IIIF Color HighRes
National Institute of Informatics - Digital Silk Road Project
| |||||||||
|
| IIIF Color HighRes |
| The Book of Ser Marco Polo : vol.1 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Citation Information
i
| CHAP. XIX. HISTORY OF HORMUZ | I 2 I |
| establishing his authority. But about 130o great bodies of Turks (i.e. Tartars) issuing from Turkestan ravaged many provinces of Persia, including Kermán and Hormuz. The people, unable to bear the frequency of such visitations, retired first to the island of Kishm, and then to that of Jerún, on which last was built the city of New Hormuz, afterwards so famous. This is Teixeira's account from Thurán Sháh, 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 I). Hammer's account from Wassáf 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 Jerún ! We gather, however, that Hormuz before the Mongol time formed a government subordinate to the Salghur Atabegs of Fars (see note I, ch. xv.), and when the power of that Dynasty was falling, the governor Mahmúd Kalháti, 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 Wassáf we find, as in Teixeira, Mahmúd's son Masa'úd killing his brother Nazrat, and Baháuddin expelling Masa'úd. It is true that Hammer's surprising muddle makes Nazrat kill Masa'úd ; however, as a few lines lower we find Masa'úd alive and Nazrat dead, we may safely venture on this correction. But we find also that Masa'úd appears as Ruknuddin Masa'úd, and that Baháuddin does not assume the princely authority himself, but proclaims that of Fakhruddin A4hnzed 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 Jerún. Wassáf seems to allude to Baháuddin as a sort of Sea Rover, occupying the islands of Larek and Jerún, 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'úd and Fakhruddin AHMED, but I incline to think the latter is his RUOMEDAN AHMED. For Teixeira tells us that Masa'úd took refuge at the court of Kermán, and Wassáf 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 Wassáf 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 13o5. (Elliot, iii. pp. 45-47.) Masa'úd's seeking help from Kermán 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 Kermán (" l'homme de test roy de Creman ; " see Prologue, eh. xiv. note 2). M. Khanikoff denies the possibility of the existence of any royal dynasty at Hormuz at this period. That there was a dynasty of Maliks of Hormuz, however, at this period we must believe on the concurring testimony of Marco, of Wassáf, and of Thurán Sháh. There was also, it would seem, another quasi - independent principality in the Island of Kais. (Hammer's Ilck. II. 5o, 51 ; Teixeira, Relation de los Reyes de Hormuz ; Khan. Notice, p. 34.) The ravages of the Tartars which drove the people of Hormuz from their city may have begun with the incursions óf the Nigudaris and Karaunahs, but they probably came to a climax in the great raid in 1299 of the Chaghataian Prince Kotlogh Shah, son of Dua Khan, a part of whose bands besieged the city itself, though they are said to have been repulsed by Baháuddin Ayas. [The Dynasty of Hormuz was founded about 1o6o by a Yemen chief Mohammed Dirhem Ko, and remained subject to Kermán till 1249, when Rokn ed-din Mahmúd III. Kalháti (1242-1277) made himself independent. The immediate successors of Rokn ed-din were Saif ed-din Nazrat (1277- i 29o), Masa'úd (129o-1293), Bahad ed-din Ayaz Sayfin (1293-1311). Hormuz was captured by the Portuguese in 1510 and by the Persians in 1622.—H. C.] | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright (C) 2003-2019 National Institute of Informatics and The Toyo Bunko. All Rights Reserved.