Page:The Tarikh-i-Rashidi - Mirza Muhammad Haidar, Dughlát - tr. Edward D. Ross (1895).djvu/106

 Rh fifteenth centuries, we find both country and people alluded to under the name of Jatah—a name that, in translating, has been made to assume several unnecessary forms. Thus Pétis de la Croix, who put the Zafar-Náma into French, as far back as the end of the seventeenth century, transliterated the word Geta, and many subsequent authors followed his example. From the name mis-spelled in this way, much speculation arose among European writers, some of whom were able to derive from it the designation of the Jats of India, and others to recognise the Getæ, or Masagetæ, of classical authors. It is fair to say that most modern Orientalists have hesitated to accept these speculative conjectures, though the meaning and origin of the name have been hidden from them. Mirza Haidar now (and he is the first to do so) clears the matter up by informing his readers, parenthetically, in a number of places, that Moghulistan and Jatah were one and the same country. In the passages from the Zafar-Náma, which he cites in the First Part of his history, he interpolates this definition repeatedly, while in the closing chapter of that Part, he adds the further explanation that the Chaghatais called the Moghuls Jatah, on account of their enmity towards them, and by way of depreciation. Thus it was merely a nickname—a term of contempt or reproach—and when, with this clue, the word is sought in a Mongol dictionary, it is found to mean a 'worthless person,' a 'ne'er-do-well,' or 'rascal.' It has therefore no racial significance, but like such names as Kazák, Kalmák, etc., was probably applied to the Moghuls by their more cultivated neighbours, on account of their barbarous manners, lawless character, and unsettled habits generally. This being the sense, it need not be used except in translating from the texts; explained once for all, the Jatahs who have haunted the works of historians and commentators for two