CRITICAL NOTICES. GENERAL LITERATURE. The History of India: Mohamadan Period. Wheeler. London, Trübner & Co. By J. Talboys HE History of Musalman India remains to be written, Mr. Mounstuart Elphinstone's work, probably as perfect as the then state of the accessible materials allowed, has become somewhat out of date. Not only have sources of information been thrown open to us which Elphinstone knew not, but the whole spirit of historical study has changed during the forty years or so that have elapsed since his book was published. Both teachers and learners now require a treatment which recognises the solidarity of the past and the present; and even that indolent creature, "the general reader," has imbibed philosophical fads, and will not be contented with the wholesome chronicling that satisfied his forerunners, but seems too plain for his fastidious taste. Several fragmentary attempts have been made from time to time, to include portions of this subject in the domain of scientific history. But the only complete work of the kind that has yet appeared is that of which the title stands at the head of this notice. And the most indulgent criticism must sorrowfully admit that it is not successful in its existing form, even though containing indications that the author might, by the exercise of more care and caution, do much towards attaining the ideal. The chief reason of the unsatisfactory character of Mr. Wheeler's present work is his habit of trusting almost exclusively to European sources of information and to speculations of his own which, though bold and sometimes ingenious, will not stand the test of fact. In the preface to the first part, published in 1876, Mr. Wheeler laid down an extraordinary principle. Hitherto it had been thought that Musalman rule in India might be considered as paramount from the end of the twelfth century after Christ to about the middle of the century preceding our own; and this period has been usually regarded as divisible into two portions, the Pathan and the Mughal, This, however, is too simple for our author, who proposes four divisions, and holds that it is a mistake to consider that the Mughal Empire was Musalman! The reason for this remarkable paradox appears to be conveyed in the following words:- "It will be seen that there is reason to believe that the Vedic Aryans were Mughals; that Asoka and Akbar sprang from the same stock as the worshippers of the Vedic gods." This would seem to imply that Asoka is supposed to have been a Mughal: but, not to dwell on this, and throwing in the concession (quite unfounded and only made here under protest) that Akbar's peculiar tendencies entitle us to regard him as a non-Musalman, was Babar a "Vedic Aryan"? And, further, was the Empire of his successors not ruled, on the whole, by Moslem law and principles? Was the pardah maintained, with plurality of wives? Did the State build and endow mosques, was the public law of the land founded on the Koran and Traditions? And, if so, was not the Government that did all these things entitled to be called "a Musalman Empire"? These things have not altogether escaped Mr. Wheeler's notice during the period that has passed between the appearance of the two parts of his book. In the volume lately issued he returns to the strange matter that he omitted so long ago, but it has not lost its attraction for him : -- "In part I. of the present volume," he now observes, "the author expressed the opinion that the Vedic Aryans might possibly prove to have been Mughals; and as this hypothesis has met with some opposition, he would take this opportunity of furnishing additional grounds for arriving at such a conclusion." We have seen above that, even could it be established that the founders of the Mughal Empire of India had some share of the blood of those who many centuries earlier founded the Empire of the Hindus, the dynasty and its system would still be Musalman. But we are bound to go further and deny that the common origin is proved. The "additional grounds" of Part II. are no more valid than those originally stated in Part I. being confined to notices from a medieval monk showing that the Tartars of his time used ceremonies in honour of the elements. It need hardly be observed that a coincidence of this kind cannot outweigh the evidence of difference and antagonism in all that constitute the characteristics of race; in history, in geography, in language, and in physical features. Whether the resemblance thus faintly supported amounts to an identification will be seen, Mr. Wheeler thinks, from the subsequent history. Now, the question being whether the Mughals of Timur and Babar were identical with the Aryans of the Vedas, it is not clear how the history of the Indian Empire of the Timurides can further its solution. No doubt there were two great divisions of the Turkish race, but that will not prevent the Mughals from being of Turanian origin. The founder of the Mughal Empire in India was a Mughal by the mother's side, a Chaghtai of the kindred house of Timur, or Tamerlane, by the father's he bore a Mohamadan name and professed the Mohamadan creed he contracted political and domestic alliances with Moslem powers, and his descendants maintained Muslim manners and established Muslim institutions. Not to dwell longer on this matter, the chief importance of which is the curious light that it throws on the author's mental habits, we may pass on to a few further illustrations of the blended carelessness and wilfulness which do so much to injure a bright and clever book. In Part I. the Emperor Shah Jahan is introduced as an indolent voluptuary, leaning towards the superstitions of popular Hinduism. In Part II. we are told that he was a Shiah: no authority being given for either of these statements, so opposed to one another and to all beliefs derived from other and more original authorities. The miserable scandal about his relations towards his favourite daughter is raked up from Bernier, though it had been refuted by Mr. Wheeler's favourite "Manouchi." And we are told that the manner and time of Shahjahan's death are involved in mystery, though the date at least is given (within a few hours) in his epitaph in the Taj at Agra, and the death of a disappointed statesman of seventy-six, after many years of captivity, hardly seems to call for a far-fetched explanation, مرقد منور و مضجع اطهر بادشاه رضوان دستگاه خلد آرامگاه اعلیحضرت عليكن مكاني فردوس اشياني صاحب قرآن ثاني شاه جهان بادشاه غازي طاب ثراه وجعل الجنة مثواه در شب بست و ششم شهر رجب سنه هزار و هفتاد و شش هجري از جهان فاني به برمگاه جاوداني انتقال کردند The lover of original documents may like to see the text of the inscription, which shows that the ex-Emperor expired in the night of the 26th, Rajab A. H. 1076. As for the statement regarding his son and successor Aurangzeb (known in contemporary annals as Alamgir I.), that he too was disposed towards Hinduism, it seems only necessary to observe that Mr. Wheeler himself corrects it in the very next page. Nor are the accounts of this ruler's family affairs more correct, as Mr Wheeler would have learned if he had only condescended to check his European informants by equally accessible records. He says, most truly, that "gossip in Mughal courts is of a vague and contradictory character." But should not the knowledge that this was so have taught him caution in adopting the statements of persons whose only source of information was precisely that very gossip? Among other inaccuracies may be further noticed the following: Balkh, it is said, never formed part of the Mughal Empire. But it was governed under Akbar by Nazar Beg: it became independent temp. Jahangir, but was recovered by Shahjahan, A. D. 1646, and Aurangzeb was governor before coming to the throne. Mahabut Khan is said to have been a Rajput, though we are told by Jahangir himself that he was a Pathan of Kabul. Aurangzeb's wife by whom he had Kámbuksh was not a Christian, but a Rajput; and his chief wife,-the mother of the next Emperor Bahadur Shah-was not a Hindu but a Kashmiri of the Saiad tribe. Coming down to the reign of this last-named monarch, the account of the disturbances in the Punjab is vague and hurried (v. p.p. 401, 2). Guru Gobind was in fact assassinated by an Afghan fanatic about 1708 A. D. Bandu, the next Guru, was not taken prisoner till eight years later. Among other small blunders may be noticed the queer crotchet about Kámbuksh being the same name as the ancient "Cambyses" (p. 388). Kámbuksh is really a Hindustani word implying "Love-given," while Cambyses is a Greek variant of the cuneiform Kabujya. Again, the old Nizam is called "Chin Kulich," whereas his real appellation was Chin Quilij, "sword-drawer;" Quilij being a common Turkish word for sword, used in Constantinople to this day. A writer need not make these very wilful blunders. Their correction scarcely required the consulting of original M.S.S. or oriental records; the works to which reference has been chiefly made for the purpose being such as Tod's Rajasthan, Elliot's Muhamadan Historians of India, edited by Dowson, Keen's Turks in India, and Blochmann's Translation of the Ain-Akbari. The present reviewer makes no pretension to original research: and he has done no more than Mr. Wheeler might have—and ought to have done for himself. The reports of European travellers may be listened too but should be verified before being trusted. It is, indeed, in the combination of all available materials that a correct description of the events and influences produced in India by the Moslem rule can alone be obtained. Mr. Wheeler has the industry and the literary skill that are needful for such an undertaking. What he has not yet displayed is the intelligent scepticism which weighs, arranges, and sometimes rejects the materials that come to hand As to European travellers in the East there is a particular need for caution; one has only to talk |