The ancient citadel of Samarkand is still called by the people Urda.

This “encampment” occupies a commanding position, and is secured on

three sides by scarped ravines. Its walls are upwards of two miles in

circumference,[735] and have been adapted to suit the exigencies of

modern warfare. In Russian eyes it is as sacred as the theatre of a

defence as glorious as that of our Lucknow Residency in 1857.[736] In

those of the antiquarian it is precious as the repository of the Kok

Tāsh, a coronation stone of the Bokhāran sovereigns, and of an old

Arabic inscription. The former is in the courtyard of a mean building

which once served as the Amīr’s residence. It is an oblong block of

grey marble, with arabesques at the sides, measuring 10′ 4″ by 4′ 9″ by

2′ in height. According to tradition, it fell on this spot from heaven,

and for ages past it was venerated as the ægis of Bokhāran royalty. No

Amīr was considered worthy of his subjects’ homage till he had sat on

this rude throne. Behind it is an oval metal plaque bearing a funeral

inscription dating as far back as A.H. 550, or 1155 of our era.

The Russians’ quarter of Samarkand lies to the south of the native

city. Their occupation has lasted for thirty years, and their

dwellings have lost the garish newness which strikes a jarring note

at Askabad and Merv. Broad avenues, at right angles to each other,

a leafy park, and a splendid Boulevard, which Samarkand owes to its

good genius, General Abramoff, who was governor in 1874,[737] such

are the pleasant, if somewhat prosaic, features of Russian Samarkand.

Government House has the vast reception-rooms met with in such places

throughout the empire, and it has a large garden, which has trees,

water, statues--everything except flowers. The officials’ bungalows

mostly face the Abramovsky Boulevard, and are planned on the familiar

Anglo-Indian lines. Then there is the obligatory military casino, which

eclipses the finest of our mess-houses and has a splendid ballroom.

Hard by is the garrison church, a clumsy erection, which seems the

more insignificant by reason of its juxtaposition with the glorious

remains of Mohammedan days. The museum is still more unworthy of a

provincial capital. It contains the dreary array of stuffed beasts

and wide-mouthed bottles familiar nearer home. No region in the world

is richer in memorials of past ages than the valley of the Zarafshān.

Heaps of small clay figures, supposed to represent the horse, show

that Hinduism prevailed there at some remote period, for they are

identical in shape with those deposited as _ex votos_ at many Indian

shrines. Crosses figuring on rude bas-reliefs serve as a reminder

of another vanished faith. The Nestorians, hounded as heretics from

Europe in the fifth century, spread over the Asiatic Continent, and

established bishoprics in Samarkand, Merv, and Herāt.[738] With a

degree of moderation which belied their uncompromising tenets, the

Caliphs protected the professors of this rival faith. Its golden

age was the twelfth century; but Tīmūr was not a man to tolerate

any dissidence in his empire. His ruthless persecution stamped out

Christianity in Central Asia. The museum also exhibits vessels of

beautiful iridescent glass and pottery, the spoils of Afrāsiyāb, a

city of immemorial antiquity, which covered the hills and ravines

between Samarkand and the Zarafshān. The semi-mythical king whose name

it bears[739] lived, according to tradition, in the eleventh century

before Christ. That a high degree of civilisation was attained by the

people of his long buried realm is proved by the exquisite designs

of the lamps, urns, and pottery exhumed there. A rich harvest awaits

systematic exploration.[740] The collection of mineral specimens

is equally unworthy of Samarkand, for the mountains to the east of

the city contain the potentialities of wealth beyond the dreams of

avarice. There is a mountain of fine coal not twenty-five miles from

the walls; and metals of all kinds abound.[741] The other modern

institutions at Samarkand are more creditable to Russian enterprise.

The jail, a large castellated structure resembling our own prison at

Holloway, is scrupulously clean, and has most modern appliances for

enforcing labour. The convicts are employed in weaving cotton, and all

are healthy and well nourished. But the jail population in Central

Asia is a fluctuating one; for criminals sentenced to long terms of

imprisonment are deported by rail and steamer to Saghaleen, in the

North-West Pacific.[742] Two orphanages for Russian children flourish;

and the little inmates are happy, clean, and not depressed by that

badge of servitude, a uniform.

Samarkand is still a great emporium of trade, though it no longer

serves as a depôt for the produce of British India and Afghanistān.

The roads are thronged with shaggy camels, and carts perched on two

gigantic wheels, which preserve their contents from the thorough

wetting which an ordinary vehicle would give them while traversing

the innumerable streams. The bazaars are not under cover as are

those of Bokhārā, but the contents are quite as varied. Hides are a

speciality of those parts--Astrakhans, prepared from the covering of

the unborn lamb by Arabs, beautiful silky goats’ skin, and nearly

every kind of furs are to be purchased at very moderate prices. An

English merchant, who has been engaged for three years in this trade,

avers that the profits exceed 40 per cent. The manufactures of silk

and cotton are still important, in spite of the competition of Russian

looms.

[Illustration: THE MARKET NEAR BĪBĪ KHĀNŪM, SAMARKAND]

According to local tradition, the art of weaving dates back to the

expulsion of our first parents from Paradise. The Archangel Michael,

in pity for their forlorn state, brought Adam a supply of cotton, and

taught Eve how to fashion the fibre into cloth. Russian yarn has now

entirely banished this native product. Before use it is boiled with

soda, dyed, generally with aniline, and sized with wheaten starch.

The looms are worked by hand, and the largest can turn out muslin

nearly 4 yards wide. The wholesale price is 13s. 6d. for ten pieces

with an aggregate length of 90 yards. Silk velvets and mixed fabrics

are also produced in small factories with very inadequate light and

ventilation. Each loom produces 16,000 yards annually, worth about £60,

and giving a net profit of £32. Capital fares better than labour; for

the journeyman weaver works ten hours a day for a weekly pittance of

4s. 6d. Viticulture is a far more lucrative industry; for Samarkand

vineyards are three times as productive as those of any other part of

the empire. The out-turn per acre is 134 cwt., as compared with 40

cwt. yielded in the Caucasus and the Crimea. The cost of cultivation

is proportionately less, and hardly exceeds £22, as compared with £60

in the western provinces. Thus the area under vines has trebled since

the Russians gave Samarkand a just and settled government. In 1895 it

had reached 15,000 acres, and is now probably 20 per cent. greater.

Attempts have been made of late years to introduce foreign stock; but

the native varieties, of which 24 are grown, are more prolific and

give produce of greater body.[743] The soil selected for vineyards is

composed of equal parts of sand and loam. Three hundred and seventy

vines are planted to the acre. They begin to yield in their fourth

year, and are at their best between the 8th and 25th. The tops are laid

in trenches, and covered with earth at the beginning of winter; and

when spring comes round they are uncovered and allowed to trail on the

ground without the support of poles or trellis-work. The vine requires

higher cultivation than any other plant which ministers to our needs or

luxury. In Samarkand manure is applied in the proportion of 4 cwt. an

acre, and the vineyards are thrice drenched with water. At the end of

October the grapes are fit to gather. The return is enormous, and in

one district it reaches 26 tons an acre. The bulk of the fruit is dried

and exported as _kishmish_, or raisins. Though the cost of transport by

rail makes this delicacy dearer than the Persian product, it commands

a higher price; no less than 7300 tons were sent to Russia by rail in

1896.

The manufacture of brandy is a new industry at Samarkand. About 155,000

gallons are made annually for local consumption. The out-turn of wine

is on nearly the same scale. In the opinion of French experts, the

produce of a Central Asian grape is at least as good as that of the

Medoc and Burgundy districts. The wine is of high alcoholic strength,

and mellows rapidly. In this costly process, however, large capital

is required, and the manufacture languishes in its absence. Casks,

bottles, and corks are imported at great expense from Russia; and a

reduction of railway rates is urgently called for. We have not yet

exhausted the uses of Central Asian grapes. Those which are fit for

nothing else are boiled into a syrup which serves to sweeten green tea,

ices, and confectionery.[744]

Samarkand resembles Bokhārā in the character of its population, which

does not exceed 50,000. The Rīgistān is a happy hunting-ground for

the ethnologist. Here one may listen unmolested to the professional

story-teller, who holds his audience enthralled by oft-repeated tales

of ancient chivalry.

There are two classes of public reciters: the _maddāh_, who stands

while he relates edifying or amusing anecdotes; and the _risālachi_,

who, seated on the ground, recites tales and legends in verse to a

monotonous accompaniment on the two-stringed lute. Among these public

entertainers there exists a system of organised applause. Two or three

men or boys (very often themselves entertainers taking an interval)

sit down at a distance of some ten yards facing the story-teller, and,

throughout the entertainment, ejaculate at fixed intervals (as it were

punctuating the commas and full stops in the story) such words as

_hakkan_, “of a truth,” and _khūsh_, “bravo,” etc.

At the close of every recitation they are warned that “Amin” must be

said, and in pronouncing it they place their hands with fingers clasped

beneath the chin. Then follows a collection, and as the tiny brass coin

rain into the performer’s cap he acknowledges the generosity of each

giver by a nicely graduated meed of thanks.

The legends of Samarkand which these performers have at their

finger-ends are very curious. The popular hero is a Bokhāran Amīr

named `Abdullah, who is credited with most of the ancient buildings of

the provinces. Once, so the story goes, he marched against this city

with a great army, to crush a rebellious governor, but was foiled by

its triple ramparts. He sat down before it and waited in vain for the

surrender. At last his troops began to suffer the pangs of hunger;

and the Amīr himself found provisions running short. One evening,

while wandering _incognito_ in the suburbs, he came upon an old woman

preparing her evening porridge, which smelt so good that the Amīr cast

his dignity to the winds and begged permission to share the repast.

It was granted, but his impatience did not permit him to wait till

the smoking mess was properly served. He thrust a spoon into the pot

and conveyed the contents to his mouth, burning that sensitive organ

severely. His hostess roared with laughter at his grimaces, and said:

“Now thou resemblest `Abdullah! Hadst thou taken the porridge from the

edge of the dish, thou wouldst not have suffered thus. So, if our Amīr

had begun by closely investing Samarkand, and allowed the citizens’

passions to be cooled by hunger, he would not have burnt his fingers as

he has done.” The sovereign took the jest to heart, and starved out the

rebels. In gratitude to his monitress, he bestowed on her a strip of

land on either bank of the Ak Daryā in fee simple.

A lofty hill called Chūpān Ātā, which commands Samarkand on the east,

is the subject of another legend. According to tradition, a cruel king

invaded Samarkand and pitched his tents on a plain where Chūpān Ātā

now rears its head. Here he waited for three days in order to give

the people time to concentrate with their treasures within the city

walls. The Samarkandis were then heathen, but the imminence of peril

made them turn to the true God. From the ruler downwards all ascended

the flat house-roofs and wrestled in earnest prayer for deliverance.

Their sight fell on the camp of the enemy, glittering with lights

and resounding with martial music. The besieged trembled, for they

knew that the morrow was the day fixed for the assault. When the sun

rose all was still, and instead of a plain covered, as far as the eye

could range, with tents, a mountain raised its head heavenwards. They

timidly ventured beyond the walls, but the only trace of life was a

husbandman in strange attire sleeping with a spade for his pillow. On

being waked he rubbed his eyes, stared around him with astonishment,

and asked where he was. Learning that he was in the heart of Asia, he

told his interlocutors that he was a Syrian. On the previous evening

he had betaken himself to the mountain-side with his spade, for on the

morrow his turn for irrigation would come round. Spent with fatigue

he had fallen asleep and been wafted 1500 miles, with his farm and

the mountain on which it stood! Then the Samarkandis saw that God

had hearkened to their prayer, and that their foes lay buried in the

bowels of the mountain. Confirmation is found in the fact[745] that

the conformation of Chūpān Ātā is the same as that of Syrian hills,

and that lethal weapons are often turned up there by the plough. A

variation of the legend has it that the Syrian waif belonged to that

calling, and was discovered sleeping peacefully among his flock. The

hill once bore a three-storeyed observatory, built by the astronomer

Ulugh Beg, which has been replaced by a shrine with faience decorations

of the patron saint of shepherds. It stands at the edge of the valley

of the Zarafshān, which is here crossed by a timber viaduct on the

line connecting Samarkand with Andijān and Tashkent. At this point

stands a much more curious piece of engineering, which dates back to

the time of Tīmūr. At right angles to the new railway line a gigantic

brick arch juts into the shallow spreading stream. It is 100 feet in

height, and at least as broad; and traces of two similar arches are to

be seen in the river-bed beyond. The intention of the designer is not

by any means clear. It could hardly have been to throw a roadway over

the Zarafshān, which is not navigable, and would not require a bridge

more than twenty feet in height. In the opinion of _savants_, this

huge work was built to serve as a regulation of the current, forcing

a certain proportion of the water into a channel reserved for the

exclusive use of Bokhārā, which is entirely at the mercy of Samarkand

in the matter of irrigation.

The administration of Samarkand offers much interesting material for

study. We see in Transcaspia a system of local government imposed on

the unsophisticated Turkomans. At Bokhārā we observe the rules on which

the paramount Power conducts its relations to the ruler and people of

a protected state. It remains to sketch the means taken by our rivals

in Asia to improve a mechanism evolved in a comparatively civilised

community.

Samarkand is a province of Turkestān, and under the control of the

governor-general at Tashkent. It embraces the four districts of

Samarkand proper, Katta Kurgān, Jizāk, and Khojend. The first-named

has an area of 12,300 square miles, with a population of rather more

than 300,000. It is administered by a chief who is a military officer

of field rank, aided by a personal assistant.[746] Under him are

officers styled pristas, in charge of subdivisions, which are again

split up into volosts, or groups of 2000 to 2500 houses, governed

by officers termed volostnois. Every village in the volost has its

mayor (starshina). The duties of this class of officials are purely

executive, and confined to the repression of crime, the execution of

judicial decrees, and the collection of revenue. They form, too, the

police force. On the occurrence of an offence it is reported to the

starshina, who sends information to the volostnoi. An investigation

follows, and, should the charge be considered _primâ facie_ true,

it is reported to one of the two judges of instruction stationed

at Samarkand. These officers are subordinate to the Ministry of

Justice at St. Petersburg, and have charge of all steps in criminal

inquiries up to the actual trial. When their work is complete the case

comes before the judge of the peace, who is also an officer of the

Ministry of Justice, and is disposed of under the Russian criminal

code. Civil causes in which either party is a foreigner are tried by

this functionary, whose tribunal is also that for suits referred to

him by both litigants, though both may be natives of Turkestān. The

ordinary tribunals for this latter are those of the Kāzīs--native

judges stationed at the volost headquarters, who are guided in their

decisions by the Mohammedan law. The executive officials are also

responsible for the collection of revenue. Its chief source is the

land tax, for Samarkand was, before its conquest, a province of

Bokhārā, and the state in all Mohammedan countries is theoretically the

owner of the soil. In this department things are not yet on a sound

footing. When the Russians assumed the administration of the country

they were compelled to trust to the information as to the demand from

each villager furnished by the officers of the late Government. The

statistics thus obtained were, of course, vitiated by the corruption

of public servants universal throughout the East;[747] but they still

form the basis of the annual demand which is assessed collectively

on each village by the district chief, and paid into the treasury

by the starshinas. The rate ranges, with the nature of the soil and

the facilities for irrigation, between 2s. and 3s. 4d. per acre. The

Russians are therefore in much the same predicament as were the English

masters of Bengal in 1793, when the annual demand was crystallised for

ever by that gigantic fiscal blunder, the Permanent Settlement. They

possess the advantage of having a free hand; and for several years past

a commission has been incubating a scheme adjusting the burdens on land

with some regard to its actual produce.[748] The imposts on merchandise

and the poll-tax levied on non-Musulmans under the old régime have

been abolished, and traders are classified in guilds according to

the scale of their operations, and pay a licence tax on a graduated

scale. Irrigation has been left in native hands, and every village has

its _ak-sakāl_ (white-beard), or superintendent, who has the power

to demand the service of the entire male population for work on the

canals.[749] Vernacular education has not made much progress since

the conquest; and the system is subject to the same defects as those

which render Bokhārā a hotbed of fanaticism. Many years ago an attempt

was made by Government to introduce the study of Russian; but priestly

influence ran counter to the reform, and the classes were poorly

attended. An administrative order was, however, issued in 1897 which

made a knowledge of the conqueror’s tongue obligatory on candidates

for the posts of volostnoi and kāzī; and self-interest has already

modified the popular attitude towards the innovation. Those who wish

well to Russian rule must see to it that the pendulum is not allowed to

swing in the opposite direction. No greater mistake could be made than

to force a superficial study of Russian on classes rendered unfit to

profit by it by social status or inherited defect.

CHAPTER XI

FRIENDS OR FOES?

It has been acutely observed that we bring back from foreign countries

no more than we take thither. In other words, we view them through

the medium of our own personality, which is the growth of heredity,

education, and environment. It is almost impossible for an Englishman

to judge the subjects of the Tsar dispassionately. Forty-five years

ago a friendship which had lasted for centuries was shattered by

that greatest blunder of the century, our Crimean campaign; and the

fierce passions which it engendered have not yet spent their force.

The Russian advance in Asia, which we have described as a movement

automatic and uncontrollable, has been interpreted by an influential

school of writers as a menace to our position in India. Twice of late

years have we been landed on the very brink of war by a public opinion

goaded to frenzy by such baseless fears. For it may be affirmed with

perfect truth that the absorption of India is a dream too wild for the

most aggressive adviser of the Tsar. Such is the geographical position

of the peninsula, that it can be held by no European Power which is not

Mistress of the Seas. How, it may well be asked, would it profit Russia

to assume the responsibility of governing three hundred million of

Asiatics whose ignorance of Malthusian doctrines renders them a prey

to perennial pestilence and famine? Our prestige, indeed, is vitally

concerned in upholding an empire which is the wonder and the envy of

the world, and we reap solid advantage from owning so considerable an

outlet for our manufactures and the redundant energies of our middle

class. In Russia social and economic conditions differ widely from our

own; and her conquests in Eastern Asia will absorb her surplus activity

for many years to come. It is true that the path opened by nature for

her expansion leads southwards. Peter the Great’s famous will is a

forgery,[750] but no one can doubt that its promptings have sunk deeply

into the hearts of the Russian people. In their eyes the Tsar is the

heir of the Byzantine Empire which gave them laws and religion, and

they are firmly convinced that a day will come when the Greek Cross

will replace the Crescent which desecrates the summit of St. Sophia.

Twice has the road to Constantinople been blocked by England. In 1854

she drew the sword in order to keep the Key of the World in Turkish

hands; and a quarter of a century later she turned back the Tsar’s

victorious legions when the splendid quarry was within their grasp.

Baffled in an ambition which educated Russians deem legitimate,

their eyes are turned to the Far East; and here, again, England has

set limits to their expansion. It is this latent antagonism, ever

ready to burst into uncontrollable fury, which constitutes the chief

danger to the stability of our rule in India. The latter is our one

vulnerable point, and, when national interests are become divergent,

it is in Russia’s power to create a diversion by fomenting trouble

in Afghanistān, in the highlands which separate the two empires,

and within the limits of India itself. Every friend of humanity

must deplore the existence of a gulf between two forces which, if

united, would give civilisation to Asia and assure the peace of the

world. When we pass from the tendency of Russian policy in the heart

of Asia to the results achieved there, we are on firmer ground--in

politics nothing happens but the unexpected, while ocular evidence

can hardly be impeached. We left home full of prejudices, the result

of a course of Central Asian literature. The Cassandra notes of

Vambéry were ringing in our ears, and the latent chauvinism of Lord

Curzon of Kedleston[751] had prejudiced the Russians in our eyes. But

unfavourable prepossessions vanished when we had seen the results of

their rule in Central Asia, and had gathered estimates of its character

in every class of the population. We are convinced that the Tsar’s

explicit instructions to his lieutenants to exercise a fatherly care

over his Asiatic subjects are scrupulously obeyed.[752] The peoples of

Asia, from the Caspian to China, from Siberia to the borders of Persia

and Afghanistān, enjoy as large a measure of happiness and freedom

as those of any part of our Indian dominions. The fiscal policy of

the conquering race is one of extreme moderation. Imperial and local

taxation are indeed too light; and, in Samarkand at least, a turn

might be given to the screw with great advantage to an exchequer which

finds these Asiatic possessions a serious drain on its resources.

The problem of local self-government has been solved, and indigenous

institutions have not been ruthlessly trampled upon. Respect for the

dominant race has been inculcated by prompt and severe punishment

meted out for revolt or outrage on a European’s person or property.

Every picture has its shadows, and it is not difficult to point to

defects in the administrative machine. Russia has carried an attitude

of _laissez-faire_ to an extreme limit in dealing with education, and

it has been left in the hands of a class which must always be bitterly

hostile to infidel rule. The process of Russification has been pushed

with excessive zeal. Local colour and racial characteristics have

been swept away, which were precious indeed in times when mankind

was oppressed by a deluge of commonplace throughout the Eastern

world. Structures which made the cities of Central Asia the theme of

Eastern poets have been suffered to lapse into hopeless ruin. And what

shall be said of a commercial policy framed on principles exploded

a century ago by Adam Smith, and proved by the history of our own

East India Company to be positively injurious to the Government which

cherishes them? That policy aims at nothing less than the maintenance

of a Chinese Wall round the Russian Empire, albeit that railways and

steam navigation have made the whole world kin and brought about a

solidarity between nations which renders each unit sensitive to the

injuries inflicted on the commerce and manufactures of the rest. The

heavy protective tariff, the unwillingness to admit consular agents

for the protection of English trade, and the jealous restrictions on

the movements of Europeans are strangely out of date at the dawn of

the twentieth century. An Anglo-Indian official travelling in Central

Asia would find it difficult to avoid instituting comparisons between

our own methods of dealing with Orientals and those employed by the

Russians. The dissimilarity of the conditions encountered deprives the

process of half its value. We have in India a swarming population,

which overtaxes the productive power of the soil and yet shows no sign

of having reached its utmost limits. In the bitter struggle for life

an enormous criminal class has been evolved, which is a perpetual

thorn in the side of authority. And then, we are face to face with

a civilisation more ancient than our own, and on its own lines, as

complex, presenting features which baffle the closest study. Nor must

the religious problem be left out of account. Hinduism is stirred

to its inmost being by a revival, and displays an elasticity and a

militant spirit which appear incompatible with its principles. The

forces of Islām are also equipped for a coming struggle. A Puritan

movement, inaugurated by Wahabi missionaries eighty years ago, has

spread far and wide, and the Mohammedans of India have formed secret

societies which are exploited by wirepullers for their own ends. Thus

we find arrayed against us millions who firmly believe that a good

Government must necessarily be a theocracy. Our own institutions,

founded as they are on a sincere regard for the good of subject races,

have conspired to bring about a state of things which is full of

political danger. The dissemination of the English language and of the

half-truths with which our political literature teems has produced

aspirations which can be gratified only by the abdication of our

supremacy. Thus the prestige of the conquerors, which must be upheld

if 200,000 white men are to govern three hundred millions of their

fellow-creatures, has been declining for many years past. And we labour

under the immense disadvantage of being aliens in blood, language,

and traditions from the Asiatics whom we are called upon to rule.

For communities which have arrived at a high pitch of civilisation,

conquest is an anachronism, and assimilation with a subject race an

impossibility. We can have no sympathy with the workings of these

enigmatic Oriental minds, for we view every problem that presents

itself from an entirely different standpoint. Thus we must always

be sojourners in India, and our dominion can never strike its roots

deeply into the soil. But for the bayonets on which our throne is

supported it would fall, even as those of our predecessors in the

purple have fallen. Central Asia, on the other hand, is thinly peopled,

and the standard of comfort is comparatively high. The conquerors and

conquered are connected by the ties of blood, and there is a latent and

unconscious sympathy between them which renders the task of government

easy and assures its stability. In one point the difference between

British and Russian methods of administration is very marked--the

relations between the judicial and executive functions. Our readers

are doubtless aware that in India, under the native rule, there was

an entire separation between the judge and the ruler. This divorce

continued till, under the régime of Lord William Bentinck, functions

apparently dissonant were united. It was considered essential in a

country so peculiarly constituted as India that the Central Government

should have, in every district, a single representative in whose hands

all the threads of administration are gathered. In Russian Asia, on

the other hand, offences against the state and individuals alike come

within the purview of courts entirely independent of the executive,

which is on a military basis and concerns itself only with obedience

to these tribunals’ behests. Some friction occurred between the rival

branches when the country was first invaded by Judges of Instruction

and of the Peace, free from the control of local authorities and

subordinate to the Ministry of Justice at St. Petersburg. This

agitation was calmed by a hint from a high quarter that it was

puerile and displeasing. Nowhere is discipline, both in the army and

civil service, maintained so sternly as in the Russian Empire. The

relations between the executive and the judicial branches are now as

cordial as can be expected, and the system in force gives the utmost

satisfaction to the people. It would carry us too far from our subject

to discuss the merits and defects of the respective methods. One thing

is certain, that a compliance with the demand of the Indian Congress,

that our district officers should be relegated to the station of mere

rakers-in of revenue, would involve a fatal weakening of the principle

of authority. But imitation is the sincerest flattery, and that so

much of the Russian edifice is built on Anglo-Indian models is the

strongest proof of their intrinsic excellence. We were pioneers, and

had difficulties to encounter with which our neighbours were never

perplexed; and they have profited by our experience and mistakes. The

last word of the memorable seventeenth-century controversy, Ancients

against Moderns, was said when someone remarked that a dwarf could see

farther than a giant if perched upon his shoulders. We believe that

the cause of civilisation would be furthered by a frank understanding

between the two great Asiatic Powers. The Russians have their faults,

which are often a little exasperating to the perfervid Briton. The

Oriental strain renders them, to say the least of it, leisurely in

business transactions. Their standard of comfort is not exalted; social

etiquette is not without a tinge of barbarism. But they are a young

and vigorous race, imbued with a passionate love of their country,

a steadfast belief in its high destinies, both rare and precious in

these days of flabby cosmopolitanism. And there is a great deal in

their work in Central Asia which should inspire our admiration

and sympathy. Their railways are the fruit of a dogged perseverance,

and appeal forcibly to the fellow-countrymen of George Stephenson

and Brunel. The broad realm which they govern consists of little but

deserts and swamps, and the isolation of those who administer it, their

banishment from the sweets of home, give them a special claim on our

regard. When we come to the individuals we find still more in common.

That Englishmen and Russians are made to understand and appreciate each

other was proved during the operations of Boundary Commissions of 1885

and 1895, for the personnel on both sides parted on terms of cordial

friendship. Once given a union of hearts between the two greatest

Powers, how much anxiety would not our statesmen be saved!

[Illustration: BAZAAR POLITICS]

But the Russians must set their own house in order ere a consummation

be reached which will give tranquillity to this distracted world

of ours. Autocracy has some advantages over any system of popular

government; but it has a drawback equally obvious. It gives a

preponderance to the personal equation which sometimes menaces the

peace of the world. The dynasty of the Romanoffs during the last

century has produced more men of talent and public spirit than any

other royal house in Europe; but Russians should remember that a

Catherine the Great was followed by a Paul. What if a Tsar should arise

inspired by dreams of military glory and longing to use the immense

forces at his disposal in a career of universal conquest? England, the

august mother of self-governing nations, the chosen home of freedom,

may well pause ere she throws in her lot with a state whose political

future is in the hands of a single human being. The radical difference

between our commercial policies is another obstacle to a close

Anglo-Russian alliance. We English are essentially a manufacturing

people, dependent on our foreign commerce for the wherewithal to feed

a redundant population and support the burden of world-wide empire.

Having found by centuries of experience that perfect freedom of trade

and travel are as essential to a people’s healthy development as the

air we breathe, we so govern that empire that the human race profits

by its existence. Nations are subject to the same laws as those which

govern the growth and well-being of individuals; and true progress is

impossible unless their policy be swayed by a scrupulous regard for the

interests of others.

APPENDIX I

Translation of Prince Gortschakoff’s Circular to the Great Powers,

dated St. Petersburg, 21st November 1864.

“The Russian newspapers have described the military operations which

have been carried out by a detachment of our troops in the regions

of Central Asia, with remarkable success and vast results. It was

inevitable that these events should excite attention in foreign

countries, and the more so because their theatre lies in regions which

are hardly known.

“Our august Master has directed me to explain succinctly, but with

clearness and precision, our position in Central Asia, the interests

which prompt our action in that part of the world, and the aims which

we pursue. The position of Russia in Central Asia is that of all

civilised states which come into contact with half-savage, wandering

tribes possessing no fixed social organisation.

“It invariably happens in such cases that the interests of security on

the frontier, and of commercial relations, compel the more civilised

state to exercise a certain ascendency over neighbours whose turbulence

and nomad instincts render them difficult to live with. First, we

have incursions and pillage to repress. In order to stop these we

are compelled to reduce the tribes on our frontier to a more or less

complete submission. Once this result is attained they become less

troublesome, but in their turn they are exposed to the aggression of

more distant tribes. The state is obliged to defend them against

these depredations, and chastise those who commit them. Hence the

necessity of distant and costly expeditions, repeated at frequent

intervals, against an enemy whose social organisation enables him to

elude pursuit. If we content ourselves with chastising the freebooters

and then retire, the lesson is soon forgotten. Retreat is ascribed to

weakness, for Asiatics respect only visible and palpable force; that

arising from the exercise of reason and a regard for the interests of

civilisation has as yet no hold on them. The task has therefore to be

performed over again.

“In order to cut short these perpetual disorders we established strong

places in the midst of a hostile population, and thus we obtained an

ascendency which shortly but surely reduced them to a more or less

willing submission. But beyond this line there are other tribes which

soon provoke the same dangers, the same repression. The state then

finds itself on the horns of a dilemma. It must abandon the incessant

struggle and deliver its frontier over to disorder, which renders

property, security, and civilisation impossible; or it must plunge into

the depths of savage countries, where the difficulties and sacrifices

to which it is exposed increase with each step in advance. Such has

been the lot of all countries placed in the same conditions. The

United States in America, France in Algiers, Holland in her colonies,

England in India,--all have been inevitably drawn into a course wherein

ambition plays a smaller part than imperious necessity, and where the

greatest difficulty is in knowing where to stop.

“Such are the reasons which have induced the Imperial Government to

establish itself, on the one side, on the Sir Daryā, and, on the

other, on the Lake of Issik-Kul, and to consolidate the two lines by

advanced forts which, little by little, have penetrated the heart of

these distant regions, but have not sufficed to secure tranquillity

on the frontier. The cause of this instability lies, firstly, in the

existence between the extremities of this double line of forts, of a

vast unoccupied tract where the incursions of robber tribes continue to

neutralise our attempts at colonisation and our caravan traffic. It is,

in the second place, due to perpetual changes in the political aspect

of the countries to the south of our border. Turkestān and Kokand are

sometimes united, sometimes separated, but are always at war, either

with each other or with Bokhārā, and offer no probability of settled

relations or regular transactions with them.

“Thus, in its own despite, the Imperial Government finds itself reduced

to the dilemma already stated: it must allow an anarchy to become

chronic which paralyses all security and all progress, and involve

distant and expensive expeditions at frequent intervals; or, on the

other hand, it must enter on a career of conquest and annexation such

as gave England her Indian Empire, in view of dominating in succession

the petty independent states whose turbulent habits and perpetual

revolts leave their neighbour neither truce nor repose. Neither of

these alternatives is in consonance with the object of my august

Master’s policy, which aims at restricting the extent of the countries

subject to his sceptre within reasonable limits, while it places his

rule thereon on firm foundations, guarantees their security, and

develops their social organisation, their commerce, well-being, and

civilisation.

“Our task, therefore, has been to seek a system fitted to attain

the triple object. In this view the following principles have been

formulated:--

“(1.) It has been considered indispensable that the two fortified

frontier lines, the one stretching from China to Lake Issik-Kul, the

other from the Sea of Aral along the lower course of the Sir Daryā,

should be linked together by a chain of strongholds, so that each fort

should be in a position to afford mutual support and leave no space

open to the incursions of nomad tribes.

“(2.) It was essential that the line of forts thus completed should be

placed in a fertile country, not only in order to assure supplies, but

to facilitate regular colonisation, which alone can give an occupied

country a future of stability and prosperity, or attract neighbouring

tribes to civilised life.

“(3.) It was a matter of urgency to fix this line in a definite manner,

in order to escape the danger of being drawn on from repression to

reprisals, which might end in a limitless extension of our empire.

“With this object it was necessary to lay the foundations of a system

founded not merely on considerations of expediency, but on geographical

and political data which are fixed and permanent.

“This system was disclosed to us by a very simple fact, the result of

long experience, namely, that nomad tribes which cannot be overtaken,

punished, or kept in hand are the worst neighbours possible; while

agricultural and commercial populations, wedded to the soil, and given

a more highly developed social organisation, afford for us a basis for

friendly relations which may become all that can be wished.

“Our frontier-line then should include the first, and stop at the

boundaries of the second.

“These three principles afford a clear, natural, and logical

explanation of the recent military operations accomplished in Central

Asia.

“Moreover, our old frontier, stretching along the Sir Daryā to Fort

Perovski on one side, and, on the other, as far as Lake Issik-Kul, had

the disadvantage of being almost at the edge of the desert. It was

interrupted by an immense gap between the farthest points on the east

and west. It offered very insufficient supplies to our troops, and left

beyond it unsettled tribes with which we could not maintain stable

relations.

“In spite of our repugnance to give a wider scope to our dominion,

these conditions were powerful enough to induce the Imperial Government

to establish a frontier between Lake Issik-Kul and the Sir Daryā

by fortifying the town of Chimkent, recently occupied by us. In

adopting this line we obtain a twofold result. First, the country

which it includes is fertile, well-wooded, and watered by numerous

streams; it is inhabited in part by Kirghiz tribes which have already

acknowledged our supremacy, and therefore offers conditions favourable

to colonisation and the supply of our garrisons. Then, it gives us the

agricultural and commercial population of Kokand as our neighbours.

“Thus we find ourselves confronted by a more solid and compact

social organisation,--one less shifting and better arranged. This

consideration marks with geographical precision the limit where

interest and reason command us to stop. On the one hand, attempts to

extend our rule will no longer encounter such unstable entities as

nomad tribes, but more regularly organised states, and will therefore

be carried out at the cost of great effort, leading us from annexation

to annexation into difficulties the end of which can not be foreseen.

On the other hand, as we have as our neighbours states of that

description, in spite of their low civilisation and nebulous political

development, we hope that regular relations may one day, in our common

interest, replace the chronic disorders which have hitherto hampered

their progress.

“Such are the principles which are the mainspring of our august

Master’s policy in Central Asia; such the final goal which His

Imperial Majesty has prescribed as that of his Cabinet’s action.

* * * * *

“There is no necessity to insist on the palpable interest of Russia in

restricting the growth of her territory and preventing the advent of

complications in distant provinces which may retard and paralyse our

domestic development.

“The programme which I have just traced is in strict accord with this

policy.

“People of late years have been pleased to credit us with a mission to

civilise neighbouring countries on the continent of Asia. The progress

of civilisation has no more efficacious ally than commercial relations.

These require, in all countries, order and stability as conditions

essential to their growth; but in Asia their existence implies a

revolution in the manners of the people. Asiatics must, before all

things, be made to understand that it is more advantageous to favour

and assure trade by caravans than to pillage them. These elementary

principles can penetrate the public conscience only when there is a

public; that is to say, a social organisation and a government which

directs and represents it. We are accomplishing the first portion of

this task in extending our frontier to points where these indispensable

conditions are to be met with. We accomplish the second when we

undertake the duty of proving to neighbouring states, by a policy of

firmness as regards the repression of their misdeeds, but of moderation

and justice in the employment of armed strength and of respect for

their independence, that Russia is not their foe, that she cherishes no

designs of conquest, and that peaceful and commercial relations with

her are more profitable than disorder, pillage, reprisals, and chronic

warfare. In devoting itself to this task the Russian Cabinet has the

interests of the empire in view; but we believe that its accomplishment

will also serve those of civilisation and humanity at large. We have a

right to count upon an equitable and loyal appreciation of the policy

which we follow, and the principles on which it is framed.

“GORTSCHAKOFF.”

APPENDIX II

The present Minister of War, General Kurapatkine, delivered an address

at Askabad, on the 25th November 1897, to some members of a party of

English tourists, which is really a remarkably frank enunciation of

the policy of his Government in Central Asia. The full text runs as

follows:--

“The policy of our Government in Central Asia, since the accession

of the late Tsar, has been eminently one of peace; and recourse has

never been had to arms until every other means of gaining a given

object had failed. Before the extension of the railway and telegraph

to these remote regions, a considerable measure of initiative was

necessarily left in the hands of local officers. Generals Chernaieff,

Skobeleff, and Kauffman were repeatedly compelled by circumstances to

undertake expeditions without sanction; and their action was sometimes

in opposition to the views of the Central Government. There has been

a radical change in our administrative system since the Transcaspian

provinces were united to Europe by these powerful civilising

influences. Every case of friction on the frontier is reported to St.

Petersburg, and instructions are obtained before active measures are

adopted. It is now impossible that there could be a repetition of

the events of 1865, when General Chernaieff took Tashkent, and then

reported having done so to his Imperial Master. No operations likely

to produce serious consequences can now be undertaken without the

previous sanction of His Majesty. I wish to be particularly explicit

on this point, because my nomination as governor of Transcaspia was

regarded by many journals, both in England and India, as a presage

of what is called a “forward policy.” It is the custom of the

present Tsar, as it was of his lamented father, to furnish detailed

instructions on questions of internal organisations as well as those

which concern foreign affairs. The principles which govern the policy

of Russia are very simple. They are the maintenance of peace, of order,

and of prosperity in all classes of the population. The means employed

to compass these ends are equally free from complexity. Those who fill

responsible positions are expressly informed by our Government that

the assumption of sovereignty over alien nationalities must not be

attempted without very serious deliberation, inasmuch as such become,

on annexation, Russian subjects, children of the Tsar, and invested

with every privilege enjoyed by citizens of the empire. His Majesty

has enjoined on his representatives, as their first duty, the fatherly

care of his Asiatic subjects. In order to prevent the possibility of

internal discord, we have disarmed the natives, and no pains have

been spared to induce them to adopt peaceful pursuits. The fruits of

this action are already visible. A solitary traveller can now cross

Central Asia, from the Caspian to the Siberian frontier, without

incurring the smallest risk of attack. A few years ago I furnished

weapons for purposes of defence to the Russian colonists in seventeen

villages established by me, and I warned them that it might be unsafe

to undertake journeys without arms. They have, however, disregarded

this advice, and never carry arms when at a distance from their homes.

Last winter a Russian peasant fell on the roadside in a state of

helpless intoxication near the Afghan frontier south of Merv; but the

Turkomans, so far from molesting him, covered him with carpets and

brought him on a camel before the district chief. Similar occurrences

are reported from Askabad.

“We may boast with perfect truth that the thirty-five years during

which Central Asia has enjoyed the blessings of a firm and civilised

rule have been years of sustained progress, of daily-increasing

strength in the bonds of attachment and goodwill which unite these

subject peoples to the inhabitants of other Russian provinces. As

compared with India, our territories in that part of the world are

still poor and sparsely populated; but there has been a considerable

increase in the country’s wealth since the conquest of Turkestān

in 1863. The trading classes are now the staunchest supporters of

our authority; next, the cultivators; lastly, the women. Should any

mischief arise, it will be due to the intrigues of the mullās, whose

powers for evil are great, owing to the ignorance rather than the

fanaticism of the population.

“The large measure of progress attained could not have been hoped

for did we not possess settled frontiers with which we are perfectly

content. Every country in Central Asia has had its period of war; but

it is the fixed policy of our Tsar to prevent a recurrence of its

horrors arising from our initiative. In the case of the territory most

recently acquired, the disturbances lasted for seven years--from 1878

to 1885. Between the latter year and 1888 we established a stable and

logical frontier with the aid of Great Britain; and in the twelve years

which have since elapsed there have been no expeditions throughout

its length of 600 miles bordering on Persia, and 400 on Afghanistān.

The latter country contains much inflammable material, but we have

taken every means in our power to ensure that the internal disorders

of that state shall not react on our frontier. So scrupulous is our

regard for the _status quo_, that whole tribes have cast themselves

on our protection in vain. The Piruzkuhis, Khezaris, and Jamshidis

have crossed our borders in troops of as many as 1000 families, but

we have always repatriated such refugees. There have been similar

cases in our dealings with Persian subjects. The whole population of

Khelat, in Khorāsān, came to us with entreaties to protect them against

the oppression of the Shāh’s officers. Our reply was the despatch of

troops who conducted them across the frontier, but we took diplomatic

steps to assure a pardon for those to whom we had been obliged to

refuse our protection. Turkestān proper has been free from war since

the occupation of Farghāna--twenty-one years ago. The Bokhārā frontier

has remained intact since the capture of Samarkand in 1868. It is true

that within the last few years the Pamirs Question has been reopened,

and slight modifications have been made in our boundaries towards

Afghanistān; but, as far as we are concerned, the operations have been

carried out against our wishes--I may almost say, under compulsion.

For the Amīr `Abd er-Rahmān infringed the terms of the arrangement

entered into between England and ourselves in 1873, when it was agreed

that the Afghans should not cross the Oxus, by pushing his boundary

beyond that river and occupying Shugnān and Roshān on its right bank.

The last complication on the Persian frontier dates from 1829--nearly

seventy years ago. Throughout our frontier conterminous with China we

have had no disturbance for more than a century. I am led to mention

these significant facts in order to show that our policy in Asia is

essentially a peaceful one, and that we are perfectly satisfied with

our present boundaries. And I may claim to speak with authority, apart

from my official position, for I have been personally concerned in all

our important military and political movements in Central Asia for many

years past. In 1868, when only twenty, I took part in the storming of

Samarkand. In 1875 I was employed in the reduction of the Khānate of

Kokand. In 1880 I led the advance guard in the conquest of Farghāna;

and in 1881 I commanded the reinforcements sent to General Skobeleff

from Turkestān, in his struggle with the Tekke tribes, and led one of

the assaulting columns at the capture of Geok Teppe.”

[Illustration:

MAP SHOWING THE

ADVANCE OF RUSSIA

IN

CENTRAL ASIA.

Methuen & Co. London. _G. Philip & Son, 32 Fleet S^t. London_

]

FOOTNOTES

[1] The Iranian branch of the Aryans is represented in our times

by the Tājiks of Turkestān. Cf. _Les Aryens au nord et au sud de

l’Hindou-Kouch_, par Ch. de Ujfalvy, _passim_.

[2] More correctly Paropanisus. See an article on “Bactria,” by E.

Drouin, in the _Grande Encyclopédie_.

[3] The mention of Bākhdi (= Balkh) in Fargard 1 of the Avesta, is

perhaps still older.

[4] The Greek historians, following a tradition which made the

conquests of Sesostris (Rameses II.) even more extensive than they

really were, maintain that this conqueror penetrated into Bactria and

Scythia. Rameses II. flourished in the thirteenth century before our

era. Cf. Maspero, _Hist. Anc. des Peuples de l’Orient_, p. 225. Equally

fabulous is the account given by Diodorus Siculus of the conquest of

Bactria by Ninus and Semiramis in B.C. 2180. Cf. E. Drouin, _loc. cit._

[5] This was the most easterly town of the Persian Empire. Authorities

differ as to the site, some identifying it with Ura Tepe.

[6] The oases at the embouchure of the Oxus were anciently styled

Khwārazm, from a Persian word signifying eastwards. They constitute

the modern Khiva. Soghdiana comprises Bokhārā and Samarkand, and the

nomenclature is derived from Soghd, the old name for the source of its

wealth, the river known to the Greeks as the Polytimetus and to moderns

as the Zarafshan.

[7] Cf. Nöldeke, _Aufsätze zur Persischen Geschichte_, p. 23.

[8] Called the battle of Arbela, from a neighbouring city, just as the

“crowning mercy” of Waterloo was in reality bestowed at a considerable

distance from the town indelibly associated with it.

[9] According to Grigorieff, this means the district lying between the

Oxus and Shahrisabz.

[10] The stadium was 600 feet in length; but, as the foot varied

greatly in ancient time, this measure of length was never certain. The

“great stadium,” otherwise known as the Alexandrian or Egyptian, was

.12 of a geographical mile.

[11] Grigorieff suggests the identification of this place with the old

town of Baykand, or with Hezārasp, in the Khorasmian oasis.

[12] It may perhaps be identified with Kalāt-i-Nādiri to the north-east

of Meshed, called also the “Soghdian Rock.” The famous Roxana, whom

Alexander soon afterwards married, was the daughter of a certain

Oxyartes, who was among the captives taken with this fort.

[13] Rollin, _Ancient History_, v. 210. See also Quintus Curtius.

[14] He may, for example, have visited Iskander Kul, a lake which to

this day bears his name.

[15] Cf. Gutschmid, _Geschichte Irans_, p. 22.

[16] In B.C. 327 Seleucus I. had been placed in charge of Syria and the

East, and of Babylon--to which, with the aid of Antigonus, he added

Susiana. In 316, owing to a quarrel with Antigonus, he fled to Egypt,

but in 312 he re-entered Babylon. The era of the Seleucidæ dates from

this event. Seleucus extended his dominions as far as the Oxus and

the Indus. Not till 306 did he officially adopt the title of king.

Gutschmid, _op. cit._ p. 24.

[17] Cf. E. Drouin, _loc. cit._

[18] Diodotus seems to have prepared his subjects for this change of

masters by issuing coins of the type struck by Antiochus II., but

bearing his own portrait. Cf. Gardner, _Greek and Scythian Coins_, p.

20.

[19] _Hist._ x. _ad fin._ xi. 34.

[20] Gardner, _Greek and Scythian Coins_, p. 21.

[21] Cf. Justin, xii. 4: “Parthis deinde domitis prefectus his

statuitur ex nobilis Persarum Andragoras: inde postea originem

Parthorum reges habuere.”

[22] Parthian Coinage, _Numismata Orientalia_, vol. i. p. 2. Strabo,

xi. 9. 2.

[23] Justin, xii. 6: “Imperiumque parthorum a monte Caucaso multis

populis indicionem redactis usque flumen Euphratem protulit.”

[24] _Ibid._ xlii. 1.

[25] Gardner, _ibid._ p. 6.

[26] Gardner, _ibid._ p. 6.

[27] See Note 1 at p. 6 of Chap. iii.

[28] Strabo, xi. 8. 2.

[29] This sentiment finds many echoes in Latin literature. Cf. _Odes_

and _Epistles_ of Horace, _passim_. It is curious to note the identity

between the tactics of the Parthians and those of the hordes of Chingiz

and Tīmūr. The usual charge of bad faith is brought by the Romans

against their terrible enemies.

[30] The Straits of Yenekale.

[31] The three great reformers Lao-tse, Kung-fu-tse (Confucius), and

Meng-tse (Mencius) flourished under the princes of this dynasty.

[32] The greatest calamity which this ruthless despot inflicted on his

country was the wholesale destruction of literature which he ordered,

in view of keeping his people in ignorance. This atrocious measure was

attended by the slaughter of many learned men. Cf. Legge, _Analects of

Confucius_, p. 6.

[33] Also called Khamil, a town about 700 miles east of Kulja.

[34] According to Richthofen, the Yué-Chi were of Tibetan stock, but

Vambéry and Gerard de Realle assert that they were Turks. Their nidus

was to the north-east of Tangut.

[35] Cunningham, _Survey of India_, vol. ii. p. 62.

[36] Ct. d’Herbelot, _Bib. Orient._ vol. vi. p. 10; and Boulger, _Hist.

of China_, p. 11.

[37] Cf. Rapson, Indian Coins, in _Grundriss der Indo-Arischen

Philologie_, p. 7.

[38] Cf. Ujfalvy, _Les Aryens au nord et au sud de l’Hindou-Kouch_, p.

64.

[39] A distinctly Greek type survives to the present time in the

mercantile and settled agricultural population of Bokhārā, and the

neighbouring khanates, who are known as Tājiks.

[40] Strabo (xi. 8) tells us that the Greek power in Bactria was

overthrown by the Asii, Pasiani, Tokhari, and Sakarauli. The first two

names are probably identical, and represent the royal family of the

Tokhari. They may be identified with the Asiani of Trogus Pompeius. The

Sakarauli are the Sarancæ of Trogus, and correspond with the Chinese

_Sé_ or _Su_, _i.e._ the Sakas. Cf. Cunningham, _Survey of India_, vol.

ii. p. 65.

[41] Cf. _Journal Asiatique, Série Nouvelle_, vii. p. 162, 1896.

[42] Cf. Colonel Yule, Introduction to Wood’s _Oxus_, p. xxv.

[43] Identified with Kandahār.

[44] Cf. Drouin’s excellent article on “Bactria” in the _Grande

Encyclopédie_.

[45] General Cunningham states, without quoting any authority, that the

Yué-Chi waged war with the Chinese in Khotan during this year (_Survey

of India_, ii. 63).

[46] General Cunningham, _Survey_, vol. ii. p. 64.

[47] This point is worthy of note in that eminent scholars used to

maintain that the names were practically identical. Cf. Vivien de St.

Martin, _Les Huns Blancs_, 1849, p. 64.

[48] These notes on the Ephthalites are taken principally from M.

Drouin’s excellent _Mémoire sur les Huns Ephthalites dans leur rapports

avec les rois Perses Sassanides_, privately printed in Louvain, 1895.

[49] Their chiefs originally bore the title of Shen-Yü, which in the

reign of Tulun (A.D. 402) was changed to _Khākān_, an ancient title

which we now encounter for the first time in history.

[50] The best accounts of the Sāsānide dynasty are to be found in

Nöldeke’s admirable translation of the portion of Tabari’s annals

dealing with that period--_Geschichte der Araber und Perser zur

Zeit der Sāsāniden_, Leyden 1879, and his _Aufsätze zur Persischen

Geschichte_, Leipzig, 1887. From these sources we have derived most of

our details, and will therefore give no further references.

[51] Or Artabanus.

[52] Some authorities maintain that this city was founded by Shāpūr II.

about 340.

[53] _Gūr_ means “wild ass.” The king, who is one of the favourites of

Persian tradition, received this _sobriquet_ on account of his passion

for hunting wild asses. He usurped the crown.

[54] The Sāsānides were fire-worshippers, disciples of Zoroaster.

[55] This pass is traversed by the famous Georgian Military Road

connecting Vladikavkaz with Tiflis.

[56] Transoxiana was never included in the kingdom of the Sāsānides;

the possessions of Achemenides stretched far farther east than those of

the Sāsānians.

[57] Cf. p. 21, note 2, _supra_.

[58] Here we follow Malcolm (_History of Persia_), who bases his

account on those of various well-known Persian historians, such as

Mīrkhwānd and Khwāndamīr.

[59] We are told that when Bahrām Gūr returned from this expedition to

his capital, Ctesiphon, he appointed his brother Governor of Khorāsān,

designating Balkh as his residence.

[60] According to the Persian historians, the Khākān was named

Khush-Nawāz. Nöldeke, however, disapproved of this reading, the

invention he thinks of Firdawsi, and employs that of Akh-Shunwar.

[61] Tabari tells us that Pīrūz had previously ceded to the Khākān the

important frontier town of Tālikān.

[62] Some of the means would hardly commend themselves to modern

economists. Pīrūz remitted taxes and large sums from the treasury; but

he also compelled the rich to feed their poorer neighbours from these

taxes.

[63] The more ancient form is _Kavadh_.

[64] _I.e._ Ctesiphon.

[65] We are told that this made him look upon Anūshirawān as a

talisman, and the interesting detail is added that the mother and the

boy were conducted back to Madā´in _in a cart_ as became a princess.

Wheeled traffic is unknown on these roads, but Professor Nöldeke refers

us to Plutarch’s _Artax._ 27, where we are told that the king’s wife

used that means of locomotion. In recent times Europeans have taken

their carriages from Meshed to Teheran on Kobād’s route.

[66] Persian historians assert that he was converted by a sham miracle,

and that he continued to believe in Mazdak during the rest of his

life. But his motives were probably purely political, and not based on

conversion.

[67] The famous Orkhon inscriptions which have been deciphered by MM.

Radloff of St. Petersburg, and V. Thomsen of Copenhagen, belong to this

branch of the Turks.

[68] De Guignes, ii. p. 374.

[69] Cf. De Guignes, vol. ii. p. 378.

[70] Persian and Roman writers assert that Anūshirawān conquered

Transoxiana, but this seems most improbable. For, as Nöldeke points

out (footnote to page 159 of his Sāsānides), Huen-Tsang, who visited

the country soon after these events, speaks only of Turkish and other

barbarian States. Moreover, the State of Transoxiana at the time of the

Mohammedan invasion augurs strongly against the extension of Persian

rule.

[71] For a full account of his life--historical and fictitious--we

refer the reader to the Appendix of Nöldeke’s _Sāsāniden_, p. 474.

[72] It was reconquered in 629 by Heraclius, the Byzantine emperor,

who set up the Cross in the city which had first beheld the emblem of

salvation; and the Feast of the Elevation of the Cross is kept on the

14th September in memory of that event.

[73] The origin of this well-known expression is curious. The

designation Yemen, or the “right hand,” was given by its northern

neighbours to a strip on the south-eastern coast of the Red Sea. But

in Arabic, as in the Latin and many other languages, the right hand is

associated with good fortune. Hence by mistranslation the territory

became known to the West as “The Blessed,” or “Felix.” It is well

watered, and is better peopled than any other part of the Arabian

peninsula.

[74] The _Ka`ba_ is said to have contained 160 idols, each tribe having

its separate God; and so great was the toleration in ante-Mohammedan

times that on the pillars of the temples there were also to be found

images of Abraham and of the Virgin and Child. In the sixth century the

primitive religion had lost its old signification and had developed

into fetishism.

[75] Swedenborg was fifty-eight ere he had his first vision.

[76] There are two popular fallacies to be noted with regard to the

so-called “_Hegira_.” In the first place, it should be transcribed

as _Hijra_; and secondly, the word does not mean _flight_, but

_separation_, for the incident to be recalled was not Mohammed’s flight

to Medīna--but his _separation from his family_.

[77] “Islām” is synonymous for Mohammedanism in all Arabic-speaking

countries. Its literal meaning is “resignation”--a heart-whole

submission to the divine will.

[78] _Khalīfa Rasūl Illāh_ was the full title of the “Successor of the

Prophet of God.” The correct designation of the holder of the office

is _Khalīfa_, while the office itself is Khilāfaa. The former word has

till quite lately been transcribed “Khalif,” or Caliph. The self-styled

successor of the Mahdi in the Soudan is, however, known to Europe under

the correct designation, Khalifah.

[79] The outraged hospitality was avenged, for the murderer was torn to

pieces by the mob, while the body of Yezdijerd was embalmed and buried

in his ancestral tomb at Istakhr.

[80] He was the Prophet’s son-in-law, and had been elected in A.H. 44

by a council of six as successor to the stern `Omar, the second Caliph.

[81] _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_, chap. li.

[82] Cf. Muir, _Decline and Fall of the Caliphate_, p. 208.

[83] Tabari, _Annales_, Series II. p. 15. From this date until

the appearance in Central Asia of Kutayba in A.H. 86, our history

is little more than an enumeration of Arab governors in Khorāsān,

whose rule was usually as uneventful as it was shortlived. We have,

however, considered it fitting to enter here into detail somewhat

disproportionate to the rest of our narrative, seeing that the facts

have hitherto been only accessible in works of Oriental writers.

[84] Müller, _Der Islam_, i. p. 354.

[85] Tabari, _Annales_, II. p. 109.

[86] He was not the son of the famous governor of Basra.

[87] In the interim the post seems to have been filled for a short time

by Khulayd ibn `Abdullah el-Hanafī (Tabari, II. p. 155).

[88] Tabari, II. p. 156.

[89] Vambéry considers _Tarkhān_ (or _Tarkhūn_) to be an old Turkish

title, which Mohammedan authors have regarded erroneously as a proper

name.

[90] Tabari, II. p. 156.

[91] Tabari, II. p. 169. Tabari says he was the first to cross the

mountains of Bokhārā on a camel, _loc. cit._

[92] Tabari, II. p. 169. The Persian Tabari does not mention this

queen, but relates the same incident of the _king_ of the Turks;

Ba`lami, the Persian translator, also adds that the shoe was sold by

Ubaydullah to the merchants of Basra. Cf. Zotenberg’s _Chroniques de

Tabari_, tome iv. p. 19.

[93] The direm, derived from the Greek drachma, contained 25 grains of

silver, and was worth about 5d. of our money. On this basis the value

of the shoe would be £4166 sterling!

[94] Vambéry, _History of Bokhārā_, p. 20. The author says he has this

fact from “Arabic authors,” but we have been unable to find any mention

of it in either the Arabic or Persian versions of Tabari.

[95] According to Tabari (II. p. 179), Sa`īd was met by a great

Soghdian force on reaching Samarkand. The rival hosts stood facing each

other till nightfall, but on the following day Sa`īd made a furious

onslaught and put the defenders to flight, taking fifteen young nobles

as hostages.

[96] Narshakhi, ed. Schefer, p. 39.

[97] Bellew and Vambéry both call him “Muslim,” a reading which has

been adopted in the Russian translation of Narshakhi, published in

Tashkent in 1897. The latter, indeed, contains a note to the effect

that the name is written “Salm” in Arabic sources. It is also the

spelling in the Persian Tabari. Salm was twenty-four years of age on

his appointment. His father was `Ubaydullah, the famous governor of

Basra.

[98] This warrior held command of the Arab troops in Central Asia under

several viceroys in succession, and thus gained the confidence of his

troops and an intimate knowledge of Khorāsān and the adjoining tracts.

The stability in the office of generalissimo went far to neutralise any

disadvantages occurring from the frequent changes in that of viceroy.

[99] Tabari (II. p. 394) tells us that Salm took his wife Umm Mohammed

with him, and that she was the first Arab woman to cross the Oxus. She

bore him a son, who was surnamed the “Soghdian.”

[100] £55 reckoned in our currency.

[101] Narshakhi’s account of these events brings the lack of discipline

among the Arabs into a strong light, and serves to account for the

vicissitudes of their rule in Central Asia.

[102] This curious custom still survives in Merv. “One day,” writes

O’Donovan, “the town-crier, accompanied by half a dozen other

Turcomans, entered my hut, each to present me a new-born child. I could

not catch the exact words; all I could understand was that one of the

infants was O’Donovan Beg, another O’Donovan Khan, a third O’Donovan

Bahadur. I forget what the others were. It turned out that the Tekkes’

newly born children are, as a rule, called after any distinguished

strangers who may be on the oasis at the time of their births, or have

resided there a short time previously, or after some event intimately

connected with the tribe” (_The Story of Merv_, p. 329).

[103] Cf. Aug. Müller, _Der Islam_, p. 411, who gives the date as A.H.

85.

[104] An entertaining account of this cruel and witty governor will be

found in d’Herbelot, under the article _Heggiage-ben-Josef-al-Thakefi_.

[105] Merv has been styled by almost all European writers on the

subject, “The Queen of the World.” Now the origin of this high-sounding

title is the expression _Merv-i-Shāhijān_, a title used to distinguish

this town from Merv er-Rūd. This word Shāhijān has been taken as

a corruption of Shah-i-jahān, or “Queen of the World.” Yakūt says

that Shāhijān means “Soul of the King.” The form as it now stands

is probably “Arabicised” from an old Persian form _Shahgūn_, “what

appertains to a king.” Cf. Rückert, _Gram. Poet. und Rhet. der Perser_

(Gotha, 1874), p. xix. The mistranslation, if such it be, has shared

the fate of most mistranslations of the kind, and become universal

among Europeans.

[106] It must be remembered that Bokhārā is the name of a kingdom as

well as of a town.

[107] Between Balkh and Merv er-Rūd, three days’ journey from the

latter. Istakhri, the geographer, speaks of it as the most important

place in Tokhāristān.

[108] _Dihakān_ = the man (_i.e._ the head man) of the _dih_, or

village.

[109] Vambéry seems to confuse the two accounts, for he says: “He

had not yet arrived within the limits of ancient Bactria when the

inhabitants of Balkh came out to meet him, and conducted him with

honour into their city.” But Tabari speaks distinctly of an engagement,

in connection with which he remembers an interesting detail. Among the

captives taken at that time was the wife of a certain Barmek. She was

taken into the harem of Kutayba’s brother `Abdullah, by whom she had a

son, who was commonly regarded as the ancestor of the famous Barmecīdes

of the court of Baghdād. The story was probably invented to give the

family a less obscure lineage than that of humble immigrants from

Balkh. Cf. Muir, _History of the Caliphate_, p. 358.

[110] Cf. Tabari’s _Annales_, Series II. p. 1187, and Zotenberg’s

_Chroniques de Tabari_, vol. iv. p. 157.

[111] Neither version of Tabari gives any details of this siege, but

Narshakhi’s account, of which we extract a portion, is most vivid.

[112] Tabari says that he had gone five farsakhs, but mentions no

place-name.

[113] Narshakhi records that the lieutenant, who was named Varkā, was

answerable for this catastrophe. A citizen of Baykand, it seems, had

two beautiful daughters. These the lieutenant abducted, whereupon the

father remonstrated with him, saying: “Baykand is a large town, why,

when you have the whole population to select from, should you carry off

my daughters?” As Varkā gave no answer, the enraged father drew out his

knife and stabbed him, but not mortally.

[114] Narshakhi tells that in Baykand, Kutayba found a heathen temple

in which was a silver idol weighing 4000 direms; also a quantity of

golden vessels which, when weighed together, amounted to 150,000

_mithkals_. But the most remarkable of his discoveries were two pearls,

each the size of a pigeon’s egg. Kutayba on beholding them asked the

people whence such large pearls had been brought. They replied, “that

they had been brought to the temple by birds in their beaks.” When

Kutayba sent intelligence of his conquest of Baykand to Hajjāj, he also

despatched these two pearls, with the account of the tradition relating

to them. The reply of Hajjāj ran thus: “We have read your story, and

it has filled us with wonder; but more wonderful than the two large

pearls, and the birds that brought them, is your generosity in having

sent to me these precious prizes you had taken. May the blessing of God

be upon you.”

[115] Ed. Schefer, p. 43. Khartūm may possibly come to offer a parallel.

[116] Vambéry, _Bokhara_, p. 25.

[117] Tabari, _Annales_, Series II. p. 1195.

[118] Scholars have hitherto failed to read this satisfactorily. The

forms that occur are Kur-Bughanūn, Kurighanūn, etc. Professor Houtsma

has suggested that the termination should be read _nūīn_, _i.e._ prince.

[119] Narshakhi.

[120] Not, of course, to be confounded with Fārāb opposite Chārjūy; but

the reading of the name is doubtful.

[121] The italics indicate three excellent puns in the original Arabic.

Hajjāj had a universal reputation as a master of this difficult tongue.

The words may be transcribed as follows: _Kiss bi Kissa wansif Nasafan

waridd Wardan_.

[122] Narshakhi’s version of the campaign is full of discrepancies,

and the events of the years 88–91 are perforce presented to the reader

without much regard for chronology or natural sequence. The results are

to be found in Bellew’s epitome (_Yarkand Expedition_, p. 117).

[123] _Annales_, Series II. p. 1201.

[124] Vambéry says, evidently following his Turkish Tabari: “Their

women ... _tore their faces_!”

[125] One of the most famous tribes of Yemen.

[126] Vambéry says a yearly tribute of 2,000,000 direms!

[127] Narshakhi, ed. Paris, p. 40.

[128] Vambéry follows Narshakhi in ignoring this revolt, which was

certainly a very serious one as far as Kutayba was concerned, but both

versions of Tabari give detailed accounts of its various phases.

[129] Old Persian word signifying commander-in-chief.

[130] He was opposed to Nīzek’s design. We are also told that, in order

that a certain appearance of respect might be kept up, his chains were

of gold. Cf. Tabari, _Annales_, Series II. p. 1206.

[131] Tabari, _Annales_, Series II. p. 1218.

[132] On the river Jīhūn, one of the three principal towns of Khwārazm,

of which Medīnat-el-Fīl, or the Town of the Elephant, was the largest.

[133] Tabari relates that one day several Soghdians mounted the rampart

and called out: “Oh ye Arabs, why do ye exert yourselves thus vainly?

Know that we have found written in a book that our town shall not be

taken except by one whose name is “Camel-Saddle,” whereupon Kutayba

called out--“God is great! for verily that is my name.” (In Arabic,

Kutayba means literally “camel-saddle.”)

[134] He is said to have obtained no less than 20,000 native levies,

men from Kesh, Nakhshab, and Khwārazm. Cf. Tabari, _Annales_, Series

II. p. 1256.

[135] In the year 95 Hajjāj died at the age of fifty-four.

[136] Welīd had been most anxious to make his own son heir-apparent

in the place of his brother, and in his designs had been supported

by Hajjāj and Kutayba. Hence the bad blood that existed between the

conqueror and the new Caliph.

Vambéry adds the following details without reference (not to be found

either in Tabari or Narshakhi): “Having conquered Farghāna, he went

through the Terek Pass into Eastern Turkestān. Here he encountered the

princes of the Uïgurs, who in default of union among themselves were

easily conquered. We are told that the Arabs extended their incursions

into the province of Kansu.... Turfan, on the very first appearance of

the Arabs, embraced Islam.” (_Bokhara_, pp. 31, 32).

[137] Gibbon recognised the greatness of Kutayba as a conqueror, while

lamenting the scanty notices to be found of him in European works;

cf. _Decline and Fall_, chap. li. d’Herbelot, in his _Bibliothèque

Orientale_, dismisses our hero, under the heading _Catbah_, in a very

summary manner. “Ce fut un des plus villains Arabes de son siècle,

Valid, sixième Khalife de la race des Ommiades, le fit général de ses

armées en Perse, l’an de l’Hégire 88. Il conquît tout le grand pays de

Khorazan, et obligea en ces quartiers-là à brûler leurs idoles et à

bâtir de Mosquées. Après cette conquête, il passa dans la Transoxiana

et prit de force les fameuses villes de Samarcande et de Bokhara, et

défit Mazurk roi de Turkestan, qui s’était approché pour les sécourir.

Ce grand capitaine finit ses conquêtes l’an 93 (_sic_) de l’Hégire.”

[138] Tabari, _Annales_, Series II. pp. 1283–96.

[139] An important town on the Perso-Turkish frontier, north-east of

Baghdād.

[140] This saying is not to be found in the Arabic Tabari, but in the

Persian version. See Zotenberg, vol. iv. p. 204.

[141] See Zotenberg’s translation of the Persian Tabari, vol. iv. p.

221.

[142] After remaining, as Tabari tells us, four months in Khorāsān to

settle the administration of the province.

[143] Zotenberg, vol. iv. p. 225 _et seq._

[144] Tabari, _Annales_, Series II. p. 1318.

[145] He directed that converts were to be exempt from all taxes, and

placed on the same footing as the Arabs; while unbelievers were to be

taxed to the utmost. No churches, synagogues, or fire-temples were to

be destroyed, but the erection of new ones was forbidden. Cf. Muir,

_Caliphate_, p. 380.

[146] His post was the same as Hajjāj’s, and was equivalent to a

viceroyalty of the Eastern conquests of the Caliphate.

[147] Known by the sobriquet of _Khuzayna_, “the Village Girl,” because

of his effeminate ways.

[148] See Tabari, _Annales_, Series II. pp. 1431 and 1433. Vambéry

(who reads the name as _Tarshi_) states that this man succeeded Yezīd

ibn Muhallab on the appointment of Maslama. Cf. _Bokhara_, p. 37. The

Persian Tabari also says that the nomination was made by Maslama. Cf.

Zotenberg, vol. iv. p. 268.

[149] The _Annales_ devote many pages to his progress, but as the

details are of small importance we refrain from summarising them, and

merely follow the abridged account of the Persian Tabari.

[150] He seems already to have been dismissed, and to have been

reinstated.

[151] It is very remarkable that from this point in the history the

account in the Arabic is as prolix as that in the Persian translation

is compressed and condensed.

[152] Vambéry calls him (wrongly) Esresh.

[153] Called by Vambéry, Jandab. He succeeded to the command in A.H.

111. He had previously been in Sind, and on his way to join the army

at Bokhārā he narrowly escaped falling into the Khākān’s hands. Tabari

relates that he obtained his promotion by offering to Hishām’s wife a

necklace of precious stones, which the Caliph admired so greatly that

Junayd procured another like it for him. See Tabari, _Annales_, Series

II. p. 1527.

[154] In this battle a nephew of the Khākān was taken prisoner, and

afterwards sent to the Caliph. Tabari notices that there is a doubt as

to the year in which these engagements took place, some saying A.H. 112

and others 113 (730, 731).

[155] This defeat was known as the battle of the Defile (ash-Shīb),

A.H. 112 (730).

[156] Tabari, _Annales_, Series II. p. 1539.

[157] About ten or eleven thousand perished in the battle, the

remainder were betrayed to the Khākān (Tabari, _loc. cit._ p. 1542).

[158] Tabari, _loc. cit._ p. 1543.

[159] Junayd in his report seems to have laid the blame of his defeat

on Saura for advancing too far out of Samarkand. According to Tabari,

his words were: “Saura disobeyed me; I ordered him to keep near the

river, but he did not do so” (_loc. cit._ p. 1544). Beladhori also, in

his very brief account of this campaign, makes no mention of defeat or

even disaster. He merely says that Junayd fought the Turks till he had

utterly repulsed them, and then asked the Caliph for reinforcements.

The account in the Persian Tabari is roughly as follows:--Junayd’s

first brush with the Turks was successful; but their Khākān was not

discouraged by his reverse. He mustered a host so formidable that

Junayd found it necessary to order Saura, who had taken possession

of Samarkand, to join forces with him. He then marched against the

Khākān with 20,000 men. The Turkish leader adopted tactics which have

again and again enabled a prescient leader to triumph against immense

odds. On learning that Saura had left Samarkand, he turned and fell

upon him with such ferocity that not one of his 20,000 troops escaped

to tell the tale. Thereupon Junayd summoned every town of Khorāsān

and Tokhāristān to send him its quota of reinforcements; and having

thus gathered an army of 43,000 strong, despatched it under a trusted

follower to relieve Samarkand, which was closely besieged by the

victorious Khākān. The Mohammedans reached the city when their garrison

was on the point of surrendering, and attacked the beleaguering host.

For the first time during many disastrous years the banner of Islām

prevailed. The Khākān was smitten hip and thigh, and forced to raise

the siege of Samarkand. Junayd placed a garrison there of 5000 men

under Nasr ibn Sayyār, and returned to Merv, where death soon closed

his brilliant career.

[160] He appears to have received the appointment from his brother

Khālid, the governor of `Irāk.

[161] It is worthy of remark that in the Persian Tabari the record of

Asad’s second tenure of office is not only very brief, but even differs

essentially from that of the Arabic original.

[162] In Schefer’s edition of Narshakhi (p. 59) the date is absurdly

given as 166.

[163] Descendants of `Abbās, uncle of the Prophet. See note below, p.

80.

[164] Cf. Tabari, _loc. cit._ p. 1988 _et seq._

[165] Hārith ibn Surayj mentioned above was still with the Turks, and

when Nasr ibn Sayyār reported his victory to the governor of `Irāk the

latter ordered him to capture Hārith, subdue Farghāna, and destroy the

town of Shāsh.

[166] By the promulgation of a general amnesty the Soghdians were

brought back to their allegiance.

[167] Their names were Welīd II., Yezīd II., Ibrāhīm, and Merwān II.

[168] His father, Mohammed, had died in A.H. 124.

[169] An amusing incident is given in this connection by Tabari.

Kirmānī was very stout, and the passage by which he had to escape was

so narrow that his servant was obliged to drag him through by main

force, and the operation very nearly killed him.

[170] See note 1, p. 82.

[171] For a full account of the story of El-Kirmānī and Hārith ibn

Surayj, see Tabari, _Annales_, Series II. pp. 1855–69, 1887–90, and

1917–35.

[172] The following table will explain the descent of the two

branches:--

Kossay

|

`Abd Menāf

|

+------+--------------+

| |

`Abd Shems Hāshim

| |

Umayya `Abd al-Muttalib

|

+--------------+----+------------+

| | |

Abū Tālib `Abdullah `Abbās

| |

`Alī _Mohammed_

[173] Zotenberg, _op. cit._ vol. iv. p. 323 _et seq._

[174] He was then not twenty years of age.

[175] We are told that Abū Muslim wished to have a distinctive colour

for his party, the Umayyads having adopted white. After making one of

his slaves clothe himself in suits of various colours, he ordered him

to dress in black, and finding the sombre hue the most awe-inspiring

adopted it for his party. Cf. Zotenberg, _lot cit._ p. 327. Later the

Khārijites adopted red, and the Shi`ites green.

[176] Nasr ibn Sayyār was a poet of no mean order, and Arabic histories

contain many quotations from his compositions, specimens of which will

be found on p. 87 and 88 of Nöldeke’s _Delectus Vet. Carm. Arab_.

[177] Two very different versions of the end of Nasr are to be found

in Oriental histories. That given in the text is the usually accepted

one; but in the Persian translation of Tabari (cf. Zotenberg, _loc

cit._ p. 329), in the _Tārīkh-i-Guzīda_, etc., we are told that he

fled unaccompanied as far as Ray, where he died. No mention is made

here of the engagements with Kahtaba, who, according to the author of

the _Guzīda_, gained possession of Jurjān, Ray, Sāva, and Kum without

striking a blow.

[178] His horse ran away with him and, slipping on the banks of the

river, threw its rider into the water, where he was drowned. His

disappearance was not remarked until daybreak. The _Guzīda_ says that

Ibn Hobayra also perished in the battle.

[179] Numbering, according to the Persian Tabari, more than 30,000 men.

[180] The Caliph’s two uncles, Dā´ūd and `Abdullah,--the former in

Mekka and Medīna, the latter in Palestine,--were responsible for

the wholesale extermination of the Umayyads in those countries. The

historians tell us that `Abdullah on one occasion invited seventy

members of the house of Umayya to a feast, under promises of a full

amnesty, and that, at a given signal, the servants fell upon the

unsuspecting guests and put them all to death. This tragedy recalls the

famous “Blood bath” in Stockholm, but the Umayyads had no Gustav Wasa

to avenge their death. We are told that the spirit of revenge carried

them so far that they caused all the tombs of the Umayyad Caliph to

be opened, and what remained of their corpses to be scattered to the

winds. Cf. _Chroniques de Tabari_, vol. iv. p. 343.

[181] _History of Bokhara_, p. 40.

[182] Es-Saffāh was ten years younger than Abū Ja`far, but, as Weil

suggests, was preferred to the latter, because his mother was a free

woman, while his brother’s was a slave.

[183] See Weil, _Geschichte der Khalifen_, vol. ii. pp. 24, 25.

[184] The correspondence is fully reported by Tabari; and Weil,

recognising its historical interest, has translated in full three of

the letters. Cf. Weil, _op. cit._ vol. ii. pp. 27, 28.

[185] Tabari, _Annales_, Series III. p. 122.

[186] An account of this man may be found in the _Siasset Namèh_, pp.

122–23 of Schefer’s text.

[187] In the Arabic, _Wadhālika innahu kāna min sanāyi`ihi_.

[188] Numbering 6000 men.

[189] Wrongly read by Weil as _Jumhur_.

[190] Tabari, _loc cit._ p. 120.

[191] According to both versions of Tabari, he fell from a window and

broke his back.

[192] El-Mahdi, who was at this time about twenty years of age, had, we

are told, a lieutenant to assist him in his duties as governor.

[193] The _Rāvandīs_ believed in the transmigration of souls, and

held that the soul of the Deity was temporarily resident in the body

of the Caliph, while the souls of Adam and Gabriel were residing in

the bodies of two of his generals. For accounts of this sect, see

Weil, _Geschichte der Khalifen_, vol. ii. p. 36 _et seq._; Muir, _The

Caliphate_, p. 448; Tabari, _Annales_, Series III. p. 129 _et seq._;

and Zotenberg, _Chroniques de Tabari_, vol. iv. p. 137 _et seq._

[194] In the preceding pages undue space may appear to have been given

to the history of the Caliphs, but the growing importance of Central

Asia will in future render our history almost independent of events at

Baghdād.

[195] The famous _Annales_ of Tabari (which have been our

_Haupt-Quelle_ for the history of the Arabs in Central Asia), like

those of Ibn el-Athīr, are arranged under the heading of each

succeeding year. We make a point of giving throughout the name of each

governor of Khorāsān appointed by the Caliphs, for, though such details

are in themselves trivial, no list of them has, to our knowledge,

appeared in any European work.

[196] Weil, _op. cit._ vol. ii. p. 65, says that he gave himself out as

a _prophet_, but Tabari says nothing of this. Cf. Tabari, _Annales_,

Series III. p. 149.

[197] El-Mahdi had held this post since A.H. 141 (758).

[198] We have not thought fit to dwell at any length on the adventures

of this famous impostor. Professor Vambéry, in his _History of

Bokhara_, devotes no less than ten pages to the rising. The story, in

its main outlines, is familiar to Englishmen from Moore’s _Lalla Rookh_.

[199] Cf. Tabari, _loc. cit._ p. 631.

[200] This powerful family took its descent from one Barmek, a

physician of Balkh. One of its members, Khālid ibn Barmek, became vezīr

of the first `Abbāsid Caliph, and under El-Mahdi was intrusted with the

education of the heir-apparent Hārūn. Khālid’s son Yahya succeeded him

as vezīr in A.H. 170 (786), and showed himself one of the most capable

rulers of his age. For an account of their fall consult Sec. iii. of

the Terminal Essay in vol. x. of Burton’s _Thousand and One Nights_.

[201] August Müller, generally so accurate, calls him erroneously Isā

ibn Alī, and equally erroneously states that he was killed in battle in

the year 191, whereas he did not die till 195 (see below).

[202] Zotenberg, _op. cit._ iv. p. 469.

[203] Cf. Müller, _op. cit._ i. p. 497; Vambéry, _Bokhara_, pp. 53, 54;

Zotenberg, _op. cit._ iv, 71 _et seq._

[204] Its exact nature is not known, but it was probably the fruits of

a life of reckless dissipation.

[205] Cf. Zotenberg, _op. cit._ tome iv. p. 481.

[206] He was minister of both the civil and military departments, and

was hence known as _Dhu-l-Rīyāsatayn_, or “Lord of the two Ministries.”

[207] Cf. Weil, _Geschichte der Khalifen_, vol. ii. p. 197.

[208] He was called “the Magian, the son of a Magian.”

[209] Ma´mūn had conceived an aversion for Tāhir (some authors say

because Tāhir reminded him of his brother Amīn’s death), and, being

conscious of this, Tāhir naturally feared the proximity of the Caliph.

He superseded a certain Ghassān, whom Ma´mūn had left in charge of

Khorāsān.

[210] Who died A.H. 166 (782).

[211] His full title was Sāmān-Khudāt, being lord of a village which he

himself had built and given the name of Sāmān. He claimed descent from

the Sāsānide Bahrām Chūbīn. Cf. Narshakhi, ed. Schefer, pp. 57, 58.

[212] Vambéry (_Bokhara_, p. 55) notes that “the fact that Sāmān,

whilst still a heretic, had held a command long after the Arab

conquest, proves the small progress Islāmism had at first made among

the followers of Zoroaster.”

[213] See above, p. 96.

[214] See note 1 above, p. 100.

[215] Narshakhi, ed. Schefer, reads absurdly 292!

[216] Cf. Mīrkhwānd, _Historia Samanidarum_, ed. Wilken, p. 3.

Narshakhi says that Ahmed was made governor of Merv, but from what

follows this seems erroneous.

[217] d’Herbelot quotes a Persian quatrain in which the Tāhirides are

enumerated--

_Dar Khorāsān zi āl-i-Massābshāh,

Tāhir u Talha būd u Abdullāh,

Bāz Tāhir, digar Mohammad dān

Kū be Ya`kūb dād takht u kulāh._

_Translation._--In Khorāsān, of the house of Massāb (Tāhir’s name was

Tāhir ibn Husayn ibn Massāb) there were the following princes--Tāhir,

Talha, `Abdullah, another Tāhir and then Mohammad, who gave up throne

and crown to Ya`kūb.

[218] He ruled from A.H. 232–247 (846–861).

[219] In Arabic _Saffār_, whence the dynasty took its name.

[220] Cf. Khwāndamīr’s account of the Saffārides in his

_Habīb-us-Siyar_. We refer the reader also to Nöldeke’s brilliant

sketch of this man’s career, entitled “Ya`qūb the Coppersmith”

(_Sketches from Persian History_, pp. 176–206).

[221] Malcolm, _History of Persia_, vol. i. p. 148.

[222] Cf. Müller, _op. cit._ vol. ii. p. 29.

[223] Narshakhi (ed. Schefer, p. 78) gives the date as A.H. 260 (872),

Mīrkhwānd (ed. Wilken, p. 4) as A.H. 261 (873).

[224] Narshakhi, _loc. cit._ Muwaffak is here spoken of as Caliph,

but he was merely chief minister of state to his brother the Caliph

Mu`tamid.

[225] This point is not made clear by Persian historians. The

Saffārides had by their victories become masters of all the provinces

ruled by the Tāhirides, of which Transoxiana was certainly one. It is

hard to conceive either that they should have renounced their claim on

Transoxiana, or that the feeble Caliph should have taken upon himself

to pronounce the Samānīdes independent of Khorāsān.

[226] Narshakhi, ed. Schefer, p. 79.

[227] Vambéry is in this place (see _Bokhārā_, p. 58) guilty of a

curious error, for he says that this Rāfi` was the _Rāfi` ibn Layth_

who had rebelled against Hārūn er-Rashīd in A.H. 190 and was pardoned

in 196 by Ma´mūn. He would by the year 272 have been rather old to

receive a governorship of a province.

[228] Mīrkhwānd (ed. Wilken, p. 6) says that it was in connection with

this friendship that certain mean persons poisoned the mind of Nasr

against his brother. This author tells us that Isma`īl had requested

and received of Rāfi` the province of Khwārazm, and this, so Nasr’s

advisers said, was merely a plot to deprive Nasr of Transoxiana.

[229] See below, p. 110.

[230] Five farsakhs to the south of Aulié-ātā. For a full account of

what is known of Christianity in Central Asia in early times we refer

the reader to an excellent monograph on this subject by M. Barthold,

of St. Petersburg, which was published in vol. viii. of the _Zapiski_,

or Journal of the St. Petersburg University Oriental Faculty. Much

valuable information on this subject is also to be found in Col. Yule’s

_Cathay and the Way Thither_.

[231] Ed. Schefer, p. 84.

[232] Bellew (_Forsyth Mission_, p. 119) says that Isma`īl received his

patent of succession from the Caliph while engaged in this campaign;

but this is not in agreement with Narshakhi, whom he gives as his

authority.

[233] See above, p. 105.

[234] Cf. Weil, _op. cit._ ii. p. 483.

[235] Weil, _op. cit._ ii. p. 485, hints at this duplicity, basing his

statement on the fact that the Caliph praised and rewarded Isma`īl when

he heard of his victory over `Amr. Khwāndamīr, in his _Habīb-us-Siyar_,

leaves the question open, and expressly says that Isma`īl acted “either

on the Khalif’s orders or on his own initiative.”

[236] Nizām ul-Mulk, in his _Siyāset Namé_, tells an amusing anecdote

in this connection. After `Amr had been taken prisoner, towards

nightfall one of his fellows, having procured some meat and borrowed a

saucepan, was preparing a meal for his master: while he for a moment

left his cooking to fetch some salt, a dog came and poked his head into

the saucepan. In trying to pull out a bone the handle of the pot fell

round his neck, and he scampered off, carrying the scalding pot with

him. On seeing this, `Amr remarked: “This morning 300 camels bore my

kitchen, and to-night a dog has carried it off.”

[237] Narshakhi, ed. Schefer, p. 90. The editor was here (as in only

too many places in this uncritical edition) guilty of allowing an

absurd date to be printed in his text; for the date of `Amr’s death is

given as 280!

[238] Narshakhi, _loc. cit._ Vambéry points out (_op. cit._ note to p.

66) that Sind and Hind are “a random boast” of the author.

[239] The governor before him had made Bokhārā his residence.

[240] A very striking description of the literary talent gathered there

is given by _ath-Tha`labi_, in the _Yatīmatu ´d-Dahr_, vol. iv. p. 30

(Damascus ed.).

[241] Vambéry (_Bokhara_, p. 67) adds to this list Kazwīn, Shīrāz, and

Isfahān, which were towns in the dominion of the Būyides. The Būyides

and the Sāmānides practically shared the whole of Persia and Central

Asia as follows:--

_Sāmānides_--Khorāsān, Sīstān, Balkh, Bokhārā, and Samarkand.

_Būyides_--The two `Irāks, Fars, Kirmān, Khuzistān, and Luristān.

Tabaristān and Jurjān were continually changing hands.

[242] He died of some malady at a place called Zarmān, whither the

doctors had sent him for change of air.

[243] Dawlat Shāh, in his _Lives of the Poets_ (see Browne’s edition,

p. 44), quotes from `Unsuri the following quatrain in which the rulers

of the house of Sāmān are enumerated--

_Nūh kas būdand zi āl-i-Sāmān mazkūr

Dā´īm bi imārat-i-Khorāsān mashhūr

Ismā`īl ast u Ahmadī u Nasrī

Dū Nūh u dū `Abd-ul-Malik u dū Mansūr._

_Translation._--Nine members of the house of Sāmān were famous in the

government of Khorāsān, namely, Ismā`īl, one Ahmad, one Nasr, two

Nūh’s, two `Abd el-Melik’s, and two Mansūr’s.

[244] Cf. Vambéry, _Bokhara_, p. 81, and Bretschneider, _Mediæval

Researches from Eastern Asiatic Sources_ (London, 1888), vol. i. p. 236

_seqq_. An interesting article was published in 1874 by Grigorieff in

the _Memoirs of the Eastern Branch of the St. Petersburg Archæological

Society_, vol. xviii. p. 191 _seqq._ This article contains the

Turkish text of an extract from the _Tārīkh-i-Munajjim-Bāshī_, with

an introduction, a translation, and copious notes. The name of

Kara-Khānides was first suggested by Grigorieff for this dynasty, after

Satuk Kara Khān, who was the first of its kings to embrace Islām. The

title is more convenient than the others by which this dynasty has

been known, such as Uïghūrs, Ilek-khāns, and Ilkhāns, as will appear

from note below, p. 116. Bretschneider, whom on such subjects it is

hard to contradict, was by no means convinced by Grigorieff’s positive

assertion that the Kara-Khānides were not Uïghūrs.

[245] The passage from his famous history, the _Tārīkh-i-Jahān-Kushāy_,

dealing at great length with the Uïghūrs, has been translated by

d’Ohsson. Cf. _Histoire des Mongols_, vol. i. p. 430 _et seq._

[246] Narshakhi (ed. Schefer, p. 233) calls this dynasty of “Turkish

Khāns” the “house of Afrāsiyāb.” Afrāsiyāb is one of the most prominent

figures in Firdawsi’s great epic of kings, the _Shāh Namé_. B.C. 700 is

given as a conjectural date of the first migration of the Turks across

the Oxus--as far as India and Asia Minor. According to the coins, it

appears that the Turks (under what name it is not known) entered the

Greek kingdom of Bactria. Cf. Reinaud, _Rélations de l’Empire, Rom.

avec l’Asie Centrale_ (Paris, 1863), p. 227. Tradition has it that

Afrāsiyāb flourished about B.C. 580. He was the emperor of Tūrān, of

which Turkestān was a province, and was the great foe of Īrān. During

his reign Siyāwush, son of the emperor of Īrān, Kay-Kā´ūs, having

incurred his father’s displeasure, fled across the Oxus, which formed

the boundary between the two kingdoms, to Afrāsiyāb, who held court at

Rāmtīn. Siyāwush received Afrāsiyāb’s daughter Ferengis in marriage,

with the provinces of Khotan and Chīn as her dowry. Afrāsiyāb’s brother

Gersīwaz, jealous of the strangers growing power, set his brother’s

mind against Siyāwush, and induced him to take the field against his

son-in-law, who was captured and conveyed to Rāmtīn and there put to

death. Siyāwush left a posthumous son by Ferengis, named Kay-Khosrū,

who became emperor of Īrān. Kay-Khosrū, bent on avenging his father’s

death, besieged Rāmtīn, drove Afrāsiyāb out of his country, and

occupied it for seven years; Afrāsiyāb afterwards returned and

recovered his capital, but was finally defeated and slain. Kay-Khosrū

now became master of Samarkand and Bokhārā; but, wishing to devote his

days to religious contemplation, resigned his government to Lohrāsp,

the son-in-law of Kay-Kā´ūs, who soon exacted homage from the rulers of

Tartary. Thus the Persian dynasty existed till the overthrow of Darius

II.

[247] The accurate transcription of this name is _Khitā´ī_; however,

for convenience the more familiar spelling of _Khitāy_ has been

retained throughout.

[248] The exact position of this town, which during the tenth and

eleventh centuries was the capital of the Khāns of Turkestān (see Ibn

el-Athīr), is not known. Abulfeda says it was not far from Kāshghar.

Juvaynī says that in the days of the Mongols it was called Gu-Balik.

[249] Grigorieff, in his well-known but harsh, and indeed unjust,

review of Vambéry’s _Bokhara_, published as an Appendix to vol. i. of

Schuyler’s _Turkestan_, says (1) that the Ilik Khāns were not Uïghūrs,

but Karlukhs, and (2) that the Kara-Khitāys were their descendants.

Though he takes M. Vambéry to task for not knowing such “facts,”

neither of these statements will bear the light of modern research.

Vambéry was, however, wrong in calling the Kara-Khitāys Uïghūrs.

[250] Klaproth (_Sprache und Schrift der Uiguren_) proves convincingly

that the Hui-ho of the Chinese authors anterior to the Mongol period

are identical with the Uïghūrs, and that the Uïghūrs are to be classed

among the Eastern Turks. The term Hui-ho was, however, used by Chinese

writers of the Mongol period to designate Mohammedans generally (cf.

Bretschneider’s article on the Uïghūrs in his _Mediæval Researches from

Eastern Asiatic Sources_, to which excellent monograph most of these

notes are due). Translations of the principal Chinese records of the

Uïghūrs are to be found in Videlou’s supplement to d’Herbelot’s _Bib.

Orient._

[251] The name _Uïghūr_ is first found in Mohammedan histories at the

beginning of the thirteenth century. Previously to this they seem

to have been known by the name of Taghazghaz, which is doubtless a

corruption. Cf. _Tarikh-i-Rashidi_, or, _History of the Moghuls of

Central Asia_, by Ney Elias and E. Denison Ross, p. 94 of Introduction.

[252] For notices of these places, consult Grigorieff’s article on the

_Kara-Khānides_, and Bretschneider’s _Mediæval Researches_.

[253] He was not actually the last of the Sāmānides, for one member of

the family named Isma`īl el-Muntazir had escaped from Ilik’s hands.

His subsequent adventures would go to make an exciting story. For six

years he maintained himself at the head of a faithful following. With

the help of the Ghuz he twice defeated Ilik’s troops, and (in 391–1001)

actually wrested Nīshāpūr from the hands of the governor, Mahmūd of

Ghazna’s brother. He finally perished at the hands of a Bedouin in A.H.

395 (1005).

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

[255] A tentative list of the Khāns of Turkestān is given in S.

Lane-Poole’s _Mohammedan Dynasties_, p. 134. They ruled, according to

this author’s computation, from about A.H. 320–560 (932–1165).

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

[257] Cf. Forsyth’s _Mission to Yarkand_,--Dr. Bellew’s chapter on the

History of Kāshghar, p. 121. The account of the first introduction of

Islām into Kāshghar is given in a Turki work entitled the _Tazkira

Bughra Khān_ (which was translated from the Persian of Shaykh `Attār).

Extracts from this somewhat fantastic work have been published in the

original in Shaw’s _Turki Grammar_.

[258] Ed. Schefer, p. 233.

[259] They advanced within three stages of Balāsāghūn. They are spoken

of as coming from _Sīn_ (China), but they were probably not Chinese but

Eastern Uïghūrs (cf. Bretschneider, i. 253).

[260] His name is often given in Oriental histories as _Kadr_. See

Raverty, _Tabakāt-i-Nāsiri_.

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

[262] We are told by this same author that they had caused much

depredation among the Mohammedans, which seems inconsistent with what

has been said of them before.

[263] S. Lane-Poole gives the date of Boghrā Khān’s death as 435, and

makes no mention of his son Ibrāhīm.

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

[265] S. Lane-Poole (_loc. cit._) says Ibrāhīm died in 460, and was

succeeded by his son Nasr, who died in 472. It will be seen that great

confusion exists with regard to these Khāns. Major Raverty, in his

translation of the _Tabakāt-i-Nāsiri_, furnishes a long list of Ilik

Khāns; but it is hard to reconcile any two accounts, so much do the

names and dates differ.

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

II.

[267] S. Lane-Poole (_loc. cit._) reads Mahmūd Khān III., and from this

point the list he gives no longer corresponds with Narshakhi’s account.

[268] Mīrkhwānd (Vüllers, _Historia Seldschukidarum_, p. 176), and

Vambéry following him, say that Mohammad was reinstated.

[269] The modern Khiva.

[270] See chap. XX.

[271] This history, by Hamdullah Mustawfi, is one of the most important

Persian chronicles. The whole text has never yet been published, but

the portion relating to the Seljūks was edited and translated by M.

Defrémery.

[272] There is some confusion as to the precise origin of this branch

of the Turks. Aug. Müller says that during the disorders which attended

the downfall of the Sāmānides and the struggles between the Ghaznavides

and the Khāns of Kāshghar, the Ghuz, through internal dissensions,

became split up into subdivisions. The foremost of these was a branch

who in A.H. 345 (956) settled down in Jend (east of Khwārazm). They

received the name of Seljūk from their chief, who had been compelled

to quit the court of his master Pighu Khān of the Kipchāk Turks. He is

said to have embraced Islām (Müller, _Islām_, ii. 74).

[273] He was the first prince to bear the title of _Sultān_. Cf.

Gibbon, chap. 47.

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

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

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

[277] Gibbon (chap, lvii.) speaks of this victory as the “memorable

day of Qandacan” which “founded in Persia the dynasty of the shepherd

kings.” He gives the date as A.D. 1038.

[278] Mohammad, who, as stated above, had been nominated by his father

Mahmūd to succeed him in Ghazna, had been almost immediately deposed by

his brother Mas`ūd.

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

[280] Müller, _op. cit._ i. 77.

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

[282] Cf. Gibbon, chap. lvii. De Guignes gives a somewhat different

version of the relations between the Emperor and the Turk (vol.

iii. p. 191). He says: “Constantin-Monomaque qui regnoit alors à

Constantinople, ne crut pas devoir négliger l’alliance d’un prince qui

faisoit trembler toute l’Asie: il lui envoya des ambassadeurs pour lui

proposer de faire la paix, et Thogrulbegh y consentit.” This difference

is due to the fact that Gibbon’s authorities were Byzantine, while De

Guignes’ were Mohammedan.

[283] It would, however, be wrong to regard these Turks as uncultured

people; for though few traces of their early literature have come down

to us, testimony is not wanting to the fact that they had, long before

they began their westward migrations, a written language and perhaps a

literature.

[284] He was not received in audience by the Caliph till A.H. 451

(1059). In 455 (1063), in spite of his outward show of respect, Toghrul

Beg practically forced the Caliph to give him his daughter in marriage.

But, in the same year, as Toghrul was about to claim his bride, fortune

suddenly deserted him, and he died at the age of seventy in Ray, where,

according to Mīrkhwānd (see ed. Vüllers, p. 65), he wished to celebrate

his nuptials.

[285] His name is familiar to the English public through the medium of

`Omar Khayyām. All who have read Fitzgerald’s admirable translation of

the _Rubaiyāt_ know the story of the three famous schoolfellows--`Omar

Khayyām, the poet; Nizām ul-Mulk, the statesman; and Hasan ibn Sabbāh,

“the Old Man of the Mountain.” These three, as schoolboys at Nīshāpūr,

had sworn that whichever of them should rise highest in the world

should help the others. Of two of them we shall have to speak below.

[286] His was not actually their first expedition, for, in 1050, parts

of Armenia had been laid waste and countless Christians massacred by

the Turks. Cf. Gibbon, chap. xlvii.

[287] We refer the reader to Gibbon’s 57th chapter for a vivid account

of Alp Arslān’s dealings with the Romans (see also Malcolm, _op. cit._

i. 209–213).

[288] This was a chief named Yūsuf, who had long held out against the

Sultan in his fortress of Berzem in Khwārazm. Cf. Malcolm, _op. cit._

i. 213; and De Guignes, iii. 213.

[289] Notably his uncle Kāwurd (see Müller, _op. cit._ ii. 94),--whom

Vambéry calls _Kurd_; and Vüllers (in Mīrkhwānd’s Seljūks), _Kādurd_;

and Malcolm (_op. cit._ i. 216), _Cawder_.

[290] Müller, _op. cit._ ii. 94.

[291] See below, chap. xix.

[292] Vambéry (_op. cit._ p. 100) qualifies these statements as the

“mere fabrications of partial Arab and Persian writers.”

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

[294] This assassin was one of the emissaries (or _fadāwi_) of Hasan

ibn Sabbāh, Nizām ul-Mulk’s old school friend. For an account of the

Assassins we refer the reader to the article under that heading in the

_Encyclopædia Britannica_. For more than a century the devotees of the

Old Man of the Mountain played a part in politics not dissimilar to

that of the Jesuits at certain periods in Europe. See J. von Hammer’s

_Hist. de l’Ordre des Assassins_ (Paris, 1833); S. Guyard’s “Un Grand

Maître des Assassins,” _Journal Asiatique_, 1877; and an article by Mr.

E. G. Browne in _St. Bartholomew’s Hosp. Journ._, March 1897.

[295] The history of the remaining Seljūk kings (of the original

branch) is so admirably epitomised by Malcolm that it was considered

unnecessary in this place to do more than quote from his well-known

_History of Persia_ (vol. ii. p. 222 _et seq._). These sons were

Berkiyāruk, Mohammad, Sanjar, and Mahmūd.

[296] He was himself but fourteen years of age at the time of his

father’s death.

[297] A.H. 487–498 (1094–1104). Malcolm throughout his otherwise

excellent history scarcely ever condescends to supply the reader with a

date of any kind.

[298] He died of consumption at the early age of twenty-seven (perhaps

even younger). Cf. Müller, _op. cit._ ii. 120.

[299] He allowed his nephew the two `Irāks on condition that his

(Sanjar’s) name should be mentioned first in the public prayers (cf.

_Habīb-us-Siyar_).

[300] The modern Khānate of Khiva.

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

Sultan of Constantinople.

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

[303] He was a descendant in the eighth generation of _T’ai-tsu_, or

Apaoki, the first Liao emperor. Cf. Bretschneider, _op. cit._ i. 211;

Visdelou, p. 28. For the various forms his name has taken, cf. Howorth

on the “Kara-Khitāy,” _J.R.A.S._, New Series VIII. 273, 274.

[304] De Guignes called him _Taigir_.

[305] Called by the Mohammedans _Churché_, which corresponds to the

_Niuchi_ of Chinese historians. Cf. Bretschneider, _op. cit._ i. 224,

note.

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

[307] Some scholars have wished to identify this name with Kirmān in

Persia, but this seems most improbable. Bretschneider (_op. cit._ i.

216, note) suggests Kerminé, which is the site of the summer quarters

of the present Amīr of Bokhārā. Cf. also Howorth, _loc. cit._

[308] P. 134.

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

[310] Some confusion exists as to whether Kāshghar or Balāsāghūn was

his residence. It seems improbable that he should have changed in so

short a space.

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

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

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

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

p. 254.

[315] Thus, according to Narshakhi (p. 243). The statements of

historians are somewhat conflicting in this place. De Guignes,

following Abulfidā, says that Ye-liu Ta-shi (whom he calls Taigir)

died in 1136, when about to abandon Kāshghar and return to his ancient

settlements in Tartary. The Khitāys then set upon the throne his infant

son, Y-li, with his mother Liao-chi as queen-regent. Bretschneider

has translated a Chinese work which gives a list of all the line of

Kara-Khitāy rulers, whose dynasty became extinct about 1203. We have

not thought it necessary to reproduce a list of their names in this

place. It may be mentioned, however, that Bretschneider’s account does

not agree with De Guignes.

[316] Cf. De Guignes, vol. iii. pt. i. p. 254; Müller, _op. cit._ vol.

ii. p. 173. Rashīd ud-Dīn tells us he had drawn auxiliaries from all

parts of his dominions.

[317] The Kara-Khitāys were Buddhists.

[318] Cf. Müller, _loc. cit._

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

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

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

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

[323] Cf. Müller, _op. cit._ ii. 173.

[324] Mīrkhwānd (ed. Vüllers, p. 183). Khwāndamīr (_Habīb-us-Siyar_)

adds “Kunduz and Baklān” to the list.

[325] The word used is _Khānsālār_, which means the “Taster,” or

“Table-Decker of the Household.”