Bahauddin, Who Had Originally Been A Slave Of Saifuddin Nazrat's,
Succeeded In Establishing His Authority.
But about 1300 great bodies of
Turks (i.e. Tartars) issuing from Turkestan ravaged many provinces of
Persia, including Kerman and Hormuz.
The people, unable to bear the
frequency of such visitations, retired first to the island of Kishm, and
then to that of Jerun, on which last was built the city of New Hormuz,
afterwards so famous. This is Teixeira's account from Thuran Shah, so far
as we are concerned with it. As regards the transfer of the city it agrees
substantially with Abulfeda's, which we have already quoted (supra,
note 1).
Hammer's account from Wassaf is frightfully confused, chiefly I should
suppose from Hammer's own fault; for among other things he assumes that
Hormuz was always on an island, and he distinguishes between the Island of
Hormuz and the Island of Jerun! We gather, however, that Hormuz before the
Mongol time formed a government subordinate to the Salghur Atabegs of Fars
(see note 1, ch. xv.), and when the power of that Dynasty was falling, the
governor Mahmud Kalhati, established himself as Prince of Hormuz, and
became the founder of a petty dynasty, being evidently identical with
Teixeira's Ruknuddin Mahmud above-named, who is represented as reigning
from 1246 to 1277. In Wassaf we find, as in Teixeira, Mahmud's son Masa'ud
killing his brother Nazrat, and Bahauddin expelling Masa'ud. It is true
that Hammer's surprising muddle makes Nazrat kill Masa'ud; however, as a
few lines lower we find Masa'ud alive and Nazrat dead, we may safely
venture on this correction. But we find also that Masa'ud appears as
Ruknuddin Masa'ud, and that Bahauddin does not assume the princely
authority himself, but proclaims that of Fakhruddin Ahmed Ben Ibrahim
At-Thaibi, a personage who does not appear in Teixeira at all. A MS.
history, quoted by Ouseley, does mention Fakhruddin, and ascribes to him
the transfer to Jerun. Wassaf seems to allude to Bahauddin as a sort of
Sea Rover, occupying the islands of Larek and Jerun, whilst Fakhruddin
reigned at Hormuz. It is difficult to understand the relation between the
two.
It is possible that Polo's memory made some confusion between the names
of RUKNUDDIN Masa'ud and Fakhruddin AHMED, but I incline to think the
latter is his RUOMEDAN AHMED. For Teixeira tells us that Masa'ud took
refuge at the court of Kerman, and Wassaf represents him as supported in
his claims by the Atabeg of that province, whilst we see that Polo seems
to represent Ruomedan Acomat as in hostility with that prince. To add to
the imbroglio I find in a passage of Wassaf Malik Fakhruddin Ahmed
at-Thaibi sent by Ghazan Khan in 1297 as ambassador to Khanbalig, staying
there some years, and dying off the Coromandel coast on his return in
1305. (Elliot, iii. pp. 45-47.)
Masa'ud's seeking help from Kerman to reinstate him is not the first case
of the same kind that occurs in Teixeira's chronicle, so there may have
been some kind of colour for Marco's representation of the Prince of
Hormuz as the vassal of the Atabeg of Kerman ("l'homme de cest roy de
Creman;" see Prologue, ch.
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 311 of 655
Words from 162300 to 162833
of 342071
