The Bābur-nāma in English (Memoirs of Bābur)
his affairs.
[2386] Gold, silver and copper coins.
[2387] Made so by _bhang_ or other exciting drug.
[2388] _ārāl_, presumably one left by the winter-fall of the
Jumna; or, a peninsula.
[2389] Scribes and translators have been puzzled here. My
guess at the Turkī clause is _aūrang aīralīk kīsh jabbah_. In
reading _muslin_, I follow Erskine who worked in India and
could take local opinion; moreover gifts made in Āgra probably
would be Indian.
[2390] For one Ḥāfiẕ of Samarkand see f.237_b_.
[2391] Kūchūm was Khāqān of the Aūzbegs and had his seat in
Samarkand. One of his sons, Abū-sa`īd, mentioned below, had
sent envoys. With Abū-sa`īd is named Mihr-bān who was one of
Kūchūm's wives; Pulād was their son. Mihr-bān was, I think, a
half-sister of Bābur, a daughter of `Umar Shaikh and Umīd of
Andijān (f. 9), and a full-sister of Nāṣir. No doubt she had
been captured on one of the occasions when Bābur lost to the
Aūzbegs. In 925 AH.-1519 AD. (f. 237_b_) when he sent his
earlier _Dīwān_ to Pulād Sl. (_Translator's Note_, p. 438) he
wrote a verse on its back which looks to be addressed to his
half-sister through her son.
[2392] T̤ahmāsp's envoy; the title Chalabī shews high birth.
[2393] This statement seems to imply that the weight made of
silver and the weight made of gold were of the same size and
that the differing specific gravity of the two metals,—that of
silver being _cir._ 10 and that of gold _cir._ 20—gave their
equivalents the proportion Bābur states. Persian Dictionaries
give _sang_ (_tāsh_), a weight, but without further
information. We have not found mention of the _tāsh_ as a
recognized Turkī weight; perhaps the word _tāsh_ stands for an
ingot of unworked metal of standard size. (Cf. _inter alios
libros_, A.-i-A. Blochmann p. 36, Codrington's _Musalman
Numismatics_ p. 117, concerning the _miṣqāl, dīnār, etc._)
[2394] _tarkāsh bīla._ These words are clear in the Ḥai. MS.
but uncertain in some others. E. and de C. have no equivalent
of them. Perhaps the coins were given by the quiverful; that a
quiver of arrows was given is not expressed.
[2395] Bābur's half-nephew; he seems from his name
Keepsake-of-nāṣir to have been posthumous.
[2396] 934 AH.-1528 AD. (f. 336).
[2397] Or, gold-embroidered.
[2398] Wife of Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā.
[2399] These Highlanders of Asfara will have come by
invitation sent after the victory at Panīpat; their welcome
shows remembrance of and gratitude for kindness received a
quarter of a century earlier. Perhaps villagers from Dikh-kat
will have come too, who had seen the Pādshāh run barefoot on
their hills (_Index s.nn._).
[2400] Here gratitude is shewn for protection given in 910
AH.-1504 AD. to the families of Bābur and his men when on the
way to Kābul. Qurbān and Shaikhī were perhaps in Fort Ajar (f.
122_b_, f. 126).
[2401] Perhaps these acrobats were gipsies.
[2402] This may be the one with which Sayyid Daknī was
concerned (f. 346).
[2403] Bābur obviously made the distinction between _pahr_ and
_pās_ that he uses the first for day-watches, the second for
those of the night.
[2404] Anglicé, Tuesday, Dec. 21st; by Muḥammadan plan,
Wednesday 22nd. Dhūlpūr is 34 m. s. of Āgra; the journey of
10hrs. 20m. would include the nooning and the time taken in
crossing rivers.
[2405] The well was to fill a cistern; the 26 spouts with
their 26 supports were to take water into (26?) conduits.
Perhaps _tāsh_ means that they were hewn in the solid rock;
perhaps that they were on the outer side of the reservoir.
They will not have been built of hewn stone, or the word would
have been _sangīn_ or _tāshdīn_.
[2406] One occupation of these now blank days is indicated by
the date of the "_Rāmpūr Dīwān_", Thursday Rabī` II. 15th
(Dec. 27th).
[2407] The demon (or, athlete) sulṯān of Rumelia (_Rūmlū_);
once T̤ahmāsp's guardian (_Taẕkirat-i-T̤ahmāsp_, Bib. Ind. ed.
Phillott, p. 2). Some writers say he was put to death by
T̤ahmāsp (_æt._ 12) in 933 AH.; if this were so, it is strange
to find a servant described as his in 935 AH. (An account of
the battle is given in the _Sharaf-nāma_, written in 1005 AH.
by Sharaf Khān who was reared in T̤ahmāsp's house. The book
has been edited by Veliaminof-Zernof and translated into
French by Charmoy; cf. Trs. vol. ii, part i, p. 555.—_H.
Beveridge._)
[2408] This name, used by one who was with the Shāh's troops,
attracts attention; it may show the composition of the Persian
army; it may differentiate between the troops and their
"Qīzīl-bāsh leader".
[2409] Several writers give Sārū-qamsh (Charmoy, _roseau
jaune_) as the name of the village where the battle was
fought; Sharaf Khān gives `Umarābād and mentions that after
the fight T̤ahmāsp spent some time in the meadow of
Sārū-qamsh.
[2410] The number of T̤ahmāsp's guns being a matter of
interest, reference should be made to Bābur's accounts of his
own battles in which he arrayed in Rūmī (Ottoman) fashion; it
will then be seen that the number of carts does not imply the
number of guns (Index _s.n._ _arāba_, cart).
[2411] This cannot but represent T̤ahmāsp who was on the
battle-field (_see_ his own story _infra_). He was 14 years
old; perhaps he was called Shāh-zāda, and not Shāh, on account
of his youth, or because under guardianship (?). Readers of
the Persian histories of his reign may know the reason. Bābur
hitherto has always called the boy Shāh-zāda; after the
victory at Jām, he styles him Shāh. Jūha Sl. (_Taklū_) who was
with him on the field, was Governor of Ispahān.
[2412] If this Persian account of the battle be in its right
place in Bābur's diary, it is singular that the narrator
should be so ill-informed at a date allowing facts to be
known; the three sulṯāns he names as killed escaped to die,
Kūchūm in 937 AH.-1530 AD., Abū-sa`īd in 940 AH.-1533 AD.,
`Ubaid in 946 AH.-1539 AD. (Lane-Poole's _Muḥammadan
Dynasties_). It would be natural for Bābur to comment on the
mistake, since envoys from two of the sulṯāns reported killed,
were in Āgra. There had been time for the facts to be known:
the battle was fought on Sep. 26th; the news of it was in Āgra
on Nov. 23rd; envoys from both adversaries were at Bābur's
entertainment on Dec. 19th. From this absence of comment and
for the reasons indicated in note 3 (_infra_), it appears that
matter has been lost from the text.
[2413] T̤ahmāsp's account of the battle is as follows
(_T.-i-T̤._ p. 11):—"I marched against the Aūzbegs. The battle
took place outside Jām. At the first onset, Aūzbeg prevailed
over Qīzīl-bāsh. Ya`qūb Sl. fled and Sl. Wālāma _Taklū_ and
other officers of the right wing were defeated and put to
flight. Putting my trust in God, I prayed and advanced some
paces.... One of my body-guard getting up with `Ubaid struck
him with a sword, passed on, and occupied himself with
another. Qūlīj Bahādur and other Aūzbegs carried off the
wounded `Ubaid; Kūchkūnjī (Kūchūm) Khān and Jānī Khān Beg,
when they became aware of this state of affairs, fled to Merv.
Men who had fled from our army rejoined us that day. That
night I spent on the barren plain (_ṣaḥra'_). I did not know
what had happened to `Ubaid. I thought perhaps they were
devising some stratagem against me." The `A.-`A. says that
`Ubaid's assailant, on seeing his low stature and contemptible
appearance, left him for a more worthy foe.
[2414] Not only does some comment from Bābur seem needed on an
account of deaths he knew had not occurred, but loss of matter
may be traced by working backward from his next explicit date
(_Friday 19th_), to do which shows fairly well that the "same
day" will be not Tuesday the 16th but Thursday the 18th.
Ghīāṣu'd-dīn's reception was on the day preceding Friday 19th,
so that part of Thursday's record (as shewn by "on this same
day"), the whole of Wednesday's, and (to suit an expected
comment by Bābur on the discrepant story of the Aūzbeg deaths)
part of Tuesday's are missing. The gap may well have contained
mention of Ḥasan _Chalabī's_ coming (f. 357), or explain why
he had not been at the feast with his younger brother.
[2415] _qūrchī_, perhaps body-guard, life-guardsman.
[2416] As on f. 350_b_ (_q.v._ p. 628 n. 1) _aūn altī gūnlūk
bŭljār_ (or, _m:ljār_) _bīla_.
[2417] A sub-division of the Ballia district of the United
Provinces, on the right bank of the Ghogrā.
[2418] _i.e._ in 16 days; he was 24 or 25 days away.
[2419] The envoy had been long in returning; Kanwā was fought
in March, 1527; it is now the end of 1528 AD.
[2420] Rabī` II. 20th—January 1st 1529 AD.; Anglicé, Friday,
after 6p.m.
[2421] This "Bengalī" is territorial only; Naṣrat Shāh was a
Sayyid's son (f.271).
[2422] Ismā`īl Mītā (f. 357) who will have come with Mullā
Maẕhab.
[2423] _mī`ād_, cf. f. 350_b_ and f. 354_b_. Ghīāṣu'd-dīn may
have been a body-guard.
[2424] Lūdī Afghāns and their friends, including Bīban and
Bāyazīd.
[2425] _yūllūq tūrālīk_; _Memoirs_, p. 398, "should act in
every respect in perfect conformity to his commands";
_Mémoires_ ii, 379, "_chacun suivant son rang et sa dignité_."
[2426] _tawāchī._ Bābur's uses of this word support Erskine in
saying that "the _tawāchī_ is an officer who corresponds very
nearly to the Turkish _chāwush_, or special messenger"
(Zenker, p. 346, col. iii) "but he was also often employed to
act as a commissary for providing men and stores, as a
commissioner in superintending important affairs, as an
aide-de-camp in carrying orders, _etc._"
[2427] Here the Ḥai. MS. has the full-vowelled form, _būljār_.
Judging from what that Codex writes, _būljār_ may be used for
a rendezvous of troops, _m:ljār_ or _b:ljār_ for any other
kind of tryst (f. 350, p. 628 n. 1; Index _s.nn._), also for a
shelter.
[2428] _yāwūshūb aīdī_, which I translate in accordance with
other uses of the verb, as meaning approach, but is taken by
some other workers to mean "near its end".
[2429] Though it is not explicitly said, Chīn-tīmūr may have
been met with on the road; as the "also" (_ham_) suggests.
[2430] To the above news the _Akbar-nāma_ adds the important
item reported by Humāyūn, that there was talk of peace. Bābur
replied that, if the time for negotiation were not past,
Humāyūn was to make peace until such time as the affairs of
Hindūstān were cleared off. This is followed in the A. N. by a
seeming quotation from Bābur's letter, saying in effect that
he was about to leave Hindūstān, and that his followers in
Kābul and Tramontana must prepare for the expedition against
Samarkand which would be made on his own arrival. None of the
above matter is now with the _Bābur-nāma_; either it was there
once, was used by Abū'l-faẓl and lost before the Persian trss.
were made; or Abū'l-faẓl used Bābur's original, or copied,
letter itself. That desire for peace prevailed is shewn by
several matters:—T̤ahmāsp, the victor, asked and obtained the
hand of an Aūzbeg in marriage; Aūzbeg envoys came to Āgra, and
with them Turk Khwājas having a mission likely to have been
towards peace (f. 357_b_); Bābur's wish for peace is shewn
above and on f. 359 in a summarized letter to Humāyūn. (Cf.
Abū'l-ghāzī's _Shajarat-i-Turk_ [_Histoire des Mongols_,