Book Ii, Story I. Eastwick Translates It and Its Immediate Context

thus:—

"People follow the faith of their kings. My heart is like a tulip scorched and by sighings flame; In all thou seest, their hearts are scorched and stained the same." (H.B.)

The offence of the quotation appears to have been against Khalīfa, and might be a suggestion that he followed Bābur in breach of Law by using wine.

P. 487 n. 2.—The following passages complete the note on wulsa quoted by Erskine from Col. Mark Wilks' Historical Sketches and show how the word is used:—"During the absence of Major Lawrence from Trichinopoly, the town had been completely depopulated by the removal of the whole Wulsa to seek for food elsewhere, and the enemy had been earnestly occupied in endeavouring to surprise the garrison." (Here follows Erskine's quotation see in loco p. 487). "The people of a district thus deserting their homes are called the Wulsa of that district, a state of utmost misery, involving precaution against incessant war and unpitying depredation—so peculiar a description as to require in any of the languages of Europe a long circumlocution, is expressed in all the languages of Deckan and the south of India by a single word. No proofs can be accumulated from the most profound research which shall describe the immemorial condition of the people of India with more precision than this single word. It is a bright distinction that the Wulsa never departs on the approach of a British army when this is unaccompanied by Indian allies."—By clerical error in the final para. of my note ūlvash is entered for ūlvan [Molesworth, any desolating calamity].

P. 540 n. 4.—An explanation of Bābur's use of Shāh-zāda as T̤ahmāsp's title may well be that this title answers to the Tīmūrid one Mīr-zāda, Mīrzā. If so, Bābur's change to "Shāh" (p. 635) may recognize supremacy by victory, such as he had claimed for himself in 913 AH. when he changed his Tīmūrid "Mīrzā" for "Pādshāh".

P. 557.—Ḥusain Kashīfī, also, quotes Firdausī's couplet in the Anwār-i-suhaili (Cap. I, Story XXI), a book dedicated to Shaikh Aḥmad Suhaīlī (p. 277) and of earlier date than the Bābur-nāma. Its author died in 910 AH.-1505 AD.

P. 576 n. 1.—Tod's statement (quoted in my n. 1) that "the year of Rānā Sangā's defeat (933 AH.) was the last of his existence" cannot be strictly correct because Bābur's statement (p. 598) of intending attack on him in Chitor allows him to have been alive in 934 AH. (1528 AD.). The death occurred, "not without suspicion of poison," says Tod, when the Rānā had moved against Irij then held for Bābur; it will have been long enough before the end of 934 AH. to allow an envoy from his son Bikramājīt to wait on Bābur in that year (pp. 603, 612). Bābur's record of it may safely be inferred lost with the once-existent matter of 934 AH.

P. 631.—My husband has ascertained that the "Sayyid Daknī" of p. 631 is Sayyid Shāh T̤āhir Daknī (Deccani) the Shiite apostle of Southern India, who in 935 AH. was sent to Bābur with a letter from Burhān Niẕām Shāh of Ahmadnagar, in which (if there were not two embassies) congratulation was made on the conquest of Dihlī and help asked against Bahādur Shāh Gujrātī. A second but earlier mention of "Sayyid Daknī" (Zaknī, Ruknī?) Shīrāzī is on p. 619. Whether the two entries refer to Shāh T̤āhir nothing makes clear. The cognomen Shīrāzī disassociates them. It is always to be kept in mind that preliminary events are frequently lost in gaps; one such will be the arrivals of the various envoys, mentioned on p. 630, whose places of honour are specified on p. 631. Much is on record about Sayyid Shāh T̤āhir Daknī and particulars of his life are available in the histories by Badāyūnī (Ranking trs.) and (Firishta Nawal Kishor ed. p. 105); B.M. Harleyan MS. No. 199 contains his letters (see Rieu's Pers. Cat. p. 395).

P. 699 and n. 3.—The particulars given by the T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī about Mulṯān at this date (932-4 AH.) are as follows:—After Bābur took the Panj-āb, he ordered Shāh Ḥasan Arghūn to attempt Mulṯān, then held by one Sl. Maḥmūd who, dying, was succeeded by an infant son Ḥusain. Shāh Ḥāsan took Mulṯān after a 16 (lunar) months' siege, at the end of 934 AH. (in a B.N. lacuna therefore), looted and slaughtered in it, and then returned to Tatta. On this Langar Khān took possession of it (H.B.). What part `Askarī (æt. 12) had in the matter is yet to learn; possibly he was nominated to its command and then recalled as Bābur mentions (935 AH.).

FOOTNOTES

The fist indicates Translator's matter.

See Abū'l-ghāzī's Shajarat-i-turkī on the origin and characteristics of the tribe (Désmaisons trs. Index s.n. Oūīghūr, especially pp. 16, 37, 39).

This date is misplaced in my text and should be transferred from p. 83, l. 3 fr. ft. to p. 86, l. 1, there to follow "two years".

A fuller reference to the Ḥ.S. than is given on p. 85 n. 2, is ii, 44 and iii, 167.

Cf. s.n. `Abdu'l-lāh Mīrzā Shāh-rukhī for a date misplaced in my text.

The date 935 AH. is inferred from p. 483.

Cf. Badāyūnī's Muntakhabu't-tawārīkh and Ranking's trs. i, 616 and n. 4, 617.

Ferté translates this sobriquet by le dévoué (Vie de Sl. Hossein Baikara p. 40 n. 3).

At p. 22 n. 8 fill out to Cf. f. 6b (p. 13) n. 5.

For an account of his tomb see Schuyler's Turkistān, 1, 70-72.

Or Aīgū (Āyāgū) from āyāgh, foot, perhaps expressing close following of Tīmūr, whose friend the Beg was.

Daulat-shāh celebrates the renown of the Jalāīr section (farqa) of the Chaghatāī tribes (aqwām) of the Mughūl horde (aūlūs, ūlūs), styles the above-entered `Alī Beg a veteran hero, and links his family with that of the Jalāīr Sultāns of Bāghdād (Browne's ed. p. 519).

See H. S. lith. ed. iii, 224, for three men who conveyed helpful information to Husain.

Later consideration has cast doubts on his identification with Darwesh-i-`alī suggested, p. 345 n. 4.

On p. 69 n. 2 for aūnūlūng read aūnūtūng and reverse bakunīd with nakunīd.

On p. 49 l. 3 for "Black Sheep" read White Sheep.

Like his brother Hind-āl's name, Alūr's may be due to the taking (al) of Hind.

See the T̤abaqāt-i-akbarī account of the rulers of Multān.

On p. 85 l. 9 for "872 AH.-1467 AD.", read 851 AH.-1447 AD.

On p. 79 transfer the note-reference "3" to qibla.

See Daulat-shāh (Browne's ed. p. 362) for an entertaining record of the Mīrzā's zeal as a sportsman and an illustrative anecdote by Shaikh `Ārif `azarī q.v. (H.B.).

I have found no statement of his tribe or race; he and his brother are styled Khwāja (Ḥ.S. lith. ed. iii, 272); he is associated closely with Aḥmad Taṃbal Mughūl and Mughūls of the Horde; also his niece's name Aūlūs Āghā translates as Lady of the Horde (ūlūs, aūlūs). But he may have been a Turkmān.

The MS. variants between `Alī and -qulī are confusing. What stands in my text (p. 27) may be less safe than the above.

Bābā Qashqa was murdered by Muḥammad-i-zamān Bāī-qarā. For further particulars of his family group see Add. Notes under p. 404.

Sulṯan Bābā-qulī Beg is found variously designated Qulī Beg, Qulī Bābā, Sl. `Alī Bābā-qulī, Sulṯān-qūlī Bābā and Bābā-qulī Beg. Several forms appear to express his filial relationship with Sulṯān Bābā `Alī (q.v.).

Down to p. 346 Bābur's statements are retrospective; after p. 346 they are mostly contemporary with the dates of his diary—when not so are in supplementing passages of later date.

He may be the father of Mun`im Khān (Blochmann's Biographies A.-i-A. trs. 317 and n. 2).

See note, Index, s.n. Muḥammad Ẕakarīa.

He is likely to have been introduced with some particulars of tribe, in one of the now unchronicled years after Bābur's return from his Trans-oxus campaign.

His wife, daughter of a wealthy man and on the mother's side niece of Sulṯān Buhlūl Lūdī, financed the military efforts of Bāyazīd and Bīban (Tārīkh-i-sher-shāhī, E. and D. iv, 353 ff.).

My translation on p. 621 l. 12 is inaccurate inasmuch as it hides the circumstance that Beg-gīna alone was the "messenger of good tidings".

In taking Bīban for a Jilwānī, I follow Erskine, (as inferences also warrant,) but he may be a Lūdī.

For the same uncertainty between Bihār and Pahār see E. and D.'s History of India iv, 352 n. 2.

Firishta lith. ed. i, 202.

For "Mū'min" read Mūmin, which form is constant in the Ḥai. MS.

He may be Ḥamīda-bānū's father and, if so, became grandfather of Akbar.

Ilminsky, anlū, Erskine, angū. Daulat-shāh mentions a Muḥammad Shāh anjū (see Brown's ed. Index s.n.).

On p. 22 n. 2 delete "Chaghatāī Mughūl" on grounds given in Additional Note, Page 22.

For Humāyūn's annotation of the Bābur-nāma, see General Index s.n. Humāyūn's Notes.

For a correction of dates, see s.n. Aūlūgh Beg.

On p. 279 l. 3 from foot read "There was also Ibrāhīm Chaghatāī" after "Muḥammad-i-zamān Mīrzā".

Addendum:—p. 49 l. 4, read "wife" of Muḥammadī "son" of Jahān-shāh.

His name might mean Welcome, Bien-venu.

Khusrau-shāh may be the more correct form.

The "afterwards" points to an omission which Khwānd-amīr's account of Ḥusain's daughters fills (lith. ed. iii, 327).

No record survives of the Khwāja's deeds of daring other than those entered above; perhaps the other instances Bābur refers to occurred during the gap 908-9 AH.

This may be a tribal or a family name. Abū'l-ghāzī mentions two individuals named "Kouk". One was Chīngīz Khān's grandson who is likely to have had descendants or followers distinguishable as Kūkī. See Add. Note P. 673 on Kūkī fate.

Cf. E. and D. for "Karānī" (e.g. vol. iv, 530). The Ḥai. MS. sometimes doubles the r, sometimes not.

See Wāqi`āt-i-mushtāqī, E. and D. iv, 548.

Shaikhīm Suhailī however was named Aḥmad (277) not Muhammad.

The record of the first appears likely to be lost in the lacuna of 934 AH.

See Shaibānī-nāma, Vambéry's ed. Cap. xv, l. 12, for his changes of service, and Sām Mīrzā's Tuḥfa-i-sāmī for various particulars including his classification as a Chaghatāī.

He died serving Bābur, at Kūl-i-malik (Ḥ.S. iii, 344).—Further information negatives my suggestion (201 n. 7) that he and Mīr Ḥusain (p. 288 and n. 7) were one.

"Zaitun is the name of the Chinese city from which satin was brought (hodie Thsiuancheu or Chincheu) and my belief is that our word satin came from it" (Col. H. Yule, E. and D. iv, 514).

My text omits to translate yīgīt (aūghūl) and thus loses the information that Yaḥyā's sons Bāqī and Ẕakarīa were above childhood, were grown to fighting age—braves—but not yet begs (see Index s.n. chuhra).

See Add. Notes under p. 39.

See Add. Notes under p. 266.

For emendation of 266 n. 7, see Add. Notes under P. 266.

On p. 49 l. 3 for "Black" read White; and in l. 3 read ("wife of") Muḥammadi son of ("Jahān-shāh").

Cf. Ḥ.S. Fertī's trs. p. 70 for the same name Qaitmās.

His capture is not recorded.

He joined Bābur with his father Yār-i-`alī Balāl (q.v.) in 910 AH. (Blochmann's Biographies, A.-i-A. trs. 315).

Concerning the date of his death, see Additional Notes under p. 603.

Since my text was printed, my husband has lighted upon what shows that the guest at the feast was an ambassador sent by Burhān Niẕām Shāh of Aḥmadnagar to congratulate Bābur on his conquest of Dihlī, namely, Shāh T̤āhir the apostle of Shiism in the Dakkan. He is thus distinguished from Sayyid Daknī, (Ruknī, Zaknī) infra and my text needs suitable correction. (See Add. Notes under p. 631 for further particulars of the Sayyid and his embassy.)

For further particulars see Add. Note under p. 688.

For "H.S. ii" read iii (as also in some other places).

Down to p. 131 the Ḥai. MS. uses the name Shaibānī or Shaibānī Khān; from that page onwards it writes Shaibāq Khān, in agreement with the Elphinstone MS.—Other names found are e.g. Gulbadan's Shāhī Beg Khān and Shah-bakht. (My note 2 on p. 12 needs modification.)

The title "Aūghlān" (child, boy) indicates that the bearer died without ruling.

This cognomen was given because the bearer was born during an eclipse of the moon (āī, moon and the root al taking away); see Badāyūnī Bib. Ind. ed. i, 62.

Here delete "Sulṯān-nigar Khānīm", who was his grandmother and not his mother.

On p. 433 n. 1 her name is mistakenly entered as that of Sulaimān's mother.

Concerning this title, see Add. Notes under p. 540.

He may be the Tūlik Khān qūchīn of the Ma`asiru'l-umrā i, 475.

Ḥaidar Mīrzā gives an interesting account of his character and attainments (T.R. trs. p. 283).

See Additional Note under P. 372.

See Additional Notes under P. 51.

Here the Ḥai. MS. and Ilminsky's Imprint add "Nāṣir".

The natural place for this Section of record is at the first mention of Yūnas Khān (p. 12) and not, as now found, interrupting another Section. See p. 678 and n. 4 as to "Sections".

The entries of 934 and 935 may concern a second man `Alī-i-yūsuf.

Perhaps skilled in the art of metaphors and tropes (`ilmu'l-badī`).

My text has julgāsī, but I am advised to omit the genitive sī; so, too, in aīkī-sū-ārā-sī, Rabāṭjk-aūrchīn-ī q.v.

Cf. s.n. Āhangaran-julga n. as to form of the name.

Asterisks indicate Translator's matter.

Bābur uses this name for, Anglicé, the Kābul-river as low as nearly to Dakka.

"The Dara-i-ṣūf, often mentioned by the Arabian writers, seems to lie west of Bāmīān" (Erskine, Memoirs, p. 152 n. 1).

Bābur's itinerary gives Gharjistan a greater eastward extent than the Fr. map Maïmènè allows, thus agreeing with Erskine's surmise (Memoirs p. 152 n. 1).—The first syllable of the name may be "Ghur".

On p. 7, l. 1, after "turbulent", add, " They are notorious in Māwarā'u'n-nahr for their bullying."

On p. 134 for "(I was) 19" read in my 19th (lunar) year.

Cf. Life of Busbecq (Forster and Daniels) i, 252-7, for feats of Turkish archery.

For the Bukhara (Bābur-nāma) Compilation see Wāqi`-nāma-i-pādshāhi; as also for its Codices, descendants and offtakes, viz. Ilminski's "Bābur-nāma" and de Courteille's Mémoires de Baber.

The confusion of identity has become clear to me in 1921 only.

One of the nine great gods of the Etruscans was called Tūrān. Etr. Tūr means strong, a strong place (fortress); with it may connect L. turma (troop) and the name of Virgil's Rutulian hero Turmus may root in the Mongol tongue. Professor Jules Marthe writes in La Langue Etrusque (Pref. vi), "Il m'a paru qu'il y avait entre l'Etrusque et les langues finns-ougriennes d'étroites affinités" (hence with the Mongol tongue). "Tarkhān" is "Tūrkhān" in Miles trs. p. 71 of the Shajaratu'l-atrāk (H. B.).

This Cat. contains the Turkī MS. of the Bukhara Compilation, once owned by Leyden.

where, in n. 3, for f. 183b and f. 264b read f. 103b and f. 264.

For "Ḥ.S. ii" read Ḥ.S. iii—also on p. 244.

On this peg may be hung the following note:—The Pādshāh-nāma (q.v.) calls the author and presenter of the above translation "Abū-ṯālib" Ḥusainī (Bib. Ind. ed. vol. i,