But few notices of this Embassy occur in the Persian historians, though mention is made of it by Sharafu'd-Dín 'Alí of Yazd, who says: * “At this juncture there arrived an ambassador from the ruler (farmán-dih) of the Frankish realms, who presented many fine gifts and presents, and a variety of offerings and oblations,” amongst which “certain tissues adorned with designs and pictures which would have filled Manes with despair” specially aroused the author's admiration. He also mentions on the next page the pre­sence of the Spaniards at one of the banquets given by Tímúr, adding that “even chaff finds its way into the sea,” and, a few pages lower, * chronicles their departure.

By this time Tímúr was apparently recovered from his indisposition, tired of the settled life, and eager for fresh adventures, and he resolved to undertake a campaign Tímúr prepares for a campaign against China against China in order to destroy the temples of the heathen, spread the true faith, and in­cidentally enrich himself and his army with the spoils of that spacious, ancient and wealthy land. After making all necessary arrangements for the campaign and for the administration of his vast territories during his absence, he set out from Samarqand on his eastward march on November 27, 1404. The winter was exceptionally severe, and the army, after suffering much from the cold, crossed the Jaxartes (Síḥún) on the ice, and reached Utrár on Illness and death of Tímúr on Feb. 18, 1405 January 14, 1405. A month later Tímúr fell ill, and, though treated by Mawláná Faḍlu'lláh of Tabríz, who was accounted one of the most skilful physicians of his age, his sickness increased and complications set in until he finally succumbed, a week after the first attack, on February 18, 1405, being then seventy-one [lunar] years of age, and having reigned thirty-six years. His mind remained clear to the last, and having nominated his grandson Pír Muḥammad-i-Jahángír to succeed him as ruler of his vast empire, he embodied his last wishes in a discourse which is fully reported by Sharafu'd-Dín, * and died with the profession of the faith of Islám on his lips.

The character of Tímúr has been differently appraised by those who are dazzled by his military achievements on Various views of Tímúr's character the one hand, and those who are disgusted by his cruelty and utter disregard of human life on the other. One factor in such judgement is the acceptance or rejection of the much discussed and quoted Tuzúkát, or “Institutes,” which profess to contain Tímúr's own philosophy of Empire. Thus Gibbon says, in a foot-note in ch. lxv, that though he “did not expect to hear of Tímour's amiable moderation”…he “can excuse a generous enthusiasm in the reader, and still more in the editor, of the Institutions,” though in the corresponding portion of the text, he criticizes him pretty severely, and admits that “perhaps we shall conclude that the Mogul Emperor was rather the scourge than the benefactor of man­kind.” Sir John Malcolm's very judicious observations have been already cited. * Sir Clements R. Markham * says that, although Tímúr's conquests were the cause of much suffer­ing to the human race, yet “he certainly was not the remorseless tyrant he is represented by [Ibn] 'Arabsháh and his other enemies,” and that “there is evidence that he had loftier aims than the mere gratification of his lust for conquest.” He adds * that though “the name of Tímúr is frequently coupled with that of Chingíz Khán, yet the latter was a rude uncultivated barbarian, while there is evidence that the former was versed in all the knowledge of his age and country.” As regards the facts of Tímúr's life, there is little difference of opinion: his massacres and pyramids of skulls are equally chronicled by his panegyrists, Sharafu'd-Dín 'Alí of Yazd and Niẓám-i-Shámí, and his detractor Ibn 'Arabsháh, though the former affect to regard them as “manifestations of the Divine Attributes of Wrath” (Sifát­i-Jaláliyya or Qahriyya), and the latter as the outcome of diabolic malignity. The latter view appears to me the more reasonable and natural; and as for the “Institutes,” which supply a quasi-philosophic basis for this policy of “frightfulness,” I incline to the reasoned opinion expressed by Rieu * that they are spurious.

Before closing this brief account of Tímúr, some refer­ence should be made to certain despatches which passed Firídún Bey's collection of State Papers between him and the Ottoman Sultan Báyazíd and others, of which the texts are preserved in an important collection of State Papers known as the Munsha'át-i-Firídún Bey, of which a good edition was printed at Constantinople in Jumáda II, A.H. 1274 (February, 1858). The compiler of this work, Aḥmad Firídún, known as Tawqí'í (Tevqí'í), flourished in the middle of the tenth century of the Muhammadan (sixteenth of the Christian) era, and composed, besides the Munsha'át (compiled in 982/1574-5), a history entitled Nuz-hatu'l-Akhbár. The first volume of the Munsha'át comprises State Papers ranging in date from the time of the Prophet (seventh List of de­spatches con­nected with Tímúr century of the Christian era) to the middle of the sixteenth century. It contains 626 large pages, of which pp. 118-142 contain letters to, from, or about Tímúr, as follows:

(1) Letter from Qará Yúsuf to Sulṭán Báyazíd, written in Persian and undated, complaining of the aggressions of Tímúr, whom the writer describes as “that quickener of the fire of evil and trouble and agitator of the chain of mischief and insolence, Tímúr the object of Divine Wrath (may God destroy and crush him!),” and demanding help from Báyazíd (pp. 118-119).

(2) Báyazíd's answer to the above, also written in Persian and undated (p. 119).

(3) Letter from Tímúr to Báyazíd, written in Arabic and undated, requiring in peremptory language that no shelter shall be afforded to Qará Yúsuf and Sulṭán Aḥmad, and warning the Ottoman Sultan against disobedience to this command (pp. 120-1).

(4) Báyazíd's answer to the above, also written in Arabic and undated. This begins (after the doxology), “Know, O ravening dog named Tímúr,” and hurls defiance at the invader, daring him to advance (p. 121).

(5) Letter from Sulṭán Aḥmad Jalá'ir of Baghdád to Sulṭán Báyazíd, written in Persian and undated. The writer describes how, after the capture of Baghdád and the two 'Iráqs by Tímúr, he withdrew to Malaṭya and Síwás to await the arrival of Qará Yúsuf, according to Báyazíd's instructions, and how in conjunction they attacked, routed and annihilated the Uzbeks who formed the vanguard of Tímúr's army, but were awaiting with certainty an attack from his main army so soon as news of this disaster should reach him (pp. 124-5).

(6) Báyazíd's answer to the above, announcing that, in consequence of the news received from Sulṭán Aḥmad, he has concluded peace with the “Tekfur,” or Byzantine Emperor, and has advanced to Tóqát to aid in checking the invasion of Tímúr (p. 125). Dated Sha'bán, 798 (May, 1396).

(7) Second letter from Tímúr to Báyazíd, written in Persian and undated. It begins with a “salutation tem­pered with reproach” (salám-i-'itáb-ámíz), describes the writer's forty years' career of conquest, and how he has now advanced to Síwás, and taunts his adversaries with their failure to capture Malaṭya and Sinope. He is still, however, ready to come to terms, since he is unwilling that the dissensions of Muslims should afford fresh opportunity to the “Frankish infidels” to pursue their schemes of aggression. In conclusion he describes himself as of the family of the Íl-khánís, and demands a speedy and con­ciliatory answer to his overtures (pp. 126-7).

(8) Báyazíd's answer to the above, also in Persian and undated. The writer boasts of the martial prowess of the Turks, reminds Tímúr how his ancestor Er-Toghril with 300 horsemen routed 10,000 “Tartar and Mongol heathens,” and rehearses other like glorious deeds of his predecessors. He claims to be the protector of the Muslims, and declares that “hitherto not one of the House of 'Othmán has sought by flattery to turn aside an enemy, or has had recourse to deceit or guile” (pp. 127-8).