behind him. The Shaikh replied, he had learnt the Kur'án by heart; that he had come from Dehlí, and had brought some grains of wheat, over each of which he had read the whole Kur'án. The King said, "Then I ought to go to him; why have you brought him here?" The Shaikh replied that the man was not worthy that His Majesty should go to him. "Let him be what he is," said the King, "but the present which he has brought is such that I should go on my head." The Shaikh observed that His Majesty would act according to his goodness, but that, as a servant of his Court, he was afraid he should be blamed by the ministers of the age for taking his Sovereign to the house of an unworthy person. The King told him not to consider the outward appearance, but to have regard to what concerned religion and the soul. At last the Shaikh decided that the man should be in the jámi masjid on Friday, and that His Majesty might take the present from him there. of by the King, and on Friday the man came. the prayers were over, reminded the King, who ordered him to tell the man to ascend the pulpit. When he did so, the King spread out the lower part of his garment, and the man cast down the grains. This was approved The Shaikh, when H.-BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTICES OF WORKS OF I. Zainu-l Akhbár. This work is quoted in the Histories of Firishta and Nizámu-d dín Ahmad Bakhshí as one of the authorities on which their statements are founded; but it does not appear for what particular period of Indian History they are indebted to it for information. The only knowledge I have of it is derived from the account of Sir W. Ouseley, who describes it thus: "The Zainu-l Akhbár is a very curious and extraordinary work; containing the ancient history of Persia, of the Jewish, Christian, Magian, and Hindu religious fasts and ceremonies, Annals of the Muhammadan kings and Khalifas, Geographical notices, anecdotes, and chronological tables," etc. "A most valuable work in illustrating the history and antiquities of Asia. Of this excellent work I have never seen another copy." Size-Small folio, containing 527 pages. II. Táríkh-i Hind. Hájí Khálfa mentions (No. 2340) a work under this title, composed by Muhammad bin Yusuf Hirwí. He says that it contains an account of the notable things in the country of Hind, and he adds, "To this Title are to be referred the histories of New West India, which a late author has translated into Turkí from the lingua franca, with additions. In it he has given a full account of the country known by the name of Yangi Dunyá, "the new world." The Táríkh-i Hind is no doubt the same work as Risálu-i 'Ajáib wa Gharáib-i Hindustán, since the author of that treatise also bears the name of Muhammad Yusuf Hirwí. This Risála is twice quoted in the Haft Iklim under “ Kálpí.” It is probably the same Táríkh-i Hind which is quoted in the Tárikh-i Alfi, the Habibu-s Siyar, and the Nafahátu-l Ins. As the last two in their quotation from the Táríkh-i Hind show the author to have been contemporary with, and to have conversed with Khwájá Hasan Dehliví, who was a disciple of Nizámú-d dín Ahmad, he must have flourished about the beginning of the eighth century of the Hijra, for Nizámu-d dín died a.н. 725. III. Táríkh-i Pádsháhán-i Hind; Táríkh-i Pádsháhán-i Humáyún. The first work is described in Stewart's Catalogue (p. 17) as an abridged history of the Muhammadan kings of Hindustan till the accession of the Emperor Akbar. It is probably the same as the work of that name noticed by James Fraser (Catalogue of Manuscripts collected in the East, 1742), as well as by Von Hammer (Gesch. d. red. Pers., p. 411). 1 See Sir W. Ouseley's Oriental Manuscripts, No. 704, and Epitome of the Ane. Hist. of Persia, p. xii. The second is the title of a work in the Catalogue of Capt. Jonathan Scott's Library (Ouseley, Oriental Collections, vol. i., p. 370). I.-AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF TIMUR. [In a very kind and appreciative review of the Third Volume of this work,' Dr. Sachau, of Vienna, has re-opened the question as to the authenticity of the Malfúzát-i Tímúrí. The old arguments for and against were noticed in the account given of the book in Vol. III.; but as it is a matter of some literary interest, Dr. Sachau's objections are here quoted in full. "The last two works in the series of chronicles described in this volume refer to Timur. The first of them, Malfúzát-i-Tîmurí, pretends to be an autobiography of Timur. The reader will be astonished to learn how that monster-who knew so well how to sack and burn cities, to slaughter hundreds of thousands of his fellowcreatures, to lay waste almost one-half of the then civilized world in a marvellously short time-in his leisure hours received inspirations from Clio; that he, in short, was a Tatar Cæsar. Even admitting that he knew how to write, we cannot believe in his authorship of the book in question, and that for the following reasons. "A certain 'Abû Tâlib Ḥusaini presented to the Emperor Shahjahân a Persian translation of an autobiography of Timur, from his 7th to his 74th year, written originally in Chagatai. The original, he stated, had been found in the library of a Pasha of Yaman. This story sounds strongly apocryphal. First of all, it is not very likely in itself that Timur should have written his own history. But Bâbar had done so, likewise Jahângîr. Why should not also the father of the family, Timur himself, have had this 'family predilection'? Certainly it was a very good business to produce such a work at the court of Shahjahân. It is not necessary to suppose that this prince himself believed in the authenticity of the book, but probably he deemed it in his interest to adopt the story as it was produced, and to make people believe in it. "Professor Dowson shows (p. 390), from the preface of the Zafarnáma, composed by Shâraf-aldîn Yazdi, A.H. 828, only thirty years 1 Academy, No. 34, 15th October, 1871. after Timur's death, that certain officers in the suite of Timur were always employed to write down everything that happened to him, in fact to compose court-chronicles both in Turki and Persian. There is no reason to doubt this statement of Yazdî; it is from these materials that he composed his eulogy, not to say history, of Timur. But were these materials ever gathered and formed into one coherent composition, into a book? This we can hardly believe to have been the case if we remember the statement of Yazdi, that his patron Ibrahim, Timur's grandson, tried to procure for him from all parts of his dominions copies of the works relating to the life of Timur' (p. 391). But admitting that such a book existed, how then, did it happen that it remained unnoticed for centuries under the reigns of all Timur's descendants as far as Shahjahân? If, after the death of Timur, another dynasty had come into power, it would be only natural that they should have tried to destroy every memorial of their predecessors. But that was not the case; members of his family were sitting on the thrones of Persia, Transoxiana, and India. Further, are those court-chronicles identical with the Malfúzát-iTimuri, as Professor Dowson seems to believe (p. 340)? The editor states quite correctly with regard to Yazdi's Zafar-náma and the Malfûzát, that one is a mere reproduction of the other. And from this fact we conclude that the Malfûzát are forged upon the basis of Yazdi's work. In the first instance, the Malfûzát are composed in the strict form of an autobiography ('I said,' 'I ordered,' etc.), and we can scarcely assume that this was the form of the abovementioned court-chronicles. Secondly, if Timur had been an author himself, Yazdi would certainly have mentioned it, and would, page after page, have enlarged on his stylistic attainments. But such is not the case." Dr. Sachau, in the first place, deems it to be incredible that a monster like Tímúr ever wrote his memoirs, even if he were able to write at all. It has never been contended that they were actually written by Tímúr with his own hand, but that the book was produced under his personal direction and superintendence, and that he intended it to pass as his autobiography. That Tímúr was "a monster" is certain, but why this should disqualify him from writing a history of his life is not manifest. Other monsters have taken a pride in the record of their iniquities and atrocities, but then their opinions of themselves and of their deeds differed widely from the verdict passed upon them by mankind. That the story of the discovery of the book "sounds strongly apocryphal," has been admitted from the first. It gives ground for very great suspicion, but it would not be conclusive, even if the book were entirely destitute of evidence as to its authenticity. It would certainly have been a very good business to produce such a work at the court of Shah Jahán," if the work had been written in the prevailing style. But the book in question tells a plain straightforward tale, devoid of all that varnish and tinsel which a forger, in accordance with the prevailing taste, would have lavished upon his work to make it acceptable. The reception it met with shows what was thought of it: Another writer was commissioned to assimilate it to the Zafar-náma. “The Malfúzát are composed in the strict form of an autobiography (I said,' 'I ordered,' etc.), and we can scarcely assume that this was the form of the above-mentioned court-chronicles; " but why not? and in what form should an autobiography be written? The Memoirs of Bábar, Tímúr's descendant, are written in the very form objected to, as the pages of the present volume show. It may even be that these very memoirs were the incentive and the model of Bábar's. Both are written in a similar style; plain, out-spoken, and free from reticence or apology. Bábar's character is plainly impressed upon his memoirs. Is not Tímúr's equally manifest in the Malfúzát? "Lastly, Dr. Sachau thinks that if Tímúr had been an author, Yazdí would certainly have mentioned it, and would, page after page, have enlarged on his stylistic attainments." Perhaps so. But, "if Tímúr had been an author," Yazdi employed himself in reproducing his work in an improved style. He could not very well have lavished praises on the style of a work which he so laboriously endeavoured to supersede. On the other hand, it would have been somewhat dangerous, at the court of Tímúr's grandson, to boast of having improved the writings of such a redoubtable character. Yazdí, however, distinctly tells us that Memoirs of Tímúr's life were written under the direction of Tímúr himself, that they were read in his VOL. IV. 36 |