The Bābur-nāma in English (Memoirs of Bābur)
arduous defence, faithfulness and abandonment recall the
instance of a later time when also a long road stretched
between the man and the help that failed him. But the Mīrzā
was old, his military strength was, admittedly, sapped by
ease; hence his elder Khartum, his neglect of his Gordon.
It should be noted that no mention of the page's fatal arrow
is made by the _Shaibānī-nāma_ (Vambéry, p. 442), or by the
_Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_ (p. 204). Chīn Ṣūfī's death was on the 21st
of the Second Rabī 911 AH. (Aug. 22nd 1505 AD.).
[981] This may be the "Baboulei" of the French Map of 1904, on
the Herī-Kushk-Marūchāq road.
[982] Elph. MS. f. 127; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 132 and 217 f.
111b; Mems. p. 175; _Méms._ i, 364.
That Bābur should have given his laborious account of the
Court of Herī seems due both to loyalty to a great Tīmūrid,
seated in Tīmūr Beg's place (f. 122b), and to his own
interest, as a man-of-letters and connoisseur in excellence,
in that ruler's galaxy of talent. His account here opening is
not complete; its sources are various; they include the
_Ḥabību's-siyār_ and what he will have learned himself in Herī
or from members of the Bāī-qarā family, knowledgeable women
some of them, who were with him in Hindūstān. The narrow scope
of my notes shews that they attempt no more than to indicate
further sources of information and to clear up a few
obscurities.
[983] Tīmūr's youngest son, d. 850 AH. (1446 AD.). Cf. Ḥ.S.
iii, 203. The use in this sentence of Amīr and not Beg as
Tīmūr's title is, up to this point, unique in the
_Bābur-nāma_; it may be a scribe's error.
[984] Fīrūza's paternal line of descent was as
follows:—Fīrūza, daughter of Sl. Ḥusain _Qānjūt_, son of Ākā
Begīm, daughter of Tīmūr. Her maternal descent was:—Fīrūza, d.
of Qūtlūq-sulṯān Begīm, d. of Mīrān-shāh, s. of Tīmūr. She
died Muḥ. 24th 874 AH. (July 25th 1489 AD. Ḥ.S. iii, 218).
[985] "No-one in the world had such parentage", writes
Khwānd-amīr, after detailing the Tīmūrid, Chīngīz-khānid, and
other noted strains meeting in Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_ (Ḥ.S. iii,
204).
[986] The Elph. MS. gives the Begīm no name; Badī`u'l-jamāl is
correct (Ḥ.S. iii, 242). The curious "Badka" needs
explanation. It seems probable that Bābur left one of his
blanks for later filling-in; the natural run of his sentence
here is "Ākā B. and Badī`u'l-jamāl B." and not the detail,
which follows in its due place, about the marriage with Aḥmad.
[987] _Dīwān bāshīdā ḥāṣir būlmās aīdī_; the sense of which
may be that Bāī-qarā did not sit where the premier retainer
usually sat at the head of the Court (Pers. trs.
_sar-i-dīwān_).
[988] From this Wais and Sl. Ḥusain M.'s daughter Sulṯānīm (f.
167b) were descended the Bāī-qarā Mīrzās who gave Akbar so
much trouble.
[989] As this man might be mistaken for Bābur's uncle (_q.v._)
of the same name, it may be well to set down his parentage. He
was a s. of Mīrzā Sayyidī Aḥmad, s. of Mīrān-shāh, s. of Tīmūr
(Ḥ.S. iii, 217, 241). I have not found mention elsewhere of
"Aḥmad s. of Mīrān-shāh"; the _sayyidī_ in his style points to
a sayyida mother. He was Governor of Herī for a time, for Sl.
H.M.; `Alī-sher has notices of him and of his son, Kīchīk
Mīrzā (_Journal Asiatique_ xvii, 293, M. Belin's art. where
may be seen notices of many other men mentioned by Bābur).
[990] He collected and thus preserved `Alī-sher's earlier
poems (Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 294). Mu'inu'd-dīn al Zamji writes
respectfully of his being worthy of credence in some Egyptian
matters with which he became acquainted in twice passing
through that country on his Pilgrimage (_Journal Asiatique_
xvi, 476, de Meynard's article).
[991] Kīchīk M.'s quatrain is a mere plagiarism of Jāmī's
which I am indebted to my husband for locating as in the
_Dīwān_ I.O. MS. 47 p. 47; B.M. Add. 7774 p. 290; and Add.
7775 p. 285. M. Belin interprets the verse as an expression of
the rise of the average good man to mystical rapture, not as
his lapse from abstinence to indulgence (l.c. xvii, 296 and
notes).
[992] Elph. MS. _younger_ but Ḥai. MS. _older_ in which it is
supported by the "also" (_ham_) of the sentence.
[993] modern Astrakhan. Ḥusain's guerilla wars were those
through which he cut his way to the throne of Herī. This begīm
was married first to Pīr Budāgh Sl. (Ḥ.S. iii, 242); he dying,
she was married by Aḥmad, presumably by levirate custom
(_yīnkālīk_; f. 12 and note). By Aḥmad she had a daughter,
styled Khān-zāda Begīm whose affairs find comment on f. 206
and Ḥ.S. iii, 359. (The details of this note negative a
suggestion of mine that Badka was the Rābī`a-sulṯān of f. 168
(Gul-badan, App. _s. nn._).)
[994] This is a felt wide-awake worn by travellers in hot
weather (Shaw); the Turkmān bonnet (Erskine).
[995] Ḥai. MS. _yamānlīk_, badly, but Elph. MS. _namāyan_,
whence Erskine's _showy_.
[996] This was a proof that he was then a Shī`a (Erskine).
[997] The word _perform_ may be excused in speaking of
Musalmān prayers because they involve ceremonial bendings and
prostrations (Erskine).
[998] If Bābur's 40 include rule in Herī only, it over-states,
since Yādgār died in 875 AH. and Ḥusain in 911 AH. while the
intervening 36 years include the 5 or 6 temperate ones. If the
40 count from 861 AH. when Ḥusain began to rule in Merv, it
under-states. It is a round number, apparently.
[999] Relying on the Ilminsky text, Dr. Rieu was led into the
mistake of writing that Bābur gave Ḥusain the wrong pen-name,
_i.e._ Ḥusain, and not Ḥusainī (Turk. Cat. p. 256).
[1000] Daulat-shāh says that as he is not able to enumerate
all Ḥusain's feats-of-arms, he, Turkmān fashion, offers a gift
of Nine. The Nine differ from those of Bābur's list in some
dates; they are also records of victory only (Browne, p. 521;
_Not. et Extr._ iv, 262, de Saçy's article).
[1001] Wolves'-water, a river and its town at the s.e. corner
of the Caspian, the ancient boundary between Russia and
Persia. The name varies a good deal in MSS.
[1002] The battle was at Tarshīz; Abū-sa`īd was ruling in
Herī; Daulat-shāh (l.c. p. 523) gives 90 and 10,000 as the
numbers of the opposed forces!
[1003] f. 26b and note; Ḥ.S. iii, 209; Daulat-shāh p. 523.
[1004] The loser was the last Shāhrukhī ruler. Chanārān
(variants) is near Abīward, Anwārī's birth-place (Ḥ.S. iii,
218; D.S. p. 527).
[1005] f. 85. D.S. (p. 540) and the Ḥ.S. (iii, 223) dwell on
Ḥusain's speed through three continuous days and nights.
[1006] f. 26; Ḥ.S. iii, 227; D.S. p. 532.
[1007] Abū-sa`īd's son by a Badakhshī Begīm (T.R. p. 108); he
became his father's Governor in Badakhshān and married Ḥusain
_Bāī-qarā's_ daughter Begīm Sultān at a date after 873 AH. (f.
168 and note; Ḥ.S. iii, 196, 229, 234-37; D.S. p. 535).
[1008] f. 152.
[1009] Abā-bikr was defeated and put to death at the end of
Rajah 884 AH.-Oct. 1479 AD. after flight before Ḥusain across
the Gurgān-water (Ḥ.S. iii, 196 and 237 but D.S. p. 539, Ṣafar
885 AH.).
[1010] f. 41, Pul-i-chirāgh; for Halwā-spring, Ḥ.S. iii, 283
and Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 443.
[1011] f. 33 (p. 57) and f. 57b.
[1012] In commenting thus Bābur will have had in mind what he
best knew, Ḥusain's futile movements at Qūndūz and Ḥiṣār.
[1013] _qālīb aīdī_; if _qālīb_ be taken as Turkī, survived or
remained, it would not apply here since many of Ḥusain's
children predeceased him; Ar. _qālab_ would suit, meaning
_begotten_, _born_.
There are discrepancies between Bābur's details here and
Khwānd-amīr's scattered through the _Ḥabību's-siyār_,
concerning Ḥusain's family.
[1014] _bī ḥuẓūrī_, which may mean aversion due to Khadīja
Begīm's malevolence.
[1015] Some of the several goings into `Irāq chronicled by
Bābur point to refuge taken with Tīmūrids, descendants of
Khalīl and `Umar, sons of Mirān-shāh (Lane-Poole's _Muhammadan
Dynasties_, Table of the Timūrids).
[1016] He died before his father (Ḥ.S. iii, 327).
[1017] He will have been killed previous to Ramẓān 3rd 918 AH.
(Nov. 12th, 1512 AD.), the date of the battle of Ghaj-dawān
when Nijm S̱ānī died.
[1018] The _bund_ here may not imply that both were in prison,
but that they were bound in close company, allowing Ismā`īl, a
fervent Shī`a, to convert the Mīrzā.
[1019] The _bātmān_ is a Turkish weight of 13lbs (Meninsky) or
15lbs (Wollaston). The weight seems likely to refer to the
strength demanded for rounding the bow (_kamān guroha-sī_)
_i.e._ as much strength as to lift 40 _bātmāns_. Rounding or
bending might stand for stringing or drawing. The meaning can
hardly be one of the weight of the cross-bow itself. Erskine
read _gūrdehieh_ for _guroha_ (p. 180) and translated by
"double-stringed bow"; de Courteille (i, 373) read
_guirdhiyeh, arrondi, circulaire_, in this following Ilminsky
who may have followed Erskine. The Elph. and Ḥai. MSS. and the
first W.-i-B. (I.O. 215 f. 113b) have _kamān guroha-sī_; the
second W.-i-B. omits the passage, in the MSS. I have seen.
[1020] _yakhshīlār bārīb tūr_; lit. good things went (on); cf.
f. 156b and note.
[1021] Badī`u'z-zamān's son, drowned at Chausa in 946 AH.
(1539 AD.) A.N. (H. Beveridge, i, 344).
[1022] Qalāt-i-nādirī, in Khurāsān, the birth-place of Nādir
Shāh (T.R. p. 209).
[1023] _bīr gīna qīz_, which on f. 86b can fitly be read to
mean daughterling, _Töchterchen, fillette_, but here and
_i.a._ f. 168, must have another meaning than diminutive and
may be an equivalent of German _Stück_ and mean _one only_.
Gul-badan gives an account of Shād's manly pursuits (H.N. f.
25b).
[1024] He was the son of Mahdī Sl. (f. 320b) and the father of
`Āqil Sl. _Aūzbeg_ (A.N. index _s.n._). Several matters
suggest that these men were of the Shabān Aūzbegs who
intermarried with Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā's_ family and some of whom
went to Bābur in Hindūstān. One such matter is that Kābul was
the refuge of dispossessed Harātīs, after the Aūzbeg conquest;
that there `Āqil married Shād _Bāī-qarā_ and that `Ādil went
on to Bābur. Moreover Khāfī Khān makes a statement which (if
correct) would allow `Ādil's father Mahdī to be a grandson of
Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_; this statement is that when Bābur defeated
the Aūzbegs in 916 AH. (1510 AD.), he freed from their
captivity two sons (descendants) of his paternal uncle, named
Mahdī Sl. and Sulṯān Mīrzā. [Leaving the authenticity of the
statement aside for a moment, it will be observed that this
incident is of the same date and place as another well-vouched
for, namely that Bābur then and there killed Mahdī Sl.
_Aūzbeg_ and Ḥamza Sl. _Aūzbeg_ after defeating them.] What
makes in favour of Khāfī Khān's correctness is, not only that
Bābur's foe Mahdī is not known to have had a son `Ādil, but
also that his "Sulṯān Mīrzā" is not a style so certainly
suiting Ḥamza as it does a Shabān sulṯān, one whose father was
a Shabān sulṯān, and whose mother was a Mīrzā's daughter.
Moreover this point of identification is pressed by the
correctness, according to oriental statement of relationship,
of Khāfī Khān's "paternal uncle" (of Bābur), because this
precisely suits Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā with whose family these
Shabān sulṯāns allied themselves. On the other hand it must be
said that Khāfī Khān's statement is not in the English text of