No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Every inquiry which can elucidate the history, the laws, the institutions, or the characteristics of the people of India, ought to have a very practical interest for the people of England, and especially for that small section of them which is entrusted with her government, either more directly as connected with the India Office, or less so as members of the British Parliament. Nor can it be said that information acquired by personal inquiry from people living on the spot is the most satisfactory for the purpose, or can be considered sufficient. Such is not the case. Englishmen in India, as a rule, never mix in social intercourse with the natives. They may receive friendly visits from a few; but, in ordinary, the relations between Englishmen and the higher classes of the natives of India are either purely official or purely of a business nature, and with the lower orders those of master and servant. Again, the few natives of India who have received an English education have been effectually isolated from the great body of their fellow-countrymen, with whom they have as little real sympathy as with their English rulers. In the former case, sometimes from fear, but more often from a desire to coincide with and to please or flatter his superiors, as the Hindu historians did in the reigns of Akbar and his successors,—and in the latter, sometimes from ignorance, but sometimes also from interested motives,—the opinions of natives with which Europeans are likely to be favoured are not always a safe guide.
page 419 note 1 Since the above was written, Mr. Edward Thomas, the distinguished savant to whom the public are most indebted for the continuation of the papers of Sir H. M. Elliot, has brought to my notice that, under Mr. Colvin's orders, much search was made by Mr. Hammond, of the Bengal Civil Service, and that a number of MSS. were collected, but they were lost or destroyed in the mutiny. I remember the search made by Mr. Hammond, for he was in communication with me for some years; but I was not aware that his labours had resulted in the recovery of any MSS., or that they were lost. It would be interesting to have some record of what MSS. these were, so that, if possible, they might be traced. Possibly they may be amongst the Delhi prize MSS. (See Appendix to this Paper. ED.)
page 422 note 1 Shams-i-Siráj, in his Ṣabaḳát, calls the work the Táríkh-i-Náçiri.
page 423 note 1 The author seems to have been under some misapprehension on the subject. Mr. Shakespear heads his selections from the Aráish-i-Mahfil with the statement that this work “is for the most part founded on the Khuláçat-ut-Tawáríkh.” Professor Dowson himself has on no occasion entered into the question of the authorship of this work, having merely quoted the work by name.—ED.
page 424 note 1 (An English translation of the Persian text, by the Rev. J. Reynolds, was published under the auspices of the Oriental Translation Fund, in London, in 1858.) See also Nöldeke's, article on the Kitáb Yamíní in “Sitzungs-Berichte der Wiener Academie der Wiss,” vol. 23 (1857)Google Scholar.—ED.
page 425 note 1 This, I think, must he a mistake, otherwise Ahú Raiḥán must have left Khorasan too young to gain the high reputation he acquired in his own country.
page 433 note 1 Haji Khalifah calls the author Çadr ud-dín Moḥammad bin Hasan-i-Nizámí; Ziá-i-Barní calls him Kwájah Cadr Nizámí.
page 435 note 1 Aibak means finger-cut; Kutbuddín the finger-cut, as we say Taimúr lang or Taimúr the lame. He had lost his little finger.
page 436 note 1 The words I have translated are Çadr-i-Aálí. Sharf al-Mulk is a title similar to Majd al-Mulk of Ghaznin. The Chief Justice was generally known by his title and not by his name, sadr-i-Jihán was not common. From Taimúr's time they were more generally known by the designation of Ķází al-Kuzát, though this title is also used in India earlier, as Akza'l-Kuzát in Arabic.
page 436 note 2 Koran 9th S. 3 v.: 
“they say, Peace be unto them,” and the meaning is precisely, “keep the peace with them, do not get into arguments or quarrels with the ignorant.”
page 436 note 3 A hadíth 
lit. “by his heart and tongue.” The author apparently means to imply that whatever he writes, men of understanding will easily perceive that it bears the impress of genius.
page 440 note 1 Literally, “from every garden a flower, from every ocean a drop, they had collected. It is a pity Minháj-i-Siráj did not mention the names of these authors or the name of their book. Possibly it was Maḥmúd Warráḳ of whom Baihaḳí speaks.”
page 441 note 1 [A full list of the contents of the Ṭabaḳát-i-Náçiri is to be found in Mr. Morley's Catalogue of the MSS. of the Royal Asiatic Society (1854.)—ED.]
page 441 note 2 The copulative has puzzled Orientalists, as it is plain from the context that one individual only is meant.
page 443 note 1 Kotwál in these days means a city or town magistrate. In those days it was a very high office, as we read of Ghiyás ud-dín Balban having made the Kotwál his representative when he left Delhi.
page 454 note 1 This is rather loosely expressed; India comprises nearly two Aḳlims according to Mohammadan geographers. (See Ḳazwìní, ed. Wüstenfeld, page 84.)
page 457 note 1 In another copy of Kháfí Kbán, which differs materially from the copy from which the above extract is made, it is stated that, “Some of these passages having been brought to the notice of the Emperor Jehángír, he ordered' Abd al-Ḳádir's son to be imprisoned, and his house to be plundered. He further took an agreement from the booksellers of the capital that they would not sell the book; nevertheless this book was found in their shops in greater numbers than any other. In consequence, however, of the well-known anger of the Emperor on the subject, Ferishtah and Mír al-Haḳḳ, the compiler of the Táríkh-i-Zubdah and another (?), who were the three contemporary authors at the commencement of Jehángír's reign, made no mention whatever of this matter. But since the writer of this history, having nothing to do with princes and wazírs, has no occasion to suppress the truth, and since a person by repeating the heretical sayings of others does not himself become a heretic, such extracts as with much research he has collected from Badáoní and others he has written down.” The same story is told by the author of the Mirál ul' A'lam with this difference, that he says nothing about' Abdal-Ḳádir's son being imprisoned or his house pillaged. He simply states that the Emperor sent for his descendants (Auldd) and took an agreement from them, etc.
page 458 note 1 This is a proverbial saying with Moslims 
.
page 458 note 2 This work has been translated into English, but the translation has never been published, and I cannot say how it has been done. Elphinstone has used it.
page 459 note 1 I stated at a meeting of the Asiatic Society of Bengal that this work was published by a native Society, but the whole credit is due to Sayyid Aḥmad Khán, of Alighur. The work was edited, printed, and published at his own expense.
page 461 note 1 Im not certain whether this author is Kámgár Husainí, the author of the Maáṣir-i-Jehángirí, or not. If not, both the book mentioned by Kháfí Khán, viz., the Jehángír-námah, and the author, are new to me. Possibly the four Jehangír-námahs purporting to be from the pen of the Emperor, are by different amanuenses. One copy I have seen is styled the Salím-Sháhí on the fly-leaf.
page 464 note 1 Maḳtal-i-Sulṭání; Roz-námah-i-' A'lamgiri;' A'lamgír-námah-i-' A'ḳil Khán;' A'lamgír-namah-i-Muḥammad Kãẓim; Táríkh-i-' A'lamgír-i-Mír Háshim; Maáṣir-i-A'lamgírí; Táríkh-i-' A'lamgírí' Abd ul-Hádi; Futúhát-i-' A'lamgírí; Wiḳáyá-i-Ni'ámat Khán' Alí (printed repeatedly); Táríkh-i-Bindrában; Ruḳa' át-i-' A'lamgírí (printed repeatedly); Táríkh-i-Dilkushái ?; Tárikh-i-Mulk-i-A'shám (printed at Calcutta); Wáḳ'i'át-i-A'lamgírí; A'zam ul-Ḥarab ?
page 464 note 2 The Bengal Asiatic Society, I believe, proposes to publish the whole, as so much objection is raised by the natives to mutilated editions.
page 465 note 1 This author also wrote a work which he entitled Chahár A'ína, giving an account of Aurangzeb's four great campaigns; and abridged the Táríkh-i-Alfí, and the Rauzat ul-Aḥbáb, and many other works, which are probably lost.
page 466 note 1 See also Note 3, p. 125.
page 468 note 1 This passage is confused; but I think I have given the author's meaning. The passage is as follows:—
The passage between brackets is in two of the copies I have consulted, but not in a third, nor in the copy of this extract given in the Siyar al-Mutaakhkharín, which differs from all three in many respects. The word 
for 
occurs in three copies. Kháfí is a patronymic from Khwáf, a district near Níshápúr; the author's name was Háshim' Alí Khán Kháfí. The patronymic is a very common one about this period, as Khwájah-i-Jihán Khwáfí; Saiyid Amír Khán Kháfí; Shaikh Mír Kháfí; Çalábat Khán Khwájah Mír Khwáfí, etc. Authors write Kháfí and Khwáfí indiscriminately.
page 469 note 1 So far the Bengal Asiatic Society's copy. Mr. Morley says, the Royal Asiatic Society's copy is continued for another year; and I think the Bengal Asiatic Society's wants a page, though the loss has been ingeniously repaired.
page 471 note 1 This King sat upon the throne but for a few days.
page 471 note 2 Reigned three months and fourteen days.
page 471 note 3 Reigned two months and some days.
page 471 note 4 I have omitted here Muḥammad ' A'zim Sháh, the second son of Aurangzeb, who held the reins of power for a few months, although he coined money and the Khuṭbah was read in his name. He ascended the throne on the 10th Zi-1-hijjah, A.h. 1118, and was killed in battle 18th Rabí' ul-Awwal, A.h. 1119. Similarly I have omitted, between Sháh' A'lam Bahádur Sháh and Jehándár Sháh,' Azím ush-Shán, the son of the former, who reigned one month, fled, and was drowned in crossing the Ráví, one of the rivers of the Panjáb. He ascended the throne on the 19th Muḥarram, and was drowned on the 19th Safar, A.h. 1124.
page 473 note 1 I have no copy of this work to refer to. It contains the history of Háfiz Raḥmat Khán, and an account of his war with Subadár of Oudh, assisted by the English, in 1774. The last two or three works all relate to the history of modern times.
page 474 note 1 [The unfinished translations of Ibn Khalikan and Tahari are still in course of publication.—ED.]