^{page 223 note 1} See p. 375 of vol. vi of Professor Dodwell's translation (from the Tamil) of The Private Diary of Ananda Ranga Pillai (Madras, 1918).Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 1} See p. 173 of Cultru's, Dupleix: ses Plans Politiques: sa Disgrace. Etude d'Histoire Coloniale”. (Paris, 1901.)Google Scholar

^{page 224 note 2} For Saropā.

^{page 225 note 1} Published in London in 1803, and reprinted in Madras in 1861.

^{page 225 note 2} See p. 274 of the Orme MSS. at the India Office Library.

^{page 226 note 1} See page 224.

^{page 228 note 1} Creasy, in his well-known History of the Ottoman Turks, besides being indebted for much of his material to von Hammer, adopted the latter's German system of transliteration without reflecting on the different value of certain letters in English. Thus, to quote but one example, we find Creasy referring to Sultan Bayazīd as “Bajazet.”

^{page 229 note 1} Le Margne refers to it, but he was merely quoting from de Voulton.

^{page 229 note 2} Given in the text as Thamas Kauli Khan. The Portuguese spelling will not be given in this translation unless it happens to be correct (as is rarely the case) or unless identification is doubtful or impossible. In the latter cases, the Portuguese form will be given in italics, followed (whenever possible) by what is surmised to be the proper spelling of the name.

^{page 230 note 1} Patomar is the Hindi word meaning a messenger or courier.

^{page 230 note 2} Khwāja ‘Azim Samsāmu'd-Dawla Khān Dawrān was Amīru'l-Umarā or Comniander-in-Chief.

^{page 230 note 3} Khān, Muzaffar. See page 278 of P.C. Belfour's translation of the Tārīkh-i-Ahwāl-i-Shaikh Hazīn (London, 1831).Google Scholar

^{page 230 note 4} Possibly a misprint for Sa'ādat Khān, the Sūbahdār of Oudh (who is often referred to in works of this period as Sadat Kam or Kan).

^{page 230 note 5} These figures are greatly exaggerated. According to the journal of Mīrza Zamān, who was secretary to Sar Baland Khān, the total numbers of Muhammad Shah's forces did not exceed 200,000. Even in the Tārīkh-i-Nādirī of Mīrza Mahdi Khān (who might be expected to put the figures somewhat on the high side in order thereby to make Nādir Shah's triumph appear the greater) the total is only 300,000. Professor Sarkar, on page 33 of his Nadir Shah in India (Patna University, 1925),Google Scholar says, “Anandram, who was a secretary to the Wazir (Qamaru'd-Dīn Khān) and accompanied the army to Panipat, puts the number as 50,000 horsemen besides the personal contingents of the three nobles (Qamaru'd-Dīn Khān, Khān Dawrān, and the Nizāmu'1-Mulk). We know that the Nizām had brought with himself only 3,000 men. So the total Indian fighting force at Karnal could not have exceeded 75,000 men. “If this number is approximately correct, the other estimates must have included the large numbers of camp followers that accompanied the army.

^{page 230 note 6} This is an under-estimate. Nādir Shāh had between fifty and sixty thousand fighting men with him.

^{page 231 note 1} Chīn Qulīch Khan, the Nizāmu'1-Mulk. He was Governor of the Deccan at the time of Nādir Shah's invasion. Because of his great experience and ability, he was summoned to Court to advise Muhammad Shah during the crisis; he obeyed with great reluctance on account of his age, and also because he knew that he had many rivals and enemies at Delhi. For obeying the Mogul's command, he was rewarded with the title of Āsaf-Jāh or “he who has the Pomp of Āsaf”. In a footnote on page 64 of his History of Nādir Shah (London, 1742),Google Scholar Fraser remarks: “Asof Jah is a title commonly given to Vizirs. It signifies in Place and Rank as Asof, who, they say, was Solomon's Vizir. At the same time that they honour their Vizirs with this title, they flatter their own vanity, by comparing themselves to Solomon.”

^{page 231 note 2} Possibly Muhammad Khān Bangash, the Nawāb of Farrukhābād. See Fraser, , op. cit., p. 153.Google Scholar

^{page 231 note 3} Malcolm, on page 27 of the second volume of his History of Persia, also gives the date as the 19th February, but says that this was “Thursday, the 17th of Zilkadeh”. The correct equivalent of this is the 15th February, Old Style (Thursday, 26th February, New Style); this corresponds with what is said by Hanway and other authorities, namely, that this visit was paid on the second day after the battle of Karnāl.

^{page 232 note 1} “Months” in Hanway. See vol. ii, p. 479.

^{page 232 note 2} This is incorrect; the throne is said to have been begun by Tamerlane and finished by Shah Jahan.

^{page 232 note 3} See note below.

^{page 232 note 4} The text is corrupt here, but the wording in Hanway (vol. ii, pp. 479–80) is almost identical. The force of Persian troops mentioned may be that which Shah Tahmāsp sent against Qandahār under the leadership of Humāyūn in 1545. If this is so, Voulton (and Hanway too) is guilty of a very serious anachronism, for Muhammad Shah's grandfather was Qutbu'd-Dīn Bahādur Shah, the great-grandson of Jahāngīr, who, in turn, was the grandson of Humāyūn. Alternatively, the reference may be to a force of Persian troops which was lent to Akbar, one of Awrangzīb's sons, and brother of Bahādur Shah, to enable him to invade India on his father's death and to claim the succession for himself. Akbar was defeated and forced to retire by Bahādur Shah, and it is difficult to see how the grandson of the latter could be held to be in any way responsible for the payment of compensation in respect of the assistance given to Akbar. Akbar was the uncle of Jahāndār Shāh and of his brother Jahānshāh, the father of Muhammad Shāh, and “Gehanguire” (“Jeanguire” in Hanway) may have been used in error for one or other of these princes. In no case can Jahāngīr be right; as already stated, Humāyūn was not the uncle, but the grandfather of Jahāngīr. There was no member of the Mogul family entitled Jahāngīr in the time of Bahādur Shāh or later.

^{page 234 note 1} Piece of eight.

^{page 234 note 2} See footnote on page 232.

^{page 234 note 3} Hungarian frontier militia or guards.

^{page 235 note 1} The Hindus.

^{page 235 note 2} See note on page 230.

^{page 236 note 1} This is the correct Old Style date for the arrival of the combined Indian and Persian forces at the gardens of Shalimar (or Sha'lahmāh) outside Delhi. Muhammad Shāh and his followers went on to Delhi that evening, but Nādir Shāh did not enter the city until two days later, on the 9th Dhū'l-Hijja (9th/20th March).

^{page 237 note 1} This appears to refer to certain coins struck at Ahmadābād which bear on one side the Persian inscription:—

“Nādir, King of Kings and Lord of the (fortunate) conjunction (of the stars), is Sultan over the Sultans of the World.” The obverse has the following wording in Arabic:—

“May Allah perpetuate his reign. Struck at Ahmadabad in 1152.”

^{page 237 note 2} As is well known, the rising took place on the day following Nādir Shāh's entry into Delhi, that is, on the 10th Dhū'l Hijja or Saturday, the 10th/21st March.

^{page 237 note 3} The Portuguese text reads: “…quatro moços Omhras de nobreza ordinaria…”

^{page 237 note 4} Here the Spanish text is, for once, slightly fuller than the Portuguese. While the latter says: “…de que o Emperador tinha morto a Naderchâ de huma punhalada,” the Spanish version reads: “…de que el Emperador havia matado à Nadercha de un golpe de Catary.” (N.B.—Catary is the Hindustani word katārah , “a short sword” or “dagger”.

Professor Sarkar (op. cit., p. 62) says that, according to the “Tazkira” of Anandram (who was in Delhi at the time of the rising), mischief-makers spread the rumour “that Nadir Shah had been treacherously shot dead at the instigation of Muhammad Shah by a Qalmaq woman-guard of the palace when he was returning from his visit to the Emperor.”

^{page 238 note 1} Hanway (vol. ii, p. 486) ascribes the cause of the rising to Nādir's general, Tahmāsp Khān, having fixed the price of corn in such a way as to anger the populace and so provoke a disturbance.

^{page 238 note 2} See second note on preceeding page.

^{page 238 note 3} There is a curious mistake here in the Portuguese text which reads: “…na Mezquita de Rocfomdalla, no Campo de Nichoque.” The Spanish translation faithfully reproduces this error.

^{page 238 note 4} Malcolm (vol ii, p. 33) says that it was Muhammad Shāh himself who went to the mosque to intercede with Nādir, “exclaiming ‘Spare my people!’ Nādir replied ‘The Emperor of India must never ask in vain’.” According to Fraser (op. cit., 185), Nādir Shāh returned from the mosque to the castle after giving orders for the massacre to begin, and “about two-o'clock Mohammed Shah and Nizam al Muluck waited on him, who having made great Intercession for the City, the soldiers were ordered to desist …”

^{page 239 note 1} Naṣru'liah Mīrza.

^{page 240 note 1} See footnote on p. xxxviii of Lane-Poole's The Moghul Emperors of Hindustan and their Coins.

^{page 240 note 2} The Sultan of Turkey.

^{page 240 note 3} Sutlers.

^{page 240 note 4} Given in the text as Mamerlan Tourkam.

^{page 241 note 1} The names given here in italics are very corrupt, and much of the document has been omitted; the latter part of Yexelcoudabat is apparently Khudabād. A translation of the full text of this document is given by Fraser, , op. cit. pp. 223–6.Google Scholar Malcolm says, “It is an extraordinary paper, and was no doubt dictated by the conqueror.”

^{page 241 note 2} Nādir Shāh left Delhi on the 5th-16th May. The date of de Voulton's letter (of the 13th) may have been inserted in error.

^{page 241 note 3} Evidently a misprint for Shalimar.

^{page 242 note 1} I have been unable to identify this word, but the context shows that an onquil is some eort of servant or attendant. It might possibly be a corruption of wakil .

^{page 242 note 2} The text is obscure here, and it is doubtful what particular payment is referred to. Hanway (vol. ii, p. 495) says: “Kummir O'Din Khan, the visier, … endeavoured to elude the payment of the large contribution demanded of him; Nadir therefore caused him to be exposed openly to the sun, which is reckoned a punishment contumelious as well as painful, and in that country dangerous to the health. At length he extracted from him a whole crore of rupees, besides a great value in precious stones and elephants.” This “contribution” would, however, presumably be one of those referred to under item No. XIV. Items Nos. I to XI would seem to include all the possessions of the Great Mogul that were seized by Nādir.

^{page 243 note 1} This total is much exaggerated. Fraser says: “Nadir Shah carried away to the value of 70 Crores in Jewels and other Effects; and his Officers and Soldiers 10 Crores.” Hanway adopts this estimate which, he says, “is the highest calculation that the nature of the thing will warrant; this is equal to eighty-seven millions five hundred thousand pounds of our money.” Hanway prefaces these remarks, however by saying “the different relations we have had of this extraordinary rapine, are for the most part upon the marvellous; and several writers have suffered their imaginations to travel much faster than their judgment.”

^{page 243 note 2} These figures (except in regard to the lakh) are incorrect. There are 100 lakhs in a crore, or more properly, Karoṙ , 100 crores in a padan , and 100 padans in a nil . Thus a nīl is a billion.

^{page 243 note 3} The year is not given, but it must obviously be 1740.

^{page 244 note 1} It is difficult to account for this statement, as Nādir was at Herat in June, 1740. According to Mīrza Mahdī Khān, Nādir did not go to Isfahān either in 1740 or 1741. Le Margne states, but I do not know on what authority, that Nādir, when starting from Isfahān (sic) on his march towards Bukhārā, purposely spread the rumour that he was going to attack the Turks, in order to put the Uzbegs off their guard.

^{page 244 note 2} Husain Khān by name. The mission, which was dispatched on the 23rd October, 1739, was originally under Sardār Khān Kirklu, but he died before it reached Astrakhan and was succeeded by Husain Khān.

^{page 244 note 3} Given in text as pondos, which is evidently a misprint for “poudos”, the Russian .

^{page 245 note 1} His correct name is Filippe Monte; he was Secretary of Propaganda from 1735 to 1743.