THIS History is very much quoted by subsequent authors, and is the chief source from which Firishta draws his account of the period. Barní takes up the History of India just where the Tabakát-i Násirí leaves it; nearly a century having elapsed without any historian having recorded the events of that interval. In his Preface, after extolling the value of history, he gives the following account of his own work. [“Having derived great benefit and pleasure from the study of history, I was desirous of writing a history myself, beginning with Adam and his two sons. * * * But while I was intent upon this design, I called to mind the Tabakát-i Násirí, written with such marvellous ability by the Sadar-i Jahán, Minháju-d dín Jauzjání. * * * I then said to myself, if I copy what this venerable and illustrious author has written, those who have read his history will derive no advantage from reading mine; and if I state any thing contradictory of that master's writings, or abridge or amplify his statements, it will be considered disrespectful and rash. In addition to which I should raise doubts and difficulties in the minds of his readers. I therefore deemed it advisable to exclude from this history everything which is included in the Tabakát-i Násirí, * * * and to confine myself to the history of the later kings of Dehli. * * * It is ninety-five years since the Tabakát-i Násirí, and during that time eight kings have sat upon the throne of Dehli. Three other persons, rightly or wrongfully, occupied the throne for three or four months each; but in this history I have recorded only the reigns of eight kings, beginning with Sultán Ghiyásu-d dín Balban, who appears in the Tabakát-i Násirí under the name of Ulugh Khán.]
“First.—Sultán Ghiyasu-d dín Balban, who reigned twenty years.
“Second.—Sultán M'uizzu-d dín Kai-kubád, son of Sultán Balban, who reigned three years.
“Third.—Sultán Jalálu-d dín Fíroz Khiljí, who reigned seven years.
“Fourth.—Sultán 'Aláu-d dín Khiljí, who reigned twenty years.
“Fifth.—Sultán Kutbu-d dín, son of Sultán 'Aláu-d dín, who reigned four years and four days.
“Sixth.—Sultán Ghiyasu-d dín Tughlik, who reigned four years and a few months.
“Seventh.—Sultán Muhammad, the son of Tughlik Sháh, who reigned twenty years.
“Eighth.—Sultán Fíroz Sháh, the present king, whom may God preserve.
“I have not taken any notice of three kings, who reigned only three or four months. I have written in this book, which I have named Tárikh-i Fíroz Sháhí, whatever I have seen during the six years of the reign of the present king, Fíroz Sháh, and after this, if God spares my life, I hope to give an account of subsequent occurrences in the concluding part of this volume. I have taken much trouble on myself in writing this history, and hope it will be approved. If readers peruse this compilation as a mere history, they will find recorded in it the actions of great kings and conquerors; if they search in it the rules of administration and the means of enforcing obedience, even in that respect it will not be found deficient; if they look into it for warnings and admonitions to kings and governors, that also they will find nowhere else in such perfection. To conclude, whatever I have written is right and true, and worthy of all confidence.”
Zíáu-d dín Barní, like many others, who have written under the eye and at the dictation of contemporary princes, is an unfair narrator. Several of the most important events of the reigns he celebrated have been altogether omitted, or slurred over as of no consequence. Thus many of the inroads of the Mughals in the time of 'Aláu-d dín are not noticed, and he omits all mention of the atrocious means of perfidy and murder, by which Muhammad Tughlik obtained the throne, to which concealment he was no doubt induced by the near relationship which that tyrant bore to the reigning monarch. With respect, however, to his concealment of the Mughal irruptions, it is to be remarked, as a curious fact, that the Western historians, both of Asia and Europe, make no mention of some of the most important. It is Firishta who notices them, and blames our author for his withholding the truth. Firishta's sources of information were no doubt excellent, and the general credit which his narrative inspires, combines with the eulogistic tone of Zíáu-d dín Barní's history in proving that the inroads were actually made, and that the author's concealment was intentional. The silence of the authorities quoted by De Guignes, D'Herbelot, and Price, may be ascribed to their defective information respecting the transactions of the Mughal leaders to the eastward of the Persian boundary.
The author did not live to complete his account of Fíroz Sháh,
but towards the close of his work lavishes every kind of encomium,
not altogether undeserved, upon that excellent prince.
Notwithstanding that Firishta has extracted the best part of
the Táríkh-i Fíroz Sháhí, it will continue to be consulted, as the
reigns which it comprises are of some consequence in the history
of India. The constant recurrence of Mughal invasions, the
expeditions to the Dekkin and Telingana, the establishment of
fixed prices for provisions, and the abortive means adopted to
avert the effects of famine, the issue of copper money of arbitrary
value, the attempted removal of the capital to Deogír, the wanton
massacres of defenceless subjects, the disastrous results of the
scheme to penetrate across the Himaláya to China, the public
buildings, and the mild administration of Fíroz; all these
measures, and many more, invest the period with an interest
which cannot be satisfied from the mere abstract given by Fi-
[Barní is very sparing and inaccurate in his dates. He is also wanting in method and arrangement. He occasionally introduces divisions into his work, but in such a fitful irregular way that they are useless. In his latter days “he retired to a village in the suburbs of Dehli, which was afterwards the burial place of many saints and distinguished men. He was reduced to such extreme poverty that no more costly shroud than a piece of coarse matting could be furnished for the funeral obsequies.” His tomb is not far from that of his friend, the poet Amír Khusrú.*
[Sir H. Elliot had marked the whole of Barní's history for translation, intending probably to peruse it and expunge all trivial and uninteresting passages. The translation had been undertaken by a distinguished member of the Bengal Civil Service, but when required it was not forthcoming. After waiting for some time, the editor, anxious to avoid further delay, set to work himself, and the whole of the translation is from his pen.* It is somewhat freer in style than many of the others, for although the text has been very closely followed, the sense has always been preferred to the letter, and a discretion has been exercised of omitting reiterated and redundant epithets. All passages of little or no importance or interest have been omitted, and their places are marked with asterisks. The Extracts, therefore, contain the whole pith and marrow of the work, all that is likely to prove in any degree valuable for historical purposes. Barní's history of the eighth king, Fíroz Shah, is incomplete, and is of less interest than the other portions. In the weakness of old age, or in the desire to please the reigning monarch, he has indulged in a strain of adulation which spoils his narrative. The Táríkh-i Fíroz Sháhí of Shams-i Siráj, which will follow this work, is specially devoted to the reign of that king. Shams-i Siráj has therefore been left to tell the history of that monarch. But the two writers have been compared, and one or two interesting passages have been extracted from Barní's work.
[The translation has been made from the text printed in the Bibliotheca Indica, and during the latter half of the work two MSS., borrowed by Sir H. Elliot, have been also constantly used,* These MSS. prove the print, or the MSS. on which it was based, to be very faulty. A collation would furnish a long list of errata and addenda. One of the two MSS. gives the original text apparently unaltered;* but the other has been revised with some judgment. It sometimes omits and sometimes simplifies obscure and difficult passages, and it occasionally leaves out reiterations; but it is a valuable MS., and would have been of great assistance to the editor of the text.]