[2510] bīr pāra āsh u ta‘ām, words which suggest one of those complete meals served, each item on its separate small dish, and all dishes fitting like mosaic into one tray. T. āsh is cooked meat (f. 2 n. 1 and f. 343b); Ar. ta‘ām will be sweets, fruit, bread, perhaps rice also.
[2511] The yaktāī, one-fold coat, contrasts with the dū-tāhī, two-fold (A.-i-A. Bib. Ind. ed., p. 101, and Blochmann’s trs. p. 88).
[2512] This acknowledgement of right to the style Sult̤ān recognized also supremacy of the Sharqī claim to rule over that of the Nūḥānī and Lūdī competitors.
[2513] mīndīn bītī tūrgān waqāī'. This passage Teufel used to support his view that Bābur’s title for his book was Waqāī‘, and not Bābur-nāma which, indeed, Teufel describes as the Kazaner Ausgabe adoptirte Titel. Bābur-nāma, however, is the title [or perhaps, merely scribe’s name] associated both with Kehr’s text and with the Ḥaidarābād Codex.—I have found no indication of the selection by Bābur of any title; he makes no mention of the matter and where he uses the word waqāī‘ or its congeners, it can be read as a common noun. In his colophon to the Rāmpūr Dīwān, it is a parallel of ash‘ār, poems. Judging from what is found in the Mubīn, it may be right to infer that, if he had lived to complete his book—now broken off s.a. 914 AH. (f. 216b)—he would have been explicit as to its title, perhaps also as to his grounds for choosing it. Such grounds would have found fitting mention in a preface to the now abrupt opening of the Bābur-nāma (f. 1b), and if the Malfūzāt-i-tīmūrī be Tīmūr’s authentic autobiography, this book might have been named as an ancestral example influencing Bābur to write his own. Nothing against the authenticity of the Malfūzāt can be inferred from the circumstance that Bābur does not name it, because the preface in which such mention would be in harmony with e.g. his Walidiyyah preface, was never written. It might accredit the Malfūzāt to collate passages having common topics, as they appear in the Bābur-nāma, Malfūzāt-i-tīmūrī and Z̤afar-nāma (cf. E. & D.’s H. of I. iv, 559 for a discussion by Dr. Sachau and Prof. Dowson on the Malfūzāt). (Cf. Z.D.M. xxxvii, p. 184, Teufel’s art. Bābur und Abū’l-faẓl; Smirnow’s Cat. of Manuscrits Turcs, p. 142; Index in loco s.nn. Mubīn and Title.)
[2514] Koh-khirāj, Revenue-paying Koh (H. G. Nevill’s D. G. of Allāhābād, p. 261).
[2515] kīma aīchīdā, which suggests a boat with a cabin, a bajrā (Hobson-Jobson s.n. budgerow).
[2516] He had stayed behind his kinsman Khwāja Kalān. Both, as Bābur has said, were descendants of Khwāja ‘Ubaidu’l-lāh Aḥrārī. Khwāja Kalān was a grandson of Aḥrārī’s second son Yahyā; Khwāja ‘Abdu’sh-shahīd was the son of his fifth, Khwāja ‘Abdu’l-lāh (Khwājagān-khwāja). ‘Abdu’sh-shahīd returned to India under Akbar, received a fief, maintained 2,000 poor persons, left after 20 years, and died in Samarkand in 982 AH.-1574-5 AD. (A.-i-A., Blochmann’s trs. and notes, pp. 423, 539).
[2517] f. 363, f. 363b.
[2518] Not found on maps; OOjani or Ujahni about suits the measured distance.
[2519] Prayāg, Ilāhābād, Allāhābād. Between the asterisk in my text (supra) and the one following “ford” before the foliation mark f. 364, the Ḥai. MS. has a lacuna which, as being preceded and followed by broken sentences, can hardly be due to a scribe’s skip, but may result from the loss of a folio. What I have entered above between the asterisks is translated from the Kehr-Ilminsky text; it is in the two Persian translations also. Close scrutiny of it suggests that down to the end of the swimming episode it is not in order and that the account of the swim across the Ganges may be a survival of the now missing record of 934 AH. (f. 339). It is singular that the Pers. trss. make no mention of Pīāg or of Sīr-auliya; their omission arouses speculation, as to in which text, the Turkī or Persian, it was first tried to fill what remains a gap in the Ḥai. Codex. A second seeming sign of disorder is the incomplete sentence yūrtgha kīlīb, which is noted below. A third is the crowd of incidents now standing under “Tuesday”. A fourth, and an important matter, is that on grounds noted at the end of the swimming passage (p. 655 n. 3) it is doubtful whether that passage is in its right place.—It may be that some-one, at an early date after Bābur’s death, tried to fill the lacuna discovered in his manuscript, with help from loose folios or parts of them. Cf. Index s.n. swimming, and f. 377b, p. 680 n. 2.