[565] Five-villages, on the main Khujand-Tāshkīnt road.
[566] turk, as on f. 28 of Khusrau Shāh.
[567] Elph. MS. f. 68b; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 78 and 217 f. 61b; Mems. p. 97.
The Kehr-Ilminsky text shews, in this year, a good example of its Persification and of Dr. Ilminsky’s dealings with his difficult archetype by the help of the Memoirs.
[568] tāshlāb. The Sh. N. places these desertions as after four months of siege.
[569] It strikes one as strange to find Long Ḥasan described, as here, in terms of his younger brother. The singularity may be due to the fact that Ḥusain was with Bābur and may have invited Ḥasan. It may be noted here that Ḥusain seems likely to be that father-in-law of ‘Umar Shaikh mentioned on f. 12b and 13b.
[570] This laudatory comment I find nowhere but in the Ḥai. Codex.
[571] There is some uncertainty about the names of those who left.
[572] The Sh. N. is interesting here as giving an eye-witness’ account of the surrender of the town and of the part played in the surrender by Khān-zāda’s marriage (cap. xxxix).
[573] The first seems likely to be a relation of Niz̤āmu’d-dīn ‘Alī Khalīfa; the second was Mole-marked, a foster-sister. The party numbered some 100 persons of whom Abū’l-makāram was one (Ḥ.S. ii, 310).