^ 5 JT?I 9515? Sr5Tt??iT WfJT^'V Lai Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration / MUSSOORIE nmf ^frT gFcf^TfTJT GANDHI SMIRITI LIBRARY m5tIT Accession No. / 5 J ^rrnrwr Class No. Book No. JIlML ASIATIC JBAPERS PART IV . Papers read before THE BOMBAY BRANCH OP the royal ASIATIC SOCIETY 1 BY Dr. JIVANJI JAMSHEDJI MODI, B, A. (Bombay University, 1877), Ph. D. (Honoris Causa, Heildelberg,. 1912), C.I.E. (1917) , Fellow of the University of Bombay (1887), Dipl. Litteris et Artibus (Sweden, 1889), Sham-ul-Ulama (Gdvt. of India, 1893), OflScier d’ Academic (Franco, 1898), Offioier de I’lnstnio- tion Publique (France, 1902), Honorary Correspondent of the Archseologiehl Department of the Government of India (1914), Campbell Medalist (B. B., Royal Asiatic Society, 1918), Fellow of the B. B., Royal Asiatic Society (1923), Honorary Member of tho Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona (1923), Chevalier,. Legion d’Honneur (France, 1925), Officier, Croix de Merit (Hungary, 1925). BOMBAY : TIMES OF INDIA PRESS 1929. To The Patron, Vice-Presidents, Fellows and Members of the Bombay Branch, Royal Asiatic Society, as a Souvenir of The 125 Years’ Anniversary of the Foundation of the Society and As* an humble mark of gratitude, for the intellec- tual pleasure, enjoyed in the company of its learned Members and its valuable books. JIVANJI JAMSHEDJl MODI, President, Bi Bi, R. Asiatic Society* V BY THE SAME AUTHOR. In English, The Parsees at the Court of Akbar and Dastur Meherji Rana (1903Jj Aiyadgar-i-Zariran, Shatroiha-i-Airam, va Afdya va Sahigiya-Seistaii,i.e.» the Memoir of Zarir, Cities of Iran and the Wonders and Marvels of Seistan, (Pahlavi Translations, Part 1, Texts in Gujerati character, with English and Gujerati translations and notes) 1899. Jamaspi (Pahlavi Translations, Part III, Pahlavi, Pazend and Persian Texts with translations) 1903. Asiatic Papers, Part I (1905). Asiatic Papers, Part II (1917). Asiatic Papers, Part HI (1927). Anthropological Papers, Pari 1 (1911). Anthropological Papers, Part II ( 1918). Anthropological Papers, Part III (1924). Anthropological Papers, Part IV ( 1928). Masonic Papers (1913). Dante Papers (1914). Memorial Papers ( 1922). Anquetil Du Perron and Dastur Darab (1916). ^oral Extracts from Zoroastriau Books (1914). A Few Events in the Early History of the Parsees and their Dates ( 1905) A Glimpse into the work of the Bombay Branch, Royal Asiatic Society, during the last 100 years from a Parsee point of view. ( 1905). A Glimpse into the History and Work of the Zorthoshti Dinni Khol Kamwi 4Iandli (1922). fiducation among the Ancient Iranians ( 1905). Cama Oriental Institute Papers (1928). The Persian Farziat nameh and Kholaseh-i-Din of Dastur Darab Pahlan, Text and English version, with Notes ( 1924). Dastur Bahman Kekobad and the Kisseh-i-Sanjan (1917). ^ligious Ceremonies and Customs of the Parsees ( 1922). The Religious System of the Parsees ( 1885). A Catechism of the Zoroastrian Religion (1911). The Naojote Ceremony of the Parsees (1914). The Marriage Ceremony of the Parsees. The Funeral Ceremonies of the Parsees ( 1892). Marriage Customs among the Parsees, their comparison with similar Customs of other Nations ( 1900). Symbolism in the Marriage Ceremonies of different Nations (1909). Les Impressions d’um Parsi sur la Ville de Paris. La Visite d’um Parsi a la Ville de Constantinople. La Ceremonie du Naojote parmi les Parsis. VI GUJARATI. (Meteorology), 1^83. (Jamshed, Horn and Fire), 1884. cvHM.'-rtl (The Social Life, Geography and Articles of Faith of Avesta times), 1887. (AnahitaandFarohar), 1887. (Immortality of the Soul), 1889. (Mithra and the Feast of Mithras), 1889. Cw^ .( A Dictionary of Avestic Proper Names), 1802. AmI (nnhi, Wi (Iranian Essays, Part I), 1894. tAlJl <'HPl (Iranian Essays, Part II), 1900. (Iranian Essays, Part III), 1902. ^iaK»>r (A Sermon on Death), 1893. < (Shah-nameh upto the reign of MinochcluT), 1001. (Shah-nameh and Firdausi), 1897. (Itustam-nameh), 1917. n^hi, oiin (Lectures before the Dnyan Prasarak Society, Part I ), ISOS. cHPl (Lectures before the Dnj'un Prasarak Society. Part II), lOOh. (Hin hI« 1( Lectures before the Dnyan Prasarak Society . Part 111), 1017. ^ • • (h' 4^1, rni^i (Lectures before the Dnyan Prasarak Society, Part l\'), 1020. hh (Zoroastrian Catechism), 1909. (History of the Zoroastrian Religion), 1910. HhhI ?fiMl jMiSii (Zoroastrian Rites and Ceremonies), 1911* Uh<( 1 (Zoroastrian Morals and Virtues), igh.^ (HW M\{il (Ancient History of Iran, Part f). H*lden Throne . . 2. A rich Crown 3. The Horse Shab-diz. . . 4. Shirin 5. The Treasure known as Bidward 6. Khusru’s Valuable Stable * 7. Possession of 1,000 Elephants. . 8. Khusru’s Maid- servants . . . . * . . 9. A stable of 12,000 camels 10. A Towel of Malleable Gold Two distinguished Musicians at his Court . . • 12. A Rich Carpet . . Firdausi’s Account of Carpet . . 13. A Set of 9 Seals 14. The Palace of Khusru at Madayan . . Gibbon and Malcolm on the Riches of Khusru J5. The Palace of Khusru at Mashita ^ 16. Conquest of Egypt 17. Conquest of Chalcedon 18. Conquest of Jerusalem The Arab Prophet Prophecy in connection witi of Jerusalem in. — A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir Introduction . . i . th the capture Inscriptions on the Mosque of Shah Hamadan Shah Hamadan The Masjid . . ... CONTENTS The Outside Inscriptions of the Masjid The Inside Inscription . . (а) The Names of God inserted on the Meherab . . (б) The Persian inscription proper over the Meherab The Inscription on the entrance to the Masjid The Inscription on the Masjid publishing a farman of Shah Jaiian . . A list of amendations in Loewenthal’s reading The Date of the Farman Tlic Tnscrijdion on a Well at Jame Masjid . . An Inscription at Hazrat Bal The Shrine of Hazrat J^al An fnsoi i|)tion on the Ziyarat Gah of Shah Makliduin Shah Maklidum and a Rain ceremony connected with his name . . IV.— The Story of Alexander the Great and the Poison-Damsel of India. A Trace of it in Firdousi’s Shah Nameh. . Introduction .. .. .. .. Wliat is a L*oison- Damsel The Story of Alexander and the Poison-Damsel The Soui'ce or Sources of the Pseudo- Aristotelean Work, the Secr(‘tum Secretorum . . Tlie Paldavi Origin of some Indian stories migrating to the \\ est A b\‘\v |)oints collected from various versions . . . . ' Firdousi's Wusion of the Story Points of Similarity between the Western Story and Fir- dousi's Story . . Ma(;oudi's Reference to Four Rare Things, abd, among them to a Maiden V . — A Note on two Chalukya plates found at Dhamadachchha in the Naosari District (referred to in the “Progress Report of the Arclwological Survey of India, Western Circle,” for the year ending 81st March 1918, Part II. A, Epigraphy j)p. 8.>8(i) VI -^RusUm Manock (1635-1721 A. C.) the Broker of the English East India Company^ and the Persian Qisseh (History) of Rustam Manock. A Study I Introduction II. PAGE 48 49 50 50 55 60 60 64 67 70 70 72 72 75 75 75 '37 79 80 • 83 80 91 02 94 101 101 THE DCX^UMENTS . . 102 CONTENTS XI PAGE Substance of the Directors’ Letter of 19th August 1723 to the President and Council of Bombay . . . . . . Substance of the Award of the Arbitrators . . . . 105 Substance of the 3rd Document . . . . . . ^ . 10 7 Substance of the 4th Document . . . . . . . . 107 . The Story of the Documents in brief, . , . . . . . 108 III EARLY ENGLISH TRADE AND THE EAST INDIA COMPANY 109 The Advent of the English in India , . . . . . . . 109 FIRST ENGLISH EMBASSY AT THE MOGUL’S COURT. Ill The first Factory at Surat in 1612 . . . . . . . . 112 English trade at Surat .. .. .. .. .. 112 , The East India Companies .. .. .. .. .. 115 A few Dates about the Advent of Europeans, and among them, of the English to India . . „ . . . . . . • 117 IV THE QISSEH-I-RUSTAM MANOCK 120 The Author of the Qisseh The Mss. of the Qisseh SUMMARY OF THE QISSEH Introduction « Praise and charity of Rustam. . Relieving Parsees from the burden of the Jaziya . . Relieving the ix)or of other communities fi om the burden of Jaziyeh, c. 134 seq. Shivaji’s sack Surat, c. 169 et seq. Shivaji and Afrasiab The Account of Rustam Manock’s Charities Anquetil Du Perron’s reference to Rustam’s Garden Rustam and his Three Sons . . Rustam’s first interview with the English. His appoint- ment as a broker. His finding a house for them The Visit of Rustam Manock in the Company of the English Factory to the Court of Aurangzeb Rustam’s visit of Dandeh Rajpore, Damaun and Navsari and return to Surat . . Release of the ship of Osman Chalibi from the hands of the Portuguese, c. 432 seq, Historical Events treated in the Qisseh 124 124 124 I2t 126 127 12£ I2i 13] 135 13: I3i 13( 13 14 CONTENTS xii PAGE VI AN A(XOUNT OF THE LIFE OF RUSTAM MANOCK 141 Birth and Family 141 Signification of the word Seth . . . . . . . . 142 Hi8 Family Stock 142 Original ancestral home at Naosari . . . . . . . . 143 His Navarhood • • . . 144 Rustam Manock, signatory of a communal document . . 144 The Qi88c*h’s Reference to Rustam Manock building wells for public use, c. 279 . . . . . . . . . . 145 Rustompura in Surat founded by Rustam Manock . . 146 His Building referred to in the Qisseh, as given in charity. . 146 RusUin Manock’s name commemorated in the Dhup Nirang 146 A Dutch Record of 1681 . . . . . . . . . . 147 Some European Writers, who refer to Rustam Manock or ^ his sons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Sir John ( Jayer and his Council of Surat on Rustam Manock 149 Nicholas Waite on Rustam Manock .. .. .. 150 St. J. H. (irose (1750) on Rustam Manock . . . . . . 150 Anquetil Du Perron (1761) on Rustam Manock . . . . 151 His family, c. 299 .segf. . . .. .. .. .. .. 152 Tin* visit of Nowroji, the son of Rustam Manock to England referretl to in an old record of the Parsee Punchayet . . 153 Some Im|)ortant Events of Rustam’s Life with Dates . . 153 VII ' ' THE HISTORICAL EVENTS MENTIONED IN THE QISSEH 165 The Jaziyeh irnix^sed by Aurangzeb . . .. .. .. 165 Aurangzeh. His Pelief, Bigotry and other Characteristics 156 The Early Life of Aurangzeb . . . . . . . . . . 166 His Religious Life . . . . . . . . . , . . 157 His Bigotry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lt;9 His Dislike of Music and Wine . . . . . . . . 160 Aurangzeb’s Bigotry and the Iranian Magi’s Naoroz . . 161 Aurangzeb's Contrarities in Life . . . . . . . . 161 The Jaziyeh, The Date and the Rate of the Imposition of the Tax . . . . . . . . 162 What is Jaziyeh. The humiliating way in which it had to be jwid, cc. 109-169 .. .. .. .. .. 162 Aurangzib re- imposed what Akbar had abolished . , . . 163 Robert Orme on the Jaziyeh 163 Its three classes for assessment . . . . , . . . 164 CONTENTS xiii PAGE Shivaji’s letter protesting against the Jaziyeh . . . . 164 Jaziyeh alienated the Rajputs and helped the Mahrathas of Shivaji . . . . . . . . . . . ^ • • 167 Dr. John Fryer on the Jaziyeh over .ihe Parsees . . . . 168 Aurangzib inexorable in the collection of Jaziyeh , , . , 168 Niccolas Manucci on Aurangzib’s inexorableness about this tax . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • 169 Tod on the Jaziyeh . . . . . . . . . . • . 170 Evidence from the English Factory Reports about the Persecution of Aurangzib . . . . . . . . . . 171 The Date of the Imposition of the Jaziyeh . . . . . . 172 Rate of the Tax . . . • . . . . . . . . 174 Nusserwanji who was deputed to pay the Jaziyeh . . 176 The Sad-dar on the Jaziyeh, ce. 162-165 . . . . . . 176 Translation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 The Jaziyeh in Persia . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 VIII SHIVAjrS SACK OF SURAT 179 The Account of the Qisseh about Shivaji’s Sack of Surat. . 179 Surat at the time of Shivaji’s Sack . . . . , . . . 181 Shivaji. His ancestry. Supposed Relationship with ancient Persia . . . . . ^ . . . . . . 184 Shivaji, before the Sack of Surat . . . . . . . . 185 Shivaji spoken of as ghani in the Qisseh . . 188 Shivaji and the English ,7 . . . . . . . . 189 Two Sacks of Surat by Shivaji . . . . . . . . 189 The first Sack of Surat in 1664 . . . . . . . . 190 Shivaji’s second Sack of Surat . . . . . . . . 193 Which of the two Sacks is referred to by our Qisseh . . 196 Shivaji’s zulmaneh , , . . . . . . . . . . 197 Where was Rustam Manock during the Sack ? . . . . 197 The two officers of Shivaji who accompanied him in the sack, c. 190-1 .. .. .. .. .. .. 199 Shivaji and Afrasiab. Rustam Manock and Agreras ; cc. 219-250 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 202 Shivaji’s Sack and the loss of Parsee Communal documents 202 A Note in an Old Dishapothi, about the death of a Parsee in the Sack of Shivaji • 203 IX RUSTAM MANQGK’S APPOINTMENT A§ OF THE ENGLISH. FACTORY ' ^ ^ 2^3 Rustam Manock’s first appointment as Broker . . , . 203- XIV CONTENTS PAGE Facts gathered from the qisseh about the English Ambassador’s Visit . . . . • • • • • • • • 204 Qisseh’s account rather vague . . . . . . . . 205 Kustam Manock, broker of the second Company, — the English East India Company — and not the first, the London blast India Company . . . . . . . . 207 Asad Khan in Aurangzib’s Court during Rustam’s Visit; c(;. :m :m 208 The C.'ity wlicre Rustam Manock saw Aurangzib . . . . 208 The unnamed Englishman of the Qisseh . . . . . . 209 The arrival of the Farman later on 209 Lates of Sir William Norris’s visit to India as English Ambassador .. .. .. .. .. .. 211 X Broc k’s A( ( ount of Rustam Manock*?^ visit of the Mogul C oruT IN THE Company of the English Ambassador AM) affairs after THE RETURN OF SiR WiLLIAM Norris’s Embassy . . .. .. .. .. .. 212 1. RUSTAM MANOCK’S VISIT OF THE MOGUL COURT WITH AN ENGLISH FACTOR .. .. .. .. 212 Sir Nicholas Waite as the First President of the New English (\)m|>bl GOLONV> Five more are published in this Volume. I also give in thif Volume “ A Note on two Chalukya Plates ”, found at Dhamadachchha in the Naosari District, communicated at first to the Superintendent of the Archaeological Department of Western India, on 7th June 1919. I give my best thanks to my learned friend Mr. Bomonji Nusserwanji Dhabhar, M.A., for kindly preparing the Index of this JVolume and for examining the proofs of the text of the Persian Qivsseh. I joined the Bombay Branch, Royal Asiatic Society, in 1888.. I was elected a member of its Managing Committee in 1899 and its Vice-President in 1907. The Society honoured me with its Fellowship in 1924. This year it has raised me to its honoured chair of Presidentship. I note here with pleasure what I said on taking, for the first time, the Presidential chair in August 1929 : — PREFACE “ I have presided a number of times at your meetings as your Vice-President, but this is the first time that I preside as your President. I beg to thank you heartily for calling me to the chair, occupied, from time to time, by distinguished scholars of Bombay, some of whom wore the Governors of the Bombay Presidency and Judges of the High Court. Thanks to God, I am honoured, ere this, by our and some foreign Governments in recognition of my humble liternry work in various directions. But, I value very much the honour of being called to the chair of the Presidentship of the Fourth ()ri(‘ntal Conference at Allahabad, where, there were, hundreds of my [ndian litcuary brethren, who gave an expression to their a[)preciation of my humble work. Here, in the present case, I value the honour, because it is gratifying to find one’s work valued an(r{ip])reciated by brethren, who have come into close contact, and who have worked, with me on the platform of this Society. It is a great pleasure to find one's work appreciated by one’s peers, one's co-workers. I pray to God, that He may enable me to be worthy of your regards and confidence and to be worthy of the Chair honoured by my distinguished predecessors.'’ It is a happy coincidence, that the year of my election to the Presidential chair is the year of the 125th Anniversary of the foundation of this Society. As a poor token of commemorating this event, and as an humble souvenir of my love and regard for this Society, 1 beg to associate this volume with the name of the Society and to dedicate it to its Patron, Vice-Presidents, Fellows and Members. This is the second time that I dedicate one of my works to this Society. My first dedication was in 1904 on rthe occasion of tlu' celebration of the Society’s Centenary, when I handed over a copy of the dedicated Volume, Asiatic Papers, Part I, into the hands of the then Patron, Lord Lamington. When I dedicate, after a quarter of a century, this volume— Asiatic Papers, Part IV — I simply repeat, with some verbal changes, what I said in the first dedicated volume : — “ I am very greatly indebted to the Society, especially to its excellent Library — excellent in its treasures of old books. Were it not for these, I would not have been able to do even half of what I have done in this volume. I look back with pleasure to the hours I have spent in the rooms of this Society, in the company of some PREFACE xix of its learned members, while reading my papers or heari^ig those of others ; and I look back with greater pleasure, to the days, montlu^ and years, that I have passed at home in the company of its precious treasures. It is as an humble mark of gratitude for the intellectual pleasure thus enjoyed, that I beg to dedicate this little volume to the Patron, Vice-Presidents, Fellows and Members of this Society.” JivANJi Jamsheoji Modi, €olaba, Bombay, President, \lth November 1929. B, B. Roj/al Asiatic Society^ Bombav ASIATIC PAPERS A CHRISTIAN (mOSS WITH A PAHLAVI INSCRIPTION RECENTLY DISCOVERED IN THE TRAVANCORE STATE {Read on 11^^ September 1924.) I. Mr. a. K. Ramanath Ayyar, Superintendent of Archaeology in the Travancore State, kindly sent me, for decipherment, with his letter, dated Trivandrum, 5th February 1924, “ a photo-print of a^Cfoss, which was recently discovered at Kadamattam in the Travancore State, having a Pahlavi inscription engraved on a canopying ribbon round it.” Mr. Ayyar wrote: It may be noted that the portion of the inscription on the left limb of the arch is identical with the shorter sentence found on the Crosses at St, Thojaas’s Mount and at Kottayam, while the remaining portion of the writing seems to consist of two short sentences separated by a + mark.” The photo-print was not clear. So, I wrote on 13th February and requested “ that a full-size squeeze of it may be taken.”* Mr. Ayyar thereupon sent me, with his letter of ISth February, an estampage of the inscription, and then, later on, sent also a photograph of a better impression. Se repeated iiiL this second letter what was said in the first about the wtiti^ the left limb of the Cross, that it was “ identical with the sentence engraved in the same portion of the three oilier at Kottayam and St. Thomas’s Mount.” He then added. The equal-armed Cross, cut out in low relief under the inscribed, belt. is similar to that found at the Mount and that the sculpture seems to be of a slightly later date, but this question of age will have to be decided by Pahlavi scholars on a consideration of the script engraved in the record in question/’ As to the situation of the Church in which the Cross is found, the ])articular position in which it is found and the sculptural details of the Cross, 1 will quote here at some length ]\fr. Ayyar’s reniaiks, wliich Ik; has made in his official Eeport, and of which lie lias kindly sent me a copy with his letter of 22nd April 1924. He wi'ites : “ 'Phis ('loss is found embedded in the south wall of the sanctum in the Jacoliitc-Syiian Church at Kadamattaui, a village six miles to the ^,('st of Muvattupula, a taluk-centre in the Travancore State and about 40 miles from Kottayam where the other two Crosses are found ; but my informants were unable to give me any interesting details as to whether this Cross had been preserved in the Church froili a very long time or wliether it was brought down from some other place and fixed up in its present position. The Church which is picturesquely situated on the to[) of a small hillock docs not claim any antiquity, epigraphical or architect ural, except for the presence of this Peisian Cross. This new Cross resembles the bigger Kottayam Cross in its sculptural details, ?.e., it is an equal-armed Greek type with fleur-de-lis extremi- ties, and it stands on a pedestal of three steps. Jt is flanked by *two detached pilasters of the same type as that of the other two exam^es and on the capitals of these are also found two couchant maharas or fish-monsters facing each other and supporting with their gaping mouths a semi-eireular belt (prahhdrali) arching above the (h’oss. The outer rim of this arch is represented as ornamentally curving out in two hooks on either side of some central flower-and-bead cluster. In thfe jjlace occupied by a down-turned dove with outspread wings (symbolizmg the Holy Ghost ) and shown as pecking at the top of the upper limb of the Cross, wo have in the Kadamat^m example a somewhat curiously shaped object which resembles a crovra or a bishop's mitre, or worse still a shuttle-cock ; but as these have no symbolical significance, we have to take this object to be an extremely crude representation of a dove, whose extended wings have the outlines of two inturn^d rose leaves, whose bo4y and tail are inartistically sculptured as five straight feat her- tipped strands, and whose head and beak (looking like a tunnp) are hardly recognizable as parts of a bird’s anatomy. On either side of the lower limb of the Cross are the same floral device A Christian Cross with a Pahlavi Inscription 8 branching out upwards in conventional curls and a semi-circular triple band envelops the steps in a rainbow arch. Five oblong niche- like depressions have been crudely picked out for the sake of ornament on the plain pedestal below this cavalry of three steps and some later (^miish ?) entbusieisb has conveniently managed to shape them into the abbreviated formula I. N. R. I. (Jesus Namre7ins Rex Judaeorum). The portion con- taining the Pahlavi writing is a narrow ribbon of stone which springs at either extremity of this base and going up straight to a height of about IS"' curves round in a semi-circular arch of 9" radius enveloping the top of the Cross and its halo-circle. « “ The inscription on this band seems to consist of throe short sentences separated by two + (cross) marks. Of these the portion run- ning down the left limb from one such mark at the top corner appears t4> be identical with the shorter sentence found in the same position in aU the other three Crosses, both at Kottayain and the Mount ; but the remaining }>ortion appears to bo differtmt and to consist of two sentences marked olf by the other dividing -f symbol. Sculpturally cons^ered, this crudely wrought Cross at KadamaUam seems to be a later copy of the one at St. Thomas’s Mount ; but an authoritative opinion as to its probable age can bo pronounced only by Pahlavi scholars, after a careful consideration of the script employed in the present record.” • It appears from the Indian Antiquary^ of December 1923, that the slab of the Cross was discovered at the close of the year 1921 by Mr. T. K. Joseph. The discoverer writes [op. cit. p. 355) : “As the epigraph was in Pahlavi and not in Vatteluttu, I forwarded • a* copy of it to the Pahlavi scholar Dr. Cassartelli. The inscription seems to be a replica of the one on the other two similar slabs. Rev. Fr. H. Hosten, S.J., of Darjeeling, in a letter to me dated 27th May 1922, says : ‘ I have compared it with the Mylapore (Greek Mount) inscription,' and have little doubt but yours is a replica of it.’ ” Rev. Father Hosten has referred to this new Cross in His aflScle entitled ‘‘Christian Archaeology in Malabar’^ in the December •1922 issue of the Catholic Herald of India. He says there that “ the art displayed by the Ka^marram Cross. . , may help to determine certain almost obliterated designs of the Mylapore Cross, and this may lead to a very distinct advance in the inter- pretation of the tradition of the St. Thomas Christians.’* Rev. Father Hosten has described again, in detail, from photc^aphs aent to. him recently by- the Archeeological Department of ■ ^ 1 Vol.m pp..86R.e. . , . ’ ; \ i. 4 Jivanji Jamshedji Modi vancore, the design of the Crosses and the symbolism onthem.^ In his description, he speaks of the pillars of the St. Thomas Mount as ‘‘ appearing to be more primitive, more Per8epolitan(?), than those of the Kottayam Cross, No. 1.” Mr. Joseph does not tell us how Dr. Cassartelli, the learned Bishop of Sanford, has read and translated the inscription. As far as I know, his transliteration and translation are not published. From Dr. BurneU’s article^ which is referred to later on, and other subsequent writings on the subject we gather that the Mount Church Cross was discovered by the Portuguese when they were digging in 1547 the foundation for a new Church, the Mount Church on its present site. They came across the ruins of old Christian buildings, and in these ruins, they found the Cross with the Palilavi inscription. This they installed in their new Church where it now stands. According to Dr. Burnell, miracles were believed to have been worked with this Cross. This Cross was soon unhesitatingly identified with the one- which the Apostle St. Thomas is said to have embraced while on the point of death and its miraculous virtues specially obtained great fame.'^ II. In reply to Mr. Ayyar’s inquiries, I had submitted my reading and rendering of the inscription to him with my letter of 15th April. After I announced my paper to our Society, I learnt that my translation, sent to Mr. Ayyar, was published in the June 1924 issue of the Academy by Mr. T. K. Joseph, the discoverer of the inscription, to whom it seems to have been passed on by Mr. Ayyar. In this paper, I beg to treat the whole subject at some length. If I do not mistake, this is the first attempt at decipherment in relation to this Cross. Decipherment of the Inscriptions on the previous Crosses . — Mr. Ayyar and Mr. Joseph have referred to three other Crosses of the kind previously discovered and as Mr. Ayyar has spoken of a short sentence of the recently discovered Cross as being identical 2 Indian Athceneum, August 1923, p. 67 f. 3 Indian Antiquary, November 1874, pp. 308-16. ^ T. K. Joseph, Indian Antiquary, December 1923, p. 356. A Christian Cross unth a Pahlam Inscriptifm 6 with a similar sentence in the previously discovered Crosses, I will, at first, speak briefly of these Crosses, their inscriptions, and the attempts made to decipher them. If I do not mistake, this is the first time that the vsubject of the Crosses inscribed in Palfiavi has been brought before our Society, and so, I think, a brief account will be of some use to our local students. (a) The Crosses with Pahlavi inscriptions were first disco- vered in 1873 by ‘Dr. A. C. Burnell, who drew the attention of scho- lars to them in a letter, dated Mangalore, South Canara, Madras Presidency, May 12th, 1873,” addressed to the London Academy and published in its issue of 14th June 1873 (pp. 237-8). In that letter, he expressed an expectation, that the old Syrian Chui’ches (at Niranam, Kayaiiikullam, etc.) will no doubt furnish other copies ” (p. 238). The recently discovered inscription tftider examination has fulfilled Dr. BurnelTs expectation, and we should not be surprised if some more Crosses with inscriptions are dis- covered in that part of the country. In the same letter. Dr. Bur- nell had promised to get the inscription lithographed and send copies of the lithograph to Pahlavi Scholars* and he had done so. Dr. Burnell’s interest in the discovery of the Pahlavi inscrip-' tions was from the point of view of supporting Prof. Weber, who had, in his essay on the Ramayana ‘‘ suspected Greek influences in the composition of that poem” (oj?. cit. p. 237). He said: “It will now, in consequence of this ^discovery, be possible to prove that much in the modern philosophical schools of India comes from some form of Christianity derived from Persia ; and thif fact at once explains also the origin of the modern Vedanta «ects in Southern India exclusively.” Dr. Burnell added: “ The number of these tablets proves that there must have been [Chris- tian] communities in several places, and those large enough to have Churches, both oh the S. W. and 8. E. coasts of India.'' The early Christian settlers from Persia were taken t 9 be Manichsens, and Dr. Burnell thought, that Manigr^mam, the name of the sei^ tlement of the Persian Christians, came from Mtol, the found^ of Manichasism. . ^ahkaracarya, Bam&nuja and Madhv|^^i}r|^ who founded the modern schools of Ved&nta, were all 6 Jivanji Jamshedji Modi to have come under the influence of Christian settlers whose set- tlements were not far from the towns of these founders. (6) Dr. Burnell then published a pamphlet, entitled ‘‘ On some Pahlavi Inscriptions in South India.’* It was printed, in 1873, at the Mission Press in Mangalore. (c) This pamphlet was reprinted with additions by Dr. Burnell in the Indian Antiquary for November 1874 (yol. 3, pp. 308-16), under the heading ‘‘ On some Pahlavi Inscriptions in South India,” with four figures. These (1) The Mount Cross, (2 & 3) the Sassanian and Chaldeo.-Pahlavi attestation to a grant, and (4) the Tablet at Kottayam. (d) On the appearance of Dr. BurneH’s pamphlet, Dr. Mar- tin Hang, attempted a reading and translation in the Beilage zur alhjemeinen Zeitung (No. 29) of 29th January 1874. Hang’s reading and rendering are given by Burnell in the reprint of his pamphlet in the Indian Antiquary for November 1874 (p. 314). (e) Then Dr. E. W. West gave his reading and rendering while reviewing Dr. Burnell’s above pamphlet, in the Academy of 24th January 1874 (vol. 5, pp. 96-7). He gave two readings and two translations, varying according to the position of the lines, i. c., when one read the upper and longer line first or the shorter line first. Again for the short line, he submitted an alter- native reading and rendering. * (/) Thereafter, in 1892, Prof. Harlez gave his reading an'd translation, before the Eighth International Congress of Orienta- lists, which met at Paris {Proceeding.^, of the Eighth International Congress of Orientalists, Paris, 1892).^ ig) Then, in the Epigraphia Indica of 1896-97 (vol. f^^pp. 174-6), Dr. West gave an amended reading and translation,^ Herein he read the long line first. 5 Vide Dastiir Darabji Peshotan Sanjana's paper in the Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhotj Mad re ssa Jubilee Volume, ^ In a brief paper, read before the Jarthoshti Din ni khol kamari Mandli, on 14th November 1896, I drew the attention of our Parsee scholars to Dr. West s above-mentioned article in the Epigraphia Indica and gave a brief account of the Pahlavi inscriptions in Madras. Vide my Gujarati Iranian essays Rhui), part III, pp. 193-96 ; also my Glimpse into the Wwk of the Jarthoehti Din ni khol karnari Mandli, p. 70. A Christian Cross with a PaMavi Inscription 7 (h) Then Shams-ul-ulama Dastur Darah Peshotan Sanjana gave four alternative readings and renderings in his paper entitled The Pahlavi Inscription on the Mount Cross ia Southern India’* Doubt as to the Script being PahlavL — Before I proceed further, I will say here a few words on the subject of the doubt as to whether the script of these inscriptions is Pahlavi. Mr. Ayyar in his le?tter of 16th May 1924 writes: “While all Persian scholars, though they may have certain disagreements iu its interpretation, are however decided that the script * employed in the record is Pahlavi, it is passing strange that Dr.Bern- ard of St. Thomas of the Mannanum (Travancore) Carmellito Seminary should, in his History of the St, Thomas Christians (in Malayalam), give a curious preference to the interpretation which certain Bral^ans of Mylapore are supposed to have oflfered to the Portuguese in the 16 th century and that Fr. Burthey of Trichinopoly, more interested in theo- logy than archieology, should have declared the script and language of the record to l)e Aramaic and Tamil respectively.” • Thus, giving an expression to his surprise, Mr. Ayyar has sent me “two prints of the Kottayam Crosses wherein,” he says, he has “ successfully combined separate photos of the Crosses and the estampages of their inscriptions so as to yield clear and complete pictures.” On carefully looking at these two prints, and on looking to the facsimiles given in other writings as referred to in this paper, and on looking to the photodiths of the inscriptions on the Crosses, students * of Pahlavi would have no doubt about the script being Pahlavi. ^ I will refer here in passing to a well-nigh similar case, where- in* a script, which was Pahlavi as determined later on by Pahlavi scholars,® was not recognised as Pahlavi even by a scholar like Anquetil Du Perron. It is the case of the Pahlavi inscriptions in the Kanheri caves in the neighbourhood of Borivli. It was in 1861, that the late Dr. Bhau Daji had first drawn attention to 7 The Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy Madressa Jubilee Volume, edited by Jivanji Jamshedji Modi, 1914, pp. 192-8. ^ See Jarthoshti Abhyaa, No. II, p. 98a ; No. Ill, p. 146a, 146*^8 and No. IV, pp. 209-17. 8 Jivanjt Jamshedji Modi them, and it was in 1866 that Dr. (then Mr.) E. W. West sub- mitted a Note, dated 5th May 1866, to this Society, drawing spe- cial attention of scholars to the Pahlavi inscription.® Anquetil Du Perron saw the inscription in 1761, but he did not recognize the script as Pahlavi. He speaks of their being in Mogous or Mougous characters. In one place, he speaks of the characters as Mongons. Ho says:^® “Deux inscriptions, qui paroissent recentes, cliacune do douze lignes perpendiculaires ; gravees peu profonde- ment, & en caracteres Mougous, sur deux pilliers qui font partie des murs ; Tune haute d’un pied, I’autre large & haute de quinze ]X)ucos.”^^ In another place, he speaks of the script as Mongous (carac- teres ]\longoius) . In the Index^^ again, he gives it as Mongous. We see /rom this, that even a scholar like Anquetil who knew Pahlavi thoTigh not much, could not recognize a Pahlavi inscription and took tlie characters to be Mogous or Mongous. ‘‘ I think,’’ as I have said elsewhere, ‘‘that the word Mougous is correct and is the same as the Parsee word Magav or Magous, the Greek Magi. It seems that he was properly informed by his guide or guides at the caves, that the characters were those of the Magous or Magis, but he did not properly understand the word, to take it for the characters of the Persian Magi or Mobads.”^^ It , s^ms that, just as in the case of the Malabar Coast Crosses, so in /the case of .tlie Kanheri and other caves in the neighbourhood, the Bralimins in charge of the places of worship had strange views. They seem to have told Anquetil that they were the works of Alexander the Great ! — i ® Vide my paper on Anquetil Du Perron read before this Society op 16th December 1915 ; and my Anquetil Du Perron and Dastur Darab, p, 49. 10 Zend-AvestUy vol. I, p. 404. 11 Translation : “Two inscriptions, which appear recent, each of 12 per. pendioular lines, inscribed less deep, and in character Mougous, over two pillars which form a part of the walls ; one, one foot high and the other 16 inches broad and high.” 12 Zend-Ataaia, vol. I, p. 396. 13 Ibid. vol. II, p. 732. 1* Vide my paper on Anquetil Du Perron. Ftde my book Anquetil Du Perron and Dastur Darab, p. 60. A Christian Cross with a PaJdqvi Inscription 9 IV. Before I give my decipherment, I beg to refer to the difficult^^ of reading such inscriptions. The decipherment of/;Pahla\ inscriptions is often difficult. The difficulty is due to/variou, causes : (a) Firstly, as many of the letters of the Pahlavi alphabet admit of inore than one reading, there is, at times, a difference of opinion among scholars about the reading of some words even, in the manuscripts, (b) This difficulty is added to in the case of inscriptions, wherein, besides the difficulty of engraving, there is that of doing so within a limited space, (c) Then, there is a further difficulty, when the inscription is to be done in an arched space, (d) Lastly, the artists, who engrave such inscriptions, arc not literary men. They work mechanically from copies or traqings submitted to them and any error in the form of letters adds to the difficulty of deciphering them. The difficulty about the decipherment of a Pahlavi inscription lifee that under notice is well illustrated by the attempts of scholars in reading the Pahlavi inscription on the above-mentioned Christian Cross in the Church of Mount St. Thomas at Madras, the like of which is also found on two Crosses at Kottayam. Scholars differ, notfoilly here and there, but in most of their readings. Dr. West has given two readings, the second being an emendation of the first. Even in his first reading, he has given an alternative reading of the short sentence. Dastur Darabji P. Sanjana has given four alternative readings and translations. These facts show how difl^cult it is to decipher a Pahlavi inscription on a Christian ^ross of the kind which is under examination in this paper. What Dr. West has very properly said of the Mount St. Thomas Cross is true of this also, that “ there is little chance of any two Pahlavi scholars agreeing about its interpretation.” In another place, he says : “ It is exceedingly easy to point out such defects, but it is not so easy to suggest any really satisfactory reading of the whole inscription, as only the three words denman, madam and bokht are indisputable.”^® Again, add to the difficulty inherent in the read- Academy, 24th January 1874, p. 87. 10 Jivanji Jamshedji Modi ing itself, that of obtaining really good estampages and photos. For example, take the case of the inscription of the previously dis- covered Crosses. We have before us, among several others latterly given by other writers, three following impressions of the Mount St. Thomas Cross inscription : (1) The one given by Dr. Burnell ; (2) the one given by Dr. West in the Epigraphia Indica ; and (3) the one given by Dr.Harlez in theEeport of the 1892 Oriental Congress of Paris.^^ Strange to say, we find slight differences in all these three impressions or copies in the matter of the above-mentioned short sentence. By carefully observing this short sentence in all the tlireci Crosses, one will notice that, though apparently identical, there is a difference here and there. Dr. West had to wait for some time befor(i lie gave his amended reading from more than one good copy of the photo-litho. Kev. Hosten says : ‘‘ If I were a Sassanian-Pahlavi scholar, 1 would not be satisfied with deciphering from photographs. I would insist on good estampages. . . only a rubbing, therefore, could bring out the exact details of the lettering with every jot and tittle.*'^^ With that view, I had asked for an estampage of this newly discovered Cross, and I thank Mr. Ayyar for kindly sending it to nu‘. I am not sure whether it is a good estampage. But even with this estampage and the second good photo-print kindly f,sent to me by Mr. Ayyar, the task of decipherment has not been ehsy. In reply to Mr. Ayyar ’s inquiries, I submitted my reading and translation with my letter of 15th April 1924. I repeat here what I wote to him: “ One cannot claim any finality in such reading. When you see, that in the case of the previous inscription, the read- ings of live scholars — two of whom have submitted a numbet of alternate readings and translations — ^liave differed, you must expert differences between my attempt and that of others who may follow.’^ AVith these few preliminary observations suggested by the decipherment of the inscription on the known Crosses, I beg to submit my reading and translation of the Pahlavi inscription on the Kadamattam, Cross. As reproduced by Bastur Darabji in his article in the Madressa Jubilee Volume. 17 Indian Athosneum^ August 1923, p. 71, A Christian Cross with Pahlavi Inscriptioii 11 Text.^* i6«! (■!>)) Ill iS p — J Ji ^ -^s f€)utii ^21 ^ (ii€) Translitkration. (1) Li zibah vai min Ninav val denman (2) Napisht Mar Slia^mr (3) Li (mun) ahrob Mashiali avakhshahi min khar bokht. Translation. (1) I, a beautiful bird from Nineveh, (have come) todbhis (country). (2) Written (by) Mar Shapur. (3) Holy Messiah, the forgiver, freed me from thorn {i, e. afiliction). I will now submit a few notes to explain 'my reading of certain words. I will at first speak of the first line on the right of the arch which is to be read from above to down below. Dr. West says of th^similarly situated short line of the previous Crosses that “ the shorter^® line is much more uncertain, and there is little chance of any two Pahlavi scholars agreeing about its interpretation.’’^® I think, this may turn out to be true of this line also. (a) I have read what Dr. West has called a dash in the pre- viojis Cross as the word li, i.e. ‘I.’ In connection with this word, ^or dash, as he calls it, as seen in the previous inscriptions, Dr. West says: “The Inscription is really divided into two unequal por- tions by a small cross and dash. This dash is developed at The Inscription consists of three parts separated by a -f croj*s-like mark. I have begun my reading from right hand side, reading the first line down from above. In the second two lines I have’ gone up from the right and have come down below to the left. * The previous inscriptions have only two lines, one long and another short 20 Academy, 24th June 1874, p. 97. 12 Jivanji Jamshedji Modi Kottayam into a shape like an hour-glass, or the cipher 8 , laid upon its side ; but this can hardly be read as any combination of Pahlavi letters, and is probably ornamental . i think, it is not an orna- mental dasli, but is the word li, i,e. ‘ I.’ Our present inscription has, instead of two, three sentences separated by a cross. There is a similar sign (or dash as said by Dr. West) between the second and the third line, though not exactly the same. In the commencement of the third sentence, it is more like that on the Kottayam Cross, ^.c. of “ a sliape like an hour-glass.” ( 6 ) I i(‘ad the second word as zihah, Pers. j ‘ beautiful.’ One may object, and properly object, that the first letter of tlie word is not 3 (2) as it ought to be written in the beginning of the word. Rut, I think that it is perhaps the difficulty of engi*^^j^i:jg, inwx ^^^ig shape of z as it should be \v;r{^ 1 ;(‘;pjn beginning of a Word, that may have led the engraver to use the form ' of'^tlie jCt^er *^’ it occurs in the middle of a Avord. But the h'iter may be read as rf, if not 2:, without much difficulty ajid objection. In that case, it may be read as dibah d, j..e. ‘gold-tissued,’ hence ‘ beautiful.’ However, I admit, that I am not strong, nay, I am rather doubtful, in the reading of this word ; but, I think, it is an adjectival word, qualifying, and in praise of, the next word. • (c) I read the next word as vaya (Av. Skt. vi, Lat. Uvi^ ‘bird’) and 1 take it that the word refers to the bird, ‘dove,’ in the design of the Cross. We see the bird very dearly in the design of the Mount Cross.-- Dr. Burnell thus quotes Lucena (“a safe autho- rity on the Portuguese translations in India of that time”) as speak- ing about the Mount St. Thomas Cross which was discovered^ in for the foundations of a hermitage amid the ruins whioh marked the martyrdom of the apostle St. Thomas. On one face of this slab was a Cross in relief, with a bird like a dove over it 21 Epigraphia Indica, vol. 4, p. 176. 22 See Indian Antiquary^ November 1874, p. 308 for the design. Also for the design, see the Sir J, J, Madressa Jubilee Volume, p, 196 and the ostampage of the recently discovered Cross. And finally the Book of Ser Marco Polo, translated by Yule, third edition revised by Oordier (1903) vol. 2. p. 363. 13 A Christum Cross with a Pahlavi Inscription with its. wings expanded as the Holy Ghost is usually represented when descending on our Lord at his baptism or our Lady at her annunciation.’’^^ f (d) Ninav 1 1 1. One may object to the word being Ninav, i.e, Nineveh. Some horizontal slips under ! give the letter the look of b J. But the form of the word as seen in the previous Cross helps the reading. The form, as given by Harlez and reproduced' by Dastiir Darabjijis clear as 1 1 Dastur Darabji has printed it as II though he has read it as van. With reference to this name, Ninav, I would refer my readers to the account of Dr. Burnell in his paper, first published in the Academy of 1874 (vol. Ill), referred to above. It appears from that account that the early Christians who came to India were those from Babylon, and the adjoining countries. So, the mention of r0er^^tkliCa|ll9»t 801, PARSI COLONY, DADAR. i may say here that one may possibly object to my reading the word as Ninav in the recently discovered Cross. But the word is clear in the similar part of the inscription in the previously dis- covered Crosses. The flourish of the hand by the artist on the Cross under examination has not made the word clear in the pre- sent case. The word is written as 1 1 1 (something like 1 1 1 , i.e,, hun- dred, ^nd eleven in Arabic figures) and it occurs as Ninav for Nine- veh nn the Pahlavi treatise of Shatroiha-i Airan^^. (e) Now we come to the middle line, which is the shertest. There, I read the first word as napisht, i.e., ‘ written’ and the next word as Mar Skapur. This part of the inscription is mutilated. But I think that the name is that of the ‘ writer,’ i,e., the person wh(f got the stone inscribed with the Cross and the inscription. It if, as it were, his votive offering, and so, as may be naturally expect- ed, he gets his name put down in the inscription. Mar Shapur referred to may be the Mar Shapur mentioned by Burnell as one of the early Christian emigrants. 23 Iindian Antiquary, November 1874, p. 313. 24 See Sir Jamshedji Jejeebhoy Madressa Jubilee Voltime, p. 196. 23 Vide my Pahlavi Translation, part 1, Aiyadgird Zarir^, Shatroihli-^i Airaa va Afdya va Sahigihl Seistin, p. 115. 14 Jivanji Jam^edji Modi if) Coming to the third line, I have referred above to the reading of this first word. The second word, I read as ahrob (ahhh), i.e., ‘pious, holy.’ (g) I’heii the next two words Mdshiah avakhshahi are well nigh the same as in the previously discovered inscription of Mount St. Thomas. . (//) TJieii the last two words also seem to be the same as those of th(^ previous inscription and I think they may be read as Dr. West had read them. On !('e(‘iving my reading and translation, Mr. Ayyar wrote in his letter of 2:^nd April : “ 'J'ho reference to the ‘ bird ’ in the Kadamattam Cross as noted hy you is quite in keeping with the pictured detail and is iiufiortaut, inasmuch as it helps to settle the doubtful nature of f the emblem hgured on the older Kottayam Cross which it resembles and wliiob latter had led Fr. H. Hosten of Darjeeling into sniiK' learned speculations in the Indian Athenaeum for August Tlic mention of Mar Shapur in the record is valuable in more aspects than one; and as in all likelihood, he may be identical with .Main V i n S:ipir T.^h) of the KoMayam copper-plate charter of the time of the Cera king Sthauu-ravi (cf/. A. D. 880-900), this cross may be taken to fiiinish an important dated landmark more reliable than the mere ap})roximation8 of palaeogiaphy, however carefully balanced they may liave been. (!Sec also Travancore Archaeological Series No. II, pp. 00 (d .s'C7.)”^o # I am glad to learn from what is said above by Mr. Ayyar from ?\relia^ological and historical points of view, that my reading of tins new Cross has interested him and has been found important and “ valua})le in more aspects than one.” V. Who u'cre the Malabar Coast Christians ? — Now the question is: Who were the Christians who put up Crosses with Pahlavi inscriptions in the Churches ? It is rather difficult to say posi- tively, who tliey were. There are various traditions about the first advent of the Christians to the shores of India. There is the tradition, noted by Marco Polo, who has, m his book of travels, said that Malabar was the place where St. Thomas, Mr. Ayyar’s reference is to the article, entitled “ Three Inacriptions of Sthanu Ravi,” in vol. 2, imrt l, .pp. 60-86 of the aaidaenea 15 A Christian Cross with a Pahlavi Inscription one of the twelve apostles of Christ, lies bnried.^^ There is a differ- ence of opinion as to whether the St. Thomas, who is associated with the early Christians of India, was the aposMe himself or f later saint. Some even connected at one time the Pahlavi Cross in the Church of St. Thome with the Apostle St. Thomas. We read on this point : “ In repairing a hermitage which here existed, in 1547, the workmen came^upon a stone slab with a Cross and inscription carved upon it. The story speedily developed itself that this was the Cross which had been embraced by the dying Apostle, and its miraculous virtues soon obtained great fame. Tt was eventually set up over an altar in the chnroh.of Madonna, which was afterwards erected on the Great Mount, and there it still exists. A Brahman imposter professed to give an interpretation of the inscription as relating to the death of 8t. Thomas, etc., and this was long acceptcd.”28 Anquetil Du Perron on the Malabar Coast Christians. — ^Anque- til Du Perron, in his in his account of his visit to Cochin on 31st December 1757, speaks at some length on the subject of the Christians.^® I quote here from my paper on Anquetil Du Perron read before this Society:*^® “ Anquetil’s description of Cochin shows that the city and the surrounding district formed a great centre of trade at that time. Some of the Europeans who lived there were literary persons. There were a|^o many learned Christian priests. There were a number of Christian Churches built by the several European communities that traded with India. Anquetil visited Veraple, which was the seat of the Apostolic Vicar of the Malabar Coast. His description of the Christians of this district will be found somewhat interesting t>o the students of the history of the spread of Christianity hero. Even M. Florent, a head priest of the district, could not tell him how old was the Christian population there. At the time of Anquetil’s visit, there were about 200,000 Christians, ^ of whom 50,000 were Roman Catholics, 100,000 Syrian Malabari Catho- lics, 50,000 other Syrian Christians (Syro-Malabares Schismatiques). The Latin or Roman Catholics again were divided into three classes : 1. Christians of St. Thomas. 2. The Topas, bom of Portuguese fathers and Indian mothers, either by legal marriage or concubinage, who 27 Vide the third edition of the translation of Yule, revised by Cordier (1903), p, 353. 28 Third ed. of Marco Polo by Cordier. Notes, p, 358. Tome I, partie 1. 30 « Anquetil Du Perron of Paris. • India as seen by him ”, pp* 19^. 16 Jtvanji Jamshedji Modi dressed as Europeans. Most of the domestic servants of the Dutch, the English and French in India belonged to this class. 3. The Mounduk- arens who were recently converted Kalahari Christians and who dressed as natives of the land, and the Kouloukarens who were fishers and sailors. The Time of the hiscrijytion . — There remains the question as to the time when these Crosses were put up and this question is con- nected witli the cpiestion as to who those Christians were who put tliem up. The very fact of the Crosses having Pahlavi inscriptions of tlie types we see, shows that, even if there had been some early settlements of Cliristians on the Malabar Coast at the time of the advent of St. Thomas the Apostle, these Crosses are not their offerings. They belong to some later times. Dr. West says on tliis subject: “Regarding the date of the Pahlavi Inscriptions nothing .very definite can be ascertained from the forms of the letters . . . All the peculiarities can be found in the Kauheri Pahlavi inscriptions of 10th October and 24th November 1009, and 30th October 1021 ; and some of them in the Pahlavi signatures of witnesses on a copper-plate grant to the Syrian Church in Southern India which has been attributed to the ninth century. Dr. Burnell wrote: “ The characters and language are nearly those of the books, but are not by any means of the earliest period. If one may judge by the legends on coins, the dates of which are known, the earliest of these inscriptions may belong to the 7th or 8th century. The earliest appears to be the ones at the Mount and in the south wall of the Kotta- yam old church, the latest that behind a side altar in the same church and on which is also a sentence in Syriac in the ordinary Estrangelo cha- racter, to judge by facsimiles of MSS. of a period not older than the 10th century. At all events, these Crosses are long subsequent to the time of the Apostle St. Thomas.” 32 ' < I agree with these scholars, and think, that the inscriptions belong to times much posterior to Apostle St. Thomas. I think there is a very great likelihood of their belonging to the 7th and 8th century after Christ. In this connection, I wish to draw special attention of the students of this question to what Anquetil Du Perron has said about a tradition that he had heard. I will quote him at some length : 31 Epigraphia Indica, vol. 4, p. 176. 32 Reprint in the Indian AnUqmry. 17 A Christian Cross with a PaMavi Inscription “ Qiiello est done Torigino dii Christianisme dans TTnde ? Jo crois que cette question no pent etre d6cid^e par les Monuments qui existent actiiellement dans cette Contr^e. Ce qu’on dit d’un Mage, qui avoit lo litre de Mannaca vaster (mot qu’on pretend singfier Manicheev% et qui passa dans I’lnde ou il r6pandit sa doctrine, ne m’a 6t6 confirm^ par auenn Chretien de Saint Thomas, Catholique, ni Sohismatique. Mais, sans m’arreter aux autorit^s vraies on suppos^es, je dis que ceux qui connoissent TOrient ne tronveront rien d’inipossil^le, ni memo d’ex- traordinairo dans I’Apastolat de Saint Thomas aux Indos Orien tales. Les Cara yn nos de Syrie pour Bassora, marchoient alors comme X present. Les Arabes alloient aux Indes tons les ans et ddbarquoient aux envi- roiis des lieux nonim6s maiiitenant Calicut & Maziili])atam. .Tajoute quo, selon uno opinion re<;uo dans Ic Pays, plusicurs Chretiens de Chaldee, fiiyant, dans le septiomc ai<‘clo, la persecution dos Mahometans s’ombar- (juc'ront a Bassora, vinnmt s’«Hablir panni les Chi'tHiens d3 Saint Thomas”. This statement of Aiiqiietil seems to present the possibi.Uty^)! two views. These (Vosses may be the work of some Persian *Cliristians who had takim to Manichaeism and who, therefo?'*e, in ord(‘r to avoid the persecution in their own country, had fled from ther|) under the leadership of a Zoroastrian Magi, who also had turned to be a follow(‘T of I\Iani and settled on the shores of India. Dr. Burnell has in his above-mentioned paper, referred to these Manichaeans and has even pointed to a place in Malabar as deriv-. ing its name from Mani. •But 1 think that there is reason to Ixdieve that these Crosses were not put up by Manichacan Christians, or Christian Manich' aeans, because the history of the Manichaeans and of the AIM- genses, who were an offshoot of the Manichaeans, shows that the Manichaeans were persecuted by the orthodox Christians on the groined that they were not true followers of Christ. Manichaeism w^ a mixture of Zoroastrianism, Christianity and even of Bud- dhism. One may say that in spite of their not being true orthodox Christians, they believed in Christ. But what we know of the tenets of Manichaeism does not permit us to believe that they had that faith in the personality of Christ as a redeemer of afflictions, as seems to have been evinced by the offerers of the Crosses in question, in the Pahlavi inscriptions. 33 Zend- A vesta, Ouvrage de Zoroastre,. tome premier, premiere partie p. 170. ^ " 18 Jivanji Jnmshedji Modi So, I think tliat the Cliristians who offered the Crosses were the Christians referred to by Anquetil in the last part of the above extract. They were the Christians who had to leave Persia, like the Zoroastrians, to escape from the persecutions' of the Arab in- vaders of Pasia. We must bear in mind that here, it is not only the question of AnquetiFs own view. He speaks of what he had heard in Malabar itself. I therefore think that the Crosses may be the otFerings of some of the Christians who had come to the shores of India in tlie middle or latter pai-t of the seventh century and in the eighth century, owing to the persecution of the Arabs, and, in r(‘ferring to the afflictions of Christ, they allude to their own afflic- . tions of being compelled to leave their country for their faith. Postscript. Since this first attempt at reading and translation sent to ‘ iVIr. Ayyar and after I announced my paper, I have seen in the Indian Academy of June 1924 (p. 122) what is called a photo-lith with “ scale one-third,” given by Mr. T. K. Joseph with a short Note, wherein he gives in a foot-note my foregoing translation as sent by me to the Superintendent of Archaeology of Travancore. " If that be a litho from a clearer photo, I should like to modify my reading a little in the third line, though that will not make any im])ortant change in the meaning. My reading of the third line from this larger photo is as follows: r, [Am...(?) Meshiha avakhsliMii min bim bokht.] Translation. “ T whom...(?) Messiah, the forgiver, freed from danger (or terror).” The modification consists of the following: (a) The reading of the foot word as am in place oi U, This makes no change in the meaning. (b) I get doubtful about the word preceding Messiah which I first reatl as ahhb, i.e., 'holy.’ (c) I read the last but one word as him instead of khat ; but this modification in the reading of the word makes no import- ant change in the sense. September , 1924. EIGHTEEN KEMARKABLE THINGS OR EVENTS OF THE REIGN (593-628 X£.} OF KHUSRU PARVIZ^ (CHOSROES II) OF PERSIA. {Read on 11^ March 1924.) Introduction. I. There is a small Pahlavi treatise known as '‘Madigan-i Bin&^ Fravardln yiim-i Khurdaci,” i.e., “ an account of month Fra- vardin, day Khurdad.’' It is referred to by Dr, PI West as ‘‘ Madi- gan-i mah Fravardin roz Khurdad” in his article on the Pahlavi Literature. ^ It describes the remarkable events said to have occurred on the Khurdad-sal day, from the beginning of the creaflon upto now, and says, that even the Resurrection day will fall on that day. This Khurdad-sal day now falls in September. It is still, observed with some eclat by the Parsees and is declared as a Public Hofiday by Government. In this Pahlavi treatise, we read the following reference to 18 remarkable things or events of the reign of Khusru Parviz {i.e. Khusru the Victorious), known by Western writers as Chosroes II his grand-father Naushirwan ‘ AdiI(i.e.,Naushirwan the Just) be- ing known as Chosroes I. (sec. 27) \d| |0SjU J 11^ I Ofundrisa der Jranischen Philologie, Band II, pp. 75 qjL seq. Vide p. Ill for the reference to the text of the events. The Text is published in The Pahlavi Texts by Dastur Dr. Jamaspji Minocherji (pp. 102 et seq). It. is translated by Dastur Kaikhosru Jamsij|||[ in the K. R, Cama Memorial Foittms (pp. 122 et seq), edited by me. An incomplete Persian version of the treatise is found in the R^yets (vide Dastur Darab Hormuzdyar'a* ^ivayet by M, B. Vhf&la, with my Introduction, Vol. II, p. 49)» “20 Eighteen Remarkable Things of Khusru Parviz Translation ; In the month of Fravardin, on the day Khordad, 18 things 2 came (or occurred ) to Khusru, the son of Hormazd during 18 years. The Pahlavi treatise does not say what the particular 18 remarkable things or events of Khusru’s reign were. Again, it does not say which partk iJar 18 years of Khusru’s long reign of 38 years (590-628 A.C.) are meant as those during which the things or events occurred. There is no other writing, Pahlavi or Persian, as far as I know, which enumerates and determines these 18 things or events. I was led to the study of this subject by an interesting article entitled, “ Note sur ime Tapisserie Arabe du Vllle siecle ” by M. E. Blochet in the October 1923 issue (pp. 613-17) of the Journal of the Ro^al Asiatic Society. M. Blochet describes the Arab Tapestry and illustrates his description with a plate, representing a piece of the tapestry in the collecVion of M. E. Gejou of Paris. He traces the design to an original Persian carpet of Khusru Parviz. He thus refers to it : “ The Mahoniedan historians, (both) Arab and Persian, have preserved for us in their chronicles, a tradition, according to which the army of Sa’d, which seized Ctesiphon in 637 (A. C.) found in the palace of the King of Persia a carpet of gigantic dimensions, the history of which seems to be a legend borrowed from (the book of) The Thousand and One Nights, ' The subjects of the Sassanian monarch called this carpet ‘ The Spring of Khusru ’ and the Arabs, who had never seen at Mecca or Medina an object with which they, oould compare jt, gave.it the name of al-Kathif ^.e., the Carpet.” ^ - Tlie Pahlavi w6rd for “ things” used in this passage is mandavam or {nundavum), traditionally read as nuDidum, It means “a thing, some- thing, anything, a matter, an affair, a concern, property.” Its Pazend synonym is chish Pei'S, (West-Haug’s Glossary of Viraf-N^meh, p. 221). '* Les histor.eiis musulmans, arabes et persans, nous ont conserve dans leurs cbroniques une tradition suivant laquelle I’armde du Sa‘d, qui s empara de Ctesiphon, en 637, trouva dans le palais du roi de Perse un tapis de dimensions gigaiitesques, dont I’histoire serable une Idgende em- prunt^e aux Mille et Une Nuits. (E. Blochet, Les Peintures des Manuscrita Orientaux de la Bibliotkt^que A’a/tmwife, dans les Publications de la Soci^t^ Fran^aise de reproduction de manuscrits k peintures, Paris, 1914 — 20, Page 137f.) Les sujets du monarque sassanide nommaient ce tapis ‘ le Printemps du Eighteen Remarkable Things of Khusru Parviz 21 M. Blochet then describes the carpet and sa that accordfng to Arab historians, during the monotonous rigour of winter, the carpet gave to the King of Iran the illusion of the budding spring (printemps naissant). In winter, the king lived in the vaulted halls of the AVhite Palace of Ctesiphon. There, he got this carpet spread on the pavements of the galleries and with his family in the midst of the groves, which were embroidered in gold and silk on the carpet, imagined to himself that he was enjoying the spring season. Hence, the carpet was named “ the Spring of Khusru.” When Ctesiphon fell, this carpet was captured by the Arab army and sent to Khalif Omar at Medina. There, it was broken up in pieces. M. Blochet says that the style of this carpet continued in Persian carpets upto the 16th century. M. Blochet then gives a plate illustrating a carpet in which the above style of embroide^sy was copied. Now I think that the carpet of Khusru, known as the “ Spring of Khusru ” referred to by M. Blochet, as being one, the style of which served as a model for a long time, was one of the 18 remark- able things of the reign of Khusru Parviz ^ referred to in the above Pahlavi treatise. The object of this paper, therefore, is to determine, as said above, the 1 8 remarkable things or events of Khusrm’s reign and the period of 18 years during which they occurred. First of all, I will determine, what we may call,, the fortunate 18 years of Khusru’s reign. 11 . The Fortunate 18 years of Khusru' s reign. • Khusru Parviz was one of the most unfortunate as well as one of the most fortunate kings of Persia. As said by Noldeke on the Chosro^a,’ et les Arabes, qui, a la Mecque et a M^dine, n’avaient jamais vu un object qu’on lui put comparer, lui donnerent le nom de al-Katjiif * le Tapis.’, * Old Arab writers like Mas’udi and .Tabari, give the name as dbarwiz. The word seems to be* originally something like Av. aparUy (far off,) and viz or rather (to be or become or to come), i.e., •one who reaches far off; then victorious. Noldeke (Oeschichis der Peraer und ArdbcT, p. 275 n.) thus traces it : aparweg, (tpanvez, (neu-Pers.) )^ Ji t si si ] y ^ Firdausi then says that in the 28th year of Khusru’s reign (618 A. C.) Barbad, a great singer, came to the court of Persia. Sargfish ^ who commanded great influence in the Court, hearing of his arrival got a little afraid, lest the singing of this new-comer, who had made his name outside the court, would undermine his influence with the king, and tried to keep him out of the Court, even going to the length of bribing the chamberlain for that purpose. We further learn from Firdausi that this Barbad was a foreigner. He went to the court of Khusru from his own country {ze keshvay beshnd (a ha dargah-Ushah). Thus it seems that both these singers were foreigners. Sargash was a Christian divine and Barbad also may be a Christian bishop. As to this musician Sargash ( ^ ), I think, that he was the same as the St. Sergius of the Western writers. We know that there was a martyr named St. Sergius to whom Khusru was attach- ed Gibbon refers to some preliminary inclination of the king towards Christianity, the result of the influence of Maurice whom he calls his “ adopted father,” and then says : “ The imaginary conversion of the king of Persia was reduced to a local super- ** Macan’a (Calcutta ed.), Vol. IV, p. 2008. Mohl (small ed.) Vol VII, p. 259. s* Vide the small edition of M. Mohl’s French Translation, Vol. VII. p. 255. Warner’s Vol. VIII, p. 397. Dastur Minocheher’s Vol. IV, p 6M Kutar Brothers’ Vol. IX, p. 78. ’ ’ 34 Eighteen Remarkable Things of Khusru Parviz stitious veneration for Sergius, one of the saints of Antioch, who heard his prayers and appeared to him in dreams ; he enriched hia shrine with offerings of gold and silver, and ascribed to his invin- cible patron, the success of his arms, and the pregnancy of Sira,, a devout Christian, and the best beloved of his wives. The beauty of Sira or Schirin, her wit, her musical talents, are still famous in the history or rather in the romance of the east.” So, I think that the Sargash of the Oriental writers is no other than Bishop Sergius. Again, let us take a note of what Firdausi says of Sargash’s song. He recited in his song benedictions and blessings. Again, I think, that the title Farr-i Buzargi referred to by Firdausi is a rendering of something like His Reverence.” All these facts lead me to conclude that Sargash and Sergius were the same persons. We saw above, that in one place (Chap. 55 of Zotcnberg) Tabari has referred to eleven rare things or events connected with the name of Khosru Parviz. He has refer- 12. A Rich Car- red to them under the head of Khusru‘& treasures, “ ses richesses,” as said by Zotenberg on the authority of his text of Tabari. But we find, tliat Tabari has referred to a twelfth rare rich thing in another part of his work in his account of the defeat of the last Sassanian monarch Yazdagaid. While describing ail the teasures that fell into the hands of the Arabs, he thus describes a carpet which fell into their hands and which he names “ the Spring of Khusru : 1 j ^ cVi I ^ C ^ 1 J-Aii C ^ I j jC lyl j lyj ^ y ;di I j j /ic u;lji ^)\ (^;I J »•> i X.J ;dil J' 3 i)) ^;) J 37 Op. cit. Vol. Ill, p. 238. 38 Zotenberg, op. cit. Ill, p. 417. Eighteen Remarkable Things of Khusnt Parviz 35- ^ ttjT J> > '->-*'1 -^U ;jj| ^ ;•> jj ^ ; Ki )i li) T -) ' J-^ j :>l£«,y SM .diil '-Ai-^jy >yT y-: sSc- jd/| ^) j*c Ja-.; Ai>^ iijjf- y tVi J l^ij Trinslation. -4ii his treasures, they found a carpet 300 cubits long and 60 cubits broad. They called it DastS,n. The kings of Persia si)read it and sat on it at the time when there was nothing, green in the world (ie,, in winter). On every 10 cubits of it, they ha at Madayan (Ctesiimon) by Khusru, should be taken as one of the 18 great things or events of the reign of Khursu. According to Firdausi, he had sent for architects and artists from Eoiim, India, China and other countries to build this palace. He collected 3,000 masons and other artizans. Over these 3,000, he set 30 as superiors and over these tliirty there were three — two Roumi or Byzantine and one Farsi, i,e,^ Persian, wlio were placed at the head of all. Then again, out of these three, one Bvzantine was made the chief architect. This architect whose name was Fargana laid the foundation, 10 royal rash i.e., lb feet deep and 7J feet broad. After filling up the found- ation and the upper structure of plinth, he got some measurements taken and got the measuring tape duly marked placed in the trea- sury of the king. He then, with the view that the foundation may be set [)roperly, asked to postpone tlie work of superstructure. But the king wanted liim to proceed with the work. The architect thought that tliere was danger of the foundation sinking and that the foundation must be allowed to set properly. But, when he found that the king was impatient, rather than run the risk of building a grand palac(‘ whicli may sink, he quietly left the court and fled to his country. Tlie king got angry and asked other experts ta proceed with tlie work but none undertook the risk of sinlcage by proceeding with the work at once. The king got disheartened and left ol! the idea of proceeding with Ihe work till another good archi- tect was found. None capable to carry on the work could be found. So, no work was done for three years. The first Byzan- tine architect turned up again in the fourth year and explained (he state of affairs to the king. He sent for the tape with the previous measurement, referred to above, from the. treasury, and, measuring the foundation, plinth, kc.^ showed to the king that the Molil small Edition VH, p. 260. Macan (IV p. 2011) gives the heading of the subject as *'Sakhtan-i Khusru Shehrd Madayan ra,” Kutat3rothera» Vol X, p. 81. Eighteen Remarkable Things of Khiisru Parviz 3d foundation had sunk a little, that after three years’ postponement it had properly set itself, and that there was lo risk of proceeding with the work now. The architect then took seven, years to complete the work. The palace so constructed was an unique work of art. It seems that notwithstanding all the precautions taken by. the architect to do the work slowly in oitler to let tlie foundation set properly, the palace twice suffered damage during the very life- time of tile King. According to Tabari (Chapter od, entitled Muji- zat-i Hazrat Paetjamhar i.e., The ^liracles of the Prophet), the fall of a part of one of the vaults of the palace of Ctesiphon, was taken to be a miracle in connection with the new religion of the Arab prophet intended, to show to Khusru, that he was wrong in, not acknowledging the prophet. • • The above 14 things or events present to us a splendid view of the grandeur and splendour of tlie Court of Khiisru Parviz. Gibbon, while speaking of the luxtirious life of Khusru Qiobon and i \ i ^ 4 . • 1 r at Ctesiphoii and at Artaima, spoken of as Malcolm on the ^ Riches of Khusru. oriental writers, thus refers to Dastgard some of the remarkable above list. things named in. our “ Nine hundred and sixty elephants were maintained for the use or splend- our of the great king : his tents and baggage were carried into the field by twelve thousand great camels, and eight thousand of a smaller size ; and the royal stables were filled with six thousand mules and horses, among whom the names of Shebdiz and Barid are renowned for their speed or beauty. Six thousand guards successively mounted before the palace gate ; the service of the inferior apartments was perform^ by twelve thousand slaves, the fairest of -Asia The various treasures of gold, silver, gems, silk and aromatics, were deposited in a hundred subterraneous vaults ; and the chamber Badaverd denoted the accidental gift of the winds which had wafted the’ spoils of Heraclius into one of the Syrian harbours of his rival. The voice of flattery, and perhaps of fiction, is not ashamed to compute the thirty ’ thousand rich hangings that adorped the walls, the forty thousand columns of silver, or more probably of marble, and plated wood, that supported the roof : and a thousand globes oif gold suspended in the dome, to imitate the motions of the planets and constellations of the Zodiac.” 44 Vol. Ill, p. 25i (ed. of 1844). 40 Eighteen Remarkable Things of Khusru Parviz Malcolm, in his History of Persia thus speaks of Khusru' s luxury and magnificence, “(a) His noble palaces, of which he built one for every season ; (6) his thrones, which were invaluable, parti- cularly that called Takh-dis, formed to represent the twelve signs of the Zodiac and the hours of the day ; (c) his treasures*^ ; (d) his ladies, of whom there were twelve thousand every one, if we believe the gravest Persian writers, equal to the moon in splendour and beauty; (e) his horses, of which fifty thousand stood in the royal stables ; (/) his twelve hundred elephants ; (^)his Arabian*® charge Shub-Deez, fleeter than the wind ; (h) his enchanting musician, Barbud ; (i) above all, the incomparable Shereen, with whom he was distractedly in love ; are subjects on which a thousand volumes have been written by his countrymen. Although the magnificence of this prince has been much exaggerated, we may conclude, that no monarch ever lived in greater luxury and splendour. His reign for more than thirty years was marked by a success never, surpassed by the most renowned of his ancestors.’" The nine remarkable possessions referred to by Malcolm in the above passage are contained in our above list given on the authority of Tabari. It seems that when Malcolm wrote this, he had the work of Tabari before him. One can name the Palace of Mashita in Moab, situated on the table-land on the east of the Dead Sea, as one of Khusru’s rich rare possessions. Its exterior was orna- mented with beautiful sculpture on the stone surface. The designs of this palace are believed to be presenting “an evident link between Assyrian and Byzantine art.”*® “Among the Mashita 16. T^e Palace of Khusru at Ma- shita, “ One of these treasures was called Badawerd or “ The Gift of the Winds,” because it had been cast upon his territories when conveying to the Roman Emperor.” Malcolm's History of Persia, Vol. I, p. 126. Malcolm is wrong in this observation, as said above. According to Tabari, as said above, it was a charger from Roum (i.e., Constantinople.) *7 Malcolm’s History of Persia, Vol. I, pp. 125-26 2nd ed. of 1829. W. Morris and Prof. Middleton in the article on “Mural Decora* tion” in the Eneyclopcedia Britannica (9th Ed.) Vol. XVII, p. 36, col. 1. Eighteen Remarkable Things of Khusru Parviz 4! carvings occurs that oldest and most widely spread of all forms of Aryan ornament — the sacred tree between two animafe. The sculptured slab over the ‘ lion gate ’ at Mycenae has the other common variety of this motive — the fire-altar between the beasts. These designs, occasionally varied by figures of human worshipper instead of the beasts, survived in a most extraordinary way long after their meaning had been forgotten.”^®® I think that Khusru’s conquest of the country round Constantinople and Jerusalem may be taken as the remaining three remarkable principal things or events of the reign 16. Conquest of Khusru. As to Egypt, it had long remained Egypt under the sway of the Roman Empire. As said by Mr. Reginald Stuart Poole, Egypt, remote from the great conflicts that destroyed the Weste^rn Empire, and threatened the existence of the Eastern, had enjoyed uninterrupted freedom from an invader since its conquest of Zenobia^® and had known no rebellion since that of Achilleus.” So, its fall when attacked by Khusru in 616 A.C. may naturally be considered as a great event. When Emperor Maurice of Rome was treacherously killed by the tyrant Phocas, who succeeded him in 602 A.C. ^ Khusru assumed the role of a protector of Mau- 17. • Conquest of rice's deposed son Theodosius who had sought Chalcedon, refuge in his court. Again Narses, who ruled over the country round Edessa^ asked his help against Phocas. So, when Phocas sent his ambassadors in 604 A.C. to the Court of Persia to announce his accession, Khusru imprisoned the aijibassadors and declared war. The war lasted long, and, as said byj^rof. Noldeke, Khusru “ for 20 years laid the Roman lands open to such ravages as had never before been known ; so helpless was the Ibid. Vol. XVII, col. 1. n. 1. Article on Egypt. Encyclopcedia Britannica (9th Ed.) Vol. VII. p. 748. Zenobia was the queen of Palmjrra. She came to power in A.C. 266. She claimed to be the queen of the East and invaded Syria and Egypt. Achilleus had assumed the title of Emperor rebelling against Dio- cletian and ruled over Egypt for some time till overthrown and put to death by Diocletian in A,C. 296. Eighteen Remarkable Things of Khusru Par viz 42 empire under the bad rule of Phocas and through the pressure of Avars and other barbarians. Khosrau was present at the taking of Dara (001 A.C.). .... After a few years, the Persian armies were seen as far west as Chalcedon against Constantinople.”^^ Thus, this ureat event of curbing the power of Rome, in a way never experienced before, slioiild assuredly be considered a rernarkalile event of Kluisru’s reign. Tlie con([ue8t of Jerusalem and the caj^ture of the very cross on whicli (Jirist was crucified was an event which surprised the wliole C’hristendom, and so, it can easily be taken 18. Conquest of as a l eniarkable event in the reign of Khusru. Jenisalem. Kliusrii took it in 014 A.C. and he is said to have burned some of the cluirclies and sepul- chres. This conquest of Jerusalem and capture of tlie Holy Cross must liave been considered a great remarkable event by the Ptu'sians, ('specially because tliey believed that the inclination of Kluisru in the early years of Ids reign was in favour of Christianity. TJie Zoroastrinn courtiers of tlie King did not like his being, too much uiidei* the inlluence of Christian bishops and Christianity. AV^e know from oriental writers, that the Zoroastrian courtiers at one time, resented the king putting on the n^yal robe presented to him by his Christian father-in-law Maurice, because it carried the symbol of Cross and other Christian symbols. Again, \ve know that at on(‘ time, when the Zoroastrian prayer of grace was recited by a Zoroastrian courtier — accc.mling to one authority, it was the king himself who was reciting it — at a dinner given in honour of a Roman ambassador, the ambassador objected to the recital, saying that a Zoroastrian ritual should not take place in the presence of a ChrWian ambassador. The quarrel that rose between the Christian amlias- sador and the Zoroastrian courtier would have ended in blood- shed, had it not been for the Roman wife of Khusru who persuaded the ambassador^ who in this case was one of her own brothers, to give way. Thus, under all these circumstances, the capture of Jerusalem and its Holy Cross may have been taken as a remarkable — c— ; — Prof. KoWeke in. his Article on Persia {Eticyclopcedia Britannico, 0th Ed., Vol. 18, p. 6U). Eighteen Remarkable Things of Khusru Parviz 43 event of Khusru’s reign by his people. Gibbon speaks of the capture of the Cross as the ruin of the proudest rhonulinent of Christianity,’* On the subject of the capture of Jerusalem and of the Holy Cross we read the following in Gibbon’s History: “ The conquest of Jerusalem, which liad been meditated by Nushirvan was achieved by the zeal and avarice of his grandson ; the ruin of the proudest monument of Christianity was vehemently urged by the intolerant spirit of the Magi ; and he could enlist, for this holy^* w^arfare, an army of six and twenty thousand Jews, wlio^e furious bigotry might compensate, in some degree, for the want of valour and discipline. After the reduction of Galilee, and the region beyond the Jordon, whose resistance appeal’s to have delayed the fate of the capital, Jeiusalem itself was taken by assault. The sepulchre of Christ, and the stately churches of Helena and Constantine, were consumed, or at least damaged, by the flames ; the devout offerings of three hundred years were rifled in one sacrilegious day ; the patriarch Zachariah, and the true cross w ere transported into Persia.” ^ Sir P. Sykes speaks of this seizure of the True Cross” as *‘'an act which moved Christendom to its depths.” Firdousi describes a letter of the Koman Emperor to Khusru requesting the return of the Holy Cross and Khusrii’s letter politely refusing that request. History tells us that the victory of Khusru in Jerusalem was short-lived. The new Koman Emperor Heraclius undid all that • Khusru had done. According to Tabari, prophet Tht Arab Pro- Muhammad had prophesied this turn of affairs, phei 3 Prophecy in prophecy has been taken as one of the connection with the . , . , _ capture of Jeru- miracles accompanying the advent of the Salem. Prophet in Khusru’s reign. According to this author, during the 20th year of the reign of Khufru Parviz the Prophet began preaching at Mecca. He fled to MIdina at the end of the 30th year. There was hardly a day since The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Ed. of 1844, VoL III. p. 249. • . 54 One cannot understand well, why Gibbon should call this warfare holy ” on the part pf the Persians, as this was not a religious war against the Romans eis Christians. : 5S Persia (1922) p. 40. Macan’s Edition, Vol. IV, pp. 1992-98. Mohl’s small edition, Vol. VII, pp. 227-239. ^ 44 Eighteen Bemarkable Things of Khusru Par viz the birth of the Prophet when God did not show evidences of his prophetic mission to Parviz. Tabari then describes^^ the following miracles of the Prophet which occurred at the court of Parviz. (a) The vaults of Khusru’s palace of Madain (Ctesiphon) fell down twice. Each time the reparation cost one million®^ dir- hems. When Khusru asked of his astrologers the signification of this event, they told him that it portended the coming of .a- new religion. • (b) When once Khusru was crossing a bridge, it fell by the force of water and lie just escaped falling. The reparation of the bridge cost 5,00,000 dirhems. (c) Once, when Khusru was in his apartment, a person with a stick {cJi iih) in his hand came suddenly into his presence and said til at Mahomed was a true prophet. He added If you will not follow him I will destroy (lit. break up) your religion.’’ He, on uttering tliese words, symbolically broke thestick.^ This person was an angel who had come to warn Khusru. (d) The people of Roum (the then Roman Empire, which had its capital in Constantinople, known at first as New Rome) conspired and killed their king Maurice, who had sent his son Theodosius to assist Khusru to regain his throne. Then they placed Phocas on the throne. Then on the representation of Theodosius, who reminded Khusru of what his father had done for him, Khusru sent a Persian army under Farroukhan to the help of Theodosius. At the same time, he sent another general Cadran to invade Jerusa- lem. This general took the holy city and got possession of the Holy Cross which he sent to Parviz. Parviz placed it in his treStSure. 56 o6th Chapt. according to Zotenberg. The Persian version of Tabari heads this chapter as ^ (Naval Kishbre’s Text, p. 360). 67 The Persian version gives the figure as one hundred thousand. (Naval Kishore’s Text, p. 360 1.12). This version further on says that the people of Persia were not taken to be the people of the book (Ibid 1. 14) : — ^ 1 j Eighteen Eemarkable Things of Khusru Parviz 45 The supporters of the prophet had taken a wager on the subject of the result of the war and the prophet himself j redicted a vi/tory in the end fortheRotnans, and his prediction began to turn out suc- cessful with the advent of Heraclius ( ) on the throne of the Roman Empire.^® 5® Tabari also describes aa embassy of the Prophet to the Court of Khusru Parviz. The Persian king tor© off the letter from the Prophet, who on hearing the news, cursed the king saying : He has tom asunder his own country * ^1). Naval Kishore’s Text, p. 361. L 10. A FFAV PERSIAN, INSCRIPTIONS OF KASHMIR.* I II AJ) THE PLEASURE of three visits to Kashmir. During the last two of these visits, I copied some of the imj)iib]ished inscriptions of the beautiful valley. In my paper, entitled The. Mogul, Emperors Intiodactwn, Kashmir,” read before the Bombay Branch ot the Royal Asiatic Society^ I have published the texts and the translations of three of the inscriptions — two at Virnag and one on the Dal Lake. In my paper, entitled “ An unpublished Inscription at the Margalla Pass ne^r Rawalpindi,” read before this Society^, I have given a fourth inscription which belongs not strictly to Kashmir but to the frontiers of Kaslnnir. I submit in this paper, some more' inscriptions wliich, as far as I know, are not published as yet. How- ever, if they have been published, I beg to submit, that my Qopy and translation may be kindly accepted as serving the purpose of comparison. 1 request, that they may be taken, not as copies made by an expert, specially working on them as an archaeologist, but as those of an amateur tourist, travelling with the eye and taste of an humble antiquarian. Inscriptions on the Mosque of Shah Hamadan. The first set of inscriptions which I submit in this paper is from the Masjid of Shah Hamadan in Srinagar, situated on the right bank of the Jheluin between the third bridge, Fateh Kadal,^and the fourth bridge, Zaina Kadal. The Masjid is known after ^ a Mohamedan saint known as Shah Hamadan. The original name of the saint was Mir Sayyid iShdh Hamadan. i i ‘ . i. i? tt i. • All, but, as he came from the city of Hamadan in Persia, he was known as Hamadan! (i.e., ‘‘ of ♦ This paper was sent, through the Bombay Branch, to the Royal Asiatic Society, to be read on the occasion of its Centenary. ^ J.B.B.R.A.S. Vol. 25, pp. 26-75. - Ibid, pp. 325-345. A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir Hamadan’’)^* Shat- Hamadan is said to have come to Kashmir lu the time of Qutb-ud-din (1373-1398 A.C.) and to have had a great hand in Mohamedanizing the coimtry. They say that on the spot where the Masjid now stands, there ran a spring which was held sacred by the ancient Pandits of Kashmir, and that king Pravarsena 11 (79-139 The Masjid built there a temple dedicated to Kali. On the conquest of Kashmir by the Mohamedans. there came to the country many Mohamedans .of the Sayyid and other rehgiouB classes, with a view to preach Mohammedanism, and, among these, Shah Hamadan was the principal one. Among the many sacred Hindu places desecrated by the Mohammedan rulers, one was that of this Hindu temple. Qutb-ud-din is said to have first built a Masjid over this pl^jpe, using the materials of the temple for its construction. He built it *in the memory of Shah Hamadan who is said to have died at Pakhali •near Abbotabad. Sikandar But-shikun is said, to have extended thisJVIasjid. It was destroyed by fire in 1479 A. D. and was rebuilt by Sultan Hasan Shah, with a single storey, llpto this time the Mohammedans of Kashmir were all Sumii. Most of them are still Sunni. But in the time of Sultan Muhammad Shah, there came here a^Shiah, named Mir Shams Iraqi. He, with a view to destroy this important place of worsliip of the Sunnis, said to the ruling king that he wanted to build a better two-storied Masjid. He pulled it down and then did not rebuild it. Thereupon, the queen of the Mohammedan king rebuilt it as a centre of the Sunni worship. In 1731, it was again burnt and was rebuilt by s Hamadan is the Ecbatana of the classical writers. Herodotus (Bk. I.,%8) attributes its foundation to the first Median king Dioces. The Pahlavj Shatroiha-Airan (vide my translation of the Yadgar-i-Zariran, Shatroiea Airan, etc.) attributes it to Yazdajard I. Masudi attribute^ it to Alexander the Great (Ma^oudi, traduit par Barbier de Meynard, Vol. 9, p. 21). Accord- ing to some Mohamedan authors, one Hamadan, son of Felewdj, son of Sem, son of Noah, founded it. (Dictionaire Gcographique de h Perse, par B. de Meynard). .According to Mustawfi, Jamshed founded it, and Dara of Dara rebuilt it (Ibid). The saint is generally spoken of as Shah Hamadan (i,e. King Hamadan), ■because some.. of .the. Mohammedan saints are spoken of as Shah. Cf. The practice of the Parsees addressing their priests as Padshah (king). 48 A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir Ab’ul Barakat Khan. Thus reconstructed, it stands up to now. Like the Juraa Masjid it is entirely built of wood. As large wooden structures, all built of wood, these two Masjids, especially the Juma Masjid, are worth seeing. The old structures of the Masjid having been twice burnt and once pulled down, the Persian inscriptions must be taken to be as old as only 1731 A.D, There are two groups of Persian inscriptions on this Masjid of Shah Hamadan. One is on the outside of the Masjid, over and near the door-way, and the other inside the The, Outside qibla-gah or arch of worship. Eev. Loewenthal ^ published the inscriptions of the first group, i,e., those which are outside on the entrance. So, I do not give them here. Here and there, I may tiyinslate them a little differently, but that is not a very important matter. However, this group of inscriptions require a few obser- vations, which I will make here, before giving the second group ol inside inscriptions, which, so far as I know, have not been published. Rev. Loewenthal has given the outside inscriptions in three sets or parts. I beg to draw attention to the following points in connection with these sets, with a view to help those who want to examine personally at some time the inscriptions, and with a view to give some proper amendations : , (a) The lines which Rev. Loewenthal has given second in his paper (p. 281), wliich begin with the words and which give the date of Shah Hamadan’s death, stand first in the inscription. (b) The lines in his second (really speaking the first) set are one below another as given by him in his first set and nob one i>y the side of another. On the other hand, the lines of the couplets in his first (really speaking the second) set are one by the side of another and not one below another, as given by him. (c) In the case of the third set of lines as given by Rev. Loe- wenthal, the two lines in the first row occur on our right hand side facing the gate, the lines of the row being one under another. The ^ “ Some Peraian Inscriptions found in Srinagar, Kafthmir J.B. AS. Vol. 33(1865),pp, 278-90. A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmr i'' 0 ®^'’®'^® COUON'''^ n:v3f lines of the second row beginning wi^^tlft^^Cri^ds inscribed on the left hand side. (d) Eev, Loewenthal has headed his second set (which in fact stands first) on the entrance door of the Masjid with the words ei>Uj “the date of his death”). I did not find them. During my third visit to Kashmir I visited the Ililasjid three times. The third visit was specially made to ascertain again* if the words occurred in the inscription, and I did not find them. So, I think, they were put in by Rev. Loewenthal by mistake. Possibly, somebody, connected with the Masjid, who accompanied him and helped him in copying the inscriptions, as they occasionally do when we visit the Masjids and try to read the inscriptions there- on, merely said to him in Persian, by way of infonnation, that the inscription in question referred to his (Shah Hamadan’s) der^th ftarikh-i-wafat-i-wae), and he mistook the words for the inscription itself and took them down. (e) The inscription begins with the following well known * . I X Arabic pray erformula above the arched doorr^^ y ! jJlil ^ (In the name of God, the kind, the beneficent). ^ Rev. Loewenthal has not given it. It is below the above Arabic formula, that the lines ©f the first two sets of inscriptions, as given by him, run. Now, I come to the second group of inscriptions : those in the inside of the Masjid. I give them below. They are not given by Rev. Loewenthal, perhaps, because he was not The inside allowed to go in, or perhaps because, having inscription. written on the painted wood of the Mihrab ^ of the Qiblah, where it is generally a little dark he did not see them. During my two visits to the Masjid , though the days were clear and the visits were in the morning at about 9-30 a.m., I had to send for candles and a ladder to lead the inscription. 5 This weU-known Arabic prayer formula is in the fine of a weU-known Parsi Pahlavi formula, pavan sham-i Yahdn, as also in that of the well- known Pazand and Persian formula which precedes many Parsee prayers 50 A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir The inscription is on the wooden wall opposite to the entrance round about the llihrab or the arch. (a) The wooden wall containing the Slihrab may be divided into three parts from top to bottom. The second or the middle part round the Mihrab has on its wooden panel the various names of God such as : ' ^ i.c., 0 Powerful ! lis b Names of God inserted on the Mihrab. /II, jVtjji ^ [j 0 Known ! 0 Concealed ! 0 Guardian ! 0 Eternal ! 0 Possessor of Countries ! 0 Glorious and Venerable f 0 True Gpd ! 0 Relenting ! 0 Lord ! 0 Beneficent ! 0 Powerful ! 0 Pardoner ! 0 Merciful ! The Persian inscri j)f{i)ns pro- per over the Mih- rdh. / •• ' — (h) The following lines are the three sides of the Mihrab below on the right hand side as we stand facinji it : inscribed on beginning “from 1 Jc I > ^ 2$ Lm ^ ^Ic Jij 7 Probably This line could not be read as it was hidden .under a lamp socket, 8 According to Professor Sarfraz in a note submitted to the Editor, miswritten for uS* d Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir 51 I L' ^ ^ a-»^ » ^ Tramlalion, ‘‘ Mli ^ is like the falcon (^ah-baz) of the air (wliich is) without any settled place. Ali, is the king of the world (wliich is) without any sign (bi-ni^an). shah Hamdan is like ‘All and of the progeny (al) of Muhammad. ‘Ali is the very spirit (naqd) of ‘Ali and ‘All of Hamadan is (as it were) the second ‘Ali He is above the favours of the corporeal world. That road (i.e., of being above worldly favours) is the path(tari({) of shah-e-Hamadan. It is tlie road of ^ah-e-Hamadan who is second ‘Ali.” (c) The following four lines are inscribed in small letters over the Mihr«ab : jd ^ /-lb y( ^ X cu ^ I Lav ^ I i\ Ia*# j ^ /'I ^ (J Ty ^ kS I T ranslalion. “Every favour which is oxcellenH^ in both the worlds results from following (pae-ravi) of His Holiness Shah Hamadan. Shah Hamadan, who is the Emperor of the World. May" dust fall on that eye (dideh) which is in doubts (raib) and scepticism (about him, ic., which doubts his piety and power)”. These four lines are a repetition of four outside lines on the entrance which form the first set in llev. Loewenthal’s paper, but with one difference, riz.^ that while the third line in the inside runs as ; ^ i Lwa. 1^ Li | Lw ‘‘ SayyiU ‘Ali was the original name of ^ah Hamadan whose name the mosque bears. 10 for r-pure. Here by “the Holy” is m^ant Muhammad the Hoi}' Prophet. Prof es or Sarfraz suggests the translation of the above lines as follows : “ The Iloyal Falcon of the air of Spaceless Region is Ali. The King of the traceless World is Ali. The chief of Mankind and the family of T. H and the second Ali is Ali of Hamadan. .... That way is the way of (adopted by) ^ah Ham- adan. That Shah*6"Hamadan who is the second Ali”. ‘Sabiqa’= pre-excellence, precedence, superiority. 52 A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir that on the outside runs as : Instead of the word an Ac, we have halke, but that does not make much difference in sense. It seems that they were latterly written in the inside of the Masjid. The fact that tliey are inscribed in letters smaller than those of the other lira's seems to show this. Again, below these lines we read tlie words : it be good in the end. 1208 ”.) So. it se^ims that the ouside four lines on the entrance were inscribed in tlie inside, later on, in 1208 Hijri (1793 A.C.) (d) Tlie following lines are written over the arch in a straight hnc over the above set of lines : LllJ ^ Si pW j y 1 , 1 (tli 1 ^ AM.J Translation. 11 is Holiness the generous Shah-i said an ayat (/.f ., verse) of kindness from ancient sayings, at the last breath (i.c., at tlu' time of death), oiz.^ ‘ bisnhlla alrah- inan al rahim’ (/.c., in the name of (Jod, the kind, the beneficent) and (these words) became (his) date.’' The Arabic formula of Bismilla gives us 78G Hijri (1384 A.D.) as the date of his death. This date (78G Hijri) corresponds jvith the date of his tleath, given in one of the above mentioned outside inscriptions which runs thus : A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir 53 Translation,— '' When seven hundred and eighty-six years Hijri passed from the time of Ahmad, the seal of religion, tl?en there passed away from (this) transient world to the eternal world, the Amir of both the worlds of the family of Yasm (e) The following inscriptions on woodtni tablets some of wliich, having got out of their proper position, are nailed, and one of which is missing, are found on the top of tlie abov(i mention- ed inscriptions : ^ y |»Ai (*/ J>. ^ )>. Translation. — 0 Generous royal falcon Look towards me (who am) a danvish. Look to the condition of myself (who am) depressed and heart-broken. I[owe.v(*.r unfit for your kindness and generosity I may be, do not look towards me, but 'look towards your own generosity [i.e., if you find me faulty, kindly do not look to (i.e., overlook) my faults and out of your own generosity of mind be kind to me]”. (/I Then follow the two Arabic lines with the word Allah, on * both 'sides and with the names of Allah, Muhammed, Abubakr, Hasan, ‘Usman and AU on both sides. The order of the above-said inscriptions over the inner Mihrab is in the following order from up to down below : ( I ) An Arabic inscription. Another Arabic inscription. <• (3) Then the Persian inscription on wooden tablets, some of which, getting loose, have been nailed. (4) Then the Persian inscription with large types which run up from below from, the right hand side and then over the top and then run down on the left. 13 Ahmed was one of the names of Muhammad, and Yasin is one of his surnames. 14 Shah Hamadan is compared to the royal falcon (^.4h-biz) and is addressed as suclu 54 A Few Persian Inscriplims of Kashmir (5) Then the inscription in smaller letters, which is also in- scribed outside the Masjid on the entrance. There is an inscription on the outside of a building which is An inscription Masjid and which stands on on an attached the bank of the river above the place held building, sacred in honour of Kali. It runs as follows ; Ovw I j]j^] If j (.> <.^^9 5 ; j.} /} Uj lJXo I r ^ ]j Translation. “0 Exhalted (Jod ! What an /\xhalted place of honour (bargah) it is ! It is a place of splendour of lights like a mountain (Tur)^ *. 1 feaven inquired about the date of its erection. The angel said ‘bina shud khana-i-nur' (tc. , it was erected as the house of splendour). Writer Aziz year 12()9.” The words jy give the date as (2+50 [-1-| -300 -( 4 [ ()00 ^-1 [ 50-) 5 f 50q 0 +200— ) 1209. This year ]2()9 Tlijri corresponds to A.(k l(S52-53. It shows that it is a conqiaratively recent structure. There an^ some lat(*r inscriptions on the entrance of the Masjid which are not the j)(‘rman(Mit inscriptions of the Masjid itself, but are rather votive inscriptions written on detached cardboard-like papers and ])inn(‘d on the walls. One of such inscriptions is a copy of an inscription at Ifazrat Ral. of which I will speak later on. Under this ipiotation of the Ifazrat Bal inscription there runs the following Arabic line : up /. e. He who enters this place gets peace. A Fkw Inscriptions in thf. Jumm.v M.\8jii) of Srinagar. During my visit of the Jumma Masjid on 11th July 1915, I saw the following three inscriptions : Xtir^a mountain. Mount Sinai is esi)ecially kiio\v’n by that name. A Few Persian Inscri'ptions of Kashmir 65 1. An inscription on the Gate, of the time of Johangir givijig the date of the construction of the Musjid after tlu destruction, by fire, of the original building. 2. An inscription of a Farmanor Order of Shah Jehan, order- ing nlief to the people of Kashmir in several directions. 3. An inscription on a stone tablet, divided into two parts and lying in a wing of the IMasjid on the right hand side, while entering it. Rev. Loewentlial gives, in his above mentioned paper, ‘‘Some Persian Inscriptions found in Srinagar, Kashmir” (././i.. l.N.,18r)4,Vol. 33, No. 3, p. 278 ef serf.), the last two of the above 1 . The I men inscriptions, which he heads as “fiiscription on tion on the. entr- ‘ ,, * . anre (othe Mmjid ^^^^d near the Great Mos([ue." He has not giv^n the first inscription, whicli, as far as I know, is unpublished. It is on the very top of the gate. Rev. Loewenthal did not give it, p(‘rhaps, ))ecau8e it is mutilated, as the result of the fire that destroyed the original building. ft is written at the top of the entrance in three rows, each row containing three misras (hemistichs). The right hand portion of the inscription is destroyed by wear and tear and by the fire above referred to. It seems that the prijsent inscription is what remained after the fire m the reign of Aurangzeb. This king, though lie rebuilt the Masjid burnt by fire, added no inscription to record his work of reconstruction. He or his officers simply got the old inscription of the time of Jehangir replaced, however mutilated, on the top of the gate. We do not find on the gate whole of the inscription as I give it. The burnt or deM:royed portion was given to me orally by a Maulvi in charge of ihe Masjid, who said, that his authority was some written manu- script, in which, perhaps, the inscription was recorded before the fire which occurred in the time of Aurangzeb. He said that even in the manuscript referred to by him, some lines were missing. Not having seen the manuscript itself, I am not in a position to say, whe- ther, as he said, the inissing lines are not found in the manuscript. I do not find fault with his memory, as he recited the lines pretty fluently. I enclose in parenthesis the portion which I did not find in the inscription on the entrance, but which was. kindly given to 56 A Feiv Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir me orally by him. The last line of the inscription runs vertically on the left hand side of the inscription. xCau] ^ J Ij j jj dHj J I I ^ ^ ^ Uc j] L-J^b jl [sLc: (34^' ;i [f A 2?'***'^ lipjl b j>_. MkJ J A 1 Vi) /i VwM bx ^ ^ u < 4)5 J 1 b O**' 1 ) A .AA* 1 j*4jl/ 1 J 5 )j ^ U ^y. y J ^ Cl? j] j A Jui 1 ^ ^ I Cli [;l /•} j j .j l>r jj;4 1 ; ; A_.^ jj: jl .'L — p Ia.J U f ^ jl AJ -au ^ vjaj ) ^.4;U A . Tronshliioil. '‘At first, tin' Janie‘Masjid was built by king Sikaudar tiu^ second, and then it was burnt through the destiny of Ood. After some time, Hasan ,^ah who was from his holy descent, became the constructor^^ of this i\Iasjid through divine guidajice. But he erected neither the columns on both sides nor the roof^'^. Know that they were erected by Ibrahim Ahmad Magri. From Hijri nine hundred and nine till the time of Muham- mad ^ah, this paradise-like building became the ornament of the Musulman religion. , In the year one thousand and twenty-nine The beginnings and ends of the lines given here are as they are found in the inscription itself. 17 Ar. Bani, Maker; builder. 1® Saqf=» roof. A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir 5? ot the Hijrat of Muhammad^®, on the day of the ‘Id of Rauza (Ramazan), it was burnt down for the second time. Malik Haidar Ra‘is-id-mulk (i.e., the chief of the country) in the time of Jehangir laid its new foundation again on the day of the ‘Id of Qurban. Malik IJaidar, tlie chief of the country of Kashmir, brought it to com]>ietion with care. Ry way of endeavour. Uierad (/.c., wis(ipm) is said to be its date.**^^ We leain f rom this inscription the following facts : 1. The iMasjid was first built (Hijri 801 1 101-2 A.C.)by Sikandar,-^* a king of Kashmir, who began reigning av tlie end of the 14th Century A.C. 2. Aftt*r being burnt by fire it was rebuilt by one of Ids descendants Hasan ,^ah. 2. Ibrahim Ahmad Magri added a portion to tj^e ]\lasjid. This was in 909 Hijri (1503 A.C.) in the • time of Muhammad ^ah. •1. On the day of the Ramazan ‘Id on 1029 (1619 A.C.) ^ it was again burnt down. 5. Malik Haidar, in the reign of Jehangir, rebuilt it and laid the foundation of tJie new building, perhaps on the very ne^ t ‘Id-i-Qurban. 6. The Hijri year 804 (1101-2 A.C.) was the date of , its first construction. Ihindit Anand Koid-^ thus gives a short history of the .Masjid. It was - “Built ori;^iiiallv by Sikandar in 1404 with the materials of a largo stone tcmi)lc constructed by King T.irapida (693-97 x\. I).). The roof of the four surron^iding cloisters of the building is supported by two rows of pillars, 372 in all, the smaller oiies measuring above 21 feet in height, while the loft*er ones under the domes and spires being more than double that height— 8aiyid was a title of the prophet. 20 The word ^ (klierad) gives the date as 804, 600 -f 200H-> 1401-2 A.C. 21 He was known as Sikandar But-shakan, i.e., the Iconoclast, He came to throne in 1394 A.C. 22 Magri is said to be a Sum sect of the Mahomedans of Kashmir. 23 Geography of the Jammu and Kashmir State, by Pandit Anand Koul (1913), pp. 66-67. Behramshi D, Nas/ffwa/a, SS A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir producing a most imposing effect. The court-yard measures 254 X 234 feet. There are remains of several stone temples round this mosque, whose builders arc not known. “ The history of Jama Masjid is of interest and it has passed through many vieisHitiides. Thrice it was destroyed by fire and rebuilt: once in 1479, again in tlie days of Jeiiangir in 1619 and once more during the reign of Aurangzeb in 1074 ; the present structure dating from the days of Aurang- /.()}}. In the time of Sikhs, it was closed for 23 years and was re- opened iti 1S41 l>y (ilnil im Mohi-iid-dln, one of the governors of Sikhs. 4'1 i( 5 site of tin; nu)sj. 1 give below a list of the clianges and amendations* reifuired to be made in Loewenthal's reading: — The inscription begins with the usual formal words of invocation of God fx/ I wd) I which Loewenthal has omitted, though he has given them in his tran.slation. Line 7 The word farman as given by Loewenthal dot‘s not occur in the inscription. Line 10 Read for dxiL Line 10 Read q for Loewenthal . seems to have amended the text, and that very properly The word means rule or dominion. It also means action. So Prof. Sarfraz suggests that the name may he that of the inscriber himself. 31 J..cL8.B. Vol. 33 (1865), pp. 287-290. A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir 01 as V is unnecessary. We do not find it in the later ])oi' tion of the farman, where a similar oonstniL'tion occurs. Line 15 Read lyl^j for Line 17 - Add j before Add j before Ux; Read ^1 for ^.,T ^ ; before w-j ^ A.> f o r Line 24 Line 21 Line 25 Line 29 Line ‘10 Line 34 Read Read Read -Rea< I j.yo for J-M# before ijy tor J y (Loewentlial’s amended Line 35 Read readinijc seems to be correct.) Line 37 -Add j Ijefon^ , and after tU^ si Line 37- -Drop /f after liine 38- Read for ■iJi (ljO(‘wenthars amendation seems to be correct.) Line 39 For M (in figures), read j (in words.) Lin^ 39 Read ; i T for ; ^ T A.^ it is an important historical inscription I give here my translation for easy reference. Translation. “ God is great • “Shah J^han, the brave king. ^‘A copy of [the auspicious^^ Farm^n (order), of His Majesty (who is) Solomon-like in dignity, the second Sahib qiran,®* which was published^^ on the seventh of ll&hi month Asfandarmaz, 32 Rev. Loewenthal has omitted the words^l^l^l in the text of the Fannan, though he has translated them. 33 Sa‘adat-neshan== of happy signs. 34 Lord of a happy conjunction (of stars). This was a title first applied to Taimur and then secondly to his successor. 33 Sharf i-varud yafte, lit. had the honour of appearance. 62 A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir in compliance with the request of the humblest of the dependants, Ahsan Allah bearing the title of Zafarkhan, in the matter of the removal of th(j wrongs (bid'atlia) Avhich were prevalent in the country of beautiful Kashmir, in the time of the previous subahdars and which were the cause of the adversity of the subjects and inhabi- tants of this country. As'*^’ all our thought of exhalted desire'^^ is directed and turned towards the contentment of (our) people, we have ordered, that several acts, which, within the boundaries (khi(ta) of beautiful Kashiiiir, wtue the cause of annoyance to the inhabitants of that country, may lx? cancelled. Out of all (such) affairs (or cases), one is this, that at tlu*. time of gathering saffron, they carried away (poor) p(‘ 0 ])l(‘ with viohmce ( ‘ unf), so that they may gather saffron (from tlu^ [)lants) and they gave to these people a little salt by way of wag(‘s. Tlu'se peoph* are much harmed on this account. We have ordered that by no means (aslan) should anybody be molested for gathering satfron ; and for that (saffron) which is in the district of favoured (sharifa) Crovernment lands (khalsah), the labourers shall 1)(‘ made contented and ])aid their actual (wagid) wages ; and lor that which is in the district in the possession of Jagirdars, the whole of th(‘ salfron'^^ may he given in the vStock (jins) in charge of the. Jagirdar, so that they may gather it in any way they like. The second (alhiir) is this: that in the times of some subah-lfblders o(, Kashmir, on every kharwdr^^^ of rice,^^ they took two *dams^- on account of fuel**-^ and^^ during the rule of Ttiqad kh an. lk‘t\v('on the above f(*\v lines of heading and this portion, winch is the Fann in projK*r, l,ioe\venthal gives in his text, the word but we do not find it in the instaifition itself. t Hinnnat-i wall nahmat. .18 tVA. u ^ y Locwenthal, has given instead of L) Locwenthal omits I; after the woixl Lit. an ass load. It was “the measure of a hundred Tabriz maunds’^ (Steingass). Ixiewenthal takes it to be 180 pounds. Shall rice in tlie husk. I)ain=itho fourteenth part of a rupee. Haizam, Ave.sta aesmu (skt. idhma). Locwenthal has omitted this j • A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir 03 four dams for that purpose were taken on each kharwir. in this respect also, much harm resulted to (our) subjects, we have ordered, that our subjects shall be excused altogether from tl\e demand of this obligation (wajli) and nothing shall be taken for “Another (atfair) is this, tli^|j-j’r()p)i^R^tr}CQU0itiyf he '( o)ve.rn* ment revenue of winch was more tliiin 400 khartriir.^ lO rice, the Governors of that xillage took two shee]) every yeiir, and rti([ad khan, during the time of his siibah-shi[), instead of sluH'p, took 0() dams per every sheej). As in this res])ect also much harm resulted to the subjects, we have wholly ordennl that (the impost) shall be cancelled, and that neither sheep shall be taken nor cash in the matter of this charge (Ollat) and tin* subjects shall be excused from the ])ayiuent of the money (or oblige, tion).'*^ ^ “Again, I'thtad Kluui y Lo(‘\Mmthal as having existed on a well. At present, th(*n‘ exists no well there. On impiiry during my TJo' Inscnp- in 1918 A.(h, I learnt that the well was filled uj> about five years ago, i.e, in about and a road has been made over it. However f()rtunat(‘ly, the inscription .stone had been removed from the well and during my visit 1 saw it in the Masjid itself. 1 give the inscription, which can be taken as a revised (' 0 ])y of the inscrip- tion, correcting some (UTors in Loewenthars Text. I wL _C1^ I > ,J| Ji)l r X ,xU! 02 J ti ' Ui^ J i_r;; s Vki^Ok. f ' ?■ e,' * . Lceweiiihal has omitted this line of invocation. A( cording to Prof. Sarfraz the word seems to be miswritten for cSjU 68 A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir f J / X vtWtV 1} ^ t (.5 yi « jC* t J ) d (j /j' jl ^]jS' jl ly tj I d '• > ^ tXj J iX-> '> iji 1 J 1 J > t—MA. L r ’ ' 1 j ,r ^ Jjl .5, c’ I -y f J y^ 3 C' Ic 1 ,n ^ iX xL. *> Lj b^800, (.=40, The builder of the well, Mahmud, referred to in the above iifecription, was, as I was told at the Masjid, one SiXjj) Khwaja Mahmud Dideh-mari. I was told, that he is referred to in a book called Tarikh-i- Hasan. He was a merchant and had also built a tank in Qariah-i Chera in the Jarayan, “flowing or running.” Tafazzul, Ilfeija. Ward, “practice of speaking often.” 70 Bunyan. 71 Allahum God, 72 Ghifar “ Pardoner, God.” 73 Al banu 74 Al WaliL 70 A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir province (paragneh) of Cheharat ( ). He was known as Mahmud Didah-mari from the name of his place. I was told that the name of the place was connected with the visit of, and stay at, the place by Nur Johan. She was spoken of as the Dideh (eye) for her beauty. An Inscription at Hazrat-Bal. The Shrine of shrine is situated on the DaMake. As said llazrat Hal. ])y \y, Lawrence : “ The sanct ity of Haziat Bal is due to the ])re.seiice of one of the Prophet’s hairs, which was hnjiijilit to Kashmir from Medina by Siaiyid * Abdullah in nil A. II. Saiyid ‘Ahdull di sold the hair to a merchant, Nur Din, for one lakh of ru[) 0 ('.s, and \hu- Dm exhibited the relic* in vSrinagar Four other shrines in Si*inagar boast that they possess a hair of the Prophet The hairs are exhibited six times in the year at the various shr ines, hut the villagers all go to the Haziat Bal shrine.” I luid tli(‘ ])lciisun* of seeing it in tlie month of May or June (luring my st'cond visit to Kashmir. The following inscription ill tin* vShrine refers to the hair : f- A yc j ) A«*«J /'■^y till Traif-sJation, “To the needy, at the time of their solicitation, the hair of the Pro])liet of Araliia is a liel]). A guardian angel (hatif) said to one, as the date of its arrival, ‘Kashmir became Madineh by the hair of the Propliet.’ Hijrillll." ■ Th(^ last line forming the chronogram thus gives us the dat^ of the arrival of the hair from 3tadineh as 1111 Hijri (1699 A.C.) : :r=57O+109+306+8+56+62 -1111. It is said of the above Xur Din ) that he lived in a village named Ishkhari. He had gone to Bijapur for trade, and \\ Idle there, had purchased the hair from a Saiyid, who The V’alley of Kashmir, p. 299. A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir 71 said, he had brought it from Madineh. The hair was kept at first in the garden of Sadiq-Jdian ( 'vao was a gr/at minister of the reign of Jehangir. He was a pious Mohammadan and had built the monastery of Shaikh Wajihu-d-din at Ahmed- abad.^® The hair was placed in a building in the garden of Sadiq Khan on the Dal lake and the place took the name of “ Ha^rat Bal, i,e,, “ the place (bal) of the Hazrat (Prophet).” The word bal may he taken to he arahic bal meaning ‘heart souF or perhaps it is P. bai meaning ‘the hair on the pubes” (Steingass. In Sans- krit also bal ^ is liair. We read the following inscription on a prominent place of Hazrat Bal : ^ I y L«J* lA. ; J T Translation. “May Dust be on the head of that person who is.not (considering himself as) the dust of the door of him, i.e.^ Muhainmed-e-‘Arabi (i.c., of Arabia) who is (the source of) honour to both the worlds.” An Inscription on a Bridge at Renawari. We find the following inscription on a bridge at Rena war on ouf way to the Dal Lake by boat : ^Uj uJjU/ y (j'x (.Lj y y • ^ j j ^ ^ ^ * Translation, “ The sculptor had written on a stone : ‘ The world is noj^ faithful. You be cheerful. Even if you gather (in life) the whole world you will not carry (on death) two grains of poppy/ ” See Memoirs of Jehangir^ by Rogers and Beveridge, I., p. 426. ^7 We find this inscription quoted in a votive tablet at the Maajid of Shah Hamadan. 72 A Few Persian InscriiJtions of Kashmir AN INSCRIPTION ON THE ZIYAEAT GAH OF SHAH MAKHDtJM. The year 1915, the year of my third visit to Kashmir, was a year of scarcity. The rain had kept off. I would have ordinarily ^hah Makhd^m Masjid, but I was specially drawn and a Rain cere- towards it by a rain-imploring ceremony, which many connected lasted for several days and which I saw first on tvilh his name. tii 8th June 1918 on the banks of the Jhelum near the mosque of Shah Hamadan. I saw a number of Mohammadans filling up ghana/is (water-pots) with water from the river Jhelum. They got these ])ots blessed at the Masjid and carried them to a tank near llari Parbat, a hill fort of Akbar. The tank was near the tomb of P i r Makhd um . I was told , that all the Mohammadans of Kashmir, male or female, old or young, adults or children, would thus, at their leisure, carry water from the Jhelum and pour it in the above tank. At least, one member of each family must be one of such carriers. They did so for a number of days, till the tank was full. When I visited the tank on the 1 0th of June, it was a sight to see a number of ])eople, devotionally carrying the water from different directions and trying to fill up the tank. It then still wanted a few feet to be filled up. The water could be brought from any part of the river or lake, but they thought it meritorious to take it from the river ne^r the mosque of Shah Hamadan. Monday and Friday were the days when they most did tlie work of carrying the water. It was Monday when I visited the tomb of Shah Makhd um and the tank near it. So, I saw hundreds of people coming to the tank with their water- pots and emptying them there. Some came in processions, with banners and drums. Having poured the water into the tank, t^ey applied the water of the tank to their eyes. The tank is about 30 square feet. The ceremony of filling it up had begun about 5 or 6 days before my visit and the}" expected that it would take still about 5 days to fill it up. The ceremony was supposed to be a rite of humiliation before God asking for forgiveness of sins, if that was the cause of His displeasure and of His keeping off the rain. It is in keeping with a recent inscription put up there as a votive inscrintion (1326 Hijri). A Feto Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir 73 ;U y ^ vj;? f )} ill 3^ h I— Tli. A' ij I J Tramlation. “Have a look on the miserable condition of a helpless sinner a look whereby ilie darkest of dust becomes (brilliant) like gold/' The rea^Aon, why Shah Makhdum was specially invoked and why the tank near his tomb w’as the scene of a rain- ceremony, seems to be, that lie had once uttered a curse in the matter of water. “He had no honunr in his own village (Tajar), and his companions laughed at his pi caching and his pro]>hecics, and insisted on his taking his share in the corvee of the village. Ahikhdum Sahib or Hazrat Sultan as he is oftcMi called, left Tajar and cursed his ])eople — they should want water not only for their crops, but even for their drink. The curse came tr^e for Tajar and Zainagir arc dry to this U ^ (x ; (j (d/ 1 ^ irvr /d_- TranslatAon. * “ The door, the splendour and the (awe-striking) light (of this place come) from the world illuminating sun (Mehef). I keep myself in this condition that the collyriurn of my eyes is from the dust of your door {i.e, 1 humiliate myself). I said to myself : ‘I wish to bring the pearl of the date in my hands.’ The angel raised his hands for prayers. Uttering ‘Amen’, I said : ‘God is exhalted. The door of my respected great ones should be like this, 0 God ! 78 Lawrence, op, cit., p. 289. ’ 74 A Few Persian Inscriptions of Kashmir May my door be opened (Ut. conquered) in every matter by (the help of) this door (i.c. May my visit of the door of this Ziyarat-gah always help me in every direction)’/’ The date is the date of the last reparation of the Masjid. The last line of the inscription serves as the chronogram of that date 1272.* * The ligurcs are as tollows : — J- .30 a — II ‘C, II 10 ^2 1 = 1 j = 4 II ; " - 200 » = 5 :200 V 2 1 = 1 J 7 = 10 = 50 O O il !i 80 400 ^ = 8 1=1 V = 2 1 1 The wliole gives 1272 as the date. THE STORY OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT AND THE POISON-DAMSEL OF INDIA. A TRACE OF IT IN FIRDOUSrS SHAH-NAMEH ' By Dr. Jivanji Jamsiiedji Modi [Head on ^Ih February 1920.] I. INTRODUCTION - Last year, when I was in England, I had the pleasure of reading a Paper before the Folklore Society of London, on 17th June 1925, on the subject of “The Viah-kanya ( or Poison-damsel of Ancient India, illustrated by the story of Susan Ramashgar in the Persian Burzo-nameh.” ^ The subject of that paper w^as suggested to me by an inquiry in January 1924 from Mr. N. M. Penzer through Mr. R, E. Enthoven, asking for some information on Poison-damsel in Indian Literature. Mr. Penzer himself had gathered information from Indian books, but he wanted some further information, if available. Now, since his first inquiry, Mr. Penzer has published the second volume •of hi^ “Ocean of Story,” ^ and it is the third Appendix of this volume, for which he had sought further information from the members of my Anthropological Society, that has suggested to me the subject of this paper. II. What is a Poison-Damsel. It is said of an ancient king that, as one of the means of defence against an invading enemy, he tainted, by means of 1 A brief paper on this subject was at first read before my Anthro- pological Society of Bombay and th^t paper was subsequently developed and read before the Folklore Society. 2 The Ocean of Story, being C. H. Tawney’s Translation of Soma- deva’s K a tha Sarit Sagara (or ocean of streams of storyh now edited with Introduction, fresh Explanatory Notes and Terminal Essay by N. IL Penzer, in ten Volumes, VoL n, Appendix III, p. 275# J.B.B.R.A.S. Vol. lU. 76 poison and other deleterious substance*, the trees, flowerig creepers, water and grass all along the line of march, he sent poison-damsels as dancing girls among the enemy’s - hcwt, and he also despatched nocturnal assassins into their midst.” ® We find, that even in modem warfare, they resort to some such means. For e.xample, the excreating gas, first discovered by the Germans in the late great world war of 1914-18, was a means of that kind.^ The jets of the gas poisoned the air on the side of the enemy and blinded them. Now, as totheVish-kanya or a Poison-damsel, she was a beauti- ful young girl employed by a person to bring about the death of an enemy. She enticed him in her trap in some way or another by her fascinating beauty. From all that we read about them, we learn, that these Poison-damsels were of various types. I give below, what 1 have said of these various types in my above previous paper - (1) “A poison-damsel, in the original sense of the word seems to mean a damsel who does harm deceitfully ijj^^some way or other to another person. (2) one, born under an inauspicious configuration conjugation of planets. So, she does h^m to ^ ^bne who marries her. It is this view, that seems ^ ^ to have led, and even now seems to lead, many Indian ])arents to resort to an astrologer to ascertain, whether the planets, under the influence of which their children are born, are of the same conjunction or not. The happiness or otherwise of mafriage 3 Ibid. 1, p. 275. * It appears from tiie Shah-nameh of Firdousi that there was some* thing of this sort in remote ancient times. For example, King Kaus and a number of liis army were, blinded by the enemy when they invaded th« country of Mazaudaran, etc. It was after some time that Rustam relieved them, and, procuring an antedote cured them (Warner Brothers* Shahnama, Vol. II, p. 40 ; Kiitiur Brothers’ Gujarati Shah-nameh, Vol. II, p. 99 ; Dastuz Minocheher’s Gujarati Shah-nameh, Vol. I, p. 538; Mohl’s small edition, Vol I, p 398 ; Rogers* abridged Shahnama, p. 132. For the Persian Text* vidt Macan’s Shah-nameh I, p. 240 ; VUller’s Sohahname I, p, 329.) The Story of Alexander the Great and the Poison-Damsel depends ufon, that. The custom is spoken of as raf jom'dvviy (R{?^ i.e., to get the route (of the planets) seen (by an astrologer). (3) “A daTiisel who is, in some way or other, so much poisoned or infected with a disease, that she is likely to ^ convey her poison or infectious disease to the person, who has intercourse with her or who comes into some form of close contact with her, and to bring about his death. A woman infected with a venereal disease is a poison-damsel of this kind. (4) “ A damsel who has actually saturated her body with gradual doses of poison, and who, therefore, is in a state believed to be likely to convey the poison *of her body, so saturated, to another person who comes into contact with her. The Gesta Romanorum (11th tale) is said to refer to the story of an Indian queen, sending a poison-damsel to Alexander the Great and of Aristotle frustrating her plan. This poison-damsel seems to be of this kind. . ' (5^ “ A damsel who treacherously captivate3> th'^^-Jbeart of • a person, and then actually gives him SftPie' poison in food or drink.” Behrsmshci D. Nasik^sciai ^^^01 PARSI COLONY, D^AfC The Story of Alexander and the Poison-Damsel. t Mr. Penzer gives the story of Alexander the Great and the Indian Poison-damsel, on the authority of a Latin work called Secretum Secretorum, De Secretis Secretorum or De Regimene Principum. The book had some other titles also : It purported to be nothing less than a collection of the most important a nd secret communications sent by Aristotle to Alexander the Great when he was too aged to attend his pupil in persA. Such letters l|ad been circulated from the earliest times, but here was a treatise containing not only the essence of political wisdom and state-craft, but regulations for the correct conduct of body and mind, and an insight into the mysteries of occult lore.” ^ Mr. Penzer thus speaks of this work : “ The Secretum, how- ever, is not reckoned among Aristotle’s genuine works, but as one of a number of unauthenticated treatises which, reflecting as it does theories and opinions contained in his famous philosophical writings, was readily accepted as a work of the Master himself.” ® Now, as to the contents of this book, which he calls “ a certain Pseudo-Aristotelean work,” ^ specially referring to the subject of our paper, Mr. Penzer speaks thus : “ According to the text, Aristotle is warning Alexander against entrusting the care of his body to women, and to beware of deadly poisons which had killed many kings in' the past. He furtlier advises him not to take medicines from a single doctor, but to employ a number, and act only on their unanimous advice. Then, as if to prove the necessity of his warnings, he recalls a great danger which he himself was able to frustrate. ‘ Remember/ he says, ' what happened when the King of India sent thee rich gifts, and among them that beautiful maiden whom they had fed on poison until she was of the nature of a snake, and had I not perceived it because of my fear, for I feared the clever men of those countries and their craft, and had I not found by proof that she ^ Ibid, p. 287. Wo find an instance of such “Most important and secret communications sent by Aristotle to Alexander the Great ” in the letter of Dastur Tansar to the King of Tabaristan. Alexander the Great had not only destroyed the ancient literature and religion of Persia, but had also thought of putting to death the aristocracy of Persia with a view, that thereby, might have no fear of a powerful rise in revolt by the Persians when he advanced to India. But it was Aristotle who, by a letter, dissuaded him from doing such a base act. ( Vide the Journal Asiatique, Neuvi^me Serie, Tonae III, Mars-Avrd 1894, pp. 185-250, and Mai-Juin 1894, pp. 502-555). Vide, for brief account of this letter, my “ Glimpse into the work of the B. B, R. Asiatic Society during the last 100 years, from a Parsee point of view,” pp. 33-35; vide for an account of this letter my Iranian Essays (Gujarati) Part III, pp. 127-44. ® The Ocean of Story, op cit, Vol. II, p. 287. 7 Ibid, p. 282, The Story of Alexander the Great and the Poison-Damsel 79 would be killing thee by her embrace and by her perspiration, she would surely have killed thee’/’ ® IV. Thk Source or Sources of the Pseudo-Aristotelean AVork, the Secretum Secretorum, According to Mr. Penzer,® the Latin work appeared in the twelfth century, and there were two recensions, a longer and a shorter one, both resting upon Greek originals. ‘‘A Syrian freedman under the Khalifa al-Ma’mun (circa 800),” named “ Yahya ibn Batrlq, i.e . , John, the Son of Patriciuss,” had first discovered the work in “ the Temple of the Sun dedicated to iLsculapius (Asklepios). It was written in letters of gold, and he immediately translated it %st into Rumi (Syriac) and then from Rumi into Arabic.” The Greek text does not exist. There is also a Hebrew version, which is quite as old as any of the comjilete texts. It is now almost universal- ly rc^cognised as the work of Judah AMlarIzi, who flourished in the early thirteenth century, Later on further cliapters were added. Then Mr. Penzer says : “ The medical knowledge displayed in the enlarged chapters places the author in the eighth or ninth century, but when restored to their original proportions, we can reduce, the date ‘by at least a century. Scholars are agreed that there is no Greek text in existence, and no proof that it ever did exist. Now if we look more closely into the longer Arabic and Hebrew texts, we find that the background of the book is wholly Eastern — Persian and Indian— while, on the other hand, there is hardly a mention of Greeffe. If any analogy or simile is needed, it is the sayings and ddngs of Persians or Indians that are quoted. The allusion to chess, the occurrence of Eastern place-names and animals, all tend to point to the influence under which the Secretum really originated. Among similar Eastern works, whose history is now ® Ibid. p. 291. » Ibid. pp. 287-88. ^ Ibid. p. 289. 10 For this subject of the Origin of Chess in the East, vide my paper before this Society entitled “ Firdousi on the Indian Origin of the Game of Chess’* (Jour. B.B.R.A.S. XIX, pp. 224-36. Vide my Asiatic Papers, Part I, pp. 86-98). 80 Jivanji Jamshedji Modi fairly completely known, may be mentioned Syntipas, Kalilah and Barlaam and Josephat. these slowly migrated west- wards, changing their character with their environment, and readily adapting themselves to any new purpose for which they might be wanted.” Now, I agree with Mr, Penzer that the origin of the Pseudo- Aristotelian work, Secretuin Secretorura is Eastern — Persian and Indian. As far as we know, no Indian version of the story of Alexander and the Poison-damsel of India is known to exist. So, we have no materials to compare the Western version of the story with any Indian version. But I beg to show in this paper that we have a Persian version of the story giving us pretty sufficient materials for comparison. Again, that Persian version seems to have come, like the three stories above referred to, from the Pahlavi, The Pahlavi Origin of some Indian Stories migrating TO THE West. « We know that all the above three stories which originated in India, passed to the West through Iran or Persia and through the Pahlavi books of Iran. (а) For the first story of Syntipas (Sindibad), I beg tc> refer my readers to my Paper before this Society, entitled The so- called Pahlavi Origin of Sindibad-nameh or the Story of the Seven Wise Masters. ” Ip that pa})er, I have shown that, though we cannot directly trace the story to any extant Pahlavi book, we can trace it to the story of Kaus, Soudabeh and Siavakhsh in the Shah-nameh of Firdousi, who had taken most of his materials from Pahlavi. (б) As to the second story of Barlaam and Josephat, I quote here in full what I have said on this subject in my Paper before my Anthropological Society, entitled “ The German Kaisar William in the Incantations of the Oraons of Chota Nagpur and the Iranian King Faridun in the Incantations of the ancient Persians.”^* lOa por tliis story vide Barlaam and Josephat, by Joseph Jacobs (1816), Jour. B.B.R.A.S. XVIII, pp. 206-12. Vide my Asiatic Papers, Part 11, pp. 46-62. Jour. Anthrop. Sty. of Bombay Vol. X pp. 616-36. Vide my Anthropological Papers, Part II (pp. 234-64) pp. 241-42. The Story of Alexander the Great and the Poison-Danuel 8'] The Christian story of Barlaam and Josephat, is believed by many Christian scholars to be the Christianised version of the legendary history of Buddha Sakya Muni, one of whose titles m Bodhisatva. Prof. MacDonnel says : ‘ That the founder of an atheistic oriental religion should have developed into a Christian saint is one of the most astounding facts in religious history/ We have an interesting account of this transference in Jacob's Barlaam and Josaphat/^ The author of this hook, in his learned Introduction, presents interesting evidence to show that, in about the 5th or 6th century. Buddhistic legends and doctrines went to Syria and got mixed up with the Christian dogmas and legends prevalent there. The Indian Zarmain- ochegas^® by name, a native of Bargosa^'^ referred to by Strabo as having gone to the court of Augustus Csesar •from Barygaza from the Indian king Porus,^® the ' sovereign of 600 kings,' and who is said to have immortalized himsdf ^3 Prof. MacDoiiners History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 420. 14 Barlaam and Josaphat, English Lives of Buddha, edited and intro- duced by Joseph Jacobs. 15 “ The pith of what this author says is this : Both Buddha and Christ repres^t the ideals of a whole continent. Buddha represents Asia’s ideal “ To^be,” while Christ represents that of Europe “ To Do.” Buddha is a contemplative Sage, Christ a beneficient Saint. But, though their aims are different, their methods are similar. They both fight against the world. The similarity of the schemes of both consists of tiie following : The legends of both present parallels of (a) the Annunciation, (6) the Massacre of the ■Innocents, (c) the Temptation in the Wilderness, (d) the Marriage at Cana, (e) th# Walking on the Water, (/) the Transfiguration, (gr) Again, both taught b^parables^ some of which are well-nigh the same, e.gr., those of the Sower, the Prodigal son. Seed and Soil, {g) Both lay stress upon the Spirit against the Letter and upon the opposition between Riches and Spiritual ty and upon inward Purity, (h) Both recommend a Brotherhood or Church.* (i) Even the formalities of some of their rituals is the same.” 1® “ Supposed 'to be another form of Zarmanus, or Garmanus, another form- of Sannanas, a sect of Indian philosophers.” “ Another form of Barygaza which is Baroatsch, Barutsch or Broach.” 18 <* A general name of Indian kings.” “Btmbo, Bk. XV, Chap. I. 73. Hamilton and Palconer’s Trans- lation, VoL III, p. 119.” 82 Jivanji J atnshedji Mod% by burning himself to death at Athens, seems to have been a Bud- dhist. His fame, as an Indian, who, though in a prosperous state of life, burnt himself to escape a possible or probable calamity in future, may also have drawn the attention of the people at Judea. ‘‘Now Mr. Joseph Jacobs traces the origin of the Christian story of Barlaam and Josephat through different successive sources. He gives a table giving the pedigree of the works giving the story from earlier times to the present times, and shows, that it may have come down from an Indian original through its Pahlavi version, now lost. From Pahlavi it must have gone to Arabic, in the same way as the story of Kalila and Damna has passed into that language. From Arabic, it went through various ways to the various sects of the Christians. It is supposed that the name Joseph or Josaph is a variant of Bodhisattva, a word used for ‘ the man who is destined to become a Buddha It began to take that shape while ])assing through Persia. Bodhisattva became Budhaspa. Mr. Jacob thinks, that the “ aspa ” form at the end is a favQurite form with the Persians at the end of many names. For example take the nam(‘s of the members of Zoroaster’s family : Pourushaspa, Paitaraspa, Haehaedaspa. So Bodhisattva became at first Bud- dhaspa. It may be so ; but I think, it is more probable t^at the change is due to the fact, that the same letter in Pahlavi can be ’ read as ‘ v ’ and ‘ p.’ I am inclined to trace the equations as follows : The Indian Bodhisattva or Buddhisattva, when written in Pahlavi, could also be read Budhisatpa, which, by dropping the ‘ t ’ became Budhisapa, and then, possibly, through the fondness of the Persians for the word “ aspa ” became Budhaspa. Th«n, on coming into Arabic, the letter, ‘ b ’ owing to a change in fhe tiukfehSy became ‘ y ’ and the word became Yudasp. Y often becomes j and p becomes f. So Yudaspa became Joseph. In Josaphat, perhaps the ‘C that had disappeared, re- appeared changing places. I would place the equation in Pahlavi and Arabic characters as follows : = Pahl. = Pahl. I Pahl. Arab. Si„ * == ^ 20 « Barlaam and Josaphat, by Joseph Jacobs, Introduction, p. xxxv.’‘ The Story of Alemnder the Great and the Poison-Damsel 83 t Whatever be the way, in which the story of Buddha went to the West, the fact is, that Burldha, as a great and pious ethical teacher, was somehow sanctilied in the Christian ('hurch. In the Greek Church, also known as the Orthodox Eastern Church, his feast day is 2()th August. Iji the Martyrologium of the Roman Church, it is 27th November, it is said that even a Church (Divo Josaphat) is dedicated to him at Palermo/’ (c) As to the origin of tJie story of Kalileh and Damneh, known in the West as the story of Bid-jiai, it is so well known, that 1 need not dilate upon it. The story i»assed from India to the West via Iran and through Pahlavi. and we know wnli, that the Persian Anvar-i- Sohili is a later form of it. Like the above three stories, the origin of our story in question is Indo-Persian. Its migration is in the following order : Indian — Pahlavi— Greek- Hyrian — Arabic — Latin. Or» it may be in the following order : Indian — Pahlavi — Araliic — Latin. The story, on going to the West, had been given in the following various languages : Arabic, Latin, Hebrew, Spanish, Italian, Proven 9 al, Dutch, French and English. A Few points collected from vaiuous versions. i We collect the following points from the above versions of Alexander’s story as given in an old Hebrew version of Aristotle’s story : 1. An Indian king sent rich gifts to Alexander. i. One of the rich gifts was a “ beautiful maiden” whom they g had fed on poison until she was of the nature of a snake. According to some Arabic texts, it was the mother of the king who sent the damsel, and, according to others, it was the queen who sent her. 3. Aristotle saved Alexander from the grasp of the maiden. 5. According to an Arabic text, Aristotle knew the practices of Indian kings and physicians in such matters, 6. The maiden was one “ who thought fo rouse his (Alexan- der’s) passion” (Spanish version, Perzer op. cit. p, 292)* 7. Aristotle was “versed in astronomy.” By “astronomy” what seems to have been meant is astrology, whereby he foresaw the fraudulent strategem of the Indian king. cT 8. The damsel was brought up on poison from infancy. She gave ' ])()isoned words ’ — that is to say, the breath from her mouth when speaking was poiso- ^iis—£ind her look also brought on sudden death. . . A "^naster saw through this and gave the king a herb to ])ut in his mouth, which freed him from all danger, ((ferman version by Frauenlob, a (ferman poet of the FUh Century, Penzer op. cit. ]). 292). Mr. Penzer says : ‘‘ The id(‘a of the, miraculous herb is entirely new and sefuns to have been an invention of the poet ” (p. 293). 9. “ A certain king was once informed by a sootlnsayer that a child, named Alexander, had just been born who was destined to be his downfall. On htfaring this discouraging mnvs, the king thought of an in- g(‘nious way in which to get rid of the menace, and gave stri('t orders for- several infant girls of good family to be nourished on deadly poison •. .Once^ the Icing was besit‘ged by a powerful army and he sent this maiden by night into the enemy’s camp....... As soon as he (tlu^ besieging king) kissed her he fell dead to tln^ ground Delighted with the success of his ex])eriment, the king ordered the damsel to be even better cared for, and nourished with even* purer poison than hitherto. Meanwhile Alexander, grdwn to manhood, had started his campaigns, besieged and conquered Darius, and made his name feared through- out the world. Then the king hadfive maidens be- autifully attired, the fifth being the poisoned damsel :. . . . these he sent to Alexander, ostensibly as a mark of his love and obedience Alexander rushed to embrace her. But Aristotle, a wise and learned man of the court, and Secretes, the king’s tutor, recognised The Story of Alexander the Great and the Poison- Damsel 85 the poisonous nature of the maiden and would not let Alexander touch her Then Alexander had her beheaded and her body burnt/’ (A French prose ver- sion of the early fourteenth century, Ibid. pp. 292-293.} 10. ‘'A wise queen in the land of Sizire discovered by her magical art that a son of Olympus, Alexander })y jiame, would one day de])rive her of her kingdom ►She first procured vMexander’s portrait,-^ and seeing that his features betrayed a sensual nature, made her plans ac cordingly 'Hie (pieen put “ a baby-girl, just born,’* into one of the big eggs of a snake which “are as big as bushel baskets and the snake- mother hatched it out with her otlier eggs.” Thebal^y- girl was fed by the mother snak(\ “ She could not sjiealt, and only hissed like a snake, and any one coming m^ar her too often either died or fell into divsease The queen gradually taught her to speak She grew into one of the most beautiful creatures in the world with a face like an angel.” Then, when Alexander arrived in her country, the queen “ offerc'd him the girl, with whom he at once fell in love, saying to Aristotle, ‘ J will lie with her’.” But Aristotle dissuaded him from doing so, saying and proving that the girl was poisonous. Aristotle’s method of proving that the girl was poisonous is interesting from an Indian point of view, as we hear here various stories of snake charmers and snake cures. He first got a poisonous snake*shut up in a jar, and there and then, with the juice of fresh dittany “ drew a circle round the jar about an ell away from it.” Then on the jar being opened, the snake tried to run out, but 21 Here, there is an indirect instanee of an evil influence being exerted upon the person by his enemy through his portrait. The belief is still held in India by many, and so, we hear of instances of some people being altogether averse to being photographed. Vide my paper, entitled “ The Indian custom of a Husband or Wife not naming his Wife or her Husband ” before the Bombay Anthropological Society, read on Slst August 1921 (Jour,, of the Anthropological Society of Bombay, Vol. XII, No. 3 (pp. 30'141) p. M6.; Vide my Anthropological Papers, Part III, p. 129.) Jivafiji Jamshedji Modi could not go out of the enchanted circle drawn by Aristotle with the juice of dittany and soon died. Then Aristotle made the above girl, with two others that were not poisoned, stand in a place and similarly drew round them a circle with the juice of the dittany. Then, when he called them to come out of the enchanted or magic circle, the two unpoisoncd damsels ran out, but the poisoned one could not, and, shortly after, feeling choked, died like the above mentioned snak(i In th(^ above particulars of the story, one particular is a direct reference to intercourse with the damsel. Alexander wanted to have it and Aristotle prevented him from having it. This has led Mr. Penzer to refer to the intercourse being dangerous on account of some kind of venereal disease. V. FiRDousrs Version . OF the Story. Now, as said above, Mr. Penzer speaks of the back-ground of the Wiistern story as Eastern — as Persian and Indian. As far as we know, we have no Indian book or writing to show posi- tively that the back-ground is Indian. It may be Indian or«it may ^ not be so. But we have enough literary materials to show, that it is Persian. We hud what may be called a trace of the story in Firdousi's Sliah-Nameh. Firdousi describes the story, not the Dittany is “ a plant growing in abundance and perfection on Mounts Dict6 and Ida in Crete.” It is “ the Dictamnus ruber or albus. It^eaves in smell resemble lemon-thyme and yield an essential oil ” (Webster). tOn inquiry from the Professor of Botany in the Elphinstone College, I leam that the plant has no known Marathi name and that the plant occurs in the temperate Western Himalayas. -3 In the above story, we find a child fed by snakes. Cases of human children being fed by animals, at times by ferocious animals, are said to have occurred in India. I know the case of a wolf-boy who was so fed by a she- wolf. I myself had seen the boy in Agra. ( Vide my Paper before the Bombay Natural History Society, on 7th May 1889, entitled “ Recorded instances of children nourished by wolves, and birds of prey.** Vide my Asiatic papers. Part II, pp. 197-200.) The Story of Alexander the Great and the Poison-Damsel 87 f whole story as found in later books, but a trace of the story, on the authority of Pahlavi writers. Firdousi says ; There was a wise Indian king named Kaid ( ). lie saw continuall) for 10 nights certain dreams. Nobody in his court could explain the dreams and he was referred to a learned man named Mehran ( ^ I ), who lived in a wilderness in the midst of wild animals. The king went to the place where Mehran lived in the wilderness and narrated his ten dreams to him and asked for an explanation. The wise man explained and' said, that all the dreams predicted the coining of Sikander (Alexander) from Roum and Iran, with a large army, under selected officers. The king would have no cause to be afraid of him if he presented to him the four rare things [char chiz)^^ which he possessed. These were : (1) A beautiful girl.-'^ (2) A philosopher who revealed all the mysteries of the world. (3) A clever physician. (4) A cup in which water never got heated, when placed on fire, and was n^ver finished, how much-so-ever people drank out of it. What was predicted by Mehran turned out to be true, and Alexander invaded Raid’s dominions and sent him a letter, asking him to surrender. The Indian king-^ wrote in reply, ofEering hie Jiomage»and his above four rare things. Alexander was pleased to learli this and he sent his messengers to the court of the Indian king to have a description of the four rare things. The Indian king then described before the messengers his four rare things. He first described the beauty of the girl. From what the king ^ uih- Macan’s Calcutta Edition 1829, III, p. 1290. Kutar Brothers’ Text in Guja- rati, Vol. VII, p. 67. Translation by Dastur Minocher J. Jamaspasa, Vol. Ill, p. 291. Translation of Warner Brothers, Vol. VI, p. 91. These brothers take the word Pahlavi to be a common name and translate it as “ Days of Old Mohl’s small edition, Vol. V, p. 89. 25 Ibid, p. 1292, 1.20. 26 The Pers. word, ‘dukhtar’ means a daughter, as well as a girl,a maiden. 27 Capt. Wilberforce Clarke thinks that this Indian king may be the king Taxalus of the Greeks. The Sikandar Kama e Bara, translated by Capt. W. Clarke. 88 Jivanji Jamshcdji Modi said, it appears that the girl was not the king’s own daughter, as we may at first be led to believe by the use of the word ‘ dukhtar ’ (daughter, Sans, dohitri). The Indian king, while describing her beauty, speaks of her descent as that from a Sepehbud^ i.e., the commander of an army. Thereafter, Alexander sent, with a letter, ten of his ministers to see the girl and the other three rare things. The Indian king welcomed them. They first saw the girl and were struck with wonder at her extraordinary beauty. They then wrote, each separately in his own words, to Alexander and described the ex- traordinary beauty of the girl. Alexander was pleased with what he read, and sent a message to them to return with the four rare i^hings offered by the Indian king. They did so.. The beautiful girl (fugliistan)^ shed tears when she left the court of the Indian king. Alexander was much pleased to see her and exclaimed that she was “ the lamp of the world.”'*^ He then married her with religious rites. • Firdoiisi then proceeds to describe Alexander’s inspection of the other rare things, the philosopher, the physician and the cup. It is in the account of his interview with the physician that we 2^ Sepehbiui nezad ast va yazddn parasi i. 6., She is descended from a. commander of an army and is a worshipper of God. M. Mohl. translated this- line as : “ C’est une fille do rois, elle adore Dieu.” (MohVs small ed. Vol. V, p. 100). He does not represent the king as speaking of the girl, as “ my daughter” but speaks of her as one of “ royal descent”. The word sepih means a soldier. ^ Macan’s Calcutta Ed. (Ill, p. 1297) gives the number as ten. So do thoKutar Brothers in their Gujarati Transliteration and Translation,*' Vol. Ill, p. 17. Dastur Minocheher also gives the number as ten. But Mohl gives the number as nine (small ed., V, p. 101). ILu^ The wo^ may be read as ” fughistan ” and means “ a handsome person ” or as “ fugsutan ” and may mean “ the favourite wife ” or mistress of the king (Steingass). Kin (ke in) ast cheragh-i-Jehan.” Maoan and Kutar Brothers give the words as “ Kinat cheragh-i Jehan ” and take them to be addiessed to God, as ”0 God 1 this is your lamp.” But I think, that the text followed by Mohl (Small ed. V, p. 106) is correct and the words are ‘‘kin ast” and not” kinat” The Story of Alexander the Great and the Poison^ Damsel 89 f find a reference again to Alexander’s relation with a woman, though the above particular girl is not mentioned. Firdousi says of the physician that he knew what poison was and what the antidote of poison was. Immediately after his mention of the physician’s knowledge of poison and its antidote, he refers to the sexual life of Alexander. I give my translation of what Firdousi says on this subject, following the. text of Macan’s Calcutta edition. “ He (the physician) possessed much of knowledge (or wisdom, ddndi). He knew poison (i.e.y what poison was) and the antidote of poison (pai-zehr'^^). He cut several mountain herbs and rejected those which were useless, selected those that were pure remedies and mixed (with them) medicines (daru) .as required. He washed his (Alexander’s) body with inoimtain- medicines and kept him always healthy. He (Alexander) did not sleep much at night but mixed himself well in all pleasures. His head was full of work with women and sought of having a soft thing on his breast. So, thfi king began to be reduced. He did not care well for his body. One day, the physician came before Alexander and found the signs of reduction from the moisture of his eyes^^ and said : From too much intercourse^® with women, even a young _ . . ___ - ^ • 32 ^Vol. Ill, p. 1302 1.12. The Sekander-nameh of Nizami gives the four rare things in the following order (1) The King’s daughter. (2) The Cup. (3) The Philosopher and (4) The Physician. (The Sikandar namahe Bara, or Book of Alexander the Great, written A.D. 1200 by Abu Miihammad bin Yusuf bin Abu Ayyid-i-Nizamu-d-din, translated by Capt. H. Wilberforce Clarke (1881), p. 573. For Nizami, vide my Asiatic Papers, Part II, pp. 9-16). 33' iAnother form or word for this pai-zehr is Bad-zehr from which is derivgd by Webster our English word “ bezoar.’’ Webster says of bezoar : ‘ Fr. bezoard, Pers. bad-zahr, the bezoar-stone from bad wind and zahr poison ; literally, wind of poison i.e., that, which, like the wind, disperses ot irives away the poison.” I think the proper derivation is not fronl Pers. bad wind, but from Pers. bad, power, guardian, which is another form )f pdi which means power, resistance. So pat-zehr is that which oflFers resis. [ance to, or cures, poison. 84 This line seemS to mean that he sought to have the soft embraces >f women. 86 Perhaps, whfi^tismeantto be said is, that the king wept on account >1 his unbearable illness. 86 lit. sleeping and rising. 90 Jivanji Jamshedji Modi man imdoubtedly becomes an old man. I am of opinion, that for three nights you have been without sleep (on account of too much intercourse). Tell me your secret and open your lips for that. Alexander said : ‘ I am all right. I have no disease (azar)^^ in my body.’ That eminent*^® wise man physician) of Hindustan did not agree in that affair {i.e., with what Alexander said). When night fell, he looked into the writings i.e., books and purchased medicine for remedying the diminution (or consumption of his body). Then, on that night, Alexander slept alone and had no intercourse with the rnoon-faccd girl. When the physician (pazashk)-'^ came the next morning, he found, seeing from his eyes, that he was (/.c., he slept that night) without her mistress (bi-yar). He threw off the medicine (which he had prepared for the ting) and sat cheerful and took a cup (of drink) cieerfully in his hand and order< d table to be spread and asked for musicians and wine^^^ The king (Alexander) asked him : ‘ Why have you thrown away this thing which you had with some trouble prepared with medicine.’ He (the physician) replied : ‘ Last night, the ' king of the world (i.e., Your Majesty)did not wish for intercourse with the mistress and slept alone. So, Your Majesty, when you sleep alone, there is no need for medicine (i.e., medicine is not neces- sary) for thee.’ Alexander laughed and was pleased wit^ him.'* One must read this accoimt of Firdousi, as it were, beneath the lines. The mention of poison and counter-poison, the gradual diminution of the healthy appearance of the king when he slept with the Indian girl, his recovery of good looks when he kept away from her,- all these point to the Indian girl being the' poison- 37 The word “ azar ” ordinarily means a disease, but in a colloquial sense, it is taken to mean “ the disease ” t.e., the venereal disease. 33 Pasandid i.e., the elected, the best. 3® The word ‘ physician ’ comes from Pers. pazashk which comes from Avesta JBaeshaza. ’‘O What is meant is this : The physician found that Alexander, having kept away in the previous night from the company of the mistress (whom I take as a poison-damsel), looked well. So, he saw no necessity of giving him any medicine as an antedote for the poison and was delighted and made himself ‘merry. The Story of Alexander the Great and the Poison-Damset 91 damsel, with whom the story, as known in the West in its various versions, associates Alexander. It seems that, as said by Firdousi himself in the beginning, the poet had the story in Pahlavi before him. The subject of intercourse with women, not being a decorous or descent subject to be written upon openly, the Pahlavi writer must-have written under some restraint. Firdousi also seems to have done the same. It is probable, that Firdousi may not have completely grasped the drift of the whole story. He is therefore not clear in his interpretation of the story. There is one point in Mr. Penzer’s account to which I like to draw attention here. He says (p. 308) : The most simple ex- planation of the true meaning of poisoning by intercourse which at once suggests itself is that it was merely venereal disease un^ recognised as such.” Mr. Penzer then says that “ Syphilis was introduced into Europe by way of Spain in 1493 by Columbus' men.”^^ Further on, he says : “ Syphilis appears to have been unknown in India till the end of the fifteenth or beginning * of the sixteenth century, when it was introduced by the Portu- guese. if fake the word “ aza^* ” in the above description of Firdousi, in the sense of venereal disease, in which sense the^word is ordinarily understood even now, at least in the » Bombay Presidency, one may say, that Mr. Penzer’s above explana- tion about the poison-damsel, being a girl infested with syphilis seems to be correct and his statement that syphilis was not known in India before the advent of the Portuguese to be incorrect. Points of Similarity between the Western Story and * Firdousi’s Story. From the above account, we find, that there are a number of points of similarity between the different versions of the -Western story and Firdousi's version of the Eastern story. 1. Both the stories refer to, what may be called, an extraordi- nary thing. The Western story refers in the beginning to a sooth-sayer and Firdousi’s to a learned man, Mehran by name, who was an ascetic dream-reader. 41 P. 308. 42 p. 310. 92 Jivanji Jamshedji Modi. 2. In both the versions, there is a kind of prophecy, — in one case by the sooth-sayer and in the other by the dream*reader, saying that Alexander will invade India. 3. Both the stories refer to the presentation of rich gifts to Alexander by the Indian king, and to a young damsel as being one of these rich things. 4. Both the stories represent Alexander as falling in love with the damsel at first sight. 5. Both the stories represent a learned wise man as saving Alexander from mischief. In the Western story it is Aristotle who does so. In Firdousi’s story, it is a physician — the very physician who was sent as a gift ^ to Alexander by the Indian king. 6. In both versions, we find a reference to a herb as an antidote to the poison of the damsel. In the Eastern story, it was “ a master’’ who saw through this and gave the king a herb. In Firdousi’s story, the physician “cut several mountain-herbs” for the purpose. 7. In one of the versions of the Eastern story, the transference of the poivson was through sexual intercourse. In Firdousi's story also it is the same. * « VI. Ma90Udi’s Reference to Four Rare Things, and, among THEM, to a Maiden. W^e find a reference to these four rare possessions of the Indian king in the work of Magoudi also. Abou’l-Ha^an Ali Ma9oudi, who was born at Bagdad in the end of the third century, had come to India. lie was in Multan in Hijri 300 i.c., A. C. 912. He was in Cambay in about 9l6.^^ In his Maruj A1 Zahab (Chap. XXVI),^^ he gives, what he speaks of as “ an abridged History of the Ma^oudi, Les Prairies d’or. Texte et Traduction par Barbier de Meynard et Pavet de Courteille. Vol. I, Avant Propos, p. III. ** Jbid, Vol. II, p. 260. The Story of Alexander the Great and the Poison-Damsel 93 Expedition of Alexander in India/' Therein, he says, tlfkt Alexander, after defeating king Porus, king of Mankir^^ ( jifi U), heard, that in further India there was a king named Kend^^' ( cU/ ), who was somewhat of a philosopher and an ascetic. He sent him a letter asking him to offer submission. Kend rendered submission offering his four rare possessions and a miraculous cup as tokens of submission. Of these four rare possessions, one was a young girl “ the like of whose beauty the sun had never seen/’^^ Alexander accepted the terms of submission and sent bis ambassadors to bring these four tilings. The ambassadors went to the court of the Indian king, who welcoming them, produced before them the four rare things. The first that was produced before them was the young girl. “ When she appeared before them, their eyes rested upon her. Alexander himself, when he saw lier, was struck with her beauty." ^5 This seems to be modem Maghar in the district of Basti in the North- Western Provinces ( Vide Constable’s Hand Atlas of India, 1893), p. 47. This is another form of Firdousi’s Kaid ( ), Both these words can be written with the same forms of letters, with a change in the nukUha of the second letter. ^7 I follow Barbier de Meynard’s translation (Vo. II, p. 261 ). “ Une jeune fille^ont la soleil n’avait jamais vu Tegale pour la beaute.” The Times Press, Bombay- J. 2431-28. A Note on two ChalSicya Plates found at Dhamadachckha in the Naosari District (referred, to in the '' Progress Report of the ArchcBological Survey of India. Western Circle for the year ending 31st March 1918, Part II, A, Epigraphy pp. 35-36). [This Note was, at first, sent by me to Mr. R. D. Banerji, the Superintendent of the Archaeological Department of Western India, at Poona, on 7th June 1919. It was sent by him to the Librarian of the Bombay Branch, Royal Asiatic Society, without communicating to him my name. When Mr. G. V. Acharya, (Curator of the Archaeological Section of the Prince of Wales Museum, edited the Plates and read a paper on the sub- ject (Art. XII “Two Sets of Chalukya Copper plates from Navascri), he embodied my Note as an “ Appendix A ” (vide the Journal of the Bombay Branch, Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. XXVI, No. 2 pp. 251-261 for the Paper and page 261 for my Note given as Appendix A.) ] In his “ Progress Report of the Archaeological Survey of India, Western Circle, for the year ending 31st March 1918 (Part II A, Epigraphy pp. 35-36 ) ”, dated Ist September •1918, Mr. R. D. Banerji says as follows about two Chalukya Plates : “ To the keen interest taken by Mr. P. B. Gothaskar, Librarian of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, in the search of Indian antiquities, we owe the recovery of two interesting copper- plate charters purporting to be issued by the Chaulukya Kamadeva of Angjiilapataka. It was after a great deal of trouble that Mr. Gothaskar succeeded in obtaining the loan of them from him (the owner) for the purpose of photographing them. The negatives have been purchased by me for this department, and will be filed in my office. It is intended to contribute a detailed descriptive note on them to the “ Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society”. On inquiry from Mr. Gothaskar, in the middle of March 1919, 1 learnt that the Note had not been sent till then by Dr. Sukthankar, the assistant Superintendent, in whose hands 95 the photographs had been placed for publication^ In the mean- time this short Note has been intended to identify the places referred to in th(‘ plates and noticed in the above Report. The plates are said to refer to the reign of the Chalukya Karnadeva. One gives as its di le 996 Haka and the other 1131 of Vikraina. Both of them are made in favour of “ Brahmana Pandita Maliidhara, son of Rudraditya of the Mandavya gotra, who had come to Nausari from Madhydesa ” ‘‘ by the Mahaniandales- vara Durlalduiraja belonging to a feudatory Chanlukya family of Nagasarika (Naosari), which acknowledged the suzerainty of the Gujarat ('hanlukyas of Anhilwada The grants are for one and tlie same village Dhainanachchha. The boundaries of the village are given as follows: To the east, Kalagrama ; to the south, Toranagrama ; to the west, Avala (or Amvala) Sati-gtama ; to the north, Kachhavali-grama Mr. Banerji identifies Dhama- la(dichha with th(‘ ])resent Dhaniadachchha and Toranagrama with Taranagam, and adds that ‘‘ the other place-names remain unidentified I beg to giv(' liere a small map of the locality round the village of the grant, as kindly drawn for me by Mr. Sorabji Muncherji Desai of Naosari from the Baroda State map. From this map we can identify the other ])laces as follows: - ^ (1) Dhamalachchha, the village which forms the slibject of the grants is, as said by Mr. Bannerji, the present Dhamadachchha, tlie Dhamdachha of the map. My forefathers belonged to Naosari, and I remember lu'aring from boyhood that the mangoes which came to Noasari from Dhamdachha-Kacholi wen' the Ix'st of those that came to be sold there. • It was this familiarity with the name of the village, which gave the best of its mangoes to Naosari, that has led mo to look into the matter of these grants and to make further inquiries. There is a well-known mango-tree at Dhamdachha even now, known as Daramyo 1 I inquired again in October 1928 and learnt that no Note had been received. 96 ambo i.e., pomegranate-like niango- treo. Mr. Sorabji Desai informs me that it is at present mortgaged to his Uesai family. The custom of possessing individual trees standing on the grounds of others, is an interesting custom. While, on the subject of some individual peculiar mango- trees like the Daramyo mango -tree of Dhamdachha, I ?nay refer lu‘re for the information of botanists and others, to a mango-ti‘e(‘ known as (chalto ambo), oe., a walking mango-tree, wliicli we see at 8anjan, tin' town where the ancestors of the modern Parsees first landed in India after the downfall of the Persian Empire at the liands of the Arabs, ft is an uni(pie mango- tree, the like of which I have not seen anywhere else. It spreads in one direction and is therefore known as a walking mango-tree. • • (2) Tin* village referred to in the grants as Kaehclihavaligrama, as b(‘ing on the north of Dhamdachcliha, is Kachholi in the map. In connection with tin* above-mentioned ^ famous mangoes, this village is always connected with Dhamdachha, and is spoken of as Dhamdachha- Kacholi, on the analogy of tlie naim's of cities and towns like Buda-Pesth, Bili-mora, Jehan-bordi, • • Dhamdachha is in the district of H. If. the Oaekwad and Kachheli in that of the Britisli. (3) The Kalagrama of the Co])per-plato grants, mentioned as situated on the east of the village granted, may be either the modern (Khergam in the map) • or Kalvach, most probably the latter. (^) The Toranagrama on the south is, as identified in the Report, the modern Tarangam, the Torangam in the map. (5) The Avala Satigrama or Amvala Satigrarna of the copper- plates, situated on the west, is the modern Amalsar or Amalsad, the Amalsad of the map. The adjoining Railway Station on the B. B. & C. I. Railway is known by that name. 97 Naosari is spoken of in the grants as Nagasarika. In many old Parsee documents, it is spoken as Nagmandal The learned writer of the Keport says “ The curious circums- tances regarding these grants which are dated on different days is that both of them are made in favour of the same person and convey the very same village. The wording of the grants, is however, quite different in the two plates. ... It is as difficult to give a reason why two grants should have been made conveying the same village to the same person, as to explain the difference in the dates and the writing. It does appear though, as if the first set, nam(*ly the one that is evidently the better of the two, is the original, genuine document ; the other seems to have been made later in imitation of it, as a substitute for it.’’ I think the difficulty above referred to, is solved by what the writer says in the matter of, what he calls, the genuine document. He says . “It is perhaps worth noting that in the grant which is above hejd to be the original document, the portion containing the boundaries is written at the very end of the document and was added seconda mana^^ which is palpably different from that in which the rest of the grant is written, and which rather resembles the clumsy lettering of the other grant under reference. The problems raised by this pair of grants cannot thus all be looked upon as solved * c I beg to explain the above difficulty as follows : — The document was first drawn by somebody, say A, who was. less of a lawyer. He did not mention the boundaries in the body of the docunumt, as he ought to have done, to identify the village. There are many places which bear sanies names or similar names. So, to identify a village or a place, ^ the mention of boundaries is necessary. The flaw in the first document, spoken of in the Reports as “original'' or “ genuine," may have been latterly observed by B, who may be a better lawyer or drawer of legal documents, though he wrote a rather crude or bad hand. He, at first thought of doing away with the flaw by writing the boun- 2 In second or different hand. 98 daries at the end in his own hand and did 8o» Such additionfe on legal documents, are likely to raises doubts about their being genuine. So, on a second thought in order to remove the likeliliood of such doubts, he may have thought of pre- paring a document, ol>8erving the proper formality of mentioning the boundaries of the village granteil. While doing he. being a better lawyer or drawer of documents may have thought it op])ortune to attend to the wording of the document and may have chang(‘d it accordingly. The diflerenc(? in the date.s also, is explained by the above view. The hiHt document is dated “ Tuesday, the eleventh day of the bright half of Margasirsha in the Saka year 996.” The second or revised document is dated “ the eleventh day of the bright half of Kartika in the Vikrainu year 1131. Thus we see. that the second revised and corrected documeift was made after the first. Thus, as a matter of fact, the second document was a proper and more correct and legal document. But the preservation of the first plate or *document was necessary to complete, as it were, the history of the grant of the village. I have said above, that more than one town, village or place, Jield the*same name, and that is especially the case in India. So, in nanfing the town, or village or place, one* must be very careful. An amusing instance of mglect to do so is ])resented in an article entitled “Moguls and Jesuits’' in the January 1919, issue of the blast and West of Bombay. There are two Srinagars, one in Kashmir and another in Garhwal. In 1624, a Jesuit father D’Andrada by name, went to Chaprancl in Tibet via the second Srinagar i.e., the one in Oarhw'al. After a stay of 20 years there, lie left the place on account of a Revolution that arose there. Some time in the 18th century another father, Father Desidui who having read of Father D'Andrada’s stay in Tibet, took the Srinagar mentioned by him to be the Srinagar of Kashmir and from there went to Lassha in Tibet. He found there a mission house of the Cappuchin Missionaries. It was vacant for the time being, the Cappuchin Missionaries having gone out 99 of the country for some time. He took that to be the mission house referred to by Father D’Andrada and stayed there. Some time after, tin; real owners, the Cappuchin Fathers returned and claimed their mission house from Father Desidui. He refused to vacate it saying that it was the mission house of our Jesuit D’Audrada. The di.spute went to the Pope who decided the matter in favour of the Ca])puchins. .V , north SOUTH KUSTAM MANOCK (1636-1721 A C.), THE BROKER OF THE;.. ENGLISH EAST INDIA ( OMPANY (1699 A .0.), AND THE PERSIAN QISSEH (HISTORY) OF RUSTAM MANOCK. A STUDY. Bead before the B B. R. A. Society ^ on Monday, the 21th August 1928. I. Introduction. The subject of this paper lies suggested itself to me on the inspection of five ^ documents of the. time of the United East India Company. These documents have been kindly lent to me for inspection and study by Mr. Kavasji Jalbhoy Seth, the 8th heir in direct descent ^ from Rustam Manock, who forms the subject of this paper. 1 beg to submit these documents here for inspection. They are dated from 1723 to 1725, and refer to the affairs betweeh Rpstam Manock, who died in 1721 , and the East India Company. 1 Two of the documente are, as will be seen later on, of the same tenor. 2 The undermentioned tree gives Mr. Kavasji Seth’s lino of descent. It is prepared from a book entitled Tu ^ h (The Genealogy of the Seth Khandan family and its br ef account) by Mr. Jalbhoy Ardeshir Seth (1900 A.C.). The Hon’ble Sir Pheroze C. Sethna also is 8th in descent from Rustam Manock from the line of another son oi Jlustam son Bomanji . * ' “ Framji Rustam Manock. 1 Bomanji Nowroji. I 2 Muncf.erji 1 Manok j i 1 who having 3 Sorabji no son , 1 adop te d 4 Nowroji his grand 1 cousin 6 Merwanji 1 Sorabji. 6 Manockji 7 Merwanji Jalbhoy 1 - 102 Rustam Manoch and the Persian Qisseh I took copies of the documents with the help of a magnifying glass, and then, later on, found, that three of the documents were published by Mr. Jalbhoy Ardeshir Seth about 28 years ago.^ But as few copies of this book were published and that only for private circulation, and as Mr. Jalbhoy has given them in the rnoflern spelling, I give these documents at the end in this paper with their old sfxdling. Mr. Jalbhoy has not published one of the documents — the third — probably because it is very faint and dillicult to be deciphered. It has got still fainter now. However, I have, with some difficulty, deciphered a large part of it. The portion deciphered seems to be sufficient to tell us what it is about. The object of the paper is three-fold : — A. To examine Object of Ike iind explain the documents. B. To give a brief account of the life of Rustam Manock, who was a broker, not only of the English East India Company and of the United East India Company but also of the Portuguese, and most probably also of the Dutch. C. To examine the Historical events, etc., referred to in a Persian ‘poem, entitled “ Qissch-i-llustam Manock.” 11 . c (A) The Documents. • I will, at first, speak of the Documents. They are the following : — I. A letter, dated ” London, the IDth August 1723 ”, addressed to “Our President and Councill of Bombay ” and signed by 17 members of the Court of Directors who speak of themselves when signing, as “ Your Loving Friends”. We have two copies of it. One, torn away a good deal, and the other, in good condition. *The covers of both bear the following address : “To the Hon’ble the President and Councill for all the Forces and Affairs of the English Nation at Bombay ” 19th August 1724. The reason why we have two copies is explained in the letter itself, which speaks of six copies being sent to prevent loss. The covering 103 Manock and the Persian Qiaseh a^d$eM\oSP^oth the copies bear seals, which say “ Engl. E. In^, (i.e,, English East India Company). Both the copies, j;i^hich I produce for inspection, give the year as 1724. But the late Mr: Jalbhoy Seth gives, in his Genealogy of the Seth Khandan family (p. 12), th(? year as 1723. We do not know what ye>ir the other four copies gave. From the contents of the letter, I think the year 1723 is correct, because it does not at all speak of the award of 1721, and says that the Papers will be examined. So, it seems to have been sent before the award. 2. An award, dated isth January 1724, made and signed by four arbitrators Mathew Decker, Jos Wordsworth, E. Harrison and Jolin Hcathcot(\ They have ended the award as follows : “ Wee the said Arbit rators have to this our award sett our hands and seals this Eighteenth day of January in the Eleventh year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord George King of Great Britai^ and F'rance and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, or Anno Domini 172 The signatories have added the words I. after their names. This award is attested by Hervey and George Lloyd,^ with tjie words “ Scaled and Delivered (being first duly stampt) in the presence of 3. The third document has got faint and is not wholly legible. It is a document from the office of the Lord Mayor. It says at the bottom “If faith and testimony of writer and Lord Mayor * Seal of “ put and approved ‘ on Fourth day of February of the Keign of our Sovereign and King of Great Britain. 1724.” ThTs document refers to the above second document of 18th of J^uary 1724 and seems to be a document relating to registration. It is marked in blue pencil as “ Notarial Seal to the Award.” 3a I am indebted to Mr. Muncherji Pestonji Khareghat, I.C.8. (Retd.) for the following information on the subject : ‘ ‘ I cannot at present find in any book with mo as to what the letters I. 8. after the signature in the old deed mean, but if they immediately precede the seal and follow the signature, 1 can conjecture that they may stand for “ Ipeius Signum '* — r»e.. “ his own signature or seal ", like oui * The words “ and George ” are not quite clear. So, I have givrm them as in Mr. Jalbhoy Ardeshir Seth*s Genealogy of the Seth Family, p. 25. 104 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 4. The fourth document is indirectly concerned with the East India Company. It refers to Rustam Manock’ s sons who are referred to in the above two documents. It is a letter addressed to “Messrs. Framji Rustomjee and Bomanjee Rustomjee ”, two sons of Rustam Manock in India. It is dated “ London 25th March 1725 ” and written by Cha Boonet, who was, before this time, at Surat in the English Factory. I give below the substance of the above documents. Substance of The substance of the letter of 17 Directors United East India Company, dated 19th Letter of mh August 1723, and addressed to the “ President August 1723 to Councill of Bombay ” is as follows : — the President and Council of Bombay, 1. Recei Received your packets and advices ,by ships King George, Stanhope and Salisbury. We have learnt your desire that [a) the late brokers (Rustam Manock and Sons) should “give us satisfaction as to all just demands upon them ”, (6) that you want to give proofs about the affairs “ from their the Brokers) own books and accounts” and (c) that “matters of difference that may arise” may be determined by arbitration of members chosen by both sides. We learn that Framji (Rustam Manock ’s son)' ‘‘is in , custody at the Surat Durbar and Bomanjee remains confined in his house at Bombay.” Ship Salisbury, which arrived at Spithead the latter end of April last, brought Nowrojee from Surat and he “ hath laid before us several papers and accounts which are ordered to be perused and taken into consideration.” Some of the papers given by him refer to “ the cise of Framjee in close prison ” at Suart “ on the application of the English Chiefs, Mr. Hope and afterwards Messrs. Cowans and Courtenay ” to Momeen Cann the Surat Governor; and, on a letter by Governor Phipps, (a) Framji was first confined, (b) “ then guards ” were “ set on his father Rustomjee’s house ” ; (c) Framjee was forced to pay to the above Surat Governor or Nawab Rs. 50,000 and also Rs. 200 a day “ for leave to supply the people Xustftm Mmock and the Persian Qtsseh 105 in the house with provisions and wateri ** (d) Framj ee hm also been submitted to corporal punishment. 6. However the case be ” the Directors direct and order that Bomanjee at Bombay may be set at liberty and that application be made to the (Mogul) Governor of Surat to set free Framj ee and to take off the guards from their father’s house. The Directors added : “ our desire being to end all differences amicably, for we would not have him oppressed.'’ 7. Six letters “ all of the same tenor are given to Nowrojee, as “ lie intends to send them overland if any should miscarry, the rest may come safe and earlier than by shipping directly from hence, for they will not sail till proper season.” The Directors, as said in their letter dated 19th August 1736 Substance of the to their President and Council at Bombay, tried to Iht differences amicably, and the case was Arbitrators. referred to four arbitrators, two from both sides — the Uftited East India Company and the heirs of Rustam Manock. The following were the arbitrators : 1. (Sir) Mathew Decker, 2. Josias Wordsworth, 3. Edward Harrison and John Heathcote. They declared their award duly signed by all of them on 18th Januarj* 1724. The following is the substance of the award : — (1) An Indenture dated 18th November (1723) was made between the United East India Company and Nowrojee Rustomjee, then residing in London. The Indenture recited that : — (a) “ Several accounts, claims and demands had been * depending and several disputes and controver- • sies had arisen ” between the United East India Company and Nowrojee, Framj ee and Bamanjee “ in their or one of cheir own proper right as in the rights of Rustomjee Manock jee father ’’ of the above three sons. (b) The two parties desired to bring an amicable settlement and therefore “had indifferently elected and chosen four persons to be arbitrators.” 106 Ruitam Mcmock and the Persian Qisseh (c) Both the parties agreed to ‘‘ well and truly stand to, abide, observe, perform, fulfill and keep (i.e., accept) the award.” (2) The award was made “ at the East India House in Leadenhall Street, London, on or before the Eighteenth day of this instant January.” (3) It was agreed by the parties that the award “ should be made a Rule of His Majesty’s Court of King’s Bench at Westminster according to a late Act of Parliament for determining dijfferences by Arbitration. (4) The Arbitrators having “ fully heard and examined the several Allegations and Proofs of the said Parties and maturely weighed and considered the same and the ^ matter in difference between them,’! declared their award as follows : — (а) On the 18th of November 1723, there was due from the United East India Company to the three brothers, sons of Rustomjee Manockjee, sums of money as follows (1 ) Rs. 91,367 and pies 29^, by “ virtue of one Bond Deed or Interest Bill, dated 15th May 1716.” ' (2) Rs, 51,840 by virtue of another Bond* and Bill dated 4th October 1716. • ^ * (3) There were other sums due to the brothers upon other “ several accounts depending between them and the United Company.” The total due to the brothers, including the above named two sums, came to Rs. 5,46,390. * (б) This sum of Rs. 5,46,390 to be paid as follows : — (1) £1,925 “ sterling money being the amount or value in England of Es. 170,000” to be paid on or before the 1st February now next ensuing {i.e., on Ist February 1724). On that payment being made Nowrojee was to return to the United Company the above bond of 15th May 1716. 107 Ru8taf^f^f I have done my best to help and advise Nowrojee. ^ Do not tell to anybody “ what methods have been taken in England relating to this business.” If that was done it will “ greatly prejudice the affairs.? (5) I have settled the dispute between Nowrojee and Capt. Braithwait of the Salisbury Man-of-War (the ship by which Nowrojee went to England). (6) I have received from Nowrojee what was due to me. In case my Agent Mr. Thomas Waters has received that, ere this, from you, this wiU be returned to you. m Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh (7) You brothers must live peacefully. There is a chance of your being appointed brokers again. But if you will fight among yourselves, you will spoil your cause. (8) Nowrojee has worked very hard here and had fallen ill. You therefore give hini a good present for his services. “ Everybody here hath great value and esteem for him, because he hath managed this afiair to the satisfaction of the Hon’ble Company and for the good and interest of his Brothers and family.” (9) Mr. Boonet objects to the brothers deducting, as stated in their letter of 10th September 1722, Ks. 26,458 and 33 pice, given to Mr. Hope as Vice-Consul for Commis- sion at 5 per cent, and asks that sum to be recovered from Mr. Hope with interest, as the arrangement « with him was that he was to get comnTiission on what he should collect himself, in which case he had to stand as security. Eortunately “ your affairs have taken a favourable turn *’ ; otherwise my consulage must have been lost by Mr. Hope/s neglecting my orders.” (10) The Company gave “ prequisites ” to its servants. “ The Company gave me the whole perquisite without any exception and the excusing the servants of Bombay or Surat was a voluntary act and designed o;^ly as an encouragement to young beginners, for I ever insisted to ‘ have it paid in stocks, otherwise the name of a Company’s servant might cover many cargoes as Mr. Hope has done." (11) “ Recommends his new attorney Mr. Thomas Waters.” (12) Your brother ha^s settled through me “ his afiair with Commodore Mathews.” I have been useful to^you. You likewise be useful to me. The story of the documents, in brief, is this : Rusta^n Manock, an influential Parsee of Surat, who The Story of account of his influence and generosity, the Documents in received the surname of Seth, was appointed the broker, at Surat, of the English East India Company and then of the United East India Company. He was dismissed after some; years by the Governor Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 109 of Bombay against the wishes of the President and Cc uncil of Sura# who wished him to be re-instated. The Companies owed him a large amount which remained unpaid upto the time of his death in 1721. He had left three sons, who had disputes with the English factors at Surat on their father’s death, about the above debt. So, one of them, Framjee, the eldest, was detained in custody at his own house at Bombay and the second, Bomanjee, was confined in his own house at Surat by the Nabob or the Mogul Governor of Surat at the instance of the English factors. So, Nowrojee,^ the third and youngest son, went to London to place his and his brothers’ case before the Directors of the United Company. The Company sent orders here to release the two brothers and they and Nowrojee agreed to refer the matter of dispute to arbitration. The award of the four arbitrators was unanimously in favour of the brothers. ^ III. Early English Trade and the East India Companies. I will give here, at first, a brief account of the three East India Companies, with two of which — the English East India Company and the United East India Company — Rustam Manock had come into direct contact as their broker. ^ • India traded with the West by land-route from very ancient times. Then, the Crusades (1095 to 1291) brought The Advent of Western Europe in greater contact with the East. the English in The Italian States of Venice and Genoa had, at first, a successful trade with the East, via the ports • of Egypt, Syria and Constantinople. After 1500, duryig which year, the Portuguese admiral Vasco de Gama discovered the sea-route to India via the Cape of Good Hope, Portuguese fleets began trading with India. The Portuguese broke the monopoly of Geima and Venice and successfully monopolized the trade with India till 1580, when Spain and Portugal were united together under Philip II, a bigoted Roman Cattolic monarch, who s ought uniformity of religion and tried to, force 6 Nowroji was the first Parsee to go to England; Uie second was Maid&T who went in 1781. 110 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh his Roman Catholicism, here and there. His Dutch subjects of the Netherlands, where the seeds of the Reformation were already sown, disliked his bigotry and revolted. The Dutch used to obtain Indian products from Portugal which, as said above, had a kind of monopoly in Indian trade. Philip, as a punishment for their revolt, stopped their intercourse with Lisbon. This stoppage deprived them from having Indian commodities. This state of affairs forced them to trade independently with the East. Their first four trade-ships, at first, went and traded with Java in 15S5. In 1G40, Portugal threw off the Spanish yoke and its new King John IV (Duke of Braganza)^ on coming to throne, tried to stand against tlie Dutch in their capture of Indian trade. But, by this time, the Dutch had established themselves strongly in the East. The commercial successes of the Portuguese and the Dutch in the Ka stern trade had opened the eyes of some English merchants of London. Later on, they drew the attention of the French.® Robert Orme gives us a succinct and interesting account of the “ Establishment of the English trade at Surat”^. The very first Englishman to land in India, though not for trade purposes, was Father Thomas Stevens or Stephens who landed at Goa in ir)7tS® in the company of a few Jesuits. He died in 1619. In 1581 Queen Elizabeth gave a charter to a small company, known as the Levant Com])any and also as the Turkey Company. Jn 15^3^ the Company sent out Newberry, Fitch, Leedes and others- by the overland route of Aleppo, Basra and Hormaz witli a letter from ® Voltoirc, in his “ 8iMe de Louis XIV ” criticises the tardiness of the French in scientific matters and in geographical discoveries and enterprizes. He says : “ Les Fran^ais n’eurent part ni aux grandes d6couvertes ni aux inventions admirable des autre nations . , . . Ils faisaient des tournois, pendant quo les Portugais ot les Espagnols d^couvraient and conqueraient de nouveaux mondes a Torient ot rC Toccident du monde connu.” (Edition of 1878 of ‘‘ Oeuvres Completes de Voltaire ” p 158 p. 4 Chap. I Introduction), i.e. “ The Fieneh took no part, either in the great discoveries or in the admirable inventions of other nations. . . . They performed the tournaments when the Portuguese and the Spaniards discovered and conquered the now worlds in the east and in the west of the known world.” Robert Grant in his “ Sketch of the History of the East India Company ” (1813) p. XXXVI draws our attention to this criticism of Voltaire. 7 Robert Orme’s Historical Fragments of the Mogul Empire ” (1805), p. 319 et seq, ® F. Smith gives the year as 1579 (Smith’s Akbar, p. 296). Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 111 the Queen to Akbar®. They arrived at Akbar’s court in 168^. Then came, in 1603, Mildenhall, at the head of a commercial mission, via Aleppo and Persia. He announced himself as a messen- ger from Queen Elizabeth and got permission to trade. All of these commercial adventurers came in foreign vessels. The first English vessel that came here was Hector with Capt. William Hawkins as Commander. It arrived at Suwalli (modern Sumari) in August 1608^®a. A ship, named Ascension, had left England one month before it, but it was delayed in the voyage, and, when it came in Indian waters, was wrecked at Gandevi about 30 miles south of Surat. Hawkins had a letter from King J araes. He arrived in Jahangir’s Court at Agra in April 1609 and remained there till November 1611. Though well received at first, he was refused permission for a factory at Surat. In 1611, the English established a factory at Maslipatam. The Portuguese were powA- ful here at the time. The Company had resolved to arrange for an embassy. • Sir Thomas Roe carried the first embassy from James I. He left England in March First English ^^.^ved at Surat in September 1615. Moghal CmiH. He was m India tor 3 years and 5 months ^ and left in 1619. Among the presents that he * , brought was an English coach . Sir Thomas is said to have suggested, that wine would be a better present for the Moghal King and his Prince. He wrote : ‘‘ Never were men more enamoured of that drinke as these two : they would more highly esteem them than all the jewels in Chepeside ” Jahangir gave Qie necessary permission to settle factories in any parts of the Mogul empire, specifying Bengal, Sundy, and Surat. ” • Fui« Smith’s Akbar (1917)i p. 227 el seq, lo Vide Smith’s Akbar, pp. 292-94. 10a Hawkins' Voyages by C R. Markham (1878) p. 388 seq. “ Jahangir, in his Memoirs (Rogere and Beveridge Vol. I, p. 340), speaks of driving in a Frank (firangi) carriage driven by four horses when he left Ajmer for the Deccan. That was on 10th November 1616. So, it seems that> that was the coach sent as a present by James I. Peter Auber’s ’’ Analysis of the Constitution of the East India Company” (1826), p. 718. Ibid. 1]]|2 Rustam Mahock and the Persian Qisseh ’ The first English factory at Surat was fbunded in September 1612. Robert Orme^'* gives us an interesting The First Eng- ^^ccount of its formation under Capt. Best who lish Factory at came to Surat with two ships of the Company. Surat in 1612. Portuguese did all they could to prevent the establishment of the Factory but they failed. The Surat merchants liked very much that the English may establish their factory there. One of them enthusiastically said : Surat must burn all its ships, if friendship were not maintained with the English. On the favourable representations of the merchants “Sheik Suffee, the governor of Ahmedabad, came down to Swally on the 17th (September 1612) and gave pledges, on which Capt. Best went ashore, and in two days settled a treaty.”^® Orme adds : “ The scope of these articles (of treaty) provided sufficiently for fjpcurity of a establishment. They were signed on the 21st of October (1622), when Captain Best delivered the governor of Ahmedabad a costly present from the Company. . From this time forward the English trade regularly advanced here. Best went liome, and, on his giving a glaring report of the Indiaii. trade, the Directors of the East India Company raised a better fleet and arranged to send an ambassador to the Mogal Court to counteract the influence of the Jesuit priests on behalf of Portugal. Jahangir did not like the Portuguese. So, a victory won by the English over the Portuguese on 29th January 1615^®, at Swally, greatly pleased him^ and he, in his Memoirs, especially mentions that victory — the victory over t\\e.Warza (Portuguese Viceroy) — as one of the three good news that had reached him in the month Bahman.^® It appears from Orme that, in 1678, the Company’s broker at Surat was a Bania.^® ^ The English had some trade at Surat from the early part of the 17th century. It was in i’666, at f Madras establishment came to be equal to that of Surat where they paid a consolidated Orme’s Historical Fragments of the Mogal Empire (1805), p. 327 etsfq. Ibid, p. 328. “ Ibid, For the terms of the Treaty vide Ibid, pp. 328*9. Ibid, p. 329. Orme’s Historical Fragments, p. 351. Danvers’ Portuguese in India (1894) II, 170 — ^71. Memoirs by Rogers and Beveridge I., p. 274. 2® Orme’s Historical Fragments (1806), p. 72. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 113 duty of 3^ p.c. on their goods. “ In addition to this import duty, i poll tax called jaziya was imposed on non-Muslims from 2nd April 1679/' The Christians protested but “ though they are ahl-i-kitab or believers in the Old Testament like the Muhammadans^^”, their protest was of no avail. But “ the Moghal Government seems to have found it difficult to assess and levy the jaziya per head from the Europeans in the same manner as from the Hindus, and consequently it seems to have offered a compromise by turning the jaziya into an addition to the import duty on their goods, raising the latter (from p.c. ) to p.c. ”^2 Aurangzeb’s farman of 26th June 1667, directed that “ the English trader there (at Surat) should pay only 2 p.c. ad valorem duty on all goods imported by them to that harbour. This concession was granted on the recommendation of Ghiyas-ud-din Khan, the Governor of Surat, to the Wazir Jafar Khan. This was perhaps because the English had made a bold stand, as we will see later on, against Shivaji dhring his first sack of Surat in 1664. In 1679, the above reduced I p.c. was re-impossed and in addition 1 p.c. was added, as said above^ ior jaziya ; in all they had to pay ad valnrp.m,. :^oi ro’ By this time, the English had exasperated Aurangzeb They had sacked Hugh in 1686 and seized it in 1687. Then, the Bombay •fleet, as* directed by Sir John Child, attacked Aurangzeb's fleet. * So, he ordered everywhere their arrest, the seizure of their factories and prohibition of all trade with them. But the English being strong at sea, harassed Aurangzeb’s pilgrim ships to Mecca and also other trade-ships. The stoppage of trade led to a diniinution in Mogul revenue. At last, in February 1690, peace *was made. The English gave Aurangzeb Es. 1,60,000. Notwithstanding this peace, the English at Surat were harassed by the Mogul officers. So, the home authorities, wanted to make Bombay, which had come into their hands, “ the Key of India ” and Sir John Child, the then President, ‘‘ left Surat for Bombay on 26th April 1687, in order to be beyond the reach of the Moghals. The imperial governor of Surat disliked this retreat Sarkar’s History of Aurangzib, VoL V, vide p. 317 et seq. *• Ibid, p. 319. « Ibid, p. 320. 114 Rustam Manoch and the Persian Qisseh of the English to an independent position/^ A state of war ensued. Benjamin Harris and his assistant Samuel Annesley were confined in their house. There was fighting between the Eng- lish and the Moghals on the Western Coast in 1688-89. Sir John Child, the President, with an English fleet captured a large number of Moghal ships. The above English officers were put in chains and kept prisoners for 16 months (December 1688 to April 1690). At this time, the Siddce of Janjira, the Admiral of Aurangzeb on the Western coast, attacked Bombay at Aurangzeb’s direction, in May 1689. Governor Child did not defend it well. So, it fell an easy prey in the hands of the Siddee, and the English had to shut themselves up in the Fort. Child sent G. Welden and Abraham Navarro to Aurangzeb on a mission for peace (10th December 1689). Aurangzeb granted a pardon on 25th December 1689. The ferman of pardon and peace was ceremoniously received at Surat on 4th April 1690. The English officers were released and they paid Us. 1,50,000 as fine. The English had suffered a good deal in prestige and their affairs for 1691-1692 and 1693 were bad. Early in 1691, Sir John Gayer came to India as the, chief agent in Westcun India and Governor of Bombay. In May 1694, Annesley became the chief of tlie Surat factory. During the next six years, the European pirates were powerful in the Indian seas and injured the ])ower of the English for trade on the Western coast. In 1695, Aurangzeb’s own ship was plundered by ail English pirate, Bridgnum alias Avety. The English were held responsible for this piracy and President Annesley and his assistants had to be confined. Aurangzeb, at first, thought of punishing strongly all the European factories — the Dutch, the French and the English, but, on second thought, he arranged with them for the further protection of the trade. On 6th January 1696, the English President Annesley undertook to supply an escort for his ships and he was set at liberty. In 1697, an English pirate Kidd again brought the English into difficulties. Aurangzeb imposed a fine of Rs. 14 lakhs upon the factories of the three nations . In the end, these three nations divided their work and undertook to protect the Indian trade on the different parts of the Indian coast. About this time, on ** Ibid, pp. 336-337. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 115 6th April 1699, the new Company, the English East Indiaf Company, was formed and Sir Nicholas Waite came to Surat, as its first President, and Sir William Norris came to India as an ambassador from the English King. In February 1701, Sir John Gayer was arrested and imprisoned by the Mogal Governor of Surat at the instigation of Sir Nicholas Waite, who, in order to undermine the influence and work of the old East India Company, whose representative Sir John Gayer was, misrepresented matters, and said, that the piracy in the Indian seas was the work of Sir* John Gayer and his old Company. Sir John Gayer being mad' prisoner, Sii* Nicholas Waite was appointed Governor of Bombay by the Home authorities. Sir John Gayer continued long in prison. I will finish this account of the early English trade at Surat, with a brief account of the difierent East India The East India Compa- nies. Companies, formed, one after another. This account will enable us to be in a better position to determine the time of Kustani Manock’s appointment as a broker of two of them, (a) In 1589, some • merchants submitted a memorial to Queen Elizabeth for a license of 3 ships to trade with India. The license was given in 1591 and Capt. Raymond started with three ships. This trade-expedition was followed in 1596 by another expedition. ^Xhe merflliant adventurers then thought of forming a regular association for trade. Queen Elizabeth, on being applied to granted, on 31st December 1600, a charter for the purpose. This association formed the London Company which was “the first establishment of an English East-India Company.’’^^ The Company was “to be managed by a governor and twenty-four Committees’’.^ Licenses* were also “issued to individuals for private trade.” ^7 “Thei Company formed, by degrees, factories in India, and ulti- mately reached such a degree of prosperity, that various attempts were made to induce the Crown and Parliament to revoke their charter, with no other object than that the petitioners themselves 25 An Analysis of the Constitution of the East India Company, by P^r Auber (1826), p. 718. 2« The members were then designated as Committees (Peter Auber’s East India Company (1824), p. 196). The Analysis of the Constitution of the East India Company by Peter Auber, 1820, p. ix. 27 Ihid^ p, X. 116’ Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh should be elected into an exclusive Company.” But this attempt failed. In 1693, the Company failed to pay ‘‘ a duty of five per cent, on their capital stock ” imposed upon them in the time of William and Mary. So, their charter was revoked. A new charter was given with the condition that “ it should be determinable on three years ’ notice.”^ (b) In 1698, Great Britain, having had wars with foreign powers, was obliged to borrow money. This led to the formation of another Company called “ English East India Company,” chiefly formed of those who helped the Government by subscribing money forthe loan for the war. The Act, permitting the formation of this new Company, provided, that the Government had the right of closing both the Companies —the new and the old — in 1711 . It is said, that the Tories favoured the Old Company and the Whigs, the New Qornpany.^® As was the custom in those early times in case of private bills, that the parties must, with the permission of -the Parliament, wait upon His Majesty to pray for his approval, the Governor and Committees waited upon the King at Kensington on 8th March 1699. The King sanctioned the formation of the Company, but “ recom- imuided an union of the two companies to their serious consideration, as it was. his opinion that it w^ould be most for the interest of the Indian trade.” (c) The King’s advice began taking shape in July 1702 and, "‘after much preliminary discussion, an Ii\dentuile‘ Tripartite (calh'd the Charter of Union) was passed under the great scal.”^' The movement took shape in 1708 and both the com- panies were amalgamated under the name of “The United Company of Merchants of England trading with the East Indies,” its brief name being, “ The United East India Company.” The^ United Company had 24 managers, known as directors, twelve to be selected from each Company. The first Court of the United ConJpany was hold on 25th March 1709 and the first 24 Directors were elected on 15 th April 1709. This United Company lent to Government without interest £1,200,000, in lieu of the right of exclusive trade for 15 years. In 28 ibd. " 28 Robert Grant’s Sketch of the History of the East India Company. 1813, p xxxri, so p. 196. 3i p. 197 , Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 117 1722, the period of the exclusive right was extended upto 1733. In 1730, this right was further extended upto 1766, for which * extended exclusive right, they gave to Government £200,000 and consented to charge a reduced rate of interest, m., 4 percent, on the present and the past debts amounting to £3,200,000. The rate for the past debt was 8 per cent.®^ In 1744, the period of the ex- clusive right was again extended by 14 years, i.e,, upto (17 66 +14—) 1780, and they* lent to Government a further sum of £1,000,000 at 3 per cent. In 1750, the United Company agreed to a reduction from 4 to 3 per cent, of the former loan of £3,200,000. The total sum, known as the East India annuities, amounted to £4,200,000, and the annual amount of interest at 3 per cent., which the Company received, came to £126,000. In 1781, the exclusive right of trading was continued upto 1794. In 1793, the exclusive right of trade with China and in Tea was continued to the Company till • 1813, but the exclusive right for trade with India was cancelled and the right was opened to the public. A Few Dates I give below a list of the principal events in ^f^^Europmns with the advent of the English in arid among thenii India. ai *1 i of the English to Bfhramsha. D Nasikwiia, §01 PARSI COLONY, OAOAR. The (Jrusades which brought Europe into some • * clcise contact with the East . . . , . . 1095-1291 The Portuguese under Vasco de Gama discovered the sea-route to India via Cape of Good Hope . . . . 1500 ^ The first Englishman (Father Thomas Stevens) to land in India, though not as a merchant, but to work with the Jesuits at Goa . . 1578 T1j|B Portuguese had a monopoly of trade with India upto 1680 Queen Elizabeth gave a charter to the Levante or the • Turkey Company . . . . 1681 The advent, via overland route of Aleppo, Basra and Ormaz, of the first band of English merchants — ^New- berry, Fitch, Leeds and others — as merchants of the •2 Ibidf p. 17. 118 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qissdi Turkey Company, with a letter from Queen Elizabeth to Emperor Akbar 1^33 A few English Merchants submitted a Memorial to Queen Elizabeth for a License for 3 ships to trade with India . . . . . . . . . . . . 1589 The License was granted and Captain Raymond started with 3 ships. This was the first trade Expedition. 1691 The Dutch began trading with the East . . . . 1595 Another (second) English Trade Expedition . . . . 1696 Few English Merchant-adventurers applied to Elizabeth for a Charter to form a Trade Association. This led to the foundation of the. first establishment under the name of the London East India Company . . 31st Dec. 1600 Arrival of Middenhall, who came by land route, as an authorised messenger from Queen Elizabeth, and who was given permission to trade . . . . . . 1603 The arrival of the very first English vessel, Hector, under Commander Hawkins at Suwalli (Sumari) near Suiat 1608 The arrival at Jahangir’s Court of Hawkins, who came with King James’ letter . . . . . . . . 1609 Hawkin’s stay at Jahangir’s Court. He was refused permission for a factory at Surat . . . . IGll The English first established a Factory at Masalipatam. 1611 The English settled at Surat for the first time after the naval defeat, at the hands of Captain Best, of the Portuguese, who had become very powerful at the Mogal Court. This was the foundation of the first English kothi or Factory at Surat. The firman of trade was given by Jahangir to Edwards . . . . 1612 Two English Factors went with King James’ letter to Jahangir,, but were not successful .. .. 1613-1614 On good reports from Captain Best about the trade with India, the East India Company raised a better fleet and arranged to send Sir Thomas Roe, as ambas- sador. He landed at Surat . . . . September 1616 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh. 119 An unsuccessful attempt of the Dutch to found a Factory at Surat . . 1616 f The first Dutch Factory founded at Surat by Peter van den Bracke, who became its first President®^ . . 1620 The first Dutch Factory founded at Agra with Francisco Palsaert at its head 1621 Marriage Treaty of Charles II and Catherine . . 23rd June 1661 The English took possession of Bombay from the hands of the Portuguese 1666 The Company’s Broker at Siuat was a Bania^** . . . . 1678 The first London East India Company, having failed to pay “ a duty of 5 per cent, on their capital stock, its Charter was revoked in the time of William and Mary. ’ ’ A new Charter was given, on condition, that it may be revoked in 3 months’ notice . . . . . . . . 1693# The formation of the 2nd Company, the English East India Company, the Government reserving the right of closing both the Companies in 1711 . . • . . 1698 , The founders of the New Company waited, according to custom, upon the King, when the King advised that both the Companies may be united . . . . 1699 The arrival of Sir Nicholas Waite as the first President ^ ^ of the New Company at Surat 1699 The* movement to unite the two Companies according to the King’s advice, began . . . . . . . . 1702 The movement finally took shape and both the Com- panies were united under the name of ‘‘ The United East India Company ” 170g The first Court of the United Company was held on 26th •March 1709, and the first 24 Directors elected on 16th April 1709. The right of Exclusive trade was given for 16 years upto 1724 . . • 1709 3^^ “The Empire of the Great Mogal” (De Impericf Magni Mogolis), by De Laet, translated by J. S. Hoyland and annotated by S. N. Bannerjee (1928), Introduction, p. IV. This work is spoken of as “ a oomplete Gazetteer of Jahangir's India/' {Ibid, p. vL) ^ Orme's Historical Fragments (1806), p. 72. 120 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh The Period of Exclusive trade extended upto 1733 . . 1722 This Period of Exclusive trade again extended upto 1766 . . 1730 This Period of Exclusive trade again increased by 14 years, i.e., upto (1766+14=) 1780 1744 The United Company had lent money to British Government. The interest over these Loans, which amount(‘d to £3,200,000, was reduced from 4 per cent, to 3 per cent. The total sum known as ‘‘ The East India Annuities ” amounted to £4,200,000 . . . . 1750 The Period of Exclusive trade for the East India Company was further increased upto 1794 . . 1781 The right of Exclusive trade with India was cancelled (though that with China and that of the tea trade was continued upto 1813) . . . . . . . . . . 1793 IV. u The Persian Poem, Qi88eh«i«-Ru8tam Manock, i.e., The Life Story or History of Rustam Manock. Now we come to the second object of our paper, viz., to give an account of the life of Rustam Manock. i : For the account of the life of Rustam Manock, we have, besides some stray materials found here and there, a The Quissek Persian poem, entitled Quisseh-i-Rustam Manock (v-^^U ^.e., the History or Life-story of Rustam Manock, written by Mobed Jamshed Kaikobad. It speaks of several historical events relating to Emperor Aurangzeb, ^Shivaji and the English and Portuguese factories ; so, it is a contemporary historical document, which, though not of unusually great historical value, is important as a document presenting a Parsee view of the events. I will give, the Qisseh in Persian. I will give, later on, a full siirnmaipy of its contents and will then examine, how far its account of the: historical events is supported by historical works. I will first speak here of the Author and the Date of the Qisseh. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 121 The author of the Qisseh is Jamshed Kaikobad. Ui ifortunately , Dastur Minochehr, the editor of the poem, of whom I will speak a little later on, while The Author preparing a correct text of it, seems to have done of the Qisseh. away with its original collophon or concluding lines, wherein the author must have given, in his ‘ own words, his name, residence, date, etc. However, it is well, that Minochehr has given, in his own words, the author’s name, place and date. From this, we learn that the author of the Qisseh lived at Surat, and that he wrote this Qisseh in 1080 Yazdazardi (Samaniii alif. c. 590)^^ i.c., 1711 A.C. Jamshed Kaikobad, was, as he himself says in the Qisseh®®, the tutor of Nowrozji, Rustam Manock’s third son, who, as we will see later on, was the first Parsee to go to London in 1723 and^ whose name is often referred to in the above-mentioned East India Company’s documents. We see, from the date given above, that Jamshed Kaikobad wrote his account of the life of Rustam Manock^ 10 years before the death of Rustam who died in 1721 A.C. No original manuscript in the hand of the author has come down to us. There may be, somewhere, a copy or The Mss. of copies of the author’s own original, but I have t e Qisseh. ^ not come across any. Several copies existed • * , in 1845. The story of the text, as I give it, is as follows: In 1214 A.Y., i.e., 1845 A.C., Manockji Merwanji Seth, the sixth in descent from Rustam Manock, saw and possessed several copies of the original Qisseh as written by the author Jamshed Kaikobad. He requested Ervad (afterwards Dastur) JVIinochehr Edalji Jamaspasa,®^ to prepare a correct text out of the several copies then existing. Minochehr did so. In the text f)repared by him, Minochehr says, that there were several copies of the Qisseh but they were found incorrect from the point •® 0. in this paper means couplet, j ^ uJil I ^ Lj J « O.306. 0-.I i.e., of those (three sons) Nowroz is my pupil 87 Bom 1808. Came to Dasturship on 22nd^bruary 1861 on the death of his father. Died within 8 months on ^)th October 1861. 122 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh of view of the meter (bi-haideh, c. 59) ; that that was due to ignorant copyists jJJ U Jij Iaj I ^ U c. 592); that therefore, Manock ji Merwanji,theSethofthetime, the head of the anjuman (community) of Mobads, showed these copies to several learned men who all declared them to be faulty (c. 593) ; that he then entrusted the work to him (Minochehr, the son of Dastur Edalji, surnamed Jamaspasana) ; that Manockji Seth said to him, “You prepare another Qisseh according to the old one and that therefore this Qisseh is one based upon the old one. Minochehr gives the year of his own work as the year ghariji^ { ), 1214 Yaz- dazardi (c. 610), i.e.y 1845 A.C. The revised and corrected text so prepared by Minochehr, long remained unpublished. Then, the late Jalbhoy Ar deshir Seth, who * was the eighth in descent from Rustam Manock and was the elder brother of the above Kavasji Seth, published it in 1900, in a hook which was printed for private circulation and which was entitled, the descending line of the Seth family and a brief* account, with a genealogical tree and photographs). In very few copies of this publication, he has published a lithographed text, in 36 pages, of the Qisseh, as ])repared by Minochehr. I am told that only three copies of the text were published. The text, which I give at the end of my paper, is a copy prepared from that publication, with my collation here and there from other copies. The Tej t, as prepared by Minochehr^ has been transliterated and translated into Gujarati. The transliterator and translator does not give his name, but, it appears from what is stated at the end of the lithographed copy published by Mr. Jalbhoy ^eth, that the transliteration and translation were also the work of the tabove mentioned Minochehr. I produce for inspection a well-written copy of it, kindly presented to me some years ago, by a member of the Jassawala family, bearing, in the beginning and at the end, a stamped inscription saying “ Presented by the late Mr. Rustomji Jamsetjee Jassawala's family 1905.” This copy bears the title 38 Gharij means wine. Ghariji is a cup-bearer. (Steingass) This chronogram comes to 1214, according to the ahjad method : ^ = 1000 + I = 1 +; = 200 + 5; = 3 + = 10 = 1214 . Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 12S oor of other eSmomnities from the burden of Jaziyeh. c. 134 seq. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 127 children) also. Again, these tax-collectors speak ‘n a vile torfe (zabun) with them. When Rustam heard these grievances, he had compassion upon them and he told Noshirwan,^® who was his deputy (or assistant, naib, c. 150), to go to the Diwan and pay the tax for those poor people and release them from imprisonment. Several thousands (of Rupees spent and the poor freed from the tax. The poor blessed Rustam Manock UbU »>;!•> i. e,y May God keej) you and your children’s wealth in plenty and may you live long. Then the author, Jamshed, refers to a Persian book Sad-(^ar Nazam and says that, according to that book, one who helps the p*oor and relieves them from the Jaziyeh tax is blessed by God and his angels (cc. 162-65). • The author then refers to the sack of Surat Sach^of^^^mt Shivaji, and to Rustam Manock’s kindness to c. 69 et seq. help the poor during that time of distress. He speaks of this under the following heading : i.e.y the giving of the oppressive tax (zulmtoeh), on behalf of the people of the city, by Seth Rustam at the time of Shiveh Ghani. _ - , I cannot identify this Noshirwan. He seems to be the same Noshirwan wha is referred to , later on , as receiving Bustam Manok as his guest at Naosari. Dastur Erachji’s copy gives the heading as follows s jCJui L j'U VjiM ^ ^ 1 u>lj ic ;lw I; ^ jt jl "" jt" ;•> (j> T J /j L.lfc ^ (jj I jf j Lh< ^ j]o Jt -■ijj ,iUll» ^1^ )] )) ^ 128 Rmtam Manock and the Persian Qisseh The account in the Qisseh, of this sack of Surat, is, in brief, as. follows : Once, there came upon the city (of Surat) Shiveh ghani like Ahriman. He arrested from all directions (as hostages for pay- ment) women, men and children. He carried away also as booty silken cloth qurnash) and gold and silver and household furniture ( ) and jewellery. From such a confusion (gir o dar jj^ there was a general flight ( ) in the city, in the villages and in the zillahs (jJ-^). Again, he set fire here and there. Those who were taken prisoners sent a word to the city that, unless the fine of release (zulanianeh was paid, there was no chance of release. The people went to Kustam Manock and said (c. 184 et. seq) : “We are distressed and helpless from the terror of Shiveh ghani. He has destroyed all our goods and property. iJe has imprisoned the males of our families and he beats them oppressively. He asks from every person spurious^^ (or oppres- sively large) oppressive tax (zulmaneh). He asks from all ten thousand (deh alif) rupees. We are not in a position to giye the oppressive fine, which he asks. He has come up like a Ahriman and become the enemy of the city and villages. He has an army of 50,000 soldiers and there are, at the head of the army, two persons as extorters (gir o dar, lit. those who say, seize and hold). One is ' Ahujiban ( other Divyan ( He has become the enemy of the sect of Zoroastrians. These two persons have destroyed many villages by pillage. They have carried away from every house gold and jewellery and apparel and grain as pillage, and then they have set fire to the houses. They have killed several people and have tied the hands of sonfe over their backs. We are some of those who have run away from h^.” Thus describing the distress, they requested Rustam Manock to help them. Rustam was grieved to hear this and he gave Rs. 10,000 for their release (c. 216) and also supplied food, money and clothing for them. 50 Lit. “ Seize and hold Zulnianeh seems to be a fine or ransom for the release of persons. ** Na-khelaf, dastardly, wicked, spurious, villainous. What is meant is ‘‘oppressively large’*. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 129 The author then narrates the following story of King Minochehr Shivaji and Aghreras. Afrasiab (the Turanian King)f Afr^b, and at one time, winning a victory, killed Naodar, Rustom Manock the Iranian king, and imprisoned his wise officers. and Aghriras. ordered, that they also may be killed. Then, the victorious Aghreras interfered and asked for their release from the King, saying that they were innocent. So, Afrasiab countermanded his order of killing them and gave them in charge of Aghreras. Aghreras (privately) sent a messenger to Zal-i-Sam that he may send Kesliwad with an Iranian army to set free the Iranians from his prison. The Iranians came for their relief, and Aghreras^ under some excuse, absented himself from the palace and went to the court of Afrasiab. Keshwad restored all the Iranians to liberty and carried them to Zabill. Afrasiab on coming to know the true state of affairs, killed Aghreras.^^ Our author then names Firdousi and quotes some of his lines. He t]ien adds, that he mentioned this episode to illustrate the good action of Rustam Manock. In this case, Rustam Manock was like the virtuous Aghreras, and ghani Sivaji like the wicked Afrav^ab. (3) The Account of Rustom Ma- nock's Chari- ties. ^ Then follows an account of Rustam Manock’s charities, &c., under the following heading : i.e., on (the subject of) the repose and comfort of men and on the performance of acts of charity, and one’s own duty.®^ • 68 This Agreras is the Agraeratha of the Avesta (Yt. XHI, 131, Yt. IX, 22 ; Yt. XIX, 77). Vide for the above story and other particulars about this Agr6ras my “Dictionary of Avestic Proper Names,” pp. 7-10. 64 Dastur Erachji’s text has a long heading which says ; “In the matter of the work of bequests of charity** (aoquaf pi. of waqf, like) the building of bridges by Seth Rustam on the banks of waters of rivers and on desolate (kharab) places ; laying out of gardens and buildings ; and building of big wells everywhere for the repose and comfort of men and the performance of acts of righteousness and one’s own duties. * ' 130 Rmtam Manock and the Persian Qisseh Among the good works of Eustom Manock, mentioned under this heading, we find the following : — 1. He got some roads put in good order. 2. He got fvcca chunam bridges built over water-courses. 3. He brought under cultivation and gardening, desolate unused (kharij) land. 4r. He built great buildings with beautiful gardens with water-courses (Kariz and favareh ( fountain c. 264).^® 5. He built a building with a surrounding garden for the charitable use (waqf) of Zoroastrians to be used by them for marriage and Jashan occasions (c.c. • 272-74). (3. He built in the city and in the villages wells for pure (zalah) water. 7. lie got built reservoirs (hauj) for water for the cattle. 8. He got performed in the Dar-i-Meher religious ceremonies like the Vendidad, Visparad, Yasht and Hamast (c. 280), daily Darunin honour of the Ameshaspands and Asho Farohars, Herbad, Getikharid, l^aojote, Zindeh ravan.^® 9. lie helped the poor for the marriage of their children. 10. He helped the Dasturs and the Mobads, i.e., the clergy. The Gujarati translator translates karez by ^ It api>ear8 from a long description of these buildings that they were ntended for his own self and not for charity. 57 I think this is the place still known as the Panchayet ni wadi. Vide below for the inscription on one of such wells, at Hajira near Surat. 5® Vide for these ceremonies, my “ Religious Ceremonies and Customa of ^.he Parsees Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 131 We find in the above account of Rustam’s good works, his Anqufiil Du work of changing desolate ground into good g&Tf Peon's ground (cc. 260-270).«> I think that Anquetil reference lo Rus- ® \ -r* • * ri.- tarn's Garden. Du Perron, in the Discours Prelinunaire ot his Zend Avesta (p. 361) refers to this garden. While speaking of the burning ground of the Hindus, Anquetil says : “ Get endroit I recently made enquiries about the place of this garden from Mr. Manockshah C. Petigara, the Secretary of the Parsee Panchayet of Surat In his letter, dated 3()tli July, in reply to my letter of 26th July 1929, he says (ld mW’ ^dl qidifldl ^itldl ^I'ld >il(iNl«rdl D. 53i wmUH\ i«Mld ? w3' ^Ho) diaji^^rn HKM ml mi \s ^ ads^^dl jdii M'<\\ H'ii »dd d«u^ 5 h ani^ 1$ add dlddl <’«U«n H«1 dq^ adid Q ^ di^qi ml d«d d a>i?i' cd' D. anPcidl frd*4i«d J^MUi (»di^- 5dAi€l3' dl w'ddi $ otr^ll ^l’|53i.dl }jiU tdiii>iii Miai daiSi ad^i Rdl «dlC^|d^ »dd mm\s^ ^ adu^^ Rdd ^idi^i 5?d ‘‘hih’’ R adu^i^d ^4 ^il 5 5?dl tU4 5niladl C -9 j J I; U j Avesta havishta, a disciple. t.c., May the family be blessed with grandchildren. A'-Or-diddl, “ beloved child” (Steingass. )j^)- Fide, for these personages, my Dictionary of Avestio Proper Names (1892). (^)^p. 4 (Gaya Maretan). ( 2 ) / 6 id, p. 203. (3) ihid p. 93 . (*)/ 6 id, p. 163. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 133 Afridun (Faridun) ® Minochehr ® Kaikobad ^ Kaus® Siavaksh ® Kai Khusrau Gushtasp, son of Lonrasp Isfandiar Bahman^-^ Ardashir (Babakan) Naoshirwan (son of Kobad) Khnsro Par viz Yazdazard Dastiir Ardai Viraf Adarb&d Marasfand Jamasp (Hakim) ^ Tus 21 Zawar (Zahvareh) 22 Zarir 2‘^ Rustam 2 ^ Zal 25 Kersasp (son of) Asrat 2 ® Milad 27 Giv Framroz Godrez, the father of TOsons Peshotan {5)RusUinrsfirst Then follows an account of Rustam Manock’s Interview with the English. His (‘ontact with the English factory and of his being a broker His broker, under the tollowing finding a house heading * for them. , ^ ‘ i.e. In the matter of the English who came in the country of India to ttie city of Surat and the introduction of Seth Rustam with them and his becoming (their) broker®^. (5) Ibid, p. 99. (®) Ibid, p. 148. (7) Ibid, p. 53. (8) Ibid, p. 41. (9) Ibid, p. 196. (*0) Ibid, p. 214. (“) Ibid, p. 4. (*“) Ibid, p. 194. Also known as Ardashir Daraz-dast (long- handed), identified with Artaxerxes Longimanus. (^^) Artaxerxes. (15) Chosroes I. (16) Chosroes II. (17) The last Sassanian King. (18^ The Visionary of the Ardai Viraf nameh. (19) The Author of a Pahlavi^ Pand-nameh. (20) The author of Jam^pi. (2^) Ibid, p..27. (22) Brother of Rustam. (23) Vide my Dictionary of Avestic Proper Names» p. 83. (24) Vide Bundehesh Chap. XXXI 4. (26) Father of Rustam, Vide Shah-nameh. (26) Vide my Dictionary of Avestic Proper Karnes p. 59. (27) Vide the Shah-nameh for this and the next four personages. Vide Justi’s Iranischen Namen buch for some of these personages. Dastur Erachji gives the heading as follows : — ; J ^ I )«> C» Ij j I jCi (.• Ju> J ^ J a. y . yu J i 134 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qt^seh I will give ray translation of the author’s account of his first interview with the English factor and of the first house of the English factory at Surat in details : “ The English (Angrez) came to Surat from their country, in splendour, with money(ganj ) and coins (dinar). They came to India in ships in great caravans {i.e., fleets) by the way of the great sea (c. MO) . They came for noble or valuable (arj- mand) trade in the dress of great merchants. Seth Rustam visited them; the Kulah-push^ (i.e., the hat^wearers the English), were much pleased with that visit. Within a short time, friendship (tavadad) increased between them, and, from union of colour (yak- rangi or onekindof pleasure ormode or manners), they became united in heart (yak-del) and familiar (sur-mand)®^. They then made him their broker (dalal) and entrusted to him all their work. Then, he made en([uiries (taffahus) for a palatial building for the residence ^ (bashandeh) of the English. After many inquiries, (he found) a great building, great in height, length and breadth, as pleasant as that of the palace of Jam (Jamshed), with a large garden like the place of paradise (Iram)^, which was heart-ravishing and situated on the bank of the river and which was well ornamented and decorated. (It was so healthy that) if a sick man lived there,' his malady soon disappeared ; if one was tired of heat®®, he recovered by living there for a week ; if one complaining of an eye-complaint, went there, he recovered by its excellent air. The auspiciousness (bara([qat) of the place was such, 'that if merchant, or a poor man or any man lived there and carried on his commercial business or his other trade there, God gave him success unobserved (az ghaib) and he become fortunate.'^® It was a beautiful place and its climate (ab o hava) was full of In India, the first comei-s from Europe were generally known as the wearers of hats, their hats being (piite distinct from the Indian turbans. Sir Jamaetjee Jejoebhoy, the firet Baronet, in his Khol^seh-i Panchat, silnilarly speaks of them as topi’ wd Id, i.e., those putting on topics or hats. He spoke of Indians, as pagdiwalds, i.e., those who put on turbans. I remember, hearing in my ymmger days the word “ topi-wala” colloquially used for Europeans. From svr banquet, pleasure, nuptials. Iram “ the fabulous gardens said to have been devised by ShadM bin ‘ Ad, in emulation of the gardens of paradise’’(Steinga8s). Perhaps what is meant is “suffered from prickly heat.” ^0 This is an allusion to the belief tl«lt some houses are very luoky; RttsUm Manock and the Persian Qisseh 136 benefit (afadat) and deserved praise (c. 365). This paradise-like place belonged to a merchant of Surat. His name Haji Hajaz Beg is known and famous in many places (c. 347). He (Rustam) got this large building given to the English at a high rent. He fixed its rent at Rs. 3,000 per year. The English decorated it according to their own contrivance and at their own expense. It was made, as it were, fit for royalty by many decorations. Then the secret-knowing God made the good fortune of the English very brilliant.*' (6) The Visit of Then follows an account (c. 363 ) of the visit Rustam Manockt in the company of Rustam Manock to the Court of Aurangzeb ^Factor company of the British factor under the Court of Aurang- following heading : ; J •i.e.f the ‘going of Seth Rustam in the company of the habit wearing English to the Court (lit. service) of the King of Delhi and his requesting His Majesty on behalf of the English and obtaining a Royal mandate (manshur) from him. • The Account in brief runs as follows : In order to have an order (manshur c. 363), Rustam went with the Englishman (angrez ) towards Delhi. At that time, the rule of Aurangzeb was like that of the brilliant sun (taban khur c. 365). Rustam sub- mitted the case of the English thus This man has come from the West (khavar) to India for commerce, but the Amirs of Your Majesty’s exhalted court do not permit him (to live and trade)i in the city. This Englishman is a good man and expects Dastur Erachji gives the heading as follows : h jfJi *koti, kothi. Factory. 136 Rmtam Manock and the Persian Qisseh favour from the royal Court. He requests that, through the kindness of the King, they may give him a place where he can carry on his trade and have a .store-house (ambar-khaneh) Before submitting this request, Rustam had pleased the King and his courtiers with rich and rare offerings of presents (nazraneh c. 380). Therefore his request was recommended for acceptance to the King by his courtiers. At that time, there was before the King, a Vazir named Asad Khan (c. 383). The King ordered him to give an order to the Englishman (kolah-posh). Asad Khan ordered a dabir (Secretary) to write out an order, that tile Ei^glisliinan may be allowed to have admittance in the city and to hav(‘ a {)lace for his house and factory and that his goods of imu’chandise were exem])ted from tax (zakat). The King then sign(‘d this order witli his seal. The King entrusted the order to liis minister Asad Khan wlio gave it to a messenger (chawos) to be ‘carried to the Englishman. The Englishman went ij\ the direction of Surat and the Seth (Rustam Manock) went in another direction. He went out witli his servants to see'^ different cities. He visited Dandeh Raj pore ( 1 0 ). Siddee Yaqoub (DRuslams visit was the Governor (hakim) of the ' (>/ Dandeh Rajpore, Da- place. He welcomed and treated right hospitably maun and Nao- £ustam Manock. When Rustam departed, he to Surat. gave him a dress of honour (khela’at). From there, he went to Damaun where a Portuguese padrR^ ( ; j 0* This custom of tmzrdneh played a prominent part in the administration of the IVfoghal EmjK^roi’S. ft brought in a large revenue to them. The gross revenue of Aurangzeb was said to be £90,000,000, f.e., about Its. 130 crores. In this souive of income, the nazraneh played a prominent part. One can form an i3 Manock was the adopted son of Jarnshed. Vide Mr. Jalbhoy Seth’s Genealogy p. 2 and the geneological tiBe in the pocket of the book ; Vide Mr. Rustamji Jamaspji Dastur’s XieiMT (1899) p. 189. Vide its rendering into English entitled The Genealogy of the Naosari Priests ” with Sir G. Birdwood’s Introduction p. 189. His descendants, upto now, have been acknowledged as the Seth, i.e.» the leaders or the heads of the priestly class of Naosari. Mr. Kavasji Jalbhoyi Seth, the present male heir of the Charities Trust founded by his ancestor Manockji Nowroji, when he went to Naosari for the first time, was welcomed by the Naosari priests with an address as their leader. Therein, they said J “ Not only the Naosari priests, but priests of other towns also looked to Ru^m Manock’s direct male heirs as leaders.” For example, we find that the Godawra Mobads, z.e., the Mobads of the suburbs, &o., of Surat, met on 25th May 1723, at Rustam's family house at Surat, to settle their eccle- siastical disputes, and his son Framjee attested the document of settlement (Parsee Prakash I, p. 850). Again, later on, the Sanjana priests appealed to his direct male heir, Mr. Manockji Nowrojee Seth, in the matter of the sacred fire which they removed from Naosari. The records of the Patsi Panchayat contain many references to the Seth Khindan family having been looked at, as the leaders of the Mobads of Naosari. Fiefc above for the pedigree. (Mumbai no Bah4r) by Mr. Ruttonjee Framjee Wacha, p. 427. Ibid. 144 Rustam Manork and the Persian Qissek and translation speaks as Nusserwanji Meherji. As he was thus connected with the Naosari priests, we find Rustam Manock signing first, as a witness, an iin])ortant communal document, dated 6th June; 16H5, relating to the Naosari Mo bads and theSanjanaMobads From his time forward, the principal l.eir of the Seth family, in direct descent from Rustam Manock, is acknowledged by the Parsee priests of Naosari as their head. It appears from the genealogical tables of th(‘ Naosari [)riests, that the family originally belonged to the Pavri stock of fa mi lies. Rustam Manock’s great great grand fath(‘r Faridim Kamdin Rustam was Pavdi by surname.^®® He became Navar, ^.c., passed through the ceremony of initia- Ifis ho(nl. ^ ^ tion into the class of priesthood, on roz 18, inah 2, Samvad 1731, i.e., 1675 He wasagedforty at the time. At present, this seems to be a very grovtfi Tip ag(‘ for (mtry into Navarhood.^®^ Rut. there have been occasionally cases of initiation into Navarhood at a grown up age. .(N (In Samvant 1711 (i.e., 1685 A.C.), the Naosari Bhagarsath ' . priests and the Sanjana priests passed a mutually ^ Ma- signed document in the matter of their sacerdotal ' 'o/a rommumi privileges Rustain Manoek, signed docuinent. the document, as a witness, at the top, being the * leader of the Surat Parsecs. The document is Rii-si Prakjusli [, 19. Vitl4l {[<. It seems that, even after his death, his house at^ Surat was held to be, as it were, a rendezvouz for parties who fought for their rights, to meet and settle disputes. We find, as said above, that the Godavra priests and laymen of villages round Surat met in his house on *2oth May 1723 to settle tlieir diSerences. The document of settlement was witnessed by his son Franijee The Qisseh says, that Rustam Manock built several wells for The QisseKs When 1 had the pleasure of visiting Reference to Hajira, a sea health-resort near Surat in 1909 Rustam Manock, j til ere a well bearing the following bmlduig wells ^ ^ ^ for public use, inscri])tion in Persian, showing that the well was 279. built by Rustam Manock : Translation. — (1) Manockji Parsec, dug this and well in the way of God Whoever drinks the water of this place, the righteous reward (sawab) of that person may be made receivable (ja’iz) to this humble self {i.t., me). The date of the Yazdajardi year 10. . The^ Gujarati inscription, which is clear, runs thus : • H\H % ^ IvsHM 'll 3. Translation. — Andhiaroo Rustamji Manockji got this well built out of charity. Samvat 1755, Shravan Sud 3. 104 pareee Prakash T, p. 850, col. 1. ^fter writing the above I saw the well again in November 1928. The first words are not clearly legible on the stone, but they may be • • s-5^ ^ liP* ^ Kustomji.” Doubtful. 10® Fi sabilillah “ in the way of God, for the love of God, fbr sacred uses ’’ (Steingass). 100 The word may be junaf, i.e., gatherer, plucker. The last two figures are not legible. But, in the Hindu date in Gujarati, the year is clear as 1755 Shrawan Sud. 3. This gives the oorrespond- ing Parsee year as 1068 and the Christian year as 1699. Vide Jalbhoy Seth’s book of Genealogy, p. 9. m i.e., one belonging to the priestly class. 146 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh As said by Mr. EdaljiBurjorji Patel, in his “History of Surat”, after the death of Aurangzebinl707^^^ some of the Ruatomjmra Parsis of Naosari, were tired of the depredations ed Mahrattas in their town and of the rule of Marn^ck. some of the officers ; so, a number of them, about one to two thousand, left Naosari with their families and went to live at Surat. It seems that it was at this time, tliat Rustom Manock founded a quarter for them to live in and it was named Rustampura after him. A Tower of Silence was built at Surat for these fugitive Parsees. They asked for land for a Tower from Nawab Mo min Khan in 1715 or 1716. They im^t in 1722, to confer on this subject and began collect- ing subseription in 1723 Tin; Qiss(;h refers to a building with a garden, given by Rustam Manock, for the charitable use of Zoroastrians Jlii HuiUlimj (cc. 272-74). This building with a garden seems as which is now known ai^'Panrhat ni wMi given in clmriUj. ( M’^lctdl mil ) i.e., the garden-house of the Panchayet i.e. of the Zoroastrian public It appears that Rustam had made such a name, that his name was comnunnorated in the prayer of I)hu|) Nirang,^^® RusUitn Ma- recited after his times. There is an old manu- script of the Khordeh Avesta, written in Persian Dhup Nirang. character, in 1115 Yazdazardi (in Samvat 1802 1716 A.P.) i.e.. about 183 years ago by Ervad Kfeo, hHI H^tf. H. n. Patel's Pj\i*8ee Prakash, Vol. I, p. 25. Foi the word “ Paiichayot,” vide my “ History of theParsee Pancha- yet of Uombay " Chap. III. Vide my article, in Edwardes’ Gazetteer of Bombay, Vol. HI, pp. 323-28. * AfU>r writing this pa})er, I iiad the pleasure of visiting this plf^e in November 1928. Mr. Mariockji Nowroji Seth, a grandson of Rustom Manock, liad, when the family transferred itself to Bombay, built a similar wadi or ganien in Bombay, which was long known as Panchayet ni wadi. Latterly, it came to be known as Manockji Seth’s Wadi. The old name Panchayet ni wadi ” has left its mark in the name of the lane, which first led to it. The lane is still called Panchayet Lane ( Vide Mr. S. T. Sheppard’s “ Bombay Place-names,” p. 110). Viiie my “ Religious Ceremonies and Customs of the Parsees ”, pp. 442-43 for this ceremony. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 147 Jamshed Dastur Jamasp bin Asa.^^^ In this old Ms. of the f Khordeh Avesta, we find, among the names, after that of Neryosang Dhaval, the undermentioned three names preceding those of some Behedins : Dastur Meherji Ervad Vacha, JElrvad Rustam Osta Manock, Osta Naoroz Ervad Rustam. The first of these three names is that of the well-known Dastur Meherji Rana of Naosari. The second is that of Rustom Manock, and the third that of bis son Naoroji who had gone to Europed^ (Folio 79a, 11. 2-31. A Dutch record or Register-book refers to Rustam Manock. I am indebted for this information to Rev. Father A Dutch Heras, Professor of History in the St, Xavier’s Re€K/rd of 1681. College of Bombay. Finding a Parsee name in a Dutch record, he kindly drew my attention to it. He sent me at first his following translation of an extract from the book : “ The Dutch Diary of Batavia mentions several letters received from India and, among them, a translation of a Benjaen letter written by Rustom jee Zeraab, representative of the , three European nations doing business in Suratta.” (Dagh Register 1681, p. 626}. Born 1732, died 1786. He was a learned priest of Naosari. (Parsee Prakash I, p. 68). He is referred to by Anquetil Du Perron ( 1771 A.C.) in his ^ Z«id Avelta, Tome I, Partie I, p. 428. Anquetil, having heard of him as a great Dastur, made it a jx)irit to see him at Naosari on his way from the Island of Elephanta to Surat. Vide n\y “ Anquetil Du Perron and Dastur Darab ”, p. 52. The above Ms. bears the date roz Meher mah Tir, year 1115 Yazdazardi. It gives the corresponding other years as 1159 Hijra, 1153 Fasli, 1802 Samvat, 1667 Salivan. Vide the colophon at the end, a few pajes after the 128th folio. The Ms. belongs to Mobad Kavasji Pestanji Karlyria. The scribe gives his name as Mobad Jamshed bin Dastur Jamasp bin Asaji bin Fardunji Bhagarieh. It was written in Naosari for Mobad Naoruz bin Ratanji bin Manockji Dorabji. I beg to thank Mr. Rustamji Merwanji Karkaria for kindly procuring it for me for perusal. There is one peculiarity in the Dhup Nirang, given in this Ms. The khahnuman of Dhup Nirang as now recited is that of Sarosh, but here the scribe says : It may be any khshnuman ( Aib ). Then,forthejfcA«^wr»ow, recited at the end of the Nirang, the khahnuman mentioned is that of Hormuzd Khudai (folio 81 b, 1. 3.) J 1 J j I Lw '^'***if j I o , 148 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh On ma'cing further inquiries from Father Heras in the matter of the extract, he thus wrote in his letter of 1st September 1927 about the title of the book : The diary, mentioning the said Parsi, records the events of 1681. The title of the book is as follows : ‘ Dagh-Register gehouden int Casteel Batavia vaut passeroude daer ter ])laetse als over geheel Nederlandts-India Anno 1681 van Dr. F. de Haan Batavia— ’s Hague 1919.” “ That reads in Knglisli : ‘ Diary written in the Batavia Castle by travellers to the plac*es and all over Dutch Indies in the year 1681 : (edited) by Dr. F. de Haan.’ The Note in Dutch itself runs thus : “ initsgaders noch eeii translaat Benjaanse missive, door (h'U volmagt der drie Europiaanse natien in Huratta nego- tienmde genaemt Ltustemsie Zeraab.”*^^ “ Translation. — A translation of a Ihmjian letter written by Rustemsie Z(‘raab, r(‘presentative of the three European nations doing busin(‘ss in Surat. Now, who is this Benjaen and what is the name Rustumsie Zeraab. I am indebted to Mr. Muncherji Pestanji Khareghat for kindly putting me in the right track by explaining the word and identifying the name. Tlie word Benjaen is ‘‘ Banian ” which rneatit ‘ Gujarati ' and the word zeraab, after Rustamjee, is shrojj. Now, Rustam as a broker was a shroff also. Jalbhoy Beth speaks of him as i.e., shroff, and we know from subse([uent cvcmts, that Rustam Manock had lent a large sum of money to the l^higlish factory. I beg to thank Father Heras for kindly drawing my attention to this book. The new thing that we learn from this Dutch Register is that Rustam ]\[anock was a broker, not of one or two but three nations. Though not explicitly mentioned, we infer, that the third nation, besides the two, — the Portuguese and the English — was the Dutch.. From t]\e date of the record, it appears then, that Rustam Manock was appointed a broker of the Dutch some time before 1681. 110 Dagh Registar (1681), p. 626. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qissdi. 149 There are several writers who have referred to Rustam Manock f and his sons. Two of them, fc^ir John Gayer, Some Euro- the Agent of the Old Company, and Sir Nicholas pean writers, Waite, are his contemporaries, The first was Man- liostile to Rustam, well nijjili from the beginning, nock or his sons, because Sir N. Waite of the New Company had ‘ chosen him as his broker. Sir N. Waite, who, at first, was friendly, latterly became hostile and dismissed Rustam from his service, a step wliich he sought to justify. We read the following, in a despatch of 24th April 1706, by Sir John Gayer and his Council of Surat, as given by Yule in his Diary of William Hedges : Oayer Union affairs be at such a full stop, Council of Surat yet by means of Rustiiins bribery and one of his on Rustam Ma- assistants th<‘re hath been more goods stript^ off, of late for account of private Shipping, who undoubtedly must bear the charge one way or other, but by such bribery he k(‘e])s all the officers fast to his InteresI*, and jierhaps is master of so much vanity as to think that he shall at last liy such means bring the Company to truckle to him; he sticks at no cost, and whatsoever the Governor bids him do he ffrankly doth it.” “ One of his assistants referred to here, seems to be his naih or deputy, Nusserwanji, referred to in ^;he Qisseh. We gather the following facts about Rustam from this extract : 1. Rustam was an influential man at this time (about A.C. 1706) and did business also with private shippers. ^20 In a Gujarati Ms. of the Pahlavi Jamaspi, written on2l8t January 1840, in file list of events added to the prescribed events, we find 8ir John Gayer^ referred to as coming to Surat in Samvat 1750 (A.C. 1694), We read the following about his arrival ; ^ <03^ '* (p. 301 of the Ms.) i.e., “Jn Samvat 1750, on roz 5 rmh 6, Shajan Gcr Shinor came from London.” The ShajanGer Shlnor, mentioned here, is a corruption of Sir John Gayer. The word Shinor is cor- rupted from Signor (Seignior, Fr. Seigneur, Portug. Senhor, Lat. Senior) i,e. Sir. Vide my translation of the Pahlavi Jamaspi, Introduction, p. XLII. '2^ The Diary of William Hedges, Esq., afterwards Sir William Hedges, (1681-87) iUustrated by copious extracts from unpublished records by CoL Henry Yule, VoL III (1889), p. CV., n3. 150 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 2. He had some influence also with the Governor (Nawab) of Surat. 3. Gayer, who had differences with him, attributes that influence to bribery. We read the following in the Diary of William Hedges^^ : — ‘ Sir N. Waite writes in a letter to the {}}) Nicholas Directors (of the English Company), dated ^tum%ariock.^^^ ‘Bombay Castle, 2Gth November 1707’, in his usual confused and almost unintelligible style : “1 liave not received copie of your consultation Books from Messrs. Pr()l)ey k Bonncll, as told you by the Albemarle. exp('c,te(l to enable my fully examiiring their last Books of two years jumbl(‘(l together, am apt to believe may not now come upon the Publick m‘ws wrote from tlie other Coast that certain alterations that will l)e made on this side, the Suratt gentlemen writes are (lonlirm'd by the great President's directions, Bustumjee being Brolv(‘r to all their ])rivate ships, thereby setting up an opposite lnter('st to the United Trade, the prejudice of which the Managers may read in our (\)nsultations was wrote the Governor and Councill of Madrass, and this year they appointed the Old Company's Broker Venwallidass with Rustomjee to be their Brokers.” W(‘ learn the following facts about Rustam Manock from this lettcT, by 8ir N. Waite, of 2()th Novcuuber 1707 : — 1. By this tim(‘, his relations with Sir N. Waite were strained. 2. Besides being broker to the European Companies, he was also the broker of the owners of private ships and this connection was taken by Sir N. Waite to be against the interests of the English Company. 3. He was appointed broker by the New United Company also. J . H. Grose thus wrote about Rustam Manock’s son Nowrojee (c) «/. H. Grose (1750) onJiustam Manock* s son Nowroji, “ Nowrojee Rustumjee, who was here in England, and whose family was in the greatest consideration among those people, deduced his descent from those kings of Persia, whose dynasty was destroyed by Ibid III, p. CV. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 161 the Mahometan invasion, when the last prince of it, Izdigerdes,^^ a descendant from Cosroes, the son of Hormisdas,^24 dethroned and slain about the year 650. But whether his pretensions were just or not, or whether the rank of those fugitives was in general as high as their posterity assert it was, when they arrived at the country where Surat stands, they were hospitably received by the Gentoo inhabitants, who compassioned their distress and were perhaps themselves alarniod with reason, as it proved afterwards at the progress of the Maliometans, which had thus fallen, like a storm, on a country not very distant from them.” 124a. Rustom Manock is referred to by Anqiietil Du Perron, more ^ ^ ^ than once. He, on the authority of Dastur Darab Perro 7 v (1761) Surat, refers to the visit of Rustam Manock’s on Rustam Ma- ,son Nowroji to England. He speaks of that visit having occurred about 40 or 50^^^ years before him. ^ When there, Nowroji was shown an old Ms. of the Zend Yazashna Bade in the Bodleian Library, but he could not read it (le Manuscrit Zend que Norouzdji, fils de Roustoum Manek, vit ily ^ quarant^ a cinquante ans en Angleterre, et qu’il ne put lire, a ce que m’a dit le Destour Darab)^“®. Nowroji was not initiated as a priest. He is spoken of as osta. So not being taught the Avesta alphabet, we can understand, why he could not read it. Had he been initiated like his father Rustam he could have read the —f YazTlagard. Khosro, tho son of Hormazd. J. H. Grose’s Voyage to the East Indies, ed. of 1772, p. 124. The Ist ed. was published in 1766. • The year of Nowroji’s visit of England was 1724 A.C. Zend Avesta, Tomol, Partie2, Notices, &c., p. IX. Vide my An^ quetil Du Perron and Dastur Dorab, p. 7. (Parsi Prakash I, p. 29). According to Anquetil, there were two copies of the Yazashna at Oxford. ^One was showed to Rustam Manock’s son Nowroji, as said above. The other was carried to England by Mr. Frazer, who had purchased it, together with a Rivayat for Rs. 500 from Manockji Nowroji Seth, the grand-sOn of Rustam Manock. (Le second exemplaire de I’lzeschn^ conserve k Oxford, i 6t6 6crit ^ Surate, 1’ an 1105 dTezdedjerd, de J.C. 1735 et apport6 en Angleterre par M. Frazer, qui, au rapport de Darab, V avoit achet6 avee un Ravayet, cinq cent Roupies (douze cent livre8)'de Manekdjiset, petit-fils de Roustoum ; lequel (Maneckdjiset) le tenoit du Destour Bikh ” (Zend-avesta, Tome .1, Partie 11, p. IX). This Manockji Seth lived from 1688 to 1748 (Vide Parsee Prakash 1; p. 36). Vide my Anquetil and Dastur Darab, p. 7. Vide Ibid for Dastur Bikh. Genealogical Table, p. 276. 152 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh Anqiiotil refers also to Kustam’s garden of flowers at Surat The Qusseh has a special sectionforhis family, headed o ^^1 )d His FarnUy^ said (in the matter) of Rustam’s c. -9J seq. lieirs. It says that Rustam had three sons, Framarz, Rahman and Naoriiz. The author adds that Nowroji was his pupil (havisht). Rustam's wife was named Ratan-banoo (Ratanbai). lie says: “God has given him a pious wife and that beaidifiil lady is named Ratan-banu” (c. 309). ► Rustam died at th(‘ ripe old age of 80 on 30th July 1721 The Bombay Seth Kliandan family came into prominence, since the loimdation of a Trust of Religious charities by Manokji Nowroji the grandson of Rustam Manock, and the son of Rus- feitih Mandfhhs tliird son Nowrojee, who is mentioned in the Qisseh 'by - th(* authof -as his pupil, and who had gone to Kngland to seek redress at the hands of the Directors of the East India Company. I liav(‘ giv(‘n abov(' (j). 1) t he genealogy of the line coining down to Mr. Kavasji Seth, th(‘ ])resent Mutwali ( ^ the administrator of the Trust and Charities, the Hfh in direct descent from Rustam Manock. ’““a ihid, p. :ui l*ars(‘(‘ IVaUa.sh T p. 2.‘}. This Manu(‘kjr(' Nowrojee Seth seems to have been a patron of Iraniau literatun*. Ih* ii^2>U ^ In this note, Naoroji is spoken of as one “ who had gone to the Home (velayet) of the English. TJhe Visit of Nowroji^ the son of Rustam M an ock ^ to England re- ferred to in an old Record of the Parsee Panchayet. The Qissoh speaks of several events of liis life which have Some hnpor- historical importance. I will not speak of them tant Events .^i^y length, because T have to speak of ^Lifel^^Vlth separate sections. But I give below Dates. a list with dates of all the Events of his life , including those referred to in his Qisseh: The first East India Company known 801 • East India Company, founded A. C. 1600 English Factory founded at Surat . . . . ■ . . 1612 Rustam Manock born . . . . . . . . . . 1635 The first Sack of Surat by Shivaji, from the distr(*ss of which Rustam Manock relieved his people . . . . 1664 Rustam Manock relieved the Parsees of Surat and some pooj^ of other communities from the distress of Aurang- zc];)’s Jaziyeh. about . . . . . . . . . . 1672 Rustam Manock went through the ceremony of Navar- hood (Samvant 1731) at the age of 40 . . . . 1675 Date of the mention, in a Dutch book, of Rustam Manock’s name as a broker of three Companies, one of which seems to be the Dutch 1681 Rustam Manock, signing first an important communal document as the head of the priestly commu- nity 6th June *1685 The new English East India Company, of which Rustam Manock was appointed broker, founded . . . . 1698 130. Ms. Bk. p. Vide my “History of the Parsi Panchayet** 131. Vide the Firhest of the Navars at Naosari, which is now being pub- lished by the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute, p. 36. 154 Rustam Manoch and the Persian Qisseh, Date of the Inscription on a well at Hajira, near Surat, built for public use by Eustam Manock (Samvant 1755) Sir Nicholas Waite arrived at Surat as the head of the Factory of the New East India Company and appoint- ed Eustam Manock its broker . . 19th January 1699^^^ Sir William Norris, the Ambassador, arrived at Maslipatam . . . . . . 25th September 1699^®^ Eustam Manock’s Visit to the Court of Aurangzib witli the English Ambassador . . . . . . . . 1710 Eustam Manock’s Visit of Dandeh-i Eajpuri . . . . 1701 Eustam appointed “ broker for the United Trade ” . . 1704^^* Eustam Manock’s visit of Goa to secure the release of Osman Chalibi’s ship captured by the Portu- guese . . . . . . . . . . Date uncertain Eustam Manock removed from Brokership by the Nawab and imprisoned at the instance of Waitc| About 1705 Eustam Manock’s death . . . . . . 30th jTuly 1721 Eustam Manock's youngest son Nowroji sailed per ship Salisbury, for England, to seek redress from the United East India Company, and arrived in Eondon April 1723 The date of the 1st Document, inz, the letter from 17 Directors of tlie East India Company to “ the Jhesi- dent and Council of Bombay”, directing thatFramji , and Bomanji, the sons of Eustam Manock, may be at once released from confinement . . 19th August 1723 Second Document, viz., the Award of four Arbitrators appointed by the E, I. Company in favour of the son^ of Eustam Manock . . . . 18th January 1724 Third Document — The Award noted by the Lord Mayor and Aldernian . . . . . . February 1724 Fourth Document — A letter to Nowroji’s two brothers in India, Framji and Bomanji, from Cha. Boonet, 182 Bruce’s Annals of the Honorable East India Company Vol. Ill (1910), p. 335. 183 Ibid, p. 344. 134 Ibid, p. 569. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 156 / in London, speaking of Nowroji’e work in London . . . . . . . • 25tli March 1725 Nowroji died . . . . . . on 13th April 1732^^^ VII. (C) The historical events, mentioned in the Qisseh. We will now oxamliio the historical events referred to in the Qisseh-i Rustam Mano( k. The Persian poem Qisseh-i Rustam Manock, refers to the following historical events of the time of Aiirangzeb I. The ^Jazhjeh or Poll ta\, imposed by Aurangzeb. 11. Shivaji’s Sack of Surat. HI. Rustam Manock \s appointment as Broker of the Phiglish Factory. IV. Rustam Manock’s visit of the Mogul Court in the com})any of an English factor : (a) The visit itself. (6)The state of affairs after the visit and on the return# of the Embassy of Sir William Norris. V. Rustam Manock s visit, during the return journey from the Mogul Court, of : — (a; Dandah-i Rajpuri, (h) Daman, and (c) Naosari. VI. Rustam Manock’s visit of Goa to get Osman Chalibi’s ship released from the hands of the Portuguese. I. The Jaziyeh imposed by Aurangzeb. ► The*Qisseh says, that the Jaziyeh-tax imposed by Aurangzeb was felt heavily b}' the people, both the Parsees and the non- Parsees of Surat. The Parsees as a body applied to Rustam Manock to relieve them from the tax (zulmaneh). Rustam complied with their request. Then, some poor people of other communities also appealed to him individually for help and he paid the taxes due by them. I will speak of this subject under two heads : — f. Aurangzeb. His belief, bigotry and other characteristics which induced him to impose the tax. 2. The tax itself. The date, and the rate of the imposition of the tax, etc. 135 Jalbhoy Seth gives the y^r as 1733, (hi p. 31) but the Parsee. Prakash I., p. 29, gives it correctly as 1732. The Parsee date, given by both, is roz 2 Tncth 7, 1101 Yazdazardi. . The Yazdazardi year 1101 corresponds to 1732 and not to 1733. 166 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 1. AuRANGZEB. Ills BELIEF, BIGOTRY AND OTHER CIJARACTERfSTlCS. Auran^zeb was born, on 24th October 1618, of Shah Jehan’s The tkirhj Miimtaz Mahal, in the moving camp of life of Aummj- Jahangir, at Dahod in the Panch Mahal, when his [)arents were marching with the camp of his grandfatlier. If(‘ was, out of tlie four sons of Shah Jahan, the third son, and was a Sumii Mahomedan by faith. He took an active part in th(‘ fratricidal war about the riglit of 81100088100 fiuring the very life time of Shah Jahan. He gaincMl over to Ids side his brother Murad, t(‘lling idm. that he did not want, on the throne, Dara, who Avas a fr(‘('-tldnk(‘r and Suhja who was a Sldah ; but that he liked to see on tlu' throne a tru(‘ good Mahomedan of tlu' Sunni belief, and that, if h(‘ gain<‘d victory ov(‘r his brotluTs, he would go on a jiilgrimage to Mi'oca. Thus, with the ludp of his brother Murad, h(‘ (lefeati'd the other two brothers, and then, going to Agra, made Ins aged father Shah Jahan a prisoner. Though, at jirst, he pret(‘n(h‘(l outwardly that h(‘ Avanted Murad to be entlironed, in the end, he got hiins(‘lf (mthroned, saying, that Murad was. at the very tinu' of the (‘uthrommient, found to be driink. He was pro- claimed king in IboS and ruled till 1707. Shah Jahan died in 1666, continuing as his son's prisoner at Agra for 8 years. During Aurangzidi's reign, the Mahrathas had risen in pow'er'^ under Shivaji ( lt)27-l()8J), known later on as “ the Raja of the Mahrathas. At tirst, Shivaji pounced upon the territories of the Sultans of Bijapur and (lolconda and then attacked the camp of Aurangzeb. Aurangzeb left Delhi in 1688 to go to tight with the Mahrathas and other powiTs, and though he died in 1707, he did not return to the capital again from fear, lest he may be imprisoned there by any one of his rebellious sons, just as he had imprisoned his fatluT Shah Jahan there. With an army of about one lakh of men, he took Bijapore in 1686 and Goleouda in 1687, in which year the Moghal power wa.s at its ztuiith. He could not successfully suppress the power of the Mahrathas. He put Sarnbhaji to a cruel death and took his son Sahu a [)ri.soner. All this further enraged the Marathas, who were skilled in hill warfare and who avoided pitched battles on the plains. Most of the Deccan fortresses on the hills of Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 157 the Deccan were the work of the Mahrathas during *:hese stormy ^ times when they thought it advantageous to fight a guerilla warfare. Aurangzeb had to retreat to Ahmednagar whore he died in 1707 A.C. His last words are said to be : '‘I have cornmittcHl many crimes, I know not with whal punishment I may be visited. Though in the middle of Ins reign, he had raised the power of the Moglial empire to its z<‘nit1i, at the time of his death, when the Rajputs and Mahrathas were still strong, the decline had begun. Aurangzel) had, ii^ ids boyhood, received all the orthodox education of his time. His religious training Huh lieJufioK.H puritanism, “ which'', as said by Life. Lane Roole, “ was at once his ilestruction and his rnin”.*'^^ He recadved no broad liberal education. His own sketch of what a prince's education must be, is very inter(‘sting, and had he been given that education, perhaps, hi^ po^'cr. and after him, that of his lieirs would have continued long.’' Even when he was, as it wer(‘, a boy-governor in the Deccan at the age of 17, he was their king, more of the future world than of the I presentr one, and was taking a serious view of life, instead of a self-enjoying life of a ])rince. Tn IGlll, when he was aged 24 he is said to have retired for some time as a fakir or monk into the jungles of the Western Ghauts. Even during Ids conquests of the ^Mahomedan Powers of the Deccan, he appeared, as said by Dr. Friar, ‘^under colour of a Fakier'’.^'^'^ In the matter of this Lane Poole compares him to Emperor Charles Y of Europe. But we find this difference : Charles became, as it were, a Christian fakir in his old age when he was much baffled and disappointed, but Aurangzeb became a Mahomedan fakir in the full bloom of youth and in t!lie midst of all the attractions of a pleasant life open to princes. It is said that when during the appearance of a comet for four weeks in 1665, he, out of some thoughts of religious penance, “ only drank a little water and ate a small quantity of millet bread” his father Shah Jahhan rebuked him for all this Sinclair’s History of India, Chap. VI, Ed. of 1889, p. 80. Stanley Lane- Poole’s Aurangzib, p. 27. Fryer’s New Account of East India and Persia (1698) p. 166, Letter IV, Chap. IV. ^ Stanley l.Ane- Poole’s Aurangzib, p. 65. 158 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh austerity, but to no purpose. His brother, Dara Shikoh, who had gone to the other extreme and was taken to be an agnostic or an atheist, was led by Aurangzeb’s austerities to speak of him as a ‘‘ saint Lane-Poole thus explains his austerities of his boyhood and his subsequent successes as an Emperor : “ The truth seems to be that his temporary retirement from the world was the youthful impulse of a morbid nature excited by religious enthusiasm. The novelty of the experiment soon faded away. The fakir grew heartily (inul of his retreat ; and the young Prince returned to carry out his notions of asceticism in a sphere where they were more creditable to his self-denial and more operative upon file great world in which he was born to work His ascetic mind was fitted to influence the course of an empire. Lane-Poole, who compares his life to that of Cromwell in Eng- land, thus speaks of his puritanic life : “ Aurangzeb was, first and last, astern Puritan. Nothing in life neither throne nor love nor ease, weighed for an instance in his mind against his fealty to tlie ])ri!iciples of Islam. For religion he persecuted the Hindus and destroyed their temples, while he damaged his exchequer by abolishing the time-honoured tax on the religious festivals and fairs of the unl)eIi('V(‘rs. For religion's sake lie waged liis unending wars in th(‘ Deccan, not so much to .stretch wider the boundaries of his gr(*at empire as to bring the lands of the heretical Shi’a within the dominion of orthodox Islam. To him the Deccan was Dar-al- Harb : he determined to make it Dar-al-Islam. lleligion induced Aurangzil) to abjure the pleasures of the senses as completely as if he had indeed become the fakir he had once desired to be. No animal food passed his lips, and his drink was water ; so that, as Tavernier says, he became ‘thin andmeagre, to which the great fasts which he keeps have contributed. During the whole of the duration of the comet, which appeared very large in India, where I then was, Aurangzib only drank a little water and ate a small quantity of millet bread ; this so much afiected his health that he nearly died ; for besides this he slept on the ground, with only a tiger’s skin over him ; and since that time he has never had perfect health. Ibid,, p. 29. Ibid. RuHam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 159 Following the Prophet’s precept that every Muslim should practi^ a trade, he devoted his leisure to making skull-caps, which were doubtless bought up by the courtiers of Delhi with the same enthusiasm as was shown by the ladies of Moscow for Count Tolstoi's boots. He not onl>' knew the Koran by heart, but copied it twice over in his fine calligrapliy, and sent the manuscripts, richly adorned, as gifts to Mecca and Medina. Except the pilgrimage, which he dared not risk, lest he should come back to find an occupied throne, he left nothing undone of the whole duty of the Muslim. Even the English merchants of Surat, who iiad their own reasons for disliking the Emperor, could only tell Ovington that Aurangzcb was a ‘zealous professor’ of Islam, ‘never neglecting the hours of devotion nor anything which in his sense may denominate him a sincere believer’.” His bigotr}' and dislike of the Hindu religion led to an insurroc- tion bv the Hatnamis, a sect of Hindu devotees. His higotnj. They rebelled in thousands and their life of devotion led people to think that they were invuhierate and “ swords, arrows and musket balls had no effect on these men.” The spread of this belief about their power led others to join them and depressed Aurangzeb’s army. It is said that, to counteract this influence, Aurangzeb resorted to holy charms^ from the Koran. He wrote them and attach(.*d them to the banners of his army. These charms serving as inspiring amulets encouraged his Mahoniedans who in the end suppressed the revolt. Aurangzeb had, as time advanced, become a religious bigot and t}je following, that we read of him, explains the event of the imposition of the Jaziyeh tax, which his great grandfather Akbar ha(} abolished : Had Aurangzeb followed the policy of Akbar he might have consolidated his empire and reigned as the undisputed monarch of the whole of India The dream of Aurangzeb’s life, now that he was firmly planted on the throne, was the destruction of idolatry, and the establishment of Mahomedanism throughout the length and breadth of the land .... Aurangzeb then began his religious persecutions. He Ibid, pp. 64>65. Ibid, p. 136. Ibid, pp. 136-37. 160 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh degraded the Rajputs. All Hindus, employed under government, were compelled either to embrace the Muslim faith, or lose their appointments. Idols were overturned, pagodas destroyed, and mosfjues built with tlie materials. Even, in the holy city of Benares, the most sacred ternj^les were levelled to the ground, mosques erected in their place, and tlie images used as steps for ‘ the faithful’ to tread on. Hindus werti not allowed to celebrate their festivals and Jaziya, a ta,< on infidels that had been abolished by Akbar, was revived. All tin* viceroys in the provinces had instructions to act in the satin* manner. No tax could possibly be more unpopular than this Jaziya, and the imposition of it led to the most fatal conse(pi(‘ne(‘s to tin* (‘tnpire.”^^'* , ///.S' Dislike of jioetnjy chronicle-ii' railing and H Hedislikc'd witn*, music and even poetry, [a) lb* stopped music, not only from his court, but also from his capital city. It is said, that, once, hundreds.of musicians and singors, watching the time of his going to a mos(pu‘, carried a funeral [iroeessioti with a number of biers raising cries of mourning. When AurangZ(*b irnpiir(*d what the matter was, tlnw said to liim that as h(' has prohibiti'd no/.s/V, they carried it to the burying ground for l)(*ing buried. He cooly said that, they must take proper care, th.it it is buried deep so that it may not revive again. (A) Hi.s .lislik.. of po(*ts and ])oetry is surprizing. H<^* said : “ Pot‘ts (h'al in falsi'hoods.” That was in reference to their indulging in poetic fancii's, which looked like going beyond the truth. IJie jioets of the Moghal Courts of his predecessors really went beyond propiu limits in their exaggerated praises of theii* royal and noble patrons ; and so, his remarks may perhaps apply to such |)oets. {c) Again he stopped all chronicle- writing. We know that, Bal;)ar, Akbar, Jahangir and Shah Jehan, all wrote, or got written, chronicles of the events of their reigns. But Aurangzeb discontinued this practice. All the historical accounts of his reign that have come down to us were WTitten secretly by some persons without his knowledge or alter his time. Tliis also seems to have been the result David Sinclair's History of India (Edition of 1889), p. 77. Stanley I^Ane-Poole’s Aurangzib, p. 58. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 161 of bis puritanic views, that, in the life-time of the kiiig, the writer^ were lil ely to flatter their royal masters.^^® (d) His dislilce for wine was equally strong. As Stanley-Lane Poole suggests for his predecessors, oven Alcbar included, that “ they abandoned themselve to voluptuous ease, to Wein, Weib und Gesang,” the lines attributed by some to Luther, were, as it were, true for them: Wer nieht liebt Wein Weib imd Gesang Dor bleibt ein Narr sein Labenlang. i.e., “ He who does not like wine, wife and song, remains a fool for the whole of his lif(\“ Many PcTsian poets sang in that tone. But they were not right in Aurangzeb’s view. Some writers, mostly Christian, doubt the sincerity of his bigotry and puritanism, but Dryden is an exception. Tn his play, entitled Aurangzcbe, he expresses admiration for liim.^^^‘‘ • , His bigotry led hijii in 1659 to give up the calendar of . the ancient Persians, introduced by Akbar and Bigolnj and the observed by Jahangir and Shah Jahan. When Iran{(fn Ma- ]Ps son Muazzan once observed the Naoroz, he gis Naowz. ^vroto a letter to him and reprimanded him. He wrote : I came to know from the representation of a disinterested person that this year you observed the Nowroz festival in the mannef of the (])res(‘nt) Persians. By God’s grace, keep your faith firm. • From whom have you adopted this heretical innovation ? .... Anyhow tiiis is a festivity of the^ Majusis .... Henceforward you should not observe it and repeat such folly.” Reading the accounts of his life from various sources, it appears, Auri^ngzib's times, that Aurangzeb’s life presented contra- rities. We admire, at times, the simplicity of his life, but are surprized on reading his letter to his son A’azar, that even at his old age, he was fond of good tasty Contrarities in Aurangzib by Stanley I^ne-Poole (1908), p. 137. Ibid, p, 69. Videmy paper “ Wine among the Ancient Persians ”, Vide my Asiatic Papers” Part III, pp. 231-46. Constable's selected publications, vol. Ill (1892), p. 121. In his view of Aurangzeb’s life, he is said to have follow- ed ^rnier. In the words which he places in Aurangzeb's mouth. ‘When I consider life, ’tis all a cheat ” (Act IV) he, as it were sums up his puritanism. Ruka^at-i- Alamgiri or Letters of Aurangzebe, translated by Jamshed H. Bilimoria G908) pp. 5-6, Letter H. J62 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh food ( khichadi and biryani, ibid,, p. 12, Letter 10 ). Though austere in life, he was greedy of money as appears from his letter (No. 60) to his above ‘‘ Exalted son wherein he says : “ To refuse the presents brought by the nobles before you is a loss to the royal treasury. Though this time I forgive you for goodness’ sake you should not do so in future.” We know that Manucci is unusually strict in his account of Aurangzib ; but, even account- ing for his prejudiced exaggeration, we see, from his account, a number of contrariti(?s which would not reHect credit on the life of an ascetic. THE DATE AND THE RATE OF THE ^ ' IMPOSITION OF THE TAX. \^'^ea^b^roin the Qisseh, that theParsees of Surat complained ^^jeh^'The hi- V irnlialinij way in (^hich it hud to oe jMiid. cc. lO'J- Ibi). bitterly about the hardships caused by the imposition of the Jaziyeh and requested Rustam Manock to relieve them from these hardship^. Rustam Manock relieved them. He went to the great Diwan and paid him a large sum (ganj chandi,(*. 120) as a lumpsum for alltheParsis. He further arranged topay every y('ar according to the number (mar yo ) of his people. On knowing tliis, tlie poor of other communities also asked his help. In this case, lie did not take the responsibility of paying for a whole large community, but paid taxes for poor individuals. The Qisseh ])resents a Parse(‘ view of the hardshijis of the tax. The pronounced in inorethanone way, is, according to Wilsoid^^, a capitation tax authorized by the Mohammadan law of con((uest to be imposed on all subjects not of the Mohammadan religion." Prof. Sarkar^^^ says: “For permission to live in an Islamic State the unbeliever had to pay a tax called Jaziya which means ‘substitute money,’ i. e., the price of indulgence. It was first imposed by Muhammad, who bade his followers * fight those who do not profess the true faith, till they ipay Jaziya with the hand in humili- ty (QuranlX. lM)). The last two words of this command have been taken by the Muslimcommentators to mean, that the tax should be lluka’at-i-Alamgiri by J. H. Bilimoria ( 1908). p. 62. Oriental Language Glossary of Terms, p. 236, col. 2. Sarkar’s Aurangzeb, Vol. Ill, pp. 305-6. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 163 levied in a manner humiliating to the tax-payers. Af the scholars^ and divines of the time informed Aurangzeb, the books on Muslim Canon Law lay down that the proper method of collecting the iaziyeh is for the to pay the tax personally; if he sends the money by the hand of an agent it is to be refused ; the taxt^d person must come on foot and make payment standing, wldle the receiver should be seatvd and after placing his hand above that of the zimmi should ta ke tin* muii(*y and cry out ' o zimmi ! pay the com- mutation money/* Such being the ease, the very fact of saving the people, even those who could afford to pay a tax of that kind, from the (‘ompulsory a ^jpearance ami Immiliation before the tax- gatherer was a rigliteous act. All, the rich and the poor, were saved from the possible humility of personally going to the tax-gatherer and p.assing through all the ritual ity of payment. The early Mahomedan ruh*rs of India levied this tax from all* exeej)t tiie Brahmans, who, as a religious class, Aurangzeb re- were exempted from the beginning by the first ^Ak^r\iad a6o- Mahomedan invader Muhammad Ghori (A.C. liahed, * 117b 70). Firiiz Shah (A. C. 1351 to 1388) taxed the Brahmans also. Akbar abolished the tax (1579 A. C.). But Aurangzeb re imposed it “in order, as the Court historian records, to ‘ spread Islam and put down the practice of infidelk.y ’ On learning of the imposition of this tax, the Hindus'of Delhi mustered in force below the balcony of the royal palace on the bank of the Jumna and rc({uested the removal of the tax, but their re((uest was not accepted. Then, one Friday, when Aurangzeb was going to the Jamma Masjid, the Hindus mustered strong on the way and repeated the request.* When they did not disperse, though asked to do so, Aurapgzeb moved elephants in his front to clear his way. Some people were trampled to death in this attempt. Several writers refers to the severity of the jaziyeh. Kobert Orme says : “ In order to palliate to his Mahomedan subjects, the crimes by which he had become (m ^ their sovereign, he determined to enforce the co nversion of the Hindoos throughout his ^ ** Zimmi, one tolerated by the Muhammadan law on paying an annual tax/’ (Steingass, p. 659). Sarkar’s Aurangzeb, III, p. 308. 164 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qissth empire by the severest penalties, and even threatened the sword The religious vexation continued. Labour left the field and industry the loom ; until the decrease of the revenue drew representations from the governors of the provinces ; which induced Aurengzebe to substitute a capitation tax, as the balance of the account between the two religions. It was laid with heavy disproportion on the lower orders of Hindoos, which compose the multitude.” As to the classes of the zimrni, Prof. Sarkar says: “The impost was not proportioned to a man's actual fiHthrpa class- iaconjc, but the assessei's were roughly divided es for assess- into three classes, according as their property was estimat(*d at not more than 200 dirhams (‘the poor’), between 200 and ten thousand dirhams (th(‘ mi ^ The Venitiau traveller Niccolao MaiSftti ^^^^a very harsh critic of Aurangzib’s reign. But, what he about Aurangzib’s inexorableness about rangzifys infx- the imposition of this tax is supported by omhlem^^s about autliorities.^'^^ He says that the tax was imposed in 1678-1679, in spite of the opposition of '' all the liigh-placed and important men at the Court The King stood firm, still more so because it was his purpose to spread the Mahomedan religion among those people (the Hindus). He was of the opinion that he had found in this tax an excellent means of succeeding in converting them, besides thereby replenishing his treasuries greatly. He said to his nobles who opposed : " All my thoughts are turned towards the welfare and the development , of my kihgdom and towards the propagation of the religion of the great Muhammad.” Manucci says that, at last, his eldest sister Begam Sahib, entreated him to keep away from tlie tax, but to no purpose. She rej:>resented Hindustan to be a vast ocean and the king and the royal family as ships in it and said : "If the ships and the sailors must always try to render the seas favourable and pacific towards them in order to navigate with success and arrive hapf^ly at port ; in the same way your Majesty ought to appease and soften the ocean of your subjects.” With these words " she attempted to throw herself at his feet.” . But he disregarded her , Ibid., pp. 132-33. According to Sarkar, Khafi Khan, II, 279, 378, Akhbarat year 38 sheet 232 speaks of Aurangzib’s strictness for the Jaziyeh Vide Elphinstone^s History of India for his severity in the matter of the Jaziyeh (Vol. II, p. 495.) Storia Do Magor or Mogul India, translated by William Irvine, ( 1907), Vol. HI, pp. 288-91. ^’2 Ibid, pp. 288-9. ^’3 ibid, p. 289, 170 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh entreaties and cooly said : “ Madam, forget not that when Muhammad entered the world it was entirely drowned in the idolatry of the unbeliever, but no sooner had that incomparable prophet reached the age of discretion then he busied himself with all his strength in freeing the peoples from so dangerous a condition by establishing among them his holy doctrines. Of what methods^ J beg you to say, did he make use to gain such a purpose ? Was it not by that taxation i ” Manucci says that shortly after, th(‘re of^curred a viohmt earth(|uake and the nobles, attributing it to th(‘ wrath of (rod, asked Aiirangzib to reconsider the matter. But he cooly r(‘pli(‘d : “It is true that th(‘ earth lately trembled, but it is th(‘ result of the joy it felt at the course I am adopting." TIkmi Manucci adds that, for every 25 thousand ruj)ees that he got by this tax, the tax gatherer “ must have at the least recovered onehun(lr(‘d thousand." Mamu'ci s[)eal\s thus about the severity of the tax. “Hindu tradcu’s living in this einpin' are forced to pay everv year in advaiu‘(‘ a personal tax, as I have once befort' stated (ll.lh2; III. 51 ; IV'. 2(S ). In ndurn, they are given a receipt tt) s(*rve as a passport; but wIhui they travel to anotlier kingdom or provinc(‘ of this empire tlu* said passport is of no value. On their outward and their return journey the same amount is collected. In tliis way tlu* merchants .sutler from the great imposikons, and thus many of them and of the bankers are ruined. Aurangzib^ rejoic(‘s over these failures, in the belief that by such extortion these Hindus will be forci'd into embracing the Mahornedan faitli." Ool. T(xl, in his Hajasthan, thought that this tax was one of the causes of the overthrow of the Mogul power. {e)Tmlonthe says: “To the jezeya and the' unwise Jaznieh. pertinacity with which his successors adhered to it, must be directly ascribed the overthrow of th(‘ monarchy. Xo condition was exempted from this odious and impolitic assessment, which was deemed by the tyrant a mild substitute for the conversion he once meditated of the entire Hindu race to the creed of Islam." Tod says that Ibid, p. 291. Ibid. The Annals and Antiquities of Rajasthan or the Central and Western Rajput States of India^ by Lt.-CoL James Tod* Ist ed, h p. 396. Third Reprint (1880), p. 338. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qissdi 171 even the Rajput Rana protested : The Rana remonstrated by f letter, in the name of the nation of which he was the head in a style of such uncompromising dignity, such lofty yet temperate resolve, so much of soul-stirring rebuke mingled with a boundless and tolerating benevolence, such elevated ideas of the Divinity with such pure philanthropy, that it may challenge competition with any epistolary production of any age, clime, or condition. We find from the letters sent by the English Factors here to England in 1669, that, in April 1669 Aurangzib if) Emdence j^^d issued orders “ for the destruction of infidel jrom the English , , , . p • j i Factory Be- temples and the suppression oi innael ports about the teachings.” A letter from Surat, dated 26th Persecution by |Q 09 . “You have been formerly advised what unsufferable tyranny the Bannias endured in Surat by the force exercised by these lordly Moors on account of their religion ; the sweetness of which the Cozzy (Kazi),and other officers finding, by the large incomes paid by ' the Bannians to redeeme their places of idolatrous worship from being defaced and their persons from their malice, did prosecute their covetous avengers with that frequency and furious zeale that th^; general body of the Bannias began to groan under ‘their afiliction and to take up resolves of flying the country. A nephew of your antient Sheroff Tulcidas Parrack was among others inveigled and turned Moor, which was a great heart-breaking to your Bannian servants and some dishonour to your house.” We read further : ‘‘ Ever since the flight of the Bannians the trade of Surat hath, suffered great obstruction ; and ’tis the opinion of many wise men that it will prove of fatal consequence, to the utter ruin of it^n case the King (^.e., Aurangzib) doth not take some effectual healing order for the making of this breach. For most of the sheroffs and moneyed men doe think of calling (in ?) their stocks and (according to the custome of this country) burying the greatest part underground ; so the bulke of trade, which is maintained and carreyed on chiefly on credit, must necessarily fail.” Ibid, Ist ed. L pp, 379-80. The English Factories in Jndiar 1668-69, by Sir Forest, p. 190. Ibid, pp. 190-91. Ibid, p. 197. 172 Rustam Mamck and the Persian Qisseli The Dau of (a) Prof. Sarkar gives the date of the imposi- tion of the Jaziyeh tax as 2nd April 1679^^®. (6) ^ Dr. Fryer, in his third letter, “dated Bornbaim 1G75 8ept. 22 says : ''Even at this instant he is on a Project to bring them (the heatlicns) all overi*^ his Faith, and has already begun by two several Taxes or Polls, very severe ones, especially upon tlie Brachmins making them pay a Gold Rupee an Head and the inb^rior Tribes ])roportionable ; whi(di has made some Rajaahs revolt, and here tliey begin to fly to the Portugal Countries, and Bornbaim'’. Tlius, according to Fryer it was imposed before 1G75. (c) According to Eljdnnstone, it was imposed some time after the insurrecl iozi of the (Satnarinis, a sect of Hindu devotees at Narnol. He says ; ‘‘ These disturbances had irritated his temper and l(‘(l him to take the last step in a long course of bigotry and impolicy by reviving the Jezia or capitation tax on Hindus. Now, this revolt of this sect of devotees was in 1070.^^" So. accord- ing to Klplunstonc, this tax was imposed after IBTG. The people ()bject(‘d but when Aurangzib resorted to jiarsji treatment “ tlie tax was subniitt(‘(l to without further demur," in 1077. (d) Stanley Jainc'Poole does not give a certain date but says that it was “in or about (c) Grant Duff says, that Aurangzil) imposed tiu* .raziy(‘h, when lu' was in Burhanpur.^®^' He says; “During his stay at the former city (Burhanpur), ainongst otlu'r jirrangc- ments ]\c issued orders for the eolloction of tlie Jizeea, a poll-tax levied on all his subjects, not Mahomedans, which was to be as strictly exacted in the Decean as in tlie northern part of the empire”. He had gone to Burhanpur in 1683.^^^ So tliis means that the tax was imposed before 1683. (/) Robert Ornie, gives the date a s (g) .Maniicci says that “ it was during the ,1. Sarkar’s (a) Aurani»zib, III, p. 308; (6) Studies iii Mogul India (1910), p. 44 ; (r) Ahkfim-i. Aurangzib (1912), p. 12. Dr. John Fryer's " Xew Account of Eiist India and Peisia, begun 1072 and linished UkSl ” jniblishcd in 1698, ]>. 144. *** Flphinstonc's History of India (1841), Vol. II, p. 490. /Au/, p. 489. /Aift, p. 494. Klphinstone gives this date (1677) in his list of contents, Vol. U, p. XX.VI. Stanley L. Aurangzib (1908), p. 125. *** History of the Mahrathas, Ed. levisetl by S. M. Edwaixlas (1921) Vol. I, p. 252. /Ai/f, p. 252. /Aid, p. 246. Orme’s Historical Fragments of the Mogul Empire (1805), p. 74. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 173 years 1678 and 1679 that Aurangzeb decided to impose a new tribute upon all Hindus/' In another place, he says : The death of Rajah Jaswant Singh was used by Aurangzeb as an opening to oppress the Hindus still more, since they had no longer any valiant and powerful rajah who could defend them. He imposed on the Hindus a poll-tax, which everyone was forced to pay, some more, some less/’^®^ Now Jaswant Singh died in about 1678. So, we may take it, that the tax was levied in 1678 or 1679 {h) According to the Miiniakhabu-l-Lubab, the tax was imposed in the Hijri year 1082, i.e., about 1672, for suppressing the power of the infidels.^^“ {i) Tiie Ma-asir-i Alamgiri gives the date as 1090 Hijri, t.c. 1680 A. (j) Shivaji had written a long letter to Aurang- zeb against the imposition of the Jaziya.^^^ In that letter, he says : ‘‘ But ill your Majesty's reign, many of the forts and provinces have gone out of your possession and the rest will do so, too, because there will be no slackness on my part in ruining and devastating them ’’ Shivaji had captured, in all, 191 forts and had himself built 126 forts. Shivaji refers in this letter, to his visit of, and captivity in, and flight from, Aurangzeb’s Court in 1 666. So, when he speaks of his capture of the forts, he speaks of re-conquests. The re- conquest of many took place in 1667-1669.^®^ The re-conquest of Sinhaghad, Purandhar and Mahuli took place between 1670 and 1672. ,So, the letter seems to have been written after the t;onquest of these forts which ended in about 1 672. Thus, we take it that, according to Shivaji, the date of the jaziyeh was some time before 1672. Storia Do Mogor, edited by W. Irvine, III, p. 288. IW, II, pp. 233-34. 192 ^ tie ^ jjj The Muntakhab A1 Lubab of Khafi Khan, edited by Maulavi Kabir A1 Din Ahmed, Part II (1874), p. 255 Elhot’s History of India, Vol. VII, p. 296. Elliot’s History of India, Vol. VII, p. 296, n* 1. According to Irvine Ma’asir’s date, Ist Rabi 1 1090 H. corresponds to April 12, 1679. (Storia Do Mogor of Manned by Irvine, Vol. Ill, p. 288, n. 2.) Vide Sarkar’s Aurangzib, Vol III, p. 325^. Ibid, p. 327. For a list of these forts, vide “ The Life and Exploits of Shivaji, by Jagannath Lakhshman Markar (1886), pp. 103-107. The Life of Shivaji Maharaj, by Prof. Takakhav (1921), pp. 298-312. Ibid, p. 313 et seg. 174 Rustam Mamck and the Persian Qisseh Thus, we gather the following different dates from the different authors : — 1. Ma’asir-i Alamgiri .. April 1679 2. Muntakhab-ul Lubab of Khafi Khan . . 1672 3. Robert Onne . . . . 1679 4. Manucci . . 1678-1679 5. Fryer . . before 1675 6. Grant Duff . . before 1683 7. Elphinstone 1676-77 8. Stanley Lane- Ponle . . about 1675 9. Sarkar 2nd April 1679 10. Shivaii In or before 1672 I think, wo may attach much importance to Dr. Fryer’s state- ment, written on ‘22nd September 1675 (in liis third letter from India), saying, that Aurangzib had already laid the poll tax at the time, h(‘ wrot('. So, we may take it that it was imposed some time before September 1675. Stanley Lane-Poole also gives “in or about 1675 ".^'^^ Khafi. Khan gives 1672. So, i^iay take it that it was imposed before 1675 and that it may be in 1672. This jaziyeh tax brought a large revenue to Aurangzib. “It is n^eonhal that the city of Burhanpur alone paid 26, (KM) rupees on account of this tax, ano the total HaU of thf lax. must have been enormous. It ftdl heavily upon the poor. Authorities differ somewluit in the matter of the rate. Scott says that it was “ thir- teen rupees per annum for every 2,000 rupees worth of property possessed by Hindoos.' Prof. Sarkar says : “ The rates of taxation were fixed at 12, 24 and 48 dirhams a year for the three classes respectively, or Rs. 8.1. Rs. 65 and Rs. 13J. On the poor, there- fore, the incidence of the tax was 6 per cent, of the gross income ; on the middle class it ranged from 6 to j p.c., and on the rich it was always lighter even than 2i per thousand. In violation of modern canons of taxation, the Jaziya hit the poorest j)ortion of the Aumugzib and the Decay of the Moghal Empire by Stanley Lane Poole (1908), p. 125. Scott’s Deccan quoted in Grant Duff’s History of the Mahrathas revised by S. M. Edwaids (1921), Vol. 1, p. 252. Rmtam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 176 ^ population hardest. It could never be less than Rs. on a man ^ which was the money value of nine maunds of wheat flour at the average market price of the end of the 16th century (Ain I 63). The State, therefore, at the lowest incidence of tlie tax, annually took away from the poor man the full value of one year’s food as the price of religious indulgence. Secondly, all government officials were exempted from the tax, though they were the wealthiest members of their respective classes in Society.^^^ Dr. Fryer thus speaks of the rate : Even at this instant he is on a Project to bring them (Gophers, unbelievers) all over to his Faith and has already begun by two several Taxes or Polls, very severe ones, especially upon the Brachmins (Brahmins), making them pay a Gold Rupee (i.e. a Mohor) an head, and the inferior Tribes proportionable, which has made some Rajahs revolt, and here they begin to fly to the Portugal countries and to Bombaim. t Maimcci gives the rate as varying from Rs. on the poor to Rs. 13| on merchants.^^’-^ Manucci says : “ Great merchants paid thirteen rupees and a half, the middle class six rupees and a quarter and the poor three rupees and a half every year. This refers to men and not to women ; boys began to pay as soon as they passed their fourteenth year. Aurangzeib did this for two reasons : first because !iy this time his treasures had begun to shrink owing to expenditure on his campaigns. Secondly, to force the Hindus to become Mahomedans. Many who were unable to pay turned Mahomedans, to obtain relief from the insults of the collectors.’ yarkar's Aurangzib, Vol. Ill, p. .‘K)7. 202 A^New Account of East India and Persia, Letter III, Chap. Ill, p.107. A recent writer Mr. Hyed Hashimi (Faridabadi), in his article, “ The Real Alamgir” (Islamic CHilture, of October 1928, p. 627) gives the rate which approaches that of Manucci. He says; “It was levied on non-military, well-to-do male adults only, who had an income of at least 200 dirhams a year, which, at the lowest estimate, should be computed in its purchasing value as the equivalent of about 500 rupees in the terms of the present-day currency. On this income 3^ rupees per annum were charged, while the maximum estimate of the tax was about Rs. 14 per annum levied on an income of more than 10,000 Dirhams a year.” Storia Do Mogor, edited by Irvine, Vol. 11, p. 234. 176 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh The Qisseh says, that Rustam Manock went personally to the Jlivan and settled arrangements to pay the y nssrrtranjiy Jaziyeh annually (cc. 120-22). But, when some vho was deputed communities individually lo fHia the. ./a- ^ ^ - , , , , i i • at *1- • appealed to him for help, he asked his iNaib, i.c., assistant, Noshirwan, to pay the Jaziyeh, for the poor from his money ((;. 150). Now as the author does not give tin? full nam(‘ of Noshirwan, it is difficult to identify him. One Nuss(‘rwanji is nderna] to, later on, in the Qisseh, in the account of Rustam Manock’s visit of Naosari on his return from the Mogid Court, where he Innl gone with the Englis]\ ambassador. II(* is then* spok(‘n of as a relative in w'hose house Rustam lodged as a giK'st (e. I0t>). It is possible that both these persons may be one ainl lh(‘ same person. VV> will speak of this Noshirwan, later on, in our account of the visit to Naosari. But, if these* two Noshirwans are different, it is dinicult to identify this Noshirwan. Tin* (^iss(‘h n*lcrs to the views of the Sad-dar Nazm on the subject of the Jaziyeh. It says that, according to I'hr Sad dar ^ Sad-dar, a person who reli(na‘S another from the n'. i%i!rK o j)})n*ssion (zulm) of the Jaziyeh is wadi rewarded for this act. Rod gives him a place in tin* Heaven. His sold is resp(‘cted in the presence ofZarthosht. The Sad-dar Nazm (i.e., tin* Book of l()0(1iapt(‘rsin verse) was written in J l!)5A.(k by I ranshah bin Mah'k Shah. It is possible that it w'as based on the SacUlarNasr (tln*Sad-darin])rose),whieh w as wTitten by three persons, Medyomah, Vardosht and Siavaksli, some time after the Arab Coin[uest.-^*^ o//- f//r .hr. 'ujf'h fT. i()2 ()r>. One may be tempted to say tliat if lie was Rustam's relative, he may l)e bis ynmd.son Noshirwan, the son of Bahrnanji; But the dates make this supposition iin|Missil)l(‘. 1 am thankful to Mr. Sohrab P. ilavar for kindly drawing iny attention to the inconsistoney of dates in his letter of 20tl» .\n^\ist IU2S. So, we must take it that, either he was the same Jfus.ser- wanji as the om* mentioned later on, or some other person. .' 0 .J ^totalled aeeount of the Sad-dar, vide (a) West !S.B.E., Vol. XXIV. fntrodnclion, pp. XXXVI-XXXIX ; (b) Grundriss der Iranisehen PhiIoh)gie, Ihuik II, p. 123 ; (c)' Sad-dar Nasr and Sad-dar Bundehesh by Ikunanji Nnsserwanji Dhabhar; (^/) Dr. Hyde has given a translation in T.Atin of the Sa J I <3.aC (S^ l_ s-»T ;.Aj| ^,5 yiJ y 1; ^1^^^ ^^1,, iitj-v y L- ? ]^yj ^ I J t J The hrst line of the chapter thus speaks of its contents : ^ f ^ ^ A^l 1 am thankful to Mr. J^omanji Niisserwanji Dhabhai* for helping me to trace the reference. ““® (Saddav Chap. 6h 11. U-18) Manuscript of the Sad-dar Nazm in the R. Caifia Oriental fnstitute. Vide for this Ms. the Catalogue of the Iiistitute'by Mr. B. N. Dhabliar (1923), p. 149, No. R. 61. The colophon at the end, gives the date of the Ms. as roz Aban, Mali Asfandarmad, year 1103 A. Y. (i.e., 1734 A. 0.). It was written in 8urat in the country (balad) of Gujarat in Hind by Mobadof Broach, Herbad Kausji, son of Padamji, son of Dastur Kamdiii, son of Dastur Paridun, »on of Dastur Pjdam, son of Osta Ram, son of Herbad Kahanan ( V) son of Mobad Hhehyar ( J ^ /-*^ ) son of Mobad Naharyar ( ^ ^ J )• This sfribe Kausji was the son of Dastur Padamji Kamdinji, referred to in a document of 1st August 1716 A. C. (Parsee Prakash I, p. 849.) Another old copy of the sad-dar gives us following variants in the above verse, e.j/., c. (couplet) 1, 1. 1 has I ^.c. 2, 1. 2 has 1 ^ J instead of Ms. VII, 19 ( Brel vi’s Catalogue p. XXXI). This Ms. has no colophon. The chronogram gives 14th of Mohram 9(K) as the date. (The chronogram (300 +400 +260=900) gives the Mahomedan year of the original composition, which, according to West (S. B. E. Vol. 24 Introd. p. 37), comes to 14th October 1495 A.C. 178 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh Translation . — If a person, whether poor or rich (lit. pleasant- soulc(l), possesses nothing, for the tax (money) of the Jaziya, wherewith he may give that Jaziyeh and if he shall be lost^^^ to the evil-minded, and if, under the circumstances (lit. in that place) you give him friendship (i.e., your helping hand), and if you alone pay for his Jaziyeh, then know, that you have (as it were) saved him from being killed, and you become, in your work, a specially good bell-din {i.e., Zoroastrian). In the spiritual world, you will get from this good religion (i.e.., good religious act), much (lit.' incal- culable) recomjiense, reward and righteousness. dj lx Mt ^ 1/ •ijS' ,i IawJ ^ 1 djj ^ 1 .> 1 ^ I tri Ij L 4 J Translation. If anvi)ody exacts money for Jaziyeh and spends it after his family,-* ’ then know that he oats nasa (f.c., a noxious A/, (last raftan or sluulan, to be lost. cf. •-.j* ^ ^ 3 * Here, tlu^ meaning is: “ If he, out of tjoverty, leaves his religion, for^oot being able to |>ay the tax and joins the evil minded (badan), i.r., the Jud-din. a'o hazz, cutting up by the roots, a breaking off (Steingass), ^ ^^abal, crime, .sin, fault” {Ibid). *’^'rhe word is khaiidan, in the Ms. which I have followed, but the tiist letter ^ is miswritten for diminishing. The woid may be read as ^ 1^ gahi, i.e, in a (short) time, from j/aA, time. Ch. 66 1 1.24-28, Mulla Feroze Library Ms. op cit. Aydl, wife and children. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 179 thing). There is nothing worse than this in our religion. You must break away from {i.e., avoid) this money, because this money is a crime on your neck. In whatever place (or way) this money is spent, know, that there will remain no progeny (or stock) in that family. Annihilation will prevail in that place and the family will disappear by diminution. The reason, why the Sad-dar,^*® written in Persia, refers to the Jaziych, is that Jaziyeh was a tax imposed after in^Persia^^^^^^ conquest upon the Zoroastrians of Persia. The Zoroastrians of Persia had to pay the tax upto the year 1882, when, after constant representations, it was cancelled. VIII 11. Shivaji*8 Sack of The second important subject referred to by the Qisseh is that The Account of the Sack of Surat by Shivaji. The account Shivaji’s Sack of Surat as given in the i^ack of Surat. Kisseh is briefly as follows : There are several sad-dars, all mostly treating oi the same subject, but one is in prose, another in verse and the third in verse of the meter called iehr-i tavil. They all were written in the 14th or 16th century. The Sad- dar Nazn\ (in verse) was written in 864 A. Y. (1495 A. C.), but the prose Saddar was written long before this. For another Ms. of the Sad-dar Nazm in the Mulla Feroze Library, vide the Supplementary Catalogue of Arabic- » Persian Mss. by Mr. S. A. Brelvi (1917), p. XXXI. Mr. BomanjiBehramji Patel, in his ParscePrakash, Vol. I (pp. 6^-66) gives a ve^*y interesting account of the work of the Persian Zoroastrian Amelioration fund founded in Bombay on 11th January 1855. One of the objects pf that fund was to relieve the Zoroastrians of Persia from the burden of the Jaziyeh tax. The late Mr. Manockji Hataria, the agent in Persia of the above fund, had been to the Zoroastrians of Persia, what Rustam Manock was to the Zoroastrians of Surat. We find a succinct account of the incidence of the Jaziyeh in Persia, included in the above account (Ihid, pp. 659-66). The annual payment by the Bom^y Parsees for their co-religionists in Persia came to about Rs. 5,000. The Bombay Parsees paid it regularly from about 1858 to 1881. The total they paid during these years came to about Ka. 1,09,564. Rich Parsees of Bombay had given large sums of money to be permanently invested, for the Jaziyeh to be paid annually from its interest. 180 Rn statu Manock and the Peisian Qisseh 1. Shivaji in spoken of as Shiva^i** ghani Shiva^ the pluri(ler(*r. 2. lie came with a large equipage (hashni-i faravan). The author gives the number of his followers as 50,000. 5. He arrest(‘(l men, women and ven milk-drinking children (kudakan shir khur) from all four directions and detained them in prison { I”-)* 4. ]1(‘ earri<‘<ilgrim trallic. Tin* po])ulation of the city in Aurangzeb's and Shivaji's time was about 2 lakhs of people living in an area of about •I sepia r(‘ mih's. Tin* rich people occufiied, as now, the river frontage. Surat was om* of tin* richest cities of the Empire and it “ contributed something like lialf a million sterling (about Es. 75 lacs) in addition to the land tax'’ to Aurangzeb.^^-^ From, the fact of Surat having given to Shivaji during his several sacks a good d(‘al of W(*alth, Shivaji is said to have called it “ tlie key of his tn*asury.” In tin* time of Aurangzeb, it was the head-quarters of the Parsees. The Khiilasatu-t-tawarikh, written some time l^^etween 101)5 and 101)9, thus refers to them, while speaking of Surat : ” The sect of Zoroastraians (Parsis) having come from Fars and tt^ken up their abocb* liere, kee[) up among themselves the practice of * Thonuis Moore, in his Lala Rookh, represents the king of Bucha- rest coming thert* from Central Asia to go on a pilgrimage. This was in the time of .\urang7.eb. *** Pmf. Sarkar’s Shivaji, p. 98. Ibid, *** Stanley P(X)le\s Aurangzeb, p. 127. *** H. Bilimoria's Letters of Aurangzeb* p. 124, n. 3. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 183 fire-worship.”225 According to the supplement to the Mirat-jr Ahmadi, written between 1750 and 1760,^2^ Aurangzib built the rampart wall round the city, to prevent the Deccanis raiding the city.^^^ The wall, enclosing some of the ‘puras' ( ), known as the Alampanah wall, was built later in the reign of Farruksiyar.^^ It is said that, in the early times of the Sultans of Gujarat, Hander on the other side of Tapti was the port, but in 947 Hijri (1540 A.C.) Safar Aga (Ashgar Aga), known as Khudawand Khan in the reign of Sultan Mahmud, built the city Fort, to protect the city “ in oi;der to put an end to the })iracy of the Europeans who were ha,rassing the inhabitants. ”229 ports of Broach, Bulsar, Naosari, Ghandevi, Chikli, Sirbhawan and otliers were under the jurisdiction of the Mutasaddi of Surat. The port of Daman belonged to the hat- wearers (the kohla-po-sh), i,e, tlie Europeans (the Portuguese). According to De Lact,“^^ Surat had, at first, “a large fort surrounded with a wall of sand stone and defended by a number of warlike engines, some of which are of exceptional size”. The town was fenced on three sides by a dry ditch and an earthen rampart with tliree gates, of which one opens upon the road to Variauvv (Variao)-^^, (latterly spoken of as (Variavi Bhagal) a small village where travellers to Cambay crossed the river Tapti.” The second gate was the Brampori gate a’ftd the third Uonsaray or Nassaray (Naosari) gate. * According to this author, a large number of cotton fabrics were woven at Naosari The India of Aurangzib, with extracts from the Khulasatu-t-tawarikh and the Chahar Gidshan, by Prof. Jadunath Sarkar (1901), p. 63. The Supplement to the Mirat-i-Ahmadi, by Syed Nawab Ali and Charles Norman Seddon (1924), p. X. Ibidy p. 213 Ihid, Ihid. Ibid, p. 229 281 75^^ #22 Vide the Empire of the Great Mogol(De Imperio Magni Mogolis), a Translation of De Laet’s “ Description of India and Fragment of Indian History,” translated by J. 8 Hoyland and annotated by 8 . N. Banerjee ( 1928), p. 17. Joannes De Ijaet (1593-1649 A. C.) had begun his life as the Director of the Dutch Company of the West Indies. His book, De Imperio Magni Mogolis, was published in Latin in 1631. 233 75 ^^ p 22 ® For some further particulars about Surat in the times of the Moghal Emperors, vide my Paper on “ A Petition in Persian by Dastur Kaikobad to Emperor Jehangir ” (Journal of the K. R. Cama*s Oriental Institute No. 13, pp. 67-237). 184 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh Shivaji belonged to the Mahratha race, whose country wa» Maharashtra (lit. the great kingdom), the country Shivaji. lli'H between the Central Provinces and the Arabian ancedry. Sup- Konkan was that part of the Maharashtra iK)Hed relation- i tj. • ship with ancient which ran between the Ghats and the sea. It is Pernin. a very hilly country and the towering heights of some of its mountains are studded with forts whicii are all Mahratha forts. Itanuleo, a prince of this Maratha rac(‘. was ruling in the Deccan^ when, in about 1291, Ala-ud-(lin Khilji invaded it. It was Malik A?td)ar, an Abyssinian officer of the Mahomedan kings of Bijapiir, wlio gave military training to tin* Mahrathas and brought them into prominence. When lu“ found that his master, the king of Bijapon*, and the kings of other Mahonie- dan stat(‘s of the l)(a*can could not stand against the large trained armi(‘s of tln‘ Moghal Kmperors on the ])lains, he resorted to mountain-fighting. Ife took Mahratha soldiins under him, an^l, living with them on hill forts, made; matters hot for the Moghal armi(‘s on the ])lains. Thus, the Maharathas w(ue trained under him to hill-fighting. Shahji,**^'’’ the father of Shivaji who berongcfl to the Bhonsl(‘ family of the Mahrathas was at first an officer in the Mahomedan state of Ahmednagar and then in that of Bijapore. It is said of Sludiji. tlu* fatlunof Shivaji, that lu* was given tJlie name of Shall from tlu‘ name of a Miisulman pir (saint), Shah Sharif of Ahmed- nagar, who uas engag(‘d by his father Malaji, the son of Jbibaji Bhonsle, the founder of the Hlionsle family, to pray for a son, as h»‘ had no son, though lie t)rayed to iMalunli'o and to Hhavani, the tutelaiy deity of the family. As the Pir's prayer was aecejited Malaji gave his son the name of the Pir (The Life and Exploits of Shivaji hy Jagaiinatli Lakshman Mankar (188fil p. 11.) The following tree explains his aneestry - Babaji Bhonsle \’itliujee Malaji t Sliahji I Shivaji a nihliajee Bajaram. 186 Rusalm Manock and the Persian Qisseh Q Masikwi^ ,Y, ,ustam Manock. He pasvsed his boyhood in wandering with Mawalis, i.e., the people of the mountain He, fighting with the above Malick Ambar, disting dished himseff in the war, against the Mogul Emperors.^^® jj^-.itramsha Shivaji was born in 1627, i,e., abog^|^ ^ Shivajif before the Sack of Surat villages of Mawal near Poona. Inheriting the military pluck of his father, he headed the Mahrathas and took to plundering and conquering. He took the fort of Torna and built that of Kajgarh. He then took Poorandhar and several other forts. Thus, rising step by step, and taking fort after fort, he became a terror to the state of Bijapore under which his father was an officer. The Sultan of Bijapore suspected that his father Shahji was in league with his son. So he sent for him from his jagir in the Karnatic and imprisoned him in a dark stone dungeon. Shivaji was on fairly good terms, at that time, with the Mogul Emperor Shah Jahan. So, he applied to Shah Jahan to get his father released. Shah Jahan got him released and appointed Shivaji to the command of 5,000. At this time, Aurangzeb was the Viceroy of the Deccan, but he soon left the Deccan on hearing that Shah Jahan was ill. The King of Bijapur, taking advantage of the absence of Prince Aurangieb upon whom Shivaji counted for help, sent his general Afzul »Khan against Shivaji. Shivaji is said to have proposed A fanciful association connects Shivaji’s descent with the ancient Persians. Orme says : “ He (Sevaji) drew his lineage from the Rajahs of Chitore,” (Historical Fragments of the Mogul Empire by Robert Orme (1805) p. 6). Abu Fazl, in his Ain-i-Akbari, says of “ the chief of the state who^was formerly called Rawal that he pretended a descent from Noshirwari the Just.” (Jarrett’s Ain-i-Akbari (1891) Vol. II, p. 268, ain 15). Thus Shivaji, who is said to have traced his descent from the founder of the Rajput class which traced its descent from Noshirwan (Chosroes I who died in about 570 A.C.), was connected with the ancient Persians. Orme’s Note (Note VIII /6w/, p. 182) adds : “A very strange genealogy of a Hindoo andRajhpoot Rajah ; for Cosroes was of the religion of Zoroaster, or the worshippers of fire, Avho although confined to many abstinences, were not restrained from eating beef.” (For the said connection of the Rajputs with the ancient Persians, vide my article (Oodeypore, the Kashmir of Rajputanas in the Hindi Graphic of December 1928, pp. 18-21.) 186 Jhisiam Manock and the Persian Qisseh reconciliation and both met at the fort of Pratabghar near Mahblesh- war ( 1 659 A. C.)* Students of history differ as to who was insincere and as to who first began a misdeed. Afzul Khan was killed by Shivaji, as some say, in self-defence. This victory over the King^ of Bijapur led to Shivaji’s conquest of ^he whole of Konkan from Rally an to Goa. Then Shivaji invaded Mughal territories with an army under the command of himself and the Peshwa (i.c., Prime Minister) Morar (hint. His cavalry spread terror wherever it went. Anrangzeb ord(‘r(*d Siiaista Khan, the Viceroy of the Deccan, to> go to fight against Shivaji. Shaista Khan did so and took Poona. Shivaji attack(‘d one night the house in which Shaista Khan lived at Poona. Shfiista Khan was wounded but escaped. Shivaji left Poona b(‘fon‘ th(‘ Moghals could collect an army to light against him and attachc'd Surat. Mahratha writers say that Shivaji was ins])ired by tjie goddess Bhavani. Krisiinaji Anant, a member (sabhasad) of the Court of Rajaram, the second son of Shivaji, wlio wrote the life of Shivaji at the e.xpress desire of Rajaram, says so.-''^ Shivaji now took tiie title of Raja and cast his own coins. Then, he built a fleet of Ids own. It seems that, when he saw that the Portuguese, who had a good tleet in the Indian sea, issued pass-ports to the pilgrims to Mecca aiid charged for these pass-ports v('ry high tates,^'^ he also followed suit with a view to amass money. He, with the help of his fh‘et, sto[)ped Muslim pilgrim ships and exacted large ransoms from tluun. This exasperated Anrangzeb, who, iipto now, toh‘rated his pillaging acts as tho.se of “ a mountain rat*’, 8hah Jahan was still alive and so Anrangzeb did not like to leave If is traaslator tliii.s speaks of Bhavani’s inspiration : “ Tlier^ is a somewhat striking re.semblanee between the visitations of the Goddess Jfbavani wlio up|)eared into Shivaji on every critical occasion and the consultations of Numa Pompilius with the goddess Egeria from whom he receiveil instructions in ivligion and the management of his state affairs” (The Life and Kxploits of Shivaji, translated into English from an impub- lished Marathi Manuscript by Jagannath Lakshmaii Mankar (2nd ed., 1886, ^ p. VI). *** It is said that in the case of Hiunayun’s sister, the Portuguese weit) given a village as the price of a pass-port. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 187 f Delhi, lest, in his absence, an attempt may be made to re-instate the late king on the throne. Again, he iipto now did not like to entrust a large army to any general, lest that general with that army may turn against him. But a bigoted Mahomedan as he was, he did not like Shlvaji interfering with the holy work of the pilgrimage to Mecca. So, he sent a large army against Shivaji under his general Jai Singh, keeping at his court Jai Singh's son as a hostage for the good conduct of his father. Another general, DiUr Khan, also accompanied the army. In the end, Shivaji had to make peace, known as the Peace of Purandhar. Shivaji returned to Aurangzeb all the Moghul territories he had conquered. He was given certain assignments at Bijapur which brought him l/4tli of its revenue termed as Chauth (i.e., l/4th part) and Sirdeshnuikhi. Shivaji then, in alliance with Jai Singh, fought on behalf of Aurangzeb against Bijapur and drew Aurangzeb 's attention towards himself, and, at his invitation, went to Delhi. When there, he took indignation at his treatment by Aurangzeb, who looked at him somewhat like a prisoner. He then with the help of Jai Singh's son, left Delhi secretly having been carried out in a basket. He returned to Raigarh in December 166(3. He now assumed royalty and was solemnly crowned as a Rajah in 1674. Following the custom of the ancient kings of India and of the Moghul •Emperors, he got himself weighed in gold and gave the gold to Brahmans. He had a long fight with the Siddees at Dandeh- Rajpurand Janjira. He then invaded Karnatic in 1676. Returning victoriously from there, he plundered Jalna in 1679. Now, Shivaji’s son, Sambhaji, following, as it were, the practice of the Moghul J^mperor’s princes, who, one after another in their turns, rebelled against their fathers, rebelled against his father Shivaji and joined his father’s enemy Dilir Khan, the Moghul general who had attacked Bijapur. This, as it were, gave a shock to Shivaji. Aurangzeb disapproved this act of Sambhaji and ordered Dilir Khan to send to Delhi Sambhaji who, on arriving at the Court, was imprisoned there. He, like his father some years before, contrived to escape, and, though apparently reconciled to his father, was shut up in the fort of Panalla. Shivaji died soon after, on 5th April 1680, at Raigarh at the^ age of 53. 188 Rustam Mamck and the Persian Qisseh Shivaji is spoken of as Ghani in the Qisseh. The word ghani is Arabic and means, according to Steingass, Shicaji ‘'Rich, wealthy, independent, able to dispense kfn of as (jlaitii Bhivaji was undoubtedly a very rich man. (^) in He had amassed a good deal of wealth, by invasions, QMi. sacks and pillages. In fact, one of his objects in this sack of Surat, besides that of striking t(‘rror in th(‘ In'arts of the Moghuls, was the desire to amass more, wealth irom this rich town. Rut, from the fact, that the author compares him with Ahriinaii or Satan, oiK* Jiiay say that the author meant to say about him something st rong(‘r t han that he was rich. In that case, w(* may take the word g/iaul in tlu' sense of ** ])lunderer ” or in the scuise of “ an enemy.’’ Steingass does not give the word ghani in that sense but gives the word ghaniin ( ) which seems to have l)een derived from ghani in that siuise. He says for ghanim, “ plunder, spoil, the ac(]uisition of a thing without toil and trouble, taker of spoil, plunderer, (Muunv, fo(*, adversary. Bo, taking into consideration the facts of tlie sack of Surat as given by various writers, one can easily understand why tlie author of the Qisseh speaks of him as “ the plunderer. ’ Shivaji's fame as a great fighter who plundered the territories of Aurangzeb seems to have travelled even ^o Persia. In an otfensiv«' letter written by Shah Abbas II to Aurai^zeb in l()()l, W(^ n‘ad : “ I h^arn that most of the zamindars of India are in rebidlion because their ruler is w^eak, incompetent and without resources. The chief of them is the impious kajir Shiva, who had long lived in such ol)scurity that none knew of his name ; but now taking advantage of your lack of means and retreat of your troops, he has nia(b‘ himself visible like the peak of a mountain, si'ized many forts, slain or captured many of your soldiers, occupied much of tiiat country, plundered and wasted many of your ports, cities and villages, and finally wants to come to grips with you. " Persian English Dictionaiy, p. 897, col. 1. Ibid Dictionary, p. 897, col. 1. Sarkar's Aiu*angzeb, Vol. Ill, p. 126. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 189 The English had factories in Surat, Eajpur, Karwar and Hubli. Shivaji, at one time or another, sacked all these Shivaji and places — Surat in 1664 and 1670, Raj pur in 1661, the English, Karwar in 1665 and Hubli in 1673. So, during al] these sacks, the English had to sutler, more or less, at the hands of Shivaji. The Bombay factory was first established in 1668, .seven years after that island passed into the hands of the English (1661) from the Portuguese as a part of the dowry of Charles IPs marriage with Catherine. The first President of the Bombay factory was Sir George Oxenden who had made a bold .stand against Shivaji in his sack of Surat of 1664. Shivaji had generally tried to be on good terms with the English, especially because he expected .some help from them in his fight with the Sidees of Janjira. Though the whole of the Salsette belonged to the Portugue.se, Kurla was in his hands. So, if he were not on good terms with the English, they might allow his Abyssinian foes to attack his possession of Kurla through their territories. Therefore he acted with them in a conciliatory way. As he was at first without a naval fleet, he acted in a conciliatory way with the Dutch, the French and the Portuguese also. Sir George Oxenden was the President and Governor of the Surat factory from 1663 to 1669. Then Gerald Aungier was the President at Surat from 1669 to 1677. Aungier came to Bombay *in 1671 and returned to Surat in 1675. When the Governor resided in Surat, the Bombay Factory was under a Deputy Governor. Now, we come to the Sack of Surat. There were two Sacks of Surat by Shivaji. So, the ((uestion is, which of these two is referred to by the Qisseh. I will, o at first, describe in brief the two sacks and then t' proceed to determine which of these two, is referred to by the Qi.sseh. Before proceeding further, I may say here, that this city was, ere this, atteked and sacked by Aurangzeb’s own rebel brother Morad, who is spoken of as “ the black sheep of the Imperial family. In November 1658, he had sent his eunuch general Shahbaz Khan at the head of 6,000 horse '‘to levy contribution from the rich part of Surat, whose rich merchants had deposited their money for safety in the fort. In the *** Sarkar’s Aurauigzeb, I, p. 318. *** Ibid, p. 323. 190 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh end, Haji Muhammad Zahid and Pirji Borah, two rich merchants, of the city, arranged “ on behalf of the entire mercantile community of Surat ” to lend to Murad who was hard pressed with want of money 5 lakhs of rupees on Morad passing a bond for the repayment of that amount. Shlvaji thought of an offensive against the Moghul Emperor Auvangzei) who had got Poona seized by his g(*n(TaI Shayasta Khan. Surprisi^ was one of the Thejinst Suck’ ehi('f eliaractc'ristics of Slnvaji. So, he wai\jsed of Siintf In to surprise Surat, tin* ehi(‘f (unporium of trade in the dominions of Aurangz(‘l). Again, his chief obje(‘t was to amass W(*allh by ])lund(‘ring this rich city. In order to av^oid suspicion, he collected Ids army into divisions, in two distant parts of tin* country — one at Kalyan and another at Dandeh Raj])ur.“‘"’ He further gave out that this prepara- tion was to fight the Portuguese at Chaul and Bassein and the Siddhi (the .Vbyssinian chief) of Janjira. It is said that, he had, at first, sent as a spy liis scout Balurji Naik, to examine the situation there. Robert Ornu^ says that it was said that he liirnself had gone to Surat in disguise and remained in it tlin^e days, picking up intellig(‘ne(‘ and marking the opulent houses. His army for the sack consisted of 10,000 Mawalis, principally led by two leaders^ Moropant I’ingh' and lhataprao Guzar. Our Qisseh’s s*tatement that th(‘ army consist (*d of 50,000 men, seems to be the result of what was heard in the midst of a general alarm. Our author Jarnshed Kaikobad may have heard this number among the alarm- ing news of the times. The above two leaders were the two gir-o- dars referred to by Jamslu'd Kaikobad in his Qisseh. Tt was in the morning of r)th January IbGl, that the people of Surat at first luaird the news that Shivaji's army had arrived at Gandevi about 28 miles south of Surat. They began leaving the c>ty for the villages on the other side of the river. Inayat Khan, IhUfi p. 32r>. Ornie gives the places as Chaul and Basseiu. Chaul is very close to Daiuieh-Kajpur and Bassein very close to Kalyan, Historical Fragments- of the Moghul F.mpire by R. Orme, p. 12. But these places were named by iShivaji as the places of attack. Historical Fragments of the Moghul Empire (1805) p. 12. Rustam ManocJc and the Persian Qisseh ^ the governor of the city, fled into the fort, leaving the people to themselves to do what they liked for their safety. ‘‘ Rich men found shelter in the fort by bribing its commandant.^^^ A population composed mostly of money-loving traders, poor artisans punctilious fire-worshippers and tender-souled Jains, cannot readily take to war even in self-defence. The richest merchants, though owning * millions of Rupees, had not the sense to hire guards for the protection of their wealth, though they might have done so at only a twentieth part of what they were soon to Iftsc through pillage." In the midst of general fight and flight among the citizens,, the members of the English and the Dutch factories stood daringly to their guns. They could have retired to their ships at Swally. But, instead of doing so, they resolved to stand in self-defence at their own factories. Sir George Oxenden, the English President sent^or the sailors of his ships and with about 150 Englishmen and 60 peons defended his factory. To give confidence, at least to the people of the street round his factory, he marched with his small 9 army headed by a band of drums and trumpets, through the streets to show that he was prepared to defend his factory. His example and that of the Dutch factor “ heartened a body of Turkish and Armenian merchants to defend their property in their 6 *^m 2 ;‘^lose to the English factory. Shivaji, not receiving a reply to his previous night’s message to* the Governor, began looting. The following description of the sack ^by Prof. Sarkar supports all that is said in Jamshed’s Qisseh about the terror of the sack. ‘‘A body of Shivaji’s musketeers was set tp play upon the castle, with no expectation to take it, but to keep in and frighten the governor and the rest that got in,' as also (to prevent) the soldiers of the castle from sallying out upon them whilst the others plundered and fired (the houses). The garrison kept up a constant fire, but the fort-guns inflicted more damage on the town than on the assailants. Throughout Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, this work of devastation was continued, every day new fires being. The city had, as it were, two hdkams or governors, one who commanded^, the fort and the other a civil governor. Sarkar’s Shivaji, pp. 99-100. Ibid, p. 102. 192 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qtsseh Taised, so that thousands of houses were consumed to ashes and two-thirds of the town destroyed. As the English chaplain wrote ‘ Thursday and Friday nights were the most terrible nights for fire, the fire turned the night into day, as before the smoke in the day- time had turned day into night, risi-ig so thick that it darkened the sun like a great cloiur.” The house of Baharji Borah, who was "then reputed the richest merchant in the world,” and who was one of th(^ thna* riel] ])crsons sent for by Shivaji before he commenced tin* pillage, was with all its property estimated to value Its. 80 lakhs. It was plundered and then was set on fire. Aeeonling to Robert Orme, Shivaji collected a rich booty. “ The booty li(^ coll(*cted in treasure, jewels and precious commodities, was (‘stimat(Hl at a, million sterling” (i.e., about a Crore of riipe('s). Tin* j)illage lasted four days and nights. Prof. Sarkar says, that Shivaji “shrank from no cruelty to extort money as quickly as possil)l(‘. **“•'’*'* H(‘ (piotes an English chaplain, who said : “ His ant, a stth/tasad at the court of Shiv{i[ji‘s second son Kajaram, who wrote a life of Shivaji at the express desire of Kajaram, thus sjieaks of the sack: "The people of Surat were tak. 203. “ It (chout) was a iK'inuinent coritributionofonC'foui-th of the revenue, niul exempt(‘ ^ ji j y** Steingass (pp. 1108 and 1109) gives the meaning as “the contused clamour or noise of combatants”. Vide the words gir~dir and ^r-u- bedar. The* words are something like “ stand and deliver”, the clamour of the bandits. The two offi- cers of Shivaji who accompa- nied him in the sackt c. 190-1, 200 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh i.e., at the head of his army, there were two ^ gir o dars\ So, I think, we must take the meaning of the words to bo persons who call out “ Take (i.e., capture) and hold (i.6., detain) persons”, i.e,, leaders. As to who they were, the qisseh speaks in the following couplet (c. 191) : i.e,, “one was ‘ Ahujiban ’ and another Divyan. They were the enemies of the sect of Zoroastrians.” Here it is not clear whether the words are common nouns or ])roper nouns. If they are common nouns, they may be taken as expressing the charaet(‘ristics of the two persons who accompanied Shivaji as gir-o-dars. The first word ahu-jiban may be a word derived from ahu (F. Fahl, ahu, Avesta ahiti, meaning filthiness, impurity), vic(^ and jaib ( )> heart, i,e,, one vicious from the very heart. The second word div yan may be from (Av. dacva) the devil, i,e., one who is of devilish nature. The Gujarati translator, in Jalbhoy’s book, has translated the couplet as.‘ d ^ th(‘y are very unholy and ugly, (and are) the enemies of the Farsees. The translator of the Gujarati transliterated manuscript tak(‘s both the words as ])roper nouns. He translates : d 'tR ^ {("• 191). fc., the name of one of them is Ahujiban and the name of the other is l)(‘vyan. But these names sound as very uncouth for Hindu nanu's. vSo, if we at all take them as proper names, I think they are corruptions the corruption arising from the mistake of the (.'opyists. If so, what are the proper names of these two oflicers ( , They may be Moro[)ant Fingle and Prataprao Guzur, referred to by Mr. Takakhav.-''* He says : “The expeditionary force consisted of 10,000 Mavalis,*-^"® including such leaders of distinction as Moropant Fingle ( the Feshwa or Prime Minister of Shivaji whose full name was Moro TTimbak FingleJ, Prataprao Guzur, and several subordinate ofhcers." Or, perhaps, they may be Mukaji Anandrao T ♦ i by Jalbhoy Ardeehir Seth, p. 106. The JJfe of Shivaji Maharaj (1921), p. 237 * *’• JMftvalis, the people of the mountain valle jb of Maval Hear Poona. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 201 and Venkaji Datoo. We read in Shivaji’s life by Mr. J. L. Mankar :f ‘‘ In the meantime Bahirji, a messenger from Surat, arrived and said to the king : — ‘ If Surat be taken, immense wealth would be found.’ The king then thought that as most of his army was composed of hired mercenaries, they would not do the work as satisfactorily at, required and that he had therefore rather gO in person with his forces. Having formed this resolution, the king applauded Mukaji Anandrao, the foster son of Mahaiaj Shahaji and Venkaji Da tto, a Brahmin, both of whom were renowned warpOTs and wlio had resigned the service of the Maharaja and come over to the king. He ])laced under them a body of 5,000 horse and taking with him as aiso Prataprao Sarnobat,^^® other warriors, 10,000 horsemen, 10,000 Shiledars,^^® from 5 to 7 thousand chosen Mawalis, Sirkarkun Moropant Peishwa, Nilopant, Dhanajipant, Dattajipant and Bal Prabhu Chitnis, he started for Surat. I think that it is very probable, the two named leaders of the Qisseh are the above Anandrao and Datto. The name Anandrao, when written in Persian characters is In this name , the nanfe proper is Anand ( cUi J ) and Kho ( j] ) ) is honorific. Another corresponding ending is ji ( ). So, it is possible, the name Anandji must have been miswritten and misread as Ahuji ( ^ J ). As to the name Devyan, the &rst part *Deva is the name proper. Now, the above Marathi name Datto of tlie second leader can be written in Persian characters as . By a mistake of the copyist— and such * mistakes are very common — the two nuktehs or dots over the second letter ‘t’ may have been misplaced below and so Datto ) became Div (^^ ). The last portions yan seems Life and Exploits of Shivaji, translated into English from an unpublished Marathi Manuscript, by Jagannath Lakshman Mankar, 2nd ed, of 1886, p. 62. Samobat was the description of a higher military officer. “ One Naik was appointed over ten Mawafis (the people from Mawal) ; one Havaldar over fifty persons; one Jumledar over two or three Havaldars. Ten Jumledars formed one Hazari. • . . The Hazaris were headed by a Samobat {Ibid pp. 24-26). Shiledar is “ a horseman who provides his own horse” (Ibid, p. 63, n. ). Ibid, pp. 62-63. 202 Ttustaw Manock and the Persian Qisseh to have been added as a plural, perhaps, to express the plural form to signify their followers. The last part ban ( ) of the first name Ahujib^n seems to have been ydn ( )’ by a mistaken change of the two nuktehs from below to above, seems to have been read ban. At the end of the section on Shivaji’s sack of Surat, the Qisseh Shimji and refers, as said above, to an episode in the ancient Afrasidh. Una- Jfistory of Iran, which occurred in the reign of W Agr fral^^^rc. Minoclichr (Manushchithra of the Avesta, Yasht 219-250. XI II, 131) and which is described by Firdou«i.^^ The Qisseh says that Rustam Manock was the Agreras and Shivaji th(i Afrasiab of tlu*. story. This Agreras is the Aghraeratha of the Avesta (Yt. XIII 131, Yt. IX 22, Yt. XIX At the end of tin* i‘|)iso(l(^ proper of Agreras, the author of the Qisseh refers to some statonents of Firdousi (be goftash Firdousi-i niknam, c. 33S). He (juotes several lines (cc. 339-345). The fact of Shivaji's sack doing great harm to the Parsees Sark of Surat is attested, among other facts, by the ajid the /o.s.v of their losing some communal documents Parser Pont- . in- i t • • i i i munal docn- I he general ilight. It is said that King Akbar ntenUs. ]i«id given a grant of about 100 bigahs of land to tii(‘ Pars(M*s of Surat for constructing their Tower of Silence^^. For tlu‘ story in the Shah-namah of Firdousi to whieh the Qisseh refers, ride M. .Xrolil’s Livre de.s Rois, vol. 1. p. 428. Small volume, VoP. I., j)p. 3.47-42. Vullors’ od. f., pj). 263-95. Kutar J^rothei's’ ed., Vol. II, pj). 53-54, Dastur Minoehehr’s Translation Vol. I. pp. 469-70. VV^amer Rrothers’ 'Pranslation, \'ol. 1, pp. .366-7. **** For Ajiieras, vide my Dictionary of Avcstaic Projx'r Names, pp. 7-10 and pp. 149-50. Vide the {)rinted accounts of the Parsec Panchayct forSemvat 1904 ( 1849 A.(\ ) for a rcfoix'iicc to this subject by the first Sir Jamsetjee Jejeebhoy, Bart., in an application made by him in Samvat 1847 to the Secretary to doveiTiment. There are three Towers of Silence at present at Surat; (1) Nanahhoy Modi’s, built in 1735 A.C. ; (2) Muncherji Seth’s, built in 1771. (3) Kdulji Seth’s, built in 1828. Resides these, one, which is now all in ruins, was built under the leadership of Punjia Paya in 1663. Again the existence of thix'e mort> is shown by the foundations now existing. It seems, from the above fiu t, of Akbar giving a grant of 100 bigahs of land for a Tower of Silence, that the oldest Tower of Silence of Surat, of the existence of which we have a documentary evidence, must have been built in or about 1673 when Akbar visited Surat. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 203 The document giving the grant was lost during this Sack of Shivajif So, the King of Ahmednagar who possessed Surat later on, passed in 1752 a new Jarman, confirming the first grant. The Qisseh speaks of several persons having been killed in A Note in an Shivaji's Sack. We find the entry of one Parsi Old Dishapothiy Disha-pothi^®^ of Naosari. It runs thus in about the deaths i- . i. i of a Parsi in the names under Sanivat 172b Sack of Shivaji. o\{ Si Ml. JiMMi i.e,, ‘‘(Roz) 28, (mail) 12. Ba (i.e., Behedin or layman) Goshtash Ba. Chanji Rana Sheth. Given as pa (/.(., or arlopted son) on mother's side. (He) was killed at Surat in the army of Seva (Shivaji)." The Samvat year 1726 corresponds to 1670 A.C. So, this death took place during the second sack. (,o n Masi'111^ h15|i. This is the record of a death at the hands of the Garassias, who were “ a class of land- holders who enjoyed lands or majntain a sort of feudal authority over them By profession these people are plunderers ” (Shapurji Edalji’s Dictionary). 204 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh to India with a large caravan (karvan, t.e., a fleet with a number of men). They came for noble trade as (lit. in the dress of) general merchants. Rustam Manock paid a visit to them. The Englishmen (kolah posh, lit. the hat-wearers) were much pleased with him. In a short time, there grew up reciprocal regard for each other and they cami^ to be of one thought and heart. Then, the English made the Seth (Rustam) their broker and entrustcfl to him all their affairs Rustam then procured for th(*m a beautiful, healthy house on the banks of the river, belonging to a well known man Haji Hajaz Beg ^ Ijw c. .‘ir);) at Rs. .‘bObO per year. The English factors spent their own moru'y over it and made several changes and decorated it. Rustam Manock then went with the Englishman to the Court of Aurangzib to re(|uest favours or concessions for the English. The name of tlu^ Englishman is not given, but lie is spoken of simply as a /.c., hat-wearer and Angrez,?.c., Englishman. Before siihmitting tl\e reiiuest, Rustam gave rich mzranch and presents both to the courtiers and to the King (Sultan). According to the Qisseli. Rustam thus placed before the Kmperor the case of the English : “ This man has come from the direction of the West to India for the purpose of commerce, but the Amirs (Courtiers) of the court of His Majesty do not admit him into the city with kindness. This Englishman is a very good mun and he is very full of hopes to have royal protection. He submits a reipiest, that, by the kindness of the King, there may be a place of shelti'r (or protection) for him in the city of Surat, so that he may bring there (i.c., at the place so given) his commerce and he may also have a store-house (or factory) there.” Aurangzib accepted the reipiest and ordered Asad Khan, who was the principal vazir before him, that a royal order (manshur-i shahi) may be given to the Englishman. The order was accordingly given. seh about the fo»owing facts Sngliah ambas- sador* s visit. 1. Rustam Manock was appointed a broker by the English. The date is not given. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 206 2. Rustam got a house for them at Rs. 3,000 per year. ^ 3. Rustam went with the English factor to Auiangzib’s Court. The name of the Englishman is not given. 4. Rustam Manock gave rich presents to the courtiers before- hand and so won them over to his request. 5. Asad Khan was the Minister (Vazir) in the presence of Aurangzib. * 6. The King, acce[)ting the Englishman’s request, ordered Asad K]^an to issue permission for granting all trade facilities to the English. Jamshed Kaikobad has not been very careful and accurate in giving expression in his poem to what he wanted to Qisseh' sac- about Rustam Manock’s appointment as a cmint rather broker of the English factory at Surat. One may vague, perhaps be misled to infer from his writing, that Rustam Manock went to pay a visit to the very first English settlers at Surat and was appointed their broker. It gives i!o dates of Rustam’s appointment as the English Factory’s broker and of his visit to the Court of Aurangzib. It does not give the name of the English factor with whom he went to Aurangzib’s Court. The translation of the Qisseh, which Jalbhoy, has given ^ is very ^ulty. The translator has taken much liberty. For exam- ple, the last couplet of the Section on the arrival of the English runs : ^j) ^ I; >i/j) i.e.,#The secret-knowing God made the fortune of the English brilliant in it {i.e., in the building rented for them by Rustam). But the translator has rendered this verse as follows : clHlM 05l5l^l 4cll, (p. 116). The Gujarati translation accompanying the transliteration, which I have referred to above, is more faithful than the translation 206 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh in Jalbhoy's book. In the Persian Qisseh, there is nothing about Eustam Manock being the broker of the English from the beginning. The last part in the above translation, viz: “Even the broker of the English from the first day was Rustamji Manockji and the afiairs of all the English were in his hands” is altogether an interpolation; and this seems to ha ve misled Mr. Jalbhoy Beth to say in his book, that Rustam Manock was from the very first associated with the East India Company at Surat. He says : — ^ Hi^fl ni'w-Hi h\(X[ cl 0. ilA^l cini clMrll (). • • Most of tlu'se statements, though correct in general terms, are inaccurate in particulars. These inaccuracies are: (1) that Rustam Manock was not tiie broker, or, as Mr. Jalbhoy speaks of him, shroff from the verj/ beginning of tlie establishment of the English factory at Surat. (2) His visit to Aurangzebe’s Coeirt was not in IfifiO. (3) Aurangzib's Court was not at Delhi during his and the English faidor’s visit. To properly understand the mac- curacies and determine the (question of the date of his appoint- ment as broker and of his visit to the Court of Aurangzebe, it is essential to know a brief history of the early advent of the English into India and of the establishment of their East India Companies which were more than one. So, I will direct here the attention of my readers to (a) a brief history of the trade of the English with the Bombay Presidency and (6) to the History of the East India Rustam Mamck and the Persian Qisseh 207 Riistam Ma- ywckf broker of ih% second Com- pany, — the Eng- lish East India Company — and not the, first, the London East India Company. Companies given above (Section HI). That brief account w^ll help us in properly grasping the trend of some facts referred to in the Qisseh and to see, that (a) the first arrival of the English at Surat was long before Rustam Manock’s time and (b) his visit to Aurangzebe’s court was long after 1660 and (c) that Aurangzeb’s court at the time was not at Delhi. , j We find from the above-written history of the? SngliBh a?' Surat and of the East' Trldia Companies, that Rustam Manock was appointed the broker of the second or New Company, known as the English East India (bmpany, which was founded in 1698-99, and not of the first Company, known as the London East India Company, founded in 1600. At the time, when the first Company was founded, the Surat factory was not established. It was established 12 years later. Rustam Manock was not even born at the time of the formation of the first Company in 1600, or at the time of the esta- blishment in 1612. He was born in 1635. We saw above, that the brokci;of the first Company in 1678 was a Hindu, a Bania by caste. The brokers of the old London East India Company were Vittal and Keshav Parekh, who continued to be the old Company’s brokers upto 1703, when they were seized and “barbarously tortureci,” till they paid three lakhs of rupees, by Itbar Khan, the Governor of Surat, because two ships, belonging to two Surat merchants Abdul Ghafur and Qasimbhai, were captured on 28th August 1703, on their way back from Mocha, and it was supposed that the European factories had some hand in the piracies, or, that they did not take sufficient measures, with their fleets, to keep off the piuates. The brokers of the English and French factories also were arrested, but they were soon released *Mr, Bomanji B. PateF® gives 1660 as the time of Rustam Manock’s visit to the Court of Aurangzib in the company of an English Factor, after his being appointed broker. Mr. Jalbhoy Seth, most probably following Mr. Patel, whose aid he acknowledges in his preface, gives the same date. They do not give the authority of their statement . In 1660, Rustam Manock was a mere youth of Sarkar’s Aurangzib, Vol. V,p. 367. 16 . Ibid.. Parsee Prakaah I, 208 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh (1660-1635—) 25 years of age. A raw youth cannot be expected to go on such an important errand. So, the reference in the Qisseh must be taken as the reference to the first arrival, in about 1699, of the President and factors of the second Company, the English East India Company, We are supported in taking the event as that of the arrival of the President or chief factor of the second Company in 16)99, by Bruce’s Annals. John Bruce says : While he (Sir Nicholas Waite) was President at Surat, Eiistum, whom, from his first arrival, he had employed as broker, &c.”^^Thus, w<* see, that Pustum Manock was the broker of the new or second Company the Kngllsh East India Company. Amd Khun in Anratujzih'H Court during l{u>i((ijn\^ Visits cc. as.'i, :m. Th(^ Qisseh says that, at the time of the visit of Rustam Manock at the Court of Aurangzib in company with the Englishman, Asad Khan was the Prime Minister (Vaziri Asad Klian budeh pish-gah c. 383). His original name was Muhammad Ibrahim Qaramanlu. Asad Khan was his title. He was called Jamdat-ul-mulk Asad Khan. He was born in 1625-26. H(‘ was given the title of Asad Khan by Shah Jahan in tlu; 27th year of his reign, f.c., in about 1655. He became Aurangzib's l)e])uty vazir in 1670 and full vazir in 1676 and (continued so till the death of Aurangzib.^^^ He died in 1716. According to Manucci, when Sir William Norris went in 1701 to Aurangzib, he saw him. We read : “ After he had rested for some days he (Norris) paid a visit to the chief minister, named Asett Can (Asad Khan), secretary of the king and his counsellor, and prayed him to assist him in the business he had to bring before the court, giving him great presents in order to obtain his support. ” Asad Khan promised support but to no efE(^c;t and Norris had to leave disappointed. As to the city of their interview, the Qisseh says (c. 364; ; The CU If where Rustam MatuKk ^ ^ 1 saw Aurangzib, f ^ | ^ J jjJ Bruce’s Annals of the East India Company, Vol. p. 595. Manucci's Storia do Mogor by Irvine, II p. 21, n. 1. Irvine’s foot- notes contradict one another. In a foot-note, No. l,on p. 300 of Vol. Ill, he gives the date of his being made a full Vazir as 1683-84. t Irvine’s Storia do Mogor by Manucci, HI, p. 300. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 209 i.e., Rustam went in the company of the English nan ; he rapifily took the way towards that king of Delhi. This couplet does not say that they went to Delhi but says that they went to the king of Delhi. But the translator of Jalbhoy^s book (p. 116) has mistranslated the second line as “cl 9*11^ mi ’’ i.e.y He went to Delhi with the kol'ah posh Englishman to have orders from that King. So Jalbhoy lias been misled, by the faulty translation, to say, that IJustam went to Delhi mi p. 3). Mr. Ruttonji Wacha^®^, and Mr. Bomanji B. PateP®^ also make the same mistake. But we saw above in our account of Aurangzib, that he left Delhi in 1683, and, though he died in 1707, he never returned to Delhi. 8o, the visit in 1701 was not at Delhi. The Qisseh does not name the Englishman who went to j Aurangzib’s court with Rustam Manock. He JfJnglishnmn of simply speaks of him as the kolah-posh (cc. 372 the Qisseh. 384) and as the Angrez (cc. 364; 373, 376, 380- 386, 3^91). But, as we saw above, it was with Sir William Norris that Rustam had gone to Aurangzib. The mention of Rus- tom’s name, as we will see later on, by Bruce in his Annal, describing Norris's embassy, shows that Rustam had accom- panied^ Norris. What we read in the Qisseh is, that Aurangzib ordered Asad Khan to give the English a forman. But in those The arrival ^ generally passed between the of the Farrndn issue of the Emperor’s Order and the issue of later on. ^ regular jirmdn. In this case, we learn, not • from the Qisseh, but from other sources, that there was a long delay. It seems that, when Aurangzib ordered a jirrmn for the President, Sir Nicholas Waite, one of the conditions was, that the English wen* to undertake to protect with their fleet, the Mogul ships, especially the pilgrim ships that went to Jeddah. Sir Nicholas Waite seems to have undertaken the responsibility, but the Ambassador, when he later on, went to Aurangzib repudiated it, because it was too great a responsibility. The Indian seas were infested not only p. 429. Parsee Prakash I, p. 23. 210 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh with Kfiglish pirates, against whom they can promise protection, but also with Portuguese, Dutch and other pirates. So, Sir William Norris's repudiation led to delay in the issue of the farrmn. I will say lier(‘ a few words about the embassy of Sir William Norris to (‘liable us to properly understand the solution. Sir William Norris left England in January 1698, arrived at Masalijiatam on tin* East (roast in September, and landed in state on 24tli l)(‘e(*mber 1698. He did not land at Surat, because, there, th(‘ old ('ompany, tin* Jjondon East India Company, of which the new Company, tin* hhiglish East India Company, was a rival, was pow(*rful, and, at th(‘ time of his arrival, no representative of the new company had as y('t arrived to receive and help him. The proposal for Ids ambassadorship was made by the new company.^®^ He s(*nt a notic(‘ from Masalipatam to tlie Court of Aurangzib, giving iidormation ‘‘ of his arrival in the capacity of Ambassador from (In' king of England, with the object of promoting trade a:id good ndations ; and, in due course, he received intimation that the various permits and mandat(‘s had b(^cn readily granted by the Mogul, so that lu* and Ids train could travel safely and unhindered to the camp. The permits, however, were long in coming, and this delay was causisl, not only by th(‘ great distance but also, so Sir William (Norris) suspt'cted, by intrigues and bribery, conducted by th(‘ old Comj)any's agents. '-*^ Waiting long, tin* Ambavssador gave up the thought of going direct from Masalipatam to the Court of the Mogul Emperor and proj)osed going via Surat, where, by this time, i.e., June 1699, the New (k)mpany had sent its ollicials. He was led to change his first j)lans and to take this course, because the new Cor^ipany’s local (i.c,, Masalipatam) agents did not help him heartily to go to the Mogul Court from Masalipatam. He (quarrelled with Pitt, the Lo(‘al President of the New Company there, and left for Surat. After four months' passage, he arrived at Surat on 10th December 1699. Tin' Mogul's Men of War saluted him and be received the honour of a State entry into the city on the 26th of December. An article, entitled “The Embassy of Sir Wihiam Norris to Aurang- zib ” by Mr. Hariliar Das gives us a succinct account of Norris’s Embassy, wheivin we lind 8ir Nicholas Waite referred to as helping Norris. (Journal of Indian History, Vol. Ill, p. 271 seq.) Ibid, pp. 272-273. . Rmtam Manock and the Persian Qisseh m Sir Nicholas Waite had, by this time, come to Surat as^tly) first President of the New Company. He at first helped Norris who left Surat for the Mogul's camp on 27th J anuary 1700. During his stay at Surat, Norris was annoyed at the conduct of the officials of the Old East India Company, and, among them, of “ Sir John Gayer, Governor of Bombay, the Old Company’s chief representative in India, who was then in Surat.” We thus see that Sir Nicholas Waite, who was the first Pr^ident of the New Company and who had ‘‘ from his first arrival at Surat”, appointed Rustam Manock his broker, must have come to Surat in the first halt of 1699. Thus the appointment of Rustam Manock as broker was also in 1699. Dates o/SiR William Norris’s visit to India as English A vd)assador : — % The Formation of the New English East India Com- pany . . . . . . . . . . . . 1898 Th*e Company found recognition by the King after the customary visit from its founders 6th April 1699^®® Sir William Norris left England . . January 1699 Arrived at Masai ipatam . . . . 25th September 1699 • He heard that the New Company’s officials (Sir Nicholas tVaite and others) had arrived at Surat . . June 1700 Left Masalipatam for Surat after 11 months’ stay August 1700 Arrived at Surat 10th December 1700 Made State Entry at Surat . . 26th December 1700 Started from Surat for Aurangzib’s Camp. 27 th January 1701 Arrived at Aurangzib’s camp at Parnello (Panalla) which was beseiged April ’ 1701 Formally received by Aurangzib . . 28th April 1701 Left Aurangzib’s camp disappointed . .5th November 1701 Idtd p. 274. I give the dates mostly according to Harihar Das (Journal of the Indiwi History, Vol. Ill, pp. 271-77). Sarkar (Aurangzeb, p.* 355 seq.) gives 16 months for Norris’s stay at Aurangzeb’s camp — ^27 th January 1701 to ISth April 1702. Vide above. 212 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh Detained at Barhanpore for two months at the direc- tion of Aurangzib who sent him there a letter and a sword for the English king. Left Barhanpur . . . . . . about 12th February 1702 Arrived at Surat after a month’s march. . 12th March 1702 Left Surat for liomeward journe) . . 5th May 1702 X. Bruce’s account of Rustam Manock’s visit of the Mogul Court in the comp .ny of the En? ish Ambassador and affairs after the return of Sir W. Norris’^ Eubassy. I will speak of the whole subject of Rustam Manock’s visit to tin* Mogul Court und(‘r two heads: i. R\u»t»iim Manock’s visit to the Mogul Coint with tile ^n’glish Ambassador. ii. The state of alTairs after the visit and after the return of the English Ambassador to England. I. Rustam Manock’s visit of the Mogul Court with an English factor. Rustam Manoek had, as a man of influence and as a broker of the. Company, accompanied the Ambassador, Sir William Norris, to the Mogul (.^ourt. As John Bruce’s Annals give us a good account of W. Norris's Embassy, and as Bruce mentions several times Rustam Manock in his account, I summarize here, in brief, Bruce’s account of the Embassy aiul his references to Rustam. I will, at ilrst, sjieak of Hir Nicholas Waite, who had appointed Itustam Manock t he broker of his Company, and wlio was much associated with the work of the Embassy to the Mogul Coiirt. Nicholas Waite was appointed its first President at Surat by the new English Company. He was, at first, Sir Nkholm file service of the old (London) East India PrLident Company at Bantam in Java and was dismissed of the New Kng- from their service. On the occasion of the appoint- Ush Company. ment, lie received the honour of Knighthood, His council was to have 5 members besides himself. His first assistant, to be known as “ the Second Rustam ManocJc and the Persian Qtsseh 213^ in Council ’’ was not appointed at first, but the choice was to be made from Mr. Stanley or Mr. Annesley or Mr. Vaux,, all of whoiif were dismissed by the old Company. The other members were Benjamin Mewse, Bonnel and Chidley Brooke. “ Under them, were appointed three Merchants, three Factors and eighteen Writers. Sir Nicholas Waite reached Surat on the 19th January 1700. Mewse and Brooke had arrived on the 16th November 1699.^^ Sir William Norris was appointed Ambassador to the Mogul Court at the instance of this Company by the King. He was to “soMcitand acquire privileges for the English Company or nation”^^^^ He was “ vested with discretionary powers but the Company's general orders were conveyed to him through Sir Nicholas Waite. The Company issued a general order “ that their Presidents, or Consuls, alone, were entitled to grant passes to country vessels, or to make applications, through their Ambassador, to the Native Powers, for grants or privileges to the English Nation. After landing at Surat, Sir Nicholas Waite began quarrelling with the factors of the old Company and directed the old Company's flag at Swally to be lowered. The Mogul Governor at Surat took this act as an interference in his and the Mogul Emperor’s authority and ordered the flag to be re-hoisted at once. ‘‘ If the first act of Sir Nicholas Waite was violent, it was succeeded by one still more* intemperate.”^^® He ‘‘without waiting for the arrival. of Sir William Norris at the Court of the Mogul addressed at once a letter to the Mogul, accused the London Company of being sharers and abettors of th^ piracies and ‘ of being thieves and confederates with the pirates ” He, declaring himself as President of the English Company and Consul for the English liation, represented, that “ he was accompanied with a squa^on of four men of war, sent by the King of England, to be employed, under his directions, in capturing and punishing the pirates, and obliging them to make restitution of the vessels and property which they had taken from the Mogul’s subjects.”^®®. John Bruce’s Annals of the Honorable East India Company from the Establishment.., to the Union of the London and English East India Companies (1810), Vol. Ill, p. 287. Ibid, p. 334. Ibid, p. 325. Ibid. Ibid, p. 327. Ibid, p. 336. Ibid, p. 337 Ibid. Ibid. 214 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qissek Bruce gives some other instances of Sir Nicholas Waites violent temper and conduct: — Sir William Morris landed with Mr. Norris, the Secretary, at Maslipatam as Ambassador on 25th September and wrote to Sir Nicholas Waite at Surat asking for “ copies of all Phirrnaunds (farmans), or privileges, which had been granted to the English. Wh'^e describing events of 1700-01, Bruc(^ says of Sir N. Waite. : “ Whatever merit may be assigned to this Agent of the English Company for his zeal, it was chance, not prudenc(‘, that pr(‘V(‘nt«‘any, at the rent of Rs. 3,000 per year. The fact of Sir N. Waite's hoisting the English King's flag upon it ex- plains why he iiad to seciin*, as said by the Qisseh, a })alatial buikling at su(;h a high r(‘nt. Wluui he wanted to lioist the King's flag, the lioiise must be worthy of the name of the British king. Then, Sir Nicholas Waite's niisrepresentations at th(‘ Mogul Court led to restrictions on tin' liberty of the servants of the old Company. There arose, tin'refore, correspondence between both, the President of the old Company at Surat and Sir N. Waite, each accusing the other. Both partic's now and then bribed the Mogul Governor of Surat. At length, both re(piested Sir John Gayer, the Governo'x of Bombay, to go to Surat to settle the dispute. The main point of dispute with the Mogul (h)vernor at Surat was the ((uestion of- damages, about Rs. SO hies, for a merchant ship ofHassan Ammed t on its having been captured by English pirates in 1688. In November 1710, Sir Jolm Gayer appeared at Sui;at. The Mogul Governor deimuided from Sir N. Waite, that he may guarantee that no damage was done to the nn*rchants' Vessels by the ships of the old Company. Waite refused to do so, unless th(‘ Mogul Governor umh'rtook to stop the old Company from trading. Under these circumstances of dispute between the agents of the two companies, the Mogul Governor of Hurat seized the letters that had pas.sed between Colt and Gayer. Ibid, p 344 Ibid, p. 370. Ibid, p. 370. »» Ibid, p. 372. Rustam Manoch and the Persian Qisseh 215 While these dispute3 were going on, Sir William Norris, the Ambassador, who had landed at Ma&lipatam an^ ^Sir William gQ fj-Qm there to the Mogul Emper*- sador or’s camp as Ambassador but had failed, came to Surat ill December 1700. He was as intemperate as Waite. On coming to Surat, he got the British Union flag dismounted from the old London Company’s ship. Sir J. Gayer got it hoisted again’ By this time, news came from England that the old Company's claims were considered and that it was to be cor^tinued as a Corporation. This news set up the spirit of the officers of the old Company, to the effect that, at least, both the Companies were ‘‘ on a state of equality. It was to retrieve the affairs of the English Company, shaken by this event, that Sir William Norris, at the great expense of a thousand gold mohurs to the Governor, five hundred to his son, and three hundred to two of his principal officers, obtained permission to make his public entry into Surat. Sir William Norris and Sir Nicholas Waite continued taking unworthy proceedings against the officers of the old London Company and went to the extent of imprisoning some of the officers and of getting Sir John Gayer and the members of his Council confined by the Mogul Governor.^^^ A short time after, Sir N. Waite was reprimanded by his Court of Directors for his conduct as Consul for having removed the old London ^Companjf’s flag from their factory at Swally.'^^’* Then “ Sir Nicholas Waite, without authority from Sir William Norris addressed a letter, in his Consular character, to the Mogul, requesting, as the London Company were to be dissolved, that a Phirmaund with the same privileges which had been granted to them might be conferred on the English Company. Among the vartous privileges which he asked, were included “liberty of trade, and to settle factories to any ports in the Mogul’s dominions; to have free ingress and egress for himself and Council, without search; — to have license to hire or build a house and warehouses. This statement of Bruce confirms all that we read in the Qisseh. The phirmaund, referred to by Bruce, as asked for by Waite, seems to be the farman, referred to in the Qisseh, as asked by the, English Factory through Rustam Manock. • Ibid. p. 375. Ibid. pp. 378-79. Ibid. pp. 386-387. Ibid. pp. 396-397. »» Ibid, p. 397. 216 Rustam Mamck and the Persian Qisseh .Sir N. Waite had sent letters to Sir W. Norris at Masalipatem “ by daily hircarrahs saying that he was making preparations at Surat for his rece})tion.‘‘^^^ Sir W. Norris left Muslipatani on 23rd August 1700 and arrived at Swally near Surat on 10th December Sir ir. NorriM\s 1700. Sir N. Waite had offered to give Rs. 10,000 arriraf at Snrnt. to Sir W. Noiris and credit for a lac and a half,. wliicli h(‘ had borrowed, as the stock in hand was exhausted by tin* investment” (p. 102). Sir W. Norris left Surat for tfie Mogul h]mp(*ror’s Court on 2()th January 1701 “with a retimn* of sixty Europeans and three hundred Natives." He arriv(‘d at KoktJy 00 kos from Surat on 8th February, reached Raneoh‘(* on 1 1th February where he was informed by Sir N. Waite tliat Sir John and the London (’om[)any's servants had been seized by tlu‘ Mogul odiccTs. He arrived at Gelgawn near Aurangabad on l!0h February, at Darnondavee on the 21st February, Brainpore on 3rd March and at I^irnella. the seat of Aurangzib's camp, on 7lli April 1701 (pp. ^05-0). In on(‘ of his l(*tt(‘rs to the (,^ourt of Directors at home, Sir N. Wait(‘ laders to his house at Surat and says that “ the house wliich he had hir(‘d, as a Factory, was commodious, and situated iu‘arer to tlu' ( aistom-house, than that of the London Company. This s(‘(‘n\s to b(‘ th(‘ house, whitJi according to the Qisseh Rustam had rented for tlu‘ English factory, at Rs. 3,00(1 ])er year. liar-kiini, (of all work, .an outdoor sorvant emjJoycd to go on errands..., nnvsscngor, eoiirior” (Steingass). The word has latterly beeoin<‘ hal-karah, Pai^si-t Jujaratlii. 1 think originally it is Avesta han-kara from han. (Ir. Syin, syii, together with, and kara work. Tlie wonl would mean “one who makes all joined togt?- ther." King Kavi Husrava (Kaikhosrn) is spoken of as han-kerena ?.e., “one who miwle all together into one ”. This seems to be a reference to the establishment of a Postal Department. A har-karch (properly s|H'aking, han-kaixdi), a mes.s(‘nger, a |)ostinan, being one who brings distant places into a eloser eontaet. Cyrus, who is sj)oken of by some, as being the same as Kai Khiisru, is known to have established the system of eourioi's, or a kind of jx)8tal de|mrtment in his dominions. His postmen woiv these har-kaixdis or han-kaiehs. The letter ‘n' can be read in Pahlavi as ‘ r \ Henee ‘ liankareh' has become har-kareb. Bruce's Annals III, p. 401. Ibid, p. 407. Rmtam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 217 There arose, at times, some differences between the Ambas^ sad or Sir W. Norris and the Consul Sir N. Waite, because the latter wished that Sir W. Norris, when at the Court of the Mogul, may use all his influence against Sir John Gayer and his officers who were imprisoned, but Sir W. Norris did not like to be unreasonable. Again, Sir N. Waite hesitated to advance indeflnitely for the expenses of the embassy, money which had, in a sliort time, amount- ed toRs. 3,55, f79. • Sir W. Norris went in a pro(;ession to see the Emperor on 28th April 1701. By this time. Sir Nicholas Waite had created a bad impression about him at home. The Directors of his English Company disapproved of the intemperence of Sir Nicholas Waite, in his interferences with the Governor of Surat, which had augmented the oppressions Sir John Gayer and President Colt had experienced, without serving any useful purpose. We learn from Bruce’s Annals^^^ that Sir William Norris, whom Places touch- Rustam Manock had accompanied passed through ^Manock^on^il following places after leaving Surat on the way with the 26th January 1701 A mbassador to the Mogul Court. Arrived ait — 1. • Kokely, 66 miles from Surat, on 8th February 1701. 2. Bencolee 14th February. 3. Gelgawn near Aurangabad 19th February. 4. Damondavee ’ 21st February. 5. ^rampore 3rd March. 6. Parnella, the Camp of Aurangzeb, 7th April. • The date of the Embassy to the Court of Aurangzeb comes The date of to, as we saw above, about C author iam^^and^ ^1^'e Qisseh gives no dates of all the events. Atnhassador to Other later writers give the date as 1660. Mr. Err^^of^mne Framji Wacha gives the date of Rustam Farsi uniters. Manock’s visit to the Mogul Court as 1029 Ibid, p. 446. Vol. HI. p. 404 et seq, (1874), p. 429. 218 ^untam Manock and the Persian Qiseeh Yazdajardi, i,e., 1660 A.C. Bomanji B. Patel follows suit and ^ivcH the same year.^^ Jalbhoy Seth, Rustam Maiiock’s descendant, also gives the same date,*^^ following Mr. B. B. Patel, whose help he acknowledges. But all seem to err. Rustam died in 1721 aged 86. So, the event of the visit as given by these thr(‘e Parsi writers, viz., 1660, must be taken as having occurred 61 years before his death, when he was aged only 25. Th(^ dat(* is erronc'ous, because the event occurred late in his life,, after the sack of Surat and after Aurangzeb imposed the Jaziyeh tax as described in tin* Qisseh. Again, the age of 25 is too young for Rustam to ha\(‘ ac(|uired all the necQssary influence at Surat to be appointed a broker and to go ns an influential personage, with the Knglisli (‘iivoy to the Mogul Court. Sir VVilliani Norris's Embassy at Aurangzib's Court failed, .. b(‘caust^ various reasons interfered in the complete XipasoTiH jor the ^ failure of Xor- success of the Embassy, though the Ambassador ris's Kmha.ss}/. stayed long and spent a good deal of money on the upkeep of his cam[) and on presents, properly speaking bribes, ^ to the Mogul oflict'rs. The ])rincipal point of failure was the insist- ence on tile part of the Emperor that the Ambassador should give a guarantei* for tlu' safety at sea of Pilgrims' and Merchants’ vessels. So tin' Ambassador left the Mogul Court at Panella on 5th November 1761. The various factories expressed their displeasure at tin* failuri* of tin* Embassy in receiving proper farmans. Among tin* faults of the Ambassador, one \vas said to be his disrespect to Asad Khan, the Prime Minister (vazir) at Burhanpore, where he did not pay the mistomary visit to him. Some time before the Am- bassador's departure, “the Mogul's Ministers . . . sent by Rustum the broker, the* obligation required by the Emperor, for the Ambassador’s signature, which he refused, on the principde that, if granted, it would bring an incalculable demand on the English Gompanv which must ruin their affairs *** Panjoo Pmkash I, p. 23. ri4 (Genealogy of the Seth Family) p. 3. Bruce 8 Annals, Vol. Ill, pp. 46S-9. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qissik m The Ambassador on his return jmrrhey. The Ambassador, while returning, was stopped after three days' march, on the ground that he had left witl^ulf the Emperor's dusticks^^^ or passes, those that he had already with him being those of inferior officers. He was asked to wait for two days, but, at the end of the period, not hearing from the Court, he proceeded further and arrived at Burhanpore on 14 :th November 1701 and left it on 22nd November. But he was shortly compelled to return to Burhanpore. Oa 28th November, he Ifearnt “ that orders had been sent to Surat, for the seizure of the property of the ol(^ London Company and the persons of their servants” On 2nd December, “ he was informed, that, at the recommendation of Gazedee Khan (the Mogul’s Chief General) the Phirmaunds would be granted, and a demand was made of a sum of money, for the intercession of this officer.” On the 4th February 1702, he was informed by Gazedee Khan, “ that he had received a letter and sword from the Emperor, for the King of England, with a promise, that the Phirmaunds should be sent in a short time.”^^^® He left Burhanpore for Surat on 5th February 1702. In connection with this matter, we read as follows Rustum, the broker, was detained by the Emperor’s orders, but was directed by the Ambassador, not to tention at^ the obligation, or give any further sums of Mogul Court. money, on account of the Embassy. Sir William Norris, at this time, promised to Gazedee Khan, that should the Phirmaunds be granted (besides the two • thousand three hundred gold mohurs, which he had actually paid to him) he should be farther remunerated with a l^k and a half, and his brother, with twenty thousand rupees.” The mention of Rustam’s name several times by Bruce in the account of Norris's embassy to the Mogul Court, clearly shows that the unnamed kolak posh or Angrez of the Persian Qisseh, in whose company Rustam Manock went to the dastak, lit. “a little band”; a pass, passport, per- mission (Steingaas)^ 1 think the word may be a corruption or contractioix Of dastkhat ^ ^ handwriting, signature. •^»*’ Btuce’8 Annals, III, p. 471. Ibid, p. 471. ®»Mbid, p. 471 471-72., '220 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh Mogul Court was Sir William Norris. The detention of Eustam Manoek hy the Emperor shows that he was hold to be a prominent rueinber of Sir W. Norris\s Embassy. Sir William Norris reached Surat on 12th April 1702 and “on the 18th waited on the new (TOV(‘rnor and obtained permission for Nicholas Waite to out of the city, in which he had been confined since the Ambassador left the Court.” Sir William Norris left Surat with 18 persons of his retinue for England on 29th April 17()2, paying Rs. 10,000 passage on a special ship. His brother, VnifiKje, Mr. Norris, who was the Secretary of the Eiiibassy, and 14 others of his suite went on board another ship which carried cargo of Rs. 60,000 for th<‘ Company and Rs. 87,200 for Sir AVilliam Norris. Sir William Norris and Sir Nicholas Waite did not part on good terms. Sir William “declined to deliver to Sir Nicholas Waite, a copy of his diary or pa})ers, though he gave up his horses, camel, ox(*n and eh'piiant, to be sold, on the Company's account.^' From th(‘ tim(‘ when the Ambassador left th(‘ Mogul Court, Sir Nicholas Wait(‘ began to charge in his dispatches to his English (^)mpa^ly, 1 he Ambassador of “imprudence of Ids conduct but promised to obtain the Phirmaunds through the means of the broker, without the condition of Security-Bonds,” which wanted to tlirow the responsibility of acts of piracy on the English Company. Hen' again we see that Rustam Manock was an inlluential personage in the eye of the English factory. Sir Nicholas Waite in his report, after referring to the causes of the failure of the Embassy, said that the Embassy had cost, in all, Rs. 676, 800 “ and that the Phirmaunds still remained to be purchased.” n. The state of affairs after the visit and after the return of the Ambassador's return to England. Rustam's association with those affairs. During this time, some attempts were made at home to unite the two Companies. The attempts came to maturity the two Coil 1702-1703. More earnest measures were made, pafiies. with the despatch of new Men-of-War to suppress the p irates. “The Court hoped, that this measure /6iVf, p. 472. Ibid, pp. 472. Ibid, p. 477. »”a Ibid. Rmtam Manoch and the Persian Qisseh 221 would counteract the misrepresentations to the Mogjfl Government, which Sir Nicholas Waite had so improperly made, that the London Company had been secretly connected with the pirates.’’ Sir Nicholas Waite received a .formal intimation of the Union of the two Companies whose separate stocks were to cease to exist from 22nd July 1702. He was required to use his best endeavours to relieve Sir John Gayer, and the London Company’s servants, from the restraints under which they had been placed. ' In case, the Mogul Government pressed for compensation for the depredations by the pirates, “ he was directed to retire with the English Company’s effects, to Bombay, that Island being now the joint property of both Companies.” During this interval, “though several months had elapsed since the Embassy left Surat, for Europe, Sir Nicholas Waite continued to ascribe to Sir William Norris, the failure of the negotia- tion, and to raise the hopes of the Court, that he would procure the Phirmaunds through the interest of Gazedeer Khan.”^^^ He was against the Union of the two Companies, but, when formal intimation of the'Union was conveyed to him, he accepted the position and “ assumed a formal civility to Sir John Gayer, which was returned, as formally; neither, evidently, placing any reliance on ceremonies to which each submitted.” ^ Sir® John Gayer notified the Union “to the (Mogul) Government of Surat, as an event which, he trusted, would draw away all future opposition of English interests this act of duty was interpreted, by Sir Nicholas Waite, to be unfriendly to the interests of the English Company, and to it, he ascribed the stop which' has been put to the Phirmaunds passing the Mogul’s Great Seal.”3^ He then consulted the other Presidencies, “ whether he shoi^d take any further steps to obtain the Phirmaunds, because the estimated expenses of procuring them, would amount to the sura of Rs. 3,20,000, and he did not know whether they could be carried to the separate stock of the English Company, or to the United Stock ; meantime, that he revoked the powers given to Rustum, the broker, to defray these charges, even should he be ^ble to obtain the Ph irmaunds. In reply, those Presidencies Ibid, p. 493. »»» Ibid, p. 512. Ibid, p. 513. Ibid, p. 519. Ibid. »»« Ibid, pp. 519-20. 222 Rustam Mdfiock avd the Petsiafi . Qisseh gave it as their opinion, that, as the Phirmaunds would ap|)Jy tO‘ both Companies, now United, they did not consider the expenses, ^ as any reason for precluding him from soliciting them, as they were grants of so mucli importance to the trade of India. ♦Sir Nicholas Waite, after being informed of the Union by the Court in Hngland, had, as said abov^e, expressed his claiHt ^ resolution t(^ observe a friendly intercourse with Sir John (faytT and his Council but that Rustinn, tin* brokiT, had made a (*laini for sums expended, in obtaining the Ambassador's pardon from the Mogul.” The pardon was for his want of courtesy in leaving the Mogul (a)urt without passports from the Emperor- an act for which h(‘ was detained at Purhanpore. Bruce thinks “that further negociation for Phirmaunds, was a pretext, only; as the obtaining them would not have answere'd the purposes for which they were solicited’ ” (k)usul Pitt, and the Council at Masulipatam, still continu(*d und(‘r tln‘ deception that Sir Nicholas Waite would be abl(‘ to obtain tlu‘ Pbirmaunds.” On the foundation of the United East India Company. Sir .folin (layer was re-apj)ointed “ (reneral and Governor r/'f Bombay,” Mr. Burinston, Deputy Governor, (Jorernor o} Nicliolas Waite, President at Surat. “To HoinlMn. pr(‘vent tin* recurrence of animosities, the Consular powers of Sir Nicholas Waite were revoked, as being, from the Union, no longer neei'ssary.”^'*^ Sir John Gayer was ordered to go to “the seat of Government at Bombay.” From 22nd July 17()2 “ all charges were to be defrayed by the United Stock. further, “it was ordered, that an exact account should be taken of the sums which had been extorted from the London Company, as (‘oinpensation for the piracies; but if the Phirmaunds had' not been obtained by Sir Nicholas Waite, all farther negotiation respect- ing them was to terminate.”*'^*^ “When the Court (of Directors), towards the close of the season, were informed that the Phirmaunds had not been procured^ they held it to be a fortunate circumstance, because it would p. 520. p. 520. »*• /6«, p. 521. /6id. p. 522: **• Ibid, p. 631. Ibid. Ibid. »« Ibid. . *** Ibid, p. 632. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qiss^ 223 ^ / prevent the payment of the large sums demanded for them, which must have embarrassed the English Company, and might have protracted the final settlement of the Union, which both Companies were , solicitous to complete, previously to the lapse of the prescribed seven years.” As to the brokers, it was ordered that “ the leading rule must bo, to check all combinations among their brokers, and to endeavour to recover from them all debts incurred eithcT in the sales of European; or the purcliase of Indian produce.” t In spite of the Union, differences between Sir John Gayer and Sir Nicholas Wa!tt‘ continued. The former's invitation to the latter for presence, when the inventory of the Dead Stock of the London Company was taken, was refused. One of the grounds for doing so, was that ” Sir John Gayer, by notifying the Union to the Governor of Surat (the Phirmaunds not having been obtained) had brought on a misunderstanding, which might be prejudicial to the English Company’s affairs.” We find froni’ the proceedings of the next year (1704-5) that “the most decided approbation was given to Sir John Gayer and his Council,” by the Court at home and there was “ the most marked disapprobation of Sir Nicholas Waite’s conduct.” Again, Sir N. Waite was censured for not assisting in the taking of the •inventory of the Dead Stocks of both Companies. During this year 1/04-5, the Home authorities, at first, were in doubt, whether Sir John Gayer was released by the Mogul Governor or not. So, to provide for the contingency or his still being in prison, they “provided, that should Sir John Gayer remain a prisoner at Surat, when the instructions arrived, or for three mouths subsequently to that period, then Sir jSiicholas Waite instead of being President at Surat, should act as General (of Bombay), provisionally, and employ his utmost - efforts , for the release of Sir John Gayer, and for recovering the Securify-Bonds extorted formerly from President Annesleyi” p. 532. «« im, p, 633. Ibid, p. 642. »« Ibid, p. 656. Ibid. . Ibid, p. 657. Ibid. p. 664. 224 Rustam Mamck and the Persian Qis^iCh The Mogul Governor of Surat, not being able to know ''whether Hunt a m John Gayer, or Sir Nicholas Waite, was the Mam)ck depute chief officer of the United Company demanded evidence of the fact from both. Sir W aite ffjT a jyri- j o* -vt rate risit to John Gayer, on this ernergemcy, requested bir N. the (Jovernor. Waite to send an agent from the English Com- pany, to meet one from the London Company, that they might together wait on the Governor, and state to him, that Sir John Gaym* was tlie (jren(‘ral of the United Company.’' But, instead of complying with this requ(*st, Waite “ sent Rustum, his broker, privately t() tlp^' G()vyrnqr, to insinuate that Sir John Gayer had l)e(‘n displaced, tjuit; he,, liimself, was the Genera], and that Sir John (hiyer must b(‘ confined, and a pro])er guard placed over tln^ London (V)mpany's Factory, if the Mogul Government inttmdcMl to ri’cover money for the damages done by the ])irates, amounting to (‘ighty lacks of rupees; and, 'at the same tim(\ se(^ond('d this inicpiitous proceeding, by sending liim a bribe of twenty-S(^v('n thousand rupees.” Th(‘ Mogul Governor, taking this to be true, ‘‘asked ^Ir. Bonnell, and anotlier Member of the Englisli Company’s .sir John a„y. Z, , Vuncil, whether, Sir Joliii Gayer’-'^ should be allow- edtogo to Bombay (as he was no longer General), the English (‘ompany would become bound for tlie debts due by th(‘ London Company: — Sir Nicholas Waite..' pnderred the t‘-\j)e(lient of refusing to become bound for the debts of (ln‘ London Company and left their General to his fate : tin' immediate co!ise((uence was, that Sir John Gayer and the London (Vnnpany's servants, were kept in more close con- linem(‘nt. " Mr. Burnstone, the Deputy Governor of iSombay, and Commodore Harland who commanded the men of wa^;, on lu'ariiig of this event not only remonstrated but addressed letters to tile Governor of Surat, assuring him that Sir John Gayer was, 7/)c/rp p. 565. ~ Sir Jolm Layers arrival at Surat from England has been thus given in a (iujamti Jainaspi ; " ^ In Samvat 1750, on roz 5, mah 6, Shajan (i.e.. Sir John) Gayer Signor (i.r., an European gentleman) has come to-day from London. { Vide my Pahlavi Translations, Part III, Jamaspi. Preface, p. XX.) Ibuiy ppi 565-66. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 225 in fact, the General of the United Company in India, and that the reports of Rustum, and of Sir Nicholas Waite, weie not only Sx opposition to the orders which had been received from the Court of Managers, but absolutely false, and, therefore, demanded that Sir John Gayer might be released.”^®® Sir John Gayer's confinement was ordered for three years. Alarmed at this letter, the Mogul Governor asked Sir N. Waite to pass a Bond of Security that he would immediately proceed to Bombay, and, in the event of any of the Surat ships being taken, deliver them up.’" Both, Sir John Gayer and Sir N. Waite, wrote letters to the Court of Managers in England against one another. Then, when, according to the abo\gQ|^oifil^^t8l from Commodore Harland for a ship to come ^SiVxV. Mtute, to Bombay, the latter refused. So, he came to Bassein by land and then took a country vessel appointed for Bombay where he arrived in November 1704. Rustam broker Acting Governorship of Bombay also for the , ^ ^ United ^ report about Bombay to Trade.’'* London. In it, he reported that he ‘‘had nominated Rustum to be broker for the United Trade. Then, in one of his reports, he said “ that, in future, a Factor or two, and a few Writers, would be perfectly sufficient for the ma- nagement of the United Trade at Surat, as Bombay must be made tke centre of their power and trade.’*^^^ This is the beginning of his attempts to give Surat, a second place of importance, and Bombay, of which he was now Governor, the first place. At this time, the Dutch, retiring from Surat to Swally, had threatened to harass the trade, unless the Security Bonds for the protection of the Surat Trade from the pirates were returned to them^ The bonds were returned to them. Sir N. Waite could not similarly force the return of the Security Bonds from the English, because, he had no sufficient force to blockade tlte river at Surat. However, he obtained “ a promise from the Governor to deliver up the Security Bonds and to use his influence to obtain a new Phirmaund.” Commodore Harland, not pulling on well with Sir N. Waite, retired from Bombay on 29th January 1705. — • ■ »« Ibid, p. 566. •" Ibid. Ibid, p. 669. Ibid, p. 670. 76ia,p, 371. 226 Rustam Manock a^d the Persian Qisseh In 1705-6, the affairs of the United Company, had, in no tvay, improved. The English Company seems to have been forced to consent to the Union. It was after some years after the first Union, that both the Companies were to cease as separate concerns with separate management. So, the English Company’s Directors^ at times, sent instructions opposec- to the Union. Sir N. Waite continued the use of his influence for strict measures for Sir John (layer’s confinement. The Directors of the English Company encourag(*(l Sir Waite in his attempts to hold and grasp further powers for himself and the English Company It appears that, at this time (in I7()5-f) ), “the (rovernor of Surat was e((ually indisposed against all the European Companies. “Six Dutch ships had arrived off Surat, and blockaded the ])ort, ()n which tlu' ( Mogul ) (rovxumor ordered the Members of the English (Council to lx* confin(*d within the city, and supplies of provisions and water withheld from tin* shi])])ing."'^^“ Again, “the Mogul's army in D(‘cember 1705, was within tliree days’ march of tin* (hast, opposite the island of Bombay, and Sir Nicholas Wait(* was “ in an alarm for tlie safety of the Company’s property. Again, the Mahrathas “in A])ril 1706 invested the (’ity of Surat, for nine* days."-*^*'’ By this time, tlu're aros(* a friction between Sir Nicholas Waite and Itustam. “ While he was President inren V Surat, Rustum, whom, from his first' arrival, [r/oVf* and he had employed as broker, continued, from hustam. interested motives, attached to his views; but after . he assumed the (dlice of (leneral at Bombay, this cautious Nativ(*, disccnering that his object was to make that Island the (‘cntre of trade explaiiu'd to Mr. Bonnel and Mr. Proby, the English (k>mj)any's servants at Surat, that Sir Nicholas Waite had pro.mised to give him fifty thousand rupees, to use his influence with the Ciovi'rnor, to keep Sir John Uayer confined, which sum was to be paid to him. individually, by advances, on the prices of the Company’s, goods, to that account. When Sir Nicholas Waite was informed of this conduct of Rustum, he dismissed him from the English Company's employment, notwithstanding the United Trade Ibid, p. 58(5. Ibid, p. 593. Ibid, p. 594. Ibid. Ibid, »«* IlHd. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qissdi 227 was then indebted to him 1,40,000 rupees, and the separatj^ Companies 5,50,000 rupees and if the Surat Council had not prevailed on the merchants to take their bills, the whole property of the English would have been seized.^®®" This state of aliairs between Nicholas Waite and Mr. Proby, would not but produce animosities : -the former protesting against the conduct of the Waite and Mr, latter aiul of Mr. Bonnell, and they retaliated, by Proby. declaring, in their letters to the Court, that it was impracticable to procure regular investment, under the contradictory orders which Sir Nicholas Waite sent to them, and, in fact, it was impossible to execute them ; and, therefore, unless Rustum should be restored they neither could be responsible for the Company’s property, nor their own liberty. Under such an administration it may be easily supposed that neither the stock of the United Company could be safe, nor their investments forwarded ; and farther, to second their applica- tion in favour of Rustum, Mr. Proby and Mr. Bonnel accused Sir Nicholas Waite of procuring goods, at cheaper rates for himself, than for the Company, and of having purchased one hundred and forty four bales of indigo, on his private account, contrary to the positive orders of the Court. While affairs were in this state at* Surat, Sir Nicholas Waite rei^orted to the Court, that Bombay was weak in the matter of soldiers and that fresh European soldiers may be sent. Coming to the year 1706-7, Bruce speaks of “ the conse- quences of the unwise proceedings by which Unwise pro^ gjj. ]\qcholas Waite endangered the existence of N. Waite. Company s trade and Settlements and the • weakness of the Court of Managers in still permit- ting him to continue in office.” The Mahratha armies were hovering about Surat. The Dutch fleet blockaded Surat and secured a release from their Security Bonds and Sir Nicholas Waite was continuing his oppression of Ibid, p. 596. Ibid, p. 596. Ibid, p. 614. The members of the Court of the United Company were, for some time, spoken of as Managers, those of the London Company as Committees, and those of the English Company as Directors. 228 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh the London Company’s servants. His conduct ‘‘had nearly ruined their affairs.”^®® Waite complained, that “ Mr. Proby and Mr. Bonriell, the Surat Council had embezzled the Company’s property, in indigo, to the value of eleven thousand rupees, and given credit to tin* accusations of Kustum, the broker, against him Mr. Proby and Mr. Bonnell, in r<*ply, asserted that Sir Nicholas Waite had been guilty of fraud, in making an overcharge in the purchase of the Company’s goods, to the amount of thirty-five thousand rupees, and that he had [)romis(*d this sum to Rustiim, tlie broker, if he would use his influence with the Governor, to detain 8ir John Gayer, and tin* London (’onipany's Council, in confinement."^®^ This j)assag(* shows that tin* relations between Sir N. Waite and Rustam Manoe-k continued to be a estranged. The Cofuiril of the tl nited KuM India ('o/n- l^nnf transfer- rinij itself tothe (/Karters rented till Hn stain. By this time, the United Council (/.c., the Council of the United Hast India Company) was formed as fol low's ; Mr. B(*ndall (Old London Company's Servant) IVsident. Mr. Broby (New English (’onijiany’s Sfuvant) Second .Mr. Wyclie (Ijondon (\)m])any's) . . . . Third. Mr. Boom* (English (’ompany's) . . . . . . Fourth. ... . ^ Sir Nicholas Waite did not approve of these nominations. The United Uouncil, immediately on ap[)ointment, n^moved to the English (’om|)any's factory at Surat, which Rustam had secured for the English Factory for Us. .‘LOBO per year. They also requested th(* Court's [)rot('ction against the malicious representations of Sir Ni(‘holas Waite, under whose orders they regretted tjhey had been unfortunately placed. Sir N. Waite, in his representation to the Court, asked for more Officers and W’riters. He also t;sked for mon* soldiers, as he had to hire Topasses.’’^^ //>!(/, p. Ibid, p. 619. Ibid, p. 620. " Port ugezo Topaz, perhaps from the Hindustani Topi, a hat. Anative ('hristian sprung fniin a Portuguese father and Indian mother in the south of India ; in tlio early liistory of the Company, these people were extensively enlisteii a,s soldiers; hence, this term came to be applied to the Company’s native soldiery geuerally in the Peninsula.” (Wilson’s Oriental Language tUossary of Terms, p. 52.”).) Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 229 President Pitt of Madras, in one of his general reports to the^ old Company at this time, disapproved of the Union of the two Companies, but added : “ But that, considering the conduct of Sir Nicholas Waite, and the license which had been given him, to continue his unjustifiable proceedings, which had nearly brought the Company’s trade on the West Coast to a stand, it was fortunate, perhaps, that the Union had taken place ; for such had been his absurd violence, that Mr. Brabourne would not accept the office of Deputy Governor of Bombay, because he would not serve under a man, whose behaviour he represented to be so absurd, that the civil servants of the (company, in that quarter, had declared they would rather be private sentinels at Fort St. George than serve as Second in Council under Sir Nicholas Waite. In 1707-8, Sir Nicholas Waite, who hitherto was encouraged “ in his narrow and selfish projects of N. Waite continuing himself in power ; and retaining dismissed. gir Jolm G«iyer and the London Company’s oldest and best servants in confinement ” was dismissed from the service. They “ appointed a new General and Council at Bombay, four of whom were to constitute the President and Council at Surat. The general instruction given to this Council was, to lay aside animosities of every kind and to exert thoir best endeavours for the liberation of Sir John Gayer *and his . Council. “The Managers of the United Trade, and the Committees of the London, and the Directors of the English Companies, adopted measures to prepare for their foreign Settlements for the Award of Lord Godolphin, which, it had been enacted should be completed before tke 29th September 1708. The Court of Managers, undej the circumstances, appointed a new General and Council at Bombay : — Mr. Aislabie, formerly in the London Company’s service, was nominated to be General; Mr. *Proby, Second in Council.” This Council which was to consist of seven persons in all, were “ to select four of themselves to be President and Council at Surat.” Then “ the Court of the London Company notified to Sir John Gayer, that Sir Nicholas Waite had been •’* Bruce’s Annals, Vol. Ill, pp. 625-26. Ihid, p. 636. Ihid im, pp. 640-41, im, p. 641. 230 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qissek dismissed from the service of the United Company ; lamented his long confinementatSurat,*^^^ and informed him that Mr. Aislabie had, with his Council, riiceived the most positive orders to use every effort for his liberation The Court of the Elnglish Company soft(‘no(i, as niu(‘h as they could, to Sir Nicholas Waite, the event of his disniission, by informing him that the Court of Managers had thought fit to ' discovtinne' him from being General at Bom bay. A short timr* befor(‘. this dismissal, and some time after the d(*ath of Aiirarigzil), when his sons fought against each other, and when tin* Malirathas, under ‘ Som Jiajah ’ (Sahaji) on the one liiitid, Mi(. Aral) llccts on the other, taking advantage of the weiik'tiess of (lu; Mogul Power, were UKserting their p^ers, Sir Nii holas VVaiti', as (General at Bombay, and the Company’s Agents at Surar were eontiniiing their reeiproeal. aninio.sities.3’9 Sir Nieh.das Waite wanted to bring tlic trade from Surat to Bombay and the Surat factors oppo.se.l him in this attempt. We .saw above that It was tins attempt and tliis opposition that had led Sir N. Uaitc to remove Kustani from his hrokershij). The Factors at Surat eoiuplMiiied, t hat “ tliey liad been obliged to contract debts, on the Cniteil Company's aeeoiint, to the amount, this .season (ITOi S) o^^.(^^) rupees. Under these eireiimstanees, “any appliea^i^ a Pliirmaund was impraetieable."'‘**C f«"<>'ving particulars an, I date Manock s association with the Ainiah. Fast India Company on the aiithoritv of John , Blue,' s .\niials January litio. Rustam Manock a])j)ointed broker of the , New hmghsh Fast India Coni|)anv. In 11)98, th,' Private Mer- «'l-ants of l-inglan,! ha.l “ renewed their fonm^r application to obta.n Ir,),,,^ Parliament an A,'t for creating a New East India Company. The Act was pa.ssed in 1698. News of the formation y 111,' ,online,m'nt kas not in any prison but in liis Factory. He was //)< p. (mO. Honorable East n.b,v C,.n.,)any fron, their Hslal.lisbment by the Charter of Queen Elizabeth. fiW. to tho I nionofthe I.„n,ion and English East India Companies, lf07 S, by John Bruce, V^ol. 111(1810). ^ Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 231 of the new Company arrived at Fort St. George on 2v^th October 1698. Sir Nicholas Waite, who was appointed the first President of this Company at Surat, arrived off Bombay on 11th January 1700. He arrived at Surat on 19th January 1700. As he em- ployed Rustam as bioker from the very time of his arrival at Surat, we arrive at the latter end of January 1700, as the date of Rustam’s appointment as broker. 20th January 1701. Rustam Manock left Surat for the Mogul Cou^t in the Company of Sir William Norris, the Ambassador from the English Court. Sir William Norris had landed at Masalipatam on 25th September From there, he went to Surat and arrived there on LOth December 1700, and left Surat for the Mogul Court on 20tli January 1701. Rustam accompanied him. 7th April 1701 .- Sir William Norris and Rustam Manock arrived at Parnella, the seat of Aurangzcb's camp. 28th April 1701. Sir William Norris went to Aurangzib’s Court in a procession and paid a formal visit to pay respects. It was during the interval between 7th April, the date of arrival at Parnella, ami 28th April, the date of the formal ofhcial visit, that Rustam Manock must have made the presents from the Ambassador, and, perhaps, from himself also, as said by the Qisseh, t^ the Prime Minister and other Officials of the Court. It was at this visit* that Rustam Manock seems to have interpreted the' desire of the Ambassador and asked for a farman, etc. 5th November 1701. — Sir William Norris remaining at , Parnella for about 7 months, left the Mogul Court to return » to Surat ji 84h November 1701. — Sir W. Norris and Rustam detained on the road, after 3 days’ march from the Emperor’s camp, on the ground, that Norris had left the camp without a pass frofn the Emperor himself, the one that he had being from an inferior officer. 14th November 1701. — Sir W. Norris and Rustam reached Burhanpore. 22nd November — Both left Burhanpore, but were obliged to return at the instance of the Governor of Burhanpore. 232 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 5th February 1701. — Sir William Norris left Burhanpo re for Surat, but “ Eustam, the broker, was detained at the Emperor’s orders.” Rustam seems to have been detained by the Emperor, because being an important personage of the Embassy, he may be nearer the Court to receive final orders about the /arwan, etc. February-March 1701. — Sir Nicholas Waite “revoked the powers givc^n to Rustam, the broker, to defray the charges ” of ob ta i n i n g Ja r }nanH . 1701. — Sir Nicholas Waite informed the Court of Directors that “ Riistum, tlu^ broker, had made a claim for sums expended in obtaining the Ambassador's pardon from the Mogul.” This pardon refers to the fault of the Ambassador having left the (k)iirt siuhhmly without a pass from the Emperor. 1701. — -When Sir John Gayer was appointed the General of the United Company, Sir Nicholas Waite “sent Rustum,his broker, privately to the (Mogul) Governor, to insinuate that Sir 'John Gayer luul b(‘en displaced, that he, himself, was the General, and that Sir John Gayer must be confined and he sent to the Governor a bribe of 27,000 rupees. Thereupon, Mr. Burniston, the Deputy Governor of Bombay and Commodore Harland, sent assuraiua's to the Governor “ that the reports of Rustum and Sir Ni(Jiolas Waite were absolutely false. November 1701.-- Sir Nicholas Waite reported to the Court at Home that he had also *' nominated Rustam to be broker for the United Trade." 1705. - Some time after his being Governor of Bombay, when he tried to make Bombay the Headquarter ot the United Company, he dismissed Rustam “ from the English Company’s eipployment notwithstanding the United Trade was then indebted to him 1,10,000 Rup ees and the separate Companies 5,50,000 rupees.”^ The Surat OtUcer, Mr. Proby, protested and wrote : “ Unless Rustam should be restored, they neither could be responsible for the Com- pany's property, nor their own liberty and further, to second their application in favour of Rustum, Mr. Proby and Mr. Bonnel accused Sir Nicholas Waite of procuring goods at cheaper rates for himself than for the Company. ”^(a) Ibid, p. 520. *** Ibid, p. 665. Ibid, p. 661. «« Ibid p. 696. •••(a) Ibid. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 233 We leaxn from the Qisseh that Kustam Manock had asked Subjects refer- for several privileges on behalf of the English apd^ red to in Bus- they were granted. Some of the subjects of these tatn Jdunock s p ix* "d > a i Qisseh confirm- privileges, referred to in Eruce s Annals, are ec? by Bruce's the following : Annals. (1) House for the English Factory. (2) Warehouses. (3) Free ingress into and egress from the city. /4) Presents to the officers of the Mogul Court. (5) The Farman or order of temporary concession. The Qisseh says that Rustam Manock secured a palatial house for the English Company at Surat, with an iram-^^ like garden (c. 347) on the bank of the river (V) The House (Tapti). It was a place for residence as well as secur^ by Bus- place for trade. It was rented from Haii English Com- Hajaz Beg for Rs. 3,000 per year (c. 359). This pany at Surat. is the house referred to in Bruce’s Annals more , • than once. It is “the house which he (Sir Nicholas Waite) hired”^®® and on which he wanted “ to hoist the King’s flag,”®®® to get permission for which Sir N. Waite had to give a large present to the Mogul King. We learn from Bruce tha^ there was, as it were, a battle of flags between the two rival East India Companies. At first, the old Company had hoisted the King’s flag. Sir W. Nicholas contrived to get it dismounted. This offended, not only the officers of the old Company, but also •the Nawab or Governor of Surat, because the dismounting was done without his permission. The old Company re-hoisted the flag. This desire on the part of Sir N. Waite to hoist the King’s flag on his factory supplies the reason, why he wanted, and why Rustam Mano^ secured for him, a really good large house. According to Bruce, Sir N. Waite desired to have in the farman from the Emperor, the “ liberty of trade, and to settle Factories in any ports in the Mogul’s dominions to have free ingress and egress for himself and Council, without search ; to have license to hire or “ dda f) I iram, the fabulous gardens said to have been devised byShaddad bin ‘ Ad in emulation of the gardens of paradise”. (Steingass.) Bruce’s Annals III, p. 370. Ibid. »•« Ibid, p. 370. 234 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh build a house and warehouses”'^®* The question of the house seemed to have been so important that Sir N. Waite, in one of his letters, to the Directors, said, that “ the house was commodious, and situated lU'arer the Custom-house than that of the London Com- pany. Just as the Qisseh speaks of this act of hiring a house as th(^ verv first act of Rustam ^fanock aft(‘r being employed as broker, Ihaice spc'aks of Sir Nicliolas Waite's removal of ‘ the flag of the fiO?idon (V)mpariy” and that of hoisting ‘‘the King’s flag ” on his iK'wIy nnitcMl house as “ the first measure of Sir Nicholas Wait(C’ after his arrival at Surat.'^®'^ d'his house is the lioiise, now owned by the heirs of the late Dr. D()ssal)hoy (V)()j)ei\ who was an Honorary Surgeon to H. E. the \’ie('r()v. I rcnncMnlx-r tluit, when I once jiaid a visit to Dr. D( )ssahhov, about years ago, he spoke, witli some ])ride, of being th(‘ fortiinat(‘ posst^ssor of the house of the English East India (^)mpat)y. Tlnae is no (iou])t that Dr. Dossabhoy’s house is the hous(‘ of flu* h]nglish J<^lctorv. On my making in{]uiries about the subse({uent history of the house, through Mr. Cowasji Burjorji Vakil, tin* Pn'siihnit of the Parsee Panchayct of Surat, Dr. Dossa- bhov's son, Mr. A. Dossabhoy CoopiT, wrote to Mr. Cowasji Vakil in his lt‘tter dat(‘d (>th July PJ2S : “ It (the house) belonged before our purchase to some relations of the Nabob of Cambay, who must b(‘ blood relations of tlie Surat Nabob family, it seems to liave changed owiauship by marriage dowry .It was purehas(‘(l by fatluT from one Mirza BakuraHi ralml e Mirza Mogul Heg 1 cannot say whether Haji Hajaz Beg was related to the above (Mirza Mogul Beg), but it looks likely. I also canPot clearly identify the building secured for factory by one Rustam Manock of Surat for Rs. 3,000 [)er annum But if the building was liin‘d for Jhiglish it can be none other than the one we now possess.” Dr. Dossabhov, the father of the present owners, The Tahlei on put up on the house a tablet with the jyresenL^^^^ following Inscription in English and Gujarati : /6k/, p. 397. /6k/, p. 407. Ihid, p. 370. After the above corresjxaidcncc I had the pleasure of seeing the house again , and I think it is the very house rented by Rustam Manock for the English East India Company's Factory. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qissek 235 ‘‘The English Factory originally built in A.D. 1618 under a^ treaty made with Prince Khurram (Shah Jahan) son o: the Emperor Jahangir, through the ambassador Sir Thomas Koe, it withstood a siege by the Marathas under Shivaji in A.D. 1664, and was again attacked by the Marathas in A.D. 1703. It ceased to be used for viiH'Hi'ni ^r(l (4dl. mc-^i ^ gsr-i'tiHi (4^i. ^ci tvsoa^ii (441. ^\'Tr^ ?jiih tion, but, on the death of a Seedee ruler, the next officer in clmrge of theii? fleet came to the gddi of the district. Being excel- lent mariners, their commander was acknowledged as admiral by the Bijapur Sultanate, and, on its fall, by the Mogal Empire. During these early times, the seas were infested by pirates — pirates of ctU nationalities — English, French, Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, Indian, etc. The Sidee of Janjira was expected by the Sultans of Alirnednagar and Bijapur and, later on, by the Mogul Emperors, to prote*.*t tlieii trade from these pirates.'*^^ The Siddee Commander of this island, Yaqut Khan, had once attacked Bombay in about 1682 and it was at this time that the Parsce Patel, Rustamji Dorabji, known as Rustam Dorab and more popularly known for his bravery as Rustam Gendral (corrupted from General), is said to have helped the English in defending Bombay. Some time after 1691, there appeared in Indian waters, an English pirate, named Henry Every. He captured Futteh Mahmood, a ship belonging to Abdool Gufoor, a rich merchant of Surat and also the Ganj Suwaia, belonging to the Mogul Emperor,'*^^ which carried a grand-daughter of ^ Aurangzeb returning from the pilgrimage of Mecca. So, i — ' The word originally is Jazireh “island” or perhaps it may be Pcrs. zanjireh S i.e., “ Kinglets or circles formed on the surface of water ” (Steingass). There were more than one Janjira on the Western Coast of India, e.gf., Suwamdurg Janjira, Katnagiri Janjira, Wijaya- durg JAnjira (J. L. Mankar’s Life and Exploits of Shivaji (1886) p. 106). Vide for these pirates and the Siddhis’ work, “ The Pirates of Malltbar and an English woman in India two hundred years ago” by Col. John Biddulph, 1907. Col. Biddulph says : “ The Seedee of Janjira, who styled himself the Mogul’s Admiral, received a yearly subsidy of four lakhs for convoying the fleet, a duty that he was quite unable to perform against European desperadoes.” (Biddulph’s Pirates of Malabar, p. 8). Vide “ The Parsee Patels of Bombay. Their services to the British Government ” by Bomanji Byramjee Patell (1876), p. 7 €< eeq. One cannot speak with certainty about the dates. Perhaps this attack was the same as that of 1694. Elliot’s History of India, Muntakhab -ul-Lubab by Khafl EJian. 242 Rmlam Manock and the Persian Qisseh Auningzeb ordered the Siddee of Janjira to march on Bombay, anrl take the Erif^lish prisoners. President Annesley and the rest sixty-three in all were placed in irons and remained so for elev(*n months. This was in about 1695 or 1696. In 1648, Shivaji caj)tured some of the forts of the Rajpur tta ritory of the Siddee. But the fort of Dandeh Shimji fuid Kajpuri and some adjoining territories remained i Itaj ^ Siddi's hands. The Siddi Yusuf Khan ruled at Jaiijira from 1642 to 1655. He was su(xaMMl(‘d by Fath Khan, who, in 1659, tried to reconquer his forts from Shivaji when the latter was engaged in war with the Ibjapurarrny und(‘r Afzal Khan. In U)6(), when Ali Adil Shah II of Rijaj)ur ;ittaek(‘d Sliivaji in his Fanhala fort, Fath Khan invaded Konkan. 3bit Shivaji, sending a large army against liiny took tin* fort of Datideh-i Rajpur in 1661 (July or August) and attacked Janjira, hut, not having a good fle(‘t, failed. In the end, not having any sue(*our from Jbjapur, Fath Klian ma(l(' p(‘ace with Shivaji and gav(‘ up l)andeh-i Rajpur l)y the treaty of p(‘ace. But th<‘ peae<‘ was short -tinu'd, b(*eause the Si(hli, th(‘ maintenance of whose p(‘oj)h' of .faaqira d(‘pend(‘d upon the produce of Rajpur territnri(‘s, could not do without the ])ossessioTUif I)andeh-i-Rajpuri. By this tim(‘, Shivaji had built a fleet of his own to protect his coast t(‘rntorH's and s(‘cur(' captures of sea-trading sliips. The Kolis, the Angrias, tlu‘ Vaghers formed its (Tew. Two discon- t(*nt('(l Siddls Masri and Daulat Kljan — also took service in liis ihH‘t . With t he Indp of this tl(‘(‘t, Shivaji not only carrital on further (u)n(jU(‘sts, but b{‘gan trading himself with some Arabian and other ports. In h\*l)ruary 1 662. he pr(q)ar(nl two shi])s for tra^Je with Mocha. In 1 1)65, lu' sent his trading vessels even to Fersia and Basra. In February lti65, Shivaji sent a fleet of 55 ships tc co- operate \n the attack on South Canara. He then began plundering Mogul ships going to Mecca from Surat, which was then spoken of as l)ar-ul-hajj, be., the city of pilgrimage. So, the Moghal Emperor's general, Jai Singh, sought, in 1665, the alliance of the Siddhi, who was strong in iieet. In 16t)t), when the Moghal Emperor invaded Bijapur, one Siddhi, named Sunbal or Sombal fought on the side of the Moghal army. When Shivaji made peace with the Moghal Emperor by Rustam ManocJc and the Persian Qisseh 243 the treaty of Purandhar, it was arranged that, if Shivaji conquered. Janjira, he was at liberty to retain it. ‘‘ Shivaji offered to attempt the conquest of Janjira for the Emperor/’ In 1669, Shivaji attacked Janjira with great force and, in 1670 Fath Khan being much hard pressed and not receiving any help from Bijapur was on the point of surrendering it, accepting the bribe of a Jagir, &c., from Shivaji but his three Abyssinian slaves disliked this surrender, roused the Siddi subjects for revolt and, imprisoning Fath Khan, applied to Adil Shah at Bijapur and to the Moghal Emperor for help. Aurangzib wrote to Shivaji to withdraw from Janjira, and the Siddi fleet was transf(‘rred from the overlordshij) of Bijapur to that of Delhi, and Siddi Sanbal, one of the leaders of the revolution, was created imperial admiral with a mansab and a jagir yielding 3 lakhs of rupees. His two associates, Siddi Qasim (Yakut) and Siddi Khairiyat were given the command of Janjira and the land domi- nions respectiv(‘ly. The Siddi fleet was taken into Mogal service on the same terms as those under Bijapur. The general title of Yaqut Khan was conferred on successive Siddi admirals from this tune.” This revolution of the overthrow of Fath Khan took place in 1671.'^^^ In the meanwhile, in 1670, Shivaji had arranged to seize Surat with the help of his fleet and started, but he ceased proceeding ► further, hearing that the Killedar of Surat, who had offered to help hmi was playing a fraud. In March 1671 Siddi Qassim, surnamed Yaqut Khan, surprized Shivaji’s Marathas when they were in the deep enjoyment of their Holi festival and re-took Dandeh-i Rajpur. Ya(jut reconquered also tlie other seven forts taken ^^y Shivaji. In September 1671 , Shivaji sent messengers to the English at Bombay to seek their aid in his attempt to re- con(fuer Dandeh-i Rajpuri. The Council at Surat dissuaded the authorities at Bombay from helping Shivaji, because they thought that his possession of this fort near Surat would be a threat to their naval power. In 1672, Aurangzib sent a fleet of 36 ships from Surat to help the Siddi at Dandeh-i Rajpur. This fleet destroyed a large part of Shivaji’s fleet, six ships of which he sheltered in the harbour of Bombay. The English winked at that, ^ Sarkar’s Shivaji, Ist ed. p. 344. SarJear's Shivaji, pp. 341-42. Ibid p. 342 n. Sarkar thinks that the date given by Khafi Khan is wrong. 244 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh and, lost they may incur the displeasure of Aurangzib, pretended and represented, that they themselves “ had attached them as compcuisation for the plunder of their Rajpur factory in 1660^^^ (by Shivaji).” At this time, both Aurangzib and Shivaji courted the favour of the English to have the help of the English fleet at Bombay. Aiirangzib's fleet appeared near Bombay in January ir)72 with tliat view, but the English preferred neutrality in order to watch (wauits. But at last they were, as it were, driven to talc(‘ si(l(‘s. Jn August 107)5, the French sold M) ships and ammunition to Shivaji. They had similarly helped him in 1070 by selling him 10 guns during the seige of Pehderla. Now, there came the Dutch oh tli(‘ seeii(\ Their commodore, Rudolf Van Gaen, offered, in March 107)5, tlu' lu*lp of tlieir fleet of 22 ships for the capture of Dandeh-i if Shivaji gave them the help of 3,000 soldiers, wher(*b^^i('^Vui capture Bombay. But Shivaji refused Jhis arra esj)ecially because he disliked the Dutch. 1^107)5, the Mogul fleet of 30 ships under Sanbal returned fro(£]i? Surat to Dandeh-i Rajpur, and, on lOth October, entering »jmbay harbour, landed parties on the Pen and Nagotha river banks to d(‘strov tiie Mahratha villages there. In 1074, the Siddi apj)lied to the English to bring about a peace between him and Shivaji. In Mari*h 1071, Siddi Sanbal attacked the Mahratha? !>ear Ratnagiri, but the Malirathas were victorious. In 1675, '^hivaji arranged for a joint sea and land attack on Dandeh-i Rajpuri and laid a siege, which, at the end of the year, was raised on the arrival of Sanbal’s fleet. It was laid again in 1675. But '^anbal's fleet compelled him to raise it in the end of 1676. In May 1070, Siddi Sanbal, having quarrelled with Aurangzeb, was re})laced by Siddi Qasim, suriuimed Yaqut Khan. It war. this Qasim (Vatiut Khan) who had forced Shivaji's general Moro Pant to raise the siege of Janjira in December 1676. But still Sanbal did not deliver up his fleet to Qasim. In 1677, Qasim was again ordered from Delhi to give up the fleet but he disobeyed the order. At me time, when both these admirals were in Bombay, the English nterfered and settled their affairs and “ Qasim was installed as ulmiral at the end of OctobeF'^22 ( 1777 ), He continued the fi^t Sarkar’s Shivaji p. 347 *** Ibid p. 353, BuUam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 245 ^ against Shivaji and, in April 1678, returned to Bombay to resji during the Monsoons. His fleet was anchored at Mazagon. Shivaji, coming from the land side, tried to set fire to the fleet but could not do so, as the Portuguese refused to let his men pass through their territories. In October 1678, Shivaji again sent his admiral Daulat Khan to bombard Janjira. Siddi Qasim could not go at once to relieve the island as he was without money from the Mogul authorities at Surat to pay his men. But, in February 1680, he went out from his Bombay anchorage. In March 1680 the English entered into an agreement with Shivaji to remain strictly neutral and not to allow the Siddi’s fleet to be sl^elt^ed^g^^|^^i Bombay waters during tlie Monsoons. qjvjY 0^ In the meantime, some circumstaSft^’ l{a^^‘iegun rising to create some differences between Shivaji and the English. In April 1672, Shivaji had an eye upon the rocky Island of Kenneri (Khanderi), miles in length and | mile in breadth, about 11 miles south of Bombay and 30 miles north of Janjira, with a view to erect a fort there, which may, to some extent, act as a counter- poise against the rocky fort of Janjira. The English President at Surat objected, as that may affect and endanger the trade from Bombay. Both, the English and the Siddi, appearing there with their fleets, Shivaji stopped the fortification. But, later on, in A'Agust 1679, Shivaji renewed that project and, on 15th September, his admiral, known as the Mai Nayak ( U ) i.e., the chief of the Sea (Arab, moe— water), took possession of the island with 4 small guns and commenced fortifying it. The Deputy Governor of Bombay protested, saying that Kennery belonged to Bombay, but the protest had no effect. So a fight began. A sea- battle was fought on 18th October 1679 between Shivaji’s fleet and the Ejjglish fleet. Though the English lost several ships through the cowardice of some English soldiers on board, in the end, they were victorious and Shivaji's fleet ran and took shelter in the Nagothana creek. At the end of November, a Siddi fleet joined and helped the English in bombarding Kennery. But the cost of money and men (Englishmen) in the continued naval fight was so heavy, that the- English thought, on 25th October 1879, to withdraw honorably ani, either settle matters with Shivaji or throw the burden of fight upon the Siddi of Janjira and upon the Portuguese of Bassein whose 246 Rmtam Manock and the Persian Qi^seh foreign trade was likely to be endangered by Shivaji^s occupation of Kennery. The English were especially apprehensive of an attack, in rej)risal, by Shivaji upon Bombay itself. The apprehension came to be true. Shivaji sent 1,000 men to Kallian Bhirari (Bhiwardi) with a view to land in Bombay via Thana. The Portuguese who then occupied that part of the country prevented their passage. So, Shivaji’s troops marched to their port of Panvel opposite Trombay in October 1070. The Deputy Governor of Bombay was pre[)ar(‘d to fight boldly but the authorities of the Surat H(‘ad(jnarters thought it advisable to settle the dispute with Shivaji, and, in tlie (Uid, Shivaji was permitted to fortify Kennery. The English ships \v(T(‘ withdrawn from Kennery in January 1680. Then th(‘ Janjira Siddi occupied and fortified Underi, which is clos(‘ to Kenn(‘ri and is about a mile in circumference, on 9th January 1680. Shivaji’s admiral Daulat Khan attacked Underi but to no purpose. “ Underi continued in Siddi hands throughout Shambhaji's r(*ign, and m‘utraliz(*d the Maratha occupation of Khanderi, th«‘ two islands bombarding each other.” The Qisseh says, that Rustam Manock was very ho::pitably re(‘(‘ived at Dandeh-i-Rajpur by Sidee Yaquba TJtcSiddls. ( spoken of as a Sidd(‘(*. So, I will speak here of these Siddis, who j)lay(‘d a prominent part in the history of Central Indir.. From Orm(‘'s account about these people, we gather the following particulars about tlunr arrival and rise in India : They were natives of Abyssinia. At first, they came to India as traders and adventurers, and it w'as a king of Viziapore in the south wdio exalted them by giving them high posts. “ The natural courage of these ])eo})le, not unmixed with ferocity, awed the envy of their rivals At the time of Sevagi’s revolt from Vizia- pore, thn‘e of the principal provinces of the kingdom were governed by Siddees, of whom the admiral of the fleet w'as one, and had, under his jurisdiction, a considerable extent of the sea coast to the north and south of Gingerah, when Sevagi got possession of Dunda Rajapore."^-^ Later on, after some fight with Shivaji, they The two islands are known as Annery Kenneri ) Sarkar’s Shivaji, Ist p. 362, 2nd p. 321. , *** Historical Fragments of the Mogul Empire by Robert Orme, p. 66. RmUim Manock and the Persian Qisseh 247 gave their services with their fleet to Aurangzib, but they ** reserve^, the property of Gingerah, and the right to whatsoe\er they might recover from their former fiefs, now lost to Viziapore.” Some Dates about the Siddis Rule at Rajpuri, Dandeh and Janpra, The Siddis.settled at Raj pur and Janjira. Early 16th Century. One of the Siddis appointed Governor of Dandeh-i Rajpuri by the Ahmednagar Sultanate. Early 17th Century. *Bijapur Sultanate acknowledged the Siddi ruler as its representative in that part of tlie country . . 1636 Shivaji captured all of the Siddi’s forts on the main- land except Dandeli-i Rajpuri . . . . . . 1648 Siddi Yusuf Khan ruled . . . . . . . . 1642 to 1655 Siddi Fateh Khan tried to regain his forts from • Shivaji, when Shivaji was fighting with Afzal Khan. 1659 Fath Khan invaded Konkan when Shivaji’s fort of I^anhala was besieged by Ali Adil Shah 1 1 of Bijapur 1660 Shivaji conquered Dandeh-i Rajpuri and attacked Janjira but failed . . . . . . . . . . 1661 Fath Khan, hard pressed, made peace with Shivaji, for^nally ceding to Shivaji Dandeh-i Raj pur .. 1661 * Shivaji built his own fleet and began trading with Arabian ports . . . . 1663 Shivaji prepared his ships to co-operate for an attach on Canara . . . . . . . . . . . , 1664 Shivaji traded with Persia, Basra, &c 1665 Shivaji sent a fleet of 85 frigates for the conquest ^ of South Canara February 1665 Jai Singh, the Mogul general, sought alliance with the Siddi to withstand Shivaji’s attacks on Mogul Pilgrim ships from Surat to Mecca 1665 A Siddhi general, named Sanbal, fought on behalf of the Moghal Emperor against Bijapore . . . , 1666 Shivaji attacked Janjira 1669 im p. 57. 248 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh Shivaji started with his fleet to capture Surat but stopped half way . . . . . . . . . . 1670 llevolution at Janjira. Fath Khan, who was on the point of surrendering it, was imprisoned by his peof)l(i who then sought for help from Adil Shah of Bijapore and from Aurangzib . . . . . . 1671^^^ Siddi Qassirn, surnamed Yaqut Khan, surprized Shivaji's Mahrathas during their Holi festivities and re-took Dandeh-Rajpur and other forts . . 1671 Shivaji asked the help of the English at Bombay for his proposed n^com^uest of Dandeh-Rajpur but was refus(*d . . . . . . . . . . . . 1671 Shivaji began fortifying Kenneri island but was stopped by the English and the Siddis . . . . 1672 Sliivaji's fleet defeated by Aurangzib's fleet - that }\ad eoim^ to help the Siddi . , . . . . . . 1672 Mogul tl(‘(‘t a[)p(*ared in Bombay waters peace- fully .. .. .. .. January 1673 Tlu‘ Dutch offered ludp of fleet to Shivaji for capturing‘s Dandeh, if Shivaji gave help of 3,000 men to them for capturing Bombay. Shivaji refused . . March 1673< Tlu' French sold 80 guns to Shivaji . . . . August 1673 A Mogul fl(‘et of 30 ships, under Sambal, came towards Bombay side, and, entering Bombay waters, destroyed ]\lahratha villages at Pen and Nagothana . . . . . . . . . . . , 1673 The Siddi attacked the Mahrathas at Ratnagiri, but with no success .. .. .. .. . 1671 Shivaji arranged for a joint sea and land attack upon Dandeh-Rajpur and laid siege on Janjira but not successfully . . . . . . 1675 Janjira again besieged unsuccessfully . . . . . . 1676 Siddi Sambal, having quarrelled with the Moguls, was replaced by Siddi Qasim, surnamed Yaqut Khan May 1676 *** Sarkar says that the date was 1674 and that Khafi Khan’s date 16Vt if wrong* Rustam Manock and the Persian Qissek 249 t The English interfered between the quarrels of the two admirals and Qasim (Yaqut Khan) was instal- led as Admiral October 1677 Qasim Yaqut in Bombay waters with his fleet at Mazagon . . . . . . . . . . April 1678 Shivaji’s -admiral Daulat Khan bombarded Janjira , . . . . . . . October 1678 Shivaji renewed the project of fortifying the Kennery island . . 1679 A sea-battle, fought between Shivaji and the English. English victorious, and Shivaji’s fleet fled to Nagothana 18th October 1679 The Siddi and English fleets bombarded Kennery . . 1679 ^The English, to prevent further cost and loss of English- men in the naval fight, stopped fighting further . . . . . . 1679 Shi’^aji arranged to attack Bombay via Thana and Panvel . . . . 1679 Qasim (Yaqut Khan), who could not go out earlier for want of funds, left Bombay waters to attack • the Mahrathas February 1680 Agreement between the English and Shivaji that the English were not to allow the Siddi’s fleet in Bombay ► waters during the Monsoons and that Shivaji may hold Kennery . . March 1680 The Siddi occupied and fortified Underi 9th July 1680 SWdi Yaquba, or Yaqut, referred to in the Qisseh is the Siddi Qasim, otherwise known as Yaqut Khan, Yaquba c. 395. It seems that, either the author of the Qisseh, Jamshed Kaikobad, or his copyists, misread the last letter cy ‘ t ’ for 4^ ‘ b . Such misreadings are not imusual. So, Yaqut became Yaqub and then Yaquba for respectability’s sake. He was appointed, at first, the Governor of the adjoining rock-fort of Janjira and, later on, in 1677, admiral and Governor of Dandeh-i Eajpur, which he had re-captured from the hands of 250 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 8hivaji. We gather tlie following about him from Khafi Khan.^^^ He,8i(l(li Sanbal and Siddi Khairyat, were three Abyssinian slaves of Kath Kluin, the general of Bijapur who held Danda-Rajpuri and Janjira. When he was hard pressed by Shivaji who attacked these plac(‘s, Fath Khan was, as said above, on the point of surrendering these places to liini but these three slave officers who managed the affairs of th(' island resolved to revolt against Fath Khan and to take him })risoner and defend the posit ion (1 671 A.C.). Siddi Sambal died some tim(‘ aftcT, d(‘claring 8iddi Ya([ut as his successor in chief pow(‘r. and “ enjoined all the other Abyssinians to pay him a loyal and (dieerful obedience. ”^^8 Khan thus speaks of Yakub Khan “ Sidi Yaqut was distinguished among his people for courag(‘, Ixuiignty and dignity. He now strove more than ever to eolh'ct shi|)s of war, to strengthen the fortress, and to ward off naval attacks,” Some time after, he re-conquered Danda- Rajpuri from the hands of Shivaji when the latter had retired to a little distant place to celebrate the Holi Holidays. In tli(‘ Akham-i-Alamgiri, /.c. the Anecdotes of Aurangzib, he is spoken of as the Thanahdar of the jdace. We read : From the ne\vs-l(‘tt(*r of Macldili-Bandar (Maslipatam), the Emperor learnt that Siddi Ya(|ut Khan, the (lutnahddr of Danda-Rajpuri, had insert ( mI a ])etition under his own seal in the news-letter stating that if the ( bllectorship (mutasaddi-gari) of Danda-Rajpur: wen* conferred on him, he woidd render far better service than his j)n*d(‘C(\ss()rs in increasing the prosperity of the })lace and in sending the imperial Customs revenue. Across the sheet of the news-letter, the Emperor wrote: “For a long time I have known of this aggressiv'e and self-willed spirit of Siddi Yaqut Khan.”^^^ Ihof. Sarkar says; “All the Siddis (Abyssinians) holding charge of Danda-Rajpuri after 1660 bore the title of Yaqut Khan from t he Mughal Government, and acted as the Mughal admirals on th(‘ Bombay coast. Khali Khan often narrates their history (11, 225-228, loo-bl). Panda Rajpuri is a town o n the Bombay .Nruntakhab-ul-lubjib of Muhammad Hashin Khafi Khan (Elliot’s History of India, Vob VH, p. 289) says, that each of the three Siddi officers had 10 well-tniined Abyssinian slaves under them. *** Ibid, p. 290. Ibid, p. 290. Anecdotes of Aurangzib (English translation of Ahkam-i- Alaingiri, asc ribed to Hamid-ud-din Khan), by Jadunath Sarkar, 2nd Ed. of 1926, .pp. 124-25, No. 66. Rmtam Manoclc and the Persian Qisseli 251 t coast facing the island of Janjira which was the stronghold of the Abyssinians One Siddi Yaqut was collector of Danda- Rajpuri in 1702 (U.A. 455)”.^3i We find from the history of this time, that as said above, there was a Revolution at the place in 1671, which brought in Siddi Qasim, as Yaqut Khan to power. Some time after, he was asked by Aurangzib to attack Bombay and drive away the English from there. Grant Duff, in his ‘‘ History of the Mahrathas while speak- ing of the events of L680 A.C. says : “ About this period the attention of tlie Em|)eror was attracted to the English, and in consequence of piracies which began to be committed by indivi- duals, several of the factories belonging to the East India Company were seized.^^"^*^ This was no uncommon measure, for Aurangzib to adopt when any of the Moghul ships were taken, and he more than once threw the President at Surat into confinement ; on the present occasion the Siddee was ordered to drive them from Bom- bay. Yakoot made a descent upon the island, and possessed himself.of Mazagon, Sion and Mahim, but could make no impression on the fort. The attack, however continued, until the English appeased Aurangzib by the usual expedients of bribes to the courtiers and the humblest submission. Tlie Seedee quitted the island af^er he had remained upon it nearly a year.”'*'^^ We read %,s follows on the subject: “ The invasion of Bombay by the Sidi is described in a letter from Boiubay to the Court of Directors of January 25, 1698. The »Sidi landed with 20,000 men, seized the small fort at Sivri (or Sewri), plundered Mahim, and hoisted his flag in Mazagon fort, which had been abandoned. By February 15, Sarkar’s Shivaji, p. 125. “ The English traders began at that time ^ assert themselves and to claim the right of fortifying their ‘factories’ or commercial stations. Aurangzib’s hostile attitude was also due in part to the action of the Interlopers who began about 1680 to trade with the East in open opposition to the East India Company. The Mughals were unable or unwilling to distinguish between the rival companies, or indeed between English merchants and EngHsh pirates like John Avery and held the President and Council responsible for all the acts of their countrymen in the East.” (Foot-note of the Editor of the revised Edition of 1921 of Grant Duff ’a History of the Mahrattas.) Grant Duff’s History of the Mahrathas, revised by S. M. Edwardea^ (1921), VoL I, pp. 274-75. 252 Ritstam Manock and the Persian QisseJi 1689, he was master of the whole island, except the castle and a stretch of land to the south of it. From April to September 1689, Bombay was in very sorry plight. In December, Child despatched two envoys to Aurangzeb to sue for peace, the request for which was aided intlirectly by certain external political factors ; and hnally in Fel)riiary 1690, the Emperor granted a new firman to the Company, which had to pay him Rs. 1,50,000 in satisfac- tion of Mughal losses, and to promise to expel ‘ Mr. Child, who f4Aiirangzib to sue for peace in December 1689. 1. Aurangzib was won over “ by the usual expedients of brib(*s to the courtiers and humblest submission.” In “the humblest submission” must be included rich presemts to the King himself. 5. Aurangzib thereupon issued a firman in favour of the English. 6. The Siddi’s occupation of Bombay lasted from early in danuary 1()89 to 8th June 1690. The Qisseh says, that R\istam Manock went there for enjoy- ment (tafarrurj). But, one cannot understand, The Object Rustam Manock should part company from of the Vistt. his English factor and go for enjoyment to such an out of the way place like Dandeh Rajpuri, about 40 miles from Bombay by sea. We find from the above account in some details that the history of the place shows that the English had a factory there and that they had some hand in the operations there between Shivaji and the Siddi. So, it seems that Rustam Manock had gone there for some business as a broker of ^ — — — — ft- *** Ibid, p. 275 n, 1. Copied with some alterations and omissions from the Bombay City Gazetteer, by S. M. Edwardes, Vol, II pp. 83-85 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 253 the English factory at Surat. Yaqut had just come to power the^e and so Rustam went to him for business (vide abovti p. 243). (b) Rustam Manock’s Visit to Damaun. According to the Qisseh, Rustam went from Dandeh-i-Rajpuri to Damaun. It does not say why he went there. But he must have gone there, not for any sight seeing, but on business. Rustam Manock was, besides being the broker of the English, also the broker of the Portuguese. In the Qisseh, in two places he is spoken of as the broker of the Portuguese. So, he seems to have gone there for business. The welcome extended to him by the Portuguese Government during this visit and the second visit after the capture of an Indian ship of Surat by the Portuguese and the welcome extended to him at Goa itself, when he went there later on, show that he was officially connected with the Portuguese. So, it appears that he went to Damaun on business and not on pleasure. Behramshst 0 Nasikwils, (c) Rustam Manock’s^^isif offlaoMri?^^' Rustam’s visit to Naosari on his way to Surat from Damaun was not for any business purpose, or for pleasure, but for a religious purpose . He had gone on an important errand, and so, on its success, he went to this town, which w^as on his way to Surat to offer thanks- giving to God at the fire-temple there. We find ancient Iranian kings observing such a custom. He had, at first, a sacred bath. With the orthodox, a long journey, wherein one cannot observe all religious rites and ceremonies, necessitated such a bath.^^^ He had a bath of the kind and then he went to the Fire-temple,^^ Vide my Gujarati paper on the History of the Fire Temple of Sdar Gushoop, in my Iranian Essays, Part I, pp. 125-148, ***" Vide my “ l^ligious Ceremonies and Customs of the Parsees,” pp. 149-51. Vide Tacitus’ Annals (Bk. XV 24) for some religious scruples for travelling by water among the ancient Iranians. 486 Naosari Fire-temple, at this time, was that for the sacred Fire of Iranshah, which is now located at Udwara. This Sacred Fire was carried there in about 1516 and remained there till about 1741. (Vide my ‘ Pew yjlvents in the Eariy History of the Parsis and their Dates” pp. 87-88.) The present Sacred Fire at Naosari was installed on 2nd December 1765 (Parsee Prakash I, p. 45). 254 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh to offer a thanks-giving prayer for his successful mission to the Mogul Court. Sir Streynshain Master who visited Surat in 1672 refers to Sir Sire If n- Hhatn Master on the A 'ire- temple (it Ndosnri. Naosari. In his account of his visit of Surat, given in a letter, dated Bombay January 18, 1671, (i.e. new system 1672), addressed to England li(‘ giv(‘s an account of the Parsis. The letter is given in full by Col. Henry Yule in his diary of William He(lg(‘s.‘-^'* Th(‘r(‘in he says about the Fire : ‘‘ At the said |)lae(‘ of Nausaree their Chi<‘f Priests reside, when* tis said th(‘y have tlndr Holy fire which they brought (with) them from tlu‘ir Owm* Country, and is n(;ver to goe out. They k(‘ej)(‘ it so constantly su})ply(*d ; they had a ehurch in Surratt; but tin* Tumultuous Kabbie of the zelott Moors destroyed and took(* it from them when they were furious on the Hindpoes. They liav(‘ s(‘V(‘rall buryall ldac(*s here abouts, which are built of Stone in the wide li(*lds, wherein th(*y lav the dead Bodys exposed to tlu‘ op(m air soe that the Ravenous fowles may and do feed upon them." According Ildn'k'ins on Ndosari and its river. to (apt. Hawkins, the river on which Naosari stands (the river Puma) was much navigable in former times. With the help of this river- communication, Naosari commanded a great calico trade. While referring to the gates of Surat, Kor sciju' [)arti(‘alars about this town which is the Hoad -quarters of a lnrg(‘ class of the Paisee priest- hood, vide my paper on “The Petition of Dastur Kaikohad to Km|)eror Jahangir ” (Journal of the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute, No. Id, pp. I SI -82). The District of Naosari eof^tained the towns of .Mulere and Salere. The Mahuniiidi coins of Gujarat were struck at MuKm'(*. \V(* rt'ad : “ The Mahmudis were the coins of the independent Muslim kings of Gujarat. After its conquest by Akbar, the coinage of rupaiyas was introduced at the myal mints of Ahmedabad and some time after of Suiiit. The coinage of Mahmudis was continued by Pratap Sah at the fort of Mulher till 1637 ; his Mahiimudis were struck in Akbar’s name. Five mahumudis made two rupees.” (The Empire of the Great Mogol, by J. S. Hoyland ( 1928), p. 29, n 42 translated from the Dutch work of De Laet, and entitled “ Description of India and Fragi*ents of Indian History.” The Diary of William (afterwards Sir William) Hedges, by Colonel Henry Yule. Printed foti- the Hakluyt Society, Vol. II (1888), pp. 222-256. Ibid, p. 315. Rustam- Manock and the Persian Qisseli 255* Hawkins says: ‘‘A third (gate leads) to Nonsary (Naosari),^a town 10 cose (kos) off where is made a great store of calico having a fair river coming to it.” The Qisseh says that, when Kustam Manock, on his way from Aurangzeb's Court of Surat, went to Naosari Noshirwan, after visiting Dandeh-Rajpuri and Damaun, he house of a relative (khish c. 406), named Noshirwan. Who was this Noshirwan ? The Gujarati translator adds the name Meherji after his name and gives the name as Noshirwan Meherji. So if we take the name as given by the translator as correct, who was this Noshirwan Meherji ? There were several persons of the name of Noshirwan Meherji, known during the time of Rustam Manock (1635-1721) ^1. One Noshirwan Meherji Patel is referred to (in a document dated 26th September 1686), in the. matter of the dispute between the priests and the laymen of Naosari.*^^^ The visjt to Naosari, was ill about 1701 A.C. So, one may say tliat, perhaps, it was at this Nosherwan Meherji's that Rustam Manoc'k was a guest. But one thing may be suggested against this view. It is, that it appears from the document, that Noshirwan Meherji was a layman (Behedin) and Rustam Manock was of a priestly family. So, how can they be related to one another ? But we know that though the priestly class did not give their daughters to those of the laymen class, they took theirs in marriage. So possibly, this relationship was that caused by the marriage of a son of Rustam Manock’s stock of family with a daughter of Noshirwan Meherji’s stock of famil}^. ^ Again there was another Noshirwan Meherji (Chandna) living during the time of Rustam Manock (1635-1721). One may object to this name on the ground that Rustam Manock belonged to the sect of the Bhagaria priests while Noshirwan Meherji (Chandna) belonged to the opposite sect of the Minocher Homji priests. But, it may be said that the relationship by marriage between the two families may have been made, before the sacerdotal schism, which took place in about 1686. So, it is very likely that- Parsi Prakash I, pp. 19 and 845-46. 250 Itmiam ManocJc and the Persian Qisseh the Noshirvvan Meherji of the Qisseh, whose hospitality at Naosari Rustam Manock accepted was this Noshirwan Meherji. He may have been related to Rustam Manock by marriage. 5. There lived at Naosari a third Noshirwan Meherji during the time of Rustam Manock (1035-1721). He is Noshirwan Meherji referr(‘d to in the Bhagarsath Genealogy by Mr. Rustamji Jamaspji Dastur Meh(‘rji Rana.^^^ But this person died in Samvat 1735 (1079 So lie cannot be the host of Rustam Manock in about 1701 A.(\ when Rustam visited Naosari. From all thes(‘ considerations, 1 think, that the Noshirwan Meherji of th(‘ Qisseh is the second of the three Noshirwan Meherjis ref(‘rred to above. Again, the ’family tradition says, that this Noshirwan Melu'rji’s family was pretty well off and had some |)roj)(‘rty in Surat. So, there is a greater probability of this Noshirwan receivinfiXRtistam Manock as his guest. <:r XII Rustai^^;^ai^4]^8 Visit of Goa to get Osman Chalibee’s ship rc/dased from the hands of the Portuguese. ^ fftfall the jilaces on the Western coast of India, Bombay and Goa were said to be the most important. So, dm. even the Freiu^h had an eye upon Goa, later on. A F rench ofticer, Stanislas Lefeber, is said to have reportfMl : “ Bombay et Goa sont sans contredit les deux pointes les plus ess(mti(‘lles de la c5te occidentale dc laPresq'ile de ITude. "'*^^ (toa was in the time of Rustam Manock, as it is even now, the centre of Portuguese power and rule. From very early times, its exc(‘llent position on the Western coast of India attracted p. 118. rif/e its English version “ Thi^ (h'liealogy of the Naosari priests" issued for private circulation by Nfwiroz Ihirvez, with an introduction by Sir George Birdwood, p. 118. 1 am thankful to Mr. Mahyar N. Kutar for suggesting to me this name. Vick tlie above Gujarati Genealogy, p. 244, col. 1. I am tliankful to Mr. Rustamji Merwanji Karkariaof Naosari for this information. Vick also the Navar Fehrest compiled by Ervad Mahyar N. Kutar. V’ol. 1, 20. Navar, No. 235, mentions this name. He is spoken of as Suratio, i.c. of Surat. ^ *** Quoted by Dr. Gerson Da Cunha, in his paper, on “ The English and their Monuments at Goa " Jour. B. B. R. A. S., Vol. XIII p. 109. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 267 different conquerors to this part of the country. It was visited by the Arab traveller Ibn Batuta in the Hth century. In | 4:GD, it passed into the hands of the Bahmani kings of the Deccan. Then, it passed into the hands of the Bijapur kings. In 1510, a Portuguese fleet under Albuquerque captured it. It was re-captured for a short time by the king of Bijapur, but Albuquerque reconquered it shortly after. The early traders spoke of it, on account of its wealth, as ‘‘the Golden Goa” (Goa Dourada) and said: “Who- ever had seen Goa need not see Lisbon.”'*'*^ The Portuguese based their dominion in India on conquest by the sword. They laboured to consolidate it by a proselytizing organization which throws all other missionary efforts in India into shade.” It is the “ old Goa” that is referred to in the Qisseh. It was in about 1759, that Panjim or New Goa was founded. Now the story of the capture of a Mahomed an ship by the Portuguese is briefly as follows : > There was at Surat, a merchant, named Osman Chalibee. His ship, while returning from Jedda; was qaptured The Event of by the Portuguese. The Nawab o/\Surat sent ^{he Rustam and requested him to get the ^ ship Portuguese. released from the hands of the Portuguese. Rustam complied with the request. He, at ^ first, weht to Damaun, but the Governor of the place referred him to the authorities at Goa. So, he went to Bassein and from there went to Goa. The Governor- General of Goa referred the matter to the Home authorities at Portugal, and, in the end, the ship was released and handed over to Osman Chalibee through Rustam. Now, who was this Osman Chalibee ? • 444fl ipijQ Travels of Ibn Batuta, by Rev. Hamuel Leo (1829), p. 164. Encyclopaedia Britannica, 8th Ed., Vol. X, p. 706, col. 2. The Mis- sionary efforts of the Portuguese reminds one of their “ Inquisition ” at Goa. Dr. Fryer speaks of it as “a terrible tribunal” and says of *a place known as the “ Sessions house as “ the bloody prison of the Inquisition ” (Fryer’s New Account of India and Persia, Letter IV, Chapter II, pp. 148 and 155). Niccolao Manucci refers to the town of Bassein, which is refer- red to in the Qiraeh and says that there was an Inquisition there also. (Storia Do Mogor or Mogul India, translated by William Irvine, Vol. Ill (m)9), p. 181. lUd. 258 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh The merchant, Osman Chalibi, for whose ship Rustam Manock went to Goa, seems to be a descendant Omimn Cfuili- of the family of a celebrated Turkish admiral, named Sidi Ali Chalibi, who was driven, in 1554, })y a great storm to the shores of Gujarat and was forced to touch Damann, from where, some time after, he went to Surat. On making in(|niries at Surat, if there were any descen- dants of Osman (dialihi there at present, I learn that no trace can be found of them. But there still exists at Surat a masjid bearing (Jhalibi’s nann*. Mr. Kavasji Burjorji Vakil, a leading Parsee of Surat, in r(‘))ly to iny iinpiiries wrote to me thus in his letter of 24th J uly 1 !)28 ; ‘*1 am sorry I have not been able to get any useful information on th(‘ ])oint. It may, however, interest you to know that th(‘re is still a musjid existing in Sodagarwad^*^ locality, behind the C^ity Muniei()ality, which is known as (4ialibini Masjid.'*'*^ It is being managed now by a Mahomedan gentleman, i^ed about 80 namecl Siimadbhai Alnnedbhai Misri. 1 made due iinpiiries from him, but, ln‘ too, though advanced in years, has not been able to give any information regarding the Chalibi family or Iksman (dialil)i mention(‘d, in your letter.'" Baron V'on Hammer speaks of one Chalibi as “ Sidi AlClialebi, Captain of the fleet of Sultan Sideiman.” Suit Ali ('ha- speaks of him as Sidi Ali-TVdielebi. lihi, the jouiuUr He seems to have been the founder of the Chalibi family of Surat. He was called by others, and he spoke of himself as, Capudan, i.e,. Captain, from a similar Portuguese word. M. Reinand refers to him in his Geographic d'Aboulfeda.'^'*^ Besides being a great admiral, lie was somewhat of a scholar, a j)oet and a writer. He had published a book of his travels called Merat-ul Mem^lik, /.c.. Mirror of Countries.**^^ An extract from this i.f., the street of merchants. i.e., the Mosque of Chalibi. *** Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. HI, No. 35. (Novem- ber 1834) i>. 545. G^ographio d’Aboulf^da, traduit par M. Reinaud (1848), Tome 1 et II. Tntix)duction p. CLXV". Vide Dr. Bieu’s Catalogue of Turkish MSS. p. 120, for an account of this author of Merat-al-Memalik. 259 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh work is published in the Transactions of our^^^ Society, which, for^ some time, had ceased to be published here and were published in London, at the time, when our original Society of Bombay became a branch of the London Royal Asiatic Society.^^^ Silvestre de Sacy has referred to this work and given a few particulars about this admiral and author.'^^^ The account in our Journal is from the pen of the celebrated orientalist of the time, Joseph Hammer of Vienna. It was read on Jlst October 1815, and is entitled, “ Notice and Extracts of the Miritolmemalik (Mirror of Countries) of Sidi Ab Capoodawn.’' This work was first translated into German by M. de Diez, the Prussian envoy at Constantinople in 1815, under the title of Denkwiirdigkeiten von Asien (i.e.. Memorable Events of Asia). Then M. Morris has translated this work into French from the German of M. de Diez in the Journal Asiatique.*^^^ He has also written another work on a nautical subject under the title of Mohit ( e. ocean. This work was finished by him at Ahmedabad in December 1554J^^ Transactions of the Literary Society of ilornbay, Voh IF, published in London, 1820, pp. 1-14. For this early history of the JL B. R. Asiatic Society, vide my “A Glimpse into the work of the 13. 13. R. A. Society during the last 100 years from a Parsee j)oint of View,” p. 2. "‘Journal des Savants ” de Mars 1821, quoted in Journal Asiatique. (Tome IX pp. 27-8). 464 “Miroirde pays, ou relations des Voyages de Sidi Aly fils d’ Housain, nommee prdinairement Katibi Roumi, amiral de Soliman 11 (Journal •Asiatique 1826, Tome IX, pp. 27-56, 65-97, 129-174, 19:3-217, 280-299). For the references to M. de Diez and M. Morris, vide Ibid, p. 28. Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society, Vol. HI, p. 545. For the reference to Ahmedabad, vide p. 545. Mr. Mancherji P. Kharegat, to whom I had sent the article on Mohit, hoping that it may interest him from the ix)int of view of his study of Iranian calendar, has kindly drawn my attention to an interesting fact, and I give it below in his own words as it may interest others also. “ The article on Mohii has been very interesting reading for various reasons, but especially, because it has cleared up a point, viz., why the peculiar arrange- ment of the Kadimi Calendar, in which the days are numbered, instead of being divided into months, is called Darya-i Nauroz. I knew that both Mulla Firuz and Cowasji Patel had said, that it was because mariners used it in that form, but they had given no authority ; and I was inclined to regard their remarks as mere guess-work. « « . • But the article in question proves, beyond doubt, that, at least, upto the 16th century, the Yazdagardi Calendar wjLS actually used in this form by sea-farers ; the present article also shows that they were inclined to substitute the Jalali calendar for it even then* 260 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh Hammer thustspeaks of this Sidi Ali : ‘‘ The Author, Captaiu of the Egyptian fleet of Soleimaun, the great Otto- Whai broiKjht man emperor, had received orders to carry fifteen Turkish ships from Bassora down the Persian Ixiy. Gulf and up the Arabian to Suez. But not being well ac(piainted, as it seems, cither with the monsoons or with tin* coast of India, he lost his way and his fleet and was obliged to make his way overland from Guzerat, by Hind, Sind, Zaboulestaun, Bedakhshaun, Khottaun, Tooran, Khorasaun, Kliowarezcin, Kipjak, F^ak, and Asia Minor i-^o (’onstantinoph*."*''^' According to what Sidi Ali says of himself in his book, h(‘ “ had made from lus youth nautics and seamanship the princi- pal obj(H‘t of his studies and endeavours. He was a witness to tln‘ glorious compiest of ilhodes, and afterwards accompanied in tin' w(*stern seas tin' late admirals Khaireddin (Barbarossa) and Sinaun Pashaw on all their expeditions, completed in that way the cours(‘ of his naval acipiirements, and compose 34 ships which ran away after a short fight. Adverse winds drove him away from Arabian coast. Then he was overtaken by a heavy storm and was forced to proceed to the coast of Gujarat and to land at Daman, which was in the hands of Sultan Ahmed and was governed by Malik Asad. This commandant, on hearing his account, told Sidi Ali to be on his guard, lest he may be again attacked by the Portuguese. At Damaun, he met some sailors of the merchant boat from Kalkuii ( jXJ If This name is written in another place as Kalout ( ).«3 The Mahomedan Governor of Damaun advised him to proceed to Surat, which is spoken of by him as Sourriat .Sidi Ali Cha^ , - \ A I 1 r XT. IX libVs short, stay ( A large number of the people ot in India. took service among Indian troops, because ' they could not return by sea. The admiral himself went to Surat with some of his people. He had only few ships with him and he was again attacked by the Portuguese fleet there. But the Portuguese could not capture him. At this time, the Ottoman Empire was powerful ; so, as its admiral, he com- manded great respect wherever he went. He met Emperor Humayun and gave him much information about astronomy. Some Indian kings wished to keep him under their services. Sultan Ahmed of Gujarat wanted to engage him and to give him the country of Berdedj f, Shah Hassan Mirza of Sind wanted Sidi Ali Cha- Uhl’s short stay in India. Ibid, pp. 32, 82. Journal Asiatique, Tome IX, p. 82. H&mmer gives for the first name, Calcutta. Transactions op. cit. II, p. 4. This is a mistake for Calicut. He gives, a little later on {Ibid), the name properly as Calicut. Perhaps, the mistake may not be his own, but of the^ Press in London, where our Journal was then published. As to the two differ- ent names , Kalkim and Kalut ( ), it is projjerly observed by the translator, that the correct word is Kelkout, i.€., Calicut (on doit, sans doute, corriger dans les deux endroits et 6crire Kelkout ou Calicut) ( Journal Asiatique. Tome IX, p. 82, n. 1 ). This correction is justified by the fact that the king of that country is referred toasSameri( )i.e., Zamorin. • *** Jour. Asiatique IX, p. 94. This name seems to be Broach. The letter dal seems to be a mistake for vav. So, the name may be read Barou^ i.€,, Broach. 262 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh to keep him and offered him Governorship of Lahori or Diouli Sind.^®^'* Hiimayiin himself offered him large sums of money if he took his service. One of the Uzbek Khans offered him Bokhara when he went there. But his love for his country and attachment to the Royal house of Ottoman led him to refuse all these offers. His only great ambition at the time w^as to have another fleet from King Soleiman, ami command it again to fight with the Portuguese. On his r(*turn journey, he passed through Sind, Hind, Zabulestan, Badukhshan, K hot an, Transoxania (Mawarannehr), the desert of Kipt(rhak, Khowarezm, Khorassan, Persia, Kurdes'tan, Bagdad, Adrianople. Soleiman was at the time at Adrianople. He was away from Turkish t(‘rritories for 1] years from 1553 to 1556. This admiral Sidi Ali was also known as Chalibi. Haji Calfa (Haji Khalfa), who lived in the I7th camtury ami who wrote in UM5 a bibliographic Dictionary^ speaks of him as Chalebi ( )• Chalcbi s(‘(mis to ))e a common family name. ’ a l)r- siilc(l by bJi vud Mahyar Xaoroj Kutur, vol. I, [). 77. Kutiy No. 6‘52. Fehix'Ht, vide the Introduction of the above Fehrest ; vide also my “ Rclij'ions Ceremonies and Customs of tlypjJJai*8ecs.” Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 273 APPENDIX I. A Few Important Dates. (1) Dates of a few im'portant Events connected with the Trade of the West with the East, and connected with the History of India, before and during the times of Rustam Manock, The Crusades, which first brought the West into A. C. closer contact with the East . . . . . . 1095-1291' The Portuguese under Vasco da Gama discovered the sea-route to India, and began trading with the East, thus breaking the monopoly of Genoa and Venice which traded by the land route . . . . 1500 Mahmud Bigarha of Gujarat (reigned 1459-1511) lost his fleet in a battle with the Portuguese, fought off Diu^®^ . . . . . . . . . . . . 1509 Goa captured by the Portuguese . . . . . . 1510 Baber proclaimed King at Delhi after the defeat of Sultan Ibrahim Lodi at Panipat . . . . . . 1526 Accession of Humayun to the throne at Delhi . . 1530 Akbar born . . . . . . . . . . , . 1542 - Humayun, returning from his flight to Kabul, re- conquered India . . . . . . . . . . 1555 Akbar appointed Governor of Punjab 1555 Akbar came to throne . . . . . . . . . . 1556 Overthrow of the Hindu kingdom of Vijayanagar which gave a serious blow to the prosperity ” of ,Goa, which did business with it . . . . . . 1565 Father Thomas Steven, the first Englishman to land in India, landed at Goa, though not for trade (Died 1619) 1578 Portugal united with Spain under Philip II, a bigoted Catholic Monarch. This Union weakened Portugal. 1580 Queen Elizabeth gave a Charter to a small Company, known as the Levant Company and also as the Turkey Company . . . . 1581.. Vide Smith’s Oxford Student’s History of India, 6th ed. (1916), p. 133. 274 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh Thin Company sent out Newberry, Fitch, Leeds and others to the East, by the overland route of Alleppo, Basra and Hormuz, with a letter from Elizabeth A. C. to Akbar . . . . . . . . . . . . 1583 They arriv(‘d in Akbar's Court . . . . . . . , 1585 IMiilip II's Dutch subjects of the Netherlands, where seeds of the Reformation were first sown, revolted a^^aiust his bijjrotry. Ho, Philip, to punish them for tlie Ib'volt, sto{)p{‘(l their intercourse with Portugal ^ from wh(‘r(‘ th(‘y received the commodities of the h]ast. So, the Dutch, being tluis deprived from having Kasterri commodities from Portugal, began trading ijidcjxuKhuitly with the East . . . . 1594 Privid(‘ Dutch trading Com])anies united to form “ Tlie lbiit('d Bast India Company of the N<‘ther]ands”y^‘^ 1602 Ihiglisliman Michhudiall came to India, via Alleppo and P(Msia, aJ. tlu‘ head of a Commercial Union . . 1603 Akbar dit'd . . . . . . . . . . . , « 1605 Williaju Hawkins, commanding Hector, the first Knglish shij> coming to India, arrived at: Swally near Surat 1608 Hawkins arriv(‘d at Jahangir's Court at Agra with .f h'tter from King James . . . . . . . . • 1609 The Englisli established a Factory at Maslipatam . . 1611 The first Fnglish Factory in Surat . . . . . . 1612 Aurangzeb born 1618 The people of Denmark sought trade with India and* “founded a settlement at Trampiebar in the Tanjorc distri(‘t'’ (Later on, tliey occupied Serampore near Calcutta, but, in the end, sold their Indian settle- ments to the British and left) 1620 Shivaji born 1627 Rustam Manock born 1635 The English founded a Factory at Vizhingam in Travancore 1644 Smith's Oxfoixl Student’s History of India, 6th ed., p. 163. Eusiam Manoch and the Persian Qis'seh 276 The Establishment of the East India Company in A. C. Madras 1^8 Murad, a son of Shah Jahan, attacked Surat, to have a big loan from the rich men of the city. November 1658 Aurangzeb imprisoned his father Shah came to throne. (Ruled from 165 ^q:|;o COtONV for 60 years) SlstJuly 1658 Formal grand Coronation Ceremony of the enthrone- ment of Aurangzeb 5th June 1659 Aurangzeb abolished ancient Persian Calendar . . 1659 Shivaji killed Afzul Khan . . . . _ . . 1659 Bombay given as dowry to Charles II. The cession was intended as “ check on the Dutch power ’’ . . 1661 Aurangzeb received the first of the Foreign missions or Embassies, the last being in October 1067 . . . . . . . . February Ohivaji’s First Sack of Surat Treaty of Purandhar between Aurangzeb and Shivaji Shah Jahan died . . ^hivaji s flight to Raigarh from Aurangzeb’s Court * . . Bombay given by Charles II to the East India Co. . . Temporary Peace between Aurangzeb and Shivaji . . War again renewed Second Sack of Surat by Shivaji Imposition of Jazieh by Aurangzeb .. .. about Shivaji solemnly crowned Shivaji died . . 5th April Rustam Manock signs, as leader, a communal document relating to the Naosari and Sanjana priests. 6th June Establishment of the East India Company- in Bombay Jloghal Po-wer at its zenith 1661 1664 1665 1665 1666 1668 1668 1670 1670 1672 1674 1680 1685 1687 1688 276 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh A. C. Calcutta founded . . . , ... . . . . . . 1690 Aurangzeb died . . . . . . . . . . . . 1707 Jamshed Kaikobad wrote his Qisseh 1711 Ilustani Manock died . . . . . . . . . . 1721 (2) A few dates about the English Factories in India, Tile first Kiif^lish Factory or Trading Station esta- blished at Surat . . . . 1608 Fnglisli Factory at Surat, “ confirmed by Imperial grant after th(‘ naval victory over the Portu- giii'se in 1612 .. .. .. .. .. 1612 King Janu's sent Sir Thomas Hoc as ambassador to Jahangir .. .. .. .. .. 1615 Sir Thomas Roe left India “He failed to obtain the Treaty which he asked for .. .. .. 16‘l8 A site given to tlu' British at Madras, by “ the Raja of Chandragiri, in ( onsideration of a yearly rent *’ • and a (\)nveyance was made “in favour of Mr. Francis Day," a Minn her of (^ouncil in the Agency at Masalipatam . . . . . . . . . . . . 1640 Knglish Factory at Kajapore Ojiened . . . . . 1649 Fnglish factory of Rajapore sacked by Shivaji . . • 1661 Bombay c(‘ded to the Fnglish by the Portuguese . . 1661 English factory at Surat withstood Shivaji's first sack. 1664 English Factory at Karvar sac-ked . . . . . . 1665 Charles 11 leased Bombay to the East India Company, for i- 10 a year. The transfer was made to Sir George Oxendon who was Governor of Surat from 1666 to 1669 .. 1668 Aungier, governor of Surat Factory, from . . 1669-1677 English Factory at Surat about to be sacked second time by Shivaji . . 1670 Aungier came down to Bombay from Surat .. ‘ 1671 V. Smith’s ‘‘The Oxford Student’s History of India” 6th. ed., p. 16l* Ibid. Rustam Manoch and the Persian Qisseh 27T A.fC. English Factory at Hubli sacked . . . . . . 1673 Aungier returned to Surat . . . . . . . . 1675 Bombay became the Head-quarters of the British in Western India in the time of Sir Josia Child . . 1683 (3) A feiw dates about Bernier, who visited India in the time of Aura'ngzeb. Francis Bernier born . 1620 Charles I . began to reign . . . 1625 Bernier’s travels in Europe 1647-50 Bernier passes Doctor’s examination . 1652 Bernier visits Palestine and Syria . 1654 Goes to Egypt 1656-58 Reaches Surat in the end of 1658 or beginning of 1659 Engaged as Physician by Dara at Ahmedabad. March or April Dara, having been compelled to run away, Bernier places himself under the protection of a Mogul noble 1659 1659 Restoration of Charles II. . . May 1660 Bernier at Delhi . . 1st July 1663 Bernier travels with the Noble in Aurangzeb’s suite to Kashmir, starting on 14th December 1664 Arrives at Lahore . . 25th February 1665 At Allahabad on . . 6th December 1665 Bernier and Tavernier part company . . 6th January 1666 Bernier at Golconda • . • • •1667 Meets Chardin at Surat , . 1667 Embarks at Surat for Persia • • • * 1667 At Shiraz on 4th October 1667 Continues in Persia • • • • 1668 At Marseilles April-May 1669- ^78 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh, French King grants License for publishing his A. C. Travels . . . . . . . . 25th April 1670 Visits England Died 22nd September 1688 (1) A few dates relatutg to Aurangzeh, Aurangzeb born . . . . . . . . 21th October 1618 Jniprisonod his father and came to throne. 31st July 1658 (fi’and formal Coronation .. .. 5th June 1659 Issue of Islamic Ordinances, e.g., the cancelling of Naoroz . . . . . . . . end of June 1659 Siilcmian Shelko^ son of Dara, brought to Court in chains .. .. .. 27th December 1660 Murad murdered .. .. .. . .4th Decem‘ber 1(161 Went to Mukteslnvar to suppress brothers* rebellion in Bengal .. .. 13th November 1659 Ueturned to Delhi . . . . 13th February 1660 The first of tin* Foreign Ambassadors Mission arrived .. .. .. .. February 1661 Started for Kashmir . . . . 8th December 1662 Ueturned from Kashmir to Delhi . . January 19,* 1664* Shah Jehan died . . . . . . . . . . . . 1665 Another Knthronement on Shah Jahan's death March 1 660 The Hoarding of the reigns of 3 Emperors which wer^ removed from Agra to Delhi were brought back to Agra in 1,400 carts May 1666 The Court returned to Delhi where it remained for 7-| years (two years in this period Dec. 1669 to Oct. 1671 were spent at Agra) October 1666 Imposed Jazieh .. about 1672 The Visit of the English Ambassador with Rustam Manook at his camp . . . . . . . . about l^Ol His Death 1707 Rustam Manock an(| the Persian Qisseh 279 A. C. (5) A few important dates about the Rule of the Siddi at Dandeh-i Rajpuri, which was visited by Rustam Manock^ and the adjoining country. An Abyssinian colony of Siddis at Raj pur and the adjoining country . . • . . Early in t e 16th Century. One of them became the Governor of Dandeh-i Rajpuri under the Ahniednagar Sultanate. Early in 17th Century. When Ahmednagar fell, the Siddi became somewhat independent and was recognized by tb^l^^iapqre Sultanate as its representative kP* ''' 1636 Yusuf Khan Seedi ruled at Janjira ^ ^ . . . 1642-55 He was succeeded by Fath Khan . . . . . . 1655-57 The Revolution .. .. .. .. .. 1670 Fath Khan imprisoned by the Siddis for offering to surrender to Shivaji, and the Siddi fleet transferred from the overlordship of Bijapore to that of the Delhi Emperor . . . . . . . . . . . . 1670 Siddi Sambal created Admiral and Siddi Qasim and Siddi Khairyat, commanders of Janjira and land j^erritory of Raj pur, respectively. The title of Yaqut Khan conferred on successive admirals . . . . 1671^®^ Siddi Qasim, surnamed Yaqut Khan, re-captured Dandeh-i Rajpuri from Shivaji’s hand during the Holi festival . . . . March 1671 Siddi Sambal, the admiral, returned to Dandeh-i Rajpuri from Surat . . . . . . . . May 1673 . Siddi Sambal attacked Shivaji’s admiral Daulat Khan in the Ratnagiri district . . . . March 1674 Siddi Sambal removed from Admiralship by the Moghal Emperor and Siddi Qasim (Yaqut Khan) appointed Admiral and governor of Danda Rajpuri . . May 1676 Siddi Qasim (Yaqut) compelled Shivaji to raise the Siege of Janjira .. .. December 1676 Prof. Sarkar says it was in or after 1674. 280 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh Si(l(ii Sanibal had not delivered as yet the fleet to A. C. Yaqut. Both met at Bombay and came to blows and, finally, through the mediation of the English Council, the quarrel was settled and Qasim was installed as admiral .. .. .. October 1677 Qasim left Bombay with the fleet . . November 1677 Qasim ridurned to Bombay with his fleet for rest during the Monsoons .. .. .. .. April 1678 Hhivajee simt 4,000 men to Panvel, to burn from there Qassiin's fleet. They failed . . .. .. July Ib'iS Siddi Qasim plundered Shivaji’s Alibag coast country 1678 8iddi Qasim inactive in Bombay, for want of funds from th(‘ Mogals at Surat to pay his men, &c. . . 167& Th(‘ Siddi oc(ai[)ied and fortified Ihideri (Hen- neri) .. .. .. .. 9tli January 16G0 Qasim burnt many villages at Pen . . February 1680 Qasim joined the English in the attack upon Shivaji's , island of Ktmneri .. .. .. November 1680 Rustam Mamch and the Persian Qisseh 281 The Persian Text of the Qisseh of Eustam Manock ^ BY Mobad Jamshed Kaikobad. ^ Q Na® • « *# #• ▼ * T S y ,_-a; ^ e)l ay a^Uj r^‘ . (.1^1 ;K.^ _,) >?■ y J i: ^lyi. 1 iJki;liJ iy;J t;?- * ai^T _ik l;jKs Lm (jj a j 1; ^ u5^^ 39- e.L ■^ • -^^ 1 J Ia) C>^ ;5 1 ub ^ tJU If ■> I I j 1 J I I^T j) Vi^J'I^jKJ > y’ • ^ jiff J ; rV*>^ ) 5 ^ 3' 'il'i t)|j/ J ■^l'> vy?}-* J O*^ * _ ^ J> y y* ^ ij l^/lx ij^ — ^ ' ^ <>;i ;/r ; ^ )\ j u^)\ obT jl jl ^ Ci) I ^ y' 0 1 # j I (Xm ^ til ,^^ 5 ^ V T ^ ^ ^>Sj j ^ uf>s^ >4^^ ; ■^]}^) )'^ (»ac jl ^jjjJ ft i dJf^ /^lai. JU a^i. ^_5 Lm, ^ c>w«.j ^1 ^ 3 lA*!^ Jl c/-"'; ff ^ cy-^l; •^^ )«>•>• ;(5'jj»T J J ^ ly 282 Rustam Manock and the Petsian Qisseh jf ^ 1 3 ^ j ) j HjL, jL^;ir j; ) XJ. Kj ^ ;trj^T 1; ^1 ^ ^ I 0-«aj V^j I )i)^ /} j I — t' ; ji U I J J Li l^j I ^ ^ ^ ^ J J I — Aiur jj i:;T 7^ f^; ;)^T |.ki ^ ^ 7 ^ ^ I V 7^ * 37 *^ 0 tj J — •**'^ 7 — A o^Jj 7r i7^ ^IvdLe^ J' vo^y ^ y ^ Jl; xl^T ^ yt^ ^ ^ /^ld^ ^ 5 * I ; 7 [^c 7 w3 b /»^ 1 Jiw ^b b VJ>4I*}^7 IJa. i7^7‘ ^ vj>ww bij yt y ^ I — \su» ^ I tU, (J^ ^) p? b ^ 'f?' ^I«i^ '■^■‘^ } )}j )t 0 “^U I'JJL. J^— i_s^ ; ^^iJW)*^IJ^ '/• j'i ^ '-J'V jj'j ji,iji ;lf j] jl ^ «3 b j C/ jl {ji ^ j*^^ (:; JA i^jy , jlr ^5-1 plj L^^l y j Ir* e;;/! »;l J J <^i I Jj I y I c>^ I y ^Lu J LJC.^ L**^^JLaa/ ^ 1 J> /e U J ji U] d J JX« 4^ (joJ’b cXilyJjjjy > os» •A^b ft i <3^ J jLi ^_yJli.Le i jj t:jb)ji h ^)^-‘f- J u) ^ 3 '«-fl*^ J o-w ) f I ^ v-T^ ^ vjylM ^1 y I— iW ; >* it J j I ^ J I y iat ^s^ ^ tt/ u;^* j Lw) y I ^ (^4MA^ /iiT ^j/**** U ^ ^ cii I J jia^J y jl ^^ly' 1^ di l_^:' }jf ji p ti ^ ^ ^ I -. — A3 J ii)lt'^';o ;3^U jlif^j t_J- J" t)l'^>'' xb'jd'J J c^j ^iu jiMs ^ i^) (J^JU ;y j| ^ 1 i^Jy* /— ajp*^ j I (3j ,ji jiiy J J ^ji) ) J*^ ^ I j>j y** )d X cXXX U (J Uikilj ^ j I ^ I jW t^hif jr“''^' 3 vj**r y i‘^'3 5I ft ^jio^ J iA«».fly ^J,l5' f ji^ ij^J) J y,|0;d_#. ^Uj c>»^ j j 1-3^ '«-C’ ^♦' ^ J e)lj4>; 284 RusUim Mamck and the Persian Qisseh Jly ^ ^ u ; (J J JljJ Ij Lg y j J ^ a*y /i a^ss^ ; laiuj j jLijjLi ^ ^ la># J__„ir /i/ ;lf ^ T ♦'*' - (i; / JoUJ kSJ^ J ^ v>^'" O xjiffjjij l»r j v^-"y.rV ^ (jVt^ j Jji ; I •> ff * ^ j ^^r' ^ J ij;^ } j-M ^ li/rf • ij/j;>> iJ«o s5»>4u^J L« i^L, ^ (j/i; I •■* ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ tX—w 1*^1 ;-iil ;lw' ^U ^_;:■a;t V I j K ^ I; Lij a^ ^ j ti) I jj — »Jj ) fiJ 0) vj*^ J J I ^ JUj |,i« j;j'|; jt ^Li. jj JU. a_u. ^ ajb ‘*t'^ Jj J jif ‘^r^j ^J Jl / ajr' 5 Jj ^5*^1 ;l ^y'j ;b' jl ^ <-? T U^f J J^\) j—^ i}^) /M ii)^ ;a ^ — ^1 ty/“ Ii) ^ y 1— ft-ej d I ^ l_S» 3 ;ir' u) la^l ^J,L-y j . ^liCu J ^(j ^ Vl-'j/ti J jl y;,a (.ji ;j ^ a/a)< U ,ir ; Rusktm Manock and the Persian Qisseh 281 j Lu^j I ^ l/e j Li ^ J I j^J)) l‘^ L) J yL> ^ Jf (_j“^ Ij JjtJ * 5 ^ i^UI U ^jSJj ^1^ j gj^j ^ 1 0 X > »>Li (j j I jj •cJj^ li> ^ ^ I^Uw jj jLi^ jU L *>|j|jj I 0 Ij XcX-AjI^ fjiut Jfj , ^ Ij” •> ^ --tt b I ^ I •) >> U LtJ ^ JU ^Is' ^ A ^ *.^ /*;>* l•>4^ /J j*il^ .>UllJ •*!'*•'' f- Jlfjl /• •> tjLu •>J>» bV jj) Jti jU »;:^u jaiyijf 1 ) Nasi^ (i»" 0 J* ^ »L5 i^}J ^ ]jf j x U ^ y ^Ji,6Xf ^ )ii ^ bj i:jl;j-> '=^'4^. j ^_stj ; X U J |>y> I (_fl» ^ U ^ y ji yj^i)^'^. ^ ;I^ J ;t.«J.^j ^eil (^^1 j oJ;»> J J*C j I jJ ^ Jf~M Jfj (Jy^j I ^*^ ^ ^ ^"! iJ ^ Li.« I 1^ «> b » 0 j If J U^^rrt**' p (. — J I ^Jy ) \j^ ^ )( J d J ^ Li jj / j-fj ; <^)jj ^Ij ^ ^ d^ i J)y ^ j r*X •^v JiJJ j\ 286 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh rCSo t lX) b ^ ! vi^j » >> l^j -'Jj?* 5; ’^=>- j > t f— ?■ J fi^. o a ”■ fJ jy l7 fcVJ »> J,)^ tXi ii-.« J Jly ^ — x-; J(l{';Jj <— flj cXJU j ^i ^r (*« J •>;•> 1; J t); l:^^; Ji ?■ jl ^ Dae jl U (7 ly" 7 y© 1 — j| ^ 7^ i ^Aj Si ^ 1 7 ^ jj a 1 tVj . . . a, Z' u ^ u-^y^ j 1 ^ j ^ J ^ ji jj Sj Jt j I ^ L^ ^ aI^O j dlLu^ (•IvU ^ tj \j>Jjj ^JMJLS ^j;jl ;;*>;*) // i^y ^ j^iji j j ^ }■?“ J I ji aixfl^ <«5* J I j ; ^ ‘^**7^'*® |*--i'W' <^7^ J iiJjy ^ ^ ^J;ljl a^I ^1 |*j;|jo ^ •>!•> ^ ^ U ^ Ixn^j ^£u/ J (.^XJUmJ jCn, ;k' A*u^ oi'/ j" ;;j i^v^'-'i'^-'^ ufr" Jio^ ^1/ ,41. j lyLi \,J^ }^ ,^l«; ^1 ^ U y Jt_^| ;. fL*J yj ^ l>ljc ;aj| ojbf Ij^ Riistam Mattock and the Persian Qisseh 287 O V* J 111 Jj^ ^ (I) ^ I j*iJ *!? j !»*>-" j{ ji jf jiL (^^y' j]jJ j] jj ju j i;i/t gir' j| ^ U y'l JLa. ^ mO.| J y' bj ^Li j] ^Is:^ j•i^ l_^y| L J.u»^ I'UJ sKiJ^^j ^yliy'^^^aa.^j- , I '''.jS*')' jUiy yu ^y>j^ * j ^ jy (jUiji W'ijj ^b !(iyi ^jljT^, ^ 1^ ‘i— '"^{j iXi dui Uu y ; by // y^d d^<. niijj. ^3?. jl 3iJ ;jd_^ij, uXiu 1^-^; ;ijj>^iiiU • dlA/ ^ Lj (jbi*" vb (^Ijl did J^ly Sd^ l;b* ^ ^ <^)^ ^i/ \jr ^ jJid ^ '^**^ — '*' ^ ) ) Jp, ) dAtw I (iij yS 1*4 y ■<*T ^ f,; »dU4 yb* ^y d^Ui ;J ;^L. JA j—^a*-* jjj j,j ^ |.f L*;|_^y_^ ^ vr^ I y I U-, ; I j ! u^ Li^ c:^UL«| ^] U ^y;*d ^ j jL. ^.yT t)V ?- ts *;V b» y 288 Rustam Manock and the Persian QisseJi j s)L^. ^ <4^’ ly^ i i>hi ^)) iJ 1; , u^y^ 1 ;^l ^j;Ja) ;(J,j '^.j^ )J (Aa^ tAj 1 » J IX> 1 c/'r; ;'> ufj^ i eJ rS} ) jl;l y uf 1 cJikf j I ' 1; j ^ J 1; 1 ly U . 5/ ^ bj tic* 1 e) I (A j (A ^ ;ld 1 ^l—iT •r^’ J I lAj i:)^ / cAaL L_5*^ d—ii tl_ij J^l_^ J ^ * ) f / ) ^ }\ / )).\ dyju l;^l LCttO I O'J^ jJ cy >C J A ls}yl \j>SJj^ c:.'l/*V ^ ^ lJ jIass vJ'Xjj IJj) j| U ^ o**/ 1^ «. jir j:ii |.i: ; ^1 iXXMAA^ j j^;Ai^| ^ki ^ ' ajt^; ^ Jl ^ lj;l C/tfli. JyJ ^h) vj^^— SJ^MJjyi > r-^y ^;l }yj] ^)y> ^ — r d liwli^l y Ruslam Manock and th. Persian Qisseh 289 pUlfc ^ tja, j j (jLXiJjj ^ lJjSoj] tj li Jjj pW^ jt j'-wJ ' C.VRS' CO'-O' /• . ^ . •io ' ’ /*. ft j /i ^ ^ Ij f jl Cp® I /S‘ ^f.j ‘^i/ Jt j e^tfjy'L j /lu-j \^L dij_^ >*“1 ;j . cr^l ws-A} ca;:c ;j J I^U;. Cr-i^ J J y/ XjUi ^;|:, , ^\y^ U; ^ sy^ ji.d^‘j I— ^ ^;T jj^jpiJJi ij lo jl^ ^ ^ jJjU}- yjU; J ‘JjJ;y ^ u;^ t:)* sjllJl jij ^ ^>>jl ^ l;U 1^ d^; ^ Mj )] / M — i ‘^i C>«^j lULy did) pi Ais y^ )r ;‘^I ‘iijt-Ai |.;i_*) i^u ^ i^j joit) PLi. ;_^ jl ^ ^jli j ^ Jl ;UU p: *p**“ i^ji^ (^uai CfA J, did^T ,*f. 290 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh \ y J ^ 5 ^ ) .v«JJ I i J )) c 3 ^ I ^ » *3 ^ ^ )) V J j ^ ‘■^ )]d J ^ *> / e; )) l)-^ ^ ^ ci>.NLj ei,;li:j JU. t«e /i ta. I* *>^-^ ^ y^ U pi — JU? j ^ cw'i^ ^ ^ ;^cuT I Jt- /•^ ‘^/* lif^' .r > tf^ '*t V ;l ^J^ ISm,) j^ljl {i/iy ^ >iii^ ti/^ ^ p i^i I j u c'J?- '■^ ;is'^!j iXiLo ,j*y ^:,/i ijj ^ ^ ^^Ijl )\)j KO ^ 4 ^ 1^}^ i^oIJj 1 ;^ U'-y' ^ ^ jh^ j ' h j^y t^J — iijf y. ca; U I J j 4 j y — f^ij /j^«< 5 4i»»j jOt-f-* h .Vtie jl ^jjJ ^ Jj^ J 1/ ^ " '^y y^ » J jf — « f ^ (JO y *5 U^ji j * — ^ fl^L) ita^y j] ^ jf*t (j)L 4 »jWI^T -iyjJ ->yjJ ukilyk U>’y" 'af Jt )^)i ;_j< ^^'y' Ow*a.; JjjJ jj Jetjs (ii^ic J^ a ^ ;l saJUi y ^| ^ ;ir Aj-Jji ^^■^■’T Jd; [jy 1 1*^ Jl y ly U5 tUJ Ij J j,l«; J 45 4 a6 T u;i4- ^ J ^ ^y ^ ^ 1^ jj ^ IaaS G ) J ' ^ ft t/i^ cjh'^ J ll)*i /• *>> ^-- ;t (i>^ <^Sm I \y 1 jO ^ W 1^ J j4j YIu^Ic^^; j\ '^yf\ 1* dkJA, U 1; «>lysj' a^j ; 1; e;yiyl ‘•’— <5|^ tX^Lu 292 Euatam Manock and the Persian Qisseh I sj l|j J I s J iJj I u ^ ^ /‘♦r L^jIxC jj JJjJ tVj/jj j y. y. ; 1 yL. cjJl^i I ; 4 >i I ^ Ls-^ I ; u^y ^ uf'^ ^ P 1 x(^ /— rV; ^ v3 Ij ^ 1 y*f JUL< v} ] ly jr* (1)^^ J, l^j sJZ^^ ^ 1 — ] yu JyJ /J ^):r^ ^ vjw ^ v»:>‘.mX|.j u c>tf U 1 ^ J oi ) u *3 1 * y u^y*! / 1 ool 1 J 1 idiUj Vj<^ r- Jf- p 1 J j» tj I ^ y j|yi/ L^i^ijil jm »k^T (jrfj ^ ti^S'jj j I J I (_f J H ;liiflJlji U !(;lj jO >f ^ I (•^ ^‘h‘ j*** , ^ ^j«L.j IJ _yJ ai/ (^loy ^ y'l ;|cijljtj ^1 ^ >-'y> ;k' ji '^j'/i y v^— i-'t/l ,y> ;■-> o-f^ I 1 J I (Jij 1 jii-' ; ijT 1 yj^j^ o«,jj| l^« ^ jlAi^ ^ |.U AijUr' siy' jtr Rustam Mamch and the Persian Qisseh 293 Ui/1 ;l>f C>JU. j ^J^y_ j a.J ^J) ^ y ^ j ^ ^ . ^ ;ir i ^ ' u;iy^ ji t;)/ ^^yo tyj ur; -5/ J *> J 01 ^ ■ t) T ; 1 X •>;' J ^^.M/ • Ici^ J • 4* l^l«> d — ij • T ^.jyCw f-S'^ ^1/ Lw LiJ 1 '^y jtj^ (•UJ _, ->;•> 1^1 /3 ‘t/y (4/*^ /J ^) oUjI ;iryj /+>■ si; j| »; ^ly I; ^ jj (jCuj ti*!;:; j j ^j3 v^a. j fjlj:, O^ly I; c;l ^ «,ljJ ^) j ^jy- ^j\iy 'y[j ^|;jJ| V;f>— » xA c;^! t^'c^OTj olcO ^]y M- (4;l;j t|Ji£« y y x* J J tr/— JVf / J* »1S' ex ^jjy 294 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 2(b[-X^:^ ^ Ui fcVAj Uj uj " ^ j ^ ly ^ ) ) vJ>^ »> ^ ^ fji J u5‘*>^ ^,U1 jf 5.— /yiw jj ^ ^ jY^ cJ J ^ J y* tH ^ f- t.T c^t;«l yilio. ili, d';l- J ;V (!>!;•> ^Jji O*^ yi?*^ lyl ^iji' i_iJ j aiy Jiz J y*^ u U' »iSu 1; c) ' '^>; ' l*t Ai;T iyk. /■ \y f. ;l J^j /» ^IJ^ ^ ;>^T l ,J 1 yl b ^>VAU ^t x* >' z-» / ;'$' x-' J^i'***^ jjM c l;t );* r* ' ;f /' ' I'f J urA?^^ z?' ^ y ft J y/ e"^ > ' 1*^ f^. (X) l-tii j *' r {^yi J l.^ (.^ J J.4i el )Ji ^y*-''" / •^ t<4Ail 1 vT tz f ‘V 4i» ^ o b_^iia. 8 w' 1 J ^ ^ J J oUia^ Icij -'j-^ 1; ^^L'j-l yj>^^ ;l J^; jt v^i^y J '-'>* '• } e;;-' cAA’ X f , "r / (s' ^ X t/iJl /l^ e'-V x jj 1 j ^ yb 0 ^ ^ L^J y: i^j ^C) J ^(j J U”^ -J ; I J>j ; ^ U A' ;l_*iiz ;j lyl — mJ ^ kJ-'M } )^ u*V 4> ly \) c.'^A'^'* J )j^ ^ oUdi. ^JijS ^ .O^j x'^’ yl Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 295 j; 1‘Ji ^1 v-5?^ ^ J ^ ^ 'y‘^ »; j^jt •;jT I; I'ii. ^ly » .> ^ L*«k) >\^ ^ i>iyj i_y*“ f ijj /■ijj4f lyy ^ ^ •>;jT ^ •>/}- i^ji^ Ly? ^-“o 1^ cA’^'Hjy uGLo yiyj ciajum i_isej - ^asikwal w-;y y ;>^* ^hj*'^ ^ J J«e xy:;^ ^ ;r* J 1^ J ^ y. ^il — £iG s^y e/J; i v:>^ y- 1—^ ^ I •> j/ « » ’/'’y y r U !(i\ia.y jj;y l>.*««, (it" jj)jj o^Jljl V;i. ;d^ Oj ,t;Uj| o>ai airt_f;U^ hsJ>i^ ojU« ^ vjy j:^laj J*>.^ ‘Aj tj I 296 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh ^ yj>tr 5 /;#-» f ^ I; ^ }i jiic 0"'5^J jio u^!;T j (“5/* y^-t j^j^' ^ \y >5 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ J I ; ]) Ol J j j J i >>Aj l*j O) ^ ^ — iL ;JJi } ejl;!/ Jh ^ yo vjLo } i ) jr^ii i_n — i)b' , ^_j*wc'« ^sy. j. __jij j lUJi’iM ' obj JiiXU ly j -jb y Uf *1 } l‘>b f sJouT f. ^. ) j P- > S'*— i'-j ‘^■•jy py i S'iijj; iSH Ol_yi jj^T 0*j|‘^i<> )^ bl yjjij ^) b x:^'/ xU ijlii j jj,'^<_n; xj») 3 *ip jiir c^jA?yT ^ j; j ;v?^^ Pi- •> 4 ^ fi 3 KJ“i^ ^ -J 3 f^J^ yo jAiM-ij;,^iy I; cr/ Xji '/ I *:}J^ Sr^ P — V J?" •ii*:^;! ^^yl 33^ Ji3ji{j^ ^y Oj-J ^ I ^ W srS''*^;' p*- y)J 3 j'jJ } yp |.U Jlj y> ', Jii u;bij i y )f\y 3 py 3 > 5 %- yy. y )yj ol— ifl, })iiy ;o y\ ^Jyi ijibio- ')3f. ^ */ 297 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh b j j eiilSJt* j! /. V ^ ;j J y^** ‘—0^ (ii 1;;^ L a__i, y, ✓ a_L^;| Jj/ o I ^ Ij j ^ ax** ^ ^ fj j/y 1;^ u2;t^ ^ o* ^ihw j i> ^ j I y ^ jjUj J t“ v>^ly yjj*^ (jT A . . •jjJu ^ ^j tvj U ^ ^ 1 ^ ^^Luf j jif 0 jJLT ^ ^ ^5‘JwU»^ UJ ;L-io; ^ ^ j\ jj c5*^^ , ^ vj>wttJl^ y^*> ^ ( — Lw I ii ^1 j ji ^ isk)^ j a iL {Sy'] ^y» — .3^ ^ ^ L a JL. r’i'; ^ aj y diiy ) ^ VJ>\^ fi S d V. A , L-/*r ll* L 1 I xjJLiUj u*v C^'jl ‘-0)^ a» ^ Jl U*V j»^ ijr'j •>;; ^ J L«a ij d> u >r djiy^lc ^i’ jl y' jj;Ui^^j jj/ ^1 jl e^U^ — yij ^ ypji S"^ j ^ » »> I J ^ ^T ) ^/t^; 1;^-? rK/ 298 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh ^ jl jl 0 )^‘ fi^/ xjif^ ;!> ^ ejl cfv* J^ ;•> /J ly ^ >«>•«• I J ^ ^ y-*^ . ' i (Jh^ J,jj| I; ^ ^,|;0 »J_^ Jl^l ^ *— C)t< I " ij y tw li L) yy ^ y^ ^ ^ cuj j y y^ ^ jiT )'^ byy^' j tj'‘'°y j y/ tyj* b ; p-?y ^ ; 1 y^ JA, ^JllaL- ;yii- Jf> j\ ^J*^ ^ J st;ijJ IS ^ {S ^ 0 OA y j ji^ 1 * I^J*H S-iy'-:' >? sSj <-r^i ^-^^;aI i_5rl" (ji^ t)IV lXu( I* J ^ j L-/* ^ ^ *> ^ A. ^ 'y ^J}^ jr^i i/^ 1 }!:" y yy y-* ;/ ;j3^ \y.^[c jCjdijj o/^Aj I.-.' 1/" i.y^ I/'T Sd y) t)'" ii»ij' U-y^ ^ ;_,ij ^ ;j jl |,, ^iL ) cUa^ W Jj jyu ^ i^i Ic j ^y (^^i/^i Jt; ✓ y j *|^ j;! *1^ 11' T ‘-^•^yj <3^ }-w l|.4aLuj ^ V 1 ‘iTi •^i"; j^; ■■1,1' *!y- i:)J?*>iy^l<5S“^/'l(J^i j| .VJ>AV<3/9J tUj^ cf y jrf ^ y jff^. ^ 1 ^ * if" ' J ty 1; -Ai, jJ Jij Jj xU, 0 j Vj2<>;lvi ijly /JliL jLul 1 ^ ^ ^l^tij j (J *5 t*«J (^dJjjj iJjiJ e; V?- J X (CSa» X oy d»t » ‘J U* ^ j* tij J- f IjTJ uJ^ i^U ) Ji.0 j^j li, Uf ^ L. J (►‘^ l>* uJLj-tf «:ytiy|j e/i^i ^ 0/ ^ ^ 1^, • Oilij ^;U; j| xaA W>J^ or^*- tAj ^J;1;| jj^.jL,d.jtJ J^jT' -f ^J^J fIjL ;j-*^ till 1*^ ’y. -'y' jl 1 ^ >iyj^ xLi ujy y oe ^ ‘^yl.l 'j^ I ) (.Jaiw ^ I J (f JJ.J '^/^^f.^fAy^. ^I;l ✓ (jT yl ✓ xU;«^J;j| (JoOjOJ yjT i-S^' ^ A j:!jj,j^^j li/iV i_sf ^ 11) b ‘V j; uj ^ ti)^y >!yji 0*5/ e,;^ xlj j| d'y s:?— ;^i; ^«ijb u ^ ^\^\. ^ J iy Jb JiTye. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseli :300 s^y ^ L^iLuf j ^ cVjukj ;L; x.>^ I; .>_yi. ;IS” ^ ij^- ’‘jiji ^y ^ j ^ y f ‘^^■ }^ y, jr*^ u*v e)U' xl; I — r t j .> j ^ p 1 I OmmS. J I |^^ uJ' Gu I' J J j y ^ b I ^ Li tVj ^ ^ j I »> jJL I j Xj t j b Juv;l bi^ J lSj) b Jj (Xi '— ^; S lii(« 1 ^ L O j jAU.‘ j e,’^ ^ J U ^ jyJy T jf^ ^ (J I x*^ ‘^; ^ c\.it |>ila# J cy b ib* ^ ) (j I );j ^Ijr j; )^ u^Jiy v>^ yjjji o^bL ^Liiy v^:V ^ j***jIJI V^b ^^1 Ijj ii)b^ *^y /bc^ * ^ ^ ^ ^ K® ) yi U^ J I U— T tjf JJ (Jwi b ^ ^ *Xj / ,j&jUj ^J&>1■? ^JJdi|_JJf ^jSaT xl; ;j dijy' *— l__^J t)l/ ^ L«fc^ t:r-* I j I t^/c T ^ ^y*» y *U j*y \jn t)U-> '^jy-j ^ o;^ jj 1^ jjC »I; J^y ^jIl«JiJui f^y /^j> L_L* 30 xl; ^3^ f. )j ^U, ‘Vy' j :iV ^ jmJ e)J>l •>/ jjI u;bly l_iJ ^ tcj ^ j,j^yj oLj o/yi;ya.-^^Li. 3 zLi, j. ^ 3i *ij)i ji ^ •ij lij ^ y v* I >> I; \Z^ y .iljUa.^ \J^ ^ <^jii *5 O^ 1 dc ^ ijj I ^ '~^}i) } iS)k^3r! ^ vi<«» iji j Ij ^^•<**r jl j (r;Sr j| V ^:L„^dv . 1 ^ ti X J ^ o .; ; y ^ ; ^ J J* U ^4^ J 1 jfCj ^w-T ^yUv j ^ iiJ J Ij 1‘^y’ V-^ V 1 ^^t/u t tU J e;!/ ; -^'V J ;l • (.>*i^j| jj j>'j; J.M U/ y j 1 ^ djulily 1 \^T V** til 1 /'•> :m Rustam Manock avd Ike Persian Qisseh )j} > V I J ij iXi j iyXK9j^\) ^ 4^3 ;l^ ;l dJ y JjJ ^ ^ J ^^—XJ iXj ^ /*^ 9 ^ yuj (ij ^ ; ) uJlJ 1 . t 3 ^ p ^ I Jy VJ>J ^ 1 y; ^ c\3 ]{ 0 I 0 t C O^A. L^jy Sr» 1^ ^:; I ‘^y^; U ^ ^ (J I J J JU ^ >)i ; J ^ e; ^ j;;! )^—^. y r yL. 8cX^; ^Ulc rf c.’b’l jj I^ y^y I *> j I dj |.lc ^'-sr^ vly ^i;i^ ^j)';^ jjjj *li';‘V j^-j! / dj I j dy d.’ ^ ^ ^ ^ Sr' J ^ ) J Hi 1 ^ ) d J do^*^ dxillvd^ ^ l^A ) j di dJ 1 dj twij y Idw cy ^ y^’l yj^h »>ly; djly Li A j d I ; v.>^ ^ d ^ Wb ^ ^ d ^ d^A ^.* di Lij / L^ y^ yXjM^^t /S' lXw ^ L^ o^ Lm» vj>di J!a. di/ ^iLutJf 1^ d j J L*0 ^ (.4M y} t\i d ^Jk> c>^;d ddy" ;ir ^ y ;l ^ t*Mj {k) ^ Lktki ^ Ia ddj ;) gC-ixu^ I J v,y*:^ ^ I y 1 d dxy ,j ) ; I dJI; jlj L^ly jy' I jA^dJI ; Sr* LLwi p *>^t*« )J ^ d I } »jl;d k:)^ )y. I; ^ ;r®““ >' vdiy b ^ ^ ;| ^ f 3; j ; Ua. L. >» y ij ^ dA^^j j y,. j L4J1C ^SiS ^S / 1 ^ I >J U I ly dx* 4 > Let ^ Lw //* 303 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qissch I *> jl ^1/ I I; 1 ^JU,y^^'l fjs ^ j ^ jxoJ y t/** ijl I ^yf. V V j ^ciil }jmJ]j] |Ju< ; v !>*> o;t^t' ^ ... (j J ^ l^j (X^e J j^. VJ>^; 0-«V ^ » 1^ J J ^ 1 ; I J/cU ^ J ^ ^ rXf/ oJUj yk'jj t:;ir;j^ •jtu^j {^j^J dix5 y^ ^ ^ J (J ^ JwUA/j ilf d^l ^ » j j 1^ y ^ C) I ' yi jy 1*5^1 Ji; y»tj ^ ^tjly^ ^ j ;j 5 jb j J'y (iiU^ tA!}^ " **>y'!(j'*T ^_^«j' e^ljl ‘^»^!^lj ^U Jj jl y«y. c;L.j ^J2^u«.j ^y ‘^ik^ y-; y 304 Rmtam Manock and the Persian Qisseh JJL^ ;l Jiy. ^^)y. ^ly' xSj:>y O'O^ C>4«v>V (_a; ,. ^,f] b) V— j' y- > .- ^ u" ^ >" ';j '-^;>? si-;*>V /^•=’ JgLi i-£jU '^/ oJly>. ^ Jjl; {jo ^ y. LjUli ^iV«T Sr*'^ (^*5^/ jir!,j^ |.jxT ^1 (_/-V y ;' P f'^T jt^ j j\ y ^ ^ J^ ^ f f^ j' Lj J y •> ^ ^ ej (Jr ' ^ ^ y ‘)^ ;■ '/){ y.y^ ‘V?- i *^-’ ^^y!_3 y j 1 c>y>M ! j t-X-3 U OA**. 1 u-j b j »5 ,_J>^ ,S^y. .i_>'y ii)T ‘t»'»?> ^y P*-» •^'•^ b-> ^ 1 >5 ^^l ^ *^3 Tjjjb*^ ^ 1 >*** ^ ,^li. ^ ^ ^,Mf. u,l.t U |.jy. cUijiJo ■i C i ^ ^ iX yt9 tX aIi j ly ^JitS' y.i I 306- •y v^ 1^ j JIjijM, ^JJ jSc li’ly' ^;l^ ^ jjl ^^il l^-L c>jlu, Jj iSj J^ ^hj> 1^ ^IS' y ejly'ci^yv j y: ly ^1 ^''i J } «> I ^ y ^J|j| ^ "^y u" !(^j ij I* <5^ c^a-T 1^ UrLjj' (J^ l*A£ ^^^JShS L^ U r^— s J^^';l jL^ ajji^ '-^/“^ ;j/“ ';/ ;*> r'**^/ ^ ^^ji' Ijj Kj/ j a.T ^aLi;| «1) 4 Jt^ j I y y j!j ji, ✓ ‘^*/’ >_5-^ '/)t (^aL£;l ^ f y ;ir ■^jy i^y jtcj ^Cut i«_}Ij r<^ afd »jy « wb vby Ji u^u^ih i:>,^ J t:))y» yjUy yj ^ L^l ^ I a^ ^ O^c ;■ f j; »j/ Rustam Manoch and the Persian Qisseh ^ ^ taujT^ r^^.r^Utj cXiU ^■0 J ^ I CL^Xvw 300 RuHtum Manock and the Persian Qisseh :>y_ y .Jl.> 1; sj^ ejiy lii'yi 1*1 *I jj) I'ly^ '-? Oi*"" 11)0*^^ tiiU.; I* U tXi K li Ia*w y ^ I y. ^ ^ ej ^ y ly ' '^ / ») 0 ^ v:jl->>;l n^J:, i:;h) *j/-: ^/xT «3j L yT ^ 1 U ^iL«/ ) ty »> 1 /.j yc ; 1^ J 1 , A^yj jlij )} ** •^ . 'T ^j) y \J^i >— BlaJ';l v^'^• a* \ijiij - r J^; j:^r’ jIj ^ J Ajl^ ym ; ^j) / viJ y^' ^ 1 •> r Oa. c;^‘^ sA> ^ tj J J b« /J J J ^ ^ j L«c J ^.vl jl jj <^Xi} y / '^'“) Jijjij s!s';‘ij y Rttstam Manock and (he Persian Qisseh 307 'Uj ;l j ^ e>jiU:}| ;fe' ^ {^\)\ ij I JjJ^ o-i, {SjtXjj^f jf ' — 0^ j 11) e) Ijj dj ; ^ ti.^ j dj di jc-y t.^ yb ^ ;IS'j; J 1 ^';T ./ ;k' • • r'~> “ 1 IjU JJI^) • •*. ^ l^J dj J ! 1^; , ii) ii)l;>> V CT” c>. (J llj b ^Aa.’au 11)^?“ .t) Ij « d^ i— fii' ' ^ ^ ;■ v***^ (^1 / '^-•*y »Jrl i li)lj‘ij| .>j.J ^^lAiij J jJU («kj S^l/ c ijlT i>iuj (j);| ii'0j/“ ( }^ jf v_yv dUty ;| Lytili *' V ; J ^ /r: ;|dj u. b^U u/t^ ; ^l..;l *>l J A yjMMU dj U.' I ^ dj 1 /dj -•Irr i_r^ j 1 dj Ij r^ |*r ; JoL ^ IT j'/ . ; diL a. tj ) ;k' djUli/ i^ y s-^/' iii!;<> jl5J ^/!r^ % ^ \>mJ LkMV I .) f,. 308 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh i— ry^K d jf UU vj>jUk '^)y- r*^ ; ))f' di;*> LTi '; <^;>#-> T \^l djjyj l:;b* ,_;^l‘5 ‘Jj/' (J*^ I_s0>! t-O,) J J^JjJ tXjy s'w ^^lya.L* j; rt (i) ^ J ->l i xLijlj *' 1 ^ ' 1 ^ ^ Ji J 1 tAj Oi" j’ Ji)ji 3 ^)J ^ ^J^ y jLi c J; -> Jbc _, f'^y /*j L*j ) j " ^ l^jl jIj ;; ; ji ^-*1^ Lm) L^ ^ ! cVi (A/0 1 vJ^AaaJ tt^J, J wii^aLL ybj yi^ jj; jU 1^ U; Ji;)jj; v <^^-=r* U '>_/^; ly 1 ^_;-v ^ ULm ca;^ ' ;t^ y’-^ vT ‘^/ ujb; La/ (A^ ^ ^ (AAj /J ||Aau ^ i^T j 1 j J 1 vw y (AaC (iiy JLX j* Xm0 ^ J ) cXj L«c (^ *>7^ )^ (AA^U^ y^ A 5 •V-^ u5*^ 1; J J A 1 cAj ;I^U Ci-*LL X»l J.J 1/0 ||^ IaW cVJ OUW f AtAV-J ^ ^ ^ J <5j Jam vT j » Ub j y yilif >7^ ^iA ^Cj Uj Ja Iw jt Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 309 t/.T ii V CJ^ ij> y^Cj ;l^l ' ^ jJIaj ^ j 1 i3 ^ X Vj-ul v; ^3 'lJ-< 1 1 J lyV 1 Aw [^Mt ^ > eJ 1 b- ^ 1; f4 tji 1 C ;^iw ! .>^AJ 1 jjj t 1 I dAlj j* 1 (Ax> . > *3 0 jiiT r-c ; ■ r' ) yo .J ciii 1 Jj .'^r- 9^;!: [j lJCjIc (A-j > \ i^Ui' LA 3 ^Aaa< i 3 t $ 14.3 L **^.kAi b oji \S J slrs'.AJj , jj’3r 0 i\xii Ij ^ J J t uCJ u j (/ j iijj iiiy" iij.j v_s^ Jtf® u5> jjj^zbixf ^xilt jyi L> . - (♦‘^y vjj; u'j' c> ^ 4^ 310 Mdwvk (mil tli(' Pe)f,2(in Q}'ch DOCUMENT No. 1. ' x^. i\xi) London, the 1724. MLL OF RoMJiAY. 9 ' W(*e tlic (’ourt of Diroctors of the United CJompany Company of Merchants of J^hi<^4aiid Trading to the J^last Indies send this to acijiniint yon That by the Kin^ (hv^rge lat(‘ly arrived, and the Stanho[)(‘ \vhi< h eanie in Sometime before* Wee liave received yo'- sev(‘rall |)a('k(*ts and Adviec's giving ns an Account of our Alfairs nialer yonr Manag(um*nt with tin* leasons of your proceed- ings. \\'(> ()bs(*rv(‘ in Yo^' Jj(Tt(*rs })y y'* King George, That the ( h)\'ern(nii- of Snratt and tin* Mereliants think it very reason- able, that the late Rrolv(*rs should give us satisfaction as to all just ()<*man(l > upon t hem, whi(*Ii as you have* wrott* us is what you desire, and would be eonti'nt with tin* |)roof of ('veii from their owui Rooks and Accounts, and to submit anv .Mattjus of difference that mav aii>.e To tin* l)(‘t(‘rmination of tin* M(*rcha!its of Suratt to be Mint nall\' < liosen by t in* said .Rrok(*rs ami you. lor them to conclude ami sett !e t he sa me. , W(‘ iind in the L(*tt('r by tlie King Gt‘org(‘ That Fframjee is in Custodv at the Snratt Durbar, and Bomanjt'e remains confined to his house at Rombav, fornu*!' L(‘ttt‘rs gave us yo^- reasons, why you did not then think it propt*!' to h‘t him go olf the Islrnd. The S.disbnrv Man of War whieli arriv(‘d at Spithe:id the lalt'r end of A]>rill last brought Xowrajee from Snratt, he is since <‘ome up hither, and hath laid before us sev(*rall [)ap(*rs and accounts which are Oi’der'd to lie [u*rused and taken into Consideration. Among otlu'r ]):ipers In* gave us one Faititided the Case of Framjt'e in dost* [iiison at Snratt, wherein he representors, That this was occasion'd by tiie Knglish Chiefs Mr. Hope & afterwards .M<‘ss's (\)\\ans A Courtneys application to Momeen Caun the ' In n‘;nlinu’ some words whieli are not legible, 1 am helped by the <‘opies printed by dalbluiy about 40 years ago. Some missing lettem where they are not legibU‘ ar(‘ put in braekets by me. As to the year at the to]), it is IT- I. .\fter the printing oil of the above paiiers, I have seen some extraets whieli .Mr. Kavasji Seth has sent for from the old records in Kugland and I Iind that the year in the Kxtracts also is 1724 and so the matter recpiires a eonsideration otlier than the one given by me above ‘^in theSei‘tiv>n (Section II a) ol Documents. I g'‘ve''^^ the end a fac simile photo of this lirst doeumeiit. Rustam Mamck and (he Persian Qisseh e311 Siiratt Gov^- and by a Letter delivered to him wrote by Governor^ Phipps on which Framjee was at first confined, then Guards set on his Father Rustumjee’s house, after this Framjee was forced to pay Momcen Caiin at times Fifty Thousand rupees, and also Two hundred rupees a day for leave to supply ih.e people in the house with provisions and Water, and besides all tliese hardships In* h^ls undergone Corporall punish nenits. We are apt to think this Case is greatly aggravated or at least that t]\e y proper ap})lica.tion to the Governor of 8urat to get Framj(‘(‘ released from Confinement, and the Guanjs taken off from*liis late Fatlier's hous(\ Our (h'sires being to end all differ- ences amicably for We would not have him opprest. We liave at Xowrajee's desire given liini Six Letters, ail of the sauK' Tenor with thi^. That as lie intends to send them over- lan ftir^Stnew Decker of London Barronet Josias* Wordsworth Edward rrison and John Heathcote of London Esquires send Greetings ^ WHEllEAS in and by One Indenture bearing date on or about the Eigliteentli r(‘.^entat iv(‘s or Claim un(h‘r their aho\’(mamed Father or otli(*r\vi<(‘ howso(‘V(‘r and accordingly w<‘(m1o a ward th(' said Five hundnsl Forty six thousand three hundred and NiiU'ty Rupees to })(* aee(*j)t('d by the* said Nowrojee Rustumjee* hVamjee Rustumjee and Bomanj(‘(‘ l\iisrumj(*(‘ in full satisfaction of all Demands be- tW(M‘n th(*m and tin* said rnit(*d Company to the said Eighteenth day of No\ (‘mb(*r and W(‘e award the same to b(‘ j)aid in the Manner and form and at tin* Idace hereafter mentioned (that is to say) W(*c award that tlu* sunu* of Nineteen thousand One hundred and tw(*nty liv(* Pounds Sterling mon(*y being tlu* amount of Value in England of One* hundrt*d and Seventy thousand Rupees be well and truly Paid or Caused to be paid by the said L(nited) Company to the said Nowrojee Rustumjee on or before the first day of February now lU'xt Ensueing and that upon such Payment the said Nowroj(‘e Rustumjee do deliver up to the said United Com- l)anv to be Cancelled the B(ond hor)ein before Mentioned to be dated on or about the Eighteenth day of i\Iay One thousand seven hundred an(d een)^ whereon as above mentioned is due Ninety one thousand three hundred and sixty seven Rupees and Twenety Nine pies and a half and the said other Bond herein- ^ Jalbliov gives ‘-Sixteen”. Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh 315 before mentioned to be dated the fourth day of 0(cto)ber (?) One thousand seven hundred and sixteen whereon as above mentioned 2 and E^ght hundrec^ do further award that the said United Company do on or before the first day of February whicli will be in the Year (of Ou)r Lord One thousand seven hundred and Tventy five Engli(sh) stile well and truly Pay or Cause to be paid to the said Nowrojee Rustumjee at Bombay in the East Indies the further su(m of) One luindred hiighty Eight thousand one ]iund(red an)d Ninety five Ruj)ees upon Payment whereof wee do Award and Direct that the said Nowrojee Kustumjc'e shall hiin(self sig)ii and also Procure the said Framjee Rustumjee and (BoTna)njee Rus- tumjee to sign a Receipt of ac(piitta(nce) of and for the said One hundred Eighty Fight thousand One liundred and Ninety five Rupees AND wee do further De(clare an)d award the said United Company well and truly to Pay or cause to be Paid to the said Nowrojee Rustumjee at Bombay aforesaid on or before the first day of February which will be in the Year of our Lord One thousand seven hundred and Twenty six English STile the further Sume of One hundred Eighty Eiglit thousand One hundred and Ninety five Rupees being the residue of and in full J^xyment and satisfaction for the bhiiiK' of Five hundred and forty six thousand threes hundred and ninety Rupees so due and Owing from the said United Company in tin? whole as abovementioned upon Payment of which said last Mentioned Sume of One hundred Eighty Eight thousand One hundred and Ninety five Rupees wee do award that tlie said Nowrojee Rustumjee shall Sign Seal and Deliver and likewise Pro- cure Ijie said Framjee Rustumjee and Bomanjee Rustumjee to Sign Seal deliver to or to the use of the said United Company and their Successors a General Release of and from all Claims Accounts and Demands whatsoever between them and each of them and the said United Company to the said Eighteenth day of November last past And wee Do Award and direct that the said Nowrojee Rustumjee do and shall also Sign Seal and Execute unto and to the use of the said United Conxpany a Bond of Sufficient Panalty * ^ Jalbhoy gives, as read in 1900, “is due fifty one thousand eight hundred and forty Rupees and vve.” 316 Rustam Manock and the Persian Qisseh Conrlitionod for tlic savcing harmless and indemnifyed the said United Company and their Successors of from and against all (laims and Demands that shall or may be made upon the said Unit(?d Company or their Successors for or in respect of the said Slimes of Money so paid in Pursuance of this Award and from and against all Aetions Suits and Damages that Shall or may happen to or be at any time or times Commenced or Prosecuted against tile said United Company or their Successors for or by reason or in res|)(‘ct of tludr liaving made such Payments as aforesaid or any of tliem or oth(‘rwise liowsoever in relation thereto IN WITNESS WIlURJ'iOP w(*(^ the said Arbitrators have to this our Award S(‘tt our liands and Seals this Eighteenth Day of January in the El(‘V(‘nth year of the Reign of Our Sovereign Lord George King of Great Britain France and Ireland defender of the Ffaith E^ 0 (((‘Z (?) Domini 17*24. S<‘aled and D(*li\'ered. (being first Duely stampt) in the presence of Sth. Hervey (?) John Heathcote. Geo ROE Lloyd (?) (The Document bears a Seal on tlie left hand margin. The words iloni and Mai are distinctly read; the other portions are torn off. So, the Seal seems to bear the inscription “ HONI SOIT GUI MAL Y PENSE.”) ' Jalbhoy gives these words as ‘‘ or Anno * For the reading of these two letters which seem to be I.S. and are put within a ciix'le, vide above (JSection IIA Documents). 317 Itustam Mamck and the Persian Qisseh DOCUMENT No. 3.^ 1. TO ALL to whom these Presents shall come. We Sr Edward Mathus ^ 2. Knight Lord Mayor and the Aldermen of the City of London Send Greeting 3. KNOW YE that on the day of the of the King Majesty of Court (?) I. h olden before us in the Chambers of the hall ? of the said City personally (?) o and appeared b. wellknown and worthy of good credit (?) and by solumn oath wli 7. upon the Holy Evangelists of Almiglity God there and there C mS. solemnly declare and depose (?) that was 9. fSr Mathew Decker of London Baronet Josias Wordsworth E(dward Harrison) 10. and John Heathcote of London Esquires Severally sign seal and (de)liv(er) II. and Deeds Deliver our originall instrument of f2. the Eighteenth day of January last and purporting to be 13 the East India Company in England, and Nowrojee • • (?) 14 of Surat and that he the said IT). . and Delivery thereof did his fb. Bond and the said Nowrojee (?) did further declare . . . 17 that the said writing (?) 18 19. or that he the said 20. the said Originall Instrument and the same Exactly to 21. the same in Every respect. In Ffaith and testimony of .... Lord Mayor Seal of put and appeared on fourth day of February of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King of Great Britain ...... Dated 1724. (Here there is an illegible signature) This document is referred to by Jalbhoy. 318 RK.sfdh} Mftnock and (he Persian Qisseh DOCUMENT No. 4. FiiAM.JKK KuSTUM.JEE AM) BoMAXJEE lirSTUMJEE. [ }iav(‘ n‘C(‘iv(‘(l yo^ Several Letters, and have returned answer to some of tli(‘in by (’apt". Hide and last by Mr. Thomas Waters ; And I tliink von did wronijr to send Xewrojee to England without a Letter of Attornev fj’om umh' yo** haivis alter the English maner^ neitlwu’ (lid you scuid by him tin^ original Bonds, which was the m<»l material t hings wanting — I hav(‘ to tin* utmost of my power lieljwd a tel assisted Ncwrojei* in yo'*. alfair. and have been of givat(‘r scrvie(‘ than any body coifd liave been here, as I beleive X(‘wroj; tO^/u’ A '/, ( /A'f //>/((’ v‘,'i , ', t Wl' If, ' ' f ^ // //< vfy/ .t i-ZAt ,i'i\' I) W ' '-'<< /r'l ' , /^v ^ A .V///,-/'.^" y »// i^,r/4./ -rZ/A .‘/, f ^ r,'. r*! ','»//,' ' ' ■' ,,\ ^>/,V> //^ vf y /V <* / V A//* 'i ' <" •/ ^ q i 'A/»/ 7 ' ' A",’,/. A/f'iiAA^ A'^/YZrt '/ <’ _. A' ' 'I ///'/'/■/ .{/ /A( z.:i/e CS/'yAy? ' t /A:fAA ' A * <’• N< yr{',/ yY"/fi/AZ' A'/nr/r jj A^i,'(' /•,'/,//.' . ^*A.i/-y,':' n'niAA {'( Ci>*j^r,i/ \(>fpA //’t' y' ( i ijir^-r/A' X'qiri'* ■'.?/. • . r /'^ ,y'i /y / V A\i(//t.f/(n' ' /"- //‘'r(\, 1 : /r-i(yy /Alc Ai(* fZ 0 ’^ fZ. '".;/// , v^'( tA/:u-J/y.y*ytji(‘ ,*'//' ( ,4. \ \ (l/ t<(' //./t '\< A '. > !• J ;■, •'V'// / A/./ I y' ^ / ' / -. A . A/ ?. v^/A.a, /. ■'',• s/< /A a'/ ^/. ay /a 4. • //,<. . '.. '< A^ 7."V6 . A-T PA>/ /Au! AA. ' A f/ JlYr/U’f to A /?y>fl yA O/i^A/'UiNiA i t/i f ^.aAj! V/ ;'^ . /, t/y/t^n' ay/u ^A i j'u tiAu/t A/U/Zu'dit . MV { *^Atf c/itCiZ iV^tAt AC tcf^fA- Artv.yA/ A (, Vi’rajfi'^'rY/r/ , Ay j/C z^- .'///rr v< v/(A ('/,• /ifPAYt . ( A-A/ .' aA to ,rYi/fmAtyYO>y/<-f^' .i/7,A CiCi\ Vf //-A /.- -/vy^ f/f4' (t> . A Ait. / * / yuj'ujpA- 4t/{, A AaA hi Ato ( '>/.•, V- , V*^# ,t>\v5^.sv ct^tl u!^^oi4/ a /i^ (if^>,/Ui^fu*n^ /iAvt 4^ C/fn^^ '^r f/tviiyi ftfat^- — " eifW4ik4)i^^ t^/ fw( ^e^idt ^v^/ dCd /d /z^tA^uzl H^¥J€<*('t'^ /u /Jt'}d*ff.t oi^ld^u/ ctf/a^i ^<5*// iYo i/i^''S^u/^M/dZ<^ Off /r //ic {^{^ifjndtit. iT^i-^utai /d C /^t' /imci/c^ ^1<>/ /fai l /?/r/. (*///Z/‘u/. * ' /u£ O k a/<. /<■>..'/■.?/ fYt ‘Ay m tA*r \yc /o A(/A''i> *<£^u' /r/ihy //c^ fy/ cdcf - y^-- - TT^'A'I \ . o(// ^Aoc/ 1 / ty / cni Medina to Kashmir . . . , 70 j Aboulfeda 258 | Abu-al'Hasaii, Subahdai of Kabul 65 Abidbakar, Calipli .. .. 58 Abiil Barakat Khan ; rebuilt the Mas j id of the Bunnis at ^ Kashmir . . . . . . 48 Abul Fa/d 59 Abyssinia 24,30,246 Acad^)uy, tlie . . . . 4-6, 18, 18 Achaiya, Mr. C. V 94 Aeluemenians, the .. .,24 Achillcns 41 Add Shah .. .. 240,248 Adriaijjle 262 iKsci^a])ius 79 j Afiasiah 129,202 Africa 28, 24, 80 Afzul Kiian : his encounter with Shivaji . . 185*86, 242 Agra 111, 156, 108; — first Dutch factory founded at .. ..110 * Agraeratha {see Agh liras). Aghriras,brotherof Afrasiab 129, 202 Ahkdm-i Alahigiri .. 168,250 AhlA-Kitab .. ... .. 118 Ahmad, a name of the prophet Muhammad 58 Ahmed Shah of Gujrat .. 261, 263 Ahmedabad . : . . ..'71 ^Ahmednagaj’ . . 157, 184, 240, 241 Ahriman 128, 188 Ah.saji Allah (see Z!afarkhan). Ahuji — the name as given in the Qisseh of Kustom Manock explained .. .. 200-201 Akbar 67, 72, 159-61, 168, 165, 182, 202 : Arrival at his Court of the English company with a letter from Q u e e n Elizabeth .. 110-11,118 Alampanak wall of Surat . . 188 Ala-ud-din Khilji, Sultan . . 184 Alhigenses, the ; an otishoot of tile Manichlceans . . . . 17 Albuquerque ; his conquest of Goa . . . . , , . , 257 Alcpix) .. .. 110,111,117 Alexander the Great : Story of the Poison-damsel in connec- tion with him . . 77-78 Points from various versions the story . . 88*86 Fird'ousj’s \(>rsi(jn of the iiUny .. ... 86-91 Alexandria: captured liyShahr Haraz, general ’of Khusiii Par viz 24 Ali, son-in law of Muhammad .51, 58 Ali Add Shah IT .. ..242 Ali Mir Sayyid (.^c6 Mir Savyid Ali). Amalsad, Amalsar . . . . 96 Arnanat Khan — governor of Surat . . . . 188 Anand Koul, Pandit 57, 58 Anahilapataka . . . . 94 Angarias, the .. 26S Auhilwada ..95 Anquetil du Pci ioii ; on the script of the Inscriptions in the Kanhcri cave.s, 7-8 ; on the Malabar Coast Christians, 15-16; on Kustom Manoek and his son Nowroji 151 ; his reference to Kustom Manock's garden 131-32-; on the Chafi- bis 264 322 INDEX. A — contd. Antioch .. .. .. 23,24 Anriif-i Sohili .. .. .. 83 A|)nrn«‘;i .. .. ..23 Ar.thia 70,71 Aral.s, the .. IS, 20, 31, l)f> A l it Ilia if . . . . . . - . 7 Ai'lcshif l>:ii)cj.cin . . . . 27 Ai iNt<»tlc. 77, 7s ; his st<)i v <>f the |K)ison (liiinscl; |)()ifits col- IccffMl Iroin Viiiions vinsions of Ins sloi v S3-St» ; Macoudi’.s 0 f'cifiict' to this story !)2-!)3 At inviiiit. . . . . . . . . 2A Aitainii. (s/7 Dasl.uinl) .. .30 \s;t(l Khitii, iniiiislor of Anrjin^- /.>!) 201, 20.7, 2()S, 200, 2I.S, 237 Asfand liana/ ( moiit h) ()1, 04, (i7 A>liuar \^ii (.M' Siilar A^a) .. iS3 A'-iii M inoi- . . . . . . 21 Atash Ih'liiant, of Xiiosaii 137, 1.30, 2.7.3-51 At iitais . . . . . . S2 AiiLinstns ( '.csai . . . . . . SI Annuicr (Joialil: I'lrsulnit. t>f of t he ( 'oni 1 1 in\ (hiring Shi va- ji'.s .serond sack of Sunit ISO, 10 I Anr.anL!,/rl>. .7.7, .7S, (iO, 07, 120; hi-v fuinKiii iihonl the first tanalish t ladci s ;ind his inal- ticiitinenl of the I’aiefish 1 1 .3 1.7 ; lex \ inu hy liirn of t h(‘ .l.i/i\ it. 12.7 27, 111; visit, to hiseonit of rvustiim Miiiioek 13.7-30, 111, 207-200; (MiarU's \' and Aniiinc/td) 1.77 ; his a^.iei'tie life and l)iLrotry 1.50- 02; his dis'do' ttf nttisie and wine 100-01; his war with Shivaji .. lot)- 157, llK)-0(> Avala. ( Atnx alii) Satij^rama {see Antalsad) .. .. 95,90 A\ars, thx'; an offshoot of the I funs .. 24,25,42 Avory (.^vr Ihitlijinan). A war, Mr. A. Kainanath, 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, 14, 18 Azar (month) 64 B Dabar . . . . . . . . 160 Babylon .. .. .. ..13 Jiaduklhshan . . . . . . 262 Bridvard ; name of the treasure eapturefi from the Boman Kmjujror hy Khusrii Parvi/ 20, 30, 31, 30 Baj^dad . . . . 28, JJ2 Baharji Borah— the richest merchant of Surat when Shi- vaji sat'ktsl the c*ity . . 102 Bahdur Kh;m, Suhalidai’ of (fu- jarat in Auriinyf/eb's time . . 104 Balimni Kini-s; of the Dt'cciin . . 257 Biilurji Naik ; ii scout of Shivaji 100 Biuieollee .. 210,217 Banerji, K. 1 ). . . 04, 05 Bantiim : ill .lax it .. .. 212 Barhad , Ikii’iioud ; a musiei-‘tii of Kfiusrn I’arxi/ 26, .32-.34, 40 Baroo.^a, Ikn vLCtza : modern Broiu h . . . . . . 81 Ikii'id ; the taimms horse of Klnisni Biiixi/. .. .. 30 “ Barljiam itnd .fosephat ” ; Pah- lavi oriiiiin (d this story Sf)-S.3 Basra 1 10, 1 17 Bassein . . . , 130, 140, 100 Bifctavia . . . . . . 147, 148 Begum Sahil) : sister of Aurang- /. . . . . . . . . 160 Btirdedj . . . . . . . . 261 BonianI, Dr. ; hiso[)iuion on the script and language of the Inscriptions on the Crosses in South India . . , . , . 7 Best, Capt. : Ins formation of an Knglish factory at Surat 112, 118 Bhagarsath : priests of Navsari 144 Bharthaiia — near Surat .. 271 Bhatbhar 65 JBhau Daji, Dr. . . . . . . 7 Bhavani, goddess . . , . 186 Bliima, the . . . . . . 168 INDEX. 323 B — conid. Bliiwardi . . . . . . 246 Blionsle family . . . . . . 184 JBddiilph, (Vjl. : his refmoiict* to Uiistom Maneck’s sons 267-69 Bidp:ii Kalila anithy Ilian ('oast, the Blo(‘iu4,M. K. .. Bodhisaltv.i |}okhaia . . .. 24 20. 21, :}6 Si, S2 .. 262 Bomanji lliistoinji : a son of i Jlnstoni Manock montionod in ! th(‘ (iL'spatchos of tlio Kast i India, ('ompany lOl, lOo, 109, i • 2i>7-69, 910-12, 917 ; mon- tioiK'd in tlio Qi.'tsidi of Bustom i Mancck, 192, Io2 ; iiKMitionod | hy ( V)l. Hiddulpli 269 ; fnrtlKn- | paiticulai's about iiini from | the Parsi Ih-akash, iVc., , 27 1-72 ; namod Bahman Bcli- I ram in ceicmoonet, C'. ; of tin* Kn^jjlish fa<*- ' toiy at Surat 104, 107, 108, 267 }}rahndns, the: exempteil from the Jaziya by .Aluhammad Gho^a . . . . . . . . 169 Braithwait, Capt : of the Salis- bury Man-of- War .. .. 107 Bridgman (a/a/x A\ ory) : a pirate w’lio plundered Aurangzi'b's shi])s .. .. .. ..114 Broach . . . . . . . . 189 Bruce, John : Ids reference to Rustom Mancck and his account of the embassy to the court of Aurangzeb 208, 200, • 212-14, 217-38; Sumnmij of im})ortaiit events to be gathered from his Annals about Rustam Maneck and the servants of the Company f. 290-92 ; his “ A mals ” and “ Qisseh ” of Kustom Maneck 233 Buda-lVsth . . . . . . 96 Buddha Sakva Muni . . 81-89 Buddhists, the . . . . . . d8 Budrlhaspa, Bndhaspa (m' • Joseph — -.fosatih) . . . . 82 Bulsar .. .. .. ..183 Burlunipui’ 167, 172, 174, 216-19, 222 'Burhanpori gate, of Suiat 183, 199 Burnell. Dr. : lirst diseovon'r of Uu' ('losses with Bali Inscrit)- tions in Southern Imiia, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 19, 17 Burtliey, hi'. : on tlu' sei-ipt and l:inguag(‘ of tlie Inscj'ip- tioJis on IIk' C rosses .. 7 Bur/.o-Xann h . . . . . . 75 C CadiMU : general of Ivhusru Barviz who took dernsalem.. 44 Cambay .. .. .. 92,189 Capjiailocia .. .. 29, 24 (^ip|>uchin iidssionai'ics. . 98,99 Carpid of Rhusi'u Barviz - described .. 20-21; 94-96 (^ artlia.ge, . . . . . . . . 24 Casarti'lli -Bishop of Salford . . 34 (.'ape of Good Hojie, the 109, 117 (.'atherino : her marriage with Charles II .. .. 119,189 Chacchasta (xcc Grumiah) . . 25 (dnidufi Xoshirvan Meherji (see Xoshirwan) . . . . 255-56 (Jhalcedon . . . . 24, 42 Chalibi, Mohammad Saleh . . 264 Chalibini Masjid, at Surat 258 : an inscription on it . . . . 320 Chalibis, the . . . . 2o8-26J Chalibi Osman (see Osman Cha- libi). Chalukya Copper Plates : found at Dhamadachha . . 94-99 INDEX. 321 C — CO Hid. Clifindaiu : great grand-father 1 of RuHtain Maiiock . . . . 1415 i (4m[)rand, in Tibet .. .. 08 j (diarleH 11 and (atiierine: their | marriage treaty .. 110,180 j ('liarleH \' : coiripaied with Au- | rarigzel) . . . . . . 157 i ('haul I!l(» I (’haiitii, tlu‘ .. .. 187 - 10 () i ( 'lioiabat . . . . . . 70 ! Chikli IHIt j Child, Sir dohn ; left Surat for ; Hojnbay to lx* bevoiid the j reach of tiu' .Moghuls . . 1 l‘M 1 | ( 'hint Mekran . . . . . . 28 i ('hosroes I. 10, 27 (.SVC Nausirnvan). (’luisroes II. 10. In I (x # Khusrii I’a I \ izj. ( 'hrist . . . . . . . . 42 ( 'hi ist iatis, th(‘; Khiisi u Carvi/'s war with (ht‘ Chiistiiins, 2!t ; of the Malabar Coast 14- IS; tluir liist a(l\ent to India I 1- IS ; ,\ii(|Uetd on the ( 'hrist- iaiis lo-lti; tiu' Christians, filil i Kifdl) ll.‘»; Manieho-an ( 'hristians . . . . . . !7 ( ‘ihcia ( 'ochin t 'olnnibn.s ('oiistant ine 1.7 01 4:i ( 'onstantinople 2 t, 2.7, 2S-dO, 1 1 , 42, 4 4. ItMt Cooper, Di. I)ossabho\ ; owner id tiu' hou^(> at Surat fotmerly Oirupied by the Knglish Cast India ( ompany .. 2.’U-.‘»,7 ('ross, the llol\ : eaptuied by khuMU l'ar\e/ at tlerusalem 28, 42-4:} CrovM s. the: with lh\hla\i In- si-riptions in tlu‘ d'ravaneore Stat(', 1-lS; (leeipluuinent of the Inseriptiims on them 4-7 ; ^e.lied deeiphernu'nt of the insen [»t ion on the Cross in the Church of Mount St. Thomas 0-10; the Script of the Inscriptions on the Crosses 7-8 ; w hy the decipherment offers difficulties 0; decipher- ment of the Pahlavi Inscrip- tion on the Kadamattam cross 1 1 - 14 ; w ho u ere the Christians who put uj) Crosses with Pahla\ i Inscriptions 14-18; Malabar ('oast Crosses .. 8 ('rown, the : of Kbusrii Paiwiz 20 Crusad(*s, the ,. .. 100, 117 ('tesii)hnn 20, 22, 25, .‘lO, 88, .89, 44 D Dadu and his panih . . . . 165 Daliod : birthplace of Aiirangzeb 1.76 Dal Lak<- of Kashmir 46, 70, 71 Damaiin : \ i.sit(‘d bv Kustom Maneck, 1.86-.80, l li, 177,2.7:} ; Osman's Ship I'anieil there by tin* Pnrtuguesi* 1.8S; Skli Aii ('halibi at Damaun 261 ; names of some of its gov('iuors . . 26.7 I )amon(hn t'(' .. 216-17, 2:}() Damascus .. .. ..2:} Dand(‘h- Ibij j)ur : visited by Kustom Manuik, i:}t>, 141, 1.7.7, IM, 187, 100; 2:}7-.72; factory of tlu‘ Knglish at 2.80 ; Khali Khan on Dandeh 240; attacked by Shivaji . . 242-4() D'Andrada. h'r. .. .. 08,00 Dar-i-Mt'lu'i-, of Xaosari . . i:}7 Dara ; l aplured by Kbusru Paiwiz .. .. ‘ .. -12 Dara Sliikoh brother of .\u- rangzeb . . . . 1.76, 178 Darab, Da'^tur ; instructor of An(|uctil .. .. ..171 utuf, ; |x)megiaiiatc- like ma nun- tree . . 95, 0() Darius ; la>t of the Achivmeiiian Kings .. .. .. ..84 Darjeeling . . . . . . 8 Dastau ; the rich carpet of Khnsru Par\ iz . . . . 8^7 Dastgaixl : attacked by Hera- clius . . , , 25, :ht INDEX. 325 ^ D — concld Daulat Khan ; admiral of Shi- vaji . . . . . . 245-46 Dead Sea, the 40 Deccan, the .. 156-58. 167-184 De Laet ; on Surat . . . . 183 Delhi .. .. 135, 187, 209 '] pseudo -Ar- De RegimcnePrincipum ! istotalean De Secrhtis Secretorum j:vvork, , } 77-78 Desai, S. M. . , . . 95, 96 Desidui, Fr. . . . . 98, 99 Dhamalachchha, near Gandcvi95, 96 Dhamanachchha . . . . 95 Dhamadachchlia — Dhamdachha, 95-96 Dhamdachha-Kacholi : maii- ' goes of . . . . 95, 96 Dhup Nirang . . . . . . 146 Diez, M. de ; on Sidi Ali Chalibi , 259-62 Dilir Khan : general of Aurang- zeb 187, 194 Divydn / this name of the “ Qisseh ” of Rustom Manock explajned . . . . 201-202 Dryden : his “ Aurangzebe ” 161 Diitcfi, the 102, 118; their rivalry with the Portuguese 110 E East India Companies ; de- scribed 1 15- 120 ; rivalry amongst the members 220-30 ; English East India Company — its origin 102, 103, 108, 115, 116 Edessa . . . . . , . . 41 Egypt , . . . 22-24, 41, 109 Elephants — of Khusru Parviz 31-32 Elizabeth, Queen : charter granted by her to some Eng- lish Companies, 110-111, 115, in Elphinstone : on the date of the imposition of the Jaziya 172, 174 English, the : their advent in India 109-11 ; ttrst English ^ embassy at the I loghul Court 111 ; first English factory at Surat .. 112-115 ; 133-35 Enthoven, Mr. R. E 75 Ejngraphica Indica : reading given in it of the Inscription on the Mount St. Thomas Cross . . . . . . 6, 10 Estrangelo characters . . . . 16 F Faizi ; Akbar’s courtier . . 59 Farjaiia : architect of Khusru Parviz . . . . . . . . 38 Farhad : lover of Shirin . . 29* Faridun, King 80, 124 ; — his cow-shaped mace . . . . 27 Farroukhan ; general of Khusru Parviz . . . . . . , . 44 Farrukhsiyar . . ' . . . . 183 Fars . . . . . . . . 182 Farvardin (month) . . 19, 20, 36 Fateh Kadal; third bridge on the Jhclum 46 Fath Khan,Siddi ; ruler of Jan- jira . . ^ . . 242, 243, 256 Firdausi ; his account of the Fakdis, the golden crown of Khusru Parvez 27-29 ; his account of the musicians of Khusru Parviz 32-34 ; his account of the Carf)et of Khusru Parviz, .35-36 ; his ac- count of the palace of Khusru at Madayan 38-39 ; On the Holy Cross captured by Khusru Parviz 43 ; his version of the story of the Poison-damsel 86-92 Fire- tern pie (Atash Behram) ; of Nabsari 254 ; near Lake Urumiah, destroyed by Herac- lius r • 25 Firuz Shah 163 Flo rent, M. ; head- priest of the Malabar Coast . . . , 15 320 INDEX, Y—C(>ndd, Frarnjcr KiisUimjec* ; Son of RiiHtoin Manock ; mentionen, M. K 20 tiori on liiH zyarat-^ah at Kashmir 172-74 Malahar .. 14, 17, IS Malaliar ( oast ( hx)SHcs .. .. 8 Malahar (’oast (’hristiaiis 14-18 Malcolm, Sir .f. ; on the magni- liccnc(‘ of Khiisrii Parviz .. 40 Malik Amhai ; Ahyssijiian othcer r)f tlu‘ Kin;i of Bijapnr 184-85 Malik Asad 200 Malik Ksnd ; Mahomedan (Jov- (*mor of Damami . . . . 2011 Malik Haidar: ic( oust riictisl the .luma, Masjid of Shrinagar in .l(‘hangir's tim(‘ .. 57-00 Ma'mnn Khalif . . . . . . 79 Mango-t r(‘<* : walking Oti; pomc'- granati' lik(' !)5, !)(> ; mangoes of 1 >li;t iiiadachha Kacholi 95-90 Mangaloic .. .. 5, 0 Mani . . , . . . 5, 17 Manicha-ans, tin* . . 5, 17 Manigi iinaii : Sctth'incnt of the IN isiaii ( 'hrist i.uis in Sonthci II 1 ndia . . . . 5 Mankai, Mi. .1. I,. ; author of a lif(‘ of Shi\ aji . . . . . . 201 Mankir ; l upital t>f King Poms. 95 Maniic« i Niccolao : his account of Aurang/.t'h 102, 20S ; on the da/i\a im}H>scd h\ Au- ra ng/ch . . . . 109-75 Mai .it-al-Ma malak : woi*k of tra\cls hy Sidi .\li (’halihi 258-59 Marco Polo . . . . . . 14 Margalla Pass lu'ar K’awaljiimli 40 Mar Shapin': a (’hristian emi- grant to Southern India name of the writer of the Inscriptions .. .. 15. 14 Martyrologium of the Roman Rhundi .. .. ..85 ‘ .Marujal-Zahal) ' : a work of. Ma<;oudi . . . . . . 92 Maruvan Sapir Iso (See Mar Shapin'). Mary : daughter of Maurice and wife of Khusru Parviz .* 22 Mashita ; Khusru Parviz’ place 40-41 Masjid of Shah Hainadan : Persian Inscription thereon 46-54 Ma.slipatam : Establishment of a factorv by the English 111, 118, *210, 214, 215, 216, 250 Matthews, T., Commodore ; helped Now roji (q. r.), son of Rustam Maneck .. 267-70 Manriee, Emperor 22, 23, 33, 41, 42, 44 Mawal -a village of Puna .. 185 Mawalis, the . . 185, 190, 200 Mecca .. .. 20,43,159,187 Medina 20, 21, 35, 36, 43, 70, 71, 159 xMediomah : one of the authors of Saddar Nasr •• .. 176 Meherjirana, E. S. . . . . 123 Mehleyhi l)(M \ ishes .. .. 262 M eh ran : learned man of the court of Knid {({.v.) .. 87, 91 Mt‘idenhall : nicss(>nger from Queen Elizabeth to Akhar IH, 1 18 Minochehr, King .. 129, 202 Minochehr, E. d., Dastur : Fkli- tor of (^isscli of Rustam Maneck .. 121-25, 140 Mir Sayyad Ali : original name of Shah dumadan (r/.e.) 46, 51 Mir Shams Ir.Uji a Shiah who destroyed the Masjid of the Sunnis at Kashmir . . . . 47 Mirat-i Ahmad i . . . . . . 183 Moab . . . . . . . . 40 Mohads, the . . . . . . 8 Mocha 207, 242 Mogoms, Mougous, Mongous characters . . . . . . 8 Momeen Khan : gov'ernor of Surat . . . . . . , , 104 Morar Pant, Pcishwa .. .. 186 Moropant Pingle ; — a leader of Shivaji’s army during the sack of Surat 190, 196, 200 Morris, M. . . . . 259, 260 Moumin Khan : governor of * Surat .. ... 271,310 INDEX. 331 yi^oncld. Moundu Karens, the ; converted Malabari Christians . . .. 16 Mount Church Cross 4. 6 i Muazzan ; son of Aurangzeb 101, 194 j Muhammad, prophet 51, 53 , 57, 71 ; — his prophecy in con- nection with the captui e of Jerusalem by Khusru Parviz 43-44 ; his liairs 70 ; on the Jaziya 102 Muhammad Cori .. 163 Muhammad Ibrahim Qaramauli ; original name of Asad Klian iq-i-'-) .. 208 Muhammad Murad, Prince . . 05 Muhammad Shah, Sultan 4 7, 50, 57 Mukaji Anandrao ; leadc r of ' Shivaji’s army' 200, 201 i Multan .. 92 Mu mtaz Mahal .. 150 Munshi Dossabhoy Sorabji .. 123 ‘ Mi 4 ntakhabu-l-Lubab ’ ; ivork ! of Khafi Khan 17 3-74, 240 Murad — brother of Auran g'/-(‘b 150, 189, 1!)0 ; Muvattupula — in Travancore . . 2 | Mycc^e . . .. 41 Mylapore inscriptions . . .. 3 N Nagasirika (Naosari) . . 95, 97 j Nagmandal (Naosari) . . ... 97 I Nao^ar, King .. 129 1 Naoroz festival ; disliked hy 1 Aurangzeb .. 101 ! 1 Naosari 95, 97 ; — its tire- tern [)Ie 254 ; described by Hawkins 254 ; visited by Itustam Maneck 157, 139, 141, 155, 253-56 ; descent of its priest- ly families . . 142-43 Naosari gate, of 8urat . . . . 183 Narnol .. .. .. .. 172 Narses . . . . . . . . 41 Nasik : conquered by Zafarkhan 65 Naushirwan, the Just 19, 22, 27. 45 Neryosang Dhawal 142-43, 147 Netherlands, the . . . . liO Niuav, Nineveh . . . . 11, 13 Nirangdin . . . . . . 137 Niravana . . . . . . 5 Nizam-ul-mulk . . . . . . 240 Noldeke, Dr. .. 21,25, 41 Norris, tSir \V. : Ambassador to the Mogul Court — ^went in company of Rustam Maneck 208-17 ; reasons for the failure of his embassy 218 ; i)roper date of his embassy 217-18; the Koldh'push (Englishman) of the ' Qisseh ’ of Rustam Maneck 219-20 ; his quarrel uithSirW. N. Waite 220-21 Noshirwan (Nusserwanji Meher- ji) : Jins tarn Maneck’s assist- ant 127, 137, 143, 144, 149, 170 ; Rustam’s host at Nav- sari ; — his identity ascertain- ed .. .. .. 255-56 Nowrojee : sou of Rustom Ma- neck — Hrst Parse(‘ to go to England ; his name referred to in the documents of the East India Company and in an old record of the Parsee ihmehayet 104-109, 121, 150- 53,208-69; 310- 18; his name mentioned in the ‘ Qisseh ’ 132 Nur Din ; bought one hair of the prophet Muhammad for a lac of rupees . . . . . . 70 Nur Jehan . . . . . . 70 O Old Testament . . . . . . 113 Olympus ; father of Alexander 85 Oiiiar, Khalif .. .. 21,35,36 Oman, sea . . . . • 30, 31 Orme, Robert ; his account of the establishment of the Eng- lish-^ factory and trade at Surat 110, 112 ; on the Jaziya 163-64, 172, 174 ; on the sack of Surat by Shivaji 190 ; on the Siddis ... . . . . 246 332 INDEX. 0—concld OHinan ( -halibi : capture of his by the Portuguese 2r)7-r)8, rclcas(! of his ship at the iri- hUiiicc of Rustam Mancck 138-41 Oviiigtoii .. .. .. 159 OxcikIcii, Sir ( George : PrcHuliMit of the Rombay factory of the English ‘ I8‘h 191, 193 P Pahlavi : diflicultics met with in (l(*cipli(‘ring inscriptions in Pall lav i .. .. ..9-10 Paitaraspa . . . . . . 82 J’akhali : place wln‘?(‘ Saint Shah ffamdan of Kashmir 8 Renawar ; inscription on its bri(ige . . . . . . 71 Rewadanda (See Dandeh-Raj- pur) 239 Roe, Sir Thomas ; first English ambassador from James I to t^e Moghul Court 111, 118, 235 Roman Empire . . . . . . 22 Rome ; its relations with Persia 22-25 Roum 87 (See Constantinople). Rudolf van Gaen ; commodore of the Dutch 244 Rumi (Syriac) language . . 79 Rustom — son of Zal . . . . 125 Rustam Manock ; broker of the East India Company 108-9 ; 133-35; 203-212; his three • sons — their dispute with the English factors, mentioned in the documents of the Companies 103-109, 132; Rustom’s Life-Sto:y 120-55; ^ Parsis and other people reliev- ed of the Jaziya at his instance 125-27 ; relief given to the })eople by him at the sack of Surat 127-28 ; his cha- rities 129-30; his garden, referred to by Anquetil 131, 132, 146 ; his visit to the Court of Aurangzeb in com- pany of the English factor 135-36, 207-18; his visit to Dandeh-Rajpur, Dam aim and Naosari 136-37, 237-52; re- lease of the ship of Osman Chalibi by the Portuguese at his instance 138-40 ; his j>edigree and descent 142-43 ; important events, with dates, of his life 153-55 ; where was he during the first sack of Surat 197-99 ; Rustampura, a quarter of Surat, founded by him 146 ; his name com- memorated in Dhuj) Nirang 146- 47 ; his name mentioned in an ancient Dutch record 147- 48 ; appointed broker for the “ United Trade ” by Sir N. Waite 225 ; friction with Waite 226-28 ; Bruce’s Annals about Rustom 230-32 ; parti- culars about the house secured by Rustom for the New Eng- lish Company 233-35 ; his visit to Goa to represent the case of Osman Chalibi 256-57 ; mentioned in Sir N. Waite’s letters. S Sa’d : conqueroi- of Persia 20, 36 Saddar Nazm : on the Jaziya 127, 176-79 Saddar Nasr . . . . . . 175 Sadiq Khan : minister of Je- hangir .. .. ..71 Safar Aga (Ashgar Aga) . . 183 Sahu — sonof Sambhaji. . .. 156 334 INDEX. S — contd. »Sairi : j<(*neral of KhuHi ii Pai viz 24 Salford .. .. .. .. 4 Sal.scttc .. .. .. .. 1S9 Sarjil»liaji . . . . I5(>, 1S7 Saiijaii . . . . . . . . !)6 Saiijaria, I). P. : his rcadinj^ and iftidci in <4 of th«* Paldavi iiiHcr iptioiis on th(‘ Afomit (’rosH in Soutlioni India 7, I), \‘\ Safda? ^ Borrower’s No. j GANDHI SNIRITI LIBRARY Lai Bahadur Shastrl National Academy of Administration 0 / MUSSOORI0 Accession No. 1. Boo^8 are Issued for IS days only but may have to be recalled earlier if urge* ntly required. . 2. An over-due charge of Re. 1-00 per day per volume will be charged. 3. Books may be renewed on request, at the discretion of the Librarian. 4. Periodicals, Rare and Reference books may not be issued and may be consul- ted only In the Library. 5. Books lost defaced or Injured in any way shall have to be replaced or its double price shall be pafd by the borrower.