The reign of MuHzz-uddin. 
201 
1871.] 
nient will accomplish themselves according to his wish, and the 
results of his labours in administration will be stable and lasting. 
Such was the counsel which came to me as a heritage from Kaiu- 
mars, my forefather; and of all the conditions of royalty which the 
ministers arid governors in the presence of Kaiumars laid down 
so accurately, the chief of all, without which kingship is impossible, 
and the title is empty and meaningless is that which I have in¬ 
stanced. And that condition, Jamshed said, had been fulfilled 
throughout his reign, and to the maxim of Kaiumars, he attributed 
the augmentation of the glory and splendour and success which 
had attended him. And the meaning of Kaiumars, he said, was 
that, without a body of retainers of the magnitude and character 
mentioned, a king could not be a king, but the more their numbers 
and loyalty were increased, the more dazzling would be the splen¬ 
dour of the throne, the more perfect and consistent and successful 
the administration, and the fuller the light shed over the counsels 
of the empire. So, after reciting the maxims of Jamshed, Sultan 
Nagir-uddin said to Sultan Mu’izz-uddin : u My son, the light of 
my vision, and my eye and my lamp, dearer to me than life itself! 
In the midst of pleasure and gaiety and debauchery, where can 
there be the will to strive after counsels of great kings and to 
put in practice the precepts of administrators and rulers ? There 
is yet another maxim in the book of the courtesies of kings which 
to wise and sagacious kings of noble origin and descent is pro¬ 
fitable and salutary.” And Nagir-uddin went on to say ; “ As a 
sequel of the maxim I quoted, I have read in the same book that 
Jamshed said : ‘ It is impossible to regard or speak of a king as 
a ruler or administrator who has not sufficient wealth in his trea¬ 
sury to serve him in the event of rebellion or invasion to repulse 
the enemy without involving his subjects in the calamity of famine. 
For kings who supply themselves from the purses of all their sub¬ 
jects, ought they not to have wealth enough to be able in time of 
calamity or famine or distress to take as much care of their sub¬ 
jects as of their personal followers ? What sort of a king is he, 
who asserts himself to be a king, and calls himself lord and master 
of his subjects, and yet gives them no relief in their difficulties and 
afflictions, and thinks it meet that his subjects should die of hunger ? 
26 
