Section Iii. Hindūstān

932 AH.-OCT. 18TH 1525 TO OCT. 8TH 1526 AD.

(a. Fifth expedition into Hindūstān.)

(Nov. 17th) On Friday the 1st of the month of Ṣafar at the [Sidenote: Ḥaidarābād MS. Fol. 251b.] date 932, the Sun being in the Sign of the Archer, we set out for Hindūstān, crossed the small rise of Yak-langa, and dismounted in the meadow to the west of the water of Dih-i-ya`qūb. `Abdu'l-malūk the armourer came into this camp; he had gone seven or eight months earlier as my envoy to Sulṯān Sa`īd Khān (in Kāshghar), and now brought one of the Khān's men, styled Yāngī Beg (new beg) Kūkūldāsh who conveyed letters, and small presents, and verbal messages from the Khānīms and the Khān.

(Nov. 18th to 21st) After staying two days in that camp for the convenience of the army, we marched on, halted one night, and next dismounted at Bādām-chashma. There we ate a confection (ma`jūn).

(Nov. 22nd) On Wednesday (Ṣafar 6th), when we had dismounted at Bārīk-āb, the younger brethren of Nūr Beg—he himself remaining in Hindūstān—brought gold ashrafīs and tankas to the value of 20,000 shāhrukhīs, sent from the Lāhor revenues by Khwāja Ḥusain. The greater part of these moneys was despatched by Mullā Aḥmad, one of the chief men of Balkh, for the benefit of Balkh.

(Nov. 24th) On Friday the 8th of the month (Ṣafar), after [Sidenote: Fol. 252.] dismounting at Gandamak, I had a violent discharge; by God's mercy, it passed off easily.

(Nov. 25th) On Saturday we dismounted in the Bāgh-i-wafā. We delayed there a few days, waiting for Humāyūn and the army from that side. More than once in this history the bounds and extent, charm and delight of that garden have been described; it is most beautifully placed; who sees it with the buyer's eye will know the sort of place it is. During the short time we were there, most people drank on drinking-days and took their morning; on non-drinking days there were parties for ma`jūn.

I wrote harsh letters to Humāyūn, lecturing him severely because of his long delay beyond the time fixed for him to join me.

(Dec. 3rd) On Sunday the 17th of Ṣafar, after the morning had been taken, Humāyūn arrived. I spoke very severely to him at once. Khwāja Kalān also arrived to-day, coming up from Ghaznī. We marched in the evening of that same Sunday, and dismounted in a new garden between Sulṯānpur and Khwāja Rustam.

(Dec. 6th) Marching on Wednesday (Ṣafar 20th), we got on a raft, and, drinking as we went reached Qūsh-guṃbaz, there landed and joined the camp.

(Dec. 7th) Starting off the camp at dawn, we ourselves went on a raft, and there ate confection (ma`jūn). Our encamping-ground was always Qīrīq-ārīq, but not a sign or trace of the camp could [Sidenote: Fol. 252b.] be seen when we got opposite it, nor any appearance of our horses. Thought I, "Garm-chashma (Hot-spring) is close by; they may have dismounted there." So saying, we went on from Qīrīq-ārīq. By the time we reached Garm-chashma, the very day was late; we did not stop there, but going on in its lateness (kīchīsī), had the raft tied up somewhere, and slept awhile.

(Dec. 8th) At day-break we landed at Yada-bīr where, as the day wore on, the army-folks began to come in. The camp must have been at Qīrīq-ārīq, but out of our sight.

There were several verse-makers on the raft, such as Shaikh Abū'l-wajd, Shaikh Zain, Mullā `Alī-jān, Tardī Beg Khāksār and others. In this company was quoted the following couplet of Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ:—

(Persian) With thee, arch coquette, for a sweetheart, what can man do? With another than thou where thou art, what can man do?

Said I, "Compose on these lines"; whereupon those given to versifying, did so. As jokes were always being made at the expense of Mullā `Alī-jān, this couplet came off-hand into my head:—

(Persian) With one all bewildered as thou, what can man do? . . . . . . , what can man do?

(b. Mention of the Mubīn.)

From time to time before it, whatever came into my head, of good or bad, grave or jest, used to be strung into verse and written down, however empty and harsh the verse might be, but while I was composing the Mubīn, this thought pierced through my dull wits and made way into my troubled heart, "A pity it [Sidenote: Fol. 253.] will be if the tongue which has treasure of utterances so lofty as these are, waste itself again on low words; sad will it be if again vile imaginings find way into the mind that has made exposition of these sublime realities." Since that time I had refrained from satirical and jesting verse; I was repentant (ta'īb); but these matters were totally out of mind and remembrance when I made that couplet (on Mullā `Alī-jān). A few days later in Bīgrām when I had fever and discharge, followed by cough, and I began to spit blood each time I coughed, I knew whence my reproof came; I knew what act of mine had brought this affliction on me.

"Whoever shall violate his oath, will violate it to the hurt of his own soul; but whoever shall perform that which he hath covenanted with God, to that man surely will He give great reward" (Qorān cap. 48 v. 10).

(Turkī) What is it I do with thee, ah! my tongue? My entrails bleed as a reckoning for thee. Good once as thy words were, has followed this verse Jesting, empty, obscene, has followed a lie. If thou say, "Burn will I not!" by keeping this vow Thou turnest thy rein from this field of strife.

"O Lord! we have dealt unjustly with our own souls; if Thou forgive us not, and be not merciful unto us, we shall surely be of those that perish" (Qorān cap. 7 v. 22).

Taking anew the place of the penitent pleading for pardon, I gave my mind rest from such empty thinking and such unlawful occupation. I broke my pen. Made by that Court, such reproof of sinful slaves is for their felicity; happy are the highest and the slave when such reproof brings warning and its profitable fruit.

(c. Narrative resumed.)

(Dec. 8th continued) Marching on that evening, we dismounted at `Alī-masjid. The ground here being very confined, I always [Sidenote: Fol. 253b.] used to dismount on a rise overlooking the camp in the valley-bottom. The camp-fires made a wonderful illumination there at night; assuredly it was because of this that there had always been drinking there, and was so now.

(Dec. 9th and 10th) To-day I rode out before dawn; I preferred a confection (ma`jūn) and also kept this day a fast. We dismounted near Bīgrām (Peshāwar); and next morning, the camp remaining on that same ground, rode to Karg-awī. We crossed the Siyāh-āb in front of Bīgrām, and formed our hunting-circle looking down-stream. After a little, a person brought word that there was a rhino in a bit of jungle near Bīgrām, and that people had been stationed near-about it. We betook ourselves, loose rein, to the place, formed a ring round the jungle, made a noise, and brought the rhino out, when it took its way across the plain. Humāyūn and those come with him from that side (Tramontana), who had never seen one before, were much entertained. It was pursued for two miles; many arrows were shot at it; it was brought down without having made a good set at man or horse. Two others were killed. I had often wondered how a rhino and an elephant would behave if brought face to face; this time one came out right in front of some elephants the mahauts were bringing along; it did not face them [Sidenote: Fol. 254.] when the mahauts drove them towards it, but got off in another direction.

(d. Preparations for ferrying the Indus.)

On the day we were in Bīgrām, several of the begs and household were appointed, with pay-masters and dīwāns, six or seven being put in command, to take charge of the boats at the Nīl-āb crossing, to make a list of all who were with the army, name by name, and to count them up.

That evening I had fever and discharge which led on to cough and every time I coughed, I spat blood. Anxiety was great but, by God's mercy, it passed off in two or three days.

(Dec. 11th) It rained when we left Bīgrām; we dismounted on the Kābul-water.

(e. News from Lāhor.)

News came that Daulat Khān and (Apāq) Ghāzī Khān, having collected an army of from 20 to 30,000, had taken Kilānūr, and intended to move on Lāhor. At once Mumin-i-`alī the commissary was sent galloping off to say, "We are advancing march by march; do not fight till we arrive."

(Dec. 14th) With two night-halts on the way, we reached the water of Sind (Indus), and there dismounted on Thursday the 28th (of Ṣafar).

(f. Ferrying the Indus.)

(Dec. 16th) On Saturday the 1st of the first Rabī`, we crossed the Sind-water, crossed the water of Kacha-kot (Hārū), and dismounted on the bank of the river. The begs, pay-masters and dīwāns who had been put in charge of the boats, reported that the number of those come with the army, great and small, good and bad, retainer and non-retainer, was written down as 12,000.

(g. The eastward march.)

The rainfall had been somewhat scant in the plains, but [Sidenote: Fol. 254b.] seemed to have been good in the cultivated lands along the hill-skirts; for these reasons we took the road for Sīālkot along the skirt-hills. Opposite Hātī Kakar's country we came upon a torrent the waters of which were standing in pools. Those pools were all frozen over. The ice was not very thick, as thick as the hand may-be. Such ice is unusual in Hindūstān; not a sign or trace of any was seen in the years we were (aīdūk) in the country.

We had made five marches from the Sind-water; after the sixth (Dec. 22nd—Rabī` I. 7th) we dismounted on a torrent in the camping-ground (yūrt) of the Bugīāls below Balnāth Jogī's hill which connects with the Hill of Jūd.

(Dec. 23rd) In order to let people get provisions, we stayed the next day in that camp. `Araq was drunk on that day. Mullā Muḥ. Pargharī told many stories; never had he been so talkative. Mullā Shams himself was very riotous; once he began, he did not finish till night.

The slaves and servants, good and bad, who had gone out after provisions, went further than this and heedlessly scattered over jungle and plain, hill and broken ground. Owing to this, a few were overcome; Kīchkīna tūnqiṯār died there.

(Dec. 24th) Marching on, we crossed the Bihat-water at a ford below Jīlam (Jīhlam) and there dismounted. Walī Qīzīl (Rufus) came there to see me. He was the Sīālkot reserve, and held the parganas of Bīmrūkī and Akrīāda. Thinking about Sīālkot, [Sidenote: Fol. 255.] I took towards him the position of censure and reproach. He excused himself, saying "I had come to my pargana before Khusrau Kūkūldāsh left Sīālkot; he did not even send me word." After listening to his excuse, I said, "Since thou hast paid no attention to Sīālkot, why didst thou not join the begs in Lāhor?" He was convicted, but as work was at hand, I did not trouble about his fault.

(h. Scouts sent with orders to Lāhor.)

(Dec. 25th) Sayyid T̤ūfān and Sayyid Lāchīn were sent galloping off, each with a pair-horse, to say in Lāhor, "Do not join battle; meet us at Sīālkot or Parsrūr" (mod. Pasrūr). It was in everyone's mouth that Ghāzī Khān had collected 30 to 40,000 men, that Daulat Khān, old as he was, had girt two swords to his waist, and that they were resolved to fight. Thought I, "The proverb says that ten friends are better than nine; do you not make a mistake: when the Lāhor begs have joined you, fight there and then!"

(Dec. 26th and 27th) After starting off the two men to the begs, we moved forward, halted one night, and next dismounted on the bank of the Chīn-āb (Chan-āb).

As Buhlūlpūr was khalṣa, we left the road to visit it. Its fort is situated above a deep ravine, on the bank of the Chīn-āb. It pleased us much. We thought of bringing Sīālkot to it. Please God! the chance coming, it shall be done straightway! [Sidenote: Fol. 255b.] From Buhlūlpūr we went to camp by boat.

(i. Jats and Gujūrs.)

(Dec. 29th) On Friday the 14th of the first Rabī` we dismounted at Sīālkot. If one go into Hindūstān the Jats and Gujūrs always pour down in countless hordes from hill and plain for loot in bullock and buffalo. These ill-omened peoples are just senseless oppressors! Formerly their doings did not concern us much because the country was an enemy's, but they began the same senseless work after we had taken it. When we reached Sīālkot, they fell in tumult on poor and needy folks who were coming out of the town to our camp, and stripped them bare. I had the silly thieves sought for, and ordered two or three of them cut to pieces.

From Sīālkot Nūr Beg's brother Shāham also was made to gallop off to the begs in Lāhor to say, "Make sure where the enemy is; find out from some well-informed person where he may be met, and send us word."

A trader, coming into this camp, represented that `Ālam Khān had let Sl. Ibrāhīm defeat him.

(j. `Ālam Khān's action and failure.)

Here are the particulars:—`Ālam Khān, after taking leave of me (in Kābul, 931 AH.), went off in that heat by double marches, regardless of those with him. As at the time I gave him leave to go, all the Aūzbeg khāns and sulṯāns had laid siege to Balkh, [Sidenote: Fol. 256.] I rode for Balkh as soon as I had given him his leave. On his reaching Lāhor, he insisted to the begs, "You reinforce me; the Pādshāh said so; march along with me; let us get (Apāq) Ghāzī Khān to join us; let us move on Dihlī and Āgra." Said they, "Trusting to what, will you join Ghāzī Khān? Moreover the royal orders to us were, 'If at any time Ghāzī Khān has sent his younger brother Ḥājī Khān with his son to Court, join him; or do so, if he has sent them, by way of pledge, to Lāhor; if he has done neither, do not join him.' You yourself only yesterday fought him and let him beat you! Trusting to what, will you join him now? Besides all this, it is not for your advantage to join him!" Having said what-not of this sort, they refused `Ālam Khān. He did not fall in with their views, but sent his son Sher Khān to speak with Daulat Khān and with Ghāzī Khān, and afterwards all saw one another.

`Ālam Khān took with him Dilāwar Khān, who had come into Lāhor two or three months earlier after his escape from prison; he took also Maḥmūd Khān (son of) Khān-i-jahān, to whom a pargana in the Lāhor district had been given. They seem to have left matters at this:—Daulat Khān with Ghāzī Khān was to take all the begs posted in Hindūstān to himself, indeed he was to take everything on that side; while `Ālam [Sidenote: Fol. 256b.] Khān was to take Dilāwar Khān and Ḥājī Khān and, reinforced by them, was to capture Dihlī and Āgra. Ismā`īl Jilwānī and other amīrs came and saw `Ālam Khān; all then betook themselves, march by march, straight for Dihlī. Near Indrī came also Sulaimān Shaikh-zāda. Their total touched 30 to 40,000 men.

They laid siege to Dihlī but could neither take it by assault nor do hurt to the garrison. When Sl. Ibrāhīm heard of their assembly, he got an army to horse against them; when they heard of his approach, they rose from before the place and moved to meet him. They had left matters at this:—"If we attack by day-light, the Afghāns will not desert (to us), for the sake of their reputations with one another; but if we attack at night when one man cannot see another, each man will obey his own orders." Twice over they started at fall of day from a distance of 12 miles (6 kurohs), and, unable to bring matters to a point, neither advanced nor retired; but just sat on horseback for two or three watches. On a third occasion they delivered an attack when one watch of night remained—their purpose seeming to be the burning of tents and huts! They went; they set fire from every end; they made a disturbance. Jalāl Khān Jig-hat came with other amīrs and saw `Ālam Khān.

Sl. Ibrāhīm did not bestir himself till shoot of dawn from where he was with a few of his own family within his own enclosure (sarācha). Meantime `Ālam Khān's people were busy [Sidenote: Fol. 257.] with plunder and booty. Seeing the smallness of their number, Sl. Ibrāhīm's people moved out against them in rather small force with one elephant. `Ālam Khān's party, not able to make stand against the elephant, ran away. He in his flight crossed over into the Mīān-dū-āb and crossed back again when he reached the Pānīpat neighbourhood. In Indrī he contrived on some pretext to get 4 laks from Mīān Sulaimān. He was deserted by Ismā`īl Jilwānī, by Biban and by his own oldest son Jalāl, who all withdrew into the Mīān-dū-āb; and he had been deserted just before the fighting, by part of his troops, namely, by Daryā Khān (Nūḥānī)'s son Saif Khān, by Khān-i-jahān (Nūḥānī)'s son Maḥmūd Khān, and by Shaikh Jamāl Farmulī. When he was passing through Sihrind with Dilāwar Khān, he heard of our advance and of our capture of Milwat (Malot). On this Dilāwar Khān—who always had been my well-wisher and on my account had dragged out three or four months in prison,—left `Ālam Khān and the rest and went to his family in Sulṯānpūr. He waited on me three or four days after we took Milwat. `Ālam Khān and Ḥājī Khān crossed the Shatlut (sic)-water and went into Gingūta, one of the strongholds in the range that lies between the valley and the plain. There our Afghān and Hazāra troops besieged them, and had [Sidenote: Fol. 257b] almost taken that strong fort when night came on. Those inside were thinking of escape but could not get out because of the press of horses in the Gate. There must have been elephants also; when these were urged forward, they trod down and killed many horses. `Ālam Khān, unable to escape mounted, got out on foot in the darkness. After a lak of difficulties, he joined Ghāzī Khān, who had not gone into Milwat but had fled into the hills. Not being received with even a little friendliness by Ghāzī Khān; needs must! he came and waited on me at the foot of the dale near Pehlūr.

(k. Diary resumed.)

A person came to Sīālkot from the Lāhor begs to say they would arrive early next morning to wait on me.

(Dec. 30th) Marching early next day (Rabī` I. 15th), we dismounted at Parsrūr. There Muḥ. `Alī Jang-jang, Khwāja Ḥusain and several braves waited on me. As the enemy's camp seemed to be on the Lāhor side of the Rāvī, we sent men out under Būjka for news. Near the third watch of the night they brought word that the enemy, on hearing of us, had fled, no man looking to another.

(Dec. 31st) Getting early to horse and leaving baggage and train in the charge of Shāh Mīr Ḥusain and Jān Beg, we bestirred ourselves. We reached Kalānūr in the afternoon, and there dismounted. Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā and `Ādil Sl. came [Sidenote: Fol. 258.] to wait on me there, together with some of the begs.

(Jan. 1st 1526 AD.) We marched early from Kalānūr. On the road people gave us almost certain news of Ghāzī Khān and other fugitives. Accordingly we sent, flying after those fliers, the commanders Muḥammadī, Aḥmadī, Qūtlūq-qadam, Treasurer Walī and most of those begs who, in Kābul, had recently bent the knee for their begship. So far it was settled:—That it would be good indeed if they could overtake and capture the fugitives; and that, if they were not able to do this, they were to keep careful watch round Milwat (Malot), so as to prevent those inside from getting out and away. Ghāzī Khān was the object of this watch.

(l. Capture of Milwat.)

(Jan. 2nd and 3rd) After starting those begs ahead, we crossed the Bīāh-water (Beas) opposite Kanwāhīn and dismounted. From there we marched to the foot of the valley of Fort Milwat, making two night-halts on the way. The begs who had arrived before us, and also those of Hindūstān were ordered to dismount in such a way as to besiege the place closely.

A grandson of Daulat Khān, son of his eldest son `Alī Khān, Ismā`īl Khān by name, came out of Milwat to see me; he took back promise mingled with threat, kindness with menace.

(Jan. 5th) On Friday (Rabī` I. 21st) I moved camp forward to within a mile of the fort, went myself to examine the place, posted right, left and centre, then returned to camp.

Daulat Khān sent to represent to me that Ghāzī Khān had [Sidenote: Fol. 258b.] fled into the hills, and that, if his own faults were pardoned, he would take service with me and surrender Milwat. Khwāja Mīr-i-mīrān was sent to chase fear from his heart and to escort him out; he came, and with him his son `Alī Khān. I had ordered that the two swords he had girt to his waist to fight me with, should be hung from his neck. Was such a rustic blockhead possible! With things as they were, he still made pretensions! When he was brought a little forward, I ordered the swords to be removed from his neck. At the time of our seeing one another he hesitated to kneel; I ordered them to pull his leg and make him do so. I had him seated quite in front, and ordered a person well acquainted with Hindūstānī to interpret my words to him, one after another. Said I, "Thus speak:—I called thee Father. I shewed thee more honour and respect than thou couldst have asked. Thee and thy sons I saved from door-to-door life amongst the Balūchīs. Thy family and thy ḥaram I freed from Ibrāhīm's prison-house. Three krors I gave thee on Tātār Khān's lands. What ill sayest thou I have done thee, that thus thou shouldst hang a sword on thy either side, lead an army out, fall on lands of ours, and stir strife and trouble?" Dumbfounded, the old man [Sidenote: Fol. 259.] stuttered a few words, but, he gave no answer, nor indeed could answer be given to words so silencing. He was ordered to remain with Khwāja Mīr-i-mīrān.

(Jan. 6th) On Saturday the 22nd of the first Rabī`, I went myself to safeguard the exit of the families and ḥarams from the fort, dismounting on a rise opposite the Gate. To me there came `Alī Khān and made offering of a few ashrafīs. People began to bring out the families just before the Other Prayer. Though Ghāzī Khān was reported to have got away, there were some who said they had seen him in the fort. For this reason several of the household and braves were posted at the Gate, in order to prevent his escape by a ruse, for to get away was his full intention. Moreover if jewels and other valuables were being taken away by stealth, they were to be confiscated. I spent that night in a tent pitched on the rise in front of the Gate.

(Jan. 7th) Early next morning, Muḥammadī, Aḥmadī, Sl. Junaid, `Abdu'l-`azīz, Muḥammad `Alī Jang-jang and Qūtlūq-qadam were ordered to enter the fort and take possession of all [Sidenote: Fol. 259b.] effects. As there was much disturbance at the Gate, I shot off a few arrows by way of chastisement. Humāyūn's story-teller (qiṣṣa-khẉān) was struck by the arrow of his destiny and at once surrendered his life.

(Jan. 7th and 8th) After spending two nights on the rise, I inspected the fort. I went into Ghāzī Khān's book-room; some of the precious things found in it, I gave to Humāyūn, some sent to Kāmrān (in Qandahār). There were many books of learned contents, but not so many valuable ones as had at first appeared. I passed that night in the fort; next morning I went back to camp.

(Jan. 9th) It had been in our minds that Ghāzī Khān was in the fort, but he, a man devoid of nice sense of honour, had escaped to the hills, abandoning father, brethren and sisters in Milwat.

See that man without honour who never The face of good luck shall behold; Bodily ease he chose for himself, In hardship he left wife and child (Gulistān cap. i, story 17).

(Jan. 10th) Leaving that camp on Wednesday, we moved towards the hills to which Ghāzī Khān had fled. When we dismounted in the valley-bottom two miles from the camp in the mouth of Milwat, Dilāwar Khān came and waited on me. Daulat Khān, `Alī Khān and Ismā`īl Khān, with other chiefs, were given into Kitta Beg's charge who was to convey them to the Bhīra fort of Milwat (Malot), and there keep guard over [Sidenote: Fol. 260.] them. In agreement with Dilāwar Khān, blood-ransom was fixed for some who had been made over each to one man; some gave security, some were kept prisoner. Daulat Khān died when Kitta Beg reached Sulṯānpūr with the prisoners.

Milwat was given into the charge of Muḥ. `Alī Jang-jang who, pledging his own life for it, left his elder brother Arghūn and a party of braves in it. A body of from 200 to 250 Afghāns were told off to reinforce him.

Khwāja Kalān had loaded several camels with Ghaznī wines. A party was held in his quarters overlooking the fort and the whole camp, some drinking `araq, some wine. It was a varied party.

(m. Jaswān-valley.)

Marching on, we crossed a low hill of the grazing-grounds (arghā-dāl-līq) of Milwat and went into the dūn, as Hindūstānīs are understood to call a dale (julga). In this dale is a running-water of Hindūstān; along its sides are many villages; and it is said to be the pargana of the Jaswāl, that is to say, of Dilāwar Khān's maternal uncles. It lies there shut-in, with meadows along its torrent, rice cultivated here and there, a three or four mill-stream flowing in its trough, its width from two to [Sidenote: Fol. 260b.] four miles, six even in places, villages on the skirts of its hills—hillocks they are rather—where there are no villages, peacocks, monkeys, and many fowls which, except that they are mostly of one colour, are exactly like house-fowls.

As no reliable news was had of Ghāzī Khān, we arranged for Tardīka to go with Bīrīm Deo Malinhās and capture him wherever he might be found.

In the hills of this dale stand thoroughly strong forts; one on the north-east, named Kūtila, has sides 70 to 80 yards (qārī) of straight fall, the side where the great gate is being perhaps 7 or 8 yards. The width of the place where the draw-bridge is made, may be 10 to 12 yards. Across this they have made a bridge of two tall trees by which horses and herds are taken over. This was one of the local forts Ghāzī Khān had strengthened; his man will have been in it now. Our raiders (chāpqūnchī) assaulted it and had almost taken it when night came on. The garrison abandoned this difficult place and went off. Near this dale is also the stronghold of Ginguta; it is girt round by precipices as Kūtila is, but is not so strong as Kūtila. As has been mentioned `Ālam Khān went into it. [Sidenote: Fol. 261.]

(n. Bābur advances against Ibrāhīm.)

After despatching the light troop against Ghāzī Khān, I put my foot in the stirrup of resolution, set my hand on the rein of trust in God, and moved forward against Sulṯān Ibrāhīm, son of Sulṯān Sikandar, son of Buhlūl Lūdī Afghān, in possession of whose throne at that time were the Dihlī capital and the dominions of Hindūstān, whose standing-army was called a lak (100,000), whose elephants and whose begs' elephants were about 1,000.

At the end of our first stage, I bestowed Dībālpūr on Bāqī shaghāwal and sent him to help Balkh; sent also gifts, taken in the success of Milwat, for (my) younger children and various train in Kābul.

When we had made one or two marches down the (Jaswān) dūn, Shāh `Imād Shīrāzī arrived from Araish Khān and Mullā Muḥammad Maẕhab, bringing letters that conveyed their good wishes for the complete success of our campaign and indicated their effort and endeavour towards this. In response, we sent, by a foot-man, royal letters expressing our favour. We then marched on.

(o. `Ālam Khān takes refuge with Bābur.)

The light troop we had sent out from Milwat (Malot), took Hurūr, Kahlūr and all the hill-forts of the neighbourhood—places to which because of their strength, no-one seemed to have gone for a long time—and came back to me after plundering a little. Came also `Ālam Khān, on foot, ruined, stripped bare. We sent some of the begs to give him honourable meeting, sent horses too, and he waited (malāẓamat qīldī) in that [Sidenote: Fol. 261b.] neighbourhood.

Raiders of ours went into the hills and valleys round-about, but after a few nights' absence, came back without anything to count. Shāh Mīr Ḥusain, Jān Beg and a few of the braves asked leave and went off for a raid.

(p. Incidents of the march for Pānī-pat.)

While we were in the (Jaswān) dūn, dutiful letters had come more than once from Ismā`īl Jilwānī and Biban; we replied to them from this place by royal letters such as their hearts desired. After we got out of the dale to Rūpar, it rained very much and became so cold that a mass of starved and naked Hindūstānīs died.

When we had left Rūpar and were dismounted at Karal, opposite Sihrind, a Hindūstānī coming said, "I am Sl. Ibrāhīm's envoy," and though he had no letter or credentials, asked for an envoy from us. We responded at once by sending one or two Sawādī night-guards (tunqiṯār). These humble persons Ibrāhīm put in prison; they made their escape and came back to us on the very day we beat him.

After having halted one night on the way, we dismounted on the bank of the torrent of Banūr and Sanūr. Great rivers apart, one running water there is in Hindūstān, is this; they call it the water of Kakar (Ghaggar). Chitr also is on its bank. We rode up it for an excursion. The rising-place (zih) of the water of this torrent (rūd) is 3 or 4 kurohs (6-8 m.) above Chitr. Going up the (Kakar) torrent, we came to where a 4 or 5 millstream issues from a broad (side-)valley (dara), up which there [Sidenote: Fol. 262.] are very pleasant places, healthy and convenient. I ordered a Chār-bāgh to be made at the mouth of the broad valley of this (tributary) water, which falls into the (Kakar-) torrent after flowing for one or two kurohs through level ground. From its infall to the springs of the Kakar the distance may be 3 to 4 kurohs (6-8 m.). When it comes down in flood during the rains and joins the Kakar, they go together to Sāmāna and Sanām.

In this camp we heard that Sl. Ibrāhīm had been on our side of Dihlī and had moved on from that station, also that Ḥamīd Khān khāṣa-khail, the military-collector (shiqdār) of Ḥiṣār-fīrūza, had left that place with its army and with the army of its neighbourhood, and had advanced 10 or 15 kurohs (20-30 m.). Kitta Beg was sent for news to Ibrāhīm's camp, and Mumin Ātaka to the Ḥiṣār-fīrūza camp.

(q. Humāyūn moves against Ḥamīd Khān.)

(Feb. 25th) Marching from Aṃbāla, we dismounted by the side of a lake. There Mumin Ātāka and Kitta Beg rejoined us, both on the same day, Sunday the 13th of the first Jumāda.

We appointed Humāyūn to act against Ḥamīd Khān, and joined the whole of the right (wing) to him, that is to say, Khwāja Kalān, Sl. Muḥammad Dūldāī, Treasurer Walī, and also some of the begs whose posts were in Hindūstān, namely, Khusrau, Hindū Beg,`Abdu'l-'azīz and Muḥammad `Alī Jang-jang, with also, from the household and braves of the centre, Shāh Manṣūr Barlās, Kitta Beg and Muḥibb-i `alī. [Sidenote: Fol. 262b.]

Biban waited on me in this camp. These Afghāns remain very rustic and tactless! This person asked to sit although Dilāwar Khān, his superior in following and in rank, did not sit, and although the sons of `Ālam Khān, who are of royal birth, did not sit. Little ear was lent to his unreason!

(Feb. 26th) At dawn on Monday the 14th Humāyūn moved out against Ḥamīd Khān. After advancing for some distance, he sent between 100 and 150 braves scouting ahead, who went close up to the enemy and at once got to grips. But when after a few encounters, the dark mass of Humāyūn's troops shewed in the rear, the enemy ran right away. Humāyūn's men unhorsed from 100 to 200, struck the heads off one half and brought the other half in, together with 7 or 8 elephants.

(March 2nd) On Friday the 18th of the month, Beg Mīrak Mughūl brought news of Humāyūn's victory to the camp. He (Humāyūn?) was there and then given a special head-to-foot and a special horse from the royal stable, besides promise of guerdon (juldū).

(March 5th) On Monday the 25th of the month, Humāyūn arrived to wait on me, bringing with him as many as 100 prisoners and 7 or 8 elephants. Ustād `Alī-qulī and the [Sidenote: Fol. 263.] matchlockmen were ordered to shoot all the prisoners, by way of example. This had been Humāyūn's first affair, his first experience of battle; it was an excellent omen!

Our men who had gone in pursuit of the fugitives, took Ḥiṣār-fīrūza at once on arrival, plundered it, and returned to us. It was given in guerdon to Humāyūn, with all its dependencies and appurtenances, with it also a kror of money.

We marched from that camp to Shāhābād. After we had despatched a news-gatherer (tīl-tūtār kīshī) to Sl. Ibrāhīm's camp, we stayed a few days on that ground. Raḥmat the foot-man was sent with the letters of victory to Kābul.

(r. News of Ibrāhīm.)

(March 13th) On Monday the 28th of the first Jumāda, we being in that same camp, the Sun entered the Sign of the Ram. News had come again and again from Ibrāhīm's camp, "He is coming, marching two miles" or "four miles", "stopping in each camp two days," or "three days". We for our part advanced from Shāhābād and after halting on two nights, reached the bank of the Jūn-river (Jumna) and encamped opposite Sarsāwa. From that ground Khwāja Kalān's servant Ḥaidar-qulī was sent to get news (tīl tūtā).

Having crossed the Jūn-river at a ford, I visited Sarsāwa. That day also we ate ma`jūn. Sarsāwa has a source (chashma) from which a smallish stream issues, not a bad place! Tardī Beg khāksār praising it, I said, "Let it be thine!" so just [Sidenote: Fol. 263b.] because he praised it, Sarsāwa was given to him!

I had a platform fixed in a boat and used to go for excursions on the river, sometimes too made the marches down it. Two marches along its bank had been made when, of those sent to gather news, Ḥaidar-qulī brought word that Ibrāhīm had sent Daud Khān (Lūdī) and Ḥātīm Khān (Lūdī) across the river into the Mīān-dū-āb (Tween-waters) with 5 or 6000 men, and that these lay encamped some 6 or 7 miles from his own.

(s. A successful encounter.)

(April 1st) On Sunday the 18th of the second Jumāda, we sent, to ride light against this force, Chīn-tīmūr Sulṯān, Mahdī Khwāja, Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā, `Ādil Sulṯān, and the whole of the left, namely, Sl. Junaid, Shāh Mīr Ḥusain, Qūtlūq-qadam, and with them also sent `Abdu'l-lāh and Kitta Beg (of the centre). They crossed from our side of the water at the Mid-day Prayer, and between the Afternoon and the Evening Prayers bestirred themselves from the other bank. Biban having crossed the water on pretext of this movement, ran away.

(April 2nd) At day-break they came upon the enemy; he made as if coming out in a sort of array, but our men closed with his at once, overcame them, hustled them off, pursued and unhorsed them till they were opposite Ibrāhīm's own camp. Ḥātim Khān was one of those unhorsed, who was Daud Khān (Lūdī)'s elder brother and one of his commanders. Our men brought him in when they waited on me. They brought also [Sidenote: Fol. 264.] 60-70 prisoners and 6 or 7 elephants. Most of the prisoners, by way of warning, were made to reach their death-doom.

(t. Preparations for battle.)

While we were marching on in array of right, left and centre, the army was numbered; it did not count up to what had been estimated.

At our next camp it was ordered that every man in the army should collect carts, each one according to his circumstances. Seven hundred carts (arāba) were brought in. The order given to Ustād `Alī-qulī was that these carts should be joined together in Ottoman fashion, but using ropes of raw hide instead of chains, and that between every two carts 5 or 6 mantelets should be fixed, behind which the matchlockmen were to stand to fire. To allow of collecting all appliances, we delayed 5 or 6 days in that camp. When everything was ready, all the begs with such braves as had had experience in military affairs were summoned to a General Council where opinion found decision at this:—Pānī-pat is there with its crowded houses and suburbs. It would be on one side of us; our other sides must be protected by carts and mantelets behind which our foot and matchlockmen would stand. With so much settled we marched forward, halted one night on the way, and reached Pānī-pat on Thursday the last day (29th) of the second Jumāda (April 12th).

(u. The opposed forces.)

On our right was the town of Pānī-pat with its suburbs; in front of us were the carts and mantelets we had prepared; on our left and elsewhere were ditch and branch. At distances of [Sidenote: Fol. 264b.] an arrow's flight sally-places were left for from 100 to 200 horsemen.

Some in the army were very anxious and full of fear. Nothing recommends anxiety and fear. For why? Because what God has fixed in eternity cannot be changed. But though this is so, it was no reproach to be afraid and anxious. For why? Because those thus anxious and afraid were there with a two or three months' journey between them and their homes; our affair was with a foreign tribe and people; none knew their tongue, nor did they know ours:—

A wandering band, with mind awander; In the grip of a tribe, a tribe unfamiliar.

People estimated the army opposing us at 100,000 men; Ibrāhīm's elephants and those of his amīrs were said to be about 1000. In his hands was the treasure of two forbears. In Hindūstān, when work such as this has to be done, it is customary to pay out money to hired retainers who are known as b:d-hindī. If it had occurred to Ibrāhīm to do this, he might have had another lak or two of troops. God brought it right! Ibrāhīm could neither content his braves, nor share out his treasure. How should he content his braves when he was ruled by avarice and had a craving insatiable to pile coin on coin? He was an unproved brave; he provided nothing for his [Sidenote: Fol. 265.] military operations, he perfected nothing, nor stand, nor move, nor fight.

In the interval at Pānī-pat during which the army was preparing defence on our every side with cart, ditch and branch, Darwīsh-i-muḥammad Sārbān had once said to me, "With such precautions taken, how is it possible for him to come?" Said I, "Are you likening him to the Aūzbeg khāns and sulṯāns? In what of movement under arms or of planned operations is he to be compared with them?" God brought it right! Things fell out just as I said!

(Author's note on the Aūzbeg chiefs.) When I reached Ḥiṣār in the year I left Samarkand (918 AH.-1512 AD.), and all the Aūzbeg khāns and sulṯāns gathered and came against us, we brought the families and the goods of the Mughūls and soldiers into the Ḥiṣār suburbs and fortified these by closing the lanes. As those khāns and sulṯāns were experienced in equipment, in planned operations, and in resolute resistance, they saw from our fortification of Ḥiṣār that we were determined on life or death within it, saw they could not count on taking it by assault and, therefore, retired at once from near Nūndāk of Chaghānīān.

(v. Preliminary encounters.)

During the 7 or 8 days we lay in Pānī-pat, our men used to go, a few together, close up to Ibrāhīm's camp, rain arrows down on his massed troops, cut off and bring in heads. Still he made [Sidenote: Fol. 265b.] no move; nor did his troops sally out. At length, we acted on the advice of several Hindūstānī well-wishers and sent out 4 or 5000 men to deliver a night-attack on his camp, the leaders of it being Mahdī Khwāja, Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā, `Ādil Sulṯān, Khusrau, Shāh Mīr Ḥusain, Sl. Junaid Barlās, `Abdu'l-`azīz the Master of the Horse, Muḥ. `Alī Jang-jang, Qūtlūq-qadam, Treasurer Walī, Khalīfa's Muḥibb-i-`alī, Pay-master Muḥammad, Jān Beg and Qarā-qūzī. It being dark, they were not able to act together well, and, having scattered, could effect nothing on arrival. They stayed near Ibrāhīm's camp till dawn, when the nagarets sounded and troops of his came out in array with elephants. Though our men did not do their work, they got off safe and sound; not a man of them was killed, though they were in touch with such a mass of foes. One arrow pierced Muḥ. `Alī Jang-jang's leg; though the wound was not mortal, he was good-for-nothing on the day of battle.

On hearing of this affair, I sent off Humāyūn and his troops to go 2 or 3 miles to meet them, and followed him myself with the rest of the army in battle-array. The party of the night-attack joined him and came back with him. The enemy making no further advance, we returned to camp and dismounted. That night a false alarm fell on the camp; for some 20 minutes (one garī) there were uproar and call-to-arms; the disturbance died down after a time. [Sidenote: Fol. 266.]

(w. Battle of Pānī-pat.)

(April 20th) On Friday the 8th of Rajab, news came, when it was light enough to distinguish one thing from another (farẓ-waqtī) that the enemy was advancing in fighting-array. We at once put on mail, armed and mounted. Our right was Humāyūn, Khwāja Kalān, Sulṯān Muḥammad Dūldāī, Hindū Beg, Treasurer Walī and Pīr-qulī Sīstānī; our left was Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā, Mahdī Khwāja, `Ādil Sulṯān, Shāh Mīr Ḥusain, Sl. Junaid Barlās, Qūtlūq-qadam, Jān Beg, Pay-master Muḥammad, and Shāh Ḥusain (of) Yāragī Mughūl Ghānchī(?). The right hand of the centre was Chīn-tīmūr Sulṯān, Sulaimān Mīrzā, Muḥammadī Kūkūldāsh, Shāh Manṣūr Barlās, Yūnas-i-`alī, Darwīsh-i-muḥammad Sārbān and `Abdu'l-lāh the librarian. The left of the centre was Khalīfa, Khwāja Mīr-i-mīrān, Secretary Aḥmadī, Tardī Beg (brother) of Qūj Beg, Khalīfa's Muḥibb-i-`alī and Mīrzā Beg Tarkhān. The advance was Khusrau Kūkūldāsh and Muḥ. `Alī Jang-jang. `Abdu'l-'azīz the Master of the Horse was posted as the reserve. For the turning-party (tūlghuma) at the point of the right wing, we fixed on Red Walī and Malik Qāsim (brother) of Bābā Qashqa, with their Mughūls; for the turning-party at the point of the left wing, we arrayed Qarā-qūzī, Abū'l-muḥammad the lance-player, Shaikh Jamāl Bārīn's Shaikh `Alī, Mahndī(?) and Tīngrī-bīrdī Bashaghī(?) Mughūl; these two parties, directly the enemy got near, were to turn his rear, one from the right, the other from the left. [Sidenote: Fol. 266b.]

When the dark mass of the enemy first came in sight, he seemed to incline towards our right; `Abdu'l-`azīz, who was the right-reserve, was sent therefore to reinforce the right. From the time that Sl. Ibrāhīm's blackness first appeared, he moved swiftly, straight for us, without a check, until he saw the dark mass of our men, when his pulled up and, observing our formation and array, made as if asking, "To stand or not? To advance or not?" They could not stand; nor could they make their former swift advance.

Our orders were for the turning-parties to wheel from right and left to the enemy's rear, to discharge arrows and to engage in the fight; and for the right and left (wings) to advance and join battle with him. The turning-parties wheeled round and began to rain arrows down. Mahdī Khwāja was the first of the left to engage; he was faced by a troop having an elephant with it; his men's flights of arrows forced it to retire. To reinforce the left I sent Secretary Aḥmadī and also Qūj Beg's Tardī Beg and Khalīfa's Muḥibb-i-'alī. On the right also there was some stubborn fighting. Orders were given for Muḥammadī Kūkūldāsh, Shāh Manṣūr Barlās, Yūnas-i-`alī and `Abdu'l-lāh to engage those facing them in front of the centre. From that same position Ustād `Alī-qulī made good discharge of firingī shots;

Musṯafa the commissary for his part made excellent discharge [Sidenote: Fol. 267.] of zarb-zan shots from the left hand of the centre. Our right, left, centre and turning-parties having surrounded the enemy, rained arrows down on him and fought ungrudgingly. He made one or two small charges on our right and left but under our men's arrows, fell back on his own centre. His right and left hands (qūl) were massed in such a crowd that they could neither move forward against us nor force a way for flight.

When the incitement to battle had come, the Sun was spear-high; till mid-day fighting had been in full force; noon passed, the foe was crushed in defeat, our friends rejoicing and gay. By God's mercy and kindness, this difficult affair was made easy for us! In one half-day, that armed mass was laid upon the earth. Five or six thousand men were killed in one place close to Ibrāhīm. Our estimate of the other dead, lying all over the field, was 15 to 16,000, but it came to be known, later in Āgra from the statements of Hindūstānīs, that 40 or 50,000 may have died in that battle.

The foe defeated, pursuit and unhorsing of fugitives began. Our men brought in amīrs of all ranks and the chiefs they captured; mahauts made offering of herd after herd of elephants.

Ibrāhīm was thought to have fled; therefore, while pursuing [Sidenote: Fol. 267b.] the enemy, we told off Qismatāī Mīrzā, Bābā chuhra and Būjka of the khaṣa-tābīn to lead swift pursuit to Āgra and try to take him. We passed through his camp, looked into his own enclosure (sarācha) and quarters, and dismounted on the bank of standing-water (qarā-sū).

It was the Afternoon Prayer when Khalīfa's younger brother-in-law T̤āhir Tībrī who had found Ibrāhīm's body in a heap of dead, brought in his head.

(x. Detachments sent to occupy Dihlī and Āgra.)

On that very same day we appointed Humāyūn Mīrzā to ride fast and light to Āgra with Khwāja Kalān, Muḥammadī, Shāh Manṣūr Barlās, Yūnas-i-`alī, `Abdu'l-lah and Treasurer Walī, to get the place into their hands and to mount guard over the treasure. We fixed on Mahdī Khwāja, with Muḥammad Sl. Mīrza, `Ādil Sulṯān, Sl. Junaid Barlās and Qūtlūq-qadam to leave their baggage, make sudden incursion on Dihlī, and keep watch on the treasuries.

(April 21st) We marched on next day and when we had gone 2 miles, dismounted, for the sake of the horses, on the bank of the Jūn (Jumna).

(April 24th) On Tuesday (Rajab 12th), after we had halted on two nights and had made the circuit of Shaikh Niẓāmu'd-dīn Auliyā's tomb we dismounted on the bank of the Jūn over against Dihlī. That same night, being Wednesday-eve, we made an excursion into the fort of Dihlī and there spent the night.

(April 25th) Next day (Wednesday Rajab 13th) I made the circuit of Khwāja Quṯbu'd-dīn's tomb and visited the tombs and residences of Sl. Ghiyāṣu'd-dīn Balban and Sl. `Alāu'u'd-dīn [Sidenote: Fol. 268.] Khiljī, his Minār, and the Ḥauẓ-shamsī, Ḥauẓ-i-khaṣ and the tombs and gardens of Sl. Buhlūl and Sl. Sikandar (Lūdī). Having done this, we dismounted at the camp, went on a boat, and there `araq was drunk.

We bestowed the Military Collectorate (shiqdārlīghī) of Dihlī on Red Walī, made Dost Dīwān in the Dihlī district, sealed the treasuries, and made them over to their charge.

(April 26th) On Thursday we dismounted on the bank of the Jūn, over against Tūghlūqābād.

(y. The khuṯba read for Bābur in Dihlī.)

(April 27th) On Friday (Rajab 15th) while we remained on the same ground, Maulānā Maḥmūd and Shaikh Zain went with a few others into Dihlī for the Congregational Prayer, read the khuṯba in my name, distributed a portion of money to the poor and needy, and returned to camp.

(April 28th) Leaving that ground on Saturday (Rajab 16th), we advanced march by march for Āgra. I made an excursion to Tūghlūqābād and rejoined the camp.

(May 4th) On Friday (Rajab 22nd), we dismounted at the mansion (manzil) of Sulaimān Farmulī in a suburb of Āgra, but as the place was far from the fort, moved on the following day to Jalāl Khān Jig:hat's house.

On Humāyūn's arrival at Āgra, ahead of us, the garrison had made excuses and false pretexts (about surrender). He and his noticing the want of discipline there was, said, "The long hand may be laid on the Treasury"! and so sat down to watch the roads out of Āgra till we should come.

(z. The great diamond.)

In Sultan Ibrāhīm's defeat the Rāja of Gūālīār Bikramājīt the Hindū had gone to hell. [Sidenote: Fol. 268b.]

(Author's note on Bikramājīt.) The ancestors of Bikramājīt had ruled in Gūālīār for more than a hundred years. Sikandar (Lūdī) had sat down in Āgra for several years in order to take the fort; later on, in Ibrāhīm's time, `Aẕim Humāyūn Sarwānī had completely invested it for some while; following this, it was taken on terms under which Shamsābād was given in exchange for it.

Bikramājīt's children and family were in Āgra at the time of Ibrāhīm's defeat. When Humāyūn reached Āgra, they must have been planning to flee, but his postings of men (to watch the roads) prevented this and guard was kept over them. Humāyūn himself did not let them go (bārghālī qūīmās). They made him a voluntary offering of a mass of jewels and valuables amongst which was the famous diamond which `Alāu'u'd-dīn must have brought. Its reputation is that every appraiser has estimated its value at two and a half days' food for the whole world. Apparently it weighs 8 mis̤qāls. Humāyūn offered it to me when I arrived at Āgra; I just gave it him back.

(aa. Ibrāhīm's mother and entourage.)

Amongst men of mark who were in the fort, there were Malik Dād Karānī, Millī Sūrdūk and Fīrūz Khān Mīwātī. They, being convicted of false dealing, were ordered out for capital punishment. Several persons interceded for Malik Dād Karānī and four or five days passed in comings and goings before the matter was arranged. We then shewed to them (all?) kindness and favour in agreement with the petition made for them, and we restored them all their goods. A pargana worth 7 laks was bestowed on Ibrāhīm's mother; parganas were given also to these begs of his. She was sent out of the fort with her old servants and given encamping-ground (yūrt) two miles below [Sidenote: Fol. 269.] Āgra.

(May 10th) I entered Āgra at the Afternoon Prayer of Thursday (Rajab 28th) and dismounted at the mansion (manzil) of Sl. Ibrāhīm.

EXPEDITIONS OF TRAMONTANE MUḤAMMADANS INTO HIND.

(a. Bābur's five attempts on Hindūstān.)

From the date 910 at which the country of Kābul was conquered, down to now (932 AH.) (my) desire for Hindūstān had been constant, but owing sometimes to the feeble counsels of begs, sometimes to the non-accompaniment of elder and younger brethren, a move on Hindūstān had not been practicable and its territories had remained unsubdued. At length no such obstacles were left; no beg, great or small (beg begāt) of lower birth, could speak an opposing word. In 925 AH. (1519 AD.) we led an army out and, after taking Bajaur by storm in 2-3 garī (44-66 minutes), and making a general massacre of its people, went on into Bhīra. Bhīra we neither over-ran nor plundered; we imposed a ransom on its people, taking from them in money and goods to the value of 4 laks of shāhrukhīs and having shared this out to the army and auxiliaries, returned to Kābul. From then till now we laboriously held tight to Hindūstān, five times leading an army into it. The fifth time, God the Most High, by his own mercy and favour, made such a foe as Sl. Ibrāhīm the vanquished and loser, such a realm as Hindūstān our conquest and possession.

(b. Three invaders from Tramontana.)

From the time of the revered Prophet down till now three men from that side have conquered and ruled Hindūstān. Sl. Maḥmūd Ghāzī was the first, who and whose descendants sat long on the seat of government in Hindūstān. Sl. Shihābu'd-dīn [Sidenote: Fol. 269b.] of Ghūr was the second, whose slaves and dependants royally shepherded this realm for many years. I am the third.

But my task was not like the task of those other rulers. For why? Because Sl. Maḥmūd, when he conquered Hindūstān, had the throne of Khurāsān subject to his rule, vassal and obedient to him were the sulṯāns of Khwārizm and the Marches (Dāru'l-marz), and under his hand was the ruler of Samarkand. Though his army may not have numbered 2 laks, what question is there that it was one. Then again, rājas were his opponents; all Hindūstān was not under one supreme head (pādshāh), but each rāja ruled independently in his own country. Sl. Shihābu'd-dīn again,—though he himself had no rule in Khurāsān, his elder brother Ghiyās̱u'd-dīn had it. The T̤abaqāt-i-nāṣirī brings it forward that he once led into Hindūstān an army of 120,000 men and horse in mail. His opponents also were rāīs and rājas; one man did not hold all Hindūstān.

That time we came to Bhīra, we had at most some 1500 to 2000 men. We had made no previous move on Hindūstān with an army equal to that which came the fifth time, when we beat Sl. Ibrāhīm and conquered the realm of Hindūstān, the total written down for which, taking one retainer with another, and [Sidenote: Fol. 270.] with traders and servants, was 12,000. Dependent on me were the countries of Badakhshān, Qūndūz, Kābul and Qandahār, but no reckonable profit came from them, rather it was necessary to reinforce them fully because several lie close to an enemy. Then again, all Māwarā'u'n-nahr was in the power of the Aūzbeg khāns and sulṯāns, an ancient foe whose armies counted up to 100,000. Moreover Hindūstān, from Bhīra to Bihār, was in the power of the Afghāns and in it Sl. Ibrāhīm was supreme. In proportion to his territory his army ought to have been 5 laks, but at that time the Eastern amīrs were in hostility to him. His army was estimated at 100,000 and people said his elephants and those of his amīrs were 1000.

Under such conditions, in this strength, and having in my rear 100,000 old enemies such as are the Aūzbegs, we put trust in God and faced the ruler of such a dense army and of domains so wide. As our trust was in Him, the most high God did not make our labour and hardships vain, but defeated that powerful foe and conquered that broad realm. Not as due to strength and effort of our own do we look upon this good fortune, but as had solely through God's pleasure and kindness. We know that this happiness was not the fruit of our own ambition and resolve, but that it was purely from His mercy and favour.

DESCRIPTION OF HINDŪSTĀN.

(a. Hindūstān.)

The country of Hindūstān is extensive, full of men, and full [Sidenote: Fol. 270b.] of produce. On the east, south, and even on the west, it ends at its great enclosing ocean (muḥiṯ daryā-sī-gha). On the north it has mountains which connect with those of Hindū-kush, Kāfiristān and Kashmīr. North-west of it lie Kābul, Ghaznī and Qandahār. Dihlī is held (aīrīmīsh) to be the capital of the whole of Hindūstān. From the death of Shihābu'd-dīn Ghūrī (d. 602 AH.-1206 AD.) to the latter part of the reign of Sl. Fīrūz Shāh (Tūghlūq Turk d. 790 AH.-1388 AD.), the greater part of Hindūstān must have been under the rule of the sulṯāns of Dihlī.

(b. Rulers contemporary with Bābur's conquest.)

At the date of my conquest of Hindūstān it was governed by five Musalmān rulers (pādshāh) and two Pagans (kāfir). These were the respected and independent rulers, but there were also, in the hills and jungles, many rāīs and rājas, held in little esteem (kīchīk karīm).

First, there were the Afghāns who had possession of Dihlī, the capital, and held the country from Bhīra to Bihār. Jūnpūr, before their time, had been in possession of Sl. Ḥusain Sharqī (Eastern) whose dynasty Hindūstānīs call Pūrabī (Eastern). His ancestors will have been cup-bearers in the presence of Sl. Fīrūz Shāh and those (Tūghlūq) sulṯāns; they became supreme in Jūnpūr after his death. At that time Dihlī was in the hands of Sl. `Alāu'u'd-dīn (`Ālam Khān) of the Sayyid dynasty to whose ancestor Tīmūr Beg had given it when, after having captured it, he went away. Sl. Buhlūl Lūdī and his son (Sikandar) got possession of the capital Jūnpūr and the capital Dihlī, and brought both under one government (881 AH.-1476 AD.).

Secondly, there was Sl. Muḥammad Muz̤affer in Gujrāt; he departed from the world a few days before the defeat of Sl. Ibrāhīm. He was skilled in the Law, a ruler (pādshāh) seeking [Sidenote: Fol. 271.] after knowledge, and a constant copyist of the Holy Book. His dynasty people call Tānk. His ancestors also will have been wine-servers to Sl. Fīrūz Shāh and those (Tūghlūq) sulṯāns; they became possessed of Gujrāt after his death.

Thirdly, there were the Bāhmanīs of the Dakkan (Deccan, i.e. South), but at the present time no independent authority is left them; their great begs have laid hands on the whole country, and must be asked for whatever is needed.

Fourthly, there was Sl. Maḥmūd in the country of Malwā, which people call also Mandāū. His dynasty they call Khilīj (Turk). Rānā Sangā had defeated Sl. Maḥmūd and taken possession of most of his country. This dynasty also has become feeble. Sl. Maḥmūd's ancestors also must have been cherished by Sl. Fīrūz Shāh; they became possessed of the Malwā country after his death.

Fifthly, there was Naṣrat Shāh in the country of Bengal. His father (Ḥusain Shāh), a sayyid styled `Alāu'u'd-dīn, had ruled in Bengal and Naṣrat Shāh attained to rule by inheritance. A surprising custom in Bengal is that hereditary succession is rare. The royal office is permanent and there are permanent offices of amīrs, wazīrs and manṣab-dārs (officials). It is the office that Bengalis regard with respect. Attached to each office is a body of obedient, subordinate retainers and servants. If the royal heart demand that a person should be dismissed [Sidenote: Fol. 271b.] and another be appointed to sit in his place, the whole body of subordinates attached to that office become the (new) office-holder's. There is indeed this peculiarity of the royal office itself that any person who kills the ruler (pādshāh) and seats himself on the throne, becomes ruler himself; amīrs, wazīrs, soldiers and peasants submit to him at once, obey him, and recognize him for the rightful ruler his predecessor in office had been. Bengalis say, "We are faithful to the throne; we loyally obey whoever occupies it." As for instance, before the reign of Naṣrat Shāh's father `Alāu'u'd-dīn, an Abyssinian (Ḥabshī, named Muz̤affar Shāh) had killed his sovereign (Maḥmūd Shāh Ilyās), mounted the throne and ruled for some time. `Alāu'u'd-dīn killed that Abyssinian, seated himself on the throne and became ruler. When he died, his son (Naṣrat) became ruler by inheritance. Another Bengali custom is to regard it as a disgraceful fault in a new ruler if he expend and consume the treasure of his predecessors. On coming to rule he must gather treasure of his own. To amass treasure Bengalis regard as a glorious distinction. Another custom in Bengal is that from ancient times parganas have been assigned to meet the charges of the treasury, stables, and all royal expenditure and to defray these charges no impost is laid on other lands.

These five, mentioned above, were the great Musalmān rulers, honoured in Hindūstān, many-legioned, and broad-landed. Of the Pagans the greater both in territory and army, is the Rāja of Bījānagar. [Sidenote: Fol. 272.]

The second is Rānā Sangā who in these latter days had grown great by his own valour and sword. His original country was Chitūr; in the downfall from power of the Mandāū sulṯāns, he became possessed of many of their dependencies such as Rantanbūr, Sārangpūr, Bhīlsān and Chandīrī. Chandīrī I stormed in 934 AH. (1528 A.D.) and, by God's pleasure, took it in a few hours; in it was Rānā Sangā's great and trusted man Midnī Rāo; we made general massacre of the Pagans in it and, as will be narrated, converted what for many years had been a mansion of hostility, into a mansion of Islām.

There are very many rāīs and rājas on all sides and quarters of Hindūstān, some obedient to Islām, some, because of their remoteness or because their places are fastnesses, not subject to Musalmān rule.

(c. Of Hindūstān.)

Hindūstān is of the first climate, the second climate, and the third climate; of the fourth climate it has none. It is a wonderful country. Compared with our countries it is a different world; its mountains, rivers, jungles and deserts, its towns, its cultivated lands, its animals and plants, its peoples and their tongues, its rains, and its winds, are all different. In some respects the hot-country (garm-sīl) that depends on Kābul, is like Hindūstān, but in others, it is different. Once the water of Sind is crossed, everything is in the Hindūstān way (ṯāriq) [Sidenote: Fol. 272b.] land, water, tree, rock, people and horde, opinion and custom.

(d. Of the northern mountains.)

After crossing the Sind-river (eastwards), there are countries, in the northern mountains mentioned above, appertaining to Kashmīr and once included in it, although most of them, as for example, Paklī and Shahmang (?), do not now obey it. Beyond Kashmīr there are countless peoples and hordes, parganas and cultivated lands, in the mountains. As far as Bengal, as far indeed as the shore of the great ocean, the peoples are without break. About this procession of men no-one has been able to give authentic information in reply to our enquiries and investigations. So far people have been saying that they call these hill-men Kas. It has struck me that as a Hindūstānī pronounces shīn as sīn (i.e. sh as s), and as Kashmīr is the one respectable town in these mountains, no other indeed being heard of, Hindūstānīs might pronounce it Kasmīr. These people trade in musk-bags, b:ḥrī-qūṯās, saffron, lead and copper.

Hindīs call these mountains Sawālak-parbat. In the Hindī tongue sawāī-lak means one lak and a quarter, that is, 125,000, and parbat means a hill, which makes 125,000 hills. The snow on these mountains never lessens; it is seen white from many districts of Hind, as, for example, Lāhor, Sihrind and Saṃbal. The range, which in Kābul is known as Hindū-kush, comes from Kābul eastwards into Hindūstān, with slight inclination to the south. The Hindūstānāt are to the south of it. Tībet lies to the north of it and of that unknown horde called Kas. [Sidenote: Fol. 273.]

(e. Of rivers.)

Many rivers rise in these mountains and flow through Hindūstān. Six rise north of Sihrind, namely Sind, Bahat (Jīlam), Chān-āb [sic], Rāwī, Bīāh, and Sutluj; all meet near Multān, flow westwards under the name of Sind, pass through the Tatta country and fall into the `Umān(-sea).

Besides these six there are others, such as Jūn (Jumna), Gang (Ganges), Rahap (Raptī?), Gūmtī, Gagar (Ghaggar), Sirū, Gandak, and many more; all unite with the Gang-daryā, flow east under its name, pass through the Bengal country, and are poured into the great ocean. They all rise in the Sawālak-parbat.

Many rivers rise in the Hindūstān hills, as, for instance, Chaṃbal, Banās, Bītwī, and Sūn (Son). There is no snow whatever on these mountains. Their waters also join the Gang-daryā.

(f. Of the Arāvallī.)

Another Hindūstān range runs north and south. It begins in the Dihlī country at a small rocky hill on which is Fīrūz Shāh's residence, called Jahān-nāma, and, going on from there, appears near Dihlī in detached, very low, scattered here and there, rocky [Sidenote: Fol. 273b.] little hills. Beyond Mīwāt, it enters the Bīāna country. The hills of Sīkrī, Bārī and Dūlpūr are also part of this same including (tūtā) range. The hills of Gūālīār—they write it Gālīūr—although they do not connect with it, are off-sets of this range; so are the hills of Rantanbūr, Chitūr, Chandīrī, and Mandāū. They are cut off from it in some places by 7 to 8 kurohs (14 to 16 m.). These hills are very low, rough, rocky and jungly. No snow whatever falls on them. They are the makers, in Hindūstān, of several rivers.

(g. Irrigation.)

The greater part of the Hindūstān country is situated on level land. Many though its towns and cultivated lands are, it nowhere has running waters. Rivers and, in some places, standing-waters are its "running-waters" (āqār-sūlār). Even where, as for some towns, it is practicable to convey water by digging channels (ārīq), this is not done. For not doing it there may be several reasons, one being that water is not at all a necessity in cultivating crops and orchards. Autumn crops grow by the downpour of the rains themselves; and strange it is that spring crops grow even when no rain falls. To young trees water is made to flow by means of buckets or a wheel. They are given water constantly during two or three years; after which they need no more. Some vegetables are watered constantly.

In Lāhor, Dībālpūr and those parts, people water by means of a wheel. They make two circles of ropes long enough to suit the depth of the well, fix strips of wood between them, and on these fasten pitchers. The ropes with the wood and attached [Sidenote: Fol. 274.] pitchers are put over the well-wheel. At one end of the wheel-axle a second wheel is fixed, and close (qāsh) to it another on an upright axle. This last wheel the bullock turns; its teeth catch in the teeth of the second, and thus the wheel with the pitchers is turned. A trough is set where the water empties from the pitchers and from this the water is conveyed everywhere.

In Āgra, Chandwār, Bīāna and those parts, again, people water with a bucket; this is a laborious and filthy way. At the well-edge they set up a fork of wood, having a roller adjusted between the forks, tie a rope to a large bucket, put the rope over the roller, and tie its other end to the bullock. One person must drive the bullock, another empty the bucket. Every time the bullock turns after having drawn the bucket out of the well, that rope lies on the bullock-track, in pollution of urine and dung, before it descends again into the well. To some crops needing water, men and women carry it by repeated efforts in pitchers.

(h. Other particulars about Hindūstān.)

The towns and country of Hindūstān are greatly wanting in charm. Its towns and lands are all of one sort; there are no walls to the orchards (bāghāt), and most places are on the dead level plain. Under the monsoon-rains the banks of some of its rivers and torrents are worn into deep channels, difficult and [Sidenote: Fol. 274b.] troublesome to pass through anywhere. In many parts of the plains thorny jungle grows, behind the good defence of which the people of the pargana become stubbornly rebellious and pay no taxes.

Except for the rivers and here and there standing-waters, there is little "running-water". So much so is this that towns and countries subsist on the water of wells or on such as collects in tanks during the rains.

In Hindūstān hamlets and villages, towns indeed, are depopulated and set up in a moment! If the people of a large town, one inhabited for years even, flee from it, they do it in such a way that not a sign or trace of them remains in a day or a day and a half. On the other hand, if they fix their eyes on a place in which to settle, they need not dig water-courses or construct dams because their crops are all rain-grown, and as the population of Hindūstān is unlimited, it swarms in. They make a tank or dig a well; they need not build houses or set up walls—khas-grass (Andropogon muricatum) abounds, wood is unlimited, huts are made, and straightway there is a village or a town!

(i. Fauna of Hindūstān:—Mammals.)

The elephant, which Hindūstānīs call hāt(h)ī, is one of the wild animals peculiar to Hindūstān. It inhabits the (western?) borders of the Kālpī country, and becomes more numerous in its wild state the further east one goes (in Kālpī?). From this tract it is that captured elephants are brought; in Karrah and [Sidenote: Fol. 275.] Mānikpūr elephant-catching is the work of 30 or 40 villages. People answer (jawāb bīrūrlār) for them direct to the exchequer. The elephant is an immense animal and very sagacious. If people speak to it, it understands; if they command anything from it, it does it. Its value is according to its size; it is sold by measure (qārīlāb); the larger it is, the higher its price. People rumour that it is heard of in some islands as 10 qārī high, but in this tract it is not seen above 4 or 5. It eats and drinks entirely with its trunk; if it lose the trunk, it cannot live. It has two great teeth (tusks) in its upper jaw, one on each side of its trunk; by setting these against walls and trees, it brings them down; with these it fights and does whatever hard tasks fall to it. People call these ivory (`āj, var. ghāj); they are highly valued by Hindūstānīs. The elephant has no hair. It is much relied on by Hindūstānīs, accompanying every troop of their armies. It has some useful qualities:—it crosses great rivers with ease, carrying a mass of baggage, and three or four have gone dragging without trouble the cart of the mortar (qazān) it takes four or five hundred men to haul. But its stomach is large; one elephant eats the corn (būghūz) of two strings (qiṯār) of camels.

The rhinoceros is another. This also is a large animal, equal [Sidenote: Fol. 275b.] in bulk to perhaps three buffaloes. The opinion current in those countries (Tramontana) that it can lift an elephant on its horn, seems mistaken. It has a single horn on its nose, more than nine inches (qārīsh) long; one of two qārīsh is not seen. Out of one large horn were made a drinking-vessel and a dice-box, leaving over [the thickness of] 3 or 4 hands. The rhinoceros' hide is very thick; an arrow shot from a stiff bow, drawn with full strength right up to the arm-pit, if it pierce at all, might penetrate 4 inches (aīlīk, hands). From the sides (qāsh) of its fore and hind legs, folds hang which from a distance look like housings thrown over it. It resembles the horse more than it does any other animal. As the horse has a small stomach (appetite?), so has the rhinoceros; as in the horse a piece of bone (pastern?) grows in place of small bones (T. āshūq, Fr. osselets (Zenker), knuckles), so one grows in the rhinoceros; as in the horse's hand (aīlīk, Pers. dast) there is kūmūk (or gūmūk, a tibia, or marrow), so there is in the rhinoceros. It is more ferocious than the elephant and cannot be made obedient and submissive. There are masses of it in the Parashāwar and Hashnagar jungles, so too between the Sind-river and the jungles of the Bhīra country. Masses there are also on the banks of [Sidenote: Fol. 276.] the Sārū-river in Hindūstān. Some were killed in the Parashāwar and Hashnagar jungles in our moves on Hindūstān. It strikes powerfully with its horn; men and horses enough have been horned in those hunts. In one of them the horse of a chuhra (brave) named Maqṣūd was tossed a spear's-length, for which reason the man was nick-named the rhino's aim (maqṣūd-i-karg).

The wild-buffalo is another. It is much larger than the (domestic) buffalo and its horns do not turn back in the same way. It is a mightily destructive and ferocious animal.

The nīla-gāū (blue-bull) is another. It may stand as high as a horse but is somewhat lighter in build. The male is bluish-gray, hence, seemingly, people call it nīla-gāū. It has two rather small horns. On its throat is a tuft of hair, nine inches long; (in this) it resembles the yak. Its hoof is cleft (aīrī) like the hoof of cattle. The doe is of the colour of the būghū-marāl; she, for her part, has no horns and is plumper than the male.

The hog-deer (kotah-pāīcha) is another. It may be of the size of the white deer (āq kiyīk). It has short legs, hence its name, little-legged. Its horns are like a būghū's but smaller; like the būghū it casts them every year. Being rather a poor runner, it does not leave the jungle.

Another is a deer (kiyīk) after the fashion of the male deer (aīrkākī hūna) of the jīrān. Its back is black, its belly white, its horns longer than the hūna's, but more crooked. A Hindūstānī [Sidenote: Fol. 276b.] calls it kalahara, a word which may have been originally kālā-haran, black-buck, and which has been softened in pronunciation to kalahara. The doe is light-coloured. By means of this kalahara people catch deer; they fasten a noose (ḥalqa) on its horns, hang a stone as large as a ball on one of its feet, so as to keep it from getting far away after it has brought about the capture of a deer, and set it opposite wild deer when these are seen. As these (kalahara) deer are singularly combative, advance to fight is made at once. The two deer strike with their horns and push one another backwards and forwards, during which the wild one's horns become entangled in the net that is fast to the tame one's. If the wild one would run away, the tame one does not go; it is impeded also by the stone on its foot. People take many deer in this way; after capture they tame them and use them in their turn to take others; they also set them to fight at home; the deer fight very well.

There is a smaller deer (kiyīk) on the Hindūstān hill-skirts, as large may-be as the one year's lamb of the arqārghalcha (Ovis poli).

The gīnī-cow is another, a very small one, perhaps as large as the qūchqār (ram) of those countries (Tramontana). Its flesh is very tender and savoury.

The monkey (maimūn) is another—a Hindūstānī calls it bandar. Of this too there are many kinds, one being what people [Sidenote: Fol. 277.] take to those countries. The jugglers (lūlī) teach them tricks. This kind is in the mountains of Nūr-dara, in the skirt-hills of Safīd-koh neighbouring on Khaibar, and from there downwards all through Hindūstān. It is not found higher up. Its hair is yellow, its face white, its tail not very long.—Another kind, not found in Bajaur, Sawād and those parts, is much larger than the one taken to those countries (Tramontana). Its tail is very long, its hair whitish, its face quite black. It is in the mountains and jungles of Hindūstān.—Yet another kind is distinguished (būlā dūr), quite black in hair, face and limbs.

The nawal (nūl) is another. It may be somewhat smaller than the kīsh. It climbs trees. Some call it the mūsh-i-khūrma (palm-rat). It is thought lucky.

A mouse (T. sīchqān) people call galāhrī (squirrel) is another. It is just always in trees, running up and down with amazing alertness and speed.

(j. Fauna of Hindūstān:—Birds.)

The peacock (Ar. ṯāūs) is one. It is a beautifully coloured and splendid animal. Its form (andām) is not equal to its colouring and beauty. Its body may be as large as the crane's (tūrna) but it is not so tall. On the head of both cock and hen are 20 to 30 feathers rising some 2 or 3 inches high. The hen has neither colour nor beauty. The head of the cock has an iridescent collar (ṯauq sūsanī); its neck is of a beautiful blue; [Sidenote: Fol. 277b.] below the neck, its back is painted in yellow, parrot-green, blue and violet colours. The flowers on its back are much the smaller; below the back as far as the tail-tips are [larger] flowers painted in the same colours. The tail of some peacocks grows to the length of a man's extended arms. It has a small tail under its flowered feathers, like the tail of other birds; this ordinary tail and its primaries are red. It is in Bajaur and Sawād and below them; it is not in Kunur [Kūnūr] and the Lamghānāt or any place above them. Its flight is feebler than the pheasant's (qīrghāwal); it cannot do more than make one or two short flights. On account of its feeble flight, it frequents the hills or jungles, which is curious, since jackals abound in the jungles it frequents. What damage might these jackals not do to birds that trail from jungle to jungle, tails as long as a man's stretch (qūlāch)! Hindūstānīs call the peacock mor. Its flesh is lawful food, according to the doctrine of Imām Abū Ḥanīfa; it is like that of the partridge and not unsavoury, but is eaten with instinctive aversion, in the way camel-flesh is.

The parrot (H. ṯūṯī) is another. This also is in Bajaur and countries lower down. It comes into Nīngnahār and the Lamghānāt in the heats when mulberries ripen; it is not there at other times. It is of many, many kinds. One sort is that which people carry into those (Tramontane) countries. They [Sidenote: Fol. 278.] make it speak words.—Another sort is smaller; this also they make speak words. They call it the jungle-parrot. It is numerous in Bajaur, Sawād and that neighbourhood, so much so that 5 or 6000 fly in one flock (khail). Between it and the one first-named the difference is in bulk; in colouring they are just one and the same.—Another sort is still smaller than the jungle-parrot. Its head is quite red, the top of its wings (i.e. the primaries) is red also; the tip of its tail for two hands'-thickness is lustrous. The head of some parrots of this kind is iridescent (sūsanī). It does not become a talker. People call it the Kashmīr parrot.—Another sort is rather smaller than the jungle-parrot; its beak is black; round its neck is a wide black collar; its primaries are red. It is an excellent learner of words.—We used to think that whatever a parrot or a shārak (mīna) might say of words people had taught it, it could not speak of any matter out of its own head. At this juncture one of my immediate servants Abū'l-qāsim Jalāīr, reported a singular thing to me. A parrot of this sort whose cage must have been covered up, said, "Uncover my face; I am stifling." And another time when palkī bearers sat down to take breath, this parrot, presumably on hearing wayfarers pass by, said, "Men are going past, are you not going on?" Let credit rest with the narrator, but never-the-less, so long as a person has not heard with his own ears, he may not believe!—Another kind is of a beautiful [Sidenote: Fol. 278b.] full red; it has other colours also, but, as nothing is distinctly remembered about them, no description is made. It is a very beautiful bird, both in colour and form. People are understood to make this also speak words. Its defect is a most unpleasant, sharp voice, like the drawing of broken china on a copper plate.

The (P.) shārak is another. It is numerous in the Lamghānāt and abounds lower down, all over Hindūstān. Like the parrot, it is of many kinds.—The kind that is numerous in the Lamghānāt has a black head; its primaries (qānāt) are spotted, its body rather larger and thicker than that of the (T.) chūghūr-chūq. People teach it to speak words.—Another kind they call p:ndāwalī; they bring it from Bengal; it is black all over and of much greater bulk than the shārak (here, house-mīna). Its bill and foot are yellow and on each ear are yellow wattles which hang down and have a bad appearance. It learns to speak well and clearly.—Another kind of shārak is slenderer than the last and is red round the eyes. It does not learn to speak. People call it the wood-shārak. Again, at the time when (934 AH.) I had made a bridge over Gang (Ganges), crossed it, and put my adversaries to flight, a kind of shārak was seen, in the neighbourhood of Laknau and Aūd (Oude), for the first time, which had a white breast, piebald head, and black back. This kind does not learn to speak.

The lūja is another. This bird they call (Ar.) bū-qalamūn (chameleon) because, between head and tail, it has five or six changing colours, resplendent (barrāq) like a pigeon's throat. [Sidenote: Fol. 279.] It is about as large as the kabg-i-darī and seems to be the kabg-i-darī of Hindūstān. As the kabg-i-darī moves (yūrūr) on the heads (kulah) of mountains, so does this. It is in the Nijr-aū mountains of the countries of Kābul, and in the mountains lower down but it is not found higher up. People tell this wonderful thing about it:—When the birds, at the onset of winter, descend to the hill-skirts, if they come over a vineyard, they can fly no further and are taken. God knows the truth! The flesh of this bird is very savoury.

The partridge (durrāj) is another. This is not peculiar to Hindūstān but is also in the Garm-sīr countries; as however some kinds are only in Hindūstān, particulars of them are given here. The durrāj (Francolinus vulgaris) may be of the same bulk as the kīklīk; the cock's back is the colour of the hen-pheasant (qīrghāwal-ning māda-sī); its throat and breast are black, with quite white spots. A red line comes down on both sides of both eyes. It is named from its cry which is something like Shir dāram shakrak. It pronounces shir short; dāram shakrak it says distinctly. Astarābād partridges are said to cry Bāt mīnī tūtīlār (Quick! they have caught me). The partridge of Arabia and those parts is understood to cry, Bi'l shakar tadawm al ni`am (with sugar pleasure endures)! The hen-bird has the colour of the young pheasant. These birds are found below Nijr-aū.—Another kind is called kanjāl. Its bulk may be that of the one already described. Its voice is very like that of the kīklīk but much shriller. There is little [Sidenote: Fol. 279b.] difference in colour between the cock and hen. It is found in Parashāwar, Hashnagar and countries lower down, but not higher up.

The p(h)ūl-paikār is another. Its size may be that of the kabg-i-darī; its shape is that of the house-cock, its colour that of the hen. From forehead (tūmāgh) to throat it is of a beautiful colour, quite red. It is in the Hindūstān mountains.

The wild-fowl (ṣaḥrāī-tāūgh) is another. It flies like a pheasant, and is not of all colours as house-fowl are. It is in the mountains of Bajaur and lower down, but not higher up.

The chīlsī (or jīlsī) is another. In bulk it equals the p(h)ūl-paikār but the latter has the finer colouring. It is in the mountains of Bajaur.

The shām is another. It is about as large as a house-fowl; its colour is unique (ghair mukarrar). It also is in the mountains of Bajaur.

The quail (P. būdana) is another. It is not peculiar to Hindūstān but four or five kinds are so.—One is that which goes to our countries (Tramontana), larger and more spreading than the (Hindūstān) quail.—Another kind is smaller than the one first named. Its primaries and tail are reddish. It flies in flocks like the chīr (Phasianus Wallichii).—Another kind is smaller than that which goes to our countries and is darker on throat [Sidenote: Fol. 280.] and breast.—Another kind goes in small numbers to Kābul; it is very small, perhaps a little larger than the yellow wag-tail (qārcha); they call it qūrātū in Kābul.

The Indian bustard (P. kharchāl) is another. It is about as large as the (T.) tūghdāq (Otis tarda, the great bustard), and seems to be the tūghdāq of Hindūstān. Its flesh is delicious; of some birds the leg is good, of others, the wing; of the bustard all the meat is delicious and excellent.

The florican (P. charz) is another. It is rather less than the tūghdīrī (houbara); the cock's back is like the tūghdīrī's, and its breast is black. The hen is of one colour.

The Hindūstān sand-grouse (T. bāghrī-qarā) is another. It is smaller and slenderer than the bāghrī-qarā [Pterocles arenarius] of those countries (Tramontana). Also its cry is sharper.

Of the birds that frequent water and the banks of rivers, one is the dīng, an animal of great bulk, each wing measuring a qūlāch (fathom). It has no plumage (tūqī) on head or neck; a thing like a bag hangs from its neck; its back is black; its breast is white. It goes sometimes to Kābul; one year people brought one they had caught. It became very tame; if meat were thrown to it, it never failed to catch it in its bill. Once it swallowed a six-nailed shoe, another time a whole fowl, wings [Sidenote: Fol. 280b.] and feathers, all right down.

The sāras (Grus antigone) is another. Turks in Hindūstān call it tīwa-tūrnā (camel-crane). It may be smaller than the dīng but its neck is rather longer. Its head is quite red. People keep this bird at their houses; it becomes very tame.

The mānek is another. In stature it approaches the sāras, but its bulk is less. It resembles the lag-lag (Ciconia alba, the white stork) but is much larger; its bill is larger and is black. Its head is iridescent, its neck white, its wings partly-coloured; the tips and border-feathers and under parts of the wings are white, their middle black.

Another stork (lag-lag) has a white neck and all other parts black. It goes to those countries (Tramontana). It is rather smaller than the lag-lag (Ciconia alba). A Hindūstānī calls it yak-rang (one colour?).

Another stork in colour and shape is exactly like the storks that go to those countries. Its bill is blacker and its bulk much less than the lag-lag's (Ciconia alba).

Another bird resembles the grey heron (aūqār) and the lag-lag; but its bill is longer than the heron's and its body smaller than the white stork's (lag-lag).

Another is the large buzak (black ibis). In bulk it may equal the buzzard (Turkī, sār). The back of its wings is white. It has a loud cry.

The white buzak is another. Its head and bill are black. [Sidenote: Fol. 281.] It is much larger than the one that goes to those countries, but smaller than the Hindūstān buzak.

The gharm-pāī (spotted-billed duck) is another. It is larger than the sūna būrchīn (mallard). The drake and duck are of one colour. It is in Hashnagar at all seasons, sometimes it goes into the Lamghānāt. Its flesh is very savoury.

The shāh-murgh (Sarcidiornis melanonotus, comb duck or nukta) is another. It may be a little smaller than a goose. It has a swelling on its bill; its back is black; its flesh is excellent eating.

The zummaj is another. It is about as large as the būrgūt (Aquila chrysaetus, the golden eagle).

The (T.) ālā-qārgha of Hindūstān is another (Corvus cornix, the pied crow). This is slenderer and smaller than the ālā-qārgha of those countries (Tramontana). Its neck is partly white.

Another Hindūstān bird resembles the crow (T. qārcha, C. splendens) and the magpie (Ar. `aqqa). In the Lamghānāt people call it the jungle-bird (P. murgh-i-jangal). Its head and breast are black; its wings and tail reddish; its eye quite red. Having a feeble flight, it does not come out of the jungle, whence its name.

The great bat (P. shapara) is another. People call it (Hindī) chumgādur. It is about as large as the owl (T. yāpālāq, Otus brachyotus), and has a head like a puppy's. When it is thinking of lodging for the night on a tree, it takes hold of a branch, turns head-downwards, and so remains. It has much singularity.

The magpie (Ar. `aqqa) is another. People call it (H.?) matā (Dendrocitta rufa, the Indian tree-pie). It may be somewhat less than the `aqqa (Pica rustica), which moreover is pied black and white, while the matā is pied brown and black.

Another is a small bird, perhaps of the size of the (T.) sāndūlāch. [Sidenote: Fol. 281b.] It is of a beautiful red with a little black on its wings.

The karcha is another; it is after the fashion of a swallow (T. qārlūghāch), but much larger and quite black.

The kūīl (Eudynamys orientalis, the koel) is another. It may be as large as the crow (P. zāg) but is much slenderer. It has a kind of song and is understood to be the bulbul of Hindūstān. Its honour with Hindūstānīs is as great as is the bulbul's. It always stays in closely-wooded gardens.

Another bird is after the fashion of the (Ar.) shiqarrāk (Cissa chinensis, the green-magpie). It clings to trees, is perhaps as large as the green-magpie, and is parrot-green (Gecinus striolatus, the little green-woodpecker?).

(k. Fauna of Hindūstān:—Aquatic animals.)

One is the water-tiger (P. shīr-ābī, Crocodilus palustris). This is in the standing-waters. It is like a lizard (T. gīlās). People say it carries off men and even buffaloes.

The (P.) siyāh-sār (black-head) is another. This also is like a lizard. It is in all rivers of Hindūstān. One that was taken and brought in was about 4-5 qārī (cir. 13 feet) long and as thick perhaps as a sheep. It is said to grow still larger. Its snout is over half a yard long. It has rows of small teeth in its upper and lower jaws. It comes out of the water and sinks into the mud (bātā).

The (Sans.) gaṛīāl (Gavialus gangeticus) is another. It is said to grow large; many in the army saw it in the Sarū (Gogra) river. It is said to take people; while we were on that river's banks (934-935 A.H.), it took one or two slave-women (dādūk), and it took three or four camp-followers between Ghāzīpūr and Banāras. In that neighbourhood I saw one but from a distance only and not quite clearly.

The water-hog (P. khūk-ābī, Platanista gangetica, the porpoise) is another. This also is in all Hindūstān rivers. It comes up suddenly out of the water; its head appears and disappears; it [Sidenote: Fol. 282.] dives again and stays below, shewing its tail. Its snout is as long as the siyāh-sār's and it has the same rows of small teeth. Its head and the rest of its body are fish-like. When at play in the water, it looks like a water-carrier's bag (mashak). Water-hogs, playing in the Sarū, leap right out of the water; like fish, they never leave it.

Again there is the kalah (or galah)-fish [bāligh]. Two bones each about 3 inches (aīlīk) long, come out in a line with its ears; these it shakes when taken, producing an extraordinary noise, whence, seemingly, people have called it kalah [or galah].

The flesh of Hindūstān fishes is very savoury; they have no odour (aīd) or tiresomeness. They are surprisingly active. On one occasion when people coming, had flung a net across a stream, leaving its two edges half a yard above the water, most fish passed by leaping a yard above it. In many rivers are little fish which fling themselves a yard or more out of the water if there be harsh [Sidenote: Fol. 282b.] noise or sound of feet.

The frogs of Hindūstān, though otherwise like those others (Tramontane), run 6 or 7 yards on the face of the water.

(l. Vegetable products of Hindūstān: Fruits.)

The mango (P. anbah) is one of the fruits peculiar to Hindūstān. Hindūstānīs pronounce the b in its name as though no vowel followed it (i.e. Sans. anb); this being awkward to utter, some people call the fruit [P.] naghzak as Khwāja Khusrau does:—

Naghzak-i mā [var. khẉash] naghz-kun-i būstān, Naghztarīn mewa [var. na`mat]-i-Hindūstān.

Mangoes when good, are very good, but, many as are eaten, few are first-rate. They are usually plucked unripe and ripened in the house. Unripe, they make excellent condiments (qātīq), are good also preserved in syrup. Taking it altogether, the mango is the best fruit of Hindūstān. Some so praise it as to give it preference over all fruits except the musk-melon (T. qāwūn), but such praise outmatches it. It resembles the kārdī peach. It ripens in the rains. It is eaten in two ways: one is to squeeze it to a pulp, make a hole in it, and suck out the juice,—the other, to peel and eat it like the kārdī peach. Its tree grows very large and has a leaf somewhat resembling the peach-tree's. The trunk is ill-looking and ill-shaped, but in Bengāl and Gujrāt is heard of as growing handsome (khūb).

The plantain (Sans. kelā, Musa sapientum) is another. An [Sidenote: Fol. 283.] `Arab calls it mauz. Its tree is not very tall, indeed is not to be called a tree, since it is something between a grass and a tree. Its leaf is a little like that of the amān-qarā but grows about 2 yards (qārī) long and nearly one broad. Out of the middle of its leaves rises, heart-like, a bud which resembles a sheep's heart. As each leaf (petal) of this bud expands, there grows at its base a row of 6 or 7 flowers which become the plantains. These flowers become visible with the lengthening of the heart-like shoot and the opening of the petals of the bud. The tree is understood to flower once only. The fruit has two pleasant qualities, one that it peels easily, the other that it has neither stone nor fibre. It is rather longer and thinner than the egg-plant (P. bādanjān; Solanum melongena). It is not very sweet; the Bengāl plantain (i.e. chīnī-champa) is, however, said to be very sweet. The plantain is a very good-looking tree, its broad, broad, leaves of beautiful green having an excellent appearance.

The anblī (H. imlī, Tamarindus indica, the tamarind) is another. By this name (anblī) people call the khurmā-i-hind (Indian date-tree). It has finely-cut leaves (leaflets), precisely like those of the (T.) būīā, except that they are not so finely-cut. It is a very good-looking tree, giving dense shade. It grows wild in masses too.

The (Beng.) mahuwā (Bassia latifolia) is another. People call it also (P.) gul-chikān (or chigān, distilling-flower). This also is a very large tree. Most of the wood in the houses of Hindūstānīs [Sidenote: Fol. 283b.] is from it. Spirit (`araq) is distilled from its flowers, not only so, but they are dried and eaten like raisins, and from them thus dried, spirit is also extracted. The dried flowers taste just like kishmish; they have an ill-flavour. The flowers are not bad in their natural state; they are eatable. The mahuwā grows wild also. Its fruit is tasteless, has rather a large seed with a thin husk, and from this seed, again, oil is extracted.

The mimusops (Sans. khirnī, Mimusops kauki) is another. Its tree, though not very large, is not small. The fruit is yellow and thinner than the red jujube (T. chīkdā, Elæagnus angustifolia). It has just the grape's flavour, but a rather bad after-taste; it is not bad, however, and is eatable. The husk of its stone is thin.

The (Sans.) jāman (Eugenia jambolana) is another. Its leaf, except for being thicker and greener, is quite like the willow's (T. tāl). The tree does not want for beauty. Its fruit is like a black grape, is sourish, and not very good.

The (H.) kamrak (Beng. kamrunga, Averrhoa carambola) is another. Its fruit is five-sided, about as large as the `ain-ālū and some 3 inches long. It ripens to yellow; gathered unripe, it is very bitter; gathered ripe, its bitterness has become sub-acid, not bad, not wanting in pleasantness.

The jack-fruit (H. kadhil, B. kanthal, Artocarpus integrifolia) is another. This is a fruit of singular form and flavour; it looks [Sidenote: Fol. 284.] like a sheep's stomach stuffed and made into a haggis (gīpa); and it is sickeningly-sweet. Inside it are filbert-like stones which, on the whole, resemble dates, but are round, not long, and have softer substance; these are eaten. The jack-fruit is very adhesive; for this reason people are said to oil mouth and hands before eating of it. It is heard of also as growing, not only on the branches of its tree, but on trunk and root too. One would say that the tree was all hung round with haggises.

The monkey-jack (H. badhal, B. burhul, Artocarpus lacoocha) is another. The fruit may be of the size of a quince (var. apple). Its smell is not bad. Unripe it is a singularly tasteless and empty thing; when ripe, it is not so bad. It ripens soft, can be pulled to pieces and eaten anywhere, tastes very much like a rotten quince, and has an excellent little austere flavour.

The lote-fruit (Sans. ber, Zizyphus jujuba) is another. Its Persian name is understood to be kanār. It is of several kinds: of one the fruit is larger than the plum (ālūcha); another is shaped like the Ḥusainī grape. Most of them are not very good; we saw one in Bāndīr (Gūālīār) that was really good. The lote-tree sheds its leaves under the Signs S̤aur and Jauzā (Bull and Twins), burgeons under Saraṯān and Asad (Crab and Lion) which are the true rainy-season,—then becoming fresh and green, and it ripens its fruit under Dalū and Ḥaut (Bucket i.e. Aquarius, and Fish).

The (Sans.) karaūndā (Carissa carandas, the corinda) is another. It grows in bushes after the fashion of the (T.) chīka of our country. but the chīka grows on mountains, the karaūndā on the [Sidenote: Fol. 284b.] plains. In flavour it is like the rhubarb itself, but is sweeter and less juicy.

The (Sans.) pānīyālā (Flacourtia cataphracta) is another. It is larger than the plum (ālūcha) and like the red-apple unripe. It is a little austere and is good. The tree is taller than the pomegranate's; its leaf is like that of the almond-tree but smaller.

The (H.) gūlar (Ficus glomerata, the clustered fig) is another. The fruit grows out of the tree-trunk, resembles the fig (P. anjīr), but is singularly tasteless.

The (Sans.) āmlā (Phyllanthus emblica, the myrobalan-tree) is another. This also is a five-sided fruit. It looks like the unblown cotton-pod. It is an astringent and ill-flavoured thing, but confiture made of it is not bad. It is a wholesome fruit. Its tree is of excellent form and has very minute leaves.

The (H.) chirūnjī (Buchanania latifolia) is another. This tree had been understood to grow in the hills, but I knew later about it, because there were three or four clumps of it in our gardens. It is much like the mahuwā. Its kernel is not bad, a thing between the walnut and the almond, not bad! rather smaller than the pistachio and round; people put it in custards (P. pālūda) and sweetmeats (Ar. ḥalwa).

The date-palm (P. khurmā, Phœnix dactylifera) is another. This is not peculiar to Hindūstān, but is here described because it is not in those countries (Tramontana). It grows in Lamghān also. Its branches (i.e. leaves) grow from just one place at its top; its leaves (i.e. leaflets) grow on both sides of the branches (midribs) from neck (būīn) to tip; its trunk is rough and ill-coloured; [Sidenote: Fol. 285.] its fruit is like a bunch of grapes, but much larger. People say that the date-palm amongst vegetables resembles an animal in two respects: one is that, as, if an animal's head be cut off, its life is taken, so it is with the date-palm, if its head is cut off, it dries off; the other is that, as the offspring of animals is not produced without the male, so too with the date-palm, it gives no good fruit unless a branch of the male-tree be brought into touch with the female-tree. The truth of this last matter is not known (to me). The above-mentioned head of the date-palm is called its cheese. The tree so grows that where its leaves come out is cheese-white, the leaves becoming green as they lengthen. This white part, the so-called cheese, is tolerable eating, not bad, much like the walnut. People make a wound in the cheese, and into this wound insert a leaf(let), in such a way that all liquid flowing from the wound runs down it. The tip of the leaflet is set over the mouth of a pot suspended to the tree in such a way that it collects whatever liquor is yielded by the wound. This liquor is rather pleasant if drunk at once; if drunk after two or three days, people say it is quite exhilarating (kaifīyat). Once when I had gone to visit Bārī, and made an [Sidenote: Fol. 285b.] excursion to the villages on the bank of the Chaṃbal-river, we met in with people collecting this date-liquor in the valley-bottom. A good deal was drunk; no hilarity was felt; much must be drunk, seemingly, to produce a little cheer.

The coco-nut palm (P. nārgīl, Cocos nucifera) is another. An `Arab gives it Arabic form and says nārjīl; Hindūstān people say nālīr, seemingly by popular error. Its fruit is the Hindī-nut from which black spoons (qarā qāshūq) are made and the larger ones of which serve for guitar-bodies. The coco-palm has general resemblance to the date-palm, but has more, and more glistening leaves. Like the walnut, the coco-nut has a green outer husk; but its husk is of fibre on fibre. All ropes for ships and boats and also cord for sewing boat-seams are heard of as made from these husks. The nut, when stripped of its husk, near one end shews a triangle of hollows, two of which are solid, the third a nothing (būsh), easily pierced. Before the kernel forms, there is fluid inside; people pierce the soft hollow and drink this; it tastes like date-palm cheese in solution, and is not bad.

The (Sans.) tāṛ (Borassus flabelliformis, the Palmyra-palm) is another. Its branches (i.e. leaves) also are quite at its top. Just as [Sidenote: Fol. 286.] with the date-palm, people hang a pot on it, take its juice and drink it. They call this liquor tāṛī; it is said to be more exhilarating than date liquor. For about a yard along its branches (i.e. leaf-stems) there are no leaves; above this, at the tip of the branch (stem), 30 or 40 open out like the spread palm of the hand, all from one place. These leaves approach a yard in length. People often write Hindī characters on them after the fashion of account rolls (daftar yūsūnlūq).

The orange (Ar. nāranj, Citrus aurantium) and orange-like fruits are others of Hindūstān. Oranges grow well in the Lamghānāt, Bajaur and Sawād. The Lamghānāt one is smallish, has a navel, is very agreeable, fragile and juicy. It is not at all like the orange of Khurāsān and those parts, being so fragile that many spoil before reaching Kābul from the Lamghānāt which may be 13-14 yīghāch (65-70 miles), while the Astarābād orange, by reason of its thick skin and scant juice, carries with [Sidenote: Fol. 286b.] less damage from there to Samarkand, some 270-280 yīghāch. The Bajaur orange is about as large as a quince, very juicy and more acid than other oranges. Khwāja Kalān once said to me, "We counted the oranges gathered from a single tree of this sort in Bajaur and it mounted up to 7,000." It had been always in my mind that the word nāranj was an Arabic form; it would seem to be really so, since every-one in Bajaur and Sawād says (P.) nārang.

The lime (B. līmū, C. acida) is another. It is very plentiful, about the size of a hen's egg, and of the same shape. If a person poisoned drink the water in which its fibres have been boiled, danger is averted.

The citron (P. turunj, C. medica) is another of the fruits resembling the orange. Bajaurīs and Sawādīs call it bālang and hence give the name bālang-marabbā to its marmalade (marabbā) confiture. In Hindūstān people call the turunj bajaurī. There are two kinds of turunj: one is sweet, flavourless and nauseating, of no use for eating but with peel that may be good for marmalade; it has the same sickening sweetness as the Lamghānāt turunj; the other, that of Hindūstān and Bajaur, is acid, quite deliciously acid, and makes excellent sherbet, well-flavoured, and wholesome drinking. Its size may be that of the Khusrawī melon; it has a thick skin, wrinkled and uneven, with one end thinner and beaked. It is of a deeper yellow than the orange (nāranj). Its tree has no trunk, is rather low, grows in bushes, and has a larger [Sidenote: Fol. 287.] leaf than the orange.

The sangtāra is another fruit resembling the orange (nāranj). It is like the citron (turunj) in colour and form, but has both ends of its skin level; also it is not rough and is somewhat the smaller fruit. Its tree is large, as large as the apricot (aūrūq), with a leaf like the orange's. It is a deliciously acid fruit, making a very pleasant and wholesome sherbet. Like the lime it is a powerful stomachic, but not weakening like the orange (nāranj).

The large lime which they call (H.) gal-gal in Hindūstān is another fruit resembling the orange. It has the shape of a goose's egg, but unlike that egg, does not taper to the ends. Its skin is smooth like the sangtāra's; it is remarkably juicy.

The (H.) jānbīrī lime is another orange-like fruit. It is orange-shaped and, though yellow, not orange-yellow. It smells like the citron (turunj); it too is deliciously acid.

The (Sans.) sadā-fal (phal) is another orange-like fruit. This is pear-shaped, colours like the quince, ripens sweet, but not to the sickly-sweetness of the orange (nāranj).

The amrd-fal (sic. Ḥai. MS.—Sans. amrit-phal) is another orange-like fruit.

The lemon (H. karnā, C. limonum) is another fruit resembling the orange (nāranj); it may be as large as the gal-gal and is also acid.

The (Sans.) amal-bīd is another fruit resembling the orange. After three years (in Hindūstān), it was first seen to-day. They say a needle melts away if put inside it, either from its acidity [Sidenote: Fol. 287b.] or some other property. It is as acid, perhaps, as the citron and lemon (turunj and līmū).

(m. Vegetable products of Hindūstān:—Flowers.)

In Hindūstān there is great variety of flowers. One is the (D.) jāsūn (Hibiscus rosa sinensis), which some Hindūstānīs call (Hindī) gaẕhal. *It is not a grass (giyāh); its tree (is in stems like the bush of the red-rose; it) is rather taller than the bush of the red-rose.* The flower of the jāsūn is fuller in colour than that of the pomegranate, and may be of the size of the red-rose, but, the red-rose, when its bud has grown, opens simply, whereas, when the jāsūn-bud opens, a stem on which other petals grow, is seen like a heart amongst its expanded petals. Though the two are parts of the one flower, yet the outcome of the lengthening and thinning of that stem-like heart of the first-opened petals gives the semblance of two flowers. It is not a common matter. The beautifully coloured flowers look very well on the tree, but they do not last long; they fade in just one day. The jāsūn blossoms very well through the four months of the rains; it seems indeed to flower all through the year; with this profusion, however, it gives no perfume.

The (H.) kanīr (Nerium odorum, the oleander) is another. It grows both red and white. Like the peach-flower, it is five petalled. It is like the peach-bloom (in colour?), but opens 14 or 15 flowers from one place, so that seen from a distance, they look like one great flower. The oleander-bush is taller than the rose-bush. The red oleander has a sort of scent, faint and agreeable. (Like the jāsūn,) it also blooms well and profusely in the [Sidenote: Fol. 288.] rains, and it also is had through most of the year.

The (H.) (kīūrā) (Pandanus odoratissimus, the screw-pine) is another. It has a very agreeable perfume. Musk has the defect of being dry; this may be called moist musk—a very agreeable perfume. The tree's singular appearance notwithstanding, it has flowers perhaps 1-1/2 to 2 qārīsh (13-1/2 to 18 inches) long. It has long leaves having the character of the reed (P.) gharau and having spines. Of these leaves, while pressed together bud-like, the outer ones are the greener and more spiny; the inner ones are soft and white. In amongst these inner leaves grow things like what belongs to the middle of a flower, and from these things comes the excellent perfume. When the tree first comes up not yet shewing any trunk, it is like the bush (būta) of the male-reed, but with wider and more spiny leaves. What serves it for a trunk is very shapeless, its roots remaining shewn.

The (P.) yāsman (jasmine) is another; the white they call (B.) champa. It is larger and more strongly scented than our yāsman-flower.

(n. Seasons of the year.)

Again:—whereas there are four seasons in those countries, there are three in Hindūstān, namely, four months are summer; four are the rains; four are winter. The beginning of their months is from the welcome of the crescent-moons. Every three years they add a month to the year; if one had been added to the rainy season, the next is added, three years later, to the winter months, the next, in the same way, to the hot months. This is their mode of intercalation. (Chait, Baisākh, Jeṭh and [Sidenote: Fol. 288b.] Asāṛh) are the hot months, corresponding with the Fish, (Ram, Bull and Twins; Sāwan, Bhādoṅ, Kū,ār and Kātik) are the rainy months, corresponding with the Crab, (Lion, Virgin and Balance; Aghan, Pūs, Māgh and Phālgun) are the cold months, corresponding with the Scorpion, (Archer, Capricorn, and Bucket or Aquarius).

The people of Hind, having thus divided the year into three seasons of four months each, divide each of those seasons by taking from each, the two months of the force of the heat, rain, and cold. Of the hot months the last two, i.e. Jeṭh and Asāṛh are the force of the heat; of the rainy months, the first two, i.e. Sāwan and Bhādoṅ are the force of the rains; of the cold season, the middle two, i.e. Pūs and Māgh are the force of the cold. By this classification there are six seasons in Hindūstān.

(o. Days of the week.)

To the days also they have given names:— (Sanīchar is Saturday; Rabī-bār is Sunday; Som-wār is Monday; Mangal-wār is Tuesday; Budh-bār is Wednesday; Brihaspat-bār is Thursday; Shukr-bār is Friday).

(p. Divisions of time.)

As in our countries what is known by the (Turkī) term kīcha-gūndūz (a day-and-night, nycthemeron) is divided into 24 parts, each called an hour (Ar. sā`at), and the hour is divided into 60 parts, each called a minute (Ar. daqīqa), so that a day-and-night consists of 1440 minutes,—so the people of Hind divide the night-and-day into 60 parts, each called a (S.) g'harī. They also divide the night into four and the day into four, calling each part a (S.) pahr (watch) which in Persian is a pās. A watch and watchman (pās u pāsbān) had been heard about (by us) in those countries (Transoxania), but without these particulars. Agreeing with the division into watches, a body of g'harīālīs is chosen and appointed in all considerable towns of Hindūstān. They cast a broad brass (plate-) thing, perhaps as large as a tray (ṯabaq) and about two hands'-thickness; this they call a g'harīāl and hang up in a high place (bīr buland yīr-dā). Also they have a vessel perforated at the bottom like an hour-cup and filling in one g'harī (i.e. 24 minutes). The g'harīālīs put this into water and wait till it fills. For example, they will put the perforated [Sidenote: Fol. 289b.] cup into water at day-birth; when it fills the first time, they strike the gong once with their mallets; when a second time, twice, and so on till the end of the watch. They announce the end of a watch by several rapid blows of their mallets. After these they pause; then strike once more, if the first day-watch has ended, twice if the second, three times if the third, and four times if the fourth. After the fourth day-watch, when the night-watches begin, these are gone through in the same way. It used to be the rule to beat the sign of a watch only when the watch ended; so that sleepers chancing to wake in the night and hear the sound of a third or fourth g'harī, would not know whether it was of the second or third night-watch. I therefore ordered that at night or on a cloudy day the sign of the watch should be struck after that of the g'harī, for example, that after striking the third g'harī of the first night-watch, the g'harīālīs were to pause and then strike the sign of the watch, in order to make it known that this third g'harī was of the first night-watch,—and that after striking four g'harīs of the third night-watch, they should pause and then strike the sign of the third watch, in order to make it known that this fourth g'harī was of the third night-watch. It did very well; anyone happening to wake in the night and hear the gong, would know what g'harī of what watch of night it was.

Again, they divide the g'harī into 60 parts, each part being called a pal; by this each night-and-day will consist of 3,500 pals. [Sidenote: Fol. 290.]

(Author's note on the pal.) They say the length of a pal is the shutting and opening of the eyelids 60 times, which in a night-and-day would be 216,000 shuttings and openings of the eyes. Experiment shews that a pal is about equal to 8 repetitions of the Qul-huwa-allāh and Bismillāh; this would be 28,000 repetitions in a night-and-day.

(q. Measures.)

The people of Hind have also well-arranged measures:— 8 ratīs = 1 māsha; 4 māsha = 1 tānk = 32 ratīs; 5 māsha = 1 miṣqāl = 40 ratīs; 12 māsha = 1 tūla = 96 ratīs; 14 tūla = 1 ser.

This is everywhere fixed:—40 ser = 1 mānbān; 12 mānbān = 1 mānī; 100 mānī they call a mīnāsa.

Pearls and jewels they weigh by the tānk.

(r. Modes of reckoning.)

The people of Hind have also an excellent mode of reckoning: 100,000 they call a lak; 100 laks, a krūr; 100 krūrs, an arb; 100 arbs, 1 karb; 100 karb's, 1 nīl; 100 nīls, 1 padam; 100 padams, 1 sāng. The fixing of such high reckonings as these is proof of the great amount of wealth in Hindūstān.

(s. Hindū inhabitants of Hindūstān.)

Most of the inhabitants of Hindūstān are pagans; they call a pagan a Hindū. Most Hindūs believe in the transmigration of souls. All artisans, wage-earners, and officials are Hindūs. In our countries dwellers in the wilds (i.e. nomads) get tribal names; [Sidenote: Fol. 290b.] here the settled people of the cultivated lands and villages get tribal names. Again:—every artisan there is follows the trade that has come down to him from forefather to forefather.

(t. Defects of Hindūstān.)

Hindūstān is a country of few charms. Its people have no good looks; of social intercourse, paying and receiving visits there is none; of genius and capacity none; of manners none; in handicraft and work there is no form or symmetry, method or quality; there are no good horses, no good dogs, no grapes, musk-melons or first-rate fruits, no ice or cold water, no good bread or cooked food in the bāzārs, no Hot-baths, no Colleges, no candles, torches or candlesticks.

In place of candle and torch they have a great dirty gang they call lamp-men (diwatī), who in the left hand hold a smallish wooden tripod to one corner of which a thing like the top of a candlestick is fixed, having a wick in it about as thick as the thumb. In the right hand they hold a gourd, through a narrow slit made in which, oil is let trickle in a thin thread when the wick needs it. Great people keep a hundred or two of these lamp-men. This is the Hindūstān substitute for lamps and candlesticks! If their rulers and begs have work at night needing candles, these dirty lamp-men bring these lamps, go close up and [Sidenote: Fol. 291.] there stand.

Except their large rivers and their standing-waters which flow in ravines or hollows (there are no waters). There are no running-waters in their gardens or residences (`imāratlār). These residences have no charm, air (hawā), regularity or symmetry.

Peasants and people of low standing go about naked. They tie on a thing called lungūtā, a decency-clout which hangs two spans below the navel. From the tie of this pendant decency-clout, another clout is passed between the thighs and made fast behind. Women also tie on a cloth (lung), one-half of which goes round the waist, the other is thrown over the head.

(u. Advantages of Hindūstān.)

Pleasant things of Hindūstān are that it is a large country and has masses of gold and silver. Its air in the Rains is very fine. Sometimes it rains 10, 15 or 20 times a day; torrents pour down all at once and rivers flow where no water had been. While it rains and through the Rains, the air is remarkably fine, not to be surpassed for healthiness and charm. The fault is that the air becomes very soft and damp. A bow of those (Transoxanian) countries after going through the Rains in Hindūstān, may not be drawn even; it is ruined; not only the bow, everything is [Sidenote: Fol. 291b.] affected, armour, book, cloth, and utensils all; a house even does not last long. Not only in the Rains but also in the cold and the hot seasons, the airs are excellent; at these times, however, the north-west wind constantly gets up laden with dust and earth. It gets up in great strength every year in the heats, under the Bull and Twins when the Rains are near; so strong and carrying so much dust and earth that there is no seeing one another. People call this wind Darkener of the Sky (H. āndhī). The weather is hot under the Bull and Twins, but not intolerably so, not so hot as in Balkh and Qandahār and not for half so long.

Another good thing in Hindūstān is that it has unnumbered and endless workmen of every kind. There is a fixed caste (jam`ī) for every sort of work and for every thing, which has done that work or that thing from father to son till now. Mullā Sharaf, writing in the Z̤afar-nāma about the building of Tīmūr Beg's Stone Mosque, lays stress on the fact that on it 200 stone-cutters worked, from Āẕarbāījān, Fars, Hindūstān and other countries. But 680 men worked daily on my buildings in Āgra and of Āgra stone-cutters only; while 1491 stone-cutters worked daily on my buildings in Āgra, Sīkrī, Bīāna, Dūlpūr, Gūālīār and Kūīl. In [Sidenote: Fol. 292.] the same way there are numberless artisans and workmen of every sort in Hindūstān.

(v. Revenues of Hindūstān.)

The revenue of the countries now held by me (935 AH.-1528 AD.) from Bhīra to Bihār is 52 krūrs, as will be known in detail from the following summary. Eight or nine krūrs of this are from parganas of rāīs and rājas who, as obedient from of old, receive allowance and maintenance.

REVENUES OF HINDŪSTĀN FROM WHAT HAS SO FAR COME UNDER THE VICTORIOUS STANDARDS

--------------------------------+---------+-----+---------- Sarkārs. | Krūrs. |Laks.| Tankas. --------------------------------+---------+-----+---------- Trans-sutluj:--Bhīra, | | | Lāhūr, Sīālkūt, | | | Dībālpūr, etc. | 3 | 33 |15,989 Sihrind | 1 | 29 |31,985 Ḥiṣār-fīrūza | 1 | 30 |75,174 The capital Dihlī and | | | Mīān-dū-āb | 3 | 69 |50,254 Mīwāt, not included in | | | Sikandar's time | 1 | 69 |81,000 Bīāna | 1 | 44 |14,930 [Sidenote: Āgra | | 29 |76,919 Fol. 292b.] Mīān-wilāyat (Midlands) | 2 | 91 | 19 Gūālīār | 2 | 23 |57,450 Kālpī and Seho[n.]da | | | (Seondhā) | 4 | 28 |55,950 Qanauj | 1 | 36 |63,358 Saṃbhal | 1 | 38 |44,000 Laknūr and Baksar | 1 | 39 |82,433 Khairābād | | 12 |65,000 Aūd (Oude) and Bahraj | | | (Baraich) | 1 | 17 | 1,369 [Sidenote: Jūnpūr | 4 | ·0 |88,333 Fol. 293.] Karra and Mānikpūr | 1 | 63 |27,282 Bihār | 4 | 5 |60,000 Sarwār | 1 | 55 |17,506-1/2 Sāran | 1 | 10 |18,373 Champāran | 1 | 90 |86,060 Kandla | | 43 |30,300 Tirhut from Rāja | | | Rup-narāīn's tribute, | | | silver | | 2 |55,000 black (i.e. copper) | | 27 |50,000 Rantanbhūr from Būlī, | | | Chātsū, and Malarna | | 20 |?00,000 Nagūr | -- | -- | -- Rāja Bikrāmajīt in | | | Rantanbhūr | -- | -- | -- Kalanjarī | -- | -- | -- Rāja Bīr-sang-deo (or, | | | Sang only) | -- | -- | -- Rāja Bikam-deo | -- | -- | -- Rāja Bikam-chand | -- | -- | -- --------------------------------+---------+-----+----------

So far as particulars and details about the land and people of the country of Hindūstān have become definitely known, they have been narrated and described; whatever matters worthy of record may come to view hereafter, I shall write down.

HISTORICAL NARRATIVE RESUMED.

(a. Distribution of treasure in Āgra.)

(May 12th) On Saturday the 29th of Rajab the examination and distribution of the treasure were begun. To Humāyūn were given 70 laks from the Treasury, and, over and above this, a treasure house was bestowed on him just as it was, without ascertaining and writing down its contents. To some begs 10 laks were given, 8, 7, or 6 to others. Suitable money-gifts were bestowed from the Treasury on the whole army, to every tribe there was, Afghān, Hazāra, `Arab, Bīlūch etc. to each according to its position. Every trader and student, indeed every man who had come with the army, took ample portion and share of bounteous gift and largess. To those not with the army went a mass of treasure in gift and largess, as for instance, 17 laks to Kāmran, 15 laks to Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā, while to `Askarī, Hindāl and indeed to the whole various train of relations and younger children went masses of red and white (gold and silver), of plenishing, jewels and slaves. Many gifts went to the begs and soldiery on that side (Tramontana). Valuable gifts (saughāt) [Sidenote: Fol. 294.] were sent for the various relations in Samarkand, Khurāsān, Kāshghar and `Irāq. To holy men belonging to Samarkand and Khurāsān went offerings vowed to God (nuẕūr); so too to Makka and Madīna. We gave one shāhrukhi for every soul in the country of Kābul and the valley-side of Varsak, man and woman, bond and free, of age or non-age.

(b. Disaffection to Bābur.)

On our first coming to Āgra, there was remarkable dislike and hostility between its people and mine, the peasantry and soldiers running away in fear of our men. Dilhī and Āgra excepted, not a fortified town but strengthened its defences and neither was in obedience nor submitted. Qāsim Saṃbhalī was in Saṃbhal; Niẕām Khān was in Bīāna; in Mīwāt was Ḥasan Khān Mīwātī himself, impious mannikin! who was the sole leader of the trouble and mischief. Muḥammad Zaitun was in Dūlpūr; Tātār Khān Sārang-khānī was in Gūālīār; Ḥusain Khān Nuḥānī was in Rāprī; Quṯb Khān was in Itāwa (Etāwa); `Ālam Khān (Kālpī) was in Kālpī. Qanauj and the other side of Gang (Ganges) was all held by Afghāns in independent hostility, such as Naṣīr Khān Nuḥānī, Ma`rūf Farmūlī and a crowd of other amīrs. These had been in rebellion for three or four years before Ibrāhīm's death and when I defeated him, were holding Qanauj and the whole country beyond it. At the present time they were lying two or three marches on our side of Qanauj and had made Bihār Khān the son of Daryā Khān Nuḥānī their pādshāh, under the style Sulṯān Muḥammad. [Sidenote: Fol. 294b.] Marghūb the slave was in Mahāwīn (Muttra?); he remained there, thus close, for some time but came no nearer.

(c. Discontent in Bābur's army.)

It was the hot-season when we came to Āgra. All the inhabitants (khalāīq) had run away in terror. Neither grain for ourselves nor corn for our horses was to be had. The villages, out of hostility and hatred to us had taken to thieving and highway-robbery; there was no moving on the roads. There had been no chance since the treasure was distributed to send men in strength into the parganas and elsewhere. Moreover the year was a very hot one; violent pestilential winds struck people down in heaps together; masses began to die off.

On these accounts the greater part of the begs and best braves became unwilling to stay in Hindūstān, indeed set their faces for leaving it. It is no reproach to old and experienced begs if they speak of such matters; even if they do so, this man (Bābur) has enough sense and reason to get at what is honest or what is mutinous in their representations, to distinguish between loss and gain. But as this man had seen his task whole, for himself, when he resolved on it, what taste was there in their reiterating that things should be done differently? What recommends the expression of distasteful opinions by men of little standing [Sidenote: Fol. 295.] (kīchīk karīm)? Here is a curious thing:—This last time of our riding out from Kābul, a few men of little standing had just been made begs; what I looked for from them was that if I went through fire and water and came out again, they would have gone in with me unhesitatingly, and with me have come out, that wherever I went, there at my side would they be,—not that they would speak against my fixed purpose, not that they would turn back from any task or great affair on which, all counselling, all consenting, we had resolved, so long as that counsel was not abandoned. Badly as these new begs behaved, Secretary Aḥmadī and Treasurer Walī behaved still worse. Khwāja Kalān had done well in the march out from Kābul, in Ibrāhīm's defeat and until Āgra was occupied; he had spoken bold words and shewn ambitious views. But a few days after the capture of Āgra, all his views changed,—the one zealous for departure at any price was Khwāja Kalān.

(d. Bābur calls a council.)

When I knew of this unsteadiness amongst (my) people, I summoned all the begs and took counsel. Said I, "There is no supremacy and grip on the world without means and resources; without lands and retainers sovereignty and command (pādshāhlīq u amīrlīq) are impossible. By the labours of several years, by encountering hardship, by long travel, by flinging myself and the army into battle, and by deadly slaughter, we, through God's [Sidenote: Fol. 295b.] grace, beat these masses of enemies in order that we might take their broad lands. And now what force compels us, what necessity has arisen that we should, without cause, abandon countries taken at such risk of life? Was it for us to remain in Kābul, the sport of harsh poverty? Henceforth, let no well-wisher of mine speak of such things! But let not those turn back from going who, weak in strong persistence, have set their faces to depart!" By these words, which recalled just and reasonable views to their minds, I made them, willy-nilly, quit their fears.

(e. Khwāja Kalān decides to leave Hindūstān.)

As Khwāja Kalān had no heart to stay in Hindūstān, matters were settled in this way:—As he had many retainers, he was to convoy the gifts, and, as there were few men in Kābul and Ghaznī, was to keep these places guarded and victualled. I bestowed on him Ghaznī, Girdīz and the Sulṯān Mas`ūdī Hazāra, gave also the Hindūstān pargana of G'hūram, worth 3 or 4 laks. It was settled for Khwāja Mīr-i-mīrān also to go to Kābul; the gifts were put into his immediate charge, under the custody of Mullā Ḥasan the banker (ṣarrāf) and Tūka Hindū.

Loathing Hindūstān, Khwāja Kalān, when on his way, had the following couplet inscribed on the wall of his residence [Sidenote: Fol. 296.] (`imāratī) in Dihlī:—

If safe and sound I cross the Sind, Blacken my face ere I wish for Hind!

It was ill-mannered in him to compose and write up this partly-jesting verse while I still stayed in Hind. If his departure

caused me one vexation, such a jest doubled it. I composed the following off-hand verse, wrote it down and sent it to him:—

Give a hundred thanks, Bābur, that the generous Pardoner Has given thee Sind and Hind and many a kingdom. If thou (i.e. the Khwāja) have not the strength for their heats, If thou say, "Let me see the cold side (yūz)," Ghaznī is there.

(f. Accretions to Bābur's force.)

At this juncture, Mullā Apāq was sent into Kūl with royal letters of favour for the soldiers and quiver-wearers (tarkash-band) of that neighbourhood. Shaikh Gūran (G'hūran) came trustfully and loyally to do obeisance, bringing with him from 2 to 3,000 soldiers and quiver-wearers from Between-two-waters (Mīān-dū-āb).

(Author's note on Mullā Apāq.) Formerly he had been in a very low position indeed, but two or three years before this time, had gathered his elder and younger brethren into a compact body and had brought them in (to me), together with the Aūrūq-zāī and other Afghāns of the banks of the Sind.

Yūnas-i-`alī when on his way from Dihlī to Āgra had lost his way a little and got separated from Humāyūn; he then met in with `Alī Khān Farmūlī's sons and train, had a small affair with them, took them prisoners and brought them in. Taking advantage of this, one of the sons thus captured was sent to his [Sidenote: Fol. 296b.] father in company with Daulat-qadam Turk's son Mīrzā Mughūl who conveyed royal letters of favour to `Alī Khān. At this time of break-up, `Alī Khān had gone to Mīwāt; he came to me when Mīrzā Mughūl returned, was promoted, and given valid(?) parganas worth 25 laks.

(g. Action against the rebels of the East.)

Sl. Ibrāhīm had appointed several amīrs under Muṣṯafa Farmūlī and Fīrūz Khān Sārang-khānī, to act against the rebel amīrs of the East (Pūrab). Muṣṯafa had fought them and thoroughly drubbed them, giving them more than one good beating. He dying before Ibrāhīm's defeat, his younger brother Shaikh Bāyazīd—Ibrāhīm being occupied with a momentous matter—had led and watched over his elder brother's men. He now came to serve me, together with Fīrūz Khān, Maḥmūd Khān Nuḥānī and Qāẓī Jīā. I shewed them greater kindness and favour than was their claim; giving to Fīrūz Khān 1 krūr, 46 laks and 5000 tankas from Jūnpūr, to Shaikh Bāyazīd 1 krūr, 48 laks and 50,000 tankas from Aūd (Oude), to Maḥmūd Khān 90 laks and 35,000 tankas from Ghāzīpūr, and to Qāẓī Jīā 20 laks.

(h. Gifts made to various officers.)

It was a few days after the `Īd of Shawwāl that a large party was held in the pillared-porch of the domed building standing in the middle of Sl. Ibrāhīm's private apartments. At this party there were bestowed on Humāyūn a chār-qab, a sword-belt, a tīpūchāq horse with saddle mounted in gold; on Chīn-tīmūr Sulṯān, Mahdī Khwāja and Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā chār-qabs, sword-belts and dagger-belts; and to the begs and [Sidenote: Fol. 297.] braves, to each according to his rank, were given sword-belts, dagger-belts, and dresses of honour, in all to the number specified below:—

2 items (rā's) of tīpūchāq horses with saddles. 16 items (qabẓa) of poinards, set with jewels, etc. 8 items (qabẓa) of purpet over-garments. 2 items (tob) of jewelled sword-belts. —— items (qabẓa) of broad daggers (jamd'kar) set with jewels. 25 items of jewelled hangers (khanjar). —— items of gold-hilted Hindī knives (kārd). 51 pieces of purpet.

On the day of this party it rained amazingly, rain falling thirteen times. As outside places had been assigned to a good many people, they were drowned out (gharaq).

(i. Of various forts and postings.)

Samāna (in Patīāla) had been given to Muḥammadī Kūkūldāsh and it had been arranged for him to make swift descent on Saṃbal (Saṃbhal), but Saṃbal was now bestowed on Humāyūn, in addition to his guerdon of Ḥiṣār-fīrūza, and in his service was Hindū Beg. To suit this, therefore, Hindū Beg was sent to make the incursion in Muḥammadī's place, and with him Kitta Beg, Bābā Qashqa's (brother) Malik Qāsim and his elder and younger brethren, Mullā Apāq and Shaikh Gūran (G'hūran) with the quiver-wearers from Between-two-waters (Mīān-dū-āb). [Sidenote: Fol. 297b.] Three or four times a person had come from Qāsim Saṃbalī, saying, "The renegade Bīban is besieging Saṃbal and has brought it to extremity; come quickly." Bīban, with the array and the preparation (hayāt) with which he had deserted us, had gone skirting the hills and gathering up Afghān and Hindūstānī deserters, until, finding Saṃbal at this juncture ill-garrisoned, he laid siege to it. Hindū Beg and Kitta Beg and the rest of those appointed to make the incursion, got to the Ahār-passage and from there sent ahead Bābā Qashqa's Malik Qāsim with his elder and younger brethren, while they themselves were getting over the water. Malik Qāsim crossed, advanced swiftly with from 100 to 150 men—his own and his brethren's—and reached Saṃbal by the Mid-day Prayer. Bīban for his part came out of his camp in array. Malik Qāsim and his troop moved rapidly forward, got the fort in their rear, and came to grips. Bīban could make no stand; he fled. Malik Qāsim cut off the heads of part of his force, took many horses, a few elephants and a mass of booty. Next day when the other begs arrived, Qāsim Saṃbalī came out and saw them, but not liking to surrender the fort, made them false pretences. One day Shaikh Gūran (G'hūran) and Hindū Beg having talked the matter over with them, got Qāsim Saṃbalī out to the presence of the begs, and took men of ours into the fort. They brought Qāsim's wife and dependents safely out, and sent Qāsim (to Court).

Qalandar the foot-man was sent to Niẕām Khān in Bīāna with royal letters of promise and threat; with these was sent [Sidenote: Fol. 298.] also the following little off-hand (Persian) verse:—

Strive not with the Turk, o Mīr of Bīāna! His skill and his courage are obvious. If thou come not soon, nor give ear to counsel,— What need to detail (bayān) what is obvious?

Bīāna being one of the famous forts of Hindūstān, the senseless mannikin, relying on its strength, demanded what not even its strength could enforce. Not giving him a good answer, we ordered siege apparatus to be looked to.

Bābā Qulī Beg was sent with royal letters of promise and threat to Muḥammad Zaitūn (in Dūlpūr); Muḥammad Zaitūn also made false excuses.

While we were still in Kābul, Rānā Sangā had sent an envoy to testify to his good wishes and to propose this plan: "If the honoured Pādshāh will come to near Dihlī from that side, I from this will move on Āgra." But I beat Ibrāhīm, I took Dihlī and Āgra, and up to now that Pagan has given no sign soever of moving. After a while he went and laid siege to Kandār a fort in which was Makan's son, Ḥasan by name. This Ḥasan-of-Makan had sent a person to me several times, but had not shewn himself. We had not been able to detach [Sidenote: Fol. 298b.] reinforcement for him because, as the forts round-about—Atāwa (Etāwa), Dūlpūr, and Bīāna—had not yet surrendered, and the Eastern Afghāns were seated with their army in obstinate rebellion two or three marches on the Āgra side of Qanūj, my mind was not quite free from the whirl and strain of things close at hand. Makan's Ḥasan therefore, becoming helpless, had surrendered Kandār two or three months ago.

Ḥusain Khān (Nuḥānī) became afraid in Rāprī, and he abandoning it, it was given to Muḥammad `Alī Jang-jang.

To Quṯb Khān in Etāwa royal letters of promise and threat had been sent several times, but as he neither came and saw me, nor abandoned Etāwa and got away, it was given to Mahdī Khwāja and he was sent against it with a strong reinforcement of begs and household troops under the command of Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā, Sl. Muḥammad Dūldāī, Muḥammad `Alī Jang-jang and `Abdu'l-`azīz the Master of the Horse. Qanūj was given to Sl. Muḥammad Dūldāī; he was also (as mentioned) appointed against Etāwa; so too were Fīrūz Khān, Maḥmūd Khān, Shaikh Bāyazīd and Qāẓī Jīā, highly favoured commanders to whom Eastern parganas had been given.

(j. Plan of operations adopted.)

These armies appointed, we summoned the Turk amīrs and the Hindūstān amīrs, and tossed the following matters in amongst them:—The various rebel amīrs of the East, that is to say, those under Nāṣir Khān Nuḥānī and Ma`rūf Farmūlī, have crossed Gang (Ganges) with 40 to 50,000 men, taken Qanūj, and now lie some three miles on our side of the river. The Pagan Rānā Sangā has captured Kandār and is in a hostile and mischievous attitude. The end of the Rains is near. It seems expedient to move either against the rebels or the Pagan, since the task of the forts near-by is easy; when the great foes are got rid of, what road will remain open for the rest? Rānā Sangā is thought not to be the equal of the rebels.

To this all replied unanimously, "Rānā Sangā is the most distant, and it is not known that he will come nearer; the enemy who is closest at hand must first be got rid of. We are for riding against the rebels." Humāyūn then represented, [Sidenote: Fol. 299b.] "What need is there for the Pādshāh to ride out? This service I will do." This came as a pleasure to every-one; the Turk and Hind amīrs gladly accepted his views; he was appointed for the East. A Kābulī of Aḥmad-i-qāsim's was sent galloping off to tell the armies that had been despatched against Dūlpūr to join Humāyūn at Chandwār; also those sent against Etāwa under Mahdī Khwāja and Muḥammad Sl. M. were ordered to join him.

(August 21st) Humāyūn set out on Thursday the 13th of Ẕū'l-qa´da, dismounted at a little village called Jilīsīr (Jalesar) some 3 kurohs from Āgra, there stayed one night, then moved forward march by march.

(k. Khwāja Kalān's departure.)

(August 28th) On Thursday the 20th of this same month, Khwāja Kalān started for Kābul.

(l. Of gardens and pleasaunces.)

One of the great defects of Hindūstān being its lack of running-waters, it kept coming to my mind that waters should be made to flow by means of wheels erected wherever I might settle down, also that grounds should be laid out in an orderly and symmetrical way. With this object in view, we crossed the Jūn-water to look at garden-grounds a few days after entering Āgra. Those grounds were so bad and unattractive that we traversed them with a hundred disgusts and repulsions. So ugly and displeasing were they, that the idea of making a [Sidenote: Fol. 300.] Chār-bāgh in them passed from my mind, but needs must! as there was no other land near Āgra, that same ground was taken in hand a few days later.

The beginning was made with the large well from which water comes for the Hot-bath, and also with the piece of ground where the tamarind-trees and the octagonal tank now are. After that came the large tank with its enclosure; after that the tank and tālār in front of the outer(?) residence; after that the private-house (khilwat-khāna) with its garden and various dwellings; after that the Hot-bath. Then in that charmless and disorderly Hind, plots of garden were seen laid out with order and symmetry, with suitable borders and parterres in every corner, and in every border rose and narcissus in perfect arrangement.

(m. Construction of a chambered-well.)

Three things oppressed us in Hindūstān, its heat, its violent winds, its dust. Against all three the Bath is a protection, for in it, what is known of dust and wind? and in the heats it is so chilly that one is almost cold. The bath-room in which the heated tank is, is altogether of stone, the whole, except for the īzāra (dado?) of white stone, being, pavement and roofing, of red Bīāna stone.

Khalīfa also and Shaikh Zain, Yūnas-i-`alī and whoever got [Sidenote: Fol. 300b.] land on that other bank of the river laid out regular and orderly gardens with tanks, made running-waters also by setting up wheels like those in Dīpālpūr and Lāhor. The people of Hind who had never seen grounds planned so symmetrically and thus laid out, called the side of the Jūn where (our) residences were, Kābul.

In an empty space inside the fort, which was between Ibrāhīm's residence and the ramparts, I ordered a large chambered-well (wāīn) to be made, measuring 10 by 10, a large well with a flight of steps, which in Hindūstān is called a wāīn. This well was begun before the Chār-bāgh; they were busy digging it in the true Rains (`aīn bīshkāl, Sāwan and Bhadon); it fell in several times and buried the hired workmen; it was finished after the Holy Battle with Rānā Sangā, as is stated in the inscription on the stone that bears the chronogram of its completion. It is a complete wāīn, having a three-storeyed house in it. The lowest storey consists of three rooms, each of which opens on the descending steps, at intervals of three steps from one another. When the water is at its lowest, it is one step below the bottom chamber; when it rises in the Rains, it sometimes goes into the top storey. In the middle storey an inner chamber has been excavated which connects with the domed building in which the bullock turns the well-wheel. The [Sidenote: Fol. 301.] top storey is a single room, reached from two sides by 5 or 6 steps which lead down to it from the enclosure overlooked from the well-head. Facing the right-hand way down, is the stone inscribed with the date of completion. At the side of this well is another the bottom of which may be at half the depth of the first, and into which water comes from that first one when the bullock turns the wheel in the domed building afore-mentioned. This second well also is fitted with a wheel, by means of which water is carried along the ramparts to the high-garden. A stone building (tāshdīn `imārat) stands at the mouth of the well and there is an outer(?) mosque outside (tāshqārī) the enclosure in which the well is. The mosque is not well done; it is in the Hindūstānī fashion.

(n. Humāyūn's campaign.)

At the time Humāyūn got to horse, the rebel amīrs under Naṣīr Khān Nuḥānī and Ma`rūf Farmūlī were assembled at Jājmāū. Arrived within 20 to 30 miles of them, he sent out Mūmin Ātāka for news; it became a raid for loot; Mūmin Ātāka was not able to bring even the least useful information. The rebels heard about him however, made no stay but fled and got away. After Mūmin Ātāka, Qusm-nāī(?) was sent for news, with Bābā Chuhra and Būjka; they brought it of the breaking-up and flight of the rebels. Humāyūn advancing, took Jājmāū [Sidenote: Fol. 301b.] and passed on. Near Dilmāū Fatḥ Khān Sarwānī came and saw him, and was sent to me with Mahdī Khwāja and Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā.

(o. News of the Aūzbegs.)

This year 'Ubaidu'l-lāh Khān (Aūzbeg) led an army out of Bukhārā against Marv. In the citadel of Marv were perhaps 10 to 15 peasants whom he overcame and killed; then having taken the revenues of Marv in 40 or 50 days, he went on to Sarakhs. In Sarakhs were some 30 to 40 Red-heads (Qīzīl-bāsh) who did not surrender, but shut the Gate; the peasantry however scattered them and opened the Gate to the Aūzbeg who entering, killed the Red-heads. Sarakhs taken, he went against T̤ūs and Mashhad. The inhabitants of Mashhad being helpless, let him in. T̤ūs he besieged for 8 months, took possession of on terms, did not keep those terms, but killed every man of name and made their women captive.

(p. Affairs of Gujrāt.)

In this year Bahādur Khān,—he who now rules in Gujrāt in the place of his father Sl. Muz̤affar Gujrātī—having gone to Sl. Ibrāhīm after quarrel with his father, had been received without honour. He had sent dutiful letters to me while I was near Pānī-pat; I had replied by royal letters of favour and kindness summoning him to me. He had thought of coming, but changing his mind, drew off from Ibrāhīm's army towards Gujrāt. Meantime his father Sl. Muz̤affar had died (Friday Jumāda II. 2nd AH.-March 16th 1526 AD.); his elder brother Sikandar Shāh who was Sl. Muz̤affar's eldest son, had become ruler in their father's place and, owing to his evil disposition, [Sidenote: Fol. 302.] had been strangled by his slave `Imādu'l-mulk, acting with others (Sha`ban 14th—May 25th). Bahādur Khān, while he was on his road for Gujrāt, was invited and escorted to sit in his father's place under the style Bahādur Shāh (Ramẓān 26th—July 6th). He for his part did well; he retaliated by death on `Imādu'l-mulk for his treachery to his salt, and killed some others of his father's begs. People point at him as a dreadnaught (bī bāk) youth and a shedder of much blood.

933 AH.-OCT. 8TH 1526 TO SEP. 27TH 1527 AD.

(a. Announcement of the birth of a son.)

In Muḥarram Beg Wais brought the news of Fārūq's birth; though a foot-man had brought it already, he came this month for the gift to the messenger of good tidings. The birth must have been on Friday eve, Shawwāl 23rd (932 AH.-August 2nd 1526 AD.); the name given was Fārūq.

(b. Casting of a mortar.)

(October 22nd-Muḥarram 15th) Ustād `Alī-qulī had been ordered to cast a large mortar for use against Bīāna and other forts which had not yet submitted. When all the furnaces and materials were ready, he sent a person to me and, on Monday the 15th of the month, we went to see the mortar cast. Round the mortar-mould he had had eight furnaces made in which [Sidenote: Fol. 302b.] were the molten materials. From below each furnace a channel went direct to the mould. When he opened the furnace-holes on our arrival, the molten metal poured like water through all these channels into the mould. After awhile and before the mould was full, the flow stopped from one furnace after another. Ustād `Alī-qulī must have made some miscalculation either as to the furnaces or the materials. In his great distress, he was for throwing himself into the mould of molten metal, but we comforted him, put a robe of honour on him, and so brought him out of his shame. The mould was left a day or two to cool; when it was opened, Ustād `Alī-qulī with great delight sent to say, "The stone-chamber (tāsh-awī) is without defect; to cast the powder-compartment (dārū-khāna) is easy." He got the stone-chamber out and told off a body of men to accoutre it, while he busied himself with casting the powder-compartment.

(c. Varia.)

Mahdī Khwāja arrived bringing Fatḥ Khān Sarwānī from Humāyūn's presence, they having parted from him in Dilmāū. I looked with favour on Fatḥ Khān, gave him the parganas that had been his father `Aẕam-humāyūn's, and other lands also, one pargana given being worth a krūr and 60 laks.

In Hindūstān they give permanent titles [muqarrarī khiṯāblār] to highly-favoured amīrs, one such being `Aẕam-humāyūn (August Might), one Khān-i-jahān (Khan-of-the-world), another [Sidenote: Fol. 303.] Khān-i-khānān (Khān-of-khāns). Fatḥ Khān's father's title was `Aẕam-humāyūn but I set this aside because on account of Humāyūn it was not seemly for any person to bear it, and I gave Fatḥ Khān Sarwānī the title of Khān-i-jahān.

(November 14th) On Wednesday the 8th of Ṣafar awnings were set up (in the Chār-bāgh) at the edge of the large tank beyond the tamarind-trees, and an entertainment was prepared there. We invited Fatḥ Khān Sarwānī to a wine-party, gave him wine, bestowed on him a turban and head-to-foot of my own wearing, uplifted his head with kindness and favour and allowed him to go to his own districts. It was arranged for his son Maḥmūd to remain always in waiting.

(d. Various military matters.)

(November 30th) On Wednesday the 24th of Muḥarram Muḥammad `Alī (son of Mihtar) Ḥaidar the stirrup-holder was sent (to Humāyūn) with this injunction, "As—thanks be to God!—the rebels have fled, do you, as soon as this messenger arrives, appoint a few suitable begs to Jūnpūr, and come quickly to us yourself, for Rānā Sangā the Pagan is conveniently close; let us think first of him!"

After (Humāyūn's) army had gone to the East, we appointed, to make a plundering excursion into the Bīāna neighbourhood, Tardī Beg (brother) of Qūj Beg with his elder brother Sher-afgan, Muḥammad Khalīl the master-gelder (akhta-begī) with his brethren and the gelders (akhtachīlār), Rustam Turkmān with his brethren, and also, of the Hindūstānī people, Daud Sarwānī. [Sidenote: Fol. 303b.] If they, by promise and persuasion, could make the Bīāna garrison look towards us, they were to do so; if not, they were to weaken the enemy by raid and plunder.

In the fort of Tahangar was `Ālam Khān the elder brother of that same Niẕām Khān of Bīāna. People of his had come again and again to set forth his obedience and well-wishing; he now took it on himself to say, "If the Pādshāh appoint an army, it will be my part by promise and persuasion to bring in the quiver-weavers of Bīāna and to effect the capture of that fort." This being so, the following orders were given to the braves of Tardī Beg's expedition, "As `Ālam Khān, a local man, has taken it on himself to serve and submit in this manner, act you with him and in the way he approves in this matter of Bīāna." Swordsmen though some Hindūstānīs may be, most of them are ignorant and unskilled in military move and stand (yūrūsh u tūrūsh), in soldierly counsel and procedure. When our expedition joined `Ālam Khān, he paid no attention to what any-one else said, did not consider whether his action was good or bad, but went close up to Bīāna, taking our men with him. Our expedition numbered from 250 to 300 Turks with somewhat over 2000 Hindūstānīs and local people, while Niẕām Khān of Bīāna's Afghāns and sipāhīs were an army of over 4000 horse and of [Sidenote: Fol. 304.] foot-men themselves again, more than 10,000. Niẕām Khān looked his opponents over, sallied suddenly out and, his massed horse charging down, put our expeditionary force to flight. His men unhorsed his elder brother `Ālam Khān, took 5 or 6 others prisoner and contrived to capture part of the baggage. As we had already made encouraging promises to Niẕām Khān, we now, spite of this last impropriety, pardoned all earlier and this later fault, and sent him royal letters. As he heard of Rānā Sangā's rapid advance, he had no resource but to call on Sayyid Rafī` for mediation, surrender the fort to our men, and come in with Sayyid Rafī`, when he was exalted to the felicity of an interview. I bestowed on him a pargana in Mīān-dū-āb worth 20 laks. Dost, Lord-of-the-gate was sent for a time to Bīāna, but a few days later it was bestowed on Madhī Khwāja with a fixed allowance of 70 laks, and he was given leave to go there.

Tātār Khān Sārang-khānī, who was in Gūālīār, had been sending constantly to assure us of his obedience and good-wishes. After the pagan took Kandār and was close to Bīāna, Dharmankat, one of the Gūālīār rājas, and another pagan styled Khān-i-jahān, went into the Gūālīār neighbourhood and, coveting the fort, began to stir trouble and tumult. Tātār Khān, thus placed in difficulty, was for surrendering Gūālīār (to us). Most of our begs, household and best braves being away with (Humāyūn's) army or on various raids, we joined to Raḥīm-dād [Sidenote: Fol. 304b.] a few Bhīra men and Lāhorīs with Hastachī tūnqiṯār and his brethren. We assigned parganas in Gūālīār itself to all those mentioned above. Mullā Apāq and Shaikh Gurān (G'hurān) went also with them, they to return after Raḥīm-dād was established in Gūālīār. By the time they were near Gūālīār however, Tātār Khān's views had changed, and he did not invite them into the fort. Meantime Shaikh Muḥammad Ghaus̤ (Helper), a darwīsh-like man, not only very learned but with a large following of students and disciples, sent from inside the fort to say to Raḥīm-dād, "Get yourselves into the fort somehow, for the views of this person (Tātār Khān) have changed, and he has evil in his mind." Hearing this, Raḥīm-dād sent to say to Tātār Khān, "There is danger from the Pagan to those outside; let me bring a few men into the fort and let the rest stay outside." Under insistence, Tātār Khān agreed to this, and Raḥīm-dād went in with rather few men. Said he, "Let our people stay near this Gate," posted them near the Hātī-pul (Elephant-gate) and through that Gate during that same night brought in the whole of his troop. Next day, Tātār Khān, reduced to helplessness, willy-nilly, made over the fort, and set out to come and wait on me in Āgra. A subsistence allowance of 20 laks was assigned to him on Bīānwān pargana.

In the Ḥiṣār-fīrūza neighbourhood Ḥamīd Khān Sārang-khānī with a body of his own Afghāns and of the Panī Afghāns he had collected—from 3 to 4,000 in all—was in a hostile and troublesome attitude. On Wednesday the 15th Ṣafar (Nov. 21st) we appointed against him Chīn-tīmūr Sl. (Chaghatāī) with the commanders Secretary Aḥmadī, Abū'l-fatḥ Turkmān, Malik Dād Kararānī and Mujāhid Khān of Multān. These going, fell suddenly on him from a distance, beat his Afghāns well, killed a mass of them and sent in many heads.

(e. Embassy from Persia.)

In the last days of Ṣafar, Khwājagī Asad who had been sent to Shāh-zāda T̤ahmāsp in `Irāq, returned with a Turkmān named Sulaimān who amongst other gifts brought two Circassian girls (qīzlār).

(f. Attempt to poison Bābur.)

(Dec. 21st) On Friday the 16th of the first Rabī` a strange event occurred which was detailed in a letter written to Kābul. That letter is inserted here just as it was written, without addition or taking-away, and is as follows:—

"The details of the momentous event of Friday the 16th of the first Rabī` in the date 933 [Dec. 21st 1526 AD.] are as follows:—The ill-omened old woman Ibrāhim's mother heard [Sidenote: Fol. 305b.] that I ate things from the hands of Hindūstānīs—the thing being that three or four months earlier, as I had not seen Hindūstānī dishes, I had ordered Ibrāhīm's cooks to be brought and out of 50 or 60 had kept four. Of this she heard, sent to Atāwa (Etāwa) for Aḥmad the chāshnīgīr—in Hindūstān they call a taster (bakāwal) a chāshnīgīr—and, having got him, gave a tūla of poison, wrapped in a square of paper,—as has been mentioned a tūla is rather more than 2 mis̤qāls—into the hand of a slave-woman who was to give it to him. That poison Aḥmad gave to the Hindūstānī cooks in our kitchen, promising them four parganas if they would get it somehow into the food. Following the first slave-woman that ill-omened old woman sent a second to see if the first did or did not give the poison she had received to Aḥmad. Well was it that Aḥmad put the poison not into the cooking-pot but on a dish! He did not put it into the pot because I had strictly ordered the tasters to compel any Hindūstānīs who were present while food was cooking in the pots, to taste that food. Our graceless tasters were neglectful when the food (āsh) was being dished up. Thin slices of bread were put on a porcelain dish; on these less than half of the paper packet of poison was sprinkled, and over this buttered [Sidenote: Fol. 306.] fritters were laid. It would have been bad if the poison had been strewn on the fritters or thrown into the pot. In his confusion, the man threw the larger half into the fire-place."

"On Friday, late after the Afternoon Prayer, when the cooked meats were set out, I ate a good deal of a dish of hare and also much fried carrot, took a few mouthfuls of the poisoned Hindūstānī food without noticing any unpleasant flavour, took also a mouthful or two of dried-meat (qāq). Then I felt sick. As some dried meat eaten on the previous day had had an unpleasant taste, I thought my nausea due to the dried-meat. Again and again my heart rose; after retching two or three times I was near vomiting on the table-cloth. At last I saw it would not do, got up, went retching every moment of the way to the water-closet (āb-khāna) and on reaching it vomited much. Never had I vomited after food, used not to do so indeed while drinking. I became suspicious; I had the cooks put in ward and ordered some of the vomit given to a dog and the dog to be watched. It was somewhat out-of-sorts near the first watch of the next day; its belly was swollen and however much people threw stones at it and turned it over, it did not get up. In that state it remained till mid-day; it then got up; it did not die. [Sidenote: Fol. 306b.] One or two of the braves who also had eaten of that dish, vomited a good deal next day; one was in a very bad state. In the end all escaped. (Persian) 'An evil arrived but happily passed on!' God gave me new-birth! I am coming from that other world; I am born today of my mother; I was sick; I live; through God, I know today the worth of life!"

"I ordered Pay-master Sl. Muḥammad to watch the cook; when he was taken for torture (qīn), he related the above particulars one after another."

"Monday being Court-day, I ordered the grandees and notables, amīrs and wazīrs to be present and that those two men and two women should be brought and questioned. They there related the particulars of the affair. That taster I had cut in pieces, that cook skinned alive; one of those women I had thrown under an elephant, the other shot with a match-lock. The old woman (būā) I had kept under guard; she will meet her doom, the captive of her own act."

"On Saturday I drank a bowl of milk, on Sunday `araq in which stamped-clay was dissolved. On Monday I drank milk in which were dissolved stamped-clay and the best theriac, a strong purge. As on the first day, Saturday, something very dark like parched bile was voided."

"Thanks be to God! no harm has been done. Till now I had not known so well how sweet a thing life can seem! As the line has it, 'He who has been near to death knows the worth of life.' Spite of myself, I am all upset whenever the dreadful [Sidenote: Fol. 307.] occurrence comes back to my mind. It must have been God's favour gave me life anew; with what words can I thank him?"

"Although the terror of the occurrence was too great for words, I have written all that happened, with detail and circumstance, because I said to myself, 'Don't let their hearts be kept in anxiety!' Thanks be to God! there may be other days yet to see! All has passed off well and for good; have no fear or anxiety in your minds."

"This was written on Tuesday the 20th of the first Rabī`, I being then in the Chār-bāgh."

When we were free from the anxiety of these occurrences, the above letter was written and sent to Kābul.

(g. Dealings with Ibrāhīm's family.)

As this great crime had raised its head through that ill-omened old woman (būā-i-bad-bakht), she was given over to Yūnas-i-`alī and Khwājagī Asad who after taking her money and goods, slaves and slave-women (dādūk), made her over for careful watch to `Abdu'r-raḥīm shaghāwal. Her grandson, Ibrāhīm's son had been cared for with much respect and delicacy, but as the attempt on my life had been made, clearly, by that family, it did not seem advisable to keep him in Agra; he was joined therefore to Mullā Sarsān—who had come from Kāmrān on important business—and was started off with the Mullā to Kāmrān on Thursday Rabī` I. 29th (Jan. 3rd 1527 AD.).

(h. Humāyūn's campaign.)

Humāyūn, in accordance with my arrangements, left Shāh Mīr Ḥusain and Sl. Junaid with a body of effective braves in Jūna-pūr, posted Qāẓī Jīā with them, and placed Shaikh Bāyazīd [Farmūlī] in Aude (Oude). These important matters settled, he crossed Gang from near Karrah-Mānikpūr and took the Kālpī road. When he came opposite Kālpī, in which was Jalāl Khān Jik-hat's (son) `Ālam Khān who had sent me dutiful letters but had not waited on me himself, he sent some-one to chase fear from `Ālam Khān's heart and so brought him along (to Āgra).

Humāyūn arrived and waited on me in the Garden of Eight-paradises on Sunday the 3rd of the 2nd Rabī` (Jan. 6th 1527 AD.). On the same day Khwāja Dost-i-khāwand arrived from Kābul.

(i. Rānā Sangā's approach.)

Meantime Mahdī Khwāja's people began to come in, treading on one another's heels and saying, "The Rānā's advance is certain. Ḥasan Khān Mīwātī is heard of also as likely to join him. They must be thought about above all else. It would favour our fortune, if a troop came ahead of the army to reinforce Bīāna." [Sidenote: Fol. 308.]

Deciding to get to horse, we sent on, to ride light to Bīāna, the commanders Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā, Yūnas-i-`alī, Shāh Manṣūr Barlās, Kitta Beg, Qismatī and Būjka.

In the fight with Ibrāhīm, Ḥasan Khān Mīwātī's son Nāhar Khān had fallen into our hands; we had kept him as an hostage and, ostensibly on his account, his father had been making comings-and-goings with us, constantly asking for him. It now occurred to several people that if Ḥasan Khān were conciliated by sending him his son, he would thereby be the more favourably disposed and his waiting on me might be the better brought about. Accordingly Nāhar Khān was dressed in a robe of honour; promises were made to him for his father, and he was given leave to go. That hypocritical mannikin [Ḥasan Khān] must have waited just till his son had leave from me to go, for on hearing of this and while his son as yet had not joined him, he came out of Alūr (Alwar) and at once joined Rānā Sangā in Toda(bhīm, Āgra District). It must have been ill-judged to let his son go just then.

Meantime much rain was falling; parties were frequent; even Humāyūn was present at them and, abhorrent though it was to him, sinned every few days.

(j. Tramontane affairs.)

One of the strange events in these days of respite was this:—When Humāyūn was coming from Fort Victory. (Qila`-i-ẕafar) to join the Hindūstān army, (Muḥ. 932 AH.-Oct. 1525 AD.) [Sidenote: Fol. 308b.] Mullā Bābā of Pashāghar (Chaghatāī) and his younger brother Bābā Shaikh deserted on the way, and went to Kītīn-qarā Sl. (Aūzbeg), into whose hands Balkh had fallen through the enfeeblement of its garrison. This hollow mannikin and his younger brother having taken the labours of this side (Cis-Balkh?) on their own necks, come into the neighbourhood of Aībak, Khurram and Sār-bāgh.

Shāh Sikandar—his footing in Ghūrī lost through the surrender of Balkh—is about to make over that fort to the Aūzbeg, when Mullā Bābā and Bābā Shaikh, coming with a few Aūzbegs, take possession of it. Mīr Hamah, as his fort is close by, has no help for it; he is for submitting to the Aūzbeg, but a few days later Mullā Bābā and Bābā Shaikh come with a few Aūzbegs to Mīr Hamah's fort, purposing to make the Mīr and his troop march out and to take them towards Balkh. Mīr Hamah makes Bābā Shaikh dismount inside the fort, and gives the rest felt huts (aūtāq) here and there. He slashes at Bābā Shaikh, puts him and some others in bonds, and sends a man galloping off to Tīngrī-bīrdī (Qūchīn, in Qūndūz). Tīngrī-bīrdī sends off Yār-i-`alī and `Abdu'l-laṯīf with a few effective braves, but before they reach Mīr Hamah's fort, Mullā Bābā has arrived there with his Aūzbegs; he had thought of a hand-to-hand fight (aūrūsh-mūrūsh), but he can do nothing. Mīr Hamah and his men joined Tīngrī-bīrdī's and came to Qūndūz. Bābā Shaikh's wound must have been severe; they cut his head off and Mīr Hamah brought [Sidenote: Fol. 309.] it (to Āgra) in these same days of respite. I uplifted his head with favour and kindness, distinguishing him amongst his fellows and equals. When Bāqī shaghāwal went [to Balkh] I promised him a ser of gold for the head of each of the ill-conditioned old couple; one ser of gold was now given to Mīr Hamah for Bābā Shaikh's head, over and above the favours referred to above.

(k. Action of part of the Bīāna reinforcement.)

Qismatī who had ridden light for Bīāna, brought back several heads he had cut off; when he and Būjka had gone with a few braves to get news, they had beaten two of the Pagan's scouting-parties and had made 70 to 80 prisoners. Qismatī brought news that Ḥasan Khān Mīwātī really had joined Rānā Sangā.

(l. Trial-test of the large mortar of f. 302.)

(Feb. 10th) On Sunday the 8th of the month (Jumāda I.), I went to see Ustād `Alī-qulī discharge stones from that large mortar of his in casting which the stone-chamber was without defect and which he had completed afterwards by casting the powder-compartment. It was discharged at the Afternoon Prayer; the throw of the stone was 1600 paces. A gift was made to the Master of a sword-belt, robe of honour, and tīpūchāq (horse).

(m. Bābur leaves Āgra against Rānā Sangā.)

(Feb. 11th) On Monday the 9th of the first Jumāda, we got out of the suburbs of Āgra, on our journey (safar) for the Holy War, and dismounted in the open country, where we remained three or four days to collect our army and be its rallying-point. As little confidence was placed in Hindūstānī people, the Hindūstān amīrs were inscribed for expeditions to this or to that side:—`Ālam Khān (Tahangarī) was sent hastily to Gūālīār to [Sidenote: Fol. 309b.] reinforce Raḥīm-dād; Makan, Qāsim Beg Sanbalī (Saṃbhalī), Ḥamīd with his elder and younger brethren and Muḥammad Zaitūn were inscribed to go swiftly to Sanbal.

(n. Defeat of the advance-force.)

Into this same camp came the news that owing to Rānā Sangā's swift advance with all his army, our scouts were able neither to get into the fort (Bīāna) themselves nor to send news into it. The Bīāna garrison made a rather incautious sally too far out; the enemy fell on them in some force and put them to rout. There Sangur Khān Janjūha became a martyr. Kitta Beg had galloped into the pell-mell without his cuirass; he got one pagan afoot (yāyāglātīb) and was overcoming him, when the pagan snatched a sword from one of Kitta Beg's own servants and slashed the Beg across the shoulder. Kitta Beg suffered great pain; he could not come into the Holy-battle with Rānā Sangā, was long in recovering and always remained blemished.

Whether because they were themselves afraid, or whether to frighten others is not known but Qismatī, Shāh Manṣūr Barlās and all from Bīāna praised and lauded the fierceness and valour of the pagan army.

Qāsim Master-of-the-horse was sent from the starting-ground (safar qīlghān yūrt) with his spadesmen, to dig many wells where the army was next to dismount in the Madhākūr pargana.

(Feb. 16th) Marching out of Āgra on Saturday the 14th of the first Jumāda, dismount was made where the wells had been [Sidenote: Fol. 310.] dug. We marched on next day. It crossed my mind that the well-watered ground for a large camp was at Sīkrī. It being possible that the Pagan was encamped there and in possession of the water, we arrayed precisely, in right, left and centre. As Qismatī and Darwīsh-i-muḥammad Sārbān in their comings and goings had seen and got to know all sides of Bīāna, they were sent ahead to look for camping-ground on the bank of the Sīkrī-lake (kūl). When we reached the (Madhākūr) camp, persons were sent galloping off to tell Mahdī Khwāja and the Bīāna garrison to join me without delay. Humāyūn's servant Beg Mīrak Mughūl was sent out with a few braves to get news of the Pagan. They started that night, and next morning brought word that he was heard of as having arrived and dismounted at a place one kuroh (2 miles) on our side (aīlkārāk) of Basāwar. On this same day Mahdī Khwāja and Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā rejoined us with the troops that had ridden light to Bīāna.

(o. Discomfiture of a reconnoitring party.)

The begs were appointed in turns for scouting-duty. When it was `Abdu'l-`azīz's turn, he went out of Sīkrī, looking neither before nor behind, right out along the road to Kanwā which is 5 kuroh (10 m.) away. The Rānā must have been marching forward; he heard of our men's moving out in their reinless (jalāū-sīz) way, and made 4 or 5,000 of his own fall suddenly on them. With `Abdu'l-`azīz and Mullā Apāq may have been 1000 to 1500 men; they took no stock of their opponents but just [Sidenote: Fol. 310b.] got to grips; they were hurried off at once, many of them being made prisoner.

On news of this, we despatched Khalīfa's Muḥibb-i-`alī with Khalīfa's retainers. Mullā Ḥusain and some others aūbrūqsūbrūq* were sent to support them, and Muḥammad `Alī Jang-jang also. Presumably it was before the arrival of this first, Muḥibb-i-`alī's, reinforcement that the Pagan had hurried off `Abdu'l-`azīz and his men, taken his standard, martyred Mullā Ni`mat, Mullā Dāūd and the younger brother of Mullā Apāq, with several more. Directly the reinforcement arrived the pagans overcame T̤āhir-tibrī, the maternal uncle of Khalīfa's Muḥibb-i-`alī, who had not got up with the hurrying reinforcement[?]. Meantime Muḥibb-i-`alī even had been thrown down, but Bāltū getting in from the rear, brought him out. The enemy pursued for over a kuroh (2 m.), stopped however at the sight of the black mass of Muḥ. `Alī Jang-jang's troops.

Foot upon foot news came that the foe had come near and nearer. We put on our armour and our horses' mail, took our arms and, ordering the carts to be dragged after us, rode out at the gallop. We advanced one kuroh. The foe must have turned aside.

(p. Bābur fortifies his camp.)

For the sake of water, we dismounted with a large lake (kūl) on one side of us. Our front was defended by carts chained together*, the space between each two, across which the chains stretched, being 7 or 8 qārī (circa yards). Musṯafa Rūmī had [Sidenote: Fol. 311.] had the carts made in the Rūmī way, excellent carts, very strong and suitable. As Ustād `Alī-qulī was jealous of him, Musṯafa was posted to the right, in front of Humāyūn. Where the carts did not reach to, Khurāsānī and Hindūstānī spadesmen and miners were made to dig a ditch.

Owing to the Pagan's rapid advance, to the fighting-work in Bīāna and to the praise and laud of the pagans made by Shāh Manṣūr, Qismatī and the rest from Bīāna, people in the army shewed sign of want of heart. On the top of all this came the defeat of `Abdu'l-`azīz. In order to hearten our men, and give a look of strength to the army, the camp was defended and shut in where there were no carts, by stretching ropes of raw hide on wooden tripods, set 7 or 8 qārī apart. Time had drawn out to 20 or 25 days before these appliances and materials were fully ready.

(q. A reinforcement from Kābul.)

Just at this time there arrived from Kābul Qāsim-i-ḥusain Sl. (Aūzbeg Shaibān) who is the son of a daughter of Sl. Ḥusain M. (Bāī-qarā), and with him Aḥmad-i-yūsuf (Aūghlāqchī), Qawwām-i-aūrdū Shāh and also several single friends of mine, counting up in all to 500 men. Muḥammad Sharīf, the astrologer of ill-augury, came with them too, so did Bābā Dost the water-bearer (sūchī) who, having gone to Kābul for wine, had there [Sidenote: Fol. 311b.] loaded three strings of camels with acceptable Ghaznī wines.

At a time such as this, when, as has been mentioned, the army was anxious and afraid by reason of past occurrences and vicissitudes, wild words and opinions, this Muḥammad Sharīf, the ill-augurer, though he had not a helpful word to say to me, kept insisting to all he met, "Mars is in the west in these days; who comes into the fight from this (east) side will be defeated." Timid people who questioned the ill-augurer, became the more shattered in heart. We gave no ear to his wild words, made no change in our operations, but got ready in earnest for the fight.

(Feb. 24th) On Sunday the 22nd (of Jumāda 1.) Shaikh Jamāl was sent to collect all available quiver-wearers from between the two waters (Ganges and Jumna) and from Dihlī, so that with this force he might over-run and plunder the Mīwāt villages, leaving nothing undone which could awaken the enemy's anxiety for that side. Mullā Tark-i-`alī, then on his way from Kābul, was ordered to join Shaikh Jamāl and to neglect nothing of ruin and plunder in Mīwāt; orders to the same purport were given also to Maghfūr the Dīwān. They went; they over-ran and raided a few villages in lonely corners (būjqāq); they took some prisoners; but their passage through did not arouse much anxiety!

(r. Bābur renounces wine.)

On Monday the 23rd of the first Jumāda (Feb. 25th), when [Sidenote: Fol. 312.] I went out riding, I reflected, as I rode, that the wish to cease from sin had been always in my mind, and that my forbidden acts had set lasting stain upon my heart. Said I, "Oh! my soul!"

(Persian) "How long wilt thou draw savour from sin? Repentance is not without savour, taste it!"

(Turkī) Through years how many has sin defiled thee? How much of peace has transgression given thee? How much hast thou been thy passions' slave? How much of thy life flung away?

With the Ghāzī's resolve since now thou hast marched, Thou hast looked thine own death in the face! Who resolves to hold stubbornly fast to the death, Thou knowest what change he attains,

That far he removes him from all things forbidden, That from all his offences he cleanses himself. With my own gain before me, I vowed to obey, In this my transgression, the drinking of wine.

The flagons and cups of silver and gold, the vessels of feasting, I had them all brought; I had them all broken up then and there. Thus eased I my heart by renouncement of wine.

The fragments of the gold and silver vessels were shared out to deserving persons and to darwīshes. The first to agree in renouncing wine was `Asas; he had already agreed also about leaving his beard untrimmed. That night and next day some [Sidenote: Fol. 312b.] 300 begs and persons of the household, soldiers and not soldiers, renounced wine. What wine we had with us was poured on the ground; what Bābā Dost had brought was ordered salted to make vinegar. At the place where the wine was poured upon the ground, a well was ordered to be dug, built up with stone and having an almshouse beside it. It was already finished in Muḥarram 935 (AH.-Sep. 1528 AD.) at the time I went to Sīkrī from Dūlpūr on my way back from visiting Gūālīār.

(s. Remission of a due.)

I had vowed already that, if I gained the victory over Sangā the pagan, I would remit the tamghā to all Musalmāns. Of this vow Darwīsh-i-muḥammad Sārbān and Shaikh Zain reminded me at the time I renounced wine. Said I, "You do well to remind me."

*The tamghā was remitted to all Musalmāns of the dominions I held. I sent for the clerks (munshīlār), and ordered them to write for their news-letters (akhbar) the farmān concerning the two important acts that had been done. Shaikh Zain wrote the farmān with his own elegance (inshāsī bīla) and his fine letter (inshā) was sent to all my dominions. It is as follows:—

FARMĀN ANNOUNCING BĀBUR'S RENUNCIATION OF WINE.

Let us praise the Long-suffering One who loveth the penitent and who loveth the cleansers of themselves; and let thanks be rendered to the Gracious One who absolveth His debtors, and forgiveth those who seek forgiveness. Blessings be upon Muḥammad the Crown of Creatures, on the Holy family, on the pure Companions, and on the mirrors of the glorious congregation, to wit, the Masters of Wisdom who are treasure-houses of the pearls of purity and who bear the impress of the sparkling jewels of this purport:—that the nature of man is prone to evil, and that the abandonment of sinful appetites is only feasible by Divine aid [Sidenote: Fol. 313.] and the help that cometh from on high. "Every soul is prone unto evil," (and again) "This is the bounty of God; He will give the same unto whom He pleaseth; and God is endued with great bounty."

Our motive for these remarks and for repeating these statements is that, by reason of human frailty, of the customs of kings and of the great, all of us, from the Shāh to the sipāhī, in the heyday of our youth, have transgressed and done what we ought not to have done. After some days of sorrow and repentance, we abandoned evil practices one by one, and the gates of retrogression became closed. But the renunciation of wine, the greatest and most indispensable of renunciations, remained under a veil in the chamber of deeds pledged to appear in due season, and did not show its countenance until the glorious hour when we had put on the garb of the holy warrior and had encamped with the army of Islām over against the infidels in order to slay them. On this occasion I received a secret inspiration and heard an infallible voice say "Is not the time yet come unto those who believe, that their hearts should humbly submit to the admonition of God, and that truth which hath been revealed?" Thereupon we set ourselves to extirpate the things of wickedness, and we earnestly knocked at the gates of repentance. The Guide of Help assisted us, according to the saying "Whoever knocks and re-knocks, to him it will be opened", and an order was given that with the Holy War there should [Sidenote: Fol. 313b.] begin the still greater war which has to be waged against sensuality. In short, we declared with sincerity that we would subjugate our passions, and I engraved on the tablet of my heart "I turn unto Thee with repentance, and I am the first of true believers". And I made public the resolution to abstain from wine, which had been hidden in the treasury of my breast. The victorious servants, in accordance with the illustrious order, dashed upon the earth of contempt and destruction the flagons and the cups, and the other utensils in gold and silver, which in their number and their brilliance were like the stars of the firmament. They dashed them in pieces, as, God willing! soon will be dashed the gods of the idolaters,—and they distributed the fragments among the poor and needy. By the blessing of this acceptable repentance, many of the courtiers, by virtue of the saying that men follow the religion of their kings, embraced abstinence at the same assemblage, and entirely renounced the use of wine, and up till now crowds of our subjects hourly attain this auspicious happiness. I hope that in accordance with the saying "He who incites to good deeds has the same reward as he who does them" the benefit of this action will react on the royal fortune and increase it day by day by victories.

After carrying out this design an universal decree was issued that in the imperial dominions—May God protect them from [Sidenote: Fol. 314.] every danger and calamity—no-one shall partake of strong drink, or engage in its manufacture, nor sell it, nor buy it or possess it, nor convey it or fetch it. "Beware of touching it." "Perchance this will give you prosperity."

In thanks for these great victories, and as a thank-offering for God's acceptance of repentance and sorrow, the ocean of the royal munificence became commoved, and those waves of kindness, which are the cause of the civilization of the world and of the glory of the sons of Adam, were displayed,—and throughout all the territories the tax (tamghā) on Musalmāns was abolished,—though its yield was more than the dreams of avarice, and though it had been established and maintained by former rulers,—for it is a practice outside of the edicts of the Prince of Apostles (Muḥammad). So a decree was passed that in no city, town, road, ferry, pass, or port, should the tax be levied or exacted. No alteration whatsoever of this order is to be permitted. "Whoever after hearing it makes any change therein, the sin of such change will be upon him."

The proper course (sabīl) for all who shelter under the shade of the royal benevolence, whether they be Turk, Tājik, `Arab, Hindī, or Fārsī (Persian), peasants or soldiers, of every nation or tribe of the sons of Adam, is to strengthen themselves by the tenets of religion, and to be full of hope and prayer for the dynasty which is linked with eternity, and to adhere to these ordinances, and not in any way to transgress them. It behoves all to act according to this farmān; they are to accept it as authentic when it comes attested by the Sign-Manual.

Written by order of the Exalted one,—May his excellence endure for ever! on the 24th of Jumāda I. 933 (February 26th 1527).

(t. Alarm in Bābur's camp.)

At length after I had made enquiry concerning people's want of heart and had seen their slackness for myself, a plan occurred to me; I summoned all the begs and braves and said to them, "Begs and braves!

(Persian) Who comes into the world will die; What lasts and lives will be God.

(Turkī) He who hath entered the assembly of life, Drinketh at last of the cup of death.

He who hath come to the inn of life, Passeth at last from Earth's house of woe.

"Better than life with a bad name, is death with a good one.

(Persian) Well is it with me, if I die with good name! A good name must I have, since the body is death's.

"God the Most High has allotted to us such happiness and has created for us such good-fortune that we die as martyrs, we kill as avengers of His cause. Therefore must each of you take oath [Sidenote: Fol. 315.] upon His Holy Word that he will not think of turning his face from this foe, or withdraw from this deadly encounter so long as life is not rent from his body." All those present, beg and retainer, great and small, took the Holy Book joyfully into their hands and made vow and compact to this purport. The plan was perfect; it worked admirably for those near and afar, for seërs and hearers, for friend and foe.

(u. Bābur's perilous position.)

In those same days trouble and disturbance arose on every side:—Ḥusain Khān Nuḥānī went and took Rāprī; Quṯb Khān's man took Chandwār; a mannikin called Rustam Khān who had collected quiver-wearers from Between-the-two-waters (Ganges and Jamna), took Kūl (Koel) and made Kīchīk 'Alī prisoner; Khwāja Zāhid abandoned Saṃbal and went off; Sl. Muḥammad Dūldāī came from Qanūj to me; the Gūālīār pagans laid siege to that fort; 'Ālam Khān when sent to reinforce it, did not go to Gūālīār but to his own district. Every day bad news came from every side. Desertion of many Hindūstānīs set in; Haibat Khān Karg-andāz deserted and went to Saṃbal; Ḥasan Khān of Bārī deserted and joined the Pagan. We gave attention to none of them but went straight on with our own affair.

(v. Bābur advances to fight.)

The apparatus and appliances, the carts and wheeled tripods being ready, we arrayed in right, left and centre, and marched forward on New Year's Day, Tuesday, the 9th of the second [Sidenote: Fol. 315b.] Jumāda (March 13th), having the carts and wheeled tripods moving in front of us, with Ustād `Alī-qulī and all the matchlock-men ranged behind them in order that these men, being on foot, should not be left behind the array but should advance with it.

When the various divisions, right, left and centre, had gone each to its place, I galloped from one to another to give encouragement to begs, braves, and sipāhīs. After each man had had assigned to him his post and usual work with his company, we advanced, marshalled on the plan determined, for as much as one kuroh (2 m.) and then dismounted.

The Pagan's men, for their part, were on the alert; they came from their side, one company after another.

The camp was laid out and strongly protected by ditch and carts. As we did not intend to fight that day, we sent a few unmailed braves ahead, who were to get to grips with the enemy and thus take an omen. They made a few pagans prisoner, cut off and brought in their heads. Malik Qāsim also cut off and brought in a few heads; he did well. By these successes the hearts of our men became very strong.

When we marched on next day, I had it in my mind to fight, but Khalīfa and other well-wishers represented that the camping-ground previously decided on was near and that it would favour our fortunes if we had a ditch and defences made there and went there direct. Khalīfa accordingly rode off to get [Sidenote: Fol. 316.] the ditch dug; he settled its position with the spades-men, appointed overseers of the work and returned to us. (w. The battle of Kānwa.)

On Saturday the 13th of the second Jumāda (March 17th, 1527 AD.) we had the carts dragged in front of us (as before), made a kuroh (2 m.) of road, arrayed in right, left and centre, and dismounted on the ground selected.

A few tents had been set up; a few were in setting up when news of the appearance of the enemy was brought. Mounting instantly, I ordered every man to his post and that our array should be protected with the carts.

*As the following Letter-of-victory (Fatḥ-nāma) which is what Shaikh Zain had indited, makes known particulars about the army of Islām, the great host of the pagans with the position of their arrayed ranks, and the encounters had between them and the army of Islām, it is inserted here without addition or deduction.

SHAIKH ZAIN'S LETTER-OF-VICTORY.

(a. Introduction.)

Praise be to God the Faithful Promiser, the Helper of His servants, the Supporter of His armies, the Scatterer of hostile hosts, the One alone without whom there is nothing. [Sidenote: Fol. 316b.]

O Thou the Exalter of the pillars of Islām, Helper of thy faithful minister, Overthrower of the pedestals of idols, Overcomer of rebellious foes, Exterminator to the uttermost of the followers of darkness!

Lauds be to God the Lord of the worlds, and may the blessing of God be upon the best of His creatures Muḥammad, Lord of ghāzīs and champions of the Faith, and upon his companions, the pointers of the way, until the Day of judgment.

The successive gifts of the Almighty are the cause of frequent praises and thanksgivings, and the number of these praises and thanksgivings is, in its turn, the cause of the constant succession of God's mercies. For every mercy a thanksgiving is due, and every thanksgiving is followed by a mercy. To render full thanks is beyond men's power; the mightiest are helpless to discharge their obligations. Above all, adequate thanks cannot be rendered for a benefit than which none is greater in the world and nothing is more blessed, in the world to come, to wit, victory over most powerful infidels and dominion over wealthiest heretics, "these are the unbelievers, the wicked." In the eyes of the judicious, no blessing can be greater than this. Thanks be to God! that this great blessing and mighty boon, which from the cradle until now has been the real object of this right-thinking mind (Bābur's), has now manifested itself by the graciousness of the King of the worlds; the Opener who dispenses his treasures without awaiting solicitation, hath opened them with a master-key before our victorious Nawāb (Bābur), so that the names of our conquering heroes have been emblazoned in the records of glorious ghāzīs. By the help of our victorious soldiers the [Sidenote: Fol. 317.] standards of Islām have been raised to the highest pinnacles. The account of this auspicious fortune is as follows:—

(b. Rānā Sangā and his forces.)

When the flashing-swords of our Islām-guarded soldiers had illuminated the land of Hindūstān with rays of victory and conquest, as has been recorded in former letters-of-victory, the Divine favour caused our standards to be upreared in the territories of Dihlī, Āgra, Jūn-pūr, Kharīd, Bihār, etc., when many chiefs, both pagans and Muḥammadans submitted to our generals and shewed sincere obedience to our fortunate Nawāb. But Rānā Sangā the pagan who in earlier times breathed submissive to the Nawāb, now was puffed up with pride and became of the number of unbelievers. Satan-like he threw back his head and collected an army of accursed heretics, thus gathering a rabble-rout of whom some wore the accursed torque (ṯauq), the zīnār, on the neck, some had in the skirt the calamitous thorn of apostacy. Previous to the rising in Hindūstān of the Sun of dominion and the emergence there of the light of the Shāhanshāh's Khalīfate [i.e. Bābur's] the authority of that execrated pagan (Sangā)—at the Judgment Day he shall have no friend, was such that not one of all the exalted sovereigns of this wide realm, such as the Sulṯān of Dihlī, the [Sidenote: Fol. 317b.] Sulṯān of Gujrāt and the Sulṯān of Mandū, could cope with this evil-dispositioned one, without the help of other pagans; one and all they cajoled him and temporized with him; and he had this authority although the rājas and rāīs of high degree, who obeyed him in this battle, and the governors and commanders who were amongst his followers in this conflict, had not obeyed him in any earlier fight or, out of regard to their own dignity, been friendly with him. Infidel standards dominated some 200 towns in the territories of Islām; in them mosques and shrines fell into ruin; from them the wives and children of the Faithful were carried away captive. So greatly had his forces grown that, according to the Hindū calculation by which one lak of revenue should yield 100 horsemen, and one krūr of revenue, 10,000 horsemen, the territories subject to the Pagan (Sangā) yielding 10 krūrs, should yield him 100,000 horse. Many noted pagans who hitherto had not helped him in battle, now swelled his ranks out of hostility to the people of Islām. Ten powerful chiefs, each the leader of a pagan host, uprose in rebellion, as smoke rises, and linked themselves, as though [Sidenote: Fol. 318.] enchained, to that perverse one (Sangā); and this infidel decade who, unlike the blessed ten, uplifted misery-freighted standards which denounce unto them excruciating punishment, had many dependants, and troops, and wide-extended lands. As, for instance, Ṣalāḥu'd-dīn had territory yielding 30,000 horse, Rāwal Ūdai Sīngh of Bāgar had 12,000, Medinī Rāī had 12,000, Ḥasan Khān of Mīwāt had 12,000, Bār-mal of Īdr had 4,000, Narpat Hāra had 7,000, Satrvī of Kach (Cutch) had 6,000, Dharm-deo had 4,000, Bīr-sing-deo had 4,000, and Maḥmūd Khān, son of Sl. Sikandar, to whom, though he possessed neither district nor pargana, 10,000 horse had gathered in hope of his attaining supremacy. Thus, according to the calculation of Hind, 201,000 was the total of those sundered from salvation. In brief, that haughty pagan, inwardly blind, and hardened of heart, having joined with other pagans, dark-fated and doomed to perdition, advanced to contend with the followers of Islām and to destroy the foundations of the law of the Prince of Men (Muḥammad), on whom be God's blessing! The protagonists of the royal forces fell, like divine destiny, on that one-eyed Dajjāl who, to understanding men, shewed the truth of the saying, When Fate arrives, the eye becomes blind, and, setting before their eyes the scripture which saith, Whosoever striveth to promote the true religion, striveth for the good of his own soul, [Sidenote: Fol. 318b.] they acted on the precept to which obedience is due, Fight against infidels and hypocrites.

(c. Military movements.)

(March 17th, 1527) On Saturday the 13th day of the second Jumāda of the date 933, a day blessed by the words, God hath blessed your Saturday, the army of Islām was encamped near the village of Kānwa, a dependency of Bīāna, hard by a hill which was 2 kurohs (4 m.) from the enemies of the Faith. When those accursed infidel foes of Muḥammad's religion heard the reverberation of the armies of Islām, they arrayed their ill-starred forces and moved forward with one heart, relying on their mountain-like, demon-shaped elephants, as had relied the Lords of the Elephant who went to overthrow the sanctuary (ka`ba) of Islām.

"Having these elephants, the wretched Hindus Became proud, like the Lords of the Elephant; Yet were they odious and vile as is the evening of death, Blacker than night, outnumbering the stars, All such as fire is but their heads upraised In hate, as rises its smoke in the azure sky, Ant-like they come from right and from left, Thousands and thousands of horse and foot."

They advanced towards the victorious encampment, intending [Sidenote: Fol. 319.] to give battle. The holy warriors of Islām, trees in the garden of valour, moved forward in ranks straight as serried pines and, like pines uplift their crests to heaven, uplifting their helmet-crests which shone even as shine the hearts of those that strive in the way of the Lord; their array was like Alexander's iron-wall, and, as is the way of the Prophet's Law, straight and firm and strong, as though they were a well-compacted building; and they became fortunate and successful in accordance with the saying, They are directed by their Lord, and they shall prosper.

In that array no rent was frayed by timid souls; Firm was it as the Shāhanshāh's resolve, strong as the Faith; Their standards brushed against the sky; Verily we have granted thee certain victory.

Obeying the cautions of prudence, we imitated the ghāzīs of Rūm by posting matchlockmen (tufanchīān) and cannoneers (ra`d-andāzān) along the line of carts which were chained to one another in front of us; in fact, Islām's army was so arrayed and so steadfast that primal Intelligence and the firmament (`aql-i-pīr u charkh-i-as̤īr) applauded the marshalling thereof. To effect this arrangement and organization, Niẕāmu'd-dīn `Alī Khalīfa, the pillar of the Imperial fortune, exerted himself strenuously; his efforts were in accord with Destiny, and were approved by his sovereign's luminous judgment.

(d. Commanders of the centre.)

His Majesty's post was in the centre. In the right-hand of the centre were stationed the illustrious and most upright [Sidenote: Fol. 319b.] brother, the beloved friend of Destiny, the favoured of Him whose aid is entreated (i.e. God), Chīn-tīmūr Sulṯān,—the illustrious son, accepted in the sight of the revered Allāh, Sulaimān Shāh,—the reservoir of sanctity, the way-shower, Khwāja Kamālu'd-dīn (Perfect-in-the Faith) Dost-i-khāwand,—the trusted of the sulṯānate, the abider near the sublime threshold, the close companion, the cream of associates, Kamālu'd-dīn Yūnas-i-`alī,—the pillar of royal retainers, the perfect in friendship, Jalālu'd-dīn (Glory-of-the-Faith) Shāh Manṣūr Barlās,—the pillar of royal retainers, most excellent of servants, Niẕāmu'd-dīn (Upholder-of-the-Faith) Darwīsh-i-muḥammad Sārbān,—the pillars of royal retainers, the sincere in fidelity, Shihābu'd-dīn (Meteor-of-the-Faith) `Abdu'l-lāh the librarian and Nīẕāmu'd-dīn Dost Lord-of-the-Gate.

In the left-hand of the centre took each his post, the reservoir of sovereignty, ally of the Khalīfate, object of royal favour, Sulṯān `Alā'u'd-dīn `Ālam Khān son of Sl. Bahlūl Lūdī,—the intimate of illustrious Majesty, the high priest (dastūr) of ṣadrs amongst men, the refuge of all people, the pillar of Islām, Shaikh Zain of Khawāf,—the pillar of the nobility, Kamālu'd-dīn Muḥibb-i-`alī, son of the intimate counsellor named above (i.e. Khalīfa),—the pillar of royal retainers, Niẕāmu'd-dīn Tardī Beg brother of Qūj (son of) Aḥmad, whom God hath taken into His mercy,—Shīrafgan [Sidenote: Fol. 320.] son of the above-named Qūj Beg deceased,—the pillar of great ones, the mighty khān, Ārāīsh Khān,—the wazīr, greatest of wazīrs amongst men, Khwāja Kamālu'd-dīn Ḥusain,—and a number of other attendants at Court (dīwanīān).

(e. Commanders of the right wing.)

In the right wing was the exalted son, honourable and fortunate, the befriended of Destiny, the Star of the Sign of sovereignty and success, Sun of the sphere of the Khalīfate, lauded of slave and free, Muḥammad Humāyūn Bahādur. On that exalted prince's right hand there were, one whose rank approximates to royalty and who is distinguished by the favour of the royal giver of gifts, Qāsim-i-ḥusain Sulṯān,—the pillar of the nobility Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad-ī-yūsuf Aūghlāqchī,—the trusted of royalty, most excellent of servants, Jalālu'd-dīn Hindū Beg qūchīn,—the trusted of royalty, perfect in loyalty, Jalālu'd-dīn Khusrau Kūkūldāsh,—the trusted of royalty, Qawām (var. Qiyām) Beg Aūrdū-shāh,—the pillar of royal retainers, of perfect sincerity, Walī Qarā-qūzī the treasurer,—the pillar of royal retainers, Niẕāmu'd-dīn Pīr-qulī of Sīstān,—the pillar of wazīrs, Khwāja Kamālu'd-dīn pahlawān (champion) of Badakhshān,—the pillar of royal retainers, `Abdu'l-sḥakūr,—the pillar of the nobility, most excellent of servants, the envoy from `Irāq Sulaimān Āqā,—and Ḥusain Āqā the envoy from Sīstān. On [Sidenote: Fol. 320b.] the victory-crowned left of the fortunate son already named there were, the sayyid of lofty birth, of the family of Murtiẓā (`Alī), Mīr Hama (or Hāma),—the pillar of royal retainers, the perfect in sincerity, Shamsu'd-dīn Muḥammadī Kūkūldāsh and Niẕāmu'd-dīn Khwājagī Asad jān-dār. In the right wing there were, of the amīrs of Hind,—the pillar of the State, the Khān-of-Khāns, Dilāwar Khān,—the pillar of the nobility, Malik Dād Kararānī,—and the pillar of the nobility, the Shaikh-of-shaikhs, Shaikh Gūran, each standing in his appointed place.

(f. Commanders of the left wing.)

In the left wing of the armies of Islām there extended their ranks,—the lord of lofty lineage, the refuge of those in authority, the ornament of the family of T̤a Ha and Ya Sin, the model for the descendants of the prince of ambassadors (Muḥammad), Sayyid Mahdī Khwāja,—the exalted and fortunate brother, the well-regarded of his Majesty, Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā,—the personage approximating to royalty, the descended of monarchs, `Ādil Sulṯān son of Mahdī Sulṯān,—the trusted in the State, perfect in attachment, `Abdu'l-'azīz Master of the Horse,—the trusted in the State, the pure in friendship, Shamsu'd-dīn Muḥammad `Ali Jang-jang,—the pillar of royal retainers, Jalālu'd-dīn Qūtlūq-qadam qarāwal (scout),—the pillar of royal retainers, the perfect in sincerity, Jalālu'd-dīn Shāh Ḥusain yārāgī Mughūl Ghānchī(?),—and Niẕāmu'd-dīn Jān-i-muḥammad Beg Ātāka.

Of amīrs of Hind there were in this division, the scions of sulṯāns, Kamāl Khān and Jamāl Khān sons of the Sl. `Alā'u'd-dīn [Sidenote: Fol. 321.] above-mentioned,—the most excellent officer `Alī Khān Shaikh-zāda of Farmūl,—and the pillar of the nobility, Niẕām Khān of Bīāna.

(g. The flanking parties.)

For the flank-movement (tūlghāma) of the right wing there were posted two of the most trusted of the household retainers, Tardīka and Malik Qāsim the brother of Bābā Qashqa, with a body of Mughūls; for the flank-movement of the left wing were the two trusted chiefs Mūmin Ātāka and Rustam Turkmān, leading a body of special troops.

(h. The Chief of the Staff.)

The pillar of royal retainers, the perfect in loyalty, the cream of privy-counsellors, Niẕāmu'd-dīn Sulṯān Muḥammad Bakhshī, after posting the ghāzīs of Islām, came to receive the royal commands. He despatched adjutants (tawāchī) and messengers (yasāwal) in various directions to convey imperative orders concerning the marshalling of the troops to the great sulṯāns and amīrs. And when the Commanders had taken up their positions, an imperative order was given that none should quit his post or, uncommanded, stretch forth his arm to fight.

(i. The battle.)

One watch of the afore-mentioned day had elapsed when the opposing forces approached each other and the battle began. As Light opposes Darkness, so did the centres of the two [Sidenote: Fol. 321b.] armies oppose one another. Fighting began on the right and left wings, such fighting as shook the Earth and filled highest Heaven with clangour.

The left wing of the ill-fated pagans advanced against the right wing of the Faith-garbed troops of Islām and charged down on Khusrau Kūkūldāsh and Bābā Qashqa's brother Malik Qāsim. The most glorious and most upright brother Chīn-tīmūr Sulṯān, obeying orders, went to reinforce them and, engaging in the conflict with bold attack, bore the pagans back almost to the rear of their centre. Guerdon was made for the brother's glorious fame. The marvel of the Age, Muṣṯafa of Rūm, had his post in the centre (of the right wing) where was the exalted son, upright and fortunate, the object of the favourable regard of Creative Majesty (i.e. God), the one distinguished by the particular grace of the mighty Sovereign who commands to do and not to do (i.e. Bābur), Muḥammad Humāyūn Bahādur. This Muṣṯafa of Rūm had the carts (arābahā) brought forward and broke the ranks of pagans with matchlock and culverin dark like their hearts(?). In the thick of the fight, the most glorious brother Qāsim-i-ḥusain Sulṯān and the pillars of royal retainers, Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad-i-yūsuf and Qawām Beg, obeying orders, hastened to their help. And since band after band of pagan troops followed each other to help their men, so we, in our turn, sent the trusted in the State, the glory of the Faith, Hindū Beg, and, after him, the pillars of the nobility, Muhammadī Kūkūldāsh and Khwājagī Asad jān-dār, and, after them, the trusted in [Sidenote: Fol. 322.] the State, the trustworthy in the resplendent Court, the most confided-in of nobles, the elect of confidential servants, Yūnas-i-'alī, together with the pillar of the nobility, the perfect in friendship, Shāh Manṣūr Barlās and the pillar of the grandees, the pure in fidelity, `Abdu'l-lāh the librarian, and after these, the pillar of the nobles, Dost the Lord-of-the-Gate, and Muḥammad Khalil the master-gelder (akhta-begī).

The pagan right wing made repeated and desperate attack on the left wing of the army of Islām, falling furiously on the holy warriors, possessors of salvation, but each time was made to turn back or, smitten with the arrows of victory, was made to descend into Hell, the house of perdition; they shall be thrown to burn therein, and an unhappy dwelling shall it be. Then the trusty amongst the nobles, Mūmin Ātāka and Rustam Turkmān betook themselves to the rear of the host of darkened pagans; and to help them were sent the Commanders Khwāja Maḥmūd and `Alī Ātāka, servants of him who amongst the royal retainers is near the throne, the trusted of the Sulṯānate, Niẕāmu'd-din `Alī Khalīfa.

Our high-born brother Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā, and the representative of royal dignity, `Ādil Sulṯān, and the trusted in the State, the strengthener of the Faith, `Abdu'l-`azīz, the Master of the Horse, and the glory of the Faith, Qūtlūq-qadam qarāwal, and the meteor of the Faith, Muḥammad `Alī Jang-jang, and the pillar of royal retainers, Shāh Ḥusain yāragī Mughūl Ghānchī(?) stretched out the arm to fight and stood firm. To support them we sent the Dastūr, the highest of wazīrs, Khwāja [Sidenote: Fol. 322b.] Kamālu'd-dīn Ḥusain with a body of dīwānīs. Every holy warrior was eager to show his zeal, entering the fight with desperate joy as if approving the verse, Say, Do you expect any other should befall us than one of the two most excellent things, victory or martyrdom? and, with display of life-devotion, uplifted the standard of life-sacrifice.

As the conflict and battle lasted long, an imperative order was issued that the special royal corps (tābīnān-i-khāṣa-i-pādshāhī) who, heroes of one hue, were standing, like tigers enchained, behind the carts, should go out on the right and the left of the centre, leaving the matchlockmen's post in-between, and join battle on both sides. As the True Dawn emerges from its cleft in the horizon, so they emerged from behind the carts; they poured a ruddy crepuscule of the blood of those ill-fated pagans on the nadir of the Heavens, that battle-field; they made fall from the firmament of existence many heads of the headstrong, as stars fall from the firmament of heaven. The marvel of the Age, Ustād `Alī-qulī, who with his own appurtenances stood in front of the centre, did deeds of valour, discharging against the iron-mantled forts of the infidels stones of such size that were (one) put into a scale of the Balance in which actions are weighed, that scale shall be heavy with good works and he (i.e. its owner) shall lead a pleasing life; and were such stones discharged against a hill, broad of base and high of summit, it would become like carded wool. Such stones Ustād `Alī-qulī discharged at the iron-clad fortress of the pagan ranks and by this discharge of stones, and abundance of culverins and matchlocks(?) destroyed many of the builded bodies of the [Sidenote: Fol. 323.] pagans. The matchlockmen of the royal centre, in obedience to orders, going from behind the carts into the midst of the battle, each one of them made many a pagan taste of the poison of death. The foot-soldiers, going into a most dangerous place, made their names to be blazoned amongst those of the forest-tigers (i.e. heroes) of valour and the champions in the field of manly deeds. Just at this time came an order from his Majesty the Khāqān that the carts of the centre should be advanced; and the gracious royal soul (i.e. Bābur) moved towards the pagan soldiers, Victory and Fortune on his right, Prestige and Conquest on his left. On witnessing this event, the victorious troops followed from all sides; the whole surging ocean of the army rose in mighty waves; the courage of all the crocodiles of that ocean was manifested by the strength of their deeds; an obscuring cloud of dust o'erspread the sky(?). The dust that gathered over the battle-field was traversed by the lightning-flashes of the sword; the Sun's face was shorn of light as is a mirror's back; the striker and the struck, the victor and the vanquished were commingled, all distinction between them lost. The Wizard of Time produced such a night that its only planets were arrows, its only constellations of fixed stars were the steadfast squadrons.

Upon that day of battle sank and rose Blood to the Fish and dust-clouds to the Moon, While through the horse-hoofs on that spacious plain, [Sidenote: Fol. 323b.] One Earth flew up to make another Heaven.

At the moment when the holy warriors were heedlessly flinging away their lives, they heard a secret voice say, Be not dismayed, neither be grieved, for, if ye believe, ye shall be exalted above the unbelievers, and from the infallible Informer heard the joyful words, Assistance is from God, and a speedy victory! And do thou bear glad tidings to true believers. Then they fought with such delight that the plaudits of the saints of the Holy Assembly reached them and the angels from near the Throne, fluttered round their heads like moths. Between the first and second Prayers, there was such blaze of combat that the flames thereof raised standards above the heavens, and the right and left of the army of Islām rolled back the left and right of the doomed infidels in one mass upon their centre.

When signs were manifest of the victory of the Strivers and of the up-rearing of the standards of Islām, those accursed infidels and wicked unbelievers remained for one hour confounded. At length, their hearts abandoning life, they fell upon the right and left of our centre. Their attack on the left was the more vigorous and there they approached furthest, but the holy warriors, their minds set on the reward, planted shoots (nihāl) of arrows in the field of the breast of each one of them, and, such being their gloomy fate, overthrew them. In this state of affairs, the breezes of victory and fortune blew over the meadow of our [Sidenote: Fol. 324.] happy Nawāb, and brought the good news, Verily we have granted thee a manifest victory. And Victory the beautiful woman (shāhid) whose world-adornment of waving tresses was embellished by God will aid you with a mighty aid, bestowed on us the good fortune that had been hidden behind a veil, and made it a reality. The absurd (bāṯil) Hindūs, knowing their position perilous, dispersed like carded wool before the wind, and like moths scattered abroad. Many fell dead on the field of battle; others, desisting from fighting, fled to the desert of exile and became the food of crows and kites. Mounds were made of the bodies of the slain, pillars of their heads.

(j. Hindū chiefs killed in the battle.)

Ḥasan Khān of Mīwāt was enrolled in the list of the dead by the force of a matchlock (ẓarb-i-tufak); most of those headstrong chiefs of tribes were slain likewise, and ended their days by arrow and matchlock (tīr u tufak). Of their number was Rāwal Ūdī Sīngh of Bāgar, ruler (wālī) of the Dungarpūr country, who had 12,000 horse, Rāī Chandrabān Chūhān who had 4,000 horse, Bhūpat Rāo son of that Ṣalāḥu'd-dīn already mentioned, who was lord of Chandīrī and had 6,000 horse, Mānik-chand Chūhān and Dilpat Rāo who had each 4,000 horse, Kankū (or Gangū) and Karm Sīngh and Dankūsī(?) who had each 3,000 horse, and a number of others, each one of whom was leader of a great [Sidenote: Fol. 324b.] command, a splendid and magnificent chieftain. All these trod the road to Hell, removing from this house of clay to the pit of perdition. The enemy's country (dāru'l-ḥarb) was full, as Hell is full, of wounded who had died on the road. The lowest pit was gorged with miscreants who had surrendered their souls to the lord of Hell. In whatever direction one from the army of Islām hastened, he found everywhere a self-willed one dead; whatever march the illustrious camp made in the wake of the fugitives, it found no foot-space without its prostrate foe.

All the Hindūs slain, abject (khwār, var. zār) and mean, By matchlock-stones, like the Elephants' lords, Many hills of their bodies were seen, And from each hill a fount of running blood. Dreading the arrows of (our) splendid ranks, Passed they in flight to each waste and hill.

They turn their backs. The command of God is to be performed. Now praise be to God, All-hearing and All-wise, for victory is from God alone, the Mighty, the Wise. Written Jumāda II. 25th 933 (AH.-March 29th 1527 A.D.).

MINOR SEQUELS OF VICTORY.

(a. Bābur assumes the title of Ghāzī.)

After this success Ghāzī (Victor in a Holy-war) was written amongst the royal titles.

Below the titles (ṯughrā) entered on the Fatḥ-nāma, I wrote the following quatrain:—

For Islām's sake, I wandered in the wilds, Prepared for war with pagans and Hindūs, Resolved myself to meet the martyr's death. [Sidenote: Fol. 325.] Thanks be to God! a ghāzī I became.

(b. Chronograms of the victory.)

Shaikh Zain had found (tāpīb aīdī) the words Fatḥ-i-pādshāḥ-i-islām (Victory of the Pādshāh of the Faith) to be a chronogram of the victory. Mīr Gesū, one of the people come from Kābul, had also found these same words to be a chronogram, had composed them in a quatrain and sent this to me. It was a coincidence that Shaikh Zain and Mīr Gesū should bring forward precisely the same words in the quatrains they composed to embellish their discoveries. Once before when Shaikh Zain found the date of the victory at Dībālpūr in the words Wasaṯ-i-shahr Rabī`u'l-awwal (Middle of the month Rabī` I.), Mīr Gesū had found it in the very same words.

HISTORICAL NARRATIVE RESUMED.

(a. After the victory.)

The foes beaten, we hurried them off, dismounting one after another. The Pagan's encirclement may have been 2 kurohs from our camp (aūrdū); when we reached his camp (aūrdū), we sent Muḥammadī, `Abdu'l-`azīz, `Alī Khān and some others in pursuit of him. There was a little slackness; I ought to have gone myself, and not have left the matter to what I expected from other people. When I had gone as much as a kuroh (2 m.) beyond the Pagan's camp, I turned back because it was late in the day; I came to our camp at the Bed-time Prayer.

With what ill-omened words Muḥammad Sharīf the astrologer had fretted me! Yet he came at once to congratulate me! I emptied my inwards in abuse of him, but, spite of his being heathenish, ill-omened of speech, extremely self-satisfied, and a most disagreeable person, I bestowed a lak upon him because there had been deserving service from him in former times, and, [Sidenote: Fol. 325b.] after saying he was not to stay in my dominions, I gave him leave to go.

(b. Suppression of a rebellion.)

(March 17th) We remained next day (Jumāda II. 14th) on that same ground. Muḥammad `Alī Jang-jang and Shaikh Gūran and `Abdu'l-malik the armourer were sent off with a dense (qālīn) army against Ilīās Khān who, having rebelled in Between-the-two-waters (Ganges and Jumna), had taken Kūl (Koel) and made Kīchīk `Alī prisoner. He could not fight when they came up; his force scattered in all directions; he himself was taken a few days later and brought into Āgra where I had him flayed alive.

(c. A trophy of victory.)

An order was given to set up a pillar of pagan heads on the infant-hill (koh-bacha) between which and our camp the battle had been fought.

(d. Bīāna visited.)

(March 20th) Marching on from that ground, and after halting on two nights, we reached Bīāna (Sunday, Jumāda II. 17th). Countless numbers of the bodies of pagans and apostates who had fallen in their flight, lay on the road as far as Bīāna, indeed as far as Alūr and Mīwāt.

(e. Discussion of plans.)

On our return to camp, I summoned the Turk amīrs and the amīrs of Hind to a consultation about moving into the Pagan (Sangā)'s country; the plan was given up because of the little water and much heat on the road.

(f. Mīwāt.)

Near Dihlī lies the Mīwāt country which yields revenue of 3 or 4 krūrs. Ḥasan Khān Mīwātī and his ancestors one after another had ruled it with absolute sway for a hundred years or two. They must have made imperfect submission to the Dihlī Sulṯāns; the Sulṯāns of Hind, whether because their [Sidenote: Fol. 326.] own dominions were wide, or because their opportunity was narrow, or because of the Mīwāt hill-country, did not turn in the Mīwāt direction, did not establish order in it, but just put up with this amount of (imperfect) submission. For our own part, we did after the fashion of earlier Sulṯāns; having conquered Hind, we shewed favour to Ḥasan Khān, but that thankless and heathenish apostate disregarded our kindness and benefits, was not grateful for favour and promotion, but became the mover of all disturbance and the cause of all misdoing.

When, as has been mentioned, we abandoned the plan (against Rānā Sangā), we moved to subdue Mīwāt. Having made 4 night-halts on the way, we dismounted on the bank of the Mānas-nī 6 kurohs (12 m.) from Alūr, the present seat of government in Mīwāt. Ḥasan Khān and his forefathers must have had their seat in Tijāra, but when I turned towards Hindūstan, beat Pahār (or Bihār) Khān and took Lāhor and Dībālpūr (930 AH.-1524 AD.), he bethought himself betimes and busied himself for a residence (`imārat) in Fort Alūr (Alwar).

His trusted man, Karm-chand by name, who had come from him to me in Āgra when his son (Nāhar i.e. Tiger) was with me there, came now from that son's presence in Alūr and asked [Sidenote: Fol. 326b.] for peace. `Abdu'r-raḥīm shaghāwal went with him to Alūr, conveying letters of royal favour, and returned bringing Nāhar Khān who was restored to favour and received parganas worth several laks for his support.

(g. Rewards to officers.)

Thinking, "What good work Khusrau did in the battle!" I named him for Alūr and gave him 50 laks for his support, but unluckily for himself, he put on airs and did not accept this. Later on it [khẉud, itself] came to be known that Chīn-tīmūr must have done that work; guerdon was made him for his renown(?); Tijāra-town, the seat of government in Mīwāt, was bestowed on him together with an allowance of 50 laks for his support.

Alūr and an allowance of 15 laks was bestowed on Tardīka (or, Tardī yakka) who in the flanking-party of the right-hand (qūl) had done better than the rest. The contents of the Alūr treasury were bestowed on Humāyūn.

(h. Alwar visited.)

(April 13th) Marching from that camp on Wednesday the 1st of the month of Rajab, we came to within 2 kurohs (4 m.) of Alūr. I went to see the fort, there spent the night, and next day went back to camp.

(i. Leave given to various followers.)

When the oath before-mentioned was given to great and small before the Holy-battle with Rānā Sangā, it had been mentioned that there would be nothing to hinder leave after [Sidenote: Fol. 327.] this victory, and that leave would be given to anyone wishing to go away (from Hindūstān). Most of Humāyūn's men were from Badakhshān or elsewhere on that side (of Hindū-kūsh); they had never before been of an army led out for even a month or two; there had been weakness amongst them before the fight; on these accounts and also because Kābul was empty of troops, it was now decided to give Humāyūn leave for Kābul.

(April 11th) Leaving the matter at this, we marched from Alūr on Thursday the 9th of Rajab, did 4 or 5 kurohs (8-10 m.) and dismounted on the bank of the Mānas-water.

Mahdī Khwāja also had many discomforts; he too was given leave for Kābul. The military-collectorate of Bīāna [he held] was bestowed on Dost Lord-of-the-gate, and, as previously Etāwa had been named for Mahdī Khwāja, Mahdī Khwāja's son Ja`far Khwāja was sent there in his father's place when (later) Quṯb Khān abandoned it and went off.

(j. Despatch of the Letter-of-victory.)

Because of the leave given to Humāyūn, two or three days were spent on this ground. From it Mūmin-i-`alī the messenger (tawāchī) was sent off for Kābul with the Fatḥ-nāma.

(k. Excursions and return to Āgra.)

Praise had been heard of the Fīrūzpūr-spring and of the great lake of Kūtila. Leaving the camp on that same ground, I rode out on Sunday (Rajab 12th-April 14th) both to visit [Sidenote: Fol. 327b.] these places and to set Humāyūn on his way. After visiting Fīrūzpūr and its spring on that same day, ma'jūn was eaten. In the valley where the spring rises, oleanders (kanīr) were in bloom; the place is not without charm but is over-praised. I ordered a reservoir of hewn stone, 10 by 10 to be made where the water widened, spent the night in that valley, next day rode on and visited the Kūtila lake. It is surrounded by mountain-skirts. The Mānas-nī is heard-say to go into it. It is a very large lake, from its one side the other side is not well seen. In the middle of it is rising ground. At its sides are many small boats, by going off in which the villagers living near it are said to escape from any tumult or disturbance. Even on our arrival a few people went in them to the middle of the lake.

On our way back from the lake, we dismounted in Humāyūn's camp. There we rested and ate food, and after having put robes of honour on him and his begs, bade him farewell at the Bed-time Prayer, and rode on. We slept for a little at some place on the road, at shoot of day passed through the pargana of Kharī, again slept a little, and at length got to our camp which had dismounted at Toda-(bhim). After leaving Toda, we dismounted at Sūnkār; there Ḥasan Khān Mīwātī's son [Sidenote: Fol. 328.] Nāhar Khān escaped from `Abdu'r-raḥīm's charge.

Going on from that place, we halted one night, then dismounted at a spring situated on the bill of a mountain between Busāwar and Chausa (or Jūsa); there awnings were set up and we committed the sin of ma'jūn. When the army had passed by this spring, Tardī Beg khāksār had praised it; he (or we) had come and seen it from on horse-back (sar-asbgi) and passed on. It is a perfect spring. In Hindūstān where there are never running-waters, people seek out the springs themselves. The rare springs that are found, come oozing drop by drop (āb-zih) out of the ground, not bubbling up like springs of those lands. From this spring comes about a half-mill-water. It bubbles up on the hill-skirt; meadows lie round it; it is very beautiful. I ordered an octagonal reservoir of hewn stone made above it. While we were at the border of the spring, under the soothing influence of ma'jūn, Tardī Beg, contending for its surpassing beauty, said again and again, (Persian) "Since I am celebrating the beauty of the place, a name ought to be settled for it". `Abdu'l-lāh said, "It must be called the Royal-spring approved of by Tardī Beg." This saying caused much joke and laughter.

Dost Lord-of-the-gate coming up from Bīāna, waited on me at this spring-head. Leaving this place, we visited Bīāna again, [Sidenote: Fol. 328b.] went on to Sīkrī, dismounted there at the side of a garden which had been ordered made, stayed two days supervising the garden, and on Thursday the 23rd of Rajab (April 25th), reached Āgra.

(l. Chandwār and Rāprī regained.)

During recent disturbances, the enemy, as has been mentioned, had possessed themselves of Chandwār and Rāprī. Against those places we now sent Muḥammad `Alī Jang-jang, Qūj Beg's (brother) Tardī Beg, `Abdu'l-malik the armourer, and Ḥasan Khān with his Daryā-khānīs. When they were near Chandwār, Quṯb Khān's people in it got out and away. Our men laid hands on it, and passed on to Rāprī. Here Ḥusain Khān Nūḥānī's people came to the lane-end thinking to fight a little, could not stand the attack of our men, and took to flight. Ḥusain Khān himself with a few followers went into the Jūn-river (Jumna) on an elephant and was drowned. Quṯb Khān, for his part, abandoned Etāwa on hearing these news, fled with a few and got away. Etāwa having been named for Mahdī Khwāja, his son Ja`far Khwāja was sent there in his place.

(m. Apportionment of fiefs.)

When Rānā Sangā sallied out against us, most Hindūstānīs and Afghāns, as has been mentioned, turned round against us and took possession of their parganas and districts.

Sl. Muḥammad Dūldāī who had abandoned Qanūj and come [Sidenote: Fol. 329.] to me, would not agree to go there again, whether from fear or for his reputation's sake; he therefore exchanged the 30 laks of Qanūj for the 15 of Sihrind, and Qanūj was bestowed with an allowance of 30 laks on Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā. Badāūn was given to Qāsim-i-ḥusain Sulṯān and he was sent against Bīban who had laid siege to Luknūr during the disturbance with Rānā Sangā, together with Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā, and, of Turk amīrs, Bābā Qashqa's Malik Qāsim with his elder and younger brethren and his Mughūls, and Abū'l-muḥammad the lance-player, and Mu'yad with his father's Daryā-khānīs and those of Ḥusain Khān Daryā-khānī and the retainers of Sl. Muḥammad Dūldāī, and again, of amīrs of Hind, `Alī Khān Farmūlī and Malik Dād Kararānī and Shaikh Muḥammad of Shaikh Bhakhārī(?) and Tātār Khān Khān-i-jahān.

At the time this army was crossing the Gang-river (Ganges), Bīban, hearing about it, fled, abandoning his baggage. Our army followed him to Khairābād, stayed there a few days and then turned back.

(n. Appointments and dispersion for the Rains.)

After the treasure had been shared out, Rānā Sangā's great affair intervened before districts and parganas were apportioned. During the respite now from Holy-war against the Pagan (Sangā), this apportionment was made. As the Rains were near, it was settled for every-one to go to his pargana, get equipment [Sidenote: Fol. 329b.] ready, and be present when the Rains were over.

(o. Misconduct of Humāyūn.)

Meantime news came that Humāyūn had gone into Dihlī, there opened several treasure-houses and, without permission, taken possession of their contents. I had never looked for such a thing from him; it grieved me very much; I wrote and sent off to him very severe reproaches.

(p. An embassy to `Irāq.)

Khwājagī Asad who had already gone as envoy to `Irāq and returned with Sulaimān Turkmān, was again joined with him and on the 15th of Sha`bān (May 17th) sent with befitting gifts to Shāh-zāda T̤ahmāsp.

(q. Tardī Beg khāksār resigns service.)

I had brought Tardī Beg out from the darwīsh-life and made a soldier of him; for how many years had he served me! Now his desire for the darwīsh-life was overmastering and he asked for leave. It was given and he was sent as an envoy to Kāmrān conveying 3 laks from the Treasury for him.

(r. Lines addressed to deserting friends.)

A little fragment had been composed suiting the state of those who had gone away during the past year; I now addressed it to Mullā `Alī Khān and sent it to him by Tardī Beg. It is as follows:—

Ah you who have gone from this country of Hind, [Sidenote: Fol. 330.] Aware for yourselves of its woe and its pain, With longing desire for Kābul's fine air, You went hot-foot forth out of Hind. The pleasure you looked for you will have found there With sociable ease and charm and delight; As for us, God be thanked! we still are alive, In spite of much pain and unending distress; Pleasures of sense and bodily toil Have been passed-by by you, passed-by too by us.

(s. Of the Ramẓān Feast.)

Ramẓān was spent this year with ablution and tarāwiḥ in the Garden-of-eight-paradises. Since my 11th year I had not kept the Ramẓān Feast for two successive years in the same place; last year I had kept it in Āgra; this year, saying, "Don't break the rule!" I went on the last day of the month to keep it in Sīkrī. Tents were set up on a stone platform made on the n.e. side of the Garden-of-victory which is now being laid out at Sīkrī, and in them the Feast was held.

(t. Playing cards.)

The night we left Āgra Mīr `Alī the armourer was sent to Shāh Ḥasan (Arghūn) in Tatta to take him playing-cards [ganjīfa] he much liked and had asked for.

(u. Illness and a tour.)

(August 3rd) On Sunday the 5th of Ẕū'l-qa`da I fell ill; the illness lasted 17 days.

(August 24th) On Friday the 24th of the same month we set out to visit Dūlpūr. That night I slept at a place half-way; [Sidenote: Fol. 330b.] reached Sikandar's dam at dawn, and dismounted there.

At the end of the hill below the dam the rock is of building-stone. I had Ustād Shāh Muḥammad the stone-cutter brought and gave him an order that if a house could be cut all in one piece in that rock, it was to be done, but that if the rock were too low for a residence (`imārat), it was to be levelled and have a reservoir, all in one piece, cut out of it.

From Dūlpūr we went on to visit Bārī. Next morning (August 26th) I rode out from Bārī through the hills between it and the Chaṃbal-river in order to view the river. This done I went back to Bārī. In these hills we saw the ebony-tree, the fruit of which people call tindū. It is said that there are white ebony-trees also and that most ebony-trees in these hills are of this kind. On leaving Bārī we went to Sīkrī; we reached Āgra on the 29th of the same month (August 28th).

(v. Doubts about Shaikh Bāyazīd Farmūlī.)

As in these days people were telling wild news about Shaikh Bāyazīd, Sl. Qulī Turk was sent to him to give him tryst in 20 days.

(w. Religious and metrical exercises.)

(August 28th) On Friday the 2nd of Ẕū'l-ḥijja I began what one is made to read 41 times.

In these same days I cut up [taqṯi`] the following couplet of mine into 504 measures:—

"Shall I tell of her eye or her brow, her fire or her speech? Shall I tell of her stature or cheek, of her hair or her waist?"

On this account a treatise was arranged.

(x. Return of illness.)

(y. Start for Saṃbal.)

(Sep. 24th) On Thursday the 29th of Ẕū'l-ḥijja we rode out for an excursion to Kūl and Saṃbal.

934 AH.-SEP. 27TH 1527 TO SEP. 15TH 1528 AD.

(a. Visit to Kūl (Aligarh) and Saṃbal.)

(Sep. 27th) On Saturday the 1st of Muḥarram we dismounted in Kūl (Koel). Humāyūn had left Darwīsh(-i-`alī) and Yūsuf-i-`alī in Saṃbal; they crossed one river, fought Quṯb Sīrwānī and a party of rājas, beat them well and killed a mass of men. They sent a few heads and an elephant into Kūl while we were there. After we had gone about Kūl for two days, we dismounted at Shaikh Gūran's house by his invitation, where he entertained us hospitably and laid an offering before us.

(Sep. 30th-Muḥ. 4th) Riding on from that place, we dismounted at Aūtrūlī (Atrauli).

(Oct. 1st-Muḥ. 5th) On Wednesday we crossed the river Gang (Ganges) and spent the night in villages of Saṃbal.

(Oct. 2nd-Muḥ. 6th) On Thursday we dismounted in Saṃbal. After going about in it for two days, we left on Saturday.

(Oct. 5th-Muḥ. 9th) On Sunday we dismounted in Sikandara

at the house of Rāo Sīrwānī who set food before us and served us. When we rode out at dawn, I made some pretext to leave the rest, and galloped on alone to within a kuroh of Āgra where they overtook me. At the Mid-day Prayer we dismounted in Āgra.

(b. Illness of Bābur.)

(Oct. 12th) On Sunday the 16th of Muḥarram I had fever and ague. This returned again and again during the next 25 or 26 days. I drank operative medicine and at last relief came. I suffered much from thirst and want of sleep.

Fever grows strong in my body by day, Sleep quits my eyes as night comes on; Like to my pain and my patience the pair, For while that goes waxing, this wanes.

(c. Arrival of kinswomen.)

(Nov. 23rd) On Saturday the 28th of Ṣafar there arrived two of the paternal-aunt begīms, Fakhr-i-jahān Begīm and Khadīja-sulṯān Begīm. I went to above Sikandarābād to wait on them.

(d. Concerning a mortar.)

(Nov. 24th-Ṣafar 29th) On Sunday Ustād `Alī-qulī discharged a stone from a large mortar; the stone went far but the mortar broke in pieces, one of which, knocking down a party of men, killed eight.

(e. Visit to Sīkrī.)

(Dec. 1st) On Monday the 7th of the first Rabī` I rode out to visit Sīkrī. The octagonal platform ordered made in the middle of the lake was ready; we went over by boat, had an awning set up on it and elected for ma'jūn.

(f. Holy-war against Chandīrī.)

(Dec. 9th) After returning from Sīkrī we started on Monday night the 14th of the first Rabī`, with the intention of making Holy-war against Chandīrī, did as much as 3 kurohs (6 m.) and dismounted in Jalīsīr. After staying there two days for people to equip and array, we marched on Thursday (Dec. 12th-Rabī` I. 17th) and dismounted at Anwār. I left Anwār by boat, and disembarked beyond Chandwār.

(Dec. 23rd) Advancing march by march, we dismounted at the Kanār-passage on Monday the 28th.

(Dec. 26th) On Thursday the 2nd of the latter Rabī` I crossed the river; there was 4 or 5 days delay on one bank or the other before the army got across. On those days we went more than [Sidenote: Fol. 332.] once on board a boat and ate ma'jūn. The junction of the river Chaṃbal is between one and two kurohs (2-4 m.) above the Kanār-passage; on Friday I went into a boat on the Chaṃbal, passed the junction and so to camp.

(g. Troops sent against Shaikh Bāyazīd Farmūlī.)

Though there had been no clear proof of Shaikh Bāyazīd's hostility, yet his misconduct and action made it certain that he had hostile intentions. On account of this Muḥammad `Alī Jang-jang was detached from the army and sent to bring together from Qanūj Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā and the sulṯāns and amīrs of that neighbourhood, such as Qāsim-i-ḥusain Sulṯān, Bī-khūb (or, Nī-khūb) Sulṯān, Malik Qāsim, Kūkī, Abū'l-muḥammad the lancer, and Minūchihr Khān with his elder and younger brethren and Daryā-khānīs, so that they might move against the hostile Afghāns. They were to invite Shaikh Bāyazīd to go with them; if he came frankly, they were to take him along; if not, were to drive him off. Muḥammad `Alī asking for a few elephants, ten were given him. After he had leave to set off, Bābā Chuhra (the Brave) was sent to and ordered to join him.

(h. Incidents of the journey to Chandīrī.)

From Kanār one kuroh (2 m.) was done by boat.

(Jan. 1st 1528 AD.) On Wednesday the 8th of the latter Rabī` we dismounted within a kuroh of Kālpī. Bābā Sl. came to wait on me in this camp; he is a son of Khalīl Sl. who is a younger brother of the full-blood of Sl. Sa`īd Khān. Last [Sidenote: Fol. 332b.] year he fled from his elder brother but, repenting himself, went back from the Andar-āb border; when he neared Kāshghar, The Khān (Sa`īd) sent Ḥaidar M. to meet him and take him back.

(Jan. 2nd-Rabī` II. 9th) Next day we dismounted at `Ālam Khān's house in Kālpī where he set Hindūstānī food before us and made an offering.

(Jan. 6th) On Monday the 13th of the month we marched from Kālpī.

(Jan. 10th-Rabī` II. 17th) On Friday we dismounted at Īrij.

(Jan. 11th) On Saturday we dismounted at Bāndīr.

(Jan. 12th) On Sunday the 19th of the month Chīn-tīmūr Sl. was put at the head of 6 or 7000 men and sent ahead against Chandīrī. With him went the begs Bāqī mīng-bāshī (head of a thousand), Qūj Beg's (brother) Tardī Beg, `Āshiq the taster, Mullā Apāq, Muḥsin Dūldāī and, of the Hindūstānī begs, Shaikh Gūran.

(Jan 17th) On Friday the 24th of the month we dismounted near Kachwa. After encouraging its people, it was bestowed on the son of Badru'd-dīn.

Kachwa is a shut-in place, having lowish hills all round it. A dam has been thrown across between hills on the south-east of it, and thus a large lake made, perhaps 5 or 6 kurohs (10-12 m.) round. This lake encloses Kachwa on three sides; on the north-west a space of ground is kept dry; here, therefore is its Gate. On the lake are a great many very small boats, able to hold 3 or 4 persons; in these the inhabitants go out on the lake, if they have to flee. There are two other lakes before Kachwa is [Sidenote: Fol. 333.] reached, smaller than its own and, like that, made by throwing a dam across between hills.

(Jan. 18th) We waited a day in Kachwa in order to appoint active overseers and a mass of spadesmen to level the road and cut jungle down, so that the carts and mortar might pass along it easily. Between Kachwa and Chandīrī the country is jungly.

(Jan. 19th-Rabī` II. 26th) After leaving Kachwa we halted one night, passed the Burhānpūr-water (Bhurānpūr) and dismounted within 3 kurohs (6 m.) of Chandīrī.

(i. Chandīrī and its capture.)

The citadel of Chandīrī stands on a hill; below it are the town (shahr) and outer-fort (tāsh-qūrghān), and below these is the level road along which carts pass. When we left Burhānpūr (Jan. 10th) we marched for a kuroh below Chandīrī for the convenience of the carts.

(Jan. 21st) After one night's halt we dismounted beside Bahjat Khān's tank on the top of its dam, on Tuesday the 28th of the month.

(Jan. 22nd-Rabī` II. 29th) Riding out at dawn, we assigned post after post (būljār, būljār), round the walled town (qūrghān) to centre, right, and left. Ustād `Alī-qulī chose, for his stone-discharge, ground that had no fall; overseers and spadesmen were told off to raise a place (m:ljār) for the mortar to rest on, and the whole army was ordered to get ready appliances for taking a fort, mantelets, ladders and ... -mantelets (tūra).

Formerly Chandīrī will have belonged to the Sulṯāns of Mandāū (Mandū). When Sl. Nāṣiru'd-dīn passed away, one [Sidenote: Fol. 333b.] of his sons Sl. Maḥmūd who is now holding Mandū, took possession of it and its neighbouring parts, and another son called Muḥammad Shāh laid hands on Chandīrī and put it under Sl. Sikandar (Lūdī)'s protection, who, in his turn, took Muḥammad Shāh's side and sent him large forces. Muḥammad Shāh survived Sl. Sikandar and died in Sl. Ibrāhīm's time, leaving a very young son called Aḥmad Shāh whom Sl. Ibrāhīm drove out and replaced by a man of his own. At the time Rānā Sangā led out an army against Sl. Ibrāhīm and Ibrāhīm's begs turned against him at Dūlpūr, Chandīrī fell into the Rānā's hands and by him was given to Medinī [Mindnī] Rāo the greatly-trusted pagan who was now in it with 4 or 5000 other pagans.

As it was understood there was friendship between Medinī Rāo and Ārāīsh Khān, the latter was sent with Shaikh Gūran to speak to Medinī Rāo with favour and kindness, and promise Shamsābād in exchange for Chandīrī. One or two of his trusted men got out(?). No adjustment of matters was reached, it is not known whether because Medinī Rāo did not trust what was said, or whether because he was buoyed up by delusion about the strength of the fort.

(Jan. 28th) At dawn on Tuesday the 6th of the first Jumāda we marched from Bahjat Khān's tank intending to assault Chandīrī. We dismounted at the side of the middle-tank near [Sidenote: Fol. 334.] the fort.

(j. Bad news.)

On this same morning after reaching that ground, Khalīfa brought a letter or two of which the purport was that the troops appointed for the East had fought without consideration, been beaten, abandoned Laknau, and gone to Qanūj. Seeing that Khalīfa was much perturbed and alarmed by these news, I said, (Persian) "There is no ground for perturbation or alarm; nothing comes to pass but what is predestined of God. As this task (Chandīrī) is ahead of us, not a breath must be drawn about what has been told us. Tomorrow we will assault the fort; that done, we shall see what comes."

(k. Siege of Chandīrī, resumed.)

The enemy must have strengthened just the citadel, and have posted men by twos and threes in the outer-fort for prudence' sake. That night our men went up from all round; those few in the outer-fort did not fight; they fled into the citadel.

(Jan. 29th) At dawn on Wednesday the 7th of the first Jumāda, we ordered our men to arm, go to their posts, provoke to fight, and attack each from his place when I rode out with drum and standard.

I myself, dismissing drum and standard till the fighting should grow hot, went to amuse myself by watching Ustād `Alī-qulī's stone-discharge. Nothing was effected by it because his ground had no fall (yāghdā) and because the fort-walls, being entirely [Sidenote: Fol. 334b.] of stone, were extremely strong.

That the citadel of Chandīrī stands on a hill has been said already. Down one side of this hill runs a double-walled road (dū-tahī) to water. This is the one place for attack; it had been assigned as the post of the right and left hands and royal corps of the centre. Hurled though assault was from every side, the greatest force was here brought to bear. Our braves did not turn back, however much the pagans threw down stones and flung flaming fire upon them. At length Shāhīm the centurion got up where the dū-tahī wall touches the wall of the outer fort; braves swarmed up in other places; the dū-tahī was taken.

Not even as much as this did the pagans fight in the citadel; when a number of our men swarmed up, they fled in haste. In a little while they came out again, quite naked, and renewed the fight; they put many of our men to flight; they made them fly (āuchūrdīlār) over the ramparts; some they cut down and killed. Why they had gone so suddenly off the walls seems to have been that they had taken the resolve of those who give up a place as lost; they put all their ladies and beauties (ṣūratīlār) to death, then, looking themselves to die, came naked out to fight. Our men attacking, each one from his post, drove [Sidenote: Fol. 335.] them from the walls whereupon 2 or 300 of them entered Medinī Rāo's house and there almost all killed one another in this way:—one having taken stand with a sword, the rest eagerly stretched out the neck for his blow. Thus went the greater number to hell.

By God's grace this renowned fort was captured in 2 or 3 garīs (cir. an hour), without drum and standard, with no hard fighting done. A pillar of pagan-heads was ordered set up on a hill north-west of Chandīrī. A chronogram of this victory having been found in the words Fatḥ-i-dāru'l-ḥarb (Conquest of a hostile seat), I thus composed them:—

Was for awhile the station Chandīrī Pagan-full, the seat of hostile force; By fighting, I vanquished its fort, The date was Fatḥ-i-dāru'l-ḥarb.

(l. Further description of Chandīrī.)

Chandīrī is situated (in) rather good country, having much running-water round about it. Its citadel is on a hill and inside it has a tank cut out of the solid rock. There is another large tank at the end of the dū-tahī by assaulting which the fort was taken. All houses in Chandīrī, whether of high or low, are built of stone, those of chiefs being laboriously carved; those of the lower classes are also of stone but are not carved. They are covered in [Sidenote: Fol. 335b.] with stone-slabs instead of with earthen tiles. In front of the fort are three large tanks made by former governors who threw dams across and made tanks round about it; their ground lies high. It has a small river (daryācha), Betwa by name, which may be some 3 kurohs (6 m.) from Chandīrī itself; its water is noted in Hindūstān as excellent and pleasant drinking. It is a perfect little river (daryā-ghīna). In its bed lie piece after piece of sloping rock (qīālār) fit for making houses. Chandīrī is 90 kurohs (180 m.) by road to the south of Āgra. In Chandīrī the altitude of the Pole-star (?) is 25 degrees.

(m. Enforced change of campaign.)

(Jan. 30th-Jumāda I. 8th) At dawn on Thursday we went round the fort and dismounted beside Mallū Khān's tank.

We had come to Chandīrī meaning, after taking it, to move against Rāīsīng, Bhīlsān, and Sārangpūr, pagan lands dependent on the pagan Ṣalāḥu'd-dīn, and, these taken, to move on Rānā Sangā in Chītūr. But as that bad news had come, the begs were summoned, matters were discussed, and decision made that the proper course was first to see to the rebellion of those malignants. Chandīrī was given to the Aḥmad Shāh already mentioned, a grandson of Sl. Nāṣiru'd-dīn; 50 laks from it were made khalṣa; Mullā Apāq was entrusted with its military-collectorate, and left to reinforce Aḥmad Shāh with from 2 to 3000 Turks and Hindūstānīs.

(Feb. 9th) On Sunday again, Yakka Khwāja and Ja`far Khwāja were sent from Bāndīr to fetch boats from Kālpī to the Kanār-passage.

(Feb. 22nd) On Saturday the 24th of the month we dismounted at the Kanār-passage, and ordered the army to begin to cross.

(n. News of the rebels.)

News came in these days that the expeditionary force had abandoned Qanūj also and come to Rāprī, and that a strong body of the enemy had assaulted and taken Shamsābād although Abū'l-muḥammad the lancer must have strengthened it. There was delay of 3 or 4 days on one side or other of the river before the army got across. Once over, we moved march by march towards Qanūj, sending scouting braves (qāzāq yīgītlār) ahead to get news of our opponents. Two or three marches from Qanūj, news was brought that Ma`rūf's son had fled on seeing the dark mass of the news-gatherers, and got away. Bīban, Bāyazīd and Ma`rūf, on hearing news of us, crossed Gang (Ganges) and seated themselves on its eastern bank opposite Qanūj, thinking to prevent our passage.

(o. A bridge made over the Ganges.)

(Feb. 27th) On Thursday the 6th of the latter Jumāda we passed Qanūj and dismounted on the western bank of Gang. Some of the braves went up and down the river and took boats [Sidenote: Fol. 336b.] by force, bringing in 30 or 40, large or small. Mīr Muḥammad the raftsman was sent to find a place convenient for making a bridge and to collect requisites for making it. He came back approving of a place about a kuroh (2 m.) below the camp. Energetic overseers were told off for the work. Ustād `Alī-qulī placed the mortar for his stone-discharge near where the bridge was to be and shewed himself active in discharging it. Muṣṯafa Rūmī had the culverin-carts crossed over to an island below the place for the bridge, and from that island began a culverin-discharge. Excellent matchlock fire was made from a post raised above the bridge. Malik Qāsim Mughūl and a very few men went across the river once or twice and fought excellently (yakhshīlār aūrūshtīlār). With equal boldness Bābā Sl. and Darwīsh Sl. also crossed, but went with the insufficient number of from 10 to 15 men; they went after the Evening Prayer and came back without fighting, with nothing done; they were much blamed for this crossing of theirs. At last Malik Qāsim, grown bold, attacked the enemy's camp and, by shooting arrows into it, drew him out (?); he came with a mass of men and an elephant, fell on Malik Qāsim and hurried him off. Malik Qāsim got into a boat, but before it could put off, the elephant [Sidenote: Fol. 337.] came up and swamped it. In that encounter Malik Qāsim died.

In the days before the bridge was finished Ustād `Alī-qulī did good things in stone-discharge (yakhshīlār tāsh aītī), on the first day discharging 8 stones, on the second 16, and going on equally well for 3 or 4 days. These stones he discharged from the Ghāzī-mortar which is so-called because it was used in the battle with Rānā Sangā the pagan. There had been another and larger mortar which burst after discharging one stone. The matchlockmen made a mass (qālīn) of discharges, bringing down many men and horses; they shot also slave-workmen running scared away (?) and men and horses passing-by.

(March 11th) On Wednesday the 19th of the latter Jumāda the bridge being almost finished, we marched to its head. The Afghāns must have ridiculed the bridge-making as being far from completion.

(March 12th) The bridge being ready on Thursday, a small body of foot-soldiers and Lāhorīs went over. Fighting as small followed.

(p. Encounter with the Afghāns.)

(March 13th) On Friday the royal corps, and the right and left hands of the centre crossed on foot. The whole body of Afghāns, armed, mounted, and having elephants with them, attacked us. They hurried off our men of the left hand, but our centre itself (i.e. the royal corps) and the right hand stood [Sidenote: Fol. 337b.] firm, fought, and forced the enemy to retire. Two men from these divisions had galloped ahead of the rest; one was dismounted and taken; the horse of the other was struck again and again, had had enough, turned round and when amongst our men, fell down. On that day 7 or 8 heads were brought in; many of the enemy had arrow or matchlock wounds. Fighting went on till the Other Prayer. That night all who had gone across were made to return; if (more) had gone over on that Saturday's eve, most of the enemy would probably have fallen into our hands, but this was in my mind:—Last year we marched out of Sīkrī to fight Rānā Sangā on Tuesday, New-year's-day, and crushed that rebel on Saturday; this year we had marched to crush these rebels on Wednesday, New-year's-day, and it would be one of singular things, if we beat them on Sunday. So thinking, we did not make the rest of the army cross. The enemy did not come to fight on Saturday, but stood arrayed a long way off.

(Sunday March 15th-Jumāda II. 23rd) On this day the carts were taken over, and at this same dawn the army was ordered to cross. At beat of drum news came from our scouts that the enemy had fled. Chīn-tīmūr Sl. was ordered to lead his army in pursuit and the following leaders also were made pursuers who should move with the Sulṯān and not go beyond his word:—Muḥammad `Alī Jang-jang, Ḥusamu'd-dīn `Alī (son) of Khalīfa, Muḥibb-i-`alī (son) of Khalīfa, Kūkī (son) of Bābā Qashqa, Dost-i-muḥammad (son) of Bābā Qashqa, Bāqī of [Sidenote: Fol. 338.] Tāshkīnt, and Red Walī. I crossed at the Sunnat Prayer. The camels were ordered to be taken over at a passage seen lower down. That Sunday we dismounted on the bank of standing-water within a kuroh of Bangarmāwū. Those appointed to pursue the Afghāns were not doing it well; they had dismounted in Bangarmāwū and were scurrying off at the Mid-day Prayer of this same Sunday.

(March 16th-Jumāda II. 24th) At dawn we dismounted on the bank of a lake belonging to Bangarmāwū.

(q. Arrival of a Chaghatāī cousin.)

On this same day (March 16th) Tūkhtā-būghā Sl. a son of my mother's brother (dādā) the Younger Khān (Aḥmad Chaghatāī) came and waited on me.

(March 21st) On Saturday the 29th of the latter Jumāda I visited Laknau, crossed the Gūī-water and dismounted. This day I bathed in the Gūī-water. Whether it was from water getting into my ear, or whether it was from the effect of the climate, is not known, but my right ear was obstructed and for a few days there was much pain.

(r. The campaign continued.)

One or two marches from Aūd (Oudh) some-one came from Chīn-tīmūr Sl. to say, "The enemy is seated on the far side of the river Sīrd[a?]; let His Majesty send help." We detached a reinforcement of 1000 braves under Qarācha.

(March 28th) On Saturday the 7th of Rajab we dismounted [Sidenote: Fol. 338b.] 2 or 3 kurohs from Aūd above the junction of the Gagar (Gogra) and Sīrd. Till today Shaikh Bāyazīd will have been on the other side of the Sīrd opposite Aūd, sending letters to the Sulṯān and discussing with him, but the Sulṯān getting to know his deceitfulness, sent word to Qarācha at the Mid-day Prayer and made ready to cross the river. On Qarācha's joining him, they crossed at once to where were some 50 horsemen with 3 or 4 elephants. These men could make no stand; they fled; a few having been dismounted, the heads cut off were sent in.

Following the Sulṯān there crossed over Bī-khūb (var. Nī-khūb) Sl. and Tardī Beg (the brother) of Qūj Beg, and Bābā Chuhra (the Brave), and Bāqī shaghāwal. Those who had crossed first and gone on, pursued Shaikh Bāyazīd till the Evening Prayer, but he flung himself into the jungle and escaped. Chīn-tīmūr dismounted late on the bank of standing-water, rode on at midnight after the rebel, went as much as 40 kurohs (80 m.), and came to where Shaikh Bāyazīd's family and relations (nisba?) had been; they however must have fled. He sent gallopers off in all directions from that place; Bāqī shaghāwal and a few braves drove the enemy like sheep before them, overtook the family and brought in some Afghān prisoners.

We stayed a few days on that ground (near Aūd) in order to settle the affairs of Aūd. People praised the land lying along the Sīrd 7 or 8 kurohs (14-16 m.) above Aūd, saying it was hunting-ground. Mīr Muḥammad the raftsman was sent out and returned after looking at the crossings over the Gagar-water (Gogra) and the Sīrd-water (Chauka?).

TRANSLATOR'S NOTE.

Here, in all known texts of the Bābur-nāma there is a break of the narrative between April 2nd and Sep. 18th 1528 AD.-Jumāda II. 12th 934 AH. and Muḥarram 3rd 935 AH., which, whether intentional or accidental, is unexplained by Bābur's personal circumstances. It is likely to be due to a loss of pages from Bābur's autograph manuscript, happening at some time preceding the making of either of the Persian translations of his writings and of the Elphinstone and Ḥaidarābād transcripts. Though such a loss might have occurred easily during the storm chronicled on f. 376b, it seems likely that Bābur would then have become aware of it and have made it good. A more probable explanation of the loss is the danger run by Humāyūn's library during his exile from rule in Hindūstān, at which same time may well have occurred the seeming loss of the record of 936 and 937 AH.

(a. Transactions of the period of the lacuna.)

Mr. Erskine notes (Mems. p. 381 n.) that he found the gap in all MSS. he saw and that historians of Hindūstān throw no light upon the transactions of the period. Much can be gleaned however as to Bābur's occupations during the 5-1/2 months of the lacuna from his chronicle of 935 AH. which makes several references to occurrences of "last year" and also allows several inferences to be drawn. From this source it becomes known that the Afghān campaign the record of which is broken by the gap, was carried on and that in its course Bābur was at Jūn-pūr (f. 365), Chausa (f. 365b) and Baksara (f. 366-366b); that he swam the Ganges (f. 366b), bestowed Sarūn on a Farmūlī Shaikh-zāda (f. 374b and f. 377), negociated with Rānā Sangā's son Bikramājīt (f. 342b), ordered a Chār-bāgh laid out (f. 340), and was ill for 40 days (f. 346b). It may be inferred too that he visited Dūlpūr (f. 353b) recalled `Askarī (f. 339), sent Khwāja Dost-i-khāwand on family affairs to Kābul (f. 345b), and was much pre-occupied by the disturbed state of Kābul (see his letters to Humāyūn and Khwāja Kālan written in 935 AH.).

It is not easy to follow the dates of events in 935 AH. because in many instances only the day of the week or a "next day" is entered. I am far from sure that one passage at least now found s.a. 935 AH. does not belong to 934 AH. It is not in the Ḥai. Codex (where its place would have been on f. 363b), and, so far as I can see, does not fit with the dates of 935 AH. It will be considered with least trouble with its context and my notes (q.v. f. 363b and ff. 366-366b).

(b. Remarks on the lacuna.)

One interesting biographical topic is likely to have found mention in the missing record, viz. the family difficulties which led to `Askarī's supersession by Kāmrān in the government of Multān (f. 359).

Another is the light an account of the second illness of 934 AH. might have thrown on a considerable part of the Collection of verses already written in Hindūstān and now known to us as the Rāmpūr Dīwān. The Bābur-nāma allows the dates of much of its contents to be known, but there remain poems which seem prompted by the self-examination of some illness not found in the B.N. It contains the metrical version of Khwāja `Ubaidu'l-lāh's Wālidiyyah of which Bābur writes on f. 346 and it is dated Monday Rabī` II. 15th 935 AH. (Dec. 29th 1528 AD.). I surmise that the reflective verses following the Wālidiyyah belong to the 40 days' illness of 934 AH. i.e. were composed in the period of the lacuna. The Collection, as it is in the "Rāmpūr Dīwān", went to a friend who was probably Khwāja Kalān; it may have been the only such collection made by Bābur. No other copy of it has so far been found. It has the character of an individual gift with verses specially addressed to its recipient. Any light upon it which may have vanished with pages of 934 AH. is an appreciable loss.

935 AH.-SEP. 15TH 1528 TO SEP. 5TH 1529 AD.

(a. Arrivals at Court.)

(Sep. 18th) On Friday the 3rd of Muḥarram, `Askarī whom I had summoned for the good of Multān before I moved out for Chandīrī, waited on me in the private-house.

(Sep. 19th) Next day waited on me the historian Khwānd-amīr, Maulānā Shihāb the enigmatist, and Mīr Ibrāhīm the harper a relation of Yūnas-i-`alī, who had all come out of Herī long before, wishing to wait on me.

(b. Bābur starts for Gūālīār.)

(Sep. 20th) With the intention of visiting Gūālīār which in books they write Gālīūr, I crossed the Jūn at the Other Prayer of Sunday the 5th of the month, went into the fort of Āgra to bid farewell to Fakhr-i-jahān Begīm and Khadīja-sulṯān Begīm who were to start for Kābul in a few days, and got to horse. Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā asked for leave and stayed behind in Āgra. That night we did 3 or 4 kurohs (6-8 m.) of the road, dismounted near a large lake (kūl) and there slept.

(Sep. 21st) We got through the Prayer somewhat before time (Muḥ. 6th) and rode on, nooned on the bank of the Gambīr-water, and went on shortly after the Mid-day Prayer. On the way we ate powders mixed with the flour of parched [Sidenote: Fol. 339b.] grain, Mullā Rafī` having prepared them for raising the spirits. They were found very distasteful and unsavoury. Near the Other Prayer we dismounted a kuroh (2 m.) west of Dūlpūr, at a place where a garden and house had been ordered made.

(c. Work in Dūlpūr (Dhūlpūr).)

That place is at the end of a beaked hill, its beak being of solid red building-stone (`imārat-tāsh). I had ordered the (beak of the) hill cut down (dressed down?) to the ground-level and that if there remained a sufficient height, a house was to be cut out in it, if not, it was to be levelled and a tank (ḥauẓ) cut out in its top. As it was not found high enough for a house, Ūstād Shāh Muḥammad the stone-cutter was ordered to level it and cut out an octagonal, roofed tank. North of this tank the ground is thick with trees, mangoes, jāman (Eugenia jambolana), all sorts of trees; amongst them I had ordered a well made, 10 by 10; it was almost ready; its water goes to the afore-named tank. To the north of this tank Sl. Sikandar's dam is flung across (the valley); on it houses have been built, and above it the waters of the Rains gather into a great lake. On the east of this lake is a garden; I ordered a seat and four-pillared platform (tālār) to be cut out in the solid rock on that same side, and a mosque [Sidenote: Fol. 340.] built on the western one.

(Sept. 22nd and 23rd—Muḥ. 7th and 8th) On account of these various works, we stayed in Dūlpūr on Tuesday and Wednesday.

(d. Journey to Gūālīār resumed.)

(Sep. 24th) On Thursday we rode on, crossed the Chaṃbal-river and made the Mid-day Prayer on its bank, between the two Prayers (the Mid-day and the Afternoon) bestirred ourselves to leave that place, passed the Kawārī and dismounted. The Kawārī-water being high through rain, we crossed it by boat, making the horses swim over.

(Sep. 25th) Next day, Friday which was 'Āshūr (Muḥ. 10th), we rode on, took our nooning at a village on the road, and at the Bed-time Prayer dismounted a kuroh north of Gūālīār, in a Chār-bāgh ordered made last year.

(Sep. 26th) Riding on next day after the Mid-day Prayer, we visited the low hills to the north of Gūālīār, and the Praying-place, went into the fort through the Gate called Hātī-pūl which joins Mān-sing's buildings (`imārāt), and dismounted, close to the Other Prayer, at those (`imāratlār) of Rāja Bikramājīt in which Raḥīm-dād had settled himself.

To-night I elected to take opium because of ear-ache; another reason was the shining of the moon.

(e. Visit to the Rājas' palaces.)

(Sep. 27th) Opium sickness gave me much discomfort next day (Muḥ. 12th); I vomited a good deal. Sickness notwithstanding, I visited the buildings (`imāratlār) of Mān-sing and [Sidenote: Fol. 340b.] Bikramājīt thoroughly. They are wonderful buildings, entirely of hewn stone, in heavy and unsymmetrical blocks however. Of all the Rājas' buildings Mān-sing's is the best and loftiest. It is more elaborately worked on its eastern face than on the others. This face may be 40 to 50 qārī (yards) high, and is entirely of hewn stone, whitened with plaster. In parts it is four storeys high; the lower two are very dark; we went through them with candles. On one (or, every) side of this building are five cupolas having between each two of them a smaller one, square after the fashion of Hindūstān. On the larger ones are fastened sheets of gilded copper. On the outside of the walls is painted-tile work, the semblance of plantain-trees being shewn all round with green tiles. In a bastion of the eastern front is the Hātī-pūl, hātī being what these people call an elephant, pūl, a gate. A sculptured image of an elephant with two drivers (fīl-bān) stands at the out-going (chīqīsh) of this Gate; it is exactly like an elephant; from it the gate is called Hātī-pūl. A window in the [Sidenote: Fol. 341.] lowest storey where the building has four, looks towards this elephant and gives a near view of it. The cupolas which have been mentioned above are themselves the topmost stage (murtaba) of the building; the sitting-rooms are on the second storey (ṯabaqat), in a hollow even; they are rather airless places although Hindūstānī pains have been taken with them. The buildings of Mān-sing's son Bikramājīt are in a central position (aūrta dā) on the north side of the fort. The son's buildings do not match the father's. He has made a great dome, very dark but growing lighter if one stays awhile in it. Under it is a smaller building into which no light comes from any side. When Raḥīm-dād settled down in Bikramājīt's buildings, he made a rather small hall [kīchīkrāq tālārghīna] on the top of this dome. From Bikramājīt's buildings a road has been made to his father's, a road such that nothing is seen of it from outside and nothing known of it inside, a quite enclosed road.

After visiting these buildings, we rode to a college Raḥīm-dād [Sidenote: Fol. 341b.] had made by the side of a large tank, there enjoyed a flower-garden he had laid out, and went late to where the camp was in the Chārbāgh.

(f. Raḥīm-dād's flower-garden.)

Raḥīm-dād has planted a great numbers of flowers in his garden (bāghcha), many being beautiful red oleanders. In these places the oleander-flower is peach, those of Gūālīār are beautiful, deep red. I took some of them to Āgra and had them planted in gardens there. On the south of the garden is a large lake where the waters of the Rains gather; on the west of it is a lofty idol-house, side by side with which Sl. Shihābu'd-dīn Aīltmīsh (Altamsh) made a Friday mosque; this is a very lofty building (`imārat), the highest in the fort; it is seen, with the fort, from the Dūlpūr-hill (cir. 30 m. away). People say the stone for it was cut out and brought from the large lake above-mentioned. Raḥīm-dād has made a wooden (yīghāch) tālār in his garden, and porches at the gates, which, after the Hindūstānī fashion, are somewhat low and shapeless.

(g. The Urwāh-valley.)

(Sep. 28th) Next day (Muḥ. 13th) at the Mid-day Prayer we rode out to visit places in Gūālīār we had not yet seen. We saw the `imārat called Bādalgar which is part of Mān-sing's fort (qila`), went through the Hātī-pūl and across the fort to a place called Urwā (Urwāh), which is a valley-bottom (qūl) on its western side. Though Urwā is outside the fort-wall running along the top of the hill, it has two stages (murtaba) of high wall at its mouth. The higher of these walls is some 30 or 40 qārī (yards) high; this is the longer one; at each end it joins [Sidenote: Fol. 342.] the wall of the fort. The second wall curves in and joins the middle part of the first; it is the lower and shorter of the two. This curve of wall will have been made for a water-thief; within it is a stepped well (wā'īn) in which water is reached by 10 or 15 steps. Above the Gate leading from the valley to this walled-well the name of Sl. Shihābu'd-dīn Aīltmīsh (Altamsh) is inscribed, with the date 630 (AH.-1233 AD.). Below this outer wall and outside the fort there is a large lake which seems to dwindle (at times) till no lake remains; from it water goes to the water-thief. There are two other lakes inside Urwā the water of which those who live in the fort prefer to all other.

Three sides of Urwā are solid rock, not the red rock of Bīāna but one paler in colour. On these sides people have cut out idol-statues, large and small, one large statue on the south side being perhaps 20 qārī (yds.) high. These idols are shewn quite naked without covering for the privities. Along the sides of [Sidenote: Fol. 342b.] the two Urwā lakes 20 or 30 wells have been dug, with water from which useful vegetables (sabzī kārlīklār), flowers and trees are grown. Urwā is not a bad place; it is shut in (T. tūr); the idols are its defect; I, for my part, ordered them destroyed.

Going out of Urwā into the fort again, we enjoyed the window of the Sultānī-pūl which must have been closed through the pagan time till now, went to Raḥīm-dād's flower-garden at the Evening Prayer, there dismounted and there slept.

(h. A son of Rānā Sangā negociates with Bābur.)

(Sep. 29th) On Tuesday the 14th of the month came people from Rānā Sangā's second son, Bikramājīt by name, who with his mother Padmāwatī was in the fort of Rantanbūr. Before I rode out for Gūālīār, others had come from his great and trusted Hindū, Asūk by name, to indicate Bikramājīt's submission and obeisance and ask a subsistence-allowance of 70 laks for him; it had been settled at that time that parganas to the amount he asked should be bestowed on him, his men were given leave to go, with tryst for Gūālīār which we were about to visit. They came into Gūālīār somewhat after the trysting-day. The Hindū Asūk is said to be a near relation of Bikramājīt's mother Padmāwatī; he, for his part, set these particulars forth father-like [Sidenote: Fol. 343.] and son-like; they, for theirs, concurring with him, agreed to wish me well and serve me. At the time when Sl. Maḥmūd (Khīljī) was beaten by Rānā Sangā and fell into pagan captivity (925 AH.-1519 AD.) he possessed a famous crown-cap (tāj-kula) and golden belt, accepting which Sangā let him go free. That crown-cap and golden belt must have become Bikramājīt's; his elder brother Ratan-sī, now Rānā of Chītūr in his father's place, had asked for them but Bikramājīt had not given them up, and now made the men he sent to me, speak to me about them, and ask for Bīāna in place of Rantanbūr. We led them away from the Bīāna question and promised Shamsābād in exchange for Rantanbūr. To-day (Muḥ. 14th) they were given a nine days' tryst for Bīāna, were dressed in robes of honour, and allowed to go.

(i. Hindū temples visited.)

We rode from the flower-garden to visit the idol-houses of Gūālīār. Some are two, and some are three storeys high, each storey rather low, in the ancient fashion. On their stone plinths (izāra) are sculptured images. Some idol-houses, College-fashion, have a portico, large high cupolas and madrāsa-like cells, each topped by a slender stone cupola. In the lower cells are idols carved in the rock. [Sidenote: Fol. 343b.]

After enjoying the sight of these buildings (`imāratlār) we left the fort by the south Gate, made an excursion to the south, and went (north) to the Chār-bāgh Raḥim-dād had made over-against the Hātī-pūl. He had prepared a feast of cooked-meat (āsh) for us and, after setting excellent food before us, made offering of a mass of goods and coin worth 4 laks. From his Chār-bāgh I rode to my own.

(j. Excursion to a waterfall.)

(Sep. 30th.) On Wednesday the 15th of the month I went to see a waterfall 6 kurohs (12 m.) to the south-east of Gūālīār. Less than that must have been ridden; close to the Mid-day Prayer we reached a fall where sufficient water for one mill was coming down a slope (qīā) an arghamchī high. Below the fall there is a large lake; above it the water comes flowing through solid rock; there is solid rock also below the fall. A lake forms wherever the water falls. On the banks of the water lie piece after piece of rock as if for seats, but the water is said not always to be there. We sat down above the fall and ate ma`jūn, went up-stream to visit its source (badayat), returned, got out on higher ground, and stayed while musicians played and reciters [Sidenote: Fol. 344.] repeated things (nīma aītīlār). The Ebony-tree which Hindīs call tindū, was pointed out to those who had not seen it before. We went down the hill and, between the Evening and Bed-time Prayers, rode away, slept at a place reached near the second watch (midnight), and with the on-coming of the first watch of day (6 a.m. Muḥ. 16th-Oct. 1st) reached the Chār-bāgh and dismounted.

(k. Ṣalāḥu'd-dīn's birth-place.)

(Oct. 2nd) On Friday the 17th of the month, I visited the garden of lemons and pumeloes (sadā-fal) in a valley-bottom amongst the hills above a village called Sūkhjana (?) which is Ṣalāḥu'd-dīn's birth-place. Returning to the Chār-bāgh, I dismounted there in the first watch.

(l. Incidents of the march from Gūālīār.)

(Oct. 4th) On Sunday the 19th of the month, we rode before dawn from the Chār-bāgh, crossed the Kawārī-water and took our nooning (tūshlāndūk). After the Mid-day Prayer we rode on, at sunset passed the Chaṃbal-water, between the Evening and Bed-time Prayers entered Dulpūr-fort, there, by lamp-light, visited a Hot-bath which Abū'l-fatḥ had made, rode on, and dismounted at the dam-head where the new Chār-bāgh is in making.

(Oct. 5th) Having stayed the night there, at dawn (Monday 20th) I visited what places had been ordered made. The face (yūz) of the roofed-tank, ordered cut in the solid rock, was not being got up quite straight; more stone-cutters were sent for who were to make the tank-bottom level, pour in water, and, by help of the water, to get the sides to one height. They got the face up straight just before the Other Prayer, were then ordered to fill the tank with water, by help of the water made the sides [Sidenote: Fol. 344b.] match, then busied themselves to smooth them. I ordered a water-chamber (āb-khāna) made at a place where it would be cut in the solid rock; inside it was to be a small tank also cut in the solid rock.

(Here the record of 6 days is wanting.)

(Oct. 12th?) To-day, Monday (27th?), there was a ma`jūn party. (Oct. 13th) On Tuesday I was still in that same place. (Oct. 14th) On the night of Wednesday, after opening the mouth and eating something we rode for Sīkrī. Near the second watch (midnight), we dismounted somewhere and slept; I myself could not sleep on account of pain in my ear, whether caused by cold, as is likely, I do not know. At the top of the dawn, we bestirred ourselves from that place, and in the first watch dismounted at the garden now in making at Sīkrī. The garden-wall and well-buildings were not getting on to my satisfaction; the overseers therefore were threatened and punished. We rode on from Sīkrī between the Other and Evening Prayers, passed through Marhākūr, dismounted somewhere and slept.

(Oct. 15th) Riding on (Thursday 30th), we got into Āgra during the first watch (6-9 a.m.). In the fort I saw the honoured Khadīja-sulṯān Begīm who had stayed behind for several reasons when Fakhr-i-jahān Begīm started for Kābul. Crossing Jūn (Jumna), I went to the Garden-of-eight paradises.

(m. Arrival of kinswomen.)

(Oct. 17th) On Saturday the 3rd of Ṣafar, between the Other and Evening Prayers, I went to see three of the great-aunt begīms, Gauhar-shād Begīm, Badī`u'l-jamāl Begīm, and Āq Begīm, with also, of lesser begīms, Sl. Maṣ`ūd Mīrzā's daughter Khān-zāda Begīm, and Sulṯān-bakht Begīm's daughter, and my yīnkā chīcha's grand-daughter, that is to say, Zaināb-sulṯān Begīm. They had come past Tūta and dismounted at a small [Sidenote: Fol. 345.] standing-water (qarā sū) on the edge of the suburbs. I came back direct by boat.

(n. Despatch of an envoy to receive charge of Ranthaṃbhor.)

(Oct. 19th) On Monday the 5th of the month of Ṣafar, Hāmūsī son of Dīwa, an old Hindū servant from Bhīra, was joined with Bikramājīt's former and later envoys in order that pact and agreement for the surrender of Ranthanbūr and for the conditions of Bikramājīt's service might be made in their own (hindū) way and custom. Before our man returned, he was to see, and learn, and make sure of matters; this done, if that person (i.e. Bikramājīt) stood fast to his spoken word, I, for my part, promised that, God bringing it aright, I would set him in his father's place as Rānā of Chitūr.

(Here the record of 3 days is wanting.)

(o. A levy on stipendiaries.)

(Oct. 22nd) By this time the treasure of Iskandar and Ibrāhīm in Dihlī and Āgra was at an end. Royal orders were given therefore, on Thursday the 8th of Ṣafar, that each stipendiary (wajhdār) should drop into the Dīwān, 30 in every 100 of his allowance, to be used for war-material and appliances, for equipment, for powder, and for the pay of gunners and matchlockmen.

(p. Royal letters sent into Khurāsān.)

(Oct. 24th) On Saturday the 10th of the month, Pay-master Sl. Muḥammad's foot-man Shāh Qāsim who once before had taken letters of encouragement to kinsfolk in Khurāsān, was sent to Herī with other letters to the purport that, through God's grace, our hearts were at ease in Hindūstān about the rebels and [Sidenote: Fol. 345b.] pagans of east and west; and that, God bringing it aright, we should use every means and assuredly in the coming spring should touch the goal of our desire. On the margin of a royal letter sent to Ahmad Afshār (Turk) a summons to Farīdūn the qabūz-player was written with my own hand.

(Here the record of 11 days is wanting.)

In today's forenoon (Tuesday 20th?) I made a beginning of eating quicksilver.

(q. News from Kābul and Khurāsān.)

(Nov. 4th) On Wednesday the 21st of the month (Ṣafar) a Hindūstānī foot-man (pīāda) brought dutiful letters (`arẓ-dāshtlār) from Kāmrān and Khwāja Dost-i-khāwand. The Khwāja had reached Kābul on the 10th of Ẕū'l-ḥijja and will have been anxious to go on to Humāyūn's presence, but there comes to him a man from Kāmrān, saying, "Let the honoured Khwāja come (to see me); let him deliver whatever royal orders there may be; let him go on to Humāyūn when matters have been talked over." Kāmrān will have gone into Kābul on the 17th of Ẕū'l-ḥijja (Sep. 2nd), will have talked with the Khwāja and, on the 28th of the same month, will have let him go on for Fort Victory (Qila'-i-ẕafar).

There was this excellent news in the dutiful letters received:—that Shāh-zāda T̤ahmāsp, resolute to put down the Aūzbeg, had overcome and killed Rīnīsh (var. Zīnīsh) Aūzbeg in Dāmghān and made a general massacre of his people; that 'Ubaid Khān, getting sure news about the Qīzīl-bāsh (Red-head) had risen from round Herī, gone to Merv, called up to him there all the sulṯāns of Samarkand and those parts, and that all the sulṯāns of Mā warā'u'n-nahr had gone to help him.

(r. Honours for an artificer.)

On this same day Sayyid Daknī of Shīrāz the diviner (ghaiba-gar?) was made to wear a dress of honour, given presents, and ordered to finish the arched(?) well (khwāralīq-chāh) as he best knew how.

(s. The Wālidiyyah-risāla (Parental-tract).)

(Nov. 6th) On Friday the 23rd of the month such heat appeared in my body that with difficulty I got through the Congregational Prayer in the Mosque, and with much trouble through the Mid-day Prayer, in the book-room, after due time, and little by little. Thereafter having had fever, I trembled less on Sunday (Nov. 28th). During the night of Tuesday the 27th of the month Ṣafar, it occurred to me to versify (naẕm qīlmāq)

the Wālidiyyah-risāla of his Reverence Khwāja 'Ubaidu'l-lāh. I laid it to heart that if I, going to the soul of his Reverence for protection, were freed from this disease, it would be a sign that my poem was accepted, just as the author of the Qaṣīdatu'l-būrda was freed from the affliction of paralysis when his poem [Sidenote: Fol. 346b.] had been accepted. To this end I began to versify the tract, using the metre of Maulānā 'Abdu´r-raḥīm Jāmī's Subḥatu'l-abrār (Rosary of the Righteous). Thirteen couplets were made in that same night. I tasked myself not to make fewer than 10 a day; in the end one day had been omitted. While last year every time such illness had happened, it had persisted at least a month or 40 days, this year, by God's grace and his Reverence's favour, I was free, except for a little depression (afsurda), on Thursday the 29th of the month (Nov. 12th). The end of versifying the contents of the tract was reached on Saturday the 8th of the first Rabī' (Nov. 20th). One day 52 couplets had been made.

(t. Troops warned for service.)

(Nov. 11th) On Wednesday the 28th of the month royal orders were sent on all sides for the armies, saying, "God bringing it about, at an early opportunity my army will be got to horse. Let all come soon, equipped for service."

(Here the record of 9 days is wanting.)

(u. Messengers from Humāyūn.)

(Nov. 21st) On Sunday the 9th of the first Rabī`, Beg Muḥammad ta`alluqchī came, who had been sent last year (934 AH.) at the end of Muḥarram to take a dress of honour and a horse to Humāyūn.

(Nov. 22nd) On Monday the 10th of the month there came from Humāyūn's presence Wais Lāgharī's (son) Beg-gīna (Little Beg) and Bīān Shaikh, one of Humāyūn's servants who had come as the messenger of the good tidings of the birth of Humāyūn's son whose name he gave as Al-amān. Shaikh Abū'l-wajd found Shăh sa`ādatmand to be the date of his birth. [Sidenote: Fol. 347.]

(v. Rapid travel.)

Bīān Shaikh set out long after Beg-gīna. He parted from Humāyūn on Friday the 9th of Ṣafar (Oct. 23rd) at a place below Kishm called Dū-shaṃba (Monday); he came into Āgra on Monday the 10th of the first Rabī` (Nov. 23rd). He came very quickly! Another time he actually came from Qila`-i-ẕafar to Qandahār in 11 days.

(w. News of T̤ahmāsp's victory over the Aūzbegs.)

Bīān Shaikh brought news about Shāh-zāda T̤ahmāsp's advancing out of `Irāq and defeating the Aūzbeg. Here are his particulars:—Shāh-zāda T̤ahmāsp, having come out of `Irāq with 40,000 men arrayed in Rūmī fashion of matchlock and cart, advances with great speed, takes Basṯām, slaughters Rīnīsh (var. Zīnīsh) Aūzbeg and his men in Dāmghān, and from there passes right swiftly on. Kīpīk Bī's son Qaṃbar-i-`alī Beg is beaten by one of the Qīzīl-bāsh (Red-head)'s men, and with his few followers goes to `Ubaid Khān's presence. `Ubaid Khān finds it undesirable to stay near Herī, hurriedly sends off gallopers to all the sulṯāns of Balkh, Ḥiṣār, Samarkand, and Tāshkend (Tāshkīnt) and goes himself to Merv. Sīūnjak Sl.'s younger son Bārāq Sl. from Tāshkend, Kūchūm Khān, with (his sons) Abū-sa`īd Sl. and Pūlad Sl., and Jānī Beg Sl. with his sons, from [Sidenote: Fol. 347b.] Samarkand and Mīān-kāl, Mahdī Sl.'s and Ḥamza Sl.'s sons from Ḥiṣār, Kītīn-qarā Sl. from Balkh, all these sulṯāns assemble right swiftly in Merv. To them their informers (tīl-chī) take news that Shāh-zāda, after saying, "`Ubaid Khān is seated near Herī with few men only," had been advancing swiftly with his 40,000 men, but that when he heard of this assembly (i.e. in Merv), he made a ditch in the meadow of Rādagān and seated himself there. Here-upon the Aūzbegs, with entire disregard of their opponents, left their counsels at this:—"Let all of us sulṯāns and khāns seat ourselves in Mashhad; let a few of us be told off with 20,000 men to go close to the Qīzīl-bāsh camp and not let them put head out; let us order magicians to work their magic directly Scorpio appears; by this stratagem the enemy will be enfeebled, and we shall overcome." So said, they march from Merv. Shāh-zāda gets out of Mashhad. He confronts them near Jām-and-Khirgird. There defeat befalls the Aūzbeg side. A mass of sulṯāns are overcome and slaughtered.

In one letter it (khūd) was written, "It is not known for certain [Sidenote: Fol. 348.] that any sulṯān except Kūchūm Khān has escaped; not a man who went with the army has come back up to now." The sulṯāns who were in Ḥiṣār abandoned it. Ibrāhīm Jānī's son Chalma, whose real name is Ismā`īl, must be in the fort.

(x. Letters written by Bābur.)

(Nov. 27th and 28th) This same Bīān Shaikh was sent quite quickly back with letters. for Humāyūn and Kāmrān. These and other writings being ready by Friday the 14th of the month (Nov. 27th) were entrusted to him, his leave was given, and on Saturday the 15th he got well out of Āgra.

COPY OF A LETTER TO HUMĀYŪN.

"The first matter, after saying, 'Salutation' to Humāyūn whom I am longing to see, is this:—

"Exact particulars of the state of affairs on that side and on this have been made known by the letters and dutiful representations brought on Monday the 10th of the first Rabī` by Beg-gīna and Bīān Shaikh.

(Turkī) Thank God! a son is born to thee! A son to thee, to me a heart-enslaver (dil-bandī).

"May the Most High ever allot to thee and to me tidings as joyful! So may it be, O Lord of the two worlds!"

"Thou sayest thou hast called him Al-amān; God bless and prosper this! Thou writest it so thyself (i.e. Al-amān), but hast over-looked that common people mostly say alāmā or aīlāmān. [Sidenote: Fol. 348b.] Besides that, this Al is rare in names. May God bless and prosper him in name and person; may He grant us to keep Al-amān (peace) for many years and many decades of years! May He now order our affairs by His own mercy and favour; not in many decades comes such a chance as this!"

"Again:—On Tuesday the 11th of the month (Nov. 23rd) came the false rumour that the Balkhīs had invited and were fetching Qurbān into Balkh."

"Again:—Kāmrān and the Kābul begs have orders to join thee; this done, move on Ḥiṣār, Samarkand, Herī or to whatever side favours fortune. Mayst thou, by God's grace, crush foes and take lands to the joy of friends and the down-casting of adversaries! Thank God! now is your time to risk life and slash swords. Neglect not the work chance has brought; slothful life in retirement befits not sovereign rule:—

(Persian) He grips the world who hastens; Empire yokes not with delay; All else, confronting marriage, stops, Save only sovereignty.

"If through God's grace, the Balkh and Ḥiṣār countries be won and held, put men of thine in Ḥiṣār, Kāmrān's men in Balkh. Should Samarkand also be won, there make thy seat. Ḥiṣār, [Sidenote: Fol. 349.] God willing, I shall make a crown-domain. Should Kāmrān regard Balkh as small, represent the matter to me; please God! I will make its defects good at once out of those other countries."

"Again:—As thou knowest, the rule has always been that when thou hadst six parts, Kāmrān had five; this having been constant, make no change."

"Again:—Live well with thy younger brother. Elders must bear the burden! I have the hope that thou, for thy part, wilt keep on good terms with him; he, who has grown up an active and excellent youth, should not fail, for his part, in loyal duty to thee."

"Again:—Words from thee are somewhat few; no person has [Sidenote: Fol. 349b.] come from thee for two or three years past; the man I sent to thee (Beg Muḥammad ta`alluqchī) came back in something over a year; is this not so?"

"Again:—As for the "retirement", "retirement", spoken of in thy letters,—retirement is a fault for sovereignty; as the honoured (Sa`dī) says:—

(Persian) If thy foot be fettered, choose to be resigned; If thou ride alone, take thou thine own head.

"No bondage equals that of sovereignty; retirement matches not with rule."

"Again:—Thou hast written me a letter, as I ordered thee to do; but why not have read it over? If thou hadst thought of reading it, thou couldst not have done it, and, unable thyself to read it, wouldst certainly have made alteration in it. Though by taking trouble it can be read, it is very puzzling, and who ever saw an enigma in prose? Thy spelling, though not bad, is not quite correct; thou writest iltafāt with ṯā (iltafāṯ) and qūlinj with yā (qīlinj?). Although thy letter can be read if every sort of pains be taken, yet it cannot be quite understood because of that obscure wording of thine. Thy remissness in letter-writing seems to be due to the thing which makes thee obscure, that is to say, to elaboration. In future write without elaboration; use plain, clear words. So will thy trouble and thy reader's be less."

"Again:—Thou art now to go on a great business; take counsel with prudent and experienced begs, and act as they say. If thou seek to pleasure me, give up sitting alone and avoiding society. Summon thy younger brother and the begs twice daily to thy presence, not leaving their coming to choice; be the business what it may, take counsel and settle every word and act in agreement with those well-wishers."

"Again:—Khwāja Kalān has long had with me the house-friend's intimacy; have thou as much and even more with him. [Sidenote: Fol. 350.] If, God willing, the work becomes less in those parts, so that thou wilt not need Kāmrān, let him leave disciplined men in Balkh and come to my presence."

"Again:—Seeing that there have been such victories, and such conquests, since Kābul has been held, I take it to be well-omened; I have made it a crown-domain; let no one of you covet it."

"Again:—Thou hast done well (yakhshī qīlīb sīn); thou hast won the heart of Sl. Wais; get him to thy presence; act by his counsel, for he knows business."

"Until there is a good muster of the army, do not move out."

"Bīān Shaikh is well-apprized of word-of-mouth matters, and will inform thee of them. These things said, I salute thee and am longing to see thee."—

The above was written on Thursday the 13th of the first Rabi` (Nov. 26th). To the same purport and with my own hand, I wrote also to Kāmrān and Khwāja Kalān, and sent off the letters (by Bīān Shaikh).

(Here the record fails from Rabī` 15th to 19th.)

(y. Plans of campaign.)

(Dec. 2nd) On Wednesday the 19th of the month (Rabī` I.) the mīrzās, sulṯāns, Turk and Hind amīrs were summoned for counsel, and left the matter at this:—That this year the army must move in some direction; that `Askarī should go in advance towards the East, be joined by the sulṯāns and amīrs from beyond Gang (Ganges), and march in whatever direction favoured fortune. These particulars having been written down, Ghīāṣu'd-dīn the [Sidenote: Fol. 350b.] armourer was given rendezvous for 16 days, and sent galloping off, on Saturday the 22nd of the month, to the amīrs of the East headed by Sl. Junaid Barlās. His word-of-mouth message was, that `Askarī was being sent on before the fighting apparatus, culverin, cart and matchlock, was ready; that it was the royal order for the sulṯāns and amīrs of the far side of Gang to muster in `Askarī's presence, and, after consultation with well-wishers on that side, to move in whatever direction, God willing! might favour fortune; that if there should be work needing me, please God! I would get to horse as soon as the person gone with the (16 days) tryst (mī`ād) had returned; that explicit representation should be made as to whether the Bengali (Nas̤rat Shāh) were friendly and single-minded; that, if nothing needed my presence in those parts, I should not make stay, but should move elsewhere at once; and that after consulting with well-wishers, they were to take `Askarī with them, and, God willing! settle matters on that side.

(Here the record of 5 days is wanting.)

(z. `Askarī receives the insignia and rank of a royal commander.)

(Dec. 12th) On Saturday the 29th of the first Rabī`, `Askarī was made to put on a jewelled dagger and belt, and a royal dress of honour, was presented with flag, horse-tail standard, [Sidenote: Fol. 351.] drum, a set (6-8) of tīpūchāq (horses), 10 elephants, a string of camels, one of mules, royal plenishing, and royal utensils. Moreover he was ordered to take his seat at the head of a Dīwān. On his mullā and two guardians were bestowed jackets having buttons; on his other servants, three sets of nine coats.

(aa. Bābur visits one of his officers.)

(Dec. 13th) On Sunday the last day of the month (Rabī` I. 30th) I went to Sl. Muḥammad Bakhshī's house. After spreading a carpet, he brought gifts. His offering in money and goods was more than 2 laks. When food and offering had been set out, we went into another room where sitting, we ate ma`jūn. We came away at the 3rd watch (midnight?), crossed the water, and went to the private house.

(bb. The Āgra-Kābul road measured.)

(Dec. 17th) On Thursday the 4th of the latter Rabī`, it was settled that Chīqmāq Beg with Shāhī ṯamghāchī's clerkship, should measure the road between Āgra and Kābul. At every 9th kuroh (cir. 18m.), a tower was to be erected 12 qārīs high and having a chār-dara on the top; at every 18th kuroh (cir. 36m.), 6 post-horses were to be kept fastened; and arrangement was to be made for the payment of post-masters and grooms, and for horse-corn. The order was, "If the place where the horses are fastened up, be near a crown-domain, let those there provide for the matters mentioned; if not, let the cost be charged on the beg in whose pargana the post-house may be." Chīqmāq Beg got out of Āgra with Shāhī on that same day.

(Turkī) Four thousand paces (qadam) are one mīl; Know that Hind people call this a kuroh; The pace (qadam) they say is a qārī and a half (36 in.); Know that each qārī (24 in.) is six hand-breadths (tūtām) That each tūtām is four fingers (aīlīk), Each aīlīk, six barley-corns. Know this knowledge.

The measuring-cord (ṯanāb) was fixed at 40 qārī, each being the one-and-a-half qārī mentioned above, that is to say, each is 9 hand-breadths.

(cc. A feast.)

(Dec. 18th) On Saturday the 6th of the month (Rabī` II.) there was a feast at which were present Qīzīl-bāsh (Red-head), and Aūzbeg, and Hindū envoys. The Qīzīl-bāsh envoys sat under an awning placed some 70-80 qārīs on my right, of the begs Yūnas-i-`alī being ordered to sit with them. On my left the Aūzbeg envoys sat in the same way, of the begs `Abdu'l-lāh being ordered to sit with them. I sat on the north side of a newly-erected octagonal pavilion (tālār) covered in with khas. Five or six qārīs on my right sat Tūkhtā-būgha Sl. and `Askarī, with Khwāja `Abdu'sh-shahīd and Khwāja Kalān, descendants of his Reverence the Khwāja, and Khwāja Chishtī (var. Ḥusainī), and Khalīfa, together with the ḥāfiẕes and mullās dependent on the Khwājas who had come from Samarkand. Five or six qārīs on my left sat Muḥammad-i-zamān M. and Tāng-ātmīsh Sl. [Sidenote: Fol. 352.] and Sayyid Rafī`, Sayyid Rūmī, Shaikh Abū'l-fatḥ, Shaikh Jamālī, Shaikh Shihābu'd-dīn `Arab and Sayyid Daknī (var.Zaknī, Ruknī). Before food all the sulṯāns, khāns, grandees, and amīrs brought gifts of red, of white, of black, of cloth and various other goods. They poured the red and white on a carpet I had ordered spread, and side by side with the gold and silver piled plenishing, white cotton piece-cloth and purses (badra) of money. While the gifts were being brought and before food, fierce camels and fierce elephants were set to fight on an island opposite, so too a few rams; thereafter wrestlers grappled. After the chief of the food had been set out, Khwāja `Abdu'sh-shahīd and Khwāja Kalān were made to put on surtouts (jabbah) of fine muslin, spotted with gold-embroidery, and suitable dresses of honour, and those headed by Mullā Farrūkh and Ḥāfiẕ had jackets put on them. On Kūchūm Khān's envoy and on Ḥasan Chalabi's younger brother were bestowed silken head-wear (bāshlīq) and gold-embroidered surtouts of fine muslin, with suitable dresses of honour. Gold-embroidered jackets and silk coats were presented to the envoys of Abū-sa`īd Sl. (Aūzbeg), of Mihr-bān Khānīm and her son Pulād Sl., and of Shāh Ḥasan [Sidenote: Fol. 352b.] (Arghūn). The two Khwājas and the two chief envoys, that is to say Kūchūm Khān's retainer and Ḥasan Chalabī's younger brother, were presented with a silver stone's weight of gold and a gold stone's weight of silver.

(Author's note on the Turkī stone-weight.) The gold stone (tāsh) is 500 mis̤qāls, that is to say, one Kābul sīr; the silver stone is 250 mis̤qāls, that is to say, half a Kābul sīr.

To Khwāja Mīr Sulṯān and his sons, to Ḥāfiẕ of Tāshkīnt, to Mullā Farrūkh at the head of the Khwājas' servants, and also to other envoys, silver and gold were given with a quiver. Yādgār-i-nāṣir was presented with a dagger and belt. On Mīr Muḥammad the raftsman who was deserving of reward for the excellent bridge he had made over the river Gang (Ganges), a dagger was bestowed, so too on the matchlockmen Champion [pahlawān] Ḥājī Muḥammad and Champion Buhlūl and on Walī the cheeta-keeper (pārschī); one was given to Ustād `Alī's son also. Gold and silver were presented to Sayyid Daud Garmsīrī. Jackets having buttons, and silk dresses of honour were presented to the servants of my daughter Ma`ṣūma and my son Hind-āl. Again:—presents of jackets and silk dresses of honour, of gold and silver, of plenishing and various goods were given to those from Andijān, and to those who had come from Sūkh and Hushīār, the places whither we had gone landless and homeless. Gifts of the same kind were given to the servants of Qurbān and Shaikhī and the peasants of Kāhmard. [Sidenote: Fol. 353.]

After food had been sent out, Hindūstānī players were ordered to come and show their tricks. Lūlīs came. Hindūstānī performers shew several feats not shewn by (Tramontane) ones. One is this:—They arrange seven rings, one on the forehead, two on the knees, two of the remaining four on fingers, two on toes, and in an instant set them turning rapidly. Another is this:—Imitating the port of the peacock, they place one hand on the ground, raise up the other and both legs, and then in an instant make rings on the uplifted hand and feet revolve rapidly. Another is this:—In those (Tramontane) countries two people grip one another and turn two somersaults, but Hindūstānī lūlīs, clinging together, go turning over three or four times. Another is this:—a lūlī sets the end of a 12 or 14 foot pole on his middle and holds it upright while another climbs up it and does his [Sidenote: Fol. 353b.] tricks up there. Another is this:—A small lūlī gets upon a big one's head, and stands there upright while the big one moves quickly from side to side shewing his tricks, the little one shewing his on the big one's head, quite upright and without tottering. Many dancing-girls came also and danced.

A mass of red, white, and black was scattered (sāchīldī) on which followed amazing noise and pushing. Between the Evening and Bed-time Prayers I made five or six special people sit in my presence for over one watch. At the second watch of the day (9 a.m., Sunday, Rabi` II. 7th) having sat in a boat, I went to the Eight-Paradises.

(dd. `Askarī starts eastwards.)

(Dec. 20th) On Monday (8th) `Askarī who had got (his army) out (of Āgra) for the expedition, came to the Hot-bath, took leave of me and marched for the East.

(ee. A visit to Dhūlpūr.)

(Dec. 21st) On Tuesday (Rabī` II. 9th) I went to see the buildings for a reservoir and well at Dūlpūr. I rode from the (Āgra) garden at one watch (pahr) and one garī (9.22 a.m.), and I entered the Dūlpūr garden when 5 garīs of the 1st night-watch (pās) had gone (7.40 p.m.).

(Dec. 23rd) On Thursday the 11th day of the month the stone-well (sangīn-chāh), the 26 rock-spouts (tāsh-tār-nau) and rock-pillars (tāsh-sitūn), and the water-courses (ārīqlār) cut on the solid slope (yak pāra qīā) were all ready. At the 3rd watch (pahr) of this same day preparation for drawing water from the well was made. On account of a smell (aīd) in the water, it was ordered, for prudence' sake, that they should turn the well-wheel without rest for 15 days-and-nights, and so draw off the water. Gifts were made to the stone-cutters, and labourers, [Sidenote: Fol. 354.] and the whole body of workmen in the way customary for master-workmen and wage-earners of Āgra.

(Dec. 24th) We rode from Dūlpūr while one garī of the 1st watch (pahr) of Friday remained (cir. 8.40 a.m.), and we crossed the river (Jumna) before the Sun had set.

(Here the record of 3 days is wanting.)

(ff. A Persian account of the battle of Jām.)

(Dec. 28th) On Tuesday the 16th of the month (Rabī` II.) came one of Dīv Sl.'s servants, a man who had been in the fight between the Qīzīl-bāsh and Aūzbeg, and who thus described it:—The battle between the Aūzbegs and Turkmāns took place on `Āshūr-day (Muḥ. 10th) near Jām-and-Khirgird. They fought from the first dawn till the Mid-day Prayer. The Aūzbegs were 300,000; the Turkmāns may have been (as is said?) 40 to 50,000; he said that he himself estimated their dark mass at 100,000; on the other hand, the Aūzbegs said they themselves were 100,000. The Qīzīl-bāsh leader (ādam) fought after arraying cart, culverin and matchlockmen in the Rūmī fashion, and after protecting himself. Shāh-zāda and Jūha Sl. stood behind the carts with 20,000 good braves. The rest of the begs were posted right and left beyond the carts. [Sidenote: Fol. 354b.] These the Aūzbeg beat at once on coming up, dismounted and overcame many, making all scurry off. He then wheeled to the (Qīzīl-bāsh) rear and took loot in camel and baggage. At length those behind the carts loosed the chains and came out. Here also the fight was hard. Thrice they flung the Aūzbeg back; by God's grace they beat him. Nine sulṯāns, with Kūchūm Khān, `Ubaid Khān and Abū-sa`īd Sl. at their head, were captured; one, Abū-sa`īd Sl. is said to be alive; the rest have gone to death. `Ubaid Khān's body was found, but not his head. Of Aūzbegs 50,000, and of Turkmāns 20,000 were slain.

(Here matter seems to have been lost.)

(gg. Plan of campaign.)

(Dec. 30th) On this same day (Thursday Rabī` II. 18th) came Ghīāṣu'd-dīn the armourer who had gone to Jūna-pūr (Jūnpūr) with tryst of 16 days, but, as Sl. Junaid and the rest had led out their army for Kharīd, he (Ghīāṣu'd-dīn) was not able to be back at the time fixed. Sl. Junaid said, by word-of-mouth, "Thank God! through His grace, no work worth the Pādshāh's attention has shewn itself in these parts; if the honoured Mīrzā (`Askarī) come, and if the sulṯāns, khāns and amīrs here-abouts be ordered to move in his steps, there is hope that everything in these parts will be arranged with ease." Though such was Sl. [Sidenote: Fol. 355.] Junaid's answer,yet, as people were saying that Mullā Muḥammad Maẕhab, who had been sent as envoy to Bengal after the Holy-battle with Sangā the Pagan, would arrive today or tomorrow, his news also was awaited.

(Dec. 31st) On Friday the 19th of the month I had eaten ma`jūn and was sitting with a special few in the private house, when Mullā Maẕhab who had arrived late, that is to say, in the night of Saturday, came and waited on me. By asking one particular after another, we got to know that the attitude of the Bengalī was understood to be loyal and single-minded.

(Jan. 2nd) On Sunday (Rabī` II. 21st), I summoned the Turk and Hind amīrs to the private house, when counsel was taken and the following matters were brought forward:—As the Bengalī (Naṣrat Shāh) has sent us an envoy and is said to be loyal and single-minded, to go to Bengal itself would be improper; if the move be not on Bengal, no other place on that side has treasure helpful for the army; several places to the west are both rich and near,

(Turkī) Abounding wealth, a pagan people, a short road; Far though the East lie, this is near.

At length the matter found settlement at this:—As our westward road is short, it will be all one if we delay a few days, so that our minds may be at ease about the East. Again Ghīāṣu'd-dīn [Sidenote: Fol. 355b.] the armourer was made to gallop off, with tryst of 20 days, to convey written orders to the eastern amīrs for all the sulṯāns, khāns, and amīrs who had assembled in `Askarī's presence, to move against those rebels. The orders delivered, he was to return by the trysted day with what ever news there might be.

(hh. Balūchī incursions.)

In these days Muḥammadī Kūkūldāsh made dutiful representation that again Balūchīs had come and overrun several places. Chīn-tīmūr Sl. was appointed for the business; he was to gather to his presence the amīrs from beyond Sihrind and Samāna and with them, equipped for 6 months, to proceed against the Balūchīs; namely, such amīrs as `Ādil Sulṯān, Sl. Muḥ. Dūldāī, Khusrau Kūkūldāsh, Muḥammad `Alī Jang-jang, `Abdu'l-`azīz the Master-of-the-horse, Sayyid `Alī, Walī Qīzil, Qarācha, Halāhil, `Āshiq the House-steward, Shaikh `Alī, Kitta (Beg Kuhbur), Gujūr Khān, Ḥasan `Alī Sīwādī. These were to present themselves at the Sulṯān's call and muster and not to transgress his word by road or in halt. The messenger appointed to carry these orders was `Abdu'l-ghaffār; he was to deliver them first to Chīn-tīmūr Sl., [Sidenote: Fol. 356.] then to go on and shew them to the afore-named begs who were to present themselves with their troops at whatever place the Sulṯān gave rendezvous (būljār); `Abdu'l-ghaffār himself was to remain with the army and was to make dutiful representation of slackness or carelessness if shewn by any person soever; this done, we should remove the offender from the circle of the approved (muwajjah-jīrgāsī) and from his country or pargana. These orders having been entrusted to `Abdu'l-ghaffār, words-of-mouth were made known to him and he was given leave to go.

(The last explicit date is a week back.)

(ii. News of the loss of Bihār reaches Dhūlpūr.)

(Jan. 9th) On the eve of Sunday the 28th of the month (Rabi` II.) we crossed the Jūn (Jumna) at the 6th garī of the 3rd watch (2.15 a.m.) and started for the Lotus-garden of Dūlpūr. The 3rd watch was near (Sunday mid-day) when we reached it. Places were assigned on the border of the garden, where begs and the household might build or make camping-grounds for themselves.

(Jan. 13th) On Thursday the 3rd of the first Jumāda, a place was fixed in the s.e. of the garden for a Hot-bath; the ground was to be levelled; I ordered a plinth(?) (kursī) erected on the levelled ground, and a Bath to be arranged, in one room of which was to be a reservoir 10 X 10.

On this same day Khalīfa sent from Āgra dutiful letters of Qāẓī Jīā and Bīr-sing Deo, saying it had been heard said that Iskandar's son Maḥmūd (Lūdī) had taken Bihār (town). This news decided for getting the army to horse.

(Jan. 14th) On Friday (Jumāda I. 4th), we rode out from the Lotus-garden at the 6th garī (8.15 a.m.); at the Evening Prayer we reached Āgra. We met Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā on the road who would have gone to Dūlpūr, Chīn-tīmūr also who must have been coming into Agra.

(Jan. 15th) On Saturday (5th) the counselling begs having been summoned, it was settled to ride eastwards on Thursday the 10th of the month (Jan. 21st).

(jj. News of Badakhshān.)

On this same Saturday letters came from Kābul with news [Sidenote: Fol. 356b.] that Humāyūn, having mustered the army on that side (Tramontana), and joined Sl. Wais to himself, had set out with 40,000 men for Samarkand; on this Sl. Wais' younger brother Shāh-qūlī goes and enters Ḥiṣār, Tarsūn Muḥammad leaves Tirmiẕ, takes Qabādīān and asks for help; Humāyūn sends Tūlik Kūkūldāsh and Mīr Khẉurd with many of his men and what Mughūls there were, then follows himself.

(Here 4 days record is wanting.)

(kk. Bābur starts for the East.)

(Jan. 20th) On Thursday the 10th of the first Jumāda, I set [Sidenote: Fol. 357.] out for the East after the 3rd garī (cir. 7.10 a.m.), crossed Jūn by boat a little above Jalīsīr, and went to the Gold-scattering-garden. It was ordered that the standard (tūgh), drum, stable and all the army-folk should remain on the other side of the water, opposite to the garden, and that persons coming for an interview should cross by boat.

(ll. Arrivals.)

(Jan. 22nd) On Saturday (12th) Ismā`īl Mītā, the Bengal envoy brought the Bengalī's offering (Naṣrat Shāh's), and waited on me in Hindūstān fashion, advancing to within an arrow's flight, making his reverence, and retiring. They then put on him the due dress of honour (khi`lat) which people call * * * *, and brought him before me. He knelt thrice in our fashion, advanced, handed Naṣrat Shāh's letter, set before me the offering he had brought, and retired.

(Jan. 24th) On Monday (14th) the honoured Khwāja `Abdu'l-ḥaqq having arrived, I crossed the water by boat, went to his tents and waited on him.

(Jan. 25th) On Tuesday (15th) Ḥasan Chalabī arrived and waited on me.

(mm. Incidents of the eastward march.)

On account of our aims (chāpdūq) for the army, some days were spent in the Chār-bāgh.

(Jan. 27th) On Thursday the 17th of the month, that ground was left after the 3rd garī (7.10 a.m.), I going by boat. It was dismounted 7 kurohs (14 m.) from Āgra, at the village of Anwār.

(Jan. 30th) On Sunday (Jumāda I. 20th), the Aūzbeg envoys were given their leave. To Kūchūm Khān's envoy Amīn Mīrzā were presented a dagger with belt, cloth of gold, and 70,000 tankas. Abū-sa`īd's servant Mullā T̤aghāī and the servants of [Sidenote: Fol. 357b.] Mihr-bān Khānim and her son Pūlād Sl. were made to put on dresses of honour with gold-embroidered jackets, and were presented also with money in accordance with their station.

(Jan. 31st?) Next morning (Monday 21st?) leave was given to Khwāja `Abdu'l-ḥaqq for stay in Āgra and to Khwāja Yaḥyā's grandson Khwāja Kalān for Samarkand, who had come by way of a mission from Aūzbeg khāns and sulṯāns.

In congratulation on the birth of Humāyūn's son and Kāmrān's marriage, Mullā Tabrīzī and Mīrzā Beg T̤aghāī were sent with gifts (sāchāq) to each Mīrzā of 10,000 shāhrukhīs, a coat I had worn, and a belt with clasps. Through Mullā Bihishtī were sent to Hind-āl an inlaid dagger with belt, an inlaid ink-stand, a stool worked in mother-o'pearl, a tunic and a girdle, together with the alphabet of the Bāburī script and fragments (qiṯa`lār) written in that script. To Humāyūn were sent the translation (tarjuma) and verses made in Hindūstān. To Hind-āl and Khwāja Kalān also the translation and verses were sent. They were sent too to Kāmrān, through Mīrzā Beg T̤aghāī, together with head-lines (sar-khaṯ) in the Bāburī script.

(Feb. 1st) On Tuesday, after writing letters to be taken by those going to Kābul, the buildings in hand at Āgra and Dūlpūr [Sidenote: Fol. 358.] were recalled to mind, and entrusted to the charge of Mullā Qāsim, Ustād Shāh Muḥammad the stone-cutter, Mīrak, Mīr Ghīāṣ, Mīr Sang-tarāsh (stone-cutter) and Shāh Bābā the spadesman. Their leave was then given them.

(Feb. 2nd) The first watch (6 a.m.) was near when we rode out from Anwār (Wednesday, Jumāda I. 23rd); in the end, we dismounted, at the Mid-day Prayer, in the village of Ābāpūr, one kuroh (2 m.) from Chandawār.

(Feb. 3rd) On the eve of Thursday (24th) `Abdu'l-malūk the armourer was joined with Ḥasan Chalabī and sent as envoy to the Shāh; and Chāpūq was joined with the Aūzbeg envoys and sent to the Aūzbeg khāns and sulṯāns.

We moved from Ābāpūr while 4 garīs of the night remained (4.30 a.m.). After passing Chandawār at the top of the dawn, I got into a boat. I landed in front of Rāprī and at the Bed-time Prayer got to the camp which was at Fatḥpūr.

(Feb. 4th and 5th) Having stayed one day (Friday) at Fatḥpūr, we got to horse on Saturday (26th) after making ablution (waẓū) at dawn. We went through the Morning Prayer in assembly near Rāprī, Maulānā Muḥammad of Fārāb being the leader (imām). At sun-rise I got into a boat below the great crook of Rāprī.

Today I put together a line-marker (misṯar) of eleven lines in order to write the mixed hands of the translation. Today the words of the honoured man-of-God admonished my heart.

(Feb. 6th) Opposite Jākīn, one of the Rāprī parganas, we [Sidenote: Fol. 358b.] had the boats drawn to the bank and just spent the night in them. We had them moved on from that place before the dawn (Sunday 27th), after having gone through the Morning Prayer. When I was again on board, Pay-master Sl. Muḥammad came, bringing a servant of Khwāja Kalān, Shamsu'd-dīn Muḥammad, from whose letters and information particulars about the affairs of Kābul became known. Mahdī Khwāja also came when I was in the boat. At the Mid-day Prayer I landed in a garden opposite Etāwa, there bathed (ghusl) in the Jūn, and fulfilled the duty of prayer. Moving nearer towards Etāwa, we sat down in that same garden under trees on a height over-looking the river, and there set the braves to amuse us. Food ordered by Mahdī Khwāja, was set before us. At the Evening Prayer we crossed the river; at the bed-time one we reached camp.

There was a two or three days' delay on that ground both to collect the army, and to write letters in answer to those brought by Shamsu'd-dīn Muḥammad.

(nn. Letters various.)

(Feb. 9th) On Wednesday the last day (30th) of the 1st Jumāda, we marched from Etāwa, and after doing 8 kurohs (16m.), dismounted at Mūrī-and-Adūsa.

Several remaining letters for Kābul were written on this same ground. One to Humāyūn was to this purport:—If the work have not yet been done satisfactorily, stop the raiders and thieves thyself; do not let them embroil the peace now descending amongst the peoples. Again, there was this:—I have made [Sidenote: Fol. 359.] Kābul a crown-domain, let no son of mine covet it. Again:—that I had summoned Hind-āl.

Kāmrān, for his part, was written to about taking the best of care in intercourse with the Shāh-zāda, about my bestowal on himself of Multān, making Kābul a crown-domain, and the coming of my family and train.

As my letter to Khwāja Kalān makes several particulars known, it is copied in here without alteration:—

"After saying 'Salutation to Khwāja Kalān', the first matter is that Shamsu'd-dīn Muḥammad has reached Etāwa, and that the particulars about Kābul are known."

"Boundless and infinite is my desire to go to those parts. Matters are coming to some sort of settlement in Hindūstān; there is hope, through the Most High, that the work here will soon be arranged. This work brought to order, God willing! my start will be made at once."

"How should a person forget the pleasant things of those countries, especially one who has repented and vowed to sin no more? How should he banish from his mind the permitted flavours of melons and grapes? Taking this opportunity, a melon was brought to me; to cut and eat it affected me strangely; I was all tears!"

"The unsettled state of Kābul had already been written of [Sidenote: Fol. 359b.] to me. After thinking matters over, my choice fell on this:—How should a country hold together and be strong (marbūṯ u maẓbūṯ), if it have seven or eight Governors? Under this aspect of the affair, I have summoned my elder sister (Khān-zāda) and my wives to Hindūstān, have made Kābul and its neighbouring countries a crown-domain, and have written in this sense to both Humāyūn and Kāmrān. Let a capable person take those letters to the Mīrzās. As you may know already, I had written earlier to them with the same purport. About the safe-guarding and prosperity of the country, there will now be no excuse, and not a word to say. Henceforth, if the town-wall be not solid or subjects not thriving, if provisions be not in store or the Treasury not full, it will all be laid on the back of the inefficiency of the Pillar-of-the State."

"The things that must be done are specified below; for some of them orders have gone already, one of these being, 'Let treasure accumulate.' The things which must be done are these:—First, the repair of the fort; again:—the provision of stores; again:—the daily allowance and lodging of envoys going backwards and forwards; again:—let money, taken legally from revenue, be spent for building the Congregational Mosque; again:—the repairs of the Kārwan-sarā (Caravan-sarai) and the Hot-baths; again:—the completion of the unfinished building [Sidenote: Fol. 360.] made of burnt-brick which Ūstād Ḥasan `Alī was constructing in the citadel. Let this work be ordered after taking counsel with Ūstād Sl. Muḥammad; if a design exist, drawn earlier by Ūstād Ḥasan `Alī, let Ūstād Sl. Muḥammad finish the building precisely according to it; if not, let him do so, after making a gracious and harmonious design, and in such a way that its floor shall be level with that of the Audience-hall; again:—the Khẉurd-Kābul dam which is to hold up the But-khāk-water at its exit from the Khẉurd-Kābul narrows; again:—the repair of the Ghaznī dam; again:—the Avenue-garden in which water is short and for which a one-mill stream must be diverted; again:—I had water brought from Tūtūm-dara to rising ground south-west of Khwāja Basta, there made a reservoir and planted young trees. The place got the name of Belvedere, because it faces the ford and gives a first-rate view. The best of young trees must be planted there, lawns arranged, and borders set with sweet-herbs and with flowers of beautiful colour and scent; again:—Sayyid Qāsim has been named to reinforce thee; again:—do not neglect the condition of matchlockmen and of Ūstād Muḥammad Amīn the armourer; again:—directly this letter arrives, thou must get my elder sister (Khān-zāda Begīm) and my wives right out of Kābul, and escort them to Nīl-āb. However averse they may still be, they most certainly must start within a week of the arrival of [Sidenote: Fol. 360b.] this letter. For why? Both because the armies which have gone from Hindūstān to escort them are suffering hardship in a cramped place (tār yīrdā), and also because they are ruining the country."

"Again:—I made it clear in a letter written to `Abdu'l-lāh (`asas), that there had been very great confusion in my mind (dúghdugha), to counterbalance being in the oasis (wādī) of penitence. This quatrain was somewhat dissuading (mānī`):—

Through renouncement of wine bewildered am I; How to work know I not, so distracted am I; While others repent and make vow to abstain, I have vowed to abstain, and repentant am I.

"A witticism of Banāī's came back to my mind:—One day when he had been joking in `Alī-sher Beg's presence, who must have been wearing a jacket with buttons, `Alī-sher Beg said, 'Thou makest charming jokes; but for the buttons, I would give thee the jacket; they are the hindrance (māni`).' Said Banāī, 'What hindrance are buttons? It is button-holes (mādagī) that hinder.' Let responsibility for this story lie on the teller! hold me excused for it; for God's sake do not be offended by it. Again:—that quatrain was made before last year, and in truth the longing and craving for a wine-party has been infinite and endless for two years past, so much so that sometimes the craving for wine brought me to the verge of tears. Thank God! this year that trouble has passed from my mind, perhaps by virtue of the [Sidenote: Fol. 361.] blessing and sustainment of versifying the translation. Do thou also renounce wine! If had with equal associates and boon-companions, wine and company are pleasant things; but with whom canst thou now associate? with whom drink wine? If thy boon-companions are Sher-i-aḥmad and Ḥaidar-qulī, it should not be hard for thee to forswear wine. So much said, I salute thee and long to see thee."

The above letter was written on Thursday the 1st of the latter Jumāda (Feb. 10th). It affected me greatly to write concerning those matters, with their mingling of counsel. The letters were entrusted to Shamsu'd-dīn Muḥammad on Friday night, he was apprized of word-of-mouth messages and given leave to go.

(oo. Complaints from Balkh.)

(Feb. 11th) On Friday (Jumāda II. 2nd) we did 8 kurohs (16m.) and dismounted at Jumandnā. Today a servant of Kītīn-qarā Sl. arrived whom the Sulṯān had sent to his retainer and envoy Kamālu'd-din Qīāq, with things written concerning the behaviour of the begs of the (Balkh) border, their intercourse with himself, and complaints of theft and raid. Leave to go was given to Qīāq, and orders were issued to the begs of the border to put an end to raiding and thieving, to behave well and to maintain intercourse with Balkh. These orders were entrusted to Kītīn-qarā Sl.'s servant and he was dismissed from this ground.

A letter, accepting excuse for the belated arrival of Ḥasan Chalabī, was sent to the Shāh today by one Shāh-qulī who had [Sidenote: Fol. 361b.] come to me from Ḥasan Chalabī and reported the details of the battle (of Jām). Shāh-qulī was given his leave on this same day, the 2nd of the month.

(pp. Incidents of the eastward march resumed.)

(Feb. 12th) On Saturday (3rd) we did 8 kurohs (16m.) and dismounted in the Kakūra and Chachāwalī parganas of Kālpī.

(Feb. 13th) On Sunday the 4th of the month, we did 9 kurohs (18m.) and dismounted in Dīrapūr a pargana of Kālpī. Here I shaved my head, which I had not done for the past two months, and bathed in the Sīngar-water (Sengar).

(Feb. 14th) On Monday (5th) we did 14 kurohs (28m.), and dismounted in Chaparkada one of the parganas of Kālpī.

(Feb. 15th) At the dawn of Tuesday (6th), a Hindūstānī servant of Qarācha's arrived who had taken a command (farmān) from Māhīm to Qarācha from which it was understood that she was on the road. She had summoned escort from people in Lāhor, Bhīra and those parts in the fashion I formerly wrote orders (parwānas) with my own hand. Her command had been written in Kābul on the 7th of the 1st Jumāda (Jan. 17th).

(Feb. 16th) On Wednesday (7th) we did 7 kurohs (14m.), and dismounted in the Ādampūr pargana. Today I mounted before dawn, took the road alone, reached the Jūn (Jumna), and went on along its bank. When I came opposite to Ādampūr, I had awnings set up on an island (ārāl) near the camp and seated there, ate ma`jūn.

Today we set Ṣādiq to wrestle with Kalāl who had come to [Sidenote: Fol. 362.] Āgra with a challenge. In Āgra he had asked respite for 20 days on the plea of fatigue from his journey; as now 40-50 days had passed since the end of his respite, he was obliged to wrestle. Ṣādiq did very well, throwing him easily. Ṣādiq was given 10,000 tankas, a saddled horse, a head-to-foot, and a jacket with buttons; while Kalāl, to save him from despair, was given 3000 tankas, spite of his fall.

The carts and mortar were ordered landed from the boats, and we spent 3 or 4 days on this same ground while the road was made ready, the ground levelled and the landing effected.

(Feb. 21st) On Monday the 12th of the month (Jumāda II.), we did 12 kurohs (24 m.) and dismounted at Kūrarah. Today I travelled by litter.

(Feb. 22nd-25th) After marching 12 kurohs (24 m.) from Kūrarah (13th), we dismounted in Kūrīa a pargana of Karrah. From Kūrīa we marched 8 kurohs (16m.) and dismounted (14th) in Fatḥpūr-Aswa. After 8 kurohs (16m.) done from Fatḥpūr, we dismounted (15th) at Sarāī Munda.... Today at the Bedtime Prayer (Friday 16th, after dark), Sl. Jalālu'd-dīn (Sharqī) came with his two young sons to wait on me.

(Feb. 26th) Next day, Saturday the 17th of the month, we did 8 kurohs (16m.), and dismounted at Dugdugī a Karrah pargana on the bank of the Gang.

(Feb. 27th) On Sunday (18th) came to this ground Muḥammad Sl. M., Nī-khūb (or, Bī-khūb) Sl. and Tardīka (or, Tardī yakka, [Sidenote: Fol. 362b.] champion).

(Feb. 28th) On Monday (19th) `Askarī also waited on me. They all came from the other side of Gang (Ganges). `Askarī and his various forces were ordered to march along the other bank of the river keeping opposite the army on this side, and wherever our camp might be, to dismount just opposite it.

(qq. News of the Afghāns.)

While we were in these parts news came again and again that Sl. Maḥmūd (Lūdī) had collected 10,000 Afghāns; that he had detached Shaikh Bāyazīd and Bīban with a mass of men towards Sarwār [Gorakhpūr]; that he himself with Fatḥ Khān Sarwānī was on his way along the river for Chunār; that Sher Khān Sūr whom I had favoured last year with the gift of several parganas and had left in charge of this neighbourhood, had joined these Afghāns who thereupon had made him and a few other amīrs cross the water; that Sl. Jalālu'd-dīn's man in Benares had not been able to hold that place, had fled, and got away; what he was understood to have said being, that he had left soldiers (sipahīlār) in Benares-fort and gone along the river to fight Sl. Maḥmūd.

(rr. Incidents of the march resumed.)

(March 1st) Marching from Dugdugī (Tuesday, Jumāda II. 20th) the army did 6 kurohs (12m.) and dismounted at Kusār, 3 or 4 kurohs from Karrah. I went by boat. We stayed here 3 or 4 [Sidenote: Fol. 363.] days because of hospitality offered by Sl. Jalālu'd-dīn.

(March 4th) On Friday (23rd), I dismounted at Sl. Jalālu'd-dīn's house inside Karrah-fort where, host-like, he served me a portion of cooked meat and other viands. After the meal, he and his sons were dressed in unlined coats (yaktāī jāmah) and short tunics (nīmcha). At his request his elder son was given the style Sl. Maḥmūd. On leaving Karrah, I rode about one kuroh (2m.) and dismounted on the bank of Gang.

Here letters were written and leave was given to Shahrak Beg who had come from Māhīm to our first camp on Gang (i.e. Dugdugī). As Khwāja Yaḥyā's grandson Khwāja Kalān had been asking for the records I was writing, I sent him by Shahrak a copy I had had made.

(March 5th) On Saturday move was made at dawn (24th), I going by boat direct, and after 4 kurohs done (8m.), halt was made at Koh. Our ground, being so near, was reached quite early. After awhile, we seated ourselves inside a boat where we ate ma`jūn. We invited the honoured Khwāja `Abdu'sh-shahīd who was said to be in Nūr Beg's quarters (awī), invited also Mullā Maḥmūd (Farābī?), bringing him from Mullā `Alī Khān's. After staying for some time on that spot, we crossed the river, and on the other side, set wrestlers to wrestle. In opposition to the rule of gripping the strongest first, Dost-i-yāsīn-khair [Sidenote: Fol. 363b.] was told not to grapple with Champion Ṣādiq, but with others; he did so very well with eight.

(ss. News of the Afghān enemy.)

At the Afternoon Prayer, Sl. Muḥammad the Pay-master came by boat from the other side of the river, bringing news that the army of Sl. Iskandar's son Maḥmūd Khān whom rebels style Sl. Maḥmūd, had broken up. The same news was brought in by a spy who had gone out at the Mid-day Prayer from where we were; and a dutiful letter, agreeing with what the spy had reported, came from Tāj Khān Sārang-khānī between the Afternoon and Evening Prayers. Sl. Muḥammad gave the following particulars:—that the rebels on reaching Chunār seemed to have laid siege to it and to have done a little fighting, but had risen in disorderly fashion when they heard of our approach; that Afghāns who had crossed the river for Benares, had turned back in like disorder; that two of their boats had sunk in crossing and a body of their men been drowned.

(tt. Incidents of the eastward march resumed.)

(March 6th) After marching at Sunday's dawn (25th) and doing 6 kurohs (12m.), Sīr-auliya, a pargana of Pīāg* was reached. I went direct by boat.

Aīsan-tīmūr Sl. and Tūkhta-būghā Sl. had dismounted half-way, and were waiting to see me. I, for my part, invited them into the boat. Tūkhta-būghā Sl. must have wrought magic, for a bitter wind rose and rain began to fall. It became quite windy(?) on which account I ate ma`jūn, although I had done so on the previous day. Having come to the encamping-ground....

(March 7th?) Next day (Monday 26th?) we remained on the same ground.

(March 8th?) On Tuesday (27th?) we marched on.

Opposite the camp was what may be an island, large and verdant. I went over by boat to visit it, returning to the boat during the 1st watch (6-9 a.m.). While I rode carelessly along the ravine (jar) of the river, my horse got to where it was fissured and had begun to give way. I leapt off at once and flung myself on the bank; even the horse did not go down; probably, however, if I had stayed on its back, it and I would have gone down together.

On this same day, I swam the Gang-river (Ganges), counting every stroke; I crossed with 33, then, without resting, swam back. I had swum the other rivers, Gang had remained to do.

We reached the meeting of the waters of Gang and Jūn at the Evening Prayer, had the boat drawn to the Pīāg side, and got to camp at 1 watch, 4 garīs (10.30 p.m.).

(March 9th) On Wednesday (Jumāda II. 28th) from the 1st watch onwards, the army began to cross the river Jūn; there were 420 boats.

(March 11th) On Friday, the 1st of the month of Rajab, I crossed the river.

(March 14th) On Monday, the 4th of the month, the march for Bihār began along the bank of Jūn. After 5 kurohs (10m.) done, halt was made at Lawāīn. I went by boat. The people of the army were crossing the Jūn up to today. They were ordered to put the culverin-carts which had been landed at Ādampūr, into boats again and to bring them on by water from Pīāg.

On this ground we set wrestlers to wrestle. Dost-i-yāsīn-khair gripped the boatman Champion of Lāhor; the contest was stubborn; it was with great difficulty that Dost gave the throw. A head-to-foot was bestowed on each.

(March 15th and 16th) People said that ahead of us was a swampy, muddy, evil river called Tūs. In order to examine the ford* and repair the road, we waited two days (Tuesday Ramzān 5th and Wednesday 6th) on this ground. For the horses and camels a ford was found higher up, but people said laden carts could not get through it because of its uneven, stony bottom. [Sidenote: Fol. 364.] They were just ordered to get them through.

(March 17th) On Thursday (7th) we marched on. I myself went by boat down to where the Tūs meets the Gang (Ganges), there landed, thence rode up the Tūs, and, at the Other Prayer, reached where the army had encamped after crossing the ford. Today 6 kurohs (12 m.) were done.

(March 18th) Next day (Friday 8th), we stayed on that ground.

(March 19th) On Saturday (9th), we marched 12 kurohs and got to the bank of Gang again at Nulibā.

(March 20th) Marching on (Sunday 10th), we did 6 kurohs of road, and dismounted at Kintit.

(March 21st) Marching on (Monday 11th), we dismounted at Nānāpur. Tāj Khān Sārang-khānī came from Chunār to this ground with his two young sons, and waited on me.

In these days a dutiful letter came from Pay-master Sl. Muḥammad, saying that my family and train were understood to be really on their way from Kābul.

(March 23rd) On Wednesday (13th) we marched from that ground. I visited the fort of Chunār, and dismounted about one kuroh beyond it.

During the days we were marching from Pīāg, painful boils had come out on my body. While we were on this ground, an Ottoman Turk (Rūmī) used a remedy which had been recently discovered in Rūm. He boiled pepper in a pipkin; I held the sores in the steam and, after steaming ceased, laved them with the hot water. The treatment lasted 2 sidereal hours.

While we were on this ground, a person said he had seen tiger and rhinoceros on an ārāl by the side of the camp.

(March 24th?) In the morning (14th?), we made the hunting-circle [Sidenote: Fol. 364b.] on that ārāl, elephants also being brought. Neither tiger nor rhino appeared; one wild buffalo came out at the end of the line. A bitter wind rising and the whirling dust being very troublesome, I went back to the boat and in it to the camp which was 2 kurohs (4m.) above Banāras.

(uu. News of the Afghāns.)

(March 25th (?) and 26th) Having heard there were many elephants in the Chunār jungles, I had left (Thursday's) ground thinking to hunt them, but Tāj Khān bringing the news (Friday 15th(?)) that Maḥmūd Khān (Lūdi) was near the Son-water, I summoned the begs and took counsel as to whether to fall upon him suddenly. In the end it was settled to march on continuously, fast and far.

(March 27th) Marching on (Sunday 17th), we did 9 kurohs (18m.), and dismounted at the Bilwah-ferry.

(March 28th) On Monday night the 18th of the month, T̤āhir was started for Āgra from this camp (Bilwah-ferry), taking money-drafts for the customary gifts of allowance and lodging to those on their way from Kābul.

Before dawn next morning (Monday) I went on by boat. When we came to where the Gūī-water (Gūmtī) which is the water of Jūnpūr, meets the Gang-water (Ganges), I went a little [Sidenote: Fol. 365.] way up it and back. Narrower though it is, it has no ford; the army-folk crossed it (last year) by boat, by raft, or by swimming their horses.

To look at our ground of a year ago, from which we had started for Jūnpūr, I went to about a kuroh lower than the mouth of the Jūnpūr-water (Gūmtī). A favourable wind getting up behind, our larger boat was tied to a smaller Bengalī one which, spreading its sail, made very quick going. Two garīs of day remained (5.15 p.m.) when we had reached that ground (Sayyidpur?), we went on without waiting there, and by the Bed-time Prayer had got to camp, which was a kuroh above Madan-Benāres, long before the boats following us. Mughūl Beg had been ordered to measure all marches from Chunār on the direct road, Luṯfī Beg to measure the river's bank whenever I went by boat. The direct road today was said to be 11 kurohs (22m.), the distance along the river, 18 (36m.).

(March 29th) Next day (Tuesday 19th), we stayed on that ground.

(March 30th) On Wednesday (20th), we dismounted a kuroh (2m.) below Ghāzīpūr, I going by boat.

(March 31st) On Thursday (21st) Maḥmūd Khān Nuḥānī waited on me on that ground. On this same day dutiful letters came from Bihār Khān Bihārī's son Jalāl Khān (Nuḥānī), from Naṣīr Khān (Nūḥānī)'s son Farīd Khān, from Sher Khān Sūr, from `Alāūl Khān Sūr also, and from other Afghān amīrs. Today [Sidenote: Fol. 365b.] came also a dutiful letter from `Abdu'l-`azīz Master-of-the-horse, which had been written in Lāhor on the 20th of the latter Jumāda (Feb. 29th), the very day on which Qarācha's Hindūstānī servant whom we had started off from near Kālpī, reached Lāhor. `Abdu'l-`azīz wrote that he had gone with the others assigned to meet my family at Nīl-āb, had met them there on the 9th of the latter Jumāda (Feb. 18th), had accompanied them to Chīn-āb (Chan-āb), left them there, and come ahead to Lāhor where he was writing his letter.

(April 1st) We moved on, I going by boat, on Friday (Rajab 22nd). I landed opposite Chausā to look at the ground of a year ago where the Sun had been eclipsed and a fast kept. After I got back to the boat, Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā, coming up behind by boat, overtook me; at his suggestion ma`jūn was eaten.

The army had dismounted on the bank of the Karmā-nā['s]ā-river, about the water of which Hindūs are understood to be extremely scrupulous. They do not cross it, but go past its mouth by boat along the Gang (Ganges). They firmly believe that, if its water touch a person, the merit of his works is destroyed; with this belief its name accords. I went some way up it by [Sidenote: Fol. 366.] boat, turned back, went over to the north bank of Gang, and tied up. There the braves made a little fun, some wrestling. Muḥsin the cup-bearer challenged, saying, "I will grapple with four or five." The first he gripped, he threw; the second, who was Shādmān (Joyous), threw him, to Muḥsin's shame and vexation. The (professional) wrestlers came also and set to.

(April 2nd) Next morning, Saturday (23rd) we moved, close to the 1st watch (6 a.m.), in order to get people off to look at the ford through the Karmā-nā['s]ā-water. I rode up it for not less than a kuroh (2 m.), but the ford being still far on, took boat and went to the camp below Chausā.

Today I used the pepper remedy again; it must have been somewhat hotter than before, for it blistered (qāpārdī) my body, giving me much pain.

(April 3rd) We waited a day for a road to be managed across a smallish, swampy rivulet heard to be ahead.

(April 4th) On the eve of Monday (25th), letters were written and sent off in answer to those brought by the Hindūstānī footman of `Abdu'l-`azīz.

The boat I got into at Monday's dawn, had to be towed because of the wind. On reaching the ground opposite Baksara (Buxar) [Sidenote: Fol. 366b.] where the army had been seated many days last year, we went over to look at it. Between 40 and 50 landing-steps had been then made on the bank; of them the upper two only were left, the river having destroyed the rest. Ma`jūn was eaten after return to the boat. We tied up at an ārāl above the camp, set the champions to wrestle, and went on at the Bed-time Prayer. A year ago (yīl-tūr), an excursion had been made to look at the ground on which the camp now was, I passing through Gang swimming (? dastak bīla), some coming mounted on horses, some on camels. That day I had eaten opium.

(vv. Incidents of the military operations.)

(April 5th) At Tuesday's dawn (26th), we sent out for news not under 200 effective braves led by Karīm-bīrdī and Ḥaidar the stirrup-holder's son Muḥammad `Alī and Bābā Shaikh.

While we were on this ground, the Bengal envoy was commanded to set forth these three articles:—

(April 6th) On Wednesday (27th) Yūnas-i-`alī who had been sent to gather Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā's objections to Bihār, brought back rather a weak answer.

Dutiful letters from the (Farmūlī) Shaikh-zādas of Bihār gave news that the enemy had abandoned the place and gone off.

(April 7th) On Thursday (28th) as many as 2000 men of the Turk and Hind amīrs and quiver-wearers were joined to Muḥammad `Alī Jang-jang's son Tardī-muḥammad, and he was [Sidenote: Fol. 367.] given leave to go, taking letters of royal encouragement to people in Bihār. He was joined also by Khwāja Murshid `Irāqī who had been made Dīwān of Bihār.

(April 8th (?)) Muḥammad-i-zamān M. who had consented to go to Bihār, made representation of several matters through Shaikh Zain and Yūnas-i-`alī. He asked for reinforcement; for this several braves were inscribed and several others were made his own retainers.

(April 9th) On Saturday the 1st of the month of Sha`bān, we left that ground where we had been for 3 or 4 days. I rode to visit Bhūjpūr and Bihiya, thence went to camp.

Muḥammad `Alī and the others, who had been sent out for news, after beating a body of pagans as they went along, reached the place where Sl. Maḥmūd (Lūdī) had been with perhaps 2000 men. He had heard of our reconnaissance, had broken up, killed two elephants of his, and marched off. He seemed to have left braves and an elephant scout-fashion; they made no stand when our men came up but took to flight. Ours unhorsed a few of his, cut one head off, brought in a few good men alive.

(ww. Incidents of the eastward march resumed.)

(April 10th) We moved on next day (Sunday 2nd), I going by boat. From our today's ground Muḥammad-i-zamān M. crossed (his army) over the river (Son), leaving none behind. We spent 2 or 3 days on this ground in order to put his work through and [Sidenote: Fol. 367b.] get him off.

(April 13th) On Wednesday the 4th of the month, Muḥammad-i-zamān M. was presented with a royal head-to-foot, a sword and belt, a tīpūchāq horse and an umbrella. He also was made to kneel (yūkūndūrūldī) for the Bihār country. Of the Bihār revenues one krūr and 25 laks were reserved for the Royal Treasury; its Dīwānī was entrusted to Murshid `Irāqī.

(April 14th) I left that ground by boat on Thursday (6th). I had already ordered the boats to wait, and on getting up with them, I had them fastened together abreast in line. Though all were not collected there, those there were greatly exceeded the breadth of the river. They could not move on, however, so-arranged, because the water was here shallow, there deep, here swift, there still. A crocodile (gharīāl) shewing itself, a terrified fish leaped so high as to fall into a boat; it was caught and brought to me.

When we were nearing our ground, we gave the boats names:—a [Sidenote: Fol. 368.] large one, formerly the Bāburī, which had been built in Āgra before the Holy-battle with Sangā, was named Asāīsh (Repose). Another, which Arāīsh Khān had built and presented to me this year before our army got to horse, one in which I had had a platform set up on our way to this ground, was named Arāīsh (Ornament). Another, a good-sized one presented to me by Jalālu'd-dīn Sharqī, was named the Gunjāīsh (Capacious); in it I had ordered a second platform set up, on the top of the one already in it. To a little skiff, having a chaukandī, one used for every task (har āīsh) and duty, was given the name Farmāīsh (Commissioned).

(April 15th) Next day, Friday (7th), no move was made. Muḥammad-i-zamān M. who, his preparations for Bihār complete, had dismounted one or two kurohs from the camp, came today to take leave of me.

(xx. News of the army of Bengal.)

Two spies, returned from the Bengal army, said that Bengalīs under Makhdūm-i-`ālam were posted in 24 places on the Gandak and there raising defences; that they had hindered the Afghāns from carrying out their intention to get their families across the river (Ganges?), and had joined them to themselves. This news making fighting probable, we detained Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā, and sent Shāh Iskandar to Bihār with 3 or 400 men.

(yy. Incidents of the eastward march resumed.)

This command was given today for the Bengal envoy Ismā`īl Mītā:—Concerning those three articles, about which letters have already been written and despatched, let him write that an answer is long in coming, and that if the honoured (Naṣrat Shāh) be loyal and of single-mind towards us, it ought to come soon.

(April 17th) In the night of Sunday (9th) a man came in from Tardī-muḥammad Jang-jang to say that when, on Wednesday the 5th of the month Sha`bān, his scouts reached Bihār from this side, the Shiqdār of the place went off by a gate on the other side.

On Sunday morning we marched on and dismounted in the pargana of Ārī (Ārrah).

(zz. News and negotiations.)

To this ground came the news that the Kharīd army, with 100-150 boats, was said to be on the far side of the Sarū near the meeting of Sarū and Gang (Ghogrā and Ganges). As a sort of peace existed between us and the Bengalī (Naṣrat Shāh Afghān), and as, for the sake of a benediction, peace was our first endeavour whenever such work was toward as we were now on, we kept to our rule, notwithstanding his unmannerly conduct in setting himself on our road; we associated Mullā Maẕhab with his envoy Ismā`īl Mītā, spoke once more about those three articles [Sidenote: Fol. 369.] (faṣl soz), and decided to let the envoy go.

(April 18th) On Monday (10th) when the Bengal envoy came to wait on me, he was let know that he had his leave, and what follows was mentioned:—"We shall be going to this side and that side, in pursuit of our foe, but no hurt or harm will be done to any dependency of yours. As one of those three articles said, when you have told the army of Kharīd to rise off our road and to go back to Kharīd, let a few Turks be joined with it to reassure these Kharīd people and to escort them to their own place. If they quit not the ferry-head, if they cease not their unbecoming words, they must regard as their own act any ill that befalls them, must count any misfortune they confront as the fruit of their own words."

(April 20th) On Wednesday (12th) the usual dress of honour was put on the Bengal envoy, gifts were bestowed on him and his leave to go was given.

(April 21st) On Thursday (13th) Shaikh Jamālī was sent with royal letters of encouragement to Dūdū and her son Jalāl Khān.

Today a servant of Māhīm's came, who will have parted from the Wālī(?) on the other side of the Bāgh-i-ṣafā.

(April 23rd) On Saturday (15th) an envoy from `Irāq, Murād Qajar the life-guardsman, was seen.

(April 24th) On Sunday (16th) Mullā Maẕhab received his usual keepsakes (yādgārlār) and was given leave to go.

(April 27th) On Wednesday, (19th) Khalīfa again was sent out, to look at the ground between the two rivers (Ganges and Ghogrā).

On this same day I rode southward in the Ārī (Ārrah) pargana to visit the sheets of lotus near Ārī. During the excursion Shaikh Gūran brought me fresh-set lotus-seeds, first-rate little things just like pistachios. The flower, that is to say, the nīlūfar (lotus), Hindūstānīs call kuwul-kikrī (lotus-pistachio), and its seed dūdah (soot).

As people said, "The Son is near," we went to refresh ourselves on it. Masses of trees could be seen down-stream; "Munīr is there," said they, "where the tomb is of Shaikh Yaḥyā the father of Shaikh Sharafu'd-dīn Munīrī." It being so close, I crossed the Son, went 2 or 3 kurohs down it, traversed the Munīr orchards, made the circuit of the tomb, returned to the Son-bank, made ablution, went through the Mid-day Prayer before time, and made for camp. Some of our horses, being fat, had fallen behind; some were worn out; a few people were left to gather them together, water them, rest them, and bring them on without pressure; but for this many would have been ruined.

When we turned back from Munīr, I ordered that some-one [Sidenote: Fol. 370.] should count a horse's steps between the Son-bank and the camp. They amounted to 23,100, which is 46,200 paces, which is 11-1/2 kurohs (23m.). It is about half a kuroh from Munīr to the Son; the return journey from Munīr to the camp was therefore 12 kurohs (24m.). In addition to this were some 15-16 kurohs done in visiting this and that place; so that the whole excursion was one of some 30 kurohs (60m.). Six garīs of the 1st night-watch had passed [8.15 p.m.] when we reached the camp.

(April 28th) At the dawn of Thursday (Sha`bān 19th) Sl. Junaid Barlās came in with the Jūnpūr braves from Jūnpūr. I let him know my blame and displeasure on account of his delay; I did not see him. Qāẓī Jīā I sent for and saw.

(aaa. Plan of the approaching battle with the Bengal army.)

On the same day the Turk and Hind amīrs were summoned for a consultation about crossing Gang (Ganges), and matters found settlement at this:—that Ūstād `Alī-qulī should collect mortar, firingī, and culverin to the point of rising ground between the rivers Sarū and Gang, and, having many matchlockmen with him, should incite to battle from that place; that Muṣṯafa, he also having many matchlockmen, should get his material and implements ready on the Bihār side of Gang, a little below the meeting of the waters and opposite to where on an island the Bengalīs had an elephant and a mass of boats tied up, and that he should engage battle from this place; that Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā and the others inscribed for the work should take post behind Muṣṯafa as his reserve; that both for Ūstād `Alī-qulī and Muṣṯafa shelters (muljār) for the culverin-firers should be raised by a mass of spadesmen and coolies (kahār) [Sidenote: Fol. 370b.] under appointed overseers; that as soon as these shelters were ready, `Askarī and the sulṯāns inscribed for the work should cross quickly at the Haldī-passage and come down on the enemy; that meantime, as Sl. Junaid and Qāẓī Jīā had given information about a crossing-place 8 kurohs (16 m.) higher up, Zard-rūī(Pale-face?) should go with a few raftsmen and some of the people of the Sulṯān, Maḥmūd Khān Nūḥānī and Qāẓī Jīā to look at that crossing; and that, if crossing there were, they should go over at once, because it was rumoured that the Bengalīs were planning to post men at the Haldī-passage.

A dutiful letter from Maḥmūd Khān the Military-collector (shiqdār) of Sikandarpūr now came, saying that he had collected as many as 50 boats at the Haldī-passage and had given wages to the boatmen, but that these were much alarmed at the rumoured approach of the Bengalīs.

(April 30th) As time pressed for crossing the Sarū, I did not wait for the return of those who had gone to look at the passage, but on Saturday (21st) summoned the begs for consultation and said, "As it has been reported that there are (no?) crossing-places (fords?) along the whole of the ground from Chatur-mūk in Sikandarpūr to Barāīch and Aūd, let us, while seated here, assign the large force to cross at the Haldī-passage by boat and from there [Sidenote: Fol. 371.] to come down on the enemy; let Ūstād `Alī-qulī and Muṣṯafa engage battle with gun (top), matchlock, culverin and firingī, and by this draw the enemy out before `Askarī comes up. Let us after crossing the river (Ganges) and assigning reinforcement to Ūstād `Alī-qulī, take our stand ready for whatever comes; if `Askarī's troops get near, let us fling attack from where we are, cross over and assault; let Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā and those appointed to act with him, engage battle from near Muṣṯafa on the other side of Gang."

The matter having been left at this, the force for the north of the Gang was formed into four divisions to start under `Askarī's command for the Haldī-passage. One division was of `Askarī and his retainers; another was Sl. Jalālu'd-dīn Sharqī; another was of the Aūzbeg sulṯāns Qāsim-i-ḥusain Sulṯān, Bī-khūb Sulṯān and Tāng-aītmīsh Sulṯān, together with Maḥmūd Khān Nūḥānī of Ghāzīpūr, Bābā Qashqa's Kūkī, Tūlmīsh Aūzbeg, Qurbān of Chīrkh, and the Daryā-khānīs led by Ḥasan Khān; another was of Mūsā Sl. (Farmūlī) and Sl. Junaid with what-not of the Jūnpūr army, some 20,000 men. Officers were appointed to oversee the getting of the force to horse that very night, that is to say, the [Sidenote: Fol. 371b.] night of Sunday.

(May 1st) The army began to cross Gang at the dawn of Sunday (Sha`bān 22nd); I went over by boat at the 1st watch (6a.m.). Zard-rūī and his party came in at mid-day; the ford itself they had not found but they brought news of boats and of having met on the road the army getting near them.

(May 3rd) On Tuesday (Sha`bān 24th) we marched from where the river had been crossed, went on for nearly one kuroh (2 m.) and dismounted on the fighting-ground at the confluence. I myself went to enjoy Ūstād `Alī-qulī's firing of culverin and firingī; he hit two boats today with firingī-stones, broke them and sank them. Muṣṯafa did the same from his side. I had the large mortar taken to the fighting-ground, left Mullā Ghulām to superintend the making of its position, appointed a body of vasāwals and active braves to help him, went to an island facing the camp and there ate ma`jūn.

Whilst still under the influence of the confection I had the boat taken to near the tents and there slept. A strange thing happened in the night, a noise and disturbance arising about the 3rd watch (midnight) and the pages and others snatching up pieces of wood from the boat, and shouting "Strike! strike!" [Sidenote: Fol. 372.] What was said to have led to the disturbance was that a night-guard who was in the Farmāīsh along-side the Asāīsh in which I was sleeping, opening his eyes from slumber, sees a man with his hand on the Asāīsh as if meaning to climb into her. They fall on him; he dives, comes up again, cuts at the night-guard's head, wounding it a little, then runs off at once towards the river. Once before, on the night we returned from Munīr, one or two night-guards had chased several Hindūstānīs from near the boats, and had brought in two swords and a dagger of theirs. The Most High had me in His Keeping!

(Persian) Were the sword of the world to leap forth, It would cut not a vein till God will.

(May 4th) At the dawn of Wednesday (25th), I went in the boat Gunjāīsh to near the stone-firing ground (tāsh-ātār-yīr) and there posted each soever to his work.

(bbb. Details of the engagement.)

Aūghān-bīrdī Mughūl, leading not less than 1,000 men, had been sent to get, in some way or other, across the river (Sarū) one, two, three kurohs (2, 4, 6m.) higher up. A mass of foot-soldiers, crossing from opposite `Askarī's camp, landed from 20-30 boats on his road, presumably thinking to show their superiority, but Aūghān-bīrdī and his men charged them, put them to flight, took a few and cut their heads off, shot many with arrows, and got possession of 7 or 8 boats. Today also Bengalīs crossed in a few boats to Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā's side, there landed and [Sidenote: Fol. 372b.] provoked to fight. When attacked they fled, and three boat-loads of them were drowned. One boat was captured and brought to me. In this affair Bābā the Brave went forward and exerted himself excellently.

Orders were given that in the darkness of night the boats Aūghān-bīrdī had captured should be drawn up-stream, and that in them there should cross Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā, Yakka Khwāja, Yūnas-i-`alī, Aūghān-bīrdī and those previously assigned to go with them.

Today came a man from `Askarī to say that he had crossed the [Sarū]-water, leaving none behind, and that he would come down on the enemy at next day's dawn, that is to say, on Thursday's. Here-upon those already ordered to cross over were told to join `Askarī and to advance upon the enemy with him.

At the Mid-day Prayer a person came from Ūstā, saying "The stone is ready; what is the order?" The order was, "Fire this stone off; keep the next till I come." Going at the Other Prayer in a very small Bengalī skiff to where shelter (muljār) had been raised, I saw Ūstā fire off one large stone and several small firingī ones. Bengalīs have a reputation for fire-working; we tested it now; they do not fire counting to hit a particular spot, but fire at random.

At this same Other Prayer orders were given to draw a few boats up-stream along the enemy's front. A few were got past without a "God forbid!" from those who, all unprotected, drew [Sidenote: Fol. 373.] them up. Aīsān-tīmūr Sl. and Tūkhta-būghā Sl. were ordered to stay at the place those boats reached, and to keep watch over them. I got back to camp in the 1st night-watch of Thursday.

Near midnight came news from (Aūghān-bīrdī's) boats which were being drawn up-stream, "The force appointed had gone somewhat ahead; we were following, drawing the boats, when the Bengalīs got to know where we were drawing them and attacked. A stone hit a boatman in the leg and broke it, we could not pass on."

(May 5th) At dawn on Thursday (Sha`bān 26th) came the news from those at the shelter, "All the boats have come from above. The enemy's horse has ridden to meet our approaching army." On this, I got our men mounted quickly and rode out to above those boats that had been drawn up in the night. A galloper was sent off with an order for Muḥammad Sl. M. and those appointed to cross with him, to do it at once and join `Askarī. The order for Aīsān-tīmūr Sl. and Tūkhta-būghā Sl. who were above these boats, was that they should busy themselves to cross. Bābā Sl. was not at his post.

Aīsān-tīmūr Sl. at once crosses, in one boat with 30-40 of his retainers who hold their horses by the mane at the boat-side. [Sidenote: Fol. 373b.] A second boat follows. The Bengalīs see them crossing and start off a mass of foot-soldiers for them. To meet these go 7 or 8 of Aīsān-tīmūr Sl.'s retainers, keeping together, shooting off arrows, drawing those foot-soldiers towards the Sulṯān who meantime is getting his men mounted; meantime also the second boat is moving (rawān). When his 30-35 horsemen charge those foot-soldiers, they put them well to flight. Aīsān-tīmūr did distinguished work, first in crossing before the rest, swift, steady, and without a "God forbid!", secondly in his excellent advance, with so few men, on such a mass of foot, and by putting these to flight. Tūkhta-būghā Sl. also crossed. Then boats followed one after another. Lāhorīs and Hindūstānīs began to cross from their usual posts by swimming or on bundles of reeds. Seeing how matters were going, the Bengalīs of the boats opposite the shelter (Muṣṯafa's), set their faces for flight down-stream.

Darwīsh-i-muḥammad Sārbān, Dost Lord-of-the-gate, Nūr Beg and several braves also went across the river. I made a man gallop off to the Sulṯāns to say, "Gather well together those who [Sidenote: Fol. 374.] cross, go close to the opposing army, take it in the flank, and get to grips." Accordingly the Sulṯāns collected those who crossed, formed up into 3 or 4 divisions, and started for the foe. As they draw near, the enemy-commander, without breaking his array, flings his foot-soldiers to the front and so comes on. Kūkī comes up with a troop from `Askarī's force and gets to grips on his side; the Sulṯāns get to grips on theirs; they get the upper hand, unhorse man after man, and make the enemy scurry off. Kūkī's men bring down a Pagan of repute named Basant Rāō and cut off his head; 10 or 15 of his people fall on Kūkī's, and are instantly cut to pieces. Tūkhta-būghā Sl. gallops along the enemy's front and gets his sword well in. Mughūl `Abdu'l-wahhāb and his younger brother gets theirs in well too. Mughūl though he did not know how to swim, had crossed the river holding to his horse's mane.

I sent for my own boats which were behind; the Farmāīsh coming up first, I went over in it to visit the Bengalīs' encamping-grounds. I then went into the Gunjāīsh. "Is there a crossing-place higher up?" I asked. Mīr Muḥammad the raftsman represented that the Sarū was better to cross higher up; accordingly the army-folk were ordered to cross at the higher place he named.

While those led by Muḥammad Sl. Mīrzā were crossing the [Sidenote: Fol. 374b.] river, the boat in which Yakka Khwāja was, sank and he went to God's mercy. His retainers and lands were bestowed on his younger brother Qāsim Khwāja.

The Sulṯāns arrived while I was making ablution for the Mid-day Prayer; I praised and thanked them and led them to expect guerdon and kindness. `Askarī also came; this was the first affair he had seen; one well-omened for him!

As the camp had not yet crossed the river, I took my rest in the boat Gunjāīsh, near an island.

(ccc. Various incidents of the days following the battle.)

(May 6th) During the day of Friday (Sha`bān 27th) we landed at a village named Kūndīh in the Nirhun pargana of Kharīd on the north side of the Sarū.

(May 8th) On Sunday (29th) Kūkī was sent to Ḥājīpūr for news.

Shāh Muḥammad (son) of Ma`rūf to whom in last year's campaign (934 AH.) I had shown great favour and had given the Sāran-country, had done well on several occasions, twice fighting and overcoming his father Ma`rūf. At the time when Sl. Maḥmūd Lūdī perfidiously took possession of Bihār and was opposed by Shaikh Bāyazīd and Bīban, Shāh Muḥammad had no help for it, he had to join them; but even then, when people were saying wild words about him, he had written dutifully to me. When `Askarī crossed at the Haldī-passage, Shāh [Sidenote: Fol. 375.] Muḥammad had come at once with a troop, seen him and with him gone against the Bengalīs. He now came to this ground and waited on me.

During these days news came repeatedly that Bīban and Shaikh Bāyazīd were meaning to cross the Sarū-river.

In these days of respite came the surprising news from Sanbal (Saṃbhal) where `Alī-i-yūsuf had stayed in order to bring the place into some sort of order, that he and a physician who was by way of being a friend of his, had gone to God's mercy on one and the same day. `Abdu'l-lāh (kitābdār) was ordered to go and maintain order in Sanbal.

(May 13th) On Friday the 5th of the month Ramẓān, `Abdu'l-lāh was given leave for Sanbal.

(ddd. News from the westward.)

In these same days came a dutiful letter from Chīn-tīmūr Sl. saying that on account of the journey of the family from Kābul, several of the begs who had been appointed to reinforce him, had not been able to join him; also that he had gone out with Muḥammadī and other begs and braves, not less than 100 kurohs (200m.), attacked the Balūchīs and given them a good beating. Orders were sent through `Abdu'l-lāh (kitābdār) for the Sulṯān that he and Sl. Muḥammad Dūldāī, Muḥammadī, and some of the begs and braves of that country-side should assemble in Āgra and there remain ready to move to wherever an enemy appeared.

(eee. Settlement with the Nūḥānī Afghāns.)

(May 16th) On Monday the 8th of the month, Daryā Khān's [Sidenote: Fol. 375b.] grandson Jalāl Khān to whom Shaikh Jamālī had gone, came in with his chief amīrs and waited on me. Yaḥyā Nūḥānī also came, who had already sent his younger brother in sign of submission and had received a royal letter accepting his service. Not to make vain the hope with which some 7 or 8,000 Nūḥānī Afghāns had come in to me, I bestowed 50 laks from Bīhār on Maḥmūd Khān Nūḥānī, after reserving one krūr for Government uses (khalṣa), and gave the remainder of the Bihār revenues in trust for the above-mentioned Jalāl Khān who for his part agreed to pay one krūr of tribute. Mullā Ghulām yasāwal was sent to collect this tribute. Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā received the Jūnapūr-country.

(fff. Peace made with Naṣrat Shāh.)

(May 19th) On the eve of Thursday (11th) that retainer of Khalīfa's, Ghulām-i-`alī by name, who in company with a retainer of the Shāh-zāda of Mungīr named Abū'l-fatḥ, had gone earlier than Ismā`īl Mītā, to convey those three articles (faṣl soz), now returned, again in company with Abū'l-fatḥ, bringing letters for Khalīfa written by the Shāh-zāda and by Ḥusain Khān Laskar(?) Wazīr, who, in these letters, gave assent to those three conditions, took upon themselves to act for Naṣrat Shāh and interjected a word for peace. As the object of this campaign was to put down the rebel Afghāns of whom some had taken their heads and gone off, some had come in submissive and accepting my service, and the remaining few were in the hands of the Bengalī [Sidenote: Fol. 376.] (Naṣrat Shāh) who had taken them in charge, and as, moreover, the Rains were near, we in our turn wrote and despatched words for peace on the conditions mentioned.

(ggg. Submissions and guerdon.)

(May 21st) On Saturday (13th) Ismā`īl Jālwānī, `Alāūl Khān Nūḥānī, Auliya Khān Ashrāqī(?) and 5 and 6 amīrs came in and waited on me.

Today guerdon was bestowed on Aīsān-tīmūr Sl. and Tūkhta-būghā Sl., of swords and daggers with belts, cuirasses, dresses of honour, and tīpūchāq horses; also they were made to kneel, Aīsān-tīmūr Sl. for the grant of 36 laks from the Nārnūl pargana, Tūkhta-bughā Sl. for 30 laks from that of Shamsābād.

(hhh. Pursuit of Bāyazīd and Bīban.)

(May 23rd) On Monday the 15th of the month (Ramẓān), we marched from our ground belonging to Kūndbah (or Kūndīh) on the Sarū-river, with easy mind about Bihār and Bengal, and resolute to crush the traitors Bīban and Shaikh Bāyazīd.

(May 25th) On Wednesday (17th) after making two night-halts by the way, we dismounted at a passage across the Sarū, called Chaupāra-Chaturmūk of Sikandarpūr. From today people were busy in crossing the river.

As news began to come again and again that the traitors, after crossing Sarū and Gogar, were going toward Luknū, the following leaders were appointed to bar (their) crossing:—The Turk and Hind amīrs Jalālu'd-dīn Sharqī, `Alī Khān Farmūlī; Tardīka (or, Tardī yakka), Nizām Khān of Bīāna, together with Tūlmīsh Aūzbeg, Qurbān of Chīrk and Daryā Khān (of Bhīra's [Sidenote: Fol. 376b.] son) Ḥasan Khān. They were given leave to go on the night of Thursday.

(iii. Damage done to the Bābur-nāma writings.)

That same night when 1 watch (pās), 5 garīs had passed (cir. 10.55 p.m.) and the tarāwīḥ-prayers were over, such a storm burst, in the inside of a moment, from the up-piled clouds of the Rainy-season, and such a stiff gale rose, that few tents were left standing. I was in the Audience-tent, about to write (kitābat qīlā dūr aīdīm); before I could collect papers and sections, the tent came down, with its porch, right on my head. The tūnglūq went to pieces. God preserved me! no harm befell me! Sections and book were drenched under water and gathered together with much difficulty. We laid them in the folds of a woollen throne-carpet, put this on the throne and on it piled blankets. The storm quieted down in about 2 garīs (45m.); the bedding-tent was set up, a lamp lighted, and, after much trouble, a fire kindled. We, without sleep, were busy till shoot of day drying folios and sections.

(jjj. Pursuit of Bīban and Bāyazīd resumed.)

(May 26th) I crossed the water on Thursday morning (Ramān 18th).

(May 27th) On Friday (19th) I rode out to visit Sikandarpūr and Kharīd. Today came matters written by `Abdu`l-lāh (kitābdār) and Bāqī about the taking of Luknūr.

(May 28th) On Saturday (20th) Kūkī was sent ahead, with a troop, to join Bāqī.

(May 29th) That nothing falling to be done before my arrival might be neglected, leave to join Bāqī was given on Sunday (21st) to Sl. Junaid Barlās, Khalīfa's (son) Ḥasan, Mullā Apāq's [Sidenote: Fol. 377.] retainers, and the elder and younger brethren of Mumin Ātāka.

Today at the Other Prayer a special dress of honour and a tīpūchāq horse were bestowed on Shāh Muḥammad (son) of Ma`rūf Farmūlī, and leave to go was given. As had been done last year (934 AH.), an allowance from Sāran and Kūndla was bestowed on him for the maintenance of quiver-wearers. Today too an allowance of 72 laks from Sarwār and a tīpūchāq horse were bestowed on Ismā`īl Jalwānī, and his leave was given.

About the boats Gunjāīsh and Arāīsh it was settled with Bengalīs that they should take them to Ghāzīpūr by way of Tīr-mūhānī. The boats Asāīsh and Farmāīsh were ordered taken up the Sarū with the camp.

(May 30th) On Monday (Ramẓān 22nd) we marched from the Chaupāra-Chaturmūk passage along the Sarū, with mind at ease about Bihār and Sarwār, and after doing as much as 10 kurohs [Sidenote: Fol. 377b.] (20m.) dismounted on the Sarū in a village called Kilirah (?) dependent on Fatḥpūr.

(kkk. A surmised survival of the record of 934. A.H.)

*After spending several days pleasantly in that place where there are gardens, running-waters, well-designed buildings, trees, particularly mango-trees, and various birds of coloured plumage, I ordered the march to be towards Ghāzīpūr.

Ismā`īl Khān Jalwānī and `Alāūl Khān Nūḥānī had it represented to me that they would come to Āgra after seeing their native land (watn). On this the command was, "I will give an order in a month."*

(lll. The westward march resumed.)

(May 31st) Those who marched early (Tuesday, Ramẓān 23rd), having lost their way, went to the great lake of Fatḥpūr (?). People were sent galloping off to fetch back such as were near and Kīchīk Khwāja was ordered to spend the night on the lakeshore and to bring the rest on next morning to join the camp. We marched at dawn; I got into the Asāīsh half-way and had it towed to our ground higher up.

(mmm. Details of the capture of a fort by Bīban and Bāyazīd.)

On the way up, Khalīfa brought Shāh Muḥammad dīwāna's son who had come from Bāqī bringing this reliable news about Luknūr:—They (i.e. Bīban and Bāyazīd) hurled their assault on Saturday the 13th of the month Ramẓān (May 21st) but could do nothing by fighting; while the fighting was going on, a collection of wood-chips, hay, and thorns in the fort took fire, so that inside the walls it became as hot as an oven (tanūrdīk tafsān); the garrison could not move round the rampart; the fort was lost. When the enemy heard, two or three days later, of our return (westwards), he fled towards Dalmau.

Today after doing as much as 10 kurohs (20m.), we dismounted beside a village called Jalisir, on the Sarū-bank, in the Sagrī pargāna.

(June 1st) We stayed on the same ground through Wednesday (24th), in order to rest our cattle.

(nnn. Dispositions against Bīban and Bāyazīd.)

Some said they had heard that Bīban and Bāyazīd had crossed Gang, and thought of withdrawing themselves to their kinsfolk [Sidenote: Fol. 378.]

(nisbahsīlār) by way of.... Here-upon the begs were summoned for a consultation and it was settled that Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā and Sl. Junaid Barlās who in place of Jūnpūr had been given Chunār with several parganas, Maḥmud Khān Nūḥānī, Qāẓī Jīā, and Tāj Khān Sarāng-khānī should block the enemy's road at Chunār.

(June 2nd) Marching early in the morning of Thursday (25th), we left the Sarū-river, did 11 kurohs (22 m.), crossed the Parsarū (Sarjū) and dismounted on its bank.

Here the begs were summoned, discussion was had, and the leaders named below were appointed to go detached from the army, in rapid pursuit of Bīban and Bāyazīd towards Dalmūṯ (Dalmau):—Aīsān-tīmūr Sl., Muḥammad Sl. M., Tūkhta-būghā Sl., Qāsim-i-ḥusain Sl., Bī-khūb (Nī-khūb) Sl., Muz̤affar-i-ḥusain Sl., Qāsim Khwāja, Ja`far Khwāja, Zahid Khwāja, Jānī Beg, `Askarī's retainer Kīchīk Khwāja, and, of Hind amīrs, `Ālam Khān of Kālpī, Malik-dād Kararānī, and Rāo (Rāwūī) Sarwāni.

(ooo. The march continued.)

When I went at night to make ablution in the Parsarū, people were catching a mass of fish that had gathered round a lamp on the surface of the water. I like others took fish in my hands.

(June 3rd) On Friday (26th) we dismounted on a very slender stream, the head-water of a branch of the Parsarū. In order not to be disturbed by the comings and goings of the army-folk, [Sidenote: Fol. 378b.] I had it dammed higher up and had a place, 10 by 10, made for ablution. The night of the 27th was spent on this ground.

(June 4th) At the dawn of the same day (Saturday 27th) we left that water, crossed the Tūs and dismounted on its bank.

(June 5th) On Sunday (28th) we dismounted on the bank of the same water.

(June 6th) On Monday the 29th of the month (Ramẓān), our station was on the bank of the same Tūs-water. Though tonight the sky was not quite clear, a few people saw the Moon, and so testifying to the Qāẓī, fixed the end of the month (Ramẓān).

(June 7th) On Tuesday (Shawwāl 1st) we made the Prayer of the Festival, at dawn rode on, did 10 kurohs (20 m.), and dismounted on the bank of the Gūī (Gūmtī), a kuroh (2 m.) from Māīng. The sin of ma`jūn was committed (irtikāb qīlīldī) near the Mid-day Prayer; I had sent this little couplet of invitation to Shaikh Zain, Mullā Shihāb and Khwānd-amīr:—

(Turkī) Shaikh and Mullā Shihāb and Khwānd-amir, Come all three, or two, or one.

Darwīsh-i-muḥammad (Sārbān), Yūnas-i-`alī and `Abdu'l-lāh (`asas) were also there. At the Other Prayer the wrestlers set to.

(June 8th) On Wednesday (2nd) we stayed on the same ground. Near breakfast-time ma`jūn was eaten. Today Malik Sharq came in who had been to get Tāj Khān out of Chunār. When the wrestlers set to today, the Champion of Aūd who had come earlier, grappled with and threw a Hindūstānī wrestler who had [Sidenote: Fol. 379.] come in the interval.

Today Yaḥyā Nuḥāni was granted an allowance of 15 laks from Parsarūr, made to put on a dress of honour, and given his leave.

(June 9th) Next day (Thursday 3rd) we did 11 kurohs (22 m.), crossed the Gūī-water (Gūmtī), and dismounted on its bank.

(ppp. Concerning the pursuit of Bīban and Bāyazīd.)

News came in about the sulṯāns and begs of the advance that they had reached Dalmūd (Dalmau), but were said not yet to have crossed the water (Ganges). Angered by this (delay), I sent orders, "Cross the water at once; follow the track of the rebels; cross Jūn (Jumna) also; join `Ālam Khān to yourselves; be energetic and get to grips with the adversary."

(qqq. The march continued.)

(June 10th) After leaving this water (Gūmtī, Friday 4th) we made two night-halts and reached Dalmūd (Dalmau), where most of the army-folk crossed Gang, there and then, by a ford. While the camp was being got over, ma`jūn was eaten on an island (ārāl) below the ford.

(June 13th) After crossing, we waited one day (Monday 7th) for all the army-folk to get across. Today Bāqī Tāshkīndī came in with the army of Aūd (Ajodhya) and waited on me.

(June 14th) Leaving the Gang-water (Ganges, Tuesday 8th), we made one night-halt, then dismounted (June 15th-Shawwāl 9th) beside Kūrarah (Kūra Khāṣ) on the Arind-water. The distance from Dalmūd (Dalmau) to Kūrarah came out at 22 kurohs (44 m.).

(June 16th) On Thursday (10th) we marched early from that ground and dismounted opposite the Ādampūr pargana.

To enable us to cross (Jūn) in pursuit of our adversaries, a few [Sidenote: Fol. 379b.] raftsmen had been sent forward to collect at Kālpī what boats were to be had; some boats arrived the night we dismounted, moreover a ford was found through the Jūn-river.

As the encamping-place was full of dust, we settled ourselves on an island and there stayed the several days we were on that ground.

(rrr. Concerning Bīban and Bāyazīd.)

Not getting reliable news about the enemy, we sent Bāqī shaghāwal with a few braves of the interior to get information about him.

(June 17th) Next day (Friday 11th) at the Other Prayer, one of Bāqī Beg's retainers came in. Bāqī had beaten scouts of Bīban and Bāyazīd, killed one of their good men, Mubārak Khān Jalwānī, and some others, sent in several heads, and one man alive.

(June 18th) At dawn (Saturday 12th) Paymaster Shāh Ḥusain came in, told the story of the beating of the scouts, and gave various news.

Tonight, that is to say, the night of Sunday the 13th of the month, the river Jūn came down in flood, so that by the dawn, the whole of the island on which I was settled, was under water. I moved to another an arrow's-flight down-stream, there had a tent set up and settled down.

(June 20th) On Monday (14th) Jalāl Tāshkīndī came from the begs and sulṯāns of the advance. Shaikh Bāyazīd and Bīban, on hearing of their expedition, had fled to the pargana of Mahūba. [Sidenote: Fol. 380.]

As the Rains had set in and as after 5 or 6 months of active service, horses and cattle in the army were worn out, the sulṯāns and begs of the expedition were ordered to remain where they were till they received fresh supplies from Āgra and those parts. At the Other Prayer of the same day, leave was given to Bāqī and the army of Aūd (Ajodhya). Also an allowance of 30 lāks from Amrohā was assigned to Mūsa (son) of Ma`rūf Farmūlī, who had waited on me at the time the returning army was crossing the Sarū-water, a special head-to-foot and saddled horse were bestowed on him, and he was given his leave.

(sss. Bābur returns to Āgra.)

(June 21st) With an easy mind about these parts, we set out for Āgra, raid-fashion, when 3 pās 1 garī of Tuesday night were past. In the morning (Tuesday 15th) we did 16 kurohs (32 m.), near mid-day made our nooning in the pargana of Balādar, one of the dependencies of Kālpī, there gave our horses barley, at the Evening Prayer rode on, did 13 kurohs (26 m.) in the night, at the 3rd night-watch (mid-night, Shawwāl 15-16th) dismounted at Bahādur Khān Sarwānī's tomb at Sūgandpūr, a pargana of Kālpī, slept a little, went through the Morning Prayer and hurried on. After doing 16 kurohs (32 m.), we reached Etāwa at the fall of day, where Mahdī Khwāja came out to meet us. Riding [Sidenote: Fol. 380b.] on after the 1st night-watch (9 p.m.), we slept a little on the way, did 16 kurohs (32 m.), took our nooning at Fatḥpūr of Rāprī, rode on soon after the Mid-day Prayer (Thursday Shawwāl 17th), did 17 kurohs (34 m.), and in the 2nd night-watch dismounted in the Garden-of-eight-paradises at Āgra.

(June 24th) At the dawn of Friday (18th) Pay-master Sl. Muḥammad came with several more to wait on me. Towards the Mid-day Prayer, having crossed Jūn, I waited on Khwāja `Abdu'l-ḥaqq, went into the Fort and saw the begīms my paternal-aunts.

(ttt. Indian-grown fruits.)

A Balkhī melon-grower had been set to raise melons; he now brought a few first-rate small ones; on one or two bush-vines (būta-tāk) I had had planted in the Garden-of-eight-paradises very good grapes had grown; Shaikh Gūran sent me a basket of grapes which too were not bad. To have grapes and melons grown in this way in Hindūstān filled my measure of content.

(uuu. Arrival of Māhīm Begīm.)

(June 26th) Māhīm arrived while yet two watches of Sunday night (Shawwāl 20th) remained. By a singular agreement of things they had left Kābul on the very day, the 10th of the 1st Jumāda (Jan. 21st 1529) on which I rode out to the army.

(Here the record of 11 days is wanting.)

(July 7th) On Thursday the 1st of Ẕū'l-qa`da the offerings made by Humāyūn and Māhīm were set out while I sat in the large Hall of Audience.

Today also wages were given to 150 porters (kahār) and they were started off under a servant of Faghfūr Dīwān to fetch melons, grapes, and other fruits from Kabul. [Sidenote: Fol. 381.]

(vvv. Concerning Saṃbhal.)

(July 9th) On Saturday the 3rd of the month, Hindū Beg who had come as escort from Kābul and must have been sent to Saṃbhal on account of the death of `Alī-i-yūsuf, came and waited on me. Khalīfa's (son) Ḥusāmu'd-dīn came also today from Alwār and waited on me.

(July 10th) On Sunday morning (4th) came `Abdu'l-lāh (kitābdār), who from Tīr-mūhānī had been sent to Saṃbhal on account of the death of `Alī-i-yūsuf.

(Here the record of 7 days is wanting.)

(www. Sedition in Lāhor.)

People from Kābul were saying that Shaikh Sharaf of Qarā-bāgh, either incited by `Abdu'l-`azīz or out of liking for him, had written an attestation which attributed to me oppression I had not done, and outrage that had not happened; that he had extorted the signatures of the Prayer-leaders (imāmlār) of Lāhor to this accusation, and had sent copies of it to the various towns; that `Abdu'l-`azīz himself had failed to give ear to several royal orders, had spoken unseemly words, and done acts which ought to have been left undone. On account of these matters Qaṃbar-i-`alī Arghūn was started off on Sunday the 11th of the month (Ẕū'l-qa`da), to arrest Shaikh Sharaf, the Lāhor imāms with their associates, and `Abdu'l-`azīz, and to bring them all to Court.

(xxx. Varia.)

(July 22nd) On Thursday the 15th of the month Chīn-tīmūr Sl. came in from Tijāra and waited on me. Today Champion [Sidenote: Fol. 381b.] Ṣādiq and the great champion-wrestler of Aūd wrestled. Ṣādiq gave a half-throw; he was much vexed.

(July 28th) On Monday the 19th of the month (Ẕū'l-qa`da) the Qīzīl-bāsh envoy Murād the life-guardsman was made to put on an inlaid dagger with belt, and a befitting dress of honour, was presented with 2 laks of tankas and given leave to go.

(Here the record of 15 days is wanting.)

(yyy. Sedition in Gūālīār.)

(August 11th) Sayyid Mashhadī who had come from Gūālīār in these days, represented that Raḥīm-dād was stirring up sedition. On account of this, Khalīfa's servant Shāh Muḥammad the seal-bearer was sent to convey to Raḥīm-dād matters written with commingling of good counsel. He went; and in a few days came back bringing Raḥīm-dād's son, but, though the son came, Raḥīm-dād himself had no thought of coming. On Wednesday the 5th of Ẕū'l-ḥijja, Nūr Beg was sent to Gūālīār to allay Raḥīm-dād's fears, came back in a few days, and laid requests from Raḥīm-dād before us. Orders in accordance with those requests had been written and were on the point of despatch when one of Raḥīm-dād's servants arriving, represented that he had come to effect the escape of the son and that Raḥīm-dād himself had no thought of coming in. I was for riding out at once to Gūālīār, but Khalīfa set it forth to me, "Let me write one more letter commingled with good counsel; he may even yet come peacefully." On this mission Khusrau's (son?) Shihābu'd-dīn was despatched.

(August 12th) On Thursday the 6th of the month mentioned (Ẕū'l-ḥijja) Mahdī Khwāja came in from Etāwa. [Sidenote: Fol. 382.]

(August 16th) On the Festival-day (Monday 10th) Hindū Beg was presented with a special head-to-foot, an inlaid dagger with belt; also a pargana worth 7 laks was bestowed on Ḥasan-i-`alī, well-known among the Turkmāns for a Chaghatāī.

936 AH.-SEP. 5TH 1529 TO AUGUST 25TH 1530 AD.

(a. Raḥīm-dād's affairs.)

(Sep. 7th) On Wednesday the 3rd of Muḥarram, Shaikh Muḥammad Ghaus̤ came in from Gūālīār with Khusrau's (son) Shihābu'd-dīn to plead for Raḥīm-dād. As Shaikh Muḥammad Ghaūṣ was a pious and excellent person, Raḥīm-dād's faults were forgiven for his sake. Shaikh Gūran and Nūr Beg were sent off for Gūālīār, so that the place having been made over to their charge....

TRANSLATOR'S NOTE ON 936 TO 937 AH.-1529 TO 1530 AD.

It is difficult to find material for filling the lacuna of some 15 months, which occurs in Bābur's diary after the broken passage of Muḥarram 3rd 936 AH. (Sept. 7th 1529 AD.) and down to the date of his death on Jumāda 1. 6th 937 AH. (Dec. 26th 153O AD.). The known original sources are few, their historical matter scant, their contents mainly biographical. Gleanings may yet be made, however, in unexpected places, such gleanings as are provided by Aḥmad-i-yādgār's interpolation of Tīmūrid history amongst his lives of Afghān Sulṯāns.

The earliest original source which helps to fill the gap of 936 AH. is Ḥaidar Mīrzā's Tārīkh-i-rashīdī, finished as to its Second Part which contains Bābur's biography, in 948 AH. (1541 AD.), 12 years therefore after the year of the gap 936 AH. It gives valuable information about the affairs of Badakhshān, based on its author's personal experience at 30 years of age, and was Abū'l-faẓl's authority for the Akbar-nāma.

The next in date of the original sources is Gul-badan Begīm's Humāyūn-nāma, a chronicle of family affairs, which she wrote in obedience to her nephew Akbar's command, given in about 995 AH. (1587 AD.), some 57 years after her Father's death, that whatever any person knew of his father (Humāyūn) and grandfather (Bābur) should be written down for Abū'l-faẓl's use. It embodies family memories and traditions, and presumably gives the recollections of several ladies of the royal circle.

The Akbar-nāma derives much of its narrative for 936-937 AH. from Ḥaidar Mīrzā and Gul-badan Begīm, but its accounts of Bābur's self-surrender and of his dying address to his chiefs presuppose the help of information from a contemporary witness. It is noticeable that the Akbar-nāma records no public events as occurring in Hindūstān during 936-937 AH., nothing of the sequel of rebellion by Raḥīm-dād and `Abdu'l-`azīz, nothing of the untiring Bīban and Bāyazīd. That something could have been told is shown by what Aḥmad-i-yādgār has preserved (vide post); but 50 years had passed since Bābur's death and, manifestly, interest in filling the lacunæ in his diary was then less keen than it is over 300 years later. What in the Akbar-nāma concerns Bābur is likely to have been written somewhat early in the cir. 15 years of its author's labours on it, but, even so, the elder women of the royal circle had had rest after the miseries Humāyūn had wrought, the forgiveness of family affection would veil his past, and certainly has provided Abū'l-faẓl with an over-mellowed estimate of him, one ill-assorting with what is justified by his Bābur-nāma record.

The contribution made towards filling the gap of 936-937 AH. in the body of Niẕāmu-'d-dīn Aḥmad's T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī is limited to a curious and doubtfully acceptable anecdote about a plan for the supersession of Humāyūn as Pādshāh, and about the part played by Khwāja Muqīm Harāwī in its abandonment. A further contribution is made, however, in Book VII which contains the history of the Muḥammadan Kings of Kashmīr, namely, that Bābur despatched an expedition into that country. As no such expedition is recorded or referred to in surviving Bābur-nāma writings, it is likely to have been sent in 936 AH. during Bābur's tour to and from Lāhor. If it were made with the aim of extending Tīmūrid authority in the Himālayan borderlands, a hint of similar policy elsewhere may be given by the ceremonious visit of the Rāja of Kahlūr to Bābur, mentioned by Aḥmad-i-yādgār (vide post). The T̤.-i-A. was written within the term of Abū'l-faẓl's work on the Akbar-nāma, being begun later, and ended about 9 years earlier, in 1002 AH.-1593 AD. It appears to have been Abū'-l-faẓl's authority for his account of the campaign carried on in Kashmīr by Bābur's chiefs (Āyīn-i-akbarī vol. ii, part i, Jarrett's trs. p. 389).

An important contribution, seeming to be authentic, is found interpolated in Aḥmad-i-yādgār's Tārīkh-i-salāṯīn-i-afāghana, one which outlines a journey made by Bābur to Lāhor in 936 AH. and gives circumstantial details of a punitive expedition sent by him from Sihrind at the complaint of the Qāẓī of Samāna against a certain Mundāhir Rājpūt. The whole contribution dovetails into matters found elsewhere. Its precision of detail bespeaks a closely-contemporary written source. As its fullest passage concerns the Samāna Qāẓī's affair, its basis of record may have been found in Samāna. Some considerations about the date of Aḥmad-i-yādgār's own book and what Niamatu'l-lāh says of Haibat Khān of Samāna, his own generous helper in the Tārīkhi-Khan-i-jahān Lūdī, point towards Haibat Khān as providing the details of the Qāẓī's wrongs and avenging. The indication is strengthened by the circumstance that what precedes and what follows the account of the punitive expedition is outlined only. Aḥmad-i-yādgār interpolates an account of Humāyūn also, which is a frank plagiarism from the T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī. He tells too a story purporting to explain why Bābur "selected" Humāyūn to succeed him, one parallel with Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad's about what led Khalīfa to abandon his plan of setting the Mīrzā aside. Its sole value lies in its testimony to a belief, held by its first narrator whoever he was, that choice was exercised in the matter by Bābur. Reasons for thinking Niẕāmu'd-dīn's story, as it stands, highly improbable, will be found later in this note.

Muḥammad Qāsim Hindū Shāh Firishta's Tārīkh-i-firishta contains an interesting account of Bābur but contributes towards filling the gap in the events of 936-937 AH. little that is not in the earlier sources. In M. Jules Mohl's opinion it was under revision as late as 1623 AD. (1032-3 AH.).

(a. Humāyūn and Badakhshān.)

An occurrence which had important results, was the arrival of Humāyūn in Āgra, unsummoned by his Father, from the outpost station of Badakhshān. It will have occurred early in 936 AH. (autumn 1529 AD.), because he was in Kābul in the first ten days of the last month of 935 AH. (vide post). Curiously enough his half-sister Gul-badan does not mention his coming, whether through avoidance of the topic or from inadvertence; the omission may be due however to the loss of a folio from the only known MS. of her book (that now owned by the British Museum), and this is the more likely that Abū'l-faẓl writes, at some length, about the arrival and its motive, what the Begīm might have provided, this especially by his attribution of filial affection as Humāyūn's reason for coming to Āgra.

Ḥaidar Mīrzā is the authority for the Akbar-nāma account of Humāyūn's departure from Qila`-i-ẕafar and its political and military sequel. He explains the departure by saying that when Bābur had subdued Hindūstān, his sons Humāyūn and Kāmrān were grown-up; and that wishing to have one of them at hand in case of his own death, he summoned Humāyūn, leaving Kāmrān in Qandahār. No doubt these were the contemporary impressions conveyed to Ḥaidar, and strengthened by the accomplished fact before he wrote some 12 years later; nevertheless there are two clear indications that there was no royal order for Humāyūn to leave Qila`-i-ẕafar, viz. that no-one had been appointed to relieve him even when he reached Āgra, and that Abū'l-faẓl mentions no summons but attributes the Mīrzā's departure from his post to an overwhelming desire to see his Father. What appears probable is that Māhīm wrote to her son urging his coming to Āgra, and that this was represented as Bābur's wish. However little weight may be due to the rumour, preserved in anecdotes recorded long after 935 AH., that any-one, Bābur or Khalīfa, inclined against Humāyūn's succession, that rumour she would set herself to falsify by reconciliation.

When the Mīrzā's intention to leave Qila`-i-ẕafar became known there, the chiefs represented that they should not be able to withstand the Aūzbeg on their frontier without him (his troops implied). With this he agreed, said that still he must go, and that he would send a Mīrzā in his place as soon as possible. He then rode, in one day, to Kābul, an item of rapid travel preserved by Abū'l-faẓl.

Humāyūn's departure caused such anxiety in Qila`-i-ẕafar that some (if not all) of the Badakhshī chiefs hurried off an invitation to Sa`īd Khān Chaghatāī, the then ruler in Kāshghar in whose service Ḥaidar Mīrzā was, to come at once and occupy the fort. They said that Faqīr-i-`alī who had been left in charge, was not strong enough to cope with the Aūzbeg, begged Sa`īd to come, and strengthened their petition by reminding him of his hereditary right to Badakhshān, derived from Shāh Begīm Badakhshī. Their urgency convincing the Khān that risk threatened the country, he started from Kāshghar in Muḥarram 936 AH. (Sept-Oct. 1529 AD.). On reaching Sārīgh-chūpān which by the annexation of Abā-bakr Mīrzā Dūghlāt was now his own most western territory but which formerly was one of the upper districts of Badakhshān, he waited while Ḥaidar went on towards Qila`-i-ẕafar only to learn on his road, that Hind-āl (æt. 10) had been sent from Kābul by Humāyūn and had entered the fort 12 days before.

The Kāshgharīs were thus placed in the difficulty that the fort was occupied by Bābur's representative, and that the snows would prevent their return home across the mountains till winter was past. Winter-quarters were needed and asked for by Ḥaidar, certain districts being specified in which to await the re-opening of the Pāmīr routes. He failed in his request, "They did not trust us," he writes, "indeed suspected us of deceit." His own account of Sa`īd's earlier invasion of Badakhshān (925 AH.-1519 AD.) during Khān Mīrzā's rule, serves to explain Badakhshī distrust of Kāshgharīs. Failing in his negotiations, he scoured and pillaged the country round the fort, and when a few days later the Khān arrived, his men took what Ḥaidar's had left.

Sa`īd Khān is recorded to have besieged the fort for three months, but nothing serious seems to have been attempted since no mention of fighting is made, none of assault or sally, and towards the end of the winter he was waited on by those who had invited his presence, with apology for not having admitted him into the fort, which they said they would have done but for the arrival of Hind-āl Mīrzā. To this the Khān replied that for him to oppose Bābur Pādshāh was impossible; he reminded the chiefs that he was there by request, that it would be as hurtful for the Pādshāh as for himself to have the Aūzbeg in Badakhshān and, finally, he gave it as his opinion that, as matters stood, every man should go home. His view of the general duty may include that of Badakhshī auxiliaries such as Sulṯān Wais of Kūl-āb who had reinforced the garrison. So saying, he himself set out for Kāshghar, and at the beginning of Spring reached Yārkand.

b. Humāyūn's further action.

Humāyūn will have reached Kābul before Ẕū'l-ḥijja 10th 935 AH. (Aug. 26th 1529 AD.) because it is on record that he met Kāmrān on the Kābul 'Īd-gāh, and both will have been there to keep the `Īdu'l-kabīr, the Great Festival of Gifts, which is held on that day. Kāmrān had come from Qandahār, whether to keep the Feast, or because he had heard of Humāyūn's intended movement from Badakhshān, or because changes were foreseen and he coveted Kābul, as the Bābur-nāma and later records allow to be inferred. He asked Humāyūn, says Abū'l-faẓl, why he was there and was told of his brother's impending journey to Āgra under overwhelming desire to see their Father. Presumably the two Mīrzās discussed the position in which Badakhshān had been left; in the end Hind-āl was sent to Qila'-i-ẕafar, notwithstanding that he was under orders for Hindūstān.

Humāyūn may have stayed some weeks in Kābul, how many those familiar with the seasons and the routes between Yārkand and Qila`-i-ẕafar, might be able to surmise if the date of Hind-āl's start northward for which Humāyūn is likely to have waited, were found by dovetailing the Muḥarram of Sa`īd's start, the approximate length of his journey to Sārīgh-chūpān, and Ḥaidar's reception of news that Hind-āl had been 12 days in the fort.

Humāyūn's arrival in Āgra is said by Abū'l-faẓl to have been cheering to the royal family in their sadness for the death of Alwar (end of 935 AH.) and to have given pleasure to his Father. But the time is all too near the date of Bābur's letter (f.348) to Humāyūn, that of a dissatisfied parent, to allow the supposition that his desertion of his post would fail to displease.

That it was a desertion and not an act of obedience seems clear from the circumstance that the post had yet to be filled. Khalīfa is said to have been asked to take it and to have refused; Humāyūn to have been sounded as to return and to have expressed unwillingness. Bābur then did what was an honourable sequel to his acceptance in 926 AH. of the charge of the fatherless child Sulaimān, by sending him, now about 16, to take charge where his father Khān Mīrzā had ruled, and by still keeping him under his own protection.

Sulaimān's start from Āgra will not have been delayed, and (accepting Aḥmad-i-yādgār's record,) Bābur himself will have gone as far as Lāhor either with him or shortly after him, an expedition supporting Sulaimān, and menacing Sa`īd in his winter leaguer round Qila`-i-ẕafar. Meantime Humāyūn was ordered to his fief of Saṃbhal.

After Sulaimān's appointment Bābur wrote to Sa`īd a letter of which Ḥaidar gives the gist:—It expresses surprise at Sa`īd's doings in Badakhshān, says that Hind-āl has been recalled and Sulaimān sent, that if Sa`īd regard hereditary right, he will leave "Sulaimān Shāh Mīrzā" in possession, who is as a son to them both, that this would be well, that otherwise he (Bābur) will make over responsibility to the heir (Sulaimān); and, "The rest you know."

c. Bābur visits Lāhor.

If Aḥmad-i-yādgār's account of a journey made by Bābur to Lāhor and the Panj-āb be accepted, the lacuna of 936 AH. is appropriately filled. He places the expedition in the 3rd year of Bābur's rule in Hindūstān, which, counting from the first reading of the khuṯba for Bābur in Dihlī (f. 286), began on Rajab 15th 935 AH. (March 26th 1529 AD.). But as Bābur's diary-record for 935 AH. is complete down to end of the year, (minor lacunæ excepted), the time of his leaving Āgra for Lāhor is relegated to 936 AH. He must have left early in the year, (1) to allow time, before the occurrence of the known events preceding his own death, for the long expedition Aḥmad-i-yādgār calls one of a year, and (2) because an early start after Humāyūn's arrival and Sulaimān's departure would suit the position of affairs and the dates mentioned or implied by Ḥaidar's and by Aḥmad-i-yādgār's narratives.

Two reasons of policy are discernible, in the known events of the time, to recommend a journey in force towards the North-west; first, the sedition of `Abdu'l-`azīz in Lāhor (f. 381), and secondly, the invasion of Badakhshān by Sa`īd Khān with its resulting need of supporting Sulaimān by a menace of armed intervention.

In Sihrind the Rāja of Kahlūr, a place which may be one of the Simla hill-states, waited on Bābur, made offering of 7 falcons and 3 mans of gold, and was confirmed in his fief.

In Lāhor Kāmrān is said to have received his Father, in a garden of his own creation, and to have introduced the local chiefs as though he were the Governor of Lāhor some writers describe him as then being. The best sources, however, leave him still posted in Qandahār. He had been appointed to Multān (f. 359) when `Askarī was summoned to Āgra (f. 339), but whether he actually went there is not assured; some months later (Ẕū'l-ḥijja 10th 935 AH.) he is described by Abū'l-faẓl as coming to Kābul from Qandahār. He took both Multān and Lāhor by force from his (half-)brother Humāyūn in 935 AH. (1531 AD.) the year after their Father's death. That he should wait upon his Father in Lāhor would be natural, Hind-āl did so, coming from Kābul. Hind-āl will have come to Lāhor after making over charge of Qila`-i-ẕafar to Sulaimān, and he went back at the end of the cold season, going perhaps just before his Father started from Lāhor on his return journey, the gifts he received before leaving being 2 elephants, 4 horses, belts and jewelled daggers.

Bābur is said to have left Lāhor on Rajab 4th (936 AH.)-(March 4th, 1530 AD.). From Aḥmad-i-yādgār's outline of Bābur's doings in Lāhor, he, or his original, must be taken as ill-informed or indifferent about them. His interest becomes greater when he writes of Samāna.

d. Punishment of the Mundāhirs.

When Bābur, on his return journey, reached Sihrind, he received a complaint from the Qāẓī of Samāna against one Mohan Mundāhir (or Mundhār) Rājpūt who had attacked his estates, burning and plundering, and killed his son. Here-upon `Alī-qulī of Hamadān was sent with 3000 horse to avenge the Qāzī's wrongs, and reached Mohan's village, in the Kaithal pargana, early in the morning when the cold was such that the archers "could not pull their bows." A marriage had been celebrated over-night; the villagers, issuing from warm houses, shot such flights of arrows that the royal troops could make no stand; many were killed and nothing was effected; they retired into the jungle, lit fires, warmed themselves(?), renewed the attack and were again repulsed. On hearing of their failure, Bābur sent off, perhaps again from Sihrind, Tarsam Bahādur and Naurang Beg with 6000 horse and many elephants. This force reached the village at night and when marriage festivities were in progress. Towards morning it was formed into three divisions, one of which was ordered to go to the west of the village and show itself. This having been done, the villagers advanced towards it, in the pride of their recent success. The royal troops, as ordered beforehand, turned their backs and fled, the Mundāhirs pursuing them some two miles. Meantime Tarsam Bahādur had attacked and fired the village, killing many of its inhabitants. The pursuers on the west saw the flames of their burning homes, ran back and were intercepted on their way. About 1000 men, women and children were made prisoner; there was also great slaughter, and a pillar of heads was raised. Mohan was captured and later on was buried to the waist and shot to death with arrows. News of the affair was sent to the Pādshāh.

As after being in Sihrind, Bābur is said to have spent two months hunting near Dihlī, it may be that he followed up the punitive expedition sent into the Kaithal pargana of the Karnāl District, by hunting in Nardak, a favourite ground of the Tīmūrids, which lies in that district.

Thus the gap of 936 AH. with also perhaps a month of 937 AH. is filled by the "year's" travel west of Dihlī. The record is a mere outline and in it are periods of months without mention of where Bābur was or what affairs of government were brought before him. At some time, on his return journey presumably, he will have despatched to Kashmīr the expedition referred to in the opening section of this appendix. Something further may yet be gleaned from local chronicles, from unwritten tradition, or from the witness of place-names commemorating his visit.

e. Bābur's self-surrender to save Humāyūn.

The few months, perhaps 4 to 5, between Bābur's return to Āgra from his expedition towards the North-west, and the time of his death are filled by Gul-badan and Abū'l-faẓl with matters concerning family interests only.

The first such matter these authors mention is an illness of Humāyūn during which Bābur devoted his own life to save his son's. Of this the particulars are, briefly:—That Humāyūn, while still in Saṃbhal, had had a violent attack of fever; that he was brought by water to Āgra, his mother meeting him in Muttra; and that when the disease baffled medical skill, Bābur resolved to practise the rite believed then and now in the East to be valid, of intercession and devotion of a suppliant's most valued possession in exchange for a sick man's life. Rejecting counsel to offer the Koh-i-nūr for pious uses, he resolved to supplicate for the acceptance of his life. He made intercession through a saint his daughter names, and moved thrice round Humāyūn's bed, praying, in effect, "O God! if a life may be exchanged for a life, I, who am Bābur, give my life and my being for Humāyūn." During the rite fever surged over him, and, convinced that his prayer and offering had prevailed, he cried out, "I have borne it away! I have borne it away!" Gul-badan says that he himself fell ill on that very day, while Humāyūn poured water on his head, came out and gave audience; and that they carried her Father within on account of his illness, where he kept his bed for 2 or 3 months.

There can be no doubt as to Bābur's faith in the rite he had practised, or as to his belief that his offering of life was accepted; moreover actual facts would sustain his faith and belief. Onlookers also must have believed his prayer and offering to have prevailed, since Humāyūn went back to Saṃbhal, while Bābur fell ill at once and died in a few weeks.

f. A plan to set Bābur's sons aside from the succession.

Reading the Akbar-nāma alone, there would seem to be no question about whether Bābur ever intended to give Hindūstān, at any rate, to Humāyūn, but, by piecing together various contributory matters, an opposite opinion is reached, viz. that not Khalīfa only whom Abū'l-faẓl names perhaps on Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad's warrant, but Bābur also, with some considerable number of chiefs, wished another ruler for Hindūstān. The starting-point of this opinion is a story in the T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī and, with less detail, in the Akbar-nāma, of which the gist is that Khalīfa planned to supersede Humāyūn and his three brothers in their Father's succession.

To face p. 702.]

The story, in brief, is as follows:—At the time of Bābur's death Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad's father Khwāja Muḥammad Muqīm Harāwī was in the service of the Office of Works. Amīr Niẕāmu'd-dīn `Alī Khalīfa, the Chief of the Administration, had dread and suspicion about Humāyūn and did not favour his succession as Pādshāh. Nor did he favour that of Bābur's other sons. He promised "Bābur Pādshāh's son-in-law (dāmād)" Mahdī Khwāja who was a generous young man, very friendly to himself, that he would make him Pādshāh. This promise becoming known, others made their salām to the Khwāja who put on airs and accepted the position. One day when Khalīfa, accompanied by Muqīm, went to see Mahdī Khwāja in his tent, no-one else being present, Bābur, in the pangs of his disease, sent for him when he had been seated a few minutes only. When Khalīfa had gone out, Mahdī Khwāja remained standing in such a way that Muqīm could not follow but, the Khwāja unaware, waited respectfully behind him. The Khwāja, who was noted for the wildness of youth, said, stroking his beard, "Please God! first, I will flay thee!" turned round and saw Muqīm, took him by the ear, repeated a proverb of menace, "The red tongue gives the green head to the wind," and let him go. Muqīm hurried to Khalīfa, repeated the Khwāja's threat against him, and remonstrated about the plan to set all Bābur's sons aside in favour of a stranger-house. Here-upon Khalīfa sent for Humāyūn, and despatched an officer with orders to the Khwāja to retire to his house, who found him about to dine and hurried him off without ceremony. Khalīfa also issued a proclamation forbidding intercourse with him, excluded him from Court, and when Bābur died, supported Humāyūn.

As Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad was not born till 20 years after Bābur died, the story will have been old before he could appreciate it, and it was some 60 years old when it found way into the T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī and, with less detail, into the Akbar-nāma.

Taken as it stands, it is incredible, because it represents Khalīfa, and him alone, planning to subject the four sons of Bābur to the suzerainty of Mahdī Khwāja who was not a Tīmūrid, who, so far as well-known sources show, was not of a ruling dynasty or personally illustrious, and who had been associated, so lately as the autumn of 1529 AD., with his nephew Raḥīm-dād in seditious action which had so angered Bābur that, whatever the punishment actually ordered, rumour had it both men were to die. In two particulars the only Mahdī Khwāja then of Bābur's following, does not suit the story; he was not a young man in 1530 AD., and was not a dāmād of Bābur, if that word be taken in its usual sense of son-in-law, but he was a yazna, husband of a Pādshāh's sister, in his case, of Khān-zāda Begīm. Some writers style him Sayyid Mahdī Khwāja, a double title which may indicate descent on both sides from religious houses; one is suggested to be that of Tirmiẕ by the circumstance that in his and Khān-zāda Begīm's mausoleum was buried a Tirmiẕ sayyid of later date, Shāh Abū'l-ma`ālī. But though he were of Tirmiẕ, it is doubtful if that religious house would be described by the word khānwāda which so frequently denotes a ruling dynasty.

His name may have found its way into Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad's story as a gloss mistakenly amplifying the word dāmād, taken in its less usual sense of brother-in-law. To Bābur's contemporaries the expression "Bābur Pādshāh's dāmād" (son-in-law) would be explicit, because for some 11 years before he lay on his death-bed, he had one son-in-law only, viz. Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā Bāī-qarā, the husband of Ma`ṣūma Sulṯān Begīm. If that Mīrzā's name were where Mahdī Khwāja's is entered, the story of an exclusion of Bābur's sons from rule might have a core of truth.

It is incredible however that Khālīfa, with or without Bābur's concurrence, made the plan attributed to him of placing any man not a Tīmūrid in the position of Pādshāh over all Bābur's territory. I suggest that the plan concerned Hindūstān only and was one considered in connection with Bābur's intended return to Kābul, when he must have left that difficult country, hardly yet a possession, in charge of some man giving promise of power to hold it. Such a man Humāyūn was not. My suggestion rests on the following considerations:—

(1) Bābur's outlook was not that of those in Āgra in 1587 AD. who gave Abū'l-faẓl his Bāburiana material, because at that date Dihlī had become the pivot of Tīmūrid power, so that not to hold Hindūstān would imply not to be Pādshāh. Bābur's outlook on his smaller Hindūstān was different; his position in it was precarious, Kābul, not Dihlī, was his chosen centre, and from Kābul his eyes looked northwards as well as to the East. If he had lost the Hindūstān which was approximately the modern United Provinces, he might still have held what lay west of it to the Indus, as well as Qandahār.

(2) For several years before his death he had wished to return to Kābul. Ample evidence of this wish is given by his diary, his letters, and some poems in his second Dīwān (that found in the Rāmpūr MS.). As he told his sons more than once, he kept Kābul for himself. If, instead of dying in Āgra, he had returned to Kābul, had pushed his way on from Badakhshān, whether as far as Samarkand or less, had given Humāyūn a seat in those parts,—action foreshadowed by the records—a reasonable interpretation of the story that Humāyūn and his brothers were not to govern Hindūstān, is that he had considered with Khalīfa the apportionment of his territories according to the example of his ancestors Chīngīz Khān, Tīmūr and Abū-sa`īd; that by his plan of apportionment Humāyūn was not to have Hindūstān but something Tramontane; Kāmrān had already Qandahār; Sulaimān, if Humāyūn had moved beyond the out-post of Badakhshān, would have replaced him there; and Hindūstān would have gone to "Bābur Pādshāh's dāmād".

(3) Muḥammad-i-zamān had much to recommend him for Hindūstān:—Tīmūrid-born, grandson and heir of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, husband of Ma`ṣūma who was a Tīmūrid by double descent, protected by Bābur after the Bāī-qarā débacle in Herāt, a landless man leading such other exiles as Muḥammad Sulṯān Mīrzā, `Ādil Sulṯān, and Qāsim-i-ḥusain Sulṯān, half-Tīmūrids all, who with their Khurāsānī following, had been Bābur's guests in Kābul, had pressed on its poor resources, and thus had helped in 932 AH. (1525 AD.) to drive him across the Indus. This Bāī-qarā group needed a location; Muḥammad-i-zamān's future had to be cared for and with his, Ma`ṣūma's.

(4) It is significant of intention to give Muḥammad-i-zamān ruling status that in April 1529 AD. (Sha`bān 935 AH.) Bābur bestowed on him royal insignia, including the umbrella-symbol of sovereignty. This was done after the Mīrzā had raised objections, unspecified now in the Bābur-nāma against Bihār; they were overcome, the insignia were given and, though for military reasons he was withheld from taking up that appointment, the recognition of his royal rank had been made. His next appointment was to Jūnpūr, the capital of the fallen Sharqī dynasty. No other chief is mentioned by Bābur as receiving the insignia of royalty.

(5) It appears to have been within a Pādshāh's competence to select his successor; and it may be inferred that choice was made between Humāyūn and another from the wording of more than one writer that Khalīfa "supported" Humāyūn, and from the word "selected" used in Aḥmad-i-yādgār's anecdote. Much more would there be freedom of choice in a division of territory such as there is a good deal to suggest was the basis of Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad's story. Whatever the extent of power proposed for the dāmād, whether, as it is difficult to believe, the Pādshāh's whole supremacy, or whether the limited sovereignty of Hindūstān, it must have been known to Bābur as well as to Khalīfa. Whatever their earlier plan however, it was changed by the sequel of Humāyūn's illness which led to his becoming Pādshāh. The dāmād was dropped, on grounds it is safe to believe more impressive than his threat to flay Khalīfa or than the remonstrance of that high official's subordinate Muqīm of Herāt.

Humāyūn's arrival and continued stay in Hindūstān modified earlier dispositions which included his remaining in Badakhshān. His actions may explain why Bābur, when in 936 AH. he went as far as Lāhor, did not go on to Kābul. Nothing in the sources excludes the surmise that Māhīm knew of the bestowal of royal insignia on the Bāī-qarā Mīrzā, that she summoned her son to Āgra and there kept him, that she would do this the more resolutely if the dāmād of the plan she must have heard of, were that Bāī-qarā, and that but for Humāyūn's presence in Āgra and its attendant difficulties, Bābur would have gone to Kābul, leaving his dāmād in charge of Hindūstān.

Bābur, however, turned back from Lāhor for Āgra, and there he made the self-surrender which, resulting in Humāyūn's "selection" as Pādshāh, became a turning point in history.

Humāyūn's recovery and Bābur's immediate illness will have made the son's life seem Divinely preserved, the father's as a debt to be paid. Bābur's impressive personal experience will have dignified Humāyūn as one whom God willed should live. Such distinction would dictate the bestowal on him of all that fatherly generosity had yet to give. The imminence of death defeating all plans made for life, Humāyūn was nominated to supreme power as Pādshāh.

g. Bābur's death.

Amongst other family matters mentioned by Gul-badan as occurring shortly before her Father's death, was his arrangement of marriages for Gul-rang with Aīsān-tīmūr and for Gul-chihra with Tūkhta-būghā Chaghatāī. She also writes of his anxiety to see Hind-āl who had been sent for from Kābul but did not arrive till the day after the death.

When no remedies availed, Humāyūn was summoned from Saṃbhal. He reached Āgra four days before the death; on the morrow Bābur gathered his chiefs together for the last of many times, addressed them, nominated Humāyūn his successor and bespoke their allegiance for him. Abū'l-faẓl thus summarizes his words, "Lofty counsels and weighty mandates were imparted. Advice was given (to Humāyūn) to be munificent and just, to acquire God's favour, to cherish and protect subjects, to accept apologies from such as had failed in duty, and to pardon transgressors. And, he (Bābur) exclaimed, the cream of my testamentary dispositions is this, 'Do naught against your brothers, even though they may deserve it.' In truth," continues the historian, "it was through obedience to this mandate that his Majesty Jannat-ashiyānī suffered so many injuries from his brothers without avenging himself." Gul-badan's account of her Father's last address is simple:—"He spoke in this wise, 'For years it has been in my heart to make over the throne to Humāyūn and to retire to the Gold-scattering Garden. By the Divine grace I have obtained in health of body everything but the fulfilment of this wish. Now that illness has laid me low, I charge you all to acknowledge Humāyūn in my stead. Fail not in loyalty towards him. Be of one heart and mind towards him. I hope to God that he, for his part, will bear himself well towards men. Moreover, Humāyūn, I commit you and your brothers and all my kinsfolk and your people and my people to God's keeping, and entrust them all to you.'"

It was on Monday Jumāda 1. 5th 937 AH. (Dec. 26th 153O AD.) that Bābur made answer to his summons with the Adsum of the Musalmān, "Lord! I am here for Thee."

"Black fell the day for children and kinsfolk and all," writes his daughter;

"Alas! that time and the changeful heaven should exist without thee; Alas! and Alas! that time should remain and thou shouldst be gone;"

mourns Khwāja Kalān in the funeral ode from which Badāyūnī quoted these lines.

The body was laid in the Garden-of-rest (Ārām-bāgh) which is opposite to where the Tāj-i-maḥāll now stands. Khwāja Muḥammad `Alī `asas was made the guardian of the tomb, and many well-voiced readers and reciters were appointed to conduct the five daily Prayers and to offer supplication for the soul of the dead. The revenues of Sīkrī and 5 laks from Bīāna were set aside for the endowment of the tomb, and Māhīm Begīm, during the two and a half years of her remaining life, sent twice daily from her own estate, an allowance of food towards the support of its attendants.

In accordance with the directions of his will, Bābur's body was to be conveyed to Kābul and there to be laid in the garden of his choice, in a grave open to the sky, with no building over it, no need of a door-keeper.

Precisely when it was removed from Āgra we have not found stated. It is known from Gul-badan that Kāmrān visited his Father's tomb in Āgra in 1539 AD. (946 AH.) after the battle of Chausa; and it is known from Jauhar that the body had been brought to Kābul before 1544 AD. (952 AH.), at which date Humāyūn, in Kābul, spoke with displeasure of Kāmrān's incivility to "Bega Begīm", the "Bībī" who had conveyed their Father's body to that place. That the widow who performed this duty was the Afghān Lady, Bībī Mubārika is made probable by Gul-badan's details of the movements of the royal ladies. Bābur's family left Āgra under Hind-āl's escort, after the defeat at Chausa (June 7th, 1539 AD.); whoever took charge of the body on its journey to Kābul must have returned at some later date to fetch it. It would be in harmony with Sher Shāh's generous character if he safe-guarded her in her task.

The terraced garden Bābur chose for his burial-place lies on the slope of the hill Shāh-i-Kābul, the Sher-darwāza of European writers. It has been described as perhaps the most beautiful of the Kābul gardens, and as looking towards an unsurpassable view over the Chār-dih plain towards the snows of Paghmān and the barren, rocky hills which have been the hunting-grounds of rulers in Kābul. Several of Bābur's descendants coming to Kābul from Āgra have visited and embellished his burial-garden. Shāh-i-jahān built the beautiful mosque which stands near the grave; Jahāngīr seems to have been, if not the author, at least the prompter of the well-cut inscription adorning the upright slab of white marble of Māīdān, which now stands at the grave-head. The tomb-stone itself is a low grave-covering, not less simple than those of relations and kin whose remains have been placed near Bābur's. In the thirties of the last century [the later Sir] Alexander Burnes visited and admirably described the garden and the tomb. With him was Munshī Mohan Lāl who added to his own account of the beauties of the spot, copies of the inscriptions on the monumental slab and on the portal of the Mosque. As is shown by the descriptions these two visitors give, and by Daniel's drawings of the garden and the tomb, there were in their time two upright slabs, one behind the other, near the head of the grave. Mr. H. H. Hayden who visited the garden in the first decade of the present century, shows in his photograph of the grave, one upright stone only, the place of one of the former two having been taken by a white-washed lamp holder (chirāghdān).

The purport of the verses inscribed on the standing-slab is as follows:—

A ruler from whose brow shone the Light of God was that Back-bone of the Faith (ẕahīru'd-dīn) Muḥammad Bābur Pādshāh. Together with majesty, dominion, fortune, rectitude, the open-hand and the firm Faith, he had share in prosperity, abundance and the triumph of victorious arms. He won the material world and became a moving light; for his every conquest he looked, as for Light, towards the world of souls. When Paradise became his dwelling and Ruẓwān asked me the date, I gave him for answer, "Paradise is forever Bābur Pādshāh's abode."

h. Bābur's wives and children.

Bābur himself mentions several of his wives by name, but Gul-badan is the authority for complete lists of them and their children.

1. `Āyisha Sulṯān Begīm, daughter of Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā Mīrān-shāhī was betrothed, when Bābur was cir. 5 years old, in 894 AH. (1488-89 AD.), bore Fakhru'n-nisa' in 906 AH. [who died in about one month], left Bābur before 909 AH. (1503 AD.).

2. Zainab Sl. Begīm, daughter of Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā Mīrān-shāhī, was married in 910 AH. (1504-5 AD.), died childless two or three years later.

3. Māhīm Begīm, whose parentage is not found stated, was married in 912 AH. (1506 AD.), bore Bār-būd, Mihr-jān, Āīsān-daulat, Farūq [who all died in infancy], and Humāyūn.

4. Ma`ṣūma Sl. Begīm, daughter of Sl. Aḥmad Mīrzā Mīrān-shāhī, was married in 913 AH. (1507 AD.), bore Ma`ṣūma and died at her birth, presumably early in the lacuna of 914-925 AH. (1508-19 AD.).

5. Gul-rukh Begīm, whose parentage is not found stated, was perhaps a Begchīk Mughūl, was married between 914 AH. and 925 AH. (1508-19 AD.), probably early in the period, bore Shāh-rukh, Aḥmad [who both died young], Gul`iẕār [who also may have died young], Kamrān and `Askarī.

6. Dil-dār Begīm, whose parentage is not found stated, was married in the same period as Gul-rukh, bore Gul-rang, Gul-chihra, Hind-āl, Gul-badan and Alwar, [who died in childhood].

7. The Afghān Lady (Afghānī Āghācha), Bībī Mubārika Yūsufzāī, was married in 925 AH. (1519 AD.), and died childless.

The two Circassian slaves Gul-nār Āghācha and Nār-gul Āghācha of whom T̤ahmāsp made gift to Bābur in 933 AH. (f. 305), became recognized ladies of the royal household. They are mentioned several times by Gul-badan as taking part in festivities and in family conferences under Humāyūn. Gul-nār is said by Abū'l-faẓl to have been one of Gul-badan's pilgrim band in 983 AH. (1575 AD.).

The above list contains the names of three wives whose parentage is not given or is vaguely given by the well-known sources,—namely, Māhīm, Gul-rukh and Dil-dār. What would sufficiently explain the absence of mention by Bābur of the parentage of Gul-rukh and Dil-dār is that his record of the years within which the two Begīms were married is not now with the Bābur-nāma. Presumably it has been lost, whether in diary or narrative form, in the lacuna of 914-25 AH. (1508-19 AD.). Gul-rukh appears to have belonged to the family of Begchīk Mughūls described by Ḥaidar Mīrzā; her brothers are styled Mīrzā; she was of good but not royal birth. Dil-dār's case is less simple. Nothing in her daughter Gul-badan's book suggests that she and her children were other than of the highest rank; numerous details and shades of expression show their ease of equality with royal personages. It is consistent with Gul-badan's method of enumerating her father's wives that she should not state her own mother's descent; she states it of none of her "mothers". There is this interest in trying to trace Dil-dār's parentage, that she may have been the third daughter of Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā and Pasha Begīm, and a daughter of hers may have been the mother of Salīma Sulṯān Begīm who was given in marriage by Humāyūn to Bairām Khān, later was married by Akbar, and was a woman of charm and literary accomplishments. Later historians, Abū'l-faẓl amongst their number, say that Salīma's mother was a daughter of Bābur's wife Sālḥa Sulṯān Begīm, and vary that daughter's name as Gul-rang-rukh-barg or -`iẕār (the last form being an equivalent of chihra, face). As there cannot have been a wife with her daughter growing up in Bābur's household, who does not appear in some way in Gul-badan's chronicle, and as Salīma's descent from Bābur need not be questioned, the knot is most readily loosened by surmising that "Sālḥa" is the real name of Gul-badan's "Dildār". Instances of double names are frequent, e.g. Māhīm, Māh-chīchām, Qarā-gūz, Āq, (My Moon, My Moon sister, Black-eyed, Fair). "Heart-holding" (Dil-dār) sounds like a home-name of affection. It is the Ma`āsir-ī-raḥīmī which gives Sālḥa as the name of Bābur's wife, Pasha's third daughter. Its author may be wrong, writing so late as he did (1025 AH.-1616 AD.), or may have been unaware that Sālḥa was (if she were) known as Dil-dār. It would not war against seeming facts to take Pasha's third daughter to be Bābur's wife Dil-dār, and Dil-dār's daughter Gul-chihra to be Salīma's mother. Gul-chihra was born in about 1516 AD., married to Tūkhta-būghā in 1530 AD., widowed in cir. 1533 AD., might have remarried with Nūru'd-dīn Chaqānīānī (Sayyid Amīr), and in 945 AH. might have borne him Salīma; she was married in 1547 AD. (954 AH.) to `Abbās Sulṯān Aūzbeg. Two matters, neither having much weight, make against taking Dil-dār to be a Mīrān-shāhī; the first being that the anonymous annotator who added to the archetype of Kehr's Codex what is entered in Appendix L.—On Māhīm's adoption of Hind-āl, styles her Dil-dār Āghācha; he, however, may have known no more than others knew of her descent; the second, that Māhīm forcibly took Dil-dār's child Hind-āl to rear; she was the older wife and the mother of the heir, but could she have taken the upper hand over a Mīrān-shāhī? A circumstance complicating the question of Salīma's maternal descent is, that historians searching the Bābur-nāma or its Persian translation the Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī for information about the three daughters of Maḥmūd Mīrān-shāhī and Pasha Bahārlū Turkmān, would find an incomplete record, one in which the husbands of the first and second daughters are mentioned and nothing is said about the third who was Bābur's wife and the grandmother of Salīma. Bābur himself appears to have left the record as it is, meaning to fill it in later; presumably he waited for the names of the elder two sisters to complete his details of the three. In the Ḥaidarabad Codex, which there is good ground for supposing a copy of his original manuscript, about three lines are left blank (f. 27) as if awaiting information; in most manuscripts, however, this indication of intention is destroyed by running the defective passage on to join the next sentence. Some chance remark of a less well-known writer, may clear up the obscurity and show that Sālḥa was Dil-dār.

Māhīm's case seems one having a different cause for silence about her parentage. When she was married in Herāt, shortly after the death of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā, Bābur had neither wife nor child. What Abū'l-faẓl tells about her is vague; her father's name is not told; she is said to have belonged to a noble Khurāsān family, to have been related (nisbat-i-khwesh) to Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā and to have traced her descent to Shaikh Aḥmad of Jām. If her birth had been high, even though not royal, it is strange that it is not stated by Bābur when he records the birth of her son Humāyūn, incidentally by Gul-badan, or more precisely by Abū'l-faẓl. Her brothers belonged to Khost, and to judge from a considerable number of small records, seem to have been quiet, unwarlike Khwājas. Her marriage took place in a year of which a full record survives; it is one in the composed narrative, not in the diary. In the following year, this also being one included in the composed narrative, Bābur writes of his meeting with Ma`ṣūma Mīrān-shāhī in Herāt, of their mutual attraction, and of their marriage. If the marriage with Humāyūn's mother had been an equal alliance, it would agree with Bābur's custom to mention its occurrence, and to give particulars about Māhīm's descent.

i. Mr. William Erskine's estimate of Bābur.

"Z̤ahīru'd-dīn Muḥammad Bābur was undoubtedly one of the most illustrious men of his age, and one of the most eminent and accomplished princes that ever adorned an Asiatic throne. He is represented as having been above the middle size, of great vigour of body, fond of all field and warlike sports, an excellent swordsman, and a skilful archer. As a proof of his bodily strength, it is mentioned, that he used to leap from one pinnacle to another of the pinnacled ramparts used in the East, in his double-soled boots; and that he even frequently took a man under each arm and went leaping along the rampart from one of the pointed pinnacles to another. Having been early trained to the conduct of business, and tutored in the school of adversity, the powers of his mind received full development. He ascended the throne at the age of twelve, and before he had attained his twentieth year, had shared every variety of fortune; he had not only been the ruler of subject provinces but had been in thraldom to his own ambitious nobles, and obliged to conceal every sentiment of his heart; he had been alternately hailed and obeyed as a conqueror and deliverer by rich and extensive kingdoms, and forced to lurk in the deserts and mountains of Farghāna as a houseless wanderer. Down to the last dregs of life, we perceive in him strong feelings of affection for his early friends and early enjoyments. * * * He had been taught betimes, by the voice of events that cannot lie, that he was a man dependent on the kindness and fidelity of other men; and, in his dangers and escapes with his followers, had learned that he was only one of an association. * * * The native benevolence and gaiety of his disposition seems ever to overflow on all around him; * * * of his companions in arms he speaks with the frank gaiety of a soldier. * * * Ambitious he was and fond of conquest and glory in all its shapes; the enterprise in which he was for a season engaged, seems to have absorbed his whole soul, and all his faculties were exerted to bring it to a fortunate issue. His elastic mind was not broken by discomfiture, and few who have achieved such glorious conquests, have suffered more numerous or more decisive defeats. His personal courage was conspicuous during his whole life. Upon the whole, if we review with impartiality the history of Asia, we find few princes entitled to rank higher than Bābur in genius and accomplishments. * * * In activity of mind, in the gay equanimity and unbroken spirit with which he bore the extremes of good and bad fortune, in the possession of the manly and social virtues, in his love of letters and his success in the cultivation of them, we shall probably find no other Asiatic prince who can justly be placed beside him."

THE END.

APPENDICES.

A.—THE SITE AND DISAPPEARANCE OF OLD AKHSĪ.

Some modern writers, amongst whom are Dr. Schuyler, General Nalivkine and Mr. Pumpelly, have inferred from the Bābur-nāma account of Akhsī, (in its translations?) that the landslip through which Bābur's father died and the disappearance of old Akhsī were brought about by erosion. Seen by the light of modern information, this erosion theory does not seem to cover the whole ground and some other cause seems necessary in explanation of both events.

For convenience of reference, the Bābur-nāma passages required, are quoted here, with their translations.

Ḥai. MS. f. 4b. Saiḥūn daryā-sī qūrghānī astīdīn āqār. Qūrghānī baland jar austīdā wāqī' būlūb tūr. Khandaqī-nīng aūrunīgha `umīq jārlār dūr. `Umar Shaikh M. kīm mūnī pāy-takht qīldī, bīr īkī martaba tāshrāq-dīn yana jarlār sāldī.

Of this the translations are as follows:—

(a) Pers. trans. (I.O. 217, f. 3b): Daryā-i Saiḥūn az pāyhā qila`-i o mīrezad u qila`-i o bar jar balandī wāqi` shuda ba jāy khandaq jarhā-i `umīq uftāda. `U. Sh. M. kah ānrā pāy-takht sākhta, yak du martaba az bīrūn ham bāz jarhā andākht.

(b) Erskine (p. 5, translating from the Persian): 'The river Saiḥūn flows under the walls of the castle. The castle is situated on a high precipice, and the steep ravines around serve instead of a moat. When U. Sh. M. made it his capital he, in one or two instances, scarped the ravines outside the fort.'

(c) De Courteille (i, 8, translating from Ilminsky's imprint, p. 6): 'Le Seihoun coule au pied de la fortresse qui se dresse sur le sommet d'un ravin, dont les profondeurs lui tiennent lieu d'un fossé. `U. Sh. M. à l'époque où il en avait fait son capitale, avait augmenté à une ou deux réprises, les escarpements qui la ceignent naturellement.'

Concerning `Umar Shaikh's death, the words needed are (f. 6b);—

Maẕkūr būlūb aīdī kīm Akhsī qūrghānī buland jar austīdā wāqi` būlūb tūr. `Imāratlār jar yāqāsīdā aīrdī.... Mīrzā jardīn kabūtar u kabūtar-khāna bīla aūchūb shunqār būldī;—'It has been mentioned that the walled-town of Akhsī is situated above ravine(s). The royal dwellings are along a ravine. The Mīrzā, having flown with his pigeons and their house from the ravine, became a falcon (i.e. died).'

A few particulars about Akhsī will shew that, in the translations just quoted, certain small changes of wording are dictated by what, amongst other writers, Kostenko and von Schwarz have written about the oases of Turkistān.

The name Akhsī, as used by Ibn Haukal, Yāqūt and Bābur, describes an oasis township, i.e. a walled-town with its adjacent cultivated lands. In Yāqūt's time Akhsī had a second circumvallation, presumably less for defence than for the protection of crops against wild animals. The oasis was created by the Kāsān-water, upon the riverain loess of the right and higher bank of the Saiḥūn (Sīr), on level ground west of the junction of the Nārīn and the Qarā-daryā, west too of spurs from the northern hills which now abut upon the river. Yāqūt locates it in the 12th century, at one farsākh (circa 4 m.) north of the river. Depending as it did solely on the Kāsān-water, nothing dictated its location close to the Sīr, along which there is now, and there seems to have been in the 12th century, a strip of waste land. Bābur says of Akhsī what Kostenko says (i, 321) of modern Tāshkīnt, that it stood above ravines (jarlār). These were natural or artificial channels of the Kāsān-water.

To turn now to the translations;—Mr. Erskine imaged Akhsī as a castle, high on a precipice in process of erosion by the Sīr. But Bābur's word, qūrghān means the walled-town; his word for a castle is ark, citadel; and his jar, a cleft, is not rendered by 'precipice.' Again;—it is no more necessary to understand that the Sīr flowed close to the walls than it is to understand, when one says the Thames flows past below Richmond, that it washes the houses on the hill.

The key to the difficulties in the Turkī passage is provided by a special use of the word jar for not only natural ravines but artificial water-cuts for irrigation. This use of it makes clear that what `Umar Shaikh did at Akhsī was not to make escarpments but to cut new water-channels. Presumably he joined those 'further out' on the deltaic fan, on the east and west of the town, so as to secure a continuous defensive cleft round the town or it may be, in order to bring it more water.

Concerning the historic pigeon-house (f. 6b), it can be said safely that it did not fall into the Sīr; it fell from a jar, and in this part of its course, the river flows in a broad bed, with a low left bank. Moreover the Mīrzā's residence was in the walled-town (f. 110b) and there his son stayed 9 years after the accident. The slip did not affect the safety of the residence therefore; it may have been local to the birds' house. It will have been due to some ordinary circumstance since no cause for it is mentioned by Bābur, Ḥaidar or Abū'l-faẓl. If it had marked the crisis of the Sīr's approach, Akhsī could hardly have been described, 25 years later, as a strong fort.

Something is known of Akhsī, in the 10th, the 12th, the 15th and the 19th centuries, which testifies to sæcular decadence. Ibn Haukal and Yāqūt give the township an extent of 3 farsākh (12 miles), which may mean from one side to an opposite one. Yāqūt's description of it mentions four gates, each opening into well-watered lands extending a whole farsākh, in other words it had a ring of garden-suburb four miles wide.

Two meanings have been given to Bābur's words indicating the status of the oasis in the 15th century. They are, maḥallātī qūrghān-dīn bīr shar`ī yurāqrāq tūshūb tūr. They have been understood as saying that the suburbs were two miles from their urbs. This may be right but I hesitate to accept it without pointing out that the words may mean, 'Its suburbs extend two miles farther than the walled-town.' Whichever verbal reading is correct, reveals a decayed oasis.

In the 19th century, Nalivkine and Ujfalvy describe the place then bearing the name Akhsī, as a small village, a mere winter-station, at some distance from the river's bank, that bank then protected from denudation by a sand-bank.

Three distinctly-marked stages of decadence in the oasis township are thus indicated by Yāqūt, Bābur and the two modern travellers.

It is necessary to say something further about the position of the suburbs in the 15th century. Bābur quotes as especially suitable to Akhsī, the proverbial questions, 'Where is the village?' (qy. Akhsī-kīnt.) 'Where are the trees?' and these might be asked by some-one in the suburbs unable to see Akhsī or vice versâ. But granting that there were no suburbs within two miles of the town, why had the whole inner circle, two miles of Yāqūt's four, gone out of cultivation? Erosion would have affected only land between the river and the town.

Again;—if the Sīr only were working in the 15th century to destroy a town standing on the Kāsān-water, how is it that this stream does not yet reach the Sīr?

Various ingatherings of information create the impression that failure of Kāsān-water has been the dominant factor in the loss of the Akhsī township. Such failure might be due to the general desiccation of Central Asia and also to increase of cultivation in the Kāsān-valley itself. There may have been erosion, and social and military change may have had its part, but for the loss of the oasis lands and for, as a sequel, the decay of the town, desiccation seems a sufficient cause.

The Kāsān-water still supports an oasis on its riverain slope, the large Aūzbeg town of Tūpa-qūrghān (Town-of-the-hill), from the modern castle of which a superb view is had up the Kāsān-valley, now thickly studded with villages.

B.—THE BIRDS, QĪL QŪYIRŪGH AND BĀGHRĪ QARĀ.

Describing a small bird (qūsh-qīna), abundant in the Qarshī district (f. 49b), Bābur names it the qīl-qūyirūgh, horse-tail, and says it resembles the bāghrī qarā.

Later on he writes (f. 280) that the bāghrī qarā of India is smaller and more slender than 'those' i.e. of Transoxiana (f. 49b, n. 1), the blackness of its breast less deep, and its cry less piercing.

We have had difficulty in identifying the birds but at length conclude that the bāghrī qarā of Transoxiana is Pterocles arenarius, Pallas's black-bellied sand-grouse and that the Indian one is a smaller sand-grouse, perhaps a Syrrhaptes. As the qīl qūyirūgh resembles the other two, it may be a yet smaller Syrrhaptes.

Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ, writing of sport Shaibāq Khān had in Qarshī (Shaibānī-nāma, Vambéry, p. 192) mentions the 'Little bird (murghak) of Qarshī,' as on all sides making lament. The Sang-lākh gives its Persian name as khar-pala, ass-hair, says it flies in large flocks and resembles the bāghrī qarā. Of the latter he writes as abundant in the open country and as making noise (bāghīr).

The Sang-lākh (f. 119) gives the earliest and most informing account we have found of the bāghrī qarā. Its says the bird is larger than a pigeon, marked with various colours, yellow especially, black-breasted and a dweller in the stony and waterless desert. These details are followed by a quotation from `Alī-sher Nawā'ī, in which he likens his own heart to that of the bird of the desert, presumably referring to the gloom of the bird's plumage. Three synonyms are then given; Ar. qiṯā, one due to its cry (Meninsky); Pers. sang-shikan, stone-eating, (Steingass, sang-khwāra, stone-eating); and Turkī bāghīr-tīlāq which refers, I think, to its cry.

Morier (Ḥājī Bābā) in his Second journey through Persia (Lond. 1818, p. 181), mentions that a bird he calls the black-breasted partridge, (i.e. Francolinus vulgaris) is known in Turkish as bokara kara and in Persian as siyāh-sīna, both names, (he says), meaning black-breast; that it has a horse-shoe of black feathers round the forepart of the trunk, more strongly marked in the female than in the male; that they fly in flocks of which he saw immense numbers near Tabrīz (p. 283), have a soft note, inhabit the plains, and, once settled, do not run. Cock and hen alike have a small spur,—a characteristic, it may be said, identifying rather with Francolinus vulgaris than with Pterocles arenarius. Against this identification, however, is Mr. Blandford's statement that siyāh-sīna (Morier's bokara kara) is Pterocles arenarius (Report of the Persian Boundary Commission, ii, 271).

In Afghānistān and Bikanir, the sand-grouse is called tūtūrak and boora kurra (Jerdon, ii, 498). Scully explains baghītāq as Pterocles arenarius.

Perhaps I may mention something making me doubt whether it is correct to translate bāghrī qarā by black-liver and gorge-noir or other names in which the same meaning is expressed. To translate thus, is to understand a Turkī noun and adjective in Persian construction, and to make exception to the rule, amply exemplified in lists of birds, that Turkī names of birds are commonly in Turkī construction, e.g. qarā bāsh (black-head), āq-bāsh (white-head), sārīgh-sūndūk (yellow-headed wagtail). Bāghīr may refer to the cry of the bird. We learn from Mr. Ogilvie Grant that the Mongol name for the sand-grouse njūpterjūn, is derived from its cry in flight, truck, truck, and its Arabic name qiṯā is said by Meninsky to be derived from its cry kaetha, kaetha. Though the dissimilarity of the two cries is against taking the njūpterjūn and the qiṯā to be of one class of sand-grouse, the significance of the derivation of the names remains, and shows that there are examples in support of thinking that when a sand-grouse is known as bāghrī qarā, it may be so known because of its cry (bāghir).

The word qarā finds suggestive interpretation in a B. N. phrase (f. 72b) Taṃbal-nīng qarā-sī, Taṃbal's blackness, i.e. the dark mass of his moving men, seen at a distance. It is used also for an indefinite number, e.g. 'family, servants, retainers, followers, qarā,' and I think it may imply a massed flock.

Bābur's words (f. 280) bāghrī-nīng qarā-sī ham kam dūr, [its belly (lit. liver) also is less black], do not necessarily contradict the view that the word bāghrī in the bird's name means crying. The root bāgh has many and pliable derivatives; I suspect both Bābur (here) and Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ (l. c.) of ringing changes on words.

We are indebted for kind reply to our questions to Mr. Douglas Carruthers, Mr. Ogilvie Grant and to our friend, Mr. R. S. Whiteway.

C.—ON THE GOSHA-GĪR.

I am indebted to my husband's examination of two Persian MSS. on archery for an explanation of the word gosha-gīr, in its technical sense in archery. The works consulted are the Cyclopædia of Archery (Kulliyatu'r-rāmī I. O. 2771) and the Archer's Guide (Hidāyatu'r-rāmī I. O. 2768).

It should be premised that in archery, the word gosha describes, in the arrow, the notch by which it grips and can be carried on the string, and, in the bow, both the tip (horn) and the notch near the tip in which the string catches. It is explained by Vullers as cornu et crena arcûs cui immititur nervus.

Two passages in the Cyclopædia of Archery (f. 9 and f. 36b) shew gosha as the bow-tip. One says that to bend the bow, two men must grasp the two gosha; the other reports a tradition that the Archangel Gabriel brought a bow having its two gosha (tips) made of ruby. The same book directs that the gosha be made of seasoned ivory, the Archer's Guide prescribing seasoned mulberry wood.

The C. of A. (f. 125b) says that a bowman should never be without two things, his arrows and his gosha-gīr. The gosha-gīr may be called an item of the repairing kit; it is an implement (f. 53) for making good a warped bow-tip and for holding the string into a displaced notch. It is known also as the chaprās, brooch or buckle, and the kardāng; and is said to bear these names because it fastens in the string. Its shape is that of the upper part of the Ar. letter jīm, two converging lines of which the lower curves slightly outward. It serves to make good a warped bow, without the use of fire and it should be kept upon the bow-tip till this has reverted to its original state. Until the warp has been straightened by the gosha-gīr, the bow must be kept from the action of fire because it, (composite of sinew and glutinous substance,) is of the nature of wax.

The same implement can be used to straighten the middle of the bow, the kamān khāna. It is then called kar-dāng. It can be used there on condition that there are not two daur (curves) in the bow. If there are two the bow cannot be repaired without fire. The halāl daur is said to be characteristic of the Turkish bow. There are three daur. I am indebted to Mr. Inigo Simon for the suggestions that daur in this connection means warp and that the three twists (daur) may be those of one horn (gosha), of the whole bow warped in one curve, and of the two horns warped in opposite directions.

Of repair to the kamān-khāna it is said further that if no kardāng be available, its work can be done by means of a stick and string, and if the damage be slight only, the bow and the string can be tightly tied together till the bow comes straight. 'And the cure is with God!'

Both manuscripts named contain much technical information. Some parts of this are included in my husband's article, Oriental Crossbows (A. Q. R. 1911, p. 1). Sir Ralph Payne-Gallwey's interesting book on the Cross-bow allows insight into the fine handicraft of Turkish bow-making.

D.—ON THE RESCUE PASSAGE.

I have omitted from my translation an account of Bābur's rescue from expected death, although it is with the Ḥaidarābād Codex, because closer acquaintance with its details has led both my husband and myself to judge it spurious. We had welcomed it because, being with the true Bābur-nāma text, it accredited the same account found in the Kehr-Ilminsky text, and also because, however inefficiently, it did something towards filling the gap found elsewhere within 908 AH.

It is in the Ḥaidarābād MS. (f. 118b), in Kehr's MS. (p. 385), in Ilminsky's imprint (p. 144), in Les Mémoires de Bābour (i, 255) and with the St. P. University Codex, which is a copy of Kehr's.

On the other hand, it is not with the Elphinstone Codex (f. 89b); that it was not with the archetype of that codex the scribe's note shews (f. 90); it is with neither of the Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī (Pers. translations) nor with Leyden and Erskine's Memoirs (p. 122).

Before giving our grounds for rejecting what has been offered to fill the gap of 908 AH. a few words must be said about the lacuna itself. Nothing indicates that Bābur left it and, since both in the Elphinstone Codex and its archetype, the sentence preceding it lacks the terminal verb, it seems due merely to loss of pages. That the loss, if any, was of early date is clear,—the Elph. MS. itself being copied not later than 1567 AD. (JRAS. 1907, p. 137).

Two known circumstances, both of earlier date than that of the Elphinstone Codex, might have led to the loss,—the first is the storm which in 935 AH. scattered Bābur's papers (f. 376b), the second, the vicissitudes to which Humāyūn's library was exposed in his exile. Of the two the first seems the more probable cause.

The rupture of a story at a point so critical as that of Bābur's danger in Karnān would tempt to its completion; so too would wish to make good the composed part of the Bābur-nāma. Humāyūn annotated the archetype of the Elphinstone Codex a good deal but he cannot have written the Rescue passage if only because he was in a position to avoid some of its inaccuracies.

CONTEXT AND TRANSLATION OF THE RESCUE PASSAGE.

To facilitate reference, I quote the last words preceding the gap purported to be filled by the Rescue passage, from several texts;—

(a) Elphinstone MS. f. 89b,—Qūptūm. Bāgh gosha-sī-gha bārdīm. Aūzūm bīla andesha qīldīm. Dīdīm kīm kīshī agar yūz u agar mīng yāshāsā, ākhir hech....

(b) The Ḥai. MS. (f. 118b) varies from the Elphinstone by omitting the word hech and adding aūlmāk kīrāk, he must die.

(c) Pāyanda-ḥasan's Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī (I. O. 215, f. 96b),—Barkhwāstam u dar gosha-i bāgh raftam. Ba khūd andesha karda, guftam kah agar kase ṣad sāl yā hazār sāl `umr dāshta bāshad, ākhir hech ast. (It will be seen that this text has the hech of the Elph. MS.)

(d) `Abdu'r-raḥīm's Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī (I. O. 217, f. 79),—Barkhwāstam u ba gosha-i-bāgh raftam. Ba khūd andeshīdam u guftam kah agar kase ṣad sāl u agar hazār sāl `umr bayābad ākhir....

(e) Muḥ. Shīrāzī's lith. ed. (p. 75) finishes the sentence with ākhir khūd bāyad murd, at last one must die,—varying as it frequently does, from both of the Wāqi`āt.

(f) Kehr's MS. (p. 383-454), Ilminsky, p. 144,—Qūpūb bāghnīng bīr būrjī-ghā bārīb, khāṯirīm-ghā kīltūrdīm kīm agar adam yūz yīl u agar mīng yīl tīrīk būlsā, ākhir aūlmāk dīn aūzkā chāra yūq tūr. (I rose. Having gone to a tower of the garden, I brought it to my mind that if a person be alive 100 years or a thousand years, at last he has no help other than to die.)

The Rescue passage is introduced by a Persian couplet, identified by my husband as from Niẕāmī's Khusrau u Shīrīn, which is as follows;—

If you stay a hundred years, and if one year, Forth you must go from this heart-delighting palace.

I steadied myself for death (qarār bīrdīm). In that garden a stream came flowing; I made ablution; I recited the prayer of two inclinations (ra`kat); having raised my head for silent prayer, I was making earnest petition when my eyes closed in sleep. I am seeing that Khwāja Yaq`ūb, the son of Khwāja Yaḥyā and grandson of His Highness Khwāja `Ubaidu'l-lāh, came facing me, mounted on a piebald horse, with a large company of piebald horsemen (sic). He said: 'Lay sorrow aside! Khwāja Aḥrār (i.e. `Ubaidu'l-lāh) has sent me to you; he said, "We, having asked help for him (i.e. Bābur), will seat him on the royal throne; wherever difficulty befalls him, let him look towards us (lit. bring us to sight) and call us to mind; there will we be present." Now, in this hour, victory and success are on your side; lift up your head! awake!'

At that time I awoke happy, when Yūsuf and those with him were giving one another advice. 'We will make a pretext to deceive; to seize and bind is necessary.' Hearing these words, I said, 'Your words are of this sort, but I will see which of you will come to my presence to take me.' I was saying this when outside the garden wall came the noise of approaching horsemen. Yūsuf darogha said, 'If we had taken you to Taṃbal our affairs would have gone forward. Now he has sent again many persons to seize you.' He was certain that this noise might be the footfall of the horses of those sent by Taṃbal. On hearing those words anxiety grew upon me; what to do I did not know. At this time those horsemen, not happening to find the garden gate, broke down the wall where it was old (and) came in. I saw (kūrsām, lit. might see) that Qutluq Muḥ. Barlās and Bābā-i Pargharī, my life-devoted servants, having arrived , it may be, ten, fifteen, twenty persons, were approaching. Having flung themselves from their horses, bent the knee from afar and showed respect, they fell at my feet. In that state (ḥal) such ecstasy (ḥāl) came over me that you might say (goyā) God gave me life from a new source (bāsh). I said, 'Seize and bind that Yūsuf darogha and these here (tūrghān) hireling mannikins.' These same mannikins had taken to flight. They (i.e. the rescuers), having taken them, one by one, here and there, brought them bound. I said, 'Where do you come from? How did you get news?' Qutluq Muḥ. Barlās said: 'When, having fled from Akhsī, we were separated from you in the flight, we went to Andijān when the Khāns also came to Andijān. I saw a vision that Khwāja `Ubaidu'l-lāh said, "Bābur pādshāh is in a village called Karnān; go and bring him, since the royal seat (masnad) has become his possession (ta`alluq)." I having seen this vision and become happy, represented (the matter) to the Elder Khān (and) the Younger Khān. I said to the Khāns, "I have five or six younger brothers (and) sons; do you add a few soldiers. I will go through the Karnān side and bring news." The Khāns said, "It occurs to our minds also that (he) may have gone that same road (?)." They appointed ten persons; they said, "Having gone in that direction (sārī) and made very sure, bring news. Would to God you might get true news!" We were saying this when Bābā-i Parghārī said, "I too will go and seek." He also having agreed with two young men, (his) younger brothers, we rode out. It is three days to-day that we are on the road. Thank God! we have found you.' They said (dīdīlār, for dīb). They spoke (aītīlār), 'Make a move! Ride off! Take these bound ones with you! To stay here is not well; Taṃbal has had news of your coming here; go, in whatever way, and join yourself to the Khāns!' At that time we having ridden out, moved towards Andijān. It was two days that we had eaten no food; the evening prayer had come when we found a sheep, went on, dismounted, killed, and roasted. Of that same roast we ate as much as a feast. After that we rode on, hurried forward, made a five days' journey in a day and two nights, came and entered Andijān. I saluted my uncle the Elder Khān (and) my uncle the Younger Khān, and made recital of past days. With the Khāns I spent four months. My servants, who had gone looking in every place, gathered themselves together; there were more than 300 persons. It came to my mind (kīm), 'How long must I wander, a vagabond (sar-gardān), in this Farghāna country? I will make search (ṯalab) on every side (dīb).' Having said, I rode out in the month of Muḥarram to seek Khurāsān, and I went out from the country of Farghāna.

REASONS AGAINST THE REJECTION OF THE RESCUE PASSAGE.

Two circumstances have weight against rejecting the passage, its presence with the Ḥaidarābād Codex and its acceptance by Dr. Ilminsky and M. de Courteille.

That it is with the Codex is a matter needing consideration and this the more that it is the only extra matter there found. Not being with the Persian translations, it cannot be of early date. It seems likely to owe its place of honour to distinguished authorship and may well be one of the four portions (juzwe) mentioned by Jahāngīr in the Tuzūk-i-jahāngīrī, as added by himself to his ancestor's book. If so, it may be mentioned, it will have been with Bābur's autograph MS. [now not to be found], from which the Ḥaidarābād Codex shews signs of being a direct copy.

On linguistic grounds it is a strong argument in its favour that Dr. Ilminsky and M. de Courteille should have accepted it but the argument loses weight when some of the circumstances of their work are taken into account.

In the first place, it is not strictly accurate to regard Dr. Ilminsky as accepting it unquestioned, because it is covered by his depreciatory remarks, made in his preface, on Kehr's text. He, like M. de Courteille, worked with a single Turkī MS. and neither of the two ever saw a complete true text. When their source (the Kehr-Ilminsky) was able to be collated with the Elph. and Ḥai. MSS. much and singular divergence was discovered.

I venture to suggest what appears to me to explain M. de Courteille's acceptance of the Rescue passage. Down to its insertion, the Kehr-Ilminsky text is so continuously and so curiously corrupt that it seems necessary to regard it as being a re-translation into Turkī from one of the Persian translations of the Bābur-nāma. There being these textual defects in it, it would create on the mind of a reader initiated through it, only, in the book, an incorrect impression of Bābur's style and vocabulary, and such a reader would feel no transition when passing on from it to the Rescue passage.

In opposition to this explanation, it might be said that a wrong standard set up by the corrupt text, would or could be changed by the excellence of later parts of the Kehr-Ilminsky one. In words, this is sound, no doubt, and such reflex criticism is now easy, but more than the one defective MS. was wanted even to suggest the need of such reflex criticism. The Bābur-nāma is lengthy, ponderous to poise and grasp, and work on it is still tentative, even with the literary gains since the Seventies.

Few of the grounds which weigh with us for the rejection of the Rescue passage were known to Dr. Ilminsky or M. de Courteille;—the two good Codices bring each its own and varied help; Teufel's critique on the 'Fragments,' though made without acquaintance with those adjuncts as they stand in Kehr's own volume, is of much collateral value; several useful oriental histories seem not to have been available for M. de Courteille's use. I may add, for my own part, that I have the great advantage of my husband's companionship and the guidance of his wide acquaintance with related oriental books. In truth, looking at the drawbacks now removed, an earlier acceptance of the passage appears as natural as does today's rejection.

GROUNDS FOR REJECTING THE RESCUE PASSAGE.

The grounds for rejecting the passage need here little more than recapitulation from my husband's article in the JASB. 1910, p. 221, and are as follows;—

i. The passage is in neither of the Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī.

ii. The dreams detailed are too à propos and marvellous for credence.

iii. Khwāja Yaḥyā is not known to have had a son, named Ya`qūb.

iv. The Bābur-nāma does not contain the names assigned to the rescuers.

v. The Khāns were not in Andijān and Bābur did not go there.

vi. He did not set out for Khurāsān after spending 4 months with The Khāns but after Aḥmad's death (end of 909 AH.), while Maḥmud was still in Eastern Turkistān and after about a year's stay in Sūkh.

vii. The followers who gathered to him were not 'more than 300' but between 2 and 300.

viii. The '3 days,' and the 'day and two nights,' and the '5 days' journey was one of some 70 miles, and one recorded as made in far less time.

ix. The passage is singularly inadequate to fill a gap of 14 to 16 months, during which events of the first importance occurred to Bābur and to the Chaghatāī dynasty.

x. Khwāja Aḥrārī's promises did nothing to fulfil Bābur's wishes for 908 AH. while those of Ya`qūb for immediate victory were closely followed by defeat and exile. Bābur knew the facts; the passage cannot be his. It looks as though the writer saw Bābur in Karnān across Tīmūrid success in Hindūstān.

xi. The style and wording of the passage are not in harmony with those of the true text.

Other reasons for rejection are marked change in choice of the details chosen for commemoration, e.g. when Bābur mentions prayer, he does so simply; when he tells a dream, it seems a real one. The passage leaves the impression that the writer did not think in Turkī, composed in it with difficulty, and looked at life from another view-point than Bābur's.

On these various grounds, we have come to the conclusion that it is no part of the Bābur-nāma.

E.—NAGARAHĀR, AND NĪNG-NAHĀR

Those who consult books and maps about the riverain tract between the Safed-koh (Spīn-ghur) and (Anglicé) the Kābul-river find its name in several forms, the most common being Nangrahār and Nangnahār (with variant vowels). It would be useful to establish a European book-name for the district. As European opinion differs about the origin and meaning of the names now in use, and as a good deal of interesting circumstance gathers round the small problem of a correct form (there may be two), I offer about the matter what has come into the restricted field of my own work, premising that I do this merely as one who drops a casual pebble on the cairn of observation already long rising for scholarly examination.

a. The origin and meaning of the names.

I have met with three opinions about the origin and meaning of the names found now and earlier. To each one of them obvious objection can be made. They are:—

1. That all forms now in use are corruptions of the Sanscrit word Nagarahāra, the name of the Town-of-towns which in the dū-āb of the Bārān-sū and Sūrkh-rūd left the ruins Masson describes in Wilson's Ariana Antigua. But if this is so, why is the Town-of-towns multiplied into the nine of Na-nagrahār (Nangrahār)?

2. That the names found represent Sanscrit nawā vihāra, nine monasteries, an opinion the Gazetteer of India of 1907 has adopted from Bellew. But why precisely nine monasteries? Nine appears an understatement.

3. That Nang (Ning or Nung) -nahār verbally means nine streams, (Bābur's Tūqūz-rūd,) an interpretation of long standing (Section b infra). But whence nang, ning, nung, for nine? Such forms are not in Persian, Turkī or Pushtu dictionaries, and, as Sir G. A. Grierson assures me, do not come into the Linguistic Survey.

b. On nang, ning, nung for nine.

Spite of their absence from the natural homes of words, however, the above sounds have been heard and recorded as symbols of the number nine by careful men through a long space of time.

The following instances of the use of "Nangnahār" show this, and also show that behind the variant forms there may be not a single word but two of distinct origin and sense.

1. In Chinese annals two names appear as those of the district and town (I am not able to allocate their application with certainty). The first is Na-kie-lo-ho-lo, the second Nang-g-lo-ho-lo and these, I understand to represent Nagara-hāra and Nang-nahār, due allowance being made for Chinese idiosyncrasy.

2. Some 900 years later (1527-30 AD.) Bābur also gives two names, Nagarahār (as the book-name of his tūmān) and Nīng-nahār. He says the first is found in several histories (B.N. f. 131b); the second will have been what he heard and also presumably what appeared in revenue accounts; of it he says, "it is nine torrents" (tūqūz-rūd).

3. Some 300 years after Bābur, Elphinstone gives two names for the district, neither of them being Bābur's book-name, "Nangrahaur or Nungnahaur, from the nine streams which issue from the Safed-koh, nung in Pushtoo signifying nine, and nahaura, a stream" (Caubul, i, 160).

4. In 1881 Colonel H. S. Tanner had heard, in Nūr-valley on the north side of the Kābul-water, that the name of the opposite district was Nīng-nahār and its meaning Nine-streams. He did not get a list of the nine and all he heard named do not flow from Safed-koh.

5. In 1884 Colonel H. G. McGregor gives two names with their explanation, "Ningrahar and Nungnihar; the former is a corruption of the latter word which in the Afghān language signifies nine rivers or rivulets." He names nine, but of them six only issue from Safed-koh.

6. I have come across the following instances in which the number nine is represented by other words than na (ni or nu); viz. the nenhan of the Chitrālī Kāfir and the noun of the Panjābi, recorded by Leech,—the nyon of the Khowārī and the huncha of the Boorishki, recorded by Colonel Biddulph.

The above instances allow opinion that in the region concerned and through a long period of time, nine has been expressed by nang (ning or nung) and other nasal or high palatal sounds, side by side with na (ni or nu). The whole matter may be one of nasal utterance, but since a large number of tribesmen express nine by a word containing a nasal sound, should that word not find place in lists of recognized symbols of sounds?

c. Are there two names of distinct origin?

1. Certainly it makes a well-connected story of decay in the Sanscrit word Nagarahāra to suppose that tribesmen, prone by their organism to nasal utterance, pronounced that word Nangrahār, and by force of their numbers made this corruption current,—that this was recognized as the name of the town while the Town-of-towns was great or in men's memory, and that when through the decay of the town its name became a meaningless husk, the wrong meaning of the Nine-streams should enter into possession.

But as another and better one can be put together, this fair-seeming story may be baseless. Its substitute has the advantage of explaining the double sequence of names shown in Section b.

The second story makes all the variant names represent one or other of two distinct originals. It leaves Nagrahār to represent Nagarahāra, the dead town; it makes the nine torrents of Safed-koh the primeval sponsors of Nīng-nahār, the name of the riverain tract. Both names, it makes contemporary in the relatively brief interlude of the life of the town. For the fertilizing streams will have been the dominant factors of settlement and of revenue from the earliest times of population and government. They arrest the eye where they and their ribbons of cultivation space the riverain waste; they are obvious units for grouping into a sub-government. Their name has a counterpart in adjacent Panj-āb; the two may have been given by one dominant power, how long ago, in what tongue matters not. The riverain tract, by virtue of its place on a highway of transit, must have been inhabited long before the town Nagarahāra was built, and must have been known by a name. What better one than Nine-streams can be thought of?

2. Bellew is quoted by the Gazetteer of India (ed. 1907) as saying, in his argument in favour of nawā vihāra, that no nine streams are found to stand sponsor, but modern maps shew nine outflows from Safed-koh to the Kābul-river between the Sūrkh-rūd and Daka, while if affluents to the former stream be reckoned, more than nine issue from the range.

Against Bellew's view that there are not nine streams, is the long persistence of the number nine in the popular name (Sect. b).

It is also against his view that he supposes there were nine monasteries, because each of the nine must have had its fertilizing water.

Bābur says there were nine; there must have been nine of significance; he knew his tūmān not only by frequent transit but by his revenue accounts. A supporting point in those accounts is likely to have been that the individual names of the villages on the nine streams would appear, with each its payment of revenue.

3. In this also is some weight of circumstance against taking Nagarahāra to be the parent of Nīng-nahār:—An earlier name of the town is said to be Udyānapūra, Garden town. Of this Bābur's Adīnapūr is held to be a corruption; the same meaning of garden has survived on approximately the same ground in Bālā-bāgh and Roẓābād.

Nagarahāra is seen, therefore, to be a parenthetical name between others which are all derived from gardens. It may shew the promotion of a "Garden-town" to a "Chief-town". If it did this, there was relapse of name when the Chief-town lost status. Was it ever applied beyond the delta? If it were, would it, when dead in the delta, persist along the riverain tract? If it were not, cadit quæstio; the suggestion of two names distinct in origin, is upheld.

Certainly the riverain tract would fall naturally under the government of any town flourishing in the delta, the richest and most populous part of the region. But for this very reason it must have had a name older than parenthetical Nagarahāra. That inevitable name would be appropriately Nīng-nahār (or Na-nahār) Nine-streams; and for a period Nagarahāra would be the Chief-town of the district of Na-nahār (Nine-streams).

d. Bābur's statements about the name.

What the cautious Bābur says of his tūmān of Nīng-nahār has weight:—

1. That some histories write it Nagarahār (Ḥaidarābād Codex, f. 131b);

2. That Nīng-nahār is nine torrents, i.e. mountain streams, tūquz-rud;

3. That (the) nine torrents issue from Safed-koh (f. 132b).

Of his first statement can be said, that he will have seen the book-name in histories he read, but will have heard Nīng-nahār, probably also have seen it in current letters and accounts.

Of his second,—that it bears and may be meant to bear two senses, (a) that the tūmān consisted of nine torrents,—their lands implied; just as he says "Asfara is four būlūks" (sub-divisions f. 3b)—(b) that tūqūz rūd translates nīng-nahār.

Of his third,—that in English its sense varies as it is read with or without the definite article Turkī rarely writes, but that either sense helps out his first and second, to mean that verbally and by its constituent units Nīng-nahār is nine-torrents; as verbally and by its constituents Panj-āb is five-waters.

e. Last words.

Detailed work on the Kābul section of the Bābur-nāma has stamped two impressions so deeply on me, that they claim mention, not as novel or as special to myself, but as set by the work.

The first is of extreme risk in swift decision on any problem of words arising in North Afghānistān, because of its local concourse of tongues, the varied utterance of its unlettered tribes resident or nomad, and the frequent translation of proper names in obedience to their verbal meanings. Names lie there too in strata, relics of successive occupation—Greek, Turkī, Hindī, Pushtū and tribes galore.

The second is that the region is an exceptionally fruitful field for first-hand observation of speech, the movent ocean of the uttered word, free of the desiccated symbolism of alphabets and books.

The following books, amongst others, have prompted the above note:—

Ghoswāra Inscription, Kittoe, JASB., 1848, and Kielhorn, Indian Antiquary, 1888, p. 311.

H. Sastrī's Rāmacārita, Introduction, p. 7 (ASB. Memoirs).

Cunningham's Ancient India, vol. i.

Beal's Buddhist Records, i, xxxiv, and cii, 91.

Leech's Vocabularies, JASB., 1838.

The writings of Masson (Travels and Ariana Antiqua), Wood, Vigne, etc.

Raverty's T̤abaqāt-i-nāsirī.

Jarrett's Āyīn-i-akbarī.

P.R.G.S. for maps, 1879; Macnair on the Kafirs, 1884; Tanner's On the Chugānī and neighbouring tribes of Kāfiristān, 1881.

Simpson's Nagarahāra, JASB., xiii.

Biddulph's Dialects of the Hindū-kush, JRAS.

Gazette of India, 1907, art. Jalalābād.

Bellew's Races of Afghānistān.

F.—ON THE NAME DARA-I-NŪR

Some European writers have understood the name Dara-i-nūr to mean Valley of Light, but natural features and also the artificial one mentioned by Colonel H. G. Tanner (infra), make it better to read the component nūr, not as Persian nūr, light, but as Pushtū nūr, rock. Hence it translates as Valley of Rocks, or Rock-valley. The region in which the valley lies is rocky and boulder-strewn; its own waters flow to the Kābul-river east of the water of Chitrāl. It shews other names composed with nūr, in which nūr suits if it means rock, but is inexplicable if it means light, e.g. Nūr-lām (Nūr-fort), the master-fort in the mouth of Nūr-valley, standing high on a rock between two streams, as Bābur and Tanner have both described it from eye-witness,—Nūr-gal (village), a little to the north-west of the valley,—Aūlūgh-nūr (great rock), at a crossing mentioned by Bābur, higher up the Bārān-water,—and Koh-i-nūr (Rocky-mountains), which there is ground for taking as the correct form of the familiar "Kunar" of some European writers (Raverty's Notes, p. 106). The dominant feature in these places dictates reading nūr as rock; so too the work done in Nūr-valley with boulders, of which Colonel H. G. Tanner's interesting account is subjoined (P.R.G.S. 1881, p. 284).

"Some 10 miles from the source of the main stream of the Nur-valley the Dameneh stream enters, but the waters of the two never meet; they flow side by side about three-quarters of a mile apart for about 12 miles and empty themselves into the Kunar river by different mouths, each torrent hugging closely the foot of the hills at its own side of the valley. Now, except in countries where terracing has been practised continuously for thousands of years, such unnatural topography as exists in the valley of Nur is next to impossible. The forces which were sufficient to scoop out the valley in the first instance, would have kept a water-way at the lowest part, into which would have poured the drainage of the surrounding mountains; but in the Nur-valley long-continued terracing has gradually raised the centre of the valley high above the edges. The population has increased to its maximum limit and every available inch of ground is required for cultivation; the people, by means of terrace-walls built of ponderous boulders in the bed of the original single stream, have little by little pushed the waters out of their true course, until they run, where now found, in deep rocky cuttings at the foot of the hills on either side" (p. 280).

"I should like to go on and say a good deal more about boulders; and while I am about it I may as well mention one that lies back from a hamlet in Shulut, which is so big that a house is built in a fault or crack running across its face. Another pebble lies athwart the village and covers the whole of the houses from that side."

G.—ON THE NAMES OF TWO DARA-I-NŪR WINES.

From the two names, Arat-tāshī and Sūhān (Suhār) -tāshī, which Bābur gives as those of two wines of the Dara-i-nūr, it can be inferred that he read nūr to mean rock. For if in them Turkī tāsh, rock, be replaced by Pushtū nūr, rock, two place-names emerge, Arat (-nūrī) and Sūhān (-nūrī), known in the Nūr-valley.

These may be villages where the wines were grown, but it would be quite exceptional for Bābur to say that wines are called from their villages, or indeed by any name. He says here not where they grow but what they are called.

I surmise that he is repeating a joke, perhaps his own, perhaps a standing local one, made on the quality of the wines. For whether with tāsh or with nūr (rock), the names can be translated as Rock-saw and Rock-file, and may refer to the rough and acid quality of the wines, rasping and setting the teeth on edge as does iron on stone.

The villages themselves may owe their names to a serrated edge or splintered pinnacle of weathered granite, in which local people, known as good craftsmen, have seen resemblance to tools of their trade.

H.—ON THE COUNTERMARK BIH BŪD ON COINS.

As coins of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā Bāī-qarā and other rulers do actually bear the words Bih būd, Bābur's statement that the name of Bihbūd Beg was on the Mīrzā's coins acquires a numismatic interest which may make serviceable the following particulars concerning the passage and the beg.

a. The Turkī passage (Elph. MS. f. 135b; Ḥaidarābād Codex f. 173b; Ilminsky p. 217).

For ease of reference the Turkī, Persian and English version are subjoined:—

(1) Yana Bihbūd Beg aīdī. Būrūnlār chuhra-jīrga-sī-dā khidmat qīlūr aīdī. Mīrzā-nīng qāzāqlīqlārīdā khidmatī bāqīb Bihbūd Beg-kā bū `ināyatnī qīlīb aīdī kīm tamghā u sikka-dā ānīng ātī aīdī.

(2) The Persian translation of `Abdu'r-raḥīm (Muḥ. Shīrāzī's lith. ed. p. 110):—

Dīgar Bihbūd Beg būd. Auwalhā dar jīrga-i-chuhrahā khidmat mikard. Chūn dar qāzāqīhā Mīrzārā khidmat karda būd u ānrā mulāḥaẓa namūda, aīnrā `ināyat karda būd kah dar tamghānāt sikka nām-i-au būd.

(3) A literal English translation of the Turkī:—

Another was Bihbūd Beg. He served formerly in the chuhra-jīrga-sī (corps of braves). Looking to his service in the Mīrzā's guerilla-times, the favour had been done to Bihbūd Beg that his name was on the stamp and coin.

b. Of Bihbūd Beg.

We have found little so far to add to what Bābur tells of Bihbūd Beg and what he tells we have not found elsewhere. The likely sources of his information are Daulat Shāh and Khwānd-amīr who have written at length of Ḥusain Bāī-qarā. Considerable search in the books of both men has failed to discover mention of signal service or public honour connected with the beg. Bābur may have heard what he tells in Harāt in 912 AH. (1506 AD.) when he would see Ḥusain's coins presumably; but later opportunity to see them must have been frequent during his campaigns and visits north of Hindū-kush, notably in Balkh.

The sole mention we have found of Bihbūd Beg in the Ḥabību's-siyar is that he was one of Ḥusain's commanders at the battle of Chīkmān-sarāī which was fought with Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā Mīrānshāhī in Muḥarram 876 AH. (June-July 1471 AD.). His place in the list shews him to have had importance. "Amīr Niẕāmu'd-dīn `Alī-sher's brother Darwesh-i-`alī the librarian (q.v. Ḥai. Codex Index), and Amīr Bihbūd, and Muḥ. `Alī ātāka, and Bakhshīka and Shāh Walī Qīpchāq, and Dost-i-muḥammad chuhra, and Amīr Qul-i-`alī, and" (another).

The total of our information about the man is therefore:—

(1) That when Ḥusain from 861 to 873 AH. (1457 to 1469 AD.) was fighting his way up to the throne of Harāt, Bihbūd served him well in the corps of braves, (as many others will have done).

(2) That he was a beg and one of Ḥusain's commanders in 876 AH. (1471 AD.).

(3) That Bābur includes him amongst Ḥusain's begs and says of him what has been quoted, doing this circa 934 AH. (1528 AD.), some 56 years after Khwānd-amīr's mention of him s.a. 876 AH. (1471 AD.).

c. Of the term chuhra-jīrga-sī used by Bābur.

Of this term Bābur supplies an explicit explanation which I have not found in European writings. His own book amply exemplifies his explanation, as do also Khwānd-amīr's and Ḥaidar's.

He gives the explanation (f. 15b) when describing a retainer of his father's who afterwards became one of his own begs. It is as follows:—

"`Alī-darwesh of Khurāsān served in the Khurāsān chuhra-jīrga-sī, one of two special corps (khāṣa tābīn) of serviceable braves (yārār yīgītlār) formed by Sl. Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā when he first began to arrange the government of Khurāsān and Samarkand and, presumably, called by him the Khurāsān corps and the Samarkand corps."

This shews the circle to have consisted of fighting-men, such serviceable braves as are frequently mentioned by Bābur; and his words "yārār yīgīt" make it safe to say that if instead of using a Persian phrase, he had used a Turkī one, yīgīt, brave would have replaced chuhra, "young soldier" (Erskine). A considerable number of men on active service are styled chuhra, one at least is styled yīgīt, in the same way as others are styled beg.

Three military circles are mentioned in the Bābur-nāma, consisting respectively of braves, household begs (under Bābur's own command), and great begs. Some men are mentioned who never rose from the rank of brave (yīgīt), some who became household-begs, some who went through the three grades.

Of the corps of braves Bābur conveys the information that Abū-sa`īd founded it at a date which will have lain between 1451 and 1457 AD.; that `Umar Shaikh's man `Alī-darwesh belonged to it; and that Ḥusain's man Bihbūd did so also. Both men, `Ali-darwesh and Bihbūd, when in its circle, would appropriately be styled chuhra as men of the beg-circle were styled beg; the Dost-i-muḥammad chuhra who was a commander, (he will have had a brave's command,) at Chīkmān-sarāī (see list supra) will also have been of this circle. Instances of the use by Bābur of the name khaṣa-tābīn and its equivalent būītīkīnī are shewn on f. 209 and f. 210b. A considerable number of Bābur's fighting men, the braves he so frequently mentions as sent on service, are styled chuhra and inferentially belong to the same circle.

d. Of Bih būd on Ḥusain Bāī-qarā's coins.

So far it does not seem safe to accept Bābur's statement literally. He may tell a half-truth and obscure the rest by his brevity.

Nothing in the sources shows ground for signal and public honour to Bihbūd Beg, but a good deal would allow surmise that jesting allusion to his name might decide for Bih būd as a coin mark when choice had to be made of one, in the flush of success, in an assembly of the begs, and, amongst those begs, lovers of word-play and enigma.

The personal name is found written Bihbūd, as one word and with medial h; the mark is Bih būd with the terminal h in the Bih. There have been discussions moreover as to whether to read on the coins Bih būd, it was good, or Bih buvad, let it be, or become, good (valid for currency?).

The question presents itself; would the beg's name have appeared on the coins, if it had not coincided in form with a suitable coin-mark?

Against literal acceptance of Bābur's statement there is also doubt of a thing at once so ben trovato and so unsupported by evidence.

Another doubt arises from finding Bih būd on coins of other rulers, one of Iskandar Khan's being of a later date, others, of Tīmūr, Shāhrukh and Abū-sa`īd, with nothing to shew who counterstruck it on them.

On some of Ḥusain's coins the sentence Bih būd appears as part of the legend and not as a counterstrike. This is a good basis for finding a half-truth in Bābur's statement. It does not allow of a whole-truth in his statement because, as it is written, it is a coin-mark, not a name.

An interesting matter as bearing on Ḥusain's use of Bih būd is that in 865 AH. (1461 AD.) he had an incomparable horse named Bihbūd, one he gave in return for a falcon on making peace with Mustapha Khān.

e. Of Bābur's vassal-coinage.

The following historical details narrow the field of numismatic observation on coins believed struck by Bābur as a vassal of Ismā`īl Ṣafawī. They are offered because not readily accessible.

The length of Bābur's second term of rule in Transoxiana was not the three solar years of the B.M. Coin Catalogues but did not exceed eight months. He entered Samarkand in the middle of Rajab 917 AH. (c. Oct. 1st, 1511 AD.). He returned to it defeated and fled at once, after the battle of Kūl-i-malik which was fought in Ṣafar 918 AH. (mid-April to mid-May 1512 AD.). Previous to the entry he was in the field, without a fixed base; after his flight he was landless till at the end both of 920 AH. and of 1514 AD. he had returned to Kābul.

He would not find a full Treasury in Samarkand because the Aūzbegs evacuated the fort at their own time; eight months would not give him large tribute in kind. He failed in Transoxiana because he was the ally of a Shī`a; would coins bearing the Shī`a legend have passed current from a Samarkand mint? These various circumstances suggest that he could not have struck many coins of any kind in Samarkand.

The coins classed in the B.M. Catalogues as of Bābur's vassalage, offer a point of difficulty to readers of his own writings, inasmuch as neither the "Sulṯān Muḥammad" of No. 652 (gold), nor the "Sulṯān Bābur Bahādur" of the silver coins enables confident acceptance of them as names he himself would use.

I.—ON THE WEEPING-WILLOWS OF f. 190b.

The passage omitted from f. 190b, which seems to describe something decorative done with weeping willows, (bed-i-mawallah) has been difficult to all translators. This may be due to inaccurate pointing in Bābur's original MS. or may be what a traveller seeing other willows at another feast could explain.

The first Persian translation omits the passage (I.O. 215 f. 154b); the second varies from the Turkī, notably by changing sāch and sāj to shākh throughout (I.O. 217 f. 150b). The English and French translations differ much (Memoirs p. 206, Mémoires i, 414), the latter taking the mawallah to be mūla, a hut, against which much is clear in the various MSS.

Three Turkī sources agree in reading as follows:—

Mawallahlār-nī (or muwallah Ḥai. MS.) kīltūrdīlār. Bīlmān sāchlārī-nīng yā `amlī sāchlārī-nīng ārālārīgha k:msān-nī (Ilminsky, kamān) shākh-nīng (Ḥai. MS. șākh) aūzūnlūghī bīla aīnjīga aīnjīga kīsīb, qūīūb tūrlār.

The English and French translations differ from the Turkī and from one another:—

(Memoirs, p. 206) They brought in branching willow-trees. I do not know if they were in the natural state of the tree, or if the branches were formed artificially, but they had small twigs cut the length of the ears of a bow and inserted between them.

(Mémoires i, 434) On façonna des huttes (mouleh). Ils les établissent en taillant des baguettes minces, de la longeur du bout recourbé de l'arc, qu'on place entre des branches naturelles ou façonnées artificiellement, je l'ignore.

The construction of the sentence appears to be thus:—Mawal-lahlār-nī kīltūrdīlār, they brought weeping-willows; k:msān-nī qūīūbtūrlār, they had put k:msān-nī; aīnjīga aīnjīga kīsīb, cut very fine (or slender); shākh (or șākh)-nīng aūzūnlūghī, of the length of a shākh, bow, or șākh ...; bīlmān sāchlārī-nīng yā `amlī sāchlārī-nīng ārālārīgha, to (or at) the spaces of the sāchlār whether their (i.e. the willows') own or artificial sāchlār.

These translations clearly indicate felt difficulty. Mr. Erskine does not seem to have understood that the trees were Salix babylonica. The crux of the passage is the word k:msān-nī, which tells what was placed in the spaces. It has been read as kamān, bow, by all but the scribes of the two good Turkī MSS. and as in a phrase horn of a bow. This however is not allowed by the Turkī, for the reason that k:msān-nī is not in the genitive but in the accusative case. (I may say that Bābur does not use nī for nīng; he keeps strictly to the prime uses of each enclitic, nī accusative, nīng genitive.) Moreover, if k:msān-nī be taken as a genitive, the verbs qūīūb-tūrlār and kīsīb have no object, no other accusative appearing in the sentence than k:msān-nī.

A weighty reason against changing sāch into shākh is that Dr. Ilminsky has not done so. He must have attached meaning to sāch since he uses it throughout the passage. He was nearer the region wherein the original willows were seen at a feast. Unfortunately nothing shows how he interpreted the word.

Sāchmāq is a tassel; is it also a catkin and were there decorations, kimsān-nī (things kimsa, or flowers Ar. kim, or something shining, kimcha, gold brocade) hung in between the catkins?

Ilminsky writes mu'lah (with ḥamza) and this de Courteille translates by hut. The Ḥai. MS. writes muwallah (marking the ẓamma).

In favour of reading mawallah (mulah) as a tree and that tree Salix babylonica the weeping-willow, there are annotations in the Second Persian translation and, perhaps following it, in the Elphinstone MS. of nām-i-dirakht, name of a tree, dīdān-i-bed, sight of the willow, bed-i-mawallah, mournful-willow. Standing alone mawallah means weeping-willow, in this use answering to majnūn the name Panj-ābīs give the tree, from Leila's lover the distracted i.e. Majnūn (Brandis).

The whole question may be solved by a chance remark from a traveller witnessing similar festive decoration at another feast in that conservative region.

J.—ON BĀBUR'S EXCAVATED CHAMBER AT QANDAHĀR (f. 208b).

Since making my note (f. 208b) on the wording of the passage in which Bābur mentions excavation done by him at Qandahār, I have learned that he must be speaking of the vaulted chamber containing the celebrated inscriptions about which much has been written.

The primary inscription, the one commemorating Bābur's final possession of Qandahār, gives the chamber the character of a Temple of Victory and speaks of it as Rawāq-i-jahān namāī, World-shewing-portal, doubtless because of its conspicuous position and its extensive view, probably also in allusion to its declaration of victory. Mīr Ma`ṣūm writes of it as a Pesh-ṯāq, frontal arch, which, coupled with Mohan Lall's word arch (ṯāq) suggests that the chamber was entered through an arch pierced in a parallelogram smoothed on the rock and having resemblance to the pesh-tāq of buildings, a suggestion seeming the more probable that some inscriptions are on the "wings" of the arch. But by neither of the above-mentioned names do Mohan Lall and later travellers call the chamber or write of the place; all describe it by its approach of forty steps, Chihil-zīna.

The excavation has been chipped out of the white-veined limestone of the bare ridge on and below which stood Old Qandahār. It does not appear from the descriptions to have been on the summit of the ridge; Bellew says that the forty steps start half-way up the height. I have found no estimate of the height of the ridge, or statement that the steps end at the chamber. The ridge however seems to have been of noticeably dominating height. It rises steeply to the north and there ends in the naze of which Bābur writes. The foot of the steps is guarded by two towers. Mohan Lall, unaccustomed to mountains, found their ascent steep and dizzy. The excavated chamber of the inscriptions, which Bellew describes as "bow-shaped and dome-roofed", he estimated as 12 feet at the highest point, 12 feet deep and 8 feet wide. Two sculptured beasts guard the entrance; Bellew calls them leopards but tigers would better symbolize the watch and ward of the Tiger Bābur. In truth the whole work, weary steps of approach, tiger guardians, commemorative chamber, laboriously incised words, are admirably symbolic of his long-sustained resolve and action, taken always with Hindūstān as the goal.

There are several inscriptions of varying date, within and without the chamber. Mohan Lall saw and copied them; Darmesteter worked on a copy; the two English observers Lumsden and Bellew made no attempt at correct interpretation. In the versions all give there are inaccuracies, arising from obvious causes, especially from want of historical data. The last word has not been said; revision awaits photography and the leisured expert. A part of the needed revision has been done by Beames, who deals with the geography of what Mīr Ma`ṣūm himself added under Akbar after he had gone as Governor to Qandahār in 1007 AH. (1598 AD.). This commemorates not Bābur's but Akbar's century of cities.

It is the primary inscription only which concerns this Appendix. This is one in relief in the dome of the chamber, recording in florid Persian that Abū'l-ghāzī Bābur took possession of Qandahār on Shawwāl 13th 928 AH. (Sep. 1st 1522 AD.), that in the same year he commanded the construction of this Rawāq-i-jahān-namāī, and that the work had been completed by his son Kāmrān at the time he made over charge of Qandahār to his brother `Askarī in 9 ... (mutilated). After this the gravure changes in character.

In the above, Bābur's title Abū'l-ghāzī fixes the date of the inscription as later than the battle of Kanwāha (f. 324b), because it was assumed in consequence of this victory over a Hindū, in March 1527 (Jumāda II 933 AH.).

The mutilated date 9 ... is given by Mohan Lall as 952 AH. but this does not suit several circumstances, e.g. it puts completion too far beyond the time mentioned as consumed by the work, nine years,—and it was not that at which Kāmrān made over charge to `Askarī, but followed the expulsion of both full-brothers from Qandahār by their half-brother Humāyūn.

The mutilated date 9 ... is given by Darmesteter as 933 AH. but this again does not fit the historical circumstance that Kāmrān was in Qandahār after that date and till 937 AH. This date (937 AH.) we suggest as fitting to replace the lost figures, (1) because in that year and after his father's death, Kāmrān gave the town to `Askarī and went himself to Hindūstān, and (2) because work begun in 928 AH. and recorded as occupying 70-80 men for nine years would be complete in 937 AH. The inscription would be one of the last items of the work.

The following matters are added here because indirectly connected with what has been said and because not readily accessible.

a. Birth of Kāmrān.

Kāmrān's birth falling in a year of one of the Bābur-nāma gaps, is nowhere mentioned. It can be closely inferred as 914 or 915 AH. from the circumstances that he was younger than Humāyūn born late in 913 AH., that it is not mentioned in the fragment of the annals of 914 AH., and that he was one of the children enumerated by Gul-badan as going with her father to Samarkand in 916 AH. (Probably the children did not start with their father in the depth of winter across the mountains.) Possibly the joyful name Kāmrān is linked to the happy issue of the Mughūl rebellion of 914 AH. Kāmrān would thus be about 18 when left in charge of Kābul and Qandahār by Bābur in 932 AH. before the start for the fifth expedition to Hindūstān.

A letter from Bābur to Kāmrān in Qandahār is with Kehr's Latin version of the Bābur-nāma, in Latin and entered on the lining of the cover. It is shewn by its main topic viz. the despatch of Ibrāhīm Lūdī's son to Kāmrān's charge, to date somewhere close to Jan. 3rd 1527 (Rabī`u'l-awwal 29th 933 AH.) because on that day Bābur writes of the despatch (Ḥai. Codex f. 306b foot).

Presumably the letter was with Kāmrān's own copy of the Bābur-nāma. That copy may have reached Humāyūn's hands (JRAS 1908 p. 828 et seq.). The next known indication of the letter is given in St. Petersburg by Dr. Kehr. He will have seen it or a copy of it with the B.N. Codex he copied (one of unequaled correctness), and he, no doubt, copied it in its place on the fly-leaf or board of his own transcript, but if so, it has disappeared.

Fuller particulars of it and of other items accompanying it are given in JRAS 1908 p. 828 et seq.

K.—AN AFGHĀN LEGEND.

My husband's article in the Asiatic Quarterly Review of April 1901 begins with an account of the two MSS. from which it is drawn, viz. I.O. 581 in Pushtū, I.O. 582 in Persian. Both are mainly occupied with an account of the Yūsuf-zāī. The second opens by telling of the power of the tribe in Afghānistān and of the kindness of Malik Shāh Sulaimān, one of their chiefs, to Aūlūgh Beg Mīrzā Kābulī, (Bābur's paternal uncle,) when he was young and in trouble, presumably as a boy ruler.

It relates that one day a wise man of the tribe, Shaikh `Us̤mān saw Sulaimān sitting with the young Mīrzā on his knee and warned him that the boy had the eyes of Yazīd and would destroy him and his family as Yazīd had destroyed that of the Prophet. Sulaimān paid him no attention and gave the Mīrzā his daughter in marriage. Subsequently the Mīrzā having invited the Yūsuf-zāī to Kābul, treacherously killed Sulaimān and 700 of his followers. They were killed at the place called Siyāh-sang near Kābul; it is still known, writes the chronicler in about 1770 AD. (1184 AH.), as the Grave of the Martyrs. Their tombs are revered and that of Shaikh `Us̤mān in particular.

Shāh Sulaimān was the eldest of the seven sons of Malik Tāju'd-dīn; the second was Sulṯān Shāh, the father of Malik Aḥmad. Before Sulaimān was killed he made three requests of Aūlūgh Beg; one of them was that his nephew Aḥmad's life might be spared. This was granted.

Aūlūgh Beg died (after ruling from 865 to 907 AH.), and Bābur defeated his son-in-law and successor M. Muqīm (Arghūn, 910 AH.). Meantime the Yūsuf-zāī had migrated to Pashāwar but later on took Sawād from Sl. Wais (Ḥai. Codex ff. 219, 220b, 221).

When Bābur came to rule in Kābul, he at first professed friendship for the Yūsuf-zāī but became prejudiced against them through their enemies the Dilazāk who gave force to their charges by a promised subsidy of 70,000 shāhrukhī. Bābur therefore determined, says the Yūsuf-zāī chronicler, to kill Malik Aḥmad and so wrote him a friendly invitation to Kābul. Aḥmad agreed to go, and set out with four brothers who were famous musicians. Meanwhile the Dilazāk had persuaded Bābur to put Aḥmad to death at once, for they said Aḥmad was so clever and eloquent that if allowed to speak, he would induce the Pādshāh to pardon him.

On Aḥmad's arrival in Kābul, he is said to have learned that Bābur's real object was his death. His companions wanted to tie their turbans together and let him down over the wall of the fort, but he rejected their proposal as too dangerous for him and them, and resolved to await his fate. He told his companions however, except one of the musicians, to go into hiding in the town.

Next morning there was a great assembly and Bābur sat on the daïs-throne. Aḥmad made his reverence on entering but Bābur's only acknowledgment was to make bow and arrow ready to shoot him. When Aḥmad saw that Bābur's intention was to shoot him down without allowing him to speak, he unbuttoned his jerkin and stood still before the Pādshāh. Bābur, astonished, relaxed the tension of his bow and asked Aḥmad what he meant. Aḥmad's only reply was to tell the Pādshāh not to question him but to do what he intended. Bābur again asked his meaning and again got the same reply.

Bābur put the same question a third time, adding that he could not dispose of the matter without knowing more. Then Aḥmad opened the mouth of praise, expatiated on Bābur's excellencies and said that in this great assemblage many of his subjects were looking on to see the shooting; that his jerkin being very thick, the arrow might not pierce it; the shot might fail and the spectators blame the Pādshāh for missing his mark; for these reasons he had thought it best to bare his breast. Bābur was so pleased by this reply that he resolved to pardon Aḥmad at once, and laid down his bow.

Said he to Aḥmad, "What sort of man is Buhlūl Lūdī?" "A giver of horses," said Aḥmad.

"And of what sort his son Sikandar?" "A giver of robes."

"And of what sort is Bābur?" "He," said Aḥmad, "is a giver of heads."

"Then," rejoined Bābur, "I give you yours."

The Pādshāh now became quite friendly with Aḥmad, came down from his throne, took him by the hand and led him into another room where they drank together. Three times did Bābur have his cup filled, and after drinking a portion, give the rest to Aḥmad. At length the wine mounted to Bābur's head; he grew merry and began to dance. Meantime Aḥmad's musician played and Aḥmad who knew Persian well, poured out an eloquent harangue. When Bābur had danced for some time, he held out his hands to Aḥmad for a reward (bakhshīsh), saying, "I am your performer." Three times did he open his hands, and thrice did Aḥmad, with a profound reverence, drop a gold coin into them. Bābur took the coins, each time placing his hand on his head. He then took off his robe and gave it to Aḥmad; Aḥmad took off his own coat, gave it to Adu the musician, and put on what the Pādshāh had given.

Aḥmad returned safe to his tribe. He declined a second invitation to Kābul, and sent in his stead his brother Shāh Manṣūr. Manṣūr received speedy dismissal as Bābur was displeased at Aḥmad's not coming. On his return to his tribe Manṣūr advised them to retire to the mountains and make a strong sangur. This they did; as foretold, Bābur came into their country with a large army. He devastated their lands but could make no impression on their fort. In order the better to judge of its character, he, as was his wont, disguised himself as a Qalandar, and went with friends one dark night to the Mahūra hill where the stronghold was, a day's journey from the Pādshāh's camp at Dīārūn.

It was the `Īd-i-qurbān and there was a great assembly and feasting at Shāh Manṣūr's house, at the back of the Mahūra-mountain, still known as Shāh Manṣūr's throne. Bābur went in his disguise to the back of the house and stood among the crowd in the courtyard. He asked servants as they went to and fro about Shāh Manṣūr's family and whether he had a daughter. They gave him straightforward answers.

At the time Musammat Bībī Mubāraka, Shāh Manṣur's daughter was sitting with other women in a tent. Her eye fell on the qalandars and she sent a servant to Bābur with some cooked meat folded between two loaves. Bābur asked who had sent it; the servant said it was Shāh Manṣūr's daughter Bībī Mubāraka. "Where is she?" "That is she, sitting in front of you in the tent." Bābur Pādshāh became entranced with her beauty and asked the woman-servant, what was her disposition and her age and whether she was betrothed. The servant replied by extolling her mistress, saying that her virtue equalled her beauty, that she was pious and brimful of rectitude and placidity; also that she was not betrothed. Bābur then left with his friends, and behind the house hid between two stones the food that had been sent to him.

He returned to camp in perplexity as to what to do; he saw he could not take the fort; he was ashamed to return to Kābul with nothing effected; moreover he was in the fetters of love. He therefore wrote in friendly fashion to Malik Aḥmad and asked for the daughter of Shāh Manṣūr, son of Shāh Sulaimān. Great objection was made and earlier misfortunes accruing to Yūsuf-zāī chiefs who had given daughters to Aūlūgh Beg and Sl. Wais (Khān Mīrzā?) were quoted. They even said they had no daughter to give. Bābur replied with a "beautiful" royal letter, told of his visit disguised to Shāh Manṣūr's house, of his seeing Bībī Mubāraka and as token of the truth of his story, asked them to search for the food he had hidden. They searched and found. Aḥmad and Manṣūr were still averse, but the tribesmen urged that as before they had always made sacrifice for the tribe so should they do now, for by giving the daughter in marriage, they would save the tribe from Bābur's anger. The Maliks then said that it should be done "for the good of the tribe".

When their consent was made known to Bābur, the drums of joy were beaten and preparations were made for the marriage; presents were sent to the bride, a sword of his also, and the two Maliks started out to escort her. They are said to have come from Thana by M`amūra (?), crossed the river at Chakdara, taken a narrow road between two hills and past Talāsh-village to the back of Tīrī (?) where the Pādshāh's escort met them. The Maliks returned, spent one night at Chakdara and next morning reached their homes at the Mahūra sangur.

Meanwhile Runa the nurse who had control of Malik Manṣūr's household, with two other nurses and many male and female servants, went on with Bībī Mubāraka to the royal camp. The bride was set down with all honour at a large tent in the middle of the camp.

That night and on the following day the wives of the officers came to visit her but she paid them no attention. So, they said to one another as they were returning to their tents, "Her beauty is beyond question, but she has shewn us no kindness, and has not spoken to us; we do not know what mystery there is about her."

Now Bībī Mubāraka had charged her servants to let her know when the Pādshāh was approaching in order that she might receive him according to Malik Aḥmad's instructions. They said to her, "That was the pomp just now of the Pādshāh's going to prayers at the general mosque." That same day after the Mid-day Prayer, the Pādshāh went towards her tent. Her servants informed her, she immediately left her divan and advancing, lighted up the carpet by her presence, and stood respectfully with folded hands. When the Pādshāh entered, she bowed herself before him. But her face remained entirely covered. At length the Pādshāh seated himself on the divan and said to her, "Come Afghāniya, be seated." Again she bowed before him, and stood as before. A second time he said, "Afghāniya, be seated." Again she prostrated herself before him and came a little nearer, but still stood. Then the Pādshāh pulled the veil from her face and beheld incomparable beauty. He was entranced, he said again, "O, Afghāniya, sit down." Then she bowed herself again, and said, "I have a petition to make. If an order be given, I will make it." The Pādshāh said kindly, "Speak." Whereupon she with both hands took up her dress and said, "Think that the whole Yūsuf-zāī tribe is enfolded in my skirt, and pardon their offences for my sake." Said the Pādshāh, "I forgive the Yūsuf-zāī all their offences in thy presence, and cast them all into thy skirt. Hereafter I shall have no ill-feeling to the Yūsuf-zāī." Again she bowed before him; the Pādshāh took her hand and led her to the divan.

When the Afternoon Prayer time came and the Pādshāh rose from the divan to go to prayers, Bībī Mubāraka jumped up and fetched him his shoes. He put them on and said very pleasantly, "I am extremely pleased with you and your tribe and I have pardoned them all for your sake." Then he said with a smile, "We know it was Malik Aḥmad taught you all these ways." He then went to prayers and the Bībī remained to say hers in the tent.

After some days the camp moved from Dīārūn and proceeded by Bajaur and Tankī to Kābul....

Bībī Mubāraka, the Blessed Lady, is often mentioned by Gul-badan; she had no children; and lived an honoured life, as her chronicler says, until the beginning of Akbar's reign, when she died. Her brother Mīr Jamāl rose to honour under Bābur, Humāyūn and Akbar.

L.—ON MĀHĪM'S ADOPTION OF HIND-ĀL.

The passage quoted below about Māhīm's adoption of the unborn Hind-āl we have found so far only in Kehr's transcript of the Bābur-nāma (i.e. the St. Petersburg Foreign Office Codex). Ilminsky reproduced it (Kāsān imprint p. 281) and de Courteille translated it (ii, 45), both with endeavour at emendation. It is interpolated in Kehr's MS. at the wrong place, thus indicating that it was once marginal or apart from the text.

I incline to suppose the whole a note made by Humāyūn, although part of it might be an explanation made by Bābur, at a later date, of an over-brief passage in his diary. Of such passages there are several instances. What is strongly against its being Bābur's where otherwise it might be his, is that Māhīm, as he always calls her simply, is there written of as Ḥaẓrat Wālida, Royal Mother and with the honorific plural. That plural Bābur uses for his own mother (dead 14 years before 925 AH.) and never for Māhīm. The note is as follows:—

"The explanation is this:—As up to that time those of one birth (tūqqān, womb) with him (Humāyūn), that is to say a son Bār-būl, who was younger than he but older than the rest, and three daughters, Mihr-jān and two others, died in childhood, he had a great wish for one of the same birth with him. I had said 'What it would have been if there had been one of the same birth with him!' (Humāyūn). Said the Royal Mother, 'If Dil-dār Āghācha bear a son, how is it if I take him and rear him?' 'It is very good' said I."

So far doubtfully might be Bābur's but it may be Humāyūn's written as a note for Bābur. What follows appears to be by some-one who knew the details of Māhīm's household talk and was in Kābul when Dil-dār's child was taken from her.

"Seemingly women have the custom of taking omens in the following way:—When they have said, 'Is it to be a boy? is it to be a girl?' they write `Alī or Ḥasan on one of two pieces of paper and Fāṯima on the other, put each paper into a ball of clay and throw both into a bowl of water. Whichever opens first is taken as an omen; if the man's, they say a man-child will be born; if the woman's, a girl will be born. They took the omen; it came out a man."

"On this glad tidings we at once sent letters off. A few days later God's mercy bestowed a son. Three days before the news and three days after the birth, they took the child from its mother, (she) willy-nilly, brought it to our house and took it in their charge. When we sent the news of the birth, Bhīra was being taken. They named him Hind-āl for a good omen and benediction."

The whole may be Humāyūn's, and prompted by a wish to remove an obscurity his father had left and by sentiment stirred through reminiscence of a cherished childhood.

Whether Humāyūn wrote the whole or not, how is it that the passage appears only in the Russian group of Bāburiana?

An apparent answer to this lies in the following little mosaic of circumstances:—The St. Petersburg group of Bāburiana is linked to Kāmrān's own copy of the Bābur-nāma by having with it a letter of Bābur to Kāmrān and also what may be a note indicating its passage into Humāyūn's hands (JRAS 1908 p. 830). If it did so pass, a note by Humāyūn may have become associated with it, in one of several obvious ways. This would be at a date earlier than that of the Elphinstone MS. and would explain why it is found in Russia and not in Indian MSS.

M.—ON THE TERM BAḤRĪ QŪT̤ĀS.

That the term baḥrī qūṯās is interpreted by Meninski, Erskine, and de Courteille in senses so widely differing as equus maritimus, mountain-cow, and bœuf vert de mer is due, no doubt, to their writing when the qūṯās, the yāk, was less well known than it now is.

The word qūṯās represents both the yāk itself and its neck-tassel and tail. Hence Meninski explains it by nodus fimbriatus ex cauda seu crinibus equi maritimi. His "sea-horse" appears to render baḥrī qūṯās, and is explicable by the circumstance that the same purposes are served by horse-tails and by yāk-tails and tassels, namely, with both, standards are fashioned, horse-equipage is ornamented or perhaps furnished with fly-flappers, and the ordinary hand-fly-flappers are made, i.e. the chowries of Anglo-India.

Erskine's "mountain-cow" (Memoirs p. 317) may well be due to his munshī's giving the yāk an alternative name, viz. Kosh-gau (Vigne) or Khāsh-gau (Ney Elias), which appears to mean mountain-cow (cattle, oxen).

De Courteille's Dictionary p. 422, explains qūtās (qūṯās) as bœuf marin (baḥrī qūṯās) and his Mémoires ii, 191, renders Bābur's baḥrī qūṯās by bœuf vert de mer (f. 276, p. 490 and n. 8).

The term baḥrī qūṯās could be interpreted with more confidence if one knew where the seemingly Arabic-Turkī compound originated. Bābur uses it in Hindūstān where the neck-tassel and the tail of the domestic yāk are articles of commerce, and where, as also probably in Kābul, he will have known of the same class of yāk as a saddle-animal and as a beast of burden into Kashmīr and other border-lands of sufficient altitude to allow its survival. A part of its wide Central Asian habitat abutting on Kashmīr is Little Tibet, through which flows the upper Indus and in which tame yāk are largely bred, Skardo being a place specially mentioned by travellers as having them plentifully. This suggests that the term baḥrī qūṯās is due to the great river (baḥr) and that those of which Bābur wrote in Hindūstān were from Little Tibet and its great river. But baḥrī may apply to another region where also the domestic yāk abounds, that of the great lakes, inland seas such as Pangong, whence the yāk comes and goes between e.g. Yārkand and the Hindūstān border.

The second suggestion, viz. that "baḥrī qūṯās" refers to the habitat of the domestic yāk in lake and marsh lands of high altitude (the wild yāk also but, as Tibetan, it is less likely to be concerned here) has support in Dozy's account of the baḥrī falcon, a bird mentioned also by Abū'l-faẓl amongst sporting birds (Āyīn-i-akbarī, Blochmann's trs. p. 295):—"Baḥrī, espèce de faucon le meilleur pour les oiseaux de marais. Ce renseignment explique peut-être l'origine du mot. Marguerite en donne la même etymologie que Tashmend et le Père Guagix. Selon lui ce faucon aurait été appelé ainsi parce qu'il vient de l'autre côté de la mer, mais peut-être dériva-t-il de baḥrī dans le sens de marais, flaque, étang."

Dr. E. Denison Ross' Polyglot List of Birds (Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal ii, 289) gives to the Qarā Qīrghāwal (Black pheasant) the synonym "Sea-pheasant", this being the literal translation of its Chinese name, and quotes from the Manchū-Chinese "Mirror" the remark that this is a black pheasant but called "sea-pheasant" to distinguish it from other black ones.

It may be observed that Bābur writes of the yāk once only and then of the baḥrī qūṯās so that there is no warrant from him for taking the term to apply to the wild yāk. His cousin and contemporary Ḥaidar Mīrzā, however, mentions the wild yāk twice and simply as the wild qūṯās.

The following are random gleanings about "baḥrī" and the yāk:—

(1) An instance of the use of the Persian equivalent daryā'ī of baḥrī, sea-borne or over-sea, is found in the Akbar-nāma (Bib. Ind. ed. ii, 216) where the African elephant is described as fīl-i-daryā'ī.

(2) In Egypt the word baḥrī has acquired the sense of northern, presumably referring to what lies or is borne across its northern sea, the Mediterranean.

(3) Vigne (Travels in Kashmīr ii, 277-8) warns against confounding the qūch-qār i.e. the gigantic moufflon, Pallas' Ovis ammon, with the Kosh-gau, the cow of the Kaucasus, i.e. the yāk. He says, "Kaucasus (hodie Hindū-kush) was originally from Kosh, and Kosh is applied occasionally as a prefix, e.g. Kosh-gau, the yāk or ox of the mountain or Kaucasus." He wrote from Skardo in Little Tibet and on the upper Indus. He gives the name of the female yāk as yāk-mo and of the half-breeds with common cows as bzch, which class he says is common and of "all colours".

(4) Mr. Ney Elias' notes (Tārīkh-i-rashīdī trs. pp. 302 and 466) on the qūṯās are of great interest. He gives the following synonymous names for the wild yāk, Bos Poëphagus, Khāsh-gau, the Tibetan yāk or Dong.

(5) Hume and Henderson (Lāhor to Yārkand p. 59) write of the numerous black yāk-hair tents seen round the Pangong Lake, of fine saddle yāks, and of the tame ones as being some white or brown but mostly black.

(6) Olufsen's Through the Unknown Pamirs (p. 118) speaks of the large numbers of Bos grunniens (yāk) domesticated by the Kirghiz in the Pamirs.

(7) Cf. Gazetteer of India s.n. yāk.

(8) Shaikh Zain applies the word baḥrī to the porpoise, when paraphrasing the Bābur-nāma f. 281b.

N.—NOTES ON A FEW BIRDS.

In attempting to identify some of the birds of Bābur's lists difficulty arises from the variety of names provided by the different tongues of the region concerned, and also in some cases by the application of one name to differing birds. The following random gleanings enlarge and, in part, revise some earlier notes and translations of Mr. Erskine's and my own. They are offered as material for the use of those better acquainted with bird-lore and with Himālayan dialects.

a. Concerning the lūkha, lūja, lūcha, kūja (f.135 and f.278b).

The nearest word I have found to lūkha and its similars is likkh, a florican (Jerdon, ii, 615), but the florican has not the chameleon colours of the lūkha (var.). As Bābur when writing in Hindūstān, uses such "book-words" as Ar. baḥrī (qūṯās) and Ar. bū-qalamūn (chameleon), it would not be strange if his name for the "lūkha" bird represented Ar. awja, very beautiful, or connected with Ar. loḥ, shining splendour.

The form kūja is found in Ilminsky's imprint p.361 (Mémoires ii, 198, koudjeh).

What is confusing to translators is that (as it now seems to me) Bābur appears to use the name kabg-i-darī in both passages (f.135 and f.278b) to represent two birds; (1) he compares the lūkha as to size with the kabg-i-darī of the Kābul region, and (2) for size and colour with that of Hindūstān. But the bird, of the Western Himālayas known by the name kabg-i-darī is the Himālayan snow-cock, Tetraogallus himālayensis, Turkī, aūlār and in the Kābul region, chīūrtika (f.249, Jerdon, ii, 549-50); while the kabg-i-darī (syn. chikor) of Hindūstān, whether of hill or plain, is one or more of much smaller birds.

The snow-cock being 28 inches in length, the lūkha bird must be of this size. Such birds as to size and plumage of changing colour are the Lophophori and Trapagons, varieties of which are found in places suiting Bābur's account of the lūkha.

It may be noted that the Himālayan snow-cock is still called kabg-i-darī in Afghānistān (Jerdon, ii, 550) and in Kashmīr (Vigne's Travels in Kashmīr ii, 18). As its range is up to 18,000 feet, its Persian name describes it correctly whether read as "of the mountains" (dari), or as "royal" (darī) through its splendour.

I add here the following notes of Mr. Erskine's, which I have not quoted already where they occur (cf. f. 135 and f. 278b):—

On f. 135, "lokheh" is said to mean hill-chikor.

On f. 278b, to "lūjeh", "The Persian has lūkheh."

" to "kepki durrī", "The kepkī deri, or durri is much larger than the common kepk of Persia and is peculiar to Khorāsān. It is said to be a beautiful bird. The common kepk of Persia and Khorāsān is the hill-chikor of India."

" to "higher up", "The lujeh may be the chikor of the plains which Hunter calls bartavelle or Greek partridge."

The following corrections are needed about my own notes:—(1) on f. 135 (p. 213) n. 7 is wrongly referred; it belongs to the first word, viz. kabg-i-darī, of p. 214; (2) on f. 279 (p. 496) n. 2 should refer to the second kabg-i-darī.

b. Birds called mūnāl (var. monāl and moonaul).

Yule writing in Hobson Jobson (p. 580) of the "moonaul" which he identifies as Lophophorus Impeyanus, queries whether, on grounds he gives, the word moonaul is connected etymologically with Sanscrit muni, an "eremite". In continuation of his topic, I give here the names of other birds called mūnāl, which I have noticed in various ornithological works while turning their pages for other information.

Besides L. Impeyanus and Trapagon Ceriornis satyra which Yule mentions as called "moonaul", there are L. refulgens, mūnāl and Ghūr (mountain)-mūnāl; Trapagon Ceriornis satyra, called mūnāl in Nipāl; T. C. melanocephalus, called sing (horned)-mūnāl in the N.W. Himālayas; T. himālayensis, the jer- or cher-mūnāl of the same region, known also as chikor; and Lerwa nevicola, the snow-partridge known in Garhwal as Quoir- or Qūr-mūnāl. Do all these birds behave in such a way as to suggest that mūnāl may imply the individual isolation related by Jerdon of L. Impeyanus, "In the autumnal and winter months numbers are generally collected in the same quarter of the forest, though often so widely scattered that each bird appears to be alone?" My own search amongst vocabularies of hill-dialects for the meaning of the word has been unsuccessful, spite of the long range mūnāls in the Himālayas.

c. Concerning the word chīūrtika, chourtka.

Jerdon's entry (ii, 549, 554) of the name chourtka as a synonym of Tetraogallus himālayensis enables me to fill a gap I have left on f. 249 (p. 491 and n. 6), with the name Himālayan snow-cock, and to allow Bābur's statement to be that he, in January 1520 AD. when coming down from the Bād-i-pīch pass, saw many snow-cocks. The Memoirs (p.282) has "chikors", which in India is a synonym for kabg-i-darī; the Mémoires (ii, 122) has sauterelles, but this meaning of chīūrtika does not suit wintry January. That month would suit for the descent from higher altitudes of snow-cocks. Griffith, a botanist who travelled in Afghānistān cir. 1838 AD., saw myriads of cicadæ between Qilat-i-ghilzai and Ghazni, but the month was July.

d. On the qūṯān (f. 142, p. 224; Memoirs, p. 153; Mémoires ii, 313).

Mr. Erskine for qūṯān enters khawāṣil [gold-finch] which he will have seen interlined in the Elphinstone Codex (f. 109b) in explanation of qūṯān.

Shaikh Effendi (Kunos' ed., p. 139) explains qūṯān to be the gold-finch, Steiglitz.

Ilminsky's qūtān (p. 175) is translated by M. de Courteille as pélicane and certainly some copies of the 2nd Persian translation [Muḥ. Shīrāzi's p. 90] have ḥawāṣil, pelican.

The pelican would class better than the small finch with the

herons and egrets of Bābur's trio; it also would appear a more likely bird to be caught "with the cord".

That Bābur's qūṯān (ḥawāṣil) migrated in great numbers is however against supposing it to be Pelicanus onocrotatus which is seen in India during the winter, because it appears there in moderate numbers only, and Blanford with other ornithologists states that no western pelican migrates largely into India.

Perhaps the qūṯān was Linnæus' Pelicanus carbo of which one synonym is Carbo comoranus, the cormorant, a bird seen in India in large numbers of both the large and small varieties. As cormorants are not known to breed in that country, they will have migrated in the masses Bābur mentions.

A translation matter falls to mention here:—After saying that the aūqār (grey heron), qarqara (egret), and qūtān (cormorant) are taken with the cord, Bābur says that this method of bird-catching is unique (bū nūḥ qūsh tūtmāq ghair muqarrar dūr) and describes it. The Persian text omits to translate the tūtmāq (by P. giriftan); hence Erskine (Mems. p. 153) writes, "The last mentioned fowl" (i.e. the qūṯān) "is rare," notwithstanding Bābur's statement that all three of the birds he names are caught in masses. De Courteille (p. 313) writes, as though only of the qūtān, "ces derniers toutefois ne se prennent qu'accidentelment," perhaps led to do so by knowledge of the circumstance that Pelicanus onocrotatus is rare in India.

O.—NOTES BY HUMĀYŪN ON SOME HINDŪSTĀN FRUITS.

The following notes, which may be accepted as made by Humāyūn and in the margin of the archetype of the Elphinstone Codex, are composed in Turkī which differs in diction from his father's but is far closer to that classic model than is that of the producer [Jahāngīr?] of the "Fragments" (Index s.n.). Various circumstances make the notes difficult to decipher verbatim and, unfortunately, when writing in Jan. 1917, I am unable to collate with its original in the Advocates Library, the copy I made of them in 1910.

a. On the kadhil, jack-fruit, Artocarpus integrifolia (f. 283b, p. 506; Elphinstone MS. f. 235b).

The contents of the note are that the strange-looking pumpkin (qar`, which is also Ibn Batuta's word for the fruit), yields excellent white juice, that the best fruit grows from the roots of the tree, that many such grow in Bengal, and that in Bengal and Dihli there grows a kadhil-tree covered with hairs (Artocarpus hirsuta?).

b. On the amrit-phal, mandarin-orange, Citrus aurantium (f. 287, p. 512; Elphinstone Codex, f. 238b, l. 12).

The interest of this note lies in its reference to Bābur.

A Persian version of it is entered, without indication of what it is or of who was its translator, in one of the volumes of Mr. Erskine's manuscript remains, now in the British Museum (Add. 26,605, p. 88). Presumably it was made by his Turkish munshi for his note in the Memoirs (p. 329).

Various difficulties oppose the translation of the Turkī note; it is written into the text of the Elphinstone Codex in two instalments, neither of them in place, the first being interpolated in the account of the amil-bīd fruit, the second in that of the jāsūn flower; and there are verbal difficulties also. The Persian translation is not literal and in some particulars Mr. Erskine's rendering of this differs from what the Turkī appears to state.

The note is, tentatively, as follows:—"His honoured Majesty Firdaus-makān—may God make his proof clear!—did not favour the amrit-phal; as he considered it insipid, he likened it to the mild-flavoured orange and did not make choice of it. So much was the mild-flavoured orange despised that if any person had disgusted (him) by insipid flattery(?) he used to say, 'He is like orange-juice.'"

"The amrit-phal is one of the very good fruits. Though its juice is not relishing (? chūchūq), it is extremely pleasant-drinking. Later on, in my own time, its real merit became known. Its tartness may be that of the orange (nāranj)and lemu."

The above passage is followed, in the text of the Elphinstone Codex, by Bābur's account of the jāsūn flower, and into this a further instalment of Humāyūn's notes is interpolated, having opposite its first line the marginal remark, "This extra note, seemingly made by Humāyūn Pādshāh, the scribe has mistakenly written into the text." Whether its first sentence refer to the amrit-phal or to the amil-bīd must be left for decision to those well acquainted with the orange-tribe. It is obscure in my copy and abbreviated in its Persian translation; summarized it may state that when the fruit is unripe, its acidity is harmful to the digestion, but that it is very good when ripe.—The note then continues as below:—

c. The kāmila, H. kauṅlā, the orange.

"There are in Bengal two other fruits of the acid kind. Though the amrit-phal be not agreeable, they have resemblance to it (?)."

"One is the kāmila which may be as large as an orange (nāranj); some took it to be a large nārangī (orange) but it is much pleasanter eating than the nārangī and is understood not to have the skin of that (fruit)."

d. The samṯara.

"The other is the samṯara which is larger than the orange (nāranj) but is not tart; unlike the amrit-phal it is not of poor flavour (kam maza) or little relish (chūchūk). In short a better fruit is not seen. It is good to see, good to eat, good to digest. One does not forget it. If it be there, no other fruit is chosen. Its peel may be taken off by the hand. However much of the fruit be eaten, the heart craves for it again. Its juice does not soil the hand at all. Its skin separates easily from its flesh. It may be taken during and after food. In Bengal the samṯara is rare (ghārib) (or excellent, `asīz). It is understood to grow in one village Sanārgām (Sonargaon) and even therein a special quarter. There seems to be no fruit so entirely good as the samṯara amongst fruits of its class or, rather, amongst fruits of all kinds."

Corrigendum:—In my note on the turunj bajāurī (p. 511, n. 3) for bijaurā read bījaurā; and on p. 510, l. 2, for palm read fingers.

Addendum:—p. 510, l. 5. After yūsūnlūk add:—"The natives of Hindūstān when not wearing their ear-rings, put into the large ear-ring holes, slips of the palm-leaf bought in the bāzārs, ready for the purpose. The trunk of this tree is handsomer and more stately than that of the date."

P.—REMARKS ON BĀBUR'S REVENUE LIST (fol. 292).

a. Concerning the date of the List.

The Revenue List is the last item of Bābur's account of Hindūstān and, with that account, is found s.a. 932 AH., manifestly too early, (1) because it includes districts and their revenues which did not come under Bābur's authority until subdued in his Eastern campaigns of 934 and 935 AH., (2) because Bābur's statement is that the "countries" of the List "are now in my possession" (in loco p. 520).

The List appears to be one of revenues realized in 936 or 937 AH. and not one of assessment or estimated revenue, (1) because Bābur's wording states as a fact that the revenue was 52 krūrs; (2) because the Persian heading of the (Persian) List is translatable as "Revenue (jama`) of Hindūstān from what has so far come under the victorious standards".

b. The entry of the List into European Literature.

Readers of the L. and E. Memoirs of Bābur are aware that it does not contain the Revenue List (p. 334). The omission is due to the absence of the List from the Elphinstone Codex and from the `Abdu'r-raḥīm Persian translation. Since the Memoirs of Bābur was published in 1826 AD., the List has come from the Bābur-nāma into European literature by three channels.

Of the three the one used earliest is Shaikh Zain's T̤abaqāt-i-bāburī which is a Persian paraphrase of part of Bābur's Hindūstān section. This work provided Mr. Erskine with what he placed in his History of India (London 1854, i, 540, Appendix D), but his manuscript, now B.M. Add. 26,202, is not the best copy of Shaikh Zain's book, being of far less importance than B.M. Or. 1999, [as to which more will be said.]

The second channel is Dr. Ilminsky's imprint of the Turkī text (Kāsān 1857, p. 379), which is translated by the Mémoires de Bāber (Paris 1871, ii, 230).

The third channel is the Ḥaidarābād Codex, in the English translation of which [in loco] the List is on p. 521.

Shaikh Zain may have used Bābur's autograph manuscript for his paraphrase and with it the Revenue List. His own autograph manuscript was copied in 998 AH. (1589-90 AD.) by Khwānd-amīr's grandson `Abdu'l-lāh who may be the scribe "Mīr `Abdu'l-lāh" of the Āyīn-i-akbarī (Blochmann's trs. p. 109). `Abdu'l-lāh's transcript (from which a portion is now absent,) after having been in Sir Henry Elliot's possession, has become B.M. Or. 1999. It is noticed briefly by Professor Dowson (l.c. iv, 288), but he cannot have observed that the "old, worm-eaten" little volume contains Bābur's Revenue List, since he does not refer to it.

c. Agreement and variation in copies of the List.

The figures in the two copies (Or. 1999 and Add. 26,202) of the T̤abaqāt-i-bāburī are in close agreement. They differ, however, from those in the Ḥaidarābād Codex, not only in a negligible unit and a ten of tankas but in having 20,000 more tankas from Oudh and Baraich and 30 laks of tankas more from Trans-sutlej.

The figures in the two copies of the Bābur-nāma, viz. the Ḥaidarābād Codex and the Kehr-Ilminsky imprint are not in agreement throughout, but are identical in opposition to the variants (20,000 t. and 30 l.) mentioned above. As the two are independent, being collateral descendants of Bābur's original papers, the authority of the Ḥaidarābād Codex in the matter of the List is still further enhanced.

d. Varia.

(1) The place-names of the List are all traceable, whatever their varied forms. About the entry L:knū [or L:knūr] and B:ks:r [or M:ks:r] a difficulty has been created by its variation in manuscripts, not only in the List but where the first name occurs s.a. 934 and 935 AH. In the Ḥaidarābād List and in that of Or. 1999 L:knūr is clearly written and may represent (approximately) modern Shahābād in Rāmpūr. Erskine and de Courteille, however, have taken it to be Lakhnau in Oudh. [The distinction of Lakhnaur from Lakhnau in the historical narrative is discussed in Appendix T.]

(2) It may be noted, as of interest, that the name Sarwār is an abbreviation of Sarjūpār which means "other side of Sarjū" (Sarū, Goghrā; E. and D.'s H. of I. i, 56, n.4).

(3) Rūp-narā[:i]n (Deo or Dev) is mentioned in Ajodhya Prasad's short history of Tirhut and Darbhanga, the Gulzār-i-Bihār (Calcutta 1869, Cap. v, 88) as the 9th of the Brahman rulers of Tirhut and as having reigned for 25 years, from 917 to 942 Faslī(?). If the years were Ḥijrī, 917-42 AH. would be 1511-1535.

(4) Concerning the tanka the following modern description is quoted from Mr. R. Shaw's High Tartary (London 1871, p. 464) "The tanga" (or tanka) "is a nominal coin, being composed of 25 little copper cash, with holes pierced in them and called dahcheen. These are strung together and the quantity of them required to make up the value of one of these silver ingots" ("kooroos or yamboo, value nearly £17") "weighs a considerable amount. I once sent to get change for a kooroos, and my servants were obliged to charter a donkey to bring it home."

(5) The following interesting feature of Shaikh Zain's T̤abaqāt-i-bāburī has been mentioned to me by my husband:—Its author occasionally reproduces Bābur's Turkī words instead of paraphrasing them in Persian, and does this for the noticeable passage in which Bābur records his dissatisfied view of Hindūstān (f. 290b, in loco p. 518), prefacing his quotation with the remark that it is best and will be nearest to accuracy not to attempt translation but to reproduce the Pādshāh's own words. The main interest of the matter lies in the motive for reproducing the ipsissima verba. Was that motive deferential? Did the revelation of feeling and opinion made in the quoted passage clothe it with privacy so that Shaikh Zain reserved its perusal from the larger public of Hindūstān who might read Persian but not Turkī? Some such motive would explain the insertion untranslated of Bābur's letters to Humāyūn and to Khwāja Kalān which are left in Turkī by `Abdu'r-raḥīm Mīrzā.

Q.—CONCERNING THE "RĀMPŪR DĪWĀN".

Pending the wide research work necessary to interpret Bābur's Hindūstān poems which the Rāmpūr manuscript preserves, the following comments, some tentative and open to correction, may carry further in making the poems publicly known, what Dr. E. Denison Ross has effected by publishing his Facsimile of the manuscript. It is legitimate to associate comment on the poems with the Bābur-nāma because many of them are in it with their context of narrative; most, if not all, connect with it; some without it, would be dull and vapid.

a. An authorized English title.

The contents of the Rāmpūr MS. are precisely what Bābur describes sending to four persons some three weeks after the date attached to the manuscript, viz. "the Translation and whatnot of poems made on coming to Hindūstān"; and a similar description may be meant in the curiously phrased first clause of the colophon, but without mention of the Translation (of the Wālidiyyah-risāla). Hence, if the poems, including the Translation, became known as the Hindūstān Poems or Poems made in Hindūstān, such title would be justified by their author's words. Bābur does not call the Hindūstān poems a dīwān even when, as in the above quotation, he speaks of them apart from his versified translation of the Tract. In what has come down to us of his autobiography, he applies the name Dīwān to poems of his own once only, this in 925 AH. (f. 237b) when he records sending "my dīwān" to Pūlād Sl. Aūzbeg.

b. The contents of the Rāmpūr MS.

There are three separate items of composition in the manuscript, marked as distinct from one another by having each its ornamented frontispiece, each its scribe's sign (mīm) of Finis, each its division from its neighbour by a space without entry. The first and second sections bear also the official sign [ṣaḥ[h.]] that the copy has been inspected and found correct.

(1) The first section consists of Bābur's metrical translation of Khwāja `Ubaidu'l-lāh Aḥrārī's Parental Tract (Wālidiyyah-risāla), his prologue in which are his reasons for versifying the Tract and his epilogue which gives thanks for accomplishing the task. It ends with the date 935 (Ḥai. MS. f. 346). Below this are mīm and ṣaḥ[h.], the latter twice; they are in the scribe's handwriting, and thus make against supposing that Bābur wrote down this copy of the Tract or its archetype from which the official ṣaḥ[h.] will have been copied. Moreover, spite of bearing two vouchers of being a correct copy, the Translation is emended, in a larger script which may be that of the writer of the marginal quatrain on the last page of the [Rāmpūr] MS. and there attested by Shāh-i-jahān as Bābur's autograph entry. His also may have been the now expunged writing on the half-page left empty of text at the end of the Tract. Expunged though it be, fragments of words are visible.

(2) The second section has in its frontispiece an inscription illegible (to me) in the Facsimile. It opens with a masnawī of 41 couplets which is followed by a ghazel and numerous poems in several measures, down to a triad of rhymed couplets (matla`?), the whole answering to descriptions of a Dīwān without formal arrangement. After the last couplet are mīm and ṣaḥ[h.] in the scribe's hand-writing, and a blank quarter-page. Mistakes in this section have been left uncorrected, which supports the view that its ṣaḥ[h.] avouches the accuracy of its archetype and not its own.

(3) The third section shows no inscription on its frontispiece. It opens with the masnawī of eight couplets, found also in the Bābur-nāma (f. 312), one of earlier date than many of the poems in the second section. It is followed by three rubā`ī which complete the collection of poems made in Hindūstān. A prose passage comes next, describing the composition and transposition-in-metre of a couplet of 16 feet, with examples in three measures, the last of which ends in l. 4 of the photograph.—While fixing the date of this metrical game, Bābur incidentally allows that of his Treatise on Prosody to be inferred from the following allusive words:—"When going to Saṃbhal (f. 330b) in the year (933 AH.) after the conquest of Hindūstān (932 AH.), two years after writing the `Arūẓ, I composed a couplet of 16 feet."—From this the date of the Treatise is seen to be 931 AH., some two years later than that of the Mubīn. The above metrical exercise was done about the same time as another concerning which a Treatise was written, viz. that mentioned on f. 330b, when a couplet was transposed into 504 measures (Section f, p. lxv).—The Facsimile, it will be noticed, shows something unusual in the last line of the prose passage on Plate XVIII B, where the scattering of the words suggests that the scribe was trying to copy page per page.

The colophon (which begins on l. 5 of the photograph) is curiously worded, as though the frequent fate of last pages had befallen its archetype, that of being mutilated and difficult for a scribe to make good; it suggests too that the archetype was verse. Its first clause, even if read as Hind-stān jānibī `azīmat qīlghānī (i.e. not qīlghālī, as it can be read), has an indirectness unlike Bābur's corresponding "after coming to Hindūstān" (f. 357b), and is not definite; (2) bū aīrdī (these were) is not the complement suiting aūl dūrūr (those are); (3) Bābur does not use the form dūrūr in prose; (4) the undue space after dūrūr suggests connection with verse; (5) there is no final verb such as prose needs. The meaning, however, may be as follows:—The poems made after resolving on (the)

Hindūstān parts (jānibī?) were these I have written down (taḥrīr qīldīm), and past events are those I have narrated (taqrīr) in the way that (nī-chūk kīm) (has been) written in these folios (aūrāq) and recorded in those sections (ajzā').—From this it would appear that sections of the Bābur-nāma (f. 376b, p. 678) accompanied the Hindūstān poems to the recipient of the message conveyed by the colophon.

Close under the colophon stands Ḥarara-hu Bābur and the date Monday, Rabī` II. 15th 935 (Monday, December 27th 1528 AD.), the whole presumably brought over from the archetype. To the question whether a signature in the above form would be copied by a scribe, the Elphinstone Codex gives an affirmative answer by providing several examples of notes, made by Humāyūn in its archetype, so-signed and brought over either into its margin or interpolated in its text. Some others of Humāyūn's notes are not so-signed, the scribe merely saying they are Humāyūn Pādshāh's.—It makes against taking the above entry of Bābur's name to be an autograph signature, (1) that it is enclosed in an ornamented border, as indeed is the case wherever it occurs throughout the manuscript; (2) that it is followed by the scribe's mīm. [See end of following section.]

c. The marginal entries shown in the photograph.

The marginal note written length-wise by the side of the text is signed by Shāh-i-jahān and attests that the rubā`ī and the signature to which it makes reference are in Bābur's autograph hand-writing. His note translates as follows:—This quatrain and blessed name are in the actual hand-writing of that Majesty (ān ḥaẓrat) Firdaus-makānī Bābur Pādshāh Ghāzī—May God make his proof clear!—Signed (Ḥararā-hu), Shāh-i-jahān son of Jahāngīr Pādshāh son of Akbar Pādshāh son of Humāyūn Pādshāh son of Bābur Pādshāh.

The second marginal entry is the curiously placed rubā`ī, which is now the only one on the page, and now has no signature attaching to it. It has the character of a personal message to the recipient of one of more books having identical contents. That these two entries are there while the text seems so clearly to be written by a scribe, is open to the explanation that when (as said about the colophon, p. lx) the rectangle of text was made good from a mutilated archetype, the original margin was placed round the rifacimento? This superposition would explain the entries and seal-like circles, discernible against a strong light, on the reverse of the margin only, through the rifacimento page. The upper edge of the rectangle shows sign that the margin has been adjusted to it [so far as one can judge from a photograph]. Nothing on the face of the margin hints that the text itself is autograph; the words of the colophon, taḥrīr qīldīm (i.e. I have written down) cannot hold good against the cumulative testimony that a scribe copied the whole manuscript.—The position of the last syllable [nī] of the rubā`ī shows that the signature below the colophon was on the margin before the diagonal couplet of the rubā`ī was written,—therefore when the margin was fitted, as it looks to have been fitted, to the rifacimento. If this be the order of the two entries [i.e. the small-hand signature and the diagonal couplet], Shāh-i-jahān's "blessed name" may represent the small-hand signature which certainly shows minute differences from the writing of the text of the MS. in the name Bābur (q.v. passim in the Rāmpūr MS.).

d. The Bāburī-khat̤t̤ (Bābūr's script).

So early as 910 AH. the year of his conquest of Kābul, Bābur devised what was probably a variety of nakhsh, and called it the Bāburī-khat̤t̤ (f. 144b), a name used later by Ḥaidar Mīrzā, Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad and `Abdu'l-qādir Badāyūnī. He writes of it again (f. 179) s.a. 911 AH. when describing an interview had in 912 AH. with one of the Harāt Qāẓīs, at which the script was discussed, its specialities (mufradāt) exhibited to, and read by the Qāẓī who there and then wrote in it. In what remains to us of the Bābur-nāma it is not mentioned again till 935 AH. (fol. 357b) but at some intermediate date Bābur made in it a copy of the Qorān which he sent to Makka. In 935 AH. (f. 357b) it is mentioned in significant association with the despatch to each of four persons of a copy of the Translation (of the Wālidiyyah-risāla) and the Hindūstān poems, the significance of the association being that the simultaneous despatch with these copies of specimens of the Bāburī-khat̤t̤ points to its use in the manuscripts, and at least in Hind-āl's case, to help given for reading novel forms in their text. The above are the only instances now found in the Bābur-nāma of mention of the script.

The little we have met with—we have made no search—about the character of the script comes from the Abūshqa, s.n. sīghnāq, in the following entry:—

Sīghnāq ber nū`ah khat̤t̤ der Chaghatāīda khat̤t̤ Bāburī u ghairī kibī ki Bābur Mīrzā ash`ār'nda kīlūr bait

Khūblār khat̤t̤ī naṣīb'ng būlmāsā Bābur nī tāng?

Bāburī khat̤t̤ī aīmās dūr khat̤t̤ sīghnāqī mū dūr?

The old Osmanli-Turkish prose part of this appears to mean:—"Sīghnāq is a sort of hand-writing, in Chaghatāī the Bāburī-khat̤t̤ and others resembling it, as appears in Bābur Mīrzā's poems. Couplet":—

Without knowing the context of the couplet I make no attempt to translate it because its words khat̤t̤ or khaṭ and sīghnāq lend themselves to the kind of pun (īhām) "which consists in the employment of a word or phrase having more than one appropriate meaning, whereby the reader is often left in doubt as to the real significance of the passage." The rest of the rubā`ī may be given [together with the six other quotations of Bābur's verse now known only through the Abūshqa], in early Taẕkirātu 'sh-shu`āra of date earlier than 967 AH.

The root of the word sīghnāq will be sīq, pressed together, crowded, included, etc.; taking with this notion of compression, the explanations feine Schrift of Shaikh Effendi (Kunos) and Vambéry's pétite écriture, the Sīghnāqī and Bāburī Scripts are allowed to have been what that of the Rāmpūr MS. is, a small, compact, elegant hand-writing.—A town in the Caucasus named Sīghnākh, "située à peu près à 800 mètres d'altitude, commença par être une forteresse et un lieu de refuge, car telle est la signification de son nom tartare." Sīghnāqī is given by de Courteille (Dict. p. 368) as meaning a place of refuge or shelter.

The Bāburī-khat̤t̤ will be only one of the several hands Bābur is reputed to have practised; its description matches it with other niceties he took pleasure in, fine distinctions of eye and ear in measure and music.

e. Is the Rāmpūr MS. an example of the Bāburī-khat̤t̤?

Though only those well-acquainted with Oriental manuscripts dating before 910 AH. (1504 AD.) can judge whether novelties appear in the script of the Rāmpūr MS. and this particularly in its head-lines, there are certain grounds for thinking that though the manuscript be not Bābur's autograph, it may be in his script and the work of a specially trained scribe.

I set these grounds down because although the signs of a scribe's work on the manuscript seem clear, it is "locally" held to be Bābur's autograph. Has a tradition of its being in the Bāburī-khat̤t̤ glided into its being in the khat̤t̤-i-Bābur? Several circumstances suggest that it may be written in the Bāburī-khat̤t̤:—(1) the script is specially associated with the four transcripts of the Hindūstān poems (f. 357b), for though many letters must have gone to his sons, some indeed are mentioned in the Bābur-nāma, it is only with the poems that specimens of it are recorded as sent; (2) another matter shows his personal interest in the arrangement of manuscripts, namely, that as he himself about a month after the four books had gone off, made a new ruler, particularly on account of the head-lines of the Translation, it may be inferred that he had made or had adopted the one he superseded, and that his plan of arranging the poems was the model for copyists; the Rāmpūr MS. bearing, in the Translation section, corrections which may be his own, bears also a date earlier than that at which the four gifts started; it has its headlines ill-arranged and has throughout 13 lines to the page; his new ruler had 11; (3) perhaps the words taḥrīr qīldīm used in the colophon of the Rāmpūr MS. should be read with their full connotation of careful and elegant writing, or, put modestly, as saying, "I wrote down in my best manner," which for poems is likely to be in the Bāburī-khat̤t̤.

Perhaps an example of Bābur's script exists in the colophon, if not in the whole of the Mubīn manuscript once owned by Berézine, by him used for his Chréstomathie Turque, and described by him as "unique". If this be the actual manuscript Bābur sent into Mā warā'u'n-nahr (presumably to Khwāja Aḥrārī's family), its colophon which is a personal message addressed to the recipients, is likely to be autograph.

f. Metrical amusements.

(1) Of two instances of metrical amusements belonging to the end of 933 AH. and seeming to have been the distractions of illness, one is a simple transposition "in the fashion of the circles" (dawā'ir) into three measures (Rāmpūr MS. Facsimile, Plate XVIII and p. 22); the other is difficult because of the high number of 504 into which Bābur says (f. 330b) he cut up the following couplet:—

Gūz u qāsh u soz u tīlīnī mū dī? Qad u khadd u saj u bīlīnī mū dī?

All manuscripts agree in having 504, and Bābur wrote a tract (risāla) upon the transpositions. None of the modern treatises on Oriental Prosody allow a number so high to be practicable, but Maulānā Saifī of Bukhārā, of Bābur's own time (f. 180b) makes 504 seem even moderate, since after giving much detail about rubā`ī measures, he observes, "Some say there are 10,000" (Arūẓ-i-Saifī, Ranking's trs. p. 122). Presumably similar possibilities were open for the couplet in question. It looks like one made for the game, asks two foolish questions and gives no reply, lends itself to poetic license, and, if permutation of words have part in such a game, allows much without change of sense. Was Bābur's cessation of effort at 504 capricious or enforced by the exhaustion of possible changes? Is the arithmetical statement 9 × 8 × 7 = 504 the formula of the practicable permutations?

(2) To improvise verse having a given rhyme and topic must have demanded quick wits and much practice. Bābur gives at least one example of it (f. 252b) but Jahāngīr gives a fuller and more interesting one, not only because a rubā`ī of Bābur's was the model but from the circumstances of the game:—It was in 1024 AH. (1615 AD.) that a letter reached him from Māwarā'u'n-nahr written by Khwāja Hāshim Naqsh-bandī [who by the story is shown to have been of Aḥrārī's line], and recounting the long devotion of his family to Jahāngīr's ancestors. He sent gifts and enclosed in his letter a copy of one of Bābur's quatrains which he said Ḥaẓrat Firdaus-makānī had written for Ḥaẓrat Khwājagī (Aḥrārī's eldest son; f. 36b, p. 62 n. 2). Jahāngīr quotes a final hemistich only, "Khwājagīra mānda'īm, Khwājagīrā banda'īm" and thereafter made an impromptu verse upon the one sent to him.

A curious thing is that the line he quotes is not part of the quatrain he answered, but belongs to another not appropriate for a message between darwesh and pādshāh, though likely to have been sent by Bābur to Khwājagī. I will quote both because the matter will come up again for who works on the Hindūstān poems.

(1) The quatrain from the Hindūstān Poems is:—

Dar hawā'ī nafs gumrah `umr ẓāi` karda'īm [kanda'īm?]; Pesh ahl-i-allāh az af`āl-i-khūd sharmanda'īm; Yak naẕr bā mukhlaṣān-i-khasta-dil farmā ki mā Khwājagīrā mānda'īm u Khwājagīrā banda'īm.

(2) That from the Akbar-nāma is:—

Darweshānrā agarcha nah as khweshānīm, Lek az dil u jān mu`taqid eshānīm; Dūr ast magū`ī shāhī az darweshī, Shāhīm walī banda-i-darweshānīm.

The greater suitability of the second is seen from Jahāngīr's answering impromptu for which by sense and rhyme it sets the model; the meaning, however, of the fourth line in each may be identical, namely, "I remain the ruler but am the servant of the darwesh." Jahāngīr's impromptu is as follows:—

Āī ānki marā mihr-i-tū besh az besh ast, Az daulat yād-i-būdat āī darwesh ast; Chandānki'z muẕẖ dahāt dilam shād shavad Shadīm az ānki laṯif az ḥadd besh ast.

He then called on those who had a turn for verse to "speak one" i.e. to improvise on his own; it was done as follows:—

Dārīm agarcha shaghal-i-shāhī dar pesh, Har laḥẕa kunīm yād-i-darweshān besh; Gar shād shavad'z mā dil-i-yak darwesh, Ānra shumarīm ḥaṣil-i-shāhī khwesh.

R.—CHANDĪRĪ AND GŪĀLĪĀR.

The courtesy of the Government of India enables me to reproduce from the Archæological Survey Reports of 1871, Sir Alexander Cunningham's plans of Chandīrī and Gūālīār, which illustrate Bābur's narrative on f. 333, p. 592, and f. 340, p. 607.

S.—CONCERNING THE BĀBUR-NĀMA DATING OF 935 AH.

The dating of the diary of 935 AH. (f. 339 et seq.) is several times in opposition to what may be distinguished as the "book-rule" that the 12 lunar months of the Ḥijra year alternate in length between 30 and 29 days (intercalary years excepted), and that Muḥarram starts the alternation with 30 days. An early book stating the rule is Gladwin's Bengal Revenue Accounts; a recent one, Ranking's ed. of Platts' Persian Grammar.

As to what day of the week was the initial day of some of the months in 935 AH. Bābur's days differ from Wüstenfeld's who gives the full list of twelve, and from Cunningham's single one of Muḥarram 1st.

It seems worth while to draw attention to the flexibility, within limits, of Bābur's dating, [not with the object of adversely criticizing a rigid and convenient rule for common use, but as supplementary to that rule from a somewhat special source], because he was careful and observant, his dating was contemporary, his record, as being de die in diem, provides a check of consecutive narrative on his dates, which, moreover, are all held together by the external fixtures of Feasts and by the marked recurrence of Fridays observed. Few such writings as the Bābur-nāma diaries appear to be available for showing variation within a year's limit.

In 935 AH. Bābur enters few full dates, i.e. days of the week and month. Often he gives only the day of the week, the safest, however, in a diary. He is precise in saying at what time of the night or the day an action was done; this is useful not only as helping to get over difficulties caused by minor losses of text, but in the more general matter of the transference of a Ḥijra night-and-day which begins after sunset, to its Julian equivalent, of a day-and-night which begins at 12 a.m. This sometimes difficult transference affords a probable explanation of a good number of the discrepant dates found in Oriental-Occidental books.

Two matters of difference between the Bābur-nāma dating and that of some European calendars are as follows:—

a. Discrepancy as to the day of the week on which Muḥ 935 AH. began.

This discrepancy is not a trivial matter when a year's diary is concerned. The record of Muḥ. 1st and 2nd is missing from the Bābur-nāma; Friday the 3rd day of Muḥarram is the first day specified; the 1st was a Wednesday therefore. Erskine accepted this day; Cunningham and Wüstenfeld give Tuesday. On three grounds Wednesday seems right—at any rate at that period and place:—(1) The second Friday in Muḥarram was `Āshūr, the 10th (f. 240); (2) Wednesday is in serial order if reckoning be made from the last surviving date of 934 AH. with due allowance of an intercalary day to Ẕū'l-ḥijja (Gladwin), i.e. from Thursday Rajab 12th (April 2nd 1528 AD. f. 339, p. 602); (3) Wednesday is supported by the daily record of far into the year.

b. Variation in the length of the months of 935 AH.

There is singular variation between the Bābur-nāma and Wüstenfeld's Tables, both as to the day of the week on which months began, and as to the length of some months. This variation is shown in the following table, where asterisks mark agreement as to the days of the week, and the capital letters, quoted from W.'s Tables, denote A, Sunday; B, Tuesday, etc. (the bracketed names being of my entry).

Bābur-nāma. Wüstenfeld Days. Days. Muḥarram 29 Wednesday 30 C (Tuesday) Ṣafar 30 Thursday* 29 E (Thursday)* Rabī` I. 30 Saturday 30 F (Friday) " II. 29 Monday 29 A (Sunday) Jumadā I. 30 Tuesday 30 B (Monday) " II. 29 Thursday 29 D (Wednesday) Rajab 29 Friday 30 E (Thursday) Sha`bān 30 Saturday* 29 G (Saturday)* Ramẓān 29 Monday 30 A (Sunday) Shawwal 30 Tuesday* 29 C (Tuesday)* Ẕū'l-qa`da 29 Thursday 30 D (Wednesday) Ẕū'l-ḥijja 30 Friday* 29 T (Friday)*

The table shows that notwithstanding the discrepancy discussed in section a, of Bābur's making 935 AH. begin on a Wednesday, and Wüstenfeld on a Tuesday, the two authorities agree as to the initial week-day of four months out of twelve, viz. Ṣafar, Sha`bān, Shawwal and Ẕū'l-ḥijja.

Again:—In eight of the months the Bābur-nāma reverses the "book-rule" of alternative Muḥarram 30 days, Ṣafar 29 days et seq. by giving Muḥarram 29, Ṣafar 30. (This is seen readily by following the initial days of the week.) Again:—these eight months are in pairs having respectively 29 and 30 days, and the year's total is 364.—Four months follow the fixed rule, i.e. as though the year had begun Muḥ. 30 days, Ṣafar 29 days—namely, the two months of Rabī` and the two of Jumāda.—Ramẓān to which under "book-rule" 30 days are due, had 29 days, because, as Bābur records, the Moon was seen on the 29th.—In the other three instances of the reversed 30 and 29, one thing is common, viz. Muḥarram, Rajab, Ẕū'l-qa`da (as also Ẕū'l-ḥijja) are "honoured" months.—It would be interesting if some expert in this Musalmān matter would give the reasons dictating the changes from rule noted above as occurring in 935 AH.

c. Varia.

(1) On f. 367 Saturday is entered as the 1st day of Sha`bān and Wednesday as the 4th, but on f. 368b stands Wednesday 5th, as suits the serial dating. If the mistake be not a mere slip, it may be due to confusion of hours, the ceremony chronicled being accomplished on the eve of the 5th, Anglicé, after sunset on the 4th.

(2) A fragment only survives of the record of Ẕū'l-ḥijja 935 AH. It contains a date, Thursday 7th, and mentions a Feast which will be that of the `Īdu'l-kabīr on the 10th (Sunday). Working on from this to the first-mentioned day of 936 AH. viz. Tuesday, Muḥarram 3rd, the month (which is the second of a pair having 29 and 30 days) is seen to have 30 days and so to fit on to 936 AH. The series is Sunday 10th, 17th, 24th (Sat. 30th) Sunday 1st, Tuesday 3rd.

Two clerical errors of mine in dates connecting with this Appendix are corrected here:—(1) On p. 614 n. 5, for Oct. 2nd read Oct. 3rd; (2) on p. 619 penultimate line of the text, for Nov. 28th read Nov. 8th.

T.—ON L:KNŪ (LAKHNAU) AND L:KNŪR (LAKHNŪR, NOW SHĀHĀBĀD IN RĀMPŪR).

One or other of the above-mentioned names occurs eight times in the Bābur-nāma (s.a. 932, 934, 935 AH.), some instances being shown by their context to represent Lakhnau in Oudh, others inferentially and by the verbal agreement of the Ḥaidarābād Codex and Kehr's Codex to stand for Lakhnūr (now Shāhābād in Rāmpūr). It is necessary to reconsider the identification of those not decided by their context, both because there is so much variation in the copies of the `Abdu'r-raḥīm Persian translation that they give no verbal help, and because Mr. Erskine and M. de Courteille are in agreement about them and took the whole eight to represent Lakhnau. This they did on different grounds, but in each case their agreement has behind it a defective textual basis.—Mr. Erskine, as is well known, translated the `Abdu'r-raḥīm Persian text without access to the original Turkī but, if he had had the Elphinstone Codex when translating, it would have given him no help because all the eight instances occur on folios not preserved by that codex. His only sources were not-first-rate Persian MSS. in which he found casual variation from terminal nū to nūr, which latter form may have been read by him as nūū (whence perhaps the old Anglo-Indian transliteration he uses, Luknow).—M. de Courteille's position is different; his uniform Lakhnau obeyed the same uniformity in his source the Kāsān Imprint, and would appear to him the more assured for the concurrence of the Memoirs. His textual basis, however, for these words is Dr. Ilminsky's and not Kehr's. No doubt the uniform Lakhnū of the Kāsān Imprint is the result of Dr. Ilminsky's uncertainty as to the accuracy of his single Turkī archetype [Kehr's MS.], and also of his acceptance of Mr. Erskine's uniform Luknow.—Since the Ḥaidarābād Codex became available and its collation with Kehr's Codex has been made, a better basis for distinguishing between the L:knū and L:knūr of the Persian MSS. has been obtained. The results of the collation are entered in the following table, together with what is found in the Kāsān Imprint and the Memoirs. [N.B. The two sets of bracketed instances refer each to one place; the asterisks show where Ilminsky varies from Kehr.]

Ḥai. MS. Kehr's MS. Kāsān Imprint. Memoirs. 1. {f. 278b L:knūr L:knū L:knū, p. 361 Luknow. 2. {f. 338 L:knū " " p. 437 "

3. f. 292b L:knūr L:knūr " p. 379* not entered.

4. f. 329 L:knūr L:knūr " p. 362* Luknow. 5. f. 334 L:knū L:knū " p. 432* "

6. {f. 376 L:knū L:knūr " p. 486* " 7. {f. 376b L:knūr " " p. 487* " 8. {f. 377b L:knū " " p. 488* "

The following notes give some grounds for accepting the names as the two Turkī codices agree in giving them:—

The first and second instances of the above table, those of the Ḥai. Codex f. 278b and f. 338, are shown by their context to represent Lakhnau.

The third (f. 292b) is an item of Bābur's Revenue List. The Turkī codices are supported by B.M. Or. 1999, which is a direct copy of Shaikh Zain's autograph T̤ābaqāt-i-bāburī, all three having L:knūr. Kehr's MS. and Or. 1999 are descendants of the second degree from the original List; that the Ḥai. Codex is a direct copy is suggested by its pseudo-tabular arrangement of the various items.—An important consideration supporting L:knūr, is that the List is in Persian and may reasonably be accepted as the one furnished officially for the Pādshāh's information when he was writing his account of Hindūstān (cf. Appendix P, p. liv). This official character disassociates it from any such doubtful spelling by the foreign Pādshāh as cannot but suggest itself when the variants of e.g. Dalmau and Bangarmau are considered. L:knūr is what three persons copying independently read in the official List, and so set down that careful scribes i.e. Kehr and `Abdu'l-lāh (App. P) again wrote L:knūr.—Another circumstance favouring L:knūr (Lakhnūr) is that the place assigned to it in the List is its geographical one between Saṃbhal and Khairābād.—Something for [or perhaps against] accepting Lakhnūr as the sarkār of the List may be known in local records or traditions. It had been an important place, and later on it paid a large revenue to Akbar [as part of Saṃbhal].—It appears to have been worth the attention of Bīban Jalwānī (f. 329).—Another place is associated with L:knūr in the Revenue List, the forms of which are open to a considerable number of interpretations besides that of Baksar shown in loco on p. 521. Only those well acquainted with the United Provinces or their bye-gone history can offer useful suggestion about it. Maps show a "Madkar" 6 m. south of old Lakhnūr; there are in the United Provinces two Baksars and as many other Lakhnūrs (none however being so suitable as what is now Shāhābād). Perhaps in the archives of some old families there may be help found to interpret the entry L:knūr u B:ks:r (var.), a conjecture the less improbable that the Gazetteer of the Province of Oude (ii, 58) mentions a farmān of Bābur Pādshāh's dated 1527 AD. and upholding a grant to Shaikh Qāẓī of Bīlgrām.

The fourth instance (f. 329) is fairly confirmed as Lakhnūr by its context, viz. an officer received the district of Badāyūn from the Pādshāh and was sent against Bīban who had laid siege to L:knūr on which Badāyūn bordered.—At the time Lakhnau may have been held from Bābur by Shaikh Bāyazīd Farmūlī in conjunction with Aūd. Its estates are recorded as still in Farmūlī possession, that of the widow of "Kala Pahār" Farmūlī.—(See infra.)

The fifth instance (f. 334) connects with Aūd (Oudh) because royal troops abandoning the place L:knū were those who had been sent against Shaikh Bāyazīd in Aūd.

The remaining three instances (f. 376, f. 376b, f. 377b) appear to concern one place, to which Bīban and Bāyazīd were rumoured to intend going, which they captured and abandoned. As the table of variants shows, Kehr's MS. reads Lakhnūr in all three places, the Ḥai. MS. once only, varying from itself as it does in Nos. 1 and 2.—A circumstance supporting Lakhnūr is that one of the messengers sent to Bābur with details of the capture was the son of Shāh Muḥ. Dīwāna whose record associates him rather with Badakhshān, and with Humāyūn and Saṃbhal [perhaps with Lakhnūr itself] than with Bābur's own army.—Supplementing my notes on these three instances, much could be said in favour of reading Lakhnūr, about time and distance done by the messengers and by `Abdu'l-lah kitābdār, on his way to Saṃbhal and passing near Lakhnūr; much too about the various rumours and Bābur's immediate counter-action. But to go into it fully would need lengthy treatment which the historical unimportance of the little problem appears not to demand.—Against taking the place to be Lakhnau there are the considerations (a) that Lakhnūr was the safer harbourage for the Rains and less near the westward march of the royal troops returning from the battle of the Goghrā; (b) that the fort of Lakhnau was the renowned old Machchi-bawan (cf. Gazetteer of the Province of Oude, 3 vols., 1877, ii, 366).—So far as I have been able to fit dates and transactions together, there seems no reason why the two Afghāns should not have gone to Lakhnūr, have crossed the Ganges near it, dropped down south [perhaps even intending to recross at Dalmau] with the intention of getting back to the Farmūlīs and Jalwānīs perhaps in Sārwār, perhaps elsewhere to Bāyazīd's brother Ma`rūf.

U.—THE INSCRIPTIONS ON BĀBUR'S MOSQUE IN AJODHYA (OUDH).

Thanks to the kind response made by the Deputy-Commissioner of Fyzābād to my husband's enquiry about two inscriptions mentioned by several Gazetteers as still existing on "Bābur's Mosque" in Oudh, I am able to quote copies of both.

a. The inscription inside the Mosque is as follows:—

1. Ba farmūda-i-Shāh Bābur ki `ādilash Banā'īst tā kākh-i-gardūn mulāqī,

2. Banā kard īn muhbiṯ-i-qudsiyān Amīr-i-sa`ādat-nishān Mīr Bāqī

3. Bavad khair bāqī! chū sāl-i-banā'īsh `Iyān shud ki guftam,—Buvad khair bāqī (935).

The translation and explanation of the above, manifestly made by a Musalmān and as such having special value, are as follows:—

1. By the command of the Emperor Bābur whose justice is an edifice reaching up to the very height of the heavens,

2. The good-hearted Mīr Bāqī built this alighting-place of angels;

3. Bavad khāir bāqī! (May this goodness last for ever!)

The year of building it was made clear likewise when I said, Buvad khair bāqī ( = 935).

The explanation of this is:—

1st couplet:—The poet begins by praising the Emperor Bābur under whose orders the mosque was erected. As justice is the (chief) virtue of kings, he naturally compares his (Bābur's) justice to a palace reaching up to the very heavens, signifying thereby that the fame of that justice had not only spread in the wide world but had gone up to the heavens.

2nd couplet:—In the second couplet, the poet tells who was entrusted with the work of construction. Mīr Bāqī was evidently some nobleman of distinction at Bābur's Court.—The noble height, the pure religious atmosphere, and the scrupulous cleanliness and neatness of the mosque are beautifully suggested by saying that it was to be the abode of angels.

3rd couplet:—The third couplet begins and ends with the expression Buvad khair bāqī. The letters forming it by their numerical values represent the number 935, thus:—

B = 2, v = 6, d = 4 total 12 Kh = 600, ai = 10, r = 200 " 810 B = 2, ā = 1, q = 100, r = 10 " 113 ___ Total 935

The poet indirectly refers to a religious commandment (dictum?) of the Qorān that a man's good deeds live after his death, and signifies that this noble mosque is verily such a one.

b. The inscription outside the Mosque is as follows:—

1. Ba nām-i-anki dānā hast akbar Ki khāliq-i-jamla `ālam lā-makānī

2. Durūd Muṣṯafá ba`d az sitāyish Ki sarwar-i-aṃbiyā' dū jahānī

3. Fasāna dar jahān Bābur qalandar Ki shud dar daur gītī kāmrānī.

The explanation of the above is as follows:—

In the first couplet the poet praises God, in the second Muḥammad, in the third Bābur.—There is a peculiar literary beauty in the use of the word lā-makānī in the 1st couplet. The author hints that the mosque is meant to be the abode of God, although He has no fixed abiding-place.—In the first hemistich of the 3rd couplet the poet gives Bābur the appellation of qalandar, which means a perfect devotee, indifferent to all worldly pleasures. In the second hemistich he gives as the reason for his being so, that Bābur became and was known all the world over as a qalandar, because having become Emperor of India and having thus reached the summit of worldly success, he had nothing to wish for on this earth.

The inscription is incomplete and the above is the plain interpretation which can be given to the couplets that are to hand. Attempts may be made to read further meaning into them but the language would not warrant it.

V.—BĀBUR'S GARDENS IN AND NEAR KĀBUL.

The following particulars about gardens made by Bābur in or near Kābul, are given in Muḥammad Amīr of Kazwīn's Pādshāh-nāma (Bib. Ind. ed. p. 585, p. 588).

Ten gardens are mentioned as made:—the Shahr-ārā (Town-adorning) which when Shāh-i-jahān first visited Kābul in the 12th year of his reign (1048 AH.-1638 AD.) contained very fine plane-trees Bābur had planted, beautiful trees having magnificent trunks,—the Chār-bāgh,—the Bāgh-i-jalau-khāna,—the Aūrta-bāgh (Middle-garden),—the Ṣaurat-bāgh,—the Bāgh-i-mahtāb (Moonlight-garden),—the Bāgh-i-āhū-khāna (Garden-of-the-deer-house),—and three smaller ones. Round these gardens rough-cast walls were made (renewed?) by Jahāngīr (1016 AH.).

The above list does not specify the garden Bābur made and selected for his burial; this is described apart (l.c. p. 588) with details of its restoration and embellishment by Shāh-i-jahān the master-builder of his time, as follows:—

The burial-garden was 500 yards (gaz) long; its ground was in 15 terraces, 30 yards apart(?). On the 15th terrace is the tomb of Ruqaiya Sulṯān Begam; as a small marble platform (chabūṭra) had been made near it by Jahāngīr's command, Shāh-i-jahān ordered (both) to be enclosed by a marble screen three yards high.—Bābur's tomb is on the 14th terrace. In accordance with his will, no building was erected over it, but Shāh-i-jahān built a small marble mosque on the terrace below. It was begun in the 17th year (of Shāh-i-jahān's reign) and was finished in the 19th, after the conquest of Balkh and Badakhshān, at a cost of 30,000 rūpīs. It is admirably constructed.—From the 12th terrace running-water flows along the line (rasta) of the avenue; but its 12 water-falls, because not constructed with cemented stone, had crumbled away and their charm was lost; orders were given therefore to renew them entirely and lastingly, to make a small reservoir below each fall, and to finish with Kābul marble the edges of the channel and the waterfalls, and the borders of the reservoirs.—And on the 9th terrace there was to be a reservoir 11 x 11 yards, bordered with Kābul marble, and on the 10th terrace one 15 x 15, and at the entrance to the garden another 15 x 15, also with a marble border.—And there was to be a gateway adorned with gilded cupolas befitting that place, and beyond (pesh) the gateway a square station, one side of which should be the garden-wall and the other three filled with cells; that running-water should pass through the middle of it, so that the destitute and poor people who might gather there should eat their food in those cells, sheltered from the hardship of snow and rain.

FOOTNOTES

From Atkinson's Sketches in Afghanistan (I.O. Lib. & B.M.).

See p. 710 (where for "Daniels" read Atkinson).

See Gul-badan Begim's Humayun-nama Index III, in loco.

Cf. Cap. II, PROBLEMS OF THE MUTILATED BABUR-NAMA and Tarīkh-i-rashīdi, trs. p. 174.

The suggestion, implied by my use of this word, that Babur may have definitely closed his autobiography (as Timur did under other circumstances) is due to the existence of a compelling cause viz. that he would be expectant of death as the price of Humayun's restored life (p. 701).

Cf. p. 83 and n. and Add. Note, P. 83 for further emendation of a contradiction effected by some malign influence in the note (p. 83) between parts of that note, and between it and Babur's account of his not-drinking in Herat.

Teufel held its title to be waqi` (this I adopted in 1908), but it has no definite support and in numerous instances of its occurrence to describe the acts or doings of Babur, it could be read as a common noun.

It stands on the reverse of the frontal page of the Haidarabad Codex; it is Timur-pulad's name for the Codex he purchased in Bukhara, and it is thence brought on by Kehr (with Ilminski), and Klaproth (Cap. III); it is used by Khwafi Khan (d. cir. 1732), etc.

That Babur left a complete record much indicates beyond his own persistence and literary bias, e.g. cross-reference with and needed complements from what is lost; mention by other writers of Babur's information, notably by Haidar.

App. H, xxx.

p. 446, n. 6. Babur's order for the cairn would fit into the lost record of the first month of the year (p. 445).

Parts of the Babur-nama sent to Babur's sons are not included here.

The standard of comparison is the 382 fols. of the Haidarabad Codex.

This MS. is not to be confused with one Erskine misunderstood Humayun to have copied (Memoirs, p. 303 and JRAS. 1900, p. 443).

For precise limits of the original annotation see p. 446 n.—For details about the E. Codex see JRAS. 1907, art. The Elph. Codex, and for the colophon AQR. 1900, July, Oct. and JRAS. 1905, pp. 752, 761.

See Index s.n. and III ante and JRAS. 1900-3-5-6-7.

Here speaks the man reared in touch with European classics; (pure) Turki though it uses no relatives (Radloff) is lucid. Cf. Cap. IV The Memoirs of Babur.

For analysis of a retranslated passage see JRAS. 1908, p. 85.

Tuzuk-i-jahangiri, Rogers & Beveridge's trs. i, 110; JRAS. 1900, p. 756, for the Persian passage, 1908, p. 76 for the "Fragments", 1900, p. 476 for Ilminski's Preface (a second translation is accessible at the B.M. and I.O. Library and R.A.S.), Memoirs Preface, p. ix, Index s.nn. de Courteille, Teufel, Bukhara MSS. and Part iii eo cap.

For Shah-i-jahan's interest in Timur see sign given in a copy of his note published in my translation volume of Gul-badan Begim's Humayun-nama, p. xiii.

JRAS. 1900 p. 466, 1902 p. 655, 1905 art. s.n., 1908 pp. 78, 98; Index in loco s.n.

Cf. JRAS. 1900, Nos. VI, VII, VIII.

Ilminski's difficulties are foreshadowed here by the same confusion of identity between the Babur-nama proper and the Bukhara compilation (Preface, Part iii, p. li).

Cf. Erskine's Preface passim, and in loco item XI, cap. iv. The Memoirs of Baber, and Index s.n.

The last blow was given to the phantasmal reputation of the book by the authoritative Haidarabad Codex which now can be seen in facsimile in many Libraries.

But for present difficulties of intercourse with Petrograd, I would have re-examined with Kehr's the collateral Codex of 1742 (copied in 1839 and now owned by the Petrograd University). It might be useful; as Kehr's volume has lost pages and may be disarranged here and there.

The list of Kehr's items is as follows:—

1 (not in the Imprint). A letter from Babur to Kamran the date of which is fixed as 1527 by its committing Ibrahim Ludi's son to Kamran's charge (p. 544). It is heard of again in the Bukhara Compilation, is lost from Kehr's Codex, and preserved from his archetype by Klaproth who translated it. Being thus found in Bukhara in the first decade of the eighteenth century (our earliest knowledge of the Compilation is 1709), the inference is allowed that it went to Bukhara as loot from the defeated Kamran's camp and that an endorsement its companion Babur-nama (proper) bears was made by the Auzbeg of two victors over Kamran, both of 1550, both in Tramontana.(1)

2 (not in Imp.). Timur-pulad's memo. about the purchase of his Codex in cir. 1521 (eo cap. post).

3 (Imp. 1). Compiler's Preface of Praise (JRAS. 1900, p. 474).

4 (Imp. 2). Babur's Acts in Farghana, in diction such as to seem a re-translation of the Persian translation of 1589. How much of Kamran's MS. was serviceable is not easy to decide, because the Turki fettering of `Abdu'r-rahim's Persian lends itself admirably to re-translation.(2)

5 (Imp. 3). The "Rescue-passage" (App. D) attributable to Jahangir.

6 (Imp. 4). Babur's Acts in Kabul, seeming (like No. 4) a re-translation or patching of tattered pages. There are also passages taken verbatim from the Persian.

7 (Imp. omits). A short length of Babur's Hindustan Section, carefully shewn damaged by dots and dashes.

8 (Imp. 5). Within 7, the spurious passage of App. L and also scattered passages about a feast, perhaps part of 7.

9 (Imp. separates off at end of vol.). Translated passage from the Akbar-nāma, attributable to Jahangir, briefly telling of Kanwa (1527), Babur's latter years (both changed to first person), death and court.(3)

10 (Imp. omits). Preface to the history of Humayun, beginning at the Creation and descending by giant strides through notices of Khans and Sultans to "Babur Mirza who was the father of Humayun Padshah". Of Babur what further is said connects with the battle of Ghaj-davan (918-1512 q.v.). It is ill-informed, laying blame on him as if he and not Najm Sani had commanded—speaks of his preference for the counsel of young men and of the numbers of combatants. It is noticeable for more than its inadequacy however; its selection of the Ghaj-davan episode from all others in Babur's career supports circumstantially what is dealt with later, the Ghaj-davani authorship of the Compilation.

11 (Imp. omits). Under a heading "Humayun Padshah" is a fragment about (his? Accession) Feast, whether broken off by loss of his pages or of those of his archetype examination of the P. Univ. Codex may show.

12 (Imp. 6). An excellent copy of Babur's Hindustan Section, perhaps obtained from the Ahrari house. [This Ilminski places (I think) where Kehr has No. 7.] From its position and from its bearing a scribe's date of completion (which Kehr brings over), viz. Tamt shud 1126 (Finished 1714), the compiler may have taken it for Humayun's, perhaps for the account of his reconquest of Hind in 1555.

That Babur-nama of the "Kamran-docket" is the mutilated and tattered basis, allowed by circumstance, of the compiled history of Babur, filled out and mended by the help of the Persian translation of 1589. Cf. Kehr's Latin Trs. fly-leaf entry; Klaproth s.n.; A.N. trs. H.B., p. 260; JRAS. 1908, 1909, on the "Kamran-docket" where are defects needing Klaproth's second article (1824).

For an analysis of an illustrative passage see JRAS. 1906; for facilities of re-translation see eo cap. p. xviii, where Erskine is quoted.

See A.N. trans., p. 260; Prefaces of Ilminski and de Courteille; ZDMG. xxxvii, Teufel's art.; JRAS. 1906.

For particulars about Kehr's Codex see Smirnov's Catalogue of the School Library and JRAS. 1900, 1906. Like others who have made statements resting on the mistaken identity of the Bukhara Compilation, many of mine are now given to the winds.

See Gregorief's "Russian policy regarding Central Asia", quoted in Schuyler's Turkistan, App. IV.

The Mission was well received, started to return to Petrograd, was attacked by Turkmans, went back to Bukhara, and there stayed until it could attempt the devious route which brought it to the capital in 1725.

One might say jestingly that the spirit in the book had rebelled since 1725 against enforced and changing masquerade as a phantasm of two other books!

Neither Ilminski nor Smirnov mentions another "Babur-nama" Codex than Kehr's.

A Correspondent combatting my objection to publishing a second edition of the Memoirs, backed his favouring opinion by reference to `Umar Khayyam and Fitzgerald. Obviously no analogy exists; Erskine's redundance is not the flower of a deft alchemy, but is the prosaic consequence of a secondary source.

The manuscripts relied on for revising the first section of the Memoirs, (i.e. 899 to 908 AH.-1494 to 1502 AD.) are the Elphinstone and the Ḥaidarābād Codices. To variants from them occurring in Dr. Kehr's own transcript no authority can be allowed because throughout this section, his text appears to be a compilation and in parts a retranslation from one or other of the two Persian translations (Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī) of the Bābur-nāma. Moreover Dr. Ilminsky's imprint of Kehr's text has the further defect in authority that it was helped out from the Memoirs, itself not a direct issue from the Turkī original.

Information about the manuscripts of the Bābur-nāma can be found in the JRAS for 1900, 1902, 1905, 1906, 1907 and 1908.

The foliation marked in the margin of this book is that of the Ḥaidarābād Codex and of its facsimile, published in 1905 by the Gibb Memorial Trust.

Bābur, born on Friday, Feb. 14th. 1483 (Muḥarram 6, 888 AH.), succeeded his father, `Umar Shaikh who died on June 8th. 1494 (Ramẓān 4, 899 AH.).

pād-shāh, protecting lord, supreme. It would be an anachronism to translate pādshāh by King or Emperor, previous to 913 AH. (1507 AD.) because until that date it was not part of the style of any Tīmūrid, even ruling members of the house being styled Mīrzā. Up to 1507 therefore Bābur's correct style is Bābur Mīrzā. (Cf. f. 215 and note.)

See Āyīn-i-akbarī, Jarrett, p. 44.

The Ḥai. MS. and a good many of the W.-i-B. MSS. here write Aūtrār. [Aūtrār like Tarāz was at some time of its existence known as Yāngī (New).] Tarāz seems to have stood near the modern Auliya-ātā; Ālmālīgh,—a Metropolitan see of the Nestorian Church in the 14th. century,—to have been the old capital of Kuldja, and Ālmātū (var. Ālmātī) to have been where Vernoe (Vierny) now is. Ālmālīgh and Ālmātū owed their names to the apple (ālmā). Cf. Bretschneider's Mediæval Geography p. 140 and T.R. (Elias and Ross) s.nn.

Mughūl u Aūzbeg jihatdīn. I take this, the first offered opportunity of mentioning (1) that in transliterating Turkī words I follow Turkī lettering because I am not competent to choose amongst systems which e.g. here, reproduce Aūzbeg as Ūzbeg, Özbeg and Euzbeg; and (2) that style being part of an autobiography, I am compelled, in pressing back the Memoirs on Bābur's Turkī mould, to retract from the wording of the western scholars, Erskine and de Courteille. Of this compulsion Bābur's bald phrase Mughūl u Aūzbeg jihatdīn provides an illustration. Each earlier translator has expressed his meaning with more finish than he himself; `Abdu'r-raḥīm, by az jihat `ubūr-i (Mughūl u) Aūzbeg, improves on Bābur, since the three towns lay in the tideway of nomad passage (`ubūr) east and west; Erskine writes "in consequence of the incursions" etc. and de C. "grace aux ravages commis" etc.

Schuyler (ii, 54) gives the extreme length of the valley as about 160 miles and its width, at its widest, as 65 miles.

Following a manifestly clerical error in the Second W.-i-B. the Akbar-nāma and the Mems. are without the seasonal limitation, "in winter." Bābur here excludes from winter routes one he knew well, the Kīndīrlīk Pass; on the other hand Kostenko says that this is open all the year round. Does this contradiction indicate climatic change? (Cf. f. 54b and note; A.N. Bib. Ind. ed. i, 85 (H. Beveridge i, 221) and, for an account of the passes round Farghāna, Kostenko's Turkistān Region, Tables of Contents.)

Var. Banākat, Banākas̤, Fīākat, Fanākand. Of this place Dr. Rieu writes (Pers. cat. i, 79) that it was also called Shāsh and, in modern times, Tāshkīnt. Bābur does not identify Fanākat with the Tāshkīnt of his day but he identifies it with Shāhrukhiya (cf. Index s.nn.) and distinguishes between Tāshkīnt-Shāsh and Fanākat-Shāhrukhiya. It may be therefore that Dr. Rieu's Tāshkīnt-Fanākat was Old Tāshkīnt,—(Does Fanā-kīnt mean Old Village?) some 14 miles nearer to the Saiḥūn than the Tāshkīnt of Bābur's day or our own.

hech daryā qātīlmās. A gloss of dīgar (other) in the Second W.-i-B. has led Mr. Erskine to understand "meeting with no other river in its course." I understand Bābur to contrast the destination of the Saiḥūn which he [erroneously] says sinks into the sands, with the outfall of e.g. the Amū into the Sea of Aral.

Cf. First W.-i-B. I.O. MS. 215 f. 2; Second W.-i-B. I.O. MS. 217 f. 1b and Ouseley's Ibn Haukal p. 232-244; also Schuyler and Kostenko l.c.

Bābur's geographical unit in Central Asia is the township or, with more verbal accuracy, the village i.e. the fortified, inhabited and cultivated oasis. Of frontiers he says nothing.

i.e. they are given away or taken. Bābur's interest in fruits was not a matter of taste or amusement but of food. Melons, for instance, fresh or stored, form during some months the staple food of Turkistānīs. Cf. T.R. p. 303 and (in Kāshmīr) 425; Timkowski's Travels of the Russian Mission i, 419 and Th. Radloff's Réceuils d'Itinéraires p. 343.

N.B. At this point two folios of the Elphinstone Codex are missing.

Either a kind of melon or the pear. For local abundance of pears see Āyīn-i-akbarī, Blochmann p. 6; Kostenko and Von Schwarz.

qūrghān, i.e. the walled town within which was the citadel (ark).

Tūqūz tarnau sū kīrār, bū `ajab tūr kīm bīr yīrdīn ham chīqmās. Second W.-i-B. I.O. 217 f. 2, nuh jū'ī āb dar qila` dar mī āyid u īn `ajab ast kah hama az yak jā ham na mī bar āyid. (Cf. Mems. p. 2 and Méms. i, 2.) I understand Bābur to mean that all the water entering was consumed in the town. The supply of Andijān, in the present day, is taken both from the Āq Būrā (i.e. the Aūsh Water) and, by canal, from the Qarā Daryā.

khandaqnīng tāsh yānī. Second W.-i-B. I.O. 217 f. 2 dar kīnār sang bast khandaq. Here as in several other places, this Persian translation has rendered Turkī tāsh, outside, as if it were Turkī tāsh, stone. Bābur's adjective stone is sangīn (f. 45b l. 8). His point here is the unusual circumstance of a high-road running round the outer edge of the ditch. Moreover Andijān is built on and of loess. Here, obeying his Persian source, Mr. Erskine writes "stone-faced ditch"; M. de C. obeying his Turkī one, "bord extérieur."

qīrghāwal āsh-kīnasī bīla. Āsh-kīna, a diminutive of āsh, food, is the rice and vegetables commonly served with the bird. Kostenko i, 287 gives a recipe for what seems āsh-kīna.

b. 1440; d. 1500 AD.

Yūsuf was in the service of Bāī-sunghar Mīrzā Shāhrukhī (d. 837 AH.-1434 AD.). Cf. Daulat Shāh's Memoirs of the Poets (Browne) pp. 340 and 350-1. (H.B.)

gūzlār aīl bīzkāk kūb būlūr. Second W.-i-B. (I.O. 217 f. 2) here and on f. 4 has read Turkī gūz, eye, for Turkī gūz or goz, autumn. It has here a gloss not in the Ḥaidarābād or Kehr's MSS. (Cf. Mems. p. 4 note.) This gloss may be one of Humāyūn's numerous notes and may have been preserved in the Elphinstone Codex, but the fact cannot now be known because of the loss of the two folios already noted. (See Von Schwarz and Kostenko concerning the autumn fever of Transoxiana.)

The Pers. trss. render yīghāch by farsang; Ujfalvy also takes the yīghāch and the farsang as having a common equivalent of about 6 kilomètres. Bābur's statements in yīghāch however, when tested by ascertained distances, do not work out into the farsang of four miles or the kilomètre of 8 kil. to 5 miles. The yīghāch appears to be a variable estimate of distance, sometimes indicating the time occupied on a given journey, at others the distance to which a man's voice will carry. (Cf. Ujfalvy Expédition scientifique ii, 179; Von Schwarz p. 124 and de C.'s Dict. s.n. yīghāch. In the present instance, if Bābur's 4 y. equalled 4 f. the distance from Aūsh to Andijān should be about 16 m.; but it is 33 m. 1-3/4 fur. i.e. 50 versts. Kostenko ii, 33.) I find Bābur's yīghāch to vary from about 4 m. to nearly 8 m.

āqār sū, the irrigation channels on which in Turkistān all cultivation depends. Major-General Gérard writes, (Report of the Pamir Boundary Commission, p. 6,) "Osh is a charming little town, resembling Islāmābād in Kāshmīr,—everywhere the same mass of running water, in small canals, bordered with willow, poplar and mulberry." He saw the Āq Būrā, the White wolf, mother of all these running waters, as a "bright, stony, trout-stream;" Dr. Stein saw it as a "broad, tossing river." (Buried Cities of Khotan, p. 45.) Cf. Réclus vi, cap. Farghāna; Kostenko i, 104; Von Schwarz s.nn.

Aūshnīng faẓīlatīdā khailī aḥādis̤ wārid dūr. Second W.-i-B. (I.O. 217 f. 2) Faẓīlat-i-Aūsh aḥadis̤ wārid ast. Mems. (p. 3) "The excellencies of Ush are celebrated even in the sacred traditions." Méms. (i, 2) "On cite beaucoup de traditions qui célèbrent l'excellence de ce climat." Aūsh may be mentioned in the traditions on account of places of pilgrimage near it; Bābur's meaning may be merely that its excellencies are traditional. Cf. Ujfalvy ii, 172.

Most travellers into Farghāna comment on Bābur's account of it. One much discussed point is the position of the Barā Koh. The personal observations of Ujfalvy and Schuyler led them to accept its identification with the rocky ridge known as the Takht-i-sulaimān. I venture to supplement this by the suggestion that Bābur, by Barā Koh, did not mean the whole of the rocky ridge, the name of which, Takht-i-sulaimān, an ancient name, must have been known to him, but one only of its four marked summits. Writing of the ridge Madame Ujfalvy says, "Il y a quatre sommets dont le plus élevé est le troisième comptant par le nord." Which summit in her sketch (p. 327) is the third and highest is not certain, but one is so shewn that it may be the third, may be the highest and, as being a peak, can be described as symmetrical i.e. Bābur's mauzūn. For this peak an appropriate name would be Barā Koh.

If the name Barā Koh could be restricted to a single peak of the Takht-i-sulaimān ridge, a good deal of earlier confusion would be cleared away, concerning which have written, amongst others, Ritter (v, 432 and 732); Réclus (vi. 54); Schuyler (ii, 43) and those to whom these three refer. For an excellent account, graphic with pen and pencil, of Farghāna and of Aūsh see Madame Ujfalvy's De Paris à Samarcande cap. v.

rūd. This is a precise word since the Āq Būrā (the White Wolf), in a relatively short distance, falls from the Kūrdūn Pass, 13,400 ft. to Aūsh, 3040 ft. and thence to Andijān, 1380 ft. Cf. Kostenko i, 104; Huntingdon in Pumpelly's Explorations in Turkistān p. 179 and the French military map of 1904.

Whether Bābur's words, bāghāt, bāghlār and bāghcha had separate significations, such as orchard, vineyard and ordinary garden i.e. garden-plots of small size, I am not able to say but what appears fairly clear is that when he writes bāghāt u bāghlār he means all sorts of gardens, just as when he writes begāt u beglār, he means begs of all ranks.

Madame Ujfalvy has sketched a possible successor. Schuyler found two mosques at the foot of Takht-i-sulaimān, perhaps Bābur's Jauza Masjid.

aūl shāh-jū'īdīn sū qūyārlār.

Ribbon Jasper, presumably.

Kostenko (ii, 30), 71-3/4 versts i.e. 47 m. 4-1/2 fur. by the Postal Road.

Instead of their own kernels, the Second W.-i-B. stuffs the apricots, in a fashion well known in India by khūbānī, with almonds (maghz-i badām). The Turkī wording however allows the return to the apricots of their own kernels and Mr. Rickmers tells me that apricots so stuffed were often seen by him in the Zar-afshān Valley. My husband has shewn me that Niẕāmī in his Haft Paikar appears to refer to the other fashion, that of inserting almonds:—

"I gave thee fruits from the garden of my heart, Plump and sweet as honey in milk; Their substance gave the lusciousness of figs, In their hearts were the kernels of almonds."

What this name represents is one of a considerable number of points in the Bābur-nāma I am unable to decide. Kīyīk is a comprehensive name (cf. Shaw's Vocabulary); āq kīyīk might mean white sheep or white deer. It is rendered in the Second W.-i-B., here, by ahū-i-wāriq and on f. 4, by ahū-i-safed. Both these names Mr. Erskine has translated by "white deer," but he mentions that the first is said to mean argālī i.e. ovis poli, and refers to Voyages de Pallas iv, 325.

Concerning this much discussed word, Bābur's testimony is of service. It seems to me that he uses it merely of those settled in towns (villages) and without any reference to tribe or nationality. I am not sure that he uses it always as a noun; he writes of a Sārt kīshī, a Sārt person. His Asfara Sārts may have been Turkī-speaking settled Turks and his Marghīnānī ones Persian-speaking Tājiks. Cf. Shaw's Vocabulary; s.n. Sārt; Schuyler i, 104 and note; Nalivkine's Histoire du Khanat de Khokand p. 45 n. Von Schwarz s.n.; Kostenko i, 287; Petzbold's Turkistan p. 32.

Shaikh Burhānu'd-dīn `Alī Qīlīch: b. circa 530 AH. (1135 AD.) d. 593 AH. (1197 AD.). See Hamilton's Hidāyat.

The direct distance, measured on the map, appears to be about 65 m. but the road makes détour round mountain spurs. Mr. Erskine appended here, to the "farsang" of his Persian source, a note concerning the reduction of Tatar and Indian measures to English ones. It is rendered the less applicable by the variability of the yīghāch, the equivalent for a farsang presumed by the Persian translator.

Ḥai. MS. Farsī-gū'ī. The Elph. MS. and all those examined of the W.-i-B. omit the word Farsī; some writing kohī (mountaineer) for gū'ī. I judge that Bābur at first omitted the word Farsī, since it is entered in the Ḥai. MS. above the word gū'ī. It would have been useful to Ritter (vii, 733) and to Ujfalvy (ii, 176). Cf. Kostenko i, 287 on the variety of languages spoken by Sārts.

Of the Mirror Stone neither Fedtschenko nor Ujfalvy could get news.

Bābur distinguishes here between Tāshkīnt and Shāhrukhiya. Cf. f. 2 and note to Fanākat.

He left the hill-country above Sūkh in Muḥarram 910 AH. (mid-June 1504 AD.).

For a good account of Khujand see Kostenko i, 346.

Khujand to Andijān 187 m. 2 fur. (Kostenko ii, 29-31) and, helped out by the time-table of the Transcaspian Railway, from Khujand to Samarkand appears to be some 154 m. 5-1/4 fur.

Both men are still honoured in Khujand (Kostenko i, 348). For Khwāja Kamāl's Life and Dīwān, see Rieu ii, 632 and Ouseley's Persian Poets p. 192. Cf. f. 83b and note.

kūb artūq dūr, perhaps brought to Hindūstān where Bābur wrote the statement.

Turkish arrow-flight, London, 1791, 482 yards.

I have found the following forms of this name,—Ḥai. MS., M:nūgh:l; Pers. trans. and Mems., Myoghil; Ilminsky, M:tugh:l; Méms. Mtoughuil; Réclus, Schuyler and Kostenko, Mogul Tau; Nalivkine, "d'apres Fedtschenko," Mont Mogol; Fr. Map of 1904, M. Muzbek. It is the western end of the Kurāma Range (Kīndīr Tau), which comes out to the bed of the Sīr, is 26-2/3 miles long and rises to 4000 ft. (Kostenko, i, 101). Von Schwarz describes it as being quite bare; various writers ascribe climatic evil to it.

Pers. trans. ahū-i-safed. Cf. f. 3b note.

These words translate into Cervus marāl, the Asiatic Wapiti, and to this Bābur may apply them. Dictionaries explain marāl as meaning hind or doe but numerous books of travel and Natural History show that it has wider application as a generic name, i.e. deer. The two words būghū and marāl appear to me to be used as e.g. drake and duck are used. Marāl and duck can both imply the female sex, but also both are generic, perhaps primarily so. Cf. for further mention of būghū-marāl f. 219 and f. 276. For uses of the word marāl, see the writings e.g. of Atkinson, Kostenko (iii, 69), Lyddeker, Littledale, Selous, Ronaldshay, Church (Chinese Turkistan), Biddulph (Forsyth's Mission).

Cf. f. 2 and note.

Schuyler (ii, 3), 18 m.

Ḥai. MS. Hamesha bū deshttā yīl bār dūr. Marghīnānghā kīm sharqī dūr, hamesha mūndīn yīl bārūr; Khujandghā kīm gharībī dūr, dā'im mūndīn yīl kīlūr.

This is a puzzling passage. It seems to say that wind always goes east and west from the steppe as from a generating centre. E. and de C. have given it alternative directions, east or west, but there is little point in saying this of wind in a valley hemmed in on the north and the south. Bābur limits his statement to the steppe lying in the contracted mouth of the Farghāna valley (pace Schuyler ii, 51) where special climatic conditions exist such as (a) difference in temperature on the two sides of the Khujand narrows and currents resulting from this difference,—(b) the heating of the narrows by sun-heat reflected from the Mogol-tau,—and (c) the inrush of westerly wind over Mīrzā Rabāṯ. Local knowledge only can guide a translator safely but Bābur's directness of speech compels belief in the significance of his words and this particularly when what he says is unexpected. He calls the Hā Darwesh a whirling wind and this it still is. Thinkable at least it is that a strong westerly current (the prevailing wind of Farghāna) entering over Mīrzā Rabāṯ and becoming, as it does become, the whirlwind of Hā Darwesh on the hemmed-in steppe,—becoming so perhaps by conflict with the hotter indraught through the Gates of Khujand—might force that indraught back into the Khujand Narrows (in the way e.g. that one Nile in flood forces back the other), and at Khujand create an easterly current. All the manuscripts agree in writing to (ghā) Marghīnān and to (ghā) Khujand. It may be observed that, looking at the map, it appears somewhat strange that Bābur should take, for his wind objective, a place so distant from his (defined) Hā Darwesh and seemingly so screened by its near hills as is Marghīnān. But that westerly winds are prevalent in Marghīnān is seen e.g. in Middendorff's Einblikke in den Farghāna Thal (p. 112). Cf. Réclus vi, 547; Schuyler ii, 51; Cahun's Histoire du Khanat de Khokand p. 28 and Sven Hedin's Durch Asien's Wüsten s.n. būrān.

bādiya; a word perhaps selected as punning on bād, wind.

i.e. Akhsī Village. This word is sometimes spelled Akhsīkīs̤ but as the old name of the place was Akhsī-kīnt, it may be conjectured at least that the s̤ā'ī mas̤allas̤a of Akhsīkīs̤ represents the three points due for the nūn and tā of kīnt. Of those writing Akhsīkīt may be mentioned the Ḥai. and Kehr's MSS. (the Elph. MS. here has a lacuna) the Z̤afar-nāma (Bib. Ind. i, 44) and Ibn Haukal (Ouseley p. 270); and of those writing the word with the s̤ā'ī muṣallas̤a (i.e. as Akhsīkīs̤), Yāqūt's Dict, i, 162, Reinaud's Abū'l-feda I. ii, 225-6, Ilminsky (p. 5) departing from his source, and I.O. Cat. (Ethé) No. 1029. It may be observed that Ibn Haukal (Ouseley p. 280) writes Banākaṣ for Banākat. For As̤īru'd-dīn Akhsīkītī, see Rieu ii, 563; Daulat Shāh (Browne) p. 121 and Ethé I.O. Cat. No. 1029.

Measured on the French military map of 1904, this may be 80 kil. i.e. 50 miles.

Concerning several difficult passages in the rest of Bābur's account of Akhsī, see Appendix A.

The W.-i-B. here translates būghū-marāl by gazawn and the same word is entered, under-line, in the Ḥai. MS. Cf. f. 3b and note and f. 4 and note.

postīn pesh b:r:h. This obscure Persian phrase has been taken in the following ways:—

(a) W.-i-B. I.O. 215 and 217 (i.e. both versions) reproduce the phrase. (b) W.-i-B. MS., quoted by Erskine, p. 6 note, (postīn-i mīsh burra). (c) Leyden's MS. Trs., a sheepskin mantle of five lambskins. (d) Mems., Erskine, p. 6, a mantle of five lambskins. (e) The Persian annotator of the Elph. MS., underlining pesh, writes, panj, five. (f) Klaproth (Archives, p. 109), pustini pisch breh, d.h. gieb den vorderen Pelz. (g) Kehr, p. 12 (Ilminsky p. 6) postin bīsh b:r:h. (h) De. C, i, 9, fourrure d'agneau de la première qualité.

The "lambskins" of L. and E. carry on a notion of comfort started by their having read sayāh, shelter, for Turkī sā'ī, torrent-bed; de C. also lays stress on fur and warmth, but would not the flowery border of a mountain stream prompt rather a phrase bespeaking ornament and beauty than one expressing warmth and textile softness? If the phrase might be read as postīn pesh perā, what adorns the front of a coat, or as postīn pesh bar rah, the fine front of the coat, the phrase would recall the gay embroidered front of some leathern postins.

Var. tabarkhūn. The explanation best suiting its uses, enumerated here, is Redhouse's second, the Red Willow. My husband thinks it may be the Hyrcanian Willow.

Steingass describes this as "an arrow without wing or point" (barb?) and tapering at both ends; it may be the practising arrow, t`alīm aūqī, often headless.

tabarraklūq. Cf. f. 48b foot, for the same use of the word.

yabrūju'ṣ-ṣannam. The books referred to by Bābur may well be the Rauzatu'ṣ-ṣafā and the Ḥabību's-siyār, as both mention the plant.

The Turkī word āyīq is explained by Redhouse as awake and alert; and by Meninski and de Meynard as sobered and as a return to right senses. It may be used here as a equivalent of mihr in mihr-giyāh, the plant of love.

Mr. Ney Elias has discussed the position of this group of seven villages. (Cf. T. R. p. 180 n.) Arrowsmith's map places it (as Iti-kint) approximately where Mr. Th. Radloff describes seeing it i.e. on the Farghāna slope of the Kurāma range. (Cf. Réceuil d'Itinéraires p. 188.) Mr. Th. Radloff came into Yītī-kīnt after crossing the Kīndīrlīk Pass from Tāshkīnt and he enumerates the seven villages as traversed by him before reaching the Sīr. It is hardly necessary to say that the actual villages he names may not be those of Bābur's Yītī-kint. Wherever the word is used in the Bābur-nāma and the Tārīkh-i-rashīdī, it appears from the context allowable to accept Mr. Radloff's location but it should be borne in mind that the name Yītī-kīnt (Seven villages or towns) might be found as an occasional name of Altī-shahr (Six towns). See T.R. s.n. Altī-shahr.

kīshī, person, here manifestly fighting men.

Elph. MS. f. 2b; First W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 4b; Second W.-i-B. I.O. 217 f. 4; Mems. p. 6; Ilminsky p. 7; Méms. i. 10.

The rulers whose affairs are chronicled at length in the Farghāna Section of the B.N. are, (I) of Timūrid Turks, (always styled Mīrzā), (a) the three Mīrān-shāhī brothers, Aḥmad, Maḥmūd and `Umar Shaikh with their successors, Bāī-sunghar, `Alī and Bābur; (b) the Bāī-qarā, Ḥusain of Harāt: (II) of Chīngīz Khānīds, (always styled Khān,) (a) the two Chaghatāī Mughūl brothers, Maḥmūd and Aḥmad; (b) the Shaibānid Aūzbeg, Muḥammad Shaibānī (Shāh-i-bakht or Shaibāq or Shāhī Beg).

In electing to use the name Shaibānī, I follow not only the Ḥai. Codex but also Shaibānī's Boswell, Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ Mīrzā. The Elph. MS. frequently uses Shaibāq but its authority down to f. 198 (Ḥai. MS. f. 243b) is not so great as it is after that folio, because not till f. 198 is it a direct copy of Bābur's own. It may be more correct to write "the Shaibānī Khān" and perhaps even "the Shaibānī."

bī murād, so translated because retirement was caused once by the overruling of Khwāja `Ubaidu'l-lāh Aḥrārī. (T.R. p. 113.)

Once the Mīrzā did not wish Yūnas to winter in Akhsī; once did not expect him to yield to the demand of his Mughūls to be led out of the cultivated country (wilāyat). His own misconduct included his attack in Yūnas on account of Akhsī and much falling-out with kinsmen. (T.R. s.nn.)

i.e. one made of non-warping wood (Steingass), perhaps that of the White Poplar. The Shāh-nāma (Turner, Maçon ed. i, 71) writes of a Chāchī bow and arrows of khadang, i.e. white poplar. (H.B.)

i.e. Rābī`a-sulṯān, married circa 893 AH.-1488 AD. For particulars about her and all women mentioned in the B.N. and the T.R. see Gulbadan Begīm's Humāyūn-nāma, Or. Trs. Series.

jar, either that of the Kāsān Water or of a deeply-excavated canal. The palace buildings are mentioned again on f. 110b. Cf. Appendix A.

i.e. soared from earth, died. For some details of the accident see A.N. (H. Beveridge, i, 220.)

Ḥ.S. ii,-192, Firishta, lith. ed. p. 191 and D'Herbélot, sixth.

It would have accorded with Bābur's custom if here he had mentioned the parentage of his father's mother. Three times (fs. 17b, 70b, 96b) he writes of "Shāh Sulṯan Begīm" in a way allowing her to be taken as `Umar Shaikh's own mother. Nowhere, however, does he mention her parentage. One even cognate statement only have we discovered, viz. Khwānd-amīr's (Ḥ.S. ii, 192) that `Umar Shaikh was the own younger brother (barādar khurdtar khūd) of Aḥmad and Maḥmūd. If his words mean that the three were full-brothers, `Umar Shaikh's own mother was Ābū-sa`īd's Tarkhān wife. Bābur's omission (f. 21b) to mention his father with A. and M. as a nephew of Darwesh Muḥammad Tarkhān would be negative testimony against taking Khwānd-amīr's statement to mean "full-brother," if clerical slips were not easy and if Khwānd-amir's means of information were less good. He however both was the son of Maḥmūd's wāzir (Ḥ.S. ii, 194) and supplemented his book in Bābur's presence.

To a statement made by the writer of the biographies included in Kehr's B.N. volume, that `U.S.'s family (aūmāgh) is not known, no weight can be attached, spite of the co-incidence that the Mongol form of aūmāgh, i.e. aūmāk means Mutter-leib. The biographies contain too many known mistakes for their compiler to outweigh Khwānd-amīr in authority.

Cf. Rauzatu'ṣ-ṣafā vi, 266. (H.B.)

Dara-i-gaz, south of Balkh. This historic feast took place at Merv in 870 AH. (1465 AD.). As `Umar Shaikh was then under ten, he may have been one of the Mīrzās concerned.

Khudāī-bīrdī is a Pers.-Turkī hybrid equivalent of Theodore; tūghchī implies the right to use or (as hereditary standard-bearer,) to guard the tūgh; Timūr-tāsh may mean i.a. Friend of Tīmūr (a title not excluded here as borne by inheritance. Cf. f. 12b and note), Sword-friend (i.e. Companion-in-arms), and Iron-friend (i.e. stanch). Cf. Dict. s.n. Tīmūr-bāsh, a sobriquet of Charles XII.

Elph. and Ḥai. MSS. qūbā yūzlūq; this is under-lined in the Elph. MS. by ya`nī pur ghosht. Cf. f. 68b for the same phrase. The four earlier trss. viz. the two W.-i-B., the English and the French, have variants in this passage.

The apposition may be between placing the turban-sash round the turban-cap in a single flat fold and winding it four times round after twisting it on itself. Cf. f. 18 and Hughes Dict. of Islām s.n. turban.

qaẓālār, the prayers and fasts omitted when due, through war, travel sickness, etc.

rawān sawādī bār īdī; perhaps, wrote a running hand. De C. i, 13, ses lectures courantes étaient....

The dates of `Umar Shaikh's limits of perusal allow the Quintets (Khamsatīn) here referred to to be those of Niẕāmī and Amīr Khusrau of Dihlī. The Maṣnawī must be that of Jalālu'd-dīn Rūmī. (H.B.)

Probably below the Tīrāk (Poplar) Pass, the caravan route much exposed to avalanches.

Mr. Erskine notes that this anecdote is erroneously told as of Bābur by Firishta and others. Perhaps it has been confused with the episode on f. 207b. Firishta makes another mistaken attribution to Bābur, that of Ḥasan of Yaq`ūb's couplet. (H.B.) Cf. f. 13b and Dow's Hindustan ii, 218.

yīgītlār, young men, the modern jighit. Bābur uses the word for men on the effective fighting strength. It answers to the "brave" of North. American Indian story; here de C. translates it by braves.

ma`jūn. Cf. Von Schwarz p. 286 for a recipe.

mutaiyam. This word, not clearly written in all MSS., has been mistaken for yītīm. Cf. JRAS 1910 p. 882 for a note upon it by my husband to whom I owe the emendation.

na'l u dāghī bisyār īdī, that is, he had inflicted on himself many of the brands made by lovers and enthusiasts. Cf. Chardin's Voyages ii, 253 and Lady M. Montague's Letters p. 200.

tīka sīkrītkū, lit. likely to make goats leap, from sīkrīmāk to jump close-footed (Shaw).

sīkrīkān dūr. Both sīkrītkū and sīkrīkān dūr, appear to dictate translation in general terms and not by reference to a single traditional leap by one goat.

i.e. Russian; it is the Arys tributary of the Sīr.

The Fr. map of 1904 shows Kas, in the elbow of the Sīr, which seems to represent Khwāṣ.

i.e. the Chīr-chīk tributary of the Sīr.

Concerning his name, see T.R. p. 173.

i.e. he was a head-man of a horde sub-division, nominally numbering 10,000, and paying their dues direct to the supreme Khān. (T.R. p. 301.)

ghūnchachī i.e. one ranking next to the four legal wives, in Turkī aūdālīq, whence odalisque. Bābur and Gul-badan mention the promotion of several to Begīm's rank by virtue of their motherhood.

One of Bābur's quatrains, quoted in the Abūshqa, is almost certainly addressed to Khān-zāda. Cf. A.Q. Review, Jan. 1911, p. 4; H. Beveridge's Some verses of Bābur. For an account of her marriage see Shaibānī-nāma (Vambéry) cap. xxxix.

Kehr's MS. has a passage here not found elsewhere and seeming to be an adaptation of what is at the top of Ḥai. MS. f. 88. (Ilminsky, p. 10, ba wujūd ... tāpīb.)

tūshtī, which here seems to mean that she fell to his share on division of captives. Muḥ. Ṣaliḥ makes it a love-match and places the marriage before Bābur's departure. Cf. f. 95 and notes.

aūgāhlān. Khurram would be about five when given Balkh in circa 911 AH. (1505 AD.). He died when about 12. Cf. Ḥ.S. ii, 364.

This fatrat (interregnum) was between Bābur's loss of Farghāna and his gain of Kābul; the furṣatlār were his days of ease following success in Hindūstān and allowing his book to be written.

qīlālīng, lit. do thou be (setting down), a verbal form recurring on f. 227b l. 2. With the same form (aīt)ālīng, lit. do thou be saying, the compiler of the Abūshqa introduces his quotations. Shaw's paradigm, qīlīng only. Cf. A.Q.R. Jan. 1911, p. 2.

Kehr's MS. (Ilminsky p. 12) and its derivatives here interpolate the erroneous statement that the sons of Yūnas were Afāq and Bābā Khāns.

i.e. broke up the horde. Cf. T.R. p. 74.

See f. 50b for his descent.

Descendants of these captives were in Kāshghar when Ḥaidar was writing the T.R. It was completed in 953 AH. (1547 AD.). Cf. T.R. pp. 81 and 149.

An omission from his Persian source misled Mr. Erskine here into making Abū-sa`īd celebrate the Khānīm's marriage, not with himself but with his defeated foe, `Abdu'l-`azīz who had married her 28 years earlier.

Aīsān-būghā was at Āq Sū in Eastern Turkistān; Yūnas Khān's head-quarters were in Yītī-kīnt. The Sāghārīchī tūmān was a subdivision of the Kūnchī Mughūls.

Khān kūtārdīlār. The primitive custom was to lift the Khān-designate off the ground; the phrase became metaphorical and would seem to be so here, since there were two upon the felt. Cf., however, Th. Radloff's Récueil d'Itinéraires p. 326.

qūyūb īdī, probably in childhood.

She was divorced by Shaibānī Khān in 907 AH. in order to allow him to make lawful marriage with her niece, Khān-zāda.

This was a prudential retreat before Shaibānī Khān. Cf. f. 213.

The "Khān" of his title bespeaks his Chaghatāī-Mughūl descent through his mother, the "Mīrzā," his Tīmūrid-Turkī, through his father. The capture of the women was facilitated by the weakening of their travelling escort through his departure. Cf. T.R. p. 203.

Qila`-i-ẕafar. Its ruins are still to be seen on the left bank of the Kukcha. Cf. T.R. p. 220 and Kostenko i, 140. For Mubārak Shāh Muẓaffarī see f. 213 and T.R. s.n.

Ḥabība, a child when captured, was reared by Shaibānī and by him given in marriage to his nephew. Cf. T.R. p. 207 for an account of this marriage as saving Ḥaidar's life.

i.e. she did not take to flight with her husband's defeated force, but, relying on the victor, her cousin Bābur, remained in the town. Cf. T.R. p. 268. Her case receives light from Shahr-bānū's (f. 169).

Muḥammad Ḥaidar Mīrzā Kūrkān Dūghlāt Chaghatāī Mūghūl, the author of the Tārīkh-i-rashīdī; b. 905 AH. d. 958 AH. (b. 1499 d. 1551 AD.). Of his clan, the "Oghlāt" (Dūghlāt) Muḥ. ṣāliḥ says that it was called "Oghlāt" by Mughūls but Qūngūr-āt (Brown Horse) by Aūzbegs.

Baz garadad ba aṣl-i-khūd hama chīz, Zar-i-ṣāfī u naqra u airzīn.

These lines are in Arabic in the introduction to the Anwār-i-suhailī. (H.B.) The first is quoted by Ḥaidar (T.R. p. 354) and in Field's Dict. of Oriental Quotations (p. 160). I understand them to refer here to Ḥaidar's return to his ancestral home and nearest kin as being a natural act.

tā'ib and ṯarīqā suggest that Ḥaidar had become an orthodox Musalmān in or about 933 AH. (1527 AD.).

Abū'l-faẓl adds music to Ḥaidar's accomplishments and Ḥaidar's own Prologue mentions yet others.

Cf. T.R. s.n. and Gul-badan's H.N. s.n. Ḥaram Begīm.

i.e. Alexander of Macedon. For modern mention of Central Asian claims to Greek descent see i.a. Kostenko, Von Schwarz, Holdich and A. Durand. Cf. Burnes' Kābul p. 203 for an illustration of a silver patera (now in the V. and A. Museum), once owned by ancestors of this Shāh Sulṯān Muḥammad.

Cf. f. 6b note.

i.e. Khān's child.

The careful pointing of the Ḥai. MS. clears up earlier confusion by showing the narrowing of the vowels from ālāchī to alacha.

The Elph. MS. (f. 7) writes Aūng, Khān's son, Prester John's title, where other MSS. have Adik. Bābur's brevity has confused his account of Sulṯān-nigār. Widowed of Maḥmūd in 900 AH. she married Adik; Adik, later, joined Shaibānī Khān but left him in 908 AH. perhaps secretly, to join his own Qāzāq horde. He was followed by his wife, apparently also making a private departure. As Adik died shortly after 908 AH. his daughters were born before that date and not after it as has been understood. Cf. T.R. and G.B.'s H.N. s.nn.; also Mems. p. 14 and Méms. i, 24.

Presumably by tribal custom, yīnkālīk, marriage with a brother's widow. Such marriages seem to have been made frequently for the protection of women left defenceless.

Sa`īd's power to protect made him the refuge of several kinswomen mentioned in the B.N. and the T.R. This mother and child reached Kāshghar in 932 AH. (1526 AD.).

Here Bābur ends his [interpolated] account of his mother's family and resumes that of his father's.

Bābur uses a variety of phrases to express Lordship in the Gate. Here he writes aīshīknī bāshlātīb; elsewhere, aīshīk ikhtiyārī qīlmāq and mīnīng aīshīkīmdā ṣāḥib ikhtiyārī qīlmāq. Von Schwarz (p. 159) throws light on the duties of the Lord of the Gate (Aīshīk Āghāsī). "Das Thür ... führt in eine grosse, vier-eckige, höhe Halle, deren Boden etwa 2 m. über den Weg erhoben ist. In dieser Halle, welche alle passieren muss, der durch das Thor eingeht, reitet oder fahrt, ist die Thorwache placiert. Tagsüber sind die Thore beständig öffen, nach Eintritt der Dunkelheit aber werden dieselben geschlossen und die Schlüssel dem zuständigen Polizeichef abgeliefert.... In den erwähnten Thorhallen nehmen in den hoch unabhängigen Gebieten an Bazar-tagen haufig die Richter Platz, um jedem der irgend ein Anliegen hat, so fort Recht zu sprechen. Die zudiktierten Strafen werden auch gleich in diesem selben locale vollzogen und eventuell die zum Hangen verurteilten Verbrecher an den Deckbalken aufgehängt, so dass die Besucher des Bazars unter den gehenkten durchpassieren müssen."

bu khabarnī `Abdu'l-wahhāb shaghāwaldīn `arẓa-dāsht qīlīb Mīrzāghā chāptūrdīlār. This passage has been taken to mean that the shaghāwal, i.e. chief scribe, was the courier, but I think Bābur's words shew that the shaghāwal's act preceded the despatch of the news. Moreover the only accusative of the participle and of the verb is khabarnī. `Abdu'l-wahhāb had been `Umar Shaikh's and was now Aḥmad's officer in Khujand, on the main road for Aūrā-tīpā whence the courier started on the rapid ride. The news may have gone verbally to `Abdu'l-wahhāb and he have written it on to Aḥmad and Abū-sa`īd.

Measured from point to point even, the distance appears to be over 500 miles. Concerning Bābā Khākī see Ḥ.S. ii. 224; for rapid riding i.a. Kostenko iii, cap. Studs.

qūshūqlārnī yakhshī aītūrā īkān dūr. Elph. MS. for qūshūq, tūyūk. Qūshūq is allowed, both by its root and by usage, to describe improvisations of combined dance and song. I understand from Bābur's tense, that his information was hearsay only.

i.e. of the military class. Cf. Vullers s.n. and T.R. p. 301.

The Hūma is a fabulous bird, overshadowing by whose wings brings good-fortune. The couplet appears to be addressed to some man, under the name Hūma, from whom Ḥasan of Yaq`ūb hoped for benefit.

khāk-bīla; the Sanglākh, (quoting this passage) gives khāk-p:l:k as the correct form of the word.

Cf. f. 99b.

One of Tīmūr's begs.

i.e. uncle on the mother's side, of any degree, here a grandmother's brother. The title appears to have been given for life to men related to the ruling House. Parallel with it are Madame Mère, Royal Uncle, Sulṯān Wālida.

kīm dīsā būlghāī, perhaps meaning, "Nothing of service to me."

Wais the Thin.

Cf. Chardin ed. Langlès v, 461 and ed. 1723 AD. v, 183.

n.e. of Kāsān. Cf. f. 74. Ḥai MS., erroneously, Samarkand.

An occasional doubt arises as to whether a ṯaurī of the text is Arabic and dispraises or Turkī and laudatory. Cf. Mems. p. 17 and Méms. i, 3.

Elph. and Ḥai. MSS. aftābachī, water-bottle bearer on journeys; Kehr (p. 82) aftābchī, ewer-bearer; Ilminsky (p. 19) akhtachi, squire or groom. Circumstances support aftābachī. Yūnas was town-bred, his ewer-bearer would hardly be the rough Mughūl, Qaṃbar-`alī, useful as an aftābachī.

Bābur was Governor of Andijān and the month being June, would be living out-of-doors. Cf. Ḥ.S. ii. 272 and Schuyler ii, 37.

To the word Sherīm applies Abū'l-ghāzī's explanation of Nurūm and Ḥājīm, namely, that they are abbreviations of Nūr and Ḥājī Muḥammad. It explains Sulṯānīm also when used (f. 72) of Sl. Muḥammad Khānika but of Sulṯānīm as the name is common with Bābur, Ḥaidar and Gul-badan, i.e. as a woman's, Busbecq's explanation is the better, namely, that it means My Sulṯān and is applied to a person of rank and means. This explains other women's titles e.g. Khānīm, my Khān and Ākām (Ākīm), My Lady. A third group of names formed like the last by enclitic 'm (my), may be called names of affection, e.g. Māhīm, My Moon, Jānīm, My Life. (Cf. Persian equivalents.) Cf. Abū'l-ghāzī's Shajarat-i-Turkī (Désmaisons p. 272); and Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq's Life and Letters (Forster and Daniel i, 38.)

Namāz-gāh; generally an open terrace, with a wall towards the Qibla and outside the town, whither on festival days the people go out in crowds to pray. (Erskine.)

Bēglār (nīng) mīnī u wilāyatnī tāpshūrghūlārī dūr; a noticeably idiomatic sentence. Cf. f. 16b 1. 6 and 1. 7 for a repetition.

Maḥmūd was in Tāshkīnt, Aḥmad in Kāshghār or on the Āq-sū.

The B.N. contains a considerable number of what are virtually footnotes. They are sometimes, as here, entered in the middle of a sentence and confuse the narrative; they are introduced by kīm, a mere sign of parenthetical matter to follow, and some certainly, known not to be Bābur's own, must have stood first on the margin of his text. It seems best to enter them as Author's notes.

i.e. the author of the Hidāyat. Cf. f. 3b and note; Blochmann Āyīn-i-akbarī s.n. qulij and note; Bellew's Afghan Tribes p. 100, Khilich.

Ar. dead, gone. The precision of Bābur's words khānwādalār and yūsūnlūq is illustrated by the existence in the days of Tīmūr, in Marghīnān, (Burhānu'd-dīn's township) of a ruler named Aīlīk Khān, apparently a descendant of Sātūq-būghrā Khān (b. 384 AH.-994 AD.) so that in Khwāja Qāẓī were united two dynasties, (khānwādalār), one priestly, perhaps also regal, the other of bye-gone ruling Khāns. Cf. D'Herbélot p. 433; Yarkand Mission, Bellew p. 121; Taẕkirat-i Sulṯān Sātūq-būghrā Khān Ghāzī Pādshāh and Tārīkh-i-nāṣirī (Raverty s.n.)

darzī; Ḥ.S. khaiyāṯ.

bīr yīrgā (qūyūb), lit. to one place.

i.e. reconstructed the earthern defences. Cf. Von Schwarz s.n. loess.

They had been sent, presumably, before `Umar Shaikh's death, to observe Sl. Aḥmad M.'s advance. Cf. f. 6.

The time-table of the Andijān Railway has a station, Kouwa (Qabā).

Bābur, always I think, calls this man Long Ḥasan; Khwānd-amīr styles him Khwāja Ḥasan; he seems to be the brother of one of `Umar Shaikh's fathers-in-law, Khwāja Ḥusain.

bātqāq. This word is underlined in the Elph. MS. by dil-dil and in the Ḥai. MS. by jam-jama. It is translated in the W.-i-B. by āb pur hīla, water full of deceit; it is our Slough of Despond. It may be remarked that neither Zenker nor Steingass gives to dil-dil or jam-jama the meaning of morass; the Akbar-nāma does so. (H.B. ii, 112.)

ṯawīla ṯawīla ātlār yīghīlīb aūlā kīrīshtī. I understand the word yīghīlīb to convey that the massing led to the spread of the murrain.

jān tārātmāqlār i.e. as a gift to their over-lord.

Perhaps, Bābur's maternal great-uncle. It would suit the privileges bestowed on Tarkhāns if their title meant Khān of the Gifts (Turkī tar, gift). In the Bāburnāma, it excludes all others. Most of Aḥmad's begs were Tarkhāns, Arghūns and Chīngīz Khānids, some of them ancestors of later rulers in Tatta and Sind. Concerning the Tarkhāns see T.R. p. 55 and note; A.N. (H.B. s.n.) Elliot and Dowson's History of India, 498.

Cf. f. 6.

beg ātākā, lit. beg for father.

T.R. s.n. Ābā-bikr.

Cf. f. 6b and note.

faqra u masākin, i.e. those who have food for one day and those who have none in hand. (Steingass.)

For fashions of sitting, see Tawārīkh-i-guzīda Naṣrat-nāma B.M. Or. 3222. Aḥmad would appear to have maintained the deferential attitude by kneeling and sitting back upon his heels.

bīr sūnkāk bār īkān dūr. I understand that something defiling must have been there, perhaps a bone.

Khwājanīng ham āyāghlārī ārādā īdī.

īlbāsūn, a kind of mallard (Abūshqa), here perhaps a popinjay. Cf. Ḥ.S. ii, 193 for Aḥmad's skill as an archer, and Payne-Gallwey's Cross-bow p. 225.

qabāq, an archer's mark. Abū'l-ghāzī (Kāsān ed. p. 181. 5) mentions a hen (tūqūq) as a mark. Cf. Payne-Gallwey l.c. p. 231.

qīrghīcha, astar palumbarius. (Shaw's Voc. Scully.)

Perhaps, not quarrelsome.

The T.R. (p. 116) attributes the rout to Shaibānī's defection. The Ḥ.S. (ii, 192) has a varied and confused account. An error in the T.R. trs. making Shaibānī plunder the Mughūls, is manifestly clerical.

i.e. condiment, ce qu'on ajoute au pain.

Cf. f. 6.

qāzāqlār; here, if Bābur's, meaning his conflicts with Taṃbal, but as the Begīm may have been some time in Khujand, the qāzāqlār may be of Samarkand.

All the (Turkī) Bābur-nāma MSS. and those examined of the W.-i-B. by writing aūltūrdī (killed) where I suggest to read aūlnūrdī (devenir comme il faut) state that Aḥmad killed Qātāq. I hesitate to accept this (1) because the only evidence of the murder is one diacritical point, the removal of which lifts Aḥmad's reproach from him by his return to the accepted rules of a polygamous household; (2) because no murder of Qātāq is chronicled by Khwānd-amīr or other writers; and (3) because it is incredible that a mild, weak man living in a family atmosphere such as Bābur, Ḥaidar and Gul-badan reproduce for us, should, while possessing facility for divorce, kill the mother of four out of his five children.

Reprieve must wait however until the word tīrīklīk is considered. This Erskine and de C. have read, with consistency, to mean life-time, but if aūlnūrdī be read in place of aūltūrdī (killed), tīrīklīk may be read, especially in conjunction with Bābur's `āshīqlīklār, as meaning living power or ascendancy. Again, if read as from tīrik, a small arrow and a consuming pain, tīrīklīk may represent Cupid's darts and wounds. Again it might be taken as from tīrāmāk, to hinder, or forbid.

Under these considerations, it is legitimate to reserve judgment on Aḥmad.

It is customary amongst Turks for a bride, even amongst her own family, to remain veiled for some time after marriage; a child is then told to pluck off the veil and run away, this tending, it is fancied, to the child's own success in marriage. (Erskine.)

Bābur's anecdote about Jānī Beg well illustrates his caution as a narrator. He appears to tell it as one who knowing the point of a story, leads up to it. He does not affirm that Jānī Beg's habits were strange or that the envoy was an athlete but that both things must have been (īkān dūr) from what he had heard or to suit the point of the anecdote. Nor does he affirm as of his own knowledge that Aūzbegs calls a strong man (his zor kīshī) a būkuh (bull) but says it is so understood (dīr īmīsh).

Cf. f. 170.

The points of a tīpūchāq are variously stated. If the root notion of the name be movement (tīp), Erskine's observation, that these horses are taught special paces, is to the point. To the verb tīprāmāq dictionaries assign the meaning of movement with agitation of mind, an explanation fully illustrated in the B.N. The verb describes fittingly the dainty, nervous action of some trained horses. Other meanings assigned to tūpūchāq are roadster, round-bodied and swift.

Cf. f. 37b.

Cf. f. 6b and note.

mashaf kitābat qīlūr īdī.

Cf. f. 36 and Ḥ.S. ii. 271.

sīnkīlīsī ham mūndā īdī.

khāna-wādalār, viz. the Chaghatāī, the Tīmūrid in two Mīrān-shāhī branches, `Alī's and Bābur's and the Bāī-qarā in Harāt.

aūghlāqchī i.e. player at kūk-būrā. Concerning the game, see Shaw's Vocabulary; Schuyler i, 268; Kostenko iii, 82; Von Schwarz s.n. baiga.

Ẕū'l-ḥijja 910 AH.-May 1505 AD. Cf. f. 154. This statement helps to define what Bābur reckoned his expeditions into Hindūstān.

Aīkū (Ayāgū)-tīmūr Tarkhān Arghūn d. circa 793 AH.-1391 AD. He was a friend of Tīmūr. See Z̤.N. i, 525 etc.

āndāq ikhlāq u aṯawārī yūq īdī kīm dīsā būlghāī. The Shāh-nāma cap. xviii, describes him as a spoiled child and man of pleasure, caring only for eating, drinking and hunting. The Shaibānī-nāma narrates his various affairs.

i.e., cutlass, a parallel sobriquet to qīlīch, sword. If it be correct to translate by "cutlass," the nickname may have prompted Bābur's brief following comment, mardāna īkān dūr, i.e. Qulī Muḥ. must have been brave because known as the Cutlass. A common variant in MSS. from Būghdā is Bāghdād; Bāghdād was first written in the Ḥai. MS. but is corrected by the scribe to būghdā.

So pointed in the Ḥai. MS. I surmise it a clan-name.

i.e. to offer him the succession. The mountain road taken from Aūrā-tīpā would be by Āb-burdan, Sara-tāq and the Kām Rūd defile.

īrīldī. The departure can hardly have been open because Aḥmad's begs favoured Maḥmūd; Malik-i-Muḥammad's party would be likely to slip away in small companies.

This well-known Green, Grey or Blue palace or halting-place was within the citadel of Samarkand. Cf. f. 37. It served as a prison from which return was not expected.

Cf. f. 27. He married a full-sister of Bāī-sunghar.

Gulistān Part I. Story 27. For "steaming up," see Tennyson's Lotus-eaters Choric song, canto 8 (H.B.).

Elph. MS. f. 16b; First W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 19; Second W.-i-B. I.O. 217 f. 15b; Memoirs p. 27.

He was a Dūghlāt, uncle by marriage of Ḥaidar Mīrzā and now holding Khost for Maḥmūd. See T.R. s.n. for his claim on Aīsān-daulat's gratitude.

tāsh qūrghān dā chīqār dā. Here (as e.g. f. 110b l. 9) the Second W.-i-B. translates tāsh as though it meant stone instead of outer. Cf. f. 47 for an adjectival use of tāsh, stone, with the preposition (tāsh) din. The places contrasted here are the citadel (ark) and the walled-town (qūrghān). The chīqār (exit) is the fortified Gate-house of the mud circumvallation. Cf. f. 46 for another example of chīqār.

Elph. Ḥai. Kehr's MSS., ānīng bīla bār kīshi bār beglārnī tūtūrūldī. This idiom recurs on f. 76b l. 8. A palimpsest entry in the Elph. MS. produces the statement that when Ḥasan fled, his begs returned to Andijān.

Ḥai. MS. awī mūnkūzī, underlined by sāgh-i-gāū, cows' thatched house. [T. mūnkūz, lit. horn, means also cattle.] Elph. MS., awī mūnkūsh, underlined by dar jā'ī khwāb alfakhta, sleeping place. [T. mūnkūsh, retired.]

The first qāchār of this pun has been explained as gurez-gāh, sharm-gāh, hinder parts, fuite and vertèbre inférieur. The Ḥ.S. (ii, 273 l. 3 fr. ft.) says the wound was in a vital (maqattal) part.

From Niẕāmī's Khusrau u Shirīn, Lahore lith. ed. p. 137 l. 8. It is quoted also in the A.N. Bib. Ind. ed. ii, 207 (H.B. ii, 321). (H.B.).

See Hughes Dictionary of Islām s.nn. Eating and Food.

Cf. f. 6b and note. If `Umar Shaikh were Maḥmūd's full-brother, his name might well appear here.

i.e. "Not a farthing, not a half-penny."

Here the Mems. enters a statement, not found in the Turkī text, that Maḥmūd's dress was elegant and fashionable.

n:h:l:m. My husband has cleared up a mistake (Mems. p. 28 and Méms. i, 54) of supposing this to be the name of an animal. It is explained in the A.N. (i, 255. H.B. i, 496) as a Badakhshī equivalent of tasqāwal; tasqāwal var. tāshqāwal, is explained by the Farhang-i-aẕfarī, a Turkī-Persian Dict. seen in the Mullā Fīroz Library of Bombay, to mean rāh band kunanda, the stopping of the road. Cf. J.R.A.S. 1900 p. 137.

i.e. "a collection of poems in the alphabetical order of the various end rhymes." (Steingass.)

At this battle Daulat-shāh was present. Cf. Browne's D.S. for Astarābād p. 523 and for Andikhūd p. 532. For this and all other references to D.S. and Ḥ.S. I am indebted to my husband.

The following dates will help out Bābur's brief narrative. Maḥmūd æt. 7, was given Astarābād in 864 AH. (1459-60 AD.); it was lost to Ḥusain at Jauz-wilāyat and Maḥmūd went into Khurāsān in 865 AH.; he was restored by his father in 866 AH.; on his father's death (873 AH.-1469 AD.) he fled to Harāt, thence to Samarkand and from there was taken to Ḥiṣār æt. 16. Cf. D'Herbélot s.n. Abū-sa`ad; Ḥ.S. i, 209; Browne's D.S. p. 522.

Presumably the "Hindūstān the Less" of Clavijo (Markham p. 3 and p. 113), approx. Qaṃbar-`alī's districts. Clavijo includes Tīrmīẕ under the name.

Perhaps a Ṣufī term,—longing for the absent friend. For particulars about this man see Ḥ.S. ii, 235 and Browne's D.S. p. 533.

Here in the Ḥai. MS. is one of several blank spaces, waiting for information presumably not known to Bābur when writing. The space will have been in the archetype of the Ḥai. MS. and it makes for the opinion that the Ḥai. MS. is a direct copy of Bābur's own. This space is not left in the Elph. MS. but that MS. is known from its scribe's note (f. 198) down to f. 198 (Ḥai. MS. f. 243b) to have been copied from "other writings" and only subsequent to its f. 198 from Bābur's own. Cf. JRAS 1906 p. 88 and 1907 p. 143.

The T.R. (p. 330) supplies this name.

Cf. f. 35b. This was a betrothal only, the marriage being made in 903 AH. Cf. Ḥ.S. ii, 260 and Gul-badan's H.N. f. 24b.

Kehr's MS. supplies Aī (Moon) as her name but it has no authority. The Elph. MS. has what may be lā nām, no name, on its margin and over tūrūtūnchī (4th.) its usual sign of what is problematical.

See Ḥ.S. ii, 250. Here Pīr-i-Muḥammad Aīlchī-būghā was drowned. Cf. f. 29.

Chaghānīān is marked in Erskine's (Mems.) map as somewhere about the head of (Fr. map 1904) the Ilyak Water, a tributary of the Kāfir-nighān.

i.e. when Bābur was writing in Hindūstān.

For his family see f. 55b note to Yār-`alī Balāl.

bā wujūd turklūk muhkam paidā kunanda īdī.

Roebuck's Oriental Proverbs (p. 232) explains the five of this phrase where seven might be expected, by saying that of this Seven days' world (qy. days of Creation) one is for birth, another for death, and that thus five only are left for man's brief life.

The cognomen Aīlchī-būghā, taken with the bearer's recorded strength of fist, may mean Strong man of Aīlchī (the capital of Khutan). One of Tīmūr's commanders bore the name. Cf. f. 21b for būghū as athlete.

Hazārāspī seems to be Mīr Pīr Darwesh Hazārāspī. With his brother, Mīr `Alī, he had charge of Balkh. See Rauzatu'ṣ-ṣafā B.M. Add. 23506, f. 242b; Browne's D.S. p. 432. It may be right to understand a hand-to-hand fight between Hazārāspī and Aīlchī-būghā. The affair was in 857 AH. (1453 AD.).

yārāq sīz, perhaps trusting to fisticuffs, perhaps without mail. Bābur's summary has confused the facts. Muḥ. Aīlchī-būghā was sent by Sl. Maḥmūd Mīrzā from Ḥiṣār with 1,000 men and did not issue out of Qūndūz. (Ḥ.S. ii, 251.) His death occurred not before 895 AH.

See T.R. s.nn. Mīr Ayūb and Ayūb.

This passage is made more clear by f. 120b and f. 125b.

He is mentioned in `Alī-sher Nawā'ī's Majālis-i-nafā'is; see B.M. Add. 7875, f. 278 and Rieu's Turkish Catalogue.

? full of splits or full handsome.

This may have occurred after Abū-sa`īd Mīrzā's death whose son Abā-bikr was. Cf. f. 28. If so, over-brevity has obscured the statement.

mīnglīgh aīldīn dūr, perhaps of those whose hereditary Command was a Thousand, the head of a Mīng (Pers. Hazāra), i.e. of the tenth of a tūmān.

qūrghān-nīng tāshīdā yāngī tām qūpārīb sālā dūr. I understand, that what was taken was a new circumvallation in whole or in part. Such double walls are on record. Cf. Appendix A.

bahādurlūq aūlūsh, an actual portion of food.

i.e. either unmailed or actually naked.

The old English noun strike expresses the purpose of the sar-kob. It is "an instrument for scraping off what rises above the top" (Webster, whose example is grain in a measure). The sar-kob is an erection of earth or wood, as high as the attacked walls, and it enabled besiegers to strike off heads appearing above the ramparts.

i.e. the dislocation due to `Umar Shaikh's death.

Cf. f. 13. The Ḥ.S. (ii, 274) places his son, Mīr Mughūl, in charge, but otherwise agrees with the B.N.

Cf. Clavijo, Markham p. 132. Sir Charles Grandison bent the knee on occasions but illustrated MSS. e.g. the B.M. Tawārīkh-i-guzīda Naṣrat-nāma show that Bābur would kneel down on both knees. Cf. f. 123b for the fatigue of the genuflection.

I have translated kūrūshūb thus because it appears to me that here and in other places, stress is laid by Bābur upon the mutual gaze as an episode of a ceremonious interview. The verb kūrūshmak is often rendered by the Persian translators as daryāftan and by the L. and E. Memoirs as to embrace. I have not found in the B.N. warrant for translating it as to embrace; qūchūshmāq is Bābur's word for this (f. 103). Daryāftan, taken as to grasp or see with the mind, to understand, well expresses mutual gaze and its sequel of mutual understanding. Sometimes of course, kūrūsh, the interview does not imply kūrūsh, the silent looking in the eyes with mutual understanding; it simply means se voyer e.g. f. 17. The point is thus dwelt upon because the frequent mention of an embrace gives a different impression of manners from that made by "interview" or words expressing mutual gaze.

dābān. This word Réclus (vi, 171) quoting from Fedschenko, explains as a difficult rocky defile; art, again, as a dangerous gap at a high elevation; bel, as an easy low pass; and kūtal, as a broad opening between low hills. The explanation of kūtal does not hold good for Bābur's application of the word (f. 81b) to the Sara-tāq.

Cf. f. 4b and note. From Bābur's special mention of it, it would seem not to be the usual road.

The spelling of this name is uncertain. Variants are many. Concerning the tribe see T.R. p. 165 n.

Niẕāmu'd-dīn `Alī Barlās: see Gul-badan's H.N. s.n. He served Bābur till the latter's death.

i.e. Ẕū'n-nūn or perhaps the garrison.

i.e. down to Shaibānī's destruction of Chaghatāī rule in Tāshkīnt in 1503 AD.

Elph. MS. f. 23; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 26 and 217 f. 21; Mems. p. 35.

Bābur's own affairs form a small part of this year's record; the rest is drawn from the Ḥ.S. which in its turn, uses Bābur's f. 34 and f. 37b. Each author words the shared material in his own style; one adding magniloquence, the other retracting to plain statement, indeed summarizing at times to obscurity. Each passes his own judgment on events, e.g. here Khwānd-amīr's is more favourable to Ḥusain Bāī-qarā's conduct of the Ḥiṣār campaign than Bābur's. Cf. Ḥ.S. ii, 256-60 and 274.

This feint would take him from the Oxus.

Tīrmīẕ to Ḥiṣār, 96m. (Réclus vi, 255).

Ḥ.S. Wazr-āb valley. The usual route is up the Kām Rūd and over the Mūra pass to Sara-tāq. Cf. f. 81b.

i.e. the Ḥiṣārī mentioned a few lines lower and on f. 99b. Nothing on f. 99b explains his cognomen.

The road is difficult. Cf. f. 81b.

Khwānd-amīr also singles out one man for praise, Sl. Maḥmūd Mīr-i-ākhwur; the two names probably represent one person. The sobriquet may refer to skill with a matchlock, to top-spinning (firnagī-bāz) or to some lost joke. (Ḥ.S. ii, 257.)

This pregnant phrase has been found difficult. It may express that Bābur assigned the sulṯāns places in their due precedence; that he seated them in a row; and that they sat cross-legged, as men of rank, and were not made, as inferiors, to kneel and sit back on their heels. Out of this last meaning, I infer comes the one given by dictionaries, "to sit at ease," since the cross-legged posture is less irksome than the genuflection, not to speak of the ease of mind produced by honour received. Cf. f. 18b and note on Aḥmad's posture; Redhouse s.nn. bāghīsh and bāghdāsh; and B.M. Tawārīkh-i-guzīda naṣrat-nāma, in the illustrations of which the chief personage, only, sits cross-legged.

siyāsat. My translation is conjectural only.

sar-kob. The old English noun strike, "an instrument for scraping off what appears above the top," expresses the purpose of the wall-high erections of wood or earth (L. agger) raised to reach what shewed above ramparts. Cf. Webster.

Presumably lower down the Qūndūz Water.

aūz pādshāhī u mīrzālārīdīn artīb.

sic. Ḥai. MS.; Elph. MS. "near Tāliqān"; some W.-i-B. MSS. "Great Garden." Gul-badan mentions a Tāliqān Garden. Perhaps the Mīrzā went so far east because, Ẕū'n-nūn being with him, he had Qandahār in mind. Cf. f. 42b.

i.e. Sayyid Muḥammad `Alī. See f. 15 n. to Sherīm. Khwāja Changāl lies 14 m. below Tāliqān on the Tāliqān Water. (Erskine.)

f. 27b, second.

The first was circa 895 AH.-1490 AD. Cf. f. 27b.

Bābur's wording suggests that their common homage was the cause of Badī`u'z-zamān's displeasure but see f. 41.

The Mīrzā had grown up with Ḥiṣārīs. Cf. Ḥ.S. ii, 270.

As the husband of one of the six Badakhshī Begīms, he was closely connected with local ruling houses. See T.R. p. 107.

i.e. Muḥammad `Ubaidu'l-lāh the elder of Aḥrārī's two sons. d. 911 AH. See Rashaḥāt-i-`ain-alḥayāt (I.O. 633) f. 269-75; and Khizīnatu'l-aṣfīya lith. ed. i, 597.

Bū yūq tūr, i.e. This is not to be.

d. 908 AH. He was not, it would seem, of the Aḥrārī family. His own had provided Pontiffs (Shaikhu'l-islām) for Samarkand through 400 years. Cf. Shaibānī-nāma, Vambéry, p. 106; also, for his character, p. 96.

i.e. he claimed sanctuary.

Cf. f. 45b and Pétis de la Croix's Histoire de Chīngīz Khān pp. 171 and 227. What Tīmūr's work on the Gūk Sarāī was is a question for archæologists.

i.e. over the Aītmak Pass. Cf. f. 49.

Ḥai. MS. ārālighīgha. Elph. MS. ārāl, island.

See f. 179b for Binā'ī. Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ Mīrzā Khwārizmī is the author of the Shaibānī-nāma.

Elph. MS. f. 27; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 30b and 217 f. 25; Mems. p. 42.

i.e. Circassian. Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ (Sh.N. Vambéry p. 276 l. 58) speaks of other Aūzbegs using Chirkas swords.

aīrtā yāzīghā. My translation is conjectural. Aīrtā implies i.a. foresight. Yāzīghā allows a pun at the expense of the sulṯāns; since it can be read both as to the open country and as for their (next, aīrtā) misdeeds. My impression is that they took the opportunity of being outside Samarkand with their men, to leave Bāī-sunghar and make for Shaibānī, then in Turkistān. Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ also marking the tottering Gate of Sl. `Alī Mīrzā, left him now, also for Shaibānī. (Vambéry cap. xv.)

aūmāq, to amuse a child in order to keep it from crying.

i.e. with Khwāja Yahya presumably. See f. 38.

This man is mentioned also in the Tawārikh-i-guzīda Naṣratnāma B.M. Or. 3222 f. 124b.

Ḥ.S., on the last day of Ramẓān (June 28th. 1497 AD.).

Muḥammad Sīghal appears to have been a marked man. I quote from the T.G.N.N. (see supra), f. 123b foot, the information that he was the grandson of Ya`qūb Beg. Zenker explains Sīghalī as the name of a Chaghatāī family. An Ayūb-i-Ya`qūb Begchīk Mughūl may be an uncle. See f. 43 for another grandson.

baẓ'ī kīrkān-kīnt-kīsākkā bāsh-sīz-qīlghān Mughūllārnī tūtūb. I take the word kīsāk in this highly idiomatic sentence to be a diminutive of kīs, old person, on the analogy of mīr, mīrāk, mard, mardak. [The Ḥ.S. uses Kīsāk (ii, 261) as a proper noun.] The alliteration in kāf and the mighty adjective here are noticeable.

Qāsim feared to go amongst the Mughūls lest he should meet retaliatory death. Cf. f. 99b.

This appears from the context to be Yām (Jām) -bāī and not the Djouma (Jām) of the Fr. map of 1904, lying farther south. The Avenue named seems likely to be Tīmūr's of f. 45b and to be on the direct road for Khujand. See Schuyler i, 232.

būghān buyīnī. W.-i-B. 215, yān, thigh, and 217 gardan, throat. I am in doubt as to the meaning of būghān; perhaps the two words stand for joint at the nape of the neck. Khwāja-i-kalān was one of seven brothers, six died in Bābur's service, he himself served till Bābur's death.

Cf. f. 48.

Khorochkine (Radlov's Réceuil d'Itinéraires p. 241) mentions Pul-i-mougak, a great stone bridge thrown across a deep ravine, east of Samarkand. For Kūl-i-maghāk, deep pool, or pool of the fosse, see f. 48b.

From Khwānd-amīr's differing account of this affair, it may be surmised that those sending the message were not treacherous; but the message itself was deceiving inasmuch as it did not lead Bābur to expect opposition. Cf. f. 43 and note.

Of this nick-name several interpretations are allowed by the dictionaries.

See Schuyler i, 268 for an account of this beautiful Highland village.

Here Bābur takes up the thread, dropped on f. 36, of the affairs of the Khurāsānī mīrzās. He draws on other sources than the Ḥ.S.; perhaps on his own memory, perhaps on information given by Khurāsānīs with him in Hindūstān e.g. Ḥusain's grandson. See f. 167b. Cf. Ḥ.S. ii, 261.

bāghīshlāb tūr. Cf. f. 34 note to bāghīsh dā.

Bū sozlār aūnūlūng. Some W.-i-B. MSS., Farāmosh bakunīd for nakunīd, thus making the Mīrzā not acute but rude, and destroying the point of the story i.e. that the Mīrzā pretended so to have forgotten as to have an empty mind. Khwānd-amīr states that `Alī-sher prevailed at first; his tears therefore may have been of joy at the success of his pacifying mission.

i.e. B.Z.'s father, Ḥusain, against Mū`min's father, B.Z. and Ḥusain's son, Muz̤affar Ḥusain against B.Z.'s son Mū`min;—a veritable conundrum.

Garzawān lies west of Balkh. Concerning Pul-i-chirāgh Col. Grodekoff's Ride to Harāt (Marvin p. 103 ff.) gives pertinent information. It has also a map showing the Pul-i-chirāgh meadow. The place stands at the mouth of a triply-bridged defile, but the name appears to mean Gate of the Lamp (cf. Gate of Tīmūr), and not Bridge of the Lamp, because the Ḥ.S. and also modern maps write bīl (bel), pass, where the Turkī text writes pul, bridge, narrows, pass.

The lamp of the name is one at the shrine of a saint, just at the mouth of the defile. It was alight when Col. Grodekoff passed in 1879 and to it, he says, the name is due now—as it presumably was 400 years ago and earlier.

Khwānd-amīr heard from the Mīrzā on the spot, when later in his service, that he was let down the precipice by help of turban-sashes tied together.

yīkīt yīlāng u yāyāq yālīng; a jingle made by due phonetic change of vowels; a play too on yālāng, which first means stripped i.e. robbed and next unmailed, perhaps sometimes bare-bodied in fight.

qūsh-khāna. As the place was outside the walls, it may be a good hawking ground and not a falconry.

The Ḥ.S. mentions (ii, 222) a Sl. Aḥmad of Chār-shaṃba, a town mentioned e.g. by Grodekoff p. 123. It also spoils Bābur's coincidence by fixing Tuesday, Shab`ān 29th. for the battle. Perhaps the commencement of the Muḥammadan day at sunset, allows of both statements.

Elph. MS. f. 30b; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 34 and 217 f. 26b; Mems. p. 46.

The abruptness of this opening is due to the interposition of Sl. Ḥusain M.'s affairs between Bābur's statement on f. 41 that he returned from Aūrgūt and this first of 903 AH. that on return he encamped in Qulba.

See f. 48b.

i.e. Chūpān-ātā; see f. 45 and note.

Aūghlāqchī, the Grey Wolfer of f. 22.

A sobriquet, the suppliant or perhaps something having connection with musk. Ḥ.S. ii, 278, son of Ḥ.D.

i.e. grandson (of Muḥammad Sīghal). Cf. f. 39.

This seeming sobriquet may show the man's trade. Kāl is a sort of biscuit; qāshūq may mean a spoon.

The Ḥ.S. does not ascribe treachery to those inviting Bābur into Samarkand but attributes the murder of his men to others who fell on them when the plan of his admission became known. The choice here of "town-rabble" for retaliatory death supports the account of Ḥ.S. ii.

"It was the end of September or beginning of October" (Erskine).

awī u kīpa yīrlār. Awī is likely to represent kibitkas. For kīpa yīr, see Zenker p. 782.

Interesting reference may be made, amongst the many books on Samarkand, to Sharafu'd-dīn `Alī Yazdī's Z̤afar-nāma Bib. Ind. ed. i, 300, 781, 799, 800 and ii, 6, 194, 596 etc.; to Ruy Gonzalves di Clavijo's Embassy to Tīmūr (Markham) cap. vi and vii; to Ujfalvy's Turkistan ii, 79 and Madame Ujfalvy's De Paris à Samarcande p. 161,—these two containing a plan of the town; to Schuyler's Turkistan; to Kostenko's Turkistan Gazetteer i, 345; to Réclus, vi, 270 and plan; and to a beautiful work of the St. Petersburg Archæological Society, Les Mosquées de Samarcande, of which the B.M. has a copy.

This statement is confused in the Elp. and Ḥai. MSS. The second appears to give, by abjad, lat. 40° 6" and long. 99'. Mr. Erskine (p. 48) gives lat. 39' 57" and long. 99' 16", noting that this is according to Ūlūgh Beg's Tables and that the long. is calculated from Ferro. The Ency. Br. of 1910-11 gives lat. 39' 39" and long. 66' 45".

The enigmatical cognomen, Protected Town, is of early date; it is used i.a. by Ibn Batūta in the 14th. century. Bābur's tense refers it to the past. The town had frequently changed hands in historic times before he wrote. The name may be due to immunity from damage to the buildings in the town. Even Chīngīz Khān's capture (1222 AD.) left the place well-preserved and its lands cultivated, but it inflicted great loss of men. Cf. Schuyler i, 236 and his authorities, especially Bretschneider.

Here is a good example of Bābur's caution in narrative. He does not affirm that Samarkand became Musalmān, or (infra) that Quṣam ibn `Abbās went, or that Alexander founded but in each case uses the presumptive past tense, resp. būlghān dūr, bārghān dūr, bīnā qīlghān dūr, thus showing that he repeats what may be inferred or presumed and not what he himself asserts.

i.e. of Muḥammad. See Z̤.N. ii, 193.

i.e. Fat Village. His text misleading him, Mr. Erskine makes here the useful irrelevant note that Persians and Arabs call the place Samar-qand and Turks, Samar-kand, the former using qaf (q), the latter kaf (k). Both the Elph. and the Ḥai. MSS. write Samarqand.

For use of the name Fat Village, see Clavijo (Markham p. 170), Simesquinte, and Bretschneider's Mediæval Geography pp. 61, 64, 66 and 163.

qadam. Kostenko (i, 344) gives 9 m. as the circumference of the old walls and 1-2/3m. as that of the citadel. See Mde. Ujfalvy p. 175 for a picture of the walls.

Ma`lūm aīmās kīm mūncha paidā būlmīsh būlghāī; an idiomatic phrase.

d. 333 AH. (944 AD.). See D'Herbélot art. Mātridī p. 572.

See D'Herbélot art. Aschair p. 124.

Abū `Abdu'l-lāh bin Ismā`īlu'l-jausī b. 194 AH. d. 256 AH. (810-870 AD.). See D'Herbélot art. Bokhārī p. 191, art. Giorag p. 373, and art. Ṣāḥiḥu'l-bokhārī p. 722. He passed a short period, only, of his life in Khartank, a suburb of Samarkand.

Cf. f. 3b and n. 1.

This though 2475 ft. above the sea is only some 300 ft. above Samarkand. It is the Chūpān-ātā (Father of Shepherds) of maps and on it Tīmūr built a shrine to the local patron of shepherds. The Zar-afshān, or rather, its Qarā-sū arm, flows from the east of the Little Hill and turns round it to flow west. Bābur uses the name Kohik Water loosely; e.g. for the whole Zar-afshān when he speaks (infra) of cutting off the Dar-i-gham canal but for its southern arm only, the Qarā-sū in several places, and once, for the Dar-i-gham canal. See f. 49b and Kostenko i. 192.

rūd. The Zar-afshān has a very rapid current. See Kostenko i, 196, and for the canal, i, 174. The name Dar-i-gham is used also for a musical note having charm to witch away grief; and also for a town noted for its wines.

What this represents can only be guessed; perhaps 150 to 200 miles. Abū'l-fidā (Reinaud ii, 213) quotes Ibn Haukal as saying that from Bukhārā up to "Bottam" (this seems to be where the Zar-afshān emerges into the open land) is eight days' journey through an unbroken tangle of verdure and gardens.

See Schuyler i, 286 on the apportionment of water to Samarkand and Bukhārā.

It is still grown in the Samarkand region, and in Mr. Erskine's time a grape of the same name was cultivated in Aurangābād of the Deccan.

i.e. Shāhrukhī, Tīmūr's grandson, through Shāhrukh. It may be noted here that Bābur never gives Tīmūr any other title than Beg and that he styles all Tīmūrids, Mīrzā (Mīr-born).

Mr. Erskine here points out the contradiction between the statements (i) of Ibn Haukal, writing, in 367 AH. (977 AD.), of Samarkand as having a citadel (ark), an outer-fort (qūrghān) and Gates in both circumvallations; and (2) of Sharafu'd-dīn Yazdī (Z̤.N.) who mentions that when, in Tīmūr's day, the Getes besieged Samarkand, it had neither walls nor gates. See Ouseley's Ibn Haukal p. 253; Z̤.N. Bib. Ind. ed. i, 109 and Pétis de la Croix's Z̤.N. (Histoire de Tīmūr Beg) i, 91.

Here still lies the Ascension Stone, the Gūk-tāsh, a block of greyish white marble. Concerning the date of the erection of the building and meaning of its name, see e.g. Pétis de la Croix's Histoire de Chīngīz Khān p. 171; Mems. p. 40 note; and Schuyler s.n.

This seems to be the Bībī Khānīm Mosque. The author of Les Mosquées de Samarcande states that Tīmūr built Bībī Khānīm and the Gūr-i-amīr (Amīr's tomb); decorated Shāh-i-zinda and set up the Chūpān-ātā shrine. Cf. f. 46 and note to Jahāngīr Mīrzā, as to the Gūr-i-amīr.

Cap. II. Quoting from Sale's Qur'ān (i, 24) the verse is, "And Ibrāhīm and Ismā`īl raised the foundations of the house, saying, 'Lord! accept it from us, for Thou art he who hearest and knowest; Lord! make us also resigned to Thee, and show us Thy holy ceremonies, and be turned to us, for Thou art easy to be reconciled, and merciful.'"

or, buland, Garden of the Height or High Garden. The Turkī texts have what can be read as buldī but the Z̤.N. both when describing it (ii, 194) and elsewhere (e.g. ii, 596) writes buland. Buldī may be a clerical error for bulandī, the height, a name agreeing with the position of the garden.

In the Heart-expanding Garden, the Spanish Ambassadors had their first interview with Tīmūr. See Clavijo (Markham p. 130). Also the Z̤.N. ii, 6 for an account of its construction.

Judging from the location of the gardens and of Bābur's camps, this appears to be the Avenue mentioned on f. 39b and f. 40.

See infra f. 48 and note.

The Plane-tree Garden. This seems to be Clavijo's Bayginar, laid out shortly before he saw it (Markham p. 136).

The citadel of Samarkand stands high; from it the ground slopes west and south; on these sides therefore gardens outside the walls would lie markedly below the outer-fort (tāsh-qūrghān). Here as elsewhere the second W.-i-B. reads stone for outer (Cf. index s.n. tāsh). For the making of the North garden see Z̤.N. i, 799.

Tīmūr's eldest son, d. 805 AH. (1402 AD.), before his father, therefore. Bābur's wording suggests that in his day, the Gūr-i-amīr was known as the Madrāsa. See as to the buildings Z̤.N. i, 713 and ii, 492, 595, 597, 705; Clavijo (Markham p. 164 and p. 166); and Les Mosquées de Samarcande.

Hindūstān would make a better climax here than Samarkand does.

These appear to be pictures or ornamentations of carved wood. Redhouse describes islīmī as a special kind of ornamentation in curved lines, similar to Chinese methods.

i.e. the Black Stone (ka'ba) at Makkah to which Musalmāns turn in prayer.

As ancient observatories were themselves the instruments of astronomical observation, Bābur's wording is correct. Aūlūgh Beg's great quadrant was 180 ft. high; Abū-muḥammad Khujandī's sextant had a radius of 58 ft. Jā'ī Singh made similar great instruments in Jā'īpūr, Dihlī has others. Cf. Greaves Misc. Works i, 50; Mems. p. 51 note; Āiyīn-i-akbarī (Jarrett) ii, 5 and note; Murray's Hand-book to Bengal p. 331; Indian Gazetteer xiii, 400.

b. 597 AH. d. 672 AH. (1201-1274 AD.). See D'Herbélot's art. Naṣīr-i-dīn p. 662; Abū'l-fidā (Reinaud, Introduction i, cxxxviii) and Beale's Biographical Dict. s.n.

a grandson of Chīngīz Khān, d. 663 AH. (1265 AD.). The cognomen Aīl-khānī (Īl-khānī) may mean Khān of the Tribe.

Ḥarūnu'r-rashīd's second son; d. 218 AH. (833 AD.).

Mr. Erskine notes that this remark would seem to fix the date at which Bābur wrote it as 934 AH. (1527 AD.), that being the 1584th. year of the era of Vikramāditya, and therefore at three years before Bābur's death. (The Vikramāditya era began 57 BC.)

Cf. index s.n. tāsh.

This remark may refer to the 34 miles between the town and the quarries of its building stone. See f. 49 and note to Aītmāk Pass.

Steingass, any support for the back in sitting, a low wall in front of a house. See Vullers p. 148 and Burhān-i-qāṯi`; p. 119. Perhaps a dado.

beg u begāt, bāgh u bāghcha.

Four Gardens, a quadrilateral garden, laid out in four plots. The use of the name has now been extended for any well-arranged, large garden, especially one belonging to a ruler (Erskine).

As two of the trees mentioned here are large, it may be right to translate nārwān, not by pomegranate, but as the hard-wood elm, Madame Ujfalvy's 'karagatche' (p. 168 and p. 222). The name qarā-yīghāch (karagatch), dark tree, is given to trees other than this elm on account of their deep shadow.

Now a common plan indeed! See Schuyler i, 173.

juwāz-i-kaghazlār (nīng) sū'ī, i.e. the water of the paper-(pulping)-mortars. Owing to the omission from some MSS. of the word sū, water, juwāz has been mistaken for a kind of paper. See Mems. p. 52 and Méms. i, 102; A.Q.R. July 1910, p. 2, art. Paper-mills of Samarkand (H.B.); and Madame Ujfalvy p. 188. Kostenko, it is to be noted, does not include paper in his list (i, 346) of modern manufactures of Samarkand.

Mine of mud or clay. My husband has given me support for reading gil, and not gul, rose;—(1) In two good MSS. of the W.-i-B. the word is pointed with kasra, i.e. as for gil, clay; and (2) when describing a feast held in the garden by Tīmūr, the Z̤.N. says the mud-mine became a rose-mine, shuda Kān-i-gil Kān-i-gul. [Mr. Erskine refers here to Pétis de la Croix's Histoire de Tīmūr Beg (i.e. Z̤.N.) i, 96 and ii, 133 and 421.]

qūrūgh. Vullers, classing the word as Arabic, Zenker, classing it as Eastern Turkī, and Erskine (p. 42 n.) explain this as land reserved for the summer encampment of princes. Shaw (Voc. p. 155), deriving it from qūrūmāq, to frighten, explains it as a fenced field of growing grain.

Cf. f. 40. There it is located at one yīghāch and here at 3 kurohs from the town.

ṯaur. Cf. Zenker s.n. I understand it to lie, as Khān Yūrtī did, in a curve of the river.

162 m. by rail.

Cf. f. 3.

tīrīsīnī sūīūb. The verb sūīmāk, to despoil, seems to exclude the common plan of stoning the fruit. Cf. f. 3b, dānasīnī alīp, taking out the stones.

Mīn Samarkandtā aūl (or auwal) aīchkāndā Bukhārā chāghīrlār nī aīchār aīdīm. These words have been understood to refer to Bābur's initial drinking of wine but this reading is negatived by his statement (f. 189) that he first drank wine in Harāt in 912 AH. I understand his meaning to be that the wine he drank in Samarkand was Bukhārā wine. The time cannot have been earlier than 917 AH. The two words aūl aīchkāndā, I read as parallel to aūl (bāghrī qarā) (f. 280) 'that drinking,' 'that bird,' i.e. of those other countries, not of Hindūstān where he wrote.

It may be noted that Bābur's word for wine, chāghīr, may not always represent wine of the grape but may include wine of the apple and pear (cider and perry), and other fruits. Cider, its name seeming to be a descendant of chāghīr, was introduced into England by Crusaders, its manufacture having been learned from Turks in Palestine.

48 m. 3 fur. by way of the Aītmāk Pass (mod. Takhta Qarachi), and, Réclus (vi, 256) Buz-gala-khāna, Goat-house.

The name Aītmāk, to build, appears to be due to the stone quarries on the range. The pass-head is 34 m. from Samarkand and 3000 ft. above it. See Kostenko ii, 115 and Schuyler ii, 61 for details of the route.

The description of this hall is difficult to translate. Clavijo (Markham 124) throws light on the small recesses. Cf. Z̤.N. i, 781 and 300 and Schuyler ii, 68.

The Tāq-i-kisrī, below Bāghdād, is 105 ft. high, 84 ft. span and 150 ft. in depth (Erskine).

Cf. f. 46. Bābur does not mention that Tīmūr's father was buried at Kesh. Clavijo (Markham p. 123) says it was Tīmūr's first intention to be buried near his father, in Kesh.

Abū'l-fidā (Reinaud II, ii, 21) says that Nasaf is the Arabic and Nakhshab the local name for Qarshī. Ibn Haukal (Ouseley p. 260) writes Nakhshab.

This word has been translated burial-place and cimetière but Qarshī means castle, or royal-residence. The Z̤.N. (i, 111) says that Qarshī is an equivalent for Ar. qaṣr, palace, and was so called, from one built there by Qublāī Khān (d. 1294 AD.). Perhaps Bābur's word is connected with Gūrkhān, the title of sovereigns in Khutan, and means great or royal-house, i.e. palace.

94 m. 6-1/2 fur. via Jām (Kostenko i, 115.)

See Appendix B.

some 34 m. (Kostenko i, 196). Schuyler mentions that he heard in Qarā-kūl a tradition that the district, in bye-gone days, was fertilized from the Sīr.

Cf. f. 45.

By abjad the words `Abbās kasht yield 853. The date of the murder was Ramẓān 9, 853 AH. (Oct. 27th. 1449 AD.).

This couplet is quoted in the Rauẓatu'ṣ-ṣafā (lith. ed. vi, f. 234 foot) and in the Ḥ.S. ii, 44. It is said, in the R.Ṣ. to be by Niẕāmī and to refer to the killing by Shīrūya of his father, Khusrau Parwīz in 7 AH. (628 AD.). The Ḥ.S. says that `Abdu'l-laṯīf constantly repeated the couplet, after he had murdered his father. [See also Daulat Shāh (Browne p. 356 and p. 366.) H.B.]

By abjad, Bābā Ḥusain kasht yields 854. The death was on Rabi` I, 26, 854 AH. (May 9th. 1450 AD.). See R.Ṣ. vi, 235 for an account of this death.

This overstates the time; dates shew 1 yr. 1 mth. and a few days.

i.e. The Khān of the Mughūls, Bābur's uncle.

Elph. MS. aūrmaghāīlār, might not turn; Ḥai. and Kehr's MSS. (sar bā bād) bīrmāghāīlār, might not give. Both metaphors seem drawn from the protective habit of man and beast of turning the back to a storm-wind.

i.e. betwixt two waters, the Miyān-i-dū-āb of India. Here, it is the most fertile triangle of land in Turkistān (Réclus, vi, 199), enclosed by the eastern mountains, the Nārīn and the Qarā-sū; Rabāṯik-aūrchīnī, its alternative name, means Small Station sub-district. From the uses of aūrchīn I infer that it describes a district in which there is no considerable head-quarters fort.

i.e. his own, Qūtlūq-nigār Khānīm and hers, Aīsān-daulat Begīm, with perhaps other widows of his father, probably Shāh Sulṯān Begīm.

Cf. f. 16 for almost verbatim statements.

Blacksmith's Dale. Ahangarān appears corrupted in modern maps to Angren. See Ḥ.S. ii, 293 for Khwānd-amīr's wording of this episode.

Cf. f. 1b and Kostenko i, 101.

i.e. Khān Uncle (Mother's brother).

n.w. of the Sang ferry over the Sīr.

perhaps, messenger of good tidings.

This man's family connections are interesting. He was `Alī-shukr Beg Bahārlū's grandson, nephew therefore of Pāshā Begīm; through his son, Saif-`alī Beg, he was the grandfather of Bairām Khān-i-khānān and thus the g.g.f. of `Abdu'r-raḥīm Mīrzā, the translator of the Second Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī. See Firishta lith. ed. p. 250.

Bābur's (step-)grandmother, co-widow with Aīsān-daulat of Yūnas Khān and mother of Aḥmad and Maḥmud Chaghatāī.

Here the narrative picks up the thread of Khusrau Shāh's affairs, dropped on f. 44.

mīng tūmān fulūs, i.e. a thousand sets-of-ten-thousand small copper coins. Mr. Erskine (Mems. p. 61) here has a note on coins. As here the tūmān does not seem to be a coin but a number, I do not reproduce it, valuable as it is per se.

ārīqlār; this the annotator of the Elph. MS. has changed to āshlīq, provisions, corn.

Samān-chī may mean Keeper of the Goods. Tīngrī-bīrdī, Theodore, is the purely Turkī form of the Khudāī-bīrdī, already met with several times in the B.N.

Bast (Bost) is on the left bank of the Halmand.

Cf. f. 56b.

known as Kābulī. He was a son of Abū-sa`īd and thus an uncle of Bābur. He ruled Kābul and Ghaznī from a date previous to his father's death in 873 AH. (perhaps from the time `Umar Shaikh was not sent there, in 870 AH. See f. 6b) to his death in 907 AH. Bābur was his virtual successor in Kābul, in 910 AH.

Elph. MS. f. 42; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 47b and 217 f. 38; Mems. p. 63. Bābur here resumes his own story, interrupted on f. 56.

aīsh achīlmādī, a phrase recurring on f. 59b foot. It appears to imply, of trust in Providence, what the English "The way was not opened," does. Cf. f. 60b for another example of trust, there clinching discussion whether to go or not to go to Marghīnān.

i.e. Aḥrārī. He had been dead some 10 years. The despoilment of his family is mentioned on f. 23b.

fatratlār, here those due to the deaths of Aḥmad and Maḥmūd with their sequel of unstable government in Samarkand.

Aūghlāqchī, the player of the kid-game, the gray-wolfer. Yār-yīlāq will have gone with the rest of Samarkand into `Alī's hands in Rajab 903 AH. (March 1498). Contingent terms between him and Bābur will have been made; Yūsuf may have recognized some show of right under them, for allowing Bābur to occupy Yār-yīlāq.

i.e. after 933 AH. Cf. f. 46b and note concerning the Bikramāditya era. See index s.n. Aḥmad-i-yūsuf and Ḥ.S. ii, 293.

This plural, unless ironical, cannot be read as honouring `Alī; Bābur uses the honorific plural most rarely and specially, e.g. for saintly persons, for The Khān and for elder women-kinsfolk.

bīr yārīm yīl. Dates shew this to mean six months. It appears a parallel expression to Pers. hasht-yak, one-eighth.

Ḥ.S. ii, 293, in place of these two quotations, has a misra`,—Na rāy ṣafar kardan u na rūy iqāmat, (Nor resolve to march, nor face to stay).

i.e. in Samarkand.

Point to point, some 145 m. but much further by the road. Tang-āb seems likely to be one of the head-waters of Khwāja Bikargān-water. Thence the route would be by unfrequented hill-tracks, each man leading his second horse.

tūn yārīmī naqāra waqtīdā. Tūn yārīmī seems to mean half-dark, twilight. Here it cannot mean mid-night since this would imply a halt of twelve hours and Bābur says no halt was made. The drum next following mid-day is the one beaten at sunset.

The voluntary prayer, offered when the sun has well risen, fits the context.

I understand that the obeisance was made in the Gate-house, between the inner and outer doors.

This seeming sobriquet may be due to eloquence or to good looks.

qarā tīyāq. Cf. f. 63 where black bludgeons are used by a red rabble.

He was head-man of his clan and again with Shaibānī in 909 AH. (Sh. N. Vambéry, p. 272). Erskine (p. 67) notes that the Manghīts are the modern Nogais.

i.e. in order to allow for the here very swift current. The Ḥ.S. varying a good deal in details from the B.N. gives the useful information that Aūzūn Ḥasan's men knew nothing of the coming of the Tāshkīnt Mughūls.

Cf. f. 4b and App. A. as to the position of Akhsī.

bārīnī qīrdīlār. After this statement the five exceptions are unexpected; Bābur's wording is somewhat confused here.

i.e. in Hindūstān.

Taṃbal would be the competitor for the second place.

47 m. 4-1/2 fur.

Bābur had been about two lunar years absent from Andijān but his loss of rule was of under 16 months.

A scribe's note entered here on the margin of the Ḥai. MS. is to the effect that certain words are not in the noble archetype (nashka sharīf); this supports other circumstances which make for the opinion that this Codex is a direct copy of Bābur's own MS. See Index s.n. Ḥai. MS. and JRAS 1906, p. 87.

Musalmān here seems to indicate mental contrast with Pagan practices or neglect of Musalmān observances amongst Mughūls.

i.e. of his advisors and himself.

Cf. f. 34.

circa 933 AH. All the revolts chronicled by Bābur as made against himself were under Mughūl leadership. Long Ḥasan, Taṃbal and `Alī-dost were all Mughūls. The worst was that of 914 AH. (1518 AD.) in which Qulī Chūnāq disgraced himself (T.R. p. 357).

Chūnāq may indicate the loss of one ear.

Būqāq, amongst other meanings, has that of one who lies in ambush.

This remark has interest because it shews that (as Bābur planned to write more than is now with the B.N. MSS.) the first gap in the book (914 AH. to 925 AH.) is accidental. His own last illness is the probable cause of this gap. Cf. JRAS 1905, p. 744. Two other passages referring to unchronicled matters are one about the Bāgh-i-ṣafā (f. 224), and one about Sl. `Alī T̤aghāī (f. 242).

I surmise Aīlāīsh to be a local name of the Qarā-daryā affluent of the Sīr.

aīkī aūch naubat chāpqūlāb bāsh chīqārghalī qūīmās. I cannot feel so sure as Mr. E. and M. de C. were that the man's head held fast, especially as for it to fall would make the better story.

Tūqā appears to have been the son of a T̤aghāī, perhaps of Sherīm; his name may imply blood-relationship.

For the verb awīmāq, to trepan, see f. 67 note 5.

The Fr. map of 1904 shews a hill suiting Bābur's location of this Hill of Pleasure.

A place near Kābul bears the same name; in both the name is explained by a legend that there Earth opened a refuge for forty menaced daughters.

Elph. MS. f. 47b; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 53 and 217 f. 43; Mems. p. 70.

From Andijān to Aūsh is a little over 33 miles. Taṃbal's road was east of Bābur's and placed him between Andijān and Aūzkīnt where was the force protecting his family.

mod. Mazy, on the main Aūsh-Kāshghar road.

āb-duzd; de C. i, 144, prise d'eau.

This simile seems the fruit of experience in Hindūstān. See f. 333, concerning Chānderi.

These two Mughūls rebelled in 914 AH. with Sl. Qulī Chūnāq (T.R. s.n.).

awīdī. The head of Captain Dow, fractured at Chunār by a stone flung at it, was trepanned (Saiyār-i-muta`akhirīn, p. 577 and Irvine l .c. p. 283). Yār-`alī was alive in 910 AH. He seems to be the father of the great Bairām Khān-i-khānān of Akbar's reign.

chasht-gāh; midway between sunrise and noon.

ṯaurī; because providing prisoners for exchange.

shakh tūtūlūr īdī, perhaps a palisade.

i.e. from Ḥiṣār where he had placed him in 903 AH.

qūba yūzlūq (f. 6b and note 4). The Turkmān features would be a maternal inheritance.

He is "Saifī Maulānā `Arūzī" of Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 525. Cf. Ḥ.S. ii, 341. His book, `Arūz-i-saifī has been translated by Blochmann and by Ranking.

namāz aūtār īdī. I understand some irony from this (de Meynard's Dict. s.n. aūtmāq).

The maṯla` of poems serve as an index of first lines.

Cf. f. 30.

Cf. f. 37b.

i.e. scout and in times of peace, huntsman. On the margin of the Elph. Codex here stands a note, mutilated in rebinding;—Sl. Aḥmad pidr-i-Qūch Beg ast * * * pidr-i-Sher-afgan u Sher-afgan * * * u Sl. Ḥusain Khān * * * Qūch Beg ast. Hamesha * * * dar khāna Shaham Khān * * *.

pītīldī; W.-i-B. navishta shud, words indicating the use by Bābur of a written record.

Cf. f. 6b and note and f. 17 and note.

tūlūk; i.e. other food than grain. Fruit, fresh or preserved, being a principal constituent of food in Central Asia, tūlūk will include several, but chiefly melons. "Les melons constituent presque seuls vers le fin d'été, la nourriture des classes pauvres" (Th. Radloff. l.c. p. 343).

Cf. f. 6b and note.

tūlkī var. tūlkū, the yellow fox. Following this word the Ḥai. MS. has u dar kamīn dūr instead of u rangīn dūr.

bī ḥadd; with which I.O. 215 agrees but I.O. 217 adds farbih, fat, which is right in fact (f. 2b) but less pertinent here than an unlimited quantity.

Here a pun on `ajab may be read.

Cf. f. 15, note to T̤aghāī.

Apparently not the usual Kīndīr-līk pass but one n.w. of Kāsān.

A ride of at least 40 miles, followed by one of 20 to Kāsān.

Cf. f. 72 and f. 72b. Tīlba would seem to have left Taṃbal.

Taṃbalnīng qarāsī.

i.e. the Other (Mid-afternoon) Prayer.

ātīnīng būīnīnī qātīb. Qātmāq has also the here-appropriate meaning of to stiffen.

aīlīk qūshmāq, i.e. Bābur's men with the Kāsān garrison. But the two W.-i-B. write merely dast burd and dast kardan.

The meaning of Ghazna here is uncertain. The Second W.-i-B. renders it by ar. qaryat but up to this point Bābur has not used qaryat for village. Ghazna-namangān cannot be modern Namangān. It was 2 m. from Archīān where Taṃbal was, and Bābur went to Bīshkhārān to be between Taṃbal and Machamī, coming from the south. Archīān and Ghazna-namangān seem both to have been n. or n.w. of Bīshkārān (see maps).

It may be mentioned that at Archīān, in 909 AH. the two Chaghatāī Khāns and Bābur were defeated by Shaibānī.

bīzlār. The double plural is rare with Bābur; he writes bīz, we, when action is taken in common; he rarely uses mīn, I, with autocratic force; his phrasing is largely impersonal, e.g. with rare exceptions, he writes the impersonal passive verb.

bāshlīghlār. Teufel was of opinion that this word is not used as a noun in the B.N. In this he is mistaken; it is so used frequently, as here, in apposition. See ZDMG, xxxvii, art. Bābur und Abū`l-faẓl.

Cf. f. 54 foot.

Cf. f. 20. She may have come from Samarkand and `Alī's household or from Kesh and the Tarkhān households.

Cf. f. 26 l. 2 for the same phrase.

He is the author of the Shaibānī-nāma.

dāng and fils (infra) are small copper coins.

Cf. f. 25 l. 1 and note 1.

Probably the poet again; he had left Harāt and was in Samarkand (Sh. N. Vambéry, p. 34 l. 14).

From what follows, this Mughūl advance seems a sequel to a Tarkhān invitation.

By omitting the word Mīr the Turkī text has caused confusion between this father and son (Index s.nn.).

bīz khūd kharāb bū mu`āmla aīdūk. These words have been understood earlier, as referring to the abnormal state of Bābur's mind described under Sec. r. They better suit the affairs of Samarkand because Bābur is able to resolve on action and also because he here writes bīz, we, and not mīn, I, as in Sec. r.

For būlghār, rendezvous, see also f. 78 l. 2 fr. ft.

25 m. only; the halts were due probably to belated arrivals.

Some of his ties would be those of old acquaintance in Ḥiṣār with `Alī's father's begs, now with him in Samarkand.

Point to point, some 90 m. but further by road.

Bū waqi` būlghāch, manifestly ironical.

Sangzār to Aūrā-tīpā, by way of the hills, some 50 miles.

The Sh. N. Vambéry, p. 60, confirms this.

Cf. f. 74b.

Macham and Awīghūr, presumably.

gūzlār tūz tūtī, i.e. he was blinded for some treachery to his hosts.

Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ's well-informed account of this episode has much interest, filling out and, as by Shaibānī's Boswell, balancing Bābur's. Bābur is obscure about what country was to be given to `Alī. Pāyanda-ḥasan paraphrases his brief words;—Shaibānī was to be as a father to `Alī and when he had taken `Alī's father's wilāyāt, he was to give a country to `Alī. It has been thought that the gift to `Alī was to follow Shaibānī's recovery of his own ancestral camping-ground (yūrt) but this is negatived, I think, by the word, wilāyāt, cultivated land.

Elp. MS. f. 57b; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 63b and I.O. 217 f. 52; Mems. p. 82.

Two contemporary works here supplement the B.N.; (1) the (Tawārikh-i-guzīda) Naṣrat-nāma, dated 908 AH. (B.M. Turkī Or. 3222) of which Berezin's Shaibāni-nāma is an abridgment; (2) Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ Mīrzā's Shaibānī-nāma (Vambéry trs. cap. xix et seq.). The Ḥ.S. (Bomb. ed. p. 302, and Tehran ed. p. 384) is also useful.

i.e. on his right. The Ḥ.S. ii, 302 represents that `Alī was well-received. After Shaibāq had had Zuhra's overtures, he sent an envoy to `Alī and Yaḥya; the first was not won over but the second fell in with his mother's scheme. This difference of view explains why `Alī slipped away while Yaḥya was engaged in the Friday Mosque. It seems likely that mother and son alike expected their Aūzbeg blood to stand them in good stead with Shaibāq.

He tried vainly to get the town defended. "Would to God Bābur Mīrzā were here!" he is reported as saying, by Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ.

Perhaps it is for the play of words on `Alī and `Alī's life (jān) that this man makes his sole appearance here.

i.e. rich man or merchant, but Bī (infra) is an equivalent of Beg.

Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ, invoking curses on such a mother, mentions that Zuhra was given to a person of her own sort.

The Sh. N. and Naṣrat-nāma attempt to lift the blame of `Alī's death from Shaibāq; the second saying that he fell into the Kohik-water when drunk.

Harāt might be his destination but the Ḥ.S. names Makka. Some dismissals towards Khurāsān may imply pilgrimage to Meshhed.

Used also by Bābur's daughter, Gul-badan (l.c. f. 31).

Cut off by alien lands and weary travel.

The Pers. annotator of the Elph. Codex has changed Alāī to wīlāyat, and dābān (pass) to yān, side. For the difficult route see Schuyler, i, 275, Kostenko, i, 129 and Rickmers, JRGS. 1907, art. Fan Valley.

Amongst Turks and Mughūls, gifts were made by nines.

Ḥiṣār was his earlier home.

Many of these will have been climbed in order to get over places impassable at the river's level.

Schuyler quotes a legend of the lake. He and Kostenko make it larger.

The second occasion was when he crossed from Sūkh for Kābul in 910 AH. (fol. 120).

This name appears to indicate a Command of 10,000 (Bretschneider's Mediæval Researches, i, 112).

It seems likely that the cloth was soiled. Cf. f. 25 and Hughes Dict. of Islām s.n. Eating.

As, of the quoted speech, one word only, of three, is Turkī, others may have been dreamed. Shaikh Maṣlaḥat's tomb is in Khujand where Bābur had found refuge in 903 AH.; it had been circumambulated by Tīmūr in 790 AH. (1390 AD.) and is still honoured.

This account of a dream compares well for naturalness with that in the seemingly-spurious passage, entered with the Ḥai. MS. on f. 118. For examination of the passage see JRAS, Jan. 1911, and App. D.

He was made a Tarkhān by diploma of Shaibānī (Ḥ.S. ii, 306, l. 2).

Here the Ḥai. MS. begins to use the word Shaibāq in place of its previously uniform Shaibānī. As has been noted (f. 5b n. 2), the Elph. MS. writes Shaibāq. It may be therefore that a scribe has changed the earlier part of the Ḥai. MS. and that Bābur wrote Shaibāq. From this point my text will follow the double authority of the Elph. and Ḥai. MSS.

In 875 AH. (1470 AD.). Ḥusain was then 32 years old. Bābur might have compared his taking of Samarkand with Tīmūr's capture of Qarshī, also with 240 followers (Z̤.N. i, 127). Firishta (lith. ed. p. 196) ascribes his omission to do so to reluctance to rank himself with his great ancestor.

This arrival shews that Shaibānī expected to stay in Samarkand. He had been occupying Turkistān under The Chaghatāī Khān.

`Alī-sher died Jan. 3rd. 1501. It is not clear to what disturbances Bābur refers. He himself was at ease till after April 20th. 1502 and his defeat at Sar-i-pul. Possibly the reference is to the quarrels between Binā'ī and `Alī-sher. Cf. Sām Mīrzā's Anthology, trs. S. de Saçy, Notices et Extraits iv, 287 et seq.

I surmise a double play-of-words in this verse. One is on two rhyming words, ghala and mallah and is illustrated by rendering them as oat and coat. The other is on pointed and unpointed letters, i.e. ghala and `ala. We cannot find however a Persian word `ala, meaning garment.

Bābur's refrain is ghūsīdūr, his rhymes būl, (buyur)ūl and tūl. Binā'ī makes būlghūsīdūr his refrain but his rhymes are not true viz. yīr, (sa)mar and lār.

Shawwāl 906 AH. began April 20th. 1501.

From the Bū-stān, Graf ed. p. 55, l. 246.

Sīkīz Yīldūz. See Chardin's Voyages, v, 136 and Table; also Stanley Lane Poole's Bābur, p. 56.

In 1791 AD. Muḥ. Effendi shot 482 yards from a Turkish bow, before the R. Tox. S.; not a good shot, he declared. Longer ones are on record. See Payne-Gallwey's Cross-bow and AQR. 1911, H. Beveridge's Oriental Cross-bows.

In the margin of the Elph. Codex, here, stands a Persian verse which appears more likely to be Humāyūn's than Bābur's. It is as follows:

Were the Mughūl race angels, they would be bad; Written in gold, the name Mughūl would be bad; Pluck not an ear from the Mughūl's corn-land, What is sown with Mughūl seed will be bad.

This verse is written into the text of the First W.-i-B. (I.O. 215 f. 72) and is introduced by a scribe's statement that it is by ān Ḥaẓrat, much as notes known to be Humāyūn's are elsewhere attested in the Elph. Codex. It is not in the Ḥai. and Kehr's MSS. nor with, at least many, good copies of the Second W.-i-B.

This subterranean water-course, issuing in a flowing well (Erskine) gave its name to a bastion (Ḥ.S. ii, 300).

nāwak, a diminutive of nāo, a tube. It is described, in a MS. of Bābur's time, by Muḥ. Budhā'ī, and, in a second of later date, by Amīnu'd-dīn (AQR 1911, H.B.'s Oriental Cross-bows).

Kostenko, i, 344, would make the rounds 9 m.

bīr yūz ātliqnīng ātinī nāwak aūqī bila yakhshī atīm. This has been read by Erskine as though būz āt, pale horse, and not yūz ātlīq, Centurion, were written. De. C. translates by Centurion and a marginal note of the Elph. Codex explains yūz ātlīq by ṣad aspagī.

The Sh. N. gives the reverse side of the picture, the plenty enjoyed by the besiegers.

He may have been attached to the tomb of Khwāja `Abdu'l-lāh Anṣārī in Harāt.

The brusque entry here and elsewhere of e.g. Taṃbal's affairs, allows the inference that Bābur was quoting from perhaps a news-writer's, contemporary records. For a different view of Taṃbal, the Sh. N. cap. xxxiii should be read.

Five-villages, on the main Khujand-Tāshkīnt road.

turk, as on f. 28 of Khusrau Shāh.

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.

tāshlāb. The Sh. N. places these desertions as after four months of siege.

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.

This laudatory comment I find nowhere but in the Ḥai. Codex.

There is some uncertainty about the names of those who left.

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).

The first seems likely to be a relation of Niẕāmu'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).

Bābur's brevity is misleading; his sister was not captured but married with her own and her mother's consent before attempt to leave the town was made. Cf. Gul-badan's H.N. f. 3b and Sh. N. Vambéry, p. 145.

The route taken avoided the main road for Dīzak; it can be traced by the physical features, mentioned by Bābur, on the Fr. map of 1904. The Sh. N. says the night was extraordinarily dark. Departure in blinding darkness and by unusual ways shews distrust of Shaibāq's safe-conduct suggesting that Yaḥyā's fate was in the minds of the fugitives.

The texts differ as to whether the last two lines are prose or verse. All four are in Turkī, but I surmise a clerical error in the refrain of the third, where būlūb is written for būldī.

The second was in 908 AH. (f. 18b); the third in 914 AH. (f. 216 b); the fourth is not described in the B.N.; it followed Bābur's defeat at Ghaj-diwān in 918 AH. (Erskine's History of India, i, 325). He had a fifth, but of a different kind, when he survived poison in 933 AH. (f. 305).

Ḥai. MS. qāqāsrāq; Elph. MS. yānasrāq.

ātūn, one who instructs in reading, writing and embroidery. Cf. Gulbadan's H.N. f. 26. The distance walked may have been 70 or 80 m.

She was the wife of the then Governor of Aūrā-tīpā, Muḥ. Ḥusain Dūghlāt.

It may be noted here that in speaking of these elder women Bābur uses the honorific plural, a form of rare occurrence except for such women, for saintly persons and exceptionally for The supreme Khān. For his father he has never used it.

This name has several variants. The village lies, in a valley-bottom, on the Aq-sū and on a road. See Kostenko, i, 119.

She had been divorced from Shaibānī in order to allow him to make legal marriage with her niece, Khān-zāda.

Amongst the variants of this name, I select the modern one. Macha is the upper valley of the Zar-afshān.

Tīmūr took Dihlī in 801 AH. (Dec. 1398), i.e. 103 solar and 106 lunar years earlier. The ancient dame would then have been under 5 years old. It is not surprising therefore that in repeating her story Bābur should use a tense betokening hear-say matter (bārib īkān dūr).

The anecdote here following, has been analysed in JRAS 1908, p. 87, in order to show warrant for the opinion that parts of the Kehr-Ilminsky text are retranslations from the Persian W.-i-B.

Amongst those thus leaving seem to have been Qaṃbar-`alī (f. 99b).

Cf. f. 107 foot.

The Sh. N. speaks of the cold in that winter (Vambéry, p. 160). It was unusual for the Sīr to freeze in this part of its course (Sh. N. p. 172) where it is extremely rapid (Kostenko, i, 213).

Cf. f. 4b.

Point to point, some 50 miles.

Āhangarān-julgasī, a name narrowed on maps to Angren (valley).

Faut shūd Nuyān. The numerical value of these words is 907. Bābur when writing, looks back 26 years to the death of this friend.

Āb-burdan village is on the Zar-afshān; the pass is 11,200 ft. above the sea. Bābur's boundaries still hold good and the spring still flows. See Ujfalvy l.c. i. 14; Kostenko, i, 119 and 193; Rickmers, JRGS 1907, p. 358.

From the Bū-stān (Graf's ed. Vienna 1858, p. 561). The last couplet is also in the Gulistān (Platts' ed. p. 72). The Bombay lith. ed. of the Bū-stān explains (p. 39) that the "We" of the third couplet means Jamshīd and his predecessors who have rested by his fountain.

nīma. The First W.-i-B. (I.O. 215 f. 81 l. 8) writes tawārīkh, annals.

This may be the Khwāja Hijrī of the A.N. (index s.n.); and Badāyūnī's Ḥasan Hijrī, Bib. Ind. iii, 385; and Ethé's Pers. Cat. No. 793; and Bod. Cat. No. 189.

The Ḥai. MS. points in the last line as though punning on Khān and Jān, but appears to be wrong.

For an account of the waste of crops, the Sh. N. should be seen (p. 162 and 180).

I think this refers to last year's move (f. 94 foot).

In other words, the T. preposition, meaning E. in, at, etc. may be written with t or d, as ta(tā) or as da(dā). Also the one meaning E. towards, may be gha, qa, or ka (with long or short vowel).

dīm, a word found difficult. It may be a derivative of root de, tell, and a noun with the meaning of English tale (number). The First W.-i-B. renders it by san, and by san, Abū'l-ghāzī expresses what Bābur's dīm expresses, the numbering of troops. It occurs thrice in the B.N. (here, on f. 183b and on f. 264b). In the Elphinstone Codex it has been written-over into Ivīm, once resembles vīm more than dīm and once is omitted. The L. and E. Memoirs (p. 303) inserts what seems a gloss, saying that a whip or bow is used in the count, presumably held by the teller to 'keep his place' in the march past. The Siyāsat-nāma (Schefer, trs. p. 22) names the whip as used in numbering an army.

The acclamation of the standards is depicted in B.M. W.-i-B. Or. 3714 f. 128b. One cloth is shewn tied to the off fore-leg of a live cow, above the knee, Bābur's word being aūrtā aīlīk (middle-hand).

The libation was of fermented mares'-milk.

lit. their one way.

Cf. T.R. p. 308.

Elph. MS. f. 74; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 83 and 217 f. 66; Mems. p. 104.

It may be noted that Bābur calls his mother's brothers, not ṯaghāī but dādā father. I have not met with an instance of his saying 'My ṯaghāī' as he says 'My dādā.' Cf. index s.n. taghāī.

kūrūnūsh qīlīb, reflective from kūrmak, to see.

A rider's metaphor.

As touching the misnomer, 'Mughūl dynasty' for the Tīmūrid rulers in Hindūstān, it may be noted that here, as Bābur is speaking to a Chaghatāī Mughūl, his 'Turk' is left to apply to himself.

Gulistān, cap. viii, Maxim 12 (Platts' ed. p. 147).

This backward count is to 890 AH. when Aḥmad fled from cultivated lands (T.R. p. 113).

It becomes clear that Aḥmad had already been asked to come to Tāshkīnt.

Cf. f. 96b for his first departure without help.

Yagha (Yaghma) is not on the Fr. map of 1904, but suitably located is Turbat (Tomb) to which roads converge.

Elph. MS. tūshkūcha; Ḥai. MS. yūkūnchā. The importance Aḥmad attached to ceremony can be inferred by the details given (f. 103) of his meeting with Maḥmūd.

kūrūshkāīlār. Cf. Redhouse who gives no support for reading the verb kūrmak as meaning to embrace.

būrk, a tall felt cap (Redhouse). In the adjective applied to the cap there are several variants. The Ḥai. MS. writes muftūl, solid or twisted. The Elph. MS. has muftūn-lūq which has been understood by Mr. Erskine to mean, gold-embroidered.

The wording suggests that the decoration is in chain-stitch, pricked up and down through the stuff.

tāsh chantāī. These words have been taken to mean whet-stone (bilgū-tāsh). I have found no authority for reading tāsh as whet-stone. Moreover to allow 'bag of the stone' to be read would require tāsh (nīng) chantāī-sī in the text.

lit. bag-like things. Some will have held spare bow-strings and archers' rings, and other articles of 'repairing kit.' With the gifts, it seems probable that the gosha-gīr (f. 107) was given.

Vullers, clava sex foliis.

Zenker, casse-tête. Kīstin would seem to be formed from the root, kīs, cutting, but M. de C. describes it as a ball attached by a strap or chain to a handle. Sanglākh, a sort of mace (gurz).

The Rauzatu'ṣ-ṣafā states that The Khāns left Tāshkīnt on Muḥarram 15th (July 21st. 1502), in order to restore Bābur and expel Taṃbal (Erskine).

lit. saw the count (dīm). Cf. f. 100 and note concerning the count. Using a Persian substitute, the Kehr-Ilminsky text writes san (kūrdīlār).

Elph. MS. aṃbārchī, steward, for Itārchī, a tribal-name. The 'Mīrzā' and the rank of the army-begs are against supposing a steward in command. Here and just above, the texts write Mīrzā-i-Itārchī and Mīrzā-i-Dūghlāt, thus suggesting that in names not ending with a vowel, the iẓāfat is required for exact transliteration, e.g. Muḥammad-i-dūghlāt.

Alāī-līq aūrchīnī. I understand the march to have been along the northern slope of the Little Alāī, south of Aūsh.

As of Ālmālīgh and Ālmātū (fol. 2b) Bābur reports a tradition with caution. The name Aūz-kīnt may be read to mean 'Own village,' independent, as Aūz-beg, Own-beg.

He would be one of the hereditary Khwājas of Andijān (f. 16).

For several battle-cries see Th. Radloff's Réceuils etc. p. 322.

qāshqa ātlīq kīshī. For a parallel phrase see f. 92b.

Bābur does not explain how the imbroglio was cleared up; there must have been a dramatic moment when this happened.

Darwāna (a trap-door in a roof) has the variant dur-dāna, a single pearl; tūqqāī perhaps implies relationship; lūlū is a pearl, a wild cow etc.

Ḥai. MS. sāīrt kīshī. Muḥ. `Alī is likely to be the librarian (cf. index s.n.).

Elph. MS. ramāqgha u tūr-gā; Ḥai. MS. tārtātgha u tūr-gā. Ilminsky gives no help, varying much here from the true text. The archetype of both MSS. must have been difficult to read.

The Ḥai. MS.'s pointing allows the sobriquet to mean 'Butterfly.' His family lent itself to nick-names; in it three brothers were known respectively as Fat or Lubberly, Fool and, perhaps, Butterfly.

bīrk ārīgh, doubly strong by its trench and its current.

I understand that time failed to set the standard in its usual rest. E. and de C. have understood that the yak-tail (qūtās tūghī f. 100) was apart from the staff and that time failed to adjust the two parts. The tūgh however is the whole standard; moreover if the tail were ever taken off at night from the staff, it would hardly be so treated in a mere bivouac.

aīshīklīk tūrlūq, as on f. 113. I understand this to mean that the two men were as far from their followers as sentries at a Gate are posted outside the Gate.

So too 'Piero of Cosimo' and 'Lorenzo of Piero of the Medici.' Cf. the names of five men on f. 114.

shashtīm. The shasht (thumb) in archery is the thumb-shield used on the left hand, as the zih-gīr (string-grip), the archer's ring, is on the right-hand thumb.

It is useful to remember, when reading accounts of shooting with the Turkī (Turkish) bow, that the arrows (aūq) had notches so gripping the string that they kept in place until released with the string.

sar-i-sabz gosha gīr. The gosha-gīr is an implement for remedying the warp of a bow-tip and string-notch. For further particulars see Appendix C.

The term sar-i-sabz, lit. green-head, occurs in the sense of 'quite young' or 'new,' in the proverb, 'The red tongue loses the green head,' quoted in the T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī account of Bābur's death. Applied here, it points to the gosha-gīr as part of the recent gift made by Aḥmad to Bābur.

Taṃbal aīkāndūr. By this tense I understand that Bābur was not at first sure of the identity of the pseudo-sentries, partly because of their distance, partly, it may be presumed, because of concealment of identity by armour.

dūwulgha būrkī; i.e. the soft cap worn under the iron helm.

Nūyān's sword dealt the blow (f. 97b). Gul-badan also tells the story (f. 77) à propos of a similar incident in Humāyūn's career. Bābur repeats the story on f. 234.

yāldāghlāmāī dūr aīdīm. The Second W.-i-B. has taken this as from yāltūrmāq, to cause to glisten, and adds the gloss that the sword was rusty (I.O. 217 f. 70b).

The text here seems to say that the three men were on foot, but this is negatived by the context.

Amongst the various uses of the verb tūshmak, to descend in any way, the B.N. does not allow of 'falling (death) in battle.' When I made the index of the Ḥai. MS. facsimile, this was not known to me; I therefore erroneously entered the men enumerated here as killed at this time.

Elph. MS. yakhshī. Zenker explains bakhshī (pay-master) as meaning also a Court-physician.

The Ḥai. Elph. and Kehr's MS. all have pūchqāq tāqmāq or it may be pūḥqāq tāqmāq. T. būkhāq means bandage, pūchāq, rind of fruit, but the word clear in the three Turkī MSS. means, skin of a fox's leg.

The daryā here mentioned seems to be the Kāsān-water; the route taken from Bīshkhārān to Pāp is shewn on the Fr. map to lead past modern Tūpa-qūrghān. Pāp is not marked, but was, I think, at the cross-roads east of Touss (Karnān).

Presumably Jahāngīr's.

Here his father was killed (f. 6b). Cf. App. A.

`Alī-dost's son (f. 79b).

The sobriquet Khīz may mean Leaper, or Impetuous.

kūīlāk, syn. kūnglāk, a shirt not opening at the breast. It will have been a short garment since the under-vest was visible.

i.e. when Bābur was writing in Hindūstān. Exactly at what date he made this entry is not sure. `Alī was in Koel in 933 AH. (f. 315) and then taken prisoner, but Bābur does not say he was killed,—as he well might say of a marked man, and, as the captor was himself taken shortly after, `Alī may have been released, and may have been in Koel again. So that the statement 'now in Koel' may refer to a time later than his capture. The interest of the point is in its relation to the date of composition of the Bābur-nāma.

No record of `Alī's bravery in Aūsh has been preserved. The reference here made to it may indicate something attempted in 908 AH. after Bābur's adventure in Karnān (f. 118b) or in 909 AH. from Sūkh. Cf. Translator's note f. 118b.

aūpchīnlīk. Vambéry, gepanzert; Shaw, four horse-shoes and their nails; Steingass, aūpcha-khāna, a guard-house.

Sang is a ferry-station (Kostenko, i, 213). Pāp may well have been regretted (f. 109b and f. 112b)! The well-marked features of the French map of 1904 allows Bābur's flight to be followed.

In the Turkī text this saying is in Persian; in the Kehr-Ilminsky, in Turkī, as though it had gone over with its Persian context of the W.-i-B. from which the K.-I. text here is believed to be a translation.

Cf. f. 96b and Fr. Map for route over the Kīndīr-tau.

This account of Muḥ. Bāqir reads like one given later to Bābur; he may have had some part in Bābur's rescue (cf. Translator's Note to f. 118b).

Perhaps reeds for a raft. Sh. N. p. 258, Sāl aūchūn bār qāmīsh, reeds are there also for rafts.

Here the Turkī text breaks off, as it might through loss of pages, causing a blank of narrative extending over some 16 months. Cf. App. D. for a passage, supposedly spurious, found with the Ḥaidarābād Codex and the Kehr-Ilminsky text, purporting to tell how Bābur was rescued from the risk in which the lacuna here leaves him.

As in the Farghāna Section, so here, reliance is on the Elphinstone and Ḥaidarābād MSS. The Kehr-Ilminsky text still appears to be a retranslation from the Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī and verbally departs much from the true text; moreover, in this Section it has been helped out, where its archetype was illegible or has lost fragmentary passages, from the Leyden and Erskine Memoirs. It may be mentioned, as between the First and the Second Wāqi`āt-i-bāburī, that several obscure passages in this Section are more explicit in the First (Pāyanda-ḥasan's) than in its successor (`Abdu-r-raḥīm's).

Elph. MS. f. 90b; W.-i-B. I.O. 215, f. 96b and 217, f. 79; Mems. p. 127. "In 1504 AD. Ferdinand the Catholic drove the French out of Naples" (Erskine). In England, Henry VII was pushing forward a commercial treaty, the Intercursus malus, with the Flemings and growing in wealth by the exactions of Empson and Dudley.

presumably the pastures of the "Ilak" Valley. The route from Sūkh would be over the `Alā`u'd-dīn-pass, into the Qīzīl-sū valley, down to Āb-i-garm and on to the Aīlāq-valley, Khwāja `Imād, the Kāfirnigān, Qabādīān, and Aūbāj on the Amū. See T.R. p. 175 and Farghāna Section, p. 184, as to the character of the journey.

Amongst the Turkī tribes, the time of first applying the razor to the face is celebrated by a great entertainment. Bābur's miserable circumstances would not admit of this (Erskine).

The text is ambiguous here, reading either that Sūkh was left or that Aīlāq-yīlāq was reached in Muḥarram. As the birthday was on the 8th, the journey very arduous and, for a party mostly on foot, slow, it seems safest to suppose that the start was made from Sūkh at the end of 909 AH. and not in Muḥarram, 910 AH.

chārūq, rough boots of untanned leather, formed like a moccasin with the lower leather drawn up round the foot; they are worn by Khīrghīz mountaineers and caravan-men on journeys (Shaw).

chāpān, the ordinary garment of Central Asia (Shaw).

The ālāchūq, a tent of flexible poles, covered with felt, may be the khargāh (kibitka); Persian chādar seems to represent Turkī āq awī, white house.

i.e. with Khusrau's power shaken by Aūzbeg attack, made in the winter of 909 AH. (Shaibānī-nāma cap. lviii).

Cf. ff. 81 and 81b. The armourer's station was low for an envoy to Bābur, the superior in birth of the armourer's master.

var. Chaqānīān and Saghānīān. The name formerly described the whole of the Ḥiṣār territory (Erskine).

the preacher by whom the Khuṯba is read (Erskine).

bī bāqī or bī Bāqī; perhaps a play of words with the double meaning expressed in the above translation.

Amongst these were widows and children of Bābur's uncle, Maḥmūd (f. 27b).

aūghūl. As being the son of Khusrau's sister, Aḥmad was nephew to Bāqī; there may be in the text a scribe's slip from one aūghūl to another, and the real statement be that Aḥmad was the son of Bāqī's son, Muḥ. Qāsim, which would account for his name Aḥmad-i-qāsim.

Cf. f. 67.

Bābur's loss of rule in Farghāna and Samarkand.

about 7 miles south of Aībak, on the road to Sar-i-tāgh (mountain-head, Erskine).

viz. the respective fathers, Maḥmūd and `Umar Shaikh. The arrangement was made in 895 AH. (1490 AD.).

Gulistān cap. i, story 3. Part of this quotation is used again on f. 183.

Maḥmūd's sons under whom Bāqī had served.

Uncles of all degrees are included as elder brethren, cousins of all degrees, as younger ones.

Presumably the ferries; perhaps the one on the main road from the north-east which crosses the river at Fort Murgh-āb.

Nine deaths, perhaps where the Amū is split into nine channels at the place where Mīrzā Khān's son Sulaimān later met his rebel grandson Shāh-rukh (T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī, Elliot & Dowson, v, 392, and A.N. Bib. Ind., 3rd ed., 441). Tūqūz-aūlūm is too far up the river to be Arnold's "shorn and parcelled Oxus".

Shaibāq himself had gone down from Samarkand in 908 AH. and in 909 AH. and so permanently located his troops as to have sent their families to them. In 909 AH. he drove Khusrau into the mountains of Badakhshān, but did not occupy Qūndūz; thither Khusrau returned and there stayed till now, when Shaibāq again came south (fol. 123). See Sh. N. cap. lviii et seq.

From Taṃbal, to put down whom he had quitted his army near Balkh (Sh. N. cap. lix).

This, one of the many Red-rivers, flows from near Kāhmard and joins the Andar-āb water near Dūshī.

A garī is twenty-four minutes.

Qorān, Surat iii, verse 25; Sale's Qorān, ed. 1825, i, 56.

Cf. f. 82.

viz. Bāī-sanghar, bowstrung, and Mas`ūd, blinded.

Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ is florid over the rubies of Badakhshān he says Bābur took from Khusrau, but Ḥaidar says Bābur not only had Khusrau's property, treasure, and horses returned to him, but refused all gifts Khusrau offered. "This is one trait out of a thousand in the Emperor's character." Ḥaidar mentions, too, the then lack of necessaries under which Bābur suffered (Sh. N., cap. lxiii, and T.R. p. 176).

Cf. T. R. p. 134 n. and 374 n.

Jība, so often used to describe the quilted corselet, seems to have here a wider meaning, since the jība-khāna contained both joshan and kūhah, i.e. coats-of-mail and horse-mail with accoutrements. It can have been only from this source that Bābur's men obtained the horse-mail of f. 127.

He succeeded his father, Aūlūgh Beg Kābulī, in 907 AH.; his youth led to the usurpation of his authority by Sherīm Ẕikr, one of his begs; but the other begs put Sherīm to death. During the subsequent confusions Muḥ. Muqīm Arghūn, in 908 AH., got possession of Kābul and married a sister of `Abdu'r-razzāq. Things were in this state when Bābur entered the country in 910 AH. (Erskine).

var. Ūpīān, a few miles north of Chārikār.

Suhail (Canopus) is a most conspicuous star in Afghānistān; it gives its name to the south, which is never called Janūb but Suhail; the rising of Suhail marks one of their seasons (Erskine). The honour attaching to this star is due to its seeming to rise out of Arabia Felix.

The lines are in the Preface to the Anwār-i-suhailī (Lights of Canopus).

"Die Kirghis-qazzāq drücken die Sonnen-höhe in Pikenaus" (von Schwarz, p. 124).

Presumably, dark with shade, as in qarā-yīghāch, the hard-wood elm (f. 47b and note to narwān).

i.e. Sayyid Muḥammad `Alī, the door-ward. These būlāks seem likely to have been groups of 1,000 fighting-men (Turki Mīng).

In-the-water and Water-head.

Walī went from his defeat to Khwāst; wrote to Maḥmūd Aūzbeg in Qūndūz to ask protection; was fetched to Qūndūz by Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ, the author of the Shaibānī-nāma, and forwarded from Qūndūz to Samarkand (Sh. N. cap. lxiii). Cf. f. 29b.

i.e. where justice was administered, at this time, outside Bābur's tent.

They would pass Ajar and make for the main road over the Dandān-shikan Pass.

The clansmen may have obeyed Aḥmad's orders in thus holding up the families.

The name may be from Turkī tāq, a horse-shoe, but I.O. 215 f. 102 writes Persian naqīb, the servant who announces arriving guests.

Here, as immediately below, when mentioning the Chār-bāgh and the tomb of Qūtlūq-qadam, Bābur uses names acquired by the places at a subsequent date. In 910 AH. the Taster was alive; the Chār-bāgh was bought by Bābur in 911 AH., and Qūtlūq-qadam fought at Kānwāha in 933 AH.

The Kūcha-bāgh is still a garden about 4 miles from Kābul on the north-west and divided from it by a low hill-pass. There is still a bridge on the way (Erskine).

Presumably that on which the Bālā-ḥiṣār stood, the glacis of a few lines further.

Cf. f. 130.

One of Muqīm's wives was a Tīmūrid, Bābur's first-cousin, the daughter of Aūlūgh Beg Kābulī; another was Bībī Zarīf Khātūn, the mother of that Māh-chūchūq, whose anger at her marriage to Bābur's faithful Qāsim Kūkūldāsh has filled some pages of history (Gulbadan's H.N. s.n. Māh-chūchūq and Erskine's B. and H. i, 348).

Some 9 m. north of Kābul on the road to Āq-sarāī.

The Ḥai. MS. (only) writes First Rabī but the Second better suits the near approach of winter.

Elph. MS. fol. 97; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 102b and 217 f. 85; Mems. p. 136. Useful books of the early 19th century, many of them referring to the Bābur-nāma, are Conolly's Travels, Wood's Journey, Elphinstone's Caubul, Burnes' Cabool, Masson's Narrative, Lord's and Leech's articles in JASB 1838 and in Burnes' Reports (India Office Library), Broadfoot's Report in RGS Supp. Papers vol. I.

f. 1b where Farghāna is said to be on the limit of cultivation.

f. 131b. To find these tūmāns here classed with what was not part of Kābul suggest a clerical omission of "beyond" or "east of" (Lamghānāt). It may be more correct to write Lāmghānāt, since the first syllable may be lām, fort. The modern form Laghmān is not used in the Bābur-nāma, nor, it may be added is Paghmān for Pamghān.

It will be observed that Bābur limits the name Afghānistān to the countries inhabited by Afghān tribesmen; they are chiefly those south of the road from Kābul to Pashāwar (Erskine). See Vigne, p. 102, for a boundary between the Afghāns and Khurāsān.

Al-birūnī's Indika writes of both Turk and Hindū-shāhī Kings of Kābul. See Raverty's Notes p. 62 and Stein's Shāhī Kings of Kābul. The mountain is 7592 ft. above the sea, some 1800 ft. therefore above the town.

The Kābul-river enters the Chār-dih plain by the Dih-i-yaq`ūb narrows, and leaves it by those of Dūrrīn. Cf. S.A. War, Plan p. 288 and Plan of action at Chār-āsiyā (Four-mills), the second shewing an off-take which may be Wais Ātāka's canal. See Vigne, p. 163 and Raverty's Notes pp. 69 and 689.

This, the Bālā-jūī (upper-canal) was a four-mill stream and in Masson's time, as now, supplied water to the gardens round Bābur's tomb. Masson found in Kābul honoured descendants of Wais Ātāka (ii, 240).

But for a, perhaps negligible, shortening of its first vowel, this form of the name would describe the normal end of an irrigation canal, a little pool, but other forms with other meanings are open to choice, e.g. small hamlet (Pers. kul), or some compound containing Pers. gul, a rose, in its plain or metaphorical senses. Jarrett's Āyīn-i-akbarī writes Gul-kīnah, little rose (?). Masson (ii, 236) mentions a similar pleasure-resort, Sanjī-tāq.

The original ode, with which the parody agrees in rhyme and refrain, is in the Dīwān, s.l. Dāl (Brockhaus ed. 1854, i, 62 and lith. ed. p. 96). See Wilberforce Clarke's literal translation i, 286 (H. B.). A marginal note to the Ḥaidarābād Codex gives what appears to be a variant of one of the rhymes of the parody.

aūlūgh kūl; some 3 m. round in Erskine's time; mapped as a swamp in S.A. War p. 288.

A marginal note to the Ḥai. Codex explains this name to be an abbreviation of Khwāja Shamsū'd-dīn Jān-bāz (or Jahān-bāz; Masson, ii, 279 and iii, 93).

i.e. the place made holy by an impress of saintly foot-steps.

Two eagles or, Two poles, used for punishment. Vigne's illustration (p. 161) clearly shows the spur and the detached rock. Erskine (p. 137 n.) says that `Uqābain seems to be the hill, known in his day as `Āshiqān-i-`ārifān, which connects with Bābur Bādshāh. See Raverty's Notes p. 68.

During most of the year this wind rushes through the Hindū-kush (Parwān)-pass; it checks the migration of the birds (f. 142), and it may be the cause of the deposit of the Running-sands (Burnes, p. 158). Cf. Wood, p. 124.

He was Badī`u'z-zamān's Ṣadr before serving Bābur; he died in 918 AH. (1512 AD.), in the battle of Kūl-i-malik where `Ubaidu'l-lāh Aūzbeg defeated Bābur. He may be identical with Mīr Ḥusain the Riddler of f. 181, but seems not to be Mullā Muḥ. Badakhshī, also a Riddler, because the Ḥabību's-siyār (ii, 343 and 344) gives this man a separate notice. Those interested in enigmas can find one made by T̤ālib on the name Yaḥya (Ḥ.S. ii, 344). Sharafu'd-dīn `Alī Yazdī, the author of the Z̤afar-nāma, wrote a book about a novel kind of these puzzles (T.R. p. 84).

The original couplet is as follows:—

Bakhūr dar arg-i Kābul mai, bagardān kāsa pāy dar pāy, Kah ham koh ast, u ham daryā, u ham shahr ast, u ham ṣaḥrā'.

What T̤ālib's words may be inferred to conceal is the opinion that like Badī`u'z-zamān and like the meaning of his name, Kābul is the Wonder-of-the-world. (Cf. M. Garçin de Tassy's Rhétorique [p. 165], for ces combinaisons énigmatiques.)

All MSS. do not mention Kāshghar.

Khīta (Cathay) is Northern China; Chīn (infra) is China; Rūm is Turkey and particularly the provinces near Trebizond (Erskine).

300% to 400% (Erskine).

Persian sinjid, Brandis, elæagnus hortensis; Erskine (Mems. p. 138) jujube, presumably the zizyphus jujuba of Speede, Supplement p. 86. Turkī yāngāq, walnut, has several variants, of which the most marked is yānghkāq. For a good account of Kābul fruits see Masson, ii, 230.

a kind of plum (?). It seems unlikely to be a cherry since Bābur does not mention cherries as good in his old dominions, and Firminger (p. 244) makes against it as introduced from India. Steingass explains alū-bālū by "sour-cherry, an armarylla"; if sour, is it the Morello cherry?

The sugar-cane was seen in abundance in Lan-po (Lamghān) by a Chinese pilgrim (Beale, p. 90); Bābur's introduction of it may have been into his own garden only in Nīngnahār (f. 132b).

i.e. the seeds of pinus Gerardiana.

rawāshlār. The green leaf-stalks (chūkrī) of ribes rheum are taken into Kābul in mid-April from the Pamghān-hills; a week later they are followed by the blanched and tended rawāsh (Masson, ii, 7). See Gul-badan's H.N. trs. p. 188, Vigne, p. 100 and 107, Masson, ii, 230, Conolly, i, 213.

a large green fruit, shaped something like a citron; also a large sort of cucumber (Erskine).

The ṣāḥibī, a grape praised by Bābur amongst Samarkandī fruits, grows in Koh-dāman; another well-known grape of Kābul is the long stoneless ḥusainī, brought by Afghān traders into Hindūstān in round, flat boxes of poplar wood (Vigne, p. 172).

An allusion, presumably, to the renouncement of wine made by Bābur and some of his followers in 933 AH. (1527 AD. f. 312). He may have had `Umar Khayyām's quatrain in mind, "Wine's power is known to wine-bibbers alone" (Whinfield's 2nd ed. 1901, No. 164).

pūstīn, usually of sheep-skin. For the wide range of temperature at Kābul in 24 hours, see Ency. Brtt. art. Afghānistān. The winters also vary much in severity (Burnes, p. 273).

Index s.n. As he fought at Kānwāha, he will have been buried after March 1527 AD.; this entry therefore will have been made later. The Curriers'-gate is the later Lahor-gate (Masson, ii, 259).

Index s.n.

For lists of the Hindū-kush passes see Leech's Report VII; Yule's Introductory Essay to Wood's Journey 2nd ed.; PRGS 1879, Markham's art. p. 121.

The highest cols on the passes here enumerated by Bābur are,—Khawāk 11,640 ft.—T̤ūl, height not known,—Pārandī 15,984 ft.—Bāj-gāh (Toll-place) 12,000 ft.—Walīān (Saints) 15,100 ft.—Chahār-dār (Four-doors) 18,900 ft. and Shibr-tū 9800 ft. In considering the labour of their ascent and descent, the general high level, north and south of them, should be borne in mind; e.g. Chārikār (Chār-yak-kār) stands 5200 ft. and Kābul itself at 5780 ft. above the sea.

i.e. the hollow, long, and small-bāzār roads respectively. Panjhīr is explained by Hindūs to be Panj-sher, the five lion-sons of Pandu (Masson, iii, 168).

Shibr is a Hazāra district between the head of the Ghūr-bund valley and Bāmīān. It does not seem to be correct to omit the tū from the name of the pass. Persian tū, turn, twist (syn. pīch) occurs in other names of local passes; to read it here as a turn agrees with what is said of Shibr-tū pass as not crossing but turning the Hindū-kush (Cunningham). Lord uses the same wording about the Ḥājī-ghāt (var. -kāk etc.) traverse of the same spur, which "turns the extremity of the Hindū-kush". See Cunningham's Ancient Geography, i, 25; Lord's Ghūr-bund (JASB 1838 p. 528), Masson, iii, 169 and Leech's Report VII.

Perhaps through Jālmīsh into Saighān.

i.e. they are closed.

It was unknown in Mr. Erskine's day (Mems. p. 140). Several of the routes in Raverty's Notes (p. 92 etc.) allow it to be located as on the Īrī-āb, near to or identical with Bāghzān, 35 kurohs (70 m.) s.s.e. of Kābul.

Farmūl, about the situation of which Mr. Erskine was in doubt, is now marked in maps, Ūrghūn being its principal village.

15 miles below Atak (Erskine). Mr. Erskine notes that he found no warrant, previous to Abū'l-faẓl's, for calling the Indus the Nīl-āb, and that to find one would solve an ancient geographical difficulty. This difficulty, my husband suggests, was Alexander's supposition that the Indus was the Nile. In books grouping round the Bābur-nāma, the name Nīl-āb is not applied to the Indus, but to the ferry-station on that river, said to owe its name to a spring of azure water on its eastern side. (Cf. Afẓal Khān Khattak, R.'s Notes p. 447.)

I find the name Nīl-āb applied to the Kābul-river:—1. to its Arghandī affluent (Cunningham, p. 17, Map); 2. through its boatman class, the Nīl-ābīs of Lālpūra, Jalālābād and Kūnār (G. of I. 1907, art. Kābul); 3. inferentially to it as a tributary of the Indus (D'Herbélot); 4. to it near its confluence with the grey, silt-laden Indus, as blue by contrast (Sayyid Ghulām-i-muḥammad, R.'s Notes p. 34). (For Nīl-āb (Naulibis?) in Ghūr-bund see Cunningham, p. 32 and Masson, iii, 169.)

By one of two routes perhaps,—either by the Khaibar-Nīngnahār-Jagdālīk road, or along the north bank of the Kābul-river, through Goshṭa to the crossing where, in 1879, the 10th Hussars met with disaster. See S.A. War, Map 2 and p. 63; Leech's Reports II and IV (Fords of the Indus); and R.'s Notes p. 44.

Hāru, Leech's Harroon, apparently, 10 m. above Atak. The text might be read to mean that both rivers were forded near their confluence, but, finding no warrant for supposing the Kābul-river fordable below Jalālābād, I have guided the translation accordingly; this may be wrong and may conceal a change in the river.

Known also as Dhān-kot and as Mu`az̤z̤am-nagar (Ma`āṣiru'l-`umrā i, 249 and A.N. trs. H.B. index s.n. Dhān-kot). It was on the east bank of the Indus, probably near modern Kālā-bāgh, and was washed away not before 956 AH. (1549 AD. H. Beveridge).

Chaupāra seems, from f. 148b, to be the Chapari of Survey Map 1889. Bābur's Dasht is modern Dāman.

aīmāq, used usually of Mughūls, I think. It may be noted that Lieutenant Leech compiled a vocabulary of the tongue of the Mughūl Aīmāq in Qandahār and Harāt (JASB 1838, p. 785).

The Āyīn-i-akbarī account of Kābul both uses and supplements the Bābur-nāma.

viz. `Alī-shang, Alangār and Mandrāwar (the Lamghānāt proper), Nīngnahār (with its bulūk, Kāma), Kūnār-with-Nūr-gal, (and the two bulūks of Nūr-valley and Chaghān-sarāī).

See Appendix E, On Nagarahāra.

The name Adīnapūr is held to be descended from ancient Udyānapūra (Garden-town); its ancestral form however was applied to Nagarahāra, apparently, in the Bārān-Sūrkh-rūd dū-āb, and not to Bābur's dārogha's seat. The Sūrkh-rūd's deltaic mouth was a land of gardens; when Masson visited Adīnapūr he went from Bālā-bāgh (High-garden); this appears to stand where Bābur locates his Bāgh-i-wafā, but he was shown a garden he took to be this one of Bābur's, a mile higher up the Sūrkh-rūd. A later ruler made the Chār-bāgh of maps. It may be mentioned that Bālā-bāgh has become in some maps Rozābād (Garden-town). See Masson, i, 182 and iii, 186; R.'s Notes; and Wilson's Ariana Antiqua, Masson's art.

One of these tangī is now a literary asset in Mr. Kipling's My Lord the Elephant. Bābur's 13 y. represent some 82 miles; on f. 137b the Kābul-Ghaznī road of 14 y. represents some 85; in each case the yīghāch works out at over six miles (Index s.n. yīghāch and Vigne, p. 454). Sayyid Ghulām-i-muḥammad traces this route minutely (R.'s Notes pp. 57, 59).

Masson was shewn "Chaghatai castles", attributed to Bābur (iii, 174).

Dark-turn, perhaps, as in Shibr-tū, Jāl-tū, etc. (f. 130b and note to Shibr-tū).

f. 145 where the change is described in identical words, as seen south of the Jagdālīk-pass. The Bādām-chashma pass appears to be a traverse of the eastern rampart of the Tīzīn-valley.

Appendix E, On Nagarahāra.

No record exists of the actual laying-out of the garden; the work may have been put in hand during the Mahmand expedition of 914 AH. (f. 216); the name given to it suggests a gathering there of loyalists when the stress was over of the bad Mughūl rebellion of that year (f. 216b where the narrative breaks off abruptly in 914 AH. and is followed by a gap down to 925 AH.-1519 AD.).

No annals of 930 AH. are known to exist; from Ṣafar 926 AH. to 932 AH. (Jan. 1520-Nov. 1525 AD.) there is a lacuna. Accounts of the expedition are given by Khāfī Khān, i, 47 and Firishta, lith. ed. p. 202.

Presumably to his son, Humāyūn, then governor in Badakhshān; Bukhārā also was under Bābur's rule.

Here, qārī, yards. The dimensions 10 by 10, are those enjoined for places of ablution.

Presumably those of the tūqūz-rūd, supra. Cf. Appendix E, On Nagarahāra.

White-mountain; Pushtū, Spīn-ghur (or ghar).

i.e. the Lamghānāt proper. The range is variously named; in (Persian) Siyāh-koh (Black-mountain), which like Turkī Qarā-tāgh may mean non-snowy; by Tājīks, Bāgh-i-ātāka (Foster-father's garden); by Afghāns, Kanda-ghur, and by Lamghānīs Koh-i-būlān,—Kanda and Būlān both being ferry-stations below it (Masson, iii, 189; also the Times Nov. 20th 1912 for a cognate illustration of diverse naming).

A comment made here by Mr. Erskine on changes of name is still appropriate, but some seeming changes may well be due to varied selection of land-marks. Of the three routes next described in the text, one crosses as for Mandrāwar; the second, as for `Alī-shang, a little below the outfall of the Tīzīn-water; the third may take off from the route, between Kābul and Tag-aū, marked in Col. Tanner's map (PRGS 1881 p. 180). Cf. R's Route 11; and for Aūlūgh-nūr, Appendix F, On the name Nūr.

The name of this pass has several variants. Its second component, whatever its form, is usually taken to mean pass, but to read it here as pass would be redundant, since Bābur writes "pass (kūtal) of Bād-i-pīch". Pich occurs as a place name both east (Pīch) and west (Pīchghān) of the kūtal, but what would suit the bitter and even fatal winds of the pass would be to read the name as Whirling-wind (bād-i-pīch). Another explanation suggests itself from finding a considerable number of pass-names such as Shibr-tū, Jāi-tū, Qarā-tū, in which tū is a synonym of pīch, turn, twist; thus Bād-i-pīch may be the local form of Bād-tū, Windy-turn.

See Masson, iii, 197 and 289. Both in Pashāī and Lamghānī, lām means fort.

See Appendix F, On the name Dara-i-nūr.

ghair mukarrar. Bābur may allude to the remarkable change men have wrought in the valley-bottom (Appendix F, for Col. Tanner's account of the valley).

f. 154.

diospyrus lotus, the European date-plum, supposed to be one of the fruits eaten by the Lotophagi. It is purple, has bloom and is of the size of a pigeon's egg or a cherry. See Watts' Economic Products of India; Brandis' Forest Trees, Illustrations; and Speede's Indian Hand-book.

As in Lombardy, perhaps; in Luhūgur vines are clipped into standards; in most other places in Afghānistān they are planted in deep trenches and allowed to run over the intervening ridges or over wooden framework. In the narrow Khūlm-valley they are trained up poplars so as to secure them the maximum of sun. See Wood's Report VI p. 27; Bellew's Afghānistān p. I75 and Mems. p. 142 note.

Appendix G, On the names of two Nūrī wines.

This practice Bābur viewed with disgust, the hog being an impure animal according to Muḥammadan Law (Erskine).

The Khazīnatu'l-asfiyā (ii, 293) explains how it came about that this saint, one honoured in Kashmīr, was buried in Khutlān. He died in Hazāra (Paklī) and there the Paklī Sulṯān wished to have him buried, but his disciples, for some unspecified reason, wished to bury him in Khutlān. In order to decide the matter they invited the Sultān to remove the bier with the corpse upon it. It could not be stirred from its place. When, however, a single one of the disciples tried to move it, he alone was able to lift it, and to bear it away on his head. Hence the burial in Khutlān. The death occurred in 786 AH. (1384 AD.). A point of interest in this legend is that, like the one to follow, concerning dead women, it shews belief in the living activities of the dead.

The MSS. vary between 920 and 925 AH.—neither date seems correct. As the annals of 925 AH. begin in Muḥarram, with Bābur to the east of Bājaur, we surmise that the Chaghān-sarāī affair may have occurred on his way thither, and at the end of 924 AH.

karanj, coriandrum sativum.

Some 20-24 m. north of Jalālābād. The name Multa-kundī may refer to the Rām-kundī range, or mean Lower district, or mean Below Kundī. See Biddulph's Khowārī Dialect s.n under; R.'s Notes p. 108 and Dict. s.n. kund; Masson, i, 209.

i.e. treat her corpse as that of an infidel (Erskine).

It would suit the position of this village if its name were found to link to the Turkī verb chaqmāq, to go out, because it lies in the mouth of a defile (Dahānah-i-koh, Mountain-mouth) through which the road for Kāfiristān goes out past the village. A not-infrequent explanation of the name to mean White-house, Āq-sarāī, may well be questioned. Chaghān, white, is Mughūlī and it would be less probable for a Mughūlī than for a Turkī name to establish itself. Another explanation may lie in the tribe name Chugānī. The two forms chaghān and chaghār may well be due to the common local interchange in speech of n with r. (For Dahānah-i-koh see maps and Raverty's Bājaur routes.)

Nīmchas, presumably,—half-bred in custom, perhaps in blood—; and not improbably, converted Kāfirs. It is useful to remember that Kāfiristān was once bounded, west and south, by the Bārān-water.

Kāfir wine is mostly poor, thin and, even so, usually diluted with water. When kept two or three years, however, it becomes clear and sometimes strong. Sir G. S. Robertson never saw a Kāfir drunk (Kāfirs of the Hindū-kush, p. 591).

Kāma might have classed better under Nīngnahār of which it was a dependency.

i.e. water-of-Nijr; so too, Badr-aū and Tag-aū. Nijr-aū has seven-valleys (JASB 1838 p. 329 and Burnes' Report X). Sayyid Ghulām-i-muḥammad mentions that Bābur established a frontier-post between Nijr-aū and Kāfiristān which in his own day was still maintained. He was an envoy of Warren Hastings to Tīmūr Shāh Sadozī (R.'s Notes p. 36 and p. 142).

Kāfirwash; they were Kafirs converted to Muḥammadanism.

Archa, if not inclusive, meaning conifer, may represent juniperus excelsa, this being the common local conifer. The other trees of the list are pinus Gerardiana (Brandis, p. 690), quercus bīlūt, the holm-oak, and pistacia mutica or khanjak, a tree yielding mastic.

rūba-i-parwān, pteromys inornatus, the large, red flying-squirrel (Blandford's Fauna of British India, Mammalia, p. 363).

The giz is a short-flight arrow used for shooting small birds etc. Descending flights of squirrels have been ascertained as 60 yards, one, a record, of 80 (Blandford).

Apparently tetrogallus himalayensis, the Himalayan snow-cock (Blandford, iv, 143).Burnes (Cabool p. 163) describes the kabg-i-darī as the rara avis of the Kābul Kohistān, somewhat less than a turkey, and of the chikor (partridge) species. It was procured for him first in Ghūr-bund, but, when snow has fallen, it could be had nearer Kābul. Bābur's bū-qalamūn may have come into his vocabulary, either as a survival direct from Greek occupation of Kābul and Panj-āb, or through Arabic writings. PRGS 1879 p. 251, Kaye's art. and JASB 1838 p. 863, Hodgson's art.

Bartavelle's Greek-partridge, tetrao- or perdrix-rufus [f. 279 and Mems. p. 320 n.].

A similar story is told of some fields near Whitby:—"These wild geese, which in winter fly in great flocks to the lakes and rivers unfrozen in the southern parts, to the great amazement of every-one, fall suddenly down upon the ground when they are in flight over certain neighbouring fields thereabouts; a relation I should not have made, if I had not received it from several credible men." See Notes to Marmion p. xlvi (Erskine); Scott's Poems, Black's ed. 1880, vii, 104.

Are we to infer from this that the musk-rat (Crocidura cœrulea, Lydekker, p. 626) was not so common in Hindūstān in the age of Bābur as it has now become? He was not a careless observer (Erskine).

Index s.n. Bābur-nāma, date of composition; also f. 131.

In the absence of examples of bund to mean kūtal, and the presence "in those countries" of many in which bund means koh, it looks as though a clerical error had here written kūtal for koh. But on the other hand, the wording of the next passage shows just the confusion an author's unrevised draft might shew if a place were, as this is, both a tūmān and a kūtal (i.e. a steady rise to a traverse). My impression is that the name Ghūr-bund applies to the embanking spur at the head of the valley-tūmān, across which roads lead to Ghūrī and Ghūr (PRGS 1879, Maps; Leech's Report VII; and Wood's VI).

So too when, because of them, Leech and Lord turned back, re infectâ.

It will be noticed that these villages are not classed in any tūmān; they include places "rich without parallel" in agricultural products, and level lands on which towns have risen and fallen, one being Alexandria ad Caucasum. They cannot have been part of the unremunerative Ghūr-bund tūmān; from their place of mention in Bābur's list of tūmāns, they may have been part of the Kābul tūmān (f. 178), as was Koh-dāman (Burnes' Cabool p. 154; Haughton's Charikar p. 73; and Cunningham's Ancient History, i, 18).

Dūr-namāī, seen from afar (Masson, iii, 152) is not marked on the Survey Maps; Masson, Vigne and Haughton locate it. Bābur's "head" and "foot" here indicate status and not location.

Mems. p. 146 and Méms, i, 297, Arabs' encampment and Cellule des Arabes. Perhaps the name may refer to uses of the level land and good pasture by horse qāfilas, since Kurra is written with tashdīd in the Ḥaidarābād Codex, as in kurra-tāz, a horse-breaker. Or the tāziyān may be the fruit of a legend, commonly told, that the saint of the neighbouring Running-sands was an Arabian.

Presumably this is the grass of the millet, the growth before the ear, on which grazing is allowed (Elphinstone, i, 400; Burnes, p. 237).

Wood, p. 115; Masson, iii, 167; Burnes, p. 157 and JASB 1838 p. 324 with illustration; Vigne, pp. 219, 223; Lord, JASB 1838 p. 537; Cathay and the way thither, Hakluyt Society vol. I. p. xx, para. 49; History of Musical Sands, C. Carus-Wilson.

West might be more exact, since some of the group are a little north, others a little south of the latitude of Kābul.

Affluents and not true sources in some cases (Col. Holdich's Gates of India, s.n. Koh-i-bābā; and PRGS 1879, maps pp. 80 and 160).

The Pamghān range. These are the villages every traveller celebrates. Masson's and Vigne's illustrations depict them well.

Cercis siliquastrum, the Judas-tree. Even in 1842 it was sparingly found near Kābul, adorning a few tombs, one Bābur's own. It had been brought from Sih-yārān where, as also at Chārikār, (Chār-yak-kār) it was still abundant and still a gorgeous sight. It is there a tree, as at Kew, and not a bush, as in most English gardens (Masson, ii, 9; Elphinstone, i, 194; and for the tree near Harāt, f. 191 n. to Ṣafar).

Khwāja Maudūd of Chisht, Khwāja Khāwand Sa`īd and the Khwāja of the Running-sands (Elph. MS. f. 104b, marginal note).

The yellow-flowered plant is not cercis siliquastrum but one called mahaka(?) in Persian, a shrubby plant with pea-like blossoms, common in the plains of Persia, Bilūchistān and Kābul (Masson, iii, 9 and Vigne, p. 216).

The numerical value of these words gives 925 (Erskine). F. 246b et seq. for the expedition.

f. 178. I.O. MS. No. 724, Haft-iqlīm f. 135 (Ethé, p. 402); Rieu, pp. 21a, 1058b.

of Afghan habit. The same term is applied (f. 139b) to the Zurmutīs; it may be explained in both places by Bābur's statement that Zurmutīs grow corn, but do not cultivate gardens or orchards.

aīkān dūr. Sabuk-tīgīn, d. 387 AH.-997 AD., was the father of Sl. Maḥmūd Ghaznawī, d. 421 AH.-1030 AD.

d. 602 AH.-1206 AD.

Some Musalmāns fast through the months of Rajab, Sha`bān and Ramẓān; Muḥammadans fast only by day; the night is often given to feasting (Erskine).

The Garden; the tombs of more eminent Muṣalmāns are generally in gardens (Erskine). See Vigne's illustrations, pp. 133, 266.

i.e. the year now in writing. The account of the expedition, Bābur's first into Hindūstān, begins on f. 145.

i.e. the countries groupable as Khurāsān.

For picture and account of the dam, see Vigne, pp. 138, 202.

f. 295b.

The legend is told in numerous books with varying location of the spring. One narrator, Zakarīyā Qazwīnī, reverses the parts, making Jāī-pāl employ the ruse; hence Leyden's note (Mems. p. 150; E. and D.'s History of India ii, 20, 182 and iv, 162; for historical information, R.'s Notes p. 320). The date of the events is shortly after 378 AH.-988 AD.

R.'s Notes s.n. Zurmut.

The question of the origin of the Farmūlī has been written of by several writers; perhaps they were Turks of Persia, Turks and Tājīks.

This completes the list of the 14 tūmāns of Kābul, viz. Nīngnahār, `Alī-shang, Alangār, Mandrāwar, Kūnār-with-Nūr-gal, Nijr-aū, Panjhīr, Ghūr-bund, Koh-dāman (with Kohistān?), Luhūgur (of the Kābul tūmān), Ghaznī, Zurmut, Farmūl and Bangash.

Between Nijr-aū and Tag-aū (Masson, iii, 165). Mr. Erskine notes that Bābur reckoned it in the hot climate but that the change of climate takes place further east, between `Alī-shang and Aūzbīn (i.e. the valley next eastwards from Tag-aū).

būghūzlārīghā furṣat būlmās; i.e. to kill them in the lawful manner, while pronouncing the Bi'smi'llāh.

This completes the bulūks of Kābul viz. Badr-aū (Tag-aū), Nūr-valley, Chaghān-sarāī, Kāma and Ālā-sāī.

The rūpī being equal to 2-1/2 shāhrukhīs, the shāhrukhī may be taken at 10d. thus making the total revenue only £33,333 6s. 8d. See Āyīn-i-akbarī ii, 169 (Erskine).

sic in all B. N. MSS. Most maps print Khost. Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ says of Khwāst, "Who sees it, would call it a Hell" (Vambéry, p. 361).

Bābur's statement about this fodder is not easy to translate; he must have seen grass grow in tufts, and must have known the Persian word būta (bush). Perhaps kāh should be read to mean plant, not grass. Would Wood's bootr fit in, a small furze bush, very plentiful near Bāmiān? (Wood's Report VI, p. 23; and for regional grasses, Aitchison's Botany of the Afghān Delimitation Commission, p. 122.)

nāzū, perhaps cupressus torulosa (Brandis, p.693).

f. 276.

A laborious geographical note of Mr. Erskine's is here regretfully left behind, as now needless (Mems. p. 152).

Here, mainly wild-sheep and wild-goats, including mār-khẉār.

Perhaps, no conifers; perhaps none of those of the contrasted hill-tract.

While here dasht (plain) represents the eastern skirt of the Mehtar Sulaimān range, dūkī or dūgī (desert) seems to stand for the hill tracts on the west of it, and not, as on f. 152, for the place there specified.

Mems. p. 152, "A narrow place is large to the narrow-minded"; Méms. i, 311, "Ce qui n'est pas trop large, ne reste pas vide." Literally, "So long as heights are not equal, there is no vis-a-vis," or, if tāng be read for tīng, "No dawn, no noon," i.e. no effect without a cause.

I have not lighted on this name in botanical books or explained by dictionaries. Perhaps it is a Cis-oxanian name for the sax-aol of Transoxania. As its uses are enumerated by some travellers, it might be Haloxylon ammodendron, ta-ghas etc. and sax-aol (Aitchison, p. 102).

f. 135b note to Ghūr-bund.

I understand that wild-goats, wild-sheep and deer (āhū) were not localized, but that the dun-sheep migrated through. Antelope (āhū) was scarce in Elphinstone's time.

qīzīl kīyik which, taken with its alternative name, arqārghalcha, allows it to be the dun-sheep of Wood's Journey p. 241. From its second name it may be Ovis amnon (Raos), or O. argalī.

tusqāwal, var. tutqāwal, tus̱aqāwal and tūshqāwal, a word which has given trouble to scribes and translators. As a sporting-term it is equivalent to shikār-i-nihilam; in one or other of its forms I find it explained as Weg-hüter, Fahnen-hüter, Zahl-meister, Schlucht, Gefahrlicher-weg and Schmaler-weg. It recurs in the B.N. on f. 197b l. 5 and l. 6 and there might mean either a narrow road or a Weg-hüter. If its Turkī root be tūs, the act of stopping, all the above meanings can follow, but there may be two separate roots, the second, tūsh, the act of descent (JRAS 1900 p. 137, H. Beveridge's art. On the word nihilam).

qūshlīk, aītlīk. Elphinstone writes (i, 191) of the excellent greyhounds and hawking birds of the region; here the bird may be the charkh, which works with the dogs, fastening on the head of the game (Von Schwarz, p. 117, for the same use of eagles).

An antelope resembling the usual one of Hindūstān is common south of Ghaznī (Vigne, p. 110); what is not found may be some classes of wild-sheep, frequent further north, at higher elevation, and in places more familiar to Bābur.

The Parwān or Hindū-kush pass, concerning the winds of which see f. 128.

tūrnā u qarqara; the second of which is the Hindī būglā, heron, egret ardea gazetta, the furnisher of the aigrette of commerce.

The aūqār is ardea cinerea, the grey heron; the qarqara is ardea gazetta, the egret. Qūṯān is explained in the Elph. Codex (f. 110) by khawāsil, goldfinch, but the context concerns large birds; Scully (Shaw's Voc.) has qodan, water-hen, which suits better.

giz, the short-flight arrow.

a small, round-headed nail with which a whip-handle is decorated (Vambéry). Such a stud would keep the cord from slipping through the fingers and would not check the arrow-release.

It has been understood (Mems. p. 158 and Méms. i, 313) that the arrow was flung by hand but if this were so, something heavier than the giz would carry the cord better, since it certainly would be difficult to direct a missile so light as an arrow without the added energy of the bow. The arrow itself will often have found its billet in the closely-flying flock; the cord would retrieve the bird. The verb used in the text is aītmāq, the one common to express the discharge of arrows etc.

For Tīmūrids who may have immigrated the fowlers see Raverty's Notes p. 579 and his Appendix p. 22.

milwāh; this has been read by all earlier translators, and also by the Persian annotator of the Elph. Codex, to mean shākh, bough. For decoy-ducks see Bellew's Notes on Afghānistān p. 404.

qūlān qūyirūghī. Amongst the many plants used to drug fish I have not found this one mentioned. Khār-zāhra and khār-fāq approach it in verbal meaning; the first describes colocynth, the second, wild rue. See Watts' Economic Products of India iii, 366 and Bellew's Notes pp. 182, 471 and 478.

Much trouble would have been spared to himself and his translators, if Bābur had known a lobster-pot.

The fish, it is to be inferred, came down the fall into the pond.

Burnes and Vigne describe a fall 20 miles from Kābul, at "Tangī Gharoi", [below where the Tag-aū joins the Bārān-water,] to which in their day, Kābulīs went out for the amusement of catching fish as they try to leap up the fall. Were these migrants seeking upper waters or were they captives in a fish-pond?

Elph. MS. f. 111; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 116b and 217 f. 97b; Mems. p. 155; Méms. i, 318.

mihmān-beglār, an expression first used by Bābur here, and due, presumably, to accessions from Khusrau Shāh's following. A parallel case is given in Max Müller's Science of Language i, 348 ed. 1871, "Turkmān tribes ... call themselves, not subjects, but guests of the Uzbeg Khāns."

tiyūl-dīk in all the Turkī MSS. Ilminsky, de Courteille and Zenker, yitūl-dīk, Turkī, a fief.

Wilāyat khūd hech bīrīlmādī; W.-i-B. 215 f. 116b, Wilāyat dāda na shuda and 217 f. 97b, Wilāyat khūd hech dāda na shud. By this I understand that he kept the lands of Kābul itself in his own hands. He mentions (f. 350) and Gul-badan mentions (H.N. f. 40b) his resolve so to keep Kābul. I think he kept not only the fort but all lands constituting the Kābul tūmān (f. 135b and note).

Saifī dūr, qalamī aīmās, i.e. tax is taken by force, not paid on a written assessment.

khar-wār, about 700 lbs Averdupois (Erskine). Cf. Āyīn-i-akbarī (Jarrett, ii, 394).

Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad and Badāyūnī both mention this script and say that in it Bābur transcribed a copy of the Qorān for presentation to Makka. Badāyūnī says it was unknown in his day, the reign of Akbar (T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī, lith. ed. p. 193, and Muntakhabu't-tawārīkh Bib. Ind. ed. iii, 273).

Bābur's route, taken with one given by Raverty (Notes p. 691), allows these Hazāras, about whose location Mr. Erskine was uncertain, to be located between the Takht-pass (Arghandī-Maidān-Unai road), on their east, and the Sang-lākh mountains, on their west.

The Takht-pass, one on which from times immemorial, toll (nirkh) has been taken.

khāṯir-khwāh chāpīlmādī, which perhaps implies mutual discontent, Bābur's with his gains, the Hazāras' with their losses. As the second Persian translation omits the negative, the Memoirs does the same.

Bhīra being in Shāhpūr, this Khān's daryā will be the Jehlam.

Bābur uses Persian dasht and Hindī dūkī, plain and hill, for the tracts east and west of Mehtar Sulaimān. The first, dasht, stands for Dāman (skirt) and Dara-i-jāt, the second, dūkī, indefinitely for the broken lands west of the main range, but also, in one instance for the Dūkī [Dūgī] district of Qandahār, as will be noted.

f. 132. The Jagdālīk-pass for centuries has separated the districts of Kābul and Nīngnahār. Forster (Travels ii, 68), making the journey the reverse way, was sensible of the climatic change some 3m. east of Gandamak. Cf. Wood's Report I. p. 6.

These are they whose families Nāṣir Mīrzā shepherded out of Kābul later (f. 154, f. 155).

Bird's-dome, opposite the mouth of the Kūnār-water (S.A. War, Map p. 64).

This word is variously pointed and is uncertain. Mr. Erskine adopted "Pekhi", but, on the whole, it may be best to read, here and on f. 146, Ar. fajj or pers. paj, mountain or pass. To do so shews the guide to be one located in the Khaibar-pass, a Fajjī or Pajī.

mod. Jām-rūd (Jām-torrent), presumably.

G. of I. xx, 125 and Cunningham's Ancient History i, 80. Bābur saw the place in 925 AH. (f. 232b).

Cunningham, p. 29. Four ancient sites, not far removed from one another, bear this name, Bīgrām, viz. those near Hūpīān, Kābul, Jalālābād and Pashāwar.

Cunningham, i, 79.

Perhaps a native of Kamarī on the Indus, but kamarī is a word of diverse application (index s.n.).

The annals of this campaign to the eastward shew that Bābur was little of a free agent; that many acts of his own were merciful; that he sets down the barbarity of others as it was, according to his plan of writing (f. 86); and that he had with him undisciplined robbers of Khusrau Shāh's former following. He cannot be taken as having power to command or control the acts of those, his guest-begs and their following, who dictated his movements in this disastrous journey, one worse than a defeat, says Ḥaidar Mīrzā.

For the route here see Masson, i, 117 and Colquhoun's With the Kuram Field-force p. 48.

The Ḥai. MS. writes this Dilah-zāk.

i.e. raised a force in Bābur's name. He took advantage of this farmān in 911 AH. to kill Bāqī Chagkānīānī (f. 159b-160).

Of the Yūsuf-zāī and Ranjīt-sīngh, Masson says, (i, 141) "The miserable, hunted wretches threw themselves on the ground, and placing a blade or tuft of grass in their mouths, cried out, "I am your cow." This act and explanation, which would have saved them from an orthodox Hindū, had no effect with the infuriated Sikhs." This form of supplication is at least as old as the days of Firdausī (Erskine, p. 159 n.). The Bahār-i-`ajam is quoted by Vullers as saying that in India, suppliants take straw in the mouth to indicate that they are blanched and yellow from fear.

This barbarous custom has always prevailed amongst the Tartar conquerors of Asia (Erskine). For examples under Timūr see Raverty's Notes p. 137.

For a good description of the road from Kohāt to Thāl see Bellew's Mission p. 104.

F. 88b has the same phrase about the doubtful courage of one Sayyidī Qarā.

Not to the mod. town of Bannū, [that having been begun only in 1848 AD.] but wherever their wrong road brought them out into the Bannū amphitheatre. The Survey Map of 1868, No. 15, shews the physical features of the wrong route.

Perhaps he connived at recovery of cattle by those raided already.

Tāq is the Tank of Maps; Bāzār was s.w. of it. Tank for Tāq looks to be a variant due to nasal utterance (Vigne, p. 77, p. 203 and Map; and, as bearing on the nasal, in loco, Appendix E).

If return had been made after over-running Bannū, it would have been made by the Tochī-valley and so through Farmūl; if after over-running the Plain, Bābur's details shew that the westward turn was meant to be by the Gūmāl-valley and one of two routes out of it, still to Farmūl; but the extended march southward to near Dara-i-Ghazī Khān made the westward turn be taken through the valley opening at Sakhī-sawār.

This will mean, none of the artificial runlets familiar where Bābur had lived before getting to know Hindūstān.

sauda-āt, perhaps, pack-ponies, perhaps, bred for sale and not for own use. Burnes observes that in 1837 Lūhānī merchants carried precisely the same articles of trade as in Bābur's day, 332 years earlier (Report IX p. 99).

Mr. Erskine thought it probable that the first of these routes went through Kanigūram, and the second through the Ghwālirī-pass and along the Gūmāl. Birk, fastness, would seem an appropriate name for Kanigūram, but, if Bābur meant to go to Ghaznī, he would be off the ordinary Gūmāl-Ghaznī route in going through Farmūl (Aūrgūn). Raverty's Notes give much useful detail about these routes, drawn from native sources. For Barak (Birk) see Notes pp. 88, 89; Vigne, p. 102.

From this it would seem that the alternative roads were approached by one in common.

tūmshūq, a bird's bill, used here, as in Selsey-bill, for the naze (nose), or snout, the last spur, of a range.

Here these words may be common nouns.

Nū-roz, the feast of the old Persian New-year (Erskine); it is the day on which the Sun enters Aries.

In the [Turkī] Elph. and Ḥai. MSS. and in some Persian ones, there is a space left here as though to indicate a known omission.

kamarī, sometimes a cattle-enclosure, which may serve as a sangur. The word may stand in one place of its Bābur-nāma uses for Gum-rāhī (R.'s Notes s.n. Gum-rāhān).

Index s.n.

Vigne, p. 241.

This name can be translated "He turns not back" or "He stops not".

i.e. five from Bīlah.

Raverty gives the saint's name as Pīr Kānūn (Ar. kānūn, listened to). It is the well-known Sakhī-sarwār, honoured hy Hindūs and Muḥammadans. (G. of I., xxi, 390; R.'s Notes p. 11 and p. 12 and JASB 1855; Calcutta Review 1875, Macauliffe's art. On the fair at Sakhi-sarwar; Leech's Report VII, for the route; Khazīnatu 'l-asfiyā iv, 245.)

This seems to be the sub-district of Qandahār, Dūkī or Dūgī.

khar-gāh, a folding tent on lattice frame-work, perhaps a khibitka.

It may be more correct to write Kāh-mard, as the Ḥai. MS. does and to understand in the name a reference to the grass(kāh)-yielding capacity of the place.

f. 121.

This may mean, what irrigation has not used.

Mr. Erskine notes that the description would lead us to imagine a flock of flamingoes. Masson found the lake filled with red-legged, white fowl (i, 262); these and also what Bābur saw, may have been the China-goose which has body and neck white, head and tail russet (Bellew's Mission p. 402). Broadfoot seems to have visited the lake when migrants were few, and through this to have been led to adverse comment on Bābur's accuracy (p. 350).

The usual dryness of the bed may have resulted from the irrigation of much land some 12 miles from Ghaznī.

This is the Luhūgur (Logar) water, knee-deep in winter at the ford but spreading in flood with the spring-rains. Bābur, not being able to cross it for the direct roads into Kābul, kept on along its left bank, crossing it eventually at the Kamarī of maps, s.e. of Kābul.

This disastrous expedition, full of privation and loss, had occupied some four months (T.R. p. 201).

f. 145b.

f. 133b and Appendix F.

They were located in Mandrāwar in 926 AH. (f. 251).

This was done, manifestly, with the design of drawing after the families their fighting men, then away with Bābur.

f. 163. Shaibāq Khān besieged Chīn Ṣufī, Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā's man in Khwārizm (T. R. p. 204; Shaibānī-nāma, Vambéry, Table of Contents and note 89).

Survey Map 1889, Sadda. The Rāgh-water flows n.w. into the Oxus (Amū).

birk, a mountain stronghold; cf. f. 149b note to Birk (Barak).

They were thus driven on from the Bārān-water (f. 154b).

f. 126b.

Ḥiṣār, presumably.

Here "His Honour" translates Bābur's clearly ironical honorific plural.

These two sulṯāns, almost always mentioned in alliance, may be Tīmūrids by maternal descent (Index s.nn.). So far I have found no direct statement of their parentage. My husband has shewn me what may be one indication of it, viz. that two of the uncles of Shaibāq Khān (whose kinsmen the sulṯāns seem to be), Qūj-kūnjī and Sīūnjak, were sons of a daughter of the Tīmūrid Aūlūgh Beg Samarkandī (Ḥ.S. ii, 318). See Vambéry's Bukhārā p. 248 note.

For the deaths of Taṃbal and Maḥmūd, mentioned in the above summary of Shaibāq Khān's actions, see the Shaibānī-nāma, Vambéry, p. 323.

Ḥ.S. ii, 323, for Khusrau Shāh's character and death.

f. 124.

Khwāja-of-the-rhubarb, presumably a shrine near rhubarb-grounds (f. 129b).

yakshī bārdīlār, lit. went well, a common expression in the Bābur-nāma, of which the reverse statement is yamānlīk bīla bārdī (f. 163). Some Persian MSS. make the Mughūls disloyal but this is not only in opposition to the Turkī text, it is a redundant statement since if disloyal, they are included in Bābur's previous statement, as being Khusrau Shāh's retainers. What might call for comment in Mughūls would be loyalty to Bābur.

Elph. MS. f. 121b: W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 126 and 217 f. 106b; Mems. p. 169.

tāgh-dāmanasī, presumably the Koh-dāman, and the garden will thus be the one of f. 136b.

If these heirs were descendants of Aūlūgh Beg M. one would be at hand in `Abdu'r-razzāq, then a boy, and another, a daughter, was the wife of Muqīm Arghūn. As Mr. Erskine notes, Musalmāns are most scrupulous not to bury their dead in ground gained by violence or wrong.

The news of Aḥmad's death was belated; he died some 13 months earlier, in the end of 909 AH. and in Eastern Turkistān. Perhaps details now arrived.

i.e. the fortieth day of mourning, when alms are given.

Of those arriving, the first would find her step-daughter dead, the second her sister, the third, his late wife's sister (T. R. p. 196).

This will be the earthquake felt in Agra on Ṣafar 3rd 911 AH. (July 5th 1505 AD. Erskine's History of India i, 229 note). Cf. Elliot and Dowson, iv, 465 and v, 99.

Raverty's Notes p. 690.

bīr kitta tāsh ātīmī; var. bāsh ātīmī. If tāsh be right, the reference will probably be to the throw of a catapult.

Here almost certainly, a drummer, because there were two tambours and because also Bābur uses `aūdī & ghachakī for the other meanings of ṯambourchi, lutanist and guitarist. The word has found its way, as tambourgi, into Childe Harold's Pilgrimage (Canto ii, lxxii. H. B.).

Kābul-Ghaznī road (R.'s Notes index s.n.).

var. Yārī. Tāzī is on the Ghaznī-Qalāt-i-ghilzāī road (R.'s Notes, Appendix p. 46).

i.e. in Kābul and in the Trans-Himalayan country.

These will be those against Bābur's suzerainty done by their defence of Qalāt for Muqīm.

tabaqa, dynasty. By using this word Bābur shews recognition of high birth. It is noticeable that he usually writes of an Arghūn chief either simply as "Beg" or without a title. This does not appear to imply admission of equality, since he styles even his brothers and sisters Mīrzā and Begīm; nor does it shew familiarity of intercourse, since none seems to have existed between him and Ẕū'n-nūn or Muqīm. That he did not admit equality is shewn on f. 208. The T.R. styles Ẕū'n-nūn "Mīrzā", a title by which, as also by Shāh, his descendants are found styled (A.-i-a. Blochmann, s.n.).

Turkī khachar is a camel or mule used for carrying personal effects. The word has been read by some scribes as khanjar, dagger.

In 910 AH. he had induced Bābur to come to Kābul instead of going into Khurāsān (Ḥ.S. iii, 319); in the same year he dictated the march to Kohāt, and the rest of that disastrous travel. His real name was not Bāqī but Muḥammad Bāqir (Ḥ.S. iii, 311).

These transit or custom duties are so called because the dutiable articles are stamped with a ṯamghā, a wooden stamp.

Perhaps this word is an equivalent of Persian goshī, a tax on cattle and beasts of burden.

Bāqī was one only and not the head of the Lords of the Gate.

The choice of the number nine, links on presumably to the mystic value attached to it e.g. Tarkhāns had nine privileges; gifts were made by nines.

It is near Ḥasan-abdāl (A.-i-A. Jarrett, ii, 324).

For the farmān, f. 146b; for Gujūrs, G. of I.

var. Khwesh. Its water flows into the Ghūr-bund stream; it seems to be the Dara-i-Turkmān of Stanford and the Survey Maps both of which mark Janglīk. For Hazāra turbulence, f. 135b and note.

The repetition of aūq in this sentence can hardly be accidental.

ṯaur [dara], which I take to be Turkī, round, complete.

Three MSS. of the Turkī text write bīr sīmīzlūq tīwah; but the two Persian translations have yak shuturlūq farbīh, a shuturlūq being a baggage-camel with little hair (Erskine).

brochettes, meat cut into large mouthfuls, spitted and roasted.

Perhaps he was officially an announcer; the word means also bearer of good news.

yīlāng, without mail, as in the common phrase yīgīt yīlāng, a bare brave.

aūpchīn, of horse and man (f. 113b and note).

Manifestly Bābur means that he twice actually helped to collect the booty.

This is that part of a horse covered by the two side-pieces of a Turkī saddle, from which the side-arch springs on either side (Shaw).

Bārān-nīng ayāghī. Except the river I have found nothing called Bārān; the village marked Baian on the French Map would suit the position; it is n.e. of Chār-yak-kār (f. 184b note).

i.e. prepared to fight.

For the Hazāra (Turkī, Mīng) on the Mīrzā's road see Raverty's routes from Ghaznī to the north. An account given by the Tārīkh-i-rashīdī (p. 196) of Jahāngīr's doings is confused; its parenthetical "(at the same time)" can hardly be correct. Jahāngīr left Ghaznī now, (911 AH.), as Bābur left Kābul in 912 AH. without knowledge of Ḥusain's death (911 AH.). Bābur had heard it (f. 183b) before Jahāngīr joined him (912 AH.); after their meeting they went on together to Herī. The petition of which the T. R. speaks as made by Jahāngīr to Bābur, that he might go into Khurāsān and help the Bāī-qarā Mīrzās must have been made after the meeting of the two at Ṣaf-hill (f. 184b).

The plurals they and their of the preceding sentence stand no doubt for the Mīrzā, Yūsuf and Buhlūl who all had such punishment due as would lead them to hear threat in Qāsim's words now when all were within Bābur's pounce.

These are the aīmāqs from which the fighting-men went east with Bābur in 910 AH. and the families in which Nāṣir shepherded across Hindu-kush (f. 154 and f. 155).

yamānlīk bīla bārdī; cf. f. 156b and n. for its opposite, yakhshī bārdīlār; and T. R. p. 196.

One might be of mail, the other of wadded cloth.

Chīn Ṣūfī was Ḥusain Bāī-qarā's man (T.R. p. 204). His arduous defence, faithfulness and abandonment recall the instance of a later time when also a long road stretched between the man and the help that failed him. But the Mīrzā was old, his military strength was, admittedly, sapped by ease; hence his elder Khartum, his neglect of his Gordon.

It should be noted that no mention of the page's fatal arrow is made by the Shaibānī-nāma (Vambéry, p. 442), or by the Tārīkh-i-rashīdī (p. 204). Chīn Ṣūfī's death was on the 21st of the Second Rabī 911 AH. (Aug. 22nd 1505 AD.).

This may be the "Baboulei" of the French Map of 1904, on the Herī-Kushk-Marūchāq road.

Elph. MS. f. 127; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 132 and 217 f. 111b; Mems. p. 175; Méms. i, 364.

That Bābur should have given his laborious account of the Court of Herī seems due both to loyalty to a great Tīmūrid, seated in Tīmūr Beg's place (f. 122b), and to his own interest, as a man-of-letters and connoisseur in excellence, in that ruler's galaxy of talent. His account here opening is not complete; its sources are various; they include the Ḥabību's-siyār and what he will have learned himself in Herī or from members of the Bāī-qarā family, knowledgeable women some of them, who were with him in Hindūstān. The narrow scope of my notes shews that they attempt no more than to indicate further sources of information and to clear up a few obscurities.

Tīmūr's youngest son, d. 850 AH. (1446 AD.). Cf. Ḥ.S. iii, 203. The use in this sentence of Amīr and not Beg as Tīmūr's title is, up to this point, unique in the Bābur-nāma; it may be a scribe's error.

Fīrūza's paternal line of descent was as follows:—Fīrūza, daughter of Sl. Ḥusain Qānjūt, son of Ākā Begīm, daughter of Tīmūr. Her maternal descent was:—Fīrūza, d. of Qūtlūq-sulṯān Begīm, d. of Mīrān-shāh, s. of Tīmūr. She died Muḥ. 24th 874 AH. (July 25th 1489 AD. Ḥ.S. iii, 218).

"No-one in the world had such parentage", writes Khwānd-amīr, after detailing the Tīmūrid, Chīngīz-khānid, and other noted strains meeting in Ḥusain Bāī-qarā (Ḥ.S. iii, 204).

The Elph. MS. gives the Begīm no name; Badī`u'l-jamāl is correct (Ḥ.S. iii, 242). The curious "Badka" needs explanation. It seems probable that Bābur left one of his blanks for later filling-in; the natural run of his sentence here is "Ākā B. and Badī`u'l-jamāl B." and not the detail, which follows in its due place, about the marriage with Aḥmad.

Dīwān bāshīdā ḥāṣir būlmās aīdī; the sense of which may be that Bāī-qarā did not sit where the premier retainer usually sat at the head of the Court (Pers. trs. sar-i-dīwān).

From this Wais and Sl. Ḥusain M.'s daughter Sulṯānīm (f. 167b) were descended the Bāī-qarā Mīrzās who gave Akbar so much trouble.

As this man might be mistaken for Bābur's uncle (q.v.) of the same name, it may be well to set down his parentage. He was a s. of Mīrzā Sayyidī Aḥmad, s. of Mīrān-shāh, s. of Tīmūr (Ḥ.S. iii, 217, 241). I have not found mention elsewhere of "Aḥmad s. of Mīrān-shāh"; the sayyidī in his style points to a sayyida mother. He was Governor of Herī for a time, for Sl. H.M.; `Alī-sher has notices of him and of his son, Kīchīk Mīrzā (Journal Asiatique xvii, 293, M. Belin's art. where may be seen notices of many other men mentioned by Bābur).

He collected and thus preserved `Alī-sher's earlier poems (Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 294). Mu'inu'd-dīn al Zamji writes respectfully of his being worthy of credence in some Egyptian matters with which he became acquainted in twice passing through that country on his Pilgrimage (Journal Asiatique xvi, 476, de Meynard's article).

Kīchīk M.'s quatrain is a mere plagiarism of Jāmī's which I am indebted to my husband for locating as in the Dīwān I.O. MS. 47 p. 47; B.M. Add. 7774 p. 290; and Add. 7775 p. 285. M. Belin interprets the verse as an expression of the rise of the average good man to mystical rapture, not as his lapse from abstinence to indulgence (l.c. xvii, 296 and notes).

Elph. MS. younger but Ḥai. MS. older in which it is supported by the "also" (ham) of the sentence.

modern Astrakhan. Ḥusain's guerilla wars were those through which he cut his way to the throne of Herī. This begīm was married first to Pīr Budāgh Sl. (Ḥ.S. iii, 242); he dying, she was married by Aḥmad, presumably by levirate custom (yīnkālīk; f. 12 and note). By Aḥmad she had a daughter, styled Khān-zāda Begīm whose affairs find comment on f. 206 and Ḥ.S. iii, 359. (The details of this note negative a suggestion of mine that Badka was the Rābī`a-sulṯān of f. 168 (Gul-badan, App. s. nn.).)

This is a felt wide-awake worn by travellers in hot weather (Shaw); the Turkmān bonnet (Erskine).

Ḥai. MS. yamānlīk, badly, but Elph. MS. namāyan, whence Erskine's showy.

This was a proof that he was then a Shī`a (Erskine).

The word perform may be excused in speaking of Musalmān prayers because they involve ceremonial bendings and prostrations (Erskine).

If Bābur's 40 include rule in Herī only, it over-states, since Yādgār died in 875 AH. and Ḥusain in 911 AH. while the intervening 36 years include the 5 or 6 temperate ones. If the 40 count from 861 AH. when Ḥusain began to rule in Merv, it under-states. It is a round number, apparently.

Relying on the Ilminsky text, Dr. Rieu was led into the mistake of writing that Bābur gave Ḥusain the wrong pen-name, i.e. Ḥusain, and not Ḥusainī (Turk. Cat. p. 256).

Daulat-shāh says that as he is not able to enumerate all Ḥusain's feats-of-arms, he, Turkmān fashion, offers a gift of Nine. The Nine differ from those of Bābur's list in some dates; they are also records of victory only (Browne, p. 521; Not. et Extr. iv, 262, de Saçy's article).

Wolves'-water, a river and its town at the s.e. corner of the Caspian, the ancient boundary between Russia and Persia. The name varies a good deal in MSS.

The battle was at Tarshīz; Abū-sa`īd was ruling in Herī; Daulat-shāh (l.c. p. 523) gives 90 and 10,000 as the numbers of the opposed forces!

f. 26b and note; Ḥ.S. iii, 209; Daulat-shāh p. 523.

The loser was the last Shāhrukhī ruler. Chanārān (variants) is near Abīward, Anwārī's birth-place (Ḥ.S. iii, 218; D.S. p. 527).

f. 85. D.S. (p. 540) and the Ḥ.S. (iii, 223) dwell on Ḥusain's speed through three continuous days and nights.

f. 26; Ḥ.S. iii, 227; D.S. p. 532.

Abū-sa`īd's son by a Badakhshī Begīm (T.R. p. 108); he became his father's Governor in Badakhshān and married Ḥusain Bāī-qarā's daughter Begīm Sultān at a date after 873 AH. (f. 168 and note; Ḥ.S. iii, 196, 229, 234-37; D.S. p. 535).

f. 152.

Abā-bikr was defeated and put to death at the end of Rajah 884 AH.-Oct. 1479 AD. after flight before Ḥusain across the Gurgān-water (Ḥ.S. iii, 196 and 237 but D.S. p. 539, Ṣafar 885 AH.).

f. 41, Pul-i-chirāgh; for Halwā-spring, Ḥ.S. iii, 283 and Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 443.

f. 33 (p. 57) and f. 57b.

In commenting thus Bābur will have had in mind what he best knew, Ḥusain's futile movements at Qūndūz and Ḥiṣār.

qālīb aīdī; if qālīb be taken as Turkī, survived or remained, it would not apply here since many of Ḥusain's children predeceased him; Ar. qālab would suit, meaning begotten, born.

There are discrepancies between Bābur's details here and Khwānd-amīr's scattered through the Ḥabību's-siyār, concerning Ḥusain's family.

bī ḥuẓūrī, which may mean aversion due to Khadīja Begīm's malevolence.

Some of the several goings into `Irāq chronicled by Bābur point to refuge taken with Tīmūrids, descendants of Khalīl and `Umar, sons of Mirān-shāh (Lane-Poole's Muhammadan Dynasties, Table of the Timūrids).

He died before his father (Ḥ.S. iii, 327).

He will have been killed previous to Ramẓān 3rd 918 AH. (Nov. 12th, 1512 AD.), the date of the battle of Ghaj-dawān when Nijm S̱ānī died.

The bund here may not imply that both were in prison, but that they were bound in close company, allowing Ismā`īl, a fervent Shī`a, to convert the Mīrzā.

The bātmān is a Turkish weight of 13lbs (Meninsky) or 15lbs (Wollaston). The weight seems likely to refer to the strength demanded for rounding the bow (kamān guroha-sī) i.e. as much strength as to lift 40 bātmāns. Rounding or bending might stand for stringing or drawing. The meaning can hardly be one of the weight of the cross-bow itself. Erskine read gūrdehieh for guroha (p. 180) and translated by "double-stringed bow"; de Courteille (i, 373) read guirdhiyeh, arrondi, circulaire, in this following Ilminsky who may have followed Erskine. The Elph. and Ḥai. MSS. and the first W.-i-B. (I.O. 215 f. 113b) have kamān guroha-sī; the second W.-i-B. omits the passage, in the MSS. I have seen.

yakhshīlār bārīb tūr; lit. good things went (on); cf. f. 156b and note.

Badī`u'z-zamān's son, drowned at Chausa in 946 AH. (1539 AD.) A.N. (H. Beveridge, i, 344).

Qalāt-i-nādirī, in Khurāsān, the birth-place of Nādir Shāh (T.R. p. 209).

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).

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 Sulṯān 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 sulṯān, one whose father was a Shabān sulṯān, 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 sulṯāns 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. [a copy from the Rampūr Codex]; and to this must be added the verbal objection that a modicum of rhetoric allows a death to be described both in Turkī and Persian, as a release from the captivity of a sinner's own acts (f. 160). Still Khāfī Khān may be right; his statement may yet be found in some other MS. of the T. R. or some different source; it is one a scribe copying the T. R. might be led to omit by reason of its coincidences. The killing and the release may both be right; `Ādil's Mahdī may be the Shabān sulṯān inference makes him seem. This little crux presses home the need of much attention to the lacunae in the Bābur-nāma, since in them are lost some exits and some entries of Bābur's dramatis personae, pertinently, mention of the death of Mahdī with Ḥamza in 916 AH., and possibly also that of `Ādil's Mahdī's release.

A chār-ṯāq may be a large tent rising into four domes or having four porches.

Ḥ.S. iii, 367.

This phrase, common but not always selected, suggests unwillingness to leave the paternal roof.

Abū'l-ghāzī's History of the Mughūls, Désmaisons, p. 207.

The appointment was made in 933 AH. (1527 AD.) and seems to have been held still in 934 AH. (ff. 329, 332).

This grandson may have been a child travelling with his father's household, perhaps Aūlūgh Mīrzā, the oldest son of Muḥammad Sulṯān Mīrzā (A. A. Blochmann, p. 461). No mention is made here of Sulṯānīm Begīm's marriage with `Abdu'l-bāqī Mīrzā (f. 175).

Abū'l-qāsim Bābur Shāhrukhī presumably.

The time may have been 902 AH. when Mas`ūd took his sister Bega Begīm to Herī for her marriage with Ḥaidar (Ḥ.S. iii, 260).

Khwāja Aḥmad Yāsawī, known as Khwāja Ātā, founder of the Yāsawī religious order.

Not finding mention of a daughter of Abū-sa`id named Rābī`a-sulṯān, I think she may be the daughter styled Āq Begīm who is No. 3 in Gul-badan's guest-list for the Mystic Feast.

This man I take to be Ḥusain's grandfather and not brother, both because `Abdu'l-lāh was of Ḥusain's and his brother's generation, and also because of the absence here of Bābur's usual defining words "elder brother" (of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā). In this I have to differ from Dr. Rieu (Pers. Cat. p. 152).

So-named after his ancestor Sayyid Barka whose body was exhumed from Andikhūd for reburial in Samarkand, by Tīmūr's wish and there laid in such a position that Tīmūr's body was at its feet (Z̤afar-nāma ii, 719; Ḥ.S. iii, 82). (For the above interesting detail I am indebted to my husband.)

Qīzīl-bāsh, Persians wearing red badges or caps to distinguish them as Persians.

Yādgār-i-farrukh Mīrān-shāhī (Ḥ.S. iii, 327). He may have been one of those Mīrān-shāhīs of `Irāq from whom came Ākā's and Sulṯānīm's husbands, Aḥmad and `Abdu'l-bāqī (ff. 164, 175b).

This should be four (f. 169b). The Ḥ.S. (iii, 327) also names three only when giving Pāpā Āghācha's daughters (the omission linking it with the B.N.), but elsewhere (iii, 229) it gives an account of a fourth girl's marriage; this fourth is needed to make up the total of 11 daughters. Bābur's and Khwānd-amīr's details of Pāpā Āghācha's quartette are defective; the following may be a more correct list:—(1) Begīm Sulṯān (a frequent title), married to Abā-bikr Mīrān-shāhī (who died 884 AH.) and seeming too old to be the one [No. 3] who married Mas`ūd (Ḥ.S. iii, 229); (2) Sulṯān-nizhād, married to Iskandar Bāī-qarā; (3) Sa`ādat-bakht also known as Begīm Sulṯān, married to Mas'ūd Mīrān-shāhī (Ḥ.S. iii, 327); (4) Manauwar-sulṯān, married to a son of Aūlūgh Beg Kābulī (Ḥ.S. iii, 327).

This "after" seems to contradict the statement (f. 58) that Mas`ūd was made to kneel as a son-in-law (kūyādlīk-kā yūkūndūrūb) at a date previous to his blinding, but the seeming contradiction may be explained by considering the following details; he left Herī hastily (f. 58), went to Khusrau Shāh and was blinded by him,—all in the last two months of 903 AH. (1498 AD.), after the kneeling on Ẕū'l-qa`da 3rd, (June 23rd) in the Ravens'-garden. Here what Bābur says is that the Begīm was given (bīrīb) after the blinding, the inference allowed being that though Mas`ūd had kneeled before the blinding, she had remained in her father's house till his return after the blinding.

The first W.-i-B. writes "Apāq Begīm" (I.O. 215 f. 136) which would allow Sayyid Mīrzā to be a kinsman of Apāq Begīm, wife of Ḥusain Bāī-qarā.

This brief summary conveys the impression that the Begīm went on her pilgrimage shortly after Mas`ūd's death (913 AH. ?), but may be wrong:—After Mas`ūd's murder, by one Bīmāsh Mīrzā, dārogha of Sarakhs, at Shaibāq Khān's order, she was married by Bīmāsh M. (Ḥ.S. iii, 278). How long after this she went to Makka is not said; it was about 934 AH. when Bābur heard of her as there.

This clause is in the Ḥai. MS. but not in the Elph. MS. (f. 131), or Kehr's (Ilminsky, p. 210), or in either Persian translation. The boy may have been 17 or 18.

This appears a mistake (f. 168 foot, and note on Pāpā's daughters).

f. 171b.

933 AH.-1527 AD. (f. 329).

Presumably this was a yīnkālīk marriage; it differs from some of those chronicled and also from a levirate marriage in not being made with a childless wife. (Cf. index s.n. yīnkālīk.)

Khwānd-amīr says that Bega Begīm was jealous, died of grief at her divorce, and was buried in a College, of her own erection, in 893 AH. (1488 AD. ḤS. iii, 245).

Gulistān Cap. II, Story 31 (Platts, p. 114).

i.e. did not get ready to ride off if her husband were beaten by her brother (f. 11 and note to Ḥabība).

Khadīja Begī Āghā (Ḥ.S. ii, 230 and iii, 327); she would be promoted probably after Shāh-i-gharīb's birth.

He was a son of Badī`u'z-zamān.

It is singular that this honoured woman's parentage is not mentioned; if it be right on f. 168b (q.v. with note) to read Sayyid Mīrzā of Apāq Begīm, she may be a sayyida of Andikhūd.

As Bābur left Kābul on Ṣafar 1st (Nov. 17th 1525 AD.), the Begīm must have arrived in Muḥarram 932 AH. (Oct. 18th to Nov. 17th).

f. 333. As Chandīrī was besieged in Rabī`u'l-ākhar 934 AH. this passage shews that, as a minimum estimate, what remains of Bābur's composed narrative (i.e. down to f. 216b) was written after that date (Jan. 1528).

Chār-shambalār. Mention of another inhabitant of this place with the odd name, Wednesday (Chār-shamba), is made on f. 42b.

Mole-marked Lady; most MSS. style her Bī but Ḥ.S. iii, 327, writes Bībī; it varies also by calling her a Turk. She was a purchased slave of Shahr-bānū's and was given to the Mīrzā by Shahr-bānū at the time of her own marriage with him.

As noted already, f. 168b enumerates three only.

The three were almost certainly Badī`u'z-zamān, Ḥaidar, son of a Tīmūrid mother, and Muz̤affar-i-ḥusain, born after his mother had been legally married.

Seven sons predeceased him:—Farrukh, Shāh-i-gharīb, Muḥ. Ma`ṣūm, Ḥaidar, Ibrāhīm-i-ḥusain, Muḥ. Ḥusain and Abū-turāb. So too five daughters:—Āq, Bega, Āghā, Kīchīk and Fāṯima-sulṯān Begīms. So too four wives:—Bega-sulṯān and Chūlī Begīms, Zubaida and Laṯīf-sulṯān Āghāchas (Ḥ.S. iii, 327).

Chākū, a Barlās, as was Tīmūr, was one of Tīmūr's noted men.

At this point some hand not the scribe's has entered on the margin of the Ḥai. MS. the descendants of Muḥ. Barandūq down into Akbar's reign:—Muḥ. Farīdūn, bin Muḥ. Qulī Khān, bin Mīrzā `Alī, bin Muḥ. Barandūq Barlās. Of these Farīdūn and Muḥ. Qulī are amīrs of the Āyīn-i-akbarī list (Blochmann, pp. 341, 342; Ḥ.S. iii, 233).

Enforced marches of Mughūls and other nomads are mentioned also on f. 154b and f. 155.

Ḥ.S. iii, 228, 233, 235.

beg kīshī, beg-person.

Khwānd-amīr says he died a natural death (Ḥ.S. iii, 235).

f. 21. For a fuller account of Nawā'i, J. Asiatique xvii, 175, M. Belin's article.

i.e. when he was poor and a beg's dependant. He went back to Herī at Sl. Ḥusain M.'s request in 873 AH.

Niẕāmī's (Rieu's Pers. Cat. s.n.).

Farīdu'd-dīn-`at̤t̤ar's (Rieu l.c. and Ency. Br.).

Gharā'ibu'ṣ-ṣighar, Nawādiru'sh-shahāb, Badā'i`u'l-wasaṯ and Fawā'idu'l-kibr.

Every Persian poet has a takhalluṣ (pen-name) which he introduces into the last couplet of each ode (Erskine).

The death occurred in the First Jumāda 906 AH. (Dec. 1500 AD.).

Niẕāmu'd-dīn Aḥmad bin Tawakkal Barlās (Ḥ.S. iii, 229).

This may be that uncle of Tīmūr who made the Ḥaj (T. R. p. 48, quoting the Z̤afar-nāma).

Some MSS. omit the word "father" here but to read it obviates the difficulty of calling Walī a great beg of Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā although he died when that mīrzā took the throne (973 AH.) and although no leading place is allotted to him in Bābur's list of Herī begs. Here as in other parts of Bābur's account of Herī, the texts vary much whether Turkī or Persian, e.g. the Elph. MS. appears to call Walī a blockhead (dūnkūz dūr), the Ḥai. MS. writing n:kūz dūr(?).

He had been Bābur Shāhrukhī's yasāwal (Court-attendant), had fought against Ḥusain for Yādgār-i-muḥammad and had given a daughter to Ḥusain (Ḥ.S. iii, 206, 228, 230-32; D.S. in Not. et Ex. de Saçy p. 265).

f. 29b.

Sic, Elph. MS. and both Pers. trss. but the Ḥai. MS. omits "father". To read it, however, suits the circumstance that Ḥasan of Ya`qūb was not with Ḥusain and in Harāt but was connected with Maḥmūd Mīrānshāhī and Tīrmīẕ (f. 24). Nuyān is not a personal name but is a title; it implies good-birth; all uses of it I have seen are for members of the religious family of Tīrmīẕ.

He was the son of Ibrāhīm Barlās and a Badakhshī begīm (T.R. p. 108).

He will have been therefore a collateral of Daulat-shāh whose relation to Fīrūz-shāh is thus expressed by Nawā'i:—Mīr Daulat-shāh Fīrūz-shāh Beg-nīng `amm-zāda-sī Amīr `Alā'u'd-daula Isfārayīnī-nīng aūghūlī dur, i.e. Mīr Daulat-shāh was the son of Fīrūz-shāh Beg's paternal uncle's son, Amir `Alā'u'd-daula Isfārayīnī. Thus, Fīrūz-shāh and Isfārayīnī were first cousins; Daulat-shāh and `Abdu'l-khalīq's father were second cousins; while Daulat-shāh and Fīrūz-shāh were first cousins, once removed (Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 534; Browne's D.S. English preface p. 14 and its reference to the Pers. preface).

Tarkhān-nāma, E. & D.'s History of India i, 303; Ḥ.S. iii, 227.

f. 41 and note.

Both places are in the valley of the Herī-rūd.

Badī`u'z-zamān married a daughter of Ẕū'n-nūn; she died in 911 AH. (E. & D. i, 305; Ḥ.S. iii, 324).

This indicates, both amongst Musalmāns and Hindūs, obedience and submission. Several instances occur in Macculloch's Bengali Household Stories.

T.R. p. 205.

This is an idiom expressive of great keenness (Erskine).

Ḥ.S. iii, 250, kitābdār, librarian; so too Ḥai. MS. f. 174b.

mutaiyam (f. 7b and note). Mīr Mughūl Beg was put to death for treachery in `Irāq (Ḥ.S. iii, 227, 248).

Bābur speaks as an eye-witness (f. 187b). For a single combat of Sayyid Badr, Ḥ. S. iii, 233.

f. 157 and note to bātmān.

A level field in which a gourd (qabaq) is set on a pole for an archer's mark to be hit in passing at the gallop (f. 18b and note).

Or possibly during the gallop the archer turned in the saddle and shot backwards.

Junaid was the father of Niẕāmu'd-dīn `Alī, Bābur's Khalīfa (Vice-gerent). That Khalīfa was of a religious house on his mother's side may be inferred from his being styled both Sayyid and Khwāja neither of which titles could have come from his Turkī father. His mother may have been a sayyida of one of the religious families of Marghīnān (f. 18 and note), since Khalīfa's son Muḥibb-i-`alī writes his father's name "Niẕāmu'd-din `Alī Marghīlānī" (Marghīnānī) in the Preface of his Book on Sport (Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 485).

This northward migration would take the family into touch with Bābur's in Samarkand and Farghāna.

He was left in charge of Jaunpūr in Rabī` I, 933 AH. (Jan. 1527 AD.) but exchanged for Chunār in Ramẓān 935 AH. (June 1529 AD.); so that for the writing of this part of the Bābur-nāma we have the major and minor limits of Jan. 1527 and June 1529.

Ḥ.S. iii, 227.

See Appendix H, On the counter-mark Bih-būd on coins.

Niẕāmu'd-dīn Amīr Shaikh Aḥmadu's-suhailī was surnamed Suhailī through a fāl (augury) taken by his spiritual guide, Kamālu'd-dīn Ḥusain Gāzur-gāhī; it was he induced Ḥusain Kashīfī to produce his Anwār-i-suhailī (Lights of Canopus) (f. 125 and note; Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 756; and for a couplet of his, Ḥ.S. iii, 242 l. 10).

Index s.n.

Did the change complete an analogy between `Alī Jalāīr and his (perhaps) elder son with `Alī Khalīfa and his elder son Ḥasan?

The Qūsh-begī is, in Central Asia, a high official who acts for an absent ruler (Shaw); he does not appear to be the Falconer, for whom Bābur's name is Qūshchī (f. 15 n.).

He received this sobriquet because when he returned from an embassy to the Persian Gulf, he brought, from Bahrein, to his Tīmūrid master a gift of royal pearls (Sām Mīrzā). For an account of Marwārīd see Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 1094 and (re portrait) p. 787.

Sām Mīrzā specifies this affliction as ābla-i-farang, thus making what may be one of the earliest Oriental references to morbus gallicus [as de Saçy here translates the name], the foreign or European pox, the "French disease of Shakespeare" (H.B.).

Index s.n. Yūsuf.

Ramẓān 3rd 918 AH.-Nov. 12th 1512.

i.e. of the White-sheep Turkmāns.

His paternal line was, `Abdu'l-bāqī, son of `Us̤mān, son of Sayyidī Aḥmad, son of Mīrān-shāh. His mother's people were begs of the White-sheep (Ḥ.S. iii, 290).

Sulṯānīm had married Wais (f. 157) not later than 895 or 896 AH. (Ḥ. S. iii, 253); she married `Abdu'l-bāqī in 908 AH. (1502-3 AD.).

Sayyid Shamsu'd-dīn Muḥammad, Mīr Sayyid Sar-i-barahna owed his sobriquet of Bare-head to love-sick wanderings of his youth (Ḥ.S. iii, 328). The Ḥ.S. it is clear, recognizes him as a sayyid.

Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 760; it is immensely long and "filled with tales that shock all probability" (Erskine).

f. 94 and note. Sl. Ḥusain M. made him curator of Anṣārī's shrine, an officer represented, presumably, by Col. Yate's "Mīr of Gāzur-gāh", and he became Chief Justice in 904 AH. (1498-99 AD.). See Ḥ.S. iii, 330 and 340; JASB 1887, art. On the city of Harāt (C. E. Yate) p. 85.

mutasauwif, perhaps meaning not a professed Ṣūfī.

He was of high birth on both sides, of religious houses of T̤abas and Nishāpūr (D.S. pp. 161, 163).

In agreement with its preface, Dr. Rieu entered the book as written by Sl. Ḥusain Mīrzā; in his Addenda, however, he quotes Bābur as the authority for its being by Gāzur-gāhī; Khwānd-amīr's authority can be added to Bābur's (Ḥ.S. 340; Pers. Cat. pp. 351, 1085).

Dīwān. The Wazīr is a sort of Minister of Finance; the Dīwān is the office of revenue receipts and issues (Erskine).

a secretary who writes out royal orders (Ḥ.S. iii, 244).

Count von Noer's words about a cognate reform of later date suit this man's work, it also was "a bar to the defraudment of the Crown, a stumbling-block in the path of avaricious chiefs" (Emperor Akbar trs. i, 11). The opposition made by `Alī-sher to reform so clearly to Ḥusain's gain and to Ḥusain's begs' loss, stirs the question, "What was the source of his own income?" Up to 873 AH. he was for some years the dependant of Aḥmad Ḥājī Beg; he took nothing from the Mīrzā, but gave to him; he must have spent much in benefactions. The question may have presented itself to M. Belin for he observes, "`Alī-sher qui sans doute, à son retour de l'exil, recouvra l'héritage de ses pères, et depuis occupa de hautes positions dans le gouvernement de son pays, avait acquis une grande fortune" (J. Asiatique xvii, 227). While not contradicting M. Belin's view that vested property such as can be described as "paternal inheritance", may have passed from father to son, even in those days of fugitive prosperity and changing appointments, one cannot but infer, from Nawā'i's opposition to Majdu'd-dīn, that he, like the rest, took a partial view of the "rights" of the cultivator.

This was in 903 AH. after some 20 years of service (Ḥ.S. iii, 231; Ethé I.O. Cat. p. 252).

Amīr Jamālu'd-dīn `Atā'u'l-lāh, known also as Jamālu'd-dīn Ḥusain, wrote a History of Muhammad (Ḥ.S. iii, 345; Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 147 & (a correction) p. 1081).

Amongst noticeable omissions from Bābur's list of Herī celebrities are Mīr Khwānd Shāh ("Mirkhond"), his grandson Khwānd-amīr, Ḥusain Kashifī and Muinu'd-dīn al Zamjī, author of a History of Harāt which was finished in 897 AH.

Sa'du`d-dīn Mas`ūd, son of `Umar, was a native of Taft in Yazd, whence his cognomen (Bahār-i-`ajam); he died in 792 AH.-1390 AD. (Ḥ.S. iii, 59, 343; T.R. p. 236; Rieu's Pers. Cat. pp. 352, 453).

These are those connected with grammar and rhetoric (Erskine).

This is one of the four principal sects of Muḥammadanism (Erskine).

T.R. p. 235, for Shāh Ismā`īl's murders in Herī.

Superintendent of Police, who examines weights, measures and provisions, also prevents gambling, drinking and so on.

f. 137.

The rank of Mujtahid, which is not bestowed by any individual or class of men but which is the result of slow and imperceptible opinion, finally prevailing and universally acknowledged, is one of the greatest peculiarities of the religion of Persia. The Mujtahid is supposed to be elevated above human fears and human enjoyments, and to have a certain degree of infallibility and inspiration. He is consulted with reverence and awe. There is not always a Mujtahid necessarily existing. See Kaempfer, Amoenitates Exoticae (Erskine).

muḥaddas̤, one versed in the traditional sayings and actions of Muḥammad.

Ḥ.S. iii, 340.

B.M. Or. 218 (Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 350). The Commentary was made in order to explain the Nafaḥāt to Jāmī's son.

He was buried by the Mullā's side.

Amīr Burhānu'd-dīn `Atā'u'l-lāh bin Maḥmūdu'l-ḥusainī was born in Nishāpūr but known as Mashhadī because he retired to that holy spot after becoming blind.

f. 144b and note. Qāẓī Ikhtiyāru'd-dīn Ḥasan (Ḥ.S. iii, 347) appears to be the Khwāja Ikhtiyār of the Āyīn-i-akbarī, and, if so, will have taken professional interest in the script, since Abū'l-faẓl describes him as a distinguished calligrapher in Sl. Ḥusain M.'s presence (Blochmann, p. 101).

Saifu'd-dīn (Sword of the Faith) Aḥmad, presumably.

A sister of his, Apāq Bega, the wife of `Alī-sher's brother Darwīsh-i-`alī kitābdār, is included as a poet in the Biography of Ladies (Sprenger's Cat. p. 11). Amongst the 20 women named one is a wife of Shaibāq Khān, another a daughter of Hilālī.

He was the son of Khw. Ni`amatu'l-lāh, one of Sl. Abū-sa`īd M.'s wazīrs. When dying aet. 70 (923 AH.), he made this chronogram on his own death, "With 70 steps he measured the road to eternity." The name Āsaf, so frequent amongst wazīrs, is that of Solomon's wazīr.

Other interpretations are open; wādī, taken as river, might refer to the going on from one poem to another, the stream of verse; or it might be taken as desert, with disparagement of collections.

Maulānā Jamālu'd-dīn Banā'i was the son of a sabz-banā, an architect, a good builder.

Steingass's Dictionary allows convenient reference for examples of metres.

Other jokes made by Banā'i at the expense of Nawā'i are recorded in the various sources.

Bābur saw Banā'i in Samarkand at the end of 901 AH. (1496 AD. f. 38).

Here Dr. Leyden's translation ends; one other fragment which he translated will be found under the year 925 AH. (Erskine). This statement allows attention to be drawn to the inequality of the shares of the work done for the Memoirs of 1826 by Leyden and by Erskine. It is just to Mr. Erskine, but a justice he did not claim, to point out that Dr. Leyden's share is slight both in amount and in quality; his essential contribution was the initial stimulus he gave to the great labours of his collaborator.

So of Lope de Vega (b. 1562; d. 1635 AD.), "It became a common proverb to praise a good thing by calling it a Lope, so that jewels, diamonds, pictures, etc. were raised into esteem by calling them his" (Montalvan in Ticknor's Spanish Literature ii, 270).

Maulānā Saifī, known as 'Arūẓī from his mastery in prosody (Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 525).

Here pedantry will be implied in the mullahood.

Khamsatīn (infra f. 180b and note).

This appears to mean that not only the sparse diacritical pointing common in writing Persian was dealt with but also the fuller Arabic.

He is best known by his pen-name Hātifī. The B.M. and I.O. have several of his books.

Khamsatīn. Hātifī regarded himself as the successor of Niẕāmī and Khusrau; this, taken with Bābur's use of the word Khamsatīn on f. 7 and here, and Saifī's just above, leads to the opinion that the Khamsatīn of the Bābur-nāma are always those of Niẕāmī and Khusrau, the Two Quintets (Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 653).

Maulānā Mīr Kamālu'd-dīn Ḥusain of Nishāpūr (Rieu l.c. index s.n.; Ethé's I.O. Cat. pp. 433 and 1134).

One of his couplets on good and bad fortune is striking; "The fortune of men is like a sand-glass; one hour up, the next down." See D'Herbélot in his article (Erskine).

Ḥ.S. iii, 336; Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 1089.

Āhī (sighing) was with Shāh-i-gharīb before Ibn-i-ḥusain and to him dedicated his dīwān. The words sāḥib-i-dīwān seem likely to be used here with double meaning i.e. to express authorship and finance office. Though Bābur has made frequent mention of authorship of a dīwān and of office in the Dīwān, he has not used these words hitherto in either sense; there may be a play of words here.

Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ Mīrzā Khwārizmī, author of the Shaibānī-nāma which manifestly is the poem (mas̤nawī) mentioned below. This has been published with a German translation by Professor Vambéry and has been edited with Russian notes by Mr. Platon Melioransky (Rieu's Turkish Cat. p. 74; Ḥ.S. iii, 301).

Jāmī's Subḥatu'l-abrār (Rosary of the righteous).

The reference may be to things said by Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ the untruth of which was known to Bābur through his own part in the events. A crying instance of misrepresentation is Ṣāliḥ's assertion, in rhetorical phrase, that Bābur took booty in jewels from Khusrau Shāh; other instances concern the affairs of The Khāns and of Bābur in Transoxiana (f. 124b and index s.nn. Aḥmad and Maḥmūd Chaghatāī etc.; T.R. index s.nn.)

The name Fat-land (Taṃbal-khāna) has its parallel in Fat-village (Sīmīz-kīnt) a name of Samarkand; in both cases the nick-name is accounted for by the fertility of irrigated lands. We have not been able to find the above-quoted couplet in the Shaibānī-nāma (Vambéry); needless to say, the pun is on the nick-name (taṃbal, fat) of Sl. Aḥmad Taṃbal.

Muḥ. Ṣāliḥ does not show well in his book; he is sometimes coarse, gloats over spoil whether in human captives or goods, and, his good-birth not-forbidding, is a servile flatterer. Bābur's word "heartless" is just; it must have had sharp prompting from Ṣāliḥ's rejoicing in the downfall of The Khāns, Bābur's uncles.

the Longer (Ḥ.S. iii, 349).

Maulānā Badru'd-dīn (Full-moon of the Faith) whose pen-name was Hilālī, was of Astarābād. It may be noted that two dates of his death are found, 936 and 939 AH. the first given by de Saçy, the second by Rieu, and that the second seems to be correct (Not. et Extr. p. 285; Pers. Cat. p. 656; Hammer's Geschichte p. 368).

B.M. Add. 7783.

Opinions differ as to the character of this work:—Bābur's is uncompromising; von Hammer (p. 369) describes it as "ein romantisches Gedicht, welches eine sentimentale Männerliebe behandelt"; Sprenger (p. 427), as a mystical mas̤nawī (poem); Rieu finds no spiritual symbolism in it and condemns it (Pers. Cat. p. 656 and, quoting the above passage of Bābur, p. 1090); Ethé, who has translated it, takes it to be mystical and symbolic (I.O. Cat. p. 783).

Of four writers using the pen-name Ahlī (Of-the-people), viz. those of Turān, Shīrāz, Tarshīz (in Khurāsān), and 'Irāq, the one noticed here seems to be he of Tarshīz. Ahlī of Tarshīz was the son of a locally-known pious father and became a Superintendent of the Mint; Bābur's `āmī may refer to Ahlī's first patrons, tanners and shoe-makers by writing for whom he earned his living (Sprenger, p. 319). Erskine read 'ummī, meaning that Ahlī could neither read nor write; de Courteille that he was un homme du commun.

He was an occasional poet (Ḥ.S. iii, 350 and iv, 118; Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 531; Ethé's I.O. Cat. p. 428).

Ustād Kamālu'd-dīn Bih-zād (well-born; Ḥ.S. iii, 350). Work of his is reproduced in Dr. Martin's Painting and Painters of Persia of 1913 AD.

This sentence is not in the Elph. MS.

Perhaps he could reproduce tunes heard and say where heard.

M. Belin quotes quatrains exchanged by `Alī-sher and this man (J. Asiatique xvii, 199).

i.e. from his own camp to Bābā Ilāhī.

f. 121 has a fuller quotation. On the dual succession, see T.R. p. 196.

Elph. MS. f. 144; W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 148b and 217 f. 125b; Mems. p. 199.

News of Ḥusain's death in 911 AH. (f. 163b) did not reach Bābur till 912 AH. (f. 184b).

Lone-meadow (f. 195b). Jahāngīr will have come over the `Irāq-pass, Bābur's baggage-convoy, by Shibr-tū. Cf. T. R. p. 199 for Bābur and Jahāngīr at this time.

Servant-of-the-mace; but perhaps, Qilinj-chāq, swords-man.

One of four, a fourth. Chār-yak may be a component of the name of the well-known place, n. of Kābul, "Chārikār"; but also the Chār in it may be Hindūstānī and refer to the permits-to-pass after tolls paid, given to caravans halted there for taxation. Raverty writes it Chārlākār.

Amongst the disruptions of the time was that of the Khānate of Qībchāq (Erskine).

The nearest approach to kipkī we have found in Dictionaries is kupaki, which comes close to the Russian copeck. Erskine notes that the casbeké is an oval copper coin (Tavernier, p. 121); and that a tūmān is a myriad (10,000). Cf. Manucci (Irvine), i, 78 and iv, 417 note; Chardin iv, 278.

Muḥarram 912 AH.-June 1506 AD. (Ḥ.S. iii, 353).

I take Murgh-āb here to be the fortified place at the crossing of the river by the main n.e. road; Bābur when in Dara-i-bām was on a tributary of the Murgh-āb. Khwānd-amīr records that the information of his approach was hailed in the Mīrzās' camp as good news (Ḥ.S. iii, 354).

Bābur gives the Mīrzās precedence by age, ignoring Muz̤affar's position as joint-ruler.

mubālgha qīldī; perhaps he laid stress on their excuse; perhaps did more than was ceremonially incumbent on him.

`irq, to which estrade answers in its sense of a carpet on which stands a raised seat.

Perhaps it was a recess, resembling a gate-way (W.-i-B. I.O. 215 f. 151 and 217 f. 127b). The impression conveyed by Bābur's words here to the artist who in B.M. Or. 3714, has depicted the scene, is that there was a vestibule opening into the tent by a door and that the Mīrzā sat near that door. It must be said however that the illustration does not closely follow the text, in some known details.

shīra, fruit-syrups, sherbets. Bābur's word for wine is chāghīr (q.v. index) and this reception being public, wine could hardly have been offered in Sunnī Herī. Bābur's strictures can apply to the vessels of precious metal he mentions, these being forbidden to Musalmāns; from his reference to the Tūra it would appear to repeat the same injunctions. Bābur broke up such vessels before the battle of Kanwāha (f. 315). Shāh-i-jahān did the same; when sent by his father Jahāngīr to reconquer the Deccan (1030 AH.-1621 AD.) he asked permission to follow the example of his ancestor Bābur, renounced wine, poured his stock into the Chaṃbal, broke up his cups and gave the fragments to the poor (`Amal-i-ṣāliḥ, Hughes' Dict. of Islām quoting the Hidāyah and Mishkāt, s.nn. Drinkables, Drinking-vessels, and Gold; Lane's Modern Egyptians p. 125 n.).

This may be the Rabāṯ-i-sanghī of some maps, on a near road between the "Forty-daughters" and Harāt; or Bābur may have gone out of his direct way to visit Rabāṯ-i-sang-bast, a renowned halting place at the Carfax of the Herī-T̤ūs and Nishāpūr-Mashhad roads, built by one Arslān Jazāla who lies buried near, and rebuilt with great magnificence by `Alī-sher Nawā'i (Daulat-shāh, Browne, p. 176).

The wording here is confusing to those lacking family details. The paternal-aunt begīms can be Pāyanda-sulṯān (named), Khadīja-sulṯān, Apāq-sulṯān, and Fakhr-jahān Begīms, all daughters of Abū-sa`īd. The Apāq Begīm named above (also on f. 168b q.v.) does not now seem to me to be Abū-sa`īd's daughter (Gul-badan, trs. Bio. App.).

yūkūnmāī. Unless all copies I have seen reproduce a primary clerical mistake of Bābur's, the change of salutation indicated by there being no kneeling with Apāq Begīm, points to a nuance of etiquette. Of the verb yūkūnmāk it may be noted that it both describes the ceremonious attitude of intercourse, i.e. kneeling and sitting back on both heels (Shaw), and also the kneeling on meeting. From Bābur's phrase Begīm bīla yūkūnūb [having kneeled with], it appears that each of those meeting made the genuflection; I have not found the phrase used of other meetings; it is not the one used when a junior or a man of less degree meets a senior or superior in rank (e.g. Khusrau and Bābur f. 123, or Bābur and Badī`u'z-zamān f. 186).

Musalmāns employ a set of readers who succeed one another in reading (reciting) the Qorān at the tombs of their men of eminence. This reading is sometimes continued day and night. The readers are paid by the rent of lands or other funds assigned for the purpose (Erskine).

A suspicion that Khadīja put poison in Jahāngīr's wine may refer to this occasion (T.R. p. 199).

These are jharokha-i-darsān, windows or balconies from which a ruler shews himself to the people.

Mas`ūd was then blind.

Bābur first drank wine not earlier than 917 AH. (f. 49 and note), therefore when nearing 30.

aīchkīlār, French, intérieur.

The obscure passage following here is discussed in