The next authority of any value is the Tárikh-i Alfi. Like as in other portions of that work, it is, in the history of the Ghaznivides, also somewhat deficient in connexion, and troublesome, from adopting a new era; but. altogether, it is copious and correct. 'Utbí and Mírkhond are the chief authorities of the Tárikh-i Alfi, but something is added from the less known histories, which have already been mentioned as being quoted at second hand by Haidar Rází. It is to be regretted that Abú-1 Fazl Baihakí is not amongst them. Here also we have no detailed account of the Indian expeditions between those of Kanauj and Somnát, and that to Thanesar is not mentioned.

Nizámu-d dín Ahmad, in his Tabakát-i Akbari, gives a succinct account of the history of the Ghaznivides, and is particular in mentioning his dates. He notices very cursorily the events in Turkistán, Sístán, and 'Irák, confining his attention principally to what related to India. In his work we, for the first time, find mention of several expeditions to India, which are passed over by his predecessors; and it is, therefore, to be regretted that he does not signify on what authority he relates them. The only probable source, among those mentioned as his general authorities, is the Zainu-l Akhbár. Nizámu-d dín is followed closely by Firishta.

'Abdu-l Kádír, in his Táríkh-i Badáúní, follows Nizámu-d dín implicitly; but, in order to show the variations, he occasionally quotes the Nizámu-t Tawárikh, and the Lubbu-t Tawárikh. He adds, also, some verses of poets who were contemporary with the Ghaznivides. The Muntakhabu-t Tawarikh of Khákí Shírází is very brief, and scarcely deserves notice. It chiefly follows the Habibu-s Siyar.

We next come to the history of Firishta, which gives the most complete and detailed account which we have of the Ghaznivides. Dr. Bird complains of the author's ignorance of the geography of Upper India; but he has exhibited no more than his predecessors, and in one or two instances attempts corrections. His chief resource is the Tabakát-i Akbarí, but he has also used the Táríkh-i Yamíni, the Tárikh-i Guzida, the Rauzatu-s Safá, and the Habibu-s Siyar. Some of the other works which he quotes there is reason to believe he never saw. The translation' by Briggs is generally correct and faithful in this portion, and there are no omissions in it of any great consequence.

The Khulásatu-t Tawarikh discusses this history in a peculiar fashion of its own. It omits all notice of transactions on the frontiers of Persia and Turkistán, and confines itself solely to India, insomuch that it leaves out whole reigns in which the sovereign had no connection with India: and, in consequence, preposterously confines the whole number of reigns to seven only. There is no other novelty in this chapter, except that it substitutes two new readings of places, which if they are derived from the history of Mahmúd by 'Unsurí, which is quoted in the preface, may be considered authentic.

These are all the authorities which it seems necessary to notice, as all the subsequent ones follow in the wake of Firishta. Abú-1 Fidá, Ibn Shuhna, Ibn Asír, Ibn Kasír, Nikbi, and Lárí, have had all that is valuable in them extracted by the diligence of European authors, who have translated, abridged, or commented on the reigns of the Ghaznivides. The Turkish histories of the period, such as the Nakhbatu-t Tawárikh, and the work of Munajjim Báshí, we may fairly presume to have been exhausted by the industry of Hammer-Purgstall amongst the fourteen different histories which he quotes as authorities upon Mahmúd's reign-so that the only hope now left us for ascertaining any new fact with respect to the history of the Ghaznivides is in the recovery of the missing volumes of Memoirs, which we know to have been written by contemporary writers, and to have been in existence less than two centuries agosuch as those of Abú-1 Fazl Baihakí, Abú Nasr Mishkání, and Mulla Muhammad Ghaznawí. The Makámát of Abú Nazr Mishkátí1 (Mishkání) is mentioned by Firishta (Briggs I. 32 and 97), and the same author is referred to in Wilken (Gasnevidarum, p. 189). Firishta quotes from him the anecdote about Mas'úd, which has been given from the Tabakát-i Násirí (supra, p. 271), and which is there also attributed to Abú Nasr Mishkán. The Tarikh-i Mulla Muhammad Ghaznawi is mentioned by 'Abdu-r Rahmán, who wrote the Mir-átu-l Asrár and Mir-át-i Mas'udí, in Jahángír's time. The author was contemporary with Sultán Mahmúd, of whom his work is said to give an ample account.

[In Briggs' translation, the name is written "Mukutty."]

VOL. II.

28

NOTE D.

Mahmud's Expeditions to India.

The times, places, and numbers of Mahmúd's expeditions to India have offered great difficulties to those who have dealt with the history of that ferocious and insatiable conqueror. We look in vain

for any enquiry on the subject from the native historians of this period, who, in their ignorance of Upper India, enter names and years without the scruples and hesitations which a better knowledge or a more critical spirit, would have induced.

It is only when European authors begin to discuss the matter that we are taught how many difficulties there are to solve, how many places to identify, how many names to restore. Those who have added most to our knowledge of this period, and have occasionally interspersed their narratives or notes with illustrative comments, and who will be quoted in the course of this Note, may be thus named in the order of their publications :-D'Herbelot,1 De Guigues, Hunt (?), Dow, De Sacy," Mill," Wilson," Audiffret," Rampoldi, Briggs," Wilken," Ritter, Bird," Hammer-Purgstall,1⁄4 Elphinstone, and Reinaud.1 It is needless to mention Gibbon, Malcolm, Conder, Gleig, Murray, and others, whose works, however useful, are mere copies and abstracts of others, and add nothing to our previous information.

2

4

12

It has been usual to consider the number of Mahmúd's expeditions

1 Bibliothèque Orientale, Art. "Mahmoud." Paris, 1697.

2 Histoire Générale des Huns, Tom. II. Paris, 1756.

3 Modern Universal History, Vols. II. and III.

History of Hindoostan, Vol. I. London, 1768.

London, 1766.

5 Notices et Extraits des Manuscripts, Tom. IV. Paris, 1798-9.

6 History of British India, Vol. II. London, 1818.

7 Ibid, 1840.

8 Biographie Universelle, Art. "Mahmoud." Tom. XXVI. Paris, 1820.

9 Annali Musulmani, Vol. VI. Milan, 1823.

10 History of the Mahom. Power in India, Vol. I. London, 1829.

11 Historia Gasnevidarum. Berolini, 1832.

12 Die Erdkunde von Asien, Vol. IV. Part 1. Berlin, 1835.

13 History of Gujarat. London, 1835.

14 Jahrbücher der Literatur, No. 73. Wien, and Gemäldesaal der Lebens

beschreibungen, Vol. IV. Leipsig, 1837.

16 History of India, Vol. I. London, 1843.

16 Memoire sur l'Inde in the Mémoires de l'Institut, Tom. XVIII. Paris, 1849.

to India to be twelve. The first authority for this number is Nizámu-d dín Ahmad in the Tabakát-i Akbari; and as Dow has also numbered them as twelve, most English authors following him as the standard, have entertained the same persuasion. But it is curious to observe that, while Nizámu-d dín mentions that there were altogether twelve, in recording them seriatim, he enumerates no less than sixteen; and Dow, while he marginally notes twelve, records no less than fifteen different invasions. Even Elphinstone, though he notes twelve, records more. The Khulásatu-t Tawárikh gives twelve, and confines itself to that number, or in reality only to eleven, as by some mistake an expedition to Kashmír and Kálinjar are placed in one year, and the tenth expedition is omitted. The Akhbar-i Muhabbat follows it in both errors. I will not attempt to maintain this established number of expeditions, but will consider them in the actual order of their occurrence.

First Expedition.-Frontier Towns. A.H. 390 (1000 A.D.)-Nizámu-d dín Ahmad and Firishta mention that about the year 390 н. Mahmúd marched in the direction of India, and, after taking many forts and provinces, and establishing his own governors in them, he returned to Ghazní. This rests solely on the authority of these two authors, and is not supported by the Tarikh Yamini; but there is no improbability in the statement.

It was to have been expected that Mahmud, after establishing himself on the throne of Ghazní, would have embraced the first opportunity of invading India; for, while yet a prince, he had seen how easily the hardy warriors of Zábulistán had overcome the more effeminate sons of India. His father Subuktigín is described in the Yamini as making several attacks upon the country of Hind, independent of the three which are more specifically mentioned, the scene of which was Kusdár and Lamghán. Even during the fifteen years of Alptigín's reign, Subuktigín is represented by Firishta in an untranslated passage to have made frequent attacks upon India, and even to have penetrated as far as Sodra on the Chináb, where he demolished idols in celebration of Mahmúd's birth, which, as it occurred on the date of the prophet's birth, Subuktigín was anxious that it should be illustrated by an event similar to the destruction of the idols in the palace of the Persian king

by an earthquake, on the day of the prophet's birth. In the words of the Bostán :—

تزلزل در ایوان کسری فتاد

چو صتیش در افواه عالم فتاد

Near the Lamghán valley two actions were fought, or more probably in the valley of Jalálabád, for as the plural, Lamghánát, is frequently used, there seems reason to believe that the valley to the south as well as the north of the Kábul river was included in that province. The first action fought in this neighbourhood was brought to a conclusion by the effect of the miraculous fountain or stream in the hill of Ghúzak, which emitted storms, thunder, and cold, whenever some impurity was cast into it. A more particular account of this will be found in the extracts from the Yamini and the Jámi’u-l Hikáyát.1

What could have given rise to this extraordinary story is not easy to conceive, and no one has attempted an explanation. The most ⚫ probable solution seems to be that a snow-storm came on, and not only harassed but alarmed the Hindús, who had never witnessed such a thing before; for it is quite compatible with probability that although the Lamghánát were then included in the country of Hind, yet that the soldiers, who, for the most part, came from the more eastern provinces, might never have seen a fall of snow. It is to be observed that the Tabakát-i Akbari expressly says that Jaipál and the Hindus were unaccustomed to the cold, and that was the reason why they suffered more than the Musulmáns. It may fairly be surmised, then, that the snow and frost totally paralysed the Hindú warriors, and were felt as grievously by them as, nine centuries afterwards, by Indian and British troops combined, when they sustained the most grievous disaster that has ever befallen our nation. It is an extraordinary coincidence that the very scene of this first and last defeat of an Indian army was the same-what wonder if the cause also did not differ?

The minds of the natives of India would naturally have tried to account for such a supernatural phenomenon as a fall of snow, and superstition was at hand to render her assistance.

1 [Supra, pp. 20 and 182.]