Jaipál, Turu Jaipál, Parou Jaipál, Nardajanpála, Niranjanpál, Tasdar Jaipál, and many more. The latest reading proposed by M. Reinaud is Trilochan Pál, after the "three-eyed" Siva. Persian authors generally call him Nabíra Jaipál, or the grandson of Jaipál, and in that relationship no doubt he stood to the first Jaipál. Hence Dow calls him "Pitterugepál." The real name was, perhaps, Púr Jaipál, or Jaipál junior, Jaipál the son or grandson. Al Bírání tells us that his father Anandpál was an inveterate enemy of the Musulmáns from the time that Púr Jaipál was taken prisoner, but Púr Jaipál himself was well disposed towards them.

According to 'Utbí we find him holding dominion as far eastward as Kanauj and the Ráhib, respecting which the note on the ninth and twelfth expeditions of Mahmúd may be consulted. The same author mentions another son of Anandpál, by the name of Brahman Pál, who is probably a different one.

Abú Ríhán informs us that he was killed in 412 A.H.=1021-2 A.D. It does not appear exactly when he began to reign, but he certainly opposed Mahmúd during the Kanauj campaign in 409 H.

Bhim Pál.-In him we have the last of the dynasty of Kábul and Northern India. As he is mentioned by Abú Ríhán, he must have succeeded to some remnant of his father's domains; but it does not appear that in his time he contested the advance of the Muhammadans, though before he ascended the throne we find him taking an active part in defending his father's dominions, under the name of Nidar Bhím, "Bhím the Dauntless.""

From his letter to Chand Ráí, which is recorded by 'Utbí, it would appear that he was inclined to peaceful counsels, and that bitter experience had taught him the hopelessness of contending with his relentless and sanguinary rivals.3

From a statement in the Tárikhu-l Hind, we may infer that his capital was Bárí, to the east of Kanauj.

Neither of Bhím Pál, nor of any other of the Pál family, are any

coins extant.

Bhím Pál survived his father five years, and died, therefore, in 417 A.H., the eventful year of the capture and plunder of Somnát. Haidar Rází gives nine years as the period of his reign.

1 [See supra, pp. 45-47.]

2 [Supra, p. 38.]

3 [Supra, p. 48.]

NOTE B.

Extract of Mr. Thomas' Edition of Prinsep's Essays, (1858. Vol. I. p. 331), referred to in page 9 suprà.

"Before I leave the subject, I may be permitted to make some observations in reference to an original suggestion of my own, that the Srí Hamírah, on the reverse of the immediately succeeding Moslem coins, was designed to convey the title of the spiritual representative of the Arabian Prophet on earth, embodied for the time being in the Khalif of Baghdad. Sir H. M. Elliot, placing himself under the guidance of Capt. Cunningham, has contested this inference. I am not only prepared to concede the fact that Muhammad bin Sám uses this term in connection with his own name on the lower Kanauj coins, but I can supply further independent evidence, that my opponents could not then cite against me, in the association of this title with the name of the early Sultáns of Dehli in the Pálam Inscription (1333 Vikramáditya); but, on the other hand, I can claim a still more definite support in an item of testimony contributed by the consecutive suite of the selfsame fabric of coins, where the : (hamirah) is replaced by the word (khalifa). As far as I have yet been able to ascertain, this transition first takes place on the money of 'Aláu-d dín Mas'úd (639-644 a.í.) ; and here, again, I can afford, in all frankness, to cite further data that may eventually bear against myself, in recording that this reverse of Sri Khalifa is combined in other cases with a broken obverse legend of ... tcfg... which, being interpreted to stand for the Amiru-l Múminin of the Arabic system, may either be accepted as the Sanskrit counterpart legend of Altamsh's anonymous coins in the Persian character," or be converted into a possible argument against my theory, if supposed to represent the independent spiritual supremacy claimed by subsequent Sultáns of Dehli; which last assignment, however, will scarcely carry weight in the present state of our knowledge. As regards the difficulty raised respecting the conventional acceptance of the Sri Samanta Deva of the coins as an historical, rather than an individually titular, impress, I have always been fully prepared to recognize the linguistic value of the

1 Pathan Sultáns of Dihli, by Ed. Thomas. London, Wertheimer, 1847; p. 17.

word Samanta, and yet claim to retain the Sri Samanta Deva-which comes down to us, in numismatic sequence, in the place of honour on so many mint issues-as an independent name or title, to which some special prestige attached, rather than to look upon it as an ordinary prefix to the designation of each potentate on whose money it appears. And such a decision, in parallel apposition to the succession of the titles of Sri Hamira and Khalifa, just noticed, would seem to be strikingly confirmed by the replacement of this same legend of Sri Samanta Deva on the local coins of Cháhad Deva, by the style and title of the Moslem suzerain, to whom that rája had eventually to concede allegiance.

The two classes of coins to which I allude may, for the moment, be exemplified, the one in the type given in Ariana Antiqua,' xix. 16; the other in pl. xxvi. fig. 31, Vol. i. (Prinsep).

The former, when corrected up and amplified from more perfect specimens, will be found to bear the legends: Obv. Û Â समन्त देव REV. श्री चाहड देव - while the latter will be seen to display an obverse epigraph of असावरी श्री समसोरल देवे, with a reverse similar to the last.

I understand this obverse legend to convey, in imperfect orthography, the name of Shamsu-d dín Altamsh-whose other coins, of but little varied type, have a similarly outlined name, with the Moslem Sri Hamirah on the reverse.

NOTE C.

The Historians of the Ghaznivides.

The contents of this volume relate more especially to the history of the Ghaznivides. It therefore seems expedient to take a general review of the authors who have particularly treated of that dynasty.

First in order comes 'Utbí, who has already been sufficiently noticed. It may be remarked generally that he is deficient in dates, and, though the chief and earliest authority on all which relates to the early invasions of India, he evidently had no personal knowledge of that country, a circumstance which of course greatly detracts

from his value. He is fuller in the reign of Subuktigín and the transactions in Turkistán than any of his successors.

Thirty years later comes Abú-1 Fazl Baihakí, of whose voluminous and important work only a portion has come down to us.

After an interval of more than two centuries follows the Nizamu-t Tawarikh, composed in 674 H., about a century after the extinction of the dynasty. The short notice which this work devotes to the Ghaznivides has been translated as an extract from that work, but it is of little authority, and confuses dates irremediably towards the close of the dynasty, in which the transactions were carried on too far eastward to be within the foreign ken of the author. Indeed he confesses that he knows nothing of their successors, the Ghorians, beyond the names of three of their kings.

The next, but after a period of two hundred years from 'Utbí is the Tabakát-i Násiri, the chief value of which is that it quotes the lost volumes of Abú-1 Fazl Baihakí. It is for this reason, however, greatly to be regretted, especially as he is one of the earliest Muhammadan authors who wrote in India, that his notice of Mahmúd's reign is so very curt; for it is that in which we most feel the want of Baihaki's familiar gossiping narrative. It is true he is quoted in the Jámi'u-l Hikáyát, Tárikh-i Guzida, Ráuzatu-s Safá, and Firishta; yet it may be doubted if any except the author of the first ever saw his Táríkh-i Násirí, which is mentioned by name in the Tabakát. In some of the other Ghaznivide reigns, this work differs from others, as will be seen from the passages which are extracted in the article TABAKÁT-I NÁSIRI in this volume.

The great copyist and extractor, Rashídu-d dín, follows after the lapse of about twenty years. In his Jámi'u-t Tawarikh, he follows 'Utbí implicitly, as far as the Yamini extends, taking out not only his facts, but giving a literal translation of that work, even to the images and similes. So little does he attempt to improve upon the Yamini, that he even leaves out the important expedition to Somnát, which was undertaken after the close of that work. This resource fails him altogether in the later reigns, which are consequently very unsatisfactorily disposed of in the Jámi'u-t Tawarikh.1 About twenty years later follows the Tarikh-i Guzida of Hamdu-lla

1 [See an article by Major Lees, in Jour. R. A. S., Vol. iii. N.S., 1868.]

Mustaufi-although he mentions the Makámát of Abú Nasr Miská'ti, and the Mujalladát of Abú-1 Fazl Baihakí, he does not appear to have read them at least he gives no information derived from them, and altogether his account of Mahmúd's reign is very meagre. He mentions the names of the towns taken by him, omitting, however, all notice of Somnát, and without stating the dates of their capture. He is so often quoted by Mírkhond, Khondamír, and Firishta, that he has had more credit than he deserves in this portion of his universal history.

After a long interval of about a century, we have Mírkhond, who in his Rauzatu-s Safá has given us the first detailed account of the history of the Ghaznivides. It is founded in the early portion upon the Yamini, but in later reigns rests upon some other authorities which are not quoted. Those which are mentioned, as the Násirí and Guzida, are too meagre to have furnished the fuller information found in the Rauzatu-s Safá. This portion has been translated by F. Wilken into Latin, and published with the original text at Berlin in 1832, under the title of Historia Gasnevidarum. He has added in footnotes passages from Firishta and Haidar Rází, where the details are more complete than in the Rauzatu-s Safá. Haidar Rází, however, is no original authority. I have found all the passages, except two, quoted by Wilken to be word for word the same as the Tárikh-i Alfi, even where other authorities are quoted, as Ibn Asír, Ibn Kasír, and Háfiz Abrú. The chief omission to be noted in Mírkhond's account is that of the expeditions to India intervening between those of Kanauj and Somnát, and the attack upon the Játs of Júd after Mahmúd's return from Somnát.

Mírkhond is followed by his nephew Khondamír in the Khulásatu-l Akhbár and the Habibu-s Siyar. The former has been translated by Price with additions from Firishta, and from the latter a translation will be found in a later volume of this work. He follows the Rauzata-s Safá closely, and has no new authorities, omitting some passages, but dealing more copiously with the biographies of cotemporary poets and ministers. Altogether, Mírkhond's narrative is preferable, and in this, as well as in many other portions of his history Khondamír might have saved himself the trouble of attempting to rival his uncle.