Page:The Tarikh-i-Rashidi - Mirza Muhammad Haidar, Dughlát - tr. Edward D. Ross (1895).djvu/35

8 Turfán. The author concludes his account of each with a short sketch of their reigning representatives, at the time of writing.

The second Part, which has more than twice the extent of the first, and contains Mirza Haidar's record of his life and times, was the first in point of date. The author wrote it in 1541–42, and, as he states in the Prologue, with a view to preparing himself for the more arduous task of historical composition. It begins with his birth and concludes with an account of his second invasion of Kashmir, when, by a battle fought on the 2nd August, 1541, he became master of the country. This Part includes also some rules of conduct for kings, drawn up at the request of the author, by his spiritual guide, Maulána Muhammad Kázi, whose death, in 1515, is recorded in the preceding passage; while another moral treatise by a holy Shaikh, Shaháb-ud-Din Mahmud, styled Khwája Nura, is inserted in full.

The author is usually known as Mirza Haidar, and in this way he styles himself, though his full name and designation would be Mirza Muhammad Haidar, Dughlát, Kurkán. By some European writers, his usual appellation has been reversed, and he has become Haidar Mirza. In some parts of Asia the distinction would be a wide one; for when "Mirza" is placed before a name, it means merely "Mr." or "Esq.," and has about the same signification as the word "Khan," when used by Persians of the better class, and by Hindustani Musulmans of all classes, at the present day. When placed after a name, it is equivalent to "Prince," and is so used only by persons belonging to a reigning family. In the case of our author either would be suitable, seeing that he was a prince of the branch of Moghul Khans who were, at that time, rulers of the Kashghar province. But his grandfather, who had been one of these rulers, had borne the same names, and seems always to have been styled with the word Mirza at the end—Muhammad Haidar Mirza. It may be as well, therefore, to draw as clear a distinction as possible between him and his grandson. The latter tells us, too, that he was known to his associates by the