Chapter XLVI: Appendix: II (2)

[246] Narshakhi (ed. Schefer, p. 233) calls this dynasty of “Turkish Khāns” the “house of Afrāsiyāb.” Afrāsiyāb is one of the most prominent figures in Firdawsi’s great epic of kings, the _Shāh Namé_. B.C. 700 is given as a conjectural date of the first migration of the Turks across the Oxus--as far as India and Asia Minor. According to the coins, it appears that the Turks (under what name it is not known) entered the Greek kingdom of Bactria. Cf. Reinaud, _Rélations de l’Empire, Rom. avec l’Asie Centrale_ (Paris, 1863), p. 227. Tradition has it that Afrāsiyāb flourished about B.C. 580. He was the emperor of Tūrān, of which Turkestān was a province, and was the great foe of Īrān. During his reign Siyāwush, son of the emperor of Īrān, Kay-Kā´ūs, having incurred his father’s displeasure, fled across the Oxus, which formed the boundary between the two kingdoms, to Afrāsiyāb, who held court at Rāmtīn. Siyāwush received Afrāsiyāb’s daughter Ferengis in marriage, with the provinces of Khotan and Chīn as her dowry. Afrāsiyāb’s brother Gersīwaz, jealous of the strangers growing power, set his brother’s mind against Siyāwush, and induced him to take the field against his son-in-law, who was captured and conveyed to Rāmtīn and there put to death. Siyāwush left a posthumous son by Ferengis, named Kay-Khosrū, who became emperor of Īrān. Kay-Khosrū, bent on avenging his father’s death, besieged Rāmtīn, drove Afrāsiyāb out of his country, and occupied it for seven years; Afrāsiyāb afterwards returned and recovered his capital, but was finally defeated and slain. Kay-Khosrū now became master of Samarkand and Bokhārā; but, wishing to devote his days to religious contemplation, resigned his government to Lohrāsp, the son-in-law of Kay-Kā´ūs, who soon exacted homage from the rulers of Tartary. Thus the Persian dynasty existed till the overthrow of Darius II.

[247] The accurate transcription of this name is _Khitā´ī_; however, for convenience the more familiar spelling of _Khitāy_ has been retained throughout.

[248] The exact position of this town, which during the tenth and eleventh centuries was the capital of the Khāns of Turkestān (see Ibn el-Athīr), is not known. Abulfeda says it was not far from Kāshghar. Juvaynī says that in the days of the Mongols it was called Gu-Balik.

[249] Grigorieff, in his well-known but harsh, and indeed unjust, review of Vambéry’s _Bokhara_, published as an Appendix to vol. i. of Schuyler’s _Turkestan_, says (1) that the Ilik Khāns were not Uïghūrs, but Karlukhs, and (2) that the Kara-Khitāys were their descendants. Though he takes M. Vambéry to task for not knowing such “facts,” neither of these statements will bear the light of modern research. Vambéry was, however, wrong in calling the Kara-Khitāys Uïghūrs.

[250] Klaproth (_Sprache und Schrift der Uiguren_) proves convincingly that the Hui-ho of the Chinese authors anterior to the Mongol period are identical with the Uïghūrs, and that the Uïghūrs are to be classed among the Eastern Turks. The term Hui-ho was, however, used by Chinese writers of the Mongol period to designate Mohammedans generally (cf. Bretschneider’s article on the Uïghūrs in his _Mediæval Researches from Eastern Asiatic Sources_, to which excellent monograph most of these notes are due). Translations of the principal Chinese records of the Uïghūrs are to be found in Videlou’s supplement to d’Herbelot’s _Bib. Orient._

[251] The name _Uïghūr_ is first found in Mohammedan histories at the beginning of the thirteenth century. Previously to this they seem to have been known by the name of Taghazghaz, which is doubtless a corruption. Cf. _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, or, _History of the Moghuls of Central Asia_, by Ney Elias and E. Denison Ross, p. 94 of Introduction.

[252] For notices of these places, consult Grigorieff’s article on the _Kara-Khānides_, and Bretschneider’s _Mediæval Researches_.

[253] He was not actually the last of the Sāmānides, for one member of the family named Isma`īl el-Muntazir had escaped from Ilik’s hands. His subsequent adventures would go to make an exciting story. For six years he maintained himself at the head of a faithful following. With the help of the Ghuz he twice defeated Ilik’s troops, and (in 391–1001) actually wrested Nīshāpūr from the hands of the governor, Mahmūd of Ghazna’s brother. He finally perished at the hands of a Bedouin in A.H. 395 (1005).

[254] His name was Abū-l-Husayn Nasr I.

[255] A tentative list of the Khāns of Turkestān is given in S. Lane-Poole’s _Mohammedan Dynasties_, p. 134. They ruled, according to this author’s computation, from about A.H. 320–560 (932–1165).

[256] He was born in A.H. 333 (944). Cf. _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, p. 287.

[257] Cf. Forsyth’s _Mission to Yarkand_,--Dr. Bellew’s chapter on the History of Kāshghar, p. 121. The account of the first introduction of Islām into Kāshghar is given in a Turki work entitled the _Tazkira Bughra Khān_ (which was translated from the Persian of Shaykh `Attār). Extracts from this somewhat fantastic work have been published in the original in Shaw’s _Turki Grammar_.

[258] Ed. Schefer, p. 233.

[259] They advanced within three stages of Balāsāghūn. They are spoken of as coming from _Sīn_ (China), but they were probably not Chinese but Eastern Uïghūrs (cf. Bretschneider, i. 253).

[260] His name is often given in Oriental histories as _Kadr_. See Raverty, _Tabakāt-i-Nāsiri_.

[261] Cf. Narshakhi, ed. Schefer, p. 234.

[262] We are told by this same author that they had caused much depredation among the Mohammedans, which seems inconsistent with what has been said of them before.

[263] S. Lane-Poole gives the date of Boghrā Khān’s death as 435, and makes no mention of his son Ibrāhīm.

[264] Narshakhi, ed. Schefer, reads this name _Tumghāch_.

[265] S. Lane-Poole (_loc. cit._) says Ibrāhīm died in 460, and was succeeded by his son Nasr, who died in 472. It will be seen that great confusion exists with regard to these Khāns. Major Raverty, in his translation of the _Tabakāt-i-Nāsiri_, furnishes a long list of Ilik Khāns; but it is hard to reconcile any two accounts, so much do the names and dates differ.

[266] S. Lane-Poole (_Mohammedan Dynasties_, p. 135) says Mahmūd Khān II.

[267] S. Lane-Poole (_loc. cit._) reads Mahmūd Khān III., and from this point the list he gives no longer corresponds with Narshakhi’s account.

[268] Mīrkhwānd (Vüllers, _Historia Seldschukidarum_, p. 176), and Vambéry following him, say that Mohammad was reinstated.

[269] The modern Khiva.

[270] See chap. XX.

[271] This history, by Hamdullah Mustawfi, is one of the most important Persian chronicles. The whole text has never yet been published, but the portion relating to the Seljūks was edited and translated by M. Defrémery.

[272] There is some confusion as to the precise origin of this branch of the Turks. Aug. Müller says that during the disorders which attended the downfall of the Sāmānides and the struggles between the Ghaznavides and the Khāns of Kāshghar, the Ghuz, through internal dissensions, became split up into subdivisions. The foremost of these was a branch who in A.H. 345 (956) settled down in Jend (east of Khwārazm). They received the name of Seljūk from their chief, who had been compelled to quit the court of his master Pighu Khān of the Kipchāk Turks. He is said to have embraced Islām (Müller, _Islām_, ii. 74).

[273] He was the first prince to bear the title of _Sultān_. Cf. Gibbon, chap. 47.

[274] Malcolm, _op. cit._ i. p. 195.

[275] Cf. Müller, _op. cit._ ii. p. 76.

[276] The son of Altuntāsh mentioned above, p. 123.

[277] Gibbon (chap, lvii.) speaks of this victory as the “memorable day of Qandacan” which “founded in Persia the dynasty of the shepherd kings.” He gives the date as A.D. 1038.

[278] Mohammad, who, as stated above, had been nominated by his father Mahmūd to succeed him in Ghazna, had been almost immediately deposed by his brother Mas`ūd.

[279] Malcolm, _op. cit._ i. p. 199.

[280] Müller, _op. cit._ i. 77.

[281] _Vide supra_, p. 112, note 1.

[282] Cf. Gibbon, chap. lvii. De Guignes gives a somewhat different version of the relations between the Emperor and the Turk (vol. iii. p. 191). He says: “Constantin-Monomaque qui regnoit alors à Constantinople, ne crut pas devoir négliger l’alliance d’un prince qui faisoit trembler toute l’Asie: il lui envoya des ambassadeurs pour lui proposer de faire la paix, et Thogrulbegh y consentit.” This difference is due to the fact that Gibbon’s authorities were Byzantine, while De Guignes’ were Mohammedan.

[283] It would, however, be wrong to regard these Turks as uncultured people; for though few traces of their early literature have come down to us, testimony is not wanting to the fact that they had, long before they began their westward migrations, a written language and perhaps a literature.

[284] He was not received in audience by the Caliph till A.H. 451 (1059). In 455 (1063), in spite of his outward show of respect, Toghrul Beg practically forced the Caliph to give him his daughter in marriage. But, in the same year, as Toghrul was about to claim his bride, fortune suddenly deserted him, and he died at the age of seventy in Ray, where, according to Mīrkhwānd (see ed. Vüllers, p. 65), he wished to celebrate his nuptials.

[285] His name is familiar to the English public through the medium of `Omar Khayyām. All who have read Fitzgerald’s admirable translation of the _Rubaiyāt_ know the story of the three famous schoolfellows--`Omar Khayyām, the poet; Nizām ul-Mulk, the statesman; and Hasan ibn Sabbāh, “the Old Man of the Mountain.” These three, as schoolboys at Nīshāpūr, had sworn that whichever of them should rise highest in the world should help the others. Of two of them we shall have to speak below.

[286] His was not actually their first expedition, for, in 1050, parts of Armenia had been laid waste and countless Christians massacred by the Turks. Cf. Gibbon, chap. xlvii.

[287] We refer the reader to Gibbon’s 57th chapter for a vivid account of Alp Arslān’s dealings with the Romans (see also Malcolm, _op. cit._ i. 209–213).

[288] This was a chief named Yūsuf, who had long held out against the Sultan in his fortress of Berzem in Khwārazm. Cf. Malcolm, _op. cit._ i. 213; and De Guignes, iii. 213.

[289] Notably his uncle Kāwurd (see Müller, _op. cit._ ii. 94),--whom Vambéry calls _Kurd_; and Vüllers (in Mīrkhwānd’s Seljūks), _Kādurd_; and Malcolm (_op. cit._ i. 216), _Cawder_.

[290] Müller, _op. cit._ ii. 94.

[291] See below, chap. xix.

[292] Vambéry (_op. cit._ p. 100) qualifies these statements as the “mere fabrications of partial Arab and Persian writers.”

[293] _Op. cit._ ii. 95.

[294] This assassin was one of the emissaries (or _fadāwi_) of Hasan ibn Sabbāh, Nizām ul-Mulk’s old school friend. For an account of the Assassins we refer the reader to the article under that heading in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_. For more than a century the devotees of the Old Man of the Mountain played a part in politics not dissimilar to that of the Jesuits at certain periods in Europe. See J. von Hammer’s _Hist. de l’Ordre des Assassins_ (Paris, 1833); S. Guyard’s “Un Grand Maître des Assassins,” _Journal Asiatique_, 1877; and an article by Mr. E. G. Browne in _St. Bartholomew’s Hosp. Journ._, March 1897.

[295] The history of the remaining Seljūk kings (of the original branch) is so admirably epitomised by Malcolm that it was considered unnecessary in this place to do more than quote from his well-known _History of Persia_ (vol. ii. p. 222 _et seq._). These sons were Berkiyāruk, Mohammad, Sanjar, and Mahmūd.

[296] He was himself but fourteen years of age at the time of his father’s death.

[297] A.H. 487–498 (1094–1104). Malcolm throughout his otherwise excellent history scarcely ever condescends to supply the reader with a date of any kind.

[298] He died of consumption at the early age of twenty-seven (perhaps even younger). Cf. Müller, _op. cit._ ii. 120.

[299] He allowed his nephew the two `Irāks on condition that his (Sanjar’s) name should be mentioned first in the public prayers (cf. _Habīb-us-Siyar_).

[300] The modern Khānate of Khiva.

[301] The Khāns of Khiva still bear the title of Ewer-bearers to the Sultan of Constantinople.

[302] About A.H. 470 (1077).

[303] He was a descendant in the eighth generation of _T’ai-tsu_, or Apaoki, the first Liao emperor. Cf. Bretschneider, _op. cit._ i. 211; Visdelou, p. 28. For the various forms his name has taken, cf. Howorth on the “Kara-Khitāy,” _J.R.A.S._, New Series VIII. 273, 274.

[304] De Guignes called him _Taigir_.

[305] Called by the Mohammedans _Churché_, which corresponds to the _Niuchi_ of Chinese historians. Cf. Bretschneider, _op. cit._ i. 224, note.

[306] Cf. d’Ohsson, _Histoire des Mongols_, i. 163.

[307] Some scholars have wished to identify this name with Kirmān in Persia, but this seems most improbable. Bretschneider (_op. cit._ i. 216, note) suggests Kerminé, which is the site of the summer quarters of the present Amīr of Bokhārā. Cf. also Howorth, _loc. cit._

[308] P. 134.

[309] Cf. De Guignes, iii. pt. ii. p. 253.

[310] Some confusion exists as to whether Kāshghar or Balāsāghūn was his residence. It seems improbable that he should have changed in so short a space.

[311] A.H. 521 (1127).

[312] A.H. 533 (1138).

[313] Il-Kilij, the son of Atsiz, perished in the battle.

[314] Cf. d’Herbelot, article “Atsiz”; and De Guignes, vol. ii. pt. ii. p. 254.

[315] Thus, according to Narshakhi (p. 243). The statements of historians are somewhat conflicting in this place. De Guignes, following Abulfidā, says that Ye-liu Ta-shi (whom he calls Taigir) died in 1136, when about to abandon Kāshghar and return to his ancient settlements in Tartary. The Khitāys then set upon the throne his infant son, Y-li, with his mother Liao-chi as queen-regent. Bretschneider has translated a Chinese work which gives a list of all the line of Kara-Khitāy rulers, whose dynasty became extinct about 1203. We have not thought it necessary to reproduce a list of their names in this place. It may be mentioned, however, that Bretschneider’s account does not agree with De Guignes.

[316] Cf. De Guignes, vol. iii. pt. i. p. 254; Müller, _op. cit._ vol. ii. p. 173. Rashīd ud-Dīn tells us he had drawn auxiliaries from all parts of his dominions.

[317] The Kara-Khitāys were Buddhists.

[318] Cf. Müller, _loc. cit._

[319] A.H. 537 (1142).

[320] Cf. De Guignes, _loc. cit._; and Müller, ii. p. 174.

[321] Cf. De Guignes, iii. pt. i. pp. 256, 257.

[322] De Guignes (following Abulfidā) says A.H. 550 (1155).

[323] Cf. Müller, _op. cit._ ii. 173.

[324] Mīrkhwānd (ed. Vüllers, p. 183). Khwāndamīr (_Habīb-us-Siyar_) adds “Kunduz and Baklān” to the list.

[325] The word used is _Khānsālār_, which means the “Taster,” or “Table-Decker of the Household.”

[326] Mīrkhwānd (ed. Vüllers, p. 185) says that Kamāj and his son perished in this battle, but Hamdullah Mustawfi, in the _Tārīkh-i-Guzīda_, says they were spared.

[327] De Guignes, vol. iii. pt. i. p. 256.

[328] Mīrkhwānd relates (ed. Vüllers, p. 188) that when Sanjar fled with his army, and was hotly pursued by the Ghuz, a man who bore a striking resemblance to the Sultan was captured. Say what he might, the Ghuz would not be convinced that this was not Sanjar, and paid him all the respect due to royalty, until finally some one recognised him as the son of Sanjar’s cook, whereupon he was beheaded.

[329] Professor Shukovski, of St. Petersburg, published in 1894 an excellent and exhaustive monograph on the ruins and past history of Merv, under the title _Razvilini starago Merva_, “The Ruins of Old Merv.”

[330] Ed. Vüllers, p. 189.

[331] Mīrkhwānd has in this place evidently followed Hafiz Abru (the author of the _Zubdat-ut-Tawārīkh_), who says that the first day of plunder was devoted to articles of gold, brass, and silver; the second to bronzes, carpets, and vases; and the third to whatever of value was left, such as cotton-stuffs, glass, wooden doors, and the like. Cf. Professor Shukovski’s _Ruins of Old Merv_, pp. 29, 30.

[332] He is said to have been kept in a cage at night. Cf. De Guignes, iii. pt. i. 257. Mīrkhwānd has been followed in this relation, and we have seen what he considered to be the cause of the hostilities between the Ghuz and Sanjar. From Ibn el-Athīr (_Tārīkh-i-Kāmil_, xi. 118, as quoted by Professor Shukovski, _Merv_, p. 29) it would appear that the cause of the conflict was Sanjar’s refusal to give up Merv to the Ghuz, on the plea that he could not be expected to abandon his royal residence. De Guignes (iii. pt. i. p. 257) introduces this anecdote after the capture of Sanjar.

[333] Many say he died of an internal malady, A.H. 552 (1157). He was in his seventy-third year.

[334] The modern Chārjūy.

[335] Cf. De Guignes, iii. pt. ii. p. 258.

[336] Cf. De Guignes, _loc. cit._

[337] He entered into a union with the Khān of the Kipchāk, named Ikrān, and married his daughter, who became the mother of the famous Sultan Mohammad Khwārazm Shāh; cf. _Tabakāt-i-Nāsiri_, Raverty’s translation, i. 240. This Khān of the Kipchāks is called, on p. 254 of the same work, _Kadr Khān_, a discrepancy which escaped the notice of Major Raverty, who, however, calls attention to three different Kadr Khāns in one chapter (see _op. cit._ p. 267, note).

[338] Cf. _Habīb-us-Siyar_.

[339] In this account of the reign of Tekish we have followed the _Habīb-us-Siyar_. There is, however, a great discrepancy in this part of the history, for in one place Khwāndamīr says that the hostilities lasted only ten years (A.H. 568–578), when they were brought to a close by a treaty between the two brothers, in which Tekish granted the rule of certain towns in Khorāsān to his brother. An account of Sultan Shāh Mahmūd may be found in the _Tabakāt-i-Nāsiri_, trans., i. 245–249.

[340] There is a misprint in d’Ohsson, _op. cit._ i. 180, the date being given as 1149. He also waged war on the Assassins in `Irāk and Kūhistan, and took from them their strongest fort, Arslān Kushāy.

[341] _Tārīkh-i-Jahān-Kushāy_, as quoted by Bretschneider, _op. cit._ i. 229, from d’Ohsson.

[342] Cf. d’Ohsson, _op. cit._ i. 180; and _Tabakāt-i-Nāsiri_, trans., i. 253–260.

[343] He had solicited the hand of a daughter of the Gūr-Khān, and, having been refused, had become his secret enemy. Howorth, _J.R.A.S._, New Series VIII. p. 282.

[344] Cf. d’Ohsson (_op. cit._ i. 181), who does not quote his authority.

[345] Thus according to d’Ohsson. But De Guignes gives a very different account of Mohammad’s first Eastern campaign, which he dates A.H. 604 (1209). He says that Bokhārā and Samarkand were delivered over to him by the friendly Turkish princes, that on entering the Kara-Khitāy territory he gained a splendid victory. Thus the first disastrous campaign is wholly ignored. De Guignes, _op. cit._ i. pt. ii. pp. 266, 267.

[346] Cf. De Guignes, i. pt. ii. p. 267. d’Ohsson says as far as Uzkend, _op. cit._ p. 182.

[347] The name of this famous conqueror has been spelled in many different ways,--_e.g._, _Genghiz_ (De Guignes), _Gengis_ (Voltaire, in his tragedy of that name), _Zingis_ (Gibbon), _Tchinguiz_ (d’Ohsson), etc. We have adopted the one which most nearly approaches the Turkish and Persian pronunciation of the name. For authorities we would refer the reader to Sir H. Howorth’s _History of the Mongols_, part i. (1876); R. K. Douglas, _Life of Jinghiz Khān_ (1877); an article by same author in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_; Erdmann’s _Temudschin der Unerschütterliche_ (1862); and d’Ohsson and De Guignes (vol. iv.). The principal _original_ sources for the history of Chingiz Khān are: (1) the Chinese account of a contemporary named _Men-Hun_, which has been translated into Russian by Professor Vassilief, and published in his _History and Antiquities of the Eastern Part of Central Asia_ (see Transactions of Oriental Section of the Russian Archæological Society, vol. iv.); and (2) the _Tabakāt-i-Nāsiri_ of Juzjānī, translated by Major Raverty. This important work comprises a collection of the accounts of Chingiz Khān written by his Mohammedan contemporaries. Other Chinese and Persian sources might be mentioned, but the above are the most important.

One very important authority for the Mongol period is the compilation, from Chinese sources, by Father Hyacinth, entitled _History of the first four Khāns of the House of Chingiz_, St. Petersburg, 1829. This Russian work is comparatively little known outside Russia. Both Erdmann and d’Ohsson often lay it under contribution. It may be added that Sir Henry Howorth, in his first volume on the Mongols (published in 1876), gives a complete bibliography of all the available sources for the history of Chingiz and his successors.

[348] M. Barthold, of the St. Petersburg University, has devoted much time to the study of the Mongol period in Central Asia, the fruits of which he has not yet published on an extended scale, though some shorter articles of great value have appeared in Baron Rosen’s _Zapiski_. The expeditions of Chingiz Khān and Tamerlane were admirably treated by M. M. I. Ivanin in a work published after his death, entitled _On the Military Art and Conquests of the Mongol-Tatars under Chingiz Khān and Tamerlane_, St. Petersburg.

[349] Since the discovery and decipherment of the Orkon inscriptions it may be regarded as certain that the form _Khitan_, or _Kidan_, is but the Chinese transcription of the word _Kitai_, which is the name of a people, most probably of Manchurian origin, who, as is well known, ruled over Northern China during the tenth, eleventh, and twelfth centuries. It was borrowed by some of the tribes inhabiting those parts. Cf. note on p. 106 of vol. x. of Baron Rosen’s _Zapiski_, article by M. Barthold.

[350] Precisely the same thing occurred in the case of the Yué-Chi and the Kushans.

[351] This admirable summary is taken from S. Lane-Poole’s _Catalogue of Oriental Coins in the British Museum_, vol. vi. (also reprinted in his _Mohammedan Dynasties_, pp. 201, 202). It is a condensation of what may be read in great detail in Howorth’s _Mongols_, vol. i. pp. 27–50. Cf. also De Guignes, vol. iv. p. 1 _et seq._; and d’Ohsson, vol. i. chaps. i. and ii.

[352] For information with regard to this name, cf. d’Ohsson, _op. cit._ vol. i. pp 36, 37, note.

[353] Thus according to the Chinese authorities. The Mohammedan historians give the date of his birth as A.H. 550 (1155).

[354] The above remarks on the Mongols have been translated from an article in Russian by M. Barthold in Baron Rosen’s _Zapiski_, vol. x. (St. Petersburg, 1897) pp. 107–8.

[355] Rashīd ud-Dīn, _Jāmi`-ut-Tawārikh_, Berezine’s ed. i. 89.

[356] The Chinese and Persian authorities are here again at variance.

[357] They had been converted to Christianity by the Nestorians at the beginning of the eleventh century. See very interesting note in d’Ohsson, _op. cit._ i. p. 48. This Toghrul received the title of Oang, or King, and called himself Oang-Khān. The similarity of this in sound to the name _Johan_, or Johannes (John), led to the fabulous personage so familiar in Marco Polo and other travellers, as Prester John. Cf. Yule’s _Cathay_ and _Marco Polo_, _passim_.

[358] Cf. d’Ohsson, i. p. 47.

[359] Cf. S. Lane-Poole, _loc. cit._

[360] The exact date is uncertain.

[361] This word may be read either _Kuriltāy_ or _Kurultāy_. Cf. Pavet de Courteille, _Dictionnaire Turk-Oriental_, p. 429.

[362] Cf. d’Ohsson, i. 86.

[363] _Ibid._ p. 89.

[364] Cf. Howorth, _J.R.A.S._, New Series VIII. p. 283.

[365] The above facts are from the _Jahān-Kushāy_. Cf. Bretschneider, _op. cit._ i. 230, 231; the _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, p. 289; and d’Ohsson, _op. cit._ i. 166 _et seq._

[366] Cf. d’Ohsson, i. 170 _et seq._; Bretschneider, _op. cit._ i. 231.

[367] This occupied him between the years 1210 and 1214.

[368] S. Lane-Poole, _loc. cit._ See also Gibbon’s 64th chapter.

[369] Cf. Bretschneider, _loc. cit._; and on the subject of the religious tolerance of Chingiz, Gibbon, chap. lxiv.

[370] Cf. d’Ohsson, i. 204.

[371] He had put his former ally `Othman to death in A.H. 607 (1210). See d’Ohsson, i. 183.

[372] Abū-l-Ghāzi, ed. Desmaisons, p. 99.

[373] Abū-l-Ghāzi, ed. Desmaisons, p. 100.

[374] Abū-l-Ghāzi, _loc. cit._

[375] Abū-l-Ghāzi, pp. 101–103 of Desmaison’s text.

[376] The route he took was Kazwīn, Gilān, and Māzenderān (_Tarikh-i-Mukīm Khānī_).

[377] He is said to have died a lunatic. The island in question has long since been swallowed up by the sea. Cf. _Tabakāt-i-Nāsiri_, Major Raverty’s trans., vol. i. p. 278, note.

[378] We refer the reader especially to Müller’s _Geschichte des Islams_, pp. 213–225.

[379] _Mohammedan Dynasties_, p. 204.

[380] The best account of this offshoot is to be found in an excellent paper entitled “The Chaghatai Mughals,” by W. E. E. Oliver, in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. xx. New Series, p. 72, sec. 9. It will be found in a condensed form in Ney Elias and Ross’s Introduction to the _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, or “History of the Mughals of Central Asia.”

[381] _Vide ante_ on p. 155.

[382] In the valley of the Upper Ili, near the site of the present Kulja.

[383] During the reign of Chaghatāy Khān a curious rising occurred in the province of Bokhārā. A half-witted sieve-maker, from a village near Bokhārā, managed by various impostures to gather round him a number of disciples from among the common people, and so numerous and powerful did they become that in 630 (1232) they drove the Chaghatāy government out of the country, and, assuming the government of Bokhārā, proceeded to put to death many of its most distinguished citizens. They at first successfully repulsed the Mongol forces sent against them, but were finally vanquished, and order was again restored in Bokhārā. For this episode consult Vambéry, _op. cit._ p. 143 _et seq._; Major Price’s _Mohammedan History_, iii. 2.

[384] _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, Introduction, p. 32.

[385] Chaghatāy is said to have died from grief at his brother’s death (_Habīb-us-Siyar_).

[386] For historical data we have already referred the reader to Mr. Oliver’s paper and Vambéry’s _Bokhara_. S. Lane-Poole, in his _Mohammedan Dynasties_, gives a list of twenty-six Khāns of this house who ruled in Central Asia from A.H. 624 to 771 (A.D. 1227 to 1358), _i.e._ 140 years. The _Zafar-Nāmé_ of Nizām Shāmī (see note below, p. 168) gives a list of thirty-one Khāns of this line.

[387] Cf. Müller’s _Geschichte des Islams_, ii. p. 217.

[388] In A.H. 671 (1273) Bokhārā was sacked by the Mongols of Persia (Müller, _op. cit._ ii. p. 260).

[389] _Bokhara_, pp. 159–60.

[390] This Khānate embraced the present Zungaria and the greater part of Eastern and Western Turkestān; but the exact meaning of this geographical term is still undetermined. The subject has been fully discussed in the _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_ (_passim_). Cf. also Bretschneider, _op. cit._ ii. 225 _et seq._

[391] See _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, Introduction, p. 37.

[392] The Calcutta text of the _Zafar-Nāmé_ of Sheref ud-Dīn `Alī Yazdī, the famous biographer of Tīmūr, reads throughout _Karān_. S. Lane-Poole, _op. cit._, gives the date of his accession as 744 (A.D. 1343),--upon what authority it is not clear. Price (following the _Khulāsat ul-Akhbār_) is in agreement with the _Zafar-Nāmé_. We are, moreover, expressly told that he ruled fourteen years, and died in 747.

[393] _Zafar-Nāmé_ (ed. Calcutta), i. p. 27.

[394] This took place in the plains round the village of _Dara-Zangi_ (_Zafar-Nāmé_, ii. p. 28).

[395] The third son of Chingiz, who had inherited the kingdom of Mongolia proper.

[396] _Zafar-Nāmé_ (ed. Calcutta) reads Dānishmand Oghlān.

[397] Perhaps a corruption of the older form _Berūlās_.

[398] The modern Shahr-i-Sabz.

[399] Sheref ud-Dīn affirms that his love of wine was so inveterate that he was not sober for a week in the whole year (_Zafar-Nāmé_ (Calcutta edition), i. p. 41).

[400] He was born in A.H. 730. In 748 he became Khān of Jatah; in 754 he was converted to Islām; in 764 he died. His history, and the story of his conversion, is told at some length in the _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, pp. 5–23.

[401] Our readers will have traced for themselves the parallel afforded by France, exhausted by the horrors of the Revolution at the outset of Napoleon’s career.

[402] The sources for the biography of Tīmūr are plentiful. The best known, both in the East and in Europe, is the _Zafar-Nāmé_, by Sheref ud-Dīn `Alī, of Yezd. This was completed in 1424 by the order of Ibrāhīm, the son of Shāh Rukh, the son of Tīmūr. It was first translated into French in 1722 by M. Petis de la Croix, whose work was in turn englished shortly afterwards. It is this history that has served as a basis for all European historians, Gibbon included. There is, however, an older biography of Tīmūr, which, owing to its scarcity, is very little known. The only MS. in Europe is in the British Museum. It, too, bears the title of _Zafar-Nāmé_, or _Book of Victory_. It was compiled at Tīmūr’s own order by a certain Nizām Shāmī, and is brought down to A.H. 806, _i.e._ one year before Tīmūr’s death. The MS. itself bears the date of A.H. 838 (1434). Owing to the vast interest attaching to such a contemporary account, Professor Denison Ross has undertaken to prepare an edition of the text for the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences.

[403] He had gained the sobriquet “Leng” from a wound which caused him to halt through life, inflicted during the siege of Sīstān (Wolff, _Bokhara_, p. 243).

[404] For example, the names Jalā´ir, Berūlās, and Seldūz are those of well-known Turkish tribes.

[405] According to the _Zafar-Nāmé_ of Sheref ud-Dīn `Alī Yazdi, and other historians who follow him, Hāji Birlās was the uncle of Tīmūr. The _Zafar-Nāmé_ of Nizām Shāmī, however, states that he was Tīmūr’s brother.

[406] He was at this period about twenty-seven years of age, and had served with some distinction under Amīr Kazghan (Wolff, _Bokhara_, p. 245).

[407] We refer the reader to Gibbon’s 65th chapter for a striking account of Tīmūr’s wanderings in the desert, and to Petis de la Croix’s translation of the _Zafar-Nāmé_ for Tīmūr’s thrilling adventures with his friend Amīr Husayn.

[408] _Bokhara_, p. 244.

[409] The famous order of dervishes called _Nakshabandi_ was founded in Tīmūr’s reign by a certain Khwāja Bahā ud-Dīn, who died in A.H. 791 (1388). The three saints held in reverence by the dervishes next after him are Khwāja Ahrār (whose mausoleum is to be seen a few miles outside Samarkand), Ishān Mahzūm Kāshāni, and Sūfi Allah Yār. It is a group of members of this mendicant brotherhood which forms the subject of the frontispiece to this work by M. Verestchagin. There are two other sects of dervishes in Samarkand--(1) the _Kādiriyya_, whose founder was `Abd el-Kādiri Gīlāni, and (2) the _Alf Tsāni_, an order whereof the founder seems to be unknown, and which is sparsely represented.

[410] “He was of great stature, of an extraordinary large head, open forehead, of a beautiful red and white complexion, and with long hair--white from his birth, like Zal, the renowned hero of Persian history. In his ears he wore two diamonds of great value. He was of a serious and gloomy expression of countenance; an enemy to every kind of joke or jest, but especially to falsehood, which he hated to such a degree that he preferred a disagreeable truth to an agreeable lie,--in this respect far different from the character of Alexander, who put to death Clitus, his friend and companion in arms, as well as the philosopher Callisthenes, for uttering disagreeable truths to him. Tīmūr never relinquished his purpose or countermanded his order; never regretted the past, nor rejoiced in the anticipation of the future; he neither loved poets nor buffoons, but physicians, astronomers, and lawyers, whom he frequently desired to carry on discussions in his presence; but most particularly he loved those dervishes whose fame of sanctity paved his way to victory by their blessing. His most darling books were histories of wars and biographies of warriors and other celebrated men. His learning was confined to the knowledge of reading and writing, but he had such a retentive memory that whatever he read or heard once he never forgot. He was only acquainted with three languages--the Turkish, Persian, and Mongolian. The Arabic was foreign to him. He preferred the Tora of Chingiz Khān to the Koran, so that the Ulemas found it necessary to issue a Fetwa by which they declared those to be infidels who preferred human laws to the divine. He completed Chingiz Khān’s Tora by his own code, called Tuzukat, which comprised the degrees and ranks of his officers. Without the philosophy of Antonius or the pedantry of Constantine, his laws exhibit a deep knowledge of military art and political science. Such principles were imitated successfully by his successors, Shāh Baber and the great Shāh Akbar, in Hindustān. The power of his civil as well as military government consisted in a deep knowledge of other countries, which he acquired by his interviews with travellers and dervishes, so that he was fully acquainted with all the plans, manœuvres, and political movements of foreign courts and armies. He himself despatched travellers to various parts, who were ordered to lay before him the maps and descriptions of other foreign countries” (Wolff’s _Bokhara_, p. 243).

[411] Shāh Rukh was Tīmūr’s favourite son. He derived his name, which means “King and Castle,” from a well-known move in chess, which royal game was one of Tīmūr’s few amusements (Wolff’s _Bokhara_, p. 244).

[412] Cf. Price’s _Mohammedan History_, iii. 492, quoting the _Khulāsat-ul-Akhbār_. As a fact, Pīr Mohammad only obtained the government of Balkh, and was murdered in Kandahār in A.H. 809 (1406). Cf. De Guignes, v. 79.

[413] Cf. De Guignes, v. 81.

[414] De Guignes, v. 81. Khalīl spent some years in Moghūlistan, but, unable to bear a longer separation from Shād Mulk, joined her in Herāt. Shāh Rukh gave him the government of Khorāsān, and he died the same year (A.H. 812).

[415] His astronomical tables are amongst the most accurate and complete that come down to us from Eastern sources. They treat of the measurement of time, the course of the planets, and of the position of fixed stars. The best editions are those printed in Latin in 1642–48 by an Oxford professor named Greaves, and reprinted in 1767. The remains of his celebrated observatory still crown the hill known as Chupān Ata in an eastern suburb of Samarkand.

[416] Shāh Rukh’s authority, to judge by the coins which have come down to us, extended nearly as far as his more celebrated father’s. We have his superscription on the issues of mints as widely distant as Shīrāz, Kaswīn, Sabzawār, Herāt, Kum, Shuster, and Astarābād.

[417] Vambéry’s _Bokhara_, p. 223.

[418] _Ibid._ p. 244.

[419] The young prince was born in 1483, the son of `Omar Shaykh Mīrzā, whom he succeeded in the sovereignty of the eastern portion of Tīmūr’s dominions. His conquest of India, and foundation of the Moghul dynasty of Delhi, do not come within the scope of this work. He was equally great in war, administration, and literature: perhaps the most remarkable figure of his age.

[420] A.H. 903 (1497).

[421] An excellent table, showing the ramifications of the Tīmūrides, will be found in vol. vii. of the _Mohammedan Coins of the British Museum_.

[422] In the case of possessive pronouns and verbal inflexions, for example, we find direct and obvious imitations of the Turkish grammar.

[423] The “Great Caan” of Marco Polo.

[424] Cf. Bretschneider, _op. cit._ ii. pp. 139, 140.

[425] Cf. Bretschneider, _loc. cit._

[426] _Idem._ Tūkā Tīmūr, from whom sprang the Khāns of the Crimea, was the youngest son of Jūjī. Cf. Lane-Poole’s _Mohammedan Dynasties_, p. 233. Tokhtamish, the inveterate foe of Tamerlane, belonged to the Crimean branch of the Khāns of Dasht-i-Kipchāk. The Khānate of Kazan was founded in 1439, on the remains of the Bulgarian Empire, by Ulugh Mohammed of the same line.

[427] Bretschneider, _loc. cit._

[428] There seems some confusion on this point; I have followed Veliaminof-Zernof, but Bretschneider does not call this movement a migration of Uzbegs but a flight of the White Horde, whom he says were expelled from their original seats by Abū-l-Khayr. Cf. _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, p. 82.

[429] The results of M. Veliaminof-Zernof’s careful researches into the history of the Kazāks were published in three volumes of the _Memoirs of the Eastern Branch of St. Petersburg Archæological Society_, under the title of _The Emperors and Princes of the Line of Kasim_. He called this dynasty the _Kasimovski_, after Kāsim Khān, the son of Jānībeg. Cf. also Levshin’s _Description of the Hordes and Steppes of the Kirghiz-Kazaks_, St. Petersburg, 1864. Mīrzā Haydar says: “The Kazāk Sultans began to reign in A.H. 870 (1465), and continued to enjoy absolute power in the greater part of Uzbegistān till the year A.H. 940” (1533). See _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, p. 82.

[430] _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, pp. 82 and 92.

[431] Thus according to both the _Tārikh-i-Tīmūrī_ and the _Tārīkh-i-Abū-l-Khayr_, quoted by Howorth, _op. cit._ ii. 695.

[432] There is in the British Museum a silver coin of Shaybānī Khān, dated A.H. 910: Merv.

[433] An account of this campaign will be found in the _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, p. 243 _et seq._ The account of the Emperor Bāber’s doings at this period are all the more interesting and valuable from the fact that in the famous _Memoirs of Baber_ a break occurs from the year 1508 to the beginning of the year 1519; though an account is also given in the _Tārīkh-i-Ālam-Ārāy_ of Mirza Sikandar, which was used by Erskine in his _History of India_.

[434] _Lubb ut-Tawārīkh_, book III. pt. iii. chap. vi.

[435] Cf. Veliaminof-Zernof, _op. cit._ p. 247.

[436] _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, p. 245.

[437] Cf. _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, p. 259. Cf. also Veliaminof-Zernof (p. 353), who bases his statements on the _`Abdullah Nāmé_ of Hāfiz ibn Tānish. Copies of this valuable work are very scarce. Its scope and contents have been described (from a copy in the Imperial Academy in St. Petersburg) by M. Veliaminof-Zernof. See _Mélanges Asiatiques de St. Petersburg_, vol. iii. p. 258 _et seq._

[438] “The Seven Wells.” V.-Zernof reads Yati Kurūk, which might mean “the Seven Walls.” The former reading seems more probable.

[439] On the locality of this place, cf. Vambéry’s _Bokhara_, p. 257.

[440] Cf. _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, p. 260.

[441] Probably to be identified with Panjakand, in the Zarafshān valley, forty miles east of Samarkand.

[442] Some distance north of Bokhārā.

[443] Cf. _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, p. 261. Howorth (ii. 713) says `Ubaydullah was in this fort.

[444] Mirza Haydar does hesitate to speak thus of the fortunes of his own cousin Bāber, who had in his opinion sold himself to the heretic Persians.

[445] As Grigorieff suggested, the name Abū-l-Khayride would fit this dynasty far better than that of Shaybānide.

[446] “Bokharan and Khivan Coins,” a monograph published in the _Memoirs of the Eastern Branch of the Russian Archæological Society_, vol. iv., St. Petersburg, 1859. This excellent and original monograph is extensively laid under contribution in the present chapter, as it was also by Sir H. Howorth in his chapter on the Shaybānides, pt. ii. div. ii. chap. ix.

[447] See note, p. 190.

[448] The _Tazkira Mukīm Khānī_, being a history of the appanage of Bokhārā, makes no mention of Kuchunji, or Abū Sa`īd, who ruled in Samarkand, though they both attained the position of Khākān. Cf. _Histoire de la Grande Bokharie, par Mouhamed Joussouf el-Munshi_, etc., par Senkovsky, St. Petersburg, 1824.

[449] Their names were--Abū Sa`īd, `Ubaydullah, `Abdullah I., `Abd ul-Latīf, Nawrūz Ahmed, Pīr Mohammad, and Iskandar. All are described at some length by Vambéry and Howorth, the latter basing his account on a great variety of authorities.

[450] P. 284 _et seq._

[451] _Cat. Coins Brit. Mus._ vii.

[452] Cf. Howorth, ii. 876.

[453] Khwārazm had never properly belonged to Chaghatāy’s territories in Transoxiana, and accordingly it is a common mint name on coinage of the Golden Horde (_Cat. Orient. Coins Brit. Mus._ vii. p. 26).

[454] _Vide ante_, p. 169.

[455] His genealogy is very doubtful; but, according to the best authorities, his ancestor was Jūjī Khān, one of the mighty conqueror’s sons, who had predeceased him (note at p. 304 of Vambéry’s _History of Bokhara_). Cf. Howorth’s _Mongols_, part ii. p. 744.

[456] Vambéry relates that when, in the great mosque of Bokhārā, the public prayers were read for the first time for the new ruler, the whole congregation burst into sobs and bitter tears (_History of Bokhara_, p. 319).

[457] Vambéry, p. 323.

[458] This prince was famed throughout the East for his love of letters. He was a poet of no mean skill, and an adept at prose composition. His end was untimely. Enticed to give a private interview to some of his brother Subhān Kulī Khān’s party, he was foully murdered by them (Vambéry, P. 323).

[459] Vambéry tells us that he was a man of amazing corpulence; and one of his historians avers that a child four years old could find accommodation in one of his boots! (_History of Bokhara_, p. 325).

[460] Vambéry, _History of Bokhara_, p. 333.

[461] _History of Bokhara_, p. 339.

[462] Page 95, _History of Central Asia_, by `Abd ul-Kerīm Bokhārī; translated into French by Charles Schefer, Paris, 1876.

[463] This throne was “so called from its having the figures of two peacocks standing behind it, their tails being expanded, and the whole so inlaid with sapphires, rubies, emeralds, pearls, and other precious stones of appropriate colours as to represent life. The throne itself was six feet long by four broad; it stood on six massive feet, which, with the body, were of solid gold, inlaid with rubies, emeralds, and diamonds. It was surmounted by a canopy of gold supported by twelve pillars, all richly emblazoned with costly gems, and a fringe of pearls ornamented the borders of the canopy. Between the two peacocks stood the figure of a parrot of the ordinary size, said to have been carved out of a single emerald. On either side of the throne stood an umbrella, one of the Oriental emblems of royalty. They were formed of crimson velvet, richly embroidered and fringed with pearls. The handles were eight feet high, of solid gold and studded with diamonds. The cost of this superb work of art has been variously stated at sums varying from one to six millions sterling. It was planned and executed under the supervision of Austin de Bordeaux, already mentioned as the artist who executed the Mosaic work in the Ám Khás” (Beresford’s _Delhi_, quoted by Mr. H. G. Keene at p. 20 of the third edition of his _Handbook for Visitors to Delhi_, Calcutta, 1876). Tavernier, who was himself a jeweller, and visited India in 1665, valued this piece of extravagance at two hundred million of livres, £8,000,000; Jonas Hanway estimated it as worth, with nine other thrones, £11,250,000 (_Travels_, ii. 383). It stood on a white marble plinth, on which are still to be deciphered the world-renowned motto in flowing Persian characters: “If there be a paradise on earth, it is even this, even this, even this.”

_Agar Fardawsi ba ruyi zamīn ast:
Hamīn ast, hamīn ast, hamīn ast._

[464] `Abd ul-Kerīm Bokhārī, p. 106.

[465] Vambéry gives the date of this _coup d’état_ as 1737 (p. 343); but `Abd ul-Kerīm Bokhārī makes it follow the assassination of Nādir Shāh, the epoch of which is not open to question (p. 110). The dates of events of the eighteenth century in Bokhārā are strangely uncertain, contemporary chroniclers rarely deigning to aid posterity by recording them.

[466] “Bi” is an Uzbeg word meaning “judge.” It is not spelt “bai,” nor does it mean “superior grey-beard,” as M. Vambéry supposes (_History of Bokhara_, p. 347).

[467] There are many versions of the death of `Abd ul-Mū`min. The most probable is that related by `Abd ul-Kerīm of Bokhārā, at p. 115, which is to the effect that Rahīm Bi had the young prince taken by his own followers on a pleasure-party, and then pushed into a well while he was dreamily peering into its depths.

[468] This is the highest degree in the Bokhārān official hierarchy (see Khanikoff’s _Bokhara: its Amir and People_, p. 239; Meyendorff’s _Voyage à Bokhara_, p. 259).

[469] Note at p. 120 of Schefer’s edition of `Abd ul-Kerīm Chronicles.

[470] See note at p. 135, _ibid._ The editor corrects an obvious _lapsus calami_,--A.H. 1148 for 1184.

[471] With characteristic Pharisaism, `Abd ul-Kerīm tells us that “fear and terror fell upon Ma´sūm’s brethren, even as they had possessed the brethren of Joseph. He set himself to repress their iniquities, and had their accomplices in crime put to death. He suppressed prostitution, and tolerated no disorders condemned by law. Bokhārā became the image of Paradise!” (p. 125).

[472] `Abd ul-Kerīm, p. 132.

[473] His mother belonged to the noble Salor tribe, _ibid._

[474] `Abd ul-Kerīm, p. 137. For descriptions of ancient Merv the reader is referred to vol. v. _Dictionnaire géographique de la Perse_, by C. Barbier de Meynard, p. 526; Burnes’ _Travels into Bokhara_, London, 1834; Khanikoff’s _Mémoire sur la partie Méridionale de l’Asie Centrale_, pp. 53, 57, 113, and 128; and Prof. Shukovski’s exhaustive work referred to on p. 144--note 3, _supra_.

[475] `Abd ul-Kerīm assures us that this prince was the Plato of the century, a man full of wisdom and knowledge (p. 135).

[476] `Abd ul-Kerīm tells us that the number of families then deported was 17,000, which would give a total of about 85,000 individuals (p. 142).

[477] Vambéry, _History of Bokhara_, p. 354.

[478] `Abd ul-Kerīm (p. 151) gives the date as Friday, 14th Rajab A.H. 1214. Vambéry is apparently in error in placing it as 1802 (p. 360).

[479] P. 151.

[480] See Meyendorff’s _Voyage d’Orenbourg à Boukhara en 1820_, p. 281; _Bokhara: its Amir and People_, by Khanikoff, p. 248; Vambéry, _History of Bokhara_, p. 360.

[481] Amīr Haydar was the first of the present dynasty to assume the title of Pādishāh.

[482] `Abd ul-Kerīm, pp. 154–156. Vambéry gives a different version (_History of Bokhara_, p. 462), but we prefer to follow the native chronicler, who held high diplomatic posts in Bokhārā at the commencement of the century, and may be presumed to have had personal knowledge of the events which he records (see M. Charles Schefer’s Introduction to his Chronicle, p. iii).

[483] `Abd ul-Kerīm, pp. 163, 164.

[484] “He always has four legitimate wives: when he wishes to espouse a new wife he divorces one of her predecessors, giving her a house and pension corresponding with her condition. Every month he receives a young virgin, either as wife or slave. He marries the slaves who have not given him children, either to priests or soldiers” (`Abd ul-Kerīm, p. 163).

[485] _History of Bokhara_, p. 365. A long chapter is devoted to Amīr Nasrullah by Sir H. Howorth. See his _History of the Mongols_, part ii. pp. 790–809.

[486] “General of artillery.”

[487] Khanikoff, _Bokhara_, p. 296.

[488] The Kushbegi was vehemently suspected of removing him by poison (Khanikoff, p. 298).

[489] About four shillings.

[490] Khanikoff, p. 301.

[491] _1 Vambéry, p. 366._

[492] Wolff, _Bokhara_, p. 232.

[493] Khanikoff, _Bokhara_, p. 304.

[494] Wolff, _Bokhara_, p. 233.

[495] _Ibid._ p. 233.

[496] Wolff, p. 181.

[497] _Ibid._ p. 232.

[498] “Sed periit postquam cerdonibus esse timenduæs Cœperat” (Sat. IV. 153).

[499] Wolff, p. 248.

[500] Vambéry, p. 372.

[501] Khanikoff, p. 306; Wolff, p. 152, _et passim_.

[502] Vambéry, p. 373.

[503] Under `Abd us-Samad’s advice he had organised a corps of soldiers who were drilled and accoutred in the European fashion.

[504] Khanikoff, p. 313.

[505] _Ibid._ p. 314. Wolff adds that the unfortunate Khān’s pregnant wife was also butchered (_Bokhara_, p. 232).

[506] He published an interesting account of his wanderings in his _Travels into Bokhara, being an account of a Journey from India to Cabool, Tartary, and Persia in 1831–33_. London, 1834–39.

[507] Wolff, p. 176. It appears that he drew his sword on the court official charged with the duty of presenting him to His Majesty.

[508] “He delights to hear that people tremble at his name, and laughs with violence when he hears of their apprehensions” (Wolff, p. 233).

[509] The first regular Russian embassy to Bokhārā was that of M. Regni in 1820, which was described by Colonel Baron Meyendorff in his _Voyage d’Orenbourg à Boukhara_, Paris, 1826. The Russian reply to Burnes’ mission were those of Desmaison in 1834, and of Vitkovich in the following year (Vambéry, p. 380).

[510] The issue of our first attempt to meddle in the affairs of Afghanistān is too well known for recapitulation. The British forces left Kābul on January 1842 on their homeward march, and, out of 16,500 troops and camp followers, only one man lived to carry the news of disaster to Jalālābād. See Kaye’s _History of the War in Afghanistan_, 1851.

[511] Nasrullah was tormented by remorse to his dying day. He told the Shaykh ul-Islām of Bokhārā that “he had given himself a terrible wound by having killed Stoddart and Conolly.” And the chief-justice assured Wolff that the Amīr had more than once exclaimed, “The wounds of my heart, for having slain these English people, will never heal!” (Wolff’s _Bokhara_, pp. 176, 233). Even this black heart had one white spot. But we must not judge a bad man by the good he may do on impulse, nor a good one by the evil which alloys the finest nature.

[512] Wolff, _Bokhara_, p. 231. It is not exhaustive, for Vambéry (p. 389) mentions a poor Italian watchmaker named Giovanni Orlando as one of Nasrullah’s victims. Wolff’s work is disfigured by its author’s eccentricities, and is deficient in information of value as to the manners and economy of the country. But his courage and self-devotion are beyond all praise.

[513] Vambéry, p. 391. The date which he gives tentatively, 1840, is certainly wrong: had it occurred then, details would have appeared in the works of Wolff and Khanikoff. H. Moser, who twice visited Bokhārā during his reign, says that he lived in idleness till his father’s death, the date of which he inexplicably states to have been 1842 (_A Travers l’Asie Centrale_, p. 156).

[514] Vambéry, p. 391.

[515] H. Moser, p. 156.

[516] It was regarded in Central Asia as a bird of ill omen, and nicknamed _Kara-Kush_, “black bird” (Vambéry, p. 394).

[517] The Kipchāks are a race of Turkish origin, who, according to Howorth (_History of the Mongols_, part ii.), settled on the south-eastern Russian steppes, in the tenth and eleventh centuries. They afterwards split up into hordes, the “Golden” and the “Eastern,” but were united under Tīmūr’s great antagonist, Tokhtamish Khān. When his power was shattered the Kipchāks dispersed over Central Asia, and large numbers found their way to Kokand, then styled by its present name, Farghāna.

[518] Vambéry, p. 395.

[519] H. Moser, _A Travers l’Asie Centrale_, p. 156.

[520] Born at Pelusum in Egypt, A.D. 70, and flourished under M. Antoninus and Hadrian.

[521] Our authority here is Jornandes, more properly styled Jordanes, who lived at Byzantium under Justinian II. His work, _De Gothorum Origine et Rebus Gestis_, is to be found in Muratori’s _Rerum Italicarum Scriptores ab Anno 500 ad 1500_, 27 vols. folio.

[522] The Grand Dukes of Mecklenburg claim a Wendish origin, and are officially styled “Princes of the Wends.”

[523] Slav, originally Slovene or Slovane, was, according to Miklositch, _Vergleichende Grammatik den Slavischen Sprachen_ (Vienna, 1879), the tribal name of one of several Aryan clans, whose settlements stretched from the Arctic Ocean to the Ægæan Sea, from Kamskatka to the Elbe.

[524] “God” in Sanskrit is Bhagvan. Siva was the devoted wife of the demigod Rama, who is worshipped by Hindus with a fervour like that inspired by the Virgin Mary in Catholic lands.

[525] They were judges rather than jurymen of the British type. Their number was twelve, half of whom were chosen by the plaintiff and half by the defendant. See Stubbs’ _Constitutional History_, chap. xiii.

[526] Other writers give Cherson as the scene of this historic rite. Vladimir wears a halo in monkish legend, and is commonly styled the Saint, or the Great.

[527] According to Ujfalvy, the Mongols were leading a peaceful and patriarchal life round Lake Baikal in the second century before our era. Richthofen thinks that the primitive land of the Turks was not in the Altaï Mountains, as their legends would have it, but rather in the country below the Anan, the Lena, and the Seleuga (_Les Aryens_ (Paris, 1896), p. 25).

[528] Khwārazm, an old Persian word said to mean “eastwards,” comprises the embouchure of the Sir Daryā, and is now known as Khiva.

[529] “Horde” is derived from the Old Turkish _Urdu_, meaning encampment. Hence Urdu, the _lingua franca_ evolved in the progresses which the Mongolian emperors of India used to make yearly throughout the peninsula. The people of Samarkand still call the citadel _Urda_, “the encampment.”

[530] _A Historical Sketch of Russian Policy in Central Asia_, by Professor V. Grigorieff; Schuyler’s _Turkestan_, App. IV. vol. ii. p. 391.

[531] For further details consult Howorth’s _Mongols_, pt. ii. div. i. p. 507.

[532] _Russia in Central Asia_, by Hugo Stumm, pp. 2, 3; _En Asie Centrale_, by N. Ney, p. 203.

[533] The Cossacks have never been able to shake off the stigma imprinted by this dire necessity. They are still called “Man-eaters” in many parts of Central Asia.

[534] _En Asie Centrale_, by N. Ney, pp. 203–5.

[535] Stumm, p. 5.

[536] Tradition has it that the Khān retaliated by tearing in pieces a letter, subsequently received from Peter, and giving it to his children to play with (_Peter the Great_, by Oscar Browning, p. 323).