[1022] Qalāt-i-nādirī, in Khurāsān, the birth-place of Nādir Shāh (T.R. p. 209).
[1023] bīr gīna qīz, which on f. 86b can fitly be read to mean daughterling, Töchterchen, fillette, but here and i.a. f. 168, must have another meaning than diminutive and may be an equivalent of German Stück and mean one only. Gul-badan gives an account of Shād’s manly pursuits (H.N. f. 25b).
[1024] He was the son of Mahdī Sl. (f. 320b) and the father of ‘Āqil Sl. Aūzbeg (A.N. index s.n.). Several matters suggest that these men were of the Shabān Aūzbegs who intermarried with Ḥusain Bāī-qarā’s family and some of whom went to Bābur in Hindūstān. One such matter is that Kābul was the refuge of dispossessed Harātīs, after the Aūzbeg conquest; that there ‘Āqil married Shād Bāī-qarā and that ‘Ādil went on to Bābur. Moreover Khāfī Khān makes a statement which (if correct) would allow ‘Ādil’s father Mahdī to be a grandson of Ḥusain Bāī-qarā; this statement is that when Bābur defeated the Aūzbegs in 916 AH. (1510 AD.), he freed from their captivity two sons (descendants) of his paternal uncle, named Mahdī Sl. and Sult̤ān Mīrzā. [Leaving the authenticity of the statement aside for a moment, it will be observed that this incident is of the same date and place as another well-vouched for, namely that Bābur then and there killed Mahdī Sl. Aūzbeg and Ḥamza Sl. Aūzbeg after defeating them.] What makes in favour of Khāfī Khān’s correctness is, not only that Bābur’s foe Mahdī is not known to have had a son ‘Ādil, but also that his “Sulṯān Mīrzā” is not a style so certainly suiting Ḥamza as it does a Shabān sult̤ān, one whose father was a Shabān sult̤ān, and whose mother was a Mīrzā’s daughter. Moreover this point of identification is pressed by the correctness, according to oriental statement of relationship, of Khāfī Khān’s “paternal uncle” (of Bābur), because this precisely suits Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā with whose family these Shabān sult̤āns allied themselves. On the other hand it must be said that Khāfī Khān’s statement is not in the English text of the Tārīkh-i-rashīdī, the book on which he mostly relies at this period, nor is it in my husband’s MS. crux presses home the need of much attention to the lacunæ in the Bābur-nāma, since in them are lost some exits and some entries of Bābur’s dramatis personæ, 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-t̤āq 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 Sult̤ān Mīrzā (A. A. Blochmann, p. 461). No mention is made here of Sult̤ānīm Begīm’s marriage with ‘Abdu’l-bāqī Mīrzā (f. 175).
[1031] Abū’l-qāsim Bābur Shāhrukhī presumably.