Part 6

This omnipotence of the sultan in deciding the policy of the government was in striking contrast with his impotence in enforcing his views on his subjects and in his relations with foreign powers. Mahmud, in spite of--or rather because of--his well-meant efforts at reform, was hated by his Mussulman subjects and stigmatized as an "infidel" and a traitor to Islam. He was, in fact, a victim to those "half-measures" which Machiavelli condemns as fatal to success. Ibrahim, the conqueror of Syria, scoffed at the sultan's idea "that reform consisted in putting his soldiers into tight trousers and epaulettes." The criticism is not entirely unjust. Mahmud's policy was the converse of that recommended by Machiavelli, viz. in making a revolution to change the substance while preserving the semblance of the old order. Metternich's advice to Mahmud to "remain a Turk" was sound enough. His failure to do so--in externals--left him isolated in his empire: _rayahs_ and true believers alike distrusted and hated him. Of this hatred he was fully conscious; he knew that his subjects, even many of his own ministers, regarded Mehemet Ali as the champion of Islam against the "infidel sultan;" he suspected the pasha, already master of the sacred cities, of an intention to proclaim himself caliph in his stead. This, together with the weakness due to military reforms but recently begun, drove him to rely on foreign aid; which, in the actual conditions of Europe, meant the aid of Russia. The long tradition of French friendship for Turkey had been broken, in 1830, by the conquest of Algiers. Austria was, for the time, but the faithful ally of the tsar. On the 9th of August 1832 Mahmud made, through Stratford Canning, a formal proposal for an alliance with Great Britain, which Palmerston refused to consider for fear of offending France. Mahmud bitterly contrasted the fair professions of England with the offers of effective help from Russia. His old ally having deserted him, he accepted the aid of his hereditary foe. The Russian expedition to the Bosporus, the convention of Kutaiah, and the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi (July 8, 1833) followed. Mahmud was under no illusion as to the position in which the latter placed him towards Russia; but his fear of Mehemet Ali and his desire to be revenged upon him outweighed all other considerations. He resented the action of France and England in forcing the settlement of Kutaiah upon him, and remained shut up in his palace, inaccessible to all save his favourites and the representative of Russia. With his single aim in view he busied himself with the creation of a national militia, with the aid of Moltke and other German officers. In 1834 the revolt of Syria against Ibrahim seemed to give him his opportunity. He pleaded the duty of a sultan to go to the aid of his subjects when oppressed by one of his servants; but the powers were obdurate, even Russia, much occupied in affairs nearer home, leaving him in the lurch. He was astute enough to take advantage of the offence given to the powers by Mehemet Ali's system of monopolies, and in 1838 signed with Great Britain, and afterwards with others, a commercial treaty which cut at the root of the pasha's system. A few months later his passionate impatience overcame his policy and his fears. The hand of death was upon him, and he felt that he must strike now or never. In vain the powers, now united in their views, warned him of the probable consequences of any aggressive action on his part. He would rather die, he exclaimed, or become the slave of Russia, than not destroy his rebellious vassal. On his sole initiative, without consulting his ministers or the council of the empire, he sent instructions to Hafiz Pasha, commanding the Ottoman troops concentrated at Bir on the Euphrates, to advance into Syria. The fatal outcome of the campaign that followed he did not live to hear. When the news of Ibrahim's overwhelming victory at Nessib (June 24, 1839) reached Constantinople, Mahmud lay dying and unconscious. Early in the morning of the 1st of July his proud and passionate spirit passed away.

Mahmud II. cannot be reckoned among the great sultans, neither had he any of the calculating statecraft which characterized Abd-ul-Hamid II.; but his qualities of mind and heart, none the less, raised him far above the mass of his predecessors and successors. He was well versed in state affairs and loyal to those who advised and served him, personally brave, humane and kindly when not maddened by passion, active and energetic, and always a man of his word. Unhappily, however, the taint of the immemorial corruption of Byzantium had fallen upon him too, and the avenue to his favour and to political power lay too often through unspeakable paths. In view of the vast difficulty of the task before him at his succession it is less surprising that he failed to carry out his ideas than that he accomplished so much. When he came to the throne the empire was breaking up from within; one by one he freed the provinces from the tyrannical rulers who, like Ali of Jannina, were carving out independent, or quasi-independent, empires within the empire. If he failed in his wider schemes of reform, this was only one more illustration of a truth of which other "enlightened" sovereigns besides himself had experienced the force, namely, that it is impossible to impose any system, however admirable, from above on a people whose deepest convictions and prejudices it offends.

There is a great deal of valuable material for the history of Mahmud and his policy in the unpublished F.O. records (1832-1839), volumes of correspondence marked _Turkey.--From Sir Stratford Canning.--From Mr. Mandeville.--From Lord Ponsonby._ See further works mentioned under TURKEY: _History_; and MEHEMET ALI. (W. A. P.)

MAHMUD NEDIM PASHA (c. 1818-1883), Turkish statesman, was the son of Nejib Pasha, ex-governor-general of Bagdad. After occupying various subordinate posts at the Porte he became successively under-secretary of state for foreign affairs, governor-general of Syria and Smyrna, minister of commerce, and governor-general of Tripoli; minister successively of justice and of marine (1869); grand vizier from 1871 to 1872 and from 1875 to 1876. He was high in favour with Sultan Abd-ul-Aziz and fell much under the influence of General Ignatiev, the forceful Russian ambassador before the war of 1877-78, his subserviency to Russia earning for him the nickname of "Mahmudoff." His administration was most unsuccessful from every point of view, and he was largely responsible for the issue of the decree suspending the interest on the Turkish funds. He was minister of the interior from 1879 to 1883.

MAHMUD[1] OF GHAZNI (971-1030), son of Sabuktagin, Afghan conqueror, was born on the 2nd of October 971. His fame rests chiefly on his successful wars, in particular his numerous invasions of India. His military capacity, inherited from his father, Nasir-ud-din Sabuktagin, was strengthened by youthful experience in the field. Sabuktagin, a Turki slave of Alptagin, governor of Khorasan under Abdalmalik I. b. Nuh of the Samanid dynasty of Bokhara, early brought himself to notice (see SAMANIDS). He was raised to high office in the state by Alptagin's successor, Abu Ishak, and in A.H. 366 (A.D. 977), by the choice of the nobles of Ghazni, he became their ruler. He soon began to make conquests in the neighbouring countries, and in these wars he was accompanied by his young son Mahmud. Before he had reached the age of fourteen he encountered in two expeditions under his father the Indian forces of Jaipal, raja of Lahore, whom Sabuktagin defeated on the Punjab frontier.

In 994 Mahmud was made governor of Khorasan, with the title of Saif addaula (ud-daula) ("Sword of the State") by the Samanid Nuh II. Two years later, his father Sabuktagin died in the neighbourhood of Balkh, having declared his second son, Ismail, who was then with him, to be his successor. As soon as Ismail had assumed the sovereignty at Balkh, Mahmud, who was at Nishapur, addressed him in friendly terms, proposing a division of the territories held by their father at his death. Ismail rejected the proposal, and was immediately attacked by Mahmud and defeated. Retreating to Ghazni, he there yielded, and was imprisoned, and Mahmud obtained undisputed power as sovereign of Khorasan and Ghazni (997).

The Ghaznevid dynasty is sometimes reckoned by native historians to commence with Sabuktagin's conquest of Bost and Kosdar (978). But Sabuktagin, throughout his reign at Ghazni, continued to acknowledge the Samanid suzerainty, as did Mahmud also, until the time, soon after succeeding to his father's dominions, when he received from Qadir, caliph of Bagdad (see CALIPHATE, C. § 25), a _khilat_ (robe of honour), with a letter recognizing his sovereignty, and conferring on him the titles _Yamiin-addaula_ ("Right hand of the State"), and _Amin-ul-Millat_ ("Guardian of the Faith"). From this time it is the name of the caliph that is inscribed on Mahmud's coins, together with his own new titles. Previously the name of the Samanid sovereign, Mansur II. b. Nuh is given along with his own former title, Saif addaula Mahmud. The earliest of those of the new form gives his name Mahmud bin Sabuktagin. Thereafter his father's name does not appear on his coins, but it is inscribed again on his tomb.

The new honours received from the caliph gave fresh impulse to Mahmud's zeal on behalf of Islam, and he resolved on an annual expedition against the idolaters of India. He could not quite carry out this intention, but a great part of his reign was occupied with his Indian campaigns. In 1000 he started on the first of these expeditions, but it does not appear that he went farther than the hill country near Peshawar. The hostile attitude of Khalaf ibn Ahmad, governor of Seistan, called Mahmud to that province for a short time. He was appeased by Khalaf's speedy submission, together with the gift of a large sum of money, and further, it is said, by his subdued opponent addressing him as _sultan_, a title new at that time, and by which Mahmud continued to be called, though he did not formally adopt it, or stamp it on his coins. Four years later Khalaf, incurring Mahmud's displeasure again, was imprisoned, and his property confiscated.

Mahmud's army first crossed the Indus in 1001, opposed by Jaipal, raja of Lahore. Jaipal was defeated, and Mahmud, after his return from this expedition, is said to have taken the distinctive appellation of _Ghazi_ ("Valiant for the Faith"), but he is rarely so-called. On the next occasion (1005) Mahmud advanced, as far as Bhera on the Jhelum, when his adversary Anang-pal, son and successor of Jaipal, fled to Kashmir. The following year saw Mahmud at Multan. When he was in the Punjab at this time, he heard of the invasion of Khorasan by the Ilek Khan Nasr I. ruler of Transoxiana whose daughter Mahmud had married. After a rapid march back from India, Mahmud repelled the invaders. The Ilek Khan, having retreated across the Oxus, returned with reinforcements, and took up a position a few miles from Balkh, where he was signally defeated by Mahmud.

Mahmud again entered the Punjab in 1008, this time for the express purpose of chastising Sewah Pal, who, having become a Mussulman, and been left by Mahmud in charge of Multan, had relapsed to Hinduism. The Indian campaign of 1009 was notable. Near the Indus Mahmud was opposed again by Anang-pal, supported by powerful rajas from other parts of India. After a severe fight, Anang-pal's elephants were so terror-struck by the fire-missiles flung amongst them by the invaders that they turned and fled, the whole army retreating in confusion and leaving Mahmud master of the field. Mahmud, after this victory, pushed on through the Punjab to Nagar-kot (Kangra), and carried off much spoil from the Hindu temples to enrich his treasury at Ghazni. In 1011 Mahmud, after a short campaign against the Afghans under Mahommed ibn Sur in the hill country of Ghur, marched again into the Punjab. The next time (1014) he advanced to Thanesar, another noted stronghold of Hinduism, between the Sutlej and the Jumna. Having now found his way across all the Punjab rivers, he was induced on two subsequent occasions to go still farther. But first he designed an invasion of Kashmir (1015), which was not carried out, as his progress was checked at Loh-kot, a strong hill fort in the north-west of the Punjab. Then before undertaking his longer inroad into Hindustan he had to march north into Khwarizm (Khiva) against his brother-in-law Mamun, who had refused to acknowledge Mahmud's supremacy. The result was as usual, and Mahmud, having committed Khwarizm to a new ruler, one of Mamun's chief officers, returned to his capital. Then in 1018, with a very large force, he proceeded to India again, extending his inroad this time to the great Hindu cities of Mathra on the Jumna and Kanauj on the Ganges. He reduced the one, received the submission of the other, and carried back great stores of plunder. Three years later he went into India again, marching over nearly the same ground, to the support, this time, of the raja of Kanauj, who, having made friendship with the Mahommedan invader on his last visit, had been attacked by the raja of Kalinjar. But Mahmud found he had not yet sufficiently subdued the idolaters nearer his own border, between Kabul and the Indus, and the campaign of 1022 was directed against them, and reached no farther than Peshawar. Another march into India the following year was made direct to Gwalior.

The next expedition (1025) is the most famous of all. The point to which it was directed was the temple of Somnath on the coast of the Gujarat peninsula. After an arduous journey by Multan, and through part of Rajputana, he reached Somnath, and met with a very vigorous but fruitless resistance on the part of the Hindus of Gujarat. Moslem feet soon trod the courts of the great temple. The chief object of worship it contained was broken up, and the fragments kept to be carried off to Ghazni. The story is often told of the hollow figure, cleft by Mahmud's battle-axe, pouring out great store of costly jewels and gold. But the idol in this Sivite temple was only a tall block or pillar of hewn stone, of a familiar kind. The popular legend is a very natural one. Mahmud, it was well known, made Hindu temples yield up their most precious things. He was a determined idol-breaker. And the stone block in this temple was enriched with a crown of jewels, the gifts of wealthy worshippers. These data readily give the Somnath exploit its more dramatic form. For the more recent story of the Somnath gates see SOMNATH.

After the successes at Somnath, Mahmud remained some months in India before returning to Ghazni. Then in 1026 he crossed the Indus once more into the Punjab. His brilliant military career closed with an expedition to Persia, in the third year after this, his last, visit to India. The Indian campaigns of Mahmud and his father were almost, but not altogether, unvarying successes. The Moslem historians touch lightly on reverses. And, although the annals of Rajputana tell how Sabuktagin was defeated by one raja of Ajmere and Mahmud by his successor, the course of events which followed shows how little these and other reverses affected the invader's progress. Mahmud's failure at Ajmere, when the brave raja Bisal-deo obliged him to raise the siege but was himself slain, was when the Moslem army was on its way to Somnath. Yet Mahmud's Indian conquests, striking and important in themselves, were, after all, in great measure barren, except to the Ghazni treasury. Mahmud retained no possessions in India under his own direct rule. But after the repeated defeats, by his father and himself, of two successive rajas of Lahore, the conqueror assumed the right of nominating the governors of the Punjab as a dependency of Ghazni, a right which continued to be exercised by seven of his successors. And for a time, in the reign of Masa'ud II. (1098-1114), Lahore was the place of residence of the Ghaznevid sovereign.

Mahmud died at Ghazni in 1030, the year following his expedition to Persia. He is conspicuous for his military ardour, his ambition, strong will, perseverance, watchfulness and energy, combined with great courage and unbounded self-reliance. But his tastes were not exclusively military. His love of literature brought men of learning to Ghazni, and his acquaintance with Moslem theology was recognized by the learned doctors.

The principal histories of Mahmud's reign are--_Kitab-i-Yamini_ (Utbi); _Tarikh-us-Subuktigin_ (Baihaki); _Tabakat i Nasiri_ (Minhaj el-Siraj); _Rauzat-us-Safa_ (Mir Khond); _Habib-us-Sivar_ (Khondamir). See Elliot, _History of India_; Elphinstone, _History of India_; and Roos-Keppel's translation of the _Tarikh-i-Sultan Mahmud-i-Ghaznavi_ (1901).

FOOTNOTE:

[1] The name is strictly Mahmud.

MAHOBA, an ancient town in India, in Hamirpur district of the United Provinces. Pop. (1901), 10,074. As the capital of the Chandel dynasty, who ruled over Bundelkhand from the 9th to the 13th century, the neighbourhood is covered with architectural antiquities, prominent among which are artificial lakes, formed by banking up valleys with masonry dams. The largest of these is more than 4 m. in circuit.

MAHOGANY, a dark-coloured wood largely used for household furniture, the product of a large tree indigenous to Central America and the West Indies. It was originally received from Jamaica; 521,300 ft. were exported from that island in 1753. It is known botanically as _Swietenia Mahogani_, and is a member of the order _Meliaceae_. It bears compound leaves, resembling those of the ash, and clusters of small flowers, with five sepals and petals and ten stamens which are united into a tube. The fruit is a pear-shaped woody capsule, and contains many winged seeds. The dark-coloured bark has been considered a febrifuge, and the seeds were used by the ancient Aztecs with oil for a cosmetic, but the most valuable product is the timber, first noticed by the carpenter on board Sir Walter Raleigh's ship in 1595 for its great beauty, hardness and durability. Dr Gibbons brought it into notice as well adapted for furniture in the early part of the 18th century, and its use as a cabinet wood was first practically established by a cabinet-maker named Wollaston, who was employed by Gibbons to work up some mahogany brought to England by his brother. It was introduced into India in 1795, and is now cultivated in Bengal and as far north as Saharunpur.

The timber of species of _Cedrela_ and _Melia_, other members of the order _Meliaceae_, are used as Mahogany, and the product of the West African _Khaya senegalensis_ is known as African mahogany. There is some confusion between the product of these various trees. Herbert Stone (_The Timbers of Commerce_, 1904) says: "The various species of mahogany and cedar are so confusing that it is difficult to make precise statements as to their structure or origin. I know of no convincing proof that any of the American kinds met with on the English market are the wood of _Swietenia Mahogani_, nor that those shipped from Africa are the wood of _Khaya senegalensis_. These two genera are very nearly allied to _Cedrela_ and _Melia_, and it is difficult to separate any of the four from the rest by the characters of the wood. After giving the most careful attention to every detail, I lean to the view that most if not all of the mahoganies commonly met with are Cedrelas."

_Kiggelaria Dregeana_ (natural order _Bixineae_), a native of South Africa, is known as Natal mahogany.

MAHOMET (strictly MUHAMMAD, commonly also MOHAMMED), founder of the religious system called in Europe after him Mahommedanism, and by himself Islam or Hanifism. He died, according to the ordinary synchronism, on the 7th of June 632 (12 Rabia, A.H. 11), and his birthday was exactly sixty-three or sixty-five years earlier, the latter number being evidently an interpretation in lunar years of a number thought to refer to solar years. The lunar system was introduced into Arabia by Mahomet himself quite at the close of his career; that which existed before was certainly solar, as it involved a process of intercalation--which, however, seems to have been arbitrarily manipulated by priests, whence certain synchronisms cannot be got for the events in the Prophet's career. The number 63 for the years of his life may rest on tradition, though it is unlikely that such matters were accurately noted; it can also be accounted for by a priori combination. A Meccan, it is said, became a full citizen at the age of 40; this then would be the age at which the mission might be started. The Medina period (of which count was kept) lasted ten to eleven years; for the Meccan period ten years would seem a likely length. Finally it was known that for some years--about three--the mission had been conducted secretly. The only event in contemporary history to which the Koran alludes in its earlier parts is the Persian conquest of Palestine in 616. Clearly Mahomet had begun to prophesy at that date.

His Country.