[297] The first was circa 895 AH.-1490 AD. Cf. f. 27b.
[298] Bābur’s wording suggests that their common homage was the cause of Badī‘u’z-zamān’s displeasure but see f. 41.
[299] The Mīrzā had grown up with Ḥiṣārīs. Cf. Ḥ.S. ii, 270.
[300] As the husband of one of the six Badakhshī Begīms, he was closely connected with local ruling houses. See T.R. p. 107.
[301] i.e. Muḥammad ‘Ubaidu’l-lāh the elder of Aḥrārī’s two sons. d. 911 AH. See Rashaḥāt-i-‘ain-alḥayāt (I.O. 633) f. 269-75; and Khizīnatu’l-aṣfīya lith. ed. i, 597.
[302] Bū yūq tūr, i.e. This is not to be.
[303] d. 908 AH. He was not, it would seem, of the Aḥrārī family. His own had provided Pontiffs (Shaikhu’l-islām) for Samarkand through 400 years. Cf. Shaibānī-nāma, Vambéry, p. 106; also, for his character, p. 96.
[304] i.e. he claimed sanctuary.
[305] Cf. f. 45b and Pétis de la Croix’s Histoire de Chīngīz Khān pp. 171 and 227. What Tīmūr’s work on the Gūk Sarāī was is a question for archæologists.
[306] i.e. over the Aītmak Pass. Cf. f. 49.