[42] Sic in text, but should be Jaunpūr as in the MSS. [↑]
[43] There was also a S͟hahr-bānū who was Bābar’s sister. Bīka Begam was Bābar’s widow and the lady who carried his bones to Kabul. [↑]
[44] Bakafs͟h-pāy, which Erskine renders ‘with slippers on’ and Elliot ‘with his shoes on.’ [↑]
[45] Bāyazīd Biyāt describes Humāyūn as holding a cooking festival in Badak͟hs͟hān. See A.N., i, translation, p. 496, n. 2. They cooked bug͟hra, which appears to be macaroni. The text wrongly has raqẓ az ʿis͟hq (love-dances). The real word, as the MSS. show, is arg͟hus͟htaq, which is a kind of dance (not a child’s game as in Johnson). It is described in Vullers, s.v., in accordance with the account in the Burhān-i-qāt̤iʿ. It is a dance by girls or young men, and is accompanied with singing and with clapping of hands, etc. Probably it is the dance described by Elphinstone in his account of Kabul, i, 311, where he says: “The great delight of all the western Afghans is to dance the Attun or Ghoomboor. From ten to twenty men or women stand up in a circle (in summer before their houses and tents, and in winter round a fire); a person stands within the circle to sing and play on some instrument. The dancers go through a number of attitudes and figures; shouting, clapping their hands, and snapping their fingers. Every now and then they join hands, and move slow or fast according to the music, all joining in chorus. When I was showed this, a love-song was sung to an extremely pretty tune, very simple, and not unlike a Scottish air.” Erskine’s translation is: “Custards and confections were presented, and the amusements of dancing girls and arghustak were introduced.” [↑]
[46] The words seem to me to yield 1066, but if we read pajs͟hanba instead of panjs͟hanba we get 1016, which is the Hijra date of Jahāngīr’s entry into Kabul and corresponds to 4th June, 1607. A marginal note on I.O.M. 305 makes the chronogram clear by writing rūz-i-panchanba hiz͟hdah-i-Ṣafar, thereby getting rid of the mīm and the yā of hīz͟hdaham and bringing out the figures 1016. [↑]
[47] Evidently a kind of sheep. [↑]
[48] This is a reference to Bābar’s Memoirs. [↑]
[49] A juzʾ is said to consist of eight leaves or sixteen pages. Does Jahāngīr mean that he wrote sixty-four pages? [↑]
[50] Probably the sections which Jahāngīr wrote were those printed in the Ilminsky edition and which bring the narrative down to Bābar’s death. They seem to have been in great measure copied from the Akbar-nāma. Jahāngīr does not say if he wrote them when he was in Kabul or previously. According to Blochmann, J.A.S.B. for 1869, p. 134, one juzʾ = two sheets of paper. The passage is translated in Elliot, vi, 315. Though Jahāngīr does not say when he wrote the four sections, I think that his language implies that these additions were in the manuscript when he was looking at it in Kabul. Perhaps he made them when he was a student in India, and for the sake of practice in Turkī. He may have translated the sections from the Akbar-nāma. All, I think, he did in Kabul was to put the Turkī note, stating that the sections were his. But possibly even this was done before. Elliot, vi, 315, has the words “to complete the work,” but these words do not occur in the MSS. that I have seen. The translation in Elliot, seems to represent Jahāngīr’s words as meaning that the work was complete, but that the four sections were not, like the rest, in Bābar’s handwriting, and so Jahāngīr re-copied them. But it does not appear that there could be any object in his doing this. There is a valuable article in the Zeitschrift d. Deutschen Morgenl. Gesellsch. for 1883, p. 141, by Dr. Teufel, entitled “Bâbur und Abû’l-faẓl,” in which the fragments in Ilminsky are discussed. But the passage in the Tūzuk-i-Jahāngīrī is not referred to. [↑]
[51] The text mentions a horse, but the MSS. have not this, and it seems to be a mistake. [↑]