MIRÁT-I-SIKANDARÍ.

THIS work is so called from the name of the author, Sikandar bin Muhamad, and was composed shortly after the close of the dynasty of whose history it treats, that is to say, in the year 1020 A.H. (1611 A.D.).

The author describes himself as born in the year 961 A.H. (1553 A.D.), at Mahmúdábád. He was consequently a little short of sixty when his history was completed. He writes that he was born in the year in which Sultán Mahmúd III. was murdered at Mahmúdábád. His father, whom he de

scribes as 66 Mahmúd, otherwise Mánjhú," and whom he usually mentions under the latter name, first appears as librarian to the Emperor Humaúm, in which capacity he accompanied the Imperial camp when the Emperor marched against Bahadar Sháh of Gujarát in 941 A.H. (A.D. 1534). It is not clear of what part of the country "Mánjhú” was a native; but his son states that on the rout of Bahádar Shah's army Mánjhú saved the life of the author of the "Táríkh-iBahádar Shahí," who was with the Gujarát army, by concealing him in his camp, and says that he did this on account of a previous friendship with the latter.

. Now the author of the "Táríkh-i-Bahádar Sháhí" was certainly a nobleman hereditarily connected with the Court of Gujarát, and the fact of this friendship with him, and the evident affection with which the present writer speaks of the

Gujarát dynasty may perhaps make it probable that the writer's family originally belonged to Gujarát. At any rate, after the expulsion of the Moghals by Bahádar Sháh, Mánjhú remained in Gujarát, and attached himself to the service of one of the Saíds of Bukhárá, a family which had, from the first establishment of the Gujarátí (Tánk) dynasty, played a leading part among the nobles of its Court, and continued to do so until its fall.*

After the violent death of Säíd Mubárah, the first patron of his father and himself during the anarchy which preceded the accession of Sultán Ahmad II., the writer appears to have attached himself to Säíd Mirán, Mubárah's son, and with him to have been reconciled to the party of I’timád Khán, who aspired to rule in the name of the puppet king, Muzaffar III. Said Mirán submitted to Akbar, apparently, shortly after I'timád Khán surrendered. His son, Säíd Hamíd, rose to great honour under the Empire, was employed in many distant provinces, and eventually was killed during an emeute at Kábul. The writer, Sikandar, however, does not seem to have accompanied Säid Hamíd, but appears to have remained in Gujarát, and to have continued in official employment under the Emperor's deputies.

This connection with the Bukhárí Säíds probably accounts for the prominence which the writer gives in his chronicle to the acts of the holy men of the family, on which the writer dwells with great apparent interest. But in addition to this it would appear that the writer was a dervésh," or at least a disciple of "dervéshes," a term comprising the various schools of Mahomedan mystics who claimed certain supernatural powers, and his history is full of references to their miraculous acts, and to the influence which they-especially those of the

* Säíd Mubárah, the immediate patron of the writer and his father, does not seem to have belonged to the particular branch of the Bukhárí Säíds who were first settled in Gujarát, but to have been an adventurer, of the family who came from the original stock in Bukhárá, and emigrated thence to seek his fortunes in Gujarát. See Blochmann, "Ain-i-Akbar," vol. i. p. 387.

Bukhárí Säíd family-exercised on the fortunes of the Gujarát dynasty indeed, it may be said that one of the main apparent objects of the work is to glorify them, and it is full of allusions to their peculiar tenets and pretensions. Setting aside this, however, it may be said that the work is otherwise written in a very impartial spirit; indeed, the writer says that the main reason of his undertaking the work was that all the previously existing histories were more or less tinged with partiality. He enumerates most of these, and says that the “Táríkh-iMuzaffar Sháhí" (a history of Muzaffar Sháh I.), the "Táríkhi-Ahmad Sháhí" (a history of Ahmad Shah I.), and the "Táríkh-i-Bahádar Sháhí" (the history of Bahádar Shah), were all composed during the reigns of the kings of whom they respectively treat; while the history of Mahmúd Shah Bigarha was composed during the reign of that ruler's immediate descendants. "It is palpable," he says, "that they all treat of events in a spirit of partiality towards the kings of whom they speak, and are not worthy, therefore, of implicit reliance."

It may be fairly said that Sikandar is entitled to the praise of being, at least from his own point of view of a Mahomedan historian, not only an impartial, but a very skilful writer. He endeavours to show how the individual disposition of each Sultán affected the prosperity of the kingdom, and, moreover, to illustrate each monarch's character by anecdotes and wellchosen remarks. Thus, Muzaffar Sháh I. is shown as a good soldier and a fair specimen of the administering Mahomedan nobleman of his day, loyal and brave without any far-reaching ambition, and becoming practically independent by sheer force of circumstances long before he assumed the titles of sovereignty. His character is brought out by contrast with that of his ambitious and restless son, Tátár Khán

His grandson, Ahmad Sháh, is shown not only as the virtual founder of the capital, but also of the kingdom of Gujarát, which he ruled firmly and well, although his life is said to have been always embittered by remorse for the one great

crime of his early life. A brave and successful soldier, he enlarged and secured the frontiers of his kingdom, which, as Elphinstone points out, was received by his grandfather as little more than a chain of military positions in the heart of a hostile Hindú country; but beyond this he seems to have devised and enforced an admirable system both of civil and military administration, which no doubt became the means of his more immediate success, and the maintenance of which enabled his descendants to raise higher and higher the prosperity of the kingdom, till it culminated during the glorious reign of Mahmúd Sháh Bigarha.

This latter king was evidently the writer's favourite hero, as he is to this day in Western India the most famous of all the local kings. The glory of his name lives, indeed, enshrined in native tradition throughout the whole of India, as a model sovereign and pious Musulmán

The present narrative, no doubt, exhibits him in a very favourable light; but he probably deserved all the praise bestowed on him. The failures of his generals, which were few, are lightly touched upon. The skill and energy which he showed in his own military operations are fully brought out, and the anecdotes show him as an excellent administrator, strict and just, but merciful and liberal; a wise judge of character, with a strong will enforced with tact, patience, and prudence, as well as determination. His piety and attachment to holy men, and particularly to the Bukhárí Säíds, regarding which several marvellous stories are told, were no doubt strong recommendations in the eyes of the historian.

The writer's skill is particularly shown in dealing with perhaps the most questionable act of Mahmúd's life, the execution of his son, whom he had in the first instance selected as his successor. This youth proved a shameless debauchee, probably also a coward ; at any rate, he was openly and grievously disgraced, and his father, therefore, ordered him to be taken off by poison. The incident itself is barely mentioned, and no

direct remark is made regarding it; but the writer, by insisting on the great anxiety shown by the Sultán as to the choice of his successor, and his hesitation even as to the competency of the son (Muzaffar) whom he ultimately made his heir, gives it to be understood that, when he discovered that the young man he had publicly made his heir was worthless and incapable of reigning, he considered the danger to his people to be so great that it could only be met by bringing his son's life to

an end.

So also it is clearly shown, by contrasted anecdotes, what manner of men Muzaffar II. (the Clement) and Bahádar Sháh really were. The former pious, learned, liberal, and gentle, was yet fatally weak, and incapable of controlling his subordinates; and though personally unselfish and amiable, it was with difficulty he could bring himself to act with sufficient sternness and energy, even when these qualities were most needed, so that his subjects were sadly exposed to oppression, and the unchecked influence of the nobles grew into a power which eventually destroyed the dynasty and the kingdom with it.

Bahádar Sháh, on the other hand, though he has been rendered famous by singular activity in war and some brilliant military successes, is shown to have been curiously undeserving of renown. Uneducated, rash, and impetuous, a poor administrator, more from sloth and sensuality than from weakness or want of ability; violent, cruel, treacherous, and ungrateful, his unfortunate death at the hands of the Portuguese seems to have won for him a sympathy which he very little merited.

It has been said that the author writes entirely from a Mahomedan point of view. This is so undoubtedly; and the severity of the earlier kings in destroying idolatry and forcibly converting Hindús, acts which rendered the lives of a large proportion of his subjects miserable, are described as worthy of all praise, though some evidence survives of the destitution