The first and second Books, giving an account of the Dehlí Emperors down to Akbar, were translated by Colonel A. Dow in 1768, in such a manner as to make Gibbon, with his usual critical sagacity, suspect, that “through some odd fatality the style of Firishta had been improved by that of Ossian,” and complain of its not being “easy in his florid text to distinguish the version and the original.”* Of his own work, Dow says: “The translator, being sensible of the impropriety of poetical diction in the grave narration of historical facts, has in many places clipped the wings of Firishta's turgid expressions, and reduced his metaphors into common language, without, however, swerving in the least from the original meaning of the author.”* But he has, nevertheless, made some of the diction more poetical, and some of the expressions more turgid, than the original warrants, and has so interwoven his own remarks with those of the author, that it is sometimes difficult to separate them;* in such a manner too as sometimes to convey an entirely different meaning from that which Firishta intended, and some of the commonest sentences are misunderstood. His orthography is exceedingly loose and inaccurate, and has unfortunately been the model of later compilers.

The florid diction was occasionally used to gloss and embellish an imperfect comprehension of the original; but in favour of Dow, it is to be remembered, that this was one of the first works translated by an Englishman from Persian, that its publication gave an impulse to the study of that language, and that the means of acquiring a full knowledge of it were difficult. In his third volume he leaves Firishta, and abstracts several histories of a later period.*

In 1786 Mr. Anderson published in the Asiatic Miscellany the text and translation of the eleventh Book. The History of the Dakhin has been well translated by Captain Jonathan Scott, but not with such exactness as to merit the reputation he has acquired. His work was published at Shrewsbury in two volumes, 4to., in 1794, and has been republished in London in 4to. and 8vo. The first is devoted to Firishta. The second contains the annals of Aurangzeb's reign, and an account of the decline of the monarchy, which will be more particularly noticed hereafter, in a later volume. The names of Firishta and his translator have been most amusingly combined by M. de la Richarderie into Jonathan Schof Heristal.* Stewart also trans­lated a short portion of the tenth Book as a specimen in the Appendix to his Catalogue.*

But the translation of the entire work by General Briggs, in four vols. 8vo., 1829, has thrown others into the shade, and is by far the most valuable store-house of facts connected with the Muhammadan Dynasties of India which is accessible to the English reader. He has added also some valuable Appendices, and filled up some of the histories deficient in the original. As the author says that he had failed in procuring any written ac­counts of the Kutb-sháhí, 'Imád-sháhí, and Baríd-sháhí Dynas­ties, the translator has supplied an Appendix to the history of the Kings of Golconda, which extends to 147 pages. He has given also a chronological epitome of the wars of the Portuguese in India, as connected with the history of the Dakhin, tables of comparative chronology, an alphabetical list of the proper names, titles and Oriental words, with explanations attached, an alpha­betical list of names of countries, mountains, rivers, and towns, and interspersed several valuable notes throughout the work.

He has, however, omitted the history of the Saints of Hindú-stán, forming the twelfth book of the original, which, though containing little historical information, gives a good idea of the general sentiments, legends, and superstitions current in India, respecting the doctrines, studies, penances, miracles, and follies of the Saints of the Indian Calendar. Some of them indeed have played no inconsiderable part in the history of their respective periods by their counsels and by the spiritual influence they exercised over the princes, who were their obedient disciples or devoted admirers. There are, also, other omissions of a more important character. A few passages have been taken from the single reign of Fíroz Sháh, to illustrate the difference which is found to prevail between the translation and the original.* It arises, partly, from the translator having sometimes followed Scott and Dow without alteration, but, chiefly, from his having used one of the early editions of A.H. 1020 for translation, and not having availed himself of the many additions which were made by the author up to the latest period of his life. If a new edition of the first translation would be too arduous a task for the accomplished translator, a supplementary volume of additions and corrections, derived from the lithographed text, would be very desirable; for though they may be of no importance to the general reader, they are essential to be known to the scholar, for the purpose of critical inquiry, and to enable him to dispense altogether with the original, which, with the present translation, admirable as it is in other respects, he cannot do. Some of the additional passages in these few Extracts contain relations of facts, and names of men, titles, and places, which are of no in­considerable importance to the correct understanding of Indian history.

The translation of General Briggs has been reviewed in the Vienna Jahrbücher, by J. Von Hammer.* The review is some­what uncandid, for it takes little notice of the merits of the work, and confines itself principally to censures upon its “monstrous orthography and erroneous calculation of dates.” Of the latter, he adduces several which certainly evince a want of care, or, what is more probable, the use of a set of incorrect tables; but of the former the system is not by any means so faulty as to deserve the epithet of “monstrous.” The translator explains his own system in the preface, and he has adhered to it closely. It is far superior to any which had hitherto been used for a work of equal extent. Every name is so written as to show that the translator knew how the original was spelt, which certainly can­not be said for Dow, or for most Oriental translators,—so written, as to enable any scholar to write the original word correctly,— and so written, moreover, as not to mislead the ignorant reader as to the correct pronunciation. It is to be remembered, also, that the translation was meant for Englishmen, and that any Englishman not versed in Oriental literature would run less chance of error in pronouncing the words written in this transla­tion, than he would if they were written according to the most systematic method, adapted to please the eyes of critics and scholars.

If we take some of the words selected by the reviewer, many of them marked as monstrous with notes of admiration, we shall be able to judge of the propriety of his strictures. For Kutbed-din , says the reviewer, the translator writes Kootb-ood-deen! For Alaeddin, Alla-ood-deen! For Ghaiaseddin, Gheias-ood-deen! For Mesud, Masaood. For Ibek, Eibuk. For Dikhen, Deccan. For Gudschurat, Guzerat. For Dschihangir, Jehangir. For Abunassr, Aboo-nusr. For Terdschumet Jemini, Turjooma Yemni.

These are taken from two pages* only, the italics representing the reviewer's system; and, really, to people who have ears and eyes, setting aside whether they are Englishmen or not, the reviewer's corrections show to little advantage. Where foreigners have dsch to represent j, no one can complain if we have oo to represent u or e,—as the reviewer writes it, with decided incor­rectness; or ma for met, which, though perhaps correct in writing, is most certainly incorrect in pronunciation. On what principle of spelling can Dikhen be justified? These petty cavillings are unworthy of one of the most distinguished Orientalists of the Continent, but they are not confined to our translator—the pro­foundest scholars of the world have not escaped his critical reprehensions, which he sometimes lavishes with a most un­sparing hand, and very often on the most trifling lapses of spelling, version, or punctuation. If any one wishes to see more on this subject, let him consult the “many hundred proofs of the reviewer's own gross ignorance” by Diez,* and read the two-and-twenty illustrious names, adduced by Fallermayer, which our critic has “handled with remarkable severity.”*

I have occasion myself to point out a few deficiencies in Briggs' version, but I will endeavour to so without captiousness, for I feel under great obligations to one who has saved me so much trouble by the labour he has imposed upon himself.

The translation has also been reviewed by M. Jules Mohl, but in an impartial and critical spirit, in a series of articles replete with information on the subjects discussed in them. His biography of Firishta is the fullest and most correct which we have, being derived not from the translation, but the original, subsequently lithographed at Bombay, to which he has devoted the chief portion of his able review. While he gives their due meed of credit to all the translators, he very fairly exposes the defects in each of them, and shows how worthy he himself is to undertake a faithful translation of the whole work.*