# The American Historical Review/Volume 23/Reviews of Books/Promotion of Learning in India during Muhammadan Rule

To turn from the contemplation of evil in order to examine exclusively the good of any nation is an unusual but gratifying method of historical research. The evil that Mahmud and other tyrannical bigots have done has lived after them for a thousand years and Mr. Narendra Nath Law feels it is high time to bring into stronger light the good so long interred with their bones. For this purpose the genial author of Studies in Ancient Hindu Polity has associated with himself a number of Indian Muhammadans and compiled this attractive account of Muhammadan imperial virtues, chiefly educational; but Promotion of Learning leads the authors naturally to animadvert upon other laudable traits than that of fostering talent.
This book is not wholly the product of fresh investigation. Elliot's ​History of India as told by its own Historians has furnished some of the material. But that work and others here drawn upon do not bring Pathan culture into clear relief. They give the impression that the House of Ghazni and the following Houses were more devoted to their own Kultur than to culture. Therefore it is pleasant to be reminded again that Mahmud, who has appeared a monster of cruelty, founded colleges, subventioned poets, and even, as a token of appreciation, rewarded a philosopher by thrice filling the sage's mouth with jewels. Some of Mahmud's successors also were cultivators of science and art. Even Alauddin, who came to the throne so ignorant that he could not read, soon remedied his defects and patronized scholars until his reign (1300) became famous for its poets and university professors.
At this time Muhammadans and Hindus, victors and victims, first began to study each other's literatures and native princesses were wedded to Muhammadan princes. Somewhat later Muhammad Tughlak even studied Greek philosophy and natural sciences, to which he was so devoted that he personally attended patients suffering from unusual diseases, in order to perfect his knowledge of medicine. Firuz Shah, his successor, was the first to preserve archaeological remains, such as the Pillars of Ashoka. Timur (Tamerlane) during a siege (1399) gave express orders that the houses of learned men should not be razed. He also richly endowed various seats of scholarship attached to mosques. The Pathan rulers are not of course on the level of the Mughals, but, as our author says, their contributions to the cause of education should suffice to prove that they were not wholly given over to battle and bloodshed.
The period of the Mughals before its decline (two centuries, 1526–1707) offers little difficulty to the author and his friends. Babar was a scholar, poet, and musician, and his successor Humayun was an astrologer and savant who gave learned and religious men precedence before the nobles. Akbar instituted meetings for debate, favored Hindu literature, married a Christian, and was really "a most enlightened and liberal monarch", regarding whose education Mr. Law, in an important "Addendum", has given us really new information (compare especially the question whether ummi means illiterate or taciturn). It is noteworthy that Babar introduced colored pictures of animals into his Memoirs, perhaps the first Indian work to be "illustrated". Painting and music were encouraged especially by Akbar.
The last chapter of this handsome quarto, which is well supplied with indexes, is devoted to the subject of female education. Girls as well as boys went to school. About 1500, "school-mistresses and women to read prayers" were employed in the Sultan's seraglio. Babar's daughter and Humayun's niece were "learned ladies". One of Aurungzib's daughters knew Persian and Arabic and was skilled in calligraphy; her sister knew the Quran by heart. No evidence is given that nobles or lower classes followed the court in thus educating women, ​but Mr. Law's final word on the subject is that "we are justified in the conclusion" that Muhammadan ladies in general were "not so ignorant as it is generally supposed".
E. Washburn Hopkins.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1932, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 91 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse