________________
NOVEMBER, 1914.)
BOOK-NOTICE
241
from a bibliographical point of view. The substance of the inserted passage also deserves con sideration because it raises the question as to the truth of the allegation that Shahjahan was guilty of Incest with his daughter. De Laët's statement, which is of the most positive kind, intensifies the berror of the story as current in later times. by asserting that the criminal relations between the pair began immediately after the death of Mumtaz Malal, the mother of the princess. Inasmuch as Mumtaz Mal al died in July, 1631, and the second inipression of De Laët's book probably was published in 1632, the crime, if real, must have been committed immediately after the queen's death. Moreover, the alleged fact was so notorious that it became known at once in distant Sürat and was thence reported to Europe as ascertained truth. The Dutch author must have obtained his new iniormation as he obtained the earlier history, from correspondents in the Dutch Factory at Surat. De Lait's testimony is the earliest mention of the alleged incest and possesses special importance on account of its early date. Although the subject is an unpleasant one, the evidence deserves critical examination in the interests of historical truth.
The Statement of the case by Mr. Talboys Wheeler will serve as a basis for the discussion. He wrote in his text :- Shah Jahan had a daughter by Taj Mahal; she was known as Begum Sahib ; he made the Begum Sahib his mistress. The appended note runs: The relations between Shah Jahan and the Begum Sahib are too notorious to be denied; they are mentioned by all contemporary writers; the fact is broadly stated by Herbert Bernier, Tavernier, and the author of the Siyar. ul-Vutakherin. Manouchi tries to discredit it, probably on the authority of the Moghul chronicle which would take some pains to contradict the charge. The fact, however, is too apparent. It not only finds expression in the history: it is the key to the history'.
The context indicates that Wheeler considered the enormous value of the gifts bestowed on Begam Sahib by her father, and the excessive influence enjoyed by her to be evidence of the unlawful
relation. Ho attributed the undoubted corruption of the administration in Shahjahan's reign to the
foul conditions' under which it existed, one of those conditions being the criminal intercourse between father and daughter. If we are to believe De Laët whose testimony has been quoted, the unlaw. ful relation with its evil consequences, had existed from 1631 or 1832. Shahjahan was not deposed until June 1658, when Begam Sahib was forty-four years of age. By that time it may be presumed that the guilty connection, if real, had come to an end.
The evidence as far as I can ascertain, is wholly that of European writers, unless the note to the Siyar-ul-Mwakharin be considered an exception. De Lact, about 1632, 18 the earliest witness. After him comes Sir Thomas Herbert, whose travels lasted from 1626 to 1629. He was at Surat when, as he writes in the first edition (p 29),' wee had certaine report of Sultan Curroone's scil. Khurram's) coronation at Agra, 1627. In joy of which, the English Merchant Ships, then in Swally rode, shot off two hundred peeces of greet Ordnance. Herbert never travelled in the interior of India. He spent all the time he was in the country either at Sürat or in the vicinity.
His interesting book passed through four editions in his life-time, the last and best, of which I possess a copy, being issued in 1877. I have examined the first and second editions in the Bodleian Library, but have not seen the third, The omission is immaterial so far as my present purpose is concerned.
Herbert returned to England in 1629, being then A young man 23 years of age, and set himself to work at the preparation of an account of his travels. The first edition, published in 1634, has two title-pages. The first, with engraved figures of A Coozel-bash (Kizil-bash), etc., gives the name of the book as A description of the Persian Monarchy now being the Orientall Indies Iles, and other parts of the Grcater Asia and 4/rick. The second title-page designates the volume As A Relation of some Yeares Traraile, begunn: Anno 1626 into Afrique and the greater Asia, eto, etc.
The History of India, Vol. IV, Part I (1876), D. 264. The clocorous allusion to the scandal attributed by Wheeler to the author of the Siyar-ul-Mutakherin' will be found on p. 310 of Vol. III of the rare quarto translation (1789). The text states:- In vain did his beloved daughter implore at his death-bou his forgiveness for her brother Aorang-zib.' The appended note 15 runs thus: The Princess (Roshen-ara Begum, idest, Princess Roxana,"luminous" or "beautiful")... chose to shut berself up with her father upon whose heart it is universally reported and believed her person had made the deepest impression. The note, which probably is from the pen of the translator; confounds Roshandra (or more correctly, Roshan Rae, Begam, the ally of Aurangzeb, with her elder sister JahAnArd, entitled Begam sahib or PadahAh Begam, who supported Dark Shukoh, and remained with her father. Wheeler exaggerates when he says that the scandal is mentioned by all contemporary writers.' The authorities in the Persian language seem to ignore it.
handra (or more corrhib or Padshah Begah at the scandal is
