THE HISTORY OF INDIA, AS TOLD BY ITS OWN HISTORIANS. THE MUHAMMADAN PERIOD. EDITED FROM THE POSTHUMOUS PAPERS OF THE LATE SIR H. M. ELLIOT, K.C.B., EAST INDIA COMPANY'S BENGAL CIVIL SERVICE. BY PROFESSOR JOHN DOWSON, M.K.A.S., STAFF COLLEGE, SANDHURST. VOL. III. EIVERSITY STANFORD JUNK LONDON: TRÜBNER AND CO., 8 AND 60, PATERNOSTER. ROW. 1871. [All rights reserved.] PREFACE. THIS third volume carries the history of India on from the death of Násiru-d dín, in 1260 A.D., to the inroad of Tímúr the Tátár, in 1398 A.D. It comprises some matter relating to periods not included within these dates; but on the other hand, it is deficient in the history of the reigns intervening between the death of Fíroz Sháh and the irruption of Tímúr. This portion remains to be supplied, in the succeeding volume, from works of a somewhat later date. The period here traversed is not a very long one, but it is illustrated by works of more than usual interest and importance. Of the first five works included in the present volume, three were noticed in the old volume published by Sir H. Elliot himself. The other two, the Táríkh-i Wassáf, and the Táríkh-i 'Aláí of Amír Khusrú, are now first made accessible to English readers. Part of the History of Wassáf has appeared in a German translation, from the pen of HammerPurgstall, but the portions relating to India are now published for the first time. The Táríkh-i 'Aláí is more of a poem than a history, but it bears the celebrated name of Amír Khusrú, and it enters into de b tails which the student of history cannot pass over, however diligently and cautiously he may weigh and sift them. Far different from these are the two Táríkhs bearing the title Firoz-Sháhí. Sir H. Elliot was strongly impressed with the value of these histories, and his design was to publish a full translation of both. For the translation of the work of Zíáu-d dín Barní, he had enlisted the services of an eminent member of the Bengal Civil Service; for that of Shams-i Siráj's history, he trusted to a munshi. Advancement in the service, and the increasing cares of office, arrested the translation of Barní's work, and the munshi's partial translation of that of Shams-i Siráj proved to be entirely useless. Thus there was a complete deficiency of these two important works. Determined to prevent the publication from coming to a standstill, the Editor took in hand the translation of Shams-i Siráj's work, and caused renewed inquiries to be made in India for that of Barní. He completed the former, and still no promise was received of the latter; so he again set to work, and he had all but completed the translation of Barní, when Sir H. Elliot's friend, loyal to his promise, transmitted from India the translations of two reigns, made by friends in whom he had confidence. Unfortunately they arrived too late. The annals of these particular reigns had already been completed; so, without any undue partiality for his own work, the Editor declined using them; for a translation by one hand seemed preferable to one made up of the work of three different persons. Barní's work approaches more nearly to the European idea of a history than any one which has yet come under notice. Narrow-minded and bigoted, like Muhammadans in general, he yet has a care for matters besides the interests of his religion and the warlike exploits of the sovereign representatives of his faith. He freely criticizes the actions and characters of the kings and great men of the time, dealing out his praises and censures in no uncertain terms. His style has been criticized as being occasionally tarnished by Hindí idioms, and this is no doubt true, not only of him, but of other historians who wrote in Persian, but whose native language was Hindí. Persian was familiar to them, still it was a foreign language, and their writings could hardly fail of receiving a tinge from the more ready and familiar expressions of their mother-tongue. To Europeans this blemish is of no importance, few can detect it in the original, and it entirely disappears in translation. As a vigorous plainspoken writer, he may unhesitatingly be indicated as the one most acceptable to a general reader, one whose pages may be read without that feeling of weariness and oppression which the writings of his fellows too commonly produce. The Editor's translation adheres strictly to the text, without being literal; for, as the author has |