piled by him from the Tarikh-i-Rashidi; but it contains some emendations from the Chinese history of the Ming dynasty, as translated by Dr. Bretschneider, for the period immediately succeeding the reign of Khizir Khwája, and a few other alterations besides.
It is about this period that Mirza Haidar's chronicle is at its weakest; and it is also a period where some of the best of the Musulman authors fail us. The Rauzat us Safa of Mir Khwánd and the Zafar-Náma of Sharaf-ud-Din, both differ from the Tarikh-i-Rashidi, and the Ming history is at variance with all three. Thus between Khizir Khwája and Vais Khan, the Rauzat us Safa and the Zafar-Náma show two reigning Khans of Moghulistan, and the Tarikh-i-Rashidi also gives accounts of two only, though the names in the last-mentioned work are not the same as in the other two histories.[1] But the Tarikh-i-Rashidi, in another place, relates that six Khans, including Khizir Khwája and Vais, were raised to the throne by the Dughlát Amir, Khudáidád, thus placing four between them. These Khans are—
Shama-i-Jahán,
Nakhsh-i-Jahán,
Muhammad,
Shir Muhammad,
and the author states them in this order; so that the three which correspond with the names of those given in the Chinese histories, do not fall in the same succession. Again none of the Musulman authors supply the date of succession for any of the intermediate Khans whom they mention. The Chinese annals show three Khans for the period between Khizir Khwája and Vais, and furnish the year of succession for each of them, besides giving dates of other contemporary occurrences, which indicate that a particular Khan was reigning at a particular time. The annals chiefly refer to tributary missions and appeals for assistance addressed to the Chinese Emperor, but it is precisely such occurrences as these that the Chinese chroniclers record with care and exactness. Their dynastic histories are believed to be not always trustworthy, but they are, at any rate, compilations, more or less methodical, from State documents and are not based merely on tradition, as are most of the Musulman
- ↑ As the Haft Iklim copies from the Tarikh-i-Rashidi, and does not copy completely, it need not be referred to as an authority. (See Not. et Extraits, xiv., pp. 474 seq.)
