Page 78 - History of Portuguese in the Gulf_Neat

V
i
190 APPENDIX A.
the shore opposite Gerun, or Harmuz, and was very desirous to
pass over to it, but could not for want of vessels.
It is said that, in his mad rage, he wanted to level the moun­
y tains to fill up the sea. And there is a story that Salgor, who
knew of Hhalila’s trouble and fury, went about the isle and city,
singing at the top of his voice some Persian verses :—
“Dele Duzman bara man Kabab hast,
Ke aguerd Agucrd man dariah hast."
Which is as much as to say :—
“ Mine enemy’s heart is hot within him, because he sees
me girt about by the sea." 1
In the end, Sophy Hhalila went away without doing any harm
but on the mainland, where the kings of Harmuz had possessions,
and have yet, though not with the free sovereignty of old times.
1 !
They hold the Gulf coast for seventy leagues, and all the terri­
tories for twenty-eight leagues landwards. In their dominions arc
the Amadizes and Gaules, warlike and formidable tribes.2 But I
know not if hence sprang the tale of Amadis of Gaul.3 For these
territories the kings of Harmuz pay to the King of Persia a cer­
tain tribute, called mokararias, because they are not let run into
ff* arrear, as sometimes happens with tributes.4 It should be noted
here he emphasises the fact that “ Sophy Hhalila lived long
before Ismael Sophy.” The first of the two statements appears to be
the correct one.—D. F.
1 The Persian distich is in Teixeira’s phrase and spelling (though
both be open to question), and the rendering as close as English can
be got to Castilian. A somewhat macaronic translation would run :
“ My foeman’s heart is broiled for me, Who stand encircled by the
.■1
sea.” The point or joke lies in comparing the enemy’s heart to the
funny (and excellent) little bits of broiled goat which arc “common
objects” of most Eastern cities, and which we usually call “ kaybobs.”
So the late Prince Bismarck is said to have condemned his foes to
y;
t i “simmer in their own juice.” But Salgor Shrill had the start of him.
2 Couto (Dec. X, Liv. II, cap. xi) describes the “Amadizes” as “a
tribe that live in Magostao, brave and determined men.” . In two
letters, of 13th February, 1610, and 15th March, 1611 (printed in
Doc. Rem.), the King of Spain, writing'to the Viceroy of India
regarding the proposed re-capture of Bahrein, refers to “ the Amadazes
of Catifri, who were always loyal to my service,” as prepared to assist
in the enterprise. Of the “ Gaules” I can find no mention elsewhere.
—D. F.
3 A not very obvious joke. But the Spanish world was alive with
. i
the lately published Don Quixote when this was written.
! j 4 The passage is obscure ; but makarar = “ fixed ” in Arabic, and
is applied, in Indian revenue business, as here translated. [Couto
(Dec. V\ Liv. x, cap. iii) explains “ mocarrariad’ as certain sums paid
! ! annually by the King of Hormuz to the rulers of Persia and other
countries of the continent as far as “ Moscovia,” to ensure safe transit
|
KINGS OF HORMUZ. 191
that this Sophy Hhalila, whom we have mentioned, lived long
before Ismael Sophy, who was King of Persia when the Portu­
guese went to Harmuz. Salgor had no other war of importance
to wage, and ended his reign in peace.
On Salgdr’s death, Xawes1 succeeded him in the kingdom,
which throve greatly in his days, enjoying peace. He had no
trouble in all his reign, and left the kingdom to his brother,
Seyfadin.2
Seyfadin, on the decease of Xawes, inherited the throne of
Harmuz; and he was king in a.d. 1507, when the Portuguese,
under Alfonso de Albuquerque, took possession of that king­
dom,3 which they hold to this day.4 And though it was won and
of merchants and goods through their territories (blackmail, in fact).
Several royal letters in Doc. Rem., tom. i, refer to these “mocarrariasf
which are there explained as “a certain pension that was paid from
the customs [at Hormuz] to the kings of Lara for franking the cafilus."
The word mukarrarl, meaning a fixed rent or revenue, "is still in use
in India (see Wilson’s Glossary of Judicial Terms, and Whitworth’s
Anglo-Indian Dictionary, s. v.).—D. f.]
1 Sic in orig., with the unusual “ w.” The name represented is
probably Shrih Wais. His relation to Salgor is not stated.
2 As will be seen by the note above, these statements differ entirely
from those of Barros and Couto, who say that on the death of
“ Xabadim” (who, Barros states, was murdered by some Abyssinian
slaves in the island of Kishm) his youngest brother, “Xavez” or
“Xaues,” was, in the absence of “Xargol,” raised to the throne ; from
which he was ousted by the latter after a reign of only a year and a-
half, “ Xargol” then reigning thirty years. Both these writers, more­
over, state that “ Ceifadim” was the son of “ Xavez.” The statements
of Castanheda (u. s.) are here again evidently erroneous.—u. k.
3 Barros (//. s.) says that on the death of “ Xargol,” who left no son,
“ they chose as king Ceifadim, a son of his brother Xavez, who was a
youth of twelve years at the time that Affonso d’AIboquerque came
there” (that is, in 1507). On the other hand, Couto (//. s.), after giving
the details quoted in a previous note regarding “ Xargol,” continues :
“ The latter was reigning when Alfonso de Alboquerque, being captain-
major of that Strait, arrived at Ormuz in the year 1507. This king
died without leaving sons, and the people chose as king Ceifadim,
son of Xaut5s (the one whom his brother dethroned), who was then a
youth of ten years. The latter was reigning when Affonso de
Alboquerque, being Governor of India, in the year 1514 took that
kingdom, and made him a vassal to the King of Portugal.” Here
Couto seems to be in error (cf. Comment, of Af Dalb., vol. i, p. 127).
Castanheda, in describing the first visit of the Portuguese to Hormuz,
docs not give the king’s name, but says (Liv. 11, cap. lix) that he was
sixteen years old at the time of his accession. Later on (Liv. v,
cap. Ixxxviii) he calls this king “ Raix (Jafardim.” Correa (tom. i,
p. 836, etc.) calls him “ Qafardim.” In the Comment, of Af Dalb. he
is called “ Ceifadin,” and is said (vol. iv, p. 109) to have died by
poison.—D. F.
4 f.e., 1608 or 1609. A few years later, however (in 1622), the island