successively raised to the throne, the effective power of the dynasty of Hulaku may be considered to have terminated with Bahadur. He appears to have been a brave and liberal prince, but was indolent, fickle, and luxurious; and his character is stained by his ingratitude to his great minister Jooban. (Price's Mohammedan Dynasties. De Guignes. D'Herbelot, art. Abousaid. Malcolm's Persia.) BAHADUR SHAH, (Sultan Mohammed Muazen, or Shah-Alim,) eldest surviving son of Aurung-zeb, was proclaimed emperor on the news of his father's death reaching him, A.D. 707, (a.h. 1119.)* In spite of his efforts to conciliate his brothers, two of them, Azim and Kambaksh, separately took the field to contest the throne, but were both defeated and slain. He endeavoured to restore peace to the empire, by effecting an accommodation with the revolted Rajpoots, and marched in person against the Seiks, whose leader he invested in a hill fort; but his knowledge of the mountain-paths enabled him to escape, and the sect continued to increase so rapidly, that Bahadur Shah fixed his residence at Lahore, in order to check their depredations by his proximity. No event of importance distinguished his short reign, which was terminated by sudden illness, in the camp at Lahore, a.d. 1712, (a.h. 1124.) He is universally spoken of by historians as an accomplished and amiable prince; and the concord which during his life he maintained among the members of his family, is without parallel in the annals of his race. But his good nature was carried to the verge of imbecility, and the profusion with which he showered titles and honours on low and undeserving objects, as well as his addiction to the Shiah heresy, gave offence to his sons and nobles. A contest for the crown between his sons, as usual in India, followed his death. Two of them, Jehandar-Shah and Jehan-Shah, successively ruled for short periods. (Siyar-al-mutakhereen, &c.) BAHADUR NIZAM SHAH, the ninth sovereign of the dynasty called Nizam-Shahy, who ruled the Moslem kingdom of Ahmednuggur, in the Dekkan. At the death of his father Ibrahim, who fell in battle against the troops of Bejapore, A.D. 1594, (a.h. 1003,) he was an infant in arms, and the ministry concurred in setting him aside from the

In the article Aurung-zeb, the year 1118 of the Hejira is mentioned as coinciding with A.D. 1707 in the date of his death; but A.H. 1119 begins March 21 of that year, and Bahadur Shah was proclaimed in the first days of that year.

throne; his grand-aunt, Chand-Beebi, however, a princess of great spirit and talent, proclaimed him king, herself assuming the regency; and he was at length established by the aid of some of the neighbouring princes. The Dekkan kingdoms were, however, crumbling away fast under the attacks of the Mogul emperors of Delhi; and after the battle of Sonput, which the generals of Akbar gained, in 1598, over the united forces of Bejapore, Golconda, and Ahmednuggur, the latter capital was besieged and taken by storm by the Moguls. ChandBeebi had been murdered by her own troops, before the fall of the city; and the infant king was sent prisoner to the Mogul fortress of Gualior, A.D. 1599, (A.H. 1008,) after which no more is heard of him. (Ferishta.)

BAHADUR KHAN FARUKHI, the last sovereign of a petty dynasty which had maintained independence in Kandeish for nearly two centuries. He succeeded his father, Raja-Ali Khan, in 1596; but revolting against the emperor Akbar, of whom his father had been forced to acknowledge himself the vassal, he was besieged in his fortress of Aseer, taken, and sent a state prisoner to Gualior, the same year as his namesake of Ahmednuggur, A.D. 1599, (A.H. 1008.) (Ferishta.)

BAHADUR SHAH, the tenth sovereign of the dynasty of Moslem kings in Guzerat. He was the son of Muzuffer, the seventh king of that race; but having excited the jealousy of his father and elder brothers, he fled to Delhi, and distinguished himself so much in the warfare against the Mogul invaders, under Baber, that the Afghan chiefs, according to Ferishta, offered to elevate him to the throne. On hearing of the death of his father, and the assassination shortly after of his eldest brother, Sikan-der-Shah, he returned to his native country, and deposing his second brother, Mahmood, without much difficulty, mounted the throne, A.d. 1526, (a.h. 932.) In 1529 he invaded the Dekkan, in concert with his nephew, the king of Kandeish; subdued Berar and Ahmednuggur; and compelled Boorhan Nizam Shah, the king of those territories, to acknowledge himself his vassal. In 1531, he also subdued Malwa, and repulsed an attack on Diù by a Portuguese armament of four hundred vessels and twenty-two thousand men. The almost impregnable Rajpoot fortress of Chittore also fell into his hands, after a long and obstinate siege. But a war

into which he entered in 1534, with Humayoon, the emperor of Delhi, proved fatal to his prosperity. The troops of Guzerat were defeated in a great battle, and the whole country occupied by the Moguls. But the revolt of the Afghans in Bengal distracted the forces of Humayoon, (who was soon after forced to fly from Delhi,) and Bahadur, whose gallantry and generosity made him highly popular with his subjects, recovered Guzerat without opposition. He fell, however, the following year, A.D. 1536, (A.H. 943,) aged thirty-one, in an affray with the Portuguese, to whom he had given permission to construct a fort at Diù, in return for their affording him aid against the Moguls. He was succeeded by his nephew, the king of Kandeish. Bahadur Shah fills a conspicuous place in the IndoPortuguese annals. Not content with personally opposing the European invaders of his country, he formed an alliance with the Ottoman emperor, Soliman the Magnificent, to whom he sent rich gifts, and, in particular, a jewelled girdle, valued at three millions of aspers, in return for the aid afforded him from Egypt against the common enemy. (Ferishta. Tohfut-al-Mujahideen. Mirat-Iskenderi. Faria-e-Souza, History of the Portuguese in India. Hammer's Ottoman Empire, book 29.)

BAHADUR-KHERÂI-KHAN was placed on the throne of Krim Tartary by Sultan Mourad IV., after the deposition and death of his cousin, Inayet-Kherai, A.D. 1637, (A.H. 1046.) He died four years afterwards, and was succeeded by his brother, Mohammed-Kherai. (Hammer.)

BAHADUR IMAM-KOULI KHAN, one of the descendants of Jenghiz, who ruled in Bokhari and Transoxiana. He succeeded Abd-al-Mumen in 1608, and is supposed to have been the nephew of his predecessor, as his father's name was Yar-Mohammed. He waged war with the Persians and with the Uzbeks of Khiva; and dying A.D. 1642, (A.H. 1051,) was succeeded by his brother Nassir. (Hammer. De Guignes.)

BAHIL, (Matthias,) one of the many martyrs of popish and Austrian intolerance in Hungary. He was a protestant pastor, first at Cserents, and since 1734 in Eperies. He made a Slavian translation of Cyprian's information about the origin and progress of popery, and of Meisner's Consultatio orthodoxa de Fide Lutherana capessenda et Romana Papistica deserenda, opposita Leonhardo Lessio, which

were printed in 1745, in Wittenberg. As soon as he was known to be the author of those translations, the municipality of Eperies imprisoned him, (28th Nov. 1746); and there can be no doubt, that the kind and humane Jesuits would have made Bahil the object of exemplary punishment. He succeeded, however, in avoiding it, by an almost providential escape from prison, (13th Dec. 1746.) He flew to Prussian Silesia, where he was not only well received, but also recompensed by the Jesuits of Breslau for the loss of his library, which had been seized by the conventuals of Eperies. This was done by an especial order of king Frederic II. In 1747 he published in Brieg his Tristissima Ecclesiarum Hungariæ Facies, 8vo. In this clever and impressively-written work, his fate, and the indignities he had been subjected to in his native country, are faithfully recorded.

BAHRAM, (called by the Roman and Greek historians Varanes and Vararanes,) the name of several of the Sassanian monarchs of Persia.

Bahram I., the fourth king of that dynasty, succeeded on the death of his father, Hormuz or Hormisdas I., A.D. 274. He reigned only three years; and the only event of importance which signalized his reign was the execution of the impostor Mani, founder of the celebrated sect of the Manichæans, and the extirpation of his followers. Abul-Faraj, however, states this to have occurred under his grandfather, Shahpoor, or Sapor I. He is said to have been a just and beneficent ruler, and his reign was undisturbed by foreign wars. He was succeeded by his son,

Bahram II. (whom Abul-Faraj calls, as well as his father, Warharan, which Malcolm considers to have been the ancient Persian name.) He ascended the throne A.D. 277, but the commencement of his reign was unpropitious. His tyranny and profligacy gave such disgust to the nobles, that he was on the point of being dethroned by a conspiracy, when the exhortations of the chief pontiff reclaimed him, and he preserved his life and throne. In the Roman war, which broke out A.D. 280, he was as unfortunate as he had previously been in his domestic administration; the Romans overran Mesopotamia, captured Ctesiphon, or AlMadayn, apparently without a siege, and were preparing to advance into the heart of Persia, when the death of the emperor Carus, by lightning, and the retreat of his son Numerianus, whose superstition.

ВАН

saw in the fate of his father a divine warning, relieved Bahram from the fear of utter ruin. The remainder of his life is said to have been distracted by domestic factions and petty wars. He died A.D. 294, after a disastrous reign of seventeen years, leaving the crown to his

son,

Bahram III., whose reign of four months contains no event of interest. He is said by Agathias to have borne the title of Segan-saa, which he states to imply king of the Segani (Segestan, or Seistan); but it appears probable that it was only a corruption of the usual Persian title, Shahinshah, or king of kings. His successor was his brother, Narsi, or Narses.

Bahram IV., surnamed Kerman-Shah, the twelfth in succession of the Sassanians; he was son of Shahpoor the Great, and succeeded his elder brother, Shahpoor III., A.D. 390. His reign of eleven years appears to have been undisturbed, either by civil or foreign wars; but his memory has been perpetuated by his foundation of Kermanshah, still a rich and flourishing city, and by the famous sculptures in its neighbourhood, called Tak-i-Bostan, or "arch of the garden." A description of these, with a version by M. Silvestre de Sacy of the Pehlevi inscriptions which accompany them, is given in Malcolm's History of Persia, (vol. i. 544-5, 8vo ed.) His name is in this inscription Vararam, or Varaham, which is essentially the same as that given by Abul-Faraj. Bahram IV. was killed accidentally by an arrow, A.D. 401, and succeeded by his son or brother, Yezdijird I. (the Isdigertes of the Greeks), whose son and successor was,

Bahram V., surnamed Gour, or the Wild Ass, from his fondness for the chase; ascended the throne A.D. 421, on the death of his father, Yezdijird I., of whom he was the only surviving son. His education had been entrusted to an Arab chief, and it is probable that from the early impressions thus communicated, he derived the frank and martial spirit which pervaded his life and actions, and has preserved his name to this day in Persia, as a hero of romance. The adventures attributed to him in this capacity do not come within the range of authentic history; but his daring bravery has been confirmed by all writers who have narrated the events of his reign. At the head of only 7000 horse, he surprised the camp of the Turks of Transoxiana, whom the reports of the peace

Ᏼ Ꭺ Ꮋ

and luxury prevailing under his sway had allured to invade his dominions and, after pursuing them with great slaughter to their own country, he raset an obelisk on the banks of the Oxus, i mark the boundaries of Turan and I'm (Turkestan and Persia). A war with the Romans, which was instigated by a pe secution directed against the Christians in Persia, led to no decisive result, though obstinately contested in two bloody can paigns; the Romans claim to have bee victorious in the field, but they we signally repulsed in the siege of Nists A peace for one hundred years was cotcluded between the two empires, leaving each in possession of their existing limits and a dispute which subsequently arose on the subject of Armenia was settle after some negotiation, by a partition of that kingdom, A.D. 433. The death of Bahram occurred in hunting; his horse plunged with him into a deep pool, and neither he nor his rider were ever found The scene of this tragical event was visited by Malcolm in 1810, and one of his escort was drowned, in attempting to bathe, in the very spring where tradition states the Sassanian monarch to have perished. He reigned twenty or twentyone years, and was succeeded by his sa Yezdijird II. A.D. 442.

of

BAHRAM, surnamed Tchoubeen, or the Stick-like, from his gaunt appearance, a celebrated Persian general, in the reign of Hormuz IV. the unworthy son of Nushirwan. At the head of only 12,000 men, he overthrew a countless army the Turks of Transoxiana, whose progress had threatened the monarchy with ruin. The Khakan, or grand khan of the Turks was slain, and his son sent a prisoner to Hormuz. But this signal service excited only jealousy in the mind of the monarch; and when Bahram sustained a defeat from the Romans, he was insulted by receiving a distaff and a female dress But the vengeance which he sought by an instant revolt was anticipated by the inhabitants of the capital, who dethroned, blinded, and at length strangled, Hor muz, A.D. 589. Bahram now attempted to ascend the vacant throne, but after exercising for a few months the functions of sovereignty, he was expelled by the approach of Khosroo, the son of the deceased monarch, with a Roman army; he took refuge in Turkestan, where he was honourably received, but died of poison administered by the Turkish queen, who was a relation of the restored Khosroo. At the end of the third cen

tury of the hegira, the Samani kings of Khorassan affected to boast their descent from Bahram Tchoubeen; but this pedigree was probably invented after their attainment of sovereign power. (Mirkhond. Abul-Faraj. Malcolm's History of Persia. Gibbon. D'Herbelot, Bibl. Or. Ancient Universal History.)

BAHRAM GUDURZ, a Persian monarch of the Ashkanian dynasty, noticed by Khondemir; apparently the prince called by Roman writers Gotarzes, the third prince of the second dynasty of the Arsacidæ. See GOTARZes.

BAHRAM-SHAH, the twelfth sultan of the Ghaznevide dynasty, in Cabul and the Punjab, ascended the throne A.D. 1118, (A.H. 512,) after dethroning and putting to death, by the help of Sandjar, the Seljookian sultan of Persia, his brother and predecessor Arslan-Shah. The greater part of his reign was passed in wars with the princes of Ghour, a mountain tract north of Ghazni. He was at first successful, defeating and taking prisoner his opponent Soori, whom he put to death with every circumstance of cruelty; but the death of Soori was ere long avenged by his brother, who defeated Bahram, and forced him to fly to Lahore. Ghazni was left at the mercy of the victor, who massacred all the principal inhabitants, and almost ruined the city; but, after some years, the Ghaznians succeeded in expelling the enemy, and recalled Bahram to his capital, A.D. 1151, (A.H. 546.) He died the same year, on the eve of a fresh attack from the Ghourians, who, thirty-four years later, overthrew the last remains of the Ghaznevide power. Bahram appears to have been both a weak and cruel prince; his liberality, and patronage of learning, however, have been highly celebrated by oriental historians. (Abulfeda. D'Herbelot. De Guignes. Malcolm's Persia.) BAHRAM-SHAH, was also the name of a Seljookian prince, who reigned for a few years in Kerman, about A.D. 1170; also of a son of Altmish, who filled the throne of Delhi from A.D. 1239 to 1241; but their reigns are unimportant. Many minor Asiatic princes have borne the same title.

BAHRDT, (Dr. Karl Friedrich,) the son of the professor of theology at Leipsic, was born at Bischofswerda in 1741, and sent by his father to the school of St. Nicholas at Leipsic, and afterwards to that called the Schulpforte; from this last he was expelled, after two years' stay, for irregularity of conduct. After this,

he went to the university of Leipsic, where he addicted himself to the theological views of Ernestus and Crusius, and lectured on theology with great applause, though, by his own account, he was then but an ignorant teacher. Here, too, he was appointed professor extraordinary of sacred philology, and in 1763 made his first essay as a writer, but without, at that time, exciting much attention. With the unsteadiness of purpose which distinguished him through life, he vacillated between a diligent employment of time, and something worse than the loss of it; and, in 1768, he was obliged to relinquish the charges he held at Leipsic, in consequence of scandalous irregularities. He had afterwards the professorship of biblical antiquities at Erfurt, but involved himself in quarrels with his brother professors, by his invasion of their province, for he availed himself of his professorship, and its connexion with theology, to deliver lectures in the latter branch. He distinguished himself also by personal attacks, which increased the ill-will he had already acquired. In 1770 he published a System of Moral Theology, founded upon an earlier work by his father. This was well received, and his success, probably, encouraged him to undertake an edition of the Old Testament on the plan of Dr. Kennicott, employing those manuscripts of which former editors had not availed themselves-a work for which he had neither the knowledge nor the industry required. He proposed also, about the same time, to organize a society of theologians, who taking his own published System of Theology, should write their several judgments upon it; and these remarks were to be printed in a collected form. This plan produced the Letters on Systematic Theology; but the inconstancy of Bahrdt's character caused it to be at length relinquished. He married in 1770, and, in 1771, at the recommendation of his friend Semler, he was appointed professor at Giessen. Here his pen was unusually in requisition, for he produced, in a short time, a book of Sermons, of Homilies, a Universal Theological Bibliotheca, the Latest Revelations of God, and some other works, all of which were of a polemical cast, and in many of them his antagonists in religious opinion were unsparingly attacked. He thus raised many enemies; his conduct was severely animadverted upon by the ecclesiastical authorities; and he was at last dismissed from his office at his own request, which, how

ever, he was far from wishing to see granted, by the landgrave of Hesse Darmstadt. Before he left Giessen, however, another employment was proposed to him, which he accepted that of director of the educational institution of Von Salis, called the "Philanthropin," near Marschlins. But Von Salis was a great lover of regularity and method, and was rigid in exacting from those under his authority a punctual fulfilment of their duties. All these were so many stumbling-blocks to Bahrdt, and after much coldness, and even direct hostility, he was probably saved from a dismissal by an invitation to take the post of general superintendent, and pastor at Dürkheim on the Hardt, which he accepted with a feigned reluctance. Here he showed so much moderation, and a conduct so opposite to his former course of life, that he became an especial favourite, both with the people and his patron, the count of Leiningen - Dachsburg. From this prince he procured the use of the castle of Heidesheim, where he established a school similar to that in which he had been formerly engaged by Von Salis-a speculation which promised much, but which suffered from Bahrdt's injudicious arrangements, and still more from his imprudence in provoking an influential man at the court of the count, who set himself to defeat his purposes. The result of all this was a journey of Bahrdt to Holland and England, in search of pupils. He returned in 1779 with thirteen, but on his arrival in Germany heard that an ordinance of the imperial council had gone out against him, suspending him from all his offices, and forbidding him to remain in the empire on any condition but that of recanting his doctrinal errors. This he refused to do, and aggravated this offence against the authority of the council, by republishing the confession of faith of those principles, in consequence of which he was obliged to leave his former residence, and take refuge in the kingdom of Prussia; where an asylum was granted him on the express condi

tion that he should "keep himself quiet, give occasion to no complaint, read no theological lectures, and aspire to no office.' He chose Halle as his place of residence, and supported himself by his writings, by his lectures upon the classics, logic and metaphysics, eloquence, and morality, and by the publication of his smaller Bible (1780). A subscription was also raised for him at Berlin, whereby an income of 200 rix-dollars was secured to him, besides the supply of his present

wants.

His quiet, however, was shortly disturbed by an act of his own, so scandalous that it is difficult to understand what motive could have induced him to it. He bought a vineyard, not far from Halle, and there established an inn, conjunction with a female servant whom, for this purpose, he invested with the power and place of a wife. This proceeding necessarily caused great scandal and mischief; for his house was much frequented by the students of Halle, and the spectacle of this shameless apostasy of a christian teacher was calculated to have the most disadvantageous effect upon their moral feeling. He continued this course of life for ten years, when he was arrested upon a double charge; the founding of a secret, and, it was said, dangerous society, called the Union; and the publication of a comedy called the Religious Edict," in which he ridiculed some ordinances of the king of Prussia. The former offence was not distinctly proved against him, but for the latter he was condemned to two years' imprisonment; a sentence which was commuted, by the king, to one year's imprisonment in the fortress of Magdeburg. This time he employed in writing Morality for the Citizens, and a History of his own Lifein which he deals as recklessly with the good name of others as with his own. After his release from prison, he formally separated from his wife, and pursued the same indecent course of life as before. His death took place, after a severe and lingering illness, in 1792.