Re: Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi, of Ziaud Din Barni
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2021 6:18 am
XVI. Tarikh-I Firoz Shahi, of Shams-i Siraj 'Afif
This History of Firoz Shah is devoted exclusively to the reign of that monarch, and therefore has a better right to the title than Barni's history, which embraces only a small portion of the reign of Firoz, and bears the title simply because it was written or finished during his reign. Little is known of Shams-i Siraj beyond what is gleaned from his own work. He was descended from a family which dwelt at Abuhar, the country of Firoz Shah's Bhatti mother. His great grandfather, he says, was collector of the revenue of Abuhar, and was intimate with Ghiyasu-d din Tughlik before he became Sultan. He himself was attached to the court of Firoz, and accompanied him on his hunting expeditions.]
The work has met with scarcely any notice, whilst every historian who writes of the period quotes and refers to Ziau-d din Barni. The reason of this may be that Shams-i Siraj enters more than usual into administrative details, and devotes some chapters to the condition of the common people — a matter of the utmost indifference to Muhammadan authors in general. His untiring strain of eulogy could not have condemned him in their eyes, as they were accustomed to little else in all the other histories they consulted; so that we must either attribute the neglect of this work to the cause assigned, or to the fact of its having at a comparatively late period been rescued from some musty record room. The work, consisting of ninety chapters, contains an ample account of this Akbar of his time; and, making due allowance for the prevalent spirit of eulogium and exaggeration, it not only raises in us a respect for the virtues and munificence of Firoz, and for the benevolence of his character, as shown by his canals and structures for public accommodation, but gives us altogether a better view of the internal condition of India under a Muhammadan sovereign than is presented to us in any other work, except the A'yin-i Akbari.
[In style, this history has no pretensions to elegance, being, in general, very plain. The author is much given to reiterations and recapitulations, and he has certain pet phrases which he constantly uses. Sir H. Elliot desired to print a translation of the whole work, and he evidently held it in high estimation. A portion of the work had been translated for him by a munshi, but this has proved to be entirely useless. The work of translation has, consequently, fallen upon the editor, and he has endeavoured to carry out Sir H. Elliot's plan by making a close translation of the first three chapters, and by extracting from the rest of the work everything that seemed worthy of selection. The translation is close, without being servile; here and there exuberances of eloquence have been pruned out, and repetitions and tautologies have been passed over without notice, but other omissions have been marked by asterisks, or by brief descriptions in brackets of the passages omitted. Shams-i Siraj, with a better idea of method than has fallen to the lot of many of his brother historians, has divided his work into books and chapters with appropriate headings.
[Besides this history of Firoz Shah, the author often refers to his Manakib-i Sultan Tughlik, and he mentions his intention of writing similar memoirs of the reign of Sultan Muhammad, the son of Firoz Shah. Nothing more appears to be known of these works. Copies of the Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi are rare in India, and Colonel Lees, who has selected the work for publication in the Bibliotheca Indica, has heard only of "one copy in General Hamilton's library, and of another at Dehli, in the possession of Nawab Ziau-d din Loharu, of which General Hamilton's is perhaps a transcript."1 [Journ. R.A.S., New Series, iii., 446.] The editor has had the use of four copies. One belonging to Sir H. Elliot, and another belonging to Mr. Thomas, are of quite recent production. They are evidently taken from the same original, most probably the Dehli copy above mentioned. The other two copies belong to the library of the India Office, one having been lately purchased at the sale of the Marquis of Hastings's books. These are older productions; they are well and carefully written, and although they contain many obvious errors, they will be of the greatest service in the preparation of a correct text. None of these MSS. are perfect.The two modern copies terminate in the middle of the ninth chapter of the last book. The Hastings copy wants several chapters at the end of the first and the beginning of the second book; but it extends to the eleventh chapter of the last book, and has the final leaf of the work. The other MS. ends in the middle of the fifteenth chapter of the last book, and some leaves are missing from the fourteenth. Fortunately these missing chapters seem, from the headings given in the preface, to be of no importance.
[A considerable portion of the work was translated in abstract by Lieut. Henry Lewis, Bengal Artillery, and published in the Journal of the Archaeological Society of Dehli in 1849.]
It was Ahmed Khan who, with the help of Captain Nassau Lees and Maulvi Kabiruddin Ahmed, compiled the first printed edition of the Persian text of the Tarikh, using one complete manuscript and three incomplete manuscripts to finish what Ishtiyaq Ahmad Zilli tells us is the first Persian edited text. It was published by the Asiatic Society of Bengal (Calcutta) in 1862 and was one of the achievements which earned him his Fellowship of the Royal Asiatic Society.
-- Traces of the Great: A medieval history of the Delhi Sultanate, by Francis Robinson
Barani’s unexpected death was an occasion of great mourning to Firuz Shah. The sultan despaired to find another historian who could rival Barani’s skills and reputation. His despair prompted him to assume the task himself and he wrote his own account of events of his reign in the Futuhat-i Firuz Shahi....
Shams-i Siraj ‘Afif, author of the Ta'rikh-i Firuz Shahi, completed his work after the death of Firuz Shah. The work was written after the capture of the city of Delhi by Timur’s army in 1398-1399. ‘Afif's relationship to the court is not known. He was not known to be a nadim like Barani and his patron is not known. ‘Afif devotes several chapters to the architectural endeavors of the sultan, most notably the foundations at Firuzabad and Hissar. He also provides a list of monuments where Firuz Shah undertook restoration and also discusses the transport of the Asokan columns to Delhi. Since ‘Afif witnessed the destruction of Delhi by Timur, his history is a nostalgic recollection of a past era. His account is not always firsthand and he frequently relies on the testimony of other authorities, such as his father, as well as his own memory. According to the author, the Ta’rikh is only part of a larger composition which records the history of the Delhi sultanate from the time of Ghiyath al-Din Tughluq through the time of Timur’s capture. However, the known manuscripts of the work include only the reign of Firuz Shah. The name Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi has been ascribed to the work by modern historians on the basis of the surviving portions. Even these, however, are incomplete according to the author’s table of contents. ‘Afif refers to his work as the Manaqib-i Firuz Shahi....
Firishta is believed to have depended heavily on Barani’s Ta’rikh-i Firuz Shahi, but he seems to be unaware of ‘Afif s work. See Hardy, "Firishta," Encyclopedia of Islam 2 (1966), pp. 921-922.
Neither Khwajah Nizamuddin Ahmad Bakshi [1551-1621 CE] or Firishta [1560-1620 CE] [or Ziauddin Barani (1285–1358 CE )] were aware of ‘Afif's Tarikh-i Firuz Shahi [or Mr. Anonymous’ Sirat-i Firuz Shahi]…
-- The Architecture of Firuz Shah Tughluq, Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate, School of The Ohio State University, by William Jeffrey McKibben, B.A., M.A., 1988
This History of Firoz Shah is devoted exclusively to the reign of that monarch, and therefore has a better right to the title than Barni's history, which embraces only a small portion of the reign of Firoz, and bears the title simply because it was written or finished during his reign. Little is known of Shams-i Siraj beyond what is gleaned from his own work. He was descended from a family which dwelt at Abuhar, the country of Firoz Shah's Bhatti mother. His great grandfather, he says, was collector of the revenue of Abuhar, and was intimate with Ghiyasu-d din Tughlik before he became Sultan. He himself was attached to the court of Firoz, and accompanied him on his hunting expeditions.]
The work has met with scarcely any notice, whilst every historian who writes of the period quotes and refers to Ziau-d din Barni. The reason of this may be that Shams-i Siraj enters more than usual into administrative details, and devotes some chapters to the condition of the common people — a matter of the utmost indifference to Muhammadan authors in general. His untiring strain of eulogy could not have condemned him in their eyes, as they were accustomed to little else in all the other histories they consulted; so that we must either attribute the neglect of this work to the cause assigned, or to the fact of its having at a comparatively late period been rescued from some musty record room. The work, consisting of ninety chapters, contains an ample account of this Akbar of his time; and, making due allowance for the prevalent spirit of eulogium and exaggeration, it not only raises in us a respect for the virtues and munificence of Firoz, and for the benevolence of his character, as shown by his canals and structures for public accommodation, but gives us altogether a better view of the internal condition of India under a Muhammadan sovereign than is presented to us in any other work, except the A'yin-i Akbari.
The streetlight effect, or the drunkard's search principle, is a type of observational bias that occurs when people only search for something where it is easiest to look. Both names refer to a well-known joke:
A policeman sees a drunk man searching for something under a streetlight and asks what the drunk has lost. He says he lost his keys and they both look under the streetlight together. After a few minutes the policeman asks if he is sure he lost them here, and the drunk replies, no, and that he lost them in the park. The policeman asks why he is searching here, and the drunk replies, "this is where the light is".
The anecdote goes back at least to the 1920s, and has been used metaphorically in the social sciences since at least 1964, when Abraham Kaplan referred to it as "the principle of the drunkard's search". The anecdote has also been attributed to Nasreddin. According to Idries Shah, this tale is used by many Sufis, commenting upon people who seek exotic sources for enlightenment.
-- Streetlight effect, by Wikipedia
[In style, this history has no pretensions to elegance, being, in general, very plain. The author is much given to reiterations and recapitulations, and he has certain pet phrases which he constantly uses. Sir H. Elliot desired to print a translation of the whole work, and he evidently held it in high estimation. A portion of the work had been translated for him by a munshi, but this has proved to be entirely useless. The work of translation has, consequently, fallen upon the editor, and he has endeavoured to carry out Sir H. Elliot's plan by making a close translation of the first three chapters, and by extracting from the rest of the work everything that seemed worthy of selection. The translation is close, without being servile; here and there exuberances of eloquence have been pruned out, and repetitions and tautologies have been passed over without notice, but other omissions have been marked by asterisks, or by brief descriptions in brackets of the passages omitted. Shams-i Siraj, with a better idea of method than has fallen to the lot of many of his brother historians, has divided his work into books and chapters with appropriate headings.
The work is not divided into chapters, or other divisions, systematically, in a way useful for reference, so the occasional headings have not been given in the translation.
-- XV. Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi, of Ziaud Din Barni, Excerpt from The History of India As Told By Its Own Historians: The Muhammadan Period, edited from the posthumous papers of the Late Sir H.M. Elliot, K.C.B., East India Company's Bengal Civil Service, by Professor John Dowson, M.R.A.S., Staff college, Sandhurst, Vol. III, P. 93-269, 1871
[Besides this history of Firoz Shah, the author often refers to his Manakib-i Sultan Tughlik, and he mentions his intention of writing similar memoirs of the reign of Sultan Muhammad, the son of Firoz Shah. Nothing more appears to be known of these works. Copies of the Tarikh-i Firoz Shahi are rare in India, and Colonel Lees, who has selected the work for publication in the Bibliotheca Indica, has heard only of "one copy in General Hamilton's library, and of another at Dehli, in the possession of Nawab Ziau-d din Loharu, of which General Hamilton's is perhaps a transcript."1 [Journ. R.A.S., New Series, iii., 446.] The editor has had the use of four copies. One belonging to Sir H. Elliot, and another belonging to Mr. Thomas, are of quite recent production. They are evidently taken from the same original, most probably the Dehli copy above mentioned. The other two copies belong to the library of the India Office, one having been lately purchased at the sale of the Marquis of Hastings's books. These are older productions; they are well and carefully written, and although they contain many obvious errors, they will be of the greatest service in the preparation of a correct text. None of these MSS. are perfect.The two modern copies terminate in the middle of the ninth chapter of the last book. The Hastings copy wants several chapters at the end of the first and the beginning of the second book; but it extends to the eleventh chapter of the last book, and has the final leaf of the work. The other MS. ends in the middle of the fifteenth chapter of the last book, and some leaves are missing from the fourteenth. Fortunately these missing chapters seem, from the headings given in the preface, to be of no importance.
[A considerable portion of the work was translated in abstract by Lieut. Henry Lewis, Bengal Artillery, and published in the Journal of the Archaeological Society of Dehli in 1849.]