably Ahmad, Khujandi, 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
Diwan in Sultin Muhammade’s service, and who became suspicious and dis-
affected 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 Chin’; and, wher 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 !—[who said :—] “ When we reached
the presence of Chingiz Khan, the accursed, the .Wazir of
Tamghaj, and the son and the uncle of Altiin 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 Chingiz Khan. At this time he had
reduced under his yoke most of the nomad tribes of Mughalistan and Turkistan
—Tatars, Mughals, I-ghirs, 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 Sultin Muhammad, to accompany
Ahmad of Khujand and the others on their return journey. A large party of
merchants, numbering about 450, Musalmans it is stated, left Chingiz Khin’s
territory with property of immense value, and set out, accordingly, for the
Sultain’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 pur-
chasing 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 Sihiin, the frontier capital of the Sultan’s dominions in that direction,
the governor, Anial-juk by name, a kinsman of the Sultin’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 Khujandi’s party,—said to have been a
Hindi—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 Chingiz ;
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 entcred the territory of Islam by way of Utrar.

At that place, there was a governor named Kadr Khan’,
and he sent an account to Sultan Muhammad respecting
the importance and value of the merchandizc ; and solicited
permission from him, in a perfidious manner, to stop the
party of merchants. Having obtained permission to do so,
he scized 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 making 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 party’.

Chingiz Khan preparcd to take revenge’; 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 Yiisuf the Tatar. This is a ¢hird.

1 From our author’s account of the putting the merchants to death, one
would imagine that Chingiz Khan marched wuthout the least delay, but a con-
siderable time elapsed between that unfortunate act and the appearance of the
Mughals before Utrar. The first took place in 614 ., and the second in
616 1.

2 As soon as Chingiz became aware of this outrage, he despatched an
envoy jsome 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 to

THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH 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, seven® hundred banners were
brought forth, and under every banner one thousand horse-
men were arrayed. Every ten horsemen were directed to
take with them three dried‘ Mughali 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 time’, 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 dis-
orders 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 Nishapitr,
on the 8th of ShawwéAl, 614 H., contrary to his wont, he-gave himself up to
wine and women. After delaying there more than a month, on the roth 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 Sibtn, 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. Fora
correct account of that battle see note + to the page referred to.

* Intwo or threecopies ‘‘three,”’ but seven hundred isthe more correct number.

५ Sheep’s or goat’s flesh salted and dried in the sun, called ‘‘ lindaey” by
the Af ghans.

५ One or two copies of the text have ‘in three months,” but the majority
have “in a short time Utrar was, however, taken after fve months. When
the Sultan retired to Samrkand, after the encounter with Tiishi, he had a force
of 400,000 men. The greater part of these was left in Mawar-un-Nahr and
Turkistin ; 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
Fasib-i says he reached it on the last day of Zi-Hijjah, 616 H., and entered it
the following day

274 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

the whole of the inhabitants were martyred. From thence
Chingiz Khan marched towards Bukhara ; and, on the day of
the Festival of the Sacrifice’, roth 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 :—

‘* T 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 नुं 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 ’, consisting of different races
of Turks, Ghiris, and Khurdsanis, together with the Maliks
and troops of Ghir, who were all included among that
body of troops. After a few days, on the 10th of the
month of Muharram, 617 H., Samrkand was also captured,
and the whole of the inhabitants were martyred’.

6 Abraham’s offering up of his son Isaac.

7 That is ^^ [viz. this fact] is murder committed by us,” in the sense, as it

were, ^“ € 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 Yifa-i says the Sultiin 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 Ghiir], 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 Khurasin. 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 Jihiin. 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 to

TITE KHWARAZM-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 deliveranee ; and, having
seized the Sultan, to take him and deliver him over as an
offering to Chingiz Khan’.

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. [5
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 preservé 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 Jibiin 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 Hindiistan 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 Sultin’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 Sultdn’s panic was so
great that the sage advice of his son was considered the mere lispings of an
infant. ।

> The Sultan left Balkh with the object of retiring into ग्ध ; and with this
intention was encamped on the bank of the Tirmid river [the Jihin], when
news of the fall of Bukhara reached him, and, very soon after, that of Samrkand
2150. 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 Oranian ; 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 hour‘, and the whole army
fell into utter disorder and confusion. - Sultan Muhammad
ˆ was forced to fly, and set out towards Nishapir, and wrote
mandates to the Amirs and Maliks in every part of his
dominions, commanding them to put the fortresses of
Khwarazm, Ghir, 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 aspy, 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 dis-
covered, 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 dyty or other ; and he then set out for Nishapir 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 Tiis, 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 $afar,
617 H., the Sultan reached Nishapiir, 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-Akhir, that an army of Mughals under
Yamah Nii-yan, Sabtae, and Taghajar [some authors say Jabah Nii-yan,
Swidae Bahadur, and Tikjar; the first some European authors call ‘‘ Hubbe”],
and other leaders, had, after the fall of Bukhara, crossed the Jihin at Tirmiz,
in Rabi’-ul-Awwal, in pursuit of him. He left Nishapir without delay, and
fled by way of Isfarain to Rai.
3 The words ‘‘at that untimely hour ” are contained in one MS. anly.

THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY. ` 277

defence ; and throughout the empire of Islim disorder and
tumult arose.

Chingiz Khan, having received information of the dis-
organization 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 Ni-in, and the other Sahiidah Bahadur,
to proceed in pursuit of the Sultan. When this force had
passed over the river [Jihiin], the Sultan retired from
Nishapir, and set out towards Mazandaran, and his camp
was pitched at the top of the Darah or Pass of Tamishah‘*,
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 Mazandaran*. Theson of the chief of Mazandaran,

+ Only a single copy of the texts collated gives this name correctly.

5 Any one reading the above would imagine that the Sultan proceeded
direct from Nishapir 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 Khurdsan that a strange army had reached it, which report made
him regret the haste he had shown in coming into ’Irak. He left Rai accord-
ingly, and proceeded to the fortress of Kazwin [some say Karin], at the foot
of which his son, Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, was encamped, with an army of 30,000
(षऽ. The Sultan sent his other son, Ghiyag-ud-Din, and his mother, and
some of the ladies of his family, to the fortress of Kariin-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 Shirin-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
Luristin and Fars, they said, was a range of mountains, called Tang-Tali,
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,
hews 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 Kirin-dujz,
whither he had previously sent Ghiy4s-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 Karin. He only stayed one day, and, after providing a
fresh horse, made off in the direction of Baghdad. The Mughals appeared
before Karin, which they attacked, and fighting went on as long as they
thought the Sultin was there ; but, finding this was not the case, and that he

278 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

who had joined him, was in attendance on the Sultan, and
his own son, Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Mang-barni, 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 Gildan, and then on to Asdir,
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 con-
sulted 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-Sugiin.

[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 Girgan, called Jurjan and Jiirjan by Muhammadans, who
change the g’s to 7’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 Gurgin or Jurjan], and fell into the Sea
of Khurz—the Caspian. When this river approaches the sea, it flows very
slowly ahd quietly ; hence its name, Ab-i-Sugiin, 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-
Namah says the sea is called Ab-i-Sugiin, and the island on which the Sultan
took shelter, Ab-giin].

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
Yatmah Ni-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. Sub-
sequently, 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 Sultin died on Ais way to Khwarazm is like many other of our author's
statements. He never left the island alive. His death filled Islim with
distress ; and this event took place in Shawwé4l, 617 H.

THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY. 279

The Mughal troops, not finding the Sultan in the pro-
vince 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, and he became quite out of his mind. He urged
his son, Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Mang-barni, saying :—“ En-
deavour 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 ६0
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 Khwarazm‘,

When the calamities consequent on the irruption of

6 The name of this young prince is written in various ways—not only in our
authors text, but also by other writers—Azilak, Arzak, त गन, Arzali, and
Arzalak ; the last seems the most correct. Certain it is that he was not heir-
apparent to the Khwarazmi empire. The word Shah or Sultan affixed to his
other name signifies that it was not his ८4८ as sovereign, but merely one of his
names. Other writers, with whom I am acquainted, do not account him as a
Toler at all. It was through the influence of Turkan Khatiin, Sultin Muham-
mad’s mother, that this boy, of very ordinary intellect, was set up at Khwa-
razm, during Jalal-ud-Din’s absence with his father. Arzalik’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 Sultin 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.

280 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL.

Chingiz Khan arose, and Sultan Muhammad was obliged
to fly from the banks of the Jihin and the. vicinity
of Balkh, and retired to Nishapir, the grandmother of
Arzalii Shah, the mother of Sultan Muhammad’, and the
people of Khwarazm, the Maliks, and the Amirs, con-
certed together, and raised Kutb-ud-Din, Arzalii 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 Tiran, who were
imprisoned at Khwarazm, were all drowned in the Jihin ;
and not one of them was left alive, by the time that one of
the sons of Chingiz Khan, Tiishi by name, with a numerous
army, {जा ° Mawar-un-Nahr, was nominated to march into
Turkistan and Khwarazm’ and arrived before the gates of
the latter-named city

As Arzalii Shah did not possess the power to oppose
him, he took along with him" his dependents, his sisters,
and mothers’, 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 Lal in
Tabaristan’.

7 Turkin Khiatiin, 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, Tishi [Jiji], Uktae, and Chaghatiae, 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 Tili, 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, Arzalik 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 Mughals 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 Arzalii [Arzalik Sultan]—the
other wives of his father, Sultan Muhammad, and his grandmother are
meant here.

* Sec latter part of note 5, page 277. Alfi calls it the fortress of Lar-jar.

THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY. 281

When Tiishi, 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 Kiishk-i-Akhjuk, which was the
ancient palace, and the sepulchral vault of Sultan Takish,
Khwiarazm Shah, which was allowed to stand ; but all else
was overthrown

After this, Taishi pushed on in pursuit of the dependents
and ladies of Arzalii Shah’s family, captured them all, and
martyred the whole of them. The mercy of the Almighty
be upon them‘!

XII. SULTAN RUKN.UD-DIN, GHURI SHANASTI, SON OF
MUHAMMAD, KHWARAZM SHAH.

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,
(गपा, retreated from before the gates of Khwarazm in the
year 601 H.; and, on that account, he was named Ghiri
Shianasti, that is to say, “The Ghiri 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-Din*. The daughter
of Malik Ulugh MKhan-i-Abi Muhammad, who was

+ Most of the copies of the text are defective here : only three have the last
paragraph, and, of these, but two appear correctly written.

§ Rukn-ud-Din was younger than his brothers, Jalal-ud-Din, and Ghiyas-
ud-Din; but, having acquired greater ascendency, the government of Irak
was conferred upon him, when his father left "Irak on his last expedition into
Mawar-un-Nahr. Y4afa-1 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 ’Ali, Az-Zawzani. His son, ’Izz-ud-Din,
held Kirman and its dependencies after his father’s death but he was removed,

T

282 . THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL.

a descendant of one of the paternal uncles of the
Khwiarazm Shahs, was given him in marriage, and the
father-in-law was made the Lieutenant of Sultan Rukn-
ud-Din, by Sultan Muhammad; and the whole of the
Maliks of Ghir, 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 Khwa-
razm Shahis fell into captivity, in the year 617 H., and
were, in all probability, martyred ५

XIII. MALIK GHIYAS-UD-DIN, AK SULTAN?, 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-Din 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 1000 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
Firiiz-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.

¢ 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.”

7 Pir Shah bore the title of Ghiyas-ud-Din, and he was ruler [nominally]
of Kirmin, after the Malik of Zawzan, and his son. Ak Sultan was sever put
in charge of any territory whatever. Our author has perpetrated another great
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 §,
page 286.

THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY. 283

Kirman, and the masnad of Gawashir, he placed the
Khwajah of Zawzan upon the throne® 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 Kirm4n, and brought under his jurisdiction
that territory as far as the sea-shore, and the frontiers of
Mukran’. When the calamities caused by the Mughal

ॐ Utter nonsense : the Malik of Zawzan was merely governor on the part
of the Sultan, and never ascended a ‘‘ throne.”

9 Ghiyds-ud-Din, Pir Shah, had been xamed ruler of Kirman by his father ;
**but what help is there, when man’s proposals chime not with destiny’s
disposals ?’’ When the convulsicns arose at the outset of the Mughal troubles,
Ghiyas-ud-Din determined to proceed into Kirman. At this time, Shuja’-ud-
Din, Abi-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 com-
pelled 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-i, also became his adherent. He was
a relative—some say a younger brother, some the son—of Baniko 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 youny 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 + page 266], who was routed. Ghiyadg-ud-Din and
his forces committed great devastation in Fars, after which he retired. Burak,
however, being aggrieved with him for some reason, deserted Ghiyas-ud-Din
one night, and set out with his adherents, intending to proceed by way of Kich
and Mukran into Hindistan, ‘‘to take service with I-yal-timish, ruler of
Dihli, who was also a native of Kara-Khita-i.” On reaching the frontier of
Kirmian, Shuja’-ud-Din, Abi-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 inter-
cept Burak by the way. They came into contact at Ridbar 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 sepa-
ration from Burak, Ghiyas-ud-Din had taken up his quarters at Rai; and, when
his brother, Jalal-ud-Din, reached ’Irak, after his return from Sindh, Ghiyag-
ud-Din had joined him, had misconducted himself, and, finally, deserted his
brother in an engagement with the Tatars, and finally retired into Khizistan.
See note %, page 297. He then sent an agent to Burak to tell him of his
arrival there. Burak pretended to be overjoyed ; and, after oaths and pro-

T 2

284 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRE

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 Ghiyds-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, Abi-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, Abi-l-
Kasim, likewise, came out of the city of Gawashir to pay
homage to the Sultan’.

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 Chamber-
lain, had acquired possession of Kirman, Ak Sultan, having
mises had been entered into by both parties, Ghiyas-ud-Din set out for Kirmin
with about 500 followers, and Burik 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 kins-
men 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 Gawaghir 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-i, the Chamberlain, and died’.

. XIV. SULTAN JALAL-UD-DIN, MANG-BARNI3, 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, Sultin 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 Kuriz‘; Firiz-
koh was entrusted to Mubariz-ud-Din, Sabzwari; and the
Wazirat was entrusted to Shihab-ud-Din-i-Alb, Sarakhsi.
Karrman was given to the Malik-ul-Umra [Chief, or Noble
of Nobles], Burshor® [Peshawar ?] and Bi-bikrpir [or, Abi-

2 Ghiyads-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 १, page 297, to make himeelf inde-
pendent, and would scarcely have dared to put his brother to death while
Jalal-ud-Din had the power to chastise him.

ड 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
ps 2 and 6 [?] all of which seem meaningless.

° 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 Mahmiid of
Ghaznin, when referring to the idol-temple which fell at his birth, says it was
near Barshabur [9 = -- quite a different mode of spelling. ५८८ page 76.

286 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Bikrpiir] were conferred upon Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din,
Muhanmad 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 [Arzaltii Shah] was seated on the throne
of Khwarazm, although he was a [much] younger brother ;
and both the brothers were apprehensive of each other‘.
Kutb-ud-Din, Arzalii 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 Nishapir, and entered the desert between Khurdsan and
Kirman, with the determination of proceeding to Ghaznin’.

6 After his father had breathed his last and had been buried, Jalal-ud-Din
left the island of Ab-i-Sugiin with a few followers, and set out for Khwarazm,
where were his younger brothers, Arzalak Sultan, Ak Sultan, Timiir Malik,
Aghil 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 Nishapir]. As it was, an
army of Mughals had already reached the Khwarazm territory, and Jalal-ud-
Din was closely pursued [near Astawah, according to Alfi,] 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 govern-
ment 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. At

THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY. 287

Trustworthy persons have related, that Jalal-ud-Din, in
that desert, saw Mihtar Khizr*®, who foretold his sove-
reignty, 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 Ghaznin’.

Malik Khan of Hirat, who formerly bore the name of
Amin-i-Hajib[Amin-ul-Mulk?]', and had killed Muhammad
Kharnak, Ghiiri, and who had, before the arrival of Jalal-ud-
Din, set out towards Hindiistan, 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 Fikii? Ni-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 Sulfan’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 Yazdawiah [also called
Zaudiah—Jezdoun of the maps?], a dependency of Hirat [about seventy-five
miles 5. ४४, of that city], and then abandoned the pursuit.

5 Another of our author's childish tales, certified by ‘‘ trustworthy autho-
rities.”

® 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 Raugat-us-Safa and Habib-us-Siyar, and Yamin Malik by
Alfi], 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 Ghir 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, chief-
tains 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,
Ighrak, with 40,000 men, Kankulis, Khalj, and Turkmans ; and the Amirs
of Gbiir also joined him from the parts adjacent. His affairs now assumed
considerable grandeur and magnificence, 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,
Ghiri, before Jalal-ud-Din had come into Hindiistén,” &c. The correct
name of this chief was Amin Malik, and he is also called Amin-ul-Mulk.

2 In some copies Fitki.

288 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

who was Chingiz Khan'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 Barwan*, 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-ghir [these leaders are somewhat differently
called by some writers—Kam-chak, and Yighir, Tamghbiir, and even Balghir},
was pressing the siege of Wamian [Bamian, w and 4 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 like-
wise called Parwan, Farwan, Baran, and Barwan on the Ab-i-Barani,
by as many different writers. The letters 4, ~, and / are interchangeable.
The two first are undoubtedly incorrect. Babar and Abi-l-Fagl 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-Tawarikh—which latter work also states that it
lies on the ‘‘ banks of the Ab-i-Barani ’—as situated between Ghaznin and
Wamian, but nearer Ghaznin. What modern writers and travellers in Af-
ghanistan 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. Barwéan is also to be found in many maps, although the position
“may not be quite correct, at about five or six stages north of Ghaznin. 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
Wamian ;” and this last seems to be the name which some writers have mis-
taken for Wa!ian. Certainly there is a place mentioned in the MASALIK-WA-
MAMALIK named Wa4lin, but one syllable less than Walian and Wamian, as
being ‘‘the same distance from Khulum as the latter is from Balkh.” There
is also a Parwan or Farwan, on the Panj-hir river ; but those who have ses
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
Hindii-Kush, not the easiest by far. If Barwin, or Parwan, north of Kabul,
could possibly be the place referred to, and Walian-——the Walin of MASALIK-
WA-MaAMALIK, and which Mr. Thomas, र, 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 व 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,
and constantly mentions Walwalij e's 9 also, but neither ‘‘ Wawalin” nor
Walin]———be the place to which the ~ Mughals were laying siege, Jalal-ud-
Din would have had to cross and re-cross the Hindii-Kush on this occasion, +
vather 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, 00४.
sidering that Chingiz, with his main force, was before Tae-kan, only about
twenty miles from Kundus, while the Parwan Pass, and Sar-i-Ulang Pass
connected with it, and the other passes of Hindii-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 Chingiz’s army whilst he was engaged with the

THE KHWARAZM. SHAHIAH DYNASTY. 289

infidels, He encountered them upon three different times in
that quarter, and on all three occasions success and victory

Mughal forces before Wamian, or Walian so called. Besides, we are plainly
told that Barwan, on the banks of the Ab-i-Barani, was a town or city detween
Ghaznin and Balkh. Chingiz himself came in pursuit of the Sultan, by way
of Andar-ab, Kabul, and Bamian. ]

Leaving his heavy material and baggage at Barwin, Sultan Jalal-ud-Din
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 Sultin’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 manceuvre, 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 Barwin.

Chingiz, having heard before Tae-kin of this reverse, despatched another
force of 30,000 picked troops, under Shabki Kotii [according to Yafa-i, but
by our author and some others, Fikii Nii-yan ; by the Zafar-Namah, Kankiid
and other leaders ; and by others, Kubiir] to take revenge, and prepared to
follow in person ; and one morning, in the early forenoon, about a week after
Ais return to Barwan, intimation reached 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 Parw4n be the place, a position they were not likely to verture
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,
I ghrak, 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 ‘‘dind 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 the

290 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

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 Ghaznin‘. 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 sice place fora
general charge by a numerous army of cavalry], who turned their backs and made
off. Again they 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 Amin Malik and Saif-ud-Din,
Ighrak, about a horse, and Amin 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 [Amin Malik’s followers] would submit to any decision. In conse-
quence of this untoward event, Saif-ud-Din, I ghrak, 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 Kayrman and Sankuran [some say, Shaniizan].

This event completely broke the power of Jalal-ud-Din, 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 Wamian
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-Din.

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 out-
number, resolved to cross the Sindh, and retire into Hindistin [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-Din, Ghiri, and,
leaving a garrison at Ghaznin, he set out. Uz Khan was left at Kajlah
[de Kajla, probably, the name of a place on the route to the Indus by the
Paiwar Pass], with the rear-guard of the Sulftan’s small force, to endeavour to

THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY. 291

resistance ८0 1€5€ 01८८5, 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 0z Khan was defeated and forced back. Chingiz, who saw through
the Sultin’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 Nil-ab ferry
[the place where Timir 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 Amin Malik, a body of them having advanced
along 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 Iooonly]. 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 Khin 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 Jibin,
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 ELLiot, vol. ii., note 2, page 552.

292 , THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRIL

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 fiw
points—,.= and ,=—but who could mistake them, the camel being a very
model of awkwardness? The word ^" Jihiin,” used by one of the authors from
which this is taken, seems to signify any mighty river, as the Jihiin of Sindh;
and, in this sense, Ibn Khurdabih appears to use it. There is a place, on the
west bank of the Indus, a little below Nil-ab, called Ghoya-Trap, or the
‘*Horse’s Leap,” and very protably the name is derived from the Sultan's
feat above recorded. Chingiz Khan caused a monument [sie] 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 over-
hanging 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 may be described as one immense and irresistible
rapid. See Woop: ‘‘ 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.’ ”

Chingiz Khan and the whole of the Mughals, who witnessed this wonderful
feat, placed their hands to their mouths [denoting amazement] ; and Chingu
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-SHAHIAH DYNASTY. 293

took place betweenthem. Sultan Jalal-ud-Din was defeated
and overthrown, and he threw himself into the river, and
retired, discomfited, into Hindistan.

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 र vicinity” [3१4] of
Barshawar; and, from this, we may judge how far Waihind or Bahind,
mentioned under Mahmiid of Ghaznin [page 76], may have been distant from
that place. See also note 5, page 285.
$ 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 Chil [un-
cultivated or desert tract] of Jariik—called to this day, the Chil-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 Hindiis, 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 Tirtaée. 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 Malkaptr. 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 Dihlf
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 war-
like character, his nobility of mind, and great energy. The manumitted slave

294 | 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
Dihli, one should be assigned to him. This, of course, was to get him into
his power, if possible. As to I-yal-timigh 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 Jiid. That force defeated the Khokar [or more correctly, Khokhar]
chief, erroneously styled Rade 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 Kulij] Khan was bestowed
upon the latter.

Hostility of long standing existed between the Khokhar chief and Kuba¢hah,
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. Kubiachah 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-piir?], 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 Sindistin [the name given by the generality of historians is
Siwastan—Alfi says, ‘‘ Sadiisan, which is Siwastan”]—the present European-
ized Sehwan. The city and fortress were held by a deputy of Kubadchah’s,
Fakhr-ud-Din, Salari. A force sent out by him, under Lachin, a native of
Khita, having been overthrown by the Sultan’s vanguard under Uz Khin,
Fakhr-ud-Din, on the Sultan’s arrival, came forth, and delivered up the place.
Jalal-ud-Din entered the city, and remained there a month, after which he con-
ferred a dress of honour upon Fakhr-ud-Din, left him in charge as his lieutenant
in Sindistan, and marched to Dibal and Damrilah. A Habagh [Abyssinian
or negro], who was ruler of that part, fled, got on ship-board, and escaped.
The Sultin 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 it

THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY. 295

Abi-Bikr, ruler of Fars*®, 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. Istakhuri says it lies west of the river
Mihran; Abi-l-Kasim, Ibn Hiikal, 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. Abii 1-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 Abii-]-Fagl 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, sf 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 24° 30 N. LaT., and our varying at the same place 16° 45/.”
Thathah is in Lat. 24° 44/, and Karachi, which is also supposed by some to
be the site of Dibal, lies in 24° 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 Hikal says—‘‘ Bardasir, which
isto 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, Abi-1-Kasim’s
son, who held out Gawéashir [also called Bardasir] for Ghiyag-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. 1121.
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 Abi-Bikr did not
succeed him until 628 H.—seveén years subsequently. How different was the
behaviour of Sa’d to that of the ‘‘august Sultan” of our author! As soon as
the Sultian’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 time

296 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 Gurj’ [Georgia], and reduced that
country under his jurisdiction.

previously, he had taken an oath which he could not break, that be 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
Khan 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 Abi-Bikr, who had long been imprisoned
for hostility towards his father [see page 178], and Abi-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 govern-
ment of Yazd. He was the lineal descendant of the last of the Dialamah
rulers of the family of Buwiah. See page 66, and note 7.

Jalal-ud-Din’s affairs niuw 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, Yiiz-bak, the son of the Ata-bak, Jahin Pahlawan, ruled. Yiiz-bak fled
from his capital, Tabriz, on the Sultan’s approach, and retired to his stronghold
of Alanjik, leaving his consort, the daughter of Sultan Tughril [not Sanjar],
Saljiki, in charge of the capital. She was aggrieved with Yiiz-bak on some
account, and stated that he had divorced her; and, having obtained a dispen-
sation 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 Sultin
agreed, and the capital was delivered up to him, and he entered it in 622 H.
Subsequently, he went to Nakhjian, and espoused Shams Malikah Khitin,
as agreed ; and, a few days after the news reached her former husband, the
Ata-bak Yiiz-bak, he died of grief and chagrin.

7 Soon after Jalil-ud-Din engaged in hostilities with the Gurjis, and was

THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY. 297

He also fought engagements with the armies of Rim
and of Sham, and was defeated and overcome; but, at
length, peace was concluded between him and the army of
Shim. Tirti, the Mughal, who had invested Multan’, 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
him’. 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 Tiflis, 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-Aghraf, 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 Khitiin from
Khiie, and dishonoured her [Jami’-ut-Tawarikh says, Malik-ul-Ashraf dis-
honoured her, and Rauzat-us-Safa says, it was the Hajib, Ali]; and the
Gurjis also rose. The Sultin lost no time in taking revenge, and carried
slaughter and devastation up tothe 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 Guzfdah, with the diacritical points ;
in others, Ir-lak and Ir-lik ; and in other writers, Uz-bak and Oz-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.

® This statement is not mentioned by other authors quoted herein, and is
very doubtful.

9 In Ramazan 624 प्र. [Jami’-ut-Tawarikh 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
Sultin’s army, led by Uz Khan, overthrew the opposing force of Mughals,
when the Sultan's brother, Ghiyag-ud-Din, who had charge of the other wing,
deserted during the action, with all his adherents, and fled into Liristan. [It
was subsequent to this that he was put (५ death by Burak. See page 285, and
note?,]_ 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 Khurasan 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

U

298 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

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 fly’.

his operations in Gurjistan and Arman. He marched from Isfahan, in 62§ H.,
and, having succeeded against the Gurjis, marched to Akhlat once more, took
it by storm, captured the governor’s [Hajib ’Ali’s] wife, whom he made his
slave, and amply revenged the outrage Shams Malikah Khitiin had suffered at
her husband's hands.

Jalal-ud-Din now turned his arms against the Sultan of Rim, ’Ala-ud-Din,
son of Kai-Kubad, Saljikf [see bottom of page 162], and Malik-ul-Ashraf,
ruler of Shim, 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?]. 10 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 प्र. Jalal-ud-Din had
endeavoured [in 627-8 H.] to induce the rulers of Rim and §ham to join him
against the common enemy, but jealousy and suspicion on their part prevented
so advantageous an alliance.

' 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 Jarmaghiin, and of their early approach. He despatched
Oz 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 Shawwéal 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 Mugaffar, 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 Shahi 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 ४

THE KHWARAZM-SHAHIAH DYNASTY. 299

He succeeded in reaching a place in the territory of
Aknhlat, and halted to rest near a village, the chief of
which recognized him. Ina battle, which had taken place
between the Sultan and the troops of Sham, he had slain
the brother’ 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, Abi-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-Daulah, Al-Byabankf, us-Simnanf relates as follows :—‘‘ When at
Baghdad, I used daily, at noon, to wait upon the pious and venerable Shaikh,
Nir-ul-Hakk wa ud-Din, ’Abd-ur-Rabman-i-Isfaraini—may his tomb be sanc-
tified! 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-Din, Mang-barni, 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 Sulfan, Jalal-ud-Din. According to this account, Jalal-ud-Din
could not have died until 688 H., above sixty years after the period above
mentioned.

3 The most reliable copies have ^" brother ;” others, ‘‘ brothers and sons ;”
and some again, ‘‘sons”’ only.

UC 2

SECTION XVII.

THE SHANSABANIAH SULTANS, AND THE MALIKS OF
(प्र.

MINHAJ-I-SARAJ, Jirjani, 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 Ghiir, after this manner :—That
the following pages are illumined with the sun of the illus-
trious race of the Sultans of Ghiir, together with that of the
offset of the fragrant tree of the Maliks of Ghir—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 away'!—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 illu-
mine 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-riid—the light
of the Almighty illumine his tomb !—has strung the genea-
logical 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 GHOR. 301

order, has affixed the head pearl of that string to the
oyster-shell of the illustrious dynasty of Zuhak, the T4z1;
and, from the time of those Sultans up to the first com-
mencement of the sovereignty of Zuhak, he has mentioned
the whole of them, father by father.

This book? 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, Ghiyas-ud-Dunya wa ud-
Din, Abi-ul-Fath, Muhammad, son of Sam, Kasim-i-
Amir-ul-Miminin—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 4aram, and, under her blessed sight, he used to receive
instruction.

That princess was possessed of many virtues and endow-
ments. 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 Ghiyds-ud-Din,
Muhammad-i-Sam, went to the mercy of the Almighty, fora
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.

302 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

most excellent of her time, and Khadijah? of the age, the
Malikah-i-Jalali‘, 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 Ghiyasg-ud-Din*‘, 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 Ghir, 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, ’Ali—may God €
ward him !—and that he received conversion to the faith
at the hand of ’Ali himself‘, 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 cove-
nant which the Lord of the Faithful, ’Ali, 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
"Ali; 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 thou-
sand 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.

$ 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 Ali, 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 GHOR. 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 time’.
The fraternity, who account Zuhak among the descendants
of Sam, son of Mihtar Nik, relate as follows :—Zuhak*, son
of ’Anwan (’Ulwan], son of ’Amlak [’Amlat and ’Alak], son
of ’Ad, son of ’Ag [’Awas and ’Awaz], son of Iram, son of
Sam, son of Nik, son of Lamak ; while others again have
related that his [Zuhak’s] name was Biwar-asp, son of
Arwand-asp, son of Tih, or Tawah [Tarh], son of Kabah
[Kayah ?], son of Nuh.

Some, on the other hand, have stated :—Biwar-dsp, or
Biwar-asp, son of Arwand-asp’, son of Zankaba [Ranbaka],
son of Tazio-barsed [Tazio-barsid, Tazio-barshed, Tazio-

7 The Mubammadan historians are at variance respecting the descent of
Zubak. Our author, in his account of him in Section V., says he was called
Biwar-asp, and that God sent Nib to him to exhort him to repent of his
misdeeds, and that Nib 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-dasp lived before the Flood, in which he perished ; and, one thousand
years after the death of Niih [compare with his statement here and at page 312],
a king arose of the seed of Sam, son of Nuk, named Zubak, who was a
sorcerer.

Immediately after quoting Tabari, our author again says that Pesh-dad, son
of Hoghang, 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 Zubak.
The Tarikh-i-Mukaddasi, there quoted by him, says Zubak’s name is Biwar-
asp, son of Arwand-asp, son of Tarah, son of Kayah, son of Nib.

The Jami’-ut-Tawarikh, Tarikh-i-Ibrahimi, and some others, say the
*Ajamis call Zuhak, Biwar-dsp, and that the Patriarch Ibrah{m 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-isp, son of Rinkawar [Zankaba ?], son of Sahirah, son of
Tiajz, son of Farawal, and that Tijz was Hoshang’s brother. Guzfdah and
others trace his descent from Jamghed, and say he was his sister’s son ; but the
greater number of chroniclers agree that he was sixth in descent from Kaitimurt,
also written Kaiiimurs. The people of Yaman, again, say Zubak 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.

४ It will be well to mention here that the frst name given in the following
pages is the one considered stost 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-dsp are also the names of the father of Luhr-asp,
also called Arwand Sah.

304 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

narsad, Tabir, Tazbi, and Tazbir], son of Farawwal
[Farawal, Karawal?], son of Siad-mak, son of Mubshi
{[Mushbi], son of Kaiii-murs, son of Adam—peace be
unto him!—while others again say :—Kaiii-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
Zuhak’, and son of the son of Tazio-barsed [Tazio, Tazbu,
and Tazbir]; 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
Tazi* 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 God-
fearing man. He had a son, Zuhak by name, who was
exceedingly malicious and factious, a blood-shedder, and
a great tyrant, and a cruel man, whom Shaitan [Satan]
had led astray from the right way*. He dug a well in the

1 According to Tabari he [Zubak] was a descendant of Ham, son of Nib,
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-Maran, 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 Kaiiimurt. Some consider him to be Arfakhshad,
son of Sam, who composed the Jawidan-Khirad. He is said to have founded
Istakhur—lIstakhur is the ’Arab form of writing it— of Fars, Babal, and Sis.

3 Called also Taji by 'Ajamis, and hence the name Tajik [€ 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, how-
ever, 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.

‘ 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
killed’.

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 away’,
Almighty God was pleased to release the world from his
tyranny and oppression, and the kingdom came to Faridin.
He seized Zuhak, and confined him in a pit on mount
Dimawand, in ‘Irak.

ACCOUNT OF BUSTAM, MALIK OF HIND AND OF प्रो.

This Bustam Malik held the dominion of Hindistan® at
the hand of Zuhak, and he was one of Zuhak’s descendants,

$ According to trustworthy authorities, this Biwar-asp became styled Zubak,
from the old Persian words © += dah-ak, signifying ‘‘ten vices and defects ;”
and the ’Arabs, in copying the name, used .¥ for ऽ or ज and transformed it
into els? by changing the » also into, With this change of letters, the
original meaning of the word became changed, for els4 [Zuhak] 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 Zen 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-dsp because he had always ten thousand ’Arab
horses in his stables.

6 Tabarf 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 (दत्ता, 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 Ghir on the north-east

5 Sic in all copies of the text

306 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

namely*®:—Bustam, son of Mihshad [Mishhad, Mamshad,
Shamad, Shad, Shihad, and Shihadan], son of Nariman
[also called Nadiman], son of Afridiin [or Faridiin], son of
Sahind [Samind and Samid], son of Sifand-asp [or Isfand-
asp], son of Zuhak, son of Suhrab’, son of Shaid-asp, son
of Sid-mak, son of Marnias [Marsas and Marnas], son of
Zuhak the Malik.

When Zuhak was made captive, Afridiin despatched
an army to take possession of Hindiistan; and Bustam,
who did not possess the power to oppose the forces of
Afriditin, retired towards the mountain tracts of Shaknan?
[Shaghnan] and Bamian, and therein took up his residence.
On a second occasion the forces of Afridiin 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 Tukhiristan® into the
mountain tracts of Ghir. That district was called Hazar-
Chashmah [the thousand springs] on account of the num-
ber of rivulets in it; and Bustam, at this time, retiring
before the army of Afridiin, came into Ghiir, and at the
foot of the mountain of Zar-i-Margh‘ [the place where
Margh grows] he fixed his residence’.

9 Other writers say that Bustaém was one of the descendants, not sons, of
Zuhak, and that his progeny increased in Ghiir up to the time of Shansab,
who was contemporary with the Khalifah, ’Ali. Qhansab was the son of
Khamak, and from him descended Bustam, as well as Pulad. See page 311.

1 Jahin-Ara has Shahran.

2 The letters k and gh are interchangeable. A few copies have ७५५५ for {ii

3 Not Hwen Thsang’s ‘‘ Tokharistan,” extending ‘‘ten days’ journey by
thirty,”’ but a much smaller Tukhiaristan is meant here.

4 Zar signifies a place of growth, and ‘‘ margh”’ is the name of a species of
verdure called also fares, which any browsing animals feed on with great
avidity. It is odoriferous, the reed scoenanthemum.

5 Other authorities state that when Faridiin overcame Zubak, a number of
his descendants fled, and took shelter in the mountains of Ghiir ; and that
Bustam, who was one-of his progeny, and who held Hindistin, being unable
to cope with the forces of Faridiin, he [Bustam] a/so took shelter in Ghit.
The place he took up his residence at was, from the number of its springs and
rivulets, called Hazir-Chashmah, and was an exceedingly pleasant and strong
spot, and therefore he chose it, saying to himself ‘‘ daro ; ma-andesh !”—‘‘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 Ghiir, in which he founded several strong
fortresses. He had wandered about in several parts previously before reaching

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 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-
Nasiri, 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 Afridiin overcame Zuhak, and took the do-
minion from him, two brothers, his sons, reached Nihawand.
The elder brother bore the name of Siz‘, and the younger
was called Sam. The elder brother, Siz, became Amir
[chief or ruler], and the younger, who was named Sam,
became the Sipah-salar [leader or commander of his forces]’.

“Amir Siz had a daughter, and the Sipah-salar, Sam, 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 Siz, 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 horses® from the stables of Amir

Ghir ; and, as soon as Faridiin became aware of his whereabouts, he despatched
large forces against him, but, after protracted hostilities, the forces of Faridiin
were glad to accept terms, on account of the difficult nature of the country, and
the strength of Bustaim’s castles. Tribute and taxes were imposed upon him
[Bustam], and he had to content himself with Ghiir, 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-
Tawiarikh states that the Ghiris are styled Bani Rasib, otherwise famous
under the name of Uz-Zubak.

® Some copies have Siir, 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 Siz.”

308 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Siiz, 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 Ghiir, and there he took up his quar-
ters. The girl and her cousin said [to each other], ‘ Za-o
[४. €. Az-o] ma-andesh’—be not afraid of him—and the
name of that place became Mandesh’; and there their

1”

affairs assumed stability’.

According to the first tradition, however, when Amir
Bustam, with his followers, took up his residence in that
locality, information was conveyed to Afridiin. He was
desirous of sending forces, for the third time, for the pur-
pose of destroying and exterminating Bustam and his
followers, or to take him [alive] if possible. The sons of
Afridin, (पढ and Salm, by means of treachery, killed
their brother, I-raj, who was on the throne of Iran’; 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, ^ 7#ey said that the name of that place was Dii-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 Bulandegh,” but omit the
first clause of the last sentence. Mandesh is mentioned by some old writers
as the name of a stronghold in Khurasan. Degh must not be confounded with
the Sanskrit word Des—a country, &c. See note 5, page 306.

! 2. ¢. There they settled down permanently.

2 In his account of Faridiin 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, Tijz [also दत्त], doldness, daring, and I-raj,
wisdom with tact. The Rauzat-ut-Tahirin states that he held Khurdsan, and
only a portion of Hind and Sind.

The Raugat-us-Safa and some others say that a sept of the descendants of
णडा, not the sons of Zuhak, finally took up their residence in the mountain
tracts of Ghiir, and that they were hard pressed for some time by the forces of
Faridiin, and became as desirous of accommodation as Faridiin’s general was
of granting it; and the Zubakis agreed to pay taxes and tribute, and not to
encroach on other territory. See note 5, page 306-7.

In the account of the ancient kings of Asia, contained in the Raugat-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’il Samanf’s reign, and afterwards resumed by
Ansari, and completed by Firdausi, in Mahmiid 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 Faridiin; 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 Bustém. Kargh-dsp, ancestor of Rustam, held Kabul,

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF छर. 309

on that account, Shah Afridiin was greatly afflicted in
heart, and distressed in mind, and he did not obtain® his
revenge upon Bustam. The latter, having found time and
opportunity, turned his attention to peopling and render-
ing habitable the mountain districts of Ghiir, and parts
adjacent.

He despatched trustworthy agents to the presence of
Shah Afridiin, and sought for peace. Afridiin complied
with the request of Bustaém, and, as he had now obtained
security and safety, the followers, dependents, and parti-
sans, and the ’Arab tribes akin or related to Zuhak, from
all parts around, turned their faces towards the mountain
district of Ghiir, 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 Faridin, 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. Sdm 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 Kargh-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 expe-
dition against Afrasiyab, the Turk. The Jami’-ut-Tawarfkh also states that,
when Afrasiyaéb crossed the Jibiin into Khurasan, he detached a force to
intercept Sam, or keep him in check; and, when the force reached the Hir-
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
Zabulf nor Iranf, but of the race of Zuhak ; and am loyally inclined to Afra-
siyib.” 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 con-
sider 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
Irini 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.

* One copy has, ‘‘and he did not give his mind to taking revenge on
Bustam.”

310 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

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 Hindiistan 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, Mab-
mid, son of the Sultan, Kasim-i-Amir-ul-Miminin‘—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 Firiiz-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 Hindistan, the heritage of which dominion,
and the sovereignty of which monarchy passed to them,
and after whom the race of Shamsi* 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-

+ Some of the best copies of the text have, ‘‘son of the Sultan of Sultans,”
and omit the Kasim altogether. ¢ the Shansabini 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, I-bak, his owner, who ruled in
Hindiistin ; and the dynasty of the former, from his name, Shams-ud-Din, is
styled the Shamsi or Shamsiah dynasty

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 311

pilation of it, there was not an uninterrupted succession to
be set forth®.

I. AMIR POLAD [OR FULAD], GHURI, SHANSABI.

Amir Pilad, Ghiiri, was one of the sons of Malik Shan-
sab’, son of Kharnak ; and he brought® under his jurisdic-
tion the districts of the mountain tracts of Ghir. He
rendered the names of his fathers immortal ; and, when the
advocate’ [of the cause] of the house of ’Abbas, Abii-Mus-
lim-i-Marwazi', arose, and considered it expedient to oust
and to expel the Amir of the family of "Ummiah from the
territory of Khurasdn, Amir Pulad led the forces of Ghir
to the aid of Abii-Muslim-i-Marwazi’, and greatly distin-
guished himself in supporting and assisting the house of
"Abbas and the family of the Prophet.

For a long period the dominion over Mandesh*, and the
authority over the mountain tracts of Ghiir was exercised
by him. He died; and his dominions remained in the
possession of the sons of his brother‘, 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
Ghir, 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 ®, page 306.

8 Some copies have ‘‘came” under his jurisdiction, and others ‘‘ were”
under, &c.

* It is something new, certainly, to find that ‘‘ Sabib-i-Da’wat” means
‘a founder.”

1 That is, a native of Marw.

2 In the accounts of Abii-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
Pilad the Ghiri. Some writers say that the fief of Ghiir was conferred upon
Amir Pilad and his descendants on account of the services rendered by him,
and that he added to it by annexing other tracts of country. |

> All the copies of the text here, with few exceptions, write this name
differently as well as incorrectly. There is no doubt that Mandegh is the
correct name. See note 5, page 306, and note °, page 308.

4 Which brother is, of course, nameless.

312 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

The whole of the Sultans were descended from his sons‘;
- 210 his genealogy has been thus made out :—Banji, son of
Naharan, son of War-mesh*, son of War-meshan [War-
masan, Dar-manshan, War-mashan, and War-hesh4an], son
of Parwez, son of Parwez’, son of Shansab, son of Kharnak'’*,
son of Bain or Bayyin, son of Munshi’, 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 [252 ?], son of Shadad,
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 ', and the empire of Islam came under the sway of
the Khalifahs of that family, he presented himself at the
Court of the ’Abbasi Khalifahs ; and the first person of the
Ghirian race who proceeded to the Khalifah’s Court’, 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, Hariin-ar-Rashid, was this :—In the terri-
tory of Ghir there was a tribe who are called Shisanian’,

5 And from him, too, we may suppose.

6 Jahin Ara has Nahawan [and Nahadan], son of Wir-mesh [and War-
mesh], son of War-manshan ; and Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh has Nahaiwan,
son of War-mesh, son of War-mashan. Firishtah [Muhammad Kasim, not
‘‘ Briggs,” who turns Shansabi into SAésty !], 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 ता.
culous that their own mothers could not distinguish them. But what can be
expected of a translator who does not appear to have known what yl)»
[mu’arrikhan, signifying ‘‘annalists, historians’”] meant, which he, in his
innocence, styles ‘‘MorR CHAN, the historian” [vol. i. p. 131], and yet 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.

8 Respecting this name there is not the least doubt : ^" Harnak ”’ is not correct.

9 Another name for Utarid [Mercury] is Munshi

' Hariin-ar-Rasghid, to whose court Amir Banji went, was the 4/24 ’Abbasi
Khalifah

2 See page 302, where Shansab is said to have been converted by the Khali-
fah, ’Ali, 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 Sh i¢anian

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHCR. 313

and they assert that, in the first place, their ancestor em-
braced the true faith, and then the Shansabanian did ; and
Muhammad, in the dialect of Ghir, they call Hamad
[Ahmad ?], and, after they had embraced Islam, they
became styled Hamadi [Ahmadi ?], that is to say, Mu-
hammadi*. In the time of Amir Banji, the Mihtar [chief ]
of the tribe of Shisénian was an Amir named Shis,
son of Bahram; and, in the language of the Ghiris, Shis
they call Shis‘*, 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 Ghar; 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 deter-
mination 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, Hariin-ar-Rashid.

The chronicler relates that, in that country [Ghir] there
was a merchant, a Yahiidi [Jew], [a follower] of the religion

+ By nearly every other writer of authority they are said not to have em-
braced Islam up to the time of Husain, son of Sam, son of Hasan, who was
made ruler of Ghiir by Mas’iid-i-Karim, Sultan of Ghaznin. See page 321
and note’.

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 [न], and Akhmadi [see ], 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 Khamadialso. The points of letters are
often omitted in writing, and हु might be written for ¢, but that ह 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
Ghiirian tribes may have given + the harsher sound of £~ 1 certainly have
never met with a similar instance of the kind. We may suppose, with some
certainty, that the Ghirians merely adopted the other name of Muhammad,
derived from the same root, namely Ahmad, by which the prophet is men-
tioned in the Kur’an [a matter which has been much discussed], and hence they
used Ahmadi in preference to Mubammadi. See page 369.

$ That is to say, the Ghiris did not correctly pronounce the & s, lisped s
of the ’Arahs, but pronounced it as common s.

Xx

314 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

of Mihtar Miisa [Moses], on whom be peace! This mer-
chant 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 com-
pany 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
Ghir 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 Misa, in order that under the shadow of thy pro-
tection, and beneath the guardianship of thy Maliks and
thy offspring, they may dwell in peace and tranquillity ®.”
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 ob-
served 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’i] commenced to instruct
Amir Banjiin 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 be called Yahiidis 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 GHOR. 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 thither just as he was,
in the short Ghirian garments which he was accustomed
to wear at home, whilst Amir Banji, son of Naharan,
entered the Khalifah’s capital in a dress 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-ban’ the matter of the dis-
pute between them, and made fully known what were
their desires and requirements. The Lord of the Faithful,
Hariin-ar-Rashid, after he had been pleased to peruse
their statements, and his august consideration and atten-
tion 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 qualifi-
cations of government and sovereignty, combined with
good looks and artlessness of nature. Let the whole of
the territory of Ghir be made over to him, and let the
championship of the forces of the country of Ghir 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 Ghir again, according to the
command of the Khalifah’s Court’.

7 The Ustad-i-Raz-bin 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 2

316 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

From that time forward, the title of the Shansabanian
Sultans, according to the august words of the Lord of the
Faithful, Hariin-ar-Rashid®, became Kasim-i-Amir-ul-Mu-
minin—the Lord of the Faithful’s handsome [one].

When these two personages returned to Ghir 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-Karmakh’, Abi-l-’Abbas-i-Shis, and Suliman-i-
Shis, were all Shisinis—the mercy of the Almighty be
upon the whole of them !

Ill. SORI, SON OF MUHAMMAD.

From the time of the government of Amir Banji up to
the present period’ [of Siri’s 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 Hariin-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 Khalifah uttered these words: “ Hazd-Kasim,” which
is to say ‘‘ good looking ;” and, consequently, he obtained the title of Kasim-i-
Amir-ul-Miiminin. He returned to Ghiir again, with a robe of honour and a
patent of investiture. The dominion over those parts continued in the posses-
sion of himself and his descendants unti) the time of Siiri, the son of Muham-
mad, who zas one of Banji’s descendants, and lived in the time of Mahmid of
Ghaznin.

9 No other Khalifah confirmed it, I fancy, if Hiriin bestowed it. By our
author’s own account, they did not even assume the title of Sultan up to Saif-
ud-Din, Siri’s time. He was seventh after this Siri.

1 Some copies have ८ and one has ४ but Karmakh is correct.

2 Jahan-Ara and Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh differ from our author con-
siderably here [he certainly acknowledges his want of materials] :—Siri, son of
Muhammad, was the grandson [farzand-zidah] of Amir Banji, and he flourished,
not in the time of Mahmiid of Ghaznin, but in the time of the Suffarian.
Siiri’s son, Muhammad, was a contemporary of Mahmiid’s. The Raugat-us-
Safa, Fasih-i, and others also, state that Muhammad, son of Siiri, was a con-
temporary of Mahmiid; but that, when Sultan Mahmiid got rid of Mu-
hammad, son of Siri, ruler of Ghir, his grandson, Hasan by name, through
fear of the Sultan, retired into Hindistan, 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 Siri, would be obedient to Sultin Mahmiid, and, at
others, in open revolt, as circumstances permitted, until, after some years,

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 317

chronicles respecting the state of the country of Ghir 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 king-
doms of Islim 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 जप्ता 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 tradi-
tions from the priesthood of Ghir, have been [therefore]
recorded; and the author hopes that he may be forgiven
by those who look into the work [for any errors or short-
coming that may be found in it].

They thus state, that Amir Siri was a great Malik, arid
that most part of the territory of Ghir was under his juris-
diction; and, as in some parts of that country, such as
Zawulistan‘, 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’kiib, son of Lais, attacked Lakan the Lak‘, Amir of

partly by stratagem and partly by peaceful means, the Sultan succeeded in
securing Muhammad, son of Siri, 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 7, page 321.

3 The history in verse composed by Fakhr-ud-Din, Mubarak $hah,
mentioned at page 300.

+ Great discrepancy exists in most of the copies of the text with respect to
this name. Some have Walishtan, Waeshin, and Walshian ; but two good
copies have Zawulistan very plainly written, and that may be considered the
correct reading.

$ Ya’kib-i-Lais reduced Bust, Zamin-i-Dawar, Ghaznin, Tukbiaristan, and
other tracts in 256 H., and, in the previous year, fought an action with Tik,
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 TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Aytkin-abad*, which is the district of Rukhaj, the tribes
of the Ghiiris 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 unbelievers’—so that they were in the habit of
keeping up a war from kiishk to kishk’, and lived in a
constant state of contention and strife.

Through the natural impregnability of the strong moun-
tains which are in Ghir’, others [foreigners] used not to
subject them to their power; and the head of the whole
of the Shansabanis of Mandesh was Amir Siri".

There are five great and lofty mountains? in Ghir, re-
specting which the people of Ghiir 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 kiishk and capital of the Shansabanis, and they
[the people of Ghiir] 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 be-
tween 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-Ghar®, and that also is in the Mandesh district,

6 Some copies have Latkin-dbad, but the above is the correct reading ; but
Rukhaj— क», —which is said to have been a district of the territory of Bust
might be read Zaranj— €, j——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 Ghiris 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 the Bani-Isra’il before referred to, and such tribes as have since retired
northwards towards Hindii-Kugh, or have now nearly disappeared.

® A kishk here means a fortified village, and also a castle, &c. See note 2,
page 331.

® 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 ^^ rasiah,” which
means ‘‘ strong mountains.” See Elliot’s INp1A, vol. ii. p. 284.

1 From this statement it is plain, as in Baihaki’s account farther on, that
Ghiir was under several petty chiefs. Siiri was chief of Mandesh only.

2 The word koh, here used, may signify a mountain range, or a single
mountain.

ॐ 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 twelve

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOUR. 319

in the limits of Tajir-Koh‘*. 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 Ghiir; 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 {2514
of Kajirin. The fifth is the mountain of Ro’en, in the
central part of जप्ता, of immense strength and altitude;
and they have stated’ that the fifth mountain [range] is
the Faj [defile, pass] of Khaesar‘*, the length, extent, and
loftiness of which is beyond the bounds of conjecture,
conception, and understanding. In the year 590 H., one
half * of the trunk of an ebony tree was found at the sum-
mit of it, more than one thousand mans’ 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 „= —
Surkh-Ghar, as above, which means the red mountain, and the next oldest
copy +~ between which two words there is but a very slight difference.
The remaining copies have ~+ — ~~ — jlo ps — dey — Whey and the
like.

4 As many other copies have +न — #8 — > — jf — jf — < — oe — one

5 It is impossible to fix some of these names satisfactorily. Some copies of
the text have cll, + „919 Dawar avd Walisht, while others again leave
out the avd 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 wip 5 ,9¢ ‘“‘Ghir and Walisht.” This is somewhat remarkable, as
Baihaki mentions a Jl, ,9 Giir-i-W4lisht, as lying in the route between
Ghaznin and the fortress of Mandesh, in which stronghold Mas’iid of Ghaznin
confined his brother Muhammad ; and he also mentions ७८.11, Walistan,
in connexion with Bust and Kusdar. One of the Paris copies here has ‘‘ the
district of .l.,!; Zaristin,” and leaves out Dawar. Although so many
copies have Walisht, I am half inclined to read this part of the sentence thus —
(91) 9 y9'd oll SS ‘which are the territories of Dawar and Zawul.”

6 Kasr and Kishk have both one meaning : the first is ’Arabic and the last
Persian. See note 9, page 331.

7 From this remark it is evident our author does not describe these mountain
ranges from his own knowledge.

9 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 ina 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. ऽ. MS., have ‘‘a kasr
[see meaning of kagr, note >, 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-NASIRI.

IV. MALIK MUHAMMAD, SON OF SURI.

Abi-l-Hasan-ul-Haisam, son of Muhammad-i-Nab1’, the
historian, relates in this wise :—that, after the sovereignty
of Khurasan and Zawulistan passed from the Samanis and
Suffaris, and devolved upon Amir Sabuk-Tigin’, he had,
upon several occasions, marched forces from Bust towards
the mountain [tracts] of Ghir, and had put numbers to the
sword; and, when the throne fell to Amir Mahmid-i-
Sabuk-Tigin, the sovereignty of Ghir had passed into the
hands of Amir Muhammad, son of Siri‘, and he, having
brought the territories of Ghiir under his sway, sometimes
would pay obedience to the Court of Sultan Mahmid-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 arms® 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 Mahmid, for this reason, was ever

2 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 Tartkh of Ibn Haisam-i-Nabi, entitled
the Kigas-i-Sani.

3 See page 74, where our author says that Sabuk-Tigin took possession of
Ghir, together with Bust, Zamin-i-Dawar, Bamian, and all Tukharistan.
Here we might have expected to have heard something of Alb-Tigin, Balka-
Tigin, Abt 'Ali-i-Lawik, and Pirey. See‘note 5, page 71.

4 Our author is quite correct here [and Arai and some others agree] with
regard to Muhammad, son of Siiri, having been contemporary with Mahmiid.
The reason why the great blunder has arisen that it was Siri who lived in
Mahmiid’s time, is, that some authors and translators, in their simplicity,
thought the words ‘‘ Muhammad-i-Sirfi” signified oe man, instead of which
they mean Muhammad, son of Siri. Another matter I would also remark
upon :—Sultan Mahmiid made raids upon the Afghans in 411 H., and again
in 416 H., but they are never mentioned in connexion with the Ghiiris by
Baihaki and such like trustworthy authors, a pretty good proof, were any
wanting, that, although the Afghans are Patins, the Ghiiris are not, and never
were so accounted by any historian, nor by the Afghans nor Ghiiris themselves.
It does not follow that, because a Tajik is called Siri, he should be of the
Afghan clan of Sir, of the tribe of Liidi, so styled from their progenitor
named Siir, but not Siirl. It is a curious fact that the Afghans are not men-
tioned by our author but छक्र towards the end of the work.

५ Ghiir appears to have been famous in those days for the manufacture of
warlike weapons.

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 321

on the watch, and, on account of his [Muhammad’s, son of
Siri,] numbers, his power and dignity, and the fact of the
great [natural] strength and altitude of the mountains of
Ghir, the Sultan used well to consider in his mind, until,
with a large army, he came into Ghir, and he [Muham-
mad, son of Siri,] was invested within the fortress of
Ahangaran*. Muhammad, son of Siri, held out the for-
tress for a considerable period, and defended it energeti-
cally ; but, after some time, the stronghold was gained
possession of by his descending from it, on terms of

accommodation, and presenting himself before Sultan
Mahmid.

The Sultan took him, together with his youngest son,
who was named Shis, away to Ghaznin, because Amir
Muhammad-i-Siri entertained the greatest affection for
his youngest son, Shis. When they reached the precincts
of Kidan, Amir Muhammad-i-Siri 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 died’.

6 Not mentioned in his account of the strong fortresses of Ghir, 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.

7 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 Mahmid, but
he seldom mentions dates.

He says, Mahmid became greatly incensed against the tribes of Ghir, who
were unbelievers, on account of their waylaying caravans and levying black-
mail, thinking their hills and defiles impregnable. An army, consisting of
horse and foot, was assembled to punish them, and Altiin-Tash, the Hajib,
and Arsalin-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 Ghiris that Mahmid, 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-Siiri [i. €. “‘Suri’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 Siri, son of Muhammad. See also Bai-
haki’s account farther on]. Siiri’s son, with a force of 10,000 men, came out
of his stronghold, and, being intrenched behind walls [breastworks १], and
availing himself of the ravines, hills, and broken ground, succeeded for half a
day in resisting all efforts to dislodge him. Mahmiid had recourse to a

322 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRIL.

Sultan Mahmid 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 Siri’s son, the Hindi
[as ’Utba’ calls him], came forth from his strong position to follow in pursuit.
The Sultan faced about, and defeated him. Sjiiri’s son was taken, together
with great booty, consisting of arms and other war material. Siiri’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 Ghiris and Afghans, and never confounds them.

Other writers contend that Muhammad and his son, Hasan by name, not
Shis, were made captive by Mahmiid, and imprisoned. Their place of con-
finement 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
Ghir. 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 Ghiir. As soon as the Sultan became
aware of Hasan’s escape, he put Muhammad, the father, to death. Hasan
obtained the rule over Ghiir, 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 Muham-
mad, Siri’s son, having been made captive by Mahmiid, but, like our author,
contend that he [Muhammad] was succeeded by his son Abi-’Ali, who had
always been obedient to Mahmiid, and that he was appointed to the chieftain-
ship of Ghiir by that Sultan ; and that afterwards Abi-’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 Abi-’ Ali’s having been deprived of the chief-
tainship by ’Abbas, son of Shis. In this case the line 4erminated in Abi-’ Ali’s
family, and passed to the younger branch, and thus the Ghirian Sultans are
not descended from him at all, but from Shis.

The Raugat-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 Mahmiid marched an army into (गत्ता, and took Siri
(Muhammad, son of Siiri—Rauzat-ug-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 Mahmid, fled into Hind ; and, as they had not yet
been converted to the Mubammadan faith, they took up their residence in an
idol temple [in a Dharm-sala perhaps]. This Hasan had ason 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 Hindiistan to (खा, and bring other
commodities back from thence. This seems strange however, since, if he could
have gone back to Ghiir 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 Ghir. He embarked on one of the seas [the word used also
signifies a large river, which is prebably meant here] of Hind, together with his

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF प्र. 323

to (गपा 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 Sim, 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 ,3; or +न], 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 atone-
ment, 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. Itso 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 under-
went their sentence, until it came to the turn of Husain, son of Sim. 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’id,
surnamed the Beneficent, succeeded his father, Ibrahim, he conferred upon
Husain, son of Sim, son of Muhammad, [grand(?)]son of Siri, the government
of the district of Ghiir, 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 Bahram Shah,
Mas’iid’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 Ghiris were merely petty
mountain-chiefs up to the time of Sultan Mahmid of Ghaznin, and the extent
of country they dwelt in proves it ; but, as the Ghaznawid dynasty declined,
the Ghiris waxed stronger and more independent after the decease of Mas’iid-
i-Karim [the Beneficent], who gave the government of his native country to
Husain, son of Sdm, when the Ghaznawid empire began rapidly to decay.
Our author’s desire at all times appears to be to glorify the Ghiris, and, there-
fore, the fact of their having been merely petty tributary chiefs did not chime
in with his wishes. We find Mahmid and his son Mas’iid continually passing

324 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

ment of Ghir upon Muhammad-i-Siri’s eldest son, Amir
Abi-’Ali, as will, subsequently, be recorded.

from Ghaznin to Balkh and Kabul, Ghaznin to Hindistan, Ghaznin to
Sijistin, and from Ghaznin to Hirat, and thence up the valley of the Murgh-
ab ; and Mas’iid appears to have passed through Ghiir to Ghaznin, when he
had to fly, after his defeat by the Saljiiks, and yet we hear sof a word about
these powerful rulers of our author, although the Sultans must have passed
through the mountain tracts of Ghir constantly—in fact the Sultans of Ghaznin
held several fortresses in Ghiir; and Tigin-abad was in that very part, and
Muhammad, brother of Mas’tid, was confined in the fortress of Nae in
Wajiristan, one of the very districts mentioned by our author as forming part
of the Ghiirtan 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 ’Utha’ treat them as very petty chieftains, although
they held some strong fortresses. Our author quotes Baihaki constantly about
other matters, out 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 Mahmiid’s proceedings
with respect to Ghiir, and of the expedition undertaken by his gallant son,
Mas'iid, against some of its petty chiefs, during the time he held the govern-
ment of Khurasan, before he succeeded to the throne of Ghaznin.

‘‘In the year 401 H., Sultan Mahmiid went on an expedition into Ghir
against the infidels of that part, by way of Zamin-i-Dawar, taking along with
him his two sons, Mas’tid and Muhammad, both at that time in their fourteenth
year [they were not twins], and also their uncle [Mahmiid’s youngest brother],
Yiisuf, then seventeen.

‘* These three young Princes were left in Zamin-i-Dawar, with the heavy
materiel and baggage, and Mahmid 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 Batikin, the Zamin-Dawari [i. e. of Zamin-i-Dawar], who was
governor of that district on the part of Sultan Mahmid, and he [my grand-
father] was directed to remain in attendance on the Princes.’ [There is not the
slightest allusion either to Siri or his son here, although it is the year in which
his son Muhammad is said to have been made captive by Mahmiid] * * * *
In 405 H., Mahmiid began to make raids upon Khawanin, which is a tract of
Ghir, 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’iid, and he then
greatly distinguished himself, and showed many proofs of his manhood and
yalour. When a body of them [the infidels] retired for refuge to their strong-
hold, 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’td,
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 Mahmid 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 °, page 92.) * * * * In 411 H., Mas’iid [he had been declared heir-
apparent, and appointed governor of Khurasan, with Hirat as the seat of

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 325

V. MALIK ABU-’ALI, SON OF MUHAMMAD, SON OF SURI.

Amir Abi-’Ali, son of Muhammad-i-Siri, was a man of

government] proceeded to Hirat, and determined to undertake an expedition
into Ghir.

‘* 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 Chushan ; but
several of these names cannot be considered certain, although all available
MSS. have been compared, and the printed text of MORLEY, which has been
carefully edited], and then to Barién [MS. Parayan]. There a halt took
place to allow all the troops to come up, after which Prince Mas’iid 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
Ghir.

‘When the Ghiiris became aware of this movement of Amir Mas’iid, they
retired to their strongholds and deliberated about making resistance. Before
he set out on this expedition, Mas’iid had conciliated Bi-]-Hasan-i-Khalaf [Bi
or Abi-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 Siiri,
was named Hasan. See para. 2, page 321], ove of the most notable of the chief-
tains of Ghiir, and had induced him [Bi-l-Hasan] to submit to his authority ;
and it had been agreed, that, on the Amir’s troops reaching that Ribat, Bi-l-
Hasan should present himself there with his forces fully equipped. On the
day Mas’tid reached that place, Bii-l-Hasan joined him with a considerable
force, amounting to 3000 horse and foot, and brought along with him nume-
rous offerings and contributions in the shape of shields, armour, and whatever
was most esteemed of the produce of Ghir. Mas’tid treated him with favour,
and he was followed by Sher-wan. This was another of the chiefs on the
frontier of Ghir and Giizganan [pronounced and written Jiizjanan by ’Arabs],
and he too came attended by numerous forces, horse and foot. He likewise
had been conciliated by Amir Mas’iid, and he brought along with him offerings
beyond compute. Amir Muhammad [Mas’iid’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 Giz-
ganan, but he had declined because people were more inclined towards
Mas’iid. ।

‘‘ Having been joined by these chiefs, Mas’iid resumed his march, but went
on in advance himself, slightly attended by about fifty or sixty ghulims, 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 nume-
rous 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 कब, on which
the accursed unbelievers [these Ghiiris were not Mubammadans] of this for-
tress of Ghiir sprung up infuriated, and set up a yell sufficient to rend the
ground. Mas’iid ordered his ghulims to take to their bows; and they kept
up such an effectual fire of arrows, that not a Ghiri dared show his head above
the walls, and this enabled the foot, by means of lassos [used up to a recent

326 THE TABAKAT-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 Ghiiris 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
trocps arrived, and many were their praises and congratulaiions, that such a
strong fortress had been taken by such a mere handful of men.

‘*From thence Mas’iid marched towards the tract of Zaran [in one copy
of the original, Razdn, but the first is the most 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 Kharis and
Haris] where War-mesbh-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’iid 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 Ghiir, its people the
most warlike and the strongest men in that part. Jt had been the capital of the
Ghiris 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’iid
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 Ghiir and of the (गप्र
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 capital of Ghir 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 Ra’is-i-Bat, or Tab [UJ or ec» U,], and, in a note, Ramish
[Ute,], and in another place u,, A MS. in my possession has War-mesh
[Utes 2], 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 15 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 dut-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 Ghiiris been
Hindiis 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 Bhati tribe of Jats now in the Panjab. We might
as well have Bhatis in Ghiir as ‘a fugitive band of Crusaders” from Palestine

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHUR. 327
At the time when his father held the sovereignty of

in the army of Ghiiris 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 ¢ 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 now despatched an intelligent person to this chief, and two
men of Ghiir of the followers of Bi-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’tid. 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 Ghiris 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’tid’s force.

‘*The best of it was, that that mountain was somewhat depressed, and partly
composed of earth [not very rocky १] and accessible in every direction. The
troops were told off in parties, to advance by the different practicable paths,
and Mas’iid himself kept parallel to them, for the fighting there was likely to
be severe. Bii-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 UMBEYLAH 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 mazs in weight [the maz 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 Ghiiris, 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 kiighks [here kigshk seems to mean a castle or fortified house],
after the manner of the Ghiris, 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’iid’s troops are referred to here]. When the night closed in, the un-
believers decamped, and the village [or town] was taken possession of by the
troops, who occupied themselves, throughout the night, in plundering it.

1. At

328 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
Ghir, and the mountain tracts of Mandesh’, the whole of

8 This tends to show that Ghiir and Mandesh were separate tracts.

~~

५५ 4 dawn next day, the Amir again moved forward towards their [other]
stronghold, two leagues distant. He had to pass through 2 constant succes-
sion 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 inthe
whole of Ghir, and no one recollected hearing that it had ever been taken by force
of arms. Mas’iid, 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 Ghiiris
defending every inch of the breach. Great numbers of them were slain and
taken prisoners, tut the latter were protected on making their submission,
while slaves and booty to a vast amount were captured. Mas’iid had it pro-
claimed 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 Bii-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
take shelter therein. When the rest of the Ghiris found what had happened
to the tortified town and the other stronghold, they began to fear, and became
submissive and willing to pay tribute and obedience ; and even War-mesb-i-
Bat began to quake. He made intercession through Bii-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 stipula-
tion 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 Ghiir, that chief sent in his contribu-
tions and offerings ; and, subsequently, when Mas’iid 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’iid advanced against another, a famous place, and of vast strength, named
Tir [this name is doubtful, the variants are Bir and Nir]. It was carried by
storm after a week’s fighting and great slaughter, and the two friendly chiefs
took part in it. Mas’iid 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 Ghiiris to avert molestation, were found already collected, together
with what War-mesb-i-Bat had despatched.

The narrator, "Abd-ul Ghaffar, then adds, that ‘‘ no sovereign ever acquired
such power over Ghiir as the martyr, Mas’iid, did; for, although the first

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 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-Tigin, and his son, Sultan
Mahmid, Amir Abi-’Ali 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, Sultén Mahmid
brought an army against him from Ghaznin; and, after
considerable effort, the Sultan succeeded in securing the
person of Amir Muhammad-i-Siri, and took him away
along with him towards Ghaznin, and bestowed the
government of Ghir upon Amir Abi-’Alhj, his son.

As soon as Amir Abi-’Ali became installed in the
government of Ghir, he conferred great benefits upon the
people, and directed the erection of many buildings of
public utility. Masjids.and colleges were founded in Ghir,
and he also built a Jami’ 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
Ghir dwelt in tranquillity and repose, and his brother,
Shis, son of Muhammad, passed his days under his pro-
tection.

When the appointed period of Amir Abi-’Ali’s dominion
came to an end, and the empire of Ghaznin [also] reverted
from Mahmid to his son, [Sultan] Mas’iid, a son of Amir
Shis, "Abbas by name, having attained great dignity and
power, broke out into rebellion, seized his uncle, Amir
Abi-’Ali, and reduced the whole of the country of Ghir
under his own sway; and the reign of Amir Abi-’Ali
came to a termination, and he died.

Musalmians [the Arabs] conquered ’Ajam and Khorasan, they found it impos-
sible to enter Ghir; and, although Sultan Mahmid, on ¢Arce separate occasions,
by the same route of Zamin-i-Dawar, attacked different frontier tracts of Ghir,
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.”

Y

330 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

VI. MALIK® ’ABBAS, SON OF SHIS, SON OF MUHAMMAD,
SON OF SORI.

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 Abi-’Ali, ruler of Ghir, and imprisoned
him, and appropriated the whole of his uncle’s property,
his treasures and his hoards, to himself. He was exceed-
ingly 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 Ghir. 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 ’Abbads would make great rejoicings, and bestow
liberal presents; but, on days when the dog named
Ibrahim of Ghaznin gained the advantage [over his an-
tagonist], 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 Amfr-ul-Kimil—the perfect or thorough
Amir.

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 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 origi-
nal 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 open-
ings approximate to the position of its rise’. 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 per- |
formance indicates the proficiency and knowledge which
Amir ’Abbas had attained in the science of astrology. |

During his reign, likewise, the Kasrs of Ghir were con-
structed’, and plenty reigned throughout the country ; but,
as people now abominated him for his excessive tyranny,

' See the view of the Castle of Zubak 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 Ghiir, even by means
of natives, or gain some information about it, during our occupation of Afghan-
istin. What a field it must be for archzological research !

2 The Persian word ‘‘kighk,” and its ’A ङ्क equivalent, ^" kagr,” signify
a palace, a large and lofty stone or brick buildhg, 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 Afghanistin. 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 chief-
tainship 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 Kiishk-i-Safed, Kiuishk-i-Na-
khiid, and others, but not ‘‘ Khushk,”’ as written by recent travellers. Khushk
signifies ‘‘ dry.”

Y 2

332 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

oppression, and injustice, and the empire of Ghaznin, and
throne of sovereignty, had passed to Sultan Razgzi-ud-Din,
Ibrahim, son of Mas’id, a party of the most powerful and
eminent men, and the nobles of Ghir, despatched letters to
Ghaznin, imploring the Sultan’s assistance.

In conformity with these solicitations, Sultan Ibrahim
marched a large army into Ghir; and, when he reached
it, the whole of the forces of प्राः went over to that
monarch, and they delivered Amir ’Abbas into the Sultan’s
12105. He commanded that Amir ’Abbas should be
placed in confinement, and he took him away to Ghaznin,
and conferred the territory of Ghir upon his [Amir ’Abbas’]
son, Amir Muhammad‘.

VII. AMIR MUHAMMAD, SON OF ’ABBAS.

When Sultan Ibrahim, son of Mas’iid, seized Amir
"Abbas, and sent him away to Ghaznin, at the solicitations
of the chief personages and eminent men of Ghir, he made
over the country to Amir Muhammad-i-’ Abbas‘.

He was endowed with great good nature, was of ex-
ceeding 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.

+ This too is pretty good proof, by our author’s own account, that the Ghiiris
were subject to the Sultans of Ghaznin; but, as the power of the latter
declined, consequent on the rise of the Saljiiks, and after Mas’iid-i-Karim’s
death, the Ghiirts acquired more power. See top of next page.

6 Which is impossible, if what other writers state as to Husain, son of Sam,
having been saved from shipwreck, and Ibrahim’s son, Mas’id-i-Karfm,
having conferred the chieftainship on him, be taken into consideration. Mu-
hammad, son of Siri, was taken prisoner in 400 H., or, according to some
accounts, in 401 H. From that time, up to 493 H., when Mas’id-i-Karim
conferred the fief of the tributary province of Ghir upon Husain, son of Sam,
son of Hasan, son of Muhammad, son of Siiri, none of this family held inde-
pendent sway over Ghiir. As already shown from the account of Mas’iid 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 GHOR. 333

When the territory of Ghir was assigned to Amir Mu-
hammad, 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 ob-
servances of goodness and utility, and the laws and usages
of benevolence, beneficence, and justice. He used to ren-
der 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 Ghiir, 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 compe-
tency 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 (गीता १ 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 Ghir.

Such factions as were in the habit of acting contuma-
ciously 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 Ghir, having sprung from families of
"41205 7, and having been nurtured, and grown up, in a

6 According to the statements of other authors given in note 7, page 321, the
grandfather of the Sultans of Ghiir, that is to say, of Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, and
his brothers, was Hasan, son of Muhammad, son of Siri, 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
Raugat-ug-Safa, Habib-us-Siyar, and other histories, in the same note, their
grandfather would be Sam, son of Hasan, grandson of Siri, who was drowned.
See note 4, page 335, in which it is stated that ^ Husain, son of Sam, of the
race of Siri,” was taken captive by Sultan Sanjar in 501 H.

7 See note ‘, page 320. The Afghans have, certainly, as well as other
mountain tribes, behaved at all times in the manner mentioned here, but so

334 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

mountainous tract of country, obstinacy, turbulence, and
contumacy were implanted in the constitutions and cha-
racters of the whole of the Ghirian 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 Ghir 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 Ghirian
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 ° of the territory of
Wajiristan, rose in rebellion. Malik Kutb-ud-Din, with his
followers and the chiefs of Ghir, appeared at the foot of
that Kishk and the stronghold of that faction, and sum-
moned 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 Kishk 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 Kohistanis, who inhabit the valleys immediately north
of Kabul, and also the Baliichis, 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-do, 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.
Wajiristén has been often mentioned in the account of the Ghaznawids.

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 335

to the time of the last of the Sultans of Ghir, and the
termination of the sovereignty of the Shansabanis, no king
would grant permission for the restoration of that Kishk,
its equipments, and the suburbs of that place, with the
exception of the Kishk of Amir Kharnak, which was
in that Ab-i-Tang, for his ancestors had always been
obedient °

When Kutb-ud-Din, Hasan, departed this life, his son,
Amir Husain, succeeded him.

IX. MALIK ’IZZ-UD-DIN, AL-HUSAIN, ABU-US-SALATAIN },
SON OF KUTB-UD-DIN AL-HASAN.

Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Husain, was a sovereign’ 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 Ghir and the Bilad-i-
110] * [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 dis-
position by bestowing upon him seven sons, the fame of
whose sovereignty and dominion became published through-
out 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

® 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 Kishk, except Amir Kharnak, who was in
the neighbourhood of that Ab-i-Tang, and those parts were obedient to
him.

} One of the oldest copies has ‘‘ Abi-1-Mulik” here, instead of Abii-ug-
Salatain.

2 See note 4, page 320, and note 5, page 332. ’Izz-ud-Din, the title, signifies
‘*Glory, &c., of the Faith,” but ‘‘’4’is-ud-Din” nothing, for it is meaning-
less. Husain also is his correct name, confirmed by numerous other authors,
and Hasan was his father’s name, as our author states.

ॐ Ghir 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 ‘ with, the Sanjari dynasty and the Saljiki
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 material’. There is also

* 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 Saljiik empire, fought a battle with the
Maliks (here a further proof that there were several petty chiefs] of Ghir, who
were of the race of Suri, 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 goud fortune to be attended by a thousand servants, but
now that it belongs to thee, thou keepest me thus wretched and abject.”

Rashid-ud-Din, who also relates this anecdote [but, strange to say, under the
account of his son, ’Ald-ud-Din, although he calls him Husain too, and leaves
out all mention of the first part of the name, ’Ald-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 Ghiris,
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,
Raghid-ud-Djn saysthe 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
Fasib-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.

Fasib-j further states that ‘‘ Husain, son of Sam, who escaped drowning,
and the sword of the executioner,” only died in 545 त. He ruled that terri-:
tory justly ; and, up to his time even, great numbers of the inhabitants of the
mountain tracts of Ghir had not been converted to Islam, but were made
converts of by him. This Husain, the same chronicler states, was succeeded
by his son, ’Ald-ud-Din, Husain, in that same year. For further particulars,
see under ’Ald-ud-Din, note >, pages 347 to 350.

$ Ghir, and mountain tracts around, appear to have been famous for the
manufacture of arms and armour ; and iron mines must have been worked therein.

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 332

a remarkably fine breed of dogs in Ghir, so powerful that,
in frame and strength, every one of them is a match fora
lion®. 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 Ghaznin’; and .
for a considerable length of time the government of the
territory of Ghir 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’id, of Bamian, but an ac-
count 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’iid, Amir of Bamian and Tukhiristan; Sultan
Baha-ud-Din, Sam, Amir of Ghir and Firiiz-koh; Malik-
ul-Jibal, Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad, Amir of Ghir, and
Firtiz-koh ; Sultan Saif-ud-Din, Siri, sovereign of Ghir
and Ghaznin; Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Husain’, sovereign
of Ghir, 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 o the father’s side only from
the son of a chief of Ghiir, whom their traditions style Shah Husain ; but he
fled from Ghir, and took shelter among the Afghans at a much earlier period,
in the time of the Khalifah, ’Abd-ul-Malik, son of Mirwan, who reigned from
66 प्न. 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 Zubak. 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 ship-
wreck, and received the fief of Ghiir from Mas’iid-i-Karim, as one and the
same person.

7 Sultan Mas’iid conferred the sovereignty upon [’Izz-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 Siri. See preceding page, note ‘. It is strange,
but several of the best copies of the text have ‘‘ Sultans of Ghiir and Ghaznin’”’
here.

8 In two copies he is here styled Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din-i-Sam.

338 THE TABAKAT.-I-NASIRI.

Muhammad, Kharnak, Malik of Madin of Ghiir ; and Malik
Shuja’-ud-Din, ’Ali, Amir of Jarmas° of Ghiir.

X. MALIK-UL-JIBAL, KUTB-UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD, SON OF
('I1ZZ-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’id
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 power’.
His mother was a Turki handmaid ; and after him, in suc-
cession [in age], came the Malik-ul-Jibal [the Lord of the
Mountains], Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad?. His mother was
a woman who was of no high descent, and was the Hajibah
[Chamberlain] and attendant of the mother of the other

® 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 Ghiir and Firiiz-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 Ghir and Ghaznin, and his brother, Saif-ud-Din,
Sirf, second. Had our author given an account of Saif-ud-Din second, as in
the order of the events, instead of /ast, he would have saved his readers some
perplexity and trouble.

2 So far, other writers agree pretty well with our author, but here consider-
able difference arises. The Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, quoting other authors,
says, that Kutb-ud-Din, Mubammad, who is known as the Malik-ul-Jibal
[Lord of the Mountains], was sext 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 Ghaznawids and the Ghiiris, but such is not correct, as
already shown. Jahan-Ara agrees with the above, however, with this excep-
tion, that, in the latter, it is stated that he, the Malik-ul-Jibal, came from
Ghir 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, Siri, on the death of his father, ’Izz-ud-Din
Husain, succeeded to the dominion of Ghiir, and divided the patrimony among
his brothers, one of whom [Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad] became irritated with
his brothers, and went to the Court of Bahram Shih, 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’, 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 GHOR. 339

sons, the Sultans, namely, Sultan Siri; Sultan * Baha-ud-
Din, Sim ; Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Husain; Amir [Shihab-
ud-Din] Muhammad; and Amir [Shuja’-ud-Din] ’Ali‘,
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] Siri, in
succession to his father, ascended the throne * and divided
his father’s dominions among his brothers. An account of
Sultan Siri will, please God, be given in the chapter on the
Sultans of Ghaznin.

In this division, the territory of Warshadah ° was assigned
to the Malik-ul-Jibal, Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad, and there
he fixed his seat of government. Subsequently, it so hap-
pened, 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 Firiz-
koh, and he founded the fortress and city of Firiiz-koh ’.

Sultan Siri made the fortress and town of Istiah‘ his
capital, and to Malik Nasir’-ud-Din, Muhammad, Madin

> 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 men-
tioned over leaf, viz. Malik Shihah-ud-Din [called Nasir-ud-Din subsequently],
Mubammad, and Malik Shuja’-ud-Din, Ali, the XIIth and X11 Ithof the family.

$ See note‘, page 336.

6 Some few copies have Warshad, and Warshar.

7 In several other places our author mentions ‘‘ the territory of Ghir and
the Bilad-ul-Jibal,” thus indicating that they were separate ; and yet Firiiz-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 Ghir, of which Firiz-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 mever once occurs in our author’s work. It is
not strange, however, because Kandahar is a comparatively modern 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 Mahmiid of Ghaznin’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-

340 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI?.

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 Wajiah ' 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
Firiiz-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 Bahram
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 in-
habitants 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 haram
[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 Mahmidi
family » and the family of Shansabt, and the race of Zuhak र.

When the account of what had befallen Kutb-ud-Din
reached * Sultan Siri’s hearing, he marched an army to
Ghaznin and took that country, as will be hereafter re-
corded, 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 Nagir-ud-Din, Husain, son of Muhammad, mentioned
immediately after Baha-ud-Din, Sam, at page 343, which see.

1 One of the Paris copies has #5 ’sais—the Maiden’s Castle—but the
majority, including the oldest copies, have a=», and some have ;=;, which
a copyist #ay have read += > One copy has amy

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 avd the race of Zubak.”

+ Four different verbs are used in the different copies of the text in this
sentence, although the signification conveyed is much the same.

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 341

and recording the proceedings of Sultan Siiri, still, as
Sultan Siri 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-HUSAIN®,

When the Malik-ul-Jibal retired to Ghaznin [as pre-
viously related], and left the buildings of the city of Firiz-
koh in an unfinished state, Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, came
from [the territory of] Sangah to Firiiz-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 Ghir,
and contracted alliance and entered into amity with the
Shars of Gharjistan*. He ascended the throne of Firiiz-koh
in the year 544H.’ When the construction of the capital of
Firiiz-koh was completed through his propitious auspices,
he gave directions for the construction of four strong for-
tresses on the confines of the territory of Ghir, Garmsir,
Gharjistan, and the mountain tract of Hirat, and the Kasr

> In some copies the names of his children follow immediately after his
name and title.

€ The Shars of Gharjistin, who had for many years acknowledged the
suzerainty of the Saminis, had submitted to the suzerainty of Sultin Mahmid
as early as 389 प्र. The Shar, Abii Nasr, son of the Shar, Rashid, and Abi-
Nasr’s son, the Shar, Abi 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 प्र. the Shar, Abii Nasr, who had become disaffected,
was seized and imprisoned by Mahmiid’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 Sultin purchased from him [the Shar] his possessions in Ghar-
jistan, 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, Abi Nasr, died in prison, at Hirat, in 406 H., after which
the Shars are not mentioned by other writers.

7 Bahad-ud-Din died in 544 H., the same year in which he succeeded. His
brother, Siri, 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 Ghir and Ghaznin, and only
succeeded after Saif-ud-Din had been put to death. See also the Kitab-al-
Yamini of Al-’Utba’.

342 | THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

of Kajiiran in the district of Garmsir and Ghir, 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-Din], Siri [yet to be
mentioned], as Sultan Baha-ud-Din was the eldest of the
five brothers [styled Sultans], the sovereignty of the king-
dom of Ghir 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 Ghiyds-
ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam १ 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 imperish-
able 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 १, 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’iid, of
Bamian; and the third daughter was the Malikah-i-Khu-
. rasan, the mother of Alb-Arsalan-i-Ghazi', son of Malik
Kazil-Arsalan, Saljiiki, the brother’s son of Sultan Sanjar.

When the account of the affliction and degradation
which had befallen Sultan Siri at Ghaznin, through the
hostility and perfidy of the retainers of the Mahmidi
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 sup-
posed 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 Hirat
subject to the Ghiiri Sultan upon one of the occasions when Sultin Muhammad,
Khwarazm Shih, invested it. See note *, page 257.

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 343

in mourning ceremonies for his brothers *, he assembled the
forces of Ghiir, and of the parts and tracts around, and on
the confines of it, and of the hill-tracts of Jarim 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 dis-
trict 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 म.

In the same manner as Sultan Siri, at the time of his
proceeding against and capturing Ghaznin, had entrusted
the capital of the kingdom of Ghiir, 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 Ghir, and
the rule over the territory of the Jibal [mountain tracts] to
Sultan ’Ald-ud-Din, Husain-i-Jahan-soz [his brother], and
consigned to him his children, dependents, Amirs, property,
and effects.

When Bahia-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 cere-
monies, assembled * together the forces with all celerity, and
set out towards Ghaznin.

XII, MALIK SHIHAB-UD-DIN*’, MUHAMMAD, [KHARNAK, ]
SON OF AL-HUSAIN, MALIK OF MADIN OF GHOR.

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-ud-Din, Siri.

ॐ He is said to have died of small-pox, but the word used also signifies a
tumour, and the like. Raugat-ug-Safa and some others say Bahi-ud-Dfn,
Sam, died of phrensy, or inflammationeof the brain, on the way back to Ghir,
after the taking of Ghaznin by ’Ala-ud-Din, and his brother, Saif-ud-Din,
Siri, who was left there as ruler! See note 3, page 347.

4 Here again some copies of the text use different verbs to express the
same meaning.

$ He is called Nagsir-ud-Din repeatedly in most of the copies of the text,
and in some, although the heading is written Ghihaib-ud-Din, he is styled

344 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

was his territory, and is a tract of country on one of the
confines of Ghiir, 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,
Firiiz-koh, during the absence of Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Hu-
sain, in Khurasan, and his attendance*® at the Court of
Sultan Sanjar, an account of whom will be hereafter re-
corded. The second son was Malik Saif-ud-Din, Siri’,
who, after his father’s death, succeeded him in the posses-
sion of the district of Madin. This Malik Saif-ud-Din,
Siri, 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 maid*, and whose
tomb is at the capital city, Ghaznin.

Of those two sons of Malik Saif-ud-Din, Siri, one was
Malik Shihab-ud-Din, ’Ali, of Madin, who was martyred
by the Turks of Khwarazm® during the period of their
domination. The second son was Malik Nasir-ud-Din,
Abi-Bikr; and the writer of this book, in the year 618 H.,
waited upon him in the territory of Kaziw [or Gaziw]’ and
Timran, and witnessed numerous marks of urbanity and
generosity from him. At that period the author had
espoused® a daughter of one of the great men and a kins-
man of his own. That was in the period of his first man-
hood, 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 list 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 Niasir-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 >, page 358.

7 Not to be confounded with ’Ala-ud-Din, Jahin-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 a# infant would have been
mentioned.

9 See note !, page 274.

1 A few copies have » S [Kariw or Gariw], and others 45 and +

2 ‘‘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 GHOR. 345

accursed, crossed the Jihiin into Khurdsan, and was bent.
upon marching to Ghaznin. In short, the author memo-
rialized 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 8.
The horse thou hast solicited of me requires no apology.
With the horse, much more apology might be made 4,”

Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Abi-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 Ghaz-
nin and Ghir’, 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, Abi-Bikr, died at the city of Dihli
in the year 620 H.

XHI. MALIK SHUJA’-UD-DIN, ABI-’ALI, SON OF AL-HUSAIN,
[SON OF SAM], SON OF AIL-HASAN, SHANSABI.

Malik Shuja’-ud-Din, Abi-’Ali, son of Al-Husain, son of
Al-Hasan, was removed from this world in his carly manhood,
and his existence terminated whilst he was yet in the flower
of his youth®. 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.

$ At the hands of the Mughals.

® From the heading the reader would suppose this article to have contained
an account of Shuja’-ud-Din ; 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.

Z

346 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Abi-’Ali; and the brothers [of Shuja’-ud-Din, Abi ’Ali’]
with one accord, when dividing the dominions of Ghir,
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, Abi-’Al1.

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, Abi-’Ali, in marriage®; and,
after that noble lady was espoused by him, the Almighty
blessed them with a son, who had the good fortune of be-
coming both a Haji [a pilgrim] and a holy warrior’, namely,
Malik Ziya-ud-Din, Muhammad, the Pearl of (गौ ता, and
it happened in this wise :—When [his father] Malik ’Ala-
ud-Din, Abi-’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 Ghir had attained that
felicity.

Malik Ziyad-ud-Din, in attendance upon his mother, was
proceeding on the journey to the holy places by way of
Hirat, Khurasin, and Nishapir. At that time Sultan
Takish, Khwarazm Shah, was at Nishapir, 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 Abi, or Abi-’AH: either is correct.

® Our author’s mode of narration tends to confuse. This ’Ala-ud-Din,
Abi-’Ali, is the father of Ziyi-ud-Din, afterwards styled ’Ali-ud-Din. See
note 3, page 397, and note », page 394.

9 He accompanied his second cousin, Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, on his campaign
against Rae Pathora of Ajmir. See page 125.

1 These words ,¢ So Durt-i-Ghiir, occur again in the list of Maliks at the
end of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din’s reign, and in some other places.

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 347

of Ghiir; and she acquired the name of the Malikah-i-
Haji [the Pilgrim Princess], and founded a great number
of masjids, pulpits, and colleges in the Ghirian country.
May they both become acceptable in the sight of Almighty
God!

XIV. SULTAN ’ALA-UD-DIN, AL-HUSAIN, SON OF [IZZ-UD.-
DIN,] AL-HUSAIN, SON OF SAM, SON OF AL-HASAN?.

When Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, son of ['Izz-ud-Din,]
Al-Husain, who was marching an army against Ghaznin,

> Of all the persons mentioned in Oriental history, greater discrepancy
occurs with respect to ’Ali-ud-Din, Jaban-soz’s name and proceedings, pro-
bably, than regarding any other man.

Some authors call him Hasan, son of Husain ; some [but these authors are
but ८५८] 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-Din, Husain, son of [’Izz-ud-Din], Al-Husain, son of Sam, son of
Hasan [Siri’s grandson], son of Muhammad, son of Siri.

- 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 frst is, that, after Sultin Bahram of Ghamin had been put in posses-
sion 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 Fasib-i], and, on this, Bahram began to enter into friendly nego-
tiations with the sons of ’Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain, and invited one of them to
his capital, and expressed a wish to take him into his service, in order to
strengthen the bonds of friendship between the two families. Kutb-ud-Din,
Muhammad [the Malik-ul-Jibal of our author], the e/dest of the sons, proceeded
to Ghaznin, and for some time he was treated with great distinction, but was
subsequently guilty [or suspected 2] of some crime, and was put to death by
Bahram Shih’s orders.

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 §41 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 Ghamin and the AMaliks of Ghir, and the latter were overcome,” and,
subsequently, refers to the time when ^^ the territory of Ghiir 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, Sirf,
and Baha-ud-Din, Sam [74.125 full brothers]. They were opposed by Bahram
Shih, who was defeated, and retired into Hind.

Having obtained possession of Ghaznin, ’Ala-ud-Din, Husain, left his
brother, Siri, as ruler there, and returned to Ghiir. [This event is said to

Z2

348 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

in order to take revenge for [the slaying of his brothers],
Sultan Siri and the Malik-ul-Jibal, died on the way thither,

have occurred in the fifth month of the year 543 H. [October, 1052 a.pD.], and
by Fasih-i in 542 H. [October, 1051 A.D.], but, as the father only died it i
said in ६45 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. Siri came out with
300 Ghiiris and 1000 Ghuzz Turks, and endeavoured to reach Ghiir, but the
Ghuzz deserted to Bahram, and Siri was taken, paraded on a bullock through
the city, and hung along with his Wazir. This occurred in 543 H. according
to Fasih-i, but in 544 H. according to several other trustworthy authors.
"Ali-ud-Din, Husain, again marched to Ghaznin to avenge Siri, 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 §47 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 ^ Riblat” [death of Muhammad, not the Hijrah],
which would make it as late as §58 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 ४८ sovereigns, and continued for a period of
sixty-four years. It terminated in 607 H., so must have commenced in 543 H.

*Ali, Jatri, and ’Ala-ud-Din, Husain, were defeated by Sultan Sanjar in
545 H. [some say in ६44 H.], but Fasih-i says in $47 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 Sultin
Sanjar and solicited aid. Sanjar assisted him with an army! and he then
fought a battle with Bahram Shah, who was defeated and retreated into
Hindistan. After this, the same author states—and the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh
agrees—that Husain [’Ald-ud-Din] left his brother Sam in charge of Ghaznin,
and returned himself to Ghir. He then agrees with the statements of other
writers as to the hanging of ’Ala-ud-Din’s brother, but says it was Sim [Baha-
ud-Din], not Stiri, that Bahram Shah took and hung after his return from
Hindistain. 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 ? and > page 358.

, The second account is, that Husain [’Izz-ud-Din], the father of the seven
sons, raised to the rulership of Ghir by Mas’iid-i-Karim, having died in
545 H. [540० प्र. १] was succeeded by the most prominent of his sons, ’Ala-ud-Din, `
Husain, who rebelled against Bahram Shah, marched against Ghaznin, took
it, during Bakram’s absence, and set his brother, Siri, upon the throne of the
Mabmidi’s. Soon after Bahram returned, and hung Siri. The remainder
of the account agrees pretty well with the first.

The ¢hird is, that Bahram Shah was dead before 'Ala-ud-Din reached
Ghaznin the second time, and in this statement a number of the most trust-
worthy authorities agree, and further that Khusrau Shah, his son, had succeeded
just before 'Ali-ud-Din’s advance, and, on his approach, Khusrau Shah

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 349

at Kidan, Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din ascended the throrie of the.
dominion of Ghiir, and assembled the forces of Ghir, of

abandoned Ghaznin and fled to Lahor [Baizawi states that it happened in
5650 H.; but this is the only authority for that date, which cannot be
correct ; and if Siiri, 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 ’Ali-ud-Din’s departure, Khusrau Shih returned to his devastated
aud ruincd capital, and continued there 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 उपय 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 Shih fizal/ly abandoned Ghaznin, and
not that in which ’Ald-ud-Din, Husain, devastated it.

Some writers, who agree generally with this last account, say that Khusrau
Shah had reigned about a year when ’Alé-ud-Din arrived in the neighbour-
hood 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,
Ghiyds-ud-Din, and Mu'izz-ud-Din, at Ghaznin. Most authors say Kbusrau
shah died in §55 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 °, page 112.

The fourth account is, that, on the death of the father, [’Izz-ud-Din],
Al-Husain, Saif-ud-Din, Siri, succeeded him, and that he seized upon
Ghaznin, while his other brother, ’Ala-ud-Din, Husain, seized upon Ghiir.
This is said to have taken place in 543 H., and it is further said that, after
Siri 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 Stiri took Ghaznin to avenge the death of his brother, Kutb-
ud-Din, Mukammad, put to death by Bahram Shah, and that, after Siiri’s
death along with his Wazir, Baha-ud-Din, Sam, set out to avenge him, and
died on the road. 'Ald-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 §43 H. [Our author says that Bahd-ud-Din, Sam,
succeeded to the sovereignty of Firiiz-koh and Ghir, when Saif-ud-Din, Siri,
his brother, set out on his expedition against Ghaznin, 19 544 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 ’Ald-ud-Din in 550 H.,
and still more so to suppose that 547 of the Riblat could he the possible date ;
and, although the exact date is not to be found in authors generally, it is quite
clear that Saif-ud-Din, Siri, 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, 1042 A..], and hung him. Baha-ud-Din, Sam, his brother, succeeded
him as ruler of Ghir in 544 H., and died soon after, in the same year ; on which
’Ald-ud-Din, Husain, who was not one to allow jive or six years to elapse, at

350 THE TABAKAT.I.NASIRI.

the capital, Firiiz-koh, and of Gharjistan, and determined
to march against Ghaznin.

When Sultan Yamin-ud-Din’, Bahram Shah, became
aware of this matter, and of his [’Ala-ud-Din’s] intention,
he caused the troops of Ghaznin and of Hindiistan to be
got ready and organized, and led them from Rukhaj‘ 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 Ghir,
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 elephants’, 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 says® ?—“ Whosoever is

once marched against Ghaznin, and took it towards the close of the same
year, §44 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
Ghiir, and ’Ala-ud-Din 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 > and >,

’Ald-ud-Din, Husain, made no attempt to retain possession of Ghaznfn,
and he abandoned it, and retired into Ghir, but destroyed every building
pertaining to the Mahmidi sovereigns, on his way back. The reason why
he abandoned it must have been his fear of Sultin Sanjar, or of Bahram’s or
Khusrau’s return, as the case may be, and of meeting a fate similar to his
brother Siri’s.

3 In three copies of the text at this place he is called Yamin-ud-Daulak.
In his account of Bahram 97018 reign our author styles him Mu’izz-ud-Din,
Bahram Shah, and says Khusrau Shah’s title was Mu’ayyan-ud-Din. See
pages Log and 111, and note 8.

+ A small tract of country in the district of Bust.

$ The word Jy 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 धल +~ which certainly agrees better with .. and might be translated
the chief, head, or leader of the elephants, alluding to some famous war-
elephant he may have had.

9 On the Kur’an’s authority only. It is rather strange that in his account

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHUR 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 avenged’.”

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 ef the army, and famous war-
riors of the kingdom of (गप्रा, and both of them were
named Kharmil. One was Kharmil-i-Sim, 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 ele-
phants [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 over-
throw 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-baz’, the two armies came to
an encounter. When the battle commenced, both these
champions dismounted, fastened up the skirts of their coats
of mail’, and entered the fight. When the elephants of
Bahram Shah made a charge’, 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—I11, our author does not even mention
Siirl’s name, although he refers to ’Ald-ud-Din, Husain, the brother, and the
capture of Ghaznin.

7 Kuan: ऽ. 17, 35.

8 One copy has Kiinah[or Giinah]-waz, and two copies have Kotah-baz-bab.
This last appears incorrect, and bib seems merely baz repeated in error by the
copyist. Katah-waz cannot be meant, although zw and 4 are interchangeable :
Katah-waz is much too far to the east. One copy has Goghah-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. ‘* Zhrowing 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 mercy of the Almighty
be upon him !

The troops of Ghir 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 draw figured coarse cotton cloth’, after
the form of a screen [or breast-work], and the name of
that article of defence is kérwah. When the foot-soldiers
of Ghir 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 stuffed’.

When the engagement was fairly begun, ‘Daulat Shah,
son of Bahram Shah, with a body of cavalry and an

> Called karbas,

ॐ Our author has described this instrument of defence tolerably well, but
not exactly. The word karwah is contained in Pus’hto, and this means of
protection was used by some of the Afghans in former times, before fire-arms
came into use. The kagwah 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 Durranis or
Barakzis] who accompanied the Yisufzis 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 Ghiiris were ‘‘ Patans,” or Patans Ghiris. Com-

pare Elliot, INDIA, vol. ii. pages 287-8. See my Afghan Dictionary, second
edition, p. 1151. London: 1867.

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 353

elephant*, made a charge, Sultan ’Ald-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 troops of Ghaznin, the
inen 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 wantonness‘.
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

# 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, Siri, was the first of the
brothers who came into contact with Bahram Shah, and ’Ala-ud-Din, Husain,
the last ; but he has so arranged his work that his account of Siri comes /ast,
The reader will perhaps find it less perplexing if he should read the account
of Siri, at Section XIX., first, then that of Bahd-ud-Din, Sim, at page 341,
and this notice of ’Ald-ud-Din last.

354 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

commanded that the whole of the [remains of the] Mah-
midi Sultans should be exhumed from their graves and
burnt, except those of Sultan Mahmiid, the Ghazi, Sultan
Mas’iid, and Sultan Ibrahim’; and, during the whole of
these seven days, ’Ald-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, Siri, 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 mourning’. When the
eighth night came round, and the city had become entirely
desolated and consumed, and its inhabitants massacred,
Sultan ’Ald-ud-Din, on that night, improvised*® several
strophes eulogistic of himself, and gave them to the
minstrels, with directions to sing them accompanied by
their changs and chighanahs’ before him; and the lines,
which are appropriate, are as follows :-~ `

**The world knoweth that I of the universe am king?.
The lamp of the family of the ’Abbasfs am I.
’Ald-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 troops ?.
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 bond?.”

€ Other writers state that the bones of the whole of the Mahmidi sovereigns
were exhumed and burnt, with the sole exception of those of Sultin Mahmiid.

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 > - न्त } The other Paris copy has »4—fighting,
making war, &c. !!

8 He was gifted with a poetical genius.

* The fitst is a kind of guitar, or harp, and the latter a kind of violin.

1 'Ald-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 these

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 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 Ghiir, 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 biers‘*, 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 edifices® of the Mahmidi
dynasty, the like of which were not to be found in the
regions of the world®; and the whole territory, which
appertained to the Mahmidi sovereigns, he directed should
be ravaged and desolated’.

He returned to Ghiir, and, by his command, the corpses®
of his brothers were deposited by the side of their ancestors.
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, Misawi, who was Sultan Siri’s
Wazir, and who, along with Sultan Siri, they had hung
up from one of the arches’ [of the bridge ?] of Ghaznin,
boastful effusions of ’Ald-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 Glyaznin to be massacred !

4 The word «+ has other meanings besides ‘‘crad/e.”" Elliot: INDIA,
vol. ii. p. 289.

$ Such as mosques, colleges, fortifications, &c.

€ 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-’Ashikin—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 Mahmiidi sovereigns, even at that time, was of great extent, and Ghir
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 Tak, signifying an arch, among other meanings,

356 | ` THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

and they were brought before the Sultan. Bags were filled
with the earth’ of Ghaznin, and placed upon their backs,
and [they were] brought along with him to Firiiz-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 Ghaznin, and from it several
towers? were erected on the _ hills of Firiiz-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 violins®, These are the lines :— |

‘*T am [he] in whose justice the world hath exultation ;
And I am [he] through whose munificence the treasury sustaincth injustice.
The finger of his hand, to his teeth, the enemy placeth‘,
When, to the string of the bow, I the thimble apply§.

and it is also a proper name ; du¢ #0 word signifying a bridge ts used in any
copy of the text collated, but some other writers say it was the Tak Bridgc—the
bridge leading to Tak, in Zabulistan, probably. Another writer, however,
says, Siri and his Wazir were hung at the’ head of ‘the Bridge of Two
Arches ”— ७५ 59 Jy —and this is probably correct. In his account of Siri,
farther on, our author says it was the Bridge of One Arch. See the first of the
Ghaznin dynasty, Section XIX.

\ Khak signifies earth, not "क, = The context shows what this earth was.
intended for, but ४ 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 Firiz-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 that the work of our author must,
originally, have been written in a different language. One set of copies has
१११. 9 Noy silane y de y> 9 94 |, ७५७० whilst another set of copies has
DY g Ardley 9 9191 ०; Jot 9 ५ ०94४ 1, yb bee , and throughout the work the
two sets agree word for word almost. The latter set is the least trustworthy.

4 In token of astonishment.

$ A sort of thimble used by archers to protect the left thumb from the bow-
string.

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 357.

When my bay steed leap’d a square within the ranks,

The adversary no longer knew ball from square ®.

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 head &.
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 Firiiz-
koh, he ordered his nephews, Ghiyads-ud-Din, Muhammad-
i-Sam’®, 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 Wajiristan', and
an allowance was fixed for their support.

He [Ald-ud-Din] also began to show a contumacious
spirit towards Sultan Sanjar, and manifested open hostility

¢ 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 con-
siderably 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

7 From this line, if correctly quoted, it was Bahram Shah who encountered
Ala-ud-Din, Husain ; but other authors, as already noticed in note > 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 Rajpiit and
other Hindii 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 III, our
author says that he returned to Ghaznin after ’Ali-ud-Din, Husain, withdrew,
and died there. Those authors who contend that Bahram Shah had died a
short time before ’Al4-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 Ghiirlans, and finally relinquished it on the
advance of the Ghuzz ‘Turks, in 548 or 549 H., after the defeat of Sulfin
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 ~,9> is used in all but one copy of the text, which has ८4
signifying ‘‘a ball,” and may even be the most applicable meaning after all.

Sam [Baha-ud-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-NASIRL

towards him*, What the Sultans of Ghir had stipulated
for, and which used to reach the Sanjari 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 Ghir.

Sultan ’Ald-ud-Din collected the forces of Ghir, and
advanced to meet the Sultan as far as the limits of the
town of Nab, between Firiiz-koh and Hirat, in the valley
of the Hariw-ar-Riid. There is water there, and a delight-
ful and extensive plain’, which they call Sih-goshah-i-Nab ;

2, This seems to confirm the statement of Fasih-f [note +, page 336], that
Husain [’Izz-ud-Din], son of Sam, ’Ald-ud-Din, 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
Ghir 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 Bahram
Shah on the throne of Ghaznin, he [Sanjar] received, as lord-paramount over
Ghaznin also, the tribute formerly paid by the chiefs of Ghir to the Sultins
of the Mahmidi dynasty. When Bahram executed Saif-ud-Din, Siiri, ’Ala-
ud-Din’s brother, he sent his head to his uncle, Sultan Sanjar. See also
Fanakatt’s statement, para. 10 to note 3, page 348.

3 Two copies have, “There there is a delightful rizery and an extensive
plain ;” but of course the Hariw or Hari-riid, as the river of Hirdt is named
was there, and the extra river appears redundant

Fasih-t states that the battle took place before Aobah, near Hirat [Aobah is
Pus’hto for ‘‘ water ’’], and in this Jahan-Ara agrees, but the Tarikh-i-Ibrahimi
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 प्र. [Fasih-f says as early as 542 H.], ’Ali, Jatri, [called
Chatrf by our author] who held the fief of Hirt, during Sultan Sanjar’s
absence, had become disaffected towards the Sultan, in what way is not men-
tioned, for but little is said about him in history. [See note §, page 237.]
He concerted with ’Ali-ud-Din, Husain, ‘‘ Malik of Ghiir,” in this hostility,
and Sanjar marched against them. They were defeated and overthrown in
545 H.—some say in 544 H., and Fasih-1 547 H.—and ’Ali, Jatri, ’Ald-ud-Din,
Husain, Ghiri, and the Malik-zidah, Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad [son of Fakhr-
ud-Din, Mas’id, of Bimian, elder brother of’Ald-ud-Din], were taken prisoners,
the last by the hand of the Sipah-salar, Barankash. Orders were given to
put ’Alf, Jatri, to death at once, and ’Ala-ud-Din was thrown into prison; but
Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, having obtained 50,000 dinars from Bamian, 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-Din,
set him at liberty, and made him one of his boon companions.

Fanakati Aere relates the story respecting [’Ala-ud-Din] Husain, which
Fasib-f, and some others relate of his father, Husain, already recorded in
note ५, page 336; but, although एए relates matters entirely different here
respecting ’Ali-ud-Din, Husain, and gives such circumstantial details, I still
cannot but consider Raghid-ud-Din’s account correct notwithstanding, who,

॥ 1

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 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 Ghir 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 tothe 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
Ghiir, deserted, and went over to Sultan Sanjar, and sub-
mitted to him, and the troops of Ghir 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.

Fasib-t says, “When Husain [’Izz-ud-Din, Husain, of our author], son
of Sim, 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], Ghazzali, he was spared, and set at liberty. This was in the
year 545 प्र. 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 glorifica-
tion of his patrons}, until one day, the Amir [commander] of the troops of
Khurasan, ’Imad-ud-Daulah, Kimaj, chanced to meet with him.” Faniakati
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 लाल? [Rashid-ud-Din says, ‘‘ Hast thou not the means and power
of keeping one head and face clean 2] 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.

’Ald-ud-Din, Husain, was restored to the sovereignty of Ghir 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 §,

360 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

distinguished men of the Ghirian 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 con-
finement, and they brought gyves of iron to place on: his
legs. He urged that it was requisite they should make 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]. ae
_ 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 hestow’d upon me :

In such wise his mercy [was], and his bounty such ‘.”’

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 :—

« Some other authors quote these lines differently, particularly the two last.

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHUR. 361

** Verily the dust at the gate of thy palace is [my] diadem 5,
And [this], the collar of thy sertice, 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 of Ghir‘, 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 Ghir.
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
Ghuzz’.”

During this period of Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din’s absence®
from the capital of the kingdom of Ghir, a number of the
Amirs, Maliks, and the great men and judges of the [एवा
[mountain tracts] and of the territory of Ghir, had agreed
together to bring Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Husain®, son of
Muhammad, of Madin, who was the brother’s son of ’Ala-
ud-Din, and place him upon the throne of Firiiz-koh. A
body of disobedient persons of the territory of Kashi’, who
excel all the rest of the people of Ghir 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
steed’s hoof is my diadem,”’ but the rest agrees with the former version. Other
authors quote the line as given in the text above.

6 The Tarikh-i-Ibrahimf says ‘‘ both Ghir and Ghaznfn.”

7 Another author says that Sultan Sanjar bestowed a standard and kettle
drums upon ’Ala-ud-Din, and restored him to the rulership of Ghir.

® 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.
Aa

362 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

alms, and robes of distinction, had appropriated the royal
treasure and property.

When Sultan ’Alé-ud-Din came towards Ghir from
Khurasan with all that treasure, cattle, and wealth [con-
ferred upon him by Sultan Sanjar], he first proceeded in
the direction of the territory of Kashi, destroyed the whole
of their Kishks [fortified villages], which exceeded a
thousand Kasrs in number, and every one of which, in
strength and height, was such, that the decision of conjec-
ture 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 Firiiz-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 Firtiz-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 Tukhiristan’, and seized the
districts of Dawar, Jarim, and Bust also; and, of Khura-
san, took the fortress of Tilak, which is situated in the
mountains in the vicinity of Hirat, after a period of six
years’.

There was a poet within the fortress of Tilak, whom
they called by the name of ’Umr-i-Saraj ; and, when hosti-
lities were about to come to an end, and the fortress of
Tilak 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 Tilak : lo! there is Tilak.”

In their language, galloping up-hill and down-dale is
called “ Wurlak-Filak‘.” “The mercy of God be upon
them !”

* See the Tukhiaristan dynasty farther on.

2 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.

4 These words vary in most of the copies of the text, but the best copies
have as above written. Some have ‘‘ Urlak-Fiilak,” ‘‘ Warlak-Talak,” and
**Wurkal-Tukal.” The words are unintelligible, and are certainly not
एप 1110.

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 Hir
Malikah, who was the daughter of the Shar, Shah [by
name], son of Ibrahim, Shar, son of Ardshir, one of the
Maliks of Gharjistan’; and. the valley of the Murghab
river and [its] fortresses came into his possession. The
fortress of Sabekji® [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 con-
tinually 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 Alamit*, and he
treated them’ with great reverence; and in every place
in Ghir they sought, secretly, to make proselytes. The
Mulahidah [heretic] of Alamiit had set his ambition on
subjecting the people of Ghiir [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 brethren’. The Almighty forgive him!

5 See note ५, page 341.
¢ The name of this place is doubtful. The majority of copies have as

written above wan but other copies have we = ह.) 8 ह. -.५<~- (>

and wr Of Ghiir 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 Alamit, from J) and w,.|—the eagle’s [not vulture’s}] nest—the name
of the stronghold of Hasan-i-Sabbah, the Shaykh-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 Alamittiahs, who died in 557 H. In
Elliot, INDIA, vol. ii. pages 289-90, he is turned into ‘the Mulahi-datu-l-
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, Khwarazm Shih, died,
according to Fagib-i, Lubb-ut-Tawarikh, Habib-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. Jannabi says in
566 H. ! Our author, although brought up in the residence of his niece, and
the glorifier of all things Gbhirian, appears neither to have known the
year of ’Ali-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

ध ; Aa 2

364 | THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

XV. MALIK NASIR-UD-DIN, 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 Ghiir and the Jibal [mountain tracts] became
weak and disordered. The refractory and disobedient of
Ghir began to show contumacy, and each tribe fortified
itself in the hills and defiles in which it dwelt, and com-
menced 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 Firtiz-koh’. 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 pro-
perty, and other effects stored up, he expended upon those
Amirs, and great men, and on mean persons, and seized
upon the dominions of Ghir. His strength lay in the
support of the rebels of the Kashi country.

This Malik, Nasir-ud-Din, had a great passion for women
and virgins, and he had taken a number of the handmaids
and slave girls of the Aavam of Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din under
his own control, and used to have recourse to them.
When Sultan ’Ald-ud-Din, having been dismissed with
great honour and respect from the presence of Sultan San-
jar, set out towards the dominions of Ghir, and reached the
hill country of Hirat, and the news of the advent of his ex-
alted banners was brought to Firiiz-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 4aram, who had been taken into Malik Nasir-ud-
Din’s karam, 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-Din,
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 down the four corners of the
pillow until they suffocated him, and he died.

XVI. SULTAN * SAIF-UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD, SON OF SULTAN
"ALA-UD-DIN, AL-HUSAIN. |

When Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din departed from this world, his
son, Sultan Saif-ud-Din, Muhammad, with the concur-
rence of the whole of the Maliks, Amirs, and chief men of
Ghir, ascended the throne of Firiiz-koh.

He was a youthful and 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 in 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 resti-
tution 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 Alamit [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 them, by his orders, were put to
the sword. In every place wherein the odour of their
impure usages was perceived, throughout the territory of
Ghir, slaughter of all heretics was commanded. The
whole of them were sent to Hell, and the area of the
country of Ghiir, which was a mine of religion and ortho-
doxy, was purified from the infernal impurity of Karamitah’
depravity by the sword. By this orthodox war upon in-
fidels, love for him became rooted in the hearts of the
people of Ghir and of the territory of the Jibal ; and the

2 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, Ghiyds-
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 Ghir 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
Abi-l-’Abbis, 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 Ghiir, 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
gauntlets*, 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 ५195-3, 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 ove hand, but he says ‘‘ on the hand,” not the Aands. The word
for bracelet, however, is aso Other writers say, a bracelet, which Nasir-
ud-Din, Husain, had taken from one of ’Ali-ud-Din’s wives, and presented to
War-mesgh. It is the father’s Aaram at page 364.

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 367

butt, in order to carry out this command, and his back
was turned towasds the Sultan, he, Sultan Saif-ud-Din,
fitted a broad steel-headed arrow’ 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 spot’®. |

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 Ghir, 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 Madin’. From thence he advanced to Rid-
bar® of Marw, and passed beyond Dajzak, which is a large
city [town ?], and came to a battle with the Ghuzz,

The Sipah-salar, Abi-l-’Abbas, son of Shis, who was
the champion of Ghir, 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 this’.”

§ The arrow-head called d¢-as, 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.

€ The ‘‘ meek, conciliating, and pious” youth did not hesitate to shoot an
enemy in the dack ! |

7 Some copies of the text have Farus, which is sometimes written Kadus,
instead of Madin. See page 374, and note 9.

8 Riid-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
Balkh,” and that it happened in 558 प. ; but he is said to have reigned some-

368 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

When the Sultan fell, the troops of Ghiir 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 Sultan Saif-ud-Din with force,
and from that wound he obtained martyrdom.

XVII. SULTAN !-UL-.A’ZAM, GHIYAS-UD-DUNYA WA UD.-DIN,
ABU-L-FATH, MUHAMMAD, SON OF BAHA.-UD.DIN, SAM,
KASIM-I-AMIR-UL-MUMININ?.

Trustworthy persons have stated, after the following
manner, that Sultan Ghiyadg-ud-Din, and his brother,
Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, were both born of one mother; and
that Ghiyads-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
Ghiyas-ud-Din [by the name of] Habashi; and Mu’izz-ud-
Din, Zangi’; but, originally, the august name of Ghiyag-ud-
Din was Muhammad, and the name of Muw’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 H., or his son must have reigned about seven years ;
but, as our author says that Ghiyas-ud-Din, who succeeded him, died in
599 H., after 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 Balkh. 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

(उ a share, portion, &c. See also page 316, and note °.

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. Inthe dialect of Ghir they call Muham-
mad, Ahmad‘.

When Malik Baha-ud-Din, Sam, died within the limits
of Kidan, and Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Husain, ascended the
throne of Firtiz-koh, he commanded that his two nephews,
Ghiyas-ud-Din and Mu’izz-ud-Din, should be imprisoned
in the fortress of Wajiristan’, and fixed but a small
allowance for the supply of their wants®. 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. Ghiyads-ud-
Din took up his residence at the Court of Firiz-koh in
amity with Sultan Saif-ud-Din, and Mu’izz-ud-Din, his
brother, proceeded to Bamian to the presence of his pater-
nal uncle, Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas’id.

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.

Ghiyds-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 death’;
and the army of Ghir, discomfited, came out of the district
of Riid-bar and the borders of Dajzak towards Gharjistan
by way of Asir Darah and La-wir [or Li-ir?], and passed
beyond Afshin, which was the capital of the Shars of
Gharjistan ; and, when they reached the town of Wada-
wajzd*, the Sipah-salar, Abi-l-’Abbas, son of Shis, who

4 See note ‘4, page 313.

5 A few authors have stated that the two brothers were placed in charge of
Ghaznin [not a province of ता] by their uncle, ’Ald-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

® See paragraph 14, note >, 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 col-
lating the number of copies I have seen. 45 it is there is some doubt about
two or three of the proper names. Some copies have एड [+] and Asir

370 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

had unhorsed Sultan Saif-ud-Din with his spear, there
presented himself in the presence of Ghiyads-ud-Din ; and
such of the most powerful and illustrious personages, and
the Amirs and Maliks of the troops of Ghir and Gharjistan
as were present, he assembled and brought together,
and they all gave their allegiance to the sovereignty and
dominion of Ghiyds-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 Firiiz-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
Ghiyds-ud-Din ; and, after the successes in Khurasan,
his brother Malik Shihab-ud-Din’s title became Sultan
Mu’izz-ud-Din’.

When his brother, Mu’izz-ud-Din', became cognizant
of his brother Ghiydg-ud-Din’s situation, he proceeded to
the presence of his uncle, Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas’id,
and asked his permission, and came to Firiiz-koh, and
he was invested with the office of Sar-i-Jandar [or
chief armour-bearer], and he used to be always in attend-
ance on his brother, Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din. The territory
of Istiah? and Kajiran were entrusted to his charge.

[~'] for Asir [ ,~'], and Wajzdward [.,5'%9] for Wadawajzd [79 93] 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-i, who gives a detailed account of the Shars; but Fasih-i
calls the town Afshinah. Ibn-Hiikal says, the two [chief] towns of Ghar-
jistin are yi not yey and yee The first is evidently an error of the
copyist for ७51 and so confirms Y4afa-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 Aas a meaning,
but ° Shahab”’ none: moreover his name was not Mahmid.

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 Ghaznia and Hirat

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 375

When the [Sultan’s] pavilion was brought out of the
city of Firiiz-koh, and conveyed towards Ghir’, the con-
tumacious of Ghir began to manifest opposition. The
Sipah-salar, Abi-l--Abbas, son of Shis, who had raised
him to the throne, possessed great authority and influence,
and the refractory of Ghir used to shelter themselves -
under his protection. Both the brothers continued to
nourish revenge in their hearts against him [Abiu-l-’ 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 imme-
diate Turkish followers should carry it out [in the following
manner] :—When Abi-l-’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 cap‘, the Turk should strike off Abi-l-’ Abbas’ head;
and such was done.

After Abi-l-’Abbas had been put to death, Ghiyads-ud-
Din acquired strength, and the grandeur of the realm
increased. The uncle of the brothers, Malik Fakhr-ud-
Din, Mas’iid, of Bamian, being the eldest of the seven
Sultan brothers’, and there being neither one of them
remaining [but himself], he became ambitious of acquiring
the territory of Ghir and the throne of Firiiz-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-diz’, of Hirat,
and asked assistance from him also. Subsequently, the

ग From the manner in which our author here expresses himself [and the
sentence is the same in all the copies collated], Ghiir must have been the
name of a town as well as of the whole country. From many of his expres-
sions, however, in other places, Firiiz-koh would seem to refer to one district
or territory, Ghiir 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 Abi-l-’Abbas in conversation,
whilst the other brother gave the sign for his assassination. Abi-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-Din’s towards Khusrau Malik. See
note 5, pages 112-13.

5 They were not a// styled "^ Sultan,” even by his own account.
€ J-yal-diiz of others.

372 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRE

troops of Bamian and the forces of Balkh and of Hirat
advanced from different directions towards Firiz-koh.

Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas’iid, of Bamian, being the
uncle of the Sultans, and there being a great number of
the Amirs of Ghir in his service, and he claiming the ter-
ritory of Ghir 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-diiz, marched to Firiiz-koh with his army from Hirat,
it being the nearest route by way of the Hariw-ar-Rid ', or
valley of the Hari river. |

Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din and Mu’izz-ud-Din came out of
Firiiz-koh, and proceeded to a place which is called Ragh-
i-Zarir® (the Zarir plain] and the forces of Ghir there
assembled around them. Taj-ud-Din, Yal-diiz, of Hirat,
used the utmost expedition, being ambitious of this, that
perhaps the capture of Firiiz-koh and the destruction of
the Ghirian army might be achieved by him.

When he arrived near to the position of the Ghirian
forces, and both armies confronted each other, and prepa-
rations 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 Ghirian warriors from the midst of the army
formed a compact, and came to the front of the [mar-
shalied] 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 blast, and the flying cloud, they approached
towards the ranks of the Turks of Hirat, crying out, “ Where
15 Malik Yal-diiz ? We seek Malik Yal-diz!”

Malik Taj-ud-Din, Yal-diiz, was standing beneath his
canopy, and his troops all pointed towards him, so that
those Ghirian warriors knew which was Yal-diiz ; 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, zayr signifying
golden or yellow, and Zarir the name of a grass yielding a yellow dye. One
old copy has Wejz, which signifies pure.

THE SMHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 373

of them like hungry lions and rampant elephants fell upon
Yal-diiz, 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, Ghiyads-ud-Din and Mv’izz-ud-
Din, beneath the shadow of His kindness, He made such
a victory and triumph as this a miracle of theirs’.

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 presence 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’td. 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 1708} to the
presence of Malik Fakhr-ud-Din he determined upon re-
turning, 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 Ghiyads-ud-Din and Mu’izz-ud-Din at
once dismounted from their horses, and proceeded to
receive him, and paid him great attention and considera-
tion, and said, “It is necessary that your lordship should

५११

return ;” and they conducted him to their camp and seated

® This ‘‘ miracle” is not mentioned by other authors, with the exception of
a very few who copy from our author. The Raugat-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 Ghirian forces slew both of them, and returned triumphant to the
presence of Ghiyas-ud-Din, who despatched the head of the son of Kimij 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’iid, 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.

s

374 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

him on a throne, and both those sovereigns’? stood up
before him with their hands stuck in their girdles [in token
of servitude]. From this Malik Fakhr-ud-Din 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 Ghir was left vacant to Sultan Ghiyads-ud-Din.

After that event he proceeded into Garmsir and Zamin-
i-Dawar, and that tract was liberated*; and, as Malik Taj-
ud-Din, Yal-diiz, 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 ‘, 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 ° was also achieved.

2 Mu’izz-ud-Din was not then a sovereign prince, and did not become so
nominally until after the taking of Ghaznin 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. Fasib-1, 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 5, page 379.

$ This ‘‘success” could have been but a very temporary one, for, by our
author’s own account, Tughril was in possession of Hirit up to the year when
Sultin Shah, Khwarazmi, was defeated by the Ghiris, which event took place
in 588 प्त. 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. See page 249, and note 5, page 379.

During the Khilafat of the ’Abbast Khalifah, Mihdi, 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 ’Abbasis 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 overthem. The Ghuzz
were in the habit of paying tribute to the sovereign of the period, and, when
Sultan Sanjar ascended the throne of the Saljiiks, 40,000 Ghuzz families entered
the territory of Khutlan and Chaghanian, and paid a tribute of 24,000 sheep
tothe royal kitchen. In 545 H., according to Alfi, when Amir Kimaj [the
Kimaj mentioned above, and in note 4, page 336, also probably] was Wali of

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 375

After some years Faras and the territory of 10 [or
Kal-yiin], and Fiwar and Baghshor’, 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 Wali
of Tukhiristan [this was a short time before Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas’id, Ghiri,
became ruler of Tukhbaristin and Bamian], who, seizing the opportunity of
Kimij’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 6, and note 8, page 156], and died in 552 H. In 553 H. the Ghuzz
poured forth from Balkh [the province of?], and moved towards Sarakhs.
Mu’ayyid-i-’A-inah-dar, the slave of Mahmiid, Sanjar’s nephew, and, after-
wards, ruler of Nishapiir [see note 7, page 180], and other parts of Upper
Khuradsdn, 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 Khurasin. The Ghuzz were in posses-
sion, however, of Marw, Sarakhs, Balkh, and some other tracts ; and some
parts were under the sway of the Khwarazmis. Hirat was held by a chief
named Malik Aetkin, who, in §59 H., marched into Ghir with a considerable
army ; but, the Ghiiris 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 Alfi, and he must be our author’s Baha-ud-Din, Tughril. This chief, not
considering himself safe from the power of Amir Mu’ayyid, and having some pre-
vious acquaintance with the Ghuzz chiefs, called upon them to help him, intend-
ing 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 >, page 239.] Mu’ayyid was himself put to death in 569 H.
Saif-ud-Din, Muhammad of Ghir, was slain when engaging the Ghuzz of Balkh
in 558 H., and in the same year his successor, Ghiyas-ud-Din, defeated them
with great slaughter, and imposed tribute on [some portion ?] of them, and
in 571 H. his brother, Mu’izz-ud-Din, encountered a tribe of them, as will be
mentioned under his reign. Ghiyas-ud-Din, Ghiri, 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 Kadush,
which place is mentioned, in several places, written in the same manner. In
place of Baghshor, contained in one set of copies, Saif-rid 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. In

376 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 Gharjistan, and
Tal-kan ’, and Juzarwan ° devolved upon him ; and Tigin-
abad, out of the district of Jariim’, Ghiyads-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 Shah’. The reign of Khusrau Shah had ter-
minated, 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 Ghir [in the field]
threw up intrenchments, and, from the excessive firmness
of the Ghuzz, the Ghirian army very nearly sustained an
overthrow. Sultan Ghiyds-ud-Din retired, and despatched
a body of Ghiirians to the aid of Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din’.
Suddenly a body of Ghuzz warriors attacked [the army
of Ghir], and captured the royal standard of the Ghirians,
‘and carried it away within their own intrenchments. The
Ghirian 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 Fiwir 212 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 >, pages 257-8.

9 In a few copies ‘‘and the district of Jariim and Tigin-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 3, p. 347, and note§, 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.0.L.
MS., 1952, orthe 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 reéwrned [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 Ghiydg-ud-Din, who
returned ; and the troops of Ghir commenced slaughter-
ing the Ghuzz, and laid the greater number of that race on
the earth, and Ghaznin was left in the possession of the
Ghiris. This victory was gained in the year 569 H.‘
When Ghaznin was conquered, Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din
placed his brother, Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, upon the throne
of the Mahmidis °, and returned himself to Firtiz-koh
After two years, he [Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din] summoned
his troops [again], and the armies of Ghir 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-Shahis‘ ; and, in the year 671 H.’, the city
of Hirdt was taken possession of. Two years subsequent
to this, Fiishanj 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 5§7 H. Khusrau Shah died in
555 प. ; 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 Ghaznfn, and they appear to have obtained possession
of it in 557 H., or 558 H., probably after the death of Saif-ud-Din, Siri, ’AJa-
ud-Din, Husain’s son, and defeat of the Ghirians by the Ghuzz,

$ From which time only he is entitled to be styled Sultin. Fagib-i says
that as early as 566 प्त, the Maliks of Ghtir had acquired power in the Ghaznin
territory and in part of Hind, and the Khwarazm $hahis in ’Irak and Khura-
san; 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, Takish. See note 7, page 180,
and note 7, page 245

6 Fasib-{ does not mention the acquirement of Hirat among the events of
$71 H., but states that in that year Mu’izz-ud-Din, W4lf of Ghaznin, en-
countered 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.

7 See note °, page 379.

Bb

378 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

Malik of Nimroz and Sijistan despatched envoys, and he
enrolled himself among the vassals of that Sultn.

Subsequently to these events, the Ghuzz Maliks who
were in Kirman® paid submission to him; and different
parts of the territory of Khurasan, which were dependent
upon Hirat and Balkh, such as Tal-kan, Andkhid,
Maimand’® Faryab, Panj-dih, Marw-ar-Riid, Dajzak,
Kilaf’, the whole of those towns came into the possession
of the Ghiydsi officers, and the Khutbah and the
coin became adorned by the august name of Sultan
Ghiy4s-ud- Din.

After some time, Sultan Shah, Jalal-ud-Din, Mahmid,
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-Din’®. After atime 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 Ghir, and commenced harrying and plundering them,
until, in the year 588 H., Sultan Ghiyads-ud-Din commanded,
so that Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din from Ghaznin, Malik Shams-
ud-Din*® of Bamian, and Malik Taj-ud-Din-i-Harab, from
Sijistan, with their forces, assembled at Ridbar 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-Din, Dinar, the Ghuzz chief, driven out of the territory
of Sarakhs by Sultin Shah, Khwiarazmi [see note 8, page 246], retired
towards Kirman in 581 प्र. ; 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 Ghiyds-ud-Din is not confirmed
by other authors.

9 Called 2150 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 sfe/?.

1 This name is somewhat doubtful. Some have Kashif, but the majority of
copies have WAS the wiv probably of Ibn-i-Hiikal.

2 See page 239 and note 2.

3 The same that was taken prisoner in the battle with Sultan Sanjar, along
with ’Ald-ud-Din, Husain, and ’Ali, Jatri, and ransomed for 50,000 dfnirs.
See note 3, p. 358

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHUR. 379

this harassing warfare went on; and the two armies con-
tinued 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.‘; and Malik
Baha-ud-Din, Tughril, the Sanjari, in that encounter, fell
into the hands of the Bamian troops, and they brought his
head to the presence of Sultan Ghiyads-ud-Din*. On that
day, likewise, Malik Shams-ud-Din of Bamian, son of
Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas’iid, 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 Ghir, Ghaznin, and Bamian were about to
assemble at Rudbar of Marw, for the purpose of restraining
Sultan Shah, commands had been issued for the martyr-
dom of the gentle and beneficent Sultan, Khusrau Malik*.
The mercy of the Almighty be upon him!

Every year fresh successes were taking place in different
directions of the territories of Ghir’, 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 Dihl}.

§ 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 Ghiiris, and joined the
Khwarazmis. The Ghiris 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 Ghiirfs 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 Ghiris against Sultan Shah, in
this year, 588 H., or, more correctly, in 587 H. See note 3, page 374.

€ 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 Ghiir 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 § to page 112,
para. 10.

7 Sic in all the copies.

Bb 2

380 THE TABAKAT-ILNASIRI.

-506 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 Ghir and Ghaznin, and
advanced to the gate of Nishapiir. While the forces occu-
pied a position in the vicinity of Nishapiir, and hostilities
commenced, trustworthy persons have, among the miracles
of the victorious Sultan Ghiyds-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
effected’. 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 Nishapir was taken. Malik
"Ali Shah', son of Sultan ’Imad-ud-Din, Takish, Khwarazm

8 At page 255, in our author’s account of his succession, he says, ‘‘’Ala-
ud-Din, 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, Ghiydgs-ud-Din was either
a mere imbecile or a puppet, for he is said by several of them to have ‘‘re-
tained 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 én all the campaigns in Khordsdn except the last ;”
but they forget, or, more likely, are unable to, mention, when a// these cam-
paigns took place, and against whom. The fact is that none of these state-
ments are correct. Ghiyag-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
Jas¢ 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 ?, next page.

1 He is styled ‘Sultan ’Alf Shah,” and ‘‘a very great and illustrious
prince,” at page 252, and also ‘‘ Malik ” in some places.

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 381

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 hands’.

To Malik Ziyd-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Abi ’Ali,
Shansabi, who was the uncle’s son’ of both the [Ghirian
Sultans, and the son-in-law of Sultan Ghiyds-ud-Din, they
gave the government and throne‘ of Nishapir, 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’id,
Bamiani. Malik Taj-ud-Din acquired jurisdiction over
the whole of that territory, and Khurasan became clear’*.

Malik® ’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 Ghiris with an
immense army, and ninety great elephants, each of which was like a mountain
in size, advanced against Shad-yakh [of Nighapir] where was, at that time,
१.५ 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 Ghiriain Sultdns [the two brothers], in order to recon-
noitre the place, were making a circuit around it, and came to a stand opposite
the city [Nishapir]. A vast crowd of people, from within Shad-yakh, in
order to gaze upon the Ghiirian 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 Ghiiris 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, cap-
tured, and plundered, and the date given is Rajab, 597 H., not 596 H., as our
author states. Nishapiir was retaken from the Ghiiris five months after. See
page 393, note §,

ॐ This is incorrect. See page 346, and note 5 and note >, page 391.

4 Malik Ziya-ud-Din was merely left in charge as governor. The “‘throne
of Nighapir,” is one of our author’s absurdities.

५ After getting possession of Nishapir Sultan Ghiydg-ud-Din returned to
_ Hirat, and his brother, Mu’izz-ud-Din, marched into Kuhistan for the purpose

of destroying the strongholds of the Mulabidah heretics of that part, and, after
several [minor] encounters with them, an accommodation was brought about,
and Junabad was occupied, and the Kazi of Tiilak [the same who was pre-
viously left as governor of Tabarhindah. See the reign of Mu’izz-ud-Din,
Section XIX.] was left there in charge.

¢ Sultan, by his own account, and a much greater one than either of the
Ghiris in many respects, and the ruler of a far greater extent of territory.

382 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

consent to accept his services [as their vassal], and relin-
quish Khurasin 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 Ghiyads-ud-Din, the purport of their
embassy being to the effect, that, between the Sultans of
Ghir 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-Din, should
take his [servant’s] mother to wife, and consider him, his
very humble servant, as a son ; that from the Ghiydsiah
Court he, his [Sultan Ghiyds-ud-Din’s] servant, might
receive an honorary robe, and a patent of investiture for
Khurasan and Khwarazm*, 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-Din did not become agree-
able to the proposed union, and hostility arose. As the
Almighty God had ordained that the whole of the domi-
nions of Iran should fall under the sway of Muhammad,
Khwarazm Shah’, he, upon several occasions, towards the
close of Ghiyas-ud-Din’s life, retired discomfited before the
forces of Ghir 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 secking to become the vassal and servant of the Ghiris, which is
not worthy of the least credit whatever.

7 Who, as usual, are nameless.

8 Very probable, seeing that his ancestors ruled over it for more than a cen-
tury previously, and over all Khurdsan and greater part of Irak, by our author’s
own accounts, for many years. See the reign of Mahmiid, son of Ghiyas-ud-
Din, Muhammad, farther on, where a treaty with the Khwarazmis is mentioned.

9 Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm 50811, recovered most of his Khurasan
possessions, which the Ghiiris had overrun the previous year, in 598 H. See
previous note, and our author’s own account of Sultin Takish’s conquests

at pages 241-2, and note 8, page 393, and his account of the Khwarazmi
Sultans generally.

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 383

Mustazi एषा, and from the Lord of the Faithful, Un-
Nasir-ud-Din Ullah, reached the Court of Sultan Ghiydas-
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 Khilafat*, On the arrival of the honorary
dress from the Court of Un-Nasir-ud-Din Ullah, the im-
perial zaubat* five times a day was assumed by the Sultan.

His dominions became wide and extended, and from the
east [eastern extremity] of Hindiistan, from the frontier of
Chin and Ma-Chin, as far as "Irak, and from the river
Jihin and Khuradsan 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 पाला
torious, 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 १.4 12110, 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 Jam§adi-ul-
Awwal*‘, 599 H. His mausoleum was raised by the side
of the Jami’ Masjid of Hirat. The mercy of the Almighty
be upon him !

The Most High God had adorned the incomparable
nature of the victorious Sultan, Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muham-

’ The Khalifah’s proper name and title is Al-Mustagf Bi-Nir Ullah. He
died 575 H.

2 The Khalifah was stimulating the Ghiiriin Sultans to hostility against
_ Sultan Mihammad’s father, Sultin Takish, and afterwards did the same with
respect to himself. See page 243, and note 1.

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.

384 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

mad-i-Sam, with divers virtues and endowments, both out-
ward 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 fol-
lowed the tenets of the Kirimi sect®, in imitation of their
ancestors and [the people of] their dominions; but Sultan
Mu’izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sim, 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, Abi Hanifah of Kifa, in conformity with them,
adopted the doctrines of Abii 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 doc-
trines of the Traditionists®, and who was one of the leaders
of the Shaf'i sect. Unexpectedly, Imam Shafi himself
enters, and proceeds to the Mihrab’, and begins to repeat
the prayers; and Sultan Ghiyag-ud-Din, and Kazi Wahid-
ud-Din, both of them follow Imam Shaf’i 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 discourse’, saying,

* The Kirfimis, also called Mujassamian—Corporealists—the followers of
Muhammad, son of Kiram, are one of the subdivisions of the Sifati sect who
follow the tenets of Muhammad, son of Idris, Ush-Shaf’i. Ghiyas-ud-Din
being of that sect, the offices of Imam and Khatib of the great masjid of
lfirat, and other minor offices, were conferred on its ecclesiastics.

6 The four orthodox sects of Muhammadans are Traditionists,

7 The chief place in a masjid where the priest prays with his face tuned
towards Makkah.

४ 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 GHUR. 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 himself 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’1’.

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 nume-
rous ; but, at that time, the most eloquent among them all
was Imam, Sadr-ud-Din, ’Alf, Haisam, the Nishapiri, 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 Ghir. 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 Ghir, and proceeded to Nishapir, 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 Nishapir 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 Kurans 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, Mubammad, son of ’Umr of
Raz, wrote and dedicated to him a work entitled Lataif-i-Ghiyasi. See
under the reign of Mu'izz-ud-Din, Section XIX.

386 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

the capital city, Firiz-koh, which was the seat of govern-
ment, 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 com-
manded 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 Iram’, 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 zargah’ [semi-
circle] 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 chase’, 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, Muba-
rak Shah‘, 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 Mubammadan Paradise.

2 One set of copies of the original use the word s¥, and the other sy
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 SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 387

to enjoyment. The following is the quatrain in ques-
tion :-—
‘** 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
Ghiyas-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 Ghir, 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, Ghiyas-ud-Din,.and preferred certain requests
of his own to him. The Sultan commanded that an enter-
tainment should be prepared to do honour to the envoy,
and a gay party was brought together. Wine was cir-
culated among the Maliks and Amirs of Ghir, 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 Sultian’s
turn to pledge, they would fill his goblet with that pome-
granate 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 :—

५‹ Of that lion whose abode is within the Lion’s Jaws,®
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 Ghiyds-ud-Din’s colour changed, and the

५ See page 246 and note §. |
6 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-NASIRI.

Maliks of Ghir became much agitated. Khwajah Safi-ud-
Din, Mahmid, 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 Ghiyds-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-MAHMOD, 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
abundant’. ।

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,” &. 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

Tttles and Names of the Sultan ®:—

US-SULTAN-UL.A'ZAM ",

GHIYAS-UD-DUNYA WA UD.-DIN,

ABU-L-FATH, MUHAMMAD, SON OF SAM

KASIM-I-AMIR-UL-MUMININ.

Offspring.

Sultan-ul-A’zam, Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmid.
Malikah-ul-Mu’azzamah, Jalal-ud-Dunya wa-ud-Din.

Length of his reign :—Forty-three’ years.
Summer capital:—The City of Firiiz-koh of Ghiir.
Winter capital:—The district of Dawar.

Kaszis of his Court.
Kazi-ul-Kuzat [Chief Kazi], Mu’izz-ud-Din, Harawi.
Kazi Shihab-ud-Din, Harmawadi’*.

Wazirs of the Kingdom.

Shams-ul-Mulk, ’Abd-ul-Jabbar, Kidani.
Fakhr-ul-Mulk, Sharaf-ud-Din*, Wadari*.

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’azggam,”’ but it is incorrect.

1 Forty-one in a few copies.

9 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.

390 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

’Ain-ul-Mulk, Sirani [or Strtani].
Zahir-ul-Mulk, ’Abd-ullah, Sanjari.
Jalal-ud-Din, Diw-Shari [or Diw-Shahi].
Majd-ul-Mulk, Khwajah Safi-ud-Din.

Standards.
On the right, Black ; on the left, Red. ६

Motto on his august Signet.

५ For me God alone 15 sufficient.”

Hts Sultans and Malzks.

Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, his brother,
ruler over Ghaznin.

Sultan Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Mas’id,
Bamiani.

Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Muhammad Sam, Bamian%.

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’iid, Bamiani.

Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Yiisuf, Timrani.

Malik Ziya-ud-Din, Muhammad, Durr-i-Ghir [the Pearl
of Ghiir]’.

Malik Nasir-ud-Din, son of Siri, Madini.

Malik Badr-ud-Din, ’Ali, 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’id, Timrani.

Victories and Conquests*,

The territory of Hirat, [defeat of] Kimaj, Dawar, Faras’
Kaliyin, Fiwar, Saif-rid, Gharjistan, Tal-kan, Juzarwan,

५ See page 346, and next page.

5 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
Ghiris, it is styled a ‘‘ conquest” on their reaching it. What the ‘‘ conquest ”
of Nimroz and Sijistin was may be seen from what our author himself
says at page 378. The Malik of Sijistén merely acknowledged his
suzerainty.

7 Also written Baras. See page 375 and note +.

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 398

Jarim, Tigin-abad, Kabul, ’Ighrak*, victory over Baha-ud-
Din, Tughril, of Hirat, Ghaznin, Fishanj, Sijistan, Nimroz,;
Maimand [cr Maihand], Faryab, Panj-dih, Marw-ar-Rid,
victory over Sultan Shah, Lohor® and Maro Malkah[?]'
Nishapir, and Nisa. )

XVIII. MALIK-UL-HAJI, ’ALA-UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD, SON OF
MALIK SHUJA’-UD-DIN, ABI-’ALI, SON OF [PIZZ-UD-DIN],
AL-HUSAIN, SON OF AL-HASAN, SHANSABI.

Malik ’Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, was the son of Malik
Shuja’-ud-Din, Abi-’Ali?, and he was the uncle’s son of
both the Sultans, Ghiyds-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 traditions‘],

8 In some copies Gls but it is evidently the tract from whence Saif-ud-
Din, 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.

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 Sijistin and Nimroz, merely acknow-
ledged his suzerainty.

9 See page 346, para. second. This Malik-ul-Haji, or the Pilgrim Malik,
was, by our author’s own account, the son of Abi-’All, 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 Ghiir. 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 Nishapir; and, after his, Sanjar 3112115,
captivity, betrothed to Ziya-ud-Din, Muhammad. See page 182.

4 At page 301, our author states that this princess was the depositary of the
traditions of martyrdom [८०५४६] ; but, it is evident, from what he says here,

392 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

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, pos-
sessed 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 4aram 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 uncles* of this devotee, and his maternal ances-
tors, were all attached to the service of that princess’s
Court, and to the Court of her father; and this poor indi-
vidual [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 Ghiyds-ud-Din, Malik
’Ala-ud-Din held in fief, belonging to Ghir, the district of
Bust, and Wajiah [or Wejah] of the territory of Garmsir [of
Ghir], and Organ [or Urkan] of Ghaznin*. In the battle

and from what other writers state, that the book in question was the work
entitled ‘‘Akhbar-i-Shihabt” [५4], the Shihabf Traditions, so called from
the author’s name, or the person to whom he dedicated his work.

9 A few copies have .!s|—brothers, instead of ,)'5+|—maternal uncles.

* 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 Wurmasgban [,..~.;.] or Durmaghan
[).,2] which last word also occurs in the defective passage in the two first-
named copies. Wajiah [५], which here, in several copies, seems written
a¢, and 4s, was referred to at page 340. Some copies have ७४1 and 3 and
even ८४319, in place of Organ [५४9] of Ghaznin, whilst the third best copy of the
text omits these two words ७४09 and ७८८), altogether. It is tiresome not to be
able to fix this passage of the text for certain.

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 393

which the Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu’izz-ud-Din, fought against
Pithora Rae of Ajmir’, 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 Ghir proceeded into Khurasan, and
Nishapir was taken, ’Ala.ud-Din was installed in the ter-
ritory of Nishapir, and, for a considerable period*, he
remained at the city of Nishapiir, and acted towards its
people with justice and beneficence.

When Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, arrived
from Khwarazm before the gate of Nishapir, ’Ala-ud-Din
defended the place for some time. At last he entered into
a‘convention, and surrendered the city to Sultan Muham-
mad, Khwarazm Shah, and returned again into Ghir.

When Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din was removed to the Al-
mighty’s mercy, the Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu’izz-ud-Din, con-
ferred the throne of Firiiz-koh, and the territories of Ghir,
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 (गौप्तः.

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 Nishapir [Shad-yakh] was taken in Rajab 594 प्र, Five months after-
wards—in Zi-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 Ghiris 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 Ghir. So the Ghiris only held Nishapir about fve 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
Nishapir, the Sultan advanced to Marw and Sarakhs, which latter place was
held by his own nephew, Hindi Khan [see page 252], on the part of the
Ghiris. He fled to Ghir on the approach of his uncle, but, the officer he left
in charge not presenting himself, Sultin Muhammad left a force to invest it,
and set out, 2८ Marw, for Khwarazm to prepare for an advance upon Hirat.

# Our author has a peculiar way of his own for distracting his readers very
often. After giving an account of Malik Ziya-ud-Din, under the heading of
his grandfather, Shuja’-ud-Din, at page 345-6, and calling him there by the
title of Ziyi-ud-Din, he is here introduced again under a totally different

Cc

394 THE TABAKAT-IL-NASIRI.

He held possession of Firiiz-koh and the territories of
Ghir and Gharjistan for a period of four years; and in the
year 601 H., when the Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu’izz-ud-Din, pro-
ceeded towards Khwarazm, and took [with him] the armies
of Ghir and Ghaznin, Malik ’Ala-ud-Din, the Pearl of
Ghir, conducted sundry of the troops of Ghir into Mul-
hidistan’ and Kuhistan, and advanced to the gate of the
city of Ka-in, and [from thence] pushed on to Junabad of
Kuhistan*, and captured the castle of Kakh of Junabad ;
and, after having performed numerous feats of arms and
holy warfare, he returned into Ghir again.

When the Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu’izz-ud-Din, attained mar-
tyrdom, Sultan Ghiyds-ud-Din, Mahmid, 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 Ghiir joined Sultan Mahmid, and
he set out towards the capital city, Firiiz-koh.

Malik ’Ala-ud-Din came from Firiiz-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 Mahmiid, he was confined in the castle of
Ashiyar of Gharjistan’.

name ; and it is only now, after three or four pages, that he tells us that ’Ala-
ud-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, 240 fo this time, was Ziya-
ud-Din ; and, when Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din conferred the throne of Firtiz-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 Ghiyads-ud-Din, Mahmiid’s real
character, noticed farther on, will account for the Sultan’s making him
sovereign over Ghiir in preference to Mahmid, and also for Mahmiid’s enmity
towards him, and the murder of his son, Mahmid-i-Iran Shah.

1 Not the name of a territory. It is derived from mulhid—heretic, &c.
The Kuhistan of Khurdsan was full of these schismatics. All the copies of
the text have the conjunction amd between Mulhidistan and Kuhistan; but it
reads redundant, and ‘‘ the heretical country of Kuhistan” appears to be the
more correct rendering.

3 Junabad, also called Ginabad, is situated between Tabas and Hirat.
Kakh itself means a castle, a lofty building, and the like ; but here refers toa
small town of that name, a dependency of Junabad,—the ‘‘Goonabad” of
Frazer and the maps.

8 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 Firtiz-koh, was
pursued, and imprisoned.

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 395

When Sultan Mahmiid was assassinated, and the sove-
reignty of Ghiir fell to Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz-i-Husain ‘,
he caused Malik ’Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, to be released
from the fortress of Ashiyar, brought him to Firiiz-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, Mahmid-i-Iran Shah. The cause of it was
this, that, when Malik ’Ala-ud-Din, in the reign of Sultan
[Ghiyas-ud-Din], Mahmiid, son of Muhammad-i-Sam‘, was
seized [as just previously related], his son, Malik Rukn-ud-
Din, Mahmid-i-Iran Shah, retired to Ghaznin. He wasa
prince of sufficient greatness, and endowed with perfect
wisdom, knowledge, and understanding, and famed for his
lofty-mindedness and activity. From Ghaznin he pro-
ceeded into Garmsir, and from thence came into Ghir;
and the Kashi people, who were the [most] refractory of
Ghir, to the number of about 50,000 men’, joined him.
Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmid, 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 Firiiz-koh, and
a fight took place between them, and defeat befell the
Ghirians’; and Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Mahmiid-i-Iran Shah,
discomfited, retired to Ghaznin, and again came into
Garmsir. He was seized by the Khudawand-zadah’, Saif-
ud-Din, Timrani, and he brought him to the presence of
Sultan Ghiyds-ud-Din, Mahmid, who directed that he
should be imprisoned in the residence of the Amir-i-Hajib,
’Umr-i-Shalmati.

On the day that Sultan Ghiyds-ud-Din, Mahmid, was
assassinated, the Turkish slaves of Mahmid raised a
tumult, and despatched one, who was named Amir Mang-
baras-i-Zard’, to put Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Mahmid-i-

4 Another son of Sultan ’Ald-ud-Din, Husain, Jahan-soz. He was named
Utsuz after the third monarch of the Khwarazmi dynasty. See page 238.

9 That is to say, Ghiyds-ud-Din, Mahmid, son of Ghiydgs-ud-Din,
Muhammad, son of Baha-ud-Din, Sam.

५ Five thousand more likely. Our author grossly exaggerates the numbers
here. See page 399.

7 From this it is evident that the Kashis were Ghiirians.

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 (~, .— + and the second word, Zard, signifying
pale, sallow, and the like, is written in some copies Zid, swift, quick ; and in one

Cc 2

396 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

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.', and was present at the entrance [gate-
way] of the Sultan’s palace, in the capital city of Firiz-
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, Mahmid-i-Iran Shah—
may he rest in peace !—he had placed in that wallet, and he
entered into the Sultan’s palace’ 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 Ghir
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 Firiiz-koh the second time,
will be related at the end of this Section.

| ।
XIX. SULTAN GHIVAS-UD-DIN, MAHMUD, SON OF GHIVAS-
UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD, SON OF BAHA-UD-DIN, SAM, SHAN-
SABI.

Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmid, son of Sultan Ghiyds-
ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sdm, was a sovereign of good quali-
ties, and conviviality, pleasure, and jollity were dominant
in his disposition®,

When Sultan Ghiyads-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, his
father, died*, Mahmiid was desirous that his uncle, the
Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu’izz-ud-Din, should assign to him the

221, which means old, decrepit, &c. One copy has Mangiiras-i-Ztid suwar,
which would signify Mangiiras, 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.

2 The palace or residence of the Sultans.

3 See note >, para. 3, page 400, and page 405.

* The LQ L. MS., 52, is minus a leaf here.

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 397

throne of his father. But that expectation was not fulfilled,
and the throne of Firiiz-koh was conferred upon Malik
*Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad‘, the Pearl of Ghir, to whom the
daughter of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam,
was betrothed’; and the territory of Bust, Isfizar’, and
Farah, were given to Sultan Mahmid’.

In the year in which [his uncle] the Sultan-i-Ghazi led
an army into Khwarazm, Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmid, 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 activity’.
When the Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu’izz-ud-Din, was assassinated,
Mahmiid determined to proceed from Bust to Firiiz-koh,
and, when he reached Zamin-i-Dawar, the Khalj' Amirs
of Garmsir, with a numerous following, joined him. The
Amirs and Maliks of Ghiir all came forth to receive him ;
and, in the year.602 H.’, he reached Firiiz-koh, and the
throne of (गप्रा came into his possession, and he brought
the territories of his father under his jurisdiction’.

Malik ’Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, retired from Firiz-koh
into Gharjistan, and therein he was taken prisoner, and

5 Styled Ziyd-ud-Din before he was raised to the throne of Firiiz-koh.

6 She was either the full or half-sister of Mabmiid.

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
Mahmiid and Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, Khwarazm Sbah, at page 400,
may have been entered into at this period. See also note >, 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 Pafans, 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 Ghivris in verse, referred to at page 300, died.

ड When information reached Mahmiid of the assassination of his uncle,
Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, he, in the first place, sent intimation to his brother-in-
law, ’Ald-ud-Din, Muhammad [the Pearl of Ghir], son of Abi-’Ali, and called
upon him to acknowledge his authority. Mabmiid also communicated the
tidings to 'Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mfl, Wali of Hirat. Both of them,
however, declined to acknowledge his authority, on which Mahmid advanced
to Firtiz-koh with a large army. On this the generality of the Ghirian Amirs
deserted the cause of ’Ald-ud-Din, Mubammad, and went over to Mabmiid,
and he gained possession of Firiiz-koh, and threw ’Ald-ud-Din, Muhammad,
into confinement. Sce also note’, page 400.

398 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

was confined in the castle of Ashiyar, as has been previously
recorded ; and when the whole of the various parts of the
dominions of (गीता, and Gharjistan, Tal-kan, and Guzar-
wan +, and the district of 22725 ०, 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
Turk® 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 Mahmid
letters of manumission, and the investitures of the territories
of Ghaznin and of Hindistan respectively’.

He despatched a deed of investiture of the territory of
Ghaznin and a canopy of state to Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-
duz*®; and, when Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, advanced to
Ghaznin, he despatched Nizim-ud-Din, Muhammad, to
Firiz-koh, in the year 605 H.°; and Sultan Mahmid directed
that a scarlet canopy of state and a deed of investiture of
the government of the dominion of Hindiistan should be
sent to him.

Throughout the whole of the territories of Ghiir, Ghaznin,
and Hindistan, the Khutbah was read for Sultan Mahmid,
and the coin was stamped with his name'; and, as he was

+ Also with j, as at page 376; and in the same way as Sijistan for Sigistin,
the one being the Arab mode of writing the word, and the latter the local.

५ This name also is written Baras ; and in some few copies Kadus. See
page 342.

6 All these Slaves were of Turkish parentage. Mahmiid 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-diiz [{I-yal-diiz] 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 aé// could not have demanded the investitures of Ghaznin and Hindistan.
Yal-diiz [I-yal-diiz] and I-bak sent agents to Sultan Mahmid 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.

8 Two copies of the text add here, ‘‘in order that he might assume juris-
diction over the Ghaznfn territories.”

9 See the reign of Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, 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-diiz, 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 moncy in the name of the late ruler, Mw’izz-ud-Din, after what our author

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF (पठ. 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 him”.

When one year of his sovereignty had passed, Malik
Rukn-ud-Din, Mahmiid-i-Iran Shah, son of Malik ’Ala-ud-
Din’, Muhammad, advanced from Ghaznin towards Firiz-
koh, as has been previously recorded’, and Sultan Ghiyas-
ud-Din, Mahmiid, marched from Firiz-koh, and put him
to the rout, and about 5000 Ghiris [in that affair] bit the
dust.

After a period of two years and a half, Sultan® ’Ala-ud-
Din, Utsuz, son of [’Ala-ud-Din] Husain, who was his
[Mahmid’s] father’s uncle’s son, proceeded from the country
of Bamian into Khwarazm, and sought assistance from
Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shih, to enable him to
seize the dominions of Ghiir. The Malik-ul-Jibal, Ulugh
Khan-i-Abi-Muhammad‘, and Malik Shams-ud-Din, Utsuz,
the Hajib, who were two of the greatest of the Turkish
Maliks of the Khwarazm Shiahs, 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 Ghir.

Sultan Ghiyads-ud-Din, Mahmid, brought out his forces
from Firiiz-koh, and on the limits of Maimand and Far-yab’,

here states, and even after Sultin Mahmiid, 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 Mahmiid 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
Sultin Mu’izz-ud-Din already possessed the greater portion of their master’s
dominions, from which Mahmiid 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-diiz, should succeed to his dominions.
See page 500.

> Styled Ziya-ud-Din, the Pearl of Ghiir, before he came to the throne
from which Mahmiid deposed him. See page 393, and note 9, and page 408.

५ Page 395.

9 Our author styles him ‘‘Sultan,” as well as many others, defore their
attaining sovereignty.

© Referred to in the account of the Khwarazm Shahis. He subsequently
became the father-in-law of Rukn-ud-Din, son of Sultin Muhammad,
Khwarazm Shah. See page 235.

7 Also called Far-ab, Far-aw, Bar-ab, and Bar-yab. This battle and victory
of Mabmid is not mentioned by other authors. See also pages 409 and 414.

cd

400 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

at a place which they call [by the name of] Saliirah’, a
battle took place between the two armies. The Almighty
bestowed the victory upon Sultan Mahmid, and ’Ala-ud-
Din, Utsuz, and the Khwarazm Shahi Maliks, and the
troops of Khurasan were overthrown’.

When four years of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmid’s
reign had expired, Malik ’Ald-ud-Din, ’Ali Shah’, son of
Sultan Takish, Khwarazm Shah, sought refuge from his
brother’s [Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, Khwarazm
Shah] presence with Sultan Mahmiid. On the Khwarazmi
Sultan? becoming aware of this, he despatched distinguished
personages [as envoys] to Firiiz-koh. During the life-
time of the Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu’izz-ud-Din, Muhammad,
a firm compact existed between Sultan Ghiyds-ud-Din,
Mahmid', son of [Ghiyas-ud-Din], Muhammad-i-Sam, and

ॐ A few copies have Aslirah.

9 See note 8, below.

1 His title was Taj-ud-Din, of ’Ala-ud-Din. See the account of him,
page 252-3. He had been a prisoner in Ghiir some few years previously, and
was known to the Ghirian Princes.

2 The I. 0. L. MS. No. 1952, and R. A. Soc. MS. both have—‘‘ when
Sultain 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-f and some other works say, and which I shall
presently refer to.

Ghiyis-ud-Din, Mahmid, 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 Firiiz-koh and the kingdom of Ghiir; instead of which,
knowing Mahmiid’s love of wine and other sensual pleasures, he bestowed it
upon the son-in-law of the late Sultan, Malik Ziya-ud-Din, the Pearl of (गत्ता,
and gave the western districts of the empire to Mahmiid as his appanage, as
stated by our author at page 472. On this account Mahmiid entertained no
very good feeling towards his uncle, and he may have entered into communi-
cation 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 Mahmid went on the expedition to Marw,
mentioned at page 397, when Mu’izz-ud-Din invaded Khwirazm.

I rather expect, however, that our author, who rarely indulges in dates, has
confused the events of this period, as Mahmid, previous to the assassination
of his uncle, was not in a position to enter into ‘‘a firm compact” with
Sultén Muhammad, unless secretly. Yafa-i says [and Jami’-ut-Tawarikh
agrees] that when Mabmiid seized the throne of Ghiir, shortly after his uncle’s
death, ‘‘he gave himself up to drinking and riotous pleasures, as was the
habit of the Amirs of Ghiir, 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 to

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 401
Muhammad-i-Takish*, Khwarazm Shah, that friendship
and concord should exist between them, and that the

4 Sultan ’Ald-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of Takish. Before he succeeded
his father, his title.was Kutb-ud-Din. See note}, page 253.

grow disaffected; and ’Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil, the Walf of
Hirat, who was the greatest prop of the Ghirfan 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 Ghiirian 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 Namfan
[Bamian] Amirs [called by our author, at page 260, ’Imad-ud-Din,’Umr, Fiwari],
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 W4li’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
Sultiin’s feet. His life was spared, but he was sent away to Khwirazm, 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 of Samrkand.”

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 Muham-
mad, he assembled a large army for the purpose of attacking Balkh, then held
by the officers and troops of Malik ’Ald4-ud-Din, Muhammad, son of the late
Sultin Bahi-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-diiz, ruler of Ghaznin. On this account Sultan
Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmid, 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, ’Ali Shah [Sultan Muhammad’s brother, who subsequently
took refuge with Mahmiid], who commanded the forces investing Balkh, being
unable to take it, Sultin Muhammad proceeded thither in person, and sum-
moned the governor to submit. All] was of no avail, and the Sultan deter-
mined to proceed without further loss of time to Hirat, when news reached
him that Malik ’Ald-ud-Din, Mubammad, and his brother, Jalal-ud-Din, ’Ali,
had been defeated by Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-diiz, taken prisoners, and thrown into
confinement. This happened, according to Fasib-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 kiudness, and continued in charge
of Balkb, as before. After this, Sultan Mubammad advanced to Bakhirz,
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
retuming to Khwarazm, as will be presently stated.

The Ghirian Amirs and Chiefs, who were in accord with Amir Mabmid,
werd preparing forces, says Yafa-i, to attack Sultan Mukammad’s forces then

402 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL.

enemy of one should be the enemy of the other ; and, on
this occasion, Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, sent

before Balkh ; but the Sultin’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 Mahmiid’s by our author. The territory of Balkh was now entrusted
to the charge of Badr-ud-Din, Ja’lish [?], with a strong force to support him ;
and, after having disposed of the affairs of Balkh, 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. [Y4afa-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 >, 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 afer Mahmiid Ghiri’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 sub-
mission and allegiance to the Sultan, and to present themselves ; and among
these was the Malik of Sijistin [Yamin-ud-Din, Bahram Shah ?], who was
received with great honour. ’Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil, was con-
tinued in the government of Hirat and its dependencies, as previously related ;
and the Sultan, having disposed of these matters, despatched several eccle-
siastics of the Kirami sect [Yafa-i says in 606 H.] with proposals to Amir
Mahmid, ruler of Firiiz-koh and Ghir. Mahmiid 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-Din. See page 470.] Amir
Mahmid 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-Din, I-yal-diiz, took um-
brage at, as mentioned in Alfi, in note’, page 433, when he set at liberty
Jalal-ud-Din, ’Ali, of Bamian, who, in 605 H., along with his brother, was
taken prisoner in a battle against him [I-yal-diiz], 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
Wali of Hirat, returned to Khwarazm, and subsequently entered on the
campaign against Gir Khan of Kara-Khita. ’Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of
Khar-mil, hearing the report of the Sultan having been killed or taken cap-
tive in the second engagement with Gir Khan’s troops [see page 258, and last
para. of note?], 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 Mahmiid, 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 Khwarazmi Sultan as ruler of Ghiir ; and,
such being the case, Mahmiid 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 Mahmiid was dead one
month before the first battle between the Sultan and Baniko of Taraz.

’Jzz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil, finding almost immediately after that

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 403

Mahmid a copy of that treaty, with a request, saying, “As
"Ali Shah is the enemy of my dominion, it is necessary
that he should be seized.” In compliance with the terms
of that compact, Sultan Mahmiid seized ’Ali Shah, and
imprisoned him in the Kasr, which they call the Baz
Kishk-i-Sultan, at Firiiz-koh ~

That Kasr° 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 Khurasdn for aid against the Ghiiris,
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-diiz aided Mahmiid 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 Ghiir and Ghaznfn;” and what
Alfi refers to, namely, that Amir Isma’il, Mabmiid’s general, sent against
"Izz-ud-Din, was defeated and taken prisoner, and the remnant of his army
returned to Firiiz-koh. See note 2, page 504.

With the aid of the Khwarazmi nobles of Khurisan the Ghiris were over-
thrown, 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., note 3,

The Habib-us-Siyar states that Sultin Mubammad demanded that Mahmid,
Ghiiri, should seize the former’s brother, Taj-ud-Din, ’Ali Shah, and send
him back in conformity with the terms of treaty previously existing ‘‘ between
himself and the ८८८८ Sultin, Mu’izz-ud-Din” [see note 8, page 481], but says
nothing about a previous treaty between him and Mahmid. This event, our
author says, happened in the fourth year of Mahmiid’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 Khwiarazm.

I have burthened the text with this lengthy note in order to show what dis-
crepancy exists with regard to the events in the history of the Ghiris about this
time, and to show the impossibility of the correctness of the dates given by
several authors. Yafa-i and 2517-7 and several others [see note *, page 407]
also say that Mahmiid 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 Mahmiid was assassinated in the same year
as Taj-ud-Din, ’Ali 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 Ghirfan 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.

5 The word (८5 [»], 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.

५ The signification of Kishk and Kasgr has been given in note 2, at page 331.

404 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

such configuration as no georhetrician 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 humde’, each of about
the size of a large camel. Those golden pinnacles and
those humdas, the Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu’izz-ud-Din, Muhammad,
after the capture of Ajmir‘, had sent in token of service,
and as valuable presents, to [his brother] Sultan Ghiyds-
ud-Din, Muhammad-i-S4m, 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 sos [kettle-drums] of gold, which were carried on
carriages. Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din directed that the ring
and chain, and those kharbiuzah’ [kettle-drums], should be
suspended before the portico of the Jami’ Masjid at निपट
koh; and, when the Jami’ Masjid was destroyed by a flood,
the ring, chain, and those £4arbizah [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 gifts".

Sultan Ghiyds-ud-Din, Mahmid, 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 ८७, signifying small turrets in the wall, and 2150 some-
times 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 Hindi buildings.

9 The text here again is very defective in all but the three oldest copies.
Some of the more modern copies have ‘‘one 4s,” and state that the ring was
०५१४८ ells by five ells,” and instead of Kharbiizah have jazirah, which signifies an
tsland. 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 ‘‘ ¢wo melons of gold,” without apparently knowing what
they were ; but Briccs, by way of improving on Dow, turns them into ‘‘ Aco
tents of gold tissue” !! See his translation, vol. 1, p. 194-5. The word s+
or °> 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. Rauzgat-us-Safa merely mentions that —
Mahmid 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 Ali Sher,
the celebrated Wazir of Sultan Husain, Bahadur Khan, subsequently rebuilt
this masjid in 905 H., just a year before his death.

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 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 leather’, 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, died °, 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 Mahmiid. He commanded that a
banquet and festal entertainment should be arranged
beneath [the walls] of the Kishk, which is situated in the
middle of [the city of] Firiz-koh‘.

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

> Perfumed leather [०] must have been extremely valuable in those days.

3 Malik Taj-ud-Din, Zangi, son of Sultan Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad,
sovereign of Bamfan and Tukhiristan. le was taken prisoner in battle with
a body of Khwarazmf troops in the vicinity of Marw-ar-Rid, at a time when
peace existed between the Sultan of Khwarazm and Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, of
Ghaznin, and sent to KEhwarazm with other chiefs taken at the same time, and
their heads were struck off. See page 425, and page 481, note °.

4 The text varies here again. The oldest copies are plainly written as above ;
but, according to some, the sentence may be read : ‘fin the Kagr of Nar Kishk
which is [situated] in the midst of [the city of] Firiiz-koh,” and, according to
others, merely ‘‘in the Kasr which is [situated] in” &c. It is quite a different

place to the Kasr of Baz Kiighk. The Europeanized £tosé 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 Firiiz-koh were arriving in crowds at
the foot of the Kishk, 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 Mahmid was a sovereign of very great good quali-
ties, 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 Muham-
mad, Khwarazm Shah, seized the latter’s brother, ’Ali Shah,
and imprisoned him, ’Ali 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 Mahmiid, 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, ’Ali
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 communi-
cation, which they continued to represent to the Sultan,
was without any effect whatever, and a party of ’Ali 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 Mahmid, and there they
sat concealed, and examined the Kasr and noticed the
Sultan’s sleeping apartment, and marked the way to the

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 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.‘,
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 gotup. They then
crossed the river of Firiiz-koh‘, 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 Malik?!” 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-gah ° [catacombs] of Hirat.

The eldest son of the Sultan, namely Baha-ud-Din, Sam,
was raised to the throne.

5 There is considerable discrepancy among authors respecting the year of
Mahmiid’s assassination. Yafa-i, Jami’-ut-Tawarikh, Fasib-i, Alfi, Lubb-ut-
Tawarikb, Guzidah, Mir’at-i-Jahan-Numa [which says ‘‘ after reigning nearly
eight years ’], and some others say it happened in 609 H., while Jahan-Ara,
Rauzat-ug-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-ug-Safa, and some others say, on the 3rd
of Safar. Habib-us-Siyar, on the other hand, affirms that it happened in 606 H.,
Khulisat-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 Riblat [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 Mahmiid was assassinated (४ the same year
in which Firiiz-koh was taken by the Khwarazmis, and Taj-ud-Din, ’Ali Shah,
put to death ; and this last event our author himself states, at page 253, took
place in 609 H. The words @~ and @ 3 without the diacritical points, may
be easily mistaken bya copyist. See note 6, page 410.

6 A feeder of the Hari Rid probably, if not the main stream, which rises in
Ghir.

7 It is not certain who killed Mahmid, and authors are at variance on this
point. Rauzat-us-Safa agrees with our author, but merely copies his state-
ments. Habib-us-Siyar of course agrees with Raugat-ug-Sata. Yafa-i, Fasib-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-Tawarikb, agree with our author. Another writer says ’Ali Shah
slew him with his own hand.

8 Sometimes written Gazar-gah as above, and also Gazar-gah. It signifies
the place of caves 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, Ansarf, was buried. The meaning of
` gazar 15 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.

If

408 | THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

XX. SULTAN BAHA-UD-DIN, SAM, SON OF GHIYAS-UD-DIN,
MAHMOUD, SON OF GHIYAS-UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD, SON OF
BAHA-UD-DIN, SAM, SHANSABI.

Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, son of Sultan Mahmid [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 saram likewise were two daughters by this
Malikah.

When Sultan Mahmid was martyred, the next morning,
all the Amirs of Ghir and the Turk Amirs assembled
together, and raised Baha-ud-Din, Sam, to the throne of
Firiiz-koh; and the Malikah-i-Mu’izziah®, who was the
mother of Baha-ud-Din, and the other children of Ghiyas-
ud-Din, Mahmid, incited the Turkish slaves' to slay the
competitors for the sovereignty’. Of that party one was
Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Mahmid-i-Iran Shah, the son of
Malik ’Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Abi-’Ali, and they
martyred him, as has been previously recorded.* Malik
Kutb-ud-Din, Timrani, was imprisoned, as was Malik
Shihab-ud-Din, ’Ali, Madini, likewise, who was the son of
the uncle of the Sultans [Ghiyas-ud-Din, and Mu’izz-ud-
Din]; and the Ghiri and Turk Amirs, in concert, stood
around the throne with girded loins.

The followers of ’Ali Shah, after five days, when they
found the city had become tranquil, and that ’Ali 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 treasure‘ 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 SHANSABANIAIL DYNASTY OF GHOR. 409

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 Mahmid*. 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 K4Al-yin
presented himself [at the court]; and, when three months
of the sovereignty of Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, had passed
away, Malik ’Alaé-ud-Din, Utsuz [son of ’Alad-ud-Din],
Hisain [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 Ghir. Malik Khan [governor] of Hirat, who at the
commencement of the reign of the Khwarazmi Sultan bore
the title of Amir-i-Hajib, and who was an ’Ajami Turk *
of great intrepidity, and the slayer of Muhammad-i-
Khar-nak‘, 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 Khurdsan, set out
accordingly to assist Sultan ° ’Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz-i-Husain,
in possessing himself of Firiiz-koh. When they arrived in
the vicinity of Firiiz-koh, the Maliks and Amirs of Ghir
took counsel together, and came to the conclusion ’® that it
was advisable to release Malik ’Ali Shah from confine-

$ If it was so well known that ’Ali 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.

6 That isa 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, Amin-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 Amir-i-
Hajib. See notes to pages 287-291. The Jami’-ut-Tawarikh styles him
«4 Amin Malik of Hirat.”

7 See note 9, page 287, and note 5, page 471.

$ Subsequently perhaps styled Sultan, atter 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.

Dd

410 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

ment, and treat him with great honour and reverence,
‘so that, on his account, some of the Khurdsani forces
might evince an inclination towards that Prince, and, as
he was also the adversary of his brother [Sultan Mu-
hammad, Khwarazm Shah], he might, in concert with this
sovereignty, oppose in battle the forces of Khurdsan.
Malik ’Ali Shah they accordingly set at liberty, and they
appointed Amirs to the [defence of] different sides around
the city’.

Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, son of ’Ali, son of ’Abi-
"Ali, and Amir ’Usman-i-Khar-fash*, 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-
Azad* Other Amirs, such as Muhammad-i-’Abd-ullah,
and Ghiri, Shalmati, and 'Umr, Shalmati‘, were nominated
to the Zar-Margh gate’; 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 प. the city [of

॥ 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 (45 respectively,
but no doubt (*5,5 is intended.

3 This was the hill the followers of ’Ali Shah used to climb to reconnoitre
the palace of Sultan Mahmiid.
4 Some copies have ‘‘Salmani”’ and ‘‘ Suliman,” but the above is correct.

$ 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.

€ Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, having delivered Hiraét from
"Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil, did not interfere in any way with
Sultin Mahmiid, Ghiri, who had previously acknowledged his suzerainty,
as already stated in note *, para. 10, page 402. While, however, Sultan
Muhammad was engaged in a campaign beyond the Jihiin, his brother,
Taj-ud-Din, ’Ali Shah, having become dissatisfied with his brother, the
Sultan, left his dominions and sought the Court of Mahmiid, who received
him honourably and with distinction, and supplied all his requirements.
After some time had passed 417 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 Mabmiid 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, ’Ali Shah, had conspired against
him, in order to obtain the throne of Ghir for himself.

i”

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHUR. 411

Firiz-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.

1 have already pointed out [note 5, page 407] what discrepancy exists
between authors as to the year of Mahmiid’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, ’Ali Shah [page 253], that he was put to
death in 609 प्र. and every copy of the text available agrees, and Yafa-i, and
Fasib-i, and Jami’-ut-Tawarikh confirm it; and, from the various accounts
of these events, it is beyond a doubt, that both Mahmiid and Taj-ud-Din,
Ali 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 Kbwarazmis.

Our author here says it happened in the fourth year of Mabmiid’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 Mahmiid’s assassination given by our author and several others.
See note 7, pages 260-261.

Fasih-i distinctly states, that, after Mahmiid had been killed in 609 H., as no
one remained of the descendants of the Sultans of Ghir worthy of the wand
of sovereignty, the chief personages of Firiiz-koh concerted together {our
author's own statement above tends to confirm this, although probably he did
not like to acknowledge that the Ghirian Amirs had set up a Khwarazmi as
ruler], and raised Taj-ud-Din, ’Ali Shah, to the throne. They then despatched
an emissary to the presence of Sultin Muhammad, to represent to him the facts
of the case, and to solicit him to confirm ’Ali Shah in the sovereignty. The
Sultan [seemingly] acceded to their request, and despatched Mubammad-i-
Baghir [one of his chamberlains] with a robe of honour for’Ali Shah. After
Mubammad-i-Baghir arrived and began to congratulate "All Shah with the
usual ceremonies, ’Ali Shah proceeded towards an inner apartment and com-
menced 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
Firtiz-koh and Ghir, 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 (गत्ता with a numerous army. The Ghirian nobles
released ’Ali Shah to create a diversion, but it was of no avail, and Firiz-koh
was taken in 607 H. Raugat-ugs-Safa states, that, after two or three days
fighting in the hills and around the city, it was taken, as our author mentians,
in the middle of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 607 H., and in this Jahan-Ara, Muntakbab-
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
Mahmid, 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

Dd 2

412 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

The Amirs, who had been despatched to occupy the
hill-tops around, all escaped in safety, and ’Ali Shah, and
Malik Husam-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Abi-’Ali’ of Kal-yin,
went out by the gate of the Reg Pul of Bust*, and each and
every one of them betook himself to some part or other.
Malik Husaém-ud-Din betook himself to K4l-yiin, and
"Ali Shah set out towards Ghaznin. Sultan A’la-ud-Din,
Utsuz, was placed on the throne, and Malik Khan of Hirat
returned thither.

Sultan Bahd-ud-Din, Sam, with his brother [Malik
Shams-ud-Din, 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 Ghiyds-
ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, who was betrothed to Malik
’Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, and the whole, with the bier of
Sultan Ghiyads-ud-Din, Mahmid, were conducted towards
Khburasan. The bier of Sultan Mahmiid 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 Jihin of Khwarazm’—the Almighty have mercy upon
them and forgive them !

Two daughters of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmid, 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 Khwarazmis 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 Khwirazm Shah, who
mvested Firiiz-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.

7 Styled Jahin Pahlawén at page 409.

8 The ‘‘sand” or ‘‘gravel gate” leading to Bust. The text is very
defective here, in nearly every copy.

® See page 280.

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 413

married to the Malik-zadah of Balkh, the son of Al-mias,
the Hayib.

XXI. SULTAN ’ALA-UD-DIN, UTSUZ, SON OF SULTAN ’ALA-
UD-DIN, AL-HUSAIN, JAHAN-SOZ.

Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz’, 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 Ghir agreed together, in
secret, on this matter, that, if the Sultan should unfortu-
nately die, they would raise Sultan? ’Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, to
the throne of Ghaznin. Almighty God sent the draught
of health from that dispensary, whence “ indeed, when I am
sick HE healeth 22८,” to Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, and he
recovered.

Certain informers‘ 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 Bamian to his uncle’s sons; and
[at that time] the throne of Bamian had passed to Sultan
Baha-ud-Din, Sam‘, son of Sultan Shams-ud-Din, son of
Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas’td. 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 dethrone-
ment of Baha-ud-Din, Sam; and that ’Ali Shah fled to Ghaznin after the
capture of Firiiz-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 Abii-l-’Abbas-i-Shis who slew Utsuz’s brother, Saif-ud-
Din, Muhammad, for killing his brother, War-megh, 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.

> Kur’an: chap. 26, verse 80.

4 It appears that all rulers had these news-givers or informers in their employ.

$ Sce page 428 for the account of him.

414 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

ceeded thither, they treated him with reverence, and the
district of Nae*® 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, Ghiyads-ud-Din and Mu’izz-ud-
Din, having run their course, and Sultan Baha-ud-Din,
Sam, having likewise died*, Malik ’Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz,
proceeded from the court of Bamian to the presence of
Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah’, to solicit assistance
to enable him to obtain possession of the dominion of
Ghir and the throne of Firtiz-koh. He was treated with
great honour there, and received the most princely usage,
and the Amirs of Khurasan, such 25 Ulugh Khan-i-’Abi-
Muhammad', 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 him-
self of the territories of Ghir’.

Sultan Mahmiid advanced out of Firiiz-koh to meet
them and overthrow their forces, as has been previously
16601003 ; 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. Mahmiid’s son, Baha-ud-Din,
Sam, only reigned three months, but he did not die until cast into the Jihin
between ten and eleven years after these events, and after the slaves of Sultan
Mu’izz-ud-Din 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 Ghiiris 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-Din 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 com-
pact’ mentioned at page 400 is correct ; but, as mentioned in note 3, page
400, the “treaty” must, really, mean Mahmiid’s acknowledgment of Sultan
Muhammad’s supremacy, which took place afr the affair here alluded to.
The defeat of the Khwarazmi troops is not mentioned by the various authors
1 have quoted, but quite the contrary.

3 At page 400.

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 415

Matters continued in this wise until after the assassination
of Sultan Mahmid, when Malik Khan of Hirat, the Amir-i-
Hajib, and [Malik] ’Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, from Bust, and the
forces of Khurasan, advanced towards Firiiz-koh*; and they
placed ’Ald-ud-Din, Utsuz, on the throne of Ghir, and
Malik Khan of Hirat again retired.

The Maliks and Amirs of Ghir 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-’Abd-
ullah, Sistani®, 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-Nilah, 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’iidi, 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 con-
tinued to find diligent and persevering, he was accustomed
to honour with his benevolent regard.

When he ascended the throne he set at liberty Malik °
"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’ 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’, 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] ’Ald-ud-Din, Utsuz,” are left out.

$ Styled Sanjari in the list of Mu’izz-ud-Din’s ministers and nobles, at
page 205

6 Sultan ’Ali-ud-Din, Muhammad, the last of the dynasty. See page 417.

7 Subject to Sultin 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-diiz, against ’Ala-ud-Din, who, being a vassal
of the Khwirazmis, was naturally inimical to I-yal-diiz, the trusted Slave of
the late Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, and on whose side most if not all, of the

416 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

centre of Ghir, 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 ’Ali, son of Abi-
१९] १, 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 mercy > 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’id,
went into Gharjistan to the castle of Siya-Khanah *, and

Turkish Amirs were ranged, whilst the Ghiirf 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 Muham-
mad, Khwarazm Shah, under whose rule the Ghirian empire-west of the
Indus had fallen, to put all the fortresses of Ghiir into a state of efficiency for
defence against the Mughals. Malik Kutb-ud-Din, at last, succeeded in
reaching Hindistan 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 obs! ७4-- (क 99 » and the other set cmlay isle jJ—pme 990

> This event happened, near Ghaznin, in 611 H. ’Alad-ud-Din, Utsuz,
ruled over Ghiir 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-diiz, 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-diiz
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 inyasion,

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHOR. 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-Riid, and, in the Darah of Khisht-Ab +, 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-’ALI§, TITE LAST OF THE SULTANS OF
GHUR®.

Previous to this, in several places, ’Ala-ud-Din, Muham-
mad, has been made mention of, that, at the outset of his
career, he used to be styled Malik Ziya-ud-Din, the Pearl
of Ghir, and when, after Sultan Ghiyads-ud-Din, Muham-
mad, son of [Baha-ud-Din] Sam, he ascended the throne of
Firiiz-koh, his title became Malik [Sultan] ’Ala-ud-Din 7.

Since Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Husain’, at this time
martyred Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, Firiiz-koh, and the
dominion of Ghir came under the control of the Amirs
and troops of Ghaznin, and of Ghir. They, in concert, set
up Malik Husam-ud-Din, Husain-i-’Abd-ul-Malik, Sar-i-
८2.120 °, over Firiiz-koh, and they repaired the fort of
Firtz-koh, and, in the midst of the city, and on the hill of

‘ Khisht and Khusht, in Pu__to, signity damp, wet, humid, dank, soaked,
&c., and ab is Persian for water. The Pushto equivalent for water is
ao-bah.

_ 5 Our author makes the same blunder here as at page 391. Shuja’-ud-Din,
Abi-’ 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 °, page 393.

8 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 Si-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 Ghiir for Sultan Muhammad
Khwarazm Spih, and his son Sultan Jalal-ud-Din.

418 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

the fortress of Baz Kishk, 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 Gharjistin] and carried him away to
Ghaznin. These events happened in the year 610 or
611 प्त.

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,
Firiiz-koh.

He returned to Ghir 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’, 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 Nishapiir, taken from him, to the
effect that he [’Ald-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 Firiz-
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 Mahmiid was killed, according to our author and some other
writers [see note §, 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 क month of the year 611 त. ; and,
according to several authors, on the 3rd of the कह month of that same year,
Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-diiz, was himself put to death at Buda’iin by I-bak’s son-in-law,
Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, who then ruled at Dihli. If these dates be cor-
rect, ’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-Tawarikh states that I-yal-diiz 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.

५ At that time styled Ziya-ud-Din, Muhammad. See note 8, page 393.

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHUR. , 419

Shah, and was himself conducted to Khwarazm, and was
treated with great honour and veneration ^.

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 together ‘
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 Abi-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.

$ Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-diiz, being dead at this time, Sultin *Ald-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 Sultin Muhammad obtained pos-
session of Firtiz-koh and Ghir, and also of Ghaznin, in 611 प्र. Ghir, as
previously stated, had been subject to him in the time of Utsuz. Yafa-i says:
५५ After these events [before related], in 611 H., [the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh agrees, ]
news reached the Sultan [Khwarazm Shah] that Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-diiz, had
died at Ghaznin [our author and several others state that he was put to death
at Buda’tn], leaving no heir who was capable of succeeding him [he left no
son], and that one of Ais 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, (गोतम, Gharjis-
empire, and containing many flourishing cities and towns, previously ruled by
Sultin Mahmiid-i-Sabuk-Tigin and his descendants, up to the period of the
rise of the Sultans of Ghiir, fell under his sway, and he nominated his eldest
son, Jalal-ud-Din, to the government of it,” and a Khwarazmi Amir [see page
257] 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 Ghaz-
nin, several documents from the Khalifah’s Court to the Ghirian 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
Ghiris 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 ५, page 265.

€ 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.

क. THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

When, in accordance with his last will, they conveyed his
remains to Bustam, the attendant at the Khankah [mo-
nastery] of Bustam, the night previously, saw Shaikh Abi-
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, Abi-Yazid
—the mercy of the Almighty be upon them !—and the
Maliks of Ghir, 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, JORJANI, 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 Ghiir, and brought within the grasp of their juris-
diction, 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 Firiiz', these rulers have van-
quished 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 (गताः ascended from the eastern parts of
eminence, and Sultan ’Alé-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’iid, 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.

> 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-NASIRI.

and the fame of whose munificence and obligations con-
ferred, became published throughout the four quarters of
the world®. 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’id, son of Al-Husain, was
older than his other six brothers; and his mother was a
Turkiah € was a sufficiently great monarch ; but, as
he was not by the same mother as [his brothers] the
Sultans‘, they did not permit him to occupy the throne of
the dominions of Ghir, for this reason, that five other
brothers °, 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’id, was by a Turkish bond-
woman, 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 Mahmid, he
caused an army to be got ready from the capital of Ghir,
and marched towards Tukharistan, and, in the subjugation
of that territory, and the strongholds thereof, manifested
great alertness and dexterity; and the Amirs of Ghir, in
that army, displayed such valour and martial heroism, |
that, if Rustam-i-Dastan’ 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’id [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.

$ 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 ‘‘Sultins’”’ just mentioned. There
is no improving his style without taking great liberty with the original

7 Dastin, a name of Z4l-i-Zar [Zal of the Golden Locks], the father of
Rustam

THE SHANSABANIAII DYNASTY OF TUKHARISTAN. 423

mitted to his charge®. Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas’id,
having ascended the throne, the adjacent hill territories,
[namely] the mountain tract of Shaknan °, Tukhfaristan, as
faras Dar-giin’, and 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’iid, ’Ala-ud-Din, Husain, and others], Saif-ud-Din, Siri,
the eldest /egitimate sou, who succeeded to his father’s authority, dtvided the
dominions among his six brothers and himself, and that, in that division,
Bamian was assigned to the eldest brother, Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas’iid. Now he
states that ’Ald-ud-Din, Husain, conquered this territory several years sub-
sequently, after he had destroyed the city of Ghaznin. Jahin-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, Fakbr-ud-Din,
Mas’iid. :

The older Chroniclers contain a great deal.respecting the affairs of Tukhiris-
tan and the Hayatilah, whatever ‘‘the clay-stamped annals of Senaccherib”
[Sennacherib 2] may say. Ibn-i-Khurdad-bih, in his account of the Turks, also
refers to them. Haytal [Js], according to the ancient dialect of Bukhara,
is said to signify a man of great strength and size; the ’Arabs made it Haytal
[J'eeJ—the plural form of the word, applied to the people generally, being
Hayatilah [८5५]. One writer states that Haytal was the name of the ter-
ritory 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.

Firiiz, son of Yazdijurd, son of Bahram-i-Gir, when his brother Hurmuz
ascended the throne, fled from his fief of Sijistin, by way of Gharjistan and
Tukhiaristan, and sought shelter and aid from Khush-nawaz, the king of the
Hayatilah. According to the Raugzat-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 Firiiz, and agreed to aid him with 30,000 men if
नित्त would cede to him Tirmid and Wesah. Another author calls the people
of Tukhiristan itself Hayatilah likewise. By Faghani’s aid Firiz 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 Nusherw4an, 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 Tukhiristan. I have neither
space nor time to say more at present ; but will merely observe, that, by some
modern writers, Tukhbaristan and Turkistan are often confused, one for the
other.

® Shaghnan and Shaknan are synonymous: ‘‘Shighnan” is not correct,
but such as one would adopt who could not read the original for himself, and
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 avd, which makes it Dar-giin of Bilaur. The next best has Dar-git [or
Dar-kot or kiit], which, if the , of the original MS. was written rather long
drawn out, as is often done, #tight be mistaken for © The next best copies,
which are comparatively modern, have Dar-giir [or Dar-gor], and one Dar-biir

424 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

to the boundary of Wakhsh’ and Badakhshan, the whole
came under his jurisdiction म.

Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas’iid, had able and accomplished
sons; and, when Kimaj‘, from Balkh, and Taj-ud-Din,
Yal-duz‘*, from Hirat, who were slaves of the Sanjari
dynasty, conspired to eject Sultan Ghiyads-ud-Din, Mu-
hammad-i-Sam, in order to take possession [of the country]
as far as Firtiz-koh, and the Ghiyasiah sovereignty was, as
yet, in the morning of its ascendancy, Malik Fakhr-ud-Din,
Mas’iid, rendered assistance to them, under the stipulation
that whatever pertained to Khurasan should go to them,
and what belonged to Ghir to [him] Malik Fakhr-ud-Din,
Mas’id ^

‘When Almighty God bestowed victory upon Sultan
Ghiyads-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’iid, whose forces had arrived
near at hand. Sultan Ghiyds-ud-Din followed in pursuit
of them, and Malik Fakhr-ud-Din was put to the rout.
Sultan Ghiyads-ud-Din discerned him, and caused him to
turn back again, and conducted him to his camp, and
there placed him on the throne*; and Sultan Ghiyds-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-
kifah ; and the former, in a note, Biir-Bilaur ; and, in brackets, as the pro-
bable reading, ^" Darwas and Biaur ;” 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 Tukhiristin, according to
Jahan Ara and several other works, extended north to the territory of Kish-
ghar ; south as far as Gharjistan and Ghiir ; east to Kashmir; and west as far
as Tirmid. See note, 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 note’, page 374; and this
Yal-duz [I-yal-diiz]: must be the same who is mentioned in the same note,
which see. |

° See pages 371-4.

€ 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[Fakhy ?]-ud-din aids Arm, under the con-
dition 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 Fakhbr-ud-Din, #o¢ Ghiyas-ud-Din.

7 See the account given in Ghiyas-ud-Din’s reign, where our author says
that Kimaj’s head was sent, page 373, and note 9,

$ 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’iid, 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 ’.

When the two Sultans’ 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’id, retired towards
Bamian again; and there he acquired great power, and
the Sultans and Maliks of Ghir used constantly to pay
him homage.

His career came to an end in [the enjoyment of]
sovereignty *, 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, Zangi*, and
Malik Husam-ud-Din, ’Al1.

II. SULTAN SHAMS-UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD, SON OF MAS’UD,
SON OF AL-HUSAIN, SHANSABI.

When Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas’iid, 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.

2 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 ° page 481. He can scarcely be the same person as men-
tioned 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-Din, Mas’iid, must have married his own niece ; while his son, Shams-ud-
Din, Mubammad, must have married her sister, a most unlikely alliance,
illegal according to Muhammadan law. There must have therefore been two
persons named T4j-ud-Din, Zangi, but of the same race.

Ee

426 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

taken to the Almighty’s mercy, his eldest son was Sultan
Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad ‘, and they raised him to the
throne of Bamian ; and the sister of the Sultans Ghiyds-
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, subse-
quently, the city of Balkh, Chaghanian*, Wakhsh, Jarim,
Badakhshan, and the hill tracts of Shaknan‘°, came under

4 This is the Malik’s son, Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, who was taken
prisoner by the Sipah-salar, Barankash, along with ’Ala-ud-Din, Husain
[Jahadn-soz], and ’Ali, 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 Buklin [both are correct], Chaghanian,
and some part of Badakhshan. According to our author, his father, Fakhr-
ud-Din, Mas’iid, held sway over some of these very tracts, now mentioned as
«° subsequently” coming under the sway of the son. However, it is clear,
whatever ‘‘ Hwen Thsang” may say to the contrary, that Tukharistan was but
a district or province of Balkh, and not a vast tract of country ‘‘ reaching from
the frontiers of Persia” [wherever that might mean in those days] ‘‘2o ८4८
Thsung-ling or Mountains of Pamir ;” and that ‘the great Po-chu or Oxus”
did not ‘‘ run through the middle” of the Tukharistan here referred to, for the
very good reason that it lies south of the Jibiin, Ami, or Oxus. The MASALIK
WA MAMALIK plainly states, that of Balkh there are a number of divisions and
districts, such 25 Tukharistén, Khulum, Samnagan, Bughlan, Zawalin [this,
in all probability, is Mr. Thomas’s ९१ Warwalin” [52l),.J—the first + is the
copulative conjunction, and the , wants the point to make it ;]; and Baihakis,
Walwalij — ट 19*9 —-may be traced to the same source. Of this Tukhiristan,
Tal-kan was the chief and largest town. Had such a place as Walwalij been
capital of Tukhiristan, 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 Wakhsh-Ab—river of Wakbsh—
issues out of Turkistan into the territory of Wakhsh, runs onward towards
Balkh, and falls into the Jihiin, near Tirmid.” In his account of the Mughal
invasion, our author mentions Balkh [>] and Walkh [ eo] 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 MASALIK

THE 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 Ghiir and Ghaznin
led an army into the territory of Rid-bar of Marv, to
repel Sultan Shah, the Khwarazmi’, Sultan Shams-ud-
Din, Muhammad, by command of the Sultans, brought the
forces of Bamian and Tukharistaén and joined them. On
the occasidn 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 Ghiyds-ud-Din. The Sultan [in
consequence] became very cordial towards Shams-ud-Din,
Muhammad, and upon this very occasion his advance-
ment* took place, and he received the title of Sultan
Shams-ud-Din, and a black canopy of state was assigned
` {0 him.

Previous to this, neither Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas’id,
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’; 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, Bamfan 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 Tarikb-i-
Alfi, a work of great authority, Jahan-Ara, the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh,
and some others, distinctly aver that there was 20 ¢own whatever called Bamian,
which is the name of the country, and that RAsiF [+l], RASIF [Vt.],
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 Tukhbiristan! 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 Afauéalig—the
unfortunate city—after its ruin.

7 See pages 249, 378, and note, page 379.

$ The printed text and I. O. L. MS. 1952, and two others, have @s—/o
repulse, drive away; and, in the R. A. Soc. MS. dls—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 occa-
sion, Mu’izz-ud-Din also received the title of Sultan, and that before his title
was only Malik.

Ee2

428 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

The Almighty bestowed upon him worthy and excellent
offspring, and blessed him with six sons’; and for a con-
siderable 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 Shansabani*, and his mother
was the Hurrah-i-Jalali, the daughter of Sultan Baha-ud-
Din, 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 adorn-
ment can I give to the bride of the realm upon the face of
whose empire two such moles exist, one Ghiyds-ud-Din,
and the other Mu'izz-ud-Din*!” The Almighty’s mercy
be upon them all !

४ 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, Ghiyas-ud-Din
and Mu’izz-ud-Din, were angry at this, and they deposed ’Abbas, and set up
their sister's son, Sim, and he received the title of Baha-ud-Din. ’Abbas
might have been here entered among the rulers of Tukharistan 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’id, 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 state-
ments. The fact is, as related by another author, that the Kazi, mentioned

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF TUKHARISTAN. 429

In short, the admirable benevolence of that monarch
towards the "Ulama of Islam was more than can be con-
tained within the compass of writing. That Miracle of the
World, Fakhr-ud-Din, Muhammad, R4zi‘, composed the
Risalah-i-Bahaiah in that Sultan’s name; and for a con-
siderable period he continued under the shadow of that
sovereign’s favour and protection. That Chief of learned
Doctors, Jalal-ud-Din, Warsak °, during the Sultan’s reign,
attained the office of Shaikh-ul-Islam of the district of
Balkh ; and Maulana Saraj-i-Minhaj °, 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 Firiiz-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 Bahd-ud-Din,
Sam, were continuous and unremitting. The reason of
this was, that, during the time of [his father] Malik’
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*®. 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 mcnarch ex-
claimed: ^“ 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, Ghiyas-ud-Din and Mu’izz-ud-Din.

+ Jahan-Ara and Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh 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-Din. See note 3, page 485, and
note 9, page 385.

§ In some copies Warsal and Kadsak. The above seems the most correct.

6 Our author’s father.

7 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 Bamidn;” but at
page 115 our author says Balarwan is in Gharjistan.

430 THE TABAKAT-1-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 °, 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 Firiz-koh without the permission of Sultan
Ghiyag-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 ad-
ministration of the triumphant forces, the chaplaincy of the
State ', together with the office of censor’, 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 Sahib’,
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, Abi-l-Muzaffar-i-Mahmid, son of Sultan I-yal-timigh,
Kasim-i-Amir-ul-Mimminin‘—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 — cyl 9 jyere SO) 555 9 So hil 3 ell. »las— whilst the other—
comprising the more modern copies— wy lls 9 jy: pre csleo (01 ) cl. Las
—‘‘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.

ॐ The title given to a minister.

4 This title is totally incorrect. See reign of Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish,
Section X XI.

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 Tukh@aristan and its depend-
encies, together with other territories, namely, in the east °,
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 Ghiir and Ghar-
jistan, in the whole of which the Khutbah was read for him
and the money impressed with his name*®. The whole of
the Maliks and Amirs of each of the three kingdoms,
namely, Ghiir, 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 Ghiris and Turks, with one con-
sent, requested him to come [and assume the sovereignty]’.
Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, accordingly, determined to pro-
ceed 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 Jahangiriah 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 Wazirs], and the Turk Amirs, was towards the sovereignty of Ghiyas-ud-
Din, Mahmiid ; and the Ghiiri 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 !!], aad the officers of the Turkish mercenaries, on Mamood, son of
the former Emperor, the brother of Mahommed Ghori.” BricGs, 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 £iz-o0d-
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-Din, Sim, was neither Governor of Bamyan, nor was he one of £12-o0d-
Deen Hoossein’s [’Izz-ud-Din, Husain’s] sons, but certainly his grandfather,
Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas’td, was ’Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain’s, son.

432 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

When he reached the district of Kidan®, he was attacked
with diarrhoea, and, only nineteen days after the martyr-
dom of the victorious Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-
Sam, Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, died. His reign was
fourteen years ”.

IV. SULTAN JALAL-UD.DIN, ’ALI!, SUN 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
Ghir. When they conveyed the bier of the victorious
Sultan from Dam-yak*, the 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 Ghir. Those Ghirian 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 Ghiyds-ud-Din, Mahmid, son of
[Ghiyas-ud-Din,] Muhammad-i-Sam, the [late] Sultan’s
nephew ’.

8 It seems somewhat remarkable that Kidan proved fatal, according to our
author, to so many of the Shansabani chiefs. Muhammad, son of Siri, and
Baha-ud-Din, Sam, son of ’Izz-ud-Din, Al-Husain, also both died at Kidin.
See pages 321 and 343.

9 He died in Sha’ban, 602 H., and reigned fourteen years. He must there-
fore 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'in.

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, ’Ali; and ’Ala-
ud-Din is again mentioned in them as the last of the Shansabi rulers of
Ghaznin, and he never ruled over Tukhiristan. The best Paris copy, how-
ever, 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 Tukhiristan terminates with them. Raugat.us-Safa agrees
with the above, and mentions ’Ald-ud-Din among the Ghaznin mers, his
proper place.

? See note 5, page 486.

3 Our author here contradicts the statement made in the preceding page.
The fact was that all the Amirs, both Turks and Ghiris, 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, ’Ald-ud-Din,

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF TOKHARISTAN. 433

The Ghirian Amirs, such as were at Ghaznin, namely,
the Sipah-Salar [the Commander of Troops] Kharoshti ^,
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 chronicler’ 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 Ghiris, Ghuzz, and Beghi » and proceeded
to Ghaznin, and was taken prisoner’, and was subsequently

Muhammad, and Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmiid, the late Sultin’s brother’s son ;
notwithstanding that Baha-ud-Din, Sam, at the time of his death, had ex-
pressed a wish that his two sons should proceed to Ghaznin, and endeavour,
by conciliation, to gain over the Wazir, the Turkish Slaves, and the Ghirian
Amirs, and take possession of Ghaznin ; after which ’Ala-ud-Din, Mubam.-
mad, the eldest, was to have Ghaznin, and Jalal-ud-Din, ’Ali, 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.

+ There is some doubt with regard to this probably by-name: some have
Kharosh, Kharoshni, Haroshti and Harogsh, and Harosti and Harosi. The
majority of the most generally correct copies are as above. See Section xxiii.

* Nameless, of course.

6 This name is uncertain. The majority of copies have Beghi, as above ;
whilst the oldest copy has Beghir [not I-ghiir]; 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 [1/2]. There is a tribe of the Ghuzz
mentioned at page 377, note 5, under the name of Sankuran. Perhaps Beghiu
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-diiz.

7 After Sultin Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, reached Hirat [in Jamadi-ul-
Awwal, 605 H.], he sent agents to Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmid [see
note 3, page 400]; and, among other matters, interceded for Malik ’Izz-ud-
Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil. 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
Mahmid, mentioned in the note just referred to. Another author, however,
states, that, after disposing of the affairs of Balkh, Sultan Muhammad pro-
ceeded to Guzarwan, which was the ancient fief of ’Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of

434 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

released, and returned to Bamian again. During his ab-
sence, his uncle, Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din*, Mas’id, had seized
the throne of Bamian. Jalal-ud-Din came 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 sud-
denly fell upon him’, 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 Abi-’Ali [an
officer and probably a kinsman of Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmiid], and that
this same Abi-’Ali was made the means of communication, in behalf of the
son of Khar-mil, with Mahmid.

Be this, however, as it may, when Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-diiz, became aware of
the accommodation between Mahmiid and Sultan Muhammad, he demanded
of Mahmiid why he had made friends with the enemy of the Ghiiris. He
received, in reply, the answer, that his, I-yal-diiz’s, bad conduct had been the
cause of it. When this message was delivered to him, I-yal-diiz released
Jalal-ud-Din, ’Ali, 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-Din’s uncle, ’Abbas by name, had assumed the
sovereignty after the imprisonment of himself and brother. One of I-yal-diiz’s
chiefs, Abi-Dakur [Zakur ?] by name, then accompanying him, advised Jalal-
ud-Din, ’Alf, 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-diz, whose
servant he was. This Jalal-ud-Din, ’Ali, declined to do; upon which Abi-
Dakur separated from him, and retired to Kabul, which was his fief. Jalal-
ud-Din, ’Ali, 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 note ®, page 426, and account of the III. ruler, ’Ala-
ud-Din, Muhammad, and I-yal-diiz, IV. ruler, farther on.

8 One of the oldest copies has Sultan Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas’iid, son of Shams-
ud-Din, Muhammad ; but all the others have ’Ald-ud-Din, Mas’iid. See
note 5, page 436. Alfi, Jahan-Ard, and Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, call him
"Abbas. Rauzat-us-Safa, Mas’id.

® This is the circumstance referred to at page 267. There the name of the
river, in the majority of the best copies, was Jazar [ ,';2]; but it appears that
Jadarah [s,'42] or Jadar [ ,|s=] is the correct name. See page 267. Some
copies of the text make a great hash of this name, and have (*5|s—j4—
jj=—and even ose

1 Raugat-us-Safa says, but follows our author generally, ‘‘ when Khwarazm
Shah came into Mawar-un-Nahr [the southern part of it], he made a forced

THE 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 un-
lawfulness. 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 dis-
charge 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 Darakhtan’ [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 °
and beneficent; but manliness availeth nothing against
destiny, and, as his time was come, he died ^.

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 Bimian [Rasif?]
seized Jalal-ud-Din, ’Ali, 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 ‘‘¢he
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.

2 The flaying alive of the Wazir, for example. See page 437.

4 Other authors state that, after a nominal reign of seven years, Jalal-ud-Din,
’Ali, fell into the hands of the Khwarazmis, 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 Khwarazmis, but when or where is not
mentioned. Sec his reign, farther on.

436 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Mas’iid °, 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 Kawik‘
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 pertain-
ing 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 hint,
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,

$ The Rauzat-us-Safa, which appears to have blindly followed our author,
here calls this ruler Mas’tid 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-Tawarikh, and
Tarikh-i-Alfi, state that the news of the defeat of the two brothers, and their
having fallen prisoners into the hands of I-yal-diz, having suddenly reached
Bamiin, there being no one else to undertake the government, their uncle,
"Abbas, whose mother was a Turkish bond-maid, naturally assumed 1६ ; 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 ?.

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
ap and BLT |

THE 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 Our author has not yet finished his account of Jalal-ud-Din, ’Ali; 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 fof these pages], Minhaj-i-
Saraj-i-Din-i-Minhaj '—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 mag-
nificence, 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, Siri, and, after
that, Sultan’ Ala-ud-Din, Al-Husain took Ghaznin, but did
not rule there. After that, Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Mu-
hammad, son of Sam, captured 1४ ° ; 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, Siri, was a great monarch, and was
greatly endowed with valour, vigour, clemency, decision,

A title he sometimes gives himself which will be explained in the Prefatory
Remarks. The ‘deformity’ was not bodily.

2 | 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 itto him. The idiom of the
text here again differs, but only the idiom, in the two different sets of copies.

TIE 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 Sultan *.

When the news of the misfortune which had befallen his
elder brother, the Malik-ul-Jibal‘, was brought to his [Saif-
ud-Din, Siri’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 Ghiir, 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.

+ Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad, Malik-ul-Jibal. Jibal signifies mountains:
०८ abbdl” nothing. At page 339 our author states that Saif-ud-Din, Sin, in
succession to his father, ascended the throne of Ghiir, and divided the territory
among his brothers.

Alfi says that Bahram Shah put Kutb-ud-Din, Ghiri, the Malik-ul-Jibal,
to death in 536 of the Rihlat [547 H.], on which ’4la-ud-Din, Al-Husain,
{Guzidah and Khulasat-ul-Akhbar, and Habib-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. ’/d-ud-Din, having gained possession of
Ghaznin, left his brother, Saif-ud-Din, Siri, there, and returned himself to
Ghir. Siiri, placing dependence on the Amirs and troops of Ghaznin to
support him, remained there with but a few of the Ghiirlan troops. When
winter arrived, Bahram Shah advanced from Kayman with an army of Afghans
and Khaljis, which he had raised, on which the Amirs seized Siri. 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 Fanakatt
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 >, page 347, I find that, in 543 H., some time after
Sultin Sanjar’s defeat by the Kara-Khita-is [authors disagree as to the date
of his overthrow. See note >, page 154], and when he had retired into
"Irak, Sultan Bahram Shah, his sister’s son, sent him a despatch intimating
his recovery of Ghaznin, and the death of Sam and Stiri, the Ghiris [namely,
Baha-ud-Din, Sam, and Saif-ud-Din, Siirt. See pages 340—343,] who had
previously acquired power over that territory, on which Fakhr-ud-Din, Khalid,
Fiighanji, a poet of the Court of Sanjar, composed the following lines :—

«९ 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 Siiri they’ve to "Irak brought.”

This tends to confirm the date mentioned by Guzidah and others, and to
show that the Ghiris had been guilty of hypocrisy, as many authors state,
towards Bahram Shah, as well as Sultan Sanjar. Sce page 343.

440 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

towards Hind, and Saif-ud-Din, Siiri, ascended the throne
of Ghaznin, and made over the dominions of Ghir to his
brother, Baha-ud-Din, Sam, the father of [the Sultans]
Ghiyads-ud-Din, and Mu’izz-ud- Din.

Having brought Ghaznin under his sway, the whole of
the Amirs* 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 Ghir 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, Misawi, 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 (गौ) प्ता 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 Ghir, they despatched letters, secretly, to the pre-
sence of Bahram Shah, saying, “ throughout the entire city
and parts around, only a small number of persons have re-
mained with Sultan Siri of the forces of Ghir, the whole
of the remainder are the servants of the Mahmidi 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 Hindistan,
advanced unexpectedly and reached Ghaznin, and made a
night attack upon Sultan Siri. He came out of Ghaznin
with his own particular followers who were from Ghir, and
along with his Wazir, Sayyid Majd-ud-Din, Misawi, took
the road to Ghiir *.

$ Some copies have, r1’ayad, —the people, the peasantry, &c.
6 It would have been just as difficult for him to reach Ghir from Ghaznin,
as it was impracticable for troops from Ghir joining him at Ghaznin.

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 44

Bahram 3021115 horsemen sct out in pursuit of him, until
they discovered him in the precincts of Sang-i-Surakh? [the
Perforated Rock or Stone]. Sultan Siri, 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 them +.

When they reached the gate [one of the gates ?] of the
city [of Ghaznin], two camels® were brought, and Sultan

7 There are three or four places bearing this name, the correctness of which
there is no doubt of. It is the name of a foal or pass near the Halmand river,
about N.N.W. of Ghaznin, on the route from that city, and also from Kabul
into Ghiir; 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
mountains.”

ठ If a little liberty were taken with the text, then it might be ‘‘ by promise
[of safety], and their [Bahram’s officers] pledging their right hands, they were
captured and secured,” &c.; but, seeing that they were at the mercy of
Bahram’s troops, I do not see what stipulations were necessary. Our author,
as usual, wishes to soften it down.

® 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 state-
ments, I was convinced, could not be correct, I have taken the trouble to
examine Firightah’s fext, 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 /:thographed 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
Firishtah 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 ८८ in history be desirable, and correct transla-
tions 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 द duty, when it
is taken into consideration that such incorrect statements, which are sof con-

F f

442 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Siiri was seated upon one, and his Wazir, Sayyid Majd-ud-
Din, Misawi, 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 ELPHINSTONE, 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 them-
selves, 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 pub-
licly executed Afahommed Prince of
Ghor, who was son-in-law to the rebel
Balin. . . Seif ul dien, sur-
named Sourt, Prince of Ghor, brother
to the deceased, raised a great army
to revenge his death, . . . The
Prince of Ghor, without further oppo-
sition, entered the capital, where he
established himself, dy the consent of
the people, sending Alla, his brother,
to rule his native principality of Gor
: It was now winter, and
most of the followers of the Prince of
Ghor had returned, upon leave, to
their families, when yram, unex-
pectedly, appeared before Ghizni,
with a great army. Seif ५४८ dicn being
then in no condition to engage him
with his own troops, and having little
dependence upon those of Ghizzié,
was preparing to retreat to Ghor,
when the Ghisnians 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
Ghisnt, and taken prisoner, wile
Byram in person put the forces of
Ghor to flight. The unhappy captive
was inhumanly ordered to have his
Jorechead made black, and then to be
put astride a sorry bullock, 1५44 his
face turned towards the tail, +
When this news was carried to the

BRIGGS.

**He [Betram] soon after publicly
executed <A’cotb-ood-Dien Mahomed
Ghoory AFFGHAN [this last word is
not contained in Firishtah ८८ all, and
is the translators own. MALCOLM
too, Persia: Vol. 1., note*, page 344,
quotes PRICE—Vol. 11. page 309—
as an authority for ‘* Sy/sdeen Souri”’
[Saif-ud-Din, Siri ?] being ‘‘an Af-
ghan prince of Ghour.” I felt con-
vinced that Price would never have
said so, and, on reference to the page,
find he makes o such statement. It
must be 3816065 to whom Malcolm
referred], to whom he had given his
daughter in marriage. . . . Sei/-
ood-Deen-Soory, Prince of Ghoor,
brother of the deceased, raised a great
army to revenge his death.
Seif-ood-Deen Ghoory, without further
opposition, entered GAizny, where,
having established himself wth the
consent of the people, he sent his
brother, Al/a-cod-Deen Soor (sic) to
rule his native principality of Ghoor.

a. fe It was now winter, and
most of the followers of the Prince of
Ghoor had returned to their families,
when Sooltan Seram unexpectedly
appeared before Ghizmy with a con-
siderable army. Svif-ood-Deen being
in no condition to oppose him with
his own troops, and placing little
reliance on those of Ghisny, was
preparing to retreat to Ghoor, when
the Ghianevides entreated him to engage
Baram, promising to exert themselves
fo the utmost. This was done only to
enable them to put their design of

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN.

443

publi¢ly exposed about the streets of Ghaznin, and, from
the house-tops, dust, ashes, and excrement were launched

ears of his brother 442, he burnt
with rage, and, resolving upon re-
venge, with all his united powers,
invaded Ghisny.” — 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, w/zle
Bearam 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 tatl. When
this news reached the ears of his
brother Ad/a-ood-Degn, 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 [Bahram’s] sovereignty,
Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad, Ghiiri, Siri [this is incorrect; he was not named
Siri, Saif-ud-Din was so named. I also beg to remark that this is the name of
aman, sot ofa race or tribe], who was his son-in-law, was put to death at
Ghaznin by command of Bahram Shah. Saif-ud-Din, Siri, 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-
wis, was there located. He sent back his brother, ’Ald-ud-Din, along with
the whole of the old Amirs, to Ghiir; and, notwithstanding that Saif-ud-
Din, Sirf, used to treat the people of Ghaznin with lenience, and that the
Ghiriins did not dare to oppress them, the Ghaznawis wished for Bahram
shah ; and, although they used, outwardly, to show amity towards Saif-ud-
Din, Sirf, secretly, they used to carry on a correspondence with Bahram Shah,
until the winter set in, and the roads into Ghiir were closed by snow, and
people were unable to pass to and fro. At this time Bahram Shah unex-
pectedly reached Ghaznin with a large army of Afghans [he does not say they
were Siiris or Ghiris}, Khalj, and other dwellers in the wilds. At this time
when not more than ten leagues intervened between them, Saif-ud-Din, Siri,
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 Ghir. They, making hypocrisy their garment, did not give him just
counsel, and excited and stimulated him to fight. Saif-ud-Din, Siri, 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 Ghiir, 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, Siri, and, in high spirits, delivered him over
to Bahram Shah. He commanded that the face of Saif-ud-Din, Siiri, 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-Dfn, 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 Firishtah’s words.

Then follow, in the two translations, things respecting ’Alad-ud-Din and his

F f 2

444 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

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 state-
ments with the original. Both translators leave out Firishtah’s statement,
that, ‘before the arrival of ’Ali-ud-Din, Bahram 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 common tradition
that Bahram encountered ’Ald-ud-Din, as our author states. ‘ Alla” is
supposed by the translators to have replied to ‘‘a /eééer” written by Bahram

Shah, in these terms :—
Dow.

‘* Alla replied, ‘ 7hat his threats
2८८८ 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. ‘Yhat he might be assured
that God had forsaken Byram, and
ordained Alla to be the instrument of
that just vengeance which was de-
nounced against him for putting to
death the representative of the long-
independent and very ancient family
of Ghor.’”—Page 126.

There is nothing of this kind in the original.
Shah despatched an emissary with a message.

BRIGGS.

** Alla-ood-Deen replied, ‘ 7hat
his threats were as impotent as his
arms ; that it was no new thing for
kings to make war on their neigh-
bours, 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 (A//a-cod-
Deen) should be the instrument of
that just revenge denounced against
him for putting to death the represen-
tative of the independent and very
anctent family of Ghoor,’”—Page 152.

FIRISHTAH says: ‘* Bahram
*Ala-ud-Din 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 diggrace 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.
Price’s Mahommedan History, vol. 1. pages 309—311.

Compare these passages in
He translates it

from Firightah correctly although he does not profess to do so literally.
One more specimen here and J have done with this reign :—

Dow.

‘* At first the troops of (रहा, by
their superior numbers, bore down
those of Gor; till 44८८, 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, (८९८ feo .

rocks bearing against the torrent. . .
Byram fled, with the scattered remains
of his army, towards AHindostan ; but
he was overwhelmed with his mis-

BRIGGS.
‘* At first the troops of Ghiszy, by
their superior numbers, bore down

‘those of Ghoor; till Alla-ood-Deen,

seeing his affairs desperate, called out
to two gigantic brothers, denominated
the greater or lesser KAurmil [Ina
note, he says, he doubts whether this
word should not be Firmi/, and says
there is a tribe so called!!! Elliot:
INDEX, page 157, note, writes their
name Sizft/, and says Briggs [who

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 445

Pul-i-Yak Tak * [the One-arch Bridge] of the city. When
they reached that place, Sultan Siri, and his Wazir, Sayyid
Majd-ud-Din, Misawi, were gibbeted, and they were both
hung from the bridge. Such was the cruelty and ignominy
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 Siri, so that he took revenge for this barbarous
deed and this dishonour, as has been previously recorded +.

fortunes, and sunk under the hand of __read it correctly, but spoilt it after] ‘‘is

death, in the year five hundred and wrong” | ! See pages 350 and 351],

forty-seven, after a reign of thirty-five whom he saw in the front standing

years.” —Page 127. like two rocks, and bearing the brunt of
the action, lo support him. $
Beiram fled with the scattered remains
of his army towards A/industan, 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 Calcutta;” and Meadows Taylor,
in the STUDENT’s MANUAL OF INDIAN HisToRY, who improves it, by inserting
in the margin of page 89—‘‘ Ghuzny plundered by Alla ood Deen, Sedjuk”!!!
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, Khar-
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 1६] . . . र Bahram Shah, being with-
out 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 mz/s-guotes 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 Ghiiris,
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 ८० Ghirris;
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 tum
his back before shooting him in a cowardly manner ; inviting his brother to

446 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Il. SULTAN-UL.A’ZAM3, MU’IZZ-UD-DUNYA WA _ UD.DIN,
ABO-L-MUZAFFAR, MUHAMMAD, SON OF BAHA-UD-DIN,
SAM, KASIM-I-AMIR-UL-MOMININ.

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
Ghir, he commanded, that both the Sultans *, Ghiyads-ud-
Din, Muhammad, and Mu’izz-ud-Din‘, 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 Ghiri, are mildness, amiability,
beneficence, greatness, and the like. Fanakati says no less than 70,000 persons
were massacred, on this occasion, in Ghaznin alone.

ॐ Some copies of the text, the idiom of which differs considerably here, have
Sultan-i-Ghizi ; and most copies leave out the Kasim, &c. His titles given
at the end of his reign [which see] are altogether different.

Between the putting to death of Saif-ud-Din, Siiri, and the establishment of
Mu’izz-ud-Din at Ghaznin 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-Din, Siri. In reality, Mu’izz-ud-Din is the frst of the
Ghirian dynasty of Ghaznin.

4 Sultans subsequently.

8 This personage is incorrectly styled by the impossible title of Shahdbu-d-
din, Shahab-ood-Deen, and even Shabudin. Shihab-ud-Din, which is Arabic,
was certainly his title d¢/ore his brother succeeded to the sovereignty of Ghir,
and his brother’s was Shams-ud-Din; 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 changedto Shihab-ud-Din; but no such title will be found on hiscoins.
I have, myself, been led into the error of occasionally styling him Shihab-ud-Din
in my notes to the Khwarazmi dynasty, page 255-260, an oversight I now
correct. Firightah calls him sometimes Shihab-ud-Din, Muhammad, the
Ghirf, and at others Mu’izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, the Ghiri. Dow, in his
translation of Firightah, 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 ७ at the end of Ghiiri [s,.¢], being the ya-i-
nisbat, expressing relation or connexion, as Hind and Hindi, Kabul, Kabulf,
&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 Shakab-ood-Deen, and Moyis-
ood-Deen ; but he too generally follows Dow, and calls him Mahomed Ghoory.
See also Elliot, INDIA : vol 2, page 292.

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 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 °,

Sultan Ghiyds-ud-Din abode at the court of Firiiz-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’iid-
i-Husain’, Bamiani.

When Sultan Ghiyds-ud-Din ascended [the throne of]
the dominion of Ghir, after the catastrophe® of Sultan
Saif-ud-Din, Muhammad, and the news of it reached
Bamian, Malik Fakhr-ud-Din, Mas’iid, turned his face
towards Mu’izz-ud-Din and said: “ Thy brother hath dis-
tinguished himself; when wilt thou do’ 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 Firiiz-koh. When he
reached the presence of Ghiyds-ud-Din [his brother], he
became Sar-i-Jandar [Chief Armour-Bearer], and he con-
tinued 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 umbrage’ arose in his august
mind, and he proceeded towards Sijistan, to [the Court of]
Malik Shams-ud-Din, Sijistani’, and there he remained one
cold season. Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din despatched a distin-

® Guzidah, and some other works, mention that ’Ald-ud-Din, Husain,
made Hart 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 Ghirian rulers of
` Bamian. :

$ He was mortally wounded and left for dead in the action with the
Ghuzz, by Abi-l-’Abbas-i-Shis, brother of the noble he had so treacherously
shot with an arrow when his back was turned. See page 367.

9 The words 25 919 in Persia, and in the Persian of the Last, signify
०५ wilt thou do:” not ‘thou art doing.”

1 Because his brother Ghiyag-ud-Din had not conferred a separate appanage
on him.

2 The Malik-us-Sa’fs [the Sanguinary], Shams-ud-Din, Muhammad, who
succeeded his father Taj-ud-Din, Abi-l-Fath, in 559 H. See page 189.

448 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

guished person and brought him back again, and com-
mitted to his charge the territory of Kasr-i-Kajiiran and
Istiah. After he had brought the whole of the district of
Garmsir under his authority, Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din en-
trusted to him the city of Tigin-abad, which was one of
the largest cities of (उशा. This Tigin-abad is the
place about which, and the possession of it by the Sultans
of Ghir, the downfall of the dynasty of Mahmid-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 + 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* Mvu’izz-ud-Din acquired the territory of
Tigin-abad, the Ghuzz tribe®, and the chieftains of that
sept, who, retiring defeated from before the forces of Khita’,
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 !] when he acceded (47) to the ¢hrone of Ghor, in
command at Zynganabad, in the province of Chorassan.” BRIGGS has:
** On the accession of Gheias-ood-Deen to the ¢hrone of Ghizeny and Ghor, he
appointed _ his brother, Afoyiz-ood-Deen Makomed [not called ‘‘ Mahomed
Ghoory” here], governor of 7zheeabad”!! FIRISHTAH, who quotes our author,
says: ‘‘Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad.i-Sam, on attaining the sovereignty of
Ghirr, 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.

+ 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 Aytkin-abad. This remark above would indicate
that Khusrau Shah, not Bahram, was ’Ald-ud-Din’s antagonist. See note >,
page 347.

$ Not Sultan then but Malik. The title was conferred after this.

6 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 Karlughiah Turk.mans, See note 5, para. 2, page 374.

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 449

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.°, when Sultan Ghiyds-ud-Din sub-
dued Ghaznin, and placed Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din upon the
throne [of that territory] and returned to Ghir 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 Gardaiz’; and, in the third year [एदा प्त],
he marched an army towards Multan and delivered it from
the hands of the Karamitah >, 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] ; Fasib-i says Ghaznin was taken in 569 ; the Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh,
which copies our author, also says 569; Tabakat-i-Akbari agrees with
Rauzat-ug-Safa, and Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, that Ghiyds-ud-Din took
Ghaznin from the Ghuzz, in 569, and conferred it on his brother, Mu’izz-ud-
Din, in 570; the Tazkirat-ul-Mulik of Yahya Khan, Mir’at-i-Jahin- Numi,
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 Mabmidis
had regained possession of it, and that Ghiyas-ud-Din took it from the Amirs
of Khusrau Malik (sic). Buda’iini 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. Alff states that Khusrau Shah himself
returned to Ghaznin after the withdrawal of ’Ald-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 [sot Ais son,
Khusrau Malik], again returned to Lahor, and the Ghuzz, taking possession
of Ghaznin, retained possession of it for #e# years. Firightah, who does not
always copy his authorities correctly, says Ghaznin was taken by Ghiyads-ud-
Din in 567 H., and that the Ghuzz only held it ‘wo years !

9 Gardaiz is the name of a large darah of the Tajiks, or Taziks, for both
are correct [The Ghiris 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 Firightah, 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 Mw’izz-ud-Din has
been given by Firigshtah, which has not been correctly rendered by his trans-
lators, and makes the conduct of Mu’izz-ud-Din appear in a light contrary to

450 THE TABAKAT.-I-NASIRI.

Sankuran tribe * broke out into rebellion, and committed
great violence, until, in the year 572 H., he marched an

3 Fasib-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, Shanftizin. Shaliizin appears to be the present
name of the /oca/e of this tribe, which is also mentioned in the history of Timi.

See note’, page 498. Some call it Shanitizan.

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 [Ada,
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, 4e 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 daugh-
ter, whom, if he would promise to
espouse, and leave her tn /ree pos-
session. of the country and its wealth,
she would, in a few days, remove the
Rajah. Makhommed basely accepted of
the proposal, and the wicked woman
accordingly, in a few days, found
means &० assassinate her husband, and
to open the gates to the enemy.
Mahommed conjirmed his promise hy
marrying the daughter upon acknow-
ledging the true faith, du¢ made no
scruple to deviate from what respected
the mother ; for, zztsfead of trusting
her with the country, he sent her off
to 4८24, 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 :—

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 /ree fos-
session of her wealth, She would, ina
few days, remove the Raja. JAfa-
homed 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 marry her legally unless
she did so]; but he made no scruple
to depart from his engagements with
the mother; for, ts#stead 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 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 despatched a person to the

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 ‘, who, on this occasion, obtained mar-
tyrdom ; but, as they had stirred up rebellion, they were
put to death, asa matter of exigency, according to sovereign
prerogative.

In the following year’ after this event, Sultan Mu’izz-
ud-Din marched an army towards Nahrwalah by way of
Uchchah and Multan. The Rae of Nahrwalah, Bhim
01५४५, 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 entrust-
ing 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 Musalm4n according to the rites of the sublime law of Muhammad,
contracted marriage with her, and both of them, mother and daughter, were
sent to Ghaznin, that they might learn the duties respecting 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, /rom not having
obtained the enjoyment of the Sultan's society [the marriage was never consum-
mated], through grief and mortification, followed her mother.”

The Rajah above referred to, according to the Mir’at-i-Jahan-Numa, was
chief of the Bhati 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—a5|.—«:» and «%¢—while some have =$ and
443 Compare Abi-Ribin-al-Birini, 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 §73 H. ; but, just under, our author
says 574 H., which is the year which most authors mention, but Fagib-f has
575 घ.

® This is the correct name, confirmed by several other writers ; but some
copies of the text differ. Ore has 929 o-¢—another yo s-@—and three 9१०५००३7
The Raugat-ut-Tahirin styles him Bhoj [- 5#]-Diw.

452 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI

i-Ghazi returned again without having accomplished his
designs. This event took place in the year 574 H.’

In the year 575 H., Mu’izz-ud-Din led an army to
Furshor १, and subdued it; and, in another two years sub-
sequent to that, he marched an army towards Lohor. As
the affairs of the Mahmidi empire had now approached
their termination, and the administration of that govern-
ment had grown weak, Khusrau Malik, by way of compro-
mise, despatched one of his sons, and one elephant’, to the
presence of the Sultan-i-Ghazi. This circumstance hap-

pened in the year 577 स.
The following year, 578 H., the Sultan led an army
towards Diwal? [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 Purghor and Burshor, and in some copies of the text
here Burshor likewise—the letters p and /, and 4 and w are interchange-
able. In the passage at page 76, where mention is made of the idol temple
which fell on the night of Mahmid’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 446.

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’uni says 580 H. ; but
he has omitted the first expedition, and mistaken the second for it. I do not
quote Baizawi or Guzidah, for they are both at sea with respect to the two
last'Mahmiidi sovereigns, and make ०८ of them.

3 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’inf 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 defore the first expedition against Lahor ;
whilst others state that Diwal was taken the year afer; 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 Hindistan, 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 ac-
quired much wealth, and returned.

In the year 581 H., he [again] led an army towards
Lohor’, and ravaged and pillaged the whole of the dis-
tricts of that territory; and, on his return homewards,
directed that the Hisar [fortress] of S1a]-kot should be re-
stored‘. 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 [>], as well as Loha-war [3५3].

The Tabakat-i-Akbari, Mir’at-i-Jahin-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 ¢wo expeditions to Lahor—one in
577 H., and the other, when it was taken, in 583 !

+ 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 Hindi 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 Jamin. I extract this statement from a History of
the Rajahs of Jamiin [the # is nasal], which the author states to be composed
from Hindi 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 Jamiin ; and, in the middle of his reign, in 555 H., Khus-
rau Malik, the descendant of Mahmiid, Ghaznawi, abandoned Ghaznin, and
assumed the throne of Lah-nor. The Jamiin 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 [Makhialah ?], at the foot of the hills, who were subject to
the Jamiin-wal [the Jamin dynasty], having received encouragement from the
Lah-nor ruler, and sure of his support, refused any longer to pay tax and
tribute to Jamiin, and threw off its yoke.

०८ At this time, the year 579 H., Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, the Ghiri, who had
taken possession of Ghaznin, raised the standard of conquest ; and Rajah Jakr
[Chakr] 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 emis-
sary 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 appear-
ance 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.

«° शृ € 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 the

454 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

the Sultan again retired. After his departure, Khusrau

Panjab; and, at the suggestion and representation of the Rajah of Jamin,
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 Fermully by BRIGGS !]
as governor, with a garrison. The Mian-ji, of Jamin, was then dismissed,
with a reguest to inform the Rajah that next year his wishes would be ful-
filled. ।

‘*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 sup-
ported 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 suc-
ceeded by his son, Rajah Bij, who is also called Bijayi [किनकी] Diw, in
1221 of Bikradmaditya ; and in that year, which corresponds with 582 H., the
Sultin [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 tumed into Ally Kirmany
by Briccs !], 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 Ghaznin,
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 Jamiin-wal
[not the 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 Firightah, states, under the reign of Khusrau
Malik [page 129], that ‘‘the Lferor Chusero [Khusrau would not have
known his own name thus written], in alliance with the Ghschkers, 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 Mulltk; and the Khokhars, Gukkurs ;
and that Khusrau ad to abandon the investment ; but under the reign of
Mu’izz-ud-Din, Dow [page 137] states: ‘‘ This fort [Sadcof], as we have
before related, was effectually besieged by Chusero, in the absence of Mahommed;”
and Briccs also [page 176] says: ^“ This fort, as we have before related,
being successfully besieged and taken by Khoosrow Maudllth,” &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 ab-
surdity. He says ‘‘Khusru Malik, taking courage from despair, made an
alliance with the Gakkars [Dow, Gickers; Briggs, Guskurs; Elphinstone,
Gakkars!!}, captured one of Shahab ४ 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 Firightah, which see but it

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 455

Malik assembled the forces of Hindiistan ‘, 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 Mahmidi sovereignty had reached its
termination, and the sun of the empire of Sabuk-Tigin had
reached its setting, and the Recorder of Destiny had in-
scribed 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 withthe Sultan [Mu’izz-ud-Din], Khusrau
Malik came out [of Lohor]*. He was seized, and imprisoned,
and Lohor passed into the possession of the Sultan-i-Ghizi,
and the kingdom of Hindiistan 1 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 Hindi history of Jamiin previously quoted, of
Khusrau Malik’s attempt to take Sial-kot, which was a standing menace to his
tule, 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 un-
able to keep the field against the superior and more efficient forces of the Ghiris.

The Khokhars [36] are a totally distinct race from the Gakhars
{ «CS]. The name of the former is sometimes written [45] Khukhar, but
the first mode is the most correct. Abi-l-Fazl, in the A’-in-i-Akbart,
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-Saigar Do-aibah. Their chief
locale is about Banh, Ahmad-abad, afd Khiish-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 north-
wards. 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 ofthe 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.

$ This is the same person who subsequently gave his adherence to Sultan
Mubammad, Khwarazm Shah, and then acted treacherously, and was ousted
from Hirat, and put to death. See note’, page 257. His correct name is
’Izz-ud-Din, 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 Wali
[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 Hindistan, and, dressed
in an honorary robe, conferred upon him by Sultan Mu’1zz-
ud-Din, in the audience hall [or tent] of the camp’® he
established his Court of Judicature. Twelve camels were
assigned to convey his tribunal’® [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
Firtiz-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 Shah’ [by
name], should be detained within the walls of the fortress
of Saif-riid of Ghir; and, when the outbreak and sedition
of Sultan Shah’, 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.

' 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 >, page 295.

3 Not “ Khwarazm Shah” but his brother. He was not @ Sultan; this
is part of his ५4८८ merely. See page 245. The error of calling him Sultan or
King of Khwarazm is of common occurrence. Elphinstone, misled by trans-
lators or translations, calls him ‘‘ King of Kharizm.” His name was Mahmid,
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 प्र. [Jahin-
Ara, 588 H.J. The year 587 प. 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 it

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 457

587 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 Tabarhindah’, and took that stronghold, and

is possible to write, and all the copies of the text collated agree; but
neither of these three dates can be corrrect. The campaign against Sultan
Shah, Khwarazmf, 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, 2o 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 Kazi of Tilak was to hold Tabar-
hindah for the period of eg4¢ 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 Sultain not having arrived, was obliged to
capitulate. Here is further proof. AlIfi 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 %], after he had gained
possession of several places in Khurasan with the aid of the Kara-Khita'is,
that he, Ghiyag-ud-Din, should give up to him the places belonging to his
[Sultan Shah's] father, otherwise to prepare for hostilities. Ghiyag-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-Riid, the two brothers, Ghiyas-ud-Din, and Mu’izz-ud-Din,
Shams-ud-Din of Bamian, and Taj-ud-Din, ruler of Sijistin, 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 प्र, Sultan Takish, Khwarazm Shah, hearing of this reverse his
rebellious brother had sustained, advanced from Khwirazm against him by
forced marches; and Sultan Shah again sought protection from the Ghiris,
who, some time after, aided him with a numerous force, and despatched him
towards Khwarazm. 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, ऽ पाठ) 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 प्त,
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 Hindiistan, 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 Kuhyam in Hindistan at the same time. See page 515.

3 All the copies of the text collated, both hére, and elsewhere in the work,
as well as many other authors, say Tabarhindah [or Tabarhindh]. The

Gg
>

458 THE TABAKAT.-I-NASIRI.

made it over [to the charge of] Malik Ziya-ud-Din, the Kazi
Muhammad-i-’Abd-us-Sallam, Nisawi, Tilaki*. 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, Tilaki. At his [Kazi Ziyd-ud-Din’s] * re-
quest, they selected twelve hundred horse from the forces
of Hindistan and of Ghaznin, all men of Tilak, and the
whole of them were ordered to join his Khayl [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 " 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 Tarikbh-i-Alfi, and Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh say
Tarhindah, Buda’ini also has the same in one copy,and Tarhindah [the Persian 4
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 [ss-¢,] 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
[१५७] in other MS. copies I have examined, but, in his translation,
Briccs 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 9, page 76, next to last para.

4 That is to say, he or his family came originally from Nisa, and he was
Kazi of Tilak, which was a considerable place mentioned by our author in
several places. We might as well say Chief Fustice Supreme Court, as ^" Kazi
Tolak.” Instead of Nisawi, some copies of the text have Bishari, and
Bishai, but the majority of the best copies have Nisdwi. Briccs turns
him into «^ Mullik Zeea-ood-Deen Tovzuky,” and Dow into ^ Malleck Zea” !

§ Compare Elliot: INDIA, vol. ii. page 295.

° The right word may be Golah, as both would be written 4S In
Sanskrit Mwea—solak signifies the offspring by illegitimate connexion with
a widow; but we hear nothing of sucha connexion on the part of Prithi Raj’s
father. Ton, 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 go/a.” In another place, he asserts that
Golah refers to the natural brother of Prithit Raj. Vol i. page 179. Had Prithi
Raj been a gulak, 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
Hindis 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 Ajmir 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 naturad
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 he

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 459

व 11

hear at hand, and the Sultan marched to Tara’in’ to meet
him. The whole of the 2025 ° 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

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.

? 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 ¢vanslations of Firishtah [not by Firightah himself] which
supplied them with their materials, have turned this name into A’arain. Dow
has “ Sirauri upon the banks of the Sirsutty,’”? and Briccs, ‘‘ Narain, now
called Ziroury, on the banks of the Soorsutty.” ELPHINSTONE, following
Briggs, no doubt, calls it ‘‘ Zivoury, between Zandsar and Carndi,” 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 Tarafn,” 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 reuésion, for the former has Tara’In
[4१15] like other authors, not Nara’-in [७21]. Mirzi 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
Kasnal to Thani-sar is A’gim-abad-i-Talawayi [.sj)], 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 Amin-ghar, a large
village with a large and lofty Rabat likewise.. About two miles from the
village of Chatang 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 Firightah. There are several places called Talwandi,and one,on theroad
from Dihli to Bhatnir, called Talwayah [१19५], but no other Talawayi. For an
account of the engagement, as given in the Jamiin History, see next page.

8 In some copies Ries: other writers say, a number of Rajpiit princes.

9 Thus styled [22,5] and also Gobindah [+35] in the oldest copies of the
text. Some have = and 4,5 both of which modes of writing the name
confirm the correctness of the above, which is a common Hindi name; but
some more modern copies of the text have Kand [3:5], Khand [४], and
Khandi [554]. Most other authors, including Firishtah, have this latter
name also; but the Hindi bard, Chand, calls him Rae Gobind, like our
author in the oldest copies. He led the van of the Hindiis 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 ‘‘ Skabudin” style ‘‘ Khan-
dirai, was not brother of Pirt’*hwiraja”!! He states that he was of the
Dahima race of Rajpiits, one of three brothers, the eldest of whom, Kaimas,
was lord of Biana [Bianah], and minister of Pirt’hwiraja ; the second was

Gg2

460 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Rae [Rajah] of Dihli, was mounted, and on which elephant
he moved about in front of the battle. The Sultin-i-
Ghazi, who was the Haidar of the time, and a second
Rustam, charged and struck Gobind Rade 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 horse-
back 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 Khalj’ 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 battle *.

“ 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 Hindi chroni-
clers agree in the statement that this person, styled Gobind by some, and
Khandi 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
the other hand, returned the d/ow, &c.”” The «~ or J. signifies not a d/ow here,
but a small spear or javelin, an Indian weapon, the point of which is some-
times 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 Ghalzf 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 Firightah 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 Jamiin 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 Hindistin,
and eighth in descent from Bal-Diw, Chohan, advanced to give battle to the
Sultan. They met at Tara’in-ghay, fourteen miles from Thanf-sar. During
the engagement, Rae Khani [sic is MS.] Rie, ruler of Dihlf 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 Rawi, a deputation from the Rajah of Jamin presented themselves.”

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 461

On the Musalmfan forces not seeing the Sultan, lamenta-
tion broke from them, until they reached a place where

Another history, written by a Hindi, says Kfdf [1555] Rae commanded his
brother’s army, and that, after the Sultan had wounded him in the mouth, he
wounded the ऽ पाठा 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 Ais own horse, and, placing him before
him, carried him safely out of the fight. Buda’tni also says the Sultan
fell from his horse, and agrees with the above in the last clause of the sentence.

Other authors, including the Tabakat-i-Akbarf, and Tazgkarat-ul-Muliik,
state that Khani Rae commanded the van, and was leading on the enemy
when the Sultan attacked him. They state that the Khalj youth was on foot
at the time, and, seeing the state of the Sultan, he sprang up behind him,
and carried him out of the méé 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 mélée 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 [Mahkommed]
marched again towards Hindostan,
and, proceeding to Ajmere, took the
capital of Ziberhkind, 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 2८८४
Ra, the prince of Ajmire, with his
brother Candi Ra, king of Delhi, in
alliance with some other Indian
princes, were marching towards 72-
berhind, with two hundred thousand
horse, and three thousand elephants.
Mahommed determined ¢o return to
the relief of the garrison. He met the
enemy at the village of Siraurz, upon
the banks of the Sirssutt#s, 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 own of Bituhnda, where he
left £ Zeea-ood- Deen Toosuky with
above a ‘thousand chosen horse, and
some foot to form its garrison. While
on his return, he heard that Prthow
Rae, Raja of Ajymeer, with his brother
Chawand Rae, the Raja of Dehly, in
alliance with other Indian princes,
were marching towards Bituhada with
200,000 horse, and 3000 elephants.
Mahomed Ghoory marched to the
relief of his garrison; Out, 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, join-
ing in the rear, his army formed a

462

THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

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 nght and
left wings were defeated, and advised
to provide for his own safety. Zn-
raged at this counsel, he smote the
imprudent adviser, and rushed on
towards the enemy, among whom he
commenced, 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 force at the
elephant, that he drove out three of his
sack teeth [the elephant’s! !]. In the
meantime the King 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 jsursued
them near forty miles.”

circle. Makomed Ghoory was in per-
son in the centre of his line, and,
being informed that both wings were
defeated, was advised to provide for
his own safety. raged at this coun-
sel, 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, 4e drove his
elephant directly against Mahomed
Ghoory, who, perceiving his inten-
tion, charged and delivered his lance
full into the Raja’s mouth, by which
many of his teeth were knocked out.
In the meantime, the Raja of Dehly
pierced the king through the ragAé¢
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
triumphantly off the field, although
almost wholly deserted by his army,
which was pursued by the enemy nearly
Sorty miles,” &c.

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 Briccs. 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 Briccs has as follows:—

‘In 587 प. he [Shihab-ud-Din] determined to enter Hindiistan, and he
took the fort of Pathindah [sxg, but the MSS. I have examined have
Bathindah sx:¢], which, in that day, had become the capital of Rajahs of
great dignity, out of the hands of the men of the Rajah of Aymir. He left
Malik Ziyd-ud-Din, Tilakf, 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, Wali [a
ruler, a prince, the governor of a province] of Ajmfir, in concert with his
brother, Khandi Rae, Walt of Dihli, and bringing along with them several
Rajpit 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 mect them, and at the mouga’ [piace,

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 463

Suddenly the Sultan arrived. A number of Amirs‘,

district, village] of Tara’in, on the banks of the Sursutf, seven Aurok [a
distance of rather less than fourteen miles] from Thanf-sar, now known as
Tarawarf [but in several MSS. of Firightah, which I have seen, it is 5759
not s,5!5], and forty 4srok 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 broken by the Hindiis, and it
appears to mean that they declined the onset, or recoiled], and not a great num-
ber 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 atten-
dants 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
doj.” Zhis speech not agreeing with the Sultdn’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 confiict. [Firightah then quotes some lines
tothe effect that both friend and foe lauded his prowess.] Suddenly the eye
of Khandi 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 [७८].
Khandi Rae ८६८५८ [i.e. ;3—-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 [5७]
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 4srok 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 Firigshtah 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 चलो, 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 Hindi writers state that this was the seventh time the
Sultan had invaded Hind, in all of which he had been defeated !

4 The Malik-ul-Haji, Ziyi-ud-Din [subsequently ’Al4-ud-Din], Muham-
mad, the Sultdn’s niece’s husband, was present in this battle. Sce page 393.

464 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Ghiri 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-Ghazi, again came
together °, and retired, and turned their faces towards the
Musalman dominions.

The Kazi of Tilak ° 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 Hin-
distan, to avenge the [disaster of the] previous year ’.

$ The idiom varies considerably here in nearly every copy. Some have—
‘‘On the strength of the safety of that Badghah-i-Ghazf, the army came
together again [or rallied],” &c.

¢ 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 Firishtah’s trans-
lators have incorrectly given, and which neither Firightah 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 sever
happened ab all.

Dow, vol.i. page 139.

‘* Mahommed remained a few months
with his brother at Ghor, who still
kept the imperial title, and then, re-
turning to Ghisni, spent the ensuing
year in indolence and festivity. But,
ambition again fermenting im his
mind, he recruited a noble army,” &c.

BRIGGS, vol. i. page 173.

“‘ Mahomed remained a few months
with his brother at Ghoor, who still
retained the title of King (he never lost
the title of Sultan], and then, return-
ing to Ghisny, spent the ensuing year
in pleasure and festivity. At length,
having recruited an army,” &c.

Firightah says: ‘‘ Sultan Shihab-ud-Din, having taken leave of his brother
{at Firiiz-koh], proceeded to Ghaznin ; and, with the determination of taking
revenge [on Pithora], Aaving 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.
‘¢When his [/ahkommea’s] victorious
pears had advanced as far as Pesh-

BRIGGS, page 174.
‘¢ When he had advanced as far as

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 distin-
guished man of the highland district of Tilak, 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 specu-
lation among us.’ Mahommed replied,
‘Know, old man, that since the time
of my defeat in Aindostan, notwith-
standing 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

‘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, notwith-
standing 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.

idolaters, or die in the noble attempt,’”
&c.

Here, again, ELPHINSTONE has been deceived, and, quoting Briccs, further
disseminates a wrong translation. MARSHMAN says [vol. i. p. 44] that ‘‘ he
[Shahab] stated” this “ in one of his letters ;” but, unfortunately, Firishtah
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 Ghiir, 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.’
Sultin Shihab-ud-Din replied: ‘O such an one [3s]! 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 per-
mitted the Amirs of Ghiir, of the Khalj, and of Khurasan, who, notwithstand-
ing 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 Pir, 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’fn-ud-Din,
Chisti, whose tomb is at Ajmfr, 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-Din’s career, and stayed to propagate
the Musalm4an faith.

466 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

in defensive armour १. When the Sultan-i-Ghazi with such-
like 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

® 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 on
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 note’, page 459. Hasan Nizgami, in the Taj-ul-Ma’asir, a contem-
porary writer, who began his work the year before Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din’s
assassination, and who degins 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 ulti-
matum 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—Rajpiits, 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 Raj-
pits 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 over-
throw. Khiandf Rae [the Gobind Rie 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 Jamiin, which agrees in some measure with the Rajpit tra-
ditions, states that Pithora Rae, having been apprised by certain informers of
the part the Rajah Bij, or Bijayi Diw, 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
affairs, prepared to avenge his previous defeat; and Bijayi Diw, Rajah of

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 467

disposition of his forces. The centre division of the army,
the baggage, the standards and banners, his canopy of

Jamin, 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 [Top also says ‘‘the Princes of Kanouj and Putun invited Shadudin
[Shihab-ud-Din ?] to aid their designs of humiliating the Chohan [Rie 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 vears before,
and since that time his ow governor had held it. The Sultan came in con-
tact with Rae Pithora on that same field of Talawari, and formed his forces
into two divisions. The troops of Jamin and Kinnauj were to oppose Khandi
Rie of Dihli, while the Sultan, with his own forces, encountered Rae Pithora.
The battle was obstinately maintained, and it is related that Khandi २३८ fell
by the sword of Nar-singh Diw of Jamin, and the Sultin 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 8,

Alfi gives another version of this battle, which is certainly curious. It
states that the Sultan, having taken the route by Purghor, arrived within the
limits of Dihli [the territory of 2]. Pitho Rae and Kandi [sic] Rae prepared
to oppose him, on which Mu’izz-ud-Din made a precipitate retreat. Rae Pitho
was following in pursuit of him until they had passed beyond Lahor, and had
reached the mouga’ [village or district] called Shihib-ud-Din [Shihab-ud-Din-
एप्प 2], 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 Sulfan 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 BricGs are equally imaginary with respect
to the battle, where they say :—

Dow, vol. i. page 142.

‘© The Mussulman troops, as if now
only serious in fight, made such dread-
ful slaughter, that this prodigious
army, once shaken, /ike a great build.
ing was lost in its own ruins.”

BRIGGS, vol. i. page 177.

*‘The Moslems, as if they now had
only began to be in earnest, com-
mitted such havoc, that this pro-
digious army, once shaken, /ike a
great building tottered to its fall, and

was lostin tts oun 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,’ writes Ferishtah,
‘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 of

468 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 them’.” The Musalman troops
acted according to these instructions, and, having ex-
hausted 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] Sursuti’, 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
Siwalikh ‘ [territory], such as Hansi, Sursuti, and other

the enemy into commotion. At this crisis Khar-mfl ['Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son
of Khar-mil] and other Amfrs, from different directions, charged, and over-
threw the Hindi troops.” This is all: he then mentions the fall of Khandf
Rae and other chiefs.

` 3 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 matériel, 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 Hindi army to a
complete rout.

3 The ancient Saraswati. Probably our author means in the tract near the.
Sursutf: the word is ५ „2 Ibn-i-Batiitah calls Sursutf a great city. In
Akbar’s time Sursutf 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 Hansf, by the name of Siwdlikh ; but some other native writers,
including the author of the History of Jamiin, include the whole of the Alpine

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 469

tracts, were subjugated. These events took plate, and this
victory was achieved, in the year 588 H.’; and the Sultan
placed Malik Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak °, in the fort of Kuhram’,
and returned [home again] *.

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, Dihli*. Inthis 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 Ghaznin 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 >, 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 KINGS OF DEHLf], 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’agir [Elliot, vol. ii. page 216], gives o dade at all; but, in the following
page, says, ‘‘in the month of Ramatdén [which is the 2044 month], 588 H.,”
Kutb-ud-Din ‘‘ marched against Fatwdn” 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’agir, and find the above date quite correct. Our author, Minhaj-i-
Sara) [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, i the year 588 प्त,
and captured Dihli; and, in the year 590 H.,” accompanied the Sultan against
Jai-Chand, &c. The fact is that the Hindiis, having been overthrown in
588 H., in the battle of Tara’in, Kutb-ud-Din was left at Kuhyam, 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 Tabakat-i-Akbari, Haft-Iklim, Khulisat-ut-Tawarikh, and Firishtak,
say Dihli was taken in 588 प्र. 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 next

470 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

year likewise—5 89 H.—he [Kutb-ud-Din] took the fort of
Kol. In the year 590 H., the Sultan [again] marched from
Ghaznin and advanced towards Kinnauj and Banaras, and, in
the vicinity of Chandwar’, he overthrew Rae Jai-Chand >,
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 Hindistan and parts adjacent, namely, the
state of Nahrwalah, and Thankir’, the fort of Gwaliyir,

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 Fagih-f, and the Taj-ul-
Ma’agir, and some others, is to be depended upon ; but §87 H. is out of the
question altogether, although that year is given inthe Khulasat-ul-Akhbar, and
one or twoothers. If 587H. is correct, in what year was Rae Pithora defeated
the first time? See also note >, page 456. The year 589 स. is a somewhat
remarkable one:—Dihli was made the capital of Muhammadan India; Richard
Coeur de Lion fought in Palestine; Salah-ud-Din, Yisuf, 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 Chand-
war and Chandawar. The only place bearing a similar name at this time, and
in the direction indicated, is what is styled Chandpitir and Chandanpiir, in the
district of Farrukhabad, on the route from Bareili to Fath-ghay, Lat. 27° 27/,
Long. 79° 42.

2 That is, he turned his arms against Kinnauj and Banaras. The Rajah of
Kinnauj and Banaras, his former ally, according to the Hindi 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 Hindi writers say ‘‘several” encounters] took place between
them on the [प्रण [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 pro-
bably the same as was presented subsequently by Ghiyiis-ud-Din, Mahmiid,
the Sultin’s nephew, to Sultin 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
lengih, 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 segs 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, Asni, 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 his

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 471

and Buda’iin, the whole of which he took, the dates of
every one of which will, please God, be subsequently
recorded in the [account of the] Kutbi victories *.

When the august Sultan, Ghiyds-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 Tiis, and Sarakhs, of
Khurasan’, 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’agir,
Alfi, and others, say the Sultan marched against it, and then marched on
Gwaliytr, 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 Ghaznin. Alf says he took Thankir, the present
Bfanah, in 590 H. ; Buda’ini 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-Din, I-bak.

$ 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 Ghiir, is west of the Indus. Our author takes good care
to trumpet the successes of the Ghiiris, but conceals their reverses. He appears
to have forgotten that, when Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din left Tis, 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 Tiis, and parts
around, Muhammad-i-Khar-nak, the chief of the Amirs of Ghiir, and of the
Ghirian champions, a second Rustam in valour. He began carrying his
depredations as far as Abiward, made some of the Khwarazmi nobles captive,
and slew a great number of men. Subsequently, he pushed on as far as Trak
against Taj-ud-Din, Khalj, a Khwarazmi officer. The latter sent his son to
Muhammad-i-Khar-nak as a hostage for himself; and, on the return of the
latter towards Tiis again, the Amir of Maraghah sent his son to him also.
Mubammad-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
Rie. When the two armies came in contact, good fortune smiled upon the
Khwarazmi forces ; and, although Mubammad-i-Khar-nak’s troops were twice
as numerous, the Khwarazmis charged them, and overthrew them. Muham-
mad-i-Khar-nak, by a thousand contrivances, succeeded in throwing himself
into Tiis. The Khwiarazmi 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
Khwarazm 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. This

472 THE TABAKAT.1I-NASIRI.

mourning ceremonies for his brother, he came to Badghais
of Hirat. Having performed the mourning rites, he nomi-
nated different Maliks to the several fiefs of the kingdom
of (गाः He gave the city of Bust, and the districts of
Farah and Isfizar to his late brother’s son, Sultan Ghiyds-
ud-Din, Mahmiid, son of Ghiyds-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-
Sam, and to Malik Ziyd-ud-Din’, the Pearl of Ghir, 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
Ghir and Garmsir, namely, the throne of Firiiz-koh, and
the town and territory of Dawar'*, and also presented him
with two elephants. To Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Alb-[Ar-
salan]-i-Gh4zi, son of Kazil Arsalan, Saljiki, who was the
son of a sister® 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; and 24८६,
Prince of Murve, by Dow. In the revised text of Firishtah, his name is
turned into d,s [Khair Beg] !

It was after this defeat of Muhammad-i-Khar-nak that Sultin Muhammad,
Khwarazm Shah, was urged by his ministers and nooles to advance against
Hirat, as the sons [son and son-in-law] of the late Sultan Ghiyag-ud-Din,
Mubammad-i-Sim, were quarrelling about the inheritance, and their nobles
were inclined to join his service. Consequently, in Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 600 H.,
the Sultan marched towards Hirat for the second time, and Alb-i-Ghazi, the
sister’s son of the two Sultan brothers, surrendered that stronghold to him, as
already related in note », page 257. Muhammad-i-Khar-nak must be the same
person as is referred to at page 344, the son of Malik Saif-ud-Din, Siri, son
of Malik Shihab-ud-Din, Khar-nak [son of ’Izz-ud-Dfn, Al-Husain], the uncle
of the Sultans Ghiyag-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-Dfn and his brother.

My note 2, page 257, will show why and with what object the Sultan was
between Tiis 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 he assumed the title of Sultan-ul-A’gam—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’aggam—the great Sultan—as shown by his coins.

7 This is the Malik-ul-Haji, who, after he received the investiture of Ghir
and Firiz-koh, received the title of Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din. See pages 391, 397,
and 417.

$ 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-Arsalin-i-Ghazi, son of Kazil Arsalan, Saljiki ; and the
third was the mother of Taj-ud-Din, Zangf; but the father is not mentioned.
See page 342, and note %, page 425. :

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 473

he returned again to Ghaznin, and brought along with
him to that city some of the Amirs and Maliks of Ghir
to serve under him, and commenced his preparations for
an expedition against Khwarazm 1.

In the year 601 H., he marched his forces into the
Khwarazm territory ; and Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm
Shah, fell back discomfited* 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 note3, page 257.

3 Sultan Muhammad's ‘‘ falling back discomfitted '' appears from the sequel.
The Sultan’s object was to defend his capital. No action whatever took place
between them until the Ghiiris appeared in the neighbourhood of the city, and
took ए 2 position east of the Shatt mentioned under

Sultan Muhammad, Kbhwarazm Shah, having become aware of Mu’izz-ud-
Din’s designs of carrying war into his enemy’s country, and his vast pre-
parations, hastened back from Khurasan, by way of the desert, to Khwarazm ;
and his people prepared to give the Ghiris a warm reception. The Sultan
asked for aid from Khurasan, both in shape of horse and foot, and Gir Khan
of Kara-Khita was also asked for assistance. Sultin Muhammad’s camp
was fixed on the western bank of the Shatt-i-Nidwar or Nidawar [1५5]
—our author’s Kara-Sii, no doubt, but another work says the bank of the
Niir—and, in a short space of time, 70,000 men assembled. ‘‘ The Ghiirian
forces were’ vast in numbers, and contained so many elephants,” says Yafa-i,
‘‘that, had they desired, they might have drained the Jihiin.” 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-f, says 70,000 warriors, and elephants [besides followers ?).
Arrived on the banks of the Jibiin, Mu’izz-ud-Din, Ghiri, 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
Khwarazmi 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 'Ugman 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 Jihin,
but they were pursued by the Khwarazmis next day at dawn, and, at Hazar
Asp [afterwards destroyed by the Mughals. Guzidah and Jami’-ut-Tawarikh
call it Hazar-Sat], the Ghiris faced about and came to a stand, and drew up to
fight. Sultin Mubammad, with his forces, fell upon the right wing of the
Ghiiris, and overthrew it, and the rest gave way, pursued by the Khwirazmis
In this affair several of the Amirs of Ghir, and a great number of men were

Hh

4१4 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

retired to Khwarazm. When the Sultan-i-Ghazt appeared
before the gates of Khwarazm, and carried on hostilities
for some days, the people of Khwarazm commenced en-
gaging the Ghiris on the bank’ of the aqueduct which
had been drawn from the river Jihiin towards the east of
the city, and the name of which place and water is Kara-
Si‘ [the Black Water], and of the Amirs of Ghiir several
persons were slain and taken prisoners in that engage-
ment.

As the capture of [the city of] Khwarazm was not accom-
plished on account of the scarcity of the appliances of the
Ghaznin forces, the length of the campaign, and the lack
of forage, the Sultan withdrew his troops from the gates of
Khwarazm ° and retired along the banks of the Jihiin, and
towards Balkh. The forces of Khita, and the Maliks and
Amirs of Turkistan had arrived on the banks of the Jihin,
and had possessed themselves of the route of the army of
Islim. When the Sultan-i-Ghazi reached Andkhid °, on
a Tuesday, at the time of evening prayer’, 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. Aftera time the Khwarazmis gave up the pursuit, and Sultan
Mubammad returned to Khwarazm, where he gave a great banquet, and made
great rejoicing.

In this action the Ghiirfs lost still more of their war material and elephants,
and they continued their retreat towards Andkhiid [Guzidah says, within
the limits of Tal-kan] and, on reaching it, found that the troops of Gir Khan
of Kara-Khit%, under Baniko of Taraz, were there posted to bar their retreat,
and appeared on all sides of them, The Ghiiris 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-f, the Ghiiris lost 50,000 men. Jami’-ut-Tawarikh
says the Ghiiris were broken on the first charge of the Khita-is. See following
page for a specimen of our author's exaggeration.

ॐ Some copies have ‘‘on the Azther side or bank of the aqueduct " !

4 The Kara-Sii is some eight or nine miles from the city—or rather the
city here referred to.

५ Almost as absurd a reason as our Central Asian ovac/es pronounced would
render the success of the Russians against the same territory ‘‘ utterly impos-
sible,” a few months ago. Mu’izz-ud-Din was only five days before the place.
The preceding note ° shows why the Ghiris had to retire.

® Not Andkhod. See note on this in the account of Kaba-jah farther one

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 GHAZNIN. 475

Juzarwan*. He at once represented to the Sultan-i-Ghazi
the fact of the success of the Islami 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 achieved’.”

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-mil', perceiving 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 Khwdarazm, 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 fol-
lowers, to the number of five thousand horse, set out, at
night, towards Juzarwan’, 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: € and /
are interchangeable.

® In the next paragraph our author contradicts this absurd statement.

1 The same who after this was Wali of Hirat. His conduct here was in
keeping with his doings there. See note >, page 257.

2 One copy only has ‘‘the दन 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, ap-
pears 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 Ghaznin,
of which he is styled governor, after the Sultan’s defeat and accommodation with
the allied forces of Khita and Sultin’Usman. We know that Taj-ud-Din,

Hh 2

~

475 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
@

In the morning, notwithstanding that only a few horse-
men of the centre division and his own slaves remained

I-yal-diiz, 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-Din, only a few months after his return from Khwarazm, when
marching against the Khokhars, precludes the possibility of I-yal-diiz’s having
acted in the way asserted by Firishtah ; and it was only when Ghiyds-ud-
Din, Mahmiid, 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 5, It 15 also stated that another
of Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din’s chiefs ‘‘ went straight” from the field of battle at
Andkhiid to ** Mooltan,” and seized it. Where Andkhiid? Where Multan?
This story, absurd though it seems, appears to have emanated from the
Taj-ul-Ma’adgir, and something similar is related in Guzidah, the Jami’-ut-
Tawarikh, and in Alfi, noticed farther on ; but no mention whatever is made
in these works about closing the gates of Ghaznin by I-yal-diiz [Iladd-giz, in
Guzidah] or any other person ; and it appears to have received great ampli-
fication from Firishtah himself, for the Tabakat-i-Akbari, 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 [७५ ७.२1], I-bak-i-Na-pak [ ४५५ ७५], and the unintelligible names of
५५ &.' or «<+ but in a fourth JL WI without points. [It is evidently the
same name as occurs in Jami’-ut-Tawarikh—Lik-Tal [Jb oJ. Guzidah styles
him I-bak, Badshah of Multan ! !] ‘‘a Turki 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 asign ‘‘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 ’Ali. 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 T4j-ul-Ma’asir then passes,
at once, to the outbreak of the Kokars [Khokhars—natives of Khurdsan and
Europeans generally leave out the 4 in pronunciation of the Hindi ख],
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-bir, &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 //add-giz [this is the name Guzidah and Firishtah use for
this personage, and Yal-diiz, for Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-diiz], and, having disposed
of that matter, entered into a treaty of peace with Sultan Muhammad,
Khwarazm §hah, and, after that, made preparations for his expedition
against the Khokhars. Firightah, like some other more modern writers,

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 497

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 slaves*, only about one hundred horse-
men remained, who, with a few elephants, the Turkish slaves,

and the Ghirian 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 Mughals * [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 *, Jiiki, came up, seized the Sultan’s
bridle, and dragged him away towards the fortress of And-

styles them Ghakars—S$—but 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 [<5] and Khokhar [ 6]
one and the same race, but there is as much difference between them as
between an Afghan, and a Khay’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 [_,# 53] at the battle of Tara’in],
says nothing of the kind; and, had I-yal-diiz, 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 पलप. 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-diz,
nor about the Sultan’s coming to Multan against [-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-diiz, page 496, also tends to disprove this story.

> This description of troops has already been mentioned in note 3, page
168.

+ The Khita-is he means.

5 In two of the best copies, I-bah or Ai-bah, and in one good old copy
Abiah 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.1-NASIRI.

khid, and conducted him thither, and brought him within
the walls of that fortress ^,

6 Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, 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 Andkhiid [Guzidah says, Tal-
kin]; but the Khita-i troops invested it, perforated the walls, and Mu’izz-ud-
Din 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 vather highly coloured. The Tabakat-i-Akbari, contrary to
others, states that the Sultan defended Andkhiid 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
[Makommed] 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, re-
covering wt out of the hand of the
Siljoki, and he divided #¢ among the
family of Sam, giving the government
of Ferose Koani 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.

८‹ Mahommed, after these transac-
tions, returned to GAssnz, where, ac-
cording 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 [Afahomed Ghoory] now
returned towards Ghizeny, 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
Jrom the Suljooks?| to his nephew
Zeea-ood- Deen, son-in-law of his late
brother, Ghetas-ood-Deen. He also
gave Boost, Furrih, and Jsfurar [All
in Khwaruzm perhaps १] to the Prince
Mahomed, his brother’s son, and the
government of rat and its depend.
encies to asir-ood-Deen, his nephew
by a sister.

“*On his arrival at Ghizay, accord-
ing to the will of his deceased brother,
he was crowned in form [STUDENT'S
MANUAL OF INDIAN HIstory—“ he
was crowned Sultan without opposi-
tion’’]; and ascended the throne.
In the same year he heard of the
death of Alahkomed Zeeruk, Prince of

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN.

479

The following day, Sultan "Usman of Samrkand, who

vancing by way of Charizm [! ! !],
and Zacask, 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 westward 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 Samarcand, were advancing with
great armies, to the relief of Chartzm.
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 Chorassan [! |].
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 ele-
phants and treasure.

५‹ [7 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 /o complete the
conquest of Khwaruzm [!! 1] [This is
what is styled ‘‘ his western campaign
against the King of Kharizm” in
THE STUDENT’S MANUAL, but I
think Khwarazm lies north of Ghaz-
nin]. Mahomed Ghoory, having en-
camped 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 AT-
TEMPT TO ESCALADE IT [| ! 1]. Mean-
while news arrived that Kurra Beg,
the general of Ghoorkkan, King of
Khutta, and Othman Khan Samar-
kandy, were advancing with armies
to the relief of A’“kwarusm Shah. Ma-
homed Ghoory, unwilling to abandon
his hopes of taking the city, delayed
his retreat till the allied armies ad-
vanced so near, that he was compelled
to bum 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 ग] 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 [Shahab u din] gained a great victory over the king of that
country [Kharizm], besieged him in his capital, and soon reduced him to suck
straits as to constrain him to sue[\] 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 7akash,” as he styles Sulfan
*Ald-ud-Din, Muhammad, the soz of Sultan Takish.

The following is FIRISHTAH’S account:— ‘‘Sulfin Shihab-ud-Din was
between Tis and Sarakhs when the account of the decease of his brother,
Ghiyas-ud-Din, reached him, and in whose name the kingdom was [i. €. in whom
the sovereignty rested. This is the passage misinterpreted by Dow—‘‘ who
retained nothing of the empire but the name,” The original is 491 5|_» (०५०४५ ol). _
From thence he set out for Badghais, performed the mourning ceremonies
there, and, in this year, he divided the whole of the states of Khurdsan
[Firishtah here shows that he is himself no authority as to the geography of

480 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

was a second Yisuf [in beauty], and the Afrasiyabi Maliks
of Turkistan, who were Musalmans’, interposed and

these parts, any more than he is an authority as to the history] among the
family of Sam [i. €. the descendants of Sam, his father, on/y Ziyi-ud-Din
now to be mentioned was not of the family of Sim except as a son-in-law—
the revised text of Briccs has—Al-i-Sdman— LL J'] in this manner. He
gave the throne of Firiiz-koh and Ghiir 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 Mahmiid, son of Sultan Ghiyds-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 Mubammad-i-Khar-nak [in the revised text
Khair Beg—e,; +=], 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
Jihiin to the eas¢ of the city [the word €~ + here used with reference to this
water-cut has been mistaken by Dow for” the Turkish tribe, Khalj, which he
styles Chilligics]. For some days fighting went on, and several of the
Ghiriain Amirs were killed. At this juncture news arrived that Kara Beg,
the general of Giir Khan, Badshah of Khifa [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-i forces on this occasion. Hitherto, Firishtah
has copied our author, whom he quotes as one of his authorities, tolerably
correct], and Sultan ’Ugman, 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 Khurasain [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, Khita-i, and Sultan
*>Usman seized the route in advance,” &c. The rest agrees with our author ;
and there is mot a word, in the whole account, about esca/ade 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 to
celebrate the flight of Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, bestowed the nick-name
‘¢Ghiri 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 [ 25% 9 (५) pray @ 1],
gives the year 600 H. as the date, and does not mention [in the three A/SS.
I have read] anything whatever about the Sultan having been wounded. The
word (न; 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 १० Mu’izz-ud-Din, ‘‘ infidels ”

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 481

brought about an accommodation, and the infidel forces
drew back again, and the Sultan returned to Ghaznin,
and commanded that forces should be organized for a three
years’ campaign in Turkistan, and determined to march
into Khita °.

At that period, an assemblage of contumacious persons,
[consisting] of Khokhars, and other rebels of the tribes of
the hills of Lohor ° and Jiid hills had broken out into revolt’,

several times before this; but the fact is all are infidels who are opposed to
Ghiris. Mu’izz-ud-Din was saved from captivity or death through the good
offices of Sultan ’Ugman, a Musalmin 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 Chamber-
lains 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 Sultin Muhammad
whenever requested. Perhaps the latter may, in doing this, havé 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
Khwéarazmi 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-Din,
Mubammad, of Tukhiaristan], who was Wali of Balkh at that time, was the
chief mover in this outbreak. He made a raid upon Marw-ar-Rid, 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
[4+—probably Khazr—,s] from Marw, and Taj-ud-Din, ’Ali, 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 Hindiistan 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 ५" 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 Tarikh-i-
Alfi, which compare with Elliot’s extract from the original in his INDEx,
page rs, and his translation, pages 158—160 :—

Transactions of the year 592 of the Riblat.
^° [णा trustworthy histories it is stated, that, at the time that Shihab-ud-Din

482 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

and, in the cold season of that year, the Sultan came into
Hindistan, and sent that refractory race to hell, and

[see remarks as to his correct title and name, as shown by his coins, १०६९ ४,
page 446] was defeated by the Turks and Khitd-is, as already noticed, it
became noised abroad throughout his territories that the Sultan, Shihab-ud-
Din, 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, Rade Sal by name, who was
[dwelling] in the hilly country, between the city of Luhawar [ , १1४] 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-Din, 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] and ** Ran-dal” [५७7] 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 [Jse],
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,
Bakan and Sarkahk [Firishtah has but one, whom he calls ‘the chief of the
Khokhars, who bore the name of Sarkak’], 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-Din
and his brother, and others, and that the Sipah-Salar, Suliman, had to fly
before them.] Alfi continues:—‘‘ When Shihab-ud-Din reached Ghaznah
in safety, in the manner previously described, and this matter came to his
knowledge, he determined to proceed into Hindistan, and thoroughly chastise
the rebels of that part. Therefore he first directed Amir Muhammad,
son of Abi ’Ali [this must be his kinsman, the son-in-law of Ghiyds-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, ‘‘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 Ali, 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-Jidi [the Jiid 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. dye 5 5], had so closed the /ower route to Ghaznah [neither the

THE SHANSABANIAH 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 suposed sole routes into Afghanistan,
are referred to], that not a person could proceed by it

‘On hearing this, Shihab-ud-Din wrote [he sen¢ the Amir-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 etfect]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 ; wheres
fore, 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 forth-
coming.’ 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 not.”
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 Hindiistan and march against the Kokars, and to anni-
hilate 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, suc-
cessive 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 Hindistan.
When Shihab-ud-Din reached Purghawar, he found that the Kokars, in large
numbers, had taken up a position between the Jilam [Jhilam]} and the Stidarah
[5०१०३]. 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 [Jimi’-ut-Tawarikh says he attacked them on the 25th]; 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 Hin-
distin, 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 jamga/ and the Musalmins set fire to

484 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

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. [Jami’-ut-Tawarikh states that the Hindiis [the Khokhars]
fled to the highest ranges of the Koh-i-Jiid, 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 Hindti [Khokhar] captives could be
bought for a dindr. The son of Re-bal, chief of the Koh-i-Jiid, sought the
protection of Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and made great supplication to him.
Kutb-ud-Din 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 Jiid 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 for-
given.] At that time those infidels agreed together not to surrender to the
Musalmans, and they threw themselves into the yanga/, and were consumed.

‘*The Sultan, having disposed of that affair to his satisfaction, advanced to
Luhawar [Jami’-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 theirinvasion 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 Hindii historical works as were available ;
and yet there is no mention of the story of the Yal-diiz or Iladd-giz rebellion, nor
of Lek-Tal, nor of I-bak-i-Na-pak, nor I-bak-i-Bak. 1६ 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 Hindistan respectively—
I-yal-diiz and I-bak—for their story; but it is certain that the Taj-ul-Ma’agir
is accountable for the latter part of it, in which I-bak-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-Din’s], their chieftain [of the Guk&urs] 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 Sulfan 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 Musal-
man, returned home with a farmadn 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 Sulfan’s life, and
it, in a measure, contradicts his own statements respecting them.

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 485

tyrdom? at the hand of a disciple of the Mulahidah, and
died®. 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 Yifa-i says that one successful expedition gained in Hindiistan 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 Jilt [ ++]
ferry—the ferry over the Jhilam probably—Jami’-ut-Tawarikh has Hanli—_ ४५
—[Ben. As. Soc. MS. (it and Jahan Kusha-i <] ford, and says he crossed over
on the Ist of Sha’ban—his royal tent was pitched on the banks of the Jihin
fof Hind ?], 1. €. 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-is [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 ven-
geance on Sultin ’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 ®, page 381], it is by no means improbable that they
caused him to be assassinated. The Jami’-ut-Tawarikh 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 ma-
lignant Mubammadan ’UlamA, on account of the great friendship that existed
between the Sultan of Khwarazm and the eminent Imam Fakhr-ud-Din, Razf
[see page 429, and page 492], accused hin of having conspired against the
life of Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, and asserted that Sultin 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 Fakhr-ud-Din used to accompany Sultan Mu'izz-ud-
Din in his expeditions, and he states that Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din 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’asir says, that the Sultan’s tents were pitched ina
delightfully verdant mead on the bank of a clear stream [water]. At this time
some heretics [Mulahidahs—sJe%.], who had been following him for some
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 Salab-dar [armour-bearer] and
two Farrashes [carpet-spreaders] in attendance, and then went round towards
the Sultan’s Kbargah [pavilion or tent}, and occupied it [to ‘‘sxzvound”’ it
would have required a large number. The words used are <5 S 5 s—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 six

486 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

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-Din,
From the beginning of the world the like of whom no monarch arose,
On the third + of the month Sha’ban in the year six hundred and two,
Happened on the road to Ghaznin at the halting-place of Dam-yak 5.”

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 ope-
rations:—‘‘ 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 Hindis give a different account, which is also related by Abi-l-Fazl
and in the Jamiin History with a slight difference :—‘* Although the Persian
Chroniclers state that Rie 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, 1915 stated that,
after Rae Pithora was made captive and taken to Ghaznin, one Chanda, some
write Chinda, the confidential follower and eulogist of Rae Pithora, styled by
some authors his Court poet, proceeded to Ghaznin to endeavour to gain informa-
tion respecting his unfortunate master. By his good contrivances he managed to
get entertained in Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din’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 awaken-
ing 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 dis-
charging 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 Jamin History states that Rae Pithora had been blinded [sce 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 Sultin’s voice, and the indi-
cations of Chanda, he discharged the arrow in the right direction, and trans-
fixed him. The rest agrees.

4 Jahin-Ara and some others say the 1st of Sha’bain, 602 H.

$ As the second line of this quatrain ends in ya, 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-a4b, and others that it was a village beyond the
Indus, on the route to Ghaznin; but the first seems most probable. To prove

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 487

May the Most High King encompass that Sultan-i-Ghazt
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 sovereign ’®.
According to the traditions which they have related con-
cerning 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, indica-
tions of the last judgment appeared, and they were the ir-
ruption 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 opened’.

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 Ismail, the Treasurer,
stated at the Court of Firiiz-koh, at the time of bringing
an honorary robe to the Malikah-i-Jalali, the daughter of
the august Sultan Ghiyads-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—
@...—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—
e:,—and Briggs translates it ९०१८५, 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-Din,
and say that ^^ [€ 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 faith-
ful 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 i/egitimate in the ‘‘STUDENT'’S MANUAL OF INDIAN
History ”’], they need not have been ever recorded.

7 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 Khuradsan, not long after.

488 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

(Mu’izz-ud-Din's niece and Ziya-ud-Din’s betrothed wife],
that of jewels contained in the Ghaznin treasury, of dia-
monds alone, which are the most precious of gems, there
were actually fifteen hundred mans’. The amount of other
jewels and money may be judged of accordingly.

Titles and names of the Sultan.

SULTAN-UL-MU’AZZAM®,
MU’IZZ-UD-DUNYA WA UD-DIN,

ABU -L-MUZAFFAR, MUHAMMAD, SON OF
SAM.

NASIR-I-AMIR-UL-MUMININ ४.

3 It depends upon what man is meant. Our author must refer to the man
of Tabriz, which is much smaller than that of Hindiistan, the former being
somewhat less than 2 lbs., whilst the latter varies from 40 to 80 lbs. The
Tabriz man is thus described :—6 4abbah [4adbak signifies, a seed, a grain,
&c., and is equal to a barley-corn] = I dang, 6 dangs = 1 mishal 15 miskdls
== 1 astar, 40 astars = 1 man.

I fear the Khwajah was as great an exaggerator as our author himself.
Other authors however mention the quantity as 500 mans. 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’gam.

1 How he obtained the title of Nasir-i-Amir-ul-Miminin, and when, the
chronicler does not say. It may have been conferred upon him by the
Khalifah 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. ए. Thomas reads as the name of the Khalifah.
Un-Nasir-ud-Din Ullah was certainly Khalifah at this period. See CHRo-
NICLES of PATHAN KINGs of DEHLf, page 12.

The Sultan is styled ‘‘ Us-Sultan Nasir-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din, Abi-l-
Mugaffar,” &c., on a coin said to have been struck at Dihli, 589 H., in the
year 4 [of his rule in Hind धु

TIE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 489

Length of his reign: Thirty-two years and eight months’.

Seat of government in the summer season :—Ghaznin
and Khurasan.

Seat of government in the winter season :—Lohor and
Hind.

Kazis of his Court.

Kazi of the kingdom, the Sadr-i-Shahid, Kutb-ud-Din,
Abi Bikr, subsequently, the Sadr-i-Sa’id, Sharaf-ud-Din,
Abi Bikr, son of the Sadr-i-Shahid, Nizam [ud-Din ?] at
Ghaznin.

Kazi of the army’® and other territory—Shams-ud-Din,
Balkhi, and his son.

Wazirs.

Ziya-ul-Mulk, Durmashani‘; 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 Ghir.

The Sultan's august motto.

“Victory through God’.”
The Sultén’s 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 Ghiyds-ud-Din, ’Iwaz, the Khalj, over the territory

of Lakhanawati’.

ॐ Three years and three months exactly as an independent sovereign, from
the 27th of Jamadi-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 Kazis. See page
456, nor is mention made of the Sadr-i-Kabir, Kiwam-ul-Mulk, Rukn-ud-Din,
Hamzah, who was sent to offer terms to Rae Pithora.

$ In one copy Durmashi, in a second Durmansghi, and in a third Durshi or
Dursi. See page 392, note ५.

$ One good copy of the text has, simply Jus Justice, or Rectitude.

6 Not Dihli! See the reign of Kutb-ud-Din, next Section.

7 Fourth Khalj ruler of Lakhanawati. It is strange that neither Muham-
mad, son of Bakht-yar, nor his two immediate successors in the government of
Lakhanawati, are mentioned here. It was Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar, the
Khalj, who reduced Bihar and Lakhanawati during Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din’s own
lifetime, and thcir reduction is mentioned among the victories and successes of

1 1

490 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

The Sultan’s Kinsmen and his Maltks.

Malik Ziya-ud-Din, Muhammad*, Durr-i-Ghur [The Pearl
of Ghiir], in Ghir.

Sultan Baha-ud-Din, Sam, in Bamian

Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmid, in Firiiz-koh

Malik Badr-ud-Din, of Kidan’.

Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Timrani.

Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Alb-i-Ghazi, son of Kazil Arsalan
Saljaiki

Malik Taj-ud-Din-i-Harab, of Sijistan.

Malik Taj-ud-Din, Zangi', of 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, Mas’id.

Malik Shihab*-ud-Din, Madini*.

Malik Shams-ud-Din, Kidani.

Malik Taj-ud-Din, [of] Mukran.

Malik Shah, of Wakhsh.

Malik ’Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz-i-Husain.

Malik Husaém-ud-Din, ’Ali-i-Kar-makh.

Malik Zahir-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Kar-makh.

Malik Zahir-ud-Din, Fath-i-Kar-makh.

Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil.
Malik Husim-ud-Din, son of Khar-mil.

Malik Nasgir‘-ud-Din, Husain, Amir-i-Shikar [Chief
Huntsman].
the Sultin at page 491. Husdm-ud-Din, ’Iwaz, does not appear to have ever
been in the immediate service of Mu’izz-ud-Din, and did not acquire sove-
reignty until nearly ten years after Mu’izz-ud-Din’s death, whilst Muhammad,
son of Bakht-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-timish 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 Sultin’s decease.

9 Here again the author puzzles his readers. After Ziya-ud-Din became
ruler of Ghiir, as our author himself says at page 393, his name was changed
to ’Alaé-ud-Din

9 Maternal grandfather of the two Sultans

1 This is the person referred to in note >, page 425, and note °, page 481.

> See pages 344 and 497

3 He is the father of Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Madini, and was surnamed
Khar-nak.

+ In some copies Nasr.

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 491

Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Khar‘-war.

Malik Asad-ud-Din, Sher Malik, Wajiri® [of Wajiristan ?].
Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Sur, of Kidan’.

Amir Suliman-i-Shis, Amir-i-Dad [Chief Justice ?].
Amir-i-Hajib, Muhammad ’Ali, Ghazi.

Amir-i-Hajib, Khan Malik [?].

Amir-i-Hajib, Husain-i-Muhammad Hasan[?]*.

Malik Mu-ayyid-ud-Din, Mas’id.

Amir-i-Hajib, Husain-i-Surkh’.

Victories, Successes, and Holy-wars.

Gardaiz, Sankiran [now Shalizan], holy-war against the
Karamitah of Multan and Uchchah, holy-war of Nahr-
walah, Burshor for Purshor], Sial-kot, Lohor, Tabar-
hindah', Pithora [at] Tara’in, Ajmir, Hansi, Sursuti,
Kuhram, Mirath, Kol, Dihli, Thankir, holy-war of Buda’in,
Gwaliyir, Bhirah’, Jai Chand of Banaras, Banaras,
Kinnauj, Kalinjar, territory of Awadh, Malwah, A-dwand®*
Bihar, Lakhanawati, Marw*-ar-Rid, Nishapir, Tis, Marw,
Baward, Nisa, Sharistanah, Sabzwar, Janabad, Khwarazm,
Andkhid, holy-war of Khita, and Koh-i-Jiid [and] the
1010815५.

५ This name is doubtful. It द be Haz-wiar, but the above is most
probable, and may be a nick-name. In modern copies of the text it is written
4.^~- + --,) +~ -५41४+ and Jy

५ In two copies, Ahmadi, and in one copy Ahmari.

7 Very doubtful. The best and oldest copy has glJe +र which is un-
intelligible.

® In some Habashi, and in others Husainf.

® In one Surkhi or Sarkhi, and in another Sarjf or Surjf, but these are
doubtful. Only five copies of the text contain these names at all, and three
of these are very defective. The Amfr-i-Hajib, Saraj-ud-Din, Abf Bikr, and
Baha-ud-Din, Muhammad, are likewise mentioned in Alf.

1 One copy has Bathindah.

2 Very doubtful. It is written s1¢—s,=-—and even ,!s,. in the hest Paris copy.

3 Probably Wg quiet, tranquil, &c. See reign of Kutb-ud-Din, next Section.

« Mashrik-ar-Riid in one copy.

* It will be remarked that there is no reference made here to the expedition
against Diwal or Dibal, 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 Lakhanawatf were acquired by Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Mu-
bhammad, the Khal).

I12

492 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

III. SULTAN 'ALA-UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD, SON OF BAHA-UD-
DIN, MUHAMMAD, SAM, OF BAMIAN.

When the Sultan-i-Ghiazi, 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 Ghaznin‘, as has been previously
recorded, the competitors for the dominion of Ghir,
Ghaznin, Bamian, and Hind, of the race of the Shan-
sabanis, consisted of two lines—one, the [descendants
of the] Sultans of Ghiir, 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 Ghir,
by force, of the bier of the late Sultan, together with
precious treasures, and took possession of them’. When

6 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 Sultain’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 khar-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 Ghirian Amirs. The Wazir wished to proceed by way
of Karman, in order that, through the assistance of Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-diz,
who held the government of that district, the late Sultan’s treasures might be
conveyed to Ghiyds-nd-Din, Mahmid, his nephew, who held the government
of Bust and Zamin-i-Dawar, to whose succession he was inclined, while the
Amirs of Ghiir desired to proceed by the route of Gum-rahan [,,'».5] which
was nearer to Bamian, in order that the sisters 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 power-
ful, and he separated from the Ghirian Amirs, and, taking along with him
the bier of the late Sultan and his treasures, proceeded by way of Shaliizan
[In those days called Sankuran, and, subsequently, Shaniizin. See note 7
p- 498] towards Ghaznin. When they reached Kayman, Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-diiz,
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 was

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 493

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, ’Ali, sons of Baha-ud-Din, Sam, of Bamian,
in conformity with the solicitations of the Ghiri Amirs,
such as the Sipah-salar the [Commander of Troops], Suli-
m4an-i-Shig*, 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, Sim, set out from Bamian for
Ghaznin, 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, ’Alf,
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 Ghiir, and
tak@possession of Ghaznin, after which, ’Alda-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, Mahmiid, |
if he would agree to content himself with Ghir and Khuradsdn, and leave
Ghaznah and Hind to ’Ala-ud-Din, Muhammad, the eldest son.

They came to Ghaznin accordingly, and, although the Ghirian nobles were
inclined to offer opposition to this, the Wazir persuaded them that as Ghiyas-
ud-Din, Mahmiid, was then wholly occupied in Khurdsan, 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 Mahmid should
have gained possession of Hirat and subdued Khurdsan, 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-diiz, became aware of this in Kayman, in compli-
ance with the request of Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmiid, conveyed to him from
Zamin-i-Dawar, he marched from Kayman 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 एदा). Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-diiz, 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 Kaymian and
80917231, and devastated the whole of those districts. See page 398.

$ Styled Amir-i-Dad in the list of Maliks.

494 THE TABAKAT.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-iid-Din, Sam, ascended the throne, and
brought the Amirs present there, both Ghiri 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 Karin
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 Malik® ’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 Bamian', and bodies of the troops of [the]
Beghi’ from Wakhsh and Badakhshan, and brought them,

® 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. Ghiyads-ud-
Din, Mahmid, the direct heir to the empire of his father and uncle, was still
ruling over Ghir, and he appears to have favoured Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-diiz, and

not to have been particularly friendly towards his kinsmen of Bamian
2 One copy of the text, and also the printed text, have 19 instead of

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 495

and again appeared before Ghaznin, and possessed himself
of the Ghaznin territory, and re-placed 'Ald-ud-Din, Mu-
hammad, 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 Ghiri 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 Ribat?® of
Sankuran, and seized the whole of them drunk and out of
their senses, and the Ghiri 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
Ghaznin‘, and that fort was taken,“ When the two brothers
fell into his hands, after a short time, Malik T aj-ud-Din,
Yal-duz, entered into a stipulation’ with them, and caused
them to return to Bamian. After a little while, difference
of interests arose between the two brothers®. Jalal-ud-Din,
"Ali, was a lion-hearted monarch, an ascetic, and a firm
ruler; and ’Ald-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
9५२ in eleven other copies. The latter is evidently the name of one of the
Ghuzz tribes.

8 A Karwan-Sarie, also a station on an enemy’s frontier.

4 This was done to induce 'Ala4-ud-Din, Muhammad, to give up Ghaznin.

§ This evidently refers to the occasion when I-yal-diiz gave one of his
daughters in marriage to Jalal-ud-Din, ’Ali. See para. second, note’, page

433-
® Our author says nothing of these disagreements in his account of Jalal-ud-
Din, ’Ali, at page 432.

496 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

him ; and, after Sultin Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, took
possession of the territory of Bamian, ’Ala-ud-Din,
Muhammad, died’.

He had the daughter of ’Ala-ud-Din, Utsuz, son of ’Ala-
ud-Din, Husain [Jahan-soz], to wife®, and by that Princess
he 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 (गपा, on an embassy,
it was intimated to him that that Princess and her son were
then in the district of Khish-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’IZZI 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-Abi-Talib—may
God reward him!—but he was wanting in children', and
one daughter was all he had by [his wife] the daughter of

7 See page 266—267.

$ See page 414.

9 Socalled 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 Shihabi
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. Inthe 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, in-
cluding Yafa-i and Fasib-f, the word is written more correctly I-yal-diiz, the firs
word of which is the same as occurs in I-yal-Arsalin, I-yal-timish, &c. In one
lexicographical work 4५ without any vowels being mentioned, is said to be
Turki [of which there is no doubt], and to be the xame of a man and a star,

not a star only. I-yal [८1], among other meanings, signifies a mounta
bull ; 1-1 [J:'], which is not the word here meant, means friendly, obedient,

tame, familiar; and Yal [41२], brave, valiant, intrepid. प्ट [9] means flat
level, smooth, even; and [30] dijz and diz [;2] 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-diiz,
Yal-duz, or Yal-diiz 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 bor 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, Siri
son of his paternal uncle, Shihab-ud-Din, Mu! ammad, Khar-nak, whose othe
son was named Nasir-ud-Din, Muhammad [Husain].

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 497

his uncle, Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Muhammad, Madini; and
he had a great fancy for purchasing Turkish slaves, and
he bought a great number of slaves of that race. Every
one 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 during 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 slaves’, who will
be the heirs of my dominions, and who, after me, will take
care to preserve my name in the Khutbah throughout those

territories’.” And so it happened as declared in the

3 And yet the very first TURK slave who acquired the sovereignty after the
Sultin’s death is turned into a Pathan, i.e. an Afghan, and even the Sultan
himself, and without any authority for such a statement.

ॐ This may explain [for our author's statements, in different places, make
the above one very doubtful] why Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-diiz, 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-diiz ever styled
himself ‘‘Sultan-i-Mu’aggam”—he is styled, at the head of this Chapter,
Mw’ izzi—and it is probable the titles on the different coins, especially those
bearing ‘‘ Sultaén-ul-Mashrik,” from our author’s statement here, apply to the
fate Sultan, or, more probably, to his successor, Mahmid, who is styled b
authors Sultan-i-Maghrikain wa Shahanshah-i-Maghrabain :—

oe wv ol v ऋ, +, , uy? she pslncgts 3 yore ७५५.

Kutb-ud-Din probably did the same, although we have no proof; but, what-
ever may have been: done in our author’s time, Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish,
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 Khutbah

498 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

hallowed words of that victorious Sultan—on whom be the
Almighty’s mercy !—which, throughout the whole dominion
of Hindiistan‘, up to the period when this book was written,
namely, the year 657° 11, 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, bene-
ficent, 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 512४65५ When he grew up
he attained authority and power, and the Sultan conferred
upon him the government of the district of Sankuran and
Karman’ in feudal fief; and every year that the Sultan

was read for Sultin MAHMOUD, and that the coin was stamped with Azs name
throughout the whole of the territories of Ghir, Ghaznin, and Hindistan.

4 That portion of Hindistan which our author’s patron ruled over probably.

§ In three copies 568 H.

५ Jahan-Ara, Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh, and others, state that the Sultan
used to treat these Turkish Mamliks 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-diiz, 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 Wali of Kayman ; 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-diiz, held, included the tract of
country, containing several davahs—long valleys with hills on two sides, and
rivers running through them—extending from the southern slopes of Spin-
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 Kurmak
{[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 davak of KURMAH, and, lower
down, towards the Sind, are Banii and Marwat.

The KURMAH darak is about 40 éurohk in length [each durcA, in this part,

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 499

would make a halt in Karman, on his expeditions into
Hindiistan*®, Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, used to feast the whole

being 2000 paces], and having little level ground. On either side of this
great 2226 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-diiz’s fief, and giving name to the province, are those springing, so to
speak, from Spin-ghar.

One of these is the davah of SHALOZAN [9150 written in the account of
Amir Timi, Ssanisdx], 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 Ghiyds-ud-
Din, and his brother, Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din. It is seven Aurohk in length
from north to south, and through it flows a stream which issues from Spin-
ghar, and joins the river from the Paiway valley. Its inhabitants are Torts,
who are reckoned among the Afghans, but they CLAIM other descent, and
some Awan-k§rs, 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 davak somewhat smaller, with a stream running through
it which also joins the Shaliizdn and other streams which fall into the Kurmah.
I find no mention, in any author, of any ancient town of Kayman, 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 Shaliizin is the ZERAN durah, running in a south-westerly
direction from Spfn-ghar, and eight Auroh in length. A stream issuing
from Spin-ghar flows through it, which, having joined the Shaliizan river,
enters the Kurmah west of the town or large village of Oji 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 Ir!-AB [vulg. Harriab],
twenty 4uvoh in length, running south-west from Spin-ghar, very mountainous,
but very fruitful. Out of this davahk 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 15 PAIWAR [not Prwar], 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], Paiway, Balit, Ziimisht, Saida,
Uji Khel, Buland Khel, Balimin [vulg. Balameen], Iri-ab, Baghzan, and the
cluster of villages called by the name of the darah, Shalizan, 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 davah, so is
not to be confounded with any place of that name. This name, Kayman, 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 daraks south of the Kurmah darah include those of Khost, Dawar,
Maidan, and Bakr Khel, each with its stream which falls intothe Kurmah; but
the whole of those mentioned, in the summer, decrease very much in volume.

® It was through this province of Kayman—the government of which was a
most important post—that the /ower route from Ghaznin to Lahor lay, which
is referred to in note?, page 481. The route by Kayman 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-Gh4zi, a daughter of T
ud-Din, Yal-duz, was given in marriage to Sultan Kutb-ud-
Din, I-bak ; and another daughter® was married to Malik
N§asir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah’, Sultan’ 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 chastise-
ment 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 Ghaznin*. When the

® One daughter was given in marriage to Jalal-ud-Din, ’Ali, of Bamfan,
hence there must have been three, or more daughters. See note 7, page 433.

1 Our author styles him Malik and Sultan indiscriminately.

ॐ Firishtah has |,,5 [\%,], a whip; but all the copies of our author's
text have +55 The Tabakat-i-Akbarf 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.

ॐ Here again is a specimen of the manner in which Firishtah has been
translated, and whose ¢rans/ated 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 so

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 5091

Sultain-i-Ghazi attained martyrdom, it was the desire and
disposition of the Turk Maliks and Amirs that Sultan
Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmiid, son of [Ghiyas-ud-Din] Muham-
mad, son of Sim, should come from the confines of Garmsir
to Ghaznin, 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 Firiiz-koh, and represented,
saying : “ The Sultans‘ of Bamian are acting oppressively,
and are ambitious of obtaining possession of Ghaznin.
Thou art the heir to the dominion, and we are thy slaves*.”

much that he bestowed upon him ¢he d/ack standard of the kingdom of
Ghizni, by this intimating his will, that he should succeed to the throne,”
&c. Briccs has ‘‘Mahomed Ghoory, in his last expedition to India, con-
ferred 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-Dfin 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 Kayman, dignified him by presenting him
with one of his own dresses, and specially conferred upon him a black banner
[fer 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, Sim’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
Ghiri Amirs, was that Baha-ud-Din, Sim, 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-diiz, 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-diiz, up ८० 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 Andkhiid ; and,
further, that it was not until he and the other Mamliiks of the late Sultan had
called upon his nephew, Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmid, to assume the sovereignty
over Ghaznin and Hind that he, I-yal-diz, left Kayman, on being nominated
to the sovereignty of the kingdom of Ghaznin, and receiving his freedom from
Mahbmid himself.

Alfi says, however, that, ‘‘when Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-diiz, gained a firm hold
of the authority at Ghaznin, Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmiid, sent him a message
from Firiz-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 Mabmid
should send him a deed of manumission, he would do so; otherwise he would
give his allegiance to whomsoever he chose. As Mahmid was not safe from
being assailed by Khwarazm Shih, and fearing lest Taj-ud-Din should go over
to him [as ’Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-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
Hindistan respectively. Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, at this time was at Purshor,

502 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmid, replied, saying: “To me
the throne of my father, which is the capital, Firtiz-koh,
and the kingdom of Ghirr, 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 pre-
sented 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 Bamian‘, 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-diiz sent an agent to Mahmiid and tendered his
allegiance, and confirm what our author states ; but they probably copied their
account from his.

५ Called ‘‘Sultans” in the preceding paragraph, and in his previous account
of them. Alfi says I-yal-diiz, subsequent to sending Jalal-ud-Din, ’Ali, back
to Bamian, as stated in note 7, page 433, assembled his forces, and carried his
inroads as far as Bust ; and that, when Abi-Dakur [Zakur ?] reached Kabul,
after his desertion of Jalal-ud-Din, ’Ali, an emissary reached him on the part
of Kutb-ud-Din, f-bak, which emissary he had first despatched to Taj-ud-Din,
I-yal-diiz, reproaching him for his conduct towards his benefactor, Sultan
Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mabmiid, and exhorting him to discontinue it. This emissary
was directed to ask Abi-Dakur to co-operate with him [I-bak]; and, in case
I-yal-diiz did not hold his hand and repent of his acts, that Abi-Dakur should
assemble his troops and assail Ghaznin, and wrest it from I-yal-diiz, who
appears to have been then absent in Bust; and, in case he [Abi-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-diiz 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-diiz
returned from Bust by forced marches, and reached Ghaznin, on which Abt-
Dakur precipitately withdrew, and joined Sultan Ghiyds-ud-Din, Mabmid,
who gave him his manumission, and conferred upon him the title of Malik-ul-
Umra [Chief of Nobles].

At this time Sultan Muhammad, Khwiarazm §hih, advanced from Hirat [on
his way to Hirat?], and took the town and fortress of Tal-kan from the
Ghiiris, and then marched to K4l-yiish [K4l-yiin १] and Fiwar, and encountered
several times Amir Husam-ud-Din, the governor of those parts, for Mahmid ;
but he did not succeed in his design, as they were very strong places, and
Sultin Muhammad retired to Hirat again. Arrived there, he acquainted the
ruler of Sijistin of it, and Malik Taj-ud-Din-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 SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 503

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-ab’;
and Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, was defeated, and Sultan Kutb-
ud-Din advanced to Ghaznin*, 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 Hin-
distan by the route of Sang-i-Surakh, and once more Taj-
ud-Din, Yal-duz, brought Ghaznin under his rule’.

He sent armies upon several occasions towards Ghir,
Khurasan, and Sijistan, and nominated Maliks [to com-
mand them]. On one occasion he despatched a force to
aid Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmid, 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, Khwiarazm Shah, and
had gone over to him, and who fled before the forces of
Ghiir and Ghaznin’.

On another occasion Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, led an
army towards Sijistan, and remained away on that ex-
pedition 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.

$ «<T-yal-diiz having sent the Wazir of Ghaznin against Kaba-jah and ousted
him 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-diiz having
encountered him, was defeated, and retreated to Karman and §haliizan, 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 Shiah’s son, and then
gave himself up to wine and debauchery. The people of Ghaznin sent to I-yal-
diiz 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-Sirakh, and reached Lohor.” On this occasion *Izz-ud-Din, 411.
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-diiz, 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 Shih, his
adopted son, Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-diiz, sent a canopy of state and other insignia
of royalty to Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timigh. See his reign, Section XXI.

! See note >, page 257; and note, page 400.

504 THE ^.24 . AT-I-NASIRI.

the gates of the city of Sistan®. At length peace was con-
cluded 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 Nasir’-
ud-Din, Husain, the Amir-i-Shikar [Chief Huntsman]
- showed disaffection towards him, and engagements took
place between them. Malik Nasir-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 Hindiistan‘, the Turkish Maliks and Amirs of

ॐ 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 ruler uf Sijistiin proposing to acknowledge the suze-
rainty 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: ^ /doze, in con-
junction with the Laperor 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, ¢hey returned.” Then BRIGGS says: ‘‘ At length, in
conjunction with the King, Mahmood of Ghoor, he ( Ye/dooz) sent an army to
flerat, which he re‘uced, as also great part of Seestan,” &c. Firightah, how-
ever, says: ^“ Once, to support Sultan Mahmiid, 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-
Din, son of Husain-i-Khar-mil, see last para. to note?, page 258 For
further details respectmg the reign of I-yal-dtiz 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],
Sultin Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, acquired possession of Ghaznin. After
that monarch had possessed himself of the territory of Bamian and Khurasan
from the Ghiirian nobles, he despatched an agent to Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-diz,
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-diiz, called a council of
his Amirs ; and Kutlagh Tigin, his Amfr-ul-Umra [Jami’-ut-Tawarikh says
his Nayab or Lieutenant at Ghaznin], who was another of the late Sultan
Mv’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-diiz, complied, and despatched befitting 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-diiz’s territory], saying, that Ghaznin was now freed
from Taj-ud-Din’s presence, and urged him to come thither that he might
deliver up the place to him. Kihwarazm Shah acceded to the request, and

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 505

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
Tukhiaristan, and advanced towards Ghaznin; and his
troops suddenly and unexpectedly seized the frontier route
leading into Hindistan, towards Gardaiz and the < 2121211"
Darah [Pass]. Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, took the route
towards Hindiistan, by way of Sang-i-Surakh*, and reached
Lohor. An engagement took place between him [Sultan
Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz] and the august Sultan Shams-ud-
Din, I-yal-timish’, in the vicinity of Tara’in*, 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-Tawarikh
states that this took place in 611 H., and that all the dominions of the Ghiris
fell under his sway.

Sultin Muhammad, Khwarazm Shih, having obtained possession of Ghaz-
nin, as above related, Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-diiz, 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.]

Khwiarazm Shih, according to the statement of Alff, on taking possession
of Ghaznin, put to death all the Ghirian 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. |

५ In some copies Karasah [ a!S ], but the best have ५+1 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.

¢ 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 othe: writers do the
same.

* The engagement between Sultan Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-diiz, 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 Shawwéal, 611 H., and,
according to others, on Monday, the 3rd of Shawwal, 612 H., at पद्ध,
now Talawari, near Panipat, 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’iin, by his rival, I-yal-timish, on whom he had _ himself con-
ferred the insignia cf royalty after I-yal-timish’s usurpation of the sovereignty

K k

506 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, was [defeated and] taken prisoner,
and sent to the district of Buda’iin; 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!

ए. SULTAN-UL-KARIM [THE BENEFICENT], KUTB-UD.-DIN,
I-BAK, AL-MU’IZZI US-SULTANI.

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 of the
Mu’izzi [dynasty], wrote letters secretly to Sultan Taj-ud-
Din, 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 Hindistan again, by the way of
Sang-i-Surakh’®; 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 Dihlf, 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-diiz, 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 Hindistan.

THE SHANSABANIAH DYNASTY OF GHAZNIN. 507

concluded ; and, after this, I come to the Section on the
Sultans of Hindistan, the first of whom to be mentioned
is Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and his illustrious actions’,
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 2

SECTION XX.
ACCOUNT OF THE MU’IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND.

¶ णऽ saith the feeble servant of the Almighty, Abi
‘Umr-i-’ Usman, Minhaj-i-Saraj, Jirjani—the Almighty God
preserve him from indiscretion !—that this TABAKAT is de-
voted 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 '— on whom be peace !—and

1 English writers on Indian History, with scarcely an exception, begin,
from this point, ¢Aeir—I say ¢hety, 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 Sim, Ghiiri,—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 one which is generally
known to most educated Musalmans. The work, in itself, which is a com-
pilation 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 ‘‘ sore 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 sxd-
stitute any of his own in their place” [!!].

Notwithstanding all this, the work was so translated, that Gibbon suspected
५५ {12 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 BloGRAPHICAL
INDEX [p. 317], to say ‘‘his [Dow’s] own remarks are so interwoven as to
convey an entircly differcnt meaning from that which Firtshtah intended,” and
‘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 the

THE MU’IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 509

who, in the empire of Hindistin, 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
Hindtis, 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 out, for obvious reasons, and what has been
retained is full of ridiculous mistakes. In the account of a Hindi king styled.
Kid Raj [page 8], he has: ‘‘ The mountaineers of Cabul and Candahar, who
ave called Afgans [sic] or Patans, advanced against Keda-raja.” The words in
italics are NOT in Firishtah.

At page 50, vol. 1. Dow has: ‘‘In the following year, Mamood [Mahmid
of Ghaznin is meant, but the translator ignores the letter = —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
Jamous for giving birth to the Ghorian dynasty,” &c. BRIGGS, too, follows
Dow closely, and often verbatim, in his version of Firightah. 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 Firightah about ‘‘the Afghan tribe of Soor :”
the whole of the passages in italics, in both translations, are NOT in Firightah.
From this particular passage it is, I suspect, that the monstrous error of
making Patans or Afghans of a// 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
Firightah, 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, Firightah refers to the Kitab-i-Yamini, and
quotes our author's work as his authority with reference tothe conversion of the
Ghirians to Islim, and says: ‘‘ but the author of the Tabakat-i-Nasiri, and
Fakhr-ud-Din, Mubarak Shah, Afarw-ar-Riai—i. €. of the town of Marw-ar-
Riid—who composed a history,” &c. [which Firightah never saw, but learnt
of it from our author. See page 300]. Dow Jeaves 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 Zody who wrote a history,” &c. He read sy)! 5. —
Marw-ar-Ridi—as 39 Lady [Liidi], 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-
and-twenty, and DOWNWARDS wine generations, from ALI to MAMOOD, the
son of Subuctagi,” &c

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 Zubak the Tazi ; but not understanding,
apparently, what followed in the original, Dow concocted—drew on his own

510 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL
monarch passed—in the same manner as his own august

fertile imagination—the ^^ nine generations DOWN TO MAMOOD” of Ghaznin,
to whom the Ghiris 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 \ed to
imagine that Mahmiid of Ghaznin was ‘‘the great ancestor of Skahab-ood-
Den.”

As Sim was the name of Rustam’s family, the Tazik Ghiris might have
been, with equal plausibility, made descendants of Rustam, son of Zal, the
Sigizi, and moreover Sigistan or Sijistin 15 close to Ghir, and several of the
Ghiri 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 29§, vol. i. : ^" We have no true account of the pedigree
of Zuglich. It is generally believed that his father, whose name was Tuglick,
had been, in his youth, brought up as an imperial slave, by Palin. His
mother was one of the tribe of Jits. But indeed the pedigrees of the Kings of
the Patan empire make such a wretched figuve in history,” &c.

Not ONE of the words in italics is in Firightah: 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 thendescribes Roh from Firightah [^ 24८
Student’s Manual of Indian History” however assures us that it is only ९९
town, in the province of Peshawur” !1!!], but makes several mistakes in
doing so; but Firishtah himself blundered greatly when he said that the
son of the Ghiiri chief who took up his abode among the Afghans was called
Muhammad-i-Siri, and that his posterity are known as the Sir 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 ofthe Ghiirian race, while Muhammad-i-Siri, said 22 be the great-great
grandfather of the two Sultans, Ghiyas-ud-Dfin and Muv’izz-ud-Din, was
descended from the e/der branch with whom the sovereignty lay. This Shah
Husain, by one of his Afghan wives, had three sons, Ghalzi, Ibrahim, surnamed
Lodi and Liidf—but properly, Loe-daey—and Sarwani. पतं had two
sons, ove of whom was named Sianf, 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 Dihlf, namely, Sultan Bah-lul, of the Shahi
Khel tribe of Liidi, and founder of the Lidiah dynasty. He is the thirtieth
ruler of Dihli counting from Kutb-ud-Din, the Turkish slave of Sultan
Mv’izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sim, Ghirf ; but, according to Mr. E. Thomas :
** Chronicles of the Pathdn Kings of Dehli,” he, under the name of ‘ Buhldl
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 Siant, son of Lidi, had two sons, one
of whom was named °Siir, who is the founder, —z0¢ Muhammad, son of Siri,
the Ghirian—of the Afghan tribe, not of Siri, which here is a proper name,
‘but of SOR. Siir, great grandson of Liidi, had four sons, from one of whom,

THE MU’IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND. Str

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 Siir subdivision of the
Lidi tribe of the Batanf Afghans or Patans. The name of Siri occurring
among the Ghiri Taziks, and Sir among the Afghans, immediately struck
Firigshtah probably, and he, at once, jumped at the conclusion that they were
one and the same, and that the Ghiris were Afghans, and Afghans Ghiiris.
But, although Firishtah made this mistake—for he is the firs? who made it—
he never turns Turkish slaves, Khalj Turks, Sayyids, and others into PATANS,
for, according to Firishtah’s statements also, Bah-liil, Liidi, is the first PATAN
sovereign of Dihli, as stated by other authors who preceded him.

Under the reign of Salim [Islim] Shah, Sir, Dow has [at page 197,
vol. ii.], when mentioning his death, ‘‘In this same year, Mahmood, ¢he
Patan King of Guzerat, and the Nizam of the Decan, who was of the same
nation, até

प्लाट we have the descendant of a converted Aajpit of the Tak sept, on
the one hand, and the descendant of a Brakman 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, Sir, has: ‘‘In the meantime, Mahommed of the Afghan family of
Ghor, governour of Bengal, rebelled against Mahommed.” The words in
italics ARE NOT contained in Firightah’s text ; and what that author does
state is perfectly correct. What Briggs has I am not aware.

The /ast of the eight Afghan or Patan sovereigns of Dihlf, as Bah-lil was
the firs, was Ahmad Khan, who, on ascending the throne, adupted the
title of Sultan Sikandar,

The renowned Afghan chief, the warrior and poet, Khush-hal Khan of
the Khatak tribe, who was well versed in the history of his people, mentions
the only two Patan dynasties—Lidiah and Sir, in one of his poems [See my
** Poetry of the Afghans,” page 197] in these words :—

५५ 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 Ghiris, 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 Dynasty ;” and 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 Patins Nor did they
belong to a Patan dynasty. It was however left for the President of the
Archeological Section, at the late Oriental Congress [onthe authority
of Major-Gen. A. Cunningham probably] to crown this edifice of errors
with ‘“‘Ghori Pathans,” ‘‘Khilji Pathans,” ‘* Tughlak Pathans,” aad ‘‘ Afghans”

512 THE TABAKAT-1I-NASIRI.

recorded *~—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 Hindiistan: and may such evermore continue! The
Almighty’s mercy be on those passed away, and may He
prolong the empire of the remainder !

1. SULTAN KUTB-UD.DIN, I-BAK, AL-MU’IZZI US-SULTANI?.

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 vic-
torious monarch was, so that, by the liberality and the
enterprise of him, the region of Hindistan became full of
friends and empty of enemies. His gifts were bestowed
by hundreds of thousands‘, and his slaughters likewise
were by hundreds of thousands, like as that master of elo-
quence, the Imam, Baha-ud-Din, Ushi » observes in praise
of this beneficent sovereign :—

‘Truly, the bestowal of 265 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 Hindi Pathans and Parsi Pathans,
or even English, Irish, and Scotch Pathans.

3 See page 497.

ॐ That is the slave of Sultin Mu’izz-ud-Din.

+ Hence he is also called ‘‘ Lak Bakhsh ”—the giver of /ats. See page
555, where Rae Lakhmaniah, his contemporary, is also said to have been a
Lak Bakhsh.

$ He passed the greater part of his life in Hindiistan, and was one of the
most distinguished men of Kutb-ud-Din’s assembly.

+ The liberality of Kutb-ud-Din became a proverb in Hindiistan, and still

THE MU’IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 513

At the outset of his career, when they brought him from
Turkistan, Kutb-ud-Din reached the city of Nishapiir.
The Ka4zi-ul-Kuzat [Chief Kazi], Fakhr-ud-Din, ’Abd-ul-
?Aziz-i-Kiifi, who was a descendant of the _ Imam-i-A’zam,
Abit Hanifah of Kifa’, the governor of the province of
Nishapiir 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
adolescence » certain merchants brought him to the Court
of Ghaznin; and the Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu’izz-ud-Din, Mu-
hammad, 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 fracture’, 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, 4a/ signifying the age, the time, &c.”” Blood is a play
on the ruby’s colour.

7 See page 384, and note 5.

® 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-Din] predilection for the purchase of slaves, and that
he purchased Kutb-ud-Din of the merchant at avery 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.

Firightah 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 ¢heir incorrect statements.

9 The printed text here has the words co jl which are not correct,
and spoil the sense.

1 [-bak—e@yi— alone is clearly not the real name of Kutb-ud-din, for,
if it were, then the word sa/—Jjt—added to it would make it I-bak of
the withered or paralyzed hand or limb; and, even if the word sz? were
used for ska/, 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 /ité/e fingers was broken or

514 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRIL

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 con-
viviality, and, during the entertainment, he commanded a
gift to be bestowed upon each of the slaves present, con-
sisting 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 Turks’, 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 hall*, 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-Akhir [Lord of the Stables]. In that
office, when the Sultans of Ghir, 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 [depart-
ment], and used, every day, to move out in quest of forage ५

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 Sultin 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-Tawarikh,
both style him I-bak-i-Lang—and /ang means maimed, injured, defective,
&c., as well as Jame.

I-bak, in the Turkish language, means fger only, and j= according to
the vowel points, may be ’Arabic or Persian; but the Arabic shal, which
means having the hand (> part) withered, is not meant here, but Persian sz,
signifying, ‘‘ soft, limp, weak, powerless, impotent, paralyzed,” thus I-bak-i-
Shil—the weak fingered. See Thomas: PATHAN KINGS OF DEHL{, 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. 515

Unexpectedly [upon one occasion], the horsemen of Sultan
Shah came upon them and attacked them® Kutb-ud-
Din 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 Ghir 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 °; and, after he returned
to the seat of government, Ghaznin, the fief of Kuhram

was committed to Kutb-ud-Din’s charge’. From thence
he advanced towards Mirath, and took possession of that
place in the year 587 H® 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 pfesence of his
master, the Sultan. Dow ani BRIGGS however improve upon it, and assert
that “‘ Eiéuk was discovered sitting on a camel on the field,” and carried 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}—‘‘ Aing of Charizm and Khwaruzm,” and into this error
ELPHINSTONE likewise falls. See page 248, and note ?, page 456.

5 Asa specimen of difference of idiom in the different copies of the text col-
lated I may mention that one set—the oldest—has 9'qi ;lé) Chin 9 cmgeg ७८५०५
whilst the more moder set has ~~ (५ J'5 ylee 95 ७८८1.

This important expedition, in which three sovereigns were engaged, is what
ELPHINSTONE [page 319, third edition] refers tu as ‘* some border warfare with
the Kharizmians,” in which ‘‘ he was taken prisoner.”

® 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 ‘‘tbe pole-star of religion,” and the latter incorrectly,
** pole-star of the faith//,” 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.

® 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 contra-
dicts his own dates. See pages 379 and 469.

546 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRIL

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-wal’® and
overthrew him.

Subsequently, in the year 591 11, Thankir was taken;
and, in ६93 H., Kutb-ud-Din marched towards Nahrwalah,
and attacked Rae Bhim Diw’', and took vengeance upon
that tribe [of people] for the Sultan-i-Ghazil[’s previous
defeat]. He likewise subdued other territories of Hindi-
stan °, as far [south ?] east as the frontier of the territory of

9 See following note 9, last para., page 518.

1 The best St. Petersburgh 19, has Thinir Diw [2,9] here;
but the majority, including the two other oldest copies of the text, are as
above.

ॐ 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 T4j-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 Dihli, which was then held by a
kinsman of Khandi [Gobind of our author] Ride, tbe brother of Rie 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 Rie Pithora’s son, but some say his brother. Kuhyim and Samanah were
left in Kutb-ud-Din’s charge, and he was left at the former place as the Sul-
tan’s deputy or lieutenant, and Mu’izz-ud-Din himself returned to Ghaznin.
ELPHINSTONE says, page 314, on the authority of Firishtah’s translators, I
suppose, that, when ‘‘Shahab प din” returned to Ghaznin, he left ‘‘ Ais former
slave, Kutb प din Eibak,” as his representative in India; and yet “ Ais 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 Dihli and invested it. The kinsman of Khandi Rie appealed
to his Rajpiit countrymen for aid, and an army of Rajpits, 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 over-
thrown, 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 Ramazin, 589 H.], news reached Kutb-ud-Din that an army of
Jats [Firishtah says ‘‘ under a leader named Jatwan, a dependent of the Rae of

THE MU’IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 517

Ujjain®; and Malik ’Izz-ud-Din ‘, Muhammad, son of Bakht-

3 Ujjain is as plainly written as it is possible to write, and the इ has the
tashdid mark over it in the two oldest and best copies of the text. Other
copies have wee but it is evidently owing, in the first place, to a copyist or
copyists dropping the !that the error arose—thus ७ and ye for ye! 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 Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Muhammad, is his correct name, as our author himself
states in his account of him. See page 548.

Nahrwalah ”’] had appeared before Hansi. 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-Din 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 over-
thrown. Their leader was slain [Firishtah says he retired to Nahrwalah of
Gujarat], and Kutb-ud-Din, having again placed Hansi in an efficient state,
returned to Kuhyam, 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,
Kiwam-ul-Mulk, Rukn-ud-Din, Hamzah, who held the fief of Rantabhiir, sent
information that Bhiraj [-',¢], also written Bhiiraj [ह ¢], who is called
Hiraj [-!] in some imperfect copies of the Taj-ul-Ma’adsir, 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 ?] Golak, but generally styled merely ‘‘ the son,” was in great danger; and
that the rebel was advancing against Rantabhiir 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 Top, 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 Firishtih’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 ८7८८ golden melons [kettle-
drums, 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 Ghaznin, and having been received with great honour

518 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.
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 Hindistan 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
Sultin’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, Tughril [page 544], and the mention of
Malik Husaim-ud-Din, Aghil-Bak, and others [page 549], that there were
powerful chiefs left by the Sultan in Hindiistaén who held fiefs independent of
Kutb-ud-Din. It was on this occasion, on his return to Dihli by way of Gar-.
daiz and Karman [which Dow, translating Firightah, who is perfectly correct,
renders ‘‘ fersian 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-diiz.
This journey Firishtah, who constantly quotes the Taj-ul-Ma’adsir, mentions
as taking place in §92 H.

After remaining a short time at Dihli, Kutb-ud-Din marched from it in
590 H., crossed the Jiin, 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-Akbarf,—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
Hindi 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
Dihli 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 Chandra], Rajah of Kinnauj and Banaras, his former ally, against
Rae Pithora, according to the Hindi 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. ([Firightah, who gives an
account of this matter, uses the word peshwa’i — csly+24— which signifies
meting and conducting a superior or a guest; but his translators, Dow and
Briccs, 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 50000 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 Hindiistan]; and, having joined the Sultan’s army, he,
in concert with ’Izz-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil [the same who after-
wards turned traitor, and played such a false part towards ऽ पाठ Muhammad,
Khwirazm Shih, mentioned in note 3, page 257], led the vanguard [the prin-
cipal division unencumbered with heavy baggage, not ‘‘a small detachment of
1000 horse” of the Sultain’s army. The Musalmans came in contact with Jai
Chand’s forces in the environs of Chand-war and Itawah [another author says
Chanda-war. It is probably Chand-wal of Itawah, a place a few miles S.E.

THE MU’IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND. ६19

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 ele-
phant. See also note’*, 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
[ &5'» 3] entered the pupil of the Rajah’s eye, and the fell from his ele-
phant into the dust of contempt.” Dow renders this: ^" But Cuttub, who
excelled in archery, sunk an arrow in the ball of his eye ;” and Briccs has:
५‹ Kooth ood Deen, who excelled in archery, came in contact with Raja ye
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 Hind ;” and
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
Sultin 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 (गत्ता, to Sultin Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mu’izz-ud-Din’s elder brother and
sovereign ; and it was afterwards presented by Mahmiid, the former’s son, to
Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, when he became subject to that
monarch. See note®, para. 9, page 402]. Elphinstone says this victory over
Jai-Chand ‘‘extended the Mussulman dominion 210 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
Husim-ud-Din, A ghil-Bak [the same who took Mubammad, son of Bakht-
yar, the Khalj, into his service, see page 549], was installed at Kol.
[Firishtah, in his work, gives 47s 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 Rantabhiir, and took possession of Ajmir, and despatched a force
under a leader 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 Ajmifr. Bhiraj [or
Hamir] then drew out his forces to give battle, but hé was defeated, and
retired within the walls; and then, finding resistance fruitless, ascended a
funeral pyre and perished. After this 2 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 प्त.) towards Nahrwalah of Gujarat, and encountered the
general of Bhim Diw [according to Top, Komar-pal was his name], Rae of
Nahrwalah, who is styled by the name of Jatwan, and who was encamped with

520 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

Niidiah, 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 Hansi to Dihli.

In the year 592 H., the Jami’ Masjid [ow knownas the Kutbi Masjid] at Dihli,
which Kutb-ud-Din is said to have founded in 589 H., and on which the most
skilful Musalmin artizans had been employed [not Flindiis 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, ‘‘PATHAN Kincs oF DEHLf,” page 22, ©, note!, is
erroneous, as Dehli was not acquired, as I have shown [note १, page 469],
until subsequent to that date, in 589 H. It is evident that Gre seven—has
been read instead of €~ —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 S91 H.,
according to our author, and 590 H., according to Alfi, 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
$45], 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 Gwialiyur, the Rajah of which
agreed to pay tribute, and he was left unmolested. For further particulars,
see page 546, and 2067, 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 प्र, 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 AZhers, for there is no 4 in the word.
Firishtah says—y|5 uk»,—probably 43 (^ € Tunur Rajahs”—and adds,
‘that ts to say, Rajpits.” Dow translates the passage, ‘‘many Indian
independent princes,” which is pretty near Firishtah’s meaning ; but 3816635
has: ‘The Raja of Nagvor and many other Hindoo Rajas ”], having gathered
together, sent emissarics 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 beforchand with them ; and,
although it was the height of the hot season, carly 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 ४ to the
ground, and his troops, greatly disheartened, with much difficulty managed to
mount him upon another horse, and carried him off to Ajmir.

Top, 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, nobly

THE MU’IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 521

When the Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu’izz-ud-Din, Muhammad-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 a note he
adds: ‘‘This must be [of course !] the dattle 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 zof ¢ Firishtah. This statement of the translators,
not Firightah’s, must have led ELPHINSTONE. astray, when he says [page 315
of third ed J: ‘‘ Kutb u Din was overpowered on this occasion, and had diffi-
culty in making his way, covered with wounds, to Ajmir,” &c. The statement
of Firishtah’s is this :—‘‘ But Aes horse, having received a wound, came to the
ground. The army of Islam became heart-broken, and they, having by main
Sorce—[Jas 8J]—placed him on another horse, took him to Ajmir.” This is
all; but his translators certainly display much fertility of imagination in their
rendering of Firigshtah’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.” Briccs has: ‘‘ But he was defeated.
After being /reguently 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 /itter to Ajmeer.” !!!

Emboldened by this success, the rebel Hindiis [the ७1 of Firishtah], 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 प, the Taj-ul-Ma’asir jumps at once to §93 H., although twemediately
dcfore giving an account of the expedition against Thankir or Thangir and
Gwaliyir in 592 H., thus showing that 697 H. cannot be correct. The correct
date of this reverse must be the ninth or tenth month of 592 H., as Firishtah
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 of Safar—the second month of the year—593 H., which year is
eonfirmed by our author and several others, he began his march towards Nahr-
walah. When he reached the bounds of Pali and Nadi [these names are not
certain, but such they appear in the Taj-ul-Ma’asir. In proceeding from Ajmir
to Nahrwalah, Kutb-ud-Din had. the choice of two routes, that on the eastern
slopes of the Arawali mountains, by Udipiir and Idur, or that on the western
or Marwar side, clear of the mountains; and this last he would in all pro-
bability have chosen by the direct route of Pali and Sirhoi, keeping Abi on
his left. Nadiil, 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-
hoi; 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 Abi.
Firigshtah 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 Hitali or Dhitalf
and Bazil or Baril, or Rahi and Bartuki and Nuzil or Nadi, 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 whom
is styled Rae Karan [Kurnah, probably] in the Taj-ul-Ma’agir, and Ursi [_,~, 1

L 1

522 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Sam, attained martyrdom‘, 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 [lk ५], and
paid homage to Shihab-ud-Din’s son, Mahmiid by name, who was Wali of
Ghaznin,” and that writer makes out that Sultin Ghiyas-ud-Din was the
younger [8] brother, and Shihab-ud-Din the elder. He has substituted
Shihab for Ghiyds ; 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 notifica-
tions were attended to by the chief rulers [feudatories ?] in those territories ;
and, after the defeat of I-yal-diiz, 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 Hindiistan, 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
[.)'+] in the latter, were posted at the base of the hills of Abi-gadh [this
word is written without points [५ +], and may be either Ali-gadh [ #3 +]
or Abi-gadh [»% »']. ELPHINSTONE has: ‘*Two great feudatories of
Guzerat strongly posted o# the mountain of A’bu.” If he had ever seen Abi,
he would have understood that they might as well have been fosted on the
Himalayah as there, since the Musalmans would not pass over or through it.
Firishtah says: ‘‘ At the foot of the fort of Abii or Ali-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, Ghiri, 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. Top asserts [vol. i., page 696], upon Rajpit
authority, no doubt, and therefore we must make every allowance, that it was
at this very place [Nadole] that ‘‘ A/ahmoud’s [Mahmid’s?] arms were dis-
graced, the invader wounded, and forced to relinguish his enterprise.” But in
another place [page 249] he says ‘‘ Nadole is mentioned in Ferishtah as /ad/-
ing a prey to one of Mahmood’s invasions, who destroyed its ancient temples.”
Both the statements are much of a piece.] ‘‘ Seeing their hesitation,” says the
Taj-ul-Ma’asir, ‘‘the प्राप्तऽ advanced to encounter them [Finghtah, 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 प्र. [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 §0,000[!] 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 [१], 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 Ghir [to Sultan Ghiyag-ud-Din] and
to Ghaznin. [Gujarat could not have been retained for any time, as it was not

THE MU’IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND, 523

miid, 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 Ghaznin [for
the forty days after which he ran away. See note 9, page 503], he despatched
Nizam-ud-Din, Muhammad, to Firiiz-koh to the presence of Sultan Mahmid;”
and in 605 H. [much the most probable date, for reasons to be mentioned sub-
sequently} he, Mahmiid, sent him a canopy of state, &c., thus contradicting his
own statement here. See also page 398, and note’, page 500, para. 2.
Several histories and authors, including Tarikh-i-Ibrahimi, Tabakat-i- A kbari,
Lubb-ut-Tawarikh-i-Hind, Tagkirat-ul-Mulik, Buda’iini, &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 half 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 manu-
mission, the title of Sultan—as he was styled Malik mostly up to this time and

permanently acquired by the 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 Musalmins 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, Sultin Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, the events of whose
reign will throw some light upon this period.

In the year 599 H., the same in which Sultin Ghiyags-ud-Din died, and his
brother, Mu’izz-ud-Din, became supreme sovereign, Kutb-ud-Din undertook
an expedition against Kalinjar. The Rae of Ka4linjar 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 Mahmiid, Ghaznawid ; and stipulated for the presentation of a large
amount in jewels and other precious things, and a namber of horses and ele-
phants. It so happened that, next day, while engaged in collecting together
this tribute, he was cut off by the hand of death. His Wakilor 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, accord-
ing to Firishtah, ‘‘exalted to the excellence of Islim,” 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 ssege of Calinger, where he was

L 12

524 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

who was Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din’s brother's son, despatched

was still a slave—and the government of Hindiistén, which Mahmid had con-
ferred 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 f/teen days after the latter
left Lahor, he returned to it at once, and fossté/y 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 °, 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 [1], began to besiege him in the fort.” All this is pure
invention: there 15 nothing of the kind in Firishtah. BriccGs has: “In the
year 599 he mustered his forces, and marched against Kalunjur, where he was
opposed by the Raya of that country, whom he defeated ; then, dismounting
his cavalry, he laid siege to the fort.” A szege and an investment are far different
things. All about ‘‘*ke 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 Briccs, not Firishtah. 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, dismounting his cavalry, he laid siege
to the fort. The Raja, seeing himself hard pressed, offered Kootb-ood-Deen
Eibuk 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 assasst-
nated, while the presents were preparing. The Hindoo fag 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 Ka4linjar Kutb-ud-Din marched to the city of Mahobah, the capital of
the territory of Kalbi, which he took possession of, and returned to Dihlf by
way of Buda’tn, one of the chief cities of Hind, which he also occupied.
(It is 2 Firishtah who places ‘‘ Bada’iin dctween the Ganges and the Jamna”
(see Elliot, INDIA, vol. ii., page 232, note ५), but Dow and BriGcGs, who mis-
interpret 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-Bikdr, 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. §25

a canopy of state to Malik Kutb-ud-Din, and conferred on
him the title of Sultan’; and, in the year 602 H., he
determined to proceed from Dihli to the royal presence in
Lohor’?; and, on Tuesday, the 17th of the month, Zi-

ascended the throne, at Lahor, on the 11th of Rabi’-ul-Awwal, 603 H., and
that he read the Khutbah for himself, and coined money in 425 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 bome, gives
the following as a specimen of Kutb ud-Din’s coins :—

1० ५ ८ ay) ७२५५1 Gs, teh od + OL Sy! » Ku
। (91 les ety yt 19 ye

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 :—-‘‘ Struck at the Dar-ul-Khilafat, Dihlf, 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 Hindiistan as early as Zi-Ka'dah,
602 H., because Ghiyiis-ud-Din, Mahmiid, did not at once obtain the supreme
{nominal only] authority after the assassination of his uncle. His kinsman,
>Alj-ud-Din, Muhammad, previously called by the name of Ziya-ud-Din [See
page 394] was, at that time, ruler of Ghiir and Firiiz-koh, and Mahmiid was’
at Bust, and it must have taken him some few months, at the very least, to
dispossess’’Al4-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 imprcbable, that ’ALA-uD-Din, MUHAMMAD, who
then held Ghirr, 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 Piirshor, when
Mahmid’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 state-
ments 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 ८0 the same month of 606 प्त.
ˆ 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 608 H.—‘‘ when the title of Sultan was conferred and
he was manumitted ”—one year before Mahmiid’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. ˆ 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 evi-
dent, from various events, that Kutb-ud-Din did not ‘determine to go to the

526 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Ka'dah, of that same year, he ascended the throng 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 1171 ; ° and

capital, Lohor,” as the words 2S ,y5) d= 01 alone mean; and, farther,
Lahor was not the capital. The correct reading is as above, namely—
IS ,9०9 ८ sl care and this refers, not to his going to the city of Lahor
merely, but into the Lihor ¢errifory to join his master the Sultan against the
Khokhars ; he only relates it in the wrong place. After their overthrow, the
Sultin came to Lahor, accompanied by Kutb-ud-Din ; and, subsequently,
after the Sultan’s assassination, the latter assumed sovereignty there. 21.
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 °], referred to the proceed-
ings of Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-diiz, towards Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mahmiid, and Kutb-
ud-Din’s jealousy of I-yal-diiz, and his offer of aid to Abi-Dakur against him.

In the year 603H, shortly after Kutb-ud-Din is said, by some, to have
received his freedom, and the title of Sultan from Sultan Mahmid, I-yal-diiz,
who considered the Panjab part of the dominion of Ghaznin to which he had
succeeded, and which had neither been assigned, by Mahmid, 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-Mulk, 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-diiz with all the available troops of Hindiistan, and a battle took
place between them, in the Panjab, and I-yal-diiz was worsted, and retreated
into the strong country of Karman and Shaliizan. Kutb-ud-Din now pushed
on to Ghaznin, which having obtained pvssession 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-diiz 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 >, page 475 १,
and who, since his death, had been in Sultan Mahmiid’s service, but was now
one of I-yal-diiz’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-diiz, 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 RéA/at, and Yila-i,
Jami’-ut-Tawarikh, and some others say in 611 H., and, according to those

THE MU’IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 527

Sultan Kutb-ud-Din proceeded towards the seat of govern-
ment, 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, Sultin Mahbmiid did not die until 609 H. [see also last para. of note 3,
page 400], and Fasih-i states that Kutb-ud-Din obtained sovereignty over
Hindiistan in 608 H., and places his death as late as 610H. These dates do
not agree with those given by the Muhammadan Historians of India, but ‘hey
are not the most reliable authorities for events which happened out of that
country.

In the state of affairs in which I-yal-diiz found himself, for Sultin Mahmid
was now but a mere vassal of the Khwarazmis [See note >, 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, Khwarazm Shah, getting possession of Ghaznin, he
put to death several of the Ghiirian Amirs, and made over his new acquisition
to his son, Jalal-ud-Din, Mang-barni ; 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 4,
para. 7, page 290], and the Sultan returned to Khwarazm. Kutb-ud-Din now
marched into the Panjab against I-yal-diiz [603 २44५८, 612 H.], who was
defeated by him, and retired into Kayman and Shalizan. Kutb-ud-Din
marched to Ghaznin, drove out the governor on JYaldl-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, dis-
gusted with his remissness and laxity, and the disordered state of affairs, senta
person, secretly, to I-yal-diiz, 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 Hindistan, 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 ‘‘ Arstory 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 ‰८ never before possessed], where he assumed the crown [not at Lahor
then १], 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-diiz, continued at Lahor until he met with the accident
which ended his days.

528 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

people abundant benefactions, and innumerable favours, and
returned again to Hindiistan, the account of which has been
previously related. As the decree of fate supervened, in the
year 607 M., he fell from his horse whilst engaged in playing
ball’ 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 ’.

The period of his rule, from the first taking of Dihli 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 Hindiistan at once considered it advisable for

* Chaugin, 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 centact with the breast.

2 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
work, the Tarikh i-Ibrahimi, 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 sznefcess years, fourteen as the Sultan’s [Mu'izz-
ud-Din’s] lieutenant, and five and a half years as absolute sovereign. From
688 H., the year in which he was first made the Sulfin’s lieutenant, to the 2nd
of 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 Ghaznin before the rainy season of 588 H., which, inall probability,
he did ; and five years and six months from the middle of Zi-Ka’dah, 602 H.,
would bring us to the middle of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, the fifth month of 607 H.,
which will therefore beabout the period at which Kutb-ud-Din is said to have died,
and a little more than ¢4rce months, by this calculation, after the death of Sultan
Mahmid, if 607 प्र, 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 प्र, 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, pur-
poses for which many buildings of this kind are now used at Lahor, without its
being known whose dust they were built to cover.

ॐ It seems strange that our author should give detailed lists of the offspring,
kinsmen, Kazis, nobles, and victories of his former slave and son-in-law,
Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, and not of Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, himself,
the pseudo-founder of the ‘‘ Patdu or Afghkdn” 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 Ais only offspring. Some of these authors,
moreover, who call Aram Shih his son, afterwards add, ‘‘than whom he had
no other heir ;'' but, if 4e was really his son, what better heir could be desired ?
Abi-l-Fazl makes the astonishing statement that Aram Shah was Kutb-ud-
Din’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 Sultin Aram Shah. What his real pedigree was is not men-
tioned, 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 ’Ali-i-Isma’il, the Sipah-Salar, and governor of the
city and province of Dihli, the Amir-i-Dad [called Amir Da’iid, by some], and
other chief men in that part, conspired together, and sent off to Buda’iin 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 sove-
reignty. 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 Kuhrim; the Khalj chiefs in Bangalah
assumed independency there, and the Rajahs and Rides on the frontiers [of
the Musalman dominions] began to show a rebellious and contumacious
spirit.

Aram Shih, on first becoming aware of these acts of I-yal-timigh, 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 posses-
sion of the capital, issued from it with his forces ; and, in the plain of Jiid
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
a while, in the possession of the territories they before held or had since
appropriated. The reign of Aram Shih, if such can be properly so called,
is said by some to have terminated within the year; but others contend that
it continued for ८८८ 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-timigh’s, corroborates the statement of those who say Aram 91315
reign extended over three years.

530 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

one after the [death of the] other, were wedded to Malik
Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, and the third was married ° 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 ° 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'in. The Maliks, in concert, brought him from
Buda’iin, 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’.

Hindiistan 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 Sul-
tins, 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 :—

५५८३. .9 Gow ~~ ऊ le 1 ५४ Jb cial! (~ Oyo pa oY +
gpk ssh 291. lo ५.

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 22244,
and that those, who had set him up, repenting of having done so, through
his incapacity—his incapacity seems to have been his incapacity fo enforce
obedience—invited I-yal-timish to assume authority, and that Aram Shah,
becoming aware of their sedition, came out of Dthli, and called on his father’s
old followers to aid him, after which I-yal-timish secured it, and subsequently
defeated Aram Shah

$ From what our author states, a few lines under, it would appear that

-yal-timish only espoused Kufb-ud-Din’s daughter when he assumed the
throne, at Dihli.

¢ 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’IZZIAH 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’IZZI-US-SULTANI 8.

Malik [Sultan] Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, was a great
monarch, and the slave of the Sultan-i-Ghazi, Mu’izz-ud-
Din, Muhammad-i-Sam.

He was endowed with very great intellect, sagacity, dis-
cretion, skill, wisdom, and experience, and had served Sultan
Mu’izz-ud-Din many years in various departments of every
sort of political employment, both important and subordi-
nate, about the Court, in military affairs, and the adminis-
tration of civil duties, and had acquired great influence.

Malik N§sir-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 g sometimes from ignorance, sometimes
by mistake, and the two letters are very often interchangable, and ; ; and (>
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 '3—kaba, an 747267८ word signifying a quilted jacket with short
sleeves, or a tunic open in front, and that sas—chah is the Persian affixed
particle of diminution = kaba-chah, a short jacket or tunic, and thus his name
would be Nagir-ud-Din of the short tunic or jacket ; but, in this case, Kuba-
chah with ४ is impossible, because there is no # in the ’Arabic word दवद.

The letter ७ never occurs in a purely Ferstan word, nor does it ever
occur in //indi; 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 Zurkisk, like the nick-names, I-bak, I-yal-diiz, I-yal-timish, and
the like. This kaba means, rending, tearing, cutting, paring, scraping,
shaving, &c., while, in another form of it, the ¢ 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, abund-
ance, 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 TABAKAT.-I-NASIRI.

chah, in the engagement at Andkhiid ’—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 N4sir-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
Uchchah' was entrusted to Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah.

He was son-in-law to Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak,
through two daughters*; and, by the elder daughter, he
had a son—Malik ’Ald-ud-Din, Bahram Shah. He [Bah-
ram Shah] was of handsome exterior and of good disposi-
tion, 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, pro-
ceeded to Uchchah, he possessed himself of the city of
Multan, and Sindiistan*, 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, as-
sumed 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-khiid—s,.202!—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-khiid and Ind-khi. I have retained the
modern mode of spelling.

1 The printed text and two 4/S. copies of the text have Ochchah and
Multan, but the ten best copies omit Multan.

? One having previously died. Kaba-jah was likewise son-in-law of Taj-
ud-Din, I-yal-diiz, 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 uf Kaba-jah’s son our author and others do not state.

3 That is, Siwastin, also called Shiw-astin, by some Hindi writers. The
remarks which follow seem to indicate that all these were separate provinces
or territories. Siwastan is turned into Hindustan in Elliot’s INDIA, page 302.

4 Yifa-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 [into the 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 ter-
ritories, for the most part, Sultan Jalal-ud-Din afterwards subjected.

Immediately after the decease of Kutb-ud-Din, the so-called establisher of
‘*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, Tabarhindah [some authors say Bathindah, some
Sirhind], and Kuhyam as far as Sursuti, he holding, at the time of Kutb-uds
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-diiz, as our author mentions; but, after
the defeat of I-yal-diiz, 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-timigh, or in some way subject.

Our author leaves out here, but mentions in two lines, and under a wrong
date, the first hostilities which 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-timigh, and the tribute
was in arrears. At the advice of his Wazir, I-yal timigh 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 Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 613 प्र, [The
Tabakat-i-Akbari, Buda’iini, 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 ८८ years or more 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 Biah [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. it. page 571, is called crossing the Indus !], at the ford near a
village named Chambah [२] ; 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 Kusiir, Kabilah, Khi-e,
and Hujrah-i-Shah Mukim, passed about a mile and a half N.w. of the fort of
Dibal-ptr, and fell into the river Ghara. This branch was called Biah and
Nalah-i-biah ; whilst the other branch, flowing southwards, fell into the Sutlaj,
as the Ghiara, 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 Mansiriah 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 bootyto a vast amount, fell into the hands of his rival.
After this disaster, Kaba-jah fled towards Uchchah, whither I-yal-timigh
appears not to have been then prepared to follow him.

I-yal-timigh remained some time at Lahor to arrange its affairs ; and, having
published the news of his success in all parts, conferred the government of that

534 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’*.

When [Sultan] Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, became quietly
established in the territory of Sind °, during the calamities
[attending the inroads] of the infidels of Chin, a great
number of the chief men of Khurasan, Ghir, and Ghaznin
presented themselves before him, and he bestowed upon
the whole of them ample presents, and provided liberally
for them’. There used to be constant contention® between
him and the august’ 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 Chingiz Khan, after
which, Jalal-ud-Din, Khwarazm Shah, came into the land

——————

of Sind, and proceeded towards Diwal and Mukran.
After the taking of Nandanah' by the forces of the infidel

territory upon his eldest son, Nagir-ud-Din, Mahmiid 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 note 5, 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’agir, but it cannot
be correct. That is the year in which I-yal-diiz 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-
diiz and Kaba-jah several times in the neighbourhood of Lahor for the posses-
sion of that province. See under the reign of I-yal-diiz, 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’ld here means august, and not that his name was ‘‘Sa’id,” which it was
not, nor was it ‘‘ Sultan Sa’id Shams.”

। Sultan Jalal-ud-Din’s defeat happened in the seventh month of the year
618H. 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 din came into Sind, and went towards
Dewal and Makran. After the 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 TurtTi,
the name of the Mughal who led the troops engaged in it, have been very

THE MU’IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 535

Mughals, Turti, the Mughal Ni-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 else-
where, 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. Jami’-at-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-Din’s career,
say nothing about NANDANAH, and do not refer to this expedition against
Multan ; and Fasih-i farther states, what is va/her 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’in-i-
Akbari says the Mughals seédued 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 non-
sense contained in D’Ohsson [iii. p. 4] and in Rampoldi, in his ‘* Axnals
Musalmani”—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 Abi-l-Ghazi, Bahadur Khan, it is
stated that Chingiz ‘‘despatched Dudbay, 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, ‘‘ Beda,
Noyan, with 20,000 men,” was sent ‘‘to resist” the Sultan, ‘‘if he appeared
in the country of Multan,” and again, quoting Abi-l-Fida, says ‘‘ Multan fell
into the hands of the Mughals.” Jahan-Kusha, Jami’-ut-Tawarikh and Alfi
are, however, greater authonties 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-aAbah, 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 Hindistén and enter Chin by way of
Lakhanawati and Kamriid. Whilst there encamped, Chingiz, hearing of the
progress of Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, and the strength he was acquiring, detached
the Ni-in, Turti or Turtae—both names are correct, and he is by some writers
called Tiirmati [not ‘‘Tuli,” as stated in Thomas, ‘‘ PATHAN KINGS OF DEHL{f ”
—Tiili was the son of Changiz, and was elsewhere employed at this time. Firish-
tah, on the other hand, says it was Chaghatie, another of the sons, which is
equally incorrect]—with two /#ans—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 Hindiistan stationed in that part,
beyond the river Bihat, Wihat, or Jhilam, into the Chinhatah Do-abah [The

536 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

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 wk»_»—Chinab—with the three last letters of s:—Bihatah or «a,—
Wihatah, 4 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.

Turti, having crossed the Sind, ^^ pushed on until he reached the boundary
of the district or tract of country belonging to Hindistan which Kamr-ud-Din,
Kaymani, 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 [4.:i—in two copies of Alfi it is written
sJ:) and ४५, 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, Turti 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 ,# el.—the country of Fir or
Porus—which is the same probably as the Malik-ptr and Malka-pir of
other writers, the meaning of the former not having been recognized, perhaps,
from the two words being written as one—,skeml. and , 9५ See also Elliot,
INDIA: vol. ii., page 559.

Our author, however, makes the matter of the investment of Multan by
Turti very confused, for, in a previous page [297], he states that ‘‘ Turti, the
Mughal, who had invested Multan, left Chingiz Khan, and came and joined
Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, and decame converted to the Mubammadan faith.”

To return, however, to NANDANAH. This name is first mentioned in the
reign of Mahmiid of Ghaznin by ’Utba’ in the Kitab-i-Yamini, and then by
Abi-Sa’id, son of Haiyah, a native of Gardaiz in the Ghaznin territory [pro-
bably an earlier writer even than Abi-1-Fagl-i-Baihaki, though not much], in
his Zain-ul-Akhbar, who says that Mahmiid, towards the end of 404 H., deter-
mined 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 Abi-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 men-
tions 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 Akhbar],

THE MU’IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 537

During that contest Malik [Sultan] Nagir-ud-Din, Kaba-
jah, opened the door of his treasury, and conferred nume-

Khulasat-ut-Tawarikh, and Firightah, both under Mahmiid’s reign, and in
many other places, as well as by Abbas, Sarwayni, the Afghan historian, and
other writers; yet, bysome means or other, it has been tumed into ‘‘ Vdrd/n”
by a few Mubammadan writers—or rather copyists—and by almost ०८८ Eu-
ropean translators, after the same fashion as Tara’in—the present Talawari—
has been turned into ‘‘Vérdén.”” No such places as ‘‘ Nardin” and ‘‘ Narain”
ever existed. See also Elliot, INDIA: vol. ii., pages 448 to 450. Firishtah’s
mode of spelling it is Nandiinah, 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 Minduxa 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 ¢a//ah or hill of the Jogi, Bala-nath, a -
sacred place of the Hindis, which hill country was known to the Muhammadan
writers as the Koh-i-Jiid, Koh-i-Bala-nath, and to the people dwelling therein
as the Makhialah, Janjhii, or Jid 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 sow composes part of the Shah-piir [Pir or Fir. i.e.
Porus] District of the present Rawal Pindi Division under the Panjab Govern-
ment. There was also another separate and smaller district named Vandan.-
per, a little farther north, and there is a small river named Vandanakh 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-piir, in ancient days, the residence of
the provincial governors, which lies in the direct line of route from the NAN-
DANAH district on the Jhilam to the locality in which Chingiz Khan 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-Pindi, and the Jhilam, including the northern part of the Chil-i-Jalali
—so called after Jalal-ud-Din—in the midst of the Sind-Sagar Do-abah, which
formed, during the rule of the Ghiiris 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 Hindiis—were not reduced to the subjection of
the rulers of Hindiistan till the time of Akbar.

In the reign of Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Mubammad-i-Sam, his rule, which
extended from Ghaznin to Lahor and Dihli, did not extend, save very nomi-
nally, over this hilly country ; and it was because the Khokhars, and others,
in alliance with them, clused 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

Mm

538 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

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 NAN-
DANAH it is difficult to say, but is more than probable, for Abii-1-Fazl does not
mention it in the list of forts in that sar4dr, 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-Jiid, 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 Kahliir [ ,,45], which were noticed in the latter part
of the last century, built in the 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 zuén—the present termination of
many village names—in the Panjabi dialect, dao/7 in Hindi, and sard-aéah 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 [पत्‌ 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 two routes”’ from Afghanistan into India have not yet
ceased.] This may be gathered from the account of Sultan Nasir-ud-Din,
Mahmiid’s reign farther on, where he marches his forces as far as the Siidharah
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 Ghirian, Khwarazmi, 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
Chingiz 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,
Uchchah, 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-
timish, 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 ‘‘ marched ""—‘‘ the troops
of Dihli towards Lahor [into the province of Lahor ?] against the Sultan, who
thereupon ‘‘ turned aside, and proceeded towards Sind and Siwastan.” ‘They
were in great terror of the Kbwarazmis’ at Dihli; but Sultan Jalal-ud-Din,

THE MU’IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 539

tion thereof will endure upon the pages of time until the
judgment day. | ह

This affair of the fortress [of Multan] happened in the
year 621 H.; and, one year and a half subsequently, the
Maliks of Ghir’, through the ravages of the Mughal
infidels, joined Malik [Sultan] Nasgir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah ;
and, in the latter part of the year 623H.,a body of [the
tribe of ] Khalj, a part® of the Khwarazmi forces, acquired
supremacy over the district of Mansirah *, which is [one]
of the cities of Siwastan, and their head was Malik Khan,

the Khalj ^.

who had no more than about 10,000 men with him, was unable to face the
immense forces of the Dihli kingdom, and therefore he contented himself, for
the time, with the Sind-Sagar Do-aibah and part of Sind. Had he appeared
on the scene a few years earlier, before the Turk chiefs of the Mu’izzi and
Kutbi dynasties had been overpowered and slaughtered by I-yal-timigh, 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-Din, Mahmiid, when he came to the throne,
eleven years after, was to march into the Panjab and despatch Ulugh Khan
from the banks of the Sidharah with his forces ‘‘to ravage the Koh-i-Jiid 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.

9 Who the ^" Maliks” of Ghiir 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 nathing 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 : ^“ Ze
army of Khalj, consisting of ALL the forces of Khwarizm,” &c. EL.iot,
vol, il. page 303.

+ The word used is (4,! of Mansiirah, and signifies literally depressed or
low land ; also a portion of land, country, region, tract, &c. With Siwastan
the word ५» is used, which is the plural of »—a district, province, country,
as well as town, city, inhabited place.

$ 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-barni, does our author, any more
than Hasan, Nizimi, the author of the Taj-ul-Ma’agir, 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

Mm 2

540 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Malik [Sultan] Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, moved on to
repel them, and a battle took place between the two

error of not mentioning those matters, 2 they were aware of them. The
Khwarazmi Sultans were very obnoxious to the Ghiris 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, Nigami,
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 Tirti or Tiirtae 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 lands in Nangrahir, north of
the Karman district, centuries before the Afghans came into it. It is included
by some in Shaniizan or Sankuran, or rather the latter is included in Nang-
rahar], the remnant of the Khwarazmf 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 re‘erred to at pages 287, 409, &c.—nor does our
author say he 15, but styles him ‘‘the Khalj;” but some other writers endeavour
to make out that he is—for, according to Yafa-i, Jahan-Kugha, and other
works, he was slain when endeavouring to reach Parshor or Barghawar, 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 mater-
nal 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-Safa, and Habib-us-Siyar, Yamin-ul-Mulk. It isapparent, however,
that his correct name and titles were Malik Khan, Yamin-ul-Mulk. See page
287.

Abi-l-Ghazi, Bahadur Khan, in his history styles the person last referred
to Khan Malik, Saif-ud-Din, ’Ighrak, Malik of the hills of Kaymain—the
Sankuran or Shaniizan hills. This however is not correct, for that chief,
together with others, ’Agam Malik and Nih, 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 ८2 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
Mansiirah and the district of which it was the chief place than Abi-l-Fagl 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-
208. The Khalj fugitives appeared on the N.wW. frontier of Sind, of which
Siwastin [which gave name to the province] or Sadiisan, the present Sibwan,
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 15
said to have been killed in the engagement. The 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 ° from Khura-
san by way of Ghaznin and Banian’, 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 Firizi
College of Uchchah was committed to the charge of the
author, together with the office of Kazi of the forces ® 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-Akbari copies from our author.

® Uchchah, also called Uchchah-i-Jalali, 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—Makhdim-i-Jahanan-i-Jahan—is buried is styled Uchchah-i-
Makhdiim. The part in which the Mughal governors used to dwell is named
Ochchah-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 4urok [each hurohk 1000 paces] to the north-
ward 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 Mithin—.,\¢-—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 d—jumped at the conclusion that that must be the place
referred to. The name contained in every copy of the text is written generally
w'es—Banian, but occasionally ,.2—Banban. See note ', page 536, and
note 8, page 623. The same name occurs in the reign of I-yal-timish, and
in many other places ; and, in the printed text, the name is, generally, correctly
written. In a note, however, it is turned into ७७१०२, but in two of the most
modern copies of the text it is turned into sly and yy» respectively! In
Elliot’s INDIA the printed text is implicitly followed. There is no doubt what.
ever that Multan is zof meant, and that it refers to some place detween Ghaznin,
Karman, and the tract north or west of the Salt Range, perhaps Bani 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 ९८८५ Uchchah, and would have taken our author much
out of his way in coming from Ghaznin to that city.
_ $ Compare Elliot, INDIA, vol. ii. page 304, where the Kagi-ship, or office of
Kazi, is turned into ‘‘provocation”’ ! The passage is thus rendered :—“‘ In the
month of Zi-l hijja of the same year the Firozi 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-l awwal, ^. प्त, 624, Sultan Sa’id
Shamsu-d din encamped in sight of Uch”!

542 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

’Ala-ud-Dtn, Bahram Shah [the son of Sultan Niasir-ud-
Din, Kaba-jah] ; and, in the month of Rabi’-ul-Awwal of
the same year’, 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 Ochchah, makes a different
statement here from that given by him under the reign of I-yal-timigh, page
611; and there says these events happened in 625 .

The Taj-ul-Ma’asir, after stating that the fortress of ‘* Ochchah-i- Multan ”
was ‘‘taken,”—i. €. Ochchah of Multan, or belonging fo Multan, not ‘‘ Och
Multd4n,”—and without mentioning that I-yal-timigh was at Ochchah in
person, says that I-yal-timish, hearing of Kaba-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 Kaba-jah from Ochchah,
I-yal-timish ^" left his Wazir to carry on the investment of Ochchah, and
returned himself to Dihlf;” and that ‘‘the Wazir took that place alter two
months, and then marched against Bhakar.”

Another work has that ‘‘I-yal-timish’s Wazir marched an army against
Kaba-jah, and invested him within the walls of Ochchah in 624 H.” that ‘‘it
was taken after two months, on the 22nd of Jamadi-ul-Akhir,” 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},
Firishtah [not his translators], places this event ‘‘detween 618 H. and 623 H. 3”
but, as he gives no authority for so doing, and no dates between, there is no
knowing what year he means. He places it (८2८ the expedition against
Rantabhiir, whereas it took place afer ; and in the lithographed text ‘‘revised”
by BricGs, and also in the Calcutta text of our author, Bhakar is turned into
Thankir, which is Bhianah. The Tabakat-i-Akbari also places these events
in 614 H. some ten years too soon : that was Kaba-jah’s first defeat by I-yal-
timigsh. See page 294.

The real events appear to be as follow. Soon after the Khalj and
Khwéarazni fugitives threw themselves on the protection of I-yal-timisb, he,
jealous of the power of Kaba-jah, and his overthrow of that remnant of the
Khwarazmi forces, moved with an army from Dihli, 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 15६ of Rabi’-ul-Awwal, 625 H. [February, 1227 A.D.], having
sent on the principal part of his army, under the Wazir, the Nigam-ul-Mulk,
the Khwajah, Muhammad, son of Abi-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 Lhuri [now often pronounced Rohri) 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 I-yal-timish 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-timisp 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’siim, 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 Shih, 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 Wazir was close at
hand to invest Bhakar, Kaba-jah was alarmed ; and, with the fate of Taj-ud-
Din, I-yal-diiz, 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 Jamadif-
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, ¢#e despatched his son to
I-yal-timish, with an offering of 100 /aks 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 /aks
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 rcceived with due caution—that ‘‘I-yal-timish ०८४८ 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 वजा of Rabi’-ul-Awwal, 625 H., and preparations for attack
were made. It was, however, not made until near seven weeks after, on Ist
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 appli-
cable to the island of Bhakar sn 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 2], preferring death to surrender and captivity, t himself from the
walls into the water, 1 € night of Thursday, the rgth 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’ini says that the Mughals invested Multan in 611 H., and that, in
624 H., Kaba-jah was made captive by Sultan Shams-ud-Din, ‘‘and took
the road of the other world.”

544 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI. |

of Uchchah. Malik [Sultan] Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, dis-
comfited, embarked on boats [with his troops and fol-
lowers ?] 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 Uch-
chah was given up. 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, in-
formation 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 ग.

The period of his rule in the land of Sind, and Uchchah,
and Multan, was twenty-two years.

IV. MALIK BAMA-UD-DIN, TUGHRIL‘4, UL-MU’IzZI-US-
SULTANL

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 Thankir,
which is Bhianah, although Bhakar is mentioned correctly immediately
after!

2 Impossible, considering that Zi-Hijjah is the /as¢ month of the year, and
Rabi’-ul-Awwal the ¢4ird. He must either mean that he reached Uchchah
in 623 H., or that it was surrendered in 625 H. See page 296, where he con-
tradicts both the date of his own arriva] at Uchchah and also the year in which
it was taken.

3 Compare ELLIor here, vol. ii. page 304.

4 Tughrul, with short # before the final ¢, isthe name of a bird; but the
name of this chief, like that of several of the Saljik rulers, is spelt Tughril.
All writers agree that Baha-ud-Din, Tughril, was one of the greatest, most
amiable, and most accomplished of Sultin Mu’izz-ud-Din’s mamliks.

THE MU’IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 545

when the fortress of Thangir’, [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 con-
tinually to despatch [bodies of] cavalry towards Gwiliyir.
When the Sultan-i-Gh4azi [Mu’izz-ud-Din] retired from the
foot [of the walls] of the fort of Gw4liyiir, he said to Baha-

$ The discrepancies of authors with regard to the taking of this fortress, and
the operations against Gwialiyiir are great.

Our author himself, under the reign of Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, states that
` Kutb-ud-Din subdued Nahrwalah, Thangir, Gwaliyir, and Buda’in, and here
contradicts himself.

The Taj-ul-Ma’agir says Thangir was taken in 592 H., and that Kutb-ud-
Din, having joined the Sultin’s forces, the royal army moved against Gwaliyir,
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-Akbarf says Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din made the expedition to
Kinnauj and Banaras in 589 H., and, leaving Kutb-ud-Din as his repre-
sentative in Hind, returned to Ghaznin. Immediately after, that work stafes,
“‘Kutb-ud-Din subdued Thangir, Gwiliyiir, and Buda’in, and then invaded
Nahrwalah,” but gives no dates ; and then adds, without mentioning any other
event between, that, ‘‘ when between Tiis and Sarakhs, Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din
heard of the death of his brother,” which happened in 599 H., according to our
author.

The Mirat-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 ook Gwaliytr, Buda’iin, and other places, but Thangir is
not mentioned, and, in this statement, Haft Iklim and Buda’tnf agree.

Alfi, which is the most correct apparently, has, ‘‘Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din,
Mubammad-i-Sam, again entered Hind in 590 H., and took Thangir [or
Thankir], which was an exceedingly strong place, and then marched against
Gwaliyir,” about which more will be mentioned in the following note.

It is amusing to compare Firightah here—the text I mean—his account of
these events, first, under the reign of Sultin 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, afid neither in details nor in dates do they

agree !

546 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

-ud-Din, Tughril: “I must leave this stronghold to thce
(६० 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 Gwaliyiir, 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 Gwaliyiir 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 him’; and [consequently] between Malik Baha-ud-Din,

¢ The more recent copies of the text differ somewhat from this; but the
oldest and best copies are as above.

7 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
Sultin, having gained possession of Thangir, moved against Gwaliyir.
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 Gwaliyiir, 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 ¢rans/ations 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 Gwalidr, in Bundélkand. It is probable [!] that he was recalled
by some attack or alarm in Khorasan, for he left the conduct of the stege of
Gwdliér to his generals, and returned, without having performed anything of
consequence [!], to Ghazni.”

At the time of withdrawing from before 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 Sultdn-kot in the Bhianah territory and there
took up his residence, and from thence made constant raids into the Gwiliyir
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 Gwaliyir. 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 Gwaliytir to him. Kutb-ud-Din’s having
accepted this offer was the cause of enmity between the two Turk mamliks,
and, had not Tughril been suddenly removed from the scene by the hand
of death, hostilities would have arisen between them. The Tagkirat-ul-
Muliik says Tughnil died whilst the operations were being carried on.

THE MU’IZZIAH 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 Bhiadnah, 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 Sultan® 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 Hindistan, 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, ABUO-L-MUZAFFAR-I-
MAHMOD, the son of the Sultan, the Kasim [co-sharer] of
the Lord of the Faithful’: and may Almighty God per-
petuate the dynasty, Amin!

There is no date given of the surrender of Gwiliyir 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-
Din, after the Sultan’s death, would scarcely have kept himself entirely at
. Lahor out of fear of Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-diiz, with another rival like Baha-ud-
Din, Tughril, in his reay, lest they might act in concert.

Firightah mentions these events in his account of Tughril as though they
had happened in 607 H.! See also note >, page 516.

Gwaliyir 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 manu-
MISSION.

9 See note ‘4, pages 310, 315, and 388, and note 7. On his later coins
the title is Nagir-i-Amir-ul-Miminin, and as our author himself states in his
account of Nasir-ud-Din Mabmiid’s reign farther on.

548 THE TA&BAKAT-I-NASIRI.

V. MALIK-UL-GHAZI, IKHTIYAR-UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD, SON
OF BAKHT-YAR!, KHALJI, IN THE TERRITORY OF
LAKHANAWATI?,

Trustworthy persons have related on this wise, that this
Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar, belonged to the Khalj [tribe]
of Ghir, and the territory of Garmsir’; and that he wasa
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 Diwan-i-’Ariz

1 In the more recent copies of the text, the word »»—‘‘son of” has been
left out, but the igafat—the 4asrah or ठ, 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 per-
formed. The same error, of omitting the 4asrak or not understanding the
grammatical structure, has caused the ancestor of the Ghirian Sulfins,
Muhammad, son of Siri, noticed at page 320, to be made Mubammad
Sitirl—one person—instead of two. The fathet’s name it appears was Bakht-
yar [1. €. the Fortunate or Lucky], the son of Mahmiid.

At page 517, in every copy of the text, our author styles him ’Izz-ud-Din,
instead of Ikhtiyar-ud-Din. ।

` 3 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-WATIi
from Lakhmana or Lakshmana, the son of Dasarata, and half-brother of
Ram Chandra, and wati, the contraction of wat{—habitation, dwelling,
home—the country of Lakhmana.

ॐ The most absurd statements have been made with respect to the people
named Khalj, the plural of which, according to the ’Arab mode of writing,
15 Akhlaj. It is also written, but rarely, Khalaj; but some few Mubam-
madan Indian authors write it Khilj and Khilji, and most European writers
have followed them [Dow, however, makes ‘‘ Chélligies” of them, although
Firightah writes the word €~ » like other Muhammadan authors] $ but, accord-
ing to the fertile imaginations of Europeans, the Khalj—_j«—tribe and Ghalzi
—.sjs—tribe are one people—in fact, some roundly assert that the Khalj are
one and the same race as the Afghan tribe of Ghalzi, without there being
a shadow of authority for such an assertion in any Mubammadan writer
whatever. Because the Khalj happened, in the days of the Ghirian 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 Afghanistian—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 de 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-Tawarikh, Intro-
duction 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 Hindistan
and entered the service of Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din. See also note 6, page 550.

THE MU’IZZIAIl 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 Hinddstan. 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’iin, 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-yar—Muham-
mad, son of Mahmiid—was in [the army of | Ghaznin [and
his nephew joined him]; and, when the battle was fought at
Tara’in in which the Golah [Rae Pithora] was defeated,
१11, [styled] Nag-awri, entertained Muhammad-i-Mahmid
(the uncle] in his own service. When he [’Ali] became
feudatory of Nag-awr, he stood up among his brethren [57८],
and conferred a kettle-drum and banner upon Muhammad-
i-Mahmiid, and made over to him the fief of Kashmandi
[or Kashtmandi]; and, after his [Muhammad-i-Mahmiid’s]
death, Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar became feudatory in his
71266.

After some time he proceeded into Awadh to the pre-
sence of Malik Husadm-ud-Din, Aghil-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 talics 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 ’Ali, Nag-awri’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-yar, entered their service. The
very fact of these Khalj rulers being put in the same Section wth Kutb-ud-
Din, I-bak, Nasir-ud-Din, 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.

550 - THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

[oS], and Bhiili or Bhiwali [,J5-0°] were conferred
upon him in fief; and, being a min of valour and intre-
pidity, he was in the habit of making incursions into the
territory of Muner and Bihar’, and used to obtain booty

$ 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 Chinar-garh, and two far-
ganahs still bear the same names. The town of एता [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 १], the former being only two miles north and
nine west, and the latter one mile north; and twenty-eight miles west of
Bhiili. All these three places moreover are immediately west of the Karmah-
nasah, which river was the boundary of the Bibar territory. In the printed
text these places are turned into Sahlat [cy] or Sahlast [ey] and
Sahili [_de~] or Sihwalf [.J5¢]—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.

Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar—as I shall in future style
him—that is son of Bakht-yar, 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 Ghiir. He was endowed with great valour, wis-
dom, and liberality, was of robust and powerful form, with immensely
long arms—as described by our author. During the reign of Sultan
Mu’izz-ud-Din he came -to Ghamin 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], Husim-ud-Din, Oghil-
Bak [see note 9, 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-
Din conferred on Ughil-Bak the fortress of Kol and its dependencies, which
is in the Do-ab. Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar was taken into that Malik’s service,
and, soon after, was despatched with some forces into Awadh [Compare
Thomas, ‘‘ PATHAN KINGS OF DEHLI,” page 110, who makes him ‘ Sipah-
séldr of Oude” and note’, page 558, farther on] ; and, on several occasions,
he gave proofs of his valour and prowess against his Hindi opponents.

After this, Husim-ud-Din, O ghil-Bak, conferred upon him the fiefs of
PATITAH—«a44 [Lat. 25°, Long. 82° 54, and KuNTILAH—skS [Lat. 25° 7/,
Long. 82° 3६1], the 4८ of the Indian Atlas.

[rom a similarity in the names, some comparatively modern Muhammadan

THE MU’IZZIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 551

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 Akhlaj’, from different parts of Hin-
diistan, 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 referreg to Patiali—_jly [Lat. 27° 41', Long.
79° 40], and Kanpilah [4,5], Lat. 27° 37", Long. 79” 21/, lying on the
southern bank of the Ganges a few miles N.N.W. of Buda’iin, but no less
than ¢hree 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 Soane [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 Chinar-garh, and fad a ram-
part and a fort when Chait 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. ]

Muhammad-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’ini] a dress of honour of great value, for, at this period,
Husim-ud-Din, U ghil-Bak, is no more mentioned.

It will be seen from these statements, as well as from the statement of our
author, that Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar was never Sipah-Salar in Awadh. The
mistake appears to have arisen from his having entered the service of Husam-
ud-Din, ति ghil-Bak, who was a Sipah-Salar and held the fief of Awadh, or
by confounding Mubammad-i-Bakht-yar’s name with that of the Sipah-Salar,
Hizabar-ud-Din, mentioned above by our author. See Thomas: ‘‘ PATHAN
Kincs OF DEHLI,” page 110.

7 This favour, on the part of Kutb-ud-Din, as well as Muhammad-i-
Bakht-yar’s valour and generosity becoming noised abroad, bodies of Akhlaj
from the Sultan’s forces in Hindiistan 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 Dihli,
but he was not «^ Sultan’ Kutb-ud-Din, for his master was still alive and he
himself was 5८14 a slazv.

552 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

with two hundred horsemen in defensive armour, and sud-
denly 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 with® Sam-
sam-ud-Din at Lakhanawati in the year 641 H., and this
account is from him. These two wise brothers were soldiers’
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 intre-
pidity, 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 books’ there ; and, when all these books
came under the observation of the Musalmans, they sum-
moned a number of Hindis that they might give them
information respecting the import of those books; but the
whole of the Hindiis had been killed?. On becoming ac-
quainted [with the contents of those books], it was found
that the whole of that fortress and city was a college, and
in the Hindi tongue, they call a college [५] Bihar’.
When that victory was effected, Muhammad-i-Bakht-
yar returned with great booty, and came to the presence
of the beneficent Sultan‘, Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and re-
ceived 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 Hindiis.

2 The Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh, which quotes our author verbatim on most
occasions, says they sent for a number of Hindiis, who made them acquainted
with the contents of the books, and tv 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 4 is
often substituted for Nagari q@—z—thus, Bihar or Wihar, but there is no
ein the word : hence Behar is impossible.

+ He was not then Sultan, and his master, Sultén Mu’izz-ud-Din, was
still alive, and was assassinated ¢hirteen 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 Mubammad-i-Bakht-yar.

THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATI. 553

mad-i-Bakht-yar’s praises’, and, at beholding the honour

$ 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 Sultin Mu’izz-ud-Din
in Hindistén. 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 note 2, page 516, it was whilst Kutb-ud-Din was at Mahobah, in the
Kalbi territory, in 599 H.—which should be 589 H.—after taking K4linjar,
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-jar, and they began to calum-
niate 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 Kasgr-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-Bakht-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-Din 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 Mubammad-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-Bakht-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-Din further distinguished him by giving him a standard and other
insignia, and confirmed him, on the part of his master, the Sultan, in the govern-
ment of the tracts he had subdued, and such further conquests as he might make
in the Lakhapawati territory ; and Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar returned to Bihar.

Here is a rich specimen of the history taught at present, at least, in the Uni-
versity 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 ¢he army returned within two
years to Delhi, bending beneath the weight of plunder. An attempt was soon
after made to supplant Bukhtiyar in 47s 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 Aim, in 1203, ८० reduce Bengal.”

Now, in the whole of this statement, there is not one atom of truth, and in no
author, Mubammadan or Hindi, will suCh a statement be found.

Nn

554 । 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 reproach-
ful 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 mace’, the elephant fled
discomfited.

When Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar 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
imperial’ honorary robe, he departed, and set out towards
Bihar.

Fear of him ° 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 °, whose seat of government was the city of Nidiah, 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 circum-
stances of that Rae, which had been heard [by the writer],
is here recorded ; and it is this, that, when his father was

6 See Elliot: INDIA, vol. ii. page 306. (72 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 ele-
phant :” no more.

7 One of the robes probably which Kutb-ud-Din had himself received ‘from
his master, hence it is called a ‘‘Sultani” robe.

8 His intrepidity and valour

9 Another writer styles him Rae Lakhmiah [a e4<=J], intended, no doubt,
for the Sanskrit @@AY son of Rae Lakhman [yee]. See list of kings of
Bangalah in Abi-l-Fagl’s A’in-i-Akbari, and Dr. Blochmann’s translation, and
note 2, 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 Khalifah’ by descent.

When the birth of Lakhmaniah drew near, and the signs
of giving birth became manifest to his mother, she assem-
bled the astrologers together’, 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 astro-
logers, 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*®. On reaching the ground,
his mother, unable any longer to endure the agony of:
labour, died, and Lakhmaniah was placed upon the throne ५

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 whoso-
ever preferred a request to him for anything, other than
one /ak [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,

' The words “Khalifah by descent” [sls ५८1८१], 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 sfiritua/, 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: [त्रि 714,
vol. 11. 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 ~~ o's5 a:0g03 and the more
modern ५] < 1, ateg J

* 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 Lakh-
maniah was able to assume the direction of affairs.

Nn 2

556 ‘THE TABAKAT-.I-NASIRI.

e

as in that country, the #auri [shell] is current in place of
silver °, the least gift he used to bestow was a /ak of kauris.
The Almighty mitigate his punishment [in hell]!

I now return to the history of Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar.
When he returned from the presence of Sultan Kutb-ud-
Din, and subdued Bihar’, his fame had reached the hearing
of Rae Lakhmaniah, and the different parts of his dominions
likewise. A number of astrologers, wise men, and coun-
sellors 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 Turks’, and the time of its fulfilment
has drawn near. The Turks have subjugated Bihar ^ and
next year they will surely come into this country. It 1s
expedient for us that the Rae should consent*® 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

1))

his legs’.” The Rade answered: “It is advisable that

* In every copy of the text collated, with the exception of “ve, which have
sital, the word silver is used. In 1845 the त्तं was equivalent to 6500 kauris,
and a /ak would be equal to a fraction over fifteen riipis. In ancient times
they may have been estimated at a higher rate, but a (4 of kauris could not
have been a very desirable present to obtain, or a very convenient one. See
note?, page 583.

6 Our author must mean when Muhammad-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-Din defore, 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 Ghalzt Afghans.

ॐ ‘Have this year subjugated Bihar, and next year will come into this
country,” according to the Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh.

9 Compare Elliot: INDIA, vol. ii. page 308, where this sentence is translated :
०‹ ६ was therefore advisable that the Raé should make feace with them”!
७०१; (2519 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
ELLiort the words ys Gl. have been translated ‘‘ shins.””

THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKITANAWATI. °§57

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 inhabitants’ of that place left, and
retired into the province of Sankanat’, the cities and towns
of Bang, and towards Kamrid; but to begin to abandon
his country was not agreeable to Rae Lakhmaniah. The
following year after that, Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar caused a
force to be prepared, pressed on from Bihar, and suddenly
appeared before the city of Nidiah‘, 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-yar 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 Lakh-
maniah, when he drew his sword, and commenced an on-
slaught on the unbelievers.

At this time Rae Lakhmaniah was seated at the head of
his table ° 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 R4ae’s palace and the
interior of the city. By the time he became certain what

‡ All but the two oldest copies have Sahin [from साधु], which signifies
merchants, shopkeepers, and the like—inoffensive people, not ^^ chiefs.”

> In the best and oldest copies of the text, Sanknat—ol.<a—is plainly
written, with the exception of two, which have Saknat—oS. The Zubdat-
ut-Tawatikh also has Saknat; but other works, including the Tabakat-i-
Akbari and the Tagkarat-ul-Mulik, say Jagnath. The part meant by our
author more probably refers to a province of eastern Bang.

+ The more modern copies of the text have #s—one even has ,hogj—
instead of 42555 and ५०५

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 modern writers.

° 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 Ride fled bare-
footed 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’, When the whole of Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar’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 Sankanat* and Bang, and
there the period of his reign ° shortly afterwards came to a
termination. His descendants, up to this time, are rulers
in the country of Bang’.

7 The Rie, 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-Din, for the Sultan.

According to Munshi Shiim Parshad, who wrote an account of Gaur
[Gaudah—.3,° ] 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-Bakht-yar took Nidiah.

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 110,
says Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar, whom he erroneously makes ‘‘ Sitch sdlar”
of Awadh, ‘‘in A.H. 599, pushed his forces southward, and expelled, with
but little effort, the ancient Hindu dynasty of ^ क. Here is an error of
ten years: Mubammad-i-Bakht-yar moved from Bihar in 589 H., and in the
foilowing year took Niidiah by surprise. Were 599 H. correct, his sway over
Lakhanawati would have been less than ८१7८८ years, as he was assassinated
about the middle of 602 H. See note >, 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 Kamriid.

9 In some copies, the period of his 2/2, &c.

1 The Rajah, it is said, escaped in a boat to Bikram-pir or Wikram-pir.
We shall also find that Sunarganw, near Bikram-piir, continued to be a place
of refuge for those who were discontented at Gauy, and was not finally
reduced for a long time after the overthrow of Rie Lakhmaniah, who had a
son, Madhob Sen, who had a son, ऽप Sen, who by Hindiis is considered the
last ruler. Bikram-piir 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 af Gauy, which did not become the

THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATL 559

After Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar possessed himself of that
territory [Rae Lakhmaniah’s], he left the city of Niidiah in
desolation, and the place which is [now] Lakhanawati? 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 money *; and, through his praiseworthy endea-

capital of Bangalah until immediately before the Mubhammadan conquest.
Nidiah was called Nobo-dwip. See ‘‘ Account of Zila Dinajpur,” Cal-
cutta: 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’bin 602 H. = March 1206 A.D., in which same year Muhammad-i-
Bakht-yar died or was assassinated, and which, from 590 H. = 1194 A.D., is
just twelve years.

2 The name of Rae Lakhmaniah’s capital was spelt Niidiah until the time
of Aurangzeb, when words ending in s—ha-i-mukhtafi—were ordered to be
written with |—as Nudia.

Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar destroyed Niidiah, and, leaving it in desolation,
passed onwards [Rauzat-us-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-Akbari, where Lakhanawati has been
[५1 ४५१], and which, at this time [reign of Akbar], they call Gauy. The
Gaur MS. says he made the mouza’ [place, village, district] of Lakhanawati,
his capital, now twelve miles from the Gang. The Mir’at-i-Jahin-Numa
says ‘‘he founded a city as his capital ¢ the territory of Lakhanawati,”
which signifies Gaur of Bangalah, ‘‘at the place where Lakhanawati was.”
Buda’inl says Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar ‘‘destroyed the idol temples of the
infidels and erected masjids and other buildings, and built a capital zn hés
own name [!] which is now called Gauy.” 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 Gauriya or Gaudhiya. According
to Abi-l-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 ay]. It would seem,
from this, that the most ancient name of the city was Gaur, afterwards
changed to Lakhanawati, and subsequently styled Gauy again. The emperor
Humayiin named it Bakht-abad. Bangialah itself is sometimes styled Jannat-
ul-Bilad. See note 5, page 584.

ॐ There is not a word in the text about causing ‘‘ Zs name to be read in the
Khutbah and struck o# the coins.” See note 9, page 572. According to the
Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh he established “the Khutbah 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 Niidiah, he assumed a canopy of state, read the Khutbah for
himself, and issued coin in Ass oven name, which is not correct. He would
naturally have issued cuin 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 mo-
nasteries [for Darweshes], were founded in those parts. Of
the booty and wealth [taken] he despatched a large por-
tion to the presence of Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak.

After some years had passed away‘, and he had ascer-
tained the state of the different mountain tracts of Turkis-
tin and Tibbat to the eastward of Lakhanawati‘, the
ambition of seizing the country of Turkistan and Tibbat
began to torment his brain; and he had anarmy 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 Kiinch‘*, the second the Mej [Meg], and the third
the Tiharii ; and all have Turk countenances. They have
a different idiom too, between the language of Hind and
Turk’. One of the chiefs of the tribes of Kiinch and Mej,
whom they were wont to call 'Ali, 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 £10, and note !, and Elliot : INDIA, vol.
ii, page 309.

५ This expedition must have been undertaken towards the close of the
year 601 H. After Mubammad-i-Bakht-yar had acquired great power and
grandeur, he turned his thoughts to the acquirement of further territory in
Tibbat and Turkistén 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 Raugat-ug-
Safa 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 7%é¢ef is anywhere in
general use to designate the province according to the European acceptation
of the word! This may be true as to 7iée?, for the country here referred to is
written and called TIBBAT.

The ‘‘Tharoo” [Tihari] caste, according to Buchanan, composes the
greatest portion of the population that are dwellers in the plain of ‘‘ Saptari,”
in Makwanpir adjoining the Mirang on the north-west; and the inhabitants of
the Miirang to the east of Bijaipir [Wijayapir] are chiefly Konch, and on the
lower hills are many of the Megh, Mej, or Mech tribe.

© 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.

* In some copies the nasal # is left out —Kiich.

7 In some of the more modern copies of the text, ‘‘ Hind and 74004. "2

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]®*.
They relate, after this manner, that, in ancient times,
Shah Gishtasib® returned from the country of Chin, and
came towards Kamrid, and, by that route, got into Hin-
distan, and founded that city [Burdhan-kot]. A river
flows in front of that place, of vast magnitude, the name of
which is Beg-mati’; and, when it enters the country of
Hindiistan, they style it, in the Hindii dialect, Samund?
[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 ’Ali, 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 arches*’. After the army

® 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 cupies collated have Murdhan and Murdhan-kot,
and the printed text, in a note, has Durdhan [Wurdhan ?] as well as Burdhan.

9 Some copies have Giishtasib and some Garghasib, and one has Giidarz.
In the Iranian records Garshasib, son of Zau, is not mentioned as having
had aught to do with Hind or Chin. The wars of Gightasib with Arjasib,
son of Afrasiyab, King of Turan, are narrated, but there is no mention of
Giishtasib’s going into Turan or Chin; 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, Gidarz, 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 Giishtasib, who had gone into Chin by
that route, returned into Hind by way of the city of Kamrid, and that up to
the period of the invasion of Kamrid by Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Yiiz-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 Gightasib, 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-hati, Bak-mati, or Bag-mati, and
others have Bang-mati, Mag-madi, and Nang-mati, or Nag-mati. Bag-mati
is not an uncommon name for a river, and is applied to more than one. The
river of Nipal, which lower down is called the Grandhak, is called Bag-mati.

ॐ Samund or Samudr or Samudra, the ocean. One of the best copies of
the text has ‘‘ when it enters the ocean or sea [4 ,<] of Hindistan,”’ &c.

3 The reader cannot fail to notice that considerable discrepancy exists here
in our author’s statements respecting this river and bridge. From what he

६62 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

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-mati or Bek-
mati, myst be the Brahma-putr; but wat 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 fwenty [i. €. 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
Dihli to Lakhanawatt ; 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 §61, our author says ’Ali, 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-mati, which, on entering Hindistan, they call the Samund,
but the great bridge is not mentioned in connexion with it. He then says
that ’Ali, the Mej, joined the Musalman forces on the banks of this river, and
then conducted them ^^ ४8 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 Tibhat], and then, sof before, they reached
this great bridge, but no river is mentioned. At page 565, it is said that a/ter
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 ’Ali, the
Mej, joined them, beyond the territory of the Rajah of Kamriid, 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 Kamrid
territory, or words to that effect.

The boundaries of Kamrid 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 Bhiitan, its southern boundary being
where the Lakhiyah river separates from the Brahma-putr.

From the distinct mention of 7iééat 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-yar—and his forces—marched from Diw-kot, or
Dib-kot, in Dinja-piir district, the most important post on the northern frontier
of his territory, keeping the country of the Rajah of Kamrid on his night
hand, and proceeding along the bank of the river Tistah, through Sikhim,
the tracts inhabited by the Kinch, Mej, and Tihari, to Burdhan-kot. They
were not in the territory of the Rajah of Kamrid, as his message shows ; yet,
when the retreat is mentioned, the Musalmans were, invested in the idol-
temple by his people, but #0 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 ढक river, on the tenth day the Musalmans
reached the bank of the great river where was the bridge of stone ‘‘ of above
twenty arches.” Ifthe 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 Tistah, 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 Kamriid, in ancient times, extended as far east as
this; and the fact of the Rae of Kamrid 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, there-
fore, 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 XdGmriud and Tirhut.
The Sanpi, as the crow flies, is not more than 160 or 170 miles from Dinja-pir,
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 Str HAxko, described by Hannay. ‘It is
situated,” he says ‘‘on the high alley [one of Ghiyas-ud-Din, ’Iwaz’s cause-
ways probably] which, no doubt, formed at one time the principal line of land
communication with ancient Gowahatty (Pragjyotisha) in Western Kamrup
{Kamrid].” He also considers that ‘‘it is not improbable that this is the
stone bridge over which Bactyar Khilji [Muhammad, sox of Bakht-yar] and
his Tartar cavalry passed previous to entering ¢he 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), hear-
ing [?] 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 ८८ bridge our author refers to. In all pro-
bability 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 ८ long and 8 fee broad, and has nv regular arches—this
last fact, however, is not material, as the partitions or divisions might be so

564 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

mad-i-Bakht-yar, with the whole of the rest-of his forces,
‘passed over that bridge; and, when the Rae of Kamrid
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 Kamrid, 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, so¢ over a mighty river three times
broader and deeper than the Ganges, but across ‘‘ what may have been a
former bed of the Bar Nadi, or at one particular season a dranch 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 rains, and, at that season, from native accounts, the waters of the
Brahmaputra still find access to it.”

The chief reasons why the bridge of Stt HAKo could not have been that
over which Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar, crossed with his army may be
summed up as follow :— |

I. Muhammad.-i-Bakht-yar marched through the tract between Kamrid and
Tirhut into Tibbat in a totally different direction to Gowahati, through defiles
and passes over lofty mountains, while between Gaur, Diw-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 7urks, 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 Bakht-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 of a bow-shot,

THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATI. 565

One night, in the year 642 H.*, 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 Bekanwah’,
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 de-
files 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 fee 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 ginches each—
equal to 13 feet and 6 inches in all, would have deterred the Musalman cavalry
from crossing? The very bambi, 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-Bakht-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 § leagues distant from the city of Kar-
battan—the march from Burdhan[kot] 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 ¢ Aalt at the place in question.

$ The oldest copies have Bekénwah or Beganwah and one Bekawan or
Begawan—as plainly written as it is possible to write, while two more modern
copies have Satgawn [Satgawn 7]. 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 Satgiwn ; but in the copies of the A’IN-I-AKBARi
I have examined I find Baklanah—#3G— instead of Bakla—X— but this can
scarcely be the place referred to by our author.

566 . THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRi.

great strength, and the Musalman army commenced plun-
dering the country around®. The people of that fort and
town and the parts adjacent advanced to repel the Muham-
madan army, and they came to a battle’. From day-
break 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 picces of the spear bambi’, 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 bows’.

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.

7 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 puy—i.e. px, «—being altered to न but px, not 6+, is si/é], which
warrants the reading of this passage as in Elliot [INDIA: vol. ii. page 311J]—
‘‘The only weapons of the enemy were bamboo spears, and their armour,
shields, and helmcts, consisted only of raw sik strongly fastened and sewed
together.” A ‘‘shield” and ‘‘helmet” of raz si/k would be curiosities certainly.

The bambi referred to in the text is the ma/e bimbiithe young shoots, pro-
bably, used for spear shafts—for which the hollow bambi is not adapted. Had
the spear bambii 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 Ao//oiv bambi laid overlapping each
other as the rings of a coat of mail, but the male Lambii could not be used in
this manner, and, therefore, their armour, shields, &c., must have been of
pieces of the male bimbii overlapping each other, as in the literal translation
above. An officer with the Duffiah expedition, writing on December 8, 1874,
says: ‘* Each man has over his forehead 2 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-zvork helmet, a sort of close-fitting skull-cap worn on 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 (ठ or cane rings, unattached to one
another.” See also Dalton: ETHNOLOGY OF BENGAL, page 32.

9 Buda’iini says the people of this place were of the lineage [!] of Gishtasib
(Gurghasib शु, and that the fortress had been founded by him. That author dacs
not give his authority for this statement. Our author says, at page 561, that
Giishtasib founded Burdhan[kot]. The Khalj were a Turkish tribe certainly,
but they had emigrated from northern Turkistén ages before this period.

THE KHAL]J 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,
archers’; 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 Ninis’*, and that city is under the autho-
rity of their Mihtar [chief or lord], and they hold the pagan
faith‘; and every day, at daybreak, in the cattle-market’
of that city, about one thousand five hundred horses are
sold; and all the sangahan* horses which reach the Lakh-

' The text varies considerably here, and great discrepancy exists with respect
to the name of this important place. The oldest copy has y»S—Kar-battan,
possibly Kar-pattan, the next two oldest and best have ८२ ,s—Karar-battan
or pattan, but what seems the second, in this word may ८८ y—thus Karan-
pattan. All the other copies have ७२ »S—Karam-battan or Karam-pattan.
Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh has ठ which might be read Karshin, or Karan-tan ;
and some other histories have yew »S— Karam-sin.

Bhati-ghiin, the Banaras of the Girkah dominions, and once a large place,
in Makwanpir, in which part the inhabitants are chiefly Tihariis, was anciently
called ५ e#)—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 Niiuian, and in the more modern ones Tinian.
One copy of the text however has ‘‘ but-parastin”’ 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—Manichwans—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 +~ hs W!|—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 of

568 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

anawati country they bring from that place. The route
by which they come is the Mahamha-1 [or Mahanmha-i]
Darah’ [Pass], and this road in that country is well known;
for example, from the territory of Kamriid to that of Tir-
hut are thirty-five mountain passes, by which they bring
the sangahan horses into the territory of Lakhanawatt.

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 con-
clusion that it was necessary to retreat, in order that, next
year, after making ample arrangements, they might return
again into that country®. When they retreated, through-
out the whole route, not a blade of grass nor a stick of fire-
wood remained, as they [the 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 days® not a pound of food nor
a blade of grass did the cattle and horses obtain’; and all

our author’s text are —sS3 1-८0-7 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 Zanyan or Jangun
‘from Zangusthan the general appellation of that assemblage of mountains
which constitutes the territory of Bootan,” &c. He must mean Tangistan, the
region of ¢angs or defiles. Abii-1-Fazl also mentions these horses in his A’iN-
1-AKBARI—“‘ In the lower parts [७४२] of Bangalah near unto Kij [Kich], a
[species] of horse between the giit [giinth] 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: INp1a,
vol. ii. page 315, and note ५, and see Dr. Blochmann’s translation of the A’iN.

7 Some copies—the more modern—and the best Paris copy, leave out the
name of this pass, and make s2,°—passes—of it ; and, while all the oldest copies
{and Zubdat] have Tirhut, the more modern ones have Tibbat.

8 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 day. 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-Tawarikh 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, or

THE KHAL] MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATI. 569

[the men] were killing their horses and eating them, until
they issued from the mountains into the country of Kam-
rid, and reached the head of that bridge. They found two
arches of the bridge destroyed’, 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 off*, and the
Hindis of the Kamrid country had come‘ and destroyed
the bridge.

On the arrival at that place of Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar
with his forces he found no way of crossing, and boats were’
not procurable. He was lost in surprise and bewilderment‘.
They agreed that it was necessary to halt in some place’®,
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 mans’ of beaten gold. Muhammad-i-
Bakht-yar and the remainder of his followers sought shelter
within that idol-temple*®, 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.

> The Zubdat-ut-Tawartkh states that the two Amirs, to spite each other,
abandoned guarding the bridge, and each went his own way. Buda’inf 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 Kamriid territory, although, a line or two
before, it is stated that they came into Kamrid and reached the head of the
bridge. See also page 561 and note’.

५ Where was ’Ali, 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 Hindis of Kamriid are, see page 571.

6 Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh says ‘‘necessary to occupy some place stil boats
and floats could be constructed.”

7 The more modern copies have 7015215.

® 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

OO

570 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

obtaining wood and rope for the construction of rafts and
crossing the river, in such wise that the Rae of Kamrid
became aware of the reverses and helplessness of the Musal-
man army. He issued commands to the whole of the
` [तप्र of the country, so that they came pouring in in
crowds, and round about the idol-temple were planting
spiked bambiis in the ground, and were weaving them to-
gether, so that it [their work] was appearing like unto walls’.

When the Musalman troops beheld that state of affairs,
they represented to Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar, [saying] :—
“Tf 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 Kamriid, on becoming aware of it,
sent his men, and destroyed the two arches. It is strange the names of these
two Amirsare not given by our author, as his informant, previously mentioned,
must have known who they were.

Finding the bridge thus impassable, Muhammad-i-Bakht-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
note 8, page 561, it is doubtful whether our author meant it to be under-
stood that Burdhan-kot was on the banks of the Bag-madi 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 accord-
ingly. Another writer states that they were ignorant, when they advanced,
of the existence of this temple.

Buda’iini 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 Tishi Lambi or Digarchah, the seat of a Lama in Lat. 29° 7’ N., Long.
89° 2' E., a great monastery only 180 miles from Rang-piir 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 Sanpii river, and a few miles distant, and our author
says it was a /7indi temple. Perhaps, in his ideas, Hindiis and Buddhists
were much the same. From this point are roads leading into Bhiitén and
Bengal.

As soon as the Rae of Kamriid 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
‘*bambvo spears’ as in Elliot [INDIA, vol ii. page 317], but bambiis 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 Kiich ‘‘all the country is set with bamboos or canes made sharp at
both ends and stuck into the earth,” &c.

THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATI. 571

whereby to effect extrication.” With one accord they
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 Hindi
after them'. When they reached the river bank the Musal-
mans halted*, and each one, to the best of his ability,
sought means of crossing over. Suddenly some few of the
soldiers* urged their horses into the river, and, for the dis-
tance 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 Hindis
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-yar emerged from the water,
information reached a body of the Kiinch and Mej. The
guide, ' 41, the Mej, had kinsmen at the passage, and they

॥ Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar, seeing through the object of the Hindiis,
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-madi. Here he appears
to have remained some days, while efforts were then made to construct rafts,
the Hindiis not venturing to attack them in the open

3 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’int states that those wh» 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 his patron—the Tabakat-i-Akbari—but such
is not stated therein.

3 In some copies of the text, ‘‘one of the soldiers,”

O00 2

572 THE TABAKAT-1-NASIRI.

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, [consist-
ing] of women and children, would wail and utter impre-
cations against him and revile him, so that from henceforth
he did not ride forth again*. During that adversity he
would be constantly saying: “Can any calamity have
befallen the Sultan-i-Ghazi that my good fortune hath
deserted me*!” 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 Amir‘ of his, ’Ali
i-Mardan, a Khalj of great intrepidity and temerity, to
whose charge the fief of Naran-go-e [or Naran-ko-e’] was
made over. When he obtained information of this disas-
ter 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 [1171९ ’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 ex-
cessive 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-ug-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 शमु in
’Ali-i-Mardan, signifies ’Ali, soz of Mardin. 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 (9४ as above in all cases ; and one—the best Peters-
burg copy—has a jac over the last letter in addition, but all four have the
hameah. The Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh also has .s,\‘;:—Naran-goe or Niran-
koe. The next best copies of the text have ,,: 3;:—in which, in all pro-
bability, the; has been mistaken for i The I. O. L. MS. 1952, the R. A. S.
MS., and the printed text, have $5,42—whilst the best Paris copy has this
latter word, in one place, and 790 ए in other places; and another copy has
5, In EL.ioT, vol. प. page 314, it is turned into ‘‘ Kunf” in one place,
and, sixteen lines under, into ‘‘ Narkotf.”

8 Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh 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 प्र.”

VI. MALIK ’IZZ-UD-DIN, MUHAMMAD, SON OF SHERAN},
KHALJi, IN LAKHANAWATI.

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 Kamrid 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-nagar®. When the news of these events
[related above] reached Muhammad-i-Sheran, he came

® 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-Din, 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 7, page 558.

Some authors consider him an independent sovereign, and say that he
‘‘reigned” for twelve years. He certainly ru/ed in quasi independence for
that period ; but, from the expressions made use of by him in his last sickness,
he evidently was loyal to Sultin Mu’izz-ud-Din, and he probably paid some
nominal obedience to Malik Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, as the Sultin’s Deputy at
Dihli. It is not to be wondered at that Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar, neither
issued coin in his own name, nor in the name of his sovereign’s slave: whilst
that sovereign was a/ive—the latter would have been an impossible act. See
Thomas, PATHAN KINGS, note ', page 111; and note 3, page 559.

॥ Also styled, by some other authors, Sher-wain. Sher-dn, 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 would
not Le so entitled.

2 Compare ELLIOT, vol. ii. page 314. The Paris copy of the text, the
I. 0. 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 5 sub-
stituted for , 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 Hindi territory [see note‘, page 587]; but most authors agree
with ours that Muhammad.-i-Sheran was despatched against-— or probably to
hold in check—Jaj-nagar during Muhbammad-i.Bakht-yar’s absence on the
expedition into Tibbat ; and he was, doubtless, feudatory of Lakhan or [see
note ५, page 584], which lay in the direction of the Jaj-nagar territory.

$74 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-e*, 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‘,
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 qualities*®; and,
at the time when Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar sacked the city
ct Niidiah, 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
alone’. 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 [com-
bined] with sagacity’.

3 Other writers state that Mubammad-i-Sheran, on hearing of the fate of
their chief, Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar, returned at once from Jaj-nagar [from
Jaj-nagar towards Lakhan-or] with his Torce, proceeded to Diw-kot, and per-
formed the funeral ceremonies ; and then marched from Diw-kot to Bar-sil—
Js-,i—and secured the 2552557, ’Ali-i-Mardan, and threw him into prison.
After performing this act, he retumed to Diw-kot again. See note’, next
page. In ELLior this is turned into ‘‘they returned from their stations, and
came dutifully to Deokot ;” but 's b+ as in the printed text, does not mean
“‘dutifully,” but ‘‘mourning ceremonies.”

५ Familiarly so styled perhaps.

$ The Jahan-Ara, which does not mention ’Ali, son of Mardan, at all, calls
Muhammad-i-Sheran bloodthirsty, and greatly wanting in understanding, thus
confounding him with ’Ali-i-Mardan.

6 He had managed to take these elephants and their drivers on the day of
the surprise of Niidiah, but, being quite alone, he was unable to sccure 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 energetic
man, and, being the chief of the Khalj Amirs, on their return to Diw-kot, the

THE 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 homage’, 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 men-
tioned], got out of prison, and went off to the Court of
Dihli*. He preferred a petition to Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-
bak, that Kae-m4az, the Rimi’ [native of Riimilia], should
be commanded to proceed from Awadh towards the terri-
tory of Lakhanawati, and, in conformity with that com-
mand, [suitably] locate the Khalj Amirs.

Malik Husam-ud-Din, ’Iwaz, the Khalj, at the hand of
Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar, was the feudatory of Gangiri
[or Kankiri ?]’, 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
our author himself says at page 578, it would appear to have been the capital
at this period.

* Some copies have “they all paid him homage,” &c., and, after the word
fief, insert ^" until.”

9 ’All-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] Sultin 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 ’Ali, son of
Mardan, a¢ once succeeded in inciting Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, against Mubam-
mad-i-Sheran, and inducing him to despatch Kae-maz 10 Lakhanawati ; but
this is not correct. ग, son of Mardin, accompanied Kutb-ud-Din tu
Ghaznin [where he reigned—in riot—forty days], and was taken captive by the
troops of I-yal-diiz, 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 Rimi,
received orders, on which he proceeded from Awadh to Lakhanawati ;” but 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 pro-
ceed 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 Khalj Amirs,
having shown hostility towards him [Kae-maz], opposed him in battle, and
were defeated, and that, in that engagement, Muhammad, son of Sheran, was
slain. Compare ELLIOT, too, here.

2 Of the four best and oldest copies of the text, two have Gangiri or Kan-
kiiri — 5, 56 -5—and two, Gasgiiri or Kaskiiri—.;,5~‘—but this latter appears
very doubtful. Five other good copies agree with the first two, but three others
have respectively 5)>-55— s,S—and त, 9 Some other works, including
the Tabakat-i-Akbari, state that Husim-ud-Din, ’Iwaz, was the feudatory

576 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Rimi, and, along with him, proceeded to Diw-kot; and,
at the suggestion of Kae-maz, the Rimi, he became the
feoffee of Diw-kot. Kae-maz, the Rimi, set out on his
return [into Awadh], and Muhammad-i-Sheran, and other
Khalj Amirs, assembled together, and determined upon
marching to Diw-kot®. Kae-maz, whilst on his way back
[hearing of this], returned again, and an encounter took
place between the Khalj Amirs and him, and Muhammad-
i-Sheran and the Khalj Amirs were defeated. Subse-
quently, disagreement arose among themselves, in the
direction of Maksadah and Santiis*, and Muhammad-i-
Sheran was 51211 ° ; and there his tomb is.

VII. MALIK ’ALA-UD-DIN, ’ALI, SON OF MARDAN, KHALJL.

’Ali-i-Mardan*, the Khalj, was a man of vast energy,
vehement, intrepid, and daring. Having obtained release

of Kalwa-i or Galwa-i— _'1,’—or Kalw4-in or Galwa-In—.»!,’—the # 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, ’I wag.

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] —svsias
and ००५८-० and (woh for Usp Of the remaining copies collated, one has
०.० and (woes two others ssus.. and ५१४. and the rest (9४७. and
ei X> The Tabakat-i-Akbari has Wh: only.

$ 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 Muham-
mad, 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
*Alj-i-Mardan succeeded. Raugat-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 Hindi 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, ’Ali, 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
sovercignty of Dihli, and was well received. He accompanied Kutb ud-Din
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 ’Ali

THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATI. 577

from imprisonment at Naran-go-e for 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 Ghaznin. <A chronicler has re-
lated in this manner’, 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] Zaffir’: “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 Sultin
Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-diiz, at the time of Kutb-ud-Din’s precipitate retreat pro-
bably. Some authors, however, state, and among them the authors of the
Tabakat-i-Akbari, and Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh, that in one of the conflicts of
that time he was taken prisoner by the Turks—Tabakat-i-Akbarif says, the
Turk-mans—and was carried off into Kashghar, where he remained /or some
time. He, at length, managed to reach Hindistan 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-diiz’s—partizans was enough to insure him a
favourable reception. Kutb-ud-Din conferred upon him the territory of
Lakhanawatf 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
’Alf-i-Mardan, that Kae-maz was sent from Awadh to Lakhanawati, or, other-
wise, between the defeat of Muhammad, son of Sheran, by the latter, and
Sheran’s death, and the nomination of ’Ali-i-Mardin 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 Mubammad-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 retum. 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-
Din had to make such a precipitous retreat from Ghaznin] ; and, moreover, it
appears that Kutb-ud-Din did sot 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 :—caS yee oss—in another—oS esl), ye ८९1,
—in another—o $ (1१, yee i's, o's j|—and, in another = 195 Go's) gee ws

8 Compare ELLIOT, vol. ii. page 315. If we are to translate the name
of the Salar, Zaffr [not Zafar, which signifies victory], why 10६ trans-
late the name of Husam-ud-Din, *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-I1-NASIRI.

[the committal of] such a deed. When 'Ali-i-Mardan
returned from thence, the Salar, Zaffir, presented him with
two horses and sent him away’.

When ’Ali-i-Mardan came back again into Hindistan, he
presented himself before Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and
reccived 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 Kons', Husam-ud-Din, Iwaz, the Khalj,
(feudatory] of Diw-kot, went forth to receive him, and
"Ali-i-Mardan proceeded to Diw-kot? and assumed the
government, and brought the whole of the country of
Lakhanawati under his sway.

When Sultdn Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, passed to the Al-
mighty’s mercy, ’Ali-i-Mardan assumed a canopy of state,
and read the Khutbah in his own name’*; and they styled
him by the title of Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din. He was 2 blood-
thirsty and sanguinary man. He sent armies in different
directions, and put the greater number of the Khalj Amirs
to death. The Raes of the adjacent parts became awed of
him, and sent him wealth and tribute. He began granting
investitures of different parts of the realm of Hindiistan,
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 Khurdsan, of Irak, of Ghaz-
nin, and of Ghir, 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-diz,
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
Hindiistan.

1 In some copies Kons as above, and in others Kos, without the nasal #.
Some other writers call this river the Konsi and Kosi.

2 In some copies “from Diw-kot.” Husim-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-Akbari and
Buda’iini.

THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATI. 579

and he would issue commands accordingly [as though they
were his own]*.

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 15
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: “Sa-
fahan 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: “TI 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 per-
sonages 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 [’All-i-
Mardan] commanded a large sum of money to be given
to that person for his necessary expenses’. The nature
of ’Ali-i-Mardan’s presumption, cruelty, and hypocrisy

५ 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 Tiran 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. 11. page 316.
The author of the Gaur JS. in his innocency says that after his [Kutb-ud-Din,
I-bak’s] death, for two years and some months, 2८ sway of this same ’Ali-ud-
din was acknowleged as far as Khurasan and Isfahan, &c.!!! Where
Lakhanawati ? where Khurasan and Isfahan ?

5 ‘lhe 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 ’Ali 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 to secure possession of his fief. This
had the desired effect.

580 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

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 (गत्ता.

They have narrated on this wise, that, upon a certain
occasion, he was conducting a laden ass towards the emi-
nence which they call Pushtah Afroz® [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’iini’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 "(शष्ट [9] has a
meaning, but ^ 4४2 '' and ‘‘4ws” none whatever. One or two other authors
state that he was the son of ’Iwag ; 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 Husim-ud-Din was his name Jefore 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 Pughtah.
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 Pashah [See Elliot: INDIA, vol. ii. page 317] signifying
a flea, a gnat, &c., is impossible. Pught is the name of a dependency of Bad-
ghais, and is very probably the tract here meant. /roz is the active participle,
used as an adjective, of 4+ 4! 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 LAKHANAWATI. 581

to a place within the limits of Walishtan on the borders of
the mountain tracts of Ghir. Two Darweshes’, clothed in
ragged cloaks, joined him; and said to him: “Hast thou
any victuals with thee?” 122, the Khalj, replied: “I
have.” He had, along with him on the ass, a few cakes of
bread, with some [little] dainty’, 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 5210 :
“Husam-ud-Din! go thou to Hindistan, for that place,
which is the extreme [point] of Muhammadanism, we have
given unto thee’.” In accord with the intimation of those
two Darweshes, he returned again from that place [where
he then was], and, placing his family‘ on the ass, came
towards Hindiistan. He joined Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar,
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-Din*®. 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 ylwly and ७८1 and three others,
including the best Paris copy, have 5};

1 They are thus styled in the original ; there is not a word about ^" fakirs”
in any copy of the text.

3 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!

9 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.”

+ 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.”

$ After the chief men had put the tyrant, ’Ali, son of Mardin, to death,
they, with one accord, set up Husim-ud-Din, ’Iwaz, son of Husain, who,
originally, was one of the petty chiefs of the Khalj country on the borders of

582 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

wati the seat of government, and founded the fortress of
Basan-kot, and people from all directions turned their faces
towards him *®.

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 E.Liot, vol. ii. page 317, ‘‘ He made the city of Lakhnauti the seat
of his government, and duit a fort for his residence!” The printed text has
WS) ,ee—fortress of Bas-hot.

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.

Abii-l-Fazgl states, in the A’IN-I-AKBARI, that Lakhanawati, which some
style Gauy, is named Jannat-abad, but this is an error from what 15 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 isa great €०(-क [lake] in which is an
island. To the north, at the distance of a Auroh, is a building and a reservoir,
the monument of ancient times, which is called Sarahie-mari [is v's).
Criminals used to be confined in the building, and a good 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 Gauy 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.] ditches, and a citadel on the side
ot the Gang. The distance between [each] two ditches is half a १०, 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
tuman [district] in which Gaur is situated.”

The Khulisat-ut-Tawarikh states that Lakhanawati or Gaur is a very
ancient city and the first capital of the country. To the east of it isa ol-db
[lake] of great size, and, should the dyke [confining it ?] burst, the city
would be overwhelmed. The emperor Humayiin, 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 Sultin पिपत
Shah-i-Abi-l-Mugaffar, Shah-i-Jahan, the Habashi [Abyssinian, yet he is
in¢luded among the so-called ‘‘ Pathdns”’], one of which was the Chand
gateway of the citadel near the palace, a Aauz [reservoir], and the famous
lat or manadrah. Musalmans do not erect ‘‘ Jaya Sthambas.” The Chand
gateway was still standing some fifty years since, but hidden by the dense
jJangal, and is probably standing still. There were several mrasjids, one of
which was founded by Sultan Yiisuf Shah.

According to the Portuguese writers who ‘‘aided Mohammed [Mahmiid]
against Sher Khan a Mogol general [1] then in rebellion,” . . . . the capital
city Gouro extended three Jeagues 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 Sousa, Antonio da
Silva Meneses, &e.”

The Tartkh-i-Firtiz Shahi says ‘‘Lakhanawati acquired the by-name of
Bul ghak-ptr —place of great sedition—from "> 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 tran-
quillity ; and, through his liberality and favour, all’ ac-
quired great benefits and reaped numerous blessings. In
that country many marks of his goodness remained. He
founded jam [general] and other smasjids, 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-zadah°® of
the capital city, Firiiz-koh, whom they used to style
Jalal-ud-Din, the son of Jamal-ud-Din, the Ghaznawi,
who, to better his means’, left his native country and came
into the territory of Hindistan in the year 608H. After
some years, he returned again to the capital city, Firiiz-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 Hindiistan, 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 Khalj’. That
sedition, &c.—because, from ‘ancient times, from the period that Sultan
Mu'izz ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Saim, of Dihli, conquered it [Ziya-ud-Din,
Barani, is rather incorrect here however], almost every Wali 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 ^" [15 nobles.”

४ An not ‘‘ the” Imam.-zadah : there were scores of Imim-zadahs probably
at Firiiz-koh. Imam signifies a leader in religion, a prelate, a priest.

9 Some copies have ;'e>'— collection, amount, &c., and the more modem
copies and the printed text s:.)'—signifying family, followers, dependents,
&c., instead of s'="—seeking benefit, and the like. In ELLiot, vol. ii.
page 318, it is rendered व budy 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 EL.iot, vol. ii. page 318; where this passage is translated :
‘‘the Almighty so favoured him that 2is name was mentioned in the Court of
Ghiyasu-d-din” !!

584 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

sovereign, of benevolent disposition, brought forth from
his treasury a large chalice full of gold and silver sangahs,
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 zangaks more were obtained. At
the period of his return home [from Lakhanawati] an
additional five thousand fangahs were acquired in gifts, so
that the sum of ten thousand ¢augahs 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.’, reached the
territory of Lakhanawati, the good works of that sovereign,
in different parts of that territory, were beheld [by him].
The territory of Lakhanawati* has two wings on either

2 The Haft-Iklim states that the money of Bangalah was confined to the

Jital [always written with /- तर] according to the following table :—
fitals 1 Gandah, 20 Gandahs 1 Anak, 16 Anahs 1 Rupi

‘* Whatever the ripi might be, whether 10 ¢angahs or 100 fangahs, it was
reckoned as 16 @zahs, and there was no change whatever in the ji/a/ and the
gandak.” From what our author has stated in several places in this work,
however, it is evident that the jita? was current in the kingdom of Dihli, and
Muhammadan India, as well asin Bangalah. See page 603.

Firishtah [copying the Tarikh-i-Firiiz-Shahi] states with respect to the
tangah that ‘‘it is the name given to a ¢olak of gold stamped, and that a
tangah of silver was 50 puts, each pil [1. €. 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 ८24 and three-quarters of copper [bronze ?].”
Another writer states that there were 25 jitals to 1 dam.

The word ¢avgakh—with g not with &—signifies a thin plate, leaf, or slice
[5s] 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 othen writers, however, the following table is [also]
used :—

4 Fitals 1 Gandah, 20 Gandah 1 Pan, 16 Pan 1 Kahadwan, 16 Kahawan
[some call 20 a Riddha Kahawan] 1 Riupi.

According to the same account, 20 dandis made a jital.

Price, in his ** RETROSPECT OF MAHOMMEDAN History,” in reference to
the revenue of Hindistan, says the ‘‘ Tungah,” as far as he recollects, was
considerably higher than the ‘* Daum,” and ‘‘ conceives it was the fji/th 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 Dihli for Lakhanawati in 640H., reached it in
641 H., and returned to Dihli again in the second month of 643 H.

+ Of course Bang is not included, and our author mentions it separately.

THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATIL 585

side of the river Gang. The western side they call Ral
[Rarh*], and the city of Lakhan-or‘ lies on that side; and
the eastern side they call Barind’ [Barindah], and the city

9 I can easily fancy a foreigner writing Ral—J';—or Rad—»>\,—from hear-
ing a Hindi pronounce the Sanskrit TT@—,»;!,— Rayh, containing, as it does,
the letter which few but natives of the country can properly utter:

¢ The printed text followed in ELLIOT has ‘‘ Lakhnaut{,” 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 thé first word is nasal, and that its deriva-
tion is similar to that of Lakhanawati, from the name of Dasarata’s son, Lakh-
mana, with the Hindi word Wa@t—vor, affixed, signifying limit, boundary, side,
&c. = Lakhmana’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 tothem. From the description of the dykes farther on in Section ऋता.)
in the account of the different Maliks of the dynasty where the invasion of Jaj-
nagar by the Musalmfns 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 Katdsin, 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 Birbhiim. It is by no means impossible that
Dr. Blochmann’s supposition may be correct, that Lakarkiindhah [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 cause-
way can be traced in that direction, it will tend to clear up the point. Lakar-
kiindhah lies about eighty-five miles as the crow flies from Gaur or Lakhana-
wati, ‘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 direc-
tion, distant about eighty miles, lay Diw-kot—Diw and Dib are the same in
Sanskrit and Hindi-i—the total length from place to place, allowing for devia-
tions, being a very moderate ‘‘ten days’ journey.” ‘There is no doubt what-
ever as to the correct direction of Jaj-nagar and its situation with regard to
Lakhan-or and Lakhanawati, as mentioned in note +, page 587.

7 In some copies Bardind, 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—TY¥@ Rarh, but ¥e—Brind or Wrind, signifies ८ heap [high %,
and it is possible that the former may signify dow, depressed, being subject to
inundation ; and Brinda [the Barinda and Barind of the Musalm4n writers],
high, elcvated, 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 Khin-i-Ki-rain in Section XXII., where Lakhan-or is styled
Lakhanawati Lakhan-or.

Barind, under the name of १८१८ 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-pir, in the Raj-Shahi district.

Terry says, alluding to the ‘‘two wings,” ‘‘ Benga/a, a most spacious and

Pp

586 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI. |

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, ex-
tending 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 11012588; 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 embank-
ments, the route was opened up to the people at large’.

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-Din, Mahmid Shah [his eldest
son], came into the territory of Lakhanawati to suppress
the sedition of Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din-i-Balka, the Khalj',
and beheld the good works of Ghiydgs-ud-Din, ’Iwaz, the

fruitful Province, but more properly to be called a Kingdom, which hath two
very large Provinces within it, P76 [Purab] and Patan [Pachcham] ; the one
lying on the East, the other on the West side of the River Ganges. * * * The
chief Cities are Rangamahat and Dekaka.””

® Compare ELLIOT, vol. ii. page 319.

9 These embankments, according to other writers likewise, were constructed
through the perseverance and forethought of Sultan Ghiyds-ud-Din, ’Iwag.
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 @/ [,J'], and, from the
proximity of these @/s, 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 @ 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 [Kich Bihar] through
Rangamatty [Rangamati] to the extreme limits of Assam [Asham], and was
found when the Mahommedans first p2netrated 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 Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Daulat Shah-i-Balka, and, by
some, is said to be the son of Sultin Ghiyads-ud-Din, ’"Iwaz, and, by others, a
kinsman. Another author distinctly states that the son of Sultan Ghiyidg-ud-
Din, ’Iwaz, was named Nasir-ud-Din-i-’Iwaz, and that he reigned for a short
time. See algo page 617.

THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATIL 587

Khalj, whenever mention of Ghiyds-ud-Din, "Iwaz’s name
chanced to arise, he would style him by the title of “ Sudtan
Ghiyds-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 good?. The Al-
mighty’s mercy be upon them! In short, Ghiyds-ud-Din,
"Iwaz, the Khalj, was a monarch worthy, just, and bene-
volent. The parts around about the state of Lakhanawati’,
such as Jaj-nagar‘, the countries of Bang, Kamrid, 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-timigsh,
or any other who preceded or followed him; and, moreover, he had never been
a slave, nor the slave of a slave. I-yal-timigsh was not his suzerain until he
gained the upper hand. It was only ’Ali-i-Mardan who was subject to Kutb-
ud-Din, 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.

¢ 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-piir, the meaning of nagar and pur being
the same ; and in the days when our author wrote, and for many years sub-
sequently, 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 destribe 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-piir, it reaches the territory of Chhar Kund ; on the W.
it adjoins the fort of Rasin of Malwah. It is 150 4urok in length, and 80 in
breadth. On the N. it is close to the Bhatah territory [the Bhati of the A’in-
1-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 saryahs
{2 5—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 Chura-garh, and
there are several Rajahs and Ries in it.”

Faizi, Sarhindi, in his History, calls the country Jhay-Kundah instead of
Chhar Kund; and both he and the Khulasat-ut-Tawarikh say that it had
70,000 or 80,000 inhabited & 245, and they both agree gencrally with the
above as far as they go; but they state that Amiidah [Amidah ?] is the name of

Pp 2

588 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Tirhut, all sent tribute to him; -and the whole of that ter-
ritory named Gaur passed under his control®. He acquired

$ In ELLIOT, vol, ii. page 319, this passage is translated from the printed
text :—‘‘ The district of Zakinaur 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 Ranf, Dur-
gawati, issued from her capital, Chiira-garh, to meet the Musalmans, who had
never before ventured into those parts. They halted at Damih [s,.0], Lat. 23°
50’ N., Long. 79° 30’ E., between the capital and Amiidah.

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-piir, and Gang-piir, 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 Jhay-Kundah, lying on the right
bank and upper part of the Son, and stretching towards Ratan-pir. Still
farther W., between Ratan-piir 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 Xanduana [Gondwanah] is
called Karhakatenka [cS s5], and that the river Sersi/y 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 Udisah-Jag-nathh, Katasin, on
the Maha-nadi, being the nearest frontier town or post towards the Lakhan-or
portion of the Lakhanawati 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 zative mode of spelling if I can find it, the fanciful
transliteration of Gazetteer writers ignorant of the vernacular spelling notwith-
standing], running tothe W. of Gang-pir. Its northern boundary is not very
clearly indicated [but see Sultan Firiiz Shah’s excursion farther on], but it evi-
dently included Ratan-piir and Sanbhal-piir. 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 Giidawiiri, and S.W. lay Talinganah.

I am surprised to find that there is any difficulty with regard to the identi-
fication of Katasin, also called, and more correctly, Katasinghah. Our author,
farther on, says he himself went thither along with the Musalman forces, and
distinctly states that, ‘‘a¢ 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 capital of the Jaj-nagar state, our author distinctly states, was named
Umardan or Umardan - 45,3\—according to the oldest and best copies of
the text; and Urmurdan or Armardan—,,9,.,—and Uzmurdan or Azmurdan
—y»+j'—in the more modern copies ; and, in one, Uzmurdin or Azmardin—
७19.-; The wilayat—country or district—of Umurdan or Umardan is men-
tioned, as well as the capital, town, or city of that name. There is a place
named Amar-kantak, or Amar-kantaka —e5,.!—in Lat. 22° 40’, Long. 81° 50’,
where are the remains of a famous temple of Bhawani or Parwati, which
may’ 6 the site of our author's 41

THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATLI 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 Ghiyas-ud-Din, Tughlak—ot 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 ques-
tion}, 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 ‘* Z7iperah,” by Alahommedan historians, is called ‘‘ Fage-
nagur,’ has fallen into the same error; and, not content with this, even the
map accompanying his History has ‘‘Jajnagur” in large letters in a part of
India where no such territory ever existed! Hamilton would have had some
aificulty, 1 think, in naming the ‘‘ Mahommedan Historians” who made such
assertions. The name of ove 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 Sultin Ghiyads-ud-Din, Tughblak, on his second campaign into the Dak-
han, having reached Diw-gir [Dharagarh], advanced into Taling [Talinganah],
took Bidr, and invested Arangul [+ 5; ]; now Warangul. [र्ण captured
it, and given it the name of Sultan-pir, before returning to Dihli, he went for
amusement or diversion [ ,-] into JAJ-NAGAR. He merely crossed the frontier
of Talinganah. | |

Hoshang, Sultan of Malwah, taking with him 1000 picked horsemen dis-
guised as horse-dealers, set out from Mandhii or Mandhiin, 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
Rie 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 Sharki dynasty of Jiinpiir—the exnuch who is turned
into a ^° Pathan” by the archzologists— extended his sway as far as the territory
of Kol to the south ; and, on the east, as faras 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 Lakhanawatf 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 Sulfan’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 4os from that territory, when a patrol from the advanced guard of his

590 । THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRIL

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 en-
camped 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-Firiz-Shahi of Ziya-ud-Din, Barani, differs from this account,
and says—according to the Calcutta printed text—that Tughril fled to Haji-
nagar—G.»la—and, in some places, Jaji-nagar—Gele but there is no ८ in
JAJ-NAGAR, and, if Ziyd-ud-Din’s text zs 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 [५४७ also means
river], he should prevent his doing so. Proceeding by successive marches, the
Sultan had reached within 60 or 70 4os 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, Ae must—have turned to the
south-west on reaching the /rontrer of Sunar-ganw. I am inclined, however,
to think that Saxgarah, 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-Din as
lying near Talinganah.

Be this as it may, however, the following extract, taken from the Tarikb-i-
Firiiz-Shahi of Shams-i-Saraj, Alfi, Tabakat-i-Akbari, and others, will, I
think, tend to settle the question respecting the situation of the JAJ-NAGAR
[ATH नगर] territory :—

In 754 पर. [Alfi, 755 H.] Sultan Firiiz Shah set out for Bangalah to reduce
its ruler, Ilyas, Haji [Sultan Shams-ud-Din], to subjection. On Sultan Firiz
Shih’s reaching the vicinity of Pandiiah, Ilyas evacuated it, and threw himself
into Akdalah [also written Akdalah], ‘‘a mouga’” near Pandiiah, on one side
of which is the water [a river ?], and on the other an impenetrable jamga/, 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 tenton. Another
writer calls it an island or insular* fortress. He came and encamped, accord-
ing 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 move-
ment led Ilyas to imagine that the Sultan was about to retire; and he sallied
forth with his troops and attacked the forces of Firiz Shah, but sustained a
complete overthrow, and had to retire into his stronghold again. The rains
having commenced, Firiiz Shah had to abandon the investment, came to terms
with Ilyas, and retired towards his own dominions by the Manik-piir ferry.

THE KHALJ 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 णि.
warded to him in return, until, in the year 759 H., when, Ilyas having despatched
his offerings, Sultan Firiiz Shah sent him presents in return ; but, information
having reached him from Bihar of Ilyas’s death, and of his son, Sikandar’s
succession, Firiiz 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 Jiin-pir. Sikandar, on his approach, retired to the fortress of Akdalah,
before which Sultan पिप Shah sat down; but, after a few days, an accom-
modation was come to, and the territory of Sunar-gapw was given up to Sikan-
dar, and Firiiz Shih retired towards Jiin-pir. On the Sultan’s reaching
Pandiiah [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-piir, a place named DAMDUMA, and near it an old fort, and, to the
east of it, three largetanks. 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 years. Dr. Blochmann,
I believe, identifies Diw-kot—probably on good grounds—with Gungaram-pir,
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-piir.

[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 Jiin-piir 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 [&:S 235] When the Sultan reached Kayah [s3'—opposite Manik-
pur ?}, Malik Kutb-ud-Din, brother of Zaffir Khan, was left behind with the
troops and the heavy equipage, and ke advanced with celerity through BIHAR
towards JAJ-NAGAR. On his reaching Sangarak or Sankrah—s Sm [Buda’int,
who copies wholesale from the Tabakat-i-Akbari, has, in my copy of the text,
sSj—meant probably for र~ एणा Firishtah, who also copies from the
former, has 1S. See BLOCHMANN, page 30. Can it be the present Sir-
goojah, so called 2], Rae Siaras [U+\.—Firishtah ७१०], Rajah of Sankarah,
fled, and his daughter fell into the Sultain’s hands, and he called her daughter
[adopted her ?], and protected her. Firishtah styles her Shakar Khatin, an
impossible name for a Hindii, unless she became a convert to Islim, and was
afterwards so named. [I do not know what BrRIGGs’s version may contain,
but Dow has left out a great deal here.] Abmad Khan, who had fled from
Lakhanawati, and had reached the fort of Rantabhiir—jy_3, [Ratan-pir in
Jhay-kundah ?—Lat.° 22 14’, Long. 82° 8/—is probably meant, not the cele-
brated stronghold of Rantabhir] on the way, presented himself before Sultan

६92 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

622 H. he [I-yal-timish] resolved upon marching into Lakh-
anawati; and Sultan Ghiyds-ud-Din, "Iwaz, moved his

सिट Shah. Having passed the river Maha-nadrf, Mahan-darf, or Mahan-
adri [s,si.—sic in MSS.—Buda’iini 4,o+—Firishtah प river
which falls into the Son doubtless is meant], he reached the city or town of
Banarsi [,,-)!y—Shams-i-Saraj and Alfi have Banaras—v~,4;—and Buda’.
ini Barani—,_j‘,.), which is the capital and abode of the Rae of JAJ-NAGAR
[Shams-i-Saraj has Rae of Jaj-nagar-Odisah]. The Rae fled towards Taling
(Talinginah], and, the Sultan #o¢ pursuing him [Firishtah says pursuing], pro-
ceeded to hunt elephants in the vicinity [Shams-i-Saraj says the Sultan remained
some time at Banaras, and the Rae took shelter in one of the islands of fhe,
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]. Hunt-
ing as he went along, the Sultan reached the territory of Rae Bhanu Diw
(Shams-i-Sardi, Bir-bhian Diw—y> »\yje—Alfi, Pir-mahi Diw—ys sb ja—
perhaps Bir-Mahi], who sent him some elephants. He then returned
from thence with the object of hunting, came to Padmawati—South Bihar pro-
bably—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’inf, 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 some-
what confused in the latter part of his account, or has made considerable verbal
alterations for some purpose; whilst Buda’tini [MS.] says the Sultan left
Barani [G\,4—Banarsi १, and proceeded from thence to Badwati— Jy24—
[Padmawati] and Bram-Tala [3 »»] to hunt elephants.

From Padmawati Sultan Firtz 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 Firiiz, Bahmani,
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 UpisaH are mentioned as
totally separate territories. Inthe reign of Muhammad Shah, son of Huméa-
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
Rie 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 J4j-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 Jami’-ut-Tawarikh of Fakir Mubammad says that the territory which |
in after times was styled Bangilah, according to such writers as have written
about it, consisted of Bihar, Gaudha or Gauy or Lakhanawati, Bang, and JAJ-
NAGAR. During the campaign in Bangilah, in Aurangzeb’s time, against his
brother Shah Shuja’, the Afghan Zamindar of Birbhiim and 3é¢-nagar is said
to have joined him. According to the A’in-i-Akbari, the Siibah of Bangalah
from Gadhi to the port of Chatganw [Chittagong] is 400 4uroh in breadth ; and,
from the mountains bounding it on the north to the uncultivated tract [ye]

THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATI. 593

vessels [war-boats ?] up the river®, A treaty of peace was
concluded between them, and the Sultan [I-yal-timish]
extorted thirty-eight elephants and eighty /as of treasure,
and the Khutbah was read for him, and the coin stamped
in his name’. 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-timigh, from crossing with his forces
to the Lakhanawati side of the Gang.

7 Some histories, including the Tabakat-i-Akbarf, 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 Ghiyds-ud-
Din, ’Iwaz, gave, as an acknowledgment of suzerainty, for the sake of peace
which he himself soon after broke, 38 elephants and 80 /aks 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 con-
cluded on the terms above stated.

The Tazkarat-ul-Mulik states that this sum was in silver ¢angahks; and

of sarkar Madaran [also written Madaran—,)!,\1.], 200 in breadth; but, as
the country of Udisah was annexed to it on the settlement of the province in
Akbar’s reign, and its formation into a Siibah, 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 [Ban-
galah], and Manik is the surname of its rulers. To the north is a territory
called Kiij [Kiich ?] and Kamrid, also called त्का. At the side of this is
the territory of the Rajah of Ashim, and adjoining it is Tibbat, and to the
left of it Khita. To the E. and S. of Bangilah is an extensive country named
Arkhnak [turned into Arracan by Europeans], and the port of Chitganw
belongs to it. In the sardér of Mangir, from the river Gang to the Koh-i-
Sangin [the Stony Mountains], they have drawn [41 53,5] a wall, and account
it the boundary of Bangalah.

The Haft-Iklim says Bangalah is 300 4urohk in length and 270 in breadth,
each kurohk being one mi/ [!]. On the E. it is bounded by the sea, on the
W. it has the parganah of Suraj-garh, which adjoins the $ibah of Bihar, on
the N. it is bounded by Kich, and on the S. by the parganah of Jasiidah
[turned into Jessore by Europeans], which lies between Udisah and Bangalah.

The Khulasat-ut-Tawarikh agrees generally with the other two works, but
states that Bangalah is 400 éurohk from E. to W.—from Chatganw to Gadhi—
and 200 from N. to S. ; that it has the Siibah of Bihar on the W., on the S.
the high hills of sarkdr Mandhi— yest [in two other MSS. 526 and ssh],
and the sea on the E.

The A’in says it was divided [in Akbar’s reign] into 24 sarddrs, and yielded
a revenue of 52 €, 4 laks, and 59, 319 dams.

The Haft-Iklim states that it was divided [in Jahangir’s reign] into 22
taimans [or sarkars}, and its revenue amounted to § /aés, 97,570 ripis, which,
at 40 dams the ripi, are equivalent to 23 4urors, 9 /aks, and 2800 dams.
There must be a mistake somewhere, as this amount of Jahangir’s revenue is
not half that of Aurangzib’s time, while Akbar’s revenue greatly exceeds
Aurangzib’s.

According to the Khulasat-ut-Tawarikh, it was divided [in Aurangzib’s
reign] into 27 sarkars, and yielded 46 durors and 29 Jaks of dams.

594 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL.

he conferred Bihar upon Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Jani; and
Sultan Ghiyadg-ud-Din, Iwaz, marched into Bihar from Lakh-
anawati, and [again] took possession of it, and treated it
with severity, until, in the year 624 प्र, the august® Malik,
N§asir-ud-Din, Mahmid Shah, son of Sultan Shams-ud-
Din [I-yal-timish], at the instigation’ of Malik ’Izz-ud-Din,
Jani’, assembled the forces of Hindistan, and marched
from Awadh and proceeded into Lakhanawati. At this time
Sultan Ghiyds-ud-Din, ’Iwaz-i-Husain, the Khalj, had led
an army from Lakhanawati towards the territory of
Kamrid and Bang, and had left the city of Lakhanawati

further—in which the Tabakat-i-Akbarf and some others agree—that I-yal-
timish conferred a canopy of state and a diir-bash [see note 5, page 607] upon
his eldest son, Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah, declared him heir-apparent,
bestowed Lakhanawati upon him, and left him in Awadh with jurisdiction
over those parts. Mahmiid 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 a4 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 Je no doubt, is an error for Ja.—august, &c.

9 Compare Elliot, INDIA, vol. ii. page 219.

1 In the account of Malik Nagir-ud-Din, Mahmiid 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-timigh’s reign, under the title of
Shah-zadah, or Prince of Turkistan ; but he only served I-yal-timish : he was
no relative. Soon after Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timigh, returned to Dihli,
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, Mabmiid
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 Kamrid, with the greater part of his forces, suddenly and
without any previous intimation, invaded his dominions with a great army, in-
cluding 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 Hindistan. The enemy
had already taken the capital, and, in a great battle subsequently fought between
him and the invaders, Sultan Ghiydag-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-Balkia—subsequently regained and held sway over the
territory for a time, and Shems-ud-Din, I-yal-timigh, had to proceed in person
against him with a great army.

THE KHALJ MALIKS IN LAKHANAWATI. 595

unprotected. Malik Na§sir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah, took
possession of it; and Ghiyds-ud-Din, ’Iwaz-i-Husain, the
Khalj, on account of that disaster, returned from that force
[which he had led into Kamrid and Bang ?], and fought
an engagement with Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah.
Ghiyas-ud-Din, ’Iwaz-i-Husain, and the whole of the Khalj
Amirs, were taken prisoners, and Sultan Ghiyds-ud-Din,
*"Iwaz, was martyred. His reign extended over a period
of twelve years’.

2 According to our author, Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, ’Iwaz, the Khalj, was the
last of the Mu’izzi Sultins of Hind; and he is the person respecting whom
ELPHINSTONE has been betrayed into such mistakes noticed in note 7, 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, ’Iwaz, who reigned for a short
time, and whose name has been already mentioned in note!, page 586. See
also pages 617 and 626. The events which happened after the decease of
Sultan Ghiyag-ud-Din, ’Iwaz, are involved in great obscurity ; but the above
dates are not correct.

W4F In concluding this portion of the Section on the Khalj dynasty of
Lakhanawati, I would mention that I am not fersonally 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, Jiirjini—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 birth-
place’, 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 bea
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 Yisuf.
When Yisuf 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 tothe 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 Muham-
mad. Our author has altered the theory in applying it to kings, in as far as
the ray of light, which emanates from the child [Jy«s*], shines forth from the
brow of ^^ the mother of time.”

2 In other words, when the child is born.

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 597

invocation, twenty [sons like] pearls’ 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, foras-
much 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, Yisuf became
the Wazir of that kingdom.

I, SULTAN-UL-MU’AZZAM, SHAMS-UD-DUNYA WA UD.-DIN,
ABU-L-MUZAFFAR, I-YAL-TIMISH 4‘, THE SULTAN.

Since the Most High and Holy God, from all eternity,
had predestined that the states of Hindiistan 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, Abi-l-Muzaffar, I-yal-timish,
the Sultan, the right arm of the Vicegerent of God, the aider
of the Lord of the Faithful *—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 Mahmidiah sovereignty’® perpetually con-
tinue 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-

3 I do not know what account of Yiisuf our author may have read, but 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. xii.], and to his
own account of Yisuf in the first Section of this work. Yisuf was sold for
twenty pieces of silver

4 Written in some few copies of the text and by some other historians (~,e:)!—
I-yal-timish, and .*«2'—I-yal-titmigh 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-diiz, &c. ; and the latter part of it is the same as occurs in Kal-
timish and the like. See note 9, page 133. Buda’tini 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-timigh. I doubt this, how-
ever, for the reasons just mentioned in the beginning of this note.

5 Yamin-i-Khalifah U’llah, Nasir-i-Amir-ul-Muminin. See pages 617 and
624.

6 The sovereignty of his son, our author’s patron—Na:ir-ud-Din, Mahmid

Shah.

598 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

cent, a zealous and steadfast warrior against infidels, the
patronizer of the learned, the dispenser of justice, in pomp
like Faridiin, in disposition like Kubdad, in fame like K4-is,
in empire like Sikandar, and in majesty like Bahram, was,
Yisuf like, from out of the Ilbari [or Albari] 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 ’Ali, and, in liberality, a second Hatim-
i-Ta-1. Although the beneficent Sultan, Kutb-ud-Din—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,
Muftis, and the like, and to darweshes and monks, land-
owners 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 sove-
reignty, 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 millions’; and people from various parts of the world
he gathered together at the capital city of Dihli*, which is

7 What coin, whether (द्व or sital, is not stated—there is a vast difference
between them.

४ An author, describing Dihli, states that, in the year 440 of Bikrimajit,
Rajah Anang-pal Tiin or Tfinar—the % is nasal [This is the word which,
written ७३६ in some works, instead of ७ॐ and ,1७59 and 59355, has been mis-
taken for pur and piira—,y See note*®, 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 Dihli, near to Indra-prastha. Subsequently,
in the year 1200, or a little later, of the same era, Rae एशे founded a city
and fortress which were named after himself. Outside this fort, to the east, he
raised a lofty structure which is st#/? styled the Jlahall of Rae Pithora. In the
fortress Sultin Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, and Sultan Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish,

dwelt. The Shahr-i-Zaghan [?] or Ghiyas-piir was founded in 666 H.; and
Gili-Khari [US Snot ‘‘ Aida Garhi,” as Cunningham calls it] in 686 ४. ;

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 599

the seat of government of Hindistan, and the centre of
the circle of Islam, the sanctuary of the mandates and in-
hibitions of the law, the kernel of the Muhammadi 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 sus-
tained by the provinces and cities of ’Ajam, and the mis-
fortunes caused by the [irruption of the] infidel Mughals,
made the capital—the asylum of the universe—of that sove-
reign 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 persons’ 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 hap-
pened that his father, who was named IJ-lam Khan”, 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 horses’. Like as in the case of Yiisuf, they said,

but it must have been begun or have been a suburb long before, as it is men-
tioned certainly over fifty years before by our author. Tughlak-abad, the
Kushk-i-La’l, and Firiiz-abad, now called the Xoti/ak of Firiiz Shah, were
founded subsequently, besides many other additions of minor extent made. 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—Jz!— Khan by others.

1 Some say he was taken by his brothers to some garden, under pretence of
going thither for recreation and diversion.

600 THE TABAKAT.-I-NASIRI.

‘Why, O father, dost thou not intrust Yiisuf 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 protectors’ ;’ 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 [पा 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 related’, saying: ‘“‘I heard
from the blessed lips of that monarch himself, who said,
“Ona certain occasion, one of the [above-mentioned] family
gave mea 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 hap-
pened, I fell a crying. Whilst thus lamenting, I was joined
by a good Darwesh who took me by the hand, and pur-
chased 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 édzargéu 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.

$ 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.

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 601

was a sovereign of such exemplary faith, and of such kind-
heartedness® and reverence towards recluses, devotees,
divines, and doctors of religion and law, from the mother
of creation ever enwrapped in the swaddling bands of
dominion’.

From that priestly and saintly family a merchant, whom
they used to call the Bukhara Haji, purchased Shams-ud-
07171 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 Ghaznin. At that period, no Turk superior to
him in comeliness, commendable qualities, agreeable
manners, and of such indications of intelligence and saga-
city, 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 thou-
sand dinérs of pure Rukni gold was specified for the two’.

6 Lhe following curious anecdote is related of Sultan Shams-ud-Din,
I-yal-timish, by some authors. Sultan I-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 anointed 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 herthe cause. She replied ९" 0166
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’inf 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.”

* The Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh states that, by some accounts, the kinsman
of the Sadr-i-Jahin 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 dindrs, a second that it was 1000 for
each, and Buda’ini says 1 /ak of tangahs. = 1६ is not to be supposed that the
Sultan fixed the price. There were brokers whose business it was to value

Qq

602 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

The Khwajah [merchant or master], Jamal-ud-Din, Muham-
mad, of the Tight Tunic, declined selling him [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’ Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, after the holy war
of Nahrwalah and the conquest’ of Gujarat, along with
Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Husain-i-Khar-Mil*, proceeded to
Ghaznin, and heard his stary. Kutb-ud-Din solicited per-
mission from Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, to pur-
chase 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 *.”

Kutb-ud-Din gave directions to Nizam-ud-Din, Mu-
hammad ‘, to remain behind at Ghaznin, for the purpose
of transacting some affairs of his, and, after his own deter-
mination of returning to Hindiistan, 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, Nizim-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 mamlik 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 [s+] of Bhim Diw. See notes 1 and 3, p. 516.

3 'I7z-ud-Din, Husain, son of Khar-mil probably, although he may have
had a brother named Nasir-ud-Din. See page 516.

* 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.”

४ See note > page 516, paragraphs 6 and 7.

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 603

the Turks for the sum of a hundred thousand 2/465 ५ 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
Guards’] 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 move-
ment 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-

¢ This sum is mentioned by several authors, but they probably copy our
author’s words. Respecting the ji#a/ see note >, page 584. If this is correct
it is evident that the ji#a/ 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 = 4, of a silver ¢tangah—ahout 2s.
or a riipf, or 100,000 jita/s = 15624 ripis. As his Khwajah had refused the
sum of 1000 ruéni dinars for the two slaves, it is natural to suppose that he
would not have sold them for /ess than that to Kutb-ud-Din, yet, at the value
assigned to the > by the Haft-Iklim—1280 to the ripi—Kutb-ud-Din
would have purchased them for little over 78 (पाऽ and 8 anahs, an impossible
sum. Another work, the Tagkarat-ul-Muliik, says 50 (4; of jitals, but even
this would be but little over 3900 riipis. The sum mentioned by Buda’int is
far more probable, namely a /ak of tangahs. I have given elsewhere the
meaning of rukni. See Blochmann’s translation of the A-iNn, page 31.

The name of the other Mamlik, I-bak, is turned into Taghakh, instead of
Tam ghij, in the revised text of Firigshtah, and instead of Tabarhindah it has
Pathindah—ss:¢, +‘ Firigshtah also asserts that Malik Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak,
gave the other slave, who bore another name, that of I-yal-timigh, but the
opposite is the fact. The same writer also states that I-yal-timigh accom-
panied his master in the expedition against K4linjar in 599 H. Tamghaj must
have been superior in every way, at that time, to have been, द 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-khanah [Zard
or Zarad 2], 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 Sizjéndér Turkt referred to in note १,
page 608. See also Lane’s Arabian Nights, note 9! to Chap. x. Firishtah
says the Jandars were the J. ५७ which means slaves ; but such cannot be cor-
rect, for Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din himself was Sar-i-Jan-darto his brother Ghiyas-
ud-Din. The Jan-dars were generally slaves, as most trustwortly, no doubt.

Qq2

604 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI

Huntsman]. Subsequently, when Gwaliyiir was taken’,
he became Amir of Gwiliyir; 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’iin’.

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-khid, a reverse
befell the troops of Khita', and the Khokhar’ tribes had
begun to rebel and manifest contumacy, he moved from
Ghaznin for the purpose of making war on that unbelieving
people*. Malik Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, in conformity with
the Sultan’s orders, led the [available] forces of Hindustan
to the scene of action‘; and Shams-ud-Din, with the con-
tingent troops of Buda’iin, accompanied him +

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 1256215 ° had made their place of shelter, and dis-
played great valour, and by the wounds inflicted by [his
men’s ? ग] 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 Gwaliyiir.

9 At this time, and for some time after, the fief of the territory of Buda’iin
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 Sultin 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 Andkhiid [Inddakhiid], and would have been taken
captive but for the intervention of Sultan ’Ugman of Samrkand. Compare
ELLIOT, vol. ii. page 322.

2 See note ५, page 481.

3 These people were converted to Muhammadanism, according to Firightah,
who perhaps had no authority for so stating, previous to this. See same note,
last para., page 484.

« See note 1, page 481, para. 4.

5 Shams-ud-Din, according to another writer, having assembled together a
considerable force from Buda’iin 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.

7 The original merely mentions that ‘‘by arrow wounds he caused those

THE SHAMSIAH 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 depths* of Hell :—“ They were drowned, and
cast into the fire [of hell] *.”

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 counte-
nance, and conferred upon him the felicity of the free.

When Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, died at Lohor, the
Sipah-Salar* [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. Firightah 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 + and the others ८.०
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. Ixxi. 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. ’Ali,
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’fl was governor of Dihli,
and they style the other Amir Da’id. Another writer says ‘‘ Amir of Dihli,”
which is more probable. Firishtah, according to the revised text, has ‘‘ Amir
Da’iid, the Dilami.”. The latter word is absurd here. Sec note 4, page 529.

606 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

to Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, at Buda’iin, 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 to-
gether before Dihli, and some of the Turks and Mu’izzi
Amirs had also united with them, and were intent upon
resistance * [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 rebellion’. 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 Jiid, overthrew them, and put most of the leaders
[of the party] to the sword +.

४ Compare ELLIOT, vol. ii., page 323.

> The Taj-ul-Ma’agir says, in its usual inflated style, that ‘the Sar-i-Jan-
dar, who was a Turk [he was not named ‘Sizyénddr Turk,’ as in
ELLIOT, vol. ii., page 237—for Sar-i-Jan-dar is the office this Turk held, see
note 7, page 603], who was the head of all sedition, and who put forth his
arm to shed Musalmfn blood, with a body of sanguinary Turks [the Turks in
the service of the Ghirian Sultans were Musalmans], broke out into rebellion.
Although the Sultain 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 Shih, which see. What our author here means to say is, that those
Turks and Mu’izzi and Kutbf Amfrs, and men of note, then in Dihli, did
not join the Shamsi 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 Kutbf Amfrs 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-Din and his party; but their efforts were without avail, and they
were defeated and put to the sword.

The Taj-ul-Ma’agir states that the battle was fought close to the Bagh-i-Jiin
[Jiid ?] 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
Jiin plain [न waste plain, &c.]; but all the oldest copies have as above.
The Bagh-i-Jiid, not Jin, is often mentioned by our author.

The Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh says the defeated Amirs were put to death at
different times. See page 529, and note 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 ‘‘ Aorsemen.” Firightah says two of the principal Amirs, Ak-Sunkar

THE 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 Diir-bash*. Between
Sultan Shams-ud-Din and Malik [Sultan] Nasgir-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 कदा
ud-Din, Kaba-jah

Upon several other occasions, in different parts of the
territories of Hindustan‘, 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 प्र. I-yal-timish marched against the ruler of the Kasbah [1] of Jalor—
y9\e—who bore the name of Udisah [Odi Sah ?], reduced him and extorted
tribute ! His authority for this is not given. At this period I-yal-timigh was
scarcely master of the Dihli kingdom.

$ This passage is thus rendered in ELLIOT, vol. ii. page 323. ‘‘Sultan
Taju-d din made a treaty with him from Lahore and Ghazni and sent him
some insignia Of royalty

The Dir-bash here referred to, which literally signifies ‘‘stand aside!”
and does not mean «^ baton,” was a kind of spear with two horns 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 Dir-bash, be
turned aside. Some others say, a canopy of state and other emblems of
royalty were sent to I-yal-timigh.

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 very great authority !

Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-diiz, was strong and powerful at this time, and the
probability is that Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, sought to be recognized by
him as ruler of Ghaznin in succession to Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, thinking that .
such recognition would tend to make the Mu’izzi chiefs and Turks more
compliant to his rule. Ghiyag-ud-Din, Mahmiid, Mu’izz-ud-Din’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.

५ Hindistan refers here to the country immediately east of Uhl,
the Do-ab of Antarbed, &c. .

608 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Shams-ud-Din brought under his jurisdiction all the diffe-
rent parts of the kingdom, and the dependencies of the
capital, Dihli, together with Buda'in, Awadh, Bandras, and
the Siwalikh.

Sultan Taj-ud-Din, Yal-duz, being obliged to evacuate
[his territory] before the Khwarazmi army, retired towards
Lohor’; and between him and Sultan Shams-ud-Din, hos-
tilities arose about the boundaries [of their dominions], and
an engagement took place between their respective armies

at Tara'in®, 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] com-
mand, they brought Yal-duz to Dihli, and sent him [from
thence] to Buda’in, and there he was buried ’.

’ Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-diiz, 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-Din’s defeat and subsequent victory over Rie Pithora.
The Taj-ul-Ma’agir says, at this time, Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish, was about
to undertake an expedition against some part of the Hindii territories as yet
unsubdued, or some Hindi chief, who, during the late disturbances consequent
on the death of Kutb-ud-Din, 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 1, where these Turks—Turkish slaves or
Turkish chiefs, such as are referred to under Arim 9112115 reign—are tumed
into ssconverted [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 [sof in the original
however] Sirjandar Turki, ‘‘opened his hand to shed the blood of Musalmans.”
In the meantime, Sultan Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-diz, in 611 H., made some
demands upon Shams-ud-Din, who, from the fact of his accepting the dir-dash
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-diiz, who had possessed himself of the Panjab,
advanced as far as Thanisar, 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-diiz 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-diiz’s own Wazir bore that title, which is
one given to Wazirs], and I-yal-diiz’s forces were defeated, and he was
himself taken prisoner.

9 Taj-ud-Din, I-yal-diiz, was taken to [ऋणां to be paraded, and was sent
away to the fortress of Buda’iin. Why he was sent there—the fief of Buda’tn
had been so Jong Shams-ud-Din’s—is obvious enough. Our author too

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 609

Subsequently, in the year 614 H., Shams-ud-Din fought
an engagement with Malik [Sultan] Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-
jah', and the latter was overthrown ; and, when the cala-
mities, consequent upon the appearance of Chingiz Khan,
the Mughal, fell upon Khurasan, in the year 618 प्र. Sultan
Jalal-ud-Din, Khwarazm Shah, defeated by the army
of infidels, retired in the direction of Hindistan. The
sedition of the Khwarazm Shahis reached the limits of [the
province of] Lohor’; and Sultan Shams-ud-Din marched
from Dihli towards Lohor * with the forces of Hindistan, and
Sultan Jalal-ud-Din, Khwarazm Shah, having turned aside °

buries him silently without mentioning his death. The Tabakat-i-Akbari and
a few others say that he was &ef¢ at Buda’iin until he died, but others state
that he was put to death there inthe 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 8, and page 506.

1 Buda’iinl 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
Tagkarat-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 प्र. See note 5, page 534.

> 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.

+ Im 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 ०८, ;)—here 4

$ The words used here in all the copies, and in the printed text also, are
3S —ilee which mean ‘‘turned aside,” and ‘‘ fed bcfore’’ is incorrect, and the text
says nothing whatever abcut ‘‘some fighting followed on the frontiers of La-
hore’: the words are ७८५८५19 ५53 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 in Hindiistan
might have gone over to him, and he would have overturned the kingdom of
णां. 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-diiz met with at Buda’in—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 Jalil-ud-Din. See note 5, page 293. The Khulisat-
ut-Tawarikh states that Jalail-ud-Din did actually invest Lahor for a time.

The Tagkarat of Daulat Shah, quoted by Elliot, says Sultan Jalil-ud-Din
was joined whilst in the Sind-Sagar Do-abah by the Lakhia Hazarahs,

610 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

from the host of Hindistan, marched away towards Sind
and Siwastan °.

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, Khalji’, placed the
neck of service within the yoke of subjection, and presented
thirty elephants and eighty /aks of treasure‘, 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 Rantabhiir, 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 [Kabi-jah] made peace with Jalal-ud-Din; and, what is more
astonishing, that ’Ala-ud-Din, 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 §, para. 2, page 293. Here
Burak, the Hajib, governor of Kirman, is mistaken for I-yal-timish !

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
Lakhanawatf affair, in 624-5 H.], Altamsh marched against BAKHTIAR KHILJI
[Muhammad, son of Bakht-yar, who is here referred to, had been then dad twenty
years}, who looked upon Behar and Bengal as his own conquest ; and, though
he professed obedience to Kutb u din (८० whose daughter he was married), openly
disclaimed all dependence on his successor. [It was I-yal-timigsh—his A/tamsh
—not Mubammad, 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,
Mubammad, son of Sheran, ’Ali, son of Mardin, and Ghiyas-ud-Din, "Iwag—
four different rulers are made ONE. This truly is pretty history ‘‘ to teach the
young idea’! See pages 574 and 594, and note >.

8 There is not a word about ^" current coin” in the text, but the Tabakat-i-
Akbari and some authors who copy from it say, 80,000 silver fausahs. See
nute 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 1४१.
After some time ', however, in the year 623 H., it was taken
by the hands of the Sultan’s servants’, through the favour
of the Creator. A year subsequent to this, in 624 H., he
marched against the fort of Mandawar’ within the limits of
the Siwalikh [territory], and its capture, likewise, the Al-
mighty 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, Rantabhiir was in the possession of the
Musalmans in the time of Sultan Mu’'izz-ud-Din. See ELLIoT: vol. ii. page
219, and note >, page 516, para. 4.

1 Months in some copies of the text.

2 This remark shows that he was not himself present there.

8 The oldest copies are as above—, s..—but sume others have 433:.—
Mandiid, and 5i+.—Mandj. The Tabakat-i-Akbari has Mandawar ; while
Buda’iini, who copies from it, has Mandi in some copies, and Mandawar in
others ; and adds that I-yal-timigh annexed, with that stronghold, the Koh-i-
Siwalikh. Mir’at-i-Jahin-Numa says, ‘‘ Mandawar with all the forts and
kasbahs of the Siwalikh.” Zubdat-ut-Tawarfkh has ‘‘ Mandawar—,,!u:.”
Firightah has ‘‘ Mandii—.-s:. [which is totally incorrect }}—and all Siwalikh.”

Our author, at page 468, mentions ‘‘the seat of government, Ajmir, with
the whole of the Siwalikh [territory], such as Hansf, Sursuti,” &c. ; and in-
cludes the whole tract of country south of the Himalayah, between the Ganges
and the Sutlaj, and extending as far south as [Hansf 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 note‘, page 468; and ELLiot, vol. ii. page 325, note १.
Tod says ‘‘ Mundore [Mandawar] was the capital uf the Purihars,” and capital
of Marwar, “‘five 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 Rajpits ?
Shams-ud-Din did not come to the throne for #ine years after the above date.
There is a Mandawar—,.-:-—even now, a large £asdah, with extensive build-
ings of burnt brick, and several great masjids, the remains of former days, on
the route between Dari-nagar and Sahiran-piir, 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.‘, had reached the
territories of Sind, Uchchah, and Multan, from the side
of Ghir and Khurasan*. On the 15६ of Rabi’-ul-Awwal,
625 प्र. the august Sultan, Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish,
reached the foot of the walls of the fort of Uchchah. Malik
[Sultan] Ndsir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, had his camp pitched
before the gate of the kasbah [town] of Ahrawat ’, 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 front® 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-yitim’, the feudatory of Lohor, had appeared
before the walls of Multan’.

The august Sultan, Shams-ud-Din, 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

+ See note?, 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 protévé, Buda’ini, 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 note‘, page 532.

$ At page 541 he says he came ‘“‘from Khurasdn by way of Ghaznin and
Banian.”

6 In his notice of Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Al-y!TIM, in Section XXII., our
author also says 626 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 Dihli dynasty with whom he came into contact, and that he
arrived before Uchchah with troops 4/teen 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 Ahiirat, 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 ! Some few copies have what appears like >
but what is supposed to be, is but the end of the letter » carelessly 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-Din, Mu-
hammad-i-Salari, who was the Amir-i-Hajib [Lord Cham-
berlain}] of the Court, and the other, Malik Taj-ud-Din,
Sanjar-i-Gazlak Khan*, Sultani Shamsi‘*, 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 pitched ° The Wazir of his kingdom, the Nizim-
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 ° of the sacred month, Jamadi-ul-Awwal, in the year
625 H.’, that fort surrendered on terms of capitulation.
Malik [Sultan] Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah, in that same month,

‡ The Tarikh-i-Ma’siimi of Mir Ma’siim-i-Bhakhari [of Bhakar or Bhakhar :
it is written both ways] incorrectly styles him the Nigam-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 द given to Wazirs. Asha’r is the name of an
*Arab tribe of the tribes of Saba, of which came the celebrated Musalmin
doctors Abii MiisAa and Abi Hasan. Their followers are styled Asha’riin.
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.

+ “*Sultani Shams?” signifies that he was the Mamlik 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.

५ The arrival of the Sultin upon the scene has been already mentioned
above.

५ 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 modern copies have Jamadi-ul-Akhir.

7 The Tabakat-i-Akbari, Buda’iini, 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 ome might have done so.

The Tagkarat-ul-Mulik 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 Ochchah,
when he was [accidentally] drowned.

614 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

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 Shah, 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 The three oldest and best copies of the text have Chatisar——<»—and
Jatisar—,e—respectively. Of the other copies, taking the best in rota-
tion, one has ~.*—which is evidently intended for one of the two former,
because the three points, which look like that of .»—are intended to mark .~—
thus ..—in distinction to .«—and to prevent it being mistaken for the latter
letter ; another (~-=—a third .~*—and the rest (*»—which has been read
as Habash, which means an Abyssinian. The Siimrahs were, however, not
Africans, but of Raj-pit descent. Alfi has ~.—but not very distinct, and
Jami’-ut-Tawankh ,-.» without points.

The historians of Sind state that that territory, up to the year 583 H.,
acknowledged the sway of the Ghaznawids, and that, on the downfall of the
last of that dynasty, his dominions fell to Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Mubammad,
Ghiri [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 under-
stand by Sind. Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, brother of Ghiyas-ud-Din, as early as
578 H. [see note3, page 452], had reduced the territory of Diwal or Dibal.
Mir Ma’siim 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 [/our, no doubt, is meant],
after which his son, Aram Shah, succeeded him, but he was dethroned from
incapacity, and Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timigh, raised to the sovereignty. ^. At
this period,” he continues, ‘‘ the territory of Hindiistaén was divided into four
states [that fortion of Hindiistan under Musalman sway rather]—Dihli, which
pertained to Shams-ud-Din; Multan, Uchchah, and Sind, to Kaba-jah;
Liahor, to the officers of I-yal-diiz, 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 », page 542, para. 6.

Previous to this time, however, Dibal, or Lower Sind [Thathah was sot even
Jounded at this period], had fallen into the hands of the Siimrah tribe, which
paid, nominally at least, allegiance to the Ghaznawids. Before the downfall
of that dynasty, Mu’izz-ud-Din, Ghiiri, subdued that territory; but still the
Ghirian hold upon it was nominal almost.

Of the Siimrah dynasty no less than seventeen chiefs ruled in Lower Sind,
according to the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh of Muhammad Yisuf; 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—~.e—but this might be, and in all probability is meant for

+~ there being but the difference of the dot of © between them. It is,

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 615

who was Wali [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 Uchchah*®; and, having
found favour in his sacred sight, when the royal camp
moved back again from before the walls of OUchchah, the
author was directed to deliver discourses within the enclo-
sure 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 प्त."

therefore, perfectly clear, that the name given by our author refers to the
eleventh of the Siimrah rulers, but the fourteenth according to the Tubfat-ul-
Kiram. Habasgh, of course, is tétally out of the question. See also ELLiot,
४०1. ॥ page 485 ; and vol. ii. note > page 389 ; and Thomas : PATHAN KINGS,
page 99, note ५.

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 Firiizi 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-timigh
appeared before Kaba-jah’s capital.

If our author is correct as to the Sultan’s leaving Ochchah for Dihli, the
Taj-ul- Ma’asir [and Rauzat-ug-Safa, which copies it probably] is very much
out ; for that work states that I-yal-timigh left the Wazir to carry on the ope-
rations, and reached Dihli again on the 14th of Rabf’-ul-Awwal [the third
month] of 624 प्र, ; 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 626H., while the other two oldest leave
out the rest of the sentence after the word ‘‘ Dihli,” thus giving no date

Mir Ma’siim, in his History, says:—‘‘ I-yal-timish left his Wazir to carry
on operations against Uchchah, and returned to his capital, thus agreeing with
Taj-ul-Ma’agsir, and that it capitulated, and was taken possession of on the
28th of Jamadi-ul-Awwal [fifth month] of 625 प. It was the Wazir who
advanced against Bhakar and penetrated into Lower Sind, and, therefore, it is
impossible that Sinin-ud-Din, Chatisar or Jatisar, the Siimrah chief of Dibal,
could have presented himself at the Shamsf 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’agir further states that, at this time [of the Wazir’s invasion
of Lower Sind], twelve celebrated forts, which had never before been acquired,

616 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

At this time, emissaries from the Khalifah’s Court, bear-
ing 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 Capital’. The city
was decorated [for the occasion] * 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.] ¢,

were taken possession of with Siwastin and Lik, 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 a// the countries of Hindistan [!], and
in the territories of Kusdar and Mukran! The Wazir, according to Mir
Ma’sum, was left incharge of the government of Sind, and remained in that
country up to the year 630 H., when he returned to Court, leaving Niir-ud-
Din, Mubammad, in charge of Sind.

Our author, however, in his notice of Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Gazlak
Khan, who accompanied the Wazir 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’sgiim has evidently mistaken the one for the other.

No doubt the new governor extended the Shamsi authority in those parts,
but it was very temporary, and ceased almost with the reign of I-yal-timigh.
Lik 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 con-
nexion between the Lak tribe of Kurds, at that time, and subsequently, located
in the southern part of Sijistan, and Kirman, mentioned at page 317, note 5.

2 Buda’iini, 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
’ Abbasi Khalifah of Baghdad, not of Migr, was the sender—the Khalifah,
Abii Ja’far-i-Mangiir, entitled Al-Mustansir B’illah, the 36th ’Abbasi—the
Ubaidi Isma’ili Khilafat of Misr terminated in 567 H.

8 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-Akbari, followed by
Firightah and others, says Kuédahs—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 presence ;” but the printed
text, in this instance, is quite correct, and, like the other copies of the text, has
Uz? ye] which means ‘‘ to prepare,” ‘‘ to adorn,” and the like.

4 Several copies of the text, including the printed text, with but two excep-
tions, have wals—dress of honour—for cas — service, also action, pro-

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 617

information arrived of the decease of the august Malik,
Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah, [the eldest son of Sultan
Shams-ud-Din]; and Balka Malik-i- Husam-ud-Din, ’Iwaz’,
cedure, policy, &c. It is ridiculous to imagine that honorary dresses would
have been sent by the Khalifah for a// the Princes, Maliks, the Sultin’s suite,
and his Slaves. Conferring such honours broadcast would have lessened the
honour. Dresses might have been sent for the Sultin’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, Mustangir B’illah, sent I-yal-timigh a dress of honour,
and a diploma confirming him in the sovereignty of Hindiistan, 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 Khalifah, 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
Khalifah 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, Mubammad-i-Sim. Towards the end of the reign
of I-yal-timish, the Wazir-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 Khalifah’s court, and
came to Dihli, which was not quite such an U/tima Thule as one modem
writer supposes, the Khutbah being read weekly for the Khalifah.

$ That is to say, Balka Malik, son of Husim-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-timish,
appears to have been of a very partial and temporary character ; and the events,
which happened subsequently to his accommodation with Sultan Ghiyiis-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-Din, ’Iway’s, death, which,
according to some accounts, including that of the Gaur JZS., 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 Nagir-ud-Din, Mahmid Shah, I-yal-timish’s
son, and Ghiyag-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 Nisir-ud-Din, Mahmiid §$hah, died, and we must suppose it was in
Awadh, not in Lakhanawati.

‘Our author says, in his account of Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-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

Rr

618 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRIL

the Khalj, rebelled in the territory of Lakhanawati. Sultan
Shams-ud-Din led the contingents of Hindiistan 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 Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Daulat Shah-
i-Balka, Afali# of Lakhanawati—he set out on his return to the capital, Dihli,
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-timigh, and that sovereign’s proceeding himself into Lakhanawati to
suppress the outbreak of Balka, the Khalj, he conferred the throne of
Lakhanawati upon Malik ’Al4-ud-Din, Jani [the same who is styled, in the
list at the end of this reign, ‘‘ Shah-zadah of Turkistin”’], and that, on his
removal from or loss of that dignity—but no date is given—Malik Saif-ud-
Din, I-bak-i-Yughin-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 Lakhana-
wati. On his death, Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Tughril-i-Tughan Khan, was made
govemor 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 Nagsir-ud-Din, Mahmid Shah,
son of I-yal-timish, the former’s son, styled Nasir-ud-Din-i-’Iwaz, by some,
and Husam-ud-Din-i-’Iwaz, by others, but these latter no doubt mean Balka
Malik, the son of Husim-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, Mabmiid Shah, who held mere nominal authority over
Lakhanawati for one year, and, according to the Gaur A/S., and Jami’-ut-
Tawarikh [not Rashid-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-
timish had to march into that country with the forces of Hindistan ‘‘to quell
the sedition.” No particulars are given respecting these operations, nor is the
fate of Balkai Malik mentioned ; but, as most writers state that he fell into the
power of I-yal-timigh, his fate may well be supposed.

Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh, in one place, says I-yal-timish entered the Lakhanawati
territory in 627 H., and, in another place, that, in628 H., he succeeded in taking
the son of Husim-ud-Din, ’Iwaz, after which he gave the throne to ’Izz-
ul-Mulik, Malik ’Ald-ud-Din, Jani; and, in this, other writers agree.

The Jami’-ut-Tawartkh, as well as Zubdat, says that ’Alé-ud-Din, Jani,
reigned for three years and some months, but the former and the Gaur A/S.
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 प्र. ; but the Gaur 47S. 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 illus-
trious capital, Dihli.

In the year 629 H., the Sultan came to the determination
of undertaking the reduction of the fort of Gwaliyir®; and,
when the pavilion of his dominion was set up at the foot of
that stronghold, Mangal Diw ’, the accursed, the son of the
accursed Mal Diw, commenced hostilities. The Sultan
continued before that fortress for a périod of eleven
months; and the wrjter 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 Zi-
Hijjah, and ten days of Muharram, 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 pavilion’. On both days of the respective
festivals, Fitr and Uzha’, in three different places, the

6 After the decease of Kutb-ud-Dfn, I-bak, during the convulsion that then
ensued, the Hindiis recovered this fortress, which had been surrendered to Kutb-
ud-Din, after Baha-ud-Din, Tughril, had reduced it to extremity, as mentioned
at page 546. Upto this time the Musalmins 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 St.
Petersburg copy—has—y»:9 y@ JG-—Migal [evidently intended for JS.— Mangal]
Bhawa Diw—being thus different to all the other copies of the text. The
other copies have el. and X..—Milag or Milak, and Mfgal or Mikal.

There is equal, if not more, discrepancy with respect to the father’s name
also ; but, while the St. Petersburg 47S. has Mal Dfw plainly written, the
other two oldest copies have %= Jj and «2 J» which may be Basfl Diw.
The remaining copies of the text collated have what appear to be j.~— J,
[I think this may be meant for Maha-pala महोपाल]- +~ and the like, which
are unintelligible.

The Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh has Mangal Diw, son of Birbal or Barbal Dfw,
Tabakat-i-Akbari त yo ou. Mirat-i-Jahan-Numa ५ 91> the Tagkarat-ul-
Muliik J» yo el. and Firightah 0 += All these latter works, however,
do not mention the father’s name. At page 545, note?, the ruler of Gwiliyir
is styled Rae Solank Pal, according to the Taj-ul-Ma’asir.

8 In his notice of Malik Hindi 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 breaking fast after the Mubammadan fast month, is called

Rr 2

620 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

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 com-
manded to read the Khutbah for the Uzha festival, and
the appointed prayers, at a spot opposite the northern face
of the fortress of Gwaliyir’, on which side the town 15 ; 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 11, when the stronghold
of Gwaliyir was acquired. During the night, the accursed
Mangal Diw evacuated the fort and fled ; and about seven
hundred Gabrs* were directed to be brought to public exe-
cution 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], Rashid-ud-Din, ’Ali, 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 pre-
side over all matters of the law, and a rich dress of honour,
and an ample present, were conferred upon 71. May the
Most High God become the sustainer of the purified soul and
fragrant body of that victorious, beneficent, and just sove-
reign, and patron of the enlightened! On the 2nd of the
month, Rabi’-ul-Akhir, of this same year ‘, the Sultan with-
drew from before the fortress of Gwaliyir, 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 Ibraihim’s offering up his son Isma’il, 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.

2 The word -used is Gabrs, not ^ fersoves ;” and does not necessarily refer to
Parsis, 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 प्र.) succeeded this Sultan’s son on the throne of
Dihli.

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 621

halting ground, the imperial zaudat* five times daily was
assumed.
After he returned to the capital, in the year 632° H., the

$ The imperial zaudat, which has been already explained at page 383, note,
is turned into “a halt of five days” in ELLIOT, which see.

6 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 Bhilsin—the town and fortress of
that name was destroyed. It is amusing to hear a Hindz relate that ‘‘the idol
was carried off to Dihli, and cast down before the gateway of the ami’ masjid
[not the present one, which was built by Shah-i-Jahin] for people to kick and
trample upon.”

It may interest the archzologist to know that the idol is stated, by several
writers, to have been buried just beneath the surface “ close to the minadrah of
rcd 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
Jahangir’s time states that ‘‘in old Dihli is the great Masjid, outside of which
is a minadrah of immmense height, to ascend to the top of which is impossible.
Thuse who have measured it say it is 80 paces round at the base, and its height
130 [१] cubits [€>] A third author, who wrote an account of Dihlf from a
personal survey nearly a century since, confirms the above statements generally,
and gives some further particulars. He says:—‘‘In the mahall of Rie
Pithora are two mindrahs, one of red sandstone, which consisted of seven
[eight १] stories or divisions, and about 200 yards [cubits] in height, and 15 in -
thickness [sic in AZSS.]. 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-timigh, as inscribed thereon in two or three places, and
close to it, on the west side, is the sepulchre of that great man. This mindrah
is known by the name of the LATH oF KuTB SAHIB ”—neither the minir nor
the lith 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 Hindii-i and Persian character.
In the Kofilah of Firiz Shah is another mindrah of considerable height. It
is said to have been constructed of corundum stone [4srand], 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
Firtiz 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 archzologists—
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 Sultan
न+

622 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRi.

Sultan led the hosts of Islam towards Malwah, and took
the fortress and town [or city] of Bhilsin, 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 hundred’, and
sixteen years have elapsed, and from whose reign they date
the Hindi-1 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, Bakht-yar, Kaki, the Ushi [native of Ush 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-Din, I-yal-timish, himself, came forth from the
city to receive him and do him reverence, and accompanied him into Dihli.
The Khwajah, however, took up his residence at Gilii-khari on account of the
scarcity of water im the city. When Shaikh Jalal-ud-Din, the Bustami, who
was the Shaikh-ul-Islim, 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. Dorn, in his
translation of Ni’mat-Ul]lah’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 ६८४ has been left
out, but it was ‘Arty, not ten. The correct date is 633 प.

It may be asked, How is it that the name of Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak, is inscribed
on the mindrah, 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 tothe 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 Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam, as
the Sultan-us-Salatin 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—Mvw’izz-ud-Din—the conqueror of Rae Pithora, and establisher of the
Muhbammadan rule at Dihli, should be ff 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 froin Qotb(aldyn) Aybak as Ritter
supposes, but from the Sain¢—Qoth 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 Hindi-
stan towards Banian [or Banyan*], 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 litter’, 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 mansion®. 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 into ‘‘Afithan” in ELLIOT, vol. ii. page 303, and is referred to
in several places in connexion with coming from Ghaznin, Kayman and Nan-
danah into Sind and Multan. In all the best copies it is written )4:—Banian
—generally, but sometimes ,u»—Banban. Further research may tend to throw
some light upon its exact situation, but it evidently lies in the hill tracts of the
Sind-Sayar 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. Nizim-ud-Din, Ahmad, and Buda’iint,
and Firishtah—the two latter copy the former—all have Multan, and are totally
incorrect in this instance.

9 Turned into ‘‘a Aowda on the back of an elephant” in E...ioT, 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 inde-
pendent. He began by taking Rintambor. ज . = Henexttook Mandu [see
page 611] in Malwa ; Gwalior, which had revolted, was recovered ; Bilsa was
likewise taken; and the occupation of the ancient capital Ujén, 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 sowe 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 2oth. Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh has Monday,
the 26th of Sha’ban, Tabakat-i-Akbari, the 20th, Tagkarat-ul-Mulik, the 8th
of Sha’ban, and so has the Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh. Mir Ma’siim in one
MS, says the 23rd, and, in two others, the 26th ; and Fasih-i says the 21st
of Shaban, 634 H., and that he was buried in the old jams’ masjid.
Firishtah ‘follows the Tabakit-i-Akbari; but neither Buda’tni, the Haft
Iklim, Khulasat-ut-Tawirikh, 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 Mulahidah

624 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

Titles and names of the Sultan.

US-SULTAN-UL-MU'AZZAM,
SHAMS-UD-DUNYA WA UD-DIN,

ABU-L-MUZAFFAR, I-YAL-TIMISH,

NASIR-I-AMIR-UL-MOUMININ®.

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-timish, which is related by other writers, I-yal-
timigh, 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 masyid on the Musalman sabbath to say his prayers along with the
congregation, and to listen to the Imam’s discourse. The Mulhids of Dihli,
aware of his custom, plotted to take his life; and q body of them armed,
whilst the people of the congregation were occupied im 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 #asjid, and with arrows, bricks, and stones, annihilated the heretics.
]-yal-timigh is said to have afterwards put a number of this sect to the sword
in revenge for this attempt upon his life.

ॐ In the work I have before referred to the following is said to have been
the inscription on one of I-yal-timigh’s early coins,

Reverse —%;laue 9 + (41 ५ ८.५७ jdt „(11 Me Ws
Obverse—val (9 ७२५ Uren ७७७ 94] ) ^~) aes

according to which 612 H. was the frst of his reign. The inscriptions may
be thus rendered :—Reverse :—‘‘ This Dinar [was] struck in the capital [city]
Tnihli, in the year 612.” Obverse:—‘‘ The Destroyer of paganism and error,
Sultin Shams-ud-Din, in the first [year] of his reign.” Buda’ini says his title
was Yamin-i-Amir-ul-Miminin, but this is only one of the many titles given
him by our author. See note +, page 597, and note °, page 614.

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 625

Offspring.
Sultan Raziyyat.
Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah.
[Malik] Kutb-ud-Din, Muhammad.
Malik Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’id Shah.
Malik Shihab-ud-Din, Muhammad.
Sultan Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah of Lakhnawatt.
Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, निप: Shah.
Sultan Nasir-ud-Din, Malimiid Shah.
Malik [Sultan] Ghiyas-ud-Din, Muhammad Shah.
Sultan ’Ald-ud-Din, Mas’iid Shah, son of Rukn-ud-Din,
एप 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, 2511.
Kazi Kabir-ud-Din, Kazi of the Army.

Wazir of the Kingdom.
The Nizam-ul-Mulk, Kamal-ud-Din, [Muhammad ?]

-i-Abi-Sa'id, Junaidi.

Standards.
On the right, Black : On the left, Red.

Motto on his august signet.
“Greatness appertaineth unto God alone *.”

Capital of his Kingdom.
The city of Dihli.

His Maliks*,
Malik Firiz, I-yal-timish, the Salar, Shah-zadah [Prince]
of Khwarazm ५,

* Or ‘Greatness belongs to God”? [is exclusively His attribute]. Kur’an:
chap. 45, verse 36.

५ 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.

¢ This is the person mentioned at page 199, but he should be more correctly
styled Malik-zidah as he was not a Prince, but merely connected, on the
mother’s side, with the Khwarazmtf Sultin, Muhammad, father of Jalil-ud-

626 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Malik ’Ala-ud-Din, Jani, Shah-zadah [Prince] of Tur-
kistan. |

Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, son of ’Ali, son of Abi
"Ali, Malik of Ghir’.

Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Kabir Khan-i-Ayaz 9.

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, Khalji, Malik of Lakhnawati’.

Malik-ul-Umra, Iftikhar-ud-Din, Amir of Karah.

Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Hamzah-i-’ Abd-ul-Malik.

Malik Baha-ud-Din, Bilad [Pulad]-i-Nasiri.

The Malik of Ghir, Nasir-ud-Din, Madini, Shansabani.

Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Mardin Shah, Muhammad-i-Cha-
ish [the Pursuivant ‘].

Malik Nasir-ud-Din of Bindar [or Pindar], the Cha-ish.

Malik Nasir-ud-Din-i-Tughan, Feoffee of Buda’iin *.

Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Tughril, Kutbi [Baha-1].

Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Bakht-yar, the Khalj र.

Din. After the Ghiiris took Nighapiir in 596 प्र. [see page 380], he came
into Hindistan with his cousin, Taj-ud-Din, Binal-Tigin, afterwards ruler of
Nimroz of Sijistin. See pages 199—202.

7 The same who commanded the right wing of Sultan ’Ald-ud-Din, Utsuz’s,
army when that ruler of Ghiir lost his life. See page 416. He is called
Hasan in some copies of the text in this place. He was not Malik of (पय
but one of the Ghirian 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, Mabmud Shih, 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-Din, Amir-i-Koh [Kayah 2], while
the I. 0. L. MS. has Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Muhammad, brother’s son of
the Malik-ul-Umrda, Iftikhar-ud-Din, Amir-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. Chi-iish has probably
been read by the copyist as Haris, but, in another, Nasir-ud-Din, Miran Shah,
son of Muhammad-i-Cha-iish, Khalji.

2 This must be meant for Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Tugbril-i-Tughan Khan, who
held the fief of Buda’iin in 630 H.

ग 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-timigh was raised to the throne, in fact, before
I-yal-timish’s furmer master received his manumission. The word Khalj
occurs in every copy containing these names, with the exception of one, which

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 627

` Malik Kara Sunkar-i-Nasiri.
Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Ai-yitim-i-Baha-t1 *.
Malik Asad-ud-Din, Tez Khan-i-Kutbi.
Malik Husam-ud-Din, Aghil-Bak, Malik of Awadh 5.
Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, ’Ali, Nagawri, Siwalikhi.

Victories and Conquests.

Buda’iin, Banaras and defeat of Rae Man‘, fortress of
Rantabhir {or Ranthabhir], Jalor, victory over Taj-ud-
Din, Yal-diz and taking him prisoner, occupation of
Lohor, victory over the hostile Amirs in front of the
Bagh-i-Jid [the Jiid Garden], Tabarhindah, Sursuti,
Kuhram, victory over Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah’, subju-
gation of Lakhanawati and its territory, taking of Kinnauj-
i-Sher-garh, Lalehr or Alehr*[?], Tirhut, Gwaliyir, Nan-
danah, Gijah [or Kijah], and® Sial-kot, Janjer[?], and
Mindudah or Midah’[?], Ajmir, Bihar, occupation of the
fortress of Lakhanawati a second time, fortress of Mandawar,

has Ghiri. If this last name be correct, of course, the conqueror of Lakh-
anawati is not referred to.

The I. O. L. MS. has Malik आला), 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-Din, Muhammad-i-Sam’s slave.

$ 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 re-
cognized 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 yb «sl, is ७८५७-2 in another ,#b—another a», «01
The last three are wholly unintelligible.

7 Two of the oldest copies have—‘‘ and taking him prisoner,” but he was
not taken. ,

8 This is wholly unintelligible. It is written » and 4/1! and aJ! Pro-
bably jae or »¢6—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 ole, and we respectively.
It cannot be intended for 55» °s,S—Koh-i-Jid, for it is clearly written several ,
times in the text. In one place—in one of the oldest copies—it is written
se 5 but in several places it is 4-55 as above.

1 sy590 and 55590 and 539

628 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI

fort of Bhakar, Uchchah and Multan, Siwastan, Dibal,
fort of Thankir, fort of Bhilsin, Malwah and the expe-
dition 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 Fam’ Masjid at the capital city of Dihli in order
that all true believers might tread upon it *.

II. MALIK-US-SA’ID, NASIR-UD-DIN, MAHMUD SHAH, SON
OF SULTAN SHAMS-UD.DIN, I-YAL-TIMISH.

Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmid Shah, was the eldest son
of Sultan Shams-ud-Din ; and he was a beneficent, intelli-
gent, sensible, and sagacious Prince*®, 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 Hansi*; 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 nume-
rous commendable actions, and carried on holy war, as by
the tenets of the faith enjoined, so that his praise for man-
liness and boldness became diffused throughout the area of
Hindistan. |

The accursed Barti [or एप], 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 Kuhyam, Buda’iin [which I-yal-timigsh held
the fief of], Kinnauj, and several other places, which were taken in Sultan
Mu jizz-ud-Din’s reign either by himself, or Malik Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak.

ॐ Our author styles him ^" Badshah,” which signifies a prince, as well asa
king. If he had any claims to be accounted a ‘‘sovereign,”’ beyond the
assipnment 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 Lakhana-
wati may be judged of from note 5, page 617. He never coined money in his
own name.

+ The Taj-ul-Ma’isir says Lahor was his first fief. See also note 4,
page ०३२.

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 629

attained martyrdom’, 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 Hindistan*, by command of the Sultan,
his father, were nominated to serve under him, and Maliks
of renown, such as Pilan’, 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 [en-
tering] the territory of Bang, and had left his head-quarters
empty [of defenders]. When the august Malik, Nasir-ud-
Din, Mahmid 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 Ghiyds-ud-Din, ’Iwaz,
the Khalj, he set out for Lakhanawati from the place where
he then was. Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmid Shah, with
his forces, proceeded against him and defeated him, and
captured Sultan Ghiyads-ud-Din, ’Iwaz, with all his kins-
men and the Khalj Amirs, his treasures, and elephants 9,
He had Sultan Ghiyas-ud-Din, ’Iwaz, put to death, and
appropriated his treasures. From Lakhanawati Malik
Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmid Shah, sent sums of money in the
shape of presents to all the "लाभ, 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

5 Who this Hindi 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—J¥y —
but, in others, the word is written s,3,—which may be Bartih, Birtih, ग
Bartiiah, &c., but » is often written for क by copyists.

6 By the ‘‘forces of Hindiistan” are meant the contingents of the feuda-
tories east of the Jin and Gang. The word Hindistan 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 ७9५१ ७४ and ८३५ The best copies are as above,
but no such person is menttoned 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 617.

630 THE TABAKAT-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,
Mahmid 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 ” °—har-
monizes 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, Mahmiid Shah, as he
is the heir to his name and title, the heir, during his life-
time, of the whole of the Maliks and Sultans of that
dynasty, for the sake of His prophet and the whole of his
posterity !

Ill. SULTAN RUKN-UD.DIN, FIROZ SHAH?, SON OF THE
SULTAN [I-YAL-TIMISH].

Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Firiz Shah, was a_ beneficent
sovereign, of handsome exterior, was endowed with gentle-
ness and humanity to perfection, and in bountifulness and
liberality he was a second Hatim.

His mother, Shah Turkan’*, was a Turkish hand-maid,
and the head [woman] of all the Sultan’s haram, and

9 ‘*T”homme propose, mais Dieu dispose.”

1 He died in 626 H. Our author, subsequently, refers to him as the ‘‘ mar-
tyred” Malik. [J++ wl. an error, probably, for 4. el.—august Malik], at
least such are the words in the various copies of the text, but zv4y 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.

> In the work I have previously referred to, the following is given as the
inscription on the first coins of this monarch :—

Reverse— ७२ ७) 355 59 ॥ SY ७1 ned 4 oye | ८
Obverse— शक 1 Glee dol (9 + crore (9 Jeo Ys
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 Turkdn.”

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 631

great was the bounty, benevolence, and charity, of that
Malikah + towards ’Ulama, Sayyids, priests, and recluses.

In the year 625 H.*, Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, पिट Shah,
obtained the fief of Buda’iin, and a green canopy of state,
and the ’Ain-ul-Mulk, Husain-i-Ash’ari, who was. [had
been ?] Wazir of Malik [Sultan] Nasir-ud-Din, Kaba-jah,
at this time, became the Wazir* of Sultan Rukn-ud-Din,
पि" Shah.

When Sultan Shams-ud-Din returned to the capital,
Dihli, from Gwiliyir, after the capture of that fortress and
country, the territory of Lohor, which had been the seat of
government of the Khusrau Maliki’ [dynasty], was con-
ferred upon Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Firiz Shah; and, on
Sultan Shams-ud-Din’s return from his last expedition,
from the river Sind and Banian*, he brought along with
him, to the capital, his son Rukn-ud-Din, Firtiz Shah, for
the people had their eyes upon him, since, after [the late]
Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah, he was the eldest of
Sultan Shams-ud-Din’s sons’.

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-

५ At page 638, our author himself states that the mother of Razgiyyat was
the chief of all the ladies—head wi/e—of the late Sultan’s Aaram.

The word „क here used signifies that she was the first concubine the
late Sultan possessed, not the chief w/e of his Aavam, nor is she entitled to
be styled Ma/ikah, for the married women are the first in rank, and, of these,
one was Sultan Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak’s, daughter.

$ Tabakat-i-Akbari, and several others, have, like our author, who was
their chief authority for these events, 625 H., but Firishtah has 626 न. 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 Ae Aas
bodily appropriated the text, in many places verbatim, of the Tabakat-i-Akharf,
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, Firishtah, by exaggeration and hyperbole, manages to
lengthen out his own account.

® 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 Kbusrau 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.

® The people may have had their eyes upon him, but I-yal-timish had
already named his talented daughter, Raziyyat Khatin, as his successor. See
pages 638, 639.

632 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

ud-Din upon the throne, on Tuesday, the 21st of the month
Sha’ban, 633 H.', and the diadem and throne acquired
beauty and splendour from his dignity *, and excellence, and
elegance; and all rejoiced at his accession, and donned
honorary dresses [to testify their joy].

When the different Maliks returned* from the capital
[to their various posts], Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Firiiz 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-Mal‘* 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 king-
dom 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 4aram', that she [now] brought misfortune upon
that party among the inmates of the Zaram, 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, Firigshtah has the same.

2 Their joy was soon turned into grief. His dignified behaviour, and the
‘‘odornment and splendour” the crown and throne derived from him is related
farther on. |

ॐ When they “‘returned Zome,’ ELLIOT: vol. ii. page 330. The original
15 ५०9 wael—there is not a word of Aome—a word unknown in the East.

+ See note $, page 62.

5 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 chief wife of I-yal-timish. See Thomas: PATHAN KINGS,
page 105, and Elliot: INDIA, vol. 11. 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 ‘, anda youth of great worth and promise, by their direc-
tions, 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 Shah’, son of Sultan
Shams-ud-Din, who was younger in years than Rukn-ud-
Din, Firiz 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 Hindi-
stan. Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, Salari, who was the
feudatory of Buda'iin, broke out into rebellion; and, in
another direction, Malik "Izz-ud-Din, Kabir Khan-i-Ayaz °,
feoffee of Multan, Malik Saif-ud-Din, Kiji, who was feu-

6 The youngest of Shams-ud-Dfn, I-yal-timigh’s sons, quite a child, by
another concubine. Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-Ochchah, was feudatory of
Uchchah when Sultan I-yal-timish died, and, soon after, whilst Sultan Rukn-
ud-Din, ए Shah, and his Maliks were squabbling together, Malik Saif-
ud-Din, Hasan, the Karlugh, from the direction of Banfan, 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 प्र, 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, Firiiz Shih, and the fief of Sundm was
conferred upon him instead of Multan.

Firishtah, according to the ‘‘revised text” by Briggs, and "^ Munshi Mir Kheirat
Ali Khan,” makes a terrible mess of the names of persdns here [Dow, of course,
is sufficiently ridiculous in this matter, and makes them totally unintelligible],
although he had the Tabakit-i-Akbari, 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, Jani, is turned into Sher
Khiani, and Kabir Khin into Kabir Khani—with .,—the yd-z-nisbat, signi-
fying ‘‘of, or relating toa Khan,” Khan-siip, &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 j¢ as in ’Izz-ud-Din,
is invariably turned into ¦ ! !

Ss

634 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

datory of Hansi, and Malik ’Ala-ud-Din, Jani, who held the
fief of Lohor, united together, and began to act with hos-
tility and contumacy*®. Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Firiz Shah,
with the determination of coercing them, moved an army
from the capital. The Wazir of the kingdom, the Nizam-
ul-Mulk, Muhammad, Junaidi', became frightened, and
fled from Gili-khari’®, and retired towards Kol, and from
thence joined Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, Salari; and
both of them joined Malik Jani and Malik Kaji.

Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Firiz Shah, led his army towards
Kuhram. The Turk Amirs and the slaves of the house-
hold, who were serving with the centre [the contingents
forming the centre]°*, followed the example; and, in the

9 Another writer says, that ’Izz-ud-Din, 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 Kuhyam, the other nobles seized Rukn-ud-
Din, and set up his sister. Malik Ikhtiyar-ud- Din, Yiiz-Bak-i-Tughril Khan,
who then held the office of Amir-i-Majlis, was also concerned in this outbreak,
but the ringleader appears tu have been Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kaghli
Khan, whose contumacy was continual.

1 Styled Kamal-ud-Din, [Mubammad]-i-Abii-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 Gili-khari, as if it were a
place many miles atway; instead of being a suburb of the capital, Dihli.

56 9S— 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 Muhammadan 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 Gili-khari.” When it was founded ^^ the river Jiin or Jaman flowed
close under its walls ; but now the river is some two £uroh to the east of it.
The tomb of the venerated Musalmin saint, Shah Nizam-ud-Din, the
Buda’ini, is situated in Gili-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 ‘‘ £a/é.” 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 £a/é 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 in-
telligible with regard to an army in the field, but here might be understood,
by the reader, as if the centre division of a corps a’armée, under a regular
military organization, was stationed at Dihli, which is not the case ; but, from
what I gather from the Tarikh-i-Firiiz Shahi, and other works, it evidently
refers to the contingents which formed the 4a/6 or centre of the Dihli forces
when in the field. These contingents were furnished by numerous feudatories,

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 635

vicinity of Mansir-pir and (भाषा + they martyred the
Taj-ul-Mulk, Mahmiid, the Dabir [Secretary]*, the son
of the Mushrif-i-Mamalik*, and Bahd-ud-Din, Hasan
{Husain ?]-i-Ash’ari, Karim-ud-Din-i-Zahid [the Recluse],
Ziya-ul-Mulk [ud-Din?], the son of the Nizim-ul-Mulk, Mu-
hammad, Junaidi, Nizam-ud-Din, Shafirkani’, the Khwajah
Rashid-ud-Din, Maikani*, Amir Fakhr-ud-Din, the Dabir
[Secretary], and a number of other Tajzik officials®; and,
in the month of Rabi’-ul-Awwal, in the year 634 H., Sultan
Raziyyat, who was the eldest daughter’ of Sultan Shams-
ud-Din, entered upon open hostility with the mother of
Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Firiz 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 4a/é, and they served
wherever the Sultan happened to be.

4 Tari’in, the place of Rae Pithora’s overthrow, so often mentioned, the
modern Talawari. There would be some difficulty in finding ‘‘ N4rain” I
expect.

५ This is the person who wrote a congratulatory poem on the debauchee’s
accession.

¢ 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 know-
ledge 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, Mabmiid Shah’s reign farther on.

7 Shafirkini or Shabirghani—a native of Shafirkan or Shabirgban. In
some copies, Sharkani and Sarkani. 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 Malkani, Baikani, and Mankani or Mangani.

9 The Tabakat-i-Akbari makes a terrible blunder here, and Firightah, as a
matter of course, follows, as well as Buda’iini. The former work states that
all these persons, who were put to death, ‘‘separated from the Sultan’s army,
went off to Dihli, and pledged their allegiance to Raziyyat Khatin, 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 €
of ‘‘the Tazik,” and Firishtah [Briggs ?] is quoted to prove that they deserted
Rukn-ud-Din, Firiiz Shah.

1 ]-yal-timish had, himself, declared her his heir and successor, as stated
farther on. She was not his only daughter it is said.

SS 2

636 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, Firiiz Shah.

When Rukn-ud-Din, Firiiz Shah, reached the city’,
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 Gili-khari, so that they made
prisoner of Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, Firiiz Shah, and brought
him into the city*. He was imprisoned and confined,
and, in that prison, he was received into the Almighty’s
mercy. This circumstance of his seizure, imprisonment,
and death‘ occurred on Sunday, the 18th of the month
Rab?’-ul-Awwal, in the year 634 H.; and his reign was six
months and twenty-six days’.

Sultan Rukn-ud-Din, 1702 Shah, in munificence and
liberality, was a second Hatim, and what he did, in expend-
ing 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, sen-
suality, 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 Ganymédes*®. His
excessive waste of money was to such degree, that, while

2 Two modern copies of the text have Gilii-khari.

४ 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 ५] instead of 33

* 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 um, is
exactly six months and swenty-seven days.

* This 15 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.Din, I-yal-timisb,

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 637

in a state of intoxication, seated on the back of an ele-
phant, he would drive through the bazar of the city, scat-
tering ¢angahs 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 elephants’, and the whole class of
elephant drivers derived immense benefit from his riches
and good-nature. It was not in his nature and disposi-
tion 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 § 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 talent’, and was endowed with all the
admirable attributes and qualifications necessary for kings ; `

7 ELLIOT: vol. ii. page 332—‘‘ He was very fond of slaying with and
riding upon elephants.” Rather rough f/ay.

४ Raziyyat has a meaning, but ‘‘ Xazya” and ^^ Riziah” mean nothing.
Sultan, from kl, signifies to have or possess power, to rule, &c.—a sovereign
—and is therefore as equally applicable to a female as a male, and does not
appear to have had anything to do with ‘‘affectation of the superior sex,”
nor her assumption, sedbsequently, of male attire when she rode forth, Her
name or title, like that of most other Muhammadans in these pages, is pure
Arabic, the feminine form of the by no means uncommon name of Razi-ub-
Din. See Thomas: PATHAN KINGs, page 108.

The following 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— L262] ८२11 (~न GH? Aid, ७000 ७) १८ ८19] ३०.
Reverse—J»! ye gle IPP ५: pr "sal, Y
which may be translated :— Reverse —‘*The illustrious among women, the
Queen of the Age, Sultan Raziyyat, daughter of Shams-ud-Din, I-yal-timish.”
Obverse :—*‘ Coined at the city of Dihli, 643 H., the first of the reign.”
9 Compare ELLIOT : vol. 11. 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 KhAatiin, was the greatest
[of the ladies] of the sublime A4avam', and her place of
residence was the royal palace, the Kushk-i-Firizi [Firizi
Castle]?. 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 pos-
session of Gwaliyir, he commanded the Taj-ul-Mulk,
Mahmid, the secretary—on whom be peace !—who was the
Mushrif-i-Mamalik® [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 grown-
up 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

} This proves what our author meant by the word 4 with respect to Rukn-
ud-Din, Firiiz Shah’s mother, namely, that, in point of time or age, she was
the oldest of I-yal-timish’s concubines. Raziyyat Khatiin was his eldest
child and, in all probability, her mother was Kutb-ud-Din, 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—and there is no asthority for stating [Thomas :
PATHAN KINGS, page 104] that Raziyyat was ‘‘ brought up under a yreater
degree of freedom from the seclusion enjoined for females by the more severe
custom of ordering Muslim households,”’ for our author here states she was
‘“‘veiled from public gaze ;” and it was only just before the end of her reign
that she assumed the dress of a male, which, really, is not very different from
that of a female—the addition of a head dress and tunic —as our author states.
Dow, as usual, misinterpreting Firishtah, who copies from the Tabakat-i-
Akbari, which copies our author, incorrectly states that (०० 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 iz the Kushk-firozi !”

3 Taj-ul-Afudk signifies the crown of the state: ‘‘Taju-l-4/a2” nothing.
The word .j,..—mushkrif—signifies an examiner or authenticator of records
and other writings, but not a wasir certainly. +¬ ०-067-89 secretary, a clerk,
a scribe. »d—mudabbir—an administrator, director, counsellor, &c. Come
pare ELLIOT: vol. 11. 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-apparentship * than she, my daughter.”
The case turned out as that august monarch had pre-
dicted.

When Sultan Raziyyat ascended the throne of the king-
dom, all things returned to their usual rules and customs ;
but the Wazir of the kingdom, the Nizam-ul-Mulk, Mu-
hammad, Junaidi’, did not acknowledge her; and Malik
"Ala-ud-Din, Jani, Malik Saif-ud-Din, Kiji, Malik ’Izz-ud-
Din, Kabir Khan-i-Ayaz, Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Muhammad,
Salari, and the Nizam-ul-Mulk, Muhammad, Junaidi‘,
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’1’, 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 capital*. After he had crossed the river Gang,

4 The Tazkarat-ul-Muliik says ‘‘one reasen why I-yal-timish named her
as his successor was, that his son, Nasir-ud-Din, Mabmiid 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.”’

$ He is styled, by some more modern writers, Chandiri, 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-timigh’s wazir for a considerable time.

6 These are the same who, as stated in ELLiot, killed ‘‘¢he Tazik.”

7 He had been made feudatory of Awadh by Raziyyat after Ghiyas-ud-Din,
Muhammad $hah’s rebellion. See page 633.

8 Previous to these events, the feudatory of Kinnauj, Malik Tamur Khan-i-
Kiran, was despatched by Sultan Ragiyyat into the Gwéaliyir 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 Hindi tribes in that part to pay tribute. He plundered the
territory of Bhati-ghiin [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-NASIRI.

the hostile Maliks® 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 Jin ;
and, between the Turk Amirs who served at the stirrup of
sovereignty, and the hostile Maliks, conflicts took place
upon s.veral occasions. At last, an accommodation was
arranged, but in a deceptive manner, and by the subtile
contrivance of Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Muhammad, Salari’,
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, Kaiji, and the Nizim-ul-
Mulk, Muhammad, Junaidi, should be summoned, and be
taken into custody and imprisoned, in order that the sedi-
tion 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, Kiji, 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 Payal’, at a village named Nakawan +, and his

9 There is nothing about ^" hostile generals”’ in the whole passage.

1 He appears to have been suffering from illness when Sultan Ragiyyat
summoned him to her aid.

Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kaghlii 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.

2 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. Firightah, of course, agrees.

3 ELLIOT, Babul; Briccs, from Firightah, Babool, FrrisHTAH, text, Babal
—jb—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 Lidianah. 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’.

५ In some copics Nakawain or Nagawan [८15६], but the majority of the best

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 645

head was brought to the capital; and the Nizam-ul-Mulk,
Muhammad, Junaidi, retired to the hills of Sir-mir Bardar‘,
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, -Muhazzab °, who was the deputy of the Nizim-
ul-Mulk, and he likewise received the title of Nizam-ul-
Mulk. The charge of the army, as her lieutenant, was con-
ferred upon Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-Bihak’, who received
the title of Kutlugh Khan; and Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, 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 Diwal
and Damrilah, all the Maliks and Amirs manifested their
obedience and submission®. 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. 0. L. A/S. No. 1952 and that of the
R. A. S. MS. have both ७१६

५ See farther on, under the reign of Nagir-ud-Din, respecting this tract of
country.

6 He is turned into Muhagzab, Ghaznawi, by Firishtah, and by his trans-
lators, Dow and Briggs, respectively, ‘‘Chaja Ghiznavi” and ‘‘ Mihdy
Ghiznivy.”

Muhagzab, but not A/akzad—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 wazlr on an upright officer who had been
the deputy of Nizamu-l-Mulk, and he likewise received the title of NizAmu-l-
Mulk;” but Khwajah does not mean officer, and Muhazzab—i. e. Muhazzab-
ud-Din—is a proper name. Why not translate it 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 Muhagzab has. The amusing part of it is that four pages farther on, page
338, he is styled ‘‘the wazir Mahzabu-d din Muhammad ’Aus Mustauft, and
so on until that ‘‘ upright officer,” than whom no greater rascal is mentioned
in this work, met his reward in the ‘‘ A/ainz Hauz-rani.” See pages 651—65 35
658, and 662, for the doings of that ‘‘ upright officer.”

7 This word is written Gp and अनू 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-Muliik says,
‘*through God’s assistance she reduced the disaffected Maliks to submission
and even the Malik of Lakh&nawati 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, Hindi Khan, held the fief of Uchchah,
which was conferred upon him by Sultan Raziyyat.

642 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

bestowed upon Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, son of ^,
Ghiri’, and he was appointed to [march and relieve] the
fortress of Rantabhir, because the Hindis, after the
decease of the august Sultan, Shams-ud-Din, 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-kin’, became Amir-i-Hajib, and Malik Jamal-
ud-Din, Ya-kiit, the Habashi [Abyssinian or Ethiopian],
who was Lord of the Stables, acquired favour* in attend-
ance 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 Ghir through the
power of the Mughals.

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 lke this which had defied the efforts
of the Hindiis so long seems strange. It was soon restored, however, by the
Hindiis. What 2 flourish might have been made of this affair in the Rajpiit
annals! It is mentioned in several places farther on.

3 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-kit, 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
Ilarem—but wayward fancy pointed in a wrong direction, and led her to prefer
a person employed about her Court [he was Amir-i-Akhur, 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 Turki
nobles resented with one accord.”

Elphinstone, who draws his inspiration from Briggs, 15 mure 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 docs not appear that her fondness [?] was criminal, since the

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 643

Maliks began to be envious tiereat ; 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 pro-
ceed to Gwaliyiir, and bestowed rich and valuable presents.
As disobedience was out of the question‘, this servant

greatest breach of decorum alleged against her is her allowing the Abyssinian
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 Tabakit-i-Akbari, Firishtah,
and Buda’ini, 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 ov horse she ant upon him, Jamal-ud-Din, Ya-kit, 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
authow does not say so, but all the Tabakat-i-Akbari mentions is, that Jamal-
ud-Din, Y4a-kiit, was treated with favour, a mere transliteration of our author’s
words— ls! x ,i—the same term as he uses with respect to Sultan Mu’izz-ud-
Din’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, i
additron to our author’s words—/or 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 [Je ]—
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 Musalmfan 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-
gani Mamliks,” of whom more hereafter—to rebel against a sovereign too
energetic for them in their ambitious designs. The Zubdat-ut-Tawadrikh
makes no reference to the Abyssinian whatever.

+ I cannot conceive why our author should be styled a rede/—‘‘a forgiven
rebel ’—because of this sentence in the text. Gwéaliyur 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 re-
lieved the garrison, and, as the governor—Rasghid-ud-Din, ’Ali—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, ’Ali, the next official in
authority was the Amir-i-Dad, Ziya-ud-Din, Junaidi, who, being a kinsman of

644 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

of the victorious kingdom, Minhaj-i-Saraj, in conjunction
with the Malik *-ul-Umra [the chief of Amirs] Ziya-ud-
Din, Junaidi, who was the Amir-i-Dad [chief magistrate]
of Gwaliyiir, and with other persons of note, came out of
the preserved fortress of Gwaliyir on the Ist of the
month Sha’ban, 635 H., 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 K4zi-ship of
Gwialiyir ५.

In the year 637 H. Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Kabir Khan-i-
Ayaz, who was the feudatory of Lohor, began to show a
rebellious spirit’. 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, é# addition to his Kagi-ship of Gwaliyir, which he still
held. See Thomas: PATHAN KINGS, page I05.

‘(In 631 प्त. some emissaries from Balka Khan, son of Tishi [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 Gwiliyir,
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 Gwéaliyiir, 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.”

$ 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 Razgiyyat 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 Siidharah [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 Khin-i-
4 ‰7.2 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 on

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 645

that part from Dihli, and followed in pursuit of him. At
last an accommodation took place, and he presented him-
self; and the province of Multan, which Malik Ikhtiyar-
ud-Din, Kara-Kush Khin-i-Aet-kin, held, was made over
to the charge of Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Kabir Khan-i-Ayaz.
Sultan Raziyyat returned again to the capital on Thurs-
day, the 19th of the month of Sha’ban *, 637 H.

Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Altiiniah, who held the fief of
Tabarhindah °, broke out into rebellion, and, secretly, some
of the Amirs of the Court abetted him in this treason.
Sultan Raziyyat, on Wednesday, the oth of the sacred
month Ramazan of this same year [637 H.], set out from
the capital, with numerous forces’, for the purpose of
putting down Malik Altiiniah’s rebellion. When she
reached that place [Tabarhindah]’, through circumstances
which supervened, the Turk Amirs rose against her, and
put to death’ Amir Jamal-ud-Din, Ya-kiit, the Habashi,
seized Sultan Raziyyat and put her in durance, and sent
her to the fortress of Tabarhindah *.

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-Din, Hindi Khan, held the fief of
Uchchah.

8 Ramazan, in some copies of the text.

9 Altiiniah was only lately made feudatory of Tabarhindah, for, when
Ragiyyat came to the throne, she gave him his first fief, that of Baran. Brig
styles him ‘‘of the Toorky “ide 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-gini in next Section.

1 In some copies of the text, ‘‘ with the forces composing the 4a/5” or
centre, the signification of which has been given in note >, page 634.

2 But not ‘‘on the way” thither as in Tabakat-i-Akbari and Firishtah.

8 Our author says ‘‘ martyred,” here equivalent to his being put to death
unjustly. Raugat-us-Safa says, Ya-kiit commanded her troops, a very unlikely
thing, when the Turk Maliks and Amirs hated him so greatly. He may have
commanded Raziyyat's own personal followers, Rauzat-ug-Safa, indeed, says
so. For the detail of these events see the account of Malik Altiniah in the
next Section.

+ Tabakat-i-Akbari and Buda’iini have Tarhindah—ss:23—in all cases,
and Firishtah [‘‘revised text”’], wherever this place is mentioned, under
whatever reign it may be, has Pathindah—sa,~ 4 Pathadah—sy~ and
Bathindah—s3.~

646 THE JABAKAT-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 Nir-ud-Din, a
Turk *, whom they used to style Nir, 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 Jin and Gang. In secret they pledged themselves
to be faithful to each other, and, at the instigation of Nir,
the Turk, they conspired against Islam. This Nir, the
Turk, used to harangue, and the mob would collect around
him. He used to call the ’Ulama of the orthodox people *
Nasibi [setters-up], and to style them 442 7 [procrasti-
nators], and used to incite the common people to animosity
against the orders of 'Ulama of the sects of Abii-Hanifah
and Shaf’i until a day was fixed upon. The whole of the
fraternities of the Mulahidah and Kiramitah entered the
Fam 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 Fam’ 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 Fam’ 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

$ He was not called ‘‘Nur Turk,” but he was a Zur, and his name was
Nir-ud-Din. |

6 That is the Svs, in contradistinction to the S4z'as and other schismatics.
Neither Tabakat-i-Akbari, Buda’iini, nor Firishtah, 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 SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 647

this outbreak, the warriors of the city, such as Nasir-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
Fam? Masjid, by the mindrah entrance®, and plied their
swords upon the Mulahidah and Kiramitah heretics; and
the Musalmans, who were on the roof of the am? 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-
tiiniah, entéred into a matrimonial contract with her, and
espoused her’, 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 bro-
ther ` ], was [at this time] seated on the throne; and Ikhti-

8 Compare ELLIOT, vol. ii. page 336.
® The Tazkarat-ul-Mulik and some other works state that Malik Ikhtiyar-
ud-Din, Altiiniah, contracted marriage with Sultan Raziyyat, molens 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 Talwandhis 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-Tawarikh, also mention Khokhars, but Firishtah, here, as well
as elsewhere, not knowing the difference between 703 >£ and cag 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 ‘‘ Resia”’—he refers to Raziyyat—‘‘ when force
failed her had recourse to art, and she so far gained over Altunia dy 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 Altiiniah’s policy is apparent, as shown bya 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 Raziyyat became, out of revenge, her
champion.
1 Half-brother apparently.

648 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL

yar-ud-Din, Aet-kin, the Amir-i-Hajib, having been assas-
sinated, Badr-ud-Din, Sunkar, the Riimi, 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? an
army out of Dihli for the purpose of resisting Sultan Raziy-
yat and Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Altiniah, and they were
routed, and, having reached Kaithal, the troops along with
them all abandoned पाला > and Sultan Raziyyat and
Malik Altiniah fell captive into the hands of Hindiis, and
attained martyrdom.

Their defeat took place on the 24th of the month, Rabr-
ul-Awwal; and the martyrdom of Sultan Raziyyat took
place on Tuesday, the 25th of Rabi'-ul-Awwal*‘, in the
year 638 11. Her reign extended over a period of three
years, six months, and six days ५.

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 Ragiyyat under Malik
*Izz-ud-Din, Balban [in some copies Tigin], 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, Khisah-dar to Sultan Ragiyyat,
and, afterwards, during her reign, became Amir-i-Shikir. 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 Rabi’-ul-Awwal, 638 H.,
after which the Khokhars and others abandoned her, and she and her husband
fell into the hands of the Hindiis, who put them to death on the 25th of the
same month. Sce further details of these transactions in the account of
Malik Altiniah in the next Section.

+ In come copies, Saturday, the 29th of Rabi’-ul-Akhir, but the date cannot
be correct. See also the account of Malik Altiniah in the next Section, where
the 25th of Rabi’-ul-Akhir is given as the date.

§ 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 4roethers, was, therefore, si//ed himself. Upon this, the
army agreed to place his sister, El Malika Razia, 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-Batiitah’s authority on Indian history.

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 649

V. SULTAN MU’IZZ-UD.-DUNYA WA UD-.DIN, BAHRAM SHAH,
SON OF THE SULTAN [I-YAI.-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 11th 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 Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Aet-kin’;
and, dn 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-Din, Mughis-ul-Khalk bi’! hakk,

Of dignity like Suliman: under thy command are both jiz2 [genii] and

mankind.

Though the sovereignty of Hind be the heritage of the Shamsi family,

Praise he to God, a second J-yal-timish, of its sons art thou.
When the whole world saw thee, that, by right, thou art the kingdom’s
ir,

7 thy diadem their 4i4/ah-gah, for thou art all-powerful and

wise.

€ The inscription given as that of his first coining is as follows :—
Obverse — > ++ e ea 3 0 on wa hey ele pp lies ७५५. (०१ ha atl 3 elle
Reverse—' (~न jes "asl yo Owes
which may be thus translated :—Obverse—‘‘ The name of Sultan Mu’izz-ud-
Din, Bahram Shah, conferreth glory on dinar and diram. Year 637.” Re-
verse —‘‘ 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. Firishtah turns this name into ‘ Alp-Tigin,” but
low leaves out the titles altogether, and makes त of him.

Tt

650 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Like as Minhaj-i-Saraj’s, for thee the creation’s prayer is this :—

‹ 0 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
behold 8,’”

When Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Aet-kin, became Deputy’,
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 affairs °.

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-Din’, and had, at her own
request, been repudiated‘ 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 residence’ [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 ‘‘ Suliman in dignity,” this ‘‘secord 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-Din, Bahram 51121015 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 depart-
ment, an auditor, &c., and to the office previously held by ‘‘the upright
officer,” as Muhagzzab 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.

3 That is, he, in concert with the Wazir, ruled the country, whilst the
‘‘ Suliman,” whose commands swayed ‘‘the jin” and mankind,” was king in
name merely.

3 Turned into Ikhtiyar-ud-Din by Firishtah—in the (न 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.

5 In the account of this Malik in the next Section, our author states that he
applied for permission to use the nauéa‘—already described in note 8, 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-Din, Balban-i-Kashli
Khin’s case, mentioned in the account of him in the next Section.

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 651

affairs and the execution of his mandates lasted until the
month of Muharram of the year 638 H., when, unex-
pectedly, on Monday, the 8th of that month, by command
of the Sultan, a disccurse was delivered within the Kasr
named Safed* [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 /idd@-is, so that, in front of the
dais, in the royal Audience Hall of the Kasr-i-Safed, they
martyred Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Aet-kin, by the wound
of a knife’, 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
Rimi, became Amir-i-Hajib, and assumed the direction of

6 The printed text has eb Join „+ instead of el ५६ ,- as above, and so
the former is rendered in ELLIOT, vol. ii. page 338, ‘‘the Palace of the
White-roof.” I hope the Archzologists will not search for it under the latter
name. The ’Arabic word kasr, and its Persian equivalent kiishk, does not
mean a palace exactly, but, more strictly speaking, a castle—a fortified residence.
Windsor Castle, for example, in the feudal times, was akasr. See also note 2,
page 331.

7 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 Tsbakat-i-Akbari cuts this matter very short, and Buda’iini 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
Shamsi dynasty, the Dakhani historian’s statement may be valued accordingly.
He says Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shih, 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, Muhagzab-ud-Din, and inflicted two
wounds on him. The other nobles present now making a rush, Muhaggab-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-Tawarikh
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 Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Aet-kin, who incited Malik Altiniah to
revolt against Sultan Raziyyat, and so he met his deserts.

Tt 2

652 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

state affairs; and, when Sultan Raziyyat, along with Malik
Ikhtiyadr-ud-Din, Altiniah, from Tabarhindah, determined
to move towards Dihli, and revoked that intention, and
withdrew, and Sultan Raziyyat and Altiiniah attained
martyrdom at the hands of the Hindiis, as has previously
been recorded, the affairs of Malik Badr-ud-Din, Sunkar’®,
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’ of the month of Safar, 639 H., at the residence of
the Sadr-ul-Mulk', the Sayyid, Taj-ud-Din, ’Ali, Misawi,
who was the Mushrif-i-Mamalik [Secretary of the King-
dom], 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 Kasani?, Kazi
Kabir-ud-Din, Shaikh Muhammad-i-Shami [the Syrian],
and other Amirs* 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-Din, Balban, subsequently,
Ulugh Khin-i-A’zam ; and, when the former became Amir-i-Hiajib, 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-Akbur [Lord of the Stables].

9 In other places, the date of this event, in some copies, is the 14th, and in
others the roth. |

। Sadr-ul-Mulk signifies Judge or Administrator of the State, but here it is
only his title or degree, as his office is Mushrif-i- Mamialik.

2 A native of Kasin.—Kazan of modern maps.

8 The word Amir here, it will be seen, is applied to Kazgis and eccle-
siastics.

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 Wazir, 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 conver-
sation. 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
airesh 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 con-
fidant, and said to him: “ Didst thou hear what the Sadr-
ul-Mulk said*? 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.

५ The Dakhani historian—who has made ‘‘ such conscientious and exccllent
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 ows words subsequently contradict, 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 Muhagzab wounded, that ‘‘ Malik Badr-ud-Din, Sunkar,
the Riimi, 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 ¢he abode of the Sadr-ul-Mulk, Taj-ud-Din, who was
the Mushrif-i-Mamialik, 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 Nigdm-ul-Mulk, Muhagzab-ud-Din, the Wazir, in order that

654 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

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 resi-
dence, and forthwith a mandate was issued that Badr-ud-
Din, Sunkar, should proceed to Buda’in, and that district
was made his fief. Kazi Jalal-ud-Din, Kasani, was re-
moved 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 capital*®, and, as the Sultan was
incensed against him, he ordered him to be imprisoned ;
and the Sayyid, Taj-ud-Din, ’Al1, Misawi’, was also
ordered to be imprisoned, and, at last, both of them were
martyred ° This occurrence totally changed the disposi-
tion 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-Alulk gave intimation to Sultin Mu’izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah,
and, having placed a confidential follower of the Sultan’s zx त place of con-
cealment, [where? in another man’s house to betray Aimself!] went to the
Nizim-ud-Mulk’s [Muhazzab, the Wazir’s] abode and informed him of the
presence [at his own house +] of Kazi-Jalal-ud-Din, the Kasani, Kazi Kabir-
ud-Din, Shaikh Muhammad, and other personages there assembled [and
asked him to come along with him], but Muhazgab-ud-Din put off his coming
to the time of afternoon prayers. The Sadr-ul-Mulk represented what was
doing by means of the Suitan’s servant, whom 4८ 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-Din, 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 Tabakit-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-Din. This is
‘the illustrious Ghiiri chief, Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, son of ’Ali, whose
execution is recorded at page 702. He is again mentioned in the last Section.

7 See note 5, preceding page.

8 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 SHAMSIAH 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 ऽपरा 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-Kash', 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 becamé 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 ल > martyred the Musalmans,
and made captive their dependents.

9 Compare ELLIOT, vol. ii. page 339.

1 Dow turns him into ^" Afal/eek,” as if that was his name, and Briggs always
into ५ Mullik Kurragoos”! !

2 As usual with our author, instead of giving the details of this affair here,
he postpones it, gives a few additionaleparticulars in his account of Malik
Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Kara-Kash Khan, in the next Section in his account of
the various Maliks, but leaves the details for the last Section. 410 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 unpre-
pared 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 with

656 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 Dihli 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 Sultan’.

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 Dihli, The Turk and पं Maliks, being
disaffected towards Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, were not very
active in obeying his summons to assemble their fullowers, and the ‘‘ upright
officer”’—the arch rebel - [referred to in note +, page 641], Muhagzab-ud-Din,
the Wazir—even after the army had reached the Biah, 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 Dihli. 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 Section, and as to the Bahadur, Ta-ir,
being killed, according to Fasih-1 and others, he was alive in 644 H., and,
moreover, the Nii-yin, Mangiitah, was the commander of the Mughals, and
the Bahadur, Ta-ir, was under him. After the departure of the Mughals,
the Khokhars, and other Hindti 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 Firightah’s history, ८८८ not on his authority, assures
us that the Mughal in question was ‘‘a famous 7Zoorky leader named Zoor-
mooshreen [sic] Khan’’!! Dow, however, turns Malik Kara-Kash into
५५ Malleck, the viceroy,” but leaves out thig ‘‘famous Zoorky leader.”

Lahor was sacked, numbers of its people were massacred and carried away
into captivity.

At the time of this invasion, Kabir Khan-i- Ayaz, whom Sultan Ragiyyat 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-Din, Abi-Bikr, brought Sind under his authority, and several times
attacked the Karlughs before the gate of Multén. More respecting these
events will be found in the next two Sections.

3 Compare ELLIOT, भ. 340.

ELtiot—‘‘ He had lived for some time quietly ¢ the Sultan's water
palace.” The Kasr or castle here mentioned had been erected on the edge, or,
more probably, in the midst of the //auz which ]-yal-timigh made, which was
named the Haug-i-Sulfan, 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
Aiyib, 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 elephant’.

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 ’Ali’, the Ghiri, along with the
Wazir® [the Khwajah, Muhazzab-ud-Din], and several
Amirs and Maliks, with the forces of Hindistan, to advance
towards Lohor, for the purpose of guarding the frontiers’.
At this period, Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, on

in after times, Sultan Firiiz Shah repaired it, as well as many other buildings,
masjids, tombs, &c.

Darwesbes of this kind, however, do not (८ 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.

+ Here likewise, because the Tabakat-i-Akbari makes a mistake in in-
cluding Kazi Shams-ud-Din among those connected with the plot mentioned
in note 5, page 653, and throws him at the elephant’s feet ¢ien, 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.

& The “*STUDENT’S MANUAL OF INDIAN History,” however, assures us,
contrary to the Muhammadan historians, that his name was ‘‘ Yekhfar ood
Deen, the vizier,” whilst Dow, on the other hand, is more correct, according
१० 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-Din, Husain, commanded this force, the Wazir merely accom-
panied 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-Akhir,
639 11.

658 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Saturday, the roth of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, in the year 639 H.,
entrusted this author with the K4azi-ship of the empire,
together with the K4zi-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 Biah*, 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 repre-
sentation secretly to the Sultan from the camp, saying:
“These Amirs® and Turks will never become obedient. It
is advisable that an edict should be issued by His Majesty’,
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 com-
manded 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-Islam?

8 Tabakat-i-Akbari says ‘‘when the army reached the banks of the river
Biah, near which, at this period, the town of Sultan-pir has been founded.”
Firishtah has precisely the same words.

9 Compare ELiiot. ^" Amirs’’ does not mean ‘‘ generals.”

1 Tabakat-i-Akbari says that Muhagzab—the ‘‘ upright officer” of ELLIOT
[vol. ii. page 334]—requested the Sultan to come himself, or permit him,” &c.
Firishtah follows. ‘‘The Raugat-us-Safa says, contrary to others, that Mu-
haggab 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-Akbari says the Sultan despatched Ssazkk Kutb-ud-Din,
Bakht-yar, Ushi [i-e. of Ush near Baghdad] to the insurgents, and Firishtah
adds a little and makes him the Shaikh-ul-Islam besides. Dow, translating
Firightah, calls him [vol. i. page 177] ‘‘ /slaam, a venerable and learned
Omrak”. Iwonder what ‘‘Omrah” can mean. I have heard of Umra, but
that is the #/wra/of Amir. This first statement, however, is an error, and he is

THE 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 forces
before the gate of the city of Dihli happened on Saturday’,
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 disabled*. All the environs of
the city were destroyed ; and the cause of the prolongation
of this sedition was this. There was a head 72117511 * 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 accommodation‘.

On Friday, the 7th’ 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—sot Sayyid—Kutb-ud-Din,
Bakht-yar, Kaki, Ushi, after whom the Kutb minarah at Dihli is named.
He died six years previous to this time. See note °, page 621, para. 3.

ॐ In some copies, Monday.

+ Among those of the great Maliks who supported Sultan Mu’izz-ud-Din,
Bahram Shah, was Malik Kara-Kagh, feudatory of Bhianah, and Malik
Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Yiiz-Bak-i-Tughril Khan. They were both imprisoned
however, on the 9th of Ramazan, at the instigation of the Farrash, Fakhr-ud-
Din, Mubarak Shah, and only obtained their release when Dihli was taken
by the confederate Maliks.

® Farrashis are servants of the houses of great men who spread the carpets,
make the beds, anc’ pitch the tents on journeys. This head Farrash is styled
Mihtar Mubarak in the next Section.

° Nothing of this affair of the head farrdsh is mentioned in Raugzat-us-Safa,
or in the Tabakat-i-Akbari, and, consequently, not in Firishtah either; but
the Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh and some others refer to it. See the account of
Malik Yiiz-Bak-i-Tugbril 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 Zi-Ka’dah.

660 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

dents of the Khwajah, Muhazzab-ud-Din, gave 30007420 to
a body 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 Fam’ 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 accom-
panied 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, Saturday’, 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
—miay he rest in peace!—and the period of his rcign was
two years, one month, and a half.

VI. SULTAN ’ALA-UD-DUNYA WA UD-DIN, MAS’UD SHAH,
SON OF SULTAN RUKN-UD-DIN, FIRUZ SHAH.

Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Mas’iid Shah, was the son of Sultin
Rukn-ud-Din, Firiz 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 confinement’, all three Princes

8 In another place, in the next Section, it is said, Zwesday, tne 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 ’Ald-ud-Din’s reign :

Obverse—sls ०9 २11१9 thts Uae yo Shall alls jill
Reverse— =| (9 ler 9 yen) aie deo oral ws
which mey be thus rendered :—Obverse—‘‘ The prosperity of the government
of the state through God. Sultan ’Ald-ud-Din, Mas’iid Shah.” Reverse —
‘*Struck at the city of Dihli [in the] year six hundred and forty, the first of the
reign.”

1 Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlii Khan, was also one of the ring-

leaders in this outbreak against Mu’izz-uwd-Din. Early in the day on which

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 661

[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’id Shah, and
conducted them from the Kasr-i-Safed [White Castle] to
the Kasr-i-Firiizi-i-Daulat-Khanah [the Firiizi Castle, the
royal residence], and agreed to the sovereignty of ’Ala-ud-
Din, Mas’iid Shah, after that Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-
Kashlii 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. Jn that matter the other Maliks, not
having agreed, placed Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Mas’iid Shah,
upon the throne, and administered a public pledge of fealty
to the people. Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, son of ’Ali, the
Ghiri, became Deputy of the kingdom, the Khwajah, Mu-
hazzab-ud-Din, the Nizam-ul-Mulk, was [again] made Wazir,
and Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Kara-Kash, became Amir-i-
Hajib [Lord Chamberlain]. The provinces of Nag-awr,
Mandaur, and Ajmir’, 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 be-
coming known, Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Aet-kin, 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’td Shah. When Malik Balban became
aware of this, he joined them, and acted in concert with them. This can
scarcely be called ‘* the clecation of two kings in one day” [Thomas: PATHAN
KINGS, page 120]. The new Sultan conferred the fief of Nag-awr upon Malik
Balban-i-Kashlii Khan, 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 <is'9 means both—and not Ghiyas-ud-Din, 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-Kashli
Khin. In neither of these works is he called by his correct name. The first
calls him ’Izz-ud-Din, Zig7n-i-Buzarg, and gives the same title of ’/ez-ud-Din
to Balban-i-Khurd [i. € Ulugh Khan] whose title was Ghiyas-ud-Din, and
never ‘Izz-ud-Din. The Tabakat-i-Akbari confuses one with the other.
Firishtah [revised text however], as previously mentioned, uses the word
ze' for Se in both their titles.

2 Tabakat-i-Akbari says Nag-awr, S:ad, and Ajmir, and Firightah copies

662 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Din, Balban-i-Kashli Khan, and the territory of Buda’iin
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 K4zi-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 Shafirkani’.

The Khwajah, Muhazzab-ud-Din, the Nizam-ul-Mulk,
acquired complete power over the kingdom, and appro-
priated [the district of] Kol as his own fief. Previous to
this he had established the 242४४4८४ ^, and stationed an
elephant at the gate of his own residence. He took all
functions out of the hand 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
Reservoir’, on Wednesday, the 2nd of the month of
Jamadi-ul-Awwal, 640 H.°

At this period, the author determined to undertake a
proposed journey to Lakhanawati, and, on Friday, the oth
of the month of Rajab’, 640 H., he quitted Dihli. In
the territory of Buda’in, 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.

+ Described in note >, page 383. See Elliot also: INDIA, vol. ii. page
343—‘‘ Previous to this he had caused music to play,” &c. The translator
I trow never heard such music himself—music not capable of ^" charming the
savage breast,” but of making any breast, however charming, savage.

5 I wonder what ^" Hauz-rdui” may be, but Haug-i-Rani signifies the
Reservoir of the Rani or Queen—Rini being the feminine form of Rand and
Rajah. See ELviot, ibid. <A little before, the Kasr-i Haug-i-Sultan is
rendered ^ the Sultan’s water palace.”

6 See the account of Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Kik-luk, and Malik
Badr-ud-Din, Sunkar, the Riimi, in the next Section.

7 The month previous to this, in Jamadi-ul-Akhir, 640 प.) the Khalifah
Abi-Ja’far-i-Mansir, styled Al.Mustansir B’illah, died, and was succeeded by
his son, the last of the ’Abbasis of Baghdad —Abii-Ahmad-i-’Abdullah,
entitled Al-Musta’sim Billah. .

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 663

of Lakhanawati, advanced to the frontiers of Karah with
troops and vessels, and the author joined him from Awadh*.
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 per-
sons 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 innu-
merable 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’tid
Shah, effected, in different parts of the kingdom, many
victories’; and, after the Khwajah, Muhazzab-ud-Din, was
put to death’, the office of Wazir passed to the Sadr-ul-

४ It was at this time that Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan, the feudatory of
Lakhanawati, instigated by his adviser, Bahd-ud-Din, Hilal, attempted to
take possession of the territories of Awadh, Kayah, and Manikpir, and Upper
An-des. See next Section.

9 It is stranye 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 may be summed up in a few words. In 640 H. Malik Taj-ud-Din,
Sanjar-i-Kik-luk, the feudatory of Buda’iin, overthrew the infidels of Kathehr,
and a namesake of his, Malik Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i-Gurait Khan, gained
some successes over the Hindiis 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 Hindiis 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, Kabir 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, Abi- Bikr—who remained
in possession of his father’s fief after his decease, several times attacked and de-
feated the Karlughs who had advanced to the very gates of Multan. In 642 प्र.
the infidels of Jaj-nagar were defeated, and the author was present. This is the
affair which the I. 0. 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 ‘‘two years after the Khwajah, Muhazzab-ud-Din, was put to |
death,” but this can scarcely be correct, as, in such case, the Wazir-ship must
have been in abeyance.

664 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Mulk, Najm-ud-Din, Abi-Bikr, and the office of Amir-i-
Hajib of the capital was entrusted to Ulugh Khan’-i-
Mu’azzam :—may his good fortune continue’ !—and the fief
of Hansi 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, re-
turned from Karah towards Lakhanawati, he despatched
the Sharf-ul-Mulk, the Asha’ri‘, to the capital to the pre-
sence of Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Mas’tid Shah; and, from the
capital, Kazi Jalal-ud-Din, the Kasani, who was the K4zi° of
Awadh at this period, was nominated to proceed to Lakh-
anawati with a red canopy of state, and an honorary robe.
On Sunday, the 11th of the month of Rabi’-ul-Akhir,
641 H.°, 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-} Mulk Baligh
Khan! Dar-ul-Mulk signifies ‘‘the seat of government,” ‘‘capital,” &c.
Ulugh in Turki signifies ‘‘ great,” ‘‘the greater,” ac., 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 a5. they have asa. and
occasionally aki, 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 Ulugh 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, Mahmiid Shah, was reigning when he finished his work ;
and he continued to reign for nearly six years more. See Elliot: INDIA:
vol. 11. note *, page 362.

+ The Labakat-i-Akbari gives this name, as it does mtost names, correctly—
Asha’ri—but Firishtah turns it into Sankuri, Dow leaves it out and a great
deal more of the reign, and Briggs turns it into Shunkry, thus making a
Hindi 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-Tughin Khan in the next Section. There
it is stated that he despatched his agent, the Sharf-ul-Mulk, to the Court for
aid, after having been repulsed before Katdsin, the frontier post of Jaj-nagar,
and that happened on the 6th of Zi-Ka’dah—the eleventh month—of 641 H.,
whilst Rabi’-ul-Awwal is the Aird month. 642 H. must be meant.

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. | 665

happily occurred during Sultan ’Ald-ud-Din, Mas’id 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 1312121] with its dependencies was con-
ferred upon Sultan’ Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmid,; 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 Lakhanawati®; and, on the Ist 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.

४ Most authors, with the exception of the one who was living at the time,
and even staying in the Lakhanawati territory, and along with the Musalman
army— our author—and a few others, such as the authors of Tarikh-i-Mubarak-
Shihi, 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 con-
clusions—have perpetrated a ridiculous blunder here, which has been handed
down by those Musalmin writers who copied the events in their histories from
the Tabakat-i-Akbari, like Buda’iini, and Firishtah in particulan From the
version of this last-named writer the blunder, like the ^" Pathdn 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 hour, the blunder is duly
recorded. | ।

There was #0 invasion of Bangalah nor of Lakhanawa.i by the Mughals of
Chingiz Khan—zho 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. 0. L. A/S. 1952, or the R. A. S.
MS., on which first-mentianed copy the Calcutta printed text is chiefly based]
which fell under the notice of Nizam-ud-Din, Ahmad, the author of the
Tabakit-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 :—
vial (094) dy Cele ,'S —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 AZS. copy they had to refer to,
namely -- ^ 9, ८ C> ,S—leaving Gale fora note!

It is hardly correct to say that Nigam-ud-Din, Abmad “ reproduces
it,” for it will not be found in any prior history; still, if the author
of the Tabakat-i-Akbart, Abi-l-Fazl, and the rest of those who copy the
blunder, and if the editors of the Calcutta printed text likewise, had
used 2 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. A/S., the R. A. 5. WS., and
the Calcutta printed text a/so ave it in the accounts of those Maliks. The

प

666 THE TABAKAT.1-NASIRI.

month of Zi-Hijjah, Malik Kamar-ud-Din, Ki-ran-i-Tamur
Khan’, with troops and Amirs, in conformity with the
commands of Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Mas’tid 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 sus-
picions 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-Akbari was his source of informa-
tion, and Thomas [PATHAN KINGs, page 121], very properly, totally discredits
the statement as rendered /rom the printed text, in Elliot [INDIA, vol. ii. pages
264 and 344]. This invasion, I expect, took place much about the same time
that Chanyiz struck that very rave coin given in THOMAS [page 91], styling
himself by an Arabic title, and acknowledging the Khalifah of Baghdad—
५८ Nastr-ud-Din Ullah, Amir-ul-Miminin”! 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 pene-
trated (^ 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 rallicd 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’ad 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
1. 0. L. AZS., No. 1952, and R. A. 9. AZS., and [ज], who had advanced
opposite to the city of Lakhanawati itself, and fled on the approach of the
forces under Tamur Khin.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. Sec next Section. Malik Tughril, shortly after, was appointed to
the fief of Awadh and proceeded into that territory, but died in Shawwal,
644 7. His rival, Tamur Khan, died the very same night in Lakhanawati.
See Maliks VII. and VIII. in next Section.

9 The Tabakat-i-Akbari turns him into ’Izz-ud-Din, Tughin Timir Khin
Kara-Beg, and makes him quarrel with himself under the name of Malik
Ki-rin, by confusing and incorrectly copying his names and titles ; but Firish-
tah, copying from that work, adds from his imagination, and states that the
Sultan despatched Malik Kari-Beg, Timir Khan, who was one of the
Khwajah-Tash slaves [see note 9, page 665], and that between him and
je) [~> १] ud-Din, Tughin, 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 Tughril-i-Tughan Khan in the next Section.

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. ` 667

Lakhanawati. 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 accommo-
dation took place, and he [Malik Tughril-i-Tughan 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’azzam'—the Almighty perpetuate his
vicegerency !—the Ndsariah College, together with the
superintendence of its endowments, the Kazi-ship of
Gwaliyir, and the lecture-ship of the Fam’ 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
profession’ had ever obtained. God reward him for it!

In the month of Rajab* 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 Mangitah was the leader. Sultan
’Ala-ud-Din, Mas’tid Shah, for the purpose of repelling the
Mughal forces, assembled the troops of Islam from various
parts‘. On their arrival on the banks of the Biah, the

1 In the year 642 प्र, Ghiyas-ud-Din, Balban, who, up to that time, was
Amir-i-Akhur, became Amir-i-Hajib. The Tabakat-i-Akbari, however,
assures us that Malik Balban [in some JZSS. Tigin]-i-Khurd, who ¢he held
the title of Ulugh Khan, became Amir-i-Hajib. Ghiyis-ud-Din, Balban,
did not obtain that title until five years after this, in 647 H. Our author docs
not mean that he was styled Ulugh Khan 2८ ¢his time, although he calls him
so: he was Ulugh Khan when our author wrote his book.

> The word here used does not mean ‘‘ family.” ELLIOT: vol. ii. page 344.

3 Previous to this the royal forces went on an expeditioa in the Do-ab of the
Jiin 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.
Mangitah, the Ni-yin—whom the translator of this passage of our author’s
work, in ELLIOT [page 344], has been pleased to turn into Mangu Khan Aer,
but leaves him under the name of दरक farther on [page 364], not being
aware, seemingly, that they were one and the same person—was one of
Chingiz Khan’s own immediate followers and confidants, now grown old.
dle was very thin, tall, and blind of an eye. Manzi Ka’an, the grandson of

Uiu 2

a

668 ` 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 again’,

A number of very worthless persons in that army had
clandestinely gained access to the presence of Sultan
’Ala-ud-Din, Mas'iid 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 cast of the Indus in his .tfe. It is strange how people
will jump at impossible conclusions ; and, because one of the Mughal sovereigns
was called {+ immediately they see 4,0. 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
rctire 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 Biah, the
Mugbals raised the investment and retired ; and, subsequently, the Dihli army
advanced as far as the banks of the Sidharah. In the account of Ghiyds-ud-
Din, Balban, afterwards Ulugh Khian-i-A’gam, 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, Abi-Bikr, the son of Malik Kabir Khin-i-Ayaz, was now dead,
and Uchchah was in the hands of a slave of his father’s, an eunuch named
Mukhlis-ud-Din, and gallantly he defended it. Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-
Kasblii Khin, at this time, held the fief of Nag-awr, and he joined the
Sultin’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 Siwastain and Diwal. See also next Section, Malik, No. XX.,
and the last Section, where a different statement is made.

9 The Tabakat-i-Akbari copies our author verbatim here, and Firightah, of
course, agrees.

THE SHAMSIAH 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 Nasir-ud-Din—the Almighty perpetuate his king-
dom 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-
harram १५ 644 H., Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Mas’iid 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’7AM UL-MU’AZZAM, NASIR-UD-DUNYA
WA UD-DIN, ABU-L-MUZAFFAR-I-MAHMUD SHAH, SON
OF THE SULTAN, KASIM-I-AMIR-UL-MUMININ7?.

The birth of the Sultan-i-Mu’azzam, Niasir-ud-Din,
Mahmid Shah’, took place at the Kasr-Bagh [the Garden
Castle १] of Dihli, in the year 626 H., 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 givento him. This is a
title given to his father at page 624. According to the Khulasat-ul-AKhbar,
Sultan Barkiarik, the Saljik [see note 2, page 143] also held the title of
Kasim-i-Amfr-ul-Miminin previous to the Shansabani Sultans. See page 316,
and page 368, note 2.

8 ELPHINSTONE turns him into ‘‘a grandson of Altamsh ;” and MARSH-
MAN, following him in that also, turns his name into as7r-ood-Deen. These
are some of ‘‘the facts” in his ‘‘ History’’ probably, of which he 15 ^" prepared
to vouch for the accuracy.”

Ibn Batiitah, who is quoted by some as an authority on the history of India,
and makes I-yal-timish Kutb-ud-Din, I-bak’s son, says Niasir-ud-Din suc-
ceeded his sister Ragiyyat. Ile is the ninth of Thomas’s PATHAN KINGs.

9 The garden with the Kasr or Castle in it.

670 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

place after the decease of the august Malik, Nasir-ud-Din,
Mahmiid Shah'—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, Mahmiid 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 Liini’, 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 trom 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 sovereignty ’.

In every matter which becomes unfolded to illustrious
monarchs in their old age, after the experiences and in-
cidents of time, all such matters—indeed, twice as much—
became realized and conceived in the auspicious constitu-
tion and august soul of this monarch of blooming pro-
spects, of Saturn[-like] throne ‘, 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 outsct
of its youth and the morning of its existence, in firmness,
steadfastness, and sedateness, like Bi-Kais and Hira‘, and
in liberality and beneficence [he] became the envicd 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 Firigshtah asserts that ‘‘ Nasir-ud-Din, Mabmiid Shah,” was the youngest
son of I-yal-timigh: he was the youngest of that name and title, but Kutb-ud-
Din, the child put to death by Shah Turkan, mother of Rukn-ud-Din, Firiz
Shah, was the youngest of all the sons.

2 . well-known place a few miles north of Dihli. It is sometimes called
Lon.

४ Compare ELLIOT: vol. ii. page 345.

+ That is, in the seventh heaven. 9 In Arabia.

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF 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 Kasidah’, and the other, in the
manner of a mulamma’' 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 them’.

[These fulsome poems may be judged of from what is
foregoing, and still more so from what follows, and need
scarccly be inserted here *].

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 SHAII
SON OF THE SULTAN, I-YAL-TIMISH,
YAMIN-I-KHALIFAII ULLAH,

NASIR-I-AMIR-UL-MOUMININ 1.

6 A poem, a eulogium, a long ode.

7 Mulamma’ 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 so/e/y from what he copied out of the Tabakat-
i-Akbari, it would be found with respect to these poems. The Tabakait-i-
Akbari 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. ALS. No. 1952, instead of this last title, has Kasim-i-Amir-
ul-Miminin. See note ५ page 310.

672 THE TABAY AT-I-NASIRL.

Offspring ˆ
Malik Rukn-ud-Din, Firiz Shih, the late *.
Malik Taj-ud-Din, Ibrahim Shah, the late.
Malik Mu’izz-ud-Din, Bahram Shah, the late.
Malik Shihab-ud-Din, Muhammad > Shah, the late.

Length of hts reign:

Twenty-two years.

Motto on the Royal Signet:

“Greatness belongeth unto God alone‘*.”

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 dmar:—
Obverse—sls dee? wr Wlol त Jol ८५ ol ५ By. pall We
Reverse—Jol cwyle wr aie Jao १०५५ Ws

which may be thus translated -—Obverse—‘‘ This diram [is] stamped with
the name of the Just and Beneficent Sultan, Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah.”
Reverse—‘* Struck at the city of Dihli, in the year 644 H., the first of the
reign.”
The other runs thus :—
Obverse—| (जक prllpoli ७५५ peel Gat Im cll ped Ll
Reverse—2:lae 9 ७) 9 ay! ae (deo लम्‌ ०८२५] We wpe

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 2¥y!—offspring—and not «sh3|—kinsmen, kindred,
relations—as in some modern 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 9. 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 ¢wo of his brothers—
the first and third—but the other two are not the names of any of his othen
brothers, who, 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
tu Sultan Nasir-ud-Din, and that they died young, but it is remarkable that
our author is silent as to their births after mentioniag their names.

3 In one copy of the text, Mahmid.

4 Just the same as his father’s.

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 673

His Malkiks’.
On the right :— `

Malik-al-Kabir, Jalal-ud-Din, Kulich ' Khan, son of [the
lat.] Malik ’Ala-ud-Din, Jani-i-Ghazi, Malik of Lakhana-
wati and Karah.

Malik-al-Kabir, Nusrat-ud-Din, Sher Khan, Sunkar-
i-Saghalsus, Malik of Sind and of Hind’. |

Malik Saif-ud-Din, Bat® Khan -i- I-bak, the Khita-i,
Malik of Kuhram.

Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Buktam-i-Aor Khan.

Malik Nésir-ud-Din [Taj-ud-Din ?], Arsalan Khan,
Sanjar-i-Chast °, Malik of Awadh.

Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-bak-i-Balka Khan, Sana’t’.

Malik Tamur Khin-i-Sunkar, the ’Ajami, Malik of
Kuhram. :

Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Yiz-Bak-i-Tughril Khan, the
late, Malik of Lakhanawati.

Malik Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmid >, Tughril-i-Alb Khan.

= On the left :-—

Malik-al-Kabir-ul-Mu’azzam, Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, son
of ’Ali, the Ghiirt.

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.

$ This list is evidently defective. No Wazirs or Kagis 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-Sufi, the Rimi; No. XXII.—Malik Saif-ud-Din, I-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.

6 In some copies, Tughrf 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.

? In nearly every copy of the text containing this List.

8 This word ts doubtful. See Malik No. XVI. in the next Section.

9 This word is doubtful also. See Malik No. XIX.

1 4s —Sana’i—doubtful : in one copy , 3 and in another (jl.

3 In one or two copies, Nagr-ud-Din, Mubammad, &c.

674 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Malik-al-Kabir, ’'Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashli Khin,
Malik of Sind and of Hind *.

Malik Kara-Kush Khian-i-Aet-kin, Malik of Lohor.

Malik-al-Kabir-ul-Mu’azzam, Baha-ul-Hakk wa ud-Din,
Ghiyas-ud-Din, Balban-i-Ulugh Khan‘, 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, im-
partiality, 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 con-
currence 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 understand-
ing!—are so abundant that they cannot be comprised

8 Nusrat-ud-Din, Sher Khan-i-Sunkar, as well as Balban-i-Kashli Khan, is
called Malik of Sind and Jind. This may be in some way connccted 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 Mansirah is called
Bilad-us-Sind, and that immediately north of it, Bilad-ul-Hind.

+ The best Paris A/S.—the ‘‘autograph”’ probably—and two or three others
which are also comparatively modern, invariably make the great blunder of
styling Ulugh Khan—,& &|—*' Ula Khan”— be 9! !

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 675

within record or recital. The Almighty God preserve him
on the throne of his dominion continual and perpetual ° |

Inasmuch as the accession of this Sultan, the son of the
Sultan, to the throne of dominion took place in the be-
ginning 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 un-
derstanding.

FIRST YEAR: 644 H.

The Sultan-i-Mu’azzam, Nasir-ud-Dunya wa ud-Din,
Mahmid Shah, under a happy conjunction of the planets,
with auspicious fortune, at a propitious time, and, with
daily-increasing prosperity, ascended the throne of sove-
reignty within the Kasr-i-Sabz [Green Castle] in the capital
city of Dihli, on Sunday, the 23rd of the month of Mu-
harram °, in the year 644 H.; and the Maliks and Amirs,
the Sadrs and Grandees, and the Sayyids and ’Ulama,
hastened to present themselves’ 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 signi-
fication ; 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,
Mahmiid Shih’s own perusal. Compare ELLIorT here.

The Tabakit-i-Akbari states that he copied Kur’ans, and completed two in
each year—not excessive work—which were sold, and the proceeds he sub-
sisted 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 Nisir-ud-Din, Mahmiid 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 Acad of slaves
to our author to send to his ‘‘dear sister” in Khurasan. See page 686, and
the account of Ulugh Khan in the next Section. *

6 The first month of the Mubammadan 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 con-
gratulation 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 Kiishk-i-Firiizi [the
Firiizi Castle]—the royal residence; and all the people *
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 Hindiistén were pleased at this pro-
sperous” reign; and may it be prolonged to the utmost
limits of possibility !

When the Sultan of Islam, Niasir-ud-Din, Mahmid
Shah, set out from Dihli towards Bhara’i} om that fief
being assigned to him [by his nephew, Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din,
Mas’iid Shah’), his mother, the Malikah-i-Jahan, Jalal-ud-
Dunya wa ud-Din—may her prosperity endure *!—accom-
panied him. He undertook many expeditions against the
infidels* 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
Hindiistan, the Maliks and Amirs of the kingdom, having
become apprehensive of Sultan ’Ala-ud-Din, Mas’tid 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 feop/e” as at present.

® This prosperous reign may be judged of from the following pages—constant
outbreaks, and continual inroads on the part of the Mughals, and Sind, 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. *

> This maker of holy war upon the infidels was then fifteen years old—a
very experienced warrior doubtless.

+ 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 expe-
dient, 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 Bhara’ij
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 orna-
mented 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 to the banks of the river Sind, and Banian*, and
the destruction of the infidels of Chin [the Mughals], and
moved by successive marches*. On Sunday, the 15६ of

5 The I. 0. L. 5. No. 1952, and R. A. S. ALS. have Multan !

€ 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 Shamsf 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 125६ 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 divams from Multan, then
moved on to Lahor, and extorted 30,000 divams, 30 kharwars of soft goods
[cloths], and roo‘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 Tarfkh.i-Firiz-Shahf, copied in the Tabakit-i-Akbari, and its
followers, would make us believe, contrary to our author, that, at the very
outset of his reign, Sultan Nagir-ud-Din, Mabmiid Shah, assigned a canopy
of state, a dur-ddsk, 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 Nagir-ud-Din’s reign, the Dakhani historian, in his

678 THE TABAKAT.-I.NASIRI.

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 [प्व Hills and around Nandanah’. Ulugh
Khan-i-A’zam *—may his good fortune’ 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 Siidharah ".

Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam took that army, and, by the
favour and aid of the Creator, he ravaged the Jid 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 Guztdah and
others long before Firishtah wrote, respecting a king of Khwarazm.

7 See Elliot here also [IND1A: vol. ii. page 346], where the editor, in a
note, says ‘‘the text [printed text?] has ski zandna, but it is evidently a
mistake for ४०२ ‘‘ Sind/,” or the river Indus, which agrees with what follows,
and with Firishta’s statement.” When NANDANAH, in some places, is turned
into ‘‘ Mérdin,” 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 ASS. copies of the work—follows the former likewise, with some
additions of his own concoction; but in the ^^ revised text” of BRriccs
Nandanah is turned into Afu/édn, 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 slo oly adi C5 bl + dye १४४ up» See also
the account of Ulugh Khan in the next Section for further particulars,

$ ease Mu'agzam signifies great pis—A’zam is the comparative of pdis—
"Agim, and signifies greatest, and Ulugh is Turkish, and signifies great, being
equivalent to the Persian éuszurzg. Dow, referring to his appointment as
Wazir—as Firishtah styles him Balban-i-Khird, copying the Tabakat-i-
Akbari, to distinguish him from Balban-i-Buzurg, as ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-
Kashlu Khan is styled in the Tarikh-i-Firiz-Shahi—calls him ^. young
Balin” ! Ulugh Khan, or Balban the Lesser or Minor, as the term signifies,
was then only past forty! This however is not so absurd as LEE, who, in his
translation of Ibn Batuta [Ibn Batitah], [page 114] quoting the Tabakat-
i-Akbari, to prove Dow wrong in calling him Balin, says that he was called
Balaban the Dwarf, and actually gives the words 49% ८०४ to prove his words,
+9 being @ dwarf in his vocabulary ! !

® The printed text has i:zhu here for «193 and constantly makes the same
mistake.

1 Or Sidhara —!.e°,.—‘“‘is a town two and a half éuroh to the north-west
of Wazirabad. In former times, the river Chinab—which, at this place, is
also called the Stidhara—flowed close to the place, on the northern side, but
now it isaduvoA to the north of it. There is no river ‘‘ Sudra.” See the
account of Ulugh Khan in the next Section.

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 679

tumacious infidels’ 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 Sidharah, and the force set gut on its return towards
the illustrious capital, the city of Dihli. The prayers for
the "Id-i-Azha were said in the karah* [the hall of a
Karwan Sarde 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 cloak‘, a turban, and a horse,
with ornamented stirrups and bridle befitting a king र.

SECOND YEAR: 645 H.

The capital city Dihli 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 to-
wards the part of Hindiistan situated in the Do-ab. Within
the limits of [the district] of Kinnauj there was a fortified
place and strong fort, the name of which was Talsandah °,

2 And yet the Dakhani historian, Firightah, in his account of Mu’izz-ud-Din,
Ghiiri’s reign, says the Khokhars were converted to Islam at that time.

3 The printed text has 4,5—mountain, range of hills or mountains, instead of
8S as above, and, consequently, in ELLiot, the Sultan ^" offered up 42 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. Karak and Aujrah are of very
nearly the same signification.

+ Such as Siifis and Darweshes wear.

5 In this year Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Kara-Kush Khan-i-Aet-kin, the
feudatory of Kayah, was killed in that territory, but how, or by whon, is not said.

6 This place which is plainly written ss:~i—Talsandah in af? the copies of
the text-—with two exceptions, where it is १५५ — Talandah — and १५0 —
Talbandah—is turned into Mandana in the printed text and in ELLIOT, and
THOMAS follows the incorrect reading [PATHAN KINGS, page 125], and although
Nandanahk, which is not only impossible, but does not occur in any copy of

680 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

which was reported to be as stout as the wall of Sikandar’.
In that fort a body of infidel Hindiis 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 Hindis 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 sheets® 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 Malki”, are, in those sections [of paper], fully

the text, Gen. Cunningham [see THOMAS: 1id.] identifies it ‘‘as Deo-kali or
No-Po-Tf-PO-KIN-LO of Huen Thsang, 1. €, ava 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 Tabakit-i-Akbari does not mention the name of this place, but
Firishtah [Briccs ‘‘ revised text’’] has as,5 which may be anything almost ;
but Dow, in this instance, is much more correct here, and has 77/sindah, thus
showing that the J/SS. of Firishtah used by him, although not ‘‘ revised,”
were correct ; whilst Briggs, in his version of Firishtah, styles it ‘‘ Aitunda”
and identifies it with Bulandshahr [Anglicized into Booloondshukur), 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 Zi7vo0g about ten miles S.W. of Kinnanj.
The first mentioned place if written in the vernacular with ९ = $_which, in
all probability, it is, might, by a foreigner, be written sa for ०५ See
also the account of Ulugh Khan in the next Section.

7 The Sadd-i-Sikandar, Sadd-i-Yajiij Majij [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 Alexanfer of Macedon.

® A sheet of paper folded to make a suz or eight pages,

9 Every copy of the text here has 5 between the words (==! and SL
which seems meant for the copulative conjunction; but, farther on, under
this reign, and also in the account of Ulugh Khan, there 2 no $ If 3
is correct, and is intended for and, ‘*Dalki and Malki” cannot possibly
be the name of one person, and we are plainly told that @ Rinah 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 ¢4e Malki, and the last word would then refer
to some office or title of the Ranah in question. The best St. Petersburg

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 681

and completely described in verse, and, after the name of
the Sultan, it was entitled the NASIRI NAMAH. In satis-
faction thereof the author received from his Majesty the
Sultan-i-Mu’azzam—may his sovereignty continue !—a_per-
manent grant which should be received yearly ; and, from
the Khakan-i-Mu’azzam"*, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam — the
Almighty prolong his power !—he obtained the grant of a
village within the Hansi 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.

Qn Thursday, the 24th of the month of Shawwél, 645 H.,
that fort, after much fighting and great slaughter, was
captured”, and, after that, on Tuesday’, the 12th of the
month of Zi-Ka’dah of the same year, the territory of
Karah was reached. Thirty’ 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 person‘, during that movement, showed such
proofs of spirit and skill, as cannot be sufficiently praised,
ia important battles, the capture of stronghelds and forts,

MS., however, has only the following words here: ‘the slaughtering of the
contumacious, and the taking of Dalki and Malki,” respecting which passage
see note °, page 682.

५० Because our author, in his usual fulsome manner, styles him Khakan-i-
Mu’azzam, signifying great king or emperor, it does nct follow, nor does it
mean, that he was king when this was wutten. Our author generally uses the
word J50 with respect to Ulugh Khan, which has many significations ; and,
as he ruled Nasir-ud-Din as well as the country, it would not be a matter of sur-
prise to find ‘‘ rule” or ^^ power” used here, without its being turned into a proof
that he 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 Shawwél, and that, after the festival of the Azha—roth 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.

5 Some copies of the text have Monday. Tabakat-i-Akbari says the Sultan
moved towards Kayah on the 1oth of that month.

3 In some copies of the text ¢ree days, but that is evidently too short a
time, as the context proves.

* Strong like an elephant he probably means. See Ibn Batiitah's account
of Ulugh Khan in a note to the account of that Malik in the next Section.

X X

682 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 NASIkI NAMAH.

There was a Ranah in those mountains and that tract [of
country] which they were wont to call Dalki and Malki®,

४ Here, contrary to the preceding passage just noticed, no ऽ is used in the
majority of the copies of the text, including the oldest and best ones ; and in
the account of Ulugh Khb4n also, in the next Section, no , isused. There our
author says that ^ el. , 13 was 2 Ranah in the vicinity of the river Jin which
ts 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, &८.' Ropes and ladders
had to be used in gaining access ‘‘/o 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 ove man: that is simply impossible, ‘as ५८८
Ranah” is plainly indicated both here and farther on. Without the « the
words would form a very improbable Hindi proper name, but they might then
be read Dalki of Malki, the last word being the name of his stronghold or
country, which is possible, or Dalki ¢4¢ Malki, when the last word would refer
to some title or office, which seems improbable. As no vowel points are given,
and as ७ may stand for gas well as for € the words may be Dulki, Dalaki,
Mulki, and Malki, or Dulgi and Malgi or Dalagi and Malagi, and the tike
The more correct spelling may be _s=les—Dhalki or Dhulki, and <\¢.—
Mhalki or Mahalki, as foreigners are very apt to leave out the »—4—in
Hindi words, and to write »—d—for 3-d. There is a place similarly
named _sml¢. inthe 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 »|—/ha? instead of »'!—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 :—

pica [ Sale y ८) or] cele elo 1 of ace aly y She ole op tail) s
and as I have rendered it above. The only doubt remaining is, whether the
word (ज may refer to the Ranah or not, as with, or without the + both
words might refer to the country

The Tabakat-i-Akbari copies from our author here, but merely says that

the Ranah’s ase [district, place, town, &c.] of gale 9 eo was taken

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 683

with numerous dependents, and fighting men beyond com-
pute, 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 [Karah °].

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 ’.
At this period, Malik Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’iid 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 ८० rajahs, as rendered
by Brices, ‘the Rajaks Dulky and Mulky,” but, on the other hand, “a
rajah.” |

The situation of this Ranch’s country is plainly indicated in the passage in
the account of Ulugh Khan, and refers to the tract immediately west of the
S.W. Tons river. I think ‘‘Garwa near Sheordjpur [Shiw-raj-pir?] 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 here.

7 In EL rot 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 citics are decorated, note >, page 616.

> X 2

684 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Sultan’s brother], who, when he presented himself to the
Sultan [on his march back from Karah], had been nomi-
mated to the fiefs of Sanbhal and Buda’iin, became suddenly
filled with fear and terror, and from Sanbhal and Buda’iin
proceeded towards Lohor’®, by way of the hills of Sihnir.

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 Zi-Hijjah, in
felicity and power, he reached the capital र.

The forces of Islim pushed on towards the Koh-payah
[skirts of the hills—of Mewat] and Rantabhir. On this

£ Rendered in ELiioT, ‘‘ When Malik Jalali-d-din waited upon the king as
he was returning, he was appointed governor of Sambal and Badaun, but he
all at once fook alarm about these two districts and came to the capital.” The
1, 0. L. MS., the R. A. S. A7S., the best Paris A7S., 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 Biah 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-Kashli Khan, and Nusrat-ud-Din, Sher Khin-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 ताण
Khan, it is in a manner explained. It was in Sha’ban, 646 H., that Nasir-ud-
Din, Mahmiid 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 Biah, 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 Biah, and therefore Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah, returned
to the capital again, after appointing some of his Amirs to move against some
of his contumacious Hindii 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
kingelom, 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. Shabirghani] was
accused, and, from Friday, the 9th of the month of Zi-
Hijjah, in the Kasr-i-Safed [the White Castle], was re-
moved from his K4zi-ship, and, by command, left the city
and departed towards Buda’iin; and, on the 12th of Zi-
Hijjah, by the endeavour, of ’"Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan, he
was put to death': the other was that Malik Baha-ud-Din,
I-bak, the Khwajah, in the vicinity of the fortress of Ran-
tabhir’, attained martydom at the hands of the infidel
Hindis, on Sunday, the 11th of the month of Z1-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
again®. As Ulugh Khin-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.

+ This passage is inverted altogether in ELtioT [page 349]. The printed
text is perfectly correct here, and has, like the ASS. copies of the work, the
words— cree ye “acale 9! =} णता have been rendered totally con-
trary to their meaning, viz. :—the Sultan “gave Ats daughter to the son of the
Khan”! Niasir-ud-Din, Mahmid Shah, was, at this time, in the 21st year of
his age. Thomas [PATHAN KINGS, page 125], led astray by the above trans-
` lation probably, falls into the same error.

Our author has forgotten to state here, although he has remembered it in his
account of him, that it was shortly after this event that Malik Ghiyas-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 brothes, Malik Saif-ud-
Din, I-bak-i-Kashli Khan, was made Amir-i-Hajib, and, on Nag-awr being
taken from Malik Balban-i-Kashli 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-Akhir’, 647 H. 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 roth 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 °, the imperial standards moved out of
the capital, Dihli, and, on Sunday, the 4th of the month
of Shawwal of this same year, crossed the Jiin,. for the
purpose of undertaking a holy expedition against the
Hindiis; and forces were told off to operate in that tract.

Letters from the sister of this frail individual [the author]
arrived from Khurdasan, and they were represented to the
sublime consideration, and the Sultan—Long may his
Khilafat continue! through the recommendation of Ulugh
Khian-i-A’zam—may Almighty God long preserve and
prolong both their lives !—conferred an honorary robe, a
misal [royal grant] for forty head of captives’, and a
hundred £har-wdrs 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 Sha’ban, and the camp was pitched at
the ford over the Jiin, and hostilities at once commenced against the infidels.

7 The translator of this passage in ELLIOT [vol. ii. page 350] tums
40 captives into 100 deasts of burden! The words in the text, the Calcutta
printed text included, are perfectly plain, and to make it unmistakeably so, the
word '—nafar, applied solely to human beings, is used. The passage is
thus rendered in Elliot :-—‘‘ 4८ [the Sultan] was pleased to give HER one hundred
BEASTS OF BURDEN, and one hundred ass-loads of presents.” Ina foot note,
the Editor states ‘‘the word used is ४५, for which the dictionaries give the
meaning [it is an every-day word almost in the Persian of the Last] of
‘captive, slave, servant.’ It can hardly bear this meaning here, and in other
places it is connected with [१] asp (horse) so Z have translated it ‘ beast of
burden,’ from the verb durdan to carry” !!

If éardahk 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 ८०० shocking to
think that captives should thus be sent away to be sold? 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 ‘‘dear sister” in Khurasin,
and there he uses the word yude—ghulaman, an ’Arabic word, whilst 53,—
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] as

THE 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 Khuradsan. When he reached the
Hansi district, by the sublime command of the Khan-i-
Mu’azzam, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam, the author took posses-
sion of the village conferred on him by Ulugh Khan’, and
opportunity offered of proceeding to Multan by way of
Abihar ° ; and, in the

FIFTH YEAR: 648 IL,

On Sunday, the 11th of the month of Safar, 648 H., an
interview was obtained with Malik Sher Khan-i-Sunkar,
on the bank of the Biah', and 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-/oad, 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 Ulugh Khan in the next Section.

9 Ibn Bafiitah, who proceeded ‘‘from Multan, the principal city of Sind,”
towards Dihli, says, ‘‘the first city [town?] we reached appertaining to Hin-
diistan, and the first in this direction, was Abihar. 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, that, at this period, the Biah flowed in its old bed, between the
present Sutlaj and the Chinab, as it would have been impossible, in proceeding
direct from Abihar to Multan, to have otherwise met Sher Khan on the Biah.
See remarks on ‘‘ The Lost River” in last Section.

.' The I. 0. L. AZS. No. 1962, and R. A. ऽ. MS., and Calcutta printed
text, here have sl. 9 stro wi (1 - ८८ bank of the water [river] Sindh and
Bigkh—and the words are thus translated in ELLtoT [vol. ii. page 350} ‘‘on
the banks of the rrver SIND and Biyah,” but for two persons to hold an inter-
view on these ८2५८ 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
3 ti“ Sindh and”—are not contained in the text. One modern copy has
०५, ao oJ—the bank of the Sind-i-Biah [i.e. the river of Biah], which
probably the editors. af the Calcutta text took for the Indus, as the term is
used—in a proper sense of course—both to signify ¢he 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 Khan hasil shud ’—‘“‘ our text has #0 nomi-
native 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 is

688 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-Kashli? 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 Rabi’-ul-Akhir, and the capture of Multan, which
was in the hands 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-Kashli Khan, retired
towards Uchchah. The author returned by the route of
the fort of Marit* to Sursuti and Hansi, and reached
Dihli again on the 22nd of Jamadi-ul-Akhir. |.

In the month of Shawwal of this same year, [Khtiyar-
ud-Din-i-Kurez, from Multan, made a great mumber 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 17th of

ॐ mere continuation of the sentence above there can be no doubt as to who is
refetred to, and, as the nominative to 2 passtve verb is never expressed in the
Persian language, it is not astonishing that our author dees not use it here.
The words above are ‘‘the interview with Sher Khan [lit. ef Sher Khan] was
attained or acquired,” sof ‘‘had an interview ;” but what proves—except the
previous sentence, which is clear enongh—the superiority or inferiority of the
two persons, I am at 8 loss-to diseern.

It is the Tabak&t-i-Akbari, ot 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 Dihlf that year, to the Biah, and says that Sher Khan joined him
there, but does not mention anything about 20,000 horse. The same work
takes the Sultan to Multan and Uchchah, the former of which places he is

‘therein stated to have reached on the 6th of Rabi’-ul-Awwal, 648 H. In this
ease cur author has only been mistaken for the Sultan! See the account of
Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlii Khan, in the next Section.

ॐ The printed text turns Kaghlii Khan-i-Balban into Lashkar Khan, and in
EL.ioT [vol. ii. page 350] it is so translated, and Thomas [PATHAN KINGS,
page 125] turns Sher Khan into the évother of Ulugh Khan! He was his
uncle's son—his cousin merely.

3 Marft is a well known place om the route from Dihli to Uchchah.
‘¢ Mirat” is utterly impossible. One is W. of Dihli, and the other ए. A
person would go a /itt/e out of his way to ge to Multan from Dihli by way of
०“ Mirat.” See the account of Ulugh Khan, and ELLIOT, vol. ii. page 350.
Our author went as far as the river Jhilam to see the eaptives off.

4 It 1s strange that no particulars are given respecting the capture of these
Mughal prisoners by Ikhtiyar-ud-Din-i-Kurez from, not af, 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 encroaching

| ।

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 689

the month of Zi-Ka’dah, Kazi Jalal-ud-Din, 25201, re-
signed his existence to the most sublime dynasty—the im-
maculate Ruler of the Universe.

SIXTH YEAR: 649 H.

Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlii Khan, having com-
menced 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-Kashli Khan, presented
himself and made his submission, and the sublime stand-
ards returned [to the capital *].

Subsequently to this, Malik Sher Khan marched from
Multan* against Uchchah, and Malik ’Izz-ud-Din, Bal-
ban-i-Kashli Khan, pressed on from Nag-awr towards
(40411211, and went to Malik Sher Khan [in his camp] and
was detained, and relinquished the fort of Uchchah to
him 7, 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 Biah. This is the affair out of which Firightah, but not the
Tabakat-i-Akbari, makes Sher Khan take Ghaznin from the Mughals referred
in note », 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-Kashli 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 army, 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-Dimi-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.

* 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-Kashlii Khan and of Sher Khan in the next Section, which sce

690 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI. -

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’iin® was assigned to
him.

In this year, likewise, on Sunday, the roth of the month
of Jamadi ul-Awwal, for the second time, the K4azi-ship of
the realm, together with the jurisdiction of the capital ’,
was entrusted to this servant of the state, Minhaj-i-Saray,
by the sublime command ; and, on Tuesday, the 25th of
the month of Sha’ban, the sublime standards moved
towards Gwéaliyir, Chandiri, Nurwul’ [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 @handir¥ and Malwah in Sha’bian, which is the eighth
month of the year.

® One of the two most important fiefs of the kingdom of Dihli in those
days.

That exceedingly trustworthy historian, Firightah, perpetrates a nice blunder
here. He states immediately after the Nurwnr 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-Din”!! All this ridiculous
nonsense is concocted from the affair of Ikhtiyar-ud-Din-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 sone 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
-.f2—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 , and J in
Hindi being interchangeable. It is no doubtful place, and lies some 40 miles
east of Bhipal, in Lat. 23° 18, Long. 78९. The other places mentioned with
it indicate its whereabouts. The majority of the best copies of the text have
+ „० Chahar-i-Ajar, and one y= but in 455. , and + are often con-
founded. It is probably the manner in which a Musalman, and a foreigner,
would write »3ele (ST@E]—Chahadah—by putting , to represent the sound
of Sanskrit इ The word here written ,\«'—ajdr or achdr, in one copy of
the text, in the account of Nusrat-ud-Din, Ta-yasa’i, in the next Section, has
ai > 1-27-70, which may be meant for » , = - ०८4 "24, 7 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-timigh. The second word is, probably, meant for
WTA — Acharya—spiritual guide, or teacher, &c., on/y, in other places
farther on, he is styled ,le! ‘ail;—Ranah of Ajar, and wyle! Ped» .'—that
Hindi fellow, ८4८ Ajari, or, of Ajari, and sel 'wl—Ranah of Ajari, and

THE SHAMSIAH 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,

wilel ~le and »'e Chahir and Jahir ८८ Ajari, who was a Ranah, &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” coutained in Part I., Vol. 2nd, of the ‘‘ TRANSAC-
TIONS OF THE Ro. As. Soc. for 1829,” pages 231 and 245, mentions the
Vajra Achéryas. He says ‘‘ The Bandyas are divided into two classes ; those
who follow the Véhya-charya, and those who adopt the Aésyantara-charya—
words equivalent to the Grikastha dsrant and Vairdgl dsram of the Bréhmanas.
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 gteat ‘‘Rae.” See also the account of this affair, in the notice of
Ulugh Khan in the next Section, and compare ELLIOT, vol. ii. page 351.

The Tarikh-i-Mubarak-Shah? styles him 29 le»—Harja Diw, and the
Tazkarat-ul-Muliik 9° +> — Hahir Diw—but in all probability the ट is
merely ह or ¢ with the points omitted, as no Hindi 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 éack from this expedition, the
fortress. of Nurwur or Nirwur was taken.

The Tabakat-i-Akbari states that the Sulfin marched against »o ,le!—
Achar Diw, with a large army, on the 6th of Sha’bin of this year, mentions
the number of the hostile troops as given by our author, and that a great hattle
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 9७ „+~ [the 475. used by Dow
however appears to have had 9.0 +~ ऽवप Diw] and adds that he had
very recently built this stronghold of Nurwur or Nirwur, which, in Briccs’
revised text, is tuned into .«;—Tiriir, which, of course, is totally incorrect.

According to Top [vol. i. page 89], this stronghold was erected by a branch
of the Cuskwaha [he probably means the -»' ++ —Kachwahah—Rijpits]
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 Rajptits being overcome by Musalmins except
by accident or mistake or some black treachery, according to the Rajpit
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
Rajpit annalists.

692 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

the sublime standards moved back again towards the
capital.

SEVENTH YEAR: 650 BH.

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 felicity + 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 Multan’, 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, Maliks, and Amirs of
the adjacent parts, assembled and attended the sublime |
stirrup; and Kutlugh Khan from the territory of Bhianah‘,

2 Rendered in EL.iot, ‘‘in great comfort and splendour.” The original
is sd sl eed 9 susds cae ५

3 The I. €)\ L. 47S., R. A. S. AZS., the best Paris AS., and printed text here,
have ‘‘the Sultan departed towards Lohor and GHAZNIN by the way of
Uchchah and Muitén”!! 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 ce
in the original text has been turned into 4J 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 छा. See vol. ii. page 352.

What was the object of proceeding in the direction of Lahor with the inten-
tion of marching to Multan and Uchchah does not appear, unless it was
to deprive Sher Khin, Ulugh Khan’s kinsman, of those places and their
dependencies, and restore them to Malik Balban-i-Kashlii Khan [which was
done], and that this was the first move in the Rayhini 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’itin. The Mughal
raids may possibly have been the cause ; but, whatever it may have been, the
Biih was the farthest point reached upon this occasion. See the account of
Balban-i-Kashlii Khan in next Section.

4 Turned into ‘‘Sihwin” and ‘‘Sihwan” respectively in the Tabakat-i-
Akbari and Firishtah, and the latter has the impossible j¢| for Jo in the
title of ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashlii Khan.

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 693

and ’Izz-ud-Din, Balban-i-Kashli* Khan, from Buda’in,
with their respective followings, accompanied the sublime
standards to the boundary of the river 8181. ’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: 651 H.

When the new year came round, on Tuesday, the Ist * of
the month of Muharram, 651 H., command was given to
Ulugh Khian-i-A’zam, from the encampment at Hasirah’,
to proceed to his fiefs*, the territory of Siwalikh and Hansi.
When the Khian-i-Mu’azzam, in conformity with that
command, reached Hansi, the Sultan, with his forces, in
the beginning of the month of Rabi’-ul-Awwal of this same
year, returned to'the capital, and changed the feelings of
the grandees [as well as] the offices [they held °].

In the month of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, the masnad of the
Wazir-ship was transferred to the ’Ayn-ul-Mulk', the
Nizam-ul-Mulk, Muhammad, Jinaidi*, and to Malik

* The Calcutta text turns him into Zaskkar Khan, but such a name does not
occur throughout the whole of our author’s work.

€ In the next Section, the /as¢ 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 sj—s—s,oe
pei 9 je § —S gee? OF ०५४ and eh! or es! and the like.

6 Both here and in the account of Ulugh Khan in the next Section, in
ELuioT [vol. ii. pages 352 and 370], this is translated ‘‘his estates in the
Siw4lik Azdls ;”” but they were exceedingly extensive es¢ates. 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 eve of the state, like the following, signifying the
regulator of the country, &c., isa 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 protégé 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 Ceremonies*], who was the brother of the Khan-i-
Mu'azzam, Ulugh Khian-i-A’zam, the fief of Karah was
given, and he was sent thither. In Jamadi-ul-Awwal like-
wise, "Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan became Wakil-i-Dar‘ [Re-
presentative in Dar-bar], and the Sultan [and his forces],
with the object of removing Ulugh Khian-i-A’zam—may
his power endure !—moved from the capital towards Hansi*.
’"Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan brought Kazi Shams-ud-Din, of
Bhara’1j [to the capital], and on the 27th of the month of
Rajab, 651 H., transferred to him the Kazi-ship of the
1621 ° Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam moved from Hansit and

$ Compare ELLIoT here, where Malik Kighli Khan is divided into ८५, 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!! Bdr-Bak is an officer,
equivalent to the Bar-Begi of the Persian Court.

4 BriGGs is perfectly correct in reading Wak1l-i-Dar, since ‘‘wak//dar” 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. vcarixs. 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. nage 527], translates ‘* Vadi/” [Wakil]
as “prime minister,” and ‘‘ Vazir” [Wazir] as ‘‘minister of finances.” I
refer to the pre-Mughal period ;_ but even as regards the reign of Akbar, who,
being half a Hindi, and not half a Musalman, and who, hating the very name
of Muhammad and Ahmad, delighted in making innovations contrary to
Muhammadan 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 :—wks ४ 3 jbo च gm yo Ss

A Wakil is, essentially, a person entrusted to act 17 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 H., and not
Wakil-i-Dar, which office ’Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan obtained after Ulugh Khan
was sent to his fief; but *"Imad-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. Sce also the account of Ulugh Khan farther

on. It was in this year, 651 H., that he gained great successes over the

Raypits.

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 695

retired to Nag-awr, and the fief of Hinsi, together with
the office’ of Amir-i-Hajib, was entrusted to Prince Rukn-
ud-Din [लिपट Shah १, 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 securing ® 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 with-
drawn 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-Chast*, and the

7 The word here used— Jja+—does not mean ‘‘ interest.”

® 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, Mahmiid 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 olique, but only for a very short time.
The mention of Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid 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, Ulugh
dxhan’s daughter had borne him no offspring. See page 714.

9 The word en 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 Khian’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 Dihif,
which caused such rejoicing.

The Tabakat-i-Akbari says ‘‘Sher Khan sustained a defeat at the hands of
the Sindian,” and Firightah 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 "—.:. ,W—but those words appear to be a mistake for si. , ˆ
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
Nig-awr to oust ’Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan from power.

In the account of Malik Balban it is stated that he, having been ousted from

696 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Sultan [with his forces] retired from the banks of the
Biah >, 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 Bijnor* many successes were
gained, and vast booty acquired.

Uchchah by Sher Khan, who had previously obtained possession of Multan,
went to Court and was made feudatory of Buda’iin, 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 #0 dattle whatever is
referred to. Subsequently—previous to the year 655 H., in 653 H. or 654 H.
—Mallk Balban had been again put in charge of Uchchah and Multan, and
had made overtures to Hulaki 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 urd of Mangii 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 Raybani plot took place, but no reference
whatever is made to Sher Kh4n’s retirement, nor to any fighting. Under any
circumstances Sher Khan could not have remained long absent from Hind, as
he joined the Sulfan’s brother, Malik Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’td Shah, in 652 प्र, +
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 isa
great deal of mystery about Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’iid 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 Biah,
and the banks of the Biah, refer to that river when it flowed in its own bed
which ran about midway through the Bari D6-ab, and Shamali Kachhi Dé-ab,
and joined the other rivers of the Panjab tea miles north of Uchchah: other-
wise, 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 Jin 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 and ,5:4’—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 the

THE 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-pir, and in the same manner,
keeping along the skirt of the mountains, the force pro-
ceeded as far as the banks of the river Rahab. During
these holy expeditions, on Sunday, the 15th of the month
of Safar, at Tiklah-Bani’, Malik Razi-ul-Mulk, 'Izz-ud-
Din, Durmashi* [Durmashfni ?], attained martyrdom. On

mountains] of Bijnor, and, Aaving obtained great booty, crossed the river Gang
at the Mia-pir [another 47S. Maha-pir] ferry, and, keeping along the skirt of
the mountains, reached the river Bihat [which is the Jhilam];” and that, ‘‘ at
Talkah.mani— GJ seas—[another AZS. ९६. 4&6], on Sunday, the 15th of Safar,
of that year [652 H.], Malik ’"Izz-ud-Din, Ragi-ul-Mulk, whilst i# क stale of
intoxication [/] was martyred by the Zamindars of Kaithal and Kuhyam. The
Sultan, to avenge his blood, having gone to Kaithal and Kuhyam, inflicted
chastisement upon the contumacious of that part, and then proceeded towards
Buda’iin,” &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 Kuhyam 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. 29° 49/, Long. 76° 28’, for another—a
tract of country—more than three degrees farther east. Firightah 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-Bani
altogether. The simple mention of Buda’iin should have been sufficient to
have guided the author of the first work to ,4.'—Katheher, or pp. 2
—Katheher, as it is also written.

5 Inthe original gb 4 In some copies Tiklah-Mani [Ul GJ], Tilkah
or Talkah-Bani {jl JG], Tiklah-Bami [५०५ 6], Tanklah-Bani [Gb a5],
Tanklah-Pani [G4 4८3], and also Sakah-Mani [34 4]. The first men-
tioned 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 Tilak-pir, is
written 7iHok-poor, Zilek-poor, Zillock-poor, 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
tong and short vowels being properly marked, as well as guttural, nasal, as-
pirated, 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 Fournal, No. iv. of 1874, by Mr. ए. L. Growse, is very much
to the point.

There is a place called Yigree Barchnee in the sheet referred to in Lat. 29°,
Long. 79° 40’; what the vernacular may be I cannot tell.

¢ That most absurd blunder, whereby an innocent man is tumed into द
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 (4/3

४४

598 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRi.

the following day, the 16th of Safar, the Sultin 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’iin ; and, on Thursday,
the 19th of the month of Safar, the district of Buda’iin
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 1 [Wazir-ship of the realm] fell to the
charge, for the second time, of the Sadr-ul-Mulk, Najm-ud-
Din, Abi-Bikr; and, on Sunday, the 20th of Rabr’-ul-
Awwal, within the limits of Kol, the Sultan honoured this
vassal of the dynasty [the author] with the title of Sadr-i-
Jahan *—the Almighty long preserve him in the sove-
reignty !—and, on Saturday °, 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 +], as (ju. „+=
‘*tn intoxication,” whilst Firishtah, by way of clenching the absurdity, and
showing plainly whence he obtained Azs information, puts an additional word
cele 1. €. (zee cle ys— ‘in a state of intoxication ”!!

I had some faith in the Tabakat-i-Akbari before I compared its statements
with respect to this Shamsi dynasty. I found it a mere transcript, with verbal
alterations, of our author’s statements, 2८45 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., ‘‘wastr” is not translated at all, and, a
few lines under, ^" waki/dar”’ is translated ‘‘ prime minister,” but here Wazir-i-
Mamialik is rendered ‘‘ minister.” Now it is clear, from our author’s state-
ments, 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-Din-i-Rayhar was still Wakil-i-Dar at this period.

No mention of Abi-Bikr’s [‘‘ Abu Bakr” must be ‘ Turani’’] obtaining
the Wazir-ship is made in the account of Ulugh Khan, although it enters into
much more detail of these events.

8 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, mot Tuesday, is correct, for, if Sunday is the 2oth, how is it
possible for the 26th to be Tuesday ?

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 699

months ', when information arrived respecting the assem-
blage of the Maliks who had gathered about Malik Jalal-
ud-Din, Mas’iid Shah [the Sultan’s brother] 7. 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 cele-
brated at Sunim. The forces of the Maliks, namely, Malik
Taj-ud-Din, Arsalan Khan, Sanjar-i-Chast >, of Tabarhin-
dah, Malik Saif-ud-Din, Bat Khan‘, I-bak, the Khita-i, and
Ulugh Khian-i-A’zam from Nag-awr, were along with
Malik Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’id 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] ih the same direc-

t The inscription over the entrance of the mndrah 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-Kabir-ul-Mu’azzam, 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 mzaarah 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’iid Shah, is said to have gone to the camp of
Mangii 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 [ have already referred to this blunder of turning Khan into
Khani, 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’iid Shah, was the Sultan's own brother.
Sher Khan, after the same fashion, is turned into Sher Khan, Rayhani, 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 Turks

5 This affair probably led the author of the Tabakat-i-Akbari 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. Firishtah, but not
the Tabakat-i-Akbari, brings Malik Sher Khan upon the scene here. Sher
Khan does not appear to have had anything to. do with this matter. Sec the
account of him in next Section.

Yy 2

700 THE TABAKAT.-I-NASIRI.

tion. A party of Amirs now interposed between the two
personages ° [the Sultan and Jalal-ud-Din, Mas’iid Shah},
and spoke words of peace, and ’Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan
was the cause of discord on both sides, until, on Saturday’,
the 22nd of ShawwéAl of this same year, the Sultan of Islam
commanded that ’Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhan should be sent
to Buda’in, 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’id
Shah, and the whole of the Amirs and Maliks presented
themselves, and [the province of] Lohor became the fief of
Malik Jalal-ud-Din, 1425. ०५ Shah’; and, attended by security
and felicity, the Sultan and his forces entered the capital
city of Dihli, under a fortunate star, on Tuesday, the oth of
the month of Zi-Hijjah —May Almighty God ever adorn the

6 The original—yi $° +» ५८०० as above. The persons referred to-are the
Sultan and his brother, but Ulugh Khan was also concerned. Compare
ELLIOT also here.

7 ‘© 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 Shawwa4l 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’id 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
became his fief.

In the account of Sher Khan in the next Section, it is stated that, on his
return with honour from the urd@# of the Great Ka’an, Mangia Khan, in Tian
[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 Khian’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 Khan, 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-Kaghlii 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 >
page 713, and note §, page 714, which see.

THE SHAMSIAH 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 décrees of
destiny suffered the blessed heart of the Sultan to. change
towards his mother, the Malikah-i-Jahan; and, as. she was
married [a second time] ° 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 oceasion, the K4zi-ship of the
realm and jurisdiction over the capital city, Dihlli.

५ 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 Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid 5112115 reign,
and the putting to death of Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, the Ghiiri, in the
middle of 653 H.—Malik Ikhtiyar-ud-Din, Yiiz-Bak-i-Tughril Khan, who
had previously held the fief of Kinnauj, having showed a rebellious spirit,
Malik Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, the Ghiri, was sent against him, and he
succeeded’ in bringing Malik Yiiz-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 Yiiz-Bak, who was continually acting contumaciously towards.
the Court, assumed ¢hree canopies of state, invaded Awadh, and assumed the
title of Sultin 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 Yiiz-Bak invaded Kam-rid, but was.
defeated and taken. prisoner, and died. Further particulars will be found in
the next Section, but our author gives not a single date, and his accounts differ
considerably.

702 _ THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.’

In the month of Rabi’-ul-Akhir, they conveyed to the
hearing of the Sultan a remark from Malik Kutb-ud-Din,
Husain, son of ’Ali, the Ghiri, who was Nayab [Lieutenant]
of the kingdom, which was contrary to the sublime opinion,
and, on Tuesday, the 23rd of Rabi’-ul-Akhir, he cited Malik
Kutb-ud-Din, Husain > and ordered him to be arrested
and imprisoned ; and that Malik obtained martyrdom ’—
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 court + subsequent
to his return from Karah—The Almighty’s mercy be upon
him’! OmnTuesday, 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 Bustam1‘®; and, in this

2 See the List at page 673 for his full titles.

8 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 ’Ima-ud-Din-i-Rayhin’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 "Imad-ud-Din-i-Rayhin’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 Gbiri 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 Rayhani factions,
from what is mentioned respecting the occurrences of this year, in the account
of Ulugh Khan: 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 +° [जा his coming from Karra to pay his respects to the Sultan.” ELLioT:
vol. 11. page 354.

$ He died in 657 प.

6 Bustam is the name of a celebrated town in Khurdsan, of which Jamal-
ud-Din was a native, hence he is styled Bustami, and Shaikh Abi-Yazid or
Bayazid is the name of the saint who has made Bustam so famuus among
Musalmans. Some write the word Bastam. See page 419.

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. - 703

month likewise, Malik Taj-ud-Din-i-Sanjar, the Sihwastan1’,
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 Shawwél of this year likewise,
the Sultan with his forces departed from the capital towards
Hindistan [i.e. east of the Jin]; and, on Sunday, the 17th
of the month of Zi-Ka’dah, Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam set out
for Hansi for the purpose of organizing the affairs of the
Siwalikh contingent, and, having got those troops ready,
returned to the capital, Dihli, with them’; and, on Wed-
nesday, the 1gth of the month of Zi-Hijjah, at the close of
this year, he joined the royal camp [with his con-
tingent].

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 Bha-
121], 21 he had not obeyed that mandate ; and Malik Bak-
Tamur’, 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’-
iin', and Malik Bak-Tamur was martyred. On this, the
Sultan with his forces set out towards Awadh for the pur-
pose 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’in, and a third, Taj-ud-Din, 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 +, page 704.

In the account of Ulugh Khan he is styled Taj-ud-Din, Sanjar-i- Mah-
peshani [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, whichsee. Firishtah, who certainly did not obtain
the names of persons from our author, turns him into Taj-ud-Din, the Turk.

8 On the 3rd of the month, Zi-Hijjah. In Muharram, 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 ,<G—Bak-Tamur; but the I. H. L. MS.,
R. A. 9. AZS., and Paris 478., have न~ or +न Rukni refers to Sulfan
Rukn-ud-Din, Firiz 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 Section, that they met at Samra-mi.

704 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

Sultan moved towards Kalair*. 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] *.

ELEVENTH YEAR: 654 H.

When the new year, 654 H., came round, the Sultan's
forces, in the month of Muharram, 654 H., having achieved
that success *, 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
Rabi’-ul-Akhir, 654 ., the capital was reached.

When Malik Kutlugh Khan became aware that the Sul-
tan’sforces had retired towards thecapital, he began to appro-
priate the territories of Karah and Manikpir, and between
him and [the feudatory] Arsalan Khan, Sanjar-i-Chast, a
conflict took place, but the victory remained with Arsalan
Khan’. As it became impracticable for Malik Kutlugh
Khan to make further resistance in Hindiistan, he deter-
mined to move upwards [towards the Biah and Lahor]
through the border tracts, and proceeded in the direction of

ॐ The name of this place is doubtful in all copies of the text, but is written
Kaler or Kalair—,J’—in the most trustworthy copies. The probability is
that it refers to—,Js 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 2 —
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.

+ It was a great success, certainly, #o¢ to catch a rebel.

® 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’iin 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-Din, 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 Khin’s faction to disperse. This is
what is referred to above. See Maliks, Nos. XVII. and XIX., next Section.

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 705

Santir®, and sought shelter among the independent [Hindi]
tribes’. The Sultan 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 प्र. came
round, the army, in that year, marched towards Santi,

५ See the account of Ulugh Khan, in the next Section, respecting Santi.

7 There is not a word about ‘‘the highlands” here, as given in ELLIOT
[vol. ii. page 355]. The word Vly. is made a tract of country in that work!
The words are—sS Yu ease (~) whe ,s—as above.

The editor of the above-meritioned work adds, in a foot-note, that (^ These
two names are written ~ 15 and „== (var. +>). The former is probably
MEWAR, and the hills the Aravalli mountains. Briggs says there is a town
called Santpur, near Abi. 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 ^" Mewdr?” where the Himadlayah mountains?
Perhaps ‘‘ Bahrdich” is near ‘‘Jodhpur” also. Firishtah turns ,5:- into
09 - Jitir—and ,5%2—Jit-piir—or, rather, the ‘revised text” of BRIGGS
does. Dow has Sitnoor, as in the Tabakat-i-Akbari, which proves that the
MS. of Firishtah used by him was correct, for =~ in a .4S. might be read, by
a person not knowing what place was referred to, += 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 Vxlys-—mdwas—here, and wl.\.—mawdsat
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—-'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. wl. s+ is used in the account
of Ulugh Khan, and in other places farther on, respecting these events, both
words evidently refer to neighbouring independent Hindi tribes and the tracts
they dwelt in, adjoining the Dihli territory, but not under the sway ef the
Dihli kings, and as such I shall use the word here.

The country of the Mews or Mewris is certainly not meant, for Mewat 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 Tirhiit, and as far as the Biah 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 mawads is local, but, at the same time, there seems but little
doubt of their being the same, or one among the aboriginal Hindi tribes,
referred to in Dalton’s Ethnology [pages 154, 221, 230, 231, 280], and in the
Bom. Geogr. Journal, II. of #855, under the name of Afuasis, which is used
like the term ,|$—gawar— horrm > ७८ jae १० ib—by some native writers,
applied to a nomad people of Hindustan.

४ 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 bezan their masch in the
third month of 655 H.

706 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRI.

and hostilities were commenced between the forces of Islam
and the Hindiis of the Koh-payah [skirt of the hills] *.
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 Silmir [i. €. Sirmir], and devastated the Koh ’-i-
Silmir [the hill tract of Sirmir], 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
Hindi rebels to be slain as cannot be defined nor numbered,
nor be contained in record nor in narration र.

TWELFTH YEAR: 655 H.

After withdrawing from thence [the hill tract of Silmir], on
Sunday, the 6th of Rabi’-ul-Awwal, 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 26th‘ of the month of Rabi-
ul-Akhir, he reached the illustrious seat of government,
Dihli.

9 The Sub-Himalayah is here meant, not the hills of Mewat.

॥ This is rendered in EvLIot [vol. it. page 356] ‘‘a party of nobles zx 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
359, "> 4 eae ७91 (411; 9 The Musalman Amirs were not with the royal
forces at this time. See under Ulugh Khan.

2 In afew of the more modern copies of the text As4ak—town is used instead
of Xo - mountain, hill-tract, &c. Silmiir and Sirmiir 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 Silmir is
mentioned.

3 It was on the last day of Shawwal of this year, although some say the
following day—the Ist of of Zi-Ka’dah—that Rukn-ud-Din, Khir Shah, the
last of the Mulahidah rulers of Alamiit, came down from his stronghold of
Maimiin-Dujz and presented himself before Hulakii Khan, the Mughal.

+ 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-Kashli Khan, who, with the troops of Uchchah
and Multan, was [then] in the neighbourhood of the banks
of the river Biah °, advanced still farther [north-eastwards],
and Malik Kutlugh Khan, and those Amirs who were in
combination with him, joined Malik Balban-i-Kashlii Khan,
and advanced tothe limits of Mansir-pir and Samanah °.
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
capital ’.

When Ulugh Khan *-i-A’zam, with the forces under him,
arrived near unto the army of the faction, so that between
the two armies about ten £uvoh [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-Kashlii 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 Khan.

¢ Kutlugh Khan and his faction, skirting the lower range of the Himialayah,
advanced towards the Biah, keeping north of Sirhind, and Balban-i-Kasbli
Khan moved up from the Multan district to meet him, along the banks of the
Biah—which, at that period, from our author’s remark in his account of
Balban-i-Kashla 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-Kashli Khan. Under Ulugh Khan, our author
states that, when he, with his troops, drew near to the rebels in the vicinity of
Kaithal, on the 76544 of Jamadi-ul-Awwal, certain persons at the capital wrote
letters, &c.

8 He is again turned into his namesake, Balban, by Firishtah, who styles
him ८०1 521 The title of his namesake, however, was ’Izz[;«]-ud-Din, Balban-
i-Kashli Khan. Ulugh Khan never went by the title of ’Izz-ud-Din. The
Tabakit-i-Akbart, which copies from our author, is perfectly correet, but
Firishtah imagines that ‘‘ Kashli [not Kashli] Khan, Hakim of Sind” and
’Jzz-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 in-
timation of this sedition to Ulugh Khan-i-A’zam who, in
consequence of this treason, from: his camp, imparted infor-
mation to the sublime Court respecting the fact of this
disaffection on the part of a party of turban-wearers’
[priest-hood], and requested, in the event of its being expe-
dient 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 man-
date was issued that the Sayyid Kutb-ub-Din, the Shaikh-
ul-Islam, Jamal-ud-Din, 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-Kashli
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 Samdnah, 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 kurok [about 180
miles] in two days anda half; and, on Thursday, the 6th
ef Jamadi-ul-Akhir, they alighted at the Bagh-i-Jiid [the
Jad Garden]*. The next morning, at dawn, after morning

9 Compare ELLIOT [vol. ii. pages 356, 357] here ७१५२५ ८. does not mean

tie is it possible that the hostile: Maliks could: have started on.the 3rd of
Jamadi-ul-Akhir, 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? Ulwgh Khan had to despatch the news to the Sultan, at
Hihli, and he had to issue his mandate to expel them ; and this, our author
says, he did on the 2nd of Jamadi-ul-Akhir— te 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 sy él for oye é» 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 357]—‘‘ they alighted. a¢ their

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 709

prayers, they made for the city gate, and made a circuit
in the vicinity of the capital’, and, at night, pitched their
camp in'the suburbs of Dihli, between the Bagh-i-Jiid, and
Gili-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-Jiid, 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 Ayaz*, the Zinjani, and the Deputy Amir-
i-Hajib, and the Ulugh Kotwal-Bak [the great Lord, the
Seneschal], Jamal-ud-Din, the Nishapiri, 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 city‘, 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 correetly— y= l—but, in ELLIOT, Bagh-i-
Jiid is discarded altogether, and the words ‘‘ gardens on the Jamna” are
substituted, and the editor adds, in a:note :—‘‘ the text has ‘ Hdd,’ which I take-
to be a mistake for Fin = Jumna!” When our author is perfectly correct
he is, in this manner, made out to be wrong.

From its situation, the Jiid 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-Kashlii Khan, and of Ulugh Khan, farther on, and the Jiid Garden is again
referred to.

3 There is nothing about wa//s in this part of the sentence.

‘4 In ELvioT [vol. ii. page 357]—‘‘ they became very cautious in their pro-
ceedings,” &c. The original word jl» here signifies delaying, suspending,
retarding, &c.

$ He had succeeded, as Deputy of Ulugh Khian’s brother, Malik Saif-ud-
‘Din, I-bak-i-Kashli Khan, who had been sent to the fief of Mirath after Malik
Kutb-ud-Din, Husain, the Ghiiri, had been got rid of.

6 Malik Badr-ud-Din-i-Sunkar, the रिता, feudatory of Bhiainah, also
reached 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 Balhan-
i-Kashlii Khan, and Ulugh Khan, which see.

710 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRL.

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-Kashli 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 court’; and those [disaffected] Maliks retired
towards the Siwalikh ° [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 14th’
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?!

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 Nizim-ul-Mulk, and the masnad
of the [office of] Ashraf-i-Mamalik * 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-Kashlti Khan, in the next Section, it is said that only 200 or 300
followers accompanied him on his retreat.

8 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 Khan the date is the roth of Jamadi-ul-Akhir.

1 No further notice of Kutlugh Khan and his wife, the Sultan’s mother,
occurs throfghout 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 Kashlii Khan in Sind.

2 See note ¢, page 635, respecting these titles.

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. rhe

Sadr-ul-Mulk ; and, at the end of this year*, an army of
infidel Mughals from Khurdsadn 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 Ni-yin, Salin + 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 Dihl1.

Trustworthy persons have related on this wise, that
on Wednesday, the 9th of this same month, Hulda for
Hulaki], who was the head of the Mughal infidels [in
Irak], fled discomfited before the troops of the Lord of the
Faithful, Musta’sim 28111970, from the gate of Baghdad ५.

3 In Zi-Hijjah, the last month of the year.

+ ELLIOT [vol. ii. page 358]—‘‘at the camp of Sdlin-nawln”! This
leader is styled Sari by our author in the account of Ulugh Khin, and Sali—
ry and / 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 sul iste 5 sey! o's) 3 sy: Jgte SC! which,
if correct, shows that writer knew not what he was writing about, for it can only
be rendered—‘‘an army of Mugbals came ८० Sari and the territories of
Uchehah 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-Kashlii Khan, who was independent, all but in
name, of the Dihli government, had lately returned from a visit to Hulaii [or
Hulaki, both being correct] Khin’s camp, and was saddled with the presence
of a Mughal intendant or commissioner in his territory. See the account of
Balban-i-Kaghlii Khan and Ulugh Khan farther on.

5 The editors of the Calcutta text add a note here to the effect that this

712 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

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’; and
the centre [division] of the Sultan’s [own] troops returned
to the capital on the 1st of the month of Ramazan, where
the Sultan continued for a period of five [seven ?]’? months.
On the 18th of the month of Zi-Hijjah ° of this same year,
the kingdom of Lakhanawati was conferred upon Jalal-ud-
Din, Mas’iid’, son of [the late] Malik ’Ala-ud-Din, Jani

FOURTEENTH YEAR: 657 H.

The new year having come round, on Thursday, the
13th of Muharram, 657 H.', the Sultan’s forces moved for
the purpose of carrying on war against the infidels; and, on
Sunday, the 215६ of the month of Safar, the territories of
Bhianah, Kol, Balaram, and Gwaliyiir were placed in Malik

statement is contained ‘‘in all four A/SS. used by them,” and that it is
५८ contrary to the truth.” Ican assure them that it is contained in eleven MSS.,
and more, that, wherever a A/S. 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 Hulaii’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, Abi 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 fert/y account for the forces of Dihli, concentrated at
the capital, being unable to move against the Mughals.

7 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 Ist of Ramagin,
is exactly eight months less five days.

8 In some copies Zi-Ka’dah.

9 He isstyled ‘‘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-Din, Kulich
Khan, son of the late Malik ’Ali-ud-Din, Jani, who is certainly, at page 625,
styled Shah-zidah of Turkistan. In other places the son is called Malik Kut-
lugh, Mas’iid, son of Jani, and also Kulij and Kulfj, Mas’iid, son of Jani.
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 Hindiis, as will appear.

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 713

Nusrat-ud-Din, SherKhan-i-Sunkar’scharge’,and the Malik-
un-Nawwab, I-bak, was nominated to proceed with a force
against the infidels of Rantabhir, and the Sultan's forces re-
turned 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 Court’;
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 *-i-
4" 2371, 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 ist of Ramazan, the Imam, Hamid-ud-Din of Mari-
galah °, 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 °, 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 previqus note 7—that the Panjab was entrusted to Sher Khan's charge,
and that Kashli Khan, Ulugh Khan’s brother, got Bhianah, Kol, Jalisar, and
Gwiliyir, 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 Riimi, as mentioned in a
fullowing note, and he was still stationed in that part, with a considerable body
of forces, when our author ended his history.

3 See the account of Malik Taj-ud-Din, Arsalan Khan, in next Section.

‘ Firishtah, of course, kills the wrong person. He records the death of
Malik ' [for j¢]-ud-Din, A’ash/ Khan, who was still living when our author
finished his work.

$ 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, Kaspli Khan,

» Ulugh Kutlugh-i-Mu’agzam, the Bar-Bak. He was very munificent, a great
archer and hunter, and very skilful in the game of Chaugan.

6 Of Mir-galah in the Panjab.

ZZ

714 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 illus-
trious shell of Khani [the daughter of Ulugh Khan],
bestowed a son’; 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 narrating °—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 subjime
mandate, reached * 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

7 This son was by Ulugh Khan’s daughter, but he did not live long.

® Our ‘‘author’s flourishes” seem to have been ‘‘ greatly compressed ” here,
in ELLIOT, as well as in the account of the following year.

® The word J, 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-Din, Sunkar, the Rimi, 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-Kashlii Khan of Multin and Uchchah, was made feudatory
of Tabarhindah, Sunam, Jhajhar, Lakhwal, and as far as the ferries of the
Bfah, 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 Bhianah, Bilarém, Jalisar, Baltérah, Mihar, and Mahawan, and the
fortress of Gwaliytir—a very considerable tract of territory. Both Maliks held
these fiefs when our author closed his history.

THE SHAMSIAH SULTANS OF HIND. 715

moon of dominion shone forth from the zodiac of hap-
piness. '

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 contu-
macious Mew’, of whom a demon would be horrified, and
about 10,000 horsemen in defensive armour, warlike and
relentless warriors, followed his august stirrup’. The next
day vast booty, and cattle in great numbers, arrived. He
[the Khan] plundered and devastated difficult passes, and
attacked strong mountain tracts’, and Hindiis 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 pro-
longed, 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 Nar-
rations, or if an atom of these accounts or 2 hint of these
statements should come to their hearing, is, that, if an
error, mistake, inadvertency, or omission should enter their

1 Mew, Mewra, or Mewrah, or Mewitis, a most contumacious race down
even to modern times. In Akbar’s time they were employed as spies, and
Tak runners. The words Mew and Mewysi or Mewyah are both singular and
plural

3 There 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.

2 The words yee (5५ — kohaha-i-hagin —do not signify ‘‘strong
forts.”

‘ 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 circum-
stances which led to their coming. ‘These persons certainly came from— or
rather returned from—the camp of Hulakii Khan, but they were not envoys
Srom 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—Shawwal—658 H.

ZLi2

716 THE TABAKAT.I-NASIRL

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 recorded *.

$ 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 our author terminates his account of it, and
that no farther account of Nagir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah’s, reign is contained
in any of them.

The Tabakat-i-Akbarf 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’iini 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 Kasidahs,
of many pages, by way of lengthening the account. Firightah also manages
to spin out his tale to the same date, but relates nothing farther than is
contained in Buda’iinI 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
Ulugb Khan, the last date given is Shawwal—the tenth month of that year,
and all after is a perfect blank in Indian history, until the reign of Ulugh
Khan, —Sultan Ghiyag-ud-Din, Balban—with which Ziy4-i-Barani commences
his histofy, the Tarikh-i-Firiz-Shahf; but he relates nothing respecting the
events of the period in question, although he says he commenced his history
where ‘‘the Sadr-i-Jahan, Minhaj-i-Saraj, Jurjani, left off.”

Most writers agree that Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah, was taken ill in
663 H., and died on the 11th of Jamadi-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-Firiiz-Shahi, the Tarikb-i-
Mubarak-Shahi, Zubdat-ut-Tawarikh, Tabakat-i-Akbari, and several others,
make it one year less 1 ;

One reason of this significant silence on the part of our author [who died in
the next reign] for a period of nearly stx years, is, probably, that the Mughals,
being so powerful in the Panjab, harassed the western frontier of the Dihli
territory, 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 Nagir-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.

Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmid Shah, left neither offspring nor heir, but, before
his death, he had nominated Ulugh Khan as hissuccessor. This was natural, as
Ulugh Khan was his own father-in-law; that the latter was son-in-law to Nasir’s
father, I-yal-timigh, is a mistake of the Tabakat-i-Akbari and its copyists who
confound him with Balban-i-Kaghli Khan; but I know of no proof that he
even was son-in-law of thatSultan. Ulugh Khan's own son, Nasir-ud-Din, Mab-
miid, surnamed Bughra Khan, had married a daughter of Sultan Niasir-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-MAHMOD 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, Mahmiid Shah, who was the mother of Ulugh Khan’s [Sultan Ghiyas-
ud-Din, Balban’s] snccessor, Kai-Kubad ; and, therefore, it is not surprising
that, on the death of Sultin Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah, Ulugh Khan,
who had, in reality, governed the kingdom since the fall of ’Imid-ud-Din-i-
Rayhan, with the accord of all the great Maliks, was raised to the throne.

Sultan Firiiz Shah, whenever he had occasion to mention the name of
Sultan Nagir-ud-Din, Mahmiid Shah, used, always, to style him, in a con-
temptuous 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
died, his face should be blackened, a rope tied to his feet, and his body drawn
along 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 Yiigh-mit and I-yal-ka, the Niyin.
He was brought to the presence of Halakii 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, Hulaki died in Azar-
baijan, aged forty-eight, after ruling, over Iran, nine years and three months.

In 664 H., the Imam, Baha-ud-Din, Zakariya, the Multani, died, leaving
seven sons.

Fasih-i—like Ziya-ud-Din, Barani—says Ghiyas-ud-Din, Balban-i-Ulugh
Khan, ‘ascended the throne of Dibli in 662 un.

718 THE TABAKAT-I-NASIRI.

ADDITIONAL NoOTE.—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
stated, 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 subse-
, quently 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 para.J, ‘‘I, too, have a work in my pos-
session on the ‘Coins of the Salatin i Hind,’ a modern demi-quarto Dihli
lithograph, based on Sayyid Ahmad’s Asdr ugcanddid, 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 /S., of which I
had a copy taken by my Afghan Maulawi of Kandahar—a 7ea/ 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.