ADDITIONAL NOTES
P. 16 l. 11.—Niz̤āmī mentions “lover’s marks” where a rebel chieftain commenting on Khusrau’s unfitness to rule by reason of his infatuation for Shīrīn, says, “Hinoz az‘āshīqbāzī garm dāgh ast.” (H.B.)
P. 22 n. 2.—Closer acquaintance with related books leads me to delete the words “Chaghatāī Mughūl” from Ḥaidar Dūghlāt’s tribal designations (p. 22, n. 2, l. 1). (1) My “Chaghatāī” had warrant (now rejected) in Ḥaidar’s statement (T.R. trs. p. 3) that the Dūghlāt amirs were of the same stock (abna‘-i-jins) as the Chaghatāī Khāqāns. But the Dūghlāt off-take from the common stem was of earlier date than Chīngīz Khān’s, hence, his son’s name “Chaghatāī” is a misnomer for Dūghlāts. (2) As for “Mūghūl” to designate Dūghlāt, and also Chaghatāī chiefs—guidance for us rests with the chiefs themselves; these certainly (as did also the Begchīk chiefs) held themselves apart from “Mughūls of the horde” and begs of the horde—as apart they had become by status as chiefs, by intermarriage, by education, and by observance of the amenities of civilized life. To describe Dūghlāt, Chaghatāī and Begchīk chiefs in Bābur’s day as Mughūls is against their self-classification and is a discourtesy. A clear instance of need of caution in the use of the word Mughūl is that of ‘Alī-sher Nawā’ī Chaghatāī. (Cf. Abū’l-ghāzī’s accounts of the formation of several tribes.) (3) That “Mughūl” described for Hindustānis Bābur’s invading and conquering armies does not obliterate distinctions in its chiefs. Mughūls of the horde followed Tīmūrids when to do so suited them; there were also in Bābur’s armies several chiefs of the ruling Chaghatāī family, brothers of The Khān, Sa‘īd (see Chīn-tīmūr, Aīsan-tīmūr, Tūkhta-būghā). With these must have been their following of “Mughūls of the horde”.
P. 34 l. 12.—“With the goshawks” translates qīrchīgha bīla of the Elph. MS. (f. 12b) where it is explained marginally by ba bāzī, with the falcon or goshawk. The Ḥai. MS. however has, in its text, pīāzī bīla which may mean with arrows having points (Sanglākh f. 144b quoting this passage). Ilminski has no answering word (Méms. i, 19). Muḥ. Shirāzī [p. 13 l. 11 fr. ft.] writes ba bāzī mīandākhtan.
P. 39.—The Ḥabību’s-siyar (lith. ed. iii, 217 l. 16) writes of Sayyid Murād Āūghlāqchī (the father or g.f. of Yūsuf) that he (who had, Bābur says, come from the Mughūl horde) held high rank under Abū-sa‘īd Mīrzā, joined Ḥusian Bāī-qarā after the Mīrzā’s defeat and death (873 A.H.), and (p. 218) was killed in defeat by Amīr ‘Alī Jalāīr who was commanding for Yādgār-i-muḥammad Shāh-rukhī.
P. 49.—An Aīmāq is a division of persons and not of territory. In Mongolia under the Chinese Government it answers to khanate. A Khān is at the head of an aīmāq. Aīmāqs are divided into koshung, i.e. banners (Mongolia, N. Prejevalsky trs. E. Delmar Morgan, ii, 53).
P. 75 and n. 1.—For an explanation, provided in 94 AH., of why Samarkand was called Baldat-i-maḥfūẓa, the Guarded-city, see Daulat-shāh, Browne’s ed. s.n. Qulaiba p. 443.
P. 85 n. 2.—The reference to the Ḥabību’s-siyar confuses two cases of parricide:—‘Abdu’l-lat̤īf’s of Aulugh Beg (853-1447) to which Ḥ.S. refers [Vol. III, Part 2, p. 163, l. 13 fr. ft.] with (one of 7-628) Shīrūya’s of Khusrau Parvīz (Ḥ.S. Vol. I, Part 2, p. 44, l. 11 fr. ft.) where the parricide’s sister tells him that the murderer of his father (and 15 brothers) would eventually be punished by God, and (a little lower) the couplet Bābur quotes (p. 85) is entered (H.B.).
P. 154 n. 3.—The Persian phrase in the Siyāsat-nāma which describes the numbering of the army (T. dīm kūrmāk) is ba sar-i-tāzīāna shumurdan. Schafer translates tāzīāna by cravache. I have nowhere found how the whip was used; (cf. S.N. Pers. text p. 15 l. 5).
P. 171 n. 1.—Closer acquaintance with Bābur’s use of daryā, rūd, sū, the first of which he reserves for a great river, casts doubt on my suggestion that daryā may stand for the Kāsān-water. But the narrative supports what I have noted. The “upper villages” of Akhsī might be, however, those higher up on the Saiḥūn-daryā (Sīr-daryā).
P. 189 and n. 1.—A third and perhaps here better rendering of bī bāqī is that of p. 662 (s.d. April 10th), “leaving none behind.”
P. 196.—The Habību’s-siyar (lith. ed. iii, 250 l. 11 fr. ft.) writes of barādarān of Khusrau Shāh, Amīr Walī and Pīr Walī. As it is improbable that two brothers (Anglicé) would be called Walī, it may be right to translate barādarān by brethren, and to understand a brother and a cousin. Bābur mentions only the brother Walī.
P. 223 ll. 1-3 fr. ft.—The French translation, differing from ‘Abdu’r-rahim’s and Erskine’s, reads Bābur as saying of the ranges separating the cultivated lands of Kabul, that they are comme des ponts de trèfle, but this does not suit the height and sometimes permanent snows of some of the separating ranges.—My bald “(great) dams” should have been expanded to suit the meaning (as I take it to be) of the words Yūr-ūnchaqā pul-dik, like embankments (pul) against going (yūr) further; (so far, ūncha). Cf. Griffiths’ Journal, p. 431.
P. 251.—Niz̤āmī expresses the opinion that “Fate is an avenging servitor” but not in the words used by Bābur (p. 251). He does this when moralizing on Farhad’s death, brought about by Khusrau’s trick and casting the doer into dread of vengeance (H. B.).
P. 266 n. 7.—On p. 266 Bābur allots three daughters to Pāpā Aghācha and on p. 269 four. Various details make for four. But, if four, the total of eleven (p. 261) is exceeded.
P. 276 para. 3.—Attention is attracted on this page to the unusual circumstance that a parent and child are both called by the same name, Junaid. One other instance is found in the Bābur-nāma, that of Bābur’s wife Ma‘ṣuma and her daughter. Perhaps “Junaid” like “Ma‘ṣūma” was the name given to the child because birth closely followed the death of the parent (see s.n. Ma‘ṣūma).
P. 277.—Concerning Bih-būd Beg the Shaībānī-nāma gives the following information:—he was in command in Khwārizm and Khīva when Shaibānī moved against Chīn Ṣūfī (910 AH.), and spite of his name, was unpopular (Vambéry’s ed. 184, 186). Vambéry’s note 88 says he is mentioned in the (anonymous) prose Shaibānī-nāma, Russian trs. p. lxi.
P. 372 l. 2 fr. ft.—Where the Ḥai. MS. and Kāsān Imp. have mu‘āraẓ, rival, E. and de C. translate by representative, but the following circumstances favour “rival”:—Wais was with Bābur (pp. 374-6) and would need no representative. His arrival is not recorded; no introductory particulars are given of him where his name is first found (p. 372); therefore he is likely to have joined Bābur in the time of the gap of 924 AH. (p. 366), before the siege of Bajaur-fort and before ‘Alā’u’d-dīn did so. The two Sawādī chiefs received gifts and left together (p. 376).
P. 393 l. 4.—In this couplet the point lies in the double-meaning of ra‘iyat, subject and peasant.
P. 401.—Under date Thursday 25th Bābur mentions an appointment to read fiqah sabaqī to him. Erskine translated this by “Sacred extracts from the Qorān” (I followed this). But “lessons in theology” may be a better rendering—as more literal and as allowing for the use of other writings than the Qorān. A correspondent Mr. G. Yazdānī (Gov. Epigraphist for Muslim Inscriptions, Haidarabad) tells us that it is customary amongst Muslims to recite religious books on Thursdays.
P. 404 l. 7 fr. ft.—Bābā Qashqa (or Qāshqā)’s family-group is somewhat interesting as that of loyal and capable men of Mughūl birth who served Bābur and Humāyūn. It must have joined Bābur in what is now the gap between 914 and 925 AH. because not mentioned earlier and because he is first mentioned in 925 AH. without introductory particulars. The following details supplement Bābur-nāma information about the group:—(1) Of Bāba Qashqa’s murder by Muḥammad-i-zamān Bāī-qarā Gul-hadan (f. 23) makes record, and Badāyūnī (Bib. Ind. ed. i, 450) says that (cir. 952 AH.) when Bābā’s son Ḥājī Muḥ. Khān Kūkī had pursued and overtaken the rebel Kāmrān, the Mīrzā asked, as though questioning the Khān’s ground of hostility to himself, “But did I kill thy father Bābā Qashqa?” (Pidrat Bābā Qashqa magar man kushta am?).—(2) Of the death of Bābā Qashqa’s brother “Kūkī”, Abū’l-faẓl records that he was killed in Hindūstān by Muḥammad Sl. M. Bāī-qarā (952 AH.), and that Kūkī’s nephew Shāh Muḥ. (see p. 668) retaliated (955 AH.) by arrow-shooting one of Muḥ. Sl. Mīrzā’s sons. This was done when Shāh Muḥ. was crossing Mīnār-pass on his return journey from sharing Humāyūn’s exile in Persia (see Jauhar).—(3) Hājī Muḥ. Khān Kūkī and Shāh Muḥammad Khān appear to have been sons of Bābā Qashqa and nephews of “KŪKĪ” (supra). They were devoted servants of Humāyūn but were put to death by him in 958 AH.-1551 AD. (cf. Erskine’s H. of I. Humāyūn).—(4) About the word Kūkī dictionaries afford no warrant for taking it to mean foster-brother (kokah). Chīngīz Khān had a beg known as Kūk or Kouk (or Gūk) and one of his own grandsons used the same style. It may link the Bābā Qashqā group with the Chīngīz Khānid Kūkī, either as descendants or as hereditary adherents, or as both. (See Abū’l-ghāzī’s Shajarat-i-Turk, trs. Désmaisons, Index s.n. Kouk and also its accounts of the origin of several tribal groups.)
P. 416.—The line quoted by ‘Abdu’l-lāh is from the Anwār-i-suhailī, Book II, Story i. Eastwick translates it and its immediate context thus:—
“People follow the faith of their kings.
My heart is like a tulip scorched and by sighings flame;
In all thou seest, their hearts are scorched and stained the same.” (H.B.)
The offence of the quotation appears to have been against Khalīfa, and might be a suggestion that he followed Bābur in breach of Law by using wine.
P. 487 n. 2.—The following passages complete the note on wulsa quoted by Erskine from Col. Mark Wilks’ Historical Sketches and show how the word is used:—“During the absence of Major Lawrence from Trichinopoly, the town had been completely depopulated by the removal of the whole Wulsa to seek for food elsewhere, and the enemy had been earnestly occupied in endeavouring to surprise the garrison.” (Here follows Erskine’s quotation see in loco p. 487). “The people of a district thus deserting their homes are called the Wulsa of that district, a state of utmost misery, involving precaution against incessant war and unpitying depredation—so peculiar a description as to require in any of the languages of Europe a long circumlocution, is expressed in all the languages of Deckan and the south of India by a single word. No proofs can be accumulated from the most profound research which shall describe the immemorial condition of the people of India with more precision than this single word. It is a bright distinction that the Wulsa never departs on the approach of a British army when this is unaccompanied by Indian allies.”—By clerical error in the final para. of my note ūlvash is entered for ūlvan [Molesworth, any desolating calamity].
P. 540 n. 4.—An explanation of Bābur’s use of Shāh-zāda as T̤ahmāsp’s title may well be that this title answers to the Tīmūrid one Mīr-zāda, Mīrzā. If so, Bābur’s change to “SHĀH” (p. 635) may recognize supremacy by victory, such as he had claimed for himself in 913 AH. when he changed his Tīmūrid “MĪRZĀ” for “Pādshāh”.
P. 557.—Ḥusain Kashīfī, also, quotes Firdausī’s couplet in the Anwār-i-suhaili (Cap. I, Story XXI), a book dedicated to Shaikh Aḥmad Suhaīlī (p. 277) and of earlier date than the Bābur-nāma. Its author died in 910 AH.-1505 AD.
P. 576 n. 1.—Tod’s statement (quoted in my n. 1) that “the year of Rānā Sangā’s defeat (933 AH.) was the last of his existence” cannot be strictly correct because Bābur’s statement (p. 598) of intending attack on him in Chitor allows him to have been alive in 934 AH. (1528 AD.). The death occurred, “not without suspicion of poison,” says Tod, when the Rānā had moved against Irij then held for Bābur; it will have been long enough before the end of 934 AH. to allow an envoy from his son Bikramājīt to wait on Bābur in that year (pp. [603], 612). Bābur’s record of it may safely be inferred lost with the once-existent matter of 934 AH.
P. 631.—My husband has ascertained that the “Sayyid Daknī” of p. 631 is Sayyid Shāh T̤āhir Daknī (Deccani) the Shiite apostle of Southern India, who in 935 AH. was sent to Bābur with a letter from Burhān Niz̤ām Shāh of Ahṃadnagar, in which (if there were not two embassies) congratulation was made on the conquest of Dihlī and help asked against Bahādur Shāh Gujrātī. A second but earlier mention of “Sayyid Daknī” (Zaknī, Ruknī?) Shīrāzī is on p. 619. Whether the two entries refer to Shāh T̤āhir nothing makes clear. The cognomen Shīrāzī disassociates them. It is always to be kept in mind that preliminary events are frequently lost in gaps; one such will be the arrivals of the various envoys, mentioned on p. 630, whose places of honour are specified on p. 631. Much is on record about Sayyid Shāh T̤āhir Daknī and particulars of his life are available in the histories by Badāyūnī (Ranking trs.) and (Firishta Nawal Kishor ed. p. 105); B.M. Harleyan MS. No. 199 contains his letters (see Rieu’s Pers. Cat. p. 395).
P. 699 and n. 3.—The particulars given by the T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī about Mult̤ān at this date (932-4 AH.) are as follows:—After Bābur took the Panj-āb, he ordered Shāh Ḥasan Arghūn to attempt Mult̤ān, then held by one Sl. Maḥmūd who, dying, was succeeded by an infant son Ḥusain. Shāh Ḥāsan took Mult̤ān after a 16 (lunar) months’ siege, at the end of 934 AH. (in a B.N. lacuna therefore), looted and slaughtered in it, and then returned to Tatta. On this Langar Khān took possession of it (H.B.). What part ‘Askarī (æt. 12) had in the matter is yet to learn; possibly he was nominated to its command and then recalled as Bābur mentions (935 AH.).
Stephen Austin and Sons, Ltd., Printers, Hertford.
THE HISTORY OF BABUR
OR BABUR-NAMA