[2104] Qorān, cap. 48, v. 3.
[2105] [see p. 572] farāsh. De Courteille, reading firāsh, translates this metaphor by comme un lit lorsqu’il est défait. He refers to Qorān, cap. 101, v. 3. A better metaphor for the breaking up of an army than that of moths scattering, one allowed by the word farāsh, but possibly not by Muḥammad, is vanished like bubbles on wine.
[2106] Bāgar is an old name for Dungarpūr and Bānswāra [G. of I. vi, 408 s.n. Bānṣwāra].
[2107] sic, Ḥai. MS. and may be so read in I.O. 217 f. 220b; Erskine writes Bikersi (p. 367) and notes the variant Nagersi; Ilminsky (p. 421) N:krsī; de Courteille (ii. 307) Niguersi.
[2108] Cf. f. 318b, and note, where it is seen that the stones which killed the lords of the Elephants were so small as to be carried in the bill of a bird like a swallow. Were such stones used in matchlocks in Bābur’s day?
[2109] guzāran, var. gurazān, caused to flee and hogs (Erskine notes the double-meaning).
[2110] This passage, entered in some MSS. as if verse, is made up of Qorān, cap. 17, v. 49, cap. 33, v. 38, and cap. 3, v. 122.
[2111] As the day of battle was Jumāda II. 13th (March 16th), the Fatḥ-nāma was ready and dated twelve days after that battle. It was started for Kābul on Rajab 9th (April 11th). Something may be said here appropriately about the surmise contained in Dr. Ilminsky’s Preface and M. de Courteille’s note to Mémoires ii, 443 and 450, to the effect that Bābur wrote a plain account of the battle of Kanwā and for this in his narrative substituted Shaikh Zain’s Fatḥ-nāma, and that the plain account has been preserved in Kehr’s Bābur-nāma volume [whence Ilminsky reproduced it, it was translated by M. de Courteille and became known as a “Fragment” of Bāburiana]. Almost certainly both scholars would have judged adversely of their suggestion by the light of to-day’s easier research. The following considerations making against its value, may be set down:—
(1) There is no sign that Bābur ever wrote a plain account of the battle or any account of it. There is against his doing so his statement that he inserts Shaikh Zain’s Fatḥ-nāma because it gives particulars. If he had written any account, it would be found preceding the Fatḥ-nāma, as his account of his renunciation of wine precedes Shaikh Zain’s Farmān announcing the act.
(2) Moreover, the “Fragment” cannot be described as a plain account such as would harmonize with Bābur’s style; it is in truth highly rhetorical, though less so as Shaikh Zain’s.