HISTORY OF CASHMIR. 5 



The three manuscripts are all very inaccurate ; so far so indeed, that a close 

 translation of them, if desirable, would be impracticable. The leading points, 

 however, may be depended upon, agreeing not only in the different copies, 

 but with the circumstances narrated in the Compendium of Abulfazl, and 

 in the Mohammedan or Persian histories which I have been able to procure. 



The Persian works which I have consulted are the following : the Nawa* 

 dir-ul Akhhar, the work of Refiuddin Mohammed, the Wakiat-i- Cashmir by 

 Mohammed Azim, the Tarikh Cashmir of Narayan Cul, and the Goheri Alem 

 Tohfet us shahi, by Badia ud-din. The first of these authors has the advan- 

 tage of being a Cashmirian by birth, although descended of a Balkli fami- 

 ly. He alludes to the work of Calhana Pandit, which he avows his pur- 

 pose of correcting where at variance with the true faith ; and it must be ac- 

 knowledged, that he has altered without remorse, although it may be ques- 

 tioned, whether he has corrected. His chief disagreements ate those of 

 omission however, as in the Hindu portion of his history, he occasionally 

 passes over whole dynasties, and connects the disjuncta membra of his ori- 

 ginal, with very little regard to accuracy of time or descent. The date of his 

 work is llo'3 of the Hijra, in the reign of Mohammed Shah, 



The Wahial-i- Cashmir contains a much fuller account of the Province, 

 and is a closer approximation to the Hindu original. The History follows the 

 order of the Sanscrit work very regularly, but the work is not confined to 

 the History of Cashmir, two of the three portions into which it is divided be- 

 ing appropriated to the description of the country, its natural and artificial 

 curiosities, and the religious and literary characters it has given birth to since 

 the establishment of Islam. Mohammed Azim, the author, calls himself the 

 son of Kheir-uz-zeman Khan, and writes in the year of the Hijra 1 140 : liv- 

 ing therefore, as well as Rafi-ad-din, in the Reign of Mohammed Shah. The 

 same reign produced the third work, which is professedly a translation of the 

 R&jd Taringiiii. It has all the usual defects of oriental translation, and 

 follows the original with a whimsical interchange of fidelity and variation } 



