The Bābur-nāma in English (Memoirs of Bābur)

the _Tārīkh-i-rashīdī_, the book on which he mostly relies at this period, nor is it in my husband's MS. [a copy from the Rampūr Codex]; and to this must be added the verbal objection that a modicum of rhetoric allows a death to be described both in Turkī and Persian, as a release from the captivity of a sinner's own acts (f. 160). Still Khāfī Khān may be right; his statement may yet be found in some other MS. of the T. R. or some different source; it is one a scribe copying the T. R. might be led to omit by reason of its coincidences. The killing and the release may both be right; `Ādil's Mahdī may be the Shabān sulṯān inference makes him seem. This little _crux_ presses home the need of much attention to the _lacunae_ in the _Bābur-nāma_, since in them are lost some exits and some entries of Bābur's _dramatis personae_, pertinently, mention of the death of Mahdī with Ḥamza in 916 AH., and possibly also that of `Ādil's Mahdī's release. [1025] A _chār-ṯāq_ may be a large tent rising into four domes or having four porches. [1026] Ḥ.S. iii, 367. [1027] This phrase, common but not always selected, suggests unwillingness to leave the paternal roof. [1028] Abū'l-ghāzī's _History of the Mughūls_, Désmaisons, p. 207. [1029] The appointment was made in 933 AH. (1527 AD.) and seems to have been held still in 934 AH. (ff. 329, 332). [1030] This grandson may have been a child travelling with his father's household, perhaps Aūlūgh Mīrzā, the oldest son of Muḥammad Sulṯān Mīrzā (A. A. Blochmann, p. 461). No mention is made here of Sulṯānīm Begīm's marriage with `Abdu'l-bāqī Mīrzā (f. 175). [1031] Abū'l-qāsim Bābur _Shāhrukhī_ presumably. [1032] The time may have been 902 AH. when Mas`ūd took his sister Bega Begīm to Herī for her marriage with Ḥaidar (Ḥ.S. iii, 260). [1033] Khwāja Aḥmad _Yāsawī_, known as Khwāja Ātā, founder of the Yāsawī religious order. [1034] Not finding mention of a daughter of Abū-sa`id named Rābī`a-sulṯān, I think she may be the daughter styled Āq Begīm who is No. 3 in Gul-badan's guest-list for the Mystic Feast. [1035] This man I take to be Ḥusain's grandfather and not brother, both because `Abdu'l-lāh was of Ḥusain's and his brother's generation, and also because of the absence here of Bābur's usual defining words "elder brother" (of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā). In this I have to differ from Dr. Rieu (Pers. Cat. p. 152). [1036] So-named after his ancestor Sayyid Barka whose body was exhumed from Andikhūd for reburial in Samarkand, by Tīmūr's wish and there laid in such a position that Tīmūr's body was at its feet (_Z̤afar-nāma_ ii, 719; Ḥ.S. iii, 82). (For the above interesting detail I am indebted to my husband.) [1037] _Qīzīl-bāsh_, Persians wearing red badges or caps to distinguish them as Persians. [1038] Yādgār-i-farrukh _Mīrān-shāhī_ (Ḥ.S. iii, 327). He may have been one of those Mīrān-shāhīs of `Irāq from whom came Ākā's and Sulṯānīm's husbands, Aḥmad and `Abdu'l-bāqī (ff. 164, 175_b_). [1039] This should be four (f. 169_b_). The Ḥ.S. (iii, 327) also names three only when giving Pāpā Āghācha's daughters (the omission linking it with the B.N.), but elsewhere (iii, 229) it gives an account of a fourth girl's marriage; this fourth is needed to make up the total of 11 daughters. Bābur's and Khwānd-amīr's details of Pāpā Āghācha's quartette are defective; the following may be a more correct list:—(1) Begīm Sulṯān (a frequent title), married to Abā-bikr _Mīrān-shāhī_ (who died 884 AH.) and seeming too old to be the one [No. 3] who married Mas`ūd (Ḥ.S. iii, 229); (2) Sulṯān-nizhād, married to Iskandar _Bāī-qarā_; (3) Sa`ādat-bakht also known as Begīm Sulṯān, married to Mas'ūd _Mīrān-shāhī_ (Ḥ.S. iii, 327); (4) Manauwar-sulṯān, married to a son of Aūlūgh Beg _Kābulī_ (Ḥ.S. iii, 327). [1040] This "after" seems to contradict the statement (f. 58) that Mas`ūd was made to kneel as a son-in-law (_kūyādlīk-kā yūkūndūrūb_) at a date previous to his blinding, but the seeming contradiction may be explained by considering the following details; he left Herī hastily (f. 58), went to Khusrau Shāh and was blinded by him,—all in the last two months of 903 AH. (1498 AD.), after the kneeling on Ẕū'l-qa`da 3rd, (June 23rd) in the Ravens'-garden. Here what Bābur says is that the Begīm was given (_bīrīb_) after the blinding, the inference allowed being that though Mas`ūd had kneeled before the blinding, she had remained in her father's house till his return after the blinding. [1041] The first W.-i-B. writes "Apāq Begīm" (I.O. 215 f. 136) which would allow Sayyid Mīrzā to be a kinsman of Apāq Begīm, wife of Ḥusain _Bāī-qarā_. [1042] This brief summary conveys the impression that the Begīm went on her pilgrimage shortly after Mas`ūd's death (913 AH. ?), but may be wrong:—After Mas`ūd's murder, by one Bīmāsh Mīrzā, _dārogha_ of Sarakhs, at Shaibāq Khān's order, she was married by Bīmāsh M. (Ḥ.S. iii, 278). How long after this she went to Makka is not said; it was about 934 AH. when Bābur heard of her as there. [1043] This clause is in the Ḥai. MS. but not in the Elph. MS. (f. 131), or Kehr's (Ilminsky, p. 210), or in either Persian translation. The boy may have been 17 or 18. [1044] This appears a mistake (f. 168 foot, and note on Pāpā's daughters). [1045] f. 171b. [1046] 933 AH.-1527 AD. (f. 329). [1047] Presumably this was a _yīnkālīk_ marriage; it differs from some of those chronicled and also from a levirate marriage in not being made with a childless wife. (Cf. index _s.n._ _yīnkālīk_.) [1048] Khwānd-amīr says that Bega Begīm was jealous, died of grief at her divorce, and was buried in a College, of her own erection, in 893 AH. (1488 AD. ḤS. iii, 245). [1049] _Gulistān_ Cap. II, Story 31 (Platts, p. 114). [1050] _i.e._ did not get ready to ride off if her husband were beaten by her brother (f. 11 and note to Ḥabība). [1051] Khadīja Begī Āghā (Ḥ.S. ii, 230 and iii, 327); she would be promoted probably after Shāh-i-gharīb's birth. [1052] He was a son of Badī`u'z-zamān. [1053] It is singular that this honoured woman's parentage is not mentioned; if it be right on f. 168b (_q.v._ with note) to read Sayyid Mīrzā of Apāq Begīm, she may be a sayyida of Andikhūd. [1054] As Bābur left Kābul on Ṣafar 1st (Nov. 17th 1525 AD.), the Begīm must have arrived in Muḥarram 932 AH. (Oct. 18th to Nov. 17th). [1055] f. 333. As Chandīrī was besieged in Rabī`u'l-ākhar 934 AH. this passage shews that, as a minimum estimate, what remains of Bābur's composed narrative (_i.e._ down to f. 216b) was written after that date (Jan. 1528). [1056] _Chār-shambalār._ Mention of another inhabitant of this place with the odd name, Wednesday (Chār-shamba), is made on f. 42b. [1057] Mole-marked Lady; most MSS. style her Bī but Ḥ.S. iii, 327, writes Bībī; it varies also by calling her a Turk. She was a purchased slave of Shahr-bānū's and was given to the Mīrzā by Shahr-bānū at the time of her own marriage with him. [1058] As noted already, f. 168b enumerates three only. [1059] The three were almost certainly Badī`u'z-zamān, Ḥaidar, son of a Tīmūrid mother, and Muz̤affar-i-ḥusain, born after his mother had been legally married. [1060] Seven sons predeceased him:—Farrukh, Shāh-i-gharīb, Muḥ. Ma`ṣūm, Ḥaidar, Ibrāhīm-i-ḥusain, Muḥ. Ḥusain and Abū-turāb. So too five daughters:—Āq, Bega, Āghā, Kīchīk and Fāṯima-sulṯān Begīms. So too four wives:—Bega-sulṯān and Chūlī Begīms, Zubaida and Laṯīf-sulṯān Āghāchas (Ḥ.S. iii, 327). [1061] Chākū, a Barlās, as was Tīmūr, was one of Tīmūr's noted men. At this point some hand not the scribe's has entered on the margin of the Ḥai. MS. the descendants of Muḥ. Barandūq down into Akbar's reign:—Muḥ. Farīdūn, bin Muḥ. Qulī Khān, bin Mīrzā `Alī, bin Muḥ. Barandūq _Barlās_. Of these Farīdūn and Muḥ. Qulī are amīrs of the _Āyīn-i-akbarī_ list (Blochmann, pp. 341, 342; Ḥ.S. iii, 233). [1062] Enforced marches of Mughūls and other nomads are mentioned also on f. 154b and f. 155. [1063] Ḥ.S. iii, 228, 233, 235. [1064] _beg kīshī_, beg-person. [1065] Khwānd-amīr says he died a natural death (Ḥ.S. iii, 235). [1066] f. 21. For a fuller account of Nawā'i, _J. Asiatique_ xvii, 175, M. Belin's article. [1067] _i.e._ when he was poor and a beg's dependant. He went back to Herī at Sl. Ḥusain M.'s request in 873 AH. [1068] Niẕāmī's (Rieu's Pers. Cat. s.n.). [1069] Farīdu'd-dīn-`at̤t̤ar's (Rieu l.c. and Ency. Br.). [1070] _Gharā'ibu'ṣ-ṣighar_, _Nawādiru'sh-shahāb_, _Badā'i`u'l-wasaṯ_ and _Fawā'idu'l-kibr_. [1071] Every Persian poet has a _takhalluṣ_ (pen-name) which he introduces into the last couplet of each ode (Erskine). [1072] The death occurred in the First Jumāda 906 AH. (Dec. 1500 AD.). [1073] Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad bin Tawakkal _Barlās_ (Ḥ.S. iii, 229). [1074] This may be that uncle of Tīmūr who made the Ḥaj (T. R. p. 48, quoting the _Z̤afar-nāma_). [1075] Some MSS. omit the word "father" here but to read it obviates the difficulty of calling Walī a great beg of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā although he died when that mīrzā took the throne (973 AH.) and although no leading place is allotted to him in Bābur's list of Herī begs. Here as in other parts of Bābur's account of Herī, the texts vary much whether Turkī or Persian, _e.g._ the Elph. MS. appears to call Walī a blockhead (_dūnkūz dūr_), the Ḥai. MS. writing _n:kūz dūr_(?). [1076] He had been Bābur _Shāhrukhī's yasāwal_ (Court-attendant), had fought against Ḥusain for Yādgār-i-muḥammad and had given a daughter to Ḥusain (Ḥ.S. iii, 206, 228, 230-32; D.S. in _Not. et Ex._ de Saçy p. 265). [1077] f. 29b. [1078] _Sic_, Elph. MS. and both Pers. trss. but the Ḥai. MS. omits "father". To read it, however, suits the circumstance that Ḥasan of Ya`qūb was not with Ḥusain and in Harāt but was connected with Maḥmūd _Mīrānshāhī_ and Tīrmīẕ (f. 24). Nuyān is not a personal name but is a title; it implies good-birth; all uses of it I have seen are for members of the religious family of Tīrmīẕ. [1079] He was the son of Ibrāhīm _Barlās_ and a Badakhshī begīm (T.R. p. 108). [1080] He will have been therefore a collateral of Daulat-shāh whose relation to Fīrūz-shāh is thus expressed by Nawā'i:—_Mīr Daulat-shāh Fīrūz-shāh Beg-nīng `amm-zāda-sī Amīr `Alā'u'd-daula Isfārayīnī-nīng aūghūlī dur_, _i.e._ Mīr Daulat-shāh was the son of Fīrūz-shāh Beg's paternal uncle's son, Amir `Alā'u'd-daula _Isfārayīnī_. Thus, Fīrūz-shāh and Isfārayīnī were first cousins; Daulat-shāh and `Abdu'l-khalīq's father were second cousins; while Daulat-shāh and Fīrūz-shāh were first cousins, once removed (Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 534; Browne's D.S. English preface p. 14 and its reference to the Pers. preface). [1081] _Tarkhān-nāma_, E. & D.'s _History of India_ i, 303; Ḥ.S. iii, 227. [1082] f. 41 and note. [1083] Both places are in the valley of the Herī-rūd. [1084] Badī`u'z-zamān married a daughter of Ẕū'n-nūn; she died in 911 AH. (E. & D. i, 305; Ḥ.S. iii, 324). [1085] This indicates, both amongst Musalmāns and Hindūs, obedience and submission. Several instances occur in Macculloch's _Bengali Household Stories_. [1086] T.R. p. 205.