« السابقةمتابعة »
to us as the old Patan Palace. It has been a large and solid fortress, in a plain and unornamented style of architecture, and would have been picturesque, had it been in a country, where trees grow, and ivy was green, but is here only ugly and melancholy. It is chiefly remarkable for a high black pillar of cast metal, called Feeroz Shah's walking stick. This was originally a Hindoo work, the emblem, I apprehend, of Siva, which stood in a temple on the same spot, and concerning which there was a tradition, like that attached to the coronation stone of the Scots, that while it stood the children of Brámá were to rule Irdraput. On the conquest of the country by the Mussulmans, the vanity of the prediction was shown, and Feeroz, enclosed it within the Court of his palace as a trophy of the victory of Islam, over idolatry. It is covered with inscriptions, mostly Persian and Arabic, but that which is evidently the original, and probably contains the prophecy, is in a character now obsolete, and unknown, though apparently akin to the Nagaree."
Were the works of other travellers, before and after Heber, carefully examined, it is probable, we might find as great, if not greater, misrepresentations, and what is worse they indicated considerable amount of ignorance on the part of those living on the spot, who "pointed out" the ruins, and must have told the Bishop, what he has related above, for a personal inspection would have proved to him at least that the pillar was not an iron one, and that there were no Persian or Arabic characters upon it. It is particularly to be noted that such works as that of Bishop Heber are likely, on account of the apparent character for research they have obtained, to perpetuate the mistakes they make, as compilers of gazetteers and works on geography, mainly depend on books of travels for the information they condense. Hamilton, in his article "Dehli," has clearly taken much from Heber, though his source of information is not acknowledged.
Circumstances, which it it unnecessary to explain, have precluded the following out the more desirable plan of commencing a series of
* The italics are ours.-H. C.-H. L.
+ Had Bishop Heber seen the splendid ruins at the Kootub during the rainy season he would never have made this remark.-H. C.-H. L.
The tradition attaching to the iron pillar at the Kootub, altered and misapplied.H. C. and H. L.
investigations, for fixing the exact or proximate sites of the successive towns and forts around Dehli, with the precision that has become now more than ever desirable, because the ruins are rapidly passing away, and may soon not leave a vestige behind of that most important period, where historical light begins to illumine the dimness of tradition, and we are, therefore, compelled to defer the examination of the more ancient, and as it happens, more distant remains around us, and to enter, in the first instance, on an investigation of those which, being nearer at hand, have been more easily accessible, since the formation of Archæological Society of Dehli, to whom these researches more especially appertain.
We have already enumerated, in a previous paper (vide Journal of the Asiatic Society, vol. XVI. page 577, June No. for 1847,) the great works that a long and, comparatively, peaceful reign enabled Feeroz Togluk (or Kootloog as the name ought properly to be written) to erect as monuments of his power, of his munificence, and above all, of his great public spirit. Amongst them are mentioned two hundred towns and twenty palaces; a number showing pretty clearly that, although the general spirit of vanity that seems to have actuated many of his predecessors, and some of his successors, was not altogether dormant in this monarch, the desire of doing good to his people predominated greatly over that of securing to himself handsome dwellings and posthumous fame. He preferred affording security to his subjects within the walls of the towns he built for them himself, or which the prevalence of peace enabled others to build under his auspices, to gratifying his love of display in edifices appropriated to his own particular use; and he thereby justified, in a peculiar manner, that celebrated record of his deeds inscribed by himself on the great Musjeed of Dehli, possibly the one which Taimoor, is said to have admired so much as to have induced him to carry away all the masons of Dehli, to erect a similar one at Samarkand on his return to his own capital.*
*The exact locality of this Musjeed is a most desirable point of investigation. It is said that when Taimoor invaded India (1398) the musjeed at the Kootub was nearly, if not quite, perfect. If so it must have been the great musjeed, and by far the most magnificent edifice in the place: but it was not built by Feeroz whose architecture was very inferior, and it is much more likely he would select one of his own construction, on which to inscribe the record of his undoubted greatness as a liberal, munificent and mild ruler. How interesting too would be, a detailed life of this monarch, for which there
Of these two hundred towns many of which, in all probability, still exist in various parts of the country, under the several denominations of Feerozabad, Feerozpoor, Feerozghur (and possibly Feerozshuhur or Feerozshah, the name of which is immortalized by the contest on the memorable 31st of December, 1845), probably the largest, and certainly the one deserving the greatest consideration, from the Archæologist, is the town of Feerozabad, of which some remains are still in existence close outside the Dehli and Toorkman gates of the modern city and of the reputed twenty Palaces are first, the celebrated one of which the vast ruins are still visible on the banks of the former stream of the Jumna, immediately south of the extreme point of the present townwall, and commonly known by the name of Feeroz Shah-ka-Kotlah ; and secondly, the Palace of Jehannamah, of which there are few remnants, one of them, however, most prominent, in existence on the hill N. W. of the town of Dehli, on the site of which Mr. W. Fraser, the murdered Agent and Commissioner, built a house that now belongs to
are ample materials, with illustrations of the almost inumerable works of utility he constructed not only in and around Dehli, but in every part of his extensive dominions. In the vicinity of Dehli alone there are said to be, and close investigation would probably add to the number, 25 bunds, some of them in a state of excellent preservation, which owe their existence to this benefactor of his people, and which must have made the cultivation of the land independent of well irrigation, and have removed all fear as to the cold weather crops.-H. C. and H. L.
Since the above was written we have been favoured with the following interesting note from Major E. M. Loftie, a distinguished orientalist, and member of our Society.
It may, perhaps, be as well to mention, with reference to the supposition, regarding the great musjid, on which Fírúz Shah inscribed a copy of his auto-biography and institutes, that the mosque in question was that built by him in Firuzabad-as will be found stated by Briggs, vol. 1. p. 462, who says, 'He caused his regulations to be carved on the musjid of Feerozabad.' The original of Firishta is very clear on this point, his words being burgoombuz i alee kidur musjidi jamiu i Feerozabad bina nihadu, o moo-summun ust'' on the lofty dome (or tower) which he had constructed in the great mosque of Firuzabad and which is an octagon.' Nizamuddin Ahmad, the author of the Tabakát Akbarí, also confirms this. He says, in almost the same words,-'bur goombuz, alee ki din musjid i Feerozabad bina nihadee o moosummun ust,' on the lofty dome (or tower) which he had constructed in the mosque of Firuzabad, and which is an octagon.' From this tower or dome having had eight faces--and the work having been divided into eight books (which latter fact both Firishta and the Tabakát mention) we may with considerable probability, conclude that one boyk was inscribed on each face.What a pity so truly interesting a building should have been destroyed! Are there no hopes of our being able to obtain a fragment even of these inscriptions?"
Maharaja Hindoo Rao. Towards identifying these two localities, (to the first of which, however, we must confine our present observations, leaving the account of the Jehannamah Palace for a future occasion,) as here laid down,* with the names they bear in contemporary and more recent histories, we have the following evidence.
In the first place it is stated in the Zuffernama of Alee Yezd, au almost contemporary author, whom we have had the good fortune to consult in the original, that Feerozabad was situate opposite the embouchure of the canal brought by Feeroz from the Kalee Nuddee into the Jumna, and that embouchure corresponds exactly with that of the present Doab Canal which is, as near as possible, opposite the present ruins. In the second place it is stated, that Feerozabad was distant three miles from Dehli, and three miles from Jehannamah, which, allowing that the site beyond Gheiaspoor was old Dehli, and that we have correctly identified the site of Jehannamah, corresponds as near as can be, allowing an oriental latitude for distances, with the present position. In the third place we have it recorded that Feeroz Shah brought a branch of his canal to Feerozabad, and there is at the present day a branch, choked up, leading from the main stream into the centre of the site we have fixed upon; and lastly, were any further evidence required, and perhaps the most convincing proof of all, is the fact that the name of Feerozabad is still in existence, and applied to the spot on which the Kotla, &c. are situate. There is no actual village, and the Zumeendars of the lands that bear that name, live in the town of Dehli, but they pay rent under that name, and this circumstance most satisfactorily completes the chain of local evidence. The name is erroneously laid down in the district map of the Sudder Board of Revenue, as Feerozpoor. Let us now proceed to a short historical sketch of the place.
It is rather singular that the only mention made of the town in Ferishta's history of the life of Feeroz Togluk, (we are in hopes, however, of being able to secure more authentic materials in the history of Zeea-ood-deen Bunu, and the Shums-seeraj-Ufeef Feerozshahee, promised us, and which may be available in our description of the locali
* With all due deference the high authority, under which the Revenue map of the district of Dehli made its appearance, that of Mr. H. M. Elliot, then Secretary to the Board of Revenue, we think that the position of Jehannamah is erroneously indicated in that map, where it is placed, viz :-half a mile or more to the right of the canal, or nearly on the spot occupied by the new Edgah.--H. C. and H. L.
ties) is that it was built in the year of the Hijra 755, corresponding with the of our Lord 1354, or in the 3d year of that sovereign's reign, and that it adjoined (comparatively speaking) the city of Dehli, (the old city, the Gheiaspoor above indicated?) It is probable that up to that time, he occupied one of the Palaces in Dehli-proper, or at least during the periods of his residence at the capital, as it is stated that on the 2d of Rujub, A. H. 752, he entered Dehli, and there ascended the throne, and that his second son Mahomed, who ultimately succeeded him, was born in that town. This solitary allusion to Feerozabad, and the precise date of its foundation therein given, are, however, of material consequence. We have in the Kalán Musjeed, the date of the completion of which has been accurately verified,* an excellent specimen of the architecture of those days, a fact of great importance, as the style of almost every monarch, who had sufficient time to devote to the building of towns or palaces or tombs, is marked in the most striking manner. The materials, the plaster both within the walls and on the outside, the conformation of the domes, the slope of the entrance into the chief apartment, the battlements around the same, the stair cases, the brackets, the eaves, and above all, the massiveness
* Vide Asiatic Journal, as above quoted. We have, since the publication of that description of the Kalán Musjeed, been favoured with the following memorandum regarding the translation of the inscription from that distinguished Orientalist, Mr. H. M. Elliot, in the correctness of which we entirely concur, after a careful examination of the original:
"Allow me to point out an error into which, I think, you have fallen in your translation of the inscription on the Kalán Musjeed. If on further consideration you and Lieut. Lewis concur with me, you should keep a record of it, as it will be useful, perhaps, on reading other monuments of that period; you have translated " Mugbool ool Mukhateb," 'exalted with the title.' Now this conjunction of the two words is not good Arabic, and I look upon it that Mugbool is part of Jonah Shah's name :- Junah Shah Mugbool, entitled Khan Jehan.' The name was very common at that period, and his father's name also is given by some authors as Mulik Mugbool, and by others as Mulik Kubool. Ferishta, in one part, calls the father Mugbil. At all events there seems enough to show that the son's name was Mukbool, and should be so read in the inscription. Junah Shah was no doubt the name given by the obsequious father, in compliment to Mahomed Togluk, whose name was Jonah Shah, after whom Jonpoor was so named by his nephew Feeroz? We may add, as a 'contribution' to the biography of Khan Jehan the elder, that he is mentioned in Ferishta as the son of Rookun-ood-deen, of Thanesur; but whether the word Thanesuree means that he and his family were of Thanesur, or that he possessed that place in Jagheer only we cannot say. He is certainly spoken of as one of the most disreputable fellows of the time.-H. C.-H. L.