closer as time goes on, and in the later events the author himself took part and is a witness of first-class importance. And even in earlier times, when it is impossible to obtain absolute corroboration, yet it is clear that the traditions which have been handed down by the bards or orally are not unconnected with events which actually occurred.
For example, in the Annals of Mewar (Vol. I., p. 345), in the story of the adventures of Prithirāj, he is said to have taken refuge with Muzaffar the Sultan of Malwa. On this Mr. Crooke has noted that there was no contemporary Sultan of Malwa of this name. But on p. 361 we are told that Sultan Bahadur of Gujarat invaded Mewar to avenge the disgrace of the defeat and captivity of his predecessor, Muzaffar, taken, as Tod explained, “by Prithirāj and carried to Rana Raemall, who exacted a large sum of money and seven hundred horses as his ransom.” This also is impossible, as Sultan Muzaffar II. of Gujarat, who reigned from 1515 to 1525, was never taken prisoner, and Prithirāj died in 1508 while Raemall was still Rana. The king really taken prisoner was Sultan Mahmūd of Malwa. In 1517 the power in Malwa fell into the hands of a Hindu leader. Mahmūd was supported by Sultan Muzaffar of Gujarat, who took the capital city, Mandu. Rana Sanga of Mewar supported the Hindus, and in 1520 he defeated Sultan Mahmūd and carried him as a prisoner to Chitor, but treated him well, and finally released him. (See the Mirāt-i-Sikandari, Fazlullah’s translation, pp. 106, 107.) Under these circumstances the confusion between Muzaffar and Mahmud, and between Gujarat and Malwa, was natural, more especially as a few years later (1530) Malwa was conquered and annexed by Gujarat.
We have here therefore a confused memory of an actual event, and similar confusion occurred in other cases. The names of many of the Sultans of Delhi are mixed up and mis-dated, but in every case there is probably a reminiscence of an actual event. There was no doubt much exaggeration and some falsification by the tribal bards who desired to enhance the glory and reputation of the family to whose interests they were devoted. Such inaccuracy is to be expected, and is indeed
