1873.] T. W. H. Tolbort —History of the Portuguese in India. 205 
a publication regarding village communities; and several regarding the 
ecclesiastical rights of the Crown of Portugal and the Archbishop of Goa—- 
vexed questions among the Roman Catholics of India. 
Two facts regarding other records may be added from Day’s Cochin. 
1. The Dutch Government records of Cochin are, it seems, still there, 
and apparently the early volumes refer to the capture, or to the period im¬ 
mediately following the capture, from the Portuguese (page 121). 
2. The records of the Verapoly Monastery were lost in the river, as 
the priests were endeavouring to carry them away from Tippu’s troops in 
1790 (Chronology at end of book). 
So far I have only referred to European accounts of Portuguese India, 
but what Indian authors are there on the subject ? Hindus, who care so 
little for history, are not likely to give us much help, but it is different with 
Muhammadans. They are given to chronicle writing, and we may fairly expect 
some account of the Portuguese from them. As yet, however, I have not 
found any special Muhammadan history on the subject, except the “ Tuhfat ul 
Mujahidin.” This is a valuable work, as it describes the wars of the Por¬ 
tuguese and Muhammadans between 1498 and 1583, from a Muhammadan 
point of view. There is an English translation, No. 30, in the series of the 
Oriental Translation Committee. 
Firislitah must be consulted, because his histories of the Dakhin States 
are so full, and refer specially to the period when the Portuguese power was 
at its height. The eleventh chapter, on the Muhammadans in Malabar, is 
founded on the Tuhfat ul Mujahidin. Besides this, Briggs gives in an ap¬ 
pendix an epitome of the wars of the Portuguese in India. But Firishtah’s 
allusions to the Portuguese, except in the eleventh chapter, are very meagre. 
He gives a brief account of the death of King Bahadur, and of the siege of 
Chaul by Burlian Nizam Shall in 1592, but he does not even mention the 
great siege of Diu. Still the constant references to the Muhammadan kings 
by Portuguese historians, and the constant intercourse that must have gone 
on between the Orientals and the European invaders, render it necessary to 
consult Firishtah. 
Next to Firishtah nuiy be mentioned the Mir-at i Ahmadi, with its trans¬ 
lation by Bird, and the Mir-at i Sikandari, on which the Mir-at i Ahmadi 
was founded. 
Firishtah’s History of Bijapur was prematurely closed in 159G, while we 
seek for information down to 1G63. The following supplementary histories 
of the Dakhin states and particularly of Bijapur, the one that had most 
dealings witli Goa, are described in Mr. Morley’s list of the historical manu¬ 
scripts preserved in the Library of the Royal Asiatic Society. 
Tazkirah i Ahwal i Salatin i Bijapur, composed in 180G from two earlier 
histories of the ’A'dil Shahi dynasty. Morley describes this work as concise, 
but valuable. 
